Humans, Other Beings in/Relevant to the Quran, Part 9


 

61.   CHRISTIANS

When the NT was written, it was written in Greek, and the title of the awaited prophet several times mentioned in OT and whom Jesus' followers believed/believe Jesus was, Messiah - the Anointed One - was translated into Greek "Christos" - Christ. From this title his followers got the name Christians.

We here remind you that the Christian religion was and is very different from Islam according to both the Bible and to known historical facts, and thus that Jesus and Muhammad were not members of the same religion - this in spite of Muhammad's and the Quran's never documented claims. In this connection we also remind you that both science and Islam strongly have proved that the Bible is not falsified - also this in spite of Muhammad's and the Quran's never documented claims - by being unable to find even one proved falsification in the present Bible among some 45ooo relevant scriptures and fragments older than 610 AD (the best proof for this is Islam's silence on this point - if even one proved case had been found, Islam had SCREAMED about it). Also known historical facts prove that also the earliest Christians lived and preached according to the texts in the Bible, not according to anything similar to the Quran - this in spite of Muhammad's and the Quran's never documented claims that f.x. Jesus' disciples were good Muslims. "Claims are cheap, proofs are reality".

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

001 2/62b: “Those who believe (in the Quran), and those who follow the Jewish (scriptures), and the Christians and the Sabeans – any who believe in Allah (= God/Yahweh here*) and the Last Day, and work righteousness, shall have their reward with their Lord (go to Heaven*) - - -“. Contradicted - and abrogated - by:

  1. 3/85: “If anyone desired a religion other than Islam (submission to Allah), never will it be accepted of him - - -.” Yes: “No compulsion in religion.” (From Mecca, but hardly defensive – see 3/28 below).
  2. 5/17: “In blasphemy (and will be punished according to 5/73* - that Jesus is divine is to put another god by Allah’s side, which is the ultimate and unforgivable sin according to 4/48 and 4/116. It also makes Jesus a greater prophet than Muhammad, which Muhammad and Islam could not accept) are those who say that Allah is Christ, son of Mary (see 5/110a below).” This had omitted the Christians – like Muhammad obviously intended - - - if it was not because Christians do not say God = Jesus. Muhammad did not understand the Trinity.
  3. 5/72: “Whoever joins other gods with Allah – Allah will forbid him the Garden - - -.” This blocks the road at least for Christians, as according to Islam Jesus (and Maria!) are joined gods (and parts of the Trinity – Muhammad never understood neither the Trinity (he believed it consisted of the god, Jesus and Mary!!), nor the Holy Spirit (though he used the Holy Spirit a few times in the Quran).
  4. 5/73: “They do blaspheme who say Allah (God/Yahweh) is one of a Trinity - - - a grievous penalty will befall the blasphemers among them.” This sentences the Christians to Hell.
  5. 8/38: “Say to the Unbelievers, if (now) they desist (from Unbelief (become Muslims*)), their past would be forgiven them, but if they persist, the punishment for those before them is already (a matter of warning for them)".
  6. 9/17: “It is not for such as join gods with Allah (= God/Yahweh here*) - - -. - - - in Fire shall they dwell”. No hope for Christians with their Jesus, who according to Islam is wrongly looked at by Christians as a god – in spite of 2/62.
  7. 9/29: “Fight those who believe not in Allah, nor the Last Day, nor holds that forbidden which hath been forbidden by Allah and his Prophet (Muhammad*), not acknowledge the religion of the Truth (even if they are) of the People of the Book (Jews and Christians mainly), until they pay the jizya (“infidel”-tax where Islam has set no upper limit, and which frequently through the history has been very high*) with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued”. Conquer the infidels and then let them live like the Negroes under apartheid in South Africa or in the southern states in USA in the early 1900s - - - the ones who were not taken into slavery – especially the women. Yes, no compulsion – neither by the sword first, nor by destroyed economy and social life, etc. after the defeat and later. (For some reason or other Islam and its Muslims seldom claim that Islam is the religion of honesty.)
  8. 3/85 (625 AD): “If anyone desires a religion other than Islam (submission to Allah), never it will be accepted of him (Allah*) - - -”. It may be worth mentioning that surah 2 “arrived” at a time (622 - 624 AD) when Muhammad for one thing hoped to have the Jews accept his religion, and for another thing still were not military strong. In 625 AD he had given up the hope of being accepted by the Jews (there were few, if any Christians or Sabeans in Medina), and his group of warriors were bigger and more trained in combat = he was military stronger. The tone had become more threatening.

(7 contradictions - and you will find more).

###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.)

002 2/75b: “- - - seeing that a party of them (the Jews and/or Christians*) heard the word of Allah, and perverted it knowingly after they understood it - - -.” Wrong. Science have shown very clearly that the Bible is not falsified – and consequently that it has never been something like the Quran, which here is claimed or indicated. If Islam means something else, they will have to bring proofs, not only loose claims and even looser statements. If Islam had had even a small proof, the world had been forced to hear it every two hours or more – at least. (The fact is, however, that Islam has proved even stronger than science that the claims about falsification of the Bible is wrong, by for one thing being unable to explain how it would be technically possible to falsify may be a few hundred thousand (some 45ooo has survived till today, and there must have been many more) manuscripts on 3 continents in exactly the same ways, for another how it was possible to do it so perfect that modern science is unable to find traces from the falsifications, for a third how it was possible to make Jews, Christians, and different sects to agree on making exactly the same falsifications (f.x. about Jesus), and for the fourth there is no credible claims for when all these falsifications should have been done, and for the fifth - and very essential; by the fact that Islam - and science - has been unable to find even one single proved falsification of a relevant manuscript.

As for "when" Muslims often mention the council on Nicaea in 325 AD. But even if that had been true, that council could not falsify all the older manuscripts. Even more essential: This council represented only the mainstream Christians - no Jews and no sects - so that only the mainstream Christians in case could agree to which falsifications to make. Still more essential: The agenda for the council is well known. There is not anything about "correcting" texts in the Bible. And finally may be the most essential: It is just as easy to make mainstream bishops change texts in the Bible, as it is to make ayatollahs change texts in the Quran - and for the same reason.

We f.x. have seen on Internet men with imposing titles blasting headlines like "57 points falsified in the Bible in Nicaea". At best it is al-Taqiyyas (lawful lies) - and besides 57 falsifications is far - far - too little to make the Bible similar to the Quran. At least a few thousand points would have to be falsified to transfer a book similar to the Quran into the Bible, like Islam claims is the case.(Actually the Quran is so different from the Bible, that only a few points and even fewer details are the same - and also the literally style is totally different - it had had to be total rewriting, not falsification. (To be exact: Only one short sentence, the words "- - - the righteous will inherit the land - - -" in Psalm 37/29 is the same in the entire books - that "thorough" are the "falsifications" in case.)

*We may add that Islam and Muslims here try to use the Bible to prove their words – f.x. Jeremiah 23/36: “Ye have perverted the words of the living God.” This one is dishonesty on at least two levels:

  1. Level 1:It is for one thing quoted out of context, and - level 2 - for another thing it is twisted. Jeremiah tells: “If a prophet or a priest or anyone else (incorrectly*) claims, ‘This is the oracle of the LORD (Yahweh*), I (Yahweh*) will punish that man and his household. - - - But you must not mention ‘the oracle of the LORD’ again because (if you do*) every man’s word becomes his oracle and so you distort (pervert*) the words of the living God”. (NIV). There is an abyss between this meaning and the meaning Islam put into the above slightly twisted cherry-picked quotation from the Bible. Dishonest and slightly disgusting – and quite revealing about some Muslim methods and lacks of real facts and arguments.
  2. *Muhammad lived to lose all his children except one daughter (Fatima - who died six months later) - a punishment for claiming to represent Yahweh alias Allah?
  3. Even if it had been true – even if Jeremiah had said that the Jews had perverted (though “perverted” is a stronger word than “distorted”) this did not tell one millimeter about distorting claimed old Quranic texts, like here is indicated - only Biblical ones.

Knowing that this is taken from the widely distributed and highly praised “The Message of the Quran”, canonized or at least certified by the foremost Islamic intellectual institutions in the world, cases like this gives us a bad taste on their behalf: To resort to intellectual dishonesty of this kind is distasteful - and it is humiliating for Islam when found out.

And for what reason? Just in order to be right, instead of to try to find out what is right. #########This in spite of the fact that the price if they are wrong, is the loss of the soul of each and every Muslim - - - if there is a Hell in the perhaps next life. Also see 2/130a, 3/24d and 3/77a below.

003 2/75c: "- - - (the Jews and Christians*) perverted it (the Quran/Muhammad claimed they had received from their god, but which he claimed they had perverted into the Bible*) after they understood it". This is what Muhammad claimed about the Bible - to claim the Bible was falsified, was his only way out if he wanted to save his religion and thus his platform of power.

004 2/89f: “- - - when there comes to them (Jews in Medina*) that (texts which later became the Quran, from Muhammad*) which they should have recognized (indicating they should have recognized the texts from Muhammad in their OT/Torah) - - -". Wrong – the underlying basic thinking and lots and lots of details are so different, that the only thing possible to recognize, is that something is very wrong. Also the books themselves seen as totalities are so very different that there are nearly no similarities between them, except for that some of the stories in them superficially are alike. The same god? - only the low-intelligentsia is able to ask that question (if the god is not seriously mentally ill).

005 2/101c: "- - - confirming what (the Bible*) was with them (Jews and Christians*) - - -". See 2/97e.

006 2/101h: “- - - a party of the People of the Book (here Jews – the People of the Book = Jews, Christians and Sabeans, and “the Book” in this case is the Bible*) threw away the Book of Allah (the Quran?*), as if (it had been something) they did not know!” How can this be in the claimed "Mother Book" written may be billions of years before? See 2/51b above. A time anomaly.

007 2/103c: "- - - their (Jews' and perhaps Christians'*) Lord (here indicated Allah*) - - -". Wrong. Their god was and is Yahweh. This is a historical fact. See 29/46ec below.

##008 2/105e: “But Allah will choose for His special Mercy whom He will - - -“. Muhammad Asad here explains that this is stating that Jews and Christians refused to believe in Muhammad and his Quran, because Muhammad was from the “outside”. The Quran, Islam and Muslims repeats and repeats this unproved claim and disuse it as an “explanation”, whereas the real main reason why they (the Jews and the few Christians*) did not accept Muhammad's new religion, simply was that there were such a number of and such fundamental differences from the Bible, that something obviously was very wrong when Muhammad claimed it was the same religion. Besides, the Jews – the absolute majority of non-Arabs in the area – believed they had a covenant with Yahweh, and both the Quran and modern time Islam and Muslims are dishonest enough never to mention this fact as a main reason for why the Jews were not interested in Muhammad’s teachings: The covenant and the very different religion were the two reasons why they were not interested in Islam – not what the Quran and Islam claims and claims and claims (as normal for them absolutely without any proof or documentation): – that the reason was that Muhammad was not a Jew.

###009 2/111a: "Say (to Jews and Christians*): "Produce your proofs if you are truthful". Islam often demands proofs. Islam itself never offers any proofs for its central claims and statements. IT IS VERY PERTINENT TO DEMAND PROOFS FROM ISLAM AND FROM MUSLIMS, PARTLY BECAUSE THEY MOSTLY USE ONLY LOOSE CLAIMS AND AS LOOSE STATEMENTS, AND PARTLY BECAUSE THEY FREQUENTLY THEMSELVES DEMAND PROOFS. And not to forget: Partly because they never have real proofs for any of the central points in a religion - only claims, statements and quotes resting on no proofs.

 

010 2/111c: "- - - Christians - - -". A time anomaly. No-one of the users of the claimed timeless and much copied "Mother Book" (= similar to the Quran according to the Quran, as also the Quran is claimed to be a copy of that book) could understand this word until it was coined around 50 AD. As mentioned Homo Sapiens - modern man - developed some 160ooo - 200ooo (perhaps ca. 195ooo) years ago according to science. The Quran claims that all people everywhere and to all times have been sent prophets or messengers from Allah, which means Allah has sent his representatives for at least that long - and may be much longer, as there were other races of humans for a long time before - Homo Neandertalis, Homo Habilis, and Homo Erectus just to mention 3 of many. All these prophets and messengers according to the Quran got a copy of the claimed "Mother Book" (13/39b, 43/4b+c, 85/21/22) - a copy of which also the Quran is, which means that the books the claimed prophets and messengers got from Allah if the Quran tells the truth, were similar to the Quran. We have not found exactly when the name "Christians" came into use, but it derived from Greek "Christos", "the anointed one" (Jesus), the same meaning as Hebrew "Messiah", and was coined in Asia Minor (this was long before the Turks conquered the area and settled there, and is likely to have happened around 50 AD, give or take a little. This means that all the claimed prophets/messengers from Allah for may be some 193ooo years could not understand what the word "Christian" - and MANY others in the Quran - meant and thus what information the word/words included (it had to be a complete mystery, as there is nothing in the word itself which tells it is the name of a religion or tells anything about that religion - and only the ones who knew Hebrew and Jewish history could even guess it had to do with a kind of king, as anointing was the traditional Jewish way of installing a king - and how many claimed prophets of Allah knew Hebrew and Jewish traditions in f.x. El Salvador or Alaska or Mexico or Peru until well after 1492 AD?)).

This in addition to the tiny fact that the earliest groups of humans who learnt how to read and write, did not do so until some millennia ago - very large groups not until one or a few millennia ago. Yes, large groups not until a few hundred years ago. To them a copy similar to the Quran only could be a decoration on a shelf.

The claim about these copies of the claimed "Mother Book" to all claimed Muslim prophets through all times and all places on Earth is meaningless. But no omniscient god would give meaningless references without explaining what they meant.

Any god had known this - Muhammad not. Then who made the Quran?

Also see 4/13d below.

011 2/113d: "- - - the Christians say: 'The Jews have naught (to stand) upon". Wrong. Christians do not say that, only that they lack Yahweh's new offer/covenant. They say that with Jesus there has come something new, which the Jews have not seen. Perhaps like Islam claims that as times changes, Yahweh found reason for launching a milder side of his thinking - f.x. during Pax Romanum (a 272 years long period of peace) it could have a chance to grow strong enough to survive when harsher times came once more.

012 2/135a: "They say: 'Become Jews or Christians - - -'". How can this be in the claimed "Mother Book" written may be billions of years before? Impossible. See 2/51b above.

013 2/137a: "So if they (Jews and Christians*) believe as ye (Muslims*) believe, they are indeed on the right path - - -". Strongly contradicted by the Bible - The teaching of the Bible and especially the NT is not even compatible with the Quran. 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.

014 2/140b: "Or do you say that Abraham, Ishmael, Isaac, Jacob and the Tribes were Jews or Christians?" Well, no-one say they were Christians - Christianism is a softer religion than the Mosaic (Jewish) one and did not arrive until with Jesus. If we presume that Jesus really was from Yahweh, which both the Bible and the Quran claims (except that the Quran calls the god Allah and claims Allah = Yahweh), one may wonder why the god choose to soften his teaching just then. One possible explanation is that Islam is right on this one point: When times changes there can be adjustments in the one god's teachings to inch it closer to what the god really wants. May be Yahweh saw that the widespread and long "Roman Peace" (272 years) - Pax Romanum - finally gave a more peaceful and benevolent "edition" of his religion a chance to take hold and survive - grow strong enough to survive in spite of the rougher times which would come. But if this is the explanation, it is highly unlikely and illogical that he later should want to return to a harsh, selfish, and bloody war religion like Islam - far more inhuman, dark and bloody than also the Mosaic one even in the harshest parts of OT.

*015 2/144g: "The people of the Book - - -". = Jews, Christians and Sabeans (see 2/62f above).

016 2/145a: "- - - the People of the Book (here the Bible*) - - -". = Jews, Christians and Sabeans (the last ones likely were the inhabitants of the mainly Christian Saba/Sabah/Sheba, though Islam prefer to explain it was some Christians in what is now Iraq (a small sect exists even today - some 2ooo members), or an Arab sect which believed in one god only, and which existed at the time of Muhammad) - see 2/62f above.

017 2/146e: “- - - but some of them (Jews, Christians*) conceals the truth which they themselves know (the claim that the teachings of the Bible was falsified and should be like the one of the Quran*)“. Science (and not to mention Islam) has long since showed that this claim is wrong - and besides; with that many mistaken facts and that much wrong logic, the Quran itself at best is partly the truth. See 40/75 below.

018 2/159i: "- - - on them (in reality all Jews and Christians, but see 2/146a above*) shall be Allah's curse - - -." Also in the Bible there are a few curses, but not like in the Quran, where one can get the impression that the main arguments for being good and for not being bad except warlike and suppressive toward non-Muslims, are: If you are good you get shade, good food, and many women in Paradise, if you are bad you get Allah's curses and Hell. So there are plenty of curses in the Quran. And there also is little of "turn the other cheek".

019 2/270b: "But the wrongdoers will have no help". As far as the word "wrongdoers" means Jews and Christians, the Bible contradicts this claim.

020 3/19a: "- - - nor did the People of the Book (mainly Jews and Christians*) dissent therefrom (Islam*) - - -." To say this is not true, must be the understatement of the year - Islam has always met strong disbelief from both Jews and Christians, MUCH to the chagrin of Muhammad. This is one of the places in the Quran where it at least is clear he knew he was lying when he told this - he was too intelligent not to know in 625 AD what Jews and Christians generally meant about his new religion.

021 3/23d: "- - - a party of them (Jews and Christians*) turn back and decline (the arbitration)". The reason for this was very simple: They knew the Bible and saw the difference between what Muhammad claimed it told, and what it really told.

022 3/24d: “- - - their (Jews, Christians*) forgeries (of the Bible*) - - -“. The Quran, Muhammad, Islam and most Muslims claim that the Bible is falsified – they claim, but NEVER document or in other ways prove it. Not only claim it is falsified, but that it is falsified on purpose. This in spite of the fact that science long since has proved it is not falsified - one knows literally thousands of relevant old papers and scraps of paper (some 13ooo (included some copies of 300 the Gospels) older than 610 AD + some 32ooo other relevant references - quotes - to the Bible in other manuscripts), which documents it has not been falsified – and with royal disregard for the fact that as the Bible was spread over enormous distances, here, there and everywhere, it also was physically impossible to co-ordinate the falsification of each and every copy all over the world, so that all the falsifications were identical, not to mention that all similar points and all references to all these in other papers also had to be falsified correspondingly. And not to forget: The falsifications of the older manuscripts all had to be so cleverly done, that even modern science of today cannot find traces of scratching, chemical blotting out, wrong ink or wrong handwriting where new words are filled in, etc., etc. "Those facts do not matter - we need the Bible to be falsified, because if not something is seriously wrong with Islam. Period!!"

One more pertinent question: How do Muslims explain that it was possible to make f.x. Jews and Christians and sects agree on identical falsifications? There ought to be a limit to naivety, but we do not think there are - not in this case at least.

###Demand proofs next time a Muslim tells you the Bible is falsified. His game is to throw not documented claims around, and demand proofs from you for the opposite – which can be difficult if you do not have enough knowledge. But it his duty to prove his claims – not yours to disprove them. NB: They do not have such proofs – if they had had only a feeble one, be sure you and the rest of the world had heard about it by some ones using big letters. Actually the lack of documentation from Islam is the best of proofs for that the claim is something made up - even better than the same proofs from science, as Islam have very strong motifs for finding such proofs, and has been unable to do so. And as actually; to throw loose claims and statements around, pretending that they are facts, are typical for Muslims and Islam in religious debates, not to mention in religious propaganda - the game is to win the debate, not to find out what really is true.

But to claim that the Bible was falsified, was the only way out for Muhammad to explain away his wrong quotes from the Bible – and it still is the only way out for Islam. If they admit that the Bible is not falsified each and every place the Quran “collides” with it, this means to admit that Islam is a made up religion – which is too difficult to admit for the believers, and too expensive for the leaders.

We may add that it is quite normal for fringe sects – which Islam once was – to claim that the mother religion(s) is wrong and they themselves are the only ones who are right. To be believed on this point by us, Islam will have to produce real proofs, not only cheap and loose words to back up their claim. As there exist so many old papers, proving it should be very easy - - - if the claims were true.

Islam’s claim here simply is proved wrong by science and with even stronger proofs from Islam – unless Islam produces proofs showing the opposite. But proofs, not only loose claims like they normally use.

Also see 2/75b, 2/130 above and 3/77a below.

023 3/24e: "- - - their (Jews and Christians claimed*) forgeries (of the Bible*) deceive them as to their own religion". In more plain words: The claimed forgeries of the Bible have made their religions false ones. ###But as both science and Islam thoroughly have proved that there are no forgeries in the Bible, what does this sentence then in reality tell? ###And what does it indirectly, but very clearly tell about Islam?

024 3/55d: "- - - then shall ye (followers of Jesus*) all return unto me (Allah*) - - -". According to the Bible they will return unto Yahweh, not unto Allah - 2 very different gods in spite of the Quran's claims (especially like you meet Yahweh in NT.

025 3/56d: "- - - nor will they (non-Muslims*) have anyone (but Allah*) to help". Wrong if they are Jews or Christians and if the Bible is reliable.

026 3/64a: "- - - People of the Book (in this case the Bible*)!" = Jews, Christians and Sabeans (though the last ones are seldom mentioned in the Quran - see 2/62f above). Muslims like to claim the Sabeans were member of an Arab monotheistic sect or a similar one in Persia - the latter one exists even today (with some 2ooo members). The most likely ones, however, were the people in the then mainly Christian Saba/Sabah/Sheba in what is today Yemen. For some reason or other Muslims seldom mention this possibility.

027 3/64d: “- - - that we (Muslims and Jews/Christians*) worship none but Allah (= Yahweh and Allah is claimed to be the same god*)”. Wrong. This is not possible as the fundamental differences between the Quran and the Bible/NT are too big and too many – not unless the god is schizophrenic. Mainly only Muslims say this – and they will have to bring strong proofs.

Which raises the question: Are Muhammad and his Arabs really descendants from Abraham (and thus earlier of the same religion)? At least they in case only are quarter breeds, as Ishmael’s mother, Hagar, was a slave from Egypt (1. Mos. 16/1), and also his wife (only one is mentioned) was from Egypt (also according to the Bible, written and unabridged since more than 1000 years before Muhammad – 1. Mos.21/20). Well, worse than that: Modern DNA analysis has shown that the pure Arab does not exist. Arabia was on a crossroad – caravans and merchants have passed through - - - and left babies behind now and then (remember that before Muhammad in Arabia sex and alcohol were “the two delightful things”). And Arab caravans and traders roamed wide – and now and then brought back brides from abroad. And finally the perhaps main reason for the diluted blood: The slaves. Literally millions of slaves – some 2/3 of them women – have through the times been brought to Arabia, both before and after Muhammad. And the women of the harems – do you think they were permitted to demand condoms? It is impossible to say there are not traces of DNA from Abraham in Arabs – perhaps via Jewish slave women? But any scientist will say that the chances for finding much more DNA from Abraham (if he ever existed) in Jews than in Arabs are big, because the Jews mostly have been intermarrying because of the excluding religion. Arabs? Diluted blood and hardly any traces of Abraham - none if the Bible tells the truth when it tells that Ishmael settled near the border of Egypt (1. Mos. 25/18 - and there was no reason for him who wrote 1. Mos. not to tell the truth).

028 3/65c: "Why dispute ye (Jews and Christians*) about Abraham, when the Law and the Gospel were not revealed till after him?" Well, according to the Quran Abraham had a book, and that must have been the Quran, as the Quran according to Islam (and the Quran) is a copy of the eternal "mother book" in Heaven and copies of that book were given to the old prophets according to the Quran. And then Abraham's copy - and Jesus' copy - must have been identical or at least nearly identical to the present Quran. All this according to Islam. As also Jesus "original" teaching was Islam, according to both the Quran, to Muhammad, and to Islam, the Gospels must have been pieces from Jesus' copy of the Quran, which later was falsified, still according to Islam - even though falsification of the Bible is proved wrong by both science and Islam, as none of them has been able to prove even one falsification from the tens of thousands of relevant old manuscripts. Believe it who wants - but you have to want to believe it to be able to do so.

