Humans, Other Beings in/Relevant to the Quran, Part 11


 

71.   COMPANIONS OF THE WOOD

One of the Quran's very many unclear points.

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

001 38/13c: (YA4161): “- - - the Companions of the Wood - - -“. Who were they? Another name for the people of Madyan?. A group within the Madyanites? Neighbors of the Madyanites? Or some other tribe or group? Unclear in the Quran.

1 + 1742 = 1743 comments (+ basic comments/introductions).


 

73.  CONFEDERATES

This is an expression Mohammad mainly used for opponents of Islam working together.

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

001 33/20c: "- - - the Confederates - - -". The army attacking Medina in 627 AD - mainly Meccans.

002 33/20d: "- - - the Confederates - - -". A time anomaly.

003 33/22c: "- - - the Confederate - - -". The forces which attacked Medina and its Muslims.

004 38/11: "But there will be put to flight even a host of confederates". Pep-talk for Muhammad's followers.

005 38/12-13: "- - - the people of Noah - - - 'Ad - - - Pharaoh - - - the Lord of the Stakes - - - Thamud - - - - Lot - - - the People of the Wood - - - such was the Confederates". Islam will have a job proving that these were confederates, as there are perhaps 3ooo years or more between the oldest and the youngest - and spread over a wide geographical area. Especially the time of when the different ones existed, Muhammad seems to have had vague ideas about, and because of that made some funny errors in the Quran.

###006 40/6a: "Thus was the Decree of thy Lord proved true against the Unbelievers - - -". This is a really heavy one, as the words of Allah have never - never to this day - been proved true, or been proved to be from a god. This simply is an invalid bluff - invalid and bluff because it was never proved that it really was Allah who did what is told about in 40/5 which this refers to. Without such a proof (f. x. Noah was in contact with Yahweh, not with Allah if nothing else is proved, "the Confederates (of Evil)" cannot have been confederates - too distant in place and time - etc.), the claimed incidents are utterly invalid for proofs for anything concerning Allah - any other god can claim to have done it - - - and in reality it even can have been the nature which did it (if it at all happened). Simply a bluff - and who has to rely on bluffs? - mostly cheats and deceivers, swindlers and charlatans. Then who made the Quran?

007 40/30c: "- - - the Confederates - - -". See 38/12-13 and the comments there.

7 + 1743 = 1750 comments (+ basic comments/introductions).


 

74.  DANIEL

- not named in the Quran.

Daniel is one of the morally upright ones in the Bible - see "The Book of Daniel" there. He is not mentioned in the Quran, but the story of his being thrown into fire may have inspired Mohammad's story about Abraham and the fire of Nimrod.

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

001 7/157e:

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.

002 29/16a: Abraham delivered from Nimrod's fire. Taken from the story "Midrash Rabbah", not from the Bible - there is nothing similar about Abraham in the Bible, but there is one about Daniel 1000+ years later, which may have inspired this "story". And another point: Abraham and Nimrod did not live at the same time (if they ever lived). Nimrod was the great grandson of Noah (1. Mos. 10/1-8: Noah - Ham - Cush - Nimrod), and if he is not a fiction, he lived 3ooo - 6ooo BC. Whereas Abraham - if he ever lived - lived some 1800 - 2ooo BC. Muhammad had a strong tendency to mix persons from different times (f.x. Haman and Ramses II/Xerxes - some 800 years wrong. Or Mary and Miriam - some 1200 years wrong.)

003 37/97c: “They (the people of Abraham*) said, ‘Build him (Abraham) a furnace, and throw him into the blazing fire!” You are free to believe this happened to Abraham – but beware that the story about Nimrod's fire is “borrowed” from a tale named “Midrash Rabbah” and not from the Bible - see 29/16a above.(Muhammad may also have been inspired by the story about Daniel and his friends in the OT (Dan. 3/21-27)). Also see 37/97-98 just below.)

3 + 1750 = 1753 comments (+ basic comments/introductions).


 

75.  DAVID - THE GREATEST KING OF THE OLD JEWS

David was the great war king of the old Jews. He according to the Bible was from a modest family, but became a clever king, though not always on top morally. He ruled from around 1010 BC to around 970 BC. Unlike in the Quran he is not reckoned among the prophets in the Bible, though also the Bible indicates a close contact to his god, Yahweh. There is nowhere outside the Quran any indications for that he was a Muslim - in contradiction to the Quran's never documented claims. We are now in the early times of written history, but there is nowhere in that area or anywhere else any traces of a god like Allah, a religion like Islam, or a book similar to the Quran, not anywhere in what we now call the Middle East around the times of David - and also not neither earlier nor later, until after 610 AD when Muhammad started his teaching.

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

001 2/102c: "- - - Solomon - - -". Son of King David (king ca. 1010 - 970 BC) and following him as king over the Jews in the 900s BC (ca. 970 - 931 BC). A time anomaly. See 4/13d below.

002 2/249f: “How oft, by Allah’s will, hath a small force vanquished a big one? Allah is with those who steadfastly persevere.” This contradicts the Bible. According to the Bible the Jews had no "small force". They had their full army on a hill, facing the Philistine army on a neighboring hill with a valley in between (1. Sam. 17/3). This situation remained for many (40) days (1. Sam. 17/1) before the youth David happened to be sent with food to his 3 brothers in Saul's army (1. Sam. 17/17-18) and there killed the giant Goliath, who had been calling on the Jews for a duel man-to-man to decide the war (in the old times it did happen that one or a few from each army were elected to fight it out as proxies for the whole armies - much less bloodshed). A bit different from the story in the Quran.

Also it is very likely Muhammad has mixed Saul's/Talut's war with Gideon's - no god had done that.

003 2/251a: “By Allah’s will they (the Jews) routed them (the Philistines); and David slew Goliath - - -”. A story borrowed from the Bible - with a twist - used as pep talk for Muslim warriors - telling it was their own god, Allah, who did the work.

004 2/251b: The Jews’ (or Israelites‘) King Saul/Talut and David beat the Philistines in battle ("routed them") and felled Goliath. But according to the Bible, there was no battle - only the duel between David and Goliath. (1. Sam. 17/45-51)

005 3/44a: "This (Mary serving in the Temple under Zachariya and later her receiving the message about a child*) is part of the tidings of things unseen, which We (Allah*) reveal unto thee (Muhammad*) by inspiration - - -". Wrong. It is neither from inspiration, nor from the Bible, but from old apocryphal - made up - scriptures. It is even more wrong, as according to Mosaic - Jewish - law, only men could serve in the temple. And even some more: Only members of the Levi tribe could serve in the Temple, whereas Mary was a descendant of David, and thus from the Judah tribe. Muslim scholars knew and know this (f.x. A. Yusuf Ali: "The Meaning of the Holy Quran", comment 378: "The female child (Mary*) could not be devoted to Temple service under the Mosaic (Jewish*) law - - -" (the rest of the quote we omit - it is speculative and unscientific to say the least of it, like sometimes in Islamic literature), and that only Levites could be priests, etc. is very clear from many places in the Bible), but never mention to Muslim congregations. Honesty. Also see 3/37a-b-c above.

006 3/146b: “How many of the Prophets fought (in Allah’s way), and with them fought large bands of godly men? But they never lost heart if they met with disaster in Allah’s way, nor did they weaken (in will) nor give in. And Allah loves those who are firm and steadfast.” A pep-talk to warriors of all times - never give in, never give up, retreat if you have to, but go on and you will win like the prophets, because Allah will help - - - and sooner or later the lover of religious warriors, Allah, will give you Paradise. Like in the Old Norse religion and other war religions.

As for prophets, Islam maintains that they have existed to all times and all places - Hadith mention the number 124ooo, but even that is just a symbol for uncountable many. (Using the religious time-scale = some 5ooo years up to Muhammad, gives 2 new prophets each and every month for those 5ooo years. Using the scientific time-scale = perhaps 195ooo years for Homo Sapiens, gives one new prophet every 18 months approximately. Believe it if you are able to). This is not true, because it is not possible to find a single trace of monotheistic prophets (except the few in the Bible) anywhere or any time in any form - history, literature, art, architecture, archeology, or even in folk tales. It is not possible that so many prophets should leave not a single trace - especially the warring ones should leave traces, even if they had no success with spreading the religion.

And not many of the prophets we know about from other sources - mainly the Bible - did actually wage war. This picture becomes even more loop-sided when you remember the Bible mentions there were a number of prophets not named by name, and hardly any of these were leaders of wars - in that case they had been more central and named. (NB: The Bible does not reckon f.x. Saul and David - and not even Abraham, Isaac, or Jacob, not to mention Ishmael - primarily as prophets. Leaders, but the title prophet hardly is used - for a central person like Abraham in all the Bible the title prophet is mentioned only a couple of times. Saul, David, Ishmael and a number of others are not reckoned to be prophets at all in the Bible.) The fact that Biblical prophets normally did not wage war, compared to Muhammad's war religion, also is one of the clear indications for that Muhammad was not in the Biblical line of prophets.

007 4/54d: "- - - and conferred upon them ("the people of Abraham"*) a great kingdom". This kingdom is Paradise. - Or may be the kingdom of David and Solomon if the answer of 4/54a just above is "Abraham's descendants"? The Quran often is unclear.

008 4/163g: “- - - to David We (Allah*) gave the Psalms”. Wrong: According to science they are some centuries younger than King David, at least most of them. (And besides – Allah hardly was involved. If there was a god, it was Yahweh).

#009 5/2j: "- - - Sacred House - - -". The mosque Kabah in Mecca is one of the really strong proofs for that Yahweh and Allah is not the same god. There is not one chance that a god had not mentioned his most sacred place and the duties and benefits connected to it, to his strongly believing followers relatively nearby - f.x. Abraham and Moses or a powerful king like David, who could have tried to conquer the area to get it into his country.

**010 5/20b: “Remember Moses said to his people: - - - Allah - - - made you kings”. This is the correct literal meaning of the Arab text, but it is historically wrong. The first Jewish kings were Saul (Talut in the Quran) and then David some 200 - 300 years after Moses (around 1000 BC whereas Moses - if he was a real person - lived around 1300-1200 BC). Any - even minor - god had known this. We have heard Muslims explain that this is not what the Quran means, but that Allah made all Jews like kings. But anyone who knows a little about Jewish history and about Jews before and now, knows very well that most Jews never were or are or behave(d) like kings. It is an obvious “explanation”. To circumvent and hide the mistake you find this translation in “The Message of the Quran: “- - - and (Allah*) made you your own masters - - -.” Honesty in religion? – al-Taqiyya? - - - a language “clear and easy to understand”?

Any omniscient god knows the full history of the Jews, Muhammad did not - this is clear many places in the Quran - and believed the Jews had had kings even before Moses. Then who made the Quran?

011 5/78a: "Curses were pronounced on those of the Children of Israel who rejected Faith (Islam - only Islam is Faith in the Quran*), by the tongue of David and of Jesus - - -". This is wrong, if for no other reason than because there are found no traces of Islam or claims about Muhammad's Allah older than 610 AD when Muhammad started his religion. There f.x. is not a word about curses because of Allah or al-Lah (the name of the pagan Arab god Muhammad took over and only called Allah) in the Bible - actually there are no traces neither of Allah nor of Muhammad in the Bible (in spite of Islam's claims about the opposite)).

012 5/78c: "- - - David - - -". The greatest of the Jewish kings. When it comes to the old names in the Bible - Noah, Abraham, Moses, etc. science are unsure if they really have lived. Also for David there is no sure proof for his existence as far as we know, but we are now so near the first written sources, that we understand most scientists believe he is a historical person. He in case lived around and after 1000 BC. In just this case, however, he is a time anomaly - see 4/13d above.

013 6/84d: "- - - Noah - - - David, Solomon, Job, Joseph, Moses, and Aaron - - -". 7 time anomalies. See 4/13d above.

014 7/157e

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 in his time 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 (or sometimes Jesus in NT)) who came “from Sinai and Seir and Paran).

015 7/157e

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".

016 9/98b: "Some of the desert Arabs looks upon their payment as a fine." This refers to the zakat - the so-called "poor-tax" (but which in reality also were used for a number of other things, too - included war) which all Muslims who was/is not too poor, had and have to pay. You paid/pay from 0% to 10% - average ca. 2.5% - not of your income, but of what you own. All the same 10% on farm products. It was paid to Muhammad and later to his successors.

017 17/55e: “We (Allah*) gave David (the gift of) the Psalms”. According to science the psalms are a lot younger than King David – at least most of them. A god had known.

018 17/55f: “We (Allah*) gave David (the gift of) the Psalms”. According to the Bible, the god of David was Yahweh, not Allah.

019 21/53b: "We (Abraham's people*) found our fathers worshipping them". It is as true for Muslims as for anyone else. A man once told a tale. Some ones believed it and told their children by mouth or in writing. The children told their children that this was true, without ever checking if it even could be true. And so on generation after generation. Not one single comma is proved about Islam. It is only that once upon a time some forefathers started believing the tales of a charismatic leader. And this in spite of clear and overwhelming proofs for that something is - or more correctly; many things are - very wrong in his tales, and in spite of knowing very well that he believed in using lies, deceiving and even breaking of oaths, and in spite of knowing he wanted power plus riches for bribes for more power - and women - - - just so like many a self proclaimed prophet through the times. (And in this case it might be thought provoking that many a false prophet went far out for riches and power and women, whereas none of the known real(?) prophets were much interested in such things (NB: Men like David and Solomon in the Bible are not reckoned to be prophets, but mighty kings)).

We may add that it is typical for blind belief in any religion to believe not because of proofs, but in spite of proofs. This in spite of the very obvious fact that a religion which is clearly proved wrong, obviously is on a wrong track and will lead its followers to no paradise if there is a next life. Man is a strange creature sometimes: When strong belief collides with clear and true facts, the clear facts can home whistling a song.

This verse is not from the Bible - just like so many other "Biblical" tales in the Quran.

020 21/78a: "- - - David and Solomon - - -". Historic anomalies.

021 21/78b: "- - - the sheep of certain people who had strayed by night - - -". There is no such story in the Bible. Either this is a pure legend retold - there are many made up legends retold in the Quran, claimed to be the pure truth - or it is a misunderstood version of the story about David and Bathsheba (2. Sam. 11/2-26), or to be more exact the prophet Nathan's words to David because of this (2. Sam. 12/1-7). Twisted stories from the Bible you find some of in the Quran - and the crucial word in those cases is "twisted". And as crucial: As the Quran is not from a god - too much is wrong - and as the Bible mostly is the only source for these old stories: From where did Muhammad get the claimed Biblical information not in the Bible?

