CORRECTING WRONG REFUTING OF SOME POINTS IN www.1000mistakes.com.

(Some 4-5 dozen points are tried refuted. The rest - more than 2ooo points - are not touched. The Quran - and thus Islam - is not from a god unless every comment in http://www.1000mistakes.com is wrong.

Part A

NB: This chapter is made of two parts - A and B. First we commented on the "refuting" - PART A. But then we decided to include the whole page of the most read refuter, because it was such an excellent illustration of what we say about reliability, honesty, etc. in Muslim debate and arguments - and we included some comments in the text, too. Therefore you should read both what PART A says about "refuting" of different points, and then check what is said in PART B about the point - or the other way around. Also read the PS at the bottom. And a most essential point: Mr. Refuter has tried to refute 4-5 dozen of our points in "1000+ Mistakes in the Quran". Even if he had succeeded, there still remain more than 2ooo not refuted mistakes - and only one single mistake proves that the Quran is not from an omniscient god, s an omniscient god makes no mistakes. And NB: This "refuting" is such a typical example of Muslim debate, that we put this chapter into both http://www.1000mistakes.com as a separate chapter and http://www.1000quran-comments.com as Chapter Xb.

Mr. Refuter has tried to refute 4-5 dozen. But http://1000mistakes.com contains more than 2ooo points (out of perhaps some 3ooo) which are wrong in the Quran - and even one mistake proves that the Quran is not from an omniscient god, and that thus something is seriously wrong with the book, with Muhammad and his teaching, and with the religion. Even if Mr. Refuter had had every "refuting" correct (and mostly they are wrong), there still had been 2ooo+ points to refute. Until that is done, "1000+ Mistakes in the Quran" is not refuted. When will this be done? As it is now, the Quran still is proved wrong on unbelievably many points, and thus it stands proved that the book is from no god, and thus that Muhammad was not representing a god, and Islam consequently is not the religion of any god.

Shortly after we launched http://www.1000mistakes.com there was a pathetic and unbelievable scream on the net. We quote: "Where has this site been refuted? '1000 Mistakes in the Quran - MAIN PAGE'. Is there a Muslim brother who refuted these points or the website?"

Unbelievable to us who are thought to and used to think ourselves - unbelievable partly because someone was screaming for "authorities" to think for him, and partly because he was screaming for refuting, not for "What is the truth".

And pathetic for the same reasons - mostly the first one. Instead of sitting down and look at the texts in the Quran and use one's knowledge and brain to find out: Is this new information right or wrong, one cries: "Is there anywhere someone who can tell me that this is wrong, whether it is right or wrong - refute it - and comfort me?!"

In the West - in the wide meaning of the word - we are trained in critical thinking from primary school on. In Muslim areas, and especially in conservative such ones, one cannot do that, because then the youths too easily would see at least some of all the mistakes and weak points in the Quran and the Hadiths, and ask serious questions. Therefore pupils and students there are told to go to their mullahs, imams, or scholars when there is something, and afterwards just accept what they have said - what sometimes is called "obey your authorities". This even in a religion where al-Taqiyya (the lawful lie) and Kitman (the lawful half-truth) are not only accepted, but advised "if necessary" to promote or defend the religion (the only of the big religions where dishonesty is part of the basis for the religion), so that everyone have to know that the mullah or whoever, does not necessarily tell you the truth.

This helpless cry for help was a typical and impressive result of such lack of education - pathetic and difficult to believe for us, but likely a heart-wrenching reality for the crier.

The result were some reassuring answers - there are more or less professionals in Islam who answer such questions. You meet them on the net and other places - often scholars burning for their religion. The strange thing is that it does not count too much if they omit proofs for what they say, or even if what they say is doubtful or wrong - as long as it sounds like it may be right, it is accepted f.x. by wishful thinkers, and by the ones told to rely in the authorities. Accepted and hardly ever checked for truth or not without questions in a religion and a culture where al-Taqiyya (the lawful lie), Kitman (the lawful half-truth), and worse are accepted realities in life!

The one which turned out to be the "best", or at least the one liked best by Muslims - most read on Google - turned out to be http://www.islamic-life.com/forums/quran-hadith-muhammad/refuting-website-1000-mistakes-in-the-quran-2269 . We have not bothered to comment on it on that page - try to put dangerously true comments on a Muslim website and see how long they last. (Anybody is f.x. free to try to put this comment on http://www.islamic-life.com/forums/quran-hadith-prophet-muhammad or any other website run by true Muslims and see what happens). But when now posting material to our own site, we add this as an example of the level of debate and sincerity in Muslim fora. We stress that we have not been hunting for bad samples - the only reason why we chose just this one, is that it is the top refuter of our page under "Mistakes in the Quran" on Google and others - for all we know there may be much worse ones.

As it is possible that when we publish this as an example of all too often used ways of debating used by Muslims and Islam - and a star sample as it is the best Islam has to offer, or at least the one most read about this topic on all the Internet, and with lots of uncritical "thank you" - it is possible Muslims/Islam/www.Islamic-life.com will find their page too embarrassing and revealing, and remove it from Internet, or at least change the texts, we after our comments were written, decided to include their page in full below (below our comments here - beware that we then included some more comments in that text, and you should read those comments, too).

Note the serenity in "serious" Muslim debate, the disregard for the necessity to use correct information - just tell something which sounds correct, and that is good enough, a point of view confirmed by the to us unbelievably uncritical and naive acceptance of anything said by a good Muslim "authority" (all the wrong information and wrong facts in their page had been easy to check on and find out what was right, as it mostly is common knowledge and f.x. easy to find on Internet. But either Mr. Reuter has not bothered to check, or he has known the reality, but used wrong facts on purpose (remember al-Taqiyya - the lawful lie - and Kitman - the lawful half-truth) - most likely he in most cases has not known any better, and has not bothered to check on what he thought were facts as "it will be believed anyhow - nobody check". (And note that that is exactly what happened: The reader tells him: "Thank you, thank you" - without checking his mostly wrong information!) But on some points the correct knowledge is so widespread, that it is not possible he has written it in good faith, if he at least has education on medium level. Also as said note the servile acceptance of the words of "the authorities" from the readers, with a lot "thank you" and not one critical question - well, there was one who perhaps had comments, the "optimist", but he was prohibited from the page and summarily dismissed as one with not main-stream religious belief, and thus what he said, included his possible facts, had to be wrong.

Also note that the page has been on the net for a long time, and that in spite of that for most of its wrong information the corresponding correct information is common knowledge among people with at least some education, not to mention the ones with high school or university, all the same not one of the some 1.2 billion Muslims has corrected even some of the many wrong points - this in spite of that there are many Muslims with high education in the world. One may speculate on why: Is the imprinting of "believe in your imams/scholars" even stronger than we are aware of? Is the social pressure against wrong questions or comments even stronger than we are aware of? Or may the reason f.x. be that the learned Muslims - except the Quran students - have found enough wrongs and contradictions in the religion to lose interest, and are not active in religious debate (to oppose, give "wrong" information, or ask "wrong" questions may be dangerous among Muslims, as you know)?

Well, the full text of their "refuting" now is in the second half of this page. Please read it and check for yourself that what we say about it is correct. And remember the mentality behind their argumentations, their techniques, their reliability, etc. next time you argue with or read what Muslims write - the quoted "refuting" and its way of doing so simply is too common and too representative for Muslim debate for comfort. (If you do not believe this, just read some "refuting" or other Muslim debates on Internet - you will find too much of it if you keep your eyes open and your brain and knowledge active.)

One small different remark: Studying religion, a religion often is split on 3 levels: Level I = the religion like described in its holy book(s). Level II = the religion like it is explained by its scholars. Level III = the religion like it is practiced in reality. We mainly write about Islam I, because that is the basis for everything (though we touches Islam II and Islam III). It therefore is a miss and a misunderstanding when some critics tell our "books" are not good, because we do not concentrate our writing about Islam III - it is not Islam III which is the topic of the books at all.

When you now read on, you should remember what we said a little further up about al-Taqiyya and Kitman, etc. You should also remember the most standard ways Muslims use when fleeing from points difficult to defend or argue for:

  1. "You are just a Jew lover/Islam hater", (and thus your facts are invalid).
  2. "You are just an enemy of Islam", (and thus your facts are invalid - this in spite of that the enemies often are the ones best knowing what is wrong with something, so that one should check if their arguments are true or not).
  3. "You do not know what you are talking about" - this even when the opponent strongly has proved he really knows the Quran, etc.
  4. "It just is anti-Muslim propaganda" - and thus lies.
  5. "You cannot judge a verse in the Quran just from the verse - you have to do so from the whole Quran". In a very few cases this is true, but mostly the truth is the opposite: If you are unable to see the essence in a verse or a statement, you should stay out of debates. This argument is even more "special" as Islam and Muslims themselves quotes wildly from cherry-picked points in both the Quran and the Bible - even often quoted out of or in made up contexts. But often the argument is efficient, because few know the Quran well enough to see that the claim normally is wrong.
  6. "The Quran proves that - - -". The Quran is so full of mistakes, etc. that it has no value as proof unless there are additional proofs.
  7. There is not one of all the claimed "signs" or "proofs" in the Quran proving anything at all about Allah or about Muhammad's connection to a god. The reason it that in not one single case it is proved that Allah really is behind the claimed "sign" or "proof" - all is based on cheap claims any believer in any religion can make on behalf of his/her god(s) just as cheaply. Such loose claims prove exactly nothing, and are without any logical value. (There is a possible exception for the proofs "borrowed" from the Bible, but they in case prove Yahweh, not Allah - two different gods in spite of Muhammad's claims, as their teachings by far are too different to come from the same god. This is especially easy to see if you compare the youngest part of the Quran - the surahs from Medina - with the youngest part of the Bible - NT.
  8. Muslims also frequently uses slander or "throwing dirt" to "reduce" their opponents.
  9. A common technique from Muslims also is to go away from a difficult point and answer something which in reality is something else, or to answer just one not too difficult part of a fact or question.
  10. Muslims and Islam all too often and all too easily jump from "This is a possibility", to "This is proved here", "This the reality", or "This is the Truth" - a claim or a not documented something becomes a "proof".
  11. In spite of that Muslims themselves jump from "this is a possible explanation" to claiming it is a proof, they demand mathematical quality proofs (absolute proofs) from all opponents. Remember that empirical proofs (99% proofs) are more than adequate on most points. And remember that it is the Muslim who makes the claims, and thus it is his duty to prove those claims, not your duty to prove them wrong, which may be difficult just there and then. DEMAND THAT HE PROVES HIS CLAIMS BEFORE YOU EVEN START DEBATING WITH HIM/HER - AND REMEMBER THAT THE QURAN IS SO FULL OF MISTAKES, THAT IN MOST CASES A QUOTE OR FIVE FROM THAT BOOK PROVE NOTHING UNLESS THERE ARE ADDITIONAL PROOFS.

This refuter seems to be a trained one, because he uses all these evading techniques, except "You just are a Jew lower".

Well, the result of the scream for help, where he/she could not think and evaluate for him-/herself, were some answers, and as said the one most liked (at least under "Mistakes in the Quran" on Google, Yahoo, and others) by the Muslims you find on http://www.islamic-life.com/forums/quran-hadith-prophet-muhammad/refuting-website-1000-mistakes-in-the-quran-2269 . Please read it and weep; this is the best they have to offer - and worse; this is accepted without questions by the Muslims - the only remarks are thanks for the refutations, and some requests for more refutations.

It is not strange that the industrial revolution did not happen in the Muslim world with its unquestioned belief in what their fathers, their surroundings, and their leaders told them, but in the West, where people slowly were permitted to think - and had some training in thinking - themselves.

This seemingly semiprofessional refuter, continued: "I will help you in finding refutation - - -". Quite telling compared to what ought to be the task of a religious scholar, as the result of believing in an invalid religion is so serious, if there is a next life: To try to find out what is really the truth. And further: "I can not access the site since it is blocked here - - -". Which confirms that at least in some Islamic countries one prefers to block difficult questions and information, instead of meeting it. It also confirms our information that our page is so difficult to meet, that it is blocked in some Muslim areas. And likely it places the refuter in Pakistan, as to our knowledge the page only was blocked in Pakistan at the time this refuting was posted on the net (and most informed persons know what some Pakistani Muslims may be like, especially in North Pakistan).

For the sake of convenience we need a name for him - he has not given his name. There are two logical choices: His alias on the net, or his title - here "a refuter", as he himself confirms and promises he is going to refute us, not to try to find the truth. His alias on the net is not his correct name, whereas his title is a correct one, so we choose to use his title: Mr. Refuter - this also will serve to remind the readers of the admitted fact that he is a man who writes his stuff because he has promised to refute things, not a man trying to find the truth.

Mr. Refuter starts his proper answer with a double al-Taqiyya (lawful lie). We quote: "According to the Quran there is no compulsion in Islam".

This is a very normal dishonesty from Muslims. For one thing what the Quran really says, is: "Let there be no compulsion in religion" - it is a wish, not a fact. And for another: This verse - 2/256, which came shortly after Muhammad fled to Medina, and when he still hoped to include the Jews in his congregation - is abrogated (made invalid) by at least some 30 later verses. Both these facts any Muslim scholar knows well - - - but he never mentions any of them and even pretends 2/256 is a reality, not a wish or something and not abrogated, all the same. Not very honest.

Next not documented claim: "- - - they (the mistakes in the Quran*) are just anti Islamic propaganda".

For one thing this is one of the standard Muslim ways of fleeing from difficult debates about points in the Quran: "You are just a Muslim hater, so your facts do not count." For another thing it is not true - the quotes are 100% correct from the according to Islam likely best translator ever of the Quran to English: Abdulla Yusuf Ali. No Muslim has till this day informed us about any divergence from this book, which is most highly recommended by Islam and its scholars. This about enemies of Islam is repeated some lines further down - without any documentations, like quite normal from Muslims in such cases. Not to forget: It is free for anybody to compare our quotes to the original.

Then: "- - - Without checking the truth - - -".

It is extremely easy to check the truth of http://www.1000mistakes.com . And NO Muslim scholar in a position where he might have to prove his words (f.x. in papers trying to have the page evicted from Internet) has claimed there are untrue quotes in the page - yes, not even that there is hate or enmity in it. But of course when "refuting" on an Internet page, not searching the truth, it is easy to throw accusations around - and it sounds good to readers who wish to believe it is true.

This also is an ironic demand from a Mr. Refuter, who has declared he will refute - not that he will find the truth. And even more ironic, as you further down will see that he does not check on his claims himself. But then it is VERY normal for Muslims, included Islam itself/the scholars, and the Quran, to demand proofs from every opponent, but themselves mainly debates by means of not documented - or in other ways proved - loose claims and as unfunded statements. "A proof is one or more proved facts which can give only one conclusion". Muslims, included representatives for Islam, not to mention Muhammad/the Quran, seldom live up to that standard. They "forget" for one thing that the basis for conclusions has to be proved, if not any conclusion is invalid, and for another thing they "forget" (or often simply do not know) that for a conclusion to be logically valid, one has to follow the laws for making logical conclusions. (Unlike in the "West", Muslim pupils are not always thought such knowledge. Even more strange for us is that they are thought that there may be more than one truth, even if the "truths" mutually exclude each other, something which is impossible in reality - but necessary for Islam in order to be able to explain away some of the inconsistencies in the Quran.)

Contradictions in the Inheritance Law.

Here we point to the general fact that the splitting of inheritance according to the rules in the Quran, often do not add up to 1 (= the exact value of the inheritance). Here Mr. Refuter uses some clever claims and finds that it is correct. But the interesting thing is that he does not touch the real problem: The well known fact that the Islamic rules for splitting an inheritance often adds up to between 0.33 (one of the samples in verse 4/12) to 1.25 and even 1.50 times the inheritance. Complicated rules for sharing inheritances have given Muslim lawyers good money through the times.

But Mr. Refuter has saved the law of inheritance - at least for those able to believe so.

1000 contra 50ooo years.

The Quran many places clearly states that the language is clear and not to be misunderstood. This is one of the many places in the Quran, where Muslims have to say; 'oh, no! Here Allah has not been able to express himself clearly, so that we clever mere humans have to help him and explain what he "really" meant! Good for Allah to have so good helpers, each time he expresses himself clumsily and unclear.

For good measure the clever refuter tries to explain this with the theory of relativity - which in case would demand that heaven and Allah traveled away from Earth (or Earth away from Heaven and Allah) with speeds approaching 300ooo km/sec. This is the ONLY way to explain so dramatic change of the time by time dilation - - - and in case there quickly would be enormous distance between Earth and the 7 heavens, included the stars fastened to the lowest one, and the moon (and sun?) in between them. And it had been even worse if he had been right about traveling "many times the speed of light".

The Special Theory of Relativity came in 1905. The general one as far as we remember in 1918. In these some 100 years Mr. Refuter has learnt the name of the theory, and not much more it seems. He is using the time dilation as an explanation for a claimed god's different perception of time, without taking into account the consequences - an enormously distant heaven very quickly - and this even though he mention the need for speed. But then it is quite normal to meet Muslims in triumph "explaining" or "proving" things without caring about or being unable to see that other aspects of the case or other facts, kill the "explanation" or "proof".

And he easily talks about speeds far above the speed of light, obviously not knowing that for all known material particles, the speed of light is an absolute and uncrossable barrier. And clearly not knowing that if theoretical particles able to travel faster than light - f.x. the tachyon - should exist, it will not be time dilation anymore, because if you cross the speed of light, you start going backwards in time.

These are elementary knowledge about the Theory of Relativity - so elementary, that as Mr. Refuter does not know this, it shows that he has not the faintest real knowledge about what he is talking about.

As for his claim that this proves that the Quran foresaw the theory and the dilation effect, it is so pathetic - especially as he has proved he does not know what he is talking about at all - that we do not bother to comment on that side of the claim.

But we mention that you frequently meet Muslims claiming - never backed by proofs - that this and that is foreseen by the Quran. But all relevant science says that there is absolutely nothing in the Quran which reliably can be said to foresee anything at all about the future (the future as relative to the time of Muhammad). This is indirectly, but very strongly confirmed by Islam: If there had been even one proved case - f.x. foreseeing time dilation - Islam had told about it in big letters long time ago - but Islam is totally silent on such points (except for some persons like Mr. Refuter here, who claim, but never prove anything. Normally such claims come from persons knowing little about what they are talking about, or from persons using al-Taqiyya (lawful lies) relying on that their listeners/readers do not know enough to see that their claims or statements are lies).

We also mention that in all the Quran, there is not one indication of something even remotely like time dilation. This piece simply is a wishful thought or an al-Taqiyya (lawful lie) from a Mr. Refuter, who already has proved he knows nothing about the Theory of Relativity, but he as a Muslims scholar also has got to know that there is nothing about time dilation in the Quran. (It is clear from his writing that he knows - though sometimes twists a little - the Quran).

One final remark about this point: This is a super example of Muslims jumping from "this may be an explanation" to "this is a proof". Here time dilation hardly in any case is possible to use as an explanation for Allah's claimed different experience of time, and all the same it "proves" that time dilation is foreseen in the Quran! Clever - and nice to hear for naive or not educated believers - but far outside the rules for logical deductions. And far outside physics and science.

How many gardens?

Garden (singular) does not contradict gardens (plural) because in both cases the Quran speaks in general, is the claim. No comment - judge for yourself. We may add that the Quran talks about at least 4, and Hadiths indicate 6 or even a higher number - perhaps much higher.

Then we again meet one of the standard ways of fleeing from difficult points in Islam: The text is not really the text, but claimed to be an allegory. A claim here backed by many words, but omitting that other words many places in the Quran tell that the book uses plain and straight forward language, and that "only those sick of heart, look for hidden meanings (f.x. not announced allegories). Not to mention not explaining why there should be a need for using an allegory for the number of gardens in paradise - everybody understands numbers.

How many groups at the Day of Doom?

One more case of the clumsy god unable to express himself clearly, in spite of his claims that his language in the Quran is most clear and easy, and not to be misunderstood. One more case where the clever humans must explain that Allah here does not really mean what he says, but something else which we clever refuters may explain you to "explain" away the god's mistake. Some omniscient god!

Who Takes the Souls after Death?

At the very minimum here is forgotten that the Quran claims it is using a clear and easy and not to be misunderstood language. Islam/Muslims claim it is so clear, that it is one of the proofs for that it must be made by a god. (Quite an irony, taken into account how often clever humans must intervene and explain what the god "really" meant, instead of the mistakes he made, and in the light of the at least 450 cases where Muslim scholars admit that they cannot be sure about what the book really means, etc. - see "Unclear words in the Quran" in http://1000mistakes.com ).

The infinite loop problem?

In reality this is not a loop at all: The Quran claims that all the books claimed sent down to claimed prophets/messengers, were copies of the timeless "Mother of Books" created by Allah before the creation of Earth or may be existed since eternity and never created. True copies of the same timeless book must be identical. Or does Mr. Refuter once more want to explain that he can explain things in more clear word than a simple omniscient god?

Then once more one of the standard Muslims claims to flee from problems: "You do not understand". (This in spite of that we have proved we understand the Quran, both by being able to pick out the mistakes, and by being able to understand what those mistakes mean. Not to mention by being able to see the difference between glorifying words - propaganda - and the under-lying realities in the tales in the book. Whereas Mr. Refuter only has showed that he accepts the superficial words of the Quran - accepts, and tries to explain that they must be correct, true or not - but nothing more.

"The (Quran*) has been prophesied in the books of the earlier generations".

This claim is wrong. There is not one place in the Bible where there is a prophesying about the Quran. What is more just here, is that even Islam/Muslim scholars do not seriously try to point to any verse in all the Bible, where the Quran is claimed to be prophesied. For foretelling about Muhammad such claims - claims - exists, but not for the Quran - nothing serious enough to that Muslim scholars bother to mention it at least.

Prophesies about the Quran?

"In every (the Arab word used here, is used only when there are 3 or more*) divine Scripture we are told prophesies of the prophets (wrong, see below*) and the scriptures (wrong, see below*) to follow. The Old Testament contained many prophesies about the coming of Jesus Christ (the OT really did not talk about Christ - that is a Greek, later version of the name - but about Messiah). Similarly the Bible contained prophesies about the coming of a prophet after Jesus who brings a scripture from God."

Here is much nonsense:

  1. Which books? - OT and the Bible is the same book - OT is the first part of the Bible simply (and NT the second part).
  2. The old Jews had many prophets and not one of them was foretold in OT except perhaps Jesus. The prophets were not foretold, except perhaps one of them only.
  3. There is no - no foretelling neither of the NT, nor of the Quran in OT (and no foretelling about the Quran in NT). There are not even serious claims about this from serious Muslims scholars.
  4. There is no foretelling about a prophet after Jesus neither in OT nor in NT, and we must admit we are a bit surprised Mr. Refuter bases his claim about foretelling of Muhammad on John - normally when they claim only one point, Muslims base the claim on cherry-picked words (5. Mos. 18/15+18) in a speech Moses made to his Jews, and which need somewhat less cherry-picking of words, omissions of information, twisting of information, etc. to sound believable at least to persons who want to believe such things. The claim concerning John is so far out, needs so much twisting of the Bible, and "correction" of realities + overlooking of plain proofs for that the claims are wrong, that it normally is not chosen as a lone sample, when they instead can use Moses (they normally only use John because the Quran claims Muhammad is found also in NT, and this is the point in NT which needs least twisting and omissions to make wishful thinkers believe it is a truth). Much more about this other places both in "1000+ Mistakes in the Quran" and in "1000+ Comments on the Quran".
  5. There is definitely no foretelling in the Bible about a new Scripture after the ones about Jesus (= after NT). And just to mention it once more: There also is no foretelling about NT in OT (not to mention about the Quran). Also these claims you never meet from serious Muslim scholars - not to mention that they never point to where in the Bible such claimed foretelling are claimed to be found, as there are no such foretelling.

But Mr. Refuter claims without documentation that our knowledge of facts like these, is because of one of the Muslim standard ways of fleeing from difficult points: We do not know what we are talking about.

SCIENTIFIC CONTRADICTIONS
The moon between the heavens".

First one correction of Mr. Refuter's quotations of a point in our texts: The Quran says the moon is between the heavens. This we have referred to - not quoted, but referred to - as if it is in a middle heaven. (According to the astronomy of the Middle East at the time of Muhammad, the moon was fastened to one of the invisible 7 heavens - old Greek and Persian astronomy. Do not ask us why Allah used old earthly and very wrong astronomy.) This Mr. Refuter has changed to "the middle heaven", which in case would mean heaven nr. 4, a position neither we nor the Quran has quantified. Honestly done. And then he continues by stating: "That is in your wild imagination" = You do not know what you are talking about - which might have been true if we had written what he has changed our text into. "If you have no wrong facts, make them up and attack them" - a technique often used by politicians.

But it is no piece of imagination - wild or not - that the Quran states that there are 7 heavens (the word "heavens" is used in plural ca. 200 times and "7 heavens" many times in the book), and that it clearly is stated that the stars are fastened to the lowest heaven, whereas the moon is between the heavens. Mr. Refuter conveniently skips commenting on such facts at all, just talks about "imaginary claims" = "You do not know what you are talking about once more", this even though he already now has documented thoroughly that we know quite a lot more about science than he does (we happen to be well informed about many sciences, included astronomy and physics, as you may be understand from what we write.)

The 7. Universes(!!)

Then he goes on without explanation to talk about "the 7 universes". For one thing the Quran talks about 7 heavens - and a proof for that it really means the visible sky as we see it, is that it also uses the word "firmament", a word which directly means "the heaven/sky as we see it" (mostly used about the night sky). A word or an expression carrying the modern meaning of the word "universe", did not exist at the time of Muhammad, neither in Arab, nor in any of the surrounding languages, included in the on scientifical themes much more advanced languages at that time, Persian, Greek, and Latin.

And his claim about 7 universes, one outside the other, is such a scientific nonsense and gobbledygook, that you do not even find it in science fiction novels. But he uses the rubbish with a straight face like it was/is a recognized fact! A lie so big that it goes far on the outside of even the concept "al-Taqiyya" (the lawful lie) - and what here is even worse: It is so well known that universes one outside the other is something entirely unscientific, that his readers have to be extremely badly informed, naive and/or bent on believing anything which sounds like something they wish to believe, to be able to believe it. Not to mention what this fairy tale tells about Mr. Refuter.

And his readers send him "thank you for the refuting and information"! Without checking anything!!

This point of Mr. Refuter’s tales tell volumes about his honesty: There is no learned man on this Earth who does not know that this nonsense fairy tale about one universe inside another - 7 times - has nothing to do with reality or science, and there is not one learned Muslim who does not know that around 630 AD no-one in the Middle East - or in the Quran or among Muhammad's followers - talked about a universe in the modern meaning of that word.

These are so well known facts among all educated people - even just medium educated ones (it belongs in the primary or secondary school textbooks) - that there is no chance Mr. Refuter does not know about it. In plain words: These facts are so well known, that there is no chance Mr. Refuter does not know he is lying about this when he pretends it is facts and uses it in his argumentation like this.

And to make the cheating of his uneducated readers - the only possible believers in this scientific nonsense - complete, he continues: "Before clinging to such imaginary claims (to produce correct quotes from the Quran which are wildly wrong compared to scientific knowledge, and not even possible to explain with his made up "7 universes", which may be why he does not try to explain any details*) you (his readers*) may better learn to appreciate so many other verses in the Quran which corroborate the modern finding, which was totally unknown during the time of the prophet". But there is not one point at all in the Quran which truly foretells anything about the future, included future discoveries of any kind. This goes for science as well as for history - a fact so well known, that there is no chance Mr. Refuter does not know about it if he have even middle level education, and a fact thoroughly proved true by Islam and its scholars: If there had been true foretelling, Islam and its top scholars had told about it in huge letters at every opportunity and in university textbooks. There are no such words from them - only claims from uneducated wishful thinkers and from more or less professional refuters using al-Taqiyya (lawful lies), Kitman (lawful half-truths), deceit (lawful in Islam as Muhammad used deceit - f.x. to have opponents murdered), etc. (There are some co-incidences where things he said, happened to come partly true - if there are sayings which came completely rue, Muslim scholars at least have not informed about it - which has to be the case for any person talking much over many years. But for one thing it was not said to be prophesies at the time it was said, for another thing Muhammad himself said in the Quran that he was unable to make prophesies ("to see the unseen"), for a third Aishah said in Hadiths that Muhammad was unable to see the unseen, and for the forth Muslim scholars say that "there were no miracles connected to Muhammad, except the making of the Quran" (tellers of made up stories of miracles connected to Muhammad should remember this) - foretelling is a kind of miracle (to be able to "see the unseen"), and the fifth and perhaps heaviest point: These coincidents are fewer and less accurate than the result of normal pure chance according to the laws of probability should indicate - Muhammad simply had little imagination (which also is easy to see from the texts in the Quran and from quotes in Hadiths - they mainly are old stories "borrowed" from different sources and twisted some to fit Muhammad's new religion).

But using gobbledygook and even lies on points where the scientific facts are so well known that there is no chance he does not know that he is lying if he have at least medium level education, and so well known that it is easy for him to check if his claims are true or not, if he at least knows how to read and write and use books or Internet, tells something about Mr. Refuter.

And the fact that some of his readers are able to accept such scientific imbecility and dishonesty and send him "thank you for the information", also tells something about his readers and their ability to perform critical thinking.

The Sun and the Moon.

Mr. Refuter tells verse 21/33 says: "Each one (sun and moon*) is travelling in an orbit with its own motion". Abdulla Yusuf Ali says: "Swim along, each in its rounded course". Which is something different, and like what Muhammad believed he saw. In 36/40 Yusuf Ali is closer to Mr. Refuter: "Each (just) swims along in (its own) orbit (according to law)". But Mr. Refuter forgets(?) to mention 2 facts: One is that the texts in () are texts added by the translator - to clarify or too often in the Quran to adjust it to more scientifically correct text - and are not in the original Arab text. Adjust Mr. Refuter's quote for this, and you see he has transformed the Arab original not a little - a nice little Kitman (lawful half-truth). The other fact he "happens" to "forget" is that the modern meaning of the word "orbit" used in astronomy - a trajectory determined only by the speed of a "body" and by the influence of gravity on it - did not exist at the time of Muhammad. An orbit at that time was the movement of a "body" - f.x. the sun or the moon or the stars - fixed to a crystal clear heaven which was slowly turning (there were 7 such heavens).

These are facts I - the one who writes just this - learnt in secondary school, and there is no chance Mr. Refuter did not know this when he wrote his wrong information, or at least had easy access on Internet to places where he could check if what he believed was correct or not, before he wrote it - and even wrote it in a haughty tone.

But it is very convenient facts to "forget" or "forget to check" if one wants to arrive at dishonest answers. Going for refuting, not for finding the truth.

Big Bang.

This has been one of some Muslims' favorite subjects for some years - most people does not know much about this, except the name and that it was a big explosion, so that it is easy to bluff most of them, and especially naive or little educated Muslims who on top dearly want to believe.

To explain Bib Bang and its resulting astronomy very shortly:

Until some 13.7 billion years ago all matter AND time were gathered in a very small point. This point exploded the mentioned some 13.7 billion years ago into an extremely hot cloud (NB: Cloud, not smoke) consisting only of ionized hydrogen, minor quantities of ionized helium and lots and lots of free atomic particles like electrons and positrons. The explosion also started Time.

