Humans, Other Beings in/Relevant to the Quran, Part 18

 

116.   HUBAL

This god came from the north, and may have had connection to the Baal religions mentioned in the Bible - also his name may - may - indicate this (HuBal). Hubal was represented by a statue in the shape of a human in the Kabah. The idol likely was made from red agate and with a right hand made from gold. According to f.x. Karen Armstrong the Kabah (a temple - later mosque - which seems to have been built in the 4. or 5. century AD, and not by Abraham 2000-1800 BC) was dedicated to Hubal. At the time of Muhammad it seems, however, like al-Lah may have outcompeted or melted together with Hubal. It f.x. is told that people stood beside the idol of Hubal and prayed to al-Lah/Allah. (There was no separate idol of al-Lah/Allah in the temple.)
It seems that Hubal originally was a moon god in Mecca, but became a main god there, and sources tell the Kabah mosque was dedicated to Hubal. It is unclear if Allah outcompeted Hubal, or if Hubal was another name for Allah (f.x. that al-Lah was his title and Hubal his name - al-Lah simply means "the god"), or if they originally were two different gods which coalesced. (The last alternative seems to be the most likely one.)

There are indications for that Hubal (Hu-Bal, Haba'al, Hn'baal, etc.) may have been connected to the Ba'al/Baal/Bal religions. If that was the case, and if Hubal was another name for Allah, Islam has some fast explanations to make if they claim that Yahweh and Allah are the same god, as Ba'al was the main pagan opponent of Yahweh through large parts of "history". To claim that Yahweh was/is the same god as a Hubal/Allah/Ba'al is not worth even laughing.

Hubal was a central god in the old pagan Arabia. But his history and his role through the times are not entirely clear. Some sources claim he was a version of al-Lah/Allah, something Islam vehemently denies. Other sources tell differently. What is clear is that he as said was a central god in Mecca (his name also is found in what today is Syria and Iraq), and that he was a god for divination and a moon god.

To be more specific:

Hubal was an imported god in Mecca. The first place one finds him, is among the Nabateans - a North Arab people in what is now north Arabia, Sinai, Syria, and Jordan, and as far east as Euphrates. Also Islam agrees to that Hubal was an imported god. It is not clear exactly where the Hubal in the Kabah in Mecca was imported from, but it is clear it was from the north.

This raises 2 questions:

1: Was Hubal another name for al-Lah (also named Allah)? Al-Lah was known also among the northern Arab tribes, and there are several points pointing to that Hubal really was another name for him. It f.x. is highly unlikely that the Meccans (tradition tells it was done by a man named Amr ibn Luhayy) would buy a heavy and very expensive statue (made from red agate or carnelian , but with his right hand from gold) and transport it hundreds of miles through desert and wilderness to Mecca, and there placed him in a big temple which seems to already have been dedicated to al-Lah (Karen Armstrong - at the time of Muhammad it was dedicated to the name Hubal, which seems to have been the name of the statue), unless it was a statue in some way connected to al-Lah. This also because in the old Arabia there usually was only one male god in a temple. There might be one or several female ones in addition, but only one male one.

There also is another point we have not been aware of: Normally one reads that in the Kabah there were 360 idols. (We have wondered how there could be space for that many - the Kabah is large, but not that large.) But it turns out that this is not quite correct - the majority were placed outside the temple. (Malise Ruthven: Islam in the world, p. 15). Then it was quite possible to have only one male god inside, and of course the main god. There is no doubt and it is not disputed that the statue of Hubal was inside the temple. There also is no doubt that he was the moon god.

It is known that al-Lah - earlier named al-Ilah, and even earlier Il - was a moon god. Even today al-Lah/Allah (and Islam) has the (crescent) moon as his symbol.

Further: It is told that 'Abd-al-Muttalib (the grandfather of Muhammad) once stood beside the statue of Hubal and prayed to al-Lah/Allah (both names were used at that time). Islam drops the rule that there should be only one male god in a temple/mosque, and tells that this must mean there also had to be an idol for al-Lah/Allah inside. He stood beside Hubal and prayed to another idol, they claim.

But if we stick to the rule that there only was one male god in a temple/mosque, this story simply tells that he stood near the statue and prayed to al-Lah/Allah via the statue named Hubal. It also is practically sure there was no idol representing al-Lah/Allah in the temple.

Further: When Muhammad cleaned out the Kabah when he took over Mecca, it is described that the idols outside, the idols of al-Lat, al-Uzza, Manat (the 3 main female goddesses), and the statue of Hubal were destroyed. But if there is told about the destruction of an idol for the pagan al-Lah/Allah, we have overlooked it. And if no such statue was destroyed, there was no such one - Muhammad had all idols/statues destroyed. This in case means that there only was one male god represented inside: Hubal/al-Lah/Allah.

##Our conclusion: There is no doubt and not disputed that al-Lah and Allah were two names for the same god. There is no doubt, and it is not disputed that Muhammad took over this god, declared he was the only real god, declared that he in reality was the same god as Yahweh, and accepted only the name Allah. When it comes to Hubal, we find that it is likely, but not proved - but far from disproved - that he was a third name for the god Hubal/al-Lah/Allah. (Islam strongly denies this, but have so weak facts that they have to use slander, etc. as strong arguments (repeated use of words like "missioners" is slander in this connection - and there are other negative words used.)

2: Is the name Ba'al involved?

Ba'al or Baal (or Bol) originally was a title - meaning something like "Lord" or "Master" - and was used connected to several gods around the inner end of the Mediterranean - the Levant and Asia Minor - and was also the name of the top god to the Canaanites and Phoenicians. The name is known from at least 1400 BC in f.x. Egypt. Over time it became parts of some names or daily names - it f.x. is likely that the name HaBaal simply meant "the god", perhaps in the meaning "the main god". On the Arab peninsula this seems not to have been the case normally. But Hubal as mentioned was an imported statue from the north, and in the north Ba'al, etc. was well known. There are good indications for that "Hubal" derives from "HaBaal" or similar. Our conclusion here is that if it is not "likely", then at least there is a good possibility that the name Hubal was connected to Ba'al.

If this is correct, this fact would have been known at that time and earlier, even though such details are forgotten now - the Jews would have known very well if the neighboring god al-Lah really was the same god as Hubal in another neighboring country, even before the name Hubal was exported to Mecca, and if Hubal had any relationship to the Ba'al concept. And if this is the case, Muhammad can just forget to claim that Yahweh = Allah (=Hubal/al-Lah/Allah) - for the religious parts of the Jews Ba'al was closely related to the Devil all the time from the old prophets and up. If Jesus had talked about any god related in any way to Ba'al, he had been a looser from the first day.

Archeology seems to prove that Mecca was not settled until in the 4. century AD = a lot more than 2ooo years after Abraham. If they have found traces from an older settlement in Mecca, the report at least is not published, it seems. It further seems that the Kabah was not built until in the 5. century AD - written sources indicate that it originally was constructed by a man named Asa'd Abu Karb and then or later dedicated to the main god in Mecca, Hubal (HuBal, Huba'al - connected to the Ba'al religions known from the Bible?), but later al-Lah/Allah melted together with or took over from Hubal, and was the main god at the time of Muhammad.

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

001 117 22/25da: “- - - the Sacred Mosque, which We (Allah*) have made (open) to (all) men - - -.” This is among the most solidly contradicted and abrogated verses in all the Quran. It was prohibited for non-Muslims from around 632 AD. Today it is prohibited for any non-Muslim to enter the Kabah, and wide areas around are more or less closed to non-Muslims.

Irony: The Kabah earlier may have been dedicated to and belonged to the Arab moon god Hubal, (but another local pagan god, al-Ilah/al-Lah, slowly took over Hubal's role or "melted" together with Hubal. Al-Lah also sometimes was named Allah). A bit ironic in case that Allah should predestine - he predestines everything according to the Quran - that his most holy place on Earth should be dedicated to a pagan god, and not even to al-Lah/Allah.

We may add that originally Hubal was the moon god in Arabia, and some sources say the Kabah originally was his temple and dedicated to him. But when Muhammad was born, al-Lah - sometimes named Allah - had taken over as Arabia's main god. It is a bit ironic that a building dedicated to an old moon god (be it Hubal or al-Lah/Allah - because also Allah had been a moon god and the crescent moon still is his symbol) was and is the most holy place on Earth for a claimed only and claimed omnipotent god - and as ironic is the fact that if Muhammad had been born earlier, Islam's god might have been named Hubal, not Allah (Muhammad simply took over the claimed mightiest of the pagan Arab gods, and earlier Hubal was reckoned to be the most powerful one - and the moon god like al-Lah had been and perhaps still was when Muhammad took over Arabia).

1 + 2977 = 2978 comments (+ basic comments/introductions).


 

117.   HUD - ONE OF THE 3 CLAIMED PROPHETS OF THE OLD ARABIA

Hud is the first of the claimed three Arab prophets, according to the Quran. The Quran indicates that he and his tribe, 'Ad, lived - and the tribe destroyed - long before Abraham, who according to science lived - if it is not fantasy - around 2ooo-1800 BC.

Science tells that there was a tribe named 'Ad living in south Arabia across what is now the border between Yemen and Oman, and with a capital named Ubar, but that it lived from around 1ooo BC or before, and disappeared around 300 AD = Muhammad had their live and disappearance at least some 2500 years wrong. (Claudius Ptolemy mentions the claimed capital of 'Ad, Ubar, in his "Geographos").

Another point is that the Tribe Thamud was the inheritors of 'Ud. But Thamud existed from ca. 800 BC till around 600-400 AC. How could they inherit 'Ud, who stayed on for some 700 years longer? Thamud also lived hundreds of miles and kilometers further north, but this Islam explains(?) with that they lived in the south, but moved north some time after they had inherited the 'Ud (!).

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

001 6/14d: “But I (Muhammad*) am commanded to be the first of those who bow to Allah (in Islam) - - -“. This obviously is wrong according to Islam (though in reality it may be 100% correct - may well be that Muhammad was the very first Muslim), as the Quran claims that many were Muslims before Muhammad. (Muslims often claim - as "always" without documentation - that what the Quran really means here, is the first of a group, in this case the Arabs. But for one thing at least the claimed prophets Hud, Salih and Shu'ayb were good Muslims according to the Quran, and all lived in Arabia before Muhammad - even before Moses, as Moses mentioned them according to the Quran. For another thing that is not what the Quran says - it nowhere indicates that it means the first of a group, but the first. And the language in the Quran is perfect and not to be misunderstood according to Islam. Besides: If the book here means something else than what is clearly said, how many other places in the Quran does it mean something other than what the text really says? Other Muslims claim it means the first in quality. But in a book with perfect and unmistakable language that would be written "I am the best of those - - -."

002 6/83b: "We (Allah*) rise whom We will - - -". The standard explanation for why some had a better life than others - even being non-Muslims: Allah in his unfathomable wisdom decides. But it also is an argument in the debate: Why an Arab prophet in a line where all documented prophets (or at least mentioned other places than in the Quran and the Hadiths) were Jews? (Hud etc. were not documented).

##003 7/65a: "To the 'Ad people, (we (Allah*) sent) Hud - - -". The stories about Ad and Hud you find different places in the Quran are not from the Bible. As far as we have been able to find out, they are from no written sources.

004 7/65b: "To the 'Ad people, (we (Allah*) sent) Hud - - -". Ad is a tribe from old Arab folklore (it may or may not have existed).

005 7/65c: "To the 'Ad people, (we (Allah*) sent) Hud - - -". A time anomaly. See 4/13d above.

006 7/65d: "To the 'Ad people, (we (Allah*) sent) Hud - - -". As for the claimed prophet Hud we have been unable to find out if also he is a person from old Arab legends, or if he "surfaced" with Muhammad's tales. But notice one thing: Muhammad is some places in the Quran said to be the first prophet to the Arabians. The claim that there was a prophet Hud in Arabia (and also a few others) contradicts that claim - one of many contradictions in the Quran. To quote comment (A7/47) (translated from Swedish): "Hud is told to have been the first Arab prophet". Also see 7/73a below.

007 7/66b: "The leaders of the Unbelievers (among Hud's people*) said: "Ah, we see you (Hud*) art an imbecile!" See 7/60a above.

008 7/68a: "I (Hud*) am to you ('Ad*) a sincere and trustworthy adviser". Muhammad is once more making a parallel to his own situation - this is exactly his own message to the Arabs. And to his followers: That prophets are distrusted is normal, and thus his own situation in Mecca was normal for a prophet - reassuring for his then few followers in 621 AD to "know".

