Humans, Other Beings in/Relevant to the Quran, Part 47

 

270.   WRONGDOERS - MAINLY NON-MUSLIMS

+ some bad Muslims.

"Wrongdoers" is one of Muhammad's many bad names for opponents, mainly non-Muslims. This name - and others - tells a lot about how Islam looks on non-Muslims; they are not only non-Muslims, but wrongdoers. If you read the Quran, you will see he used it more often than the points we have quoted.

Also beware that "wrongdoers" normally means non-Muslims, not "criminals" (actually to be a non-Muslim may be worse than to be a criminal).

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

001 2/54c: "- - - (the wrongdoers) - - -". Here it may mean the ones who have sinned against the god, but normally this word is "Quran-speak" for non-Muslims - not a neutral word.

002 2/95c: "And Allah is well-acquainted with the wrongdoers" See 2/233h below.

003 2/254g: “ Those who rejects Faith (Islam*) - they are the wrongdoers”. If you read the Quran, you many, many times will find the non-Muslims called wrongdoers. You meet persons claiming that "the wrongdoers" means criminals, etc., but in the Quran "wrongdoers" mainly refers to non-Muslims (or even worse; apostates who has left Islam like here). It simply is one of Muhammad's most frequently used names for non-Muslims. No comment necessary.

004 2/270b: "But the wrongdoers will have no help". As far as the word "wrongdoers" means Jews and Christians, the Bible contradicts this claim.

005 2/270c: "- - - wrongdoers - - -". Normally "Quran-speak" for non-Muslims. The Quran has a number of such names for non-Muslims with psychologically negative meaning - not exactly forwarding for co-existence between Muslims and non-Muslims (and also not reducing their superiority complex versus non-Muslims). Simply one of Muhammad's many negative names for non-Muslims - an often used one.

006 3/94a: "If any, after this, invent a lie and attribute it to Allah, they are indeed unjust wrongdoers". Is this also the case if the Quran partly or all is made up, but attributed to Allah? If someone makes up a religion, he has a great advantage: He can lie and cheat and deceive as much as he wants, knowing there will be no punishment, as the religion is made up.

007 3/94d: "- - - unjust wrongdoers - - -". The word "Wrongdoers" in the Quran normally means "non-Muslims". It is one of the many unsympathetic names - here strengthened by "unjust" - Muhammad uses many places for creating distance between his followers and all the others (extreme sects and new religions often want such a distance, partly to make admission to correcting information from the outside more difficult, partly to give the followers a feeling of exclusivity, and sometimes for other reasons like creating a superiority feeling like in Islam - a feeling making war and killing easier, because the victims are not reckoned to be fully human, or at least bad people - f.x. "unjust wrongdoers".

#008 3/151g: "- - - evil is the home for wrongdoers." "Wrongdoers" normally is one of Muhammad’s names for non-Muslims. But: Much of the Quran's rules and moral and ethical code, not to mention rules for behavior in war, etc., most strongly sins against the "constitution" of all moral and ethical kinds of code: "Do unto others like you want others do onto you". Are Muslims thus wrongdoers heading for an "evil home" if there is a next life? This question is extra relevant as it is clear they live by a claimed holy book not produced by any god.

009 3/192a: “Our Lord (Allah*). Any (non-Muslim*) - - - truly Thou coverest with shame, and never will wrongdoers find any helpers”. Of course not – they are of so bad quality, that they do not deserve any help.

010 3/192d: "- - - wrongdoers - - -". In the Quran normally a name for non-Muslims - one of several with low-esteem value or worse frequently used by Muhammad. Names of such categories often are used by leaders of groups if the leader wants to create distance between "us" in the group and "them" outside.

011 5/45e: "- - - they are (no better than) wrongdoers". Sentences like this are quite revealing about what Muhammad wanted - and wants - Muslims to mean about non-Muslims.

012 5/72m: "For the wrongdoers there will be no one to help". For those of what Muhammad called "wrongdoers" who were Jews or Christians there perhaps is Yahweh.

013 5/81i: "- - - most of them (non-Muslims*) are rebellious wrongdoers". "Wrongdoers" is one of several not very sympathetic names Muhammad used for "non-Muslims" - here in a strengthened form. It is not strange that Muslims are reluctant to accept non-Muslims or to be integrated in non-Muslim societies. Pretty distaste - and stronger - inducing.

014 5/110h: “And behold, thou (the child Jesus*) makest out of clay, as it were, the figure of a bird, by My (Allah's*) leave, and you brethest into it and it becometh a bird by My leave, - - - “. This is not from the Bible. It is a made up story from the made up legends in the made up (apocryphal) Thomas Child Gospel and also mentioned in a couple of the others of the so-called child gospels (also made up legends in reality) - see 3/49b above. Besides: A miracle like this had not been forgotten in the Bible - and especially not by “wrongdoers” wanting to falsify the Bible to make Jesus more holy, like the Quran frequently says/indicates.

015 6/5b: “And now they (man/wrongdoers*) reject the truth (Muhammad’s teachings*) when it reaches them: - - - “. May be the real reason was that they saw that something was seriously wrong f.x. when Muhammad claimed his new religion was from the same god as the Jews' and Christians' god.

016 6/45a: "Of the wrongdoers the last remnant was cut off (killed*). Praise be to Allah - - -". Yes, praise be to Allah for that all non-Muslims and sinners there (actually many places) were killed - lots of millions of non-Muslims have been killed or murdered by Muslims. Tales like this in a claimed holy book plus the preaching in accordance with such verses has its effect on the mentality of the followers. This verse is one of the reasons for the disregard Muslims have for non-Muslims ("half human value? - or less?" - from a recent debate in Pakistan), and the disregard for other peoples' property and well-being and lives: Rape a girl in Eritrea - it is "good and lawful" as we call this a Jihad, and her well-being does not interest neither us nor Islam. Kill an American - if he had been old enough, he had had to pay tax to America, and thus he is guilty of fighting Islam and merits to be killed (believe it or not, but this argument really is not only used, but widespread: "All Americans are guilty and can be killed, because they have to pay tax to USA" - - - Jihad = "self defense in the widest meaning of the word", so wide that it is a parody).

####017 6/45b: "Of the wrongdoers the last remnant was cut off (killed*). Praise be to Allah - - -". ########This "Praise be to Allah" is one of the points which makes Islam a morally sick and distasteful religion. A claimed benevolent and good god who is to be praised for stealing, rape, slave taking, extortion, repeated atrocities, apartheid, and mass murder, and for the reason they had another religion only, is distasteful outside our vocabulary, and as wrong morally. We are sorry - we have big vocabularies from lives in reading and learning, but we do not have strong enough words for this.

######A pinnacle of a high moral code of moral for any religion anywhere in the world.

Not to mention 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 religion, not to mention in the same line of prophets. Read this claim from Muhammad, and then read the words of Jesus - ########it will take a great amount of naivety and wishful thinking to be able to believe those two ever were in the same religion or represented the same god.

Are there any similarities between the Quran's moral code and the ones of f.x. the Mafia, the Cosa Nostra, the Chinese Triads, etc.? - or of the Nazis?

018 6/129: "- - - wrongdoers - - -". Normally one of Muhammad's many negative names for non-Muslims - used to make distance between his followers and others, and to make his followers feel superior to others. This technique has been used by many leaders of groups - religious or others - throughout times.

019 6/135c: "- - - the wrongdoers will not prosper". See 3/77b.

020 7/44f: "- - - the wrongdoers - - -". Normally one of Muhammad's discriminating names for the disgusting non-Muslims. These names - indicating bad people - even today are parts of the reason why Muslims are reluctant to associate too closely with non-Muslims.

021 10/40a: "Of them there are some who believe therein - - -". It here is unclear to what the word "therein" points - to the Quran, to the charges of falsehood, or even the claimed end of wrongdoers. In spite of Muslims' strong claims about how clear the language in the Quran is - and that the very clarity of the language is a proof for that it must be made by a god - the book often uses unclear language (a proof for that it is not from a god?).

022 10/52a: "At length it will be said to the wrongdoers - - -". Similar several times claimed in the Quran, but never proved.

023 10/52b: "At length it will be said to the wrongdoers: 'Taste ye the enduring punishment!'". See 3/77b above.

