Humans, Other Beings in/Relevant to the Quran, Part 19



Likely born in 628 AD. Died some 16 months old. Mother: The slave girl Marieh.

It is not entirely clear how many sons Muhammad had. We have seen numbers from 2 to 5, but likely the correct number is 3:

  1. Qasim - mother Khadija, Muhammad's first wife. He died as an infant, but Muhammad sometimes added this name to his own to document that he had had a son, and thus was a real man. A normal thing to do in Arabia.
  2. Abdullah or Abd'Allah. Also he died as an infant. Mother Khadija.
  3. Ibrahim (= Arab for Abraham). Died as an infant. Mother Maria, one of Muhammad's slaves and concubines.
  4. Then there were Tabir or Tayyab, but these are very unclear, and may have been other names for Abdullah. If they were children, they in case died very early.

    Muhammad also had 4 daughters, all of them with Khadija. Only one of them, Fatima, survived him, and only by half a year.
    A Muslim list (there are controversies on if all really were Muhammad's children):
  5. Quasim born ? died 605 AD
  6. Abdullah born ? died 615 AD
  7. Zaynab born ? died 630 AD
  8. Ruqayya born ? died 624 AD
  9. Umm Kulthum born ? died 631 AD
  10. Fatima born 605 or 615 died 632 AD (after Muhammad)
  11. Ibrahim born 630 died 632 AD (before Muhammad)
  12. For the names Tahir and Tayyab we have found no information.

If there is a god somewhere, was the early death of his children Muhammad's punishment on Earth for his deeds?

There also are at least two mysteries connected to Muhammad's children:

  1. Khadija is told to have been 40 years old when she married Muhammad (he was 25, but Khadija was rich). This means she really was too old to give him 6 - 8 children. One possible explanation is that the children, or at least many of them, in reality were the children of Khadija's dead earlier husbands (she had been married 2 times, and it is said she had 2 children with each of them) - children taken over (adopted) by Muhammad (this was not unusual in the old Arabia and other places where children were your only way of having a good and safe old age). There also is a possibility that some or all originally were the children of Khadija's sister Halah, who had a strained marriage and died young. Islam in both cases strongly claims that at least Fatima really was Muhammad's daughter (this because if not, none of the persons who today claim to be descendants from Muhammad, really are so), but we have found no reliable documentation for this claim. There also is the is the fact that it is highly unlikely - though not impossible - that a very fertile Khadija had no children in her earlier marriage, but then suddenly god many children with a man unable or nearly unable to impregnate other women.
  2. Muhammad had at least 36 women, rape victims not included (though he started the relationship with his later concubine Rayhana bint Amr and his later wife Safiyya bint Huayay by raping them) - long time wives, short time wives, concubines + someone does not know if they were formally married to him or not. Only two of these - his first wife, Khadija, and his slave concubine Marieh - got children claimed to be Muhammad's. There are two possible explanations for this: Muhammad was nearly infertile, or he was infertile and other men the father(s) of those children. As for Khadija her children may have been from her earlier marriage, or she may have married Muhammad to be able to cultivate a connection to a prohibited man. (That rich women made such arrangements to have an "explanation" if they became pregnant, was not unheard of in older times. Also remember here that in the old Arabia sex was one of "the two delicious things" - the other one was alcohol.) And as for Marieh: A slave girl forced to satisfy an old man may have had her own dreams, and perhaps visited an attractive young man one or more dark nights. (And finally there is the possibility that Muhammad was not 100% infertile, and one or a few lucky times succeeded in fathering a baby. That his children died so young, in case also may - may - indicate that something was wrong with his semen.)

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

#001 4/24a: “Also (prohibited (for Muslims to marry*) are) women already married, except those whom your right hands possess - - -“. = You can rape or marry slave women even if they were/are married before. No comments. In this connection remember that not until in unbelievable 1982 AD was slavery abolished in the last Muslim country – Mauritania. (And not until even more unbelievable 2007 did it become a punishable crime there). That is to say; we have heard that Niger was even later, but we have found no confirmation on this. Also remember that according to UN (2008 AD) some 24 million humans today “live as slaves or under slave like conditions” – a good percentage of them in Muslim areas. And not least: According to old Islamic laws (later than Muhammad though), all so-called “new ideas” became prohibited and punishable early in the Islamic period. That meant everything not in the Quran or traditions (Hadiths) was prohibited. This turned out to be too harsh, and they were forced to accept some changes: Changes which could be said to build on the Quran or Hadith were called “god new ideas” and permitted, whereas all other were called “bad new ideas” and still prohibited. And if times are reversed sometime in the future the "bad new idea" (= not in the Quran or Hadiths) of ending slavery, may well be abolished as sinful. No matter how Muslims boast about that abolishing of slavery was/is an integrated part of Islam, that claim only is rubbish to be very polite. Islam was forced backwards and fighting into abolition slavery by the west, and if the situation changes sufficiently (f.x. in a future world dominated by Islam) slavery may well be reintroduced - Muhammad practiced slavery, and the abolishing it thus was and is "a bad new idea", like it or not, as everything Muhammad said and did was right.

