1000+ Mistakes in the Quran, Booklet 3

 

Booklet 3

In the "1000+ Mistakes in the Quran" series.

 

NB:

1. Book F is the "mother book" for this book. There will be references below you will not find in this book, but you will find them in Book F.

2. The word "apocryphal" covers stories of many grades of reliability - from likely true to the totally unreliable. When we use the word, we always and without exception refer to the made up ones, if we do not say anything else. The main reason is that the absolute majority of apocryphal stories are made up ones (f.x. Islam has made up many to make the Mosaic and the Christian religion look like it "really" have originated from Allah, the Quran (or really the claimed "Mother of the Book" in Heaven - they f.x. made lots in Spain during the 800s.), and from the claimed "original religion", Islam.

3. On the net it is said that our Book A, "1000+ Mistakes in the Quran", is the most dangerous book Islam ever met. Our Book F, "1000+ Comments on the Quran", may be a good number 2.

4. It also is said that nobody should decide become - or stay - a Muslim until after he/she has read at least Book A and preferably also Book F.

5. Islam tells that most religious people believe in their religion because of "taqlid" = because they have been and are told by their fathers and surroundings that this is the truth and the only truth. They forget(?) that this also is the fact for most Muslims.

6. Religious persons who are "sure" they are right, even if it only is from belief and not from proved facts, may react strongly - even with anger - when they meet opposition or opposing information/facts, especially if they themselves do not have good arguments to meet the opposing information/facts. You often meet this from Muslims.

7. It is typical for strong believers in an ideology - included in religions - that they often do not believe because of proved facts, but because of (often indoctrinated and often irrational) belief and claims. It also is typical for them that they are so sure they are right, that they dismiss - often out of hand and without even checking - any facts or proofs indicating, showing, or even proving that they are wrong. This also definitely goes for Muslims.

8. It also is typical for strong believers that they believe not because of proved facts, but often in spite of their belief or religion is proved wrong. This also definitely goes for Muslims.

9. Occam's Broom (the same Occam as the one with the razor): "The intellectual dishonest trick of ignoring facts that refute your argument in the hope that your audience won't notice". (New Scientist 21.Sept. 2013.) This trick is frequently used by Muhammad, by Islam, and by Muslims claiming that the Quran's texts and Islam are right - just use your ears and/or eyes, and brain, and you will find lots and lots of samples, f.x. in some of Muhammad's lies in the Quran.

10. Graham Lawton: "'Surely' (etc.*) and rhetorical questions (or statements*) - whenever you encounter these in a text, stop and think. The author usually wants you to skate over them as if the claim is so obvious as to be beyond doubt, or the answer self-evident. The opposite is often the case." Try to count such cases in the Quran - they are MANY. Especially the never proved claim "the Truth" and similar are very often used - f.x. words like: "Without doubt", "certain", "verily", "clear", "right", "fact", "wrong", "sign", "proof" (even modern Muslims disuse this word often), "self evident", and more. + there are many rhetorical questions in the Quran.

11. Daniel Kahneman (2002 Nobel Prise winner for research on psychological biases that distort rational decision-making - New Scientist 14. Aug. 2014, p. 24)): "An assimilation bias (is a bias*) that bends information to fit people's existing values and prejudices". You find much of assimilation biases in the Quran, in Islam, and among Muslims, all based on the wish to make the Quran seem true - or on the belief that it is true.

12. Who needs tricks like in points 8 and 9? And who needs the use of al-Taqiyya, Kitman, Hilah, deceit and other forms of dishonesty in words or deeds like Muhammad accepted and used? - the one without real arguments and real facts, and the cheat and deceiver, the swindler and the charlatan.

13. Is it possible for humans to know better than an omniscient god what the god "really" wants to say? And is it possible for humans to then explain things better and clearer than an omniscient god? - what the clumsy god "really" means and "really" tries to say? This is the logic behind many "explanations" from Islam and from Muslims.

14. The ways Islam and Muslims most frequently use for fleeing from facts and arguments they cannot answer or do not like are:

  1. A: "You just are a Muslim hater, (and therefore I do not have to think over or check what you say)". But most non-Muslims do not squander energy on hating Islam. They may be incredulous on Muslims' ability to see only what they want to see, their ability to "explain" away all facts and points they do not want to see, and disgusted by Islam's and the Quran's brutality and acceptance of dishonesty and blood, but the large majority do not bother to hate Islam.
  2. B: "You just are a Jew lover, (and therefore I do not have to think over or check what you say)". There are many who far from love the Jews, and all the same question f.x. all the wrong facts, other errors, contradictions, etc. in the Quran.

  3. C: "You cannot understand the meaning of a verse or something in the Quran, unless you know the entire surah (or the entire Quran)". For one thing this mostly is nonsense: There are points where the context may give a word, an expression, or a verse a special meaning, but mostly the fact is that if you are not able to read what a word, an expression, or a verse means, you are too dull or uneducated and should stay out of debates. (But it is an efficient argument, because most people do not know the Quran well enough to know if the claim is true or not. It mostly is not.) For another Islam and Muslims far from use such a rule themselves when discussing f.x. the Bible - cfr. f.x. their cherry-picking and disuse of the word "brother" in 5. Mos. 18/15 and 18/18 where they use only the single word "brother" and state that this means "Arabs", in spite of that the context strongly shows that Moses spoke about Jews (and also in 18/21 warned against false prophets).
  4. D: "This and this text with errors in the Quran, are not errors, but allegories, parables, etc." This in spite of that the Quran MANY places and in many ways tells that the claimed omniscient god has explained everything exactly and in detail so that it is easy to understand = to be understood literally where nothing else is clearly indicated - and that the search for hidden meanings where such are not indicated, only is "for the ones sick of heart" + that the possible hidden meanings only are for Allah to understand. All the same they pretend that they know better than Allah what he "really" wanted to tell, and that they are better at explaining things than the omniscient Allah.
  5. E: "You cannot understand the Quran properly unless you read it in Arab". One word: Nonsense - but an efficient pseudo-argument because most people do not know enough about such things to know if it may be true. But for one thing linguists tell that Arab just is a medium difficult language to translate. For another Arab around 650 AD was the language of primitive nomad tribes mainly, and far from an advanced and refined difficult language.
  6. F: "Arab has special words you only have in Arab". This goes for absolute every language. All it takes to solve this problem - in any language - is to have those words explained. Such Arab words relevant to the Quran are not too many.

A fact: "What one brain is able to express and explain, another brain of similar quality and education is able to understand". What a Muslim is able to express and explain, a non-Muslim of similar intelligence is able to understand - and often understand if it is right or wrong. This even more so as many a non-Muslim is better educated than many a Muslim.

15. ####Explanation or "explanation" of a few errors in a "holy" might be understandable. But how is it possible to accept long series of wrong facts, other errors, contradictions, etc. in a book pretending to come from an omniscient god, without asking questions? - in a book the god even claims is plain and easy to understand = to be understood literally, and hidden meanings just are for "the sick of heart"?

16. Personally we have learnt much about human nature by witnessing Islam's and Muslims' ability to see only what they want to see, their ability to accept even the most far out "explanations", included dishonesty, trying to make errors, contradictions, etc. "correct facts" in the Quran, their ability to flee from any fact or argument they dislike or are able to meet, and not least their ability to flee instead of thinking over that non-Muslims may be as well-educated and well-informed as Muslims, and check what is true or not, instead of using blind belief in what their fathers have told - "taqlid".

17. The Bible is written by humans - and humans may make mistakes (there are some f.x. in Genesis). The Quran claims to be from an omniscient god. Omniscient gods do not make errors or contradictions. If there are errors or contradictions in the Quran, the book thus is not from a god. What then is Islam in case?

18. If there is a next life, and if there somewhere is a real god - f.x. Yahweh - they have been prevented from looking for, where will Muslims end if the Quran is a made up book? - and all the errors, etc. at least prove it is from no god.

19. If the Quran is not from a god - and all the wrong facts, other errors, contradictions, etc. denies that any god delivered the book - Islam is a made up religion.

20. It is easy to check if our quotes and points are correct. Before a Muslim flees from them, he/she should check them, instead of fleeing into "taqlid", because if our points - even only some of them - are right, the Quran is not from a god, and what is then Islam? - it is not the Truth unless it is true.

"Love your enemies, because they tell you your mistakes". Benjamin Franklin.

 

MUHAMMAD IN THE BIBLE?

 

#### 529 7/157e: “- - - the unlettered Prophet (Muhammad*), whom they (Jews and Christians*) find mentioned in their own (Scriptures) - in the law (OT*) and the Gospel (NY*) - - -”. Muhammad's words. But Muhammad at least knew that Jewish scholars who knew the Bible, denied he was mentioned there - if they had believed he was in the Bible, they had followed him.

The Quran claims that Muhammad is clearly mentioned in the Bible, "in the Law (OT*) and the Gospel (NT*)". But he is nowhere in that book clearly mentioned. But Islam HAS to find him in both OT and NT - if not the Quran is seriously wrong and thus not from a god - and Islam a made up religion. Then they go looking for words they with some cherry-picking can use or twist to make claims that "here he is" - in spite of that for the Quran you cannot look at just words or verses, but you have to connect it to the whole chapter or the whole book to find the correct meaning of something, and in spite of the Quran's words that to look for hidden meanings just are for "the ones sick of heart".

You often find cherry-picking of words, twisting of texts, or even stright dishonesty when Islam or Muslims talk about religion - Islam or other religions. As you see below, this also goes for the claim that Muhammad is mentioned in the Bible.

######AN ADDITIONAL POINT: The Arab word used here in the Quran (7/157) is "Maktab" which literally means "written". In the Quran this word is used only in 7/157, and The Oxford Dictionary of Islam spesifies the exact meaning of this vers like this: "Maktub (= Written). The term frequently carries the meaning 'decreed' or 'established'. Occures once in the Quran at 7/157, ####a verse stating that Muhammad is clearly mentioned or 'written' in the Torah and the Gospels'".

What is 100% sure is that Muhammad is not clerly mentioned in the Bible - one more error in that book. It also is symptomatic for Muslims that most translators of the Quran drop the word "clearly" - honesty is not always an essential part of Islam. (In this case they use an al-Taqiyya - a lawful lie - or a Kitman - a lawful half-truth - to make the error less visible. But this kind of lies frequently are no sin in Islam, especially not when you are promoting or defending the religion.)

