Muhammad in the Quran, Vol. 1: Chapter 14



Debate technique counts when you want to reach and impress people. Here are some samples of such techniques used by Muhammad.

A few special cases (but there are more):

1. When used in the Quran, words like "true", "truth", "truly", "sure" "surety", "surely", "verity", "verily", etc. are claims, not proved facts. Also see 2/2b + 13/1g and 67/9c - 2 strong ones - and as for contradiction to the Bible also 40/20b. Also the latter half of the comments to 41/39a is very relevant. These and similar words cannot be taken at face value unless they are proved.

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

3. "'Surely' (etc.*) and rhetorical questions - whenever you encounter these in a text, stop and think. The author usually wants you to skate over them as if the claim is so obvious as to be beyond doubt, or the answer self-evident. The opposite is often the case." (Graham Lawton.) Also this trick is very often used in the Quran, by Islam, and by Muslims.

4. Read the Quran and see the hundreds of times when claims or "proofs" rest only on thin air or on other not proved claims. But they are pretended to be and treated like were they facts. 5. Science: "You need a Muslim's belief to be able to believe that the quality of the texts in the Quran prove a divine origin".

Try to count such cases in the Quran - they are MANY. Especially the never proved claim "the Truth" and similar are very often used. Sample words: "Without doubt", "certain", "verily", "clear", "right", "fact", "wrong", "sign", "proof" (even modern Muslims disuse this word often), "term appointed", "predestined", "if Allah wanted - - -", "non-Muslims are bad, Muslims are good", "error", "wisdom", and more.

#######Like said these rhetorical ways of dishonesty are used very many places in the Quran - we have not counted, but hundreds. Each of them may be a hidden lie - is a lie if the orator knows his point is a claim or bluff or worse, and not a proved or provable fact. And according to the Quran what is said in the Quran, is said by Allah.

Who needs such tricks? - the cheat and deceiver, the swindler and the charlatan.

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

##001 2/125e: "We (Allah*) covenanted with Abraham and Ishmael - - -". The Bible is contradicting: (1.Mos.17/21) Yahweh says: "But my covenant I will make with Isaac". And many years later to Isaac's son Jacob (and now Ishmael is totally out of the picture) similar words like the ones which were said to Abraham 2 generations earlier (1.Mos. 28/14): "All peoples on earth will be blessed through you and your offspring". There is no doubt according to the Bible with which branch of Abraham's descendants the god covenanted. Even if the Arabs really were descendants of Ishmael, they had belonged to the wrong branch of the family - they were not the offspring of Jacob, and not even of Isaac. And it is likely this might be the reality - at the time when the Torah was written, there was no reason for the writers to place Ishmael and his descendants at the border of Egypt (1.Mos. 25/18) if he really lived in Arabia - Muhammad and his competing religion still was 1000 years into the unknown future when it was written. But for Muhammad the situation was different: It is quite common for emerging sects and religions to "high-jack" parts of a mother religion - it gives "weight" and tradition to the new sect/religion. For Muhammad it would pay to "take over" a known name like Ishmael. It obviously also would pay for him to take over the claimed center of the religious word - even a made up claim works if people believe in it.

Another fact: Modern DNA-analysis has shown that the Arabs are no coherent tribe. They are a mixture of many nations - not strange lying at a crossroad with travelers passing through, and where sex and alcohol were "the two delightful things" until Muhammad took over. And also Arab tradesmen brought brides and slaves back home even long before Muhammad, not to mention all the slave women who were brought home after the robberies made the Arabs rich enough to afford more/many women. The "Arab Blood" is strongly diluted and mixed up, and even was never a homogenous tribe originally.

What the Bible really says about Ishmael in relevant connections is:

(1. Mos. 16/7): The pregnant Hagar fled from Abraham and Sarah (then named Sarai - not mentioned in the Quran), and "The angel of the Lord found Hagar near a spring in the desert; it was the spring that is beside the road to Shur". Shur was a desert area east of the Gulf of Suez in Egypt. Shur extended southwards past the northern end of the Red Sea, "opposite Egypt" = roughly east of where the Suez Canal now runs and a little down the east side of the Red Sea. 1): Hagar may have headed towards her home country Egypt. 2): Abraham had to be far west - and very far from Arabia/Mecca - for her to find that road, as that road run inland from the Mediterranean Sea (far inland but in that region).

(1. Mos. 21/12-13): "But God/Yahweh said to him (Abraham*), 'Do not be so distressed about the boy (Ishmael*) and your maidservant (Hagar - Ishmael's mother*). Listen to what Sarah (Abraham's wife*) tells you, because it is through Isaac that your offspring will be reckoned. I will make the son of your maidservant into a nation also, because he is your offspring".