Muhammad both took, raped (at least Rayhana bint Amr and Safiyya bint Huayay), used as gifts, accepted as gift (at least his colored concubine Mariah, who bore him his son Ibrahim, who died as a baby, though) and sold slaves – and Muhammad is the great icon in Islam: Everything he did is permissible, good, and morally and ethically fine. So if Islam gains the upper hand and the pressure and ideas from the outside come to an end, will then to continue abolishing slavery be thought to be a “good new idea” or a “bad new idea” – and in the latter case: Will slavery then little by little be reinstated like said above? – at least as long as the slaves are not Muslims? There are many who would not be surprised. Especially slave women is a temptation.

002 13/30k: "On Him (Allah*) is my (Muhammad's*) trust, and to Him do I turn!" A bit risky as there never was a proof for his existence and never any kind of sure manifestation. May be the trust in Allah was the reason for why he lost all his children - included the sons Qasim, Abdullah, and Ibrahim - except Fatima, and she died shortly after him? And may be that was why he died in a ways which made lasting rumors of poisoning? - in line with the fact that of the next 11 caliphs, only Abu Bakr died a natural death, and he after just a short reign?

003 36/40b: “It is not permitted for the Sun to catch up the Moon - - -”. Visibly this actually seems to happen now and then - during solar eclipses. Muhammad even witnessed such one once - and superstitious persons believed it had something to do with the death of his son Ibrahim. But that happened years after this surah was published, and no comment was added here.

004 108/3d: (A108/2 - omitted in the English 2008 edition): "The Prophet Muhammad got at least two sons - - -". (YA6288) tells he had 2 sons with Khadijah, and then there was the son Ibrahim he had with his colored slave girl Marieh. Two are sporadically mentioned in Islamic literature, as they died very young - Qasim and Ibrahim. The third (Abdullah) hardly is mentioned at all. He also had four daughters (all with his first wife, Khadijah), but only one of them - Fatima - survived him, and just by half a year. If one believed in higher forces, one might believe he was punished for something through is children.

4 + 3277 = 3281 comments (+ basic comments/introductions).


121.   IDRIS

It is unclear who Idris was. May be Enoch, may be Elijah, maybe someone else - or may be a made up name.

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

001 19/56: "- - - Idris - - -". This may be a made up name, it may or may not have been the Biblical Jewish prophet Enoch (1. Mos. 5/18-19 and 5/21-24), or perhaps the also Biblical prophet Elijah (1. King 17/1 and 1. King 17/16-46), or it may be someone unknown. Nobody knows. The infamously clear language in the Quran.

002 21/85b: Idris may or may not be Enoch (Gen. 5/21-24). It also may mean Elijah or somebody else. As mentioned before, the language in the Quran often is far from exact. It may also simply be a name invented by Muhammad - and the same goes for Dhu'l-Kifl just below (and for the claimed Arab prophets Hud, Salih, and Shu'ayb may be).

003 From 67/5d: The 7 heavens and whom Muhammad met there during his claimed trip to the claimed 7 Heavens:

  1. Gharibya, Abraham.
  2. Rafqa, Moses.
  3. Ratqa, Aaron, brother of Moses.
  4. Arqlun, Idris (= Enoch or Elijah or somebody else - Islam does not know).
  5. Aun, Joseph son of Jacob.
  6. Faydum, Jesus* and John the Baptist.
  7. Birqi, Adam.

3 + 3281 = 3284 comments (+ basic comments/introductions).


122.   IFRITT

- a supernatural being according to the Quran.

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

001 27/39a: "- - - an 'Ifritt - - -". A category of Jinns.

Ifritts are supernatural beings "borrowed" from old Arab pagan religion and folklore. They were below angels and devils in power, and were enormous winged creatures made from fire - males and females. Naturally they lived in societies arranged like in old Arabia with kings and tribes and clans - like it fits a claimed god and a claimed religion for the entire world. They generally marry each others, but also may marry humans. They may be Muslims or "unbelievers", good or bad, but most often ruthless and wicked beings. You do not find them in the Bible.

1 + 3284 = 3285 comments (+ basic comments/introductions).



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

The first we know about the god Il (likely the same name as El - El used separately was the name of the high god, but used together with another name, could mean "the god named - - - ") he was a main god further east and in the Levantine area, where he was married to the goddess Asherah. The connection to his wife Asherah seems to have started weakening in the 7. century BC (because of a very male culture). He drifted into Arabia - perhaps with people who drifted into the peninsula and little by little became the mixed "race" known as Arabs. In Arabia he became the moon god al-Ilah and later the main god al-Lah - sometimes pronounced Allah, the name Muhammad adopted for him.

The known names used for this god were Il (main god), then al-Ilah (moon god), then al-Lah (main god), now Allah (only god - but very different from Yahweh in the Bible).

It seems that Abraham's god El and the original Il for Allah may have been the same god originally, but they "drifted apart" to use small letters. And the wife of the god, Asherah, disappeared from both El and Il.

