Humans, Other Beings in/Relevant to the Quran, Part 20


 

126.   IMRAN

Imran was the father of Moses, Aaron and Miriam and lived around 1300 BC. But likely because in Arab both Mary and Miriam is written Maryam, Muhammad believed Mary and Miriam was the same woman, even though there were some 1300 years between them. Islam/Muslims try to explain away the mistake by claiming it was another Imran, but relevant science is in no doubt that Muhammad mixed those two.

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

001 3/33d: "- - - Imran - - -". Imran was the father of Moses, Aaron, and Miriam, but Muhammad knew the Bible so little and had so vague ideas about its contents, that he believed Imran also was the father of Mary (mother of Jesus) some 1300 years later (actually he believed Mary and Miriam were the same person) - any god had known better, so who made the Quran? Well, the likely reason for the mistake is that in Arab both Mary and Miriam is written Maryam. Also see 3/35a+b below. An extra tit-bit here is that as Muhammad believed Miriam, sister of Moses, and Mary, mother of Jesus was the same woman, and as he further believed Mary was part of the Trinity, Miriam - sister of Moses - has to be part of the Trinity. Muhammad had got his Bible pretty mixed up to say the least of it. No god would make such historical and religious nonsense. Then who made the Quran?

###002 3/35a: ”Imran’s wife - - -”. The Quran here is talking about the mother of Mary (see also 3/33d above). But Imran was the father of Aaron, Moses and Miriam, who lived some 1300 years earlier! Muhammad did not know the Bible very well, and he thought Mary was Miriam, the sister of Aaron and Moses. In 19/28 this is directly said, when talking about Mary: “O sister of Aaron”. It is likely that the reason for this mistake is that in Arab Mary (mother of Jesus) and Miriam (the older sister of Moses and Aaron) are written the same way: Maryam. With his limited knowledge of the Bible Muhammad believed it was the same woman. Any god had known better. We may add that some Muslims say it is not the same Imran, but scientists agree on that Muhammad meant the same man - the Imran who "was chosen by Allah" like Adam, Noah and Abraham (see 3/33a) - the father of Aaron, Moses - - - and Maryam/Miriam. That Muhammad really was wrong here, and thought Mary was the sister of Aaron and Moses, is documented by the fact that according to Hadith (the other Muslim main source of information about their religion and about Muhammad) Muhammad was corrected, and he tried to find explanations to repair the mistake (without success). He also did not add information showing that he and Allah for some reason was right in his mistaken statement all the same.

You will also meet Muslims telling that the Quran does not mean that Mary really was the sister of Aaron (they say it was meant figuratively – a normal way out for Muslims, when things are difficult to explain), and that the book does not mean that she was the daughter of Imran - only a descendant of him. Islam should after so many hundreds of years have found better “explanations” - “explanations” which on top of all is contradicted by the fact that it is told already Mohammad himself tried to correct the mistake, but without success as mentioned. But there is no other explanation they can try to use. Also see 19/28 below.

###* There also is another aspect of all the points which are wrong or helplessly expressed or something - may be unbelievable some 3000 places in the book - very roughly one in every second verse on average (there are 6247 verses): Who is willing to believe that an omniscient and intelligent god is so helpless expressing himself in a book where he tells he uses a simple language and a language easy to understand, and so uneducated that he uses hundreds of mistaken facts, so that mere humans time and again and again and again have to step in and explain or "explain" what he "really means"? - not to mention explain or "explain" away mistakes? It takes a lot of naivety, brainwashing and plain old blindness and lack of moral courage not to at least ask questions. You believe just because your father and your grandmother told you so, and it is difficult to question your old beliefs and the basis of your "facts of life"?

To explain away one or a few mistakes is one thing. But to be able to believe in a teaching where hundreds and more mistakes has to be explained away, pooh-poohed, transformed to claimed allegories, etc., takes a naivety or blindness - or lack of moral stamina to meet facts one do not like - which would be far beyond the credible, if it was not a fact that Muslims prove it possible (Islam is the only of the major religions where the holy book proves that something is seriously wrong, and thus makes the Muslims the ones who really meet the wrongness of their fathers' beliefs in ways impossible to mistake - - - but clearly possible to flee from. Also see 3/35b just below.

 

##003 3/35b: "Imran’s wife - - -". This is an example on "honest" Muslim technique of debate, taken - unbelievably - from Muhammad Yusuf Ali, the famous translator of the Quran, in his book: "The Meaning of the Quran": "By tradition Mary's mother was called Hannah (in Latin Anna, in English Anne), and her father was called Imran. Hannah is therefore both a descendant of the priestly house of Imran (the Arab name of Moses' father*) and the wife of Imran." One thing is that when using traditions and legends as basis, one cannot say that something "is", only that it "may be". But the real screamer is that the name of the father of Mary never in the traditions and legends was Imran. That name you only find in the Quran, and of course among the ones who take the name from the Quran - and this even more so as he mix in the Latin (and English) names. The name of Mary's father in the traditions was Jojakim or Jocim (except that Muslims have looked in the Quran and found the name Imran and made a new “tradition” from that). Further comments not necessary - just make your own conclusions about how reliable Muslims - even outstanding, learned ones like Mr. Ali - sometimes may be, and how reliable Muslim arguments and "facts" sometimes are. "Use al-Taqiyya (the lawful lie*), Kitman (the lawful half-truth*) and even deception and broken oaths to forward or defend the Religion of Truth". As you understand: When we base most of our writings on Islamic sources, we often run into the problem that everything has to be checked, because even claimed "facts" too often are incorrect. (For some reason or other Islam and its Muslims seldom claim that Islam is the religion of honesty.)

####004 ¨ 19/28a: “(Mary*) O sister of Aaron!” This is another contradiction to the Bible + at the same time maybe the most famous mistake in the Quran. The likely reason is that in Arab the names Mary (the mother of Jesus) and Miriam (the sister of Moses and Aaron) both are written Maryam. Muhammad was not well versed in the Bible, and thought it was the same woman, even though some 1300 years separated them. The Hadith tells that Muhammad was told by his followers that he was wrong, and tried to explain away the mistake, but without real success. Muslims today tend to “explain” the blunder by saying it was an age-old way of paying respect to a woman to connect her to a person of high standard - and similar “explanations” - but the “explanations” generally are not accepted by science, even not by all Muslim scientists - this may be partly because Muhammad also has made the father of Moses, Imran, the father of Mary another place in the Quran. (This last fact is by some Muslims “explained” with that they are two different Imrans. But also this is not accepted by the science, as it is clear that it in both cases it is the same man it is talked about - the founder of “Imran’s house” or Imran’s tribe. It also would be much of a coincidence that for one thing Mary just was a honorable descendant of Moses' parents, and that the name of her father should happen to be Imran. Well, unlikely explanations sometimes happen to be correct, but there are too many unlikely "explanations" in the Quran). Some Muslims say it is an allegory, but it clearly is not told like an allegory – to call stories that turns out to be wrong allegories also is a standard Muslim way of explaining away difficult points when other “explanations” fail. And remember: Both the Quran and Islam strains that the Quran is to be understood literally if nothing else is said. Allegories, etc., also have points very easy to see, or are explained (which is not the case here) if Muhammad had intended to make a point of something. A clear mistake according to science. This is even more clear as Hadith tells Mohammad himself was unaware he had made a mistake, and is told to try unsuccessfully to explain it away when he was corrected by his nearest co-workers

Also see 19/28 in “Mistaken facts in the Quran” in "1000+ Mistakes in the Quran". Contradicting historical(?) facts – it is not even denied by Islam that there were a long time between Moses and Jesus (and thus between Miriam and Mary).

##005 66/12a: “And Mary the daughter of ‘Imran - - -”. Once more this famous mistake. Imran was the father of Moses and Aaron - - - but they lived (if they are not fiction) some 1300 years before Mary, mother of Jesus. The pharaoh of Moses f.x. was Ramses II according to science, and we know when he lived. Muslims try to explain this with that it was another Imran, but science agrees on that it is the same one, and that Muhammad here made a genuine mistake. This even more so as Hadith shows that Muhammad later was told about his mistake, and tried to “explain” it away, but without success.

Besides: The name of Mary's father in the traditions was Jojakim or Jocim (except that Muslims have looked in the Quran and found the name Imran and made a new “tradition” from that). Further comments not necessary - just make your own conclusions about how reliable Muslims - even outstanding, learned ones like Mr. Ali - sometimes may be, and how reliable Muslim arguments and "facts" sometimes are.

5 + 3324 = 3329 comments (+ basic comments/introductions).


 

127.   ISA

The name Muhammad used for Jesus. The name is wrong, as it really is Arab for Esau (the brother of the Jewish patriarch Jacob. As NT originally was written in Greek, the name Jesus is the Greek version of Joshua - or Yoshua. The correct Arab name had been Yushowa or Yushuwa.

Any god had known this. Then who made the Quran?

0 + 3329 = 3329 comments (+ basic comments/introductions).


 

128.   ISAAC - THE SECOND OF THE 3 JEWISH PATRIARCHS

The 3 Jewish patriarchs were Abraham (according to science he lived around 2000-1800 BC if he is not fiction), his son Isaac, and Isaac's son Jacob. In the Bible they normally are not reckoned among the prophets, but belong to a special category - patriarchs.

The Bible tells that Isaac was born to Abraham and Sarah when Abraham was 100 years old (= when Isaac's half brother Ishmael was 14 - 1. Mos. 16/16 says Abraham was 86 when Ishmael was born). As for the (aborted) sacrifice of Abraham's son, 1. Mos. 22/6 tells that Isaac had to carry the wood. To be able to carry enough wood to burn a body, Isaac had to be at least - at least - 10 years (and Ishmael consequently at least 24). This strongly contradicts the Quran's claim that it Ishmael was the child Abraham intended to sacrifice - this in addition to the fact that the Bible directly says that the intended sacrifice was Isaac. (We here remind you that both science and Islam strongly have proved that Muhammad's pet "explanation" for differences between what he and the Bible said, was that the Bible was falsified, is wrong. The fact that neither science nor Islam has been able to find even one proved falsification in some 45ooo relevant scriptures and fragments older than 610 AD, and the fact that even the oldest known relevant manuscripts/fragments have texts like in the present Bible, prove that Muhammad's claims concerning this are wrong.)

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

001 2/124a: "And remember that Abraham was tried by his Lord - - -." This refers to Abraham being ordered to sacrifice his son. The Bible tells it was Isaac - "his only son" (Ishmael and his Egyptian mother Hagar had been sent away from the home of Abraham, and Isaac was the only one Abraham had left) - whereas Islam claims it was Ishmael. As the Bible makes it clear that Hagar and Ishmael settled near the border of Egypt, Ishmael also was far off when this happened - highly unlikely that Abraham traveled all the way to fetch him for a sacrifice. (Islam claims Hagar and Ishmael settled in Mecca - even further off. The Bible tells this happened some time after Hagar and Ishmael were sent off - 1. Mos. 21/22: "At that time (the time when Hagar and were sent away*)" the Treaty of Beersheba was made. 1. Mos. 22/: "Some time later (after the Treaty of Beersheba*) God (Yahweh*) tested Abraham).

002 2/124c: (Allah said): "I will make you (Abraham*) an Imam (priest) to the Nations". What the Bible says (1.Mos. 22/18): "- - - and through your offspring all nations will be blessed - - -". One should here add 1.Mos. 21/12: (Yahweh said to Abraham): "- - - it is through Isaac that your offspring will be reckoned". The quote from the Quran is a contradiction to the Bible. A Bible which never was falsified in spite of Muhammad's never documented claims.

There also is an extra point here: The so-called Mosaic religion never was a proselyting one. And for nearly 2ooo years Abraham and his descendants never did much proselyting. Islam is a strongly proselyting religion - even by means of strong compulsions and sometimes death warnings and murder to force people stay or become Muslims. This very central difference - a historical fact - is one more proof for that Abraham and his descendants never were Muslims.

##003 2/125e: "We (Allah*) covenanted with Abraham and Ishmael - - -". The Bible is contradicting: (1.Mos.17/21) Yahweh says: "But my covenant I will make with Isaac". And many years later to Isaac's son Jacob (and now Ishmael is totally out of the picture) similar words like the ones which were said to Abraham 2 generations earlier (1.Mos. 28/14): "All peoples on earth will be blessed through you and your offspring". There is no doubt according to the Bible with which branch of Abraham's descendants the god covenanted. Even if the Arabs really were descendants of Ishmael, they had belonged to the wrong branch of the family - they were not the offspring of Jacob, and not even of Isaac. And it is likely this might be the reality - at the time when the Torah was written, there was no reason for the writers to place Ishmael and his descendants at the border of Egypt (1.Mos. 25/18) if he really lived in Arabia - Muhammad and his competing religion still was 1000 years into the unknown future when it was written. But for Muhammad the situation was different: It is quite common for emerging sects and religions to "high-jack" parts of a mother religion - it gives "weight" and tradition to the new sect/religion. For Muhammad it would pay to "take over" a known name like Ishmael. It obviously also would pay for him to take over the claimed center of the religious word - even a made up claim works if people believe in it.

Another fact: Modern DNA-analysis has showed that the Arabs are no coherent tribe. They are a mixture of many nations - not strange lying at a crossroad with travelers passing thought, and where sex and alcohol were "the two delightful things" until Muhammad took over. And also Arab tradesmen brought brides and slaves back home even long before Muhammad, not to mention all the slave women who were brought home after the robberies made the Arabs rich enough to afford more/many women. The "Arab Blood" is strongly diluted and mixed up, and even was never a homogenous tribe originally. (We f.x. have seen claims that DNA shows more than 5% negro blood in Arabs in Arabia and some more in Egypt. We stress that we have not seen proofs for this, but from what we know about slave import there through the centuries, we must admit we had expected somewhat higher numbers. Arabs should treat their Negro and other "half brothers" better.)