029 3/65d: "Why dispute ye (Jews and Christians*) about Abraham, when the Law and the Gospel were not revealed till after him?" There is no reason why one cannot dispute about Abraham even if He lived - if he was a real person - some 1800 - 2ooo years before Chris and "the Law" arrived around 1230 - 1235 BC, and the first known Gospel around 60 AD. One f.x. can dispute about the Quran's use (or disuse?) of him, the big differences between what is told about him in the Bible and in the Quran, and not least: As the Bible is the only known source about Abraham, and as the Quran with all its mistakes is not from a god, so the information about Abraham cannot have come from a god - where did Muhammad get his information(?) about Abraham from? There in reality are just three remaining possible such sources: Dark forces - and then it may easily be wrong. Legends and fairy tales - and then it may even more easily be wrong. And fantasy - in which case it is nearly sure to be wrong.

030 3/66a: "Ye (Jews and Christians*) are those who fell to disputing (even) in matters of which ye had some knowledge!" Muhammad here refers to the fact that there were different ways of understanding words and verses in the Bible, which caused debates among Jews and among Christians. When they were able to dispute even things Muhammad claimed should be clear to them, he claims that means they are not qualified to debate things they know nothing about.

In clear language his claim is that as Abraham (previous verse) lived such a long time ago, the Jews (and Christians) in reality had no correct information about Abraham, and thus that what he himself told about Abraham, were the correct stories, as he - he claimed - got those stories from Allah.

But as it is clear to anything but strong wishful thinking backed by naivety, that no god ever was involved in the making of the Quran, there emerge two questions: From where did Muhammad get his stories? And may be the Bible all the same is more reliable than those stories if they have no good, reliable source? (This even more so at it is clear that the source for many of Muhammad's stories are legends, apocryphal - made up - stories, and even fairy tales (f.x. Luqman - surah 31 - is a person from Arab fairy tales).

031 3/67a: “Abraham was not a Jew nor yet a Christian - - -“. He definitely was no Christian, as he lived – if he ever lived - some 1800 – 2000 years too early. But it may be correct to call the forefather of all Jews a Jew. (We know the word did not exist at that time, but it is normal to use the word also for the people who later got the name Jews. The word "Jew" is made from "Judah" - the name of one of the sons (no. 4 according to the Bible - 1. Mos. 29/35) of the Jewish patriarch Jacob - grandson of Abraham. His tribe much later settled south of, in, and round Jerusalem, and when the nation was split after the death of Solomon, they became the main tribe in the country of Judah - hence Judes or Jews - whereas the parts further north became the country of Israel, which originally was a name the patriarch Jacob got from Yahweh, according to the Bible (1. Mos. 32/28).)

032 3/69c: "But they (Jews, Christians, and Sabeans*) shall lead astray (not you (Muslims*) but themselves - - -". This is correct only if Islam is a true religion and if in addition the Bible is wrong.

033 3/71c: “Why do you (Christians /Jews*) clothe the truth with falsehood (= falsify the Bible, the Torah, and the other Jewish scriptures - this is strongly stated in the Quran, as if it is not true then the Quran is a falsified book*), - - -?” Always when there was a discrepancy between the Quran and the Bible, Muhammad said it was he who was right and the Jews and the Christians who had falsified the Bible (even in cases where it is clear the story in the Quran corresponds to a made up legend known in Arabia at that time) - a most convenient explanation for a man who knew little about the Bible, and the only way out he had. But does the Quran represent the truth? - with that many obvious mistakes, etc., it at most can be partly true. (For some reason or other Islam and its Muslims seldom claim that Islam is the religion of honesty.) Also see 3/24d and 3/70d above.

034 3/75c: “- - - they (Jews and Christians*) say, 'there is no call on us (to keep faith) with these ignorant (Pagans)'". Here it is needed proofs if Islam really claims the Jews (there were few Christians) were worse than average - f.x. Arabs do not have the best of reputations for reliability.

035 3/75e: “But they (Jews and Christians*) tell a lie against Allah (= they have falsified the Bible*) - - -”. It is difficult to tell something is a lie, as long as nobody knows what the truth about Allah is - or if he even exists. There are so many mistakes, etc. in the Quran, that the book is totally unreliable as a proof, and the Quran is the only "real" source for the claims about Allah and about his possible existence. More to the point: Both science and Islam has proved very strongly that the Bible is not falsified. Neither of them has been able to document even one single falsification - some mistakes yes, falsifications no.

Also remember that the quoted claim is wrong. Both science and Islam have thoroughly proved that the Bible is not falsified. There are some mistakes - though FAR fewer than in the Quran, but not one proved falsification.

036 3/77a: "- - - those who sell the faith they owe Allah - - - for a small price - - -". Expressions like this mainly - and often - are used for Jews and Christians. What is meant is that those bad persons have falsified the Bible to have a richer life on Earth. Instead of admitting that they really did not believe in Muhammad's new religion - and everything we know about history proves it literally was a new religion and that Muhammad's claims about older roots are fairy tales - from honest reasons. It was psychologically much wiser for him if he wanted to promote his religion - and his basis of power - to claim they did it from base motifs, and were morally degenerated and despicable persons. You will find him telling and impressing this claim on his followers several places in the Quran. Blind belief made people believe anything and without using their brains. It still does. Also see 2/75b, 2/130a, and 3/24 above.

037 3/77c: "- - - they (disbelievers in Allah*) shall have no portion in the Hereafter (Paradise*) - - -". Contradicted by the Bible if "they" were believers in 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.

####038 3/78a: “(Many Jews and Christians*) distort the Book (here the Bible) - - -“. This is an unproved claim without which Islam is dead - ######if the Bible is not falsified, that automatically means the Quran is wrong on many central points. But the fact is that in 1400 years Islam have been able to produce only claims and words – both of which are very cheap – whereas science has some 13ooo relevant old papers and fragments (of them some 300 from the 4 Gospels) from all over the then known world, plus some 32ooo other manuscripts with quotations from the Bible - all older than 610 AD when Muhammad started the new religion - which document that the Bible is not distorted. (And you bet: If Islam had found a single real proof for their claim, they had screamed about it). This actually is the best of all proofs for that no proofs exist. Also see “Muhammad in the Bible” (7/157e), and “Falsified Bible?” in "1000+ Mistakes in the Quran".

039 3/78d: "- - - it is they (Jews and Christians*) who tell a lie against Allah - - -". = they tell something different from what Muhammad tells, and Muhammad's claim and "explanation" - as normal no proofs - is that the Bible is falsified by them ("who tell a lie against Allah"). See 2/75a+b+c, 2/130a, and 3/78a above.

040 3/78e: "- - - and well they (Jews and Christians*) know it (that the Bible is falsified*)!" This is the kind of accusation one uses to strengthen an argument; "they" not only have done something bad, but have done so willfully. The added psychological effect of course is distaste or similar for those bad people - and if the Muslims believed the claimed "fact" that "they" were bad people, this made it easier for Muhammad later to kill and enslave them - - - and personally rape at least 2 of the young women. (First Rayhana bint Amr, and later 17 year old and newlywed Safiyya bint Huayay after he had tortured her husband to death - Muslims diplomatically say he married her (which he later did) after her husband was killed in the war). Whether he raped more women during his prophethood(?) or not is not known. But he clearly told his followers that during war rape - "sexual relationship" to use a diplomatic expression - was "lawful and good" as long as the woman was not pregnant. Also the fact that his men took the rapes pretty casually makes one think (you react casually to things you are used to).

041 3/78f: "- - - and well they (Jews and Christians*) know it (that the Bible is falsified*)!" This claim from Muhammad is nonsense: It is not possible for a believer to believe in a text he/she knows is falsified. Also: This is such an obvious fact psychologically, that Muhammad with his knowledge about humans knew this was a lie, at least for the real believers in those two religions - and he knew they were many. If not before, all the Jews who chose flight or death instead of Islam, proved this to him, but he never corrected his claim. Most likely a direct lie, but at least a lie by omission, as he never corrected this psychologically impossibility even after hundreds of real believers on the Bible had proved the claim wrong.

042 3/80a: "Nor would he (a true prophet*) instruct you to take angels - - - for Lords and Patrons". No Christian would understand this sentence unless he/she also knew the Quran and some more of Islam: There is no place in the NT where one is instructed to take one or more angels "for Lord and Patron" - not even a place in the Bible where the text is possible to misunderstand like that.

But then there is the claim that The Holy Spirit just is another name for the angel Gabriel. Gabriel brought messages to Muhammad, but the Quran a couple of times mention that the Holy Spirit also did so: Logical shortcut - and like some other places in the Quran a logically invalid one: The Holy Spirit = the angel Gabriel. But no-one who has ever read the Bible with an open mind, would ever get the idea that the Holy Spirit is an angel - whatever it is, it clearly is something very special and very different from an angel. Also the Quran does not say that Gabriel = the Holy Spirit - the claim started somewhere outside the Quran.

As for prophets as "Lord and Patron", there remains the question of saints - though they normally never was prophets originally. Here the Quran may have a point, as saints is not something from the Bible.

And finally there remains the question of Jesus. Here it is no doubt that the NT unmistakeingly indicates that Jesus is divine - and Islam has till date never proved this wrong - lots of claims, but only claims. Also see 3/80b just below.

043 3/86b: “How shall Allah guide those (Jews, Christians*) who reject faith after they accepted it and bore witness that the Messenger (Muhammad*) was true and that Clear Signs had come unto them?” This refers to Muhammad's claim that one or a few Jews and Christians had admitted (maybe true, maybe not) that he was a prophet, and here he claims it then was unjust and not understandable that not also all the others admitted the same. It is very clear even from Islamic literature that the reason why they did not believe in Muhammad, was that they simply did not believe in his new religion and stuck to the Bible.

044 3/86c: “How shall Allah guide those (Jews and Christians*) who reject faith after they accepted it and bore witness that the Messenger (Muhammad*) was true and that Clear Signs had come unto them?” Some Muslim scholars (f.x. A3/69) say that this is not about what the Jews (and few Christians) said and did, but about the Islamic claim that Muhammad is foretold in the Bible, something Muhammad here claimed they knew, but refused to admit. As you have to have very strange glasses to find Muhammad in the Bible - he is not there (see 7/157e below) - this sentence in case is invalid. (But it is a claim Islam cannot afford to drop, as it is said in the Quran that one finds Muhammad both in OT and in the Gospels (NT). If they then do not find him, the Quran is wrong and cannot be from a god, and Islam is a made up religion - not from a god. And the belief of the fathers - taqlid - and the belief you have built your life on, is more essential that to find out if that belief can be true or not - for Muslims like for believers in many other religions), Also Islam has not one single proof for Allah, and a claimed indication in the Bible at least would be an indication - if it had been true. See the chapter about "Muhammad in the Bible?" in "1000+ Mistakes in the Quran" - https://www.1000mistakes.com , or 7/157e below.

045 3/99c: "Why obstruct ye (Jews, Christians*) those who believe from the Path of Allah - - -". Simply because they saw that something was seriously wrong with Muhammad's teaching and with Islam.

046 3/99g: “(Jews and Christians*) ye were yourselves witnesses (to Allah’s covenant)”. Wrong. They were witnesses to Yahweh’s covenant(s). Allah is not the same god as Yahweh, unless the god is seriously schizophrenic, as the teachings fundamentally are too different. If Islam still insists on the opposite, they will have to bring proofs, not only the old and still not documented loose claims.

047 3/100d: "- - - they (some Jews and Christians*) would (indeed) render you (Muslims*) apostates after you have believed". Apostates from what as the Quran is not from a god? - too much wrong in the book.

048 3/103h: "- - - He (Allah*) saved you (Muslims*) from it (Hell*) - - -". Contradicted by the Bible which tells Yahweh is the savior (a god the Quran wrongly mixes with Allah - an impossible claim for so different teachings). 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.

049 3/110i: "- - - among them (Jews and Christians*) are some who have faith - - -". Similar are indicated a few places in the Quran. It is not quite clear whether he refers to some of them accepting Islam, or if he meant also honestly and strongly believing Jews and Christians could be accepted by Allah. Our impression is that he at least in the early years of Islam thought that also Jews and Christians could go to Paradise if they were good persons and honest believers.

050 3/110j: “Most of them (Jews and Christians*) are perverted transgressors.” Yes, one has to be perverted to believe in the god of the old - a god who according to their holy book has manifested his power many times - and in a book backed by thousands of witnesses at least from the times of Moses through the times of Jesus (though in both these cases something or details may be wrong), compared to believe in a medium large businessman liking power and respect - and women - and who in addition is a highway man, extorter, womanizer, rapist, torturer, enslaver, slave dealer (selling or giving away for bribes his 20% of the slaves taken), assassin, murder, mass murderer, believer of al-Taqiyya (the lawful lie) and Kitman (the lawful half-truth), Hilah (the lawful pretending/circumventing) (even thought these three kinds of dishonesty only was formalized later), deception ("war is deceit" - and "everything" is jihad), breaker of his words and oaths (f.x. murdering 29 men from Khaybar he had guaranteed safety during peace talks), even a few places (some 100?) clearly lying in the Quran, and an inciter to hate, discrimination and war - but in no way able to do more than to tell unproved tales backed by invalid and even wrong “signs” and “proofs” - tales which on top of all show a number of the hallmarks of a swindler, cheater and deceiver. (Muslims: This is no slander - these facts are taken from Islam’s own books telling about and praising Muhammad - it only lacks the sugar coat of explaining away and heroism. There is no reason of being angry when meeting the very plain truth from your own books. When glorious words and reality disagree, we always believe in reality).

Yes, Jews, Christians and for that case Pagans have to be perverted not to believe on basis of such - unproved - words from such a man. And for not to kill and steal/rob and terrorize on his orders. Is it possible to add: - those perverted transgressors may deserve suppression and extermination - at least sometimes?

How would Muslims around the world react if some ones in big media claimed that most Muslims are perverted transgressors? - and how would different countries' judicial systems react to it? This in spite of that some of the moral and judicial rules in the Quran are perverse - f.x. the permission to rape female prisoners of war and slaves, included children, at least down to 9 years.

051 3/113d: "- - - they (Jews and Christians*) rehearse the Signs of Allah - - -". No comment necessary.

052 3/113f: "- - - they (Jews and Christians*) prostrate themselves - - -". Wrong. At least Christians do not use prostration.

053 3/113g: "- - - they (Jews and Christians*) prostrate themselves in adoration". Wrong. None of "the People of the Book" adore Allah. They simply do not believe he exists, and definitely not as a god. (Though many do not know the Quran better than they believe Muslims are speaking the truth when Islam claims Yahweh and Allah is the same god - but that Muhammad/the Quran has twisted the god's teaching).

054 3/114a: "- - - they (Jews and Christians*) believe in Allah". No comment necessary.(Even in the cases where they have used the name Allah instead of God or Yahweh - it has been done sometimes through the centuries - they definitely have not believed in the Islamic Allah).

055 3/114d: "- - - they (Jews and Christians*) are in the ranks of the righteous". for once the Quran may well be right. But normally when words like "righteous" is used in the Quran, it is in accordance with the book's own partly immoral moral code.

056 3/115a: "Of the good they (Jews and Christians gone Muslims or at least nearly so*) do, nothing will be rejected of them - - -". = All good deeds will be remembered on the Day of Doom - - - if the Quran can be relied on.

057 3/117b: "- - - they (Jews, Christians*) wrong themselves". Only if Allah exists and Yahweh not - and only if the Quran in addition tells the full and only truth about this. And not least: Not if Allah predestines everything like the Quran claims many places.

058 3/119b: "- - - ye (Muslims*) believe in the whole of the Book (the Quran*)". Implication: Jews and Christians have falsified the copies their forefathers received of the Quran (sic!) and now have only parts of it left in which they believe - and the rest they believe in, Muhammad claims they had made up (an allegation and a never proved one - and a claim both science and Islam long since have proved wrong by being unable to find any falsification among literally tens of thousands of relevant old manuscripts).

059 3/180a: "- - - those who covetously withhold of the gifts which Allah hath given them - - -". Jews and Christians have got the scriptures from the god, but are bad people and have falsified or withheld parts of it so that it no longer corresponds to Islam and Muhammad and his Quran. Well, science has long since proved this claim wrong: There are no falsifications in the Bible - some mistakes, but no falsifications. Islam has never proved ANY of its claims about falsifications in the Bible at all - not one! Actually they have proved the claim wrong by being unable to find even one proved falsification - guess if they had told about it if they had found one! It all is just a number of not documented claims and all in spite of what we really know about the facts. Actually the very best proof for that nothing is falsified, is just Islam's inability to find even one single proved falsification - like always in such cases Muslims make lots of claims, but there is not one proved case - - - and loose claims are cheap.

###Another, and in this case perhaps more likely, way of understanding this sentence is that Muhammad here like some other places in the Quran, means the non-Muslims were misers. (The Quran often is unclear.) An ironic meaning if it is true Muslims helping others than Muslims. But Muhammad may have been right that they gave little to him - quite natural if they thought his main purpose was to forward what they thought was a false religion and a false god, and perhaps his own power.

060 3/186b: "- - - those who received the Book before you - - -". = Mainly Jews and Christians. (Muhammad claimed the Bible and the Quran was the same book, only that the bad Jews and Christians had falsified it - a claim science and even more Islam have thoroughly proved wrong by being unable to find even one proved falsification. Only one short sentence is the same in the Bible and the Quran - in Psalms 37/29.)

061 3/187h: "And vile was the bargain they (Jews, Christians*) made." In reality identical to 3/187g just above. In addition: This claim is wrong if the Quran is not reliable - and doubly wrong if the god they believed in instead (Yahweh*), really exists.

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

#####062 3/199g: "For them (strongly believing Jews and Christians*) is a reward with their Lord". There may be a hope for Paradise also for Jews and Christians - - - if this verse is not abrogated (made invalid) by a stricter one later on.

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

063 4/44b: "- - - they (Jews and Christians*) traffic in error - - -" = they have falsified the Bible - a never documented claim science long since have proved untrue, not to say is a lie - and just to mention it: Islam has proved the same even stronger by being unable to find even one proved falsification. Even more: If Muslims demand a proof from you for this, first demand proof for falsification from them, as they put forth the claim and thus have the burden of proof - such proof does not exist and the best documentation for this is that if it had existed, Islam had put it in the wall of every mosque in gold. But as said it really is proved by science and by Islam (by not finding one single proved falsification among literally tens of thousands of relevant old manuscripts) beyond any reasonable and unreasonable doubt that the Bible is not falsified - some mistakes, yes; falsifications, no.

064 4/44c: "They (Jews and Christians*) traffic in error - - -". Muhammad's standard claim: These people did not believe in him because they had falsified the Bible to have riches in this life. (The real reason was that they knew the Bible and saw that many of Muhammad's claims about its contents were wrong. Also see 4/44b just above.

065 4/44d: "They (Jews and Christians*) traffic in error - - -". Strongly contradicted by the Bible - and the Bible is deemed more reliable than the Quran by science. Also see 67/9c below - a strong one. But of course it is ok for Islam to prove - prove - the Bible wrong and the Quran right. But as we say: Prove, not just loose claims and as loose and invalid words like the Quran always use instead of proofs.

Also remember that both science and Islam strongly have proved that the Bible is not falsified - some mistakes, but no proved falsifications ever.

066 4/50a: "How they (Jews and Christians*) invent a lie against Allah". = How they have falsified the Bible! = the only defense Muhammad had against the fact that there were large differences between what he told about the Bible and what really was in the Bible. See 2/75b, 2/89ab, 2/130 and 4/47d above and "Falsifications in the Bible?" in https://www.1000mistakes.com .

067 4/51a: "- - - those who were given a portion of the Book (here the Bible*) - - -". = Jews, Christians and Sabeans (most likely from the mainly Christian Saba/Sabah/Sheba - see 2/62f above - in what now is Yemen). But also see 4/44a above.

068 4/51g: "- - - they (Jews, Christians*) are better guided - - - than (Muslims*) - - -". If Yahweh exists like both the Bible and the Quran tell, but Allah not - or if Allah is not a dominant god - this may be correct. Yahweh has proved himself if the old books tell the truth, Allah has proved exactly nothing.

069 4/60a: "- - - those who declare that they believe in the revelations that have come to thee (Muhammad*) and to those before thee - - -". These are the Jews and Christians. "- - - those before thee - - -" is a clear reference to them, and "revelations that have come to thee" - well, Muhammad liked to claim that many Jews and Christians believed in his teachings. F.x. the Qurayza proved it was not true. (Though here he may mean that they lied when they said they believed in him.)

070 4/60e: "But Satan's wish was to lead them astray - - -". The Quran intends that "they" are Jews, Christians, etc. But a pertinent question as it is clear the Quran is from no god, and as the Quran's moral code at points is horrible, is: Are the Muslims included in "they"? Or perhaps the Muslims = "they"? (some of the rules in the Quran may be made by a devil).

071 4/150e: "- - - we (non-Muslims*) believe in some but reject others". This may refer to Jews and Christians who accepted what Muhammad correctly quoted of Biblical stuff, but refused what he quoted from fairy tales, legends, and apocryphal stories claiming it was from the Bible. (Muhammad did not know the Bible well, and his stories are a mixture of real quotes and made up tales he seemed to believe in.)

072 4/152d: "- - - make no distinction between any of the Messengers". In spite of 4/152c just above, this may be meant to single out Jews and Christians, who did not believe in Muhammad, and thus according to the Quran made distinctions between the claimed messengers. Unclear point. Also see 4/152e just below.

073 4/157j: "- - - those who differ therein (believe that Jesus was crucified*) are full of doubts, with no certain knowledge, but only conjecture to follow - - -". Good propaganda if the listeners were naive enough or eager enough to believe what they wanted to hear - but wrong information (no Christian believer doubt this point, something Muhammad ever so well knew).

074 5/14c: "We (the god*) did take a Covenant (with the Christians, too*) - - -". It is crystal clear that if the old scriptures and 11 witnesses (the disciples*) tell the truth, this covenant was confirmed by Jesus' words the last supper (Luke 22/20). This is so well known and so central in the Christian religion, that not one single Muslim really educated in religion do not know this. All the same this almost always is omitted when Muslim scholars write or talk - and the lay Muslim mostly have never heard about it. And then you even in presumably good quality Islamic literature meet claims like this - claims which have to be written against the writers knowledge, as it is so well known (YA: The Meaning of the Quran", comment 715): "The Christian Covenant may be taken to be the charge which Jesus gave to his disciples, and which the disciples accepted, to welcome Ahmad (= Muhammad*)":

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

075 5/14d: “For those, too, who call themselves Christians, We (Allah*) did take a Covenant, but they forgot a good part of the Message that was sent them - - -“. = Also the Christians falsified the Bible - with all the falsifications identical all over the known world and without traces in tens of thousands of manuscripts spread all over the known world. And not least: Christians and Jews used identical falsifications!!. (And on top of all: There was not one Jew at the Council in Nicaea). No comments necessary.

076 5/14e: “For those, too, who call themselves Christians, We (Allah*) did take a Covenant, but they forgot a good part of the Message that was sent them - - -“.

Comment (A5/27): “I. e. their going astray from the genuine teachings of Jesus - - -.”

Comment (A5/28): “- - - it is obvious that what is alluded to in this context is the concealing of something from oneself; in other words, it is a reference to the gradual obscuring (read; falsification*), by the followers of the Bible, of its original verities which they are now unwilling to admit even to themselves.”

This claim that the Bible is falsified you find many places in the Quran. But we have written about this so many places, that here we only remind you of that this is the only possible “explanation” Islam has and Muhammad had to “explain” away all the many differences between the Bible and what the Quran claimed the Bible said - - - and that science long since and clearly has proved this undocumented claim wrong – the Bible may have mistakes here and there, but not one sample of proved falsification has been found. On the contrary: All the many old manuscripts show that the Bible today is the same as in the old times. The best proof for this is Islam: If one single real proof for falsification had ever been found, the world had been informed about it each and every time there is a debate between Christians or Jews and Muslims. Not a single consonant or vowel has ever been aired about a real proof – only undocumented statements and claims.

Another problem is that no book of a quality like the Quran is from a god.

077 5/14f: “- - - but they (Christians*) forgot a good part of the Message (Bible/NT*) that was sent them - - -“. See 2/75b, 3/24d and 5/13b (above). When it comes to NT, science is on even more secure “ground” for saying "nothing is falsified" than for OT, as one has original documents going back nearly to the first churches – included some 300 Gospels or fragments of Gospels – and there are found no falsifications. The texts simply are the same as today, except for minor variations normal for handwritten manuscripts. Islam will have to offer proofs, not only claims taken out of the air like they normally only do. With so many old documents it should have been easy enough to find falsifications - - - if it had been true. Actually Islam's silence when it comes to proved falsifications is an even stronger proof than the words of science for that nothing was falsified. Also see 2/75b, 2/89b and 2/130a above.

