Humans, Other Beings in/Relevant to the Quran, Part 16

 

Volume II

100.   GOG AND MAGOG

- in the Quran 2 wild tribes, in the Bible a ruler and his country.

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

001 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?

*002 21/96b: “Until the Gog and Magog (people) are let through (their barrier), and they swiftly swarm from every hill”. Gog and Magog according to the Quran (surah 18) were two groups of people (tribes?) imprisoned in a valley behind a tall, strong barrier made from iron blocks erected by Dhu’l Quarnayn/Alexander the Great. But there is nowhere on Earth – let alone in the area Alexander travelled – a valley big enough to produce food for two large tribes of people (“swarm from every hill” = large tribes), which is impossible to get out from, even if the main valley and the main way out is blocked. Besides the whole storey is nonsense: Even if they could not get through or over such a barrier, given time it always would be possible to dig under it. Even if it had been erected on solid rock, around 330 BC when the Quran pretends this happened (Alexander died 323 BC), people knew how to make short tunnels even through a rock if they really wanted to, f.x. by means of fire + water. And there would always be paths across the mountains from a big valley.

003 21/96c: “Until the Gog and Magog (people) are let through (their barrier), and they swiftly swarm from every hill”. This will according to the Quran happen shortly before the Day of Doom - which means the two big tribes(?) are still living behind the barrier. BUT: Where is the wall? Where is the valley? Today every inch of the globe is mapped, and there is no walled in valley anywhere. Not in the east where Alexander travelled, and nowhere else. (And we repeat: Gog and Magog are not to be released until shortly before the Day of Doom, according to the Quran, so they should still be in the valley). Not from the Bible. Not from anywhere on Earth. Also see 21/96d just below.

004 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.

4 + 2844 = 2848 comments (+ basic comments/introductions).


 

101.   GOLIATH

Goliath according to the Bible was a Philistine giant from the town Gath. The Philistines challenged the Jews to s duel between Goliath and a freely chosen Jew, and then let the result of the duel be the outcome of the war (this sometimes was done in the old times - it saved a lot of blood). Goliath was too big and strong - nobody would meet him. Not until the youth David arrived and killed him with a weapon which did not need real strength - his sling. All this according mainly to the Bible.

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

001 2/249a: "When Talut (King Saul*) set forth with his armies, he said: 'Allah (more likely Yahweh*) will test you at the stream - - -". This seems to be a mix-up of two stories in the Bible: Saul's wars with the Philistines, and Gideon's earlier war with the Midianites. Gideon had an episode where he chose his soldiers according to how they drank from the Jordan river - Judges 7/7 (he was to wise a general to ask his soldiers go thirsty into battle) - about Saul you find in 1.Samuel (David vs. Goliath in 1. Sam. 17/4-48). There is no similar episode involving King Saul. The Quran here has wrong man and wrong time.

004 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.

003 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)

004 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.

4 + 2848 = 2852 comments (+ basic comments/introductions).


 

102.   HAFSA

One more of Muhammad's long time wives. Daughter of Muhammad's close collaborator Omar. She likely was 18-20 when she married Muhammad in 625 AD - Muhammad then was at least 55. She was not politically active, but for some time took care of what was written down of Muhammad's teaching, which later became a basic element when caliph Utman had his "official" version of the Quran made not later than 656 AD. She died around 660 AD.

0 + 2852 = 2852 comments (+ basic comments/introductions).


 

103.   HAGAR - SLAVE OF SARAH AND MOTHER OF ISHMAEL

Not too much is said about Hagar neither in the Bible nor in the Quran. The Bible tells she was from Egypt (1. Mos. 16/1), that she for some time was Abraham's concubine, that she bore him the son Ishmael when Abraham was 86 years old (1. Mos. 16/16), and that she and Ishmael were sent away some time after Isaac, the son of Abraham and Sarah, was born. The Bible further tells that Abraham was 100 years old when Isaac was born (1. Mos. 21/5), and that Hagar and Ishmael was sent away after Isaac was weaned. Weaning in the old times often took place after a couple of years (they did not know that the reason was that mother's milk contains germ killing parts, but they saw that the chances for a baby to live up was better with late weaning). This means that Abraham was some 102 years and Ishmael some 16 when Hagar and Ishmael was sent away.

It also is a point that the Bible tells the Treaty of Beersheba was made around the time Hagar and Ishmael were sent away (1. Mos. 21/22), and that Abraham was asked to sacrifice his son some time after that treaty (1. Mos. 22/1). Yahweh then told that Isaac was Abraham's only (remaining) son (1. Mos. 22/2). If this is true, it cannot have been Ishmael Abraham was about to sacrifice, like Muhammad claimed. (In addition the Bible directly says it was Isaac who was about to be sacrificed - and remember here that both science and Islam strongly have proved that the Bible is not falsified - some mistakes, but no falsifications.)

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

001 2/124a: "And remember that Abraham was tried by his Lord - - -." This refers to Abraham being ordered to sacrifice his son. The Bible tells it was Isaac - "his only son" (Ishmael and his Egyptian mother Hagar had been sent away from the home of Abraham, and Isaac was the only one Abraham had left) - whereas Islam claims it was Ishmael. As the Bible makes it clear that Hagar and Ishmael settled near the border of Egypt, Ishmael also was far off when this happened - highly unlikely that Abraham traveled all the way to fetch him for a sacrifice (Islam claims Hagar and Ishmael settled in Mecca - even further off).