0 + 3285 = 3285 comments (+ basic comments/introductions).



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

al-Ilah was the later name for main god Il. At least in the Levantine area he was married to the goddess Asherah. This god drifted into the Arab peninsula, perhaps with people from all around who settled there and became the mixed people named Arabs. In Arabia Il became the pagan moon god al-Ilah (it is no coincidence that Islam has the crescent moon for its symbol), and later the main pagan god al-Lah, sometimes named Allah, the name Muhammad adopted for this god, when he claimed that Allah was a real god and the only god. (Muhammad was never able to prove any of his central religious claims.)

The known names used for this god were Il (main god), then al-Ilah (moon god), then al-Lah (moon- and then main god (with the moon crescent as his symbol)), now Allah (only god - but very different from Yahweh in the Bible).

In the Kabah there also was the moon god Hubal, but it is unclear what connection he had to al-Ilah/al-Lah. He either was another name for al-Ilah/al-Lah, or they were originally different gods who "grew together" to one, or al-Lah dethroned Hubal and took over as the main god.

Two interesting points: The original god - El or Il - originally was married to a goddess. And Yahweh and al-Lah both derived from the same area and may have been the same god, El/Il, but later drifted totally apart - so totally that today only one of them can represent the right religion, if such one exists, whereas the other in case definitely does not represent the same religion.

And if you on this background compare the two books the Bible and the Quran, it is by far - very far - is the Quran which most is filled up by wrong facts, other errors, contradictions, etc. - so full of such things that it strongly proves that the texts are not from any god. There are some errors also in the Bible, but very far from as many. (In the Bible perhaps a few 10s, in the Quran maybe unbelievably some 3ooo all included - 1750+ points of just wrong facts).

0 + 3285 = 3285 comments (+ basic comments/introductions).


125.   IMAM

- leader of prayers and often a low level Muslim religious leader. Also see "mullah".

An imam is one who leads the common prayer (a bit more formalized in Shi’ia Islam) and may be an educated man (women can lead the prayers only in pure female congregations) or a lay man of good standing. Even imams without formal religious education often are religious leaders locally. For comparison a mullah is one who has studied the religion, and a mullah can also be an imam.

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

001 2/124c: (Allah said): "I will make you (Abraham*) an Imam (priest) to the Nations". What the Bible says (1.Mos. 22/18): "- - - and through your offspring all nations will be blessed - - -". One should here add 1.Mos. 21/12: (Yahweh said to Abraham): "- - - it is through Isaac that your offspring will be reckoned". The quote from the Quran is a contradiction to the Bible.

002 2/124d: (Abraham begged Allah): "And also (Imams) from my offspring!" There is nothing like this in the Bible. Contradiction.

003 2/124e: (Abraham begged Allah): "And also (Imams) from my offspring!" How can this be in the claimed "Mother Book" written may be billions of years before? See 2/51b above. Impossible if man has even a little bit of free will.

004 From 2/255a: The Quran claims that Allah and Yahweh is the same god. But this is not true (even though it perhaps was so 3ooo-4ooo years ago), as the teachings fundamentally are far too different, especially if you compare the Quran with NT and the New Covenant via Jesus - a covenant Muslims never are told about by their imams or mullahs (f.x. Luke 22/20). The same goes for the underlying ethics and moral (parts of it is very twisted in the Quran compared to the most basic rule;"do onto others what you want others do onto you") and the stressing of the value of empathy (empathy hardly is to be found in the Quran, and non-existing towards victims and non-Muslims), etc., not to mention that this also goes for the view on thieving (looting), lying (f.x. al-Taqiyya - the lawful lie), killing, etc. The only possible exception is if the god is strongly schizophrenic. (See separate chapter about this in tp:// (planned completed in the final edition in 2011 or at latest in 2012 and copied in this book). Demand proofs from the next Muslim telling you that Yahweh is the same god as Allah.

##005 3/3k: “- - - the Book (the Quran*), confirming what went before it (the Torah and the Bible*) - - -”. (A3/3) here comments that it is not confirming the Bible as we know it today (unclear Quran), 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. They also know that Islam has proved the same even more strongly by not finding one single falsification in 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 relevant manuscripts or fragments have survived till today) spread over thousands of kilometers and many lands and cultures, and 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 - Nicaea 325 AD - is well known, and changes of Biblical texts were not even mentioned). Not to mention now to get permission from each and every owner for permission to falsify their holy and cherished and valuable manuscripts? And not to forget: How to run such a big operation - at least some thousand agents over many years - without provoking even the slightest rumors or even one report about it - impossible at least in the West, even in the old West. 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 our and the forefathers' old and never documented beliefs, only built on an apocryphal book full of errors and dictated by a somewhat "special" man.

006 4/84d: "- - - rouse the Believers (to armed combat*)". May be this is what some imams, mullahs and others are doing? Well, drop "may be".

