Humans, Other Beings in/Relevant to the Quran, Part 42
01 Jan 2016
Slavery and slave taking was, is, and will always be an accepted part of the Quran and Islam, as Muhammad accepted and practiced both - everything Muhammad ever did was and is morally correct, and can be done by all Muslims, unless it is directly forbidden.
Muhammad was a big slave taker - thousands. He used them for gifts/------- or selling them - - - and a few for personal use.
One difference between slavery in Islam and in old Christianity, was that rape of/sex with slave women was and is ok in Islam, but prohibited in Christianity. Oh, there was plenty of disuse of slave women by Christians, too, but there is a difference between accepted rape and to know you are breaking strong rules when raping your slave woman.
Another - and positive - difference was that marriage between free and a slave was accepted in Islam - mostly men who married slave women, and the norm was that the woman then was given her freedom, a freedom which was not taken away even if she was divorced later. In most Christian cultures marriage between free and slave was not accepted, at least not socially.
Muslims also often claim that slaves were much better treated in Islam compared to other places. This is boasting. The house slaves often were ok treated - but this was the same in Christianity and other places, too. But slaves working outside, in mines, etc. often had horrible conditions.
Other points Islam never mention, are f.x. the volume of the slave taking. We have seen numbers up to 100 million through the years only from Africa, for import only to Muslim areas - sale to f.x. the Americas was in addition. Another point never mentioned, is the way slave hunting was practiced: Looting villages and towns - enslaving all captives of suitable ages and killing the others - many villages, many towns. Also the transport of the captives is never mentioned - the death rate was horrible (up to unbelievable 80% - 90% for the many marched through Sahara. And irony: When Muslims defend their slave practice by talking about slavery in the Americas, they never mention that the majority of Negro slaves in the Americas were sold to American slave traders by Muslim slave hunters/traders.
Another fact is that 2/3 of the slaves imported to Muslim areas were women and children for the harems, and only 1/3 men. Slaves imported to the Americas were 2/3 men for work and only 1/3 women and children - also this 1/3 mainly for work, though plenty of exceptions happened.
And a very central point: As slavery is fully accepted and ok in the Quran, slavery is morally ok according to the religion. This means that even if slavery at present is frowned at because of influence from the west, if Islam in the future becomes the dominant culture, like Islam is striving for, large scale slavery and official acceptance of it will reappear - what Muhammad said and did is morally ok, and he accepted and practiced slavery. The moral ideas about slavery, the last decades has made some Muslims claim that Islam from the very beginning intended to finish slavery. This is not even dishonesty, but worse - a bluff to make Islam look morally shiny and good.Muslims like to claim Islam always intended to stop slavery. This is nonsense. Muhammad practiced slavery, slave taking and slave trading to a high degree - included sex with slaves. What Muhammad permitted and practiced, for one thing cannot really be criticized, and for another thing is morally ok. The - slow - reduction of slavery in Muslim area is because of ideas and pressure from the West. And it has taken time: In Mauritania it was not prohibited until in 1982 and in Niger in 2003. In Mauritania it did not become a punishable crime until in unbelievable 2007. And the enforcement of the laws is lax: According to media there still - 2015 AD - is somewhere between 130ooo and 800ooo slaves f.x. in Niger, and you still may see people with a metal ring around their ankle - a sign for that they are slaves.
¤ ¤ ¤ ¤ ¤ ¤ ¤ ¤ ¤ ¤ ¤ ¤ ¤ ¤ ¤ ¤ ¤ ¤ ¤ ¤ ¤ ¤ ¤ ¤ ¤ ¤ ¤ ¤ ¤ ¤ ¤ ¤ ¤ ¤
"In the name of Allah, Most Gracious, Most Merciful". Please read the surahs from Medina, the immoral parts of the Muslim moral code, the unjust/immoral parts of sharia, and the Quran's rules for lying (see 2/2b below), thieving/looting, slave taking, raids and wars, plus the rules for treatment of slaves and of girls and women - free and captured - and see if you agree. Always when there is a distance between words and the corresponding demands, deeds and introduced rules and moral, etc, we personally believe in the demands and deeds and rules and the moral. Glorious words are cheap, demands and deeds, enforced rules and moral are reliable. Glorifying words and claims are too cheap for anyone to use and disuse - when you read, judge from realities, not from propaganda.(Is there something symbolic in that in the very first line of the Quran, we must point to rules for and use of dishonesty, partly immoral moral code, partly immoral and unjust laws, etc. in the book, and thus with Muhammad and in Islam?) (Is there something symbolic in that in the very first line of the Quran, we must point to rules for and use of dishonesty, partly immoral moral code, partly immoral and unjust laws, etc. in the book, and thus with Muhammad and in Islam?)
002 2/25a: "- - - glad tidings - - -". The Quran represents glad tidings if - and only if - it correctly represents a real god. If not, the very best one can say is that the Quran brought some glad tidings for all the bad ones, wanting loot and slaves and power, and for some ones longing for a strong religion - - - if it was not because the Quran itself proves 100% that something is very wrong in the book. And definitely not glad tidings to their fellow humans who became their victims - a point Muslims never mention (empathy with non-Muslim fellow humans does not exist in the Quran). So wrong that it neither can be made nor revered by any god – not even by a small mini god. Too much is wrong in the book. Also see 61/13e below.
003 2/25i: "- - - companions pure - - -". These are the famous houris - the beautiful and willing women whom nobody knows where come from. How is Paradise for them? - having to serve and be sex toys for uneducated, self centered, rough and worse warriors for eternity? (The Quran does not mention sex, but it is clearly implicated, and be sure that was what eager young - and not young - primitive warriors were dreaming about during lonesome nights on raids for money and slaves. (Most of Muhammad's many raids were for money and slaves - and extortion afterwards. See separate list about his raids and wars.)) The Quran never mention one word about how they - or the male servants - enjoy life in Paradise. The Quran and Islam do not give a damn about such others, only the good Muslims - and mainly the warriors - from Earth. (This part of Muhammad's teaching is borrowed from Persian pagan religion.)
Actually the Muslim Paradise is quite like the Zoroastrian one (Zoroastrians mainly lived in Persia, one of the big trading partners for Arabia. The Arabs knew that religion – hardly as well as the Mosaic or the Christian religions, but at least superficially.) The houris there were named paaris. Also see 19/71 above. (Also the Jewish and Christian - and the Muslim one - Hell may have got some inspiration from the Zoroastrian one.)
004 2/81b: "- - - Evil - - -". Beware that when the Quran uses words like this, it is in accordance with its own partly immoral moral code. It f.x. was - and is - very evil not to go to war to steal, rob, extort, enslave, and kill for Allah/Muhammad.
005 2/85c: "For Allah is not unmindful of what ye (people*) do". The carrot and the stick - be good and obedient and go to Paradise, or be bad or disobedient to Muhammad and end in Hell. Remember here that "good" and "bad" is meant according to the Quran's partly immoral moral code - it f.x. was/is very good to steal/rob, extort, suppress, enslave, destroy and kill in the name of Allah for Muhammad/Allah, and give Muhammad his 20%, but very bad to refuse this. (Actually such misdeeds are even more disgusting when done in the name of and as a sermon/service to a god - and we do not tell what we mean about people or a religion calling this a good and benevolent god, as we do not use that kind of words).
006 2/90g: "- - - thus have they (here the local Jews mainly*) drawn on themselves Wrath upon Wrath". Correct - Muhammad's wrath. He made them flee or enslaved or killed them a few years later.