SAMPLES OF CLAIMS ABOUT MUHAMMAD IN THE BIBLE:

The Old Testament (OT)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

What the Bible really says:

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

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

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

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

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

Answer:

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

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

Besides, what the Bible really says is:

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

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

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

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

Genesis (1. Mos.) 17/20:

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

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

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

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

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

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

The 4 relevant points 5. Mos. 18/2, 5. Mos. 18/15, 5. Mos. 18/18, and 5. Mos. 18/22 all are from the same speech Moses made to the Jews (for the others see further down) - but Muhammad, Muslims, and Islam NEVER mention 18/2 or 18/22, and also not that the word "brother/brothers/brethren/brotherhood" is used figuratively pretty often in OT (at least 98 times according to our last leafing through the book, and figuratively at least 325 times in all the Bible - and we hardly saw all places) and with 5 - 6 specified exceptions always about members of a closed group; the Jews. They also never mention that the some 6 - 8 places where Arabia or Arabs are mentioned in OT, it is as neutrals or enemies, never as friends, not to mention brothers. Nearly as damning: The word is used at least 30 times in the Quran, and with one specified exception always about members of the closed group Arabs or the closed group Muslims. Arabs never were brothers of Jews. And brothers always parts of a closed group.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

"YOUR BROTHERS"

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

  1. The word brother(s)/brethren/brotherhood is used in the figurative meaning at least 325 times in the Bible, according to our last leafing through the Bible (and we hardly found all places) – included at least 98 times in OT, at least 31 times in 5.Mos. and at least 22 times in the very speech of Moses from which Muslims cherry-pick 18/15 and 18/18.(Facts that are seldom mentioned and never by Muslims).
  2. That word - brother(s)/brethren/brotherhood - always speak about persons within a specific group, (and with only a few borderline cases – in the NT there are a few places where the entire world is the including group (as humans – and as potential Christians)) - about Jews in OT and Christians and/or Jews in NT.
  3. In OT it in addition as mentioned above, is used only about fellow Jews – it is clear from the context and often said directly. We have found only 5 - 6 exceptions. In 1. Mos.13/8 Abraham uses the word to Lot (Lot in reality was his nephew - and thus inside his group), in 1.Mos. 25/18 it is told that Ishmael and his sons and near descendants chose to be hostile towards the rest of the family – the later Jews – even though they at that time were closely related – and thus "brothers in a closed group – (a disgusting thing to do according to the ethics of that distant past), and in 4.Mos. 20/14, 5.Mos.2/2, and 5.Mos. 2/8 it is used about the Edomites (descendants of Esau, the brother of Jacob). Finally there is one place where a king says it to another, but friendly king (1. Kings 20/32-33).
    1. The Jews after a fashion reckoned the Edomites to be (distant) relatives (Edomites were descendants from Esau, the brother of Jacob, the last of the three patriarchs Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, who started the real(?) history of Israel) – and thus included in a larger, but defined and closed group. In contrast they did not reckon Ishmaelite as relatives.
    2. For one thing Ishmael’s mother was a foreigner (from Egypt) - and so was his wife.
    3. For another thing Ishmael was outside the covenant Yahweh made when he renewed the covenant he had had with Abraham and made the renewed covenant with his son Isaac (but Esau was inside, as the son of Isaac) as mentioned in 1.Mos. 17/19-21: “I (Yahweh*) will establish my covenant with him (Isaac*) as an everlasting covenant for his descendants after him. And as for Ishmael, I have heard you: I will surely bless him - - - But my covenant I will establish with Isaac - - -.”
    4. For a third the Ishmaelite that Arabs claim later became the Arabs, lived so far off (and not in Arabia, but on the border of Egypt according to the Bible - 1. Mos. 25/18) that the relationship even for natural reasons was all but severed.
    5. For the fourth and worse: The Ishmaelite chose to be enemies of the Jews – 1.Mos. 25/18: “And they (the Ishmaelite*) lived in hostility toward all their brothers” (if this does not mean they Quarreled among themselves) – see some comments further up in this point (no. IV).
    6. And for the fifth and perhaps most essential besides being outside the covenant: Ishmael and his mother were expelled from the family and tribe (which easily may explain their hostility, but all the same it was hostility in a time when the safety of a person and a family mainly depended on the strength of that family). And they were expelled from the tribe before it became Israel 2 generations later - the name came with Abraham's grandson Jacob.
    7. All the other times the word was used about fellow Jews only, except Ishmael's sons who quarreled with their brothers.
  4. Also: In all the few mentioned cases of borderline exception the name of the opposite part was specified, whereas Moses very clearly did not specify that the brothers he talked about in 18/15 and 18/18 were Arabs – on the contrary it is clear for anyone who are not burdened with strong wishful thinking or desperate need, that he was talking to and about Jews and using a most normal expression for his fellow Jews.
  5. Also In the NT the word always (with the possible exception mentioned above) is used about fellows in a group – either fellow Jews or fellow Christians.
  6. There is not one single place in the entire Bible where Arabs are mentioned as brothers or even as more distant relatives - yes, not even as friends.. As for Ishmaelites: In 1.Mos. 25/18 the word is used to stress the Ishmaelites' (which are not likely to be the forefathers of the Arabs in reality) bad conduct (see above).
  7. The word brother(s)/brethren/brotherhood also is used figuratively in the Quran – at least 32 times – and the Quran follows just the same rule as the Bible: Brothers are belonging to a group – Muslims to Muslims (god or less god), Arabs to Arabs, tribe people within the tribe, (even Lot/Lut they try to pretend belonged to the locals), the bad to the bad. Even the one and single time where Jews clearly are mentioned (59/11) in this connection it is not said that Arabs or Muslims are the brothers of Jews, but that the hypocrites (no specification of nationality, so likely all hypocrites) are the brothers of the Jews (belonging to the group “the bad ones”). Not one single time it is said or even hinted that the Arabs are the brothers of the Jews - neither in the Bible nor in the Quran. A fact no Muslim ever mentions (and few know).
  8. Arabia and Arabs are mentioned a few times (about a dozen times) in OT, f.x. 2. Chronicles 9/14 and 22/1, Isaiah 21/13, Jeremiah 25/24, Ezekiel 30/5. They always are mentioned in neutral words – like paying tribute to King Solomon – or in negative connections, f.x. as enemies. Not one place is there said or hinted anything about close relationship, not to mention kinship and absolutely not a comma about brotherhood. For some reason or other Muslims never mention this fact, either – but then of course it is more essential to win the debate than to find out what is right. After all al-Taqiyya – the lawful lie – is both a right and a duty to Muslims when it comes to defending or promoting the religion. The religion they believe in because other Muslims and the Quran and their parents believe in it and have told them to believe in from blind faith - - - because the others believe in it from blind faith, and the clergy and others do not want to question their beliefs and their small or big platforms of power.
  9. Muslims claim – as normal without documentation – that the Quran are the words of Allah, and that Muhammad thus spoke the words of the god, which is one of the criteria (he misses on others - see below) for being the prophet Moses spoke about (f.x. Jeremiah 1/9 in addition to 5. Mos. 18/15 and 18/18-19). This could have been partly right - - - if Islam proves that the Quran really is from a god (actually all the mistakes and other wrong points proves 100% that it is not from a god – no god would do such a sorry work). Besides: Even if it was correct that they were the words of a god, it would only be a criterion, not a proof – many of the Jewish prophets spoke the words of the god, according to both the Bible and the Quran, but they were not the prophet Moses spoke about. Muslims presents the unproved claim in triumph like a proof.
  10. Muslims also dismiss in what connection these two verses were said. They themselves tell others strictly that you cannot take a verse – or more – from the Quran and make conclusions or statements from that – a standard demand from any Muslim, especially when he meets arguments that are difficult to answer, an often used last way out. But for themselves that rule is invalid and they quote these two verses from 5.Mos. very much out of the context.
  11. Because the context clearly tells that Moses was speaking to and about the Jews, and verses 18/1-2 even specifies who the “brothers” were – he had used the same word just seconds earlier in the same speech to the same people and in the same contexts: The Levi tribe “shall have no inheritance from among their brothers (= the 11 (12) other tribes*). The Lord (Yahweh*) is their inheritance (they should be priests and be paid for that*) - - -“. Then seconds later he use the same word without specifying that now he is speaking about other brothers than Jews (which he had had to do not to confuse his listeners if he had meant Arabs or someone else) – for the simple reason that he continued speaking about the same 11 - 12 tribes (by the way: Jesus was from the Judah tribe).

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

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

1. Mos.:

  1. 13/8: Abraham telling Lot they were brothers - a closed group: The near family.
  2. *25/18: Ishmael's sons settled "in the area from Havilah to Shur, near the border of Egypt, as you go toward Asshur. And they lived in hostility toward all their brothers. This may be meant literally - they quarreled among themselves - or figuratively that they quarreled with the descendants of their father's 7 half brothers, included Isaac's sons Esau (also called Edom) and Jacob (later called Israel). In the last case it is within a closed group: The near family.

(In 1. Mos. 16/12 Yahweh tells Abraham that his son Ishmael "will live in hostility towards all his brothers". But here the word is literally, and also this was said about Ishmael only and not about his descendants. Ishmael had the brothers Isaac (mother: Sarah), and Zimran, Jokshan, Medan, Midian, Ishbak and Shuah (mother: Keturah, whom Abraham married after Sarah died - 1. Mos. 25/1-2). In 1. Mos. 25/5 it is said that the sons of Keturah were "sent to the land of the east" which means Jordan or further east (Arabia is to the south and south east), and they do not appear in later books of the Bible, except that the Midianites may have been the descendants of Midian, not persons from a place named Midian).

3. Mos.:

  1. C: 21/10. "The high priest, the one among his brothers who - - -". A closed group: The Jewish priests. Similar words to 5. Mos. 18/15 and 18/18.

4. Mos.:

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

5. Mos.

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

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

Joshua:

  1. 1/14a: "- - - ahead of your brothers". - fellow Jewish warriors from other Jewish tribes.
  2. 1/14b: "- - - help your brothers - - -". See 1/14a just above.
  3. 14/8: "- - - my (Caleb's*) brothers who went up with me - - -". The first Jewish spies in Canaan - no doubt fellow Jews.

  4. 17/4: "- - - give us an inheritance among our brothers - - -". As the women speaking here had no literal brothers, there is no doubt this is figuratively meant - and fellow Jews.
  5. 22/3: "- - - you have not deserted your brothers - - -". Fellow Jewish warriors from other Jewish tribes under Joshua.
  6. 22/4: "- - - has given your brothers - - -". See 22/3 just above.
  7. 22/8: "- - - divide with your brothers - - -". Here may be meant fellow warriors or fellow Jews at home who for some reason had not taken part in the war - but in both cases fellow Jews.

Judges:

  1. 9/3: "He is our brother". This was said by the inhabitants of Shechem - fellow Jews.
  2. 9/18: "- - - because he is your brother - - -". Said to the inhabitants of Shechem - fellow Jews.
  3. 19/8: "- - - their brothers asked them - - -". Fellow Jews (of their own tribe of Dan).
  4. 19/14: "- - - said to their brothers - - -". Fellow Jews (of their own tribe of Dan).
  5. 20/23: "- - - the Benjaminites, our brothers - - -". Fellow Jews of the tribe of Benjamin, one of the 12 Jewish tribes.
  6. 20/28: "- - - (the tribe of*) Benjamin our brother - - -". Fellow Jews - the tribe of Benjamin.
  7. 21/6: "Now the Israelites grieved for their brothers, the Benjaminites". Fellow Jews - the other Jewish tribes grieved for the loss of many of the men of the Benjamin tribe.