007 4/85c: "- - - whoever recommends and helps an evil cause; shares its burden." This also should be the case for Muslim clergy - imams, mullahs, etc. - and others who incite to evil deeds, and NB; evil deeds according to normal moral codes, not the Islamic sometimes rather peculiar ones.

008 4/176a: This verse is an example of how the Quran often jumps from one subject to something entirely different. The mullahs and imams who boast that the Quran is top literature, seem to know a lot about the Quran, but nothing about literature - or they are using an al-Taqiyya.

##009 5/110i: "And behold, thou (Jesus*) bringest forth the dead by My leave". For Muhammad it was essential to stress that it was not Jesus himself who resurrected the dead ones, but the god. (If it was Jesus himself, he clearly was a superior prophet to Muhammad - and Muhammad wanted to be the greatest). ####But the main thing here really is that if the Quran tells the truth here, it confirms that Jesus was connected to something supernatural and powerful - a god. For Muhammad and Allah this never and nowhere is proved - not one single time (of course Islam still will claim Allah = Yahweh, but the teachings fundamentally are so different that this only is possible if the god is strongly schizophrenic).

For Jesus there were many witnesses that he was able to make miracles, for Allah there were only Muhammad’s claims - and for Muhammad clear words in the Quran that he was unable to make miracles (3/144, 7/188, 10/49, 17/93, 72/21) or foretelling/prophesies (3/144, 6/50, 7/188, 10/20, 27/65, 44/9, 72/26, 81/24). This also is confirmed by top Muslim scholars (but the opposite claimed when many mullahs and imams talk to their congregations), and as for prophesies it also was confirmed by Aisha in the Hadiths.

010 6/37c: “Allah hath certainly power to send down a Sign - - -”. But he never did - and Muhammad never was able to produce anything but fast words and less than convincing “explanations”. That is to say: Muslims are indoctrinated to believe it - and not to think for themselves, but only to obey and believe the imam. Because of this many of them honestly and without thinking things over, believe that invalid claims are proofs.

####011 6/50g: (A. Comment 6/39 to verse 6/50): "This denial on the part of the Prophet (Muhammad*) of any claim to supernatural power - - -". That Islam accepts and states that Muhammad had no supernatural powers, is worth remembering when Muslims talk about all his miracles - f.x. from Hadiths (which the Quran by means of among others this verse proves are all made up). But far worse: It is here - and other places in the Quran - clear that Muhammad had no supernatural powers, and that in addition Allah made no miracles connected to him, and all the same Islam in its books and through its imams etc. tells and boasts about and uses for proof for Allah and for Muhammad's connection to Allah, to all its followers the shining miracles Muhammad is claimed to have performed - miracles they know the Quran proves are fairy tales! What does this tell about Islam as an institution, about the religion, and about the religious leaders in Islam?! Not to mention the question: Can a religion be a true one when its leaders have to use what they know are made up tales and lies? - and how much of the teaching and arguments then are lies?

Also: His admitted total lack of supernatural power - and this includes the power of prophesying - strengthens the proof in 6/50a for that he was no real prophet.

###012 6/151a: “Come, I (Muhammad*) will rehearse what Allah hath (really) prohibited you from - - - (f.x.*) be good to your parents”. This very obviously is wrong and a bit of a contradiction compared to other places in the Quran – Muhammad very obviously meant exactly the opposite; that you were ordered to be god to your parents. An omniscient god would not make such a mistake. Who made the Quran? PS: This is one of the verses Muslim scholars (but not always imams or laymen) admits must be wrong - - - and omniscient gods do not make mistakes.

Also practically all Muslim scholars as mentioned agree that here the text is wrong – there is said to be 19 such ones, lists 15 - it is absolutely contrary to what the Quran says about this all other places. Which give you an unbeatable proof against any Muslim boasting that the book being without any mistakes at all. A proof and a fact sanctioned by Islam! (And besides: If here is one mistake, how many more are there?) Just remember: 6/151 (6 in Scandinavian = sex, and 151 has sex in both ends (1 + 5 = 6, and 5 + 1 = 6). Easy to remember.

And besides: If here is a mistake and if Islam admits 15 - or perhaps more (we have heard 19) - how many more are there in reality?

Surah 6 is a bit hard upon the wishful thinking of Muslims.

013 From 6/153e: In parts of Pakistan imams/mullahs have debated if non-Muslims have half the value or less compared to Muslims. No Comments - except "do not laugh - it is impolite". But also see 6/108d above and 23/24b (A23/11) and 26/74c below.

###014 7/198b: In connection to this verse (7/98) M. Yusuf Ali - a Muslim scholar who knew the real, historical side of Muhammad, not only the glossy picture from the imams, very well, in all his stealing and robbing, raping, womanizing, lying, torture, murder, and blood - wrote this about Muhammad (YA 1169): "Even now, after fourteen centuries, a life (Muhammad*) of unexampled purity, probity, justice, and righteousness is seen in the false light by blind detractors!" #####It simply is very difficult to believe that it is humanly possible honestly to believe in such a shining picture for a learned scholar. And what then about uneducated Muslims?

