Muhammad in the Quran, Vol. 1: Chapter 19


Also see Chapter 16 and 58

100+ samples further down.

(It is very unlikely that we have seen all points + there f.x. are many bluffs - as the Quran and all its wrong facts, etc. is from no god, it is clear that in many cases Muhammad used bluffs, as he either did/could not know if what he said was true or not, or he knew it was not or likely was not true, but he claimed so all the same. In the cases where he knew his claim or word was not true, it of course were direct lies, but below we with a few clear exceptions have listed only the points where it is clear he knew or had to know what he said was untrue. The cases where he bluffed or where it is unclear if he bluffed or directly lied, you may add to the list yourself. Remember here that also bluffs are a kind of lie - to pretend that something you do not know if it is true or not, is reality or truth.)

Some Muslims will murder anybody informing about Muhammad's lies in the Quran (and we have received death warnings). To murder may frighten and change the balance of power, so that the murderers win - but it does not change the truth.

But then Islam and Muslims are not interested in checking what is the truth. The truth they are sure they already know - not because that anything is proved, but because their fathers and Mullahs and imams, etc. tell and tell and tell that the Quran is the truth whether its claims are right or wrong. Taqlid simply.

####### That Muhammad lies even in the Quran, is most revealing for the reliability for both him, the Quran, and Islam. And one more point: There are some 100 points in the list below. ####Even one had been enough to prove that Muhammad's words in the Quran are not reliable. When he obviously lies about some things, how much more does he lie about?

This chapter you also find as an extra chapter in our Book E about the Quran and some others + in our Booklet 2, as it is a most essential and revealing topic, and a topic most relevant also for the reliability of the Quran and of Islam, not to mention for the never proved claims about Allah and about Islam being a real religion.

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

Two essential facts:

1. If there are errors or contradictions, etc. in the Quran, the book is not from a god, in spite of what Muhammad/the Quran and Islam claims without any proof. No omniscient god makes errors, etc., and definitely not "en gross" like in the Quran. This is why Muslims cannot admit any mistake, etc. in the book, no matter how many or how hopeless “explanations” they have to use – no omniscient god makes mistakes, which means that if there are mistakes, etc. in the Quran, this prove that the book is not from a god, and thus that Islam is a made up and Pagan superstition, and not a real religion.

2. The entire Islam is built only – only – on the words of Muhammad. Islam has not one single valid proof for even one single central point in the religion. If Muhammad was not 100% reliable, truthful, and honest in each and every detail, the Quran at best is unreliable, and at worst a made up tale – propaganda for a dictator who wanted power and 100% obedience – and women (he had at least 36 – the 11-12 Islam talks about, only were his long time wives). This is why Islam has transformed Muhammad from a brutal robber baron and later warlord using, advising, and even promoting the use of dishonesty in words (al-Taqiyya (the lawful lie), Kitman (the lawful half-truth), Hilah (the lawful pretending/circumventing), deceit (“war is deceit” – and “everything” is war), betrayal (f.x. the murder of the peace delegation from Khaybar), and disuse/breaking of words/promises/oaths (2/225, 3/54, 5/89, 16/91, 66/2), and deeds (stealing/looting, extortion, suppression/apartheid, slave taking, terror) – transformed him into something like a saint. If Muhammad was not totally honest in everything, Allah likely is a made up god. But even the Quran proves he was far from totally reliable or honest.

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

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

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

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

#######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 hope or claim or bluff or worse, and all the same used as a proved or provable fact. And according to the Quran what is said in the Quran, is said by Allah. Why did Allah(?) need to use such dishonesty?

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

And in addition to this, there are at least the points listed below.

As for honesty the Quran and consequently Islam are a bit special among the big religions of the world. The Quran accepts many kinds of dishonesty in words and deeds.

  • 1. Stealing/looting is very ok at least as long as it can be done in connection to "Jihad" - holy war (which is easy, as nearly every strife can be claimed to be Jihad or a Ghazwa - a "holy battle".) Actually stealing under such conditions is reckoned to be Allah’s payment/reward to you because you are fighting for him and Muhammad/Muslim leaders - 20% or more to Muhammad/Islam, though. There is nowhere in the Quran explained why an omnipotent god needs humans to fight for him, or why he is not able to pay his warriors in other ways than letting the warriors steal - for themselves and for Muhammad/Islam.
  • 2. Extortion. This is a special kind of stealing. Comments like under point 1.

  • 3. Slave taking. This is a very special mind of stealing - stealing a human's body and life and future.
  • 4. Rape. Also this a very special kind of stealing - stealing sex, normally by forcing girl children and women to have sex. Beware that even if the Quran frowns at homosexuality, this is silently accepted some places, and to such a degree that homosexuals there may be named "the 3. sex", and other places they had (have?) "caravan wives" - young boys accompanying caravans giving/selling homo sex. (Lesbianism is little mentioned - Islam is a religion for men.) Male captives/slaves, and especially young boys because of this also may experience rape.
  • The Quran sees no bad morality in any of these points, at least not when committed in connection to a Jihad (holy war). It is fully ok, Allah's reward to his warriors, and "lawful and good" (!!!). Some religion!
  • 5. Deceit. Both Allah and Muhammad accepted the use of and practiced deceit. "War is deceit" to quote Muhammad in Hadiths - and "everything" is war. Also several verses in the Quran tell that Allah was better at deceiving people than people were at deceiving him. And what Allah and Muhammad accepted and practiced and even boasted about, of course was and is morally ok to practice for any Muslim.
  • 6. Betrayal. F.x. Muhammad gave a 30 man strong peace delegation from Khaybar his promise of safe return - - - but found an excuse to murder all of them except one who managed to flee. And when Muhammad could practice and boast of betrayal, of course it was and is ok for any Muslim to practice it.
  • 7. Misuse of oaths. It is very clear that oaths you have made without thinking, means very little. To a large degree the same go for easy oaths you did not mean too strongly or oaths you did not confirm. Even oaths you did mean and did confirm, may be disused or broken if that will give a better result, but you may have to pay expiation afterwards.
  • 8. Similar like for oaths goes for ordinary words and promises, as they are weaker than oaths. Also this kind of dishonesty meets no negative remarks from the Quran. You preferably should honor your oaths, but that is it. The moral light-tower of Islam - Muhammad - used deceit and betrayal and made it very clear that oaths were not too serious, and so did Allah in the Quran, and then of course any Muslim can practice it.

  • 9. Al-Taqiyya - the lawful lie. This is something we only have found in Islam of the big religions (and only in a small pagan one on New Guinea of the small ones): If lying will give a better result than honesty, you may lie. Yes, if it is a question of defending or promoting Islam, it is laudable to do so "if necessary" to succeed.

But oaths also have another side: The humans. How can anyone know when a Muslim is telling the truth and when not, when not even an oath is very serious to break, if he thinks there is a reason for doing so?

And how can a Muslim telling the plain truth strengthen his words in order to be believed, when the opposite part in addition knows about al-Taqiyya (the lawful lie), Kitman (the lawful half-truth), Hilah (the lawful pretending/circumventing), the advices about breaking even oaths if that gives a better result, Muhammad's practicing (and thus permitting all Muslims to do the same) of deceit, etc.?

Just for the record: Al-Taqiyya, Kitman, and Hilah, etc. can be used at least in these cases (for deceit, betrayal, broken oaths, etc. there are given no real limitations if the broken oath, etc. will give a better result. By implication this also goes for ordinary words and promises, as an oath is something stronger than a normal word or promise):

  • 1. To save your or others' health or life.
  • 2. To get out of a tight spot or a dangerous problem.
  • 3. To make peace in a family.
  • 4. When it will give a better result than honesty or honoring one’s oath.
  • 5. To cheat women (should be remembered by girls with Muslim boyfriends wanting sex - or wanting a marriage to get residence or work permit in a rich country (we have personally seen such cases)).
  • 6. To deceive opponents/enemies.
  • 7. To betray enemies.
  • 8. To secure one’s money (very clear from Hadiths).
  • 9. To defend Islam. (Advised used if necessary to succeed.)
  • 10. To promote Islam. (Advised used if necessary to succeed.)

Deceit, betrayal, and broken words/promises/oaths is ok if they give a better result, but for strong oaths you in some cases should pay expiation afterwards.

But al-Taqiyya, etc. is a double-edged sword: In the short run you may cheat and deceive some ones – actually also in the long run if the opposite part does not know about this side of Muslims and of Islam, or if he/she is naïve. But in the long run: No-one can quite trust a Muslim/Muslims/Islam in serious questions.

The basis for lawful "normal" dishonesty you find among other places in 3/54, 4/142, 8/30, 10/21, 13/42, 27/50, and 86/16 - what was ok for Allah or Muhammad to do, also is morally ok for all Muslims as long as it is not directly prohibited. The basis for the use of deceit and betrayal you find in Muhammad's words in Hadiths that "war is deceit/war is betrayal" - and "everything" is war - and in all the remarks in the Quran and in Hadiths that you shall fight with any weapon. And finally the basis for lawful breaking of words/promises/oaths you find f.x. in 2/225, 5/89, 16/91, and 66/2.

As for Allah forgiving: Also see 2/187d.

Also see 2/26h, 2/224e-f, 2/225a, 3/54b, 3/76e, 5/79, 13/42a, 16/91, 27/50, 66/2.

  1. Kitman - the lawful half-truth. Comments similar to point 9.
  2. Hilah - the lawful pretending/circumventing. Comments similar to point 9.
  3. Taqlid. To uncritically believe because your father and surroundings say that this and this must be the truth, because our fathers told their fathers said so, and then it must be true. And because of this also refuse to accept even proved facts - trying to overlook them or deny them or "explain" them away - it they do not fit what you want to believe. There are few religions using more taqlid than Islam, partly because the Quran is so full of errors, wrong facts.etc., and partly because Islam claims the Quran is from a god, and thus cannot contain wrong facts or errors, and thus that if one admits such things, one at the same time admits that the book is not from the god, and thus that the religion is not from a god.

For some reason or other, Muslims seldom claim that "Islam is the Religion of Honesty".


#####What is the real value - and what is the real truth - of a religion which has to rely on dishonesty? And how much more in such a religion and its claims and "arguments" are lies? Not to mention: Is there any reliability left concerning that religion?

The Quran likes to claim that the reason for differences between the Bible and the Quran, is that the Bible is falsified. But both science and Islam thoroughly have proved that this never documented lose claim also is not true: Among some 45ooo relevant manuscripts or fragments, they have found not one proved falsification. Neither has Islam been able to explain how tens of thousands of papers spread on 3 continents could have been identically falsified, and falsified in ways modern science are unable to find traces from. (This part simply is one more of Muhammad's lies in the Quran - in this case the only way he had to save his new religion and his own position at the top of it.))

The next life – if it exists – is a far too serious topic to cheat people about. And if you have to cheat or “al-Taqiyya” or lie – or use pressure or threats - to attract people to your religion, or to make its members stay inside, it is high time to stop up and start thinking why you have to lie or cheat or use pressure. In such cases the chances are high for that something is seriously wrong and the religion not true. A true religion can afford to be honest, so if you have to cheat or make lies or use pressure, that indicates that something is wrong to use an understatement.

#######If your religion cannot afford total honesty, it is a clear indication for that it is not a true religion. And this alone is nearly a proof for that you are heading a wrong way – if there is a next life. (If not, the way you are heading does not matter – except as a cheap way to a good earthly life for your religious leaders.)

And there is a final, nearly as serious fact: If the persons writing – or like “The Message of the Quran” 2008, revising it – such literature are intelligent and educated ones (and they clearly are), #######there is no way they do not themselves see that they are manipulating the truth. They are doing this in a cold and psychologically well planned way – efficient to lure and to cheat the naïve and the little educated ones, and the ones who on beforehand want to believe, buy methods easily recognizable for persons trained in critical thinking. Why do they have to use such methods? - ######and what is a religion(?) needing such methods worth?

Note how often the word "the Truth" and similar are used in the Quran, mostly as a claim for the claimed high value and quality of the texts. In normal life the ones needing to tell so often and strongly that they are speaking the truth, are the ones not telling the truth and having no way of proving their tales - natural if they are made up. Simply the cheat and the deceiver. We also quote the infamous "Minister of Propaganda" in Nazi-Germany: Joseph Goebbels: "Tell a lie often enough, and people starts believing it". (The word also is used in the Bible, but far from so often, and "not spoken with such big letters".

######That the Quran tells - directly or indirectly, but clearly - that the texts in the Quran are clear, explained by Allah, and to be understood literally, you find f.x. these places: 3/7b, 3/138a, 6/114ca, 11/1b, 15/1b, 17/12h, 18/1d-e, 18/2a, 19/97b, 20/113b+c, 24/34, 24/54j, 26/2a, 27/1b-d, 28/2, 36/69e, 37/117c, 39/28b, 41/3da, 43/2a, 43/3c, 43/29b, 44/2b-c, 44/13d, 44/58b, 54/17a, 54/22b, 54/32a+b, 54/40a, 65/11f, and 75/19 Worth remembering each time a Muslim or Islam tries to "explain" away errors, etc. by claiming the text means something different from what it says. In such cases either the Muslim/Islam lies when he/she claims the text means something different from what it says (the claim often is that it is a parable or something), or he/she tells that the Quran lies when it says that the book uses clear texts where nothing else is indicated.

The listed points are all collected here under 3/7b and 44/58b.

Or perhaps Allah is so clumsy and helpless when he explains things, that he needs help from humans to explain what "he really means"? (Nonsense to say the least about such claims lying under such "explanations".)



##### 7/40d: In connection to 7/40c just above, Muhammad Asad ("The Message of the Quran") has an interesting piece of disinformation, showing why we have to be so careful when using Islamic sources. We quote from A7/32: "One should remember that the Gospels were originally composed in Aramaic, the language of Palestine at the time of Jesus, and that those Aramaic texts are now lost. It is more than probable that, owing to the customary absence of vowels (like in Arab at the time of Muhammad*) signs in Aramaic writing, the Greek translators misunderstood the consonant spelling g-m-l - - - and took it to mean 'a camel' (and not a thick rope*)".


########### A LIE, NOT MISTAKE.


############This simply is an al-Taqiyya - a lawful lie - made by Mr. Asad and endorsed by the scholars revising the book, by Al-Azhar Al Sharif Islamic Research Academy (part of Al-Azhar Islamic University in Cairo - one of the 2 - 3 foremost Islamic universities in the world, if not the foremost), by "Svenska Islamiska Akademien" ("the Swedish Islamic Academy"), and "The Book Foundation".

Al-Taqiyya and similar rules for lawful dishonesty is a powerful tool when addressing the uneducated and the naive. But it backfires most strongly, and produces distaste and disrespect - and suspicion concerning other claims - when discovered. Of the big religions only Islam has these kinds of lawful dishonesty - and how much is true and how much is not, in the tales and the augmentation of a religion relying partly on dishonesty and on dishonest arguments?

And this is from the religion which freely and against strong circumstantial and empirical proofs claim that the bad Jews and Christians have falsified the Bible!

Islam "the Religion of Truth"`? - or of honesty?


001 2/75c: "- - - (the Jews and Christians*) perverted it (the Quran - Muhammad claimed they had received it from their god, but he claimed they had then perverted into the Bible*) after they understood it". This is what Muhammad claimed about the Bible - to claim the Bible was falsified, simply a copy of "the Mother of the Book" (= similar to the Quran) falsified to become the Bible. This was his only way out if he wanted to save his religion and thus his platform of power; Self-centered. Selfish?