024 10/53d: "And ye (wrongdoers*) cannot frustrate it (your destiny*)". Allah has decided - predestination rules. Different from NT where there is possibility to the very end, if there is honest regret and remorse.

025 11/67a: “The (mighty) Blast overtook the wrongdoers (Thamud - another large and rich tribe “borrowed” from Arabian folk tales*), and they lay prostrate (and dead*) in their homes before the morning - - -”. Another some thousands killed. A good, benevolent and merciful god.

Besides: The Thamuds lived in a mountainous area - impossible to kill all with one blast.

026 11/67b: “The (mighty) Blast overtook the wrongdoers (the people of Thamud*), and they lay prostrate (dead*) in their homes before the morning - - -.” A blast is something from f.x. an explosion.

027 14/13e: "We (Allah*) shall cause the wrongdoers to perish". See 3/77b above.

028 16/85a: "When the wrongdoers (actually) see the Penalty, the will it in no way be mitigated - - -". See 3/77b above.

029 18/29f: "- - - for the wrongdoers We (Allah*) have prepared a Fire - - -". See 3/77b above.

030 19/72d: "- - - and We (Allah*) shall leave the wrongdoers therein (in Hell*) - - -". Similar answer to 19/72a above, except that this is possible also if he belongs to the dark forces.

031 22/48d: “In the end I (Allah*) punished them (killed the wrongdoers/non-Muslims*). To Me is the destination (of all)”. F.x. it is for Allah to decide whom to kill. Also see 3/77b above.

032 22/53d: “- - - the wrongdoers are in schism far (from the Truth)”. That the Quran is the truth, is just a claim, not a proved fact. At very best they are far from "bits and pieces of truth", at least like the truth is pretended to be in the Quran, as that book at best contains bits and pieces of what is true. May be some of them even were right?

033 25/37d: "- - - We (Allah') have prepared for (all) wrongdoers a grievous Penalty". Who wants to befriend such people? (It is easy to forget that it only is true if Allah exists and is a major god - and if the Quran in addition has described him correctly.)

034 29/4a: "- - - those who practice evil - - -". In the Quran expressions like this sometimes refer to real evildoers - though not to jihadists (warriors in "holy wars" - jihads - which is the name of nearly every conflict where Muslims are at least one part) doing even horrible things - and sometimes simply to non-Muslims. The expression has psychological negative effect on relationship to non-Muslims - even stronger than "wrongdoers" which mostly simply means non-Muslims. Often it simply is one of the many negative names Muhammad used for "non-Muslim".

035 30/29a: "- - - the wrongdoers (merely) follow their own lust - - -". Slandering opponents is no new invention - Muhammad practiced it much (see f.x. all his "names" for non-Muslims - all of them negative or worse).

036 30/29b: "- - - wrongdoers - - -". A negative and "loaded" word - normally "Quran-speak" for "non-Muslims". One of Muhammad’s many negative names for non-Muslims actually.

037 30/29e: "- - - the wrongdoers (non-Muslims at the time of Muhammad*) (merely) follow their own lusts - - -". How could this end up in the claimed "Mother Book" (of which the Quran is a copy according to Muhammad) billions of years before it was said or happened? One more of the many texts or quotes in the Quran which could not have been reliably written into the claimed "Mother Book" (13/39b, 43/4b+c, 85/21-22) in Heaven (of which the Quran is claimed to be a copy) eons ago, unless predestination was and is 100% like the Quran claims many places (if you look, you will find more cases than we mention - we only mention some of the obvious ones). If man has free will - even partly only (an expression some Muslims use to flee from the problem full predestination contra free will for man (and also contra that there is no meaning in praying to Allah for help, if everything already is predestined in accordance with a plan "nobody and nothing can change" - a problem which Muslims seldom mention), and an expression no Muslim we have met has ever defined) - and can change his mind, full and reliable clairvoyance about the future, not to mention the distant future, is impossible even for a god, as the man always could/can change his mind or his words once more, in spite of Islam's claims. There are at least 5 reasons - at least 3 of them unavoidable - for this:

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

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

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

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

Also see 3/154e, 6/149a, 7/34a, 14/22b, and not least 27/22-26 above.

038 34/31c: "- - - wrongdoers - - -". Beware that when the Quran uses words like this, it is in accordance with its own partly immoral moral code. "Wrongdoers" in the Quran may well be "doers of good" in a normal religion (as opposed to a hate and suppression and war religion like Islam).

#039 35/37d: "- - - for the wrongdoers there is no helper". There are so big differences between the ethical and moral codes between the Bible - especially NT and its New Covenance (= the teachings of Jesus) - and the Quran, that a lot of things bad in the Quran, may be not bad or even good in the NT. Then may be Yahweh will be a helper at least for his followers?

040 35/40j: "Nay, the wrongdoers promise each other nothing but delusions". May well be right, though not for all, as many simply saw that things were very wrong in the new religion, but the recurring question is: What then about the Muslims, as they base their belief on a book full of mistakes, etc.?

041 35/40k: "- - - the wrongdoers promise each other nothing but dilutions". Psychologically a good claim as long as the listeners believe it. It is unbelievable what you can make people in a religious fervor believe.

#042 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 revealings 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!)

043 37/63a: "For We (Allah*) have truly (definitely not a proved truth - only a not proved claim*) made it (to eat the fruit of the zaqqum tree - a tree said to grow in Hell*) as a trial for the wrongdoers". Also Hell is inspired by life on Earth - the sinners have to eat and drink like here, but the food is pure sadism. And the clothes are made from fire.

###044 37/63aa: "For We (Allah*) have truly (definitely not a proved truth - only a not proved claim*) made it (to eat the fruit of the zaqqum tree - a tree said to grow in Hell*) as a trial for the wrongdoers".#######One more strong indication for that Allah also is the creator and ruler of Hell. What then is left of the claimed good and benevolent god Allah?

045 38/55a: "But for the wrongdoers will be an evil place of (final) Return". Hell. Yes, if the Quran tells the truth and only the truth about everything. If it f.x. is wrong about who are wrongdoers, the picture suddenly changes.

046 39/51d: "- - - and they ("wrongdoers"*) will never be able to frustrate (our (Allah's*) Plan)". The predestination again: Allah decides everything and nothing can change his decisions and Plan.

047 40/18c: "- - - no intimate friend or intercessor will the wrongdoers have - - -". Here we are back to the fundamental fact that there on many points are huge differences between who are wrongdoers according to the Quran - f.x. the ones not wanting to steal or fight or murder for the god and the leader on Earth - and normal religions, f.x. the one you find in NT (Christianity). Thus may be Yahweh will intercede at least for his followers? - even for the ones the Quran claims are wrongdoers, but who according to Yahweh are good people?

048 40/52c: "- - - Wrongdoers - - -". Will the Muslims be among those if the Quran is a made up book? MUCH of what the Quran advices and demands its followers to do, is horrible and immoral and very wrong (Muslims are unable to see it, though, as they have been told from they were toddlers that such things are glorious).

This word also is one of Muhammad's many enemy picture inducing names for non-Muslims.

049 42/8g: "- - - wrongdoers - - -". Beware that when the Quran uses words like this, it is in accordance with its own partly immoral moral code.

050 42/8h: "- - - the wrongdoers will have no protector or helper". This may be wrong if there exist other gods - f.x. Yahweh, whom also the Quran admits exists, even though it wrongly mixes him with Allah. This even more so if the Quran is a made up book and Islam thus a made up religion - and Allah a made up god.

051 42/8i: "- - - the wrongdoers will have no protector or helper". See 42/8g just above. In addition there is this big gap between who is a wrongdoer in the war religion Islam, and in the NT. A wrongdoer in Islam, simply may be a good or even very good person in a normal religion - - - and then he may qualify for f.x. Yahweh's Paradise.

There are so many and deep differences between who is a good person in normal religions - included f.x. followers of Yahweh - and cultures, compared to Islam, that it is one of the strong proofs for that Yahweh and Allah are not the same god.

052 42/21d: "But verily the wrongdoers will have a grievous Penalty". Not unlikely. But who are the wrongdoers if Islam is a made up religion? - and with so many mistakes, etc. the Quran is from no god, and also the Islamic moral code is partly a horrible one according to most religions and nearly all cultures. If there somewhere is a benevolent god, he hardly will accept anyone living according to such an immoral moral code to his paradise.