022 21/78c: "- - - We (Allah*) did witness their (David/Solomon's*) judgment". If the story (see 21/78b just above) is a made up one - and there is no known source for it - this is a thought provoking statement.

023 21/80a: “It was We (Allah*) Who taught him (King David*) the making of coats of mail”. This is a piece of extra interesting information (also in 34/11): The Quran tells that Allah taught David how to make coats of mail (also named chain mail or ring mail). Soldiers and warriors have used mail - f.x. scaled mail - for thousands of years, but coats of mail was not invented until around 300 BC, according to Wikipedia - some 600 - 700 years after David - and then by the Celts, who were not very close to Allah. Any god had known this, but Muhammad not. Then who made the Quran?

024 21/80b: “It was We (Allah*) Who thought him (King David*) the making of coats of mail”. If this had been true, it is thought provoking the Allah did teach how to make coats-of-mail to use when going on raids or to war, whereas Yahweh in his New Covenant (f.x. Matt. 26/28) via Jesus taught you: "Love your enemy" (Matt. 5/44).

025 21/105a: "Before this We (Allah*) wrote in the Psalms, after the Message (given to Moses) - - -". It must have been quite some time after the Message - there are some 200 years between Moses (around 1235 BC) and David (around 1000 BC)- and in reality more as the psalms are younger than David according to science. Besides: According to the Bible the god of the Jews was Yahweh, not Allah - and the Bible does not say that the psalms are divine made ones.

026 26/127a: "No reward do I (Hud*) ask of you for it - - -". Also this was one of Muhammad's claims about himself - see 26/125 and 26/126 above. At least for Muhammad this claim was enormously wrong, as he at least claimed total power over his followers, enormous riches (which he according to Islamic books mostly used for bribes to attract and keep followers + not a little to wage war) and lots of women - typical for some false prophets throughout history and even today, whereas real prophets seldom had or wanted much riches and as seldom had more than one wife if any at all (a man like Solomon with all his wives is reckoned to be a powerful king, not a prophet, except in the Quran - the same goes for David (though the word prophet is mentioned)). Also see 26/209a above.

027 27/15b: It is very little likely that king David or king Solomon praised Allah - Islam will have to bring a proof if they stand by their undocumented claim. And remember: Yahweh and Allah is not the same god - the teachings are too different. As we now are close enough to the times of written history (actually well inside it some places in "the Middle East"), we know there was no religion like Islam, and no god like Allah there - and no book like the Quran. Which means that the Quran's claims here are wrong, unless Islam proves - proves - the opposite.

028 27/16c: "- - - Grace manifest (from Allah*)". Incompatible with the Bible, which strongly tells that the god of both David and Solomon was Yahweh, not Allah.

029 27/19e: "- - - the ranks of Thy (here indicated Allah*) righteous Servants". Muslims - according to the Quran both David and Solomon were good Muslims. Believe it if you are able to.

030 33/50-52: Some serious questions: These verses - 33/50-52 - are about how many women Muhammad was permitted to have and have sex with - nearly any woman and more or less as many as he wanted for marriage plus any not pregnant captive or slave girl or woman. And like some other founders of sects and religions there were special rules for this and that for himself. Does this really belong in a holy book - a book which is a copy of the claimed "mother book" which is revered by the god and his angels in Heaven (13/39b, 43/4, 85/21-22)? And how does this compare with the real prophets in the Bible - the ones he claims to be in the same line of? (Remember that in the Bible men like David and Solomon are not reckoned among the prophets, but among the kings.) And finally: How does rape/forced sex with captive or slave women compare with NT's view of rules for sex?

Yahweh and Allah the same god? Perhaps - if he is strongly schizophrenic. Jesus and Muhammad in the same religion and moral code? You bet!

031 34/10a: "We (Allah*) bestowed Grace aforetime on David - - -". Contradicted by the Bible, which tells king David's god was Yahweh, not Allah. 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.

032 34/10c: "O ye Mountains! Sing ye back the Praises of Allah with him (David*)". Animism. Plus that David hardly sang for Allah - his god quite clearly was Yahweh, two quite different gods, especially visible if you compare the Quran to NT and the new covenant.

Animism is something you normally find in primitive religions and in fairy tales.

033 34/10d: "And We (Allah*) made the iron soft for him (David*)". Anyone is permitted to believe the iron was softer for David than for anybody else. But among other facts, it is a fact that this is not mentioned in the Bible, and the Jews had hardly omitted miracles from facts about their greatest king - if it had been true.

##034 34/11b: "Make you (David*) - - -". And the verse continues:"Make thou (King David*) coats of mail, balancing well the rings of chain armor - - -". This is piece of extra interesting information (also in) 21/79-80): The Quran tells that Allah taught David how to make coats of mail (also named chain mail or ring mail). Soldiers and warriors have used mail - f.x. scaled mail - for thousands of years, but coats of mail was not invented until around 300 BC, according to Wikipedia - some 700 years after David - and then by the Celts, who were not very close to Allah, and ever so far from Israel. Any god had known this, but Muhammad not. Then who made the Quran?

036 34/11ba: (A34/13): “Make thou (David*) coats of mail, balancing well the rings of the chain armor, and work ye righteousness, for be sure I (Allah*) see (clearly) all that ye do.” This is a quite traditional translation. But Muhammad Asad strongly argues for another interpretation, and it runs like this in the 2008 edition: “Do good deeds lavishly, without stint, and give deep thoughts to their steady flow. And (thus should you all, O believers,) do righteous deeds: for, verily (it definitely is no proved verity/truth*), I see all that you do!” We can well understand if you refuse to believe that written words can be so unclear that one and the same verse can give so different interpretation. But the quotes are exact, and both books are freely available in English (Abdullah Yusuf Ali: “The Holy Quran” and Muhammad Asad: “The Message of the Quran”, certified by Al-Azhar al-Sharif Islamic Research Academy, Cairo). But remember the problem of the translation of the Quran from old Arab scripture with only some of the letters written, and the rest you have to guess, to modern Arab. As we have said before: When you meet Muslims claiming that the clear language in the Quran is a proof for that it is sent down from a god, or similar claims – or that it is an exact copy of the words of Allah or Muhammad – then do not laugh, as it is impolite - - - and if they have little education in the religious field, they may even believe what they say. We repeat: And these variants of course also are in the Arab text, as the relevant word(s) there has/have more than one meaning. Allah (?) really uses a clear language.

036 34/13d: "- - - sons of David - - -". Jews. But also a time anomaly.

037 37/114a: “Again (of old) We (Allah*) bestowed Our favor on Moses and Aaron - - -“. “The Message of the Quran” is quick to add that it was not because they were progeny of Abraham, but because of their own quality. What the Quran never mentions, what Islam never mentions, what Muslims never mention, is that Israel’s (belief in a) special contact with Yahweh, is not – repeat not - that they had an ancestor named Abraham some thousands of years ago - though it does not hurt. The reason was and is the covenant that was made between Israel and Yahweh according to OT – and renewed several times through the years. It is good propaganda to bully them for believing Abraham who lived some 4ooo years ago (if he ever lived) is a part-out card to Heaven. But it is pretty dishonest to make this lie, and to never mention the real reason for the Jew’s belief: The covenant – broken and maltreated, but never lifted or ended. It is dishonest to hide this - in the same way as it is pretty dishonest never to mention the “new covenant” made via Jesus in NT – but then Muslims are obliged to use al-Taqiyya (the lawful lie) or “Kitman” (the lawful half-truth) if necessary, when it comes to defending or promoting Islam – no matter whether Islam is a false religion or not (for some reason or other Islam and its Muslims seldom claim that Islam is the religion of honesty)).

(Around 1000 BC - Saul was the first king, David the second (1007? - 970 BC?), and then Solomon - till perhaps 927 BC.

038 38/17a: "- - - Our (Allah's*) Servant David - - - he ever turned (to Allah)". According to the Bible, he turned to Yahweh, not to Allah.

039 38/17c: "- - - David, the man of strength - - -". Wrong. (YA4167): "David was a man of exceptional strength, for even as a raw youth, he slew the Philistine giant Goliath". Muhammad and the Quran seem to not have known how Goliath was killed, and the results are invalid conclusions like this. According to the Bible Goliath was killed by a stone from a sling - something which did not need much strength. Also in the Bible there is nothing about David being very strong - something which surely had been mentioned about the Jews' great hero - to make him even more glorious - if it had been true. Actually the very fact(?) that David then just was a youth and not a strong man, is a (not expressed) indication in the Bible for divine help from Yahweh.

040 38/19a: “- - - and the birds gathered (in assemblies): all with him (King David*) did turn (to Allah).” Anthropomorphism - believing or pretending animals think or behave like humans - something normally found in primitive religions and in fairy tales.

Not from the Bible.

041 38/20: "We (Allah*) strengthened his (David's*) kingdom - - -". According to the Bible this was done by Yahweh, not by Allah.

042 38/21-24: This story is not from the Bible. But it is likely it is inspired by vague rumors about the story about David and Bathsheba (2. Sam. Ch. 11), or more correct the prophet Nathan's reaction to that story (2. Sam. Ch.12). Besides being differently told, the story in the Quran also is "hanging in the air", because it does not tell the background or reason for it, and thus not what it was all about (David had an affair with a married woman - in spite of all his own wives. When she became pregnant, he had her husband, Uriah, killed to avoid trouble. Nathan rebuked David strongly for this. By the way, that baby later became king Solomon.

#####043 38/23b: "This man is my brother: he has 99 ewes, and I have (but) one: yet he says, 'Commit her to my care', and is (moreover) harsh to me in speech". This is the story in the Quran. One thing is that both the judicial and the moral questions are so simple that this has nothing to do in a kings parlors for decision - not to mention risking their lives by climbing the wall around the king's palace and risking being killed by the guards. More essential here is that the story told like this, gives no reason for David to see he had been tried or for Allah to forgive anything.

A hopeless intrigue like this had not even made it into a short-story in a modern colored magazine for teen-age girls.

The quality of the Quran a proof for that it is made by a god? That claim is not even naive.

044 38/24a: "(David) - - -". A time anomaly.

045 38/24d: "And David gathered that we had tried him - - -". Why should an omniscient god who on top of all decides everything, need to try anyone? (You may say the same about Yahweh, but there the situation is different, as humans have real free will, which makes it impossible for even a god to know what they will decide always in the future).

Not to mention: What was the trial in this case? There simply is no trial worthy even a normal human being, not to mention a king.

046 38/24e: "And David gathered that we had tried him - - -". But who not knowing the Bible can get heads or tails about why David was not only tried but judged, from what is told in verse 38/23-24? (this is the story of David with all his wives - and all the same he took Bathsheba, the only wife of his loyal soldier Uriah for himself, and saw to it that Uriah was killed in battle). (2. Sam. 11/2-16). Guess which book which is the best as literature - the Bible or the Quran.

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

047 38/24f: "- - - (David*) turned (to Allah in repentance)". For one thing like the story is told in the Quran, there was no reason for David to ask for repentance - something even Islam admits (see 38/24e just above and 38/24g just below). May be as essential is that according to the Bible, David's god was Yahweh, not Allah - Allah was not even known to anyone some 1600 years before Muhammad, according to science.

###048 38/24g: (YA4176): "Judged by ordinary standards, David had done no wrong - - -". No? - in the Bible he only had taken a married woman for himself and had her husband killed. The comment from A. Yusuf Ali, a recommended Muslim scholar who clearly and many places has showed by his quotes from the Bible, that he knows the Bible well, tells something about Islam when it comes to "explain" the Quran and evade difficult points. #####That what David did to Uriah - and to his wife Bathsheba - is ok according to modern leading Muslim scholars "judged by ordinary standards", tells some miles and even more kilometers about Islam and its moral standard and code.

049 38/25a: "So We (Allah*) forgave him (David) this (lapse) - - -". Which lapse? Like the story is told in the Quran, David had done nothing wrong. See 38/24g just above.)

050 38/26b: "O David! We (Allah*) did indeed make thee a vice-regent on earth - - -". According to the Bible, it was Yahweh who made David what he was, not Allah.

051 38/30a: "To David We (Allah*) gave Solomon - - -". See 11/7a above. Besides: According to the Bible Allah was not involved - there instead was Yahweh.

052 38/30b: "To David We (Allah*) gave Solomon - - -". 2 time anomalies.

053 38/31: (YA4183): A. Yusuf Ali here tells straight out: “The passages about David and Solomon have been variously interpreted by the Commentators”. The language is so vague that various interpretations are possible. Is a god that vague when making his holy book – and the “mother book” to be revered in his own “home”? If not: Who made the Quran?

054 38/32a: (A38/29): “Truly do I (David or Solomon - likely Solomon*) love the love of good, with a view to the glory of my Lord (Allah according to the Quran*) - - -.” But the small Arab word “’an” is joking with any translator her, as it gives the expression “’an dhikri ‘llah” more possible meanings, f.x. “- - - the thought about my Lord has installed in me great love to - - -.” Clearly a clear language that is used in this book. And these variants as usual also are in the Arab text, as the relevant word(s) there has/have more than one meaning. Allah (?) really uses a clear language in the Quran.

055 38/32b: (YA4185): “Truly do I (King David or king Solomon - likely Solomon*) love the love of good, with a view to the glory of my Lord - - -“. But it is as linguistically correct to follow other Muslim scholars who say that it means: “Truly did I prefer the good things (of this world) to the remembrance of your Lord”.

In the case of the last interpretation A. Yusuf Ali indicates that the reason for Solomon’s remorse may be that he had forgotten his Asr prayer (one of the 5 Muslims at least should pray each day). ####But how is that possible? – according to Hadiths it was Muhammad who made Allah decide on 5 prayers a day (Allah originally wanted 50). The rule of 5 prayers thus could not exist some 1600 years earlier (Solomon was king ca. 975 (971?) - 936 BC – give or take a few years).

#######It is very typical for Muslims to "solve" a problem by good claims, but forgetting that other aspects or facts are screaming that the claim or "explanation" cannot be true. You meet this time and again and again in Islam and from Muslims.

It also is a fact that we here are approaching the times of written history, and neither in history nor in another medium anybody has found traces from a god like Allah or a religion like Islam at the time of Solomon. On the contrary even the oldest reliable information about this, shows that the god of the believing Jews, was Yahweh, and the religion mainly like Jewism even today. And Yahweh never had fixed time prayers - not even Asr.

Claims like this are a bit too naive.

