Muhammad in the Quran, Vol. 4: Chapter 94
15 Dec. 2015
MUHAMMAD - A SERVANT OF ALLAH?
One of Muhammad's claims was that he was the servant of Allah. Also this was never proved.
¤ ¤ ¤ ¤ ¤ ¤ ¤ ¤ ¤ ¤ ¤ ¤ ¤ ¤ ¤ ¤ ¤ ¤ ¤ ¤ ¤ ¤ ¤ ¤ ¤ ¤ ¤ ¤ ¤ ¤ ¤ ¤ ¤
001 2/23d: "- - - Our (Allah's*) Servant - - -". No omniscient god brings a book that full of errors, etc., not to mention revere it in his "home" as a "mother book" like the Quran claims (13/39, 43/4, 85/21-22) - Muhammad thus is no servant of an omniscient god. Perhaps servant of someone or something, included of himself, but not of any omniscient god.
002 2/90f: "- - - His (Allah's*) servants (here included Muhammad*) - - -". Hardly. See 63/5a below. (Servant here is synonymous to messenger).
003 9/112a: "Those who turn (to Allah); that serve Him, and praise Him, that wander in devotion to the Cause of Allah; that bow down and prostrate themselves in prayer; that enjoins good and forbid evil, and observe the limit set by Allah - (these do rejoice)". Only if Allah exists and is a god (not f.x. something from the dark forces like parts of the Quran may indicate - or not simply is a fiction from one or more human brains, sick or not sick).
004 17/1b: "- - - His (Allah*) Servant - - -". Muhammad. But whose servant was Muhammad if the Quran provably is not from a god, and very likely also is Allah made up?
005 18/1b: “- - - Allah, Who hath sent down to his Servant (Muhammad*) - - -".The sinister question is: Was Muhammad the servant of an omniscient, omnipotent, benevolent god? Muhammad never was able to prove even the smallest of his central claims, and it is clear that his claimed holy book is no from a god - the quality of the contents is of such a low quality, not least scientifically, that it is an insult, slander and heresy to accuse any god for such sloppy work.
006 18/1c: “- - - Allah, Who hath sent down to his Servant - - - the Book (the Quran*)". Well, the next sinister question is: Can a book this full of mistaken facts and other mistakes, really be sent down by an omniscient god? If yes, does that mean that Allah is not omniscient/omnipotent? If no, does it mean that someone else who is/was not omniscient, has made (up) the Quran? The last question is most sinister, especially if it means that Islam is a made up religion, and even more so if this (may be?) made up religion blocks the road for its “believers” to a real religion (if such one exists). The answers have got to be: No omniscient god would make such an unreliable book (among other reasons because man had to see the mistakes sooner or later), and it is likely it is made by one or more humans at the time of Mohammad (among other reasons because the mistakes and many of the stories are in accordance with what one believed in Arabia at that time).
007 25/1c: "- - - His (Allah's*) servant (Muhammad*) - - -". Can an omniscient god have had a servant giving his followers so much wrong information and facts? Simply no.
#####008 27/91a: “For me (Muhammad*), I have been commanded to serve the Lord (Allah*) of this City (Mecca - this is from 615-616 AD when Muhammad still lived there*) - - - “. This is a serious one: It is Muhammad who is speaking once more (see f.x. 2/286c, 6/114a, 19/36b, 51/50-51) - - - in a book presumed to be copy of a “mother book” in Paradise, a book which may be existed from eternity or perhaps was made by Allah. Pikthall and Dawood both camouflage this very revealing mistake (there are a few more where either angles (37/164-166) or Muhammad speaks) by adding the word “say:”, but that is not in the original, according to Ibn Warraq, “Why I am not a Muslim”, p.175. Dishonest by Pikthall and by Dawood in case. But then it happens you meet dishonesty when Muslims tries to “explain” things - even in books you should believe were intellectually of high quality and moral. (Like Al-Azhar University, Cairo, certifying that the Big Flood could be explained by the filling up of the Mediterranean See. They know very well that both the time and the way it happened prohibit that explanation - some 5 – 6 million years ago and “slowly” over a period of perhaps 100 years, (though there is a new Spanish theory that there was a sudden, large break-through 5.33 million years ago, and that it was filled up in ca. 2 years - but even according to this theory the water the worst periods rose peacefully and sluggishly 50 cm an hour) and not least; wrong place, as the Garden of Eden is believed to have been situated in what is now south Iraq (if it ever existed), and also Noah is believed to have lived in what is now south Iraq). And how could the slow filling up of the Mediterranean explain that the ark ended on a 2089 m high mountain, which it did according to the Quran?
