Humans, Other Beings in/Relevant to the Quran, Part 46

 

260 UTBAH IBN RABIAH

Clan leader in the Quraysh tribe. Tried to mediate peace between Mecca and Muhammad, but did not succeed. He was killed in the Battle of Badr.

0 + 11.523 = 11.523 comments (+ basic comments/introductions).


 

261.   UTMAN IBN AFFAN

Early and strong follower of Muhammad. Married Muhammad's daughter Ruqayya, and after she died another of Muhammad's daughters, Umm Kulthum. Utman became the 3. caliph after Muhammad, and had the official Quran made (but in Arab, a language which at that time had a very incomplete alphabet, which resulted in that much of the texts in that Quran is unclear, as there often is possible with two or more meanings of words, expressions and sentences - what Muslims call "different ways of reading, but which simply mean different versions of the texts, and often wildly different.

Utman was murdered in 656 AD.

0 + 11.523 = 11.523 comments (+ basic comments/introductions).


 

262.   al-UZZA - ONE OF THE 3 MAIN GODESSES IN THE OLD ARABIA

- the 2 others were al-Lat and Manat.

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

For comments see al-Lat under L. (The 2 mostly were treated together in the Quran.)

0 + 11.523 = 11.523 comments (+ basic comments/introductions).


 

263.   WADD - ONE OF THE OLD ARAB PAGAN GODS

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

#001 71/23b: "Wadd - - - Suwa' - - - Yaghuth - - - Ya'uq - - - Nasr - - -". 5 gods which were cherished in Arabia at the time of Muhammad. But Muhammad claimed these gods were cherished by Noah's people somewhere in southern Mesopotamia (now southern Iraq) 2500 years earlier. What were the chances those people had the same gods as in the distant Arabia some 100 generations later? Muslims of course say these gods were imported from Mesopotamia and were age-old - but there exist no documentation for this at all; just one more of Islam's many not proved claims. Worse: Science believes they were imported from Syria, not from Mesopotamia + that in the old times when there were no books to make ideas permanent, gods slowly changed over the generations - they were not the same through 2500 years. (Just compare to all the chances the god Il went through: First he was the main god Il somewhere in the east (perhaps in south Mesopotamia where one also believes Noah lived - if he is not fiction). Then in Arabia he slowly became the moon god al-Ilah, at least in the southern part. Then he developed into the main god of Arabia, al-Lah and got lots of daughters - angels and goddesses. Then his name drifted towards Allah, but still a pagan main god. And finally Muhammad dressed him up to become the monotheistic god Allah. (But unless everything in the Quran is true, included the never proved claim that the book is from a god, Allah still is a pagan, made up god.)

Wrong unless Islam proves - proves, not claims - differently.

1 + 11.523 = 11.524 comments (+ basic comments/introductions).


 

264.   WARAQA IBN NAUFAL

Claimed to be a close relative of Khadija, Muhammad's first wife, and perhaps a Christian. Islam used him and his claimed words as a "proof" for that Muhammad really was a prophet. Cherry-picked persons and words are not good proofs, and in addition the claimed quotes from him have low precision - and on top of all it is unclear if he ever existed, or if he is a made up "witness" (Islam is not to strong on honesty).

0 + 11.524 = 11.524 comments (+ basic comments/introductions).


 

265.   WASHI

  • Ethiopian slave. Killed Muhammad's uncle Hamzah.

     

    0 + 11.524 = 11.524 comments (+ basic comments/introductions).


     

    266.   WIFE OF ADAM - EVE

    Strangely Eve is not named in the Quran. But the Quran often is short on details, even central details.

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

    See "EVE" above.

    0 + 11.524 = 11.524 comments (+ basic comments/introductions).


     

    267.   WIFE OF THE AZIS/POTIPHAR

    Basically the story about Joseph and the wife of his owner is similar in the Bible and the Quran, but many details are different. From where did Muhammad get these different details?

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

    001 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)).

    002 12/21c: "The man (the Aziz/Potiphar*) in Egypt who bought him (Joseph*), said to his wife: 'Make his (Joseph's*) stay - - -". See 12/8b above.

    003 12/21e: "- - - maybe he (Joseph*) will bring us much good, or we shall adopt him as a son". This is not from the Bible - like a number of other details in the story of Joseph. From where did Muhammad get this?

    004 12/23b: "- - - she (the wife of Joseph's owner*) sought to seduce him (Joseph*) - - - and said: 'Now come - - -'". See 12/8b above.

    005 12/24a: "And (with passion) did she (the wife of Joseph's owner*) desire him (Joseph*) - - -". 2 time anomalies. See 4/13d above.

    ###006 12/24b: "- - - evil and shameful deeds - - -". Beware that when the Quran uses expressions like this, it is in accordance with its own partly immoral moral code. In cases like here the Quran also is unintended irony and black comedy: Sex out of wedlock is "evil and shameful", whereas to rape captive or slave women - or for that case to take slaves - and destroy their - fellow humans' - lives, is "lawful and good" (8/69). Some religion!

    By the way: Have you ever noticed any similarities between the moral code of the Quran and the ones of f.x. the Mafia's, the Chinese Triad's, the Cosa Nostra's. etc.?

    007 12/25a: "They (she and Joseph*) both raced each other to the door - - -". Time anomalies. See 4/13d above.

    008 12/25b: "They (she and Joseph*) both raced each other to the door, and she tore his shirt from the back - - -". See 12/8b above.

    009 12/25c: "They (she and Joseph*) both raced each other to the door, and she tore his shirt from the back - - -". This is not from the Bible - like much else in this story. From where did Muhammad get it?

    010 12/26b: "He (Joseph*) said: 'It was she - - -". See 12/8b above.

    011 12/26c: "- - - one of her (the wife of Joseph's owner's*) household - - - bore witness - - -". A time anomaly. See 4/13d above.

    012 12/26d: "- - - one of her (the wife of Joseph's owner's*) household - - - bore witness (thus) - 'If it was she - - -". See 12/8b above.

    013 12/26-27: "If it be that his (Joseph's*) shirt is rent from the front, then is her (the wife of Joseph's owner*) tale true, and he is a liar! But if it be that his shirt is torn from the back, then is she the liar, and he is telling the truth!" One thing is that this logic at best is valid as an indicia, not as a proof - but as mentioned Muhammad was very liberal with the use of the word "proof", as you see all over the Quran. But may be worse: This is not from the Bible - where did Muhammad get this from?

    014 12/27b: "- - - his (Joseph's*) shirt is torn - - -". See 12/8b above.

    015 12/28b: "- - - when he (Joseph's owner*) saw his (Joseph's*) shirt - - - (he*) said: 'Behold - - -". See 12/8b above.

    016 12/28c: "Truly - - -". Definitely not a proved truth - only a not proved claim. See 2/2b above.

    017 12/29a: "O Joseph, pass this over! (O wife), ask forgiveness for thy sin, for truly thou hast been at fault!" Not only contradicted by the Bible, but incompatible with this story in the Bible. Also see 67/9c below - a strong one. But of course it is ok for Islam to prove - prove - the Bible wrong and the Quran right. But as we say: Prove, not just loose claims and as loose and invalid words like the Quran always use instead of proofs.

    018 12/29b: "O Joseph, pass this over! (O wife), ask forgiveness for thy sin, for truly thou hast been at fault!" Can anyone please tell us what the logic of putting Joseph in prison is?! This (and also the ladies with the knives) is not from the Bible - in the Bible the story is logical - not so in the Quran - - - far from good literature. (But Joseph had to end in prison - logic or no logic - because of the rest of the story).

    019 12/29c: "O Joseph, pass this over! (O wife), ask forgiveness for thy sin, for truly thou hast been at fault!" See 12/8b above.

    Another point is that to forgive - or for that case to punish or reward or fulfill prayers - means for Allah to change his Plan considering the sinner/person, something which according to the Quran nobody and nothing can make him do. See 2/187d above.

    020 12/30b: "Ladies said in the City: 'The wife - - -". Not from the Bible.

    #021 12/30-34: This is not from the Bible. From where did Muhammad get it? (There many places are reason for using this question in the Quran - and Muslims claims:"From Allah". But as it is clear no god vas ever involved in a book of a quality like the Quran, only these possibilities remains: From dark forces - and the hate and blood and acceptance of dishonesty, not to mention the partly immoral moral code, etc. may indicate this. Or a mental illness - modern medical science believe he had TFL (Temporal Lobe Epilepsy), as both his religious "experiences" and the seizures Islam describes he had, indicates this. Or made up tales - Muhammad had a reputation for being a little naive when it came to discerning truth from made up tales, and the fact that most of the tales in the Quran are known apocryphal (made up) tales, legends, folk tales, and fairy tales from the old Arabia and its surroundings, may indicate this. Or Muhammad himself or some accomplice(s) made it all up - the very many cases of wrong facts which were believed to be correct at the time of Muhammad, which you find in the Quran, the fact that "everything" fitted Muhammad's position at the time when the surahs were released (nothing really pointed forwards - wishes, etc. yes, but no real facts about the future), and all the times Muhammad personally got help from Allah (like so many a self proclaimed prophet), may indicate this. Or may be a combination of 2 of more of these possibilities. (Just for the record: When mentioning this, we often lump the fairy tales, etc., together with the scheming, cold brain.))

    022 12/31a: "When she (the wife of Joseph's owner*) heard of their (women in the city*) malicious talk - - -". A time anomaly.

    023 12/31b: "- - - she (the wife of Joseph's owner*) sent for them (women in the city*) and prepared a banquet for them - - -". See 12/8b above.

    024 12/31c: (A27 – in 2008 edition A28): “- - - she (the wife of the Aziz (in reality likely a title = “the mighty one”, not a name – the name in the Bible is Potiphar*)*) sent for them (the slandering ladies*) and prepared a banquet for them - - -.” What the Arab texts really tells she did, was “to prepare a place where one reclines – (“muttaka’”)” – or “a cushioned couch”. But this is not clear enough language – hence the “explaining translations”: “banquet”, “sumptuous repast”, or similar used by them. Clear language?

    025 12/31d: "When they (some women*) saw him (Joseph*), they - - - cut their hands - - -". There is little logic in the point here: Why giving them knives before showing them Joseph? (Some Muslims say it was to cut fruit, but when you cut fruit, you cut the fruit and lay down the knife mostly – few had had the knife in their hands at any given moment, and fewer so distracted or stupefied that they would cut themselves). And it is not a natural reaction to be so stupefied by a face, that all and every of them cut their fingers – one or at most two could have done so, though unlikely, but not more. The story is unlikely for at least one more reason: If Joseph was so attractive, this would have been in the grapevine, and they had been prepared for it. (It is permitted to use your brain and your knowledge when reading a story, not only your eyes.) This also is not from the Bible.

    026 12/31e: "Allah preserve us (some women in Egypt*)!" This tells indirectly, but clearly that the women were Muslim. But Islam was totally unknown in Egypt around 1800-1700 BC (Joseph lived something like a century after Abraham, his great grandfather, who lived around 2000-1800 BC according to science - if they were not both fiction. Or to recon the other way: Exodus was ca. 1235 BC. Then the Jews had lived in Egypt for 430 years according to the Bible (2. Mos. 12/40-41). This happened(?) a few years before the Jews moved to Egypt - if the numbers are correct it must have happened around 1670 BC. In Egypt people (likely except the Jews partly) were polytheists - no trace of monotheism is found at this time. (There was Akn Aton (pharaoh 1372 - 1355 BC) and his sun god, but not just then).

    Muhammad claimed Islam had existed to all times and in all places - obviously wrong.

    027 12/32c: "And now, if he (Joseph*) doth not my (the wife of Joseph's owner's*) bidding (have sex with her*), he shall certainly be cast in prison". The only thing which is certain here is that no wife in even a pre-Arabic Egypt would say a thing like this in public, and certainly not after a narrow escape from her husband shortly before.

    028 12/32d: What was the logic of for the Aziz/Potiphar to agree to put Joseph in prison when it was proved he was not guilty? (A contradiction to the Bible where this was not proved and there the story is logical). This after all was at a moment where the wife should have been careful. (Muslims have a kind of explanation, but only a kind of). But imprisonment is necessary for the rest of the story.

    Well, the Quran implies Joseph was put to prison by the woman because he still did not want her. A spiteful woman could do so, but any sane husband then would ask questions - - - and there would be rumors in addition he would sooner or later hear, as you bet the other ladies would wag their tongues.

    029 12/52e: (A12/47 – in the 2008 edition A12/51): “This (say I), in order that he (the Aziz*) may know that I (Joseph*) have never been false to him in his absence, and that Allah will never guide the snare of the false ones. Nor do I absolve my own self - - -.” All this is well and good. But who says this? Is it the wife, like f.x. Ibn Kathir and Rashid Rida guess? – or is it Joseph, like among others Tabari, Baghawi, and Zamakhshari believe? The clear (?) language in the Quran does not give one single reliable clue – it is anybody’s guess. Clear and unmistakable texts?

    29 + 11.524 = 11.553 comments (+ basic comments/introductions).