056 48/11b: "The desert Arabs who lagged behind - - -". Desert Arabs did not exist until after the camel was domesticated a few thousand (4ooo?) years ago, and thus a time anomaly for claimed Muslims reading claimed copies of the claimed "Mother Book" - similar to the Quran - before that.

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

057 68/24: "Let not a single indigent person break in upon you into (the garden) this day". These were really bad and tight-fisted people, not permitting poor people to pick the left-over left by the harvesters (cfr. the story of Ruth in the Bible, where poor people had the traditional right to pick what was left behind in the field by the harvesters (Ruth 2/2 - by the way Ruth was the great grandmother of King David)).

57 + 1753 = 1810 comments (+ basic comments/introductions).


 

76.  DESERT ARABS

The majority of the Arabs at the time of Muhammad were living in the desert or in oasis in the desert. But when Muhammad about desert Arabs, he seems to have meant the nomads, semi-nomads, and others living outside the towns (there hardly were really cities).

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

001 7/199a: “(Muhammad*) Hold to forgiveness (towards the “infidels”*). This verse is abrogated – made invalid - by at least these verses: 2/191, 2/193, 3/38, 3/85, 3/148, 4/90, 5/33, 5/72, 8/12, 8/38, 8/38-39 (the warning), 8/39, 8/60, 9/3, 9/5, 9/14, 9/23, 9/29, 9/33, 9/73, 9/123, 25/36, 25/52, 33/61, 33/73, 35/36, 47/4, 66/9. This includes many bloody threats, but also verses advising or permitting political, social, economical, etc. compulsion (with the sword in the background if you protest) – we mention a few here: 3/28, 3/85, 3/148, 4/81, 5/72, 5/73, 9/23, 14/7, 15/3, 33/73, 35/36. They are all quoted under 2/256 in "1000+ Mistakes in the Quran". (At least 28 abrogations).

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

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

002 9/97a: "The Arabs of the desert (at the time of Muhammad*) - - -". This is quite a time anomaly. One thing is the "normal" anomaly - see 4/13d above. Another is that some millennia ago there existed no "Arabs of the desert". They drifted into the desert from different places and became the mixture later called "Arabs" only after the domestication of the camel made life in the desert possible. Before that no reader of a copy of the claimed "Mother Book" - similar to the Quran - would understand one whistle of what the book was talking about when talking about desert Arabs. (The Arab camel - dromedary - was not domesticated until sometime between 3500 and 2ooo BC, but it took a long time until it spread north).

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

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

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

THIS MEANS HE NEVER LEFT HAGAR AND ISHMAEL IN THAT VALLEY, THAT HE NEVER BUILT THE KABAH, AND THAT HE NEVER VISITED THE PLACE LATER,TOO. We have said the same before, but without the camel/dromedary Muhammad's claims about Abraham going to that dry desert valley to leave Hagar and Ishmael, and later to build the Kabah, and then to visit the place now and then, move from extremely improbable to physically impossible.

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

Science says that "it is practically sure Abraham never visited Mecca".

003 9/97-104: "The Arabs of the desert are among the worst in Unbelief and hypocrisy - - -". In the beginning Muhammad had great problems winning the nomads and semi-nomads in the desert for his religion. One possible reason was the freedom they were used to - to accept Muhammad as a supreme leader and to accept Islam's on many points strict regime - and its tax - took some coercion. But the combination of a clear message: Become Muslims or fight us and be killed - in spite of Islam's nice claims about the opposite - and the possibility to make money from stealing, robbing, and enslaving did the job. Much of Arabia became Muslim at the point of the sword - combined with some honest new believers, a number won over by Muhammad by means of rich "gifts", and a lot of men among the desert Arabs who wanted to become - and became - rich from looting; well, in some years this combination worked and most Arabs became more or less honestly believing Muslims.

004 9/98b: "Some of the desert Arabs looks upon their payment as a fine." This refers to the zakat - the so-called "poor-tax" (but which in reality also were used for a number of other things, too - included war) which all Muslims who were/are not too poor, had and have to pay. You paid/pay from 0% to 10% - normally ca. 2.5% - not of your income, but of what you own. All the same 10% on farm products. It was paid to Muhammad and later to his successors.

005 9/99a: "- - - some of the desert Arabs (nomads*) believe in Allah and the Last Day, and look on their payments (tax/zakat*) as pious gifts bringing them nearer to Allah - - -. Aye, and indeed they (and perhaps Muhammad's prayers*) bring them nearer (to Him (Allah*))". No comments except: A nice reward - - - if Allah exists and is a god (quite a surprise to some Muslims if he turns out to be someone from the dark forces who sometimes dressed up like the angel Gabriel to meet Muhammad - a possibility which the f.x. immoral parts of the Quran's moral code may point to.

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

006 9/101b: "Certain of the desert Arabs - - - are obstinate in hypocrisy - - -". See 9/98c above.

007 9/102a: "Others (of the desert Arabs at the time of Muhammad*) - - - have acknowledged their wrongdoings - - -". See 9/98c above.

008 9/103a: "- - - pray (Muhammad*) on their (the good desert Arabs*) behalf - - -". To what avail if Allah predestines everything according to his Plan which nobody and nothing can change anyhow? - one of the Quran's and Islam's most central and unsolvable mysteries and contradictions - and one which unlike the impossibility of combining Allah's complete predestination with even a small piece of free will for man, is never mentioned by Muslims. (Total predestination after all is mentions sometimes by Islam, though their scholars (not the lay people who believe in the mumbo-jumbo they are told explains it) admit it is impossible to understand how it can be combined.)

009 9/120a: “It was not fitting for the people of Medina and the Bedouin Arabs of the neighborhood, to refuse to follow Allah’s Messenger (to wage war - it refers to the expedition to Tabuk*) - - - “. But it is fitting for Islam to steal and rob and kill end enslave and suppress.

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

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

010 11/29d: "- - - ignorant ones - - -". There is an irony here, as the non-Muslims often were a lot more knowledgeable than the Muslims. This grew even more clear as the uneducated hordes from the deserts started to attack old cultures like the Greek/Roman and the Persian ones. And also later the non-Muslims in Muslim areas made up more than their share of the educated people for most kinds of science. It f.x. is a fact Muslims never mention that a large percentage of the non-religious scholars, doctors, translators of f.x. Greek scriptures, etc. in Muslim areas were non-Muslims (mostly Jews or Christians), but as they wrote in Arab, Islam takes the honor for their work.

011 11/42b: Noah cried to his son, "who had separated himself from the rest", from the ark floating among huge waves: "Embark with us - - -". It is not possibly possible to get from a shore to a ship in that kind of weather. Any god had known, but desert Arabs likely not. Who made the Quran?

This claimed part of the story is not from the Bible.

012 13/37c: "- - - in Arabic". Arabic - the language mainly of primitive, uneducated nomadic desert tribes - was a strange language for a universal god to choose, and especially so at they did not have a complete alphabet at that time (the Arab alphabet was not completed until ca. 900 AD - it lacked the vowels and the small point which marks some letters in Arab - and it also lacked some other signs, f.x. the comma), so that it was impossible to write down exactly what was said - a problem for Islam even today, as in very many cases the original Arab text have 2 or more meanings, often very different, and it frequently is impossible to know exactly what was meant. Islam have evaded - not solved, but evaded - the problem by saying that all possible ways of understanding the texts which give logical meaning, are correct ones - even if the meanings as said may vary wildly. They call it "different ways of reading" because they do not like the expressions "different varieties" or "different versions", which in reality is the right name for it.

If the Quran simply belongs among the apocryphal books, many things are easy to understand, and it at least belongs in that line and tradition, even if it is further "out" than most of the others. Muhammad also fits the picture of the leader of an apocryphal sect, admittedly more immoral and bloody than most of the others.

Also see 30/40h below.

013 22/78e: "- - - it (Islam*) is the cult of your father Abraham". For one thing it is unlikely Abraham is the forefather of the Arabs - Ishmael and his sons settled near the border of Egypt, according to the Bible (written at a time when there was no reason for the writer to falsify this), not in Arabia (1. Mos. 25/18). Also DNA-analysis indicate that the Arabs in reality are a mixture of people who drifted in from different places and nation (and later into the desert when the domestication of the camel made life there possible) - the result of being at a crossroad for the caravans + the result of large import of slaves/concubines from Europe, Asia and Africa - white, brown and negroes. What once - impolitely - was called a bastard product. Not to mention that Arabia was settled thousands of years before Abraham - not later than 7ooo BC in the coastal areas - this means that even if Abraham had been one of the Arabs’ forefathers, he had been only one out of perhaps 100ooo. This in case means that even if Abraham had been among their forefathers, out of an Arab's some 5 liters of blood, only 0.05 milliliters would come from Abraham, and only 0.001% of an Arab's DNA would come from Abraham. Or really only half of this - the other half would be from the mothers. And for another thing there is no reason to believe Islam was Abraham's religion, but strong reason reasons for to believe that the claim is wrong, as no traces from a religion like Islam older than 610 AD have ever been found. Islam will have to produce - though not "produce" - proofs in order to be believed by us.

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

014 48/11a: "The desert Arabs who lagged behind - - -". In the beginning the Bedouins were not too interested in Muhammad's new religion. Just this verse refers to their not wanting to come along on the pilgrimage which ended in the treaty of Hudaybiyah.

015 48/11b: "The desert Arabs who lagged behind - - -". Desert Arabs of any quantity did not exist until after the camel was domesticated a few thousand (4ooo?) years ago, and likely a lot later, as the use of the camel took a long time to spread, and thus a time anomaly for claimed Muslims reading claimed copies of the claimed "Mother Book" - similar to the Quran - before that.

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

016 48/11e: "Who then has any power at all (to intervene) on your (half-hearted Muslims*) behalf with Allah - - -". The desert Arabs - the Bedouins - originally were rather luke-warm to Muhammad and his religion, and Muhammad was frustrated about it. But where is the logic when he normally tells that Allah decides everything and nobody can influence Allah's will and decisions or Plan, whereas his implicit threat here seems to be that if the desert Arabs will not obey him - the two points you find he comments other places in the Quran, are that they are reluctant to take part in his raids and reluctant to pay tax - he will not intervene on their behalf with Allah (to make Allah change his Plan to benefit them). But then Muhammad is not always logical when other arguments works better. See f.x. his claims that Allah decides and predestines everything, but all the same man has free will. It is so impossible to combine these two, that even Islam has given in to explain it. The essential things seem not to be that things or claims can be true, but that they work - that naive or brainwashed or blindly believing followers believe what is claimed. Predestination and free will for man is not possible even for gods to combine. The same go for predestination and no intervention possible but all the same intervention by Muhammad possible, like here is indicated.

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

017 48/16b: “Say (Muhammad*) to the desert Arabs (but most of the Quran is valid for all people and all times according to Islam*) who lagged behind: ‘Ye shall be summoned (to fight) against a people given to vehement war: then shall ye fight, or they shall submit. Then if ye show obedience (fight*), Allah will grant you a goodly reward (rich spoils of war and Paradise*) - - -”. A huge carrot to make fighting attractive - but what peaceful religion goes far out to make war attractive?

018 48/16c: "- - - the desert Arabs who lagged behind - - -". In the beginning the Bedouins were not too interested in Muhammad's new religion. This changed considerably after Muhammad started his raids for riches and captives/slaves.

019 48/16d: "- - - the desert Arabs - - -". Desert Arabs did not exist until after the camel was domesticated a few thousand (4ooo - 5ooo? - one do not know exactly. And real desert lives - desert Arabs could not exist until use of the camel became more widespread around 1ooo-900 BC = around the time of King Solomon) years ago, and thus a time anomaly for claimed Muslims reading claimed copies of the claimed "Mother Book" - similar to the Quran - before that. (In this case before Muhammad started his raids for riches in earnest.)

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

020 48/16e: "Ye (the desert Arabs*) shall be summoned (to fight) against a people given to vehement war: then ye shall fight , or they shall submit." Try to find things like this in NT! One more at least 100% proof for that Yahweh and Allah were not the same god - and Jesus and Muhammad not in the same line of anything of any consequence.

##021 48/16f: "Then if ye (in this case desert Arabs reluctant to take part in raids*) show obedience, Allah will grant you a goodly reward - - -". Obedience to whom? - here on Earth in reality to Muhammad, and for a reward costing Muhammad exactly nothing but some words free of charge. The dream position for a Hitler, a Stalin, a Mao, a Papa Doc, any dictator wanting absolute and total power and obedience. Religion disused is the ultimate platform of power.

022 49/14b: "The desert Arabs say, 'We believe.'". How could this reliably be written in the claimed "Mother Book" (of which the Quran is a copy according to Muhammad) billions of years before it was said or happened? One more of the many texts or quotes in the Quran which could not have been reliably written into the claimed "Mother Book" (13/39b, 43/4b+c, 85/21-22) in Heaven (of which the Quran is claimed to be a copy) eons ago, unless predestination was and is 100% like the Quran claims many places (if you look, you will find more cases than we mention - we only mention some of the obvious ones). If man has free will - even partly only (an expression some Muslims use to flee from the problem full predestination contra free will for man (and also contra that there is no meaning in praying to Allah for help, if everything already is predestined in accordance with a plan "nobody and nothing can change" - a problem which Muslims seldom mention), and an expression no Muslim we have met has ever defined) - and can change his mind, full and reliable clairvoyance about the future, not to mention the distant future, is impossible even for a god, as the man always could/can change his mind or his words once more, in spite of Islam's claims. There are at least 5 reasons - at least 3 of them unavoidable - for this:

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

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

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

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

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

023 49/14d: "- - - if ye (desert Arabs) obey Allah and His Messenger (Muhammad*) - - -". A nice small condition - especially as here on Earth that meant: "If ye obey me, Muhammad".(Also on this point there is a great difference between Jesus and Muhammad. Jesus said "Follow me", Muhammad said "Obey me".)

024 57/12h: "Gardens beneath which flow rivers!. The Quran's and Islam's Paradise - see 10/9f above. This expression also is the most used Arabism in the Quran - a river is one of the big dreams for dwellers of a hot desert.

025 77/41d: "- - - (cool) shades and springs (of water)". The Arab desert dwelling nomads` dream of a paradise - far from f.x. the Inuit's or Samoyed's or for that case the North Europeans' or the original inhabitants of Tierra del Fuego's dream about nice sunshine and not too much rain and water. All the "Arabisms" makes Allah seem to be a god for desert Arabs mainly.

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

25 + 1810 = 1835 comments (+ basic comments/introductions).