Anyhow a nice moment for Muhammad – he liked power. (Just look at how he glued himself to his platform of power; his god).
009 39/14b: "It is Allah I (Muhammad*) serve - - -". This may - may - be true if Allah existed and was something supernatural - white or dark. If not Allah only served Muhammad - like many gods of many a self-proclaimed "prophet" through the times (though not with as much success as Muhammad).
010 48/28a: “It is He (Allah*) Who has sent His Messenger (Muhammad*) - - -". No god has ever sent a messenger with a message that full of errors, mistaken facts, contradictions, invalid logic, etc.
011 53/5a: "He (Muhammad*) was taught by one Mighty in Power (Allah*)". Wrong. No god ever was the teacher of so many mistakes, so many contradictions, so many cases of wrong logic, so many cases of unclear language, etc.
Well, on thinking it over: If the dark forces exist, also they are a mighty power.
012 53/10c: " - - - His (Allah's*) Servant (Muhammad*) - - -". No omniscient god had a servant telling so much wrong as Muhammad did.
013 53/10d: " - - - His (Allah's*) Servant (Muhammad*) - - -". A special version of Muhammad's main mantra for gluing himself to Allah and ultimate power.
014 57/9b: "- - - His (Allah's*) Servant (here Muhammad*) - - -". No man claiming to bring from his god texts with so many mistakes, etc., is the real servant of an omniscient god.
015 57/9c: "- - - His (Allah's*) Servant (Muhammad*) - - -". Another of Muhammad's mantras to glue himself to Allah - his platform of power; Self-centered. Selfish?
016 58/21a: "It is I (Allah*) and My Messenger (Muhammad*) who must prevail". This decree has no value if not Allah exists and in addition is a major god. But all the same this may become true, as war cultures often wins over peaceful cultures - in spite of all propaganda about "the religion of peace" (an al-Taqiyya (a lawful lie)), Islam is a religion of war. If you want to protest to this fact, read first the some 22-24 surahs from Medina - the ones which really counts in many cases according to Islam's rules for abrogation (making verses invalid), because they are the youngest ones - made after Islam changed from rather peaceful to the use of weapons, robbery, raids, and war in/after 622 AD.
And: Was it only Muhammad out of Allah's claimed 124ooo+ messengers who must prevail? A depressing fact for all the other tens of thousands of claimed messengers.
Also: There never was a valid proof for that Muhammad was the representative of a god - Allah or any other.
######017 68/4b: “And thou (Muhammad*) (standest) on an exalted standard of character - - -”. Well:
Seen in the Quran and the Hadiths:
- Lots of mistaken facts, and other mistakes. Not typical for an omniscient god, but sometimes for cheaters, deceivers and swindlers.
- Lots of invalid arguments - hallmarks for cheaters and deceivers.
- Lots of "signs" - all invalid as proofs for Allah or for Muhammad's connection to a god.
- A number of "proofs" - all invalid as proofs for Allah or for Muhammad's connection to a god. A few of the "proofs" even are scientifically wrong. Hallmarks for cheats, swindlers, and deceivers.
- A man gluing himself to his god and his religion – his platform of power; Self-centered. Selfish?