009 7/70b: "They ('Ad*) said: Comest thou (Hud*) to us - - - (etc*)". See 7/60a above.

010 7/70d: "Bring us (the 'Ad people*) what thou (Hud*) threatenest us with - - -". They simply were asking for proofs - a total parallel to requests Muhammad got, and he uses the parallel to show that Allah also that time proved nothing - Muhammad thus was in good company when he was unable to prove anything.

011 7/73a: The Thamud people and Salih like the 'Ad people and Hud are from old Arab folklore and not from the Bible. They may or may not have existed, but nothing of what is told about them in the Quran is from any known written source.

012 7/143c: “- - - I (Moses) am the first to believe.” This one is similar to f.x. 6/14, except here it is Moses instead of Muhammad. But it contradicts the Quran's telling that f.x. Adam, Abraham, Isaac, Ishmael, Jacob, Joseph, Hud, Salih, Shu'ayb and others believed Muslims before him. And Moses and all the others were making a lie out of Muhammad’s saying that he – Muhammad – was the first. A number of contradictions. (2/127-133, 3/67, 6/14, 6/163, 26/51). Muslims tells that these contradictions are not contradictions, because it is meant the first of a group, a nation, or something – but that is not what the Quran says, and it also does not explain all cases.

Another point is that according to the Bible, the god of Moses was Yahweh, not Allah. And as nobody has ever found any traces neither of a god Like Allah, nor a religion like Islam, nor a book similar to the Quran older than 610 AD when Mohammad started his mission, it is likely the Bible is right.

013 11/50a: "- - - the 'Ad People - - -". A powerful tribe in the very old Arabia, according to old Arab folklore - they may have existed (before Moses in case, because the Quran claims he mentioned Hud - not said in the Bible). Muhammad claimed their demise was because they sinned against Allah.

014 11/50c: "- - - Hud - - -". A claimed prophet in Arabia (to the 'Ad people). You meet him nowhere outside the Quran and linked books. He - like all claimed or documented (?) prophets in the Quran - met with similar problems like Muhammad met when it came to being believed - satisfying at least for Muhammad's followers who then "understood" that Muhammad's problems were normal for prophets, and that Muhammad thus had to be a prophet. His real interest for the story is that he (and a few others included Moses during his 40 years exile from Egypt before the Exodus), are claimed to have worked as prophets in Arabia, whereas the Quran tells that Muhammad worked for a people - the Arabs - who had had no prophet before.

####With the partly exception of Jesus - who was too well known - all prophets or claimed prophets told about in the Quran, are bent into a frame to be parallels to Muhammad. A coincidence?

015 11/50ca: "- - - Hud, one of their own brethren". A parallel to Muhammad. He was an Arab and claimed Allah sent prophets/messengers to the different people from their own people - the Arab Muhammad to Arabs, the 'Ad Hud to the 'Ad tribe, etc.

016 11/51a: "I (Hud - see 11/50b above) ask you for no reward for this (message)". Quite similar to 11/29a above. And a parallel to Muhammad.

017 11/51b: "My (Hud's*) reward is from none but (Allah*) - - -". Quite similar to 11/29a above.

018 11/53b: "They (the 'Ad people*) said: 'O Hud! - - -". See 11/43c above.

019 11/54b: "I (Hud*) call Allah to witness - - -". No value unless Allah exists - and what the value is if he in case is from the dark forces, is uncertain. (Though he in that case may bear witness for the mistakes and even lies in the Quran).

020 11/54-55: "- - - I (Hud*) am free from the sin of ascribing to Him (Allah*) other gods as partners". This is no sin unless Allah exists and is a god. Well, it may be a sin towards another god if another god - f.x. Yahweh - exists and take offence from your believing in other or pagan gods. According to the Bible it f.x. is clear that Yahweh will react negatively to persons believing in a god of war like f.x. Allah - and a god who on top of all accepts the use of dishonesty, apartheid (Muslims shall suppress non-Muslims), terrorism, rape, murder and war.

Besides: Non-Muslims do not have gods in addition to Allah, as they do not believe Allah is a god. They have another/other god(s) INSTEAD OF Allah.

021 11/56a: "I (Hud*) put my trust in Allah - - -". A bit risky as long as not even his existence is proved - not to mention if he exists, but belongs to the dark forces, something too many facts may point at if he is not pure fiction.

022 11/56e: "Verily, it is my (Hud's*) Lord (Allah*) that is on the straight Path". Not if he follows the Quran - too much is wrong and crooked in that book. It definitely is no proved verity/truth.

024 11/57b: "For my (Hud's*) Lord (Allah*) - - - watch over all things". See 2/233h above.

025 11/58a: "- - - We (Allah*) saved Hud - - -". A time anomaly. See 4/13d above.

026 11/59b: "- - - the 'Ad People; they rejected the Signs of their Lord - - -". See 11/43c above.

027 11/59d: "- - - (the 'Ad people*) disobeyed His (Allah's*) Prophets - - -". When you are making up stories, it is difficult to remember all details and not stumble or make a slip here and there. According to Islam Hud was the first prophet in Arabia - he clearly was before Moses, because Moses is said to talk about him as an earlier prophet. But when Hud was the first and only (claimed) prophet the 'Ad people ever had, how come that they then disobeyed Allah's prophets (plural)? A small. but revealing mistake - revealing because it often is just this kind of small slips which uncovers the deceiver and the swindler.

Another question: If the 'Ad tribe ever existed, did they - and thus Hud - exist so early that Moses could talk about them = 2000+ years before Muhammad. From where did Muhammad get information about him? As the Quran and all its mistakes are from no god - no god delivers that kind of quality - Islam's claim that he got it from a god, does not hold water as too much is wrong in the Quran, and there is no known source of information neither about Hud nor about the two other claimed Arab prophets, Shu'yab and Salih.

028 11/60b: “Removed (from sight (= killed*)) were ‘Ad (a presumed large and rich Arabian tribe, “borrowed” from Arabian folk tales - it may or may not have existed*) - - -”. Some thousands more killed by the good and benevolent god Allah - for their sins according to the Quran. (Science has additional reasons for why a tribe might disappear in a barren land, ridden by raids and strife and war). Notice that Hud and Muhammad had parallel experiences with being rejected - that is the norm for all prophets and Muhammad in the Quran.

029 11/61c: "- - - Salih - - -". Similar to Hud - see 11/50c above - but a little later. None of them mentioned in the Bible.

030 11/84c: "- - - Shu'ayb, one of their brothers - - -". A claimed prophet claimed to have worked in Madyan. His story is very similar to those of Hud and Salih - see 11/50b and 11/61b - and other prophets in the Quran, and by coincidence(?) to the story of Muhammad up till when this surah was told (in 621 AD - the year before the flight to Medina and his start towards power and a war religion).

And like Muhammad, Shu'ayb were from the local people = Muhammad being an Arab teaching the Arabs was a normal case.

031 11/84d: "- - - Shu'ayb - - -". To place the special Arab claimed prophets chronologically, it seems that Islam claims the succession was this (YA1064): Noah (not Arab prophet, though*), Hud, Salih, Abraham (not Arab), (Lot/Lut (not Arab), and Shu'ayb. Shu'ayb is said to be 4 generations after Lot, though we do not find this specified in the Quran, which in case means also he was before Moses around 1375 - 1335 BC. Lot of course was a contemporary of Abraham - his nephew. Abraham lived - if he is not fiction - ca. 1800-2000 BC according to science, which means that Shu'ayb (if not fiction) lived about one century later or a bit more, BC. This makes impossible the Muslim claim that Shu’ayb was identical to the father-in-law of Moses, Jethro. Science tells that if the Exodus ever took place, it happened ca. 1235 BC, and if the Bible is correct Moses then was 80 years, which means he lived from ca.1315 BC to ca. 1195 BC (he became 120 years according to the Bible). There in case are some 300 - 500 years between Shu'ayb and Moses (and Jethro).

  1. Adam (and Eve) - unclear when.
  2. Noah - unclear when, likely 3ooo - 4ooo BC.
  3. Hud - unknown when, but the first of the 3 claimed Arab prophets of the old. Long before Moses.
  4. Salih - unknown when. Well before Moses.
  5. Abraham and Lot - around 2ooo - 1800 BC according to science.

  6. Shu'ayb - 4 generations (some 120 years) after Lot = roughly around 1700 BC. The last one of the 3 claimed Arab prophets of the old.
  7. Moses - Exodus according to science was around 1335 BC, which means he was in Midian ca. 1375 to 1335 BC. If he was 80 when Exodus started and lived 40 years more like the Bible says, he lived from ca. 1315 BC to ca. 1195 BC.

But a serious problem here is that the information this time line is built on, do not fit the few known facts (another problem is that when you search Internet for facts about Hud/'Ad, Salih/Thamud, Shu'ayb/Madyan/People of the Wood the articles are so dominated by the intention to make the claims in the Quran sound correct, that it is difficult to see what are really facts and what are "adjusted facts" - adjusted by wishful thinking). What seems to be facts, are that if the 'Ad people ever existed, they lived in an area around Ubar in the southeast of the Arab peninsula (somewhere near where Saudi Arabia, Oman, and Yemen meet today). When is unclear, but before the Thamud. We have found no reliable mentioning of them in reliable history.

The Thamud is said to have lived in al-Hirj, a mountainous area very roughly halfway between Damascus and Mecca. A people named Thamud are mentioned in historical sources, but the very oldest one is connected to the Assyrian king Sargon II and dated to ca. 715 BC - far later than Moses. This people disappeared from historical sources around 600-400 BC. Islam wants their disappearance to have been connected to volcanic eruptions, but we have been unable to find confirmation for volcanic activity in that area around 600-400 BC. (The volcanic activity in Arabia mainly came to an end some 400ooo years ago.)

Then finally there is the last of the 3 specific Arab claimed prophets, Shu’ayb. He in the Quran is connected to Madyan and to "the People of the Wood". This is somewhat complicated. For one thing it is unclear if "the Midianites" and "the People of the Wood" were the same or two different people. For another it is unclear where the Bible's Midian was situated. Originally we like many others believed the Bible's Midian and the Quran's Madyan were the same place - in the north-west of the Arab peninsula. But further studies have made us doubt this. There are two possible explanations for the Bible's Midian: Moses' Midian may have been to the east of Egypt or to the south of that country - it is not specified in the Bible whether Moses went east or south. If he went south (= along the Nile valley where it was easy to find a living), his Midian was in Sudan. If he went east, it was somewhere east of Egypt. And then the question is: Was the Bible's Midian just the name of a place somewhere, or did it refer to the land of the Midianites (Midian was the 4. of Abraham's 6 sons with his second wife, Keturah - 1. Mos. 25/2). If it was just a geographical name it may have been anywhere - f.x. in Madyan in Arabia. But if it referred to "the land of the Midianites" it was on the Sinai peninsula. If Moses found a Midian to the East of Egypt, this last explanation is the likely one for 2 reasons: For one thing this Madian was on his way east and much closer than Madyan in Arabia, and for another: The Midianites were related to the Jews and a natural place for a fleeing Jew to settle. And what is absolutely sure is that as the Thamud according to history seems to have existed from perhaps 800 BC to around 600-400 BC, and the Madyanites/Midianites of the Quran lived later according to that book, it is totally impossible that Shu'ayb could be identical to Moses' father-in-law, Jethro, like many Muslims claim - Jethro lived around 1350 BC.

When you add up all details, it is highly likely Moses' Midian was in Sinai, and that the Muslim claim that it was in Madyan is based only on a similarity of names.

*The very strong probability: As the Bible mentions Mt. Horeb (likely another name for Mt. Sinai) and Mt. Sinai (today Jabal Musa (34 degrees east, 28.5 degrees north. Roughly 70 km north northwest from Sharm-el-Sheik (Sharm el Shaykh) far south in central Sinai. Also the Islam confirms that it was here Moses met his god and got the mission to take the Jews out from Egypt. This is far from Madyan in Arabia) connected to Midian, Midian must have been in Sinai.

To be more exact: The Sinai Mountain, or really a mountainous area, has several peaks, the highest of which are Dsjabal (Mountain) Kathrina (2880 m) and Dsjabal Musa (Moses' Mountain - 2285 m). The latter one perhaps is what in the Bible is named Mt. Horeb.(But as the Bible is unclear about exactly where Moses received the 10 commandments, and there is a possibility that this and other central happenings took place in the area of Kadesh-Barnea (some 50 miles/80 km south of Beersheva or Be'er Sheva). If that is the case, there is a possibility for that Mt. Horeb was in Madyan, east of Aqaba.