 

77.  IBLIS - THE DEVIL

According to the Quran the Devil - Iblis - is from Heaven. It is not quite clear if he originally was a Jinn or an angel. It is possible to argue for both those two possibilities, but likely he originally was a Jinn.

He disobeyed Allah in that he refused to fall down and revere man. As a punishment he was thrown out of the Heaven and instead started Hell. It is not told in the Quran from where the rest of the dark forces came.

There are especially two points about Iblis which are worth to remember and to think over. One is that if it is correct that Allah is omnipotent, Iblis could not disobey and Hell could not exist without his permission. Quite a number of Muslim scholars through the times therefore have argued for that Hell is a part of Allah's Plan and design, and thus that Iblis being thrown out from Heaven was theater staged by the two, Allah and Iblis. But if this is true, what does it in case tell about the claimed good and benevolent god Allah?

The other is that as the Quran is "totally" full of wrong facts, other mistakes, contradictions, etc., and thus is not from any god - no omniscient god makes mistakes, contradictions, etc. - there only are 3 possible makers of the Quran:

  1. The dark forces - the Devil/Iblis.
  2. A sick brain - f.x. TLE (Temporal Lobe Epilepsy), like modern medical science tends to believe, as this mental illness can give just the fits and the religious illusions Mohammad is said to have experienced.
  3. A cold human brain - f.x. Mohammad's.

Many of the harsh and often inhuman dark points in the Quran may indicate point 1.

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

###001 2/34e: (A2/26) “- - - they (the angels*) all prostrated themselves, save Iblis (the future Devil*) - - - and thus he became one of those who deny the truth”. There is an added mystery here: It is indicated here that Iblis was an angel, but angles were created from light, whereas it many places in the Quran is said that Iblis was created from fire = Iblis was a Jinn. Also the fact that he was able to refuse Allah’s order makes Islamic scholars question his being an angel, because angels are totally obedient. That aside:

#####(It is) “absolutely clear that at the time of that command he (Iblis*) was indeed one of the heavenly host. Hence we must assume that his “rebellion” has a purely symbolic significance and is, in reality, the outcome of a specific function assigned to him by Allah. (This is what many Muslim scholars believe, as Allah has absolute power, and nothing happens unless according to his plan.) If this is true, and Allah is behind also the Devil and Hell - where then is the good and benevolent god?”

This is a touchy point for some Muslims: If Iblis was able to refuse to obey, Allah is not omnipotent. If on the other hand Hell is part of Allah’s design, Allah far from is a pure and benevolent god. Muhammad Asad:"The Message of the Quran", tends to believe it is part of Allah’s design – the omnipotence is more essential than benevolence – but we have never seen a clear answer to the enigma. The real significance of this scene thus is unclear.

Also very different from the Bible.

002 2/34f: (YA49): “Not so Iblis (the later Devil*).” But the Arab text actually says: “They (the angles*) bowed down, except Iblis.” This in case means that Iblis was an angel, whereas the Quran several other places tell he was a jinn (made from fire, whereas angles were made from light). Clear text?

003 2/36aa "Then did Satan make them (Adam and Eve*) slip from the garden (of Eden - likely in the lush and water rich parts of south Iraq*) - - -". Similar to the Bible, though details differ.

004 2/36d: The only similarity between the Bible's and the Quran's story of the expulsion from the Garden, is that the Devil caused it and that a fruit tree was involved. One of the differences is worth noting: Allah forgave their sin, and thus Islam has no "inherited sins" for its followers.

005 2/142e: "He (Allah - in reality here Muhammad and his Quran*) guideth whom He will - - -". As no god included Allah - if he exists - was behind a book of such a miserable level of knowledge, it is not Allah who in case is the guide, but the maker of the Quran - be it dark powers or humans.

006 2/168c: "- - - do not follow in the footsteps of Satan - - -". An interesting sentence, as one of the three remaining theories (after the Quran proved wrong the claim that it is from a god, included from the claimed god Allah) for how the Quran was made, is that it was made by dark forces (which some facts may indicate). (The other remaining theories are that it is made by man with a sick or a cold brain)./p>

007 2/169a: "For he (the Devil*) commands you to what is evil and shameful - - -". This is one of the - surely unintended - hints about who may have made the Quran, as the Quran and also sharia all too often command or permit deeds which are horrible and evil and shameful according to any normal code of ethics or moral - Islam's are not normal on too many points (see the golden rule: "Do against others like you want others do against you"). But all the same we are not quite able to believe it is made by the Devil - partly because we hardly believe in neither gods nor devils, but mainly because not even a devil would be so stupid as to make his unholy book containing so much which is wrong, because he had to know he would be found out sooner or later and lose credibility. There is the possibility, though, that the god permitted the Devil to try to cheat more humans into Hell by means of a false religion, but on the condition that the teachings should have so many errors that normal intelligent people should be able to see through the bluffs and evade the trap.

008 2/257ga: "- - - the Evil One - - -". The dark force, the devil(s).

009 2/257h: “Of those who reject faith the patrons are the Evil Ones (the Devil and his helpers*)”. This may be true if the Quran is from a god, and one who tells the truth on this point. It may even be true even if the Quran is a made up book, because others, too, may believe in made up religions. But it is not true if there somewhere exists a true religion (f.x. from Yahweh) - then it is not true for the believers in that religion. It also is not true if no god or no evil ones exist.

010 2/257k: "- - - from the light they (the evil ones - the Devil*) will lead them (non-Muslims and bad Muslims*) into the depth of darkness". For Jews and Christians the Bible disagree.

011 3/155c: "- - - it was Satan who caused them (the ones don't wanting to fight*), because of some (evil) they had done". In plain language: They were punished for some sin by not wanting to take part in the battle. Some punishment! Some religion! Not to say quite a "religion of peace"!!

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

012 3/175a: “It is only Satan that suggests to you the fear (of battles*)”. Who wants to be the subject of Satan - it is better to fear Allah and Muhammad and not shy away from fighting.

013 4/38: "- - - if any take Satan for their intimate - - -". It is normal for Islam to tell that non-Muslims have Satan for their intimate. A bit ironic as it is clear the Quran is from no god - too much is wrong - and one of the theories for who is the maker is just the Devil (the partly immoral code, the hate and war religion, etc. may indicate such an explanation).

014 4/60d: "Their (non-Muslims'*) (real) wish is to resort together for judgment (in their disputes) to Satan - - -". That is the kind of people non-Muslims are - at least according to the Quran!

015 4/60e: "But Satan's wish was to lead them astray - - -". The Quran indicates 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).

###016 4/76c: “Those who believe (Muslims*) fight in the cause of Allah, and those who reject Faith (non-Muslims*) fight in the cause of Evil: so fight ye against the friends of Satan - - -.” To say the least of it: The words are not to be misunderstood: Fight the non-Muslims, because they are the friends of Satan. Though we personally – and as far as we know also others – just wonder: Some great force or religion which teaches stealing, destruction, rape, enslavement, suppression, murder, hate, war – is that a god, benevolent something or not? – or is it a devil? – perhaps a devil in disguise?

017 4/76i: “- - - fight ye (Muslims*) against the friends of Satan (non-Muslims*)- - -“. Of course you want to do that – and of course all non-Muslims are friends of Satan. Hate mongering. There is more like this in the Quran.

##018 4/76j: "- - - the friends of Satan - - -". A name used by Muhammad and the Quran for non-Muslims. Quite understandable that Muslims may be reluctant to be integrated with such detestable persons. (If this had been a novel or sect religion, it had been prohibited in most civilized countries for hate mongering, incitement to war and discrimination, etc. The only reason why the Quran is not prohibited in all civilized countries for such reasons, is that Islam is too strong and that most non-Muslims do not know the book and its very fascistic and hateful message, not to say Nazi-like message of discrimination, murder and war.)

019 4/83f: "- - - all but a few of you would have fallen into the clutches of Satan." This sentence is a bit ironic, as one of the theories about the origin of the Quran, is that the maker is Satan/the Devil. It cannot be from a god, as no god would make so many discrepancies, mistakes, etc., and many of the verses, especially from Medina, are so devilish and inhuman - stealing/robbing, dishonesty, raping, apartheid, discrimination, enslaving, murder, mass murder, war, hate, strong fascism and even Nazism often, that there is a good reason for suspecting dark forces. But personally our group does not believe so - not even a devil would make a book with that many errors, as he/she had to know he/she would be found out sooner or later and loose credence. Well, there may be one possibility: People in religious fervor and blindness often are unable to see the reality if it do not fit their unshakable blind belief - it is like this among strong believers in all religions, included Islam. May be a devil gambled on this fact? Or maybe he only was permitted by the god to try to lead more humans to Hell, on the condition that the trap should be easy to see by persons able to think?

020 4/117b: "- - - they (the Pagans*) call but upon Satan the persistent rebel". But if it is true that Satan/Iblis really is a servant or partner to Allah - Iblis running Allah's Hell or a Hell which is part of Allah's Plan (like many Muslim scholars believe, as Iblis could not have his Hell without ok from Allah if Allah is omnipotent) - is Iblis/Satan then a rebel?

021 4/119a: "I (Iblis, the Muslim Devil*) will mislead them (humans*) - - -". As the Quran is not from a god, one possibility is that the book is from the Devil and made to mislead them. The immoral parts of its moral code, the unjust and/or immoral parts of the sharia laws, not to mention the inhuman rules for behavior towards non-Muslims and in war, etc. may indicate this. Irony in case.

022 4/119b: "- - - I (Iblis, the Muslim Devil*) will create in them (humans*) false desires - - -". Here we are back to the immoral parts of the Quran's moral code, which permits Muslims to go for a lot of immoral desires. Study the Quran's moral code, compare it to "do against others like you want others do against you", and see for yourself.

023 4/119d: "Whoever, forsaking Allah, takes Satan for a friend - - -". The one does not necessarily implicate the other, especially if Allah just is a dressed up, non-existing pagan god (al-Lah/Allah - simply was the main Arab pagan god at that time), not to mention if Allah is from the dark forces (if. f.x. "Gabriel" was not Gabriel, but f.x. a dressed up Iblis). And especially not if there exist other real gods - f.x. Yahweh.

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

024 4/120a: "Satan makes them promises, and creates in them false desires; But Satan’s promises are nothing but deception". One of the possible creators of the Quran is Satan - this even more so as all the mistakes, contradictions, etc. make it clear that it is not made by a god, and in addition parts of the Quran's moral code fits better a devil than a benevolent god. If this is the truth - and all the satanic immorality in the Quran after all may indicate this - these verses are very informative (but actually we personally believe that not even devils would make a book with that many errors - the only really believable creator is a (or some) human(s)). (There is one possible exception, though; if the Devil only got permission from the god for trying to cheat people into a made up religion, only on the condition that it should be easy for thinking persons to see through the trap.)

025 4/120c: "- - - but Satan's promises are nothing but deception". An interesting piece of information if Satan is the real maker of the Quran and f.x. the immoral parts of the Quran's moral code may indicate that something dark is involved. There is some deception in the Quran, yes.

026 4/121a: "They (Satan's dupes/non-Muslims*) will have their dwelling in Hell - - -". What about Muslims if the real maker of the Quran is the dark forces, or for that case one or more human(s), f.x. Muhammad? Also see 3/77b above.

027 5/90b: “Intoxicants and gambling - - - (are*) of Satan’s handiwork: eschew such (abomination) - - -.” Abrogates elegantly – by being stricter:

  1. 4/43: “Approach not prayers with a mind befogged (drunk*) - - -.”
  2. And also abrogating other mild verses on alcohol or gambling by being stricter.

###028 6/43b: "- - - their hearts became hardened, and Satan made their (sinful) acts seem alluring to them". This is an interesting sentence, as it is clear that the Quran with all its mistakes is not from a god, but that one of the few real possibilities is that it came from a devil dressed up like the angel Gabriel. A number of immoral and even horrible things seem alluring to Muslims, and one has to have a much hardened heart to be able to do some of the things Muslims have done through the times, and some still do.

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

029 6/121b: "But the Satans ever inspire their friends (non-Muslims*) to contend with you (Muslim*); if ye were to obey them, ye would indeed be pagans". An interesting sentence when one remember that one of the 3 possible makers of a book of a quality like the Quran, is the dark forces (the other two are a sick human brain and a cold human brain - no god was ever involved in a book as full of errors and worse as the Quran).

030 6/142b: "- - - and follow not in the footsteps of Satan - - -". Here the meaning is: To make restrictions on what Allah has permitted, is to follow Satan (f.x. restrictions on raping captive girls and women during and after a war claimed to be for Allah but which may give riches and power in this world - also for the leaders?).

But it is a curiosa here that Just Satan is one of the theories for who is the real maker of the Quran, as it is clear that a book of that quality is from no god. Some of the moral and judicial rules in the Quran and in Islam may back up that theory, and the same for parts of the religion.

0031 7/11b: “- - - We (Allah*) bade the angels bow down to Adam, and they bowed down; not so Iblis (the future Devil) - - -.” But was Iblis an angel, like it is indicated here? It is said several places in the Quran that he was created from fire (f.x. 7/12), which means he was a jinn (angles are created from light, according to the Quran). An unclear point in Islam, but most scholars mean he was a jinn. (Jinns are beings "borrowed" from old Arab pagan religion, legends and fairy tales.)

#032 7/11 - 18: The story about Iblis/the Devil and Adam is not from the Bible. There also is nothing similar, except that the Devil cheated them, and they had to leave the Garden of Eden (according to science likely in the water-rich lands in what now is south Iraq - if it ever existed). From where did he get it? - not from a god, as too much is wrong in the Quran for it to be from a god, and not from a devil, as a devil would not give negative information about himself. The only remaining alternative is from man.

033 7/12a: "Thou (Allah*) didst create me (Iblis - the Devil*) from fire - - -". There is some debate in Islam - is Iblis originally an angel? F.x. the previous verse, 7/11b, may indicate that. But this verse clearly indicates he originally was a jinn (a being from old Arab fairy tales, legends, and pagan religion), because according to the Quran Allah created jinns from fire, whereas angels were created from light.

034 7/27b: "- - - We (Allah*) made the Satan friends (only) to those without Faith". Parts of the Quran's moral code and also parts of sharia, not to mention its rules for raids and war, may indicate another truth and make one wonder who are really the friends of Satan.

035 7/30c: "- - - they (non-Muslims*) took Satan, in preference of Allah, for their friends and patrons". The Quran claims that everyone who does not believe in Allah, are the friends of Satan. This for one thing presumes that Allah exists and is a god, neither of which is ever proved. And for another thing that no other real god - f.x. Yahweh exists.