*007 2/97i: “- - - glad tidings - - -“. Wrong. At the very best one can say that the Quran brought some glad tidings to all the bad ones wanting loot and slaves and power, and to some ones longing for a strong religion - - - if it was not because the Quran itself proves 100% that something is very wrong in the book. So wrong that it neither can be made nor revered by any god – not even by a small mini god. Too much is wrong in the book. Also see 2/25a above and 61/13e below.
008 2/98b: "Whoever is an enemy to Allah and His angels and Messengers (included Muhammad*) - - - lo! Allah is an enemy to those who reject Faith". Psychologically a good claim if Muhammad wanted followers and warriors - who wants to be friends of Allah's enemies? And of course enemies of Allah are ok and a good deed to rob and enslave and kill.
009 2/101g: “- - - a party of the People of the Book (here Jews – the People of the Book = Jews, Christians and Sabeans, and “the Book” in this case is the Bible*) threw away the Book of Allah (the Quran?*), as if (it had been something) they did not know!” The Quran here tells that the Jews recognized the Quran from the Bible. That is wrong – there are so fundamental differences and so many points which are different between the Quran and the Bible - even the OT - that the only thing that is possible to know, is that something is utterly wrong. One of the proofs for this, is that the absolute majority of the thousands of Jews in the region refused to accept Islam – even in the face of ruin or slavery or death. Also see 2/89b above and 2/130a+b and 3/3e+f below.Actually there only is one short sentence: "the righteous will inherit the land" which is more or less the same in the Bible (Psalms 37/29) and the Quran (21/105).
010 2/102i: "- - - if they (the Jews of Medina*) but knew!" But that was exactly what they did - they knew their old books, and when Muhammad said his was the same religion, they knew something was wrong. They knew it so clearly that most of them preferred to flee, to become slaves or to be murdered, instead of changing to the new religion.
011 2/103a: "If they (the Jews in Medina*) had kept their Faith - - -". That was just what they did - and refused to accept Muhammad's new religion. It cost them enormously much - Muhammad killed or enslaved a large part of them, and suppressed the rest. But the fact that they preferred this to accepting Islam, makes a lie to the claims that the Jews confirmed that Islam was to be recognized in the old Jewish scriptures. One Jew or a few Jews, may be. But not "the" Jews.
012 2/103d: "- - - if they (the Jews of Medina*) but knew!" But that was exactly what they did - they knew their old books, and when Muhammad said his was the same religion, they knew something was wrong. They knew it so clearly that most of them preferred to flee, to become slaves or to be murdered, instead of changing to the new religion.
013 2/112a: "- - - doer of good - - -". Beware that when the Quran uses expressions like this, it is in accordance with its own partly immoral moral code. The best of good deeds f.x. are to go to war and steal and rape and enslave and murder in the name of the god - the last fact makes it extra disgusting.
014 2/125k: "- - - Ishmael - - -". The oldest son of Abram/Abraham. His mother was Sarai's/Sarah's slave Hagar. Muslims sometimes quote 1. Mos. 16/3: "(Sarai/Sarah*) gave her (Hagar) to her husband (Abram/Abraham*) to be his wife". Like so often Muslims cherry-pick quotes and omit what does not fit their wishes: The contents of 1. Mos. 16/2-9 and 1. Mos. 21/10 makes it very clear that this just is a polite way of describing the physical facts and that she never became his wife - she simply remained Serai's/Sarah's slave for another may be 15 years.
Also a time anomaly: Similar comment to 2/124a+c above and 4/13d below.
015 2/177l: "- - - ransom for slaves - - -". To free a slave - at least a Muslim slave - was a good thing (even though the freed slave still belonged to your extended family if nothing else was said). But you will meet many a Muslim boasting that Islam intended to abolish slavery. One thing is that they made no progress in 1200-1400 years - until they were forced backwards into it by western ideas and western power (the last one - Mauritania - as unbelievably late as 1982, and worse: It did not become a punishable crime there until in 2007!!! In Niger it became a crime as late as 2003 AD - but a little enforced law). But worse: The claim is rubbish. Muhammad was a slave owner, a slave taker, a slave dealer - it is mentioned both in the Quran and in Hadiths - and anything Muhammad said and did was just and right and could - and in religious principle still can - be done by anyone without the slightest bad conscience.
016 2/178d: “The law of equality is prescribed to you in cases of murder: the free for the free, the slave for the slave, the woman for the woman. But if any remission is made by the brother of the slain - - - etc.” This is one of the verses underlying the sharia laws.
017 2/178e: "- - - the free for the free, the slave for the slave, the woman for the woman". There were great differences socially in the Islamic society, AND REMEMBER THAT AS THE QURAN IS CLAIMED GIVEN BY THE GOD, NOTHING CAN BE CHANGED. The practicing and the understanding of the verses may change a little, but the Quran is forever the one and only moral code and the one and unchangeable law - what all fundamentalists - and terrorists - return to. Would you like to live under such rules? - especially if you know the reason for the rules is a book not connected to any god (no god was ever involved in delivering a book with so much errors, and no good god was involved in such a harsh, bloody, suppressing and egocentric war religion)?
018 2/190c: "Fight in the cause of Allah those who fight you - - -". This is one of the fundamentals behind the sharia laws concerning war - except that soon it was not necessary that "they" were fighting the Muslims - most Muslim wars and raids were wars of aggression (mainly for riches, slaves, power and spreading Islam). Later all the 4 main "law schools" agreed on that the fact that the other part was non-Muslim, was enough reason for declaring jihad - holy war - against them. This point of view was not even questioned in Islam until around 1930, and then because of influence from western thinking.
019 2/221c: “(To marry*) a slave woman who believes (in Islam*), is better than to marry an unbelieving woman, even though she is alluring to you.” Well, this may tell as much about the value of non-Muslims.
020 2/221d: (A2/208): “- - - a slave woman - - -.” Does it in this special case mean an ordinary slave woman? – or a slave woman of Allah = a Muslim woman? – or a slave woman who is Muslim? In this case the distinctions may count quit a lot - - - but the book is silent.
021 2/221e: "(For your daughters to marry*) a man slave who believes is better than an unbeliever - - -". Here Islam is more liberal towards slaves than f.x. in the old USA - - - or Islam is more fanatic towards other religions.
022 2/222f: "(When your women are ritually clean, you can have sex with them*) in any manner, time, or place ordained for you by Allah". This is one of the points behind the sharia laws concerning women - one of the points which make even formally free women semi-slaves under their men, here both in literal and figurative meaning .
023 2/223a: “Your wives are as a tilth (field, garden*) unto you; so approach your tilth when and how ye will - - -”. Approach your “tilth”, not approach your woman/women or fellow human being(s) or dear one(s). And approach her/them when and how you will - when and how she/they will, is not mentioned. This also goes for concubines and your slave women.
Women have an inferior position in Islam, and a very inferior position in some Muslim countries.
024 2/226-227: The background for these two verses according to Muslim scholars, were an old and inhuman practice which sometimes was used: If a man disliked his wife - or one of his wives - enough, he could swear an oath saying he would not touch her any more. Then the marriage in reality was finished, but as it was not formally terminated, the wife still was bound to him and could not go on with her life - in a way she became just a slave belonging to him and having to work for him - like a servant or - yes - a slave. The intention of these verses is said to be to put an end to that misuse of marriages.
