Humans, Other Beings in/Relevant to the Quran, Part 39

 

216.   SAD IBN MUADH

One of the foremost chiefs of the Arab Aws tribe in Medina, and a strong follower of Muhammad. He was badly wounded in the Battle of the Trench, and still not knowing if he would survive his wounds, Muhammad shortly later made him decide what judgment should be used against the captive 600-900 (likely some 700) youths and men from Khaybar. Sad said "death penalty" (highly likely the reason why Muhammad had chosen him for a judge), and they were all executed. One of the many black spots on Islam's history.

0 + 10.375 = 10.375 comments (+ basic comments/introductions).


 

217.   SAFIYYA BINT HUAYAY - RAPED BY MUHAMMAD

- then his slave/concubine, and then one of his 11 long time wives.

Safiyya was one of the two women we know Muhammad raped (the other one was Rayhana bint Amr - under similar circumstances). Safiyya was 17 and newlywed when Muhammad first tortured her husband, Kinana to death to make him tell where he may be had hidden valuables Muhammad would steal, and then raped her the same evening. We do not know if he raped more women, but the casual way Muhammad's men took the rapes, may indicate something.

Muhammad for a short time kept her as his slave/concubine, but then married her. (She had few choices when he wanted to marry her - it took a strong slave to say no.) She died around 670 AD.

There is another and serious aspect to Muhammad's rapes: Whatever Muhammad did is reckoned by Islam and Muslims to be morally good and ok, and the Quran and Islam clearly specifies that everything Muhammad did, also is ok for any Muslim to do, unless it is directly forbidden to do so (Muslims f.x. cannot have as many official wives as Muhammad, because the Quran says maximum 4 for all except Muhammad - but you of course may have as many concubines/slave women as you can afford). The Quran does not prohibit rape - at least not during and after Jihad ("holy war"). On the contrary, verse 8/69 says: "But (now) enjoy what ye took in war (of course included captives*), lawful and good". This may be one - strong? - reason why rape is so widespread among Muslims soldiers and warriors, etc.

We may add that to us these 3 words used in that verse - "lawful and good" stealing, raping, enslaving, etc. in the name of the god - is one of the most revealing and disgusting expressions about the Quran, about Islam, and about their moral code, in the entire Quran. And that tells something.

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

001 XXX 628 AD: The Khaybar oasis overrun: Muhammad first murdered the leader Abi ‘l Huqayk in his sleep. Later he sent a delegation to Khyber and promised the new leader Usayr b. Zarim safe return for discussions in Medina about solutions to their problems in peace, and with sure guarantees for safe conduct and safe return. Zarim left with 29 lightly armed men - - - and all except one who managed to escape, were murdered by Muhammad’s men. ”War is betrayal”, Muhammad later said. Then there was war. After fort Khamus in Khaybar was conquered, one of the leaders, Kinana b.al-Rabi, was tortured to death, because Muhammad wanted to steal riches he thought Kinana knew where were hidden. Muhammad lit a fire on his chest until was nearly dead, and then axed off his head. Then Muhammad personally raped Kinana’s newlywed wife - the 17-year-old Safijja - the same night, while his man Abu Ayub kept watch outside in case she should offer so much resistance that it became dangerous for Muhammad. Muhammad then was nearly 60 and surely was a pleasure for the young woman - especially just after he in a bestial way had murdered her husband. (He later married her). The inhabitants of Khaybar were made semi slaves and some years later evicted by caliph Omar. Golden age for co-habitation? And Muhammad a shining moral idol?

*002 3/6a: “He (Allah*) is it Who shapes you in the womb as He pleases.” Conception is a most natural process - one that even Muslims like very much to indulge in, sometimes whether the woman is willing or not - and if the woman is your slave or prisoner, rape is a right, “lawful and god”, for you - just ask Muhammad, who according to Islam (among others Ibn Ishaq) practiced rape himself - f.x. Rayhana bint Amr and - at nearly 60 himself - the 17 year old Safijja bint Huayay, just after he had tortured her husband Kinana to death (as for Safijja one of his men, Abu Ayub, waited outside the tent in case she should resist so much that it became dangerous for Muhammad and he needed help - but he managed the rape without help). Also the slave Marieh hardly had much free choice.

The Quran often "high-jack" natural phenomena and uses them for glorification signs" or "proofs" for Allah - always without any documentation for that Allah really is the one behind the phenomenon.

003 3/78e: "- - - and well they (Jews and Christians*) know it (that the Bible is falsified*)!" This is the kind of accusation one uses to strengthen an argument; "they" not only have done something bad, but have done so willfully. The added psychological effect of course is distaste or similar for those bad people - and if the Muslims believed the claimed "fact" that "they" were bad people, this made it easier for Muhammad later to kill and enslave them - - - and personally rape at least 2 of the young women. (First Rayhana bint Amr, and later 17 year old and newlywed Safiyya bint Huayay after he had tortured her husband to death - Muslims diplomatically say he married her (which he later did) after her husband was killed in the war). Whether he raped more women during his prophethood(?) or not is not known. But he clearly told his followers that during war rape - "sexual relationship" to use a diplomatic expression - was "lawful and good" as long as the woman was not pregnant. Also the fact that his man took the rapes pretty casually makes one think (you react casually to things you are used to).

A fact: Both science and - against their wish - Islam later strongly have proved that the never documented claim that the Bible is falsified, is wrong - which the Jews and Christians already then knew.

004 3/148d: “For Allah loveth those who do good (in this case: To wage war for Allah and Muhammad*)”. To do battle for Allah - to steal and burn and kill and murder and destroy and rape for the good and benevolent deity - is a good thing which Allah loves. (Actually that it shall be made in the name of the god, makes it even more disgusting.) Did anyone say that modern terrorists have to twist the words of the Quran to find incitements to their deeds? And also: Muhammad got cheap warriors and gained wealth and power - in wars and robberies that really were illegal according to the Quran, as they in reality were wars of aggression, not really of defense. And they gave him the possibility to rape at least two women - Rayhana bint Amr and Safijja bint Huayay.

###005 3/174a: “And they returned (from war) with Grace and Bounty from Allah: no harm ever touched them - - -”. A fairy tale picture of war and easy riches. A good pep talk for recruiting new warriors if the men are uneducated and naïve. Glorifying war and spoils of war attracts new warriors. The larger the “army” the better chance of success and power for leaders.

But never a word about the catastrophes for the victims and for the destroyed lives and cultures, etc. Compassion and empathy nearly do not exist in the Quran - and definitely not concerning non-Muslims.

#####It is worth noticing that Muhammad and his followers behaved like Muslim gangs are doing today (2013 AD) in northeast Africa: Raiding - in this case especially people fleeing north from war and poverty - the weak ones. Muslims stealing what meager possessions they have, murdering, raping, gang raping, torture, extortion, slave taking, slave selling (yes, it goes on even today). This was the life of the semi-saint Muhammad the last 9-10 years of his life - Muslims were involved in some 82 armed incidences during that time, nearly all of them raids for stealing riches, for rape, extortion, and slaves. Muhammad personally led some 25 of them and personally raped at least two women (Rayhana bint Amr and Safiyya bint Huayay). #####Some morally perfect idol!

#####It also is very telling that as far as we know, Islam is doing little or nothing to stop those gangsters of today - and how can they? Those gangsters are behaving just like Muhammad did, and everything Muhammad did was perfect, "lawful and good".

#006 4/24a: “Also (prohibited (for Muslims to marry*) are) women already married, except those whom your right hands possess - - -“. = You can rape or marry slave women even if they were/are married before. No comments. In this connection remember that not until in unbelievable 1982 AD was slavery abolished in the last Muslim country – Mauritania. (And not until even more unbelievable 2007 did it become a punishable crime there). That is to say; we have heard that Niger was even later, but we have found no confirmation on this. Also remember that according to UN (2008 AD) some 24 million humans today “live as slaves or under slave like conditions” – a good percentage of them in Muslim areas. And not least: According to old Islamic laws (later than Muhammad though), all so-called “new ideas” became prohibited and punishable early in the Islamic period. That meant everything not in the Quran or traditions (Hadith) was prohibited. This turned out to be too harsh, and they were forced to accept some changes: Changes which could be said to build on the Quran or Hadith were called “god new ideas” and permitted, whereas all other were called “bad new ideas” and still prohibited. And if times are reversed sometime in the future, the "bad new idea" (= not in the Quran or Hadiths) of ending slavery, may well be abolished as sinful. No matter how Muslims boast about that abolishing of slavery was/is an integrated part of Islam that claim only is rubbish to be very polite. Islam was forced backwards and fighting into abolition slavery by the West, and if the situation changes sufficiently (f.x. in a future world dominated by Islam) slavery may well be reintroduced - Muhammad practiced slavery, and the abolishing it thus was and is "a bad new idea", like it or not, as everything Muhammad said and did was right.