*078 5/15h: “- - - there hath come to you (Jews, Christians*) from Allah a (new) light (Muhammad*) - - -“. Well, that is one of the questions: Did a man so morally degenerated and preaching a religion based on a book with so many mistakes, etc. and so much wrong logic, really represent a god? And did a war religion with a partly immoral moral code represent a benevolent god? Simply no to each of the questions.

079 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. Allah definitely not. And Yahweh? 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.

*080 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. (This dogma is from the 4. century, and it got its present form from the so-called Cappadocia 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.) 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?

*081 5/18a: “(Both) the Jews and the Christians say: ‘We are sons of Allah, and (we are*) His beloved’”. Neither Jews nor Christians say they are real sons - or daughters - of Yahweh (not of Allah) (though they often figuratively - but only figuratively - refer to Yahweh as the “Father in Heaven” or humans as "Children of God".)

082 5/47f: "- - - those who rebel - - -". One of Muhammad's many negative and distaste inducing names for non-Muslims - in this case mainly Jews and Christians.

083 5/48j: "To each of you (Jews, Christians, Muslims*) have We (Allah*) prescribed a Law - - -". If the same god has prescribed the laws and rules in the Bible and the ones in the Quran, that god is at least schizophrenic. And: If a god has prescribed the laws and rules in the Quran, that god at least is neither good nor benevolent.

084 5/49c: "- - - their (non-Muslims' - in this case Christians'*) vain desire - - -". The Christians "vain desire" was to follow the Bible, which they saw was very different from Muhammad's new religion.

085 5/51b: “Take not the Jews and the Christians (pagans are not even valid to be mentioned*) for your friends and protectors.” If people a leader looks upon as (possible) enemies or as possible subjects for attacking and suppression, are made up to look for you like something bad and degenerated and kept at a distance personally, it is much easier for that leader to make his followers believe that “that vermin” deserves to be attacked and killed and raped and suppressed and to have their possessions stolen - especially if the warriors among his followers are permitted to rob and rape and enslave and steal for themselves valuables and women “justly and right“.

And with no intermingling from the outside the leader also greatly reduces the risk of that his subjects meets unwanted ideas or facts. Thus: No friendship, thank you. The method is known from a number of fanatic sects.

086 5/51c: "- - - Jews and Christians - - -". We do not know when the name Jew was coined, but probably after the founding of the Judah country around 900 BC. The word Christians is from the first century AD. Thus we here have 2 time anomalies - anomalies for everyone who are claimed to have got their copy of "the Mother of the Book" (i.e. a twin of the Quran) earlier - see 4/13d above.

087 5/52a: “Those in whose hearts is a disease - - -”. If you are not a Muslim, your heart has a disease. One of Muhammad's many negative and antipathy creating names for non-Muslim - included Jews and Christians. Comments?

088 5/53c: "All that they (non-Muslims*) do will be in vain, and they will fall into (nothing but) ruin". As for Jews and Christians the Bible strongly contradicts this.

089 5/57c: "- - - those who received the Scriptures before you (Muslims*) - - -". Jews, Christian, Sabeans according to the Quran.

090 5/62b: “Evil indeed are the things they (Jews and Christians*) do.” No comments, except that you should detest and hate such people. But see 2/2b above.

##091 5/66a: "If only they (Jews and Christians*) had stood by the Law, the Gospel (Muhammad seems to have believed there was only one - he always uses singular*) and all the revelations that was sent to them from their Lord - - -". That was exactly what they did. But the powerful Muhammad said they lied, and power often wins against the truth - at least in the short run (and even 1400 years is "short run" compared to eternity).

But truth has an uncanny tendency to win in the end - at least if it gets known. And the truth about the Quran is getting known.

092 5/68f: "- - - their ("the People of the Book") obstinate rebellion and blasphemy". Very bad people. Stay away from them - or fight them. Characteristics like this leads up to dislike and worse - - - and the possibility for raids against them and suppression or even enslavement or killing, like we see in Islamic history.

093## 5/69b: “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.” This may indicate that also Jews and Christians (and Sabeans - most likely people from the then mainly Christian Sabah/Sheba, but also a couple of other explanations may be possible - see 2/62f above) may go to Paradise. But see 5/69c just below.

Muslims and Islam have a strong tendency to forget this verse and this point. This even though this surah is from 632 AD and one of the very last ones, and thus according Islam's rules for abrogation should be a strong one.

094 5/69c: “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.” Contradicted by:

  1. 3/85: “If anyone desires a religion other than Islam (submission to Allah), never will it be accepted of him - - -.” This alone tells the full story.
  2. 5/72: “They (Christians*) do blaspheme who say: ‘God is Christ the son of Mary.’ - - - and the Fire will be their abode.” To say that Jesus is divine is to put another god at Allah’s side – the ultimate and unforgivable sin according to 2/225a and 4/116a-c above and 6/106b and 25/18a below.
  3. 5/73: “They do blaspheme who say: Allah is one of three in a Trinity - - -.” This was to put two other gods at the side of Allah – two times the ultimate sin.

(3 contradictions).

095 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)

096 5/72c: “They (Christians*) do blaspheme - - -". Only if the Quran tells the full truth and only the truth. (For some reason or other Islam and its Muslims seldom claim that Islam is the religion of honesty.) And only if Allah exists and in addition is a god.

*097 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).

098 5/72m: "For the wrongdoers there will be no one to help". For those of what Muhammad called "wrongdoers" who were Jews or Christians there perhaps is Yahweh.

099 5/73a: “They do blaspheme who say: Allah is one of three in a Trinity”. Our sources tell that the 3 last words does not exist in the Arab edition, but is added by Yusuf Ali. Then the correct text in case ends: “Allah (Yahweh*) is one of three (gods*).” Which obviously is wrong, as Christians only believe in one god. Besides it is a most dubious way of working to make additions to a text without making the readers aware of that it is an addition – f.x. by at least putting the addition in ( ).

But the claim in any case is wrong: Christians do not say Allah is one of a Trinity, but Yahweh is one of a Trinity. (But there is a chance for that the Quran here is correct when it denies that the god is part of a trinity, as this is not said in the Bible - this is a Christian dogma 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), Gregory of Nazeanzus (329-389)). The nearest you come in the Bible is that Jesus said that he and his father, Yahweh, were one.) Also see 5/73b just below.

100 5/74a: "Why turn they (Christians*) not to Allah - - -?" For the very simple reasons:<(p>

  1. They believed - and believe - in another religion and saw/see that Islam was/is so far away from that religion, that it could not be the same one.
  2. 2. They saw that the teachings were so very different, that it impossibly could be the same god, and preferred their own Yahweh, and believed Allah was something made up.
  3. 3. They saw that Muhammad was teaching a very different religion - he impossible could be a prophet from Yahweh.
  4. 4. They saw that f.x. according to 5.Mos. 8/22 he could be no prophet at all - he did not even make wrong prophesies, he made no real prophesies at all. He consequently - and also because his teachings were wrong - was a false prophet.
  5. 5. Muslims like to claim the reason why Jews and Christians did not accept Muhammad, was that Muhammad was no Jew, but that only is a smokescreen to hide and explain away the real reason: Allah could and cannot be the same god as Yahweh - too much and too fundamental parts of the teachings are too deeply different; Muhammad did not represent Yahweh.

101 5/76a. "Will ye (Christians*) worship, besides Allah (Jesus*) - - -". No Christian worships something besides Allah. They do not believe in Allah at all, and worship another god, Yahweh, INSTEAD OF Allah. There is a huge difference between these two concepts. (Oh, we know the Quran claims - and as normal for the Quran without proofs - that Yahweh and Allah is the same god, but their teachings are far too different for that to be true.)

102 5/76b. "Will ye (Christians*) worship, besides Allah, something which hath no power either to harm or benefit you?" The word "something" here must refer to Mary and Jesus in the previous verse. When it comes to Mary and the Catholics, Muhammad here may have a point - saints are not an idea you find in the Bible. (On the other hand they do not pray to a divine Mary, only to what they believe may be a helper to reach the divine.) As for Jesus we are back to the fact that he several places told he could help - - - and to the old fact that science and Islam both clearly has shown that the Bible is not falsified, even though Islam is dependent on this never documented claim for their religion to survive. (If the Bible is not falsified it is ever so clear that then the Quran is a made up - falsified - book, as so much of what it claims the Bible tells or should tell, is not from the Bible.)

103 5/77e: "- - - people who went wrong in times gone by - - -". This refers to the claim that many Jews and Christians falsified parts of the Bible so that it became different from what Muhammad claimed was sent down to them from the god - something like the Quran - and thus they led others astray. See 5/77c above.

104 5/79a: "Nor did they (Jews and Christians*) (usually) forbid one another the inequities which they committed - - -." Our sources tell that the word "usually" is not in the original Arab text. In that case this sentence is wrong. Even with the word "usually" the sentence is not correct, as they often corrected each other.

105 5/79b: "Nor did they (Jews and Christians*) (usually) forbid one another the inequities which they committed - - -." One more of the many texts or quotes in the Quran which could not have been reliably written into the claimed "Mother Book" (13/39b, 43/4b+c, 85/21-22) in Heaven (of which the Quran is claimed to be a copy) eons ago, unless predestination was and is 100% like the Quran claims many places (if you look, you will find more cases than we mention - we only mention some of the obvious ones). If man has free will - even partly only (an expression some Muslims use to flee from the problem full predestination contra free will for man (and also contra that there is no meaning in praying to Allah for help, if everything already is predestined in accordance with a plan "nobody and nothing can change" - a problem which Muslims seldom mention), and an expression no Muslim we have met has ever defined) - and can change his mind, full and reliable clairvoyance about the future, not to mention the distant future, is impossible even for a god, as the man always could/can change his mind or his words once more, in spite of Islam's claims. There are at least 5 reasons - at least 3 of them unavoidable - for this:

  1. When something is changed, automatically the future is changed.
  2. The laws of chaos will be at work and change things, if even a tiny part is made different. And multiply even a tiny change with some billion people through the centuries, and many and also big things will be changed.
  3. The displacement of a happening - f.x. the death of a warrior in battle - of only one yard or one minute may or even will change the future forever (that yard or minute f.x. may mean that the warrior killed - or not killed - an opponent). The laws of chaos and the "Butterfly Effect" and the "Domino Effect" kick in.

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

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

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

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

106 5/80a: “Thou seest many of them (Jews and Christians*) turning in friendship to the unbelievers. - - - (with the result) that Allah’s wrath is on them - - -”. They seek bad company because they do not listen to Muhammad - Jews and Christians are bad. Apartheid propaganda?

107 5/81a: “If only they had believed in Allah, in (Muhammad*) - - - never would they (Jews and Christians*) have taken them (non-Muslims or Pagans*) for friends - - -”. It is just tragic - most religions are today able to live together in peace and reasonable harmony. But Islam is so bent on distaste and superiority complex against all non-Muslims, and on the idea of conquering all other religions and suppressing its peoples, that integration is difficult. The only position Islam really can accept, is superiority.

108 5/81b: "If they (Jews, Christians*) had believed in Allah - - -". It is difficult to believe in a religion and a god when you see that so much is wrong that you honestly believe both the religion and the god are made up ones, not to mention when the religion itself proves that the teaching is seriously wrong. That things are seriously wrong with the religion Islam is not even belief, but a proved fact backed by many proofs.

109 5/82a: "Strongest among men in enmity to the believers wilt thou (Muhammad/Muslims*) find the Jews and the Pagans, and nearest among them in love to the believers wilt thou find those who say, 'We are Christians'." One more of the many texts or quotes in the Quran which could not have been reliably written into the claimed "Mother Book" (13/39b, 43/4b+c, 85/21-22) in Heaven (of which the Quran is claimed to be a copy) eons ago, unless predestination was and is 100% like the Quran claims many places (if you look, you will find more cases than we mention - we only mention some of the obvious ones). If man has free will - even partly only (an expression some Muslims use to flee from the problem full predestination contra free will for man (and also contra that there is no meaning in praying to Allah for help, if everything already is predestined in accordance with a plan "nobody and nothing can change" - a problem which Muslims seldom mention), and an expression no Muslim we have met has ever defined) - and can change his mind, full and reliable clairvoyance about the future, not to mention the distant future, is impossible even for a god, as the man always could/can change his mind or his words once more, in spite of Islam's claims. There are at least 5 reasons - at least 3 of them unavoidable - for this:

  1. When something is changed, automatically the future is changed.
  2. The laws of chaos will be at work and change things, if even a tiny part is made different. And multiply even a tiny change with some billion people through the centuries, and many and also big things will be changed.
  3. The displacement of a happening - f.x. the death of a warrior in battle - of only one yard or one minute may or even will change the future forever (that yard or minute f.x. may mean that the warrior killed - or not killed - an opponent). The laws of chaos and the "Butterfly Effect" and the "Domino Effect" kick in.

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

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

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

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

110 5/82c: "- - - nearest among them (non-Muslims*) in love to the believers (Muslims*) are (the Christians*) because amongst these are men devoted to learning - - -". The first part may be right, but the reason is wrong: For one thing many (far from all) Christians are very open-minded towards other religions, but the main thing is that few Christians really have studied the Quran and seen what kind of war and hate religion it really is, and what is its official and ultimate goal on Earth - to suppress all others.

111 5/83a: "And when they (Christians*) listen to the revelations received by the Messenger (Muhammad*), thou (Muslims*) wilt see their eyes overflowing with tears - - -". Pure propaganda which was possible for Muhammad to use, as there were few Christians in the area, so that Muhammad's followers could not see it was not true. Today it is easy for all and every Muslim to see that Christians are not moved by the contents of the Quran, and especially not the ones who really has studied that book.

This surah is from 632 AD and by then Muhammad knew very well that Christians just did not storm to embrace his new religion - he knew he was lying in the Quran when he said this.

112 5/83f: “- - - they (Christians*) recognized the truth (corresponding to the Quran*)”. Like said before: With that many mistakes in the Quran, the teachings of Muhammad at best are partly the truth. Besides: Claiming that others believe and accept that the teaching is true, is good psychology - - - as long as it is not too easy to find out that the claim is not true. (What most Christians quickly in reality understood, was that something was really wrong with the new religion.)

113 5/83g: "- - - their (Christians*) eyes overflowing with tears (from belief in the Quran*) - - -". Remembering the real points of view of the Jews in and around Medina (there were few Christians there) and that at this time (632 AD) most of them had had to flee, were made slaves or semi-slaves, or murdered by the many hundreds (some 700 one believe only from the Qurayza tribe) because they refused to become Muslims, one gets a bad taste in the mouth when reading dramatic claims like this. And one wonders what kind of naivety and religious blindness it takes to believe in fairy tales like this when one knows the truth - after all they had taken part in the atrocities and torture and enslaving and murdering themselves! But it makes it easy to understand why Muslims do not see what they really read in the Quran and the Hadiths: Indoctrination by the religion of the parents since baby age, parents and surrounding telling this is true, religious blindness, wishful thinking, a bent moral code, etc. Taqlid to use a Muslim word.

114 6/20a: “Those to whom We (Allah*) have given the Book (here the Bible*) - - -". = Jews, Christians, Sabeans.

115 6/20e: "(Jews and Christians*) refuse therefore (because of their blasphemy*) to believe". Wrong. The reason was that they easily and clearly saw that Muhammad was not telling the truth when he claimed that Yahweh and Allah were the same god, and further claimed that their religions and Islam was the same religion.

116 6/64c: "- - - yet ye (non-Muslims*) worship false gods!" As far as Jews and Christians go, this is contradicted in the Bible - a book which on top of all neither mentions Allah nor Muhammad nor many of the most essential parts of Islam - like the duty to pray 5 times a day, the duty to go on pilgrimage to Mecca, the duty to wage war for the religion, etc. 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.

117 6/94b: "- - - ye (non-Muslims*) have left behind you all (the favors) which We (Allah*) bestowed on you - - -" - because you did not believe and obey Allah and Muhammad - in this world Muhammad. As for Jews and Christians at least this is strongly contradicted by the Bible. Not to mention that it may be contradicted by reality as the Quran is not from a god - too much is wrong in the book for any god to be involved. 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.

*118 6/156a: “The Book (here the Bible, but see 6/156b just below*) was sent down to two Peoples (Jews and Christians*) before us (Mohammad and/or the Arabs*)”. Wrong. The OT was for one people primarily - the Jews - and it was mainly written, not sent down (only the 10 Commandments were sent down physically). The NT was written - not sent down - for many people, not only for one or two. Chapters/letters are even addressed to very different people. Besides there were other religions with books – f.x. in Persia. Or to see it another way – like “The Message of the Quran” explains it: The Bible was sent down to the Jews and the Christians “the only ones that according to what the Arabs knew had scriptures based on revelations from a god”. The interesting part of this explanation is the reason Islam gives for the mistake: That reason was that the Arabs – Muhammad - only knew about the book(s) of the Christians and the Jews. What the Arabs knew around 621 AD when Muhammad dictated this surah, should be totally irrelevant for an omniscient god when he made (?) the Quran many eons earlier like Muhammad claimed – a "Mother Book" which Allah and his angels revered in his own heaven, now with one more mistake. Besides: Even if the Arabs did not know Persia well enough in 621 AD, an omniscient god should do so. Then who made the Quran?

#119 6/156b: “The Book was sent down to two Peoples before us (Mohammad and/or the Arabs*)”. "The Book" in singular. This in spite of that according to verse 6/155 it is clear that Muhammad speaks about the Quran. The clear message or claim is: It is the same book originally, but then the copies the Jews and the Christians received were falsified until it became the Bible - and this is in accordance with what Muhammad generally claimed; Moses and many others did receive a book similar to the Quran (copy of the same "mother of the Book" in Heaven). But both science and Islam have thoroughly proved this claim is wrong, by being unable to prove any falsification among the some 300 copies or fragments of the Gospels, the some 13ooo copies or fragments of other Biblical texts, and some 32ooo other manuscripts with quotes from the Bible - all older than 610 AD (= before there was any reason for Jews and Christians to falsify the Bible to omit texts about Muhammad.)

(The reason why there are so few Gospels compared to other Biblical texts is that worn out Gospels were burnt to make sure the materials they were written on - and thus the texts - should not be used for something disrespectful.)

#################BUT HERE IS A MOST INTERESTING PIECE OF INFORMATION: THE QURAN AND HADITHS AND ISLAM SAY THAT BOOKS LIKE THE QURAN WAS SENT DOWN TO PROPHETS/MESSENGERS IN ALL SOCIETIES IN THE WORLD. HERE IT SUDDENLY IS TOLD THAT IT IS SENT DOWN TO TWO - 2 - PEOPLE ONLY (JEWS AND CHRISTIANS). ONE OF THESE TWO CLAIMS HAS TO BE WRONG (AND AS NO PROOFS ARE GIVEN, BOTH MAY BE WRONG).

120 6/156c: "- - - two Peoples - - -". Jews and Christians.

121 6/164b: "- - - no bearer of burdens can bear the burden of another". Well, at least concerning this life , the Bible says: "Bear each other’s burdens".

###122 7/40c: (A7/32): “- - - nor will they (non-Muslims/sinners/Christians/Jews*) enter the Garden (Paradise*), until the camel can pass through the eye of the needle - - -“. But here is a wrong translation according to “The Message of the Quran” – wrong even if it is widely used. And this claim is so strongly stressed and under built (Zamakhshari, Rezi, and others), that it is likely to be true – this even more so as the book is certified by Al-Azhar Al-Sharif Islamic Research Academy, General Department for Research, Writing and Translation prior to the 2008 edition (this academy is part of the Al-Azhar University in Cairo, one of the 2-3 foremost Islamic universities in the world). The Arab word “jamal” (jumal, juml, jumul – variants of the written consonants jml (the old Arab alphabet did not have the vowels - those the readers had to guess) in this case clearly means “a thick rope” or “a twisted cable” or “a thick, twisted rope” (Jawhari).This is even more clear as Muhammad’s co-workers clearly used this meaning, and Ibn Abbas also according to Zamakhshari very clearly stated that this was what was meant here. Ergo the real meaning is: “- - - nor will they enter the Garden until a twisted rope can pass through a needle’s eye”. Clearly unclear language – or use or (mis)understanding of the language.

But there is a small but in addition:

Abdullah Yusuf Ali was a learned man. He may have known little known facts. He also was a man who clearly placed his religion before his own intellectual integrity, before the absolute value of facts, and before the value of the full truth – f.x. his book “The Meaning of the Quran” shows this not infrequently, and one finds traces of the same in this his translation of the Quran. (Just sue us for the statement – it is easy to find enough examples to satisfy any free court. And the same goes for Muhammad Asad and his “The Message of the Quran”). May be he and other learned scholars used the wrong translation on purpose. (Also see 7/40c just below.)

One of the little known facts he may have known, is that the expression “needle’s eye” also have another meaning. The old walled cities had strong, heavy gates. In or beside the gate there often was a small door to make it possible for people to pass in and out even if the main gate was closed for the evening. Some places this small door was called the “needle’s eye” or "eye of the needle".

No adult camel could pass this needle’s eye, too - but a baby camel could. And any thick rope could.

And this is from the religion which freely and against strong circumstantial and empirical proofs claim that the bad Jews and Christians have falsified the Bible.

*123 7/157e: “- - - the unlettered Prophet (Muhammad*), whom they (Jews and Christians*) find mentioned in their own (Scriptures) - in the Law (OT*) and the Gospel (NT*) - - -”. Muhammad's words - and Muhammad at least knew that Jewish scholars who knew the Bible, denied he was mentioned there - if they had believed he was in the Bible, they had followed him. (There is a claimed story about a Jewish scholar believing in him. This may be true - but what is one or two against the great majority who saw they in case were wrong? - or it may be a made up tale.) You often meet Muslims claiming or stating that Mohammad is foretold in the Bible - like normal for Muslims without documentation. They have to claim this, as it is said here in the Quran, and if there are mistakes in the Quran, the book is not from a god - an omniscient god do not make mistakes - and then Islam is a religion built on a made up "holy" book. We have never been able to find a complete list of where he is said to be mentioned – obviously because the educated Muslims mainly speak about one in OT (5. Mos. 18/15+18) and one in NT (John 14/26), but there are some other "weaker" places, too. The ones below are the ones we have found (more or less copied from "Muhammad in the Bible?" in "1000+ Mistakes in the Quran" - https://www.1000mistakes.com ).

There is one point here which Muslims never mention: If Muhammad really was mentioned in the Bible, this had been a strong argument for him to use when trying to win over the Jews (and for that case the Christians, but there were not many Christians in the Mecca/Medina area, compared to the number of Jews) to his religion. As far as we can find, he never used it when speaking to Jews. He also seldom used this claim under other circumstances, even though also for his Arab followers such an indication for that he really was a prophet, would have had great value. A very likely reason for that he did not use such a valuable claim, is that he knew or at least suspected that it was not true, and that the Jews with their books easily would see this.

There is another serious point to this Islamic claim: Many of the Islamic scholars know the Bible quite well - this is obvious from the fact that they frequently quote the Bible when there are points there which they like or where they wants to express that the Quran has a better point of view on just this-and-this than the Bible. They thus have to know f.x. how the word "brother" - the main word in this case in 5. Mos. 18/15+18 - in the figurative meaning is used in the Bible. It is used figuratively at least 325 times in that book, and no-one knowing the Bible would get the idea that in any - not one - of all these places Arabs are indicated. It is very clear that practically always in OT it means fellow Jews (there are something like 5 exceptions - one place a king is calling another, friendly king his brother, 3 times it is specified one meant descendants after Esau (the brother of Jacob) and one time Abraham says it to Lot. Well, actually there may be one more exception (1. Mos. 25/18): "And they (the 12 sons of Ishmael*) lived in hostility to all their brothers". If this means they were quarreling between themselves, the meaning is literal. If it means they quarreled with the sons of Isaac, the meaning may be figurative or it may be literal - meaning the closest relatives (this is nearly the last time Ishmael and his descendants are mentioned in the Bible - after all they lived far off - - - and far from Mecca where Muhammad claimed they lived.) All the other times it refers to other Jews. It is not possible to study the Bible/OT and not see this. Also in the Quran the word is used figuratively - more than 30 times. The only time it refers to Jews there, is one case where Muhammad links hypocrites to Jews and claims they are brothers. Also Arabia and Arabs are mentioned in the Bible - some 13 times - and always in neutral words or as enemies, never as friends, not to mention brothers. All the same Islam and its scholars straight-facedly tell their readers and their audiences that "brothers" in 5. Mos. 18/15+18 refer to Arabs and thus to Muhammad. There only are 2 possible explanations for such dishonesty: An al-Taqiyya (a lawful lie) to "explain" Muhammad's perhaps slip of the tongue, or wishful thinking stronger than their intellectual integrity.