  1. Is this really the "realism" in Islam?
  2. In that case it is easy to see why many such areas are pretty backwards.
  3. Are we living in the same world?
  4. Or is this really what the Muslim moral code is like?
  5. Did Yusuf Ali really believe what he said? - one of the foremost Muslim scholars and translators in last century?! - or is it perhaps an al-Taqiyya meant to satisfy the clergy/religious scholars?"
  6. Or does this tell something about Islam and al-Taqiyya - the lawful lie Muslims are urged to use if necessary to defend and forward the religion (and some other things)???

###The sentence made a huge impression on us, and told us much about Muslim integrity and moral backbone.

######015 9/39a: “Unless ye (Muslims*) go forth (in war/battle for Islam/Muhammad*), He (Allah*) will punish you with a grievous penalty (normally in the Quran a synonym for Hell*) - - -”. An order not possible to misunderstand for a pious - or fanatic - Muslim.

Yes, a religion built on peace, goodness and heavenly moral and ethics.




One of the really strong proofs for that Yahweh and Allah are not the same god - not to mention that Jesus and Muhammad were not in the same religion.

Islam "the Religion of Peace"? Do not laugh - it is impolite.

##016 9/45a: “Only those ask thee (Muhammad*) for exemption (from doing battle*) who believe not in Allah and the Last day”. Terrorists and fanatical mullahs/imams are right and do right according to the Quran, because the Quran is pretty clear on what it means. And the ones only claiming there are verses which can be disused by terrorists to defend their activity are pretty naive and without knowledge about the book. "The Religion of Peace"? This claim is an insult to anyone who has read the surahs from Medina with an open mind.

017 11/62c: "Dost thou (now) forbid us the worship of what our fathers worshipped?" Sentences like this might make one start thinking, when one know that Muslims believe because their fathers and their and their mullahs/imams and teachers and surroundings tells this is the true belief because their fathers etc. have told them it was true, and because there is a strong social pressure never to question such claims. Muslims hardly ever go into the material with the question "where is the truth?" (For some reason or other Islam and its Muslims seldom claim that Islam is the religion of honesty.)

018 12/2f: “We (Allah*) have sent it down as an Arabic Quran, in order that ye may learn wisdom". But:

  1. There is little wisdom in a book where so much is wrong like in the Quran.
  2. Beware that when the Quran and Islam talk about wisdom, normally they talk only about religious and related knowledge. All other kinds of knowledge were "foreign" and disliked. All the same the Muslim area had a period of science from ca. 820 AD till ca. 1095 AD (ca. 100 years more in the far west), but it was more in spite of Islam than because of Islam - and it was the religious establishment (the religious scholars helped by the imams, etc.) who "killed" it.
  3. For the world it may have been a good thing - what had happened to the world if a war and apartheid religion like Islam had had the industrial revolution with much resources and the best weapons, instead of the West? The West did things one afterwards can say was not good - but a similar Islamic conquest had been sure if they had had the upper military hand, the examples from Sind and India and Armenia and Africa and the Greeks in Turkey tell a grave tale about how bloody it likely would have been - and the Quran tells how suppressing and intolerant. Belgium and Congo is a sunshine story in that connection. Besides: The moral thinking and the moral shifts which happened in the West, and which f.x. made an end to slavery and after all made ending colonization somewhat easier, had not been possible under Islam - Islam simply has no moral or ethical philosophy which makes changes in thinking possible. They only have Muhammad's words and deeds which in principle are forever, except that ideas and thoughts and knowledge from outside the Muslim area forces their way in - but frequently against strong opposition from Islam. (And influence from the outside had not existed - at least not much - if Islam had been the strong power in the world for the last 300 years, instead of the West.)
  4. Strong things have been said about the West and its power. But think over this alternative.

019 12/2g: "- - - before this (the surahs of the Quran*), thou too (Muslims*) wast among those who knew it (the religion?*) not". Comment A12/3: "(The Arab words "la'allakum ta'qilun" here*) are meant to impress upon everyone who listens to or reads the Quran that its appeal is directed, primarily, to man's reason, and that the "feeling" alone can never provide a sufficient basis of faith". Muhammad understood psychology and used similar claims rather frequently - impressing on his followers that "you are intelligent who understand and follow my teachings" - to be told they are wise and intelligent is flattering, especially for uneducated and/or naive persons. ####But if Islam had been based on knowledge and peoples' intelligence and reason, it had disappeared fast and become a bloody comma and a sample of peoples' incredible ability to believe in spite of knowledge and facts and their as incredible ability to be blind to everything they do not want to see. Islam rests on the gut feeling that what my parents and everyone else told me was right when I was a child and later, and what all my surroundings and imams claim is the truth, is the truth - and the mistakes in the Quran are just that the others do not know anything or do not understand that the "explanations" mean there are no mistakes anyhow, and the facts other points to are just lies from "Muslim-haters", and, therefore, there is no reason to check or think over facts not consistent with Islam. The same goes for its partly horrible moral code.

