Humans, Other Beings in/Relevant to the Quran, Part 22

 

136.   JEWS

The name "Jew" derives from the name of the southern kingdom, "Judah" - which again derives from the name of one of the Hebrew tribes, the "Judah" tribe, which was named from that tribe's founding father, the fourth son of the patriarch Jacob and his first wife, Leah, Judah (1. Mos. 35/23).

For the sake of convenience and to underline that they were and are the same people, we use this name for the Hebrews also in the oldest times.

Mainly for religious reasons the Jews through the times have been treated differently from other people. There f.x. in large areas were prohibitions for the Jews to own land, which did that they could not become farmers, the main way of living in the old times. Instead they had to turn to different "free" professions, study, and trade. This meant that a disproportionally part of educated persons, professionals, teachers, businessmen, bankers, etc. were Jews. An effect of this was that a number of them got influence and power because of education and/or money - in f.x. business and banking one may become rich.

But the claims that the Jews are aspiring for world dominance, etc., etc. is nonsense without any scientific backing, based on made up conspiracy theories, lack of real knowledge, the need for some parts' - like the Nazis and others - need for "prügelknaben" (some ones to blame for problems, etc.), etc. Just like the majority of the Muslims, the Jews just are ordinary normal human beings.

We may add that for Muslims to blame and criticize Jews for aspiring world dominance is extra ironic, as that is just what Muslims and Islam are aspiring - it is one of the official goals for Islam, nailed down with heavy nails in the Quran. Then to scold others for wanting the same - and scold them only because of constructed conspiracy theories, claims, etc. without real facts (as opposed to in Islam where it is an unmistakable and strongly documented fact) - is a bit, well, ironic. And unjust. But then real justice is not a strong side of Islam, as their moral code on many points is a bit "peculiar" and far from in accordance with "do to others like you want others do to you". (The moral code of Islam has many similarities to the one of the Mafia, the Chinese Triads, the Cosa Nostra, and other such organizations.)

Whereas the Jews' moral code, etc. is based on OT, as they do not accept Jesus and NT - Jesus was too far from the earthly powerful Messiah they hoped for. And today it is even more difficult for them to accept him and it - if Jesus really was the awaited Messiah, their denial of him made the Diaspora and the Holocaust all in vain.

For more see next chapter: Jews in the Quran.

0 + 3862 = 3862 comments (+ basic comments/introductions).


 

137.  JEWS IN THE QURAN

There were quite a lot of Jews living in Medina. Over a few years Muhammad drove away, killed/murdered, or enslaved the 3 main tribes, banu Nadir, banu Qaynuqa, and banu Qurayza. Some of his deeds in these connections are black spots on his moral code and on any claimed "good and benevolent" god's moral code. F.x. rape, betrayal, torture, murder, mass murder. But as this was done by the idol Muhammad, everything according to the Quran and to Islam was morally ok - - - and can be done by Muslims also today, just because it was done by Muhammad, and thus is ok. morally.

As Jews, Christians, and their religions are rather central in the Quran and essential backgrounds for the religion Islam, we are somewhat thorough on these points.

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

*001 2/4d: “- - - the Revelation (the Quran*) sent to thee (Muhammad*), and sent before thy time (= the Torah/Bible*) - - -.” The Quran claims the Jews and the Christians received scriptures similar to the Quran, but falsified them into the scriptures one finds in the Bible. Wrong. The Quran is not the same as the Torah or the Bible, and science has proved far beyond any reasonable, unreasonable, or judicial doubt that the Bible never was falsified - some mistakes, but no falsifications. Islam has proved the same even stronger, by being unable to find one single proved falsification among 300 known copies of or fragments from the Gospels, some 13ooo from other parts of the Bible and some 32ooo other manuscripts with quotes from or reference to the Bible. It also is very clear that Islam has not the slightest documentation for their repeated claims – guess if they had been quick to produce it if they had had even a tiny wee bit of a proof!!

A serious point here is that if the Bible is not falsified, many points in the Quran is wrong - and what then is Islam?

2 serious points: A: There exists not one single copy or fragment from a book like the Quran older than 610 AD, in spite of that according to Hadiths 124ooo or more books were sent down from Heaven + copies made from them. B: As Islam was the original religion all over the world, also all other religions must be falsified copies of Islam, or new religions stronger than Islam and Allah, so that they have ousted that claimed god and his claimed religion. Not a strong god in case.

002 2/6c: "As to those who reject faith (Islam*), it is the same to them whether thou (Muhammad*) warn them or do not warn them; they will not believe". This is from the earliest period of Medina, and Muhammad had not really started his harsh regime yet (how harsh it was when he dictated just this verse, depends on just when during these some 2 years (622-624 AD) it was dictated). The Jews in Medina would not listen to his teachings.

003 2/6d: "- - - they (non-Muslims, here mainly Jews*) will not believe". Muhammad told his audience this was because "they" were bad people. The real reason was that the Jews in Medina would not listen to his teachings, because they saw the big differences between his new religion and their scriptures, and of course saw that there was much wrong in his claims that it was the same god and the same religion.

004 2/25i: "- - - companions pure - - -". These are the famous houris - the beautiful and willing women whom nobody knows where come from. How is Paradise for them? - having to serve and be sex toys for uneducated, self centered, rough and worse warriors for eternity? (The Quran does not mention sex, but it is clearly implicated, and be sure that was what eager young - and not young - primitive warriors were dreaming about during lonesome nights on raids for money and slaves. (Most of Muhammad's many raids were for money and slaves - and extortion afterwards. See separate list about his raids and wars.)) The Quran never mention one word about how they - or the male servants -enjoy life in Paradise. The Quran and Islam do not give a damn about such others, only the good Muslims - and mainly the warriors - from Earth. (This part of Muhammad's teaching is borrowed from Persian pagan religion.)

Actually the Muslim Paradise is quite like the Zoroastrian one (Zoroastrians mainly lived in Persia, one of the big trading partners for Arabia. The Arabs knew that religion – hardly as well as the Mosaic or the Christian religions, but at least superficially.) The houris there were named paaris. Also see 19/71 above. (Also the Jewish and Christian - and the Muslim one - Hell may have got some inspiration from the Zoroastrian one.)

005 2/40b: "- - - your (Jews'*) Covenant with Me (the god - here indicated Allah*)". The Quran admits here and other places that the Jews had a covenant with their god. It was broken and mistreated - and renewed - many times. But it is nowhere even in the Quran really said it was ever terminated - and definitely not in the Bible. And if it was never terminated (though Muslims say the opposite), at least formally it is active and valid even today. It may be a point here that Jesus renewed it (f.x. Luke 22/20). It is never said in the Quran that the covenant the Jews had with Yahweh (though Muhammad claimed it was Allah) was valid also for Muslims.

**006 2/41c: “(The Quran*), confirming the revelation (the OT - Old Testament*) which is with you (Jews*) - - -”. The Quran is not confirming OT and absolutely not NT - the fundamental thoughts and teachings are too different especially compared to NT and the new covenant (Matt. 26/28, Mark 14/24, Luke 22/20) – the new covenant which Muslims never mention, and except for the educated ones have never been told about.

007 2/41d: "- - - reject Faith - - -". Correction: The Jews were not rejecting faith, only Muhammad and his new religion, in which they saw much was wrong compared to their now proved not falsified old scriptures.

###008 2/42d: “- - - nor conceal the Truth when you know (what it is)”. The contents of this and the entrance above: This is said by Muslims aimed at the Jews who did not want to misunderstand 5 Mos. 18/15 (and 18/18) to mean that this verse foretells Muhammad - (translated from Swedish): “A prophet from among your own people, from your brothers, the Lord, your God, let come to you. Listen to him”. That means God is saying: “I will let a prophet come forth from among your brothers - - -”.Muslims say “brothers” here mean the Arabs, and that the Bible here talks about Muhammad. But very honestly: The brother of Jews is another Jew, especially as it is said he shall come “from among your own people” - the Jews’ own people. (We use the word Jew, because that is the normal word today, even if the word is much younger than the time of Moses. Also Yusuf Ali uses it). This simply may be foretelling about Jesus, but Muslims have “adjusted” the meaning.

That Moses with "brothers" meant fellow Jews, becomes even more clear when one knows that 5. Mos. is a long speech Moses made to and about his fellow Jews (see 5. Mos. 1/1), and that he during this speech used the word "brother/brothers" figuratively at least 29 places meaning their fellow Jews (+ 2 places meaning the descendants of Esau, to whom the Jews recognized relationship. It is here worth mentioning that these in two cases Esau's descendants were specified, and they are the only 2 places in that speech where it is not clear that Moses by the word "brothers" meant fellow Jews - and nowhere are Arabs said to be relatives of the Jews - nowhere in all the Bible) - several places he even uses the expression "brother Israelites".

Actually the word “brother” or similar is used in figurative meaning at least 98 times in OT according to our last leafing through the Bible, nearly always meaning another Jew or other Jews (1 exception: A king talks to another king. A very few other exceptions: About Lot’s people and about Edomites - descendants of Esau, the brother of the patriarch Jacob), and absolutely never about Arabs. Arabs and Arabia are mentioned something like 15 times in the OT – without exception either in neutral forms or as enemies, never as friends or relatives (see further down). Worse – and never mentioned by Muslims: The word "brother" is used in the Quran at least 30 times, and always about fellow (Muslim) Arabs (one exception, where the main point is that the bad and hypocrites stick together). There simply exists no place neither in the Bible nor in the Quran expressing brotherhood between Jews and Arabs (but many to the contrary). Besides 5. Mos. 15. and 18. continues into 21. (NEVER mentioned by Muslims) which explains that one will recognize the Lord’s prophet on that they make prophesies, and correct prophesies. Muhammad never made real prophesies – he did not even pretend to or claim to have that gift, not one single time in all the Quran. Aisha also tells in the Hadiths (Al-Bukhari) that "the ones claiming Muhammad could foretell the future, were wrong".(He simply was no real prophet, but borrowed that imposing and impressive title.) On the contrary he was busy explaining away why he was unable to make miracles (prophesying is a kind of miracle - seeing the unseen (in the oldest times the name for a prophet even was "a seer")). Muhammad thus could not – also because of 5. Mos. 8/22. – be Yahweh’s promised prophet. And as he in reality was no prophet at all – he had as mentioned not that gift, and could neither be "a prophet like me (Moses*)" – he absolutely could not be a special prophet as he in reality was no prophet (well, there are made other definitions for a prophet, but without being able to make true prophesies you are no real prophet), and the claim is out of the question.

It simply is a case of a word (brother) that is possible to give more than one meaning, and a religion in dire need from lack of proofs for their presumed god and their presumed prophet, and from sheer necessity because they falsely were promised to find proof or at least indications in the Bible, cling to a meaning which is not intended in the Bible, and foreign to the Bible’s normal use of the word, and then quote it out of context (f.x. 5. Mos. 18/21 even makes Muhammad impossible as an explanation here), but full of wishful thinking.

Also the word "Arabs" or similar is not at all mentioned in the 5 Books of Moses (except that he lived in Midian some years - - - and fought the Midianites a bit later (Muslims claim Midian = Madyan on the west of the Arabian peninsula according to Islam, though Midianites also spread to parts of Sinai. But NB: one does not know that the Midian of Moses was in Arabia - it may have been in Sudan or in Sinai. The Bible gives no direct information about this. But to go to Madyan in Arabia he had to cross the forbidding deserts in Sinai and then cross to Arabia, whereas to go to Sudan he just could go up the fertile Nile Valley.) Besides: As the Bible mentions Mt. Horeb (likely another name for Mt. Sinai (today Jabal Musa (34 degrees east, 28.5 degrees east. 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)), it is most likely by far that Midian was in Sinai. (To be more exact: The Sinai Mountain, or really s mountainous areas, has several peaks, the highest of which are Dsjabal (Mountain) Katharina (2880 m) and Dsjabal Musa (Moses' Mountain - 2285 m). The latter one perhaps is what in the Bible is named Mt. Horeb.(But as the Bible is unclear about exactly where Moses received the 10 commandments, and there is a possibility that this and other central happenings took place in the area of Kadesh-Barnea (some 50 miles/80 km south of Beersheva or Be'er Sheva). If that is the case, there is a possibility for that Mt. Horeb was in Madyan, east of Aqaba.)

You can find the word "Arab" or similar at least these places in OT:

  • 1: 4. Mos. 31/2-10: (if you here read "Arabs") (enemies of the Jews).
  • 2: Judges 6/1: Midianites (if you here read "Arabs") (enemies of the Jews).
  • 3: Judges 6/11: Midianites (if you here read "Arabs") (enemies of the Jews).
  • 4: Judges 6/14: Midian's (if you here read "Arabs") (enemies of the Jews).
  • 5: Judges 6/16: Midianites (if you here read "Arabs") (enemies of the Jews).
  • 6: 1. Kings 10/15 (revenue to King Solomon).
  • 7: 2. Chr. 9/14 (revenue - tax? - to King Solomon.
  • 8: 2. Chr. 17/11 (tribute to King Jehoshaphat of Jerusalem).
  • 9: 2. Chr. 21/16 (enemies of the Jews).
  • 10: 2. Chr. 22/1 (enemies of the Jews).
  • 11: 2. Chr. 26/7 (enemies of the Jews).
  • 12: Neh. 2/19 (enemies of the Jews).
  • 13: Neh. 4/7 (enemies of the Jews).
  • 14: Neh. 6/1 (enemies of the Jews).
  • 15: Isaiah 13/20 (just mentioned - in a neutral way).
  • 16: Isaiah 21/13a (a prophesy against Arabia).
  • 17: Isaiah 21/13b (from the same prophesy as just above).
  • 18: Jer. 25/24 (must drink the cup of Yahweh's Wrath).
  • 19: Ez. 27/21 (made business with the city of Tyre).

  • 20: Ez. 30/5 (another prophesy against Arabia).
  • 21: Judges 8/24: Ishmaelites (if you here read "Arabs", but they likely were not) (neutral connection).
  • 22: Judges 8/24: Ishmaelites (if you here read "Arabs", but they likely were not) (enemies of the Jews).
  • 23: Psalms 83/6: Ishmaelites (if you here read "Arabs", but they likely were not) (enemies of the Jews).
  •  

All together 20 + 3 times if you include "Midianites", etc., (but not the Ishmaelites as thy according to the Bible lived too far from Arabia to be Arabs), always either in neutral words, in negative words or in strongly negative words (enemies). There nowhere any hint of friendship, not to mention brotherhood. As bad: Also in the Quran there are nowhere any words about brotherhood between Jews and Arabs.

To be complete: The word also is mentioned in NT - though no Arab or Arabia is mentioned in the Gospels - in Acts 2/11, Gal. 1/17 and Gal. 4/25, each time in neutral form. All together 3 time in NT (perhaps + 1-2 - se the next sentences) + 20 in OT = 23 places. And a small PS to completeness: Muslim sources claim that the word "nomad" in Jer. 3/2 really should have been translated "Arab" - in case a neutral mentioning. They also claim that the name "Kedar" in f.x. Song 1/5, Is. 60/7 = "Arab". Now Kedar was the second son of Ishmael (1. Chr. 1/29), who all lived near the border of Egypt (1. Mos. 25/18), so it is unlikely they were the forefathers of the Arabs (this even more so as Arabia was settled earlier - may be as early as 3ooo-4ooo BC (earlier along the coast - the Neolithic period there is reckoned from ca. 6500 BC)) - if Ishmael ever lived, he lived around 1800 BC) - but the descendants of Ishmael in case were enemies of the Jews (1. Mos. 25/18).

(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.)

##Islam will have to produce strong proofs if they want anyone to believe that Moses meant Arabs and Muhammad in 5. Mos. 18/15 and 18/18. After all it is they who produce this unlikely claim, and then it is up to them to prove it – not up to others to disprove it. (But then Islam lives on unproved claims and statements and blind belief - demand proofs from a Muslim in a debate, and you often win the debate, because he has not one single real proofs about central claims - a lot of arguments, but not one of them based on real proofs when you debate central religious facts - or claimed facts).

To be blunt: The claim not true. One simply has carefully cherry-picked a couple of quotes, taken them out of context, omitted all the points in the texts proving the claims are wrong, and finally twisted the surrounding facts to make the quotes fit the answer Islam desperately - and the word is literally meant - needs, as the Quran as mentioned claims Muhammad is mentioned both in OT and in NT and he simply is not there, a fact they cannot afford to admit, because this will prove that things are much wrong with the Quran and thus with Islam. Muslims often claim that you cannot understand texts in the Quran unless you know the entire Quran or at least all the relevant surahs. But they themselves frequently cherry-pick sentences, omit the contexts and texts proving the claimed meaning of the quotes wrong, and with some twisting get "strong" evidence for what they want to believe, is true.

To be complete: The word also is mentioned in NT in Acts 2/11, Gal. 1/17 and Gal. 4/25, each time in neutral form. And a small PS to completeness: Muslim sources claim that the word "nomad" in Jer. 3/2 really should have been translated "Arab" - in case a neutral mentioning. They also claim that the name "Kedar" in f.x. Song 1/5, Is. 60/7 = "Arab". Now Kedar was the second son of Ishmael (1. Chr. 1/29), who all lived near the border of Egypt (1. Mos. 25/18), so it is unlikely they were the forefathers of the Arabs (this even more so as Arabia was settled earlier - may be as early as 7ooo BC - if Ishmael ever lived, he lived around 1800 BC) - but the descendants of Ishmael in case were enemies of the Jews (1. Mos. 25/18).

(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.)

*009 2/42e: “- - - nor conceal the Truth when you know (what it is)”. A bit ironic: The non-Muslims - here primarily the local Jews - shall tell the truth, whereas Muslims can use al-Taqiyya (the lawful lie), Kitman (the lawful half-truth). etc., deceit (because the good idol Muhammad used it), and even broken oaths. And doubly ironic as the Jews told the truth when they told what OT said - it was Muhammad who relied on incorrect apocryphal (made up) tales, legends and even fairy tales, and thus got on to a wrong track.

010 2/44c: "Will ye (Jews*) not understand?". Most likely that just was the problem: The Jews understood that Yahweh and Allah could not be the same god - and that something was wrong with Muhammad's new religion. Much wrong.

011 2/47a: "O Children of Israel! Call to mind the (special) favor which I bestowed upon you, and that I preferred you to all others (for My Message (this seems not to be in the original Arab text, but added by the translator - may be to reduce the value of the message))." This refers to the Covenant Yahweh made with Abraham and later renewed with the Jews several times - the last time mentioned in the relevant books around 30 AD by Jesus ("the New Covenant" - f.x. Luke 22/20). This has at least one serious implication which Muslims NEVER mention when they scold the Jews for haughtily, etc. believing they will be saved, or at least have a special relationship to Yahweh: This old covenant has never been terminated (though Muslims like to say the opposite), and it is the old covenant Jews rely on, not their relationship to Abraham. Broken and disused and renewed, but never terminated: It has been disused and maltreated, but Yahweh never has ended it. Religious Jews and Israel therefore acted because of the covenant and because they saw a lot of mistakes in the Quran, not because of haughtiness, stupidity, etc. And as you see even the Quran accepts that Israel/the Jews have a special standing onto Yahweh - superstition or not.

012 2/49a: “- - - We (Allah*) delivered you from the people of Pharaoh (who*) - - - slaughtered your sons - - -“. Actually this is in accordance with what the Bible tells (The Quran tells the baby Moses was put to the Nile (20/39) but does not give a reason for such a crime. The Bible tells that it was because of a royal order to kill all Jewish boy babies). But it contradicts two verses in the Quran that told not that it was done, but that Pharaoh would start doing it during the confrontation with Moses. (Similar in 7/141 and 14/6).

013 2/49b: “- - - We (Allah*) delivered you from the people of Pharaoh - - -". A time anomaly if the claimed "Mother Book" was copied before ca. 1335 BC when this happened - earlier people would not understand the reference. Also see 4/13d below.

014 2/49c: For the ones not knowing the Bible well: Times changed for the Jews (we know this name was not coined until much later, but it is normal to use it). They were made slaves and set to hard and grueling work, but as they all the same multiplied, the Pharaoh ordered all Jewish male babies to be killed. This according to the Bible - read Exodus (= 2. Mos.) 1/8-22 in OT (at the same time you will see which book of the Bible and the Quran is best literature also on this point).

015 2/49e: "- - - a tremendous trial from your Lord - - -". Contradicting the Bible - according to the Bible this was not a trial from Yahweh, but from the Egyptians.

016 2/50a: “- - - We (Allah*) divided the sea for you (Moses and his Jews*) - - -“. From other places in the Quran (and in most translations of the Bible) it is told that this was the Red Sea. But in the Hebrew original the name is Yam Suph, which as well can mean “The Sea of Reeds” (this also is confirmed in many footnotes in NIV (“New International Version” of the Bible)). The Sea of Reeds (also called the Timsah Sea) used to be a big lake where the Suez Canal now runs – not far from the Bitter Seas. The name tells it was just a shallow lake – the longest reeds we have been able to find, is a kind of rice that can be up to 5 - 7 m long and grows in the big sea Tonle Sap in Cambodia, and the reeds growing in this area of Egypt are shorter - - - and the water cannot be deeper than the reeds get their “heads” above the water to get that name.

Also look at the map: Goshen where the Jews settled was in the river delta of the Nile. To get to Sinai they had to go south-south-east. It would be stupidity beyond any credibility to go so far west that they ended at the western side of the Red Sea instead of walking all the way on dry land, and thus force such a huge number of people and animals to cross the sea by boats they did not have (remember they did not know about the opening of the sea – fire/smoke-column or not (= the pathfinder/Yahweh according to the Bible)). After all they according to the Bible were 600ooo men + women + children + animals and belongings = some 2.ooo.ooo humans at least. (Theoretically it is quite possible for 70 – 100 (depending on how many wives his 11 sons in the group had) persons that came with Jacob + Joseph and his family, to become may be 2.ooo.ooo “Jews” 430 years later.)

Science tells that – if the Exodus took place – the “Jews” quite likely were overtaken as they marched or camped along that lake, just like the Hebrew name in the OT may indicate.

017 2/51a: "- - - ye (Jews) took the calf (for worship) - - -". During Moses' absence when he received the 10 Commandments, the Jews made a calf from gold to use as a god (according to history a custom in Egypt (a symbol for the holy ox Apis) - though mostly not from gold).

018 2/51b: "- - - in his (Moses'*) absence ye (the Jews*) took the calf (for worship), and did grievous wrong". How come that this could be written in the claimed "Mother Book"? Muslims do not quite agree on how old the claimed "Mother Book" is - either it is made by Allah before man was even created, or it has existed since eternity and is never made. In both cases it in case is older than Adam, and unchangeable - the word of Allah is unchangeable. And in both cases it is claimed written long before the time when the different stories in the Quran took place and long before the persons were even born.

But to tell a story where people are involved, millennia’s and more before it happens or to quote persons eons before something is said, only - only - is possible if Allah really predestines everything in absolutely all details - just like the Quran claims many places. Not the most miniscule detail can be changed from what he predestines, because if even the smallest detail is changed, the laws of chaos will throw the foreseen act or words wide off the track. This in case is a 100% proof for that in Islam man has no free will - if he had, he could always change his mind once more about whatever it was - - - and what Allah foresaw or predestined suddenly was wrong. Man just is a puppet on a string.

Even Islam admits that it is not possible to understand how Allah can predestine everything, and man at the same time has free will. We quote Muhammad Asad, "The message of the Quran (A6/141 - in the English 2008 edition A6/143): "- - - the real relationship between Allah's knowledge of the future (and, therefore, the ineluctability of what is to happen in the future) on one side, and man's free will, on the other - two propositions which, on the face of it, seem to contradict one another - is beyond man's comprehension - - -" (but the book continues lamely that all the same it has to be true, because Allah says so in the Quran - the brain giving in to blind belief). Actually predestination contra man's free will is a version of the "time travel paradox" - a paradox which is proved unsolvable. And actually in the non-material realms of life there are things impossible also for an omniscient and omnipotent god. The perhaps easiest way to show this, is to make a god add one mathematical 1 with another mathematical 1. The only possible answer even for a god is the mathematical 2. Predestination versus free will of man is another such non-material unsolvable case - unsolvable even for a god. Therefore, if Allah predestines everything, man has no free will, no matter what the Quran claims - just one more of the many mistakes in that book - or what Islam and its Muslims want to believe. Islam's opposite claim here is mysticism.

But if man has no free will, Allah has no moral right to punish - or reward - him/her for what he or she does. We again quote from the same remark from "The Message of the Quran": "- - - the very concept of morality and moral responsibility presupposes free will on man's part". Which means that if Allah predestines everything and man thus has no free will, it is immoral for Allah to punish man for his/her deeds or words which he/she/they has/have been forced to act by Allah's predestination. (But Muhammad needed predestination to make his warriors believe war was not dangerous, and he needed free will of man to make his followers believe Allah was fair when threatening with Hell.)

Then we finally are back to the quote from the Quran at the start of this remark: For this quote to be correct in a book claimed to be thousands and millions and even billions of years old, there only is one possible explanation: Allah predestines absolutely every detail in the world and in your life. If what the Quran here tells is correct, this means full predestination and no free will for man. There is no alternative to this.

Which means Allah is an extremely unjust god rewarding some of his marionettes and damning others to Hell because he has forced them to do bad things.

Another effect of the predestined texts in the Quran - written long before things happened, and copies sent down to all the many (124ooo?) claimed prophets and messengers for Islam, is that those prophets plainly could read about future persons and stories - though in many cases with references they could not understand. This is an inevitable effect of the "fact" that the claimed "Mother Book" naturally was/is unchangeable, and so was and is the words of Muhammad, and of the fact that all books claimed sent down by Allah, was copies of the Mother Book (and copies of one book naturally are identical - here = the Quran, which was and is claimed to be such a copy). Noah could read about Abraham and Jacob and Joseph, Abraham could read about what he himself was going to do, what battles he was going to win, etc., and about f.x. Moses and Jesus - and Muhammad. Etc., etc., etc. There is no indication about such an effect in the Quran, though, and also Islam and Muslims never mention it.

Perhaps Muhammad and Allah did not think about this inevitable result from giving prophets of the very old, copies of the claimed "Mother Book" - similar to the Quran?

(Muslims will here claim that the Quran tells the different prophets got different books, as the Quran tells they were sent new books. That the Quran says new books were sent down, is correct. But as it also implies that those books were copies of the claimed "Mother Book", an unchangeable book from a god whose word was/is unchangeable, this only can mean new copies of the same book - and copies of one and the same book are similar, and in this case similar to the Quran, as also the Quran is claimed to be a copy of that book.) One more and big contradiction in the Quran.

The point quoted on top of this comment, is one of the many in the Quran which impossibly could have been written into the claimed "Mother Book" (13/39b, 43/4b, 85/21-22 below) in the far distant past, unless Allah predestines everything 100%. We will point to a number of other such points, but far from all - only some of the most obvious ones. All incidents and quotes where humans are involved and could have changed something, is a case which could not have been written into the claimed "Mother Book" a really long time ago if Allah did not predestine absolutely everything. Just go looking and you will find - but you will find no real explanation from Islam or its Muslims.

One final point: Islam tells that Allah (and his angels) reveres the claimed "Mother Book" in his Heaven. It is highly unlikely Allah would revere his own work - only Pagans revere things they have made themselves. Which means that the other claimed explanation for the existence of the Quran must be the true one: The Quran is never made, but has existed since eternity. But in that case it is even more impossible to have in the Quran things which was to happen or to be said much later, unless the predestination is absolute - With a much larger time-scale the chances for that things might happen or be said which would change the future is much larger.

019 2/53f: "- - - guided aright". If the Quran here had referred to the Biblical texts, perhaps this had been correct. But the Quran always refers to claims about something similar to the Quran itself, which it claims the bad Jews and Christians have falsified to get the Bible - never a proof, only lots of claims (which science - and even more so Islam - has proved wrong).

020 2/54a: (A2/39) Moses said: “- - - turn, then, in repentance to your (the Jews’) Maker and mortify yourselves - - -.” Or may be “- - - kill you - - -.” Or may be “- - - kill one another - - -.” The language is too unclear to tell what is the real meaning – at least 3 different ones. (M. Asad has preference for the first meaning, because of other texts in the Quran). And these variants also are in the Arab text, as the relevant word there has more than one meaning.

021 2/55a: (The Jews said): "O Moses! We shall never believe in thee until we see Allah Manifestly." Even if we omit the fact that the Bible talks about Yahweh, not about Allah like the Quran claims, this is in stark contradiction to the Bible which tells that first all the Jews unanimously promised: "We will do everything the Lord (Yahweh*) has said." (2. Mos. 19/8). And shortly afterwards Yahweh himself told he would descend down to Mount Sinai (2. Mos. 19/10-11), whereas the Jews themselves were reluctant and afraid to witness what happened (2. Mos. 20/18). Muhammad had little knowledge about the Bible, etc. This also have some small consequences later in the Quran, as Muhammad once or twice refers to this episode and tells his own troubles are alike the claimed disbelief Moses here met (wrong according to the Bible) - a way to "prove" that he was in a similar position to Moses. Also see 2/108a below.

022 2/55b: (The Jews said): "O Moses! We shall never believe in thee until we see Allah Manifestly." See 2/51b above.

023 2/55-56: Moses and his people: Taken from Talmud (Jewish religious scriptures). This surah arrived(?) shortly after Muhammad fled to Medina where there lived a lot of Jews, which did that he slowly learnt more about the Jewish scriptures.

024 2/56a: "Then We (Allah*) raised you up after your death - - -". Because the Jews had demanded to see the god (not so according to the Bible), they were punished by being killed, but then resurrected afterwards it is said. Muslim scholars disagree about whether it was physical death or some kind of mental death only - as known the original Arab texts far from are clear many times (in spite of claims about the opposite). It should be unnecessary to mention that this tale is in contradiction with the Bible. (Even more so as in the Bible the Jews did not ask to see the god - see 2/55 above). This is not from the Bible.

025 2/57a: "And We (the god) gave you the shade of clouds - - -". If the Jews during the period of 40 years they wandered in the hot desert had had abnormally much clouds, it had been mentioned - such a thing is a miracle in Sinai, just ask the Arabs. This claim also is not from the Bible.

026 2/59b: "The transgressors (here the Jews*) changed the word from that which had been given them - - -". The Quran many times tells that the Jews and Christians received a book similar to the Quran, but falsified it to get the Bible - the Bible thus is a falsification of a book similar to the Quran, according to Muhammad (it was his only possible way of explaining away the differences between what Muhammad claimed the Bible said and what it really said - science has long since proved it wrong - there may be mistakes in the Bible, but no falsifications. Islam has proved the same even stronger than science, by not finding one single case of real falsification among the some 45ooo (?) relevant old manuscript. Guess if they had screamed about it if they had found even one single provable case of falsification in the Bible! And even worse: By using known falsifications from outside the Bible - f.x. the "gospel" of Barnabas - they are telling that "these are the best arguments we have" (if they had had any better, they had used that instead)).

If we had used known faked Hadiths as arguments against Islam, Muslims had not respected neither us nor our arguments very much - about just as little as we who have some knowledge about this, respect them and their arguments when they use known made up stories against Jews or Christians.

027 2/60c: 12 springs gushing forth - copied from pre-Islamic legends. Contradicting the Bible, but quite likely based on a mix up of Biblical texts. 2. Mos. 15/27 says: "Then they (the Jews) came to Elim, where there were 12 springs - - -", and later in Rephidim: "(Yahweh said*)"'Strike the rock, and water will come out of it for the people to drink'. So Moses did in the sight of the elders of Israel (and a spring appeared*)". 2 different incidents mixed up in the Quran it seems. The old problem: Muhammad did not know the Bible and took his(? - he may have had helpers) stories from tales, legends and fairy tales circulating in Arabia.

028 2/61g: "(The Jews*) went on - - - slaying His Messengers - - -". Similar things is said several places in the Quran. But read through the Bible and see how many - or few - of the named prophets who in reality were killed. (There also were unnamed prophets, but the percentage should be similar).

029 2/62b: “Those who believe (in the Quran), and those who follow the Jewish (scriptures), and the Christians and the Sabeans – any who believe in Allah (= God/Yahweh here*) and the Last Day, and work righteousness, shall have their reward with their Lord (go to Heaven*) - - -“. Contradicted - and abrogated - by:

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

 

(7 contradictions).

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

030 2/63a: "- - - We (Allah*) raised above you (the towering height of) Mount (Sinai) - - -." But what the Arab original text really says, is: "- - - We (Allah*) raised the mountain above you - - -" - i.e. it was held over them like a roof or a cloud. There is nothing like this in the Bible. (The story in reality is from a legend). It tells something that the translated text is modified, and in a way which makes it less unbelievable to educated westerners used to critical thinking - but it is a dishonest translation.

But that Allah held the mountain over the Jews and shook it (like 7/171 adds) belongs in a collection of "sailors' stories", and is a good competitor to f.x. the stories about Baron von Münchausen - super-overstated fun stories. We had a good laugh from it. (This story is repeated in 2/93 and in 7/171 and thus must have been a heavy - in double meaning - argument. A local fairy tale a heavy argument in a holy book from an universal and timeless god is in itself quite funny.)

031 2/65b: People transformed to apes - copied from a popular Arab legend of those times - a group of Jews did not respect the Sabbath and were punished by being transformed to apes. But: Nothing like this in the Bible.

032 2/75b: “- - - seeing that a party of them (the Jews and/or Christians*) heard the word of Allah, and perverted it knowingly after they understood it - - -.” Wrong. Science have shown very clearly that the Bible is not falsified - empirical proofs with combined strength 100% – and consequently that it has never been something like the Quran, which here is claimed or indicated. If Islam means something else, they will have to bring proofs, not only loose claims and even looser statements. If Islam had had even a small proof, the world had been forced to hear it every two hours or more – at least. (The fact is, however, that Islam has proved even stronger than science that the claims about falsification of the Bible is wrong, by for one thing being unable to explain how it would be technically possible to falsify may be a few hundred thousand (some 45ooo has survived till today, and there must have been many more) manuscripts on 3 continents in exactly the same ways, for another how it was possible to do it so perfect that modern science is unable to find traces from the falsifications, for a third how it was possible to make Jews, Christians, and different sects to agree on making exactly the same falsifications (f.x. about Jesus), and for the fourth there is no credible claims for when all these falsifications should have been done, and for the fifth - and very essential; by the fact that Islam - and science - has been unable to find even one single proved falsification of a relevant manuscript.

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

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

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

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

 

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

And for what reason? Just in order to be right, instead of to try to find out what is right. #####This in spite of the fact that the price if they are wrong, is the loss of the soul of each and every Muslim - - - if there is a Hell in the perhaps next life. Also see 2/130a, 3/24d and 3/77a below. And remember here: If the Bible is not falsified, MUCH is wrong in the Quran and in Islam. And both science and Islam have proved that the Bible is not falsified.

033 2/75c: "- - - (the Jews and Christians*) perverted it (the Quran Muhammad claimed they had received from their god, but which he claimed they had perverted into the Bible*) after they understood it". This is what Muhammad claimed about the Bible - to claim the Bible was falsified, was his only way out if he wanted to save his religion and thus his platform of power.

034 2/75d: “- - - seeing that a party of them (the Jews and/or Christians*) heard the word of Allah, and perverted it knowingly after they understood it - - -.” Contradicted by the Bible (which both science and Islam have proved is not falsified) by the fact that it tells exactly what most Christians (and Jews for OT) tell - and told - it says. 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.

035 2/77a: "Know they not that Allah knoweth what they conceal and what they reveal?". This is a rather obscure verse, but Muslims frequently claim it is about the old Islamic claim that Muhammad was mentioned in the Bible, but that the Jews and the Christians have falsified it or at other points refuse to see what they claim is the real, though obscure, meaning of some verses in the book. Once more the old facts:

  1. Islam has not one single valid proof for Allah - it does not exist, even though uneducated or dishonest Muslims often try to claim the opposite. Serious Muslim scholars admit this, though they normally do not tell their congregations.
  2. Islam has not one single valid proof for Muhammad's connection to a god - which is the likely reason why they cling so strongly to the claimed "miracles" connected to Muhammad in the Hadiths, even though the Quran very clearly proves Muhammad was not connected to any miracle (then friends and foes did not have to ask for proofs, and he himself did not have to explain away his/Allah's lack of miracles - even the learned scholars of Islam admits that "the only miracle connected to Muhammad, is the Quran". The lack of proof for his connection to a god, also is a main reason why Muslims reacts so strongly to skepticism to Muhammad - he is the weak link in Islam, but if this link is broken, Islam is a false religion. They thus cannot afford the slightest doubts about Muhammad or his integrity. After all for Islam belief is more essential than to find out if the belief may be true.
  3. Muslims feel dire need to find proofs for both Allah and for Muhammad's connection to a god. No matter how strong the belief, it is not the same as a proof.
  4. In addition the Quran in clear words tells that Muhammad is foretold both in OT and NT, and then Muslims HAVE to find him no matter what or how - if not something is wrong with the Quran and hence with the religion.
  5. It is very clear that Muhammad is not openly mentioned anywhere in the Bible - not even Muslims claim that.
  6. Consequently they go searching for him hidden in the texts - and it is so urgent for them to find him, that wishful thinking is far more central than objectivity.

 

For more see the chapter "Muhammad in the Bible?" in "1000+ Mistakes in the Quran" - http://www.1000mistakes.com. Also see 2/76b above and 7/157e below..

036 2/83e: "Then did ye (Jews*) turn back - - -" = Leave the Islam alone. The text is not clear, but most likely the claim refers to that Jews would not accept Muhammad, which is claimed to mean leaving the real religion the Jews once believed in - - - according to Muhammad's claims - as always never any proofs for his claims. (Remember here that Islam never has brought one single valid proof for falsification of the old Jewish scriptures or the Bible - only claims. Whereas science has proved beyond any reasonable and unreasonable doubt that nothing is falsified - some errors, but no falsification. This also Islam has done by never having found one single documented falsification among the some 45ooo relevant old documents - guess if they had told about it if they had found a proved falsification!).

037 2/85a: "After this (the covenant - the first one was with Abraham around 2ooo-1800 BC, and Muhammad claimed Abraham was the forefather of the Arabs (wrong according to modern DNA, as the Arabs are a hodge-podge of different races originally)) it is ye (Jews*) - - - who slay among yourselves - - -. How can this be in the claimed "Mother Book" written may be billions of years before, and thus copied in the Quran? See 2/51b above.

038 2/85b: "- - - the same people (Jews*), who slay among yourselves - - -". When Muhammad arrived in Medina, the town was in a permanent state of civil war, and with Jews on both sides of the fighting. Thus it could happen that Jew fought - and killed - Jew (actually also the Bible has a number of cases where Jews fought Jews). But how come that this is told in a book claimed to be written long time before - may be even existed since eternity - if man has free will? The moment the book was written, on-one could change his mind or anything about anything - f.x. agree with the enemy to stop fighting - because then the book would be wrong - - - and thus free will for man cannot exist - or full clairvoyance and omniscience for Allah cannot exist.

But NB: Also the Arabs fought among themselves.

039 2/86a: "These are the people who buy the life of this world at the price of the Hereafter - - -". This is one of Muhammad’s standard claims: People who will not believe in him, do so because they are bad or stupid. It also explains why many of them lived a better life than many Muslims - they had "bought" a good life on Earth on the expense of the next life. So be comforted - they will be punished and you win in the next life.

But like so often in the Quran it is unclear what is meant by "the Book". Sometimes it is meant the Bible, sometimes the Quran, and sometimes the claimed "original “Bible, which Muhammad claimed was similar to the Quran (both copies of the same claimed "Mother of the Book" in Heaven), which the bad Jews and Christians both had falsified OT identically + the Christians had falsified NT (Muhammad never was able to prove anything, and both claims are later proved wrong both by science and by Islam).

040 2/88a: "They (the Jews in Medina*) say: "Our hearts are the wrappings (which preserve Allah's Word; we need no more)". The big problem here for Muhammad was that the Jews knew their old scriptures, and saw that so much was wrong in Muhammad's teachings and what he claimed the Bible said, compared to what the old scriptures really said, that they understood something was very wrong. Because of this they did not want his teachings - a fact Muhammad had to explain away, like here where he claims the reason is that they are bad people simply.

041 2/88b: "They (the Jews in Medina*) say: "Our hearts are the wrappings (which preserve Allah's Word; we need no more)". How can this be in the claimed "Mother Book" written may be billions of years before, and thus copied in the Quran? See 2/51b above.

042 2/88c: "Nay, Allah’s curse is on them (non-Muslims, here likely the Jews of Medina*) for their blasphemy: little do they believe". The Quran here claims that the reason why they did not believe in Muhammad, was that Allah had cursed them - psychologically a much better story for Muhammad to tell his followers than the plain reality: The Jews understood from their knowledge of the old scriptures how wrong Muhammad's teachings and his claim that Yahweh and Allah were the same god, were. As 'everyone' know, Muhammad claimed that the discrepancies between the Torah, etc. and the Quran were because the Jews and Christians had falsified the books - his only possible way out if he wanted to save his religion and his own position. Science and even more so Islam later have proved this claim wrong by being unable to prove one single falsification among literally tens of thousands of relevant old manuscripts (the numbers vary some, but some 300 Gospels or fragments of Gospels, some 13ooo scriptures or fragments from the Bible, and some 32ooo other manuscripts with quotes from the Bible, all older than 610 AD when Muhammad started his new religion, and there thus was a reason for falsifying Muhammad and his teachings out - Islam has been unable to prove any point at all in them falsified. Like so often with Islam, there have been - and are - claims, but only claims. (If there had been real proofs, the world had been told about it frequently and in big letters.)

043 2/88e: "- - - little do they (Jews*) believe". Wrong. They really did believe, but in the old scriptures, not in Muhammad's new religion. Something which was far from strange as they saw how different the two religions were, in spite of Muhammad's claims that they were the same religion and the same god. And many proved their beliefs by fleeing or meeting death, rather than accepting the new religion.

*044 2/89a: “And when there comes to them (Jews in Medina*) a Book (the Quran*) from Allah - - -”. A book with that many mistakes, contradictions, cases invalid logic, invalid “proofs” etc., is not from an omniscient god.

#########045 2/89c: “- - - (a Book (the Quran*)) confirming what is with them (Jews and Christians*) (the Torah and the Bible) - - -”. The contents of the Bible - and especially the NT - are so different from the Quran, that it contradicts this claim. The never documented claim from Muhammad that the Bible is falsified also is thoroughly proved wrong by science and even more so by Islam - none of them has been able to find one single proved falsification among some 45ooo relevant manuscripts and fragments. Nobody also have been able to explain how that many papers spread over 3 continents could be falsified in exactly the same way, and in such a way that modern science is unable to find any traces of any falsification - - - or how to make Jews and Christians and sects agree on how to falsify OT - and believing bishops and sects to do the same with NT! Besides: How do you make believing bishops (Islam claims it was done by the bishops during the council in Nicaea in 325 AD) change their holy scripture? - it is exactly as difficult as making ayatollahs agree to falsifying the Quran, and for the same reasons.

##########There only is one short sentence - 6 words - which is identical in those two books - a sentence in Psalm 37/29. Plus the Bible has more than 4 times as much text. How to erase every word in the really old scriptures, then insert 4+ times as much new text on the same rolls or parchment (if they used new rolls/parchment, modern science easily finds the real age). How to make all "falsifications" on 3 continents identical? How to make all owners agree to having their holy scriptures and books totally rewritten and in very different texts? How to arrange and finance such a big operation on 3 continents? - after all it is very time consuming and thus also expensive to re-write big books by hand. How to make bishops agree to total rewriting (and with very different texts) of their holy Bible? - just as easy as to make ayatollahs agree to a full falsification of the entire Quran. Not to mention: How to make all the bishops and others agree on what to write instead of their holy texts - included all new details? Not to mention: How to do all this without one single historian or other writer ever hearing about it and mentioning it in the old journals? And how to do all this without modern science being able to see anything?? These are questions Islam and Muslims never mention. ########But without satisfying answers to all these and more questions, the never documented claims from Muhammad of falsification of the Bible, are false.

#####An as difficult question: How to make the owners of all the old scriptures and others afterwards believe in scriptures they knew were falsified?

At this time it is highly likely Muhammad knew the Jewish scriptures well enough to know this was a lie. And if not, this at least was a lie by omission, as he never later - when he knew even more about those scriptures - corrected his claim, but instead continued to use it.

046 2/89d: "- - - that which they (Jews, Christians*) (should) have recognized - - -". This is contradicted by the fact that the texts of the Bible are so fundamentally different from in the Quran, that it only is possible to recognize very superficial likenesses. 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 often claiming they are proofs. ("A proof is one or more proved facts which can give only one conclusion". Exactly not one of the "signs" (Quran speak for "proof") or "proofs" about/for Allah or the religion - or Muhammad's connection to a god - in the Quran satisfy this rule.

Some other quotes about proofs and invalid or made up proofs:

  1. "Strong claims need strong proofs.
  2. "A claim without a proof maybe dismissed without a proof".
  3. "Claims are cheap, but only proofs are proofs".
  4. "The use of invalid proofs normally proves that something is fishy".
  5. "The cheat or deceiver naturally must rely on claims pretending to be facts or proofs".
  6. "A made up "proof" makes the man very suspect".
  7. "A strong belief is not a proof - not necessarily even a truth"
  8. .
  9. "Wrong claims and invalid "proofs" are working tools of the cheat".
  10. "A student with correct facts gets a more correct answer than 20 professors with wrong facts". (Invalid, "signs", claims, "proofs", etc. of course are wrong facts.)
  11. And we may add from Peer Gynt in his original language: "Naar utgangspunktet er som galest, blir resultatet tidt originalest" - freely translated: "When you conclude from wrong claims/wrong facts/invalid "proofs", etc., you get wrong conclusions".

 

047 2/89e: "- - - those without Faith - - -". = Non-Muslims - only Muslims have faith according to the Quran (though as Muhammad here speaks about Jews, he may mean their holy scriptures, but in what he claimed was the "original, not falsified" forms of those scriptures). Also see 2/99f, 8/55b and 57/27f below.

048 2/89f: “- - - when there comes to them (Jews in Medina*) that (texts which later became the Quran, from Muhammad*) which they should have recognized (indicating they should have recognized the texts from Muhammad in their OT/Torah) - - -". Wrong – the underlying basic thinking and lots and lots of details are so different, that the only thing possible to recognize, is that something is very wrong. Also the books themselves seen as totalities are so very different that there are nearly no similarities between them, except for that some of the stories in them superficially are alike. Also: In the entire 2 books only one sentence - 6 words - is the same. The same god? - only the low-intelligentsia is able to ask that question (if the god is not seriously mentally ill).

049 2/89g: “- - - when there comes to them (Jews in Medina*) that (the texts which later became the Quran*) which they should have recognized - - -". Some Muslims wants also this to refer to the claim that 5. Mos. 18/15 and 18/18 talks about Muhammad. See 2/75b, 2/76b, 2/77a above and not least 7/157e below.

050 2/90a: "Miserable is the price for which they (here likely the Jews*) have sold their souls - - -". Muhammad claimed non-Muslims did not want to listen to him because they had falsified the scriptures and in addition wanted a good life on Earth, and thus that they had "sold" the life in Paradise in a next life for a good life on Earth. Also see 3/77a below.

051 2/90e: "- - - they deny (the revelation) which Allah has sent down, in insolent envy that Allah of His Grace should send it to (a not Jew*) - - -". Muhammad claimed that one reason why the Jews did not believe in him, was that they disliked that a non-Jew had been sent as a prophet. The real reason was that there were so many and so fundamental differences between Muhammad's teachings, and the Jews' not falsified (according to modern science) books, that they saw that it impossibly could be the same religion - and this even before Islam really had become a war religion.

052 2/90g: "- - - thus have they (here the local Jews mainly*) drawn on themselves Wrath upon Wrath". Correct - Muhammad's wrath. He made them flee or enslaved or killed them a few years later.

053 2/91b: "We (the Jews of Media*) believe in what was sent down to us". = the Torah and the other old scriptures (= OT and some more).

054 2/91c: “- - - yet they (the Jews of Medina*) reject all besides - - -". = They rejected Muhammad's new religion. Not strange as he in his naive lack of knowledge claimed it was the same religion, whereas they easily saw how different the Mosaic (Jewish*) religion was from Muhammad's new one. (Christians saw it even easier, but there were not many Christians in Medina.)

055 2/91d: “- - - yet they (the Jews of Medina*) reject all besides, even if it be the Truth (the Quran*)”. That the Quran is the truth, is just a claim, not a proved fact. A book with so many mistaken facts is at best only partly the truth. Also see 13/1g and 40/75 below.

056 2/91e: “- - - yet they (the Jews of Medina*) reject all besides, even if it be the Truth (the Quran*)”. How can this be in the claimed "Mother Book" written may be billions of years before? A time anomaly. See 2/51b above.

057 2/91g: “- - - confirming what is with them (the Torah, etc., (= OT*) and the Bible*)”. The Quran is no confirmation of neither the Torah nor the Bible - see 2/89b above + 2/139a-c and 3/3e+f below. The fundamentals of the religions - and the gods - are too different.

058 2/91h: "Why then have ye (Jews - Christians did not slew prophets, as there were no prophets after this religion grew powerful*) slain the messengers - - -". This is a wrong way of telling it. The Jews did not "slay the prophets", they slew some of the prophets, or actually a few of the prophets. Besides only a few Jews did this - all the others were and are not guilty.

059 2/92aa: "- - - Moses with clear signs - - -". Well, but according to the Bible - remember proved not falsified - those signs in case were from Yahweh, not from Allah.

060 2/92b: "- - - ye (Jews*) worshipped the Calf - - -". In the desert after fleeing from Egypt - during Moses' absence - the Jews made a golden calf as their god (after traditions in Egypt - at least one such calf has been found by archeologists, though not from gold. The "rationale" behind it is the "ox-god" Apis in Egypt which was a symbol or a manifestation of the Egyptian main god Ptah). We may add that this and some of the other comments we write, are elementary for members of the 3 big monotheistic religions, but as we also have many readers from other religions who sometimes do not know too much about details in the mentioned 3 religions - f.x. India with all its Hindus is around country no. 5 of our readers - we try to explain also some of what may be diffuse for them.

061 2/93a: "- - - We (Allah*) raised above you (the Jews*) - - - Mount (Sinai) - - -". Not in the Bible. And as it means Allah lifted the mountain over them, it also hardly is true. Similar is told in 2/63a above and in 7/171 below.

We repeat from 2/63: But that Allah held the mountain over the Jews and shook it (like 7/171 adds) belongs in a collection of sailors' stories, and is a good competitor to f.x. the stories about Baron von Münchausen - super-overstated fun stories. We had a good laugh from it. (This story is repeated in 2/63 and in 7/171 and thus must have been a heavy - in double meaning - argument. A local fairy tale a heavy argument in a holy book from an universal and timeless god is in itself quite funny.)

***062 2/93b: “We (Jews in Medina*) hear and we disobey”. Muhammad claimed Jews said this. But in case it was Muhammad's teaching and laws they disobeyed, not the OT's. It is very clear from the Books of Moses that the Jews agreed to obey the laws (after a few "misses"). That later generations forgot the promise, is another story and not relevant to just this verse.

***063 2/93c: “We (Jews in Medina*) hear and we disobey”. Muhammad Asad adds (A2/77): “Even if they did not say those words, their later behavior justifies this quote”. But words which are not said, are not said, and cannot be quoted in honesty, only in dishonesty – would a god resort to such arguments? And how come that this quote is in the Quran – may be billions of years old and infallible and revered by Allah – if they did not say it? - and how many other made up arguments are there in the Quran?

064 2/93d: “We (Jews in Medina*) hear and we disobey”. A time anomaly if the Quran was sent down to earlier prophets like Muhammad claimed - no-one before 610 AD would understand this reference, no-one through perhaps nearly 200ooo years.

065 2/93f: "Vile indeed are the behests of your (non-Muslims' - here likely Jews'*) Faith if ye have any faith". If one compares the moral code and the moral philosophy of the two, it is a very open question which one is the vilest. That is to say it is impossible to compare the moral philosophies of the two as Islam never has had a moral philosophy, but only the question: "What did Muhammad say or do in similar cases or situations?".

***066 2/94a: “If the last Home, with Allah (Yahweh*), be for you (Jews*) specially, and not for anyone else, then seek for ye death, if ye are sincere - - -“. Wrong - and a contradiction of the Bible. A Jew (or a Christian) cannot seek death to go to Heaven, because self murder – also indirectly – is a serious sin (destroying the gift from God - your life) = end in Hell. Any god had known – but obviously not Muhammad. Worse: Muslim scholars today know this, but use the argument anyhow in their congregations. Al-Taqiyya - the lawful lie.

067 2/95a: “But they (Jews*) will never seek for death, on account of the (sins) which their hands have sent on before them.” The reason in reality is the one mentioned in 2/94a above. And Muslim scholars of today know it, but all the same use this "argument".

068 2/96: "For Allah sees well what they (non-Muslims, here likely Jews*) do". See 2/85c above and 2/233h and 35/38b below.

069 2/97a: "- - - an enemy to Gabriel - - -" = Jews, as it was said that it often was Gabriel who brought the Jews bad news. (But as Gabriel was the one who brought Muhammad Quranic texts according to the Quran, it also may mean "enemies of the Quran/Islam").

070 2/99c: “- - - none reject them (the claimed signs of Allah - though not a single one of them are logically valued proofs for Allah, as there nowhere is proved that Allah is behind them*) but those who are perverse”. The distance between the good Muslims and the bad non-Muslims grows - the latter ones even are perverse!!! (Not to mention the situation if they do not even belong to the People of the Book - Jews, Christians and Sabeans (Sabah/Sheba was a Christian country approximately in what now is Yemen - they had become Christians via East Africa, and perhaps a little different from the Greek Catholic the Arabs met other places - Islam often uses other explanations for the Sabeans, though - see 2/62f above).

