Humans, Other Beings in/Relevant to the Quran, Part 26

 

160.   MAGICIANS OF RAMSES II

Muhammad sometimes explained away his lack of proofs for his religion by claiming that proofs - f.x. miracles - would not make anybody believe anyhow. His tales about Pharaoh Ramses II's magicians prove he knew he was lying when he used such "explanations" for his lack of proofs. One small proof (26/45-46) was all it took to make such ultra-pagans believers in Moses' god.

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

###001 6/109i: “- - - what will make you (Muslims) realize that (even) if (special) Signs came, they (non-Muslims*) will not believe?” Wrong. If there were real proofs of a god - miracles - at least a good number of people would believe - that is a psychological fact (look f.x. at the Pharaoh’s magicians and at the results of Jesus' miracles). The sentence really is fast-talking to “explain” away why Allah/Muhammad was unable to produce unmistakable proofs for Allah. Worse: An intelligent man like Muhammad knew this argument is a lie - and all the same he used it frequently. This simply is one of the places in the Quran where Muhammad knew he was lying.

002 7/146f: “- - - even if they (non-Muslims*) see all the Signs (of Allah*), they will not believe in them”. Wrong: They would - - - if the “signs” of Allah really had been real signs of Allah. F.x. see the pharaoh’s magicians. This is one more place Muhammad knew he was lying - some reliable signs, and a lot of people will believe. Muhammad was too intelligent and knew too much about people not to know this. But NB: Only in the case of reliable signs.

##003 13/1f: “- - - the Book: that which hath been revealed unto thee (Muhammad*) from thy Lord (Allah*) - - - “. That is the question, to quote Hamlet: Did a god really produce and reveal a book with that many mistakes, contradictions, and invalid “proofs“? No. And when no god revealed it, he also did not reveal it to Muhammad.

An alternative is that the Devil impersonated Gabriel and in other cases told Muhammad “by inspiration”, and that it thus was revealed to him, but from dark forces. Another alternative is that it all stems from a sick brain – TLE (Temporal Lobe Epilepsy) + lust for power may easily explain everything. Yet another alternative is that it was not revealed, but made up – the fact that many of the mistakes which are in accordance with the wrong science of the time and area of Muhammad, and also the fact that Muhammad was not stupid enough to believe everything that is said in the Quran, may indicate that it is made up. (As for the last argument: F.x. the claim that miracles would not make some people believe, Muhammad was too intelligent and knew too much about people to believe himself – and f.x. Jesus was a good proof of the opposite: A lot did not believe in spite of everything, but quite a number came to believe because of what they saw and heard and witnessed. The same was the conclusion of the story that Muhammad himself told about the magicians of Pharaoh Ramses II and Moses: They came (according to Muhammad’s own words) to believe after a small miracle.) For similar also see 2/231 – 3/3 – 4/136 – 5/48 – 5/59 - 5/64 – 5/67 – 6/7 – 7/2 – 7/3 – 10/2 – 13/19 – 16/89 – 18/1 - 16/102 – 25/33 – 27/6 – 33/2 – 34/6 – 35/24 – 35/31 – 39/2 - 47/2.

Thus to repeat:

An alternative is that the f.x. the Devil impersonated Gabriel and in other cases told Muhammad “by inspiration” what thus was "revealed" to him. The inhumanity of the religion would then be explained. Personally we doubt this explanation, if for no other reason, then because even a devil would not make so many mistakes, contradictions, etc. in the Quran - he simply would not want to be found out by his victims sooner or later. There is one possibility, though: If Iblis - the Islamic Devil - got permission from Allah for trying to lure more humans to Hell only on the condition that the trap should be one which was easy for thinking persons to see, then all the mistakes may be explained. To be flippant: May be the god did not want too many too stupid humans into his Paradise?

Another alternative is that it all stems from a sick brain – TLE (Temporal Lobe Epilepsy) + lust for power may easily explain everything. In this case Muhammad may have believed at least partly in his own tales and religion.

Yet another alternative is that it was not revealed, but made up in cold blood. The fact that many of the mistakes are in accordance with the wrong science of the time and area of Muhammad, and also the fact that Muhammad was not stupid enough to believe everything that is said in the Quran, may indicate that it is made up. In this case it may have been made up of one (or more) helper like many of his contemporaries suspected, or by himself - the last is most likely, at least for parts of it.

As for the last argument: F.x. that miracles would not make some people believe, Muhammad was too intelligent and knew too much about people to believe himself – f.x. like said Jesus was a good proof of the opposite: A lot did not believe in spite of everything, but quite a number came to believe because of what they saw and witnessed. The same was the conclusion of the story that Muhammad himself told about the magicians and Moses: They came (according to Muhammad’s own words) to believe after a small miracle.

No book of a quality like the Quran is from any god - not even from a newborn dwarf god.

004 15/14+15: “- - - They would only say (when experiencing a miracle*): ‘Our eyes have been intoxicated - - -”. Wrong. At least some had come to believe. These two verses are a piece of fast-talk. There is some fast-talking in the Quran - trying to explain away things and facts and ideas and not least questions which are difficult to explain or answer. See the chapter about fast talk in the Quran. And there are even more fast-talk among Muslims today, trying to explain away mistakes, abrogation, changes in Islam around 622, etc., not to mention trying to present Islam as a peaceful religion. Just in this case one tries to explain away questions for proofs for Allah and for Muhammad's connection to a god.

#####But the really bad thing about this point is that it is one of the points where Muhammad himself knew he was lying – at least some would believe in Islam if he produced miracles or could in other ways prove his claims. He was too intelligent and knew too much about people not to know this – this even more so as he himself told about heathens becoming Muslims after they had experienced miracles (f.x. the magicians of Pharaoh), and he also had a good example in Jesus who got many believers from making miracles – some refused to believe no matter, but quite a number of others did after miracles made by Jesus (made also according to the Quran).

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

#####005 20/69-70a: The magicians of the pharaoh all became Muslims when they saw Moses performing real miracles. All the same the Quran - and Muhammad - repeats and repeats and repeats that the reason why Muhammad was unable to perform miracles, included making real prophesies, was that nobody would believe anyhow. This is one of the scenes which make it clear that Muhammad knew he was lying each time he used those excuses and “explanations”. That no-one would believe if they witnessed miracles, contradicts all psychological knowledge – strengthened by the fact that Muhammad himself told it worked. He also knew at least some of the miracles Jesus performed, and all the followers they brought him. Contradiction both of Muhammad's intelligence - he was too intelligent not to know it was a lie - of reality, and of science.

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

006 20/69-70b: The magicians of the pharaoh all became Muslims when they saw Moses performing real miracles. Not in the Bible. See 20/57b+c above.

##007 20/70a: “So the magician were thrown down to prostration (because Moses had done a real miracle*): they said: ‘We believe in the Lord of Aaron and Moses (because they had seen the miracle*).” But Muhammad contradicted this effect:

###*Muhammad many times in the Quran explains that the reason for that he/Allah would/will make no miracles, was that it would not make anyone believe anyhow – AND HERE ALL THE MAGICIANS BECAME BELIEVERS BECAUSE OF JUST ONE SMALL MIRACLE. (This is one of the reasons why one knows Muhammad knew he was lying each time he used the excuse that miracles would not make anyone believe anyhow – he had himself here told that miracles worked, and this was as early as ca. 615 - 616 AD, which means he told this before he told most of his claims that miracles would not work. There thus is no doubt that he knew he was lying - but then to be dishonest when defending or promoting Islam is not a sin in Islam - cfr. the rules for al-Taqiyya (lawful lie), etc.)

##########But when he lied about this, how much more did he lie about in the Quran? - not to mention in Hadiths?

(At least 5 contradictions).

008 20/70b: "- - - they said: ‘We (the magicians*) believe in the Lord of Aaron and Moses - - -". Not from the Bible. See 20/49b above.

009 20/71b: "Surely this (Moses*) must be your (magicians'*) leader - - -". Here something is wrong. Moses had grown up in the same circles as the pharaoh (Ramses II). Ramses knew him and his history and knew he had been far away for 40 years (though unspecified in the Quran - much is lacking of information in the Quran; a hallmark on medium and low quality literature. A good writer also knows his details - just see the difference between a good writer and a piece in a young girls' romantic magazine (as literature much of the Quran is not of higher standard than that, even though the language itself is polished and thus likely better in the original - but that does not make it better as literature)).

010 20/71c: "- - - I (Ramses II*) will cut off your (the magicians*) hands and feet on opposite sides - - -". If our sources are correct, Egypt at that time did not use this Arabian kind of punishment.

*011 20/71d: “- - - I (Pharaoh Ramses II*) will have you (the magicians*) crucified - - -”. If not our sources are very wrong, Egypt at that time did not crucify people.

012 20/72b: "Never shall we (the magicians*) regard thee (Ramses II*) as more than the Clear Signs - - - etc." Not in the Bible - just like much more in this story (we do not comment on all of it). See 20/57b+c above.

013 20/72c: "- - - Him (here indicated Allah*) who created us (the magicians of Ramses II*) - - -". See 6/2b above and 21/56c below.

014 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. Yahweh might have been possible - information from the Jews - but not Allah.

015 20/73b: "- - - may He (Allah*) forgive us (the magicians of Ramses II*) our faults - - -". All the other things aside; Allah only can forgive if he exists and is a real god.

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

016 26/40b: "- - - that we (the Egyptians*) may follow the sorcerers (in religion) if they win?" Such a demand is nonsense compared to what we know about the religion of Egypt at that time. It also is psychological nonsense - it takes more than this to make the whole population of a country change religion (if the "wrong" part won). For one thing it had fundamental grips on the population - even a royal decree about changing to another religion would not work - see Akn-Aton's try even if that was not just at this time (pharaoh 1372 - 1355 BC). And for another the magicians would have the same religion as the people, so why then a silly demand like this? (Some Muslims claims it is meant the forwarding of the worship of the pharaoh, but the pharaoh was not the main god in Egypt.)

15 + 5098 = 5113 comments (+ basic comments/introductions).


 

161.   MAGOG (OF GOG AND MAGOG)

See the chapter about Gog.

0 + 5113 = 5113 comments (+ basic comments/introductions).


 

162.   MALIK IBN AUF AL-NASTRI

Chief for the Arab Hawazin tribe.

0 + 5113 = 5113 comments (+ basic comments/introductions).


 

163.   MANAT - ONE OF THE 3 MAIN GODDESSES IN THE OLD ARABIA

The old Mecca had hundreds of gods, with al-Lah for the main one, but quite closely followed by his claimed 3 daughters, al-Lah, al Uzza, and Manat.

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

For comments see al-Lat under L. (The 3 mostly were treated together in the Quran.)

0 + 5113 = 5113 comments (+ basic comments/introductions).


 

164.   MANKIND

- the relationship to Allah(?)

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

001 2/33e: "- - - I (Allah*) know what ye reveal and what ye conceal- - -". According to the Quran Allah knows absolutely everything. But why then 2/233h or below? But also see 35/38b below.

002 2/36a: "Get ye down, all (ye people)- - -". Here is a mystery: Arab is one of the languages which has singular, dual or Latin "dualis" (when speaking about/to 2), and plural. Here the Quran do not use dual, even though both the Bible and the Quran speaks only about 2 persons - it uses plural, which in Arab means at least 3 persons (and the words even indicate a group). From where did the others come? - or did Muhammad make a slip? - and in case: How many more slips are there in the book? (Some Arab sources "forget" to mention this mistake, others "explain" that the meaning is "all mankind" - but that is not what the Quran says.)

003 2/36b: "- - - with enmity between yourselves (humans*)". Contradiction to the Bible. The Bible says enmity between humans and the snake (who was the partner(?) of the devil in making Eve take fruits from the forbidden tree). If Islam claims there only were 2 persons, this means there were enmity between Adam and Eve - no source indicates this - - - and there hardly had been children if the two were enemies.

004 2/161b: "Those who reject Faith, and die rejecting - on them is Allah's curse, and the curse of angels, and of all mankind". For the ones of these who believe in the Bible, the Bible strongly contradicts this, as it tells that instead to believe in the Bible, is the road to salvation.

005 2/161e: "- - - and (the curse) of all mankind". Wrong: At most the curse of all Muslims - and if Islam is a made up religion with a made up god, such a curse is invalid.

006 2/185e: "- - - (the Quran is) a guide to mankind - - -". A book with that much errors, that partly immoral moral code, and that harsh a war religion, is neither a good nor a reliable guide - this even more so as no god ever sent down a book of a quality like the Quran.

007 2/213a: “Mankind was one single nation - - -.” Mankind never was a single nation. Some 160ooo-200ooo (195ooo?) years ago PERHAPS one tribe, as there then seems to have been a "bottleneck" when humans nearly died out, but never one nation - and absolutely not within these last few millennia. Contradicting all scientific knowledge concerning this.

008 2/221h: “But Allah - - - makes his Signs clear to mankind - - -“. There is not one clear sign – proof for Allah or for Muhammad's connection to a god – in the entire Quran or elsewhere, as it nowhere is proved that Allah makes the signs. See 2/39b above.

009 3/9a: "Thou (Allah*) art He that will gather mankind together against a Day about which there is no doubt - - -". Often claimed, never documented - only words and claims in a book where very much is wrong.

010 3/9b: "Thou (Allah*) art He that will gather mankind together against a Day about which there is no doubt - - -". Contradicted by the Bible, which says this will be done by Yahweh. 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.

011 3/21e: "- - - those - - - who slay the prophets, and slay those who teach just dealing with mankind - - -" = 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's "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 centers in what we call the Middle East simply were destroyed as centers for 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.

012 3/22b: "They (non-Muslims*) are those whose work will bear no fruit in this world and in the Hereafter - - -." Wrong. At least in this world history has shown the Quran very wrong on this point - all real progress for mankind in this world for hundreds of years have come from outside the Muslim area. As for the possible next world, we have no real knowledge - beliefs and even strong beliefs and beliefs in many directions and religions included Islam, yes, but no real knowledge. It must also be mentioned that "knowledge" is a very weighty word which everybody wants connected to themselves. You see this in the obvious way also the Quran and Islam try to high-jack the word: If they have no real knowledge based on discovered facts, they try to tell that strong ideas, strong beliefs, strong wishful thinking = knowledge. Because somebody you believe in have told you so, you call things "knowledge" - without checking if it is true, they claim "instinctive 'knowledge'" (= thoughts or conclusions corresponding with your own ideas - much stressed by f.x. Islam), and also other names of non-scientific "knowledge". You even frequently meet the claim that this kind of "knowledge" is the real knowledge, and that scientific knowledge is something suspect - a point of view often peddled by f.x. religious groups where science shows they are on thin ice or wrong on some or many points - like Islam. Muslims is one of the groups who pooh-pooh fact based science, because such science often shows Islam to be wrong (cfr. all the mistakes, etc. in the Quran, or f.x. al-Ghazali's ideas of a good intellectual culture) - a pose it is not too difficult to defend because in the forefront of science there always will emerge theories which later turns out to be wrong - science checks and corrects and goes on, but the ones who cling to their own ideas, picks up the discarded wrong theories:"This was wrong and this was wrong and this was wrong - that means all was and is wrong, but our never checked ideas or wishful thinking are right!"

They NEVER mention the simple fact that a scientist simply is a person knowing much about what he is talking about, and that mostly he, therefore, is right.

013 3/25a: "- - - We (Allah*) gather them (mankind) together against a Day about which there is no doubt - - -". Often claimed, never documented - only words and claims in a book where very much is wrong.

014 3/25b: "- - - We (Allah*) gather them (mankind) together against a Day about which there is no doubt - - -". Contradicting by the Bible, where it is Yahweh who does this.

*015 3/83a: “- - - all creatures (= angels, jinns, man and animals*) in the heavens (plural and wrong*) and on the earth have, willing or unwilling bowed to His (Allah’s*) will (accepted Islam)”. Muslims will have to produce very strong proofs to make us believe that everything, included snails and flatworms and mosquitoes have accepted Islam and pray to Allah.

016 3/87b: "- - - on them (who left/leave*) (rests) the curse of Allah, of His angels, and of all mankind". We cannot tell about the effect on Allah and his claimed angels - except that it is none if Allah is a made up, pagan god. But even though this verse primarily talks about people leaving Islam, it may sometimes have weighed heavily for Muslims starting horrors also against other non-Muslims. (Muslims often complain about the crusaders, but holy Heaven how much worse and on how much greater scale they behaved themselves - f.x. in Armenia, Africa, Sind (now approximately Pakistan) and India.)

Muslims also like to claim that nobody leaves Islam (it many places carry strict punishment or death to do so). This is one of the many proofs for that this neither is nor was true. Not to mention that the majority of mankind agree with the ones leaving a war, suppressing, hate, and blood religion based only on a book full of errors and worse, and dictated by a man who provably (from the Quran) believed in the use of dishonesty, deceit, broken words, etc., and with much to gain by making people believe in his new religion and platform of power, and a man who provably (from the Quran) liked respect, power, riches for bribes - and women. A most saintly and reliable (re?)teller of the book.

017 3/87d: "- - - on them (who leave Islam*) (rests) the curse - - - of all mankind - - -". What Muslim can co-exist with such ones? And: No compulsion in religion?

018 3/87da: "- - - on them (who leave Islam*) (rests) the curse - - - of all mankind - - -". Wrong - there definitely does not rest the curse of all mankind on the ones leaving Islam. Intelligence and brave deeds normally are respected.

#####019 3/110a: “Ye (Muslims*) are the best of peoples, evolved for mankind - - -”. It is not possible to disbelieve that Muslims are the top of existing humans and human societies, as the Quran says so - and not one believing Muslim seems to be aware of how cheap words are. It also is strengthening the picture of non-Muslims as vermin or at least sub-human. In North Pakistan some time ago there was a debate: Has a non-Muslim half the value of a Muslim or less?

###020 3/110b: “Ye (Muslims*) are the best of peoples, evolved for mankind - - -”. If the Muslims were evolved for the good of mankind, they were rather lazy for last 800 years - the culture stagnated around 1100 AD, and after that nothing which could benefit mankind came from Muslims until well into the 1900s (and much/most of what came before, came not because of Islam, but in spite of Islam).

