Humans, Other Beings in/Relevant to the Quran, Part 3



- king of Macedonia, Greece, and more.

According to the Quran Alexander the Great was a Muslim. From history we know ever so well that this is not true - Alexander was a pagan. Many Muslims because of their try to explain that Dhu'l Quarnayn - the name used in the Quran - does not mean Alexander. But for one thing we know that this in Arabia was a name for him. For another Dhu'l Quarnayn means "the two-horned one", which we also know was a name used for him (a horn was a symbol for power - Alexander was said to have two horns and thus was very powerful). Not to mention: For a third some of the Muslim translators of the Quran - f.x. N. J. Dawood (from Bagdad) - simply use the name Alexander the Great instead of the Arab Dhu'l Quarnayn in their translations of the Quran.

One more error in the claimed perfect Quran - and a big one.

And as no omniscient god makes mistakes: Who made the Quran?

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

001 6/25g: "These (the tales in the Quran*) are nothing but tales of the ancient." This skeptic's had good reason to say. None of the tales in the Quran is made by any god - and hardly any even by Muhammad. They practically without exception are histories, legends, fairy tales, etc. which were known or well known in Arabia at that time. Muhammad just "borrowed" them, twisted them some, and told he had got that version from Allah. But we honestly doubt an omniscient god was unable to tell his own tales - and if he had to borrow from Earth, why only from in and around Arabia if he wanted to be god for the whole Earth? Only if humans in Arabia made the verses and surahs that was necessary. Thus at least the stories claimed to be from the Bible, all were more or less wrong compared to the Bible and sometimes also to known history. The same goes for f.x. the story about Alexander the Great (Dhu'l Qarnayn in the Quran).

002 17/6-7: We are now at the 2. punisher, which may have been Nebuchadnezzar, though this is not clear. (As the Assyrians (732-722BC) and the Babylonians (587 BC) mainly attacked different parts of David's old country, Muhammad might have reckoned f.x. the later Romans, as they were number 2 the different places. The Quran after all says "2 times", and in this case the arithmetic of main destruction adds up. Also the fact that they had been permitted to return before the second destruction, may point to the Romans. Simply unclear.)

The two first ones in case were the Assyrians (722 BC, Northern Kingdom - Israel) and the Babylonians (586 BC, Southern Kingdom - Judah (from which the name Jews derive))- (Solomon's temple in Jerusalem was destroyed by the Babylonians under Nebuchadnezzar in 586 BC. (Actually Jerusalem was taken in 597 BC - the rest of Judah in 586 BC and the Temple destroyed then.) And that was it according to the Quran = 2 times. But the Quran as so often has got history wrong. Because - still omitting the lesser stories - then came Alexander the Great (named Dhu'l Quarnayn in the Quran), though he was not too bad for the Jews - followed by the Romans (61 BC), revolt against the Romans (66 - 73 AD, and the new Temple destroyed 70 AD - remember this when you are told about Muhammad's trip to Heaven from "the Farthest Mosque - there was no mosque or temple there at the time of Muhammad), Persia (614 AD), Persia beaten (628 AD). Then the Muslims - Jerusalem fell in 637 AD (some sources say 638 AD), and the Muslims stole everything resulting in a hunger catastrophe, this in addition to lots of murdering in the land. Then the Muslim Fatimids - with destruction of f.x. churches and synagogues ("no compulsion in religion"?). The crusaders (1099 AD). The Mamelukes (Muslims) (1244 AD), The Ottomans (1517 AD). These are some. Plus pogroms against Jews in different parts of the world - Muslim and non-Muslim - and the Nazi not included.

#####As for the Crusaders: Muslims complain heavily about them - - - but boast about their own worse deeds. Strange and just, do you not think so?

003 18/83b: "They ask thee (Muhammad*) concerning Dhu'l-Quarnayn". See 18/63b above.

###004 18/83c: "They ask thee (Muhammad*) concerning Dhu'l-Quarnayn." Dhu'l-Quarnayn was an Arab name for Alexander the Great (!!) (he lived around 340 BC)

Alexander the Great is a man one does not expect to find as a hero in a “holy book”. But in the Quran you find him – mainly in surah 18.