004 From 2/125e: (1. Mos. 21/12-13): "But God/Yahweh said to him (Abraham*), 'Do not be so distressed about the boy (Ishmael*) and your maidservant (Hagar - Ishmael's mother*). Listen to what Sara (Abraham's wife*) tells you, because it is through Isaac that your offspring will be reckoned. I will make the son of your maidservant into a nation also, because he is your offspring". (NB: It says a nation, not a great nation or a big nation or a just nation.)

005 2/133c: "- - - (the god) of Abraham, Ishmael and Isaac - - -". This was said when Jacob died according to the Quran (you do not find this in the Bible). At that time Ishmael's descendants already were 3/4 Egyptian (both Ishmael's mother and wife were from Egypt (1.Mos. 20/21)) and they were living in hostility to the descendants of Isaac and Jacob (1.Mos. 25/18). They also were outside the covenant line through Isaac (1.Mos. 20/12). If you know a little about people, how likely is it that Ishmael was mentioned here?. (But Muhammad needed "quotes" like this to connect his new religion to an old one.)

006 2/133f: "- - - Isaac - - -". A time anomaly. Isaac was the second son of Abraham (and the first legitimate one) and the son through whom the covenant with Yahweh should pass, according to the Bible (1. Mos. 21/12). He also was the second of the 3 main Jewish patriarchs. If he ever lived, he lived around 1900 - 1700 BC. And we are back to the old fact that as the claimed "Mother Book" in Heaven of which the Quran is claimed to be a copy, was made before man was created or even to have existed since eternity and never created, the many copies claimed by the Quran to be sent down to thousands of claimed prophets and messengers for Allah through all times have to be similar to the Quran, as they are copies of the same everlasting book. But no reader of such a Quran could understand references to Isaac - and to many others in the Quran - until after Isaac at least was born - - - and Homo Sapiens had existed perhaps 191ooo years before that and according to the Quran had been sent prophets, etc. with such books all the time and all places - and in addition there were all the older races of humans. There is no meaning in sending down claimed holy books full of references the readers could not understand (this on top of the fact that except for the last few millennia even prophets could not read). Also see 4/13d below.

007 2/136c: "- - - the revelation given to us (Muhammad*), and to Abraham, Ishmael, Isaac, Jacob, and the Tribes (the 12 Jewish tribes*) and that given to Moses and Jesus, and given to (all) the Prophets (Hadiths mention the number 124ooo prophets during all times and all places!) - - -". The Quran as you see claims that all prophets to all times each has got their copy of the Quran - or to be more correct a copy of the same revered "mother book" in Heaven which the Quran is a copy of according to Islam. It must have been informative for the claimed Inuit prophets in North Canada to read about the blessed shade from the sun and the fruits and camels everyone knew, or for one in the really old England or the Amazonas to read about the blessed rain.

Science has found exactly not one trace from neither the claimed prophets, nor the claimed Islamic religion, nor from any of the claimed books, nor from a claimed god like Muhammad's version of the old pagan god Allah - not even a reference. Whereas from the Bible there are some 45ooo manuscripts, fragments or quotations older than 610 AD. Worse: Also Islam has found not one proved falsification strengthening their claims - a 110% proof for that there are no falsifications, because if there had been, Islam had found them and screamed and bellowed about them

Believe this Islamic claim whoever wants.

008 2/140a: "Or do you say that Abraham, Ishmael, Isaac, Jacob and the tribes were Jews - - -". As the word "Jew" did not exist at that time (it derives from the name of one of the sons of Jacob and the tribe he founded, the Judah tribe), technically the Quran may be right in this "leading - or rhetoric - question" . But using the wider and quite normal definition of the word: Jews = people belonging to the Jewish religion, there is little doubt that according to the Bible they all were Jews - even Ishmael (but he is outside Yahweh's line, as that one goes via Isaac (his brother) and Jacob (1. Mos. 21/12)), if he lived and believed like his father (like Islam claims he did). It must in case be a bitter truth for Arabs to know they are claiming (as usual no proofs) to be descendants from a Jew(!) (But in its rhetoric way the Quran here contradicts the Bible). For the record: The name "Christians" is even much younger than the word "Jew" - it of course derives from "Christos", the Greek version of "Messiah" = the anointed one. It was coined some decades into "our time". See 2/140b just below.

009 2/140b: "Or do you say that Abraham, Ishmael, Isaac, Jacob and the Tribes were Jews or Christians?" Well, no-one say they were Christians - Christianism is a softer religion than the Mosaic (Jewish) one and did not arrive until with Jesus. If we presume that Jesus really was from Yahweh, which both the Bible and the Quran claims (except that the Quran calls the god Allah and claims Allah = Yahweh), one may wonder why the god choose to soften his teaching just then. One possible explanation is that Islam is right on this one point: When times changes there can be adjustments in the one god's teachings to inch it closer to what the god really wants. May be Yahweh saw that the widespread and long "Roman Peace" (nearly 300 years) - Pax Romanum - finally gave a more peaceful and benevolent "edition" of his religion a chance to take hold and survive - grow strong enough to survive in spite of the rougher times which would come. But if this is the explanation, it is highly unlikely and illogical that he later should want to return to a harsh, selfish, and bloody war religion like Islam - far more inhuman, dark and bloody than also the Mosaic one even in the harshest parts of OT.

010 3/84b: "- - - what (the Quran) has been revealed to us (Muslims*) and what was revealed to Abraham, Ishmael, Isaac, Jacob and the (12 Jewish*) tribes- - -". One more of the claims that it was the Quran which was given to each and every of the old prophets (see 3/81e above). One more claim showed wrong by science and by Islam by being unable to find the slightest trace of Islam or something similar older than 610 AD. (Islam's claim that the Mosaic - Jewish - religion and culture was a falsified version of Islam does not hold water.)

011 From 3/146b: And not many of the prophets we know about from other sources - mainly the Bible - did actually wage war. This picture becomes even more loop-sided when you remember the Bible mentions there were a number of prophets not named by name, and hardly any of these were leaders of wars - in that case they had been more central and named. (NB: The Bible does not reckon f.x. Saul and David - and not even Abraham, Isaac, or Jacob, not to mention Ishmael - primarily as prophets. Leaders, but the title prophet hardly is used - for a central person like Abraham in the entire Bible the title prophet is mentioned only a couple of times. Saul, David, Ishmael and a number of others are not reckoned to be prophets at all in the Bible.) The fact that Biblical prophets normally did not wage war, compared to Muhammad's war religion, also is one of the clear indications for that Muhammad was not in the Biblical line of prophets.

012 From 4/13d: Another aspect of this point is that if the prophets and messengers of the old received copies of the timeless and unchangeable "Mother Book" - and it has to be unchangeable if it is written before man was created and even more so if it has existed since eternity - these copies were perfect foretelling about the things the Quran - one of the copies - tells about which had still not happened when the local prophet received his copy. If f.x. Abraham or Isaac or Jacob had received their copies, they knew very well what was going to happen to Joseph and where to find him. Admittedly some Muslims claim there was one Quran for each time, but that is not possible if the "Mother Book" which it is a copy from, is as old as the Islam and its Muslims claim. Only Muhammad got no foretelling, because there is not one single real foretelling in the Quran about the times after Muhammad and onwards. Both facts are thought provoking.

013 4/163e: "- - - We (Allah*) sent it (messages by inspiration*) to Abraham, Ishmael, Isaac, Jacob and the (12 Jewish*) Tribes, to Jesus, Job, Jonah, Aaron, and to Solomon - - -". As Muhammad claimed he received his verses from Allah by inspiration, it was essential to "prove" that this was a normal way for prophets to receive information from the god. And NB: He used these claimed Muslim prophets as proofs for that "inspiration" was a normal way of communication. The word "inspiration" is not used anywhere in the Bible in such connections. Also it is nowhere in the Bible mentioned that Ishmael had a close enough connection to Yahweh to be a prophet.

014 5/2h: "- - - Sacred House (Kabah mosque in Mecca*) - - -". The Bible never mentions a sacred place in Arabia, not even in connection to Moses who may be - may be - visited the Arabian Peninsula according to the Quran (Midian/Madyan (if the Bible's Midian was not in Sudan - well, highly likely Midian was in Sinai, as Mt Sinai and also Mt. Horeb (likely another name for 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) is mentioned)). (That Abraham visited Arabia - and Mecca - just is wishful thinking or psychological strategy on behalf of Muhammad. The Bible gives the routes Abraham travelled, and he never was even close to that peninsula. We also may mention that the Bible tells about what Abraham built, and he never built anything but a few altars made from not chiseled natural stone - not even a small chapel anywhere. Even the grave of his wife Sarah was a cave, not something built. You find all this in 1. Mos. f.x. 12/7, 12/8, 12/18. These are facts Muslims never mention, even though at least their scholars know it - it is not possible to go hunting in the Bible for tit-bits they can cherry-pick, without also seeing the information which tells that the Quran is wrong on many points.)

############Another strong fact: Not one person mentioned in the entire Bible, included Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Moses, Solomon, and Jesus, uttered even one word about wanting to visit Mecca or Kabah or even mentioning any of them. Strange if Yahweh and Allah were the same god, and Mecca/Kabah his most holy place on Earth.

As for science, they in their careful language tell from: "There is no reason to believe that Abraham ever visited Mecca", to: "It is highly unlikely Abraham ever was in Mecca.

015 5/7b: "- - - His Covenant, which He (Allah') ratified with you (Muslims*), when ye said: 'We hear and we obey'- - -". Once upon a time some Boers of South Africa made what they called a covenant with Yahweh/God. They promised that if Yahweh/God would help them, they would do so-and-so. What they over-looked was that a covenant must be agreed on by at least two parts; and as Yahweh/God was not an involved participant in an agreement about the case, they in reality only made promises, not a covenant. Is this something of the same? Another point: According to the Bible the god did not make any covenant with Ishmael and his descendants, only with Isaac and his line (1.Mos. 17/21). This even more so as in spite of Arabs' claims of being descendants of Ishmael, it is unlikely they are. For one thing and for what it is worth the Bible tells that Ishmael's descendants settled not in Arabia, but in vest Sinai "near the border of Egypt" (1. Mos. 25/18) where they became 12 tribes with "twelve tribal rulers" (1. Mos. 25/16) = the god's promise of making Ishmael's descendants mighty. But easier and more solid proved: Modern DNA analyses have shown that the Arabs not are and never were a pure "race". The original Arabs seems to have been people from here and there who settled in the area something like 3ooo - 4ooo years ago, partly because of the introduction of tamed camels around that time made life in the desert a real possibility - though it only was used to a limited degree, and only in the south. (The camel did not come into wide use until around 1ooo - 900 BC modern science has found, and not introduced further north until around 800 BC, when the Assyrians stated trade with south Arabia). And this mixed group has been even much more mixed up through the times, partly by traders and others passing through on the caravan "highways" crossing Arabia and leaving off-springs now and then - remember that before Islam, "the two delightful things" in Arabia were sex and alcohol - and also by Arab traders bringing home brides from abroad. But perhaps the biggest source for foreign blood to further mix up and dilute the claimed race, was import of slaves from all around, both long before Muhammad and far more later. All the girl and women slaves were definitely not imported just for decoration, and the "pure Arab blood" never was much more than an illusion - originally started by Ishmael or not. (And in addition: Even if Ishmael had settled in Arabia, there also lived many others - so even if this had been true, only a small percent - less than 0.01 percent (= if there at that time lived only 10ooo in all Arabia) - of the Arab DNA could have been from Ishmael already at that time, and it would have been far more diluted by now.)

There is no rational or scientific reason for believing in the claim that the Arabs are descendants of Ishmael and Abraham - on the contrary: What knowledge which exists, makes the claim highly unlikely, and even if there should be a connection, it in case is an extremely diluted one.

016 6/89b: "These were the men (the ones mentioned in verses 6/83 through 6/87*) to whom We (Allah*) gave the Book". The Bible does not mention any book connected to f.x. Adam, Noah, Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, and Ishmael, let alone something like OT or the Quran which is meant here - this also according to science, as no trace of anything similar to the Quran older than 610 AD (when Muhammad started his mission) has ever been found - compared to some 44ooo relevant scriptures and fragments + other traces older than 610 AD from the Bible).

Another point is that no god ever made a book of a quality like the Quran with all its mistakes, etc.

####And yet another point is that nomads of those times hardly knew how to read. It is not impossible that Joseph, son of Jacob, learnt how to read and write in Egypt, but but for him it is likely that the first of the central persons in the Bible who knew how to read and write, was Moses.

017 7/105d: One small "en passent" here as Muslims do not like the timing of the Exodus, and as M. Yusuf Ali makes a comment (in A1073 to this verse) "(The Jews stayed in Egypt*) perhaps two to four centuries. (Renan allows only one century).": The Bible is very clear on how long time the Jews spent in Egypt: 430 Years, and there was no reason for the Jews to falsify this number, in addition to that in spite of Islam's claims no falsification is known in the Bible, mistakes yes, falsifications no (again: Guess if Islam had screamed about it if even one documented case had been found!). But as Ramses II did not drown, Islam needs to use an earlier pharaoh where one does not know how he died - f.x. Thothmes I (ca. 1540 BC) is mentioned. But Jacob - the patriarch who took the Jews to Egypt lived around 1800 BC (if he is not fiction), or to be exact: Abraham lived - if he is not fiction - around 2ooo - 1800 BC. Jacob was his grandson, and as Abraham was old when he got Isaac (the father of Jacob) it is realistic to say Jacob lived around 1800 or perhaps a bit later. Then it is not possible to use earlier pharaohs than Ramses II if the Jews stayed 430 years. A little twist is necessary in case - and voila!: Islam says (the mentioned YA comment 1073): "- - - Israel stayed there perhaps two to four centuries." Problem solved - without any source for the estimate given. May be the 430 years in the Bible is a falsification? (but in case why?) - the standard and easy "explanation" Muhammad always used.