053 42/22a: "Thou wilt see the wrongdoers in fear on account of what they have earned - - -". See 42/21c above.

054 42/44c: "- - - the wrongdoers - - -". Non-Muslims.

055 45/19a: "- - - it is only wrongdoers (that stand as) protectors (of non-Muslims*) - - -". Contradicted by the Bible, which says the followers of Yahweh have a protector in Yahweh. But of course it is ok for Islam to prove - prove - the Bible wrong and the Quran right. But as we say: Prove, not just loose claims and as loose and invalid words like the Quran always use instead of proofs.

056 45/19b: "- - - wrongdoers - - -". One of Muhammad's many enemy picture inducing names for non-Muslims.

057 51/59b: "- - - wrongdoers - - -". Beware that when the Quran uses words like this, it is in accordance with its own partly immoral moral code.

058 59/17d: "Such (Hell*) is the reward for the wrongdoers". Only if the Quran tells the full truth and only the truth. Also see 59/17a above.

059 61/8b: “Their (the wrongdoers'/non-Muslims‘*) intention is to extinguish Allah’s Light - - - “ Bad and to be hated. On the other hand such a light cannot exist unless Allah exists and is a god.

060 71/28d: According to Muhammad and the Quran, Noah prayed: "- - - to the Wrongdoers grant Thou (claimed to be Allah*) no increase but in perdition". This is claimed to be in a message from Allah. Compare this to NY - f.x. "the lost coin" (Luke 15/8-10), "the lost sheep" (Matt.18/12-14), "the lost son" (Luke 15/11-31), "the 11. hour" (Matt. 20/8/13) - and you have one more 100% for that Yahweh and Allah were not the same god, and Jesus and Muhammad not in the same line of the moral rules.

061 71/28f: "- - - Wrongdoers - - -". Beware that when the Quran uses words like this, it is in accordance to its own partly immoral moral code.

062 76/31c: "- - - the wrongdoers - - -". One of Muhammad's many distaste and even enemy picture inducing names for non-Muslims.

063 76/31d: "- - - wrongdoers - - -". Beware that when the Quran uses words like this, it is in accordance with its own partly immoral moral code.

63 + 11.789 = 11.852 comments (+ basic comments/introductions).


 

271.   XERXES I

King Xerxes I of Persia (Hebrew: Ahasuerus) (486 - 465 BC) (the same king who attacked Greece - f.x. the Battle of Thermopylae).

The general agreement in science is that Haman of Pharaoh Ramses II of Egypt (ruled ca. 1279 to 1213 BC) is the same person in the Quran as Haman (see the Book of Esther) of Xerxes I of Persia (ruled ca. 486 to 465 BC) some 700 - 800 years later. If you disagree, please prove it to us. As for the reliability of the Book of Ester contra the Quran, see comments on such topics under HAMAN further up.

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

*001 26/29c: “If thou (Moses*) dost put forward any god other than me (the pharaoh*), I will certainly put you in prison.” Wrong – in Egypt one had many gods. (One knows some 2ooo names for gods in the old Egypt, but some gods may have had more than one name.) Even more: According to one of Islam’s tries to explain away the mistake of placing Xerxes’ man Haman (see the Book of Esther) at Ramses II’s court - and hundreds of years wrong - the high priest (Ha-Amon) of one of the main gods – Amon – even was present and one of the pharaoh’s main advisers at this meeting (a “fact” that in case makes this sentence impossibly illogical - but then it is typical for Muslims when explaining away mistakes in the Quran, that the "explanations" "explain" some aspects with a mistake, but collide with others). It is impossible that Ramses II said this if at the same time a high priest - Haman/Ha-Amon - of a main god was present. Or the other way around: If Ramses II said this, Islam’ "explanation" about Haman as Ha-Amon is proved wrong. Make your choice - but science knows that Amon was a top god among many others in Egypt, so it is highly unlikely Ramses II said what the Quran claims, unless Islam has real proofs.

Another point: The next pharaoh was Ramses II's son, Merneptah - Merne-Ptah. Ptah was another of the top Egyptian gods. Ramses II had incorporated the name of this god in the name of his son. It is definite that Ramses II knew other gods.

002 28/6c: “- - - Haman - - -”. Science says this is the Haman from the book of Esther in the Bible. Uneducated Muslims say it just was another man with the same name. Educated Muslims are more careful with that claim.

Haman (see the Book of Esther) was according to the Bible, a powerful minister under the Persian king Xerxes I (Hebrew: Ahasuerus) (486 - 465 BC) and a central person in the mentioned book - Muhammad may well have heard about him. In that case something is very wrong, because Ramses II naturally was king/pharaoh in Egypt, and on top of that lived some 800 years earlier. Haman could not be his top minister.

Here Islam has an explanation that just may be true: One of the main gods in Egypt at that time was Amon. According to “the Message of the Quran” the title of the high priest of Amon, was Ha-Amen - which could be understood as Haman. Not very likely, especially as this is the kind of “explanations” one frequently finds when Islam has problems finding better stories. But after all possible. Except that a god does not make such mistakes either - a mistake like this means the surah is based on human fallibility.

Some Muslims then instead want to explain this with that it was another Haman. But science is not in doubt, it is the same. Another question here is: Was the name Haman at all used in Egypt? – it is said to be a Persian name.

But this explanation or "explanation" is invalid and made up if it is true like Ramses II according to another place in the Quran, says he knows no god except himself (28/38). If Ramses II claimed to be the only god in Egypt, no high priest of another god could be present. (Wrong as Egypt was polytheistic.)

Also see 28/38a below.

Another point: The next pharaoh was Ramses II's son, Merneptah - Merne-Ptah. Ptah was another of the top Egyptian gods. Ramses II had incorporated the name of this god in the name of his son. It is definite that Ramses II knew other gods.

*003 28/38a: “Pharaoh said: ‘O Chiefs! No god do I know for you but myself - - -”. This is one of the really good ones, because Egypt at the time of Ramses II had a good number of gods, included some central ones with a strong clerical organization. It is typical for many “explanations” of mistakes in the Quran that Muslims “explain” some aspects of it, but are then unable not to “collide” with other information in the book - f.x. explaining the heavens as the modern universe (see 51/47c) without telling how the stars then could be fastened to the lowest heaven (37/6-7, 41/12)). But at the time of Muhammad the old gods were reduced - Egypt was partly Christian (the forefathers of the present-day Copts). A real god had not made this blunder, but Muhammad could not know. Then who composed the Quran?

Islam tries to explain this away with that it is not meant literally - only that Ramses II was the top. But in this case - like so often - it is very clear what the Quran says. And also remember that the Quran - and most Muslims - say that the Quran is to be meant literally where nothing else is said - - - and to call something an allegory or say it is figuratively meant, we think is the for Islam the most used means of explaining away of things/mistakes in the Quran, which has no explanation.

##############Remember: To claim the Quran means something different from what the texts say, is to falsify its texts. Plus: Who is better to explain than an omniscient god?

There also is the fact that Haman was a leader under Xerxes I (Hebrew: Ahasuerus) (486 - 465 BC) of Persia some 800 years later. Islam tries to explain the mistake away by claiming that what was said was not Haman, but Ha-Amon (a mistake in the Quran in case) - the title of the high priest of the Egyptian central god Amon - see 28/6c above. This claimed explanation is impossible if Ramses II was the only god in Egypt.

004 28/38d: (A28/37 – YA3371): “(Pharaoh said*) “O Haman (minister for Xerxes I 800 years later and hundreds of km further northeast, in Persia - and not an Egyptian name either*)! - - - build me a lofty palace, that I may mount up to the god of Moses - - -.” Muslims like to tell this does not refer to something like the tower of Babylon (built from bricks), but to a pyramid - - - and without mentioning a single word about well known facts like it took some 20-30 years to build a big pyramid (and Ramses II at the time science believe this happened if it happened, was not young), or that the pyramids in Egypt were built from natural stones, not from brick, so a kiln has no connection to them. There also is quite a difference between a palace and a pyramid.