There is little reason not to suppress or rob or rape or kill perverted “animals”!!??

071 2/101f: “(Muhammad was*) confirming what (the Bible, etc.*) was with them (the Jews and the Christians*)”. Wrong. See 2/89b above and 2/139a+b and 3/3e+f below.

072 2/101g: “- - - a party of the People of the Book (here Jews – the People of the Book = Jews, Christians and Sabeans, and “the Book” in this case is the Bible*) threw away the Book of Allah (the Quran?*), as if (it had been something) they did not know!” The Quran here tells that the Jews recognized the Quran from the Bible. That is wrong – there are so fundamental differences and so many points which are different between the Quran and the Bible - even the OT - that the only thing that is possible to know, is that something is utterly wrong. One of the proofs for this, is that the absolute majority of the thousands of Jews in the region refused to accept Islam – even in the face of ruin or slavery or death. Also see 2/89b above and 2/130a+b and 3/3e+f below.

073 2/101l: "- - - as if (it (the Quran*) had been something) they (the Jews*) did not know!" When one knows how different the Quran, included its fundamental ideas and thoughts, is from the Bible, and one in addition knows that the Jews knew their own Biblical scriptures, there is little doubt that the plain truth is that they really did not know the Quran in this meaning.

But this also is one of the many points in the Quran where Muhammad (here indirectly) claims that the Bible is a falsified edition of the Quran.

074 2/102c: "- - - Solomon - - -". Son of King David (king ca. 1010 - 970 BC) and following him as king over the Jews in the 900s BC (ca. 970 - 931 BC). A time anomaly. See 4/13d below.

075 2/102i: "- - - if they (the Jews of Medina*) but knew!" But that was exactly what they did - they knew their old books, and when Muhammad said his was the same religion, they knew something was wrong. They knew it so clearly that most of them preferred to flee, to become slaves or to be murdered, instead of changing to the new religion.

076 2/103a: "If they (the Jews in Medina*) had kept their Faith - - -". That was just what they did - and refused to accept Muhammad's new religion. It cost them enormously much - Muhammad killed or enslaved a large part of them, and suppressed the rest. But the fact that they preferred this to accepting Islam, makes a lie to the claims that the Jews confirmed that Islam was to be recognized in the old Jewish scriptures. One Jew or a few Jews, may be. But not "the" Jews.

077 2/103c: "- - - their (Jews' and perhaps Christians'*) Lord (here indicated Allah*) - - -". Wrong. Their god was and is Yahweh. This is a historical fact. See 29/46ec below.

078 2/103d: "- - - if they (the Jews of Medina*) but knew!" But that was exactly what they did - they knew their old books, and when Muhammad said his was the same religion, they knew something was wrong. They knew it so clearly that most of them preferred to flee, to become slaves or to be murdered, instead of changing to the new religion.

**079 2/105e: “But Allah will choose for His special Mercy whom He will - - -“. Muhammad Asad here explains that this is stating that Jews and Christians refused to believe in Muhammad and his Quran, because Muhammad was from the “outside”. The Quran, Islam and Muslims repeats and repeats this unproved claim and disuses it as an “explanation”, whereas the real main reason why they (the Jews and the few Christians*) did not accept Muhammad's new religion, simply was that there were such a number of and such fundamental differences from the Bible, that something obviously was very wrong when Muhammad claimed it was the same religion. Besides, the Jews – the absolute majority of non-Arabs in the area – believed they had a covenant with Yahweh, and both the Quran and modern time Islam and Muslims are dishonest enough never to mention this fact as a main reason for why the Jews were not interested in Muhammad’s teachings: The covenant and the very different religion were the two reasons why they were not interested in Islam – not what the Quran and Islam claims and claims and claims (as normal for them absolutely without any proof or documentation): – that the reason was that Muhammad was not a Jew.

080 2/108a: “Wouldst ye (Muslims*) question your Messenger (Muhammad*) as Moses was questioned of old?” The Quran says that if it was wrong to ask Moses to show people their god, then it is wrong to ask Muhammad for proofs. Muhammad’s logic is not perfect - there is a difference between asking to see a god and asking for proofs of his existence - but it was a way to evade the questions. Besides: According to the Bible, it was Yahweh who chose to come down, not the Jews who asked him - on the contrary it frightened them. (1.Mos. 19/7-11 + 19/18).Also see 2/55 above - though some Muslims claim this refers to all the work Moses had settling disputes before he delegated power to others (1.Mos. 18/17-24) and in this case also this is an acceptable explanation.

081 2/109b: "- - - from selfish envy". The real reason was that they - the Jews - saw that Islam and the Mosaic religion were far too different to be representing the same god like Muhammad claimed, and thus saw that something was seriously wrong. But Muhammad needed another explanation to save his religion and his position and platform of power.

082 2/109f: “- - - but forgive and overlook - - -“. These soft words from the period Muhammad tried to win the Jews for his religion the first 1-2 years after he came to Medina, soon were abrogated by harsh words. This verse is contradicted and often “killed” by at least these verses: 2/191, 2/193, 3/28, 3/85, 3/148, 4/81, 4/90, 5/33, 5/72, 5/73, 8/12, 8/38-39 (the warning), 8/39, 8/60, 9/3, 9/5, 9/14, 9/23, 9/29, 9/33, 9/73, 9/123, 25/36, 25/52, 33/61, 33/73, 35/36, 47/4, 66/9. This includes many advising or permitting political, social, economical, etc. compulsion (with the sword in the background if you protest) – we mention a few here: 3/28, 3/85, 3/148, 4/81, 5/72, 5/73, 9/23, 14/7, 15/3, 33/73, 35/36. They are all quoted under 2/256. (At least 29 contradictions).

083 2/109g: “- - - but (Muslims*) forgive and overlook (Jews and Christians*) - - -.” But that was long before 9/5 and other hard verses. This verse is abrogated – made invalid - by at least these verses: 2/191, 2/193, 3/38, 3/85, 3/148, 4/90, 5/33, 5/72, 8/12, 8/38, 8/38-39 (the warning), 8/39, 8/60, 9/3, 9/5, 9/14, 9/23, 9/29, 9/33, 9/73, 9/123, 25/36, 25/52, 33/61, 33/73, 35/36, 47/4, 66/9. This includes many bloody threat, but also verses advising or permitting political, social, economical, etc. compulsion (with the sword in the background if you protest) – we mention a few here: 3/28, 3/85, 3/148, 4/81, 5/72, 5/73, 9/23, 14/7, 15/3, 33/73, 35/36. They are all quoted under 2/256. (At least 28 abrogations).

###084 2/111a: "Say (to Jews and Christians*): "Produce your proofs if you are truthful". Islam often demands proofs. Islam itself never offers any real proofs for its central claims and statements. IT IS VERY PERTINENT TO DEMAND PROOFS FROM ISLAM AND FROM MUSLIMS, PARTLY BECAUSE THEY MOSTLY USES ONLY LOOSE CLAIMS AND AS LOOSE STATEMENTS, AND PARTLY BECAUSE THEY FREQUENTLY THEMSELVES DEMAND PROOFS. And not to forget: Partly because they never have real proofs for any of the central points in a religion - only claims, statements and quotes resting on no proofs.

###########There is a hidden, but essential point here: The fact that Muhammad demanded proofs from others, prove that proofs are essential - and were essential to him. All the same he was unable to prove any of his essential points himself, and had to fast-talk himself away from requests for such proofs. This tells something very serious about him and bout Islam.

085 2/111aa: "And they (Jews/Christians*) say: 'None shall enter Paradise unless he be a Jew or a Christian'". If here Quran is a made up book - and at least no god has made anything of that quality - Muslims at least will not end there. But if the old books - included the Quran - tell the truth about it, Jesus and Yahweh proved that something or someone supernatural was involved. If this is correct, there is a chance for that the quote is correct.

086 2/113d: "- - - the Christians say: 'The Jews have naught (to stand) upon". Wrong. Christians do not say that, only that they lack Yahweh's new offer/covenant. They say that with Jesus there has come something new, which the Jews have not seen. Perhaps like Islam claims that as times changes, Yahweh found reason for launching a milder side of his thinking - f.x. during Pax Romanum (a 272 years long period of peace) it could have a chance to grow strong enough to survive when harsher times came once more.

##087 2/113e: “Yet they (Jews and Christians*) (profess to) study the same Book”. Wrong for two reasons: One: Jews only have the Old Testament (OT) and some other scriptures, Christians also have NT. Thus not the same book. Two: The Mosaic religion - Jewism - is built only on OT, whereas the Christian religion is built on NT, with OT mainly as historical background – a fact which opponents often forget or “forget”.

Jews study only OT and their other scriptures. Christians build their religion on the much milder and more human NT and the new covenant (f.x. Luke 22/20) – a covenant Muslims never mention - with OT mainly as historical background. This is a fact that often as said is forgotten or “forgotten” when one talks about the Christian religion - especially when one wants to paint the religion as black as possible.

088 2/120e: "Wert thou to follow their (Jews' and Christians'*) desires (that you leave Islam*) after the knowledge which have reached you (after you have become a Muslim*), then wouldst thou find neither Protector nor Helper against Allah". - and shortly neither against Muhammad or Muslims (it became dangerous to leave Islam).

089 2/122: "- - - Children if Israel - - -". A time anomaly. "Israel" was a name the old Jewish Patriarch Jacob got from Yahweh according to the Bible (1. Mos. 32/28) in his middle age. The word thus has to be younger than this - say maximum from ca. 1700 - 1800 BC. and this name/reference was without any meaning to any user of the claimed copies of the claimed "Mother Book" (similar to the Quran) sent down to Allah's claimed prophets and messenger even before this. Jacob must have lived - if he ever lived - around 1700 - 1800 BC, and thus none of the claimed earlier prophets/messengers from Allah the previous perhaps 191ooo years (until ca. 160ooo - 200ooo years before now for Homo Sapiens alone, which the maker of the Quran obviously did not know), could understand what this meant. But no omniscient god would give meaningless references without explaining what they meant. We here point to that 2/213 tells that Allah sent down copies of "the Mother of the Book"/the Quran already when mankind was one single nation, which must have been when mankind just was a tribe or a collection of tribes in Africa 160ooo-200ooo years ago, as it has never been the situation later.

NB: This is if the Quran with the word "mankind" just means modern man, Homo Sapiens. But mankind really is older. If Allah tried to win f.x. Homo Habilis (the first real human - 2.8 mill. years ago) or Homo Erectus for his religion, the oldest copies of the Quran of course are much older.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Also see 2/127a below.

(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.)

We may add that Muslim sources we find on Internet - f.x. www.jamaat.net/compl/arabsinthebible.html - admits that "the wilderness of Paran" according to Islam = Faran in Arabic, not the Paran further west. But the "raisin" is that this "admission" most likely is untrue. Paran quite clearly was in Sinai, not in Arabia, and Mt. Paran likely is just another name for Mt. Sinai.

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.

091 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) or a book like the Quran 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.

092 2/129c: “Our Lord (Allah*)! Send amongst them (Muslims/Arabs*) a Messenger of their own (Abraham said*) - - -". You find nothing like this in the Bible (the nearest may be 5. Mos. 18/15 and 18/18 - Moses making a speech to his followers about among other things their future) - but it is "gefundenes Fressen" for followers of Muhammad - an indication for something. But from where is this indication? As the Quran is not from a god, the most likely source is Muhammad's brain, but the possibility that it came from dark forces or human helpers/advisers cannot be totally omitted. It also is clear from the Bible that Moses was speaking of a Jew, not of an Arab or anyone else from the outside. You have to cherry-pick words and omit much to be able even to claim that perhaps Muhammad is meant - a strange thing to do from a religion claiming you cannot do the same or even use clear statements from the Quran separately.

093 2/130a: “- - - the religion of Abraham (= Islam*) - - -.” (Falsification?*) The Quran often claims that Islam = the religion of Abraham. But it always was and only is a claim – no proof, no documentation - not even a try to explain, except the undocumented and not proved claim that everyone who say something else are lying, and that other scriptures which science deems more reliable (not proved 100% for each separately, but far more likely to be true - and 100% seen all together) are falsifications, even though science has shown that they are not falsified – may be are not everything true in the Bible, too, but science has clearly shown it is not falsified. Actually when you see all the tens of thousands of manuscripts together (some 300 copies or fragments of the Gospels, some 13ooo copies or fragments from the Bible, some 32ooo manuscripts with quotations from the Bible - all from before 610 AD) - each and every saying the same except for normal variations for hand-written documents, and not one of them with marks from "doctoring" the text, the proof is more than 100% - especially when you remember that also Islam, in spite of 1400 years of more or less intensive search for proofs, has found exactly nothing - they even are so hard up that they use apocryphal - known false - scriptures for arguments! - like if we had used Hadiths Islam and others know are false ones.) If Islam claims something, they will have to produce proofs, not only claims which are not even based on a likely theory about how all the thousands of different manuscript shall have had so many chapters and verses falsified in exactly the same way – spread over the entire world one knew at that time. All which Islam offers, is a stubborn claim – not even a theory about how it should be possible to falsify everything, or about why all the thousands of old manuscripts that science knows, show it is not falsified. Not to mention how to make Jews and Christians make just the same falsifications - f.x. about foretelling about Jesus. For comparison: Islam's claims about falsifications of the Bible are not proved even 0,01%. They only are claims. Claims with 0.00% proof - nothing at all.

No proof of falsification. No documentation of falsification even though there exist thousands of documents. Only a stubborn claim based on nothing but a book with lots of mistakes, dictated by a man with questionable moral and a lust for power and riches for bribes and women, to say the least of it.

Actually the very best proof for that there are no falsifications in the Bible is produced not by science, but by Islam: The fact that they have been unable to find even one falsification in accordance with their claims in all those tens of thousands of relevant manuscripts - is a 110% proof for that there is not one falsification in all those papers. If there had been, Islam had found them - and yodeled loudly about it. Also see 2/75b above and 3/24d and 3/77a below.

094 2/132b: "- - - Jacob - - -". The last of the 3 main Jewish patriarchs. He was the grandson of Abraham - - - and not a single reader of the claimed copies of the timeless "Mother Book" could understand a reference to him until well after he was born. Parallel to 2/124a+c above. Also see 4/13d below.

095 2/132d: "Allah hath chosen the Faith for you - - - Islam". Strongly contradicted by the Bible, and also by history, which shows not one single trace of a religion like Islam anywhere in the world before 610 AD and Muhammad's preaching. 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.

########## WELL, IT MAY BE POSSIBLE TO CLAIM THAT THE BIBLE IS FALSIFIED - LOOSE CLAIMS COST NOTHING (BUT ALSO PROVE NOTHING). BUT IT IS NOT POSSIBLE TO DISCLAIM STRONG HISTORICAL FACTS: THERE NEVER ANYWHERE OR ANY TIME IN THE WORLD WAS A RELIGION LIKE ISLAM OR A BOOK LIKE THE QURAN BEFORE 610 AD. THE SUM OF KNOWLEDGE AND PROOFS ABOUT HISTORY MAKES THIS A MATHEMATICAL STRENGTH PROOF.

IT ALSO IS A FACT THAT AS FAR BACK AS WRITTEN HISTORY REACHES, FOR ONE THING THE BIBLE WAS NOT FALSIFIED, AND FOR ANOTHER THAT JUST AS FAR BACK THE GOD OF JEWS AND CHRISTIANS WAS YAHWEH, NOT ALLAH. And written history in those areas reaches back to nearly 1ooo BC - f.x. cuneiform scriptures.

096 2/133f: "- - - Isaac - - -". A time anomaly. Isaac was the second son of Abraham 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 1700 - 1900 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.

097 2/135h: (Abraham) "joined not gods with Allah". According to the Bible Abraham's god was Yahweh. (Islam likes to claim - but like always never prove - that Yahweh = Allah, but the basics of those two teachings are fundamentally so different that this is impossible, unless the god is mentally ill). Also see 2/132a above and 2/255a below.

098 2/135i: (Abraham) "joined not gods with Allah". Neither do Jews nor Christians. They only have one god. If Muhammad - and Muslims - does/do not understand the Trinity (Muhammad here was completely lost, mixing Mary into it), that is his/their problem - Christians understand it and know there only is one god, Yahweh (even though less than 10% of the Christians know this name, and only calls him God.) Also see 2/255a, 6/106b and 25/18a below.

099 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 non-Biblical prophets, nor the claimed Islamic religion, nor from any of the claimed books - 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.

100 2/136h: "- - - the Tribes - - -". A time anomaly. This refers to the 12 Jewish tribes, each founded by one of Jacob's 12 sons. The comments are parallel to f.x. Abraham (2/124a+c) or Jacob (2/132c) - no user of the claimed parallels to the Quran could understand this reference until these tribes came into existence. As it takes some time to grow from a person to a family to a tribe, one may guess that this reference had no meaning for readers/listeners until around 1600 BC at the earliest. For f.x. Noah or Abraham this expression had no meaning.

101 2/137a: "So if they (Jews and Christians*) believe as ye (Muslims*) believe, they are indeed on the right path - - -". Strongly contradicted by the Bible - The teaching of the Bible and especially the NT is not even compatible with the Quran. Also see 67/9c below - a strong one. 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.

102 2/137d: "- - - if they (people*) turn back (= leave Islam, *), it is they (Jews and Christians*) who are in schism (are wrong*)". As normal the Quran relies on claims it hardly ever documents or proves - but as Yahweh and Allah cannot be the same god (far too different teachings, moral codes, etc.) this at least is an open contradiction to the Bible. Besides: Relying on a book with that much wrong, it is much more likely Muslims are wrong than the others.

103 2/139a: “Will ye (Jews and Christians) dispute with us about Allah, seeing that He is our Lord and your Lord - - -”. Islam likes to pretend or state without any proof that Allah and Yahweh/God is the same god. But both the gods and their teachings, moral codes, etc., are very different - as said before especially if you compare the bloody god of war Allah was turned into in and after 622 AD, after Muhammad came to need warriors for highwaymen and later for wars, with the far milder and more benevolent God we meet in NT. The Quran makes a lot of statements, but not one single proof, even though it should be easy for Allah to prove something - at least his own existence. Besides: Read history (drop glorifying propaganda and judge from acts and deeds and demands and introduced rules of moral, etc.- "do against others like you want others do against you") - Muslim history like ibn Ishaq if you want - and the Hadiths, and also the Quran, and see what kind of a man Muhammad really was! We do not accept the word of a man with that kind of moral and ethical standards, without proofs - there has to be limits to being naïve. Also: Contradiction to the Bible.

104 2/139b: "- - - seeing that He (Allah*) is our (Muslim's*) Lord and your (non-Muslim's*) Lord - - -". At least for Jews and Christians this is impossible to see, as Yahweh and Allah is not the same god, and with very different religions. Also see 29/46ec below.

105 2/139d: “- - - (Allah*) is our (Muslims’*) Lord and your (non-Muslim’s*) Lord - - -“. Contradicted by the Bible, where it is Yahweh/God who is the god for Jews and Christians at least. And perhaps in reality for all others. 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.

106 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.

107 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 and hate religion like Islam - far more inhuman, dark and bloody than also the Mosaic one even in the harshest parts of OT.

108 2/141: "Of their (the old Jewish patriarchs*) merits there is no question in your case". In clear speech: The Jews are wrong when they claim they will have an easier way to Paradise because they are the descendants of the old patriarchs. The problem is that the reason why the Jews believed this, was not that they were descendants of good ancestors, but the belief/fact(?) that they had a covenant with Yahweh - disused and battered, but never nullified - Yahweh even had promised it to be everlasting (f.x. 1. Mos.17/7 and /13). (Islam claims it is terminated - as normal without any documentation - but only Islam. And Islam has to claim so in order to take over the role as The Special Religion.) Worse: Muslim scholars know this most well, and all the same they go on using this twisted reality to be able to dethrone the Jews. Muslims may be right that the Jews no longer have a special status - also Jesus indicated that all believers in Yahweh had more or less the same right to come to Paradise, and thus the Jews do not have a special status any longer, as they in case have to share it with Christians, who also believe in Yahweh - but if the Muslim scholars are right, they are right in a dishonest way as Yahweh nowhere has terminated his promise like Muslims claim, this even more so as there nowhere is indicated that something as bloody, unjust and discriminating like Islam should take over the Jewish position. And f.x. how can a religion be a religion of truth, if it uses dishonesty?

109 2/142a: "What hath turned them from the qiblah (the direction you face when praying*) to which they were used". When Muhammad finally after some 16 months in Medina understood the Jews would not accept his religion, he changed the "qiblah" from direction Jerusalem to direction Mecca, to demonstrate the difference between the Jews and his own religion and followers. Christianity has no qiblah. It is normal that the congregations in churches face east, but there is no special direction for praying.

*110 2/144i: “The people of the Book know very well that that (the reason for changing the qiblah = direction of praying*) is the truth from their Lord”.

  1. Jews and Christians definitely do not know this - and neither did the Sabeans know it (Sabeans likely lived in Sabah, in what now is Yemen. Was the official reason the real one? They had become Christians via influence from Christians in East Africa. (Though Islam says the Sabeans were a sect in Arabia – though with very vague ideas about why.) See 2/62f above.)
  2. As the Quran contains a lot of mistakes, it is a question if also the rest is wrong.
  3. As the Quran contains a lot of mistakes, it also is a question if this is from our Lord, Yahweh. Actually it is not.It even is a question if a god was involved in the Quran at all - a god does not make mistakes, not to mention such a number of mistakes - or loose statements and false “signs“ and “proofs“ - the hallmarks of cheats and deceivers. No god made such a quality book. Thus also Allah is not involved - if he exists and is a major god.

 

111 2/144j: "The people of the Book (Jews, Christians, Sabeans*) know well that that (the change of the qiblah*) is the truth from their Lord". Wrong. Their Lord is Yahweh, and Yahweh did not order this (well, except if he wanted to keep Muslims away from his followers).

112 2/144k: "- - - the truth from their (Jews' and Christians' mainly*) Lord". The Quran's intention here is to tell that the Quran is the truth and confirming the Bible. Both are wrong - and both contradict the Bible. A book with so many errors, etc. like the Quran at best is partly true. And the fundamental thoughts and lots and lots of fundamental details are so different between the Bible and the Quran, that the Quran in no way is confirming the Bible.

113 2/144m: "Nor is Allah unmindful of what they (Jews, Christians, Sabeans*) do". If Allah exists. If he is behind the Quran. And if the Quran tells the full and only truth on this point.

114 2/145g: "If thou (a person*), after (becoming a Muslim*), wert to follow (Jews or Christians*) - then wert thou indeed (clearly) in the wrong". Only if Allah exists, if the Quran is from a god, and if it in addition speaks the full truth and only the truth. And definitely not in the wrong if Yahweh exists and is a real god.

115 2/145h: "- - - their (Jews, Christians, Sabeans (see 2/62f above)*) (vain) desires - - -". It is vain only if Yahweh does not exist - and both the Bible and the Quran claim that this old, originally Jewish, god does exist.

*116 2/145+146: “If thou, after the knowledge (of the new qiblah = what direction to face when you are praying*), wert to follow their (the People of the Book‘s*) (vain) desire - then wert thou indeed (clearly) in the wrong. The People of the Book know this as they know their own sons.” But it is most obvious that this is not true - neither Jews nor Christians know this - - - and especially not Christians, who have no qiblah (churches mostly make their congregation face east, but there is no qiblah).

117 2/146a: "The People of the Book - - -". This is an expression you often meet in the Quran and in Islam. "The Book" her is the Bible, and the expression means the Jews, the Christians, and the Sabeans (see 2/62f above). Later sometimes also the Zoroastrians were included, as it was discovered that also they had a book and a religion to a degree compatible with Islam - something a god had known from the very beginning. But normally the expression means the Jews, the Christians, and the Sabeans only.

What often makes this name unclear, is that the expression "the Book" also often is used for the Quran. Often you have to guess from the context which book is meant, but in this case it clearly is the Bible which is meant - like always in exactly this expression.

118 2/146d: The people of the Book know this as they know their own sons.” But “this” instead may mean “him” – the Arab word has double meaning. Then the meaning becomes: “- - - know him (Muhammad) as - - -.” A tiny wee bit different. As mentioned before: A clear and distinct language.

119 2/146e: “- - - but some of them (Jews, Christians*) conceals the truth which they themselves know (the claim that the teachings of the Bible was falsified and should be like the one of the Quran*)“. Science (and not to mention Islam) has long since showed that this claim is wrong - and besides; with that many mistaken facts and that much wrong logic, the Quran itself at best is partly the truth. See 40/75 below.

120 2/146f: “- - - conceal the truth (the teachings of the Quran*) which they (Jews, Christians*) themselves know.” One more claim about falsified Bible - and the added claim that the ones believing in the Bible know it is falsified. You have to know very little about people and especially about religious people, to be able to believe that someone is able to believe in a religion he/she knows is falsified - Muhammad was intelligent and he knew and understood people, and this simply is one of the places in the Quran where he knew he was lying.

There also are so many and so fundamental differences between the Quran and the Bible – especially the NT – that the only thing that is possible to know from the texts of the Quran, is that something is very wrong, also in Islamic claims like this (as normal from Islam; a not proved claim).

121 2/154c: “- - - those who are slain in the way of Allah - - -". Those who were slain "for Allah", nearly always were slain in raids or wars, raids and wars nearly always initiated by Muhammad. This strongly contradicts the moral and ethics of NT. (OT is more war-like, but for smaller scale and not at least for different reason from in the Quran - get a country for the Jews compared with suppressing the entire world for a god).

122 2/159c: “Those who conceal the clear (Signs) (of Allah*)- - -". One of Muhammad's many negative names for non-Muslims, here Jews and Christians (who had falsified the Bible he wrongly claimed).

123 2/163b: "- - - there is no god but He (Allah*) - - -". One more claim without proofs or documentation - like more or less always in the Quran. Claims are cheap. Besides we are back to the problem with Yahweh, which contradicts this point. The Quran accepts that this originally Jewish god existed (exists?). Reality - the deep and fundamental differences in the teachings - proves they cannot be the same god, in spite of the Quran's many, but never documented claims. And whenever there are divergences between claims and reality, we always believe in reality. Also science has proved that the Quran's never documented claims for explanation for these differences - falsifications of the Bible - are wrong, and Islam has proved the same even more strongly by not finding a single proved falsification among the tens of thousands of relevant manuscripts. If Allah exists, thus there has to be at least two gods. But Allah has never proved his existence - there only is Muhammad's words for him - a man who wanted power and more, and who used his religion as his platform of power - like so many self proclaimed prophets have done and do. And the same man who institutionalized al-Taqiyya (the lawful lie), Kitman (the lawful half-truth) (even though it only was formalized later), personally practiced deception and betrayal, and advised that one should even break ones oaths if that gave a better result. Also see 2/255a, 6/106b and 25/18a below.

124 2/170f: "We shall follow the ways (religion*) of our fathers". Well, at least the Jews and the Christians do not say this, but that they follow the Bible.

#125 2/173d: "But if one is forced by necessity (to eat forbidden food*), without willful disobedience - - - then he is guiltless". If no sin is intended and some situation - hunger, threat, or something - forces you to eat forbidden food, you are making no sin. Non-Muslims should remember that this also is the case if Muslims are cheated into eating forbidden food. There are those who cheat Muslims - or Jews - into eating f.x. sausages with meat from pigs. But if the victim honestly believes it is not forbidden food, he or she is not sinning anyhow, and the cheating is to no avail. Such cases tell nothing about Islam or Muslims - only that the cheater is not a good or reliable friend. #########There is no reason for such stunts, this even more so as also Muslims are humans, and there is no reason for hurting their personal feelings in ways like this. One may know ever so well that even the Quran proves that something is wrong with the religion, but all the same you should be able to remember that also Muslims are of just the same human stock like you and me - and that to be impolite often tells more about the impolite one than about his victim to cheat them in such a way. You may well debate with him or her about the food taboos, but cheating is crossing a line which tells something about you, not about your victim - and as said it also is impolite and it is against normal rules for respect of fellow humans. Do not do it - even more so as it has not any of the effects you are aiming for (making the Jew or the Muslim sin) in such cases.

126 2/174f: "- - - a miserable profit - - -". One of Muhammad's claims was that the reason why Jews and Christians had - as he claimed - falsified the Bible, was to earn money or other kinds of good things in this life, but that they made a bad deal, because this meant they lost Paradise in the claimed next life.

127 2/177j: "- - - the Messengers - - -". Hadiths mention there have been at least 124ooo messengers/prophets for Islam all over the world through the times, included Muhammad. But except for the Jewish ones - and Muhammad(?) - no trace has been found from any of them. And as for Muhammad, see 63/5a below.

128 2/190b: "Fight in the cause of Allah - - -". This way of thinking is incompatible with at least NT, and one of the proofs for that Yahweh and Allah are not the same god - unless he is strongly schizophrenic. (Also in OT the fighting was not for the god, but to make room for and later defend a Jewish nation).

*129 2/191j: “- - - such is the reward (to be killed*) for those who suppress faith (Islam*)”. Incompatible with the Bible - even in OT the fighting was not for the religion, but to establish a Jewish national territory.

130 2/200a: "- - - the holy rites - - -". There are three remarkable facts concerning the Islamic rites in Mecca during Hajj, and both the 2 first make it clear that this is an Arabism: For one thing they simply are Arab pagan rites from the old times taken over by Muhammad - which means that the old pagan religion in Arabia had all the correct rites. For another they all were Arab rites - hardly one single of the rites came from any other place on the globe. The universal god had not taught any other people the right rites - not even the Jews and the Christians had been taught the correct rites in spite of their long connection to the god - - - remember that Muhammad claimed it was the same god. And for a third: The rites are very primitive and superficial - and with very primitive and superficial symbolisms. Was that all an omniscient god was able to give his followers?

#131 2/211a: “Ask the Children of Israel how many clear (signs) We (the god) have sent them.” Yes, if the Bible speaks the truth - quite a number. But this in case proves the Jewish/Christian god Yahweh, not Allah - as said f.x. in 29/47f below it is impossible that the two can be the same, even though Muslims like to pretend/say so - too fundamental differences. (A small curiosity: A newspaper in Kuala Lumpur, capital of the Muslim country Malaysia, was forbidden to use the name Allah for the Christian God. (This has been done infrequently through history) “Allah is the name of the Muslim god, and cannot be used about the Christian one, (Yahweh or normally only called God by Christians*)”. Q.E.D: Allah is not Yahweh according to this Islamic country. And one more case where Muslims demand one rule for themselves - they use "God" for "Allah" in media meant for non-Muslims, as this camouflages some of the differences - and another for non-Muslims. (Later PS: This judgment later was overturned by the High Court, but all the same it shows something fundamental).

###132 2/216b: “Fighting is prescribed for you (Muslims*) - - -.” Incompatible with the Bible. Incompatible with OT except for making and safeguarding a Jewish national territory, totally incompatible with NT perhaps in sheer self defense. (Christians have sinned against this, but the Bible is clear: "You shall not kill".) Also incompatible with good moral codes.

133 2/217b: "- - - the Prohibited Months - - -". The old Arabia had 4 holy months a year (number 1, 7 , 11, and 12 in the Islamic somewhat artificial year) in which among other things fighting was prohibited and a grave sin. Muslims broke those rules, but later Muhammad adopted them into Islam. (Strange how many of the old pagan rites which were correct religion according to the Quran - even more so as neither Jews nor Christian ever had been instructed in many of those rules, which is very strange if Yahweh and Allah had been the same god (the same god should mean the same rules). Also strange is that a claimed god for the entire world found no rites in other pagan religions than the Arab one which were according to his taste - even though all peoples in the world according to the Quran have had education by prophets teaching Islam and its rituals).

134 2/218c: “- - - those (Muslims*) who suffered exile and fought (and strove and struggled) in the path of Allah - they have the hope of the Mercy of Allah: - - -”. Especially as practically all Muhammad's raid and war were acts of aggression, this is incompatible with especially NT. (Perhaps war in self defense is permitted in NT. In OT this clearly is permitted, as was war to make room for a Jewish nation. In contrast Muhammad's and Muslims' raids and wars nearly always were acts of aggression for riches, captives, land, power and spreading Islam - f.x. most of Arabia and large areas outside Arabia was converted to Islam by the sword (and even more areas by different kinds of pressure backed by the sword).

135 2/221b: “Do not marry unbelieving women (idolaters), until they believe - - -”. According to Sharia - Muslim law - a man in reality is permitted to marry a non-Muslim woman - at least Jews and Christians - but a woman cannot marry a non-Muslim man. (Not even a Muslim slave girl can be married to a non-Muslim - the marriage is void and automatically annulated.) There are no restrictions on keeping non-Muslim girls and women as sex-slaves/concubines.

###136 2/244b: “Then fight in the cause of Allah - - -". Nearly all armed conflicts Muhammad had, were acts of aggression. Totally incompatible at least with NT. As for OT, it permitted war, but for the limited purpose to create and defend a Jewish state, whereas most of Muhammad's conflicts were raids for riches and some for power and/or spreading his new religion + in some cases for revenge.

137 2/246c: "- - - the Prophet (that was) among them (the Jews after Moses*) - - -". Here is referred to Samuel. A time anomaly. See 4/13d below. Also note how often the Quran is vague on information - here like many other places it had been much better to give the name (here Samuel according to the very often much more concise Bible). Not good literature.

138 2/246d: (The Jews said): "Appoint for us a King that we might fight in the cause of Allah”. This story is told a wee bit differently from in the Bible (1. Sam. 8/4-5).

139 2/246e: "- - - fight in the cause of Allah". Not in the Bible - not even "- - - in the cause of Yahweh" is found there, yes nowhere except in figurative meaning. Incompatible with especially NT.

140 2/246f: "- - - fight in the cause of Allah". Even though this is (pretended to be) said to the Jews, it is one of the points behind the laws for war in the sharia laws.

141 2/246g: “How could we refuse to fight in the cause of Allah.” The Quran pretends Jews are saying this to one of their prophets (Samuel), but it really is included as a pep talk to Muslims inspiring them to war. The text is somewhat(!) changed compared the one in the Bible, from where the story comes (1. Sam., chapter 8) - these words simply are not from the Bible.

###142 2/246h: "But when they were commanded to fight, they (Jews*) turned back, except a small band among them". It is unclear what this refers to - if it is not made up. It is not from the Bible. But Muhammad Azad has an interesting comment: "- - - (it is*) a reminder to the believers (= Muslims*) of all times that "fighting in Allah's cause" (as defined in the Quran(!*)) is an act of faith". Is it possible to give terrorists and others a better "carte blanche"? And who will after such a clear statement deny that even today Islam is a religion of war?

143 2/247c: “Allah hath appointed Talut (Saul in the Bible*) king over you (Jews shortly before 1000 BC*)”. Most likely it was Yahweh (God) who did so, or what? Allah and Yahweh are not the same god no matter what Islam wants – the fundamental differences of the teachings are too big and too many. Not unless the god is mentally ill – and of course only if he exists.

144 2/247d: "Allah hath chosen him (King Talut/Saul*) above you (Jews*), and hath gifted him abundantly with knowledge and bodily prowess: Allah granteth His authority to whom He pleaseth". Except for the bodily prowess, do you see the parallels to what Muhammad claimed about himself? There are many such parallels in Muhammad's tales. It was a way to illustrate that what he - Muhammad - met in his society, was similar to what was normal for prophets to meet and experience, and thus that Muhammad was a normal prophet (though the greatest of them all).

145 2/248a: "- - - their (the Jews'*) Prophet - - - ". Here = Samuel. One of the Qurans weaknesses as literature is that it often has vague details - like here omitting a well known name (most likely because Muhammad did not know it or forgot it when he was telling this story). Other times it has a lot of details - details there is no chance that Muhammad knew, but which were to be found in known legends, fairy tales, etc. at that time, or in wrong science, history, etc. one believed in in "the Middle East" at the time of Muhammad. Not to mention the cases where there is no known source - where did he get the information from as the Quran with all its mistakes, etc., is not from any god?

146 2/248c: “- - - Sign - - -.” Invalid as proof for Allah. And as the contents of this verse are miles from what the Bible tells, it is an impressive "sign" - this even more so as the Ark of Covenance was a hard fact which it is likely the Jewish traditions and writers may have got historically correct. Also see 2/39b above.

147 2/248d: “- - - there shall come to you (the Jews) the Ark of Covenant”. Samuel cannot have said this, as by then the Jews already had got the Ark - see 2/248e just below. Contradiction to the Bible - and a double such one as for one thing the Quran is some 300 years late, and for another thing the delivery is wrong.

148 2/248e: “- - - there shall come to you (the Jews) the Ark of Covenant”. Well, according to the Bible the Ark of Covenant did not come to the Jews – they built it themselves in accordance with a description they got from Yahweh. That was done around 1330 BC under Moses = some 300 years before Samuel, whom the Quran talks about. (We must add that this is a well known part of the Bible, and most Jews and Christians at once see that something is wrong. May be because of that some Muslims claim that the translation is wrong; it was not the Ark that was sent, but a heart containing mental relics from Moses and Aaron. It is not a normal explanation to meet, as it takes some twisting of the original text to find this "translation". But it is a typical Islamic case of fleeing from having to meet facts one does not like: If the mistake is too obvious, search for another meaning - if necessary by twisting the words - or call it an allegory or something). Everything said about the ark in this verse is nonsense compared to the Bible.

Also see 2/248e just below.

149 2/248f: (When the Ark - a somewhat large chest (2.5 cubits long, 1.5 cubits wide, 1.5 cubits high - 2. Mos. 37/1 - and as 1 cubit was some 45 centimeters, this means some 112 cm by some 67 cm by some 67 cm) - will be brought, it will contain) "the relics left by the family of Moses and the family of Aaron". Wrong. Even if the only other source is the Bible, it is so extremely unlikely that the Jews put such things in the ultra-holy Ark of Covenant - this even more so as the Jews did not believe in saints - Islam will have to produce very strong proofs to make us believe this. There also is the fact according to the Bible that when Solomon later brought the Ark of Covenance to his new temple, it is specified in the Bible that it only contained the two stone tablets with the 10 Commandments (1. Kings 8/9).

150 2/248i: "- - - if ye (Jews ca. 1000 BC*) indeed have faith". Beware that Muhammad claimed the old prophets were teaching Islam (but that the religion later was falsified). That Samuel preached Islam needs strong proofs to be believed, and that the Bible is falsified, simply is thoroughly proved wrong by science, and even more so by Islam who both have been unable to find one single proved falsification in all the tens of thousands (ca. 45ooo?) relevant old manuscripts.

151 2/248j: Conclusions about verse 2/248 in the Quran: It tells that Saul (wrongly called Talut in the Quran) has become a king, and that the Ark of Covenant was going to be brought to the Jews. But Saul was king shortly before 1000 BC, whereas the Ark of Covenant was made - not brought, but made - under Moses somewhere around 1330 BC (according to science the Exodus - if it is not fiction - took place ca. 1335 BC (under Pharaoh Ramses II) and the Ark was made not too long afterward). The Quran is some 300 years wrong - in addition to wrong way of "delivery". There are so clear references to the Ark in the Bible, that even if the Bible is the only source for it, Islam will have to bring strong proofs to make us believe it was brought by angels during the reign of Saul/Talut, containing relics from Moses and Aaron and their families.

By the way: The Ark was crafted from acacia wood and gold by a man named Bezalel (2. Mos. 37/1-9).

152 2/249f: “How oft, by Allah’s will, hath a small force vanquished a big one? Allah is with those who steadfastly persevere.” This contradicts the Bible. According to the Bible the Jews had no "small force". They had their full army on a hill, facing the Philistine army on a neighboring hill with a valley in between (1. Sam. 17/3). This situation remained for many (40) days (1. Sam. 17/1) before the youth David happened to be sent with food to his 3 brothers in Saul's army (1. Sam. 17/17-18) and there killed the giant Goliath, who had been calling on the Jews for a duel man-to-man to decide the war (in the old times it did happen that one or a few from each army were elected to fight it out as proxies for the whole armies - much less bloodshed). A bit different from the story in the Quran.

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

153 2/250b: "- - - help us (Jews*) against those who reject faith". There is nowhere in the Bible indicated that this was a war of religion. It was an old-fashioned war for land and power and loot and slaves.

154 2/250ba: "- - - help us (Jews*) against those who reject faith". Muhammad claimed the Jews at that time were Muslims (but that the religion was distorted later). This then is one more negative name for non-Muslims.

155 2/250c: "- - - help us (Jews*) against those who reject faith". Do you see the parallel Muhammad here makes to his own warlike intentions? You will find many such parallels in the Quran - Muhammad needed "proofs" for that his situation and what he did, was normal for prophets, and thus that he really was a prophet like he claimed.

156 2/251a: “By Allah’s will they (the Jews) routed them (the Philistines); and David slew Goliath - - -”. A story borrowed from the Bible - with a twist - used as pep talk for Muslim warriors - telling it was their own god, Allah, who did the work.

157 2/251b: The Jews’ (or Israelites‘) King Saul/Talut and David beat the Philistines in battle ("routed them") and felled Goliath. But according to the Bible, there was no battle - only the duel between David and Goliath. (1. Sam. 17/45-51)

158 2/252a: “These are all Signs of Allah - - -”. If they were signs, they in this case were signs of the Jewish god Yahweh, not of Allah. See 2/87.

The Quran is built on claims like this and on statements, “signs” and “proofs”, not one of them proved (as we said before: With the possible exception of some signs from the Bible which in case may be prove Yahweh). Plus it is built on a lot of psychology and knowledge about human nature. As for the never proved claims, signs, etc. there is an awful lot of them, and they are easy to find once you go looking for them.

Besides in this case: How can they be valid signs if the story is wrong?

159 2/253a: "- - - to one of them Allah spoke - - -". It here refers to Moses, but it is a clear contradiction to the Bible that the god spoke to no more than one Biblical person directly - he also spoke directly to others, f.x. Jesus (but Jesus has to be reduced so as not to compete with Muhammad), to Abraham, and some of the Jewish prophets, f.x. Samuel (1. Sam. 3/4-14).

160 2/253f: "- - - the holy spirit - - -" This is one of the few times the Spirit - also named the Holy Spirit, the Holy Ghost, the Spirit of Truth, the Spirit of God/Yahweh, the Spirit of the Lord, etc. - like Allah and like Muhammad it has several names) - is mentioned in the Quran (you also find it in 2/87, 5/110, 16/102, 17/75 likely in 26/193). Muhammad had very vague ideas about it and f.x. believed the Trinity consisted of Yahweh, Jesus and Mary (!). Muslims often claim it is another name for the angel Gabriel - and idea no-one who ever read the Bible with an open mind would get. And in addition to everything else which makes the claim ridicules, the old Jews knew well the difference between angels and spirits, and in the entire Bible there is not one single case where the two are mixed or mistaken. (But never think that a religious person will believe facts if they do not fit his belief).

161 2/255a: "There is no god but He (Allah*) - - -". (Also see 6/106b and 25/18a below). But:

  1. Both according to the Quran and to the Bible the old Jewish god (Yahweh) existed.
  2. Both according to the Quran and to the Bible Yahweh has proved his existence and his power many times, included via Jesus - there (according to both books if one or both of them tells the truth on this point) is no doubt about his existence and his power.
  3. The Quran claims that Allah and Yahweh is the same god. But this is not true, as the teachings fundamentally are far too different, especially if you compare the Quran to NT and the New Covenant via Jesus - a covenant Muslims never are told about by their imams or mullahs (f.x. Luke 22/20). The same goes for the underlying ethics and moral (parts of it is very twisted in the Quran compared to the most basic rule;"do onto others like you want others do onto you") and the stressing of the value of empathy (empathy hardly is to be found in the Quran, and non-existing towards victims and non-Muslims), etc., not to mention that this also goes for the view on thieving (looting), lying (f.x. al-Taqiyya - the lawful lie), killing, etc. The only possible exception is if the god is strongly schizophrenic. (See separate chapter about this in tp://www.1000mistakes.com. Demand proofs from the next Muslim telling you that Yahweh is the same god as Allah.
  4. The Quran tries to explain away the differences between the Bible and the Quran, and thus the differences in the teachings, by claiming - as normal for Muhammad without a single document or proof - that the Bible is falsified. But this is not true, as science long since has proved there is no falsification. May be some mistakes - f.x. in Genesis - but no falsification. What is even more convincing it the fact that also Islam has proved the same, and most strongly, by not being able to find one single documented falsification among all the tens of thousands relevant old manuscripts.(There exist some 300 copies or fragments of the Gospels older than 610 AD, 13ooo other manuscripts or fragments from other parts of the Bible and 32ooo other documents/fragments with quotes or references from the Bible from before 610 AD (before that there was no reason to falsify anything to expel Islamic teaching) - parts of this also older than 325 AD and council that year in Nicaea. (The numbers can vary some from one source to another, but around these ones.) All have exactly the same and invariable texts within minor variations normal for hand-copied documents, and not one shows any traces of being tampered with - falsified - in ways that modern science can find. And modern science is good at finding falsifications, as it a frequent kind of crime. No scratching out of text, no other tries of removing old text, no putting in new words, no new words written with another kind of ink, no new words with another handwriting, etc. Islam also never even has tried to explain how it could be possible to make identical falsifications in 40-45ooo and more different manuscripts spread over the whole known world and wider - and how it was possible for Jews and Christians to agree on identical falsifications. Muslims often claim the falsifications were done at the mentioned meeting of bishops in Nicaea in 325 AD. But for one thing the agenda for that meeting is well known and nothing like this was on that agenda. For another ting a lot of manuscripts older than 325 AD exist - not one of them falsified. And for a third: It is exactly as difficult to get bishops change the Bible, as it is to make ayatollahs change the Quran. (Muslims also claims that the OT was falsified when it "had to be rewritten" when the Jews returned from Babylon. But for one thing not all Jews were deported to Babylon (f.x. 2. Kings 25/12), and you bet the ones who remained took care of their holy scriptures - religion is a comfort in difficult times. And for another thing also the Jews in exile had managed to keep some copies of the scriptures (f.x. Ezra "was a teacher well versed in the Laws of Moses" = the Books of Moses (Ezra 7/6) - which meant they had the books). And for a third: Jews lived in many countries also at that time, and in each and every synagogue, there always was and is at least one copy of the scriptures - in addition to what was owned by members of the congregations. The OT simply never was rewritten - there never was a reason for that.) There simply never were any falsifications of any part of the Bible - as proved by science. But it is as said even better proved by Islam: If there had existed one single falsification, Islam had found it and screamed about it. Nobody has ever heard such a scream.
  5. As Yahweh clearly existed if the old books tell the truth, and as clearly was/is not the same god as Allah, and as Islam's "explanation" ("falsification") for the case is wrong, Islam here has a problem when claiming there only is one god. Even if we omit all other (claimed) gods, there still remains Yahweh, whose existence they have admitted.
  6. This problem grows even more interesting when one remember that Yahweh has proved his existence and power many times if either the Bible or the Quran or both tell the truth on this point, whereas Allah has proved exactly nothing - there only are words and claims from a man with a very doubtful moral (even according to Muslim books, included the Quran - take away the glorious words and see what remains) behind the claims for Allah's existence and power.
  7. And: If there then exists one, but only one god - who is most likely to exist? - Yahweh or Allah?

 

162 2/257k: "- - - from the light they (the evil ones - the Devil*) will lead them (non-Muslims and bad Muslims*) into the depth of darkness". For Jews and Christians the Bible disagree.

163 2/257l: "They (non-Muslims and bad Muslims*) will be Companions of the Fire - - -". = will go to Hell. For Jews and Christians the Bible disagrees. Also see 3/77b below.

164 2/270b: "But the wrongdoers will have no help". As far as the word "wrongdoers" means Jews and Christians, the Bible contradicts this claim.

165 2/286b: (A278): ”O our Sustainer! Lay not on us (Muslims*) a burden like that which Thou didst lay on those before us - - -.” Muslims like to tell this refers to heavy burdens placed on the Jews by the Law of Moses. But in reality the Quran neither says about whom it is speaking nor what kind of burden (f.x. forefathers’ burden of paganism and/or sins).

166 3/2a: "There is no god but He (Allah*)". Well, what is for sure is that Allah is not the same god as Yahweh (if any of them exists) - the teachings are fundamentally too different. (The only possibility is if the god is strongly schizophrenic.) Also see 2/225a above and 6/106b and 25/18a below. Another thing which is for sure, is that the existence of Allah was and is never proved. And a third: The only basis for the claims about Allah, is the word of a man who would be accepted by no court in any real democracy as a reliable witness, as he believed in the use of lies (al-Taqiyya - the lawful lie, Kitman - the lawful half-truth, Hilah - the lawful pretending/circumventing), deception and even the breaking of words and oaths, but pay expiation if necessary (2/225a above, 5/89a+b, 16/91e, 66/2a below).

Both the Bible and the Quran states that the old Jewish and Christian god existed, even though the Quran wrongly mixes him with Allah (the question of other gods - f.x. the Hindu ones - we omit here). Thus there are at least two - - - if Allah exists.

##167 3/3k: “- - - the Book (the Quran*), confirming what went before it (the Torah and the Bible*) - - -”. (A3/3) here comments that it is not confirming the Bible as we know it today, but like it was originally. We quote: "- - - the fact - - - that in the course of the millennia the Bible has been subject to considerable and often arbitrary alterations - - -". To say the least of it: This is distasteful. Top Muslim scholars know that science long since has proved this claim is not true - it is a well known fact. They also know that Islam has proved the same even more strongly by not finding one single falsification in all those tens of thousands of old papers - and by not even being able to explain how the identical falsifications in very many points in each of may be hundreds of thousands of relevant manuscripts (some 45ooo have survived till today) spread over thousands of kilometers and many lands and cultures, and sects - and 2 religions - could be done - and how to make f.x. Jews and Christians and different sects make identical falsifications. The ones of them who know something about human nature, also know that to make bishops falsify the Bible (like Muslims claim - as normal for Muslims without documentation - happened in Nicaea) is exactly as easy as making imams or ayatollahs falsify the Quran, and for just the same reason: Strong religious belief simply do not work that way (this in addition to that the agenda for that council is well known, and changes of Biblical texts were not even mentioned). But all the same they write thing like this!

All the same he calls f.x. "arbitrary alterations" a fact.

Al-Taqiyya (lawful lie) of the most obvious kind.

But then they have no choice if they want to save the religion. And to save the religion is more essential than to check if it is a true or a made up one.

But if there is a next life, the consequences in believing in an invalid or made up religion is so severe, that the most essential and basic question should be just this: 'Is the religion a true one?' instead of using al-Taqiyyas (lawful lies) as argument for that "what our forefathers believed in must be true" and for saving the forefathers' old and never documented belies, only built on an apocryphal book dictated by a somewhat "special" man.

168 3/4a: "_ - - those who reject Faith and the Signs of Allah, will suffer the severest penalty - - -". Non-Muslims. Contradicted by Yahweh and the Bible, at least concerning Jews and Christians.

169 3/19a: "- - - nor did the People of the Book (mainly Jews and Christians*) dissent therefrom (Islam*) - - -." To say this is not true, must be the understatement of the year - Islam has always met strong disbelief from both Jews and Christians, MUCH to the chagrin of Muhammad. This is one of the places in the Quran where it at least is clear he knew he was lying when he told this - he was too intelligent not to know what Jews and Christians generally meant about his new religion.

170 3/21d: "- - - those - - - who slay the prophets - - -". One of Muhammad's negative names for Jews and Christians - in just this case mostly the Jews. (But see 3/21e just below.)

171 3/21e: "- - - those - - - who slay the prophets, and slay those who teach just dealing with mankind (Muslims mainly*) - - -" = non-Muslims, may be especially Jews (Christians should go free here, as the known prophets lived before this religion started, except for Jesus, and he was not killed by Christians). This with slaying the prophets is an often repeated black spot, but if you read the Bible, you will see that in reality few of the known prophets were slain. But it is a very good and heavy argument when speaking to people not knowing this. And as for "teaching just dealing with mankind" - was the Muslim "dealing with mankind" through history "just"? - only the ones who do not know history - or Muslims - can answer "yes" to this question - and Muslims only because most of them only have been told a very colored story about how heroic their heroes have been and how Muslims have won and have been rich and mighty and how "just and good" everything have been - totally without empathy with the victims or giving even one thought to how life - or death - became for the victims, not to mention total destruction of whole cultures, and the slowness of the rebuilding of culture and civilization in spite of Islam and its struggle against all knowledge not related to religion - cfr. fanatics like al-Ghazali. A rebuilding which finally had to take place in the West - outside the old area of culture from the eastern Mediterranean to India (China stagnated for other reasons). The old cultural center in what we call the Middle East and the Mediterranean area simply was destroyed as a center for expansion of and search for new knowledge, and a new one had to be built from scratch in Europe. One may wonder what had happened to the world, if f.x. Persia and other cultural centers in the region had not been destroyed, and later again had its science, philosophy and knowledge suppressed around 1100 AD after a partial rebuilding. From the Muslim area there came not one single new idea or thought which could benefit humanity after ca. 1100 AD - a little later in the western Muslim area.

172 3/23d: "- - - a party of them (Jews and Christians*) turn back and decline (the arbitration)". The reason for this was very simple: They knew the Bible and saw the difference between what Muhammad claimed it told, and what it really told.

173 3/24d: “- - - their (Jews, Christians*) forgeries (of the Bible*) - - -“. The Quran, Muhammad, Islam and most Muslims claim that the Bible is falsified – they claim, but NEVER document or in other ways prove it. Not only claim it is falsified, but that it is falsified on purpose. This in spite of the fact that science long since has proved it is not falsified - one knows literally thousands of relevant old papers and scraps of paper (some 13ooo (included some 300 copies of the Gospels) older than 610 AD + some 32ooo other relevant references - quotes - to the Bible in other manuscripts), which documents it has not been falsified – and with royal disregard for the fact that as the Bible was spread over enormous distances, here, there and everywhere, it also was physically impossible to co-ordinate the falsification of each and every copy all over the world, so that all the falsifications were identical, not to mention that all similar points and all references to all these in other papers also had to be falsified correspondingly. And not to forget: The falsifications of the older manuscripts all had to be so cleverly done, that even modern science of today cannot find traces of scratching, chemical blotting out, wrong ink or wrong handwriting where new words are filled in, etc., etc. Well, and how to find absolutely every manuscript and scrap of such ones, so that not falsified copies would not reveal everything and the claimed original texts? "Those facts does not matter - we need the Bible to be falsified, because if not something is seriously wrong with Islam. Period!!"