- A self proclaimed prophet who in reality was no prophet – he had not the gift of prophesying. Muhammad did not even pretend or claim to have that gift, he just “borrowed” the distinguished and imposing title. (A few things he said, came true, but less than the probability of sheer chance should predict – and they were not given as prophesies.) A messenger, ok – for someone or something or for himself – an apostle for the same, ok. But a person who does not have the gift of prophesying, is not a real prophet - Muhammad just “borrowed” an imposing title. Islam also claims that messenger is a more distinguished title prophet – but that title just means “one who is not implicated, but just brings messages from one or more to one or more others” - a messenger boy. He does not even have to understand what things really are about. Besides: Why did Muhammad borrow the title “prophet” if the title “messenger” had been more distinguished? – simply because a prophet is something more: Messages like a messenger + prophesies - - - if it is a real prophet. Also beware that the original title for prophets was "a seer" - one who saw the unseen or the future (f.x. Amos 7/12, 1. Chr.26/28, 29/29, 2. Chr.16/7, 16/10, 19/2, 29/25, Micah 3/7, 1. Sam. 9/9, 9/11, 9/18, 9/19). It is very clear that Muhammad was unable to see the unseen - - - but "prophet" was a very tempting title. (Muhammad also used the title prophet relatively seldom in the Quran - perhaps he did not want to invite to questions.)
- A messenger being the chief of highwaymen from Yathrib/Medina - even in holy months.
- A messenger also living from extortion - (money for men kidnapped from f.x. caravans or raided villages and towns).
- A messenger whose due was 100% of the robbed things if the victim gave in without a fight (albeit not all for personal use).
- A messenger permitting to take “spoils of war” - and 20% for him (albeit not all for himself).
- A messenger permitting to take slaves - and 20% for him (albeit not all for personal use).
- A messenger who received ca. 2.5% (from 0% to 10 %) of what you owned each and every year (if you were not too poor) – for the poor, but also for war and for “gifts” (bribes) to keep or attract followers, etc.
- A messenger using betrayal (f.x. promise of safe return of a 30 strong delegation from Khaybar broken and 29 of them murdered, and his slogans "war is betrayal" and "war is deceit").
- A messenger accepting and using dishonesty as working tools - what about his reliability?
- A messenger lying even in the claimed holy Quran - what about his reliability?
- a messenger accepting even disuse of words/promises/oaths (2/225, 5/89, 16/91, 66/2 - and the stare case 3/54 (if Allah can cheat, cheating is ok - but how much cheating is it then in the Quran?)
- A messenger with special agreement with the god for having many women.
- A messenger teaching hate against and suppression of non-followers.
- A messenger teaching and inciting war against non-followers.
- A messenger personally raping female prisoners/slaves.
- A messenger liking a sizable harem.
- A messenger who married a 6 year old girl and started sex with her when she was 9 (and he 52).
- A messenger who married a rich widow 15 years his senior, but his other wives 20 to 36 years younger than him - the child Aisha even more.
- A messenger who had the child Aisha as his favorite wife for the rest of his life.
- A messenger and his men - all with permission from their god to rape any female prisoner or slave who was not pregnant. It was “god and lawful”.
- A messenger who initiated assassinations of opponents.
- A messenger who initiated murders on opponents.
- A messenger who initiated mass murder.
- A messenger teaching suppression of women and non-followers.
- A messenger with lust for power (easy to see from f.x. Hadith, but even more so from f.x. the way he glues himself to his platform of power, his god, also in the Quran).
- A messenger with a huge appetite for women - one knows the name of 36 he had sex with. 11 long time wives, 16 short time wives (never mentioned by Muslims), 2 concubines, and 7 one does not know if he was married to or not (never mentioned by Muslims). He also was a rapist - he raped at least Rayhana bint Amr and Safiyya bint Huayay, and also Maria had no free choice. We do not know if he raped other captives or slaves.
And not least: All this is from Muslim sources - what Islam itself tells about him, though in more glossy words. There is no excuse for becoming angry, because it is 100% true according to Islam itself.
Yes, many will call this “an exalted standard of character”. But not many of those would be non-Muslims. And how many of the Muslims can say it and feel honest?
"Do against others like you want others do against you".
If Muhammad was an excellent idol for good Muslims, we hope never to meet a bad Muslim.
Sub-total Chapter 94 = 17 + 10.117 = 10.134.
>>> Go to Next Chapter
>>> Go to Previous Chapter
This work was upload with assistance of M. A. Khan, editor of islam-watch.org and the author of "Islamic Jihad: A Legacy of Forced Conversion, Imperialism, and Slavery".