(###There is much in that moral code - and Islam only have a moral code, no moral philosophy, as everything has to be done like Muhammad said or did - which is far from the basis for all real inter-human moral: "Do unto others like you want others do unto you". ####Islam in too many ways is an amoral religion. And also definitely not a religion based on real knowledge and intelligence.)

020 12/3f: "- - - before this (the surahs of the Quran*), thou too (Muslims*) wast among those who knew it (the religion?*) not". Comment A12/3: "(The Arab words "la'allakum ta'qilun" here*) are meant to impress upon everyone who listens to or reads the Quran that its appeal is directed, primarily, to man's reason, and that the "feeling" alone can never provide a sufficient basis of faith". Muhammad understood psychology and used similar claims rather frequently - impressing on his followers that "you are intelligent who understand and follow my teachings" - to be told they are wise and intelligent is flattering, especially for uneducated and/or naive persons. But if Islam had been based on knowledge and peoples' intelligence and reason, it had disappeared fast and become a bloody comma and a sample of peoples' incredible ability to believe in spite of knowledge and facts, and of their as incredible ability to be blind to everything they do not want to see. Islam rests on the gut feeling that what my parents and everyone else told me was right when I was a child and later, and what all my surroundings and imams claim is the truth, is the truth - and the mistakes in the Quran are just that the others do not know anything or do not understand that the "explanations" mean there are no mistakes anyhow, and the facts others point to are just lies from "Muslim-haters", and, therefore, there is no reason to check or think over facts not consistent with Islam. The same goes for its partly horrible moral code.

(There is much in that moral code - and Islam only have a moral code, no moral philosophy, as everything has to be done like Muhammad said or did - which is far from the basis for all real inter-human moral: "Do unto others like you want others do unto you".)


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


#####021 13/2l: “- - - explaining the Signs in detail - - -“. Wrong and/or logically invalid “explanations” in reality are not explanations at all – even if they were in detail, which they in many cases are not. But it tells a lot that Islam and Muslims in spite of declarations like this from Allah, use claims about difficult to understand language and difficult to understand explanations and stories, as a reason for why they have to explain what Allah in his bumbling and inapt helplessness has been unable to explain in a way people understand. But then of course Muslim believers, imams, etc. are more intelligent and knowledgeable than Allah, and thus better able to give correct and understandable stories and explanations.


#########On the background of that Allah several places in the Quran tells that he explains everything in detail, all claims from Islam and Muslims that he "in reality means something else" are invalid al-Taqiyyas (lawful lies) if the Quran is reliable.


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


022 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 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!!!


#####023 17/59b: "And we (Allah refrain from sending Signs (Quran-speak for "proofs for Allah"), only because the men of former generations treated them as false - - -".

In this connection we quote Muhammad Asad: "The Message of the Quran" (a/17/71), translated from Swedish: ### "Several places the Quran stresses the fact that the Prophet Muhammad, in spite of being the last and greatest of Allah's messengers, did not have the permission to make signs or miracles similar to those earlier prophets are told to have made as confirmation of their verbal preaching". (This of course also goes for foretelling/prophesy, as foretelling simply is a special kind of miracle; "the ability to see the unseen (3/144, 6/50,7/188,10/20, 27/65, 46/9, 72/26, 81/24)".)

Worth remembering each time Muslims - often believing it honestly, because their imams, mullahs, etc. have told them so - tell you about the miracles of Muhammad or try to use claims about his miracles as arguments or proofs for something.


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


###024 17/59h “And We (Allah*) refrains 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 THAT 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 “priests”? 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 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/PROPHESIES 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/PROPHESIES IS A REALITY. An honest al-Taqiyya (lawful lie). (Just to mention it: A prophesy also is a miracle - to be able "to see the unseen".)

#######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!!!


025 17/71b: (YA2266): “One day We (Allah) shall call together all human beings with their (respective) Imams - - -.” Once more an Arab word – “imam” - without a definite meaning, as it has many meanings. In this case it at least can mean: “- - - each People or Group will appear with its Leader.” Or: “- - - - the Imam = their revelation = the Quran”. Or: “- - - the Imam is the book of record of deeds (made by the angles*).” Simply more guesswork.

##026 19/16c: "- - - she (Mary*) withdrew (just before her message*) from her family to a place in the East (where she got her message*) - - -." Here Muslims have an interesting theory: Remember that Muhammad and the Quran say her mother dedicated her to service in the Temple (in Jerusalem). Because of this the "East" mentioned here, must be "a private eastern chamber, perhaps in the Temple".

####What we have never heard any Muslim mention - even though it is such a well known fact that at least all mullahs, imams, Ayatollahs, and whatever + all scholars, have to know it (also because it is quite similar in Islam) - is that no women served in the Temple. Only men - and only men of the Levi tribe - served there (Mary was from the Judah tribe). No Muslim ever mentions these facts, neither in this connection, nor connected to the claim that her mother dedicated her to service in the Temple.

A brutal mistake in the Quran too difficult to face?