The book uses an Arab name for him: Dhu’l Quarnayn – "the two-horned one" (horn was a symbol for power). But it is well known in history that this was a name used for Alexander in Arabia. In addition there are facts like the description made by the well known Muslim scholar Ibn Hisham (around 900 AD) in his comments to Ibn Ishaq’s “The Life of Muhammad”: “Alexander was a Greek and he founded Alexandria”. Alexander really was from Macedonia, but he also was king of Greece, and it is very elementary knowledge that he founded Alexandria (in Egypt) – and gave it his name.

You will find Muslims who vehemently oppose this fact, because it makes an extremely unbelievable story even worse: Every educated person know that here something is horribly – not to say laughably – wrong. Alexander was not involved in stupidities like this, and he definitely was no Muslim, but a polytheist. Some Muslims even try to use the mistake the book makes by telling he is a good Muslim, as a proof for that Dhu’l Quarnayn cannot be Alexander, because today we as said know he was a polytheist. The trouble is that Muhammad’s uneducated follower in 622 AD when this surah is dated, did not have the faintest idea about that – Allah (or at least Muhammad) told it, and then it had to be true! But there is no doubt: Dhu’l Quarnayn is Alexander the Great. In some translations of the Quran – f.x. Dawood – you even will find they simply write Alexander the Great instead of Dhu’l Quarnayn in the Quran.

The stories about Alexander the Great are not from the Bible. And also not from history.

005 18/84b: "- - - and We (Allah*) gave him (Alexander the Great*) the ways and means to all ends". Alexander was the son of the Macedonian king Philip, and became a king after his father's death. May be it was a god who gave him his means or maybe there was logical reasons for them. Somewhat similar to 11/7a above.

006 18/85a: "One (such) way he (Alexander the Great*) followed - - -". History knows the travels of Alexander quite well, and this claimed travel is a made up one. Alexander never came further west than Macedonia in the north and Egypt in the south.

007 18/85b: "One (such) way he (Alexander the Great*) followed - - -". See 18/63b above.

008 18/86a: (A18/84 – in 2008 edition A18/85): “Until, when he (Dhu'l Quarnayn/Alexander the Great*) reached the setting of the sun , he found it set in a spring of murky water". The sun simply does not set on Earth - neither in water or on land. And the sun sets in no "spring of murky water" in any of those two places.

009 18/86b: (A84 – in 2008 edition A85): “Until, when he (Dhu'l Quarnayn/Alexander the Great*) reached the setting of the sun, he found it set in a spring of murky water”. In this case A. Yusuf Ali – like mostly – has a correct translation. The Arab word “ayn” normally means a spring. Muslims has a tendency to claim that “many philologists” also tell it can mean “abundance of water”, “a large body of water” or similar. This even though if he had seen even a murky Pacific Ocean, it only had been a tea-spoon compared to the real size of the sun - far, far too Small. Not to mention that the real sun is far, far too hot close up. Then they - “forgetting” the word “murky” (there exist no murky ocean and hardly any murky really big lake in the area) - happily go on to explain that he must have seen the reflecting of the sun in the sea or ocean, a sight Alexander had seen hundreds of times before and never had mistaken for what he was looking for according to the Quran. When religious people have to choose between truth, reality and religious “Truth”, both truth and reality can walk west singing a song. Here the text is clear – but Muslims make up other meanings to flee from an obvious mistake in the Quran. It is not the only place in the book.

010 18/86c: “- - - he (Alexander) reached the setting of the sun, - - -”. To reach the setting of the sun means to go west. In addition to all the other mistakes in this story we know that Alexander never went west (the furthest west he ever was, was his homeland Macedonia north of Greece, and Egypt). See also 18/86b and 18/86c just below.

##011 18/86d: “- - - when he (Alexander) reached the setting of the sun - - -”. Anyone who knows two millimeters about geography and astronomy knows this is wrong and ridiculous to the extreme: The sun does not set on Earth – and absolutely not in a pond of dirty water. Also see 18/86a and 18/86c just above and just below.

###012 18/86e: “- - - he (Alexander the Great*) found it (the sun*) set in a spring of murky water”. This statement - or fairy tale - deserves a series of exclamation marks - anyone who has finished primary school, knows among other these facts:

  1. The sun is too big to settle anywhere on Earth.
  2. Not to mention that it is far too big to settle in a pond - murky or not.
  3. And that if the sun ever came within a million kilometers or miles from the Earth, there would be no spring or pond any more.

Muhammad did not know the size or temperature of the sun – (he even seems to believe it was a flat disk that could be folded up) - but an omniscient god had known. Who made the Quran?