1. Samuel:

  1. 30/23: "David replied, 'No, my brothers - - -'". Fellow Jews - his warriors after a battle.

2. Samuel:

  1. 2/26: "- - - to stop pursuing their brothers - - -". Stop fighting fellow Jews.
  2. 2/27: "- - - pursuing of their brothers - - -". Fellow Jews - see 2/26 just above.
  3. 19/11: "You are my brothers - - -". Fellow Jews (fellow members of the Judah tribe).
  4. 19/41: "- - - our brothers, the men of Judah - - -". Fellow Jews - Jews from other tribes speaking about Jews from the Judah tribe (one of the 12 Jewish tribes).

20/9: "How are you, my brother?" The Jew Joab speaking to the Jew Amasa.

1. Kings:

  • 12/24: "Do not go up to fight against your (the members of the Judah tribe*) brothers Israel". Fellow Jews (This was said in connection with the splitting of the kingdom in two - Judah in the South and Israel in the north - after Solomon died).
  • 13/30: "Oh, my brother". Fellow Jew - one Jew talking to/about another.
  • #20/32: "He is my brother". This as far as we see is the only place in the OT where the word brother is used (figuratively) about one not a Jew and one not accepted to be related to the Jews. But here it is within another very closed group: Two kings - King Ahab of Israel (Jewish) speaking about King Ben-Haddad of Aram - Ahab wanted good relationship with Ben-Haddad, even if he had beaten him in war.
  • #20/33: "Yes, your brother Ben-Haddad". In reality part of 20/32 just above.
  •  

1. Chr.:

  1. 9/25: "Their (some of the Levi tribe*) brothers in their villages - - -". Fellow Jews. There is a slight chance that this is meant literally, but the context indicates figuratively.
  2. 13/2: "- - - the rest of our brothers". Here = the rest of the Jews were called by David.
  3. 15/16: "- - - their (Levites') brothers - - -". Fellow Levites (one of the 12 Jewish tribes).
  4. 15/17a: "- - - from his brothers - - -". Fellow Jews - as far as we understand even fellow Levites. (It has to be meant figuratively, as Herman son of Joel cannot literally be the brother of Asaph son of Berekia.)
  5. 15/17b: "- - - their brothers - - -". Fellow Jews (and figuratively, as what seems to be another sub-tribe or family is mentioned).
  6. 15/18: "- - - their brothers next in rank - - -". Fellow Jews. (Levites of a little lower rank?)
  7. 23/32: "- - - their (Levites') brothers the descendants of Aaron - - -". Fellow Jews.
  8. 24/31b: "- - - their (Levites') brothers the descendants of Aaron - - -". Fellow Jews.
  9. 24/31b: "- - - the oldest brother - - -". Fellow Jews (fellow Levites).
  10. 28/2: "- - - my brothers and my people - - -" David speaking to Jewish leaders.

2. Chr.:

  1. 11/4: "Do not go up to fight against your (the members of the Judah tribe*) brothers Israel". Fellow Jews (This was said in connection with the splitting of the kingdom in two - Judah in the South and Israel in the north - after Solomon died). (The same situation as in 1. Kings 12/24 above).
  2. 19/10: "- - - his (Yahweh's*) wrath will come on you and your brothers". You Levites and your fellow Levites (or fellow Jews).
  3. 29/15: "When they (some Levites*) had assembled their brothers - - -". Fellow Jews - a group of Levites.

Ezra:

  1. 3/8: "- - - the rest of their (Zerubbabel, etc.*) brothers (the priests and the Levites and all who had returned from captivity to Jerusalem". Fellow Jews.
  2. 6/20: "- - - for their (some Levites*) brothers the priests - - -". Fellow Jews (fellow Levites even).
  3. 7/18: "You and your brother Jews - - -". Clearly fellow Jews.
  4. 8/24: "- - - ten of their fellow brothers - - -". 10 other priests = fellow Jews.

    Nehemiah:

  5. 5/1: "- - - their Jewish brothers". The context - f.x. 5/8 - makes it clear that it is fellow Jews.
  6. 5/8a: "- - - we have bought back our Jewish brothers - - -". Fellow Jews.
  7. 5/8b: "- - - you are selling your Jewish brothers - - -". Fellow Jews.
  8. 10/29: "- - - join their brothers - - -". The text of 10/29-30 makes it clear this is fellow Jews.
  9. 13/13: "- - - distributing the supplies to their brothers". - to their fellow Jews.

Isaiah:

  1. 66/20: "- - - bring all your brothers, from all nations - - -". Verse 66/18 makes it clear that this is the largest of all groups of humans: The entire humanity.

Jeremiah:

  1. 7/15: "- - - all your brothers, the people of Ephraim". Fellow Jews (Ephraim was one of the 12 Jewish tribes).
  2. 22/18: "Alas my brother! Alas my sister!" Fellow Jews - Jeremiah talking to/about the Jewish people.

Ezekiel:

  1. 11/14: "- - - your brothers - your brothers who are blood relatives and the whole house of Israel - - -". Fellow Jews.
  2.  

Hosea:

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

Micah:

  1. 5/3: "- - - the rest of his brothers return to join the Israelites - - -". Micah 5/2-5 normally is reckoned to be a foretelling about Jesus. Jesus was a Jew and the Israelites were Jews. (The word Jew really derives from Judah - one of the 12 Jewish tribes - but it is normal to use it for all believers in the Mosaic religion).

Zechariah:

  1. 11/14: "- - - the brotherhood between Judah and Israel". After Solomon died, the country was split in a southern kingdom named Judah after the dominant tribe, and a northern one named Israel. Brotherhood between these two so definitely is between fellow Jews.

     

These are the 87 places we have found in OT where the word "brother" or similar clearly or most likely is used figuratively. If we add the word "sister" used figuratively, which may be relevant in just this case, it is ca. 90 all together. They are used within closed groups - the family, the tribe, the nation. The few times this group is not the Jews or part of that nation - f.x. a Jewish tribe - it is indicated who are meant (f.x. a fellow king or Lot or the Edomites. Not one single time is there a reference to Arabia or Arabs. With a few exceptions it is referred to fellow Jews, and it is a normal way in OT to refer to fellow Jews - actually if you look, you will find that every place where the word is used in OT without reference to who one means, it is clear from the context that it is meant fellow Jews.

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

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

Where is the brotherhood between the Jews and Arabs?

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

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

Al-Taqiyya - the lawful lie?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Where is the brotherhood among Jews and Arabs?

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

2. Chr.:

  1. 9/14: "Also all the kings of Arabia brought gold to Solomon - - -". Neutral.
  2. 17/11: "- - - the Arabs brought him (Solomon*) flocks - - -". Neutral.
  3. 21/16: "- - - the hostility of the Philistines and of the Arabs who lived near Cushites". Enemy.

  4. 22/1: "- - - the raiders, who came with the Arabs into the camp, had killed all the other sons (of the Jewish king*). Enemies.
  5. 26/7: "God (Yahweh*) helped him (the Jewish king Uzziah*) against the Philistines and against the Arabs who lived in Gug Baal - - -". Enemies.

Nehemiah:

  1. 4/7: "But when Sanballat, Tobiah, the Arabs, the Ammonites and the men of Ashdod heard that the repair of Jerusalem's walls - - - all plotted together to come and fight against Jerusalem - - -". Enemies.
  2. 7
  3. 6/1: "- - - Geshem the Arab and the rest of our enemies - - -". Enemies.

Isaiah:

    13/20: "- - - no Arab will pinch his tent there - - -". Neutral.

21/13: "- - - who camp in the thickets of Arabia - - -". Neutral.

Jeremiah:

  1. 25/24: "(The cup of Yahweh's wrath will be drunk by - among others -*) all the kings of Arabia - - -". Because they have behaved badly.

Ezekiel:

  1. 27/21: "Arabia and all the princes of Kedar - - -". Neutral.

  2. 30/5: "Cush and Put, Lydia and all Arabia, Libya and the people of the covenant land will fall by the sword along with Egypt". Because they behaved badly.
  3.  

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

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

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

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

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

PROPHET

 

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

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

    4. He did not even pretend to be a prophet – he only used the title.
    5. Muhammad only “borrowed”/stole the imposing and impressing title, he was no real prophet.
    6. also these verses shows that Muhammad had not the power to make prophesies: 6/50a, 7/188b, 10/20c+d, 10/49a, and 72/26.
  4. And when he in reality was no prophet – not even a real pretender, only using the nice title as a disguise – he could not be the future prophet Moses told about. (We know there exist "softer" definitions for who is a prophet, like "a person speaking on behalf of a god" - it is an imposing title and many wants to use it. But a real prophet by definition has to be able to make prophesies. Not to mention if he was to be "a prophet like Moses".)
  5. Then there is 5.Mos. 18/20 – the next-door neighbor to the for Islam essential 18/18: “But a prophet who presumes to speak in my name anything I have not commanded him to say, or a prophet who speaks in the name of other gods, must be put to death.” These are criteria for singling out false prophets. In his famous and infamous “Satanic Verses” Muhammad promoted the three pagan goddesses al-Lat, al-Uzza and Manat – 3 daughters of the Arab main pagan god al-Lah (the same god that Muhammad renamed to Allah). To promote pagan goddesses definitely is something Yahweh had “not commanded him to say”. And promoting the pagan goddesses meant Muhammad also could not be speaking in the name of Allah just then, but in the name of the pagan al-Lah – another god - or the Devil according to himself.
  6. According to this verse – in the same chapter which Islam is using as a strong and reliable proof – it as you see is documented that according to definition Muhammad is a false prophet (also f.x. all that is wrong in the Quran documents the same). And no false prophet could be the prophet Moses spoke about. The same for a "not real prophet".
  7. And one more context just seconds later in the same speech of Moses (5.Mos. 18/21). Moses said: “If what a prophet proclaims in the name of the Lord (Yahweh*) does not take place or come true, that is a message the Lord has not spoken”. Muhammad never even made real prophesies and a lot of what he said else in the Quran, pretending to repeat the words of a god, most obviously is not true – just look at all the mistaken facts and all the other wrong points in the book. According to 5.Mos. 18/21 (another verse in the Bible Muslims never mention) this proves – on top of the other proofs – that Muhammad was no prophet. Consequently also for this reason he cannot have been the prophet Moses talked about.
  8. As mentioned the word “brother” etc. are used many times in the Bible. It even is used in exactly the same sentence in at least one more for Israel crucial case, and by the same man, Moses, and speaking to the same people – the Jews. 5.Mos. 17/15: “- - - be sure to appoint over you the king your Lord your God (Yahweh*) chooses. He must be from among your own brothers. Do not place over you, one who is not a brother Israelite.” One more verse and one more context Muslims never mention – it is permitted to guess why. No further comments necessary.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

CONCLUSIONS

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

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

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

The claim is not even wishful thinking, but rubbish.