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

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

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

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

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

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

174 3/24e: "- - - their (Jews and Christians claimed*) forgeries (of the Bible*) deceive them as to their own religion". In more plain words: The claimed forgeries of the Bible have made their religions false ones. But as both science and Islam thoroughly have proved that there are no forgeries in the Bible, what does this sentence then in reality tell? And what does it indirectly, but very clearly tell about Islam?

175 3/37g: "- - - her (Mary's*) chamber - - -". The Quran indicates that this took place in the Temple (in Jerusalem). But according to Mosaic (Jewish) law a female child could not be devoted to service in the Temple - only men served there. And there is one more reason for why this claim is impossible: ONLY members of the Levi tribe served in the Temple, whereas Mary was a descendant of David, which means she was from the Judah tribe. Muslim scholars know this, but never tell their audiences that the Quran here is wrong. Even A. Yusuf Ali knew it - he mentions it in comment 378 in his book "The Meaning of the Holy Quran". But even this according to Islam perhaps very best translator of the Quran, and a learned man, makes no remark about it in his edition/translation of "the Holy Quran". "It is better to believe than to face a destroying truth". We may add that the story of Mary serving in the Temple is taken from apocryphal - made up - sources, AND even Islam knows this (see comment 379 in Yusuf Ali: "The Meaning of the Holy Quran", but they keep quiet about it. We quote from YA379: "Some apocryphal Christian writings say that she was brought up in the Temple to the age of twelve like a dove, and fed by the angels". (It is symptomatic for some Islamic literature that he uses the story even if it is an apocryphal one, and even he - a top Muslim scholar - does not mention that "apocryphal" normally means "a made up story" even though all learned Muslims do know this, and thus dishonestly let the readers believe it is "bona fide" information - there were many such made up stories and legends, just like there were lots of made up Hadiths, and not a few of them are used by Muslims as if they were true stories. This fact tells not a little about Muslim disputants and about Islam, which does not discourage the use of untrue arguments. We at least have never seen any Islamic try to make an end to this kind of dishonesty. Also see 3/44a below.

176 3/38c: "- - - Thou (Allah*) art He that heareth prayer!" Even if we omit the fact that a Jewish priest - Zechariah was a priest in the Temple in Jerusalem - hardly would pray to Allah, but to Yahweh, there remains one fact: Allah only could hear prayers if he existed and if he in addition was a god. There only are Muhammad's claims for this - and Muhammad is not the most reliable of witnesses.

Besides Allah could not and cannot honor prayers even if he should happen to exist, because that would mean he had to change his Plan, which "nobody and nothing can make him do".

177 3/44a: "This (Mary serving in the Temple under Zachariya and later her receiving the message about a child*) is part of the tidings of things unseen, which We (Allah*) reveal unto thee (Muhammad*) by inspiration - - -". Wrong. It is neither from inspiration, nor from the Bible, but from old apocryphal - made up - scriptures. It is even more wrong, as according to Mosaic - Jewish - law, only men could serve in the temple. And even some more: Only members of the Levi tribe could serve in the Temple, whereas Mary was a descendant of David, and thus from the Judah tribe. Muslim scholars knew and know this (f.x. A. Yusuf Ali: "The Meaning of the Holy Quran", comment 378: "The female child (Mary*) could not be devoted to Temple service under the Mosaic (Jewish*) law - - -" (the rest of the quote we omit - it is speculative and unscientific to say the least of it, like too often in Islamic literature), and that only Levites could be priests, etc. is very clear from many places in the Bible + from history), but never mention to their congregations. Honesty. Also see 3/37a-b-c above.

178 3/45d: "- - - Allah - - -". This in this case so obviously contradicts the historical realities about religion among the Jews in Israel around the time of the birth of Jesus, that we do not spend energy on commenting on it. It also contradicts the Bible of course.

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

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

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

####179 3/50a: (According to the Quran Jesus has come to Earth partly to confirm some Mosaic laws, but also:) "And to make lawful to you part of what was (before) forbidden to you - - -." This is a good verse to know, because as some of the Mosaic laws are closer to the Quran than to NT and its New Covenant (f.x. Luke 22/20), you meet Muslims throwing at you that Jesus (only) came to confirm the old laws, and consequently you have to mean this and this, etc. Or he/she throws at you some old Mosaic law, and you are bad not living up to it. Here is confirmed even in the Quran that Jesus lifted old laws - actually many of them, and even more of the ones the Jews had added later.

There also are verses in the Bible clearly telling that Jesus changed old Jewish laws - f.x. Acts 10/9-29.

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

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

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

**180 3/51b: (Jesus said*): “It is Allah who is my Lord and your Lord; then worship Him”. This must be written/told by someone with no knowledge of Israel at the time of Jesus. It was one of the periods when the Jewish religion was strong and the religious establishment powerful. Further the name of the (Muslim) god was not Allah until after Muhammad changed his name slightly - it was al-Lah (which means “the god” - not “god”, but “the god”, (well, the name Allah was used to a degree, though perhaps not as early as the time of Jesus - Allah seems to mean "the hidden one" or something like that). Muslim missionaries in the west today, often use the word God instead of Allah, because then a number of the differences between Yahweh (our god) and Allah are more difficult to see. They say that Allah means God, but strictly speaking “al-Lah” = “the god“). The Jews of that time were a traveling people, and they knew Arabia and the polytheistic religion there.

  1. If Jesus had preached that people should pray to a known polytheistic god from another country (and remember that at that time gods in addition were at least to a degree thought to take care mostly of their own country or tribe or whatever) - call him al-Lah or the older al-Ilah or Il - he had got very few followers.
  2. If Jesus had preached about al-Lah - a known polytheistic foreign god - the Jewish religious establishment had had him killed years before for heresy, disrespect for Yahweh and things like that.

 

This statement is made up by someone not knowing the religious and political situation in Israel around 30 AD (but the purpose for making it up is very obvious). It is very clear from history facts that the Jewish god at that time was Yahweh, and that around the year 30 AD it was a time where the religion has a strong position and strong power in Israel.

181 3/64b: "O People of the Book (here the Bible*)! Come to common terms as between us (Muslims*) and you - - -". Muhammad dearly wanted to get the Jews and the few Christians in and around Medina into his religion.

182 3/64d: “- - - that we (Muslims and Jews/Christians*) worship none but Allah (= Yahweh and Allah are claimed to be the same god*)”. 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. (It also is a fact from history that there was no falsification of the Bible after the birth of Jesus - if ever. Also a falsification on the scale Muhammad and Islam claimed/claims would be logistically, economically, psychologically (at least most owners of holy scriptures would refuse to have their scriptures falsified) possible - it would be impossible to make such a big operation without any historian ever heard about it.

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

And here we have not even mentioned that Arabia was settled thousands of years before Abraham. Even if he had been a forefather, he had been only one among thousands and tens of thousands of forefathers - a tiny drop of an Arab's blood; not even a milli-liter, but only a few micro-liters of the 5 liters of blood in a man. A few micro-liters compared with a deci-liter or two of f.x. Negro blood or European blood.

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

183 3/64e: "- - - we (here Muslims, Jews and Christians*) associate no partners with Him (Allah*) - - -". One thing is that Jews and Christians did and do not believe in Allah, but in Yahweh. But the main point just here is that Muhammad tries to tell his followers and others that other gods were gods the non-Muslims had in addition to Allah. This is a kind of Arabism, as this claim after a fashion could be used in Arabia, as Muhammad just had taken over the old Arab main god al-Lah/Allah and renamed him only Allah. Thus the old Arabs had other gods in addition to al-Lah - but only after a fashion, as they prayed to the old pagan version of this god, whereas Muhammad talked about a refashioned one. All other religions had god/gods INSTEAD of Allah, not beside him. There is a huge difference between "instead of" and "beside" in this case, but Muhammad tries this trick again and again - if he could make his followers and others believe it was a general rule and not just something Arab that other gods just were in addition to Allah, it would make Allah big.

184 3/65c: "Why dispute ye (Jews and Christians*) about Abraham, when the Law and the Gospel were not revealed till after him?" Well, according to the Quran Abraham had a book, and that must have been the Quran, as the Quran according to Islam (and the Quran) is a copy of the eternal "mother book" in Heaven and copies of that book were given to the old prophets according to the Quran. And then Abraham's copy - and Jesus' copy - must have been identical or at least nearly identical to the present Quran. All this according to Islam. As also Jesus "original" teaching was Islam, according to both the Quran, to Muhammad, and to Islam, the Gospels must have been pieces from Jesus' copy of the Quran, which later was falsified, still according to Islam - even though falsification of the Bible is proved wrong by both science and Islam, as none of them has been able to prove even one falsification from the tens of thousands of relevant old manuscripts. Believe it who wants - but you have to want to believe it to be able to do so.

185 3/65d: "Why dispute ye (Jews and Christians*) about Abraham, when the Law and the Gospel were not revealed till after him?" There is no reason why one cannot dispute about Abraham even if He lived - if he was a real person - some 1800 - 2ooo years before Chris and "the Law" arrived around 1235 - 1230 BC, and the first known Gospel around 60 AD. One f.x. can dispute about the Quran's use (or disuse?) of him, the big differences between what is told about him in the Bible and in the Quran, and not least: As the Bible is the only known source about Abraham, and as the Quran with all its mistakes is not from a god, so the information about Abraham cannot have come from a god - where did Muhammad get his information(?) about Abraham from? There in reality are just three remaining possible such sources: Dark forces - and then it may easily be wrong. Legends and fairy tales - and then it may even more easily be wrong. And fantasy - in which case it is nearly sure to be wrong.

186 3/66a: "Ye (Jews and Christians*) are those who fell to disputing (even) in matters of which ye had some knowledge!" Muhammad here refers to the fact that there were different ways of understanding words and verses in the Bible, which caused debates among Jews and among Christians. When they were able to dispute even things Muhammad claimed should be clear to them, he claims that means they are not qualified to debate things they know nothing about.

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

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

187 3/67a: “Abraham was not a Jew nor yet a Christian - - -“. He definitely was no Christian, as he lived – if he ever lived - some 1800 – 2000 years too early. But it may be correct to call the forefather of all Jews a Jew. (We know the word did not exist at that time, but it is normal to use the word also for the people who later got the name Jews. The word "Jew" is made from "Judah" - the name of one of the sons (no. 4 according to the Bible - 1. Mos. 29/35) of the Jewish patriarch Jacob - grandson of Abraham. His tribe much later settled south of and round Jerusalem, and when the nation was split after the death of Solomon, they became the main tribe in the country of Judah - hence Judes or Jews - whereas the parts further north became the country of Israel, which originally was a name the patriarch Jacob got from Yahweh, according to the Bible (1. Mos. 32/28).)

188 3/69c: "But they (Jews, Christians, and Sabeans*) shall lead astray (not you (Muslims*) but themselves - - -". This is correct only if Islam is a true religion and if in addition the Bible is wrong.

189 3/70d: “Why do ye (the Jews*) reject the Signs of Allah, of which ye are (yourselves) witnesses?” They rejected the “Signs” – the teaching of Muhammad (the Quran as a book did not exist yet). The word “Sign” here may refer to two statements:

  1. Islam say Muhammad is foretold in the Bible, and especially refers to 5 Mos. 18/15 and 18/18. But the brother of a Jew is a Jew, not an Arab, and the Jews’ fellow countrymen also are Jews, not Arabs. Islam also never mention the next few verses – f.x. number 8/22 about real and false prophets, and where Muhammad do not even qualify as a real prophet. See the chapter about “Muhammad in the Bible?” in "1000+ Mistakes in the Quran". Wrong.
  2. The other claim here is that when Jesus talked to his disciples about a helper that should come to them, Muslims claim that this meant Muhammad, even though they have to twist their “explanation” not a little (they need at least one “foretelling” from GT and one from NT, because it is said that Muhammad is foretold in both) - and even though Muhammad was born 500 years after the disciples were dead, he should be the helper of the disciples of Jesus according to Islam! (Jesus was talking about The Holy Spirit which came to the disciples some days later at Pentecost (Acts 2/2-4)).
  3. The Quran refers to one or two learned Jews whom Islam claims accepted Mohammad as a prophet. (This may or may not be true). But it is in no way correct to say that “ye” (all or most of the Jews) did so. On the contrary – may be a thousand Jews were killed and murdered and many more made slaves or had to flee the area, because they refused to accept Islam as their religion. Wrong - there is a huge difference between one/a few and most/all.

 

See 7/157d+e below.

Islam only has produced claims and twisted logic for this – well, claim. They will have to produce documentation or proofs if they want to be believed by others than the brainwashed and the naïve. Similar claims in 2/42 – 2/101 – 2/146.

What was wrong with them, Muhammad told, was that they had distorted or thrown away parts of the OT (he claimed), so that it did not tell the same story as the Quran – which it, he claimed, surely had done when it was sent down from Allah (As mentioned no part of the Bible is “sent down”, except the 10 Commandments. It is all written by humans – may be inspired by god, but written by humans. What comes closest to having been “sent down” except for the 10 Commandments, are the laws of Moses, which the Bible tells Yahweh told to Moses, and Moses wrote them down later.) See 2/75b, 2/76b and 2/77a above, and especially 7/157d+e below.

Worse: Not even Islam has ever found a proof for that the Bible is falsified - not even a single point of falsification they have found in it (guess if they had referred to it if they had found anything!). Mistakes, yes, but no falsifications. The same goes for science: No falsification found.

190 3/71c: “Why do you (Christians/Jews*) clothe the truth with falsehood (= falsify the Bible, the Torah, and the other Jewish scriptures - this is strongly stated in the Quran, as if it is not true then the Quran is a falsified book*), - - -?” Always when there was a discrepancy between the Quran and the Bible, Muhammad said it was he who was right and the Jews and the Christians who had falsified the Bible (even in cases where it is clear the story in the Quran corresponds to a made up legend known in Arabia at that time) - a most convenient explanation for a man who knew little about the Bible, and the only way out he had. But does the Quran represent the truth? - with that many obvious mistakes, etc., it at most can be partly true. Also see 3/24d and 3/70d above.

191 3/71g: "- - - the Truth - - -". Contradicted by the Bible - see 2/42c above. 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.

192 3/71h: "- - - while ye (the Jews in and around Medina*) have knowledge?" Words like "knowledge" Muhammad mainly used for knowledge about Islam and the contents of the Quran. In a way that is the meaning here, too: He is accusing the Jews for knowing that their scriptures were falsified, and that originally they were like his teachings - a claim which modern science - and even more strongly Islam - has proved wrong, as not one single falsification has been found among the perhaps 45ooo relevant manuscripts older than 610 AD (when Muhammad started his proselyting).This is one of the cases where an intelligent man like Muhammad knew, or at least suspected, he was not telling the truth, but it was the only way to save his new religion - - - and his own position as a supreme leader.

#193 3/71i: "- - - while ye (the Jews in and around Medina*) have knowledge?" Just here Muhammad most likely refers to his claims that the Jews had falsified the Bible and that they knew that it was falsified. (Quite a claim by the way: He claimed that they believed in something they knew was a falsification!! - a psychological impossibility.)

Alternatively Muhammad here claims the Jews (and the Christians) knew he was mentioned in the Bible - a claim Muhammad did not repeat often, perhaps because he suspected or knew it was not true.

194 3/74a: "For His (Allah's*) Mercy (here = prophethood*) He specially choseth whom He pleaseth - - -". Muhammad claimed that he was not rejected by the Jews because his teaching was wrong, but because he was not a Jew. This verse is a defense against the bad Jews disliking that he was not Jewish - it was for Allah to decide whom to choose for a messenger. (Muhammad's claim was wrong - and it is likely Muhammad knew it, but needed the "explanation" - as the real reason was that there are miles between Islam and the Mosaic - Jewish - religion.

195 3/75c: “- - - they (Jews and Christians*) say, 'there is no call on us (to keep faith) with these ignorant (Pagans)". Here it is needed proofs if Islam really claims the Jews (there were few Christians) were worse than average - f.x. Arabs do not have the best of reputations for reliability. Just ask any sailor.

196 3/75d: “- - - they (Jews and Christians*) say, 'there is no call on us (to keep faith) with these ignorant (Pagans)'". One more of the many texts or quotes in the Quran which could not have been reliably written into the claimed "Mother Book" in Heaven (of which the Quran is claimed to be a copy) eons ago, unless predestination was and is 100% - like the Quran claims many places. If man has free will - even partly only - and can change his mind, full and reliable clairvoyance about the future, not to mention the distant future, is impossible even for a god, in spite of Islam's claims, as the man always could/can change his mind or his words once more.

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

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

197 3/75e: “But they (Jews and Christians*) tell a lie against Allah (= they have falsified the Bible*) - - -”. It is difficult to tell something is a lie, as long as nobody knows what the truth about Allah is - or if he even exists. There are so many mistakes, etc. in the Quran, that the book is totally unreliable as a proof, and the Quran is the only "real" source for the claims about Allah and about his possible existence. More to the point: Both science and Islam has proved very strongly that the Bible is not falsified. Neither of them has been able to document even one single falsification - mistakes yes, falsifications no.

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

198 3/75f: “But they (Jews and Christians*) tell a lie against Allah (= they have falsified the Bible*), and well they know it.” Wrong. See 2/75b and 2/130a above.

###199 3/75g: “But they (Jews and Christians*) tell a lie against Allah (= they have falsified the Bible*), and well they know it.” Wrong. ######It is a psychological impossibility to believe in a god or a "holy" book if you know it is a falsification. But the claim is good propaganda for leaders of people unable or unwilling to think things, words, and slogans over.

200 3/75h: “But they (Jews and Christians*) tell a lie against Allah (= they have falsified the Bible*), and well they know it.” This could not be included in the claimed "Mother Book" until after they had said and done it. See 3/75d above.

201 3/77a: "- - - those who sell the faith they owe Allah - - - for a small price - - -". Expressions like this mainly - and often - are used for Jews and Christians. What is meant is that those bad persons have falsified the Bible to have a richer life on Earth. Instead of admitting that they really did not believe in Muhammad's new religion - and everything we know about history proves it literally was a new religion and that Muhammad's claims about older roots are fairy tales - from honest reasons. It was psychologically much wiser for him if he wanted to promote his religion - and his basis of power - to claim they did it from base motifs, and were morally degenerated and despicable persons. You will find him telling and impressing this claim on his followers several places in the Quran. Blind belief made people believe anything and without using their brains. It still does. Also see 2/75b, 2/130a, and 3/24 above.

####202 3/78a: “(Many Jews and Christians*) distort the Book (here the Bible) - - -“. This is an unproved claim without which Islam is dead - if the Bible is not falsified, that automatically means the Quran is wrong on many central points. But the fact is that in 1400 years Islam have been able to produce only claims and words – both of which are very cheap – whereas science has some 13ooo relevant old papers and fragments (of them some 300 from the 4 Gospels) from all over the then known world, plus some 32ooo other manuscripts with quotations from the Bible - all older than 610 AD when Muhammad started the new religion - which document that the Bible is not distorted. (And you bet: If Islam had found a single real proof for their claim, they had screamed about it). This actually is the best of all proofs for that no proofs exist. Also see “Muhammad in the Bible” (7/157e below), and “Falsified Bible?” in "1000+ Mistakes in the Quran".

203 3/78b: "- - - (as they (mainly Jews*) read) you (Muslims*) would think it is part of the Book (here the Bible*), but it is not part of the Book (but claimed to be falsifications as it is different from the Quran*); And they say, 'That is from Allah', but it is not from Allah - - -". This is Muhammad's standard "explanation" for the big differences between the Bible and what he claimed the Bible said: The bad people had falsified the Bible, and what he said was the correct. Both science and Islam today have proved the claim wrong, but it was Muhammad's only way to save his religion when f.x. Jews read from the Bible and thus proved that what Muhammad told it said, was wrong.

204 3/78d: "- - - it is they (Jews and Christians*) who tell a lie against Allah - - -". = they tell something different from what Muhammad tells, and Muhammad's claim and "explanation" - as normal no proofs - is that the Bible is falsified by them ("who tell a lie against Allah"). See 2/75a+b+c, 2/130a, and 3/78a above.

205 3/78e: "- - - and well they (Jews and Christians*) know it (that the Bible is falsified*)!" This is the kind of accusation one uses to strengthen an argument; "they" not only have done something bad, but have done so willfully. The added psychological effect of course is distaste or similar for those bad people - and if the Muslims believed the claimed "fact" that "they" were bad people, this made it easier for Muhammad later to kill and enslave them - - - and personally rape at least 2 of the young women. (First Rayhana bint Amr, and later 17 year old and newlywed Safiyya bint Huayay after he had tortured her husband, Kinana, to death - Muslims diplomatically say he married her (which he later did) after her husband was killed in the war). Whether he raped more women during his prophethood(?) or not is not known. But he clearly told his followers that during war rape - "sexual relationship" to use a diplomatic expression - was "lawful and good" as long as the woman was not pregnant. Also the fact that his man took the rapes pretty casually makes one think (you react casually to things you are used to).

206 3/78f: "- - - and well they (Jews and Christians*) know it (that the Bible is falsified*)!" This is propaganda - and propaganda only fit for non-thinking persons. It is psychologically impossible to believe in a god and a holy book you know are fakes. And very many of the Jews proved with the loss of their lives that they really believed in their scriptures.

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

##207 3/81a: "Behold, Allah took the Covenant of the Prophets, saying:" - - - then comes to you a Messenger (Muhammad*) confirming what is with you (= the scriptures the prophets had and their teachings*); you must believe in him and rendering him help". There is nothing like this in the entire Bible. Besides: How could the prophets help Muhammad? - they were all dead hundreds of years before Muhammad was even born - many of them a thousand years and more before.

A curiosum is that there nowhere in the Quran is told where and when Allah made a covenant with Muhammad or with the Muslims. There only is the matter-of-fact tone claim that there is one.

Another curiosum: Jesus according to the proved not falsified Bible NEVER gave any help to Muhammad, NEVER said anything about Muhammad, NEVER said anything which could help Muhammad, NEVER mentioned a god of war like Allah, NEVER mentioned a religion of war and suppression and blood like Islam, NEVER even touched the hateful, suppressing, bloody, warlike, and not least dishonest moral code like the one in the Quran, NEVER expressed any wish for a "hajj" to Mecca even though all Muslims should go there at least once, NEVER even mentioned neither Mecca nor the Kabah - the most holy place on Earth according to Islam. Morally there also are oceans between Yahweh and Allah, and between Jesus and Muhammad - oceans and light-years.

Similar go for all the old Jewish prophets.

###To give you a complicated, but very clear message: The only place in the Bible where Jesus mentions Muhammad, is in the very reliable(!) Quran and in the even more reliable the Hadiths. (There are Muslims who drop the Hadiths because they are too unreliable.)

Similar go for all the old Jewish prophets - included Moses.

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

208 3/81b: "Behold, Allah took the Covenant of the Prophets, saying: " - - - then comes to you a Messenger (Muhammad*) confirming what is with you (= the scriptures the prophets had and their teachings*); you must believe in him and rendering him help". A time anomaly. See 4/13d below.

209 3/81c: "- - - you (the Jewish prophets*) must believe in him (Muhammad*) - - -". How could they, when they were dead centuries and more before Muhammad was born, and even a little more before he started telling what he wants people to believe? NB: There is nothing like this in the Bible.

210 3/81d: "- - - you (the Jewish prophets*) must believe in him (Muhammad*) - - -". A time anomaly. See 4/13d below.

211 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. And also by the fact that even really old Biblical scriptures are similar to the Bible of today. And also by the fact that even really old Biblical scriptures are similar to the Bible of today. (Islam's claim that the Mosaic - Jewish - religion and culture was a falsified version of Islam does not hold water. The same goes for claims against the Christian religion. These are facts of history, at least from centuries before Christ onwards.)

212 3/84h: "- - - the Tribes - - -". The 12 Jewish tribes.

213 3/86b: “How shall Allah guide those (Jews, Christians*) who reject faith after they accepted it and bore witness that the Messenger (Muhammad*) was true and that Clear Signs had come unto them?” This refers to Muhammad's claim that one or a few Jews and Christians had admitted (maybe true, maybe not) that he was a prophet, and here he claims it then was unjust and not understandable that not also all the others admitted the same. It is very clear even from Islamic literature that the reason why they did not believe in Muhammad, was that they simply did not believe in his new religion and stuck to the Bible.

214 3/86c: “How shall Allah guide those (Jews and Christians*) who reject faith after they accepted it and bore witness that the Messenger (Muhammad*) was true and that Clear Signs had come unto them?” Some Muslim scholars (f.x. A3/69) say that this is not about what the Jews (and few Christians) said and did, but about the Islamic claim that Muhammad is foretold in the Bible, something Muhammad here claimed they knew, but refused to admit. As you have to have very strange glasses to find Muhammad in the Bible - he is not there (see 7/157e below) - this sentence in case is invalid. (But it is a claim Islam cannot afford to drop, as it is said in the Quran that one finds Muhammad both in OT and in the Gospels. If they then do not find him, the Quran is wrong and cannot be from a god, and Islam is a made up religion - not from a god. And the belief of the fathers and the belief you have built your life on, is more essential than to find out if that belief can be true or not - for Muslims like for believers in many other religions). Also Islam has not one single proof for Allah, and a claimed indication in the Bible at least would be an indication - if it had been true. See the chapter about "Muhammad in the Bible?" in "1000+ Mistakes in the Quran" - https://www.1000mistakes.com , or 7/157e below.

215 3/99c: "Why obstruct ye (Jews, Christians*) those who believe from the Path of Allah - - -". Simply because they saw that something was seriously wrong with Muhammad's teaching and thus with Islam.

216 3/99g: “(Jews and Christians*) ye were yourselves witnesses (to Allah’s covenant)”. Wrong. They were witnesses to Yahweh’s covenant(s). Allah is not the same god as Yahweh, unless the god is seriously schizophrenic, as the teachings fundamentally are too different. If Islam still insists on the opposite, they will have to bring proofs, not only the old and still not documented loose claims.

217 3/100d: "- - - they (some Jews and Christians*) would (indeed) render you (Muslims*) apostates after you have believed". Apostates from what as the Quran is not from a god? - too much wrong in the book.

218 3/110g: "If only the People of the Book (see 3/110e above*) had faith - - -". As said several places only Islam is faith in the Quran - Jews and Christians do not believe in the Quran, and thus do not have faith.

219 3/110i: "- - - among them (Jews and Christians*) are some who have faith - - -". Similar are indicated a few places in the Quran. It is not quite clear whether he refers to some of them accepting Islam, or of he meant also honestly and strongly believing Jews and Christians could be accepted by Allah. Our impression is that he at least in the early years of Islam thought that also Jews and Christians could go to Paradise if they were good persons and honest believers.

220 3/110j: “Most of them (Jews and Christians*) are perverted transgressors.” Yes, one has to be perverted to believe in the god of the old - a god who according to their holy book has manifested his power many times - and in a book backed by thousands of witnesses at least from the times of Moses till the times of Jesus (though in both these cases something or details may be wrong), compared to believe in a medium large businessman liking power and respect - and women - and who in addition is a highway man, extorter, womanizer, rapist, torturer, enslaver, slave dealer (selling or giving away for bribes his 20% of the slaves taken), assassin, murder, mass murderer, believer of al-Taqiyya (the lawful lie) and Kitman (the lawful half-truth) (even thought these two kinds of dishonesty only was formalized later), deceiving ("war is deceit" - and "everything" is jihad), breaker of his words and oaths (f.x. murdering 29 men from Khaybar he had guaranteed safety during peace talks), even a few places clearly lying in the Quran, and an inciter to hate, discrimination and war - but in no way able to do more than to tell unproved tales backed by invalid and even wrong “signs” and “proofs” - tales which on top of all show a number of the hallmarks of a swindler, cheater and deceiver. (Muslims: This is no slander - these facts are taken from Islam’s own books telling about and praising Muhammad - it only lacks the sugar coat of explaining away and heroism. There is no reason of being angry when meeting the very plain truth from your own books. When glorious words and reality disagree, we always believe in reality).

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

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

221 3/112b: Short words: Jews and Christians are to be detested.

222 3/112d: "- - - slew the Prophets - - -". Read the Bible - how many prophets of Yahweh did the Jews in reality slew? Except for Jesus not many.

223 3/113d: "- - - they (Jews and Christians*) rehearse the Signs of Allah - - -". No comment necessary.

224 3/113f: "- - - they (Jews and Christians*) prostrate themselves - - -". Wrong. At least Christians do not use prostration.

225 3/113g: "- - - they (Jews and Christians*) prostrate themselves in adoration". Wrong. None of "the People of the Book" adore Allah. They simply do not believe he exists, and definitely not as a god. (####Though many do not know the Quran better than they believe Muslims are speaking the truth when Islam claims Yahweh and Allah is the same god - but that Muhammad/the Quran has twisted the god's teaching).

226 3/114a: "- - - they (Jews and Christians*) believe in Allah". No comment necessary.(Even in the cases where they have used the name Allah instead of God or Yahweh, they definitely have not believed in the Islamic Allah).

227 3/114d: "- - - they (Jews and Christians*) are in the ranks of the righteous". For once the Quran may well be right. But normally when words like "righteous" is used in the Quran, it is in accordance with the book's own partly immoral moral code.

228 3/115a: "Of the good they (Jews and Christians gone Muslims or at least nearly so*) do, nothing will be rejected of them - - -". = All good deeds will be remembered on the Day of Doom - - - if the Quran can be relied on.

229 3/116c: "Those who reject Faith (Islam*) - - - will be Companions of the Fire - - -". Contradicted to say the least of it by the Bible, at least regarding Jews and Christians. 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.

230 3/117b: "- - - they (Jews, Christians*) wrong themselves". Only if Allah exists and Yahweh not - and only if the Quran in addition tells the full and only truth about this. And not least: Not if Allah predestines everything like the Quran claims many places.

231 3/117c: "- - - they (Jews, Christians*) wrong themselves". It should be unnecessary to mention that this is strongly contradicted by the Bible. And we remind you that both science and Islam thoroughly have proved that the Bible is not falsified in spite of the Quran's never documented claims. 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.

232 3/119b: "- - - ye (Muslims*) believe in the whole of the Book (the Quran*)". Implication: Jews and Christians have falsified the copies their forefathers received of the Quran (sic!) and now have only parts of it left in which they believe - and the rest they believe in, Muhammad claims they had made up (an allegation and a never proved one - and a claim both science and Islam long since have proved wrong by being unable to find any falsification among literally tens of thousands of relevant old manuscripts).

233 3/125b: “Yea – if you remain firm - - - your Lord (Allah*) would help you with five thousand angels making a terrific onslaughter”. This is not from the Bible, and you also find nothing similar anywhere in that book, not even in the more warlike OT, where the Jews should and had to fight to get a country for themselves, and later to defend it. If Yahweh and Allah had been the same god, this had meant that the god suddenly had got a new idea: Send the angels to take part in battles on Earth. A likely idea?

The fact that no Jewish prophet ever told the same kind of story, also is one more proof for that Muhammad was not in such a line of prophets - if he had been a prophet. His teaching also on points like this, was very different from the teaching of the Jewish prophets, and thus not in their line or tradition.

234 3/144d: "- - - many were the Messengers that passed away before him (Muhammad*)". The Quran claims that all societies through all times have been sent prophets teaching Islam - Hadiths mention the number 124ooo. Neither science nor Islam have been able to find any trace of such prophets or such a religion (except in the Bible, but those prophets preached about another religion and another god - Yahweh - a god Islam wrongly and without proofs claims is the same god as Allah, but the fundamentals of the teachings are too different for this to be true).

We may add that if we compare this number with the time perspective in the Bible - on which also Islam here rests as the Quran builds on the same persons in the old times - this perspective is some 6ooo-7ooo years. Which in case means some Allah according to the Quran sent prophets/messengers for some 5ooo years up to the claimed last one Muhammad. This again means some 24 new prophets a year - 2 a month. And not one of them except a few Jewish ones left a trace at all. Believe it if you are able to.

If we instead use the scientific perspective and say that Allah's sending of prophets/messengers started when Homo Sapiens started, we still end up with some 60 - 80 a century. (Homo Sapiens developed some 160ooo-200ooo years ago - one has a small preference for ca. 195ooo years ago. If we use this number, we end up with some 2 every 3 years - ca. 1 every 18 months. And not one leaving a trace except the few mentioned Jewish ones. (Why only the Jewish ones by the way, if Allah sent to all nations and cultures and people all over and to all times?

*235 3/146a: “How many of the Prophets fought (in Allah’s way) - - -". Exactly no-one of the known prophets from the Bible. The very few of the known ones of them who took part in fighting, fought for earthly reasons. None took part in a religious war. The wars you find in OT (there is none in NT) were political ones or punishment of the Jews from Yahweh. There were no wars to spread the mosaic religion, as contrast to "holy wars" - jihads - fought by Muslims.

236 3/149b: “If ye (Muslims) obey the unbelievers, they will drive you back on your heals - - -”. No good. We may mention that there have been many cases of disturbance through the times because non-Muslims have got leading positions (Christians and even more so Jews often had better education than Muslims, who often concentrated on "Islamic sciences" - the religion and related knowledge - only) - the Muslims refused to have non-Muslim leaders they had to obey.

237 3/154d: "- - - suspicion due to ignorance - - -". In this case the honest explanation was greed, not ignorance - but what is quoted here fitted the religious claims better. And mainly the "suspicion" - read "disbelief" - at least the Jews and the few Christians in the area felt for Muhammad and his Allah, was based not on ignorance, but on the knowledge that the Bible told different - often very different - stories from what Muhammad claimed it told.

238 3/156e: “Be not like the unbelievers, who say of their brethren - - - engaged in fighting: - - - ". So definitely not from NY. Even in the harder OT war is not glorified like it is in the surahs from Medina. In OT it just is a means to reach a goal; a home country for the Jews. In NT there hardly is any armed war allowed at all. Yahweh and Allah the same god? - no answer is necessary.

##239 3/162a: “Is the man who follows the good pleasure of Allah like the man who draws on himself the wrath of Allah - - -?” Of course not – the Muslims are better. It is a strange rule this that the ones inventing an ideology, always deem themselves to be the best, and all others of lower value. The Greeks were better than their "barbarian" neighbors. The old Egyptian found it distasting even to eat together with the Jews, according to the Bible (because they were lowly shepherds). Arab Muslims for centuries were better than other Muslims. Afghan Muslims even today mean they are better Muslims than other Muslims. Everybody is better than the Jews. The Indians were better than the Eskimos. The white race was the very best. Communists were and are best. Not to mention how best the Nazis were. And not to forget: Muslims are better than anyone else - twice as good or better according to some Muslims. It even is possible to believe things like this if you have little education, are naive, or are brainwashed.

240 3/174d: "- - - they (Muslims at war*) followed the good pleasure of Allah - - -". The good pleasure of Allah here refers to going to war. You do not find anything even remotely similar to this in NT. And even in the more warlike OT, war was not for the pleasure of the god, but to make room for the Jews, and later for to defend their nation(s).

241 3/179g: ""But He (Allah*) chooses of His Messengers (for the purpose) whom He pleases". Muhammad claimed the Jews did not believe in him because he was not a Jew (the real reason was that they knew their own old scriptures, and saw how much in Muhammad's teaching and what he claimed the old god said and wanted, were wrong compared to those scriptures. This is an argument against the Jews, but meant for his followers - the Jews knew he was not speaking the truth here. Worse: The last years - when Muhammad had got more knowledge about at least the OT, he had to see the difference himself and had to know something was wrong. But he blamed everything on falsification of the Bible even if he at this time had to know he was lying - his only way out if he wanted to save his religion and his platform of power - - - and his "face".

242 3/180a: "- - - those who covetously withhold of the gifts which Allah hath given them - - -". Jews and Christians have got the scriptures from the god, but are bad people and have falsified or withheld parts of it so that it no longer corresponds to Islam and Muhammad and his Quran. Well, science has long since proved this claim wrong: There are no falsifications in the Bible - some mistakes, but no falsifications. Islam has never proved ANY of its claims about falsifications in the Bible at all - not one! Actually they have proved the claim wrong by being unable to find even one proved falsification - guess if they had told about it if they had found one! It all is just a number of not documented claims and all in spite of what we really know about the facts. Actually the very best proof for that nothing is falsified, is just Islam's inability to find even one single proved falsification - like always in such cases Muslims make lots of claims, but there is not one proved case - - - and loose claims are cheap.

###Another, and in this case perhaps more likely, way of understanding this sentence is that Muhammad here like some other places in the Quran, means the non-Muslims were misers. An ironic meaning if it is true what is said about Muslims (not) helping others than Muslims. But Muhammad may have been right that non-Muslims gave little to him - quite natural if they thought his main purpose was to forward what they thought was a false religion and a false god, and perhaps his own power.

243 3/181e: "- - - slaying the Prophets - - -". Read the Bible and see how many - or few - prophets the Jews in reality slew.

244 3/183f: "- - - why then did ye (Jews*) slay them (their prophets*) - - -". Few of the Biblical real prophets were slain - just read the Bible yourself and check. This in contradiction to Muhammad's indications that most or all were slain (f.x. the here quoted words may be understood like Muhammad claims all of them were slain).

245 3/186b: "- - - those who received the Book before you - - -". = Mainly Jews and Christians. (Muhammad claimed the Bible and the Quran were the same book, only that the bad Jews and Christians had falsified it - a claim science and even more Islam have thoroughly proved wrong by being unable to find even one proved falsification.)

246 3/187c: "And remember Allah took a Covenant from the People of the Book (= Jews and Christians mainly*), - - - but they threw it away - - -".

Yahweh according to the Bible took a covenant with the Jews. It was sometimes respected, sometimes mistreated and broken and fell into disuse - - - and renewed time and again. What the Quran and Islam never mention, is that Yahweh never terminated it (well, Islam claims it was terminated "de facto" by the Jews' breaking and mistreating it, but not even the Quran says that the god told he terminated it). As not even the Quran claims the covenant was a fiction, at least formally it thus still was valued at the time of Muhammad, and even today.

Yahweh took a "new covenant" with the followers of Jesus, formalized via Jesus during "the Last Supper" (Luke 22/20 and a number of other places) and more or less the same can be said about this one, but with the addition that there always were many honest believers in this covenant never breaking it, so that there never was a reason for terminating it - omitting bad persons from it, yes, terminating it, no. The new covenant is never mentioned by Muslims. (Most Muslims have never even heard about it, even though their scholars know about it.)

247 3/187d: "And remember Allah (Yahweh*) took a Covenant from the People of the Book (= Jews and Christians*), - - - but they threw it away - - -".

Many Muslims claim this in reality is about the claimed mentioning of Muhammad in the Bible. But so what, when there is no such mentioning? It is very obvious that there is no clear mentioning of Muhammad there. Then Muslims make a number of claims about hidden references, but the cherry-picking of words and the twisting of meanings are too obvious and too wrong. See the chapter about the claims about Muhammad in the Bible in "1000+ Mistakes in the Quran" or in 7/157e below.

248 3/187f: "- - - they (Jews and Christians*) threw it (the claimed original Bible*) away behind their backs - - -". = They falsified the Bible - a claim both science and Islam solidly have proved is wrong. (Very serious for Islam, because if the Bible is correct, the Quran is wrong and Islam a pagan and made up religion.)

249 3/187h: "And vile was the bargain they (Jews, Christians*) made." In reality identical to 3/187g just above. In addition: This claim is wrong if the Quran is not reliable - and doubly wrong if the god they believed in instead (Yahweh*), really exists.

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

#####250 3/199g: "For them (strongly believing Jews and Christians*) is a reward with their Lord". There may be a hope for Paradise also for Jews and Christians - - - if this verse is not abrogated (made invalid) by a stricter one later on.

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

251 3/199h: "For them (strongly believing Jews and Christians*) is a reward with their Lord, and Allah is swift in account". Here the Quran once more wrongly indicates that Yahweh and Allah is the same god, a claim which obviously is wrong as the teachings of those two too often and too fundamentally are too different.

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

252 4/44a: "- - - those who were given a portion of the Book (the Quran*)". According to Yusuf Ali (YA366) it is not entirely clear what is meant by the expression "a portion of the Book" - the Quran often is unclear in stark contradiction to what Muslims like to claim - but it is clear that the Quran here means Jews and Christians.

One possible way of understanding it is that the rest was falsification - a claim which is proved wrong.

253 4/44b: "- - - they (Jews and Christians*) traffic in error - - -" = they have falsified the Bible - a never documented claim science long since have proved untrue, not to say is a lie - and just to mention it: Islam has proved the same by being unable to find even one proved falsification. Even more: If Muslims demand a proof from you for this, first demand proof for falsification from them, as they put forth the claim and thus have the burden of proof - such proof does not exist and the best documentation for this is that if it had existed, Islam had put it in the wall of every mosque in gold. But as said it really is proved by science and by Islam (by not finding one single proved falsification among literally tens of thousands of relevant old manuscripts) beyond any reasonable and unreasonable doubt that the Bible is not falsified - some mistakes, yes; falsifications, no.

254 4/44c: "They (Jews and Christians*) traffic in error - - -". Muhammad's standard claim: These people did not believe in him because they had falsified the Bible to have riches in this life. (The real reason was that they knew the Bible and saw that many of Muhammad's claims about its contents were wrong. Also see 4/44b just above.

255 4/44d: "They (Jews and Christians*) traffic in error - - -". Strongly contradicted by the Bible - and the Bible is deemed more reliable than the Quran by science. Also see 67/9c below - a strong one. But of course it is ok for Islam to prove - prove - the Bible wrong and the Quran right. But as we say: Prove, not just loose claims and as loose and invalid words like the Quran always use instead of proofs.

256 4/46c: "We (Jews*) hear and we disobey", etc. It seems like Jews waged a low-scale psychological war against Muhammad - - - if Muhammad here tells the truth.

257 4/46f: "(If the Jews only had obeyed Allah/Muhammad*) it had been better for them, and more proper - - -". Only if Islam is a real religion based on a real god, and only if in addition Yahweh does not exist.

258 4/46g: "- - - Allah hath cursed them (non-Muslim - in this case Jews*) for their unbelief - - -". One more strong proof for that Yahweh and Allah is not the same god: Yahweh - especially in NT - might curse persons for bad deeds, but not for disbelief itself. He instead would try to reach them and save them - compare Allah here to f.x. "the lost coin" (Luke 15/8-10), "the lost sheep" (Matt. 18/12-14), "the lost son" (Luke 15/11-31), "the 11. hour" (Matt. 20/8-13).

259 4/46h: "- - - their (the Jews'*) Unbelief - - -". It is not unbelief unless Allah exists and Yahweh not - and for Yahweh there exist a lot of proofs if the old books tell the truth, whereas for Allah there only - only - are claims from a not very reliable person.

260 4/49a: "- - - those (Jews*) who claim sanctity for themselves - - -". The Jews claimed to be "the god's chosen people", much to the irritation of Muhammad. Muhammad used to claim they claimed this special status because they were descendants of Abraham, even though he well knew about the real background; the Jews' covenant with Yahweh. Perhaps "descendants from Abraham" were easier to ridicule than a covenant with a god? Muhammad also did his best to claim the Jews' covenant with the god was terminated, but this is nowhere said by Yahweh according to the old books.

261 4/50a: "How they (Jews and Christians*) invent a lie against Allah". = How they have falsified the Bible! = the only defense Muhammad had against the fact that there were large differences between what he told about the Bible and what really was in the Bible. See 2/75b, 2/89ab, 2/130 and 4/47d above and "Falsifications in the Bible?" in https://www.1000mistakes.com .

262 4/51g: "- - - they (Jews, Christians*) are better guided - - - than (Muslims*) - - -". If Yahweh exists like both the Bible and the Quran tells, but Allah not - or if Allah is not a dominant god - this may be correct. Yahweh has proved himself if the old books tell the truth, Allah has proved exactly nothing.

263 4/52a: "They (the People of the Book - Jews, Christians, Sabeans*) are (men) Allah hath cursed - - -". To use small letters: BAD PEOPLE! But is the claim true? - it never was proved, and much is wrong in the Quran.

264 4/52b: "They (the People of the Book - Jews, Christians, Sabeans*) are (men) Allah hath cursed - - - have no one to help". Wrong if the god(s) they believe in - f.x. Yahweh - really exist(s).

265 4/60a: "- - - those who declare that they believe in the revelations that have come to thee (Muhammad*) and to those before thee - - -". These are the Jews and Christians. "- - - those before thee - - -" is a clear reference to them, and "revelations that have come to thee" - well, Muhammad liked to claim that many Jews and Christians believed in his teachings. F.x. the Jewish tribe Qurayza proved it was not true. (Though here he may mean that they lied when they said they believed in him.)

266 4/60e: "But Satan's wish was to lead them astray - - -". The Quran intends that "they" are Jews, Christians, etc. But a pertinent question as it is clear the Quran is from no god, and as the Quran's moral code at points is horrible, is: Are the Muslims included in "they"? Or perhaps the Muslims = "they"? (some of the rules in the Quran may be made by a devil).

*267 4/68a: “And We (Allah*) should have shown them (see 4/67 above) the Straight Way (if they went to war*)”. War was essential for Muhammad - and still is for some Muslims - and there are lots of incitements to go to war. Like it or not - NT is far, far more peaceful. Yes, even OT, as that tells about old wars, but does not incite to war forever - and a limited war to gain a country for the Jews, not a global war to suppress all non-Muslims on the entire globe - - - or make them Muslims, often by force or pressure backed by force. It is far from true when Muslims tell Islam is a peaceful religion (except towards fellow Muslims of the same sects).

##268 4/95c: “Not equal are those believers who sit (at home) and receive no hurt, and those who strive in the cause of Allah with their goods and their person." You find nothing similar to this in the Bible. In OT the Jews fought to gain a country and later to defend it, in NT physical fighting is not accepted at all. One more proof for that Yahweh and Allah are not the same god.

269 4/95e: "- - - strive in the cause of Allah - - -". Contradicted by the Bible - in OT the Jews fought to gain a country and later to defend it, in NT physical fighting is not accepted at all. One more proof for that Yahweh and Allah are not the same god. 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.

270 4/103b: "- - - set up regular prayers: for such prayers are enjoined on believers on stated times". The 5 fixed prayers are 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.

271 4/136i: "- - - the scripture which He (Allah*) sent to those before (him Muhammad*))". = The Bible. The Quran claims that the Bible is a falsified copy of Qurans (or really copies of claimed "Mother of the Book" (= "mother" of the Quran) Allah sent down to Jewish and Christian prophets/messengers - twins to the Quran, and that the Quran confirms the "original" Bible/scriptures. But the Bible's/NT's fundamental ideas, moral code, ethics, etc. are too different from the Quran's - it is not possible it is from the same god, not unless the god is strongly schizophrenic. (The standard Muslim "explanation" is that the Bible is falsified, but both science and Islam have thoroughly proved this is not true by being unable to find a single proved case of falsification among the literally tens of thousands of relevant old scriptures and fragments.)

272 4/136m: "- - - His (Allah's*) Books - - -". The plural here indicates that Allah also is behind the Jewish scriptures and NT, a claim which only can - can - be correct if the god is strongly mentally ill (schizophrenic), as the fundamental differences compared to the Quran are too deep, especially if you compare to NT and its New Covenant (f.x. Luke 22/20).

273 4/150c: "- - - Allah and His Messengers (included Muhammad*) - - -". This is a variety of Muhammad's main mantra to glue himself to the god - at the same time his platform of power. In this case he also claim to belong to the (Jewish) line of messengers/prophets, which is wrong because both his messages and his teaching differ too much from the prophets in that line.

274 4/150e: "- - - we (non-Muslims*) believe in some but reject others". This may refer to Jews and Christian who accepted what Muhammad correctly quoted of Biblical stuff, but refused what he quoted from fairy tales, legends, and apocryphal stories claiming it was from the Bible. (Muhammad did not know the Bible well, and his stories are a mixture of real quotes and made up tales he seemed to believe in.)

275 4/152d: "- - - make no distinction between any of the Messengers". In spite of 4/152c just above, this may be meant to single out Jews and Christians, who did not believe in Muhammad, and thus according to the Quran made distinctions between the claimed messengers. Unclear point. Also see 4/152e just below.

276 4/153c: (A4/164 – in 2008 English edition 4/165): “The people of the Book ask thee (Muhammad*) to cause a book to descend to them from heaven - - -” – as a proof for his prophethood. Alternatively: “- - - that thou (Muhammad*) causes a revelation to be sent down to them (the Jews*) from heaven” (M. Asad) The result would be the same – a proof (but Muhammad never was able to prove even the famous comma - - - which did not even exist in Arab at that time) – but there would be quite a difference in the means used. Very indistinct language – two very different meanings of the sentence. And these variants like all the others also are in the Arab text, as the relevant word there has more than one meaning.

But a pertinent question: There is a difference between "sending down a book" like M. Azad here says, and "Show us Allah in public" like A. Yusuf Ali translate it, isn't it?

277 4/153d: "- - - they (the Jews*) said (to Moses*): 'Show us Allah (Yahweh*) in public'". A strong contradiction to the Bible - and something there was no reason for falsifying: According to the Bible the Jews did not ask Moses to show them the god. It was Yahweh who for some reason wanted them to see him. (1. Mos. 19/3-24).

278 4/153g: “Yet they (the Jews of Moses*) worshipped the (gold*) calf - - - even so We (Allah *) forgave them - - -.” That he should do so, is contradicted by - or contradicting:

  1. 4/48: “Allah forgiveth not that partners should be set up with Him - - -.”
  2. 4/116: “ Allah forgiveth not (the sin of) joining other gods with Him - - -.” - and there are more ones.

 

(2 contradictions).

279 4/154a: "And for their (the Jews') Covenant We (the god*) raised over them (the towering height) of Mount (Sinai) - - -". The god - in the Quran claimed to be Allah - held the mountain above them (there is an old legend saying so, from which Muhammad got this idea), but our Muslim sources refrain from this way of understanding the words - too unbelievable - without really giving any explanation.

280 4/155b: "- - - slew the Messengers - - -". This is frequently repeated in the Quran and is a serious accusation against the Jews. But read the OT and see how many - or few - in reality were killed.

281 4/156a: "- - - they (the Jews*) rejected Faith (Islam*) - - -". For the very good reason that they saw something was very wrong in Muhammad’s teaching.

*282 4/156c: “- - - they uttered against Mary a grave false charge (that Jesus was crucified and dead*)”. There were so many witnesses, included many who knew Jesus well (f.x. Matt.27/54, Mark 15/40, John 19/25), and included so many who hated him and definitely had made revolt if he was not executed – the Jewish clergy was powerful - that this charge was definitely not false. If Islam says something else, they will have to provide good proofs, not only bring forth lofty statements taken out of thin air 600 years later. Because that is all the Quran has got to offer: A few lofty statements backed by nothing - no proofs and not even an indicium indicating that all those witnesses - and the rulers and the hateful Jewish clergy - were wrong. Words are very cheap - - - and the only fact Islam can produce is that neither Muhammad nor Islam can accept that Jesus died and was resurrected - in that case he clearly was a greater prophet and/or had closer connections to the god than Muhammad - or were slightly divine - and that is taboo for Muslims. It simply is unacceptable for them.

*283 4/157g: “- but they killed him not, nor crucified him, but so it was made to appear for them - - -”. See 4/156c above. In addition to what is said in 4/156c: If no one else made sure that it was no impostor and that the correct killing really took place, the angry and spiteful Jewish clergy and scholars would see to that. This claim is made up by someone who could not accept that Muhammad was not the greatest prophet (even though Muhammad in reality was not really a prophet – he did not have the gift of being able to make prophesies), and who did not know the political and religious situation in Israel at that time. If Islam wants to say something else, they will have a lot of explanation and proving to do - this even more so as the Quran always demands proofs for what non-Muslims say about their religion, but Islam NEVER itself offers any real proofs for Islam or Allah or for Muhammad's connection to a god. In spite of all the “signs” it boasts of, not one single of those “signs” - with the possible exception of some taken from the Bible - proves any god at all, and definitely not one single one proves anything about Allah or the teachings of Muhammad. Words are very cheap, and there is not one single of those “signs” which cannot as well and as easy be used by priests or believers or "prophets" of all other religions: Manito did this, Thor did that, Kali made something, Osiris something else, Baal created the Earth, and al-Uzza is great. Islam always only claims that Allah did this and this and that this is a “sign” or a “proof” for Allah. But they NEVER prove that it really was Allah who did this and this. Because of that each and every such “sign” and “proof” are intuitively and logically and even judicially invalid as an indication or a proof – and for the same reason any priest in any religion can say exactly the same valueless words about his god(s). The claims are totally invalid as indications or indicia, not to mention as proofs. There is not one single valid proof for Allah or for the teachings of Muhammad anywhere - - - or for the undocumented claim that Jesus was not crucified and died. Similar claims f.x. in 4/156c as mentioned (above).

No matter – it is reckoned as a fact that Jesus really was a historical person . He was heard and seen by so many after his death and resurrection, that it is possible also this part of the story may be true – that he really existed after his execution. (He also is mentioned by the old writers Josephus Flavius, Tacitus, Suetonius, and Plinius the younger - just mentioned, but mentioned.)

But he was never heard or seen after his final farewell to his disciples.

And actually: Whether he died and was resurrected like told in the Bible, or he was miraculously saved and taken up to Heaven alive like claimed in the Quran, it very clearly indicates a much closer connection to the god than what Muhammad had. This even more so if the Quran is a completely or partly made up book and Muhammad a cheat.