Nearly as bad is the Muslim scholars' position concerning the main claim in NT, John 14/26. It f.x. is both physically and biologically impossible that Muhammad could be a helper of Jesus' disciples, as he was born something like 500 years after they were dead. All the same they tell their audiences that John 14/26 is about Muhammad and a proof for that he was foretold and a prophet. (John 14/26 refers to the Holy Spirit which according to the Bible came to and in a way became parts of the disciples some days later at Pentecost. More further down.) Also see 7/157d just above.

SAMPLES OF CLAIMS ABOUT MUHAMMAD IN THE BIBLE:

The Old Testament (OT):

Point of relevance I (OT), claim from Islam.

1. Mos. 12/1-3, claim 1:

"In 1. Mos. (= Genesis) 12/1-3 a promise is made to Abraham that he would be blessed and that all the nations would bless him and be blessed by him. It is only the descendants of Ishmael - Muhammad and the Muslims - that have fulfilled the promise that should bless him, since they are the ones who bless Abraham by praying for him and his family. Ergo these verses must indicate Muhammad."

What the Bible really says (1. Mos. 12/1-3):

"The Lord (Yahweh*) had said to Abram (later renamed Abraham*), 'Leave your country, your father's household and go to the land I will show you. I will make you into a great nation and I will bless you; I will make your name great, and you will be a blessing. I will bless those who bless you, and whoever curses you I will curse; and all peoples on earth will be blessed through you.'" It is Yahweh who is doing the blessing - there is nowhere talk about people's blessing of him is any indication of anything. We mention that to make up arguments is an indication of lack of real arguments.

In addition: There for one thing is a difference between to be blessed by Abraham, like the Quran says, and it being a proof for that these verses are about Muslims, that they bless Abraham (especially as the writers of the Gospels could not know about this 1ooo years and more before Muhammad). For another it is unlikely in the extreme that not also some Jews and Christians now and then bless him.

Point of relevance II (OT), claim from Islam.

1. Mos. 12/1-3, claim 2:

Claim 2: "Moses and Jesus were national prophets and could not fulfill Allah's/Yahweh's promise that the nations would be blessed in Abraham. Ergo 1. Genesis 12/1-3 must indicate Muhammad."

We have Quoted 1. Mos. 12/1-3 in the paragraph just above. Find the "clear foretelling of Muhammad" if you are able to.

What the Bible really says:

As for Moses: "- - - I (Yahweh*) have raised you (Moses*) up, to show you my power, so that my name may be proclaimed in all the Earth." Even Moses was a message to the world according to the Bible. As for Jesus: Read the orders he gave his disciples before he left them, ordering them to go into the entire world and make all people to his disciples by baptizing them in the name of Yahweh, Jesus and the Holy Spirit. There in addition are several places in the NT clearly telling that NT also was for all others not only the Jews. Not exactly aiming at just the small Israel.

There also is an interesting piece of information in Acts 10/28: "You are well aware that it is against our (Jewish*) law for a Jew to associate with a Gentile (non-Jew*) or visit him". There may have been good reasons for Jesus not to go too much against such social rules - he had enough opposition anyhow - until the church had reached a reasonable size and strength to meet the extra opposition such proselyting could result in. And he after all also worked among the Samaritans, not only among the accepted Jews. (Besides: If Jesus personally worked just in one country, so also did the religious leader Muhammad). The claim is invalid.)

Point of relevance III (OT), claim from Islam.

1. Mos. 16/10 (similar in 17/18, 21/13):

"Allah/Yahweh promised to make Ishmael a great nation.(Genesis 16/10, 17/18, 21/13. (Genesis = 1. Mos.)) Part of being a great nation includes receiving God' commandments. Ergo only nations receiving special commandments can be indicated, which must mean Arabia and Muhammad."

Answer:

There have through the history been many great nations without special commandments from a monotheistic god. The claim is invalid. (Though may be - there are no great nations among the Muslim ones. Some rich ones, but no great ones. Does that prove that Muhammad is out of the question?)

We may also add what the Bible tells about Ishmael's descendants - 1. Mos. 25/16+18: "These were the sons of Ishmael, and these (their names*) are the names of the twelve tribal rulers - - -. (They*) settled in the area from Havila to Shur, near the border of Egypt, as you go toward Asshur". Ishmael's 12 sons really became powerful like Yahweh had promised, at least locally.

Besides, what the Bible really says is:

(Gen. 16/10): "The angel added, 'I will so increase your (Hagar's*) descendants that they will be too numerous to count". The angel here promises they will be many, but here is no promise of power.

(Gen. 17/18): "Abraham said to God, 'If only Ishmael might live under your blessing!' (Gen. 17/20): 'As for Ishmael, I (God*) have heard you (Abraham*): I will surely bless him: I will make him fruitful (he got 12 sons according to the Bible*) and will greatly increase his numbers. He will be the father of twelve rulers (his sons became all became tribal rulers in west Sinai near the border of Egypt according to Gen. 19/16-18 - this promise fulfilled*), and I will make him a great nation (ruling 12 tribes was a great nation locally at that time - many kings only ruled one tribe or a town + its surroundings*)'". (Gen.17/21 - like Gen. 17/19 never quoted by Muslims): "But my (Yahweh's*) covenant I will establish with Isaac - - -".

(Gen. 21/12 - never quoted by Muslims): "- - - it is through Isaac that your (Abraham's) offspring will be reckoned". (Gen. 21/13): "I (God*) will make the son (Ishmael*) of the maidservant (Hagar*) into a nation also - - -". Here it is said "a nation", not "a great nation".

And a serious point: There is never proved that Arabia or the Arabs ever received special commandments. For one thing the Quran is so full of errors, that it is an insult to blame a god for making it - it is from no god. For another: Even if it had been from a god, even Islam claims it is for the entire world, not specifically for Arabia.

Point of relevance IV (OT) - Claim from Islam.

Genesis (1. Mos.) 17/20:

“As for Ishmael, I (Yahweh*) have heard you (Abraham*): I will make him fruitful and will greatly increase his numbers. He will be father of twelve rulers, and I will make him into a great nation”.

This some Muslims call the first foretelling about Muhammad and the great nation of Arabia. But they omit to mention that this foretelling was fulfilled already a couple of generations later as told in 1. Mos.25/13–16: “These are the names of the sons of Ishmael, listed in the order of their birth: - - - (12 names*) - - -. These were the sons of Ishmael, and these are the names of the twelve tribal rulers according to their settlements and camps.” (Some translators say princes instead of rulers, and nations instead of tribes.)

Well, here are the 12 rulers and the great nation – 12 tribes (or nations) after all meant power in a sparsely populated land. But how Muslims are able to see Muhammad in this, we have not found out. They never mention 1. Mos. 25/13-16. They also never mention 1. Mos. 25/18: "His (Ishmael's*) descendants settled in the area from Havila to Shur, near the border of Egypt (in West Sinai*), as you go toward Asshur". Ishmael's descendants simply did not go to Arabia, but settled on the border of Egypt. And remember: This was written at least 1ooo years before Muhammad was born, so there was no reason to falsify this piece of information - in addition to that modern science long since has proved that Muhammad's and Islam's never documented claim that the Bible is falsified - except that it is reliable on points they want to quote - is wrong. Not to mention that Islam has proved the same even stronger by not finding one proved falsification among all the literally tens of thousands of relevant old manuscripts and fragments.

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

Point of relevance V (OT) - NEVER mentioned by Islam.

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

The 4 relevant points 5. Mos. 18/2, 5. Mos. 18/15, 5. Mos. 18/18, and 5. Mos. 18/22 all are from the same speech Moses made to the Jews (for the others see further down) - but Muhammad, Muslims, and Islam NEVER mention 18/2 or 18/22, and also not that the word "brother/brothers/brethren/brotherhood" is used figuratively pretty often in OT (at least 99 times according to our last leafing through the book, and figuratively at least 325 times in the entire Bible - and we hardly saw all places) and with 5 - 6 specified exceptions always about members of a closed group; the Jews. They also never mention that the some 6 - 8 places where Arabia or Arabs are mentioned in OT, it is as neutrals or enemies, never as friends, not to mention brothers. Nearly as damning: The word is used at least 30 times in the Quran, and with one specified exception always about members of the closed group Arabs or the closed group Muslims. Arabs never were brothers of Jews. And brothers always parts of a closed group.

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

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

Point of relevance VI (OT) - Claim from Islam.

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

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

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

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

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

"YOUR BROTHERS:

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

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

THE WORD "BROTHER", (INCL. "BROTHERS", "BRETHEREN", "BROTHERHOOD", ETC.) USED FIGURATIVELY IN THE BIBEL

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

1. Mos.:

  • 01. 13/8: Abraham telling Lot they were brothers - a closed group: The near family.
  • 02. *25/18: Ishmael's sons settled "in the area from Havilah to Shur, near the border of Egypt, as you go toward Asshur. And they lived in hostility toward all their brothers. This may be meant literally - they quarreled among themselves - or figuratively that they quarreled with the descendants of their father's 7 half brothers, included Isaac's son Esau (also called Edom) and Jacob (later called Israel). In the last case it is within a closed group: The near family.
  • 03. (In 1. Mos. 16/12 Yahweh tells Abraham that his son Ishmael "will live in hostility towards all his brothers". But here the word is literally, and also this was said about Ishmael only and not about his descendants. Ishmael had the brothers Isaac (mother: Sarah), and Zimran, Jokshan, Medan, Midian, Ishbak and Shuah (mother: Keturah, whom Abraham married after Sarah died - 1. Mos. 25/1-2). In 1. Mos. 25/5 it is said that the sons of Keturah were "sent to the land of the east" which means Jordan or further east (Arabia is to the south and south east), and they do not appear in later books of the Bible).
  • 04. 1. Mos. 29/4: Shepherds near Haran "brothers" of the shepherd Jacob.

3. Mos.:

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

4. Mos.:

  • 06. 20/3: "- - - when our brothers - - -". A closed group: The Jews. Similar words to 1. Mos. 18/15 and 18/18.
  • 07. 20/14 Moses talking to the Edomites on behalf of the Jews. The Edomites were the descendants of Esau (also called Edom), the brother of Jacob and son of Isaac, and the Jews reckoned them to be relatives, though distant ones - Moses here used the word to remind the Edomites of that relationship. Also here a closed group: Recognized relatives. As Esau was the son of Isaac, he also was inside the pact Yahweh had made with Abraham - "because it is through Isaac your (Abraham's*) offspring will be reckoned", 1. Mos. 21/12. And also notice that as the Edomites did not belong to the Jews, they are named to notify this.
  • 5. Mos.
  • (5. Mos. chapters 1 through 30 is a long speech Moses made to the Jews "in the desert east of Jordan" - 5. Mos. 1/1. In this speech he used the word "brother" figuratively at least 22 times, each and every time about members of the closed group Jews, and not once specifying that he talked about any others than the Jews - the two debated times (18/15 and 18/18) even using the same words as other places where it is not possible to doubt he meant Jews, no matter how much twisting of the words and wishful thinking you use):
  • 08. 1/16a: "- - - disputes among your brothers - - -". - fellow Jews.
  • 09. 1/16b: "- - - your - - - brother Israelites - - -". - fellow Jews.
  • 10. 1/28: "Our brothers made us loose heart - - -". The Jewish spies in Canaan - fellow Jews.
  • 11. 2/4: "- - - your (the Jews'*) brothers the descendants of Esau (named) - - -" - see 4. Mos. 20/14 above.
  • 12. 2/8: "- - - our (the Jews'*) brothers the descendants of Esau (named) - - -" - see 4. Mos. 20/14 above.
  • 13. 3/18: "- - - your brother Israelites" - fellow Jews.
  • 14. 3/20: "- - - (Yahweh*) gives rest to your brothers - - -" - fellow Jews.
  • 15. 10/9: "- - - the Levites have no share or inheritance among their brothers - - -". The other Jews.
  • 16. 15/2: "- - - fellow Israelite or brother - - -". Fellow Jews.
  • 17. 15/2: *("Every creditor shall cancel the loan he has made to his fellow Israelite. He shall not require payment from his fellow Israelite or brother". It is here clear it is talked about Jews, but the word "brother" in this case may be meant literally. What is sure, is that this only concerned Jews).
  • 18. 15/7a: "If there is a poor man among your brothers in any town (in Israel*) - - -". - fellow Jews.
  • 19. 15/7b: "- - - do not be hardhearted or tightfisted toward your poor brother. (See 15/7a)". - fellow Jew.
  • 20. 15/9: "- - - your needy brother - - - (see 15/7a)" - fellow Jew.
  • 21. 17/15a: "- - - be sure to appoint over you (the Jews*) the king the Lord your God (Yahweh*) chooses. He must be from among your own brothers". Beware that this is exactly the same words which is used in 18/15 and 18/18, and it is absolutely sure they wanted a Jewish, not an Arab king. Also see 17/15b.
  • 22. 17/15b: ####"Do not place a foreigner over you, one who is not a brother Israelite - - -". - fellow Jew. Also see 17/15a).
  • 23. 18/2: "- - - they (the Levites*) shall have no inheritance among their brothers (the other Jews*) - - -". - fellow Jews. Also here nearly identical words to the ones used in 18/15 and 18/18 like several other places.
  • 24. 18/15: "- - - a prophet like me (Moses*) from among your brothers" - this and 18/18 (see this one just below) are where Muslims claim Moses in his speech to the Jews refers to the Arabs - this even though Arabs are never mentioned in the Bible until under King Solomon nearly 400 years later and also never in the entire Bible mentioned as friends or relatives. And in spite of that the same words other places in the same speech without doubt mean Jews. But it is strange what results one can twist from a clear expression when there is enough wishful thinking + dire need - Muslims HAVE to find Muhammad in the Bible, both in OT and NT, because it is said in the Quran (7/157) he is mentioned there, and if they do not find him there, the Quran is wrong and something consequently is wrong with Islam. Which it is, among other reasons because Muhammad is not mentioned in the Bible.
  • 25. 18/18: "- - - a prophet like you (Moses*) from among their (the Jews') brothers - - -". - fellow Jews. This and 18/15 (see this one just above) are the two points Islam claims refers to Arabs. They totally omit the context which clearly tells Moses was speaking to and about Jews, and only point to that Ishmael was the half-brother of Jacob - one of the forefathers of the Jews. They also omits the fact that Ishmaelites never were reckoned by the Jews to be their real relatives, as the relationship was broken already by Ishmael and his sons + Ishmael was outside the line from Isaac, who according to the Bible was the line from which Abraham's descendants should be reckoned. They also omit the fact that Arabs never - included in the Quran - reckoned Jews to be their brothers. They omit the fact that it is no place documented that the Arabs are the descendants of Ishmael - he and his descendants after all settled on the border of Egypt (1. Mos. 25/18) and not in Mecca like Muhammad claimed, according to the only perhaps reliable source about this, the Bible. (And also according to the reality - to quote science: "It is practically sure Abraham never visited Mecca.") Also see 1.Mos. 18/21-22 which Muslims never mention - who is a genuine prophet? (Muhammad did not even make prophesies).
  • 26. 19/18: "- - - against his (a Jew's*) brother - - -". One he had a reasonably close relationship to - from the context it is clear Moses meant the fellow Jews - this even more so as he was speaking to the Jews about the rules and effects of the Mosaic Law just here (the chapters 19 through 26 and some others are about this law - the Mosaic Law was for Jews and for Jews only (there was a debate about if they should rule and be valid also for Christians, but that was 1200 - 1300 years later)).
  • 27. 19/19: "- - - do to his brother - - -". See 19/18 just above.
  • 28. 20/8: "- - - so that his brothers will not become - - -". His fellow Jewish soldiers.
  • 29. 22/1: "- - - your brother's ox - - -". See 19/18 above.
  • 30. 22/2: "If the brother - - -". See 19/18 above.
  • 31. 22/3: "- - - if you find your brother's donkey - - -". See 19/18 above.
  • 32. 22/4: "If you see your brother's donkey - - -". See 19/18 above.
  • 33. 23/19: "Do not charge your brother interest - - -". Here it may be argued that the word is literally meant, but the context - f.x. the next verse - makes it clear that it is figuratively. We also points to the fact that Jews forever after was famous and infamous for charging interest from all non-Jews, included Arabs, which in this connection shows that the Jews did not reckon the Arabs as real relatives, not to mention brothers. Also see 19/18 above and 23/19 just below.
  • 34. 23/20: "You may charge a foreigner interest, but not a brother Israelite - - -". This is a strengthening of what is said in 23/19 just above. Moses is saying that Jews are Jews and brothers, but all others are foreigners - also called Gentiles in the NT. Among others Arabs were foreigners - just ask the Arabs if the Jews did not charge interest from them when they lent Arabs money! Foreigners - not brothers. Also see 19/18 and 23/19 above.
  • 35. 24/3: "- - - your brother will be degraded - - -". Fellow Jews.

  • 36. 24/7: "- - - his brother Israelites - - -". It is clear what Moses meant with "brother". Also see 19/18 above.
  • 37. 24/14: "- - - whether he is a brother Israelite or an alien - - -". Here Moses speaks in very clear language: The Jews/Israelites are brothers, all others are aliens/foreigners. The horrible moral fact here is that at least many of the Muslim scholars knew and know this - they had to study the Bible to find the points they wanted to quote (normally out of context literally spoken) or in other ways use, and it is not possible to overlook the fact that Moses in his speech talked to and about the Jews and about their brother Jews/Israelites. All the same they tell their congregations that Moses suddenly and only in 18/15 and 18/18 meant Arabs when he talked to the Jews about their Jewish brothers. Al-Taqiyya - the lawful lie. The Quran tells Muhammad is mentioned in the Bible, and as he is not mentioned, "we" have to use lawful dishonesty to defend Islam, because if not, it is obvious for everybody that something is wrong with the Quran and with Islam - no omniscient god makes mistakes like this!
  • 38. 25/3: "- - - your brother will be degraded in your eyes". We still are in Moses' quotations of the Mosaic Law - there is no doubt this is about fellow Jews.
  • 39. 33/16: "- - - (Joseph*) - - - the prince among his brothers". - fellow Jews.
  • 40. 33/24: "- - - let him (Asher*) be favored by his brothers - - -". No doubt about fellow Jews, but perhaps literally meant.

Joshua:

  • 41. 1/14a:"- - - ahead of your brothers". - fellow Jewish warriors from other Jewish tribes.
  • 42. 1/14b: "- - - help your brothers - - -". See 1/14a just above.
  • 43. 14/8: "- - - my (Caleb's*) brothers who went up with me - - -". The first Jewish spies in Canaan - no doubt fellow Jews.

  • 44. 17/4: "- - - give us an inheritance among our brothers - - -". As the women speaking here had no literal brothers, there is no doubt this is figuratively meant - and fellow Jews.
  • 45. 22/3: "- - - you have not deserted your brothers - - -". Fellow Jewish warriors from other Jewish tribes under Joshua.
  • 46. 22/4: "- - - has given your brothers - - -". See 22/3 just above.
  • 47. 22/8: "- - - divide with your brothers - - -". Here may be meant fellow warriors or fellow Jews at home who for some reason had not taken part in the war - but in both cases fellow Jews.

Judges:

  • 48. 1/17: "- - - the men of Judah went with the Simonites their brothers - - -". Fellow Jews.
  • 49. 9/3: "He is our brother". This was said by the inhabitants of Shechem - fellow Jews.
  • 50. 9/18: "- - - because he is your brother - - -". Said to the inhabitants of Shechem - fellow Jews.
  • 51. 19/8: "- - - their brothers asked them - - -". Fellow Jews (of their own tribe of Dan).
  • 52. 19/14: "- - - said to their brothers - - -". Fellow Jews (of their own tribe of Dan).
  • 53. 20/23: "- - - the Benjaminites, our brothers - - -". Fellow Jews of the tribe of Benjamin, one of the 12 Jewish tribes.
  • 54. 20/28: "- - - (the tribe of*) Benjamin our brother - - -". Fellow Jews - the tribe of Benjamin.
  • 55. 21/6: "Now the Israelites grieved for their brothers, the Benjaminites". Fellow Jews - the other Jewish tribes grieved for the loss of many of the men of the Benjamin tribe.

1. Samuel:

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

2. Samuel:

  • 57. 1/26: "- - - Jonathan, my brother - - -". Fellow Jew (Jonathan was not David's real brother).
  • 58. 2/26: "- - - to stop pursuing their brothers - - -". Stop fighting fellow Jews.
  • 59. 2/27: "- - - pursuing of their brothers - - -". Fellow Jews - see 2/26 just above.
  • 60. 19/12: "You are my brothers - - -". Fellow Jews (fellow members of the Judah tribe).
  • 61. 19/41: "- - - our brothers, the men of Judah - - -". Fellow Jews - Jews from other tribes speaking about Jews from the Judah tribe (one of the 12 Jewish tribes).
  • 2. 20/9: "How are you, my brother?" The Jew Joab speaking to the Jew Amasa.