After some 300ooo - 360ooo years this cloud had expanded and cooled enough for the ions to start coming together to atoms and molecules. But still there only existed hydrogen - H2 - and helium (He). On the other hand these two existed both as matter and as antimatter - which annihilated each other (may be even before they had left the ion phase). How some matter survived to make our universe, nobody really knows. But remember: Still there only were these two gases, which formed a big cloud - there was no smoke (smoke is miniscule particles of matter normally produced by fire, and to be smoke and not ash, these particles have to drift or float in gas, and there only was gas yet, no condensed matter to make smoke particles).

The next step was that the gas now also grew cold enough for gravity to start pulling together huge "lumps" of it - gas which little by little condensed into stars. And as there was much and concentrated gas, these first stars for a large part became HUGE. In these stars atomic reactions started - reactions which fused together gas atoms to ever heavier atoms. But this process is possible only up to a certain level - up to iron. Then the fusing together stops releasing energy, and instead claims energy for producing heavier atoms. This lack of new energy makes a big star unstable. Such processes goes faster in big stars because of higher pressure and temperature, and because these stars often were from big, via super big, to hyper big, this shortage of energy started already after some 50 million years for the biggest ones. They then became unstable - and when big stars becomes unstable, they go supernova (for a sample look to f.x. Eta Carinae - this is a big star science think is unstable for this reason, and in astronomically near future will go supernova). And in these extreme explosions there was so much energy that the heavier elements were created - created and dispersed into the universe by the explosion.

This was the first cycle of star creation.

Then there was cycle number 2. Now the gas in the universe was more rarified, and the stars became not quite so big. Because of this this cycle took a lot longer time. Also the stars were not made only by hydrogen and helium any more - there were dust and lumps and boulders of other elements in the gas they were made from. But after enough time also the stare made in the second cycle went supernova if they were big enough. And spread more dust and lumps and boulders into the interstellar gas.

And then slowly the 3. cycle started - the 3. generation of stars. Our star or sun - Sol - belongs to this generation. It condensed out of a cloud consisting of a mixture of gases and dust and lumps and boulders and perhaps mini-planets some 4.567 billion years ago. Earth was created from the same cloud - not smoke, but cloud - about the same time, but ended up with much more hard elements and much less gases. But the moon - Luna - was made later. One is not quite sure how, but the dominating theory is that Earth collided with a smaller planet, perhaps the size of Mars (which is a lot smaller than Earth), and then the moon condensed out of the debris from that collation. Originally it was much closer to Earth - we have seen numbers as low as 15ooo km (which in case made it circle Earth a more than once a day). But gravity transferred energy from Earth's spin and slowly made it drift away. It still is drifting away a few centimeters (3.8 cm) a year.

There is no scientist who has found this process described in the Quran. There is no Muslim scholar speaking to educated non-Muslims knowing also the Quran, who tries to claim this process is described in the Quran - but perhaps when they are talking to uneducated Muslims?. But there are a lot of little educated Muslims and a lot of refuters who claim that here is the proof for foretelling in the Quran! From the naive and the not educated it may even be honest wishful belief.

Just try yourself to make this reality fit the Qurans story about first the two parts - the claimed 7 heavens on one side, and the Earth (or 7 Earths, 65/12b) on the other - first come together, and then to be split again.

From educated refuters that explanation is not possible unless they know the tale is not true - they at least know where to check if their wishful thinking may be correct or not. But then dishonesty - f.x. al-taqiyya (the lawful lie), Kitman (the lawful half-truth), etc. is not only permitted, but advised in Islam "if necessary" to defend or promote the religion.

We think this point needs no more comments, except that we dare any Muslim - included Mr. Refuter - to tell us where in the Quran the Big Bang and the following creation of our planetary system really is described. And Mr. Refuter: Before you try another bluff, remember that I who write just this know a lot about those things - as you perhaps understand from what I write. Also remember that in spite of your haughty standard words about "he does not know", I know the Quran better than most Muslims - which you also see from our work on the Quran - and I understand the Quran better than most Muslims; so well that I am able to see the difference between what the Quran really says and means, and the ways things are explained away by refuters, and also I know enough about psychology and about human nature to often be able to read what the Quran really says behind the glossy words. There often is a big difference between the glorifying words in the Quran, and the facts it really tells. Because of this my knowledge a bluff has to be very good to make me believe in it. And if you now jump up and scream "boasting", come down to earth: It does not take so much knowledge that there is a reason for boasting, to see these things, not to mention how easy it is to see many of the mistaken facts in the Quran.

That is to say - if one is not going all out to refute (like you promised your questioner) instead of trying to find out what is true and what is not. Then everything one wants to be difficult, is difficult or impossible.

And remember: I dare you and any other Muslim prove to me where the scientific process of Big Bang and the creation of the Sun and Earth is described in the Quran. But proofs, not just claims like one too often meet from Muslims.

The spinning of the Earth

Mr. Refuter claims 39/5 says: "He (Allah*) coils the night onto the day and the day onto the night", and claims this proves that the Quran speaks about the spinning Earth. For one thing a coil is not a spin, and it talks about "movement" of day and night, not of the Earth. But worse is that what 39/5 really says, is: "He (Allah*) makes the Night overlap the Day, and the Day overlap the Night - - -".

The bluff - or al-Taqiyya(?) (lawful lie) - dismissed.

Solomon and the ants.

First we remind you that the Quran several places states that the book has a clear and easy to understand language, and that only the "sick of heart" look for hidden meanings - anomalies, etc. - they are for Allah if not otherwise is said. All the same one of the most often used ways to flee from difficult problems in the Quran, is to claim that "the god was not able to express himself clearly, so that this means something else than what is said - it is a similitude or analogy - and intelligent me will explain to you what the clumsy god was unable to tell himself - - - something entirely different from the mistake he made".

That ants were speaking in the Quran, so obviously is wrong, that there is no other solution than to try to explain it away - so Mr. Refuter uses this well worn claim: "This really means something else than what the omniscient, clumsy god said, and wise me will explain away his mistake". Thus the ant did not vocalize what he said, but transmitted his words in other ways Mr. Refuter does not specify, but he likely meant by smell, as that was mentioned (also it is the only remaining possibility, as there only were 3 possible ways of transmitting information: Sound (impossible here), sight (but ants do not use visible signals for transmitting information), and smell). But he bumps into 3 mistakes: For one thing ants still have too small brains to verbalize - even by smell - coherent sentences. For another when animals - often insects - communicate by means of smelly molecules - pheromones - they only are able to transmit rudimentary messages like "I am here", "I am ready for sex", etc. And finally: Man is not able to smell the pheromones except a few of them, and also then only if there is much of it - and insects do not produce much "smell", but have an exquisite "nose" for their own art's pheromones. (There are insects which can smell one single molecule of a relevant pheromone, and male butterflies which can smell a female "in heat" 10 km off. The human nose is not of that quality and not geared for insect pheromones. Solomon would be totally unable to smell it, and even if it had been possible, no coherent message could have been transmitted.

Fast talk and bluff dismissed - and I dare Mr. Refuter to prove that he is right if he disagrees - proofs, not just cheap words and easy and wrong claims.

The creation of a baby.

Here he first skips the fact that the Quran takes the semen from inside a man's body - like in f.x. Greek science of that time - not from the scrotum. Then he skips the fact that the baby is created when the semen cell and the egg cell fuses together to a zygote. He only starts when this zygote - now a few cells big - inserts itself into the maternal uterus. Because here by accident - or more likely from old knowledge - there is something in the Quran which partly is correct (The old Arabs to a large degree lived mainly or partly from animal production, and from slaughtering they knew a lot of what was and happened inside animals - and humans. Egg cells, semen cells, and early zygotes were too small to be seen in the blood and gore in a carcass, but what happened in the uterus after some time, they knew.) As they knew what happened in the uterus, there is no miracle to that the Quran describes roughly the evolving of a fetus. What is more strange is that in spite of this knowledge, the Quran for one thing reports that the fetus grows in stages, just like f.x. Greek medicine believed - this was the dominant medical "science" at the time of Muhammad - and for another it refers the development of the fetus wrong: It says that an early stage was a clot of blood (though there are translators saying something like Mr. Refuter - a leech-like clot - or things like that, either from another understanding of the indistinct original Arab alphabet - it lacked a number of vowels and points, so one often has to guess the meaning - of from "adjusting" the text to fit modern knowledge) and then it unmistakably says that the bones were made and then clothed with flesh - it is the other way around: The bones grow and solidify inside the flesh.

Dr. Maurice Bucaille.

This is a strange fish in the pond. He read not a little, but his brain was a bit special, to say it like this. His conclusions all too often had little to do with normal evaluation of facts or with the laws of logic. Normal scientists mostly either smile or shrug their shoulders from many of his thoughts and ideas and conclusions. One of the few things which are sure about him, is that persons having to resort to quoting him, tell a lot about themselves and about their lack of real arguments or facts. It also tells not a little about Islam that Muslims quite often quotes him - and without mentioning one word about his reputation, except using his impressive title: Dr. It also is ever so dishonest by you and by each and every Muslim we have met using dr. Bucaille, to use his title as a mark of expertise, without mentioning one word about the fact that he was a doctor of medicine, not of science or astronomy or of anything relevant. He was the family physician of King Feisal of Saudi Arabia, and the physician of other high Muslims. In science he just was an amateur dabbler - which no Muslim mention. As for your strong claim that he was not a Muslim, and that he thus was more reliable, Wikipedia dryly remarks: "Some sources claim he was not a Muslim".

Your refuting of our correct remarks about mistakes in the Quran, also here shows an impressing degree of honesty and reliability.

Anyone is free to check on this information. We do not think quotations from Mr./dr. Bucaille need or deserve any more space. The same really goes for refuters needing to use that kind of "proofs".

Sunup and sundown.

We quote Mr. Refuter: "- - - I find it ludicrous to even contemplate these passages in a literal sense". Then he cannot be much of a Muslim - not even knowing that the Quran several places most clearly states that the language in the book is clear and to be understood like it is said - to search for hidden meanings only is for "the sick of heart" and only for Allah to understand. But as we have mentioned before: To claim that others do not understand is one frequently used way to flee from explaining unexplainable points and mistakes in the Quran. To claim that the clumsy god was unable to express what he meant, is another - in spite of Muhammad's stating that the Quran is "the book which makes things clear", and then to claim Allah's real meaning is something entirely different and hidden in an allegory or something, and that clever refuters wants to correct the mistake the omniscient god made in his unlucky chaise of words - well, this is normal for Muslims (though they say it in less clear words).

Dear Mr. Refuter, we are able to read plain language. We also know how Muhammad's contemporaries understood these verses - and it was not as poetry or mysticism.

Fast talk - and in this case not even good quality, as the mistake is so obvious, that it takes a lot more - and more reliable facts - to explain it away.

As for the "hundreds of verses in the Quran wherein the movement of the sun and other scientific facts are clearly discussed": They are not there. For one thing this is a bluff - there are not hundreds of verses about such topics in the Quran. But worse: If this undocumented claim had been even partly true, we had read about it in scientific textbooks in university. But it only is to be found among little educated Muslims and among Muslim refuters on f.x. Internet. Give those "hundreds of verses" to us, and we will pick them to pieces or explain the scientific reality about it to you - and remember that we know the Quran, so we know what quality we are talking about. Bluffs like this do not impress us.

Why Stars were Created.

Here Mr. Refuter's argumentation so obviously just is fast-talk + the standard claim that the omniscient god believing he used clear language like the Quran many places states, was unable to express himself, and clever humans have to call it a metaphor or something, so as to explain away the silly story - this is so obvious and easy to see, that we do not squander time on it. Yes, and plus the standard: "You do not know or understand" (a small irony here: I who write just this have a measured IQ for what it is worth of 160, and I am widely read as you perhaps have noticed. I understand some things.) Read Mr. Refuter's tale yourself and see. Laugh if you want, though it is impolite.

It at least seems that we - our group - understand the Quran and its clear language much better than Muslims, who in spite of Allah's direct words about that the book shall be understood like it is written if nothing else is indicated, are unable to read the plain text like the Quran itself says, but claims that large parts of the book are allegories, and not mistakes. Are Muslims the "sick at heart"?

The Sun and the Moon are subject to humans?

There is a lot of wrong science above, and here follows even more:

First to clarify something: One thing is that even if Mr. Abdullah Yusuf Ali also sometimes "stretches" his translations a little to adjust the Quran to modern science and knowledge, he mostly is reliable, and according to Islam/its scholars he also is "one of the three best translators of the Quran to English - perhaps the very best". We also have a Quran with comments in Swedish, translated by a Swede converted to Islam, but still with his old Scandinavian respect for the real truth and for scientific accuracy, so that when there are points where the translation is unsure, he for one thing gives the alternative possible translations, and for another often gives the exact literal translation - also here with alternatives if there are more than one - which there often is in the Quran, as the original Arab alphabet was incomplete (it was not completed until around 900 AD, whereas the Quran was written around 650 AD). We believe more in Mr. Yusuf Ali than in a person who has promised to refute texts many Muslims do not like. We also trust the Swede more - he has proved he mostly is honest. And especially if those two have more or less similar translation, we trust them more than the translations from the mentioned refuter - especially as the refuter on top of all already has showed he uses dishonesty, and for another clearly has proved that in all too many cases he does not know what he is talking about, and all the same has not checked his claims and statements to see if they are true. Or perhaps everything is al-Taqiyya/Kitman? At least some of what he says is impossible he does not know is wrong or does not know he should have checked on it, if he has at least some education - the facts in some cases are too widely known for him not at least to have heard about them.

Thus we believe more in Mr. Yusuf Ali's translation here than in Mr. Refuters - or in Mr. Refuter's choice of translator (there are/have been more than 60 translations to English of the Quran - not all of them good or reliable).

Exact distance from the sun essential?

Then Mr. Refuter gives more wrong scientific information. The sun, Earth and Moon have been ordained to very precise specifications to fit mankind:

If Earth was much closer to the sun than 93 million miles (150 mill. km), the temperature would rise sharply and exterminate all life, he claims. Wrong. The field of possible life around our sun is quite wide. If Earth - Tellus - WITH OUR ATMOSPHERE was placed where Venus is today, the result would be a tropical planet - too hot for comfort at equator, but ok at high latitudes (the reason why Venus is a hot Hell, is not the distance from the sun itself, but that its atmosphere is full of CO2, which retains the heath). And if we placed Earth where Mars is now, still with our atmosphere, it would become an arctic planet, but a wide belt around equator would be habitable.

This is how sharply the temperature would rise or fall, and how exact the distance from the sun has to be.

A "somewhat" smaller Earth?

"If the Earth were somewhat smaller - - - say the size of the moon". Then the Earth would not be "somewhat" smaller, but MUCH smaller - the moon has about 1/16 of the volume of Earth or a bit less, and measurably less than that of the weight (as it has much less of heavy elements), a fact which counts a lot, as there is proportionality between its weight and is gravity. Earth then was no planet any more, but a mini-planet. The claimed effect would be correct, but as a result of a very dramatic reduction in size. The other way life is much more though when it comes to high pressure: It can stand pressure at least up to 1ooo atmospheres (there is life even at the bottom of our deepest oceans, and there the pressure is nearly 1ooo atmospheres). An atmospheric pressure of 1ooo times the one on Earth, indicates a much bigger Earth with a dramatically much deeper atmosphere. So much for the exactly correct size of Earth and the pressure of its atmosphere. And for the indication that the atmospheric pressure relies on the gravity - it relies as much or more on how deep the atmosphere is (forgotten by Mr. Refuter).

A closer moon?

If the moon was closer - tides would destroy the possibility of life. In case it had to be dramatically much closer. The power of gravity falls by the second power of the distance, so that the distance did not have to be all too big before the tide just were an inconvenience, not a prohibition to life on Earth. This fact also is demonstrated by the fact that the distance between the moon and Earth varies from some 363ooo km to some 405ooo km because it is not travelling in a circle - varying more than 40ooo km - without most kinds of life register any difference at all. And if the moon disappeared today, it would have limited effect on the oceans and seas - the tide for one thing just pulls the water a bit back and forth - it is the winds, and salt gradients and temperature gradients in the seawater which drives the great streams in the oceans and seas. Besides there still is the sun to make tides - it just would be once a day instead of twice a day.

Mr. Refuter should avoid topics he does not know - or at least he should check if his beliefs are correct. "These very precise measurements - - -". Well, at least he gives people who know about such things, some good laughs.

A not spinning Earth.

"If the Earth did not spin, it would empty all its waters - - -". Why? Where to?

A fast spinning Earth.

"If the Earth spun much faster (than once in 24 hours*) it would empty its water into space". When the Earth was young, it spun once in every 5 - 6 hours. The oceans still are there. Worse: To launch something into space from Earth, it needs an initial velocity of ca. 11,2 km/sec. + margin for being retarded through the atmosphere. Earth's velocity even at equator is some 1600 km an HOUR = ca. 0.45 km/sec. To get a velocity of 11,2 km/sec. even at equator, Earth must spin roughly once an hour. And the picture is even bleaker, at it only could throw things - included water - tangential to itself ("parallel" to itself at the point of launching to say it like that), and to throw things off tangentially, you need more initial velocity than when it starts vertical to be able to throw it off the planet.

So much for these "narrow margins".

Coils are not spin.

"- - - coils - - -". This wrong claim is commented on further up in this page (coils actually are cork-screws).

Earth's rotation and tilted axis.

About the only correct thing here, is that Earth orbits the sun in a year. The tilting is wrong - it is far below Mr. Refuter's 33 degrees - the correct is 23.5 degrees at present, but it varies slowly over the years. The effect of no tilt is wrong, too. It would give stable temperatures in belts around the globe and larger ice caps at the poles, but in principle that is it. Also remember here that large and thick concentrations of ice are not stable - they float slowly downstream - in these cases towards lower and hotter heights and latitudes and towards - for large areas on Earth - the sea. All water at the poles therefore had not been an option.

Thicker crust.

This claimed danger is dependent on so many "ifs", that I will ask Mr. Refuter to specify under which conditions this is likely to happen? Also: The part which could solidify, is the magma just under the crust. Will he please document that normal magma binds oxygen when it solidifies?

AS YOU SEE ALL THESE POINTS ABOUT LOCAL ASTRONOMY, ETC. ARE SERIOUSLY WRONG - LIKE THE REST OF HIS LACK OF SCIENTIFIC KNOWLEDGE. IT IS TOO TYPICAL FOR MUSLIMS JUST TO THROW OUT CLAIMS AND PRETEND THIS IS THE FULL TRUTH - YOU MEET THIS TECHNIQUE FAR TOO OFTEN. THEN IF THEY ARE PROVED WRONG, THEY JUST DROP IT AND LEAVE, OR DROP IT AND LAUNCH NEW NOT DOCUMENTED CLAIMS. THE BAD THING IS THAT NAIVE OR LITTLE EDUCATED PERSONS OR WISHFUL BELIEVERS OFTEN BELIEVE THEM. AND ALSO: IN ISLAM SUCH LIES ARE NOT SINS - IT IS HONORABLE AND RIGHT TO LIE TO PROMOTE OR DEFEND ISLAM (CFR. AL-TAQIYYA AND KITMAN) "IF LIES ARE NECESSARY OR GIVES A BETTER RESULT" - TO INCLUDE THE BREAKING OF EVEN OATHS ABOUT SPEAKING THE TRUTH.

We further quote Mr. Refuter: "All these precise specifications were referred to in - - -: 'It is He (Allah*) who created the heavens (there are no 7 heavens*) and the Earth in true proportions". One thing is that it is not documented that this - or all this - is what is referred to; it only is a claim. As bad is: As all the references are wrong, what does then this verse prove?

And more: "In that respect, it is evident how the sun, earth, and the moon are ordained by Allah to very precise attributes in service of mankind". But what is it then really evidence of, as all the claimed "very precise attributes" are ever so wrong?

Why mountains were created.

We quote Mr. Refuter: "Only crude hermeneutics would inspire the kind of objections has been raised here - - -". And then he goes on to debate how mountains are made - which is no secret for most educated people. (Though it is a fact that the Quran says they are set down). But the question was "why" - which he just touches, but do not answer: The Quran tells it is to stabilize Earth, and he does not explain one millimeter about how it stabilizes it - fact is that in special cases mountains can be slightly destabilizing.

When you do not like the question, answer about something else.

He also scolds "literalist" reading of the Quran - forgetting that good Muslims several places in the Quran are told that the texts are clear and shall be understood like told = literally. Only those "sick at heart" looks for hidden meanings - analogies, etc. - according to that book, if something else is not specified.

The Moon's light.

Here Mr. Refuter uses a number of words - plus dr. (of medicine) Maurice Bucaille - to explain what is not necessary to explain: That the sun and the moon are different. This even Muhammad saw, and used different words for their effect. But the essential point is that the Quran tells - like Mr. Refuter confirms in his quote of 25/61 - that the moon is "giving light". (We may add that there are worse refuters than Mr. Refuter, as we have met the ones claiming the Quran says the moon reflects light, but such an expression does not exist in the original Arab Quran at all). A god trying to use a clear and not to be misunderstood, precise language, like the Quran claims the language is in the book, and like Muslims claim is a proof for that the Quran is made by a god ("the language in the Quran is so clear and impossible to misunderstand, that only a god can have made it" - such claims you meet every now and then from Islam and its Muslims) - if an omniscient god had written this trying to make such a clear language, he had not here used a word normally used for light sources, but one for reflected light. "Giving light" in normal speech means producing light.

Dr. Bucaille once more.

As for dr. Bucaille - and for the ones so short of witnesses and arguments and facts that they have to use him, not to mention have to use him often - We have clarified his position in the scientific world, and his religion, further up in this page.

Everything created in pairs?

This honestly is a funny one. First Mr. Refuter drops half of the sentence: "- - - that ye (Muhammad and his followers*) may receive instruction" - words which show Allah talks about things Muhammad & Co could learn from (the Quran talked about living things on Earth), and then he drops our whole question/comment, which was about the topic the Quran talked about: Living things on Earth, and their always being in two sexes (which is wrong). Then he starts debating elementary particles in physics, claiming they always come in pairs - particle and anti-particle. Even if this had been true, it had not proved that "everything is created in pairs" and it had told nothing about what Muhammad spoke about; plants and animals, etc. Unluckily for him he does not know much about particle physics, too. We dare him to find an anti-graviton (gravitons transfer gravitation), or an anti- magnet (no, we do not mean + and - magnetism, as those are two effects of the same particle - mono-magnets do not exist. We mean the particle which transmits anti-magnetism. Or what about anti-Higgs boson (well, to be a little fair, also not the normal Higgs boson is found).

A well known technique of debate: If you have no answer, debate something else.

But as we have indicated, we are little impressed by bluffs. And this even more so when the man clearly shows he does not know what he is talking about. Not to mention a man so "smart" that he leaves the relevant subject for another, not relevant, but cherry-picked subject which in no case can prove the original point - - - and then on top of all stumbles head along into blemishes from lack of knowledge even about his cherry-picket subject.

He produces strong profs for the Quran, yes; but for that it is wrong, not for that any points - even his chosen points - are right.

Matter/anti-matter.

And as if his revealing lack of knowledge about quantum physics was not enough, he stumble as much head along in normal physics. He gives a correct description of the main properties on matter and anti-matter - except that not for all particles there has been found an anti-particle. But then he continues that anti-matter until recently only was theoretical stuff, as it never was produced in laboratories. Anti-matter has been a physical reality for at least a couple of generations - and produced and measured in many a cyclotron many places in the industrialized world, and for all we know also in less industrialized parts - it is daily food in advanced physical science and has been for a long time (we think the first was produced in 1932). The only thing which is new, is that in this new and very big and international machine on the border of Switzerland and France, one now are able to produce not only atomic particles of anti-matter, but full anti-hydrogen atoms (hydrogen atoms are the smallest of atoms) and even anti-heliom4 (helium 4 = normal helium). That is to say, they have for some years been able to produce anti-hydrogen, but have been unable to stabilize it, and it has been annihilated at once. Some time ago they for the first time were able to stabilize we think it was 38 molecules - out of some million created ones.

The claim that 51/49 talks about quantum physics, is so far into fairy tale land, that we do not bother to comment on it. Especially as the claim comes from a stated refuter who thoroughly has proved he knows more or less nothing about quantum physics.

The Samaritan.

First thing first: Mr. Refuter jokes about the "mistake" that the Bible can be more reliable that the Quran, and that the fact that it is much older can have any weight. If Mr. Refuter had known anything at all about historical science, he also had known that age may count much for the reliability of a historical book. The reason is that the written word is much more stable than memory and the spoken word. And if something is written down shortly after it happened, it is far more likely to be correct, than if it was written down 100 or 1000 or 2000 years later. And coincidence did that the first written Jewish books were written around or a bit before the time Samaria was founded - around 800 BC, and Samaria was founded a small century later, and as it was founded by a king, it was written down in the books: King Omri of Israel (the northern country) founded Samaria in 722 BC. That there are speculations about if the year is correct, is a fair deal, but there never was a reason to falsify it (only Muslims have a reason for doing that - to make the Quran lose one mistake). Also if Mr. Refuter wants to claim the year is wrong, it is for him to prove it - but prove, not only throw around claims like he does here, like he does other placed, and like is one of the standard ways for Muslims to debate, especially when they want to explain away mistakes in the Quran - we meet the method all too often.

And what is absolutely sure is that the relevant claimed Shamari in the story about the Exodus in the Quran, was not from Samaria. For one thing it happened 600 years too early according to the books, and that much the writers were not wrong (Islam even wants Exodus to have happened earlier to camouflage another mistake in the Quran - Pharaoh Ramses II did not drown). And for another they were refugees coming out of Egypt, not from Israel (or Canaan to be correct - there were no Jews there yet). Mr. Refuter also states - likely correct - that people lived in the area before that. But his is irrelevant for the point, because the point is that the name Samarians could not exist until the name was coined - there existed no Samarians until Samaria got its name.

Gospel at the time of Moses.

For once it is possible you are right on a point. This part of the Quran is about Moses, but the Quran is so helter-skelter constructed, that there suddenly can be a verse about Muhammad in another context. We will look into this when we make the last look into http://www.1000mistakes.com next year. If it is wrong, it will be corrected - and congratulations to you in case, because it in case is the first mistake Muslims and Islam has found in "1000+ Mistakes in the Quran" except wrong spellings, etc. Luckily it in case only is a historical detail, not anything of any religious consequences.

It also is interesting to see that you claim the correct translation is not "unlettered" (Muhammad hardly was unlettered according to science and also according to Hadiths), as Muslims often try to use the claim that Muhammad was analphabetic to "prove" he could not have made the Quran (nonsense as a proof anyhow). There is a difference between "unlettered" (= analphabetic) and Gentile (= non-Jew). But like always we will have to check it - it is a nice point - as Muslim sources too often "bend" the truth to make the Quran sound true. And in this case the source already has proved such tendencies and more.

That it is confirmed in 7/158 counts little - too much is wrong in the Quran (f.x. what you mention that Muhammad is mentioned in the Bible - the only place where he is mentioned in the Bible, is in the Quran).

Haman.

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

Creation of Heaven and Earth.

This is included in comments further up in this page - Mr. Refuter has learnt nothing new about astronomy or Big Bang since then. Scientific gobbledygook, religious lack of non-religious knowledge (= wishful thinking?) or an al-Taqiyya (perhaps the first, as Mr. Refuter has proved he knows very little about subjects like this).

Earth ad Heaven ripped apart.

Also the answer to this is implicated in our comments further up. Scientifically Mr. Refuter's claims are nonsense. And according to the Quran it is nonsense: The Quran several places claims everything was created in 6 or 8 days. There are some 9,1 billion years between the Big Bang and the condensation of our solar system - much more than 6 - 8 days. Beside: You are making the claim, then it is your job to prove it, not ours to disprove it: Prove that it happened the way the Quran says it happened, and that this is conforming to reality, included Bib Bang. (You will have a job, because the discrepancies are too big - and there already are mistakes in your points 1, 2, and 3 here).

Creation of Man.

Most of this is commented on further up in this page. Here Mr. Refuter returns to the 13 ways the Quran tells Adam was created, but instead of explaining how he could be created in so many ways, he (at least first) returns to one of the ways - the one he described further up, and which has one correct point in the development of a fetus, if his translation is more correct than Mr. Yusuf Ali's (Mr. Yusuf Ali has a very good reputation within Islam for being correct). As this is commented on further up, we do not spoil time on repeating it. But just a couple of extra remarks:

The Quran says (in one of the 13 creation claims) that man was created from water. Science says his extremely distant forefathers were created in water. There is an enormous difference between being created from water and being created in water. There is not one single educated Muslim - or non-Muslim - who does not know how enormous this difference is - and also that there is an enormous difference in time between life going ashore, and the emergence of man - several hundred million years. All the same Muslims ever so often claim: "Here is the scientific proof!" (To call it scientific is nonsense - it is to speak with mini-letters). The only thing such claims prove, is that persons who have to resort to so twisted proofs, have no real arguments. Not to mention no proofs.

Just one more comment: Mr. Refuter also uses as a "proof" that blood and bodily fluids have the same salinity as ocean water. With the possible exception of the excreted fluids (urine and sweat) this is wrong. Their salinity is ca. 1/3 of seawater (this is one of the reasons why to drink seawater is poisonous to humans).

"Mutually excluding".

well, further down he also touches some of the other claims for how Adam was created. Not as it is described in the Quran, like separate creations, but some of them mixed together. F.x. the possibility that the first prokaryote cells or whatever started in mud (according to him - there are a number of possible theories to chose from, and he has chosen one which fits just this claim from him - but we may add that the most likely theory is that life started in shallow, warm sea or warm ponds of seawater, not in mud) he claims is confirmed by 15/26 in the Quran: "We (Allah*) created man from sounding clay, from mud (the clay*) molded into shape - - -". No comments - and none necessary. But remember it is impolite to laugh, at least if Mr. Refuter hears it.

There is one more point to beware of here. In the "West" we early learn the fact that when two or more possibilities are mutually excluding each others, maximum one of them may be true. In many Muslim areas the children and people are thought that several solutions all the same all can be true. This is necessary, partly because the writings in the old Quran is so unclear - partly because of an unfinished alphabet at that time - that 2 or more interpretations of the texts are possible, and in such cases Islam teaches that both or all are true, even though they may vary wildly, and partly because in many cases mistakes in the Quran are not possible to explain away in other ways than to claim that "yes, the reality is true - but the Quran's mistake also is true, it just is another and parallel truth".

Because of this unscientific "specialty" in Islam, it is possible for a Muslim to believe that many or all the ways the Quran claims Adam was created, may be true "because the Quran says so" - or that the different ways Adam was created, were mixed together. This is the explanation for that Mr. Refuting defends - and mix - the different claimed creations like you see here (and sometimes meet in debates) - above and below - in illogical ways and incredible for us used to more scientific and logical ways of thinking. The plain fact is that the Quran tells about different ways of creating Adam, and these different ways are mutually excluding each other - which mean that maximum one of the ways of creating him can be true and all the others are wrong. (Actually according to science all the ways the Quran mentions are wrong, as man was not created, but developed from earlier primates.

But in debates beware that a Muslim may honestly believe he is using correct logic even when he claims that two or more mutually excluding facts or "facts" both/all may be true. (Because of this Mr. Refuter here may - may - believe his logic is true when he mixes all these ways of creating Adam.)

From the quintessence of clay.