 

The likely story is that the correct name for the people here is "Madyanites", not "Midianites", and that they were from Madyan - and not the same Midianites/Midian which Moses visited. But it is still unclear if they at the same time were "the People of the Wood".

One thing which is absolutely sure: As for the Thamuds history tells that they existed from around or somewhat before 800 BC till around 600-400 BC when they disappeared, and as the Quran claims they lived/were destroyed well before Moses (= well before 1235 BC), the time line in the Quran is some 1ooo years wrong on the claimed Arab prophets - or at least on Salih and his Thamud. Worse: As the Quran also places the 3 claimed prophets to times before or shortly after Abraham, who lived(?) some 2ooo-1800 BC, the Quran's time line here is perhaps 1500 years or more wrong.

032 11/89a: "- - - the people of Noah or of Hud or of Salih - - - nor of Lut (Lot*) - - -". According to the Quran all these people were killed by Allah because of sins. The Bible says the same for the people of Noah and of Lot - though it makes it clear that as for Lot they were not really his people - but by Yahweh, not by Allah.

#033 11/95c: Shu'ayb - Salih - Hud. These are the 3 big non-Biblical claimed prophets in the Quran (+ Muhammad of course). All were Arabs working in Arabia. A universal god should have had a bigger choice including also other countries and continents - and perhaps also some success and/or different stories, not only parallels to Muhammad. One of the half hidden, but clear and strong Arabisms in the Quran. See 4/13d above.

034 13/38b: "We (Allah*) did send Messengers before thee (Muhammad*), and appointed for them wives and children - - -". We quote A1861: "All prophets of whom we have any detailed knowledge, except one (Jesus*), had wives and children (= Muhammad was a normal prophet also in this way - well, extra normal with 36 known women). But this claim needs a selective use of the expression "detailed knowledge". Not all prophets are known to have had wives - f.x. it is unlikely John the Baptist had a wife - and for many that situation simply is not mentioned in the Bible. Also the Quran does not mention any wives for the claimed Arab prophets Hud, Salih, and Shu'ayb. Use the expression "detailed knowledge" selectively enough, and you get the answer you want.

But more dishonest her - a Kitman (lawful half-truth) - is that one does not mention that none - not one - of the prophets in the Bible had a big harem (beware that f.x. David and Solomon are kings, but not reckoned among the prophets in the Bible). Of claimed prophets only Muhammad had - science knows the name of 35 women who for shorter or longer time belonged to his harem (in addition there was Khadijah, but she died before he got a harem). Also in this way Muhammad does not belong in the line of Yahweh's prophets in Israel.

035 16/36a: “For We (Allah*) assuredly sent amongst every people a Messenger.” Contradictions:

  1. 28/46: “Yet (art thou (Muhammad*) sent) as a Mercy from thy Lord (according to the Quran = Allah*) to give warning to a people to whom no warner (= prophet, messenger*) had come before - - -.” No messenger had they had, even though “every people” had had.
  2. 32/3: “Nay, it is the Truth from thy (Muhammad’s*) Lord (Allah*), that thou mayest admonish to a people to whom no warner has come before thee - - -.”
  3. 34/44: “But We (Allah*) had not given them (Arabs”*) Books which they could study, nor sent messengers to them before thee (Muhammad*) - - -.”
  4. 36/6: “In order that thou (Muhammad*) mayest admonish a people (the Arabs*) whose fathers had received no admonition - - -.”

Muhammad's claim here also is contradicted by reality: Neither science nor Islam has been able to find one single trace of a prophet or messenger preaching Islam before 610 AD (Muhammad and Islam claim the old Jewish prophets, included Jesus, did so, but this they will have to prove - not claim, but prove - to be believed, as they preached a very different religion.) ###There also are extremely strong circumstantial proofs for that the claim in this quote is wrong - no trace from such messengers are ever found anywhere.

Which verse(s) is/are wrong? (Also remember that the Quran many places mention at least 3 prophets (Hud, Shu'ayb and Salih + perhaps Moses) who worked in Arabia long before Muhammad. Well, Moses may have been in Sudan or likely in Sinai, and not in Arabia - one does not know for sure where the Bible's Midian lay. (Though as Mt. Hebron and Mt. Sinai are mentioned, it extremely likely lay in Sinai and not in Arabia).)

(4 contradictions or more).

036 17/59j: Just for the record: The stories about the 'Ad, Thamud, Midianite (descendants of Abraham’s 4. son with Keturah - 1. Mos. 25/2 - or people from Midian (Madyan?)), Rocky Tract, etc. tribes and the prophets Hud, Salih, and Shu'ayb are not from the Bible. That is to say, Midianites may be mentioned, as descendants from one of Abraham's 6 sons with Keturah, Midian (1. Mos. 24/1-2).

037 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 maybe).

038 23/32b: (A23/17): “And We (Allah*) sent them a messenger from among themselves - - -.” Who are “they” and who is the messenger? Islam does not know. Some guess it may be Hud – sometimes mentioned in the Quran, but unknown anywhere else. It may perhaps be Muhammad. Or it may be a vague general description. Clear words?

039 26/124a: "- - - Hud - - -" The name of a claimed self proclaimed prophet said to be working among the 'Ad tribe in the very old Arabia. You only find him in the Quran. Like many of the other claimed prophets in Quran, he mirrors Muhammad's life up to the time of Muhammad's life when the story was told, and with doom for non-Muslims. As for where Muhammad got his information about Hud from, see 26/123a above.

040 26/125a: The self proclaimed prophet (according to the Quran) Hud said: "I am to you a messenger worthy of all trust". This was one of the essences of Muhammad's own preaching. In the tales about claimed former prophets in the Quran, you normally find parallels to Muhammad's life and teachings - it seems to have been essential to him to show that his was a very normal life for prophets (and thus that he was a normal prophet).

041 26/126: The claimed prophet Hud said: "So fear Allah and obey me". This was a very central sentence to Muhammad and it seems to have been essential for him to tell his followers that this was a normal demand from prophets - you find similar sentences from the mouth of claimed former prophets here and there in the Quran - f.x. see 26/108 and 26/110 above. It seems that Muhammad needed to show everybody he was a normal prophet

042 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.

043 26/131: "Now fear Allah and obey me (Hud*)". See f.x. 26/108, 26/110 and 26/126 above.

044 26/137: (A26/59 – in 2008 edition A26/60, but the alternative explanation omitted): “This is no other than a customary service of the ancients”. The old pagans defend their religion with that it is the reliable religion of our forefathers (Ibn Abbas, ‘Ikrimah, Qatadah). Or maybe it was the other way around? – that they accused the Muslims (in this case the presumed prophet Hud) for telling just old nonsense? – “This that you tell us just (is*) repetition of old and outdated ideas.” It actually is clear that what Muhammad told mostly were old stories - often with a twist to make them fit his religion. + unclear language.

045 26/139b: "They (the 'Ad people*) rejected him (Hud*) - - -". See 26/70b above.

046 26/142c: "Will ye (the Thamud people*) not fear (Allah)?". The claimed 3 Arab prophets mentioned in the Quran (Hud, Salih, and Shu'ayb) all are said to have operated in the time between Noah and Moses. Noah - if he ever lived - is likely to have lived several thousand years ago (5-6ooo?), and Moses around 1200-1300 BC. If you are able to believe in Muslims at that time, you are free to do so, but neither science nor Islam has found any traces of that religion anywhere earlier than 610 AD when Muhammad started his preaching.

047 28/46g: "- - - (you Muhammad are*) to give a warning to a people to whom no warner had come before thee - - -". According to the Quran, the Arabs had had at least these warners: Abraham (wrongly claimed to have been in Mecca), Hud, Salih, Shu’yab, and Moses (some Muslims claim the Quran tells the truth, because none of these had been in Medina. But when you talk about a people, you talk about a people - in this case the Arabs - unless otherwise is specified. If you make the area small enough in cases like this, you may make anything look true.)

048 36/6c: “- - - thou (Muhammad*) mayst admonish a people, whose fathers had received no admonition - - -.” = had had no warners/messengers before. But:

  1. 2/125-129: These verses reminds Muslims about that according to the Quran both Abraham and Ishmael lived and worked in Mecca – and both were prophets and messengers, still according to the Quran. But according to science: If Abraham has ever lived, he lived some 2000 – 1800 BC – which means centuries before Moses and millennia before Muhammad.
  2. 10/47: “To every people (was sent) a messenger - - -.” Homo Sapiens – also called Modern Man – developed most likely in East Africa some 160ooo – 200ooo years ago, and crossed – and occupied – the land bridge between Africa and Asia (= the Middle East) not later than 100ooo years ago (though a few say min. 70ooo years). If every people had got Messengers, how come that Sinai/Arabia/etc. had not got one for nearly 100ooo years – not until Moses some 3300 years ago? And Hud and one or two others before him. But NB: Both Moses with his 40 years in Midian (in west Arabia or in Sudan), Hud Shu'ayb and Salih mentioned in the Quran, in case were before Muhammad in Arabia.
  3. 16/36: “For We (Allah*) assuredly sent amongst every People a Messenger.” See 10/47 above.
  4. 35/24: “- - - and there never was a people, without a warner having lived among them (in the past).” A very clear contradiction.

The claimed prophets Hud, Shu'ayb and Salih if they are not fiction, lived some generations after Noah – and long before Moses.

(Min. 6 contradictions.)

###049 46/21a: "Hud". A prophet Muhammad and the Quran claimed once lived in Arabia. There exists no trace from him outside the claims in the Quran. He in case was a self proclaimed prophet with problems similar to Muhammad's and was used by Muhammad to show his own followers that former prophets had been disbelieved, too, and that thus Muhammad's situation was normal for prophets. There is a Muslim rumor that there is a chance for that he is the same person as the little known Biblical person Eber. In that case he was the great great grandson of Noah "at a time when the forefathers of the Jews were Arabs living in south Arabia before some of them emigrated to Mesopotamia, where among others Abraham was born (in Ur of the Chaldeans according to the Bible*)". It is a kind of fun when you read about ideology and/or religion and/or nationalism, etc. to see how many - and especially populists - tries to grab honor from wherever they can find it. (The quote here is freely translated from Swedish after A6/47 - comment to verse 6/65).

As far as we have been able to find out, the claim that Arabs settled in Mesopotamia before Abraham, is one of the many made up Muslim claims. we find no historical basis for that claim - on the contrary.

It is extra ironic when you know that for one thing the Arabs are not a coherent tribe/people, but a mixture made up from people who drifted into the peninsula from all the lands around, and for another when you know that the interior of Arabia was settled roughly around the times of Abraham's forefathers - people drifted into Arabia then, and did not emigrate from there.

######BESIDES: HOW COULD ABRAHAM BE THE FOREFATHER OF THE ARABS IF ARABS WERE HIS FOREFATHERS? (Muslims sometimes are so eager to win points and honor for the religion and themselves, that they forget to think over the consequences of their claims - like here.)

Another point is that if the 'Ad was a mighty tribe, Hud could not be identical to Eber - It would be impossible to make up a mighty tribe from one or maximum a few of Noah's descendants or few servants - the only remaining humans on Earth according to the Quran, in just 3-4 generations. But this kind of claims is typical for Muslims and Islam - you meet it too often: They put forth nice claims about themselves or bad ones about the opponents, without taking all "facts" into consideration. In that way they get fitting "information" or "arguments" which may sound good, but which pulverizes when you check them. When such things are done too often, it gives a bad impression and destroys credibility.

050 46/21b: "'Ad". A tribe from old Arab folklore. It may or may not have existed, but if it existed, it is little likely they came to an end the way Muhammad claimed - like normal without the slightest proof. The Quran claims Hud was their prophet. If they existed, it according to the Quran was sometime between Noah and Moses.

051 46/21c: "- - - (Hud) one of 'Ad's own brethren - - -". Muhammad claimed prophets were sent to their own people (neither in the Bible, nor in the Quran this is quite correct). Even if this was not quite correct also in the Quran, you will find this claim stressed many places in the Quran - and "facts" some places "adjusted" a little to make them fit this claim (f.x. facts(?) connected to Abraham, Lot, and Moses). This fitted Muhammad's claim that naturally a prophet to Arabs had to be an Arab - like himself. If you read the Quran, you will meet this phenomenon several places.