##002 2/125e: "We (Allah*) covenanted with Abraham and Ishmael - - -". The Bible is contradicting: (1.Mos.17/21) Yahweh says: "But my covenant I will make with Isaac". And many years later to Isaac's son Jacob (and now Ishmael is totally out of the picture) similar words like the ones which were said to Abraham 2 generations earlier (1.Mos. 28/14): "All peoples on earth will be blessed through you and your offspring". There is no doubt according to the Bible with which branch of Abraham's descendants the god covenanted. Even if the Arabs really were descendants of Ishmael, they had belonged to the wrong branch of the family - they were not the offspring of Jacob, and not even of Isaac. And it is likely this might be the reality - at the time when the Torah was written, there was no reason for the writers to place Ishmael and his descendants at the border of Egypt (1.Mos. 25/18) if he really lived in Arabia - Muhammad and his competing religion still was 1000 years into the unknown future then. But for Muhammad the situation was different: It is quite common for emerging sects and religions to "high-jack" parts of a mother religion - it gives "weight" and tradition to the new sect/religion. For Muhammad it would pay to "take over" a known name like Ishmael. It obviously also would pay for him to take over the claimed center of the religious word - even a made up claim works if people believe in it.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

There also is another point to include: The camel likely was domesticated at the time of Abraham. But it did not come into wide use until around 1ooo-900 BC, and it seems that it even then only was used for working and carrying, not or very little for riding. In the area where Abraham seems to have lived, it was not introduced until the Assyrians started trade with South Arabia in the 8. century BC. (F.x. the first time one knows camels were used in a battle, was in a battle between the kings Croesus of Lydia and Cyrus the Great in 547 BC, where Cyrus used PACKING camels (for want of riding ones) to frighten Croesus' horses, who were not used to camels.) If Abraham had no riding camels, the valley of later Mecca, some 750 miles/1200 km or whatever, depending on where he started, was a long walk - and as long return. Each time. Through mostly desert.

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

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

Also see 2/127a below.

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

We may add that Muslim sources we find on Internet - f.x. www.jamaat.net/compl/arabsinthebible.html - admits that "the wilderness of Paran" = Faran in Arabic.

003 2/125k: "- - - Ishmael - - -". The oldest son of Abram/Abraham. His mother was Sarai's/Sarah's slave Hagar. Muslims sometimes quote 1. Mos. 16/3: "(Sarai/Sarah*) gave her (Hagar) to her husband (Abram/Abraham*) to be his wife". Like so often Muslims cherry-pick quotes and omit what does not fit their wishes: The contents of 1. Mos. 16/2-9 and 1. Mos. 21/10 makes it very clear that this just is a polite way of describing the physical facts and that she never became his wife - she simply remained Serai's/Sarah's slave for another may be 15 years.

Also a time anomaly: Similar comment to 2/124a+c above and 4/13d below.

004 2/125l: "- - - they should sanctify my House (Kabah in Mecca*) - - -." The Quran claims Abraham was in what was to become Mecca because he had left Hagar and Ishmael there years before - two claims never documented (and wrong according to the Bible), but which according to A: "The Message of the Quran" used to be an old Arab tradition (do an omniscient god have to listen to legends?). This is contradicting the Bible (1.Mos. 21/14): "She (Hagar*) went on her way and wandered in the desert of Beersheba". Beersheba was and is in the south part of Palestine - far from Arabia and Mecca.

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

Islam never mentions the last part of this, and explains Beersheba away with claiming that all desert south of Beersheba used to be called "the wilderness of Beersheba" and the Paran desert they explain away with that there was a mountain in near Mecca named Paran - or originally Faran - and what is the difference between "desert" and "mountain" - or between "Paran" and "Faran"? - voila: It must have happened in Arabia!! (It normally is called the wilderness or the desert of Paran by Muslims today - and on Internet you find a lot of claims for that this was the Biblical Paran.)

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

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

005 2/126c: “- - - Abraham said: ‘Make this (Mecca*) a City Of Peace - - -.” This is quite a contradiction, both with reality, as at the time of Muhammad 2500 years later, Mecca was not a really old city, and with the Quran. The Quran tells that Hagar run around in this empty desert valley where Mecca once in the future became situated, finding neither people nor water after being left by Abraham when Abraham already was some 101 years old. And here Abraham all the same talks about "this City" Mecca!

006 2/158c: (A128) “Behold! Safa and Marwah are among the symbols of Allah. So if those who visit the House (Kabah*) in the Season or at other times should encompass them around, it is no sin in them”. These two hillocks were religious symbols also in pagan times before Islam, and Hadiths (f.x. Al-Bukhari) explains this verse with that many Muslims thought that if they followed the old rituals and visited them, they paid tribute to the old gods, but that Muhammad then in this verse told them that it was no sign – on the contrary it is to pay respect to Allah. The ritual simply is to hasten between (not necessarily around) them 7 times symbolizing Hagar’s claimed search for water after Abraham had left her and their son Ishmael (Islam claims it was here it happened - utterly improbable in reality - see 2/127a above). But the question is: Is this ritual obligatory or a “supererogatory act of piety”? (Zamakhshari and Razi). The text on this point is unclear. Today it is reckoned to be an integrate part of the pilgrimage, but the text as said is unclear. And it is thought provoking that this ritual like the others in Mecca simply is taken over from the old pagan earlier religion - nothing created for or by Islam and Allah, just primitive rituals, some superficial symbolism, nothing spiritual - nothing worthy a claimed omniscient and omnipotent god. Nothing created by a spiritual god. And what does the taking over more or less completely the rituals of a pagan religion indicate?

And we also may quote science once more: "It is very unlikely Abraham ever visited Mecca".

007 3/64d: “- - - that we (Muslims and Jews/Christians*) worship none but Allah (= Yahweh and Allah is claimed to be the same god*)”. Wrong. This is not possible as the fundamental differences between the Quran and the Bible/NT are too big and too many – not unless the god is schizophrenic. Mainly only Muslims say this – and they will have to bring strong proofs.

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

008 3/68b: “Without doubt, among men, the nearest of kin to Abraham, are those who follow him - - -“.

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

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

There thus is much reason for doubt.

009 From 7/157e: Point of relevance III, claim from Islam.

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

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

Answer:

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

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

Besides, what the Bible really says is:

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

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

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

010 From 7/157e: Point of relevance IX - Claim from Islam.

Genesis (1. Mos.) 21/21:

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

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

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

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

011 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).