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

Deuteronomy (5. Mos.) 18/18:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Genesis (1. Mos.) 21/21:

“While he (Ishmael*) was in the desert of Paran, his mother got a wife for him from Egypt”. Paran is on the Sinai Peninsula. But there also is a place with that name near Mecca (well, actually it is Faran, not Paran, but Islam has mainly switched to calling it Paran for obvious reasons - and they hardly ever mention this switching) – and the Muslims do not say that perhaps it was this Paran the Bible speaks about. They simply declare that the name proves it was this place, and that the Paran in Sinai there is no reason to talk about. It is like declaring that Stalin in all his brutality was an American because there is a town in USA named Moscow (there really is).

But when they quote the Bible and 1. Mos. and use it for a “proof”, it is dishonesty bordering something very distasteful not also to mention 1. Mos. 25/18: “His (Ishmael’s*) descendants settled in the area from Havilah to Shur, near the border of Egypt, as you go toward Asshur.” Which was a very natural place, as Ishmael’s mother, Hagar, was from Egypt. It also made it easy for her to find a wife from Egypt for her son, like the Bible tells she did (1. Mos. 21/21) – whereas deep inside the Arabian peninsula, that had been quite another task.

The Bible – which Muslims themselves use as the witness in this case – here proves with the same strength that Ishmael, his mother and his descendant had nothing to do with Mecca or Arabia. They lived in vest Sinai near the border of Egypt. (To be near the border of Egypt, it had to be in the western part of Sinai or northwards). Actually this also gives one more proof – from a source and a place in the Bible which the Muslims themselves use as a decisive witness – for that all the tales about Hagar and Ishmael living in - and Abraham therefore visiting - Mecca, just is a made up story. It also fits the fact that Abraham for long periods lived in Sinai according to the same Bible that Islam here uses for a claimed proof. And it is reasonably near Paran in Sinai.

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

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

Deuteronomy (5.Mos.) 33/2:

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

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

  2. Muhammad never was in Sinai – at least not after he got “myriads” of followers (most likely never unless it was before he started his religion in 610 AD, and it is not said he ever went there).
  3. The same goes for Seir – a place mentioned several times in the Pentateuch in OT (f.x. Numbers (4. Mos.) 10/12, 12/16, 13/3, 13/26 and 5. Mos. 1/1) as the place where the Edomites settled near the Dead Sea. Muhammad hardly ever went there, except perhaps he passed it on his way to Syria when working on caravans in younger years, and some Muslims then says it refers to a battle King David won at a place with the same/similar name - - - but in 5. Mos. 33/2 it is Moses who was speaking, and he lived 200 years earlier and never heard about that battle. (Some also wants it to be the village Sa’ir near Jerusalem, but Moses never entered Palestine – and neither did the tent he used for a temple, in which he had the contact with his god – the god (not the prophet – the Lord in the Bible always means Yahweh/God) who came “from Sinai and Seir and Paran).
  4. And the same also goes for Mt. Paran – a mountain and an area in Sinai (perhaps yet another name for Mt. Sinai). This mountain Muslims admittedly has “moved” to Arabia, near Mecca (a mountain and an area with a similar name - Faran, but Muslims now mostly claim the name is Paran), but till now we have not read any real scientist that is in doubt: The real Mt. Paran is in Sinai. This mountain and area is mentioned many times in the Bible (f.x. 1. Mos. 14/6, 21/21, 4. Mos.10/12, 12/16, 13/3, 13/26, 5. Mos. 1/1, Habakkuk 3/3) and science like said is in no doubt. (We may add that Yahweh according to the Bible, in Sinai manifested himself to the Jews and to Moses as a column of smoke by day and one of fire/light by night. He could well shine in the night from Mt. Paran. Muslims wants it to mean that Muhammad’s religion shone from the mountain with the similar name near Mecca – but neither Muhammad nor Islam had any special connection to that mountain, not to mention that the Israelis in Sinai would not be able to see him if he shone from Mt. Faran in Arabia. Sorry – Muslims will have to bring proofs, not only claims).
  5. The quote from the Bible Muslims use, says: "The Lord came from Sinai - - -". The title "the Lord" in OT always and without exception means Yahweh - a fact no Muslim ever mention. Only this fact makes the Muslim claim here impossible - and then there are the other points in addition.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Psalms 45/2-5:

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

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

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

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

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

Psalms 149/6 – 7:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Hebrew word for “altogether lovely” is “machmad”. Muslims claim that it can be translated to “praise” = Ahmad (61/6, 7/157 (no name) - but ONLY claimed in the Quran) = Muhammad (= the praised one) and is a proof for Muhammad in the Bible. (You will NEVER find a scientist of any kind of science who will accept that a thin possibility = proof. Not any other reasonable intelligent person either.) And that the real meaning of the lines is: “His mouth is sweetness himself, he is Muhammad. This is my lover, this is my friend, O daughters of Jerusalem”.

But:

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

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

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

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

Isaiah 1/7:

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

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

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

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

Isaiah 21/13-15:

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

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

NIV’s translation:

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

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

But:

  1. There is nothing that says it is about a famous flight – it may have been about some more local conflict, though essential enough for the victims. Also see the point just below.
  2. Verse 21/9 - just a few lines before the ones Islam quotes - tells this episode has to do with the fall of Babylon - a fact that Muslims conveniently "forgets" - something that happened more than 1000 years before Muhammad. Now the name Babylon often is used as an expression for a bad or degenerated community, but even if you here say that Babylon represents the Quraysh tribe and Mecca, it does not fit, as Muhammad did not flee because of the fall of Mecca. Mecca and the Quraysh still were very powerful when Muhammad fled in 622 AD.
  3. These refugees are fleeing from war. Muhammad fled not from war, but from persecution.
  4. We know that Muhammad did not visit the area of Tema during his flight – it is far too far north (approximately 400 km north from Mecca and more than 300 km north of Medina, whereas Muhammad followed a rather direct though hither-and-thither (to avoid his persecutors) route between Mecca and Medina). Strangely Muslims never mention this, even though at least their scholars know it very well.
  5. The essential fact here: Isaiah lived and wrote during the time of the Assyrians. The Assyrians started invasion of Arabia in 732 BC – also a fact Muslim scholars know very well. Isaiah simply wrote about and made a prophesy about the coming war.
  6. One more essential fact: The time frame! – even one more fact Muslim scholars know, but cold-blooded omits in order to twist the information: The very next verses (21/16-17) of Isaiah continues: “This is what the Lord (Yahweh*) says to me: “Within one year, as a servant bound by contract would count it, all the pomp of Kedar will come to an end. The survivors of the bowmen, the warriors of Kedar, will be few”. Here it is directly said that this prophesy is to be fulfilled within a year – not some 1300 years later and concerning Muhammad.

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

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

Isaiah 53:

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

But the description may fit Jesus.

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

Isaiah 63:

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

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

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

Habakkuk 3/3:

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

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

In Jeremiah 49/7: Yahweh asks “Is there no longer wisdom in Teman?” (Well, if one were sarcastic one could agree that Teman must mean Islam).

In Jeremiah 49/20 – 22 Yahweh says: “Therefore, hear what the Lord (Yahweh*) has planned against Edom, what he has purposed against those who live in Teman: The young of the flock will be dragged away; he (Yahweh*) will completely destroy their pasture because of them. - - - In that day the hearts of Edom’s warriors will be like the hearts of a woman in labor”.

It is clear that Teman is a place in Edom (near the Dead Sea) with pastures and more – it is not a religion. But it is clear that it will be destroyed - may be it fits Islam anyhow?

In Ezekiel 25/13 Yahweh tells he will lay waste Edom (near the Dead Sea), included the place Teman.

In Amos 1/12 Yahweh says: “I will send fire upon Teman”. It clearly is a place – an area or a village or a town – not a religion (It is difficult to send fire upon an idea).

In Obadiah, verse 9 Yahweh says: “Your warriors, O Teman, will be terrified and in Esau’s mountains (Edom*) will be cut down in slaughter because of your violence against your brother Jacob” (Esau was the brother of the patriarch Jacob). Islam has one they can say was the brother of Isaac (Ishmael), but none who was the brother of Jacob. (Ishmael was not Jacob's brother, but his uncle)– and besides if Teman was Islam, the Muslims had been dead by now –“cut down in slaughter”.

Actually nothing of this fits Islam’s history.

And to make a long story short: The Bible indicates that Teman was a town near Jericho. And in no case it can have been Islam – the history is totally different, plus it was a town or a place, not a religion.

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

Haggai 2/7:

Yahweh says: “I will shake all nations, and the desire of all nations will come - - -“. In Arabic “the desire of all nations” = “Hemdah” = “the praised one” that semantically = Muhammad. (the root is the verb Hamada which is the root of many words actually). But all the same the words are not freely interchangeable – no Muslim would call Muhammad Hamada - - - except when they here are looking for “proofs” for their “prophet” – proofs they dearly need, because they have none.

In Surah 1, verse 2: “Praise (al-hamadi (from Hamada)) be to Allah” – you would be stoned if you said that Hamada/Hemdah = Muhammad and said “Muhammad be to Allah”. In Daniel 11/37 one have “He (a king*) will show no regard for the gods of his fathers’ or for the one (god*) desired (Hemdah*) by the women - - -“. Try to change Hamda for Muhammad here – and mix Muhammad up with pagan gods!

Even if the root of the words is the same (Arab often have word roots consisting of 3 consonants, and then by filling in with different vowels they get different words and different meanings), the words are not freely interchangeable – except when wishful twisting of words and roots of words may give a "proof" for Muhammad’s divine contact.

Also this is a claim you do not meet too often - few scholars believe in it.

 

THE NEW TESTAMENT (NT)

In the New Testament the situation is even more difficult for Islam – there are fewer verses which are possible to twist to mean foretelling about Muhammad. And even the main claim needs a lot of twisting of the facts to arrive at the answer they want and desperately need because the Quran states that Muhammad also is foretold in the Injil – the Gospels. (Surah 7/157 and f.x. verse 61/6e-f). The same goes for Hadiths – they clearly state that he is mentioned in the Bible.

Also here we will arrange the claims according to what succession the relevant verses have in the Bible.

Point of relevance I (NT) - Claim from Islam.

John 1/20-23:
John 1/19-23

“ (19)Now this was John’s (John the Baptist*) testimony when the Jews of Jerusalem sent priests and Levites (from the Levi tribe – the priest tribe*) to ask him who he was. (20) He did not fail to confess, but confessed freely, ‘I am not the Christ (Messiah*).’(21)They asked him, ‘Then who are you? Are you Elijah?’ He said, ‘I am not.’ ‘Are you the Prophet?’ He answered, ‘No.’ (22)Finally they said, ‘Who are you? Give us an answer to take back to those who sent us. What do you say about yourself?’ (23)John replied in the words of Isaiah the prophet, ‘I am the voice of one calling in the desert, ‘Make straight the way for the Lord’’”.