052 46/21d: "- - - he (Hud*) warned his people about the winding Sand-tracts - - -". This sentence hangs in the air, because it is not said anything why he warned his people about them and what the danger was. If not the meaning simply is that he warned his people living among the sand-tracts = in the desert. The language in the Quran sometimes/too often is unclear.

053 46/22b: "They (the 'Ad tribe*) said: 'Hast thou (Hud*) come - - -'". See 46/7d above.

054 46/22c: "Hast thou (Hud*) come in order to turn us aside from our gods?" An exact parallel to questions Muhammad got - "ergo" Muhammad's problems were normal for prophets, and thus Muhammad had to be a normal prophet. Good for his followers to "know". Most stories in the Quran about claimed or real(?) prophets were made parallels to Muhammad's situation, and thus "documented" that his situation was normal for prophets, and that he thus was a normal prophet.

055 46/22d: "Then bring upon us (skeptics*) the (calamity) with which thou (Hud*) dost threaten us (skeptics*) with". A new exact parallel to Muhammad's position: Requests for proofs Muhammad never was able to deliver. See 46/22c just above.

056 46/22-26: A close parallel to Muhammad's position in 620 AD, followed by what Muhammad threatened his contemporaries with if they would not accept his new religion. This is a technique he uses many times in the Quran, and it "told" his followers that his position was normal for prophets, and thus he could claim to be a normal prophet. For his followers it surely also helped to be told that the bad people of the past were punished, and thus that their "bad contemporaries surly would be punished, too. (Well, in some cases they instead became good Muslims - Muhammad only had those two endings on those tales.) Also notice that Muhammad often claimed that the punished societies were mightier and richer than his contemporary Arabs, something which should make both his already omnipotent god and the impression on his listeners even stronger.

057 46/23a: "He (Hud*) - - -". A time anomaly.

058 50/2b: "But they (people*) wonder that there has come to them a Warner from among themselves." Muhammad often returns to the fact that he is an Arab, not a Jew like all other documented prophets (Hud and the few other claimed prophets in the Quran not taken from the Bible, are not documented from any other source). To make himself a normal prophet, may be one of the reasons why he told about so many other non-Jewish prophets claimed to have existed to all times and in all cultures and lands. He also uses the fact that he is not a Jew as a never proved claim for why the Jews did not accept his religion (whereas the real reason was that the Jews - who knew their scriptures - saw that a lot of things were wrong in Islam compared to what Yahweh had told them).

58 + 2978 = 3036 comments (+ basic comments/introductions).


 

118.   HYPOCRITES

There were many hypocrites in Medina. F.x. all the Arabs wanting loot, riches, rape, slaves - and bribes from Muhammad.

There also is a lot of hypocrisy in Islam today - f.x. all the Muslims who are not really interested in religion, but pretend to be good Muslims because of social or other pressure.

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

001 2/15a: "Allah (if he exists and has made Islam*) will throw back their (hypocrites*) mockery on them, and give them rope in their trespasses - - -". One of the big questions for Muslims (and other religious people) is: 'I am a religious and good person, but he not; why does he have a good life and I not?' This is Islam's standard answer to this conundrum: 'Because Allah gives them rope and is going to punish them even harder in the next life'. A "good" and "informative" claim as it is impossible to prove it wrong. (Of course it really is Islam's job to prove their words, but it is normal for them to turn the table and demand opposing proofs from you all the same.)

002 2/15b: "- - - they (non-Muslims/hypocrites*) will wander like blind ones - - -". Yes, if Islam is a real religion - but who wander blindly if the Quran and Islam are made up? - and where will all Muslims then end up if there is a next life? After all the Quran with all its errors, etc. is not from any god.

003 2/202a: "To these (In this case most likely hypocrites and bad Muslims*) will be allotted what they have earned". See 3/77b below.

004 3/76a: "- - - those who sell the faith they owe to Allah - - -". Non-Muslims and hypocrites - one of Muhammad's many for Muslims distaste inducing names for non-Muslims.

005 3/167b: The hypocrites were no good and refrained from fighting. But you are better?! And you want to make a better impression on Allah?!

006 3/167e: “The Message of the Quran” has this remark to this verse (no. 3/128 to this surah): “Only war in self defense – in the widest meaning of the word – can be reckoned to be a fight for the cause of Allah”. But as “the widest meaning of the word" is very wide, each and every war where one part is Muslim and the other not – and most where both parts are Muslims – are in “self defense” or for other reasons are just wars and always are declared jihad, this simply is hypocrisy. Practically all Muslim wars, included wars of aggression, and there have been plenty of those through the history, have been declared “jihad” – at least we have not been able to find many exceptions from this rule. Actually for centuries all the four law schools in Islam agreed on that the fact that the opposite part in a conflict were Pagans, was good enough reason for to attack them and to declare the attack/war for jihad (holy war). It was not until in the 1920s or 1930s that some Muslim scholars started to question this “law” – and it still only is questioned and only by parts of the Muslims, though nowadays these questions normally makes the Muslim parts, included terrorists, blame the other part so as to give the claim of jihad at least a demagogue’s made up reality of being a just war. Very convenient for anyone who needs warriors/soldiers – and a convenient incitement to war: All wars against “infidels” are “jihad” – with permission to rape and steal and suppress and murder - - - and guarantee for your going to Paradise if you are killed - just like the old Vikings. The good and benevolent Allah likes killers, thieves/robbers, rapists, apartheid, etc., etc. - at least when the dishonesty, atrocities and inhumanities are done in his honor.

####A fact to remember here is that it just takes a little dishonesty and demagogy to find an "explanation" for why even a not provoked attack - f.x. for stealing/robbing, slave taking and extortion - "in reality" is self defense. Of the some 82 armed "incidences" under Muhammad, only 3 - the battles of Badr, Uhud and Medina ("the Trench") really were battles of defense, and even these 3 were caused by provocations from Muhammad and his Muslims (their banditry towards caravans and villages). Nearly all the others were raids to steal and take prisoners for slavery or extortion + for raping girls and women if such ones were present.

007 3/167h: "But Allah hath full knowledge of all they (hypocrites*) conceal". See 2/233h above and 35/38b below.

008 3/168a: “If only they had listened to us (non-Muslims or hypocrites - and not gone to war*), they would not have been slain”. That is what hypocrite Muslims say, according to the Quran - and who wants to be a hypocrite? Good pep talk. On the other hand: In most cases the hypocrites here were right - to claim that it is as dangerous to play with your children or something, as to take part in a battle, is utter stupidity and easy to prove wrong by means of statistics. To be able to believe in an illogical claim like this, takes more than a lot of naivety - a good portion blind belief and/or wishful thinking must be added.

009 4/61ea: "- - - thou (people*) seest the Hypocrites avert their faces from thee (Muhammad? Muslims?*) in disgust". Hypocrites were/are persons who pretended to be Muslims for some reason or other - f.x. fear, greed for loot or slaves or rape, etc. - but without being honest believers in Muhammad's religion. There f.x. were many who pretended to be Muslims to be permitted to take part in Muhammad's many raids for stealing, looting, enslaving, etc.

##010 4/71b: “O ye who believe! Take your precautions, and either go forth (in war*) in parties or go forth all together”. Be strong when you attack. "The religion of peace"? On the contrary - Islam is a typical religion of war. The only reason why this Islamic slogan is not dead long time ago, is that non-Muslims do not know the Quran well enough to laugh from that claim. (But beware that many Muslims also do not know the book well enough or are too indoctrinated, and are unable to see the hypocrisy - or al-Taqiyya (lawful lie) - in the claim. They simply and honestly believe it!)

011 4/81a: "But Allah records their (claimed hypocrites' or non-Muslims’*) nightly (plots) - - -". = Remember: Allah will punish them. - if he exists, if he is a god, and if the Quran tells the full and only truth about everything. (For some reason or other Islam and its Muslims seldom claim that Islam is the religion of honesty.)

012 4/81b: “- - - so (Muslims*) keep clear of them (“infidels”/hypocrites*) - - -.” Social pressure, etc. also is pressure - or compulsion – especially when everybody knows it is backed by the sword if you protest. This verse contradicts (and abrogates) at least these verses which demands stricter reactions (here f.x. are 88 out of the 124 Muslim scholars say are abrogated by 9/5): 2/109, 2/190, 2/256, 2/272, 3/20, 4/62, 4/81, 4/90, 5/3, 5/28, 5/48, 5/99, 6/60, 6/66, 6/70, 6/104, 6/107, 6/112, 6/158, 7/87, 7/188, 7/193, 7/199, 8/61, 9/68, 10/41, 10/99, 10/102, 10/108, 11/12, 11/121, 13/40, 15/3, 15/94, 16/35, 16/82, 16/125, 16/126, 16/127, 17/54, 18/29, 18/56, 19/39, 20/130, 21/107, 21/112, 22/49, 22/68, 23/54, 23/96, 24/54, 26/216, 27/92, 28/50, 28/55, 29/18, 29/46, 32/30, 34/25, 34/28, 35/23, 35/24a, 36/17, 39/41, 41/34, 42/6, 42/15, 42/48, 43/83, 43/89, 44/59, 45/14, 46/9, 46/135a, 46/135b, 46/135b, 50/39, 50/45, 51/50-51a, 51/54, 52/45, 52/47, 53/29, 67/26, 73/10, 73/11, 79/45, 86/17, 88/22, 109/6. They are all quoted under 9/5 in "1000+ Mistakes in the Quran". (At least 88 contradictions).

013 4/88a: (A4/105 – in 2008 edition 4/107): “Why should ye be divided into two parties about the Hypocrites?” Who were they? Muslim elite scholars like Ibn ‘Abbas and Tabari have speculated a lot, but the only result is “various conjectures”. And when top Islamic thinkers through 1400 years ends up with “various conjectures" – yes, then the language in the Quran is “clear and easy.”

014 4/89b: “- - - take no friends from their (hypocrites’/non-Muslims‘*) ranks”. Direct order. No wonder Muslims often are reluctant mingling with non-Muslims. And there are many similar points in the Quran.

015 4/109a: "- - - but who will contend with Allah on their (hypocrites', non-Muslims'*) behalf on the Day of Judgment - - -". None of course - they are too bad. At least if it should not happen that their belief was the right one.

016 4/109b: "- - - but who will contend with Allah on their (hypocrites', non-Muslims'*) behalf on the Day of Judgment - - -". According to the Bible it is Yahweh you will have to contend with that day.

017 4/140d: "For Allah will collect the Hypocrites and all those who defy Faith - in Hell". Often claimed, never proved. It is not even proved that Allah exists or that he has the power for doing this.

018 4/140e: "For Allah will collect the Hypocrites and all those who defy Faith - in Hell". As far as the ones who believe in the Bible, this is contradicted by the Bible. The same go for the ones who believe in the Quran - the ones living according to the harsh parts of the Quran's partly immoral moral code, etc. hardly will have a chance to be accepted by a god behind something like NT (if that god exists, the chances for which at least exists). 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.

####019 4/142a: “The hypocrites – they think they are overreaching Allah, but he will overreach them (literal meaning: 'He (Allah*) is their deceiver'*) - - -.” This is one of Islam’s alibis for Al-Taqiyya and Kitman, etc.: When Allah could cheat, then of course his followers can do the same.

Just for the record: Al-Taqiyya and Kitman, etc. can be used at least in the cases mentioned below (for broken oaths there are given no real limitations if the broken oath will give a better result. By implication this also goes for ordinary promises, as an oath is something stronger than a normal promise. For cheating/deceit/betrayal there may - may - be the limit that it is to be used in connection to war - but many things are called part of a war especially by extremists.)

  1. To save your or others' health or life.
  2. To get out of a tight spot or a dangerous problem.
  3. To make peace in a family.
  4. When it will give a better result than honesty or honoring one’s oath.
  5. To cheat women (should be remembered by girls with Muslim boyfriends wanting sex - or wanting a marriage to get work permit or residence permit in a rich country.)
  6. To deceive opponents/enemies.
  7. To betray enemies.
  8. To secure one’s money (very clear from Hadiths).
  9. To defend Islam. (Advice if necessary to succeed.)
  10. To promote Islam. (Advice if necessary to succeed.)

But al-Taqiyya is a double-edged sword: In the short run you may cheat and deceive some ones – actually also in the long run if the opposite part does not know about this side of Muslims and of Islam, or if he/she is naïve. But in the long run one discovers that Muslims can lie without sinning, and thus that it is impossible to rely 100% on a Muslim’s word in serious cases - he may be using an al-Taqiyya, a Kitman or even be relying on Muhammad's words about deceiving or about breaking oaths if this gives a better result.