025 2/228b: “And the woman shall have rights similar to the rights against them (men*), according to what is equitable - - -“. But beware: This is said in connection with a possible restart of a marriage where there is separation, and covers just and only that - women have far from similar rights (a married woman in Islam is some place between a free human and a slave to her husband - where she is on that scale varies from one Muslim area to another). This sentence is not valid for concubines or your slave women.
026 2/228c: “And the woman shall have rights similar to the rights against them, according to what is equitable (this sentence is not valid for concubines or your slave women*); but men have a degree (of advantage) over them“. This means that women are one step – small or big – below men as judicial persons (in reality also as human beings). Also see 2/228b just above.
027 2/231d: "- - - either take them (your former wives*) back on equitable terms or set them free on equitable terms (after divorce*) - - -". One plus for Islam compared to the older Arabia: In the pre-Islamic times in Arabia you could reduce your disliked wife's status to a slave like one and keep her as more or less your sexless slave.
028 2/233a: “A woman shall give suck to their offspring for two whole years, if the father desires to complete the term”. A long time – and the husband - or slave owner if she is a slave or concubine - decides, not the woman.
029 2/250b: "- - - help us (Jews*) against those who reject faith". There is nowhere in the Bible indicated that this was a war of religion. It was an old-fashioned war for land and power and loot and slaves.
030 2/254b: "Spend out of (the bounties) We (Allah*) have provided for you (Muslims*)- - -". This is a theme you often meet in the Quran: You shall spend of your money for Allah. Some places it means for charity, but very often it is for the fighting and wars for the religion - or actually most often it was raids etc. for looting, enslaving and power, etc. Muhammad more or less continually was fighting, and it cost money to wage war. (It is said that during the 10 years in Medina he had 82 armed incidents - http://www.1000mistakes.com lists the names and purpose of 63 of them (mostly raids were for wealth and slaves or prisoners for extortion). 82 in 10 years means nearly one every 6 weeks approximately, nearly all of them initiated by Muhammad - the great idol for Islam. Really the religion of peace.)
031 2/256h: "- - - Evil - - -". Beware that when the Quran uses words like this, it is in accordance with its own partly immoral moral code - remember f.x. that the best of good deeds is to go to war or on raids for Allah and in his name steal and rape and suppress and enslave and kill (the fact that it is done in the name of their presumed god, makes it all even more despicable).
032 2/256k: "- - - trustworthy - - -". Beware that when the Quran uses words like this, it is in accordance with its own partly immoral moral code - remember f.x. that the best of good deeds is to go to war or on raids for Allah and in his name steal and rape and suppress and enslave and kill (the fact that it is done in the name of their presumed god, makes it all even more despicable).
*033 3/6a: “He (Allah*) is it Who shapes you in the womb as He pleases.” Conception is a most natural process - one that even Muslims like very much to indulge in, sometimes whether the woman is willing or not - and if the woman is your slave or prisoner, rape is a right, “lawful and god”, for you - just ask Muhammad, who according to Islam (among others Ibn Ishaq) practiced rape himself - f.x. Rayhana bint Amr and - at nearly 60 himself - the 17 year old Safijja bint Huayay, just after he had tortured her husband Kinana to death (as for Safijja one of his men, Abu Ayub, waited outside the tent in case she should resist so much that it became dangerous for Muhammad and he needed help - but he managed the rape without help).
The Quran often "high-jack" natural phenomena and uses them for glorifying "signs" or "proofs" for Allah - always without any documentation for that Allah really is the one behind the phenomenon.
###034 3/15j: "- - - Companions pure (and holy) - - -". This is one of the really strong differences to the Bible - f.x. see Matt. 22/30: The Biblical Paradise is totally different. Yahweh and Allah the same god with so different Paradises? Guess 5 times!
The idea about the houris (sex slaves in Paradise) the maker of the Quran has "borrowed" from religions further east (where they were named paaris) - and the same for the handsome serving youths (nearly nothing in the Quran is original thinking or ideas, more or less everything is "borrowed" from others, mainly in what we today call the Middle East - most of the sources are known). Would a god need to pinch ideas from here and there on the primitive Earth to construct his religion and his Paradise?
###035 3/15k: "- - - Companions pure (and holy) - - -". This also contradicts NT in another way: It is nowhere in the Quran directly said the houris were for sex, but that is the clear underlying message (besides in the Quran woman mainly are for 3 things: Housework, childbearing and sex - and in Paradise there is no housework or childbearing, so only sex is left). In the NT polygamy and concubinate is not accepted. The same god and basically the same religion? The only possible answer is no - such a strong no, that it is one of the proofs for that this claim from Muhammad is not true. Actually as polygamy, concubinate and permission to rape captured or slave women and girl children is so strong in the Quran, this point alone is enough to singlehanded prove that Muhammad's claim is wrong. And then there are all the other proofs in addition.
036 3/57d: "- - - Allah loveth not those who do wrong." As Islam claims Allah loves the Muslims, this means that to steal, rob, extort, rape, enslave, murder, lie, break oats, cheat, etc., etc. in the name of the god is not to do wrong as long as there is the slightest pretext for calling it Jihad - "self defense in the widest (NB!!*) meaning of the word". And everything is called Jihad. A somewhat special moral code. (And honestly: To permitted to or obliged to do things like this in the name of one's god, gives that god and that religion an ugly taste - morally it is worse than when made from "normal" motifs).
037 3/64d: “- - - that we (Muslims and Jews/Christians*) worship none but Allah (= Yahweh and Allah is claimed to be the same god*)”. This is not possible as the fundamental differences between the Quran and the Bible/NT are too big and too many – not unless the god is schizophrenic. Mainly only Muslims say this – and they will have to bring strong proofs.
Which raises the question: Are Muhammad and his Arabs really descendants from Abraham (and thus earlier of the same religion)? At least they in case only are quarter breeds, as Ishmael’s mother, Hagar, was a slave from Egypt (1. Mos. 16/1), and also his wife (only one is mentioned) was from Egypt (also according to the Bible, written and unabridged since more than 1000 years before Muhammad – 1. Mos.21/20). Well, worse than that: Modern DNA analysis has shown that the pure Arab does not exist. Arabia is on a crossroad – caravans and merchants have passed through - - - and left babies behind now and then (remember that before Muhammad in Arabia sex and alcohol were “the two delightful things”). And Arab caravans and traders roamed wide – and now and then brought back brides from abroad. And finally the perhaps main reason for the diluted blood: The slaves. Literally millions of slaves – some 2/3 of them women – have through the times been brought to Arabia, both before and after Muhammad. And the women of the harems – do you think they were permitted to demand condoms? It is impossible to say there are not traces of DNA from Abraham in Arabs – perhaps via Jewish slave women? But any scientist will say that the chances for finding much more DNA from Abraham (if he ever existed) in Jews than in Arabs are big, because the Jews mostly have been intermarrying because of the excluding religion. Arabs? Diluted blood and hardly any traces of Abraham - none if the Bible tells the truth when it tells that Ishmael settled near the border of Egypt (1. Mos. 25/18 - and there was no reason for him who wrote 1. Mos. not to tell the truth).
Also modern DNA tells that Arabs are a mixed race and with no common forefather.