 

1. Kings:

  • 63. 9/13: "- - - my brother - - -". Another king = member of a group.
  • 64. 12/24: "Do not go up to fight against your (the members of the Judah tribe*) brothers Israel". Fellow Jews (This was said in connection with the splitting of the kingdom in two - Judah in the South and Israel in the north - after Solomon died).
  • 65. 13/30: "Oh, my brother". Fellow Jew - one Jew talking to/about another.
  • 66. #20/32: "He is my brother". This as far as we see is the only place in the OT where the word brother is used (figuratively) about one not a Jew and one not accepted to be related to the Jews. But here it is within another very closed group: Two kings - King Ahab of Israel (Jewish) speaking about King Ben-Haddad of Aram - Ahab wanted good relationship with Ben-Haddad, even if he had beaten him in war.
  • 67. #20/33: "Yes, your brother Ben-Haddad". In reality part of 20/32 just above.
  • 1. Chr.:

  • 67. 9/25: "Their (some of the Levi tribe*) brothers in their villages - - -". Fellow Jews. There is a slight chance that this is meant literally, but the context indicates figuratively.
  • 68. 13/2: "- - - the rest of our brothers". Here = the rest of the Jews were called by David.
  • 69. 15/16: "- - - their (Levites') brothers - - -". Fellow Levites (one of the 12 Jewish tribes).
  • 70. 15/17a: "- - - from his brothers - - -". Fellow Jews - as far as we understand even fellow Levites. (It has to be meant figuratively, as Herman son of Joel cannot literally be the brother of Asaph son of Berekia.)
  • 71. 15/17b: "- - - their brothers - - -". Fellow Jews (and figuratively, as what seems to be another sub-tribe or family is mentioned).
  • 72. 15/18: "- - - their brothers next in rank - - -". Fellow Jews. (Levites of a little lower rank?)
  • 73. 23/32: "- - - their (Levites') brothers the descendants of Aaron - - -". Fellow Jews.
  • 74. 24/31b: "- - - their (Levites') brothers the descendants of Aaron - - -". Fellow Jews.
  • 75. 24/31b: "- - - the oldest brother - - -". Fellow Jews (fellow Levites).
  • 76. 28/2: "- - - my brothers and my people - - -" David speaking to Jewish leaders.
  • 2. Chr.:

  • 77. 11/4: "Do not go up to fight against your (the members of the Judah tribe*) brothers Israel". Fellow Jews (This was said in connection to the splitting of the kingdom in two - Judah in the South and Israel in the north - after Solomon died). (The same situation as in 1. Kings 12/24 above).
  • 78. 19/10: "- - - his (Yahweh's*) wrath will come on you and your brothers". You Levites and your fellow Levites (or fellow Jews).
  • 79. 29/15: "When they (some Levites*) had assembled their brothers - - -". Fellow Jews - a group of Levites.
  • 79. 30/7: "- - - your fathers and your brothers - - -". Your (Jewish) forefathers and fellow Jews.
  • 80. 30/9: "- - - your brothers and your children - - -". Your fellow Jews and your descendants.
  • Ezra:

  • 81. 3/8: "- - - the rest of their (Zerubbabel, etc.*) brothers (the priests and the Levites and all who had returned from captivity to Jerusalem)". Fellow Jews.
  • 82. 6/20: "- - - for their (some Levites*) brothers the priests - - -". Fellow Jews (fellow Levites even).
  • 83. 7/18: "You and your brother Jews - - -". Clearly fellow Jews.
  • 84. 8/24: "- - - ten of their fellow brothers - - -". 10 other priests = fellow Jews.
  • Nehemiah:

  • 85. 5/1: "- - - their Jewish brothers". The context - f.x. 5/8 - makes it clear that it is fellow Jews.
  • 86. 5/8a: "- - - we have bought back our Jewish brothers - - -". Fellow Jews.
  • 87. 5/8b: "- - - you are selling your Jewish brothers - - -". Fellow Jews.
  • 88. 10/29: "- - - join their brothers - - -". The text of 10/29-30 makes it clear this is fellow Jews.
  • 89. 13/13: "- - - distributing the supplies to their brothers". - to their fellow Jews.
  • Isaiah:

  • 90. 66/20: "- - - bring all your brothers, from all nations - - -". Verse 66/18 makes it clear that this is the largest of all groups of humans: The entire humanity.
  • Jeremiah:

  • 91. 7/15: "- - - all your brothers, the people of Ephraim". Fellow Jews (Ephraim was one of the 12 Jewish tribes).
  • 92. 22/18: "Alas my brother! Alas my sister!" Fellow Jews - Jeremiah talking to/about the Jewish people.
  • Ezekiel:

  • 93. 11/14: "- - - your brothers - your brothers who are blood relatives and the whole house of Israel - - -". Fellow Jews.
  • 94. 38/20: "Every man's sword will be against his brother". - against his fellow countrymen/Jews.
  • Hosea:

  • 95. 2/1: "Say of your brothers, 'My people' - - -". Fellow Jews - Hosea speaking to and about the Jews. A close parallel to Moses when he made the speech containing 5. Mos. 18/15 and 18/18 actually. Does Islam claim that these are the Arabs, too?
  • Amos:

  • 96. 1/11: "Because he (the descendants of Esau*) pursued his brother (the descendants of Jacob*) - - -". The Jews reckoned the descendants of Esau - the Edomites - to be their relatives (this they definitely did not towards the Arabs).
  • Obadiah:
  • 97. 1/10: "- - - your brother Jacob - - -". See Amos 1/11 just above.
  • 98. 1/12: "- - - your brother - - -". See Amos 1/11 above.
  • Micah:

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

  • 99. 11/14: "- - - the brotherhood between Judah and Israel". After Solomon died, the country was split in a southern kingdom named Judah after the dominant tribe, and a northern one named Israel. Brotherhood between these two so definitely is between fellow Jews.
  • These are 99 of the places we have found in OT where the word "brother" or similar clearly or most likely is used figuratively. If we add the word "sister" used figuratively, which may be relevant in just this case, it is ca. 100+ all together. They are used within closed groups - the family, the tribe, the nation. The few times this group is not the Jews or part of that nation - f.x. a Jewish tribe - it is indicated who are meant (f.x. a fellow king or Lot or the Edomites. Not one single time is there a reference to Arabia or Arabs. With a few exceptions it is referred to fellow Jews, and it is a normal way in OT to refer to fellow Jews - actually if you look, you will find that every place where the word is used in OT without reference to who one means, it is clear from the context that it is meant fellow Jews.

     

    As for 5. Mos. 18/15 and 18/18 which Islam claims refers to Muhammad - as it is the only place in OT were some twisting of the words can make a claim about Muhammad in the OT possible (there are some more, but they are weaker), we point to that for one thing nobody reading the Bible with an open mind would ever get the idea that it here was a reference to Muhammad - not even if they knew the Islamic claim from before. Besides the context makes it clear that Moses was speaking to and about his fellow Jews. Then there is the fact that he used words which normally meant - and would be understood as such by his listeners - fellow Jews. Further there is the fact that the word was used within closed groups, and the Arabs were outside all closed groups accepted by the Jews of that time, except "all humanity" and this group was not indicated in connection to these two verses. Further: When the word is used in the OT without something else is specified, it always refers to Jews - there is no reference to others than Jews connected to the two mentioned verses. And finally: When others than Jews are meant, it always is indicated. As said there is no such indication connected to 5. Mos. 18/15 or 18/18.

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

    Where is the brotherhood between the Jews and Arabs?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    30.   49/12: "- - - his dead brother - - -". This one may be literally or figuratively meant. In the last case it refers to fellow Muslims.
    31.   50/13: "- - - the brethren of Lut - - -". The same tribe - see 26/161 above in this list.
    32.   59/10: "- - - our brethren who came before us into the Faith - - -". Fellow Muslims.
    33.   59/11: "*- - - the Hypocrites say to their misbelieving brethren among the People of the Book - - -".

     

    33 all together, included a couple which may be literally meant. Only the very 2-3 are not within an Arab tribe or something, or within Islam. And what is absolutely clear and sure is that it is not the Muslims who are the brothers of "the People of the Book" - mainly Jews in that area - but hypocrites and bad people. And even the hypocrites only were the brothers of the unbelievers - "misbelieving" - among those people.

    Where is the brotherhood among Jews and Arabs?

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

    1. Kings:

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

  • 02. 9/14: "Also all the kings of Arabia brought gold to Solomon - - -". Neutral.
  • 03. 17/11: "- - - the Arabs brought him (Solomon*) flocks - - -". Neutral.
  • 04. 21/16: "- - - the hostility of the Philistines and of the Arabs who lived near Cushites". Enemy.
  • 05. 22/1: "- - - the raiders, who came with the Arabs into the camp, had killed all the other sons (of the Jewish king*). Enemies.
  • 06. 26/7: "God (Yahweh*) helped him (the Jewish king Uzziah*) against the Philistines and against the Arabs who lived in Gug Baal - - -". Enemies.
  • Nehemiah:

  • 07. 2/19: "- - - Geshen the Arab - - -". An Arab leader and enemy.
  • 08. 4/7: "But when Sanballat, Tobiah, the Arabs, the Ammonites and the men of Ashdod heard that the repair of Jerusalem's walls - - - all plotted together to come and fight against Jerusalem - - -". Enemies.
  • 09. 6/1: "- - - Geshem the Arab and the rest of our enemies - - -". Enemies.
  • Isaiah:

    • 10. 13/20: "- - - no Arab will pinch his tent there - - -". Neutral.
  • 11. 21/13: "- - - who camp in the thickets of Arabia - - -". Neutral.
  • Jeremiah:

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

  • 13. 27/21: "Arabia and all the princes of Kedar - - -". Neutral.
  • 14. 30/5: "Cush and Put, Lydia and all Arabia, Libya and the people of the covenant land will fall by the sword along with Egypt". Because they behaved badly.
  • Acts (NT):
  • 15. 1/11: "- - - Cretans and Arabs - - -". Neutral.
  • Galatians (NT):
  • 16. 1/17: "- - - I (Paul*) went immediately into Arabia, and later returned to Damascus". Neutral. Paul is the only of the old leasers known to have visited Arabia - a short visit (to teach about Jesus).
  • 17. 4/25: "- - - Mount Sinai in Arabia - - -". Here the Sinai Peninsula is said to be part of Arabia, but it is definitely not a part of the Arabian Peninsula.
  • 17 all together + mentioned 3 times in NT.

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

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

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

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

    PROPHET

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

    1. There are more contexts: Moses spoke about a prophet. Muhammad in reality was not a prophet. A prophet is a person with close enough connections to a god, so that the god tells him/her or informs him/her about the future on topics the god wants humans to know. To be more specific:
    1. A prophet makes prophesies.
    2. He makes prophesies so often and/or so essential ones that prophesying is a marked part of his mission.
    3. And he at least mostly makes correct prophesies - if not he is a false prophet).
    1. This is the gift of prophesying. No-one is a real prophet without having the gift of being able to/forced to make prophesies. A messenger, perhaps, or a lot of other things, but you are not a real prophet unless you make prophesies.
    2. Muhammad did not have that gift. It is very clear from the Quran that he neither had the gift, nor ever claimed or pretended to have it – not one single time in the entire book. It also is very clear from Hadiths - f.x. Aisha. And not least: Muhammad said himself, also in the Quran, that he was not "able to see the unseen (3/144, 6/50,7/188,10/20, 27/65, 46/9, 72/26, 81/24)" = to make prophesies.
    3. Oh, there were a few times according to traditions, when things he said, later came true, and also some pep-talk which always are optimistic and comes true if one succeeds in what one tries to do. It is like that with anybody that speaks much – pep-talk and other talk – that at least some things has to come true for simple statistical reasons – and the rest mostly is forgotten. (But it is remarkable how seldom this happened - so much as he spoke it mathematically and by sheer chance should have happened a lot more times according to all laws of probability. But then it is clear that Muhammad had limited imagination - f.x. more or less all tales in the Quran are "borrowed" ones.) But the main things are:
      1. They were never claimed to be prophesies when they were said.
      2. Muhammad never claimed to have the gift of being able to make prophesies.
      3. Muhammad said in the Quran that he was unable to foresee the future.
      4. Both Muhammad and Aisha (in Hadiths) said he was unable to foresee the future.
      5. He did not even pretend to be a prophet – he only used the title.
      6. Muhammad only “borrowed”/stole the imposing and impressing title, he was no real prophet.
      7. Also these verses shows that Muhammad had not the power to make prophesies: 6/50a, 7/188b, 10/20c+d, 10/49a, and 72/26.
    4. And when he in reality was no prophet – not even a real pretender, only using the nice title as a disguise – he could not be the future prophet Moses told about. (We know there exist "softer" definitions for who is a prophet, like "a person speaking on behalf of a god" - it is an imposing title and many wants to use it. But a real prophet by definition has to be able to make prophesies. Not to mention if he was to be "a prophet like Moses".)
    5. Then there is 5.Mos. 18/20 – the next-door neighbor to the for Islam essential 18/18: “But a prophet who presumes to speak in my name anything I have not commanded him to say, or a prophet who speaks in the name of other gods, must be put to death.” These are criteria for singling out false prophets. In his famous and infamous “Satanic Verses” Muhammad promoted the three pagan goddesses al-Lat, al-Uzza and Manat – 3 daughters of the Arab main pagan god al-Lah/Allah (the same god that Muhammad renamed to only Allah). To promote pagan goddesses definitely is something Yahweh had “not commanded him to say”. And promoting the pagan goddesses meant Muhammad also could not be speaking in the name of Allah just then, but in the name of the pagan al-Lah – another god - or the Devil according to himself.
    6. According to this verse – in the same chapter which Islam is using as a strong and reliable proof – it as you see is documented that according to definition Muhammad is a false prophet (also f.x. all that is wrong in the Quran documents the same). And no false prophet could be the prophet Moses spoke about. The same for a "not real prophet".
    7. And one more context just seconds later in the same speech of Moses (5.Mos. 8/22). Moses said: “If what a prophet proclaims in the name of the Lord (Yahweh*) does not take place or come true, that is a message the Lord has not spoken”. Muhammad never even made real prophesies and a lot of what he said else in the Quran, pretending to repeat the words of a god, most obviously is not true – just look at all the mistaken facts and all the other wrong points in the book. According to 5.Mos. 8/22 (another verse in the Bible Muslims never mention) this proves – on top of the other proofs – that Muhammad was no prophet. Consequently also for this reason he cannot have been the prophet Moses talked about.
    8. As mentioned the word “brother” etc. are used many times in the Bible. It even is used in exactly the same sentence in at least one more for Israel crucial case, and by the same man, Moses, and speaking to the same people – the Jews. 5.Mos. 17/15: “- - - be sure to appoint over you the king your Lord your God (Yahweh*) chooses. He must be from among your own brothers. Do not place over you, one who is not a brother Israelite.” One more verse and one more context Muslims never mention – it is permitted to guess why. No further comments necessary.

     

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    CONCLUSIONS

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

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

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

    The claim is not even wishful thinking, but rubbish.

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

    Point of relevance VII (OT) - Claim from Islam.

    Deuteronomy (5. Mos.) 18/18:

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

    Point of relevance VIII (OT) - NEVER mentioned by Islam.

    Deuteronomy (= 5. Mos.) 18/22:

    "If what a prophet proclaims in the name of the Lord does not take place or come true, that is a message the Lord has not spoken". With all the mistaken facts and other mistakes in the Quran, this verse needs no more comment. Muhammad was no prophet and did not speak the words of the Lord, according to the Bible's definition. He also did not even try to make prophesies.

    We may also mention 5. Mos. 18/20: "But a prophet who presumes to speak in my name (Muhammad claimed Allah = Yahweh*) anything I have not commanded him to say (f.x. all the mistaken facts*), or a prophet who speaks in the name of other gods (Allah*), must be put to death". Muhammad died relatively suddenly, and the reason as far as we can find, was not identified. There still are rumors claiming he was killed - may be a slow poison. (Not unlikely as 10 of the 11 first caliphs were killed).

    Killed by whom in case? - human(s)? - or by something supernatural? And in case for what reason?

    Point of relevance IX (OT) - Claim from Islam.

    Genesis (1. Mos.) 21/21:

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

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

    The Bible – which Muslims themselves use as the witness in this case – here proves with the same strength that Ishmael, his mother and his descendant had nothing to do with Mecca or Arabia. They lived in vest Sinai near the border of Egypt. (To be near the border of Egypt, it had to be in the western part of Sinai or northwards). Actually this also gives one more proof – from a source and a place in the Bible which the Muslims themselves use as a decisive witness – for that all the tales about Hagar and Ishmael living in - and Abraham therefore visiting - Mecca, just is a made up story. It also fits the fact that Abraham for long periods lived in Sinai according to the same Bible that Islam here uses for a claimed proof. And it is reasonably near Paran in Sinai.

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

    Point of relevance X (OT) - Claim from Islam.

    Deuteronomy (5.Mos.) 33/2:

    “The Lord (Yahweh/God*) came from Sinai and dawned over them from Seir; he shone forth from Mount Paran. He came with myriads of holy ones from the south - - -.” This is not Yahweh, according to some Arabs, but Muhammad and his warriors. This in spite of:

    1. This was written 1ooo years or more before Muhammad was even born.

    2. Muhammad never was in Sinai – at least not after he got “myriads” of followers (most likely never unless it was before he started his religion in 610 AD, and it is not said he ever went there).
    3. The same goes for Seir – a place mentioned several times in the Pentateuch in OT (f.x. Numbers (4. Mos.) 10/12, 12/16, 13/3, 13/26 and 5. Mos. 1/1) as the place where the Edomites settled near the Dead Sea. Muhammad hardly ever went there, except perhaps he passed it on his way to Syria when working on caravans in younger years, and some Muslims then says it refers to a battle King David won at a place with the same/similar name - - - but in 5. Mos. 33/2 it is Moses who was speaking, and he lived 200 years earlier and never heard about that battle. (Some also wants it to be the village Sa’ir near Jerusalem, but Moses never entered Palestine – and neither during his life did the tent he used for a temple, in which he had the contact with his god – the god (not the prophet – the Lord in the Bible always means Yahweh/God) who came "from Sinai and Seir and Paran").
    4. And the same also goes for Mt. Paran – a mountain and an area in Sinai. This mountain Muslims admittedly has “moved” to Arabia, near Mecca (a mountain and an area with a similar name - Faran, but Muslims now mostly claim the name is Paran), but till now we have not read any real scientist that is in doubt: The real Mt. Paran is in Sinai. This mountain and area is mentioned many times in the Bible (4. Mos.10/12, 12/16, 13/3, 13/26, 5. Mos. 1/1) and science as said is in no doubt. (We may add that Yahweh according to the Bible, in Sinai manifested himself to the Jews and to Moses as a column of smoke by day and one of fire/light by night. He could well shine in the night from Mt. Paran. Muslims wants it to mean that Muhammad’s religion shone from the mountain with the similar name near Mecca – but neither Muhammad nor Islam had any special connection to that mountain, not to mention that the Israelis in Sinai would not be able to see him if he shone from Mt. Faran in Arabia. Sorry – Muslims will have to bring proofs, not only claims).
    5. The quote from the Bible Muslims use, says: "The Lord came from Sinai - - -". The title "the Lord" in OT always and without exception means Yahweh - a fact no Muslim ever mention. Only this fact makes the Muslim claim here impossible - and then there are the other points in addition.

     

    The name “Bozrah” is mentioned sometimes – it is not present day Basra, but Al-Busairah in Edom, south of the Dead Sea.

    And as said: The word “the Lord” in the Bible always means God/Yahweh (or in NT sometimes Jesus) – and Muhammad was no god and no Jesus. Also because of this it is not possible it can be Muhammad that is meant - as said; in the OT the word "Lord" always and without exceptions means Yahweh in OT.

    There also is another claimed interpretation: That it all is symbolic. In this case “came from Sinai” is said to mean the appearance of Moses - but the sentence really reads “The Lord came from Sinai”, and in the OT the expression “the Lord” always and without exception means God/Yahweh. It was Yahweh that came up from Sinai – it is not possible to misunderstand that - - - not unless you absolutely want to.

    Other Muslims claim that “The Lord came from Sinai” refers to that revelations from the god came from Sinai. But to combine that and the next line with the claim that then Seir refers to a battle King David won a place called Seir does not give meaning – to talk about revelations and then have a battle – something entirely different – in the middle of the tale, is illogical. Especially as the text in reality was Yahweh that “dawned over them from Seir”, and then even more so, as then it is said to turn symbolic again: Paran is claimed to symbolize Muhammad.

    Consequently some Muslims (f.x. Badawi) claim that the line “and dawned over them from Seir” refers to the appearance of Jesus. Sinai then refers to the appearance of Moses, Seir to the appearance of Jesus (and the next line to the shining of Muhammad and his religion) – in that case Seir must refer to the village Sa’ir near Jerusalem, according to them, because it is clear that Jesus never visited or had any other connection with the mountain and area of Seir. Which is not even preposterous, as the Bible many places describes Seir as the area where the Edomites (descendants of Esau) lived, and they lived far south of Jerusalem – very far. And there as mentioned is the fact that "Lord" in OT without exception means Yahweh.

    As you may guess, all these Muslim claims are just one mess of guesswork, “ad hock” proposals and wishful thinking to get the “right” answers, instead of seeking for truth.

    The last of these three lines which make up the claimed foretelling of Muhammad, is “- - - he (Yahweh* - the only subject that is referred to) shone forth from Mount Paran”. There only is one possible meaning to this according to some Muslims – also here normally not Islam, but some Muslims – and that is that the glory of Allah shone in the form of Muhammad’s glorious religion from Paran (or Faran) in Arabia.

    It nearly always are possible to make figurative stories out of literal ones – Muslims are experts on that, as that is their normal last ditch defense to nearly anything that is wrong in the Quran – things that used to be the plain truth, switches to allegories or similar as soon as reality or science proves that it is wrong, “and the allegory must be understood differently and is absolutely right if we understand it like this and this”.

    Here Moses is reminding his Jews about how Yahweh – in his incarnations, a column of smoke by day and one of fire/light by night according to the Bible – accompanied them from Sinai (a mountain on the Sinai peninsula where the Jews stopped for some time on their march from Egypt) via Seir (another mountain and an area also on Sinai peninsula) and sometime along the route among other places shone in the night from Mt. Paran (also a mountain and an area on the Sinai peninsula).

    But such a description of facts does not prove Muhammad, and Muslims need proofs. – then make a parable out of it and “understand” it the way you like best - - - and as normal for Muslims based only on undocumented claims. And twist the facts enough to get the answer you need. Not to mention that things often go from "perhaps possible" to "is" in Muslim lack of logic.

    But the trouble is that also Paran is mentioned several times in the Bible (see point 3 in the first half of this piece). According to the Bible it is not absolutely clear exactly where it was – the different translations give 2 possible locations (near the Red Sea or near the river Jordan and some days walk from the mount Seir. But it is absolutely clear that it was along the route the Jews followed after Egypt, and they lived in and marched through Sinai, without one single reference to Arabia at all – not until under King Solomon some 200 - 300 years later (2. Chron. 9/14).

    And actually: If it had been true that Moses had marched all his at least 2 million people (600ooo men + women and children according to the Bible) and all their animals all the way through the arid desert on Arabian peninsula all the way down to Paran or Faran near Mecca in Arabia and then the same hot and dry way back – believe it if you want – many humans but far from all, and few animals had survived. These 3 lines only remind the Jews on that Yahweh’s manifestation had been together with them all the way from Egypt until Palestine (Moses made this speech “east of Jordan” (5. Mos. 1/5) which means near the border of Palestine – “in the fortieth year” (5. Mos. 1/3), which means shortly before he died and Joshua lead the Jews into the future Israel). The entire story tells about "the Lord", and "the Lord" = Yahweh totally without exceptions in OT (this fact alone make this Muslim claim a joke). If Islam still insists, they will have to produce some proofs, not only loose claims.

    Point of relevance XI (OT) - Claim from Islam.

    Psalms 45/2-5:

    “Gird your sword upon your side, O mighty one; clothe yourself with splendor and majesty. In your majesty ride forth victoriously in behalf of truth, humility and righteousness; let your right hand display awesome deeds. Let your sharp arrows pierce the hearts of the king’s enemy - - -“.

    This is Muhammad riding to war and battle, Muslims says. (One of their cases where "perhaps possible" = "is".)

    But saying it, they for some reason or other omit verse 45/1 just before, that shoves that this is someone singing for some king – “I recite my verse for the king” – and Muhammad was no king. And strangely enough they also omit verse 6, which shows that the one the singer is asking to kill the king’s enemies, and the “mighty one” who is to “ride forth victoriously”, is God/Yahweh.

    Muhammad was no god. And it is questionable if a man who stole and lied/broke his oath, raped, enslaved, tortured, extorted, murdered, and incited to hate and suppression, not to mention glued himself to a god as his platform of power, rode forth “in behalf of truth, humility and righteousness”.

    Point of relevance XII (OT) - Claim from Islam.

    Psalms 149/6 – 7:

    “May the praise of God be in their mouth and a double-edged sword in their hands, to inflict vengeance on the nations and punishment on the people - - -.”

    This for sure is Muhammad and his men!! - - according to some Muslims. But why do they skip verse 2 that tells that this is Jews praising their god (Yahweh) and their king – perhaps David or Solomon?: “Let Israel rejoice in their Maker (Yahweh*); let the people of Zion be glad in their king - - -“.

    Muhammad had very little to do with Zion and was little praised by Israel.

    Besides: There were other people and other leaders than Muhammad who had weapons - the main reason for claiming this and a couple of other claims are about Muhammad, is that weapons was/are mentioned. Another "perhaps a possibility" = "is". It frequently looks like some(?) Muslims not at all know anything about the rules for logical thinking or critical evaluation of claims or "information".

    Dishonest claims make a negative impression, especially when there is much of it.

    Point of relevance XIII (OT) - Claim from Islam.

    Song of Songs (Song of Solomon) 5/16:

    This is a love song – nearly a duet between a woman (the Beloved) and a man (the Lower), but with a few lines here and there from “Friends”. Perhaps the most poetic piece in the entire Bible. In chapter 5, verse 16 the woman sings: “His mouth is sweetness itself; he is altogether lovely. This is my lover, this is my friend, O daughters of Jerusalem”. With Solomon involved, it naturally happened in Jerusalem.

    The Hebrew word for “altogether lovely” is “machmad”. Muslims claim that it can be translated to “praise” = Ahmad = Muhammad (= the praised one) and is a proof for Muhammad in the Bible. (You will NEVER find a scientist of any kind of science who will accept that a thin possibility = proof. Not any other reasonable intelligent person either.) And that the real meaning of the lines is: “His mouth is sweetness himself, he is Muhammad. This is my lover, this is my friend, O daughters of Jerusalem”.

    But:

    1. Verses 1/5-6 tells she was a dark woman. It is known only one dark woman in Muhammad’s harem – the concubine Marieh (A Coptic Christian by the way). But she was a slave from Egypt, not a woman from Jerusalem.
    2. It is very clear from several places in the song that this happened in Jerusalem. Muhammad never visited Jerusalem – and definitely not after his rich first wife Khadijah died (Des. 619 AD) and he could go looking for women (he married his next wife, Sauda, some 2 months later - long sorrow over Khadijah).
    3. Verses 3/7, 3/9, 3/11, and 8/12 tell clearly that this happened at the time of King Solomon – some 1600 years before Muhammad.
    4. Verse 8 tells that the woman was from Lebanon. None of Muhammad’s wives were from Lebanon, as far as we have been able to find out.