Muhammad both took, raped (at least Rayhana bint Amr and Safiyya bint Huayay), used as gifts, accepted as gift (at least his colored concubine Mariah, who bore him his son Ibrahim, who died as a baby, though) and sold slaves – and Muhammad is the great icon in Islam: Everything he did is permissible, good, and morally and ethically fine. So if Islam gains the upper hand and the pressure and ideas from the outside come to an end, will then to continue abolishing slavery be thought to be a “good new idea” or a “bad new idea” – and in the latter case: Will slavery then little by little be reinstated like said above? – at least as long as the slaves are not Muslims? There are many who would not be surprised. Especially slave women is a temptation.

#############Added 16. March 2015: Slavery in Niger was not prohibited - and made a crime - until 2003. Even though it now is prohibited, anti slavery organizations believe there may be as many as 800ooo slaves in the country, and children - especially girls - still are abducted or bought into slavery. The first man sentenced for keeping a "5. wife" - often more than 5 - (slave girls/women doing servant slave work and being regularly raped) seems to have happened in 2008, and then it did not happen again until in 2014. This in spite of that that slavery still is widespread in the country. The enforcement of the prohibition is lax. And why not? - the great idol Muhammad took and kept and raped slaves, and the Quran very clearly permits it, so then morally it is very ok (!). Slavery is so openly practiced, that if you see someone with a metal ring around one ankle, it is a slave. But all the same nearly no reaction from the authorities.

007 4/24d: "- - - seek (them (female slaves*) in marriage) with gifts from your property - - -." Well, Muhammad took Safiyya prisoner, made her his slave, raped her, then later married her, and her "gift" was release from slavery (but not from marriage). A very cheap "gift" from Muhammad's property in reality. (He wanted to get a cheap new wife in the same way with Rayhana bint Amr, but she refused to marry him.) You do the same like Muhammad!!!

008 4/25h: "- - - give them (the slave women Muslims marry*) their dowers, according to what is reasonable - - -". Part of the background for the sharia laws. We may add that it was a custom that the dower for a slave woman was her formal freedom from bondage. (Some even did like Muhammad: He took Safiyya captive, then married her - after having first murdered her husband and raped her - and then used her new slave status as a dower. A cheap wife.)

Dower is an essential part of the marriage in the Quran, but totally not-interesting - not even mentioned as a part of the necessary formalities - in the Bible. One more indication for that Yahweh and Allah are not the same god.

009 5/64h: “Amongst them (the Jews*) We (Allah*) have placed enmity and hatred till the Day of Judgment. Every time they kindle the fire of war, Allah doth extinguish it; but they (ever) strive to do mischief on earth. And Allah loveth not those who do mischief”. And why should you love them when Allah obviously did dislike them? Allah’s dislike is a good motif and explanation for ruthlessness against them. (Muhammad treated the Jews in and around Medina very ruthless – chased away (because too strong opposition did that he could not kill them in the beginning) a large part, enslaved big groups of women and children and murdered the rest of the survivors – except some who for some years were permitted to live as semi slaves on what used to be their own farms, for a very stiff price. Plus he personally raped and enslaved for his own harem at least two of the women after having murdered or enslaved their families – Rayhana bint Amr and Safijja bint Huayay (he later married Safijja)). Well, the verse is good hate propaganda – and hate is a good background for incitements to war, and for explanations for atrocities.

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

010 21/32d: "- - - they (non-Muslims*) turn away from the Signs (of Allah*) which all these things (point to)!" When someone uses logically invalid arguments - like claiming not proved "signs" are indication or proof for a god - the logical reaction is to be skeptical. After all the use of false and/or invalid arguments is the hallmark of the cheat and the swindler, and Muhammad on top of this believed in al-Taqiyya (the lawful lie), Kitman (the lawful half-truth), in breaking promises and words - even sworn ones - if that gave better results, and in deceit ("War is deceit") - - - and he wanted power and riches for bribes for more power - and women (like many false prophets in and outside the Bible, but few of the real ones in the OT. Here beware that men like David and Solomon are not reckoned among prophets in the Bible. This is one more difference between Muhammad and the Biblical prophets - not one of them had a harem of any size. Even if you include men like Abraham and Jacob, they had maximum 1-2 wives and 1-2 concubines if any at all. Abraham had Sarah, Kethura (1. Mos. 25/1 - but only after Sarah was dead) and Sarah's slave Hagar, Jacob had Leah and Rachel plus the two slaves Bilhah and Zilpath (1. Mos. 35/23-26). Muhammad had 36 we know by name, included his 11 long time wives and 2 concubines/slave women - the 16 short time wives and the 7 where it is unclear if he was married to them or not, and thus if sex was a sin or not - a Muslim is only permitted to have sex with his wives and his slave women - are normally not mentioned by Muslims. That he in addition raped at least two women - Rayhana bint Amr and Safiyya bint Huayay - also normally is not mentioned by Muslims).

011 23/51b: "O ye messengers (included Muhammad*)! Enjoy (all) things good and pure - - -". Which for Muhammad among other things meant lots of women - we know the name of 36 ones: 11 long time wives, 16 short time wives, 2 concubines, 7 to whom he may be or may be not was married (if he was not married to them, the sex was unlawful according to Islam's rules. As for raping captives we know no number, but at least 2 (Rayhana bint Amr and Safijja bint Huayay). And "things good and pure" also were supreme power and plenty of riches - when he died he f.x. had estates in Medina, Khaybar and Fadang - a fact often "forgot" by Muslims claiming he lived a poor man's life.

*012 30/43a: “- - - the right Religion (Islam*) - - -”. Is it possible that the right religion can be based on a book with that many mistakes, contradictions, invalid logic, etc. repeated or made by an Arab salesman, highwayman, murderer (he let opponents and others murder - the number 26 is mentioned, Ibn Ishaq names 10), torturer and rapist (he - at an age of nearly 60 - at least raped the newlywed, 17 year old Safijja after he had let her husband Kinana be tortured to death, and Rayhana bint Amr after he had murdered the male part of her family and made the rest slaves.) Source for this information: Muhammad Ibn Ishaq: “Life of the Prophet Muhammad” - the in Islam most respected of the old (dead 768 AD) writers about Muhammad. (It was written for the second Abbasside caliph in Baghdad, Mansur, around 750 AD). Neither Arab salesmen, nor highwaymen, nor torturers, nor murderers, nor rapists have the best of reputations for being honest (this even if Islam insists he was, but Islam hardly is the most reliable source on just that point - if he was not honest, Islam is a made up religion, so Islam HAS to make him look honest and saintly). This Arab salesman, highwayman, torturer, murderer and rapist and inhuman warlord, was even unable to produce one single small proof for his story. But he (?) produced lots of loose statements and invalid “signs” and “proofs”. Similar claim in 12/40. And what about his institutionalizing al-Taqiyya (the lawful lie) and Kitman (the lawful half-truth) by his example, and his telling (in Hadiths and in the Quran) that even oaths can be broken - is that part of the right religion?

He is the only source Islam is built on.

Can this be "the Right Religion"?