     

    268 WIFE OF THE PHARAOH (HOREMHEB)

    According to the Bible Moses was found on the Nile by a daughter of the pharaoh (highly likely Pharaoh Horemheb, 1319-1292 BC (or maybe 1307-1292)) had died (2. Mos. 2/23),). He had two wives, the first one was named Amenia, the second one Mutnodjment) is indicated to be a strongly believing Muslim. But it is utterly unknown to science that one of them can have been a Muslim 2000 years before Muhammad. Actually – and in spite of the Quran’s and of Islam’s repeated claims of being an age-old religion, science has found not one single trace of a religion like Islam anywhere or any time before 610 AD when Muhammad started his mission (and worse: Also Islam has been unable to find provable such traces) – and of really monotheistic religions only the Mosaic (Jewish), the Christian, and to a degree the Zoroastrians in Persia (+ the episode with the sun god of Akn Aton and the small monotheistic sect in Arabia, most likely inspired by the Jews and the Christians). Islam has to bring proofs.

    If the pharaoh was Horemheb, his wife when Moses was found, was Mutnodjmet, simply because his first wife, Amenia, died before Horemheb became pharaoh.

    In Muslim tradition 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. But it is likely the correct name was Mutnodjment, and there is no indication in history for that she was perfect. This even more so if it was her daughter who found him - a daughter who died young, may be as a child.

    Horemheb died childless, but there are strong indications for that he had had children. If one of them had been a not too old girl, it is easy to think she would pick up the baby Moses. That Mutnodjmet did the same indicating a slave boy to become the next pharaoh, honestly is less likely - a born slave from a non-Egyptian tribe as a crown prince?

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

    001 28/9a: "The wife of Pharaoh - - -". One thing is that pharaohs normally had several wives (well, Horemheb only had one at a time). Another that the Bible tells it was a daughter of the Pharaoh (2. Mos.2/5-6), not a ("the") wife.

    002 28/9b: "- - - we (Pharaoh and one of his wives*) may adopt him (Moses*) as a son." How likely is it that a mighty pharaoh would even think about adopting a slave baby as a son? - a born slave from a non-Egyptian tribe as a crown prince?

    003 66/11a: The wife of the Pharaoh (Horemheb) is indicated to be a strongly believing Muslim. But it is utterly unknown to science that she can have been a Muslim 2000 years before Muhammad. Actually – and in spite of the Quran’s and of Islam’s repeated claims of being an age-old religion, science has found not one single trace of a religion like Islam anywhere or any time before 610 AD when Muhammad started his mission (and worse: Also Islam has been unable to find provable such traces) – and of really monotheistic religions only the Mosaic (Jewish), the Christian, and to a degree the Zoroastrians in Persia (+ the episode with the sun god of Akn Aton (pharaoh 1372 - 1355 BC) and the small monotheistic sect in Arabia, most likely inspired by the Jews and the Christians). Islam has to bring proofs. Actually with our knowledge to the mighty Ramses II, we believe the whole of this verse is (part of) a made up tale.

    Egypt had a myriad of gods at that time, perhaps as many as 2ooo.

    004 66/11e: "- - - the Wife of Pharaoh (indicated by the context that it was she who found Moses, and thus likely Mutnodjmet*) - - -". 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.

     

    If the pharaoh was Horemheb, his wife when Moses was found, was Mutnodjmet, simply because his first wife, Amenia, died before Horemheb became pharaoh.

    005 79/17a: "- - - Pharaoh - - -". Always when the Quran talks about a Pharaoh, it is about the opponent of Moses, Pharaoh Ramses II. There is one exception only, and only indirectly: The baby Moses was picked up from the Nile by the wife of the Pharaoh (in the Bible by his daughter - 2. Mos. 2/6). As according to the Bible this happened some 80 years before the Exodus, this pharaoh has got to be an earlier one, most likely Horemheb.

    We may add that as we know Ramses II did not drown, it is normal for Islam/Muslim scholars to claim it was an earlier, but not specified pharaoh where we do not know the cause of his death. But science is in no doubt: If exodus took place, it was around 1235 BC = during the reign of Ramses II.

    To complete the picture: There are a few scientists who believe Exodus happened - if it happened - not during the reign of Ramses II, but during the reign of his son and successor, Merneptah (also spelled Meremptah), but in that case Exodus happened even later than 1235 BC, and not earlier like Islam and Muslims want it to have happened (to place it under a pharaoh we do not know how died, and thus may have drowned - Merneptah ruled from 1223 BC to 1203 BC, and he did not drown).

    5 + 11.553 = 11.558 comments (+ basic comments/introductions).


    269 WOMEN

    Islam is a religion primarily for men, and above all for the warrior. Women to a large degree are reward, a source of pleasure, servants and obedient underlings for the man - and a producer of children, strongly preferably boys, for her husband or owner. This is rather normal for war religions.

    In many aspects of life the woman according to the Quran has half the value of a man. In som aspects less (she f.x. is the total underling of first her father and later her slave owner (slavery still is ok according to the Quran - and according to UN still practiced to a degree), harem owner, or husband.

    Her position is even lower in the claimed next life, because there she has to compete with her husband's up to 72 beautiful sex slaves - the houris. But for that very little is said about women in the Quran also in Paradise.

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

    001 2/178e: "- - - the free for the free, the slave for the slave, the woman for the woman". There were great differences socially in the Islamic society, AND REMEMBER THAT AS THE QURAN IS CLAIMED GIVEN BY THE GOD, NOTHING CAN BE CHANGED. The practicing and the understanding of the verses may change a little, but the Quran is forever the one and only moral code and the one and unchangeable law - what all fundamentalists - and terrorists - return to. Would you like to live under such rules? - especially if you know the reason for the rules is a book not connected to any god (no god was ever involved in delivering a book with so much errors, and no good god was involved in such a harsh, bloody, suppressing and egocentric war religion)?

    002 2/221a: “Do not marry unbelieving women (idolaters (if this word is in the Arab text?)), until they believe”. Contradicted – and abrogated – by: 5/5: “(Lawful unto you in marriage) are (not only) chaste women who are believers, but chaste women among the People of the Book”. Then at least Christian women should not be accepted according to 2/221, as they use religious icons, etc., and there is the Trinity. If the word “idolaters” are not in the Arab text (text in ( ) sometimes is explanation, sometimes specification – and sometime a “help” to the text to sound more correct), Muslim men can marry all Christian and Jewish women.

    003 2/221b: “Do not marry unbelieving women (idolaters), until they believe - - -”. According to Sharia - Muslim law - a man in reality is permitted to marry a non-Muslim woman - at least Jews and Christians - but a woman cannot marry a non-Muslim man. (Not even a Muslim slave girl can be married to a non-Muslim - the marriage is void and automatically annulated.) There are no restrictions on keeping non-Muslim girls and women as sex-slaves/concubines.

    004 2/221c: “(To marry*) a slave woman who believes (in Islam*), is better than to marry an unbelieving woman, even though she is alluring to you.” Well, this may tell as much about the value of non-Muslims.

    005 2/221d: (A2/208): “- - - a slave woman - - -.” Does it in this special case mean an ordinary slave woman? – or a slave woman of Allah = a Muslim woman? – or a slave woman who is Muslim? In this case the distinctions may count quit a lot - - - but the book is silent.

    006 2/221e: "(For your daughters to marry*) a man slave who believes is better than an unbeliever - - -". Here Islam is more liberal towards slaves than f.x. in the old USA - - - or Islam is more fanatic towards other religions.

    007 2/222a: “They (Muslims*) ask thee (Muhammad*) concerning women’s courses (menstruation*). Say: They are a hurt and a pollution: keep away from women in their courses, and do not approach them until they are clean.” Menstruating women are ritually unclean. There is no physiological reason for this rule.

    008 2/222b: “They (Muslims*) ask thee (Muhammad*) concerning women’s courses (menstruation*). Say: They are a hurt and a pollution: keep away from women in their courses, and do not approach them until they are clean.” This is not from the Bible.

    009 2/222c: “They (Muslims*) ask thee (Muhammad*) concerning women’s courses (menstruation*). Say: They are a hurt and a pollution: keep away from women in their courses, and do not approach them until they are clean.” One of the points behind the sharia laws.

    010 2/222d: "(When your women are ritually clean, you can have sex with them*) in any manner, time, or place ordained for you by Allah". No comment - and none necessary - except: There is no doubt that Allah decides and predestines absolutely everything.

    011 2/222e: "(When your women are ritually clean, you can have sex with them*) in any manner, time, or place ordained for you by Allah". This is not from the Bible.

    012 2/222f: "(When your women are ritually clean, you can have sex with them*) in any manner, time, or place ordained for you by Allah". This is one of the points behind the sharia laws concerning women - one of the points which make even formally free women semi-slaves under their men, here both in literal and figurative meaning.

    013 2/226a: “For those who take an oath for abstention from their wives (preparing for divorce*), a waiting for four months is ordained; if they then return (all is ok and the marriage goes on*)”. If the man still wants divorce after the 4 months, it takes place. Divorce is very simple for men in Islam (but also possible, though more complicated, for women). But if a man breaks his oath by taking back his wife before the divorce is irrevocable, Allah forgives that broken oath.

    Another point is that to forgive - or for that case to punish - means for Allah to change his Plan considering the sinner, something which according to the Quran is nobody and nothing can make him do. See 2/187d above.

    014 2/226-227: The background for these two verses according to Muslim scholars, were an old and inhuman practice which sometimes was used: If a man disliked his wife - or one of his wives - enough, he could swear an oath saying he would not touch her any more. Then the marriage in reality was finished, but as it was not formally terminated, the wife still was bound to him and could not go on with her life - in a way she became just a slave belonging to him and having to work for him - like a servant or - yes - a slave. The intention of these verses is said to be to put an end to that misuse of marriages.

    015 2/227a: "- - - divorce - - -". Morally incompatible with the Bible, though it one place seems that Jesus reluctantly accepted it judicially "for the sake of your hard hearts". Morally there is no doubt it is strictly prohibited in NT, though, and thus incompatible with the Quran's easy rules.

    016 2/228a: “Divorced women shall wait concerning themselves (having sex*) for three monthly periods”. This to be sure who is the father if there is a child. One of the points behind the sharia laws.

    017 2/228b: “And the woman shall have rights similar to the rights against them (men*), according to what is equitable - - -“. But beware: This is said in connection with a possible restart of a marriage where there is separation, and covers just and only that - women have far from similar rights (a married woman in Islam is some place between a free human and a slave to her husband - where she is on that scale varies from one Muslim area to another). This sentence is not valid for concubines or your slave women.

    018 2/228c: “And the woman shall have rights similar to the rights against them, according to what is equitable (this sentence is not valid for concubines or your slave women*); but men have a degree (of advantage) over them“. This means that women are one step – small or big – below men as judicial persons (in reality also as human beings). Also see 2/228b just above.

    019 2/229a: “A divorce is only permissible twice (during the same marriage*) - - -.” Twice should be enough, but divorce is very easy in Islam, and may be it happens in fits of anger – and then regret afterward. (If they happened to want to get together again after an irrevocable divorce, that only was possible if the woman married another man, had sex with him, and then divorced him).

    020 2/229b: “A divorce is only permissible twice (during the same marriage*) - - -.” To say the least of it: Incompatible with NT - a divorce there hardly is permissibly in the NT at all.

    021 2/229c: "It is not lawful for you (men), to take back any of your gifts (from your wives, included the dower you gave her (in connection with a divorce*)) - - -". This is a woman's personal property which a husband at least lawfully cannot make any demands on. In reality she often has to spend it for the family or give it to her father. (The same goes for money she inherits - at least concerning spending it on the family.)

    ###022 2/230a: “So if a husband divorces his wife (irrevocably), he cannot, after that, remarry her until after she has married another husband (and “fulfilled” that marriage*) and he has divorced her.” This situation is not often to meet, but it does happen as divorces are a bit too easy in Islam. It is a most shameful deed in those cases to force the woman to prostitute herself to be permitted to go back to her husband - this even more so as it normally is the husband who has demanded the divorce in such cases.

    One of the more disgusting and immoral laws on Earth.

    ###023 2/230b: “So if a husband divorces his wife (irrevocably), he cannot, after that, remarry her until after she has married another husband (and “fulfilled” that marriage*) and he has divorced her.” One of the distasteful points behind some paragraphs in the sharia laws.

    ###024 2/230c: “So if a husband divorces his wife (irrevocably), he cannot, after that, remarry her until after she has married another husband (and “fulfilled” that marriage*) and he has divorced her.” To force a woman to prostitute herself to be permitted to return to her husband, is so foreign to the Bible, that there is no compatibility at all on this point between the two books.

    025 2/231a: “When ye divorce women (not irrevocably*) - - - either take them back on equitable terms or set them free on equitable terms - - - (do not make life difficult for them*)”. On this point the Quran is ok. Also this is one of the points behind the sharia laws.

    026 2/231b: “When ye divorce women (not irrevocably*) - - - either take them back on equitable terms or set them free on equitable terms - - - (do not make life difficult for them*)”.

    027 2/231c: "- - - ('iddah) - - -". After a divorce a woman had to wait 3 months and 10 days - the "'iddah" - before she remarried. This in order to know who the father of the child was if she was pregnant.

    028 2/231d: "- - - either take them (your former wives*) back on equitable terms or set them free on equitable terms (after divorce*) - - -". One plus for Islam compared to the older Arabia: In the pre-Islamic times in Arabia you could reduce your disliked wife's status to a slave like one and keep her as more or less your sexless slave.