     

    Actually point 3 is alone enough to prove Muhammad is not involved: some 1600 years before him is a long time.

    Also: The word “machmad” appears 13 times in the OT. (Kings 20/6, 2 Chronicles 36/19, Isaiah 64/11, Lamentation 1/19, 1/11, 2/4, Ezekiel 24/16, 24/21, 24/25, Hosea 9/6, 9/16, Joel 3/5 + here). Exchange the word for Muhammad those places, and get some strange prose – or poetry. The argument simply is made up. Muslims always stress that reading the Quran, you cannot pick sentences here and there – you have to see the complete picture to get the meanings right. But they all too often do the opposite themselves; if a twisting of a word or a sentence taken out of the complete story can be used to construct a meaning they want, it is done so. And it in addition quickly moves from "perhaps a possibility" to "is".

    Point of relevance XIV (OT) - Claim from Islam.

    Isaiah 1/7:

    “When he (the lookout in the tower*) sees chariots with teams of horses, riders on donkeys or riders on camels, let him be alert, fully alert.”

    This must be a prophesy about Muhammad’s arrival, Muslims say – though rarely Muslim scholars speaking to educated persons. It f.x. could be a million others.

    And verse 9 tells why scholars seldom speak about this "proof" for Muhammad in the Bible: The ones arriving are refugees from Babylon – hardly any Muhammad among them. Especially as Babylon fell 1000 years before Muhammad.

    Point of relevance XV (OT) - Claim from Islam.

    Isaiah 21/13-15:

    One translation, taken from an Islamic page on Internet (NB: It may well be correct, even if NIV translates it somewhat differently – old Hebrew has the same weak point as old Arab in that they mainly only wrote the consonants, which – like in Arab and f.x. the Quran – means that there may be different interpretations some places. In such cases NIV normally uses the most common interpretation in the text, and mentions the alternative in foot notes):

    “The burden upon Arabia. In the forest of Arabia shall ye lodge, O ye travelling companies of Dedanim. The inhabitants of the land of Tema brought water to him that was thirsty, They prevented with their bread him that fled. For they fled from the swords, From the drawn sword, and from the bent bow, and from the grievousness of war”. (This in fact is the King James Version, but as the NIV is a much younger translation and consequently made from better knowledge about the old languages, it is likely NIV is more exact than KJV).

    NIV’s translation:

    “The caravans of Dedanites, who camp in the thickest of Arabia, bring water for the thirsty, you who live in Tema, bring food for the fugitives. They flee from the sword, from the drawn sword, from the bent bow and from the heat of the battle.”

    This indisputably is a foretelling about Muhammad!! some Muslims say ("anything" with war in it, they claim for Muhammad if they in any way can, even though there were many other warlords and kings through the times - f.x. Alexander the Great). There was no other famous flight in Arabia, they say, and therefore it HAS to be about him.

    But:

    1. There is nothing that says it is about a famous flight – it may have been about some more local conflict, though essential enough for the victims. Also see the point just below. It is likely, though, that it refers to the Assyrian king Sargon's attack on North Arabia in 715 BC + or - some years = some 1350 years before Muhammad - and the prophesy likely is from around 720 BC.
    2. Verse 21/9 - just a few lines before the ones Islam quotes - tells this episode has to do with the fall of Babylon - a fact that Muslims conveniently "forgets" - something that happened more than 1000 years before Muhammad. Now the name Babylon often is used as an expression for a bad or degenerated community, but even if you here say that Babylon represents the Quraysh tribe and Mecca, it does not fit, as Muhammad did not flee because of the fall of Mecca. Mecca and the Quraysh still were very powerful when Muhammad fled in 622 AD.
    3. These refugees are fleeing from war. Muhammad fled not from war, but from persecution. Besides he was not yet born in 715 BC.
    4. We know that Muhammad did not visit the area of Tema during his flight – it is far too far north (Tema was in the north of Arabia, approximately 800 km north of Mecca and more than 300 km north of Medina, whereas Muhammad followed a rather direct though hither-and-thither (to avoid his persecutors) route between Mecca and Medina). Strangely Muslims never mention this, even though at least their scholars know it very well.
    5. The essential fact here: Isaiah lived and wrote during the time of the Assyrians. The Assyrians started invasion of Arabia around 715 BC, give or take some years – also a fact Muslim scholars know very well. Isaiah simply wrote about and made a prophesy about the coming war.
    6. One more essential fact: The time frame! – even one more fact Muslim scholars know, but cold-blooded omits in order to twist the information: The very next verses (21/16-17) of Isaiah continues: “This is what the Lord (Yahweh*) says to me: “Within one year, as a servant bound by contract would count it, all the pomp of Kedar will come to an end. The survivors of the bowmen, the warriors of Kedar, will be few”. Here it is directly said that this prophesy is to be fulfilled within a year – not some 1350 years later and concerning Muhammad.

     

    To cherry-pick a few lines which can be twisted to give the answer you want if you stretch your imagination enough, and then omit lines just before telling it talks about something entirely different, and the very next line which proves what you say is a lie – there is only one expression for that: Dishonesty. Well, one or two more: Al-Taqiyya (the lawful lie) and Kitman (the lawful half-truth) – expressions you only find in Islam of the major religions. (As for al-Taqiyya and Kitman: see chapter about al-Taqiyya in "1000+ Mistakes in the Quran"). (For some reason or other Islam and its Muslims seldom claim that Islam is the religion of honesty.)

    Isaiah 53:

    This is too long to quote, but some Muslims are sure the person is Muhammad. Read the chapter – it is about half a page – and laugh (or weep). This man has no similarity to Muhammad – f.x. verse 9: “- he had done no violence, nor was any deceit in his mouth.” Muhammad was a mass murderer, rapist and warlord and one of his slogans was: “War is deceit” according to Ibn Ishaq.

    But the description may fit Jesus.

    Point of relevance XVII (OT) - Claim from Islam.

    Isaiah 63:

    This is too long to quote. But Muslims say the mighty one obviously is Muhammad. But read it – it is God/Yahweh speaking to and about the people of Israel!

    Muhammad so definitely was no god – and he absolutely is not Yahweh.

    Point of relevance XVIII (OT) - Claim from Islam.

    Habakkuk 3/3:

    “God came from Teman, the Holy One from Mount Paran”.

    Now both the Bible and science says Mount Paran is in Sinai. But Islam says near Mecca even though the correct name of that mountain according to Muslim sources is Faran, and then the Holy One – the god – must mean Allah and Teman must indicate Islam. But Teman is mentioned more places in the Bible, and Teman is not the best of places:

    In Jeremiah 49/7: Yahweh asks “Is there no longer wisdom in Teman?” (Well, if one were sarcastic one could agree that Teman must mean Islam).

    In Jeremiah 49/20 – 22 Yahweh says: “Therefore, hear what the Lord (Yahweh*) has planned against Edom, what he has purposed against those who live in Teman: The young of the flock will be dragged away; he (Yahweh*) will completely destroy their pasture because of them. - - - In that day the hearts of Edom’s warriors will be like the hearts of a woman in labor”.

    It is clear that Teman is a place in Edom (near the Dead Sea) with pastures and more – it is not a religion. But it is clear that it will be destroyed - may be it fits Islam anyhow?

    In Ezekiel 25/13 Yahweh tells he will lay waste Edom (near the Dead Sea), included the place Teman.

    In Amos 1/12 Yahweh says: “I will send fire upon Teman”. It clearly is a place – an area or a village or a town – not a religion (It is difficult to send fire upon an idea).

    In Obadiah, verse 9 Yahweh says: “Your warriors, O Teman, will be terrified and in Esau’s mountains (Edom*) will be cut down in slaughter because of your violence against your brother Jacob” (Esau was the brother of the patriarch Jacob). Islam has one they can say was the brother of Isaac (Ishmael), but none who was the brother of Jacob. (Ishmael was not Jacob's brother, but his uncle)– and besides if Teman was Islam, the Muslims had been dead by now –“cut down in slaughter”.

    Actually nothing of this fits Islam’s history.

    And to make a long story short: The Bible indicates that Teman was a town near Jericho. And in no case it can have been Islam – the history is totally different, plus it was a town or a place, not a religion.

    Point of relevance XIX (OT) - Claim from Islam.

    Haggai 2/7:

    Yahweh says: “I will shake all nations, and the desire of all nations will come - - -“. In Arabic “the desire of all nations” = “Hemdah” = “the praised one” that semantically = Muhammad. (the root is the verb Hamada which is the root of many words actually). But all the same the words are not freely interchangeable – no Muslim would call Muhammad Hamada - - - except when they here are looking for “proofs” for their “prophet” – proofs they dearly need, because they have none.

    In Surah 1, verse 2: “Praise (al-hamadi (from Hamada)) be to Allah” – you would be stoned if you said that Hamada/Hemdah = Muhammad and said “Muhammad be to Allah”. In Daniel 11/37 one have “He (a king*) will show no regard for the gods of his fathers’ or for the one (god*) desired (Hemdah*) by the women - - -“. Try to change Hamda for Muhammad here – and mix Muhammad up with pagan gods!

    Even if the root of the words is the same (Arab often have word roots consisting of 3 consonants, and then by filling in with different vowels they get different words and different meanings), the words are not freely interchangeable – except when wishful twisting of words and roots of words may give a "proof" for Muhammad’s divine contact.

    Also this is a claim you do not meet too often - few scholars believe in it.

    THE NEW TESTAMENT (NT).

    In the New Testament the situation is even more difficult for Islam – there are fewer verses which are possible to twist to mean foretelling about Muhammad. And even the main claim needs a lot of twisting of the facts to arrive at the answer they want and desperately need because the Quran states that Muhammad also is foretold in the Injil – the Gospels. (Surah 7/157 and f.x. verse 61/6e-f). The same goes for Hadiths – they clearly state that he is mentioned in the Bible.

    Also here we will arrange the claims according to what succession the relevant verses have in the Bible.

    Point of relevance I (NT)- Claim from Islam.

    John 1/20-23:
    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) to 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?

    Point of relevance II (NT) - NEVER mentioned by Muslims.

    John 1/26-27:

    "'I baptize with water', John replied, 'but among you stands one you do not know. He is the one who comes after me - - -". Here are two essential points: John the Baptist was talking 1) about "one who stands among you" = "one who lives now". Jesus lived then - he was just 6 months younger than John. And 2): "He is the one who comes after me". Jesus was the one who took over after John. (When it is said they did not know John's follower, it is because this was before Jesus started his work). Remember these two points further down - Muslims NEVER mention these two verses. You may also remember the facts about baptizing mentioned in the point just above.

    Point of relevance III (NT) - claim by Islam.

    The Greek word "Parakletos" contra "Periklytos":

    Two Greek words must be explained before we can start on the main Muslim claim in NT - "Parakletos" and "Periklytos". 1):Parakletos (helper, counselor): This word in the Greek Gospel (the Gospels originally were written in Greek) after John, is what they use as an explanation. Muslims say must be misspelled, because if you take another word, 2): “Periklytos” ("the glorious one" or "the praised one") which looks rather similar and translate it to Aramaic, you get a word that in Arab can be interpreted as Mohammad (or Ahmad, which both may mean "the praised one"). Very convincing (but remember that Arabs since prehistoric times have lived in cultures where conspiracy theories have been rife - perhaps because they never have had information they could rely on (because of al-Taqiyya, etc.?), and then they have made guesses and made up theories. The situation actually to a large degree is the same in modern Muslim countries - and even more so in the ones which still are not much modern. Go to most of the Muslim countries and you can immerse yourself in conspiracy stories and theories). Also see verse 61/6e-f and see the chapters about Muhammad in "1000+ Mistakes in the Quran". And: To claim that words may have been misunderstood is natural for Muslims, as the old Arab alphabet lacked the vowels, and one had to guess them. But not so in Greek.

    The next “explanation” one meets is that the man translated the NT from Hebrew (Aramaic) to Greek made a mistake and used the wrong word. But the NT never was translated – it written originally in Greek, and the Greek alphabet was complete, so this source for misunderstanding did not exist. (This is a fact Muslim scholars know, but never mention - on the contrary we have seen them using the argument about mistake when the Gospels were (claimed) translated from Aramaic to Greek!!

    To specify the problems in the old Arab alphabet: One claimed that the mistake came from the incomplete alphabet – old Hebrew like Arab only wrote the consonants, and then the reader had to put in – or guess (one of the problems with the original Quran) - the vowels. The two words have the same consonants: p-r-k-l-t-s. Add a-a-e-o and you get parakletos; add e-i-y-o and you get periklytos. But once again: NT was originally written in Greek, and Greek had a complete alphabet – this possibility for a mistake simply did not exist in Greek. The problem also did not exist in spoken Hebrew (Aramaic really)– only in written, and the first writers of course took the words - like spoken – from their own heads. (If they were fluent in Greek, which they seem to have been, they did not even have to translate in the head - if you are fluent in a language, you also think in that language when you use it.) Besides: The two words are Greek ones - the corresponding Hebrew ones would not have the same consonants, and thus this claim cannot explain claimed such mistakes in Greek words. All these facts are well known to Muslim scholars, and all the same they tell these arguments to their less educated congregations and listeners!! Wrong. And dishonest.

    But all the same the writer of the NT could have made such a mistake! Also wrong. For one thing there were around 10 different men who wrote the NT – and then all the ones that used the word, had to make just the same mistake. Just try to explain that! Besides there were lots of people that understood both those two languages – a lot of Jews, as Greek was the second language in the Roman Empire after Latin, and a number of the bureaucrats who were or had been stationed in Palestine to mention two groups. They would quickly find the serious mistakes and whisper about correction or scream about mistakes – depending on whether they were friends or foes. Also this argument from Muslims is wrong.

    Point of relevance IV (NT).

    John 14/15-26:

    "(15) If you love me (Jesus*), you will obey what I command. (16) And I will ask the Father (Yahweh*), and he will give you (the disciples*) another Counselor (Greek: Parakletos*) to be with you forever - (17) the Spirit of the truth (one of at least 5-6 names for the Holy Spirit*). The world cannot accept him, because they neither see him nor know him. But you know him, for he lives with you (but not in you yet*) and he will be in you (afterwards*). (18) I will not leave you (the disciples*) as orphans, I will come to you. (19) Before long the world will not see me anymore, but you will see me. Because I live, you also will live. (20) On that day (when the Counselor comes*) you (the disciples*) will realize that I am in my Father, and you are in me, and I am in you. (21) Whoever has my commands and obeys them, he is the one who loves me. He who loves me will be loved by my Father, and I too will love him and show myself to him".(22) Then Judas (not Judas Iscariot) said, "But, Lord, why do you intend to show yourself to us and not to the world?” (23) Jesus replied, “If anyone loves me, he will obey my teaching. My Father will love him, and we will come to him and make our home with him. (24) He who does not love me will not obey my teaching. These words you hear are not my own; they belong to the Father who sent me (= it in reality is Yahweh who is speaking*) (25) All this I have spoken while still with you. (26) But the Counselor (Parakletos*), the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, will teach you all things and will remind you of everything I have said to you."

    How does Muhammad fit here?

    "- - - to be with you (the disciples*) forever - - -". Muhammad was not with them - He was born 500 years too late - and he definitely was not with them forever.

    The Spirit of Truth cannot be "The Holy Spirit" because it is another name, many Muslims claim. But there are at least 5 names for the Holy Spirit (Holy Spirit, Holy Ghost, Spirit of God, Spirit of Truth, or only the Spirit), and all the same there is just one Spirit. There also are 99 names for Allah - but only 1 Allah according to the Quran. And 200+ names for Muhammad, but only 1 Muhammad. The argument is a logical short circuit.

    "'The Spirit of truth' is Muhammad", many a Muslim will tell you (from baby age they have been told how truthful and reliable Muhammad was). The man who at least a few times lied in his holy book, the Quran ("No-one will believe even if I/Allah made miracles"), the man who laid the foundation for the institutionalization of al-Taqiyya (the lawful lie), Kitman (the lawful half-truth), etc., and advised breaking of even oaths, the man who had as slogan "War is deceit", not to forget disuse and breaking of words/promises/oaths - yes, we believe he must be "the Spirit of truth". (For some reason or other Islam and its Muslims seldom claim that Islam is the religion of honesty.)

    "The world does not see him". Muhammad was quite visible.

    "- - - he (the Spirit*) lives with you (the disciples*) - - -". When did Muhammad live with the disciples?

    " - - - he (the Counselor*) will be in you - - -". The only persons Muhammad was into, were a lot of women, at least one child, and a few slaves - some of them rapes.

    "- - - you (the disciples*) know him (the Counselor*) - - -". Oh? - the disciples knew Muhammad, who was born some 500 years after they were dead? (But they knew the Holy Spirit through Jesus.)

    "On the day (when the Counselor comes*) you (the disciples*) will realize - - -". What could the disciples realize if they had to wait for Muhammad some 500 years after they were dead?

    "But the Councilor (Parakletos*), the Holy Spirit, whom my Father (Yahweh*) will send - - -". This verse Muslims simply NEVER quote.

    The claim that Muhammad fits in here by changing Parakletos to Periklytos to Muhammad, is not even a joke - it is pathetic. And at least their scholars have got to know this - they study the Bible to find points they like, and it is impossible not to see the other points at the same time. All the same they feed the audiences with claims like: Here is Muhammad in the Bible! How much is true in a religion which uses lies?

    And this is Islam's main claim concerning Muhammad in NT/the Gospels!!!!

    Point of relevance V (NT) - claim from Islam.

    John 14/16-17:

    Jesus tells his disciples: “And I will ask the Father (God/Yahweh*), and He will give you another Counselor to be with you forever”.

    To give the disciples Muhammad as helper had no meaning – he was born some 500 years after they all were dead, and could be of no help to them. He also could not be with them forever. But that is what Muslims claim, as they do need a quotation from the NT, because the Quran tells he is foretold also to the Christians in the Gospel, and this is the only place where the texts can be twisted enough – because it takes a lot of twisting. Muhammad also was not “with them forever” – he was not with them at all. The verse really is foretelling the Holy Spirit - it arrived at Pentecost some days later according to the Bible.

    Strangely enough Islam never mentions the next verse (John 14/17) that continues: “"- the Spirit of truth "(Muhammad neither was a spirit, nor the truth (he cheated and lied – cfr. al-Taqiyya, and according to his point of view concerning this even his oaths could be broken*). The world cannot accept him, because it neither sees him nor knows him. But you know him, for he lives with you and will be in you”. Try to make this fit Muhammad!! Also see separate chapter about the claims that Muhammad was foretold in the Bible.

    *That is to say: from 14/17 they mention that the spirit is called “the Spirit of truth” and thus cannot be “the Holy Spirit”. But just like Allah and just like Muhammad it had more names – at least 5 – and besides it in the entire Bible is very clear that there only existed/exists (?) on Spirit closely connected to Yahweh.

    “The Message of the Quran” solves the problem very simply: It tells that a verse in the Quran explains what the NT tells about Muhammad (surah 61, verse 6). The problem is that the Bible says nothing remotely similar to verse 61/6e-f. (An "elegant" explanation is that it shall have been mentioned in the hypothetical Gospel Islam talks about because it is needed to explain how the child Jesus could learn the Gospel(s) before they were written - a Gospel that Mary and others 100% sure had taken care of or at least told about if it was not a fairy tale, because it would really have cemented an even more a special connection between Jesus and Yahweh/God. But a Gospel that could not exist, because no Gospel could be written until after Jesus' death (A Gospel is the story of Jesus' life, death and resurrection, and could not be written before it happened). And a Gospel Islam never has shown even a scrap of. (Also see 14/15-26 above.)

    Point of relevance VI (NT) - Never mentioned by Muslims.

    John 14/26:

    "But the counselor, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father (Yahweh*) will send in My name, will teach you (the disciples*) everything and will remind you of everything I (Jesus*) have said to you". Here it is very clear that the councilor Jesus was talking about, was the Holy Spirit - Muslims claim he meant Muhammad, in spite of that at least their scholars has to know this verse - it only is 1 chapter from their claimed "proof".(Also see 14/15-26 above).

    Also Muhammad taught the disciples nothing - they were dead long before he was born - and also reminded them about nothing (partly because he was not born yet, and partly because his teaching when he finally came, was very different from the one of Jesus.)

    Point of relevance VII (NT).

    John 15/26:

    "When the Counselor comes, whom I (Jesus*) will send from the Father (Yahweh*), the Spirit of the Truth who goes out from the Father, he will testify about me".

    Well, Muhammad testified about Jesus - but 600 years after the Holy Spirit had arrived according to the Bible - and very differently from what the Bible tells on the basic points. The teachings basically are very different.

    Point of relevance VIII (NT).

    John 16/7-8:

    (7) “But I (Jesus*) tell you (the disciples*) the truth: It is for your good I am going away. Unless I go away, the Counselor (Parakletos*) will not come to you; but if I go, I will send him to you. (8) When he comes, he will convict the world of guilt in regard to sin and righteousness and judgment - - -.”

    The claim from Islam is that the Counselor (Parakletos = helper, councilor, adviser) John here speaks about is Muhammad. He is speaking about a future prophet, they say, and there is no other alternative than Muhammad. To make that claim stick, they omit the Holy Spirit and also the fact that nothing is said about a prophet, and in addition they claim that the word “parakletos” is wrongly spelled (see no. III above) – it surely shall be “periklytos” (as normal for Islam they do not even try produce documentation for the claim, even though there are thousands of old documents). “Periklytos” may be translated to Aramaic - Aramaic, not Arab - and one gets the word Mawhamana, which can be translated to Ahmad or Muhammad in Arab.

    Pathetic.

    And worse: The word used in Syriac (a language used by the church in the Middle East at the time of Muhammad and before) is “menahhemana”. This “obviously” in reality means “mawhemana” and is another wrong spelling Muslims say. And it refers to Muhammad they claim.

    The strange thing is that Syriac “menahhemana” means “'the life giver' and especially 'one who rises from the dead'” (Professor A. Guillaume in “The Life of Muhammad“, 2007, page 104). Then who raised people from death and gave them life again? And who rose from the death himself? – not Muhammad, but Jesus. Irony?

    Well, periklytos means “the glorious one” or “the praised one” – and Islam jumped on this word, because the name Ahmad – another form of the Arab name Muhammad, which also looks somewhat similar to Mawhamana – also means “the praised one”. This without doubt and very obviously was a prophesy about Muhammad(!!) ("perhaps possible" = "is" - logic does not always count in Islam) – the problem was to explain it. And the only possible way was by making some twists, including claiming that all the old manuscripts had spelled the word wrongly. It HAD to be about Muhammad – if for no other reason, then because the Quran says he is mentioned also in the Gospels, and there is no other real possibility. (Also: It is said that Muhammad's original name was Amin – from his mother's name Amina – and that the name Muhammad came later. If this is correct, where does this bring this claim?)

    But:

    1. Muhammad was no real prophet (he did not have the gift of prophesying – he did not even pretend to have it or claim to have it – see the chapter about Muhammad in "1000+ Mistakes in the Quran"). He only “borrowed” that title so laden with meaning and prestige.
    2. The word “Parakletos” you will find some places in the Bible. The word “Periklytos” does not exist anywhere in that book – not one single place. Wrong unless proved right.
    3. There are thousands of old manuscripts from before Muhammad (610 AD – the start of his career). We have seen numbers up to 50ooo, but most likely there are some 13ooo relevant manuscripts and fragments. Some of these even are manuscripts or fragments of the Gospels – also here we have seen different numbers (up to 5ooo), but it seems that some 300 is the correct one and that some 70 are complete or reasonably complete. This including f.x. Codex Sinaiticus and Codex Alexandrinus in British Museum, London. The word “periklytos” is not used in one single of them – not one single time, neither in the old Gospels, nor in the other old manuscripts or fragments. In addition there are huge numbers of old manuscripts with quotes from the Bible. Also here you will find different numbers, but it looks like some 32ooo is the correct one. In not one single of them you will find the word "periklytos" as a reference to or a quote from the Bible. It simply does not and did not exist in the Bible anywhere or at any time. (An extra good proof for that this is true, is that if it had existed, Islam had screamed to holy heaven about it – but they are silent, except for their persistent and – as normal - not documented claims. Well, they vaguely mention the council in Nicaea (now Iznik in Turkey) in 325 AD, but even if it had been true, it does not explain why all the manuscripts older than 325 AD also are claimed to be "wrong" - and falsified in so clever a way that even modern science is unable to find traces of falsifications. Worse: the complete agenda for that council is known, and there is not a hint about wishes to change the contents of any texts. (Besides: How do you make bishops change Biblical texts? - it is just as easy as making ayatollahs change verses in the Quran.)
      1. The agenda of the council in Nicaea in 325 AD according to Wikipedia:
      2. The Arian (a heretic group*) question regarding the relationship between God the Father and Jesus; i. e. are the Father and Son one in purpose only or also one in being.
      3. The date of celebration of the Easter observation.
      4. The Meletian schism.
      5. The validity of baptism by heretics.
      6. The status of the lapsed in the persecution under Licinius.