(1. Mos. 20/1): "Now Abraham moved - - - into the region of Negev and lived between Kadesh and Shur. Kadesh was a town West of the southern end of the Dead sea, between the Dead Sea and the Mediterranean Sea, and a bit more than halfway to the Mediterranean Sea. The desert of Shur was west of Kadesh direction Egypt and near the Gulf of Suez in Egypt and southwards past the northern end of the Red Sea. (You will meet Muslims claiming Kadesh was in or near Mecca, and others claiming it was near Petra in Jordan - necessary to be able to move the Paran desert area to the Faran Mountain and the Faran Wilderness on the Arab peninsula, rename it Paran like the Muslims have done, and claim this Paran/Faran is the Paran of the Bible. (- even though there is no doubt where the Paran of the Bible was - there is a little too much of this kind of dishonesty in Islam.)) But to tell Abraham settled between Shur, near Egypt, and Jordan or Mecca is not even comical - Muslims often are very clever at finding solutions they want to find, but forgetting or "forgetting" details - or big things - making the claimed solution wrong or invalid.) The point here is that Abraham now was living in Negev in the west, not so very far from the Mediterranean Sea area, and in the region where the road to Shur and on to Egypt crossed. The Bible tells when Abraham made major moves, and it does not mention that Abraham left this region until after Isaac was born and after Hagar and Ishmael (who must have been something like 14 - 16 years by then - he was born when Abraham was 86 years (1. Mos. 16/16) and circumcised when Abraham was 99 and Ishmael 13 years old (1. Mos. 17/24-25), and this was a bit later) had left Abraham's camp. Which indicates that Hagar and Ishmael left his camp in this area - something which may correspond well with that they took the road to Shur and on to the border of her homeland, Egypt, and settled there like the Bible tells: 1. Mos. 25/18: ""His (Ishmael's*) descendants settled in the area from Havilah to Shur, near the border of Egypt". The desert of Shur is well known, but this Havilah (there is another connected to the Garden of Eden) is not clearly located, but is believed to have been in the southern part of Palestine. (We may add that Muslim sources we find on Internet - f.x. - admits that "the wilderness of Paran" = Faran in Arabic.)

(1. Mos. 21/18): "- - - I (Yahweh*) will make him into a great nation". See further down.

(1. Mos. 21/14): "She (Hagar) went on her way and wandered in the desert of Beersheba", which meant that she had to leave Abraham somewhere in what is now the south of Israel (Beersheba itself is some 70 miles (ca. 115 km) south of Tel Aviv) in a part of the Negev desert bordering or part the Paran area bordering Sinai - Sinai as you most likely know is a peninsula to the southwest of Israel, bordering Egypt (the Arabian peninsula is to the southeast and with the Acaba Bay between it and the Sinai peninsula).

(1. Mos.21/15): "When the water in the skin was gone, she put the boy under one of the bushes". It would not be possible for Hagar to walk to Mecca - hundreds of miles through hot desert - with the only water she had was one water skin. (Besides there was no sane reason for her to walk that way - this even more so as she was not from Arabia, and had absolutely no known connection to that area, but was from Egypt = in the west.)

(1. Mos. 21/21): "While he (Ishmael*) lived in the desert of Paran, his mother (Hagar*) got a wife for him from Egypt". Muslims dearly wants Paran to mean Paran in Arabia (the name really was Faran, but has become Paran because Muslims wanted it to be a reference from the Bible), but Paran Desert was an area south of Canaan - and south of Beersheba - bordering North Sinai and reaching towards Elath. The name of the area today is el-Tih. The Desert of Paran also contained the Mountain of Paran mentioned in 5. Mos. 33/2. As Paran bordered Canaan, Moses sent his 12 spies into Canaan from here (from in or near the town of Kadesh) - if he had sent them from Paran/Faran in Arabia, they first would have had to cross hundreds of miles - and kilometers - of forbidding desert to reach Canaan. And how far would Hagar have had to travel to find a wife from Egypt to him? (It is typical for Muslim argumentation to produce claims where details - or not details - are omitted to get the (made up) argument they want - you meet this technique a bit too often. It is one of the problems we meet when studying Islamic literature - all information has to be checked, because you never know what is true and what is f.x. an al-Taqiyya (lawful lie), a Kitman (lawful half-truth), or even just wishful thinking helped by invalid logic (Muslims often jumps from "this may be a possibility" or even weaker to "it is like this") to make things fit the Quran. It may seem like many Muslims in addition are little trained in the use of the laws of logic and in critical thinking.)) (For some reason or other Islam and its Muslims seldom claim that Islam is the religion of honesty.)

But the Muslims' high-jacking of Paran has one good effect: They have placed lots of pictures from Paran/Faran in Arabia on Internet. Paran/Faran itself is a mountain, and the wilderness is lying near and mainly north of Mecca, and Abraham would have had to cross the large desert now called the Paran Wilderness by Muslims, to reach Mecca - and live in it, as Mecca used to be similar to this at that time. Open some of the pages and look at the pictures: How tempted would Abraham be to go into hundreds of miles of this with all his cattle? Exactly not at all. (This in addition to that it is well known where the real Paran from the Bible was). Also: If we try to believe the

(1. Mos. 25/16): "These (the 12 sons of Ishmael*) are the names of the 12 tribal rulers - - -" = the great nation mentioned in 1. Mos.21/18 - Muslims never mention this verse. (But there is a large difference between a promise to make them a great nation and a covenant. Also remember that a great nation at that time was something different from today - f.x. Abraham with his 318 men beat the combined forces of 4 kings in battle near Dan (1. Mos. 14/14-15))

(1. Mos. 25/18): "His (Ishmael's*) descendants settled in the area from Havilah to Shur (see above*), near the border of Egypt, as you go toward Asshur (= eastwards*)". One more verse Muslims never - never - mention.

(1. Mos. 25/18): "And they (the sons of Ishmael) lived in hostility toward all their brothers". Also this a verse Muslims never mention - perhaps because they want it to have been a good relationship so that there still could be a brotherhood when Moses made his speech in 5. Mos. 500 - 700 years later, and when Muhammad came some 2500 years later - - - if the Arabs are descendants from among many others Ishmael.

There are two ways to understand this sentence: They lived in hostility towards each other, or they lived in hostility towards the sons of their uncle Isaac. As it is said in 1. Mos. 21/18 that they - the 12 tribes descending from Ishmael - became a great nation, the second meaning is the likely one. May be partly for this reason, the descendants of Ishmael are never in the Bible reckoned by the Jews to be relatives, or at least very, very distant such ones.