It also took a long time from the camel (dromedary) was domesticated perhaps in what is now Oman till it was spread further north - or till it became an animal much used for riding:

Here we include a small, but essential piece of information - essential f.x. for some of the claims regarding Abraham, and even more the claims concerning the claims about Abraham, Mecca, and the Kabah mosque. The dromedary was domesticated sometime between around 2ooo BC and 3500 BC - the exact time is not known (the very first proved case of domesticated dromedary/camel in the Middle East is from Qasr Ibrim in Lower Nubia (east Africa) around 740 BC) - and likely in the coastal area of South Arabia. Abraham according to science lived - if he was a real person - around 2ooo-1800 BC (and far from South Arabia). But today - 27. Dec. 2012 - we discovered a small fact we have not been aware of - small, but essential and revealing in this case: THE DROMEARY - THE ARAB CAMEL - DID NOT COME INTO WIDE USE UNTIL AROUND 1OOO-900 BC (around the time of King Solomon)! And 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. Actually the use of the camel did not spread that far north until after the Assyrians started trade with South Arabia in the 8. century BC. 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. Also relevant science says that it is practically sure Abraham never visit Mecca.

012 11/69-83: The stories about Abraham and partly about Lot/Lut are closer to the Biblical story than normal for Biblical stories in the Quran, but a number of details differ - some of them serious.

F.x. the Quran claimed Abraham took all his family and huge flocks of animals and travelled from Canaan and/or Sinai and lived in the empty, narrow, waterless desert valley where Mecca later was built, until he left Hagar and his son Ishmael there. And later he returned there to build the big mosque Kabah for his family. But neither the Quran nor one single Muslim mentions that there are some 1200 km of mostly harsh desert - some of it pretty rugged - between Canaan and Sinai where he lived, and Mecca - or that the mentioned desert valley naturally had no food or water for his animals - or how often his family could visit the big mosque 1200 km off. Believe the story if you are able to.

Also remember that even though the camel likely was domesticated at that time, it was not known in the areas where Abraham lived until some 1200 years after his death. Then it was a long trip - both ways.

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.

013 14/35b: “Remember Abraham said: ’O my Lord! Make this city (Mecca*) one of peace and security; - - - “. Abraham never visited Mecca. Besides: There was no city at the time of Abraham – this both according to reality and to the Quran. Remember how Hagar run back and forth there without finding people and without finding water. And even the nearby verse 14/37 mentions a valley, but no town. Mecca as a town was only some generations old at the time of Muhammad - some 2500 years after Abraham. Wrong and a contradiction with both the Quran and with reality. Also see 2/127a above and 14/35c just below.

Also remember that Abraham did not have the camel. The camel as a transport animal was not introduced in Abraham's parts of the world until some 1200 years later - and as a riding animal even later. Without the camel, to go back and forth between Canaan/Sinai where he lived and the dry valley of Mecca - through hundreds of miles of frying hot desert miles - and with his huge flocks of animals, was not possible.

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

One conclusion: According to the Quran Hagar found neither people nor water in the desert valley where Mecca later came. All the sane Abraham prayed: "Make this city - - -". There was no city. One more contradiction and error.

Also see 14/37a below.

014 14/37a: "- - - I (Abraham*) have made some of my offspring to dwell in a valley without cultivation - - -". It here is referred to Muhammad’s never documented claim that Ishmael - Abraham's son out of wedlock with the slave girl Hagar - settled in Mecca (which did not exist then, but is situated in a dry, quite narrow desert valley)". This is directly contradicted by the Bible, which clearly states that Ishmael and his descendants settled on the border of Egypt some place north of the Red Sea (1. Mos.25/18: "His (Ishmaels*) descendants settled in the area from Havilah to Shur, near the border of Egypt - - -"). And NB: This was written down at least 1ooo years before there was any reason for the writers not to give correct information. 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.

But to claim to descend from Abraham gave both Muhammad and his new religion weight. Such things have been done many a time through history.

015 14/37b: "- - - a valley without cultivation - - -". Remember this when Muslims claim Abraham lived in or near the Valley of Mecca when he sent away Hagar and Ishmael, and that they therefore ended up living in that valley and town (the town/city did not exist then, also according to the Quran - Hagar could not find people at all). This valley was a dry and rather narrow desert valley - according to the Quran not even the Zamzam well existed then. Abraham was a rich nomad with big flocks of all kinds of domesticated animals - so big that according to the Bible Lot and he had to split up because their flocks were so big that the land could not feed and water them when they stayed together (1. Mos. 13/5-9). A man with so big flocks of animals should travel with his everything deep into the desert and settle in a dry desert valley without food or water for his animals - and far from where he lived in Canaan - now ca. central Israel west of Jordan. This on top of everything else we know about Abraham and his travels.

Believe it who is able to. (Singular with a reason - there cannot be many, except perhaps in religious blindness.)

And even more: When Lot and Abraham split up, Lot choose the eastern part with Jordan Valley and down along the Dead Sea (where it is likely Sodom and Gomorra lay) - and thus the "neighborhood" of the border of Arabia - whereas Abraham settled in Canaan = further west towards the Mediterranean Sea. To get to Mecca a normal way, he thus had to cross all the territory of Lot with his huge flocks of animals, and march some 750 miles (some 1200 km) away from home, partly through harsh desert, to get to Mecca - a place where nothing existed at that time.

Any further comments necessary?

016 19/42-50: The story of Abram (name according to the Bible) - later named Abraham - in the Quran is entirely different from the one in the Bible. Entirely. Also see 19/48-49 below. AND: As the Bible is the only source for information about Abraham, and as it is clear the Quran is not from a god - too much is wrong - from where did Muhammad get this new information about Abraham?

Two curios: The Quran claims Abraham took his family and all his huge flocks of animals - he was rich - and went from Canaan or Sinai through the hot and forbidding and dry Arab Desert with little or no food for his animals to a narrow, empty, desert valley without water or grass in the middle of absolutely nowhere and without any attractions, and lived there for at least long enough time to leave his son Ishmael and his concubine Hagar there.