Also see 4/142b just below.

Rules and permission like this for the use of dishonesty only exists in Islam - "the Religion of the Truth". No other of the big religions accepts and partly relies on dishonesty.

####020 4/142b: (A4/157 – in 2008 edition A158): “The hypocrites – they think they are overreaching Allah, but He will overreach them (non-Muslims*) - - -“. Literal meaning: “He is their deceiver”. But f.x. Rezi has: “He (Allah*) will requite them for their deception.” There is a clear distinction here: In the first case Allah deceives the non-Muslims so that may be their plans crumble before they give any Muslims problems. In the other case he avenges what they did. 2 different meanings. And these variants also are in the Arab text, as the relevant word there has more than one meaning. Clear language in the Quran?

#######We also add that this sentence: “He (Allah*) is their deceiver” is one of the moral alibis Islam uses for its doctrines of “al-Taqiyya” (the lawful lie), “Kitman” (the lawful half-truth), Hilah (the lawful pretending/circumventing), etc. – a kind of permitted dishonesty included in Islam, but in no other of the major religions. Al-Taqiyya and Kitman, etc., deceit, etc., and also broken oaths can be used without sinning in a number of cases – f.x. to save your life, to get you out of serious problems, to save your money, to cheat women – and it shall be used if necessary to promote or defend the religion. (It only is guesswork how many proselytes who have been cheated by al-Taqiyya and/or Kitman, etc. when wondering if Islam is a true and good religion or not. Or how many non-Muslims who have been cheated to believe that the Quran is not the basis for a teaching of suppression, inhumanities and blood, but a peaceful and benevolent book promoting peace. Not to mention how many girls who have been deceived into marriage, when the Muslim boy just wanted a residence or work permit - or simply into sex.) Also see 4/142a just above. (For some reason or other Islam and its Muslims seldom claim that Islam is the religion of honesty.)

We finally point to the fact that the literal meaning - "He (Allah*) is their deceiver" - tells gigabytes about the Quran, Muhammad and Islam. It also is legion miles away from the NT - one of the really strong proofs for that Yahweh and Allah are not the same god.

021 4/145: "The hypocrites will be in the lowest depths of the Fire (Hell*) - - -". See 3/77b above.

022 5/41e: "- - - those - - - who race each other into unbelief - - -". One of Muhammad's negative names for non-Muslims - here for hypocrites and Jews and perhaps also for those leaving Islam.

024 5/64k: "- - - they (non-Muslims*) (ever) strive to do mischief on earth". Quite a hypocrisy from the man who was involved in may be 82 or more armed conflicts during his few years in Medina - nearly all of them initiated by himself to gain riches to use for gaining more power and little by little for forcing his new religion on his surroundings.

*025 7/16a: (A10 – in 2008 edition A11): “Because Thou (Allah*) has thrown me (Iblis – the Devil*) out of the Way - - -.” But is this really what Muhammad meant? Because the Arab word “aghwahu” which is used here, is an unclear word with many meanings. This sentence at least can have these meanings:

  1. “Because Thou hast thrown me out of the way - - -.”
  2. ”Because Thou hast thwarted me - - -.”
  3. ”Because Thou hast caused me to err - - -.”
  4. ”Because Thou hast allowed me to err - - -.”
  5. ”Because Thou hast caused me to be disappointed - - -.”
  6. ”Because Thou hast caused me to fail my desire - - -.”

As said before: Also Arab language – like all other languages - has words with more than one meaning. And in such cases Arab is not one millimeter more exact than other languages, even if you find only one word (with multiple meanings) in the Quran, but have to use different words in another language to cover the different meanings. To claim that Arab in such cases is more clear and/or exact when it in reality is vague and unclear, is just hypocrisy or dishonesty - - - or al-Taqiyya.

###026 7/28b: “Allah never commands what is shameful - - -.” Hypocrisy. This is contradicted by several points in the Quran, f.x.:

  1. 2/230: “If a husband divorces his wife (irrevocably), he cannot, after that, remarry her until after she has married another husband and he has divorced her.” This situation is not common, but it does happen in a culture where divorce is so easy as in Islam. In Islam the woman then has to prostitute herself in legal forms, to be permitted to do so (the intermediate marriage has to be a “fulfilled" one).
  2. Enslaving is “lawful and good”.
  3. Killing and murdering and war are not only lawful and good, but the best service to Allah.
  4. A raped woman who cannot produce 4 male witnesses to the very act, is to be punishes severely for indecency.
  5. Allah commands/permits sex with children. For an adult to enjoy sex with a child is utterly shameful. For an adult to introduce a child to sex is inhuman and even more shameful. Muhammad even demonstrated that it was ok at least from the girl is 9 – and worse: She – Aisha - became his favorite wife the rest of her childhood.
  6. Allah commands that one can take slaves in a jihad - and any skirmish or war where Muslims are involved, is declared jihad. For centuries (till ca. 1930 – 1940) all the four law schools of Islam said that if the opposite parts were pagans, this was good enough reason to declare jihad – which means that at least theoretically any slave hunter in Africa or Asia could claim to be waging jihad. To force fellow humans to become slaves, to toil for free for you, to be free for you to sell or mistreat or use for a sex toy, is utterly inhuman, utterly selfish, utterly immoral – and utterly shameful. Not to mention that it is a grotesque act to commit in the name of a presumed god and benevolent good.
  7. To rape a child captive/slave/victim is grotesquely selfish, immoral, inhuman and grotesquely shameful - - - but Allah has commanded that it is ok if the child is mot pregnant - at least if the child over 9 years according to Islam (the age of Aisha when Muhammad started to have sex with her - anything Muhammad did is just and right).
  8. To rape any woman prisoner/slave/victim – a fellow human being – is nearly as selfish and shameful and bad as raping a child. But in the Quran it is “lawful and good” if the woman is not pregnant. That it is "lawful and good" may be a reason why rape is so common by Muslim warriors/soldiers. (Another possible reason is that empathy is not an integrated part of Islam - and the same with moral philosophy).
  9. To murder opponents – also personal opponents – in the name of a presumably good god is something much more than shameful.
  10. To incite to discrimination, hate and war, in the name of a presumably good god is even worse than this again – and a proof for a god or a “prophet” full of hypocrisy.
  11. To steal/rob/plunder and extort in the name of such a god – and with his permission as “lawful and good” - is nearly as bad and as much hypocrisy as raping and killing and apartheid/suppression. And to do so in the name of a god, makes the god, the religion and the acts even more perverted and distasteful. But all these points have this in common:
    1. They attract selfish warriors to a robber “prophet’s” army – and to his successors’.
    2. They attract greedy warriors to a robber “prophet’s” army – and to his successors’.
    3. They attract inhuman warriors to a robber “prophet’s” army – and to his successors’.
    4. They attract primitive warriors to a robber “prophet’s” army – and to his successors’.
    5. It is a cheap way for a robber “prophet” – and for his successors – to get an army – a cheap army and an inhuman army.

Finally: Severe or capital punishment for a woman who has been raped, but is unable to produce 4 male eye witnesses to the very act most likely is the most inhuman, most immoral, most unjust, and most shameful law we have ever come across in any at least half civilized religion or culture, and Allah/Muhammad has introduced this law.

027 8/49a: "The hypocrites (at the time of Moses*) say - - - : 'These people - - - (etc.*)'". 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 means (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.

028 8/50d: "Taste (non-Muslims and hypocrites*) the Penalty of the blazing Fire - - -". See 3/77b above.

029 8/56: "They are those with whom thou (Muhammad? Muslims?) make a covenant, but they break their covenant every time, and they have not the fear (of Allah)." Muslim hypocrites? Jews? Christians? Pagans? Jews, Christians and for that case Pagans did not - and do not - have any fear of Allah, as they did - and do - believe that the Quran is a made up book and Allah a made up god. There are good reasons for such beliefs.

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

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

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

This is one of the most disgusting and revealing sentences in the Quran.

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

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

######030 8/69a: “ "But (now) enjoy what ye took in war, #######lawful and good - - -”. This is one more of the moral and ethical pinnacles in the Quran: Wage war, and then it is “lawful and good” to steal and rob and plunder - and rape the women and girl children and take slaves. It actually is connected to 8/68a above, but like so often in the Quran specific episodes, etc, is given general meaning.

But of course this made it easy and cheap for Muhammad and his successors to get warriors. That such behavior is a catastrophe for any and all victims - and in some cases set back the civilization may be some hundred years like in Persia/Iran - does not count, as non-Muslim “Untermench” ("sub-humans" in Nazi German) do not count.

This even more so as for fanatics nearly every situation they do not like, can be defined as war against Islam “in the widest meaning of the word” - not to mention that according to Islam’s definition all areas not dominated by Islam are “land of war”. Really a morally and ethical superior religion - compare f.x. to the silly and invalid "Do unto others like you want others do against you", which many religions and culture have as their "constitution". And really a peaceful one.

And honestly the word “good” in ”lawful and good” classifies Muhammad, the Quran and Islam. Laws can be twisted and remade and it is no problem for an absolute dictator to make what laws he wants and thus make things “lawful” – quotation marks used on purpose. But the word “good” is an absolute – flexible “borders”, but fundamentally an absolute. Allah’s/Muhammad’s real rules for behavior against all outsiders is way outside “good”, and the hypocrisy in the using of abrogated verses in the Quran to make outsiders believe something else, makes this aspect of the religion and its hypocrisy even more disgusting.

This quote also tells a lot about the person Muhammad.

########To us this is perhaps the most disgusting and revealing sentence in the entire Quran and the entire Islam.

Also: Combine this quote with Islam's slogan: "Islam is the Religion of Peace" and "Allah is good and benevolent" and weep - or laugh.

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

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

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

031 8/70c: “O Prophet! Say to those who are captives in your hands: ‘If Allah findeth any good in your hearts, He will give you something better than what has been taken from you, and He will forgive you - - -.” It also is a bit ironic that Muhammad had attacked and stolen and raped and murdered and enslaved - - - but it was his victims who needed forgiving. Muhammad the hypocrite. Some religion.

The hypocrite side of Allah is visible not a few times in the Quran. Worth a sardonic laugh.

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

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

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

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

#######032 9/33j: "- - - to proclaim it (Islam and the Quran*) over all religion - - -". This is a sentence to beware of, because this is the official goal for Islam even today and for all foreseeable future: Dominate and suppress all others.

This sentence must be seen in connection to 9/29c above.

This is the promised future for non-Muslims under Islam. A religion so full of errors that the book itself proves there is no god behind it. Perhaps the dark forces, but not any god.

And it is symptomatic that parallel to this, Islam claims that non-Muslims treat them badly when informing about realities in and connected to Islam, because "according to ethics and rules of modern era interference in anyone's religion is serious crime which cannot be tolerated". Hypocrisy - and even more so if you look at Islam's behavior especially in Africa and Asia through the times and today.

Even correct information about Islam is "serious crime which cannot be tolerated" from "people having destructive minds" and "dirty minds", and they are "criminally minded people". On the background of burning and demolition of churches, etc., and on Muslims' discrimination, mistreatment, and even murder of non-Muslims which Islam does little to stop, words like these receive negative reactions instead of sympathy - who likes obvious hypocrisy? Also see 9/33ja just below

"The permission to inform about and debate all and everything is the heart blood of democracy. Prohibition of debating what the rulers do not like informed about, is the heart blood of despotism". NB: This quote is not from a Muslim source.

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

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

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

033 9/56a: "They (hypocrite contemporaries of Muhammad*) swear by Allah - - -". A time anomaly. See 4/13d above.

034 9/56b: "They (hypocrite contemporaries of Muhammad*) swear by Allah that they are indeed of you, but - - -". An impossibility even for a god to know long before. See 9/45c above.

035 9/65b: "If thou (Muhammad*) dost question them (hypocrites*), they declare (with emphasis: 'We were only talking idly and in play'". Impossible even for a god to know for sure eons earlier. See 9/45c above.

9/036 9/67a: "The Hypocrites - - - enjoin evil, and forbid what is just, and are close with their hands. They have forgotten Allah, so He hath forgotten them. Verily the Hypocrites are rebellious and perverse". A pep-talk where Muhammad tells his followers how bad people they are who do not believe in him. Good psychology as long as the followers believe it - and people in religious fervor often believe their prophet or "prophet" no matter what is true and what is not. Also see 9/67b-through-f below.