What do the readers mean about his next claim: That the creation of man from the quintessence of clay now must be the correct theory. First of all, what is the quintessence of something? Here Mr. Refuter is wrong once more - the quintessence of clay is not the average of clay. The quintessence of something is the concentrated part - the essence - of the good or active or reactive parts of something - - - and normal clay is very little active or reactive. But then he goes on listing a number of chemicals, and most of them not typical for normal clay or potters clay. This proves exactly nothing. And what does it further prove that the human body consists of the things/elements man eats? Adam - man - was not proved created by earth (in addition to all the other ways Adam was created) even if his descendants eat normal food. (After all there also is a difference between earth and plants, fish and meat. Another point: Most of the human body is made of just 3 elements: Water, which is not Earth, carbon, which the plants we and animals eat, take from the air, not from the earth, and oxygen, which we ourselves and also our food take from the air, not from earth. Where is the "made from earth" even in this twisted way of retelling this verse?)

Man created out of nothing.

Mr. Refuter claims verse 19/67 says: "Did the human being forget that we (Allah*) created him already, and he was nothing?" This he claims only means that before we were created, we were nothing (though it also may mean we were nothing, from which he created us). A. Yusuf Ali says: "But does not man call to mind that We (Allah*) created him before out of nothing?" Plain words for your money. And our above mentioned Swedish Muslim "friend" - the translator of Muhammad Azad: "The Message of the Quran" - or "Koranens Budskap" in Swedish - says exactly the same as Mr. Yusuf Ali".

Guess whom we trust most for honest translation - those two or Mr. Refuter?!

Adam from a sperm drop?

And finally: Yusuf Ali (and the Swede practically identical): "He (Allah*) has created man from a sperm drop - - -". The word "man" used like this, means the humans, the humanity, Adam. The Swede uses the word "menniskan" which only has one meaning: the humans/humanity. Mr. refuter claims it describes the creation (and development of) babies. No further comments necessary.

Iblis a Jinn or an angel?

An open question in the Quran: At least one place he clearly is reckoned among the angels, other places among the Jinns. In his comment Mr. Refuter chose the Jinn part for his comment. The rest of his comment is talk. (It is likely Iblis/the Devil is a Jinn, but it is not clear in the Quran.) The minimum mistake is unclear language, compared to claims about such a clear language, that it is a proof for that the Quran is from a god.

Gabriel/Holy Spirit

It is quite normal to meet Muslims claiming that Gabriel just is another name for the Holy Spirit. The rationale for this is that Muhammad claimed Gabriel brought messages from Allah, but a few times he claimed that also the Holy Spirit brought messages. As both were claimed to bring messages, they had to be the same being. Voila!

Some logic.

But then Mr. Refuter goes on telling that it is the same in the Bible. Which is fantasy. It is very clear in the Bible that the Holy Spirit is something very special, and definitely not an angel - Gabriel or whoever. Nobody reading the Bible with an open mind, would ever get the idea of mixing the Holy Spirit neither with Gabriel, nor with any other angel. Also the claim is not from the Quran - it is not mentioned there. It is not very clear in the Bible what the Holy Spirit is, but it is very clear that it is something much more special than an angel, even than an arch angel like Gabriel was/is.

The tried answer or claim that Gabriel = the Holy Spirit is too obviously wrong according to the Bible, and it is even contradicted by the Quran, which at least one place talks about "angels and the Spirit" = the Holy Spirit is not an angel. Not to mention that the old Jews who wrote the OT, knew the difference between an angel and a spirit. And even more so: The name is "the Holy Spirit", not "the Holy Angel" - and you may believe that if a god gave it its name, a god knew the difference between an angel and a spirit!

The Quran confirming the Torah and the Bible.

This theme is so thoroughly commented on in "1000+ Comments on the Quran", that any more is not necessary. The fact is that the teachings of the two gods Yahweh and Allah are far too different - and too deeply different - to come from the same god (and we here remind you that Muhammad's claimed explanation for this (falsification of the Bible) is thoroughly proved wrong by both science and by Islam).

Just one extra remark: Not only some laws are different between the Bible - and especially NT - and the Quran: Lots of laws are very different, and more fundamental: Much if the ethical and moral codes also are extremely different. Too much different.

Noah's son

We take his point in this case - the point that fast talk shall explain away reality.

But also this his other point is wrong: If Noah only had one son, the situation was the same like the reality which makes the story about the creation of only one man and one woman - Adam and Eve - impossible: The DNA-pool would be too small and the race would not survive. (well, actually in just this case there may be an opening - unlike in the Bible, in the Quran also some of Noah's followers were taken onboard the Ark, even though we hear nothing about these followers later).

God is Messiah?

There is not one Christian who say God/Yahweh = Jesus. There only is one god: Yahweh - normally just named God. (But like in a royal family, in spite of there being only one king, there may be a royal junior and f.x. a chief of staff or something - Jesus and the Holy Spirit). Muhammad had problems with understanding this. The same goes for Muslims - even nowadays.

Alcohol in Paradise.

This he explains with that the wine is "not polluted and not sinful to drink". But it is not said non-alcoholic (it is not wine if there is no alcohol - then it just is juice, and the Quran very clearly says wine) - and the underlying question is not touched at all: In the old Arabia sex and alcohol were "the two delightful things". One of these "delightful things" Muhammad elegantly took care of with lots of houris. Was this his way of using also the other "Delightful thing" as a religious attraction and an attraction to get more warriors? This question Mr. Refuter does not touch.

It also is informative to see that Mr. Refuter continues to use the standard Muslim claim: "You do not know the Quran", "You do not understand the Quran" - claims used and disused whenever difficult problems in the Quran is to be talked away. And he uses it after we thoroughly have proved we know the Quran better than most Muslims, and understand it even better - we understand it so well, that we see that all the claimed analogies, etc. and all the "explanations" are not what the Quran really says, and also we understand it good enough to see what it really tells behind the glorifications and behind the never proved glossy words and claims. Which means we understand it better than most Muslims, who are so filled with the claimed gloriousness and claimed truths in the book, that they are unable to see this.

Homosexuality in Islam's paradise?

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

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

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

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

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

Here Mr. Refuter has tried to refute 4-5 dozen points. But http://1000mistakes.com contains more than 2ooo points (out of perhaps some 3ooo) which are wrong in the Quran - and even one mistake proves that the Quran is not from an omniscient god, and that thus something is seriously wrong with the book, with Muhammad and his teaching, and with the religion. Even if Mr. Refuter had had every "refuting" correct (and mostly they are wrong), there still had been 2ooo+ points to refute. Until that is done, "1000+ Mistakes in the Quran" is not refuted. When will this be done? As it is now, the Quran still is proved wrong on unbelievably many points, and thus it stands proved that the book is from no god, and thus that Muhammad was not representing a god, and Islam consequently is not the religion of any god.

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


Part B

The original Muslim "refuting" of http://www.1000mistakes.com .

(The complete and unabridged text loaded down from Internet 21. March 2011 (actually some days after this book was finished, but in time to put it in here). As mentioned there is a chance they will find it too embarrassing to keep the text on the net after http: is posted, and may terminate or change it - we hope not, because it is such an informative, typical sample of the level of too many Muslim debates and "information pages", etc. - also from "authorities" - that it should be possible for everyone and forever to read it and see it for themselves.

But for the case that they stop their page or change the texts (and perhaps denies that it ever said what it says - al-Taqiyya (the lawful lie) is not only permitted, but advised "if necessary" when it comes to defending or promoting Islam), we decided to load down their full page and include it here, so that anybody can check if we tell the truth or not, and so that anybody can see samples of their techniques, reliability, etc. and remember it during later debates.

We have added some comments below, too, so you should check both Part A and Part B if you are looking for something. Remarks starting by "P:" are remarks from Mr. Refuter.

We quote:

Originally Posted by sunnikid:

where has this site been refuted?

1000 mistakes in the Quran - MAIN PAGE

is there a muslim brother who refuted these point or the website?

wsallam

(FOR US FROM THE WEST - IN THE WIDE MEANING OF THAT WORD - WHO ARE USED TO THINK AND EVALUATE OURSELVES, A PLEE LIKE THIS IS BORDERING THE UNBELIEVABLE. WE MAY ASK FOR INFORMATION AND FOR ARGUMENTS "PRO" AND "CONTRA", BUT TO ASK IF ANYONE CAN THINK FOR YOU, IS A BIT SPECIAL - THOUGH IN MUSLIM AREA CHILDREN AND OTHERS OFTEN ARE THOUGHT NOT TO THINK THEMSELVES, BUT TO LISTEN TO THE AUTHORITIES. AND WELL, WELL: ALSO IN NAZI GERMANY WE MET THE SIMILAR LOGIC: "DER FÜRER DENKT FÜR UNS" - "THE LEADER (HITLER) THINKS FOR US". (ISLAM IN SOME WAYS IS RATHER SIMILAR TO THE NAZI IDEOLOGY - NOT OUR WORDS, BUT F.X. C. G. YOUNG'S.)

Quote:

P: (I can not access the site since it is blocked here. Anyhow, I copy paste an email communication I had with a north Indian lady (she told me she was a Muslim before) and she quoted from some anti Islamic websites some of the contradictions in Quran. Here is my reply to her in bold red fonts for the so called contradictions. I had to get help from some Islamic websites for some replies. I am posting here the communication because may be someone may find it useful)


P: Dear Sara,

p: Please find below my comments (marked by P:). (WE IN http://www.1000mistakes.com HAVE ADDED SOME SHORT COMMENTS IN CAPITAL LETTERS INSERTED IN THE TEXT, BUT ALSO SEE THAT PAGE AND "1000+ Comments on the Quran" ABOVE THIS.)

P: Dear Abdul,

I have nothing against you. But the religion you are following (now I have no religion) is not the real one. Can you say this from your heart?. Please answer me. I won’t trouble in IM any more.

P: I know that personally you don’t have grudge against me. You have the freedom to either accept or reject Islam. According to Quran there is no compulsion in Islam (2:256). (WRONG: THE QURAN SAYS: “LET THERE BE NO COMPULSION IN RELIGION” – IT IS A WISH, NOT A FACT. BUT MUSLIMS NORMALLY QUOTE IT IN THIS WRONG WAY. WHAT MUSLIMS ALSO NEVER MENTION, IS THAT THIS VERSE IS ABROGATED BY SOME 30 LATER, HARSH VERSES. BESIDES: WHERE IS MR. REFUTER’S DOCUMENTATION FOR THAT HIS QUOTE IS CORRECT?*) I never knew that you are under such a prejudiced and biased understanding of the Quran as you will know from my answers to the various ‘contradictions’ that you quoted about the Quran. If you go through my comments below, you will know that they are just anti Islamic propaganda.

P: I must tell you that, it is not fair on your part to simply copy and paste from enemies of Islam without checking the truth by yourself. (AN EXAMPLE OF ONE OF THE STANDARD MUSLIM EXPLANATIONS – OPPONENTS OPPOSE JUST BECAUSE THEY ARE ENEMIES OF ISLAM, (NOT BECAUSE THEY KNOW WHAT THEY ARE TALKING ABOUT. ALSO RATHER IRONIC, AS MR. REFUTER DOES NOT CHECK HIS CLAIMS HIMSELF*)).

Contradictions In the Inheritance Law

(Koran 4:11)

Allah directs you as regards your children's (Inheritance): to the male a portion equal to that of two females: if only daughters, two or more, Their share is two-thirds of the inheritance; if only one, her, share is a half. For parents, a sixth share of the inheritance to each, if the deceased left children; if no children, and the parents are the heirs, the mother has a third; if the deceased left brothers the mother has a sixth...

(Koran 4:12)

In what your wives leave, your share is a half, if they leave no child; but if they leave a child, ye get a fourth; after payment of legacies and debts. In what ye leave, their share is a fourth, If ye leave no child; but if ye leave a child, they get an eighth; after payment.

(Koran 4:176)

...If it is a man that dies, leaving a sister but no child, she shall have half the inheritance: If a woman dies and leaves no child, her brother takes her inheritance: If there are two sisters, they shall have two-thirds of the inheritance. If there are brothers and sisters, the male takes twice the share of the female.

Let us suppose a man dies and leaves only a brother and a sister, they each get 1/6 of the inheritance (verse 4/12) = 0.33 of the inheritance together. Nothing is said about who gets the rest - which means the rules may add up to from 0.33 (and up to 1.25 and even 1.50) of the total inheritance.

Let us suppose that a man dies and leaves behind three daughters, two parents and his wife. According to the verses stated above the three daughters together will receive 2/3 of the share, the parents will receive 1/3 of the share and the wife will receive 1/8 of the share.

Do the math once again: 2/3 + 1/3 + 1/8 = 9/8 = 1.125. The distribution of the property adds up to more than the available property! How can this distribution be possible? Once again Mohammed displays his inability to add. Well, if a person can't add integers then it is improbable that he would know how to add fractions. Another example: A man dies and leaves behind his mother, his wife and two sisters. According to what Mohammed has stated in Koran 4:11-12 and 4:176 the mother will receive 1/3 of the property, the wife will receive 1/4 of the property and the sisters will receive 2/3 of the property.

Let us add up the fractions again: 1/3 + 2/3 + 1/4 = 5/4 = 1.25 and once again it adds up to more than the available property.

P: Let me first extract the translation that you have provided from Abdullah Yusuf Ali for verse 4:11; and 4:12. I quote;

(Koran 4:11)

Allah directs you as regards your children's (Inheritance): to the male a portion equal to that of two females: if only daughters, two or more, Their share is two-thirds of the inheritance; if only one, her, share is a half. For parents, a sixth share of the inheritance to each, if the deceased left children; if no children, and the parents are the heirs, the mother has a third; if the deceased left brothers the mother has a sixth...

(Koran 4:12)

In what your wives leave, your share is a half, if they leave no child; but if they leave a child, ye get a fourth; after payment of legacies and debts. In what ye leave, their share is a fourth, If ye leave no child; but if ye leave a child, they get an eighth; after payment.”

P: Now your claim is that, according to the above verses, if a man dies and leaves three daughters, two parents and his wife, three daughters together will receive 2/3 of the share, the parents will receive 1/3 of the share and the wife will receive 1/8 of the share.

P: If you read the Qur’an in Arabic you will see that at the beginning of 4.11 Allah uses the plural word in Arabic ‘awlaad’ for “…your children’s (inheritance)…” but then Allah uses the singular word in ‘walad’ for “…if the deceased left a child...” Therefore, the above translation, ‘if the deceased left children’, is incorrect as the Qur’an uses the word walad and not awlaad, and walad is the Arabic word for a child, or one child, where as awlaad is the word for more than one child or children. Pickthall and many other Quran translators have given a proper translation.

P: Now let us look at 4.11 a little closer. We are told that two or more daughters (if and only if the man dies with no sons) will receive 2/3’s of the man’s inheritance. We are also told that the parents will receive a sixth (1/6) of the man’s inheritance if the deceased left a child (not children) (to each, thus we take 1/6 + 1/6 = 2/6 or 1/3). In the example that you provided, there are more than one child. Therefore, the Quran does not fix here the share of the parents as 1/3 in this particular instance. The share of the wife will be 1/8 as per verse 4:12.

P: Now let us test this out. Let’s use the scenario stated by you. A man dies and leaves behind three daughters, his parents, and a wife. Because we are not told what his parents will get if he has children, we must then substitute a variable in place of his parents, and we get the following simple equation: 2/3 (for daughters from verse 4:11) + 1/8 (for wife from verse 4.12) + X (for parents) = 1 (using 1 as 100% the man’s wealth) Let’s solve this.

2/3 + 1/8 = 19/24

19/24 + X = 1

X = 1 – 19/24

X = 5/24

And this works as 2/3 + 1/8 + 5/24 is indeed equal to 1.

P: I hope that you now understood how to distribute wealth in the given scenario provided by you. Now let us look at the second claim.

P: You also claim that there is a further discrepancy in this matter in the case of a man who leaves a mother, a wife, and two sisters. You are arguing that if the allotted shares are added up the total exceeds the total estate, i.e, 1/3 (mother) + 2/3 (sisters) + 1/4 (wife) = 5/4 = 1.25 will be more than the available property.

P: You are again mistaken. To arrive at the said allotted shares, here you refers to the shares allotted in Surah 4, verse 176 of the Qur’an. You have conveniently quoted only part of the verse (“...If it is a man that dies, leaving a sister but not child) Please take the Quran and check what is there in the dotted portion. I will quote for you the entire verse.

“Allah directs (thus) about those who leave no descendants or ascendants as heirs. If it is a man that dies, leaving a sister but no child, she shall have half the inheritance: If a woman dies and leaves no child, her brother takes her inheritance: If there are two sisters, they shall have two-thirds of the inheritance. If there are brothers and sisters, the male takes twice the share of the female.

P: In the above verse, the case described is that of a man who is called in Arabic "kalalah" which is correctly translated by Yusuf Ali as one who leaves "no descendants or ascendants." This ayah refers to a man who leaves neither parent nor child. At the time of his death his mother already lays in her own grave and as such can lay no claim to a share of inheritance. Then how can you come with an example of a man leaving behind a mother, two sisters and wife and then evolve your fantasies based on this verse?

(SEE OUR COMMENTS AT THE BEGINNING OF THIS REFUTING - IN PART A.)

Allah's Day Equals 1,000 Years or 50,000 Years?

(Koran 22:47)

...A day in the sight of thy Lord is like a thousand years of your reckoning.

(Koran 32:5)

...To Him, on a Day, The space whereof will be a thousand years of your reckoning.

In the above verses it states clearly that a day of Allah is equal to a 1000 earth years. However, there is a contradiction in the verse stated below.

(Koran 70:4)

The angels and the Spirit ascend unto him in a day the measure whereof is fifty thousand years.

So, which one is it? Is the day of Allah equal to 1,000 earth years or 50,000 earth years?

P: Note that only the first two of these verses speak of a day relative to God (1000 years of our count) .... However, the third verse does not speak of a day relative to God, therefore it must be said that there is no contradiction between the first two verses on one hand and the third verse on the other hand.

(THE QURAN SOME 20 PLACES STATES/CLAIMS THAT THE QURAN IS THE BOOK WHICH MAKES THINGS CLEAR – THE TEXTS ARE SO CLEAR AND NOT TO BE MISUNDERSTOOD, THAT IT IN ITSELF IS A PROOF FOR THAT THE QURAN MUST BE MADE BY ALLAH, ACCORDING TO ISLAM/ITS SCHOLARS. THE MINIMUM MISTAKE HERE IS THAT THE BOOK AT LEAST IS NOT CLEAR. ONE OF THE MANY PLACES IN THE QURAN WHERE THE CLUMSY OMNISCIENT GOD HAS NOT BEEN ABLE TO EXPRESS HIMSELF CLEARLY, AND MUST BE HELPED BY CLEVER HUMANS TO EXPLAIN WHAT HE “REALLY” MEANS. BESIDES: WHERE IS MR. REFUTER’S DOCUMENTATION FOR THAT HIS CLAIMED UNDERSTANDING OF THIS NOT CLEAR POINT IS THE CORRECT ONE? – LIKE NORMAL FOR MUSLIMS HE JUST CLAIMS SO. THIS IS ONE OF THE MANY PLACES WHERE MR. REFUTER TAKES WHAT IS A POSSIBLE EXPLANATION AND WITHOUT FURTHER DOKUMENTATION CLAIMS IT IS THE EXPLANATION. THIS IS OUTSIDE THE LAWS FOR LOGICAL DEDUCTIONS.*)

P: As you may aware, the theory of relativity states that since we live in a space-time universe there is no such thing as 'absolute time'. What relativity tells us is that time, measured in our frame of reference (our point of view), runs at a different speed from time in another frame of reference. The amazing notation of these Quranic verses, besides confirming the theory of 'Time Dilation', is that they confirm the fact that if there is such frames of reference where one day is equal to a thousand years of our count, and even fifty thousand years of our count, they must be travelling at speeds many times faster than the speed of light.

(TO USE RELATIVITY TO EXPLAIN THIS – OR CLAIM THAT THE QURAN CONFIRMS TIME DELATION – SIMPLY PROVES THAT MR. REFUTER DOES NOT KNOW ANYTHING ABOUT RELATIVITY – SEE OUR FULL COMMENT FURTHER UP. HIS CLAIMS ABOUT SPEEDS FASTER THAN LIGHT, CONFIRMS THIS PROOF.*)

How Many Gardens Of Paradise?

(Koran 39:73)

And those who feared their Lord will be led to THE Garden...

(Koran 41:30)

...But receive the glad tidings of THE Garden that which ye were promised!

(Koran 57:21)

Be ye foremost in seeking forgiveness from your Lord, and A Garden...

(Koran 79:41)

Their abode will be THE Garden.

In the above verses Mohammed refers to only ONE Gardenn of Paradise, but in the verses below he contradicts himself once again by saying that there are MANY Gardens of paradise.

(Koran 18:31)

For them will be GARDENS of Eternity...

(Koran 22:23)

Allah will admit those who believe and work righteous deeds. To GARDENS beneath which rivers flow...

(Koran 35:33)

GARDENS of Eternity will they Enter...

(Koran 78:32)

GARDENS enclosed, and Grapevines;

It looks like Mohammed could not make up his mind about the number of Gardens of Eternity in heaven.

P: The reply to this trivial claim is two-fold. First, and by reading verses (39:73, 41:30, 57:21, 79:41) we see that they speak of paradise in general. They do not speak of how many gardens there are in paradise. In that respect they do not contradict verses (18:31, 22:23, 35:33, 78:32) that speak of many gardens in paradise.

(THE MINIMUM MISTAKE HERE IS THAT THE QURAN SOME 20 PLACES STATES/CLAIMS THAT THE QURAN IS THE BOOK WHICH MAKES THINGS CLEAR – THE TEXTS ARE SO CLEAR AND NOT TO BE MISUNDERSTOOD THAT IT IN ITSELF IS A PROOF FOR THAT THE QURAN MUST BE MADE BY ALLAH, ACCORDING TO ISLAM/ITS SCHOLARS. HERE THE BOOK AT LEAST IS NOT CLEAR. ONE OF THE MANY PLACES IN THE QURAN WHERE THE CLUMSY OMNISCIENT GOD HAS NOT BEEN ABLE TO EXPRESS HIMSELF CLEARLY, AND MUST BE HELPED BY CLEVER HUMANS TO EXPLAIN WHAT HE “REALLY” MEANS. BESIDES: WHERE IS MR. REFUTER’S DOCUMENTATION FOR THAT HIS CLAIMED UNDERSTANDING OF THIS NOT CLEAR POINT IS THE CORRECT ONE? – LIKE NORMAL FOR MUSLIMS HE JUST CLAIMS SO. THIS IS ONE OF THE MANY PLACES WHERE MR. REFUTER TAKES WHAT IS A POSSIBLE EXPLANATION AND WITHOUT FURTHER DOKUMENTATION CLAIMS IT IS THE EXPLANATION. THIS IS OUTSIDE THE LAWS FOR LOGICAL DEDUCTIONS. JUST FOR THE RECORD: HADITHS TELL THERE ARE 4 0R 6 OR MAY BE MORE GARDENS IN PARADISE. AT BEST THEN TO TALK AGOUT "A" GARDEN OR "THE" GARDEN ARE CONTRADICTIONS. AT WORST IT IS AN INDICATION FOR THAT THE ONE TELLING THE STORIES IN THE QURSN IS BADLY INFORMED.*)

P: Second, and more importantly, all descriptions of Heaven and Hell throughout the Quran are allegorical. The Quran tells us that these descriptions are allegorical, whenever such descriptions occur as independent statements, not within a general subject. See 2:24-26, 13:35, and 47:15. The word "Mathal" (allegory) is used in these verses. Linguistically, the word "Mathal" in these verses can be removed, and we still have perfect sentences. But it is there because the descriptions of Heaven and Hell are allegorical.

(THE MINIMUM MISTAKE HERE IS THAT THE QURAN SOME 20 PLACES STATES/CLAIMS THAT THE QURAN IS THE BOOK WHICH MAKES THINGS CLEAR – THE TEXTS ARE SO CLEAR AND NOT TO BE MISUNDERSTOOD THAT IT IN ITSALF IS A PROOF FOR THAT THE QURAN MUST BE MADE BY ALLAH ACCORDING TO ISLAM/ITS SCHOLARS. HERE THE BOOK AT LEAST IS NOT CLEAR. IN ADDITION AS YOU SEE HERE IS ONE OF THE STANDARD MUSLIM WAYS OF FLEEING FROM DIFFICULT AND/OR WRONG POINTS IN THEQURAN: “THIS IS AN ALLEGORY!” THIS IN SPITE OF THE QURANS STRONG STATEMENTS ALREADY MENTIONED + THE FACT THAT IT DIRECTLY SAYS THAT ONLY “THOSE AT HEART” SEARCH FOR HIDDEN MEANINGS WHERE ALLEGORIES, ETC. ARE NOT INDICATED – HIDDEN MEANINGS ARE FOR ALLAH ONLY ACCORDING TO THE BOOK. THIS ALSO GOES FOR HELL JUST BELOW. ONE OF THE MANY PLACES IN THE QURAN WHERE THE CLUMSY OMNISCIENT GOD HAS NOT BEEN ABLE TO EXPRESS HIMSELF CLEARLY, AND MUST BE HELPED BY CLEVER HUMANS TO EXPLAIN WHAT HE “REALLY” MEANS.*)

P: What Heaven and Hell are really like is far beyond our comprehension (ONE OF THE MANY NEVER PROVED CLAIMS YOU MEET IN ISLAM - IT JUST IS A CLAIM UNLESS IT IS PROVED). Hence the need for allegory (ONE OF THE STANDARD MUSLIM WAYS OF EXPLAINING AWAY MISTAKES: "OUR CLUMSY GOD IS UNABLE TO EXPRESS HIMSELF CLEARLY OFTEN, AND DOES NOT MEAN WHAT HE SAYS - IT MUST BE AN ALLEGORY). How can one describe, for example, the taste of chocolate to a person who never tasted chocolate? Allegory will have to be used. The person has to wait to actually taste chocolate in order to know what chocolate tastes like. (WRONG. IT IS QUITE POSSIBLE TO THINK WHAT A MIXTURE OF COCOA, SUGER, AND A RELEVANT FAT WILL TASTE.) Whatever allegory we use to describe the taste of chocolate can never approximate the real thing. (BESIDES THIS IS TOTALLY IRRELEVANT FOR THE QUESTION OF HOW MANY GARDENS - NUMBERS DO NOT NEED AN ALLEGORY.)

How Many Groups Of People During The Last Judgment?

(Koran 56:7)

And ye shall be sorted out into THREE classes.

The contradictory verses:

(Koran 90:18-19)

Such are the Companions of the right hand. But those who reject our signs, they are the companions of the left hand.

(Koran 99:6-8)

On the Day will men Proceed in companies sorted out, to be shown the deeds that they had done. Then shall anyone who has done an ounce of good, see it! And anyone who Has done an ounce of evil, shall see it.

At first, Mohammed says that during the Last Judgment people will be divided into 3 groups. But in the later verses he seems to have changed his mind to 2 groups -- the group that has done evil and the group that has done good.

p: A False claim. verses 90:18-19 speaks of two of the 3 groups, it does not say that there are ONLY 2 groups……… where as 99:6-8 does not speak of any of the three groups. Consider the following example: Suppose we are given some information in two sentences:

P: 1st Sentence : There are three cars in the garage, one on the right, one on the left and one in the front.

P: 2nd Sentence: The one on the right is green, the one on the left is black.

P: Can we say that since the 2nd sentence speaks only of two cars , then there is only 2 cars in the garage? Can we say that there is a contradiction between the two sentences? Obviously not…… When we examine the verses in the Quran that are subject to this false claim, we read a similar example to that of the three cars. First we read 56:7-107. You will be stratified into three kinds. (A RICH MAN MAY HAVE MANY CARS - BUT THERE EXIST ONLY TWO HANDS - RIGHT AND LEFT. MR. REFUTER HER RESORTS TO FAST-TALK.)

8. Those who deserved bliss will be in bliss (described in verse 27 as the ones on the right)

9. Those who deserved misery will be in misery (described in verse 41 as the ones on the left)

10. Then there is the elite of the elite.

Now when we read 90:17-19:

17. And being one of those who believe, and exhorting one another to be steadfast, and exhorting one another to be kind.

18. These have deserved bliss.

19. As for those who disbelieved in our revelations, they have incurred misery.

20. They will be confined in the Hellfire.

P: We note that verse 18 here speaks of the group described in 56:8……….while verse 19 speaks of those described in 56:9

P: Nowhere do we read in this Surah that these two groups will be the only groups on the day. (WRONG - IT IS IMPLISIT IN THE FACT THAT THERE EXISTS ONLY TWO HANDS.) Furthermore, when we read to the other verses that are referred to and are supposed to be in contradiction to 56:7 , and they are 99:7-8 , we see that they do not talk of any groups as such. These are the words:

7. Whoever does an atom's weight of good will see it.

8. And whoever does an atom's weight of evil will see it.

P: These words say on Judgment Day we will be accountable for everything that we have done, there is no mention of any groups of people here.

(THE MINIMUM MISTAKE HERE IS THAT THE QURAN SOME 20 PLACES STATES/CLAIMS THAT THE QURAN IS THE BOOK WHICH MAKES THINGS CLEAR – THE TEXTS ARE SO CLEAR AND NOT TO BE MISUNDERSTOOD THAT IT IN ITSELF IS A PROOF FOR THAT THE QURAN MUST BE MADE BY ALLAH, ACCORDING TO ISLAM/ITS SCHOLARS. HERE THE BOOK AT LEAST IS NOT CLEAR – WHAT MR. REFUTER SAYS, IS NOT WHAT THE QURAN REALLY SAYS. ONE OF THE MANY PLACES IN THE QURAN WHERE THE CLUMSY OMNISCIENT GOD HAS NOT BEEN ABLE TO EXPRESS HIMSELF CLEARLY, AND MUST BE HELPED BY CLEVER HUMANS TO EXPLAIN WHAT HE “REALLY” MEANS. BESIDES: WHERE IS MR. REFUTER’S DOCUMENTATION FOR THAT HIS CLAIMED UNDERSTANDING OF THIS NOT CLEAR POINT IS THE CORRECT ONE? – LIKE NORMAL FOR MUSLIMS HE JUST CLAIMS SO. THIS IS ONE OF THE MANY PLACES WHERE MR. REFUTER TAKES WHAT IS A POSSIBLE EXPLANATION AND WITHOUT FURTHER DOKUMENTATION CLAIMS IT IS THE EXPLANATION. THIS IS OUTSIDE THE LAWS FOR LOGICAL DEDUCTIONS.*)

Who Takes The Souls After Death?

Sometimes Mohammed states that THE Angel of Death takes the souls after death and at another he says that there are ANGELS who take the souls at the time of death and at yet another time Mohammed states that it is in fact Allah who takes the souls. The relevant verses are listed below.

(Koran 32:11)

THE ANGEL of death, put in charge of you will take your souls then shall ye be brought back to your Lord.

(Koran 47:27)

But how will it be when the ANGELS take their souls at death, and smite their faces and their backs?

(Koran 39:42)

It is Allah that takes the souls of men at death; and those that die not He takes during their sleep...