018 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 were believing 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.

019 From 7/157e: There is another serious point to this Islamic claim: Many of the Islamic scholars know the Bible quite well - this is obvious from the fact that they frequently quote the Bible when there are points there which they like or where they want to express that the Quran has a better point of view on just this-and-this than the Bible. They thus have to know f.x. how the word "brother" - the main word in this case in 5. Mos. 18/15+18 - in the figurative meaning is used in the Bible. It is used figuratively at least 325 times in that book, and no-one knowing the Bible would get the idea that in any - not one - of all these places Arabs are indicated. It is very clear that practically always in OT it means fellow Jews (there are something like 5 exceptions - one place a king is calling another, friendly king his brother, 3 times it is specified one meant descendants after Esau (the brother of Jacob) and one time Abraham says it to Lot. Well, actually there may be one more exception (1. Mos. 25/18): "And they (the 12 sons of Ishmael*) lived in hostility to all their brothers". If this means they were quarreling between themselves, the meaning is literal. If it means they quarreled with the sons of Isaac, the meaning may be figurative or it may be literal - meaning the closest relatives (this is nearly the last time Ishmael and his descendants are mentioned in the Bible - after all they lived far off - - - and far from Mecca where Muhammad claimed they lived.) All the other times it refers to other Jews. It is not possible to study the Bible/OT and not see this. Also in the Quran the word is used figuratively - more than 30 times. The only time it refers to Jews there, is one case where Muhammad links hypocrites to Jews and claims they are brothers. Also Arabia and Arabs are mentioned in the Bible - some 13 times - and always in neutral words or as enemies, never as friends, not to mention brothers. All the same Islam and its scholars straight-facedly tell their readers and their audiences that "brothers" in 5. Mos. 18/15+18 refer to Arabs and thus to Muhammad. There only are 2 possible explanations for such dishonesty: An al-Taqiyya (a lawful lie) to "explain" Muhammad's perhaps slip of the tongue, or wishful thinking stronger than their intellectual integrity.

020 From 7/157e: (Gen. 17/18): "Abraham said to God, 'If only Ishmael might live under your blessing!' (Gen. 17/20): 'As for Ishmael, I (God*) have heard you (Abraham*): I will surely bless him: I will make him fruitful (he got 12 sons according to the Bible*) and will greatly increase his numbers. He will be the father of twelve rulers (his sons became all became tribal rulers in west Sinai near the border of Egypt according to Gen. 19/16-18 - this promise fulfilled*), and I will make him a great nation (ruling 12 tribes was a great nation locally at that time - many kings only ruled one tribe or a town + its surroundings*)'". (Gen.17/21 - like Gen. 17/19 never quoted by Muslims): "But my (Yahweh's*) covenant I will establish with Isaac - - -".

021 From 7/157e: (Gen. 21/12 - never quoted by Muslims): "- - - it is through Isaac that your (Abraham's) offspring will be reckoned". (Gen. 21/13): "I (God*) will make the son (Ishmael*) of the maidservant (Hagar*) into a nation also - - -". Here it is said "a nation", not "a great nation".

022 From 7/157e:

 

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

023 From 7/157e: 25/18: Ishmael's sons settled "in the area from Havilah to Shur, near the border of Egypt, as you go toward Asshur. And they lived in hostility toward all their brothers. This may be meant literally - they quarreled among themselves - or figuratively that they quarreled with the descendants of their father's 7 half brothers, included Isaac's sons Esau (also called Edom) and Jacob (later called Israel). In the last case it is within a closed group: The near family.

024 From 7/157e: (In 1. Mos. 16/12 Yahweh tells Abraham that his son Ishmael "will live in hostility towards all his brothers". But here the word is literally, and also this was said about Ishmael only and not about his descendants. Ishmael had the brothers Isaac (mother: Sarah), and Zimran, Jokshan, Medan, Midian, Ishbak and Shuah (mother: Keturah, whom Abraham married after Sarah died - 1. Mos. 25/1-2). In 1. Mos. 25/5 it is said that the sons of Keturah were "sent to the land of the east" which means Jordan or further east (Arabia is to the south and south east), and they do not appear in later books of the Bible (except that the Midianites may be the descendants of Midian, not persons from a place named Midian)).

025 From 7/157e: 4. Mos.20/3: "- - - when our brothers - - -". A closed group: The Jews. Similar words to 1. Mos. 18/15 and 18/18.

026 From7/157e: In Obadiah, verse 9 Yahweh says: “Your warriors, O Teman, will be terrified and in Esau’s mountains (Edom*) will be cut down in slaughter because of your violence against your brother Jacob” (Esau was the brother of the patriarch Jacob). Islam has one they can say was the brother of Isaac (Ishmael), but none who was the brother of Jacob. (Ishmael was not Jacob's brother, but his uncle)– and besides if Teman was Islam, the Muslims had been dead by now –“cut down in slaughter”.

Actually nothing of this fits Islam’s history.

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

027 11/71d: "- - - We (Allah*) gave her (Sarah, the wife of Abraham*) the glad tidings of Isaac, and after him, Jacob". This is one of at least two places in the Quran where it can be understood like Muhammad believed that both Isaac and Jacob were the sons of Abraham (Jacob in reality was the son of Isaac), and you will meet persons claiming this is what the Quran says - whereas Muslims in the light of later knowledge denies this. We leave the point there - there are so many wrong points in the Quran, that it is not worth the time to use effort on a point which may be or may be not is wrong.

028 12/38a: "- - - I (Joseph*) - - - Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob - - -". 4 time anomalies.

029 14/39b: "Praise be to Allah who granted unto me (Abraham*) in old age Ishmael and Isaac - - -". Contradicted by the Bible, which says Ishmael was a result of Sarah's wish for children in the family (1. Mos. 16/1-4), and Isaac was given by Yahweh (1. Mos. 18/10). Also see 67/9c below - a strong one. But of course it is ok for Islam to prove - prove - the Bible wrong and the Quran right. But as we say: Prove, not just loose claims and as loose and invalid words like the Quran always use instead of proofs. Also see 37/103 - a serious one in this connection.

030 19/49a: "- - - We (Allah*) bestowed on him (Abraham*) Isaac and Jacob - - -". Many think that this early (614 - 615 AD) Muhammad believed that Isaac and Jacob were the sons of Abraham. Only Isaac was - Jacob was the son of Isaac.

#031 19/49b: "- - - We (Allah*) bestowed on him (Abraham*) Isaac and Jacob - - -". Abraham got the son Isaac with his wife Sarah. It is strange that in 614 - 615 AD the Quran does not mention his son with Sarah's slave Hagar - Ishmael. Had Muhammad not yet got the Idea of claiming ancestry from Abraham (via Ishmael?) We may also mention that 1. Mos. 25/1-2 and also 1. Chron. 1/32 says that Abraham took another wife and had 6 sons with her: "The sons born to Keturah, Abraham's concubine: Zimran, Jokshan, Medan, Midian, Ishbak and Shuah". Not mentioned in the Quran. Had Muhammad claimed ancestry via one of these, his claim had been stronger, because little is said about where they ended. But most likely he never knew about these sons of Abraham. (To claim to be descendants via an Ishmael living in Mecca, is hopeless if the stories in the Bible are true - and at the time when they were written down, there was no reason for the Jews not to be honest about this - because the place where it is told Abraham left Hagar, is some 1200 km from the dry, empty desert valley where Mecca later came (1. Mos. 20/14), and the place it tells Ishmael settled is even a little further off (1. Mos. 25/18). And the track form those places to the nowhere, empty, narrow desert valley of later Mecca (founded during the 4. century AD according to Muslim(!) archeology) was for large parts through harsh and forbidding hot desert - - - and without any attractions giving the least reason to go there.

032 19/49ba: "- - - We (Allah*) bestowed on him (Abraham*) Isaac and Jacob - - -". 3 time anomalies.

033 19/49c: "- - - each of them (Isaac and Jacob We (Allah*) made a prophet". In the Bible they are 2 of the 3 patriarchs of the Jews (Abraham was the first), but they are not named prophets in the Bible.

034 20/14: Moses talking to the Edomites on behalf of the Jews. The Edomites were the descendants of Esau (also called Edom), the brother of Jacob and son of Isaac, and the Jews reckoned them to be relatives, though distant ones - Moses here used the word to remind the Edomites of that relationship. Also here a closed group: Recognized relatives. As Esau was the son of Isaac, he also was inside the pact Yahweh had made with Abraham - "because it is through Isaac your (Abraham's*) offspring will be reckoned", 1. Mos. 21/12. And also notice that as the Edomites did not belong to the Jews, they are named to notify this.

035 21/60c: "- - - Abraham - - -". We should remind you that according to the Bible his name at this time was Abram (which means "Exalted Father" - even though he had no children). He did not get the name Abraham until 99 years old (1. Mos. 17/5) in Canaan - now roughly central Israel. (Abraham means "Father of Many" - he got 8 sons, Ishmael with Hagar (Sarah's slave woman), Isaac with Sarah, and then 6 with his second wife, Keturah (1. Mos.25/1-2), who are not mentioned in the Quran).

036 21/72b: "- - - (a grandson) - - -". This seems to be inserted by the translator. In that case in the original Arab text the sentence may easily be understood like Abraham got two sons: Isaac and Jacob. Also beware that according to the Bible "Abraham took another wife (after Sarah's death*), whose name was Keturah. She bore him the sons Zimran, Jokshan, Medan, Midian, Ishbak and Shush". (1. Mos. 25/1-2). This - and these sons - is not mentioned in the Quran.

037 21/85a: "Ishmael - - - (was a man) of constancy and patience". EVERYTHING said about Ishmael in the Bible you find here: 1. Mos.16/1-15, 1. Mos. 17/18-21, 1. Mos. 21/9-21, and 1. Mos. 25/12-18. There is no more, except "en passent" mentioning of the name or indirectly like when Yahweh said: "But my covenant I establish with Isaac - - -" (= not with Ishmael, 1. Mos.17/21 (included in one of the 4 places, but we highlight the indirect message)). Ishmael may have been patient, but 1. Mos. 25/18 indicates that at least his sons were not.

038 23/28a: "Praise be to Allah - - -". The Bible disagrees here, and wants it to be Yahweh. More essential: Neither science nor Islam has ever found any trace about Allah older than 610 AD. Noah - if he ever existed - may have lived 4ooo-6ooo BC. (You will find exact years some places - do not believe the rest of what those sources tell you, too. Exact years for Abraham, Isaac, Jacob or anything older in the religions, are bluffs).

039 29/27b: "- - - (Abraham) - - - Isaac - - - Jacob - - -". 3 time anomalies.

040 37/103: (YA4101): YA argues that as the Bible says that as the god ordered Abraham to sacrifice his only son (f.x. 1. Mos. 22/2), this must mean that Abraham was ordered to sacrifice Ishmael, and that this happened after Ishmael - the oldest of the two - was born, but before Isaac was born, and Abraham only had one son. But:

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

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

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

041 37/107b: "And We (Allah*) ransomed him (Abraham*) with a momentous sacrifice - - -". According to the Bible, Abraham found a ram (1. Mos. 22/13) he sacrificed instead of Isaac - a ram hardly is a momentous sacrifice.

042 37/112a: "- - - We (Allah*) gave him (Abraham*) the good news of Isaac - - -". Contradicted by the Bible which clearly states he got this message from Yahweh, not from Allah. (Isaac was Abraham's son with his first wife Sarah. According to the Bible he was some 13 years younger than Ishmael (1. Mos. 16/15 - 17/1). Also see 67/9c below - a strong one. But of course it is ok for Islam to prove - prove - the Bible wrong and the Quran right. But as we say: Prove, not just loose claims and as loose and invalid words like the Quran always use instead of proofs.

043 37/113b: "We (in the Quran claimed to be Allah*) blessed him (Abram/Abraham*) and Isaac - - -". Abram/Abraham according to the Bible (and the Quran) became the one who started the Jewish people - through Isaac and Isaac's son Jacob. Ishmael and his children settle on the border of Egypt (1. Mos. 25/18) and mainly disappears from the story, except that Muhammad some 2500 years later claims they settled in Mecca and were the forefathers of the in reality mixed up peoples living in Arabia, later named Arabs.

044 38/45b: "- - - Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, possessors of Power and Vision." Visions perhaps, but the Bible never tells any of them had supernatural powers like here is indicated (Abraham is once or twice called a prophet, though, but this was not a central part of his life as told in the Bible).

045 38/46b: "- - - the company of the Elect and the Good". = Good Muslims. If you believe this about the Jewish patriarchs Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, who here are referred to, it is up to you.

046 51/29: "A barren old woman!" Every follower of the Bible knows this, but for the benefit of readers from Islam and other religions (we f.x. have a lot of readers in India - naturally as they have problems with Muslims and want knowledge) we mention that according to the Bible, Sarah was 90 when Isaac was born the following year (and 127 when she died 1. Mos. 23/1).

45 + 3329 = 3374 comments (+ basic comments/introductions).


 

129.   ISHMAEL - ISAAC'S OLDER HALF BROTHER

Muhammad claimed Ishmael was the forefather of the Arabs. This claim most likely is wrong. One thing is that the Bible tells that Ishmael's descendants settled in the area east of where the Suez canal now runs. At least as serious is that modern DNA tests have proved that the Arabs is a mixed race - a mixture of people drifting into the country from all around when the peninsula was settled, imported slaves, etc. - without any specific forefather.