Well, this has to be about Muhammad, is the claim – a voice in the desert and a “straight way” (an expression often used by Muhammad)! This even though all the rest is about Jesus and is proclaiming his divinity (and has to be lies, according to Islam) – this cherry-picked small piece must be true, according to some Muslims.

But how could John the Baptist – the messenger for Jesus, and he who proclaimed Jesus’ divinity – be making "the way straight for Muhammad” some 580 years later? – without once even giving a hint about Arabia or anything? There is no connection between the two anywhere. Wrong.

This even more so as he told that the one he was speaking about, was standing living among them (John 1/26) - a person alive around 30 AD, was definitely not alive around 610 AD.

Besides John spoke about one who would baptize - even baptize with the Holy Spirit (Mark 1/8). Muhammad did not use baptizing, and knew very little about the Holy Spirit.

And finally: As mentioned before the word "Lord" used in the Bible as a name for a religious "person" ALWAYS AND WITHOUT EXCEPTION refers to Yahweh or (sometimes in NT) Jesus. There is no exception from this rule.

Ugly: Muslim scholars has got to know this - it is in the same Gospel as their main claim - but they never mention it - or that in the Bible "Lord" ALWAYS means Yahweh or sometimes Jesus. Al-Taqiyya? Kitman?

Point of relevance II (NT)- NEVER mentioned by Muslims.

John 1/26-27:

"'I baptize with water', John replied, 'but among you stands one you do not know. He is the one who comes after me - - -". Here are two essential points: John the Baptist was talking 1) about "one who stands among you" = "one who lives now". Jesus lived then - he was just 6 months younger than John. And 2): "He is the one who comes after me". Jesus was the one who took over after John. (When it is said they did not know John's follower, it is because this was before Jesus started his work). Remember these two points further down - Muslims NEVER mention these two verses. You may also remember the facts about baptizing mentioned in the point just above.

Point of relevance III (NT) - claim by Islam.

The Greek word "Parakletos" contra "Periklytos":

Two Greek words must be explained before we can start on the main Muslim claim in NT - "Parakletos" and "Periklytos". 1):Parakletos (helper, counselor): This word in the Greek Gospel (the Gospels originally were written in Greek) after John, is what they use as an explanation. Muslims say must be misspelled, because if you take another word, 2): “Periklytos” ("the glorious one" or "the praised one") which looks rather similar and translate it to Aramaic, you get a word that in Arab can be interpreted as Mohammad (or Ahmad, which both may mean "the praised one" (61/6, 7/157 (no name) - but ONLY claimed in the Quran)). Very convincing (but remember that Arabs since prehistoric times have lived in cultures where conspiracy theories have been rife - perhaps because they never have had information they could rely on (because of al-Taqiyya, etc.?), and then they have made guesses and made up theories. The situation actually to a large degree is the same in modern Muslim countries - and even more so in the ones which still are not much modern. Go to most of the Muslim countries and you can immerse yourself in conspiracy stories and theories). Also see verse 61/6e-f and see the chapters about Muhammad in "1000+ Mistakes in the Quran". And: To claim that words may have been misunderstood is natural for Muslims, as the old Arab alphabet lacked the vowels, and one had to guess them. But not so in Greek.

The next “explanation” one meets is that the man translated the NT from Hebrew (Aramaic) to Greek made a mistake and used the wrong word. But the NT never was translated – it written originally in Greek, and the Greek alphabet was complete, so this source for misunderstanding did not exist. (This is a fact Muslim scholars know, but never mention - on the contrary we have seen them using the argument about mistake when the Gospels were (claimed) translated from Aramaic to Greek!!

To specify the problems in the old Arab alphabet: One claimed that the mistake came from the incomplete alphabet – old Hebrew like Arab only wrote the consonants, and then the reader had to put in – or guess (one of the problems with the original Quran) - the vowels. The two words have the same consonants: p-r-k-l-t-s. Add a-a-e-o and you get parakletos; add e-i-y-o and you get periklytos. But once again: NT was originally written in Greek, and Greek had a complete alphabet – this possibility for a mistake simply did not exist in Greek. The problem also did not exist in spoken Hebrew (Aramaic really)– only in written, and the first writers of course took the words - like spoken – from their own heads. (If they were fluent in Greek, which they seem to have been, they did not even have to translate in the head - if you are fluent in a language, you also think in that language when you use it.) Besides: The two words are Greek ones - the corresponding Hebrew ones would not have the same consonants, and thus this claim cannot explain claimed such mistakes in Greek words. All these facts are well known to Muslim scholars, and all the same they tell these arguments to their less educated congregations and listeners!! Wrong.

But all the same the writer of the NT could have made such a mistake! Also wrong. For one thing there were around 10 different men who wrote the NT – and then all the ones that used the word, had to make just the same mistake. Just try to explain that! Besides there were lots of people that understood both those two languages – a lot of Jews, as Greek was the second language in the Roman Empire after Latin, and a number of the bureaucrats who were or had been stationed in Palestine to mention two groups. They would quickly find the serious mistakes and whisper about correction or scream about mistakes – depending on whether they were friends or foes. Also this argument from Muslims is wrong.

Point of relevance IV (NT).

John 14/15-26:

"(15) If you love me (Jesus*), you will obey what I command. (16) And I will ask the Father (Yahweh*), and he will give you (the disciples*) another Counselor (Greek: Parakletos*) to be with you forever - (17) the Spirit of the truth (one of at least 5-6 names for the Holy Spirit*). The world cannot accept him, because they neither see him nor know him. But you know him, for he lives with you (but not in you yet*) and he will be in you (afterwards*). (18) I will not leave you (the disciples*) as orphans, I will come to you. (19) Before long the world will not see me anymore, but you will see me. Because I live, you also will live. (20) On that day (when the Counselor comes*) you (the disciples*) will realize that I am in my Father, and you are in me, and I am in you. (21) Whoever has my commands and obeys them, he is the one who loves me. He who loves me will be loved by my Father, and I too will love him and show myself to him".(22) Then Judas (not Judas Iscariot) said, "But, Lord, why do you intend to show yourself to us and not to the world?” (23) Jesus replied, “If anyone loves me, he will obey my teaching. My Father will love him, and we will come to him and make our home with him. (24) He who does not love me will not obey my teaching. These words you hear are not my own; they belong to the Father who sent me (= it in reality is Yahweh who is speaking*) (25) All this I have spoken while still with you. (26) But the Counselor (Parakletos*), the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, will teach you all things and will remind you of everything I have said to you."

How does Muhammad fit here?

"- - - to be with you (the disciples*) forever - - -". Muhammad was not with them - He was born 500 years too late - and he definitely was not with them forever.

The Spirit of Truth cannot be "The Holy Spirit" because it is another name, many Muslims claim. But there are at least 5 names for the Holy Spirit (Holy Spirit, Holy Ghost, Spirit of God, Spirit of Truth, or only the Spirit), and all the same there is just one Spirit. There also are 99 names for Allah - but only 1 Allah according to the Quran. And 5-6 names for Muhammad, but only 1 Muhammad. The argument is a logical short circuit.

"'The Spirit of truth' is Muhammad", many a Muslim will tell you (from baby age they have been told how truthful and reliable Muhammad was). The man who at least a few times lied in his holy book, the Quran ("No-one will believe even if I/Allah made miracles"), the man who laid the foundation for the institutionalization of al-Taqiyya (the lawful lie), Kitman (the lawful half-truth) and advised breaking of even oaths, the man who had as slogan "War is deceit" - yes, we believe he must be "the Spirit of truth".

"The world does not see him". Muhammad was quite visible.

"- - - he (the Spirit*) lives with you (the disciples*) - - -". When did Muhammad live with the disciples?

" - - - he (the Counselor*) will be in you - - -". The only persons Muhammad was into, were a lot of women, at least one child, and a few slaves - some of them rapes.

"- - - you (the disciples*)know him (the Counselor*) - - -". Oh? - the disciples knew Muhammad, who was born some 500 years after they were dead?

"On the day (when the Counselor comes*) you (the disciples*) will realize - - -". What could the disciples realize if they had to wait for Muhammad some 500 years after they were dead?

"But the Councilor (Parakletos*), the Holy Spirit, whom my Father (Yahweh*) will send - - -". This verse Muslims simply NEVER quote.

The claim that Muhammad fits in here by changing Parakletos to Periklytos to Muhammad, is not even a joke - it is pathetic. And at least their scholars have got to know this - they study the Bible to find points they like, and it is impossible not to see the other points at the same time. All the same they feed the audiences with claims like: Here is Muhammad in the Bible! How much is true in a religion which uses lies?

And this is Islam's main claim concerning Muhammad in NT/the Gospels!!!!

Point of relevance V (NT) - claim from Islam.

John 14/16-17:

Jesus tells his disciples: “And I will ask the Father (God/Yahweh*), and He will give you another Counselor to be with you forever”.

To give the disciples Muhammad as helper had no meaning – he was born some 500 years after they all were dead, and could be of no help to them. He also could not be with them forever. But that is what Muslims claim, as they do need a quotation from the NT, because the Quran tells he is foretold also to the Christians in the Gospel, and this is the only place where the texts can be twisted enough – because it takes a lot of twisting. Muhammad also was not “with them forever” – he was not with them at all. The verse really is foretelling the Holy Spirit - it arrived at Pentecost some days later according to the Bible.

Strangely enough Islam never mentions the next verse (John 14/17) that continues: “"- the Spirit of truth "(Muhammad neither was a spirit, nor the truth (he cheated and lied – cfr. al-Taqiyya, and according to his point of view concerning this even his oaths could be broken*). The world cannot accept him, because it neither sees him nor knows him. But you know him, for he lives with you and will be in you”. Try to make this fit Muhammad!! Also see separate chapter about the claims that Muhammad was foretold in the Bible.

*That is to say: from 14/17 they mention that the spirit is called “the Spirit of truth” and thus cannot be “the Holy Spirit”. But just like Allah and just like Muhammad it had more names – at least 5 – and besides it in the entire Bible is very clear that there only existed/exists (?) on Spirit closely connected to Yahweh.

“The Message of the Quran” solves the problem very simply: It tells that a verse in the Quran explains what the NT tells about Muhammad (surah 61, verse 6). The problem is that the Bible says nothing remotely similar to verse 61/6e-f. (An "elegant" explanation is that it shall have been mentioned in the hypothetical Gospel Islam talks about because it is needed to explain how the child Jesus could learn the Gospel(s) before they were written - a Gospel that Mary and others 100% sure had taken care of or at least told about if it was not a fairy tale, because it would really have cemented an even more a special connection between Jesus and Yahweh/God. But a Gospel that could not exist, because no Gospel could be written until after Jesus' death (A Gospel is the story of Jesus' life, death and resurrection, and could not be written before it happened). And a Gospel Islam never has shown even a scrap of. (Also see 14/15-26 above.)