(THE MINIMUM MISTAKE HERE IS THAT THE QURAN SOME 20 PLACES STATES/CLAIMS THAT THE QURAN IS THE BOOK WHICH MAKES THINGS CLEAR – THE TEXTS ARE SO CLEAR AND NOT TO BE MISUNDERSTOOD THAT IT IN ITSELF IS A PROOF FOR THAT THE QURAN MUST BE MADE BY ALLAH, ACCORDING TO ISLAM/ITS SCHOLARS. HERE THE BOOK AT LEAST IS NOT CLEAR. ONE OF THE MANY PLACES IN THE QURAN WHERE THE CLUMSY OMNISCIENT GOD HAS NOT BEEN ABLE TO EXPRESS HIMSELF CLEARLY, AND MUST BE HELPED BY CLEVER HUMANS TO EXPLAIN WHAT HE “REALLY” MEANS. BESIDES: WHERE IS MR. REFUTER’S DOCUMENTATION FOR THAT HIS CLAIMED UNDERSTANDING OF THIS NOT CLEAR POINT IS THE CORRECT ONE? – LIKE NORMAL FOR MUSLIMS HE JUST CLAIMS SO. THIS IS ONE OF THE MANY PLACES WHERE MR. REFUTER TAKES WHAT IS A POSSIBLE EXPLANATION AND WITHOUT FURTHER DOKUMENTATION CLAIMS IT IS THE EXPLANATION. THIS IS OUTSIDE THE LAWS FOR LOGICAL DEDUCTIONS.*)

P: Again you are making a false claim. In fact, whatever the angels do is in accordance with God's will. In 32:11 we are told that for each individual there is an angel placed in charge of when the appointed death time comes. "Say, 'You will be put to death by the angel in whose charge you are placed, then to your Lord you will be returned."

(CORRECT QUOTE ACCORDING TO YUSUF ALI: “THE ANGEL OF DEATH, PUT IN CHARGE OF YOU, WILL (DULY) TAKE YOUR SOUL”. HERE THE NORMAL UNDERSTANDING IS THAT THE (ONE AND ONLY AS IT IS WRITTEN "Angel of Death" = A NAME AND IN SINGULAR) ANGEL OF DEATH HAS NOW BEEN PUT IN CHARGE OF YOU, AND WILL TAKE YOUR SOUL. MR. REFUTER’S CLAIM – THAT YOUR WARDIAN ANGEL NOW HAS BECOME YOUR ANGEL OF DEATH - ALSO IS POSSIBLE, BUT WOULD NEED AN EXTRA COMMENT IN THE QURAN IN CASE, THIS EVEN MORE SO AS THE QURAN USES CAPITAL FIRST LETTERS IN THE NAME OF THE ANGEL (“the Angel of Death”) SO THAT IT IS CLEAR IT IS A NAME . TO MAKE MR. REFUTER’S CLAIMED MEANING THE CLEAR AND ONLY POSSIBLE ONE, THIS SIMPLY HAD TO BE SAID IN A DIFFERENT WAY. THE MINIMUM MISTAKE HERE IS THAT THE QURAN SOME 20 PLACES STATES/CLAIMS THAT THE QURAN IS THE BOOK WHICH MAKES THINGS CLEAR – THE TEXTS ARE SO CLEAR AND NOT TO BE MISUNDERSTOOD THAT IT IN ITSELF IS A PROOF FOR THAT THE QURAN MUST BE MADE BY ALLAH, ACCORDING TO ISLAM/ITS SCHOLARS. HERE THE BOOK AT LEAST IS NOT CLEAR. ONE OF THE MANY PLACES IN THE QURAN WHERE THE CLUMSY OMNISCIENT GOD HAS NOT BEEN ABLE TO EXPRESS HIMSELF CLEARLY, AND MUST BE HELPED BY CLEVER HUMANS TO EXPLAIN WHAT HE “REALLY” MEANS. BESIDES: WHERE IS MR. REFUTER’S DOCUMENTATION FOR THAT HIS CLAIMED UNDERSTANDING OF THIS NOT CLEAR POINT IS THE CORRECT ONE? – LIKE NORMAL FOR MUSLIMS HE JUST CLAIMS SO. THIS IS ONE OF THE MANY PLACES WHERE MR. REFUTER TAKES WHAT IS A POSSIBLE EXPLANATION AND WITHOUT FURTHER DOKUMENTATION CLAIMS IT IS THE EXPLANATION. THIS IS OUTSIDE THE LAWS FOR LOGICAL DEDUCTIONS.*)

P: However, when we read 47:27, we note that it speaks about the disbelievers in plural. This is indicated by the word 'them' in the verse. "How will it be for them when the angels put them to death? They will beat them on their faces and their rear ends."

P: Since verse 47:27 speaks of the disbelievers in plural, thus the word 'angels' is used in plural. Finally, in 39:42, we are told that it is God who takes our souls. (THIS DOES NOT EXPLAIN THE NAME "THE ANGEL OF DEATH" - SINGULAR.)

P: "GOD puts the souls to death when the end of their life comes …………. "

P: I will illustrate you this with a practical example. let us consider the following example of the following two statements:

P: 'In the beginning of the World War the German forces invaded Poland." (= THE ANGELS OF DEATH.*)

P: 'In the beginning of the World War Hitler invaded Poland." (= ALLAH*)

(BUT WHERE IS "THE ANGEL OG DEATH" - SINGULAR? MR. REFUTER HAS SILENTLY DROPPED ONE OF THE COMPLICATIONS OF THE POINT AND SIMPLIFIED IT. THE "EXPLANATION" THUS IS INVALID. HE HAS A POINT IN THAT IT CAN BE SAID THAT THE BOSS OR HIS REPRESENTATIVE(S) MAY BE MEANT IN 1. AND 2. SENTENCE. BUT HE DROPS THE 3. ONE AND THUS THE CONTRADICTION BETWEEN SINGLAR AND PLURAL.*)

P: Can we say that there is a contradiction between these two statements? (BUT THERE ARE 3, NOT TWO STATEMENTS - MR. REFUTER SILENTLY DROPS ONE OF THEM TO GET A PREFERRED ANSWER.) Obviously not, for although it is obvious that Hitler did not go personally with a gun and invade Poland, it is understood that the German forces were acting upon Hitler's commands when invading Poland. Consequently, it is correct to say both sentences without having any contradictions.(SEE OUR REMARK ABOVE*).

P: Similarly, and although it is the angels who are in charge of putting people to death (AN ANGEL/ANGELS OR NATURE?), yet they are acting upon the commands of Almighty God, and in that sense our lives are terminated in accordance with God's will.

(THE MINIMUM MISTAKE HERE IS THAT THE QURAN SOME 20 PLACES STATES/CLAIMS THAT THE QURAN IS THE BOOK WHICH MAKES THINGS CLEAR – THE TEXTS ARE SO CLEAR AND NOT TO BE MISUNDERSTOOD THAT IT IN ITSELF IS A PROOF FOR THAT THE QURAN MUST BE MADE BY ALLAH, ACCORDING TO ISLAM/ITS SCHOLARS. HERE THE BOOK AT LEAST IS NOT CLEAR. ONE OF THE MANY PLACES IN THE QURAN WHERE THE CLUMSY OMNISCIENT GOD HAS NOT BEEN ABLE TO EXPRESS HIMSELF CLEARLY, AND MUST BE HELPED BY CLEVER HUMANS TO EXPLAIN WHAT HE “REALLY” MEANS. BESIDES: WHERE IS MR. REFUTER’S DOCUMENTATION FOR THAT HIS CLAIMED UNDERSTANDING OF THIS NOT CLEAR POINT IS THE CORRECT ONE? – LIKE NORMAL FOR MUSLIMS HE JUST CLAIMS SO. THIS IS ONE OF THE MANY PLACES WHERE MR. REFUTER TAKES WHAT IS A POSSIBLE EXPLANATION AND WITHOUT FURTHER DOKUMENTATION CLAIMS IT IS THE EXPLANATION. THIS IS OUTSIDE THE LAWS FOR LOGICAL DEDUCTIONS.*)

During The Birth Of Jesus How Many Angels Spoke To Mary?

According to the Koran how many angels spoke to the virgin Mary at the time of the annunciation of Jesus' birth? Well, Mohammed was not too sure about this, so he said that there were several angels in one verse and in the other he states that there was only one.

(Koran 3:42)

Behold! the ANGELS said: "O Mary! Allah hath chosen thee...

(Koran 3:45)

Behold! the ANGELS said: "O! Mary! Allah giveth thee...

(Koran 19:17)

...Then We sent to her (Mary) Our ANGEL...

Aside from the one angel Vs. many angels contradiction you will notice that Mohammed mostly refers to Allah as a singular entity throughout the Koran. However, he is not consistent with this as we see in the above verse where Mohammed says WE not I. Clearly he refers to Allah as a plural entity in this verse. There are many other such verses in the Koran (Refer to verses 21:43-51 and other such verses which I have written below). God cannot make such a glaring mistake and therefore, it must be Mohammed who is stating these verses in the Koran.

The "We" in this case refers to the pagan Gods of pre-Islamic Arabia. Mohammed took a lot from the scriptures of the Pagans, Jewish, Christian and Vedic faiths and insidiously distorted their meanings to suit his devilish needs.

P: This assumed contradiction is a direct result of the your poor understanding of the Quran. (ONE OF THE STANDARD MUSLIM WAYS OF FLEEING FROM DIFFICULT POINTS OR MISTAKES IN THE QURAN – THE NOT DOCUMENTED CLAIM THAT YOU DO NOT UNDERSTAND ANYTHING.*) Actually, these two sets of verses speak of different times, and different events. (THIS IS WRONG. SEE OUR NEXT COMMENT.*) It is true that verses 3:42-45 speak of several angels, while 19:17-21 speak of only one (Gabriel), however by reading these verses carefully we note that they speak of different events that took place at different times. (THIS CLAIM IS WRONG. THIS CLEARLY IS THE SAME INSIDENT – IT IS VERY TYPICAL FOR THE QURAN TO REPEAT ITS STORIES DIFFERENT PLACES IN THE BOOK. FOR ONE THING THE TWO TEXTS REFER TO A TOO SIMILAR SITUATION, FOR ANOTHER IT IS CLEAR IN BOTH CASES SHE STILL IS NOT MARRIED (LIKE MR. REFUTER TRIES TO INDICATE FOR ONE OF THE QUOTES ) – SHE STILL IS A VIRGIN IN BOTH CASES. BESIDES – AND MUCH MORE SERIOUS HERE – 3/44 IS IRRELEVANT HERE: 3/44 IS A SENTENCE INSERTED ONLY TO REMIND MUHAMMAD THAT HE KNEW NOTHING ABOUT MARY AND WHAT HAPPENED HIMSELF. AND THE REASON FOR WHY THIS IS EXTRA SERIOUS HERE, IS THAT THIS IS SO EASY TO SEE, THAT NO LEARNED MUSLIM CAN HAVE OVERLOOKED IT. THUS THIS IS AN AL-TAQIYYA – ONE OF THE LAWFUL LIES YOU MEET IN ISLMIC RELIGIOUS DEBATE.*)

P: A- We read in 3:44:

"……..when they drew their raffles to select Mary's guardian. You were not present when they argued with one another."

p: These words confirm that the timing of verses 3:42-45 is related to the time when a guardian was chosen to look after Mary, and thus a time when Mary was still young and before she was married to Joseph (since no guardian would be selected for a married woman). Consequently, this also indicates that the timing of these verses was before the actual conception and birth of Jesus. (WRONG. THE CLAIMED CASTING LOTS DID NOT HAPPEN DURING THE ANGEL(S) VISITING MARY AND THUS DOES NOT DOCUMENT THE TIME FOR THE VISIT. AND THE ONLY VISIT MARY GOT FROM AN ANGEL, WAS WHEN SHE WAS TOLD SHE WAS GOING TO HAVE THE CHILD JESUS. THIS GOES FOR BOTH THE BIBLE AND FOR THE QURAN. 3/45 ALSO MAKES IT EVER SO CLEAR THAT THIS WAS THE MESSAGE ABOUT THE CHILD JESUS*).

P: At that time, we are told that the angels (in plural) foretold Mary the good news about the coming of Jesus.

P: "The angels said, "O Mary, GOD gives you good news: a Word from Him whose name is `The Messiah, Jesus the son of Mary. He will be prominent in this life and in the Hereafter, and one of those closest to Me." 3:45

(ANOTHER SMALL TWIST: THE QURAN ACCORDING TO OUR COPIES (PLURAL) SAYS “CHRIST” – A TITLE AND A NAME WHICH WAS NOT COINED UNTIL YEARS AFTER JESUS HAD LEFT EARTH. HERE IT SUDDENLY IS “MESSIAH”, WHICH IS THE CORRECT TITLE (YOU MEET THE WORD “CHRIST” ALSO IN TRANSLATIONS OF THE BIBLE, BUT THE CORRECT IS MESSIAH, AS THE TITLE CHRIST IS FROM ASIA MINOR AND WAS NOT COINED UNTIL AFTER NT HAD GOT SOME FOLLOWERS THERE).

P: However, in 19:17-21 , we are told of the specific time of the conception of Jesus inside Mary's womb.

P: At that time Mary was a grown up married woman. That mission was given specifically to Gabriel, thus we read in 19:19 how Gabriel told Mary that he was sent specifically by Almighty God to grant her a pure child: (SEE OUR COMMENTS ABOUT THIS A LITTLE FURTHER UP).

"He (Gabriel) said, "I am the messenger of your Lord, to grant you a pure son."

P: With the risk of repetition, I say again, this assumed contradiction is a direct result of the your poor understanding of the Quran. (ONCE MORE THIS STANDARD AND EASY ISLAMIC NEVER PROVED CLAIM: YOU ARE WRONG BECAUSE YOU DO NOT KNOW ANYTHING. THIS EVEN IN CASES WHERE THE OPPONENT HAS PROVED GOOD KNOWLEDGE OF THE QURAN – LIKE HERE.)

Infinite Loop Problem

(Koran 26:192-196)

Verily this is a revelation from the Lord of the worlds: with it came down the Spirit of Faith and Truth to thy heart and mind...in the perspicuous Arabic tongue, without doubt it is announced in the writings of revealed Books of former peoples. In this surah, we find that Koran is announced in the earlier writings. First point to note here is that none of the earlier revelations were in Arabic. For example, the earlier writings were Torah and Injil written in Hebrew and Greek.

Two contradictions arise immediately:

1. How can an Arabic Koran be contained in books of other languages?

2. For verses (26:192-196) to be true, an earlier revelation X (for example) has to include those very verses (26:192-196) since the Koran is properly contained in all earlier revelations. Now, having those verses in the revelation X means that X itself has to be contained in yet another earlier revelation Y. Applying the same logic, Y has to be contained in yet another earlier revelation Z and so on. We find ourselves in an infinite loop which proves the absurdity of the verses (26:192-196)

P: I can only say that it is due to the poor understanding of the Quran. “It (the Quran) has been prophesied in the books of the earlier generations." (THIS IS WRONG – THERE IS NO FORETELLING ABOUT THE QURAN IN THE BIBLE – AND FOR THAT CASE NOT A FORETELLING ABOUT NT IN OT. THIS ALSO IS A CLAIM YOU NORMALLY DO NOT MEET FROM ISLAMIC SCHOLARS – THEY CLAIM THAT MUHAMMAD IS FORETOLD IN THE BIBLE, BUT NOT THE QURAN. THE QURAN OR SOMETHING SIMILAR IS NOWHERE MENTIONED IN THE BIBLE.*). (26:196) The meaning of verse 196 has been completely misinterpreted here. By reading 26:196 we can clearly see that it does not say that the Quran was written in the earlier Scripture, but that it was foretold in the earlier Scripture. In every divine Scripture we are told of prophecies of the prophets and Scripture to follow. (WRONG. SEE OUR FULL COMMENTS ON THIS IN FIRST PART OF “PART Xb ABOVE*). The Old Testament contained many prophecies about the coming of Jesus Christ. Similarly the Bible contained prophecies about the coming of a prophet after Jesus who brings a Scripture from God (see John 14:15-16, 14:26, 15:26-27, 16:13) (WRONG, BUT TOO MUCH TO COMMENT ON HERE – SEE SEPARATE CHAPTER IN “1000+ MISTAKES IN THE QURAN” AND IN THE GOSPEL AFTER JOHN IN “1000+ COMMENT ON THE QURAN”.*)

Scientific Contradictions

The Koran teaches us that there are seven heavens one above the other and that the stars are in the lower heaven, but the moon is in the midst of the seven heavens. However, in reality the stars are much further away from the earth than the moon.

(Koran 67:3-5)

He Who created the seven heavens, one above the other...And WE have adorned the lowest heaven with lamps ...

(Koran 71:15-16)

Do you not see how God has created the seven heavens one above the other, and made the moon a light in their midst, and made the sun as a lamp?

(Koran 71:41:12)

And He completed the seven heavens in two days and inspired in each heaven its command; and We adorned the lower heaven with lamps, and rendered it guarded...

Firstly, the Koran states that there are seven heavens in universe. Any sane person who has studied a bit of modern astronomy, can tell that the conception of seven heavens was nothing but a result of Mohammad's imagination. Muslim compliers try to cover up this serious flaw in the Koran by saying that the expression should be considered poetic rather than scientific.

Secondly, Koran claims that the stars are in a lower or even lowest heaven, while the moon is between the heavens. Even a child in primary school knows today that the stars are much, much further away from the earth than the moon.

P: Again a false claim The seven universes are one inside the other. The 7th universe, which is the smallest of the seven universes, and which is the innermost, and which we live in, is surrounded by the 6th universe. The 5th universe surrounds the 6th ...and so on, till we get to the 1st universe, which is the greatest and outermost universe. (THIS IS SUCH A SCIENTIFIC NONSENSE, THAT IT IS NOT WORTH SQUANDERING TIME AND EFFORT ON IT – EXCEPT THAT WE REMIND YOU THE QURAN SAYS “7 HEAVENS”, NOT 7 UNIVERSES” – THE WORD “UNIVERSE” USED IN THE MODERN MEANING OF THAT WORD, DID NOT EVEN EXIST IN ANY LANGUAGE AT THAT TIME, INCLUDED ARAB. AND WE REMIND YOU THAT THERE ARE NO 7 HEAVENS. MR. REFUTER HERE IS USING SUCH A SCIENTIFIC NONSENSE, THAT NORMALLY NOT EVEN MUSLIMS TRY TO USE THIS CLAIM AS AN “EXPLANATION” FOR THE MISTAKE ABOUT 7 HEAVENS. 7 HEAVENS = THE OLD GREEK AND PERSIAN ASTRONOMY (A FACT MUSLIMS NEVER MENTION)*).

P: In that respect, anything that lies inside the 7th universe is also inside the 6th, 5th...... up to the 1st universe, since the 7th universe lies at the centre of all universes. (SEE OUR COMMENT JUST ABOVE.)

P: The moon, sun, stars plus all the galaxies and the farthest heavily bodies (quasars) all lie inside the 7th and smallest universe. That is the universe in which we live. (NOT WORTHY A COMMENT - THIS CANNOT EVEN BE USED IN A FAIRY TALE TODAY, AS EVEN CHILDREN KNOW BETTER.)

The moon, all the stars we see in the sky, plus all the galaxies we see are all part of the innermost 7th universes. With this in mind, if you read all the verses you will see no contradiction. (EVEN WITH MR. REFUTER’S FAIRY TALE ASTRONOMY, THE QURAN HAS SEVERAL MISTAKES – F.X. THAT THE STARS ARE FASTENEN TO THE LOWEST HEAVEN BELOW THE MOON, WHICH IS BETWEEN THE HEAVENS*). The Quran does not say that moon is in the middle heaven. (NEITHER WE NOR THE QURAN SAYS THE MOON IS IN THE MIDDLE HEAVEN. THE QURAN SAYS THE MOON IS BETWEEN THE HEAVENS. WORSE: ANY KNOWER OF THE QURAN IS AWARE OF THIS. MR. REFUTER CLEARLY IS A KNOWER OF THE QURAN. COMBINE THESE TWO FACTS AND SEE WHAT RESULT YOU GET ABOUT HIS HONESTY.*). It is your wild imagination. The Quran does specifically refer to moon and sun because of its importance to humankind. (TAKEN INTO ACCOUNT THAT THE QURAN CLEARLY TELLS THAT THE MOON IS BETWEEN THE STARS, A FACT MR. REFUTER HAS GOT TO KNOW, THIS CLAIM ABOUT “WILD IMAGINATION” IS QUITE A CLAIM. BUT A GOOD AND TYPICAL SAMPLE OF SERIOUS(?) AND RELIABLE(?) DEBATE FROM SOME MUSLIMS – INCLUDED SOME LEARNED ONES*).

P: Before clinging to such imaginary claims to show that Quran contradict science, you may better learn to appreciate so many other verses in the Quran which corroborate the modern finding, which was totally unknown during the time of the prophet. (THERE ARE NO SUCH FORETELLINGS IN ALL THE QURAN*). Let me quote a few verses from the Quran, when there was no astronomy at all to corroborate.

P: After mentioning the sun and the moon, God says: "Each one is travelling in an orbit with its own motion" (Qur'an 21:33; 36:40). (TOO MUCH TO COMMENT ON HERE. SEE OUR MORE COMPLETE COMMENTS ABOVE MR. REFUTER’S PAGE HERE (IN PART A).)

P: Only recently modern science has found out the universe is expanding. The following verse of the Qur'an (surah 51, verse 47) where God is speaking, corroborate this: "The heaven, We have built it with power. Verily. We are expanding it." (FOR ONE THING THE QURAN ACCORDING TO YUSUF ALI TALKS ABOUT THE FIRMAMENT = THE SKY AS WE SEE IT. FOR ANOTHER: PROVE TO US THAT THE QURAN FOR ONE THING SPEAKS ABOUT AN EXPANSION IN 3 DIMENTIONS LIKE MODERN SCIENCE MEANS, AND NOT ABOUT EXPANDING IT ENOUGH IN 2 DIMENTIONS TO BECOME BIG ENOUGH TO COVER ALL EARTH. AND FURTHER PROVE TO US THAT MUHAMMAD HAD AN UNDERSTANDING OF A UNIVERSE IN 3 DIMENTIOS, AND NOT A SKY WITH 7 HEAVENS EACH IN 2 DIMENTIOS – EVEN HIS SUN COULD BE FOLDED TOGETHER, AND THUS HAD TO BE OF JUST 2 DIMENTIONS = FLAT.)

(WE ALSO HERE TOUCHES ANOTHER FACT: IF MANY ENOUGH WORDS ARE USE, BY SHERE COINCIDENCE SOME OF WILL HAPPEN TO COME TRUE. BUT THIS HAS NO VALUE AS PROOF UNLESS THE NUMBER OF SAYINGS WHICH COME TRUE ARE “SIGNIFICANTLY HIGHER THAN MERE COINCIDENCE AND THE LAW OF PROBABILITY PREDICT”. IN THE QURAN THE SITUATION IS THE OTHER WAY AROUND: THE CASES WHERE THINGS MUHAMMAD HAPPENED TO COME PARTLY TRUE – HARLY ANYTHING BECAME EXACTLY TRUE – ARE SO FEW, THAT THEY ARE LESS THAN WHAT THE LAW OF PROBABILITY WOULD INDICATE. WE MAY ADD THAT SCIENCE AGREE ON THAT MUHAMMAD MADE NO VALID FORETELLING ABOUT ANYTHING, AND THAT EVEN ISLAM ADMITS THAT “THERE IS NO MIRACLE CONNECTED TO MUHAMMAD, EXCEPT THE QURAN (FORETELLING IS A KIND OF MIRACLE – TO BE ABLE “TO SEE THE UNSEEN”*. ALSO MUHAMMAD NEVER CLAIMED HE WAS ABLE TO FORETELL THINGS - ON THE CONTRARY BOTH THE QURAN AND HADITHS SAYS HE "WAS UNABLE T SEE THE UNSEEN")).

P: 1400 years before Quran spoke about modern astronomy’s finding about the BIG BANG theory. "Do not the unbelievers see that the heavens and the earth were fused together, then we separated them . . ." (Qur'an 21:30). (THIS IS MORE SCIENTIFIC NONSENSE OF SUCH A STUPID QUALITY THAT WE DO NOT BOTHER TO COMMENT ON IT HERE. SEE OUR COMPLETE COMMENTS ABOVE.*)

P: The Quran speaks of the spinning of the Earth by saying: "He (God) coils the night onto the day and coils the day onto the night" 39:5 (HERE MR.REFUTER HAS USED A VERY “SPECIAL” TRANSLATION – WRONG ACCORDING TO OUR OTHER TRANSLATIONS. AND ALL THE SAME HE IS WRONG, AS A COIL IS A CORK-SCHREW, NOT A SPIN – AND THERE IS NO CELISTICAL CORK-SCREW ANYWHERE CONNECTED TO THIS PHENOMENON.*)

P: The word "coils" is quite accurate in describing the spinning movement.(WRONG. SEE OUR COMMENT JUST ABOVE.)

Solomon listens to ants

The Koran talks about an incident where Solomon listens to ants while they are "talking".

(Koran 27:18-19)

At length, when they came to a valley of ants, one of the ants said: "O ye ants, get into your habitations, lest Solomon and his hosts crush you (under foot) without knowing it." So he smiled amused at her speech; and he said: "O my Lord! so order me that I may be grateful for Thy favors, which Thou has bestowed on me and on my parents, and that I may work the righteousness that will please Thee: And admit me, by Thy Grace to the ranks of Thy Righteous Servants."

This indeed is a new discovery by Mohammed about ants which directly contradicts the scientific fact that ants communicate using smells, not modulation of sounds. Solomon could not have heard any talk since ants do not produce any sound.

P: Here the usage of the word ‘said’ in the Quran should not be translated in the literal sense.(ONE OF THE MOST USED WAYS OF EXPLAINING MISTAKES IN THE QURAN: "IT IS AN ALLEGORY OR SOMETHING".*) The usage the Arabic word 'said' does not necessarily imply verbal communication or communication through spoken words. On the contrary, in Arabic language may sometimes be used for communication of ideas, feelings and thoughts, through any mode of communication. (EVEN IF MR. REFUTER HAD BEEN ABLE TO TRANSFORM THE QURAN’S WORDS TO THAT SOLOMON SMELLED THE WORDS – THE ONLY ALTERNATIVE – THIS EXPLANATION HAD NOT BEEN PHYSICALLY POSSIBLE. SEE OUR COMPLETE COMMENTS FURTHER UP. ONE OF THE MANY PLACES IN THE QURAN WHERE THE CLUMSY OMNISCIENT GOD HAS NOT BEEN ABLE TO EXPRESS HIMSELF CLEARLY, AND MUST BE HELPED BY CLEVER HUMANS TO EXPLAIN WHAT HE “REALLY” MEANS. (THERE ARE A NUMBER MORE THAN WE POINT TO.) BESIDES: WHERE IS MR. REFUTER’S DOCUMENTATION FOR THAT HIS CLAIMED UNDERSTANDING OF THIS NOT CLEAR POINT IS THE CORRECT ONE? – LIKE NORMAL FOR MUSLIMS HE JUST CLAIMS SO. THIS IS ONE OF THE MANY PLACES WHERE MR. REFUTER TAKES WHAT IS A CLAIMED POSSIBLE EXPLANATION AND WITHOUT FURTHER DOKUMENTATION CLAIMS IT IS THE EXPLANATION. THIS IS OUTSIDE THE LAWS FOR LOGICAL DEDUCTIONS.*)

P: It may further be noted that the Qur'an has not used any such words like 'listen', 'hear' or 'overhear' for Solomon's comprehension and understanding of what the ant 'said'. The Qur'an, on the contrary, has only implied that Solomon understood and comprehended what the ant 'said'. (BUT NEITHER BY MEANS OF SOUNDS, NOR BY MEANS OF SMELL WOULD IT BE PHYSICALLY POSSIBLE FOR A HUMAN TO HEAR OR SMELL ANYTHING MEANINGFULL.ALSO SEE OUR "FULL" COMMENTS IN PART A ABOVE.*)

P: The Qur'an does not 'say' that ants communicate through speech, on the contrary, it only 'says' that whatever the mode of communication in ants, Solomon comprehended and understood their communication, as a part of the special favors that he was granted by the Almighty (SEE OUR COMMENT JUST ABOVE.)

The Embryonic Development

Koran clearly states that human beings are formed from a clot of blood:

(Koran 23:14)

Then WE made the sperm into a clot of congealed blood; then of that clot We made a (fetus) lump; then We made out of that lump bones and clothed the bones with flesh

This is scarcely a scientific description of embryonic development. It ignores to mention the female egg (the second and equally important half) and the process of fertilization when egg and sperm unite to form one new cell. It mentions the obvious (the sperm), the visible, that which all mankind knew for a long time which is necessary to create a human. But the Koran does NOT mention the invisible (the female egg), which we know only through modern medicine.

P: It is also wrong. It is scientifically proven that once the egg has been fertilized in the fallopian tube, it descends to lodge itself inside the uterus. This process is called the ‘implantation of the egg'. Implantation is a result of the development of villosities, which, like roots in the soil, draw nourishment from the wall of the uterus and make the egg literally cling to the womb. The process of implantation is appropriately described in several verses by the word ‘alaq, which is also the title of the chapter in which one of the verses appears: (WHAT IS WRONG IN OUR COMMENT HERE? WE POINT TO THINGS CONSERNING THE FERTILASATION OF THE HUMAN EGG. MR. REFUTER CLAIMS WE ARE WRONG, BECAUSE OF THE EGG/ZYGOTE AFTER FERTILASATION FASTENES ITSELF TO SOMETHING. HIS CONCLUTION ON THIS BASIS ABOUT OUR COMMENTS IS OUTSIDE THE LAWS OF LOGIC.*)

P: "God fashioned humans from a clinging entity." Qur'an, 96:2

P: I do not think there is any reasonable translation of the word ‘alaq other than to use it in its original sense. It is a mistake to speak of a ‘blood clot' here, which is the term many translators are used. (IT IS HIGHLY LIKELY THAT MR. YUSUF ALI'S AND OTHERS' TRANSLATION IS MORE CORRECT, THAN THE ONE OF THIS MR. REFUTER - HE HAS NOT PROVED TO BE VERY RELIABLE. YUSUF ALI SAYS "a clot of congealed blood".*)

P: The evolution of the embryo inside the maternal uterus is described (though only briefly) in the verse that you have quoted. The description is accurate, because the simple words referring to it correspond exactly to fundamental stages in its growth. This is what we read in a verse 23:14:

P: "I fashioned the clinging entity into a chewed lump of flesh and I fashioned the chewed flesh into bones and I clothed the bones with intact flesh." Qur'an, 23:14 (ONE MORE EVADING TECHNIQUE: MR. REFUTER COMMENTS ONLY A MINSCULE PART OF THE WHOLE PROCESS OF PREGNACY – AND THE ONLY PART WHICH HAPPENS TO BE NEARLY CORRECT - - - AT LEAST IN HIS OWN SOMEWHAT SPECIAL TRANSLATION OF THE QURAN. YUSUF ALI SAYS: "Then We (Allah*) made the sperm (wrong: Here the correct is that 1 sperm cell fused with an egg cell - never mentioned in the Quran nor in Hadiths) into a clot of congealed blood, then of that cloth We made a(fetus) lump; then We made out of that lump bones and clothed the bones with flesh (wrong: the flesh comes first, and the bones grow inside it)- - -". )

p: The translation for the above verse, that you have provided (Then WE made the sperm into a clot of congealed blood; then of that clot We made a (fetus) lump; then We made out of that lump bones and clothed the bones with flesh) is not a proper translation. (WRONG. IT IS AN EXACT COPY OF MR. ABDULLAH YUSUF ALI’S TRANSLATION. IF YOU DISAGREE, PROVE IT WRONG – LOOSE CLAIMS HAVE NO VALUE.*)

p: For more information on this issue, you may read, The Quran and Modern Science by Dr. Maurice Bucaille (Edited by Dr. A. A. Bilal Philips) 877-WHY-ISLAM Website - Introduction to Islam (READ ORUR COMMENTS ABOUT DR. BUCAILLE IN OUR COMPLETE COMMENTS – HIS WORDS HAVE LITTLE VALUE AND LITTLE RELIABILITY.*)

p: Please note that the author is not a Muslim. (READ OUR COMMENT ON HIS RELIGION IN OUR COMPLETE COMMENTS). Let me quote what he has to say about the Quran at the end of this humble work;

P: “Such facts as I have had the pleasure of exposing to you here, appear to represent a genuine challenge to human explanation leaving only one alternative: the Qur'an is undoubtedly a revelation from God.” (SEE OUR COMMENTS ABOUT DR. BUCAILLE - AND ABOUT PERSONS WHO HAVE TO USE HIM AS A VITNESS.*)

Sun-set and Sun-Rise

Koran also teaches us that the Sun sets in a muddy spring.