    029 2/232a: "When ye (Muslims*) divorce women - - -". Not from the Bible and at least morally incompatible with at least NT.

    030 2/232b: "When ye (Muslims*) divorce women, and they fulfill the term of their ('iddah), do not prevent them from marrying their (former) husbands - - -". One of the points behind the sharia laws.

    031 2/232c: "- - - ('iddah) - - -". After a divorce a woman had to wait 3 months and 10 days - the "'iddah" - before she remarried. This in order to know who the father of the child was if she was pregnant.

    032 2/232d: "- - - do not prevent them (divorced women) from marrying their (former) husbands - - -". The main goal for this verse was too quick divorces which the two regretted - may happen when anger flares and divorce is as easy as in Islam - and the family of the woman wanted to say no. There also is a Hadith mentioning a family who tried to prevent a sister/daughter return to her husband and which may have been the direct cause for this verse.

    033 2/233a: “A woman shall give suck to their offspring for two whole years, if the father desires to complete the term”. A long time – and the husband - or slave owner if she is a slave or concubine - decides, not the woman.

    034 2/233b: “A woman shall give suck to their offspring for two whole years, if the father desires to complete the term”. A point behind the sharia laws.

    035 2/233c: “A woman shall give suck to their offspring for two whole years, if the father desires to complete the term. But he shall bear the cost of their food and clothing on equitable terms". A point behind the sharia laws.

    036 2/233d: “No mother shall be treated unfairly on account of her child.” If the mother does her part of the upbringing ok, and the child all the same turns out to be a rascal, the mother (and also the father on the same conditions) cannot be held accountable for what an offspring does. One point in plus for both parents.

    037 2/233e: "If they (the parents*) decide on veaning - - - (or*) - - - on a foster-mother for your offspring, there is no blame on you, provided you pay (the mother) what offered - - -". A point behind the sharia laws.

    038 2/234a: "If any of you (Muslims*) die and leave widows behind, they shall wait concerning themselves four months and ten days". Part of the sharia laws. This is not from the Bible.

    039 2/234b: "- - - widows - - - shall wait concerning themselves (= having sex*) four months and ten days - - -". This to make sure who was the father if there happened to be a pregnancy.

    040 2/234d: It is quite revealing for the Quran that in this verse it talks to you - the dead man - not to the woman it concerns.

    041 2/235a: "There is no blame on you (Muslims*) if ye make an offer of betrothal or hold it in your hearts. - - - but do not make a secret contract with them except in terms honorable, nor resolve on the tie of marriage till the term prescribed is fulfilled". One of the points behind the sharia laws.

    042 2/235b: "- - - nor resolve on the tie of marriage till the term (see 2/234a above) is fulfilled". Also this to make sure who was the father in case there was a pregnancy - the temptation may be too big.

    043 2/236a: “There is no blame on you if ye divorce women before consummation (= sex*) or the fixation of their dower; but bestow on them (a suitable gift) - - -.” This is not from the Bible. For one thing divorces are strongly frowned at in the Bible, and for another a dower is not part of the religious ceremonies concerning marriage in the Bible.

    ##The differences in central laws like this is another indication for that not the same god is behind the religions - the moral rules are too different.

    044 2/236b: “There is no blame on you if ye divorce women before consummation (= sex*) or the fixation of their dower; but bestow on them (a suitable gift) - - -.” A marriage may be a casual affair – at least for the man. But remember: The Quran nearly always debates from the man’s point of view.

    045 2/236c: “There is no blame on you if ye divorce women before consummation (= sex*) or the fixation of their dower; but bestow on them (a suitable gift) - - -.” One of the points behind the sharia laws.

    046 2/237a: "And if ye (Muslims*) divorce them before consummation (sex*), but after the fixation of the dower, then half of the dower (is due to them) - - -". Not from the Bible. See 2/236a above.

    047 2/237b: "And if ye (Muslims*) divorce them before consummation (sex*), but after the fixation of the dower, then half of the dower (is due to them) - - -". One of the points behind the sharia laws. There is nothing similar in the Bible. One more small, but revealing difference.

    048 2/240a: “Those of you who die and leave widows behind should bequest for their widows a year’s provision and residence - - -.” A widow has the right to stay in her home and have food, etc. for at least one year - - - if her husband has prepared things so. But what about widows who cannot remarry – f.x. because of age or illness? What rights do they have after one year?

    049 2/240b: “Those of you who die and leave widows behind should bequest for their widows a year’s provision and residence - - -.” Part of the background for the sharia laws.

    050 2/240c: "- - - but if they (your widows*) leave (the residence), there is no blame on you (their dead husband*) for what they do with themselves, provided it is reasonable". If it is not reasonable, you - the dead one - are to blame. No comments.

    051 2/241a: “For divorced women provision (should be made) on a reasonable (scale). This is the duty of the righteous.” Positive for the woman as far as it goes in reality. Nothing is said about what is and who decides what is “reasonable".

    052 2/241b: “For divorced women provision (should be made) on a reasonable (scale). This is the duty of the righteous.” Part of the background for the sharia laws.

    it is in accordance with the book's own partly immoral moral code.

    053 3/14a: “Fair in the eyes of men is the love of things they covet: women and sons; heaped-up hoards of gold and silver; horses - - - and cattle and well-tilled land”. Does this lining up of a man’s glorying in his possessions tell something about women’s position and kind of value in Muslim societies? And what about the value of books? - books are not even mentioned. We do not think the value of books (except the Bible, etc. and the Quran, etc.) is mentioned anywhere in the Quran - a fact which tells something about Muhammad and Allah and Islam. The same goes for non-religious knowledge. Also see 3/15c below.

    054 3/15g: “(In Paradise Muslim men*) find their eternal home; with Companions pure (+ their wives if these qualify for Paradise*), and the good pleasure of Allah.” Does this sentence tell something about how women are valued and looked upon in Islam? Also see 3/14 just above.

    #055 3/15i: "- - - Companions pure (and holy) - - -". The famous houris. There is not a word anywhere in the Quran about how they enjoy being "companions" to rough and uneducated self-centered warriors. Such questions were of no interest to Muhammad and to his Muslims. Empathy hardly exists in the Quran. The same goes for the moral behind f.x. rape and forcing women - and girl children at least down to 9 years old - to sex.

    ###056 3/15j: "- - - Companions pure (and holy) - - -". This is one of the really strong differences to the Bible - f.x. see Matt. 22/30: The Biblical Paradise is totally different. Yahweh and Allah the same god with so different Paradises? Guess 5 times!

    The idea about the houris the maker of the Quran has "borrowed" from religions further east - and the same for the handsome serving youths (nearly nothing in the Quran is original thinking or ideas, more or less everything is "borrowed" from others, mainly in what we today call the Middle East - most of the sources are known). Would a god need to pinch ideas from here and there on the primitive Earth to construct his religion and his Paradise?

    ###057 3/15k: "- - - Companions pure (and holy) - - -". This also contradicts NT in another way: It is nowhere in the Quran directly said the houris were for sex, but that is the clear underlying message (besides in the Quran woman mainly are for 3 things: Housework, childbearing and sex - and in Paradise there is no housework or childbearing, so only sex is left). In the NT polygamy and concubinate is not accepted. The same god and basically the same religion? The only possible answer is no - such a strong no, that it is one of the proofs for that this claim from Muhammad is not true. Actually as polygamy, concubinate and permission to rape captured or slave women and girl children is so strong in the Quran, this point alone is enough to singlehanded prove that Muhammad's claim is wrong. And then there are all the other proofs in addition.

    058 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.

    059 4/3a: “If ye (Muslims*) fear that ye shall not be able to deal justly with the orphans, marry women of your choice – two or three or four - - -“. Sometimes an ok excuse for a marriage?

    ###060 4/3c: “- - - marry women of your choice, two or three or four - - - or (a captive) that your right hand possesses - - -.” The distance between a poor Muslim and a slave was less than in a similar situation in the Americas – it was acceptable to marry a slave woman. The woman then formally often was given her freedom and was no more a slave – though as the more or less forced wife of a man, her freedom was not necessarily very real. The social position was better though, and she normally kept her freedom if there was a divorce.

    #061 4/3d: “- - - marry women of your choice, two or three or four - - -.” This is the verse where the Muslims are told they can have up to 4 wives - and in addition as many concubines and slave women as you want and can afford.

    +062 4/3e: (A4/3): “- - - marry women of your choice, two or three or four - - -.” Is this the correct meaning? (Exact literal meaning: “- - - such as are good for you - - “). Or “- - - as are lawful for you - - -“ (Muhammad Asad)? Or (“- - - you must apply the same consideration to the rights and interest of the woman you intend to marry (as to the orphan*) - - -.” (Sa’id ibn Jubair and others)? Or does it simply mean “- - - such as are good for you - - -.”? Here either the Quran or the Muslim scholars have made at least 4 meanings. And these variants also are in the Arab text, as the relevant word there has more than one meaning. Clear language in the Quran?

    063 4/3h: "- - - deal justly with them (your wives*) - - -". This only concerns the material things. It is very clear that Muhammad did not value all his wives similar - f.x. the child Aisha was his favorite wife - and thus such differences are permitted for all Muslims. But their material sustenance shall be equal.

    064 4/3i: "- - - (a captive) that your right hand possess". = A slave - this is a common expression for a slave in the Quran. A large percent of the slaves taken to Muslim areas were women and children, but as the slave trade to the Americas blossomed, the slave hunters were lucky: The Americas wanted male slaves for work. 2/3 of the slaves to the Americas were men and 1/3 women and children. To Muslim areas just 1/3 men, but 2/3 women and children - mainly to the harems.

    065 4/4a: "And give the woman (on marriage) their dower as a free gift.” Where do you find anything about a dower in NT? The same god?

    066 4/4c: “And give the woman (on marriage) their dower as a free gift.” The dower formally is for the woman only to spend. Sometimes it works like this, sometimes it in a way works like that, as the realities of life forces the woman to spend it on her family and daily tasks. Sometimes it does not work like that at all, as there are many ways to pressure a woman in a family to spend it for other things than she herself really wishes. The quote is, however, behind the sharia laws.

    067 4/4d: "- - - but if they (your wives*), of their own good pleasure, remit any part of it to you, take it and enjoy it with right good cheer". But who controls if it really is done by free will?

    068 4/7c: "(From inheritance*) there is a share for men and a share for women - - -". The sharia laws concerning inheritance are in some ways a bit peculiar. One thing is that men inherit the double of women. More peculiar is that each inherits fixed shares which far from always add up to 1. If the share adds up to less than one it is not too big a problem - there are others who like a share. But when they add up to more than 1 = more than the total inheritance - well, then sometimes the lawyers make good money sorting things out to reduce the shares in "correct" ways. See 4/11-12 below.

    069 4/11: “Allah (thus) directs you as regards to your children’s (inheritance): to the male, a proportion equal to that of two females.” One man = two women, like in other cases in Islam (in some cases less - f.x. men decide and men often can do what they want).

    070 4/15a: “If any of your women are guilty of lewdness (unlawful sex*) - - - confine them to houses until death do claim them, or Allah ordain for them some (other) way”. (The last part of the sentence must be understood as a “way” metered out especially for each woman who gets such an “ordain”.) This was in 626 AD. But contradiction - and abrogation - 1-2 years later – in 627 or 628 AD:

  • 24/3: “The woman and the man guilty of adultery or fornication – flog each of them with a hundred stripes - - -“.
  • It also must be added that in Islam there is a persistent rumor claiming that about 100 verses disappeared and never made it into the Quran when Caliph Uthman had the official Quran made, and that one of the verses was one which demanded stoning for this crime. The fact that stoning for it is prescribed for it in Hadith, and that Hadith (Al-Bukhari) tells that at least once Muhammad himself took part in such a stoning, may strengthen this rumor. If true this would abrogated both those verses, but only some places in the Islamic world one believes this strongly enough in this to use mean stoning today instead of the after all milder punishment prescribed by the Quran.

    There is one more moral and judicial question here: If the Quran is the highest authority and Hadiths a lower one, is it then right - if the woman really is guilty - to punish her according to the Quran or to murder her in a bestial way like the Hadiths wants?

    This is an even more serious question as a raped woman who cannot bring 4 male witnesses to the very act (which normally is impossible) is to be punished for unlawful sex - probably the most unjust and immoral law on Earth. This means that in such cases Muslims and their sharia laws murder not guilty women if they stone them.

    p>071 4/15b: “If any of your women are guilty of lewdness (unlawful sex*) - - - confine them to houses until death do claim them, or Allah ordain for them some (other) way”. (The last part of the sentence must be understood as a “way” metered out especially for each woman who gets such an “ordain”.) There is nothing similar to this in the Bible.