038 3/78e: "- - - and well they (Jews and Christians*) know it (that the Bible is falsified*)!" This is the kind of accusation one uses to strengthen an argument; "they" not only have done something bad, but have done so willfully. The added psychological effect of course is distaste or similar for those bad people - and if the Muslims believed the claimed "fact" that "they" were bad people, this made it easier for Muhammad later to kill and enslave them - - - and personally rape at least 2 of the young women. (First Rayhana bint Amr, and later 17 year old and newlywed Safiyya bint Huayay after he had tortured her husband to death - Muslims diplomatically say he married her (which he later did) after her husband was killed in the war). Whether he raped more women during his prophethood(?) or not is not known. But he clearly told his followers that during war rape - "sexual relationship" to use a diplomatic expression - was "lawful and good" as long as the woman was not pregnant. Also the fact that his man took the rapes pretty casually makes one think (you react casually to things you are used to).
039 3/77b: "- - - they (disbelievers in Allah*) shall have no portion in the Hereafter (Paradise*): nor will Allah (deign to) speak to them or look at them on the Day of Judgment, nor will He cleanse them (of sin). They shall have a grievous penalty." Also this (see 3/77a just above) is a claim you find many places in the Quran - believe in Muhammad or you will end in Hell and be subject to the most sadistic and infernal torture thinkable (few things are as physically painful as burns - and the Quran's Hell mainly is a physical hell). Partly it is a warning - Muhammad's claim about how the ones who did not believe in and obey him, would fare in the claimed next life. But as essential for him - and for Islam - is the "Schadenfreude", the inner, base enjoyment over other peoples' bad luck or bad fate which is part of the nature of a large portion of humanity - especially if the unlucky ones are people "we" do not like or are inferior to "us" because of their behavior or something. By playing on this part of human nature, one creates distance between ones followers and "the others", and one creates a feeling among "us" that we are "better" and "morally superior" to "the others".
Muhammad knew about human nature and about how to manipulate humans - parts of what we today call psychology. And this distance between the groups "us" and "them", and the impression and feeling that "they" were inferior sub humans and bad people, he later could use to expel, rob, enslave and mass murder "them" in the surroundings - a task made easier by the fact that the horrors made "us" rich.
Many a dictator and many a man hungry for power have played on such strings. Many also have used religion as their platform of power. And some have done both - like Muhammad.
Another and dark point: IF IT IS TRUE LIKE THE QURAN SAYS SEVERAL PLACES THAT HE PREDESTINES EVERYTHING, AND IF IT IS TRUE WHAT THE QURSN SAYS SEVERAL PLACES THAT IT IS PREDESTINED IN ACCORDANCE WITH HIS P L A N WHICH NOBODY AND NOTHING CAN CHANGE, AND FINALLY IF IT IS TRUE WHAT THE HADITHS SAY THAT HE DESIDES WHETHER YOU ARE TO END IN HEAVEN OR HELL WHEN YOU ARE A 4 MONTHS OLD FETUS, WHATEVER YOU DO HAS NO INFLUENCE ON WHERE YOU WILL END IN THE PERHAPS NEXT LIFE.
040 3/92a: "By no means shall ye attain righteousness unless ye give (freely) of that which ye love - - -". - among other things gifts to finance warfare. Thieving and robbing pays - but takes some money each time a raid is to be outfitted, not to mention a war. We may add that most of Muhammad's raids were raids of aggression to steal/rob riches and to take captives for extortion or slaves. But all the same it was named "holy wars" and "holy battles". (Well, to be just: Also gifts to the needy and the religion, etc. were good gifts).
041 3/110j: “Most of them (Jews and Christians*) are perverted transgressors.” Yes, one has to be perverted to believe in the god of the old - a god who according to their holy book has manifested his power many times - and in a book backed by thousands of witnesses at least from the times of Moses till the times of Jesus (though in both these cases something or details may be wrong), compared to believe in a medium large businessman liking power and respect - and women - and who in addition is a highway man, extorter, womanizer, rapist, torturer, enslaver, slave dealer (selling or giving away for bribes his 20% of the slaves taken), assassin, murder, mass murderer, believer of al-Taqiyya (the lawful lie) and Kitman (the lawful half-truth) (even thought these two kinds of dishonesty only was formalized later), deceiving ("war is deceit" - and "everything" is jihad), breaker of his words and oaths (f.x. murdering 29 men from Khaybar he had guaranteed safety during peace talks), even a few places clearly lying in the Quran, and an inciter to hate, discrimination and war - but in no way able to do more than to tell unproved tales backed by invalid and even wrong “signs” and “proofs” - tales which on top of all show a number of the hallmarks of a swindler, cheater and deceiver. (Muslims: This is no slander - these facts are taken from Islam’s own books telling about and praising Muhammad - it only lacks the sugar coat of explaining away and heroism. There is no reason of being angry when meeting the very plain truth from your own books. When glorious words and reality disagree, we always believe in reality).
Yes, Jews, Christians and for that case Pagans have to be perverted not to believe on basis of such - unproved - words from such a man. And for not to kill and steal/rob and terrorize on his orders. Is it possible to add: - those perverted transgressors may deserve suppression and extermination - at least sometimes?
How would Muslims around the world react if some ones in big media claimed that most Muslims are perverted transgressors? - and how would different countries' judicial systems react to it? This in spite of that some of the moral and judicial rules in the Quran are perverse - f.x. the permission to rape female prisoners of war and slaves, included children, at least down to 9 years old.
042 3/128b: "- - -they (non-Muslims*) are indeed wrong-doers". Detestable people - they deserve being robbed and enslaved and killed!
043 3/148a: “And Allah gave them (the warriors) a reward in this world (and will consequently give it to you if you fight bravely*) and the excellent reward of the Hereafter”. 80% of the spoils of war - included slaves and women - were for the warriors and their leaders (the remaining 20% were for Allah/Muhammad/the religious leaders - which soon also became political leaders). Women made slaves were fun, because to rape female slaves was your right and no sin. In addition: To do battle for Islam was - and is - a “heavy” application for Paradise, and a sure way to get there no matter what kind of life you have led, if you are killed in battle for Islam (which soon also meant - and means - an easy way for the leaders to recruit warriors). But it is a strange fact that leaders never become suicide bombers.(The Quran tells that suicide is a sin deserving Hell (is this told - or "explained" away to the suicide bombers?) + perhaps the leaders do not like to die yet?)
044 3/155a: “Those of you who turned back on the day the two hosts met (300 men left Uhud before the battle, leaving 700 to fight, according to Islamic sources*) - it was Satan who caused them to fail, - - -.” It is Satan who makes you not want to do or be too afraid to take part in battles - do you want to be a friend of Satan? A mighty incitement for fighting for Muhammad and Islam (or sometimes for leaders using or disusing the religion for personal gain or power - like money and slaves for bribes, women for personal use and above all power).
045 3/167c: "- - - fight in the way of Allah - - -". That the raids and wars were and partly are made in the name of the god, make them even more detestable, especially as most of them were raids and wars of aggression - mainly for riches, slaves and power - and for spreading Islam by means of the sword directly and indirectly.