Another fact is that the Egyptians used sundried bricks made from a mixture of clay and straw, not burnt ones. Much cheaper, and ok in that dry climate. (If you burn such a brick, you destroy the effect of the straw.)

005 29/16a: Abraham delivered from Nimrod's fire. Taken from the story "Midrash Rabbah", not from the Bible - there is nothing similar about Abraham in the Bible, but there is one about Daniel 1000+ years later, which may have inspired this "story". And another point: Abraham and Nimrod did not live at the same time (if they ever lived). Nimrod was the great grandson of Noah (1. Mos. 10/1-8: Noah - Ham - Cush - Nimrod), and if he is not a fiction, he lived 3ooo - 5ooo (3100?) BC. Whereas Abraham - if he ever lived - lived some 1800 - 2ooo BC. Muhammad had a strong tendency to mix persons from different times (f.x. Haman (see the Book of Esther) and Ramses II/Xerxes I - some 800 years wrong. Or Mary and Miriam - some 1200 years wrong.)

5 + 11.852 = 11.857 comments (+ basic comments/introductions).


 

272.   YAGHUT - 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 are-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 + 11.857 = 11.858 comments (+ basic comments/introductions).


 

273.   YA'UQ - 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 are-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 + 11.858 = 11.859 comments (+ basic comments/introductions).


 

274.   YAHYA

- the Quran's name for John the Baptist.

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

001 3/39b: "- - - Yahya - - -". The Arab name of John the Baptist.

##002 3/39e: "- - - Yahya (John*) - - - a Prophet". John the Baptist is in the Bible hardly really classified among the prophets - - he is something special. But he had a prophet's qualifications as he obviously had connections to Yahweh and also made prophesies: He foretold Jesus. Interesting here is that he told that the one he foretold, already was living among the Jews (John 1/26) - this was before Jesus had started his mission - and that he never mentioned a successor of Jesus.

003 19/7b: “- - - his (Zakariyya's son’s*) name shall be Yahya (John*): on none by that name We (Allah*) have conferred distinction before”. But Johanan (Hebrew for John), son of Kareah, was a distinguished man in 2. Kings, 25/23. From relevant history also were the priest-king John Hyrcanus and the general John the Essene. There both were many Johns and men of distinction named John before John the Baptist. #####In addition our sources say that the word “distinction” is not in the Arab edition, but added by Yusuf Ali to circumvent an obvious mistake, as the name John was far from unknown in Hebrew. (Yusuf Ali’s comment 2461). Other translators – f.x. Muhammad Azad in “The Message of the Quran” – say in his comments to the point that the exact translation is (translated from Swedish): “We (Allah*) have never before named anybody with his (John the Baptist’s*) name before”. But the name John is mentioned 27 times in OT = before John the Baptist – it was a quite common name. The claim simply is wrong.

To add words not to clarify things in the Quran, but to hide errors tell something ugly. It also tells that it is not the truth which counts for some Muslim scholars, but to make the Quran look truthful. But if there is a next life, what is more essential than to find the real truth behind religion - and which one(s) may be true and which not? If there is a next life and the Quran is a made up book, Muslims will pay a terrible price for Muhammad's and their other leaders good days on Earth, and for their own flight from meeting perhaps hard and unwanted truths.

Well, this baby grew up to a man who prepared Israel for Jesus – John the Baptist – half a year older than Jesus only, but as Jesus only started his preaching 30 years old, John anyhow had time to talk about one who was to come shortly.

Except for that the name should be John, this quote is not from the Bible.

004 19/13: "- - - he (John - later the Baptist*) was devout - - -". A time anomaly.

005 21/90: "- - - Yahya (John the Baptist*) - - -". A time anomaly.

5 + 11.859 = 11.864 comments (+ basic comments/introductions).


 

275.   YOUTHS - HANDSOME SERVANTS IN THE QURAN'S PARADISE

The Quran's main ideas about Paradise are not from the Bible, but "borrowed" from Zoroastrism - the leading religion in Persia (now Iran), one of Arabia's trade markets - at the time of Muhammad. Among the aspects "borrowed" from there, are the houris - in Zoroastrism named paaris - and the handsome/beautiful young male servants in Paradise.

There are different thoughts emerging when I think about the Quran's Paradise - why does it offer only bodily pleasures (except for the nearness to Allah - who after all was/is not very near)? Why is it so simplistic? Why is it just a poor, uneducated desert dweller's dream about a human king's luxury life - was this the top of what primitive desert warriors were able to dream about? Then there is the selfishness - something which by the way permeates the entire religion: It is "me" who is in the center. As long as I go by the rules of "the great leader", I can steal and suppress and rape and take slaves and have a big harem - and who cares about the victims? - I even will be rewarded for my dishonesty, inhumanity, and in reality immoral deeds when I arrive in Paradise: Lots of bodily pleasures, lots of sex slaves - houris - and servants - - - and who cares a whistle about how life in Paradise is for sex slaves or servants for brutal, primitive warriors? In the entire Quran there is not one word about how life in Paradise is for them. (Or for that case how life was and is for the victims of the Muslims - only that it was and is "lawful and good" (8/69) and morally right to treat fellow human beings like that.

As for the handsome male servants in Paradise, there is one more aspect: In spite of the Quran's words about homosexuality, such sexuality has at times and places been silently accepted by Islam/Muslims - sometimes even reckoned to be "the 3. sex", and f.x. the expression "caravan brides" existed - young men selling sex accompanying a caravan.

The Quran's Paradise satisfies most of mans primitive lusts - laziness, good food, good cloths, good living, riches, and plenty of sex - and thus attracts most primitive men/warriors. Are the "handsome servants" included in Paradise to complete the pleasures also for the homosexual warriors, and thus also attract them? No omniscient god needs servants to give his followers a full life - and those servants are described in ways making them attractive for homosexuals. And: Muhammad wanted all the warriors he could lay his hands on, and also homosexuals could be good warriors.

This is quoted from a debate page on Internet (www.topix.com/forum/religion/islam):

Homosexuality in Islam's paradise?

Homosexuality is officially more or less prohibited in the Quran. But unofficially and silently it was and is accepted at least in some Muslim areas (it is not unnormal that in societies where connections between men and women are difficult - f.x. in prisons to mention a well known case - there are more homosexuality than in other societies. Islam is a society with such difficulties, and some extra tendencies to homosexuality would be normal. Facts like poets glorifying homosexuality or the well known secret of "caravan brides" or "caravan wives" - youths or young men for sexual use following caravans in some regions - confirms this silent acceptance at least some places. It also confirms that there is potential homosexuality also among Muslims - an unknown percentage of the population attracted by the same sex.

Now there is a parallel in the Quran's treatment of alcohol: It officially prohibits alcohol in this life - but we know from personal experience that alcohol silently is accepted among Muslims in wide Islamic areas. And we see from even the Quran that Muhammad use free admittance to wine as one of the big attractions in his claimed paradise - Thus he uses both the old Arab "two delightful things" - alcohol and sex (wine and houris) - as attraction for his primitive followers and warriors: Follow me and get these delights - and luxury on top!

We then took up the natural question: When Muhammad used sex as bait for heterosexual men, did the same silently go for the homosexual ones? - after all the "young men serving you in Paradise" is described like one may imagine homosexual men's dreams about sex partners.

Even though we stated that homosexuality is officially prohibited in the Quran, Mr. Refuter's only arguments are that homosexuality is prohibited in the Quran + slander insinuating that we have to be homosexuals ourselves to even ask such questions about Islam - in spite of the fact that it is well known and proved that homosexuality exists among also the followers of Islam (homosexuality is an integrated part of humanity - a minor percent of the humans are homosexual or bisexual in absolutely all societies all over the world, but more or less hidden). Our real question: Are the beautiful youths baits for those of Muhammad's followers or potential followers with tendencies to homosexuality? - this Mr. Refuter does not answer at all - only moral haughtiness from a religion with a partly immoral moral code, quotes from the Quran we told on beforehand we already knew, and some slander - not for the first time in his "refuting". When you are short of argument, it often may help - and may have an effect - to slander your opponent, and it is a cheap weapon. Dishonest, but cheap and often efficient. (Now you may say we have pointed to dark facts about Mr. Refuter, too. But there is a difference between pointing to facts like; "here Mr. Refuter is so wrong that it is obvious he does not really know what he is talking about", or "here the real truth is so widely known, that there is no chance that Mr. Refuter does not know that what he is claiming is wrong - or at least know that he should have checked his claim before writing things which are well known are wrong" - there is a difference between this and just throwing undocumented dirt around.)