    072 4/16b: "If two men among you are guilty of lewdness (homosexuality*), punish them both. If they repent and amend, leave them alone". We have found nowhere in the Quran where to repent and amend was enough to be left alone after unlawful sex where one or more women was/were involved. One law for men, another for women. This even though homosexuality generally is reckoned to be more debased than heterosexuality.

    p>073 4/19b: (A4/17): “Ye are forbidden to inherit women against their will.” Can this mean you cannot inherit from what she owned after she died, if she protested before she died? Hardly – not with the Islamic laws for inheritances. Zamakhshari proposes that it may mean it is prohibited to force an unwilling or not loved wife to stay with you, in the hope of inheriting her. Other authorities say it means that you are not permitted to inherit the woman as a person – for an extra wife or for your harem (it of course is permitted if she is a slave) against her will (to inherit free women in this meaning, is prohibited also by other laws). This is about very essential points in human life – no omnipotent god had used so vague words in their law.

    p>074 4/19c: "Nor should ye (Muslims*) treat them (women*) with harshness, that ye may take away part of the dower ye have given them - - -". The dower was the wife's personal property, but there were many ways to pressure or force her to return some or all of it, or spend it in ways you wanted. But it is prohibited to do so, and beware that even if humans often cannot know what really happens, Allah will know (this last is not said here, but is clear from what is said other places in the Quran).

    075 4/20a: "But if you (Muslim*) decide to take one wife in place of another - - -". This is one more place where the NT and the Quran collides so formidably that it singlehanded proves that Yahweh and Allah is not the same god, and their religions not the same ones, except some similarities on some superficial points - like you also will find between Islam and several of the old pagan religions. NT simply does not accept divorce except for very heavy reasons - in the Quran divorce is a standard factor both in life and in the religion. (In OT the rules for divorce were a bit looser than in NT. In NT the marriage was strengthened, and divorce hardly accepted any more. An omniscient god may change his rules when he finds there is a reason for it, but he does not play "try and fail" and then go back to his old rules or worse if his tries fail. For a god to strengthen essential rules - essential for the stability of life and communities and not least for the children - and then suddenly dislike his own improved rules and have to lift the most basic ones and reduce them to become ruled just by whims and wishes (here mainly by what a man likes this day or dislikes the next day like the rules for divorce in the Quran) is not the work of an omniscient god. It also may be remarked that in the NT children in some ways are central, whereas in the Quran's rules for divorce the man's wishes - his wishes - is what counts. The values of the marriage - or ending the marriage - for a woman, counts very little, and the value for children - f.x. a stable life and reliable conditions - are not mentioned at all.)

    076 4/20b: (If you replace your wife for a new one) "even if you have given (the old one*) a whole treasure for a dower, take not the least bit of it back - - -". The dower belongs to the woman personally, nearly no matter what.

    077 4/22 - 24a: These verses list some women who are unlawful for a man to marry (a similar list for women is not given - Islam is mainly for men). Notice that some of the prohibitions has no zoological meaning - they come from old pagan tradition: Married women (except slaves), step-mother, foster-mother, step-daughters, two sisters at the same time - and "wives of your sons proceeding from your loins (= real sons*)". But NB: In the old Arabia and into Islam some years it also was reckoned to be incest and a grave sin to marry the (former) wife of not only your real son, but also the wife of your adopted son, simply because he was reckoned to be your son. Then Muhammad fell for Zaynab, the wife of his adopted son Zaid! Quickly Allah changed the age-old laws: You in realty could not adopt children - "a boy should be called by his father's name and not by your". Foster-son, yes. Adopted son, no. Allah often was quick to obey Muhammad's wishes (!!?). Not only that: Allah ordered(?) Muhammad to marry Zaynab, "to prove to people that it is permitted to marry the former wife of your foster-son" (a small verse in the Quran or a small Hadith had had just the same effect - - - but then Muhammad had not got a new wife in his harem). But it is not to be denied that many had and some still have problems accepting the "proof", as it as mentioned was age-old incest in Arabia + a betrayal of Zaid + it did not help that Zaynab still was married to Zaid when the story started. Even today some Muslims are not 100% glad when they defend just this deed of Muhammad. There also is no doubt that Allah's ordering Muhammad to marry her for the mentioned reason is one of the "thinnest" and most helpless "explanations" we have ever met for a serious deed.

    078 4/22 - 24b: These verses list some women who are unlawful for a man to marry. They are parts of the background for the sharia laws.

    079 4/23a: "Prohibited for you (Muslims*) (for marriage) are - - - your - - - daughters - - -". Lot in the Quran is a prophet to Allah. All the same he got children with his 2 daughters (1. Mos. 19/31-36). (Islam "solves" the problem by claiming that it cannot be true. No proof, only claims - like normal for Muhammad.)

    080 4/23b: "Prohibited for you (Muslims*) (for marriage) are - - - your - - - sisters - - -". Abraham - the highest idol in Islam except Muhammad - was married to his half-sister Sara (1. Mos. 20/12). Muslims never mention this.

    #081 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). In Niger the prohibition did not come until even more unbelievable 2003 - and the enforcement of the anti slave laws are said to be lax - there (2015) still are between 130ooo and 800ooo slaves in Niger. 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.

    082 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!!!

    083 4/25g: "- - - wed them (slave girls*) with the leave of their owners, and give them (the slave women Muslims marry*) their dowers, according to what is reasonable - - -". Some of the background for the sharia laws.

    084 4/34a: “Men are the protectors and maintainers of women, because Allah has given the one more (strength (only the physical strength counts*)) than the other, and because they support them from their means (because the women hardly had any other choice in Muhammad's Arabia*). Therefore, the righteous women are devoutly obedient (and chaste*)”. As for support: In many Arabian societies before Islam, the woman was working and doing her share of supporting the family and herself. In those many cases the reason why she needs support, is that Islam denies her the possibility to do it herself. (Actually one reason why a war religion like Islam may be will not succeed in conquering the world, simply is the inefficiency of the female workforce - and another that Muslims cannot be trained to think for themselves (and be innovative) because then they may start asking questions about Islam - among other things about all the mistakes, contradictions, and invalid proofs and logic - and some aspects with its morality, ethics and humanity - or the lack of such. As for empathy it is so far from Islam, that it is an open question to what degree an average, but strongly believing Muslim is able to feel empathy, at least for anything not Muslim - it is too foreign to the ideals of Islam).

    085 4/34b: “Men are the protectors and maintainers of women, because Allah has given the one more (strength (only the physical strength counts*)) than the other, and because they support them from their means (because the women hardly had any other choice in Muhammad's Arabia*). Therefore, the righteous women are devoutly obedient (and chaste*)”. No comments - and none necessary.

    086 4/34d: "- - - and because they (men*) support them (women*) - - -". This was/is a result of the culture, not a necessary side of human nature. Given the possibility a woman can well support herself, and in many old cultures the woman did her share of the work to feed and to bring up the family - in some cultures more than her share. But because some places in Arabia - not all - a woman could not do that, it is used as an argument for that she is inferior to the man - in Mecca (originally not in Yathrib/Medina or among many other Arabs) and soon in Muslim societies (partly because of Umar) and now in the entire world (though with variations - many places women are permitted to work outside the family).

    p>087 4/34i: (YA547): “- - - spank them (lightly) - - -.” But the Arab word used here – “daraba” – “is used in the Quran with about 17 - seventeen - different meanings - - -.” Has Allah so limited a vocabulary that he has to use such a diffuse speech? At least it is very clear that the texts in the Quran frequently are very unclear.

    088 4/43e: “- - - (if*) ye have had contact (in this case; had sex*) with a woman (you are unclean*)”. We have found no corresponding statement about a woman having had sex with a man becomes unclean - but then women from nature are more unclean. Sex is nice and necessary according to Islam, but it also is unclean. Not only physically unclean, but also ceremonial unclean. The same goes for the juices from a woman, and hence partly to the woman herself, at least when she has her monthly period. Therefore it is essential for the man to clean himself afterward – and if real washing is not possible, then at least ceremonial cleansing, if by no other means then by dust or some kinds of earth. The women is ceremonial restricted when she has her periods – she is unclean – and has to do a thorough ceremonial cleaning each time the period is finished. This even though according to Islam it is Allah who has made also the women, and he created the humans perfect.

    089 4/57f: “- - - therein (Paradise*) shall they (deserving Muslim men*) have companions pure and holy (houris - sex slaves in Paradise*) - - -.” Houris are a bit special kind of women, but the “fact” that they are given to the men arriving in Paradise as repayment for good (?) deeds, tells kilometers about Islam’s view on women, about the Quran's moral code and about the Muslim Paradise.

    090 4/57h: "- - - companions pure and holy - - -". The famous houris - the virgin concubines in the Quran's paradise. See 4/57e just above. There never is mentioned how these women likes to be sex-toys for rough and primitive and uneducated selfish warriors. It also is remarkable that it mainly is these women who are mentioned in the Quran, not the wives of the men. This tells something sinister about Islam and about women in Islam. There are light-years between this and the Bible's paradise. Simply not the same god.

    ##091 4/66a: “If We (Allah*) had ordered them to sacrifice their lives or to leave their homes, very few of them would have done it (also most Muslims do not like war*): but if they had done what they were (actually) told, it would have been best for them - - -”. Allah had liked them better if they went to war, and willingly so. Like f.x. the Old Norse religion, Islam glorifies war, at least war for Allah and Muhammad (and his successors). And like the Old Norse religion, to die in battle meant to go to Paradise. That makes ferocious warriors - and today: Ferocious terrorists. Terrorists often do not qualify for Paradise even according to the rules of the Quran (their “war” is not really jihad, even if their leaders have told them so, and/or they practice their “war” in ways not accepted by the Quran - killing the not guilty, f.x. - even though the terrorists “define” the victims as guilty - and self murder is not accepted according to the Quran, etc., but as long as terrorists believe they are right, the effect is the same.

    ########A curiosum: Even in the Old Norse religion women had a better standing than even in modern time Islam. Muslims like to claim that Islam bettered and codified the position of women - at a time when they claim this was not codified in the partly Christian Europe. What they "forget" to mention is that the betterment only goes for Mecca and a few other places - in most of what now is Muslim area (even in Medina) women had a better social position before Islam. And not least: Muslims also "forget" to mention that Islam has forever locked women in a position based on the dark parts of early medieval times, whereas in the rest of the world, much has changed for the better, included the position and social standing of the women. Curiosa - but also strong and dark facts.

    092 4/127a: “They ask thy (Muhammad’s*) instruction concerning women. Say: Allah doth instruct you about them: and (remember) what hath been rehearsed unto you in the Book, concerning the orphans of women to whom ye give not the portions prescribed, and yet whom ye want to marry, as also concerning the children who are weak and oppressed: that ye stand firm for justice to orphans". Some of the background for the sharia laws.

    093 4/127b: “They ask thy (Muhammad’s*) instruction concerning women. Say: Allah doth instruct you about them - - -”. Treat them like the Quran instructs you. The Quran has no instruction the other way round, though. Besides: Even if the Quran is not too bad against woman in some ways, in other ways the “instructions” in the Quran are such that no man would accept it for himself - - - and no human should demand that other humans have to live under conditions he will refuse himself, and especially not that his closest family - wife and daughters - should be forced to live like that. Also: In spite of what Muslims like to claim, Islam represented a step towards the worse for women most places - they refer to strict rules in Mecca, and "forget" that women most places were much freer than in Mecca. Even in Medina they were better off until Islam took over. (F.x. some of Muhammad's nearest co-workers in Medina complained about the freedom of the women there, according to Hadiths.)

    094 4/127c: “- - - and (remember) what hath been rehearsed unto you in the Book, concerning the (girl*) orphans of women to whom ye give not the portions prescribed, and yet whom ye desire to marry, as also concerning the children who are weak and oppressed; that ye stand firm for justice to orphans.” If you had a young orphan girl in the house, the temptation to make her an additional wife for you could be considerable - especially if she had inherited riches.

    095 4/127d: “- - - the orphans of women - - -.” Does this mean orphans after widows that have died? – or female children? Islam does not know. A clear(?) language “doctored” by the translator – there is too much of that in translations of the Quran (though A. Yusuf Ali is not too bad).

    096 4/128a: “If a wife fears cruelty or dissertation on her husband’s part, there is no blame on them if they arrange an amicable settlement between themselves (husband and wife*); and such settlement is best - - -.” Muhammad was not very fond neither of family troubles nor of divorces, so that even though he made divorces easy, especially for men, he – and Islam – favors settlements and stability (stability also makes administration and ruling easier for the ruler).

    097 4/128b: “If a wife fears cruelty or dissertation on her husband’s part, there is no blame on them if they arrange an amicable settlement between themselves (husband and wife*); and such settlement is best - - -.” Part of the background for the sharia laws.

    098 4/129a: “Ye are never able to be fair and just between women (wives*) - - -”. This sentence is often used by Muslims as a "proof" for that polygamy (many wives) is not much used in Muslim societies. The trouble is, though, that this paragraph is a most sleeping one for men who can afford and really wants more wives. (Also serial monogamy - frequent divorces and marriages - exists. Media have reported up to more than 60 marriages for a man. Among Shi’ia Muslims also short time/fixed time marriages exists - marriage for a month, f.x. - in reality legalized prostitution often.)

    099 4/129c: (A4/145, English 2008 edition A4/147): "Ye are never able to be fair and just between women (wives*) - - -". This is how Muslims makes it possible - we quote (translated from Swedish): "- - - in other words, that the required equality in treatment relates only to the outward behavior towards and practical dealing with one's wives". Very sufficient that is for the women! But Islam has to have some such explanation, as it is well known that Muhammad preferred some wives - especially the child and later teen-ager Aisha - above others. As long as the formalities are right, the human values which is what really should count in a marriage, does not matter.