046 3/167e: “The Message of the Quran” has this remark to this verse (no. 3/128 to this surah): “Only war in self defense – in the widest meaning of the word – can be reckoned to be a fight for the cause of Allah”. But as “the widest meaning of the word" is very wide, each and every war where one part is Muslim and the other not – and most where both parts are Muslims – are in “self defense” or for other reasons are just wars and always are declared jihad, this simply is hypocrisy. Practically all Muslim wars, included wars of aggression, and there have been plenty of those through the history, have been declared “jihad” – at least we have not been able to find many exceptions from this rule. Actually for centuries all the four law schools in Islam agreed on that the fact that the opposite part in a conflict were Pagans, was good enough reason for to attack them and to declare the attack/war for jihad (holy war). It was not until in the 1920s or 1930s that some Muslim scholars started to question this “law” – and it still only is questioned and only by parts of the Muslims, though nowadays these questions normally makes the Muslim parts, included terrorists, blame the other part so as to give the claim of jihad at least a demagogue’s made up reality of being a just war. Very convenient for anyone who needs warriors/soldiers – and a convenient incitement to war: All wars against “infidels” are “jihad” – with permission to rape and steal and suppress and murder - - - and guarantee for your going to Paradise if you are killed - just like the old Vikings. The good and benevolent Allah likes killers, thieves/robbers, rapists, apartheid, etc., etc. - at least when the dishonesty, atrocities and inhumanities are done in his honor.
####A fact to remember here is that it just takes a little dishonesty and demagogy to find an "explanation" for why even a not provoked attack - f.x. for stealing/robbing, slave taking and extortion - "in reality" is self defense. Of the some 82 armed "incidences" under Muhammad, only 3 - the battles of Badr, Uhud and Medina ("the Trench") really were battles of defense, and even these 3 were caused by provocations from Muhammad and his Muslims (their banditry towards caravans and villages). Nearly all the others were raids to steal and take prisoners for slavery or extortion + for raping girls and women if such ones were present.
047 3/170d: "- - - (martyrs) - - -". All Muslims killed in war, are martyrs, no matter if it is a war of aggression or not, or even simply a raid for money and slaves – Muhammad made many such ones and called all of them jihads. It is like if the Christians should call everybody dead in a war with religious contents - f.x. the 30 Years War in Europe (1618-1648 AD) martyrs - or actually in all wars, as more or less all wars Muslims are involved in, are called jihads - "holy wars".
###048 3/174a: “And they returned (from war) with Grace and Bounty from Allah: no harm ever touched them - - -”. A fairy tale picture of war and easy riches. A good pep talk for recruiting new warriors if the men are uneducated and naïve. Glorifying war and spoils of war attracts new warriors. The larger the “army” the better chance of success and power for leaders.
But never a word about the catastrophes for the victims and for the destroyed lives and cultures, etc. Compassion and empathy nearly do not exist in the Quran - and definitely not concerning non-Muslims.
#####It is worth noticing that Muhammad and his followers behaved like Muslim gangs are doing today (2013 AD) in northeast Africa: Raiding - in this case especially people fleeing north from war and poverty - the weak ones. Muslims stealing what meager possessions they have, murdering, raping, gang raping, torture, extortion, slave taking, slave selling (yes, it goes on even today). This was the life of the semi-saint Muhammad the last 9-10 years of his life - Muslims were involved in some 82 armed incidences during that time, nearly all of them raids for stealing riches, for rape, extortion, and slaves. Muhammad personally led some 25 of them and personally raped at least two women (Rayhana bint Amr and Safiyya bint Huayay). #####Some morally perfect idol!
#####It also is very telling that as far as we know, Islam is doing little or nothing to stop those gangsters of today - and how can they? Those gangsters are behaving just like Muhammad did, and everything Muhammad did was perfect, "lawful and good".
049 3/174b: "- - - Bounty from Allah - - -". That the raids and wars with its stealing, raping, suppression, extortion and blood shall be in the name of the god, makes the whole "business" - the Quran's rules for waging war - even more disgusting. And are robbed goods, rape and slave taking in accordance with the moral and ethical codes in NT? - the claimed same god? Read the NT and check for yourself.
But notify how often "bounty" is mentioned in connection to propaganda for war in the Quran - the permission to steal from and to enslave the victims was one of the central arguments for alluring Muslim men to go on raids and to war. (And is the "bounty" really from a god when you have to go out and steal and rob and risk your life and health for it - and destroy other people's lives. Words and propaganda are cheap and incitements and temptation sometimes slick - and all such words even may be dishonest and untrue.)
050 "In the name of Allah, Most Gracious, Most Merciful". Please read the surahs from Medina, the immoral parts of the Muslim moral code, the unjust/immoral parts of sharia, and the Quran's rules for lying, thieving/looting, enslaving, raids and wars, plus the rules for treatment of girls and women - free, captives and slaves - and see if you agree. Always when there is a distance between words and corresponding demands and deeds, etc., we personally believe in the demands and deeds. Glorious words are cheap, demands and deeds are more reliable. Glorifying words are words, demands and deeds are reality. Glorifying words and claims anyone can use and disuse. When you read, read what was demanded, advised and done, and distrust the glorious words - judge from realities, not from propaganda.
#051 4/3b: “If ye (Muslims*) fear that ye shall not be able to deal justly with the orphans, marry women of your choice – two or three or four; but if ye fear that ye shall not be able to deal justly (with them), then only one, or (a captive) that your right hands possess." This is one of the verses behind the Sharia laws. Actually it is the verse which permits Muslims to have 4 wives (+ slave women and concubines of course).
###052 4/3c: “- - - marry women of your choice, two or three or four - - - or (a captive) that your right hand possesses - - -.” The distance between a poor Muslim and a slave was less than in a similar situation in the Americas – it was acceptable to marry a slave woman. The woman then formally often was given her freedom and was no more a slave – though as the more or less forced wife of a man, her freedom was not necessarily very real. The social position was better though, and she normally kept her freedom if there was a divorce.
#053 4/3d: “- - - marry women of your choice, two or three or four - - -.” This is the verse where the Muslims are told they can have up to 4 wives - and in addition as many concubines and slave women as you want and can afford.
054 4/3i: "- - - (a captive) that your right hand possess". = A slave - this is a common expression for a slave in the Quran.
055 4/19b: (A4/17): “Ye are forbidden to inherit women against their will.” Can this mean you cannot inherit from what she owned after she died, if she protested before she died? Hardly – not with the Islamic laws for inheritances. Zamakhshari proposes that it may mean it is prohibited to force an unwilling or not loved wife to stay with you, in the hope of inheriting her. Other authorities say it means that you are not permitted to inherit the woman as a person – for an extra wife or for your harem (it of course is permitted if she is a slave) against her will (to inherit free women in this meaning, is prohibited also by other laws). This is about very essential points in human life – no omnipotent god had used so vague words in their law.
#056 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; Niger was even later: Prohibited from 2003, and very lax use of that law (media tell there is somewhere between 130ooo and 800ooo slaves in Nigeria today (2015 AD), and that you still can meet people with a metal ring around their ankle - a symbol for that they are slaves). 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 (Hadith) 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.
057 4/24b: “Also (prohibited (for Muslims to marry*) are) women already married, except those whom your right hands possess (= slave women*) - - -“. Guess if permission to marry an already married slave woman is contradicted by the NT! In the Bible, and especially in NT the marriage is sacred. Actually this "small detail" represents such a strong collision of fundamental principles in the two books, that this difference alone proves that Yahweh and Allah are not the same god. And then there are all the other proofs in addition.
Also see 67/9c below - a strong one. But of course it is ok for Islam to prove - prove - the Bible wrong and the Quran right. But as we say: Prove, not just loose claims and as loose and invalid words like the Quran always use instead of proofs.
058 4/24c: "- - - those whom your right hand possess - - -". An Arabism (see 4/13d above) - an Arab expression meaning your slaves.