036 7/202a: "- - - (the evil ones) - - -". Here the dark forces.

037 8/5a: “Just as thy Lord (Allah*) ordered thee (Muhammad*) out of your house in truth - - -“. That is one of the main questions: Is it the truth? – was Muhammad ordered? – and in case by whom? (The surahs from Medina makes one think more about the Devil than about a good god.)

038 8/48a: "Remember Satan made their (sinful) acts seem alluring to them - - -". #####Irony: A number of acts accepted or advocated or even ordered in the Quran are from sinful to extremely sinful in all other of the large religions - and nearly all of the small ones - and also conflicting human rights and against all normal moral laws and rules. Not to mention that it conflict with the very basis of all inter human moral: "Do onto others like you want others do onto you". The Quran is not made by any god, not to mention a good or benevolent god - too many errors, etc. and a too horrible moral - or immoral - code. If the Quran is made by dark forces or even by one or more selfish humans, it is not strange if Satan has made the Muslims' sinful acts just and alluring to them. May thus Muslims be included here?

039 9/9d: "- - - evil indeed are the deeds (hindered persons from becoming Muslims*) they (pagans) have done". If Allah exists, is a god, and the Quran has told the truth and only the truth, it is bad to hinder people to become Muslims (if not it is a good deed). If Allah does not exist or is not a god, and the god(s) the non-Muslims believe in, also does not exist, it does not matter what is done - well, perhaps to hinder them from Islam is a slightly good thing, as most religions have better moral codes, etc. If the non-Muslims' god - f.x. Yahweh - do exist, it is a good thing to lead people there instead. And if Allah exists, but is something from the dark forces (which f.x. the Quran's moral code indicates), it is a good thing to lead people away from him.

040 12/5b: "- - - for Satan is to man an avowed enemy!". The Bible does not mention such words from Jacob.

041 12/42b: "But Satan made him (the servant of the Pharaohs - the cupbearer*) forget (Joseph*) - - -". How could Satan make him forget - or do anything - if Allah predestines every detail of your life and according to his unchangeable Plan, like the Quran states many times?

042 14/22d: (14/A32): “I (the Devil*) cannot listen to your cries (for help*), nor can ye (sinners in Hell*) listen to mine”. Or does it really mean: “I cannot respond to your call for help, just as you should not have, in your lifetime, responded to my call”? Islam simply does not know. And these variants of course also are in the Arab text, as the relevant word(s) there has/have more than one meaning. Clear language in the Quran?

043 15/30-31: "So the angels prostrated themselves, all of them together: Not so Iblis - - -". This verse makes trouble for Islam. It is nowhere directly said what kind of being Iblis - the Devil - were. Here it is indicated that he was one of the angels. But Allah created the angels from light, whereas it is clearly stated a couple of places in the Quran that Iblis was created from fire, and in that case he should be a jinn. It may also be added that many Muslims mean that all this was theater arranged by Allah to fulfill his great plan - Iblis could not make a Hell against Allah's will, as Allah is omnipotent. But what does that in case tell about the merciful and benevolent god Allah

044 15/31: "Not so Iblis - - -". Iblis refused to accept that man was superior to himself. May be to the anger of Allah - but maybe not. As Allah is omnipotent, nothing can happen without his permission. Therefore Iblis could not do this without Allah's permission, Muslim scholars say - and they continue that this must be the result of a decision made by Allah, because he wanted a Hell, and that this scene was something predetermined - an agreement between Allah and Iblis. In short: Allah wanted or needed a Hell - perhaps for punishing not obedient men and jinns and perhaps others - and set up this scene together with his servant Iblis.

But if Allah set up such a sadistic and horrible Hell, it tells something about him.

And why did he need the theatre - the farce - this scene is?

045 15/33c: In short: Iblis' reason was racism to use a modern word, but an age old way of thinking. He does not point to that he is of a superior group of beings, but he points to a non-essential fact and uses this for setting himself in a higher position - an excuse for a claim of being superior, simply, just like in any earthly society built on discrimination. (It may be impolite to mention it, but Islam is a typical discrimination society: Muslims on top - for some strange reason in a discrimination society the "we" who set up the society always are on top - the "people of the book" lower, and the Pagans at the bottom, and with these layers subdivided according to how bad sinners, etc. the different persons are. The old South Africa or South States of USA, but built on religion, not on color of skin.)

046 15/33-39: “(Iblis (the future Devil*) said): ‘I am not one to prostrate myself to man, whom Thou didst create from sounding clay, from mud molded into shape’. (Allah) said: ‘Then get thee out from here, for thou art rejected, accursed. And the Curse shall be on thee till the Day of Judgment.’ (Iblis) said: ‘O my Lord! Give me respite till the Day the (dead) are raised.’ (Allah) said: ‘Respite is granted thee – till the Day of Time Appointed.’ (Iblis) said: ‘O my Lord! Because Thou hast put me in the wrong, I will make (wrong) fair-seeming to them on earth, and I will put them all in the wrong - - -.” This is the essence of how Hell came to. The story is not very logical, and as mentioned many Muslim scholars speculate about if Iblis in reality is working for Allah in accordance with Allah’s secret Plan. Nobody on Earth will ever know. But what kind of god is Allah in this case?

Nothing of this is from the Bible.

047 15/34: "Then get thee (Iblis*) out from here - - -". This was the exact start of Hell - be it Iblis' decision or Allah's Plan. Nothing of this is from the Bible.

048 15/35a: "And the Curse shall be on thee (Iblis - the Devil*) - - -". How seriously can this have been meant if this scene was prearranged between Allah and Iblis (a necessity if those Muslims are right who means that Hell is a part of Allah's power and Plan)?

049 15/35b: "And the Curse shall be on thee (Iblis - the Devil*) till the Day of Judgment". What will happen to Iblis then? We have been unable to find the answer - nothing in the Quran, vague speculations other places. And nothing about if this will in between mean anything to Hell. But: As sinners do not go to Hell until the Day of Doom, that day cannot be the end of Hell - and what then about its ruler, Iblis?

##050 15/36a: "Give me (Iblis/the Devil*) then respite till the Day the (dead) are raised." But this period is just an intermezzo for Iblis - the time he can use for luring men and jinns to Hell - f.x. the Muslims if the theory that Iblis is the reality behind the Quran is correct. His real region is Hell, and his reign over the sinners does not start there until after the sinners are judged and sent into Hell at the Day of Doom. So why respite only to the Day of Doom? The Quran sometimes(?) is not logical./p>

Nothing of this is from the Bible.

051 15/37: "(Allah) said: 'Respite is granted you (Iblis/the Devil*) - - -". Iblis got his respite - or perhaps his order from Allah?.

052 15/39a: "Because Thou (Allah*) hast put me (Iblis*) in the wrong - - -". This only is correct (as seen by Iblis) if Iblis really was thrown out from Heaven. If this scene only was a prearrangement between Allah and Iblis (for the benefit of whom?), also this is part of the theatre.

053 15/39b: "Because Thou (Allah*) hast put me in the wrong, I will make (wrong) fair-seeming to them on earth, and I will put them all in wrong - - -". This is the claimed rationale and reason behind Hell in the Quran - it is Iblis' revenge for being thrown out from Heaven.

And what does this tell if the theory that the Quran is from Iblis, is correct? If the Quran in reality is made by dark forces, this verse may well explain large parts of the book's moral code, and many Muslims' behavior.

054 15/39c: "Because Thou (Allah*) hast put me in the wrong, I will make (wrong) fair-seeming to them on earth, and I will put them all in wrong - - -". What kind of being did the claimed omniscient Allah create when he created Iblis, if this scene is real? - and what kind of sadist is Allah if it in reality is he who is behind the establishing of a Hell that horrible and that sadistic? - so out of all proportions inhuman compared to fair punishment for the after all medium sins of most sinners.

055 15/40: "- - - except Thy (Allah's*) servants - - -". Iblis did not get permission to hurt good Muslims. (An irony if Iblis in reality is behind the Quran, which is one of the theories for whom in reality made the Quran, as it is not from any god with all its errors).

#056 15/41b: "This (way of My (Allah's*) sincere servants) is indeed a Way that leads straight to Me." This is one of the very many never proved claims in the Quran. It is an especially sincere and sinister one if the theory that Iblis/the Devil is the real maker of the Quran, is the true one - and the indicators pointing in that direction are a bit too many for comfort. (Though happily the theory that the book is man-made, is more likely. With all its errors and weaknesses it is not from any god).

057 15/42a: "Over My (Allah's*) servants (man/Muslims*) no authority shalt thou (Iblis/the Devil*) have - - -". See15/41a above.

058 15/42b: "Over My (Allah's*) servants (man/Muslims*) no authority shalt thou (Iblis/the Devil*) have, except such as put themselves in the wrong - - -". But how can anyone "put themselves in the wrong" if the Quran tells the truth when it many places claims that Allah decides - predestines - everything? Muslims will tell you about man's free will, but if Allah decides everything, man has not free will - and if man had free will, Allah cannot be entirely omniscient (because f.x. after Allah says "now I know the future" man always can change his mind once more if he has free will - - - which means Allah's knowledge is wrong). Islam has given in finding an answer to this impossibility - only lamely says that it has to be true as it is said so in the Quran(!!) They forget(?) that some of the immaterial laws are absolute even for omnipotent gods (an easy example we have mentioned before: One mathematical 1 + one mathematical 1 can give only one answer even for gods - the mathematical 2). There are things which are impossible also for omnipotent gods - f.x. to combine Allah's total predestination many times stated in the Quran, with full or partly free will for man. Or the other way around. Something is seriously wrong here.

059 16/63c: "- - - but Satan made, (to the wicked), their own acts seem alluring - - -". If dark forces were the maker(s) of the Quran - at least no god was involved - can this be what happened to the Muslims? Many honestly believe that their immoral moral code and all their sharia laws are good moral and ethics.

This is one of the many points in the Quran telling Islam's moral code that non-Muslims are second rate or worse.

060 16/63d: "- - - but Satan made, (to the wicked), their own acts seem alluring - - -". But how could this happen, when the Quran so clearly states that Allah decides - even predestines - everything? Remember that free will for man is one of the things not possible even for an omnipotent god if there is full predestination - not even limited free will. (This is one more claim which is wrong in the Quran). See 14/22b above.

###061 16/63e: "- - - but Satan made, (to the wicked), their own acts seem alluring - - -". Compare the Quran's ethical and moral codes to "do unto others like you want others do unto you". Do you start thinking? (This question we found on Internet.)

###062 16/63f: "- - - he (Satan*) is also their (non-Muslims'*) patron today - - -". No comments. But if Muslims accuse us or you for negative words about Muslims or Muhammad, there are some points in the Quran which are difficult to surpass. Practical to know if you are accused of indecency towards Muhammad or something sometime.

####063 16/92g: "- - - on the Day of Judgment He (Allah*) will certainly make clear to you (non-Muslims*) (the truth of) that wherein (the Quran*) ye disagree". Not possible unless he exists. But beware that explaining away he can do even if lives up to the moral code in the Quran. Not to mention his freedom to explain errors away if he exists, but belongs to the dark forces - a fact which makes Muslims' and Islam's explaining away of even obvious errors thought provoking, and this to at least the second power when it comes to dishonest explanations away meant for lay Muslims made by the Muslim clergy and scholars.

064 16/93f: "- - - He (Allah*) guides - - -". Not unless he exists - and if he in case belongs to the dark forces, the use of the Quran with all its mistakes, partly immoral moral code, etc. as a guide-book may be understandable.

065 16/98b: "- - - Satan the Rejected One". Quite an ironic end of the verse if there is anything in the theory that the real maker of the Quran was Satan, dressed up like Gabriel to cheat Muhammad.

The claim also is ironic if Islam's own theory is correct: Allah is all-powerful. This means that Iblis cannot run Hell except if permitted by Allah. Allah would not permit a Hell unless he had a good reason. This means that Hell is part of Allah's all-including Plan, and thus that Iblis is not an enemy or a rejected one, but a co-worker of Allah. As Allah is all-powerful and also predestines everything, this according to Muslim scholars is the only possible explanation.

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

066 16/99a: "No authority has he (Satan*) over those who believe - - -". This can be horribly wrong if Satan is the real maker of the Quran, which some ones think - and not 100% without a reason.

###067 16/99b: "No authority has he (the Devil*) over those who believe and put their trust in their Lord (Allah*)". Will this claim - as normal for the Quran not documented - also be valid if the Quran is a made up book (it at least is from no god with all those errors)?

068 16/100a: "His (the Devil's*) authority is over those only, who take him as patron and who joins partners with Allah." According to Islam Christians joins partners (Jesus*) with Yahweh, whom the Quran and Islam (wrongly - fundamentally too different teachings) claim is identical with Allah. They thus have Jesus in addition to Yahweh, and the Catholics have the saints (in reality not divine, but goers-between between normal humans and the god) - are they under the Devil's authority? But what about the Muslims, if the Quran is a made up book?

069 17/53c: "- - - Satan doth sow dissentions among them (mankind*): for Satan is to man an avowed enemy". Take a look at the texts in the Quran and see how much dissention and strife and war it wants and initiates and demands. Is this another indication for that the Quran is from the dark forces?

070 17/62: Here Iblis asks for respite to lead people astray, before Allah has ordered him unwanted. Most places in the Quran where this story is told, Iblis asks for this afterward. Quite a contradiction - An omniscient god had remembered how it happened and what was first and last - Iblis also had little reason for this request until he was thrown out. A small, but revealing contradiction. This also is not from the Bible.

071 17/63a: "(Allah) said (to Iblis*): Go thy way - - -". See 17/62 above.

072 17/64a: Here Allah gives Iblis lots of permissions he easily could have denied him. What kind if "good and benevolent god" is this? Also his is not from the Bible.

073 18/50b: (A18/53 – omitted in 2008): “Behold, We (Allah*) said to the angels,’ Bow down to Adam’: they bowed down except Iblis. He was one of the Jinns - - -.” But here is a clear mistake – or more likely; A. Yusuf Ali’s religion and al-Taqiyya may have suppressed his honesty: The original Arab text here do not say he was a jinn: It says something like (translated from Swedish): “He (Iblis*) belonged to the multitude of invisible beings” - and also angels are invisible. The text here honestly and clearly indicates that he was an angel before he became the Devil - "We said to the angels" are words clearly including Iblis. On the other hand the Quran other places tells he was made from fire, which in case means he according to this book in reality was a jinn. This is one more place where the Muslim scholars agree that the text in the Quran is wrong (though they never say this in clear words) as it here clearly is indicated that Iblis was an angel.