037 9/67f: “Verily the Hypocrites are rebellious and perverse.” Persons not really believing in Muhammad and his new religion are - have to be - bad and perverse. Not strange Muslims are reluctant to be integrated among such people.

038 9/68d: “- - - therein (Hell*) shall they (hypocrites and “infidels”*) dwell: sufficient is it for them - - -.” No, according to some verses in the Quran, they also deserve punishment by the Muslims of this world. Contradicted and abrogated by a number of the verses under 2/256 - see this. More about this verse under verse 9/5 in the chapter Abrogations in http://www.1000mistakes.com .

(Abrogated by several verses – at least 5 abrogations. Contradicts many verses – at least 10 contradictions.) Also see 3/77b above.

039 9/70g: "It is not Allah Who wrongs them (hypocrites*), but they wrong their own souls". How come when Allah decides absolutely everything according to many verses in the Quran?

###040 9/73b: “Strive (fight*) hard against the Unbelievers and the Hypocrites - - -.” Straight words for your money.

041 9/73e: "- - - be firm against them (non-Muslims and hypocrites*)". When the idol Muhammad should be firm against them, of course all other Muslims should be the same.

042 9/73f: "Their (non-Muslims and hypocrites*) abode is Hell - - -". See 3/77b above.

043 9/74d: "- - - they (hypocrites*) uttered blasphemy (disbelief in Muhammad and the Quran*), and they did it after accepting Islam - - -". One of the greatest sins in Islam is for a Muslim to disbelieve in anything in the book, not to mention leaving the religion - there is in principle death penalty for leaving Islam, and this still is to a degree practiced some places.

044 9/74e: "- - - they (hypocrites*) uttered blasphemy (disbelief in Muhammad and the Quran*), and they did it after accepting Islam - - -". It is not possible to utter blasphemy by disbelieving in Allah or Muhammad, unless Allah really exists an in addition is a god (not f.x. something from the dark forces - Muhammad would not have a chance to see the difference f.x. between a dressed up devil and the angel Gabriel).

045 9/75a: "Amongst them (some bad Muslims/hypocrites/non-Muslims*) are men who covenanted with Allah, that if He bestowed on them of His bounty - - -". They covenanted with the god that if he made them rich, they would be generous. Some covenant. Some god.

###046 9/77a: “- - - He (Allah*) hath put as a consequence hypocrisy into their hearts, (to last) till the Day (of Doom*)”. As you see also the hypocrites have no choice - they actually are made hypocrites by Allah, and he gives them no chance of changing their mind. But the good god all the same is going to punish them severely. Besides: Compare this with "the 11. hour" (Matt. 20/8-13) in NT - Yahweh and Allah the same god? With as fundamental differences in the religion as this, only one answer is possible. Also see 2/7c above.

047 9/77b: "- - - the Day, whereon they (the hypocrites*) shall meet Him (Allah*) - - -". = The Day of Doom.

048 9/77c: "- - - they (hypocrites*) broke their covenant with Allah - - -". The Quran here tells they had promised Allah something - but that is not a covenant. A covenant is an agreement which all implicated parts say they agree on. Allah in this case had said nothing - Allah really NEVER proved even his existence by f.x. provably saying anything at all. Thus they had made a promise, not a covenant. Also see 9/75c above.

049 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.

050 9/101b: "Certain of the desert Arabs - - - are obstinate in hypocrisy - - -". See 9/98c above.

051 24/13b: "Why did they (the ones talking about Aisha*) not bring four witnesses - - -?" For the very obvious reason that no witnesses existed - this is a rhetoric and hypocritical question where Muhammad knew the answer very well on beforehand. A dishonest way of augmenting, and a dishonest way to move the focus away from Aisha to others. Psychologically may be a wise sentence - but dishonest. This question was nonsense from the moment it was asked.

The request also is a bit ironic, as Muhammad never proved anything himself - claims and invalid "signs" and as invalid "proofs", but never a valid proof for anything central in his new religion.

052 26/130: (A26/58) "- - - a Quranic prohibition, valid for all times, of all unnecessary cruelty in war, coupled with the positive, clearly-implied injunction to subordinate every act of war - as well as the decision to wage war as such - to moral considerations and restraints". Anyone knowing something about Muslim war history and also of treatment of prisoners of war and of suppressed people after many wars, are able to comment on this kind of claims from present-day Muslim scholars, but we do not like to use so impolite words as the ones necessary to correct these claims, perhaps except the word hypocrisy.

Please read the claim once more - do you want to laugh or to weep?

053 29/3d: "- - - Allah will certainly know those who are true from those who are false". In this case "true" and "false" stands for "good Muslims" contra "hypocrites and non-Muslims". The latter also is one of Muhammad's many negative names for non-Muslims.

054 33/24c: “- - - Allah may reward the men of Truth (Muslims*) - - - and punish the Hypocrites if that be His Will - - -”. A sure way to always have an explanation: "If that be Allah’s will". And the same can explain any injustice Allah or Muhammad would not - or could not - rectify.

055 33/37e: "- - - thou (Muhammad*) didst fear the people, but it is more fitting that thou shouldst fear Allah - - -". This easily - oh, so easily - could be hypocrisy.

056 33/37g: "- - - We (Allah*) joined her (Zaid's wife Zaynab*) in marriage to thee (Muhammad*): in order that (in future) there may be no difficulty to the Believers in (the matter of) marrying with the wives of their adopted sons (after divorce - widows not mentioned*)". This is perhaps the thinnest excuse we have ever heard for a serious selfish deed.

  1. For one thing: Is this a situation which happens so often that it merits a dramatic demonstration?
  2. For another: Many a doubter would be willing to bet that if Muhammad had not been "hot" on this woman, this old Arab law - forbidden to marry your adopted son's former wife - had existed today.
  3. For a third and the main point: A verse from Allah had had JUST the same effect.

Hypocrisy. It is not the only time in the Quran where it is possible to place Muhammad among the hypocrites. (Even many Muslims do not feel quite comfortable about this story.)

###057 33/37i: "And Allah's command must be fulfilled". In this case pure hypocrisy. And this may be a main reason for many Muslims' bad feeling about this story (Zaid's wife, Zaynab, taken over by Muhammad) even today - the hypocrisy is too obvious.

058 33/38d: "- - - what Allah has indicated to him (Muhammad*) as a duty (to marry Zaynab*) - - -". More too easy to see hypocrisy. See 33/37g+i above.

059 33/38e: "It was the practice (approved) of by Allah amongst (earlier prophets*) - - -" - - - to obey Allah. The same comment as to 33/38d just above. Disgusting.

Another fact: None of the Biblical prophets had a big harem. Most had just one wife, if any at all. (Remember here that in the Bible f.x. David and Solomon are not reckoned to be prophets, only kings.) ####Also none of the Biblical prophets raped women like Muhammad did.

060 33/45f: “- - - Glad Tidings - - -“. Wrong. Islam/the Quran is no glad tiding, except for the ones not suppressed and those of them who could rob and steal and rape and become rich – and really glad only for the ones near the top of the pyramid. It often is like that in war religions, especially when made to fit a strong and charismatic leader (and his successors), though many war religions have not been as hypocritical as Islam in trying to make its members and others believe it is good and just and benevolent. And well, it may have been glad tidings for the minor percent of people who needs a religion to lean on (the exact percentage is not known, but science indicates 5 – 10 %, though some more in difficult times.) In Islam these small percents have usurped all the power and force everybody not only to live, but also to think and believe like themselves.

By the way: Have you ever noticed how many similarities there are between the Quran's moral code and that of organized crime - f.x. the Mafia.

061 33/60b: “Truly, if the Hypocrites, and the ones in whose hearts is a disease - - - desists not - - - they will not be able to stay in it (a city) as thy neighbor’s for any length of time - -”. Bad people are to be chased away.

062 33/60c: "- - - those in whose hearts is a disease - - -". One of Muhammad's many disgust inducing names for non-Muslims - in this case included hypocrites who pretended to be Muslims.

063 33/60d: “- - - those (non-Muslims, hypocrites, etc.*) in whose heart is a disease - - -“. A good slogan that you meet many places in the Quran: If you are not a good Muslim, that means you are sick. But like many slogans it may be a twisted truth – or simply a lie.

###064 33/61a: “They (hypocrites - not good enough Muslims – or non-Muslims*) shall have a curse on them whenever they are found, they shall be seized and slain (without mercy).” If you are not good enough Muslims – and sometimes others – you are to be killed without mercy. A most clear order. Only do not mention it, because the propaganda lines are f.x.: “The Religion of Peace” and “No compulsion in Religion". This verse contradicts (and abrogates) at least these verses (here are 88 out of the 124 Muslim scholars say are abrogated by 9/5): 2/109, 2/190, 2/256, 2/272, 3/20, 4/62, 4/81, 4/90, 5/3, 5/28, 5/48, 5/99, 6/60, 6/66, 6/70, 6/104, 6/107, 6/112, 6/158, 7/87, 7/188, 7/193, 7/199, 8/61, 9/68, 10/41, 10/99, 10/102, 10/108, 11/12, 11/121, 13/40, 15/3, 15/94, 16/35, 16/82, 16/125, 16/126, 16/127, 17/54, 18/29, 18/56, 19/39, 20/130, 21/107, 21/112, 22/49, 22/68, 23/54, 23/96, 24/54, 26/216, 27/92, 28/50, 28/55, 29/18, 29/46, 32/30, 34/25, 34/28, 35/23, 35/24a, 36/17, 39/41, 41/34, 42/6, 42/15, 42/48, 43/83, 43/89, 44/59, 45/14, 46/9, 46/135a, 46/135b, 46/135b, 50/39, 50/45, 51/50-51, 51/54, 52/45, 52/47, 53/29, 67/26, 73/10, 73/11, 79/45, 86/17, 88/22, 109/6. They are all quoted under 9/5. (At least 91 contradictions).

###065 33/61b: “- - - whenever they (hypocrites and non-Muslims, whoever decides whom they are*) are found, they shall be sized and slain (without mercy)”. A good verse for many a mullah and imam and for terrorists - and for starting pogroms. What disturbs us is that this may be the future many places, as the Quran is forever.

###066 33/61c: “(Hypocrites and non-Muslims and those who make unrest*) shall have a course upon them: wherever they are found, they shall be sized and slain (without mercy)”. More plainly it is difficult to tell it - and who is to decide what is unrest and who starts and continues it? Pogroms happen - f.x. in Indonesia and Malaysia against Chinese not long ago - they were richer than the Muslims (Chinese work more and often have more education). Will there be unrest against others because they are richer than Muslims somewhere in the future? - or simply because non-Muslims never should be the boss of a Muslim (not likely to be a rule today, except perhaps in conservative areas, but it used to be a rule during for hundreds of years many places)?

####067 33/61d: “(Hypocrites and non-Muslims and those who make unrest*) shall have a course upon them: wherever they are found, they shall be sized and slain (without mercy)”. We intended to ask you compare this to NT, but such a comparison is not possible. At least a 200% proof for that Yahweh and Allah are not the same god, and Jesus and Muhammad morally not even distantly connected.

###068 33/61-62: “They (non-Muslims, hypocrites, etc.*) shall have a curse on them: whenever they are found, they shall be sized and slain (without mercy) (‘no compulsion in religion’ 2/256*). (Such was) the praxis (approved) of Allah among those who lived aforetime (f.x. Jews and Christians*). Muhammad claimed that Allah was just another name for Yahweh – but try to find an order telling that all non-Christians shall be murdered “without mercy” in NT and in the new covenant (f.x. Luke 22/20 in NT) - a covenant Muslims never mention - and NT is what Christianity is built on . Oh, we know very well that persons from Christian countries have done bad things, but that was in spite of their religion – and they were not really Christians deep down – and not in accordance with, or even because of the religion, like the case often is with the “religion of peace” (Muslim-speak for camouflaging the “religion of war”) Islam.