059 4/24d: "- - - seek (them (female slaves*) in marriage) with gifts from your property - - -." Well, Muhammad took Safiyya prisoner, made her his slave, raped her, then later married her, and her "gift" was release from slavery (but not from marriage). A very cheap "gift" from Muhammad's property in reality. (He wanted to get a cheap new wife in the same way with Rayhana bint Amr, but she refused to marry him.) You do the same like Muhammad!!!
060 4/24e: "- - - seek (them (female slaves*) in marriage) with gifts from your property - - -". Dower is not a necessary part of the marriage in the Bible. We will not use the strong word "proof" for that Yahweh and Allah is not the same god here, but it is an added indication.
061 4/24f: "- - - Allah is All-Knowing, All-wise". Not if he made the Quran. When there is divergence between big words - even often repeated big words - and reality, we always believe in the reality.
062 4/25c: “If any of you have not the means wherewith to wed free believing women, they may wed believing girls from those whom your right hand possess - - -”. “The ones whom your right hand possess”, is an Arab expression for slaves. To marry a slave girl is far down socially, but acceptable. Willing or not willing slave girl - the question is never asked in the Quran (besides it is likely that many would be willing, as it often meant they formally became free women, not slaves any more).
063 4/25d: "- - - those whom your right hands possess - - -". An Arabism (see 4/13d above) - an Arab expression meaning your slaves.
064 4/25g: "- - - wed them (slave girls*) with the leave of their owners, and give them (the slave women Muslims marry*) their dowers, according to what is reasonable - - -". Some of the background for the sharia laws.
065 4/25h: "- - - give them (the slave women Muslims marry*) their dowers, according to what is reasonable - - -". Part of the background for the sharia laws. We may add that it was a custom that the dower for a slave woman was her formal freedom from bondage. (Some even did like Muhammad: He took Safiyya captive, then married her - after having first murdered her husband and raped her - and then used her new slave status as a dower. A cheap wife.)
Dower is an essential part of the marriage in the Quran, but totally not-interesting - not even mentioned as a part of the necessary formalities - in the Bible. One more indication for that Yahweh and Allah are not the same god.
066 4/25i: “- - - their (slave women married to a free Muslim*) punishment (for crime or indecency*) is half of that for free women.” This was softer than in the Americas, as far as it was practiced (slaves in the house often fared not too bad in Muslim areas (like in the Americas), whereas slaves in the fields, mines, etc. could have a terrible life – not unlike the worst situations in the Americas - in spite of Muslims' boasting about how well slaves were treated).
067 4/25j: “- - - their (slave women married to a free Muslim*) punishment (for crime or indecency*) is half of that for free women.” Part of the background for the sharia laws.
##068 4/25k: (YA540): A serious quote from today's Islam (printed 2006 AD): "- - - see to it that she (the (slave) woman you are to marry*) too believes (= is a Muslim*). In that case, after all, she too is of the human brotherhood - - -." No comments. As said: Printed in 2006.
As said this is said today. Even though slavery formally is prohibited, it still is a part of the religion.
If Islam gains world power, how long time will it take before slavery re-emerges in large? (It still exists. F.x. the robber barons and their gangs in east Africa still take and rape and sell slaves today (2013 AD). This was exactly what Muhammad did, and we have not heard that Islam is doing anything efficient to stop it.)
If our sources are correct, in the old times 2/3 of new slaves to Islamic areas, were children and women to the harems (to the Americas 2/3 were men for work). Shall we make a bet that harems will reemerge in case Islam gains world power?
069 4/36b: “- - - do good - to parents, kinfolks, orphans, those in need, neighbors who are near, neighbors who are strangers, the Companion by your side, the wayfarer (ye meet), and what your right hand possess - - -”. Allah likes people who do good - even to slaves. Your slaves are mentioned after even wayfarers you happen to meet, but they are mentioned. Proving Islam was planning to end slavery? Hardly.
070 4/36d: "- - - what your (Muslims*) right hands possess - - -". An Arab expression meaning slaves - an Arabism (see 4/13d above).
***071 4/40a: “Allah is never unjust in the last degree - - -.” Wrong. Examples: Suppression of others (non-Muslims) is “lawful and good and just” . The same is stealing and robbing if it is possible to find an excuse to call it jihad (to do things like this in the name of the god makes it extra disgusting) – and the same for rape of any not pregnant female captive or slave. But a top of injustice is: A raped woman is to be punished strongly for indecency if she cannot produce 4 male witnesses to the actual rape - nearly always impossible. Allah in the Quran at times is extremely unjust.
Another point is that this is one more of the places where Muhammad knew he was lying in the Quran. F.x. stealing/looting was normal practice in Arabia, but there is no way for the follower of a good and benevolent god to honestly believe that to steal and rob are just deeds. The same goes for hurting or killing others - f.x. in a war or fight not in real self defense. A third sample is taking slaves - impossible to justify morally (but easy economically if you see it only from your own side). F.x. even the old Greeks with their advanced and deep moral thinking, were unable to find a general moral justification for taking slaves. And rape - destroying other human's lives just for your own pleasure! But to Muhammad and the Quran and thus to Islam it is "lawful and good" and to be enjoyed (8/69). A cheap way for Muhammad to get warriors - and a nice life for many a Muslim man - but unjust to a high power - - - and no way for an intelligent man like Muhammad not to know this.
072 4/57f: “- - - therein (Paradise*) shall they (deserving Muslim men*) have companions pure and holy (houris - sex slaves in Paradise*) - - -.” Houris are a bit special kind of women, but the “fact” that they are given to the men arriving in Paradise as repayment for good (?) deeds, tells kilometers about Islam’s view on women, about the Quran's moral code and about the Muslim Paradise.
073 4/57g: “- - - therein (Paradise*) shall they (deserving Muslim men*) have companions (houris - sex slaves in Paradise*) pure and holy - - -.” Very different from the Bible's Paradise to use an understatement (f.x. Luke 20/36 - "they are like angels" - not to mention: "For the Kingdom of God/Yahweh is not a matter of eating and drinking (or sex*) - - -", (Rom.14/17).) - very different. The same god? You bet! Actually this - the concubines in Paradise - is one of the points where the difference between the Bible and the Quran is so big and so fundamental, that it singlehanded proves that Yahweh and Allah is not the same god - and then there are all the other proofs in addition.
074 4/61ea: "- - - thou (people*) seest the Hypocrites avert their faces from thee (Muhammad? Muslims?*) in disgust". Hypocrites were/are persons who pretended to be Muslims for some reason or other - f.x. fear, greed for loot or slaves or rape, etc. - but without being honest believers in Muhammad's religion. There f.x. were many who pretended to be Muslims to be permitted to take part in Muhammad's many raids for stealing, looting, enslaving, etc.
075 4/69k: "What a beautiful fellowship (Islam)!" Look at Islam's treatment of non-Muslims outside Muslim area f.x. during raids, wars and conquest, of non-Muslims inside Muslim areas at times, of Muslims disagreeing with the mainstream religion, of their own women, of slaves and slave women, and not to forget look at the Quran's moral code and sharia law, and then say this once more - if you are able to.
076 4/70b: "- - - the Bounty from Allah - - -". Does the Quran here mean what the Muslims stole/steal, raped/rape and enslaved during raids and wars?
***077 4/76c: “Those who believe (Muslims*) fight in the cause of Allah, and those who reject Faith (non-Muslims*) fight in the cause of Evil: so fight ye against the friends of Satan - - -.” To say the least of it: The words are not to be misunderstood: Fight the non-Muslims, because they are the friends of Satan. Though we personally – and as far as we know also others – just wonder: Some great force or religion which teaches stealing, destruction, rape, enslavement, suppression, murder, hate, war – is that a god, benevolent something or not? – or is it a devil? – perhaps a devil in disguise?