They later also stagnated in military power. The Great Siege of Malta (18. May to 8. September 1565 AD), and shortly after (7. October 1571 AD) the Battle of Lepanto - at sea - broke the Muslim hegemony in the Mediterranean. Well, they rebuilt their some 210 lost ships, and for a few years expanded some. But they had lost too many experienced sailors and too many experienced warriors in those to and some other battles, and the effort to rebuild and man the fleet overreached the Muslims power - from 1580 AD their power in the Mediterranean area quickly decreased - a lot of piracy, but the military dominance decreased.

021 4/1a: “O mankind! Reverence your Guardian-Lord (Allah*)- - -". He is no guardian if he does not exist or if he is not a major god - Islam will have to prove so. And even if he exists, he is no guardian like the Quran claims, unless he is behind the stories in the Quran, and unless the Quran in addition tells the full and only truth about this. And no omniscient god is behind a book as full of mistakes, etc. as the Quran.

022 4/1b: “Reverence your Guardian-Lord, who created you (people*) - - - “. Man was not created, according to science, but developed from earlier primates. Besides: Even if man had been created, Islam has never brought a proof for that he was created by a god (not by f.x. a devil), and neither for that the god in case was Allah.

023 4/1c: “- - - created you from a single person - - -“. Man could not come from a single person, there had to be at least 2 – male and female. But even if there was a couple, that would be too little – the DNA variety would be too small for the “tribe” to be viable (any god had known this - then who made the Quran?). Man simply developed little by little – like the Quran – from earlier primates (as for the archaeological Eve and the archaeological Adam whom science talks about, and whom some Muslims disuse trying to “prove” something: See the chapter: “Some wrong arguments – and their answers” in "1000+ Mistakes in the Quran".)

024 4/1d: (A4/1): ”- - - created you from a single Person (”nafs”) - - -.” Is this the correct meaning? Or f.x. ”- - - from humankind - - -” (Muhammad ’Abdu)? Or ”- - - from a soul - - -.” Or “- - - from a spirit - - -”? Or ”- - - from a living entity - - -.”? Or ”- - - from a vital principle - - -”? Or “- - - from self - - -.”? Etc. The word ”nafs” is very vague and has many meanings – far from the clear language Muslims claim. At least 7 possible varieties of meaning - "ways of reading". Is this a sample of a god's clear speech?

025 4/79fa: "- - - a Messenger to (instruct) mankind". Muhammad should instruct - and instruct a dishonesty, apartheid, and war religion - and he should do it to all mankind. The first part was easy in a robbing and warlike culture. But why choose an unfinished an primitive language, and why are all stories and tales and wrong facts, etc. only from in and around Arabia, if the Quran is a copy of "the Mother of the Book" - a claimed timeless miracle of quality and meant for the entire world and all people and cultures and times?

026 4/133a: “If it were His (Allah’s*) Will, He could destroy you, O mankind, and create another race; for He hath power this to do”. Well, neither he nor Islam has been able to finish off mankind yet - though Islam and Muslims have done enormous destruction through the times. If Muslims will be able to finish off mankind in the future, it hardly will be because of Allah’s wish, but because of fanatics being more “Muslim” than Allah.

027 4/133b: “If it were His (Allah’s*) Will - - -". This is one of very many places where the Quran tells about what Allah could do if he would - - - it just happen that he never will. Similar to what you often hear from children and immature persons wanting to impress others. An impolite word for this is boasting. Also see 14/19d below.

028 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 neighboring people, not to mankind as such.

029 4/174b: “- - - there hath come to you (mankind*) a convincing proof (the Quran*) - - -“. Wrong. With that many mistakes, contradictions, etc., and so much wrong logic, etc., etc. the Quran is not very convincing, and its “proofs”/”signs” are no more convincing - see 2/39b above. Besides as long as it is not proved it came from a god, it proves nothing anyhow.("A proof is one or more proved facts which can give only one conclusion".)

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".

The one who is finding "a convincing (and valid*) proof" in a book like the Quran, has no training in critical thinking or in the laws of logic.

030 4/174e: “- - - there hath come to you (mankind*) a convincing proof (the Quran*) from your Lord (Allah*) - - -“. No book with that much wrong is from a god. And with that many mistakes and even some lies it is far from convincing.

031 5/1b: "Fulfill (all) obligations." On the face of it this is a good order. But remember here that one of the strongest obligations was - AND NB: IS - the duty to go to war for the religion and its leaders. (If you read modern Islamic literature meant for Muslims, you see this duty stressed again and again and again also for today and for the future - whereas similar literature meant for non-Muslims talks more about "the Religion of Peace", etc.)

032 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?

What this mysterious sentence really says, is that if you kill a person, you at the same time kill all his/her possible future children and their descendants.

033 6/2b: “He (Allah*) is it who created you from clay - - -“. But how man was created, is complicated in the Quran; the one and first man - Adam - was made in no less than 13 different ways (or 5-6-7 if you say that some of them were different names for the same raw material). This even though one man cannot be created in more than one way. The Quran says he was made:

From clay: 6/2 7/12 17/61 32/7 38/71 38/76.
From sounding clay: 15/26 15/28 15/33.
From ringing clay: 55/64
From sticky clay: 37/11
From essence of clay: 23/12
From mud: 15/26 15/28 15/33.
From dust: 3/59 22/5 35/11 40/67.
From earth: 20/55
From a clot of congealed blood: 96/2
From semen:# 16/4 75/37 76/2 80/19.
From nothing: 19/9 19/67.
From water: 21/30 24/45 25/54.
From base material: 70/39.

 

One of these may be from the Bible, the other 12 not.

#(It is not told where the semen came from).##

## Mostly when the book talks about semen, it is in connection with (making) children. But also children are not made from semen - it only is 50% of the truth. A child is made from semen + an egg cell, but an egg cell is so small, that Muhammad did not know about it - human eggs can hardly be seen in the blood and gore in a carcass or a slaughtered animal. Actually at the time of Muhammad one did not know how conception happened - one theory was that semen was a seed that grew when placed in a woman - though far from each time. Strangely this is how the Quran explains it. Any god had known better.

Strictly speaking all the different ways of creating man/Adam, means that the Quran tells that man/Adam was created in 13 different ways, even if Adam was created only once (in reality he never was created and never existed – man developed from earlier primates). If one lump similar “creations” together, there still remains at least 5-7 different creations. Only one can even according to the Quran be right (as Adam was created only once even according to the Quran and to the Bible) - and the irony is that science long since has shown that all alternatives are wrong, as man as said evolved from a prehistoric primate.

Some Muslims explain that Adam was created from a little clay, a little dust, a little earth, a little blood, a little semen, a little nothing and some water. But that is far from what the Quran tells - and even if it were the true story of the Quran, it is wrong. For one thing man does not consist of clay, etc., and for another he as mentioned was not created, but developed from prehistoric beings.

Yes, we know about the Eve from archaeology who lived in East Africa some 160ooo - 200ooo (195ooo?)years ago, and the corresponding Adam who lived in Asia some 60ooo - 70ooo (64ooo?) years ago, but that is something different).

Contradicting even 3. form primary school knowledge.

###034 6/2c: “He (Allah*) it is Who created you from clay - - -”. This is one of the many ways man (Adam) was created according to the Quran - even if Adam was created only once, according to that book. See 6/2b and 21/56c.

035 6/2d: “- - - and then (Allah*) decreed a stated term (for you).” Predestination once more. From other places (Hadiths) we know that your “stated term” (= how long you are to live) is decided by Allah when the fetus is 4 months old = 5 months before you are born. Which means you can as well go to war for Muhammad and perhaps become rich by looting, because you will die at a predestined day no matter. A related claim: At the same time as Allah decided your time of death, he also according to Hadiths decided whether you were to end in Paradise of Hell, and there is nothing you can do to change that diction. Any comments about f.x. a benevolent god or free will for man?

Nothing of this is from the Bible.

036 6/22a: "One Day (the Day of Doom*) shall We (Allah*) gather them all (humans*) together - - -". Contradicted by the Bible, which says it is Yahweh who is going to do this. 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.

037 6/42: "Before thee (Muhammad*) We (Allah*) sent (messengers) to many nations - - -". Muhammad claimed there had been sent messengers to all groups of humans, all mankind, throughout the history - and prehistory. The number 124ooo prophets through the millenniums are mentioned in Hadiths. The problem, however, is that no traces of all these claimed prophets or of the teaching of a monotheistic religion have ever been found, neither in history, nor in legends, nor in architecture (temples, etc), art, archeology, or anywhere - not even in fairy tales. The only exception is Israel, where a "narrow string" - often only one of any consequence at a time scattered through many centuries - kept the one god religion alive and mainly dominant. There is nothing else. Well, there are episodes like Akn Aton (pharaoh 1372 - 1355 BC) and his sun god in Egypt, but those few do not count here, especially as they clearly were pagan religions. Nothing. No traces. And when you compare to the results of a few dozen real prophets in Israel + the traces Muhammad - one single claimed prophet - and are told that 124ooo others did not leave a single trace, you simply do not believe there ever were all those prophets - you believe it all is fantasy simply. If not Islam proves anything, but they never do - only claims. And remember: "Claims without proofs can be dismissed without proofs" - and even more so if there are strong indicia or even proofs for that they are wrong. The number 124ooo is not true - like so much else within Islam. Most likely the correct number is nil - and this may include Muhammad's claim about being a prophet (he according to the Quran was unable to make prophesies - "see the unseen (3/144, 6/50,7/188,10/20, 27/65, 46/9, 72/26, 81/24)" - and a man unable to make prophesies is no prophet).

038 6/51a: “- - - they will be brought to (Judgment (= Day of Doom*)) before their Lord (Allah*): except for Him they will have no protector nor intercessor - - -.” But:

  1. 20/109: “On that Day (Day of Doom*) shall no intercession avail, except for those whom permission has been granted by (Allah) - - -.” Here it is possible if Allah permits.
  2. 34/23: “No intercession can avail in His (Allah’s*) Presence (= on the Day of Doom*), except for whom He has granted permission.” Intercession ok if Allah permits.
  3. 43/86: “And those whom they invoke (“gods”, saints*) besides Allah have no power of intercession – only he (has*) who bears witness to the Truth - - -.” The word “he” hardly refers to Allah, because the Quran normally use capital 1. letter (“He”) then. But according to the Quran the prophets and messengers are to be called forth “to witness to the truth”. “He” therefore must likely be referring to each and every prophet and messenger (or at least to Muhammad - - - who according to the Quran has been given power to intercede).

Intercession is not impossible in spite of 6/51 – it only takes permission.

(3 contradictions)

039 6/60d: "- - - in the end (at the Day of Doom*) unto Him (Allah*) will be your return - - -". If Allah exists and is a god according to the tales of the Quran - - - and if the Quran's tales are true in every detail about this.

040 6/60e: "- - - in the end (at the Day of Doom*) unto Him (Allah*) will be your return - - -". Contradicted by the Bible, which claims your return will be to Yahweh (for the Day of Doom). 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.

244 6/60f: "- - - then (at the Day of Doom*) He (Allah*) will show you the truth of all that ye (humans') did". If Allah knows and can tell everything about you, why then does he have to test you? There is no logic in this - not unless it in reality is Muhammad who needed an explanation for your problems and for why he wanted you to go to war. This even more so as the tests from this benevolent god is not tests in goodness, but in brutality and war, which made Muhammad more powerful and gave him and others power, riches and women.

041 6/62a: "Then (the Day of Doom*) are men returned unto Allah - - -". If Allah exists and is a god according to the tales of the Quran - - - and if the Quran's tales are true in every detail about this.

042 6/62b: "Then (the Day of Doom*) are men returned unto Allah - - -". Contradicted by the Bible - there they are returned to Yahweh. And a problem here is that by all normal rules for evaluation, the Bible is likely generally to be more reliable than the Quran - and in addition there are all the Quran's errors, etc, which totally destroys its credibility. 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.

043 6/72c: "- - - for it is to Him (Allah*) that we shall be gathered together". If Allah exists. If he is behind the tales of the Quran. And if the Quran in addition tells the full truth and only the truth.

044 6/98a: “It is He (Allah*) Who hath produced you (man*) - - -". Often claimed, never proved - and as easily claimed about their god(s) for believers of other religions - - - free of charge for them as well as for Muhammad as long as no proofs are required. Besides, if you take a look at how the Quran claims man was created (11/7a below) it does not leave the book much credibility.

045 6/98b: “It is He (Allah*) Who hath produced you (man*) from a single person (Adam*) - - -”. According to science it takes two to make a baby. But that aside: Where is the proof for that any god - not to mention Allah - is involved at all? One thing is that Adam never existed – man developed from earlier primates according to science. Another thing is that 1 person – even 1 pair of persons – would give too little DNA-variety to make man a viable race. One more invalid sign.

046 6/130a: “O ye assembly of Jinns and men! Came there not unto you messengers from amongst you - - -?” Human messengers to man, Jinn messengers to Jinns. But it is contradicted by:

  1. 12/109: “Nor did We (Allah*) send before thee (Muhammad*) (as Messengers) any but men, whom We did inspire – (men) living in human habitations.” No Jinn messengers. Well, in this verse it is possible to explain it away with that it perhaps only is spoken about human habitats. That is not possible in the next two and the last one, because they are without (possible) reservations.
  2. 16/43: “And before thee (Muhammad*) also the Messengers we sent were but men - - -“.
  3. 21/7: “Before thee (Muhammad), also, the messengers we sent were but men - - .”
  4. 22/75: “Allah chooses Messengers from angles and from men - - -.” But not from Jinns.
  5. 25/20: “And the messengers whom We (Allah*) sent before thee (Muhammad) were all men - - -.”

Well, 6/130 says that at least not all were men. A nice little contradiction.

(5 contradictions).

047 7/10a: "It is We (Allah*) Who has placed you (people/mankind*) with authority on earth - - -". One of Muhammad's many, many cases where he without even trying to prove anything claims natural phenomena as indication, proof, and glorification for his god - claims as invalid as when any pagan priest makes the same claims as easy and cheap for his god(s), as long as it is not proved that it really was Allah who made or caused the phenomenon.

048 7/26a: "- - - Children of Adam - - -". Man.

##049 7/29d:"- - - He (Allah*) created you - - -". There must be at least a hundred places in the Quran where Muhammad takes a natural phenomenon and claims it is Allah who is behind it. This for:

  1. Glorification of his god.
  2. Indication of his god's existence.
  3. "Sign" - which in "Quran-speak" indicates proof - for his god's existence.
  4. "Proof" for his god's existence.
  5. "Proof" for his god's power.
  6. A few times as proof for other gods' non-existence ("Allah makes the sun rise in the east, your god cannot make it rise in the west - your god does not exist".)

All this have one thing in common: They are utterly invalid words as long as it is not proved it really is Allah who makes those things happen - something the Quran never even tries to prove. Not once. It just is cheap, valueless words any priest and any believer in any religion freely can use free of charge on behalf of his/her god(s) as long as they can evade all requests for proving anything - like the Quran always does. Here it in addition is an extra curious point as the Quran "always" demands proofs from others, but never proves anything - anything - of any consequence itself. (The same to a large degree goes for Islam and for Muslims today - twisted logic, loose claims and cheap words, often lots of them, but no valid proofs for any of the central questions. Not one of the central points - in reality claims only - is proved in Islam. Everything only builds on the words of Muhammad - a man even the Quran and the Hadiths prove to be a man of very doubtful moral, as soon as you omit the glorifying cheap words, and look at the realities; what he demanded and did and permitted, what rules he introduced, etc.) Also see 21/56c below.

It is up to you if you are able to believe that Muhammad was not aware of that at least some of these were made up claims/untrue.

050 7/35a: "- - - Children of Adam - - -". Man.

051 7/38a: "- - - men and Jinns - into the Fire". Not from the Bible - there are no jinns.

052 7/89c: “- - - nor could we (humans*) by any manner or means return thereto (the right way*), unless it be as in the will and plan of Allah - - -:” It - according to the Quran - is Allah who decides everything in this (and in the claimed next) world, as he predestines everything according to his Plan, and you can do nothing which is not in his plan (which should mean that this book about the Quran is decided by Allah, and part of his Plan - thus there is no reason for Muslims to be angry with us, as it is Allah's decision that we should write it).

The "fact" (according to the Quran) that Allah predestines everything, influences the Quran's and Islam's moral code.

##053 7/89d: “- - - nor could we (humans*) by any manner or means return thereto (the right way*), unless it be as in the will and plan of Allah - - -:” According to the Quran it is Allah who decides whether you believe in him and live like a good Muslim or not. But all the same if you do not believe in him and live accordingly, he punishes you with Hell. A fair, good and benevolent god??!

054 7/94c: Comment from (YA1065): "Man was originally created pure". We do not think there is one rational psychologist in this entire world who agrees to this claim.

055 7/158c: "I (Muhammad*) am sent unto you all (humans*), as the Messenger of Allah - - -." No man preaching a teaching with so many mistakes, contradiction, etc., is sent by any god. Also see 7/158b just above.

###056 7/172a: "When thy (mans'*) Lord drew forth (= caused to be born*) from the Children of Adam - from their loins - their descendants, and made them testify - - -". YA1146 here has an interesting comment - we quote: "This passage has led to differences of opinion (because of unclear language*) in interpretation. According to the dominant opinion of commentators, each individual in the posterity of Adam (= after Adam*) had a separate existence from the time of Adam (= he or she in some way existed since the time of Adam*) and a Covenant was taken from all of them, which is binding accordingly on each individual". To use a simpler language: Each and every human being in some way existed at the time of Adam, and when Adam made his claimed covenant with Allah, also all human beings through all times at the same time made a similar covenant with the claimed god - a covenant which thus is binding for each and every human being who have existed or will exist. No comment - except this to us sounds not like religion, but like mysticism or like a fairy tale. And one more fact: At the time of Adam's claimed covenant, only Adam and Eve (her name not mentioned in the Quran), existed. The rest of what is fabulated here just is "ad hoc" speculation - - - or fabulation.

Besides: If it had been true, it had been one more strong indication for that predestination it total in Islam.

057 7/172c: "- - - made them (people*) testify concerning themselves". Why is that necessary when the god not only knows everything, but even predestines everything?