069 33/73a: (Because man – the Arabs – undertook the Trust of the Quran/Islam -) “With the result that Allah has to punish the Hypocrites, men and women, and the unbelievers, men and women - - -.” And Muslims works on behalf of Allah (why? - if Allah is omnipotent, why?) This verse abrogated (and contradicts) at least these verses (here are 88 out of the 124 Muslim scholars say are abrogated by 9/5): 2/109, 2/190, 2/256, 2/272, 3/20, 4/62, 4/81, 4/90, 5/3, 5/28, 5/48, 5/99, 6/60, 6/66, 6/70, 6/104, 6/107, 6/112, 6/158, 7/87, 7/188, 7/193, 7/199, 8/61, 9/68, 10/41, 10/99, 10/102, 10/108, 11/12, 11/121, 13/40, 15/3, 15/94, 16/35, 16/82, 16/125, 16/126, 16/127, 17/54, 18/29, 18/56, 19/39, 20/130, 21/107, 21/112, 22/49, 22/68, 23/54, 23/96, 24/54, 26/216, 27/92, 28/50, 28/55, 29/18, 29/46, 32/30, 34/25, 34/28, 35/23, 35/24a, 36/17, 39/41, 41/34, 42/6, 42/15, 42/48, 43/83, 43/89, 44/59, 45/14, 46/9, 46/135a, 46/135b, 46/135b, 50/39, 50/45, 51/50-51, 51/54, 52/45, 52/47, 53/29, 67/26, 73/10, 73/11, 79/45, 86/17, 88/22, 109/6. They are all quoted under 9/5 in www.1000mistakes.com : 1000 Mistakes in the Quran,. (At least 88 abrogations).

070 34/47c: "- - - my (Muhammad's*) reward is only due from Allah - - -". Hypocrisy. When he grew in power, he lived a good life - not really rich, but reasonably well off (and with enough riches to feed all his women). You will meet Muslims telling how poor he was when he died - it is a Kitman (a lawful half-truth). When he died he had estates in Mecca, Fadang and Khaybar. The false rumor about his poverty emerged from the fact that he had decided that his riches should follow the religious establishment. Because of that there exists a short list over some personal belongings, which many Muslims claim - and often honestly believe - was everything left after him. (They even forget the fact also Islamic literature mentions, that his daughter Fatima for the rest of her short life (and her husband Ali afterwards) quarreled with the first caliph, Abu Bakr, because she demanded the inheritance after her father).

071 35/24h: “- - - Glad Tidings - - -.” Wrong. Islam is no glad tiding, except for the ones not suppressed – and really glad only for the ones looking for booty and slaves and stolen riches, and not least for the ones near the top of the pyramid who got – and get – a lot of power in addition. It often is like that in war religions, especially when made to fit a strong and charismatic leader (and his successors), though many war religions have not been as hypocritical as Islam in trying to make its members and others believe it is good and just and humane and benevolent. And well, it may have been glad tidings for the minor percentage of people who needs a religion to lean on – at least for the possible ones who found the old pagan religion not strong enough.

072 35/42f: “- - - their (hypocrites of Muhammad*) flight (from righteousness (= the teachings of Muhammad*)) - - -". See 35/42b above.

073 41/30d: “- - - Glad Tidings - - -.” Wrong. Islam is no glad tiding, except for the ones not suppressed – and really glad only for the ones looking for booty and slaves and stolen riches, and not least for the ones near the top of the pyramid that got – and get – a lot of power in addition. It often is like that in war religions, especially when made to fit a strong and charismatic leader (and his successors), though many war religions have not been as hypocritical as Islam in trying to make its members and others believe it is good and just and humane and benevolent. And well, it may have been glad tidings for the small percentage of people who need a religion to lean on – at least for the possible ones where the old pagan religion was not strong enough. Also see 2/97i and 17/9d above and 61/13 below.

074 46/12h: “- - - Glad Tidings - - -.” Wrong. Islam is no glad tiding, except for for the ones not suppressed – and really glad only for the ones looking for booty and slaves and stolen riches, and not least for the ones near the top of the pyramid who got – and get – a lot of power in addition. It often is like that in war religions, especially when made to fit a strong and charismatic leader (and his successors), though many war religions have not been as hypocritical as Islam in trying to make its members and others believe it is good and just and humane and benevolent. And well, it may have been glad tidings also for the minor percentage of people that need a religion to lean on – at least for the possible ones where the old pagan religion was not strong enough. But for the majority of people no. Even not for the majority of the Muslims.

075 57/18c: (A67/26): “For those who give in Charity - - -.” This is the standard interpretation if you use the version of the Quran named after “Asim from Kufa after Hafs” – or for short only “the way of reading after Hafs”. (There once were 14 canonized versions of the Quran – and more in reality. Over the centuries most of them has fallen into disuse, and today only 2 are in daily use: This one (which is the dominant) and “Nafi from Medina after Warsh” (used in large parts of Africa) – or just “the way of reading after Warsh”. (+ 4 a little used.) Islam never uses the word “versions” for these 14 and more varieties, and mostly pretends they do not exist – they call them “ways of reading”; a hypocrite’s way of hiding the true reality – call it a lie, call it al-Taqiyya, call it a flight from a dangerous truth.) But depending on so minuscule details as the vocalization of the consonants that are transcribed to Latin letters like “sad” and “dal”, the meaning is transformed to: “Verily, as for the men and women who accept the truth as true” (Zamakhshari, Asad). A clear and concise language in the Quran? Any god had been much more exact to make sure that everybody could understand – and that everybody agreed to the meanings and did not split up in cults and sects - - - like has happened to Islam all through its history (it is said that around 3000 sects exist or have existed in Islam).

076 59/11d: "- - - they (the hypocrites in Medina*) are indeed liars". According to Muslim sources, the first Jews had from the old a truce with one or more Arab tribes (there had been a kind of civil war more or less in Medina, and there were truces between different tribes). These Arabs did not help them when they (Banu al Nadir) were attacked, but they prevented that they were murdered.

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

077 59/12: "If they (non-Muslims*) are expelled, never will they (Arab non-Muslims*) go out with them; and if they are attacked (in fight), they will never help them; and if they do help them, they will turn their backs; so they will receive no help". See 59/11d just above. The tribe Bani (Bani = tribe) Qainuqa were expelled from Medina in 624. They had been part of the loosing fraction in a kind of protracted civil war in Medina shortly before Muhammad arrived, and it was not too difficult for Muhammad to have them evicted. Then his next victim proved to be Banu al-Nadir.

078 63/1b: "- - - the hypocrites come to thee (Muhammad*), they say, 'We bear witness - - -". See 62/11c above.

079 63/3a: "- - - they (hypocrites*) believed - - -". = They had accepted Islam. But the real hypocrites had not really accepted the religion - they only pretended so for some reason or other. The ones Muhammad speaks about here - the ones leaving Islam - were not necessarily hypocrites at all. They may simply have been among the many who after learning more about the religion, found that things were wrong. But we are back to Muhammad's understanding of human nature and his understanding of psychology: It was psychologically much better for him to tell his followers that the ones leaving Islam were bad people and hypocrites, than to admit that they had found his teaching wrong and wanting.

080 63/3b: "- - - they rejected Faith - - -". They left Islam - one of the most serious sins possible to do in Islam. Even today it may some places carry death penalty - at least non-official.

081 63/4a: "They (hypocrites and persons leaving Islam - Muhammad lumps them together*) are as (worthless as hollow) pieces of timber propped up - - -". One of Muhammad’s negative and distaste inducing descriptions of non-Muslims. Whenever he describes non-Muslims not wanting Islam, it is in negative and distaste - or stronger - inducing words, and his description of hypocrites, not to mention the ones who found Islam wrong and left the religion - was even stronger, often much stronger. This last in a way is natural, as it was a way to explain away the fact that these ones had learnt to know the religion and found things so wrong, that they left it - psychologically very expensive for Muhammad to admit, so a better solution for him was to tell his followers and others made up reasons for why some ones left him and his Islam.

082 63/4b: “They (hypocrites/non-Muslims, fake Muslims*) are the enemies - - -”. Definitely you should not be friends with people who have said “no, thank you” to Islam.

083 63/7i: "- - - but the Hypocrites understand not". But maybe that was just what the so-called hypocrites did; understood that something was seriously wrong, and that Muhammad's new religion thus might be without any spiritual value (which is the case if the Quran is a made up book - without value or with negative value).

Beware that Muhammad had a tendency to name also ordinary non-Muslims hypocrites. It was good psychology to make his followers to believe so.

084 63/8j: "- - - but the Hypocrites know not". But maybe that was just what the so-called hypocrites did; understood and knew that something was seriously wrong, and that Muhammad's new religion thus might be without any spiritual value (which is the case if the Quran is a made up book - without value or with negative value).

085 66/9b: “O Prophet! (Muhammad*) Strive (normally in the Quran = armed fighting*) hard against the Unbelievers and the Hypocrites, and be firm against them.” Muhammad is the example for all Muslims. Muslims will excuse Muhammad with that this is about war – but is that any excuse, when practically all raids and wars were initiated by the Muslims? This verse abrogated (and contradicts) at least these verses (here are 88 out of the 124 Muslim scholars say are abrogated by 9/5 - most of them also is abrogated by 66/9): 2/109, 2/190, 2/256, 2/272, 3/20, 4/62, 4/81, 4/90, 5/3, 5/28, 5/48, 5/99, 6/60, 6/66, 6/70, 6/104, 6/107, 6/112, 6/158, 7/87, 7/188, 7/193, 7/199, 8/61, 9/68, 10/41, 10/99, 10/102, 10/108, 11/12, 11/121, 13/40, 15/3, 15/94, 16/35, 16/82, 16/125, 16/126, 16/127, 17/54, 18/29, 18/56, 19/39, 20/130, 21/107, 21/112, 22/49, 22/68, 23/54, 23/96, 24/54, 26/216, 27/92, 28/50, 28/55, 29/18, 29/46, 32/30, 34/25, 34/28, 35/23, 35/24a, 36/17, 39/41, 41/34, 42/6, 42/15, 42/48, 43/83, 43/89, 44/59, 45/14, 46/9, 46/135a, 46/135b, 46/135b, 50/39, 50/45, 51/50-51, 51/54, 52/45, 52/47, 53/29, 67/26, 73/10, 73/11, 79/45, 86/17, 88/22, 109/6. They are all quoted under 9/5. (At least 88 abrogations).

##086 66/9d: “O Prophet (Muhammad*)! Strive hard against the Unbelievers and the Hypocrites, and be firm against them. Their abode is Hell - - -.” A clear order and a clear explanation why they are sub-human, and thus deserve to die. “Untermench” always are ok to kill – they deserve it. It also is the right of the “Übermench” to do so – and in the Quran no doubt the Muslims are the “Übermench”. (Quite like the Nazi philosophy - except that according to the Nazis, Arabs were "Untermench".(Übermench = super humans, Untermench = sub humans.)

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

#####087 74/31j: "- - - those in whose heart is a disease - - -". Another place in the Quran Muslims looking for hidden meanings in the Quran, are described as "those in whose heart is a disease", as hidden meanings in the Quran only is for Allah to understand. Normally in the Quran this is a name for non-Muslims, but in just this case it may mean Muslims who are doubting Islam and/or hypocrites, as non-Muslims ("Unbelievers") are mentioned separately.

87 + 3036 = 3123 comments (+ basic comments/introductions).


 

119.   IBLIS - THE DEVIL

- also named f.x. Satan, the Deceiver, the Evil One, etc.

In Islam there are a few questions about Iblis - the Devil. It is clear that he originally came from Heaven, but was he originally a jinn (a supernatural being you only found in and around Arabia, and which Mohammad borrowed from the old pagan Arab religion and folklore) or an angel? Most Muslims think he originally was a jinn, but f.x. 15/30-31 may indicate he was an angel, as Iblis there is mentioned among the angels. This is even more clear if you add 2/34f. And: As Allah is omnipotent according to the Quran, Iblis could not establish and run Hell without Allah's permission. But does he only have a permission, or is Hell a part of Allah's predestined Plan? - and was Iblis' expulsion from Heaven in case just a predestined theater? And not least: What does this in case tell about the claimed good and benevolent and just god Allah? - and why did he in case need theater?

And an as serious point: The Quran is full of mistaken facts, other errors, contradictions, etc. - may be unbelievable 3ooo all together. No omniscient god makes mistakes. The mistakes, etc. thus prove that the Quran is not from any god. Then there only remain 3 possible makers of the Quran: A sick brain (f.x. Temporal Lobe Epilepsy - TLE - like modern medical science suspects), or a cold brain (f.x. Mohammad's), or the dark forces - the Devil - and a lot of verses in the Quran fit a devil far better than they fit a good and benevolent god, especially in the surahs from Medina, where Muhammad started as a robber baron and needed warrior thieves and robbers. Is the Quran really from the Devil? - if the Devil dressed up like Gabriel, Mohammad did not have one chance to see the difference.