(Koran 18:86)

Till, when he [the traveller Zul-qarnain] reached the setting-place of the sun, he found it going down into a muddy spring...

(Koran 18:90)

Till, when he reached the rising-place of the sun, he found it rising on a people for whom WE had appointed no shelter from it.

Firstly, It is scientifically proved that the sun does not go down in a muddy spring. Secondly, this seems to presuppose a flat earth, otherwise how can there be an extreme point in the West or in the East? It does not say, he went as far as possible on land in these directions and then observed the sun-rise or sun-set while standing at this shore. A sunrise there would be basically just the same as at any other place on this earth, at land or sea. It would still look as if it is setting "far away". It does say, that he reached THE PLACE where the sun sets and in his second journey the place where it rises.

P: It is a shame to interpret the verses of the Quran in this literal manner. (WE REMIND YOU THAT THE QURAN SOME 20 PLACES SAYS THAT IT IS THE BOOK WHICH MAKES THINGS CLEAR = USES A CLEAR AND LITERAL LANGUAGE. IT ALSO DIRECTLY STATES THAT ONLY THE ONES “SICK AT HEART” LOOK FOR HIDDEN MEANINGS WHERE SUCH ARE NOT INDICATED, AND THAT HIDDEN MEANINGS ONLY ARE FOR ALLAH TO UNDERSTAND). The Qur'an says that one of the righteous men of God's servants (MR. REFUTER “FORGETS” TO MENTION THAT THIS MAN IS ALEXANDER THE GREAT – A KNOWN NON-MUSLIM (HE WAS A POLYTHEIST)*) saw the sun setting in a certain place of the Earth-in a particular a well full of water and mud. There, this man found some people. Let us read what is recorded in the Qur'an "When he reached the setting place of the Sun, he found it setting in a muddy spring and found a people thereabout. We said: 'O Dhul-Qarneyn! Either punish or show them kindness" (WHAT HAS THIS TO DO WITH THE SUN SETTING IN A MUDDY SPRING?*) [18:86].

P: Now you are saying, I quote, “It is scientifically proved that the sun does not go down in a muddy spring”. I do not have much to say in response to this charge, except that I find it ludicrous (LOGICALLY INVALID ARGUMENT*) to even contemplate these passages in a literal sense (THIS IS THE ONLY WAY OF TRYING TO CAMUFLAGE THIS MISTAKE – ALSO SEE OUR COMMENT NUMBER 3 UP FROM THIS ONE*). In this case, Dhul-Qarnayn (= ALEXANDER THE GREAT*) arrives at his destination and seems to be moved by its beauty (PLEASE HOW THE QURAN SAYS THIS - IN A BOOK WHICH IS TO BE READ LITERALY IF NOTHING ELSE IS SAID*). The description of the Sun setting in the muddy spring is a lovely poetic account of the occasion for a divine command. I do not think anyone thinks, after reading a poem that describes the beauty of the "Sunset," that the poet is ignorant of science because, as we know, the Sun does not move in relation to the earth but rather vice versa. I do not think that anyone who reads the newspaper to find out what time the "Sun sets" should be considered a fool for trusting a source that apparently has not yet recognized that the Solar System is not, after all, Earth-centered, as was long supposed. It should be obvious that the idea of the "Sun setting" has never been understood as literally as the you propose; it seems unfair to demand a book of religious and spiritual wisdom to suddenly conform to such an unrealistic, strict standard of "scientific piety." (THERE IS A DIFFERENCE BETWEEN “THE SUN SET” AND “THE SUN SET IN A MUDDY SPRING”. ALSO MOST PEOPLE ARE ABLE TO RECOGNIZE FAST TALK FROM A DECLARED REFUTER*).

P: Try to read other hundreds of verses in the Quran wherein the movement of the sun and other scientific facts are clearly discussed (WRONG, THERE IS NO SCIENTIFIC DEBATE ANYWHERE IN THE QURAN - AND BESIDES: WHAT HAS THAT IN CASE TO DO WITH "THE SUN SET IN A MUDDY SPRING"?*)

Why Stars Were Created

Koran gives us further scientific knowledge by telling us that the stars were created by Allah as missiles to throw at the devils.

(Koran 67:5)

And We have (from of old), adorned the lowest heaven with lamps, and we have made such (Lamps as) missiles to drive away Satans...

(Koran 37:6-8)

We have indeed decked the lower heaven with beauty (in) the stars, (for beauty) and for guard against all obstinate rebellious Satans. (So) they should not strain their ears in the direction of the Exalted Assembly but be cast away from every side.

Thus, the stars are nothing but missiles to throw at devils so that they may not eavesdrop on the heavenly council. Once again we find Mohammed getting high on his weird imagination.

P: Here you fail to appreciate the metaphor (WHETHER YOU CALL IT METAPHOR, ALLEGORY, OR WHATEVER, WE ARE BACK TO A CASE WHERE A CLEVER HUMAN HAS TO HELP THE CLUMSY GOD AND HIS UNCLEAR LANGUAGE OR MISTAKE – ONE OF THE STANDARD MUSLIM WAYS OF “EXPLAINING” THINGS AWAY) contained in the above verse. First the verse says the suns are created as lamps, giving light to everyone. The second statement that they are made to drive away the satan should be taken as a metaphor. (!!*) Without the stars the world will be in utter darkness. Darkness is synonymous to devil. The light drives away all kinds of devil. That’s why the verse says that the stars are made “to guard against all obstinate rebellious Satans”.(FOUR WORDS: EASILY RECOGNOZABLE FAST-TALK*).

P: To understand and to appreciate the above statement, you have you learn the importance of light for the existence of all kinds of living things (WRONG - FAR FROM ALL THINGS*) in the whole universe. (FAST TALK*.)

P: Moreover, there are two points illustrated here: (1) their marvellous beauty and their groupings and motions (apparent or real) manifest and typify the Design and Harmony of the One true Creator: and (2) the power and glory behind them typify that there is a guard against the assaults of Evil. In other words, the stars typify not only beauty but power, at the same time, their creation is such that they are guarded and protected against every assault of Evil. (WHAT HAS THIS TO DO WITH THE USE OF STARS FOR SHOOTING STARS TO DO? THAT IS WHAT THE QURAN IS SAYING. THE "DEFENCE" MR. REFUTER TRIES TO USE HERE, SIMPLY IS FAST TALK ABOUT THINGS NOT IN THE VERSE - HARDLY IN THE QURAN AT ALL.)

Sun And Moon Are Subject To Humans?

Koran also reveals the truth that sun and moon are subject to humans.

(Koran 37:6-8)

And He has made subject to you the sun and the moon, both diligently perusing their courses; and the night and the day has He (also) made subject to you.

Unfortunately, a human can never bring the sun and the moon subject to himself/herself. They always take their turn and pursue their courses whether they want or not. Sun, moon, day or night are not influenced by anyone's personal wish.

P: It is the result of incorrect translation of the Quran. The verse does not say that the sun, moon and stars are subject to our commands, but ordained by God for our service. (PROVE THIS – ESPECIALLY AS WE EXACTLY QUOTE MR. YUSUF ALI, AND AS YOUR FURTHER EXPLANATIONS ABOUT THIS BELOW, IS SCIENTIFICALLY WRONG - HIGHLY INACURATE, NOT TO USE STRONGER WORDS.)

P: The Arabic word used is 'Sakhar' which means (ordained). The words "ordained by His Command" confirm that these heavenly bodies are controlled, and ordained by God. (IT ONLY IS COMFIRMED IF IT IS TRUE THAT ALLAH BOTH IS BEHIND THE CONTROL, AND BEHIND THE QURAN*, NEITHER OF WHICH IS PROVED.)

P: Indeed the sun, moon and the earth have been ordained to very precise specifications for the service of mankind . The following are some examples (IN THESE "EXAMPLES" MR. REFUTER SHOWS A LOT OF LACK OF KNOWLEDGE ABOUT WHATY HE IS TALKING.):

P: 1. If the sun was closer to the earth, present distance being 93 million miles, the temperature on earth would rise sharply causing the evaporation of oceans and rivers and the extermination of all life. If the sun was much further away the earth would freeze to death. (WRONG. SEE OUR COMPLETE COMMENTS ABOVE*).

P: 2- If the size of the earth was somewhat less than it's present size, say the size of the moon, it's gravity would have been much weaker. That would result in the failure of the earth to retain it's atmosphere or water vapour, and thus no life would have been possible. If the size of the earth, on the other hand, was larger than it's present size, say the size of Saturn or Jupiter, the gravity would have been too strong. That would cause the atmosphere to be compressed to much lower heights resulting in much higher air pressure. That would also abolish life on earth. (WRONG. SEE OUR COMPLETE COMMENTS ABOVE.*)

P: 3- If the moon was closer to the earth, the tides would rise causing gigantic waves that would destroy life on islands and coastal areas. If the moon was further away from the earth the tides would come to a standstill leading to the stagnation of seas , the result of which would be grave damage to marine life. These very precise measurements of such variables as distance, mass, speed………..etc. are referred to in the following verses: "The sun and the moon precisely computed……." 55:5 (WRONG. SEE OUR COMPLETE COMMENTS ABOVE*).

P: 4- The earth spins on it's axis once every 24 hours. If it didn't spin, the oceans would empty all their waters and if it spun much faster it would disperse into empty space. The spinning movement is also responsible for the night and day, without which one half of the earth would be under continuous sunlight and heat up excessively while the other half would be submerged in total darkness and freeze to death. (WRONG. SEE OUR COMPLETE COMMENTS ABOVE*.)

P: The Quran speaks of the spinning of the Earth by saying: "He (God) coils the night onto the day and coils the day onto the night" 39:5 The word "coils" is quite accurate in describing the spinning movement. (WRONG – FOR ONE THING HARDLY A CORRECT TRANSLATION, AND FOR ANOTHER: A COIL IS A CORK-SCHREW, NOT A SPIN.*)

P: 5- The earth rotates round the sun once every 365.25 days. Whilst doing so it is tilted on its axis at an angle of 33 (WRONG: AT PRESENT CA. 23.5) degrees. As a result, the seasons occur making it possible for the habitation of the planet. If the earth was not tilted on its axis the poles would have been submerged in continuous cold darkness (WRONG – SEE F.X. THE WORD “REFRACTION” ON INTERNET OR IN OUR COMPLETE COMMENTS HIGHER UP) preventing the seasonal thaw of the polar ice. The accumulating ice would eventually result in unshifting frozen poles and little water elsewhere. (WRONG. SEE OUR COMPLETE COMMENTS HIGHER UP*).

P: 6- If the earth's crust had been thicker than it's present thickness all the oxygen would have been absorbed into the earth. (HOW? - STONE DOES NOT ABSORB OXYGEN.*) Without oxygen no life would be possible. Similarly, if the oceans were much deeper, all the oxygen and carbon dioxide would have been absorbed into the oceans with similar results. (UNCLEAR. SEE OUR COMPLETE COMMENTS. ALSO IT IS WRONG - WATER CANNOT "ROB" THE ATMOSPHERE FOR ALL OXYGEN OR ANY OTHER ESSENTIAL GAS. WHEN SEA/WATER AND AN ATMOSPHERE MEET, THE WATER WILL ABSORB SOME GAS (INCLUDED F.X. OXYGEN), BUT IT WILL ALWAYS WILL END UP WITH AN EQUILIBRIUM BETWEEN HOW MUCH OF F.X. OXYGEN THERE IS IN THE WATER AND IN THE ATMOSPHERE. THIS EQUILIBRIUM MAY VARY SOME DEPENDING ON HOW MUCH THERE IS OF F.X. OXYGEN, AND ON THE TEMPERATUR. BUT WATER IS UNABLE TO EMPTY AN ATMOSPHERE FOR OXYGEN. ALSO REMEMBER THAT WATER DOES NOT ABSORB MUCH OXYGEN PR. M3.*).

P: All these precise specifications were referred to in the following verse: "It is He who created the heavens and the earth in true proportions." 6:73 (FOR ONE THING: THIS IS WHAT YOU - AND THE QURAN - CLAIM. PROVE THAT YOUR CLAIM IS CORRECT – MUSLIMS ALL TO OFTEN CLAIM THINGS, BUT NEVER PROVE ANYTHING OF ANY CONSEQUENCE. BESIDES: IF THIS CLAIM IS CORRECT, IT MAKES QUITE AN IMPRESSION ABOUT ALLAH, AS THE SCIENTIFIC "FACTS” YOU REFER TO, ARE WRONG – AS SHOWED ABOVE.*)

P: In that respect, it is evident how the sun, earth and the moon are ordained by Allah (WRONG: EVEN IF MR. REFUTER'S "FACTS" HAD BEEN CORRECT, IT ONLY HAD PROVED THAT "THIS AND THIS" WAS THE CASE. UNLESS IT FIRST IS PROVED THAT IT IS ALLAH WHO CAUSES "THIS AND THIS", IT PROVES NOTHING AT ALL ABOUT ALLAH - IT MIGHT F.X. BE CAUSED BY NATURE OR BY ANOTHER GOD (F.X. YAHWEH?) to very precise attributes in service of mankind. (WRONG. SEE COMMENTS ABOUT THIS ABOVE.*)

Why Mountains Were Created

Koran clearly explains that mountains were set on the earth so that the earth does not shake when earthquakes take place.

(Koran 21:31)

And We have set on the earth firm mountains, lest it should shake with them

(Koran 16:15)

And He has cast onto the earth firm mountains lest it should shake with you..

(Koran 31:10)

He has created the heavens without supports that you can see, and has cast onto the earth firm mountains lest it should shake with you..

It is very obvious that Mohammed was completely ignorant about the geological reasoning for existence of mountains. He saw that mountains are huge and heavy. So a good way to explain their existence is to say that mountains prevent earthquakes. Firstly, this particular reason for existence of mountains is a direct contradiction with modern Geology. Geology proves to us that movement of tectonic plates or earthquake itself causes mountains to be formed. Secondly, if mountains are created to stop the earth from shaking, why DO several dozens of earthquakes happen every year?

P: The verse 16:15, is one among a collection of Qur'anic verses that discuss mountains in relation to the earth. (Verse 31:10 makes an identical reference). Read literally (and, therefore, superficially (WRONG – THE QURAN CLEARLY AND SEVERAL PLACES TELLS THAT IT IS TO BE UNDERSTOOD LITERALLY* ), these verses indicate that the mountains have been "staked" or "pegged" into the earth to prevent it from shaking. Only a crude hermeneutic would inspire the kind of objection that has been raised here, one which imagines God violently inserting mountains into the earth in order to prevent its tremulous movements. (THAT HERMENEUTIC IN CASE IS A BETTER MUSLIM IN THE MEANING THAT HE DOES NOT TWIST THE WORDS OF THE QURAN, AND HE IS NOT “SICK AT HEART” SO HE GO LOOKING FOR ALLEGORIES, ETC. WHERE ALLAH HAS INDICATED NONE). In fact, mountains do not "descend from above" (BUT THAT IS WHAT THE QURAN SAYS – “SET DOWN”*) but are upwarped from beneath. One general (and, admittedly, vague and imprecise) scientific concept might be gleaned from these passages: the mountains provide some kind of stability and firmness for the earth (MOUNTAINS IN SOME CASES ARE PART OF THE REASON FOR MINOR EARTHQUAKES – THAT IS HOW STABILIZING THEY ARE). The text makes no specific comment about:

P: 1. how the mountains originate (WRONG: THE QURAN SPESIFIES THAT THEY ARE SET DOWN*),

P: 2. how they offer stability to the earth (except by implying that the earth shakes less as a result of the presence of mountains) (BUT MUHAMMAD’S FOLLOWERS THOUGHT THE MEANING WAS THAT WITHOUT THE MOUNTAINS THE EARTH COULD START WOBBLING AND TIP OVER - THIS IS WHAT MUHAMMAD REALLY REFERRED TO. MUSLIMS NOWADAYS TRY TO EXPLAIN HE WAS TALKING ABOUT EARTHQUAKES, BUT MOUNTAINS ALSO DO NOT STABILIZE AGAINST EARTHQUAKES - ON THE CONTRARY SOMETIMES*),

P: 3. or the degree of influence of tectonic processes that threaten the very stability they provide (TECTONIC PROCESSES ARE NOT AT ALL MENTIONED IN THE QURAN*).

P: By exploring each of these issues in some detail, we shall be able to see that, however vague and imprecise the Qur'anic treatment of geology is, it cannot be deemed inaccurate (IS THIS A JOKE? - IMPRECISE IS JUST ANOTHER WORD FOR INACCURATE!! IT ALSO IS WRONG – BOTH ABOUT THIS, AND THAT THE EARTH IS FLAT - - - AND ONE IN 7 EARTHS). The following is a brief conspectus of orogenic geomorphic systems (i.e. mountain-building systems):

P: ... ... [M]ountain-building systems evolve in the special contexts of type, setting, and style. The principal orogenic varieties recognized are (1) mountains of the continent-continent collision type formed by lithospheric plate interaction along continental margins, (2) mountains of the collision type associated with oceanic trenches (sometimes developed along a single continental margin) with an adjacent plate-tectonic subduction system ... and (3) rift-type mountains extending into continental interiors where transcurrent faults shear cratons and deform associated sediment veneers or where spreading zones develop to create fault-block mountainous terrain (The New Encyclopaedia Britannica, Macropaedia, Vol. 16, p. 710). (CORRECT – BECAUSE THIS MR. REFUTER HAS NOT WRITTEN HIMSELF. BUT THE QURAN DEFINITELY DOES NOT QUOTE ENCYCLOPEDIA BRITANNICA – IT IS FAR WRONG*).

P: There are, thus, three principal means by which mountains arise (WRONG ONCE MORE - THERE ARE 4, AS THE ERUPTIVE ONES ARE NOT MENTIONED). This should nullify the possibility of adopting an obsessively literalist (SEE WHAT THE QURAN ITSELF SAYS ABOUT BEING CLEAR AND ABOUT SEARCHING FOR HIDDEN MEANINGS – LITERAL READING ACCORDING TO THE QURAN IS THE ONLY CORRECT WAY OF READING IT, UNLESS SOMETHING ELSE IS SPECIFIED FOR ONE OR SOME VERSES – THE HIDDEN MEANINGS “ARE FOR ALLAH” AND FOR “THE SICK AT HEART”) and crude reading of Qur'anic material on this subject (WRONG - THAT SCIENCE TELLS THERE ARE 3 TECTONIC + THE ERUPTIVE WAYS OF CREATING MOUNTAINS, TELLS NOTHING ABOUT THE QURAN AND ITS CONTENTS - - - AND THE QURAN VERY CLEARLY MENTIONS ONLY ONE WAY OF PRODUCING MOUNTAINS: THEY ARE SET DOWN. MR. REFUTER ONLY OFFERS HIS READERS FAST TALK - BUT MANY OF THEM STRONGLY WANT TO BELIEVE HIM, AND OTHERS DO NOT HAVE ENOUGH KNOWLEDGE TO SEE THAT HE IS "LEADING THEM BY THE NOSE".

Moon Has Its Own Light?

Koran reveals to us that moon has its own light!

(Koran 10:5)

It is He who made the sun to be a shining glory and the moon to be a light... Everyone in the modern world knows that moon does not have any light of its own.

P: Another false propaganda. The Qur'an says: "God is the One who made the sun a shine and the moon a light" (Qur'an 10:5). (EVEN MUHAMMAD SAW THE TWO WERE DIFFERENT AND USED DIFFERENT DESCRIPTIONS – BUT HE USED THE WORD “A LIGHT” ALSO FOR THE MOON*).

P: Commenting on this, Dr. Bucaille says: "Whereas the Bible calls the sun and moon 'lights', and merely adds to one the adjective 'greater' and to the other 'lesser', the Qur'an ascribes differences other than that of dimension to each respectively" (The Bible, the Qur'an and Science, p. 156). (PLEASE READ OUR COMPLETE COMMENTS ABOUT MEDICAL DR. BUCAILLE – AND ABOUT THE HONESTY IN USING HIS TITLE IN ASTRONOMY, ETC. WITHOUT MENTIONING THAT HIS TITLE WAS IN MEDICINE. A TYPICAL KITMAN (LAWFUL HALF-TRUTH) BORDERING AN AL-TAQIYYA (LAWFUL LIE) – BOTH FORMS FOR DEBATE AND DISHONESTY YOU ONLY FIND IN ISLAM OF THE BIG RELIGIONS*).

P: Similarly, the Qur'an says: "Blessed is the One Who placed the constellations in heaven and placed therein a lamp and a moon giving light" (Qur'an 25:61). (GIVING LIGHT, NOT REFLECTING LIGHT*).

P: Here again, the difference between the sun and the moon is noted (OF COURSE. IT IS IMPOSSIBLE NOT TO SEE THAT THERE IS A BIG DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE SUN AND THE MOON. BUT IN THE QURAN THEY BOTH ARE OBJECTS GIVING LIGHT*). The sun is called a lamp, and the moon is called an object giving light (GIVING, NOT REFLECTING*).

P: Again in the Qur'an God says that He "made the moon a light" and "made the sun a lamp" (Qur'an 71:15-16). (AND AGAIN THE QURAN IS DESCRIBING A QUANTITATIVE DIFFERENCE, NOT A QUALITATIVE ONE.*)

P: Furthermore, God calls the sun a "blazing lamp" (Qur'an 78:12-13). This term which is used for the sun is never used for the moon in the Qur'an. (ALSO MUHAMMAD SAW THAT THERE WERE DIFFERENCES BETWEEN THE SUN AND THE MOON – BUT HE USED WORDS MEANING LIGHT SOURCES ALSO FOR THE MOON. THERE IS NO INDICATION IN THE QURAN FOR THAT SOMETHING ELSE WAS THE REALITY. ALSO SEE OUR COMMENT JUST ABOVE.*)

P: In all of these verses, God expresses the notion that the sun and the moon are "not absolutely identical lights" (The Bible, the Qur'an and Science, p. 156). Dr. Bucaille draws his conclusions from what he found in the Qur'an about the sun and the moon: "What is interesting to note here is the sober quality of the comparisons, and the absence in the text of the Qur'an of any elements of comparison that might have prevailed at the time and which in our day would appear as phantasmagorial" (The Bible, the Qur'an and Science, p 157).

P: You may read the following parable stated in the Quran to know the difference between light and lamp. (THIS COMPARISON IS FAST TALK – THE TALES ABOUT THE MOON AND THE SUN IS DESCRIPTION OF PHYSICAL REALITIIES WITH PHYSICAL LIGHT.*).

P: “Allah is the Light of the heavens and the earth (AND THE MOON IS A LIGHT ACCORDING TO 71/15-16 - BOTH ARE RADIATING LIGHT ACCORDING TO THE QURAN. A GOOD COMPARISON MR. REFUTER*). The parable of His Light is as if there were a Niche and within it a lamp: the Lamp enclosed in Glass: the glass as it were a brilliant star: lit from a blessed Tree an Olive neither of the East nor of the West whose Oil is well-nigh luminous though fire scarce touched it: Light upon Light! Allah doth guide whom He will to His Light. Allah doth set forth Parables for men: and Allah doth know all things.” (BUT WHAT HAS SHADING OR NOT SHADING LIGHT TO DO WITH THE SUN'S AND MOON'S MAKING LIGHT TO DO? ONE OF THE STANDARD WAYS FOR MUSLIMS TO FLEE FROM DIFFICULT POINTS OR MISTAKES IN THE QURAN, IS TO ANSWER SOMETHING ELSE - LIKE HERE.*)

Everything is Created in Pairs?

The following verse tells us that Allah created everything in pairs. For example, sex in plants and animals, day and night, forces of attraction and repulsion, etc.

(Koran 51:49)

And of every thing WE have created pairs:that ye may receive instruction.

However, Mohammed in his simplistic observation of the world did not notice that there are some things in this world which are not in pairs. For example, bacteria, fungi imperfecti, etc. are members of the Monera Kingdom and reproduce asexually only! The European population of Elodea consists of plants of the same sex as well and therefore they also reproduce through asexual means.

Another example of things not in pairs is the gravitational force. The gravitational force is an attractive force. It does not have a counterpart. There is no such thing as repelling gravity.

P: reply to this claim, please be reminded that that the words of the verse said: "And of everything We have created pairs"

P: The word 'everything' clearly indicates that God is speaking of everything in the universe and not just some species of plants. So what is this universal arrangement by which everything is created in pairs?

P: Here we explore the science of Quantum Mechanics. (“IF IT IS IMPOSSIBLE TO EXPLAIN AWAY THINGS YOU DO NOT LIKE, THEN EXPLAIN SOMETHING ELSE” – AN ADVISE RESPECTED BY POLITICIANS. MR. REFUTER HERE FOR ONE THING IS TALKING ABOUT SOMETHING ELSE THAN THE QURAN, AND FOR ANOTHER THING DOES NOT EVEN KNOW WHAT HE IS TALKING ABOUT IN HIS CHOSEN SUBJECT FOR EVADING THE MISTAKE IN THE QURAN. SEE OUR COMLETE COMMENTS – TOO MUCH TO EXPLAIN HERE, BUT HIS QUANTUM MECHANICHS ARE GOBBLYDYGOOK.’)

P: When we study Quantum Particle Properties, we find that for every (WRONG*) elementary particle in the universes there is a special partner called its anti-particle that has the same mass but the opposite electric charge. This is what is called Anti-Matter. Basically, if a particle and its own anti-particle collide, they cancel one another out. They destroy one another and turn into a flash of pure energy which can manifest itself as light.

P: For many years this theory remained a theoretical hypothesis, since no anti-matter was ever produced in a lab (ALL THE SAME THIS IS WRONG, AS ANTI-MATTER ALSO IS CREATED IN COLLITIONS BETWEEN OUR ATMOSPHERE AND HIGH ENERGY PARTICLE FROM SPACE). However, very recently, a Swiss-based scientist confirmed that anti-matter has been manufactured in tiny amounts (WRONG. THEIS HAPPENED THE FIRST TIME IN 1952, AND TODAY IT IS DAILY WORK AT MANY UNIVERSITIES AND LABORATORIES!*)

P: The scientists at the European Particle Physics Laboratory (CERN), on the Franco-Swiss border, have now set up the world's first (WRONG*) anti-matter factory, one of them, Professor Frank Close, told the annual science festival in Wales:

P: "Nine atoms of anti-hydrogen were produced just over a year ago. Now, the new factory will produce them at a rate of more than 2,000 atoms per hour" Close said. (THE ONLY THING WHICH IS NEW HERE, IS THAT THEY MANAGED TO STABILIZE ANTI-ATOMS. ANTI-MATTER ATOMIC PARTICLES HAVE BEEN PRODUCED FOR A COUPLE OF GENERATIONS (SINCE 1952), AND EVEN ANTI-MATTER ATOMS FOR SOME YEARS. BUT THEY HAVE NOT BEEN ABLE TO STABILIZE THOSE ATOMS, AND THEY HAVE AUTOMATICALLY BEEN ANHILATED – UNTIL THEY A SHORT TIME AGO MANAGED TO COLLECT AND TAKE CARE OF A FEW ONES. AND AS FOR THE BIG THING OF MAKING ANTI-HYDROGEN: TODAY IT EVEN IS POSSIBLE TO MAKE ANTI-HELIUM4 (THE ANTI-ATOM OF NORMAL HELIUM) - A FAR MORE DIFFICULT TASK THAN TO MAKE EVEN HYDROGEN.*)

P: When matter meets anti-matter, they annihilate each other in a flash. The scientific consensus is that, when the universe was created, matter and anti-matter emerged equally from the Big Bang (THE CORRECT HERE IS THAT EITHER NOT EQUALLY MUCH OF BOTH WERE PRODUCED, OR FOR SOME REASON THERE HAS BEEN A DISPROPORTION IN THE ANHILATION – IF NOT THERE HAD BEEN NO MATTER LEFT TO FORM THE UNIVERSE.) For more details on that matter check : Antimatter: Mirror of the Universe

P: So once again we witness the Quran's amazing scientific content. The subject of 51:49 and which you failed to interpret correctly, is in fact yet another very accurate piece of knowledge. This verse as seen address's the theory of Quantum Particle Properties, and not the type of 'Reproduction System' (male/female) of one species of plants or another. (READERS: PLEASE READ THE QURAN AND SEE IF IT TALKS ABOUT QUANTUM PARICLE PHYSICS. MR. REFUTER: PLEASE PROVE YOUR STATEMENT – SOMETHING MUSLIMS NEVER DO WHEN IT COMES TO CENTRAL CLAIMS.AND MR. REFUTER: THIS IS ONE OF THE REALLY FAR OUT SAMPLES OF MUSLIMS JUMPING FROM “THIS IS A POSSIBLE (BUT IN THIS CASE EXTREMLY UNLIKELY) POSIBILLITY” TO “THIS IS THA CASE”, WITHOUT ANY PROOF AT ALL FOR THAT THE CLAIM IS CORRECT.)

MAY BE MAIN THING IN JUST THIS "EXPLANATION" IS: THE QURAN SAYS EVERYTHING WAS CREATED IN PAIRS. MR. REFUTER CHOSES ONE SINGLE PHYSICAL POINT - MATTER CONTRA ANTI-MATTER. EVEN IF HE HAD KNOWN WHAT HE WAS TALKING ABOUT HERE, AND NOT JUST MESSING AROUND LIKE HE DOES, AND IN SOME WAY OR OTHER HAD BEEN ABLE TO PROVE THAT ALL PARTICLES HAD AN ANTI-PARTICLE, THIS JUST HAD PROVED ONE THING: THAT PARTICLES OF MATTER AND ANTI-MATTER COME IN PAIRS (BUT F.X. ANTI-GRAVITONS DO NOT EXIST). AND THEN: HIP HURRAY! - THE POINT IS SOLVED. WELL, HE HAS DONE ONE MORE THING: PROVED THAT HE KNOWS VERY LITTLE ABOUT MODERN SCIENCE.

BUT THE ONLY THING WHICH HE HAS DONE, IS TO LEAD THE READERS BY THE NOSE AWAY FROM THE POINT: THE QURAN SAYS THAT

EVERYTHING

WAS CREATED IN PAIRS.

MR. REFUTER HAS UNSUCCESSFULLY TRIED TO PROVE THAT ONE POINT - A THING MUHAMMAD HAD NEVER HEARD ABOUT EVEN - COMES IN PAIRS. BUT WHERE ARE THE PROOFS FOR THAT ALL THE OTHER MILLIONS OF THINGS AND MILLIONS OF BEINGS AND PLANTS ARE CREATED IN PAIRS?