The Quran further claims Abraham later built a big mosque in that dry, empty, narrow, desert valley where Mecca is now, for his small family.

No Muslim ever mentions that there are some 750 miles - some 1200 km - between where he lived and Mecca, and much of it was harsh, forbidding, glowing desert where his livestock would die on the road - - - and a good Muslim shall visit his mosque at least each Friday. And no Muslim mentions that even though the camel likely was domesticated at the time of Abraham, it is likely it was not used for riding until much later according to Wikipedia. And not in any case did the use of the camel spread to where Abraham lived, until more than 1ooo years after his death. Not to mention that no Muslim ever mention that no nomads had the technology necessary for building huge stone buildings, or that to build something like the Kabah easily could take 10 years of continuous work for a small group.

One conclusion: According to the Quran Hagar found neither people nor water in the desert valley where Mecca later came. All the sane Abraham prayed: "Make this city - - -". There was no city. One more contradiction and error.

Also see 14/37a below.

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

#017 19/49b: "- - - We (Allah*) bestowed on him (Abraham*) Isaac and Jacob - - -". Abraham got the son Isaac with his wife Sarah. It is strange that in 614 - 615 AD the Quran does not mention his son with Sarah's slave Hagar - Ishmael. Had Muhammad not yet got the Idea of claiming ancestry from Abraham (via Ishmael?) We may also mention that 1. Mos. 25/1-2 and also 1. Chron. 1/32 says that Abraham took another wife after Sarah died, and had 6 sons with her: "The sons born to Keturah, Abraham's concubine: Zimran, Jokshan, Medan, Midian, Ishbak and Shuah". Not mentioned in the Quran. Had Muhammad claimed ancestry via one of these, his claim had been stronger, because little is said about where they ended. But most likely he never knew about these sons of Abraham. (To claim to be descendants via an Ishmael living in Mecca, is hopeless if the stories in the Bible are true - and at the time when they were written down, there was no reason for the Jews not to be honest about this - because the place where it is told Abraham left Hagar, is some 1200 km from the dry, empty desert valley where Mecca later came (1. Mos. 20/14), and the place it tells Ishmael settled is even a little further off (1. Mos. 25/18). And the track from those places to the nowhere, empty, narrow desert valley of later Mecca was for large parts through harsh and forbidding hot desert - - - and without any attractions giving the least reason to go there.

018 21/32d: "- - - they (non-Muslims*) turn away from the Signs (of Allah*) which all these things (point to)!" When someone uses logically invalid arguments - like claiming not proved "signs" are indication or proof for a god - the logical reaction is to be skeptical. After all the use of false and/or invalid arguments is the hallmark of the cheat and the swindler, and Muhammad on top of this believed in al-Taqiyya (the lawful lie), Kitman (the lawful half-truth), etc., in breaking promises and words - even sworn ones - if that gave better results, and in deceit ("War is deceit") - - - and he wanted power and riches for bribes for more power - and women (like many false prophets in and outside the Bible, but few of the real ones in the OT. Here beware that men like David and Solomon are not reckoned among prophets in the Bible. This is one more difference between Muhammad and the Biblical prophets - not one of them had a harem of any size. Even if you include men like Abraham and Jacob, they had maximum 1-2 wives and 1-2 concubines if any at all. Abraham had Sarah, Kethura (1. Mos. 25/1 - but only after Sarah was dead) and Sarah's slave Hagar, Jacob had Leah and Rachel plus the two slaves Bilhah and Zilpath (1. Mos. 35/23-26). Muhammad had 36 we know by name, included his 11 long time wives and 2 concubines/slave women - the 16 short time wives and the 7 where it is unclear if he was married to them or not, and thus if sex was a sin or not - a Muslim is only permitted to have sex with his wives and his slave women - are normally not mentioned by Muslims. That he in addition raped at least two women Rayhana bint Amr and Safiyya bint Huayay - also normally is not mentioned by Muslims).

019 21/51b: "- - - Abraham - - -". The man who denounced and quarreled with his father according to the Quran, but lived and travelled together with him for many years until Abraham set out for Canaan when he was 75 years according to the Bible (1. Mos. 12/4), and without any serious quarrel mentioned in the Bible. The man who according to the Quran took his family and huge flocks of animals some 1200 km from where he normally lived - much of the way through the harsh and rough and hot and dry and forbidding Arab desert - to a dry, hot, forbidding, empty and narrow desert valley and lived there with his animals without water and measurable fodder for the flocks, till it fit to leave his son Ishmael and his concubine Hagar there in the place which many centuries later was to become Mecca. Then he returned home the same grueling road - but came back years later to build himself a big mosque - - - still some 1200 km (some 750 miles) of partly horrible conditions away from his home, and in an arid, empty place in the middle of not even nowhere.

Believe it if you are able to.

What is sure, is that the town of Mecca was so insignificant and perhaps young when Muhammad was born, that it hardly is known from any written source older than the Quran.

206 21/60c: "- - - Abraham - - -". We should remind you that according to the Bible his name at this time was Abram (which means "Exalted Father" - even though he had no children). He did not get the name Abraham until 99 years old (1. Mos. 17/5) in Canaan - now roughly central Israel. (Abraham means "Father of Many" - he got 8 sons, Ishmael with Hagar (Sarah's slave woman), Isaac with Sarah, and then 6 with his second wife, Keturah (1. Mos.25/1-2), who are not mentioned in the Quran).

020 22/26ab: “Behold, We (Allah) gave the site, to Abraham, of the (sacred) House - - -”. Mecca lies some 750 miles (some 1200 km) from where Abraham normally lived - much of the distance hot, forbidding and rough Arab Desert. The Quran tells he built a big mosque in an empty, dry narrow desert valley without water or anything, except one well, for himself and his family - in the valley where Mecca grew up many centuries later. The Quran also claims Abraham was a good Muslim - and Muslims shall visit their mosques at least every Friday. 750 miles/1200 km and back through forbidding terrain every Friday? - even just now and then?