Ishmael was the son of Abraham and Hagar, Sarah's slave maid. He was born when Abraham was 86 years old (1. Mos. 16/16), and thus was 14 when Isaac was born when Abraham was 100 years old (1. Mos. 21/5), and consequently he something like 16 when and Hagar were sent off after Isaac was weaned (1. Mos. 21/8-14) - weaning often took place when the child was some 2 years. (In the old time one did not know why - that mother's milk contains anti-bacterial ingredients - but in many cultures one had noticed that a baby sucking for a long time had better chance to live up.).

If Ishmael ever lived, he lived somewhere around 1800 BC according to science. According to the Bible his descendants became tribal rulers (1. Mos. 25/16) near the border of Egypt (1. Mos. 25/18), and thus Yahweh had honored his promise to Abraham that he would make to Abraham that Ishmael should be the father of 12 rulers (1. Mos. 17/20). (The Bible also said they should make a great nation, but "great" is a very relative word. F.x. compared with the many fiefdoms in that area, twelve cooperating rulers and tribes made up a great nation.

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

001 From 2/76b: The word "brother" or similar is used figuratively far more than 300 times in the Bible, and not one of these in connection to Arabs - practically always about members of a closed group (mainly Jews in OT - a few times including their recognized relatives the Edomites - and mainly fellow Christians in NT, though in NT a few times meaning all humanity as potential Christians).

  • Of these the word at least is used at least 99 times in OT (see below in this comment) - also here mainly about members of a closed group: The Jews, sometimes included the Edomites as mentioned just above - and not a word about Arabs in such connections. Except for 1 reference to Lot (Abraham talking to his nephew - a very closed group) and 6 references to Edomites, which the Jews reckoned to be (distant) relatives as they were descendants of Esau, brother of Jacob and son of Isaac and thus inside the extended group, there are 5 exceptions from the rule that "brother" is about Jews in OT: The nomad Jacob talking to some shepherds (a closed group as he too was a shepherd and intended to mean "good friends"), 3 cases of one king talking to a fellow king (a very closed group) where the word means "good friends", and the sons of Ishmael who after all at that time were so closely related to the sons of Isaac, that they made a closed group (this relationship later was dismissed by the Jews for several reasons, the main of which may have been the enmity the sons of Ishmael showed towards their relatives, but also the fact that they were 3/4 Egyptian - both Ishmael's mother, Hagar (1. Mos. 16/1), and his wife (1. Mos. 20/20) were from Egypt - and thus not Jews, not to forget they were outside the covenant Yahweh made with Isaac which were to be the lasting covenant with Yahweh (1. Mos. 21/12), and also not to forget the fact that they lived so far off - near the border of Egypt (1. Mos. 25/18) - that the connection for natural reasons (strengthened by their enmity) was severed and forgotten. But not one word about the slightest relationship to Arabs - this even more so as it is highly unlikely the Arabs are descendants of Ishmael, as his descendants as mentioned settled near the border of Egypt (1. Mos. 25/18) and not in Arabia. (Also science tells "it is practically sure Abraham never came to Mecca" - and then Ishmael had no connection there). In addition modern DNA science has shown that what we call Arabs, was - and is - not a coherent tribe, but a mixture of people from neighboring countries who drifted into Arabia and its desert and settled there when the domestication of the camel around 3ooo-2500 BC made life for humans possible there, and later on. Before that only a few tribes lived in the coastal areas and hardly any in the desert in inland Arabia.

     

    002 From 2/76b: 1. Mos. 25/18: Ishmael’s sons lived in hostility to "all their brothers". This may mean they fought each other or that they were hostile to the Jews - in both cases they at this time were members of a much closed group: Close relatives Ishmael was the brother of Isaac. From the context we think the latter meaning is intended. But this relationship for several reasons over time drifted into nothing. It also is highly unlikely the Arabs are descendants of Ishmael, as the only somewhat reliable source about these - the Bible - tells they settled near the border of Egypt (1. Mos. 25/18) and not in Arabia (not to mention in Mecca). #####Also science says "it is practically sure that Abraham never was in Mecca" - so Ishmael had no connection that way, too. And not least: Ishmael and his descendant were outside the covenant between the Jews and Yahweh - a covenant made to Isaac (1. Mos.21/12). At the time the Books of Moses were written - at least 1000 years before Muhammad - there also was no reason for the writer to place Ishmael and his sons a wrong place.

  • 003 From 2/76b: 5. Mos. is a speech Moses made to and about his fellow Jews included some about their future. He used the words "brother/brothers" at least 31 times in his speech. With 2 exceptions (2/4 and 2/8) it is about members of the closed group the Jews - in spite of the wishful claims from Islam. Also the 2 exceptions are from a closed group including the Jews, but a somewhat extended one, as they include Edomites - descendants of Esau, the brother of Jacob (Esau also was called Edom). Esau was within the linage of the covenant which according to the Bible was promised by Yahweh, as he was the son of Isaac, through whom Yahweh according to the Bible said that linage should go (1. Mos. 21/12) and thus recognized as distant relatives of the Jews. Ishmael, from which the Arabs claim to be descendants (most likely wrongly, as Ishmael and his descendants as mentioned settled near the border of Egypt and not in Arabia according to the Bible 1. Mos.25/18 - and in addition was outside this linage, and once more in addition placed themselves outside the group/family (1. Mos. 25/18)) they were and even more so became members of the outside. And not one word about the slightest relationship to Arabs in the entire speech or anywhere else in the entire Bible - and also nowhere in the Quran. And not least: According to modern DNA tests Arabs are a mixed race - descendants of people drifting into the peninsula from all directions when it was settled + from millions of imported slaves from all around, included lots and lots from Africa.

    004 2/124a: "And remember that Abraham was tried by his Lord - - -." This refers to Abraham being ordered to sacrifice his son. The Bible tells it was Isaac - "his only son" (Ishmael and his Egyptian mother Hagar had been sent away from the home of Abraham, and Isaac was the only one Abraham had left) - whereas Islam claims it was Ishmael. As the Bible makes it clear that Hagar and Ishmael settled near the border of Egypt, Ishmael also was far off when this happened - highly unlikely that Abraham traveled all the way to fetch him for a sacrifice. (Islam claims Hagar and Ishmael settled in Mecca - even further off.) The Bible tells this happened long after Hagar and Ishmael were sent off - 1. Mos. 21/22: "At that time (the time when Hagar and were sent away*)" the Treaty of Beersheba was made. 1. Mos. 22/: "Some time later (after the Treaty of Beersheba*) God (Yahweh*) tested Abraham".

    005 2/125d: “- - - the Station of Abraham (Maqam-e-Ibrahim*)- - -“. This in reality is a mark in a stone in Mecca. The Quran indicates and Islam says that it is a mark from Abraham’s feet when he made the Kabah. Let the fact that Abraham never was in Mecca (unless Islam proves it – see 2/127a below) alone: No – absolutely no – worker building a house ever stood at one and the same place long enough to make a mark in a natural stone visible 1400 years later. It has never happened any time or any place in the world. This flatly is a fairy tale and strongly contradicted both by reality and by the intelligence of any human able to think for him-/herself. Now, Islam tells the mark (actually 2 - one for each foot) is a result of a miracle, as they claim the stone turned so soft that Abraham's feet sank into it. (They also claim that the stone is from Jannah - the gardens of Heaven). Believe it if you want to.

    Well, Islam has till now not proved even that Abraham ever visited Mecca, a place that was very prohibiting for him and his big flocks of animals - "a barren desert" to quote Muslims, and his claimed first trip even was before the Zamzam well even was found, and thus there was no water at all according to Islam - laying behind forbidding desert lands through which he had to lead all his sheep, goats, cows, etc. and find food and water for them - and he had many as he was a rich man (Islam claims that later visits only were by camels - but as there was no first visit, there also was no second one). And on top of all a place very far from where he lived and a place without any attractions for a big owner of cattle, etc. Believe it whoever wants - but go to a doctor if you believe this and the rest of that story (big stone mosque built by 2 nomads during a number of weeks or a few months, Ishmael bringing a big stone - far too big to lift (builders normally are more practical minded) - for his father to stand on, and a stone shining so strongly that Allah had to switch off its light according to Hadiths) without reasonable proofs.

    Just for the records: Science tells that "it is practically sure Abraham never visited Mecca". That he on top should have built a big mosque there - even a so big one that when the rich Mecca around 600 AD remade it, they could not afford to make it as big as the old foundations showed, according to Hadiths - is reckoned by science to be a fairy tale.

    Another point is that archeology indicates that Mecca was not founded until in the 4. century AD, and Kabah in the 5.

    ##006 2/125e: "We (Allah*) covenanted with Abraham and Ishmael - - -". See 2/127a below.

    007 2/125i: “- - - We covenanted with Abraham and Ishmael, that they should sanctify my House (Kabah in Mecca*)”. Not mentioned in the Bible - and as the Bible tells even about the altar, the grave, etc. Abraham built, it is highly unlikely they forgot to mention a huge temple. Besides: Abraham and Ishmael had nothing to do with the building of the Kabah - see 2/127a below.

    008 2/125k: "- - - Ishmael - - -". The oldest son of Abram/Abraham. His mother was Sarai's/Sarah's slave Hagar. Muslims sometimes quote 1. Mos. 16/3: "(Sarai/Sarah*) gave her (Hagar) to her husband (Abram/Abraham*) to be his wife". Like so often Muslims cherry-pick quotes and omit what does not fit their wishes: The contents of 1. Mos. 16/2-9 and 1. Mos. 21/10 makes it very clear that this just is a polite way of describing the physical facts and that she never became his wife - she simply remained Serai's/Sarah's slave for another may be 15 years.

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

    009 2/125l: "- - - they should sanctify my House (Kabah in Mecca*) - - -." The Quran claims Abraham was in what was to become Mecca because he had left Hagar and Ishmael there years before - two claims never documented (and wrong according to the Bible), but which according to A: "The Message of the Quran" used to be an old Arab tradition (do an omniscient god have to listen to legends?). This is contradicting the Bible (1.Mos. 21/14): "She (Hagar*) went on her way and wandered in the desert of Beersheba". Beersheba was and is in the south part of Palestine - far from Arabia and Mecca.

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

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

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

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

    ##010 2/127a: “And remember that Abraham and Ishmael raised the foundations of the House (Kabah*) (with this prayer): - - - “. Abraham never built the foundation of Kabah (and a contradiction; other verses say he built the building, not only the foundation of it) - and there are several reasons for this:

    1. He was born in Ur in Chaldea (if he really existed) in what is now south Iraq. Together with his father, (Terah according to the Bible (1. Mos. 11/26-32), Azar in the Quran (6/74)), he later travelled northwest up along the Euphrates valley to Haran in what is now north Iraq. Years later - after his father was dead - he continued south-southwest to Canaan and the town Sikem in what is now Israel (Sikem was north of Jerusalem. It is now named Nablus). That is to say he travelled along the so-called Fertile Crescent - the natural route when you travel with flocks of animals. The alternative was to take a shortcut through the Arab desert, but few of his numerous sheep and goats and cows would survive such a trip. He never visited Mecca on his way from Ur to Sikem. (Besides this was too early in the story - Ishmael was not born yet, and he is a part of the building of the Kabah according to the Quran).
    2. Abraham then settled in the western part of Canaan (now approximately Israel), whereas his nephew Lot settled in the Jordan valley and in the Arabah Valley south of the Dead Sea further east. Later Abraham moved south to Negev in Sinai. Negev today is most known for its desert, but not all was desert. All this is according to the Bible, but the Quran has no conflicting information, except that his father had another name, and that he quarreled with his father about Allah, which is not told in the Bible (on the contrary - they lived together till Terah died). The point is that between Canaan and Mecca and also between West Negev and Mecca are hundreds and hundreds of miles or kilometers of the tough and dry and hot Arab desert. Abraham was rich and had huge flocks of animals. He could not take those huge flocks of sheep, etc., through Lot's area and then through that desert, and especially so when there was no reason for doing it.
    3. Abraham lived hundreds of miles from Mecca - and had to cross harsh terrain to get to and from (see 2/125d above). Nobody builds a big temple for himself and his family at a place they can never or nearly never visit.
    4. Abraham was a nomad. Nomads do not have the know-how and technology to build large stone buildings.
    5. Hadiths tell than when Mecca restored the Kabah some years before Muhammad took over, they rebuilt it smaller than Abraham's(?) foundations. Which means that the nomad Abraham and his son built so big, that it was too big and too expensive for the full city of Mecca to rebuild in the same size. A nomad and his son building that big a temple for himself and his small family, even though he lived hundreds of miles away and at the very best hardly ever could visit the place? Of course you are free to believe it if you want.
    6. Abraham and Lot split up for practical reasons - Lot moved east whereas Abraham moved west (1. Mos. 13/11-12). Arabia and the place which was to become Mecca many generations later was to the east - much further east and south than even Lot settled.
    7. (1. Mos. 14/6): "- - - in the Hill country of Seir, as far as El Paran near the desert". Seir was the hilly country east of the southern end of the Dead Sea. To the west of this was the Arabah Valley (running from Elath to the Dead Sea), and across that valley you met the Paran Desert - quite a long way from Mecca.
    8. Abraham simply was not involved in the building of Kabah, and it is highly unlikely he ever visited Mecca and even the Arab peninsula. It looks like a fairy tale made up to give weight to Kabah and to Islam. And not least to give weight to Muhammad, who 2500 years later could tell he was direct descendant from Abraham - without the slightest written paper from all those years. 2500 years of mostly an-alphabetic nomads without any written history. Believe it if you want – and if you know who were all your forefathers the year 500 BC (= ca. 2500 years ago), as after 2500 years you have, and Muhammad had a large number of them (something like 80 generations give you quite a number of forfeiters, not only one - Abraham - like Muhammad claimed).