At this time it is highly likely Muhammad knew the Jewish scriptures well enough to know this was a lie. And if not, this at least was a lie by omission, as he never later - when he knew even more about those scriptures, and saw that the legends, etc. he had taken his tales from, were not really from the Bible - corrected his claim, but instead continued to use it.

002 2/79e: "- - - write the Book (here the Bible) with their own hands - - -". This claim about falsification is contradicted by the Bible itself, assisted by science - the texts are the same as in the original scriptures (with exception for divergences normal for hand copied old scriptures). Also see 67/9c below - a strong one. But of course it is ok for Islam to prove - prove - the Bible wrong and falsified and the Quran right. But as we say: Prove, not just loose claims and as loose and invalid words like the Quran always use instead of proofs. Islam has till now produced a lot of claims about falsification of the Bible, but not one valid proof (and guess if they had told about it, if even one had existed!!)

At this time (622 - 624 AD) it is highly likely Muhammad knew the Jewish scriptures well enough to know this was a lie. And if not this at least was a lie by omission, as he never later - when he knew even more about those scriptures - corrected his claim, but instead continued to use it.

(What happened, was that he used texts he believed were from the Bible, but which really were legends, fairy tales, etc. When he later discovered the mistakes, he either had to admit that he had used made up tales, or claim that his tales were right and the Bible falsified. He did choose the latter - actually the only way to save his new religion and platform of power.)

*003 2/89b: “- - - (a Book (the Quran*)) confirming what is with them (Jews and Christians*) (the Torah and the Bible) - - -”, which means that the Quran claims to confirm the Torah and other holy Jewish scriptures and the rest of the Bible. But too many fundamental principles and thoughts and texts are different - the Quran is no confirmation of neither the Torah, etc., nor of the Bible, not to mention of the New Testament (NT) on which the Christian religion is built. F.x. “You shall not kill” vs. “You shall not kill without a good reason”, the value of and finding again “the lost sheep”, vs. “You shall not mourn the wrongdoers who end in Hell”, “Love your enemy” vs. “Kill the enemy wherever you find him”, and “Love your enemy” vs. incitement to and orders for war and hate and discrimination of “infidels”, just to mention some of the deep differences. Not to mention “my empire is not of this world” and "give onto God what belongs to God, and onto the Emperor what belongs to the Emperor" - the last meaning money (f.x. Matt.22/21) - (translated from Swedish), compared to: Fight for Allah and Muhammad till all non-Muslims "are utterly suppressed and pay extra tax - jizya - with willing submission". The same god? - you bet! Also see the chapter in "1000+ Mistakes in the Quran" about this and about if Yahweh and Allah are the same god.

In addition there are four more points telling that the Bible is not related to the Quran (even if the Quran has taken much stuff from the Bible (even though often only made up stuff from legends and fairy tales just inspired from the Bible):

  1. The style and composition are very different. For the Bible to be a falsified version of the Quran or the claimed "mother book" in Heaven, it could not only have been falsified - it had to be totally re-written.
  2. The Bible contains some 4 times as much stuff as the Quran. Thus the Bible thus cannot just be a falsification of the Quran, but has in original much stuff the Quran do not touch - a totally different book, not a falsified copy.
  3. The Bible has lots and lots of prophesies, the Quran hardly any real one (even the one about Jesus telling that a prophet named Ahmad = another name for Muhammad (61/6, 7/157 (no name) - but ONLY claimed in the Quran - is to be expected, is of the typically helpless kind you get from sly brains with too little knowledge (here overdone by using an unmistakable name, which no Jewish prophet ever did when foretelling distant future*)). Even more: Many of the prophesies in the Bible were fulfilled, and this after the stories were written down - the falsifiers had to be good prophets themselves?. (Especially points 1 and 3 are heavyweights here.)
  4. In the entire two books only one single sentence - 6 words (Psalm 37/29) - is the same in both books. This is not a falsification, but a totally new book. But which one is the new book? - the Bible or the Quran?
At this time it is highly likely Muhammad knew the Jewish scriptures well enough to know this was a lie. And if not, this at least was a lie by omission, as he never later - when he knew even more about those scriptures - corrected his claim, but instead continued to use it.

Also see 2/89c and 2/89d below.

004 2/89d: "- - - that which they (Jews, Christians*) (should) have recognized - - -". This is contradicted by the fact that the texts of the Bible are so fundamentally different from in the Quran, that it only is possible to recognize very superficial likenesses, and only a few such ones. Also see 67/9c below - a strong one. But of course it is ok for Islam to prove - prove - the Bible wrong and the Quran right. But as we say: Prove, not just loose claims and as loose and invalid words, like the Quran always use instead of proofs - but often claiming they are proofs. ("A proof is one or more proved facts which can give only one conclusion". Exactly not one of the "signs" (Quran-speak for "proof") or "proofs" about/for Allah or the religion - or for Muhammad's connection to a god - in the Quran satisfy this rule.

  1. "Strong claims need strong proofs.
  2. "A claim without a proof may be dismissed without a proof".
  3. "Claims are cheap, but only proofs are proofs".
  4. "The use of invalid proofs normally proves that something is fishy".
  5. "The cheat or deceiver naturally must rely on claims pretending to be facts or proofs".
  6. "A made up "proof" makes the man very suspect".
  7. "A strong belief is not a proof - not necessarily even a truth"
  8. .
  9. "Wrong claims and invalid "proofs" are working tools of the cheat".
  10. "A student with correct facts gets a more correct answer than 20 professors with wrong facts". (Invalid, "signs", claims, "proofs", etc. of course are wrong facts.)
  11. And we may add from Peer Gynt in his original language: "Naar utgangspunktet er som galest, blir resultatet tidt originalest" - freely translated: "When you conclude from wrong claims/wrong facts/invalid "proofs"/etc., you get wrong conclusions".
At this time it is highly likely Muhammad knew the Jewish scriptures well enough to know this was a lie. And if not, this at least was a lie by omission, as he never later - when he knew even more about those scriptures - corrected his claim, but instead continued to use it.

005 2/91g: “- - - confirming what is with them (the Torah, etc., (= OT*) and the Bible*)”. The Quran is no confirmation of neither the Torah nor the Bible - see 2/89b above + 2/139a-c and 3/3e+f below. The fundamentals of the religions - and the gods - are too different.

At this time it is highly likely Muhammad knew the Jewish scriptures well enough to know this was a lie. And if not, this at least was a lie by omission, as he never later - when he knew even more about those scriptures - corrected his claim, but instead continued to use it.

006 2/97g: “- - - a confirmation of what went before (Torah + Bible*)”. 100% contradicted by the Bible by means of the fact that the fundamental texts in those two books - the Bible and the Quran - which are so totally different, that one simply is not a confirmation of the other (on the contrary actually - the proved not falsified Bible and also on some points proved correct there, shows that something is seriously wrong in the Quran. (Remember here that both science and even stronger Islam have strongly proved that the Bible is not falsified (by being unable to find one single proved falsification among some 45ooo relevant old manuscripts and fragments, and for OT also f.x. the combination Jesus' acceptance of the OT as ok + the Qumran scrolls proving out OT is the same one)).

<6> At this time it is highly likely Muhammad knew the Jewish scriptures well enough to know this was a lie. And if not this at least was a lie by omission, as he never later - when he knew even more about those scriptures - corrected his claim, but instead continued to use it.

007 2/101f: “(Muhammad was*) confirming what (the Bible, etc.*) was with them (the Jews and the Christians*)”. Wrong. See 2/89b above and 2/139a+b and 3/3e+f below.

At this time (622-624 AD) it is highly likely Muhammad knew the Jewish scriptures well enough to know this was a lie. And if not, it at least was a lie by omission, as he never later - when he knew even more about those scriptures - corrected his claim, but instead continued to use it.

008 2/144j: "The people of the Book (Jews, Christians, Sabeans*) know well that that (the change of the qiblah*) is the truth from their Lord". Wrong. Their Lord is Yahweh, and Yahweh did not order this (well, except if he wanted to keep Muslims away from his followers).

Worse: This surah is from 622-624 AD in Medina. By the time (after 16 months in Yathrib/Medina = likely late in 625 AD) he changed the qiblah (direction of praying) from direction Jerusalem to direction Mecca,

Muhammad knew that neither Jews nor the few Christians there believed there was much truth in his preaching, or that it derived from a god. And definitely he knew the Jews and the few Christians neither knew nor believed the change of Muhammad's qiblah was ordered by their god, Yahweh. This is one of the too many points in the Quran where Muhammad knew he was lying.

009 2/146f: “- - - conceal the truth (the teachings of the Quran*) which they (Jews, Christians*) themselves know.” One more claim about falsified Bible - and the added claim that the ones believing in the Bible, know it is falsified.

You have to know very little about people and especially about religious people, to be able to believe that someone is able to believe in a religion he/she knows is falsified - Muhammad was intelligent and he knew and understood people - this simply is one of the places in the Quran where he knew he was lying

(well, if this was said shortly after he came to Yatrib/Medina, he may not have known for sure. But he did not stay very long in Yatrib before he knew, and he never corrected this claim (on the contrary), and thus this at least became a willful lie by omission.)

There also are so many and so fundamental differences between the Quran and the Bible – especially the NT – that the only thing which is possible to know from the texts of the Quran, is that something is very wrong, also in Islamic claims like this (as normal from Islam; a not proved claim).

##010 3/3j: “- - - the Book (the Quran*), confirming what went before it (the Torah and the Bible*) - - -”. There are so many fundamental differences between the Quran and the Torah/Bible (especially NT), that the Quran definitely is no confirmation of any of the two others (see 2/89). The Quran and Islam tell that it is because those books are falsified, but for 1400 years no Muslim has ever offered proofs for this - only statements - and today it is proved by science and against their will and wish and intentions even more strongly by Islam (by being unable to find even one provable falsification) that those statements are wrong. If there had existed any proof for falsification, Islam had screamed about it at once - but the only thing they serve, are claims. Also see 2/130 and 3/3e above.

At this time it is highly likely Muhammad knew the Jewish scriptures well enough to know this was a lie. And if not, this at least was a lie by omission, as he never later - when he knew even more about those scriptures - corrected his claim, but instead continued to use it.

##011 3/3k: “- - - the Book (the Quran*), confirming what went before it (the Torah and the Bible*) - - -”. See 3/3j just above. In addition: (A3/3) here comments that it is not confirming the Bible as we know it today, but like it was originally. We quote: "- - - the fact - - - that in the course of the millennia the Bible has been subject to considerable and often arbitrary alterations - - -". To say the least of it:

This is distasteful. #########Top Muslim scholars know that science long since has proved this claim is not true - it is a well known fact. They also know that Islam has proved the same even more strongly by not finding one single falsification among all those tens of thousands of old papers - and by not even being able to explain how the identical falsifications in very many points in each of may be hundreds of thousands of relevant manuscripts (some 45ooo have survived till today) spread over thousands of kilometers and many lands and cultures on 3 continents, and many sects - and 2 religions - could be done - and how to make f.x. Jews and Christians and different sects make identical falsifications.

The ones of them who know something about human nature, also know that to make bishops falsify the Bible (like Muslims claim - as normal for Muslims without documentation - happened in Nicaea) is exactly as easy as making imams or ayatollahs falsify the Quran, and for just the same reason: Strong religious belief simply does not work that way (this in addition to that the agenda for that council is well known, and changes of Biblical texts were not even mentioned). But all the same they write thing like this!

All the same he calls f.x. "arbitrary alterations" a fact.

Al-Taqiyya (lawful lie) of the most obvious kind.

But then they have no choice if they want to save the religion. And to save the religion is more essential than to check if it is a true or a made up one.

But if there is a next life, the consequences in believing in an invalid or made up religion is so severe, that the most essential and basic question should be just this: 'Is the religion a true one?' instead of using al-Taqiyyas (lawful lies) as argument for that "what our forefathers believed in must be true" and for saving the forefathers' old and never documented belies, only built on an apocryphal book dictated by a somewhat "special" man.


012 3/7e: “He (Allah*) Who has sent down to thee the Book (the Quran*): in it are verses basic or fundamental (of established meaning) (= to be read literally*); they (the verses to be read literally*) are the foundation of the Book (the Quran*): others are allegorical (there are a number of allegorical or similar verses in the Quran - they either are easy to see are allegorical, or the meaning is explained, or both*). ############But those in whose hearts is perversity (,*) follow the part thereof that is allegorical, seeking disorder, for its hidden meaning (= only bad persons seek the hidden meanings - also from the allegories*), but no one knows the hidden meanings except Allah (= the possibly hidden meanings are not for humans*)”.

In clear text: The Quran is to be read literary if nothing else is said or indicated - hidden meanings only are for Allah, and trying to find hidden meanings are done by perverts. This is very essential for Muslims to remember when they are tempted to explain away mistakes and blunders as allegories with hidden meanings ever so often. There is no hidden meaning unless it is indicated this verse says, and only the bad humans looks for such hidden meanings.

The Quran and Islam for one thing claim that the clear and easy language is a proof for that the book is made by a god, and for another that the perfect language is a proof for the existence of Allah (no such proofs exist, so they try to find some). And not least that the book and its perfect language is to be understood literally if nothing else is indicated - that the language is so "clear and easy" that it only can be from a god, and that only those "in whose hearts are perversity" go looking for hidden meanings - hidden meanings "it only is for Allah to understand".

On this background: What does the mistakes, etc. and the unclear language prove?

And what does the many claims from today's Islam and Muslims tell when they try to explain away wrong facts and other errors, contradictions, etc. by claiming it is not mistakes, but hidden meanings - allegories or something? Remember that here there only are two possibilities: Either Islam and the Muslims are lying when they claim hidden meanings, or Muhammad is lying in the Quran when the Quran tells the texts in the book are plain and literal where nothing else is clearly indicated, and that search for and use of hidden meanings - meanings on top of all only are for Allah to understand if they exists - only are for "those in whose heart is perversity"?


013 3/19a: "- - - nor did the People of the Book (mainly Jews and Christians*) dissent therefrom (Islam*) - - -." To say this is not true, must be the understatement of the year -

Islam has always met strong disbelief from both Jews and Christians, MUCH to the chagrin of Muhammad. This is one of the places in the Quran where it at least is clear he knew he was lying when he told this

- he was too intelligent not to know what Jews and Christians generally meant about his new religion. By now (625 AD) he also knew plenty enough of the old Jewish scriptures/the Bible to know that they dissented much from his own tales and preaching. He knew he was bluffing/lying.

014 3/75e: “But they (Jews and Christians*) tell a lie against Allah (= they have falsified the Bible*) - - -”. It is difficult to tell something is a lie, as long as nobody knows what the truth about Allah is - or if he even exists. There are so many mistakes, etc. in the Quran that the book is totally unreliable as a proof, and the Quran is the only "real" source for the claims about Allah and about his possible existence. More to the point: Both science and Islam have proved very strongly that the Bible is not falsified. Neither of them has been able to document even one single falsification - mistakes yes, falsifications no.

At this time - 625 AD - Muhammad knew enough about the Bible to know that much of what he told, was not from there. But he used this lie to explain away the differences between what he had claimed and still claimed the Bible said, and what that book really said, because it was the only way he could save his new religion (and his own position of power). At this time he knew it was a lie.

And in any case it is a lie by omission, because also later - when he had learnt even more about the Bible - he never corrected this claim, but instead continued to use it.

Also remember that the quoted claim is wrong. Both science and Islam have thoroughly proved that the Bible is not falsified. There are some mistakes - though FAR fewer than in the Quran - but not one proved falsification.

###015 3/75g: “But they (Jews and Christians*) tell a lie against Allah (= they have falsified the Bible*), and well they know it.” Wrong. ######It is a psychological impossibility to believe in a god or a "holy" book if you know it is a falsification. But the claim is good propaganda for leaders of people unable or unwilling to think things, words, and slogans over.