    100 4/130a: "But if they (a married couple*) disagree (and must part), Allah will provide abundance for all - - -". This is so obviously wrong that we do not squander time on comments - poverty is the result for all too many of the women.

    101 4/176b: This verse is about inheritance, also to and from women, and thus one of the verses behind the sharia laws.

    102 5/5f: “(Lawful unto you in marriage) are (not only) chaste women who are believers, but chaste women among the People of the Book”. Contradicts – and abrogates:

    2/221: “Do not marry unbelieving women (idolaters (is this word in the Arab text?)), until they believe”. Then at least Christian women should not be accepted according to 2/221, as at least Catholics use religious icons, etc. If the word “idolaters” are not in the Arab text (text in ( ) sometimes is explanation, sometimes specification – and sometime a “help” to the text to sound more correct) this (5/5c) goes for all Christian and Jewish women.
  • It also is worth mentioning that women not at all can marry non-Muslims, and if their Muslim husbands leave Islam, the marriage automatically is terminated even if the two refuse this. "No compulsion in religion"?

    103 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".

    104 5/5j: "- - - dower - - -". Dower is a necessary part of the Muslim wedding ceremony - no dower = no valid marriage. The dower does not have to be something big, though - if the man is poor, it can be more or less a token gift. But small or big the dower is the woman's personal property.

    105 5/5k: "- - - dower - - -". Dower is a necessary part of the Muslim wedding ceremony - no dower = no valid marriage. This means that this rule is contradicted by the Bible.

    106 5/5l: "- - - dower - - -". There is no demand for dower in the NT - one more contradiction to the Bible. And as dower is a must to Allah, but of no interest to Yahweh, thus is another difference so essential that it is clear Yahweh and Allah are not the same god.

    107 5/6c: “When ye prepare for prayer, wash (face, hands, lower arms, feet till ankles, and rub your head*) - - - if you are in a state of impurity, bathe (in reality wash – Hadiths tell Muhammad used 3-4 liters of water for a “bath”, and that only means wash) your whole body. If - - - you have been in contact with women, and ye find no water, then take for yourselves clean sand and earth, and rub therewith your faces and hands.” The formal cleanliness was essential for Allah. This you do not find in the NT - Jesus even told that it was not what was outside a person who sullied him, but what came out of him - his words and deeds. Totally different points of view at least on outside cleanliness - another indication for that Yahweh and Allah were/are not the same god.

    108 5/6d: "- - - have been in contact with women - - -". A polite expression for sex.

    ##109 8/51: “Allah is never unjust to his servants”. Wrong. A star example: A woman is to be strictly punished for illegal sex after being raped, if she cannot produce 4 male eye witnesses to the rape. This is one of the most inhuman, immoral and unjust laws which exists on this Earth – at least in civilized or semi-civilized cultures.

    110 9/19j: "- - - Allah guides not those who do wrong". Something to think about the next time you do something which is lawful according to sharia, but obviously wrong? - like punishing a raped woman to take a clear example. - or treating other human beings - male or female - in ways you would dislike to be treated yourself.

    *111 12/51e: The women from Potiphar’s (this name is from the Bible - the Aziz (title or job?) in the Quran) - or actually his wife's - banquet, said: “Allah preserve us”. The name and the god Allah did not exist in the old polytheistic pantheon in Egypt - and definitely not among the upper class (from slaves and traders they might have heard about Yahweh, but not Allah, and hardly even al-Lah that early). Their gods were Ptah, Osiris, Aton, Amon, and other ones. Actually there is found not one single trace of monotheism among the upper class (and also not in lower classes) in Egypt in the old times. (Except Akn-Aton (pharaoh 1372 - 1355 BC) and his sun god). Similar claim in 12/52.

    112 16/57d: "And they (pagan Arabs*) assign daughters for Allah! - - - and for themselves (sons - the issue) they desire". Sons were valuable, daughters of negative value in the old Arab culture. That the men wanted sons for themselves, but accepted daughters for a god was in such a culture a strong argument for that any claim about daughters for a god had to be wrong - a god impossibly could want daughters! A god for the entire world had known that f.x. the "world mother" or similar, was held in high esteem many places in the world.

    113 16/58b: “When news is brought to one of them (Arabs at the time of Muhammad*), of (the birth of) a female (child), his face darkens, and he is filled with inward grief! With shame does he hide himself from people, because of the bad news he has had!” It hardly is as bad today, but only a boy is a boy in many Muslim societies.

    114 16/59b: "- - - or shall he (the father*) bury it (the newborn girl child*) in the dust?" It happened that newborn girls were so unwanted that they simply were buried alive to get rid of them. But science accepted by Islam has found that this in reality did not happen often - Muslims overstated the volume of the crime in order to sully their opponents. One of the not too many morally good things Muhammad did, was to put an end to this killing.

    115 16/62a: “- - - they (contemporaries of Muhammad*) attribute to Allah what they hate (daughters*)”. In Arabia girl babies were disliked, and here it is said people generally hated to get girl babies. Wrong – if Islam pretends to be a universal religion. Some places on Earth – like in Arabia – girl babies may have been hated. But most places they only were of lower value, and far from hated. Then some places they were valued more or less equally. There also were places where daughters were valuable – f.x. because they meant money/valuables to their parents when they married. There even were a few places were the societies were matriarchate’s, and the girls the main sex. (This is one of the many points in the Quran where wrong knowledge points to some human(s) in Arabia as the maker(s) of the Quran – there are too many points like this.)

    116 16/72a: “And Allah has made for you mates - - -”. To be a bit flippant: Some men and many women think their mate is not from a god, but from a devil. But at least: Let us see Islam’s proof for this being true - it is not proved it is an act of Allah.

    117 16/72c: "- - - (Allah*) made for you, out of them (your woman/women*) sons and daughters and grandchildren - - -". Muhammad's and the Quran's view on women pops up many a place in the Quran.

    According to science this is done by nature, and this claim in the Quran thus is wrong unless Islam proves the opposite.

    118 16/90a: "Allah commands justice - - -". Contradicted by f.x. the sharia law demanding strict punishment for a raped woman if she cannot show 4 male witnesses who have actually seen the rape (and who in many cases will be punished for not helping her) - perhaps the most horribly unjust and shameful law which exists on this whole Earth. And also contradicted by the immoral parts of the Quran's moral code.

    119 16/90c: “- - - and He (Allah*) forbids shameful deeds - - -.” Strongly contradicted by f.x.:

    1. 2/230: “So if a husband divorces his wife (irrevocably), he cannot, after that, remarry her until after she has married another husband (and “fulfilled” that marriage*) and he has divorced her.” This situation is not often to meet, but it does happen. It is a most shameful deed in those cases to force the woman to prostitute herself to be permitted to go back to her husband.

     

    Not to mention that 16/90 is contradicted by some of the “moral” rules in the Quran: Stealing/robbing, discrimination, enslavement, rape, murder, war, etc. – all “lawful and good” if you in some way can claim you do it in the name of a benevolent, good god. Or the rule that a raped woman who cannot produce 4 male witnesses who have seen the actual act – and will be punished for not helping her in case – is to be strictly punished for illegal sex. Most likely the most unjust and shameful law we have ever heard about.

    120 17/40a: "Has then your Lord (O Pagans!) preferred for you sons, and taken for Himself (al-Lah/Allah*) daughters - - -?" The angels and the central goddesses al-Lat, al-Uzza and Manat, were reckoned to be the daughters of al-Lah/Allah (by Muhammad only named Allah) in the old Arabia. In a strictly masculine society Muhammad obviously thought it was a heavy and killing argument that as all men wanted sons and not daughters, it was unthinkable that a god should want daughters! Any god had known that in many cultures the religion you would meet "mother" goddesses and there this argument was laughable or at least invalid, and used universal arguments instead - at least if he wanted the religion to be universal.

    121 17/40c: "Truly you (pagans*) utter the most dreadful saying (that Allah had daughters*)!" If nothing else, this - claiming that Allah had daughters, not sons, was most dreadful - tells miles about Muhammad's and the Quran's view on women and their value.

    122 18/46a: "Wealth and sons are allurements - - -". This says something about the Quran's view on women - they are lower down on the list.

    123 22/58i: "- - - truly Allah is He Who bestows the best Provision". If Yahweh's paradise is correctly described in the Bible (one becomes like the angels (f.x. Mark 12/25)), and if Allah's paradise is correctly described in the Quran (a primitive desert dwellers vision of a king's luxury life in laziness + lots of women), both are true, we by far prefer the first one. A royal life and nothing to do would be nice for some time, but exceedingly boring in the long run. Not to mention how it is for women, where 72 or more women and houris have to share one man according to Hadiths.

    #124 23/5+6a: “(Those Muslims are good*) Who abstains from sex, Except with those joined to them in the marriage bond, ####or (the captives) whom your right hand possess - for (in their case) they are free from blame”. Catch a girl and make her your captive - and you are free from any blame if you rape her - or gang-rape her - or make more women your captives and rape them, too - or exchange girls with your mates every half hour or day or week. A slave is a slave - and spoils of war you take “lawful and good”, according to the Quran and Islam. We sometimes wonder if this is the reason for so much mass rape sometimes when Muslims wage war - Darfur and Bangladesh are/were examples to remember. Forget that the women are humans - take them captive and you are free to rape them without any blame. Really a good religion. And we do not mention the word empathy - it is something you hardly find in the Quran. Probably one of the most rotten points in any somewhat civilized pretended moral code.

    But it brought Muhammad cheap highwaymen and later cheap warriors.

    It is verses like this - and worse - which make people with normal moral codes - codes in reasonable nearness to "do to others like you want others do to you" - sometimes want to puke over the Quran and over Islam.

    125 23/5+6b: “(Those Muslims are good*) Who abstains from sex, Except with those joined to them in the marriage bond, ####or (the captives) whom your right hand possess - for (in their case) they are free from blame (if they rape them - included children!!)”. Part of the basis for the sharia laws.

    It is verses like this - and worse - which make people with normal moral codes - codes in reasonable nearness to "do to others like you want others do to you" - sometimes want to puke over the Quran and over Islam.

    126 23/5+6c: "- - - except - - - (the captives) whom their right hand possess - for (in their case) they (Muslim men/warriors*) are free from blame (if they rape the women or girls*) - - -". This is not the most rotten (im)moral rule and sharia law in Islam, but one of them.

    ####127 23/5+6d: "- - - except - - - (the captives) whom their right hand possess - for (in their case) they (Muslim men/warriors*) are free from blame (if they rape the women or girls*) - - -". No comments - and non necessary. Except perhaps: Would you like to be raped? - "do to others like you want others do to you"! On some points Islam has a very sorry moral code.

    128 23/6b: “(Good Muslims*) abstain from sex except with those joined to them in marriage bonds, or (the captives) whom their right hands possess (= slave women*) – for (in their case) they are free from blame - - -:” To rape captive women and slave women was/is completely ok (with one exception; it was prohibited if they were pregnant – but most likely not if they were pregnant with your child). Take a woman captive in a “holy” war – and anything was named “holy war” – jihad - as long as the victims were non-Muslims, not to mention if they were Pagans – and you could freely rape her with Allah’s blessing, because it was “lawful and good”. And even slave raids theoretically could be defined as holy war - “jihad” - as the victims were non-Muslims, and all the 4 Islamic law schools accepted the fact that the "enemies" were non-Muslims as "bona fide" reason for declaring jihad. It was – and is (rape is very common in armed conflicts where Muslims are involved) – a nice life for the warriors. But it tells something about both Islam and some Muslims - something ugly.

    F.x. during the Bangladeshi war of freedom it is officially estimated that the Pakistani soldiers raped 200ooo women and children, we were told somewhat shamefacedly and somewhat angry in Bangladesh - MUSLIM women and children.

    #129 23/7: "But those whose desires exceed those limits (see verses 5 and 6*) are transgressors - - -". This means that you do not transgress Allah’s laws if you rape a captive female child or a woman. One more proof for that Allah and Yahweh are not the same god: NT says "Do against others like you want others do against you". Very few Muslim men like to be raped, but rape of girls and women are ok, especially if it is done in the name of Allah in a Jihad - and "every" conflict is a Jihad (holy war). The fact is that this permission for raping, stealing, lying, killing, etc., had been less morally distasteful of it was an open rule, and not one connected to serving the god. Honestly, what kind of animal is this claimed god?

    130 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.

    131 24/2a: “The woman and the man guilty of adultery of fornication – flog each of them with a hundred stripes”. A contradiction and abrogation of 4/15:

    1. 4/15: “If any of your women are guilty of lewdness (adultery*) - - - confine them to houses until death do claim them, or Allah ordain for them some (other) way”. (The last part of the sentence must be understood as a “way” metered out especially for each woman who gets such an “ordain”.) But contradiction - and abrogation - 1-2 years later – in 627 or 628 AD.

     

    It also must be added that in Islam there is a persistent rumor that about 100 verses disappeared and never made it into the Quran when Caliph Uthman had the official Quran made, and that one of the verses was one which demanded stoning for this crime. The fact is that stoning for this is prescribed in Hadith, and that Hadith (Al-Bukhari) tells that at least once Muhammad himself took part in such a stoning.