078 4/77a: "- - - those who were told to hold back - - -". Muslim scholars say this refers to the ones eager to fight for loot and other personal gain, and that it indicates that only "true" Muslims were reliable warriors. Whether this is the true interpretation or not, is another question (the next sentences indicate that the interpretation may be wrong) - not to mention how many Muslims who in reality went on raids or to war only/mainly/partly because of the permission to steal, rape and enslave. Besides: Where are words comparable to Jesus' words in this? The same god behind the religions?
**079 4/92c: “Never should a believer kill a believer, but (if so happens) by mistake, (compensation is due): if one (so) kills a believer, it is ordained that he should free a believing (!*) slave, and pay compensation to the deceased's family, unless they remit it freely. If he belonged to a people with whom ye have a treaty of mutual alliance, compensation should be paid to his family, and a believing slave freed. For those who find this beyond their means, (is prescribed) a fast for two months running - - -". Background for the sharia laws. Also in those laws there of course is difference between the value of Muslims and non-Muslims.
#080 4/92d: "If the deceased (killed by accident*) belonged to a people at war with you, and he was a believer, the freeing of a believing (Muslim*) slave (is enough)". If he on the other hand was not a Muslim, compensation is not even mentioned. And only a Muslim slave is sufficient for compensation. Non-Muslims do not count. Something to think over for non-Muslims in a possible future Muslim world?
081 4/92e: "If anyone finds it beyond their means (to free a Muslim (NB) slave) - - -". In connection to among others this verse and its expression according to M. Azad "- - - if anyone has not (the wherewithal) - - -" you may find - or meet - a nice sample of Islamic honesty in debate - or in propaganda: (A58/7): "As regard the phrase 'he who does not find the wherewithal (lam yajid)', it may indicate either lack of financial means or the impossibility of finding anyone else who could be redeemed from factual of figurative bondage (- - -). According to many Islamic scholars of our times (e.g., Rashid Rida), this relates, in first instance, to circumstances in which 'slavery will have been abolished in accordance with the aim of Islam' (Manar V, 337)'". This simply is an al-Taqiyya - a lawful lie - and even a distasteful such one.
- First note that the translation of the Arab text is changed a little compared to Yusuf Ali's one, and "by coincidence"(?) fits the "explanation" of the claim about Islam's intention of abolishing slavery better. The Quran in reality is clear on that it speaks about the economy of the person.
- There is nowhere in the Quran said that slavery is bad or for other reasons should be terminated,
- There is nowhere in the Quran even indicated that slavery is bad or for other reasons should be terminated. Not one place.
- There is nowhere in the Quran said or in other ways indicated that slavery is morally wrong.
- There is nowhere in the Quran even indicated that it would be good moral or good ethics to abolish slavery. To set free a slave - at least a Muslim slave - is a good thing, but slavery as an institution is nowhere attacked or even questioned.
- The main Islamic idol - Muhammad - took and traded (sold or gave away for bribes) at least a few thousand slaves and expressed no qualms for doing this. Everything Muhammad said - or not said - or did, is the right thing to do for any Muslim, if it is not directly prohibited (f.x. a Muslim can have only 4 wives - a number mentioned in the Quran - as he is forbidden to have as many as Muhammad had).
- Muslim countries were forced backwards and kicking and protesting into abolishing slavery - Mauritania as late as in unbelievable 1982 AD (and made it a punishable crime as late as in 2007 AD)!! by forces and ideas from the west. We at least have never seen a Muslim whisper from old times about abolishing slavery as an institution.
- #############Added 16. March 2015: Slavery in Niger was not prohibited - and made a crime - until 2003. Even though it now is prohibited, anti slavery organizations believe there may be as many as 800ooo slaves in the country, and children - especially girls - still are abducted or bought into slavery. The first man sentenced for keeping a "5. wife" - often more than 5 - (slave girls/women doing servant slave work and being regularly raped) seems to have happened in 2008, and then it did not happen again until in 2014. This in spite of that that slavery still is widespread in the country. The enforcement of the prohibition is lax. And why not? - the great idol Muhammad took and kept and raped slaves, and the Quran very clearly permits it, so then morally it is very ok (!). Slavery is so openly practiced, that if you see someone with a metal ring around one ankle, it is a slave. But all the same nearly no reaction from the authorities.
- Abolishing slavery is a "new idea" and a "foreign idea" in Islam. Such ideas were not accepted by Islam through most of Islam's history - well, necessity after long time made some "new ideas" acceptable if they clearly were in accordance with ideas in the Quran or strong Hadiths. We have found nowhere in older Islamic literature where the "new idea" of abolishing slavery was even aired, not to mention received serious backing.
- The claim that Islam/Muhammad/the Quran promotes abolishing of slavery you ONLY meets from Muslim scholars born and raised in modern times - times when foreign, mainly Western, thinking, has made slavery extremely immoral. As it is not only permitted in Islam to lie, but advised "if necessary" to defend or promote the religion (and permitted in a number of other wide cases - f.x. to cheat women or save your money), this al-Taqiyya (lawful lie) is launched: 'Islam is the best also on this - Islam all the time intended to abolish slavery". (You even meet Muslims boasting that Islam forced Europe to end slavery, by stopping the trade from Africa. This simply is nonsense. For one thing European slaves mainly came from the Slavic areas in the East - it was not for nothing that the name "slave" was coined. And for another there hardly has been an area or a time in the entire history where trade between areas and countries and cultures has stopped for long times if good profit was possible to make. Slavery in Europe died out partly because in agriculture in chilly countries the work season is short and slaves had to be fed all the year, and ordinary workers were cheap, but mainly because it was opposed to Christian basic moral and ideas (this even though it is not directly discredited or forbidden in the Bible).
- There are in the world today some 24 million humans "living as slaves or under slave-like conditions" according to UN (the number is from 2006 if we remember correctly). A good percentage of these live in Islamic areas. We have seen little or nothing of negative reactions from Islam or Muslims to this fact. There may have been, but in case not enough to reach us, even though we have been looking for such reactions.
- As abolishing of slavery as mentioned is "a new idea" and on top of that "a foreign idea" both of which are despised by conservative Islam, and as Muhammad showed what was right and wrong for Islam in this question by taking and trading and keeping slaves (f.x. his concubines Marieh and Rayhana bint Amr), you can be pretty sure that if the world ever returns to medieval conditions, official slavery will reemerge in Islamic areas "lawful and good".
So much for this Islamic al-Taqiyya - lawful lie.
082 4/94d: “Say not (warrior during raid/war*) to anyone who offers you salutation: ‘Thou art none of a believer!” – coveting the perishable goods of this life - - -.” Most of Arabia and many other places were turned Islamic in this way – people became Muslims to save life and what they owned. But some were not believed or pretended not to be believed, so that the warriors could steal – or kill or rape – as they wished. It is told in the Hadiths that Muhammad disliked cases where the victims said they were Muslims and all the same were killed - this verse may - may - be a try to stop such cases.
But it is thought provoking that the rule only was and is for Muslim victims - anyone else you can kill to steal his property or enslave his family (enslavement is more difficult today, but ok in the Quran).