But we have to admit Mr. Refuter is fast at fast talk and haughty moral indignation.

Here Mr. Refuter has tried to refute a couple of dozen points. But http://1000mistakes.com contains more than 2ooo points (out of perhaps some 3ooo) which are wrong in the Quran - and even one mistake proves that the Quran is not from an omniscient god, and that thus something is seriously wrong with the book, with Muhammad and his teaching, and with the religion. Even if Mr. Refuter had had every "refuting" correct (and mostly they are wrong), there still had been 2ooo+ points to refute. Until that is done, "1000+ Mistakes in the Quran" is not refuted. When will this be done? As it is now, the Quran still is proved wrong on unbelievably many points, and thus it stands proved that the book is from no god, and thus that Muhammad was not representing a god, and Islam consequently is not the religion of any god.

This was the end of his original refuting commented on. As you see: This "refuting" is an informative sample of Muslim honesty, sincerity, knowledge, etc. in argumentation. Then there were a few - surprisingly few - questions from his readers. But as they just are answered with fast talk and quotes from the Quran, we see little idea in spending time and effort on. Anyone reading arguments and undocumented claims like "salt is salt, water is level, and fire is hot, because Allah has decided it so", recognize fast talk - there is no reason for us to argue against that kind of never proved and very often wrong verbal dihorrea. Similar goes for lots of quotes from a book so full of errors, that quotes from it has no value as proofs in any case, unless it is backed by real proofs - and real proofs Mr. Refuter does not produce. We see no reason for spending time on arguing against invalid arguments and as invalid "proofs" - it is a waste of time and effort. Please read it yourself and enjoy his fast-talk eloquence - because now and then he is eloquent, and sometimes even unintended funny.

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

###001 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 (sex slaves in Paradise) the maker of the Quran has "borrowed" from religions further east (where they were named paaris) - 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 - but only from a small part of Earth?

002 52/24: “Round about them (Muslims and their houris*) will serve (devoted) to them, youths (handsome) as pearls well guarded”. These are the servants in Paradise – forever young, handsome men. There is said nothing about from where they come, and as normal in the Quran it is said not a word about how secondary persons in a story feel or like life, or how Paradise is for them. The central persons - you and the ones similar to you - are in Paradise "rich" and on top, and that is what counts – others are of little interest. Empathy with underdogs (f.x. women, houris, servants, slaves) does not exist in the Quran . Well, some to the poor Muslims (but do not give too much) and to orphans, but but for that you find no empathy. It does not exist in the Quran.

And there is another aspect to these handsome youths. The Quran frowns strongly at homosexuality, but all the same it at least some places is silently accepted. Are these youths a silent temptation - or more - in such a connection?".

Yet another proof for that Yahweh and Allah are not the same god: One more serious difference between their paradises. There are no servants in Yahweh's Paradise according to the Bible. (There cannot be servants in a perfect paradise, because to be servants is not perfect for the servants, and a paradise which is not perfect for everyone living there, is not a perfect paradise. Similar can be said about houris, who have to be sex-dolls for even the most selfish, rough, and primitive warrior. Yahweh's Paradise f.x. is no extended harem like Allah's.)

003 56/17: “Round about them will (serve) youths of perpetual freshness - - -.” Again these mysterious servants. The Quran is totally disinterested in them and tells nothing about them except that they look attractive – the only person of interest is the Muslim adult man – strangely the same one who can be warriors for Muhammad and his successors. Others do not count much. But there is a hidden fact here: Homosexuality is strongly frown at in Islam, but all the same silently accepted in some areas. The description of these youths, makes one wonder.

And: What are they - the servants and the houris? Where do they come from? How is Paradise for them? (Some Muslim scholars speculate about the possibility that they may be humans who died as babies or children - but their parents are promised to have their children as part of Paradise, and then they cannot be servants or sex doll for others.) Yahweh the same god as Allah? If they had been, their paradises had been similar.

##004 56/18-20: “(Servants) with goblets, (shining) beakers, and cups (filled) out of clear-flowing fountains (of wine*): No after-ache will they receive therefrom, nor will they be suffering intoxication: (and good food – meat and fruits*) - - -.” This surah is from ca. 615 AD – before Allah found out that alcohol was not good. But at least in Paradise even in 615 AD you did not grow ill or get a head-ache from plenty of wine. One may here remember that in the pre-Muslim Arabia, sex and alcohol were the two delightful things - Muhammad's god seems to satisfy both, perhaps even homosexuality on top. Is the word "populism" hidden somewhere in the Quran? (If you go looking, you find it many places). Yahweh the same god as Allah? You are free to believe it if you are logically blind. If they had been, their paradises had the same.

005 76/19a: "And around them (good Muslims in Paradise*) will (serve) youths - - -". This is one more case of the Quran's total lack of empathy with any others than the main persons - mainly the adult Muslim male. In the entire Quran - and as far as we have read in all central Islamic literature - there is never used one single thought or one single word about how Paradise is for these youths - and neither how it is to be forced to be sex toys and concubines for all kinds of primitive warriors for the houris. And for that case also not a word about how it was to be victims from Muslim conquest or thieving raids or slave hunting (that is to say; we have been told that slaves under Muslims were so well treated, that if they were given freedom, they did not want to go home. Some tellers of tales have never been slaves themselves - and besides; how would a freed slave from f.x. Niger be able to reach home? - and was there any home and any family left to return to after slave raiders had razed the village?).

Also remember that the many and deep differences between Yahweh's Paradise and the one of Allah is one of the strong proofs for that the two are not the same god - if they had been, their Paradise had been one and the same one.

006 76/19b: "And around them (good Muslims in Paradise*) will (serve) youths - - -". This is one more case where the Quran differs totally from the Bible - there is not any likeness between the lives in the two paradises at all (f.x. Matt.22/30 or Luke 20/34-36). Yahweh and Allah the same god with so different paradises? You bet! One of the at least - at least - 200% proof for that Yahweh and Allah are not the same god. (Another question which lingers in the air: Homosexuality is officially condemned in Islam, but silently accepted at places - was this fact in the background when the description of these delicate young men was created?)

6 + 11.864 = 11.870 comments (+ basic comments/introductions).


 

276.   ZAKARIYYA - FATHER OF JOHN THE BAPTIST

Zakariyya’s (Zechariah in the Bible) wife, Elizabeth, was a relative of Mary's, but his connection to Mary is very different in the Quran, compared to in the Bible. Very different. As all the mistaken facts, other errors, contradictions, etc. in the Quran prove that that book is not from any god, from where did Muhammad get the extra and often contradicting information - or "information"?

Another fact: Zakariyya/Zechariah was a priest in the Temple in Jerusalem. It is an absolute impossibility that a priest in that temple should pray to a known pagan god in a neighboring country; al-Lah/Allah. This impossibility is confirmed by known facts from history.

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

001 3/37b: "- - - to the care of Zakariyya was she (Mary*) assigned". This is not form the Bible. Actually Zakariyya (Zechariah in the Bible) is not mentioned in the Bible until in connection with the conception of his son, John - later called "the Baptist", (f.x. Luke 1/5-24) which took place some 15 months before the birth of Jesus. And the only connection he had to Mary according to the Bible, was that Mary visited his wife - her relative (Luke 1/36), Elisabeth, when being pregnant with Jesus, and "stayed with Elisabeth for three months and then returned home" (Luke 1/56).

002 3/37d: "- - - to the care of Zakariyya was she (Mary*) assigned". One more of the many texts in the Quran which could not have been reliably written into the book eons ago, unless predestination was and is 100% - like the Quran claims many places. See 2/51b and 3/24a above.