Point of relevance VI (NT) - Never mentioned by Muslims.

John 14/26:

"But the counselor, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father (Yahweh*) will send in My name, will teach you (the disciples*) everything and will remind you of everything I (Jesus*) have said to you". Here it is very clear that the councilor Jesus was talking about, was the Holy Spirit - Muslims claim he meant Muhammad, in spite of that at least their scholars has to know this verse - it only is 1 chapter from their claimed "proof". (Also see 14/15-26 above).

Point of relevance VII (NT).

John 15/26:

"When the Counselor comes, whom I (Jesus*) will send from the Father (Yahweh*), the Spirit of the Truth who goes out from the Father, he will testify about me".

Well, Muhammad testified about Jesus - but 600 years after the Holy Spirit had arrived according to the Bible - and very differently from what the Bible tells on the basic points. The teachings basically are very different.

Point of relevance VIII (NT).

John 16/7-8:

(7) “But I (Jesus*) tell you (the disciples*) the truth: It is for your good I am going away. Unless I go away, the Counselor (Parakletos*) will not come to you; but if I go, I will send him to you. (8) When he comes, he will convict the world of guilt in regard to sin and righteousness and judgment - - -.”

The claim from Islam is that the Counselor (Parakletos = helper, councilor, adviser) John here speaks about is Muhammad. He is speaking about a future prophet, they say, and there is no other alternative than Muhammad. To make that claim stick, they omit the Holy Spirit, and in addition they claim that the word “parakletos” is wrongly spelled (see no. III above) – it surely shall be “periklytos” (as normal for Islam they do not even try produce documentation for the claim, even though there are thousands of old documents). “Periklytos” may be translated to Aramaic - Aramaic, not Arab - and one gets the word Mawhamana, which can be translated to Ahmad (61/6, 7/157 (no name) - but ONLY claimed in the Quran) or Muhammad in Arab.

Pathetic.

And worse: The word used in Syriac (a language used by the church in the Middle East at the time of Muhammad and before) is “menahhemana”. This “obviously” in reality means “mawhemana” and is another wrong spelling Muslims say. And it refers to Muhammad they claim.

The strange thing is that Syriac “menahhemana” means “'the life giver' and especially 'one who rises from the dead'” (Professor A. Guillaume in “The Life of Muhammad“, 2007, page 104). Then who raised people from death and gave them life again? And who rose from the death himself? – not Muhammad, but Jesus. Irony?

Well, periklytos means “the glorious one” or “the praised one” – and Islam jumped on this word, because the name Ahmad (61/6, 7/157 (no name) - but ONLY claimed in the Quran) – another form of the Arab name Muhammad, which also looks somewhat similar to Mawhamana – also means “the praised one”. This without doubt and very obviously was a prophesy about Muhammad(!!) ("perhaps possible" = "is" - logic does not always count in Islam) – the problem was to explain it. And the only possible way was by making some twists, including claiming that all the old manuscripts had spelled the word wrongly. It HAD to be about Muhammad – if for no other reason, then because the Quran says he is mentioned also in the Gospels, and there is no other real possibility. (Also: It is said that Muhammad's original name was Amin – from his mother's name Amina – and that the name Muhammad came later. If this is correct, where does this bring this claim?)

But:

  1. Muhammad was no real prophet (he did not have the gift of prophesying – he did not even pretend to have it or claim to have it – see the chapter about Muhammad in "1000+ Mistakes in the Quran"). He only “borrowed” that title so laden with meaning and prestige.
  2. The word “Parakletos” you will find some places in the Bible. The word “Periklytos” does not exist anywhere in that book – not one single place. Wrong unless proved right.
  3. There are thousands of old manuscripts from before Muhammad (610 AD – the start of his career). We have seen numbers up to 50ooo, but most likely there are some 12ooo - 13ooo relevant manuscripts and fragments. Some of these even are manuscripts or fragments of the Gospels – also here we have seen different numbers (up to 5ooo), but it seems that some 300 is the correct one and that some 70 are complete or reasonably complete. This including f.x. Codex Sinaiticus and Codex Alexandrinus in British Museum, London. In addition there are some 32ooo as old manuscripts and fragments which quote or refer to texts from the Bible. The word “periklytos” is not used in one single of them – not one single time, neither in the old Gospels, nor in the other old manuscripts or fragments. In addition there are huge numbers of old manuscripts with quotes from the Bible. Also here you will find different numbers, but it looks like some 32ooo is the correct one. In not one single of them you will find the word "periklytos" as a reference to or a quote from the Bible. It simply does not and did not exist in the Bible anywhere or at any time. (An extra good proof for that this is true, is that if it had existed, Islam had screamed to holy heaven about it – but they are silent, except for their persistent and – as normal - not documented claims. Well, they vaguely mention the council in Nicaea (now Iznik in Turkey) in 325 AD, but even if it had been true, it does not explain why all the manuscripts older than 325 AD also are claimed to be "wrong" - and falsified in so clever a way that even modern science is unable to find traces of falsifications. Worse: the complete agenda for that council is known, and there is not a hint about wishes to change the contents of any texts. (Besides: How do you make bishops change Biblical texts? - it is just as easy as making ayatollahs change verses in the Quran.)
    1. The agenda of the council in Nicaea in 325 AD according to Wikipedia:
    2. The Arian (a heretic group*) question regarding the relationship between God the Father and Jesus; i.e. are the Father and Son one in purpose only or also one in being.
    3. The date of celebration of the Easter observation.
    4. The Meletian schism.
    5. The validity of baptism by heretics.
    6. The status of the lapsed in the persecution under Licinius.
       

      (As you see: Not one word about changes in any Biblical texts.)

    7. In addition there were promulgated 20 new church laws:
    8. Prohibition of self-castration.
    9. Establishing of a minimum term for catechumen.
    10. Prohibition of the presence in the house of a cleric of a younger woman who might bring him under suspicion.
    11. Ordination of a bishop in the presence of at least 3 provincial bishops and conformation by the metropolitan.
    12. Provision for 2 provincial synods to be held annually.
    13. Exceptional authority acknowledged for the patriarchs of Alexandria and Rome, for their respective regions.
    14. Recognition of the honorary rights of Jerusalem.
    15. Provision for agreement with the Novationists.
    16. Provisions for mild procedure against the lapses during the persecution under Licinius (an emperor*).
    17. Prohibition of the removal of priests.
    18. Prohibition of usury among the clergy.
    19. Precedence of bishops and presbyters before deacons in receiving Holy Communion, the Eucharist.
    20. Declaration of the invalidity of baptism by Paulian heretics.
    21. Prohibition of kneeling during liturgy on Sundays and in the 50 days of Eastertide (the Pentecost).
    22. As you see: No trace of changing texts in the Bible. As said before: To make mainstream bishops change texts in the Bible, is just as easy as making mainstream ayatollahs change texts in the Quran - both are believing too strongly and both are too conservative to change even a comma. Islam's claim simply is ridiculous in the ears of anyone who knows a little about Nicaea, but it is the only possibility they have for the claims of falsification of the Bible that may sound right for the not informed - included 99.5% of the Muslims. But even if it had been true, it had been impossible to falsify without a trace all the manuscripts older than 325 AD, and it had been impossible to falsify all the manuscripts from the OT owned by Jews.
  4. Islam – and the Quran – as mentioned above claims the Bible must be falsified (also on many other places). They do not explain how in the old days with slow travel and no mass communication it was possible not only to falsify all the thousands of manuscripts spread over large parts of Europe, North Africa and Asia, but to make exactly the same falsifications in each and every one of them - not to mention how to find each and every of them, and there were many more at that time, because many has disappeared or been destroyed or rot later. Unless Islam explains – we do not even ask for proofs, but only for a logically valid explanation - when and how this was done (it was not in Nicaea - the agenda and the actual debates there are too well known), there is only one possible conclusion to make: Another al-Taqiyya (lawful lie). This even more so as in addition to these manuscripts (some 12ooo - 13ooo), there are lots and lots of others that refer to the Bible (some 32ooo?), and also in these references there is not on single time a reference to "periklytos" - not one single. How did the guilty ones trace all these papers and falsify all of them in exactly the same way all of them? Not to mention: How did they erase the word "parakletos" in all these manuscripts + the above mentioned 12000 - 13ooo (the ones of them older than 325 AD) and insert "periklytos" in such a way that modern science is unable to see the falsifications?
  5. A very good proof for that no such falsifications are ever found, is the fact that if it had been found anywhere or any time, Islam had published it with very capital letters. But there are nothing but undocumented claims or even claims contradicting the documentations - like the claims about falsifications during the council in Nicaea.

In one word: Nonsense. And science has long since showed that Islam's claims that the Bible is falsified are wrong. And Islam has proved it even stronger by being unable to find one single proved falsification. If Muslims still claims something else, they will have to produce proofs (not only cheap claims).

Point of relevance IX (NT) - claim from Islam (NT).

John 16/13:

"But when he (the Councilor*), the Spirit of Truth, comes, he will guide you all into all truth".

Most Muslims believe in what they have been told and told and imprinted about the perfect and truthful Muhammad. But:

Muhammad with his lies in the Quran ("No-one will believe even if there are miracles"), his al-Taqiyya (lawful lie), his Kitman (lawful half-truth), his broken oaths, his "War is deceit" - yes, he may be a good guide into truth - - - Muslim style?

Point of relevance X (NT) - claim from Islam (NT).

Verse 61/6e-f:

“The Message of the Quran” solves the problem of what the Bible really tells very simply: It tells that a verse in the Quran explains what the NT tells about Muhammad (surah 61/6e-f):

"And remember, Jesus, the son of Mary (see 5/110a), said: 'O Children of Israel! I am the Messenger of Allah (sent) to you, confirming the Law (which came) before me, and giving the glad Tiding of a Messenger to come after me, whose name shall be Ahmad (61/6, 7/157 (no name) - but ONLY claimed in the Quran*)'. But when he came to them with Clear Signs, they said, "This is evident sorcery!'"

The problem is that the Bible says nothing even remotely similar to surah 61/6e-f - not anywhere. (An elegant explanation is that it shall have been mentioned in the non-existing Gospel Islam needed to make up to explain how the child Jesus could learn the Gospel(s) before they were written - a Gospel which Mary and others 100% sure had taken care of if it was not a fairy tale, because it would really have cemented an even more a special connection between Jesus and Yahweh/God). And a Gospel no-one in Islam has or had ever seen the text of, and thus impossible could know the contents of even if it had once existed.