Here - and especially in the words "- - - and well they (Jews and Christians*) know it" Muhammad knew he was telling a lie.

See 3/78f below.

016 3/78f: "- - - and well they (Jews and Christians*) know it (that the Bible is falsified*)!" This is propaganda - and propaganda only fit for non-thinking and/or non-educated persons. It is psychologically impossible to believe in a god and a holy book you know are fakes. And very many of the Jews proved with the loss of their lives, that they really believed in their scriptures.

This surah is from 625 AD. At this time Muhammad knew that at least the great majority - perhaps all - of the Jews and the few Christians in and around Yatrib/Medina believed in their old books and not in his tales. He may still to a large or small degree believe he had a contact with a god (if he had a mental decease - f.x. TLE (Temporal Lobe Epilepsy) this is fully possible), but he knew the Jews and the Christians did not believe him. He thus knew that they did not "know the Bible is falsified" - one does not believe in something one knows is falsified.

Muhammad here thus used a lie - propaganda often is lies. And this late Muhammad knew enough about the Bible, etc. and knew that his claim was a lie.

#####017 3/81j: "- - - then comes to you a Messenger (Muhammad*), confirming what is with you (the Bible*) - - -". Wrong. There are so many fundamental and basic points of teachings, thoughts, ethics and moral rules which are so deeply different in the two books, that the Quran is no confirmation of the Bible. And we remind you that science - and Islam - long since has proved that the Quran's never documented claim that the Bible is falsified, is wrong. Actually it is one of those claims Muhammad had to know he had taken out of thin air #####and thus knew he was lying (if he was not mentally ill - TLE f.x. (Temporal Lobe Epilepsy)), as by now (in 625 AD) knew enough about the Jewish scriptures/the Bible to know that he was not confirming those - and remember: Both science and Islam have clearly proved that Muhammad's never proved claim that the Bible was falsified, is not true). But it was his only possible "explanation" if he was to save his religion and his own position as a claimed prophet and the leader for his religion.

This was in 625 AD. By then Muhammad definitely knew the old scriptures well enough to know he was lying when he claimed he was confirming them. They were too different, and too deeply different - often even contradicting.

###018 3/145b: “Nor can a soul die except by Allah’s leave, the term being fixed as by writing”. Wage war - you die when your term comes and not before, no matter what you are doing. The for Muhammad most essential side of predestination? It is easy by means of statistics to show the claim is wrong, but right or wrong does not matter much in cases of blind belief.

But one thing is clear: Any man as intelligent as Muhammad did know this was a lie.

####019 3/154e: “Even if you had remained in your homes, those for whom death was decreed would certainly have gone forth to the place of their death (anyhow*).”

This is the "manifest" of predestination. And: This also is one of the points in the Quran where Muhammad knew he was lying.

It is so obviously wrong, that an intelligent man like him knew this was not true. But he was a clever manipulator (“is it not more worth that I live among you, and spend the booty on the people not sure in their belief to make them stay in Islam?” f.x.) and he understood people. Lies like this worked because his followers were primitive and in addition wanted to believe. And for primitive, uneducated souls really believing mish-mash like this (it is easy to prove by statistics that it is untrue, if one are un-intelligent enough not to see at once that it is a lie), it was a mighty incitement – fighting in battles was not dangerous, because Allah had decided when you were to die, and at that time you would die whether you were in a battle or sleeping in your bed. It is worth noticing that even today this is the official point of view of Islam. To quote footnote 3/119 to this surah in “The Message of the Quran” (translated from the Swedish 2006 edition - not found in the English 2008 edition):

“(The) incorrect, heathen belief that humans by acting in special ways can avoid death (even for a time*)”.


Today it like said is easy to prove by statistics that it is very wrong - but Muhammad did not know about statistics (and a god had not even needed statistics to know it was stupidity). On the other hand this claim is so contra all logic, that this like said is one of the points where Muhammad knew he was lying - he was too intelligent to believe in this. Actually Islam today back-pedals very much concerning predestination telling f.x. that the Quran does not mean real predestination (but not explaining what they claim it means). But in some cases the book is so clear, that it is impossible to explain it away.) f.x. many places there are statements that when your time is out, you will die anyhow, and therefore you can as well go to war.

020 3/179g: ""But He (Allah*) chooses of His Messengers (for the purpose) whom He pleases". Muhammad claimed the Jews did not believe in him because he was not a Jew (the real reason was that they knew their own old scriptures, and saw how much in Muhammad's teaching and what he claimed the old god said and wanted, were wrong compared to those scriptures. This is an argument against the Jews, but meant for his followers - the Jews knew he was not speaking the truth here. Worse: The last years - when Muhammad had got more knowledge about at least the OT, he had to see the difference himself, and had to know something was wrong.

But he blamed everything on falsification of the Bible even if he at this time had to know he was lying - his only way out if he wanted to save his religion and his platform of power - - - and his "face".

###021 4/40a: “Allah is never unjust in the last degree - - -.” Wrong. Examples: Suppression of others (non-Muslims) is “lawful and good" and just. The same is stealing and robbing if it is possible to find an excuse to call it jihad (to do things like this in the name of the god makes it extra disgusting) – and the same for rape of any not pregnant female captive or slave. But a top of injustice is:

A raped woman is to be punished strongly for indecency if she cannot produce 4 male witnesses to the actual rape - nearly always impossible. Allah in the Quran at times is extremely unjust.

Another point is that this is one of the places where Muhammad knew he was lying in the Quran.

F.x. stealing/looting was normal practice in Arabia, but there is no ways for the follower of a good and benevolent god to honestly believe that to steal and rob are just deeds. The same goes for hurting or killing others - f.x. in a war or fight not in real self defense. A third sample is taking slaves - impossible to justify morally (but easy economically if you see it only from your own side). F.x. even the old Greeks with their advanced and deep moral thinking, were unable to find a general moral justification for taking slaves. And rape - destroying other human's lives just for your own pleasure! But to Muhammad and the Quran and thus to Islam it is "lawful and good" and to be enjoyed (8/69). A cheap way for Muhammad to get warriors - and a nice life for many a Muslim man - but unjust to a high power - - - and no way for an intelligent man like Muhammad not to know this.

022 4/44b: "- - - they (Jews and Christians*) traffic in error - - -" = they have falsified the Bible - a never documented claim science long since have proved untrue, not to say is a lie - and just to mention it: Islam has proved the same by being unable to find even one proved falsification. Even more: If Muslims demand a proof from you for this, first demand proof for falsification from them, as they put forth the claim and thus have the burden of proof - such proof does not exist, and the best documentation for this is that if it had existed, Islam had put it on the wall of every mosque in gold. But as said it really is proved by science and by Islam (by not finding one single proved falsification among literally tens of thousands of relevant old manuscripts) beyond any reasonable and unreasonable doubt that the Bible is not falsified - some mistakes, yes; falsifications, no.

REMEMBER: THEY CLAIM THE BIBLE IS FALSIFIED, "ERGO" IT IS THEIR JOB TO PROVE THEIR CLAIM, NOT YOUR JOB TO PROVE IT WRONG. According to all rules for evaluation of claims, a claim is automatically wrong or at least suspect, if the claimant is unable to prove his/her words (and Islam is totally unable to prove that the Bible is falsified - they only MUST use that claim, because if the claim is wrong, also Islam is wrong and a made up and in reality pagan religion.)

Also: At this time - 626 AD - Muhammad knew enough about the Bible to know that much of what he told, was not from there. At this time he knew that such claims were lies. But he used them anyhow to explain away the differences between what he had claimed and still claimed the Bible said, and what that book really said, because it was the only way he could save his new religion (and his own position of power). At this time he knew it was a lie.

And in any case it is a lie by omission, because also later - when he had learnt even more about the Bible - he never corrected this claim, but instead continued to use it.

023 4/50a: "How they (Jews and Christians*) invent a lie against Allah". = How they have falsified the Bible! = the only defense Muhammad had against the fact that there were large differences between what he told about the Bible and what really was in the Bible. See 2/75b, 2/89ab, 2/130 and 4/47d above and "Falsifications in the Bible?" in .

Also: At this time - 626 AD - Muhammad knew enough about the Bible to know that much of what he told, was not from there. At this time he knew that such claims were lies. But he used them anyhow to explain away the differences between what he had claimed and still claimed the Bible said, and what that book really said, because it was the only way he could save his new religion (and his own position of power). At this time he knew it was a lie.

And in any case it is a lie by omission, because also later - when he had learnt even more about the Bible - he never corrected this claim, but instead continued to use it.

###024 4/78a: “Wherever you are, death will find you, even if ye are in towers built strong and high!” The predestination once more - Allah has decided when you are to die (Hadiths tell he decides on this - and on whether you are to end in Hell or Paradise - 5 months before you are born). You can as well go to war and do "good" things for Allah – and get rewards and spoils of war from him – because you will die no sooner and no later all the same. No comments should be necessary. Beware that this is the belief also today, even though it is ever so easy to prove by statistics - and also by simply using your brain - that this is wrong. If this is true, free will for man can walk away whistling a tune.

But this claim is so obviously wrong, that a man as intelligent as Muhammad knew he was lying each time he said things like this.

025 4/152aa: "Those who believe in Allah and His Messenger (= Muslims) and make no distinction between any of the Messengers - - -". One more not true claim from Muhammad. Muslimd did and do, and it wsa Muhammad's very clear intention according to the Quran that followers should see and make a distinction between the claimed top messenger and and claimed top prophet Muhammad, and all other claimed messengers and prophets. Simply a lie, as Muhammad by far was too intelligent not to see this distinction. Also b.x. Abraham, Moses, and Jesus were distinguished a bit higher than the average messengers/prophets.

026 4/157j: "- - - those who differ therein (believe that Jesus was crucified*) are full of doubts, with no certain knowledge, but only conjecture to follow - - -". Good propaganda if the listeners were naive enough or eager enough to believe what they wanted to hear - but wrong information (no Christian believer doubt this point, something Muhammad ever so well knew).

Worse: The killing (and resurrection) of Jesus is one of the very most central points in the Christian religion, and there hardly is - or was - any really Christian person who is or was "full of doubts" about this. And even worse:

This was and is such a well known fact, that there is no chance Muhammad did not know it. And also such a well known fact that it tells something about human nature that Muhammad’s listeners were able to believe this claim.

027 5/14g: “- - - but they (Christians*) forgot a good part of the Message (Bible/NT*) that was sent them, so We (the god*) estranged them - - -“. But as the claim that the Christians falsified the Bible is untrue (see 2/75b, 2/130a, 3/24d, 3/77a, 5/13 above, and 5/15e below) - something an omniscient god knew - this should mean that he did not estrange them - the reason for doing so did not exist. Besides no such message is reported anywhere (except in the Quran - a book with heavy reasons for claiming this, a book with hundreds and more of other mistakes, and a book dictated by a man who f.x. believed in al-Taqiyya (the lawful lie), Kitman (the lawful half-truth) and even in deception and in breaking his own oaths (2/225b above and 5/89a+b, 16/91e, and 66/2a below) if that gave a better result).

Also: At this time - 632 AD - Muhammad knew enough about the Bible to know very well that much of what he told, was not from there. At this time he knew that claims like this were lies. But he used them anyhow to explain away the differences between what he had claimed and still claimed the Bible said, and what that book really said, because it was the only way he could save his new religion (and his own position of power). At this time he knew it was a lie.

028 5/46f: “- - - we (Allah*) sent Jesus the son of Mary, confirming the Law (of Moses*)”. According to the Bible Jesus was not sent to change the old laws – that was not his main purpose. All the same he did so – changed some and even nullified some of them, especially many of all the additions made by the times by Jewish religious thinkers and leaders. This was more or less formalized during his last Easter, when the new covenant (f.x. Luke 22/20) was made. (This covenant is never mentioned by Islam, and most Muslims without religious education have not even heard about it. This even though it is one of the main and most central facts in the Christian religion).

#########It is worth remembering that at least in 3/50a the Quran confirms that Jesus changed old Jewish laws (and the same according to f.x. Matt. 15/11-20, Mark 7/14-19, Acts 10/10-16). Especially it is worth remembering this all the many times Muslims claims that Jesus confirmed the old laws of Moses, without mentioning a whisper about that both the Bible and the Quran confirm he changed or terminated a number of them.

##############An extra juicy pint here is that surah 3 - where Muhammad says Jesus came to "make lawful to you (the Jews*) part of what was (before) forbidden to you" (3/50) - is from ca. 625 AD. This means that already then he knew that Jesus changed laws. All the same he here - in 632 AD - he simply tells that Jesus was sent just to confirm the Laws of Moses)". ######A clear and documented case of Muhammad lying in the Quran - he knew better.

029 5/59da: "Do ye ("People of the Book"*) disapprove of us (Muslims*) for no other reason than that we believe in Allah, and (in*) the revelation (the Quran*) that hath come to us and (in*) that (the Bible and the Jewish scriptures*) which came before us - - -?" Indirectly here is said that the Bible and the Jewish scriptures are the same as the Quran (but that they are falsified to become very different from the Quran). Both claims you meet several places in the Quran - and in Hadiths - but both are strongly proved wrong by both science and Islam (who has searched intensively for 1400 years) by the fact that even the oldest scriptures and fragments and quotes science and Islam have found, are identical to modern time texts, except for scattered minor mistakes normal when texts are copied by hand, and by the fact that neither science nor Islam has found one single proved case of such falsification. F.x. the Qumran scrolls - the Biblical ones are from 150 - 50 BC and like today's - - - and today’s OT is thus certified correct by Jesus - a reliable person also according to Islam.

Also: At this time - 632 AD - Muhammad knew enough about the Bible to know very well that much of what he told, was not from there. At this time he knew that claims like this were lies. But he used them anyhow to explain away the differences between what he had claimed and still claimed the Bible said, and what that book really said, because it was the only way he could save his new religion (and his own position of power). At this time he knew it was a lie.

But unproved claims are easy and cheap. Some time ago we f.x. run across a claim on Internet that one could prove that - if we remember correctly - at least 37 points in the Bible were falsified at the Council of Nicaea (325 AD) - Nicaea is a pet claim for Islam when it comes to falsification of especially NT (and Ezra for OT) - but typically the claim was strong, but not one proof given. These claims also are:

  1. Historical nonsense as the agenda for that council is well known, and changes of texts in the Bible/falsifications were not a topic.
  2. Religious nonsense as neither sects nor the Jews were present and could agree to falsifying their copies.
  3. Psychological nonsense - how do you make strongly believing bishops change their holy scriptures? - it is exactly as easy as making ayatollahs change the Quran, and for exactly the same reasons.
  4. More psychological nonsense: How to make tens of thousands of owners of scrolls and scriptures agree to having their cherished and expensive - handwritten books are very expensive - holy books, the basis for their beliefs and religion - falsified?
  5. Even more psychological nonsense: How to do all this without starting tongues wagging? - in/after 325 AD we are 1000 years into the times of written history, and there does not exist even a rumor about such an enormous and fundamental operation anywhere in history.
  6. One more piece of psychological nonsense: How to make people believe in their holy scriptures, if they know are falsified?
  7. Practical nonsense - how to afterwards falsify all the tens of thousands and more copies and references/quotes spread over 3 continents in exactly identical ways, how to be sure ALL existing copies/quotes were falsified, how to falsify the old manuscript so perfectly that no traces - scratching, different handwriting, different size of letters to make the new text fit the space scratched open, different ink - and so that no traces from the operation can be found even by modern science? Etc.
  8. More practical nonsense: The Bible has 4 - 5 as much text as the Quran. How to falsify 4 - 5 times as much text into the old scrolls? (Remember that today it is easy to find the age of the material texts are written on - and mostly also the age of the ink - they had to reuse the old scrolls to have the necessary age of them.)
  9. Even more practical nonsense: In the entire texts of the two books there just is one short sentence - 6 words - (from a verse in the psalms - Psalm 37/29: "- - - the righteous will inherit the land - - -" - words which ever so well may be a coincidence) which is the same. ALL THE OTHER TEXT IS DIFFERENT. Our copy of the Quran is 560 pages. How could the Council of Nicaea agree on and produce 4 times that much text in some weeks, on top of a program tightly packed with other topics to discuss? - committees are notorious for working slowly.