         

    As you see: Not one word about changes in any Biblical texts.

    In addition there were promulgated 20 new church laws:

    • 1. Prohibition of self-castration.
    • 2. Establishing of a minimum term for catechumen.
    • 3. Prohibition of the presence in the house of a cleric of a younger woman who might bring him under suspicion.
    • 4. Ordination of a bishop in the presence of at least 3 provincial bishops and conformation by the metropolitan.
    • 5. Provision for 2 provincial synods to be held annually.
    • 6. Exceptional authority acknowledged for the patriarchs of Alexandria and Rome, for their respective regions.
    • 7. Recognition of the honorary rights of Jerusalem.
    • 8. Provision for agreement with the Novationists.
    • 9-14. Provisions for mild procedure against the lapses during the persecution under Licinius (an emperor*).
    • 15-16. Prohibition of the removal of priests.
    • 17. Prohibition of usury among the clergy.
    • 18. Precedence of bishops and presbyters before deacons in receiving Holy Communion, the Eucharist.
    • 19. Declaration of the invalidity of baptism by Paulian heretics.
    • 20. Prohibition of kneeling during liturgy on Sundays and in the 50 days of Eastertide (the Pentecost).

     

    As you see: No trace of changing texts in the Bible. As said before: To make mainstream bishops change texts in the Bible, is just as easy as making mainstream ayatollahs change texts in the Quran - both are believing too strongly and both are too conservative to change even a comma. Islam's claim simply is ridiculous in the ears of anyone who knows a little about Nicaea, but it is the only possibility they have for the claims of falsification of the Bible that may sound right for the not informed - included 99.5% of the Muslims. But even if it had been true, it had been impossible to falsify without a trace all the manuscripts older than 325 AD, and it had been impossible to falsify all the manuscripts from the OT owned by Jews.

    1. Islam – and the Quran – as mentioned above claims the Bible must be falsified (also on many other places). They do not explain how in the old days with slow travel and no mass communication it was possible not only to falsify all the thousands of manuscripts spread over large parts of Europe, North Africa and Asia, but to make exactly the same falsifications in each and every one of them - not to mention how to find each and every of them, and there were many more at that time, because many has disappeared or been destroyed or rot later. Unless Islam explains – we do not even ask for proofs, but only for a logically valid explanation - when and how this was done (it was not in Nicaea - the agenda and the actual debates there are too well known), there is only one possible conclusion to make: Another al-Taqiyya (lawful lie). This even more so as in addition to these manuscripts (some 13ooo), there are lots and lots of others that refer to the Bible (some 32ooo?), and also in these references there is not on single time a reference to "periklytos" - not one single. How did the guilty ones trace all these papers and falsify all of them in exactly the same way all of them? Not to mention: How did they erase the word "parakletos" in all these manuscripts + the above mentioned 12000 - 13ooo (the ones of them older than 325 AD) and insert "periklytos" in such a way that modern science is unable to see the falsifications?
    2. A very good proof for that no such falsifications are ever found, is the fact that if it had been found anywhere or any time, Islam had published it with very capital letters. But there are nothing but undocumented claims or even claims contradicting the documentations - like the claims about falsifications during the council in Nicaea.

     

    In one word: Nonsense. And science has long since showed that Islam's claims that the Bible is falsified are wrong. And Islam has proved it even stronger by being unable to find one single proved falsification. If Muslims still claims something else, they will have to produce proofs (not only cheap claims).

    Also thought provoking: There are found altogether some 45ooo manuscripts and fragments relevant to the Bible, older than 610 AD when Muhammad started his mission (and all are in accordance with the present Bible), but not one single similar to the Quran older than 610 AD.

    Point of relevance IX (NT) - claim from Islam.

    John 16/13:

    "But when he (the Councilor*), the Spirit of Truth, comes, he will guide you all into all truth".

    Most Muslims believe in what they have been told and told and imprinted about the perfect and truthful Muhammad. But:

    Muhammad with his lies in the Quran ("No-one will believe even if there are miracles"), his al-Taqiyya (lawful lie), his Kitman (lawful half-truth), his broken oaths, his "War is deceit", his broken words and oaths - yes, he may be a good guide into truth - - - Muslim style?

    Point of relevance X (NT) - claim from Islam.

    Verse 61/6e-f:

    “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'. 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.

    Islam's "explanation" as usual is that the Bible is falsified - that is the standard and cheap explanation whenever there is divergence between the Quran and the Bible, even though it is documented by science that Islam's undocumented claim about such a falsification is wrong, and also in spite of that a falsification would not work among all the thousands that had heard Jesus talking - and then the life and time scale (they expected Jesus back any month or year - if there was to come another prophet first, it would be likely to take at least a generation or more before Jesus would return, to give the other prophet time for his work) of the first Christians, not to mention the contents of all the letters written by persons who really knew the story, had been different. Surah 61/6e-f smells too much of something made up to give Mohammad credence. If a Muslim insists it is true, he has to produce heavy proofs. (And to repeat it: Science as mentioned on top of everything has shown that the Bible never was falsified - and Islam has proved the same even stronger by not finding on single case of falsification among all the old manuscripts).

    There also is another fact which makes this claim impossible: If Jesus had preached about a known pagan god (al-Lah/Allah) from a pagan country nearby, he had got a very small audience. And if he all the same had got some audience, he would have been killed by the Jewish clergy much faster. This verse is made up by someone(s) who did not know the political and the strong and fanatic religious realities in Israel at the time of Jesus.

    (Actually an older Gospel may have existed, but younger than Islam claims - as a Gospel is the story of Jesus' life, death, resurrection, and ascension to Heaven, it could not me written until after Jesus was dead - and resurrected - some 33 years old.)

    ###One small tit-bit: Foretelling in the Bible never mention names of persons in distant future (just check on this yourself - remember here that Messiah (Christ in some translations) is a title, not a name), but in 61/6e-f ONE MOST CONVENIENTLY FINDS AN UNMISTAKABLE NAME. If a Muslim insists it is a coincidence, he has to produce heavy proofs.

    The really black point about this verse, though, is that we have found nowhere in any Islamic texts meant for Muslims any remark about the fact that in the Bible there is no text even remotely similar to this - or that no other foretelling in the Bible about distant future ever mention names. They just quietly let their audiences believe that 61/6e-f is the plain truth.

    We only have found remarks claiming that verses in the Gospel after John - the verses and claims we have commented on here - strengthen 61/6e-f (!!)

    As we have asked before: How reliable is a religion which uses al-Taqiyya (lawful lies) and Kitman (lawful half-truths), deceit and broken promises/oaths, etc. as standard means of work? - and how much is al-Taqiyya and Kitman etc. in the books and words and arguments of such a religion?

    Resume.

    1. Jesus was speaking to his disciples and promised them a helper – a Parakletos. If that had meant Muhammad, what a helper could he be to the disciples more than 500 years after they were dead!!?? Just and only this question alone kills this claim from Islam – it is an absolute impossibility. And worse: Islam’s scholars know this very well. Very wrong.
    2. “- - - another Comforter (Parakletos/Periklytos?) - - -.“ To use the meaning Periklytos here, means in case that also Jesus is a Periklytos, because a new one is coming instead of Jesus. But Jesus is never called a Periklytos – the word does not exist anywhere in the Bible, not today and not in any of the some 13ooo relevant old scriptures and fragments or some 32ooo references. Wrong – unless Islam produces a proof (but had one existed, Islam had produced it centuries ago).
    3. “- - - but you (the disciples*) know him (the Comforter*) - - -“. None of the disciples ever knew Muhammad - 500 years too early – but they had knowledge of the Spirit, as they had been companions of Jesus. Wrong.
    4. “- - - for he (the Comforter*) lives with you - - -“. It is hopelessly inadequate to say Muhammad never lived with the disciples. Wrong at least to the third power.
    5. The “parakletos” is to “be with you forever”. Muhammad was with no-one forever – he was for one thing born 550 years too late to be a “parakletos” or even a “periklytos” for the disciple, and for another thing he existed far from forever. Wrong.
    6. “The Spirit - - -“. The “parakletos” was a spirit, not a man. Muhammad here is a wrong claim.
    7. “The Spirit of truth - - -.” The man who institutionalized “al-Taqiyya” (the lawful lie), “Kitman” (the lawful half-truth), and Hilah (the lawful pretending/circumventing – and practiced it himself, the man who practiced deceit and betrayal, the man who institutionalized that even oaths can be broken if that gives a better result (though you should give Allah expiation afterwards according to the Quran, if you had meant the oath) – and practiced it himself, the man who had as a slogan that “War is deceit/betrayal” (Ibn Ishaq), that man neither was, nor had much contact with “the Spirit of truth”. Wrong also because of each point of all this.
    8. “The world - - - neither sees him - - -“. No human – like Muhammad - is invisible (but a spirit may be). Wrong.
    9. “- - - he - - - will be in you - - -.” To be flippant: The only humans Muhammad ever was in, were a lot of women. Wrong.
    10. “I (Jesus*) will not leave you (the disciples*) as orphans - - -.” They had been orphans for the rest of their lives if they had had to wait for Muhammad 500-600 years later. Wrong.
    11.   “On that day (when the Parakletos comes*) you (the disciples*) will realize - - -.” The day of the coming of the Comforter/Parakletos obviously was a day in the lives of the disciples – Muhammad was not. One more proof for that Islam's claim is wrong.
    12.   Islam says: It cannot be the Holy Spirit that was Parakletos, because it is clear that the Holy Spirit already was there, and Jesus talked about something that should come. Of course the spirit was in and around Jesus – and around the disciples – at least sometimes. But Jesus told that it should be in them and part of them, which it had not been before. That was what happened at Pentecost, according to the Bible – the disciples were filled with the Holy Spirit, which was quite a new situation. Invalid argument. Wrong.
    13.   Islam says: It cannot have been about the Holy Spirit, because Jesus told about the Spirit of truth. But in all the NT there exists only one special spirit connected to Yahweh. Only one. No mistake possible. Wrong argument. Also see next paragraph just below.
    14.   Islam says: The Holy Spirit and the Spirit of truth are two different beings – they even have different names! – and Allah has 99 names (but there are not 99 gods according to Islam), Muhammad more than 200 (what does it indicate that Muhammad had more names than Allah?), Jesus some, most humans two or three. The Spirit has at least 5 different names (The Holy Spirit, The Spirit of Truth, The Holy Ghost, The Spirit of God and just The Spirit - and once in the Bible also the Spirit of Jesus). In addition: See the point just above. Invalid claim.
    15.   Islam says: But they cannot be the same as the name “the Holy Spirit” is neutral (sexless), whereas the name “the Spirit of truth” is masculine (male). Wrong, but this is easier to show with grammar from other languages, as nouns only have one grammatical gender in English. Take the German word “ein Madchen” (a girl). The particle “ein” shows that the word grammatically is masculine or neutral (3 genders in German) (feminine/female: “eine”), but a girl very obviously is feminine. Or take the good old Atlantic steamer “Queen Elisabeth”. In Norwegian she is “ein baat” (a boat of any size) and “ein” also in Norwegian is masculine. But she also is “eit skip” (a ship). But the particle “eit” means neutrum/neutral. And further she is “ei skute” (another word for a ship). And “ei” means feminine/female gender. Well, even in good old England “Queen Elisabeth” is without any sex or gender. But grammatically it (the ship) normally is a “she” also in England. The grammatical gender of a noun simply is no proof for the real – if any – sex or gender of the being or thing behind the noun. An indication, yes often. A proof, no.
    16.   One relevant comment from Acts 1/4-5: Jesus said to his disciples shortly before his ascension to Heaven: “Do not leave Jerusalem, but wait for the gift (the Comforter/Parakletos*) my Father (Yahweh*) promised, which you have heard me speak about. For John baptized with water, but in a few days you will be baptized with the Holy Spirit".
    17.   The Comforter should come “in a few days”. Muhammad came some 577 years later (this happened year 33 AD (or a few years earlier if the international years are a few - 4 to 6 - years late) – Muhammad started his preaching in 610 AD).
    18. It also should happen in Jerusalem. Muhammad never visited Jerusalem, at least not after he started his religion (Yes, we do know about the Night Ride in Hadiths, but it is extremely likely that is a made up story - if it had been a true one, there had been MUCH more about it than just 17/1 in the Quran.

    19. Here Jesus calls the Spirit the Holy Spirit. Shortly before he called it the Spirit of truth – and he talked about the same spirit, because of (like said before) there is only one single spirit in the entire NT and the entire Bible connected to Yahweh. Another proof for what is said just above - - - and for that the two names means the same.

     

    There are more indications/proofs in the Bible for that the Comforter was the Holy Spirit and for that the Comforter could not be Muhammad – there simply are too many verses in the Bible that “collide” with that claim. But what we have written above is far more than enough to disapprove the claim from Muslims and from Islam.

    Sorry for all these explanations, but there were so many claims to meet, and all of them had to be answered.

    Just 2 more comments:

    1. The Bible is a large book – our copy of NIV is more than 700 pages with very small print. In such a large book it is impossible not to find some words that look similar to some word or words in any given other language – or at least can be given similarity with some twisting. But it is a very far cry from there to use superficial or even twisted + superficial seemingly similarity as proofs – at least in an honest debate. There also is a difference between a possibility and a proof. And even more so if you are honestly trying to find what is true. (But then Islam “knows” what is true and goes all out to find “proofs” - by whatever means necessary often. Blind belief and dishonesty is better than trying to find out what is true and what not).
    2. If the first Christians had expected another prophet later, for one thing they had lived their lives differently (expecting Jesus to return in months or a few years, they planned and lived accordingly - if they had expected another prophet in the meantime, they had planned for a longer wait), and even more: The texts in the NT – especially in the letters – had been different.

     

    But in spite of all the words above, there in reality only is one or a few facts you need to kill the reality in these claims – that these verses in the NT foretells the prophet Muhammad:

    1. Muhammad was no real prophet – he did not have the gift of real prophesying, and did not even himself claim he had that gift or pretend to have it - he actually stated that he was unable "to see the unseen (3/144, 6/50,7/188,10/20, 27/65, 46/9, 72/26, 81/24)". He only “borrowed” an imposing and impressive title. And as he was no real prophet – a messenger for someone or something perhaps, but no prophet - he of course was not the prophet that Moses talked about. (Jesus never spoke about another prophet later – no place in the entire NT)
    2. Jesus promised his disciples a helper in some days. Muhammad lived 500-600 years later – he could not help them.
    3. The Parakletos/Counselor was invisible and to be within the disciples. Muhammad neither was invisible, nor within the disciples. And lived 600 years too late.

     

    Short and simple and to the point. (Remember that when someone needs many words and many arguments to prove something simple, the reason often is that he/she leads you by the nose so that you shall not see mistakes or invalid logic here and there. You often meet Muslims using that technique.

    BUT IS MUHAMMAD IN THE BIBLE ALL THE SAME?

    THE BLACK ALTERNATIVE.

    There are persistent, non-religious argumentations for that Muhammad and Islam in reality represents dark supernatural forces. We are not going to enter this debate heavily, but there are two reasons why we are unable to get rid of the suspicions in our minds, and the same two reasons make it impossible and irresponsible not to mention the possibility:

    1. If some dark forces – f.x. the Devil - dressed up like Gabriel, or if they worked on his mind – f.x. by means of an illness like TLE like BBC proposed (20. March 2003) which often gives religious experiences like the ones Muhammad had – or in dreams, Muhammad had had no chance of detecting that he was cheated.
    2. The bloody and inhuman surahs from Medina and the partly immoral moral codes which turned Islam into the inhuman and harsh war religion it became – and is today according to the Quran - for the ones living strictly according to the not abrogated parts of the Quran, which are dominated by just the surahs from Medina - fits a devil much better than it fits a good, benevolent god.

     

    Because of this we mention a few facts:

    1. Jesus several places said false prophets would arise, and that they would deceive many. Muhammad indisputably was no real prophet as he did not have the gift of prophesying, and he was backed by no god - too much is wrong in the Quran for it to come from a god – and no other person has led so many into a sect or religion fundamentally based on inhumanity (suppression, discrimination, hate, slavery, “lawful and good” rape, “lawful and good” stealing/robbing, “good and lawful” and even the best services to the god (?); war, to mention some points). Muhammad fits that picture too well for comfort.
    2. Even Islam admits that Muhammad used lies and other kinds of dishonesty - it shows how clever Muhammad was, they think. In addition to what they admit, it also is documented that he lied even some places in the Quran. Only false prophets used lies or other kinds of dishonesty (included stealing).

    3. The Apostle Paul mentioned that Satan sometimes disguises himself as an angel of light. Muhammad claimed he met an angel of light – Gabriel - - - or someone or something masquerading like Gabriel.
    4. Paul also said that a time would give heed to “doctrines of devils”. As mentioned above some of the surahs from Medina look much more like doctrines from devils than like doctrines from a good and benevolent god – not to mention the Satanic Verses.
    5. Paul also predicted that a time would come when people would not seek and listen to sound doctrines, but listen to fables. And too many Muslims today and before do/did not look for the truth, but only seeking (“proofs” for) what they want to hear. And is it a coincidence that most of the tales in the Quran are documented to be “borrowed” from fairy tales, legends and fables? Even most of the ones seemingly from OT and some seemingly from NT are documented in reality to come not from the Bible, but from made up religious tales and fables – apocryphal scriptures and legends often.

     

    If you read the Bible you will find a lot darker such statements, facts and prophesies that may fit Muhammad and Islam.

    POST SCRIPTURE FOR THE CLAIM THAT MUHAMMAD IS MENTIONED IN THE BIBLE

    There was little reason to squander much time on these claims, if it was not because they are not so central in Islamic propaganda, as they do need “proofs” for Muhammad and for Allah. Most of the claims are too far out ones, and even the two main ones do not hold water. Christians and as far as we know Jews normally do not even bother to discuss this – most of the claims and the logic are too far out. The better part of the claims belong in a conspiracy theory and not even there if you are not so entirely out of real arguments, that you have to disclose how desperate you really are to try to save the Quran from being wrong, and to try to find arguments for that Muhammad was a prophet and not an impostor. But the arguments they have to use at least shows the level of their “facts” – or lack of facts – that are behind the claims and statements.

    At least when talking to learned, intelligent people, Islam had had better drop this argumentation altogether - it is too revealing (but they really have no choice: As the Quran tells Muhammad is mentioned in the Bible, both in OT and NT - they HAVE to find something, because if not there are two more mistakes in the Quran. And really serious ones. Plus the only hope for a kind of proof for a divine connection is lost if they drop these claims – there are no other possible documentations or proofs). And mistakes in the Quran = something is seriously wrong.

    Flatly stated: Muhammad is not in the Gospels. If not Islam produces something better than wrong and not documented claims, this debate just is a waste of time, except that the claims permit Muslims not really to have to face a serious question: Is Islam a made up religion? – and except that the claims are useful propaganda for Islam towards little educated non-Muslims and pagans, and even more towards Muslims who strongly wants to believe and to have their belief cemented.

    There only exist undocumented claims and as unproved statements – if documents or other proofs had existed, Islam had produced them at least a thousand years ago. But there exist lots of old documents proving the opposite of what Islam claims.

    Besides: When f.x. Moses said there was going to come “a prophet like me”, and the Muslims claim that is a foretelling about Muhammad, that is a joke: In addition to all the other points - how could Muhammad be “a prophet like Moses” when he in reality was no prophet at all?!.

    Muhammad was no real prophet, as he was unable make prophesies ("to see the unseen (3/144, 6/50,7/188,10/20, 27/65, 46/9, 72/26, 81/24)") – he only “borrowed” the title.

    A “forgotten” fact, together with the fact that the Bible and the Quran fundamentally are so different and with so fundamentally different basic thoughts, ideas, moral rules, and a number of other basic items, that the books represent 2 different gods - real or made up or one of each.

    ################Perhaps worse: The fact that Muhammad so seldom used the claim that he was mentioned in the Bible, strongly indicates that he knew he was lying in the Quran when he claimed so. The being mentioned in the Bible had been such a strong fact and argument for him, that if he had honestly believed so, he had used it much more often and in even stronger words. Plus he had found out where in the Bible he was mentioned, and pointed to is in each and every relevant debate or piece of information. He never did.

    124 7/170c: "- - - never shall We (the god*) suffer the reward of the righteous (here; among Jews and Christians?*) to perish". In clear language: Also the righteous among Jews and Christians will go to Heaven - - - if not the god changed his mind and abrogated (made invalid) this verse later (this was in 621 AD - before Islam was changed to a harsh war religion). But see 7/169a and 7/170a above.

    125 9/32a: “Fain would they (Christians*) extinguish Allah’s Light with their mouths - - -”. Bad and detestable people. But what light is there from a claimed holy book not from a god and full of mistakes?

    126 10/94b: "- - - those who have been reading the Book (here the Bible*) before thee (Muhammad*)" (Jews and Christians.) Muhammad always claimed that the Bible was a falsified Quran more or less, and that the Jews and Christians knew it and recognized the texts of the Quran. A claim only - as always. And like so many other cases and claims in the Quran, proved wrong - in this case both by science and by Islam.

    Another point is that Muhammad was not talking about the real Bible, but about a claimed "not falsified" one similar to the Quran. Both science and Islam strongly have proved that no such book ever existed.

    127 11/110e: "- - - they (Jews and perhaps Christians*) are in suspicious doubt concerning it (the Bible*). Not more in doubt than that hundreds of Jews preferred death or fleeing to accepting Muhammad's new religion. But claims like these are soothing to listen to for believers - at least for the ones to blind or too naive not to see the difference between loose claims and reality.

    128 12/2a: “We (Allah*) has sent it down as an Arabic Quran - - -.” An Arabic "holy book" meant something to Muhammad - he felt that the lack of such a book made the Arabs inferior to Jews and Christians.

    129 16/108a: "Those are they whose hearts, ears, and eyes Allah has sealed up (so they cannot find the way to the god*) - - -". Christians used to the compassion in NT and the god Yahweh and his "new covenant" they meet there, sometimes have problems believing they see correctly the first time they read sentences like this - a god denying humans even the possibility to find back to "the narrow road" and to the god? Allah and Yahweh the same god? No is not the word - you need something much stronger. Too big differences on most of the fundamental points.

    130 16/124b: "The Sabbath was only made (strict) for those who disagreed - - -." The Quran here indicates that the day of rest once a week is a punishment for Jews and Christians, and pretends to quote the Law of Moses as a proof for this. But there nowhere in the Bible included the Laws of Moses and the complete books of Moses where it is indicated that the day of rest is a punishment. It also nowhere in the Bible is indicated that the Sabbath - the day of rest - was initiated by the Laws of Moses, like you may meet Muslims telling you (for both claims see f.x. YA2159). Actually as far as we have read, in the old times with much hard physical work, the body needed some rest to be able to do its best. But of course if a leader thought days of rest were wasted time, it might have been tempting to say: "Pray your Friday Prayer and go on working" - - - and then tell his followers how lucky they were who did not have to take a break.

    But one funny thing here is that when the Muslims claim this is from the Law of Moses, they quote nothing from that law to prove it (there is nothing there which says this), but instead quotes from the Quran (f.x. 2/74). You meet this technique sometimes from Muslim scholars who are teaching lay Muslims (the perhaps worst case is where Islam quotes prophesies about Muhammad, pretending it is from the Bible, when it really is from f.x. 7/157 or 61/6 in the Quran) - YA is meant for lay Muslims and a little up. Honesty?