Islam's "explanation" as usual is that the Bible is falsified - that is the standard and cheap explanation whenever there is divergence between the Quran and the Bible, even though it is documented by science that Islam's undocumented claim about such a falsification is wrong, and also in spite of that a falsification would not work among all the thousands that had heard Jesus talking - and then the life and time scale (they expected Jesus back any month or year - if there was to come another prophet first, it would be likely to take at least a generation or more before Jesus would return, to give the other prophet time for his work) of the first Christians, not to mention the contents of all the letters written by persons who really knew the story, had been different. Surah 61/6e-f smells too much of something made up to give Mohammad credence. If a Muslim insists it is true, he has to produce heavy proofs. (And to repeat it: Science as mentioned on top of everything has shown that the Bible never was falsified - and Islam has proved the same even stronger by not finding on single case of falsification among all the old manuscripts).

There also is another fact which makes this claim impossible: If Jesus had preached about a known pagan god (al-Lah/Allah) from a pagan country near by, he had got a very small audience. And if he all the same had got some audience, he would have been killed by the Jewish clergy much faster. This verse is made up by someone(s) who did not know the political and the strong and fanatic religious realities in Israel at the time of Jesus.

(Actually an older Gospel may have existed, but younger than Islam claims - as a Gospel is the story of Jesus' life, death and resurrection, it could not me written until after Jesus was dead - and resurrected - some 33 years old.)

***One small tit-bit: Foretelling in the Bible never mention names of persons in distant future (just check on this yourself - remember here that Messiah (Christ in some translations) is a title, not a name), but in 61/6e-f ONE MOST CONVENIENTLY FIND AN UNMISTAKABLE NAME. If a Muslim insists it is a coincidence, he has to produce heavy proofs.

The really black point about this verse, though, is that we have found nowhere in any Islamic texts meant for Muslims any remark about the fact that in the Bible there is no text even remotely similar to this - or that no other foretelling in the Bible about distant future ever mention names. They just quietly let their audiences believe that 61/6e-f is the plain truth.

We only have found remarks claiming that verses in the Gospel after John - the verses and claims we have commented on here - strengthen 61/6e-f (!!)

As we have asked before: How reliable is a religion who uses al-Taqiyya (lawful lies) and Kitman (lawful half-truths) and broken promises/oaths, etc. as standard means of work? - and how much is al-Taqiyya and Kitman etc. in the books and words and arguments of such a religion?

Resume.

  1. Jesus was speaking to his disciples and promised them a helper – a Parakletos. If that had meant Muhammad, what a helper could he be to the disciples more than 500 years after they were dead!!?? Just and only this question alone kills this claim from Islam – it is an absolute impossibility. And worse: Islam’s scholars know this very well. Very wrong.
  2. “- - - another Comforter (Parakletos/Periklytos?) - - -.“ To use the meaning Periklytos here, means in case that also Jesus is a Periklytos, because a new one is coming instead of Jesus. But Jesus is never called a Periklytos – the word does not exist anywhere in the Bible, not today and not in any of the some 12ooo - 13ooo relevant old scriptures and fragments or some 32ooo references. Wrong – unless Islam produces a proof (but had one existed, Islam had produced it centuries ago).
  3. “- - - but you (the disciples*) know him (the Comforter*) - - -“. None of the disciples ever knew Muhammad - 500 years too early – but they had knowledge of the Spirit, as they had been companions of Jesus. Wrong.
  4. “- - - for he (the Comforter*) lives with you - - -“. It is hopelessly inadequate to say Muhammad never lived with the disciples. Wrong at least to the third power.
  5. The “parakletos” is to “be with you forever”. Muhammad was with no-one forever – he was for one thing born 550 years too late to be a “parakletos” or even a “periklytos” for the disciple, and for another thing he existed far from forever. Wrong.
  6. “The Spirit - - -“. The “parakletos” was a spirit, not a man. Muhammad here is a wrong claim.
  7. “The Spirit of truth - - -.” The man who institutionalized “al-Taqiyya” (the lawful lie) and “Kitman” (the lawful half-truth) – and practiced it himself, the man who institutionalized that even oaths can be broken if that gives a better result (though you should give Allah something afterwards as an excuse according to the Quran, if you had meant the oath) – and practiced it himself, the man who had as a slogan that “War is deceit/betrayal” (Ibn Ishaq), that man neither was, nor had much contact with “the Spirit of truth”. Wrong also because of this.
  8. “The world - - - neither sees him - - -“. No human – like Muhammad - is invisible (but a spirit may be). Wrong.
  9. “- - - he - - - will be in you - - -.” To be flippant: The only humans Muhammad ever was in, were a lot of women. Wrong.
  10. “I (Jesus*) will not leave you (the disciples*) as orphans - - -.” They had been orphans for the rest of their lives if they had had to wait for Muhammad 500-600 years later. Wrong.
  11. “On that day (when the Parakletos comes*) you (the disciples*) will realize - - -.” The day of the coming of the Comforter/Parakletos obviously was a day in the lives of the disciples – Muhammad was not. One more proof for that Islam's claim is wrong.
  12. Islam says: It cannot be the Holy Spirit that was Parakletos, because it is clear that the Holy Spirit already was there, and Jesus talked about something that should come. Of course the spirit was in and around Jesus – and around the disciples – at least sometimes. But Jesus told that it should be in them and part of them, which it had not been before. That was what happened at Pentecost, according to the Bible – the disciples were filled with the Holy Spirit, which was quite a new situation. Invalid argument. Wrong.
  13. Islam says: It cannot have been about the Holy Spirit, because Jesus told about the Spirit of truth. But in all the NT there exists only one special spirit connected to Yahweh. Only one. No mistake possible. Wrong argument. Also see next paragraph just below.
  14. Islam says: The Holy Spirit and the Spirit of truth are two different beings – they even have different names! – and Allah has 99 names (but there are not 99 gods according to Islam), Muhammad a few, Jesus some, most humans two or three. The Spirit has at least 5 different names (The Holy Spirit, The Spirit of Truth, The Holy Ghost, The Spirit of God and just The Spirit - and once in the Bible also the Spirit of Jesus). In addition: See the point just above. Invalid claim.
  15. Islam says: But they cannot be the same as the name “the Holy Spirit” is neutral (sexless), whereas the name “the Spirit of truth” is masculine (male). Wrong, but this is easier to show with grammar from other languages, as nouns only have one grammatical gender in English. Take the German word “ein Madchen” (a girl). The particle “ein” shows that the word grammatically is masculine or neutral (3 genders in German) (feminine/female: “eine”), but a girl very obviously is feminine. Or take the good old Atlantic steamer “Queen Elisabeth”. In Norwegian she is “ein baat” (a boat of any size) and “ein” also in Norwegian is masculine. But she also is “eit skip” (a ship). But the particle “eit” means neutrum/neutral. And further she is “ei skute” (another word for a ship). And “ei” means feminine/female gender. Well, even in good old England “Queen Elisabeth” is without any sex or gender. But grammatically it (the ship) normally is a “she” also in England. The grammatical gender of a noun simply is no proof for the real – if any – sex or gender of the being or thing behind the noun. An indication, yes often. A proof, no.
  16. One relevant comment from Acts 1/4-5: Jesus said to his disciples shortly before his ascension to Heaven: “Do not leave Jerusalem, but wait for the gift (the Comforter/Parakletos*) my Father (Yahweh*) promised, which you have heard me speak about. For John baptized with water, but in a few days you will be baptized with the Holy Spirit".
    1. The Comforter should come “in a few days”. Muhammad came some 577 years later (this happened year 33 AD (or a few years earlier if the international years are a few - 4 to 6 - years late) – Muhammad started his preaching in 610 AD).
    2. Here Jesus calls the Spirit the Holy Spirit. Shortly before he called it the Spirit of truth – and he talked about the same spirit, because of (like said before) there is only one single spirit in the entire NT and the entire Bible connected to Yahweh. Another proof for what is said just above - - - and for that the two names means the same.

There are more indications/proofs in the Bible for that the Comforter was the Holy Spirit and for that the Comforter could not be Muhammad – there simply are too many verses in the Bible that “collide” with that claim. But what we have written above is far more than enough to disapprove the claim from Muslims and from Islam.

Sorry for all these explanations, but there were so many claims to meet, and all of them had to be answered.

Just 2 more comments:

  1. The Bible is a large book – our copy of NIV is more than 700 pages with very small print. In such a large book it is impossible not to find some words that look similar to some word or words in any given other language – or at least can be given similarity with some twisting. But it is a very far cry from there to to use superficial or even twisted + superficial seemingly similarity as proofs – at least in an honest debate. There also is a difference between a possibility and a proof. And even more so if you are honestly trying to find what is true. (But then Islam “knows” what is true and goes all out to find “proofs” - by whatever means necessary often. Blind belief and dishonesty is better than trying to find out what is true and what not).
  2. If the first Christians had expected another prophet later, for one thing they had lived their lives differently (expecting Jesus to return in months or a few years, they planned and lived accordingly - if they had expected another prophet in the meantime, they had planned for a longer wait), and even more: The texts in the NT – especially in the letters – had been different.

But in spite of all the words above, there in reality only is one or a few facts you need to kill the reality in these claims – that these verses in the NT foretells the prophet Muhammad:

  1. Muhammad was no real prophet – he did not have the gift of real prophesying, and did not even himself claim he had that gift or pretend to have it. He only “borrowed” an imposing and impressive title. And as he was no real prophet – a messenger for someone or something perhaps, but no prophet - he of course was not the prophet that Moses talked about. (Jesus never spoke about another prophet later – no place in the entire NT)
  2. Jesus promised his disciples a helper in some days. Muhammad lived 500-600 years later – he could not help them.
  3. The Parakletos/Counselor was invisible and to be within the disciples. Muhammad neither was invisible, nor within the disciples. And lived 600 years too late.

Short and simple and to the point. (Remember that when someone needs many words and many arguments to prove something simple, the reason often is that he/she leads you by the nose so that you shall not see mistakes or invalid logic here and there. You often meet Muslims using that technique.

BUT IS MUHAMMAD IN THE BIBLE ALL THE SAME?

THE BLACK ALTERNATIVE.

There are persistent, non-religious argumentations for that Muhammad and Islam in reality represents dark supernatural forces. We are not going to enter this debate heavily, but there are two reasons why we are unable to get rid of the suspicions in our minds, and the same two reasons make it impossible and irresponsible not to mention the possibility:

  1. If some dark forces – f.x. the Devil - dressed up like Gabriel, or if they worked on his mind – f.x. by means of an illness like TLE like BBC proposed (20. March 2003) which often gives religious experiences like the ones Muhammad had – or in dreams, Muhammad had had no chance of detecting that he was cheated.
  2. The bloody and inhuman surahs from Medina and the partly immoral moral codes which turned Islam into the inhuman and harsh war religion it became – and is today according to the Quran - for the ones living strictly according to the not abrogated parts of the Quran, which are dominated by just the surahs from Medina - fits a devil much better than it fits a good, benevolent god.