Some Muslims as said claim Ezra falsified OT, but in addition to other facts:


B U T T H E R E E X I S T P L E N T Y O F M A N U S C R I P T S A N D F R A G M E N T S O L D E N O U G H T O P R O V E T H A T O T W A S N O T S I M I L A R T O T H E Q U R A N A T T H A T T I M E !!! I T W A S S I M I L A R T O T H E S C R I P T U R E S O F T O D A Y !!! C F R. F. X. T H E Q U M R A N S C R O L L S.

In addition there is the problem: How in case make Jews and Christians agree on what new texts to use when they falsified (parts of) the Quran into OT??? And how to make ALL Jews spread over large parts of the world accept the new and falsified holy scriptures without any protests - and destroy all the old copies so thoroughly that not one piece of any of them has been found later? This in addition to the claimed falsification of NT and all the impossibilities and improbabilities which have to be "explained" away concerning the claimed falsification of NT.

T H I S I S O N E O F T H E C L A I M S M U H A M M A D M A D E U P.


Islam and its Muslims are very efficient - though often not clever - at making up claims. They - and Muhammad the same - are very strong at demanding proofs from opponents, proving that they reckon proofs to be valuable and of essence. But they are hopeless at producing real and valid proofs themselves - as was Muhammad.


030 5/73f: "- - - verily - - -". It definitely is no proved verity/truth. See 2/2b above. Also: Muhammad may have believed this and that,

BUT HE KNEW IT WAS NO PROVED VERITY. HE THUS KNEW HE WAS LYING EACH TIME HE CLAIMED THAT A BELIEF OR A CLAIM WAS A (PROVED) TRUTH, A VERITY, OR SOMETHING SIMILAR. (It is very clear that no central religious point in the Quran is proved.) When he used words like this, it thus at best was a bluff each and every time - and bluffs are a kind of lie.

031 5/83a: "And when they (Christians*) listen to the revelations received by the Messenger (Muhammad*), thou (Muslims*) wilt see their eyes overflowing with tears - - -". Pure propaganda which was possible for Muhammad to use, as there were few Christians in the area, so that Muhammad's followers could not see it was untrue. Today it is easy for all and every Muslim to see that Christians are not moved by the contents of the Quran, and especially not the ones who really have studied that book.

This surah is from 632 AD, and by then Muhammad knew very well that Christians just did not storm to embrace his new religion - he knew he was lying in the Quran when he said this.

032 5/83f: “- - - they (Christians*) recognized the truth (their religion is claimed by the Quran to be corresponding to the Quran*)” and "- - - their (Christians*) eyes overflowing with tears - - -".. As said before: With that many mistakes in the Quran, the teachings of Muhammad at best are partly the truth. Besides: Claiming that others believe and accept that the teaching is true, is good psychology - - - as long as it is not too easy to find out that the claim is not true. (What most Christians quickly in reality understood, was that something was really wrong with the new religion.)

This surah is from 632 AD. At that time Muhammad knew ever so well that bluffs like this were lies.

Another point: The religion does not mean too much for most Christians of today. All the same you never see their eyes "overflowing with tears" for wanting to accept and believe in the very different religion Islam instead - to equate "the Religion of Love" with the apartheid, war, suppression and acceptance for dishonesty religion Islam. In the old times the religion meant a lot more to the individuals. What do you thing is the possibility for that those strong believers in the religion of f.x. honesty, love, and monogamy, of Yahweh and Christ would "recognize the truth" and "overflow with tears" from acceptance and want of this other very different religion of distaste, hate, suppression, accepted dishonesty, blood, and sex (rape, polygamy, harems)? - and a very different god? Or for that they "recognized" in Christianity the practically antipodal religion Islam?

You are free to think over this yourself.

033 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 stories, 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.

034 6/8c: “They (people*) say: ‘Why is not an angel sent down to him?’ If We (Allah*) did send down an angel, the matter would be settled at once, and no respite would be granted them”. This question – a proof f.x. by means of an angel – arose frequently. Muhammad’s often used “explanation” was this: Allah will not send down an angel until The Last Day (the Day of Doom). That means that if he sends down angles, that day becomes the Last Day (“the matter will be settled at once, and no respite would be granted them”), and in that case the unbelievers would lose their chance to become believers (“- - - no respite would be granted them”.) This “explanation” is nonsense even according to the Quran. That book tells that the angel Gabriel visited Muhammad often, it tells that angels come down to fetch the souls of the dead, it tells that angels come down to fetch your soul when you fall asleep and to return it when you wakes up, it tells that angels surround you to note down your good and bad deeds – not to mention the thousands of angels Allah sends down to do battles together with Muslims time and again. And angels visiting f.x. Abraham, Lot, and Mary.

There was not one single reason why Allah could not use one of the myriads of angles he daily and frequently sends down as a proof for Muhammad.

On the contrary: There were all reasons for Allah to prove himself and his claimed messenger - in stark contradiction to Muhammad's claim, it had given lots of followers. Proofs: 1) Human psychology. 2) The Pharaoh's sorcerers all became Muslims because Moses made a miracle (a story which proves Muhammad knew he was lying when he said miracles would convince no-one. 3) Jesus made miracles and got many followers from this, which Muhammad knew.

A very obvious piece of fast-talk.

Muhammad's knowledge of the sorcerers' reaction to Moses' miracle proves that he knew he was lying when he claimed that the reason why Allah did not prove his existence, was that it would not make anybody believe anyhow. How many other places in the Quran did Muhammad lie? - this even more so that the Quran makes it clear Muhammad believed in the use of dishonesty as a working tool.

035 6/9a: "- - - We (Allah*) should have sent him (the angel*) as a man - - -". Why? A real angel would make quite another impression. But even as a man - why not? If this "man" could prove he was an angel, it would make a huge impression, and there is no way Muhammad did not know this. More explaining away from Muhammad about why he could prove not one single sentence of his claims about connection to a god - or the existence of the god. Worse: ###There is no way Muhammad did not know this was an invalid - and thus dishonest - explaining away. Neither to send an angel, nor to send him in whatever shape the god wanted, would be difficult for an omnipotent god.

To claim Allah had to send an angel in the shape of a man is wrong for any omnipotent god. And could he prove he was an angel, he would make a strong impression all the same. Both of these facts any intelligent person - like Muhammad - knew and knows. Muhammad knew that this point was untrue.

036 6/9b: “If We (Allah*) had made it (the proof*) an angel, We should have sent him as a man, and We (= our proof/angel*) should certainly have caused them confusion in a matter (religion*) which they have already covered with confusion.”

  1. There is no reason for Allah to camouflage an angel like a man. Allah is omnipotent and could send them in any shape he wanted. This argument is invalid.
  2. The arrival of an angel – no matter in what gestalt as long as it was clear it was an angel – might confuse only the most skeptical ones. All the other would become believers.
Any intelligent man understanding people would know all this. Not to mention that any god, however tiny, would be sure to know it. Muhammad knew this was fast-talk – by himself, by a helper (if the Quran was made by a helper like some rumors said), or by the dark forces if they were behind the Quran, or by Allah (if the Quran – or this piece of it – really was made by Allah). Muhammad was too intelligent and knew too much about people – he knew this was a lie – both that an angle had to look like a man, and that no unbeliever would believe if they got real proofs.

##037 6/28c: "But if they (sinners in Hell*) were returned (to a second chance on Earth*), they would certainly relapse to the things they were forbidden - - -".

This is one more of the places in the Quran where Muhammad knew he was lying. There is not one chance that a man as intelligent and with so much knowledge about people as Muhammad, did not know that after really experiencing a place like Hell, each and everybody would do their outmost not to end there again

- and after such a terrifying lesson, most of them would succeed. This even more so as such an experience would make more or less all of them believers, as they had got a solid proof for that the religion was true. It is nearly incredible that intelligent people - not to mention educated modern people of today - are able to believe a claim like this.

038 6/35a: “- - - yet if thou were able to seek a tunnel in the ground or a ladder to the skies and bring them (people – because also Muslims asked for proofs*) a Sign – (what good?)” Yes, the rhetoric question would be: What good would a real proof do? And the as rhetoric – but wrong because of twisted logic and even more twisted psychology – would be: Nothing, because the unbelievers would not believe anyhow. Who but deceivers need to twist logical and psychological facts? The real fact is that some real proofs had given many new followers. Also see 6/7–9 above and 6/35b just below.

Muhammad was too intelligent and knew too much about people not to know that if there had been real proofs, many had become believers. One more place where Muhammad knew he was lying in the Quran.

039 6/90d: "No reward do I ask of you - - -".

This was one of Muhammad’s claims, and then it was good to have the earlier prophets say the same - indicating this was what real prophets said. And Muhammad took nothing? No, only 1/5 of everything stolen or robbed, included slaves - 100% if the victims gave in without fighting - (for comparison: Yahweh once in the Bible (4. Mos. 31/28) demanded 1/500 - Allah via his representative (?) Muhammad demanded 1/5 = 100 times as much! The same god?), tax = 2.5% on average of everything you own (not earn, but own) each and every year (if you are not too poor) and 10% of everything dug out of the earth + plenty of women + total obedience and total power over you. No, Muhammad demanded "nothing" from his followers! (Reality incompatible with at least NT).

Well, not all of what he took was only for himself, but all the same: Simply and plainly a lie.

###040 6/109i: “- - - what will make you (Muslims) realize that (even) if (special) Signs came, they (non-Muslims*) will not believe?” Wrong. If there were real proofs of a god - miracles - at least a good number of people would believe - that is a psychological fact (look f.x. at the Pharaoh’s magicians and at the results of Jesus' miracles). The sentence really is fast-talking to “explain” away why Allah/Muhammad was unable to produce unmistakable proofs for Allah.

Worse: An intelligent man like Muhammad knew this argument is a lie (cfr. f.x. what he told about the pharaoh's sorcerers - Muhammad KNEW this claim was a lie) - and all the same he used it frequently. This simply is one of the places in the Quran where Muhammad knew he was lying.

###041 6/111a: “Even if We (Allah*) did send unto them (non-Muslims*) angels, and the dead did speak unto them, and We gathered together all things before their very eyes, they are not the ones to believe, unless it is Allah’s plan”. This may be understood in two ways – both quite fast talk:

  1. Another and strengthen variety of no. 7/120a and others - with Muhammad lying in the Quran.
  2. Some of Muhammad’s audience questioned the obviously wrong logic and psychology in that clear proofs would not impress anybody, and needed a reason why not – and got the all-encompassing and ultimate answer to all difficult or unanswerable questions: It is Allah’s will - sometimes the fastest of all fast-talk.
This is one of the places in the Quran where Muhammad knew he was lying - produce some real miracles, and at least some will believe, and this even more so in old times with naive, uneducated, superstitious people, not as skeptical towards such things as people nowadays - it was easier to make people believe.

042 6/116d: "- - - they (disbelievers*) do nothing but lie". The irony once more: The only one of the large religions which accepts - even sometimes advices - the use of lies and dishonesty (al-Taqiyya, Kitman, Hilah, deceit, betrayal, broken words/oaths), is accusing others of lying - - - and as normal for the Quran without proofs behind the claim. A lie?

At least it is a lie that they do nothing but lie, something even Muhammad knew. Slander and a lie.

043 6/124b: "We (non-Muslims*) shall not believe until we receive one (proof*) (exactly) like those received by Allah's messengers". Wrong - the only thing they asked for, was a clear proof for Allah and his power, which Muhammad never was able to deliver. Here Muhammad has twisted the truth a little - lawful in Islam (this is a Kitman - a lawful half-truth) - to be able to explain it away and to be able to make his opponents look bad.

Not a proved lie from Muhammad in the Quran, as one or a few can have said so. But a very likely one, especially as the Quran says every leader said the same, which is highly unlikely.)

044 6/148i: "- - - ye (non-Muslims*) do nothing but lie". This is a demonstration of 6/148c above: Loose claim. But this also is a part of some ones - and not only Muslims' - method of debate: Scolding, slander, etc. Just this accusation in the Quran is a bit ironic, though: The only of the reasonably big religions where dishonesty not only is an accepted, but advised part of religious debates, is Islam (but NB: Only if there is a reason for lying, or if it is necessary to win your point - - - but all the same: How reliable is a religion which relies on lies? - al Taqiyya (the lawful lie), Kitman (the lawful half-truth), etc., deceit, and even broken words/promises/oaths.)

Worse: At least the claim that they did nothing but lie, is a lie - and such an obvious one, that Muhammad had to know he was lying here.


NB!! NB!! NB!! NB!! NB!! NB!! NB!! NB!! NB!! NB!! NB!! NB!! NB!! NB!!!


###045 7/120a: After Moses made his miracle “the sorcerers fell down prostate in adoration”, and were convinced that the god of Moses was a strong and real one. This is one of the proofs for that Muhammad knew he was lying when he time and again told his audiences that it would have no effect to perform miracles, because disbelievers would not believe anyhow, and thus explained away the fact that he (and his presumed god) was unable to make miracles. Here he tells just the opposite. Disbelievers - even sorcerers - in Muhammad's own words here became Muslims because of one small miracle in his own story about Moses(!), - a psychologically much more correct tale on just this one point. The same story in 20/69-70.

That Muhammad told this story and even repeated it, also proves that he knew miracles works, and thus that he knew he was lying in the Quran every time he told Allah did not send miracles because it would make nobody believe anyhow.


NB!! NB!! NB!! NB!! NB!! NB!! NB!! NB!! NB!! NB!! NB!! NB!! NB!! NB!!!


###046 7/126b: "- - - Muslims - - -". Wrong. The word was not known and is not found in any inscription or any scripture until some 2000 years later. But like said

this story about the pharaoh's sorcerers is one of the proofs for that Muhammad knew he was lying each time he claimed that miracles would not make anyone believe anyhow, so that because of this Allah made no miracles connected to him (Muhammad).

047 7/146f: “- - - even if they (non-Muslims*) see all the Signs (of Allah*), they will not believe in them”. Wrong: They would - - - if the “signs” of Allah really had been real signs of Allah. F.x. see the pharaoh’s magicians.

This is one more place in the Quran Muhammad knew he was lying - some reliable signs, and a lot of people will believe. A psychological fact. Muhammad was too intelligent and knew too much about people not to know this.

But NB: Only in the case of reliable signs.

#048 7/157e: “- - - the unlettered Prophet (Muhammad*), whom they (Jews and Christians*) find mentioned in their own (Scriptures)”. Muhammad's words -

but Muhammad at least knew that scholars who knew the Bible denied he was mentioned there (and even if it should happen he only bluffed here, he did not correct it when he learnt more about the Bible in Medina - at least a bluff followed by a lie by omission)

- if they had believed he was in the Bible, they had followed him. (There is a claimed story about a Jewish scholar believing in him. This may be true - but what is one or two against the great majority who saw they in case were wrong? - or it may be a made up tale.) You often meet Muslims claiming or stating that Mohammad is foretold in the Bible - as normal for Muslims without documentation. They have to claim this, as it is said here in the Quran, and if there are mistakes in the Quran, the book is not from a god - an omniscient god do not make mistakes - and then Islam is a religion built on a made up "holy" book. We have never been able to find a complete list of where he is said to be mentioned – obviously because the educated Muslims mainly speak about one in OT (5. Mos. 18/15+18) and one in NT (John 14/26), but there are some other "weaker" places, too. The ones below are the ones we have found (more or less copied from "Moses in the Bible?" in "1000+ Mistakes in the Quran" - ).