027 21/10d: (A21/13): “We (Allah*) have revealed for you (O men!) a book in which is a Message for you”. But the Arab word “dhikr” has a number of meanings. f.x. in ”The Message of the Quran”: ”(O men!) We (Allah*) have now bestowed upon you from on high a divine writ containing all that you ought to bear in mind”. Remember this each time a Muslim boasts about how well Islam took care of also secular knowledge - which the religion and its mullahs, imams and scholar so definitely did not. The divine writ should be enough.

028 23/68b: "- - - has anything (new) come to them that did not come to their fathers of the old?" Yes, two things: Education - the fathers and mothers of the old never learnt much even of the knowledge which existed at that time. And in addition there is all the new knowledge from the last centuries, revealing even more mistakes in the Quran. Not to forget that with Internet the mullahs, imams, etc. are losing their monopoly on what people are taught.

##And one more thing: Science has found that 3. and later generations Muslim immigrants in "the West" on average are a lot less interested in Islam than their grandparents.

029 30/9d: “- - - Clear (Signs) - - -“. Clear signs about Allah and Islam do not exist in the Quran - or any other place. The reason is that the Quran NEVER proves that it really was/is Allah who caused/causes the phenomenon’s the book claims are proofs for him, and then the claimed conclusion/sign/proof is totally invalid. One may wonder why Muhammad used invalid claims and “signs” and even “proofs” – invalid proofs and arguments normally are the hallmarks of cheats, deceivers, and swindlers. It also indicates, shows, and proves lack of real facts and proofs. “Clear Signs” in “Quran-speak” = clear proof. Clear proofs for Allah, or for the Quran being made by a god, or for Muhammad’s connection to a god, but such proofs simply do not exist. Islam is aware of it and Muslim scholars are aware of it – you find it mentioned and tried explained away in their books, but learned books not much read by the lay Muslim. And when the scholars and imams and others do not tell them, the lay Muslim often honestly believes everything really is sure and safe – they simply are cheated by the withholding of inconvenient facts and by the glorification of all the invalid “signs” and “clear signs” and even “proofs” in the Quran, not to mention by the ones in Hadiths and by the “miracles” in the Hadiths – which hardly a single imam clearly tells his flock are absolutely proved by the Quran to be untrue legends (Islam indirectly admits this fact by their statement that “the only miracle connected to Muhammad is the Quran” – which also indirectly admits that Muhammad was not a prophet (a real prophesy is a kind of a miracle – to see what has not happened yet – and Muhammad did not even claim he had that gift)).

For more claims similar to 65/11 and 30/9, see f.x.: 2/118 – 2/159 – 2/185 – 2/187 – 2/213 – 2/219 – 2/221 – 2/242 – 2/266 – 3/86 – 3/105 – 3/183 – 3/184 – 6/57- 157 – 7/73 – 7/85 – 7/101 – 8/42 – 9/70 – 10/15 – 11/17 - 11/28 -11/53 – 11/63 – 11/88 – 14/9 – 19/73 – 20/133 – 22/16 – 22/72 – 24/1 – 24/58 – 24/59 – 24/61 – 30/47 – 32/25 – 34/43 – 40/22 - 40/28 - 40/50 – 40/66 – 40/83 46/7 – 45/17 – 45/25 – 57/25 – 58/5 – 64/6. Also see 2/39a – 30/10 – 65/11 + 2/299a - 2/299b .

###030 33/61b: “- - - whenever they (hypocrites and non-Muslims, whoever decides whom they are*) are found, they shall be sized and slain (without mercy)”. A good verse for many a mullah and imam and for terrorists - and for starting pogroms. What disturbs us is that this may be the future many places, as the Quran is forever.

*031 35/24b: “Verily We (Allah*) have sent thee (Muhammad*) - - -”. Verily Muhammad and the Quran repeats and repeats and repeats this (most often in the words “Allah and his Messenger”) - worthy of a certain German “Minister of Propaganda” between 1933 and 1945 we think it was, a very honest and reliable (?) man named Joseph Goebbels, whose slogan was: “Repeat a lie often enough, and people will start to believe it”. Here it has been repeated zillions of times through the time, and millions of Muslims believe in it - but then no Muslim society has ever trained their subjects in critical thinking, or for thinking realism. On the contrary: Muslim societies normally have trained them in the sick kind of thinking which is believing that most acts and most information are lies which gives reason for conspiracy theories + blind belief in Islam and the mullah and the imam.

032 From 36/69a 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 - of "seeing the unseen" - 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 say that Muhammad was unable to see the unseen (extra revealing here is that the old Biblical title for a prophet, was "a seer" - one who saw the unseen (f.x. 1. Sam. 9/9)) and also that Islam even today admits 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 miracles connected to Muhammad "except the revelation of the Quran" also is a solid proof for that all the miracles claimed connected to Muhammad mentioned f.x. in the Hadiths, are made up stories - but all the same many a mullah and imam and scholar use these stories, which Islam admits are made up ones, as "proofs" for that Muhammad had supernatural powers and was a prophet. Honesty is not the strong side of Muslim religious leaders.) 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) stated that anyone saying Muhammad could foresee things, were wrong.