ONCE MORE: ONE OF THE MUSLIM STANDARD WAYS OF EVADING MISTAKES, ETC. IN THE QURAN IS FAST TALK LIKE HERE (AND HERE LIKE SO OFTEN FROM MUSLIMS: EVEN WRONG FACTS - - - WHICH DOES NOT MATTER, BECAUSE STRONGLY BELIEVING MUSLIMS DEARLY WANT TO BELIEVE, AND DO NOT CHECK IF CLAIMS OR "FACTS" ARE TRUE OR NOT.

Historical Contradictions

Moses And The Samaritan

The Koran tells us that the calf worshipped by the Israelites at Mt. Horeb was molded by a Samaritan. This is stated in the verses (20:85-87, 95-97).

(Koran 20:85)

We have tested the people in thy absence: The Samaritan has led them astray.

(Koran 20:87)

...Of the whole people, and we threw them into the fire and that was what the Samaritan suggested.

The word "Samaritan" was not coined until 722 B.C., several centuries after the events recorded in the Exodus. This implies that the Samaritan people could not have existed during the life of Moses (THERE LIKELY WERE PEOPLE IN THE AREA, BUT THEY COULD NOT BE NAMED SAMARITANS OR SAMARIANS AS THE NAME DID NOT EXIST. AND PEOPLE LIVING IN NORTH ISRAEL DID NOT COME OUT OF EGYPT DURING EXODUS) and were not the ones who molded the calf. Some Muslims go out of their way in trying to explain this. They say that the actual word here is "Samiri" or "Shomer". However, they should not deviate from the original Arabic which clearly spells out the word "Samaritan". Obviously, Mohammed had no knowledge of History or when all the events took place, so he jumbled up everything.

P: Here the assumptions is this. Since the Bible has been in existence longer than the Qur'an, the Biblical account is the correct one (SCIENCE RECKON OLDER WRITTEN MATERIAL TO NORMALLY BE MORE RELIABLE THAN YOUNGER WRITTEN MATERIAL, NOT BECAUSE IT IS OLDER, BUT BECAUSE IT IS CLOSER IN TIME TO WHAT HAPPENED, AND THUS THERE HAS BEEN LESS TIME FOR THE STORY TO BE CHANGED BECAUSE OF WRONG MEMORIES OR OTHER REASONS. IN THIS CASE IT IS VERY RELEVANT, AS THE JEW STARTED TO WRITE ABOUT THINGS WHICH HAPENED AROUND 800 BC, AND THUS THE FOUNDATION OF SAMARIA WAS WITHIN HISTORICAL TIMES IN ISRAEL. WHEREAS THE QURAN WAS WRITTEN NEARL 1400 YEARS LATER*) as opposed to the Qur'anic account, which is necessarily inaccurate and false. Here you assume the “History” as narrated in the Bible books are infallible and there are no errors. (WRONG – AND UNTRUE AS WE CLEARLY HAVE TOLD THAT THERE ALSO AT MISTAKES IN THE BIBLE. AND THUS ALSO DISHONEST, AS WE NEVER HAVE INDICATED THAT THE BIBLE IS INFALLIBLE. BUT WE DO POINT TO - EVEN JUST ABOVE HERE - THAT IN HISTORY IT IS NORMAL TO EVALUATE OLDER WRITTEN TEXTS AS MORE RELIABLE THAN YOUNGER ONES IF NOTHING ELSE INDICATES SOMETHING ELSE, BECAUSE THE OLDER ONES ARE CLOSER TO WHAT HAPPENED, AND THUS THERE HAS BEEN LESS TIME FOR THE STORIES TO BECOME DISTORTED. AND WE POINT TO THAT IN THIS CASE THERE WAS NO REASON FOR THE WRITERS TO FALSIFY ANYTHING, AND THAT THE WRITTEN HISTORY OF THE JEWS STARTS MAY BE A CENTURY BEFORE THE TOWN SAMARIA IS SAID TO BE FOUNDED – AND THUS THAT IT MAY BE LIKELY THAT THE HISTORY IS TRUE).Commenting on this historical discrepancy and how it undermines the Bible concerning the claim of the Samaritans' origins, A. D. Crown says:

P: “This is a prima facie evidence that the greatest concentration of people remained in the province until at least sixth century B.C.E. Clearly the story of Samaritan origins in the Bible must be viewed with caution” [25] A. D. Crown, "Samaritan Judaism" in J. Neusner, A. J. Avery-Peck & W. S. Green (Eds.), The Encyclopaedia Of Judaism, 2004, Volume V, Supplement Two, op. cit., p. 2243. (THIS POINTS TO THAT THERE WERE LIVING PEOPLE THERE ALSO BEFORE, WHICH IS NO SECRET. THE REAL POINT IS: WHEN WAS THE TOWN SAMARIA FOUNDED, NOT WHEN EARLIER PEOPLE LIVED THERE, AND EVEN MORE SO: WHEN DID IT GET THE NAME SAMARIA? – BECAUSE THE INTERESTING POINT HERE IS NOT HOW MANY LIVED WHERE, BUT THE USE OF THE WORD “SAMARIAN” IN CONNECTION WITH MOSES SOME 500 YEARS BEFORE THE NAME “SAMARIA” WAS COINED. LIKE SO MANY MUSLIMS YOU HERE GIVE A THOROUGH ANSWER – THOUGH BASED ON PRESUMPTIONS – OF SOMETHING NOT ASKED FOR, BUT LEAVE THE CENTRAL POINT UNANSWERED, THOUGH PRETENDING YOU HAVE REFUTED IT. ONE OF THE TYPICAL MUSLIM TECHNIQUES OF DEBATING*).

P: Similar conclusions were also reached by Lester Grabbe. He says:

P: The origins of the [Samaritan] community and cult are still uncertain. The origins according to interpretations of 2 Kings 17 (pagan foreigners brought in) and Josephus (dissident Jerusalem priests (JOSEPHUS FLAVIUS IS BY SCIENCE RECKONED TO BE A RELIABLE WRITER OF HISTORY*)) are the product of considerable bias and cannot be taken at face value.” ( L. L. Grabbe, "Betwixt And Between: The Samaritans In The Hasmonean Period" in P. R. Davies & J. M. Halligan (Eds.), Second Temple Studies III: Studies In Political, Class And Material Culture, 2002, Journal For The Study Of The Old Testament Supplement Series - 340, Sheffield Academic Press: Sheffield (UK), p. 215.) (BUT HERE WE POINT TO THAT THE CITY SAMARIA WAS NOT FOUNDED AND GIVEN A NAME UNTIL IN 722 BC. THE CITY THEN WAS THE CAPITAL OF THE NORTHEN KINGDOM - ISRAEL - UNTIL THIS KINGDOM WAS CONQUERED BY THE ASSYRIANS. AND ONLY AFTER THAT CONQUEST THE SPECIAL SAMARITAN COMMUNITY AND JUDAISM EMERGED - WHICH L. L. GRABBE SAYS IS MORE UNCLEAR THAN WHAT THE BIBLE TELLS. BUT THIS IS TOTALLY IRRELEVANT FOR THE OUR POINT: THE QURAN TALKS ABOUT A SAMARITAN AT THE TIME OF EXODUS CA. 1235 BC. BUT THE NAME SAMARIA DID NOT EXIST UNTIL IN 722 BC. FROM 722 BC YOU COULD TALK ABOUT A SAMARITAN IF YOU MEANT A MAN FROM THE CAPITAL SAMARIA OF THE NORTHERN COUNTRY ISRAEL. IF YOU MEAN A SAMARITAN IN THE MEANING USED F.X. IN NT YOU HAVE TO WAIT FOR ANOTHER CENTURY OR TWO - AND IT IS THIS MEANING OF THE NAME AND PEOPLE L. L. GRABBE IS DEBATING. MR. REFUTER HERE DOES LIKE MUSLIMS SO OFTEN DO WHEN THEY WANT TO EVADE PROBLEMS AND MISTAKES IN THE QURAN; TALK ABOUT SOMETHING ELSE. BUT HERE ONE MAY WONDER WHY, BECAUSE NO MATTER WHICH OF THE TWO MEANINGS OF THE NAME ONE REFERS TO, THE NAME DID NOT EXIST UNTIL NEARLY 600 YEARS AFTER EXODUS - AND IF YOU USE MR. GRABBE'S MEANING OF THE WORD, THIS IS EVEN YOUNGER. IN NO CASE THE MISTAKE IN THE QURAN ABOUT THIS IS NEITHER EXPLAINED NOR EXPLAINED AWAY).

MR. REFUTER, THE QURAN SAYS A SAMARITAN WAS IN MOSES' EXODUS. PROVE THAT IT IS CORRECT - ALL YOU ARE DOING, IS TO CLAIM THAT MAY BE THE BIBLE IS NOT CORRECT. BUT EVEN IF IT WAS THE CASE THAT THE BIBLE WAS WRONG, THAT DOES NOT PROVE THE QURAN RIGHT, AND SUCH A PROOF IS WHAT IS NEEDED.

P: I am giving you the following link which is an extensive study of this subject, I must say, a great research work. If you read this, you will know that there is no contradiction in the Quran. (WRONG. THE REAL POINT IS NOT ANSWERED – SEE OUR LATEST COMMENT ABOVE*). The link is; http://www.lastbook.org/index.php/content/view/9227/11/

Gospel Existed During The Time Of Moses?

(Koran 7:157)

Those who follow the Messenger, the unlettered Prophet, whom they find mentioned in their own (Scriptures),- in the Taurant and the Gospel...

Notice that the above verse is in present tense and thus the obvious problem is that the Gospel was not yet revealed at that time!

P: To resolve the truth of this claim it is first necessary to determine who is refered to in 7:157 as the "the messenger, the gentile prophet". Gentile prophet is the correct translation, not unlettered prophet. (SEE OUR MAIN COMMENTS ABOVE. HERE IT IS POSSIBLE YOU ARE RIGHT, AND THAT IN THIS TEXT ABOUT MOSES THERE IS INCLUDED SOME ABOUT MUHAMMAD. IF THIS IS THE CASE, IT WILL BE CORRECTED – WE SEE NO REASON TO HAVE AN INCORRECT POINT IN OUR TEXTS. BUT IF THE QURAN HERE TALKS ABOUT MUHAMMAD, WE GO FROM ONE POSSIBLE MISTAKE TO A SURE MISTAKE: MUHAMMAD IS NOWHERE MENTIONED IN THE BIBLE - SEE OUR SPECIAL COMMENTS ABOUT THIS. ALSO SEE THE CHAPTER ABOUT THE CLAIMS THAT MUHAMMAD IS MENTIONED IN THE BIBLE IN "1000+ MISTAKES IN THE QURAN".*)

P: Here you claim that, in this verse God is speaking to Moses. It can be shown that this is quite impossible. If we assume that God is speaking to Moses in this verse, then "the messenger, the gentile prophet" cannot be Moses himself, since it would make no sense for God to ask Moses to follow himself! Equally, and if God is speaking to Moses in this verse, "the messenger, the gentile prophet" could not be Jesus nor Muhammad since it would make no sense for God to ask Moses to follow a prophet who would come after his time.

P: The person who is described as "the messenger, the gentile prophet", and who is Muhammad (WRONG*), is in fact the clue in verifying the ones who are addressed in this verse. The confirmation that it is Muhammad who is refered to as "the messenger, the gentile prophet", is found in the verse that follows:

P: 7:158 "Say, (O Muhammad (THE NAME IS NOT IN THE QURAN*)) "O people, I am GOD's messenger to all of you. To Him belongs the sovereignty of the heavens and the earth. There is no god except He. He controls life and death." Therefore, you shall believe in GOD and His messenger, the gentile prophet, who believes in GOD and His words. Follow him, that you may be guided." (WRONG. MUHAMMAD MAY BE MEANT IN THIS POINT OF THE QURAN BY “THE GENTILE PROPHET”, BUT NO OMNISCIENT GOD EVER SENT A PROPHET TELLING SO MANY WRONG FACTS, ETC.*)

P: By reading all four verses, we can see that in 7:157 God is not speaking to Moses at all, God is speaking to all Jews, not only those at the time of Moses, but for all time. (SEE OUR MORE COMPLETE COMMENTS ON HIGHER UP.)

Haman - A minister of the Pharaoh?

(Koran 28:8)

...For Pharaoh and Haman and all their hosts were Men of sin.

(Koran 28:38)

...therefore, O haman! light me a klin to bake bricks out of clay, and build me a loftly palace...

Here the Koran clearly implies that Haman and the Pharaoh existed at the same time and place. But History tells us otherwise. The Pharaoh lived during the time of Moses and Haman served as a minister of Ahasuerus (Xerxes I). The Quranic verse in this case contains not only an error in location, but also an error of time as well (700 - 800 years). Once again the Koran proves to us that either Mohammed had no real knowledge of history or he did choose to distort it.

P: The whole basis for the Haman controversy is the appearance of a Haman in the Qur'an in a historical period different from that of the Bible. I am giving a link to you which discusses this issue very extensively. http://www.lastbook.org/index.php/content/view/9220/13/

You may please go through the above link which is a Critical Examination Of The Biblical Evidence Used Against The Qur'an. Only if the Book of Esther can be shown to be both historically reliable and accurate, you will be justified in making the claim the Qur'an contradicts the earlier, more "reliable" historic Biblical account. The matter has been extensively discussed and proved beyond any doubt (WRONG - SEE OUR COMMENT ABOUT SCIENCE JUST BELOW) that there is no contradiction on this issue in the Quran. It is a very extensive and elaborate study by taking into account many historical events in light of recent historical and archaeological discoveries. You may visit that link to know the truth. Please

(THE SHORT COMMENT HERE IS THAT SCIENCE IS NOT IN DOUBT THAT IT IS THE SAME HAMAN MUHAMMAD TALKS ABOUT. AS FOR THE BOOK OF ESTER BEING MORE RELIABLE THAN THE QURAN, SEE OUR COMMENT FURTHE UP ON A SIMILAR POINT*).

Other Contradictions:

Creation Of The Heaven And The Earth

Another contradiction in the Koran is about the creation of Heaven and Earth. Which one was created first? As you will see in the verses below Mohammed at one time says that earth was created first and at another time he says that the Heaven was created first.

(Koran 2:29)

It is He who hath created for you all things that are on earth; THEN he turned to the heaven and made them into seven firmaments...

(Koran 79:27-30)

What! Are ye the more difficult to create of heaven (above)? (Allah) hath constructed it... and after that he extended (created) the earth to a wide expanse.

P: If we read 2:29 we note that it does not say that earth was created before the universe, (PROVE THAT ACCORDING TO THE QURAN EARTH WAS CREATED AFTER THE UNIVERSE – 9.1 BILLION YEARS AFTER. AND ALSO MR. REFUTER PLEASE PROVE THAT WHEN THE QURAN SAID "HEAVEN" IT DID NOT MEAN HEAVEN BUT THE UNIVERSE IN THE MODERN MEANING OF THAT WORD. YOU SEE, MR. REFUTER, THAT FOR ONE THING MUHAMMAD TOLD ABOUT THE HEAVEN, NOT ABOUT THE UNIVERSE, AND IN ADDITION THERE WAS NO WORD 1400 YEARS AGO MEANING UNIVERSE IN OUR MEANING OF THAT WORD. YOU SIMPLY ARE USING A DISHONEST SHORTCUT*) but in accordance with the theory of the Big Bang, it confirms that all matter which the earth is made of (elements) was created before space (WRONG. BIG BANG SAYS HYDROGEN AND HELIUM AND SPACE – AND TIME – WERE CREATED AT THE SAME TIME, BUT THAT THE ELEMENTS EARTH IS MADE FROM, ARE CREATED MUCH LATER. BIG BANG ALSO IS IRRELEVANT TO THE CREATION STORY IN THE QURAN – IN 6-8 DAYS – NOT SOME 300OOO YEARS AS IT TOOK FOR EVEN THE VERY FIRST STARS (MADE ONLY FROM HYDROGEN AND HELIUM) TO START BEING MADE - - - UNLESS YOU HAVE GOOD PROOFS FOR THE OPPOSITE. NOT UNDOCUMENTED CLAIMS LIKE YOU USE LOTS OF, BUT PROOFS*).

P: The very accurate (WRONG*) and indeed scientific wording (WRONG*) of this glorious verse obviously went unnoticed due to this false claim. The Arabic words (ma fee Al-Ard) literally mean 'what is INSIDE the earth'. Thus God is saying that He has created all matter (of which earth is made of) first then He created space (SCIENTIFICALLY WRONG: FOR ONE THING HE(?) CREATED MATTER AND SPACE - AND TIME - SIMULTANIOUSLY. THUS EVEN TO THIS WRONG "EXPLANATION" MR. REFUTER'S CLAIM IS WRONG. FURTHER: THE MATTER CREATED BY BIG BANG ONLY - ONLY - WERE HYDROGEN + SOME HELIUM - IMPOSSIBLE TO MAKE PLANETS FROM, NOT TO MENTION PLANETS LIKE EARTH. MR. REFUTER'S CLAIMS HERE SIMPLY IS SCIENTIFIC MIXMAX AND INCORRECT TO BE POLITE.) This is in total agreement with the theory of the Big Bang which states that all matter was confined in an extremely dense singularity, and that space was created after the explosion of this infinitely dense singularity (WRONG. SEE OUR FULL COMMENTS ON TOP*).

Heaven And Earth Came Together Or Ripped Apart?

The next contradiction is about the coming together of heaven and earth Vs. ripping apart from each other.

(Koran 41:11)

...He said to the sky and to the earth: "Come ye together willingly or unwillingly." They said: "We do come together in willing obedience."

(Koran 21:30)

Do not the unbelievers see that the heavens and the earth were joined together before WE clove them asunder...

P: Once again this shows your inadequate knowledge. These two verses speak of two very different events. "Do the unbelievers not realize that the heavens (space) and the earth (matter) used to be one solid mass that we exploded into existence?" 21:30 (THE WORD “EXPLODED” DOES NOT EXIST IN 21/30. BESIDES THE BIG BANG IS IRRELEVANT AS IT HAPPENED 9.1 BILLION YEARS BEFORE EARTH WAS EVEN CREATED. IN ADDITION THE WORDS “SPACE” AND “MATTER” ARE NOT FROM THE QURAN, BUT INSERTED BY MR. REFUTER TO TWIST THE TEXTS TO LOOK IN WAYS HE NEEDS TO BE ABLE TO LAUNCH HIS WRONG CLAIM. THE CORRECT QUOTE IS ACCORDING TO A. YUSUF ALI: "Do not the Unbelievers see that the heavens and the earth were joined together (as one unit of Creation) - - -".) NOT ONLY DID NOT EARTH EXIST, SO THAT IT COULD NOT BE ONE SOLID MASS TOGETHER WITH HEAVEN - NOT EVEN THE MINERALS, METALS, ETC. IT IS MADE FROM EXISTED.)

P: "Then He turned to the sky (space), when it was still smoke, and said to it, and to the earth (matter), "Come together willingly or unwillingly." They said, "We come willingly." 41:11 (PLEASE TELL US MR. REFUTER: HOW DID EARTH COME TOGETHER WITH THE SKY? - OR THE SKY TOGETHER WITH EARTH?

P: Immediately we are given various accurate scientific (MR. REFUTER'S "EXPLANATIONS" HAS VERY LITTLE TO DO WITH SCIENCE. IF HE DISAGREES, HE CAN TRY TO PROVE HIS CLAIMS*) indications that these two verses speak of two completely different events (PROVE THIS – AND READERS: READ THE VERSES IN THE QURAN, AND YOU WILL SEE BOTH WERSES ARE ABOUT THE CREATION OF THE EARTH – AND JUST GUESS HOW MUHAMMAD’S UNDERSTOOD HIS WORDS*).

These indications are:

P: 1- The word 'exploded' in 21:30 confirms the original moment of the Big Bang when time, space and matter were all one unit of creation that exploded outwards. (BUT THE WORD “EXPLODED” DOES NOT EXIST IN 21/30 - IT IS INTRODUCED BY SOMEONE ELSE. THE QURAN SAYS “CLOWE ASUNDER”. BESIDES THE BIG BANG IS IRRELEVANT AS IT HAPPENED 9.1 BILLION YEARS BEFORE EARTH WAS EVEN CREATED. THERE IS A LOT OF DISHONESTY IN MR. REFUTER’S "EXPLANATION” OF THIS POINT. AL-TAQIYYA AND/OR KITMAN. BUT BOTH ARE NOT ONLY PERMITTED, BUT ADVICED BY ISLAM WHEN DEFENDING OR FORWARDING THE RELIGION, AND THUS NO SIN ACCORDING TO ISLAM.*).

P: 2- The command from God to space and matter to 'come willingly (into existence)….', in 41:11 implies that space and matter (WRONG. THE QURAN DOES NOT SPEAK ABOUT SPACE AND MATTER, BUT ABOUT HEAVEN AND EARTH – ANOTHER KITMAN OR AL-TAQIYYA, BUT NECESSARY IN ORDER TO MAKE THE TALE SOUND POSSIBLE TO PERSONS NOT KNOWING ASTRONOMY, NOT TO MENTION THE BIG BANG*), were already in existence. This confirms that this verse speaks of an event subsequent to the initial moment of creation.

P: 3- The word 'smoke' in 41:11 is very accurate in describing the hot gases that formed after the Big Bang explosion, and which condense under their gravitational pull to form stars and galaxies. (WRONG – AMONG OTHER THINGS BECAUSE A GAS IS NOT SMOKE. BUT SEE OUR MORE COMPLETE COMMENTS ON TOP*).

p: It becomes obvious thus that 21:30 speaks of the outward explosion of the Big Bang , while 41:11 speaks of the subsequent inward condensation of clouds of gas and matter under their gravitational force, to form stars and galaxies. (WRONG. SEE OUR COMMENTS, INCLUDED THE MORE COMPLETE ONES ABOVE. MR. REFUTER WILL HAVE TO BRING STRONG PROOFS FOR HIS UNSCIENTIFIC CLAIMS. HE SIMPLY DOES KNOW NEITHER THE BIG BANG NOR THE HISTORY OF ASTRONOMY. WHAT HE TELLS, TELLS HE DOES NOT KNOW WHAT HE IS TALKING ABOUT – IF HE HAD DONE AND ONLY USED AL-TAQIYYA (LAWFUL LIES), HIS TALES HAD BEEN CLOSER TO REALITY.*)

(DEAR MR. REFUTER:

BIG BANG HAPPENED 13.7 BILLION YEARS AGO. OUR SUN AND PLANETARY SYSTEM FORMED 4.6 BILLION YEARS AGO (4.567 BILLION TO BE MORE EXACT). TIME, MATTER, AND SPACE WERE CREATED SIMULTANIUSLY IN THE MOMENT OF THE BANG. THE MATTER CREATED IN THE BANG, WAS MAINLY HYDROGEN + SOME HELIUM, AND NOTHING ELSE - IMPOSSIBLE TO MAKE EARTH FROM. THE VERY FIRST STARS COALESED SOME 250OOO-300OOO YEARS AFTER THE BIG BANG. IT TOOK AT LEAST SOME 50 MILLION YEARS BEFORE THE FIRST TRACES OF THE ELEMENTS EARTH IS MADE FROM, WERE RELEASED (THE FIRST SUPERNOVAS). OUR SUN (AND ITS SOLAR SYSTEM) IS A 3. GENERATION STAR.

PLEASE PROVE THAT THIS IS WHAT THE QURAN IS TALKING ABOUT - BUT PROVE, NOT FAST TALK LIKE IN THIS AND OTHER EXPLANATIONS, OR LOOSE CLAIMS, BUT PROOFS. YOUR ANSWERS ON THIS POINT JUST IS FAST TALK BASED ON LACK OF REAL KNOWLEDGE (IT IS NOT EVEN AN AL-TAKIYYA. IF IT HAD BEEN SUCH ONE FROM A PERSON KNOWING ASTRONOMY, THE FACTS HAD BEEN MORE CORRECT. YOU SIMPLY DO NOT KNOW MODERN SCIENCE, INCLUDED ASTRONOMY.)

How Was Man Created?

Was man created from a blood clot as the verse below states?

(Koran 96:2)

Created man, out of a mere clot of congealed blood.

Or was man created from water as Mohammed has stated in the verses below?

(Koran 21:30)

...WE made EVERY (including man) living thing from water...

(Koran 25:54)

It is He who has created man from water...

Or was man created from "sounding" clay?

(Koran 15:26)

He created man from sounding clay, from mud moulded into shape...

Or was man created from dust?

(Koran 3:59)

...He created him from dust, then said to him Be and he was.

(Koran 30:20)

Among His signs is this that he created you from dust; and then- Behold, ye are men scattered far and wide!

Or was man created from nothing?

(Koran 19:67)

But does not man call to mind that WE created him before out of nothing.

Or was man actually created from earth?

(Koran 11:61)

...Ye have no other god but him. It is he who hath created you from the earth and settled you therein..

Or was it a drop of sperm that created man?

(Koran 16:4)

He has created man from a sperm-drop...

P: The above claim based on poor translation of the Quran and insufficient scientific knowledge. First of all verses 96:1-2 do not say 'blood clot' !!! The correct translation of these two verses is:

P: "Read, in the name of your Lord, who created. He created man from a 'Alaq' (that which clings)." 96:1-2

The word 'Alaq' literally translates as (that which clings). This highly accurate scientific description, describes the fertilized egg as it clings to the wall of the mother's womb. Obviously, the problem is reading an inaccurate translation of the Quran.

(IN MR. REFUTER’S “EXPLAINING” AWAY THE MISTAKES OF THE STORIES OF THE CLAIMED CREATION OF MAN, SO MUCH IS WRONG, THAT WE ASK OUR READERS TO SEE OUR MORE COMPLETE COMMENTS ON TOP.*)

P: Now let us read the other contested verses:

21:30 "Do the unbelievers not realize that the heaven and the earth used to be one solid mass that we exploded into existence? And from water we made all living things. Would they believe?" (A. YUSUF ALI'S TRANSLATION: "Do not the Unbelievers see that the heavens and the earth were joined together (as one unit of Creation), before We (Allah*) clove them asunder? we made from water every living thing. Will they not then believe?" SORRY MR. REFUTER, BUT WE BELIEVE HIS TRANSLATION MORE THAN YOUR.)

P: Current scientific knowledge confirms the dual meaning of this verse:

1. The history of life on earth confirms that all life originated from water (WRONG: IT ORIGINATED IN WATER, NOT FROM WATER - WATER IN A BEING JUST IS A PART OF THE STORY, ONE PART OF VERY MANY*), then crept unto land, later birds were created then mammals and finally man. Therefore the phrase And from water we made all living things is accurate in that respect, and it confirms that all life originated from water (AND WHAT DOES THE FACT THAT LIFE ORIGINATED IN WATER, BUT NOT FROM WATER LIKE YOU CLAIM, CONFIRM?*)

2- When the chemical composition of any living organism (including the human body) is analysed it is found that it is formed mainly of water (at least 80% or more). This again confirms the accuracy of the phrase And from water we made all living things. In other words all living things are largely composed of water. (WHICH IS NOT WHAT THE VERSE SAYS. ALSO SEE POINT 1 JUST ABOVE. BESIDES, WHEN THE QURAN SAYS "FROM WATER", THIS MEANS IT IS CREATED FROM WATER AND NOT ONLY PARTLY FROM WATER.)

P: It is indeed interesting, and along the same lines, to note that it was found that all liquids in our bodies (tears, saliva, blood, urine, perspiration......etc) contain the same percentage of salt as is found in the oceans. (WRONG: THE SALT CONTENT OF F.X. OUR BLOOD AND IN OUR MAIN BODY FLUIDS IS CA. 1/3 OF IN SEA-WATER.)

P. Next, we move on to the verses that state that man was created from clay, mud, or dust. Since dust and clay are the same thing (dust is dry mud) then they can be addressed together (MUD AND DUST MAY - BUT ONLY MAY - BE THE SAME. DUST CAN COME FROM A LOT OF OTHER THINGS THAN MUD).

Once again, the history of life on earth confirms that at the early stages of the development of earth, and before life was formed, the earth was still very hot, too hot for water to exist in a liquid form. Gradually, and when the earth cooled sufficiently, the water that condensed and formed the seas and oceans mixed with the dirt to form mud (MR. REFUTER, PLEASE PROVE THAT THE SEAS AND OCEANS WERE "MIXED WITH THE DIRT TO FORM MUD" - THE WATER WAS IF ANYTHING CLEANER THAN TODAY*). Out of the moulding mud was born the simplest living organisms(PLEASE INFORM MODERN SCIENCE ABOUT THIS, BECAUSE SCIENCE DOES NOT KNOW HOW LIFE STARTED - THEY HAVE DIFFERENT THEORIES, BUT ONLY THEORIES - AND THE MOST LIKELY ONE DOES NOT EVEN INCLUDE MUD (THE MOST LIKELY ONE SAYS IT STARTED IN THE WATER OF SHALLOW BAYS OR SIMILAR). IF YOU CAN PROVE YOUR CLAIM THAT LIFE STARTED IN MUD, IT IS WORTH A NOBEL PRIZE), in the shape of bacteria and single cell organisms. From these early forms of living organisms originated higher and more complex forms culminating in the creation of man from the same origin, which is mud (SEE OUR COMMENT JUST ABOVE. LIFE STARTED FROM MUD MIGHT PASS AS A SCIENTIFIC THEORY, BUT IT IS RUBBISH AS A CLAIMED SCIENTIFIC "FACT".)

This scientific theory is confirmed in the Quran:

"We created the human being from aged mud, like the potter's clay." 15:26. Also 3:59, 30:20, 35:11

P: But this is not all, in another verse an amazing scientific information is given that was only to be revealed at least a thousand years after the revelation of the Quran. This is found in the following verse;

P: "We have created man from a 'Sulalah' (quintessence) of clay" 23:12

P: The word 'quintessence' means a sample that is a representation of the whole (WRONG - SEE OUR COMMENT IN PART A).

Today, when human tissue is analysed, it is found to contain exactly the same eighteen most abundant elements in the earth's crust. These are:

Oxygen, Silicon, Aluminum, Iron, Calcium, Sodium, Potassium, Magnesium, Hydrogen, Chlorofine, Iodine, Manganese, Phosphorous, Lead, copper, silver, Carbon, and Zinc. (SEE OUR MORE COMPLETE COMMENTS IN PART A OF PART Xb ABOVE*).

P: For that, the human being is indeed created from earth.........

P: Next we move to 19:67 which says:

"Did the human being forget that we created him already, and he was nothing?"

P: On closer inspection we note that this verse does not say that we were created from nothing (as you claim would interpret), the verse says that before we were created we were nothing. There is a big difference between saying, 'we were created from nothing' and between ' before we were created , we were nothing' (THE ONLY COMMENT NECESSARY HERE IS TO QUOTE A. YUSUF ALI - AN AFTER ALL MORE RELIABLE TRANSLATOR (PERHAPS THE VERY BEST ACCORDING TO ISLAM): "But does not man call to mind that We (Allah*) created him out of nothing?". WELL, WE MAY ADD THAT AL-TAQIYYA (THE LAWFUL LIE) AND KITMAN (THE LAWFUL HALF-TRUTH) NOT ONLY IS PERMITTED IN ISLAM (THE ONLY OF THE BIG RELIGIONS PERMITTING DISHONESTY IN MANY CASES), BUT ADVISED TO USE "IF NECESSARY" TO DEFEND OR PROMOTE THE RELIGION*).

