Muhammad in the Quran, Vol. 4: Chapter 92




The Quran some places claims - never a proof, like normal for Muhammad, but a number of claims - that Muhammad was a witness for Allah. This is not possible unless Allah exists - a god or from the dark forces.

Another and very open question is how reliable a witness he was in case - a man believing in the use of many kinds of dishonesty as working tools, and a man whom the Quran clearly shows was self centered, and wanted respect, power, riches for bribes, and women. Such men often are not entirely reliable. This even more so if he was psychopathic.

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

001 2/107a: "- - - to Allah belonged the dominion of the heavens (plural and wrong) and the earth - - -". Another never proved claim. Friends and enemies asked Muhammad for proofs, but he never was able to prove anything at all. Actually we do not know that this verse is true - it may be true or it may not be true - we only have the words of a book we know contains many mistakes, handed down from a man we would not trust very much as a witness if we were judges in a court. Proofs are urgently needed. And there are many points like this in the Quran - many.

002 4/69g: "- - - the Witness (who testify) - - -". A man like Muhammad would not be reckoned to be a reliable witness in any just court. See f.x. 4/69c+d above.

**003 6/99c: “- - - with it (rain) We (Allah*) produce vegetation of all kinds - - - in these things there are Signs for people who believe.” Well, vegetation grows no matter in the nature. We only have the words of one single man for that Allah is involved - a man who Islam itself admits was a thief/robber, did believe in the use of dishonesty as working tools, was a highwayman, an extorter, an assassin of opponents, a mass murderer of helpless prisoners, a womanizer, a rapist, a breaker of his words (f.x. by killing 29 men - 1 got away - he had promised safe conduct), an enslaver "en masse", etc., aspiring for power - all in all a perfect and absolutely reliable witness according to himself and to Islam. And not to mention his slogan according to Ibn Ishaq: "War is betrayal" - betrayal and even breaking of one’s oaths was ok. Well, flattery feels good at least – especially for people naïve enough to believe everything they want to believe.

004 11/17i: "- - - a witness (Muhammad*) from Himself (Allah*) doth teach - - - a guide and a mercy (the Quran*)." Do read the complete Quran and especially the surahs from Medina - and read it with your brain and your other relevant knowledge engaged, not only your eyes and your wishful thinking. How much of a reliable guide do you find among all the mistakes, contradictions, wrong/invalid logic, etc. do you find? - and how much mercy are you able to find? - real mercy, not glossy words. How much of a teacher of f.x. good morality and of mercy was really Muhammad?!

And: Is this witness a reliable one?

005 11/18b: (A11/33 – in the 2008 edition A35): “They (sinners at the Day of Doom*) will be turned back to the presence of their Lord (Allah*) and the witnesses will say - - -.” But who are the witnesses? Many or most Muslim scholars think it refers to the reporting angles that stay with each human and note down everything the person does (what for if Allah is omniscient?). Others – like an authority like Ibn Abbas – said it meant the prophets who according to the Quran will be called forth to give witness on the Day of Doom (what for if Allah is omniscient?). What is the right answer, nobody knows – the book does not make this clear.

006 16/84b: "- - - a Witness - - -". Many Muslim scholars believe it here is referred to all the claimed prophets who according to the Quran are sent out by Allah, but it is not clear - like so much in the Quran. But why does Allah need a Witness if he is omniscient?

007 16/89b: "- - - raise from all Peoples a witness (f.x. Muhammad*) against them (sinners*), from amongst themselves - - -". See 16/84b above.

008 16/89c: "- - - bring thee (Muhammad?) as a witness against these (sinners*) - - -". See 16/84b above.

009 22/78i: "- - - the Messenger (Muhammad*) may be a witness for you, and ye be witnesses for mankind!". But why does an omniscient god need witnesses?