    A really serious, immoral and unjust point here is that also a raped woman shall be treated this way, if she cannot produce 4 male witnesses who has seen the actual rape.

    We may add that some Hadiths prescribe stoning for these sins, and this prescription is followed some places in the Muslim area. On the other hand to rape captive women and girls is "lawful and good" if it can be done in the name of Allah (if the conflict is named "jihad", which most conflicts are if one part is non-Muslim - and sometimes even if both parts are Muslims). Slaves were and are always ok to rape for the owner (officially there are no slaves any more - but according to UN in reality there are some millions - but what will happen if Islam gets world dominance? - Muhammad kept and traded and took slaves, and what Muhammad did, was and is lawful and good and can be done by any Muslim as long as it is not clearly forbidden. Slave abolition is a "new idea" conflicting with the Quran and forced on the Muslims from the "unbelievers". Such ideas are not acceptable to conservative Muslims. So if Islam ever gains world dominance, you can rest in ease; slavery will reemerge at least some places under Islam, and as slavery is part of the Quran, the immorality of it will be forgotten, and suppressed by Muhammad's moral code which tells that slavery is ok. (Some Muslims will tell you that slave abolition is part of Islam. That just is not true, and such claims just are self justification to satisfy the new moral code forced on them (but after all honestly accepted by many Muslims) from the outside.)

    Note that here the punishment was whipping, not killing (by stoning).

    132 24/2b: “The woman and the man guilty of adultery of fornication – flog each of them with a hundred stripes: let not compassion move you (Muslims*) in their case, in a Matter prescribed by Allah, if ye believe in Allah and the Last Day: and let a party of the Believers witness their punishment”. Part of the background for the sharia laws. But note: Not killing by stoning. Either something is wrong, or Allah did not know which was the most just punishment when he sent this verse.

    133 24/2c: “The woman and the man guilty of adultery of fornication – flog each of them with a hundred stripes: let not compassion move you (Muslims*) in their case, in a Matter prescribed by Allah, if ye believe in Allah and the Last Day: and let a party of the Believers witness their punishment”. #####Compare this to Jesus: "The one who is without sin, may throw the first stone". The same god? Jesus and Muhammad in the same line of prophets? No.

    134 24/3a: “Let no man guilty of adultery or fornication marry any but a woman similarly guilty, or an Unbeliever: Nor let any but such a man or an Unbeliever marry such a woman: to the Believer such a thing is forbidden". Part of the background for the sharia laws.

    ##135 24/3b: “Let no man guilty of adultery or fornication marry any but a woman similarly guilty, or an Unbeliever: Nor let any but such a man or an Unbeliever marry such a woman: to the Believer such a thing is forbidden". Here it is indirectly, but clearly said that stoning is not the punishment for adultery or fornication - after stoning marriage is out of the question. Either this verse is abrogated (made invalid) even though it is a rather late one (627 - 628 AD), or the Hadiths are wrong on this point - much is wrong in the Hadiths, too, so much and so obvious that some Muslims have stopped using them, so this may well be the explanation. What then about Muslims who stones a woman from perhaps false texts in Hadiths and do not care about the words in the Quran prescribing an after all milder punishment? After all if this is the case it is a murder not prescribed or accepted by Allah.

    136 24/4a: "And those who launch a charge against chaste women, and produce not four witnesses (to support their allegation) flog them with eighty stripes, and reject their evidence ever after - - - ." Also this is an unjust law - the demand for proof is too strong. It is unjust to tell lies, but it also is unjust to hide truths, or making it impossible to prove it. It also is unjust to punish someone for telling the truth.

    137 24/4c: "- - - a charge against chaste women - - -". The wording here is not worthy of a god. It does not take too much ill will or stupidity here to read that such a charge is ok against also chaste women if 4 men are willing to give evidence. A god had chosen his words more carefully (just see how carefully human lawmakers choose their words - and an omniscient god is more clever than humans?).

    138 24/5a: "Unless they (see 24/4b above) repent thereafter and mend (their conduct) - - -". Part of the background for the Sharia laws. Note that this only is for men - it is nowhere told that women can avoid punishment for unlawful sex by repenting.

    139 24/6-7a: “And for those (men*) who launch a charge against their spouses, and have (in support) no evidence but their own - their solitary evidence (can be received) if they bear witness four times (with an oath) by Allah that they are solemnly telling the truth; And the fifth (oath) (should be) that they solemnly invoke the curse of Allah on themselves if they tell a lie”. If you are married to the woman, your oath may be accepted without witnesses - but you have to swear an oath condemning yourself if you lie.

    140 24/6-7b: “And for those (men*) who launch a charge against their spouses, and have (in support) no evidence but their own - their solitary evidence (can be received) if they bear witness four times (with an oath) by Allah that they are solemnly telling the truth; And the fifth (oath) (should be) that they solemnly invoke the curse of Allah on themselves if they tell a lie”. Part of the background for the sharia laws.

    141 24/8-9a: "But it would avert the punishment from the wife, if she bears witness four times (with an oath) by Allah, that (her husband) is telling a lie. And the fifth (oath) should be that she solemnly invokes the wrath of Allah on herself if (her accuser) is telling the truth". In such cases the wife can avert punishment - not clear herself, but avert punishment - by using the same kind of oaths for that her husband is lying. One of them of course will be lying, but as it will be impossible to know who, it is for Allah to punish.

    142 24/8-9b: "But it would avert the punishment from the wife, if she bears witness four times (with an oath) by Allah, that (her husband) is telling a lie. And the fifth (oath) should be that she solemnly invokes the wrath of Allah on herself if (her accuser) is telling the truth". Part of the basis for the sharia laws.

    143 24/11e: "- - - to every man (women count less in Islam*) among them (who gossiped*) (will come the punishment) of the sin that he earned - - -". What about Muhammad in this case? - to our knowledge he did not gossip, but he also definitely did not protect or defend her (Aisha*) until after some weeks, something which surely added to the gossip.

    144 24/23a: “Those who slander chaste women, indiscreet but believing, are cursed in this life and in the Hereafter - - -.” The chaste women deserved a good reputation (also because it counted for the men of her family and her husband, and their reputation), but spreaders of slander often are difficult to catch, so some help/threat from the god had value. Also see 3/77b above.

    145 24/26a: “Women impure is for men impure, and men impure for women impure - - -.” If a woman destroys her reputation, the punishment is harsh – if she survives. Sharia is strict - and no "pure" man can marry her.

    146 24/26b: “Women impure is for men impure, and men impure for women impure - - -.” Part of the basis under the sharia laws. Remember here that there are big differences between what makes a woman impure and what makes a man so. A man f.x. can have a large harem without becoming impure.

    147 24/30a: "Say to the believing men that they should - - - guard their modesty - - -". - - - except when they rape captive - or slave - girls and women "lawful and good"? One of the most rotten and immoral law which exists - NB exists, not only existed - on this planet. And made even more immoral and disgusting by the fact that to be lawful it must be done in the name of Allah (it only is lawful if you make her your slave or if the raping is done during/after jihad - holy war - - - but almost any conflict is jihad). One relevant(?) piece of information here: According to UN some 24 million persons today live as slaves or under slave-like conditions - a good percent of them in Muslim area.

    #148 24/31a: “And say to the believing women that they should lower their gaze and guard their modesty; that they should not display their beauty and ornaments except what (must ordinarily) appear thereof; that they should draw their veils over their bosoms and not display their beauty except to their husbands, their sons, their husband's sons, their brothers or their brothers' sons or their sisters sons, or their womenfolk, or those whom their right hand possess, or male servants free of physical needs, or small children who have no sense of shame or sex and that they should not strike their feet in order to draw attention to their hidden ornaments”. #####THIS IS ALL WHICH IS SAID IN THE QURAN ABOUT HOW A WOMAN SHOULD DRESS, WITH ONE EXCEPTION: SHE ALSO SHALL COVER HER HAIR. Things are mentioned other places, but the same as here. (There is talk of a veil one place, but this only concerns the wives of Muhammad, and it is a veil used as a partition of a room, not a veil covering the face). Everything else about a woman’s clothes is NOT from the Quran. (But in the Hadiths veils are mentioned).

    #149 24/31b: “And say to the believing woman that they should lower their gaze and guard their modesty; that they should not display their beauty and ornaments except what (must ordinarily) appear thereof; that they should draw their veils over their bosoms and not display their beauty except to their husbands, their sons, their husband's sons, their brothers or their brothers' sons or their sisters sons, or their womenfolk, or those whom their right hand possess, or male servants free of physical needs, or small children who have no sense of shame or sex and that they should not strike their feet in order to draw attention to their hidden ornaments”. Part of the basis under the sharia laws.

    150 24/32a: “Marry those among you who are single, or the virtuous ones among your slaves, male or female - - -“. Also for male slaves marriage to a free woman was possible – and with luck to marry himself out of bondage. We have seen no numbers, but would guess the chances for such a marriage were far better for a female slave than for a male. For female slaves it was normal they were let out of bondage when they married a free man - and if there later was a divorce, they normally staid free also afterwards.

    In this way the distance between slave and free was less than f.x. in the Americas. But to tell slaves were well treated under Islam, is not much more correct than to say the same about slaves in the Americas; slaves living in close connection to the family often were in a way ok treated both places, whereas slaves in fields or mines or other places often had a tragic life.

    151 24/33b: “But force not your maids (female slaves*) to prostitution when they desire chastity (notice the choice of words – if the slave woman is willing, it seems to be ok*), in order that ye may make a gain in the goods of this life.” We have not found out how widespread such forced – and not forced – prostitution was and still is in some Muslim societies. But it is thought provoking that Arab is said to have 26 words for prostitute; It is a general tendency in languages that frequently used expressions have many varieties and synonyms. And what is clear is that this was a rule that was much broken - and even today is much broken (and not only among Muslims) as a huge part of the 24 million slaves UN rapports about, are women in forced prostitution or sexual abuse.

    152 24/33c: "But if anyone compels them (slave women*), yet, after such compulsion, is Allah Oft-Forgiving, Most Merciful (to them)". Women who were forced to prostitution, did not sin - they were forced to do it. But it tells something that Islam needed such a verse - - - and that the omnipotent and predestining Allah can permit such things, ###yes, if the Quran is correct and Allah really decides and predestines everything, he even predestines and decides that forced prostitution is to happen.

    153 24/60a: (A24/84): “Such elderly women as are past the prospect of marriage - - -.” A nuance different from the exact meaning: “- - - who do not desire (or hope for) sexual intercourse - - -.” 2 rather different meanings at least formally?

    154 24/60b: “Such elderly women as are past the prospect of marriage – there is no blame on them if they lay aside their (outer) garments, provided they make not a wanton display of their beauty (female body parts*): but it is best for them to be modest - - -.” The strict code is somewhat relaxed when she is not attractive any more.

    155 25/74c: “And those who pray, ‘Our Lord (Allah*) Grant unto us wives and offspring who will be the comfort to our eyes - - - (and some other prayers, are good Muslims and will end in Paradise)” No comments, except it tells not a little about how the Quran looks on women.

    156 25/74d: “O Lord (Allah*)! Grant unto us wives and offspring who will be the comfort to our eyes, and give us (the grace) to lead the righteous.” "I" pray for good things and reputation for myself, not primarily for a good life for the child, here in the Quran. The only person in the centre for the Quran's interest – except Muhammad – is the man - the actual or potential warrior. And women are secondary humans - for the pleasure and convenience of the man. Islam is a religion mainly for half the humanity - the men. Well, less than half, as slaves are not even secondary.

    157 29/45f: "- - - Prayer restrains from shameful and unjust deeds - - -". Like f.x. rape a female captive in the name of Allah - or stone a raped woman who cannot bring 4 male witnesses to that it really was rape? Also see 29/45d just below.

    158 30/15d: "(In Paradise good Muslims*) shall be happy in a Mead of Delight". This "Mead of Delight" is described for ca. 1/3 of the population; the adult men. For women and children little is told. But adult men will experience pleasant weather and shade, peace, nothing to do and no work, high luxury and plenty of sex. This might be the ultimate dream for poor and primitive desert warriors, but is this really the best an omniscient and omnipotent god can do? Such a life f.x. must be extremely boring in the long run. And the contrast to Yahweh's paradise is striking: "(You*) will be like the angels in heaven" (f.x. Matt.22/30). Yahweh and Allah the same god? Only the difference in their paradises proves beyond any reasonable and unreasonable doubt that this is not the case. And then there are all the other differences proving the same in addition.

    PS: Also women and children will end in Paradise if they qualify, but their existence there is little described.

    159 33/33a: “And stay quietly in your houses, and make not a dazzling display, like that of the former Times of Ignorance; and establish regular Prayer, and give regular Charity; and obey Allah and His Messenger (!!*). And Allah only wishes to remove all abomination from you, ye Members of the Family, and to make you pure and spotless.” Yes, this is how the omnipotent, mighty god speaks to solve Muhammad's daily family life according to the revered "Mother Book" in his own home in his Heaven (of which the Quran is a copy, according to Islam).