P: Finally, we are told in the Quran that the human being is created from a drop of fluid [16:4, 75:37] "He created the human from a tiny drop (OF SPERM ACCORDING TO THIS VERSE*)....... " 16:4 "Does the human being think that he will go to nothing? Was he not a drop of ejected semen? Then He (God) created an embryo (AN AL-TAQIYYA OR AT LEAST A KITMAN: THE WORS EMBRYO IS NOT IN THE QURAN THE QURAN SAYS "A LEECHLIKE CLOT"*) out of it! He made it into male or female! Is He then unable to revive the dead?" 75:36-40

P: These verses describe the initial stage of the formation of the embryo, and the fertilization of the female egg by the male sperm. Once again, this is in line with scientific knowledge. (THE PROBLEM IS THAT THE QURAN TALKS NEITHER ABOUT AN EMBRYO, NOR ABOUT HOW FERTILISATION HAPPENS. IT PLANTS THE SEMEN IN A WOMAN AND THE SAMEN STARTS GROWING LIKE A SEED.)

(BUT THE POINT EASIEST TO SEE, MR. REFUTER HAS NOT TOUCHED AT ALL: THE QURAN THELLS ADAM WAS CREATED IN A DOZEN DIFFERENT WAYS. HOW COULD OME PERSON BE CREATED IN A DOZEN DIFFERNET WAYS, WHEN HE JUST WAS CREATED ONCE? ALSO SEE OUR MORE COMPLETE REMARKS IN THE FIRST PART OF THIS PAGE).

Can Angels Disobey God?

One verse states that this is not possible and in another we have clear proof of an angel disobeying God.

(Koran 16:49-50)

...None of the angels are arrogant before their Lord...and they do all that they are commanded.

(Koran 2:34)

...WE said to the angels: "Bow down to Adam" and they bowed down: Not so Iblis: he refused and was haughty: he was of those who reject faith.

So, Iblis being an angel disobeyed God and this directly contradicts the verses 16:49-50 stated above.

P: The fact is that the above contradiction stands resolved only by recognizing that the Qur’an has declared that Iblis was not one of the angels, but a jinn. (THIS IS ONE OF THE UNCLEAR POINTS IN THE QURAN – AT LEAST ONE PLACE (2/34) IT IS INDICATED HE WAS AN ANGEL, OTHER PLACES A JINN. MR. REFUTER "FORGETS” TO MENTION THAT THIS STILL IS A QUESTION IN ISLAM.*). The Qur’an says:

P: And when We said to the angels: ‘Prostrate before Adam’, they all bowed down, except Iblis -- he was a jinn and he haughtily disobeyed his Lord. (18:50)

P: However, one may ask that if Iblis was not an angel, then how could he be said to have disobeyed God, by not prostrating before Adam, especially when the Qur’an says that the directive of prostration was addressed to the angels.

P: The answer to this question is that according to the Qur’an, although it was primarily the angels who were directed to prostrate before Adam, it was, nevertheless, expected of the jinn who were in the court at that time to follow suit. (THIS IS NOT FROM THE QURAN*) In other words, by directing the angels to bow down before Adam, God had directed a higher cadre of His creation to submit to a command, the lower cadre creations like jinn and any others that may have been present at the time, were expected to do the same. This style of speech is used in almost all human languages. For instance, when someone says: ‘When the Chief Justice enters the hall all the parliamentarians shall pay their respects by standing up for him’, he generally implies that all those present in the hall (personnel of the press, the foreign diplomats, the media personnel and guests of the members) should stand to pay their respects to the Chief Justice. The word ‘parliamentarians’ in such a sentence is not to signify that the directive is given only to those who are members of the parliament, but is a generalization in which a higher cadre of personnel is given a directive with the implication that others are also expected to follow suit. (THIS IS IRRELEVANT FOR THE QUESTION IF THE DEVIL ORIGINALLY WAS AN ANGEL OR A JINN.)

How Was The Koran Revealed?

Who brought the revelation from Allah to Mohammed? One verse in Koran says that it was Gabriel, then in another we find that it was the 'Holy Spirit'.

(Koran 2:97)

Whoever is an enemy to Gabriel- for he brings down the revelation to thy heart....

(Koran 16:102)

The Holy Spirit has the brought the revelation from thy Lord...

It is obvious that Mohammed forgot to cross check his revelations.

P: Holy Spirit is Gabrial (THIS OFTEN IS SAID – WITHOUT ANY PROOF – BY MUSLIMS. BUT IT NEITHER IS SAID NOR INDICATED IN THE QURAN*) . Both the names are used interchangeably in the Quran (WRONG – BUT MANY MUSLIMS BELIEVE SO*). Even if you read the Bible, you will get the same answer. (THIS IS PURE FANTASY. NOBODY WHO HAS EVER READ THE BIBLE WITH AN OPEN MIND WOULD EVER GET THIS IDEA. IT IS NOT FULLY CLEAR WHAT THE HOLY SPIRIT REALLY IS, BUT IT EVER SO CLEAR THAT IT IS SOMETHING VERY SPECIAL, AND FAR MORE THAN AN ANGEL*) There is good evidence even in the Bible to support this view, the following is one example: "Now the birth of Jesus Christ was as follows: After his mother Mary was betrothed to Joseph, before they came together, she was found with child of the Holy Spirit" (Mathew 1:18) Now consider the following verse: "Now in the sixth month the angel Gabriel was sent by God to a city of Galilee called Nazareth, to a virgin betrothed to a man called Joseph of the house of David. The virgin's name was Mary." (Luke 1:26-27) (TWO DIFFERENT TIMES - SEE OUR COMMENTS JUST BELOW).

(NIV: MATT. 1/18:"His mother Mary was pledged to be married to Joseph, but before they came together, she was found to be with child through the Holy Spirit". ACCORDING TO THE BIBLE YAHVEH BY MEANS OF THE HOLY SPIRIT HAD MADE MARY PREGNANT. LUKE 1/26-27 SIMPLY FORETELLS TO MARY THAT THIS WILL HAPPEN - MR. REFUTER "FORGETS" TO MENTION LUKE 1/35, WHERE GABRIEL TELLS MARY THAT IT WILL HAPPEN THROUGH THE HOLY SPIRIT: "The Holy Spirit will come upon you, and the power of the Most High (Yahweh*) will overshadow you. So the holy one to be born will be called the Son of God". AND THEN MATT. 1/18 AFTERWARDS TELLS THAT WHAT GABRIEL HAD FORETOLD MARY, DID HAPPEN LIKE THE ANGEL HAD FORETOLD. THIS TELLS NOTHING ABOUT WHAT CONNECTION THERE IS BETWEEN THE HOLY SPIRIT AND GABRIEL, EXCEPT THAT BOTH ARE SERVANTS OF YAHWEH. AS SAID ANOTHER PLACE: THE BIBLE DOES NOT EXPLAIN EXACTLY WHAT THE HOLY SPIRIT IS, BUT ANYONE READING THE BIBLE WITH AN OPEN MIND WILL SEE THAT IT IS SOMETHING SPECIAL AND SOMETHING MUCH MORE THAN AN ANGEL.

(LUKE 1/31 (WHICH IS THE RELEVANT HERE, NOT 1/26-27) SAYS: “YOU (MARY*) WILL BE WITH A CHILD - - -“. MATT. 1/18 SAYS: “(MARY) WAS FOUND TO BE WITH CHILD THROUGH THE HOLY SPIRIT”. THIS ONLY TELLS THAT GABRIEL TOLD HER WHAT WOULD HAPPEN, AND THAT THE HOLY SPIRIT SOME TIME LATER MADE HER PREGNANT. AND THIS IS THE BEST “PROOF” MR. REFUTER HAS TO OFFER – THE ONLY ONE HE OFFERS - FOR HIS CLAIM THAT GABRIEL = THE HOLY SPIRIT. BUT THE BEST PROOF FOR THAT HIS CLAIM IS WRONG, IS TO READ THE BIBLE YOURSELF – THERE WILL BE POINTS WHERE IT IS POSSIBLE TO CLAIM THAT “HERE IT IS POSSIBLE TO EXCHANGE THE HOLY SPIRIT FOR GABRIEL” BUT OTHER PLACES NOT (F.X. AN ANGEL CANNOT SPLIT HIMSELF IN PARTS AND LET THE PARTS BECOME PARTS OF THE DISCIPLES). AND THE FULL PICTURE IS THAT THE HOLY SPIRIT IS SOMETHING VERY SPECIAL AND MUCH MORE THAN AN ANGEL*).

P: Therefore there is no contradiction. It is nothing but a wild imagination. (WE THINK THIS PIECE OF MISINFORMATION NEEDS NO MORE COMMENTS, EVEN THOUGH YOU VERY OFTEN MEET IT FROM MUSLIMS.)

Confirmation or Substitution Of Relevations?

Does the new revelation that was brought to Mohammed confirm the old revelations?

(Koran 2:97)

Whoever is an enemy to Gabriel- for he brings down the revelation to thy heart By Allah's will, a CONFIRMATION of what went before ? Or does the new revelation that was brought to Mohammed substitute the old revelations?

(Koran 16:101)

When WE SUBSTITUTE one revealation for another....

It appears, Mohammed could not make up his mind whether he should please people of other religions (Christianity/Judaism) by saying that Koran confirms other holy books or he should take pride in saying that Koran substitutes other earlier revelations. (THIS ONE IS NOT FROM THE "ENCYCLOPEDIA" OF http://www.1000mistakes.com ).

P: The Quran confirms the source of the previous Scripture and substitutes some of its laws.

P: 2:97 "Say, "Anyone who opposes Gabriel should know that he has brought down this (Quran) into your heart, in accordance with GOD's will, confirming previous scriptures, and providing guidance and good news for the believers." (THIS IS A CLAIM SAYING THAT THE QURAN CONFIRMS THE BIBLE (OR TO BE EXACT: CONFIRMED WHAT MUHAMMAD CLAIMED WAS THE ORIGINAL BIBLE - BEFORE IT ACCORDING TO HIS NEVER DOCUMENTED CLAIMS WAS FALSIFIED). 16/101 WHICH MR. REFUTER USES AS A PROOF, IS ABOUT SOMETHING ELSE - SEE JUST BELOW.)

P: 16:101 "When we substitute one revelation in place of another, and GOD is fully aware of what He reveals, they say, "You made this up!" Indeed, most of them do not know." (THIS IS ABOUT THE FACT THAT MUHAMMAD CHANGED POINTS/VERSES, CONTRADICTED HIMSELF, ETC. IN THE QURAN. HE IS HERE DEFENDING HIMSELF BY TELLING THAT WHEN VERSES WERE SUBSTITUTED BY NEW VERSES, VERSES CONTRADICTING OLDER VERSES, THE CHANGES WERE MADE BY ALLAH - AND ALLAH KNOWS WHAT HE DOES AND IS ALWAYS CORRECT. ACTUALLY THIS IS ONE OF THE VERSES BEHIND THE ISLAMIC RULES FOR ABROGATION, WHICH SAYS THAT WHEN TWO OR MORE VERSES CONFLICTS OR CONTRADICTS EACH OTHERS. NORMALLY IT IS THE YOUNGEST VERSE WHICH IS CORRECT. 2/97 AND 16/101 THUS IS ABOUT TWO VERY DIFFERENT THINGS. ALL THE SAME MR. REFUTER USES ONE TO PROVE THE OTHER*)

P: By reading these two verses it becomes difficult to see any contradiction. The revelation of the Quran indeed confirmed that previous scripture were also sent by God (Torah, Injil .....etc). (THE CONTRADICTION IS THAT THE TEACHINGS ARE SO DIFFERENT AND SO DEEPLY DIFFERENT, THAT THEY ARE NOT FROM THE SAME GOD UNLESS THE GOD IS STRONGLY SCHIZOPHRENIC. IN TWO FULL BOOKS IT IS POSSIBLE TO FIND SIMILARITIES, BUT SO MUCH IS SO WILDLY DIFFERENT, THAT IT THOROUGHLY PROVES THAT SOMETHING IS VERY WRONG IN THIS CLAIM*).

P: However, some of the laws prescribed in these older Scripture were substituted with new laws in the Quran.

P: An example of that is the fact that sexual intercourse between married couples was prohibited at all times during fasting. However, in the Quran it was made permissible between sunset and sunrise. (THERE ARE VERY MUCH MORE WHICH IS DIFFERENT BETWEEN BIBLICAL AND QURANIC LAWS - SO MUCH AND SO FUNDAMENTAL THAT IT IS ONE OF THE MANY PROOFS FOR THAT YAHWEH AND ALLA ARE NOT THE SAME GOD.

Was Noah's Son Saved?

(Koran 21:76)

Noah, when he cried to US, aforetime: We listened to his paryer and delivered him and his family from great distress.

But the another verse says that Noah's son drowned.

(Koran 11:42-43)

...And the waves came between them, and the son was among those overwhelmed in the Flood.

21:76 does not say all his family. "And, before that, Noah called and we responded to him. We saved him and his family from the great disaster." 21:76

"Thus, Noah called upon us, and we were the best responders. We saved him and his family from the great disaster. We made his seed the survivors." 37:77

P: We note here that the verses do not say 'all his family' (WRONG. IN ANY NORMAL LANGUAGE THE EXPRESSION USED MEANS "ALL HIS FAMILY" EVEN WHEN THE FACT IS NOT STRESSED*) nor 'all his breed' . It only takes one of Noah's sons to survive for Noah's seed to survive (WRONG. THE DNA POOL WOULD BE TOO SMALL AND HUMANITY WOULD NOT SURVIVE). Equally, if the majority of Noah's family survive, it can be said that his family has survived (WRONG. SEE OUR COMMENT ABOVE IN THIS PHARAGRAPH.*) Furthermore, verses 11:42-43 give more details about one of Noah's sons who was a disbeliever and drowned with the others.

P: "As it sailed with them in waves like hills, Noah called his son, who was isolated: "O my son, come ride with us; do not be with the disbelievers." He said, "I will take refuge on top of a hill, to protect me from the water. "He said, "Nothing can protect anyone today from GOD's judgment; only those worthy of His mercy (will be saved)." The waves separated them, and he was among those who drowned." 11:42-43 (THIS IS NOT FROM THE BIBLE - THE ONLY SOURCE FOR INFORMATION ABOUT NOAH. AND AS THE QURAN WITH ALL ITS MISTAKES IS NOT FROM ANY GOD, LIKE MUSLIMS LIKE TO CLAIM: FROM WHERE DID MUHAMMAD GET THIS PIECE OF "INFORMATION"?).

P: The claim that you made would have been valid if the verses said 'all Noah's family' or 'all Noah's seed' , which is not the case. (WRONG. SEE OUR COMMENTS ABOUT THIS ABOVE).

P: Moreover, read this verses from Quran, verse 11: 45-46;

P: “And Noah called upon his Lord and said: "O my Lord! surely my son is of my family! and Thy promise is true and Thou art the Justest of Judges!" He said: "O Noah! he is not of thy family: for his conduct is unrighteous. So ask not of Me that of which thou hast no knowledge! I give thee counsel lest thou act like the ignorant!" (ALSO THIS IS NOT FROM THE BIBLE. FROM WHERE IS IT? - A LEGEND? OR MADE UP?)

BESIDES, MR. REFUTER, EVEN YOU SHOULD BE ABLE TO SEE THAT NOAH'S SON WAS OF NOAH'S FAMILY, NO MATTER WHAT HE WAS CALLED.

P: I hope you have got the point now. Ok (THE POINT IS VERY EASY TO SEE: THAT YOU ARE CLEVER AT FAST TALK*).

Will Christians enter Paradise?

In one verse, Mohammed says that the Christians will enter Paradise.

(Koran 2:62)

Those who believe in the Quran...and the christians...shall have their reward with their Lord; on them shall be no fear, nor they shall grieve.

But in other verses Mohammed happily denies what he said in the previous verse.

The contradictory verses are:

(Koran 5:72)

They do blasphame who say:"Allah is Christ the son of Mary." But said Christ: "O Children of Israel! Worship Allah, my Lord and your Lord". Whoever Joins other gods with Allah - Allah will forbid him the GARDEN and the Fire will be his abode.

(Koran 3:85)

If anyone desires a religion other than Islam, never will it be accepted of him; and in the Hereafter he will be in the ranks of those who have lost all spiritual good.

P: There is clear distinction made in these verses between believing Christians from idol worshippers. When we read 2:69 and also 5:69 we see that only the Christians who believe in God are saved (ALL CHRISTIANS BELIEVE IN GOD/YAHWEH - AND THAT JESUS AND THE HOLY SPIRIT ARE HIS MESSENGERS. IF THEY DO NOT BELIEVE IN THE ONLY GOD YAHWEH, THEY ARE NOT CHRISTIANS). Here, it must be stressed that belief in God means very clearly belief in the ONE God (NO - NO - CHRISTIAN BELIEVES IN MORE THAN ONE GOD. FOR CHRISTIANS THERE ONLY IS ONE GOD: YAHWEH*) who is not a third of a trinity (MUHAMMAD AND MUSLIMS NEVER UNDERSTOOD THE - THERE ONLY IS ONE KING IN A MONARCY, EVEN IF THERE MAY BE OTHERS BELONGING TO THE ROYAL FAMILY.*) and who is not Jesus Christ (THERE NEVER WAS A CHRISTIAN WHO SAID THAT YAHWEH WAS JESUS CHRIST*). Therefore, whoever believes that Jesus is God in the flesh does not really believe in the real God who created the heavens and the earth, and who incidentally created Jesus as well (SEE OUT COMMENTS JUST ABOVE). Whoever believes that God is a Tri figure-head, as per the trinity, does not believe in the ONE God either (SEE OUR COMMENTS JUST ABOVE.*)

P: This is exactly what 5:72-73 states,

"Pagans indeed are those who say that GOD is the Messiah, son of Mary. (SEE OUR COMMENTS ABOVE*) The Messiah himself said, "O Children of Israel, you shall worship GOD; my Lord and your Lord." Anyone who sets up any idol beside GOD, GOD has forbidden Paradise for him, and his destiny is Hell. The wicked have no helpers. Pagans indeed are those who say that GOD is a third of a trinity. There is no god except the one god. Unless they refrain from saying this, those who disbelieve among them will incur a painful retribution."

P: According the Quran God is ONE not three in one. Jesus is the messenger of God and not His son (IN THE BIBLE JESUS IS CALLED THE SON OF YAHWEH AT LEAST 87 TIMES, AND YAHWEH IS CALLED THE FARTHER OF JESUS AT LEAST 204 TIMES - BOTH ARE FREQUENTLY USED BY JESUS, AND EVEN THE QURAN STATES THAT HE WAS HONEST AND RELIABLE - - - AND WE REMIND YOU THAT IN STRONG CONTRADICTION TO NEVER DOCUMENTED CLAIMS FROM MUHAMMAD AND MUSLIMS, BOTH SCIENCE AND ISLAM STRONGLY HAVE PROVED THAT THE BIBLE IS NOT FALSIFIED.). Therefore those among the Christians who worship God ALONE and are certain that He ALONE is the true God will be in heaven (HERE IS THE FINAL AND TOTAL CONTRADICTION OF REALITY IN THIS CASE: THERE DOES NOT EXIST - AND NEVER EXISTED - ONE CHRISTIAN WHO DID NOT BELIEVE IN ONLY ONE GOD AND WHO DID NOT BELIEVE JESUS WAS THE SON OF - THAT IS THE VERY DEFINITION OF A CHRISTIAN. THEREFORE: WHEN THE QURAN IN 2/62 TALKS ABOUT CHRISTIANS, IT TALKS ABOUT PERSONS BELIEVING JESUS IS THE SON OF YAHWEH. THOSE ARE THE ONLY CHRISTIANS WHO EXIST, AND THE ONLY ONES WHO EVER WAS. WHICH PROVES THAT EITHER MUHAMMAD DID NOT KNOW WHAT HE WAS TALKING ABOUT - OR MR. REFUTER'S "EXPLANATION" IS WRONG - - - OR PERHAPS BOTH AT THE SAME TIME.*)

P: We are asserted in the Bible, as well as the Quran that God Alone is the true God:

"And this is eternal life, that they may know you, the ONLY TRUE GOD, and Jesus Christ whom you have sent." (John 17:3) (AND WHAT DOES THIS SHOW? - THERE NEVER WAS MORE THAN ONE GOD NEITHER IN THE NT NOR IN CHRISTIANITY. THE ONLY THING ARGUMENTS LIKE THIS PROVE, IS THAT NEITHER MUHAMMAD, NOR MR. REFUTER UNDERSTOOD/UNDERSTANDS NEITHER THE NT NOR CHRISTIANITY.)

P: These words of Jesus make a very clear distinction between God, the ONLY TRUE GOD, and between himself, plus the fact that he was sent by God. (SEE OUR COMMENTS FURTHER UP.)

P: We also read the words of Jesus that confirm that it is written that we should all worship God ALONE:

"You shall worship the Lord your God, and HIM ALONE you shall serve" Luke 4:8 (SEE OUR COMMENTS FURTHER UP.)

P: Now let us read the second verse quoted that you quoted:

"Anyone who accepts other than Islam (Submission) as his religion, it will not be accepted from him, and in the Hereafter, he will be with the losers." 3:85

Submission to Almighty God and obeying His Law is the teaching of all Scripture and not only the Quran. The Old Testament, New Testament, and the Quran all confirm this truth. (FOR ONE THING BOTH CHRISTIANS AND JEWS HAVE ONLY ONE GOD – THERE ONLY IS ONE GOD IN BOTH THOSE RELIGIONS – AND ALL THE SAME ISLAM CONDEMNS THEM TO HELL. AND FOR ANOTHER: ISLAM IS SO DIFFERENT FROM THE OTHER TWO – AND ESPECIALLY FROM NT – THAT IT IS CLEAR YAHWEH AND ALLAH IS NOT THE SAME GOD. WHICH MAKES YOUR “EXPLANATION” EVEN MORE FAR OUT*).

Is Wine Good Or Bad?

In one surah we find that wine is Satan's handiwork.

(Koran 5:90)

...Intoxiacants (wine) and gambling...are of Satan's handiwork...

But then in other sutras Koran says there are rivers of wine in Paradise.

(Koran 47:15)

Here is a Parable of the Garden which the righteous are promised. In it are...rivers of wine...

My question is : how did Satan manage to introduce his handiwork in Paradise?

This again shows poor knowledge of the Quran. It is further clarified in another verse in the Quran 52:23; "They will enjoy drinks that are never polluted, and never sinful to drink." (WINE ONLY IS ONE THING: FERMENTED JUICE (WITH ALCOHOL) - IF NOT IT IS NOT WINE BUT JUICE.)

This verse which speaks about Heaven, confirms that all drinks therein are pure and not polluted in any way (they do not harm the body). And since all drinks and wine in heaven are pure from pollution, they are thus not prohibited. (THIS TAKES SOME EXPLANATION. SEE OUR FULLER COMMENTS ON TOP*).

(A NICE TRY AND SOME NICE FAST WORDS, BUT PR. DEFINITION WINE IS FERMENTED JUICE CONTAINING ALCOHOL. MAY BE THE WINE IS PURE AND NOT POLLUTED, BUT ALL WINES CONTAIN ALCOHOL - IF NOT IT IS NOT WINE. WHICH MEANS THAT THE RIVERS OF WINE IN ISLAM'S PARADISE MEANS AT LEAST SMALL RIVERS OF ALCOHOL AS PARTS OF THE RIVERS OF WINE.)

Is Homosexuality Allowed In Islam?

The Koran contradicts itself on this topic as well. The following verses state that homosexuality is forbidden.

(Koran 4:16)

If two men among you is guilty of lewdness, punish them both...

(Koran 27:55)

Would ye really approach men in your lusts rather than Women? Nay, ye are a people (grossly) ignorant!

Now the verses below are in clear contradiction of the above verses.

(Koran 52:24)

Round about them will serve, to them, boys (handsome) as pearls well-guarded.

(Koran 56:17)

Round about them will serve boys of perpetual freshness.

And round about them will serve boys of perpetual freshness: if thou seest them, thou wouldst think them scattered pearls.

Mohammed could not make up his mind about Sodomy. He prohibits it on earth, but then he perhaps says that Muslims can enjoy homosexuality in Paradise. It is a well established fact that many famous Muslims were practicing homosexuals who looked towards the Koran to justify their actions. For example, Babar, the mogul king was madly in love with a young boy named Baburi. Kuttubuddin Aibak, another Muslim ruler of India used to dress up as a woman and dance in a vulgar manner. Another example is Abu Nuwas--one of the greatest poets in Arabic language WHO writes in the Perfumed Garden:

O the joy of sodomy! So now be sodomites, you Arabs.

Turn not away from it--therein is wondrous pleasure.

Take some coy lad with kiss-curls twisting on his temple

and ride as he stands like some gazelle standing to her mate.

-A lad whom all can see girt with sword and belt

not like your whore who has to go veiled.

Make for smooth-faced boys and do your very best

to mount them, for women are the mounts of the devils.

There are other such poems by Abu Nuwas and others which are more graphic in glorifying homosexuality and lesbianism.

P: It is a shame that you attribute Islam with Homosexuality. If you have eyes to read, read these verses:

P: Of all the creatures in the world will ye approach males". "And leave those whom Allah has created for you to be your mates? Nay ye are a people transgressing (all limits)!" - Quran 26:165-166

P: We also (sent) Lut: he said to his people: "Do ye commit lewdness such as no people in creation (ever) committed before you? "For ye practice your lusts on men in preference to women: ye are indeed a people transgressing beyond bounds."- Quran 7:80-81

P: The following was the punishment given to the Lut people for this wrong doing;

P: "when our decree issued We turned (the cities) upside down and rained down on them brimstones hard as baked clay sprad layer on layer Marked as from thy Lord: nor are they ever far from those who do wrong! Quran 11:82-83

P: how dare you compare the description of boys having perpetual freshness serving food like scattered pearls as having something which promote Homosexualism? Have you not seen, even in the present world, when important dignitaries are arrived for any function kids lining up with flowers and bouquets to receive them? Only Homosexuals will come with such a claim that you have made. Even the eyse of shame bow down in shame for the allegation that you have leveled again the Quran in this regard.

Alhamduilillah always.

(THIS SPATE OF MORE OR LESS HONEST ANGER DOES NOT ANSWER THE QUESTION:

AS THE HOURIES - JUST AS PURE AN FRESH AND GOODLOOKING AS THE SERVING BOYS - ARE IN PARADISE AS AN ATTRACTION FOR MUSLIM HETEROSEXUAL - AND BISEXUAL - MEN. AND AS RIVERS OF WINE ARE IN THE PARADISE TO ATTRACT ANY MUSLIM - SEX AND ALCOHOL WERE "THE TWO DELIGHTFUL THINGS" IN THE OLD ARABIA. ARE THEN THE SERVING YOUTHS - DESCRIBED LIKE VERY ATTRACTIVE - THERE TO ATTRACT THE HOMOSEXUAL (AND BISEXUAL) MUSLIMS? - ALSO HOMOSEXUAL AND BISEXUAL MUSLIMS COULD BE GOOD WARRIORS FOR MUHAMMAD. AN ATTRACTION IN DISGUISE SO TO SAY, LIKE THE DESCRIPTION OF THEM MAY HINT? PROOFS PLEASE - AND REMEMBER THAT THE QURAN IS SO FULL OF ERRORS, THAT ADDITIONAL PROOFS ARE NECESSARY IF YOU QUOTE IT.


The Following User Says Thank You to optimist For This Useful Post:

(FOR THE REST OF THE TEXTS, WHICH ARE QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS, SEE OUR MORE COMPLETE COMMENTS ON TOP. BUT NOTE THAT NOT ONE SINGEL OF THE PERSONS CHECK ANY OF MR. REFUTER'S CLAIMS TO SEE IF THEY ARE CORRECT - NOT ONE OF THEM. THIS IS TYPICAL FOR TOO MANY MUSLIMS: RELY ON YOUR AUTHORITIES. WHICH MAKES THINGS EASY FOR "REFUTERS"*).

ALSO MOST OF THE ARGUMENTS BELOW ARE QUOTES FROM THE QURAN ONLY. THERE ARE SO MUCH WRONG IN THE QURAN, THAT WE DO NOT BOTHER TO DEBATE IT, UNLESS THE MUSLIMS BRING REAL PROOFS/ARGUMENTS. TO DEBATE IF INVALID PROOFS - NEVER PROVED CLAIMS, ETC. - ARE VALID OR NOT, JUST IS A WASTE OF TIME AND EFFORT.

Sensationnz 09-06-2009, 01:58 PM

#4 Sensationnz

Full Member

Join Date: Jun 2009

Posts: 147

Gender:

Way of life: Muslim

Thanks: 54 (BUT NOT ONE SINGLE HAS CHECKED IF HIS INFORMATION OR THE QURANIS CORRECT OR NOT|.)

Thanked 16 Times in 11 Posts Re: Refuting the webiste "1000 Mistakes in the Quran"


can some one cover these?

SOME SERIOUS QUESTIONS AND COMMENTS...

1. The Quran many places tells that Allah decides everything - absolutely everything (f. ex. the time of your death is decided even before you are born). But the Quran also tells that man has a free will. These two are not possible to combine. (Muslim thinkers have not been able to explain this through 1400 years (the same goes for the next 3 questions, whereas question no. 5 is not discussed in Islam - there may be death penalty or at least extrication for it). F. ex. “The Message of the Quran” - a book certified by the al-Ahzar Muslim university in Cairo, one of the top Muslim universities - says: “We cannot explain it, but it has to be true, because it is said in the Quran”. A very impressive statement when you know the Quran is full of mistaken facts and logically invalid statements, “signs” and “proofs”.

2. The Quran states that Allah is omniscient and knows everything also concerning the future. But the Quran also states that man has free will. These two statements are not possible to combine, as if man has free will, his dictions will change the future - and it will not be possible to foresee these changes if man’s will really is free, this even if the will only is free to a miniscule degree.

3. The Quran states that Allah is omniscient. But it also states that Allah sends accidents and catastrophes and demands fighting and war to test you. How does Islam combine these two statements? - if Allah is omniscient, he knows everything and testing is for no reason.

4. The Quran many places states that Allah blocks the way - or the way back - to Islam for some people, especially for “bad” persons. That makes them not regret and repent, which at least a few would have done under “normal” circumstances. All the same he sends these persons to Hell. How can he then be called a good god?

5. If the Quran is manmade - like all the mistaken facts and f. ex. invalid “proofs” may indicate - and if there somewhere exists a real god, Islam blocks all Muslims under threat of death penalty many places, from searching for this possibly real god. Is this a good fate in case?

Then there is the question of what values a society is built on. These values can roughly be split in 3:

A. Positive values - like honesty, caring for others, etc.

B. Empty values - things, acts or thoughts people believe are valuable because they are told so, but that really has no value.

C. Negative or false values - what tradition etc. tell is praiseworthy, but that in reality are bad.

a. Islam has some positive values - like be honest, deal fairly, take care of orphans, etc.

b. Islam has a lot of empty values - like meaningless formalities, aping Muhammad also in meaningless details, etc.

c. And Islam has a big lot of negative/false values - like stealing/robbing, raping, enslaving, suppressing others, murder, hate and war.

09-06-2009, 04:31 PM

#5 optimist

Banned

Join Date: Jul 2009

Posts: 327

Gender:

Way of life: Muslim

Thanks: 10 (BUT NOT ONE HAS CHECKED IF HIS INFORMATION OR THE QURAN IS CORRECT OR NOT.*)

Thanked 14 Times in 11 Posts Re: Refuting the webiste "1000 Mistakes in the Quran"


Quote:

Originally Posted by sunnikid

can some one cover these?