Here we include a small, but essential piece of information. The dromedary was domesticated sometime between around 2ooo BC and 3500 BC - the exact time is not known (the very first proved case of domesticated dromedary/camel in the Middle East is from Qasr Ibrim in Lower Nubia (east Africa) around 740 BC) - and likely in the coastal area of South Arabia. Abraham according to science lived - if he was a real person - around 2ooo-1800 BC (and far from South Arabia). But today - 27. Dec. 2012 - we discovered a small fact we have not been aware of - small, but essential and revealing in this case: THE DROMEARY - THE ARAB CAMEL - DID NOT COME INTO WIDE USE UNTIL AROUND 1OOO-900 BC (around the time of King Solomon)! And f.x. the first time camels are known to be used in battle, was between 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 by Cyrus instead). 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. Actually the camel was not introduced in the area where Abraham lived, until the Assyrians started trade with South Arabia in the 8. century BC.

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.

This means that Abraham did not have camels, and definitely not riding camels. Which makes his claimed trip with his many animals to the lonesome, dry and empty desert valley where Mecca later grew up, physically impossible, his claimed building of the big Kabah (roughly at least 10 years work for a small group working all the time) 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 it frequently, move from extremely improbable to physically impossible.

Well, believe it if you are able to.

#021 37/101: "- - - a boy - - -". This is meant to be Ishmael, the son Abraham got with the Egyptian slave woman, Hagar, and whom the Arabs claim is their forefather - even though the Bible tells he and his mother settled near the border of Egypt - 1. Mos. 25/18. (The Quran claims he settled in Mecca - a claim which extremely unlikely can be true).

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

022 37/103: (YA4101): YA argues that as the Bible says that as the god ordered Abraham to sacrifice his only son (f.x. 1. Mos. 22/2), this must mean that Abraham was ordered to sacrifice Ishmael, and that this happened after Ishmael - the oldest of the two - was born, but before Isaac was born, and Abraham only had one son. But:

  1. The Bible is written quite chronologically (unlike the Quran where there is very little chronology). The test of Abraham comes well after the birth of Isaac and after Hagar and Ishmael was sent away, and Abraham only had Isaac left.
  2. ----------------------------------------------------------
  3. 1. Mos. 12/4: Abraham was 75 when he left Haran for Canaan.
  4. 1. Mos. 16/3-4: After Abraham had lived in Canaan 10 years, Hagar became pregnant. Abraham thus was 76 when Ishmael was born.
  5. 1. Mos. 17/24-25: Abraham was 99 and Ishmael was 13 when they both were circumcised.
  6. 1. Mos. 21/5: Abraham was 100 when Isaac was born (and Ishmael 14).
  7. 1. Mos. 21/8: Isaac then grew and was weaned. Time is not given, but likely 1-2 years (in the old time and some places also today, 2 years often were used, because the child then often were more healthy. They did not know the reason, but mother's milk contains stuff which reduce some bacterias.
  8. 1. Mos. 21/14: Around this time - the time is not more exactly given - Hagar and Ishmael were sent away. Abraham now some 102, Ishmael some 16, and Isaac some 2 years old.
  9. 1. Mos. 21/20-21: Ishmael grew up, became an archer, and his mother found him a wife from Egypt. Time is not given, but some years. An educated guess; say 5 - 7 years till Ishmael was married. If we say 6, Abraham was 108, Ishmael 22 (a normal age for marriage then), and Isaac 8 years.

  10. 1. Mos. 21/22-31: The treaty of Beersheba. Verse 22 starts with: "At that time - - -". This refers to verse 21 just before, and the marriage of Ishmael. The Treaty of Beersheba was made around that time - and Abraham still some 108, Ishmael some 22, and Isaac some 8 years.
  11. 1. Mos. 21/34: After the Treaty of Beersheba was made, "Abraham stayed in the land of the Philistines for a long time". For a man around 108 years old, "a long time" should be one or some years. If we guess 3 years, Abraham now was 111, Ishmael 25, and Isaac 11 years.
  12. 1. Mos. 22/1: "Some time later (some time after verse 21/34 just above*) God tested Abraham". And this test was the demand for the sacrifice of his "only" son. This means that Abraham was something like 111, Ishmael something like 25, and Isaac something like 11 years old when this took place. It also means that both Ishmael and Isaac were born, but that Ishmael had been away for some 8-10 years, lived near Egypt, and it is not mentioned he had visited his father one single time during those years - understandable, but likely a fact.
  13. Remember here that both science and Islam have given strong circumstantial and empirical proofs for that the Bible is not falsified.
  14. ----------------------------------------------------------
  15. After Hagar and Ishmael was sent away, Abraham only had one son left (he got 6 more later - never mentioned in the Quran (1. Mos. 25/2)).
  16. At that time Isaac was his only son born in wedlock - Ishmael was born out of wedlock, even if some Muslims try to "repair" this - according to the books - fact.
  17. Ishmael had been away for many years with little or no contact with Abraham, and also was no member of Abraham's household.
  18. Isaac was the only son Abraham had left.
  19. The Bible names the son he is going to sacrifice: Isaac.(1. Mos. 22/2).
  20. In the relevant chapter - 1. Mos. Ch. 22 - the god stresses no less than 3 times that it is about his only son, Isaac. He simply stresses that Isaac was the only son who counted (and the only one Abraham really had left) as Abraham's descendants were to be reckoned through Isaac (1. Mos. 21/12) and it was through Isaac and his son Jacob the god's covenant would run.
  21. In the Bible - the only perhaps reliable source about Abraham (the Quran is so full of errors, that it definitely is not reliable) - there also are some time sequences. They fit the story like told in the Bible, but not like told in the Quran (the numbers do not add up if the sacrifice happened before Isaac was born, like Islam and Muslims claim).