003 3/37f: “Every time he (Zakariyya*) entered (her (Mary'*)) chamber to see her, he found her supplied with sustenance. He said: ‘O Mary! Whence (comes) this to you?’ She said: “From Allah: for Allah provides sustenance to whom He pleases without measure’ “. This means that she by a miracle got her food from the god. This is a made up fairy tale. There is not one single chance that a miracle like this had been omitted from the NT - this even more so if Islam had been right in their statements that Christians (and Jews) had falsified the Bible and made Jesus "bigger" - though how do you make Jews falsify their copies of scriptures to make Jesus "bigger"? (Muhammad was not well versed in the Bible, and frequently made mistakes when he referred to it or (believed he) took stories from it. He always explained such mistakes with that he was right, and that the unholy Jews and Christians had falsified the Bible. Actually just this story is one the many the Quran has not “borrowed” from the Bible at all, but from one of the made up religious legends which flourished at that time. These mistakes was a reason why the Jews did not accept him when he came to Yathrib/Medina - the Jews said his teachings were wrong and that he consequently was a false prophet. (Muslims have "a tendency" not to mention this fact, but to instead tell a, to Muhammad, more flattering story: He was not accepted because the Jews were angry because Allah had called a non-Jew for a prophet.)

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

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

004 3/38a: "- - - Zakariyya - - -". A time anomaly. See 4/13d below.

005 3/38b: "O My (Zakariyya's*) Lord (Allah*)! Grant onto me from Thee a progeny that is pure: for Thou art He that heareth prayer!" Not from the Bible, though it is said there that he prayed for a child/son.

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.)

006 3/38c: "- - - Thou (Allah*) art He that heareth prayer!" Even if we omit the fact that a Jewish priest - Zechariah was a priest in the Temple in Jerusalem - hardly would pray to Allah, but to Yahweh, there remains one fact: Allah only could hear prayers if he existed and if he in addition was a god. There only are Muhammad's claims for this - and Muhammad is not the most reliable of witnesses.

007 3/39a: "While he (Zakariyya*) was standing in prayer in the chamber - - -". A time anomaly. See 4/13d below.

008 3/40aa: "O my (Zakariyya's*) Lord (claimed to be Allah*)!". Strongly contradicted by the Bible, which tells that Zakariyya's god was Yahweh.

009 3/40b: "O my (Zakariyya's*) Lord (claimed to be Allah*)! How shall I have a son, seeing I am very old, and my wife is barren?" One more of the many texts or quotes in the Quran which could not have been reliably written into the claimed "Mother Book" in Heaven (of which the Quran is claimed to be a copy) eons ago, unless predestination was and is 100% - like the Quran claims many places. If man has free will - even partly only - and can change his mind, full and reliable clairvoyance about the future, not to mention the distant future, is impossible even for a god, in spite of Islam's claims. See 2/51b and 3/24a above.

010 3/41b: "O my (Zakariyya's*) Lord (claimed to be Allah*)! Give me a Sign!". One more of the many texts or quotes in the Quran which could not have been reliably written into the claimed "Mother Book" in Heaven (of which the Quran is claimed to be a copy) eons ago, unless predestination was and is 100% - like the Quran claims many places. If man has free will - even partly only - and can change his mind, full and reliable clairvoyance about the future, not to mention the distant future, is impossible even for a god, in spite of Islam's claims. See 2/51b and 3/24a above.

011 3/41d: "- - - thou (Zechariah/Zakariyya*) shalt not speak for three days - - -." The Bible tells he was unable to speak until John was born (Luke 1/20) - or actually till the baby got his name (Luke 1/63-64). Contradiction.

012 3/44a: "This (Mary serving in the Temple under Zachariah and later her receiving the message about a child*) is part of the tidings of things unseen, which We (Allah*) reveal unto thee (Muhammad*) by inspiration - - -". Wrong. It is neither from inspiration, nor from the Bible, but from old apocryphal - made up - scriptures. It is even more wrong, as according to Mosaic - Jewish - law, only men could serve in the temple. And even some more: Only male members of the Levi tribe could serve in the Temple, whereas Mary was a woman and a descendant of David, and thus from the Judah tribe. Muslim scholars knew and know this (f.x. A. Yusuf Ali: "The Meaning of the Holy Quran", comment 378: "The female child (Mary*) could not be devoted to Temple service under the Mosaic (Jewish*) law - - -" (the rest of the quote we omit - it is speculative and unscientific to say the least of it, like sometimes in Islamic literature), and that only Levites could be priests, etc. is very clear from many places in the Bible), but never mention to Muslim congregations. Honesty. Also see 3/37a-b-c above.

013 3/44e: "- - - (Zakariyya*) charged with the care of Mary - - -". This is not from the Bible, and nothing similar is told there. There is no indication in the Bible for that she ever lived other places then in her home in Nazareth or that she ever was in the care of anyone but her parents before she got Jesus. From where did Muhammad get this information? Not from a god, as a book so full of mistakes, etc. like the Quran is from no god - and what sources do then remain? Also see 3/37b+f above.

014 6/85a: "And Zakariyya and John, and Jesus and Elias - - -". 4 time anomalies. See 4/13d above.

015 19/2b: "(This is) a recital of the Mercy of thy (peoples') Lord (Allah*) to his servant Zakariyya". See 19/4a below.

016 19/4b: "(Zakariyya prayed*): O my Lord (here indicated Allah*)!" How could this end up in the claimed "Mother Book" (of which the Quran is a copy according to Muhammad) billions of years before it was said or happened? One more of the many texts or quotes in the Quran which could not have been reliably written into the claimed "Mother Book" (13/39b, 43/4b+c, 85/21-22) in Heaven (of which the Quran is claimed to be a copy) eons ago, unless predestination was and is 100% like the Quran claims many places (if you look, you will find more cases than we mention - we only mention some of the obvious ones). If man has free will - even partly only (an expression some Muslims use to flee from the problem of full predestination contra free will for man (and also contra that there is no meaning in praying to Allah for help, if everything already is predestined in accordance with a plan "nobody and nothing can change" - a problem which Muslims seldom mention), and an expression no Muslim we have met has ever defined) - and can change his mind, full and reliable clairvoyance about the future, not to mention the distant future, is impossible even for a god, as the man always could/can change his mind or his words once more, in spite of Islam's claims. There are at least 5 reasons - at least 3 of them unavoidable - for this:

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

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

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

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

Also see 3/154e, 6/149a, 7/34a, and 14/22b above.

017 19/4c: "(Zakariyya prayed*): O my Lord (here indicated Allah*)!" Zakariyya was a Jewish priest, and not only a priest, but a priest in the Temple in Jerusalem, in a period when religion was very strong in Israel. We also are at a time from which we have written documents (f.x. Josephus Flavius just few a years later, and later by Tacitus, Suetonius, and Plinius the younger), so the strength of the Jewish religious society is no guesswork - it is written facts. Not one single Jewish priest would ever get the idea of praying to the Arab pagan god al-Lah/Allah (whom Muhammad later renamed to only Allah). And if he did, he hardly would survive many days. And as we now have entered times with written history, there also is not the slightest doubt that the Jewish god was Yahweh, not Allah. And we know for sure that the Jewish religion, its ceremonies, and its basic thoughts at this time were in accordance with OT, and very far from what Muslim later outlined in the Quran.

A Jewish priest in the very Temple of Jerusalem praying to the pagan god of a neighboring country!!? Anyone knowing history will have a good laugh here. Or shake his head.

018 19/4d: "(Zakariyya prayed*): O my Lord (here indicated Allah*)!" According to the Bible his god was Yahweh, not Allah.

019 19/4f: "- - - my (Zakariyya's*) Lord (Allah*) - - -". According to the Bible his god was Yahweh, not Allah. Also see 19/4a above.

020 19/5c: "Now I (Zakariyya*) fear (what) my relatives (and my colleagues) (will do) after me - - -". Meaning obscure - no matter claims about clear language in the Quran. Also: This sentence is not from the Bible.

021 19/6c: "- - - O my (Zakariyya's*) Lord (Allah*) - - -". See 19/4b+c above.