    9. It also is worth adding that Muslims say that Mecca was where Abraham’s (or actually Sarah’s) slave, Hagar, and his and her child Ismail (Ishmael) were sent away from Abraham’s camp, that the two lived there, and that Abraham frequently visited them later. There is no source of information for this. The OT says they lived in Negev, which is weeks by camel from Mecca (and Abraham had no camels) - and much, much longer for large flocks of sheep, goats, and cattle (American cowboys driving flocks of cattle to the railway, made 10-12 miles – 16-20 km - a day. The nomads in the south hardly moved any faster - - - if they could find water). In addition to the long time it would take, many animals hardly would survive the long trek through the harsh Arab desert with little food and hardly any water. And there was in addition no reason for him and his family to take such a dangerous and meaningless trip with their animals to a barren and dry valley. And as he never visited Mecca, he could not have left Hagar and Ismail there (this even more so as the Bible mention that Ishmael lived near the border of Egypt and got his wife from Egypt (see below) - - - and science and Islam both have proved that the Bible is not falsified (Islam has delivered a very strong proof by being unable to find even one clear falsification among all the tens of thousands of relevant old manuscripts) - the easy way out for Muslims when the Bible mentions things they do not like). If Islam wants to insist that he ever visited Mecca, they have to produce strong proofs, as it is extremely unlikely - and “special statements demands special proofs”. It is highly likely this just is a story made up or “borrowed” from f.x. Arab folklore to give the teachings of Muhammad credence.

    10.   One more fact: The Bible – a book which Islam insists is correct every time there is some text they like, but which may be the truth other times, too - says (1. Mos. 21/21): “While he (Ishmael*) was living in the Desert of Paran, his mother got a wife for him from Egypt”. Except for religious Muslims who strongly wishes this to be a reference to Faran near Mecca, all serious scientists say that this was Paran in or bordering Sinai - - - which also made it easier for his mother (who was from Egypt) to find him a wife from Egypt even though that made his children ¾ Egyptian and only ¼ descendants of Abraham’s stock (there is mentioned only one wife for Ishmael). Also remember that the old Egyptians were not Arabs, even if modern Egyptians often are called Arabs - where is the pure Arab blood of Ishmael's descendant?
    11.   Further (1. Mos. 25/18): “His (Ishmael’s) descendants settled in the area from Havilah to Shur, near the border of Egypt, as you go toward Asshur”. The border of Egypt means near the Red Sea or north of the Red Sea up to the Gulf of Suez. Just where scientists place Paran - it run from there and towards Elath. (It is a bit ironic that Islam say the Bible has the name correct, (but claim it is meaning Faran in Arabia), but all the rest of the information about place, wife from (neighboring) Egypt, etc. wrong. Though if you go looking, you will find that according to Islam, the Bible never has a mistake and is reliable when what it says fits Islam. Only when it tells things or facts that contradicts Islam, the Bible is falsified - or like here one simply omits the contradicting facts - - - which one safely can do, as hardly any Muslim knows the Bible well enough to see the cherry-picking of information, unless he has higher religious education). And NB: This was written 1000 or more years before Muhammad, and thus with no reason to place Ishmael far from Arabia if it was not the truth.
    12.   There also is another fact: The Bible reports on what Abraham built: He built an altar at Shechem (1. Mos. 12/6-7), an altar at Betel (1. Mos. 12/8), and an altar at Mamre, near Hebron (1. Mos. 13/18) - altars simply were a regular heap of natural, not artificially formed stones - - - and that is it. This is all the Bible tells he built (except for Sarah's grave, but that was not a building, but a cave (1. Mos. 23/19)). Then the Quran claims he suddenly built a huge temple (mosque), a big stone building which for one thing is far outside the know-how of a nomad to build, and for another thing is situated far away from all places Abraham ever was (as far as we can find the nearest he ever was Mecca, was Hebron, a good number of miles (multiply wit 1.6 to get km) south of Bethlehem. And not least: The building of this big temple is not at all mentioned in the Bible, even if it had to take a number of years to build it - Solomon with his enormous resources and his army of highly qualified builders (though no jinns, etc. like the Quran claims) used 36 years to build his temple (1. Kings 6/38), and a big church in medieval Europe could take up to 30 years. These years of building the Kabah is not in any way mentioned in the Bible - neither the building, nor the years it took, nor when it was done. Actually the time and resources it took also is not mentioned in the Quran - it just is indicated (though not directly said) that the Kabah was built during one or a few short visits to Mecca, and nothing about the skill and resources needed and the time it takes for building such a big temple/mosque. No comments - and none necessary.

     

    Besides: To go all the way to Mecca as mentioned was too forbidding for a man with large flocks of animal – and there never was a reason to go there for Abraham. On the contrary: Little food for his animals, no water in Mecca before the Zamzam was found later (?) – and Ishmael living “near the border of Egypt”. He never was in Mecca and consequently never built the Kabah – the big temple that he anyhow did not have the know-how to build, and worse; could not use, because he lived the better part of 1000 km away (this even more so as he could not travel "as the crow flees", but had to go as the cow grazes). And one he did not need as it was far too big for his small family - 2 sons included Ishmael, one wife and some workers. This claim, too, is a clear contradiction to the Bible.

    Also remember that science clearly says: "It is practically sure that Abraham never visited Mecca" (and the claim that he built the Kabah, they do not even bother to comment on). And: The ones writing OT some 9oo-1400 or may be a bit more before Muhammad started his preaching - even if they had falsified the scriptures, they had no reason to falsify Abraham out of Arabia as Muhammad and his religion was unknown to them. And: Abraham as said had his pastures in the west whereas Lot had chosen the eastern area (1. Mos. 13/11-12) - i.e. according to the agreement between them Lot's pastures were around and south of the Dead Sea towards Acaba, whereas Abraham grazed his cattle in the western parts of Canaan and later in Negev, both nearer the Mediterranean Sea. Which means that to visit Mecca, Abraham had to move all his cattle from the Mediterranean region and all the way through Lot's area down to Acaba, and then through the forbidding desert to Mecca - a place in or near the Faran Wilderness, a wilderness which now Muslims now have renamed Paran (Muslim sources on Internet admits that the real Arab name was Faran - but you f.x. meet Muslims claiming that Faran just is the Arab name, and that it is named Paran by others - - - a well chosen "explanation" as Muslims saw the name Paran in the Bible, and said: This sounds very like Faran - it must mean Faran. And then they started to tell that Paran, yes, that was in Arabia near Mecca! And foreigners not knowing the real name, used - and uses - the new Arab name Paran as they did not and do not know it is wrong - very few non-Arabs know that the correct name of that wilderness is Faran). Just take a look at the pictures from Faran/Paran, Arabia (they today use only the name Paran to be able to claim that Ishmael was there according to the Bible) and see how tempting this area was for a nomad with lots and lots of animals - Abraham was rich. No rich nomad in his right mind would even think of moving hundreds and hundreds of miles - and more in kilometers - from good pastures in the west to dry desert - Mecca did not even have a well, because this according to the Quran was before the Zamzam well was found.

    The scientists are right: Abraham never was in Mecca - and to comment on the claim that he built the Kabah is not even worth to bother about.

    And see 2/125e above.

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

    011 ################Added 5. Feb. 2015:

    We today discovered that there has been archeological work done in Mecca and the Mecca valley. (By Muslims as only Muslims are permitted there.) The conclusion: "No traces found from buildings earlier than the 4. century AD" (= at least 2100 years after Abraham). "The first temple/mosque likely built in the 5. century AD" (= at least 2200 years after Abraham). No comments necessary.

    012 2/127d: "- - - Abraham and Ishmael raised the foundation of the House (Kabah mosque in Mecca*) - - -". This is never mentioned in the Bible, which it should have been if Yahweh and Allah had been the same god, and if the Kabah was so central and holy for this god like described in the Quran.

    013 2/128b: "Make of us (Abraham and Ishmael*) Muslims - - -". This was some 2500 years before Muhammad and 2500 years before the first time Muslims appeared. In addition science has found not one single trace of a religion similar to Islam (if you omit Jews and Christians who are some percents similar) anywhere in the world older than 610 AD when Muhammad started his preaching. Worse: Also Islam has been unable to find traces from such a religion. It should be unnecessary to mention that this claim also contradicts the Bible.

    014 2/133c: "- - - (the god) of Abraham, Ishmael and Isaac - - -". This was said when Jacob died according to the Quran (you do not find this in the Bible). At that time Ishmael's descendants already were 3/4 Egyptian (both Ishmael's mother and wife were from Egypt (1.Mos. 20/21)) and they were living in hostility to the descendants of Isaac and Jacob (1.Mos. 25/18). They also were outside the covenant line through Isaac (1.Mos. 20/12). If you know a little about people, how likely is it that Ishmael was mentioned here?. (But Muhammad needed "quotes" like this to connect his new religion to an old one.)

    015 2/136c: "- - - the revelation given to us (Muhammad*), and to Abraham, Ishmael, Isaac, Jacob, and the Tribes (the 12 Jewish tribes*) and that given to Moses and Jesus, and given to (all) the Prophets (Hadiths mention the number 124ooo prophets during all times and all places!) - - -". The Quran as you see claims that all prophets to all times each has got their copy of the Quran - or to be more correct a copy of the same revered "mother book" in Heaven which the Quran is a copy of according to Islam. It must have been informative for the claimed Inuit prophets in North Canada to read about the blessed shade from the sun and the fruits and camels everyone knew, or for one in the really old England or Amazonas to read about the blessed rain.

    Science has found exactly not one trace from neither the claimed prophets, nor the claimed Islamic religion, nor from any of the claimed books, nor from a claimed god like Muhammad's version of the old pagan god Allah - not even a reference. Whereas from the Bible there are more than 40ooo manuscripts, fragments or quotations older than 610 AD - manuscripts only referring to but not quoting the Bible, not included. Worse: Also Islam has found not one proved falsification strengthening their claims - a 110% proof for that there are no falsifications, because if there had been, Islam had found them and screamed and bellowed about them

    Believe this Islamic claim whoever wants.

    016 2/140a: "Or do you say that Abraham, Ishmael, Isaac, Jacob and the tribes were Jews - - -". As the word "Jew" did not exist at that time (it derives from the name of one of the sons of Jacob and the tribe he founded, the Judah tribe), technically the Quran may be right in this "leading - or rhetoric - question" . But using the wider and quite normal definition of the word: Jews = people belonging to the Jewish religion, there is little doubt that according to the Bible they all were Jews - even Ishmael (but he is outside Yahweh's line, as that one goes via Isaac (his brother) and Jacob (1. Mos. 21/12)), if he lived and believed like his father (like Islam claims he did). It must in case be a bitter truth for Arabs to know they are claiming (as usual no proofs) to be descendants from a Jew(!) (But in its rhetoric way the Quran here contradicts the Bible). For the record: The name "Christians" is even much younger than the word "Jew" - it of course derives from "Christos", the Greek version of "Messiah" = the anointed one. It was coined some decades into "our time". See 2/140b just below.

    017 2/140b: "Or do you say that Abraham, Ishmael, Isaac, Jacob and the Tribes were Jews or Christians?" Well, no-one say they were Christians - Christianism is a softer religion than the Mosaic (Jewish) one and did not arrive until with Jesus. If we presume that Jesus really was from Yahweh, which both the Bible and the Quran claims (except that the Quran calls the god Allah and claims Allah = Yahweh), one may wonder why the god choose to soften his teaching just then. One possible explanation is that Islam is right on this one point: When times changes there can be adjustments in the one god's teachings to inch it closer to what the god really wants. May be Yahweh saw that the widespread and long "Roman Peace" (nearly 300 years) - Pax Romanum - finally gave a more peaceful and benevolent "edition" of his religion a chance to take hold and survive - grow strong enough to survive in spite of the rougher times which would come. But if this is the explanation, it is highly unlikely and illogical that he later should want to return to a harsh, selfish, and bloody war religion like Islam - far more inhuman, dark and bloody than also the Mosaic one even in the harshest parts of OT.

    018 2/158c: (A128) “Behold! Safa and Marwah are among the symbols of Allah. So if those who visit the House (Kabah*) in the Season or at other times should encompass them around, it is no sin in them”. These two hillocks were religious symbols also in pagan times before Islam, and Hadiths (f.x. Al-Bukhari) explains this verse with that many Muslims thought that if they followed the old rituals and visited them, they paid tribute to the old gods, but that Muhammad then in this verse told them that it was no sin – on the contrary it is to pay respect to Allah. The ritual simply is to hasten between (not necessarily around) them 7 times symbolizing Hagar’s claimed search for water after Abraham had left her and their son Ishmael (Islam claims it was here it happened - utterly improbable in reality - see 2/127a above).But the question is: Is this ritual obligatory or a “supererogatory act of piety”? (Zamakhshari and Razi). The text on this point is unclear. Today it is reckoned to be an integrate part of the pilgrimage, but the text as said is unclear. And it is thought provoking that this ritual like the others in Mecca simply is taken over from the old pagan earlier religion - nothing created for or by Islam and Allah, just primitive rituals, some superficial symbolism, nothing spiritual - nothing worthy a claimed omniscient and omnipotent god. Nothing created by a spiritual god. And what does the taking over more or less completely the rituals of a pagan religion indicate?