Muslims try to “explain” it by f.x. telling that what he saw was the reflex of a sunset in a spring. Think of the great warrior king Alexander - riding west and west and west with his men, day after day and week after week to find the place where the sun set. Then one day he hits upon one more pond - even one with dirty water. When he stands so that that dirty spring is in the straight line between him and the sun, he sees the red and yellow mirror image of the sunset in the muddy surface - a sight he has seen time and again and again before on the surfaces of ponds and springs and rivers and lakes and seas - and he hails his men: “Now we have reached our goal!! Here is where the sun sets!! Now let’s go back and tell about our great discovery“.

Believe it whoever wants.

But whoever believes it needs to see a professor of history - or a psychologist to mend his brain. (Also see 18/86a and 18/86b above.)

Besides: We know from history that Alexander never went west.

Some Muslims also tries to explain that Dhu'l-Quarnayn was not Alexander the Great. For this see 18/83 in the "complete" list of mistakes.

013 18/87a: "He (Alexander the Great*) said - - -". A time anomaly.

014 18/87b: "He (Alexander the Great*) said: 'Whoever - - -". See 18/63b above.

015 18/88a: "But whoever believes (= is a good Muslim - only Muslims believe according to the Quran*) - - - he shall have a goodly reward - - -". Here the polytheist war king Alexander the Great is claimed to be a good Muslim who wants to reward other good Muslims nearly 1000 years before the first known Muslim, Muhammad. Believe it if you want. Anyone who knows history may have a good laugh.

016 18/89a: "Then followed he (Alexander the Great*) (another) way". Alexander came quite far east - as everyone who has seen the great film about him knows. But he never came to the place where the sun rises - see 18/90 just below. Anyone who knows history or geography may have a good laugh.

017 18/89b: "Then followed he (Alexander the Great*) (another) way". See 18/63b above.

018 18/90a: “- - - he (Alexander*) came to the rising of the sun - - -”. It is not physically possible to come to the place where the sun rises from the Earth like the Quran indicates, because it does not rise from the Earth - and if it had, both Alexander and the Earth had been rather fried. Also see 18/86a-d above. Any god had known this - then who made the Quran?

019 18/90b: “- - - he (Alexander*) came to the rising of the sun - - -”. A historical and a geographical anomaly and impossibility.

020 18/92b: "Then followed he (Alexander the Great*) (another) way". See 18/63b above.

021 18/93b: "Until, when he (Alexander the Great*) reached (a tract) between two mountains - - -". Nobody knows where this tract was. And worse: If it had existed, closing in the two big tribes Gog and Magog until the Day of Doom like the Quran and the Hadiths tell, it had been found by now - we know every square yard of the globe. This story is a made up one unless Islam proves the opposite.

*022 18/94c: “- - - Gog and Magog - - -”. These are from the Bible - and f.x. Muhammad Azad uses this as an alibi for the names in the Quran (A18/95), without mentioning anything more. But in 1. Mos. 10/2 and 1. Chr. 1/5 the name Magog just is the name of a grandson of Noah, and not given as a founder of a tribe. The other name, Gog, is not mentioned there. More relevant are the tales about Gog and Magog in Ezekiel, chapters 38 and 39: King Gog of Magog - or more exactly: "- - - Gog, chief prince of Meshech and Tubal (tribes, towns or areas*)(Ez.38/3) - - - of the land of Magog (Ez.38/2 - also see Ez. 39/11). And they will all be dead and buried (Ez.39/11) and thus also cannot be the people we meet in the Quran. Finally Gog and Magog are mentioned in Rev.20/8, but there the names are used for all humans: "- - - the nations in all four corners of the world - - -". None of these in reality 3 cases corresponds to Gog and Magog in the Quran even though the names clearly are taken from the Bible - 2 wild tribes according to the Quran. We may add that many Muslim scholars believe Gog and Magog represent the Tatars and the Mongols who fought terrible wars against Muslims. But they lived some 1500 years after Alexander, and cannot be the ones he is claimed to have met. When Islam met mighty and bloody opponents, the opponents were terrible and devilish and Gog- and Magog-like. When Muslims did the same and worse against others - their history is horrible at times - they were heroes. Strange don't you think so?

023 18/95a: “He (Alexander*) said: ’(The power) in which my Lord (Allah!!!*) has established me is better - - -”. The Quran clearly indicates that Alexander was a pious Muslim (some 950 years before Muhammad!). To make an understatement: That is wrong. Alexander was a polytheist. (Muslims sometimes try to use this mistake as a proof for that Dhu’l Quarnayn was not Alexander). Also see 18/96a, 18/96b and 18/96c below.