All this points to that Hagar and Ishmael left the camp of Abraham in west Negev, took the road towards Shur, direction Egypt and settled near the border of Egypt, likely north of the desert Shur - i.e. between Shur and the Mediterranean Sea somewhere - - - pretty far from Arabia and Mecca, and in nearly exactly the opposite direction.

There also is another point to include: The camel likely was domesticated at the time of Abraham. But it did not come into wide use until around 1ooo-900 BC, and it seems that it even then only was used for working and carrying, not or very little for riding. (F.x. the first time one knows camels were used in a battle, was in a battle between the kings Croesus of Lydia and Cyrus the Great in 547 BC, where Cyrus used PACKING camels (for want of riding ones) to frighten Croesus' horses, who were not used to camels.) If Abraham had no riding camels, the valley of later Mecca, some 750 miles/1200 km or whatever, depending on where he started, was a long walk - and as long return. Each time.

One final and partly different point: As mentioned costal Arabia was settled around 5ooo BC (or earlier). The interior was settled after the domestication made it practically possible. By 1800 BC the peninsula had a reasonably big population. Even if Ishmael took all his 12 sons and moved to Arabia, how big percent of the total population of Arabia would they make up? In other words: How big percent of the forefathers of the Arabs of today, or at the time of Muhammad, did Ishmael represent? - a small number behind a lot of zeroes behind a comma. Even in the unlikely case that Ishmael had settled in Arabia and not near Egypt, Arabs 2400 years later (Muhammad) or 3800 years later (today) were/are not the descendants of Ishmael, but the descendants of all the people living in Arabia in the old times, of which Ishmael in case had made up only a miniscule part of a percent (for the Jews the picture is a bit different, because of the restrictions on marrying outside the group - a restriction often broken, but all the same relatively effective). This in addition to all later mixing with people from the outside, included hundreds of thousands (likely a some millions) slave girls imported to a miserable life in the harems of Arabs before and after Muhammad.

Also see 2/127a below.

Added 5. Apr. 2013 AD: Quoted from the Scandinavian newspaper Aftenposten published today, where professor emeritus (in physics) Redvald Skullerud says: "(It is claimed that Abraham*) used camels for transport some 1200 years before the camel was introduced as a transport animal in the area when the Assyrians started trade with South Arabia (in the 8. century BC*)". As you see it is an accepted scientific fact that even though the dromedary was domesticated and somewhat used in South Arabia, it was not introduced further north until a long time - 1ooo+ years - after Abraham, and then as a transport animal. To use it as a riding animal came even later. And without the camel, it would be impossible for Abraham to go back and forth between Canaan and the dry desert valley where Mecca later came - crossing rough and forbidding big deserts. Abraham's claimed connection to Mecca is an impossibility.

We may add that Muslim sources we find on Internet - f.x. - "admits" that "the wilderness of Paran" = Faran in Arabic. But the "raisin" is that this "admission" most likely is untrue. Paran quite clearly was in Sinai, not in Arabia, and Mt. Paran likely is just another name for Mt. Sinai.

##002 3/35b: "Imran’s wife - - -". This is an example on "honest" Muslim technique of debate, taken - unbelievably - from Muhammad Yusuf Ali, the famous translator of the Quran, in his book: "The Meaning of the Quran": "By tradition Mary's mother was called Hannah (in Latin Anna, in English Anne), and her father was called Imran. Hannah is therefore both a descendant of the priestly house of Imran (the Arab name of Moses' father*) and the wife of Imran." One thing is that when using traditions and legends as basis, one cannot say that something "is", only that it "may be". But the real screamer is that the name of the father of Mary never in the traditions and legends was Imran. That name you only find in the Quran, and of course among the ones who take the name from the Quran - and this even more so as he mix in the Latin (and English) names. The name of Mary's father in the traditions was Jojakim or Jocim (except that Muslims have looked in the Quran and found the name Imran and made a new “tradition” from that). Further comments not necessary - just make your own conclusions about how reliable Muslims - even outstanding, learned ones like Mr. Ali - sometimes may be, and how reliable Muslim arguments and "facts" sometimes are. "Use al-Taqiyya (the lawful lie*), Kitman (the lawful half-truth*) and even deception and broken oaths to forward or defend the Religion of Truth". As you understand: When we base most of our writings on Islamic sources, we often run into the problem that everything has to be checked, because even claimed "facts" too often are incorrect. (For some reason or other Islam and its Muslims seldom claim that Islam is "the religion of honesty".)

003 3/156g: "This (so*) that Allah may make it (the non-Muslims not going to Paradise when killed in battle*) a cause of sighs and regrets in their hearts". One technique of debating, is to tell the audience what the opponents think or feel or "really" mean - without caring too much about whether it is true or not. This often is done in political debate, but also in f.x. religious "teaching". Textbooks call this "insincerity of 3. degree". Why did Muhammad need to use this kind of technique?

004 6/5d: "- - - soon they (non-Muslims*) shall learn the reality of what they used to mock at". One thing is that this just is pep-talk - a well-known technique even. Another is that many non-Muslims already knew the reality; that the Quran with all its mistakes, etc. is not from any god. No god ever was involved in a book of that quality.