022 19/7b: “- - - his (Zakariyya's son’s*) name shall be Yahya (John*): on none by that name We (Allah*) have conferred distinction before”. But Johanan (Hebrew for John), son of Kareah, was a distinguished man in 2. Kings, 25/23. From relevant history also were the priest-king John Hyrcanus and the general John the Essene. There both were many Johns and men of distinction named John before John the Baptist. In addition our sources say that the word “distinction” is not in the Arab edition, but added by Yusuf Ali to circumvent an obvious mistake, as the name John was far from unknown in Hebrew. (Yusuf Ali’s comment 2461). Other translators – f.x. Muhammad Azad in “The Message of the Quran” – say in his comments to the point that the exact translation is (translated from Swedish): “We (Allah*) have never before named anybody with his (John the Baptist’s*) name before”. But the name John is mentioned 27 times in OT = before John the Baptist – it was a quite common name. The claim simply is wrong.

To add words not to clarify things in the Quran, but to hide errors tell something ugly. It also tells that it is not the truth which counts for some Muslim scholars, but to make the Quran look truthful. But if there is a next life, what is more essential than to find the real truth behind religion - and which one(s) may be true and which not? If there is a next life and the Quran is a made up book, Muslims will pay a terrible price for Muhammad's and their other leaders good days on Earth, and for their own flight from meeting perhaps hard and unwanted truths.

Well, this baby grew up to a man who prepared Israel for Jesus – John the Baptist – half a year older than Jesus only, but as Jesus only started his preaching 30 years old, John anyhow had time to talk about one who was to come shortly.

Except for that the name should be John, this quote is not from the Bible.

023 19/8c: "- - - O my (Zakariyya's*) Lord (Allah*) - - -". See 19/4b+c above.

024 19/9a: (YA2462): “He said - - -.” Who said? – the angel or Zachariah? The book is unclear on this point.

025 19/9d: “I (Allah*) did indeed create thee (man or Zakariyya?*) before, when thou hadst been nothing! (from nothing*).” But:

This is contradicted by 6/2, 7/12, 17/61, 32/7, 38/71, and 38/76 that tell man/Adam was made from clay, 15/26, 15/26, and 15/33 that tell man/Adam was made from sounding clay, 55/14 that tells man/Adam was made from ringing clay, 37/11 that tells man/Adam was made from sticky clay, 23/12, that tell man/Adam was made from essence of clay, 15/26, 15/28, and 15/33 that tell man/Adam was made from mud, 3/59, 22/5, 35/11, 40/67, that tell man/Adam was made from dust, 20/55 that tells man/Adam was made from earth, 96/2 that tells man/Adam was made from a clot of congealed blood, 16/4, 75/37, 76/2, 80/19, that tell man/Adam was made from semen (without explaining from where the semen came), 21/30, 24/45, and 25/54 that tell man/Adam was made from water (NB! NB! Not in water, but from water!), 70/39 that tells man/Adam was made from “base material”, and not to mention the greatest contradiction in this case: 19/9 and 19/67 which both tell that man/Adam was created from nothing. (Also see verse 6/2 in the chapter about the 1000+ mistakes in the Quran.) (Strictly reckoned this contradicts 29 other verses. But minimum 15 contradictions.) (NB: In just this case a Muslim can say Allah created Zachariah, not “man” (Adam) - but not even Zakariyya was made from nothing. But later in the same chapter it is made clear that Allah talked about he had made man from nothing – in the very worst case he at least has said this one place, so the contradiction stands. But for any case we do not count the extra contradictions here.)

This with Allah and creation also is an interesting claim, because neither Allah nor Muhammad was ever able to prove he had power for neither creation, nor recreation - whereas Yahweh several times proved he at least had the power of recreating, if the old books tell the truth (and also for creation according to the Quran - remember the clay bird from which he/Jesus created a live bird).

026 19/10c: "- - - O my (Zakariyya's*) Lord (Allah*!". See 19/4c above.

027 19/10f: "- - - thou (Zakariyya - Zachariah in English*) shalt speak to no man for three nights - - -". Contradiction to the Bible which says he should not be able to speak not until the child was born (Luke 1/20).

028 19/11c: "- - - he (Zachariah*) told them (the people around*) by signs to celebrate Allah's praises - - -". Both the Quran and the Bible tell Zachariah was a Jewish priest, and the Bible in addition tells that he got his message in the Temple (Luke 1/9-11), and you can be both 100% and 1000% sure of that a Jewish priest performing a sermon in the Temple in Jerusalem in the year 2 BC (or actually ca. 6 - 8 BC as the international chronology is some 4-6 years wrong, and this message happened ca. 15 months before Jesus was born) did not ask ANYONE praise the pagan god al-Lah from a neighboring country - he on top of the impossibilities had been killed immediately. Jewish priest in the very Temple of Jerusalem praying to the pagan god of a neighboring country!!? Anyone knowing history will have a good laugh here.

Muslims will try to explain the name with that Allah just is the Arab name for Yahweh/God, but that clearly is not true, as the teachings are too different - especially between NT including its New Covenant and the Quran - and remember: If Muslims try to explain away the differences with their never documented claims about falsifications in the Bible, science has long since proved this untrue, and Islam has proved it even stronger by being unable to find any falsified relevant old scripture at all (if Muslims still insists, they will have to produce proofs, not just loose claims, which is all they have produced until this day).

####One more fact: We are now in times of written history (f.x. Josephus Flavius just few a years later, and somewhat later by Tacitus, Suetonius, and Plinius the younger). We know - know - that the Mosaic religion was very strong in Israel around the time of Jesus. A priest in the Temple preaching Allah/al-Lah - a known pagan god from a neighboring people - would 5 minutes later be no priest any more, and likely not alive shortly after.

029 21/89b: "- - - Zakariyya, when he cried to his Lord (here indicated to be Allah*) - - -". This is plainly wrong. One thing is that the Bible says his god was Yahweh, not Allah. Much more serious here is that we now are in the times of history: Zakariyya was a priest in the Temple in Jerusalem according to both the Bible and the Quran, and we are around the times of the birth of Jesus. From these times we have a number of written papers confirming that the cult of Yahweh was totally dominant in Israel - so dominant that to pray to a pagan god (al-Lah) from a neighboring country in the Temple at this time, not to mention for a priest to do so, was much more than unthinkable. Thus we here have not only a statement from the Bible, but a proved fact that it was out of any question for Zakariyya (Zechariah in the Bible) to pray to Allah/al-Lah.

29 + 11.870 = 11.899 comments (+ basic comments/introductions).


 

277.   ZAID IBN HARITHA - MUHAMMAD'S ADOPTED SON

A freed slave and Muhammad's adopted son. Early and strong follower of Muhammad. He was married to Zaynab bint Jahsh, but once Muhammad saw he, he wanted her. At that time an adopted son was reckoned to be a son, and impossible for Muhammad to be intimate to her or take her over. But happily for Muhammad Yahweh changed the old laws, so that the adoption did not count, and he could marry her if Zaid divorced her - which he did. Even today there are Muslims who do not feel quite well concerning that marriage and that convenient new law.

Zaid was one of the leaders for the attack on the East Roman Empire in August 629 AD. The attack became a catastrophe for the attackers, and Zaid was among the many killed ones.

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

001 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.

002 21/5c: "- - - he (Muhammad*) forged it (the Quran*)!" Also this is a real possibility - perhaps the most likely one. The many cases where Allah(?) supported his personal needs and his hunting for power and for that chase for women (f.x. Zaid's wife) may point to this - there are so many "prophets" through the times who have used similar methods like Muhammad, though the military power of the united Arab tribes gave him/his successors more success than the others - with a partly (but only partly) exception for Indonesia, Islam’s expansion was built on war, and then suppression (or worse) afterwards of the ones who refused to become Muslims.

003 33/4c: "- - - nor has He (Allah*) made your adopted sons your son". In the old Arabia an adopted son was a real son, and it was prohibited for you to marry his wife if she became a widow or was divorced. But Muhammad had an adopted son, Zaid, and fell on love - or in desire - with Zaid's wife Zaynab. The convenient (?) solution was that Allah (?) happened (?) to send down (?) verses telling that in spite of the old laws, an adopted son was not a son, and thus that Muhammad could marry her if she was divorced - which she quickly was and they married shortly after. But no matter Allah or not - the Arabs had a bad feeling about this marriage, and even today Muslims often are extra thorough when they explain about this marriage - the thoroughness of a small and denied bad feeling. And no matter how thorough an explanation: It was betrayal against Zaid.