Muhammad simply wanted to elbow into the old story and take at least parts of it over for his new religion - not uncommon for starters of new sects or religions. Another fact is that as for the test of Abraham which boy it was in reality is of no consequence - and the test was of Abraham, not of the boys (but Muhammad needed "roots" for his religion, and this is one of the few openings he had). Muslims wants the test to be also of the child, but what kind of a god puts children to that kind of a test? And if the god really was devil enough to put a child to such a test, what real value would the result have as a child largely reacts to how he is influenced, not from a mature intellect?

22 + 2852 = 2874 comments (+ basic comments/introductions).


 

104.   HAMAN

Haman according to the Quran was one of Ramses II's Egyptian officers, but according to the Bible he was a leader under Xerxes (Hebrew: Ahasuerus) (486 - 465 BC) of Persia some 800 years later. Exodus and Ramses II mean something like 1235 BC according to f.x. Encyclopedia Britannica. Islam tries to explain the mistake away by claiming that what was said was not Haman, but Ha-Amon (a mistake in the Quran in case) - the title of the high priest of the Egyptian central god Amon - see 28/6c above. This claimed explanation if impossible if Ramses II was the only god in Egypt.

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

001 28/38c: “(Pharaoh said*) “O Haman (minister for Xerxes some 800 hundred years later and hundreds of miles/km further east – in Persia - and not an Egyptian name either*)! - Light me a (kiln to bake bricks) out of clay - - -". Egypt at that time did not use burnt bricks, but bricks made of a mixture of clay and straw (this actually is mentioned in the Bible in 2. Mos.5/7-15) dried in the sun. It even would be meaningless to burn this kind of bricks, because the straw would be burnt to ashes. Egypt had the technology for burning clay - they had pottery. But sundried bricks were much cheaper, and good enough for most purposes in that very dry climate.

Another point is that for their big buildings the Egyptians used natural stones, not bricks.

Any god had known all these facts, Muhammad obviously not. Who made the Quran?

002 28/38d: (A28/37 – YA3371): “(Pharaoh said*) “O Haman (minister for Xerxes several hundred years later and hundreds of km further east, in Persia - and not an Egyptian name either*)! - - - build me a lofty place, that I may mount up to the god of Moses - - -.” Muslims like to tell this does not refer to something like the tower of Babylon (built from bricks), but to a pyramid - - - and without mentioning a single word about well known facts like it took some 20-30 years to build a big pyramid (and Ramses II at the time science believe this happened if it happened, was not young), or that the pyramids in Egypt were built from natural stones, not from brick, so a kiln has no connection to them. There also is quite a difference between a palace and a pyramid.

003 29/39c: "- - - Haman - - -". See 28/6c above. Also: A time anomaly it he is not fiction.

004 37/97-98: Abraham delivered from Nimrod's fire. Taken from the made up old story "Midrash Rabbah" and retold like it was a true 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, and lived - if he is not fiction - perhaps a couple of thousand or more years before Abram/Abraham - see 29/16a above. Muhammad had a strong tendency to mix persons from different times (f.x. d Ramses II and Haman - some 800 years wrong. Or Mary and Miriam - some 1200 years wrong.) Also see 37/97c just above.

005 40/24c: “- - - Haman - - -”. See 28/6c above.

006 40/24f: "- - - they (Ramses II, Haman, Qarun*) called (him (Moses*)) 'a sorcerer telling lies!'" See 40/25d below.

007 40/25d: "- - - they (Pharaoh and his people*) said: “Slay the sons of those who believe with him (Moses*) - - -". 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.

008 40/36b: "Pharaoh (Ramses II*) said: 'O Haman! Build me - - -". See 40/25d above.

8 + 2874 = 2882 comments (+ basic comments/introductions).


 

105.   HAMZA IBN ABDUL-MUTALLIB

Muhammad's uncle and likely quite close to him. Killed during the Battle of Uhud in January 625 AD. After he was killed, his corpse was mutilated by Hind bint Utbah as a revenge for having killed her father at Badr.

0 + 2882 = 2882 comments (+ basic comments/introductions).


 

106.   HANDSOME YOUTHS

The young men serving good Muslims in Paradise are another example of the Quran's, Muhammad's, Islam's, and Muslims' way of thinking: The only one who counts is the Muslim - and the Muslim man actually. Apartheid, class thinking without even reflecting on that reality, no empathy with others than the good Muslims (and the best Muslims were the warriors). Servants is a matter of course in the Quran's Paradise - and not one word in the entire book about how life were for the servants - or for the houris - or why they were sentenced to be servants for others.

The resurrected Muslim men had more than plenty of sex in Paradise (nothing is said about love in the meaning of real love - "agape" - between the men and their houris (and wives, concubines, or sex slaves) in Paradise, and very little on Earth in the entire Quran. But not one word is said about any family life for these "handsome youths" in Paradise. Muhammad's "Perfect Paradise" is perfect only for the man - preferably the warrior.

Is that a perfect Paradise?

And even for you, the warrior: Is a rich material life + plenty of sex - which is all Muhammad's paradise has to offer you according to the Quran - the Perfect Paradise? No agape, no mental activity, yes, hardly any physical activity except copulating. "Love" between man and women in this Paradise only means copulating - a luxury brothel where everything is free for the man.

The Perfect Paradise!!

In some Scandinavian language "pare" or "para" = to copulate, and "disse" = to move up and down. Thought provoking.

There also is another interesting fact: These young men are described in ways making them sound interesting for homosexuals. Now the Quran - and Muhammad and Islam and Muslims - officially frowns strongly at homosexuality. But in parts of the Muslim areas they are silently accepted. F.x. the "caravan wives" - young men following the caravans in some regions - or homosexuals as "the third sex" in other regions.

Part of Muhammad's success was caused by his satisfying of many of his men's lower instincts - steal, rob, enslave, rape, etc. Are the young serving in Paradise also an unofficial reward for the interested ones, so as to make also the homosexual attracted to his armies?

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

###001 3/15j: "- - - Companions pure (and holy) - - -". This is one of the really strong differences to the Bible - f.x. see Matt. 22/30: The Biblical Paradise is totally different. Yahweh and Allah the same god with so different Paradises? Guess 5 times!