284 4/160a: "For the iniquity of the Jews We (Allah*) made unlawful for them certain (food) - - - which had been lawful for them - in that they hindered many from Allah's Way - - -". How come? The laws here referred to, are the Laws of Moses, which the Jews got ca. 1235 - 1230 BC, shortly after the exodus from Egypt. Before that they had been slaves in Egypt - no power to hinder many from any religion. And before that they were too few to do so - the group which Jacob took to Egypt counted 70 persons, his daughters-in-law not included, and they did not go proselyting. This accusation simply needs a lot of strong proofs to be believed, because before the Jews received the mentioned law, they simply did not have the power to hinder anyone from believing if someone wanted. Something simply is wrong. Another thing: There is no reference to such a reason in the "Books of Moses" - the only perhaps reliable source about this. As the Quran with all its mistakes, etc. is not from any god, from where did Muhammad get this claim or information?

This "information" simply is not from the Bible, and there is no basis in the Bible for that it can be correct.

285 4/160b: "- - - they (the Jews*) hindered many from Allah's Way - - -". Two never documented claims: They hindered people from finding their god, and this god was Allah. It is highly likely that both claims are wrong, as it is contradicted by the only existing source, the Bible. 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.

286 4/160c: (A4/174 – in 2008 edition A/175): “- - - in that they (the Jews*) hindered many from Allah’s way - - -.” “The Message of the Quran:”- - - for their (the Jews’*) having so often turned away from the path of Allah - - -.” But the Arab verb “sadda” and the corresponding noun “sadd” both may be transitive or intransitive. If you guess that they are meant transitive, you get the meaning written above. But if you guess they are intransitive, the meaning becomes: “- - - for their having (so) often (themselves*) turned away from the path of Allah - - -.” Allah(?) does not exactly use a “clear language, easy to understand” in the Quran. One extra thought here: This reason cannot be valid - they had not turned away from their god many times at the time they got the Laws of Moses, at least this is not mentioned in any reasonably reliable source. The same goes for the claim that they had hindered people to find their god.

287 4/161a: "(A reason for forbidden food in the Laws of Moses, is among others:*) That they (Jews') took usury - - -". At this time the Jews had been slaves in Egypt for a long time - some hundreds of years. Few slaves have money or valuables to lend against usury. Also there is no hint about such a reason in the Bible. This "reason" is a made up one or at least a not documented one.

288 4/161b: "- - - they (the Jews*) took usury - - -". A never documented claim - also one with no basis in the Bible. Also see 4/161a just above.

289 4/161c: "(The Jews*) devoured men's substance wrongfully - - -". Another never documented claim with no basis in the only source, the Bible.

290 4/162g: "- - - those (Jews*) who establish regular prayer and practice regular charity and believe in Allah and the Last Day: to them shall We (the god*) soon give a great reward". Also Jews may come to Paradise - - - if not this verse from 626 AD is abrogated (made invalid) by later verses. Though you will meet Muslims saying this is about believing Jews from before they learnt about the Quran (Allah often does not punish sins the sinner did not know was a sin), even if it is written in present tense, and thus counts for later Jews. (Another unclear point.)

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

291 4/163c: "- - - Noah and the Messengers after him - - -". Muhammad claimed there to all times and all places had been messengers/prophets from Allah teaching Islam - included the Biblical prophets and other Biblical persons which all are claimed to have been good Muslims. Hadiths mention the number 124ooo through the times. Neither science nor Islam has been able to find a single documented trace of Islam older than 610 AD when Muhammad started his mission. Also neither science nor Islam has ever found a trace of relevant messengers/prophets. (Just to mention it: As both science and Islam have proved beyond any reasonable and unreasonable doubt that the Bible is not falsified - neither has found one single documented falsification among the some 45ooo relevant scriptures and fragments - it is clear that the Biblical prophets are irrelevant here, as they believed in Yahweh, the old originally Jewish god who in spite of strong, but as normal for Muslims never documented claims, is not identical to Allah, as the teachings and the fundamental elements of the religions are too different.)

292 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.

293 4/165aa: "Messengers (4/163 and 4/164 show here is meant old Jewish prophets*) who gave good news, as well as warning that mankind - - -". The old Jewish prophets mainly spoke to and about Jews and sometimes neighboring people, not to mankind as such.

294 4/171b: "- - - nor say of Allah aught but the truth - - -". Another hint to the claim that Jews and Christians had falsified the Bible (impossible to be true for MANY reasons, but it was Muhammad's only possible explanation for the differences between his teaching and the real Bible".

295 4/171c: "- - - nor say of Allah aught but the truth - - -". But there is a good chance that that was just what the Jews did - said the truth about Allah, revealing that something was seriously wrong with Muhammad's new religion.

296 4/173g: "- - - nor will they find , beside Allah, any to protect or help them". Well, if they are Jews or Christians may be there is Yahweh.

297 5/1c: "Lawful unto you (Muslims*) (for food) - - -". The practical exceptions one normally run into, is the prohibition against meat from pig and blood (but also see 5/3a below). About the prohibition against meat from pig it is only explained that it is an abomination, but no-one knows why. There have been proposed these - and a few more - explanations:

  1. The danger for trichinosis. A danger which is easy to guard against.
  2. Pigs like to wallow in mud to cool down. This looks dirty. It may be a reaction against a "dirty" animal.
  3. Pigs often eat food which could be eaten directly by humans. It thus is "expensive" meat. May be old leaders have found it too expensive and placed a taboo on it.
  4. Meat and fat from pig are tasty and highly nourishing. It may in the really old times have been used for religious ceremonies and purposes, and may slowly have become sacred for normal use and then taboo. This in case partly is a parallel to what happened to horse meat in the north when the old Viking religion was ousted by Christianism - horse meat was the prized meat for the old religious ceremonies, and overnight became prohibited to eat - a prohibition which lasted nearly until modern times.

  5. As for the taboo against food from blood, it may be connected to an old belief one meets some places, that life is in the blood, and one should not eat life.

 

There also are a number of other taboos, but meat from pig and blood are the two one most often meet in daily life when Muslims live in non-Muslim areas.

We may also mention a bad kind of "fun" a few non-Muslims sometimes indulge in: To cheat Muslims (and Jews - and perhaps also Hindus) into eating forbidden food - f.x. by solemnly, but wrongly telling that there is no such-and-such meat in those sausages. For one thing it is done in vain - f.x. a Muslim who eats meat from pig, does not sin if he honestly believes he is eating something which is not forbidden (or if he is forced to do it or have to eat it from sheer hunger and has nothing else to eat). This kind of "fun" thus tells nothing about the victim, but a lot about the "fun"-maker. Besides there is the fact that most Muslims are as human as anybody else, and to try to insult his/her feelings in this way, just is a case of childish intellectual capacity and of bad taste.

298 5/2h: "- - - Sacred House - - -". 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 east), roughly 70 km north northwest from Sharm-el-Sheik (Sharm el Shaykh) far south in central Sinai. Also 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.)

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 were in Mecca).

299 5/3l: "But if anyone is forced by hunger, with no intention to transgression, Allah is Oft-Forgiving, Most Merciful". One small point to be repeated here: Some ones think it is fun or that they make a point by cheating Muslims - or Jews - to eat forbidden food, f.x. meat from pig. This just is to be impolite and unfriendly - and for no reason, as if they are cheated or forced to eat it, it is no sin neither for Muslims, nor for Jews.

300 5/5c: "The food of the People of the Book (Jews and Christians*) is lawful unto you (Muslims*) - - -". One small point here: You will meet Muslims claiming that the restrictive food laws of Moses really are binding also for Christians as they are not explicit cancelled in the Gospels. We quote MA: "The Massage of the Quran", comment 14 to surah 5: "- - - there is no statement whatsoever in the Gospels to the effect that these prohibitions were cancelled by Jesus". No, but for one thing the Gospels only make up a little better than 40% of the NT, and it is clear in the other parts of the NT that the strict Jewish food laws only are for Jews, not for Christians, and for another it is clear that Jesus did not accept everything in those laws - see f.x. his reaction when some ones scolded his disciples for harvesting grains and eating them during the Sabbath. And not least: Even the Quran tells that Jesus changed some of the Jewish laws (3/50a above).

301 5/5i: "- - - the Book, revealed before your (Muhammad's*) time". The Jewish scriptures and the Bible.

302 5/5m: "If anyone rejects Faith - - - in the Hereafter he will be in the ranks of those who have lost". Strongly contradicted by the Bible as far as Jews and Christians go. Not to mention that few if any Muslims living according to the militant lines of Islam, will qualify to Yahweh's paradise.(May be no Muslims at all, as they believe in another god - likely a made up pagan one just dressed up a little).

303 5/12c: "- - - We appointed twelve captains among them - - -". Well, Yahweh in one case said that the tribe leaders should lead. But the splitting in 12 tribes was not built on this, but on the 12 sons of Jacob (or to be more exact: Levi's descendants became priests and were split on the other tribes in a way not reckoned as a separate tribe in some connections - though kept apart an counted separately mostly. Then remained 11 of Jacob's sons. But the descendants of Joseph were split in 2 tribes, as his two sons Ephraim and Manasseh each founded a tribe (called half-tribes) = 12 tribes all together if one wants to count this way.) Though often one counted Levi as one and Joseph as one tribe.

##304 5/12e: "I (Allah*) am with you (the Jews*): if ye (but) establish regular Prayers - - -". There is no demand, request or even mentioning of a fixed number of prayers or fixed times for prayers in the Bible. As this is so essential to Allah that it is one of the pillars of Islam, but of no interest at all for Yahweh - pray when there is a reason or when you feel for it - the 5 fixed prayers of the Quran is one of the absolute proofs for that Yahweh and Allah is not the same god.

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

305 5/12g: “- - - and loan to Allah a beautiful loan - - -.” This normally is “Quran-speak” for “risk or lose your life in battle for Muhammad and Allah”. In just this case it is claimed to be said to the Jews of old times, which gave it double value: A good pep-talk and “documenting” that messengers wanting war, was nothing new.

306 5/13a: "- - - We (the god*) cursed them (Jews*) - - -". Some Muslims claim this means the god lifted the covenant with the Jews. But this is not what is said - it is easily possible to become angry with someone without retracting serious agreements because of that. There is no indication for that Allah here - or any other place in the Quran or the Bible - terminated the covenant. On the contrary it is very clear that in spite of disagreements, the covenant lived on - the Bible even reports it was renewed several times. This covenant is till this day the reason why the Jews believe they are Yahweh's special people - not that they are the descendants from Abraham, like Muhammad liked to claim. Because the covenant nowhere is reported terminated, it at least formally still is valid - if the books tell the truth. Besides; the essential point here is what Yahweh said and did - and he is not reported terminating the covenance - not even in the Quran. (Also remember: In spite of the Quran's strong claims, Yahweh and Allah are not the same god.)

**307 5/13b: “- - - they (the Jews*) change the words (of the OT*) and forget a good part of the Message that was sent them (OT*)”. The claim here is that the Bible is falsified.

There exist some 13ooo scriptures (included some 300 from the Gospels) or fragments older than 610 AD (when Muhammad declared himself a messenger) plus some 32ooo manuscripts or fragments of the same age with references to/quotes from Biblical verses. Many of them also are older than 325 AD - Muslims' main claim for the falsifications is the council of Nicaea in 325 AD (which did not discuss such changes - the agenda is well known - and there were also no Jews participating, so it does not "explain" how come that the Jews made just the same falsification in OT and about f.x. foretelling about Jesus' life, as the Christians). The some 45ooo old manuscripts show that neither OT nor NT is falsified – nor is anything forgotten (omitted). But Islam HAS to insist on this. For one thing this was the excuse Muhammad used when explaining away the differences between the Bible and the Quran – and Muhammad and the Quran has to be true and speaking only the truth, because if not the very foundation under the religion collapses; absolutely everything rests on Muhammad's words, and even according to central Islamic religious literature, his moral was very doubtful (look at what he demanded and did, etc., not at beautiful words and claims about him). And for another thing – if the Quran is wrong and the Bible correct, Islam is a made up religion.

But one fact remains: Islam has not found any proof - not one - for their many claims about a falsified Bible, even though they have searched for it for 1400 years. They have trumped up a number of claims, but like so often Islam only have cheap words behind their claims – if they had found one single real proof for their claim among the some 45ooo scriptures or other places, you can bet large money on that the world had been informed quickly and thoroughly about it. This is an even better proof than the proof from science.

When science in addition tells that the Bible is unabridged except for better translations and the small varieties normal for handwritten manuscripts spread over hundreds of years and thousands of kilometers - and there were many thousands of scriptures spread all over - and each and every single one had to be found and falsified in just the same ways (facts Muslims never mention or explain), and not one of them have marks from falsifications – well, when all this is added up, it is up to you to decide which – if any – of the two books is most reliable. (Also see 2/75b and 3/24d above).

One strong fact stands out: If Jesus in the Bible is the truth, Muhammad in the Quran is not.

308 5/14d: “For those, too, who call themselves Christians, We (Allah*) did take a Covenant, but they forgot a good part of the Message that was sent them - - -“.

= Also the Christians falsified the Bible - with all the falsifications identical all over the known world and without traces in tens of thousands of manuscripts spread all over the known world. And not least: Christians and Jews used identical falsifications!!. (And on top of all: There was not one Jew at the Council in Nicaea). No comments necessary.

 

309 5/15e: “- - - revealing to you (Jews and Christians*) much of that ye used to hide in the Book (the Bible*) - - -“. To believe in the theory that the Bible is falsified, one has to know very little about how to make identical falsifications of tens of thousands of copies of many different manuscripts, where on top of all all the different falsifications have to be synchronized in all the different manuscripts, so that the different manuscripts do not tell widely different facts. And not least: All references to and from the different papers must have been synchronized – try to do that even today with 100ooo papers spread over large areas and without using mass communications, or even a post office.

With 13ooo relevant papers or scraps of papers still existing today, there must have been at least 100ooo and many more in the old times, spread all over – papers are destroyed or rot or disappear over the centuries - all identically falsified or falsified so that each corresponded to all the others, because at that time nobody knew which papers would survive until today!!! And then we have not even included the some 32ooo other manuscripts with quotes from the Bible which also have survived till today. All together at least half a million papers had to be falsified - on 3 continents - from 2 religions + sects - in a time nearly without communications. And all had to be falsified in exactly the same ways and no point where falsification was necessary could be forgotten - and EVERY relevant paper had to be found and falsified (if not they could be found in the future). And not least: The falsifications all had to be so cleverly done that it is impossible for modern technology of today to find any traces of it.

It is up to you if you will weep or laugh - the two only normal reactions to a claim like this, if it was not because it was so serious.

Judge for yourself after you also have read all under 2/75, 3/24, 5/13 and 5/14.

But a plot like this could not be used in a novel - nobody would believe in it.

*310 5/15h: “- - - there hath come to you (Jews, Christians*) from Allah a (new) light (Muhammad*) - - -“. Well, that is one of the questions: Did a man so morally degenerated and preaching a religion based on a book with so many mistakes, etc. and so much wrong logic, really represent a god? And did a war religion with a partly immoral moral code represent a benevolent god? Simply no to each of the questions.

*311 5/18a: “(Both) the Jews and the Christians say: ‘We are sons of Allah, and (we are*) His beloved’”. Neither Jews nor Christians say they are real sons - or daughters - of Yahweh (not of Allah) (though they often figuratively - but only figuratively - refer to Yahweh as the “Father in Heaven” or humans as "Children of God".)

312 5/19d: “O People of the Book (mainly Jews and Christians, but also Sabeans - a Christian population in Sabah, now part of Yemen (though there are other explanations - and see 2/62f) - and later after a fashion and in some circles also Zoroastrians*)! Now hath come unto you, making (things) clear unto you, Our (Allah's*) Messenger (Muhammad*) - - -”. A man preaching from a book with that much error of many kinds, was not from any omniscient god. And a man preaching so immoral a moral code and similar law, did not represent any good and benevolent god. Also see 63/5a below.

###313 5/19f: "- - - after a break in (the series of Our (Allah's*) Messengers - - -". Muhammad and the Quran pretended/pretend Muhammad belong(ed) in the Jewish line - or series - of prophets. This is not correct, as both the god, the teaching and the fundamental ideas, ethics and moral codes are too different - Muhammad and his god and teaching often are even the antithesis of the prophets in the Bible and especially of the NT. Muhammad definitely is not in that line.

###314 5/19m: "- - - but now hath come to you (Jews, Christians, Sabeans*) a bringer (Muhammad*) of glad tidings and a warner (from evil)." Read the Quran - skip the glorious words, and read the realities; the demands, the introduced rules, the deeds, the (im)moral code, the lack of ethics, the sharia law, the code of war, etc. Glorious words are cheap to use for propaganda, the underlying realities are the realities. Read these realities and see what "glad tidings" and warning from real evil you find. Muhammad probably is the single man throughout the existence of man who has brought most terror and misery into this world - and if his Quran with all its errors, etc. is made up or from dark forces, also into the possible next world for his followers, if there is a real god somewhere.

**315 5/20b: “Remember Moses said to his people: - - - Allah - - - made you kings”. This is the correct literal meaning of the Arab text, but it is historically wrong. The first Jewish kings were Saul (Talut in the Quran) and then David some 200 - 300 years after Moses (around 1000 BC whereas Moses - if he was a real person - lived around 1300 BC (perhaps ca. 1315 to ca. 1195 BC). Any - even minor - god had known this. We have heard Muslims explain that this is not what the Quran means, but that Allah made all Jews like kings. But anyone who knows a little about Jewish history and about Jews before and now, knows very well that most Jews never were or are or behave(d) like kings. It is an obvious “explanation”. To circumvent and hide the mistake you find this translation in “The Message of the Quran: “- - - and (Allah*) made you your own masters - - -.” Honesty in religion? – al-Taqiyya? - - - a language “clear and easy to understand”?

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

316 5/21a: “- - - the holy land which Allah hath assigned unto you (Moses and his Jews*) - - -“. Allah or Yahweh? (See also 3/51 above).

317 5/22c: The Jews were frightened by the people living in Canaan, and Moses never entered it. That did not happen until under the next leader, Joshua ben Nun. (There may be a symbolism in that Joshua led them into the promised land - Joshua (Hebrew) is the same name as Jesus (Greek).)

#318 5/23b: “- - - two (of Moses’ Jews*) on whom Allah hath - - -“. Note how often the Quran is vague on details - f.x. names. Muhammad simply did not know, and thus he simply found a name (perhaps from Arab legends?) - like for the father of Abraham (Azar instead of Terah) or the first Jewish king (Talut instead of Saul), or he used vague words like here. In just this case the Bible simply tells that Joshua ben Nun and Caleb ben Jephunneh (4. Mos. 14/6) - both later leaders - wanted the Jews to enter Canaan at once. (There is no doubt which is the best piece of literature of the Bible and the Quran also in this case).

According to the Bible, what happened was that the spies became frightened from what they met in Canaan. Only Caleb ben Jephunneh and Joshua ben Nun advised to attack (Joshua became the leader after Moses died.)

319 5/23f: “- - - but on Allah put your (Jews*) trust if you have faith”. It is highly unlikely Jews at the time of Moses told their fellow Jews to trust Allah, as the name of the god of the Jews was Yahweh (and besides the name Allah was introduced by Arabs only some 2000 years later (as a substitute for al-Lah). Actually Muhammad often uses the name Allah where it should have been Yahweh. The switching of names is so obvious, that mostly we do not comment on it.) Contradicted by the Bible. 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.

320 5/25b: "- - - separate us (Moses and Aaron*) from this rebellious people (the Jews*)!" Not from the Bible.

321 5/31: The raven and Cain. This tale is not from the Bible, but is to be found in "The Targum of Jonathan ben Uzziah" and also in "The Targum of Jerusalem" also called "pseudo-Jonathan". You also find it in Mishna Sanhedrin. All these 3 are made up Jewish tales. Muhammad "borrowed" from many places. Would a god need to borrow from made up tales?

322 5/32b: "- - - if anyone slew a person - - - it would be as if he slew the whole people (often quoted/translated "- - - as if he killed the whole mankind/world - - -") - - -". (Also see 5/31-32 above.) This is a sentence much quoted by Muslims to prove how peaceful Islam is. But this was not said to the Muslims; for some reason or other, they without exception drop the first part of the quote: "We (Allah*) ordained for the Children of Israel that if anyone slew a person - - - it would be as if he slew the whole people - - -". They never "remember" to mention that this was said to the Jews, not to the Muslims or Arabs. Forgotten?

It is also worth to note that the Quran often is quoted/translated: "- - - as if he killed the whole mankind - - -" or "- - - as if he killed the whole world - - -". There is a difference between killing a people and killing the whole mankind/world. Also see 5/31-32 just above.

Is the Quran really the work of an omniscient god?

323 5/36e: "- - - if they (non-Muslims*) had everything on earth - - - to give as ransom for the penalty of the Day of Judgment, it would never be accepted from them". As for Jews and Christians the Bible strongly contradicts this.

324 5/41e: "- - - those - - - who race each other into unbelief - - -". One of Muhammad's negative names for non-Muslims - here for hypocrites and Jews and perhaps also for those leaving Islam.

325 5/41f: "- - - those - - - who race each other into unbelief - - -". As the Quran with all its mistakes, etc. is from no god, and as the Jews and Christians (and may be others) believe in a book which may basically be true - who is racing into unbelief?

326 5/44d: "- - - the (Jewish*) Prophets who bowed (as in Islam) to Allah's Will - - -". You can be pretty sure it was to Yahweh's will. Muslims claim the two gods, Allah and Yahweh, were the same one, but the fundamental elements in Islam and in the Mosaic religion, not to mention in Christianity, are too different - it is not possible it is the same god (unless he is seriously mentally ill), and not possible that f.x. Jesus and Muhammad were in the same line of prophets - the teachings were too different (and the only "explanation" offered by Islam - falsified Bible - is proved wrong by science and even more so by Islam).

Also as far back as science is able to trace history, the god of the Jews was Yahweh. As for Christians, the same goes all the way back to the start of the religion. (The first cuneiform written scriptures in those areas reaches back to 1ooo-12oo BC and the hieroglyphs in Egypt even further back. They only give glimpses of the life of those times, but enough to that we get a picture of the religions, and there is nothing like Allah, like Islam, or like the Quran. And this grows more detailed and reliable after the raise of the Roman Empire - still nothing like Allah, nothing like Islam, and no trace from texts like the ones in the Quran.

Islam will have to prove their words to be believed - but Islam never gives valid profs for any central points in their religion.

327 5/44e: "- - - to them (the learned Jews*) was entrusted the protection of Allah's Book - - -". The often repeated claim: The Jews got a book similar to the Quran from Allah, but falsified it so that it became OT. See 5/44c above.

328 5/47d: "If any fail to judge by (the light of) what Allah hath revealed (the Quran*), they are (no better than) those who rebel". As the moral and judicial rules are different - often very different - in especially NT compared to the Quran, Christians (and also Jews after all) rebel. Bad people.

329 5/47f: "- - - those who rebel - - -". One of Muhammad's many negative and distaste inducing names for non-Muslims - in this case mainly Jews and Christians.

330 5/48j: "To each of you (Jews, Christians, Muslims*) have We (Allah*) prescribed a Law - - -". If the same god has prescribed the laws and rules in the Bible and the ones in the Quran, that god is at least schizophrenic. And: If a god has prescribed the laws and rules in the Quran, that god at least is neither good nor benevolent.

331 5/51b: “Take not the Jews and the Christians (pagans are not even valid to be mentioned*) for your friends and protectors.” If people a leader looks upon as (possible) enemies or as possible subjects for attacking and suppression, are made up to look for you like something bad and degenerated and kept at a distance personally, it is much easier for that leader to make his followers believe that “that vermin” deserves to be attacked and killed and raped and suppressed and to have their possessions stolen - especially if the warriors among his followers are permitted to rob and rape and enslave and steal for themselves valuables and women “justly and right“.

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

332 5/51c: "- - - Jews and Christians - - -". We do not know when the name Jew was coined, but probably after the founding of the Judah country around 900 BC. The word Christians is from the first century AD. Thus we here have 2 historical anomalies - anomalies for everyone who are claimed to have got their copy of "the Mother of the Book" (i.e. a twin of the Quran) earlier - see 4/13d above.

333 5/53c: "All that they (non-Muslims*) do will be in vain, and they will fall into (nothing but) ruin". As for Jews and Christians the Bible strongly contradicts this.

334 5/54f: “- - - fighting in the way of Allah - - -”. You find nothing like this in the Bible. In the OT the Jews were fighting not for the god, but to establish and later defend their country. In NT physical war hardly is accepted at all. One of the many solid proofs for that Yahweh and Allah are not the same god. And then there are all the other proofs, indicia and indications in addition.

335 5/61a: "When they (Jews*) come to thee (Muhammad*), they say: 'We believe' - - -". One more of the many texts or quotes in the Quran which could not have been reliably written into the claimed "Mother Book" (13/39b, 43/4b+c, 85/21-22) in Heaven (of which the Quran is claimed to be a copy) eons ago, unless predestination was and is 100% like the Quran claims many places (if you look, you will find more cases than we mention - we only mention some of the obvious ones). If man has free will - even partly only (an expression some Muslims use to flee from the problem full predestination contra free will for man (and also contra that there is no meaning in praying to Allah for help, if everything already is predestined in accordance with a plan "nobody and nothing can change" - a problem which Muslims seldom mention), and an expression no Muslim we have met has ever defined) - and can change his mind, full and reliable clairvoyance about the future, not to mention the distant future, is impossible even for a god, as the man always could/can change his mind or his words once more, in spite of Islam's claims. There are at least 5 reasons - at least 3 of them unavoidable - for this:

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

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

 

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

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

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

336 5/62b: “Evil indeed are the things they (Jews and Christians*) do.” No comments, except that you should detest and hate such people. But see 2/2b above.

337 5/63c: “Evil indeed are their (here Jews*) works.” No comments, except that you should detest and hate such people. Hate mongering.

338 5/64a: "The Jews say: 'Allah's hand is tied up". One more of the many texts or quotes in the Quran which could not have been reliably written into the claimed "Mother Book" (13/39b, 43/4b+c, 85/21-22) in Heaven (of which the Quran is claimed to be a copy) eons ago, unless predestination was and is 100% like the Quran claims many places (if you look, you will find more cases than we mention - we only mention some of the obvious ones). If man has free will - even partly only (an expression some Muslims use to flee from the problem full predestination contra free will for man (and also contra that there is no meaning in praying to Allah for help, if everything already is predestined in accordance with a plan "nobody and nothing can change" - a problem which Muslims seldom mention), and an expression no Muslim we have met has ever defined) - and can change his mind, full and reliable clairvoyance about the future, not to mention the distant future, is impossible even for a god, as the man always could/can change his mind or his words once more, in spite of Islam's claims. There are at least 5 reasons - at least 3 of them unavoidable - for this:

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

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

 

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

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

339 5/64g: “- - - the revelation (the Quran*) that cometh to thee (Muhammad*) from Allah increaseth in most of them (non-Muslims - here mainly the Jews*) their obstinate rebellion and blasphemy". Naturally they reacted negatively when told their and Muhammad's god and religion was the same, as they saw how much was deeply different. "Rebellion and blasphemy"? - it was good psychology, though, for Muhammad to use strong negative words.

340 5/64h: “Amongst them (the Jews*) We (Allah*) have placed enmity and hatred till the Day of Judgment. Every time they kindle the fire of war, Allah doth extinguish it; but they (ever) strive to do mischief on earth. And Allah loveth not those who do mischief”. And why should you love them when Allah obviously did dislike them? Allah’s dislike is a good motif and explanation for ruthlessness against them. (Muhammad treated the Jews in and around Medina very ruthlessly – chased away (because too strong opposition did that he could not kill them in the beginning) a large part, enslaved big groups of women and children and murdered the rest of the survivors – except some who for some years were permitted to live as semi slaves on what used to be their own farms, for a very stiff price. Plus he personally raped and enslaved for his own harem at least two of the women after having murdered or enslaved their families – Rayhana bint Amr and Safijja bint Huayay (he later married Safijja)). Well, the verse is good hate propaganda – and hate is a good background for incitements to war, and for explanations for atrocities.

It is irony - but normal - for a religion of war to accuse others for enmity.

341 5/64i: "Every time they (here mainly the Jews*) kindle the fire of war - - -". Irony to say the least of it - and a lot of gall - as practically all raids, wars, and armed skirmishes during Muhammad's stay in Medina (83 in all?) were initiated by and aggression from Muhammad and his followers.

##342 5/66a: "If only they (Jews and Christians*) had stood by the Law, the Gospel (Muhammad seems to have believed there was only one - he always uses singular*) and all the revelations that was sent to them from their Lord - - -". That was exactly what they did. But the powerful Muhammad said they lied, and power often wins against the truth - at least in the short run (and even 1400 years is "short run" compared to eternity).

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

343 5/68c: "Ye (Jews and Christians*) have no ground to stand upon, unless ye stand fast by the Law, the Gospel (Muhammad seems to have believed there was only one - he always uses singular*) and all the revelations that has come to you from your Lord - - -". See 5/66a above. Besides they believed in what according to the Bible were revelations from the Lord Yahweh, and saw that Muhammad's claimed revelations were not from the same Lord.

##344 5/69b: “Those who (believe in the Quran), and those who follows the Jewish (scriptures), and the Christians and the Sabeans – any who believe in Allah (here "included" Yahweh/God*) and the Last day, and work righteousness – on them shall be no fear, nor shall they grieve.” This may indicate that also Jews and Christians (and Sabeans - most likely people from the then mainly Christian Sabah/Sheba, but also a couple of other explanations may be possible - see 2/62f above) may go to Paradise. But see 5/69c just below.

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

345 5/69c: “Those who (believe in the Quran), and those who follows the Jewish (scriptures), and the Christians and the Sabeans – any who believe in Allah (here included Yahweh/God*) and the Last day, and work righteousness – on them shall be no fear, nor shall they grieve.” Contradicted by:

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

 

(3 contradictions).

346 5/70b: "Every time there came to them a Messenger with what they (Jews*) themselves desired not - some (of these) they called impostors, and some they (go so far as to) slay". Wrong. Not every time - and mostly not all the Jews said/did so). And actually a number of the self proclaimed prophets also in Israel were false prophets. They do not figure in the Bible, but the fact is mentioned there. There may have been reasons for why Muhammad did not mention this.

347 5/71a: "They (the Jews*) thought there would be no trial (or punishment); so they became blind and deaf - - -". One more of the many texts or quotes in the Quran which could not have been reliably written into the claimed "Mother Book" (13/39b, 43/4b+c, 85/21-22) in Heaven (of which the Quran is claimed to be a copy) eons ago, unless predestination was and is 100% like the Quran claims many places (if you look, you will find more cases than we mention - we only mention some of the obvious ones). If man has free will - even partly only (an expression some Muslims use to flee from the problem full predestination contra free will for man (and also contra that there is no meaning in praying to Allah for help, if everything already is predestined in accordance with a plan "nobody and nothing can change" - a problem which Muslims seldom mention), and an expression no Muslim we have met has ever defined) - and can change his mind, full and reliable clairvoyance about the future, not to mention the distant future, is impossible even for a god, as the man always could/can change his mind or his words once more, in spite of Islam's claims. There are at least 5 reasons - at least 3 of them unavoidable - for this:

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

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

 

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

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

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

348 5/72m: "For the wrongdoers there will be no one to help". For those of what Muhammad called "wrongdoers" who were Jews or Christians there perhaps is Yahweh.

349 5/74b: "- - - and seek Allah's forgiveness - - -". Only the victim or a deity - or one with permission from such ones - can forgive. As Jews and Christians did not believe Allah was a real god, they simply did not - and do not - believe he could/can forgive.

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

350 5/77a: "People of the Book (here the Bible*) - - -". = Jews, Christians and Sabeans (see 2/62f above).

351 5/77e: "- - - people who went wrong in times gone by - - -". This refers to the claim that many Jews and Christians falsified parts of the Bible so that it became different from what Muhammad claimed was sent down to them from the god - something like the Quran - and thus they led others astray. See 5/77c above.

352 5/78a: "Curses were pronounced on those of the Children of Israel who rejected Faith (Islam - only Islam is Faith in the Quran*), by the tongue of David and of Jesus - - -". This is wrong, if for no other reason than because there are found no traces of Islam or claims about Muhammad's Allah older than 610 AD when Muhammad started his religion. There f.x. is not a word about curses because of Allah or al-Lah (the name of the pagan Arab god Muhammad took over and only called Allah) in the Bible - actually there are no traces neither of Allah nor of Muhammad in the Bible (in spite of Islam's claims about the opposite)).

353 5/78b: "- - - the Children of Israel - - -". According to the Bible (1. Mos. 32/28) the Jewish patriarch Jacob who may have lived around 1700 - 1800 BC, got the name Israel from Yahweh. The expression "Children of Israel" means the descendants of Jacob = the Jews. In this case a time anomaly - see 4/13d above.

354 5/78c: "- - - David - - -". The greatest of the Jewish kings. When it comes to the old names in the Bible - Noah, Abraham, Moses, etc. science are unsure if they really have lived. Also for David there is no sure proof for his existence as far as we know, but we are now so near the first written sources, that we understand most scientists believe he is a historical person. He in case lived around and after 1000 BC. In just this case, however, he is a time anomaly - see 4/13d above.

355 5/78e: "- - - Faith - - -". As normal the Quran means Islam - only Islam is faith according to the Quran. Here it thus again insinuates that the "pure" teaching (Islam) was falsified by Jews and Christians to become what is told in the Bible. See f.x. 2/130a above.

356 5/79a: "Nor did they (Jews and Christians*) (usually) forbid one another the inequities which they committed - - -." Our sources tell that the word "usually" is not in the original Arab text. In that case this sentence is wrong. Even with the word "usually" the sentence is not correct, as they often corrected each other.

357 5/79b: "Nor did they (Jews and Christians*) (usually) forbid one another the inequities which they committed - - -." One more of the many texts or quotes in the Quran which could not have been reliably written into the claimed "Mother Book" (13/39b, 43/4b+c, 85/21-22) in Heaven (of which the Quran is claimed to be a copy) eons ago, unless predestination was and is 100% like the Quran claims many places (if you look, you will find more cases than we mention - we only mention some of the obvious ones). If man has free will - even partly only (an expression some Muslims use to flee from the problem full predestination contra free will for man (and also contra that there is no meaning in praying to Allah for help, if everything already is predestined in accordance to a plan "nobody and nothing can change" - a problem which Muslims seldom mention), and an expression no Muslim we have met has ever defined) - and can change his mind, full and reliable clairvoyance about the future, not to mention the distant future, is impossible even for a god, as the man always could/can change his mind or his words once more, in spite of Islam's claims. There are at least 5 reasons - at least 3 of them unavoidable - for this:

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

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

 

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

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

358 5/80a: “Thou seest many of them (Jews and Christians*) turning in friendship to the unbelievers. - - - (with the result) that Allah’s wrath is on them - - -”. They seek bad company because they do not listen to Muhammad - Jews and Christians are bad. Apartheid propaganda?

359 5/81a: “If only they had believed in Allah, in (Muhammad*) - - - never would they (Jews and Christians*) have taken them (non-Muslims or Pagans*) for friends - - -”. It is just tragic - most religions are today able to live together in peace and reasonable harmony. But Islam is so bent on distaste and superiority complex against all non-Muslims, and on conquering all other religions and suppressing its peoples, that integration is difficult. The only position Islam really can accept, is superiority.

360 5/81b: "If they (Jews, Christians*) had believed in Allah - - -". It is difficult to believe in a religion and a god when you see that so much is wrong that you honestly believe both the religion and the god are made up ones, not to mention when the religion itself proves that the teaching is seriously wrong. That things are seriously wrong with the religion is not even a belief only, but a proved fact backed by many proofs.

361 5/83g: "- - - their (Christians*) eyes overflowing with tears - - -". Remembering the real points of view of the Jews in and around Medina (there were few Christians there) and that at this time (632 AD) most of them had had to flee, were made slaves or semi-slaves, or murdered by the many hundreds (some 700 one believe only from the Qurayza tribe) because they refused to become Muslims, one gets a bad taste in the mouth when reading dramatic claims like this. And one wonders what kind of naivety and religious blindness it takes to believe in fairy tales like this when one knows the truth - after all they had taken part in the atrocities and torture and enslaving and murdering themselves! But it makes it easy to understand why Muslims do not see what they really read in the Quran and the Hadiths: Indoctrination by the religion of the parents since baby age, parents and surrounding telling this is true, religious blindness, wishful thinking, a bent moral code, etc.

362 5/86a: "But those who reject Faith and belie our Signs - they shall be companions of Hell-fire.

  1. As for Jews and Christians, the Bible tells another story.
  2. If so happens that Yahweh is a true god and Allah not, few if any Muslims will end in Yahweh's Paradise, partly because parts of the Quran's moral code, etc. are so perverted (compare to the "constitution" of true moral: "Do unto others like you want others do unto you"), that persons living according to those rules are not acceptable for Yahweh, and partly because they do not seek him, but another, quite likely made up, god.

 

Another point is that the claim is wrong: As there are no signs provably from Allah, to doubt the existence of such ones is not to belie them.

363 5/110d: "- - - the holy spirit - - -". The Spirit is mentioned a few times in the Quran, even though Muhammad did not understand it properly. Muslims today often claim that this is just another name for the angel Gabriel, even though this is not said in the Quran - perhaps because Muhammad used to claim it was Gabriel who brought him many of his claimed revelation (though other times he dreamt them), and once it is mentioned that the Holy Spirit brought him some revelations; viola! - the Holy Spirit = Gabriel. The logic is invalid (the most you can say logically, is: "perhaps the Holy Spirit is Gabriel" - there is a long distance from "perhaps" to "is", but you will often see Muslims doing this kind of logically invalid "jumps" to get answers they wish or want. Just keep an eye open and you will see such logically invalid "conclusions" here and there.) No-one who knows the Bible would get that idea, as the Holy Spirit clearly is something special (and also the old Jews knew the difference between an angel and a spirit) - but Islam as normal just claims without any documentation.

**364 5/110e: “I (Allah*) taught thee (Jesus*) - - - the Book - - -". "The Book" here means the Jewish scriptures and (wrongly as they did not exist yet); the Gospels.

*365 5/117a: (Jesus said*): “Worship Allah, my Lord and your Lord”. A story made up to strengthen Islam. If Jesus had said things like this about the known foreign and pagan god al-Lah, he had had very few followers - - - and had been killed within months by the Jewish clergy. See 3/51a above for further explanation.

366 6/5b: “And now they (man/wrongdoers*) reject the truth (Muhammad’s teachings*) when it reaches them: - - - “. May be the real reason was that they saw that something was seriously wrong f.x. when Muhammad claimed his new religion was from the same god as the Jews' and Christians' god.

367 6/10b: "- - - but their (former prophets*) scoffers were hemmed in by the thing that they mocked". The meaning here is that the scoffers met their punishment and the mocked prophets from the earlier times won in the end. If it is true like the Quran claims that there had been 124ooo prophets before Muhammad (the number is from Hadiths), and with the exception of a few Jewish ones not one single of them left even a tiny trace of their preaching and work, whereas their contemporary scoffers went on living like before, this claim simply is not true.

368 6/12h: "It is they who have lost their souls, that will not believe". As far as Jews and Christians go, this is contradicted by the Bible. There also is a serious question about the Muslims’ souls, as it is clear that the Quran with all its mistakes, etc. is not from any god. 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.

369 6/20a: “Those to whom We (Allah*) have given the Book (here the Bible*) - - -". = Jews, Christians, Sabeans.

370 6/20d: "Those who have lost their own souls - - -". One of the many negative and discriminating names Muhammad has for non-Muslims - here mainly Jews and Christians.

371 6/20e: "(Jews and Christians*) refuse therefore (because of their blasphemy*) to believe". Wrong. The reason was that they easily and clearly saw that Muhammad was not telling the truth when he claimed that Yahweh and Allah were the same god, and further claimed that their religions and Islam was the same religion.

372 6/24c: "But the (lie) which they (non-Muslims*) invented will leave them in the lurch". This is typical kind of pep-talk religious - and sometimes political and other - leaders frequently use. "The others will lose and we will win". It works well among believers and often among others with little knowledge (among people with knowledge it only works if it is likely the claim is true - in this case it did not work among f.x. the local Jews who know something was much wrong with Muhammad's teaching, and thus that it was unlikely the claim was correct).

373 6/47a: "Think ye (people*), if the punishment of Allah comes to you - - - will any be destroyed except those who do wrong?" The tsunami of 26. Dec. 2004 hit Muslims much harder than all other religions put together. The numbers are unsure, but some 250ooo vs. some 50ooo. Were all those 250ooo Muslims bad people? - #####and only some 50ooo non-Muslims in that wide area were bad? Hindus, Buddhists, Jews, Christians, Pagans - only 1/5 as many bad ones among them? Well, if you add that there are 3-4 times as many non-Muslims as Muslims in this world, does it indicate that Muslims on average are 15-20 times as bad as non-Muslims?

374 6/64c: "- - - yet ye (non-Muslims*) worship false gods!" As far as Jews and Christians go, this is contradicted in the Bible - a book which on top of all neither mentions Allah nor Muhammad nor many of the most essential parts of Islam - like the duty to pray 5 times a day, the duty to go on pilgrimage to Mecca, the duty to wage war for the religion, etc. Also see 67/9c below - a strong one. But of course it is ok for Islam to prove - prove - the Bible wrong and the Quran right. But as we say: Prove, not just loose claims and as loose and invalid words like the Quran always use instead of proofs.

375 6/74c: "Lo, said Abraham to his father Azar". Contradiction to the Bible: There his father's name is Terah. (But to be fair one must mention that Talmud - Jewish scriptures - sometimes calls him Zarah, and that also the name Athar has been used in a history book from around 300 AD (Eusebius Pamphili)).

376 6/83b: "We (Allah*) rise whom We will - - -". The standard explanation for why some had a better life than others - even being non-Muslims: Allah in his unfathomable wisdom decides. But it also is an argument in the debate: Why an Arab prophet in a line where all documented prophets (or at least mentioned other places than in the Quran and the Hadiths) were Jews? (Hud etc. were not documented).

377 6/89a: "These were the men (the ones mentioned in verses 6/83 through 6/87*) to whom We (Allah*) gave - - -". Contradicted by the Bible which says that it was Yahweh who gave them what they got. 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.

378 6/89b: "These were the men (the ones mentioned in verses 6/83 through 6/87*) to whom We (Allah*) gave the Book". At least Adam, Noah, Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, and Ishmael had no book according to what is mentioned in the Bible, 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 - who in case also learnt it in Egypt.

379 6/89c: "These were the men (the ones mentioned in verses 6/83 through 6/87*) to whom We (Allah*) gave - - - Prophethood - - -". Not all of this is from the Bible. Of the names mentioned only Jesus, Elias (Elijah), Elisha, and Moses are reckoned to be prophets, though Abraham, Joseph, and Jonah can be reckoned among them. As for Moses it is correct to reckon him among the prophets, but he was a special case. The same goes even more for Jesus. The others are not reckoned among the prophets in the Bible. Abraham is reckoned to be one of the 3 Jewish patriarchs, though it is not incorrect also to name him a prophet.

##380 6/91c: "Who then sent down the Book which Moses brought?" This is intended as a rhetoric question with only one possible answer: Allah.

One thing is that the Bible tells he got what he got not from Allah (neither Allah nor Muhammad is mentioned in the Bible). More essential just here is that Moses did not get any book(s) - both according to the Bible which says he got 2 stone tablets + vocal information, and according to science which tells that the Books of Moses were written long time after his death. This simply is a try to make up a "proof" for that Allah might have sent down the Quran, but as the god did not send down the Bible, this claim is a total miss. Any god had known this and not made such a flop. Then who made the Quran?

Actually surah 6 is a bit hard upon the wishful thinking of Muslims:

- ###In 6/50 Muhammad confirms he cannot see what is hidden - the future - killing all the claimed miracles claimed made by Muhammad concerning seeing what was hidden, and indirectly also documenting he was no prophet - not knowing the future = unable to make prophesies, and a person unable to make prophesies is no prophet. (f.x. 5. Mos. 18/21 - in the same speech of Moses where Islam claims Moses foresees Muhammad when talking about "a prophet like me" - quite an irony when 8/22 indirectly, but clearly tells Muhammad was not even a prophet - he only "borrowed that impressive and imposing title. (And among many others 18/2 tells Moses was speaking about Jewish "brothers" - Islam has cherry-picked and twisted 18/15 and 18/18 in an al-Taqiyya.)

###Also connected to 6/50;(A.6/39): "This denial on the part of the Prophet (Muhammad*) of any claim to supernatural power - - -". This states that Islam admits Muhammad had no supernatural power at all = absolutely no prophet.

###Then 6/91c: "Who then sent down the Book which Moses brought?" This is intended as a rhetoric question with only one possible answer: The god. But as Moses did not get any book(s) both according to the Bible and according to science, this try to make up a "proof" for that Allah might have sent down the Quran, was a total miss. Any god had known this and not made such a flop. Then who made the Quran?

###In connection to 6/106 (6/106b) Allah's very existence is doubted.

###In connection to 6/108 "The Message of the Quran" (comment6/93) explains "- - - it is in the nature of man to regard the beliefs which have been implanted in him from childhood, and which he now shares with his social environment, as the only true and possible ones" - which explains in details why Muslims believe in spite of all facts proving something is seriously wrong with the religion.

###In connection to 6/149 (comment 6/141 in the same book) Islam has to admit that the claim that Allah decides everything - predestination - is impossible to combine with the claimed free will for man (and without free will it is morally wrong to punish man for sins) - but "it all the same must be true, because Allah says so (in the Quran*)" the ultimate defeat for brain against blind belief.

###And in 6/151 may be the most well-known of the mistakes in the Quran accepted by Islam to be a mistake: "You are prohibited from - - - being good to your parents" (well, may be ###"Mary, sister of Aaron" is even more well-known, but that one is frequently tried explained away).

381 6/91e: “- - - ye (Jews*) conceal much (of its (the Torah’s = first part of the OT*) contents - - -)“. The old and never proved claim from Muhammad that the Bible is falsified - his only possible defense against the fact that the Bible says a lot of things differently from what he claimed it said. Science has ever so clearly - and Islam even more clearly - shown that this Islamic claim is wrong: Many really old documents (the numbers vary some, but some 300 copies or fragments of the Gospels, some 13ooo of other parts of the Bible + some 32ooo other manuscripts with quotations from the Bible) have shown that the texts of today are like the really old ones. Not even Islam has found a proved falsification!! Islam will have to bring real proofs for this repeated claims in the Quran and elsewhere – till now they only have produced claims; unfunded claims and loose words, and we are back to the old fact: If Islam had found one single hard fact showing that the Bible in any way was falsified, the world had been told quickly and with large letters. This because Islam does not have one single real proof for the existence of Allah, for Gabriel as a messenger to Muhammad, for Muhammad’s connection to a god or anything at all – everything rests only – only – on what Muhammad told, and the historical Muhammad (in contradiction to the Islamic glossy picture) was a man that would not have been accepted in any serious court as a reliable witness. A proof for falsification of the Bible would be an indication for that the Quran was correct at least on this one point, and thus very welcome. But in 1400 hundred years no real proof has been found – only claims and words. Therefore a real proof for a falsified Bible had been big news in all Muslim media and for all Muslims debating religion forever after. No such proof has ever been produced by Islam or anyone else.

Also see 3/24, 5/13, 5/14, 5/15. Similar claims in 2/42 – 5/14 – 5/15. As for more about the differences between the Bible and the Quran, see our separate book "The Bible and the Quran" - Book E.

#382 6/92f: “Those who believe in the Hereafter believe in this (Book) (the Quran*), - - -”. Wrong. There are many who believe in a next life, but do not believe in the Quran - f.x. Jews and Christians, but also many others.

383 6/94b: "- - - ye (non-Muslims*) have left behind you all (the favors) which We (Allah*) bestowed on you - - -" - because you did not believe and obey Allah and Muhammad - in this world Muhammad. As for Jews and Christians at least, this is strongly contradicted by the Bible. Not to mention that it may be contradicted by reality as the Quran is not from a god - too much is wrong in the book for any god to be involved. Also see 67/9c below - a strong one. But of course it is ok for Islam to prove - prove - the Bible wrong and the Quran right. But as we say: Prove, not just loose claims and as loose and invalid words like the Quran always use instead of proofs.

384 6/100a: "Jinns" - beings "borrowed" from pagan Arab religion and Arab fairy tales. They are strange creatures to tell about for universal god, as they mainly exist only in old Arab pagan religion and folklore (though they do exist also in old Jewish folklore and fairy tales, but not in their religion). Islam even today disputes what they really are, but most agree on that they are individuals of quite another kind than humans, but all the same not dissimilar. There exist Islamic laws for marriage between jinns and humans, so they have to be material beings. They are not demons, but another kind of invisible beings - ruled by Allah like men, and like man claimed in a not explainable way to all the same have free will. Most of them seem to end in Hell in the claimed next life.

385 6/101c: “- - - how can he (Yahweh*) have a son when He hath no consort?” Wrong - and the Quran has itself given one possible solution: It declares that the god may just say “Be” and it is. May be Yahweh just said “Be a son”, and Jesus was.

**But there is another, but little known fact: In the very old Jewish religion there was a female god, too. They spoke about the god and his Amat (source among others “New Scientist”). In the very masculine society of the old Hebrews, the goddess was forgotten, though, - - - but it was possible for Yahweh to have a son “the natural way”. Gods would know this, but Muhammad not. Also see 17/111.

But why should gods make children the same way as humans and animals? Similar claim in 18/5 – 112/3.

##386 6/106b: "- - - there is no god but He (Allah*) - - -". Often claimed in Islam, but never proved.

  1. There actually is no natural law prohibiting more than one god. (The Quran tries to claim this one or a few places, but uses invalid arguments and invalid logic). Or prohibiting even no god.
  2. But if we for the sake of simplicity say that polytheism is out, there still remains the problem with Yahweh - the god of Jews and Christians.

 

387 6/106d: "- - - by inspiration - - -". Muhammad claimed he mainly got his messages from his claimed god by inspiration, and he frequently claimed that the old Jewish prophets got their messages the same way. This is contradicted by the Bible. This way of communication is never mentioned there - Yahweh stated he used 3 ways: Direct contact, visions and dreams (4. Mos. 12/6-8) - inspiration was not an alternative. Thus Muhammad's claim here is wrong at least concerning the old prophets included Jesus. 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.

388 6/121a: "Eat not of (meats) on which Allah's name hath not been pronounced: that would be impiety." Contradicted and abrogated 11 years later (632 AD) by 5/5: "The food of the People of the Book (here the Bible = Jews and Christians*) is lawful unto you - - -". (Though of course you can say or think the name of Allah yourself).

389 6/128ba: "- - - much (toll) did ye (Jinns*) take of men". All the same they are not mentioned in the Bible. As Israel was and is near the Arabs, jinns do exist in the periphery of old Jewish folklore (though spelled differently - djinnie if we remember correctly), but not in the Bible - not relevant to the religion, only to folklore and fairy tales. Of some essence for Allah, totally non-interesting for Yahweh. Yahweh and Allah the same god?

390 6/146b: “For those who followed the Jewish Law, We (Allah*) forbade (to eat*) every (animal) with undivided hoof, and We forbade them the fat of the ox and the sheep - - -“. Skipping the fact that Allah and the god of the Jews, Yahweh, is not the same god – not unless he is schizophrenic – the correct is: - - - “the fat of cattle, sheep or goat” (3. Mos. 7/23). A minor mistake, but an omniscient god had not forgotten the goat.

391 6/146c: (Jews are prohibited from eating much of the fat from cows, sheep (and goat)*) "in recompense for their willful disobedience - - -". This claim is not from the Bible. There is absolutely no indication in the Bible for that this is the reason.

*392 6/156a: “The Book (here the Bible, but see 6/156b just below*) was sent down to two Peoples before us (Mohammad and/or the Arabs*)”. Wrong. The OT was for one people primarily - the Jews - and it was mainly written by humans, not sent down (only the 10 Commandments were sent down physically). The NT was written - not sent down - for many people, not only for one or two. Chapters/letters are even addressed to very different people. Besides there were other religions with books – f.x. in Persia. Or to see it another way – like “The Message of the Quran” explains it: The Bible was sent down to the Jews and the Christians “the only ones that according to what the Arabs knew had scriptures based on revelations from a god”. The interesting part of this explanation is the reason Islam gives for the mistake: That reason was that the Arabs – Muhammad - only knew about the book(s) of the Christians and the Jews. What the Arabs knew around 621 AD when Muhammad dictated this surah, should be totally irrelevant for an omniscient god when he made (?) the Quran many eons earlier like Muhammad claimed – a "Mother Book" which Allah and his angels revered in his own heaven, now with one more mistake. Then who made the Quran?

####393 6/156b: “The Book was sent down to two Peoples before us (Mohammad and/or the Arabs*)”. "The Book" in singular. This in spite of that according to verse 6/155 it is clear that Muhammad speaks about the Quran. The clear message or claim is: It is the same book originally, but then the copies the Jews and the Christians received were falsified until it became the Bible. (But both science and Islam have thoroughly proved this claim is wrong, by being unable to prove any falsification among the some 300 copies or fragments of the Gospels, the some 13ooo copies or fragments of Biblical texts, and some 32ooo other manuscripts with quotes from the Bible - all older than 610 AD (= before there was any reason for Jews and Christians to falsify the Bible to omit texts about Muhammad.))

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

#####394 7/40d: In connection to 7/40c just above, Muhammad Asad ("The Message of the Quran") has an interesting piece of disinformation, showing why we have to be so careful when using Islamic sources. We quote from A7/32: "One should remember that the Gospels were originally composed in Aramaic, the language of Palestine at the time of Jesus, and that those Aramaic texts are now lost. It is more than probable that, owing to the customary absence of vowels (like in Arab at the time of Muhammad*) signs in Aramaic writing, the Greek translators misunderstood the consonant spelling g-m-l - - - and took it to mean 'a camel' (and not a thick rope*)".