There is one point here which Muslims never mention: If Muhammad really was mentioned in the Quran, this had been a strong argument for him to use when trying to win over the Jews (and for that case the Christians, but there were not many Christians in the Mecca/Medina area, compared to the number of Jews) to his religion. As far as we can find, he never used it when speaking to Jews. He also seldom used this claim under other circumstances, even though also for his Arab followers such an indication for that he really was a prophet, would have had great value. A very likely reason for that he did not use such a valuable claim, is that he knew or at least suspected that it was not true, and that the Jews with their books easily would see this.

There is another serious point to this Islamic claim: Many of the Islamic scholars know the Bible quite well - this is obvious from the fact that they frequently quote the Bible when there are points there which they like or where they wants to express that the Quran has a better point of view on just this-and-this than the Bible. They thus have to know f.x. how the word "brother" - the main word in this case in 5. Mos. 18/15+18 - in the figurative meaning is used in the Bible. It is used figuratively at least 325 times in that book, and no-one knowing the Bible would get the idea that in any - not one - of all these places Arabs are indicated. It is very clear that practically always in OT it means fellow Jews (there are something like 5 exceptions - one place a king is calling another, friendly king his brother, 3 times it is specified one meant descendants after Esau (the brother of Jacob) and one time Abraham says it to Lot. Well, actually there may be one more exception (1. Mos. 25/18): "And they (the 12 sons of Ishmael*) lived in hostility to all their brothers". If this means they were quarreling between themselves, the meaning is literal. If it means they quarreled with the sons of Isaac, the meaning may be figurative or it may be literal - meaning the closest relatives (this is nearly the last time Ishmael and his descendants are mentioned in the Bible - after all they lived far off - - - and far from Mecca where Muhammad claimed they lived.) All the other times it refers to other Jews. It is not possible to study the Bible/OT and not see this. Also in the Quran the word is used figuratively - more than 30 times. The only time it refers to Jews there, is one case where Muhammad links hypocrites to Jews and claims they are brothers. Also Arabia and Arabs are mentioned in the Bible - some 13 times - and always in neutral words or as enemies, never as friends, not to mention brothers. All the same Islam and its scholars straight-facedly tell their readers and their audiences that "brothers" in 5. Mos. 18/15+18 refer to Arabs and thus to Muhammad. There only are 2 possible explanations for such dishonesty: An al-Taqiyya (a lawful lie) to "explain" Muhammad's perhaps slip of the tongue, or wishful thinking stronger than their intellectual integrity.

Nearly as bad is the Muslim scholars' position concerning the main claim in NT, John 14/26. It f.x. is both physically and biologically impossible that Muhammad could be a helper of Jesus' disciples, as he was born something like 500 years after they were dead. All the same they tell their audiences that John 14/26 is about Muhammad and a proof for that he was foretold and a prophet. (John 14/26 refers to the Holy Spirit which according to the Bible came to and in a way became parts of the disciples some days later at Pentecost.) Also see 7/157d just above.

As it is clear Muhammad is not mentioned neither in OT nor in NT, Muhammad’s claim at best is a bluff, at worst a lie. But also a bluff is a kind of lie.

049 9/51b: “Nothing will happen to us except what Allah has decreed for us - - -”. Predestination: To do battle is not more deadly than sleeping in your bed, as Allah already has decided your hour of death. Naïve and uneducated people and religious fanatics may really believe this - in those cases it is one terrific piece of pep talk for not being afraid of doing battle.

But the claim is so obviously wrong, that there is no chance that an intelligent man like Muhammad did not know it was - and is - a lie.

**050 9/111f: “- - - they fight in His (Allah’s*) cause, and slay and are slain: a promise binding on Him in truth, through the Law, the Gospel, and the Quran - - -”. As for the Gospels: This is not even is wrong - it is nonsense, and can only be made up by someone not knowing the Gospels - - - or is lying. There is nothing like this in the Gospels - this even if Islam pretends the text refers to a Gospel that has disappeared (there are references to the word “sword“, but not as part of war or incitement to war - not to mention the pacifistic picture the total NT give). There is a theoretical possibility for that there existed an older Gospel, but this fairy tale or nightmare is not taken from that one either. Because if it ever existed, we know the contents of it, as three of the present Gospels in case used that one as their main source (the other possibility is that two of those Gospels used the oldest one as their source - in that case there is no reason to believe there ever was older Gospel, but it is to be hoped there was, because that gives an even older written source for the Bible - and makes it even more reliable according to all rules for study of history and for such science. By the way: No serious student or professor of history use the Quran as a source for happenings older than 610 AD - which tells volumes about how they evaluate the reliability of this book presumably sent down by an omniscient god).

But the real reason why it is not the slightest doubt that this is made up, is that the sentence so totally and 180 degrees oppose the very teachings of the NT - and the entire NT. incompatible. Yahweh and Allah the same god? No answer necessary.

Actually this is a serious case: This was in 931 AD. At that time Muhammad knew ever so well that this was said neither in the Laws (of Moses) nor in the Gospels. It is one of those cases where Muhammad knew he was lying in the Quran.

##051 10/47c: “To every people (was sent) a Messenger - - -.” Comment A10/68 (translated from Swedish): "This verse stresses the continuity of religious revelation in mankind's history and the fact (!*) that through the times no community , period or civilization - - - has been left without prophetic guidance - - -". Neither science nor Islam has been able to find the slightest traces from such prophets (except the Jewish, and they talked about Yahweh, not about Allah) older than 610 AD. It simply is a fairy tale - if Islam is not able to prove it is true.

(Actually it is a lie, because Muslim scholars know that except for the Biblical prophets, there are no traces from relevant prophets/"messengers" older than 610 AD.)

######A mathematical fact: If we operate with a normal religious time frame, Adam lived something like 5ooo years before the claimed last prophet, Muhammad. If we say that Hadiths' number 124ooo (= 620 at any time for 5ooo years or 12-15 for 160-200ooo years. No traces from them found. Believe it if you can.) had been correct, and that each of them worked for 25 years, there all the time from Adam till Muhammad should be on average 620 active prophets working for Allah around the world (more than 3 in every country during all those thousands of years). None of them (except the old Jewish ones - really working for Yahweh) left one single trace anywhere on the entire Earth. Even if you reckon the entire age of Homo Sapiens - 160ooo-200ooo years - there in case during all these eons have been 15-20 prophets working all the time. But no trace from them or a religion like Islam, a god like Allah - or a book like the Quran.

Believe it if you are able to. But it is proved by science to be not true - that many prophets HAD to leave at least some traces, but none exists.

052 10/66g: "- - - they (non-Muslims*) do nothing but lie". No comments - except Muhammad knew that even in the Quran he put lies - he f.x. was too intelligent not to know that miracles would give believers. Plus that Islam is the only one of the big religions which to a large degree accepts the use of dishonesty and even deceit and broken words/promises/oaths (2/225, 5/89, 16/91, 66/2 - and the star case 3/54 (if Allah can cheat, cheating is ok - but how much cheating is it then in the Quran? - by Allah or by Muhammad).

Also a bit ironic slander from the only one of the big religions which accepts the use of dishonesty as a working tool. May be worse:

Muhammad knew that at least the claim that they did nothing but lie, was a lie.

*053 10/90c: “I (Ramses II) believe that there is no god except Him Whom the Children of Israel believe in (indicated by Muhammad to be Allah)". One more thing we know about Ramses II (see 10/90), is that he was a polytheist and never a Muslim – and never a Jew. This episode is nowhere mentioned in the Bible. It also is historically wrong.

################This episode(?) told by Muhammad in 614-615 AD also is a very strong proof for that Muhammad knew that miracles or other proofs from a god - like indicated Ramses II understood here - would make people believers, and thus a strong proof for that he knew he lied each time later when he "explained" away requests for proofs from/for Allah with the claim that proofs or miracles would have no effect.

054 10/96-97: “Those (non-Muslims*) against whom the Word of thy Lord (Allah’) hath been verified (the words of Allah = the Quran, have never in any place been verified – there ONLY are the words of Muhammad. Even worse: Muhammad/the Quran use a lot mistaken facts and invalid statements, “signs”, etc. + at least a few lies. No omniscient god would ever do that.*) would not believe, Even if every Sign was brought unto them - - -”. It may be right that they would not believe those signs, if one talks about the signs in the Quran not borrowed from the Bible, because not one of them is logically valid – they are just unproved statements anyone can use about his/her god(s).

But real proofs would have had an effect. And Muhammad was more than intelligent enough to know that, and knew this argument was a lie.

###055 15/14: "Even if We (Allah*) opened out to them a gate from heaven, and they (disbelievers*) were to continue (all day) ascending therein (they would not believe*) - - -". This is one of the places in the Quran where Muhammad explains away the difficult question why he could prove nothing. ######And it is one of the places where he knew the fast-talk was a lie: If there was opened a gate to Heaven, and people knew it led to Heaven, there would have been a run for it, and "seeing is believing",

at least in cases like this: MANY would believe - and Muhammad was too intelligent and knew too much about people not to know this. The same goes for any intelligent person today - they know this would be the result. Even intelligent, brainwashed Muslims know this deep down. A lie is a lie even in the Quran.

056 15/14+15: “- - - They would only say (when experiencing a miracle*): ‘Our eyes have been intoxicated - - -”. Wrong. At least some had come to believe. These two verses are a piece of fast-talk. There is some fast-talking in the Quran - trying to explain away things and facts and ideas and not least questions which are difficult to explain or answer. See the chapter about fast talk in the Quran. And there are even more fast-talk among Muslims today, trying to explain away mistakes, abrogation, changes in Islam around 622, etc., not to mention trying to present Islam as a peaceful religion. Just in this case one tries to explain away questions for proofs for Allah and for Muhammad's connection to a god.

**But the really bad thing about this point is that ###########it is one of the points where Muhammad himself knew he was lying – at least some would believe in Islam if he produced miracles or could in other ways prove his claims. He was too intelligent and knew too much about people not to know this – this even more so as he himself told about heathens becoming Muslims after they had experienced miracles (f.x. the magicians of Pharaoh), and he also had a good example in Jesus who got many believers from making miracles – some refused to believe no matter, but quite a number of others believed after miracles made by Jesus (made also according to the Quran).

057 16/86c: "Indeed ye (non-Muslims*) are liars". Some may be liars, some perhaps not - if they happen to believe in an existing god. But what about Muslims? If an ordinary Muslim tells something from the Quran which is wrong, but which he honestly believes is correct - is he a liar? - what if he knows it is wrong, but uses an al-Taqiyya (a lawful lie)? But what if he is a mullah or imam and should have controlled his information before he says anything? - and what about if he is a scholar? (In Sunni Islam where there is no hierarchy of priests, it is the religious scholars who make up the hierarchies, and who are the really educated and powerful ones within the religious community.

Remember here that al-Taqiyya and its brothers Kitman and Hilah are lawful (and to defend or forward the religion even advised) in Islam. But even if they are lawful, they are lies. Just like Muhammad was a liar - a lawful liar - when he used such ones (f.x. each time he told miracles would make nobody believe anyhow).
And how much is true in a religion permitting (and more) both lies and worse?


NB!! NB!! NB!! NB!! NB!! NB!! NB!! NB!! NB!! NB!! NB!! NB!! NB!! NB!!!


###058 17/59h “And We (Allah*) refrain from sending the Signs only because the men of former generations treated them as false - - -". ##########But there is an interesting remark in Asad’s note and explanation (A 17/71): “His (Muhammad’s*) only miracle was and is the Quran itself”. This is an accepted fact among Muslim scholars and Islamic religious leaders. AND ALL THE SAME THEY CONTINUE AND CONTINUE TO TELL THEIR CONGREGATIONS ABOUT THE (MADE UP) MIRACLES CONNECTED TO MUHAMMAD WHICH THE HADITHS TELL ABOUT – AND NOWHERE IN THE HADITH COLLECTIONS DO YOU FIND A WARNING THAT “THE QURAN PROVES THAT THESE MIRACLES ARE MADE UP LEGENDS". An honest religion? Honest imams? Honest mullahs? Honest professors? (These are among the reasons why it is impossible to rely on Islamic literature – you all the time know you have to check the “facts” before you can use the information (or disinformation or wishful thinking)).


Remember that to make prophesies also is a miracle - to be able to see or know the unknown.

And: Remember this whenever a Muslim will tell you about some of all the miracles they claim Muhammad performed. That he made no miracles at all, also is very clear from the fact that he had to explain away all requests for such ones - if he had made any miracle, he and his followers had informed about it loudly and often.

For the sake of record we quote the here relevant part of M. Asad's comment in full ones more, and now directly from English (on Internet): "In many places (not only here in 17/59*) the Quran stresses the fact that the Prophet Muhammad - - - was not empowered to perform miracles similar to those with which the earlier prophets are said to (and in some cases confirmed in the Quran*) have reinforced (NB: Muhammad claimed it would not reinforce his teaching*) their verbal (also Muhammad's were verbal - only written down afterwards*) messages. His only miracle was and is the Qur'an itself - - -". There has never existed one single Muslim scholar who did not know - and knows today - this. ALL THE SAME THEY HAIL MUHAMMAD'S CLAIMED MIRACLES AS PROOFS FOR HIS GOD AND HIS BEING A PROPHET IN SUCH WAYS THAT THE UNEDUCATED MASSES TO A LARGE DEGREE BELIEVE - YES, ARE SURE - THE MIRACLES IS A REALITY. An honest al-Taqiyya (lawful lie). But if the scholars, imams, ayatollahs lie about this to forward the religion, how much more do they lie about?


NB!! NB!! NB!! NB!! NB!! NB!! NB!! NB!! NB!! NB!! NB!! NB!! NB!! NB!!!


***059 17/107a: “Say: ‘Whether you believe it or not, it is true that those who were given knowledge beforehand (= Christians and Jews mainly*), when it (the Quran*) is recited to them, fall down on their faces in humble prostration”. One word: Nonsense. Or a stronger word: Propaganda.

And what is worse: #####The one who composed this verse knew it was a lie – which also Muhammad knew when he made or recited it.

A few Jews and Christians are said to have converted by 651-656 AD when the Quran is said to be written, though very few, if any, by 621 AD when this surah was made, but as a general rule: Utter nonsense. Just look at the history of conflicts between Islam, Jews and Christians, not to mention all the Jews in and near Medina who rather became fugitives or were killed, than to accept Islam – f.x. the Qurayza - and no more is necessary to say. You sometimes meet dishonesty like this in new, emerging religions and sects. It is a way of gaining “weight” for their statements, especially when they have few facts or proofs to show for themselves.

Just one small fact that disproves this fairy tale: The 700 Jews of the Qurayza tribe - the last big Jewish tribe in Medina - could have saved their lives and possessions by becoming Muslims in time. To a man they chose not to.

This verse is contradicted by solid historical science and knowledge. And one more fact: Remember that Muslims not only are permitted to lie to defend or forward Islam, but are urged to do it "if necessary" (al-Taqiyya and Kitman - the lawful lie and the lawful half-truth - etc.).

Muhammad intend this to be propaganda, not slander, but the claim is slanderous against people who choose death or to flee instead of accepting Islam.