    019 3/33a: "Allah did choose - - - the family of Abraham - - - above all people". Arabs claim - as normal without any proofs - to be the descendants of Ishmael, the illegitimate son of Abraham (in spite of that according to the Bible Ishmael's descendants settled on the border of Egypt (1. Mos. 25/18) - not in Arabia - and in spite of that modern DNA tells another story - and became a powerful people there "with twelve tribal rulers" (1.Mos. 25/16)), and they (the Arabs) claims they thus are descendants of Abraham. Is this the reason why Arabs through the first centuries claimed to be better than other Muslims, and thus caused lots of and lasting strife in Islam? Also see 2/125a and 2/127a above.

    020 3/64d: “- - - that we (Muslims and Jews/Christians*) worship none but Allah (= Yahweh and Allah is claimed to be the same god*)”. Wrong. This is not possible as the fundamental differences between the Quran and the Bible/NT are too big and too many – not unless the god is schizophrenic. Mainly only Muslims say this – and they will have to bring strong proofs.

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

    Also modern DNA tells that Arabs are a mixed race and with no common forefather.

    021 From 3/67: Even if Muhammad had been a descendant of Abraham – then how close after 2500 years? His first forefather in case was Ishmael. Ishmael was half Egyptian (his mother Hagar was a slave maiden from Egypt (1.Mos. 16/1), and Ishmael himself married a woman (only one wife is mentioned) from Egypt (1. Mos. 21/21) and his family settled near the border of Egypt (1. Mos. 25/18) in Sinai. The border of Egypt of that time never was in the middle of Arabia, even though Muslims want Hagar and Ishmael to have settled in Mecca). In addition modern DNA has shown that Arabs far from is a pure race. Arabs originally were a mixture of groups and persons which drifted into the then empty area something like 6ooo years ago (a bit earlier some places along the coasts), and thus was no pure race even from the beginning. Later they were drifting nomads and traders – and brought home wives and slaves and got children with them. Also foreign traders crossed Arabia and made a child now and then – the sexual taboos were far looser before Muhammad. And then there were all the slave women who produced dilution of the blood also in Islamic times. The Arabs simply is a mix of different local and a lot of not local DNA – in addition to the already mentioned fact that already after 2 generations only ¼ of the relationship was with Abraham (if at all) - - - and the 25oo years up to Muhammad meant some 80 - 100 generations diluting of the claimed, but unlikely relationship.

    022 3/84b: "- - - what (the Quran) has been revealed to us (Muslims*) and what was revealed to Abraham, Ishmael, Isaac, Jacob and the (12 Jewish*) tribes- - -". One more of the claims that it was the Quran which was given to each and every of the old prophets (see 3/81e above). One more claim showed wrong by science and by Islam by being unable to find the slightest trace of Islam or something similar older than 610 AD. (Islam's claim that the Mosaic - Jewish - religion and culture was a falsified version of Islam does not hold water.)

    023 3/146b: “How many of the Prophets fought (in Allah’s way), and with them fought large bands of godly men? But they never lost heart if they met with disaster in Allah’s way, nor did they weaken (in will) nor give in. And Allah loves those who are firm and steadfast.” A pep-talk to warriors of all times - never give in, never give up, retreat if you have to, but go on and you will win like the prophets, because Allah will help - - - and sooner or later the lover of religious warriors, Allah, will give you Paradise. Like in the Old Norse religion and other war religions.

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

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

    024 4/103b: "- - - set up regular prayers: for such prayers are enjoined on believers on stated times". The 5 fixed prayers is one of the pillars of Islam. If Yahweh had meant the number and times of prayers were of any essence to him, he had enjoined it on the Jews and Christians. But such rules are not mentioned anywhere in the Bible. Because they are so essential in the Quran, but completely of no interest to Yahweh - he says pray when you want or need - this is one of the real strong proofs for that Yahweh and Allah are not the same god. (And a curiosa here: If Allah has no connection to the old Jewish god Yahweh, Abraham and Ishmael and the others are not part of Islam. Well, this in case is no surprise - there are more indications for the same.)

    As for prayers in Islam also see 4/43h and 4/64g above.

    025 4/125f: "- - - the way of Abraham the true of faith - - -". If the Quran is not a made up book. But there are every indication for that there is no connection between Abraham/Ishmael and Arabia, and no connection between Abraham and Islam. It at least is clear that the Quran with all its errors is not from a god.

    Also science says that "there is no indication for that Abraham ever visited Arabia".

    026 4/163e: "- - - We (Allah*) sent it (messages by inspiration*) to Abraham, Ishmael, Isaac, Jacob and the (12 Jewish*) Tribes, to Jesus, Job, Jonah, Aaron, and to Solomon - - -". As Muhammad claimed he received his verses from Allah by inspiration, it was essential to "prove" that this was a normal way for prophets to receive information from the god. And NB: He used these claimed Muslim prophets as proofs for that "inspiration" was a normal way of communication. The word "inspiration" is not used anywhere in the Bible in such connections. Also it is nowhere in the Bible mentioned that Ishmael had a close enough connection to Yahweh to be a prophet.

    027 5/7b: "- - - His Covenant, which He (Allah') ratified with you (Muslims*), when ye said: 'We hear and we obey'- - -". Once upon a time some Boers of South Africa made what they called a covenant with Yahweh/God. They promised that if Yahweh/God would help them, they would do so-and-so. What they over-looked was that a covenant must be agreed on by at least two parts; and as Yahweh/God was not an involved participant in an agreement about the case, they in reality only made promises, not a covenant. Is this something of the same? Another point: According to the Bible the god did not make any covenant with Ishmael and his descendants, only with Isaac and his line (1.Mos. 17/21). This even more so as in spite of Arabs' claims of being descendants of Ishmael, it is unlikely they are. For one thing and for what it is worth, the Bible tells that Ishmael's descendants settled not in Arabia, but in vest Sinai "near the border of Egypt" (1. Mos. 25/18) where they became 12 tribes with "twelve tribal rulers" (1. Mos. 25/16) = the god's promise of making Ishmael's descendants mighty. But easier and more solid proved: Modern DNA analyses have shown that the Arabs are not and never were a pure "race". The original Arabs seems to have been people from here and there who settled in the peninsula something like 7ooo years ago along the coast, and much later inland - partly because the introduction of tamed camels later made life in the desert a real possibility - though the camel only was used to a limited degree and only in the south. And this mixed group has been even much more mixed up through the times, partly by traders and others passing through on the caravan "highways" crossing Arabia and leaving off-springs now and then - remember that before Islam, "the two delightful things" in Arabia were sex and alcohol - and also Arab traders bringing home brides from abroad. But perhaps the biggest source for foreign blood to further mix up and dilute the claimed race, was import of slaves from all around, both long before Muhammad and far more later. All the girl and women slaves were definitely not imported just for decoration, and the "pure Arab blood" never was much more than an illusion - originally started by Ishmael or not. (And in addition: Even if Ishmael had settled in Arabia, there also lived many others - so even if this had been true, only a small percent - less than 0.01 percent (= if there at that time lived only 10ooo in all Arabia) - of the Arab DNA could have been from Ishmael already at that time, and it would have been far more diluted by now.)

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

    There is no rational or scientific reason for believing in the claim that the Arabs are descendants of Ishmael and Abraham - on the contrary: What knowledge which exists, makes the claim highly unlikely, and even if there should be a connection, it in case is an extremely diluted one. Also modern DNA science documents this.

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

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

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

    We also remind you that according to science "there is no indication for that Abraham ever visited Arabia".

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

    We may also add that we have seen claimed on the net that Arabs in Arabia have 5+% Negro DNA - a bit more in Egypt. We have not seen official numbers for this, but from what we know about slave import - including that 2/3 were women (compared to 2/3 male slaves to the Americas), we were a little surprised that the % was not higher. We have not seen numbers from other slave groups.

    028 6/85c: "And Ishmael and Elisha, and Jonah, and Lut - - -". 4 time anomalies. See 4/13d above.

    029 6/89b: "These were the men (the ones mentioned in verses 6/83 through 6/87*) to whom We (Allah*) gave the Book". The Bible does not mention any book connected to f.x. Adam, Noah, Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, and Ishmael, let alone something like OT or the Quran which is meant here - this also according to science, as no trace of anything similar to the Quran older than 610 AD (when Muhammad started his mission) has ever been found - compared to some 45ooo relevant scriptures and fragments + other traces older than 610 AD from the Bible).

     

    Another point is that no god ever made a book of a quality like the Quran with all its mistakes, etc.

    And yet another point is that nomads of those times hardly knew how to read. It is not impossible that Joseph, son of Jacob, learnt how to read and write in Egypt, but but for him it is likely that the first of the central persons in the Bible who knew how to read and write, was Moses.

    030 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 were believing 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 tell 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.

    031 From 7/157e: There is another serious point to this Islamic claim: Many of the Islamic scholars know the Bible quite well - this is obvious from the fact that they frequently quote the Bible when there are points there which they like or where they wants to express that the Quran has a better point of view on just this-and-this than the Bible. They thus have to know f.x. how the word "brother" - the main word in this case in 5. Mos. 18/15+18 - in the figurative meaning is used in the Bible. It is used figuratively at least 325 times in that book, and no-one knowing the Bible would get the idea that in any - not one - of all these places Arabs are indicated. It is very clear that practically always in OT it means fellow Jews (there are something like 5 exceptions - one place a king is calling another, friendly king his brother, 3 times it is specified one meant descendants after Esau (the brother of Jacob) and one time Abraham says it to Lot. Well, actually there may be one more exception (1. Mos. 25/18): "And they (the 12 sons of Ishmael*) lived in hostility to all their brothers". If this means they were quarreling between themselves, the meaning is literal. If it means they quarreled with the sons of Isaac, the meaning may be figurative or it may be literal - meaning the closest relatives (this is nearly the last time Ishmael and his descendants are mentioned in the Bible - after all they lived far off - - - and far from Mecca where Muhammad claimed they lived.) All the other times it refers to other Jews. It is not possible to study the Bible/OT and not see this. Also in the Quran the word is used figuratively - more than 30 times. The only time it refers to Jews there, is one case where Muhammad links hypocrites to Jews and claims they are brothers. Also Arabia and Arabs are mentioned in the Bible - some 13 times - and always in neutral words or as enemies, never as friends, not to mention brothers. All the same Islam and its scholars straight-facedly tell their readers and their audiences that "brothers" in 5. Mos. 18/15+18 refer to Arabs and thus to Muhammad. There only are 2 possible explanations for such dishonesty: An al-Taqiyya (a lawful lie) to "explain" Muhammad's perhaps slip of the tongue, or wishful thinking stronger than their intellectual integrity.

    032 From 7/157e: Point of relevance I, claim from Islam. 1. Mos. 12/1-3, claim 1:

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

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

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

    033 From 7/157e: Point of relevance III, claim from Islam. 1. Mos. 16/10 (similar in 17/18, 21/13):

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

    Answer:

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

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

    Besides, what the Bible really says is:

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

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

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

    And not to forget: No omniscient god makes mistakes. The Quran is full of mistaken facts and other errors - a strong proof for that the Quran is not from a god, and thus that neither Muhammad nor Islam received commandments from any god. If he/they received commandments these in case either came from one or more humans or from dark forces - the only remaining alternatives.