But this is wrong - the Gospels were originally written in Greek, ###########AND THIS IS SUCH A WELL KNOWN FACT THAT THERE IS NO CHANCE NEITHER IN HELL NOR IN HEAVEN THAT MR. ASAD DID NOT KNOW ABOUT IT, AND IN A WAY WORSE: THE SAME GOES FOR THE MUSLIM SCHOLARS WHO REVISED THE 2008 ENGLISH EDITION WITHOUT COMMENTING ON THIS MISTAKE. And Greek had a complete alphabet where the problem with missing vowels did not exist.

############This simply is an al-Taqiyya - a lawful lie - made by Mr. Asad and endorsed by the scholars revising the book, by Al-Azhar Al Sharif Islamic Research Academy (part of Al-Azhar Islamic University in Cairo - one of the 2 - 3 foremost Islamic universities in the world, if not the foremost), by "Svenska Islamiska Akademien" ("the Swedish Islamic Academy"), and "The Book Foundation".

Al-Taqiyya and similar rules for lawful dishonesty is a powerful tool when addressing the uneducated and the naive. But it backfires most strongly, and produces distaste and disrespect - and suspicion concerning other claims - when discovered. Of the big religions only Islam has these kinds of lawful dishonesty - and how much is true and how much is not, in the tales and the augmentation of a religion relying partly on dishonesty and on dishonest arguments?

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

Islam "the Religion of Truth"`? - or of honesty?

395 7/63a: (Noah said:) "Do ye (his people*) wonder that there hath come to you a messenger from your Lord (Allah*), through a man of your own people - - -?" Muhammad is making a parallel to himself (he often does in the Quran) - the claim (and in this case mostly correct - as most of the confirmed(?) ones were Jews working among Jews (but not all)) is that prophets come from among their own people, so then it is very normal that Muhammad is an Arab amongst Arabs, Muhammad claimed.

396 7/94a: "Whenever We (Allah*) sent a prophet to a town - - -". Muhammad claimed all people, all over the world and all through history and pre-history had had prophets preaching about Allah. In Hadiths the number 124ooo prophets through the times is mentioned. Except for the Jewish prophets, neither science nor Islam has been able to find traces of even one or of their monotheistic teaching - no traces of an Islam before 610 AD has ever been found.

397 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.

And there is another point here you never hear Muslims mention: According to the Bible (1. Mos. 46/27) the Jews were 80 - 90 (70 + the wives of Jacob's sons) when they settled in Egypt. The same book mentions 2 - 3 places that when they left Egypt, they were 600ooo men = something like 2.ooo.ooo included women and children. It at least theoretically is quite possible for say 80-90 to become 2.ooo.ooo in 430 years. But it is in no way possible - scientific nonsense - in 200 or 300 years (and 100 years is a joke), and even 400 years may be unlikely - for a geometrical curve like this one is, one extra generation makes a big difference. Also this makes an exodus and a pharaoh around 1500 - 1600 BC like Islam likes to claim to get rid of Ramses II, impossible.

There are some scientists, though, who thinks Exodus happened a little later, under the son of Ramses II, Merneptah. But that in case as said means later and not before - and under another pharaoh we know did not drown.

###398 7/120a: After Moses made his miracle “the sorcerers fell down prostate in adoration” and were convinced that the god of Moses was a strong and real one. The same goes for Ramses II becoming a Muslim in 10/90 because he saw a miracle of a made flooding. These are two of the proofs for that Muhammad knew he was lying when he time and again told his audiences that it would have no effect to perform miracles, because disbelievers would not believe anyhow; disbelievers - even sorcerers - became Muslims because of one small miracle in his own story about Moses(!), and thus explained away the fact that he (and his presumed god) was unable to make miracles. Here he tells just the opposite - a psychologically much more correct tale on just this one point. The same story in 20/69-70. That Muhammad told this story, also shows that he knew miracles works, and thus that he knew he was lying in the Quran when he told Allah did not send miracles because it would make nobody believe anyhow.

399 7/120b: After Moses made his miracle “the sorcerers fell down prostate in adoration” and convinced that the god of Moses was a strong and real one. This is not from the Bible, nor from any other known written source - like so much more "Biblical" stuff in the Quran.

400 7/120c: After Moses made his miracle “the sorcerers fell down prostate in adoration” and convinced that the god of Moses was a strong and real one. See 7/88a above.

401 7/120-22: "But the sorcerers fell down prostrate in adoration, saying: We believe in the Lord of the Worlds, the Lord of Moses and Aaron". This is not from the Bible. In the Bible there is not mentioned one word about clashes because of religion. The only subject was: Let the Jews leave Egypt.

402 7/127d: “He (Ramses II*) said: ‘Their (the Jews’*) male children will we slay - - -“. But they were already slaying the male children of the Jews – that was why the baby Moses had to be put on the Nile according to the Bible (1. Mos. 1/22) and not contradicted by the Quran. Both a mistake and a contradiction. And mistakes and contradictions do not exist in the Quran? See f.x. 7/141 below - it was a reality, not a new decision.

  1. 2/49: “- - - We (indicated Allah*) delivered you from the people of Pharaoh (who*) - - - slaughtered your sons - - -“.
  2. 7/141: “- - - Pharaoh’s people - - - who slew your male children and saved alive the females - - -.” Both the Quran and the Bible tell more than one place that the killing of male babies started long before the situation in 7/127. The Bible tells that the killing of male babies was the reason for why the baby Moses was set adrift on the Nile - a desperate try to save him (the Quran gives no real reason).
  3. 14/6: “(Moses said about Pharaoh that he*) slaughtered your sons and let your women-folk live - - -.”

 

(3 contradictions).

403 7/130a: “We (indicated Allah*) punished the people of the Pharaoh with years (of draught) - - -.” There is nowhere said directly how long time it took Moses to get his people free and out of Egypt neither in the Quran nor in the Bible. But the few sources indicate a limited time. The Bible has one piece of information that gives a clear indication – and we had better once more mention that science - and Islam - has proved beyond any legal and any reasonable and any unreasonable doubt that the Bible never was falsified, in spite of never documented loose claims and loose statement from the Quran and from Islam. Moses was 80 years old when he came to the Pharaoh to get the freedom for the Jews. Afterwards he and his people spent 40 years in Sinai, and he died 120 years old – which means it must have taken less than one year, perhaps weeks or a few months, because if not the numbers do not add up. Also the texts in the Bible indicate weeks or months, even though it is not directly said. Further there is no mentioning of draught or shortness of food or anything else in the Bible connected to this incident. Also in the science of history, there is no indication of draught or hunger in Egypt at this time. This verse may be a mix up with Joseph and the 7 bad years 430-440 years earlier.

404 7/132c: "They (the Jews*) said (to Moses): Whatever signs thou bringest - - -". See 7/88a above.

405 7/134d: "- - - the Children of Israel - - -". Israel was the new name the Jewish patriarch Jacob got from Yahweh (1. Mos. 32/28). The Children of Israel means his descendants = the Jews.

406 7/138b: "They (the Jews moving in Sinai*) came upon a people devoted entirely to some idols they had." Who were they? Nobody knows. One guesses about anything from tribes mentioned in OT to Egyptian copper miners. This episode is not mentioned in the Bible - and knowing the Quran with all its mistakes, etc. is not from any god + knowing there is no other source about things like this, how did Muhammad get this information?- if it really was information? Like so often the Quran is not very clear.

407 7/138c: "They (the Jews*) said: 'O Moses! Fashion for us a god like unto the gods they (the people they met - see 7/138a just above*) have." No such episode is mentioned in the Bible. See 7/138a just above.

408 7/138d: "They (the Jews*) said: 'O Moses! Fashion for us a god like unto the gods they (the people they met - see 7/138a just above*) have." See 7/88a above.

409 7/140d: "- - - it is Allah Who hath endowed you (the Jews*) with gifts - - -". Contradicted by the Bible, which tells that Moses spoke about Yahweh, not about Allah. Also see 67/9c below - a strong one. But of course it is ok for Islam to prove - prove - the Bible wrong and the Quran right. But as we say: Prove, not just loose claims and as loose and invalid words like the Quran always use instead of proofs.

410 7/148a: While Moses was meeting Yahweh for 40 days on the mountain to receive the Commandments, the Jews made a calf from gold and prayed to it (using a calf - a reference to the ox Apis, an incarnation of one of the Egyptian main gods, Ptah - as a symbol seems to have been not unusual – they are known from history and at least one such calf has been found by archaeologists). This story is in both the Quran and the Bible, even though details disagree.

411 7/148b: "The people of Moses made in his absence - - - the image of a calf - - -". One more of the many texts or quotes in the Quran which could not have been reliably written into the claimed "Mother Book" (13/39b, 43/4b+c, 85/21-22) in Heaven (of which the Quran is claimed to be a copy) eons ago, unless predestination was and is 100% like the Quran claims many places (if you look, you will find more cases than we mention - we only mention some of the obvious ones). If man has free will - even partly only (an expression some Muslims use to flee from the problem full predestination contra free will for man (and also contra that there is no meaning in praying to Allah for help, if everything already is predestined in accordance with a Plan "nobody and nothing can change" - a problem which Muslims seldom mention), and an expression no Muslim we have met has ever defined) - and can change his mind, full and reliable clairvoyance about the future, not to mention the distant future, is impossible even for a god, as the man always could/can change his mind or his words once more, in spite of Islam's claims. There are at least 5 reasons - at least 3 of them unavoidable - for this:

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

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

 

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

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

412 7/149a: “When they (the Jews*) repented (before Moses came down from the mountain with12he 10 Commandments*) - - -“. The Jews of Moses saw they had erred when they had made the calf from gold (a symbol for the Egyptian holy ox Apis, which again was a symbol for the major Egyptian god Ptah), and repented before Moses came back from his meeting with Yahweh. Moses was angry, but the people already had repented. This was told in 621 AD. But later Allah must have remembered something wrong, because 5-6 years later he had told this:

  • 20/91: (Moses’ Jews said): “We will not abandon this cult (the gold calf*) but we will devote ourselves to it until Moses returns to us (from his meeting with Yahweh*)” Only one – if any – of these two tales can be true.
  • Wrong and a contradiction. The story also differ a lot from the one in the Bible.

    413 7/149b: “When they (the Jews*) repented (before Moses came down from the mountain with the 10 Commandments*) - - -“. This is not from the Bible - there they did not repent until after a very angry Moses returned.

    414 7/149-150: Here are more contradictions to the Bible - and to the Quran. The Jews make the golden calf, but repents before Moses returns. In the Bible (2 Mos. 32/19) and other places in the Quran (20/91) they definitely did not repent until afterwards.

    415 7/155a: "And Moses choose seventy of his people - - -". This is not in accordance with what the Bible tells here - in the Bible (2. Mos. 32/27-28) the Jews got a severe punishment. But the number 70 may be from another place in the Bible, where Moses chose 70 of the elders among the Jews for confirming the covenant with Yahweh - it would not be the only time Muhammad mixed information from the Bible in case. (2. Mos. 24/1).

    #######416 7/157e: “- - - the unlettered Prophet (Muhammad*), whom they (Jews and Christians*) find mentioned in their own (Scriptures)”. Muhammad's words - and Muhammad at least knew that scholars who knew the Bible denied he was mentioned there - if they had believed he was in the Bible, they had followed him. (There is a claimed story about a Jewish scholar believing in him. This may be true - but what is one or two against the great majority who saw they in case were wrong? - or it may be a made up tale.) You often meet Muslims claiming or stating that Mohammad is foretold in the Bible - as normal for Muslims without documentation. They have to claim this, as it is said here in the Quran, and if there are mistakes in the Quran, the book is not from a god - an omniscient god do not make mistakes - and then Islam is a religion built on a made up "holy" book. We have never been able to find a complete list of where he is said to be mentioned – obviously because the educated Muslims mainly speak about one in OT (5. Mos. 18/15+18) and one in NT (John 14/26), but there are some other "weaker" places, too. The ones below are the ones we have found (more or less copied from "Moses in the Bible?" in "1000+ Mistakes in the Quran" - https://www.1000mistakes.com ).

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

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

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

    SAMPLES OF CLAIMS ABOUT MUHAMMAD IN THE BIBLE:

    The Old Testament (OT)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    What the Bible really says:

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

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

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

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

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

    Answer:

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

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

    Besides, what the Bible really says is:

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

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

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

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

    Genesis (1. Mos.) 17/20:

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

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

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

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

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

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

    The 4 relevant points 5. Mos. 18/2, 5. Mos. 18/15, 5. Mos. 18/18, and 5. Mos. 18/22 all are from the same speech Moses made to the Jews (for the others see further down) - but Muhammad, Muslims, and Islam NEVER mention 18/2 or 18/22, and also not that the word "brother/brothers/brethren/brotherhood" is used figuratively pretty often in OT (at least 98 times according to our last leafing through the book, and figuratively at least 325 times in the entire Bible - and we hardly saw all places) and with 5 - 6 specified exceptions always about members of a closed group; the Jews. They also never mention that the places where Arabia or Arabs are mentioned in OT, it is as neutrals or enemies, never as friends, not to mention brothers. Nearly as damning: The word is used at least 30 times in the Quran, and with one specified exception always about members of the closed group Arabs or the closed group Muslims. Arabs never were brothers of Jews. And brothers always parts of a closed group.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    "YOUR BROTHERS:

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

    1. The word brother(s)/brethren/brotherhood is used in the figurative meaning at least 325 times in the Bible, according to our last leafing through the Bible (and we hardly found all places) – included at least 98 times in OT, at least 31 times in 5.Mos. and at least 22 times in the very speech of Moses from which Muslims cherry-pick 18/15 and 18/18.(Facts that are seldom mentioned and never by Muslims).
    2. That word - brother(s)/brethren/brotherhood - always speak about persons within a specific group, (and with only a few borderline cases – in the NT there are a few places where the entire world is the including group (as humans – and as potential Christians)) - about Jews in OT and Christians and/or Jews in NT.
    3. In OT it in addition as mentioned above, is used only about fellow Jews – it is clear from the context and often said directly. We have found only 5 - 6 exceptions. In 1. Mos.13/8 Abraham uses the word to Lot (Lot in reality was his nephew - and thus inside his group), in 1.Mos. 25/18 it is told that Ishmael and his sons and near descendants chose to be hostile towards the rest of the family – the later Jews – even though they at that time were closely related – and thus "brothers in a closed group – (a disgusting thing to do according to the ethics of that distant past), and in 4.Mos. 20/14, 5.Mos.2/2, and 5.Mos. 2/8 it is used about the Edomites (descendants of Esau, the brother of Jacob). Finally there is one place where a king says it to another, but friendly king (1. Kings 20/32-33).
    4. 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.
    5. For one thing Ishmael’s mother was a foreigner (from Egypt) - and so was his wife.
    6. 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 - - -.”
    7. 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.
    8. 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).
    9. 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.
    10. All the other times the word was used about fellow Jews only, except Ishmael's sons who quarreled with their brothers.
  • 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.
  • 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.
  • 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).
  • 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).
  • 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.
  • 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.
  • 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.
  • 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).
  •  

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

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

    1. Mos.:

    1. 13/8: Abraham telling Lot they were brothers - a closed group: The near family.
    2. *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.

     

    (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 have been the descendants of Midian, not persons from a place named Midian).

    3. Mos.:

    1. C: 21/10. "The high priest, the one among his brothers who - - -". A closed group: The Jewish priests. Similar words to 5. Mos. 18/15 and 18/18.
    4. Mos.:
    1. 20/3: "- - - when our brothers - - -". A closed group: The Jews. Similar words to 1. Mos. 18/15 and 18/18.
    2. 20/14 Moses talking to the Edomites on behalf of the Jews. The Edomites were the descendants of Esau (also called Edom), the brother of Jacob and son of Isaac, and the Jews reckoned them to be relatives, though distant ones - Moses here used the word to remind the Edomites of that relationship. Also here a closed group: Recognized relatives. As Esau was the son of Isaac, he also was inside the pact Yahweh had made with Abraham - "because it is through Isaac your (Abraham's*) offspring will be reckoned", 1. Mos. 21/12. And also notice that as the Edomites did not belong to the Jews, they are named to notify this.
    5. Mos.

    (5. Mos. chapters 1 through 30 is a long speech Moses made to the Jews "in the desert east of Jordan" - 5. Mos. 1/1. In this speech he used the word "brother" figuratively at least 22 times, each and every time about members of the closed group Jews, and not once specifying that he talked about any others than the Jews - the two debated times (18/15 and 18/18) even using the same words as other places where it is not possible to doubt he meant Jews, no matter how much twisting of the words and wishful thinking you use):

    1. 1/16a: "- - - disputes among your brothers - - -". - fellow Jews.
    2. 1/16b: "- - - your - - - brother Israelites - - -". - fellow Jews.
    3. 1/28: "Our brothers made us loose heart - - -". The Jewish spies in Canaan - fellow Jews.
    4. 2/4: "- - - your (the Jews'*) brothers the descendants of Esau (named) - - -" - see 4. Mos. 20/14 above.
    5. 2/8: "- - - our (the Jews'*) brothers the descendants of Esau (named) - - -" - see 4. Mos. 20/14 above.
    6. 3/18: "- - - your brother Israelites" - fellow Jews.
    7. 3/20: "- - - (Yahweh*) gives rest to your brothers - - -" - fellow Jews.
    8. 15/2: *("Every creditor shall cancel the loan he has made to his fellow Israelite. He shall not require payment from his fellow Israelite or brother". It is here clear it is talked about Jews, but the word "brother" in this case may be meant literally. What is sure, is that this only concerned Jews).
    9. 15/7a: "If there is a poor man among your brothers in any town (in Israel*) - - -". - fellow Jews.
    10.   15/7b: "- - - do not be hardhearted or tightfisted toward your poor brother. (See 15/7a)". - fellow Jew.
    11.   15/9: "- - - your needy brother - - - (see 15/7a)" - fellow Jew.
    12.   17/15a: "- - - be sure to appoint over you (the Jews*) the king the Lord your God (Yahweh*) chooses. He must be from among your own brothers". Beware that this is exactly the same words which is used in 18/15 and 18/18, and it is absolutely sure they wanted a Jewish, not an Arab king. Also see 17/15b.
    13.   "17/15b: "Do not place a foreigner over you, one who is not a brother Israelite - - -". - fellow Jew. Also see 17/15a). ##############THIS ALSO MAY BE THE CASE FOR NO FOREIGN "PROPHET"!?
    14.   18/2: "- - - they (the Levites*) shall have no inheritance among their brothers (the other Jews*) - - -". - fellow Jews. Also here nearly identical words to the ones used in 18/15 and 18/18 like several other places.
    15.   18/15: "- - - a prophet like me (Moses*) from among your brothers" - this and 18/18 (see this one just below) are where Muslims claim Moses in his speech to the Jews refers to the Arabs - this even though Arabs are never mentioned in the Bible until under King Solomon nearly 400 years later and also never in all the Bible mentioned as friends or relatives. And in spite of that the same words ALL other places in the same speech without doubt mean Jews. But it is strange what results one can twist from a clear expression when there is enough wishful thinking + dire need - Muslims HAVE to find Muhammad in the Bible, both in OT and NT, because it is said in the Quran he is mentioned there, and if they do not find him there, the Quran is wrong and something consequently is wrong with Islam. Which it is, among other reasons because Muhammad is not mentioned in the Bible.
    16.   18/18: "- - - a prophet like you (Moses*) from among their (the Jews') brothers - - -". - fellow Jews. This and 18/15 (see this one just above) are the two points Islam claims refers to Arabs. They totally omit the context which clearly tells Moses was speaking to and about Jews, and only point to that Ishmael was the half-brother of Jacob - one of the forefathers of the Jews. They also omits the fact that Ishmaelites never were reckoned by the Jews to be their real relatives, as the relationship was broken already by Ishmael and his sons + Ishmael was outside the line from Isaac, who according to the Bible was the line from which Abraham's descendants should be reckoned. They also omit the fact that Arabs never - included in the Quran - reckoned Jews to be their brothers. They omit the fact that it is no place documented that the Arabs are the descendants of Ishmael - he and his descendants after all settled on the border of Egypt (1. Mos. 25/18) and not in Mecca like Muhammad claimed, according to the only perhaps reliable source about this, the Bible. Also see 5.Mos. 18/21-22 which Muslims never mention - who is a genuine prophet? (Muhammad did not even make prophesies).
    17.   19/18: "- - - against his (a Jew's*) brother - - -". One he had a reasonably close relationship to - from the context it is clear Moses meant the fellow Jews - this even more so as he was speaking to the Jews about the rules and effects of the Mosaic Law just here (the chapters 19 through 26 and some others are about this law - the Mosaic Law was for Jews and for Jews only (there was a debate about if they should rule and be valid also for Christians, but that was 1200 - 1300 years later)).
    18.   19/19: "- - - do to his brother - - -". See 19/18 just above.
    19.   22/1: "- - - your brother's ox - - -". See 19/18 above.
    20.   22/2: "If the brother - - -". See 19/18 above.
    21.   22/3: "- - - if you find your brother's donkey - - -". See 19/18 above.
    22.   22/4: "If you see your brother's donkey - - -". See 19/18 above.
    23.   23/19: "Do not charge your brother interest - - -". Here it may be argued that the word is literally meant, but the context - f.x. the next verse - makes it clear that it is figuratively. We also points to the fact that Jews forever after was famous and infamous for charging interest from all non-Jews, included Arabs, which in this connection shows that the Jews did not reckon the Arabs as real relatives, not to mention brothers. Also see 19/18 above and 23/19 just below.
    24.   23/20: "You may charge a foreigner interest, but not a brother Israelite - - -". This is a strengthening of what is said in 23/19 just above. Moses is saying that Jews are Jews and brothers, but all others are foreigners - also called Gentiles in the NT. Among others Arabs were foreigners - just ask the Arabs if the Jews did not charge interest from them when they lent Arabs money! Foreigners - not brothers. Also see 19/18 and 23/19 above.
    25.   24/7: "- - - his brother Israelites - - -". It is clear what Moses meant with "brother". Also see 19/18 above.
    26.   24/14: "- - - whether he is a brother Israelite or an alien - - -". Here Moses speaks in very clear language: The Jews/Israelites are brothers, all others are aliens/foreigners. The horrible moral fact here is that at least many of the Muslim scholars knew and know this - they had to study the Bible to find the points they wanted to quote (normally out of context literally spoken) or in other ways use, and it is not possible to overlook the fact that Moses in his speech talked to and about the Jews and about their brother Jews/Israelites. All the same they tell their congregations that Moses suddenly and only in 18/15 and 18/18 meant Arabs when he talked to the Jews about their Jewish brothers. Al-Taqiyya - the lawful lie. The Quran tells Muhammad is mentioned in the Bible, and as he is not mentioned, "we" have to use lawful dishonesty to defend Islam, because if not, it is obvious for everybody that something is wrong with the Quran and with Islam - no omniscient god makes mistakes like this!
    27.   25/3: "- - - your brother will be degraded in your eyes". We still are in Moses' quotations of the Mosaic Law - there is no doubt this is about fellow Jews.
    28.   33/16: "- - - (Joseph*) - - - the prince among his brothers". - fellow Jews.
    29.   *33/24: "- - - let him (Asher*) be favored by his brothers - - -". No doubt about fellow Jews, but perhaps literally meant.
    Joshua:
  • 1/14a: "- - - ahead of your brothers". - fellow Jewish warriors from other Jewish tribes.
  • 1/14b: "- - - help your brothers - - -". See 1/14a just above.
  • 14/8: "- - - my (Caleb's*) brothers who went up with me - - -". The first Jewish spies in Canaan - no doubt fellow Jews.
  • 17/4: "- - - give us an inheritance among our brothers - - -". As the women speaking here had no literal brothers, there is no doubt this is figuratively meant - and fellow Jews.
  • 22/3: "- - - you have not deserted your brothers - - -". Fellow Jewish warriors from other Jewish tribes under Joshua.
  • 22/4: "- - - has given your brothers - - -". See 22/3 just above.
  • 22/8: "- - - divide with your brothers - - -". Here may be meant fellow warriors or fellow Jews at home who for some reason had not taken part in the war - but in both cases fellow Jews.
  • Judges:

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

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

  • 2/26: "- - - to stop pursuing their brothers - - -". Stop fighting fellow Jews.
  • 2/27: "- - - pursuing of their brothers - - -". Fellow Jews - see 2/26 just above.
  • 19/11: "You are my brothers - - -". Fellow Jews (fellow members of the Judah tribe).
  • 19/41: "- - - our brothers, the men of Judah - - -". Fellow Jews - Jews from other tribes speaking about Jews from the Judah tribe (one of the 12 Jewish tribes).
  • 20/9: "How are you, my brother?" The Jew Joab speaking to the Jew Amasa.

    1. Kings:

    12/24: "Do not go up to fight against your (the members of the Judah tribe*) brothers Israel". Fellow Jews (This was said in connection to the splitting of the kingdom in two - Judah in the South and Israel in the north - after Solomon died).

    13/30: "Oh, my brother". Fellow Jew - one Jew talking to/about another.

    #20/32: "He is my brother". This as far as we see is the only place in the OT where the word brother is used (figuratively) about one not a Jew and one not accepted to be related to the Jews. But here it is within another very closed group: Two kings - King Ahab of Israel (Jewish) speaking about King Ben-Haddad of Aram - Ahab wanted good relationship with Ben-Haddad, even if he had beaten him in war.

    #20/33: "Yes, your brother Ben-Haddad". In reality part of 20/32 just above.

    1. Chr.:

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

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

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

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

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

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

  • 11/14: "- - - your brothers - your brothers who are blood relatives and the whole house of Israel - - -". Fellow Jews.
  • Hosea:

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

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

  • 11/14: "- - - the brotherhood between Judah and Israel". After Solomon died, the country was split in a southern kingdom named Judah after the dominant tribe, and a northern one named Israel. Brotherhood between these two so definitely is between fellow Jews.
  • These are the 87 places we have found in OT where the word "brother" or similar clearly or most likely is used figuratively. If we add the word "sister" used figuratively, which may be relevant in just this case, it is ca. 90 all together. They are used within closed groups - the family, the tribe, the nation. The few times this group is not the Jews or part of that nation - f.x. a Jewish tribe - it is indicated who are meant (f.x. a fellow king or Lot or the Edomites. Not one single time is there a reference to Arabia or Arabs. With a few exceptions it is referred to fellow Jews, and it is a normal way in OT to refer to fellow Jews - actually if you look, you will find that every place where the word is used in OT without reference to who one means, it is clear from the context that it is meant fellow Jews.

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

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

    Where is the brotherhood between the Jews and Arabs?

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

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

    Al-Taqiyya - the lawful lie?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    30.   49/12: "- - - his dead brother - - -". This one may be literally or figuratively meant. In the last case it refers to fellow Muslims.
    31.   50/13: "- - - the brethren of Lut - - -". The same tribe - see 26/161 above in this list.
    32.   59/10: "- - - our brethren who came before us into the Faith - - -". Fellow Muslims.
    33. .  9/11: "*- - - the Hypocrites say to their misbelieving brethren among the People of the Book - - -".

     

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

    Where is the brotherhood among Jews and Arabs?

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

    2. Chr.:

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

    • 4/7: "But when Sanballat, Tobiah, the Arabs, the Ammonites and the men of Ashdod heard that the repair of Jerusalem's walls - - - all plotted together to come and fight against Jerusalem - - -". Enemies.
    • 7
    • 6/1: "- - - Geshem the Arab and the rest of our enemies - - -". Enemies.
    Isaiah:
  • 13/20: "- - - no Arab will pinch his tent there - - -". Neutral.
  • 21/13: "- - - who camp in the thickets of Arabia - - -". Neutral.
  • Jeremiah:

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

  • 27/21: "Arabia and all the princes of Kedar - - -". Neutral.
  • 30/5: "Cush and Put, Lydia and all Arabia, Libya and the people of the covenant land will fall by the sword along with Egypt". Because they behaved badly.
  •  

    12 all together + mentioned a couple of times in NT.

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

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

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

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

    PROPHET

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

    1. There are more contexts: Moses spoke about a prophet. Muhammad in reality was not a prophet. A prophet is a person with close enough connections to a god, so that the god tells him/her or informs him/her about the future on topics the god wants humans to know. To be more specific:
    2. A prophet makes prophesies.
    3. >
    4. He makes prophesies so often and/or so essential ones that prophesying is a marked part of his mission.
    5. >
    6. And he at least mostly makes correct prophesies - if not he is a false prophet).
    7. This is the gift of prophesying. No-one is a real prophet without having the gift of being able to/forced to make prophesies. A messenger, perhaps, or a lot of other things, but you are not a real prophet unless you make prophesies.
    8. Muhammad did not have that gift. It is very clear from the Quran that he neither had the gift, nor ever claimed or pretended to have it – not one single time in the entire book. It also is very clear from Hadiths - f.x. Aisha.
    9. Oh, there were a few times according to traditions, when things he said, later came true, and also some pep-talk which always are optimistic and comes true if one succeeds in what one tries to do. It is like that with anybody that speaks much – pep-talk and other talk – that at least some things has to come true for simple statistical reasons – and the rest mostly is forgotten. (But it is remarkable how seldom this happened - so much as he spoke it mathematically and by sheer chance should have happened a lot more times according to all laws of probability. But then it is clear that Muhammad had limited imagination - f.x. more or less all tales in the Quran are "borrowed" ones.) But the main things are:
    10. They were never claimed to be prophesies when the remarks were said.
    11. Muhammad never claimed to have the gift of being able to make prophesies.
    12.   Both Muhammad and Aisha (in Hadiths) said he was unable to foresee the future.

    13.   He did not even pretend to be a prophet – he only used the title.
    14.   Muhammad only “borrowed”/stole the imposing and impressing title, he was no real prophet.
    15.   Also these verses shows that Muhammad had not the power to make prophesies: 6/50a, 7/188b, 10/20c+d, 10/49a, and 72/26.
    16.   And when he in reality was no prophet – not even a real pretender, only using the nice title as a disguise – he could not be the future prophet Moses told about. (We know there exist "softer" definitions for who is a prophet, like "a person speaking on behalf of a god" - it is an imposing title and many wants to use it. But a real prophet by definition has to be able to make prophesies. Not to mention if he was to be "a prophet like Moses".)
    17.   Then there is 5.Mos. 18/20 – the next-door neighbor to the for Islam essential 18/18: “But a prophet who presumes to speak in my name anything I have not commanded him to say, or a prophet who speaks in the name of other gods, must be put to death.” These are criteria for singling out false prophets. In his famous and infamous “Satanic Verses” Muhammad promoted the three pagan goddesses al-Lat, al-Uzza and Manat – 3 daughters of the Arab main pagan god al-Lah (the same god that Muhammad renamed to Allah). To promote pagan goddesses definitely is something Yahweh had “not commanded him to say”. And promoting the pagan goddesses meant Muhammad also could not be speaking in the name of Allah just then, but in the name of the pagan al-Lah – another god - or the Devil according to himself.
    18.   According to this verse – in the same chapter which Islam is using as a strong and reliable proof – it as you see is documented that according to definition Muhammad is a false prophet (also f.x. all that is wrong in the Quran documents the same). And no false prophet could be the prophet Moses spoke about. The same for a "not real prophet".
    19.   And one more context just seconds later in the same speech of Moses (5.Mos. 18/22). Moses said: “If what a prophet proclaims in the name of the Lord (Yahweh*) does not take place or come true, that is a message the Lord has not spoken”. Muhammad never even made real prophesies and a lot of what he said else in the Quran, pretending to repeat the words of a god, most obviously is not true – just look at all the mistaken facts and all the other wrong points in the book. According to 5.Mos. 18/22 (another verse in the Bible Muslims never mention) this proves – on top of the other proofs – that Muhammad was no prophet. Consequently also for this reason he cannot have been the prophet Moses talked about.
    20.   As mentioned the word “brother” etc. are used many times in the Bible. It even is used in exactly the same sentence in at least one more for Israel crucial case, and by the same man, Moses, and speaking to the same people – the Jews. 5.Mos. 17/15: “- - - be sure to appoint over you the king your Lord your God (Yahweh*) chooses. He must be from among your own brothers. Do not place over you, one who is not a brother Israelite.” One more verse and one more context Muslims never mention – it is permitted to guess why. No further comments necessary.

     

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    CONCLUSIONS

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

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

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

    The claim is not even wishful thinking, but rubbish.

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

    Deuteronomy (5. Mos.) 18/18:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Genesis (1. Mos.) 21/21:

    “While he (Ishmael*) was in the desert of Paran, his mother got a wife for him from Egypt”. Paran is on the Sinai Peninsula. But there also is a place with that name near Mecca (well, actually it is Faran, not Paran, but Islam has mainly switched to calling it Paran for obvious reasons - and they hardly ever mention this switching) – and the Muslims do not say that perhaps it was this Paran the Bible speaks about. They simply declare that the name proves it was this place, and that the Paran in Sinai there is no reason to talk about. It is like declaring that Stalin in all his brutality was an American because there is a town in USA named Moscow (there really 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 descendant had nothing to do with Mecca or Arabia. They lived in vest Sinai near the border of Egypt. (To be near the border of Egypt, it had to be in the western part of Sinai or northwards). Actually this also gives one more proof – from a source and a place in the Bible which the Muslims themselves use as a decisive witness – for that all the tales about Hagar and Ishmael living in - and Abraham therefore visiting - Mecca, just is a made up story. It also fits the fact that Abraham for long periods lived in Sinai according to the same Bible that Islam here uses for a claimed proof. And it is reasonably near Paran in Sinai.

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

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

    Deuteronomy (5.Mos.) 33/2:

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

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

    2. Muhammad never was in Sinai – at least not after he got “myriads” of followers (most likely never unless it was before he started his religion in 610 AD, and it is not said he ever went there).
    3. The same goes for Seir – a place mentioned several times in the Pentateuch in OT (f.x. Numbers (4. Mos.) 10/12, 12/16, 13/3, 13/26 and 5. Mos. 1/1) as the place where the Edomites settled near the Dead Sea. Muhammad hardly ever went there, except perhaps he passed it on his way to Syria when working on caravans in younger years, and some Muslims then says it refers to a battle King David won at a place with the same/similar name - - - but in 5. Mos. 33/2 it is Moses who was speaking, and he lived 200 years earlier and never heard about that battle. (Some also wants it to be the village Sa’ir near Jerusalem, but Moses never entered Palestine – and neither did the tent he used for a temple, in which he had the contact with his god – the god (not the prophet – the Lord in the Bible always means Yahweh/God) who came “from Sinai and Seir and Paran).
    4. And the same also goes for Mt. Paran – a mountain and an area in Sinai (perhaps yet another name for Mt. Sinai). This mountain Muslims admittedly has “moved” to Arabia, near Mecca (a mountain and an area with a similar name - Faran, but Muslims now mostly claim the name is Paran), but till now we have not read any real scientist that is in doubt: The real Mt. Paran is in Sinai. This mountain and area is mentioned many times in the Bible (f.x. 1. Mos. 14/6, 21/21, 4. Mos.10/12, 12/16, 13/3, 13/26, 5. Mos. 1/1, Habakkuk 3/3) and science as said is in no doubt. (We may add that Yahweh according to the Bible, in Sinai manifested himself to the Jews and to Moses as a column of smoke by day and one of fire/light by night. He could well shine in the night from Mt. Paran. Muslims wants it to mean that Muhammad’s religion shone from the mountain with the similar name near Mecca – but neither Muhammad nor Islam had any special connection to that mountain, not to mention that the Israelis in Sinai would not be able to see him if he shone from Mt. Faran in Arabia. Sorry – Muslims will have to bring proofs, not only claims).
    5. The quote from the Bible Muslims use, says: "The Lord came from Sinai - - -". The title "the Lord" in OT always and without exception means Yahweh - a fact no Muslim ever mention. In NT it also may mean Jesus, but nobody else. Muhammad neither was Yahweh nor Jesus. Only this fact makes the Muslim claim here impossible - and then there are the other points in addition.

     

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Psalms 45/2-5:

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

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

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

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

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

    Psalms 149/6 – 7:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    But:

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

     

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

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

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

    Isaiah 1/7:

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

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

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

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

    Isaiah 21/13-15:

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

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

    NIV’s translation:

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

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

    But:

    1. There is nothing that says it is about a famous flight – it may have been about some more local conflict, though essential enough for the victims. Also see the point just below.
    2. Verse 21/9 - just a few lines before the ones Islam quotes - tells this episode has to do with the fall of Babylon - a fact that Muslims conveniently "forgets" - something that happened more than 1000 years before Muhammad. Now the name Babylon often is used as an expression for a bad or degenerated community, but even if you here say that Babylon represents the Quraysh tribe and Mecca, it does not fit, as Muhammad did not flee because of the fall of Mecca. Mecca and the Quraysh still were very powerful when Muhammad fled in 622 AD.
    3. These refugees are fleeing from war. Muhammad fled not from war, but from persecution.
    4. We know that Muhammad did not visit the area of Tema (really the name of tribe and also of their area) during his flight – it is far too far north (there are 210 miles/338 km between Mecca and Medina, and Tema was far north of Medina, whereas Muhammad followed a rather direct though hither-and-thither (to avoid his persecutors) route between Mecca and Medina). Strangely Muslims never mention this, even though at least their scholars know it very well.
    5. The essential fact here: Isaiah lived and wrote during the time of the Assyrians. The Assyrians started invasion of Arabia in 732 BC – also a fact Muslim scholars know very well. Isaiah simply wrote about and made a prophesy about the coming war.
    6. One more essential fact: The time frame! – even one more fact Muslim scholars know, but cold-blooded omits in order to twist the information: The very next verses (21/16-17) of Isaiah continues: “This is what the Lord (Yahweh*) says to me: “Within one year, as a servant bound by contract would count it, all the pomp of Kedar will come to an end. The survivors of the bowmen, the warriors of Kedar, will be few”. Here it is directly said that this prophesy is to be fulfilled within a year – not some 1300 years later and concerning Muhammad.

     

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

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

    Isaiah 53:

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

    But the description may fit Jesus.

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

    Isaiah 63:

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

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

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

    Habakkuk 3/3:

    “God came from Teman, the Holy One from Mount Paran”. (Also see Abraham and El Paran - 1. Mos. 14/6)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Actually nothing of this fits Islam’s history.

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

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

    Haggai 2/7:

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

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

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

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

    THE NEW TESTAMENT (NT).

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

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

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

    John 1/20-23:
    John 1/19-23

    “ (19)Now this was John’s (John the Baptist*) testimony when the Jews of Jerusalem sent priests and Levites (from the Levi tribe – the priest tribe*) to ask him who he was. (20) He did not fail to confess, but confessed freely, ‘I am not the Christ (Messiah*).’(21)They asked him, ‘Then who are you? Are you Elijah?’ He said, ‘I am not.’ ‘Are you the Prophet?’ He answered, ‘No.’ (22)Finally they said, ‘Who are you? Give us an answer to take back to those who sent us. What do you say about yourself?’ (23)John replied in the words of Isaiah the prophet, ‘I am the voice of one calling in the desert, ‘Make straight the way for the Lord’’”.

    Well, this has to be about Muhammad, is the claim – a voice in the desert and a “straight way” (an expression often used by Muhammad)! This even though all the rest is about Jesus and is proclaiming his divinity (and has to be lies, according to Islam) – this cherry-picked small piece must be true, according to some Muslims.

    But how could John the Baptist – the messenger for Jesus, and he who proclaimed Jesus’ divinity – be making "the way straight for Muhammad” some 580 years later? – without once even giving a hint about Arabia or anything? There is no connection between the two anywhere. Wrong.

    This even more so as he told that the one he was speaking about, was standing living among them (John 1/26) - a person alive around 30 AD, was definitely not alive around 610 AD.

    Besides John spoke about one who would baptize - even baptize with the Holy Spirit (Mark 1/8). Muhammad did not use baptizing, and knew very little about the Holy Spirit.

    And finally: As mentioned before the word "Lord" used in the Bible as a name for a religious "person" ALWAYS AND WITHOUT EXCEPTION refers to Yahweh or (sometimes in NT) Jesus. There is no exception from this rule.

    Ugly: Muslim scholars has got to know this - it is in the same Gospel as their main claim - but they never mention it - or that in the Bible "Lord" ALWAYS means Yahweh or sometimes Jesus. Al-Taqiyya? Kitman?

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

    John 1/26-27:

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

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

    The Greek word "Parakletos" contra "Periklytos":

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

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

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

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

    Point of relevance IV (NT).

    John 14/15-26:

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

    How does Muhammad fit here?

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

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

    "'The Spirit of truth' is Muhammad", many a Muslim will tell you (from baby age they have been told how truthful and reliable Muhammad was). The man who at least a few times lied in his holy book, the Quran ("No-one will believe even if I/Allah made miracles"), the man who laid the foundation for the institutionalization of al-Taqiyya (the lawful lie), Kitman (the lawful half-truth) and advised breaking of even oaths, the man who had as slogan "War is deceit" - yes, we believe he must be "the Spirit of truth".

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    John 14/16-17:

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

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

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

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

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

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

    John 14/26:

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

    Point of relevance VII (NT).

    John 15/26:

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

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

    And not even Islam claims that Muhammad was the Holy Spirit.

    Point of relevance VIII (NT).

    John 16/7-8:

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

    The claim from Islam is that the Counselor (Parakletos = helper, councilor, adviser) John here speaks about, is Muhammad. He is speaking about a future prophet, they say, and there is no other alternative than Muhammad. To make that claim stick, they omit the Holy Spirit, and in addition they claim that the word “parakletos” is wrongly spelled (see no. III above) – it surely shall be “periklytos” (as normal for Islam they do not even try produce documentation for the claim, even though there are thousands of old documents). “Periklytos” may be translated to Aramaic - Aramaic, not Arab - and one gets the word Mawhamana, which can be translated to Ahmad or Muhammad in Arab.

    Pathetic.

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

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

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

    But:

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

    The agenda of the council in Nicaea in 325 AD according to Wikipedia:

    1. The Arian (a heretic group*) question regarding the relationship between God the Father and Jesus; i.e. are the Father and Son one in purpose only or also one in being.
    2. The date of celebration of the Easter observation.
    3. The Meletian schism.
    4. The validity of baptism by heretics.
    5. The status of the lapsed in the persecution under Licinius.

       

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

    In addition there were promulgated 20 new church laws:

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

     

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

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

     

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

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

    John 16/13:

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

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

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

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

    Verse 61/6e-f:

    “The Message of the Quran” solves the problem of what the Bible really tells very simply: It tells that a verse in the Quran explains what the NT tells about Muhammad (surah 61/6e-f):

    "And remember, Jesus, the son of Mary (see 5/110a), said: 'O Children of Israel! I am the Messenger of Allah (sent) to you, confirming the Law (which came) before me, and giving the glad Tiding of a Messenger to come after me, whose name shall be Ahmad'. But when he came to them with Clear Signs, they said, "This is evident sorcery!'"

    The problem is that the Bible says nothing even remotely similar to surah 61/6e-f - not anywhere. (An elegant explanation is that it shall have been mentioned in the non-existing Gospel Islam needed to make up to explain how the child Jesus could learn the Gospel(s) before they were written - a Gospel which Mary and others 100% sure had taken care of if it was not a fairy tale, because it would really have cemented an even more a special connection between Jesus and Yahweh/God). And a Gospel no-one in Islam has or had ever seen the text of, and thus impossible could know the contents of even if it had once existed.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Resume.

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

     

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

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

    Just 2 more comments:

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

     

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

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

     

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

    BUT IS MUHAMMAD IN THE BIBLE ALL THE SAME?

    THE BLACK ALTERNATIVE.

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

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

     

    Because of this we mention a few facts:

    1. Jesus several places said false prophets would arise, and that they would deceive many. Muhammad indisputably was no real prophet as he did not have the gift of prophesying, and he was backed by no god - too much is wrong in the Quran for it to come from a god – and no other person has led so many into a sect or religion fundamentally based on inhumanity (suppression, discrimination, hate, slavery, “lawful and good” rape, “lawful and good” stealing/robbing, “good and lawful” and even the best services to the god (?); war, to mention some points). Muhammad fits that picture too well for comfort.
    2. The Apostle Paul mentioned that Satan sometimes disguises himself as an angel of light. Muhammad claimed he met an angel of light – Gabriel - - - or someone or something masquerading like Gabriel.
    3. Paul also said that a time would give heed to “doctrines of devils”. As mentioned above some of the surahs from Medina look much more like doctrines from devils than like doctrines from a good and benevolent god – not to mention the Satanic Verses.
    4. Paul also predicted that a time would come when people would not seek and listen to sound doctrines, but listen to fables. And too many Muslims today and before do/did not look for the truth, but only seeking (“proofs” for) what they want to hear. And is it a coincidence that most of the tales in the Quran are documented to be “borrowed” from fairy tales, legends and fables? Even most of the ones seemingly from OT and some seemingly from NT are documented in reality to come not from the Bible, but from made up religious tales and fables – apocryphal scriptures and legends often.

     

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    417 7/160d: "Strike the rock with thy (Moses'*) staff: out of it there gushed forth twelve springs - - -". The Bible tells: "Then they (the Jews*) came to Elim, where there were twelve springs - - -" (2. Mos. 15/12). And later at Rephidim: "(Yahweh told Moses:*) Strike the rock, and water will come out - - - (2. Mos. 17/6)". The Quran seems to have mixed together these two incidents.

    *418 7/162a: “But the transgressors (Jews*) among them changed the word (of the Bible*) from that which had been given them - - -“. Well, well. The only way for Muhammad to save his religion and his power, was to claim that the Bible was falsified – and this he claimed and claimed without ever producing one single real proof. That is exactly the situation for Islam today: To save itself – and the positions of the leaders – it has to claim and claim - this and other things, without being able to prove one single of the central claims. But today the position is more difficult, because science has so many old documents and fragments, that they know Islam is not speaking the truth. See f.x. 7/157a-d. The Bible never was falsified according to science. (And Islam even more strongly proves the same, as even they have been unable to find proved falsifications.)

    419 7/163b: "- - - they (some Jews*) transgressed in the matter of the Sabbath". Jews are not permitted by the Laws of Moses to work during the Sabbath - and to fish for food is work.

    420 7/166: "Be ye apes - - -". Allah said to some “bad” Jewish people (according to the Quran): “Be ye apes - - -”. Hardly likely that humans were transferred into apes. (The story is taken from a legend. And just to mention it: There is nothing similar in the Bible.)

    421 7/169a: "Was not the Covenant of the Book (here indicated with Allah*) taken from them (the Jews*), that they would not ascribe to Allah anything but the truth?" To use an understatement: The Jews hardly had promised Allah this - Yahweh, yes, but not Allah. Another thing is that Islam and the Muslims included Muhammad would dearly like the Covenant between Yahweh and Israel to be terminated - and here they use claimed sins in unnamed place(s) in an unspecified time - difficult to check - as background for the question (and you also may meet it as a - as normal from Islam not proved - statement and claimed "fact"). But no: There nowhere - not even in the Quran - anywhere is said that that Covenant is terminated - disused and broken, but never terminated. (The same goes for the New Covenant which Jesus formalized the Last Supper between Yahweh and the followers of Jesus, later called Christians - never terminated according to any known scripture.) Also see 7/170a+c below.

    422 7/170a: "- - - the Book - - -". It is not 100% clear - the Quran all too often has unclear texts - but here it seems to be the Bible. Also 7/171 indicates that this is the case, as "them" have to be the Jews. In that case 7/170c below is valid.

    423 7/170c: "- - - never shall We (the god*) suffer the reward of the righteous (here; among Jews and Christians?*) to perish". In clear language: Also the righteous among Jews and Christians will go to Heaven - - - if not the god changed his mind and abrogated (made invalid) this verse later (this was in 621 AD - before Islam was changed to a harsh war religion). But see 7/169a and 7/170a above.

    424 7/171: “When We (Allah*) shook the Mount (Mt. Sinai*) over them (Moses' Jews*) as if it had been a canopy, and they (the Jews*) thought it was going to fall on them - - -”. This needs strong proof from Islam, especially as it in reality is from a fable taken from the old Jewish book “Abodah Sarah”. The picture is clear: The god lifted the mountain, held it over the Jews like a canopy and shook it. All the same you meet Muslims who "forget" about the canopy and the danger that it could fall on the Jews, and claim this was an earthquake(!). "It is the one not wanting to see, who is most blind" or "The blind man you can explain things, but the man not wanting to see also denies facts" - choose what quote you like.

    425 7/171b: "- - - perchance you (Moses' Jews) may fear Allah". According to the Bible their god was Yahweh, not Allah.

    426 7/191a: "Do they (non-Muslims*) indeed ascribe to Him (Allah*) - - - partners - - -". An Arabism. Except for in Arabia where the pagan god al-Lah/Allah (renamed to only Allah by Muhammad) had many colleges, no non-Muslims ascribed or ascribe partners to Allah, because they simply do not believe in him. They believe in an entirely different god (Jews and Christians) or gods (polytheists).See 2/165c above and 25/18a below.

    427 8/34c: A small thought here: The Kabah is very central to Allah - his most holy place on Earth. But Yahweh does not even bother to mention neither Kabah nor Mecca. And pilgrimage to Mecca? - Jesus does not mention any kind of pilgrimage at all - and the same for all the other Jewish prophets, none of them, included Jesus, ever even whispered a wish about a hajj there. Something is seriously wrong here.

    Yahweh and Allah the same god? Jesus and Muhammad - if he had been a real prophet - in the same religion or line of prophets? Nope.

    #428 8/38-39b: “Say to the Unbelievers, if (now) they desist (from Unbelief (= becomes Muslims*)) their past will be forgiven them; but if they persists - - - fight whit them - - -”. Muslims like to quote the Quran saying that there shall be no forcing others to become Muslims - it is used as a proof for that such things never happen (f.x. 2/256). But here it is said just the opposite: Become Muslims or fight. This in reality was often the choices the other part had: Come to Islam or die - though it should be mentioned that this mostly were the case when Islam waged war on pagans, not so often when the other part were Jews or Christians - though this, and also pogroms, happened frequently. Some Muslim wars of conquest were rather bloody (understatement) - included mass murders after the victory.

    These two verses are interesting because:

    1. They oppose - contradicts - another verse (2/256: "Let there be no compulsion in religion") - which the Quran, Islam and Muslims say never happen.
    2. They prove that force may be used to convert people to Islam.
    3. They tell that refusing to convert to Islam is a valid reason for attack according to the Quran. (Actually all the 4 law schools in Islam accepted that the fact that an opponent was non-Muslim as sufficient reason for declaring holy war - jihad - on him and attack. This right up to the first part of the 20th century.)
    4. Not least: Surah 8 is from 624 AD, and this thus prove that already in 624 Islam had totally changed from quite peaceful in the Mecca period, to a religion of full suppression under Islam and war. In short: "Become Muslims or we kill you!!"

     

    429 8/58a: “If thou fearest treachery from any group, throw back (their Covenant) to them - - -”. It was enough to “fear treachery” - or say they did - then the situation for non-Muslims suddenly became more unsafe. This has happened many times throughout history - sometimes resulting in pogroms and massacres. A late one was in Indonesia some years ago some 2ooo ethnical Chinese Indonesian citizen were murderer and a huge ransacking spree took place against ethnic Chinese Indonesian citizens (and that was not even because of fear, but because of the Chinese worked more and often were better educated and had become richer than Muslims), and one where at least 200ooo ethnic Chinese were killed 1 - 2 generations ago. A much worse story was against Armenians around 1900 AD. Some 1.2 million killed and no one knows how many girls/women were kidnapped for rape and/or harems. This story was in the news in 2007, and Turkey still does not have the backbone to face it. The same for Greeks in Turkey early in last century - the Turks do not have the backbone to tidy up after those atrocities, too. And Darfur with at least 200ooo slaughtered civilians. Also: There is no guaranty for the future, as there are many verses in the Quran telling Muslims how to "treat" non-Muslims. There always are verses to be found in the Quran telling Muslims to kill or suppress any non-Muslims.

    There have been many more of the same kind (see our book about Jihad/"holy war") - even though Muslims never talk about other facts than that at times - sometimes even long times - Muslim countries were relatively safe for Jews, etc. if they accepted inferior status and no power, little legal security and extra taxes - jizya and land tax (which sometimes could be heavy, because the Quran limited the rulers' possibilities to tax Muslims, but put no limit on the jizya or land tax).

    This quote also tells a lot about the person Muhammad. Especially as he practiced it sometimes. F.x. some of his attacks were on suspicion only.

    430 9/7d: "- - - the Sacred Mosque - - -". The Kabah mosque in Mecca. Even though it was the most sacred place on Earth for Muhammad and for Allah, Yahweh, Jesus and all the Jewish prophets were totally uninterested in it. Kabah and its claimed holiness are one of the strong proofs for that Yahweh and Allah are not the same god, and for that Jesus and the other Jewish prophets were not in the same religion or serving the same god as Muhammad.

    431 9/8b: “- - - most of them (pagans*) are rebellious and wicked.” Of course - Pagans are not even Jews, nor Christians, who are bad enough. "Far below Muslim moral standard" - which is much different from "do to others like you want others do to you".

    ###432 9/16c: “Or think that ye (Muslims*) that ye shall be abandoned (by Allah and not be rewarded for going to war*), as though Allah did not know those among you who strive with might and main (for the religion*)- - -.” Compare this to the Bible. Even in the at places harsh OT, the wars were not for the religion, but to establish and later defend a national country for the Jews. And to compare it to NT and the teaching of Jesus simply has no meaning - the distance is too huge between Jesus and his teaching of love and peace, and Muhammad’s religion of distaste, suppression, hate, and war - if you cultivate distaste, distance between "us" and "the bad ones", and hate, it is easier to make your followers or underlings go to war. Muhammad invested much time and effort in such cultivation.