060 17/108a: “And they (Jews and Christians when they hear the Quran*) say: ‘Glory to our Lord! Truly has the promise of our Lord been fulfilled!” Made up propaganda.

Worse: The reality in Mecca at that time shows that it is a bluff and a lie (the few Jews and Christians there and around did not believe in him with perhaps one or a very few exceptions) - and as Muhammad knew the realities in Mecca then: A known lie.

See 17/107a above.

Also: If not before, this became a lie by omission when Muhammad without correcting this claim, later chased away, enslaved, or murdered the entire 3 big Jewish tribes in Medina because they refused Islam and its Quran.

061 17/109: “They (Jews and Christians*) fall down on their faces in tears (when they hear the Quran*)”. As honest as 17/107 and 17/108 above - but then dishonesty is a part of Islam (f.x. al-Taqiyya - the lawful lie, Kitman - the lawful half-truth, Hilah - the lawful pretending/circumventing - broken words/promises/oaths (if necessary pay expiation) (2/225, 5/89, 16/91, 66/2 - and the star case 3/54 (if Allah could cheat, cheating is ok) - and the star case 3/54 (if Allah can cheat, cheating is ok - but how much is then cheating in the Quran?), and betrayal/deceit all are accepted "if necessary" or "if it will give a better result").

This is one more of the places where Muhammad knew he was lying in the Quran. Perhaps one or a very few did this, even though it is highly unlikely and not documented (except that a few converted to Islam, but not necessarily through tears), but "they" (= all or at least the majority) simply no.

#062 18/1d: “(Allah*) hath allowed therein no Crookedness.” In a book that full of mistaken facts and other mistakes, there is a lot of crookedness. Especially the mistakes, the use of invalid “signs”, ”proofs” and as invalid logic, and the partly immoral moral code and laws, the acceptance of dishonesty in words (lies, deceit, broken oaths, etc.) and deeds (thieving/looting, extortion, slave taking, etc), "smell", ###not to mention how the places where it is clear Muhammad is lying in the Quran "smell" - and tell about crookedness.

A plain lie or at least a lie by omission, as Muhammad never corrected this claim

- if he had been honest, he had corrected f.x. all the crookedness compared to the Bible when he later (this was in 622 AD, and he knew little about the real Bible until after he came to Medina), instead of claiming falsifications in the Bible - claims which strongly are proved wrong.

063 18/63c: "I (Moses' servant*) did indeed forget (about) the fish - - -". A likely story: He saw a fish brought for food (= a dead fish) making its way from a rock by digging its way to the sea and then through the sea and forgot to tell about it.

Nobody would forget to do that. = a made up claim - a lie.




Muhammad very far from was anything holy.

################ If Muhammad/the Quran are not lying here, it is impossible that Muhammad was a greater prophet than Jesus - a mere human impossible can be greater than someone holy. And as Muhammad quoted also this verse, he knew he was dishonest/lying when he claimed to be the greatest. He thus was lying either when he admitted Jesus was holy, or when he - an ordinary man according to the Quran - claimed to be a greater prophet than one who was holy, and with strong contacts with the god if the old books, included the Quran, tell the truth on this topic.

ALSO SEE 66/12c BELOW!!!!


065 19/58f: "- - - they (the old Jewish prophets*) would fall down in prostration (indicated to Allah*) and tears". As Allah had no connections to the Jewish prophets, also this part of the claim is untrue according to the Bible. And not least according to history: We know strongly from history that the god of the Jews was Yahweh, and nothing like Allah was involved.

This is one of Muhammad's bluffs, if Islam does not prove - prove - differently. There are quite a number of bluffs - f.x. never proved claims or statements - in the Quran. Many are very easy to see, as they in addition to not be proved, give wrong information, something no omniscient god had done.

Remember that also bluffs are a kind of lie.

There are a number of bluffs in the Quran. We include just a few of them here.

066 20/52b: "- - - (Allah*) never errs, nor forgets - - -". Why then does he have to test people? And why does he need records?

AND HOW CAN ALL THE ERRORS IN THE QURAN BE EXPLAINED IF THIS IS CORRECT? (Only two possibilities: It is a lie and Allah errs, or it is a lie that Allah is the one behind the book.)


NB!! NB!! NB!! NB!! NB!! NB!! NB!! NB!! NB!! NB!! NB!! NB!! NB!! NB!!!



#####067 20/69-70a: The magicians of the pharaoh all became Muslims when they saw Moses performing real miracles. This is repeated a few times in the Quran, and thus very clear Muhammad knew this story. All the same the Quran - and Muhammad - repeats and repeats and repeats that the reason why Muhammad was mot made able to perform miracles, included making real prophesies, was that nobody would believe anyhow.

This is a most central point because it is one of the texts which make it clear that Muhammad knew he was lying each time he used those excuses and “explanations” for not being able to prove anything central. That no-one would believe if they witnessed miracles, contradicts all psychological knowledge – strengthened by the fact that Muhammad himself told it worked. He also knew at least some of the miracles Jesus performed, and all the followers they brought him. Contradiction both of Muhammad's intelligence - he was too intelligent not to know it was a lie - of reality, and of science.



NB!! NB!! NB!! NB!! NB!! NB!! NB!! NB!! NB!! NB!! NB!! NB!! NB!! NB!!!


##068 20/70a: “So the magician were thrown down to prostration (because Moses had done a real miracle*): they said: ‘We believe in the Lord of Aaron and Moses (because they had seen the miracle*).” But Muhammad contradicted this effect:

****Muhammad many times in the Quran explains that the reason for that he/Allah would/will make no miracles or give other real proofs, was that it would not make anyone believe anyhow – AND HERE ALL THE MAGICIANS BECAME BELIEVERS BECAUSE OF JUST ONE SMALL MIRACLE.

(This is one of the reasons why one knows Muhammad knew he was lying each time he used this excuse – he had himself told that miracles worked.)

(At least 5 contradictions).

069 22/54d: “- - - (the Quran) is the Truth - - -“. That the Quran is the truth, is just a claim, not a proved fact. With that many mistakes, twisted arguments, etc., it at best is partly the truth only.

What in a way is worse: As it is clear that Muhammad knew - had to know - he lied at least a few places in the Quran, he also knew he was lying each time he said without reservation that the Quran was the truth. And he used that and similar words quite often in the book.

070 24/11-16: This refers to the incident with Aishah - Muhammad’s child wife - and a young man. The slander afterwards was not an obvious lie like Muhammad later liked to claim. That it was not obvious - something also his own initial reaction clearly demonstrated - was and is so obvious that it is clear an intelligent man like Muhammad knew he was not telling the truth when he said the lie was obvious. (He used many days to decide to believe her.) Also they were not really proved innocent - there only were some convenient verses in the Quran some weeks later, and the Quran far from is reliable. (But there is a fair chance that the two told the truth). Also see 24/11b above.

Muhammad in this case definitely did not behave like a gentleman, and it is very unlikely that his behavior did not "put wood to the fire" and provoked more and/or stronger slander. Not the right man to blame others for bad conduct.

And especially Muhammad's own initial reaction proves for one thing that it was not obvious that the slander was untrue, and his reaction then also proves that he lied - and knew he lied - when he far too late claimed it was obvious that the slander was untrue. At least the word "obvious" was a lie.

The story also tells not a little about the person Muhammad.

#############071 24/12d: "This (charge) is an obvious lie". It might have been a lie, but it was not an obvious lie, something Muhammad's own reaction very clearly proves -

##############so clearly that an intelligent person like Muhammad understood he was lying when he used the word "obvious" - and it is not the only time he lies in the Quran.

072 24/13b: "Why did they (the ones talking about Aishah*) not bring four witnesses - - -?" For the very obvious reason that no witnesses existed - this is a rhetoric and hypocritical question where Muhammad knew the answer very well on beforehand.

A dishonest way of augmenting, and a dishonest way to move the focus away from Aishah to others. Psychologically may be a wise sentence - but dishonest.

This question was nonsense from the moment it was asked.

The request also is a bit ironic, as Muhammad never proved anything himself - claims and invalid "signs" and as invalid "proofs", but never a valid proof for anything central in his new religion.

073 25/7e: "Why were not an angel sent down to him (Muhammad*) - - -". Muhammad was asked for proofs from very early from both followers and opponents. He never was able to prove anything. And in a way worse: Some of the "explanations" he used for evading the requests for proofs,

so obviously were untrue, that an intelligent man like him knew he was lying.

###074 25/57a: “No reward do I (Muhammad*) ask of you - - -“. Nothing - - - except 20% of everything stolen or extorted in/after raids and wars, 100% of what was looted or extorted without fighting, plenty of women and total and unrestricted power. And 2.5% (up to 10%) of your possessions each year in “poor-tax” - - - partly for the poor, but also at least as partly to pay the lukewarm to become or stay Muslims, and not to forget to use for waging war.

And a little to himself and all his women and few children (may be not of the "poor-tax", but plenty from the looting - Muhammad f.x. had estates 3 different places (Medina, Khaybar and Fadang), something which is never mentioned by Muslims, when they talk about how poor he was personally). Hypocrisy.
And not least: Muhammad demanded total obedience and respect. Only this was an enormous reward. In a way the biggest part of the lie.

###075 26/46-47: "Then did the sorcerers fall down, prostrate in adoration, Saying 'We believe in the Lord of the Worlds - - -". For one thing this is not from the Bible. But much more serious in this connection is that

##############this is one of the proofs for that Muhammad knew he was lying each time he explained away his inability to produce any miracle as a proof for his god and for his own connection to a god, with that Allah did not want because it would make no-one believe in Allah anyhow. Here Muhammad is telling - early in his career and before many of those "explaining" aways (surah 26 is from 615 - 616 AD = shortly after Muhammad started his preaching in earnest) - about a minor miracle which made all those sorcerers suddenly become ardent believers in just Allah.

Also see 26/51 below.

###076 26/51: "Only, our (the sorcerers*) desire is that our Lord (Allah) will forgive us our faults, that we may become foremost among the Believers". For one thing this is not from the Bible. For another thing it is a contradiction to reality - one know there was no religion like Islam in Egypt around 1235 BC when the Exodus happened according to science - if it happened. But more serious:

#####That Muhammad told that such an after all small miracle could make all the sorcerers such strong believers, proves very strongly that he knew he was lying each time he told miracles would make no-one believe.

Also see 26/46-47 above.

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

#####077 26/196b: “Without doubt it (the Quran*) is (announced) in the revealed Books (the Torah, the Bible*) of former peoples.” There is very much doubt about this, as the basic elements of the teachings are too different – especially compared to NT and “the new covenant” which is the fundamental one for Christianity. It is plainly wrong - it is absolutely sure that the Quran is not announced in the Bible or in any relevant Jewish scriptures. Also see the chapter about "Muhammad in the Bible" in "1000+ Mistakes in the Quran", and 26/193-196b above.

Flatly stated: It is incorrect that the Quran without doubt is revealed in the Bible (not even Muslims claim this today - and if you run across the claim, their references are not to "documentation" about the Quran revealed in the Bible, but to claimed references to Muhammad there (they only are possible to see if you cherry-pick words and add wishful thinking and a huge dash of al-Taqiyya and/or Kitman - lawful lies and lawful half-truths)). Even this often met claim that Muhammad is foretold in the Bible, as you understand is wrong. And as said the basic thoughts are too different between the Bible and the Quran: Both books cannot come from the same god. This is especially easy to see if you compare the Quran to NT.

The same is even clearer when Muhammad claims that the Quran is announced in the Bible.

Some Muslim scholars say it is the basic ideas of the Quran which is foretold in the Bible. Please read the Bible and especially NT, and the Quran and compare - and weep (you will not be tempted to laugh - except a black laugh). And when it comes to announcement for the Quran in the Bible, we have not even seen a Muslim being able to find that announcement.

When this was said in 615 or 616 AD, this simply may have been a bluff, and not really a lie, except the words "without doubt", which already then were a clear lie. But all became a clear lie by omission from Muhammad, when he did not correct it when he later learnt more about the Bible. The Quran is not announced anywhere in the Bible, (and neither is Muhammad mentioned there - the wishful claims about this from Islam, are just that; wishful claims).

Also bluffs are a kind of lies - and there are a number of bluffs in the Quran.)

078 26/197a: “Is it not a Sign to them that the Learned of the Children of Israel knew it (as true)?”

  1. This sentence is dishonest - one of the places where Muhammad lied in the Quran. It is not proved, but Islam claims that one or some learned Jew(s) accepted Muhammad as a prophet. But only a few of the thousands of learned Jews in case. If the story is true, an honest sentence had said: “- - - a few of - - -” or at most “- - - some of - - -”.

    There is quite a difference between "- - - the Learned of - - -" and "- - - a few of the Learned of - - -". Dishonesty in a presumed holy book does not give a favorable impression. And why is dishonesty necessary? - and how many other points in the book stems from dishonesty?
  2. As the great majority of the Jews - learned as not learned - denied that Muhammad could be a prophet even as they were robbed of their possessions, slaughtered in wars, and murdered “en masse” as helpless prisoners, or made slaves, it is absolutely sure that what the Jews - learned or not - meant about him, was no good sign for Muhammad or Allah. This even more so as to become Muslim was the only way to keep one’s riches and later one’s life, as Muhammad gained power in Medina, and still most Jews refused him. Some “renegade” swallows make no summer.
  3. A true religion easily can live on - and tell - the truth or what one honestly believes is the truth after honest examination. If a religion or any other story needs to use lies or half-truths or even al-Taqiyyas (the lawful lie) or Kitman (the lawful half-truth), not to mention institutionalizes al-Taqiyya and Kitman and Hilah, deceit, and disuse of even oaths (2/225, 5/89, 16/91, 66/2 - and the star case 3/54 (if Allah can cheat, cheating is ok - but how much is then cheating in the Quran?) as means to defend and forward the religion, one must ask why are lies necessary? - and the natural following up question: How much more of what they tell about their religion, in reality is lies?

In the Quran and also in Hadith, it is claimed there were one or a very few learned Jew(s) who accepted Muhammad as may be a prophet. The stories might even be true. But we are back to the old truth: “One swallow makes no summer”. It is absolutely sure that the Jews as a group - learned or not - did not accept his teachings for the truth even in the face of death (f.x. the Qurayza tribe - the last big Jewish tribe in Medina), one or a few exceptions may be expected. The same is the truth today: The absolute majority of Jews and of Christians believes Islam is a heathen religion. It is too far from the Bible to belong in the Judo-Christian group.

At least a lie by omission by not correcting this claim later.

There also is another fact here: Islam from Mecca (610 - 622 AD) is quite different from Islam from Medina (622 - 632 AD) - a fact NEVER mentioned by Muslims. Therefore, even if some Jewish and/or Christian scholars should have been inclined towards Islam of Mecca - there only is Islam's words for this - it tells little or nothing about how such scholars viewed Islam of Medina in say 632 AD.

No, an al-Taqiyya or at best a Kitman was and is no valid sign. ####But it definitely is a sign telling a lot about Muhammad, about the Quran, and about Islam.

"The Religion of Dishonesty"?

079 28/52b: “(Jews and Christians*) – they do believe in this (Revelation) - - -“. Flatly wrong.

And flatly dishonest. A few became Muslims according to Islam, but the overwhelming majority had to flee, was made slaves, or was killed/murdered/executed because they refused to believe in Muhammad’s tales.

Cfr. f.x. what happened in and around Medina and Khaybar in the years after this surah was told (in 621 AD or later). Contradicted by reality and history.

And: One more place where an intelligent man like Muhammad knew he was lying, because this he knew.