**013 31/30a: “That is because Allah is the (only) Realty - - -”. Is Allah really a reality? All the tales about him derives from just one man - a man even canonized Islamic history tells for long time lived as a chief highwayman and from robbing and extortion (for kidnapped salesmen, etc.). A man initiating assassinations and murders on his opponents (f.x. Assam bint Marwah (female poet), al-Nard, Abu Uzza, and Obi after the battle of Badr, Abu Afar (said to be over 100 years old), Cab ibn al-Ashraf, Ibn Sunayana, Othman bin Moghira, Abi ‘l Huqayq, and not to forget Kinana b. l-Rabi whom he tortured to death to find riches, and afterwards he personally raped Kinana's 17 year old, newlywed wife Safijja (Muhammad was nearly 60 then). A man who initiated mass murder - once some 700 helpless male prisoners, and made all their children and women slaves - one of them, the mentioned Safijja bint Huayay (and another time Rayhana bint Amr), for his own personal use), a rapist with permission from Allah for himself and all his men to rape (“have sexual connections with” to use more polite words) all female slaves and captives - girls and women - who were not pregnant (this tells something about Allah, too). A man who initiated raids and wars and got 20% or more of all spoils of war, included slaves (though not all for his personal use). And a man lusting for power - easy to see both from the Quran and from Hadith. And a man - and a god - entirely unable to produce one iota of a real proof for the tales. (Sources: Among others: Ibn Hisham and Ibn Ishaq - both most respected by Islam for biographies about Muhammad. Ibn Ishaq‘s “The Life of Muhammad“ is the most respected of the old ones of all Muhammad biographies in Islam - written for the caliph in Baghdad around 750 AD - and commented on around 900 Ad by Ibn Hisham. Plus the Quran and Hadiths – Al-Bukhari and Muslim).

Only this man told the tales in the Quran - tales that on top of all have hundreds and hundreds of mistakes, at least hundreds of loose statements and hundreds of invalid “signs” and “profs”, etc. And loose statements, claims, and invalid “signs”/”proofs”, not to forget that most of his tales were from made up sources - apocryphal scriptures, legends, fairy tales, etc - ARE the hallmarks of cheats and deceivers, and of persons without true arguments.

#014 33/26g: "- - - some (the Jewish men and male youths*) ye (Muslim's*) slew, and some (= the Jewish women and children) ye made prisoners." The word "slave" is a loaded word today - and Muslims not always 100% honest. Muhammad did not make them prisoners, but slaves, and he sold and gave them away. Muhammad also personally raped first Rayhana bint Amr, and when Khaybar finally was taken a couple of years later, Safijja bint Huayay - Safiyya was 17, and married very shortly before - and Muhammad raped her after he had tortured her husband Kinana to death (he lit a fire on his chest, let it burn till Kinana was practically dead, and then beheaded him - he believed Kinana knew about hidden money Muhammad wanted to steal). Also Muhammad’s slave Marieh likely had little choice when he wanted sex with her. We do not know if he raped more women - or children - but the casual way his men reacted to the rapes, may indicate something. Muslims are very right: Muhammad is a moral idol for Muslims - Islam after all is a war religion.

015 33/28-33a: This about Muhammad's wives and rules to make them stay quiet and satisfied - double punishment and double reward, etc., and other places in the Quran forbidden to remarry, ordered to talk from behind a curtain, his daughter Fatime promised a top position in Heaven, etc. contradicts the Bible in that such rules were not given to any of the Biblical prophets The same god would give at least somewhat similar rules to all his representatives - which he did to all the Biblical prophets, but not to Muhammad. Muhammad even had permission to rape women (f.x. Rayhana bint Amr and Safiyya bint Huayay), an absolutely NO for all Biblical prophets. Very clear indications for that Muhammad did not belong to the same line of prophets as the Biblical ones, and did not get his claimed revelations from the same god. Too different rules.

016 33/50c: “O Prophet! We (Allah*) have made lawful (for sex*) to thee (it is not unusual that the god "permits" this towards the founder of a religion or a sect – it happens not infrequently*) thy wives to whom thou hast paid their dowers: and those to whom thy right hand possesses out of the spoils of war (which was quite a huge number*) whom Allah has assigned to thee; and the daughters of thy parental uncles and aunts, and the daughters of maternal uncles and aunts, who migrated (from Makkah (= Mecca*)) with thee; and any believing woman who dedicates her soul to the Prophet if the Prophet wishes to wed her – this is only for thee, and not for the Believers (at large); we know that We have appointed for them (permitted sex*) as to their wives and those whom their right hands possess – in order that there should be no difficulty for thee.” As for slaves, a huge number passed through Muhammad’s hands – perhaps 2000 or more only from the Qurayza tribe. We do not know if and in case how many of them he personally raped, except Rayhana bint Amr and Safiyya bint Huayay (which we know about because the first later became one of his concubines, and the other one of his wives), but the casual way and the minimal fuzz with which two rapes happened and made, makes it easy to think that they neither were the first, nor the only ones – to rape ones captives and slaves was (and formally still is) completely ok in Islam. That just was the way life was/is for slave women and captive women under Islam.

And once more: Read 33/28-29 through 33/33 + 33/50 and 33/51 together to get a picture of his – and very many other dominant religious persons in strong and dark religious societies – technique. One of the much used – and proved efficient – ways of manipulating dependant persons. Even the use or disuse of the god, is typical for such persons. All this formally is about Muhammad’s private intimate life, but as what he said and did was and is the correct ethical and moral code in Islam, it became the norm for all women concerning this aspect of life under Islam.

Besides: Does Muhammad's private sex life belong in a claimed holy book for all times and all the world?

017 33/50f: "(Muhammad may have for a wife*) any believing woman who dedicates her soul to the Prophet (Muhammad') - - -". The literally correct translation according to M. Azad (A33/59 - A33/60 in the English 2008 edition): "if she offered herself as a gift (Arab: "in wahabat nafsaha") to the Prophet (Muhammad*)". Here is an interesting piece of information: Most Muslim commentators take this to mean "without demanding or expecting a dower". The dower was and is an integrated part of the Muslim formalities of a wedding. Here it seems that also here Muhammad god special treatment from Allah: Cheap wives. This in addition to that he could take a prisoner of war, make her slave, marry her and "give" her her freedom - except from her new husband - as a dower. Muhammad did this at least with Safiyya bint Huayay - a very cheap wife, as the dower cost him nothing.

Muhammad was pretty different from Jesus, also on this point. Definitely not from the same religion.

Besides: Does Muhammad's private sex life belong in a claimed holy book for all times and all the world? - or as part of a religion? And would a god revere such texts in his Heaven?

018 33/52c: (A64 – in 2008 edition A65): “It is not for thee (Muhammad*) (to marry more) women after this - - -.” Does this relate to no more than the 4 categories women that he in verse was told were lawful for him? Or does it refer to all women – except slaves? Islam tends to believe the last, but f.x. Tabari said the first. And no-one will ever know. Clear language? (This verse is from 629 AD or later according to Islam - it has to be, as he married his last wives, Maymuna bint al-Harith, in February 629 AD, and Safiyya bint Huayay around the same time, and if the verse is older, he broke the rule of the Quran on this point). Muhammad then was nearly 60. May be he felt the pressure from having to satisfy a dozen wives and concubines? - plus short-time wives and women one does not know if he was married to or not. (Muhammad over the years had 11 wives, 2 concubines, 16 short-time wives and 7 with unclear status known by name = 36 all together who are known by name.)) All the same some Muslim scholars believe this verse is from 627 AD - before he married Zainab. Not good in case. (Surah 33 is from sometime between 625 and 629 AD, so that this prohibition may be from as early as 625 AD. If it is from any time before 629 AD - likely 627 as mentioned - Muhammad broke this order from Allah).

019 "But (now) enjoy what ye (Muslims*) took (stole of valuables and captives*) in war, lawful and good - - -" (8/69). "- - - enjoy - - - lawful and good - - -" (!!!). Included rape.

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

Some central facts about Muhammad, the Quran, and Islam:

A. Born ca. 570 AD. Married first a rich older widow. Started Islam in Mecca in 610 AD. Fled to Medina 13 years later - in 623 AD. Lived in Medina 10 years - as a highway-man, later robber baron/warlord (83? raids/wars, mostly for stealing/robbing, slave taking and extortion + later spreading Islam by the sword). Died quite rich with estates in Medina, Fadang and Khaybar in 632 AD.

B. 36 women known by name: 11 long time wives, (9 of them 20 - 36 years younger than him + favorite wife Aisha 6 years old (9 when sex started - he 52)), 16 short time wives, 2 concubines, and 7 who may be, may be not, really was married to him. Raped at least two girls/women; Rayhana bint Amr and Safiyya bint Huayay.

C. He in reality was not a prophet - he was unable to make prophesies, also according to the Quran and the Hadiths. See 9/88b and f.x. 65/1a.

D. He according to the Quran made no miracles - Islam today says: "The only miracle connected to him is the Quran".

E. He believed in using dishonesty (al-Taqiyya, Kitman, and Hilah - f.x. 2/26h, 13/42 - formalized later), deceit/betrayal (f.x. the 29 from Khaybar murdered), and even broken words/promises/oaths (f.x. 2/225a, 3/54, 5/89c, 16/91e, 66/2).