058 7/172d: "- - - made them (people*) testify concerning themselves". Another interesting claim: (A7/138 - in English 2008 edition A7/139) tells that "According to the Quran, the ability to perceive the existence of the Supreme Power (= god*) is inborn in human nature (fitrah); and it is this instinctive cognition - which may or may not be subsequently blurred by self-indulgence or adverse environmental influence - that makes every sane human being "bear witness about himself" before Allah". This is nowhere said in the book, but there are many ways to use or disuse indistinct and unclear tests. Also science has never found any trace of such inborn, instinctive knowledge. (They have found that a minor percent of humans have an inborn longing for something strong to lead them - a god - but nothing like an inborn, instinctive knowledge, and only in a minority. Actually man has very few real instincts, and very little inborn knowledge - almost everything has to be learnt.)

But when one meets claims like this from Islam and Muslims, one should remember that they frequently use claimed instinctive knowledge or understanding and similar expressions as arguments for why Islam is the correct religion and for why one should believe in Muhammad and his religion. As they have exactly no proof or documentation for the religion, they have to do two things: Glorify Muhammad so that he sounds as trustworthy as possible, and resort to unclear and not documented claims like "instinctive knowledge" about Allah or at least about divinity. But do remember that Muhammad himself proved what kind of man he was - forget the glorifying, cheap words. and look for his deeds, demands, lies, rules, moral, etc. - and the second is mysticism and neither religion nor knowledge or facts.

If you have little knowledge about humans and human psychology, just read and reflect on this. If you have good knowledge about it, you get a hearty laugh here.

In reality this only is mysticism - actually bordering dishonesty, as science more or less has proved such an instinctive "ability to perceive the Supreme Power" does not exist. But neither Muhammad nor Islam had/has anything better to offer for a "proof".

###059 7/185c: "- - - their (humans' - in this case non-Muslims*) term - - -". The word "term" in the Quran mostly is used as a word for when something is coming to an end according to the predestined Plan of Allah - here the end of their lives. Predestination is a heavy fact in Islam, and you have to be a blindly believing or not thinking Muslim to be able not to see the impossibility in combining predestination - the total predestination of the Quran - with the claim that man has free will and also that prayers to Allah has any merit if everything already is predestined.

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.)

060 7/189: “It is He (Allah*) who created you (man*) from a single person (Adam*) - - -“. Wrong. Adam never existed, as man developed from earlier primates. And even if it had started with Adam and Eve (her name is never mentioned in the Quran), the DNA pool had been too small to make the race viable.

##061 8/38-39a: “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). And fight with them until there is no more tumult and oppression, and there prevail justice (sharia?*) and faith in Allah altogether and everywhere”. Well, this to say the least of it contradicts and abrogates and kills:

  1. 2/256: “Let there be no compulsion in Religion” and some other older, “soft” verses.
  2. ##5/28: “If thou (“infidels”, Cain*) dost stretch thy hand against me (Muslims, Abel*), it is not for me to stretch my hand against thee to slay thee - - -.” When you read this, remember that Muslims have few if any overall moral codes and no moral philosophy - only the words and example of Muhammad. What they have to do is to look for “What did Muhammad say about such things?” If he has said something, they take that as a codex – good moral or not. If not, they have to look in the book: “Is there a parallel situation somewhere?” If they find – sometimes by stretching imagination – that is the way to act, or the alibi for how one wishes to act. Mind also that this verse is one of the very few in all the Quran that is in accordance with the teachings of Jesus – one of the very few. And it is totally “murdered” by abrogations.

(2 abrogations).

062 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.

####063 9/93d: "- - - they (the ones not wanting to go to war*) know not (what they miss)". Comment YA1345: #######"It is not only a duty, but a precious privilege, to serve a great Cause (Islam*) by personal self-sacrifice (to make war for it*). Those who shirk such an opportunity know not what they miss". This is the point of view of modern Muslim scholars - as mentioned before the comments are recent ones. "The Religion of Peace"? No further comments - and none necessary.

064 10/2d: "- - - he (Muhammad*) should warn mankind - - -". The problem is that even though he started as a warner, after he gained power after 622 AD he also became an enforcer.

#065 10/19a: “Mankind was but one nation - - -”. Mankind never was but one nation. Perhaps once one tribe or a few small tribes, but never one nation, as some Muslims try to explain - and that in case was some 160ooo - 200ooo years ago (there seems to have been a “bottle neck” when man nearly died out at that time, according to DNA-studies). You also sometimes meet Muslims telling in triumph that science has proved the Quran, because now they have found the prehistoric Eve and the prehistoric Adam - - - without mentioning that the prehistoric so-called “Eve” lived the above mentioned some 160ooo - 200ooo years ago (the number varies some) in Africa, whereas the prehistoric “Adam” lived some 60ooo - 70ooo (64ooo?) years ago only, and not unlikely south of the Caspian Sea in Asia. With “Eve” dead 100ooo years before “Adam” was born - and a long distance off - it is difficult to see how they can be the “parents” of man, and thus prove the Quran. (You meet "scientific" "proofs" of this quality from Muslims and even from Islam (Muslim scholars and leaders) sometimes).

##066 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). It simply is a fairy tale - if Islam is not able to prove it is true.

067 10/55h: "Yet most of them (humans*) understand not". The real problem might have been that a number already then really understood that something was very wrong.

068 10/57b: "- - - a direction (the Quran*) from your (mankind's*) Lord (Allah*) - - -". It is heresy and an insult and slander to any god to blame a god for a book of a quality like the Quran.

069 10/60d: "- - - Allah is full of Bounty to mankind - - -". There still was much and rich loot to be taken, Muhammad said. Whereas at least for the old Protestants, the world was full of work to be done - work which turned out to bring the word forwards, instead of war and robbery bringing it into stagnation, like happened to the Islamic parts of the world. (And which is likely to happen to the whole world if Islam with its view on non-religious knowledge and on religious ruling of the communities and the world, wins out in the end. But remember we say Islam, not Arabs or Berbers, or other groups of people).

070 10/92c: "- - - many among mankind are headless of Our (Allah's*) Signs". With a good reason, as many among mankind know there is not and never was one single proved sign clearly from Allah - not even his very existence is proved, and that the claim that he exists only rests on the word of one single, quite unreliable man who provably and according to the Quran did not even respect his own oaths if breaking them gave a better result (f.x. 2/225a, 5/89a+b, 16/91e, and 66/2a).

071 10/99d: “Wilt thou (Muhammad*) then compel mankind, against their will, to believe!”

Of course he would as soon as he was military strong enough! - lots of people during his time and later were forced to become Muslims. This peaceful verse from Mecca 621 AD soon was abrogated! This verse is abrogated – made invalid - by at least these verses: 2/191, 2/193, 3/38, 3/85, 3/148, 4/90, 5/33, 5/72, 8/12, 8/38, 8/38-39 (the warning), 8/39, 8/60, 9/3, 9/5, 9/14, 9/23, 9/29, 9/33, 9/73, 9/123, 25/36, 25/52, 33/61, 33/73, 35/36, 47/4, 66/9. This includes many bloody threats, but also verses advising or permitting political, social, economical, etc. compulsion (with the sword in the background if you protest) – we mention a few here: 3/28, 3/85, 3/148, 4/81, 5/72, 5/73, 9/23, 14/7, 15/3, 33/73, 35/36. They are all quoted under 2/256. (At least 28 abrogations).

072 11/17t: "- - - yet many among men do not believe!" Not very strange, at least not among persons having enough knowledge and intelligence to see at least some of all the mistakes, etc. in the Quran, and also to see the difference between a claimed good and benevolent god and a war and hate god.

073 11/103e: "- - - a Day for which mankind will be gathered together: that will be a Day of Testimony". = The Day of Doom.

0774 11/118b: “If thy Lord (Allah*) had so willed, He could have made mankind one People - - -”. Either Allah really likes strife and war - really a benevolent god - or in reality he is unable to do this. Like someone bragging to impress acquaintances or girls.

075 11/118-119: (A11/151 – in 2008 edition 11/152): “If thy (peoples'*) Lord (Allah*) had so willed, He could have made mankind one People: but they will not cease to dispute, except those on whom thy Lord hath bestowed His Mercy, and for this (“li-dhalika”) did He create them - - -.” But to what do the Arab word “li-dhalika” (= “for this”, “to this end”) refer? Hardly to “they will not cease to dispute”. The sentence simply hangs in the air, without pointing to anything or being connected to anything. Some (like Mujahid and ‘Ikrimah) believes it refers to Allah’s grace upon man. Some (like Al-Hasan and ‘Ata) tell it refers to man’s ability to have meanings different from others’ (this has some relevance to the previous sentence). Others (like Zamakhshari) mean it refers to man’s freedom to make moral choices. Just pick your guess – every Muslim scholar also is just guessing here. As said before: A clear and unmistakably easy to understand language. And these variants of course also are in the Arab text, as the relevant word(s) there has/have more than one meaning – or here: No clear meaning.

076 12/21h: "And Allah hath full power and control over His (Allah's*) affairs; but most among mankind know it not". With a good reason if Allah does not exist - and hopefully wrong if he exists, but belongs to the dark forces (he definitely is not a god - not to mention a good and benevolent god - if he is behind the Quran and all its errors and partly immoral moral code, etc.).

077 12/103: "Yet no faith will the greater part of mankind have - - -". As mentioned before, only Muslims have faith. Not right faith, but faith. This indicates that the others do not have wrong faith, but no faith.

078 13/6f: "But verily thy (people's*) Lord (Allah*) is full of forgiveness for mankind - - -". It definitely is no proved verity/truth. See 1/1a above. Also Allah cannot forgive unless he exists and is a god.

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

##079 13/11a: "For every (such person (here in reality everybody*)) there are (angels) in succession (= working shifts*), before and behind him - - -". Remember this and similar verses each time the Quran or a Muslim tells you that angels could not visit Muhammad and prove to his followers and doubters and opponents that he spoke the truth, because the sending down of angels meant that the Day of Doom had arrived.

080 13/11b: "Verily (this definitely is no proved verity/truth*) never will Allah change the condition of a people until they change it themselves (with their own souls) - - -". But how can they change anything themselves, if it is true that Allah decides absolutely everything and according to an unchangeable Plan, like the Quran states many places? (For Muhammad it was essential to make Allah seem fair by claiming that man had free will and thus himself was to blame for bad deeds. But the good Muhammad was never able to combine this with another claim he needed to have many and daring warriors; predestination. Even Islam admits it is not possible to combine the two (but claims very lamely, that all the same it must be true as it is said so in the Quran - it is beyond the incredible what believers are able to believe if they just want to believe it (if it is Iblis/the Devil who is behind the Quran, perhaps he knew what he did anyhow.)

081 13/31i: "- - - He (Allah*) could have guided all mankind - - -". Not with a guidebook like the Quran - too much is wrong, included partly horrible moral code. (Actually it may be the moral code which makes many react negatively to the religion and its members - too aggressive, too bloody, too self centered, too haughty and discriminating. There also is reason to react at its acceptance of dishonesty/al-Taqiyya, but most non-Muslims do not know about that part).

082 13/31j: "- - - He (Allah*) could have guided all mankind - - -". If this were true, it would tell volumes about the good and benevolent god who instead sends the majority of the humanity - and jinns - to Hell, (by means of his predestination).

*083 14/1f: “- - - in order that thou (Muhammad – by means of the Quran*) mightest lead mankind out of the depths of darkness and into light - - -“. No book with that many mistakes and that doubtful moral can lead anyone into light. The same goes for any religion so suppressing, inhuman and so full of Nazi-like ideology (before you protest, beware that these are not our words but f.x. C. G. Young's), discrimination, blood and war, and “all power to Muhammad/the leader”. If such a brutal and partly immoral religion represents light, we prefer never to meet a religion representing darkness.

084 14/52a: "Here is a message (the Quran*) for mankind - - -". Ok, but from whom? No god ever was involved in a book of a quality like the Quran, so who then? Dark forces? A sick brain? A cold brain? - or a combination of 2 or 3 of these?

085 15/5: “Neither can a people anticipate its term (date when its luck or life runs out - their day of death*), nor delay it”. No matter what people do, they cannot foresee or influence their date of death. Clear predestination - - - except what about self murderers - they decide when to die themselves(?) Or has Allah predestined the self murder?

Another point: As you see it is not dangerous to go on raids or into battle - you will not die until the time Allah has predestined. (Believe it if you are able to - possible only if you know nothing about f.x. probability or statistical proofs.

086 15/26b: “We (Allah*) created man from sounding clay - - -.” But: This is contradicted by 6/2, 7/12, 17/61, 32/7, 38/71, and 38/76 that tell man/Adam was made from clay, 55/64 that tells man/Adam was made from ringing clay, 37/11 that tells man/Adam was made from sticky clay, 23/12, that tells man/Adam was made from essence of clay, 15/26, 15/28, and 15/33 that tell man/Adam was made from mud, 3/59, 22/5,35/11, 40/67, that tell man/Adam was made from dust, 20/55 that tells man/Adam was made from earth, 96/2 that tells man/Adam was made from a clot of congealed blood, 16/4, 75/37, 76/2, 80/19, that tell man/Adam was made from semen (without explaining from where the semen came), 21/30, 24/45, and 25/54 that tell man/Adam was made from water (NB! NB! Not in water, but from water!), 70/39 that tells man/Adam was made from “base material”, and not to mention the greatest contradiction in this case: 19/9 and 19/67 which both tell that man/Adam was created from nothing. (Also see verse 6/2 in the chapters about the 1000+ mistakes in the Quran.) (Strictly reckoned this contradicts 28 other verses. But minimum 15 contradictions.)

Strictly speaking the Quran tells that Adam was created in 13 different ways. But Adam - being only one man - of course could be created only one time, and thus only in one way.

087 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 and gas so hot that they emit light (and of course heath). Both particles and light are something physical, and thus jinns are physical).

088 16/4a: “He (Allah*) has created man (the word “man” used like this, means the human race = in this case Adam*) from a sperm-drop - - -”. Wrong. Even if it should really mean not Adam, but men generally speaking, it is wrong. A sperm-drop is just half the explanation - also an egg cell is necessary. But Muhammad did not know that. (Human egg cells are too small to be seen with only eyes when it is lying in human tissue, blood and gore). But any god had known. Also see 6/2.

089 16/4b: “He (Allah*) has created man (Adam*) from a sperm-drop - - -.” But: This is contradicted by 6/2, 7/12, 17/61, 32/7, 38/71, and 38/76 that tell man/Adam was made from clay, 15/26, 15/26, and 15/33 that tell man/Adam was made from sounding clay, 55/14 that tells man/Adam was made from ringing clay, 37/11 that tells man/Adam was made from sticky clay, 23/12, that tells man/Adam was made from essence of clay, 15/26, 15/28, and 15/33 that tell man/Adam was made from mud, 3/59, 22/5,35/11, 40/67, that tell man/Adam was made from dust, 20/55 that tells man/Adam was made from earth, 96/2 that tells man/Adam was made from a clot of congealed blood, (75/37, 76/2, 80/19, that tell man/Adam was made from semen (without explaining from where the semen came)), 21/30, 24/45, and 25/54 that tell man/Adam was made from water (NB! NB! Not in water, but from water!), 70/39 that tells man/Adam was made from “base material”, and not to mention the greatest contradiction in this case: 19/9 and 19/67 which both tell that man/Adam was created from nothing. (Also see verse 6/2 in the chapters about the 1000+ mistakes in the Quran.) (Strictly reckoned this contradicts 27 other verses. But minimum 12 contradictions.) Ps: It also is not told from where the sperm came in case.

090 16/38m: "- - - but most among mankind realize it (that Muhammad's new religion was the truth*) not". And with a good reason - too much is wrong in the Quran, so that it is not from a god. And what is a religion without a real god?

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

#####091 16/52e: "- - - then will ye (people*) fear other than Allah?". Simply yes - or perhaps fear nobody. For the simple reason we do not believe Allah exists. The only claims - and no facts, only claims and fast words - about his existence are from a man with a very doubtful moral and reliability, who on top of all perhaps was mentally ill (TFL - Temporal Lobe Epilepsy), and who liked power and riches for more power - and women - and who liked/needed a platform of power, something many a scheming man have found in religion. There are thousands who through the times have used an existing religion as a ladder to riches and power - and for that case to women - and hundreds who have started new sects or religions - Muhammad did something in between, which also is not uncommon. The only special thing about Muhammad, is that he was the most successful of these many men and a few women.

On top of this all the errors, etc. in the Quran proves 110% to any person with a not damaged brain - f.x. from brainwashing - and an IQ not below medium imbecility, that the Quran is not from any god, and thus that something is seriously wrong with Muhammad, with the Quran, and with Islam.

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

092 16/93b: “If Allah so willed, He could make you all one People - - -”. See 11/118b above. But why does he not do so? - this is the official goal for Islam, and this other way it takes millennia and millions of lives and immeasurable tragedy, all on behalf of a claimed benevolent god.

093 16/95e: "- - - if ye (Muslims/people*) only knew". That is just the problem for Islam - some knew and too many know that something is very wrong with the Quran.

094 17/53c: "- - - Satan doth sow dissentions among them (mankind*): for Satan is to man an avowed enemy". Take a look at the texts in the Quran and see how much dissention and strife and war it wants and initiates and demands. Is this another indication for that the Quran is from the dark forces?

095 17/60a: "- - - thy Lord (Allah*) doth encompass mankind round about - - -". Allah knows everything and dominates man completely. Then why 2/233h and 35/38b?

096 17/70a: "- - - sons of Adam - - -". All humanity.

*097 17/88a: “If the whole mankind and Jinns were gathered together to produce the like of this Quran, they could not produce the like thereof”. Wrong. A flock of naïve primitives or people indoctrinated from childhood might believe this. But not thinking people knowing something about literature - a number of good writers today and through history would be able to do that - this everyone knows who have read some good books. The Quran is not especially good literature to be polite, in spite of what Islam declares - rather dull, repeating the same stories time and time again, and using the same points and the same finish over and over, and not least: There are few if any original stories, thoughts, or ideas - they are "borrowed" from other sources, included made up scriptures, legends and fairy tales. See also 10/37a and 10/37b above. But why do it? - no matter how well it was done, Islam would never admit that the bluff had been trumped - they cannot afford it, because that would prove that this statement and at least one more are wrong and just a bluff - - - and a god neither is wrong nor needs bluffs, which means that mistakes and bluffs prove that it is not from a god - which proves that something is seriously wrong with Muhammad, with the Quran, and with Islam. PS: You find this bluff at least 2 places in the Quran.