    433 9/17d: "The work of such (non-Muslims*) bear no fruit - - -". For one thing it is the work of non-Muslims which has caused most of the progress for man in this world, and for another Yahweh and the Bible disagree strongly when it comes to persons who believe in the Bible.

    It is a fact that in the period from ca. 610 AD to ca. 800 AD hardly any thought or idea which could benefit humanity came from Muslims. In the period 800 AD - or really from around 820 AD - till 1095 AD and the book "On the incoherence of the Philosophers" by "the greatest Muslim after Muhammad", al Ghazali, there came some, but nearly all of it just translated from Greek and Persian, but after all some from Muslim thinkers. From 1095 AD till into the 1300s-1400s there still came some - still a lot translated from mainly Greek and Persian, but some also from the Muslim area, BUT FROM NON-MUSLIMS - OFTEN JEWS - LIVING THERE, BUT AS THEY WROTE IN ARAB, MUSLIMS OF TODAY GIVE ISLAM THE HONOUR FOR IT. Later there was nothing. The plain reality is that in the time from 1095 AD and far into the 1900s there did not come one idea or thought of any essence which could benefit humanity from a Muslim. That is the fruit of the Muslim society through 1400 years.

    If Muslims had set the pace, the world today had lived in the 12. century if the Muslims had access to old Greek, Persian, and Indian (f.x. "Arab" numbers in reality are from India), etc. If not we had lived around the 8. or 9. century today. So much for the fruit of Muslim new thoughts, ideas, inventions, etc.

    434 9/19b: "- - - the Sacred Mosque - - -" = Kabah in Mecca. Even though it was the most sacred place on Earth for Muhammad and for Allah, Yahweh and Jesus and all the Jewish prophets were totally uninterested in it - one of the strong proofs for that Yahweh and Allah are not the same god, and for that Jesus and Muhammad were not in the same religion or serving the same god.

    435 9/19g: "- - - strive with might and mind in the cause of Allah- - -". Guess if this conflicts with the Bible! Even in the rather hard and harsh OT the wars were not for Yahweh, but for establishing and then defending a national state for the Jews - not for the religion. And In NT war is hardly an accepted thing at all. Yahweh and Allah the same god? Nope. Jesus and Muhammad in the same line of prophets? - more than nope.

    *436 9/21b: “Their (terrorists/warriors*) Lord (Allah*) doth give them glad tidings of a Mercy (that terrorists/warriors for Allah are forgiven practically any sin*) from Himself (from Allah personally*), of His good pleasure (from the fighting and murdering they have done for the good and kind and benevolent god*), and the Gardens for them, wherein are delights (earth-like riches, luxury and women*) that endures”. One more at least 110% proof for that Yahweh and Allah are not the same god, and for that the Jewish prophets, not to mention Jesus, were not in the same line of prophets as Muhammad claimed to be. See 9/20h above.

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

    437 9/28c: “Truly the Pagans are unclean - - -”. Pagans are the lowest caste in Islam - even lower than Jews and Christians (though in this case Jews and Christians are included). Not a negative name but a negative description - like so often when the Quran talks about non-Muslims.

    438 9/28d: “Truly the Pagans (people neither Muslims nor Jews nor Christians) are unclean - - -” And what is said in the Quran is valid also today and forever. During the Muslim military expansion, pagans frequently were very harshly treated - killed by the thousands and even by the tens of thousands and more f.x. in Sind and the rest of India. Also from Africa there are bad - horrible - stories, but there is less written documentation from Africa. And what about f.x. Armenians (Christians - 1.2 million murdered and many more mistreated or made (sex) slaves)? - or Christians in Turkey in the early 1900s? Or East Timor a few decades ago? Or the Chinese in Indonesia? - also a few decades ago.

    439 9/28e: “Truly the Pagans (people neither Muslims nor Jews nor Christians, though in this case Jews and Christians are included) are unclean, so let them not - - - approach the Sacred Mosque". Now you know why those people are not permitted there.

    440 9/28f: “Truly the Pagans (people neither Muslims nor Jews nor Christians, though in this case Jews and Christians are included) are unclean, so let them not - - - approach the Sacred Mosque". Part of the sharia laws.

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

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

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

    #########441 9/29c: “Fight those who believe not in Allah - - - until they pay jizya (extra tax - sometimes heavy (and there may be land tax in addition - often 50%)) with willing submission and feel themselves subdued.” A clear and unmistakable order. The softest word possible: Discrimination or apartheid. There are a number of stronger ones. And the jizya frequently was high. Comments on how it is to live under such helpless apartheid conditions is not necessary - the Negroes in South Africa or the Southern States in USA in earlier times could tell you - even though they at least did not have to pay an extra tax on top of all.

    Also see other chapters (in "1000+ Mistakes in the Quran") - f.x. “Muslims are better than other people”, like 25/44 or 68/35+36, and “Age Golden Age of Coexistence".

    THE CLAIM THAT ISLAM IS THE RELIGION OF PEACE, IS SERIOUSLY WRONG.

    One more fundamental point: There NEVER was anything like this in the Bible - see f.x. Jesus' words: "Give to Caesar (meaning the emperor*) what is Caesar's and to Yahweh what is Yahweh's", and also the Bible's damning words about "serving Mammon (money*)". Allah's and Muhammad's greed for riches is one more of the really strong proofs for that Yahweh and Allah are not the same god, and Jesus and Muhammad far from in the same religion.

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

    BUT THE MAIN POINT MAY BE THAT THIS IS THE MAIN AND CENTRAL POLITICAL MESSAGE AND ORDER TO ALL ISLAM AND ALL MUSLIMS THEN AND FOREVER - A FACT NON-MUSLIMS SHOULD BE AWARE OF AND N E V E R FORGET. THE OFFICIAL GOAL AND ORDER FOR ISLAM IS TO CONQUER EVERYTHING AND SUPPRESS ALL NON-MUSLIMS TO BECOME SLAVES OR SEMI SLAVES UNDER ISLAM, (and pagans worse off than Jews and Christians.)

    This sentence must be seen in connection to 9/33j below.

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

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

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

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

    442 9/29n: "- - - jizya - - -". This is a special tax the Quran orders non-Muslims to pay in Muslim countries. In contradiction to the zakat - tax for Muslims - which was regulated in the Quran, there was no limit to the jizya, neither to what it could be used for, nor for how big it could be. The result was that when the leaders needed money, they demanded more jizya - sometimes so much that the non-Muslims had to flee because it was impossible for them to pay. You sometimes meet Muslims claiming the jizya is compensation for that the non-Muslims do not have to serve in the Military, etc. But this is mentioned neither in the Quran, nor in Hadiths - jizya simply is a fiscal tax to get money. Less often mentioned is the land-tax - rent for land - which also could be high. Muhammad f.x. demanded 50% from Jews permitted to live on in Khaybar, and this therefore often became the norm, but it could be at least 70%, and if you add the jizya to this, it is easy to see why many were forced to flee.

    443 9/30a: "The Jews call 'Uzayr (= Ezra*) a son of God - - -". This is flatly wrong - Ezra was a central person in the rebuilding after the Jews returned from Babylon, but there never was even a whisper about that he was the son of Yahweh. Now, Muslims admits this, but claim that the Jews around Yathrib (Medina) said so. We have not been able to find out if this is true or just another al-Taqiyya, but it also is totally irrelevant: Any god making a Quran had known the truth and not made a blemish like this. Then who made the Quran?

    But it is relevant for another question: Why do Muslims mean that it should mean anything what Jews in tiny Medina in the middle of nearly nowhere meant in this case? - did the maker of the Quran live there and get his information by way of an Arabism from the locals? In that case he was no universal, omniscient god.

    444 9/30d: “- - - the Christians call Christ the son of God - - - (in this) they but imitate what the Unbelievers of old (the Jews*) used to say". Wrong: As mentioned in 9/30a above, the Jews never used to say so - that there was a son of God. If the Jews at Yathrib/Medina said so, this was something local. As they had the old scriptures it is very unlikely they believed f.x. Ezra was son of Yahweh, but we have found no reliable source saying anything about this. But to repeat ourselves: Any god making a Quran had known the truth and not made a blemish like this. Then who made the Quran?

    445 9/31a: "They (Jews and Christians*) take their priests and their anchorites to be their lords (gods*)". This is a reference to saints. It is wrong that they are reckoned to be gods - they are thought to be go-betweens. But it is clear that such go-betweens are not mentioned in the Bible. You do not find them among protestants and hardly among Jews (but Shi’ia Muslims have a tendency to believe in saints).

    446 9/31d : "- - - yet they (the Christians*) were commanded to worship but One God - - -". Here is intended Allah, which is wrong - Christians (and Jews) were commanded to worship Yahweh.

    447 9/34d: "And there are those who bury gold and silver and spend it not in the Way of Allah - - -". You should spend at least some of your money in ways advice by the Quran - for the poor, for spreading Islam, for paying for the costs of war, etc. But here Muhammad talks about priests, etc. And no matter whether those priest were Jewish or Christian, they had extremely good reasons for not spending it "in the Way of Allah" - and especially not on war expenses for Muhammad and Islam.

    448 9/70b: Noah and Abraham are names from the Bible. Ad, Thamud and "the men of Midian" are names of tribes in Arab folklore (Median - really Madyan in case - is not likely to be the same area to which Moses fled after he killed a man in Egypt, according to the Bible, and is a part of Arabia (in the west). But Moses' Midian also may have been in Sudan - one does not know if he fled east or south. And to fulfill the logic: As the Bible mentions Mt. Horeb (likely another name for Mt. Sinai (today Jabal Musa according to Muslims - 34 degrees east, 28.5 degrees east - 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, and this is far from Madyan in Arabia), it is extremely likely Moses' Midian was in Sinai.

    ##There is a little additional question concerning Midian in the Quran though: Is this a case similar to Abraham's Paran (El Paran - 1. Mos. 14/6)? Near Mecca there is an area named Faran. Islam has more or less renamed this to Paran, and as the names then are similar, they claim this was Abraham's Faran, even though the Bible indicates it was much further west.

    We also remind you that science says: "It is practically sure Abraham never visited Mecca".

    449 9/70e: "- - - came their messengers - - -". The Quran claims all nations/groups/cultures all over the world and to all times have had messengers/prophets teaching Islam - Hadiths mention the number 124ooo prophets/messengers through the times. Except for the Jewish prophets - who did not teach about Allah, but about Yahweh - neither science nor Islam has found one single trace of even one of them. If not Islam brings solid proofs - but proofs, not loose claims - we judge that this just is a made up claim.

    450 9/73c: “Strive (fight*) hard against the Unbelievers and the Hypocrites - - -”. There is nothing like this in the Bible. In OT there is fighting, but for the Jews' country, not for the religion, and NT hardly accepts armed conflicts at all. Yahweh and Allah the same god?

    **451 9/111e: “- - - they fight in His (Allah’s*) cause, and slay and are slain: a promise binding on Him in truth, through the Law - - -". Wrong. This refers to the "Law of Moses". But the old Jews did not fight for the god, but to establish and later defend a national country here on Earth.

    #452 10/30f: "- - - their (non-Muslims'*) invented falsehoods (false gods*) will leave them in the lurch". This only is "invented falsehood" if it really is invented. There f.x. is a reasonable chance that Yahweh exists, and Jesus is a historical fact (he f.x. is mentioned by the renown Jewish writer of contemporary history shortly after, Josephus Flavius, and by others a bit later (Tacitus, Suetonius, and Plinius the younger)). (A small curiosity here: There exists no real proof for that Muhammad really has lived. A few scientists honestly believe he is an invention.)

    453 10/37e: "- - - a fuller explanation of the Book - - -". Here it must be meant that the Quran is a fuller explanation of the Bible. But as the Bible is proved not falsified and still is very different from the Quran (Muhammad claimed that originally it was like the Quran at least nearly, but that the bad Jews and the bad Christians had falsified it), this claim is proved wrong by both science and by Islam. Also quantitatively the claim is wrong - there is much more stuff in the Bible (4 - 5 times as much - only NT alone has more text than the Quran), so the Quran is not "fuller" that way either.

    ##454 10/47c: “To every people (was sent) a Messenger - - -.” Comment A10/68 (translated from Swedish): "This verse stresses the continuity of religious revelation in mankind's history and the fact (!*) that through the times no community, period or civilization - - - has been left without prophetic guidance - - -". Neither science nor Islam has been able to find the slightest traces from such prophets (except the Jewish, and they talked about Yahweh, not about Allah) or a religion similar to Islam, older than 610 AD. It simply is a fairy tale - if Islam is not able to prove it is true.

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

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

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

    ####455 10/49a: "I (Muhammad*) have no power over any harm or profit to myself except as Allah willeth". In clear language: Muhammad had no supernatural power. M. Asad understands it the same way - to quote his comment (A10/69) to this verse: "and since I (Muhammad*) do not possess any supernatural powers, I cannot predict that which is beyond the reach of human perception (al-ghayb)." This is a good verse and a good fact to remember when you meet Muslims who in triumph tell about miracles or foreseeing performed by Muhammad, or read about such ones in the Hadiths - there are a number. This is one of the many verses in the Quran which prove that all such stories are made up legends no matter where you meet them, even with Al-Bukhari or Imam Muslim, and this even though many learned Muslims use big words about these claimed miracles. AND NB: ALL THESE LEARNED MUSLIM SCHOLARS HAVE STUDIED THE QURAN AND HAVE TO KNOW THE STORIES ARE MADE UP - this fact tells something about ethics, moral and integrity among at least large parts of the Islamic religious intelligentsia, when they tell their lay people about Muhammad's "miracles".

    This verse also is one of several proofs for that Muhammad was no real prophet - he was not able to make prophesies, and without that ability you are no real prophet. (The same is said in 7/188b, and by his favorite (child) wife Aisha).

    2-7

    ####456 10/49b: "I (Muhammad*) have no power over any harm or profit to myself except as Allah willeth". Y10/69: "and since I (Muhammad*) do not possess any supernatural powers, I cannot predict that which is beyond the reach of human perception". Muhammad thus had not the ability to make prophesies - thus no prophet. It may here be relevant to mention that in the really old times the title among the Jews was not prophet but seer (f.x. 1. Sam. 9/9) - one who could see or at least glimpse the future.

    THE REALLY ESSENTIAL POINT OF THESE TWO QUOTES IS THAT FOR ONE THING MUHAMMAD HIMSELF IN THE QURAN STATES THAT HE HAS NO SUPERNATURAL POWER, AND THAT THIS FACT IS CONFIRMED BY ISLAM - HERE AND MANY OTHER PLACES. THIS KILLS ALL THE CLAIMS FROM MUSLIMS ABOUT THE FORETELLINGS AND WONDERFUL MIRACLES MUHAMMAD PERFORMED - EVEN THE CLAIMS IN THE HADITHS. THIS AND SOME OTHER VERSES - SE JUST BELOW - PROVE THAT THOSE STORIES JUST ARE MADE UP LEGENDS - - - AND THAT THE COLLECTORS OF HADITHS DID NOT DO A PROPER JOB.

    Muhammad unable to make miracles: 3/144, 7/188, 10/49, 17/93, 72/21.

    Muhammad unable to make prophesies: 3/144, 6/50, 7/188, 10/20, 27/65, 46/9, 72/26, 81/24.

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

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

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

    457 10/78c: "- - - in order that you (Moses*) and your brother (Aaron*) may have greatness in the land (Egypt*)?" This is not from the Bible. In the Bible there is no conflict about power or the religion here - there you only find "let my people go". But then much of what is said in the Quran to be from Exodus (= 2. Mos.), is not from the Bible - the only existing source about Exodus (the Jews leaving Egypt under Moses) except for legends and fairy tales.

    458 10/83a: “But none believed in Moses except some children of his People - - -.” Contradiction to the Bible where it is clear that all or most Jews believed him and did like he said.

    459 10/83e: "- - - certainly Pharaoh was mighty on the earth - - -". Pharaoh Ramses II was one of the mightiest - if not the mightiest - pharaoh ever in old Egypt. Worse: We know his history pretty well, f.x. that he did not drown. Because of this Muslims wants Exodus (the Jews leaving Egypt) and Moses to have happened earlier under less well known pharaohs which perhaps may have drowned (they often indicate around 1500 - 1600 BC, and never an indication about from where they have the numbers). But science is clear: If Exodus ever happened, it happened around 1235 BC, (sources f.x. Encyclopedia Britannica) which means during the reign of Ramses II. (Or at utmost during the reign of Ramses II'S son and successor, Merneptah - 1213-1203 BC.)

    460 10/84-86: Moses and the Jews were good Muslims. Try to find this claim in the Bible! (And remember: Science has proved the Bible is not falsified - in spite of Muhammad's never proved claims he had to make to save his religion and his leadership. Islam has thoroughly proved the same by not finding one proved falsification among the tens of thousands of relevant manuscripts - and by not finding one scrap of texts similar to the Quran older than 610 AD.)

    461 10/85: "- - - Allah - - - our (the Jews*) Lord". See 10/84b above.

    462 10/87a: “Provide dwellings for your (Moses’*) People in Egypt - - -“. Wrong – and a contradiction to reality both according to the Bible and the Quran. According to the Quran the Jews had dwelt for a long time in Egypt, and according to the Bible this long time amounted to 430 years (1. Mos. 12/40). They had dwellings – no reason to tell Moses to provide such ones. Even more silly: Why provide (new) dwellings when all they wanted to do, was to leave Egypt? (A possible reason may be that according to the Bible it took weeks or some months for the Jews to be permitted to leave, in the Quran it took years - cfr. years of bad harvest).

    463 10/87e: "- - - those who believe". Muhammad here indicates that the old Jews were Muslims - which they hardly were to use an understatement. Not to mention that it contradicts the Bible not a little.

    *464 10/90c: “I (Ramses II) believe that there is no god except Him Whom the Children of Israel believe in”. One more thing we know about Ramses II (see 10/90), is that he was a polytheist and never a Muslim – and never a Jew. This episode is nowhere mentioned in the Bible.

    #### This episode(?) told by Muhammad in 614-615 AD also is a very strong proof for that Muhammad knew that miracles or other proofs from a god would make people believers, and thus a strong proof for that he knew he lied each time later when he "explained" away requests for proofs from/for Allah with the claim that proofs or miracles would have no effect.

    465 10/92a: “This day (when the Egyptian army caught up with Moses and the Jews*) shall We (Allah*) save thee (Pharaoh*) in the body - - -.” The expression “in the body” should mean the same as “bodily” or “safe and (relatively at least) sound”. This may be true, as Ramses II did not drown. But it strongly contradicts other verses in the Quran which tells that he drowned. It also must be said that to save the Pharaoh in the very moment of death, would contradict 4/18, which tells it is too late to repent when you know you are about to die.

    1. 17/103: “- - - but We (Allah*) drowned him (Pharaoh) and all that were with him.”
    2. 28/40: “- - - and We (Allah*) flung them (Pharaoh and his men*) into the sea: now behold what was the End of those who did wrong!”
    3. 43/55: “- - - and We (Allah*) drowned them all (Pharaoh and his men*) .”

     

    (4 contradictions).

    **466 10/93a: "- - - the Children of Israel - - -". A time anomaly - see 4/13 d above - for anyone living before the Jewish patriarch Jacob was renamed Israel by Yahweh (1. Mos. 32/28).

    467 10/93d: "Verily Allah will judge between them (the Jews*) - - -". Contradicted by the Bible, which tells this will be Yahweh's job. 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.

    468 10/94b: "- - - those who have been reading the Book (here the Bible*) before thee (Muhammad*)". Jews and Christians. Muhammad always claimed that the Bible was a falsified Quran more or less, and that the Jews and Christians knew it and recognized the texts of the Quran. A claim only - as always. And like so many other cases and claims in the Quran, proved wrong - in this case both by science and by Islam.

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

    Yet another point is that the claim is pretty naive: It is not psychologically possible to really believe in a religion you know is falsified, and even the Quran strongly proves that many/most of the Jews and Christians were honest believers in their religion (if not f.x. the local Jews had become Muslims instead of fleeing from Muhammad or accepting death instead).

    469 10/98b: "- - - the people of Jonah - - -". The Quran here refers to the people of Nineveh, which far from was a township, but a large city - the capital of Assyria. Besides according to the Bible they were not Jonah's people - Jonah was a Jew, the people Assyrians. (But the Quran claims that prophets were sent to their own people, and thus claim "the People of Jonah", as this strengthens Muhammad's claim about being a normal prophet - an Arab among his own people.)

    Another point: According to historical sources the Thamud people (and their claimed prophet Salih - not mentioned in historical sources) lived around these times, not before Moses and before Abraham like the Quran indicates. An error of may be 1500 years.

    470 10/103a: "- - - Our (Allah's*) messengers - - -". Muhammad claimed messengers/prophets had been sent from Allah to all times and to all places on Earth - Hadiths mention the number 124ooo. For the prophets he "borrowed" from the Bible this claim clearly is wrong, as the Bible and present-day reality (based on an unbroken tradition and old books) shows that their god was Yahweh, and as both science and Islam clearly has proved that the Bible is not falsified. And for all the rest with the single exception of Muhammad, not one single trace from them has been found in any aspect of life, history, religions, traditions, or even fairy tales. Wrong unless Islam proves the opposite.

    ######A mathematical fact: If we operate with a normal religious time frame, Adam lived something like 5ooo years before the claimed last prophet, Muhammad. If we say that Hadiths' number 124ooo had been correct, and that each of them worked for 25 years, there all the time from Adam till Muhammad should be on average 620 active prophets working for Allah around the world (more than 3 in every country during all those thousands of years). None of them left one single trace anywhere on the entire Earth (except the old Jewish ones - really working for Yahweh). Even if you reckon the entire age of Homo Sapiens - 160ooo-200ooo years - there in case all these eons have been 15-20 prophets working all the time. But no trace from them or a religion like Islam, a god like Allah - or a book like the Quran.

    Believe it if you are able to.

    471 11/14g: "- - - there is no god but He (Allah*)!" This is one more never proved claim from the Quran. But even if we omit all claimed gods from all other religions, there still remains Yahweh, the old Jewish and Christian god which the Quran admits exists, even though it wrongly mixes him up with Allah. And the teachings of these two gods are fundamentally so different, that in spite of Islam’s never proved claim, those two cannot be the same god (unless he is mentally much ill). Remember here that science long since has proved that the Quran's claims that the Bible is falsified, is wrong (that is to say, it is difficult to prove it 100% before some 800 - 500 BC (and f.x. NT is much younger), because there are too few that old manuscripts (but the combination of f.x. the Qumran rolls and Jesus proves it anyhow) - but even then it was a written religion, and written religions are difficult to change much. If Muslims stand by their claims, they will have to prove it - it is their claims, and it is therefore they who have to prove it. (But Islam never is able to prove fundamental claims)). Also see 6/106b above.

    471 11/17f: "- - - the Book of Moses before it (the Quran*) - - -". Comment YA1512: "- - - the Holy Quran which is compared to the original Revelation given to Moses - - -". The Quran and Islam claims that all prophets of the old got a book similar to the Quran (not necessarily identical in all details, but similar - and the difference cannot have been big, as they and the Quran all were copies of the "Mother Book" mentioned in 13/39, 43/4 and 85/21-21, and revered by the god in his Heaven). There are not many knowledgeable non-Muslims who would get the idea that Moses got something similar to the Quran. Islam needs strong proofs here. The same goes for all the other Jewish prophets, included Jesus. We have not heard about one non-Muslim who knows both those books, who believe in such a claim. (Most of them do not even laugh when this is mentioned - it is too far out even for laughing.)

    The Bible mentions nothing about Moses receiving a book - the 10 Commandments and the Law (which he himself wrote down and sometimes called "the Book of Covenance"), yes, a full book, no.

    472 11/29d: "- - - ignorant ones - - -". There is an irony here, as the non-Muslims often were a lot more knowledgeable than the Muslims. This grew even more clear as the uneducated hordes from the deserts started to attack old cultures like the Greek/Roman and the Persian ones. And also later the non-Muslims in Muslim areas made up more than their share of the educated people for most kinds of science. It f.x. is a fact Muslims never mention that a large percentage of the non-religious scholars, doctors, translators of f.x. Greek scriptures, etc. in Muslim areas were non-Muslims (mostly Jews or Christians), but as they wrote in Arab, Islam takes the honor for their work. We may here mention that it took more than 400 years before the first Islamic university was built - the Nizamiyya madrasa (in 1066 - a year easy for at least the British to remember). And in 1095 AS - just 29 years later - Imam Abu Hamid ibn Muhammad al-Ghazali (born in 1058 AD in Khorasan in Persia, died 19. Des. 1111 AD) put an end to philosophy and scientific thinking not related to religion/Islam with his book "On the Incoherence of the Philosophers".

    473 11/84a: "- - - Madyan - - -". An area in west of Arabia and west Jordan, from Aqaba to Moab, to the east of the Dead Sea (though the information varies some from one source to another). It is unlikely it is the same area which is called Midian in the Bible (the Bible's Midian may have been in Sudan - one does not know for sure - or in Sinai, which definitely is the most likely place, f.x. because the mountain Mt. Hebron (likely another name for Mt. Sinai) and Mt. Sinai(today Jabal Musa (34 degrees east, 28.5 degrees east. 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) are mentioned) - Moses lived in Midian the 40 years between his flight from Egypt and his return to Egypt before the Exodus.

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

    474 11/110d: "- - - had it not been that a Word had gone forth before from thy Lord (Allah*) - - -" These words means the revelations in the Bible. They are to be respected - but NB: The not falsified Bible, as the Quran and Islam claim - without any documentation and today even in spite of strong proofs that the claim is wrong - that the Bible was and is falsified. They claim they talk about a claimed original Bible from before it was falsified, and when it was similar - not necessary identical even though they claim both were copies of the claimed "mother book" in Heaven, but at least similar. Islam has to stick to these claims in spite of all proofs - and partly by throwing dirt on all science, Jews and Christians to make the claims less unbelievable - because if the Bible is not falsified, it is very obvious to everybody that the Islam is a made up religion. It is easier and better to just go on believing what your parents believed and thought you, than to have to face the question if the beliefs you have based your life on, are fictions - blind belief is the best, even though the Quran tells the blind man has low value, and even if the price for being wrong is terrible in the possible next life. Yes, if there somewhere is a real god, a real paradise, and a real hell, and you have believed in a false religion (which is a possibility for Islam, as it is very clear that the Quran with all its mistakes, etc., etc. is not from a god) - well, what then?

    475 11/110e: "- - - they (Jews and perhaps Christians*) are in suspicious doubt concerning it (the Bible*). Not more in doubt than that hundreds of Jews preferred death or fleeing instead of accepting Muhammad's new religion. But claims like these are soothing to listen to for believers - at least for the ones too blind or too naive not to see the difference between loose claims and reality.

    476 11/113e: "- - - ye (non-Muslims*) have no protectors other than Allah - - -". Well, omitting everything else, both the Bible and the Quran mention the old Jewish and Christian god - in the Bible named Yahweh.

    477 12/2a: “We (Allah*) has sent it down as an Arabic Quran - - -.” An Arabic "holy book" meant something to Muhammad - he felt that the lack of such a book made the Arabs inferior to Jews and Christians.

    478 12/6e: "For thy Lord is full of knowledge and wisdom". The Quran here indicates that the god involved was Allah. This is contradicted by the Bible, which tells that the god of the old Jews were Yahweh. Also see 67/9c below - a strong one. 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.

    We may add that also history as far back as it goes, tells that the Jews' god was Yahweh - and written history goes quite far back in those areas, except in the then backward Arabia.

    479 12/31e: "Allah preserve us (some women in Egypt*)!" This tells indirectly, but clearly that the women were Muslim. But Islam was totally unknown in Egypt around 1700-1800 BC (Joseph lived something like a century after Abraham, his great grandfather, who lived around 1800-2000 BC according to science - if they were not both fiction. Or to recon the other way: Exodus was ca. 1335 BC. Then the Jews had lived in Egypt for 430 years according to the Bible (2. Mos. 12/40-41). This happened(?) a few years before the Jews moved to Egypt - if the numbers are correct it must have happened around 1770 BC. In Egypt people (likely except the Jews partly) were polytheists - no trace of monotheism is found at this time. (There was Akn Aton and his sun god, but not just then (pharaoh 1372 - 1355 BC)).

    Muhammad claimed Islam had existed to all times and in all places - obviously wrong.

    480 13/1i: "- - - but most men believe not". A reasonable percent of them - f.x. the majority of the Jews - because they saw that something was seriously wrong in Muhammad's teaching.

    481 13/30c: "- - - a People before whom (long since) have (other) People (gone and) passed away - - -". Comment (A13/52): "- - - an indirect reference to the continuity of prophetic revelation before and up to the time of the Last Prophet, Muhammad - - -". But the fact is that such an continuity did and do not exist - it came to an end - at least for the time being - with Jesus. There are so big differences between the teachings and the morality of the teachings in the Jewish tradition of prophets, which here is referred to, and those of Muhammad, that he is not in the same tradition as the Jewish ones, included Jesus. This in addition to that Muhammad was no real prophet - he was unable to make prophesies - and just "borrowed" that impressive and imposing title (which may be the reason why he so often used the less imposing title messenger).

    482 13/36d: “Those to whom We (Allah*) have given the Book rejoice at what hath been revealed unto thee (Muhammad*) - - -". Clearly wrong if he was talking about the Jews and the few Christians in the area. That Muhammad had to murder and enslave or chase away most of the many Jews in the area, tells another and more sinister story than glossy claims.

    If Muhammad's later treatment of them had not been so inhuman and horrible (suppression, extortion, robbing, enslaving, raping, murder and mass murder), this claim had merited a sardonic laughter.

    ###483 14/5d: “Bring out thy (Moses’*) people (the Jews*) from the depth of darkness into light, and teach them to remember the Days of Allah”. We just remind you that Muhammad claimed Allah = Yahweh - a claim which is easy to see is wrong, as the fundamental ideas and ideologies in the teachings are too deeply different (Jesus love and peace and empathy, Muhammad Nazi-like haughtiness, discrimination and war - and lawful dishonesty (al-Taqiyya, etc.)). Because of this claim, he uses the name Allah for Yahweh. This mistake is so obvious and so easy to see, that often we do not bother to comment on it.

    484 14/5e: (A14/5): “Bring out thy (Moses’*) people (the Jews*) from the depth of darkness into light, and teach them to remember the Days of Allah”. What is meant by the Days of Allah? – the Exodus from Egypt? – or the Day of Doom? – or for that case some other day? Nobody knows. But when a god gives an order like this, it is far from unimportant that his followers get a chance to understand what he is talking about. Would a god forget that information?

    485 14/5f: “Bring out thy (Moses’*) people (the Jews*) from the depth of darkness into light, and teach them to remember the Days of Allah”. According to the Bible, the involved god was Yahweh, not Allah.

    486 14/6c: “(Moses said about Pharaoh that he*) slaughtered your sons and let your women-folk live - - -.” Actually this is in accordance with what the Bible tells (The Quran tells the baby Moses was put to the Nile (20/39) but does not give a reason for such a crime. The Bible tells that it was because of a royal order to kill all Jewish boy babies (2. Mos. 1/22), and his mother put him on the river in a desperate try to save him.) But it contradicts two verses in the Quran that told not that it was done, but that Pharaoh would start doing it during the confrontation with Moses. (Similar in 2/49 and 7/141).

    1. 7/127: “He (Pharaoh*) said: ‘Their male children will we slay: (only) their females will we save alive - - -“. And it is clear that this is to start fast.
    2. 40/25: “Slay the sons of those who believe in him (Moses*)”.

     

    (2 contradictions).

    487 14/6d: "(Pharaoh Ramses II*) slaughtered your (the Jews'*) sons, and let your women-folk live: therein was a tremendous trial from your Lord". According to the Bible this was a misdeed from the Pharaoh, not a trial from the god.

    488 14/11e: "It is not for us (claimed earlier prophets*) to bring an authority except as Allah permits". Muhammad never was able to prove one atom of his central claims. Here in his tale the situation was the same for claimed former prophets = Muhammad's inability to prove anything was normal for prophets - at least this is Muhammad's not proved claim. Also see 9/98b above. But here he keeps an opening open: If Allah will. Which explains why some Jewish prophets included Jesus and even f.x. Paul made miracles - Allah did it. Or - - -?

    489 15/11: "But never came a Messenger to them (people*) to them but they mocked them." On one side this is not true - there were prophets in Israel who were not mocked (f.x. Samuel) - any god had known this, Muhammad likely not, as he at least in 621 AD hardly knew the real Jewish scriptures. But on the other hand these were good and psychologically nice words for his followers to hear in a difficult year like 621 AD; Muhammad's situation was normal for a prophet - he had to be a prophet.

    490 15/27a: “And the Jinn race, We (Allah*) had created before - - -". According to this, the jinns were created before man. Jinns are a typical Arabism - something special for Arabia and its surroundings. (You f.x. may find djinnies in Jewish folklore and fairy tales, but not in the Bible. This tells that Jesus and the other Jewish prophets for some reason or other meant jinns were no part of a next life. Which is the more reliable? - the Bible or the Quran?) They have a not small, but very unclear share of the supernatural part Islam's world, together with spirits, etc. Beware that in spite of that "jinn" often is translated with "spirit", this is wrong. Jinns are invisible material beings, not sprits. Jinns were and are no part of neither the Jews' not the Christians' religion. (Jinns according to Islam are made from fire. Fire is particles so hot that they emit light (and of course heath). Both particles and light are something physical, and thus jinns are physical).

    491 15/91-92: (YA2013): “(So also on such) as have made the Quran into shreds (as they please). Therefore, by thy (Muhammad’s*) Lord (Allah*), We (Allah*) will, of surety call them to account.” This seems to be about the same culprits as mentioned just above – but many a Muslim scholar think the first part is about the Jews and the Christians (who Islam claims uses bits and pieces of their holy book and have falsified or made up the rest), and the last part they think is about the pagans in Mecca. The answer is unclear - like so often in the Quran.

    492 16/36a: “For We (Allah*) assuredly sent amongst every people a Messenger.” Contradictions:

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

     

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

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

    (4 contradictions or more).

    493 16/43f: "- - - those who possess the Message". Like so often the Quran is unclear. This may mean learned, wise men, but most likely the message here is the Bible and the persons are the Jews and the Christians.

    494 16/56d: "- - - your (non-Muslims*) false inventions (other gods than Allah*)". But are all of the false inventions? There f.x. is the problem of the old Jewish and Christian god Yahweh, who according to the Bible far from is a made up god - in stark contrast to Allah, still according to the Bible. NB: Also the Quran tells that the old Jewish and Christian god exists, though they mix up his name with their own god Allah.

    495 16/63b: "- - - We (Allah*) (also) sent (Our Messengers) to Peoples before thee (Muhammad*) - - -". The Quran claims that all people everywhere and to all times have got prophets from Allah teaching Islam - the number 124ooo prophets through the times is often mentioned. Neither science nor Islam has ever found the slightest trace from them older than 610 AD (when Muhammad started his teachings), except among the Jews and Christians, and that was about Yahweh, not Allah.(And the Zoroastrians, but also there nothing about Allah).

    496 16/73c: "- - - (other gods than Allah*) cannot possibly have such power- - -". According to the old books, included the Quran, it is quite possible the old Jewish and Christian god Yahweh has such power and more - if the books tells the truth.

    497 16/105c: "- - - (non-Muslims*) forge falsehood - - -". Muhammad claimed Jews and Christians had falsified the Bible - a never documented claim which later is proved wrong both by science and by Islam (by being unable to find any proved falsification). Besides; what if they happen to believe in a real religion (if such one exists) - and especially what if Islam is a made up religion?

    Islam's rules for the use of dishonesty - al-Taqiyya, Kitman, Hilah, disused words/promises/oaths, deceit, etc. - make this slander quite an irony.

    498 16/105e: "It is they who believe not in the Signs of Allah, that forge falsehood: it is they who lie!." Do not trust non-Muslims - they are false and unreliable. Psychologically this is a much used way to make distance between "us" and "them". And sometimes a start on the production of enmity between "us" and "them".

    499 16/105f: "- - - it is they (non-Muslims - here Jews and Christians most likely*) who lie!" What kind of god accuses people of lying, and then it is later proved they told the truth (see 16/105c above)? - and what kind of god throws around lots of such accusations without even trying to produce proof? Or was it not a god who did this?

    500 16/118a: "To the Jews We (Allah*) prohibited such things - - -". Clearly incompatible with the Bible - and history - which tells that the god of the Jews was Yahweh, not Allah.

    501 16/118b: "To the Jews We (Allah*) prohibited such things - - -". Islam claims that the reason for the Jews' strict rules for lawful - kosher - food, is that they sinned too much against the god (and as Muslims had sinned little, they did not need to use the Jewish food prohibitions mostly.) By the way here is a small curiosity: Among others YA gives this explanation, and says this is said in the Law of Moses. But his reference (in YA2159) is not to the Law of Moses, but to a verse in the Quran! - and a verse which mention the Jews' hard hearts, but says nothing about food or prohibited food. And by the way once more: If there is a verse in the Law of Moses - or in all the 5 Books of Moses - saying that the strict food rules for the Jews were new rules made as punishment, we have not found that verse.

    502 16/124b: "The Sabbath was only made (strict) for those who disagreed - - -." The Quran here indicates that the day of rest once a week is a punishment for Jews and Christians, and pretends to quote the Law of Moses as a proof for this. But there nowhere in the Bible included the Laws of Moses and the complete books of Moses where it is indicated that the day of rest is a punishment. It also nowhere in the Bible is indicated that the Sabbath - the day of rest - was initiated by the Laws of Moses, like you may meet Muslims telling you (for both claims see f.x. YA2159). Actually as far as we have read, in the old times with much hard physical work, the body needed some rest to be able to do its best. But of course if a leader thought days of rest were wasted time, it might have been tempting to say: "Pray your Friday Prayer and go on working" - - - and then tell his followers how lucky they were who did not have to take a break.

    But one funny thing here is that when the Muslims claim this is from the Law of Moses, they quote nothing from that law to prove it (there is nothing there which says this), but instead quotes from the Quran (f.x. 2/74). You meet this technique sometimes from Muslim scholars who are teaching lay Muslims - YA is meant for lay Muslims and a little up. Honesty?

    503 16/124c: "- - - but Allah will judge between them (Jews/Christians*) on the Day of Judgment - - -". We do not think a comment is necessary just here.

    504 17/1f: "- - - the Farthest Mosque - - -” = the Dome of the Rock mosque in Jerusalem according to Islam. The problem is that this mosque did not exist at that time (621 AD). And: The old Jewish temple was destroyed by Titus and his Roman Army in 70 AD, and nothing of any consequence was built on this small mountain until the Dome of the Rock was built in 690 AD, some 620 years later - - - and some 65-70 years after surah 17 - “The Night Journey” - was dictated around or after 621 AD. There simply was no mosque to visit around 621-622 AD. Is this a later addition to the Quran? - after all the book existed in many versions which were copied and copied by hand and thus could change a little now and then, and it was not really finished until around 900 AD. (Muslims explains this away with that the remaining few stubs of walls of the old Jewish temple are what are meant, but that definitely is not what the Quran says.)

    If the explanation in 17/1e just above is the correct one, Kabah in case was "the Farthest Mosque - which might well have been the geographic reality that early.

    505 17/4b: “- - - (and twice they (the Jews*) should be punished)!” The Jews have been “punished” at least twice during history – does that mean they are in reality are safe now, except for minor episodes?

    ##506 17/4c: “- - - (and twice they (the Jews*) should be punished)!” This is not from the Bible - it also is wrong, as they have been punished more than 2 times (the Quran all too often is wrong on facts): At least:

    1. Israel (the northern part) conquered and people enslaved and sent away by the Assyrians in 722 BC.
    2. Judah (the southern part) conquered and much of the people (25ooo?) taken to Babylon and Babylonia as slaves by Nebuchadnezzar in 586 BC.
    3. Totally destroyed by Titus and his Romans in 70 AD - the start of the Diaspora.

    4. Conquered with brutality by the Muslims in 637 or 638 AD.

    5. Holocaust during WW2 (this is denied by many Muslims). So strong proofs as there are for Holocaust, this tells a lot about both Islam and Muslims - the ability to believe what one wishes to believe no matter how wrong it is and no matter against how strong proofs. Nobody is as blind as the one who refuses to see.

     

    These just were some of the worst cases. There were more. Also see 17/6-7 below.

    507 17/5b: “- - - We (Allah*) sent against you (the Jews*) Our servants (attackers from Assyria) given to terrible warfare - - -”. Israel was attacked some times during the time of OT (local enemies many times, and Assyria 722 BC and Babylonia 586 BC are best known), but for natural reasons no Muslim was involved (1000 years and more too early).

    According to the Bible also the god involved was Yahweh, not Allah.

    508 17/6b: "We (Allah*) gave you (the Jews*) increase in resources and sons - - -". We will guess few Jews believe in the statement that it was Allah who did so.

    509 17/6-7: We are now at the 2. punisher, which may have been Nebuchadnezzar. These two first ones were the Assyrians (722 BC, Northern Kingdom - Israel) and the Babylonians (586 BC, Southern Kingdom - Judah (from which the name Jews derive))- (Solomon's temple in Jerusalem was destroyed by the Babylonians under Nebuchadnezzar in 586 BC. (Actually Jerusalem was taken in 597 BC - the rest of Judah in 586 BC and the Temple destroyed then.) And that was it according to the Quran = 2 times. But the Quran as so often has got history wrong. Because - still omitting the lesser stories - then came Alexander the Great (named Dhu'l Quarnayn in the Quran), though he was not too bad for the Jews - followed by the Romans (61 BC), revolt against the Romans (66 - 73 AD, and the new Temple destroyed 70 AD - remember this when you are told about Muhammad's trip to Heaven from "the Farthest Mosque - there was no mosque or temple there at the time of Moses), Persia (614 AD), Persia beaten (628 AD). Then the Muslims - Jerusalem fell in 637 AD (some sources say 638 AD), and the Muslims stole everything resulting in a hunger catastrophe, this in addition to lots of murdering in the land. Then the Muslim Fatimids - with destruction of f.x. churches and synagogues ("no compulsion in religion"?). The crusaders (1099 AD). The Mamelukes (Muslims) (1244 AD), The Ottomans (1517 AD). These are some. Plus pogroms in different parts of the world - Muslim and non-Muslim - and the Nazi not included.

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

    510 17/7b: "- - - (your enemies would*) enter your (the Jews'*) Temple as they had entered it before, and to visit with destruction all that fell into their power". The temple of Solomon was destroyed by Nebuchadnezzar and his Babylonians in 586 BC, which agrees with that the Babylonians were the second warner. But that in case confirms that Muhammad had the history about the return of the Jew wrong (see 17/6a above), because that did not happen until more than 2 generations later - after Babylon was taken by Persia and the Persian king Cyrus let the Jews return.

    511 17/8a: "It may be that your Lord (Allah*) may (yet) show Mercy unto you (the Jews*) - - -". Implicated: If you become Muslims. This was in 621 AD - and 2 - 3 years before Muhammad gave in the hope of merging his religion with the Jewish one.

    512 17/8b: "It may be that your Lord (Allah*) may (yet) show Mercy unto you (the Jews*) - - -". Contradicted by the Bible - according to the Bible the god of the Jews was Yahweh, not Allah. Also see 67/9c below - a strong one. But of course it is ok for Islam to prove - prove - the Bible wrong and the Quran right. But as we say: Prove, not just loose claims and as loose and invalid words like the Quran always use instead of proofs.

    513 17/17a: “How many generations have We (Allah*) destroyed after Noah?” Allah has killed so many generations that he is not sure of the number. And it is a question of killing (destroying), not of natural death. Yahweh who just made room for Israel/the Jews to let them have their own small country + helped them a little now and then, hardly is even in the same killing league as Allah. And also he is outdated, as the new covenant is peaceful, whereas Allah is still going strong in the war and killing business - Yahweh not much of a competitor for Allah in the killing fields.

    514 17/46c: “- - - (the unbelievers*) turn on their backs, fleeing - - - ". Already at that time a lot of people saw that the Quran has lots and lots of mistakes - f.x. the Jews (there were few Christians in the area). Muhammad and his followers pretended - and some may even have believed - different "explanations" why the Jews refused to believe in Muhammad. The real and simple reason was that they knew the OT and saw something was very wrong.

    515 17/83b: "When We (Allah*) bestow our favor on man, he turns away - - -". Not strange if he understood that something was very wrong, like f.x. most Jews in Medina did.

    516 17/85a: "- - - the Spirit - - -". Most Muslim scholars mean this is a reference to the Holy Spirit (mentioned 3-4 times in the Quran), though other explanations are possible - like Islam claims, the Quran has a very distinct language, easy to understand and impossible to misunderstand(?). But many of the scholars mix the Holy Spirit with the arch angel Gabriel - Gabriel brought messages to Muhammad according to the Quran, and the Holy Spirit a few times did the same - "ergo" the Holy Spirit must be Gabriel, Q.E.D. No comments except that no really knower of the Bible - Christian, Jewish, or something else - would ever get that idea if the book is read with an open mind.

    517 17/88b: "- - - Jinns - - -". Originally figures from Arab pagan religion, folklore and fairy tales – and not mentioned by any other prophet throughout times, even though they are pretty active and part of what Islam claims is the same basic religion as the Jewish and the Christian one (the claim is wrong, though - the basic ideals are too different, and the same for the two gods). According to the Quran they are made from fire (or hot wind) and are distinct from spirits. An Arabism (see 4/13d above) as far as we have found out they only exists in the folklore in and around Arabia.

    518 17/94d: "What kept men (typical the Quran - not women*) back from Belief when Guidance (the Quran*) came to them, was nothing but this: they said, 'Has Allah sent a man (like us) to be (His) Messenger?" Better for Muhammad to say this, than to admit the real reason. But this is one of his weaker ways of explaining problems away, as all Jews and Christians and many others knew that all the prophets in the Bible - perhaps except Jesus - were normal humans.

    *519 17/102c: “- - - I (Moses*) consider thee indeed, O Pharaoh, to be one doomed to destruction!” (Not from the Bible.) Pharaoh Ramses II was not doomed to destruction, at least not this time. He did not drown, in spite of what the Quran (and the Bible) says (but for the Bible there is a possible explanation for the mistake - not so for the Quran, as gods make no mistakes). – and he lived for several years after the possible exodus around 1235 BC. (This may be one of the reasons why some Muslims want the Exodus from Egypt to have happened under pharaohs we do not know so well as Ramses II - preferably one we do not know if he may have drowned or not. You, therefore, frequently see or hear Muslims claim the Exodus was in the 1500s or 1600s BC or even earlier, and that the time in Egypt was 200-300 or even 100-200 years - claims which collide also with other information (f.x. the number of Jews leaving Egypt, and the mentioning of the town Ramses at least two times (2. Mos. 1/11 and 12/37) in connection to the Exodus. It is unclear if this was the new capital Ramses II built, or another town/city named after Ramses II, but it refers to Ramses II (Ramses I only reigned 1-2 years around 1290 BC and hardly had time to build any city, and even if so, it was too late for claims about Exodus around 1600 1500 BC or earlier)). The Bible clearly says 430 Years, and science (included Encyclopedia Britannica if we remember correctly) is pretty unanimous: If Exodus ever happened, it happened around 1235 BC = during the reign of Ramses II.

    The Pharaoh honored his word to Moses and “let his people go” – though only after 10 serious plagues. But then he regretted the loss of all those slaves and followed them. The Jews were caught against a sea, but Yahweh made a path for them across it.

    520 17/103a: "So he (Ramses II*) resolved to remove them (the Jews*) from the face of earth - --". This is not from the Bible. The Bible tells Ramses regretted loosing so many slaves and wanted to recapture them. (2. Mos. 14/5).

    521 17/104b: (YA2314): “- - - the second of the warnings (for the Jews*) - - -.” The Jews have had such a tumultuous history, that nobody has a clue to what is meant. One guesses – but it only is educated guesses. Even the Day of Doom is proposed as one of the warnings, this even though the sentence is in the past tense. Clear language in the Quran? (When you look at other parts of the Quran, you may get the feeling - but only the feeling - that what is meant here is Nebuchadnezzar's conquest and bringing of many of the Jews to Babylon/Babylonia in 586-97 BC - see 17/6-7 above.)

    ***522 17/107a: “Say: ‘Whether you believe it or not, it is true that those who were given knowledge beforehand (= Christians and Jews mainly*), when it (the Quran*) is recited to them, fall down on their faces in humble prostration”. One word: Nonsense. Or a stronger word: Propaganda. And what is worse: #####The one who composed this verse knew it was a lie – which also Muhammad knew when he made or recited it. A few Jews and Christians are said to have converted by 656 AD when the Quran is said to be written, though very few if any in 621 AD when this surah was made, but as a general rule: Utter nonsense. Just look at the history of conflicts between Islam, Jews and Christians, not to mention all the Jews in and near Medina who rather became fugitives or were killed, than to accept Islam – f.x. the Qurayza - and no more is necessary to say. You sometimes meet dishonesty like this in new, emerging religions and sects. It is a way of gaining “weight” for their statements, especially when they have few facts or proofs to show for themselves. Just one small fact that disproves this fairy tale: The 700 Jews of the Qurayza tribe - the last big Jewish tribe in Medina - could have saved their lives and possessions by becoming Muslims in time. To a man they chose not to. This verse contradicts solid historical science and knowledge. And one more fact: Remember that Muslims not only are permitted to lie to defend or forward Islam, but are urged to do it "if necessary" (al-Taqiyya and Kitman - the lawful lie and the lawful half-truth).

    Muhammad did not intend this to be slander, but the claim is slanderous against people who choose death or to flee instead of accepting Islam.

    523 17/108a: “And they (Jews and Christians when they hear the Quran*) say: ‘Glory to our Lord! Truly has the promise of our Lord been fulfilled!” Made up propaganda. See 17/107a above.

    524 17/108b: "Truly has the promise of our Lord been fulfilled!” This refers to Muhammad's claim that he is foretold in the Bible. As there is no foretelling about him there (see 7/157e above), this claim simply is wrong. (It also is a made up claim. Even the Quran makes it clear that the Jews - there were few Christians around - did not believe him).

    525 17/108c: “And they (Jews and Christians) say: “Glory to our Lord! Truly has the promise of our Lord been fulfilled!” As for the likeliness that this is true, see 17/107a above. But Islam (in this case “The Message of the Quran”) tells that it may refer to all the mentioning of Muhammad in the Bible (of which we have found none that is not just wishful statements which are obviously wrong – see “Muhammad in the Bible?” in http://1000mistakes.com or in our Book A on Amazon: "1000+ Mistakes in the Quran"), but that it most likely means joy for finally getting the Quran, which Allah had promised and now finally had sent. There is no reference to a promise of something like the Quran in the Bible, and Jews and Christians at all times did reckon the Quran to be so wrong and so distant from the Bible, that it was not even heresy. Verse 107 and 108 simply are fairy tales made up to back up Muhammad - a not unusual technique to use by emerging new sects or religions. It may be based on a few converts at that time, or free fantasy - dishonesty happens when new religions and sects are made. And later.

    526 17/109: “They (Jews and Christians*) fall down on their faces in tears (when they hear the Quran*)”. As honest as 17/107 and 17/108 above - but then dishonesty is a part of Islam (f.x. al-Taqiyya - the lawful lie, Kitman - the lawful half-truth, broken words/promises/oaths (2/225, 3/54, 5/89, 16/91, 66/2, if necessary against expiation), and betrayal/deceit all are accepted "if necessary" or "if it will give a better result").

    This is one more of the places where Muhammad knew he was lying in the Quran. Perhaps one or a very few did this, even though it is highly unlikely and not documented (except that a few converted to Islam, but not necessarily through tears), but "they" (= all or at least the majority) simply no.

    #527 19/12: "- - - the Book - - -". At this time only the old Jewish scriptures existed. All the same the Quran may indicate an older copy of the claimed "mother book" in Heaven = a book similar to the Quran. A book - included a Gospel - they claimed existed when Jesus was born, so that Jesus could read it. If it was not because we know we have many non-Christian readers - f.x. Hindus and actually some Muslims - we had said "no comments". But we add that a Gospel is the history of Jesus' birth, life, death, resurrection, and ascension to Heaven, so most likely it had been very interesting reading for Jesus and all other Jews and others to read when Jesus was a child and before - before it all happened. Physical impossible - Muhammad just claimed Jesus read it as a child, but like so often Muhammad did not know what he was talking about (he knew the name Gospel, but obviously did not know what it really was - he did not know the Bible much). And for another thing it is a historical fact that even the oldest of the Gospels - there are 4 - was not written until a small generation after Jesus was killed.

    528 19/26b: "I (Mary*) have vowed to fast to (Allah*) Most Gracious - - -". It should not be necessary to remind anyone that according to the Bible, her god was Yahweh, and not Allah. We also from other historical sources know that Yahweh was the god of the Jews at this time.

    Besides: Fasting for a brand new mother needing nourishment for producing milk for her baby? Who would believe her?

    #529 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.

    530 19/52: "(The god called Moses at*) Mount (Sinai) - - -". According to the Bible this happened near Mount Horeb (2. Mos. 3/1). But also Mt. Horeb is in Sinai (actually science reckons that Mt. Hebron and Mt. Sinai are two names for the same mountain).

    ##################Another point is that as Mt. Sinai as naturally is situated in Sinai (today Jabal Musa, 34 degrees east, 28.5 degrees east. 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), The Quran here confirms that Moses’ Midian was in Sinai, not in northeast Arabia. You find the same confirmation in 20/80c.

    521 20/22a: "(Moses' hand should be*) white (and shining), without harm (or stain) - - -". Contradiction to the Bible, which tells his hand would be white and leprous - quite a different picture (1. Mos. 4/6). And once more there was no reason for the Jews to falsify a point in the Bible - a shining hand would be much more imposing and dignified for their great ancestor, than one of leprosy (though the healing of the leprosy afterwards would be a stronger proof for that something supernatural was involved - remember that leprosy was an illness reckoned to be very bad in the old times).