F. He use lies even in the Quran - f.x. 6/7a, 6/28c, 6/109i, 7/120a, 20/70a.

G. He is speaking (f.x. 6/104c, 19/36b, 27/91a, 51/50-51) and others referred speaking/acting in the Quran. How is that possible in a book claimed to be timeless and written before the world was created, if not 100% predestination?

H. If Allah predestines everything and according to his unchangeable Plan like the Quran states absolutely, man has no free will in Islam - mutually excluding each other, and thus impossible, in spite of Muhammad's and Islam’s claims.

I. If Allah predestines everything and impossible to change, like the Quran states absolutely, prayers have no value or effect in Islam - mutually excluding each other, and thus impossible in spite of Muhammad's and Islam’s claims. The same goes for forgiving.

"Muhammad lived far from the golden rule for moral: 'Do against others like you want others do against you', and as far from: 'Say the truth, or say nothing' - but he at least preached some of it".

There is a long distance between the historical, real Muhammad, and the semi-saint Muslims wish for and many even honestly are able to believe in.

19 + 10.375 = 10.394 comments (+ basic comments/introductions).


 

218.   SAFWAN IBN UMAYYA

Also known as Abu Wahab. Clan leader in the Arab tribe Quraysh. Originally strong opponent of Muhammad, but changed religion after Muhammad had taken Mecca.

0 + 10.394 = 10.394 comments (+ basic comments/introductions).


 

219.   SALIH - ONE OF THE 3 CLAIMED PROPHETS OF THE OLD ARABIA

The Quran claims the very old Arabia had 3 named prophets for Allah - Hud for the claimed tribe 'Ad, Salih for the claimed tribe Thamud, and Shu'ayb for the claimed tribe of Madyan. All of them were "copies" or parallels of Muhammad's mission and situation at the time when the relevant verses were published - - - like most other positive persons in the Quran (a way for Muhammad to "document" that the himself was a real prophet and messenger).

The Thamuds likely existed. They are named "Tamudaei" by Aristo of Ghios, Ptolemy, and Pliny. But the oldest known reference to them is an inscription made by the Assyrian king Sargon II in 715 BC - 500 years after Moses (roughly the time of the prophet Jonah) and disappeared from history somewhere around 600-400 BC. As the Quran indicates that they were destroyed before Abraham (2ooo-1800 BC), this tells that the Quran's time line on this point is something like 1500 years wrong - or more. Any god had known when the Thamud tribe existed, but Muhammad not - who made the Quran?

The trouble is that the Quran indicates he lived well before Moses (= some 500 years before Sargon II), and likely well before Abraham (= some 1100-1200 years before Sargon II). What is sure, is that according to the Quran he lived before Shu'ayb, and Shu’ayb is told was 4 generations after Lot, which means Shu'ayb lived somewhere around 1700 BC - which means the Quran places Salih, who of necessity lived at the end of the existence of the Thamud (as they were destroyed during his time), places him at least some 1100 years too early in history. Not bad for a god.

Another point: Hud and Salih lived(?) before some 2ooo BC, and Shu'ayb somewhere around 1700 BC. They all received books from Allah - copies like the Quran. But with the possible exception of Egypt, which may have been a little earlier, MAN DID NOT LEARN HOW TO READ AND WRITE UNTIL SOMEWHERE AROUND 1200 BC.

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

001 7/73a: The Thamud people and Salih like the 'Ad people and Hud are from old Arab folklore and not from the Bible. They may or may not have existed (they likely did, as the name Thamud is known from f.x. Assyrian scriptures, but may be 1500 years later than the Quran indicates), but nothing of what is told about them in the Quran is from any known written source.

002 7/73d: "To the Thamud people (we (Allah*) sent) Salih - - -." Salih is another claimed and self-proclaimed Arab prophet - may be and may be not from Arab folklore (if not, the original source is Muhammad). According to Islam he came some time later than Hud. Also he - like Hud - is a contradiction to the claim in the Quran that the Arabs had had no (self proclaimed) prophet before Muhammad. But at the same time Hud is a parallel to Muhammad, and thus an "indication" for that Muhammad's experiences were normal for prophets, and thus Muhammad a "normal" prophet. More or less all some 25 older prophets (= before Muhammad) mentioned in the Quran, are parallels to Muhammad up to the time in Muhammad's life when the verse/surah was told. Muhammad needed "documentation" for that he was an ordinary prophet.

003 7/73g: "This she-camel of Allah - - -". Connected to the legend about the tribe Thamud, you time and again are told in the Quran that the self-proclaimed prophet Salih brought them a camel and told it was a sign – a proof – from Allah. Like it is told in the Quran it gives absolutely no meaning – just a claim hanging in the thin air. How can a camel be a proof for a god in a country where there are 15 camels to a dozen?

*But then we run across the explanation: This is taken from old Arab folklore – an old legend that everybody in Arabia knew at the time of Muhammad (but would an omniscient god who wanted to reach the entire world, use an old fairy tale known only to Arabs – and in such a way that one does not understand if one does not know the rest of the story?)

Very briefly the legend runs like this: There once was a mountain cliff. Out from that solid cliff one day there came a camel. This camel then became a prophet for a god.

With such a background the camel was so special, that it could be a sign for something – only that the Quran just told part of the story, because everybody there and at that time knew the rest. But like we asked: Would an omniscient god wanting to reach the entire world, tell just part of the story, when he knew most of the world would not understand the point? (But as expected; in modern times you find Muslims telling that it was not this camel from the superstitious tale, but without giving a credible alternative.)

004 7/75a: "The leaders of the arrogant party among his (Salih's*) people said to those who were reckoned to be powerless - - -". An exact parallel to Muhammad's situation in Mecca when this surah was made, where the leaders opposed the mostly poor followers of Muhammad. It is typical for the Quran that a far larger part of the stories than coincidence would predict, are parallels to Muhammad's situation at the time of the emergence of the different surahs, and thus telling his followers and others that his situation was normal for prophets, true or not, and thus that he was a normal prophet.

005 7/75b: "The leaders of the arrogant party among his (Salih's*) people said to those who were reckoned to be powerless - - -: 'Knowest ye - - - (etc.*)".One more of the many texts or quotes in the Quran which could not have been reliably written into the claimed "Mother Book" (13/39b, 43/4b+c, 85/21-22) in Heaven (of which the Quran is claimed to be a copy) eons ago, unless predestination was and is 100% like the Quran claims many places (if you look, you will find more cases than we mention - we only mention some of the obvious ones). If man has free will - even partly only (an expression some Muslims use to flee from the problem full predestination contra free will for man (and also contra that there is no meaning in praying to Allah for help, if everything already is predestined in accordance with a plan "nobody and nothing can change" - a problem which Muslims seldom mention), and an expression no Muslim we have met has ever defined) - and can change his mind, full and reliable clairvoyance about the future, not to mention the distant future, is impossible even for a god, as the man always could/can change his mind or his words once more, in spite of Islam's claims. There are at least 5 reasons - at least 3 of them unavoidable - for this:

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

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

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

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

006 7/75c: “’Know ye (believers*) indeed that Salih (a claimed prophet for the tribe or people Thamud. He according to the Quran lived sometime between Noah and Abraham, but after the claimed prophet Hud – Moses is said to speak about him, though not in the Bible*) is a prophet from his Lord?’ They said:’ We do indeed believe in the revelation which has been sent through him.'”

Comment to 7/75 (A7/58 - 7/60 in the 2008 English edition): “The contents of this message (lit., ”that with which he has been sent”) appeared to them justification enough to accept it on its merits, without the need of any esoteric “proof” of Salih’s mission. In this subtle way this statement of faith has a meaning which goes far beyond the story of the Thamud. It is an invitation to the skeptic who is unable to believe in the divine origin of a religious message, to judge it on its intrinsic merits and not make his acceptance dependant on extraneous, and objectively impossible, proofs of its origin: for only through the contents can its truth and validity be established”.