    131 18/4b: "- - - those (also) who say, 'Allah hath begotten a son - - -'" = The Christians - the sentence refers to Jesus, whom the Bible tells is the son of God/Yahweh. (The word "father" is used for the relationship between Yahweh and Jesus at least 204 times in the Bible, and the word "son" at least 89 - included often by Jesus himself).

    #132 18/5a: “No knowledge have they (the Christians*) of such a thing (that Yahweh may have a son*)”. Wrong. There is a lot of information in the Bible. Now of course Muhammad, the Quran, and Islam all declare that the Bible has been falsified - they have to, as that was the only way for Muhammad to explain the differences between his “quoting” the Bible and quoting of religious legends, fairy tales, etc., and the Bible proper (it also is common among religious sects or religions to say that other sects or religions have misunderstood or falsified information), and also between Islam and Christianity. But science clearly has shown that the Bible is not falsified - and Islam has shown it even clearer by not finding one single proved falsification in some 45ooo relevant manuscripts from before 610 AD.

    There also is the fact that if Jesus was the son of the god, nobody would believe that Muhammad was the greatest ever of prophets. The claim that Jesus was such a son therefore undermined Muhammad's platform of power. Muhammad's drive for reducing Jesus may have been influenced by Muhammad's strongly monotheistic ideas, but his own wish for and drive for power may have been as strong a reason.

    But the Quran is based only on what a single man said - only one man. A man who lived 600 years later, who brought not one single proof or witness - only claims and statements taken from nowhere and from legends. Also a man for whom it was essential (just read the Quran and see) to be the greatest of prophets, which meant he had to reduce Jesus. And a man who craved very much for power - once more; just read the Quran and see how he glues himself to his platform of power; his religion and the god of that religion - which meant that his teachings had to gain priority over other teachings. And a man telling he got his teachings directly from an omniscient god - which meant it was impossible to accept that there were mistakes in the teachings (a problem which today is a nightmare for Islamic scholars, because there very obviously are lots of mistakes, and it is difficult to find good enough ways of “explaining” the mistakes away, except for to people with no - or not enough - knowledge, or not able to think for themselves - - - or believing so strongly that they anyhow do not want to see facts that do not fit what they believe.) And not least: ####A man who accepted the use of dishonesty - and himself used dishonesty - as a working tool. We remind you of al-Taqiyya (the lawful lie), Kitman (the lawful half-truth), Hilah (the lawful pretending/circumventing), which are all founded on his words and principles, his use and acceptance of the use of deceit and even betrayal (f.x. his murdering of the peace delegation from Khaybar (29 men), and his lies in the Quran), and his acceptance of breaking of words/promises/oaths (2/225, 3/54, 5/89, 16/91, 66/2). #########A man of this moral quality and reliability is the ONLY source Islam is built on.

    Whereas the Bible is written by many different persons, and as for NT many of whom knew Jesus or his closest co-workers, the Disciples, and nearly all wrote at times when there still were thousands of witnesses alive who personally had heard and seen what Jesus said and did.

    We do not say that the Bible is right. We even less say that all details in the Bible are right, as it is clear that some details are wrong also in the Bible, at least in Genesis (creating it all).

    But there is no doubt that according to all rules for evaluating information, the Bible should be more reliable than the Quran. The OT is written some 1000 or more years earlier and consequently 1000 years or more closer to what happened, and also had at least a lot of verbal traditions to build on. And NT was written 500 – 600 before the Quran, and with lots and lots of witnesses to what had happened still alive when much of it was written. Muhammad on the other hand had few sources, and they were mixed up with fairy tales (like the Child Gospels, from which he f.x. has got the story of the bird Jesus made from clay) or so-called apocryphal gospels or books - all of which are proved to be made up or propaganda for sects, or - well - fairy tales. Ok, he said he got his information from a god - but that is very easy and very cheap to say - many a founder of many a sect or religion have said the same thing. And there is not a single proof - not one single - for it being true in the entire Quran, in spite of wishes and demands from both skeptics and followers. Questions which at best were answered with some fast-talk about what Allah could do if he wanted (but he never “wanted”) or that none of them would believe even if Allah sent real (supernatural) proofs (something any person who knows a little about people or about psychology knows is not true - supernatural proofs/wonders had made at least some believe. What is worse: Muhammad was a wise man who understood human nature - he had to know that he was lying each time he told just this). And do not forget: The glorified ideal Muhammad was in reality a highwayman and thief, an extorter, a rapist, a murderer and mass murderer, an enslaver, a warlord lusting for power and for wealth for bribes, and a warlord telling that “war is betrayal”, not to mention his al-Taqiyya (lawful lie) and Kitman (lawful half-truth), etc.

    There also is the fact that science knows some 13ooo scriptures or fragments with relation to the Bible or Biblical circumstances. Plus 32ooo other manuscripts with references to the Bible. All of these from before 610 AD = before there was any reason to falsify Muhammad or something out of the Bible - if he had ever been there. They all are in accordance with the modern Bible, and when they find that the translators of the Bible have misunderstood or not been quite exact enough, the translation of the Bible is corrected in later editions - one wants and strives for to have everything as correct as possible. In stark contrast: When Islam finds scriptures or fragments which are not quite the same as the 6 (2 dominant) they mainly use today, the findings are denied and hidden - a star example is the many copies of the Quran found in Yemen in 1972; when it became clear that details - some of them of significance - were unlike what was written in the Quran(s) of today, scientists were denied access to them anymore.

    Conclusion: Any student and any professor of history will say that according to normal rules for evaluation, the Bible is far more reliable than the Quran as a source for historical information. And any psychologist will confirm that Muhammad must have known he lied each and every time he said that (supernatural) proofs of Allah had made no-one believe in Allah anyhow. And more: No serious scientist uses information from the Quran from before 610 AD in his science - it is not reckoned to be reliable.

    133 18/5b: "It is a grievous thing (to say Jesus is son of Yahweh*) that issues from their (Christians'*) mouths as a saying". For one thing Muhammad could not accept Jesus was son of Yahweh, because the obviously Muhammad was not the greatest. Besides he never understood the constellation Yahweh/Jesus/Holy Spirit (though he may be right that the trinity dogma may be is not correct - it is man-made and not from the Bible - - - but Muhammad believed it consisted of Yahweh/Jesus/Mary(!)), and he never understood that a prince only is a prince even if his father is a king - Jesus belonged to divine stock, but was and is not himself a god. Thus he found that to look at Jesus as divine, was polytheism, and polytheism he could not accept.

    134 18/5c: “What they (the Christians*) say (about Jesus being the son of Yahweh*) is nothing but falsehood”. Tell that to all the witnesses that heard Jesus say so. There were so many listening to Jesus, that if a thing like this (Jesus calling Yahweh his father, and obviously in a traditional meaning - though perhaps a created, not a born son) was a lie, but was written in scripts meant for many to read, there had been serious protests and corrections. We do not say Jesus spoke the truth - even if he is accepted also by Islam to be an honest prophet. But we say it is highly unlikely that he did not say - many times - that Yahweh was his father and he himself the son of Yahweh. There simply were too many witnesses to what he said.

    135 19/89b: "Indeed ye (Christians*) have put forth a thing most monstrous (that Jesus is the son of Yahweh*)!" If Jesus is the son of Yahweh/God, Muhammad impossibly can be the greatest of prophets. On the other hand one cannot totally omit that may be Muhammad really wanted the god to be the only big one, and believed Christians had Jesus as god number 2 (and Maria(!!) as number 3 in the trinity).

    126 19/90-91: “As if the skies are ready to burst, the earth to split asunder, and the mountains to fall down in utter ruin. That they (Christians*) should invoke a son for (Allah) (Yahweh/God*) - - -.” Thus would the unbelief be in the nature, regarding the claim that Jesus is the son of God.

    137 21/7c: "- - - those who possess the Message (of the old*)". The Jews (and the few Christians around). They could have testified that most messengers from the god were men, but would have added that Muhammad all the same was wrong, as some were angels and a few were women. They also would have protested to that the old prophets, not to mention the angles, mainly got their messages by inspiration, because the word is not at all used in such connections in the Bible. Perhaps a bluff by Muhammad to prove he was a real prophet? As claimed he got his messages via inspiration, and it was good "documentation" to claim the old ones had got their messages the same way.

    138 21/24c: "- - - this (the Quran*) is the Message of - - - those before (Jews, Christians*) me (Muhammad*)". Wrong. There are so many fundamental, deep and basic differences between the Quran and the Bible that the Quran in reality has nothing to do with the two other religions. Some superficial details are similar, but more or less all the basic elements are different - especially compared to NT and "the new covenant" (f.x. Luke 22/20 or 1. Cor. 11/2).

    139 22/34a: “To every people did We (Allah*) appoint rites (of sacrifice) - - -.” Just one problem: The Christians have not been given/ordered any kind of sacrifices – or rites for such. The only real rites ordered in NT are baptizing and Jesus' wishes during his last supper (f.x. 22/17-19), and it is not given any specific order about exactly how to perform it.

    *140 22/40f: “- - - monasteries, churches, synagogues, - - -, in which the name of Allah is commemorated - - -“. The name of Allah is not commemorated there – on the contrary the name of Yahweh (or simply God) is what one commemorates there. Muslims will claim that it is the same god – as usual without proving anything - but the teachings are fundamentally so different, that it is impossible that they are the same unless the god is mentally seriously ill. Also they will claim that the reason for the differences in the teachings are that the Bible is willfully falsified – something science (and even more so Islam) long since has proved for one thing is not true (even the oldest scriptures are like today, except for minor mistakes normal when manuscripts are copied by hand), and for another was physically impossible (not possible to make the same falsifications in all the thousands of manuscripts spread over thousands of kilometers and owned by thousands of different owners – that often even disagreed (even strongly sometimes) on many topics). How would you f.x. make Jews and Christians agree on what and how to falsify in the OT? But it was the only way out and the only way Muhammad could save his religion and his platform of power when he finally understood how much was different between his teachings and the Bible.

    141 22/67a: "To every people We (Allah*) appointed rites and ceremonies - - -". Is this correct? Hardly - Muhammad did not get his rites etc. from Allah, he just took over them from the old pagan Arabs. And these also all other people have to follow, even (former) Jews and Christians who presumably really got some of their rites and ceremonies from the god.(Christians in reality got no fixed rites, except the baptizing and following the requests of Jesus made his last supper (f.x. Matt. 26/26-28), and even those did not get a defined rite from "above".)

    142 23/68c: "- - - has anything (new) come to them that did not come to their fathers of the old?" What the Quran really means here, is that the Quran teaches fundamentally just the same religion as the old Jewish scripture and the Christian ones. ####This is so obviously wrong that we do not bother to throw away time on commenting on it, except that we remind you that both science and Islam thoroughly have proved that the Bible and the Torah, etc. are not falsified, in spite of Muhammad's repeated, but never documented claims.

    143 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.

    144 28/52a: "Those to whom We (Allah*) sent the Book before this - - -". Muhammad claimed the Quran was a confirmation and a correction of the (claimed falsified) Bible. (Wrong - too much is different and too fundamentally different between the Bible and the Quran.) Here thus is referred to Jews and Christians.

    *145 28/53c: “They (Jews and Christians*) say: ‘We believe therein, for it is the Truth from our Lord - - -“. Well, this is what Muhammad claimed. The reality as clearly told in Islamic written sources about what you find in 28/52a above - and like in 28/52a also here Muhammad had to know he was lying, because this he knew was untrue. It may have been true for a few, but only for a few in case. Also see 28/48a and 28/48b. A few Jews and Christians may or may not have become Muslims - there only are Muslim sources for the claims - but the majority clearly said no, even in the face of persecution and murder (f.x. the Qurayza tribe - the last big Jewish tribe in Medina - or in Khaybar).

    146 28/53h: “- - - indeed we (the Jews and Christians*) have been Muslims (bowing to Allah’s will) from before this”. No comments necessary – except see f.x. 28/48a, 28/48b or 28/52 above.

    147 29/46a: “And dispute ye not with the People of the Book - - -.“ No comments – but read 9/29 and 9/5 once more. This verse is contradicted and often “killed” (abrogated) by at least these verses: 2/191, 2/193, 3/28, 3/85, 3/148, 4/81, 4/90, 5/33, 5/72, 5/73, 8/12, 8/38-39 (the warning), 8/39, 8/60, 9/3, 9/5, 9/14, 9/23, 9/29, 9/33, 9/73, 9/123, 25/36, 25/52, 33/61, 33/73, 35/36, 47/4, 66/9. This includes many advising or permitting political, social, economical, etc. compulsion (with the sword in the background if you protest) – we mention a few here: 3/28, 3/85, 3/148, 4/81, 5/72, 5/73, 9/23, 14/7, 15/3, 33/73, 35/36. They are all quoted under 2/256. (At least 29 contradictions).

    ###148 33/61-62: “They (non-Muslims, hypocrites, etc.*) shall have a curse on them: whenever they are found, they shall be sized and slain (without mercy) (‘no compulsion in religion’ 2/256*). (Such was) the praxis (approved) of Allah among those who lived aforetime (f.x. Jews and Christians*). Muhammad claimed that Allah was just another name for Yahweh – but try to find an order telling that all non-Christians shall be murdered “without mercy” in NT and in the new covenant (f.x. Luke 22/20 in NT) - a covenant Muslims never mention - and NT is what Christianity is built on . Oh, we know very well that persons from Christian countries have done bad things, but that was in spite of their religion – and they were not really Christians deep down – and not in accordance with, or even because of the religion, like the case often is with the “religion of peace” (Muslim-speak for camouflaging the “religion of war”) Islam.

    149 34/40b: "Was it you (angels*) that these men (non-Muslims - no women in Islam?*) used to worship?" As for Jews and Christians they never worshipped angels. Perhaps some of the old Arabs?

    150 35/32g: "- - - some who are - - - foremost in good deeds - - -". Good Muslims.

    ##But it is an irony here that not the Muslims, but the Christians internationally are accepted to be the foremost in good deeds.

    **151 39/7e: “No bearer of burdens can bear the burdens of another”. Can this really be true? In that case this is yet another proof for that Allah cannot be the same god as Yahweh, because one of the things Yahweh stresses in the NT via Jesus, is that a good Christian shall help others with their burdens.

    ##152 42/13d: “The same religion (Islam*) has He (Allah*) established for - - - Abraham, Moses, and Jesus”. Neither the Quran, nor Hadith, nor Islam has brought the slightest valid proof for this - only words and claims. And at least when it comes to Jesus, it is wrong. The teachings of Jesus and the ones of Muhammad are fundamentally too different. Of course Muslims say that the Bible is falsified and that scriptures have disappeared – that is the only way out they have. But they have yet to prove the first and to prove that scriptures documenting all the points Islam says are wrong in other religions, have disappeared and none reliable and impossible to misunderstand ones have reappeared among the relevant some 13ooo scriptures + the some 32ooo with references to the Bible which exists. “Strong claims need strong proofs.” This even more so as science by means of all the old scriptures has proved that the Bible is not falsified – a fact that is extra clear for NT. And as central: Islam has proved the same even stronger by being unable to find one single proved falsification among all those scriptures. You bet they had told about it if they had found even one.As for Abraham and Moses being good Muslims, for one thing that is strongly contradicted by the Bible, which tells their god was Yahweh, and for another thing: As mentioned no traces from Islam older than 610 AD has ever or anywhere been found - not even by Islam - - - and Moses lived some 2000 years before, and Abraham some 2500 years before.

    #############There also is another hard fact here concerning Jesus: Jesus lived deep inside the times of written history. We know for sure that there was no religion like Islam and no god like Allah anywhere in the Roman Empire not before Jesus and not until several centuries after him - not until after 610 AD when Muhammad started his mission. This is an indisputable historical fact. This means Jesus was no Muslim. Another historical fact is that also early Christianity is known from such sources, and it had no similarity to Islam - and the same for the Jewish religion. The claim that Jesus was a Muslim and preached Islam thus is proved by written history to be made up claims (claims also never proved true by Islam - like normal for Muhammad's very many claims).

    153 42/14a: "And they (Jews, Christians*) became divided only after knowledge reached them - through selfish envy as between themselves." Oh, no, this hardly was the reasons for the division of the Christians from the Jews. The reason was that the most Jews did not accept Jesus. Partly was he not the earthly king they hoped for (to free them out from the Romans), and partly was his teaching a bit different from what they were used to. And for many of the sects? The real reason often was different understanding - or misunderstanding - of points in the scriptures. But the Quran may be partly true here, as there clearly has been many a self proclaimed prophet who has been as interested in power and/or wealth - and a few times women. A central question here is: Was Muhammad one of those? The enormous number of mistakes in the Quran proves 120%+ that it is not from a god. The fact that nearly everything and every not Biblical tale is from or around Arabia, indicates that the maker of the book knew little or nothing about the rest of the world. The mistakes which was in accordance with wrong "science" at the time of Muhammad, strongly indicates the book was made by someone living at that time. On the other hand there is a chance that Muhammad himself believed at least parts of what he told, if he had this mental illness - TLE (Temporal Lobe Epilepsy) - which modern medical science suspects.

    There also is this repeated and repeated claim that the Jews and Christians falsified the Bible to have an (economically) richer life here on Earth. But neither Muhammad nor Islam nor any Muslim has ever been able to explain how it was possible to falsify tens of thousands or more of manuscripts spread over 3 continents, how it was possible to agree on what to falsify, when it was done, or how it was possible to falsify all of them in ways impossible for modern technology to trace (many claims, but none of them possible).

    #####But perhaps as revealing is that neither Muhammad nor Islam nor Muslims ever gave a believable explanation on how Jews and Christians could become richer by means of making a war and robbery religion peaceful and honest, as contrast to Muslims becoming rich just on stealing/robbing, extortion, slave taking, suppression, etc.? (Oh, we know Christians have been involved in lots of wars, etc. (though seldom as horribly inhuman as some of the Muslims wars - read Muslim political history before you protest), but that was in spite of or disusing the religion, not because the religion incited to do it.)

    154 42/14d: "- but truly those who have inherited the Book (here most likely the Bible*) after them (Jews and Christians*) are in suspicious (disquieting) doubt concerning it (the Books*)". A very normal technique for split of and fringe sects like Islam was in 616 - 618 AD, to strengthen themselves, is to claim that the mother religion or competing religion doubts their own words. This sounds like a typical case of such a psychological technique.

    155 42/15f: "Allah is our (Muslims'*) Lord and your (Jews', Christians', Pagans'*) Lord - - -". Wrong. There are so big and deep differences between Islam and the others, and especially NT and its new covenant, that none of them has the same god as the Muslims. This is even clearer as science - and even more so Islam - has proved that the standard Islamic claimed, but never documented, "explanation" when it comes to Yahweh and the differences between him and Allah - that the Bible is falsified - is wrong. Yahweh and Allah are so different that they simply are 2 different gods - if both exist. The only possible exception is if the god is strongly schizophrenic.

    156 43/65a: "But sects from among themselves (the followers of Jesus) fell into disagreement - - -". Muhammad here claims that because of sectaries the clean Islam of Jesus was forgotten and falsified into Christianism. Just this verses we think needs absolutely no comments, especially as science - and also Islam - long since has proved that Muhammad's never proved claim that the Bible was falsified, is a made up one - a false one to use the ironic, but correct word. And also because we now are into historical times and have historical knowledge and indications for how the religions were - neither the Mosaic, nor the early Christian had any similarity to Islam much different from the similarities at Muhammad's time or of today.

    Remember here that it is possible to prove from written, non-religious sources that for one thing the god of the Jews at the time of Jesus was Yahweh, and for another thing it is possible to prove from the same sources that no god of war like Allah and no religion like Islam or a book similar to the Quran existed anywhere in the Roman Empire or the rest of the middle east at that time. The Quran provably is wrong when it claims Jesus was a Muslim and as wrong when it claims he preached Islam - a religion VERY different from the provably never falsified NT.

    157 57/16e: "- - - those who were given Revelations (here the Bible*) aforetime - - -". The Jews and Christians mainly.

    #158 57/16f: "- - - their (Jews', Christians', and Sabeans'*) hearts grew hard - - -". The underlying meaning here is that Muhammad claimed they took the copy he claimed they had got of the claimed "Mother Book" in heaven (of which the Quran is claimed to be an exact copy), and falsified it into the Bible. We may add that the claim that the Bible is falsified, long since is proved false both by science and even more so by Islam, by their inability to find one single proved falsification among all the some 45ooo relevant manuscripts and fragments older than 610 AD. ####They mainly are circumstantial or empirical proofs, but they are so many, and many of them so strong that put together they make mathematical strength proofs.

    #####We may also point to the fact that if the Quran had been falsified by "hard hearts", it had been made harder and harsher to fit those hearts. But especially NT is much softer and milder.

    159 57/27e: "Yet We (Allah*) bestowed, on those among them (Christians*) who believed, their (due) reward (Paradise*) - - -". This means that at least some Christians will be accepted into Allah's paradise, at least among the ones living before the Quran came with (claimed, but never proved) corrections to the (claimed, but disproved) falsifications of the Bible they honestly believed in.

    160 57/29b: "- - - they (Jews/Christians*) have no power whatsoever over the Grace of Allah - - -". This is of no consequence as they are only seeking the grace of Yahweh.

    161 59/11a: "The People of the Book - - -." Jews, Christians and Sabeans.

    162 59/17a: "The end of both (non-Muslims*) will be that they will go into the Fire - - -". This is another not documented claim in the Quran. But there is an open question: The Bible claims and the Quran admits that the old Jewish and Christian god Yahweh exists (though the Quran wrongly mixes him up with Allah) - and if any or both of those two books tell the truth, Yahweh even has proved both his existence and his power. Whereas exactly nothing is proved about Allah - not even his existence - everything just is an unproved claim from a man believing in dishonest methods and with much to gain if people believed in his tales. Who are most likely to end in the fire for believing in a not existing deity - Jews or Muslims?

    And there also is the fact that there are such wide gaps between the Quran's moral code of war, and normal moral codes, that even if one is doomed to Hell by Allah, Yahweh may strongly disagree and judge you are a good persons worthy of Paradise. (Compare "do against others like you want others do against yourself" to the two's moral codes, and judge for yourself.)

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

    ###163 62/6c: “- - - then express your desire for Death, if ye are truthful!” An impossible demand for pious Jews and Christians: For one thing life has its values for everybody. More essential for them: Life is a gift from Yahweh/God – to wish to end it is to diminish a gift from Him. Most serious: To willfully end your own life, is a sin so grave that it automatically sends you to Hell.

    Any god had known this – Muhammad obviously not. Then who made the Quran?

    In a way worse: Muslim scholars today and for centuries have known the fact that seeking your own death is such a grave sin in Christianity, that it sends you to Hell. But they never mention it, in spite of using this argument. Dishonesty.

    The under laying claim contradicted by religious, historical and psychological facts.

    164 62/7b: "But never will they (Jews*) express their desire (for Death), because of the (deeds) their (Jews, Christians*) hands have sent before them (bad deeds they have done*)!" Muhammad either believes or pretends to believe in this wrong presumption - but see 62/6b above. Anyhow it is psychologically a good argument for inducing distaste for them in his followers.

    165 74/31e: "- - - the People of the Book (here the Bible*) - - -". Jews, Christians and Sabeans (likely to be the inhabitants of the mainly Christian Saba/Sabah/Sheba - now approximately Yemen - but some Muslim scholars prefer other explanations).

    166 98/1d: "- - - the People of the Book - - -". Jews, Christians, and Sabeans (it is not quite clear who the Sabeans were. Most likely they were the inhabitants of Saba/Sabah/Sheba in what is now Oman, but there are a couple of other possibilities - the famous clear language in the Quran.

    167 98/4a: "Nor did the People of the Book make schisms, until after there came to them Clear Evidence (there is some disagreement about this sentence among Muslim scholars, but generally they agree on that what is meant, is the Quran*)". Islam had better prove this claim, because it is historical facts that there were schisms within both Jews and Christians, not to mention between those groups long before Muhammad and his Quran.

    ###168 98/5a: "And they (the people of the Bible - Jews, Christians, Sabeans*) have been commanded (by Muhammad*) no more than this: to worship Allah, offering Him (Allah*) sincere devotion, being true (in faith (Islam*)), to establish regular Prayer (to Allah*) - - -". We do not think these demands on believing (in Yahweh) people knowing how much was wrong in the Quran - or at least some of it - and thus knowing that this was a made up, new religion, based on a well known, but dressed up pagan god (al-Lah), need any comments.

    168 + 1437 = 1605 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".