The idea about the houris the maker of the Quran has "borrowed" from religions further east (in Persia from where it is likely Muhammad "borrowed" them, they were named paaris) - and the same for the handsome serving youths (nearly nothing in the Quran is original thinking or ideas, more or less everything is "borrowed" from others, mainly in what we today call the Middle East - most of the sources are known). Would a god need to pinch ideas from here and there on the primitive Earth, but only in and near Arabia, to construct his religion and his Paradise?

002 52/24: “Round about them (Muslims and their houris*) will serve (devoted) to them, youths (handsome) as pearls well guarded”. These are the servants in Paradise – forever young, handsome men. There is said nothing about from where they come, and as normal in the Quran it is said not a word about how secondary persons in a story feel or like life, or how Paradise is for them. The central persons - you and the ones similar to you - are in Paradise "rich" and on top, and that is what counts – others are of little interest. Empathy with underdogs (f.x. women, houris, servants, slaves) does not exist in the Quran . Well, some to the poor Muslims (but do not give too much) and to orphans, but for that you find no empathy.

And there is another aspect to these handsome youths. The Quran frowns strongly at homosexuality, but all the same it at least some places is silently accepted. Are these youths a silent temptation - or more - in such a connection?". Muhammad wanted to attract also these warriors? - after all a warrior is a warrior.

Yet another proof for that Yahweh and Allah are not the same god: One more serious difference between their paradises. There are no servants in Yahweh's Paradise according to the Bible. (There cannot be servants in a perfect paradise, because to be servants is not perfect for the servants, and a paradise which is not perfect for everyone living there, is not a perfect paradise. Similar can be said about houris, who have to be sex-dolls for even the most selfish, rough, and primitive warrior. Yahweh's Paradise f.x. is no extended harem like Allah's.)

003 56/17: “Round about them will (serve) youths of perpetual freshness - - -.” Again these mysterious servants. The Quran is totally disinterested in them and tells nothing about them except that they look attractive – the only person of interest is the Muslim adult man – strangely the same one who can be warriors for Muhammad and his successors. Others do not count much. But there is a hidden fact here: Homosexuality is strongly frown at in Islam, but all the same silently accepted in some areas. The description of these youths, makes one wonder.

And: What are they - the servants and the houris? Where do they come from? How is Paradise for them? (Some Muslim scholars speculate about the possibility that they may be humans who died as babies or children - but their parents are promised to have their children as part of Paradise, and then they cannot be servants or sex doll for others.) Yahweh the same god as Allah? If they had been, their paradises had been similar.

004 76/19a: "And around them (good Muslims in Paradise*) will (serve) youths - - -". This is one more case of the Quran's total lack of empathy with any others than the main persons - mainly the adult Muslim male. In the entire Quran - and as far as we have read in all central Islamic literature - there is never used one single thought or one single word about how Paradise is for these youths - and neither how it is to be forced to be sex toys and concubines for all kinds of primitive warriors for the houris. And for that case also not a word about how it was to be victims from Muslim conquest or thieving raids or slave hunting (that is to say; we have been told that slaves under Muslims were so well treated, that if they were given freedom, they did not want to go home. Some tellers of tales have never been slaves themselves - and besides; how would a freed slave from f.x. Niger be able to reach home? - and was there any home and any family left to return to after slave raiders had razed the village?). Not to mention: Is the claim a claim or a truth? - not to mention a general truth?

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

005 76/19b: "And around them (good Muslims in Paradise*) will (serve) youths - - -". This is one more case where the Quran differs totally from the Bible - there is not any likeness between the lives in the two paradises at all (f.x. Matt.22/30 or Luke 20/34-36). Yahweh and Allah the same god with so different paradises? You bet! One of the at least - at least - 200% proof for that Yahweh and Allah are not the same god. (Another question which lingers in the air: Homosexuality is officially condemned in Islam, but silently accepted at places - was this fact in the background when the description of these delicate young men was created?)

5 + 2882 = 2887 comments (+ basic comments/introductions).


 

107.   HANNAH (OR PERHAPS ANNA)

- perhaps the name of the mother of Mary (mother of Jesus).

The name of the mother of Mary is not mentioned neither in the Bible nor in the Quran, but some traditions may indicate that her name perhaps was Hannah or Anna. The story about her in the Quran is taken from the made up "The Protoevangelion's James the Lesser", and differs much from the Bible.

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

##001 3/35b: "Imran’s wife - - -". This is an example on "honest" Muslim technique of debate, taken - unbelievably - from Muhammad Yusuf Ali, the famous translator of the Quran, in his book: "The Meaning of the Quran": "By tradition Mary's mother was called Hannah (in Latin Anna, in English Anne), and her father was called Imran. Hannah is therefore both a descendant of the priestly house of Imran (the Arab name of Moses' father*) and the wife of Imran." One thing is that when using traditions and legends as basis, one cannot say that something "is", only that it "may be". But the real screamer is that the name of the father of Mary never in the traditions and legends was Imran. That name you only find in the Quran, and of course among the ones who take the name from the Quran - and this even more so as he mix in the Latin (and English) names. The name of Mary's father in the traditions was Jojakim or Jocim (except that Muslims have looked in the Quran and found the name Imran and made a new “tradition” from that). Further comments not necessary - just make your own conclusions about how reliable Muslims - even outstanding, learned ones like Mr. Ali - sometimes may be, and how reliable Muslim arguments and "facts" sometimes are. "Use al-Taqiyya (the lawful lie*), Kitman (the lawful half-truth*) and even deception and broken oaths to forward or defend the Religion of Truth". As you understand: When we base most of our writings on Islamic sources, we often run into the problem that everything has to be checked, because even claimed "facts" too often are incorrect. (For some reason or other Islam and its Muslims seldom claim that Islam is the religion of honesty.)

Imran was the father of Moses - some 1200 years earlier.