Well, proofs – or at least documentation – is not more “objectively impossible” than that the Christians have got documentation in NT, and partly confirmed in the Quran, for that something supernatural was involved with Jesus and with Yahweh (another question is whether one wants to believe in that documentation or not). It ALWAYS is possible for a god to prove his existence (but not for a human to prove a god). What to be aware of here, is that Islam has not one single proof for anything concerning the religion – not one single bit; only the word of a man with a very special mentality and morality – or amorality. Therefore they have to argue for blind belief and for that proofs are unnecessary, yes, that demands for proofs are intellectual stupidity and lack of intelligence. Which they do. And which is wrong - in all aspects of life the most sure way to be cheated now and then, is to believe blindly. Besides: If intelligence is given by a god, surely his meaning was that we should use it.

One problem here is that it is logically and intellectually impossible to know something that is not proved. One maximally can believe strongly – sometimes so strongly that one believes one knows. But not proved beliefs never are more than beliefs – strong or not. But even strong beliefs ever so often have been – and are – wrong. People “knew” the Earth was flat – and it was wrong. Then people “knew” Earth was the centre of the geocentric universe (see 51/47c) – and it was wrong. Then people “knew” Sol or Helios (2 names for our sun) was the centre of heliocentric universe (see 51/47c) – wrong. And then they “knew” our galaxy (“The Milky Way”) was the entire universe (see 51/47c) – wrong once more. And in all religions – f.x. Islam - there are people who “know” they are right and that all others are wrong - - - and most of them have to be wrong (and Muslims with their somewhat special founder and everything built only on claims and with lots and lots and lots of mistakes, etc. in their holy book, in reality are in a most weak position for being among the ones – if any – who are right).

Yes, what about people who "know" that holy(?) book full of errors, contradictions, etc. is the only "truth"?

But because their total lack of proofs and even of real indicia, Islam claims and claims and strongly claims that the texts in a book with lots of mistakes and errors and wrongs, prove that a god has made it, that lack of ability to see this is your stupidity, not that the book is not perfect - and that blind belief is the ideal. Which is a main – if not the main – reason why Muslims and Islam cannot accept or see any mistake in the Quran, no matter how obvious: If there are mistakes in the Quran, it is not from a god - and then Islam is a false religion. That is a possibility too hard to face.

007 7/79a: (YA1048): “So Salih left them (the people of Thamud*) saying: ‘O my people - - -.” But was his speech a last warning before the catastrophe? – or was it lamentation and sorrow for his lost people? Who knows? – the text does not divulge it. As mentioned before, the Quran often is not very clear.

008 7/79b: "- - - good counselors". See 2/2b and also remember that when the Quran uses words like "good" it normally is in accordance with the book's own partly immoral moral code. Also beware that Salih here is used as a parallel to Muhammad, to strengthen the claim that Muhammad’s experiences were normal for claimed prophets, and thus that Muhammad was a normal prophet. Muhammad makes several such parallels for this purpose in the Quran.

009 7/143c: “- - - I (Moses) am the first to believe.” This one is similar to f.x. 6/14, except here it is Moses instead of Muhammad. But it contradicts the Quran's telling that f.x. Adam, Abraham, Isaac, Ishmael, Jacob, Joseph, Hud, Salih, Shu'ayb and others were believing Muslims before him. And Moses and all the others were making a lie out of Muhammad’s saying that he – Muhammad – was the first. A number of contradictions. (2/127-133, 3/67, 6/14, 6/163, 26/51). Muslims tells that these contradictions are not contradictions, because it is meant the first of a group, a nation, or something – but that is not what the Quran says, and it also does not explain all cases.

##010 10/47a: “To every people (was sent) a Messenger - - -.” Contradicted by:

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

Which verse(s) is/are wrong?

(4 contradictions. Muslims may claim Muhammad was the prophet meant for these people - but in case all the people who had lived in Arabia had been without a messenger - according to the Quran - since the claimed prophets Hud, Salih, and Shu'ayb, etc. = around the time of Lot (roughly 1700 BC) and earlier. And other tribes in Arabia had never had a prophet it seems.)

011 10/98b: "- - - the people of Jonah - - -". The Quran here refers to the people of Nineveh, which far from was a township, but a large city - the capital of Assyria. Besides according to the Bible they were not Jonah's people - Jonah was a Jew, the people Assyrians. (But the Quran claims that prophets were sent to their own people, and thus claim "the People of Jonah", as this strengthens Muhammad's claim about being a normal prophet - an Arab among his own people.)

Another point: According to historical sources the Thamud people (and their claimed prophet Salih - not mentioned in historical sources) lived around these times, not before Abraham like the Quran indicates. An error of may be 1500 years or more.

012 11/46c: (A11/65 – in 2008 edition A11/68): (Allah said): “O Noah! He (your son*) is not of thy family: for his conduct is unrighteous.” This is if the Arab words “innahu ‘amal ghayr Salih” is meant to relate to the unnamed son of Noah (according to the Bible he only had 3 – Shem, Ham and Japheth) (Zamakhshari). But Noah had just made a prayer to his god – Allah according to the Quran – for his son, and if the mentioned words are meant to relate to that prayer, the meaning changes to something like: “Verily, this prayer is unrighteous conduct of you” (Razi, Tabari). Clear and easy and not to misunderstand? And these variants of course also are in the Arab text, as the relevant word(s) there has/have more than one meaning.

013 11/61a: "To the Thamud People (we (Allah*) sent) Salih - - -". 2 time anomalies. See 4/13d above.

014 11/61c: "- - - Salih - - -". Similar to Hud - see 11/50c above - but a little later. None of them mentioned in the Bible.

015 11/61h: "- - - my (Salih*) Lord is (always) near, ready to answer". The ironic fact is that there nowhere and at no time is registered a proved answer from Allah - or any other proved contact. Lots of claims, but no proved case.

016 11/62b: "They (Thamud*) said: 'O Salih! - - - -". See 11/43c above.

017 11/62d: "But we (the Thamuds*) are really in suspicious (disquietening) doubt as to that (Islam*) which you (Salih*) invitest us". May be they had good reason for that doubt: According to Islam the prophets - included Salih - had a book similar to the Quran, likely with as many mistakes, etc. Besides: Neither science nor Islam has been able to find proofs for a religion like Islam, a book similar to the Quran, or a god like Allah from before 610 AD (when Muhammad started his mission and proselyting), and if the Thamud ever existed, it was at least 2500 years earlier - - - and may be 1ooo years before man learnt how to read and write around or a little before 1200 BC.

018 11/63c: "- - - who then can help me (Salih*) against Allah - - -". Everybody if he does not exist - and nothing at all is ever proved about his existence.

019 11/63d: "- - - if I (Salih*) were to disobey Him (Allah*) - - -". Not possible unless he exists.

020 11/64a: “This she-camel of Allah - - -“. This refers to an old Arab legend Muhammad used in the Quran: A camel came out from a solid cliff and became a prophet. Worth a laugh - believe it if you want. There is nothing similar in the Bible.

021 11/84d: "- - - Shu'ayb - - -". To place the special Arab claimed prophets chronologically, it seems that Islam claims the succession was this (YA1064): Noah (not Arab prophet, though*), Hud, Salih, Abraham (not Arab), Lot/Lut (not Arab), and Shu'ayb. Shu'ayb is said to be 4 generations after Lot, though we do not find this specified in the Quran, which in case means also he was before Moses (around 1375 - 1335 BC). Lot of course was a contemporary of Abraham - his nephew. Abraham lived - if he is not fiction - ca. 1800-2000 BC according to science, which means that Shu'ayb (if not fiction) lived about one century later or a bit more, BC. This makes impossible the Muslim claim that Shu’ayb was identical to the father-in-law of Moses, Jethro. Science tells that if the Exodus ever took place, it happened ca. 1235 BC, and if the Bible is correct Moses then was 80 years, which means he lived from ca.1315 BC to ca. 1195 BC (he became 120 years according to the Bible). There in case are some 300 - 500 years between Shu'ayb and Moses (and Jethro).