005 6/7a: “If We (Allah*) had sent unto thee (Muhammad*) a written (message) on parchment, so that they (Muslims and non-Muslims*) could touch it with their hands, the Unbelievers have been sure to say: ’This is nothing but obvious magic!’” Muhammad never ever was able to prove anything about what he told his mostly naïve and uneducated audience. But he got questions about and demands for such proofs many times from followers and others – this is mentioned repeatedly in the Quran. He had to evade those requests and demands, and an obvious way was to find ways of explaining them away. Here the technique he uses is “No matter what proofs I produce, they will not believe anyhow, so why produce proofs at all?” Swindlers and cheats frequently use such techniques. It is obvious for anyone able to think for himself or herself that the logic is twisted and wrong – but the ones wanting to believe or the very naïve might believe in it. What is more serious is that Muhammad was an intelligent man and a man knowing a lot about how to treat and sway people. There is no way he did not know he used twisted logic and dishonest psychology and story, and that a real miracle - or more than one - had made new believers, even if some would try to call it magic. And no way that he did not know that if he produced real evidence that would strengthen his followers enormously and make huge numbers of unbelievers become believers. In a short sentence: There is no way an intelligent man did not know this excuse was a lie.

006 6/19g: "Can ye possibly bear witness that besides Allah there is another God?". This is typical for Muhammad's technique of debating - he claims without even trying to prove it that Allah exists, but just states it as a "fact", and then demands proofs from everyone else for anything. "What can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence" - Islam will have to bring proofs to be believe by rational brains, especially as the one making the claim was such an unreliable and immoral man. (Read the Quran - skip the cheap, glorious words and read the reality; what he demanded and did, his view on the use of dishonesty and what moral rules he introduced - before you protest.)

What here backfires for Muhammad, is that the fact he lays much weight on proofs and demands proof from every opponent. This proves that he held proofs for essential and of high value. But all the same neither he nor Allah ever was able to give a valid proof for one single of his central religious claims. "A proof is one or more proved facts which can give only one conclusion". And we repeat: "A claim without a proof may be dismissed without a proof" - all too often unproved claims just are made up claims.

007 6/22c: "- - - the partners (to Us (Allah*)) - - -". For most non-Muslims the fact was that they had another god - f.x. Yahweh - or other gods instead of Allah, not that they had gods in addition to Allah - a technique of debating where one tries to make the opposite part forget that one’s argument only is a claim, not a fact - one meets this technique many places in the Quran (Muhammad was intelligent and smart). One simply pretends that one's claims are facts. Also see 25/18a below - and 2/165c above.

008 6/27a: "If thou (Muslims`) couldst but see them (non-Muslims*) when they are confronted with the Fire!" Psychological pep-talk of a standard kind frequently used by religious and other leaders: "Just wait and see; "they" will be the losers and "we" the winners - and "they" will fare badly. An ever so well known technique - but it often works. You meet this kind of pep-talk MANY places in the Quran - we mention just some of them.

009 6/148e: "Say: 'Have ye any (certain) knowledge? If so, produce it before us." Islam and the Quran are quick to demand proofs from anyone else, but hardly ever prove anything themselves - they rely on unproved claims and on statements built on other unproved claims. Beware of this when you debate with Muslims: They often put forth loose claims without any proofs, and demands that you prove it is wrong - if you are unable to that, they claim they are right, no matter how wrong they are. And if you are able to prove a claim wrong, they utter disbelief and instead make another unproved claim. One technique is quoting a known writer speaking about things he knows no more about than ordinary people - but he is a known writer. By cherry-picking quotes Islam has found a number of "good" claims, and it is not always easy to prove they are wrong, even when they are far from reality. But it is not for you to prove him/her wrong. It is he/she who is making the claim, and thus it is for him/her to prove it. Demand proofs for all claims from them before you at all start answering them - mostly they are unable to prove anything when they are using dishonest arguments or loose claims, and loose claims are especially often used.

###"A proof is one or more proved facts which can give only one conclusion". "Strong claims need strong proofs". "Claims are cheap, but only proofs are proofs". "A claim without a proof may be dismissed without a proof".

010 8/32-33: “Remember how they (non-Muslims*) said: ‘O, Allah, if this is indeed the Truth from Thee, rain down on us a shower of stones from the sky, and send us a grievous Penalty. But Allah was not going to send them a penalty whilst thou (Muslims*) wast among them; nor was He going to do it whilst they could ask for pardon.” Of course it was nice for Muslims that Allah would not risk hurting them when punishing the bad ones. But it would be no problem for a presumably omnipotent god to punish only the guilty ones. For believers wanting to believe, and not used to – or trained in – critical thinking, it may have been a satisfying fast-talk/"explanation".

That Allah only would punish the bad ones after it was too late for them to ask for pardon (= the Day of Doom) may have added to the glee.

Another point is if Allah at all could pardon anyone - it would mean to change his Plan, which the Quran several places states nobody and nothing can change (of course both sin and pardon could be predestined, but a predestined pardon is not a pardon but theater).

011 9/23b: “Take not for protectors your father and your brothers if they love infidelity above Faith (= are not Muslims*): if any of you do so, they do wrong.” Even today some sects use this technique – break as much as possible of the contact with and stop as many as possible of the impulses from the outside. “We want only our ideas to influence our proselytes and followers.” It of course is a way of stopping correcting thoughts and facts. And it so definitely is mental and social pressure – compulsion. It at least is contradicted by:

  1. 2/256: “Let there be no compulsion in religion - - -.”

This verse contradicts (and abrogates) at least these verses (here are 89 out of the 124 Muslim scholars say are abrogated by 9/5): 2/109, 2/190, 2/256, 2/272, 3/20, 4/62, 4/81, 4/90, 5/3, 5/28, 5/48, 5/99, 6/60, 6/66, 6/70, 6/104, 6/107, 6/112, 6/158, 7/87, 7/188, 7/193, 7/199, 8/61, 9/68, 10/41, 10/99, 10/102, 10/108, 11/12, 11/121, 13/40, 15/3, 15/94, 16/35, 16/82, 16/125, 16/126, 16/127, 17/54, 18/29, 18/56, 19/39, 20/130, 21/107, 21/112, 22/49, 22/68, 23/54, 23/96, 24/54, 26/216, 27/92, 28/50, 28/55, 29/18, 29/46, 32/30, 34/25, 34/28, 35/23, 35/24a, 36/17, 39/41, 41/34, 42/6, 42/15, 42/48, 43/83, 43/89, 44/59, 45/14, 46/9, 46/135a, 46/135b, 50/39, 50/45, 51/50-51, 51/54, 52/45, 52/47, 53/29, 67/26, 73/10, 73/11, 79/45, 86/17, 88/22, 109/6. They are all quoted under 9/5. (At least 91 contradictions).