    As said before: 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 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 is the norm for all women concerning this aspect of life. Allah orders Muhammad's wives to be good girls - a nice help for Muhammad. But is it a job for a god? - and is it text worthy a "Mother Book" that an omniscient god reveres - reveres - in his Heaven?

    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.)

    160 33/37g: "- - - We (Allah*) joined her (Zaid's wife Zaynab*) in marriage to thee (Muhammad*): in order that (in future) there may be no difficulty to the Believers in (the matter of) marrying with the wives of their adopted sons (after divorce - widows not mentioned*)". This is perhaps the thinnest excuse we have ever heard for a serious selfish deed.

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

     

    Hypocrisy. It is not the only time in the Quran where it is possible to place Muhammad among the hypocrites.

    161 33/49b: “When you marry believing women, and then divorce them before ye have touched them, no period of Iddah have ye to count in respect of them: so give them a present.” As mentioned further up: Marriage may be quite a casual affair in Islam. And note that the information about not having to wait before the next man is permitted, is given to the (formal) husband or to men in general, not to the woman. This is a religion centered on the men and warriors.

    162 33/49c: “When you marry believing women, and then divorce them before ye have touched them, no period of Iddah (waiting*) have ye to count in respect of them: so give them a present.” Compare the Quran's rules for divorce to f.x. Matt. 10/5-12. Yahweh and Allah the same god? Jesus and Muhammad in the same line of anything? Do not ask stupid questions. The laws concerning divorce is one of the 100% proofs for that Yahweh and Allah are not the same god - by far too - and too fundamentally - different.

    163 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?

    164 33/50i: "- - - this (the permission for a nearly unlimited number of women - he had at least 36 (not some 11 like Muslims often mention - those only were his long-time wives) is only for thee (Muhammad*) - - -". Special rules for self proclaimed prophets far from are unheard of in fringe sects and religions - like Islam was at that time. Normally they have turned out in the end to be false prophets.

    But does Muhammad's personal sex life belong in a claimed "holy book"?

    165 33/53f: “And when ye (Muslim men*) ask (his (Muhammad’s*)) ladies for anything ye want, ask them from before a screen - - -.” ####Note: A screen, not a veil. This is all that is said about the hiding of women in the Quran. Nothing more: A screen, not a veil, and only concerning the wives – and likely also his other women – of Muhammad. (But you find veils in the Hadiths – which is written 200 – 250 years later, and where it is very clear that a lot is made up stories (the Quran f.x. proves that all the stories in the Hadiths about miracles around Muhammad are made up ones)).

    Further: 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, this is the norm for all women concerning this aspect of life under Islam.

    166 33/55a: “There is no blame (on the ladies if they appear (indecently dressed*)) before their fathers or their sons, their brothers or their brothers’ sons, or their sisters’ sons, or their women, or the (slaves) whom their right hands possess.” It is unclear what the two last groups really cover. “Their women” may mean their slave women – literally “their”. Or their close female friends or relatives. Or – if this verse is directed mainly to Muhammad’s wives like some commentators mean – Muslim women in general. As for “the (slaves) whom their right hands possess” that simply means the slaves they owns, but it is not clear if it means of both sexes – that male slaves counted so little that it was ok – but commentators mostly wants it to mean “female slaves".

    167 33/55b: “There is no blame (on the ladies if they appear (indecently dressed*)) before their fathers or their sons, their brothers or their brothers’ sons, or their sisters’ sons, or their women, or the (slaves) whom their right hands possess.” Part of the basis for the sharia laws.

    168 33/55c: (A71 – in 2008 edition A72): “- - - or their (believing women*) women - - -“. To what women does this relate? – as slaves are mentioned separately later in the sentence, it cannot be slave women. Close relatives? Other close or not very close ones? Or all women? Islam tends to believe the last, but the verse is open for all those meanings. And these variants as normal also are in the Arab text, as the relevant word(s) there has/have more than one meaning. Allah (?) really uses a clear language worthy a god.

    169 33/59d: “O Prophet! Tell your wives and daughters, and the believing women, that they should cast their outer garments over their persons (when abroad) - - -.” Part of the basis for the sharia laws.

    #170 37/22c: "The wrongdoers (in the Quran this word does not primarily mean criminals or other bad persons, but non-Muslims*) and their wives - - -". One of many sub-conscious revealing in the Quran of its view of women: They are not individuals, but parts of a man's household. Note that nothing is said about the wives themselves being "wrongdoers" - the only criterion is that they are the wives of wrongdoers. Fair deal from a benevolent god? Also note how little is said about their life in Heaven and what a position they get below the men and just mentioned here and there compared to the glorification of the houris - their superior competitors for their husbands or harem owner's goodwill and bed. (It is not said directly in the Quran that Paradise is lots of sex - in addition to the other Earth-like pleasures - but just you guess what primitive, uneducated warriors were believing and dreaming about when being told about the beautiful and willing houris! "The Muslim Paradise mainly is a top luxury brothel".)

    171 37/48a: “And beside them (Muslims*) will be chaste women, restraining their glances, with big eyes (of wonder and beauty)”. The famed houris – for free use. And what use did primitive – and for that case some other – men think of? Hardly of polite and intellectual conversation.

    There is no place in the Quran mentioned one single thought about how Paradise is for the houris. The Quran seldom cares about the life and feelings of others than the main persons – the male Muslim, preferably a warrior. Houris, slave woman, slaves, servants, and others - even to a large degree the free(?) Muslim women: Just things for the brave warrior to use and to serve him. Things.

    Also remember that the deep differences between the reasons for joy in Yahweh's Paradise compared to in Allah's Paradise, are one of the strong proofs for that Yahweh and Allah are not the same god.

    ##172 37/48c: “And besides them (Muslim men in Paradise*) will be chaste women, restraining their glances, with big eyes (of wonder and beauty).” This is one of the 200% sure proofs for that Yahweh and Allah are not the same gods: Their paradises are universes (see 51/47c) apart - mentally and morally. Allah: Beautiful, obedient women, good food and drinks, shade and plenty of water, and laziness, etc. (little is said about women's paradise). Yahweh: You become like angels (f.x. Mark 12/25).

    173 37/149b: "- - - is it that thy (Muslims'*) Lord (Allah*) has (only) daughters, and they have sons." In a very masculine world it was an argument that Allah could not have something so without value like daughters - - - but Islam pretends to be for the entire world, and daughters were valuable in many parts of the world. Would a universal god use arguments valid only in parts of the world? Besides, according to the Bible the god had a son - Jesus.

    174 37/150a: "Or that We (Allah*) created the angels female - - -". In the old pagan Arab religion the angels were believed to be females.

    175 37/153-154: "Did He (Allah*) (then) choose daughters rather than sons? What is the matter with ye (people*)? How judge ye?". See 37/149b above.

    176 37/158a: "And they (people*) have invented blood-relationship between him (Allah*) and the Jinns: But the Jinns know (quite well) that they have indeed to appear (before His Judgment Seat)". To say the least of it: This is not from the Bible. If there had been any connection between Allah and Yahweh, the Jinns and their judgment at least should have been mentioned in the Bible. As for what exactly is meant here with "blood-relationship" (= quite close relatives) we have not found, as different Muslim scholars give different comments, but it is clear no Muslim likes the accusation. It is clear, though, the old Arabs reckoned the angels to be the daughters of al-Lah/Allah, but the Jinns were not angels.

    177 38/52a: “And beside them will be chaste women, restraining their glances, (companions) of equal age.” Once more the houris. There is said nothing about how many for each man in the Quran, but in the Hadith it is mentioned 72 for a brave warrior. There also is said nothing about how the warrior’s wife or wives felt having to share the husband with many “chaste” women, very likely more beautiful and attractive than themselves. But then: The Quran only bothers about the main person/man in the story – the man and potential or actual warrior.

    Secondary persons are to be things for the prime male in the story to use – and who cares about their lives or feelings or happiness?

    A primitive and inhuman teaching at this point – but excellent for primitive warriors – even today. Also see 38/50-51 just above.

    178 38/52b: “And beside them will be chaste women, restraining their glances, (companions) of equal age.” In the Bible the resurrected are above such things as sex, which here is the clear indication "they will neither marry, nor be given in marriage" but "are like angels" (f.x. Luke 20/35-36). One of the 100+% proofs for that Yahweh and Allah are not the same god - and Jesus and Muhammad not in the same religion.

    179 38/53b: "Such is the Promise (the primitive paradise in 38/50-52 and 38/52 above*) made to you (Muslims*) for the Day of Account!" To be honest: Yahweh's paradise sounds more interesting - especially in the long run, and also may be more interesting for women.

    ###180 43/18: "Is then one who is brought up among trinkets (women*), and unable to give a clear account in a dispute (some Muslim scholars say also this - "unable to give clear account in a dispute" - refers to women, others that it refers to angels - clear language in the Quran*) (to be associated with Allah?)". No, women are not valid to be associated with Allah in Islam. We quote YA4623: "The softer sex (women*) is usually brought up among trinkets and ornaments, and, on account of the retiring modesty (demanded by Islam - in old nomadic Arabia it happened women were even war leaders*) which for the sex is a virtue, is unable to stand up boldly in a fight (a metering stick in Islam - but see just above*) and give clear indications of the will to win. Is that the sort of quality to be associated with Allah?". No comment - except that this is the point of view of a highly educated, modern Muslim. And notice the metering stick.

    181 43/19a: "And they (pagan Arabs*) make into females angels - - -". See 43/16a+b above.

    182 43/70a: “Enter ye the Garden, ye and your wives - - -". This sentence tells a little - or a lot - about the Quran's view on women. (But what if not both are qualified for Paradise - or not for the same quality/part of the paradise? - according to Hadiths there are at least 4 or 6 gardens in Paradise, one better than the other.

    183 45/26c: "- - - then He (Allah*) gives you death - - -". Yes, it is well known that Allah and his followers give death to many. Many of them even murders prohibited by the Quran (according to the Quran you f.x. shall not kill women, children and old ones, and not people who are not guilty in anything - and no indiscriminate killing.)

    Also see 11/7a above.

    184 48/25e: "- - - believing men and believing women - - -". Muslims. This is one of not too many places where women are included as believers.

    185 52/39: “Or has He (Allah*) only daughters and ye have sons?” It was most unbelievable for the strongly masculine society of the Arabs that a god could want daughters - and treated as a proof for it being a lie that Allah has descendant(s). It tells a lot about Islam’s view concerning women. This argument is never even mentioned when it comes to Jesus – he after all was male and should fit in the picture Muhammad painted.

    186 53/21: “What! For you (Muslims*) the male sex (sons*) and for Him (Allah*), the female (daughters)?”. In practice like 52/39 above.

    187 53/22: "- - - such (daughters instead of sons*) would be indeed a division most unfair!" Muhammad was living in a society where women were of zero or negative value, and this is mirrored in his teaching.

    188 55/56a: "In them (the gardens of Paradise*) will be (Maidens), restraining their glances, whom no man or Jinn before has touched". A nice Paradise for primitive men - and women does not count much in the Quran - but totally different from Yahweh's Paradise - only this verse proves so formidable difference to Yahweh (see f.x. Luke 20/36, not to mention: "For the Kingdom of God/Yahweh is not a matter of eating and drinking (or sex*) - - -", (Rom.14/17).) that this alone proves Yahweh and Allah cannot be the same god - and then there are all the other differences in addition.

    189 55/56b: “In them (the Gardens of Paradise*) will be fair (Companions (houris*)), good, beautiful - - -.” Houris are a bit special kind of women, but the “fact” that they are given to the men arriving in Paradise as repayment for good (?) deeds, tells miles about Islam’s view of women. The servile nature of the houris – the ideal women – in the descriptions, also tells volumes about Islam’s point of view on how women shall behave.

    There is no explanation in Islam from where the houris come - they simply are there. But the idea about houris as reward in paradise for warriors, it seems Muhammad has "borrowed" from the old Persian pagan religion - see 55/56e below (nearly everything in Islam is borrowed from somewhere, and strangely(?) enough only from in and around Arabia - Allah had few, if any new ideas or ideas from other parts of Earth for his religion).

    190 55/56c: "- - - (Maidens), chaste - - - whom no man or Jinn before them (the Muslims in Paradise*) has touched - - -". The houris are virgins at arrival, but hardly for a long time.

    This indirectly also tells that the Jinns have the same kind of sex organs as humans. If not their males could not have sex with the same kind of women - here the houris - as human males.

    Compare this to f.x. Matt.22/30: "At the resurrection people will neither marry nor be given in marriage; they will be like the angels in heaven". 200+% sure that Yahweh and Allah do not run the same paradise, and thus are not the same god. And as these are the words of Jesus: As sure that Jesus and Muhammad do not belong in the same moral world neither in this nor in a possible next life. A lot of things in this world are not true even if they are repeated often - f.x. that Jesus and Muhammad belong to the same line of prophets (in addition to that Muhammad was no real prophet - he had not the gift of prophesying).

    191 55/70: "In them (the gardens*) will be fair (Companions), good, beautiful - - -". These are the famous houris. There is nowhere - absolutely nowhere - in the Quran said anything about how the men's wives like these beautiful virgins as playmates for their husbands. And also absolutely nowhere how the houris like to be sex toys for - often - rough, primitive warriors. Such details seem to interest neither Allah nor Muhammad. Also see 55/56a-c above.