024 18/95b: “He (Alexander*) said - - -". A time anomaly.

025 18/95c: “He (Alexander*) said - - - 'I will erect - - -'". See 18/63b above.

026 18/95-97: A people that lived in a valley were terrorized by two other people - Gog and Magog. They (the locals*) asked Alexander the Great for help. He said: “I will erect a strong barrier between you and them - - -". And he built a huge wall - which in real life had been to no avail after a short time. This story is not from the Bible.

027 18/96a: "Bring me blocks of iron”. And he let (Alexander the Great*) build a wall of iron blocks produced by the locals straight across the valley, strong enough to be impossible for the people of Gog and Magog to get through, and tall enough to be impossible to get over even with the longest ladders.

But nowhere on the entire earth there existed that much iron blocks around 330 BC – blocks of iron the locals were asked to bring him. (Note here that 18/93 tells the wall had to cross “(a tract) between two mountains” under which mountains a people lived – the wall had to have some length to cross “a tract” big enough for a whole people to live – it took a lot of iron blocks.) Also remember that iron was expensive at that time – it took a lot of work to make it. The locals had to be very rich to have that much iron. (Relevant here - even though it is some 500 years older - may be what is said about the enormously rich king Solomon in 1. Chr. 22/3: "He provided a large amount of iron to make nails for the doors of the gateways (of the Temple in Jerusalem*) and for the fittings". For a king so rich that he reckoned his gold in tons, this was "a large amount". Alexander asked for at least some tens of thousand times as much). Contradicts historical reality (and besides the story is naïve and ridiculous – there exists no valley big enough to feed two big tribes with only one possible entrance. And even if impossible to get over, then it was possible to dig under – fire and water could get you through even rocks if you had time.)

See also 18/86a – 18/86b – 18/86c above.

##028 18/96b: “At length, when he (Alexander - or really the workers making the wall*) had filled up the space between the two steep mountain-sides, he said, ’Blow (with your bellows)’. Then, when he had made it red as a fire - - -”. It would not be possible to make the whole of such a big wall red like fire at around 340 BC. They neither had the means - that kind of fire - nor the technology. It would be more than difficult even today. Fairy tale.

##029 18/96c: “Then, when he (Alexander the Great) had made it (red) as fire, he said: ’Bring me, that I may pour over it, molten lead” (Dawood says bronze).

  1. We do not think there any one place on Earth was enough lead - or bronze - for such a job.
  2. Even if they did, metal was expensive - the locals had to be very rich to have so much lead/bronze. And this goes even more so for enough iron blocks to build a huge wall.
  3. It would not be technically possible to heat such a big and long wall to “make it (red) as fire” ca. 340 BC - it is hardly possible today - for pouring the lead/bronze over it.

To include the rest of the story about Gog and Magog: Thy will be unable to get out of their big valley – it has to be big to feed that many until they are released as a warning about the approaching of the Final Day. But even today nobody has found their valley – not even on a satellite photo. It must be a well hidden big valley.

030 18/96e: “- - - he (Alexander*) said - - - 'Blow - - -'". See 18/63b above.

031 18/97: "Thus they (Gog and Magog*) were made powerless to scale it (the wall*) or dig through it". That wall had to be mighty high and quite thick = much iron/too expensive at best iron was expensive around 340 BC. Besides it still is ridiculous: They could dig under - by means of fire + water they could dig through even rock given some time. But the real screamer is that there exists not one single valley in this whole world big enough to feed two big peoples (that they were many is told another place in the Quran - "swarming over all hills"), with only one possible way out - they simply could walk around the wall. It takes a lot of naivety or strong wish to believe in stories like this.

032 18/98b: “He (Alexander*) said - - - 'I will erect - - -'". See 18/63b above.

033 18/98c: “This is a mercy from my Lord (Allah*)”. Wrong. Alexander the Great was no Muslim, but a polytheist. Contradicting historical facts - the claim represents a good laugh for people knowing history. There are a bit too many such cases, too, in the Quran.

034 18/98d: "- - - the promise of my (Alexander's*) Lord (here wrongly indicated Allah*) is true". Never since long before Alexander the Great and till today there has ben one single proved case of a promise from Allah which has come true. Islam will have to prove this claim to be believed.