Not to mention: What value would the witness from a man with a morality - al-Taqiyya (the lawful lie), Kitman (the lawful half-truth), Hilah (the lawful pretending/circumventing), Taqlid? (he kept much from the old pagan religion) , deceit, betrayal, and broken words/promises/oaths (2/225 and the stare 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 + 5/89, 16/91, 66/2) - like Muhammad have? Old Bailey would not accept him as a bona fide Witness, and a god should be even choosier and more mindful of honesty and reliability than a human court.

010 28/75b: "And from each people We (Allah*) shall draw a witness - - -". According to Muslim scholars here are meant the prophets - included Muhammad - claimed by Islam sent to every people and nation in the world throughout all times. There never have been found any kind of traces from such claimed Muslim prophets anywhere, older than 610 AD when Muhammad started his preaching - neither by science, nor by Islam. The claimed many prophets/messengers never existed, unless Muslims/Islam bring proofs instead of claims for them.

011 33/45e: "- - - (Muhammad*) a Witness - - -". In normal speech this is a word only used about persons from whom one demands truth and only the truth. All the errors in the Quran, included some clear lies, prove that the word does not belong in this verse - and in some others.

012 40/4a: “None can dispute about the Signs of Allah but the Unbelievers”. This may be absolutely correct, though the correct expression may be "are permitted to" not "can":

It is a good reason in some countries and in some societies for being murdered by Muslims if you express too much doubt in the Quran, not to mention in Muhammad - the weak link in the religion (the only claimed witness and not a very holy character).

013 43/81b: “If (Allah) Most Gracious had a son, I (Muhammad*) would be the first to worship”. Some proof!! But for that: There still is Jesus calling Yahweh father. And any neutral professor of history would say that according to all normal rules, the Bible should be more reliable than the Quran as a source of correct history: Very much closer in time to Jesus, thousands of witnesses, many narrators, versus one single narrator without good sources and 600 years later - and even a man of dubious character and with strong motif to reduce Jesus, to become the greatest prophet himself - and a man clearly lusting for power (just read the Quran and the Hadiths - it is easy to see f. x. his gluing himself to the god and platform of power). A man who definitely had not been accepted as a reliable witness in any country with a reliable judicial system. (The real and historical Muhammad was something quite different from the glossy semi-saint Islam and Muslims claims – a claim made necessary because all Islam only is built on this man’s words - if he lies, the religion is a false one - - - and Allah likely a false god). Also: Science has showed that the never documented Islamic claim about falsification of the Bible is wrong. At least some scientists also directly say that Islam is falsifying history to find a semi-saintly Muhammad (actually you do not have to be a scientist to be able to see this from the Quran - just read about his demands, rules, deeds, etc., and skip the cheap glorious words he use about himself in the book).

014 48/8a: “We (Allah*) have truly sent thee (Muhammad*) as a witness - - -”. Is this reliable? - in a book with this much mistakes, invalid statements, “signs” and “proofs”? There is only one possible answer to that: A “witness” bringing so much wrong information and wrong fact, is not sent from an omniscient god. And one may add: A “witness” bringing so much injustice, hate and misery to the world, is not sent by a good and benevolent god. If Muhammad at all was sent, on may speculate about by whom. Personally we hardly believe he was sent by even a devil, though parts of the religion as preached in the Quran, fit any devil well. But not even a devil would make a "holy" book with so many mistakes and errors – he would be found out sooner or later.

***But may be a devil knew that mistakes do not matter very much – may be he knew that religiously blind persons are unable to see even the most obvious mistaken facts, because they do not want to see them? Or maybe that was the condition on which the god permitted the book - so that man should have a fair chance to see the trap and avoid Hell?

015 73/15d: "- - - a witness (Muhammad*) - - -". But about what could Muhammad witness when the Quran makes it clear that the Quran with all its mistakes, contradictions, etc. was not from a god, and that Muhammad thus had no connection to a god?

Sub-total Chapter 92 = 15 + 10.083 = 10.098.

>>> 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".