    192 56/22: “And (there will be) Companions with beautiful, big, and lustrous eyes - - -.” The Houris again - like 37/48a-c above – see that or 55/56c. There are no houris in the Bible's Paradise. Yahweh and Allah the same god? - no, not even if there is heavy schizophrenic, as schizophrenia cannot explain so highly different Paradises. One of the absolute proofs for that Yahweh and Allah are not the same god.

    193 56/23: "Like unto Pearls well-guarded". The houris are beautiful like valuable pearls. You find them - paaris - in the Zoroastrian religion, but not in the Bible.

    As you see Muhammad "borrowed" good(?) ideas from where he found them. This is not the only "good" idea - at least a good idea for tempting primitive tribe warriors - from this old Persian pagan religion.

    ###194 56/24: “(The houris are*) A reward for the Deeds of their past (life).” How do women like to simply be a reward to some previously unknown – and often uncultivated – man? – and to be his sex slave or sex doll for eternity? A Paradise? This kind of sex-trade in the name of the god, gives us a sick and distasteful feeling. Paradise like a luxury brothel? What is for sure is that this claimed paradise is not even a distant relative of the one in the NT. The same god? Do not be ridiculous - a 200% proof.

    The "institution" of houris - sex slaves - Muhammad borrowed from the old pagan Zoroastrians - the religion of the old Persia. There they were named paaris.

    195 56/27-34: “The companions of the right hand (here the good, but not top pious and/or warriors*) - - - (will be) among the Lote-trees without thorns - - - trees with flowers (or fruits) piled one above another - - - in shade - - - by water flowing constantly, and fruits in abundance - - - and on Thrones (of Dignity) - - -(and houris in the next verses – their wives are not mentioned*) - - -“. Not quite like the top class, but at least “on par” with kings and likely the top of dreams possible for uneducated, primitive more or less brutes. But each and every thing in reality just fit to satisfy basic and base earthly dreams of men and potential warriors of the primitive kind and from primitive circumstances. Not a thing beyond that. Compare this to f.x. Matt. 22/30: "At the resurrection (= in Paradise*) people will neither marry not be given in marriage (not to mention sex outside marriage*); they will be like the angels in heaven". Yahweh and Allah the same god with so different Paradises? - an imbecile question. And a 200% proof for the opposite.

    196 56/35: “We (Allah*) have created (their Companions (houris*)) of special creation". This may be the reason why nobody knows from where they come. It is a mystery in Islam. (But the idea came from Persia.)

    The houris simply were sex slaves and courtesans, an idea extremely far from the Bible's, Yahweh's, and Jesus' Paradise. A very strong proof for that Yahweh and Allah were not the same god - and Jesus and Muhammad not in the same religion.

    197 56/35-37a: “We (Allah*) have created (their Companions (houris*)) of special creation. And made them virgin-pure (and undefiled) – beloved (by nature), equal in age (for good Muslim men in Paradise*) - - -.” Houris are a bit special kind of women, but the “fact” that they are given to the men arriving in Paradise as repayment for good (?) deeds, tells miles and square miles about Islam’s view of women. The servile nature of the houris – the ideal women – in the descriptions, also tells volumes about Islam’s point of view on how women shall behave.

    The houris simply were sex slaves and courtesans, an idea extremely far from the Bible's, Yahweh's, and Jesus' Paradise. A very strong proof for that Yahweh and Allah were not the same god - and Jesus and Muhammad not in the same religion.

    198 56/35-37b: “We (Allah*) have created (their (Muslims*) Companions) of special creation. And made them (houris*) virgin-pure (and undefiled) – Beloved (by nature), equal in age - - -”. The wives and slave girls from this world are not even mentioned. But the strange sentence “equal in age” reappears – why, if all are resurrected like young men/people?

    199 56/35-37c: “We (Allah*) have created (their (Muslims*) Companions) of special creation. And made them (houris*) virgin-pure (and undefiled) – Beloved (by nature), equal in age - - -”. Try to find anything - anything - even remotely like this, or other hints of sex, not to mention abundance of sex, in the Bible's Paradise. Just go on and see what you find. Yahweh and Allah the same god with so bottomless different Paradises? - or Jesus and Muhammad in the same religion? No answer is necessary - the reality is too obvious. And to try to explain away the differences by claims about falsification of the Bible, is centuries too late - both science and Islam has thoroughly proved that there are not falsifications in the Bible (by being unable to find one single proved case in tens of thousands of relevant manuscripts, and by being unable even to give a credible explanation of how it should be physically possible to make identical falsifications in so many old papers spread over such wide areas - and without even leaving traces possible for modern science to detect). Another absolute proof for that Yahweh and Allah are not the same god.

    200 56/36: "And made them (the houris - sex slaves in Paradise*) virgin-pure (and undefiled) - - -". This is information which is totally irrelevant if you do not intend to hint about sex - and you can bet a continent on that sex was on the mind of the Muslim warriors when being told things like this.

    201 56/37: (A56/15): “- - - equal in age - - -“. Your wives (and concubines and slave women?) will be resurrected as forever young virgins (it is nowhere said for how long) women equal of age to you, who also are resurrected as a young adult. But the Arab word that here is translated to “forever young”, “atrab” – plural “tirb” – also may mean “well-matched”. Also good – perhaps even better – but not the same meaning. And these variants also are in the Arab text, as the relevant word(s) there has/have more than one meaning. Allah (?) really uses a clear language.

    202 58/1a: “Allah has indeed heard (and accepted) the statement of the woman who pleads with thee (Muhammad’) - - - and Allah (always) hears and sees the arguments between both sides among you - - -.” Among others this verse makes it impossible not to hear also the woman/women in a conflict. But it is no secret that her judicial position is weaker than the man’s. Besides: Why does an omniscient god who according to the Quran knows everything, need to listen to the parts?

    213 58/3a: “But those who have divorced their wives by zihar (a very simple ceremony - see 58/2a above*), then wish to go back on the words they uttered - (it is ordained that such a one) should free a slave before they touch each other - - -”. Some sins one could repair by freeing a slave. If one was not rich enough to do that, one often could fast (not eat or drink or have sex during the day) for some time - in this case two months. Two months fast = the real value of a human if he or she was a slave.

    214 60/10b: "When there come to you believing women refugees, examine and (test) them - - -". It happened that women living in bad marriages fled to the Muslims and claimed they had become or wanted to become Muslims. This because as Muhammad did not accept a marriage between a Muslim woman and a non-Muslim man ("Let there be no compulsion in religion"), her unlucky marriage automatically was nullified the moment she was accepted as Muslim. Muhammad wanted to check on this - but if he judged very strictly is another question.

    215 60/10e: "They (Muslim women*) are not lawful (wives) for the Unbelievers - - -". A Muslim woman is prohibited from marrying a non-Muslim (but not the other way around). Also a marriage is automatically nullified if the man (not the woman) leaves Islam. "No compulsion in religion"?

    216 60/10e: "They (Muslim women*) are not lawful (wives) for the Unbelievers - - -". A Muslim woman is prohibited from marrying a non-Muslim (but not the other way around). Also a marriage is automatically nullified if the man (not the woman) leaves Islam. "No compulsion in religion"?

    217 61/12a: “(If you go to war and/or are killed for Muhammad*) He (Allah*) will forgive you your sins, and admit you to Gardens beneath which rivers flow, and to beautiful mansions in Gardens of eternity - - -.” There once was a cheap book named “All this and Heaven too”. It is similar here: all the rape and stealing and slaves you can manage – and for those good, benevolent deeds for your as benevolent god: The Paradise with more luxury and more women. Nice and attractive for naïve, poor and virile – not to say virulent – uncivilized young and not young men.

    This point is totally at odds with the Bible (some war in OT, but for Israel, not for Yahweh) and especially with NT. One of the strong proofs for that Yahweh and Allah are not the same god - and Jesus and Muhammad not in the same religion.

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

    218 65/1b: “O Prophet! When ye (also all other Muslims*) divorce women - - -". What Muslims never mention, is that Muhammad had at least 16 short-time wives (see the chapter about Muhammad and his women - at least 36 - in www.1000mistakes.com ). NT on the other hand does not really accept divorce (f.x. Matt. 5/32) - and polygamy not at all. One more proof for that Yahweh and Allah are not the same god, and a 100%+ proof for that Jesus and Muhammad is not in the same the same religion or in any line of anything religiously essential.

    219 65/1c: “O Prophet! When ye (also all other Muslims*) divorce women, divorce them in their prescribed period, and count (accurately) their prescribed periods - - -.” Not on account of the welfare of the woman, but to make sure who is the father if there is a child afterwards.

    220 65/2a: “Thus when they fulfill their term appointed (connected to a revocable divorce*), either take them back on equitable terms or part with them on equitable terms - - -.” The law is clear, and often it functions. But especially when it comes to contact with their children – and especially boys – the woman is in a weak position.

    221 65/2b: "- - - either take them (your former wife*) back - - -". A Muslim can divorce his wife two times and take her back. Only if he divorces her 3 times he cannot take her back - not until she has married another man, had sex with him (an absolute demand) and divorced him.

    Revocable divorce does not exist in the Bible. The same goes for a rule saying that a divorced couple can cannot remarry more than 2 times. Not to mention that no rule says that if they want to remarry a third time, the woman first has to prostitute herself (but no demand on the man). Not the same religion - not the same god.

    222 65/4a: “Such of your women as have passed the age of monthly courses (when divorcing them*), for them the prescribed period (of waiting*) is 3 months if ye have any doubt, and for those who have no courses (it is the same).” A clear law – and should there have happened something in spite of all – pregnancy – one will know the father.

    223 65/4b: “- - - for those who carry (life within their wombs), their period (in divorce*) is until they deliver their burdens (till the baby is born*) - - -.” Also a clear law.

    224 65/6a: “Let the women live (in ‘iddah' (the waiting period around divorce*)) in the same style as ye live.” Also formally a clear law.

    225 65/6b: “- - - if they carry (life in their wombs) (at divorce*), then spend (your substance) on them until they deliver their burden: and if they suckle your (offspring), give them recompense - - -.” Another formally ok law. But all these laws are told to the man – his decides mostly. Not to the woman. Nor to both.

    226 66/5a: "It may be, if he (Muhammad*) divorced you (all (his wives*)), that Allah will give him in exchange Consorts better than you - who submit (their will's), who believe, who are devout, who turn to Allah in repentance, who worship (in humility) - - -". This verse simply does not belong in a "Mother Book" (of which the Quran is claimed to be an exact copy) revered by an omnipotent, omniscient god in Heaven.

    Also: Women seem to be gifts to men.

    227 66/5b: "- - - if he (Muhammad*) divorced you (all (his wives*)), that Allah will give him in exchange Consorts better than you - - -". Try to find something even remotely similar in NT!. One more at least 200% proof for that Yahweh and Allah are not the same god, and Jesus and Muhammad not on the same line of anything essential in the moral world.

    ###228 70/29-30: “And those who guard their chastity, except with their wives and the (captives) whom their right hands possess (= slaves*) – for (then) they are not to be blamed - - -.” There is no blame for raping a captive woman taken captive in the name of Allah, or your slave women – just how and how often you want. A good and benevolent god with an excellent moral (at least for the Muslim free man).

    "Do against others like you want other do against you" (Luke 6/31).

    One of the really 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 prophets (in addition to that Muhammad was not really a prophet - see 9/88b above).

    It is verses like this - and worse - which make people with normal moral codes - codes in reasonable nearness to "do to others like you want others do to you" - sometimes want to puke over the Quran and over Islam.

    229 70/30: “(Muslim men should have no sex*) Except with their wives and the (captives) whom their right hands possess - - -.” To force captive women or slave women to have sex – to rape them – was “lawful and good”! What a benevolent religion and what a benevolent god!!

    230 78/33: "Companions of Equal Age" - the famous houris. As mentioned, sex is not named in Paradise in the Quran, bur it all the same is a very essential part - - - for the men. In the entire Quran, in all the many Hadiths, in all Islamic literature, we have not seen one single word about how it feels for the houris to be sex toys for rough, uneducated, primitive warriors. And not one word about how it is for the wives to share their husbands with lots of likely much more beautiful women. Not one word.

    Also you do not find the houris and sex in the Bible's and in Yahweh's paradise (the houris is an idea "borrowed" from the Persian religion). On the contrary: There you will be like the angels (Mark 12/25), and angels are not bent on sex. One more of the at least 200% proofs for that Yahweh and Allah are not the same god.

    *231 92/3: “By (the mystery of) the creation of male and female - - -”. No mystery for us, no mystery for a god - a large mystery for Muhammad. (According to Hadiths he thought that if the woman climaxed first, it became a girl, but if the man climaxed first, it became a boy – and boys of course were best. Scientific nonsense - laughable nonsense. Any - any - god had known better.) Who made the Quran? Also see 18/37 – 32/8 – 35/11 – 40/67 – 75/37 – 77/20.

    ###Another point showing the stupidity of this belief: If the belief had been true, more or less all children made by raping the woman, had been boys. ########A rape normally is a horror to the woman or child, not a pleasure, and thus she hardly ever climax - a fact NEVER mentioned neither by the Quran, nor by Islam or by its Muslims.

    231 + 11.558 = 11.789 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".