Quote:

Originally Posted by sunnikid

1. The Quran many places tells that Allah decides everything - absolutely everything (f.x. the time of your death is decided even before you are born). But the Quran also tells that man has a free will. These two are not possible to combine. (Muslim thinkers have not been able to explain this through 1400 years.)

Salam,

Allah has control over all things (22:6). The physical universe follows them. Compulsively. Why does water have the characteristic of keeping its level? Why is fire hot? Why does poison kill? Simply because Allah wanted it so. Salt has a salty taste because Allah wanted it so and made it so. If He had formulated salt to be with a sweet taste, it would have been sweet. Can Allah change the taste of salt from salty to sweet? The answer to that is: Yes, He can, but He won’t, because He has pledged NOT to make changes in laws He has established according to His will (WHERE DID HE PLEDGE THIS - IT IS SAID NEITHER IN THE BIBLE NOR IN THE QURAN.)

But Man is free to make a choice (WRONG IF ALLAH PREDESTINES EVERYTHING, LIKE THE QURAN CLAIMS MANY PLACES. EREE WILL FOR MAN AND ALLAH PREDESTINING EVERYTHING, ARE MUTUALLY EXCLUDING EACH OTHERS, AND THUS ONLY ONE OF THEM CAN BE TRUE - EVEN IF ISLAM WRONGLY TEACHES THE OPPOSITE*). But, he is not free to alter the natural consequences of his chosen actions. Allah’s divine control extends also to the social world of humans. Allah knows and controls (through measures and standards (THIS IS NOT FROM THE QURAN - THE QURAN SIMPLY SAYS THAT ALLAH PREDESTINES AND CONTROLS EVERY DETAIL IN A PERSON'S LIFE*)) all things (35:44). ‘(Mankind) benefits or suffers by its (own) deeds’ – (2/286). Allah purposefully does not allow all the wrong-doing going on in the world. Actually, this view was the one presented by the atheists and dissenters at the time of the Messenger. They have been reported to say in Sura An’aam: “If God wanted it so, we or our ancestors would never have committed atheism ...“ (6:149). Sura Yasin reports their response, when asked to help the poor, as: “Should we feed those (people) who would have been fed if Allah wanted it so?” (36:47). (THESE VERSES SIMPLY ARE CONTRADICTIONS TO THE VERSES CLAIMING THAT ALLAH PREDESTINES EVERYTHING, THEY ARE NOT EXPLANATIONS. AS SAID JUST ABOVE: FREE WILL FOR MAN - EVEN PARTLY FREE WILL - AND FULL PREDESTINATION ARE MUTUALLY EXCLUDING EACH OTHER AND MAKSIMUM ONE OF THEM CAN BE TRUE. THIS IS A FACT EVEN THOUGH ISLAM TEACHES THAT THERE CAN BE PARALLEL TRUTHS EVEN WHEN THEY ARE EXCLUDING EACH OTHER (ISLAM HAS TO CLAIM THIS TO BE ABLE TO "EXPLAIN" SOME POINTS LIKE THIS ONE IN THE QURAN, BUT THE CLAIM IS WRONG.)

It has been made even clearer in another place of the same Sura: The Muslims had to incur some losses in a battle (Uhad). Referring to it, the Quran says: “You said why it had happened to you. Tell them (O Messenger) it happened because of your own selves (doing something wrong) – Allah is the Measurer of all things –“ (3:169).

In Sura Tauba, “If you don’t take up arms in Allah’s way, you will get into big problems and Allah will replace you with other people; certainly, Allah is the standard-maker of all things” (9:39). This point is elaborated elsewhere in the Quran when it refers to the Dissenters who are advised to learn a lesson from past peoples who were destroyed by their own deeds – Surely, Allah knows and controls (through measures and standards) all things – (35:44).

Quote:

2. The Quran states that Allah is omniscient and knows everything also concerning the future. But the Quran also states that man has free will. These two statements are not possible to combine, as if man has free will, his dictions will change the future - and it will not be possible to foresee these changes if man’s will really is free, this even if the will only is free to a miniscule degree.

Here also the natural consequences of the chosen actions by men will take place according to the measures and standards set by Allah. “Allah created the skies and the earth (the universe) rightfully to get everyone the result of his actions and to stop all wrongdoing” (45:22).

Again, “Everything in the skies and the earth is (working (THIS WORD IS NOT IN THE QURAN*)) for Allah so that people who do bad deeds get bad results and people doing good deeds get good results” (53:31). Surah Nisaa states: “whoever does wrong shall bear the consequence” (4/123) and “Whatever on does produces results” (9:82; 9:95; 14:51; 16:96-97; 40:17). Elsewhere, the Quran states: “everyone shall get the result of one’s actions” (34:33). It is repeated in (7:147; 52:16; 56:24; 83:36) etc. Again, it states: “Allah doesn’t let go wasted any deed of a doer”.(3/197). Also: “Allah never wastes the return of good doers” (12:90; 3:144).

Like individuals, this law applies to nations as well - “Your predecessor (nations of past) bore the consequences of what they did and you will have what you work for. You will not be queried about their actions” (2:134). Also, see (2:141). “People are destroyed by their own actions” (2:79). Suffice to say that “Everyone is mortgaged by his own actions” (74:38). This is Laws of Returns, means each and every action (right or wrong) produces a reaction. “You get what you do” (9:82)

3. The Quran states that Allah is omniscient. But it also states that Allah sends accidents and catastrophes and demands fighting and war to test you. How does Islam combine these two statements? - if Allah is omniscient, he knows everything and testing is for no reason.

The point to ponder is whether ‘musaaeb’ (tragedies and afflictions) are caused by Allah or by Man (individually or collectively). The Quran presents an elaborate reply. Sura Shura says: “There is no tragedy which befalls you but as result of your own handiwork” (42:30). Sura Aale-Imran states that when they (people) are struck by an affliction, they wonder where it came from (??? ????) - ‘ Tell them: “it is of your own doing” (3:164). Sura Nahal also says the same: “Their own wrongdoing brought tragedy to them” (16:34).

Allah’s established procedure for wrong / bad actions is that their consequences are not readily observable initially and take some time in materializing. This time gap is the grace period of reprieve. In Sura Az-Zumr, it is stated that people who chose to go gleefully away from Allah’s way, defying and ridiculing His laws but in a little while “what wrong they have done will bear result and that (Divine Law ) which they are ridiculing now will surround them” (39:48).

The Quran uses a very meaningful expression for this grace period of reprieve between an action and the subsequent result of it. It likens it to someone sending (this result) on before he starts his own journey. Reaching the destination, one finds that result already waiting (for the sender). The Quran uses the expression (??? ??????? ??????) - ‘whatever their hands send on before’. Sura Aal-e-Imran talks about Allah recording all the crimes committed which will bear results as life goes on and they will be told: “This is what your hands sent on before” (3:181-182). These results have also been referred to by the expression (?? ?????) - i.e. “those which have passed (this path) before” (10:30). Sure Al-Hajj also uses the same expression in (22:9-10). Sura Al-Qasas states about the children of Israel (Jews) that when they are faced with a bad situation, which they have themselves sent on before, they start moaning and complaining (28:47); also: 4:62. Sura Rome talks about people’s attitude of crediting success to themselves boastfully, but getting depressed and frustrated over tragedies which they have already sent on themselves before (30:36). It is repeated in 42:49. Sura Al-Fajr states that faced with the ultimate destruction, Man will call out in despair, “only if I had sent something on for my life!” (89:24).

This applies to tragedies and afflictions as well as bounties and benefits. Sura Muzammel says: “Whatever good you send on for yourselves will be ready with Allah” (73:20). Thus, all tragedies and afflictions are brought upon Man by himself (individually or collectively). Sura Baqara talks about the calamities befalling the children of Israel saying: “Their tragedy was of their own doing” (2:79) because “they were unfair and law-breakers” (2:59) - also: 2:61; 3:111.

The fact that Allah doesn’t disgrace anyone without due cause (one’s own wrongdoing), as this is unfair, has been illustrated many times over in the Quran. Sura Aal-e-Imran talks about the tyrants of society being eventually destroyed, and -- “Allah is not unfair to them but they are unfair to themselves” (3:116). Sura Tauba, after speaking of destruction of the nations of the past, says: “Allah did not treat them cruelly, but they brought it upon them themselves” (9:70). Also in 11:101; 16:33 and 29:40. Sura Younis states: “Allah is not unfair to people in the slightest, but they do it to themselves” (10:44). Allah is omnipotent and Man is His (weak and vulnerable) creation. Allah’s being cruel and unfair to Man is inconceivable. People bring tragedies to themselves by their own hands (??? ??? ???? ???) “Allah is not cruel to His creatures” (22:10). In fact, “Allah doesn’t (even) intend to be cruel to His people” (40:31). He argues: “Why will Allah torture you if you accept (the validity of His laws) and (show that you) are convinced ( of their practical value)?” (4:147).

Allah is not a sadist (IF HE IS BEHIND HELL, LIKE MANY MUSLIM SCHOLARS BELIEVE OR IF HE PREDESTINES MEN AND JINNS TO END IN HELL, LIKE THE QURAN TELLS, HE IS*). In His domain “every decision is based upon the Truth” and “everyone gets the result of one’s actions” and “no one is wronged” (39:69-70). About the time of Man’s actions bearing results, it says: “that day everyone will get what he worked for and no one will be wronged” (40:17). Also: “Decisions will be taken justly and fairly and no one will be wronged” (10:47) - also: (10:54).

Quote:

4. The Quran many places states that Allah blocks the way - or the way back - to Islam for some people, especially for “bad” persons. That makes them not regret and repent, which at least a few would have done under “normal” circumstances. All the same he sends these persons to Hell. How can he then be called a good god?

The points to be noted in this regard are the followings;

1. People who wish to embark on a safe journey to life’s destination may, and do, get to the heart of this divine guidance and, therefore, are successful --- (2:2-5).

2. But those who resolve not to listen to, or care about the Message, cannot benefit from it. They close their eyes and ‘ignore the Right Book in favor of wrong books’ (2:18); they (play and) become dumb, deaf and blind and just don’t heed the calls for a return to the right path – (2:16); they are like sheep, mindlessly following the one in the front. They reject suggestions to apply reason and logic to review their stance with: ‘but we will follow the path on which we found our ancestors (even if they were wrong!) (2:170).

They are just like sheep ignoring their shepherd – “dumb, deaf, blind and mindless” – (2:171). Such are the ones whose hearts get sealed – “They don’t listen to your invitation to guidance; you can see them staring at you but they are not looking!” -- (7:198); “It is the same to such people if you call them or say nothing!” (7:193).

3. “These people stubbornly stick to their decision of rejecting the Message” (10:74); “that is how We seal the hearts of such people” (10:74); “they boast about their ‘draped hearts’ but, actually, Allah has sealed their hearts because of their mentality of rejection” (40:155).

4. Then there are those who reject the Message without any reasoning – that is how Allah seals the hearts of the arrogantly stubborn (40:35). They sit to hear the Messenger absent-mindedly and later have to ask other attendees as to what the Messenger was saying. “Such are the people whose hearts are sealed by Allah because they follow their own selfish drives” (47:16). They arrogantly make fun of the warnings of the Messenger dismissing his call as ‘nothing but stories from the past --- “they are the ones whose hearts get wrapped (in ignorance) and their ears plugged shut” (6:25). They very rudely dismiss the call of the Messenger with: “Our hearts are draped and our ears plugged shut, so your call doesn’t get through to us; there is a barrier between you and us; therefore, you do what you have to do while we do what we have to” (41:5), “don’t you worry about us!” Such are the people whose hearts get draped and their ears close shut” (14:57). They not only reject the Message themselves but also try to dissuade others, too: “That is how Allah seals the hearts of those who do not know!” (30:58-59). “Thus Allah seals the hearts of those who do not employ knowledge and reason – an invisible barrier is put up between such people and the Quran! (17:45-46).

5. Then there are those who pay lip-service to the cause of the Message but have not intention of really committing themselves. The Quran refers to them as (the hypocrites). Sura Tauba refers to their evading tactics to avoid having to enter a battlefield in the service of Allah – these are ones who have “Their hearts sealed by Allah because they don’t know (the Truth)” – (9:93; 9:86-87; 47:20-23).

Quote:

6. If the Quran is manmade - like all the mistaken facts and f. ex. invalid “proofs” may indicate - and if there somewhere exists a real god, Islam blocks all Muslims under threat of death penalty many places, from searching for this possibly real god. Is this a good fate in case?

Allah gave Man a free will (IMPOSSIBLE TO COMBINE WIT FULL PREDESTINATION LIKE THE QURAN CLAIMS SEVERAL PLACES*). Of course, it was perfectly within His powers to create Man compelled like the rest of the creation. But, He did not will it so. Therefore, any social system which denies men the right to exercise their free will - is anti-Quranic (IF THIS IS TRUE, LARGE PARTS OF THE ISLAMIC SOCIETIES ARE ANTI-QURANIC - F.X. BY PUNISHING MANY OF THE DEEDS DECIDED BY PERSONS, F.X. LEAVING ISLAM). The Messenger, much in the manner of a loving physician, (NO LOVING PHYSICIAN TORTURE PEOPLE OR SEND THEM TO WAR) desired people to accept Islam. But, Allah said, “Are you going to torture yourself over people not accepting the message? “ (26:3).

Sura Younis says: “ If Allah had willed so, all men on Earth would have become convinced (of the message but He did not will it so and gave Man the freedom of choice). Then, are you (the Messenger) going to push people to conviction (against their will)?” (10:99). “If We had wanted (all men to forcibly follow Our way), We would have provided guidance to each single person….. “ (33:13). People have complete freedom of choice to accept or reject the guidance to the right path (BUT MANY PLACES ATE STRICTLY PUNISHED BY MUSLIMS IF THEY DO NOT CONFORM TO ISLAM*) (18:29). The aim is to develop human qualities and test the use of free will (SEE OUR COMMENTS ON FREE WILL OF MAN CONTRA FULL PREDESTINATION*) (5:48-49). Men can resolve their differences by willfully and freely choosing the right path. It will NOT be forced upon them (LARGE PARTS OF THE ISLAMIC WORLD BECAME ISLAMIC BY MEANS OF COMPULSION - THE SWORD OR OTHER KINDS OF COMPULSION, OFTEN BACKED BY THE SWORD) (11:118-119). If compulsion was there, there would have been no dissenters or atheists (6:108, 6/138). In that case men would have been like stones or animals, NOT human! (AS ISLAM OFTEN USED - AND STILL USE - COMPULSIONS OF DIFFERENT KINDS, DOES THIS MEAN THEY ARE NOT HUMANS?)

Wassalam

The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to optimist For This Useful Post: Assad, Sensationnz 09-12-2009, 09:09 PM

#6 Sensationnz

Full Member

Join Date: Jun 2009

Posts: 147

Gender:

Way of life: Muslim

Thanks: 54 (BUT NOT ONE HAS CHECKED IF HIS INFORMATION OR THE QURAN IS CORRECT OR NOT.)

Thanked 16 Times in 11 Posts Re: Refuting the webiste "1000 Mistakes in the Quran"


NON - ARABIC WORDS IN THE QURAN.

The Quran very strongly stresses that it is written in pure and correct Arabic. Normally some non-Arabic words should not mean very much, but as both the Quran, Islam and Muslims stress the pure and correct language as a “sign”/”proof” for that the book is made by Allah, it becomes serious. An omniscient god using the purity of the language as a proof for his authorship, would not use one single non-Arabic word - this even more so as in most cases corresponding Arab words did exist. One Muslim “explanation” (set forth by the philology educated Muslim al-Suyuti) is that Arabs have used the words so much, that they have made them Arab. Like many Muslim “explanations” concerning mistakes in the Quran, it is very ad hoc, and strongly marked by the intense necessity to find some explanation, and by that this was the only one possible - good or not. The language - and the “explanation” - is not worthy a god trying to prove his existence, his prophet and his authorship. Pure Arab also is the language spoken in Heaven (and some Muslim sects - notably the Amaddijjas - have “proved” it is the original language on Earth, believe it or not.

16/103: “’It is a man that teaches him (Muhammad*)’. (But*) The tongue of him they point to (a learned foreigner*) is notably foreign, while this is Arabic, pure and clear”.

41/44: “Unfortunately for their (non-Muslims*) postulate (that Muhammad had a foreign teacher*), any possible human teacher they could think of would be poor in Arabic speech if they had all the knowledge that the Quran reveals of previous revelations (the Bible*). Apart from that, even the most eloquent Arab could not, and cannot, produce anything with the eloquence, width, and depth of Quranic teaching, as if evident from every verse of the book (the Quran*)”.(But really the Quran does not show much knowledge about the Bible, but more about the non-Biblical legends and tales that were rife and popular in Arabia - and beyond - at the time of Muhammad. A teacher that really knew the Bible, had told the Quran very differently. The verse proves nothing.)

It is here also worth remembering:

1. The old Arab alphabet had no vowels - it even today is unclear what is the real meaning of many sentences.

2. The written Arab language was not perfected until ca. 900 AD - perfect writing was impossible.

But all the same the use of imported words in a book trying to use perfect Arab language as a proof for divine origin, tells that it is not made by an omniscient god - he had not made such mistakes

I stress that the following samples partly are taken from Internet, as my Arab is not up to that standard. Therefore it must be used carefully, and if you find mistakes, please inform me. It only is meant as a taste - according to experts there are a lot more:

Accadian:

Adam = man or mankind. The correct Arab word: Basharan or insane.

Eden = garden. The correct Arab word: Janna.

Aramaic:

Qiyama = resurrection.

Assyrian:

Abraham/Ibrahim - a name. The correct Arab equivalent: Abu Raheem.

Egyptian:

Pharaoh = king or potentate (also a title). Used 84 times in the Quran.

Ethiopic:

Malak = angel (2/33)

Greek:

Iblis - corruption of the Greek word diabolos = devil.

Injil - corruption of the Greek word eua(n)ggelion = gospel.

Hebrew:

Ahbar = teacher.

Darasa = to find the deepest meanings of the scriptures by exact and thorough studies.

Furquan (also used in Syriac, pwrqn) = to make free, salvation.

Issa = Esau (brother of the patriarch. The Quran says it means Jesus. Correct Arab: Yeshuwa.

Jahannam (Gehinnom or Gehenna) = originally the valley of Hennom or Hinnom near Jerusalem, intensely used for Pagan (Baal) sacrifices to fire, and it therefore later gave the name to Hell.

Jannatu Adn = paradise, Garden of Eden (today reckoned by science to have been in south Iraq).

Malakut = reign, the country of Allah/God. NB: No original Arab word ends with -ut.

Masani = repetition.

Maun = to find sanctuary.

Rabbani = teacher.

Sabt = day of rest (Sabbath).

Sakinat = the presence of Allah/God.

Tabut = ark.

Taghut = mistake.

Tora (Taurat) = Jewish holy scriptures, the Torah.

Tufan = deluge

There also are words like:

Hebrew: heber, sakinah, maoon, turat, jehannim.

Persian:

Firdaus = the highest or 7. Heaven. Correct Arab: Jannah.

Haroot or Harut = Persian name for angel. Also see “Maroot”.

Hoor = disciple. Correct Arab: Tilmeeth.

Jinn = good or bad demon. Correct Arab: Ruh.

Maroot or Marut = Persian name for angel. May in reality be the Hindu god of the wind.

Sirat = path. Correct Arab: Altareeq.

Syria or Syriac (liturgical language used in Eastern Christian churches - derived from Aramaic).

2/50 furqaan (original Hebrew?) - from pwrqn, Syriac = Salvation.

52/29 kaahin - from khn, Syriac = “priest” - meaning a pagan soothsayer or diviner (69/47).

3/45 mashiih - from khn, Syriac = “the Christ”.

57/12 muhaymin - from mhymn’, Syriac = “the faithful”.

21/87 nuun - (title used for Jonah (Yunus)), from nwn, Syriac =“fish”.

2/85 qiaama - from qymt, Syriac = “resurrection“. (also 2/113, numerous times).

5/85 qissiis - from qshysh, Syriac = “Christian priest”.

4/85 Qur’an - from qyrn, Syriac = “scriptural lesson” or “reading”. (also MANY other places).

3/73 rabbinic - from rbn, Syriac = “perceptor, doctor.” (also 5/48, 5/68).

16/102 ruuh. al-qudus, from rwh.qwdsh’, Syriac = “Holy Spirit”.

20/80 tuur - from t.wr’, Syriac = “mountain”.

There also are words like:

Syriac: taboot, tag hoot, zakat, malakout.

There are more as said above - and also from other countries, at least from Ethiopia and from Aramaic. Al Suyuti himself lists 107 foreign words in the Quran. An expert like Arthur Jeffery says some 275 words. It must be a letdown that even the word “Qur’an” is from Syriac.

09-13-2009, 09:15 AM

#7 salman

WAHABI

Join Date: Jun 2007

Location: Islamic-Life.com

Posts: 2,028

Gender:

Way of life: Muslim

Thanks: 69 (BUT NOT ONE SINGLE HAS CHECKED IF HIS INFORMATION AND THE QURAN IS CORRECT OR NOT.)

Thanked 249 Times in 192 Posts Re: Refuting the webiste "1000 Mistakes in the Quran"


as-salamu alaykum

I have not read what brother optimist posted but I would be taking his clarification with whole box of salt due to the fact that he is heavily influenced by deviance modernist thought and mu'tazilite aqeedah. So do not go around post it or digest what he said unless rest of us agree with him.


Fi Amanillah

Wa As-Salamu 'Alaykum Wa Rahmatullahi Wa Barakatuhu

The Prophet sal-allahu 'alayhi wa salam said: "The Muslim is a unique Ummah among the whole of mankind: Their Land is ONE, their War is ONE, their Peace is ONE, Their Honour is ONE and their Trust is ONE." [Relayed by Imam of Ahlus Sunnah - Ahmad ibn Hanbal - rahimahullah]

Ahl al-Hadith are the followers of the Prophet (sal-allahu 'alayhi wa salam). Even if they did not accompany him, (it is as if) they witnessed his every breath.

09-13-2009, 09:32 AM

#8 optimist

Banned

Join Date: Jul 2009

Posts: 327

Gender:

Way of life: Muslim

Thanks: 10

Thanked 14 Times in 11 Posts Re: Refuting the webiste "1000 Mistakes in the Quran" (BUT NOT CHEKED ONE SINGLE TIME IF HIS INFORMATION OR THE QURAN IS CORRECT OR NOT.)


Quote:

Originally Posted by salman

as-salamu alaykum

I have not read what brother optimist posted but I would be taking his clarification with whole box of salt due to the fact that he is heavily influenced by deviance modernist thought and mu'tazilite aqeedah. So do not go around post it or digest what he said unless rest of us agree with him.

Salam,

I am tracing for a "smile" symbol to post but I can't get any..haha..don't worry I was answering some of the "contradictions" in Quran posed by enemies of Islam (THE QUESTION IS NOT IF THEY ARE ENEMIES OR FRIENDS, BUT IF THE INFORMATION IS CORRECT OR NOT – ACTUALLY THE ENEMIES OFTEN ARE BETTER INFORMED ABOUT YOUR WEAK POINTS THAN YOU ARE YOURSELF, ESPECIALLY IF YOU FLEE FROM OR DENY YOUR WEAK POINTS INSTEAD OF FACING THEM.)....and it has nothing to do with any mu'tazilite thought. Actually, though I have heard about the group "mu'tazilite", I still do not know what is exactly mu'tazilite thought.

wassalam

01-07-2011, 08:42 AM

#9 Marwa

Junior Member

Join Date: Jan 2011

Posts: 1

Gender:

Way of life: Muslim

Thanks: 0

Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts Re: Refuting the webiste "1000 Mistakes in the Quran"


NO ERROR IN QUR’AN! (ACCORDING TO QUR’AN*)

Division of Inheritance assoc. prof. dr. eng. halis aydemir

No matter in which language you write the words of 'Qu'ran' and 'error'; when you search in the internet, first examples you see in the sites will be about the ones concerning the claim of error related with the inheritance verses in Qur'an. You will see the explanations with these verses in detail and the criticism of how these verses cannot be applied mathematically with some practical examples as well!

Whether such approach directed to Qu'ran is evil-minded or querier is not related with the essence of the issue; in conclusion there is a challenge pointed out mathematically in such critiques and this condition cannot be ignored.

It is out of question that the inheritance division by God is not appropriate mathematically. God is the creator of humankind and the science of mathematics. Now then, it is impossible that God proposes an imperfect division mathematically. It is possible to find similar expressions in corresponding sites.

Therefore, each so-called error to be found in Qu'ran has been transformed into an argument directing to weaken or confute the truth of its being apocalyptic. The claim concerning the inheritance divisions is one of the the most discussed examples and comes to minds first.

While we're discussing about inheritance divisions during Qu'ran Courses that we carried out in the public meetings in Qu'ran Research Foundation (KURAV) auditoriums, we also evaluated this subject mathematically with contributions of my dear friends. Visual and audial records of this activity is available on the website: kurandersleri.net. Thanks to inspirations from some of our friends saying that the results we acquired are a little bit different, remarkable and original, we find it acceptable to broadcast by publishing a book.

This study has been prepared as a result of such collective approach. Contrary to popular belief, it is not established on the base of interpretation. It has been carried out on the platform where source text has been considered literally and the differences encountered in formal plan have not been ignored.

I believe that the ones considering the inheritance divisions verses subjected to several speculations until now, one more time from the perspective of this book will realize in a little while that they face with a real mathematical miracle rather than a problematic challenge in number.

Download this book from this site:

No Error In Qur'an Division of Inheritance According to Quran - Quranic Lessons, Quranic Message, Quranic Lectures, Islamic Audio Lectures, Tafseer Lessons, Tafsir Lectures, Explanation of the Holy Quran.

(ISLAM AND ITS MUSLIMS ARE FORCED TO CLAIM THERE ARE NO MISTAKES IN THE QURAN, NO MATTER HOW MANY, HOW BIG, AND HOW OBVIOUS THE MISTAKES ARE, BECAUSE EVEN ONE MISTAKE PROVES THAT THE BOOK IS NOT FROM A GOD, AND THUS THAT SOMETHING IS SERIOUSLY WRONG WITH MUHAMMAD, WITH THE QURAN AND THUS WITH ISLAM. ONE MISTAKE IN THE QURAN, AND ISLAM IS A MADE UP, FALSE RELIGION – AND THIS IS TOO HARSH A REALITY TO MEET. IT IS BETTER TO REFUSE TO SEE THE MISTAKES - - - EVEN THOUGH WHAT WILL BE THE RESULT OF BELIEVING IN A MADE UP HATE AND WAR RELIGION, IF THERE REALLY IS A REAL GOD SOMEWHERE, NOT TO MENTION IF HE REALLY IS A GOOD AND BENEVOLENT GOD WITH A MORAL CODE LIKE: "DO AGAINST OTHERS LIKE YOU WANT OTHERS DO AGAINST YOU".


These are the kinds of arguments, the level of argumentation, and the level of honesty and of honest(?) facts(?) one too often meet from Muslims and Islam. Mr. Refuter even is thanked in many and glorified in some of the Muslim comments to his refuting on Internet! It tells quite a lot about something and about the culture and about their ability to think themselves.

Worse: The same mentality you too often find behind the argumentation in learned Muslim literature, too. Perhaps especially in the parts of it aiming for lay people and people with not too much education on relevant subjects. (Though the wrongs, the twists, the incorrect logic, etc. often is not so stupidly easy to see as in this "refuting".) Do you understand our problems when we base our "books" mainly on study of Islamic literature? - we always have to think: Is this correct or not? And we always have to check every piece of claimed information - sometimes it is correct, sometimes not. What counts for some Muslims, is Islam, not the truth.

"Believe in Islam whether it is a true religion or not".

Well, Mr. Refuter has tried to refute 4-5 dozen points in http://1000mistakes.com - judge for yourself to what degree he has succeeded. But there are some 3ooo points in that Internet page - of them far more than 2ooo regular mistakes.

Mr. Refuter has tried to refute 4-5 dozen points. But http://1000mistakes.com contains more than 2ooo points (out of perhaps some 3ooo) which are wrong in the Quran - and even one mistake proves that the Quran is not from an omniscient god, and that thus something is seriously wrong with the book, with Muhammad and his teaching, and with the religion. Even if Mr. Refuter had had every "refuting" correct (and mostly they are wrong), there still had been 2ooo+ points to refute. Until that is done, "1000+ Mistakes in the Quran" is not refuted. When will this be done? As it is now, the Quran still is proved wrong on unbelieveably many points, and thus it stands proved that the book is from no god, and thus that Muhammad was not representing a god, and Islam concequently is not the religion of any god.

Finished 19. March 2011.

A PS about the NT and thus the stories about Jesus being wrong:

There existed many scriptures about Muhammad's teaching when he died, and more were written in the years following his death. Some of these did not agree on different points, which made disagreements and strife. Therefore caliph Utman - the third caliph - had the official Quran written. One does not know exactly when, but not later than 656 AD. There have of course been made questions about how correct Muhammad's tales and life are told in the Quran. Muslims' and Islam's answer is that after maximum 24 years still so many vitnesses still was alive who had met and heard Muhammad, that if the official Quran was not mainly correct on all central points, it would have caused so serious opposition and debate, that it would have showed in history and the historical chronics about Islam. Thus the Quran has to refer Muhammad at least mainly correct. This logic sounds logical, and most likely is correct.

But the situation is exactly the same for NT: Also there we do not know the exact age of the scriptures, but the oldest Gospels are reckoned to be from the early 60s AD - some 30 years after Jesus "disappeared" - (and some add "or a little earlier"), and many of the letters in NT are older. (Paul f.x. likely was killed in 64 AD (the exact year is not known; he went to Rome likely in 60 AD, and was killed there some years later - we have seen numbers from 63 to 67 AD) and thus his letters at least has got to be older than that.) As for the Gospels, 3 of them (Matthew, Mark, and Luke) are so similar, that it is clear they either had an older Gospel as a source, or the two youngest used the oldest one as a source. If there was an older, now disappeared, Gospel as a common source, that one had to be even closer in time to what is referred. And the logic is exactly the same: If not what was told in the Gospels and the letters and in the "Acts" about Jesus and his teaching was correct, it had caused opposition and strife in among the believers. This even more so in Christianity than in Islam, as the NT stresses honesty stronger than the Quran does.

In addition Islam fast became the strong part in the community, and long before 656 AD had no stronger institution to correct the Quran if the makers used incorrect information. In Christianity the situation was the opposite: The first some 30 years after Jesus' death, there were 2 strong institutions outside and in addition to the believers, the members of which had "arrested" or at least opposed or debated untrue stories: The strong Jewish establishment, and the Roman Empire. The last one did not mingle much in local religions, but at least made it impossible for Christians to "twist" the truth about what happened without meeting also extern opposition - which both means it was more difficult for the early Christians, than for the early Muslims to make up things. And in addition the already mentioned fact that NT stresses honesty stronger than the Quran does, which made the Christians even less inclined to make up things and less inclined to accept made up stories.

It is likely the Quran of Uthman mainly refers Muhammad's tales, etc. quite correctly. But for exactly the same reasons it is likely that the writers of the NT wrote honestly. And as mentioned: This even more so because of the strong demands for honesty in Christianity.

Valid XHTML 1.0 Strict Valid CSS! Powered by PHP