035 21/96a: “- - - Gog and Magog (people) - - -”. The names are from the Bible. But in the Bible they are a king (or actually a prince) (Gog) from the country Magog (Ez. 38/1, more unclear in Rev. 20/8), whereas in the Quran they are two bad peoples (who were walled in for always in a valley by Alexander the Great (18/93-97) - a valley never found, even not today when every inch of the globe is mapped). Which book is most reliable?

*036 21/96b: “Until the Gog and Magog (people) are let through (their barrier), and they swiftly swarm from every hill”. Gog and Magog according to the Quran (surah 18) were two groups of people (tribes?) imprisoned in a valley behind a tall, strong barrier made from iron blocks erected by Dhu’l Quarnayn/Alexander the Great. But there is nowhere on Earth – let alone in the area Alexander travelled – a valley big enough to produce food for two large tribes of people (“swarm from every hill” = large tribes), which is impossible to get out from, even if the main valley and the main way out is blocked. Besides the whole storey is nonsense: Even if they could not get through or over such a barrier, given time it always would be possible to dig under it. Even if it had been erected on solid rock, around 330 BC when the Quran pretends this happened (Alexander died 323 BC), people knew how to make short tunnels even through a rock if they really wanted to, f.x. by means of fire + water. And there would always be paths across the mountains from a big valley.

037 21/96c: “Until the Gog and Magog (people) are let through (their barrier), and they swiftly swarm from every hill”. This will according to the Quran happen shortly before the Day of Doom - which means the two big tribes(?) are still living behind the barrier. BUT: Where is the wall? Where is the valley? Today every inch of the globe is mapped, and there is no walled in valley anywhere. Not in the east where Alexander travelled, and nowhere else. (And we repeat: Gog and Magog are not to be released until shortly before the Day of Doom, according to the Quran, so they should still be in the valley).

038 21/96e: Gog and Magog also are part of the Quran's story (not history) about Alexander the Great - see 18/83-99, and especially 18/93-97. And not least: The release of Gog and Magog from their valley, is a sign for the coming of the Day of Doom - they are to be locked up till then. But no-one has ever found that valley, not even modern satellite photos.

###039 46/8c: “Say: ’Had I (Muhammad*) forged it (the Quran*), then can ye obtain no single (blessing) for me from Allah.” What an unbeatable proof!!!

Actually Muhammad is said to have "proved" that he was a prophet, by answering 3 cryptic questions brought by Uqbab Abu Mu’ayt from Jewish rabbis in Medina - he claimed he got the answers from Allah via Gabriel. The first one concerned the “seven sleepers”. Any god had known the story is made up - a Christian legend (some Muslims say it is copied from an older Jewish legend, but it is as wrong anyhow) - but Muhammad did not know this. The second concerned Alexander the Great (Dhu’l Quarnayn - an Arab name for him) - and Muhammad answered fairy tales any god had known were wrong. The third concerned the Holy Spirit - and Muhammad had no real answer. But the conclusion after the fiasco (it was not documented then that it was a big fiasco, but it has been documented later) was clear: The story was taken to be an unmistakable proof for that Muhammad was a prophet. Worse: EVEN TODAY WHEN WE EASILY SEE WHAT IS WRONG, MUSLIMS REFUSES TO ADMIT THE OBVIOUS AND TRY TO EXPLAIN THE ERRORS AWAY - AND RECKON THE WRONG INFORMATION AS SURE PROOF OF HIS BEING A REAL PROPHET, IN SPITE OF THAT NO GOD HAD GIVEN HIM ANSWERS SO FAR FROM THE REALITY. It should be a matter of doubt for any thinking person - but then Muslims are not taught how to think, but only to accept and obey. This really is an interesting “proof”. And unmistakable dishonesty from the one who used this "explanation" and at least by the educated leaders who have got to know the true facts by now - or at least has no excuse for not checking them.

Besides: The criteria for really being a prophet, are:

  1. Have the gift of and close enough connection to a god for making prophesies.
  2. Makes prophesies which always or at least mostly come true.
  3. Makes so frequent and/or essential prophesies, that it is a clear part of his mission.

A few things Muhammad said, came true – like it has to do for a person saying many things through many years – and most of what he said which did not come true, was forgotten (also this is what normally happens if it is nothing spectacular). But he did not see the future correctly often - actually he statistically and according to the laws of probability should have "hit the mark" far more often by sheer chance than he did - there just are a few cases where Muslims will claim he foretold something correctly, and few if any of them are "perfect hits". But then the Quran makes it pretty clear that even though he was intelligent, he had little fantasy and that he also was nearly unable to make innovative thinking (nearly all his tales and his ideas in reality were "borrowed" ones - though often twisted to fit his new religion).