A small NB: When reading this verse, remember that family bonds in the old Arabia were extremely strong - they often were in war cultures built on tribes. A heart-breaking verse which tells much about Muhammad and about Islam.

012 13/2n: "- - - that ye (Muslims*) may believe with certainty in the meeting with your Lord (Allah*)". The human brain is so strangely made that it is fully possible to believe with certainty in things which are proved wrong. For persons used to logic and to using their brain this seems incredible, but it is a fact.

But there only is one certainty here: As the only source for Muhammad's claims is a book full of errors and worse, and add Muhammad's unreliability (acceptance of the use of dishonesty, deceit, etc.), there only is this certainty: It is absolutely certain that it is not certain Allah will meet anybody at the other side - if there even is an "other side".

p>013 15/3a: “Leave them (the disbelievers*) alone, to enjoy (the good things of this life) and to please themselves - - -.” Many places in the Quran you will find claims similar to this - that the reason why non-Muslims stay non-Muslims, was/is that they were/are so bent on living a good life - or a selfish or bad life - here on Earth, that they were not interested in the next life. Anyone knowing people will know that the truth was not as simple as that, but again it is a psychologically good idea to paint the opposition in dark colors and make them "small" and selfish and unwise - they do not "see the truth" because of stupidity and selfishness. It also makes "us" contrast favorably to "them", a psychology and a technique often used by manipulating leaders, especially in politics and in religion - it works especially well among naive and uneducated followers and among people who want to believe or who have tendencies to wishful thinking and with little of critical sense. Muhammad knew people.

014 17/108c: “And they (Jews and Christians) say: “Glory to our Lord! Truly has the promise of our Lord been fulfilled!” As for the likeliness that this is true, see 17/107a above. But Islam (in this case “The Message of the Quran”) tells that it may refer to all the mentioning of Muhammad in the Bible (of which we have found none that is not just wishful statements which are obviously wrong – see “Muhammad in the Bible?” in our Book A: "1000+ Mistakes in the Quran"), but that it most likely means joy for finally getting the Quran, which Allah had promised and now finally had sent. There is no reference to a promise of something like the Quran in the Bible, and Jews and Christians at all times did reckon the Quran to be so wrong and so distant from the Bible, that it was not even heresy. Verse 107 and 108 simply are fairy tales made up to back up Muhammad - a not unusual technique to use by emerging new sects or religions. It may be based on a few converts at that time, or free fantasy - dishonesty happens when new religions and sects are made. And later.

015 23/63: "But their (non-Muslims'*) hearts are in confused ignorance of this - - -". To claim things about an opponent without checking if it is true, is as far as we know called "3. degree of insincerity" - - - but in debate and in propaganda it often works. Muhammad uses this technique frequently - just look for it and you will find it.

016 23/84a: "To whom belong the Earth and the beings therein?" Here Muhammad uses a trick you often see him use - and Muslims used it freely ever after, included today: To take a never proved claim, treat it as a fact and use it as basis for claims and arguments. Here the underlying, never proved claim is that Allah is the owner of everything. This question and its intended answers are totally invalid as long as the underlying presumption is not proved; that Allah really is the owner. But who uses dishonest tricks and debate technique like this? - not an omniscient god who has all facts, at least.

017 30/35a: "Or have We (Allah*) sent down authority to them (non-Muslims*) which points out to them the things (false gods*) to which they pay part-worship". But the very fundamental question is: Does Allah exist, and in case he does: Does he really have the power to send authority of any kind? This simply is one more of the classical Islamic way of debating: "What we say is the truth and does not need verification - so we can make claims on basis of that". But the claims are 100% invalid, as long as the underlying claimed facts are not proved.

###Also note Muhammad's technique: He pretends Allah is a fact, so that no proofs are necessary. You meet this and similar techniques legion places in the Quran.

Also note another point of Muhammad's technique: He states like a fact that non-Muslims respects Allah, but "pay part-worship" to other gods. This confirms for his followers that Allah is the main one for everybody, whereas no non-Muslim believe in Allah at all - they worship, not part-worship, their own god(s) and dismiss Allah as a made up and heathen god or as plain superstition.

If the Quran is a made up book, or if Allah for other reasons is wrongly described in that book, Allah either is a false god, or a god different from what Muhammad claimed. In both cases Islam is a false religion.

018 31/11b: “Such is the Creation of Allah: now show Me (Allah*) what is there that others beside Him have created - - -.” Show us first if all the cheap words about everything Allah has created, are true – there only are lose and easy words anyone can use about his/her god(s), free of charge. With all the mistakes and contradictions, twisted words and logic and even some obvious lies (f.x. that miracles would not influence skeptics or proselytes) the Quran is built on, also this may be wrong.

This a typical sample of one of the Quran's techniques for debate: It put forth one or more claims without any kind of proof or documentation, pretends the claims are facts and debates from there - even though the claims often are fairy tales.

For good measure the opponents have to prove what they say (here: "Show me - - -") whereas from the Quran/Muhammad loose words and as loose claims are to be accepted - not one single claim regarding central points in the religion is proved. A lot of invalid "signs" (Quran-speak for proofs for Allah) and a few as invalid "proofs" are put forth, but that is all - not one real proof for anything essential in the entire religion).