098 18/21b: "- - - that they (people*) might know that the promise of Allah is true - - -", In the 1400 years since Islam started and long before that, there has been not on single proved case of Allah keeping a promise - not even giving a promise. Lots of claims, but not one single proved case.

099 18/52c: "- - - they (false gods*) will not listen to them (people*) - - -". The question is if Allah belongs to those "gods" - he has not unmistakably given one single answer since he was introduced to mankind 1400 years ago, and neither before (if he had, be sure Islam had told you and everybody else about it!)

100 20/128a: “Is it not a warning to men (to call to mind) how many generations before them We (Allah*) destroyed, in whose haunts they (now) move? Verily, in this are signs for men endued with understanding”. This is a theme Muhammad/the Quran frequently return to: In the Middle East there were scattered ruins from towns and hamlets and houses. Muhammad told that they all were remnants from earlier “unbelievers” punished by Allah for not believing their supposed prophets. As usual without a single proof for all places put together. (In Pakistan this year Muslims proposed to put placards with quotes like this on old ruins - proofs and warnings about the fate of “infidels”. This really tells something about those Muslims and about the level of education even today - in 2007 AD (This was written in the 2007 AD edition). What then about naïve, primitive and zero educated poor people 610-632 AD? - were they easily “impressed”?)

His explanation is even more difficult to believe, as any professor and even student of archaeology can give many other explanations for ruins in arid areas - and especially in arid areas where the inhabitants were all waging war against everybody else at times.

Absolutely a not valid sign without a real proof.

101 21/1a: "Closer and closer mankind comes to their reckoning - - -". This is an argument used by most or all religions with a Day of Doom, too make their followers behave: "You never know when the Day of Doom happens, and maybe it is not far off, so you had better behave like 'we' want, so that you always are sure you will end in Paradise if it happens".

102 22/1a: "O Mankind! Fear your Lord (Allah*)!" Muhammad claimed Allah was the god of the entire world. At present he is the nominal god - existing or not existing - for roughly 20% or a bit more of the world's population (the actual number is very uncertain, but some 1.6 billion). But the number is increasing, partly because of active proselyting (and at the same time hinder or forbid proselyting for other religions or even for telling facts about the Quran or Muhammad in their own countries), and partly because Muslims produce many children - even in modern times when it has become clear that the production of food and other necessities are reaching limits (unless science makes new break-through, but no such ones are expected shortly). One opposing tendency, though, is that 3. generation emigrants into other cultures seems to a degree to lose faith - but this possible tendency is not 100% proved yet.

103 22/78i: "- - - the Messenger (Muhammad*) may be a witness for you, and ye be witnesses for mankind!". But why does an omniscient god need witnesses?

Not to mention: What value would a man with a morality - al-Taqiyya (the lawful lie), Kitman (the lawful half-truth), Hilah (the lawful pretending/circumventing), deceit, betrayal, and broken words/promises/oaths (2/225, 3/54, 5/89, 16/91, 66/2) - like Muhammad have? Old Bailey would not accept him as a bona fide Witness, and a god should be even choosier and more mindful of honesty and reliability than a human court.

104 22/5d: “- - - We (Allah*) created you (man*) out of dust, then out of sperm - - -“. Allah created man/Adam out of dust and later humans out of sperm (+ an egg cell each – which Muhammad did not know anything about – but a god had known). But even omitting the fact that Adam never was, as man developed from earlier primates, there are a number of contradictions in the Quran about his creation: This is contradicted by 6/2, 7/12, 17/61, 32/7, 38/71, and 38/76 that tell man/Adam was made from clay, 15/26, 15/26, and 15/33 that tell man/Adam was made from sounding clay, 55/14 that tells man/Adam was made from ringing clay, 37/11 that tells man/Adam was made from sticky clay, 23/12, that tell man/Adam was made from essence of clay, 15/26, 15/28, and 15/33 that tell man/Adam was made from mud, 20/55 that tells man/Adam was made from earth, 96/2 that tells man/Adam was made from a clot of congealed blood, 16/4, 75/37, 76/2, 80/19, that tell man/Adam was made from semen (without explaining from where the semen came), 21/30, 24/45, and 25/54 that tell man/Adam was made from water (NB! NB! Not in water, but from water!), 70/39 that tells man/Adam was made from “base material”. (Also see verse 6/2.) (Strictly reckoned this contradicts 27 other verses. But minimum 11 contradictions.)

105 27/73b: "- - - thy Lord (Allah*) is full of grace to mankind - - -". Please read the surahs from Medina + the harshest of the sharia laws and see if you agree. We at least, when there is disagreement between words on one side and demands and deeds on the other, always believe the demands and deeds - they are much more reliable than cheap words and claims.

106 28/68c: (A28/74): “Thy Lord (Allah*) does create and choose as He pleases: no choice have they (in the matter) - - -.” A clear message and in full compliance to Allah’s power of predestination. But predestination collides with man’s presumed (partly? according to some Muslims) free will (predestination and free will - even partly - is mutually excluding each other. The combination of the two is even theoretically impossible, and Muslims go to a lot of pain to reduce both (“not real predestination” and “partly free will”) to make space for a little of both, but no matter: It still is even theoretically impossible to combine them - - - except in religious wishful thinking. Can that be the reason why this explanation is preferred by many Muslims (Zamakhshari, etc.): “(Allah) chooses (for mankind) whatever is best for them.” Then the problem of predestination is omitted – and both translations are possible from the Arab text “ma kana lahum al-khiyarah”. (Al-khiyarah or khirah (depending on what vowels you place there) = “choice” or “freedom to choose”). Just you choose - as mentioned a couple of times the texts in the Quran often far from is "clear and easy to understand".

107 30/30c: "- - - on which He (Allah*) has made mankind - - -". See 6/2b, 11/7a and 21/56c above.

*108 30/30g: “- - - no change (let there be) in the work (wrought) by Allah: that (Islam*) is the standard Religion: But most among mankind understand not”. The impolite, but most pertinent, question is: May be it is really the non-Muslims who have understood? - understood that something may be very wrong.

109 32/7c: “He began the creation of man with (nothing more than) clay”. Wrong. Man was not created from clay. See 6/2b above.

110 32/8a: “And (Allah*) made his (man’s) progeny from a quintessence of the nature of a fluid despised - - -”. Only half the truth. Muhammad believed the semen was a kind of seed planted in the woman – he did not know about the egg cell. Any god had known. Then who made the Quran?

111 32/9d: "- - - little thanks do ye (people*) give". Because of a very good reason: The way the beginning of man is described in the Quran cannot be true - at least not all the different ways it is claimed to have happened. (There is claimed to have been just one Adam, but there are given a dozen different explanations of how he was created.)

112 32/13j: “If We (Allah*) so willed, We could certainly have brought every soul its true guidance: but the Word from Me will come true, ‘I will fill Hell with Jinns and men all together’”. Here are two more differences between Yahweh and Allah:

  1. Yahweh did not have this choice because man really had free will.
  2. Yahweh tries to get as many as possible to Heaven (Luke 15/8-10 + 15/11-31 and Matt. 18/12-14 + 20/8/13). Allah has early made a conscious decision to fill Hell with "Jinns and men altogether".

The same god? Impossible.

113 34/28i: "- - - most men understand not". But possibly some did? - understood that something was wrong with the new religion? But in any case it was better tactic for Muhammad to claim that the reason why they did not believe him, was that they did not understand. To admit that they might be right, would be to destroy his religion.

114 34/36d: "- - - most men understand not". Obviously that was what at least some of them did - understood that something was seriously wrong with Muhammad’s new religion. But this was better for Muhammad to claim, than to admit they might be right. Claims in spite of proofs, is nothing unnormal for religious people.

115 35/2c: "What Allah - - - doth bestow on mankind there is none that can withhold: what He doth withhold, there is none can grant - - -". This is true only if Allah exists, if he is a major god, if there is no other god - f.x. Yahweh (whom the Quran admits exists, though they wrongly mix him with Allah) - and if the Quran describes him and his power correctly - in a book full of mistakes, etc.

Besides the Bible tells that only Yahweh is almighty.

116 36/71a: "See they (humans*) not that it is We (Allah*) Who have created for them - - - cattle - - - ?" Well, cattle existed for eons before man found out he could utilize them some 15ooo years ago. They simply were part of the nature and the fauna, not created for the humans.

117 39/41e: “Verily We (Allah*) revealed the Book (the Quran*) - - -, for (instructing) mankind.” If Allah is a good god, like Islam pretends, why then all the immoral instructions and inhumanity one finds especially in the some 22-24 surahs from Medina? And a book with this many errors is not fit for instruction – not as a basis for the religion of a benevolent god and claimed omniscient god.

##118 43/37c: "Such (satans) really hinder them from the Path, but they (the believers*) think that they are being guided aright!" All Muslims think they are guided right - is this the explanation why?

###119 43/48b: (A43/41): "The concept of 'returning' to Allah implies that the instinctive ability to perceive His (Allah's*) existence is inherent in human nature as such - - -". #####Scientifically this is nonsense and gobbledygook. No such "instinctive ability" has ever been found - not even a shadow of it. One has found that a minor percentage has a longing for something strong to lean to - a god. But nothing more - no "ability to perceive" a god. But Islam is built on absolutely nothing - only on never proved words and claims from a man of doubtful character, but with a liking for power, riches for bribes, and women - and needs dogmas like this. True or not true does not matter very much, as al-Taqiyyas (lawful lies) and Kitmans (lawful half-truths) are not only permitted, but advised to use "if necessary" for defending or advancing the religion.

- Islam sometimes is a bit "special" when it comes to honesty. (For some reason or other Islam and its Muslims seldom claim that Islam is the religion of honesty.)

120 49/7f: "- - - but Allah has endeared the Faith to you, and made it beautiful in your hearts - - -". Allah or someone else? The Quran's many mistakes, its partly immoral moral code, and its inhuman war religion may make one think about forces very different from benevolent gods.

Another point: If Allah was able to make Islam "beautiful" to some people, why then did he not do the same to the rest of mankind and save them from Hell? There only are 2 possible real answers: He was not able to - which means that either he does not exist, or he for other reasons is unable to do it = not omnipotent. Or he does not want to - and knowing the extreme sadism and horror in Hell, no "explanation away" is valid, and there only is one possible explanation: He is not a good and benevolent god.

#121 52/34b: This verse also is another sample of one of Muhammad's techniques of debating: Any opposition or skeptical ones are demanded to prove their words, whereas Muhammad never proves anything of any essence - he just put forth words and claims and never - never - documents anything essential. This even though his demands for proofs from all others proves that he finds proofs essential and of value.

Well, the Quran and Islam sometimes claim that this and this are proofs for Allah or Islam, but not one of those "proofs" is logically valied - normally because they do not first prove that it really is Allah who causes what they claim is a proof.

122 52/35a: “Were they (people*) created of nothing - - - ?” A rhetoric question here stating that man was created from nothing – 19/67 says the same. But: This is contradicted by 6/2, 7/12, 17/61, 32/7, 38/71, and 38/76 that tell man/Adam was made from clay, 15/26, 15/26, and 15/33 that tell man/Adam was made from sounding clay, 55/14 that tells man/Adam was made from ringing clay, 37/11 that tells man/Adam was made from sticky clay, 23/12, that tells man/Adam was made from essence of clay, 15/26, 15/28, and 15/33 that tell man/Adam was made from mud, 3/59, 22/5, 35/11, 40/67, that tell man/Adam was made from dust, 20/55 that tells man/Adam was made from earth, 96/2 that tells man/Adam was made from a clot of congealed blood, 16/4, 75/37, 76/2, 80/19, that tell man/Adam was made from semen (without explaining from where the semen came), 21/30, 24/45, and 25/54 that tell man/Adam was made from water (NB! NB! Not in water, but from water!), 70/39 that tells man/Adam was made from “base material" (Also see verse 6/2 in the chapters about the 1000+ mistakes in the Quran.) (Strictly reckoned this contradicts 29 other verses. And in this case minimum 29 contradictions.)

123 52/35b: “Were they (people*) created of nothing, or were they themselves the creators?” For comment see 52/34b above.

124 53/29a: “Therefore shun those who turn away from Our (Muhammad’s*) Message - - -.” That was Muhammad’s words around 612 – 615 AD. 10 years lager the “melody” changed. Comments like 52/47 above. 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).

125 53/39: "- - - Man can have nothing but what he strives for - - -". How does this compare with the Qurans' many statements that Allah predestines everything, also what you get and what you not get, because that in addition are gifts from Allah’s abundance? This claim simply is wrong if Allah predestines everything like the Quran states.

126 53/41a: "Then (in the next life*) will he (a person*) be rewarded - - -". Is it fair to reward a person for good or for bad deeds if he/she did it because Allah had predestined it like that?

127 54/7: "- - - from (their) graves - - -". Remember that Muslims are not resurrected in spirit, but in body - one of the at least 200% proof for that Yahweh and Allah are not the same god: Their hereafters are too different - far too different.

##128 55/3: “He (Allah*) has created man”. At least not like told in the Quran - see 6/2b above. Besides man was not created according to science - he developed from an earlier primate. If Islam says he was created, they will have to prove it. And if they claim the creation was like described in the Quran, they will have to produce even stronger proof - - - after they first have found out which of the claimed may be 13 different ways described is the correct one.

*129 55/14a: “He (Allah*) created man from ringing clay like unto pottery”. Wrong - but somewhat funny. See 6/2.

130 55/14b: “He (Allah*) created man from ringing clay (= burnt clay*) like unto pottery”. But:

This is contradicted by 6/2, 7/12, 17/61, 32/7, 38/71, and 38/76 that tell man/Adam was made from clay, 15/26, 15/26, and 15/33 that tell man/Adam was made from sounding clay, 55/14 that tells man/Adam was made from ringing clay, 37/11 that tells man/Adam was made from sticky clay, 23/12, that tells man/Adam was made from essence of clay, 15/26, 15/28, and 15/33 that tell man/Adam was made from mud, 3/59, 22/5, 35/11, 40/67, that tell man/Adam was made from dust, 20/55 that tells man/Adam was made from earth, 96/2 that tells man/Adam was made from a clot of congealed blood, 16/4, 75/37, 76/2, 80/19, that tell man/Adam was made from semen (without explaining from where the semen came), 21/30, 24/45, and 25/54 that tell man/Adam was made from water (NB! NB! Not in water, but from water!), 70/39 that tells man/Adam was made from “base material”, and not to mention the greatest contradiction in this case: 19/9 and 19/67 which both tell that man/Adam was created from nothing.

(Also see verse 6/2 in the chapter about the 1000+ mistakes in the Quran.) (Strictly reckoned this contradicts 30 other verses. But minimum 11 contradictions.)

A man and a book not knowing more than this about how man evolved - is the rest they tell any more reliable? The nature seems to know the correct story much better. As said before: It may be cheats and deceivers not knowing to choose true “proofs” for their story behind it all.

131 64/9d: "- - - that (the Day of Doom) will be a Day of mutual loss and gain (among you (people*)) - - -". Only if there is a next life - and the Quran's claims about who in case will lose and who will gain, depends entirely on if Allah exists or not, and if he in case is a god (and not f.x. something dark pretending to be a god, like parts of the Quran may indicate). We may also mention that if it should happen that Yahweh is the real god, very different groups will end in Paradise compared to if Allah should have been the one who decided - f.x. the moral code at many points is utterly different. (one of the many strong proofs for that Yahweh and Allah are not the same god, and for that Jesus and Muhammad are not in the same line of anything of any consequence.)

132 64/17b: “If you loan to Allah, a beautiful loan, He will double it to your (credit), and he will grant you Forgiveness - - -“. Very similar thinking to the worst medieval excesses made by the Roman Catholic Church and others once upon a time. But good slogans for recruiting warriors – and money.

Beware that there is a is a serious distinction between what the medieval catholic church wanted - pay expiation - and what Islam wanted and wants with this expression: Risk your life and go to war.

There is a lot more like this - much of it just with other words. Add this to all the other pep talk for warriors in the Quran, and you get something that should never be forgotten - not even by USA.

And of course there is the problem of never knowing who the few are who will turn terrorists, and the not few who are willing to help them - with money at least. The 5. column. Some 30% of Muslims at least have sympathy for or “understands why” terrorists are at work, international polls show - more and much more in some places.

And all the same: Never forget that the majority of Muslims absolutely do not want anything but peace and a quiet family life. The ideology of hate and war and suppression is detestable, but not so all the ones of them who are normal people.

It is too late to keep Islam at a distance - too many have emigrated to the west. The absolute majority have moved vest for economical reasons, but for Muslims to move into “enemy” territory and then later to try to take control, is a strategy of war frequently advocated in the Quran. That f.x. was what happened in Indonesia. Besides a scattered few may move west because of or partly because of that ideology - but then it only takes a few to wreak havoc. May be one should not make the problem bigger until we see how the ones already here will develop - how the integration and the culture will develop. Though Paris and other places may be sinister warnings.

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

133 65/7a: "- - - according to what Allah has given him (a man*)". It is not your toil which makes you rich or poor, but what gifts Allah gives you.

######134 68/35+36: “Shall We (Allah*) treat the people of Faith like the People of Sin? What is the matter with you? How judge you?” Yes, “how judge ye” to believe non-Muslims can be of as good quality humans as Muslims? - shall Muslims and nom-Muslims be treated similar?! (But to be down-to-earth: These two verses tell something sinister about the Quran and thus about Muhammad and about Islam. No comments necessary.)

135 69/11a: "We (Allah*) - - - carried you (mankind), it the floating (Ark)". Contradicted by the Bible, which says that the involved god was Yahweh, not Allah. Also see 67/9c above - 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.

136 69/12: "That We (Allah*) might make it (the survival of the humans in the Ark*) a Message - - -". It is no message from Allah if the involved god was Yahweh - and even more so if Allah did/do not exist.

137 69/18b: "- - - not an act of yours (peoples'*) that ye hide will be hidden". See 2/233h above.