  1. Adam (and Eve) - unclear when. (4600 BC is a number mentioned by an Irish bishop)
  2. Noah - unclear when, likely 2ooo - 4ooo BC. (There was an enormous flood in Mesopotamia around 3200 BC - found in 1929 by the British archeologist C. Leonard Woolley (17/4/1880 - 20/2/1960) - which may explain the tales about the Big Flood.)
  3. Hud (the 'Ad people) - unknown when, but the first of the 3 claimed Arab prophets. Long before Abraham.
  4. Salih (the Thamud people) - unknown when. Well before Abraham.
  5. Abraham and Lot - around 2ooo - 1800 BC according to science.
  6. Shu'ayb (the Madyan People) - 4 generations (some 120 years) after Lot = roughly around 1700 BC. The last one of the 3 claimed Arab prophets.
  7. Moses - Exodus according to science was around 1235 BC, which means he was in Midian ca. 1275 - 1235 BC. If he was 80 when Exodus started and lived 40 years more like the Bible says, he lived from ca. 1315 BC to ca. 1195 BC. (But it is unlikely the Bible's Midian is the same as Madyan in northwest Arabia like Islam claims. The Bible's Midian most likely lay in Sinai - f.x. the Bible mentions Mt. Horeb and Mt. Sinai connected to Midian.)

022 11/89a: "- - - the people of Noah or of Hud or of Salih - - - nor of Lut (Lot*) - - -". According to the Quran all these people were killed by Allah because of sins. The Bible says the same for the people of Noah and of Lot - though it makes it clear that as for Lot they were not really his people - but by Yahweh, not by Allah.

#023 11/95c: Shu'ayb - Salih - Hud. These are the 3 big non-Biblical claimed prophets in the Quran (+ Muhammad of course). All were Arabs working in Arabia. A universal god should have had a bigger choice including also other countries and continents - and perhaps also some success and/or different stories, not only parallels to Muhammad. One of the half hidden, but clear and strong Arabisms in the Quran. See 4/13d above.

024 13/38b: "We (Allah*) did send Messengers before thee (Muhammad*), and appointed for them wives and children - - -". We quote A1861: "All prophets of whom we have any detailed knowledge, except one (Jesus*), had wives and children (= Muhammad was a normal prophet also in this way - well, extra normal with 36 known women). But this claim needs a selective use of the expression "detailed knowledge". Not all prophets are known to have had wives - f.x. it is unlikely John the Baptist had a wife - and for many that situation simply is not mentioned in the Bible. Also the Quran does not mention any wives for the claimed Arab prophets Hud, Salih, and Shu'ayb. Use the expression "detailed knowledge" selectively enough, and you get the answer you want.

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

025 16/36a: “For We (Allah*) assuredly sent amongst every people a Messenger.” Contradictions:

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

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

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

(4 contradictions or more).

026 17/59d: "We (Allah*) sent the She-camel to the Thamud - - -". The Thamud was a tribe who according to Arab folklore lived in Arabia in the old times (as Moses according to the Quran mentioned them, it must have been before ca. 1400 BC = at least 2ooo years before Muhammad - and as Thamud/Salih lived before Shu'ayb, who according to Hadiths were 4. generation after Lot and thus lived(?) somewhere around 1700 BC, at least 2300 years before Muhammad). The camel refers to an old Arab legend about a camel who came out from a solid cliff and became a prophet (as this obviously is superstition, you meet many Muslims telling it was another camel, but no-one has a believable alternative story - a normal camel is not a sign from a god in a place where there are "millions" of camels).

Another point is that Thamud is mentioned in history around 700 BC, and disappeared from it around 600-400 BC, which means that Thamud's destruction in the Quran is something like 1500 years wrong.

027 17/59j: Just for the record: The stories about the 'Ad, Thamud, Midianite (descendants of Abraham’s 4. son with Keturah - 1. Mos. 25/2 - or people from Midian (Madyan? - highly unlikely)), Rocky Tract, etc. tribes and the prophets Hud, Salih, and Shu'ayb are not from the Bible. That is to say, Midianites may be mentioned, as descendants from one of Abraham's 6 sons with Keturah, Midian (1. Mos. 24/1-2), or a person from Midian (likely in Sinai. as Mt. Horeb and Mt. Sinai are mentioned in connection to them).

028 21/85b: Idris may or may not be Enoch (Gen. 5/21-24). It also may mean Elijah or somebody else. As mentioned before, the language in the Quran often is far from exact. It may also simply be a name invented by Muhammad - and the same goes for Dhu'l-Kifl just below (and for the claimed Arab prophets Hud, Salih, and Shu'ayb may be).

029 22/42e: "- - - 'Ad and Thamud - - -". Two tribes and 2 claimed prophets(?) - Hud and Salih - in the very old time, which Muhammad claimed - but as normal never proved - were exterminated because they sinned against Allah. They are taken from old Arab folklore, and not from the Bible, and may or may not have existed, and if they have existed may or may not have been especially sinful against Allah. There is no documentation showing that if they were exterminated and not just lost their culture and power and were mixed with other people, the extermination was like what the Quran claims.

Thamud is mentioned in connection to the Assyrians around 700 BC and disappeared from history somewhere around 600-400 BC. As the Quran indicates that they were destroyed before Abraham (2ooo-1800 BG), this tells that the Quran's time line on this point is something like 1500 years wrong.

030 26/142a: "- - - Salih - - -". Like Hud (see 26/124) a claimed self-proclaimed prophet you only meet in the Quran.

031 26/142c: "Will ye (the Thamud people*) not fear (Allah)?". The claimed 3 Arab prophets mentioned in the Quran (Hud, Salih, and Shu'ayb) all are said to have operated in the time between Noah and Moses. Noah - if he ever lived - is likely to have lived several thousand years ago (5-6ooo?), and Moses around 1300-1400 BC. If you are able to believe in Muslims at that time, you are free to do so, but neither science nor Islam has found any traces of that religion anywhere earlier than 610 AD when Muhammad started his preaching.

032 26/143b: "I (Salih*) am to you a Messenger worthy of all trust". See f.x. 26/125a above.

033 26/144: "So fear Allah, and obey me (Salih*)". See f.x. 26/108, 26/110 and 26/126 above.

034 26/145a: "No reward do I (Salih*) ask of you for it - - -" See f.x. 26/109a and 26/127a above.

035 26/145c: "- - - my (Salih's*) reward is only from (Allah*) - - -". Another parallel to Muhammad legitimizing Muhammad as a claimed prophet. see 26/108 above.

036 26/146-150: The claimed prophet Salih lists good things the Thamud people have, and tells them that if they want to have it and live in peace, they will have to believe in Allah. Claims - not a thing proved

037 26/150: "But fear Allah and obey me (Salih*) - - -". See f.x. 26/108, 26/110 and 26/126 above,

038 26/153a: "Thou (Salih*) art only one of those bewitched!" If this is said to "prove" to Muhammad's followers that such words as Muhammad himself met, just were normal for prophets, it is psychologically quite cleverly done.

039 26/153c: "- - - they (the Thamud people*) said: 'Thou (Salih*) art only - - -'". See 16/70b above.

040 26/154a: "- - - bring us (people) a Sign, if thou (Salih*) tellest the truth!" The same demands Muhammad met from followers and from opponents - see f.x. 26/153 just above. Muhammad never was able to prove anything at all. Only claims, statements and evasions.

041 26/155: "Here is a she-camel - - -". This camel was quite an enigma to us in the beginning - how can a camel be a proof for a god in a land where there is a score of camels to each dozen? But finally we found out: This refers to an old Arab legend about a camel which came out from a solid cliff and became a prophet. Then there suddenly is a meaning in the story - this camel was special. But would a universal god use a story only some Arabs could understand (and today even refuses because it is too naive)? Yes, would a god even need to "borrow" old stories at all? NT also has a number of stories, but few of them are borrowed, and the ones which are, are not pretended to be originals.

042 27/45c: "- - - Salih - - -". A man Muhammad claimed was the self proclaimed prophet of Thamud. You only find him in the Quran. Also he is a time anomaly for anybody reading about him in their claimed copies of "the Mother of the Book" before he lived. A curiosum here is that if the Quran/"the Mother of the Book" existed since eternity, it is not Allah who predestines everything, but "the Mother of the Book", and Allah is a slave of what was/is foretold there.)

043 27/46a: "He (Salih*) - - -". A time anomaly.

044 28/46g: "- - - (you Muhammad are*) to give a warning to a people to whom no warner had come before thee - - -". According to the Quran, the Arabs had had at least these warners: Abraham (claimed to have been in Mecca), Hud, Salih, Shu’yab, and Moses - if he was in Madyan (some Muslims claim the Quran tells the truth, because none of these had been in Medina, where Muhammad was just then. But when you talk about a people, you talk about a people - in this case the Arabs - unless otherwise is specified. If you make the area small enough in cases like this, you may make anything look true.)