The main things here are that Muhammad never indicated that anything of what he said was meant as prophesies, that he never indicated, not to mention claimed, that he had the gift of prophesying, that it nowhere is documented that all/most of what he said about the future came true (point 2 above), and finally that both he and Islam said and says that there were no miracles connected to Muhammad “except the Quran”; prophesying is a kind of miracle -seeing what has not yet happened). (This fact that Islam admits there were no miracle connected to Muhammad also is a solid proof for that all the miracles connected to Muhammad mentioned in the Hadiths, are made up stories). Also see 30/40a and 30/46a, and we also should add that his favorite wife (and infamous child wife) Aisha according to Hadiths (f. x. Al-Bukhari) states that anyone saying Muhammad could foresee things, were wrong. And not least: Muhammad himself at least two places in the Quran tells that he could not "see the unseen (3/144, 6/50,7/188,10/20, 27/65, 46/9, 72/26, 81/24)".

Verse 7/188b also is very relevant here: "If I (Muhammad*) had knowledge of the Unseen (= what is hidden and what has not happened yet*), I should have - - -". IT IS VERY CLEAR THAT MUHAMMAD DID NOT HAVE THE PROPHETS' ABILITY TO SEE "THE UNSEEN" - he was no real prophet.

Also relevant here is that the original title of the Jewish prophets was not "prophet" but "seer" - one who saw at least parts of the unseen. (F. x. 1. Sam. 9/9, 1. Chr. 26/28, 1.Chr.29/29, Amos 7/12, Mic. 3/7 - some places the two titles even are used side by side). Muhammad so definitely was no seer - prophet - even according to his own words; he had no "knowledge of the unseen".

Many liked the title prophet, and there have been made other definitions for the name - the most common of these are "one who brings messages from a god", or "one who represents a god", or "one who acts/talks on behalf of a god". But the fact remains: Without being able to prophesy, he or she is no real prophet. A messenger for someone or something - ok. An apostle - ok. But not a real prophet.

***And this is a fact no Muslim will admit: Muhammad in reality simply was no real prophet or seer. Perhaps a messenger for someone or something or for himself – or perhaps an apostle – but not a real prophet. He only “borrowed” that impressive and imposing title. It is up to anyone to guess why.

Also see 30/40 and 30/46.


##040 56/64b: "Is it ye (humans*) who cause it (seeds*) to grow, or are We (Allah*) the cause?". This is a technique of debating where you (try to) lead your opposite part by the nose, by using rhetoric questions and limiting the permitted answers. Here the answer which is the most likely to be the correct one - nature - is omitted. Also it is treated as a matter of fact that Allah exists, something which in no way is a proved fact - a technique of debating you meet even more often in the Quran (Occam's Broom). The idea is not to find the truth, but to win the debate. You meet these kinds of technique pretty often from Muslims - f.x. demanding proofs from the Quran for things they know is not clear in the Quran. (F.x. "Prove from the Quran that Dhu'l Quarnayn is Alexander the Great". This is thoroughly proved by science and also in central Islamic literature - f.x. by Ibn Hisham in Ibn Ishaq: "The life of the Prophet": "Alexander was a Greek (he was from Macedonia, but was king of Greece*) and he founded Alexandria - it is a historical fact that Alexander the Great founded Alexandria. But it is not clear in the Quran - on the other hand no Muslim ever mentions that it also is not clear in the Quran that Dhu'l Quarnayn was not Alexander.) Such a limitation is nonsense if proofs exists other places, but it makes the Muslim the winner of the debate if his opponent is stupid enough to accept the limitations.

Besides: It is up to Muslims to prove that Allah causes it to grow, as it is they who put forth the claim - not for you to disprove it.

40 + 594 = 634 comments (+ basic comments/introductions).


17.  ALI ibn abu TALIB

Son-in-law of Muhammad. Married Muhammad's daughter Fatima shortly after the flight to Medina. They had 2 sons, Husain and Hassan. All claimed descendants from Muhammad are so via these two. Ali became the 3. caliph in 656 AD, when Utman was murdered in 656 AD. Ali was murdered in 661 AD (of the 11 first caliphs, only the first one, abu Bakr who ruled less than 2 years, was not murdered - in "the religion of Peace"). After him Muawiya - son of abu Sufyan, once a strong opponent of Muhammad, who became Muslim after Muhammad grew powerful and rich. Many Muslims meant that caliphs should come from the descendants of Muhammad, and Islam because of this was split in two main parts: The "Sjiat Ali" (Shi'ites) - the party of Ali - and the Sunnis. This schism exists till this day.