    522 20/48b: "Verily it has been revealed to us (Moses and Aaron*) that the Penalty (awaits) those who reject (guidance (= Islam*)) and turn away". In the Bible there is no religious debate - only the demand to let the Jews go.

    523 20/49c: "Who then, O Moses, is the Lord of you two (Moses and Aaron*)?". The Jews had been in Egypt 430 years according to the Bible. Islam claims 100 - 300 years. (The Quran says that the Pharaoh drowned. We know that Ramses II did not drown, and Islam, therefore, needs to find a pharaoh who can have drowned, and therefore tries to move it backwards to more unknown pharaohs who can have died that way - if not something is seriously wrong with the Quran, as a god does not make mistakes in his holy book. (Also the Bible says he drowned, but the Bible is written by humans, and humans can make mistakes - f.x. mistaken one of Ramses II's generals or many (67?) sons for the pharaoh.)) After even 100 years the ruling pharaoh would know who was the god of a big group in his country like the Jews. The question is not logical.

    524 20/73a: "- - - we (the magicians of Ramses II*) have believed in or Lord (here indicated Allah*) - - -". Wrong, as Allah was unknown in the old Egypt - a historical fact. Yahweh might have been possible - information from the Jews - but not Allah.

    525 20/77c: "- - - strike a dry path for them (the Jews*) through the sea - - -". In the Bible this was not told to Moses until when he had to do it.

    *526 20/78b: “Then the Pharaoh pursued them with his forces, but the waters completely overwhelmed them and cover them up”. May be the water covered up the troops, but not the Pharaoh - - - Ramses II did not drown, and he did not die until years later according to science. Another thing: They most likely did not cross the Red Sea proper. The original Hebrew Bible in reality uses a name that also has the meaning “Sea of Reeds”. The Sea of Reeds - also named Timsah Lake - was a big, shallow lake south of the Bitter Seas in the area where you now find the Suez Canal. For Moses to walk past a big lake with his some 2 million Jews (600ooo men + women and children according to the Bible) and belongings and animals is one thing. To march down the western side of the Red Sea and plan to cross that sea by boats they did not have, is quite another thing – remember that they did not know that Yahweh would split the sea (and most of them hardly had believed it if they had been told). The fact that the Hebrew name for the sea they crossed (?) – Yam Suph – also means “the Sea of Reeds” is mentioned in footnotes many times in NIV – and in other literature. Similar claims that all – included the pharaoh drowned – in 7/103 – 10/90 -17/103 – 23/48 - 26/66 – 27/14 – 28/40 – 40/37 – 43/55 – 44/25-28 – 51/40 – 69/9-10 - 73/16 – 79/25. We may add that science seems to be pretty sure that if the Exodus happened, it happened around 1235 BC = during the reign of Ramses II. As we know that Ramses did not drown, Islam dearly wants it to have happened earlier and under a less known pharaoh that we do not know from what he died, but as so often they only back up the claim with speculations. And not to forget: If it happened much earlier the "known" times do not add up.

    527 20/80b: "- - - We (Allah*) made a Covenant with you (the Jews*) on the right side of (Mount Sinai) - - -". Convenient - in old Arab superstition the right side was the good side, whereas the left one was the bad side. Another point is that according to the Bible the involved god was Yahweh, not Allah. But also see 20/80c just below.

    Another point: What is the right side of a mountain? - clear language in the Quran?

    Yet another point: A. Yusuf Ali (YA2601) strightfacedly translates "the right side" with "the Arabian side". What does this tell about Muslims' way of thinking?

    528 20/80c: (YA2601): "The Arabian side of (Mt.*) Sinai (Jabal Musa) was the place where Moses received his commission before going to Egypt". "The Arabian side" = east Sinai. But Mt. Sinai was and is in the south of Sinai. One does not know 100% sure which mountain it was/is, but Islam claims it is Jabal Musa - Moses' Mountain - and this likely is correct (also Mt. Sinai is reckoned to be another name for Mt. Horeb). Or is there any Muslim belief that the Arabian side of the mountain (here east in case) is "the right side"? - there is no indication for such a meaning in the Quran. No comments, but also see 20/80b just above.

    ##################Another point is that as Mt. Sinai naturally is situated in Sinai (today very likely Jabal Musa (34 degrees east, 28.5 degrees east. 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), The Quran here confirms that Muhammad's Midian was in Sinai, not in northeast Arabia. You find the same confirmation in 19/52

    529 20/82d: "- - - those who repent, believe, and do right - - -". Muslims - as you see the majority of Moses' Jews were good Muslims. Believe it if you are able to.

    **530 20/85b: “- - - the Samiri had led them astray”. But the Jews still had not arrived in Samaria and there existed no Samaris (actually the name Samaria/Samirians/Samaritans as far as we can find, was not coined until 722 (?) BC under the little known king Omri who bought the land and built and named the town (1. Kings 16/24) - more than 500 years after the exodus that happened (if it happened) ca. 1235 BC). Also no Samiri is mentioned here in the Bible. Muslims try to “explain” the mistake by saying may be it is meant “shmeer” = stranger, or “shomer” = watchman = samara in Arab (irrelevant as the Jews did not speak Arab). - - - but if you cherry-pick from a whole language, it always is possible to find words that are look-alike – and that the Arab word here is a look-alike, is totally irrelevant, as these Jews of the old hardly spoke Arab as mentioned, and thus did not use the word "samara". It also is clear that the top translator, Abdullah Yusuf Ali, meant it is a name, not a work or something - he used capital first letter in the name. The same go for other translations we have. But if the Quran means some other thing than it says here – or is possible to misunderstand - how many other places in the book are there similar or worse/religious mistakes? Similar claims in 20/87 – 20/95.

    It is here telling about Islam's ways of getting out of problems or mistakes, that one of the "explanations" for who this person could have been who was a Samiri (the name Samaritan is used in some translations) at the time of Moses, is that was "'a man of the Jewish clan of the Samaria', i.e. the ethnic and religious group designated in later times as the Samaritans - - -" (quoted from A20/70a). This in spite of that no such group or clan or sect existed at that time and not for another 600+ years. This "explanation" is backed by top Islamic thinkers like Tabari and Zamakhshari.

    If no explanation is possible, then make up one. Al-Taqiyya (the lawful lie) is not only accepted, but recommended in Islam "if necessary" to defend or promote the religion.

    531 20/87b: "- - - the weight of the ornaments - - -". There is some dishonest Muslim slander connected to this. When the Jews left Egypt, they were given valuables by the locals. Muslims say they must have use dishonest means to get it and cheated the Egyptians (A20/73). This is dishonest because it is told in the Bible how it happened, and Muslim scholars who read the Bible to find weak point to use, impossibly can have overlooked it, especially as it was a point of interest for them - the Bible is bigger than the Quran, but it is not that big. The Bible says (2. Mos. 12/35-36): The Israelites did as Moses instructed and asked the Egyptians for articles of silver and gold and clothing. The Lord had made the Egyptians favorably disposed toward the people, and they gave them what they asked for; so they plundered the Egyptians". It thus was not a question of cheating, but of divine action according to this book. But it is easy for Muslims to believe in the cheating Jews (according to Islamic sources it cannot have been too much - YA2607 hints at one or two man-loads.) The real mechanism for the Egyptians' willingness to give, may f.x. have been panic over what had just happened; the unanimous death of all firstborn in Egypt, and a desperate wish to for any price get these people away.

    One point we have heard not one Muslim comment on, and not seen one Muslim scholar write about, is if this limited amount of gold and valuables was fair payment for generations of slave work they had been forced to do in Egypt?

    532 20/88a: "- - - they (some of Moses' Jews*) said: 'This is$ your god - - -'". How could this end up in the claimed "Mother Book" (of which the Quran is a copy according to Muhammad) billions of years before it was said or happened? One more of the many texts or quotes in the Quran which could not have been reliably written into the claimed "Mother Book" (13/39b, 43/4b+c, 85/21-22) in Heaven (of which the Quran is claimed to be a copy) eons ago, unless predestination was and is 100% like the Quran claims many places (if you look, you will find more cases than we mention - we only mention some of the obvious ones). If man has free will - even partly only (an expression some Muslims use to flee from the problem full predestination contra free will for man (and also contra that there is no meaning in praying to Allah for help, if everything already is predestined in accordance with a plan "nobody and nothing can change" - a problem which Muslims seldom mention), and an expression no Muslim we have met has ever defined) - and can change his mind, full and reliable clairvoyance about the future, not to mention the distant future, is impossible even for a god, as the man always could/can change his mind or his words once more, in spite of Islam's claims. There are at least 5 reasons - at least 3 of them unavoidable - for this:

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

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

     

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

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

    Also see 3/154e, 6/149a, 7/34a, and 14/22b above.

    533 20/89: "Could they (the Jews*) not see that it (the golden calf*) could not return them a word (for answer), and that it had no Power either to harm them or to do them good?". This also goes for Allah: He has to this date never given an unmistakable answer, never unmistakably harmed anybody, nor unmistakably done the least good to anybody (guess if Islam had told about it if there had been just one single proved incident!)

    ###There also is another point: The Quran many places ridicules pagans for believing in images of pagan gods. But the pagans ever so well knew the images were not themselves gods - in spite of what the Quran indicates. They very well "knew" that the images only were symbols for their gods, and when they believed and prayed, it was to the believed gods represented by the images. Muhammad seems to have believed the pagans treated the images as if they were real gods. Any god had known better - then who made the Quran?

    534 20/90c: "- - - for verily your (Jews*) Lord is (Allah) - - -". The Bible here disagrees and means that the god of the Jews was - and is - Yahweh.

    535 20/91a: Jews in Sinai said: “We will not abandon this cult (the golden calf*) - - -". The calf was a religious symbol connected to the holy ox Apis in Egypt where they came from - therefore this strange "god". (Apis was reckoned to be an incarnation of the high Egyptian god Ptah.)

    536 20/91b: Jews in Sinai said: “We will not abandon this cult (the golden calf*) - - -". See 20/49b above.

    537 20/91c: Jews in Sinai said: “We will not abandon this cult (the golden calf*), but we will devote ourselves to it until Moses returns to us.” And Moses was very angry when he returned and found a live pagan cult among his people. But contradiction:

    7/149: In this verse the Jews found they had sinned, and they repented before Moses returned in the next verse, 7/150.

    Any explanation?

    538 20/98a: "(Moses said*) - - - god of you all (Jews*) is Allah - - -". The Bible disagrees. And so does science, as neither it nor Islam has found a single clear trace of a Muslim Allah older than 610 AD. And actually also the Quran disagrees, as it proves Yahweh and Allah is not the same god, and it is clear that the god of the Jews was Yahweh (who, also in spite of Muhammad's many claims, was another and different god).

    539 21/6b: “- - - not one of the populations which We (Allah*) destroyed believed”. Well, there is not known one single population of Muslims before Muhammad, in spite of what the Quran and Islam say. And of monotheists (which Islam claims were Muslims in older times, but without one single trace of this ever found) there were mainly the Jews and later the Christians. At the time of Muhammad there also were the Sabeans and a small sect of Arab monotheists - perhaps inspired by the Jews and the Christians and in a way the Zoroastrians in Persia.

    540 21/7c: "- - - those who possess the Message (of the old*)". The Jews (and the few Christians around). They could have testified that most messengers from the god were men, but would have added that Muhammad all the same was wrong, as some were angels and a few were women. They also would have protested to that the old prophets, not to mention the angles, mainly got their messages by inspiration, because the word is not at all used in such connections in the Bible. Perhaps a bluff by Muhammad to prove he was a real prophet? As he claimed he got his messages via inspiration it was good "documentation" to claim the old ones had got their messages the same way.

    541 21/9c: “- - - We (Allah*) destroyed those who transgressed bounds (did not obey the teachings of his prophets*)”. Remember that according to Hadith there had been at least 124ooo prophets before Muhammad, and hardly a trace of monotheism from old times except the Jews and later the Christians. Allah must have “destroyed” an uncountable number of people. Poor Yahweh - he is in kindergarten in this competition of killing and blood.

    542 21/24c: "- - - this (the Quran*) is the Message of - - - those before (Jews, Christians*) me (Muhammad*)". Wrong. There are so many fundamental, deep and basic differences between the Quran and the Bible that the Quran in reality has nothing to do with the two other religions. Some superficial details are similar, but more or less all the basic elements are different - especially compared to NT and "the new covenant" (f.x. Luke 22/20 or 1. Cor. 11/2).

    543 21/81b: "- - - the violent (unruly) wind flow (tamely) for Solomon, to his order - - -". This is one of the many stories in the Quran from legends - it is not in the Bible, and the Jews had not forgotten such a miracle connected to their great king. And we remind you: Science has long since proved beyond any even unreasonable doubt that the Bible is not falsified (but it was a necessary claim to save Muhammad's religion for him.) Islam has even more thoroughly proved the same by being unable to find one single proved falsification. Not one.

    544 21/105a: "Before this We (Allah*) wrote in the Psalms, after the Message (given to Moses) - - -". It must have been quite some time after the Message - there are some 200 years between Moses (around 1235 BC) and David (around 1000 BC)- and in reality more as the psalms are younger than David according to science. Besides: According to the Bible the god of the Jews was Yahweh, not Allah - and the Bible does not say that the psalms are divine made ones.

    545 22/4a: ""About (Satan) it is decreed that whoever turns to him for friendship, he will lead astray - - -". And by Muslim definition all non-Muslims follow Satan - perhaps with the exception of a small minority of religious Jews and Christians. The mainly Christian USA f.x. is "the Great Satan" to many Muslims. It will be quite an irony if it once turns out that Allah belongs to the dark forces - and the big distance between the ethical and moral rules of the Quran, compared with "do unto others like you want others to do unto you" may indicate something.

    546 22/30a: "- - - the sacred rites of Allah - - -". The big question mark here is that all these rites were taken over from the old Pagan Arab religion. Few if any rite possible to combine with monotheism were omitted - and few, if any were added. How come that the old pagan Arabs and only they in the entire world had more or less all the rites correct? - and how come that all the other religions, included the Mosaic and the Christians - had nearly everything wrong? Remember here that the Jews and the Christians had their rites mainly from the Bible (and remember that science have proved the Bible is not falsified in spite of Islam's never documented claims - - - and that Islam has proved this even clearer by not being able to find one single proved falsification in the old, relevant papers, even though there are many thousands of them).

    *547 22/40f: “- - - monasteries, churches, synagogues, - - -, in which the name of Allah is commemorated - - -“. The name of Allah is not commemorated there – on the contrary the name of Yahweh (or simply God) is what one commemorates there. Muslims will claim that it is the same god – as usual without proving anything - but the teachings are fundamentally so different, that it is impossible that they are the same one unless the god is mentally seriously ill. Also they will claim that the reason for the differences in the teachings are that the Bible is willfully falsified – something science (and even more so Islam) long since has proved for one thing is not true (even the oldest scriptures are like today, except for minor mistakes normal when manuscripts are copied by hand), and for another was physically impossible (not possible to make the same falsifications in all the thousands of manuscripts spread over thousands of miles and kilometers and owned by thousands of different owners – who often even disagreed (even strongly sometimes) on many topics). How would you f.x. make Jews and Christians agree on what and how to falsify in the OT? But it was the only way out and the only way Muhammad could save his religion and his platform of power when he finally understood how much was different between his teachings and the Bible.

    548 22/67a: "To every people We (Allah*) appointed rites and ceremonies - - -". Is this correct? - Muhammad did not get his rites etc. from Allah, he just took over them from the old pagan Arabs. And these also all other people have to follow, even (former) Jews and Christians who presumably really got some of their rites and ceremonies from the god.(Christians in reality got no fixed rites, except the baptizing and following the requests of Jesus made his last supper (f.x. Matt. 26/26-28), and even those did not get a defined rite from "above".)

    549 23/50a: "And We (here indicated Allah*) made the son of Mary and his mother as a Sign". But according to the Bible and also according to the scientific fact that Allah (or al-Lah) was not believed in in Israel at that time, whereas Yahweh was the totally dominant one the among the Jews, the involved god was Yahweh. Thus Mary and Jesus were signs for Yahweh, not for Allah.

    550 23/53a: "But people have cut of their affair (of unity) - - - into sects - - -". The Quran claims that in the really old times everybody was Muslims, but that people then split off (in spite of how dangerous it was and is to leave Islam) and became pagans, Jews, Christians, etc. The claim is wrong, as neither science nor Islam has found even the smallest trace of a religion similar to Islam, a god similar to Allah, or a book similar to the Quran anywhere or anytime before 610 AD.

    551 23/84-85: "Say: 'To whom belong the earth and all beings therein? - - -.' They (non-Muslims*) will say, 'To Allah'". Wrong. We would say that nobody knows if the beings do not belong to anybody. Religious non-Muslim persons would name their god(s) as owner(s) if they meant there was such an owner. But Muhammad is relying on a trick here - one which only could be used in Arabia (would a god for the entire world have used one valid only in that small part of the world?) as the main god of the old Arabs was named al-Lah. So when the old Arabs answered "al-Lah" it sounded similar to "Allah", and Muhammad had his "proof". It is a similar trick Islam uses today, when they in the west call Allah "God" - the name "God" camouflages some of the real differences between Allah and Yahweh, as the word "God" automatically makes Jews and Christians think about Yahweh and forget to think over: Are there differences?

    552 25/17d: "- - - stray from the Path - - -". As no book of a quality like the Quran is from a god, this may be a good idea - perhaps - if that meant that Jews and Christians instead strayed onto "the Narrow Road". ("The Narrow Road" is a Biblical expression for the road to (Yahweh's) Paradise).

    553 25/38-39b: “- - - also ’Ad and Thamud and the People of the Rass (3 large tribes “borrowed” from Arab folklore, except one does not know who "the People of the Rass" refers to*), and many generations between them - - - and each one We (Allah*) broke to utter annihilation - - -”. It is not easy for Yahweh/God to compete with all this wholesale slaughter, even if Yahweh was a bit bloody until the Jews had found their home and for some time after that.

    554 25/42b: "He (Muhammad*) indeed would well-nigh have misled us from our (non-Muslims*) gods - - -". If Yahweh exists, at least the Jews and the few Christians spoke the truth - and even more so if Allah and his(?) Quran in addition are made up.

    555 25/44a: "- - - most of them (non-Muslims*) listen or understand?" That very obviously was what a lot of them did - and understood that something was very wrong - that was why all those Jews preferred flight or death to believing Muhammad.

    556 26/28b: "- - - Lord of the East and the West, and all between!". Strange as the Jews did not reckon their god to be for all and everything, only for the Jews (though there are points also in OT telling Yahweh was for all). Islam will have to document that Moses said this - it also is not in the Bible.

    557 26/40a: "- - - that we (the Egyptians*) may follow the sorcerers (in religion) if they win?" This contradicts the Bible - there it was no question of following this or that religion, only "let my people (the Jews*) go". Also see 26/35 above.

    558 26/58-59: (YA3169): “Treasures, and every kind of honorable position; Thus it was, but We (Allah’*) made the Children if Israel inheritors of such things”. But the alternative meaning of these two verses is: Verse 58 “We (Pharaoh*) have dispossessed the Israelis from everything good in the land, and made them our slaves”. Verse 59 (Allah comments): “Poor ignorant man (Pharaoh*)! You may oppress those who are helpless, but We (Allah) have declared that they shall inherit these things”. As one understands, the language in the original Quran is clear, distinct and impossible to misunderstand (!). Some very different meanings.(We may add that according to the Bible, the Jews were given valuables when leaving. Muslim scholars claim this proved the dishonesty of the Jews - and not one of them as far as we have seen, has mentioned that this could be part of this inheritance, if they were promised inheritance by the god. Also not one of them as far as we have seen, mention that even if they had got very much, it would be lousy payment for likely some generations of slave work. For some reason or others, they just claim it proves Jewish dishonesty.)

    #559 26/59a: "- - - but We (Allah*) made the Children of Israel inheritors of such things (riches, etc. - see 26/58 just above*) - - -". Also the Bible says the god (via Moses) saw to that the Jews received some riches when leaving Egypt (2. Mos. 12/36). Muslims today have a tendency to blame the Jews for dishonesty and robbing in this connection, but is such an accusation right, fair, or honest when both the Bible and the Quran indicate that this was the work of the god?

    Besides: We have till this date not met one Muslim saying that perhaps this was fair payment of centuries of slave work. And also we have seen not one Muslim comparing this to the Quran's rules for "lawful and good" stealing/looting.

    *560 26/63a: “Then We (Allah*) told Moses by inspiration: ‘Strike the sea with thy rod’. So it divided, and each separate part became like the huge, firm mass of a mountain”. According to science the Jews started the exodus (if it ever happened - and if it did, it happened ca. 1235 BC during the reign of Pharaoh Ramses II - one of the greatest pharaohs ever - and some years before Ramses II’s death (Muslims often wants to change this – preferably to around 1500-1600 BC - because we know Ramses II did not drown, but science is clear on this point)) from Goshen in the north east of Egypt – to be specific: In the Nile delta. They travelled south roughly parallel to what is now the Suez Canal, and to the west of it. Then they turned south east, before they again headed south - still roughly parallel to what is now the Suez Canal, but now to the east of where the canal now is. Then they continued south parallel to the Red Sea. Before the Suez Canal came, between the Mediterranean Sea and the Red Sea, here was unbroken low and quite flat land with some scattered lakes, the biggest of which were the Bitter Seas.

    According to science the Jews may have been cornered against one of the seas during the above mention leg towards southeast, a sea named the Timsah Sea – or Yam Suph in Hebrew (meaning the Sea of Reeds). In the old Hebrew scriptures the Jews were cornered against Yam Suph, which can mean the Red Sea (the most frequently used translation) or the Sea of Reeds – both names are possible. The Sea of Reeds was a shallow sea - as for the exact depth our sources are vague, but quite likely just a few meters at most. (The longest reed we have been able to find, is a special kind of rice growing in the Tonle Sap Lake in Cambodia. It can be up to 5-7 m. The reeds growing in Egypt are shorter, and to get the name “Sea of Reeds”, the lake had to be shallow enough for the reeds to get their “heads” above the water over at least a large part of the lake). To guess: From one or two and up to a few - perhaps 3 to 5 - meters deep as indicated above, or perhaps a bit more at the deepest places.

    In such shallow seas there simply was not deep enough water to make “each separate part - - - like the huge, firm mass of a mountain”. Wrong in case – and it is likely this is the case, even if the more dramatic Red Sea most often is used as a translation. This because for Moses it had been plain stupidity to march south along the western side of the Red Sea when he wanted to go east to Sinai, and then have to cross that sea to reach his destination, with all those people, equipment, animals, etc. in boats they did not have. (The Bible tells they were 600ooo men, which means some 2 mill. included women and children – a number which is mathematically possible (though not likely) after the 430 years the Bible says the Jews lived in Egypt - but it is likely many other slaves came along to get out of bondage, and thus added considerably to that number. 2. Mos. 12/38 indicates so.)

    561 26/67c: "- - - most of them (here likely the Jews*) do not believe (here indicated in Islam*)". Not very strange - they saw a lot was wrong in Muhammad's new religion.

    562 26/106b: "(Noah said*) Will ye (other people*) not fear (Allah)". Islam claims Allah has been the central and only real god since man/Homo Sapiens (or Homo Habilis? - or Homo Erectus? - or - - -?) started. Science and Islam both have long since proved this wrong, as neither science nor Islam has found one single trace of clear monotheism before the Jews (we know the word is younger, but like many others we use it because it is convenient), and no trace of any Islam or Allah (in Muhammad's meaning of that name) or Quran before 610 AD (when Muhammad started his preaching).

    563 26/174c: "- - - most of them (non-Muslims*) do not believe". At least some of them - f.x. the Jews - because they saw something was wrong in this new religion.

    564 26/190c: "- - - most of them (non-Muslims*) do not believe". At least some of them - f.x. the Jews - because they saw something was wrong in this new religion.

    565 26/197a: “Is it not a Sign to them that the Learned of the Children of Israel knew it (as true)?”

    1. This sentence is dishonest - one of the places where Muhammad lied in the Quran. It is not proved, but Islam claims that one or some learned Jew(s) accepted Muhammad as a prophet. But only a few of the thousands of learned Jews in case. If the story is true, an honest sentence had said: “- - - a few of - - -” or at most “- - - some of - - -”. There is quite a difference between "- - - the Learned of - - -" and "- - - a few of the Learned of - - -". Dishonesty in a presumed holy book does not give a favorable impression. And why is dishonesty necessary? - and how many other points in the book stems from dishonesty?
    2. As the great majority of the Jews - learned as not learned - denied that Muhammad could be a prophet even as they were robbed of their possessions, slaughtered in wars, and murdered “en masse” as helpless prisoners, or made slaves, it is absolutely sure that what the Jews - learned or not - meant about him, was no sign for Muhammad or Allah. This even more so as to become Muslim was the only way to keep one’s riches and later one’s life, as Muhammad gained power in Medina, and still most Jews refused him. Some “renegade” swallows make no summer.
    3. A true religion easily can live on - and tell - the truth or what one honestly believes is the truth after honest examination. If a religion or any other story needs to use lies or half-truths or even al-Taqiyyas (the lawful lie) or Kitman (the lawful half-truth), not to mention institutionalizes al-Taqiyya and Kitman and Hilah, deceit, and disuse of even oaths (2/225, 3/54, 5/89, 16/91, 66/2) as means to defend and forward the religion, one must ask why are lies necessary? - and the natural following up question: How much more of what they tell about their religion in reality are lies?

     

    In the Quran and also in Hadith, it is claimed there were one or a very few learned Jew(s) who accepted Muhammad as may be a prophet. The stories might even be true. But we are back to the old truth: “One swallow makes no summer”. It is absolutely sure that the Jews as a group - learned or not - did not accept his teachings for the truth even in the face of death (f.x. the Qurayza tribe - the last big Jewish tribe in Medina), one or a few exceptions may be expected. The same is the truth today.

    There also is another fact here: Islam from Mecca (610 - 622 AD) is quite different from Islam from Medina (622 - 632 AD) - a fact NEVER mentioned by Muslims. Therefore, even if some Jewish and/or Christian scholars should have been inclined towards Islam of Mecca - there only is Islam's words for this - it tells little or nothing about how such scholars viewed Islam of Medina in say 632 AD.

    No, an al-Taqiyya or at best a Kitman was and is no valid sign. ####But it definitely is a sign telling a lot about Muhammad, about the Quran, and about Islam.

    "The Religion of Dishonesty"?

    566 27/15 - 28: The story about Solomon and the bird (hoopoe) has nothing to do with the Bible, but is "borrowed" from a "fairy tale" ("The second Targum of Ester"). If it had been true, you bet the Jews had not forgotten to include it in their books to praise their hero king Solomon. See 27/16-44 shortly below.

    567 27/17b: "- - - his (Solomon's*) hosts of Jinns and men and birds - - -". Believe this whoever wants to. But be 120% sure that if king Solomon had had command over jinns and/or birds, it had neither been forgotten in the Bible, nor falsified out of it - you do not reduce your greatest heroes, and neither do the Jews, who in case had done the falsification.

    568 27/17e: "- - - Jinns - - -". A being "borrowed" by Muhammad from old Arab folklore and pagan religion. They are told in the Quran to be created from fire by Allah. (But would a god - and one for all Earth - have to "borrow" beings from old Arab folklore and pagan religion, (and only from there)?) Or to think the other way around: How come that the old Arab pagan religion had all beings of Heaven, and no other kinds of beings, something no other religion has managed? (To take the central ones for the Quran: Both Islam, the Jews and the Christians have angels, devils and spirits in their religion, but only Islam has Jinns, a kind of beings which differently from angels and spirits have material bodies - they f.x. can be punished by the fire of Hell, and according to Islam they can marry humans (laws for such marriages exist!!).)

    569 27/39c: "- - - Jinns - - -". Yet another contradiction to the Bible. There is nowhere in the Bible indicated that Solomon had Jinns or other supernatural beings in his service. And it had been included if it were true - it had been additional glory to a big hero of the Jews.

    570 28/4c: "- - - their (f.x. the Jews'*) sons he (Ramses II*) slew - - -". Remember this sentence the places in the Quran where it is said Ramses II would (start to) kill the sons. Muhammad has mixed up his arguments a little and contradicts himself. (The reason according to the Bible why his mother put Moses to the river, was a desperate try to save him from being killed - the Quran does not give a reason for the god's advice)

    571 28/5a: "And We (Allah*) wished to be gracious to those who were being depressed in the land - - -". There were others who were depressed/slaves in Egypt than the Jews. The Quran here says Allah wanted to help all - contradicting the Bible, where Yahweh this early only took care of the Jews (though it seems many non-Jews left Egypt together with the Jews). We only hear about help to the Jews - neither the Bible nor the Quran mentions freeing of other slaves (though it is said that others came along on the Exodus).

    572 28/5b: "And We (Allah*) wished to be gracious to those who were being depressed in the land, to make them leaders (in Faith) and make them heirs". This directly contradicts the Bible - and actually also other parts of the Quran: It here says that Allah wanted to make them - in reality the Jews - the religious leaders and the heirs (of Egypt?). But in the Bible and most places in the Quran it is very clear that the subject only was to get the Jews out of Egypt and out of the slavery.

    573 28/5-6: "- - - and make them (the Jews*) heirs, to establish a firm place for them (the Jews*) in the land (Egypt*) - - -". According to the Bible (and also to other places in the Quran) they simply wanted out of Egypt and back to their promised land further north, Canaan and around there.

    574 28/6a: "To establish a firm place for them (the Jews*) in the land (Egypt*), and to show Pharaoh, Haman, and their hosts - - - the very thing (the Jews taking over the power in Egypt*) against which they were taking precautions." Wrong - and strongly contradicting both the Bible and parts of the Quran - also see 28/5b above.

    Strangely it here seems like Allah intended to make the Jews powerful in Egypt, and that it was this Ramses II was taking precautions against. Strange words because other places in the Quran it is clear that what Moses and his Jews wanted, was to leave Egypt - something which is strongly confirmed by the Bible.

    575 28/43b: “We (Allah*) revealed to Moses the Book (wrong - the books of Moses were written centuries later according to science*) after We had destroyed the earlier generations - - -”. More generations between Noah and Moses killed off - Allah was a far keener worker than Yahweh, at least in the killing business. But which generations? (The Bible tells the Jews did not enter their promised land until the generation who had lived in Egypt had died off - 40 years later under Joshua. But if this is what is meant, there is a difference between "died off naturally" and "destroyed".

    576 28/43e: "- - - that they (the Jews*) might receive admonition". You do not receive much admonition from a made up - or at least not delivered by a god - book like the Quran with all its errors. If Moses like the Quran indicates got another copy of the same claimed "Mother Book", the reality will be the same there - 2 copies of the same book will be pretty similar - at least if Muslims do not engage mysticism to change the different copies.

    577 28/46a: "- - - (the Mountain of) Tur - - -". But the Bible says Moses met Yahweh at Mt. Horeb (likely another name for Mt. Sinai (according to Islam the mountain which today is named Jabal Musa (34 degrees east, 28.5 degrees east, roughly 70 km north northwest from Sharm-el-Sheik (Sharm el Shaykh) far south in central Sinai, and they likely are right). Also the Islam confirms that it was here Moses met his god and got the mission to take the Jews out from Egypt (it is possible/likely also Mt. Tur = Mt. Sinai). This is far from Madyan in Arabia.)) (2. Mos. 3/1-2).

    578 28/52a: "Those to whom We (Allah*) sent the Book before this - - -". Muhammad claimed the Quran was a confirmation and a correction of the (claimed falsified) Bible. (Wrong - too much is different and too fundamentally different between the Bible and the Quran.) Here thus is referred to Jews and Christians.

    579 28/52b: “(Jews and Christians*) – they do believe in this (Revelation) - - -“. Flatly wrong. And flatly dishonest. A few became Muslims according to Islam, but the overwhelming majority had to flee, were made slaves, or were killed/murdered/executed because they refused to believe in Muhammad’s tales. Cfr. f.x. what happened in and around Medina and Khaybar in the years after this surah was told (in 621 AD or later). Contradicted by reality and history. And: One more place where an intelligent man like Muhammad knew he was lying, because this he knew.

    *580 28/53b: “They (Jews and Christians*) say: ‘We believe therein - - -". This could not be reliably written into the claimed "Mother Book" long time before, unless predestination was 100%.

    *581 28/53c: “They (Jews and Christians*) say: ‘We believe therein, for it is the Truth from our Lord - - -“. Well, this is what Muhammad claimed. The reality like clearly told in Islamic written sources about what you find in 28/52a above - and like in 28/52a also here Muhammad had to know he was lying, because this he knew was untrue. It may have been true for a few, but only for a few in case. Also see 28/48a and 28/48b. A few Jews and Christians may or may not have become Muslims - there only are Muslim sources for the claims - but the majority clearly said no, even in the face of persecution and murder.

    582 28/53h: “- - - indeed we (the Jews and Christians*) have been Muslims (bowing to Allah’s will) from before this”. No comments necessary – except see f.x. 28/48a, 28/48b or 28/52 above - and except that it is to see from known history that it is not true.

    583 28/54a: "Twice they (Jews and Christians converting to Islam*) will be given their reward. It is unclear what here is meant. Some Muslims believe it is meant they will be rewarded for being believers in the god before, and then once more for converting to Islam, but like so often the Quran has unclear speech.

    584 28/64b: "- - - but they (other gods than Allah*) will not answer them (people*) - - -". A central question for Muslims if there is a Day of Doom: Will there really be an Allah able to answer them? and will he in case belong to the light or the dark forces? Oh, there will be a similar first question - the second one we think is answered if the old books tell the truth - to f.x. Jews and Christians, but after all Yahweh at least has proved his existences (which Allah has not) - - - if the old books tell the truth.

    585 28/67b: "- - - believed - - -". Have been a Muslim - only Muslims believe in the Quran. Though there are a couple of indications for that also really god Jews and Christians may - may - be accepted to Paradise.)

    586 28/76c: "Qarun was doubtless of the people of Moses - - -". This story with Qarun as one of Moses' men is meaningless. Except for his early life in Egypt (where the Jews were slaves and consequently very poor), Moses was a nomad in Sinai/Midian all his life until Exodus, both according to the Quran and to the Bible. Qarun may have been a Jew, but not one of Moses' close people. But as for being a Jew: The Jews were poor slaves, and who has heard about so rich a slave? Strong contradiction to a slave's reality.

    587 28/79c: "- - - those whose aim is the Life of this World - - -". One of Muhammad's many negative names for non-Muslims - as you understand there were non-Muslims among the Jews of Moses, too.

    588 28/80a: "- - - those who had been granted (true) knowledge - - -". Muslims - Muhammad claimed that the book Moses "really" had got, was a copy of the claimed "Mother Book" in Heaven - the same from which the Quran is claimed copied, and thus the believers among Moses' Jews in reality were Muslims. Believe it if you are able to. And PS: According to the Bible Moses got no book from Yahweh: He got the 10 Commandments in writing (2. Mos. 24/12) + he verbally got the Law. The law he later wrote down (2. Mos. 24/4)- this sometimes was called "The Book of Covenance" - and they centuries later were incorporated in what got the name "The Books of Moses". This partly according to the Bible and partly according to science.)

    589 28/82a: "(Many of Moses' Jews said): It is indeed Allah who - - -". You are permitted to believe Moses' Jews praised Allah, if you are able to believe so.

    590 29/36d: "- - - Shu'ayb - - -". A claimed prophet - a self proclaimed one - claimed working in Madyan. You find him no other places than in the Quran - - - except that a few Muslims claim he was the father-in-law of Moses. (There is no rational reason for this claim, and also most serious Muslim scholars disagree to it. Moses lived in Midian once upon a time, and the claimed Shu'ayb was claimed to have lived in Madyan - likely just another name for the same area IF - IF - Midian was in Arabia - but the Bible's Midian also may have been in Sudan, or (definitely most likely) in Sinai. But Muslims sometimes do not need more than a possibility to be sure. There is a good reason for our telling that research in Muslim literature, etc. sometimes is quite a job. (As the Bible mentions Mt. Horeb (likely another name for Mt. Sinai) and Mt. Sinai (today Jabal Musa (34 degrees east, 28.5 degrees east. 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)., it as said is extremely likely Midian was in Sinai.)

    Another point: According to the Quran it looks like Shu'ayb lived a few centuries before Moses.

    591 29/46c: “- - - the People of the Book (here the Bible*) - - -". Jews, Christians and Sabeans. Who the last ones were, is somewhat unsure, but most likely the people of Saba/Sabah/Sheba in what now roughly is Yemen. This part of Arabia was conquered from East Africa - a Christian region - around 350 AD and was mainly Christian at the time of Muhammad. There are a couple of other possibilities - a group in Persia (which still exists - some 2ooo members only) and a monotheistic sect in Arabia - but Sheba is the most likely answer.

    592 29/46ec: "We (Muslims*) believe in the revelation which has come down to us and in that which has come down to you (Jews/Christians*) - - -". The implication here is that the Bible originally had the same messages as the Quran (but that it has been falsified). For one thing science has proved beyond any even unreasonable doubt (but beyond blindness or wishful thinking is impossible) that there is no falsification in the Bible - and Islam has proved it even stronger by being unable to find one single case of falsification among the many thousands of old papers which exist.

    And for another thing the two teachings are so fundamentally different - too different to come from the same god. This claim simply is one of the many loose and never documented claims in the Quran which is wrong. Unless Islam for once proves something. The Quran simply is no confirmation of the Bible - not by many long shots.

    593 29/47b: "So the people of the Book (Jews and Christians mainly*) believe therein (in the Quran*)". Simply wrong. A few became Muslims according to Islam, but most not. There were few Christians, but a lot of Jews in the area - who mainly refused to accept Islam. They preferred to flee or even be killed or enslaved instead of accepting Islam. At this time (621-624 AD - and at least after 622AD) Muhammad knew this very well, and this is one of the places Muhammad knew he was lying when he said things like this, and if it is older, it at least is a lie by omission, because he never corrected the claim. "Some Jews" could be possible to explain, but not "the Jews" or an even somewhat bigger group "the People of the Book".

    594 32/23g: "- - - We (Allah) made it (the book Muhammad claimed Allah gave Moses*) a guide for the Children of Israel". There is little doubt that the god of the Jews was Yahweh, not Allah.

    595 32/23h: "- - - We (Allah) made it (the book Muhammad claimed Allah gave Moses*) a guide for the Children of Israel". There is little doubt that what became the guide for the Jews, was the laws which later was incorporated in the Torah. Laws which on some central points have little similarity to the Quran. Also - and at least as essential - the moral code behind the laws in the Bible - and especially the ones corrected or added by Jesus - also are very different. So different that combined with the fact that the Bible is proved not falsified by strong circumstantial and empirical and may be stronger proofs, this is one of the many proofs for that Yahweh and Allah are not the same god - and for that Jesus and Muhammad was not in the same religion.

    596 32/24b: "And We (Allah*) appointed, from among them (the Jews*), leaders - - -". Contradicted by the Bible, which tells that the involved god was Yahweh, not Allah. Also see 67/9c below - a strong one. But of course it is ok for Islam to prove - prove - the Bible wrong and the Quran right. But as we say: Prove, not just loose claims and as loose and invalid words like the Quran always use instead of proofs.

    597 32/24c: "- - - (the Jews were given*) guidance under Our (Allah's) command - - -". Contradicted by the Bible, which tells that the involved god was Yahweh, not Allah. Also see 67/9c below - a strong one. But of course it is ok for Islam to prove - prove - the Bible wrong and the Quran right. But as we say: Prove, not just loose claims and as loose and invalid words like the Quran always use instead of proofs.

    598 32/25b: "- - - in Matters wherein they (the Jews*) differ (among themselves)". It is unclear what matters here are meant. Some Muslims say it is the question about whether or not there is a next life, but even though OT tells little about Heaven, there is no doubt about the Jews' belief in a next life. This also is clear even from NT (f.x. Matt. 22/23-29).

    One of the many unclear points in the Quran.

    599 33/8a: “That (Allah) may question the (custodians (see 33/7 and 33/8a just above*)) of Truth concerning the Truth they (were charged with) - - -”. The Quran says/pretends that the old scriptures of Israel were the same as in the Quran, but that bad Jews distorted them. If that had been true, they at best were charged with bits and pieces of truth - see all mistakes, lofty “explanations” and invalid “signs” and “proofs” in the Quran. (Besides science has proved the Bible - here OT - is not falsified. Islam has proved it even stronger by being unable to find any falsification in all the thousands of relevant old manuscripts. There may be some mistakes, but no falsifications.) One more thing: No omniscient god like what Yahweh is according to the Bible, needs to ask about anything which has happened. (It is done some times in the Bible, but for rhetoric reasons.)

    ##600 33/15c: "- - - they (Muslims*) had already a covenant with Allah not to turn their back (in war/battle) - - -". Also quite a theme for a covenant with/from the claimed good and benevolent god of "the religion of peace". Try to compare this with: "You shall not kill (or sometimes translated 'murder')" (The 10 Commandments, 2. Mos. 20/13), not to mention "Turn the other cheek" in the time of the New Covenant (Luke.22/20).

    There also is another fact which often strikes us when the Quran claims that Yahweh and Allah are the same god: The Mosaic religion had a rather strict god - Yahweh could be harsh and strict and bloody. But his harshness and his tendencies to be bloody had a limited purpose: To make the Jews a believing people and to create space for a homeland for them. When this was done - at least after a fashion - - - and when there for the first time in history came a period of peace and international open connections - the Pax Romanum - long enough for a peaceful religion to set strong enough roots to survive later harsh times in this normally unruly part of the world, he let the more peaceful and human sides of his religion take over. All this for suddenly changing his mind around 622 AD when Muhammad started to need warriors and moral explanation for his raids of thieving, enslaving and murder, and not only return to the harsher version of his religion from OT, but taking it far into Odin's and Thor's Valhalla (gods and the Paradise of the Vikings) and blood and war, or Djingis Khan's pure religion of war - or actually even further.

    And the thought which strikes us is: This god must have a "jumbled up" "top floor" to change his mind this frequently and much:

    If Muhammad and the Quran are correct on this point, the god drifted form a rather benevolent, but strict religion (OT) with some harsh spots, towards a religion (NT) dominated of mildness and love. (Before you fire your machine-guns: Remember we are talking about how the book tells the religion should be, not how it in reality was practiced or disused some times and places).

    Then suddenly in 622 AD in the space of a few months, the god not only returns to his stricter and obsolete OT-ideas, but creates a new and full-fledged hate and war religion (that Islam is "the religion of peace" is pure al-Taqiyya (the lawful lie) and propaganda - just read the surahs from Medina and the Hadiths and see for yourself, only remember that when nice words are contradicted by harsh demands and deeds and rules, it is the demands and deeds and rules which are telling the truth, not the nice, but cheap words).

    And our thoughts continue: This god is a master of mental slalom - or he is undecided. Or of inability to make up his mind.

    To our knowledge there never before - or after - was a religion which drifted from benevolent, but strict, to peace and love, for then to change once more, and now to the very opposite: A religion of discrimination, superiority complex, and a pure and war religion - from politeness and from a small feeling that the word "hate" is just a little too strong, we omit that word here.

    To our knowledge there also never in history was another religion which change so completely - here from relatively peaceful to a full war religion - in such a short time: Just some months, maximum 2 years (in the period 622 - 624 AD).

    Did Allah find peace too boring and changed his mind ones more to get more action and blood and human misery?

    Or was it Muhammad who suddenly wanted warriors for his raids?

    601 33/26a: "And those of the people of the Book (in this case the Jews in and around Medina*) who aided them (Muhammad accused these Jews of helping his enemies*) - Allah did take then down from their strongholds and cast terror into their hearts". Not Allah, but Muhammad attacked and conquered their villages. The first ones were chased away because one of the Arab tribes refused Muhammad to kill and enslave them. Later - when he was military stronger - the later victims fared worse (see 33/26b).

    602 33/26c: "And those of the people of the Book (in this case the Jews in and around Medina*) who aided them (Muhammad accused these Jews of helping his enemies*) - - -". It is clear that they stayed out of the fighting. We have not found reliable proof for that they acted against the Muslims. But they represented intellectual and religious - and thus political - opposition, and he wanted to get rid of that. The first psychological moment came after the defeat at Uhud - he needed a "victory", and riches to the followers would give them other things to think about. And then after "the Battle of the Trench" ha was strong enough to finish off - in the horrible meaning of the word - the last strong opposition. We may add that if the behavior of the Muslims during the mass murders of the men from Qurayza tribe - the last big Jewish tribe in Medina - is correctly described, it tells a lot about what kind of people it was who followed Muhammad and brought him to power.

    **603 33/26d: “And those of the People of the Book (the Jews of the Qurayzah tribe - see above*) who had aided them - Allah did take them down from their strongholds and cast terror in their hearts. (So that) some ye (the Muslims/Muhammad) slew, and some ye made prisoners.” Very simple and “lawful and good” - to quote another verse - mass murdering, enslavement, rape, and robbery. The same happened to most of the ones who earlier had been chased away from Medina, but not fled far enough - the ones who had stopped in Khaybar had men killed and the women and children raped and enslaved. Allah is good and benevolent and gave the Arabs much loot and many slaves to rape and use in other ways. Muslims - even today - never reflected over that to steal and rape and enslave and murder you had to ruin and destroy the lives of other humans. This fact is never mentioned by "the religion of peace", never reflected on, never compared to ethics or moral or sympathy or empathy in any Islamic media or publication we have met or heard about.

    Well, on thinking it over we are wrong - it is compared to the Quran's moral code: The Quran clearly says "it is lawful and good" (8/69). This tells a lot about the religion.

    A good and loving god and a peaceful religion - and this was far from the only pogrom in Muslim countries through the times. But it is typical that Allah sanctified the attack only afterwards. (Perhaps except Khaybar - if Muhammad told the truth).

    604 33/26e: "- - - the People of the Book - - -". A name used in the Quran - and by Muslims - for Jews, Christians, and Sabeans (likely the people from Saba/Sabah/Sheba in what is now Yemen). "The Book" in this case is the Bible.

    605 33/27b: “And He (Allah*) made you (Muslims*) heirs of their (Jews'*) land, their houses, and their goods, and of a land which ye had not frequented (before). And Allah has power over all things”. Some rich spoils of war can justify much, and quiet many a man’s conscience - especially when a god sanctifies it. Could such things happen today or in the future? - we do not mention names like Darfur or Indonesia or East Timor or the Turks against Christian underlings around 1900 AD - f.x. in Armenia and Smyrna. It is accepted in the Quran as "lawful and good" and the Quran cannot be changed - a fact those forget who talks about liberalizing Islam. If Islam gains the upper hand, things like this may happen again, as it is part of the Quran's unchangeable and partly immoral moral code.

    Muhammad was very different from Jesus. Very. And living in a totally different religion.

    ###606 33/61-62: “They (non-Muslims, hypocrites, etc.*) shall have a curse on them: whenever they are found, they shall be sized and slain (without mercy) (‘no compulsion in religion’ 2/256*). (Such was) the praxis (approved) of Allah among those who lived aforetime (f.x. Jews and Christians*). Muhammad claimed that Allah was just another name for Yahweh – but try to find an order telling that all non-Christians shall be murdered “without mercy” in NT and in the new covenant (f.x. Luke 22/20 in NT) - a covenant Muslims never mention - and NT is what Christianity is built on . Oh, we know very well that persons from Christian countries have done bad things, but that was in spite of their religion – and they were not really Christians deep down – and not in accordance with, or even because of the religion, like the case often is with the “religion of peace” (Muslim-speak for camouflaging the “religion of war”) Islam.

    ###607 33/62a: “(Such was) the practice (kill non-believers without mercy*) (approved) of Allah among those who lived aforetime: no change wilt thou find in the practice (approved) of Allah.” Muhammad here refers to the Mosaic and the Christian religions (and he wrongly sets Allah = Yahweh) when he talks about “those who lived aforetime”. But even though OT is hard against many non-Jews, the war and the killing was to get room for living for the Jews, not wanton murdering for the religion or for plunder and slaves. And in NT: Try to find a single place saying that non-believers shall be murdered just because they have another religion – such an order simply does not exist. (There are 1-2 places in the OT where Yahweh disliked that the Jews did not kill many enough of the enemies, but because the survivors represented future problems, not because they refused to change religion.) The Quran here actually is a 180 degree contradiction to the very core of the teachings of Jesus.

    Any god had been lying if he said this, but Muhammad did not know the Bible well, so may be – just may be – he thought from wishful thinking that he spoke the truth, but no matter he was too intelligent not to know he had no reliable source for the claim. In any case it was a good statement for a warlord trying to secure and enlarge his platform of power. (This surah is believed to be from 627 – 629 AD – before he had gained absolute control by conquering Mecca.)

    608 34/10d: "And We (Allah*) made the iron soft for him (David*)". Anyone is permitted to believe the iron was softer for David than for anybody else. But among other facts, it is a fact that this is not mentioned in the Bible, and the Jews had hardly omitted miracles from facts about their greatest king - if it had been true.

    609 34/12b: “And to Solomon (We (Allah*) made) the Wind (obedient) - - -.” Islam will have to prove that this is not just one more storey “borrowed” from a legend/fairy tale. (It is not from the Bible, and is sure the Jews had mentioned this - to glorify their big king - if it had been true).

    610 34/13a: "They (Jinns¨*) worked for him as he (Solomon*) desired - - -". Not from the Bible - and you may bet large money on that the Jews had not omitted a miracle like this connected to the hero king Solomon, if there had been the slightest truth in it. Jinns are not even mentioned in the Bible, and also nothing which can be jinns under another name.

    611 34/13d: "- - - sons of David - - -". Jews. But also a time anomaly.

    612 34/40b: "Was it you (angels*) that these men (non-Muslims - no women in Islam?*) used to worship?" As for Jews and Christians they never worshipped angels. Perhaps some of the old Arabs?

    613 34/44a: "- - - Books - - -". A "holy" book was of essential interest for Muhammad. It is known he had an inferior feeling on behalf of the Arabs compared to Jews and Christians because they had religious books, and the Arabs not. What he did not care about, or maybe did not even know, was that a book is as easy to falsify as spoken words. This may be difficult for modern people to understand, but in the old time the written word carried much more respect than today, and what was written often was regarded as more or less proved facts.

    614 34/54b: "- - - for they (non-Muslims*) were indeed in suspicious (disquietening) doubt". Similar you find here and there. It is a nice and psychological smart thing to tell followers wanting to believe what you are saying, so that they will believe this, too. Whether it is true or not, does not matter very much - the main thing is that it is good pep-talk for the followers if they believe it.

    Another main point is that it is not true - something f.x. the Jews who were murdered proved (many of them could have save their lives by becoming or pretending to be Muslims).

    615 35/25e: "(Earlier prophets came with) the Book of Enlightenment". Muhammad claimed that all earlier prophets had got a copy of the timeless claimed "Mother Book" in Heaven - similar to the Quran, which is claimed to be a copy of the same claimed "Mother Book", but that the bad Jews and Christians had falsified it and transformed it into the Bible. (Both science and Islam have thoroughly proved the claim wrong - and besides: How do you f.x. make Jewish and Christian religious leaders agree on how to falsify the texts in a Bible?)

    616 36/30b: "There comes not a messenger to (Allah's servants*) but they mock them". Not correct as there are prophets in the Bible who were not mocked - especially as widely as the Quran uses the words prophets and messengers. And the Quran recons the Jews to be servants of the god, albeit mostly failed ones. (The main thing with all these claims that all prophets were mocked, was to show his followers that this was a normal situation.)

    *617 37/37c: “- - - and he (Muhammad*) confirms (the Messages of) the Messengers (before him (= from Jews and Christians*))”. Wrong. There are too many and too fundamental differences between especially NT and the Quran. The Quran is not confirming the Bible in spite of Muhammad’s words – the fundamental differences between the teachings simply are too big – especially compared to NT and the “new covenant” Jesus caused. See 29/46 and others. Actually this claim is to be found several places in the Quran. (Muhammad tried to explain away even the deep differences with never proved claims that the Bible is falsified - claims both modern science and Islam (unintentionally) very strongly have proved wrong, by not being able to find one proved falsification among the some 45ooo relevant manuscripts and fragments older than 610 AD).

    Also see separate chapter in "1000+ Mistakes in the Quran" about this.

    618 37/81: "For he (Noah*) was one of Our (Allah's*) believing Servants". One more of all the claims in the Quran that old Jews and their forefathers believed in Allah, but according to the Bible the correct are Yahweh. And we repeat that in spite of Islam's frequent claims about falsifications in the Bible, all serious, relevant science says it is not true - there may be mistakes, but not falsifications. Islam has proved even stronger that there is no falsification, by not finding one relevant old manuscript which is proved falsified (they had not hidden such a discovery).

    What is reality for Islam if the Bible is not falsified, is that if the Bible tells the truth, the Quran in many cases is wrong - another proof for that there is no god behind the Quran in case. Thus the fact that the Bible is not falsified according to science - and by omission by Islam - cannot be accepted by Muslims and Islam. Denial is better than to face the consequences. This in spite of that in religion the only essential point is not to be right, but to find out what is right - which, if any, religion is the right one.

    619 37/123b: "- - - Elias - - -". In Arab you also will see the name written as Ilyas. In English it normally is written Elijah. For believing Jews and Christians this is a well known name, but it may not be so for others. He was one of the central prophets in OT, and worked in the northern country (Israel - the southern was Judah) during the reigns of the infamous king Ahab (896 - 874 BC) and king Ahaziah (874 - 872 BC). He is mentioned in both 1. and 2. Kings. He according to the Bible is one of the extremely few humans who never died, because he was taken up to Heaven alive in a chariot of fire (2. Kings. 2/11).