##074 18/51c: "- - - nor is it for Me (Allah*) to take as helpers such as lead (men) astray!" All the same many Muslim scholars think Iblis/the Devil is working for Allah, because Iblis could not - and cannot - run his Hell without the permission of Allah, and without being part of the omnipotent Allah's predestined Plan. This in case tells a lot about how good and benevolent Allah is.

075 18/63d: "- - - none but Satan made me (Moses' servant*) forget - - -". To make somebody forget such an unlikely experience - a dead fish digging its way to the sea (according to the original text) and disappear - would take at least one Satan.

076 19/83a: "Seest thou (Muhammad/Muslims*) not that We (Allah*) have set the Satan against the Unbelievers, to incite them with fury?". Consequently you fight Satan when you fight non-Muslims - they are bad and you fight for the good cause. This is the intended meaning, but there is an additional piece of information: By leaving the non-Muslims in the care of the Devil, the Quran robs them of the possibility of finding the way to Paradise "in the 11. hour". But then the Quran never minds others than the main persons; the good Muslim, and preferably the willing warriors. Empathy or sympathy, not to mention love. with others than the main persons and their nearest families hardly exist in the Quran - a very serious difference to the NT. Yahweh and Allah the same god?. No - simply and plainly no.

###077 20/116b: “Prostrate yourself to Adam”. This is one of the revealing differences which make it impossible that Yahweh and Allah can be the same god: The differences between the paradises - here the differences between the angels. In Allah's paradise the angels indisputably are of a much lower standing than humans - if not they did not have to prostrate themselves to the humans. In Yahweh's paradise it is not so directly said, but angels clearly are of higher standing than man. (In addition there f.x. are the enormous differences between how humans live in the two paradises). If Yahweh and Allah had been the same god, they had had the same paradise. To use the understatement of the century: That is not the case.

This is one of the at least 100% proofs for that also this of Muhammad's claims is wrong.

078 20/116c: "When We (Allah*) said to the angels, 'Prostrate yourselves to Adam', they prostrated themselves, but not Iblis (later the Devil in Islam*) - - -".

Note that Allah only spoke to the angels, and when he then reacted to that Iblis did not obey, it must mean Iblis was an angel. If Iblis was something else, there was no reason for Allah to react, as he then had not ordered Iblis to do anything. This represents a problem for Islam: Was Iblis an angel? But angels according to the Quran is created from light, whereas it is clear that Iblis was created from fire, and thus should be a jinn. The question is not settled yet. Clear language in the Quran?

079 20/120: "- - - kingdom - - -". Kingdoms could for natural reasons not exist in the claimed lifetime of Adam. He would not even know what the word meant.

080 22/4a: ""About (Satan) it is decreed that whoever turns to him for friendship, he will lead astray - - -". And by Muslim definition all non-Muslims follow Satan - perhaps with the exception of a small minority of religious Jews and Christians. The mainly Christian USA f.x. is "the Great Satan" to many Muslims. It will be quite an irony if it once turns out that Allah belongs to the dark forces - and the big distance between the ethical and moral rules of the Quran, compared with "do unto others like you want others to do unto you" may indicate something.

081 22/13b: "(Perhaps) they (non-Muslims*) call on one (other god*) whose hurt is nearer than his profit: evil, indeed, is the patron, and evil the companion (for help)". Here may instead be indicated the Devil.

082 22/52a: "Never did We (Allah*) send a messenger or a prophet before thee (Muhammad*), but when he framed a desire, Satan threw some (vanity) into his desire - - -". Another topic which Muhammad sometimes return to - he has weaknesses, but all prophets had weaknesses and were tempted by the Devil (not documented), which he indirectly claims is an indication for that he is a normal prophet. Invalid proof, as to meet temptations is nothing specific for prophets - it is normal for all humans.

083 22/52b: “Never did We (Allah*) send a messenger or a prophet before thee (Muhammad*), but, when he framed a desire, Satan threw some (vanity) into his desire: but Allah will cancel anything (vain) that Satan throws in, and Allah will confirm (and establish) His Signs - - -”. (from the middle of the Mecca period mainly - ca. 614 - 617 AD (perhaps 616 AD) and shortly after the infamous “Satanic Verses” Muhammad quoted in 53/19-22 in a situation where he had much to gain from becoming friends with the rulers and ruling class in Mecca: “Have ye seen al-Lat, al-Uzza, And another, the third (goddess), Manat (the three daughters of the main god in Mecca at that time, al-Lah/Allah*)? These are exalted idols whose intercession is hoped”. Muhammad afterwards changed the 4 short verses to: “Have ye seen al-Lat, al-Uzza, And another, the third (goddess) Manat? What! For you male sex, and for Him, the female (for children*)! Behold, such would be indeed most unfair!” (Muhammad was an Arab and was sure a god would look down on women as much as Arabs did*). This episode made a lot of “noise”, and it was most convenient for him to receive(?) a verse like this telling all prophets had had experiences like that, and that he was not to be blamed).

It may be ok to abrogate words of Satan, but how could an omniscient and omnipotent god permit Satan to do it? - something is wrong here. And how could a perfect prophet not notice that 3 goddesses was something way out of his former teachings? - - - if there was not a reason for him to do it? And how many other verses are inspired by whispering from Satan? (- the brutal verses from Medina may make one think this and that.)

084 24/21b: "Follow not Satan's footsteps - - -". Just to mention it: As it is clear that no god was involved in the making the Quran, one of the theories is that Satan, dressed up like Gabriel, was the real creator of the Quran and thus of Islam. (But even though several aspects of the religion may strengthen this theory, we personally are skeptical; not even a devil would make so many mistakes, contradictions, etc. - he had to know he would be found out sooner or later. There is one possible explanation, though; that the god did not permit him to make a new religion to trap more humans for Hell, unless it was done in such a way that the victims had a good chance to understand that something was wrong).

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

085 25/11e: "We (Allah*) have prepared a Blazing Fire for such (non-Muslims*) - - -". If he exists and in addition is either a god or a devil (dressed up like Gabriel, Muhammad would not have a chance to see the difference between the dressed up Iblis/the Devil and Gabriel - this even more so as he had never seen Gabriel in case.

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

#086 25/29c: "Satan is but a traitor to man". Correct according to any main religion - but was he involved in the making of the Quran? (This is one of the theories about who made the book.) Personally we are reluctant to believe so, as not even a devil would make a book where so much is wrong - he had to know he would be found out and the book loose credence sooner or later. But there is one possibility: May be he got permission from the god to use also this way - making the Quran - to lead people astray, but on the condition that it should be so badly done that intelligent persons had a real chance to see through the deception. To be flippant: Perhaps the god did not want too many stupid persons or persons unable to use their brain into his Paradise?

087 26/95a: "- - - the host of Iblis - - -". Non-Muslims (and some bad Muslims).

*088 26/210: “No evil ones have brought down this (Revelation) - - -“. A little ironic to meet this claim, as this is one of the theories for who made the Quran. Another thing: When someone has bad conscience, slips of the tongue sometimes just are to deny the thing for which they have bad conscience.

*089 26/210-211: “No evil ones have brought down this (Revelation). It would neither suit them - - -“. May be no evil spirits have brought down the Quran. But is definite that no omniscient god has done so – too many mistakes, etc. It also is definite that no good or benevolent god or spirit did it – far too inhuman, full of hate and suppression and blood – not to mention the wretched ethic and moral in the book. All the same it is possible it was not sent down by bad or evil forces (even bad supernatural forces would be too intelligent to make a book with so many mistakes, contradictions, invalid logic, etc., as they had to know they would be found out sooner or later and lose their credibility - though a possibility is that the god demanded a low quality book to permit the Devil to make such a trap - f.x .may be the god wanted it to be possible for humans to understand something was wrong and thus evade the trap) – it simply is possible, and even likely, that it was made by one or more men (all the wrong science and "knowledge" in accordance with the local beliefs in and around Arabia at that time, and a lot more points in that direction). But what is absolutely sure, is that an Islam like the one one finds in the surahs from Medina suits evil spirits and forces very well: Inhumanity, stealing, blood, hate, war. Just ask Muslims what they think about the Mongols attacking them in the east. The religion in Mongolia under and after Djingis Khan basically was quite similar to Islam. When Islam used their war machine and inhumanity in f.x. India and other places, they according to all Muslims were heroes. Then they met Mongols who did just the same to Muslims - - and the Mongols were terrible monsters. But then the southern Mongols became Muslims and continued in the same way like before, but now against non-Muslims - - - and now they were great heroes according to Islam. Ask them if the f.x. remember the name Timur Lenk (Tamerlane).

Islam as described in the surahs from Medina, definitely suits evil forces/spirits.

090 26/211a: "- - - it (the Quran*) would neither suit them (the dark forces*) - - -". At least partly wrong. Please read the surahs from Medina - they on top of all according to Islam's rules for abrogation (making verses invalid when they conflict) are the dominant ones as they are the youngest ones - and then read this sentence once more: There are lots and lots of things in the Quran which suits the dark forces ever so well.

091 26/221: "- - - the evil ones - - -". The underlings of Iblis/the Devil.

092 26/222a: "They (the evil ones*) descend on every lying, wicked person - - -". Just a few words: Al-Taqiyya, Kitman, Hilah, "war is betrayal", broken words/promises/oaths, stealing/robbing/looting, raping, enslaving, extorting, torturing, murder, war mongering, discrimination mongering, hate mongering, mass murder, war - and there are more. No more comments.

Is this quote the real explanation behind this war and hate and apartheid religion?

#093 27/24c: "Satan has made their (non-Muslims'*) deeds pleasing in their eyes - - -". See 6/108b, 23/1b, and 26/74c above. This human tendency also goes for Muslims, something the book ”forgets" to mention. There are several things in Islam which may indicate something like this, when you judge from what Muslims reckon to be normal and ethically and morally right - compare it to "do unto others like you want others do unto you", and it makes you think.

094 31/21e: "'Nay, we (non-Muslims*) shall follow the ways that we found our fathers (following)' What! Even if it is Satan beckoning them to the Penalty of the (Blazing) Fire?" But this is just what Muslims are doing - blindly and without real questions following the old beliefs.

"- - - it is in the nature of man to regard the beliefs which have been implanted in him from childhood, and which he now shares with his social environment, as the only true and possible ones" - which explains in details why Muslims believe in spite of all facts proving something is seriously wrong with the religion.

(Also see 6/108b): “Thus have We (Allah*) made alluring to each people its own doings”. ###Comment A6/92 (A6/93 in the 2008 English edition): “Lit., ‘thus godly have we made….”, etc. implying that it is in the nature of man to regard the belief which have been implanted in him from childhood, and which he now shares with his social environment, as the only true and possible ones – with the result that a polemic against those beliefs often tends to provoke a hostile psychological reaction.” This is said as an explanation why Islam sometimes meets a negative reaction. But the book skips the fact that this also goes for Muslims: If they are strongly indoctrinated, they may react strongly to arguments and facts they do not like – and without thinking over – or being mentally able to think over – even to true facts.

To repeat it:But this is just what Muslims are doing - blindly and without real questions following the old beliefs.

095 31/33i: "- - - the Chief Deceiver - - -". Iblis/the Devil.

096 32/13k: “If We (Allah*) so willed, We could certainly have brought every soul its true guidance: but the Word from Me will come true, ‘I will fill Hell with Jinns and men all together’”. Many Muslim scholars believe Allah is the real ruler also of Hell, as Iblis could not run it against the wish and will of Allah, as Allah is omnipotent. This verse indicates that this may be correct. What does it in case tell about Allah?

097 34/20a: "And on them (the leaders of the caravans in 34/19a above*) did Satan prove true his idea - - -". Everything which is not according to Muhammad and his new religion, is caused by Satan, according to the Quran. For one thing it does not have to be true even if Muhammad and his Quran say so, and for another: Where has the claimed free will of man disappeared?

*098 35/5e: “- - - (not) let the Chief Deceiver deceive you about Allah.” The Quran here talks about the Devil. But one question: Muhammad is the absolute and unquestioned chief of the Muslims. If Islam is a false religion – is Muhammad then the Chief Deceiver? The question is not ridiculous – it is sure it is neither made by an omniscient god (too much is wrong in the Quran), nor by a good god (too much dishonesty, discrimination, inhumanity, hate, blood and war), and then the alternatives are: Made by man? – rational or ill (f.x. TLE - Temporal Lobe Epilepsy - will explain much). Or made by some dark forces? – f.x. the Devil dressed up like Gabriel. Or made by a man - f.x. Muhammad. His acceptance of the use of dishonesty plus his at least some lies in the Quran are bad indications.

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

099 35/8a: “Is he, then, to whom the evil of his conduct is made alluring (non-Muslims*) - - - (equal to one who is 'rightly guided'*)?” Of course not - Muslims are much better, of course. This even though the famous Muslim al-Ghazali (1058 - 1111 AD) - "the greatest Muslim after Muhammad", according to Islam - marked the end of any new thinking in any science not helpful for Islam, in the eastern and central Muslim world with his book "The Incoherence of the Philosophers" against philosophy in 1095 AD. For more than 800 years there did not come one single new thought or idea bringing humanity forward in any kind of science, "humanoria" included, from the entire Muslim world, Maghreb/Spain excluded. (There the ability and freedom to think yourself lasted another ca. 100 years - the death of Ibn Rushd (Averroes) in 1198 can arbitrarily be said to mark the end there). Not one single new thought or new idea in over 900 years!!! Among now some 1.6 BILLION people!!! Yes, it has really to be said: It is difficult to match Muslims and Islam.

Actually new ideas some places for long times meant punishment or even death penalty, though after some time it was agreed on that new ideas building on the Quran and the Hadiths could be accepted, but all other ideas were “Bad new thoughts” and negative or even punishable.

Quite another point is that much of what the Quran makes alluring, good deeds, morally right, etc. collide head on with the essence of the fundamental moral code: "Do to others like you want others do to you". Compare the Quran's moral code - and the sharia laws - to this, and you will understand why some believe the real maker of the Quran, is the dark forces.

##100 36/62a: "But he (the Devil*) did lead astray a great multitude of you (non-Muslims*)". As the Quran with all its errors is not from a god, this multitude may include all Muslims - especially if the real maker of the book is from the dark forces. A sad, but plain fact.