019 33/51c: “Thou (Muhammad*) mayst defer (the turn (of having sex*) of) any of them that thou pleasest, and thou mayst receive any thou pleasest (for your bed/sex*): and there is no blame on thee if thou invite one whose (turn) thou hast set aside.” It is the man’s wish and pleasure which counts, and here this fact is confirmed by the almighty god in his "Mother Book" of which the Quran is claimed to be a copy – though written only to Muhammad and nothing similar is said in that book to any of the thousands of former prophets (124ooo ?) or to ordinary men. But as Muhammad is the great idol, this like everything he (or Allah?) said and did was and is the correct thing to do if nothing special is said that prohibits it.

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

One more and serious point: Islam states that "the Mother of the Book" - of which the Quran is claimed to be an exact copy - is revered by Allah and his angels in Heaven. Is it likely that an omniscient god reveres texts like this?

020 33/53f: “And when ye (Muslim men*) ask (his (Muhammad’s*)) ladies for anything ye want, ask them from before a screen - - -.” Note: A screen, not a veil. This is all and everything that is said about the hiding of women in the Quran, except that a woman should cover her hair. Nothing more: A screen, not a veil, and only concerning the wives – and likely also his other women – of Muhammad. (But you find veils in the Hadiths – which is written 200 – 250 years later, and where it is very clear that a lot is made up stories (the Quran f.x. proves that all the stories in the Hadiths about miracles around Muhammad are made up ones)).

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

021 36/81b: "Is not He (Allah*) Who created the heavens (plural and wrong*) able to create the like thereof?". Muhammad at least has to prove it - there are so much wrong in the Quran, that its claims and words are not reliable. As it is unlikely he created the first time, it is as unlikely he will be able to create a second time.

But note Muhammad's method of debating: He starts with a never proved statement, pretends it is a fact, and argues from there on. Logically it is totally hopeless and invalid, but efficient demagogy. But who is it who has to rely on made up statements, invalid logic, and demagogy? - the cheater, the deceiver, the swindler, the charlatan.

022 37/142b: (YA4122): YA do not believe the story of Jonah happened at sea: "The Tigris river, mentioned by some of our (Muslims'*) Commentators, is more likely, and it contains some fishes of extraordinary size". This is meaningless - if you meet bad weather on a river, there never are really bad "seas" and there never is a long way to the shore and safety. And in no river in the world there exist fish big enough to swallow a man whole. (But the Bible tells it happened on a ship from Joppa bound for Tarshis (Jonah 1/3) = in the Mediterranean Sea).

###This is one of the very many samples of Islam finding a "good" explanation to an aspect of a point in the Quran, but forgetting that other aspects make the "explanation" impossible or - like here - even laughable: It is not possible for wind to make waves on a river big enough to be dangerous for a ship - and if there was danger, there just are yards and meters to the shore and safety. Sometimes we get the impression that many Muslim scholars never learnt the use of logic or of critical thinking.

023 37/150b: "- - - witness - - -". This is typical for the Quran; Muhammad demands proofs from everybody not agreeing with him, but he himself evades all questions for proofs - and the only "signs" and "proofs" he presents - and then not when requested - are natural phenomena he simply claims for his god without even one single time proving his god is behind the phenomenon.

024 37/156: "Or have ye (non-Muslims*) an authority manifest?". See 37/150b above.

025 37/157: "Then bring ye your Book (of authority) if ye are truthful!" No god would ever had demanded such a naive proof like this - a book is as easy to make up or to falsify as a verbal tale (this also goes for the Quran). Also see 37/150b.

026 38/10c: "If so, let them mount up with the ropes and means (to reach that end (= to prove it*))!" Everybody else is unreliable if he/she does not prove what they say, but Islam never wants to prove anything, and always evade questions for proofs. This in spite of - or because of? - that the whole religion is built only on a book full of mistakes, etc., and a book dictated by a man of very doubtful morality and reliability, but a strong liking for power, wealth for bribes, and women. Further comments should not be necessary.

Well, one: Did any Muslim ever try to mount up?

027 38/32b: (YA4185): “Truly do I (King David or king Solomon - likely Solomon*) love the love of good, with a view to the glory of my Lord - - -“. But it is as linguistically correct to follow other Muslim scholars who say that it means: “Truly did I prefer the good things (of this world) to the remembrance of your Lord”.

In the case of the last interpretation A. Yusuf Ali indicates that the reason for Solomon’s remorse may be that he had forgotten his Asr prayer (one of the 5 Muslims at least should pray each day). ####But how is that possible? – according to Hadiths it was Muhammad who made Allah decide on 5 prayers a day (Allah originally wanted 50). The rule of 5 prayers thus could not exist some 1600 years earlier (Solomon was king ca. 975 (971?) - 936 BC – give or take a few years).

#######It is very typical for Muslims to "solve" a problem by good claims, but forgetting that other aspects or facts are screaming that the claim or "explanation" cannot be true. You meet this time and again and again in Islam and from Muslims.

It also is a fact that we here are approaching the times of written history, and neither in history nor in another medium anybody has found traces from a god like Allah or a religion like Islam at the time of Solomon. On the contrary even the oldest reliable information about this, shows that the god of the believing Jews, was Yahweh, and the religion mainly like Jewism even today. And Yahweh never had fixed time prayers - not even Asr.

Claims like this are a bit too naive.