(Well, this is from 621 AD. Perhaps this early Muhammad believed it was a bluff and not a clear lie. But over a few years it became at least a lie by omission, because he did not correct it when he at least later learnt it was not true. Worse: He even sporadically even then used claims like this. And even bluffs are a kind of lie.)

080 28/53c: “They (the Jews and Christians*) say: ‘We believe therein, for it is the Truth from our Lord - - -“. Well, this is what Muhammad claimed. The reality as clearly told in Islamic written sources about what you find in 28/52a above - and like in 28/52a

also here Muhammad had to know he was lying, because this he knew was untrue.

It may have been true for a few, but only for a few in case. Also see 28/48a and 28/48b. A few Jews and Christians may or may not have become Muslims - there only are Muslim sources for the claims - but the majority clearly said no, even in the face of persecution and murder. Generally speaking a dishonesty, ########and as Muhammad here was speaking about Jews and Christians generally, he knew this was a lie (and he later had this fact strongly confirmed, but did not correct his words - at least a lie by omission in this case, and a plainly known lie not corrected later years).

081 29/47b: "So the people of the Book (Jews and Christians mainly*) believe therein (in the Quran*)". Simply wrong. A few became Muslims according to Islam, but most not. There were few Christians, but a lot of Jews in the area - who mainly refused to accept Islam. They preferred to flee or even be killed or enslaved instead of accepting Islam. At this time (621-624 AD - and at least after 622 AD) Muhammad knew this very well, and at least if this verse is younger than 622 AD (it likely is from sometime between 621 and 624 AD), <(p>

this is one of the places Muhammad knew he was lying when he said things like this, and if it is older, it at least is a lie by omission, because he never corrected the claim. "Some Jews" could be possible to explain, but not "the Jews" or an even somewhat bigger group "the People of the Book".

082 29/48c: "- - - in that case (if Muhammad could read and write*), indeed, would talkers of vanities have doubted (in his tales*)". Many did - and looking at all the mistakes in his stories, they had plenty of reasons for doubt. There are reasons for suspecting dishonesty behind the claim that Muhammad could not read or write. Some quotes in the Quran and in Hadiths may indicate that he knew this, and the same do his social standing and business standing.

But note what is indicated here: As Muhammad claimed he could not read and write, his conclusion is that people could not suspect or blame him for making up the texts in the Quran.

Muhammad was too intelligent not to know that this was a lie - like any intelligent person he knew it is the brain and not the pen which makes up stories.


NB!! NB!! NB!! NB!! NB!! NB!! NB!! NB!! NB!! NB!! NB!! NB!! NB!! NB!!!


###083 33/16c: “Running away will not profit you (Muslim warriors*), if ye are running away from death or slaughter, and even if (ye do escape), no more than a brief (respite) will ye be allowed to enjoy”. Well, this proves two things: It is not possible to escape predestination - no matter what Islam tries to tell you today that "it is not real predestination" (with full predestination man has no free will, and it is immoral by Allah to punish for sins or reward for good deeds - or to forgive or react to prayers) - and that in spite of the Quran, you at least can change your destination with “a brief respite“. A respite that at least has to be for some hours or days - if not there had been newly-dead frightened warriors laying around the nearest tens and more kilometers from some battlefields (because of their predestined hour or minute of death) - dead for no obvious reasons after fleeing from battle.

This in addition to that modern statistical science long since has proved this verse nonsense. This even more so as even if they had got "no more than a brief (respite)", the laws of chaos then had changed the future - and Allah's precognition was gone. Actually the laws of chaos are so strict and efficient that even if the respite was just seconds and minutes, they over some time totally had spoiled Allah's predestinations and precognition.

But Muhammad got many and terrific, but naïve warriors - - - and was so intelligent that he had to know he was lying. And this goes for each and every time he said things like this.


NB!! NB!! NB!! NB!! NB!! NB!! NB!! NB!! NB!! NB!! NB!! NB!! NB!! NB!!!


084 33/62c: "- - - no change wilt thou (Muslims/Muhammad*) find in the praxis (approved) of Allah". Wrong to say the least of it. Read the NT - it is so different from the war religion of the Quran, that it is not a question of finding changes, but if there exist basic similarities at all. The praxis approved of Yahweh is extremely different from the one approved by Allah - that is to say; Allah has approved nothing if he does not exist.

##########This is one of Muhammad's lies in the Quran. But he knew the Bible so little, that in this case he perhaps was not sure he was lying - but he was too intelligent not to know that this was a claim he made without a reliable source. Correction: This surah is from 625-629 AD.

At that time Muhammad was well aware of that there were big differences between his teaching and the Bible. Muhammad knew he was lying.

#################################################(This one counts because it is so obvious and easy to see that this is physically impossible and thus that the Quran is wrong.)

**085 34/14b: “Then, when We (Allah*) decreed (Solomon’s) death, nothing showed them (see 34/14a just above) his death, except a little worm from the earth, which kept (slowly) gnawing away his staff; so when he fell down - - -”. Wrong: It would take days or more for a small worm to weaken the staff enough for Solomon to fall - may be weeks.

  1. A mighty king sitting not mowing for too long would after some time be addressed by his servants.
  2. A mighty king not talking for a long enough while, would be addressed by his servants.
  3. A mighty king not taking care of his duties and his visitors for a long enough while, would be addressed by his servants.
  4. A mighty king not going to bed in the evening would be addressed by his servants.
  5. Rigor mortis (the only possible, but highly unlikely reason for the situation) takes time to start – and it disappears. If not for other reasons, he would fall because of that long before a small worm had the time to weaken the staff.
  6. In the climate of Jerusalem - even in winter (when there after all would be a fire) - his body would start decomposing. Everyone had to notice that.
  7. In no castle anywhere in the world there are earth worms in a place where a king would sit. And if it happened out-of-doors, his servants would ask questions if the king did not go inside during night.

Scientific nonsense and a fairy tale simply. Even Islam admits that this is from an Arab legend (A34/20).

As bad: An intelligent man like Muhammad had to know at least many of these points, and thus know that this story was a lie.


###086 35/24j: “- - - and there never was a people, without a warner (a prophet for Allah*) having lived among them (in the past) - - -”. As said before: Neither in archaeology, nor in architecture, nor in art, nor in history, nor in literature, nor in folklore, nor in folk tales - not even in fairy tales - do we find a single trace of any teaching of monotheism before 610 AD, with two well known exceptions (Jews and Christians) and two or three less known exceptions (Pharaoh Akn-Aton, praying to the sun, a semi-Christian sect in Persia, an Arab sect around 600 AD - likely inspired by the two monotheistic religions in the area – plus the Zoroastrians after a fashion). Some places one or a few gods dominated, but no monotheism.

  1. In the Americas - absolutely nothing.
  2. In Australia - absolutely nothing.
  3. In the Pacific - absolutely nothing.
  4. In Europe - absolutely nothing except Christians and some Jews.
  5. In Africa - absolutely nothing with the exception of one single man: Pharaoh Akn-Aton - but he so definitely was not speaking about Allah. He wanted the sun for the only god. (+ Jews and Christians).
  6. In Asia - absolutely nothing, except in what we now call the Middle East: The Christians, the well known Jews and as already mentioned the Zoroastrians mainly in Persia (after a fashion) and a couple of monotheistic old sects. Of course there was Buddha, but he was/is no god, and besides he accepted that gods existed, but told they were on wrong ways not leading to nirvana - no monotheism.

124ooo (= 620 at any time for 5ooo years or 12-15 for 160ooo-200ooo, if each worked for 25 years. No traces found. Believe it if you can.) or more - the number is said to be symbolic, as there may have been more - prophets had to have left some traces somewhere, if the tale was true.

This statement simply is not true. If Islam still insists, they will have to produce strong proofs. “Strong statements demands strong evidence”, to quote science. And not just loose claims, invalid “signs” and “proofs”, and more loose statements like Islam normally produces - real proofs are needed.

But the Quran's claim is very clear.

The only possible conclusion about the claimed many prophets of the old and in the entire world, is that it was one of Muhammad's bluffs - and one he repeated a number of times. But also bluffs are a kind of lie.

###087 34/47b: “No reward do I (Muhammad*) ask of you - - -“.

- - - except absolute power and plenty of women. Yes, and 20% of all stolen/looted valuables and slaves – 100% if there is no fight – and poor-tax (on average ca. 2.5% of everything you own each and every year, but up to 10%) as I need money for bribes, for strengthening my religion and platform of power, and for war and myself and my large family (NB: There is reason to believe that he did not take from the so-called "poor-tax" (the 2.5%) for personal use*), and some for the poor.


NB!! NB!! NB!! NB!! NB!! NB!! NB!! NB!! NB!! NB!! NB!! NB!! NB!! NB!!!



#####088 34/50b: “If I (Muhammad*) am astray, I only stray to the loss of my own soul - - -.” Wrong to at least the 9. power (as there are better than a billion Muslims – or the 10. power or more if you reckon the ones through the times). #############################

If Muhammad was astray – ALL believing Muslims are astray – and all the mistaken facts, contradictions, invalid logic, etc., tell an ominous tale. The Quran - its mistakes, errors, etc. - also is contradicted 100% by any non-religious knowledge and by logic. ONE MORE PLACE WHERE AN INTELLIGENT MAN LIKE MUHAMMAD HAD TO KNOW HE WAS LYING, BECAUSE BOTH THE FACTS AND THE LOGIC ARE WRONG. THERE IS NO CHANCE MUHAMMAD DID NOT KNOW ALSO HIS FOLLOWERS WERE STRAYING, IF HE HIMSELF WAS.

#####089 34/50c: “If I (Muhammad*) am astray, I only stray to the loss of my own soul - - -“. This is utmost and extremely wrong – if Muhammad was astray (and too much point in that direction) it is to the loss of each and every Muslim’s soul. Because then Islam is a false religion. Also see 34/50a just above.

In a way more serious: It is so obvious that the quote above is wrong, that there is no chance an intelligent man like Muhammad did not know it. One more lie from him. A really serious one - really serious.


NB!! NB!! NB!! NB!! NB!! NB!! NB!! NB!! NB!! NB!! NB!! NB!! NB!! NB!!!


090 38/86a: “No reward do I (Muhammad*) ask for this (Quran) - - -“ - - - except absolute power over you all + plenty of women + plenty of valuables for bribes + free or nearly free warriors for raids and wars to gain more power and more riches for more raids and wars and bribes and power.

Dishonesty. Obvious dishonesty.

###091 41/43a: “Nothing is said to thee (Muhammad*) that was not said to the messengers before thee (Muhammad*) (f.x. to Jesus and the old Jewish prophets*) - - -.” Wrong. As both science and Islam thoroughly have proved that the Bible is not falsified – and especially strong proofs for NT (and for OT an extra proof in the combination Jesus/the Qumran scrolls) – it is very clear that what Muhammad claimed to have been told, often is far from what the real prophets and patriarchs had been told. And this is strengthened by the fact that it very often is very clear that Muhammad took his “Biblical” stories not from the Bible, but from religious legends (often even based on apocryphal scriptures and stories, not the Bible) that circulated in the area - the real sources mostly are known - and which Muhammad believed was from the Bible - - - and then later he had only one way out how to explain the errors compared to the real Bible, if he wanted to save his new religion and platform of power: To claim he was right and the Bible falsified!!!. As for the quotation above, it is not true that nothing was said to Muhammad that was not said to earlier (real) prophets – a fact that Islam even confirms sometimes – f.x. in the statement from Muhammad that he was the first “messenger/prophet” who had got permission from the god to steal and rob and rape, which the god according to the Quran even confirms is “god and lawful”.

To be impolite, but truthful: The Quran's claim here is rubbish. (This early - 614-616 AD - it is not sure Muhammad knew he was lying when he said it.

But at least he lied by omission as he never corrected this claim after he learnt better in Medina, where he learnt more about the old Jewish scriptures, and this even more so as he continued to use similar claims and statements about that the Bible was falsified or that the Quran confirmed the "original" Bible.)

092 42/3c: “Thus doth (He (Allah*)) send inspiration to thee (Muhammad*) as He did to those (prophets*) before thee - - -.” This is directly wrong and contradicted by the Bible - but in this case we do not accuse Muhammad of knowing he was lying - he did not know the Bible and most likely just said what he wanted his audience to hear, not knowing whether it was right or wrong.

A bluff simply (but also bluffs are lying, really.

For Muhammad it was essential to impress on his audience and followers that he was a normal prophet just like the old ones in the Bible. Because of that you find that a large part of the stories are told like parallels to Muhammad's life and activity - so also here; Muhammad claimed he got most of his claimed information from Allah via inspiration, and then the old prophets had to have received it in the same way for Muhammad to be similar to them. Unluckily the Bible tells that Yahweh only used direct contact (Abraham, Moses, Samuel, Jesus, and a few more), visions, and dreams (4. Mos. 12/6-7). Sending messages to prophets by means of inspiration is nowhere mentioned in the Bible. But of course it is ok for Islam to prove - prove - the Bible wrong and the Quran right. But as we say: Prove, not just loose claims and as loose and invalid words like the Quran always use instead of proofs.

But at least this became a lie by omission, because he did not correct the claim later when he had possibility to check if the claim was right. (Besides: Also bluffing is a kind of lie.)

093 42/23f: “No reward do I (Muhammad*) ask of you (Muslims/people*) - - -“. - - -

except total dictatorship over you, total obedience from you, plenty of women, cheap warriors, plenty of riches for bribes (20% of everything stolen and of captives/slaves taken - 100% if the victims gave in without a fight), etc., etc. Plus tax each year. One of the places in the Quran where Muhammad knew he was lying.

094 42/23g: "No reward do I (Muhammad*) ask of you for this except the love of those near of kin". Well, except 20% of all stolen goods and enslaved people - 100% if they gave in without a fight - 2.5% (average) of all your belongings each and every year in tax (though it is likely Muhammad used little or nothing of just this point personally), plenty of women and undisputed and total power over you, + lots of warriors to fight and may be die for me, among other things. One of the in reality most and strongest contradicted and abrogated by reality verse in all the Quran. Good propaganda towards followers unable to think for themselves.

Two words: Hypocrisy. Dishonesty.
#########One of the places where Muhammad knew he was lying in the Quran.

###095 42/24j: “And Allah - - - proves the Truth by His Words.” Muhammad was asked many times to prove his - or presumably Allah’s - words, but he never did, and seemed never to be able to, this even more so, as f.x. some of his “explanations” for why he never could prove anything, an intelligent man like him knew were lies (f.x. that real miracles would make no-one believe anyhow). And the words of the Quran prove not a thing, among other reasons because:

  1. Far too many mistakes pretending to be facts. (Swindle?)
  2. Far too many loose statements pretending to be facts. (Swindle?)
  3. Far too many invalid “signs” pretending to be documentation. (Swindle?)
  4. Far too many invalid or even wrong "proofs" pretending to be documentation. (Swindle?)
  5. Some obvious lies – f.x. that miracles would make no-one believe, or that Muhammad wanted no payment (in spite of what Islam and Muslims claim, Muhammad was well off when he died - estates in Mecca, Medina, and Fadang, and more - even though he had spent fortunes for bribes for followers/power, and lots of women also cost something). (Swindle.)
  6. Muhammad was unable to present anything but fast-talk when asked for proofs. (Swindle?)
  7. Lots of invalid use of logic. (Swindle?)
  8. Lots of contradictions (– proves for lies?)
  9. Lots of unclear language - at least 500+ confirmed by Muslim scholars. (Not from a god.)
  10. Lots of fast talk. (Suspicious.)
At best a bluff, at worst a lie - and also bluffs are a kind of lie.
Science: "You have to have a Muslim's belief to be able to believe that the quality of the texts in the Quran proves a divine connection". But Muhammad had no proofs for his tales and had to use "proofs" like this.
These all are hallmarks of a crook and a cheat and a deceiver.
####What does this mean for the religion?