    620 37/126: "Allah, your (the Jews'*) Lord and Cherisher, and the Lord and Cherisher of your fathers of the old (like Abraham, Moses, David, Solomon, etc*)". No comments - and none necessary.

    621 37/128: "Except the devoted and sincere devoted servants (= good Muslims*) of Allah among them (the Jews around 870 - 900 BC)". For the readers not knowing much about the facts in old Israel/Judah: There does not exist one serious scientist believing in Muslims or belief in Allah in Israel/Judah around 800 - 900 BC. Not even among the non-Jews there. Hardly even a Muslim scientist believes so - not if he is serious.

    622 38/4c: "- - - from among themselves - - -". Muhammad stressed that prophets came from the people among whom they should work - that was one of his "alibis" for being a prophet even though he was an Arab. For Jews it was correct - their prophets were Jews. But Jonah was not from Nineveh, Abraham not from Canaan, Lot not from Sodom or Gomorrah, Joseph not from Egypt, Moses not from Midian, to mention some of whom the Quran reckons to be prophets.

    ####623 38/5a: "He (Muhammad*) has made the gods (all) into one God?" That was not exactly what he did: The took the main pagan Arab god, al-Lah (= the earlier moon god al-Ilah - it is no co-incidence that the symbol for Islam and for Allah is the crescent moon - and before that he was a main god named Il further east), accepted only his youngest name, Allah, and claimed he was the only real god. Then he sacked all the other Arab and other pagan gods, but not the god of the Jews and the Christians, Yahweh. Instead he said that his god Allah and Yahweh in reality were the same god (a claim which is not true, as the teachings fundamentally are too different). He also claimed that the Arabs from the old had meant that the two were just 2 names for the same god, and this is the official claim today. But lately (2013 AD) we have found that not all scientists are sure about this, as ####there is little or no real documentation for it. If the doubt is correct, this means that also the claimed close connection between Yahweh and Allah is one of Muhammad's claims, only based on Muhammad's own ideas.

    Besides: What the old Arabs believed, is of no consequence, unless it is true. Which the huge differences between the teachings, moral codes, etc. prove it is not.

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

    Added 14. Feb. 2015: We a few days ago run across information which indicates that Muslim archeology says that the oldest traces they have found from settlements in Mecca, are from the 4. century AD, that the Kabah was built during the 5. century, and that the temple really was dedicated to Hubal originally. But beware that we have not been able to find final confirmation for the two first pieces of these informations.

    624 38/17c: "- - - David, the man of strength - - -". Wrong. (YA4167): "David was a man of exceptional strength, for even as a raw youth, he slew the Philistine giant Goliath". Muhammad and the Quran seem to not have known how Goliath was killed, and the results are invalid conclusions like this. According to the Bible Goliath was killed by a stone from a sling - something which did not need much strength. Also in the Bible there is nothing about David being very strong - something which surely had been mentioned about the Jews' great hero - to make him even more glorious - if it had been true. Actually the very fact(?) that David then just was a youth and not a strong man, is a (not expressed) indication in the Bible for divine help from Yahweh.

    625 38/30c: "How excellent (was Solomon*) in Our (Allah's*) service. Ever did he turn to (Us)!" According to the Bible Yahweh was his god, not Allah. And when it comes to David and Solomon it will be difficult to make anyone but Muslims believe Allah was their god - too much is known about them and about the religion of the Jews at that time.

    626 38/32b: (YA4185): “Truly do I (King David or king Solomon - likely Solomon*) love the love of good, with a view to the glory of my Lord - - -“. But it is as linguistically correct to follow other Muslim scholars who say that it means: “Truly did I prefer the good things (of this world) to the remembrance of your Lord”.

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

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

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

    Claims like this are a bit too naive.

    627 38/35b: "He (Solomon*) said, 'O my Lord (here indicated Allah*)!'" Well, the Bible - and science - tells that Solomon's god was Yahweh, not Allah. (Around these times science starts to get better information on the religion of the Jews, and there is no Allah included.

    628 39/6k: "There is no god but He (Allah*) - - -". Well, as the Quran testifies there was a god for the old Jews and Christians - Yahweh - but (inadvertently) makes it clear this god cannot have been Allah like they claim, as there are too big and too fundamental differences between the teachings, at least one thing is clear here: Either there are more than one god, or at least one of these two (not to mention others) does not exist, if this sentence is correct. Which one?

    629 39/38e: "The things that ye (non-Muslims*) invokes besides Allah - - -". Wrong. Non-Muslims do not invoke anything besides Allah - they involve other gods than Allah, and not Allah at all. Even the pagan Arabs invoked the old pagan god al-Lah, not Muhammad's modernized copy of him, Allah. But claiming that they invoked Allah, but added other gods, of course fitted Muhammad, as it made his god the central one - - - even in cases where the opposite part did not accept Allah at all - f.x. most of the local Jews.

    630 40/5e: "- - - every People plotted against their prophet - - -". This is in no way documented. Even the Jews, who became infamous on this point, only plotted against some of their prophets. But this was said around 616 - 618 AD - Muhammad was not well liked in Mecca, and by telling his followers that this was normal for prophets, he could pretend to be a normal prophet.

    631 40/28d: "- - - faith - - -". Islam. Only Islam is faith in the Quran. Contradicted by the Bible which tells that the god of the Jews and of Moses was Yahweh, not Allah. Also see 67/9c below - a strong one. But of course it is ok for Islam to prove - prove - the Bible wrong and the Quran right. But as we say: Prove, not just loose claims and as loose and invalid words like the Quran always use instead of proofs.

    632 40/34a: "- - - there came Joseph in times gone by - - -". If we presume that science has the time for Exodus correct, it happened around 1235 BC (according to f.x. Encyclopedia Britannica). If we further presume that the Bible is correct when it says the Jews stayed in Egypt for 430 years - and there were no reasons for the original writers of those scriptures to falsify that number, and neither have we seen strong protests about it from serious scientists - Jacob and his family emigrated to Egypt sometime around 1665 BC. If we then add some years, Joseph may have been taken to Egypt sometime around 1680 BC (if it is a true story). This means during the Hyksos Dynasty, which reigned from some time in the 18th century BC (they seem to have taken over the power slowly - in contradiction to what Muslims normally say, but here they are excused, because also science believed so until reasonably lately), but did not gain great power until around 1720 BC it seems. The end of their reign is better known and here Muslim sources like to say they reigned until around 1580 BC - the earlier exit, the earlier they can claim the Jews left Egypt. But the two last Hyksos pharaohs were Apopis (ca. 1580 - 1540 BC) and Khamudi (ca. 1540 - 1530 BC). (Muslims like to claim the Hyksos were Arabs. There are no real arguments for that, except they likely were invaders who came via Sinai (perhaps from Syria?), but honor for Arabs is honor for Arabs - - - but that is another story. But we may add that you meet Muslims claiming the name Hyksos derives from a word meaning shepherd rulers - indicating they originally were nomads and thus surely Arabs (Muslims often are good at short-circuited logic and invalid logical jumps - the Hyksos could be Arabs, but far from "surely"). But this is a wrong translation of the original word/name. The correct translation means "foreign rulers" - they after all were not original Egyptians.)

    The end of Khamudi's reign - ca. 1530 BC - perhaps is what the Bible means when it says: "Then a new king, who did not know about Joseph, came to power over Egypt". (2. Mos. 1/8).

    633 40/55a: "- - - (the Book*) - - - A Guide and a Message to (the Jews*) - - -". This may well be true as far as the "Books of Moses" go. But beware that Muhammad claimed what Moses - and all other prophets - got, was a copy of the claimed "Mother Book" from Allah - similar to the Quran (which the bad Jews and Christians later falsified and made into the Bible instead - and as Jesus is claimed to have been a good Muslim, the falsifications must have been made later: Dignified Jews Pharisees in black suits sitting down with as honorable bishops to agree on what to falsify, and how the two religions now should be changed, and not least what to falsify about Messiah (Jesus) in OT. And not to forget how to falsify all old manuscripts, and how to do it in such ways that future experts would be unable to find out anything about what was falsified - and of course how to do it without the congregations on 3 continents discovered that things had been falsified and changed - and of course how to do it without the congregations on 3 continents discovered that things had been falsified and changed, and how to falsify the scrolls which existed in each and every synagogue without the believing Jews noticed anything (and remember here that the changes in the texts had to be enormous).

    We will have to hope that persons like Mr. H. C. Andersen and the Grimm brothers were members of the commission - and perhaps dr. Isaac Asimov as an adviser about future techniques concerning fraud detection to circumnavigate or cheat future experts.

    634 40/83a: "For with their (people of the older times*) messengers - - -". Muhammad and the Quran claim that all people to all times and all over the world have gotten messengers and prophets to teach them about Allah - Hadiths mention the number 124ooo, and there even may have been more. Neither science nor Islam has ever found the smallest trace from such teaching before 610 AD except among the Jews, and there the god was Yahweh, not Allah, and the teaching in reality quite different. As not even Islam has found clear such traces, you are free to believe whatever you want.

    635 40/85c: "(Such has been) Allah's way of dealing with His servants (from the most ancient times)". Neither science, nor Islam has ever been able to find traces from a religion like Islam older than 610 AD when Muhammad started his religion. The one similar monotheistic religion is the one (or two) of the Jews and Christians - which is older than 610 AD - but that one is about Yahweh, not Allah (and in spite of Muhammad's never proved claims, those religions are too different; those two gods are not the same god. This is even clearer as science has proved that also another Islamic claim is wrong: The Bible is not falsified. (Also Islam loudly has proved this, by never finding one single proof for their claims).

    ##636 41/40c: “Those who pervert the Truth - - -". This normally is one of Muhammad's many distaste or more inducing names for non-Muslims. It normally refers to Jews and Christians and Muhammad's claim that they had perverted the Bible, which he claimed originally was like the Quran - both of which claims have been proved wrong by both science and by Islam (by being unable to find even one clear proof for the claims among tens of thousands of old relevant manuscripts.

    637 41/45e: "- - - they (the local Jews*) remained in disquietening doubt thereon". One more of the psychologically correct things to tell his followers. The truth was that most of the Jews were so little in doubt, that they preferred to flee or to be killed instead of accepting Muhammad's new religion.

    638 41/45f: "- - - disquietening doubt - - -". Wrong. The majority of the local Jews were so little in doubt that Muhammad was wrong, that they later choose to flee or death instead of accepting his new religion. But of course the words sounded nice to his followers.

    639 42/13f: “The same religion (Islam*) - - - that We (Allah*) have sent by inspiration to thee (Muhammad*) - - -”. Is it really an omniscient god who has initiated a religion based on a book with at may be 3ooo cases of mistakes, invalid logic, invalid arguments, invalid "signs" and "proofs", plus lots of contradictions, etc.? Definitely no. See 40/75 and 41/12 above and many others.

    The underlying claim is that the old Jews were Muslims, but falsified the religion and the Bible to get a better life here on Earth. But how could leaving a religion permitting stealing/robbing, dishonesty, extortion, etc. give anyone a richer life? The Hadiths confirms that Muslims grew rich and powerful that way, and it had worked the same way for f.x. the Jews if they had gone for economic gain and had such a religion. The argument that the Jews and Christians falsified their religion to have a richer life here on Earth, thus is killed by reality. Worth thinking over.

    640 42/14a: "And they (Jews, Christians*) became divided only after knowledge reached them - through selfish envy as between themselves." Oh, no, this hardly was the reasons for the division of the Christians from the Jews. The reason was that the most Jews did not accept Jesus. Partly was he not the earthly king they hoped for (to free them out from the Romans), and partly was his teaching a bit different from what they were used to. And for many of the sects?. The real reason often was different understanding - or misunderstanding - of points in the scriptures. But the Quran may be partly true here, as there clearly has been many a self proclaimed prophet who has been as interested in power and/or wealth - and a few times women. A central question here is: Was Muhammad one of those? The enormous number of mistakes in the Quran proves 120%+ that it is not from a god. The fact that nearly everything and every not Biblical tale is from or around Arabia, indicates that the maker of the book knew little or nothing about the rest of the world. The mistakes which was in accordance with wrong "science" at the time of Muhammad, strongly indicates the book was made by someone living at that time. On the other hand there is a chance that Muhammad himself believed at least parts of what he told, if he had this mental illness - TLE (Temporal Lobe Epilepsy) - which modern medical science suspects.

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

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

    641 42/14d: "- but truly those who have inherited the Book (here most likely the Bible*) after them (Jews and Christians*) are in suspicious (disquieting) doubt concerning it (the Books*)". A very normal technique for split of and fringe sects like Islam was in 616 - 618 AD, to strengthen themselves, is to claim that the mother religion or competing religion doubts their own words. This sounds like a typical case of such a psychological technique.

    642 42/15b: "- - - nor follow thou (Muhammad/Muslims*) their vain desires - - -". = do not listen to their (Jews and Christians - likely mostly Jews as there were few Christians in Mecca*) preaching - or explanations - about their religion.

    643 42/15f: "Allah is our (Muslims'*) Lord and your (Jews', Christians', Pagans'*) Lord - - -". Wrong. There are so big and deep differences between Islam and the others, and specially NT and its new covenant, that none of them has the same god as the Muslims. This is even clearer as science - and even more so Islam - has proved that the standard and only Islamic claimed, but never documented, "explanation" when it comes to Yahweh and the differences between him and Allah - that the Bible is falsified - is wrong. Yahweh and Allah are so different that they simply are 2 different gods - if both exist. The only possible exception is if the god is strongly schizophrenic.

    ***644 43/3b: "We (Allah*) have made it a Quran in Arabic - - -". Muhammad in the start had a kind of minority complex towards Jews and Christians, who had holy books, which the Arabs did not have. Therefore it meant something to him to be able to point to that also the Arabs got a holy book - and in Arab. (But it may be symptomatic that the Arabs for all later times denied and deny all non-Arabs the Quran in their own language: When the Quran is translated to another language, it formally is not a translation of the book - because the Quran is claimed to be untranslatable (what universal god would choose a language which was not possible to translate for his universal holy book? - and originally written in a very incomplete alphabet, making much of the texts unclear and difficult or impossible to know for sure what is meant) - it is an explanation of the book. Also see 43/3d)

    645 43/48a: "We (Allah*) showed them (Pharaoh Ramses II and his people*) Sign after Sign, each greater than its fellow, and We seized them with Punishment, in order that they might turn (to Us)". Note the purpose here; "in order that they might turn (to Us)" = become Muslims. A significant difference from the Bible. There Yahweh and Moses only asked the Pharaoh to let the Jews leave Egypt - no try to change their religion.(F.x. 2. Mos. 5/1).

    646 43/49d: "- - - for we (Pharaoh Ramses II*) shall truly (definitely not a proved truth - only a not proved claim*) accept guidance (accept Islam*)". In the Bible he only promised to let the Jews go, not to mention that there was no religious quarrel. As the Quran is not from any god - too many mistakes, etc. - from where did Muhammad get this version? And have Muslims found a single trace of Islam in Egypt or anywhere else older than 610 AD? - some 2ooo years after this is said to have happened. (You hardly will find a trace from a religion like Islam until 639 AD, when the Muslims invaded Egypt.) Also see 43/52s below.

    ##647 43/56: “And We (Allah*) made them a people of the past - - -”. Wrong. Neither Ramses II nor the people of Egypt became a people of the past around the year 1235 BC (the approximate year of the possible Exodus, according to science). That did not happen until much later – and the final doom came in 659 AD when the Arabs under Mu’awiya conquered the country and took over - forever (?). Muslims like to “explain” that “a people” mean the soldiers of Pharaoh. But the expression “a people” has a wider meaning than that.

    The Jews then roamed the Sinai and thereabouts for 40 years according to the Bible – the Quran is vague on that point, but nothing there opposes this piece of information.

    ###648 43/59c: "- - - We (Allah*) made him (Jesus) an example - - -". According to the Bible the god of Jesus was Yahweh, and in a way worse for the Quran: We are now on safe historical ground. It is well documented that the god of the Jews at this time was Yahweh - and that the religion at this time was so strong among the Jews, that Jesus had got few followers if he tried to talk about a known pagan god, al-Lah - from a neighboring country. Not to mention that if he had tried to mix him with Yahweh, the establishment had had him executed much earlier. The claim that a god with a teaching like in the Quran was dominant in Israel, was and is not only contradicted by the Bible, but historically wrong. Also see 13/1g and 67/9c - 2 strong ones. 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.

    #####649 43/59d: "- - - We (Allah*) made him (Jesus) an example to the Children of Israel". (YA4660): "A reference to the limited mission of Jesus, whose Gospel to the Jews only survives in uncertain fragmentary forms". We do not think this merits any comment, but quote it to show a sample of what Muslims are told even today. Remember here that al-Taqiyya (the lawful lie), Kitman (the lawful half-truth), Hilah (the lawful pretending/circumventing), etc. not only are permitted, but advised "if necessary" when defending or promoting Islam.

    There are large quantities of secular scientists in the west and in the rest of the world - and to real scientists dishonest means of working or arguments are an absolute NO. They do not doubt that the Gospels are the original ones and the complete ones, except for minor errors normal when manuscripts are copied by hand. Islam will have to prove and not only claim their words. This even more so as there are so many mistaken facts and other errors in the Quran, that also the claim that the Gospels are falsified, may be - highly likely is - wrong. (This on top of that it long since is proved that the Bible - included the Gospels - is not falsified.)

    ***650 43/63c: “(Jesus said*): therefore fear Allah - - -”. As said before: If Jesus had been a missionary for the known polytheistic god al-Lah from a not too far of country, he for one thing had got very few followers in the at that time strictly monotheistic Israel, and for another thing he had been killed by the clergy long before - especially if he all the same got a big following like he really got. This is a tale told by someone who knew the religious and political situation in Israel around year 30 AD badly. Besides it are historical facts that the god of the Jews at that time, was Yahweh, and that the teaching had very little to do with the one in the Quran. Also see 43/63b just above.

    651 43/65a: "But sects from among themselves (the followers of Jesus) fell into disagreement - - -". Muhammad here claims that because of secterism the clean Islam of Jesus was forgotten and falsified into Christianism. Just this verses we think needs absolutely no comments, especially as science - and also Islam - long since has proved that Muhammad's never proved claim that the Bible was falsified, is a made up one - a false one to use the ironic, but correct word. And also because we now are into historical times and have historical knowledge and indications for how the religions were - nether the Mosaic, nor the early Christian had any similarity to Islam, and much different from the similarities at Muhammad's time or of today.

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

    652 44/9: "Yet they (skeptics*) play about in doubt". Of course, as at least some of them - and a major percentage of the many Jews in the area - already then saw that something was very wrong in Muhammad's new religion.

    653 44/18a: "Restore to me (Moses*) the servants of Allah (here intended to mean the Jews)". Here are two things different from the same story in the Bible (2. Mos. Ch. 5 + 6 + first part of 7):

    1. According to the Bible, Moses asked for his people - "let my people go" - not for a religious group (this even though the official reason was to celebrate their god).
    2. According to the Bible, the involved god was Yahweh, not Allah - a claimed god and religion there are found no traces from in Egypt until some 2ooo tears later, when the country was conquered by Muhammad's successors (in partly horrible ways)

     

    654 44/18b: (A43/11 – in 2008 edition A43/10): “Restore to me (Moses*) the Servants of Allah - - -.” Or “Give in unto to me, O Allah’s’ bondmen - - -.” Both these meanings are possible in the Arab original text. The first means that Pharaoh should set the Jews free, the second that the Egyptians – also they Allah’s bondmen - should accept Allah and become good Muslims. Pretty big difference in the meanings. Clear language?

    655 44/23a: "(Allah said*) March forth with My servants (the Jews*) by night - - -". Naive and wanting on logic: What had to happen if the Jews had left stealthily and against the will of the mighty pharaoh like indicated here? An angry army had been hot on their heels the very next morning. And a marching army can march 2 - 3 times as fast as a large group of civilians strolling along together with their children and animals. They would be overtaken in hours.

    656 44/23b: "(Allah said*) March forth with My servants by night - - -". According to the Bible (2. Mos. 12/31) it was the pharaoh who summoned Moses at night and sent the Jews away.

    657 44/23c: "- - - My (Allah's*) servants - - -". In the claimed clear language in the Quran this expression may have several meanings - see 42/27b above. Here it means all Muslims (in reality all Jews, but the Quran claims they and Moses were Muslims - believe it if you are able to).

    658 44/24: "And leave the sea a furrow (divided): for they (the Egyptians*) are a host (destined) to be drowned". According to the Bible this was not told on beforehand, it just happened. Besides it is meaningless - how could they (Moses and the Jews*) keep open or close the sea?

    659 44/30a: "We (Allah*) delivered the Children of Israel from humiliating punishment - - -". According to the Bible the Jews had been reduced from honored guests to slaves over a period of 430 years since Joseph. In addition the pharaoh had started killing their male babies, because they had become so many that the Egyptians found them to be a threat and wanted to reduce their numbers.(This f.x. was the reason why the baby Moses was set afloat on the Nile in a desperate hope of saving him).

    But a central point here is that according to the Bible it was Yahweh who helped them out, not Allah.

    660 44/32: "And We (Allah*) chose them (the Jews*) aforetime - - -". Contradicted by the Bible, which says they were chosen by Yahweh, not by Allah - most likely correct, as there nowhere in Jewish history is a trace from Allah until after 610 AD (and f.x. Exodus - if it is not fiction - was ca. 1325 BC). Also if Allah does not exist, he was not involved with anyone neither "aforetime" nor later - - - and nor today. Also see 13/1g and 67/9c - 2 strong ones. 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.

    661 44/54b: "- - - Companions with beautiful, big, and lustrous eyes". The famous houris. Their existence in the Paradise is contradicted in the Bible - or at least never mentioned, and the bad Jews and Christians and the reliable - also according to the Quran - Jesus and all the other Biblical prophets, had not forgotten such a juicy temptation. Also see 13/1g and 67/9c - 2 strong ones. 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.

    The ideas of houris to "serve" good Muslim men, Muhammad borrowed from the pagan Persia, where they were named paaris.

    662 45/8c: "- - - he (the skeptic*) is obstinate and lofty, as if he had not heard them (Allah's "signs") - - -". Psychologically this was a much better "explanation" for Muhammad to give his followers and others, than to admit the plain truth: That many saw that something was seriously wrong in the new religion. There may have been other reasons, too, but f.x. for the majority of the Jews, this was the main reason.

    663 45/16a: "We (Allah*) did aforetime grant to the Children of Israel the Book (here the Bible/Torah*) - - -". Contradicted by the Bible, which says the involved god - the god of the Jews - was Yahweh, not Allah. #####Also historical facts very strongly indicates that no god with a teaching like Muhammad's ever was involved in the Mosaic (Jewish) religion before 610 AD - and of course not afterwards. #####For times as far back as sometime between 300 BC and 800 BC the known historical facts are so strong that this is not indicated, but proved. Also see 13/1g and 67/9c - 2 strong ones. 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.

    664 45/17b: "- - - it was only after (religious*) knowledge had been granted to them (the Jews*) that they fell into schisms, through insolent envy among themselves". You must have a very special point of view on or (lack of) knowledge of Jewish history to agree to this claim.

    ***665 46/10c: “If (this teaching) be from Allah, and ye (non-Muslims) reject it, and a witness from among the Children of Israel testifies to its similarity (with earlier scriptures (what is Muhammad’s definition of “similarity” here?*)), and has believed (or pretended to believe - sometimes that was necessary to survive*) while ye are arrogant, (how unjust ye are) - - -”. This sentence is a bit complicated, but what Muhammad said, was that a Jew agreed – true or not true - to that the Quran was similar to old Jewish scriptures, and that non-Muslims then were unjust not accepting that Muhammad is a real prophet.

    The logic here is invalid and wrong - when just one says something and many says something else all of them know about, normally the many are right. The way for Muhammad to prove his words had been to compare the two texts, something he for some reason or other did not do. Now Muslims may say that the old Jewish scriptures were falsified - the normal and proved wrong way out for Muhammad and for his followers - but one cannot at the same time say that the man's scriptures were falsified (Muhammad claimed the old scriptures were falsified, and that this was the reason why they differed from the Quran), and then say that the man proved the Quran right because he had read his own scriptures. (This is a typical Muslim way of "proving" things: One tells that one aspect of something must be like this and this - and overlook that other aspects with the case screams that things are wrong.)

    1. Tales like this are quite common among self proclaimed prophets trying to prove their new religion or sect. They may be true or not true.
    2. We only have Muhammad’s word for this - a man who had initiated or himself done a lot of dubious deeds included lying/betrayal, and on top of that had a lot to gain from making people believe him, a man who lusted for power - and one who was teaching a dubious tale. There are no other sources. The tale may be true or not true.
    3. We do not know how many Jews lived in the neighborhood of Mecca/Medina. But in only one tribe he destroyed, there were some 700 men (all murdered – in Khaybar. Plus the 29 from the peace delegation he invited and murdered earlier). As families tended to be large, that should mean some 2ooo-3ooo women and children in addition (all made slaves). And there were three big tribes (and some small ones) and thus thousands of Jews - and the women at least here cannot be omitted, as they tend to be more religious than men. It would be most surprising if not one or a few of them wanted to humor the power-that-be or really changed the religion - from belief or greed or fright or other reasons.
    4. But all the other – thousands and thousands - of Jews said Muhammad was wrong. This even when he marched against them with his army, and they knew that to humor him meant “no war”. Even when they had to give him all their farms and become day workers for him - still knowing that humoring him meant they would keep their possessions if they in time had humored him. Even those who had to flee, losing everything they could not carry - knowing that if they humored him, they could stay. Not to mention the 700 men of the Qurayza tribe - knowing they were murdered by the half-dozens through the day and far into the night, and that humoring him perhaps could save their lives. All said no; Muhammad was too wrong to be possible to accept even then.
    5. Even if it was correct that one or a few Jew said yes - which well may be true: “One swallow makes no summer”. (It also may be a made up story - that often happens in new sects to "prove" they are right.)

     

    All in all: This “proof” has no value. According to the Jews Muhammad was very wrong. And even more: We still have the same books of Moses - the Torah was unabridged for at least 1000 years before Muhammad and still is according to science – and the rest of the Jewish Bible (the OT) that the Jews in Arabia had. Anyone can read this and see they were right.

    #666 46/10d: (A46/12): "(This refers to*) 'a prophet like himself'". This is quoted from a speech Moses made to his fellow Jews. There are nearly identical quotes in 5. Mos. 18/15 and 18/18. Islam and Muslims claim the word "brothers" refers to Arabs, even though obviously the brother of a Jew is another Jew, even though the connections of the texts, the fact that OT nearly always meant other Jews when talking about the "brothers" of some Jews, the fact that Arabs and Jews never are named or indicated to be brothers neither in the Bible nor in the Quran, etc. - obviously a wrong claim judging from the contexts. See the text about "Samples of claims about Muhammad in the Bible" under 7/157e above. The claim is based on a strong need to find Muhammad in the Bible, as the Quran wrongly states he is foretold there, not on reality. But if Muslims do not find him there, the Quran is wrong once more, and Islam cannot afford mistakes in the Quran - it means that something is wrong with Islam. (Remember in addition that Muhammad in reality was no real prophet - he was unable to make prophesies - the claim is nonsense).

    667 46/10e: "- - - Children of Israel - - -". Jews - literally children of the Jewish patriarch Jacob, who was renamed Israel by Yahweh. A time anomaly.

    668 46/12b: “- - - this Book (the Quran) confirms (it (the Torah*)) - - -”. See 46/10c above, and especially the last lines. No one knew or knows the Torah better than the Jews. The quote is wrong - the books of Moses are a bit harsh, but far from as harsh as the Quran, and in addition there are lots of basic divergences. The Quran is no confirmation of the Books of Moses - easy to check for anyone able to read. Many similarities as Muhammad tried to copy those books, but too many and too deep differences. And remember: Both science and Islam have been unable to prove any falsifications in the Bible, included in the Torah - some mistakes, but no falsifications.

    669 46/12c: "- - - in the Arabic tongue - - -". To have a text written in Arab, meant much to Muhammad, who for one thing had an inferiority feeling compared to Jews and Christians who had holy books, and for another he seems to have believed that the written word was a proof for that it was the truth (this was a feeling many had until relatively recently - what was written, had to be true). Some of his argumentation some places in the Quran indicates this, even though it is as easy to falsify or invent a written as a spoken word.

    ***670 46/21a: "Hud". A prophet Muhammad and the Quran claimed once lived in Arabia. There exists no trace from him outside the claims in the Quran. He in case was a self proclaimed prophet with problems similar to Muhammad's and was used by Muhammad to show his own followers that former prophets had been disbelieved, too, and that thus Muhammad's situation was normal for prophets. There is a Muslim rumor that there is a chance for that he is the same person as the little known Biblical person Eber. In that case he was the great great grandson of Noah "at a time when the forefathers of the Jews were Arabs living in south Arabia before some of them emigrated to Mesopotamia, where among others Abraham was born (in Ur of the Chaldeans according to the Bible*)". It is a kind of fun when you read about ideology and/or religion and/or nationalism, etc. to see how many - and especially populists - tries to grab honor from wherever they can find it. (The quote here is freely translated from Swedish after A6/47 - comment to verse 6/65).

    It is extra ironic when you know that for one thing the Arabs are not a coherent tribe/people, but a mixture made up from people who drifted into the peninsula from all the lands around, and for another when you know that the interior of Arabia was settled roughly around the times of Abraham's forefathers (though some coastal areas much earlier) - people drifted into Arabia then, and did not emigrate from there. There is no scientific indication for that any group of people in Mesopotamia - included Jews - ever came from Arabia.

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

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

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

    671 48/23b: "(Such has been) the practice (approved) of Allah in the past - - -". Even if Muhammad had been right and Yahweh and Allah had been the same god (see f.x. 29/46ec and 48/23a above), this claim had been wrong. For a period - mainly from Moses and for some centuries afterwards Yahweh according to the Bible was a bit aggressive in order to establish and secure a national country for the Jews. That finished - and perhaps because of the Pax Romanum making it possible for a peaceful religion to take hold - he sent (according to the Bible) Jesus and his mild new covenant of love and peace.

    ##672 49/6b: "O ye who believe! If a wicked person comes to you with any news, ascertain the truth, lest ye harm people unwittingly - - -". This is worth thinking over also in another connection: Muslims know about al-Taqiyya (the lawful lie), they know about Kitman (the lawful half-truth), they know about "war is deceit" and "war is betrayal" (to quote Muhammad himself in f.x. Ibn Ishaq "Life of the Prophet") and that everything outside Islam can be defined as "the area of war", they know Muhammad advised and himself practiced even breaking of one’s own oaths. All the same - when some good Muslim tells something positive about Islam - true or not true - or something negative about others - true or not true - they believe it without checking if it is true or not. F.x. the Muhammad cartoons - the Danish mullahs in the beginning did not get the angry reactions they wanted. Therefore they colored 3 of the drawings in ugly colors and told Muslims abroad that this was from the Danish newspaper, and then finally they got reactions. (What in a way is worse: This falsification is known in Muslim countries, but as far as we understand it has provoked no reaction - it seems to be ok to do things like that. We have heard the episode mentioned on al-Jazeera, but that is it). Or a more recent episode: Last year (2009) Muslim scholars announced on Internet that they could prove - without giving the proofs - that the texts in the Bible had been changed more than 50 places (56 if we remember correctly) during the meeting in Nicaea in 325 AD. Now the agenda for that meeting is well known, and changes to Biblical texts were not even mentioned there. Besides it is just as easy to make bishops change texts in the Bible as it is to make ayatollahs change texts in the Quran - it is just the same mental mechanism at work in both cases. And one more point the mentioned Muslim scholars skipped: The Old Testament (OT) makes up more than 3/4 of the Bible. How do you falsify that part of the Bible without agreements from the Jews? - there was not one single Jew at that meeting. Well, how at all make the Jews agree to changes in the Bible favoring Jesus, when they do not believe in Jesus? But good Muslims reading the tale in the Internet, at once accepted the fairy tale without checking anything, even though in this case to check the agenda for that meeting is easy. (Actually al-Taqiyya, Kitman, etc. makes information from Muslim sources difficult to use, because everything has to be checked - all too often the claimed facts are made up or "twisted" or "cherry-picked" half truths - see f.x. the claims that Muhammad is mentioned in the Bible: There they first have cherry-picked some quotes and taken them out of the context, then they have twisted logic quite a lot, omitted some facts - - - and seemingly got a nice answer - an answer Muslims believe in without even checking in the Bible (where they would have found the claims are not true - the main word in the claim, "brother", f.x. is used at least 338 times (98 in OT, 240 in NT) in the Bible - and not one time about an Arab/Arabs. Arabs/Arabia are mentioned at least 15 times - not one of them as friends, not to mention brothers*).

    673 50/2b: "But they (people*) wonder that there has come to them a Warner from among themselves." Muhammad often returns to the fact that he is an Arab, not a Jew like all other documented prophets (Hud and the few other claimed prophets in the Quran not taken from the Bible, are not documented from any other source). To make himself a normal prophet, may be one of the reasons why he told about so many other non-Jewish prophets claimed to have existed to all times and in all cultures and lands. He also uses the fact that he is not a Jew as a never proved claim for why the Jews did not accept his religion (whereas the real reason was that the Jews - who knew their scriptures - saw that a lot of things were wrong in Islam compared to what Yahweh had told them).

    674 50/36a: "But how many generations before them did We (Allah*) destroy (for their sins) - - -". Allah was a good and benevolent god? Yahweh with his small wars in and around Canaan (now approximately Israel) to establish and secure an country for the Jews in OT, is just primary school pupil in this branch.

    675 52/36c: "Nay, they (non-Muslims*) have no faith!" F.x. the Jews in and around Medina in very many cases had so firm belief, that they preferred to flee or to be murdered instead of to leave their belief - - - whereas Muslims in similar situations use al-Taqiyya (lawful lie), etc., which at least do not indicate any stronger belief. The Jews faced the consequences to stand by their belief also in danger, Muslims flee the consequences in dangerous positions by lying and pretending - al-Taqiyya, etc. Who had the strongest belief?

    ##676 54/51a: "And (oft) in the past have We (Allah*) destroyed gangs like onto you (the people of Mecca in this case*) - - -". A pep-talk - good words to hear for his followers in lean times like it was for Muslims around 614 AD when this surah was made. Besides: All the destruction and killing Muhammad boasts about to enlarge the picture of his claimed god, show the Yahweh with his puny wars to establish and defend a country for the Jews, was just an immature trainee in the business of war and killing - a bit sobering for some anti-Christians and anti-Jews talking about Yahweh's warlike sides for a period (and never even mentioning that his period of war was restricted both in area and time). For Allah the "land of war" is all the non-Muslim countries and areas, and lasting until the last non-Muslim is subdued. And remember: These are not antique words of the old - this always was and still is the official policy of Islam today.

    677 56/13-14: "A number of people from those of the old, and a few from those of the later times (will go to Paradise*)". One more unclear point in the Quran; what does this refer to? Some Muslims say it refers to the claimed many Muslim prophets in what was the old times for Allah, compared to only Muhammad and his men in "later times (f.x. YA5228). Others say that it refers to the claimed "fact" that belief - Islam - was strong in the really old time, but that man's belief and moral standard is reduced progressively through history (f.x. A56/4) - this in spite of the real fact that none has found any traces of something like Islam older than 610 AD, when Muhammad started his teaching. The nearest were the Jews and the Christians, but especially NT is fundamentally so different from the Quran - and not falsified in spite of Muhammad's never documented claims - that there is no way Yahweh and Allah can be the same god, unless he is strongly schizophrenic.

    678 57/16e: "- - - those who were given Revelations (here the Bible*) aforetime - - -". The Jews and Christians mainly.

    #679 57/16f: "- - - their (Jews', Christians', and Sabeans'*) hearts grew hard - - -". The underlying meaning here is that Muhammad claimed they took the copy he claimed they had got of the claimed "mother Book" in heaven (of which the Quran is claimed to be an exact copy), and falsified it into the Bible. We may add that the claim that the Bible is falsified, long since is proved false both by science and even more so by Islam, by their inability to find one single proved falsification among all the some 45ooo relevant manuscripts and fragments older than 610 AD. ####They mainly are circumstantial proofs, but they are so many, and many of them so strong that put together they make mathematical strength proofs.

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

    680 57/29b: "- - - they (Jews/Christians*) have no power whatsoever over the Grace of Allah - - -". This is of no consequence as they are only seeking the grace of Yahweh.

    681 58/8d: "- - - they (according to claims some Jews*) salute thee (Muhammad*), not as Allah salutes thee - - -". It is told that some Jews when they met Muhammad, did not use the normal word "salaam", but instead the word "sam" somewhat unclearly pronounced so that it could be understood like "salaam". "Sam" means "death" or "destruction".

    682 59/2a: “It is He (Allah*) Who got out the Unbelievers (the Jewish tribe Banu al-Nadir*) amongst the People of the Book from their homes at the first gathering (of the forces).” This was an expulsion of non-Arabs (Jews) from Medina, after Muhammad found an excuse to act against them – Muhammad actually wanted to kill them, but one of the Arab tribes who had a covenant with some of them, made that impossible for him the first time – he still was not strong enough military. This happened shortly after the battle of Badr in 624 AD. It was one of Muhammad’s first step towards becoming economically really self-sufficient as he “took over” all their land, etc., and an essential step towards absolute power in Medina. Here it is treated as a laudable, glorious act. "It is the winner who writes the history - and he sometimes color it".

    683 59/2d: "- - - they (the expelled Jews*) destroyed their dwellings with their own hands - - -". They had to leave Medina, but Muhammad was forced to let them take with them everything they could bring on their camels. They naturally packed everything they had, but they also took the sills over doors and windows. These were from wooden planks, and wooden planks were valuable in the desert (there is hardly any forest in Arabia - scrub, but little or no forest), and also there most likely was a lot of natural spite - but the result was that parts of the houses fell down. We may add that many from Banu al-Nadir settled around Khaybar, where Muhammad found them when he attacked Khaybar some 3 years later.

    684 59/3b: "- - - in the Hereafter they (the Jews from the tribe Banu al-Nadir) shall (certainly) have the Punishment of the Fire". See 3/77b above.

    685 59/11d: "- - - they (the hypocrites in Medina*) are indeed liars". According to Muslim sources, the first Jews had from the old a truce with one or more Arab tribes (there had been a kind of civil war more or less in Medina, and there were truces between different tribes). These Arabs did not help them when they (Banu al Nadir) were attacked, but they prevented that they were murdered.

    Also it is a bit ironic when the Quran slanders non-Muslims for being liers, as Islam is the only one of the major religions which accepts and in some cases even glorifies the use of dishonesty, betrayal, etc. - even broken/disused oaths (2/225, 3/54, 5/89, 16/91, 66/2). Even among the many small religions we can remember to have read about similar moral codes only in a primitive pagan religion in old New Guinea.

    686 59/13a: “Of a truth ye (Muslim warriors*) are stronger (than they (the “infidel” Jews in this case*)) because of the terror in their hearts, (sent) by Allah.” It is good psychology that your warriors believe the enemy is weak and also that the enemy is frightened. This claim that non-Muslims have a terror or an illness “in their hearts” often is repeated by Muhammad – partly as pep-talk to his warriors, and partly to stigmatize non-Muslims as low quality in the eyes of all his followers.

    687 59/13da: "- - - they (the Jews in Medina*) are men devoid of understanding". Pep talk and slander.

    688 59/15a: "- - - those (Banu Quinuqa*) who lately preceded them (Banu al-Nadir*) - - -". This refers to the Jewish tribe Banu Qainuqa (Banu = tribe), which some time before (624 AD) was banished from Medina (most of them ended in Syria, where they over some generations were assimilated by the locals) - Banu Nadir did not understand that that eviction just was first chapter, as Muhammad wanted to get rid of the Jews because they did not believe in him and had a strongly negative influence on the propagating of his religion.

    689 59/23a: "Allah is He, then Whom there is no other god - - -". There at least is the problem with Yahweh - Both the Quran and the Bible claim that the old god of the Jews both exists and has proved his existence - and it is clear that the Muslim never documented explanation (Allah = Yahweh) is wrong (too fundamentally different teachings). And there is the problem with Allah - he has never proved anything, not even his existence (there only are words from a dubious man and self proclaimed "messenger").

    690 61/5c: “- - - I (Moses*) am the Messenger of Allah (sent) to you (Jews*) - - -.” Allah or Yahweh? The Quran uses the name Allah for the god of the old Jews many places, claiming it is the same god. Often we have not “arrested” it, but the claim is not correct, as the teachings basically are far too different. Simply contradicted by the Bible. 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.

    ***691 61/6d: “- - - (Jesus said*) I am the Messenger of Allah - - -”. Contradicted by the Bible and by reality. If Jesus had said something like this about the known polytheistic god al-Lah from a not too distant foreign country, for one thing he had not got many followers, and for another: The clergy had at once had had an excuse for having him killed – and long before they really did. This verse is composed by someone not knowing the religious and political realities in Israel around 30 AD. Similar claims in 4/157 - 5/72 – 5/117. 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 remember that we now are in times of written history. There were no book like the Quran, no god like Allah, and no religion like Islam anywhere in or near the Roman Empire (of which Israel was a part) at the time of Jesus - not until more than 600 years later. But we know for sure that at that time Yahweh and the Mosaic religion ruled the Jews at that time. The Quran is very wrong here - documented by written history.

    ###692 61/6i: (YA5436): "The mission of Jesus was to his own people, the Jews". This is a claim you often and with strength meet from many Muslims and from the official Islam - and it is quite possible to find quotes from the Bible seemingly confirming this claim - - - if you cherry-pick your quotes and omit the point which very clearly tell a different story, the most central of which in this connection we think is his final order to his disciples - never mentioned by Muslims or by Islam: "All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me. Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father (God/Yahweh*) and of the Son (Jesus*) and the Holy Spirit, and teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you". (Matt.28/18-20 - similar in Mark 16/15-16 and Luke 24/47. There are more such indications in the Bible - even a few in OT. But in Islam the main "moral aspect" is not to find the truth, but to defend what they on beforehand believe is the truth, even by means of lies and by lies of omission - the reign of al-Taqiyya (the lawful lie), etc. in cases where "it is necessary" to win the "points" - not to find out what is the truth, but to win the "points".

    Some Muslims use the argument that Jesus only worked in Israel ("forgetting" about Samaria). But in the same way Muhammad only worked in Arabia.

    693 61/14c: “- - - said Jesus - - - to the Disciples,’ Who will be my helpers to (the work of) Allah?’” If Jesus had said this about a known pagan god in a neighboring country (al-Lah in Arabia), he for one thing had got few followers, and for another had been killed by the Jewish clergy much earlier. Contradicted by reality. Also see 61/6a-f + 3/51 in the full list in "1000+ Mistakes in the Quran". Similar claim in 3/52.

    But of course the disciples – also here according to the Quran - were good Muslims. Also see 67/9c below - a strong one. But of course it is ok for Islam to prove - prove - the Bible wrong and the Quran right. But as we say: Prove, not just loose claims and as loose and invalid words like the Quran always use instead of proofs. ###Also remember that we now are in times of written history, and we know for sure there was no book like the Quran, no god like Allah and no religion like Islam anywhere in that area - and we know for as sure that the religion of the Jews at that time was a strong Mosaic (Jewish) one. The Quran is totally wrong here.

    694 61/14g: "- - - We (Allah) gave power to those who believed - - - and they became the ones who preveiled". Wrong as far as the "Sons of Israel" go. Just a minor percent of them believed in Jesus - the great majority stayed - and stay - on in the Mosaic religion. The Christian religion expanded in the pagan areas, but not much in Israel/Judah. (But beware of that depending on what time-span you choose, it is easy to claim that the Jews lost Israel - or regained it).

    695 62/5b: "The similitude of those (Jews*) who were charged with the (obligations of the) Mosaic Law, but who subsequently failed in those (obligations), is that of a donkey which carries huge tomes (but understands them not". A much better story for Muhammad to tell than to admit the plain truth: The real reason was that most Jews saw something was very wrong in Muhammad's tales.

    696 62/5d: "- - - (the Jews*) who subsequently failed in those (obligations (to keep the Mosaic religion a pure and clean Islam according to Muhammad*)) - - -". Here once more is Muhammad's claim that the Bible is falsified. The claim is thoroughly proved wrong by science and even more so by Islam, both being unable to find one single falsified relevant manuscript among the many thousands which exist. Not one - and the best proof for this, is Islam's silence on this point.

    697 62/6a: "- - - Judaism - - -". A time anomaly. We may mention that the name derives from the name Judah, one of the 12 sons of the Jewish patriarch Jacob (Jacob was renamed Israel by Yahweh according to the Bible (1.Mos. 32/28)). It became the name of the tribe descending from him, and later the name of the southern country of the Jews (the northern one was called Israel), and finally the name Jews derives from it).

    698 62/6b: "(Jews)! If ye think ye are friends to Allah - - -". There hardly is a Jew thinking he is a friend to Allah - they think, or hope, they are friend to Yahweh - in spite of Muhammad's repeated, but as normal for him never proved claims, the two are not the same god.

    ###699 62/6c: “- - - then express your desire for Death, if ye are truthful!” An impossible demand for pious Jews and Christians: For one thing life has its values for everybody. More essential for them: Life is a gift from Yahweh/God – to wish to end it is to diminish a gift from Him. Most serious: To willfully end your own life, is a sin so grave that it automatically sends you to Hell.

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

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

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

    700 62/7b: "But never will they (Jews*) express their desire (for Death), because of the (deeds) their (Jews, Christians*) hands have sent before them (bad deeds they have done*)!" Muhammad either believes or pretends to believe in this wrong presumption - but see 62/6b above. Anyhow it is psychologically a good argument for inducing distaste for them in his followers.

    701 62/7c: "- - - the (deeds) their (here Jews*) hands have sent before them - - -". This is a Muslim expression for (the balance of) your good and bad deeds on this earth which the god will judge you from when he decides whether to send you to Heaven or Hell at the Day of Doom. The underlying meaning in just this case is that the Jews are so big sinners, that they will end in Hell.

    702 64/12d: "- - - the duty of Our (Allah's*) Messenger (Muhammad*) is but to proclaim (the Message) clearly and openly". You bet that this verse was abrogated and killed when he - and his successors - became military strong enough to force Islam on the "infidels"!!! - especially on the pagans, but there also are many ugly stories of treatment of Jews and Christians - "Let there be no compulsion in religion" also is an abrogated verse, except in al-Taqiyya-dominated propaganda (well, some of the lay Muslims may perhaps honestly believe it, but not one single Muslim scholar - among them the verses which abrogate this one - 2/256 - are too well known (f. x. 9/5, but there are some 30 different verses which each and every of them abrogate 2/256 - all the same all Muslims use it as a flagship for how tolerant Islam is).

    703 66/12e: "- - - her (Mary's*) Lord (god*) - - -". The Quran claims that Mary believed in Allah. If you know nothing about Israel at that time, you of course are free to believe it. But it is strongly contradicted by the Bible, which says her god was Yahweh, not Allah. We also now are far enough into the twilight of history to know that it is highly unlikely that any Jews believed in al-Lah/Allah or in a religion like Islam around year 0 BC/AD (or really around ca. 5 BC, as our year numbers are not 100% correct - they made a mistake when they calculated the year of the birth of Jesus, when they started to recon time from his birth). No Allah or Quran or Islam involved in Israel at the time of Jesus according to historical science. Also see 67/9c below - a strong one. But of course it is ok for Islam to prove - prove - the Bible wrong and the Quran right. But as we say: Prove, not just loose claims and as loose and invalid words like the Quran always use instead of proofs.

    ####It is a scientific and indisputable fact that neither science nor Islam has found any traces from a book like the Quran, a religion like Islam or a god like al-Lah/Allah in Israel - or any other place - around year 0. (Except the polytheistic version in Arabia of course.)

    704 68/37: "Or have ye (non-Muslims, except "the People of the Book" - Jews and Christians*) a Book through which ye learn - - -". Muhammad long had a minority feeling because "the People of the Book" - Jews and Christians - had a holy book, whereas he and his people had not. This meant much as the surahs piled up and could be called a book. This may have connection to the respect books had among the uneducated ones in many cultures - what was written, had to be true (cfr. the opening words when reading often used by priests in many countries: "It is written - - -"). The uneducated masses did not understand that it is as easy to lie on paper as by mouth.

    705 72/7d: (A72/5): "The overwhelming majority of the Jews were convinced that no prophet would be raised after those who were explicitly mentioned in the Old Testament: hence their rejection of Jesus and, of course, Muhammad - - -". This is utterly wrong, even according to the Quran and Islam itself. It is very clearly foretold in the OT that a mighty prophet - the Messiah (Christ in Greek) - should come once upon a time. This is very well known also in Islam, as they use f.x. Moses' words about a future prophet "like himself" in 5.Mos. 18/15 and 18/18 to claim foretelling about Muhammad - so intensely well known in Islam that there is no chance Mr. Asad did not know about it - the claim simply is one of the al-Taqiyyas (lawful lies) in Islam. It also is a school example of the many cases where Muslims tries to "explain" away things by "explaining" one or some aspect(s) of something, but forget that other texts or even facts kills the "explanation". Sometimes - like here - such tries are perfectly helpless. It also is one of the many examples of the degree of honesty among at least some Muslim scholars.

    ###The reason why the Jews rejected Jesus was that he was so very different from the mighty king they had dreamt of, the mighty king who should throw out the Romans for them. Why they did not accept Muhammad is even more easy to see - Muhammad and his god and religion were so far out compared to both the OT and NT that no somewhat learned person with a minimum of brain would be able to believe that Muhammad "confirmed" Yahweh or Jesus or their teaching. It neither was nor is possible that Yahweh and Allah are the same god - not unless he is strongly schizophrenic.

    706 72/8c: (A71/6): “And we pried into the secrets of heaven: but found it filled with stern guards and flaming fires (shooting stars*)”. The majority of Muslims think this refers to jinns trying to spy on Heaven. But then there are the other possible explanations according to Muslims: That it refers to the Jews and their “haughty” belief in security and special treatments because the belief that they were “Yahweh’s chosen people” (why do the Quran – and Muslims – never mention that the real reason for this belief was the fact that they believed they had a covenant with Yahweh? – a covenant mistreated and broken, but never terminated.) Or to the Jews’ special interest for astrology – a special interest not known to anyone but Muslims. This is one more place where multiple meanings may have come into existence more from wishful slander-like thinking, than from real linguistic problems - - - but they are as real as long as Muslims believe in them.

    707 73/20f: "- - - fighting in Allah's cause - - -". One of the at least 200% proofs for that Yahweh and Allah are not the same god. Even in the centuries when the Jews fought wars - mainly (not exclusively, but mainly) from Joshua around 1195 BC and some centuries on - it was to establish and later defend a country for the Jews, NOT for the sake of the god. And to try to compare it with NT, is a waste of time. "Islam, the Religion of Peace" - is it a slogan based on al-Taqiyya (the lawful lie) or an unintended black joke?

    708 79/16: "- - - the sacred valley of Tuwa - - -". The Bible (2. Mos. 3/1) only tells it was near Mt. Horeb (likely another name for Mt. Sinai (according to Islam 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 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)). As the Quran is not from a god, and as the Bible is the only source for information about Moses, from where did Muhammad get this extra piece of information?

    #709 87/19d: "The books of Moses - - -". (YA6095): "The original Revelation of Moses, of which the Present Pentateuch (the 5 books of Moses*) is a surviving recension - - -". This deserves no comment, except that it is written by the same man who wrote the comment in 87/19b above. For your information: He is reckoned to be a top scholar and writer in Islam. When he writes things like this, how serious are then the lesser Muslim scholars?

    ###We may add that even the oldest copies and fragment of what often is called "the Books of Moses" or "the Pentateuch" are more or less identical to the present ones (there may be minimal differences a few places because they are copied by hand, and then such things can happen). And as essential: There never was found even one fragment from those books with contents close to that in the Quran - Muhammad claimed the Bible originally was similar to the Quran, but falsified by the bad Jews and Christians. (It was his only way to explain away the differences between what he told the Bible said - he took his material from verbal legends, fairy tales etc. - and what the Bible really said.) This never proved - very normal for Muhammad and for Islam - claim from Muhammad and from the Quran simply is wrong, unless Islam proves - proves - the opposite.

    Facts according to science: Moses according to the Bible had one book - the so-called "Book of Covenance" - in practice the law. The Pentateuch - what we call "the Books of Moses" were written centuries later and not earlier than around 800 BC and not later than around 500 BC (Moses lived around 1300-1200 BC). "The Book of Covenance" is mentioned a few times through the centuries in the Bible, but there never even is hinted that Moses had other books. There even is specified that when Solomon had the Ark of Covenance installed in his new temple, there were no books in it, only the 2 stone tablets (1. Kings 8/9). It is told that Book of the Law was refound (2. Kings 22/8) but no other relevant book is ever mentioned in the Bible - and no other place ever - - - except by Muhammad. And Muhammad like normal never was able to prove anything essential about his claims.

    710 98/4a: "Nor did the People of the Book make schisms, until after there came to them Clear Evidence (there is some disagreement about this sentence among Muslim scholars, but generally they agree on that what is meant, is the Quran*)". Islam had better prove this claim, because it is historical facts that there were schisms within both Jews and Christians, not to mention between those groups long before Muhammad and his Quran.

    ###711 98/5a: "And they (the people of the Bible - Jews, Christians, Sabeans*) have been commanded (by Muhammad*) no more than this: to worship Allah, offering Him (Allah*) sincere devotion, being true (in faith (Islam*)), to establish regular Prayer (to Allah*) - - -". We do not think these demands on believing (in Yahweh) people knowing how much was wrong in the Quran - or at least some of it - and thus knowing that this was a made up, new religion, based on a well known, but dressed up pagan god (al-Lah), need any comments.

    712 98/6c: "- - - the People of the Book - - -". Jews, Christians and Sabeans - mainly the two first.

    712 + 3862 = 4574 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".