0 + 634 = 634 comments (+ basic comments/introductions).


18.  ALLAH

In a way Allah is an old god. The first we know about him, he was a pagan main god named Il further east. Over time he became the pagan moon god in Arabia - it is no co-incidences that his and Islam's symbol is the crescent moon. His name had now become al-Ilah. After even more time his name drifted to the slightly easier to pronounce al-Lah, and he became the main god of Arabia - a typical pagan god with many lesser gods in his sphere. At the time of Muhammad also the name Allah was used, and this was the name and the god Muhammad took over.

Muhammad further claimed that Allah and the Jewish god Yahweh was the same god. It was not originally his idea, because Arabs already had a "suspicion" about that this was the case, but in the old Arab "suspicion" al-Lah/Allah was not monotheistic.

It is worth remembering that Muhammad never was able to prove any of his central claims neither about Allah, nor about his teaching, nor about his own contact with a god. All there was, was claims + a moral code permitting the use of dishonesty - al Taqiyya (the lawful lie), Kitman (the lawful half-truth), Hilah (the lawful pretending and circumventing), etc., deceit, betrayal, and even disuse of oaths (2/225, 3/54, 5/89, 16/91, 66/2). One has to be pretty naive not to at least reflect over if such a man could not lead also his followers by the nose - and especially so as he wanted respect and power and riches for bribes for more power - and women. There simply exists not one valid proof for any of Muhammad's central religious claims - and not one for the existence or power of Allah. Remember here: "A proof is one or more proved facts which can give only one conclusion".

(For a comparison: If the old books - included the Quran - tell the truth about this, Jesus brought several proofs for that something supernatural was involved. He also belonged to a religion very different from Islam.)

We should also mention the name Hubal. He was a main god in Mecca (it f.x. seems that the Kabah temple/mosque originally was built for him. At the time of Muhammad al-Lah/Allah was the main god there, which means he either had ousted Hubal, or they had melted together. Hubal was imported from the north, and it is possible he (HuBal) was part of or at least influenced by the Bal/Baal/Ba'al religions.

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

For more about Allah see our Book J: "Allah in the Quran".

0 + 634 = 634 comments (+ basic comments/introductions).




Amat- the title or name of Yahweh's (and Allah's if the two gods were the same) wife or female partner according to extremely old Hebrew religion. (We have seen other names/titles used.)

In the really old Hebrew religion there was a female deity. One talked about Yahweh and his Amat. But in the very masculine Hebrew culture the Amat was forgotten. (Source f.x. New Scientist.)

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

001 3/59c: (Allah said:) "'Be' and he (Adam/Jesus?*) was". This is in strict contradiction to the verse claiming the god could not have a son, because he had no woman. But according to this and other points Allah could say "Be a son" and Jesus was. (In addition to that in the really old Hebrew religion there may have been a female god - Yahweh's Amat (source New Scientist and others).

002 6/73d: "- - - He (Allah*) saith, 'Be', behold, it is." The Quran other places claims Jesus could not be the son of the god, because the god had no woman (wrong: In the very old Hebrew religion there was a female - Yahweh's Amat - but over centuries and millennia she was forgotten in that very masculine society. Source: New Scientist and others, and thus the god might have got a son in the "normal" way in spite of the Quran's words about this a couple of places). But may be the god said: "Be a son", and behold, Jesus was. And who are we who say that a god does not like a son?

003 6/101c: “- - - how can he (Yahweh*) have a son when He hath no consort?” Wrong - and the Quran has itself given one possible solution: It declares that the god may just say “Be” and it is. May be Yahweh just said “Be a son”, and Jesus was.

##But there is another, but little known fact: In the very old Jewish religion there was a female god, too. They spoke about the god and his Amat (source among others “New Scientist”). In the very masculine society of the old Hebrews, the goddess was forgotten, though, - - - but it was possible for Yahweh to have a son “the natural way”. Gods would know this, but Muhammad not. Also see 17/111.

But why should gods make children the same way as humans and animals? Similar claim in 18/5 – 112/3.