    034 From 7/157e: Point of relevance IV - Claim from Islam. Genesis (1. Mos.) 17/20:

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

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

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

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

    035 From 7/157e: "YOUR BROTHERS:

    1. Islam and most/all Muslims claim this is figurative speech (correct) and must point to Muhammad, because he claimed to be (see chapter about Muhammad in "1000+ Mistakes in the Quran") a descendant of Abraham and Ishmael – the brother of Isaac – even a direct descendant (as normal for Islam without the slightest documentation) – and that the Arabs because they (claim they) are the descendants of Ishmael, are the brothers of the Jews (descendants of Isaac) – “it is the only possible meaning”. (But: The brother of a Jew is a Jew, not an Arab, and the same for a fellow countryman of a Jew – he is a Jew. It may talk about Jesus, but not about Muhammad.)
    2. The word brother(s)/brethren/brotherhood is used in the figurative meaning at least 325 times in the Bible, according to our last leafing through the Bible (and we hardly found all places) – included at least 99 times in OT, at least 31 times in 5.Mos. and at least 22 times in the very speech of Moses from which Muslims cherry-pick 18/15 and 18/18.(Facts that are seldom mentioned and never by Muslims).
    3. That word - brother(s)/brethren/brotherhood - always speak about persons within a specific group, (and with only a few borderline cases – in the NT there are a few places where the entire world is the including group (as humans – and as potential Christians)) - about Jews in OT and Christians and/or Jews in NT.
    4. In OT it in addition as mentioned above, is used only about fellow Jews – it is clear from the context and often said directly. We have found only 5 - 6 exceptions. In 1. Mos.13/8 Abraham uses the word to Lot (Lot in reality was his nephew - and thus inside his group), in 1.Mos. 25/18 it is told that Ishmael and his sons and near descendants chose to be hostile towards the rest of the family – the later Jews – even though they at that time were closely related – and thus "brothers in a closed group – (a disgusting thing to do according to the ethics of that distant past), and in 4.Mos. 20/14, 5.Mos.2/2, and 5.Mos. 2/8 it is used about the Edomites (descendants of Esau, the brother of Jacob). Finally there is one place where a king says it to another, but friendly king (1. Kings 20/32-33).
      1. The Jews after a fashion reckoned the Edomites to be (distant) relatives (Edomites were descendants from Esau, the brother of Jacob, the last of the three patriarchs Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, who started the real(?) history of Israel) – and thus included in a larger, but defined and closed group. In contrast they did not reckon Ishmaelite as relatives.
      2. For one thing Ishmael’s mother was a foreigner (from Egypt) - and so was his wife.
      3. For another thing Ishmael was outside the covenant Yahweh made when he renewed the covenant he had had with Abraham and made the renewed covenant with his son Isaac (but Esau was inside, as the son of Isaac) as mentioned in 1.Mos. 17/19-21: “I (Yahweh*) will establish my covenant with him (Isaac*) as an everlasting covenant for his descendants after him. And as for Ishmael, I have heard you: I will surely bless him - - - But my covenant I will establish with Isaac - - -.”
      4. For a third the Ishmaelite that Arabs claim later became the Arabs, lived so far off (and not in Arabia, but on the border of Egypt according to the Bible - 1. Mos. 25/18) that the relationship even for natural reasons was all but severed.
      5. For the fourth and worse: The Ishmaelite chose to be enemies of the Jews – 1.Mos. 25/18: “And they (the Ishmaelite*) lived in hostility toward all their brothers” (if this does not mean they Quarreled among themselves) – see some comments further up in this point (no. IV).
      6. And for the fifth and perhaps most essential besides being outside the covenant: Ishmael and his mother were expelled from the family and tribe (which easily may explain their hostility, but all the same it was hostility in a time when the safety of a person and a family mainly depended on the strength of that family). And they were expelled from the tribe before it became Israel 2 generations later - the name came with Abraham's grandson Jacob.
      7. All the other times the word was used about fellow Jews only, except Ishmael's sons who quarreled with their brothers.
    5. Also: In all the few mentioned cases of borderline exception the name of the opposite part was specified, whereas Moses very clearly did not specify that the brothers he talked about in 18/15 and 18/18 were Arabs – on the contrary it is clear for anyone who are not burdened with strong wishful thinking or desperate need, that he was talking to and about Jews and using a most normal expression for his fellow Jews.
    6. Also in the NT the word always (with the possible exception mentioned above) is used about fellows in a group – either fellow Jews or fellow Christians.
    7. There is not one single place in the entire Bible where Arabs are mentioned as brothers or even as more distant relatives - yes, not even as friends.. As for Ishmaelites: In 1.Mos. 25/18 the word is used to stress the Ishmaelites' (which are not likely to be the forefathers of the Arabs in reality) bad conduct (see above).
    8. The word brother(s)/brethren/brotherhood also is used figuratively in the Quran – at least 32 times – and the Quran follows just the same rule as the Bible: Brothers are belonging to a group – Muslims to Muslims (god or less god), Arabs to Arabs, tribe people within the tribe, (even Lot/Lut they try to pretend belonged to the locals), the bad to the bad. Even the one and single time where Jews clearly are mentioned (59/11) in this connection it is not said that Arabs or Muslims are the brothers of Jews, but that the hypocrites (no specification of nationality, so likely all hypocrites) are the brothers of the Jews (belonging to the group “the bad ones”). Not one single time it is said or even hinted that the Arabs are the brothers of the Jews - neither in the Bible nor in the Quran. A fact no Muslim ever mentions (and few know).
    9. Arabia and Arabs are mentioned a few times (about a dozen times) in OT, f.x. 2. Chronicles 9/14 and 22/1, Isaiah 21/13, Jeremiah 25/24, Ezekiel 30/5. They always are mentioned in neutral words – like paying tribute to King Solomon – or in negative connections, f.x. as enemies. Not one place is there said or hinted anything about close relationship, not to mention kinship and absolutely not a comma about brotherhood. For some reason or other Muslims never mention this fact, either – but then of course it is more essential to win the debate than to find out what is right. After all al-Taqiyya – the lawful lie – is both a right and a duty to Muslims when it comes to defending or promoting the religion. The religion they believe in because other Muslims and the Quran and their parents believe in it and have told them to believe in from blind faith - - - because the others believe in it from blind faith, and the clergy and others do not want to question their beliefs and their small or big platforms of power.
    10.   Muslims claim – as normal without documentation – that the Quran are the words of Allah, and that Muhammad thus spoke the words of the god, which is one of the criteria (he misses on others - see below) for being the prophet Moses spoke about (f.x. Jeremiah 1/9 in addition to 5. Mos. 18/15 and 18/18-19). This could have been partly right - - - if Islam proves that the Quran really is from a god (actually all the mistakes and other wrong points proves 100% that it is not from a god – no god would do such a sorry work). Besides: Even if it was correct that they were the words of a god, it would only be a criterion, not a proof – many of the Jewish prophets spoke the words of the god, according to both the Bible and the Quran, but they were not the prophet Moses spoke about. Muslims presents the unproved claim in triumph like a proof.
    11.   Muslims also dismiss in what connection these two verses were said. They themselves tell others strictly that you cannot take a verse – or more – from the Quran and make conclusions or statements from that – a standard demand from any Muslim, especially when he meets arguments that are difficult to answer, an often used last way out. But for themselves that rule is invalid and they quote these two verses from 5.Mos. very much out of the context.
    12.   Because the context clearly tells that Moses was speaking to and about the Jews, and verses 18/1-2 even specifies who the “brothers” were – he had used the same word just seconds earlier in the same speech to the same people and in the same contexts: The Levi tribe “shall have no inheritance from among their brothers (= the 11 (12) other tribes*). The Lord (Yahweh*) is their inheritance (they should be priests and be paid for that*) - - -“. Then seconds later he use the same word without specifying that now he is speaking about other brothers than Jews (which he had had to do not to confuse his listeners if he had meant Arabs or someone else) – for the simple reason that he continued speaking about the same 11 - 12 tribes (by the way: Jesus was from the Judah tribe).

     

    036 From 7/157e: 1. Mos. 25/18: Ishmael's sons settled "in the area from Havilah to Shur, near the border of Egypt, as you go toward Asshur. And they lived in hostility toward all their brothers. This may be meant literally - they quarreled among themselves - or figuratively that they quarreled with the descendants of their father's 7 half brothers, included Isaac's sons Esau (also called Edom) and Jacob (later called Israel). In the last case it is within a closed group: The near family.

    037 From 7/157e: (In 1. Mos. 16/12 Yahweh tells Abraham that his son Ishmael "will live in hostility towards all his brothers". But here the word is literally, and also this was said about Ishmael only and not about his descendants. Ishmael had the brothers Isaac (mother: Sarah), and Zimran, Jokshan, Medan, Midian, Ishbak and Shuah (mother: Keturah, whom Abraham married after Sarah died - 1. Mos. 25/1-2). In 1. Mos. 25/5 it is said that the sons of Keturah were "sent to the land of the east" which means Jordan or further east (Arabia is to the south and south east), and they do not appear in later books of the Bible (except that the Midianites may be the descendants of Midian, not persons from a place named Midian)).

    038 From 7/157e: 1. mos. 18/18: "- - - a prophet like you (Moses*) from among their (the Jews') brothers - - -". - fellow Jews. This and 18/15 (see this one just above) are the two points Islam claims refers to Arabs. They totally omit the context which clearly tells Moses was speaking to and about Jews, and only point to that Ishmael was the half-brother of Jacob - one of the forefathers of the Jews. They also omit the fact that Ishmaelites never were reckoned by the Jews to be their real relatives, as the relationship was broken already by Ishmael and his sons + Ishmael was outside the line from Isaac, who according to the Bible was the line from which Abraham's descendants should be reckoned. They also omit the fact that Arabs never - included in the Quran - reckoned Jews to be their brothers. They omit the fact that it is no place documented that the Arabs are the descendants of Ishmael - he and his descendants after all settled on the border of Egypt (1. Mos. 25/18) and not in Mecca like Muhammad claimed, according to the only perhaps reliable source about this, the Bible. Also see 1.Mos. 8/22-22 which Muslims never mention - who is a genuine prophet? (Muhammad did not even make prophesies).

    039 From 7/157e: Point of relevance IX - Claim from Islam. Genesis (1. Mos.) 21/21:

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

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

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

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

    040 From 7/157e: In Amos 1/12 Yahweh says: “I will send fire upon Teman”. It clearly is a place – an area or a village or a town – not a religion (It is difficult to send fire upon an idea).

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

    Actually nothing of this fits Islam’s history.

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

    041 9/97a: "The Arabs of the desert (at the time of Muhammad*) - - -". This is quite a time anomaly. One thing is the "normal" anomaly - see 4/13d above. Another is that some millennia ago there existed no "Arabs of the desert". They drifted into the desert from different places and became the mixture later called "Arabs" only after the domestication of the camel made life in the desert possible. Before that no reader of a copy of the claimed "Mother Book" - similar to the Quran - would understand one whistle of what the book was talking about when talking about desert Arabs. (The Arab camel - dromedary - was not domesticated until sometime between 4ooo and 2ooo BC).

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

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

    Further: The camel was not introduced as far north as where Abraham lived, until after the Assyrians started trade with South Arabia in the 8. century BC.

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

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

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

    042 11/69-83: The stories about Abraham and partly about Lot/Lut are closer to the Biblical story than normal for Biblical stories in the Quran, but a number of details differ - some of them serious.

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

    Also remember that even though the camel likely was domesticated at that time, it hardly was used for riding until a lot later, and it in addition was not introduced as far north as where Abraham lived, until in the 8. century BC - 1ooo years or more after Abraham. Then it was a long trip - both ways.

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

    043 14/37a: "- - - I (Abraham*) have made some of my offspring to dwell in a valley without cultivation - - -". It here is referred to Muhammad’s never documented claim that Ishmael - Abraham's son out of wedlock with the slave girl Hagar - settled in Mecca (which did not exist then, but is situated in a dry, quite narrow desert valley)". This is directly contradicted by the Bible, which clearly states that Ishmael and his descendants settled on the border of Egypt some place north of the Red Sea (1. Mos.25/18: "His (Ishmaels*) descendants settled in the area from Havilah to Shur, near the border of Egypt - - -"). And NB: This was written down at least 1ooo years before there was any reason for the writers not to give correct information. Also see 67/9c below - a strong one. But of course it is ok for Islam to prove - prove - the Bible wrong and the Quran right. But as we say: Prove, not just loose claims and as loose and invalid words like the Quran always use instead of proofs.

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

    ################Added 5. Feb. 2015:

    We today discovered that there has been archeological work done in Mecca and the Mecca valley. (By Muslims as only Muslims are permitted there.) The conclusion: "No traces found from buildings earlier than the 4. century AD" (= at least 2100 years after Abraham). "The first temple/mosque likely built in the 5. century AD" (= at least 2200 years after Abraham). No comments necessary.

    044 14/37b: "- - - a valley without cultivation - - -". Remember this when Muslims claim Abraham lived in or near the Valley of Mecca when he sent away Hagar and Ishmael, and that they therefore ended up living in that valley and town (the town/city did not exist then, also according to the Quran - Hagar could not find people at all). This valley was a dry and rather narrow desert valley - according to the Quran not even the Zamzam well existed then. Abraham was a rich nomad with big flocks of all kinds of domesticated animals - so big that according to the Bible Lot and he had to split up because their flocks were so big that the land could not feed and water them when they stayed together (1. Mos. 13/5-9). A man with so big flocks of animals should travel with his everything deep into the desert and settle in a dry desert valley without food or water for his animals - and far from where he lived in Canaan - now ca. central Israel west of Jordan. This on top of everything else we know about Abraham and his travels.

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

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

    Any further comments necessary?

    045 14/37ba "- - - the Sacred House - - -". This refers to the Kabah Mosque in Mecca. To take its history according to Islam:

    It was originally built by Adam. Now, science and for that case religion, believe that if Eden ever existed, it was in the wetlands of what is now South Iraq. All the same Adam went all the way from his home in or outside Eden, to this dry desert valley some months grueling march to the west - some 800 miles/1300 km of mostly forbidding and grueling hot Arab Desert - and built a big mosque there - what for we have never heard any Muslim explain.

    But during the Big Flood (7/64c+d) and during the millennia the mosque was destroyed. Some say that Noah repaired it, but that time passed and wore it down. When Ishmael grew old enough to be a helper - it is not said how old - Abraham, therefore, rebuilt the big mosque. No Muslim have ever explained us why he built it so big for just his own after all small family, or why he built it a thousand miles from where he lived - and thus a place where he and his family never could use it, and in a place where still nearly no-one lived.

    We also points to the fact that neither Adam, nor Noah, nor Abraham had the camel. How did they then travel those long and many miles through the horrible Arabian Desert? No Muslim have ever been able to explain us this - but then most Muslims are not aware of the problem, as "the Religion of the Truth" never tells its followers that Abraham did not have camels. Also: From where did those 3 learn the technology to build big stone constructions? F.x. the largest "buildings" Abraham according to the Bible made, were a few altars. And what about the time used? - to build one of the big stone churches in Europe easily took 20-30 years for highly qualified and sizeable work force. The two amateur stonemasons Abraham and Ishmael on the other hand seems to have built the Kabah in some weeks during one or a few of Abraham's claimed visits to see his son in that desert valley.

    But new millennia took its toll. Some years before Muhammad became a Muslim, the Kabah was rebuilt. But the now rich merchant city could not afford to use the foundations of Abraham - that big he had built his far of and far into the wilderness mosque for his family. The rich Mecca had to build smaller.

    There are times one starts wonder what brainwashing - included religious such - does to a man's brain and his ability to use his brain.

    The very plain story is that neither Adam, nor Noah, nor Abraham, nor any other Biblical person ever was in the Mecca Valley, not to mentioned built anything on a mosque there. But it is good propaganda as long as anyone believes it. Also see 2/127a above.