101 37/31c: "- - - the Word of our (bad people*) Lord (Allah*) that we shall indeed (have to) taste (the punishment of our sins)". It is said so in the Quran. But as the Quran is not from a god, then from who are these words in reality? - from Muhammad? - from Iblis/the Devil? - or from someone or something else?

102 38/37: “- - - And also the Satans (including) every kind of builder and diver (had to work for King Solomon*) - - -“. To make us believe this, Islam has to produce very real proofs – this even more so as it had been such a boost to Solomon’s reputation, that it surely had not been forgotten in the Bible - - - and there it is not mentioned. Similar claim in 21/82. (Actually it is "borrowed" from a made up scripture, like so much of the "Biblical" stuff in the Quran).

103 38/41b: "- - - the Evil One - - -". The Devil.

104 38/74a: "Not so Iblis - - -". This sentence creates uncertainty in Islam. Here it sounds like Iblis originally was one of the angels. But other places in the Quran it is told he was created from fire (f. x. in 38/76 below), which means he is a Jinn (angles are made from light according to the Quran).

105 38/74b: "- - - Iblis - - -". The angel or jinn - most likely jinn as he is created from fire, whereas the angels are created from light according to the Quran - who became the Devil (still according to the Quran).

106 38/74c: "- - - Iblis - - - became one of those who reject Faith". ####How was it possible for him to reject what he knew were facts (if we presume that what is told about him is true)? One thing was to refuse to obey, another thing is to reject facts he knew were true (again; if we presume what is told about him and Allah and the heaven was true).

107 38/75-82: The same story as in 15/33-39 above (Muhammad had a strong tendency to repeat himself – not god for literature quality), but with the addition of why Iblis did not want to prostrate himself for Adam: “I am better than he: Thou createdst me from fire, and him Thou createdst from clay.” Iblis was haughty or - if he was in cohorts with Allah in a game for having a reason for creating Hell – he played haughty.

Nothing like this in the Bible.

108 38/76a: “Thou (Allah*) createdst me (Iblis – the Devil*) from fire - - -.” Here something is wrong, as another place in the Quran it is said he was created from the fire of a scorching wind – there is a difference between a fire and a warm wind. Contradiction. But if he is made from fire, that means he is a jinn.

This is not from the Bible.

##109 43/36b: "- - - We (Allah*) appoint for him (one who has left Islam*) a Satan, to be an intimate companion to him". And this is pretended to be the same god who tells about "the lost coin" (Luke 15/8-10), "the lost sheep" (Matt. 18/12-14), "the lost son" (Luke 15/11-31), "the 11. hour" (Matt. 20/8-13), etc.?! Only this verse in the Quran is enough to prove 100% that Yahweh is a different - and a very different - god from Allah. And then there are all the other serious differences - f.x. something as prosaic as the enormously different Paradises.

110 43/37a: "Such (satans (see 43/36b just above*)) really hinder them (persons who have left Islam*) from the Path - - -". See 43/36b just above.

##111 43/37b: "Such (satans) really hinder them from the Path, but they think that they are being guided aright!" This is one of the really thought provoking verses in the Quran, when you think over the many horrible, immoral, and unjust moral and other rules you find in the Quran - rules Muslims honestly believe are glorious, because they have been taught so by their parents and mullahs and others. The same verses which make people from almost any other culture refuse quite to let go the suspicion that the real maker of the Quran are some dark forces - plural or singular.

##112 43/37c: "Such (satans) really hinder them from the Path, but they (the believers*) think that they are being guided aright!" All Muslims think they are guided right - is this the explanation why?

113 43/62: "Let not Satan hinder you (to reach the god*) - - -". Again we are touching this impolite, but - if supernatural beings exist - not impossible theory: Are the dark forces/Satan the real creator of the Quran? Parts of f.x. its moral, ethical, war, and judicial codes after all may indicate this. And if Iblis/the Devil dressed up like Gabriel, Muhammad had not the slightest chance to see the difference.

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

114 44/3d: "- - - We (Allah*) (ever) wish to warn (against Evil)". Here is meant "against religious evil" - which means every religious belief not accepted by the Quran. The irony is that large parts of the Quran's moral, ethical, political, war, and judicial codes are evil compared to normal such codes in normal cultures, not to mention compared to "do to others like you want others do to you". (But what is the Quran's definition for "evil" if the theory that the Devil is the real maker of the book is correct? If it is from supernatural beings, the dark forces are the only alternative, as no god ever delivered a book of a quality like the Quran - and even more so, not a good and benevolent god, as too much is adverse to "do against others like you want others do against you".)

115 46/31b: "- - - hearken to the one who invites (you) to Allah (Muhammad*) - - -". A dangerous deed if Allah does not exist, or even worse; if he exists, but is from the dark forces.

116 47/12b: "Verily Allah will admit (Muslims to his paradise*) - - -". The old fact: Not possible - possible - unless Allah exists and is a god. (Where will he admit them if he is from the dark forces?)

117 47/21c: "- - - true to Allah". Not possible unless he exists and is something supernatural. If he does not exist, one only is cheating oneself - - - and giving power to Muhammad and later to one or more leaders. If he on top belongs to the dark forces, one also is cheating oneself, and likely with an even worse result.

118 47/25a: "Those who turn back as apostates - - - Satan has instigated them - - -". A nice and cozy explanation for his followers. More cozy for Muhammad to tell this, than the plain truth: That at least some of them had seen that something was horribly wrong with Muhammad's new religion.

119 47/25c: "- - - Satan has instigated them (apostates from Islam*) and buoyed them with false hope". A good pep-talk and a good "explanation" to his - Muhammad's - followers. Much better than to admit they may be had seen that things were much wrong in Muhammad's teachings.

120 47/25d: "- - - Satan has instigated them (apostates from Islam*) and buoyed them with false hope". Or if Yahweh exists, it may have been he who instigated them with true hope?

121 48/8a: “We (Allah*) have truly sent thee (Muhammad*) as a witness - - -”. Is this reliable? - in a book with this much mistakes, invalid statements, “signs” and “proofs”? There is only one possible answer to that: A “witness” bringing so much wrong information and wrong fact, is not sent from an omniscient god. And one may add: A “witness” bringing so much injustice, hate and misery to the world, is not sent by a good and benevolent god. If Muhammad at all was sent, on may speculate about by whom. Personally we hardly believe he was sent by even a devil, though the parts of the religion as preached in the Quran fits any devil well. But not even a devil would make a "holy" book with so many mistakes and errors – he would be found out sooner or later.

###But may be a devil knew that mistakes do not matter very much – may be he knew that religiously blind persons are unable to see even the most obvious mistaken facts, because they do not want to see them? Or maybe that was the condition on which the god permitted the book - so that man should have a fair chance to see the trap and avoid Hell?

122 51/9a: “Through which (non-Muslims*) are deluded (away from the Truth)”. As for truth, see 2/2b, 13/1g, and 40/75 above. Similar claims in 5/75 – 6/95 – 9/30 - 10/34 – 40/62. That the Quran is the truth, is just a claim, not a proved fact. Actually it is proved that much is wrong. (For some reason or other Islam and its Muslims seldom claim that Islam is the religion of honesty.)

And as the Quran is not from a god, who are deluded? - the non-Muslims or the Muslims (especially if Allah exists but is from the dark forces, which f.x. parts of the Quran's moral code may indicate)?

#123 57/14f: "- - - the Deceiver - - -". The Devil. (One impolite, but relevant comment here, is that one of the theories for who really created the Quran, is that it was Iblis/the Devil, who then dressed up like Gabriel and gave it to Muhammad. Muhammad would not have had the slightest chance to see the difference. The inhuman parts of the Quran may indicate this, but personally we are skeptical, as not even a devil would make up a book where so much is wrong - not unless this was a condition from the god to permit such a hoax: Lots of mistakes etc. to enable thinking persons to evade the trap.

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

124 58/10a: "Secret counsels are only (inspired) by Satan - - -". Something to think about for terrorists and similar? - especially as one of the going theories for who made the Quran, just is Satan (and even more so as the book they live by, is not from any god - too many errors in it).

125 58/10c: "- - - but he (the Devil*) cannot harm them (people/Muslims*) in the least (= make them sin*), except as Allah permits - - -". But how then can Allah punish man for sins Allah has permitted - even via the Devil - (and according to other verses in the Quran even decided by predestination)??

And: ####Does this mean that Allah is the real ruler also of Hell, like many Muslim scholars believe (because if Allah is omnipotent, it is not possible for the Devil to work unless Allah permits it)? What does this in case tell about the claimed "good and benevolent" god Allah?

126 58/19b: "Satan has got the better of them (non-Muslims*) - - -". Bad people - stay away from them.

127 58/19c: "Satan has got the better of them (non-Muslims*) - - -". This was a much more tempting "explanation" for Muhammad to use, than the plain truth: That the real reason why many did not want to join him, was that they saw much was wrong in his teaching.

128 58/19d: "- - - he (Satan*) has made them (non-Muslims*) loose the remembrance of Allah". This in case means Satan has more influence than Allah.

This sentence may also be referring to Muhammad's claim that once upon a time everyone were Muslims, but false teachings and falsified holy books lead all people astray. The claim is proved wrong, as neither science nor Islam has found one single unmistakable trace of Muslims older than 610 AD when Muhammad started his teaching.

129 67/9b: "- - - (message (the Quran*)) - - -". If it is a message, then from whom? No god ever was involved in a book that full of errors. Then remain: Dark forces (f.x. the Devil dressed up like the angel Gabriel - Muhammad would have no chance to see the difference). A sick brain (f.x. TLE - Temporal Lobe Epilepsy - like modern medical science suspects, which can give illusions and symptoms like Muhammad is said to have experienced). Or one or more cold and scheming brain(s) liking power - f.x. Muhammad's own. Those are the alternatives.

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

130 67/20e: "In nothing but delusion are the Unbelievers". If Allah does not exist, or if he is wrongly described in the Quran (f.x. a parody on Yahweh), not to mention if he is a figure from the dark forces pretending to be a god, this is the case for Muslims - and an extra dark possibility surfaces if there in addition exist(s) one or more real gods - f.x. Yahweh - Muslims are prohibited from searching for.

131 68/39a: "- - - have ye (non-Muslims*) a Covenant with Us (Allah*) - - -". If Allah does not exist, a covenant has no meaning - better is a covenant with an existing god (if one exists). If he is a camouflaged something from dark forces, like parts of the Quran may indicate, one is better off without such a covenant. If he exists and is a god: Do Muslims have a covenant with him? - there only are claims for this in a very unreliable book. Besides living according to the Quran, Muslims do not live according to the teachings of a good and benevolent god - they are living according to a made up book from(?) a real or made up god of war.

It also is a fact that according to the Bible Yahweh has a covenant with his followers (f.x. 22/20)

131 + 1835 = 1966 comments (+ basic comments/introductions).


 

78.  DHU'L-KIFEL

Unclear. Perhaps a Jewish prophet, but unknown who in case.

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

001 21/85b: Idris may or may not be Enoch (Gen. 5/21-24). It also may mean Elijah or somebody else. As mentioned before, the language in the Quran often is far from exact. It may also simply be a name invented by Muhammad - and the same goes for Dhu'l-Kifl just below (and for the claimed Arab prophets Hud, Salih, and Shu'ayb may be).

002 21/85c: Dhu'l-Kifl - nobody knows who he was, except it is likely he was a Jewish prophet. Many names are mentioned, but it only is guesswork. Also see 21/85b just above.

003 38/48d: "- - - Dhu'l-Kifl - - -". It is not clear if this is a character from the Bible or somewhere, and in case who, though there is a chance it is the Jewish prophet Ezekiel. Clear and unmistakable language in the Quran Muslims claim.

3 + 1966 = 1969 comments (+ basic comments/introductions).


 

79.  DHU'L QUARNAYN - AN ARAB NAME FOR ALEXANDER THE GREAT

Alexander III of Macedon, better known as Alexander the Great, born 20. or 21. July 356 BC, died 10. or 11. June 323 BC, was king of Macedonia and later also of Greece and a lot more. He lived well inside the times of written history and thus we know a lot about him - - - and nothing told about him in the Quran is correct according to our knowledge of history.

Because of this, many Muslims deny that Dhu'l Quarnayn = Alexander the Great. But science is in no doubt. There f.x. is the fact that Dhu'l Quarnayn means "the Two-horned One", which was a name used in Arabia for Alexander (in the old Arabia horns were a symbol of power), and not least ibn Hisham (died 833 AD) straight out tells that Alexander was a Greek (as mentioned he was king of Greece) and that he founded Alexandria - and Alexandria was founded by just Alexander the Great.

Among the things we know about Alexander is that he travelled as far east as India, but never far enough to come to where the sun raises from Earth(!), and as for west, he never travelled further west than Macedonia, Greece and Egypt, and thus never came to the point where the sun settles "in a pond of dirty water" on Earth(!).

Also some translations of the Quran mention the name Alexander the Great when talking about Dhu'l Quarnayn. In my edition of N. J. Dawood's translation - Penguin Classics, edition 2003 - you find it at the bottom of page 212.

History also never reports that he was involved in anything related to the wild people Gog and Magog (actually they are names from the Bible - a prince and his country).

#####Finally but definitely not least: We know that the tales in the Quran about Alexander are "borrowed" from what we today call a sword and sorcery novel written by a Syrian in the 6. century. If you are able to believe an omniscient god had to borrow made up cock-and-bull stories into his claimed fully true holy book, it is up to you.

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

001 17/6-7: We are now at the 2. punisher, which may have been Nebuchadnezzar, though this is not clear. (As the Assyrians (732-722BC) and the Babylonians (587 BC) mainly attacked different parts of David's old country, Muhammad might have reckoned f.x. the later Romans, as they were number 2 the different places. The Quran after all says "2 times", and in this case the arithmetic of main destruction adds up. Also the fact that they had been permitted to return before the second destruction, may point to the Romans. Simply unclear.)