**096 43/20e: "They (non-Muslims*) do nothing but lie!" A clear statement - but is it true? There are so many claims and statements in the Quran which are not true. Besides it is a peculiar complaint from the religion of al-Taqiyya (the lawful lie), Kitman (the lawful half-truth), etc., "war is deceit" - and everything is war, not to mention "break even your oaths if that gives a better result" (2/225, 5/89, 16/91, 66/2 - and the star case 3/54 (if Allah can cheat, cheating is ok - but how much cheating is it then in the Quran? - by Allah or by Muhammad). And do not forget that the majority of Muslims today believe because of taqlid - uncritical acceptance of their fathers' claims about the reliability of the Quran.

At least the claim that non-Muslims do nothing but lie, is a lie, and such a clear one, that there is no chance Muhammad did not know it was a lie

- propaganda at the wrong side of the dividing line between propaganda and lies. There are too many such cases in the Quran.

At least clear words for your money about what non-Muslims are worth.

###097 45/5c: “- - - the fact that Allah sends down Sustenance from the sky - - -.” This is one of the lies in the Quran. Not the claim that Allah sends down rain - in this connection this may be said to be may be or may be not true , or a bluff or guess.

But that it was a fact, is a lie. Until it is proved it is done by Allah, it is no fact. (There are a number of similar cases in the Quran.)

098 45/11a: “This (the Quran*) is (true) Guidance - - -”. A book with perhaps 3ooo mistakes, invalid statements, contradictions, etc., etc., is no true guidance. See 13/1g and 40/75 above. And the fact that Muhammad knew about at least a few point he had to knew were lies, makes at least parts of this dishonest.

#####099 48/10d: ANOTHER STRONG ONE FOR MUHAMMAD: "- - - then anyone who violates his oath (to Muhammad - see 48/10b above*), do so to the harm of his own soul, and anyone who fulfils what he has covenanted with Allah (in reality with Muhammad*) - Allah will soon grant him a great Reward (free of charge for Muhammad*)". No comment should be necessary here, except that some places the Quran tells;

"no payment does Muhammad ask for his preaching" - a square lie (he demanded 20% of everything robbed/stolen - 100% if the victims gave in without a fight - some 2.5% tax from Muslims and Jizya + land tax (taxes of unspecified size, but often harsh) from non-Muslims. Of course all was in the name of Allah, but here on Earth all those riches were for Muhammad - he spent the better part of it for bribes and for war). Hypocrisy also is lies.

100 48/16k: When you see the verse 48/16 as a whole, there is only this conclusion possible to draw: A man who says the Quran teaches a human and peaceful and friendly religion towards non-Muslims and some fractions of Muslims, either has not read the Quran, or is deceiving himself, or is lying - and knows he is lying. And this was said in 628 AD, long time after Islam had been changed to a religion of dishonesty, apartheid, blood, and war.

At this time Muhammad knew ever so well that he was lying each time he said things like this - and each time he had said it earlier, and not corrected it later was a lie by omission.

(But then lying "if necessary" to defend or promote the religion is no sin according to the rules for al-Taqiyya (the lawful lie), Kitman (the lawful half-truth), and Hilah (the lawful pretending/circumventing) in Islam - the only of the big religions with rules for ok. dishonesty). And any man believing him either has not read the Quran, or is deceiving himself or is naïve.

The same is the only conclusion possible after reading the whole Quran, and especially the surahs from Medina - which on top of all dominates over the more peaceful ones from Mecca according to Islam’s own rule abrogation, as the ones from Medina are younger.

###If a book about politics or any other subject than religion (actually for Muslims religion is politics), inciting so strongly to hate, (religious) apartheid, suppression (of women and of all outsiders), stealing/robbing, rape, murder and war, and the use of dishonesty, it had been prohibited in all civilized and most little civilized countries. (It was proposed to prohibit it in the Netherlands, but it will not be politically possible to do it because of Islam's power).

101 58/18f: "They (the 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), 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, 5/89, 16/91, 66/2 - and the star case 3/54 (if Allah can cheat, cheating is ok - but how much cheating is it then in the Quran?.

The claim - that non-Muslims are but liars - also is a clear lie. Some, but far from all.

102 59/23f: "- - - (Allah is*) the Source of Peace (and Perfection) - - -". Just read the some 22 - 24 surahs from Medina, and you see the unintended black joke hidden in this claim - and the in double meaning literally bloody irony in this al-Taqiyya (lawful lie - a specialty you only find in Islam of the big religions).

This surah is from Medina, and late enough for that Muhammad had started his raids, robbing, and killing (624-625 AD). Muhammad knew he was lying when he said this - armed robbery, armed raids, etc. definitely is no "Source of Pace" - the only thing these words were, were dishonesty and hypocrisy.

103 70/28a: "For their (Muslims'*) Lord's (Allah's*) displeasure is the opposite of Peace and Tranquility". In more plain language: Allah likes peace and tranquility, and dislikes - or punishes with - the opposite. BUT NB: This was in 621-622 in Mecca, before Muhammad started to gain power and started first as a leader of highway-men and then as a warlord, and Allah discovered he liked war and blood and riches and power. In the 13 years in Mecca, Islam was a rather peaceful religion. But during the first part of the 10 years in Medina, it turned into a religion of war, and this verse lost its meaning - at least as long as Muslims were the perpetrators and non-Muslims the victims.

Muhammad in Medina proves that this quote is dishonesty.

Also the fact that the highest possible service to Allah - and Muhammad - is to take part in raids and wars, also proves that something is seriously dishonest. As this is said before (614-617 AD) Muhammad changed his religion to a thieving, suppression, and war religion in Medina in 622 - 624 AD, Muhammad may have meant what he said in Mecca that time.

But there is no way around that later he knew that either his first claim (that Allah = peace and tranquility) or his later claim (Allah loves robbing, strife, and blood) is a lie, and he never corrected anything - and a lie in the Quran even by omission, is a lie in the Quran (the Quran actually has more than one of these kinds).

104 74/56b: “He (Allah*) is the Lord of Righteousness - - -.” A Lord making laws which f.x. say that killing and raping and stealing are “lawful and good” (8/69a-d) at least when it is done in his name, and who says that a woman shall be strictly punished for indecency if she is raped, and cannot bring 4 male witnesses to the very act, is not righteous – on the contrary: He belongs to the most inhuman, worst and most unjust beings in all the universe. The last mentioned law – about punishing the raped woman – is among the very most unjust laws which have ever existed (may be together with the law that says that stealing/robbing, extortion and killing in jihad – everything is jihad – is “lawful and good”), especially as Allah (if he exists and is omniscient) knows she is not guilty. On many points the opposite of benevolent.

  1. A man correctly telling that a woman has been indecent is lying to Allah if he cannot produce 4 witnesses - even if an omniscient Allah has to know he is speaking the truth.
  2. A woman who has been raped, is forbidden to tell who it was, unless she can produce 4 MALE witnesses WHO HAS ACTUALLY SEEN THE ACT. If she cannot produce 4 such witnesses, and all the same tells who the rapist(s) is/are, she shall have 80 whiplashes for slander. And she also is to be strictly punished for illegal sex, even though an omniscient god knows she is telling the truth!! Like said: Probably the most unjust and amoral law we have ever seen in any not extremely primitive society or culture.
  3. It is 100% permitted for an owner to rape his female slaves or prisoners of war (may be this is why Muslims so often rape women during conflicts - f.x. earlier in Bangladesh and earlier and now in Africa). The Quran even directly tells that it is no sin to rape also your married slaves or married prisoners of war, as long as they are not pregnant. The price for the victims is of no interest for Islam and the Quran - and some Muslims.
  4. It is glorious and the Muslims’ right to steal, rob, plunder, and to kill non-Muslims during jihad - and almost any conflict is declared jihad (holy war). It is “just and good”.

To claim that Allah is the Lord of Righteousness, is dishonesty. In 611-615 AD Muhammad may have believed his own words. But LONG before he died in 632 AD, he knew that Islam was not righteous on by far too many points - like mentioned; permissions to lie, permissions to steal/rob, permissions to extort, permissions to rape, permissions to take slaves, apartheid, permission to torture, permission to kill non-Muslims for nearly any reason, etc., several of the laws far from righteous, many moral rules from immoral to horrible, etc. -

and all the same Muhammad did not correct claims like this = at least lies by omission.


If not each and every of the following questions can be given valid answers, this means that Muhammad also lied each time he - directly or indirectly (= tens of times) - claimed the Bible was falsified:
  • A. When was OT falsified? - and by whom? Islam tends to blame this on the Jewish prophet Ezra sometime around 500 BC. But this is impossible, because a prophet like Jesus never had accepted to read from falsified scriptures in the synagogues, but had made a lot of fuss about it. There is not reported any such fuss neither in the Bible, nor in the Quran. It also cannot have been falsified later, because we have large parts of OT in scriptures older than Jesus - f.x. the Qumran scrolls - and they are identical to the ones in today's OT (with the exception of minor divergences normal for manuscripts copied by hand.

  • B. When and by whom was NT falsified? Islam tends to blame the Council of Nicaea in 325 AD. But for one thing we have scriptures, fragments, and written quotes from also NT older than 325 AD, and they are identical to today's texts. And for another the agenda for that meeting of bishops is well known - so well known that also at least the majority of high Muslim scholars knows it - and there is not one word about changing texts in the Bible.
  • C. How was it possible to make Christian bishops agree on falsifying the Bible? It would be just as easy as making ayatollahs agree on falsifying the Quran.
  • D. How was it possible for Jews and Christians to agree on what to falsify?
  • E. How was it possible to make also sects - Jewish and Christian - agree to and take part in the falsification?
  • F. How was it possible to agree on what texts to falsify, an what not?
  • G. How was it possible to agree on what new texts to use?
  • H. Today there exist some 13ooo Biblical manuscripts or fragment older than 610 AD. This indicates there must have been at least 100ooo in the old times. At least. In addition there are some 32ooo scriptures, letters, etc. older than 610 AD with references to/quotes from the Bible. An educated guess: At least half a million letters, scriptures, etc. - included the mentioned 100ooo - must have existed in the old times. How to find all of them - spread over 3 continents?
  • I. As for the letters, etc. with references/quotes: How was it possible to distinguish these from the large majority without relevance for the falsification? There must have been millions and spread over large parts of Asia, Africa and Europe - and everyone had to be checked so as not to overlook any relevant one (no "not falsified" = with Quran-like texts, has ever been found).
  • J. Greek, Latin, and Persian were the dominant languages in the region + in this case also Aramaic and Hebrew for natural reasons. But especially the non-religious scriptures, letters, etc. with references to/quotes from the Bible, could be in any language. Were each and every falsifier able to falsify in all languages, or did they have to travel in groups to master all the separate languages?
  • K. How was it possible to erase the old texts on a papyrus or skin or whatever so delicately that it is not possible for even modern science to find any scratching or effect of chemicals used, etc.?
  • L. How was it possible to always have the same ink like the one used in the many different scriptures, letters, etc.? - so exactly the same that modern science is unable to find any differences?
  • M. How was it possible to falsify every handwriting so exactly that even modern science is unable to that something is falsified?
  • N. How was it possible each and every time to make the new, falsified texts of exactly the same length like the erased ones, so that the new texts exactly filled the erased spaces?
  • O. Some Muslims claim the manuscripts were not physically changed, but destroyed and new ones written. How in case to explain that one every time was able to find centuries old, not used writing materials to use for the falsification? If a scripture or a letter pretended to be from f.x. 64 AD - f.x. describing Emperor Nero’s fire in Rome - but the parchment is from f.x. 340 AD, the real age is easy to find today. No such case is provably found.
  • P. Who in case paid for this enormous operation? - sending falsifiers crisscrossing the entire known world and wider, trying to find each and every relevant, scripture, letter, etc., and not least every relevant fragment. Remember here that the Christian church did not start - start - to get serious money until well into the 300's AD.
  • Q. How was it in a time with few schools possible to find thousands of persons highly skilled in writing, so as to be able to not only falsify texts, but also to copy any handwriting they met, so exactly that even a modern scientist today is unable to see the difference, and also willing to travel around for years trying to find relevant scriptures or fragments to falsify? - travel also in enemy or lawless territory, and in times with primitive or even lacking transport systems?
  • R. How was it possible to co-ordinate such an enormous operation during times of slow, primitive, and often non-existing communications?
  • S. How was it possible to make each and every owner agree to having their expensive (books, etc. were expensive) and cherished holy scriptures falsified?

  • T. How was it afterwards possible to make the owners and others believe in scriptures they knew were falsified?
  • U. How was such an enormous operation possible without starting tongues wagging? Not one of the old historians have mentioned even a whisper about anything like this.
  • V. How to explain that the old Quran was falsified into the Bible, when there is not even a fragment of such a book known older than 610 AD (compared to some 45ooo relevant to the Bible).
  • W. Some Muslims find details they claim prove falsifications in the Bible (but variations in f.x. the Gospels do not prove falsifications, as several possible explanations are possible - and "a proof is one or more proved facts which can give only one conclusion"). How to explain that such details are all they are able to claim, when the real difference between the two books are so enormous that for one thing the Bible has 4 times more text than the Quran, and for another that the texts are so totally different the only one short sentence is identical in the two books - a sentence of totally 6 words in the Psalms (Psalm 37/29: "- - - the righteous will inherit the land - - -" - words which ever so well may be a coincidence). For the Bible to be a falsified copy of the Quran, it is not falsified details we are talking about, but a solid work of total falsification - replicated by each and every manuscript, letter, reference to or quote from the Bible, fragment, etc. Even if minor details really had been falsified, it had been irrelevant in this connection.

If these questions cannot be given valid answers/explanations, this means that Muhammad lied in the Quran also each time he - directly or indirectly (= tens of times) - claimed that the Bible was falsified. And this is a most serious point, because if the Bible is not massively falsified, things are seriously wrong in the Quran, and thus with Islam.

There also are facts like that neither science nor Islam has found even one proved trace from a god like the Muslim Allah, a religion like Islam, a book like the Quran (for comparison science knows about some 45ooo scriptures or fragments older than 610 AD relevant for the Bible), or prophets teaching a religion similar to Islam, not anywhere in the world before 610 AD when Muhammad started his mission. Not in literature, not in architecture, not in archeology, not even in legends or fairy tales.

As bad: As far back as written history goes - and in that area it goes far back - no historian and no Muslim has ever found a word about this or similar. Compare this to some 45ooo scriptures or fragments from or related to the Bible. 45ooo : 0 tells something. And then there are the other traces in addition - but nothing from Islam.

Normally 45ooo : 0 is reckoned to be a proof of mathematical strength.


105 points. A few of the lies may have 2 comments, and also a few are lies from Muslim scholars, not from Muhammad. But we may have overlooked a few + there is the kind of lies named bluffs, of which we have included just a few. And not least there are lies like the claim that the Quran is "the Truth", "the Verity", etc. - claims used by Muhammad in spite of that he knew - had to know - that he lied at least some places in the Quran, so that the Quran maximum could be partly true.

Add the lies we have overlooked + some of the rest of the bluffs, and there are more than 100 places in the Quran where Muhammad lied. Add the places where Muhammad states that the Quran is "the Truth", etc., in spite of that he only because of his own lies in the book, knew it maximum could be partly true, etc., and you have at least 200+ lies in the Quran.

Sub-total Chapter 19 = 105 + 975 = 1.080.


>>> 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".