    046 14/37c: "- - - Sacred House - - -". The Kabah in Mecca. Muhammad claimed its original foundation was made by Adam, and its next one by Abraham and Ishmael = some 3800 - 4ooo years old. In addition to all the other improbabilities here which deny this, it today is possible to find out how old the oldest parts of Kabah are. As far as we know, Islam has not tried to find out - their own belief in the Quran is not strong enough to run the risk of finding an age of f.x. 1900 years.

    Besides they have a problem: They will have to use a non-Muslim expert to find out. Because of al-Taqiyya no-one will really believe any Muslim claiming he has found an age of f.x. 3850 years for Abraham's stones (f.x. the one with his claimed foot-marks), and f.x. some 5200 for Noah's part if he was involved, not to mention if they found an age compatible with Adam's life.

    ################Added 5. Feb. 2015:

    We today discovered that there has been archeological work done in Mecca and the Mecca valley. (By Muslims as only Muslims are permitted there.) The conclusion: "No traces found from buildings earlier than the 4. century AD" (= at least 2100 years after Abraham). "The first temple/mosque likely built in the 5. century AD" (= at least 2200 years after Abraham). No comments necessary.

    047 14/39b: "Praise be to Allah who granted unto me (Abraham*) in old age Ishmael and Isaac - - -". Contradicted by the Bible, which says Ishmael was a result of Sarah's wish for children in the family (1. Mos. 16/1-4), and Isaac was given by Yahweh (1. Mos. 18/10). Also see 67/9c below - a strong one. But of course it is ok for Islam to prove - prove - the Bible wrong and the Quran right. But as we say: Prove, not just loose claims and as loose and invalid words like the Quran always use instead of proofs. Also see 37/103 - a serious one in this connection.

    048 14/39c: "- - - granted unto me (Abraham*) in old age Ishmael and Isaac - - -". 3 time anomalies.

    049 19/42-50: The story of Abram (name according to the Bible) - later named Abraham - in the Quran is entirely different from the one in the Bible. Entirely. Also see 19/48-49 below. AND: As the Bible is the only source for information about Abraham, and as it is clear the Quran is not from a god - too much is wrong - from where did Muhammad get this new information about Abraham?

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

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

    No Muslim ever mentions that there are some 750 miles - some 1200 km - between where he lived and Mecca, and much of it was harsh, forbidding, glowing desert where his livestock would die on the road - - - and a good Muslim shall visit his mosque at least each Friday. And no Muslim mentions that even though the camel likely was domesticated at the time of Abraham, it is likely it was not used for riding until much later according to Wikipedia.

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

    ################Added 5. Feb. 2015:

    We today discovered that there has been archeological work done in Mecca and the Mecca valley. (By Muslims as only Muslims are permitted there.) The conclusion: "No traces found from buildings earlier than the 4. century AD" (= at least 2100 years after Abraham). "The first temple/mosque likely built in the 5. century AD" (= at least 2200 years after Abraham). No comments necessary.

    #050 19/49b: "- - - We (Allah*) bestowed on him (Abraham*) Isaac and Jacob - - -". Abraham got the son Isaac with his wife Sarah. It is strange that in 614 - 615 AD the Quran does not mention his son with Sarah's slave Hagar - Ishmael. Had Muhammad not yet got the idea of claiming ancestry from Abraham (via Ishmael?) - surah 19 is from 614-615 AD = early in Muhammad's preaching. We may also mention that 1. Mos. 25/1-2 and also 1. Chron. 1/32 says that Abraham took another wife/concubine and had 6 sons with her: "The sons born to Keturah, Abraham's concubine: Zimran, Jokshan, Medan, Midian, Ishbak and Shuah". Not mentioned in the Quran. Had Muhammad claimed ancestry via one of these, his claim had been stronger, because little is said about where they ended. But most likely he never knew about these sons of Abraham. (To claim to be descendants via an Ishmael living in Mecca, is hopeless if the stories in the Bible are true - and at the time when they were written down, there was no reason for the Jews not to be honest about this - because the place where it is told Abraham left Hagar, is some 1200 km from the dry, empty desert valley where Mecca later came (1. Mos. 20/14), and the place it tells Ishmael settled is even a little further off (1. Mos. 25/18). And the track form those places to the nowhere, empty, narrow desert valley of later Mecca was for large parts through harsh and forbidding hot desert - - - and without any attractions giving the least reason to go there.

    051 19/54c: "- - - he (Ishmael*) was a messenger (and) a prophet". Not one word about this in the Bible, and these parts of the Bible (1. Mos.) were written at least 1ooo years before Muhammad (and not falsified according to science and Islam) - which means at least 1ooo years before there even was any reason for falsifying it.

    052 19/54-55: These stories in the Quran are not from the Bible - and there existed no other source except for legends, fairy tales, etc. + fantasy.

    053 21/51b: "- - - Abraham - - -". The man who denounced and quarreled with his father according to the Quran, but lived and travelled together with him for a long time until Abraham set out for Canaan when he was 75 years according to the Bible (1. Mos. 12/4), and without any serious quarrel mentioned in the Bible. The man who according to the Quran took his family and huge flocks of animals some 1200 km from where he normally lived - much of the way through the harsh and rough and hot and dry and forbidding Arab desert - to a dry, hot, forbidding, empty and narrow desert valley and lived there with his animals without water and measurable fodder for the flocks, till it fit to leave his son Ishmael and his concubine Hagar there in the place which many centuries later was to become Mecca. Then he returned home the same grueling road - but came back years later to build himself a big mosque - - - still some 1200 km (some 750 miles) of partly horrible conditions away from his home, and in an arid, empty place in the middle of not even nowhere.

    Believe it if you are able to.

    054 21/60c: "- - - Abraham - - -". We should remind you that according to the Bible his name at this time was Abram (which means "Exalted Father" - even though he had no children). He did not get the name Abraham until 99 years old (1. Mos. 17/5) in Canaan - now roughly central Israel. (Abraham means "Father of Many" - he got 8 sons, Ishmael with Hagar (Sarah's slave woman), Isaac with Sarah, and then 6 with his second wife, Keturah (1. Mos.25/1-2), who are not mentioned in the Quran).

    055 21/85a: "Ishmael - - - (was a man) of constancy and patience". EVERYTHING said about Ishmael in the Bible you find here: 1. Mos.16/1-15, 1. Mos. 17/18-21, 1. Mos. 21/9-21, and 1. Mos. 25/12-18. There is no more, except "en passent" mentioning of the name or indirectly like when Yahweh said: "But my covenant I establish with Isaac - - -" (= not with Ishmael, 1. Mos.17/21 (included in one of the 4 places, but we highlight the indirect message)). Ishmael may have been patient, but 1. Mos. 25/18 indicates that at least his sons were not.

    056 22/26a: “Behold, We (Allah) gave the site, to Abraham, of the (sacred) House - - -”. Abraham never visited Mecca. See 2/127a. It is a story made up to give Muhammad’s teaching more credence, and make it more interesting among Arabs, though perhaps partly on basis old folk tales. (Islam claims Abraham from long before Muhammad was reckoned to be the forefather of the Arabs via his son Ishmael. But we have seen claims that even this is made up by Muhammad. We have not been able to find out what is the truth here (that Ishmael is one of very many forefathers of the Arabs, is very unlikely as his descendants according to the only perhaps reliable source about this - the Bible - tells his descendants settled down in the area to the east of where the Suez Canal now runs, but not totally impossible), but if Muhammad made up also this, it is one more nail in the casket. We here remind you that modern DNA proves that the Arabs have no common forefather - they are of very mixed heritage.

    057 22/26ab: “Behold, We (Allah) gave the site, to Abraham, of the (sacred) House - - -”. Mecca lies some 750 miles (some 1200 km) from where Abraham normally lived - much of the distance hot, forbidding and rough Arab Desert. The Quran tells he built a big mosque in an empty, dry narrow desert valley without water or anything, except one well, for himself and his family - in the valley where Mecca grew up many centuries later. The Quran also claims Abraham was a good Muslim - and Muslims shall visit their mosques at least every Friday. 750 miles/1200 km and back through forbidding terrain every Friday? - even just now and then?

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

    Further: The camel was not introduced in the area where Abraham lived until the Assyrians started trade with South Arabia in the 8. century BC.

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

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

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

    Well, believe it if you are able to.

     Added 5. Feb. 2015:

    We today discovered that there has been archeological work done in Mecca and the Mecca valley. (By Muslims as only Muslims are permitted there.) The conclusion: "No traces found from buildings earlier than the 4. century AD" (= at least 2100 years after Abraham). "The first temple/mosque likely built in the 5. century AD" (= at least 2200 years after Abraham). No comments necessary.

    058 22/78e: "- - - it (Islam*) is the cult of your father Abraham". For one thing it is unlikely Abraham is the forefather of the Arabs - Ishmael and his sons settled near the border of Egypt, according to the Bible (written at a time when there was no reason for the writer to falsify this), not in Arabia (1. Mos. 25/18). Also DNA-analysis indicate that the Arabs in reality is a mixture of people who drifted into the desert from different places and nations when the domestication of the camel made life there possible + the result of being at a crossroad for the caravans + the result of large import of slaves/concubines from Europe, Asia and Africa. What once - impolitely - was called a bastard production. And for another thing there is no reason to believe Islam was Abraham's religion, but strong reason reasons for to believe that the claim is wrong. Islam will have to produce proofs in order to be believed by us.

    059 32/3g: “- - - thou (Muhammad*) mayst admonish a people to whom no warner has come before thee - - -.” But:

    1. 2/125-129: These verses reminds Muslims about that according to the Quran both Abraham and Ishmael lived and worked in Mecca (according to the Quran) – 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 - he "admonished" in Mecca before Muhammad (at least according to the Quran).
    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) may be 100ooo years ago. 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 or Abraham perhaps 3800 - 4ooo years ago?
    3. 16/36: “For We (Allah*) assuredly sent amongst every People a Messenger.” See 10/47 just above.
    4. 35/24: “- - - and there never was a people, without a warner having lived among them (in the past).” A very clear contradiction.

     

    Besides there were prophets like Hud, Salih and Shu’ayb who lived (according to the Quran) some generations after Noah, but long before Moses, not to mention Muhammad.

    (Min. 6 contradictions.)

    060 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.)

    #061 37/101: "- - - a boy - - -". This is meant to be Ishmael, the son Abraham got with the Egyptian slave woman, Hagar, and whom the Arabs claim are their forefather - even though the Bible tells he and his mother settled near the border of Egypt - 1. Mos. 25/18. (The Quran claims he settled in Mecca - a claim which extremely unlikely can be true).

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

    062 37/102b: Even if we omit the fact that here it is indicated that Ishmael is the boy, whereas the Bible clearly says it was Isaac (Abraham's son with his wife Sarah), this scene is told in a fundamentally different way in the Bible - more dramatic (1. Mos. 22/2-8).

    063 37/102-103: The testing of Abraham. The name of the boy is not mentioned here, but other places the Quran claims that it was Ishmael. The Bible says it was Isaac.

    If the time sequences given in the Bible are correct, the boy cannot have been Ishmael. See 37/103 just below.

    064 37/103: (YA4101): YA argues that as the Bible says that as the god ordered Abraham to sacrifice his only son (f.x. 1. Mos. 22/2), this must mean that Abraham was ordered to sacrifice Ishmael, and that this happened after Ishmael - the oldest of the two - was born, but before Isaac was born, and Abraham only had one son. But:

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

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

     

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

    065 37/112a: "- - - We (Allah*) gave him (Abraham*) the good news of Isaac - - -". Contradicted by the Bible which clearly states he got this message from Yahweh, not from Allah. (Isaac was Abraham's son with his first wife Sarah. According to the Bible he was some 13 years younger than Ishmael (1. Mos. 16/15 - 17/1). Also see 67/9c below - a strong one. But of course it is ok for Islam to prove - prove - the Bible wrong and the Quran right. But as we say: Prove, not just loose claims and as loose and invalid words like the Quran always use instead of proofs.

    066 37/113b: "We (in the Quran claimed to be Allah*) blessed him (Abram/Abraham*) and Isaac - - -". Abram/Abraham according to the Bible (and the Quran) became the one who started the Jewish people - through Isaac and Isaac's son Jacob. Ishmael and his children settle on the border of Egypt (1. Mos. 25/18) and mainly disappears from the story, except that Muhammad some 2500 years later claims they settled in Mecca and were the forefathers of the in reality mixed up peoples (proved also by modern DNA) living in Arabia, later named Arabs.

    067 38/48b: "- - - Ishmael - - -". There is no indication in the Bible for that Ishmael was a prophet. He became the father of 12 tribal rulers (1. Mos. 25/16) "near the border of Egypt" (1. Mos. 25/18), but not a single indication anywhere of being a prophet.

    *068 39/12b: (likely 615-617 AD:) “And I (Muhammad*) am commanded to be the first of those who bow to Allah in Islam.” How is that possible if the Quran is correct and lots of people had been Muslims before him, and bowed to Allah? (Though in reality it is highly likely he was right: That he was the first one ever). Muslims explain that it means the first in a community, but that is not what the Quran says. Besides both Abraham and Ishmael according to what the Quran claims, lived and of course preached in Mecca - at least for some time - and there according to the Quran also were Hud, Salih, and Shu'ayb. Also see 6/14d above.

    (At least 6 contradictions).

    069 48/11b: "The desert Arabs who lagged behind - - -". Desert Arabs of any quantity did not exist until after the camel was domesticated a few thousand (4ooo?) years ago, and thus a time anomaly for claimed Muslims reading claimed copies of the claimed "Mother Book" - similar to the Quran - before that.

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

    One fact here: The camel was not introduced as far north as where Muhammad lived, until the Assyrians started trade with South Arabia in the 8. century BC.

    69 + 3374 = 3443 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".