002 3/35d: "O my (mother of Mary's (perhaps Hannah or Annah)*) Lord (claimed to be Allah*)! I do dedicate unto Thee what is in my womb for Thy special service - - - (etc*)". Not from the Bible. See 3/35-37 below.

003 3/35e: "O my (mother of Mary's*) Lord (claimed to be Allah*)! I do dedicate unto Thee what is in my womb for Thy special service - - - (etc*)". One more of the many texts in the Quran which could not have been reliably written into the book eons ago unless predestination was and is 100% - like the Quran claims many places. See 2/51b and 3/24a above.

004 3/35-37: The birth of Mary. This story is taken from the fanciful book "The Protoevangelion's James the Lesser", and contradicts the Bible quite a lot, as it is not like in the Bible. The names of Mary's parents are not mentioned neither in the Bible, nor in the Quran.

But if Christians had falsified the Bible, their main object would have been to strengthen Jesus’ position and his connections to Yahweh - the Jewish and Christian god. There is no chance at all that they had omitted a miracle connected to his mother, telling about a direct connection between Yahweh and her. (That Mary served in the Temple, which also is told in the Quran, also is new to the Bible – and had for the same reason never been omitted there if it were true. Besides: Only men served in the Temple, a fact Muslim scholars know, but they never correct this point in the Quran). Another point: Only men from the Levi tribe served in the Temple. In addition to be a woman, Mary was from the Judah tribe. The claim that Mary served in the Temple is fantasy and impossible.

######It also tells something that when Muhammad differs from the Bible, his/the Quran’s stories mostly correspond to proved untrue religious fables and legends (often based on apocryphal scriptures – and often Gnostic). This tells it is not the Bible which is wrong, but that the Quran have used legends, fairy tales, etc. as sources. Would a god need fairy tales as sources?

005 3/36a: "O my (mother of Mary's*) Lord (claimed to be Allah*)! Behold! I am delivered of a female child! - - - And nowise is the male like the female. I have named her Mary, and I commend her and her offspring to Thy protection from Satan, the rejected". Not from the Bible - see 3/35-37 above.

006 3/36b: "O my (mother of Mary's*) Lord (claimed to be Allah*)! Behold! I am delivered of a female child! - - - And nowise is the male like the female. I have named her Mary, and I commend her and her offspring to Thy protection from Satan, the rejected". One more of the many texts in the Quran which could not have been reliably written into the book eons ago unless predestination was and is 100% - like the Quran claims many places. See 2/51b and 3/24a above.

##007 3/35b: "Imran’s wife - - -". This is an example on "honest" Muslim technique of debate, taken - unbelievably - from Muhammad Yusuf Ali, the famous translator of the Quran, in his book: "The Meaning of the Quran": "By tradition Mary's mother was called Hannah (in Latin Anna, in English Anne), and her father was called Imran. Hannah is therefore both a descendant of the priestly house of Imran (the Arab name of Moses' father*) and the wife of Imran." One thing is that when using traditions and legends as basis, one cannot say that something "is", only that it "may be". But the real screamer is that the name of the father of Mary never in the traditions and legends was Imran. That name you only find in the Quran, and of course among the ones who take the name from the Quran - and this even more so as he mix in the Latin (and English) names. The name of Mary's father in the traditions was Jojakim or Jocim (except that Muslims have looked in the Quran and found the name Imran and made a new “tradition” from that). Further comments not necessary - just make your own conclusions about how reliable Muslims - even outstanding, learned ones like Mr. Ali - sometimes may be, and how reliable Muslim arguments and "facts" sometimes are. "Use al-Taqiyya (the lawful lie*), Kitman (the lawful half-truth*) and even deception and broken oaths to forward or defend the Religion of Truth". As you understand: When we base most of our writings on Islamic sources, we often run into the problem that everything has to be checked, because even claimed "facts" too often are incorrect. (For some reason or other Islam and its Muslims seldom claim that Islam is the religion of honesty.)

008 3/35d: "O my (mother of Mary's (perhaps Hannah or Annah )*) Lord (claimed to be Allah*)! I do dedicate unto Thee what is in my womb for Thy special service - - - (etc*)". Not from the Bible. See 3/35-37 below.

5 + 2887 = 2892 comments (+ basic comments/introductions).


 

108.   HARUN

The Arab name for Aaron - brother of Moses. See AARON above.

0 + 2892 = 2892 comments (+ basic comments/introductions).


 

109.   HARUT (AND MARUT)

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

001 2/102e: (A83): “- - - and such things as came down at Babylon to the angels Harut and Marut.” This meaning you get if you among the consonants in the Arab original text use the vowels a-a-a-y and get the word “malakayn” = the two angels. If you instead guess that the correct vowels are a-i-a-y and get the word “malikayn” = the two kings, you get this meaning: “- - - and such things as came down to the two kings Harut and Marut.” There is a difference between 2 angels and 2 kings. And these variants also are in the Arab text, as the relevant word there has more than one meaning. Facts and problems like these Muslims strongly deny when they say the Quran is exact and correct “to the last comma” (the comma did not even exist in Arab at the time of Muhammad). A clear language in the Quran?

002 2/102f: (A83): “- - - and such things as came down at Babylon to the angels Harut and Marut.” A time anomaly as no user of the claimed timeless Quran would understand this reference at least until the rise of Babylon in the eighteenth century BC - and then Homo Sapiens (modern man) already was may be 190ooo years old according to science, and all societies through all times got prophets with books from Allah - a Quran - according to the Quran.

Another point is that Harut and Marut do not exist in the Bible and seems to derive from old superstition - Harut may even originally have been an old Armenian pagan god.

003 2/102g: "But they (Harut and Marut*) could not thus harm anyone except by Allah's permission". And is Allah a good and benevolent god if he permits humans to be harmed?

3 + 2892 = 2895 comments (+ basic comments/introductions).


 

110.   HASSAN IBN THABIT

Member of the Khazraj tribe in Medina. Became Muhammad's "court" poet.

0 + 2895 = 2895 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".