Besides the Quran tells that all people through all times had had prophets.

045 32/3g: “- - - thou (Muhammad*) mayst admonish a people to whom no warner has come before thee - - -.” But:

  1. 2/125-129: These verses reminds Muslims about that according to the Quran both Abraham and Ishmael lived and worked in Mecca (according to the Quran) – and both were prophets and messengers, still according to the Quran. But according to science: If Abraham has ever lived, he lived some 2000 – 1800 BC – which means centuries before Moses, and millennia before Muhammad - he "admonished" in Mecca before Muhammad (at least according to the Quran).
  2. 10/47: “To every people (was sent) a messenger - - -.” Homo Sapiens – also called Modern Man – developed most likely in East Africa some 160ooo – 200ooo years ago, and crossed – and occupied – the land bridge between Africa and Asia (= the Middle East) may be 100ooo years ago. If every people had got Messengers, how come that Sinai/Arabia/etc. had not got one for nearly 100ooo years – not until Moses some 3200 years ago or Abraham perhaps 3800 - 4ooo years ago?
  3. 16/36: “For We (Allah*) assuredly sent amongst every People a Messenger.” See 10/47 just above.
  4. 35/24: “- - - and there never was a people, without a warner having lived among them (in the past).” A very clear contradiction.

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

(Min. 6 contradictions.)

046 34/44b: “- - - nor sent them (the non-Muslims in/around Mecca or in Arabia – this surah is from late in the Mecca period*) messengers before thee (Muhammad*) as Warners.” Contradictions:

  1. 2/125-129: These verses remind Muslims about that according to the Quran both Abraham and Ishmael lived and worked in Mecca – and both were prophets and messengers, still according to the Quran. But according to science: If Abraham has ever lived, he lived some 2000 – 1800 BC – which means centuries and millennia before Muhammad. There also were Hud and Salih and others working in Arabia before Muhammad according to the Quran.
  2. 10/47: “To every people (was sent) a messenger - - -.” Homo Sapiens – also called Modern Man – developed most likely in East Africa some 160ooo – 200ooo years ago, and crossed – and occupied – the land bridge between Africa and Asia (= the Middle East) not later than 100ooo years ago (the year is debated - there exist scientists who say min. 70ooo years ago). If every people had got Messengers, how come that Sinai/Arabia/etc. had not got one for nearly 100ooo years (or say 60ooo+ years, as something - we do not know what - happened 60ooo - 70ooo (64ooo?) years ago that started Homo Sapiens on the road to civilization) – not until Abraham and Ishmael (according to the Quran) - some 2500 years before Muhammad ago?
  3. 16/36: “For We (Allah*) assuredly sent amongst every People a Messenger.” See 10/47 just above.
  4. 35/24: “- - - and there never was a people, without a warner having lived among them (in the past).” A very clear contradiction.

Besides there were the prophets Hud, Salih and Shu’ayb who, if we have understood it correctly, lived some generations after Noah, but before Moses.

(Min. 6 contradictions.)

047 36/6c: “- - - thou (Muhammad*) mayst admonish a people, whose fathers had received no admonition - - -.” = had had no warners/messengers before. But:

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

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

(Min. 6 contradictions.)

*048 39/12b: (likely 615-617 AD:) “And I (Muhammad*) am commanded to be the first of those who bow to Allah in Islam.” How is that possible if the Quran is correct and lots of people had been Muslims before him, and bowed to Allah? (Though in reality it is highly likely he was right: That he was the first one ever). Muslims explain that it means the first in a community, but that is not what the Quran says. Besides both Abraham and Ishmael according to what the Quran claims, lived and of course preached in Mecca - at least for some time - and there according to the Quran also were Hud, Salih, and Shu'ayb. Also see 6/14d above.

(At least 6 contradictions).

049 54/23-31: Thamud's claimed prophet, Salih, had problems similar to Muhammad's - Muhammad thus only had problems normal for prophets = Muhammad was a normal prophet = nice for his followers in 614 AD to know. Also the punishment of "unbelievers" was good psychology to tell followers: We are right and the others will lose.

050 54/25: "Nay, he (Muhammad's parallel Salih*) is a liar, an insolent one!". As the Quran - and thus its twin (exact copies from the same claimed "Mother Book" in Heaven) claimed given to the claimed prophet Salih - with all its errors, etc. is not from any god, this may be a correct statement. It at least is clear that Muhammad lied at least some times in the Quran (f.x. when Muhammad claimed that real miracles would make no-one believe - he was too intelligent and knew too much about people, and he knew this was a lie; at least some would believe if they got proofs for Allah).

051 54/27: "- - - (- - - Salih) - - -". The claimed, but self-proclaimed prophet of the claimed (from Arab folklore) tribe Thamud. You never meet him other places than in the Quran and in stories derived from Muhammad.

052 87/18-19: "And this is in the Books of the earliest revelations - the Books of Abraham and Moses." But according to the Quran there always have been revelations from Allah to man. Homo Sapiens - man - developed perhaps 200ooo years ago. And he started in earnest on the road to modern man 60-70ooo (64000?) years ago. Abraham lived - if he ever did - some 3800-4000 years ago and Moses some 3300-3400 years ago - if he ever lived. How can their claimed books (see 87/19a-c below) be the earliest ones - tens and may be hundreds of thousands of years after the first humans, and thus the first prophets according to the Quran? Not to mention; how can Moses have had of the oldest ones, when there according to the Quran were earlier prophets even in Arabia? (Moses talked about them according to the Quran - not according to the Bible - so they had to be earlier). The same story tells the claim that the last of the 3 special Arab claimed prophets of the old, Shu'ayb, is claimed to be 4. generation after Lot, which in case indicates that Shu'ayb lived around 1700 BC or may be a little earlier (and the 2 others, Hud and Salih, then naturally even earlier).

######Besides: "The books of Abraham"?? Abraham lived 500 - 700 years before man learnt how to read around 1200+ years BC - may be a little earlier in Egypt.

053 91/15: (A10): “And for Him (Allah*) is no fear for its consequences.” But does this verse really talk about Allah? Another interpretation goes like this: “- - - for none (of the ones that slaughtered the camel) had any fear of what might befall them.” Not exactly the same meaning from the same clear (?) original Arab text. And these variants of course also are in the Arab text, as the relevant word(s) there has/have more than one meaning. Allah (?) really uses a clear language. A. Yusuf Ali (YA6158) means that “him” may refer to Allah, or to the claimed prophet Salih, or to the man who slaughtered the camel mentioned in 91/12. Who knows what is the correct meaning of the Quran here?

53 + 10.394 = 10.447 comments (+ basic comments/introductions).


 

220.   SABEANS - PEOPLE OF SABA/SABAH/SHEBA

Saba/Sabah/Sheba was a rich country in the south of the Arab peninsula - roughly Yemen today. At the time of Muhammad they mainly were Christians (from influence from East Africa). You may meet a couple of other explanations for who the Sabeans in the Quran were, but this one definitely is the most likely one.

Actually there are at least 3 possible explanations for whom the Sabeans were:

  1. A semi-Christian group in Iraq - it still exists near Basra (some 2ooo members today).
  2. At the time of Muhammad there also was a Gnostic group at Harran called Sabeans.
  3. But the by far most likely explanation is the old kingdom of Saba (Sabah, Sheba) roughly in what is now Yemen (cfr. the Queen of Saba/Sabah/Sheba). The fact that they mainly were Christians, makes this even more likely.

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

001 2/62b: “Those who believe (in the Quran), and those who follow the Jewish (scriptures), and the Christians and the Sabeans (Jews, Christians, and Sabeans = the People of the Book) – any who believe in Allah (= God/Yahweh here*) and the Last Day, and work righteousness, shall have their reward with their Lord (go to Heaven*) - - -“. Contradicted - and abrogated - by:

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

(7 contradictions - and you will find more).

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

002 2/62f: "- - - the Sabeans - - -". There are at least 3 possible explanations for whom the Sabeans were:

  1. A semi-Christian group in Iraq - it still exists near Basra (some 2ooo members today).
  2. At the time of Muhammad there also was a Gnostic group at Harran called Sabeans.
  3. But the by far most likely explanation is the old kingdom of Saba (Sabah, Sheba) in what is now Yemen (cfr. the Queen of Saba/Sabah/Sheba). The fact that they mainly were Christians, makes this even more likely.