*004 17/111c: “- - - and has no partner in (His) dominion - - -”. Well, Islam says that Allah is the same god as Yahweh. If we discuss from that hypothetical statement just here and say Allah = Yahweh: In the very old Hebrew religion there was a female partner/wife of Yahweh - his Amat (source: New Scientist and at least two others). In the strictly masculine Semitic culture the Amat was forgotten over the centuries. But maybe she still existed all the same at the time of Muhammad - and maybe even today? Also see 25/2 and 72/3 below.

*005 25/2e: “- - - nor has He (Allah*) a partner in his dominion - - -”. Well, if Allah should happen to be just another name for Yahweh: In the very old Hebrew religion there was a female deity - Yahweh’s Amat (woman or wife). (Source: New Scientist among others). In the very masculine society there, she simply was forgotten. And then there is the question of Jesus and of the Holy Spirit, which even the Quran mentions a few (3?) times - are they a kind of partners? At least underlings. (But here it most likely means no wife/woman, and thus no mother for Jesus in Heaven.)

###006 36/82b: "Verily, when He (Allah*) intends a thing, His Command is 'Be', and it is!" It is not for mere humans to speculate about why a god might want company, but if the god for some reason did want it, he according to the Quran just could say "Be a son" and Jesus was. This as a comment to Muslims' - and the Quran's - repeated question about how the god could have a son when he had no consort. (Besides in the very old Hebrew religion there also was a female deity - the male god's Amat. (Source "New Scientist" and others). Thus Jesus well could have been created "the natural way" if that is necessary for gods. The Amat was over time forgotten - the strictly masculine society of the old Hebrews did not respect a female, even not a female deity.)

##007 39/4f: (YA4246): "It is blasphemy to say that Allah begot a son. If that were true, He should have had a wife - - -". This argument is nonsense in this case. For one thing Islam claims that Allah is the same god as Yahweh, and it is known that in the really old times Yahweh had a female companion - his Amat (source New Scientist and others). Even if this is not widely known, it is unlikely that a learned man like Abdullah Yusuf Ali did not know it. And what is 110% sure he knew is that according to the Quran if the god wished something "He just could say 'Be' and it was" - the god just could say "Be a son" and Jesus was. This simply is one of the many places where Muslims find the answer they want, by omitting facts which make their wanted answer invalid and often even impossible.

008 42/49d: "He (Allah*) creates what He wills - - -". Perhaps there was a reason why Yahweh wanted a son, and then he "creates what He wills" = Jesus. The argument used in the Quran at least one place that he could have no son because he had no consort, is thus invalid (and perhaps wrong - remember the very old information about an "Amat").

#009 72/3b: “- - - He (Allah*) has taken neither a wife nor a son.” If Allah is not the same god as Yahweh, this may be true. But if the two are the same, like the Quran without any documentation claims: Well, Jesus called him “father” many times (the word is used for the relationship between Yahweh and Jesus at least 204 times, and the word "son" at least 89 times in the Bible - often by Jesus himself, and Jesus was reliable also according to the Quran) in front of thousands of witnesses. And as for a wife: In the really old Hebrew religion the god had a female companion - his Amat (source: New Scientist and others). But in the very male culture she was forgotten. Also see 17/111b+c above.

010 112/3: “He (Allah*) begetteth not - - -.” Well, if Allah should happen to be the same god as Yahweh all the same, Jesus many times called Yahweh “father” and many times said he was the son of Yahweh – and lots/most of those times it is clear it was meant in the real meaning. In the NT it is said at least 204 times that Yahweh was father of Jesus, and at least 89 times that Jesus was the son of Yahweh. It is said nothing about how the relationship started. If true, there are 3 possibilities:

  1. The age-old and mostly forgotten story about a female counterpart of Yahweh – the Amat of Yahweh - in the very distant past of the Hebrew pre-history, is true. Then the “Amat” of Yahweh may be the mother of Jesus.
  2. Yahweh may have created him. As it is said in both the Bible and even more in the Quran, the god only could say “be” and it was. May be the god said “be a son” and Jesus was.
  3. Also Jesus may have existed since eternity.

Similar claim in 6/101.

10 + 634 = 644 comments (+ basic comments/introductions).



The mother of Muhammad. Very little is known about her. According to Muslim texts, she became a widow before Muhammad was born, and died when he was 6.

There are indications for that Muhammad originally was named Amin after his mother.

0 + 644 = 644 comments (+ basic comments/introductions).

>>> 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".