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

###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 tells 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 two 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 theory is that it is made by man - cold or sick 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 is 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 2/208b: “O ye who believe! Enter into Islam wholeheartedly; and follow not in the footsteps of Satan - - -.” An interesting sentence as one of the theories about who made the Quran, is just that it is made by dark forces (the other two are: Made by an illness (like TLE - Temporal Lobe Epilepsy) or by man - or by a mixture of two or three of these three. No god could be involved in a book with so many errors.)

009 2/208c: (A191): “O ye who believe! Enter into Islam wholeheartedly; and follow not in the footsteps of Satan - - -.” Is it the Muslims who shall follow the religion wholeheartedly? – or people who believed in the Bible that should enter Islam? (Zamakhshari, Razi). Muslim scholars are guessing. A clear language?

010 2/257ga: "- - - the Evil One - - -". The dark force, the devil(s).

011 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.

012 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.

013 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.

014 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.

015 3/155a: “Those of you who turned back on the day the two hosts met (300 men left Uhud before the battle, leaving 700 to fight, according to Islamic sources*) - it was Satan who caused them to fail, - - -.” It is Satan who makes you not want to do or be too afraid to take part in battles - do you want to be a friend of Satan? A mighty incitement for fighting for Muhammad and Islam (or sometimes for leaders using or disusing the religion for personal gain or power - like money and slaves for bribes, women for personal use and above all power).

016 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.

017 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.

018 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).

019 4/43b: “Approach not prayers with a mind befogged (drunk*) - - -.” Abrogated later by making it stricter by f.x.:

5/90: “Intoxicants and gambling - - - (are*) of Satan’s handiwork: eschew such (abomination)...” (Surah 4 is from ca. 626 AD, surah 5 from ca. 632 AD.)

020 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!

021 4/60e: "But Satan's wish was to lead them astray...". The Quran intends that "they" are Jews, Christians, etc. But a pertinent question as it is clear the Quran is from no god, and as the Quran's moral code at points are 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).

###022 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?

023 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.

##024 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.)

025 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. Maybe 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?

026 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?

027 4/118a: "Allah did curse him - - -". "Him" here refers to Iblis - the Quran's Satan/Devil.

028 4/119a: "I (Iblis, the Muslim Devil*) will mislead them (humans*) - - -". As the Quran is not from a god, one possibility is that it 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.

029 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.

030 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?

031 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 "unmoral" 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 so 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.)

032 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.

033 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.

034 5/48h: “- - - diverging from the Truth (the Quran*) that hath come to thee (Muhammad/Muslims*).” That the Quran is the truth, is just a claim, not a proved fact. With that many mistakes, the Quran at best is only partly the Truth. Islam repeats and repeats and repeats the claim that this is “the Truth”. It is tempting to remember Minister of Propaganda (!) in “Das Reich” – Nazi Germany – Joseph Goebbels: “If you repeat a lie often enough, people starts believing it”. (There also are many other similarities between Islam and Nazism, and Nazism was liked and respected in large parts of the Muslim populations in the Nazis’ satanic days.) It also is tempting to mention that none are more eager to claim he is telling the truth, than the cheater and the deceiver.

035 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.

036 5/91a: "Satan's plan is (but) to excite enmity and hatred between you, with intoxicants and gambling - - -". Cynical comment: Perhaps correct.

###037 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.

038 6/100c: "- - - they (non-Muslims*) - - - attribute to Him sons and daughters." In the old pagan religion al-Lah (the name means "the god" - not "God", but "the god" - Muhammad used the slightly different name Allah) was the main god and often said to be the moon god (he used to be the moon god at least in south Arabia - ###it is no co-incidence that the crescent moon is the symbol for him). Many Arabs thought the other gods were his children, with three of his daughters, al-Lat, al-Uzza, and Manat, as the three main ones - the 3 Muhammad accepted in the famous "Satanic Verses" (but later changed his mind).

039 6/112a: "- - - by way of deception". Muhammad Ali here has an interesting comment: "- - - the Prophet (Muhammad*) was asked: 'Are there Satans from among men?' - and he replied, 'Yes, and they are more evil than Satans from among the invisible beings - - -". #####When one knows about all the inhumanities, immoral parts of the moral code, etc. Muhammad introduced, and when one knows all he demanded and did, one may start thinking from such a piece of information.

040 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 remembers 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).

041 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.

042 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).

#043 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 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.

044 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.

045 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.

046 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.

047 7/202a: "- - - (the evil ones) - - -". Here the dark forces.

048 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 in case.)

049 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 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?

Different from what Islam tries to tell, the human conscience is a "carte blanche" when you are born. It has to be trained and educated. Islam and Muslims accepts and even promote - sometimes strongly promote - deeds (+ permission to steal, rob and rape) which according to all normal moral codes and according to "do to others like you want others do to you", are from negative to strongly inhuman. #####Is it Iblis/Satan who makes such acts seem alluring to Muslims?

Also see 6/108d or 6/108e above.

050 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.

051 12/5b: "- - - for Satan is to man an avowed enemy!". The Bible does not mention such words from Jacob.

052 12/42b: "But Satan made him (the servant of the Pharaoh - 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?

053 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?

054 15/30-31: "So the angels prostrated themselves, all of them together: Not so Iblis - - -". This verse makes trouble for Islam as it mentions Iblis among the angels. It is nowhere directly said what kind of being Iblis - the Devil - was/is. 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. Hell thus must be a part of Allah's Plan, and Iblis' disobedience part of Allah's total predestination. But what does that in case tell about the merciful and benevolent god Allah

055 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?

056 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.)

057 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.

058 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.

059 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)?

060 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?

##061 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.

062 15/37: "(Allah) said: 'Respite is granted you (Iblis/the Devil*) - - -". Iblis got his respite - or perhaps his order from Allah?.

063 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.

064 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.

065 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.

066 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).

#067 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).

068 15/42a: "Over My (Allah's*) servants (man/Muslims*) no authority shalt thou (Iblis/the Devil*) have - - -". See15/41a above.

069 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.

070 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.

071 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.

###072 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.)

###073 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.

####074 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.

075 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.

076 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?

077 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.

###078 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)?

079 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 to 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, as the Quran is a made up book?

080 17/26b: "- - - but squander not (your wealth) (on helping others*) in the manner of spendthrift. Verily spendthrifts are brothers of the Satans - - -". The only possible meaning here, is that if you use too much of your possessions to help others, you are sinning against Allah (squandering his gifts?). The abyss here between the Quran and NT is immense - see f.x. the story about the widow's offering (Mark 12/42-43). Islam and Christianity the same religion? Yahweh and Allah the same god? Jesus and Muhammad in the same line? A clear no to all such claims. The Quran gives many proofs for that this never proved claim is wrong.

081 17/27a "Verily spendthrifts are the brothers of Satan - - -". Here the Quran and the Bible to a degree agree. But no matter how much you give to help others, the Bible does not call you a spendthrift.

082 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?

083 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.

084 17/63a: "(Allah) said (to Iblis*): Go thy way - - -". See 17/62 above.

085 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.

086 17/74a: "And had We (Allah*) not given thee (Muhammad*) strength, thou wouldst nearly have inclined to them (non-Muslims*) a little". This is a reference to the "Satanic Verses" - Muhammad gave in to the leaders of Mecca and "received" verses accepting and promoting the 3 goddesses al-Lat, al Uzza, and Manat in addition to al-Lah/Allah as the price for acceptance and perhaps power in Mecca. But shortly after he regretted and retracted the text - and blamed the Devil. And not to forget: "Proved" that it was normal for all prophets to be tempted - "ergo" he still was a normal prophet - - - even though he claimed to be the greatest.

087 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 that 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.

##088 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.

089 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.

090 19/45b: "I (Abraham*) fear lest a Penalty afflict thee (Abraham's father Terah (Azar in the Quran)*) from (Allah) Most Gracious, so that thou become to Satan a friend". Comment (YA2497): "To entertain a feeling of friendliness, instead of aversion, to Evil, is in itself a degeneration of our nature, a Penalty which Allah imposes on our deliberate rejection of Truth. And the friendliness to Evil also implies the sharing of the outlawry of Evil". If you compare the basis for all real moral among humans, "Do onto others like you want others do onto you", with the Quran's moral code, you find a number of evil points in the Quran's moral and ethical codes. Also Muslims refuse to see the mistakes in the Quran, even the most obvious, and refuse to accept the truth on such points.

What thoughts are pertinent and close by here?

091 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.

092 19/83b: "Seest thou (Muhammad/Muslims*) not that We (Allah*) have set the Satan against the Unbelievers, to incite them with fury?". An interesting claim - impossible if Allah does not exist, but doubly possible if he exists and belongs to the dark forces (if he is behind the Quran and all its errors, he at least is no god).

093 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 had not ordered Iblis to do anything. This represents a problem for Islam: Was Iblis an angel? But angels according to the Quran are 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?

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 had not ordered Iblis to do anything.

094 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.

095 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.

096 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.

097 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.

098 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*)? 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 were 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.)

099 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?

100 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?

#101 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?

102 26/95a: "- - - the host of Iblis - - -". Non-Muslims (and some bad Muslims).

*103 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.

*104 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 on some points. 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.

105 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.

106 26/221: "- - - the evil ones - - -". The underlings of Iblis/the Devil.

107 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?

#108 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, which 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.

109 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.

110 31/33i: "- - - the Chief Deceiver - - -". Iblis/the Devil.

111 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?

112 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?

But what about the "fact" that Allah predestines absolutely everything? #############Is Satan strong enough to destroy Allah's predestinations?

*113 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?

114 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 800 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.

115 36/60b: "- - - ye (people*) should not worship Satan - - -". This sentence may be a bit ironic, as one of the theories for who made the Quran just is Iblis/Satan (f.x. parts of the Quran's (im)moral code and the religions many points of inhumanity, may strengthen this theory).

##116 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.

117 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?

118 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).

119 38/41b: "- - - the Evil One - - -". The Devil.

120 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).

121 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).

122 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).

123 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.

124 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.

125 41/36a: "And if (at any time) an incitement to discord is made to thee (Muslim*) by the Satan, seek refuge in Allah". In some cases like stealing/robbing, raping, enslaving, suppressing, lying, killing, warmongering, etc. - do a Muslim really need a Satan? - and what are in these cases the difference between Satan and Allah?

##126 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.

127 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.

##128 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.

##129 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?

130 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?

131 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".)

132 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.

133 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?)

134 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.

135 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.

136 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.

137 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?

138 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?

139 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)?

####140 53/19-21: "Have ye (people/Muslims*) seen al-Lat and al 'Uzza, And another, the third (goddess) Manat?" This is the start of the famous Satanic Verses. They continued by telling that these goddesses might be good to know. Muhammad was promised a good reward from the leaders in Mecca if he accepted these goddesses - which he for a short while did. But then he got cold feet and/or changed his mind.

####141 53/19-22a: "Have ye (people/Muslims*) seen al-Lat and al 'Uzza, And another, the third (goddess) Manat? What! For you the male sex (of children*), and for Him (Allah), the female? Behold, such would be indeed a division most unfair." This was the rather lame way out, after he had blamed the Devil for having cheated him. And once more this argument that women were so little worth, that it must be wrong that a god had daughters.

#####142 53/19-22b: "Have ye (people/Muslims*) seen al-Lat and al 'Uzza, And another, the third (goddess) Manat? What! For you the male sex (of children*), and for Him (Allah), the female? Behold, such would be indeed a division most unfair." These were the "Satanic Verses" - after Muhammad had revised them.

**143 53/19-20: "- - - al-Lat - - - al 'Uzza - - - Manat - - -". These were the 3 main deities after the top god, al-Lah (sometimes also named Allah), in the old pagan Arabia. They were reckoned to be the daughters of al-Lah - the god Muhammad promoted to a monotheistic god.

#144 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?

145 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 much is wrong in it).

####146 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?

147 58/19b: "Satan has got the better of them (non-Muslims*) - - -". Bad people - stay away from them.

148 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.

149 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.

##150 58/19e: "They (non-Muslims*) are the Party of Satan". This is one of the sentences you should remember if/when you meet Muslims claiming that Islam or Muhammad is slandered or worse - it is difficult for them to get sympathy from a judge when they are saying worse things themselves. And few opposers of Islam use as strong words as here. Hate and distaste mongering.

151 58/19f: "They (non-Muslims*) are the Party of Satan". One of the many of Muhammad's negative - here strongly negative - names for non-Muslims. This is one of the names you meet also today - f.x. "USA is the Big Satan.

152 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 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?

153 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.

154 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)

154 + 3123 = 3277 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".