###138 70/39b: (YA5699): "The animal part of man is nothing to be proud of, and they (humans*) know it. It is by spiritual effort, and long preparation through a good life that man can raise above the mere animal parts of him to his high dignity as a spiritual being, and his noble destiny in the hereafter". Statements like this from modern Islam, makes it very thought provoking that Muhammad's and the Quran's and Islam's Paradise only contains bodily - the animal part of man - pleasures and nothing for his spiritual life (except that Allah is claimed to be above the 7. heaven whereas normal Muslims seems to end up in the lowest one with 6 heavens between him/her and Allah (and according to Islamic relevant literature there are long distances between each heaven - up to 100 years travel is mentioned) - but Allah is a subject for reverence, not for intellectual or spiritual activity and development in the daily life in Paradise as a parallel to the "animal" activities.

139 72/6b: "True, there are persons among mankind who took shelter with persons among the Jinns - - -". If you are able to believe humans took shelter among beings borrowed from old pagan Arab religion, folklore and fairy tales, you are permitted to believe so. But there never was a proved case of such a happening. But it is a nice, if a bit incredible, case of one of Muhammad's techniques when debating: Claim or state that something is true without the slightest proofs, and then make claims from there, or claim it proves this and this. Totally without value as a real argument and not even related to normal logic - - - but so what, as long as naive followers believe it?! (But then Muslims often are not trained in logical deduction, and some of the training they get, even is wrong, as Islam cannot afford to teach logical laws which make the mistakes, contradictions, etc. too easy to see. F.x. that problems can have 2 or more correct solutions, even if the solutions are mutually excluding.)

140 74/31n: "And this is no other than a warning to mankind." Some years later it - Islam - became an enforcing war society. When this surah was dictated by Muhammad around 611 - 615 AD, he simply had not any power for more than "warning", but he changed his mind when he grew military stronger after 622 - 624 AD.

141 74/36: "A warning to mankind - - -". At this time there was nothing much Muhammad could do, except talk - give "warnings" - as he had no power. Things changed when he became more powerful.

142 76/2b: “Verily, We (Allah*) created man (used like this, it is clear that “man” represents the human race, Adam*) from a drop with mingled sperm, so We gave him (the gifts) of Hearing and Sight”. It is not said from where the sperm came, and the author obviously does not know about the egg call, but that aside:

This is contradicted by 6/2, 7/12, 17/61, 32/7, 38/71, and 38/76 that tell man/Adam was made from clay, 15/26, 15/26, and 15/33 that tell man/Adam was made from sounding clay, 55/14 that tells man/Adam was made from ringing clay, 37/11 that tells man/Adam was made from sticky clay, 23/12, that tells man/Adam was made from essence of clay, 15/26, 15/28, and 15/33 that tell man/Adam was made from mud, 3/59, 22/5, 35/11, 40/67, that tell man/Adam was made from dust, 20/55 that tells man/Adam was made from earth, 16/4, 96/2 that tell man/Adam was made from a clot of congealed blood, 21/30, 24/45, and 25/54 that tell man/Adam was made from water (NB! NB! Not in water, but from water!), 70/39 that tells man/Adam was made from “base material”, and not to mention the greatest contradiction in this case: 19/9 and 19/67 which both tell that man/Adam was created from nothing. (Also see verse 6/2 in the chapters about the 1000+ mistakes in the Quran.) (Strictly reckoned this contradicts 27 other verses. And in this case also minimum 27 contradictions.)

#####143 76/4d: (A76/5): "- - - man's - - - inborn cognition of Allah's existence - - -". This is scientific nonsense. No such inborn cognition has ever been found - even by Islam. Science has found that a small percentage has an inborn longing for something stronger to lean on - a god. But any religion and any god(s) do(as) the job as long as the needy believe in it. But no "inborn cognition" has ever been found. It has been found that small children easily accepts the idea of a god, just like they accept most other things they believe are facts, but there are miles between also this and "inborn cognition of Allah's existence". This claim most likely is a result of Islam's lack of proofs for Allah (and for Muhammad's connection to a god) and its search for "strong" arguments for that Allah must exist in spite of the total lack of valid proofs. You find similar claims on "instinctive knowledge", etc. several places in the Quran and other Islamic literature. Scientifically it is totally wrong and invalid - so much so, that al-Taqiyya (the lawful lie) may be a more correct word than "wrong", as this is so well known that also Muslim scholars have got to know it. It tells something about Islam that they have to stoop to the use of "arguments" like this.

As said: Scientific nonsense.

144 78/18b: "- - - ye (people*) shall come forth (for doom*) in crowds - - -". This is one of the many never proved claims in the Quran, which cannot be true unless Allah exists, a claim which is proved nowhere. (But it is one of the many places where Allah - if he exists - may act even if he is from the dark forces, if only he has enough power).

145 81/29a: "But ye (people*) shall not will except as Allah wills". This can be understood at least in 2 ways in this book of claimed very clear texts: You ought not to want to or do other things than what Allah will like - or it may be a reference to Allah's predestination; you shall for all times say and do only what Allah wills you to say and do.

146 84/6b: "Verily, thou (man*) art ever toiling on towards thy Lord (Allah*), but thou shalt meet Him (Allah*)". Mankind will be judged. But this claim is correct only if the Quran is from a god, and this god is Allah + that the Quran tells only the truth and the full truth. (For some reason or other Islam and its Muslims seldom claim that Islam is the religion of honesty.)

147 84/6c: "- - - thou (man*) shalt meet Him (Allah, at the Day of Doom*". Contradicted by the Bible, which tells you will meet Yahweh this day, not Allah. Also see 67/9c above - 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.

148 88/25a: "- - - to Us (Allah*) will be their (mankind's*) Return (at the Day of Doom*)- - -". Often claimed, never proved - and also not possible if Allah does not exist and/or is not a major god, neither of which also never is proved.

149 90/4b: "Verily, We (Allah*) have created man - - -". Often claimed in the Quran - never proved. Like everything else in that book. But see 6/2b above.

150 114/1aa: A serious one: According to our sources the word "say" are not in the original Arab text (there are indications for that this is the case several places in the Quran according to f.x. ibn Warraq: "Why I am not a Muslim", chapter 5, subchapter "The Words of God"). Then it is Muhammad who is saying:" I seek refuge with the Lord and Cherisher of Mankind (Allah*)". This also is one of the surahs (others were no. 1 and no.113) Ibn Masud, one of Muhammad's companions - d. ca. 652 AD - said did not belong in the Quran. But if some surahs wrongly have ended in the Quran, how many more do not belong there?

But how could Muhammad speak in a book made before the world was created, or which existed since eternity? Something is seriously wrong.

Plus: How reliable is a religion which uses falsifications to hide serious errors?

151 114/1b: "(Allah is*) the Lord and Cherisher of Mankind - - -". Actually this is contradicted by the Bible, which says the lord is Yahweh, not Allah. Also see 67/9c above - 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.

152 114/2: "(Allah is*) the King (or Ruler) of Mankind.". See 114/1a+b above.

153 114/3: “(Allah is*) The God (or Judge) of Mankind - - -”. A statement that is in no way proved. Actually it is rather disproved - especially the use of wrong facts, invalid loose words, invalid loose claims and statements, invalid and wrong “signs” and “proofs” does not point towards an omniscient god.

But perhaps it points towards a man - - - or even towards a devil in disguise, not wanting humans to find the right religion - if such one exists.

Also a parallel to 114/1a and 114/1b above.

153 + 5113 = 5266 comments (+ basic comments/introductions).


 

165.   MARUT (OF HARUT AND MARUT)

See Harut.

0 + 5266 = 5266 comments (+ basic comments/introductions).


 

166.   MARY - MOTHER OF JESUS

It is very likely Mary was pretty young when Jesus was born. She was engaged, but not yet married to Joseph when she became pregnant. Both the Bible and the Quran (3/47, 19/20-21, 21/91, 66/12) tells she was a virgin - which among other things means that Muslims who claim Mary f.x. run with Roman soldiers and became pregnant that way, tell that the Quran is lying about this in at least 4 places.

Mary is in the background in most of NT, but all the same we do not know too much about her.

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

001 2/87e: "- - - Jesus the son of Mary - - -". See 5/110a below.

002 2/87g: "- - - the Holy Spirit." This is one of the few places the Holy Spirit is clearly mentioned in the Quran (at least here and in 2/253, 5/110, 16/102, 17/85, and 26/193 - the last one not 100% sure, though). All the same Muhammad believed the trinity consisted of God/Yahweh, Jesus and Mary!! (A good laugh for anyone who has ever read the Bible.) Also beware that many Muslims who have not read the Bible, believe the Holy Spirit = the arch angel Gabriel (Gabriel was said to bring Muhammad messages, the Holy Spirit was said a few times to bring Muhammad messages - ergo the Spirit = Gabriel. You also other places in Islamic literature will see that not all Muslims have studied the laws of logic.) Anyone who reads the Bible with an open mind, will see that the Holy Spirit is something special.

003 2/135i: (Abraham) "joined not gods with Allah". Neither do Jews nor Christians. They only have one god, Yahweh. 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.

*004 2/253d: “- - - to Jesus the son of Mary - - -" See 5/110a below.

005 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).

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

006 3/33d: "- - - Imran - - -". Imran was the father of Moses, Aaron, and Miriam, but Muhammad knew the Bible so little and had so vague ideas about its contents, that he believed Imran also was the father of Mary (mother of Jesus) some 1200 years later (actually he believed Mary and Miriam were the same person) - any god had known better, so who made the Quran? Well, the likely reason for the mistake is that in Arab both Mary and Miriam is written Maryam. Also see 3/35a+b below. An extra tit-bit here is that as Muhammad believed Miriam, sister of Moses, and Mary, mother of Jesus was the same woman, and as he further believed Mary was part of the Trinity, Miriam - sister of Moses - has to be part of the Trinity. Muhammad had got his Bible pretty mixed up to say the least of it. No god would make such historical and religious nonsense. Then who made the Quran?

###007 3/35a: ”Imran’s wife - - -”. The Quran here is talking about the mother of Mary (see also 3/33d above). But Imran was the father of Aaron, Moses and Miriam, who lived some 1200 years earlier! Muhammad did not know the Bible very well, and he thought Mary was Miriam, the sister of Aaron and Moses. In 19/28 this is directly said, when talking about Mary: “O sister of Aaron”. It is likely that the reason for this mistake is that in Arab Mary (mother of Jesus) and Miriam (the older sister of Moses and Aaron) are written the same way: Maryam. With his limited knowledge of the Bible Muhammad believed it was the same woman. Any god had known better. We may add that some Muslims say it is not the same Imran, but scientists agree on that Muhammad meant the same man - the Imran who "was chosen by Allah" like Adam, Noah and Abraham (see 3/33a) - the father of Aaron, Moses - - - and Maryam/Miriam. That Muhammad really was wrong here, and thought Mary was the sister of Aaron and Moses, is documented by the fact that according to Hadith (the other Muslim main source of information about their religion and about Muhammad) Muhammad was corrected, and he tried to find explanations to repair the mistake (without success). He also did not add information showing that he and Allah for some reason was right in his mistaken statement all the same.

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

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

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

##008 3/35b: "Imran’s wife - - -". This is an example on "honest" Muslim technique of debate, taken - unbelievably - from Muhammad Yusuf Ali, the famous translator of the Quran, in his book: "The Meaning of the Quran": "By tradition Mary's mother was called Hannah (in Latin Anna, in English Anne), and her father was called Imran. Hannah is therefore both a descendant of the priestly house of Imran (the Arab name of Moses' father*) and the wife of Imran." One thing is that when using traditions and legends as basis, one cannot say that something "is", only that it "may be". But the real screamer is that the name of the father of Mary never in the traditions and legends was Imran. That name you only find in the Quran, and of course among the ones who take the name from the Quran - and this even more so as he mix in the Latin (and English) names. The name of Mary's father in the traditions was Jojakim or Jocim (except that Muslims have looked in the Quran and found the name Imran and made a new “tradition” from that). Further comments not necessary - just make your own conclusions about how reliable Muslims - even outstanding, learned ones like Mr. Ali - sometimes may be, and how reliable Muslim arguments and "facts" sometimes are. "Use al-Taqiyya (the lawful lie*), Kitman (the lawful half-truth*) and even deception and broken oaths to forward or defend the Religion of Truth". As you understand: When we base most of our writings on Islamic sources, we often run into the problem that everything has to be checked, because even claimed "facts" too often are incorrect. (For some reason or other Islam and its Muslims seldom claim that Islam is the religion of honesty.)

009 3/35d: "O my (mother of Mary's (perhaps Hannah or Annah )*) Lord (claimed to be Allah*)! I do dedicate unto Thee what is in my womb for Thy special service - - - (etc*)". Not from the Bible. See 3/35-37 below.

010 3/35e: "O my (mother of Mary's*) Lord (claimed to be Allah*)! I do dedicate unto Thee what is in my womb for Thy special service - - - (etc*)". One more of the many texts in the Quran which could not have been reliably written into the book eons ago unless predestination was and is 100% - like the Quran claims many places. See 2/51b and 3/24a above.

011 3/35-37: The birth of Mary. This story is taken from the fanciful book "The Protoevangelion's James the Lesser", and contradicts the Bible quite a lot as it is not like in the Bible. The names of Mary's parents are not mentioned neither in the Bible, nor in the Quran.

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

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

012 3/36a: "O my (mother of Mary's*) Lord (claimed to be Allah*)! Behold! I am delivered of a female child! - - - And nowise is the male like the female. I have named her Mary, and I commend her and her offspring to Thy protection from Satan, the rejected". Not from the Bible - see 3/35-37 above.

013 3/36b: "O my (mother of Mary's*) Lord (claimed to be Allah*)! Behold! I am delivered of a female child! - - - And nowise is the male like the female. I have named her Mary, and I commend her and her offspring to Thy protection from Satan, the rejected". One more of the many texts in the Quran which could not have been reliably written into the book eons ago unless predestination was and is 100% - like the Quran claims many places. See 2/51b and 3/24a above.

014 3/37a: "He (Allah*) made her (Mary*) grow in purity and beauty - - -". There is nothing in the Bible about how Mary looked.

015 3/37b: "- - - to the care of Zakariyya was she (Mary*) assigned". This is not form the Bible. Actually Zakariyya (Zechariah in the Bible) is not mentioned in the Bible until in connection with the conception of his son, John - later called "the Baptist", (f.x. Luke 1/5-24) which took place some 15 months before the birth of Jesus. And the only connection he had to Mary according to the Bible, was that Mary visited his wife - her relative (Luke 1/36), Elisabeth, when being pregnant with Jesus, and "stayed with Elisabeth for three months and then returned home" (Luke 1/56).

016 3/37d: "- - - to the care of Zakariyya was she (Mary*) assigned". One more of the many texts in the Quran which could not have been reliably written into the book eons ago, unless predestination was and is 100% - like the Quran claims many places. See 2/51b and 3/24a above.

017 3/37f: “Every time he (Zakariyya*) entered (her (Mary'*)) chamber to see her, he found her supplied with sustenance. He said: ‘O Mary! Whence (comes) this to you?’ She said: “From Allah: for Allah provides sustenance to whom He pleases without measure’ “. This means that she by a miracle got her food from the god. This is a made up fairy tale. There is not one single chance that a miracle like this had been omitted from the NT - this even more so if Islam had been right in their statements that Christians (and Jews) had falsified the Bible and made Jesus "bigger" - though how do you make Jews falsify their copies of scriptures to make Jesus "bigger"? (Muhammad was not well versed in the Bible, and frequently made mistakes when he referred to it or (believed he) took stories from it. He always explained such mistakes with that he was right, and that the unholy Jews and Christians had falsified the Bible. Actually just this story is one the many the Quran has not “borrowed” from the Bible at all, but from one of the made up religious legends which flourished at that time. These mistakes was a reason why the Jews did not accept him when he came to Yathrib/Medina - the Jews said his teachings were wrong and that he consequently was a false prophet. (Muslims have "a tendency" not to mention this fact, but to instead tell a, to Muhammad, more flattering story: He was not accepted because the Jews were angry because Allah had called a non-Jew for a prophet.)

But if Christians had falsified the Bible, their main object would have been to strengthen Jesus’ position and his connections to Yahweh - the Jewish and Christian god. There is no chance at all that they had omitted a miracle connected to his mother, telling about a direct connection between Yahweh and her. (That she served in the Temple, which also is told in the Quran, also is new to the Bible – and had never been omitted there if it was true. Besides: It is untrue - only men (and only men from the Levi tribe - Mary was from the Judah tribe) served in the Temple.)

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

018 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" means "a made up story" even though most learned Muslims do know this, and thus 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.

019 3/37h: "O Mary! Whence (comes) this to you?" One more of the many texts or quotes in the Quran which could not have been reliably written into the claimed "Mother of the 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. See 2/51b and 3/24a above. But if predestination is 100%, Allah is extremely unjust to punish people for things he has forced them to do.

020 3/42a “Behold the angels (plural*) said (when they came to tell Mary she was going to have the baby Jesus*)”. But:

  1. 12/109: “Nor did we send before thee (humanity, man, Muhammad*) (as Messengers) any but men.”
  2. 16/43: “And before thee (Muhammad*) also the Messengers we sent were but men - - -“.
  3. 21/7: “Before thee (Muhammad*), also, the messengers we sent were but men”.
  4. 25/20: “And the messengers whom We (Allah*) sent before thee were all (men) - - -.”

Well, 3/42 - 6/130 - 11/69 – 11/77 – 11/81– 19/17b – 19/19 – 22/75 all say that not all were men. Nice small contradictions to 12/109 – 16/43 – 21/7 – 25/20 which all says all messengers were men.

(8 contradictions - or really 32 as each contradicts each of the others).

021 3/42c: “Behold the angels (plural*) said (when they came to tell Mary she was going to have the baby Jesus*)”. According to the Bible there only was one angel - Gabriel (Luke 1/26).

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

022 3/43b: "O Mary! Worship thy Lord (here claimed to be Allah*) devoutly: prostrate thyself, and bow down (in prayer) with those who bow down". This is not from the Bible. As the Quran with all its errors is from no god, from where did Muhammad get this information?

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.)