The two first ones in case were the Assyrians (722 BC, Northern Kingdom - Israel) and the Babylonians (586 BC, Southern Kingdom - Judah (from which the name Jews derive))- (Solomon's temple in Jerusalem was destroyed by the Babylonians under Nebuchadnezzar in 586 BC. (Actually Jerusalem was taken in 597 BC - the rest of Judah in 586 BC and the Temple destroyed then.) And that was it according to the Quran = 2 times. But the Quran as so often has got history wrong. Because - still omitting the lesser stories - then came Alexander the Great (named Dhu'l Quarnayn in the Quran), though he was not too bad for the Jews - followed by the Romans (61 BC), revolt against the Romans (66 - 73 AD, and the new Temple destroyed 70 AD - remember this when you are told about Muhammad's trip to Heaven from "the Farthest Mosque - there was no mosque or temple there at the time of Muhammad), Persia (614 AD), Persia beaten (628 AD). Then the Muslims - Jerusalem fell in 637 AD (some sources say 638 AD), and the Muslims stole everything resulting in a hunger catastrophe, this in addition to lots of murdering in the land. Then the Muslim Fatimids - with destruction of f.x. churches and synagogues ("no compulsion in religion"?). The crusaders (1099 AD). The Mamelukes (Muslims) (1244 AD), The Ottomans (1517 AD). These are some. Plus pogroms against Jews in different parts of the world - Muslim and non-Muslim - and the Nazi not included.

#####As for the Crusaders: Muslims complain heavily about them - - - but boast about their own worse deeds. Strange and just, do you not think so?

002 18/83b: "They ask thee (Muhammad*) concerning Dhu'l-Quarnayn". See 18/63b above.

###003 18/83c: "They ask thee (Muhammad*) concerning Dhu'l-Quarnayn." Dhu'l-Quarnayn was an Arab name for Alexander the Great (!!) (he lived around 340 BC)

Alexander the Great is a man one does not expect to find as a hero in a “holy book”. But in the Quran you find him – mainly in surah 18.

The book uses an Arab name for him: Dhu’l Quarnayn – "the two-horned one" (horn was a symbol for power). But it is well known in history that this was a name used for Alexander in Arabia. In addition there are facts like the description made by the well known Muslim scholar Ibn Hisham (around 900 AD) in his comments to Ibn Ishaq’s “The Life of Muhammad”: “Alexander was a Greek and he founded Alexandria”. Alexander really was from Macedonia, but he also was king of Greece, and it is very elementary knowledge that he founded Alexandria (in Egypt) – and gave it his name.

You will find Muslims who vehemently oppose this fact, because it makes an extremely unbelievable story even worse: Every educated person know that here something is horribly – not to say laughably – wrong. Alexander was not involved in stupidities like this, and he definitely was no Muslim, but a polytheist. Some Muslims even try to use the mistake the book makes by telling he is a good Muslim, as a proof for that Dhu’l Quarnayn cannot be Alexander, because today we as said know he was a polytheist. The trouble is that Muhammad’s uneducated follower in 622 AD when this surah is dated, did not have the faintest idea about that – Allah (or at least Muhammad) told it, and then it had to be true! But there is no doubt: Dhu’l Quarnayn is Alexander the Great. In some translations of the Quran – f.x. Dawood – you even will find they simply write Alexander the Great instead of Dhu’l Quarnayn in the Quran.

The stories about Alexander the Great are not from the Bible. And also not from history.

004 18/84b: "- - - and We (Allah*) gave him (Alexander the Great*) the ways and means to all ends". Alexander was the son of the Macedonian king Philip, and became a king after his father's death. May be it was a god who gave him his means or maybe there were logical reasons for them. Somewhat similar to 11/7a above.

005 18/85a: "One (such) way he (Alexander the Great*) followed - - -". History knows the travels of Alexander quite well, and this claimed travel is a made up one. Alexander never came further west than Macedonia in the north and Egypt in the south.

006 18/86a: (A18/84 – in 2008 edition A18/85): “Until, when he (Dhu'l Quarnayn/Alexander the Great*) reached the setting of the sun , he found it set in a spring of murky water". The sun simply does not set on Earth - neither in water or on land. And the sun sets in no "spring of murky water" in any of those two places.

007 18/86b: (A84 – in 2008 edition A85): “Until, when he (Dhu'l Quarnayn/Alexander the Great*) reached the setting of the sun, he found it set in a spring of murky water”. In this case A. Yusuf Ali – like mostly – has a correct translation. The Arab word “ayn” normally means a spring. Muslims has a tendency to claim that “many philologists” also tell it can mean “abundance of water”, “a large body of water” or similar. This even though if he had seen even a murky Pacific Ocean, it only had been a tea-spoon compared to the real size of the sun - far, far too Small. Not to mention that the real sun is far, far too hot close up. Then they - “forgetting” the word “murky” (there exist no murky ocean and hardly any murky really big lake in the area) - happily go on to explain that he must have seen the reflecting of the sun in the sea or ocean, a sight Alexander had seen hundreds of times before and never had mistaken for what he was looking for according to the Quran. When religious people have to choose between truth, reality and religious “Truth”, both truth and reality can walk west singing a song. Here the text is clear – but Muslims make up other meanings to flee from an obvious mistake in the Quran. It is not the only place in the book.

008 18/86c: “- - - he (Alexander) reached the setting of the sun, - - -”. To reach the setting of the sun means to go west. In addition to all the other mistakes in this story we know that Alexander never went west (the furthest west he ever was, was his homeland Macedonia north of Greece, and Egypt). See also 18/86b and 18/86c just below.

##009 18/86d: “- - - when he (Alexander) reached the setting of the sun - - -”. Anyone who knows two millimeters about geography and astronomy knows this is wrong and ridiculous to the extreme: The sun does not set on Earth – and absolutely not in a pond of dirty water. Also see 18/86a and 18/86c just above and just below.

###010 18/86e: “- - - he (Alexander the Great*) found it (the sun*) set in a spring of murky water”. This statement - or fairy tale - deserves a series of exclamation marks - anyone who has finished primary school, knows among other these facts:

  1. The sun is too big to settle anywhere on Earth.
  2. Not to mention that it is far too big to settle in a pond - murky or not.
  3. And that if the sun ever came within a million kilometers or miles from the Earth, there would be no spring or pond any more.

Muhammad did not know the size or temperature of the sun – (he even seems to believe it was a flat disk that could be folded up) - but an omniscient god had known. Who made the Quran?

Muslims try to “explain” it by f.x. telling that what he saw was the reflex of a sunset in a spring. Think of the great warrior king Alexander - riding west and west and west with his men, day after day and week after week to find the place where the sun set. Then one day he hits upon one more pond - even one with dirty water. When he stands so that that dirty spring is in the straight line between him and the sun, he sees the red and yellow mirror image of the sunset in the muddy surface - a sight he has seen time and again and again before on the surfaces of ponds and springs and rivers and lakes and seas - and he hails his men: “Now we have reached our goal!! Here is where the sun sets!! Now let’s go back and tell about our great discovery“.

Believe it whoever wants.

But whoever believes it needs to see a professor of history - or a psychologist to mend his brain. (Also see 18/86a and 18/86b above.)

Besides: We know from history that Alexander never went west.

Some Muslims also tries to explain that Dhu'l-Quarnayn was not Alexander the Great. For this see 18/83 in the "complete" list of mistakes.

011 18/88a: "But whoever believes (= is a good Muslim - only Muslims believe according to the Quran*) - - - he shall have a goodly reward - - -". Here the polytheist war king Alexander the Great is claimed to be a good Muslim who wants to reward other good Muslims nearly 1000 years before the first known Muslim, Muhammad. Believe it if you want. Anyone who knows history may have a good laugh.

012 18/89a: "Then followed he (Alexander the Great*) (another) way". Alexander came quite far east - as everyone who has seen the great film about him knows. But he never came to the place where the sun rises - see 18/90 just below. Anyone who knows history or geography may have a good laugh.

013 18/90b: “- - - he (Alexander*) came to the rising of the sun - - -”. A historical and a geographical anomaly and impossibility.

014 18/93b: "Until, when he (Alexander the Great*) reached (a tract) between two mountains - - -". Nobody knows where this tract was. And worse: If it had existed, closing in the two big tribes Gog and Magog until the Day of Doom like the Quran and the Hadiths tell, it had been found by now - we know every square yard of the globe. This story is a made up one unless Islam proves the opposite.

*015 18/94c: “- - - Gog and Magog - - -”. These are from the Bible - and f.x. Muhammad Azad uses this as an alibi for the names in the Quran (A18/95), without mentioning anything more. But in 1. Mos. 10/2 and 1. Chr. 1/5 the name Magog just is the name of a grandson of Noah, and not given as a founder of a tribe. The other name, Gog, is not mentioned there. More relevant are the tales about Gog and Magog in Ezekiel, chapters 38 and 39: King Gog of Magog - or more exactly: "- - - Gog, chief prince of Meshech and Tubal (tribes, towns or areas*)(Ez.38/3) - - - of the land of Magog (Ez.38/2 - also see Ez. 39/11). And they will all be dead and buried (Ez.39/11) and thus also cannot be the people we meet in the Quran. Finally Gog and Magog are mentioned in Rev.20/8, but there the names are used for all humans: "- - - the nations in all four corners of the world - - -". None of these in reality 3 cases corresponds to Gog and Magog in the Quran even though the names clearly are taken from the Bible - 2 wild tribes according to the Quran. We may add that many Muslim scholars believe Gog and Magog represent the Tatars and the Mongols who fought terrible wars against Muslims. But they lived some 1500 years after Alexander, and cannot be the ones he is claimed to have met. When Islam met mighty and bloody opponents, the opponents were terrible and devilish and Gog- and Magog-like. When Muslims did the same and worse against others - their history is horrible at times - they were heroes. Strange don't you think so?

016 18/95-97: A people that lived in a valley were terrorized by two other people - Gog and Magog. They (the locals*) asked Alexander the Great for help. He said: “I will erect a strong barrier between you and them - - -". And he built a huge wall - which in real life had been to no avail after a short time. This story is not from the Bible.

017 18/96a: "Bring me blocks of iron”. And he let (Alexander the Great*) build a wall of iron blocks produced by the locals straight across the valley, strong enough to be impossible for the people of Gog and Magog to get through, and tall enough to be impossible to get over even with the longest ladders.

But nowhere on the entire earth there existed that much iron blocks around 330 BC – blocks of iron the locals were asked to bring him. (Note here that 18/93 tells the wall had to cross “(a tract) between two mountains” under which mountains a people lived – the wall had to have some length to cross “a tract” big enough for a whole people to live – it took a lot of iron blocks.) Also remember that iron was expensive at that time – it took a lot of work to make it. The locals had to be very rich to have that much iron. (Relevant here - even though it is some 500 years older - may be what is said about the enormously rich king Solomon in 1. Chr. 22/3: "He provided a large amount of iron to make nails for the doors of the gateways (of the Temple in Jerusalem*) and for the fittings". For a king so rich that he reckoned his gold in tons, this was "a large amount". Alexander asked for at least some tens of thousand times as much). Contradicts historical reality (and besides the story is naïve and ridiculous – there exists no valley big enough to feed two big tribes with only one possible entrance. And even if impossible to get over, then it was possible to dig under – fire and water could get you through even rocks if you had time.)

See also 18/86a – 18/86b – 18/86c above.

##018 18/96b: “At length, when he (Alexander - or really the workers making the wall*) had filled up the space between the two steep mountain-sides, he said, ’Blow (with your bellows)’. Then, when he had made it red as a fire - - -”. It would not be possible to make the whole of such a big wall red like fire at around 340 BC. They neither had the means - that kind of fire - nor the technology. It would be more than difficult even today. Fairy tale.

##019 18/96c: “Then, when he (Alexander the Great) had made it (red) as fire, he said: ’Bring me, that I may pour over it, molten lead” (Dawood says bronze).

  1. We do not think there any one place on Earth was enough lead - or bronze - for such a job.
  2. Even if they did, metal was expensive - the locals had to be very rich to have so much lead/bronze. And this goes even more so for enough iron blocks to build a huge wall.
  3. It would not be technically possible to heat such a big and long wall to “make it (red) as fire” ca. 340 BC - it is hardly possible today - for pouring the lead/bronze over it.

To include the rest of the story about Gog and Magog: Thy will be unable to get out of their big valley – it has to be big to feed that many until they are released as a warning about the approaching of the Final Day. But even today nobody has found their valley – not even on a satellite photo. It must be a well hidden big valley.

020 18/97: "Thus they (Gog and Magog*) were made powerless to scale it (the wall*) or dig through it". That wall had to be mighty high and quite thick = much iron/too expensive at best iron was expensive around 340 BC. Besides it still is ridiculous: They could dig under - by means of fire + water they could dig through even rock given some time. But the real screamer is that there exists not one single valley in this whole world big enough to feed two big peoples (that they were many is told another place in the Quran - "swarming over all hills"), with only one possible way out - they simply could walk around the wall. It takes a lot of naivety or strong wish to believe in stories like this.

022 18/98d: "- - - the promise of my (Alexander's*) Lord (here wrongly indicated Allah*) is true". Never since long before Alexander the Great and till today there has ben one single proved case of a promise from Allah which has come true. Islam will have to prove this claim to be believed.

023 21/96a: “- - - Gog and Magog (people) - - -”. The names are from the Bible. But in the Bible they are a king (or actually a prince) (Gog) from the country Magog (Ez. 38/1, more unclear in Rev. 20/8), whereas in the Quran they are two bad peoples (who were walled in for always in a valley by Alexander the Great (18/93-97) - a valley never found, even not today when every inch of the globe is mapped). Which book is most reliable?

024 21/96e: Gog and Magog also are part of the Quran's story (not history) about Alexander the Great - see 18/83-99, and especially 18/93-97. And not least: The release of Gog and Magog from their valley, is a sign for the coming of the Day of Doom - they are to be locked up till then. But no-one has ever found that valley, not even modern satellite photos.

24 + 1969 = 1993 comments (+ basic comments/introductions).


 

80.  DUH'N NUN - JONAH

- the Jewish prophet claimed swallowed by a fish.

Both the Bible and the Quran tells about Jonah and the fish, even though the details vary quite a lot. But the story is physically impossible for several reasons. F.x.:

  1. 1. There exist no fish big enough to swallow a man whole. One seemingly possible exemption is the whale shark, but the whale shark has a throat too narrow for that. The books may have mistaken a whale for a fish, but even the orca - the biggest of the raptor whales - does not swallow a seal (reasonably similar in size to a man) whole.
  2. 2. Even if Jonah had been swallowed whole and alive, he had died from lack of oxygen within some 3 minutes.
  3. 3. And even if he had had a source of oxygen, the juices in the stomach of the fish had caused him an agonizing death within some hours.

 

And in addition there is the ever reappearing question: As all the mistakes, contradictions, etc. in the Quran prove beyond any reasonable and unreasonable doubt that there was no god behind that book, from where did Mohammad get his non-Biblical "Biblical" information and claimed facts?

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

For more about Duh'n Nun/Jonah, see JONAH further down.

0 + 1993 = 1993 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".