##028 39/4f: (YA4246): "It is blasphemy to say that Allah begot a son. If that were true, He should have had a wife - - -". This argument is nonsense in this case. For one thing Islam claims that Allah is the same god as Yahweh, and it is known that in the really old times Yahweh had a female companion - his Amat (source New Scientist and others). Even if this is not widely known, it is unlikely that a learned man like Abdullah Yusuf Ali did not know it. And what is 110% sure he knew is that according to the Quran if the god wished something "He just could say 'Be' and it was" - the god just could say "Be a son" and Jesus was. This simply is one of the many places where Muslims find the answer they want, by omitting facts which make their wanted answer invalid and often even impossible.

029 39/9e: “Are those equal, those who know and those who do not know?” Statements and questions like this are a psychological efficient way to build up a belief in “our” own superiority and the opponents’ inferiority and badness. Many dictators frequently use similar technique - be it countries or organizations. The not too intelligent and/or those with limited education mostly do not understand they are manipulated. Also there is another point: What is the situation if the Quran is a made up book? - a relevant question as no book with so much wrong is from any god.

And there is yet another point: Who is it who knows? - the one blindly believing, or the one asking questions and checking what is true and what not?

030 39/19a: “Is, then, one against whom the decree of Punishment is justly due (equal to one who eschews evil)?”. Still another technique for manipulation, and in this case partly to induce really discrimination - “they” are bad people and cannot be compared to “us”. May be we even had better shun them - or worse?

031 40/18b: "- - - the Day is (ever) drawing near - - -". Here Muhammad is using a standard trick form religious leaders: "We cannot tell when the Day of Doom will come, but stay in line, because may be it is close!"

032 42/14d: "- but truly those who have inherited the Book (here most likely the Bible*) after them (Jews and Christians*) are in suspicious (disquieting) doubt concerning it (the Books*)". A very normal technique for split of and fringe sects like Islam was in 616 - 618 AD, to strengthen themselves, is to claim that the mother religion or competing religion doubts their own words. This sounds like a typical case of such a psychological technique.

033 46/22-26: A close parallel to Muhammad's position in 620 AD, followed by what Muhammad threatened his contemporaries with if they would not accept his new religion. This is a technique he uses many times in the Quran, and it "told" his followers that his position was normal for prophets, and thus he could claim to be a normal prophet. For his followers it surely also helped to be told that the bad people of the past were punished, and thus that their "bad" contemporaries surly would be punished, too. (Well, in some cases they instead became good Muslims - Muhammad only had those two endings on those tales.) Also notice that Muhammad often claimed that the punished societies were mightier and richer than his contemporary Arabs, something which should make both his already omnipotent god and the impression on his listeners even stronger.

#034 52/34b: This verse also is another sample of one of Muhammad's techniques of debating: Any opposition or skeptical ones are demanded to prove their words, whereas Muhammad never proves anything of any essence - he just put forth words and claims and never - never - documents anything. This even though his demands for proofs from all others proves that he finds proofs essential and of value.

035 52/38a: "Or have they (non-Muslims*) a ladder, by which they can (climb up to heaven and) listen (to its secrets)?" If nothing else, then at least this verse confirms Muhammad's very wrong astronomy in the Quran.

#####036 53/35b: "Has he (the person leaving Islam*) knowledge of the Unseen that he can see?". This is a technique of debate you often meet from Muslims and from Islam - they forward a topic, and then strongly restricts the area of the debate - mostly to narrow segments where they know it is difficult to give opposing answers (here "the unseen") - - - and then they "win" the debate. In such cases tell him/her straight out that you do not accept such restrictions, and that your relevant arguments or facts are such and such.

037 56/87: "- - - call back the soul (of a dead person) - - -". Muhammad never proved a comma of the central points of his religion, but he demanded profs from anyone else - which shows 2 things: He was unable to prove anything - if not he had used proofs - but all the same he found proofs essential - if not he had not demanded it from others. In this case he even demands a proof he knows it normally is impossible to produce (the main thing obviously was not to find the truth, but to win the debate) - though you find some possible cases in the Bible.

038 58/18f: "They (non-Muslims*) are but liars". This is one of the ironic sentences in the Quran, as ####the only one of the big religion which accepts lies in many cases and advices it in some cases, is Islam - f. x. al-Taqiyya (the lawful lie), Kitman (the lawful half-truth), Hilah (the lawful pretending/circumventing), deceit and betrayal (following the shining idol Muhammad's example) and broken words/promises/oaths "if that gives a better result" (though in some cases you should pay expiation afterwards) - 2/225, 3/54 (if Allah can cheat, cheating is ok), 5/89, 16/91, 66/2.

039 71/14a: "Seeing that it is He (Allah*) who has created you - - -". I do not see that - not without very strong proofs. This is typical technique from Muhammad: Pretending that a starting point (here that Allah has created) is true and proved, and then making deductions from that. But as long as the starting point is not proved, it has nothing to do with logical deduction - but such technique often is used by cheaters, swindlers, charlatans, deceivers, etc. to cheat people. And you frequently meet this technique also from Islam and from Muslims.

040 71/23a: "And they (claimed opponents of Noah*) have said - - -: 'Abandon not - - -'" For one thing: Note the close parallel to Muhammad's experience in 621 - 622 AD when this surah was published - Noah like all other prophets with the partly exception of Jesus, was made to look like a parallel to Muhammad - "it showed" that Muhammad's problems were normal for real prophets, and indicated thus that Muhammad was a real prophet. Just read the Quran and you will see how often and how obvious this technique was used. For another thing: This is one more time anomaly.