023 3/43c: "- - - those who bow down". Muslims - Jews and Christians normally do not use prostration. So you understand that also Mary was a good Muslim.

024 3/44a: "This (Mary serving in the Temple under Zachariah 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 male members of the Levi tribe could serve in the Temple, whereas Mary was a woman and a descendant of David, and thus from the Judah tribe. Muslim scholars knew and know this (f.x. A. Yusuf Ali: "The Meaning of the Holy Quran", comment 378: "The female child (Mary*) could not be devoted to Temple service under the Mosaic (Jewish*) law - - -" (the rest of the quote we omit - it is speculative and unscientific to say the least of it, like sometimes in Islamic literature), and that only Levites could be priests, etc. is very clear from many places in the Bible), but never mention to Muslim congregations. Honesty. Also see 3/37a-b-c above.

025 3/44e: "- - - charged with the care of Mary - - -". This is not from the Bible, and nothing similar is told there. There is no indication in the Bible for that she ever lived other places then in her home in Nazareth or that she ever was in the care of anyone but her parents before she got Jesus. From where did Muhammad get this information? Not from a god, as a book so full of mistakes, etc. like the Quran, is from no god - and what sources do then remain? Also see 3/37b+f above.

026 3/45b: “Behold the angels (plural*) said (when they came to tell Mary she was going to have the baby Jesus*)”. According to the Bible there only was one angel - Gabriel (Luke 1/26).

027 3/45f: "- - - his name will be Christ Jesus, the son of Mary - - -". This is the full name the Quran uses for him - to underline their claim that he was not the son of Yahweh. And it is entirely wrong - he never was called "the son of Mary". When a parent's name was mentioned as part of his name (normal in those countries), he was "son of Joseph" - "ben Joseph" - the name of his (adopted?) father on Earth. And to be even more accurate: As Jesus is the Greek version of the Hebrew name Joshua, Jesus' name there and then would be "Joshua ben Joseph". Any - any - god had known this - Muhammad obviously not. Then who made the Quran?

Also see 5/110a below.

###028 3/47b: "How shall I (Mary*) have a son when no man hath touched me?" It may be worth noticing that the Quran here confirms the virgin birth of Jesus (the angel's answer in the next sentence had been different if this was not true). This because you meet Muslims throwing around ugly dirt about Yahweh and Roman soldiers, etc. and sex with an 8-9 year old girl from the Bible - Mary - refusing the virgin birth. Now, no-one knows the age of Mary, but it is likely that she was young. No-one guesses younger than 12 years, but looking to Muhammad's regular sex with Aisha from she was 9, Muslims sometimes claims Mary was 8-9 - the younger, the uglier - - - and an alibi for Muhammad's pedophilia. But the claimed virgin birth and thus no early sex, is confirmed at least 3 places in the Quran (19/20-21, 66/12 and here) - for what the reliability of the Quran is worth.

#######029 3/47c: "How shall I (Mary*) have a son when no man hath touched me?" 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. See 2/51b and 3/24a above.

*030 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.

031 4/171e: “- - - Christ Jesus, the son of Mary, was (no more than) a Messenger- - -.” Well, he frequently called Yahweh (the Jewish and Christian god) his father - the word is used for Yahweh in the relationship between Yahweh and Jesus at least 204 times in the Bible, and the word "son" at least 89 times, many of those times by Jesus himself - and Jesus was reliable also according to the Quran (and remember: Neither science nor Islam has been able to find one single falsification in the Bible - lots of claims from Islam, but not one documented case (just guess how loudly Islam had screamed about it, if they had ever found one!)).

032 4/171f: "- - - Christ Jesus - - -". Wrong. "Christ" was not part of his name - it was a title given him after his death - it is the Greek version of the Hebrew title Messiah, which means the anointed one. The word Messiah was sporadically mentioned during his lifetime, but not Christ, which only emerged some years after his death and resurrection. Unknown to Muhammad, but known to any god - then who made the Quran?

033 4/171g: "- - - the son of Mary - - -". See 5/110a below.

*034 5/17b: “In blasphemy indeed are those that say that Allah is Christ (= put another god by Allah’s side – the ultimate and unforgivable sin according to 4/48 and 4/116*) - - -". No Christian says that Jesus is Allah or the other way around. Neither do they say that Jesus is Yahweh. Also Muhammad never understood the trinity dogma of the Christians. (He believed the trinity consists of Yahweh, Jesus and Mary!!!). But if one looks only at that dogma, Islam may be right that it is not correct - may be. It is only a dogma decided on by humans after much discussion; it is not part of the Bible. (This dogma is from the 4. century, and it got its present form from the so-called Cappadocia Fathers (Gregory of Nyassa (332-395), Basil the Great (320-79 AD), Gregory of Nazeanzus (329-389). The nearest you come in the Bible is that Jesus said that he and his father, Yahweh, were one.) Also see 5/17a and 5/73b.

But no-one in his right mind and with some knowledge about the Bible, would ever believe Mary was part of the trinity. Any even baby god had known. Then who made the Quran?

035 5/17e: "- - - Christ, the son of Mary - - -". See 5/110a below.

036 5/46c: “- - - we (Allah*) sent Jesus the son of Mary - - -". See 5/110a below.

037 5/46f: “- - - we (Allah*) sent Jesus the son of Mary, confirming the Law (of Moses*)”. According to the Bible Jesus was not sent to change the old laws – that was not his main purpose. All the same he did so – changed some and even nullified some of them, especially many of all the additions made by that time by Jewish religious thinkers and leaders. This was more or less formalized during his last Easter, when the new covenant (f.x. Luke 22/20) was made. (This covenant is never mentioned by Islam, and most Muslims without religious education have not even heard about it. This even though it is one of the main and most central facts in the Christian religion).

#########It is worth remembering that at least in 3/50a the Quran confirms that Jesus changed old Jewish laws. Especially it is worth remembering this all the many times Muslims claims that Jesus confirmed the old laws of Moses, without mentioning a whisper about that both the Bible and the Quran confirm he changed or terminated a number of them.

##############An extra juicy pint here is that surah 3 - where Muhammad says Jesus came to "make lawful to you (the Jews*) part of what was (before) forbidden to you" - is from ca. 625 AD. This means that already then he knew that Jesus changed laws. All the same he here - in 632 AD - he simply tells that Jesus was sent to confirm the Laws of Moses. ########A clear and documented case of Muhammad lying in the Quran - he knew better.

038 5/72a: “They (Christians*) do blaspheme who say: ‘God is Christ the son of Mary.’ - - - and the Fire will be their abode.” This clearly contradicts – and abrogates:

  1. 2/62: “- - - those who follow the Jewish (scriptures), and the Christians and the Sabeans any who believe in Allah (Yahweh = Allah according to the Quran*) and the Last Day, and work in righteousness, shall have their reward with their Lord - - -.”
  2. 5/69: “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.”

(2 abrogations)

(2 contradictions)

*039 5/72d: “They do blaspheme who say: ‘God is Christ the son of Mary’”. No Christians say that Yahweh is the son of Mary, Jesus. (Though catholic people use the expression “Mother of God” meaning “Mother of (the holy) Jesus”, but also they clearly know the difference between God/Yahweh and Jesus).

##040 5/72e: "- - - Christ (Jesus*) the son of Mary." See 5/110a below.

041 5/73b: “They do blaspheme who say: Allah is one of three in a Trinity - - -.” Muhammad said Yahweh = Allah, and he never understood the trinity - he even believed it consisted of Yahweh, Jesus, and Mary, a mistake no god - agreeing or not agreeing to the Trinity - would have made. But for once there is a possibility that the Quran has a point; the Trinity is formally not a part of the Bible. On the other hand those are the three special ones: Yahweh, Jesus and the Holy Spirit - we may think of them as God, his co-worker and representative, and his errand boy/messenger boy and helper. Trinity or not - those three have a special status according to both the Bible and the Quran (even though the Quran does not agree to which status - it even say the Holy Spirit = the angel Gabriel, which makes anyone really knowing the Bible laugh.) There also is the fact that according to the Bible, Jesus said that he and his father were one - but figuratively meant. Also see 5/73a just above.

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

042 5/75a: “Christ, the son of Mary, was no more than a messenger; - - -”. The Bible says something else – that Jesus called Yahweh his father (this relationship according to our latest leafing through the Bible, is mentioned at least 204 times as “father” + at least 89 times as “son” in the NT - frequently by Jesus himself), and far from always only his spiritual father - and as the Bible is written relatively short time after Jesus’ death, and on this point on the basis of thousands of witnesses who could tell what Jesus said, and protest if the narrators quoted Jesus falsely, it is likely that the Bible is more reliable here, than the Quran. The Quran is written 600 years later, and offers only unfounded statements and claims without any proof or even indicia backing up the claims. This even more so as the only Islamic source for the claims was a man who demanded to be the greatest prophet of all times, something he definitely could not be if Jesus was a relative of Yahweh – and this even more so as Muhammad in reality was not a prophet: He did not have the gift of being able to make prophesies (he did not even claim to or pretend to have it, yes, he denied to have it) – perhaps a messenger for someone or something, or an apostle, but not a prophet. And not least: Muhammad clearly had a deplorable moral - easy to see even in the Quran if you omit all the glossy, big words and look for the facts which are told about him.

Also as mentioned Jesus himself frequently called Yahweh his father - and Jesus is reliable also according to the Quran. A sticky fact Islam cannot accept (as said the Quran/Mohammad cannot accept that Jesus may be the son of Yahweh, because then Muhammad is not the greatest of “prophets” – and the defense of Muhammad also is essential, as he in reality was a dubious and immoral character, and all the same the entire Islam is built only - only - on this man's words).

043 5/75c: "- - - the son of Mary - - -". See 5/110a below.

044 5/75d: "They (Mary and Jesus*) had both to eat their (daily) food." This is intended to be a proof for that they just were ordinary humans - even lowly angels f.x. visiting Abraham did not eat food. (Funny; Muslims in Paradise have to eat - one of their few pass-times and one of their few things to look forward to in the claimed next life - f.x. absolutely no intellectual activity). But on Earth Jesus was born as a physical normal human who needed food. The "proof" thus is of no value. As for Mary: Here Muhammad tries to prove she was not part of the Trinity, as she was a human. Not even the most imbecile Christian ever said she was part of that. We simply are back to the fact that Muhammad did not understand these central parts of Christianity: No-one ever indicated that Mary was part of the Trinity or divine - some say she was holy, but in the meaning "better than ordinary people", not in the meaning "divine", and some do not even say that. As for Jesus; no matter whether one believes he was divine or not, no-one ever indicated that his life here on Earth was in something other than a normal human body. Muhammad is breaking in open doors. And any god had known this. Who made the Quran?

045 5/76b. "Will ye (Christians*) worship, besides Allah, something which hath no power either to harm or benefit you?" The word "something" here must refer to Mary and Jesus in the previous verse. When it comes to Mary and the Catholics, Muhammad here may have a point - saints are not an idea you find in the Bible. (On the other hand they do not pray to a divine Mary, only to what they believe may be a helper to reach the divine.) As for Jesus we are back to the fact that he several places told he could help - - - and to the old fact that science and Islam both clearly has shown that the Bible is not falsified, even though Islam is dependent on this never documented claim for their religion to survive. (If the Bible is not falsified it is ever so clear that then the Quran is a made up - falsified - book, as so much of what it claims the Bible tells or should tell, is not from the Bible.)

046 5/78f: "- - - Jesus, the son of Mary - - -". See 5/110a below.

047 5/110a "O Jesus the son of Mary!". This is a claimed name you some places find for Jesus in the Quran. The point is to fortify Muhammad's claim that Jesus was not the son of Yahweh (in that case he may be was divine, and in any case clearly was a greater and more central prophet than Muhammad, which Muhammad would not accept).

But officially Jesus was the son of Joseph (his official and formal father - the least you can say about the connection between those two, is that Joseph "de facto" had accepted Jesus as his adopted son). If anyone used a "full name" for him in the very man-dominated Israel, it would be "Jesus son of Joseph" - "Jesus ben Joseph" and not "Jesus ben Mary" ("ben" means "son of" in Hebrew - the same as "bin" in Arab).

And to make the picture of Muhammad's problems with Jesus' name complete: Muhammad uses the name Isa for Jesus in the Quran. This is wrong. Isa is the Arab version of Esau (the brother of the Jewish patriarch Jacob). The Arab form for the name Jesus - or Joshua in Hebrew - is Yoshuwa (the spelling may vary a little). Any god had known this - Muhammad obviously not. Who then made the Quran?

Finally: As for Muhammad's never documented claim that Jesus was not the son of Yahweh, we may mention that the name "father" is used is used for Yahweh in this connection at least 204 times in the Bible, and the name "son" for Jesus in the same connection at least 89 times - many of those times by Jesus, a prophet whom also the Quran admits is very reliable.

But an extra point here is that if the Quran and Muhammad claim that Jesus was not the son of Yahweh, like they strongly do to try do to make Muhammad the greatest of prophets, the only alternative is that he was the son of Joseph. Then in a strongly male society like the Hebrew - or the Arab - no son of a married couple would accept to be named after his mother. F.x. Muhammad never was called Muhammad bin Amina (his mother's name was Amina). In this case the only name possible for Jesus - and the only name one honestly could use in the old Israel - was Joshua(Jesus) ben Joseph. Any god had known - but Muhammad needed a twist to be able to claim that he himself was the greatest.

Well, there is even one more point: The Bible tells and the Quran admits (f.x. 3/47, 19/20, 21/91, 66/12) that Mary was a virgin when Jesus was born. This means he had no human father. Then there remain only 2 possibilities: A parthenogenesis (the egg/fetus starts growing without male DNA is added - this do happen among some "lower" animals), but then for one thing the child always is female, and for another parthenogenesis is unknown among humans. Or something very special did happen.

048 5/110b "O Jesus the son of Mary!". 2 different time anomalies. See 4/13d above.

674 5/112b: "O Jesus the son of Mary!" For one thing your nearest co-workers (here Jesus' disciples*) do not use a long and formal name for you. Plus wrong name - the name of Jesus was Jesus ben Joseph, not Jesus ben Mary. For another see 5/110a above.

049 5/114a: "- - - Jesus the son of Mary - - -". See 5/110a above.

050 5/116a: "O Jesus the son of Mary!". The name is wrong. See 5/110a.

051 5/116c: “Didst thou (Jesus*) say unto men, ‘worship me and my mother as gods in derogation of Allah’?” Jesus was not involved with Allah - see 3/51a for explanation. As for a divine Jesus, that is not explicitly said in the Bible, but many places it is clearly understood that he was (f.x. if Yahweh really was his father in some way, and also all his miracles – some even confirmed by the Quran (see 5/110 above and the complete verse in the Quran) – indicates something). But when it comes to Mary, Islam is right - saints are not a part of the teaching of the Bible (on the other hand also some Muslims have saints, notably the Shiites). But the Quran also is very wrong: No Christian - not one single - prays to Mary as a god, only as a go-between. The position of Jesus is vaguer - he is divine, but no Christian believes there is more than one god.

*052 5/116d: Mohammad believed the Trinity consisted of God/Yahweh, Jesus and Mary. Wrong. Both Muhammad and the Quran were wrong in the extreme when he/they thus believed Mary was part of the Trinity. (It consists (?) of God/Yahweh, Jesus and the Holy Spirit – also called the Holy Ghost, the Spirit of Truth, the Spirit of God, or only the Spirit, the Spirit of the Lord, and a few other names). Muhammad never understood the trinity and he never understood the Holy Spirit, even though he used the Spirit a few times in the Quran – and some Muslims refer to the Holy Spirit in the Quran as another name for the arch angel Gabriel(!) as it is “known” that Gabriel brought surahs and verses, but it is also said in the Quran that the Spirit brought some. A logical short-circuit. (No knower of the Bible would ever get this idea).

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

053 6/8c: “They (people*) say: ‘Why is not an angel sent down to him?’ If We (Allah*) did send down an angel, the matter would be settled at once, and no respite would be granted them”. This question – a proof f.x. by means of an angel – arose frequently. Muhammad’s often used “explanation” was this: Allah will not send down an angel until The Last Day (the Day of Doom). That means that if he sends down angles, that day becomes the Last Day (“the matter will be settled at once, and no respite would be granted them”), and in that case the unbelievers would lose their chance to become believers (“- - - no respite would be granted them”.) This “explanation” is nonsense even according to the Quran. That book tells that the angel Gabriel visited Muhammad often, it tells that angels come down to fetch the souls of the dead, it tells that angels come down to fetch your soul when you fall asleep and to return it when you wakes up, it tells that angels surround you to note down your good and bad deeds – not to mention the thousands of angels Allah sends down to do battles together with Muslims time and again. And angels visiting f.x. Abraham, Lot, and Mary.

054 6/61c: "- - - He (Allah*) sets guardians over you." Here is a contradiction. Guardians mean angels, and other places in the Quran makes it clear it is more than one who looks after you at the same time - and all the time. But f.x. 6/8 says: "If We did send down an angel, the matter would be settled at once, and no respite would be granted them" = your life would come to an end or it would be the Day of Doom according to Islam. 6/61 says guardians (= angels, plural) take care of you. And for that case it is several places in the Quran said that the angel Gabriel is sent down to Muhammad. And Abraham, Lot, Mary, inhabitants in Sodom and Gomorrah saw angels. But 6/8 says no angel can be sent down because then everything will be over. A clear contradiction.

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

055 9/31c: "- - - Christ the son of Mary - - -". See 5/110a above.

056 9/31e: "- - - yet they (the Christians*) were commanded to worship but One God - - -". Muhammad never understood the Christian religion and thinking. According to Christians there is only one god. Then there is a figure - a helper or something (the son, Jesus) - who in reality gets his light and his power from God/Yahweh. And finally there is something more diffuse and seldom seen: The messenger boy or something named the Holy Spirit (sometimes wrongly claimed to be the arch angel Gabriel by Muslims who have never read the Bible, or who have read it with a closed mind). To use a picture: There is one sun. Then there is a moon which gets its light from the sun. And there is the seldom seen satellite somewhere around. But only one sun. And that is the complete "pantheon". To mix Mary into the Trinity (like Muhammad does at least one place in the Quran) just is one more proof for that no god made the Quran, and for that Muhammad did not understand the trinity. Mary and the other saints (only for the Catholics, and not for all of them) are not divine. In Islam some good Muslims end in the higher heavens closer to Allah. In the same way Catholics believe that some really good Christians end up closer to God in Heaven - though figuratively. And just like Muhammad claimed he can interfere for whom he like on the Last Day, Catholics believe that as these normal, but good, humans called saint can interfere with God on our behalf, as they are closer to him. But as this is not a part of the Bible, the Protestants - and the Sunni Muslims - may be right: May be there are no saints.