Because of this we mention a few facts:

  1. Jesus several places said false prophets would arise, and that they would deceive many. Muhammad indisputably was no real prophet as he did not have the gift of prophesying, and he was backed by no god - too much is wrong in the Quran for it to come from a god – and no other person has led so many into a sect or religion fundamentally based on inhumanity (suppression, discrimination, hate, slavery, “good and lawful” rape, “good and lawful” stealing/robbing, “good and lawful” and even the best services to the god (?); war, to mention some points). Muhammad fits that picture too well for comfort.
  2. The Apostle Paul mentioned that Satan sometimes disguises himself as an angel of light. Muhammad claimed he met an angel of light – Gabriel - - - or someone or something masquerading like Gabriel.
  3. Paul also indicated to what the Quran says itself), and a "prophet" unable to make prophesies, is no real prophet - - - but it is an impressive and imposing title to "borrow" - many a self proclaimed messenger from one or more gods have "borrowed" this title.

     

002 92/1a: "By the Night - - -". Muhammad/Allah swearing by the night - sentences in the Quran starting with "by" normally are oaths in the Quran. One of the indications in the Quran for that Yahweh and Allah are not the same god, and for that Jesus and Muhammad are not in the same religion or line of prophets like the Quran likes to claim (in addition to that Muhammad was no real prophet - he "did not see the unseen" so he was unable to make prophesies (even though some Muslims try to claim the opposite in contradiction to what the Quran says itself), and a "prophet" unable to make prophesies, is no real prophet - - - but it is an impressive and imposing title to "borrow" - many a self proclaimed 2-12messenger from one or more gods have "borrowed" this title.

Also: Especially the NT very clearly states that you shall not swear at all (Matt 5/34), and it is clear that if you do so all the same, you have to honor your oath, whereas in the Quran you can break any oath if that gives a better result - pay expiation if necessary (but to be fair: The Quran advises not to break a confirmed(!) oath if there is not a good reason. To break other oaths matters little.) This last part is a very clear proof for that Yahweh and Allah are not the same god - and for that Jesus and Muhammad were not in the same religion - as the moral code is too deeply different.

##003 92/1b: “By (start of an oath*) the Night as it conceals (the light) - - -”. Wrong - it is Earth which conceals the light and causes the night. Besides the night is just lack of light = nothing. And neither nothing nor lack of light can conceal light. Any deity knows this and the physical laws behind it - Muhammad not. Who made the Quran? (See 91/4).

005 92/2: "By the Day - - -". Muhammad/Allah swearing by the day - sentences in the Quran starting with "by" normally are oaths in the Quran. One of the clear indications in the Quran for that Yahweh and Allah are not the same god, and for that Jesus and Muhammad are not in the same religion or line of prophets like the Quran likes to claim (in addition to that Muhammad was no real prophet - he "did not see the unseen" so he was unable to make prophesies (even though some Muslims try to claim the opposite in contradiction to what the Quran says itself), and a "prophet" unable to make prophesies, is no real prophet - - - but it is an impressive and imposing title to "borrow" - many a self proclaimed messenger from one or more gods have "borrowed" this title.

Also: Especially the NT very clearly states that you shall not swear at all (Matt 5/34), and it is clear that if you do so all the same, you have to honor your oath, whereas in the Quran you can break any oath if that gives a better result - pay expiation if necessary (but to be fair: The Quran advises not to break a confirmed(!) oath if there is not a good reason. To break other oaths matters little.) This last part is a very clear proof for that Yahweh and Allah are not the same god - and for that Jesus and Muhammad were not in the same religion - as the moral code is too deeply different.

007 92/4a: "By (the mystery of) - - -". Muhammad/Allah swearing by a mystery - sentences in the Quran starting with "by" normally are oaths in the Quran. One of the clear indications in the Quran for that Yahweh and Allah are not the same god, and for that Jesus and Muhammad are not in the same religion or line of prophets like the Quran likes to claim (in addition to that Muhammad was no real prophet - he "did not see the unseen" so he was unable to make prophesies (even though some Muslims try to claim the opposite in contradiction to what the Quran says itself), and a "prophet" unable to make prophesies, is no real prophet - - - but it is an impressive and imposing title to "borrow" - many a self proclaimed messenger from one or more gods have "borrowed" this title.

Also: Especially the NT very clearly states that you shall not swear at all (Matt 5/34), and it is clear that if you do so all the same, you have to honor your oath, whereas in the Quran you can break any oath if that gives a better result - pay expiation if necessary (but to be fair: The Quran advises not to break a confirmed(!) oath if there is not a good reason. To break other oaths matters little.) This last part is a very clear proof for that Yahweh and Allah are not the same god - and for that Jesus and Muhammad were not in the same religion - as the moral code is too deeply different.

002 93/1: "By the Glorious Morning Light - - -". Muhammad/Allah swearing by the light - sentences in the Quran starting with "by" normally are oaths in the Quran. One of the clear indications in the Quran for that Yahweh and Allah are not the same god, and for that Jesus and Muhammad are not in the same religion or line of prophets like the Quran likes to claim (in addition to that Muhammad was no real prophet - he "did not see the unseen" so he was unable to make prophesies (even though some Muslims try to claim the opposite in contradiction to what the Quran says itself), and a "prophet" unable to make prophesies, is no real prophet - - - but it is an impressive and imposing title to "borrow" - many a self proclaimed messenger from one or more gods have "borrowed" this title.

002 93/1: "By the Glorious Morning Light - - -". Muhammad/Allah swearing by the light - sentences in the Quran starting with "by" normally are oaths in the Quran. One of the clear indications in the Quran for that Yahweh and Allah are not the same god, and for that Jesus and Muhammad are not in the same religion or line of prophets like the Quran likes to claim (in addition to that Muhammad was no real prophet - he "did not see the unseen" so he was unable to make prophesies (even though some Muslims try to claim the opposite in contradiction to what the Quran says itself), and a "prophet" unable to make prophesies, is no real prophet - - - but it is an impressive and imposing title to "borrow" - many a self proclaimed messenger from one or more gods have "borrowed" this title.

Also: Especially the NT very clearly states that you shall not swear at all (Matt 5/34), and it is clear that if you do so all the same, you have to honor your oath, whereas in the Quran you can break any oath if that gives a better result - pay expiation if necessary (but to be fair: The Quran advises not to break a confirmed(!) oath if there is not a good reason. To break other oaths matters little.) This last part is a very clear proof for that Yahweh and Allah are not the same god - and for that Jesus and Muhammad were not in the same religion - as the moral code is too deeply different.

003 93/1-2: "By - - -". A sentence in the Quran starting with "by" normally is an oath - here it seems that the Quran swears that verse 3 is true. But whenever Muhammad or the Quran swears - or in other ways promises - remember that according to the rules for al-Taqiyya (the lawful lie) and Kitman (the lawful half-truth), etc., it is permitted to lie to defend and to forward Islam (and for 6 - 8 other topics), and that according to Muhammad's own words and deeds in the Quran, even oaths should be broken if that will give a more satisfying result - pay expiation to Allah afterwards if necessary.

004 93/2: "And by the Night - - -". Muhammad/Allah swearing by the night - sentences in the Quran starting with "by" normally are oaths in the Quran. One of the clear indications in the Quran for that Yahweh and Allah are not the same god, and for that Jesus and Muhammad are not in the same religion or line of prophets like the Quran likes to claim (in addition to that Muhammad was no real prophet - he "did not see the unseen" so he was unable to make prophesies (even though some Muslims try to claim the opposite in contradiction to what the Quran says itself), and a "prophet" unable to make prophesies, is no real prophet - - - but it is an impressive and imposing title to "borrow" - many a self proclaimed messenger from one or more gods have "borrowed" this title.

Also: Especially the NT very clearly states that you shall not swear at all (Matt 5/34), and it is clear that if you do so all the same, you have to honor your oath, whereas in the Quran you can break any oath if that gives a better result - pay expiation if necessary (but to be fair: The Quran advises not to break a confirmed(!) oath if there is not a good reason. To break other oaths matters little.) This last part is a very clear proof for that Yahweh and Allah are not the same god - and for that Jesus and Muhammad were not in the same religion - as the moral code is too deeply different.

002 95/1: "By the fig and the olive - - -". Muhammad/Allah swearing by different things - sentences in the Quran starting with "by" normally are oaths in the Quran. One of the clear indications in the Quran for that Yahweh and Allah are not the same god, and for that Jesus and Muhammad are not in the same Religion or line of prophets like the Quran likes to claim (in addition to that Muhammad was no real prophet - he "did not see the unseen" so he was unable to make prophesies (even though some Muslims try to claim the opposite in contradiction to what the Quran says itself), and a "prophet" unable to make prophesies, is no real prophet - - - but it is an impressive and imposing title to "borrow" - many a self proclaimed messenger from one or more gods have "borrowed" this title.

Also: Especially the NT very clearly states that you shall not swear at all (Matt 5/34), and it is clear that if you do so all the same, you have to honor your oath, whereas in the Quran you can break any oath if that gives a better result - pay expiation if necessary (but to be fair: The Quran advises not to break a confirmed

003 95/1-3: "By - - -". A sentence in the Quran starting with "by" normally is an oath - here it seems that the Quran swears that verse 4 is true. But whenever Muhammad or the Quran swears - or in other ways promises - remember that according to the rules for al-Taqiyya (the lawful lie) and Kitman (the lawful half-truth), etc., it is permitted to lie to defend and to forward Islam (and for 6 - 8 other wide topics, f.x. to cheat women), and that according to Muhammad's own words and deeds in the Quran, oaths should be broken if that will give a more satisfying result - pay expiation to Allah afterwards if necessary. (Some oaths are not binding at all, and others only if you confirm them afterwards, but if you break a confirmed oath you should pay expiation afterwards, at least if the oath is about something serious).

According to the Bible you should not swear at all, and if you all the same do so, you are absolutely bound by your oath. Not the same gods. Not the same religions.

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

It also is pretty thought provoking that f.x. all the errors, contradictions, wrong facts, etc., only and alone, in the Quran, prove 100% that there is no god behind that book. And that f.x. the fact that Jesus accepted OT as correct, proves to both Christians and Muslims that the OT was not falsified at that time - and that the Qumran scrolls prove that even OT was not falsified any time later, too.

It further is an insult to that possible god to "explain" that his texts means something different from what they really says = you are more clever than him at explaining what the god "really" meant, than the god is himself, even when he tries to explain things "clearly and easy to understand", and says his words are to be understood literally and without hidden meanings. Also only "the sick of heart" look for hidden meanings behind his words, according to the Quran - the very claimed hidden meanings the wise Muslims claim are what Allah really meant, but was unable to express clearly himself, so that they have to help the bumbling god and tell what he "really" tried to say. This in spite of that the Quran clearly states that meanings hidden behind Allah's clear and easy to understand words, only are possible for Allah to understand, and like said above are "only for the sick of heart" to look for.

May be as bad: To claim that the Quran means something different from what the texts clearly say, is to falsify the quranic texts.

 


>>> Go to Next Booklet

>>> Go to Previous Booklet

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".