041 72/6b: "True, there are persons among mankind who took shelter with persons among the Jinns - - -". If you are able to believe humans took shelter among beings borrowed from old pagan Arab religion, folklore and fairy tales, you are permitted to believe so. But there never was a proved case of such a happening. But it is a nice, if a bit incredible, case of one of Muhammad's techniques when debating: Claim or state that something is true without the slightest proofs, and then make claims from there, or claim it proves this and this. Totally without value as a real argument and not even related to normal logic - - - but so what, as long as naive followers believe it?! (But then Muslims often are not trained in logical deduction, and some of the training they get, even is wrong, as Islam cannot afford to teach logical laws which make the mistakes, contradictions, etc. too easy to see. F.x. that problems can have 2 or more correct solutions, even if the solutions are mutually excluding.)

#042 72/7a: "And they (Jinns*) (came to) think as ye thought, that Allah would not raise up any one (to Judgment)". Here like so many places in the Quran what is said in the Quran is treated as facts, and thus that skeptics are improbably stupid and wrong - some places things like this even is said, not only indicated. This in spite of that not one single central letter the entire Quran is anything but belief - nothing is proved and thus nothing is real knowledge, only belief, and worse; blind belief.

043 73/17a: "Then how shall ye (non-Muslims*), if ye deny (Allah*), guard yourself - - -". This is a much used technique used not for finding out what is true, but for winning a debate: One claim or presume that something is true, and then starts the debate from there. But no matter how good the logic and the debate and the conclusions one reaches from such a starting point, it is void and invalid and empty of all truth, if the initial presumption(s) is/are untrue or not proved. It is a method often used by politicians and by cheats and deceivers. In this case there are two presumptions or claims: That Allah exists and that Allah is powerful. None of these are proved - there only are the words of a man with doubtful moral and lust for riches and power for it. The argument and conclusion thus are invalid. And to answer the invalid question: One may look for a god or gods who may be has/have proved himself/themselves.

#044 75/40a: "Has not He (Allah*) (the same) the power to give life to the dead?". One more standard sample of one of Muhammad’s main techniques of arguing or debating: He takes a never proved claim - here the never proved claim that Allah has given humans their first life - and pretend this claim is a fact, and then he goes on and uses this invalid "fact" as an argument for that Allah also must have another never proved power; the power of resurrection. As the chain of arguments just builds on a not proved claim or presumption, it is entirely outside all rules for logical deductions of proofs, and totally without any value as a proof for anything at all.

And who is it who have to use arguments like this? - the ones who have no real facts or sound arguments (if they had had such ones, they had used them instead) - all too often cheats and deceivers.

You frequently meet this kind of argumentation from Muslims and even from Islam itself (its scholars).

045 75/40b: "Has not He (Allah*) - - - the power to give life to the dead?". Resurrection. Nobody really knows, as Allah never has proved he had such power - there are a lot of claims and words, but only words, and words are cheap, especially when they come from a man and politician of dubious moral quality, documented to use lies (al-Taqiyya, Kitman) and even broken oaths - and worse. And liking money for bribes for attracting or keeping followers, not to mention liking power - and women. The funny situation is that if the Quran and/or the Bible tell the truth on this point, Yahweh has proved his power over life and death, but Allah not - he has not even proved his existence. Also see 7/158i above.

046 78/6b: “Have We (Allah*) not made the earth as a wide expanse.” The Quran has been saying the same before - Allah made the (flat) Earth. But here it is used as a proof - - - without ever having been proved - without ever having been more than statements built on loose words. A claim just taken from nature and used many times in the Quran. The Quran tried to give Allah the credit, but only words - words any priest or “prophet” for any god could/can use just as cheaply and just as empty for value as a proof for their god or gods. To mention it ones more: Cheats, swindlers and deceivers often use tactics like this. Also see 11/7a above.

A never proved claim pretended to be a proved fact - Muslims and Islam often use this technique.

047 78/8: “And (have We (Allah*)) not created you - - - ?” An unproved statement used as (invalid) proof - it is never proved that Allah created man. See 6/2b, 11/7a, and 78/6b above.

A never proved claim pretended to be a proved fact - Muslims and Islam often use this technique.

048 78/10: “(And has not Allah*) made the night as a covering - - -”. Did Allah invent the night? - unproved statement used as proof. See 11/7a and 78/6b above. And is lack of light - nothing - a covering? Also see 11/7a above.

A never proved claim pretended to be a proved fact - Muslims and Islam often use this technique.

049 78/12-13: “And have We (Allah*) not built over you the seven firmaments, and placed (therein) a light of Splendor (= the sun*)?” The sun is not placed among (“therein”) the 7 firmaments.

A never proved claim pretended to be a proved fact - Muslims and Islam often use this technique. In this case it is even worse, as the claimed "proof" is proved wrong.

050 78/16: “And (do not Allah produce) gardens of luxurious growth?” See 11/7a, 78/6 and 78/15 above.

A never proved claim pretended to be a proved fact - Muslims and Islam often use this technique.

051 79/27b: "Are ye more difficult to create or the heaven (above)? (Allah hath constructed it)". Muhammad's standard trick when debating: Allah has created heaven - not even trying to prove it, he just behaves like it is a fact. And then he argues from that never proved platform - like so very often in the Quran. Just keep your eyes open when you read the Quran, and you will find lots of such cases of invalid logic and argumentations.

052 79/37: "- - - such as had transgressed all bonds". One of Muhammad's many distaste - and stronger - inducing names for non-Muslims. Also notice that when Muhammad is telling about biblical stories, he often use this or similar vague expressions - he often clearly does not know what happened - where the Bible tells exactly. Which of these ways of telling a story normally makes best literature?

Sub-total Chapter 14 = 52 + 626 = 678.

>>> Go to Next Chapter

>>> Go to Previous Chapter

This work was upload with assistance of M. A. Khan, editor of and the author of "Islamic Jihad: A Legacy of Forced Conversion, Imperialism, and Slavery".