057 16/35a: "The worshippers of false gods - - -". An interesting point here is that Muhammad reckoned Christians to believe Jesus was/is such a false god - Muhammad never understood the Gospels and the rest of NT on points like this. The Bible do not say Jesus is a god, only that he is divine - a prince is not a king, even if he belongs to the royal family (and in this case he also never will become a king, as the king - Yahweh - is eternal). Well, Christians say Jesus is "true god and true human", but this is a human deduction, not the clear words from NT the NT only states - indirectly, but clearly - that Jesus is divine, and it states very clearly that there only is one god, Yahweh. Muhammad also never understood the Trinity dogma, and believed it consisted of Yahweh, Jesus and Mary instead of Yahweh, Jesus and the Holy Spirit (though he may be right that the Trinity dogma is not correct - the three may perhaps not be one - that dogma is manmade and may be wrong, as this is not said in the Bible. It is a Christian dogma from the 4. century, and it got its present form from the so-called Cappadocian Fathers (Gregory of Nyassa (332-395), Basil the Great (320-79), Gregory of Nazeanzus (329-389)). The nearest you come in the Bible is that Jesus said that he and his father, Yahweh, were one.)). And to finish the Trinity: The Holy Spirit is a kind of messenger or ambassador for Yahweh - one hardly with any will of its own. And just to mention it: Many Muslims claim the Holy Spirit just is another name for the archangel Gabriel. No-one who really knows the Bible would ever get that idea - the claim was not even worth a comment if it was not because many Muslims do not know any better and believe in it. It also is not said in the Quran.

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

058 18/5b: "It is a grievous thing (to say Jesus is son of Yahweh*) that issues from their (Christians'*) mouths as a saying". For one thing Muhammad could not accept Jesus was son of Yahweh, because the obviously Muhammad was not the greatest. Besides he never understood the constellation Yahweh/Jesus/Holy Spirit (though he may be right that the trinity dogma may be is not correct - it is man-mad and not from the Bible - - - but Muhammad believed it consisted of Yahweh/Jesus/Mary(!)), and he never understood that a prince only is a prince even if his father is a king - Jesus belonged to divine stock, but was and is not himself a god. Thus he found that to look at Jesus as divine, was polytheism, and polytheism he could not accept.

059 19/16b: "- - - she (Mary*) withdrew (just before her message*) from her family to a place in the East (where she got her message*) - - -." This contradicts the Bible which tells she got it in Nazareth in Galilee - her home town (in north Israel). (There may be disagreement about many thing also in the Bible, but not about that Jesus grew up with his family, which lived in Nazareth.)

##060 19/16c: "- - - she (Mary*) withdrew (just before her message*) from her family to a place in the East (where she got her message*) - - -." Here Muslims have an interesting theory: Remember that Muhammad and the Quran say her mother dedicated her to service in the Temple (in Jerusalem). Because of this the "East" mentioned here, must be "a private eastern chamber, perhaps in the Temple".

####What we have very seldom heard any Muslim mention - even though it is such a well known fact that at least all mullahs, imams, Ayatollahs, and whatever + all scholars, have to know it (also because it is quite similar in Islam) - is that no women served in the Temple. Only men - and only men of the Levi tribe - served there (Mary was from the Judah tribe). Muslims nearly never mention these facts, neither in this connection, nor connected to the claim that her mother dedicated her to service in the Temple.

A brutal mistake in the Quran too difficult to face?

061 19/16d: "- - - she (Mary*) withdrew from her family - - -". How was that possible if she was in the Temple in Jerusalem and they in Nazareth a few hundred miles/km to the north? Also this "information" is not from the Bible.

##062 19/16-34: "- - - (the story of) Mary - - -". To be short: The story of Mary in the Quran is not even distantly related to the same one in the Bible. (The tales in the Quran mainly are from legends known at that time + from some apocryphal (made up) scriptures - most of the sources are known even today). No god would rely on made up stories and fairy tales.

063 19/17b: "She (Mary*) placed a screen - - -". Not from the Bible. Also see 19/4b above.

064 19/17c: “- - - We (Allah*) sent to her our angel (singular – to tell Mary she was going to have the baby Jesus*), and he appeared before her as a man in all respects.” Also 19/9 tells only about one. There is a distinct difference between one and three or more. (If there had been only two, Arab had used grammatical dualis/dual, and been translated “our two angles”):

  1. 3/42: “Behold the angels (plural - remember that Arab needs minimum 3 to use plural*) said (when they came to tell her she was going to have the baby Jesus*)”. A small, but distinct contradiction.

065 19/17d: “- - - We (Allah*) sent to her (Mary*) our angel (singular – to tell her she was going to have the baby Jesus*), and he appeared before her as a man in all respects.”

  1. 12/109: “Nor did we send before thee (humanity, man*) (as Messengers) any but men.”
  2. 16/43: “And before thee (Muhammad*) also the Messengers we sent were but men - - -“.
  3. 21/7: “Before thee (Muhammad*), also, the messengers we sent were but men”.
  4. 25/20: “And the messengers whom We (Allah*) sent before thee were all (men) - - -.”

Well, 3/42 - 6/130 - 11/69 – 11/77 – 11/81– 19/17b – 19/19 – 22/75 all say that not all were men. A nice little contradiction to 12/109 – 16/43 – 21/7 – 25/20 which all says all messengers were men.

(4 contradictions).

066 19/17-21: These (and more) details are not in the Bible. From where did Muhammad get them? As the Quran is not from a god, the alternatives are: From dark forces, from a mental illness (like TLE - Temporal Lobe Epilepsy - like modern medical science suspects) or from a scheming brain.

*067 19/18c: “- - - I (Mary, mother of Jesus*) seek refuge from thee to (Allah) Most Gracious: (come not near) if thou dost fear Allah”. It is highly unlikely that a Jew - and especially one working in Yahweh's temple (though this is another piece of contradiction in the Quran to the Bible and to historical facts, as she lived in Nazareth according to the Bible, days away from Jerusalem (Luke 1/26-27) - should seek refuge from a then highly polytheistic god from another country. As one see from what happened to Jesus, the monotheism and Yahweh were strong in Israel at that time. If the Quran had been telling the truth when it tells that Mary was working in the Temple, it is absolutely impossible - she had got into serious troubles if she addressed any other god than Yahweh (but then the Quran most likely is wrong also on this point - We have found nothing about Mary working in the Temple in the Bible or any other source, and if it had been true, most or all Christian sources had mentioned it, as it would mean one more connection between Jesus and Yahweh. (Actually it is incorrect that she worked in the Temple. This legend is taken from the apocryphal - made up - “’proto gospel’ after Jacob” - - - but Muslims all the same tell that the differences between the Quran and the Bible is because the bad non-Muslims have falsified the latter one – not because Muhammad ever so often used twisted fairy tales as basis for stories in the Quran.) Our Muslim sources also do not mention if there exists any other reliable source for this story in the Quran - which Islam frequently does not do when they have no sources, only statements built on nothing or, like here, on what legends and stories and fairy tales the story-tellers told in long evenings. Her work in the Temple simply is a fairy tale shined up and used like a true story in the Quran (this even more so as our sources tell that all workers in the Temple were men) - by Allah or by Muhammad, and presumably sent down from Allah and copy from the Mother Book in Heaven, a book perhaps made by Allah, but most likely - according to Islam - never made, but existed from eternity (impossible as angels are speaking at least some places in the book - it must be made after the first angels were created. Not to mention that Muhammad speaks some 8 places in the book).

One more point: ONLY men worked in the Temple, and only men from the Levi tribe. Mary was a woman and from the Judah (David's) tribe.

You are free to believe it if you want.

068 19/19: “He (the angel*) said: ‘Nay, I am only a messenger from thy (Mary’s*) Lord - - -“. But contradictions:

  1. 12/109: “Nor did we send before thee (humanity, man*) (as Messengers) any but men.”
  2. 16/43: “And before thee (Muhammad*) also the Messengers we sent were but men - - -“.
  3. 21/7: “Before thee (Muhammad*), also, the messengers we sent were but men”.
  4. 25/20: “And the messengers whom We (Allah*) sent before thee were all (men) - - -.”

Well, 3/42 - 6/130 - 11/69 – 11/77 – 11/81– 19/17b – 19/19 – 22/75 all say that not all were men. A nice little contradiction to 12/109 – 16/43 – 21/7 – 25/20 which all says all messengers were men.

(4 contradictions).

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

#############069 19/19b: "- - - a holy son (Jesus*)". HERE THE QURAN CONFIRMS THAT JESUS, SON OF MARY, WAS HOLY AND THUS RELATED TO WHAT IS HOLY = THE GOD. THAT HE WAS HOLY ALSO CONFIRMS THAT HE WAS SOMETHING MORE THAN A NORMAL MAN. AND NOT LEAST JUST HERE, THAT HE WAS SOMETHING MORE THAN MUHAMMAD, WHO HIMSELF SEVERAL TIMES ADMITTED AND EVEN STATED THAT HE JUST WAS AN ORDINARY HUMAN.

Muhammad very far from was anything holy.

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

#####070 19/20c: "How shall I have a son, seeing that no man has touched me, and I am not unchaste?" This is a well known dogma in Christianity. But it is worth noticing this all the same, because some Muslims tell what a "loose" woman running after Roman soldiers Mary was - one way to win points over opponents, is to use slander. But here the Quran confirms that she was a virgin - a woman like Mary would not lie also according to Muhammad. Similar in 3/47b. It also is directly said that she was chaste - a virgin - in 21/91a and in 66/12 Therefore, any Muslim saying Mary was not a virgin, tells that the Quran is wrong at least 4 places.

071 19/22: "- - - and she (Mary*) retired with him (her unborn child*) to a remote place." This is not in the Bible, where he was born in the town of Bethlehem south of Jerusalem. And according to the Bible, Mary was not alone when it happened.

072 19/22-27: The birth of Jesus. This tale strongly contradicts the Bible on most points and is very different from what is told there about his birth. Actually what is told in the Quran, is from an apocryphal - made up - "gospel".

073 19/23b: "- - - she (Mary*) cried - - -: "Ah! Would that I had died - - -". see 19/4b above.

074 19/22-27: The birth of Jesus. This tale strongly contradicts the Bible on most points and is very different from what is told there about his birth. Actually what is told in the Quran, is from an apocryphal - made up - "gospel".

075 19/23b: "- - - she (Mary*) cried - - -: "Ah! Would that I had died - - -". see 19/4b above.

###076 19/24+25: "But (a voice) (the new-born baby Jesus*) cried from beneath the (palm-tree): ’Grieve not! For thy Lord hath provided a rivulet beneath thee; ’And shake towards thyself the trunk of the palm-tree (normally date palms are some 50 cm or more wide and strong – impossible for a human to shake*): it will let fall fresh ripe dates upon thee”. This story is “borrowed” from chapter 20 in an apocryphal – made up - “proto gospel” said to be after some Mathew. “Borrowed” by Muhammad or Allah, but presumably sent down as a true story copied from the Mother Book in Heaven. Believe the last if you want. There are few if any original stories in the Quran - mostly they are “borrowed” from different sources, but often changed a little to fit Muhammad's teaching. In this special case one also finds the story in “The Childbirth of Mary and the Salvador’s Childhood” if we remember the name correctly, and it has perhaps entered the Quran via “The Arab Childhood Gospel” (source; among others Ibn Warraq). As said before: Muhammad took stories from such fairy tales, and then accused the Bible of being falsified when it did not tell the same made up legends and tales. But no newborn baby is able to think rationally or to speak fluently - if it had really happened it had to be a miracle, and there is no chance that it had been forgotten in NT, as it had strengthened Jesus' connection to something supernatural quite a lot.

###077 19/26a: "- - - say, "I have vowed to fast to (Allah*) Most Gracious, and this day will I (Mary*) enter into no talk with any human being". (A19/20 - in English 2008 edition A19/19) tells that the literal meaning is: "Say, 'Behold, abstinence from speech have I (Mary*) vowed unto the Most Gracious (Allah*); hence I may not speak today to any mortal'". But if she had given such a vow, she could not say this, because then she would be speaking to a mortal. Because of this, Muhammad Asad here explains that since her saying this would contradict the given vow, the text had to be changed a little (so that Jesus said this)(!!). Abdullah Muhammad Ali indicates that the vow had not yet taken effect, Muhammad Ali that she should not say it, but tell so by gestures - though how tell this with gestures?

But the really interesting point here is the underlying clear message, told matter-of-factly and without the slightest blushing - an everyday fact really: If there are mistakes - here a clear internal contradiction - in the Quran, it is ok for mere mortal humans to correct the claimed omniscient god who on top of all tells in the Quran that his words are easy to understand and are to be understood literally if nothing else is said (see f.x. 3/7b+c, 11/1b, 16/103b, 18/1c+d+e, 18/1-2, 18/2a above and 19/97, 26/2a, 27/1a+b+c, 28/2, 41/3, 43/2, 44/2, 44/58, 54/17, 54/32 below) by simply "adjusting" the text so that the mistake seems to disappear. And then tell that there are no mistakes in the Quran - down to the last comma!! (The comma did not even exist in Arab when the Quran was written).

####How much is "adjusted" in the Quran?

078 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?

Mary came home and her family was negative, to say the least of it (19/27) - not from the Bible. The absolutely newborn Jesus – a few hours old at most – had to defend his mother:

079 19/27c: Contradiction to the Bible: Her parents said when she came with the surprise, a baby: “O Mary! Truly a strange thing (the baby Jesus*) hast thou brought!”. Mary had had to be very fat and very lucky if none of “her people” had noticed she was pregnant - be it at home or in the Temple. In the Bible she also did not hide the pregnancy.

080 19/27d: “O Mary! Truly a strange thing (the baby Jesus*) hast thou brought!”. According to the Bible neither the pregnancy nor the birth were secrets.

####081 ¨ 19/28a: “(Mary*) O sister of Aaron!” This is another contradiction to the Bible + at the same time the most famous mistake in the Quran. The likely reason is that in Arab the names Mary (the mother of Jesus) and Miriam (the sister of Moses and Aaron) both are written Maryam. Muhammad was not well versed in the Bible, and thought it was the same woman, even though some 1200 years separated them. The Hadith tells that Muhammad was told by his followers that he was wrong, and tried to explain away the mistake, but without real success. Muslims today tend to “explain” the blunder by saying it was an age-old way of paying respect to a woman to connect her to a person of high standard - and similar “explanations” - but the “explanations” generally are not accepted by science, even not by all Muslim scientists - this may be partly because Muhammad also has made the father of Moses, Imran, the father of Mary another place in the Quran. (This last fact is by some Muslims “explained” with that they are two different Imrans. But also this is not accepted by the science, as it is clear that it in both cases it is the same man it is talked about - the founder of “Imran’s house” or Imran’s tribe. It also would be much of a coincidence that for one thing Mary just was a honorable descendant of Moses' parents, and that the name of her father should happen to be Imran. Well, unlikely explanations sometimes happen to be correct, but there are too many unlikely "explanations" in the Quran). Some Muslims say it is an allegory, but it clearly is not told like an allegory – to call stories that turns out to be wrong allegories also is a standard Muslim way of explaining away difficult points when other “explanations” fail. And remember: Both the Quran and Islam strains that the Quran is to be understood literally if nothing else is said. Allegories, etc., also have points very easy to see, or are explained (which is not the case here) if Muhammad had intended to make a point of something. A clear mistake according to science. This is even more clear as Hadith tells Mohammad himself was unaware he had made a mistake, and is told to try unsuccessfully to explain it away when he was corrected by his nearest co-workers

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

#082 19/29c: "How can we (Mary's parents*) talk to one who is a child in the cradle?" Nearly all points in the story of the birth of Jesus - included this - are totally different in the Quran compared to the Bible - and the thought-provoking fact is that one can recognize most of the tales in the Quran about this, from known made up stories and legends.

*083 19/34a: “Such (was) Jesus the son of Mary: (it is) a statement of truth, about which they (vainly) dispute”. (For some reason or other Islam and its Muslims seldom claim that Islam is the religion of honesty.) We are back to what is the truth in the Quran - with all the mistakes it is a difficult question. What is sure is that Jesus did not say he was a servant of the known polytheistic, foreign god al-Lah/Allah (in that case he had had very few followers and had been killed much earlier), and that he called God/Yahweh “father”. In this case the text refers to verses 30 through 33 (see 19/30a, 19/30b, 19/30-33 just above), which already are shown to be clear mistakes. Another clear mistake.

084 19/34c: "- - - Jesus the son of Mary - - -". See 5/110a above.

*085 19/34d: “- - - (it is) a statement of truth - - -". This an interesting claim: A story without sources given - actually with a wrong source given (so much is wrong in the Quran, that it is not from a god). A story clearly taken from known made up legends, etc. A story wildly different from the only possible more or less true known story. A story contradicted by known historical facts (f.x. Mary claimed service in the temple in the Temple). A story going against several laws of nature. Etc.

This story the Quran strongly states is a statement of truth.

If the Quran strongly claims such stories is the truth, what then about other "truths" in the book?

Thought provoking.

086 21/52-71: Abraham delivered from Nimrod's fire. This story is taken from "Midrash Rabbah" and not from the Bible. And another point: Abraham and Nimrod did not live at the same time (if they ever lived). Muhammad had a strong tendency to mix persons from different times (f.x. Haman and Ramses II - some 800 years wrong. Or Mary and Miriam - some 1200 years wrong.) You do not find this story about Abram (later renamed Abraham) and the gods in the Bible - the only source about Abraham - and this part 1000 years or more older than the Quran, and a book where one of the heroes had benefited from a tale like this, so no-one would dream of taking it out if it was true.