033 38/24b: "- - - truly many are partners (in business) who wrong each other - - -". A good book does not have stories with lame points - not to mention wrong points. Read the Bible and see the full story behind this tale - and its real point. Muslim mullahs, imams, etc. claiming the Quran is perfect literature simply know nothing about literature. (2. Sam. 11/1-2 and 2. Sam.12/1-13).

034 From 39/28a:

Many Muslims even believe what they say, partly because they do not know the history of neither the Arab alphabet, nor of the Quran. Only with a complete alphabet in around 650 AD the claim could have been correct. But the fact of the incomplete alphabet of that time, makes the claim a joke (the Arab alphabet was not complete until around 900 AD). But why do the mullahs, imams, etc. lie to their congregations on these points - or hide the points?

###035 43/23b: (A43/23): “Rezi (one of the foremost Muslim scholars through the times*) says: ‘Had there been in the Quran nothing but these verses (43/20-24*), they would have sufficed to show the falsity of the principle postulating blind, unquestioning (by a Muslim) adoption of (another person’s) religious opinions (“ibtal al-qawl bi’t-raqlid”) - - -‘”.

If he had indicated Islam and the fathers and/or the imams, it hardly would be possible to say this more accurate. Islam is to a large degree based on indoctrination, social and judicial pressure, and glorification of blind belief + even physical threats if you ask "wrong" questions or leave the religion.

###036 46/9e: "- - - nor do I (Muhammad*) know what will be done with me or with you". Muhammad was unable to "see the unseen (3/144, 6/50,7/188,10/20, 27/65, 46/9, 72/26, 81/24)" - he was no "seer"/prophet (the original title for prophets according to the Bible - see 1. Sam. 9/9, 9/11, 9/18, 9/19, 2. Sam. 15/27, 1. Kings 17/13, 1. Chr. 9/22, 26/28, 29/29, 2. Chr. 16/7, 16/10, 19/2, 29/25, Micah 3/7) - no prophet. Many have liked the imposing title prophet through the times, and different definitions have been made for that title. But a prophet unable to make prophesies, is no prophet.

This verse also is one of the proofs for that when Muslims claim Muhammad made prophesies, their claims are not true. There are a few more verses in the Quran proving the same, f.x. 6/50a, 7/188b, 10/20c-d,10/49a-b, 72/26. Together they are so strong that Islam says "there is no miracle connected to Muhammad, except the Quran" (prophesying is a kind of miracle - "to be able to see the unseen). But all the same mullahs, imams and others tell their congregations about the prophesies - and the miracles - of Muhammad, with the result that many lay Muslims honestly believe in it. Honesty in religion? But remember that lies for Islam often is not a sin!! (Al-Taqiyya - the lawful lie, Kitman - the lawful half-truth, etc. Specialties of Islam - you do not find similar in other of the big religions. One more proof for that Yahweh and Allah are not the same god.

###037 46/19b: "And to all (humans*) are (assigned) degrees according to the deeds which they (have done), and in order that (Allah) may recompense their (peoples'*) deeds (good or bad ones*) - - -". In Heaven there are several gardens - 4 or 6 or more according to Hadiths - plus there are the higher heavens for the really top Muslims. To be able to place each person in the right place, they have to be given degrees of goodness and split in groups to be sent to the correct place in the 7 Heavens/Paradise.

One topic here you NEVER hear Muslims mention, is how the claim that you will have your wife/wives, children and family around in Paradise, can be fulfilled, unless absolutely all of them get the same degree as you and thus merit the same garden and Heaven like you. You may be a good Muslim and get grade 4. But two of your sons were killed in battle for Muhammad/Allah and automatically goes to the best parts part of the ordinary Paradise, say grade 6, and one black sheep of a son just sneaks into Heaven and the lowest degree, a plains 1. Your other 3 sons get satisfying 3s and 4s, whereas your daughters are good girls and get 4s and 5s, but their husbands only makes 2s and 3s. Obvious things like such results of human nature are never - never - mentioned when the nice and populist promises are made about you are going to have your family around you in Paradise. Never mentioned neither by the Quran, as far as we know neither by Hadiths, and definitely not by Muslims debating religion with non-Muslims, or by mullahs or imams or others trying to tease you to become a Muslim.

038 from 48/15b: What had the world looked like today if the Muslim world had not petrified into stony fundamentalism and stagnated? - if the Muslim world who had developed the industrial revolution and superior weapons and ways of fighting instead of the West? You can bet against very heavy odds that the world now had been ruled by imams, and without any realistic chance of ever becoming a free world.

039 63/4c: “How are they (the ones leaving Islam*) deluded (away from the Truth)!” That the Quran is the truth, is just a claim, not a proved fact. At very best away from partly truths - see 40/75 and 41/12. (But there is an impolite thought far behind in our brain: Who are really deluded when it comes to Islam? – the ones just listening to the imams without using their knowledge and their brain and asking no questions, or the other ones?)

39 + 3285 = 3324 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".