004 33/5b: "- - - that (name adopted sons after their real fathers*) is juster in the sight of Allah". This may be correct, and also zoologically there is no reason for not marrying the widowed or divorced wife of your adopted son. But Muhammad's motif for this change of the old law was highly doubtful.

005 33/37a: This verse does not at all belong in any holy book - this is solving of Muhammad's family affairs. (Muhammad fell in love - or in desire - with the wife of his adopted son, Zaid. According to old Arab law an adopted son was a son, and a father-in-law could not marry his daughter-in-law. But Allah changed the law for Muhammad, there was a divorce - what could Zaid say against his mighty "father"? (Muslims claim the marriage was not a good one - that be as it may, it anyhow was a betrayal of Zaid, and even most Muslims do not feel entirely well about this marriage) - - - and Muhammad had himself yet another wife. Also see 33/37 just below.

006 33/37c: "- - - one who had received the grace of Allah and thy (Muhammad's*) favor - - -". This refers to Muhammad's adopted son Zaid bin Harithah. Muhammad became interested in his wife, and with some help from Allah (?) he got her.

Zaid originally was adopted by Muhammad, and his name was Zaid bin Muhammad - in accordance with local laws. When Muhammad fell for Zaid's wife, Zaynab, Muhammad created artificial distance between Zaid and himself, partly by decreeing that adoption was not permitted, and thus his adoption of Zaid not valid (Muslims after this story can take children into their family, but not formally adopt them), and partly by decreeing that it was wrong not to use the name of the natural father, as the official father (bin = son of, bint = daughter of). All this because according to the local laws it was prohibited and a grave sin for a man to marry the wife of his son - adopted or real. Not bad for a god to change laws to settle family problems and satisfy lust for Muhammad.

007 33/37d: "- - - one who had received the grace of Allah and thy (Muhammad's*) favor - - -". This refers to Zaid - Muhammad's adopted son. A time anomaly.

008 33/37f: "- - - We (Allah*) joined her (Zaid's wife Zainab*) in marriage to thee - - -" Historical anomalies.

009 33/37g: "- - - We (Allah*) joined her (Zaid's wife Zainab*) 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.

###010 33/37i: "And Allah's command must be fulfilled". In this case pure hypocrisy. And this may be a main reason for many Muslims' bad feeling about this story (Zaid's wife, Zaynab, taken over by Muhammad) even today - the hypocrisy is too obvious.

011 33/38a: "There can be no difficulty to the Prophet in what Allah has indicated him to do (here: To marry Zaid's wife Zaynab)". Anyone able to believe Muhammad married her because it was a duty, are permitted to do so - but it will tell a lot about their brain. Also see 33/37i just above.

Hypocrisy.

012 33/38d: "- - - what Allah has indicated to him (Muhammad*) as a duty (to marry Zaynab*) - - -". More too easy to see hypocrisy. See 33/37g+i above.

013 33/38e: "It was the practice (approved) of by Allah amongst (earlier prophets*) - - -" - - - to obey Allah. The same comment as to 33/38d just above.

13 + 11.899 = 11.912 comments (+ basic comments/introductions).


 

278.   ZAINAB BINT JAHSH - WIFE OF ZAID, AND LATER OF MUHAMMAD

Zainab bint Jahsh (Muhammad had 2 wives named Zainab (or Zaynab) - the other one was Zainab bint Khuzaimah). Married in 628 AD – she 38 years, he 58 = 20 years difference. She was married to his adopted son Zaid, but divorced Zaid to marry Muhammad. Even though Muslims do their best to smooth over the moral questions here, this is a black spot almost as bad as the pedophilic story with Aisha, partly because in Arabia it was reckoned to be incest. Also the “explanation” which was given – that Muhammad married her to show that a man could marry the divorced wife of an adopted son - was very lame and little intelligent (a “revealed” verse had done just the same – and how urgent was a demonstration? – after all it is not often a man and his daughter-in-law wants to marry.)

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

See ZAID above.

0 + 11.912 = 11.912 comments (+ basic comments/introductions).


 

279.   ZAINAB BINT MUHAMMAD- DAUGHTER OF MUHAMMAD

Zainab - or Zaynab - according to Islam Muhammad's oldest daughter. She married Abu al-As long before the flight to Medina. Abu al-As did not want to become a Muslim. He was taken prisoner at Badr, but released - - - and Zaynab returned to Muhammad.

Muhammad had 4 daughters (Zainab, Ruqayya, Umm Kulthum, and Fatima), but how many sons he had, is unclear. It is clear he had the son Qasim with his first wife, Khadija. It is likely Qasim died in 605 AD, and he was less than 2 years old when he died. Then there is Abdullah (or Abd-Allah). You do not find him in all lists of Muhammad's children, but it is likely he existed, but died as a baby or early infant. Further it is clear he had the son Ibrahim with his concubine Marieh. Also Ibrahim died as an infant - likely some 16 months old. These are sure or nearly sure.

Then there are the names Tahir and Tayyab. These are unclear. They may have been children, but they also may have been extra names for Abdullah. If they were children, they in case died very young.

A Muslim list (there are controversies on if all really were Muhammad's children):

  1. Quasim born ? died 605 AD
  2. Abdullah born ? died 615 AD
  3. Zaynab born ? died 630 AD
  4. Ruqayya born ? died 624 AD
  5. Umm Kulthum born ? died 631 AD
  6. Fatima born 605 or 615 died 632 or AD (after Muhammad)
  7. Ibrahim born 630 died 632 AD (before Muhammad)
  8. For the names Tahir and Tayyab we have found no information.

Another point is the question if the official children really were Muhammad's? Khadija was 40 years old when she married Muhammad (who was 25 - but Khadija was rich and Muhammad poor). That a woman gets 4 daughters and 2 - 4 sons after she was 40, was and is highly unlikely. Not to forget that Muhammad got no (or perhaps 1) children with his at least 35 other wives and women, and thus had very low (or no?) fertility.

One possible explanation is that some or all of Khadija's children were from an earlier marriage, but "taken over" by Muhammad. There are indications for that she had 4 children when they married.

There also is the possibility that some of the children's mother was the sister of Khadija, Halah, who died early. Many Shi’ia Muslims believe this.

Another is that someone more fertile than Muhammad was the real father. Remember here that in the old times it happened that rich women "bought" herself a husband - often a poor man - to have an alibi when "cultivating" an interesting, but forbidden man.

A 4. possibility is that Muhammad was fertile, but lost his fertility completely or nearly completely - f.x. through some illness.

As for his only other child - Ibrahim, mother the concubine Maria - Maria was a slave and had far from chosen the much older Muhammad herself. She may have "visited" an "interesting" man one or more dark night(s).

What is absolutely sure is that a man who is told to be very active sexually, and has a large harem he uses + at least a few rapes, but gets no children, is either sterile or nearly sterile. (Islam and its Muslims never mention or debate this fact.) And there is the mystery of a woman who marries 40 years old and over years gets at least 6 children.

A serious point if there exists a god: The fact that all Muhammad's children died young or very young, was that a punishment for bad or wrong things Muhammad had done? It in case must have been very bad and very serious things to deserve such a heavy punishment.

Fatima was the youngest of Muhammad's daughters. She also was his only child who survived him - - - by half a year. And she was the only one of his children who got children who lived up. Fatimah married to Ali, later the 4. caliph, and had 2 sons Hasan - died 670 AD - and Husayn - died 680 AD. All Arabs claiming to be descendants of Muhammad (rightly or wrongly) claim to be descendants through her. It is unclear when Fatima was born - we have seen the years ca. 605 AD and ca. 615 AD. She died 28. Aug. 632 AD, half a year after Muhammad. (In that half year she strongly quarreled with Caliph Abu Bakr to get her considerable inheritance from her father, Muhammad, but Abu Bakr claimed it for the religion.)

A small point: If Muhammad was born ca. 570 AD, Khadija must have been born ca. 555 AD. This means that if Fatima was born 615 AD, Khadija was 60 when she got Fatima. Highly unlikely. This even more so as peoples' health deteriorated faster in the old times than today - for several reasons. One "grew old earlier". Even if Fatima was born in 605 AD and Khadija 50 years old, this stretches credibility.

Muslims believe Fatima was one of 4 Ahl al-Bayt - perfect women.

0 + 11.912 = 11.912 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".