Who then was Nimrod? Nimrod according to the Bible was the son of Cush, who was the son of Ham, who was one of the three sons of Noah, who - if he ever lived - lived some 5ooo-6ooo years ago. If Abraham ever lived, he lived some 3800-4ooo years ago. This means there were some 2ooo years between Nimrod and Abraham.

It takes a lot of missing knowledge to mix two persons living some 2ooo years apart. No omniscient god makes that kind of mistake.

087 21/91a: "- - - her who guarded her chastity - - -". = Mary. Both the Bible and the Quran agrees on that she was a virgin. But one thing is to read about this in the NT and in the Quran. More uncanny is it to read in the prophet Isaiah (Is. 7/14) several hundred years before Christ: "Therefore the Lord himself (Yahweh*) will give you a sign: A Virgin will be with child and give birth to a son, and will call him Immanuel". This becomes extra uncanny when you know that Immanuel means "god with us", as this practically is what Christians call him: The divine "who was with us" (remember Jesus is not reckoned to be God, only divine - there only is one God (well, there is a Christian dogma saying Jesus is true god, but it can only mean he is divine, because the Bible is very clear on that there is only one god, Yahweh)).

#####088 21/91b: "- - - her who guarded her chastity - - -". = Mary. Both the Bible and the Quran agrees on that she was a virgin. (See 3/47b, 19/20 (and -21), 66/12 and here). This is no news neither for Christians, nor for many others (even though many are not aware that the Quran solidly confirms it). All the same you will meet Muslims claiming Mary was a slut going after Roman soldiers, etc. - to slander is a way of debating for some. Then it can be good to remember that any Muslim saying things like that, at the same time tells that the Quran is wrong at least 4 places - the at least 4 places it confirms she was chaste.

089 21/91ba: "We (the god*) breathed into her (Mary*) Our Spirit (so that she became pregnant*) - - -". #####The one making a woman pregnant, is the father of the child.

*090 21/91c: “- - - and We (the god*) made her (Mary’s*) son (Jesus*) a Sign for all peoples.” Very correct according to the Bible - but a sign for Yahweh/God, not for Allah - not unless Islam proves Allah is the same god as Yahweh/God. And the two religions and the two gods - especially the war god Allah from the surahs from Medina compared to the benevolent God from NT - are too different for that to be possible - not unless the god is seriously ill mentally.

Definitely not a proof for Allah. But a proof for Yahweh/God if the old books tell the truth on this point.

091 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.

092 23/50b: "- - - the son of Mary - - -". Jesus. See 5/110a above.

093 29/16a: Abraham delivered from Nimrod's fire. Taken from the story "Midrash Rabbah", not from the Bible - there is nothing similar in the Bible about Abraham in the Bible, but there is one about Daniel 1000+ years later, which may have inspired this "story". And another point: Abraham and Nimrod did not live at the same time (if they ever lived). Nimrod was the great grandson of Noah (1. Mos. 10/1-8: Noah - Ham - Cush - Nimrod), and if he is not a fiction, he lived 3ooo - 6ooo BC. Whereas Abraham - if he ever lived - lived some 1800 - 2ooo BC. Muhammad had a strong tendency to mix persons from different times (f.x. Haman and Ramses II/Xerxes - some 800 years wrong. Or Mary and Miriam - some 1200 years wrong.)

094 29/24d: "Slay him (Abram/Abraham*) or burn him". Actually there is said nothing in the Bible about Abram/Abraham having troubles in Ur in Chaldea where he came from (1. Mos. 11/29-31). And actually this tale is "borrowed" from the story "Midrash Rabbah", and as for Nimrod's fire - another point here is: Abraham and Nimrod did not live at the same time (if they ever lived). Nimrod was the great grandchild of Noah and lived (?) 2ooo (?) years before Abraham. Muhammad had a strong tendency to mix persons from different times (f.x. Haman and the time of Ramses II/Xerxes - some 800 years wrong. Or Mary and Miriam - some 1200 years wrong.)

095 33/7e: "- - - Jesus the son of Mary - - -". See 5/110a above.

096 37/97-98: Abraham delivered from Nimrod's fire. Taken from the made up old story "Midrash Rabbah" and retold like it was a true history. And another point: Abraham and Nimrod did not live at the same time (if they ever lived). Nimrod was the great grandson of Noah, and lived - if he is not fiction - perhaps a couple of thousands or more years before Abram/Abraham - see 29/16a above. Muhammad had a strong tendency to mix persons from different times (f.x. d Ramses II and Haman - some 800 years wrong. Or Mary and Miriam - some 1200 years wrong.) Also see 37/97c just above.

097 43/57: "- - - (Jesus) the son of Mary - - -". This is a name for Jesus often used in the Quran and Islam. What is sure is that it is a name never used for him when he lived. See 5/110a above.

098 57/27a: "- - - Jesus, the son of Mary - - -". This is what Muhammad called Jesus - "Isa bin Maryam" in Arab. But it is a wrong name, as his official father was Joseph, and Jesus' name thus Jesus bin Joseph - or Joshua ben Yousuf in Hebrew.

##And to make the picture of Muhammad's problems with Jesus' name more complete: Muhammad uses the name Isa for Jesus in the Quran. This is wrong. Isa is the Arab version of Esau (the brother of the Jewish patriarch Jacob). The Arab form for the name Jesus - or Joshua in Hebrew - is Yoshuwa (the spelling may vary a little). Any god had known this - Muhammad obviously not. Who then made the Quran? See also 5/110a above.

099 61/6a: "- - - Jesus, the son of Mary - - -". Wrong name. See 5/110a above.

100 61/14b: "- - - Jesus the son of Mary - - -". Wrong name. See 5/110a above.

101 66/11e: "- - - the Wife of Pharaoh (indicated by the context that it was she who found Moses, and thus of the family of Pharaoh Ramses II*) - - -". Comment (YA5549): "Traditionally, she is known as 'Asiyah, one of four perfect women, the other three being Mary, mother of Jesus, Khadijah the wife of the prophet, and Fatima his daughter. (There is not one proof for that any of them were perfect, but they were central persons for the religion, and thus ought to be perfect to make the religion look better.)

  1. In the Bible it was a daughter of the pharaoh who found Moses, not a wife of him. The Bible also gives no other information about her, than that she was the daughter of the pharaoh, and that she found Moses. From where did Muhammad get the claimed information about her? As the Quran is not from a god, the only possible source is the Bible - and there the information about this is partly different and partly not existing.
  2. As for Mary we refrain from commenting.

  3. As for Khadijah only the positive sides of her are ever mentioned by Islam - a correct picture is impossible to make. But a woman finding a 15 year younger husband not very often is a perfect human being.

  4. Also for Fatimah Islam tries only to tell the positive sides. But no perfect woman would fight the caliph so as she should get the inheritance after Muhammad instead of Islam, like she did. A perfect woman also would not be angry and upset for the rest of her life for this (though admittedly she lived only half a year after Muhammad's death) because she did not get that inheritance instead of Islam.

##102 66/12a: “And Mary the daughter of ‘Imran - - -”. Once more this famous mistake. Imran was the father of Moses and Aaron - - - but they lived (if they are not fiction) some 1200 years before Mary, mother of Jesus. The pharaoh of Moses f.x. was Ramses II according to science, and we know when he lived. Muslims try to explain this with that it was another Imran, but science agrees on that it is the same one, and that Muhammad here made a genuine mistake. This even more so as Hadith shows that Muhammad later was told about his mistake, and tried to “explain” it away, but without success.

#####103 66/12b: "- - - (Mary*) who guided her chastity - - -". In itself this is not an essential piece of information, and well known to all Christians. But there are Muslims throwing around dirt about Mary just being a prostitute, Jesus being the son of a Roman soldier, etc. - if one has no valid arguments against an opponent, one at least can slander her or him. If you meet one of those, you may tell him - it is mostly from men you hear it (or see if f.x. on Internet) that if he is right, this means that the Quran in case is lying at least 4 places - 4/47c, 19/20-21, 21/91a, and here.

104 66/12c: (A66/26): “- - - We (Allah*) breathed into (her (Mary’s*) body) Our spirit - - -.” Does this refer to how Jesus was created? – or does it refer to the normal transfer of spirit that according to Islam makes a fetus to a human, and which according to Islam happens 5 months before the baby is born? Nobody knows – and this is an essential question in just this case. But the text is not clearer than this.

105 66/12e: "- - - he (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. 6 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 undisputable fact that neither science nor Islam has found any traces from 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.)

105 + 5266 = 5371 comments (+ basic comments/introductions).


 

167.   MARY'S FATHER

The name of Mary's father is not given neither in the Bible nor in the Quran, but there are traditions for that his name was Jojakim or Jokim. Because of an error Muhammad made (believing that Miriam, the sister of Moses, and Mary, the mother of Jesus, were the same woman - likely because in Arab both names were pronounced Maryam) Islam has made up another tradition.

Also see "Mary's mother" just below.

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

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

002 3/35-37: The birth of Mary. This story is taken from the fanciful book "The Protoevangelion's James the Lesser", and contradicts the Bible quite a lot as it is not like in the Bible. The names of Mary's parents are not mentioned neither in the Bible, nor in the Quran.

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

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

2 + 5371 = 5373 comments (+ basic comments/introductions).


 

168.   MARY'S MOTHER

- perhaps Anna or Hannah.

The name of the mother of Mary is not given neither in the Bible nor in the Quran (the same goes for the name of her father). But there are traditions for that her name was Hannah or Anna.

Also see "Mary's father" just above.

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

###001 3/35a: ”Imran’s wife - - -”. The Quran here is talking about the mother of Mary (see also 3/33d above). But Imran was the father of Aaron, Moses and Miriam, who lived some 1200 years earlier! Muhammad did not know the Bible very well, and he thought Mary was Miriam, the sister of Aaron and Moses. In 19/28 this is directly said, when talking about Mary: “O sister of Aaron”. It is likely that the reason for this mistake is that in Arab Mary (mother of Jesus) and Miriam (the older sister of Moses and Aaron) are written the same way: Maryam. With his limited knowledge of the Bible Muhammad believed it was the same woman. Any god had known better. We may add that some Muslims say it is not the same Imran, but scientists agree on that Muhammad meant the same man - the Imran who "was chosen by Allah" like Adam, Noah and Abraham (see 3/33a) - the father of Aaron, Moses - - - and Maryam/Miriam. That Muhammad really was wrong here, and thought Mary was the sister of Aaron and Moses, is documented by the fact that according to Hadith (the other Muslim main source of information about their religion and about Muhammad) Muhammad was corrected, and he tried to find explanations to repair the mistake (without success). He also did not add information showing that he and Allah for some reason was right in his mistaken statement all the same.

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

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

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

##002 3/35b: "Imran’s wife - - -". This is an example on "honest" Muslim technique of debate, taken - unbelievably - from Muhammad Yusuf Ali, the famous translator of the Quran, in his book: "The Meaning of the Quran": "By tradition Mary's mother was called Hannah (in Latin Anna, in English Anne), and her father was called Imran. Hannah is therefore both a descendant of the priestly house of Imran (the Arab name of Moses' father*) and the wife of Imran." One thing is that when using traditions and legends as basis, one cannot say that something "is", only that it "may be". But the real screamer is that the name of the father of Mary never in the traditions and legends was Imran. That name you only find in the Quran, and of course among the ones who take the name from the Quran - and this even more so as he mix in the Latin (and English) names. The name of Mary's father in the traditions was Jojakim or Jocim (except that Muslims have looked in the Quran and found the name Imran and made a new “tradition” from that). Further comments not necessary - just make your own conclusions about how reliable Muslims - even outstanding, learned ones like Mr. Ali - sometimes may be, and how reliable Muslim arguments and "facts" sometimes are. "Use al-Taqiyya (the lawful lie*), Kitman (the lawful half-truth*) and even deception and broken oaths to forward or defend the Religion of Truth". As you understand: When we base most of our writings on Islamic sources, we often run into the problem that everything has to be checked, because even claimed "facts" too often are incorrect. (For some reason or other Islam and its Muslims seldom claim that Islam is the religion of honesty.)

003 3/35d: "O my (mother of Mary's (perhaps Hannah or Annah )*) Lord (claimed to be Allah*)! I do dedicate unto Thee what is in my womb for Thy special service - - - (etc*)". Not from the Bible. See 3/35-37 below.

004 3/35e: "O my (mother of Mary's*) Lord (claimed to be Allah*)! I do dedicate unto Thee what is in my womb for Thy special service - - - (etc*)". One more of the many texts in the Quran which could not have been reliably written into the book eons ago unless predestination was and is 100% - like the Quran claims many places. See 2/51b and 3/24a above.

005 3/35-37: The birth of Mary. This story is taken from the fanciful book "The Protoevangelion's James the Lesser", and contradicts the Bible quite a lot as it is not like in the Bible. The names of Mary's parents are not mentioned neither in the Bible, nor in the Quran.

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

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

006 3/36a: "O my (mother of Mary's*) Lord (claimed to be Allah*)! Behold! I am delivered of a female child! - - - And nowise is the male like the female. I have named her Mary, and I commend her and her offspring to Thy protection from Satan, the rejected". Not from the Bible - see 3/35-37 above.

007 3/36b: "O my (mother of Mary's*) Lord (claimed to be Allah*)! Behold! I am delivered of a female child! - - - And nowise is the male like the female. I have named her Mary, and I commend her and her offspring to Thy protection from Satan, the rejected". One more of the many texts in the Quran which could not have been reliably written into the book eons ago unless predestination was and is 100% - like the Quran claims many places. See 2/51b and 3/24a above.

7 + 5373 = 5380 comments (+ basic comments/introductions).


 

169.   MAYMUHAH BINT AL-HARITH

Married Muhammad in March 629 AD. Not active in any known way. Died around 675 AD.

0 + 5380 = 5380 comments (+ basic comments/introductions).


 

170.   MEN OF THE CARAVAN WHO BOUGHT JOSEPH, SON OF JACOB

Little is known about these men, except that they were Midianites (1. Mos. 37/28). Also - according to 1. Mos. 37/28 - the men did not find Joseph, but his brothers pulled him up from the cistern and sold him to them.

That they were Midianites may mean they were from the area Midian, or that they were descendants of Midian, 4. son of Abraham and Keturah (1. Mos. 25/1).

It is unclear where Midian was situated. The Midian of Moses may have been in Sudan or to the east - in Sinai or perhaps - perhaps - on the Arab peninsula (in the northeast of that peninsula in case). From the statement that Moses led the flocks of Jethro, the priest of Midian, to Mount Horeb (2. Mos. 3/1), it would appear that the Midianites dwelt in the Sinai Peninsula. Later - in the period of the Kings - seems to have occupied a tract of land between Edom and Paran, on the way to Egypt (1. Kings 11/18). This means roughly in Sinai.

A close study of the Bible strongly indicates that the Bible's Midian was in the Sinai Peninsula, though there is a chance it was in Sudan. There is no indication for that it was on the Arab Peninsula. Facts indicate that the only connection Arabia has to this part of the Bible, is that the names Madyan (in the north-West of the Arab Peninsula) and Midian (highly likely in the Sinai Peninsula) look similar, and that Islam disuse this similarity for claiming Moses lived his "diaspora" in Arabia (something similar to what Islam does with the names Faran and Paran).

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

001 12/19a: The men from the caravan found Joseph in the well, and “So they concealed him as a treasure”. But the very next verse contradicts this story. See 12/20 below.

002 12/19c: (YA1654): “Ah there! Good news (“bushra”*)”. But the Arab word “bushra” also may be a proper name. Then in case the exclamation was: “Ah there, Bushra!” A detail – but does an omnipotent and omniscient god make even the details unclear?

003 12/19-20: (Also see 12/19a-d above.) Here is something wrong - or one more contradiction. Verse 19 tells that “travelers” found Joseph in the well where his brothers had thrown him down, and took him for a slave and concealed him. Verse 20 tells his brothers sold him for a few dirhams (small silver coins). Both cannot be true.

######004 12/20aa: "- - - dirhams - - -". These silver coins did not exist at that time - the first ones were minted some 2500 years later. Worse: They did not exist at the time of Muhammad, too, and thus this word cannot have been used by Muhammad when he dictated this surah (at the time of Muhammad time the Arabs mainly used the Greek drachme. The first dirhams were copies of Persian coins where the words "In the name of Allah" were added, and made under caliph Utman. The first "real" dirhams were made under Abdalmalik in 695 AD. The Persian coins may have been called dirhams - a word derived from drachme - but it is ever so clear that even they did not exist at the time of Joseph some 2ooo+ years earlier.)) ###### THE QURAN IS "MUHAMMAD'S EXACT WORDS DOWN TO THE LAST COMMA", like many Muslims claim? Also see 12/20c below.

005 12/20c: “The brethren (of Joseph*) sold him (Joseph*) for a miserable price – for a few dirham”. Dirham was a small silver coin - but serious here: Dirhams did not exist until some 25oo years later. (The Bible says 20 shekels = ca. 200g silver.(1.Mos. 37/28)). Science tells this was a normal price for a young male slave at that time, not "a miserable price". Well, in verse 19 he was found and concealed, here in 20 he was bought. See 12/19a, 12/19-20, and 12/20aa above.

(In Arabia at the time of Muhammad one used Greek drachms. The first dirhams were copies of Persian coins where the words "In the name of Allah" were added, and made under caliph Utman. The first "real" dirhams were made under Abdalmalik in 695 AD. The Persian coins may have been called dirhams - a word derived from drachme - but it is ever so clear that even they did not exist at the time of Joseph some 2ooo+ years earlier.)006 12/21a: "The man in Egypt who bought him - - -". Joseph was sold as a slave in Egypt, according to the Bible to a mighty man called Potiphar, according to the Quran to a man called the Aziz. But as “the Aziz” simply means “the Great One”, it may be a title – perhaps for Potiphar.

After some time the wife of his owner wanted to seduce him. Joseph refused – and everything was found out. According to the Bible his owner got angry and put him in prison. According to the Quran Joseph proved he was not guilty, but was all the same put in prison on a very lame and not logical “reason” – lame and illogical, but necessary for the rest of the story.

(As for Joseph’s age when he was brought to Egypt, Yusuf Ali in “The Meaning of the Holy Quran” says he was 16 or 17 or may be even 18. (The Bible says he was 17 - 1. Mos. 37/2)).

6 + 5380 = 5386 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".