Muslims nearly always only mention one or both of the 2 first when talking about this, and when they mention the country of Sheba, we have never seen them mention that they were Christians. Sheba was made Christian via the Christian Abyssinia (now approximately Ethiopia) which conquered them ca. 350 AD (and then conquered by Persia ca.579 AD). When they are mentioned specially, the reason may be that perhaps the teachings and/or rituals varied a little from the Christians the Arabs met further north - or simply that they lived in another place (south) than the other Christians desert Arabs met, who lived in north-west in Sham = the lands at the inner end of the Mediterranean Sea. It is anybody’s guess why Muslims do not like to mention the Christian Sheba - perhaps they were made Muslims in ways not constituent with "let there be no compulsion in religion" (often wrongly quoted by Muslims to "there is no compulsion - - -")? - lots of Arabs were made Muslims that way.

003 2/101h: “- - - a party of the People of the Book (here Jews – the People of the Book = Jews, Christians and Sabeans, and “the Book” in this case is the Bible*) threw away the Book of Allah (the Quran?*), as if (it had been something) they did not know!” How can this be in the claimed "Mother Book" written may be billions of years before? See 2/51b above. A time anomaly.

*004 2/144g: "The people of the Book - - -". = Jews, Christians and Sabeans (see 2/62f above).

005 2/145a: "- - - the People of the Book (here the Bible*) - - -". = Jews, Christians and Sabeans (the last ones likely were the inhabitants of the mainly Christian Saba/Sabah/Sheba, though Islam prefer to explain it was some Christians in what is now Iraq (a small sect exists even today - some 2ooo members), or an Arab sect which believed in one god only, and which existed at the time of Muhammad) - see 2/62f above.

006 3/19a: "- - - nor did the People of the Book (mainly Jews and Christians*) dissent therefrom (Islam*) - - -." To say this is not true, must be the understatement of the year - Islam has always met strong disbelief from both Jews and Christians, MUCH to the chagrin of Muhammad. This is one of the places in the Quran where it at least is clear he knew he was lying when he told this - he was too intelligent not to know what Jews and Christians generally meant about his new religion.

007 3/19b: "- - - the People of the Book (here the Bible*) - - -". = Jews, Christians and Sabeans (though the Sabeans play a small role in the Quran - it is not even quite clear who they were. They may have been a monotheistic sect in Arabia or a Christian sect which you still find traces of in Iraq - these two explanations many Muslims prefer. But the most likely explanation is that they were the people in the mainly Christian Saba/Sabah/Sheba in what now is Yemen - they became Christians via Ethiopia, but were later forced to become Muslims).

008 3/64a: "- - - People of the Book (in this case the Bible*)!" = Jews, Christians and Sabeans (though the last ones are seldom mentioned in the Quran - see 2/62f above). Muslims like to claim the Sabeans were member of an Arab monotheistic sect or a similar one in Persia - the latter one exists even today (with some 2ooo members). The most likely ones, however, were the people in the then mainly Christian Saba/Sabah/Sheba in what is today Yemen. For some reason or other Muslims seldom mention this possibility.

009 3/69c: "But they (Jews, Christians, and Sabeans*) shall lead astray (not you (Muslims*) but themselves - - -". This is correct only if Islam is a true religion and if in addition the Bible is wrong.

010 3/186b: "- - - those who received the Book before you - - -". = Mainly Jews and Christians. (Muhammad claimed the Bible and the Quran was the same book, only that the bad Jews and Christians had falsified it - a claim science and even more Islam have thoroughly proved wrong by being unable to find even one proved falsification.)

011 4/51a: "- - - those who were given a portion of the Book (here the Bible*) - - -". = Jews, Christians and Sabeans (most likely from the mainly Christian Saba/Sabah/Sheba - see 2/62f above - in what now is Yemen). But also see 4/44a above.

012 5/5h: “(Lawful unto you in marriage) are (not only) chaste women who are believers, but chaste women among the (Jews, Sabeans, and Christians*) - - -.” This is told to men – women are too insignificant for such debates. But it concerns women. Muslim men can marry women who are Jews, Christians (though the Quran other places seems to be against it unless they become Muslims) or Muslims, but not Pagan ones (though there is no prohibition for having them as concubines or similar). Muslim women can marry only Muslim men – the prohibition is so strict that if a woman marries a non-Muslim, or her Muslim husband converts to another religion, her marriage is invalid and nullified. "No compulsion in religion".

013 5/57c: "- - - those who received the Scriptures before you (Muslims*) - - -". Jews, Christian, Sabeans according to the Quran.

##014 5/69b: “Those who (believe in the Quran), and those who follows the Jewish (scriptures), and the Christians and the Sabeans – any who believe in Allah (here "included" Yahweh/God*) and the Last day, and work righteousness – on them shall be no fear, nor shall they grieve.” This may indicate that also Jews and Christians (and Sabeans - most likely people from the then mainly Christian Sabah/Sheba, but also a couple of other explanations may be possible - see 2/62f above) may go to Paradise. But see 5/69c just below.

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

015 5/69c: “Those who (believe in the Quran), and those who follows the Jewish (scriptures), and the Christians and the Sabeans – any who believe in Allah (here included Yahweh/God*) and the Last day, and work righteousness – on them shall be no fear, nor shall they grieve.” Contradicted by:

  1. 3/85: “If anyone desires a religion other than Islam (submission to Allah), never will it be accepted of him - - -.” This alone tells the full story.
  2. 5/72: “They (Christians*) do blaspheme who say: ‘God is Christ the son of Mary.’ - - - and the Fire will be their abode.” To say that Jesus is divine is to put another god at Allah’s side – the ultimate and unforgivable sin according to 2/225a and 4/116a-c above and 6/106b and 25/18a below. (But in 19/19 the Quran itself says that Jesus was holy.)
  3. 5/73: “They do blaspheme who say: Allah is one of three in a Trinity - - -.” This was to put two other gods at the side of Allah – two times the ultimate sin.

(3 contradictions).

016 6/20a: “Those to whom We (Allah*) have given the Book (here the Bible*) - - -". = Jews, Christians, Sabeans.

017 22/17b: "- - - Sabeans - - -". Most likely the people of the partly Christian Saba/Sabah/Sheba in what is now Yemen. They were christened from East Africa. For some reason or other Muslims do not like this explanation, and instead propose f.x. a monotheistic Persian sect. (There after all is a chance they may be right, as one does not know for sure who the Sabeans were).

#018 57/16f: "- - - their (Jews', Christians', and Sabeans'*) hearts grew hard - - -". The underlying meaning here is that Muhammad claimed they took the copy he claimed they had got of the claimed "Mother Book" in heaven (of which the Quran is claimed to be an exact copy), and falsified it into the Bible. We may add that the claim that the Bible is falsified, long since is proved false both by science and even more so by Islam, by their inability to find one single proved falsification among all the some 45ooo relevant manuscripts and fragments older than 610 AD. ####They mainly are circumstantial proofs, but they are so many, and many of them so strong that put together they make mathematical strength proofs.

#####We may also point to the fact that if the Quran had been falsified by "hard hearts", it had been made harder and harsher to fit those hearts. But especially NT is much softer and milder.

019 74/31e: "- - - the People of the Book (here the Bible*) - - -". Jews, Christians and Sabeans (likely to be the inhabitants of the mainly Christian Saba/Sabah/Sheba - now approximately Yemen - but some Muslim scholars prefer other explanations).

020 98/1d: "- - - the People of the Book - - -". Jews, Christians, and Sabeans (it is not quite clear who the Sabeans were. Most likely they were the inhabitants of Saba/Sabah/Sheba in what is now Yemen, but there are a couple of other possibilities - the famous clear language in the Quran.

###021 98/5a: "And they (the people of the Book - Jews, Christians, Sabeans*) have been commanded (by Muhammad*) no more than this: to worship Allah, offering Him (Allah*) sincere devotion, being true (in faith (Islam*)), to establish regular Prayer (to Allah*) - - -". We do not think these demands on believing (in Yahweh) people knowing how much was wrong in the Quran - or at least some of it - and thus knowing that this was a made up, new religion, based on a well known, but dressed up pagan god (al-Lah), need any comments.

022 98/6c: "- - - the People of the Book - - -". Jews, Christians and Sabeans - mainly the two first.

22 + 10.447 = 10.469 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".