083 4/94h: "- - - therefore carefully investigate (if they were Muslims or not)". If they were Muslims you should not kill them. If not you could do so and steal their property, rape and enslave their families, etc. Some contradiction to NT's strong: "You shall not kill". Yahweh and Allah the same god? Simply no. One more sentence which alone proves that Yahweh and Allah are not the same god - and then there are all the other proofs in addition.
084 4/160a: "For the iniquity of the Jews We (Allah*) made unlawful for them certain (food) - - - which had been lawful for them - in that they hindered many from Allah's Way - - -". How come? The laws here referred to, are the Laws of Moses, which the Jews got ca. 1235 - 1230 BC, shortly after the exodus from Egypt. Before that they have been slaves in Egypt - no power to hinder many from any religion. And before that they were too few to do so - the group which Jacob took to Egypt counted 70 persons, his daughters-in-law not included, and they did not go proselyting. This accusation simply needs a lot of strong proofs to be believed, because before the Jews received the mentioned law, they simply did not have the power to hinder anyone from believing if someone wanted. Something simply is wrong. Another thing: There is no reference to such a reason in the "Books of Moses" - the only perhaps reliable source about this. As the Quran with all its mistakes, etc. is not from any god, from where did Muhammad get this claim or information?
This "information" simply is not from the Bible, and there is no basis in the Bible for that it can be correct.
085 4/161a: "(A reason for forbidden food in the Laws of Moses, is among others:*) That they (Jews') took usury - - -". At this time the Jews had been slaves in Egypt for a long time - some hundreds of years. Few slaves have money or valuables to lend against usury. Also there is no hint about such a reason in the Bible. This "reason" is a made up one or at least a not documented one.
086 5/7b: "- - - His Covenant, which He (Allah') ratified with you (Muslims*), when ye said: 'We hear and we obey'- - -". Once upon a time some Boers of South Africa made what they called a covenant with Yahweh/God. They promised that if Yahweh/God would help them, they would do so-and-so. What they over-looked was that a covenant must be agreed on by at least two parts; and as Yahweh/God was not an involved participant in an agreement about the case, they in reality only made promises, not a covenant. Is this something of the same? Another point: According to the Bible the god did not make any covenant with Ishmael and his descendants, only with Isaac and his line (1.Mos. 17/21). This even more so as in spite of Arabs' claims of being descendants of Ishmael, it is unlikely they are. For one thing and for what it is worth the Bible tells that Ishmael's descendants settled not in Arabia, but in vest Sinai "near the border of Egypt" (1. Mos. 25/18) where they became 12 tribes with "twelve tribal rulers" (1. Mos. 25/16) = the god's promise of making Ishmael's descendants mighty. But easier and more solid proved: Modern DNA analyses have shown that the Arabs not are and never were a pure "race". The original Arabs seems to have been people from here and there who settled in the desert something like 3ooo to 4ooo years ago, partly because the introduction of tamed camels around that time made life in the desert a real possibility - though it only was used to a limited degree, and only in the south. And this mixed group has been even much more mixed up through the times, partly by traders and others passing through on the caravan "highways" crossing Arabia and leaving off-springs now and then - remember that before Islam, "the two delightful things" in Arabia were sex and alcohol - and also Arab traders bringing home brides from abroad. But perhaps the biggest source for foreign blood to further mix up and dilute the claimed race, was import of slaves from all around, both long before Muhammad and far more later. All the girl and women slaves were definitely not imported just for decoration, and the "pure Arab blood" never was much more than an illusion - originally started by Ishmael or not. (And in addition: Even if Ishmael had settled in Arabia, there also lived many others - so even if this had been true, only a small percent - less than 0.01 percent (= if there at that time lived only 10ooo in all Arabia) - of the Arab DNA could have been from Ishmael already at that time, and it would have been far more diluted by now.)
There is no rational or scientific reason for believing in the claim that the Arabs are descendants of Ishmael and Abraham - on the contrary: What knowledge which exists, makes the claim highly unlikely, and even if there should be a connection, it in case is an extremely diluted one. Also modern DNA science documents this.
087 5/19j: "- - - a warner (Muhammad*) - - -". At this time (632 AD) this at least was a Kitman (a lawful half-truth). In 632 AD Muhammad also was an enforcer - most of Arabia and much of the rest of the now Muslim area became Muslim by some kind of force - weapons, money, social pressure, work, etc. (Arabia mainly by greed - the Arabs wanted parts of the loot from raids and wars - or force: "Become Muslims or fight us and die - and see your women and children become slaves".)
088 5/33a: “The punishment for those who wage war against Allah and his Messenger (Muhammad*) - - - is: execution, or crucifixion, or the cutting off of hands and feet from the opposite sides, or exile from the land.” Remember that this surah is from 632 AD, and that practically all raids and wars were wars of aggression from the Muslims, mostly raids for riches – even the battles of Badr, Uhud and Medina/the Trench were battle in a war of aggression started and kept alive by Muhammad – so mostly the victims who “fought war against Allah and his Messenger” were fighting in desperate and sheer self defense to defend themselves against the on-slaughter of Islam - - - and to defend themselves obviously was a great sin. Muslims attacked for gaining loot, land, slaves, power - - - and force Islam on their neighbors. Arabia mainly was made Islamic by the sword. In spite of Islam’s peaceful words some places, the local Arabs normally only got two choices: Become Muslims or fight/die. A clear contradiction – and abrogation of 2/256: "Let there be no compulsion in religion".
089 5/33f: "- - - (making*) mischief through the land - - -". Most of the mischief was made by the Muslims in their aggressive attacks for riches, slaves/extortion and for forcing Islam on its neighbors - most of Arabia was made Muslim by the sword and by Arabs' lust for looting, which made many become Muslims so as to have the permission to loot and rape, enslave and extort.
There exists an old folk tale: A bear was drinking from a river. Further down a lamb also was drinking. "You dirty the water for me", the bear said to the lamb. "No, that is impossible, sir", the lamb answered. "You are further upriver from me, and the water is streaming from you to me, and not from me to you". "I say that you dirty the water for me", the bear repeated, and killed the lamb.Often Muslim claims and "explanations" make us think about this small tale.
090 5/35c: “Do your duty to Allah, seek the means of approach unto Him, and strive with might and mind (= make war*) in His Cause: that ye may prosper”. You prosper if you do like this. Islam after fighting non-religious knowledge for a few centuries (ca 1100 AD - or actually 1095 AD in the eastern and central Muslim area and ca. 1198 in the western) found that there was no prosperity in thinking and researching and studying - except just studying and repeating the religion and related subjects - to fight and steal/rob/suppress/enslave on the other hand was good. The result was stagnation after some time, and not prosperity.
####091 5/35g: “- - - strive with might and main (see 5/35a-b just above*) in His (Allah’s*) cause - - -”. For us this is one of the most detestable points in all the Quran and Islam: Fight and steal and rob and mutilate and rape and enslave and hate and murder and suppress in the name of your god - a claimed good and benevolent god.
092 5/45a: "We ordered for them: 'Life for life, eye for eye, nose for nose, tooth for tooth, and wounds equal for equal'" This is approximately what the OT says - and the Quran is even more specific as it recons different values for different lives: "Free man for free man, woman for woman (half value*), slave for slave (no human value, only economic one*)". The "turn the other cheek" from NT and its New Covenant (f.x. Luke 22/20 and other places in NT) you never find in the Quran or mentioned by Muslims (you may forgive, but that is based on quite another moral ideas). Why - if the gods had been the same one like the Quran claims - should that god have gone from the on this point rather harsh law of Moses (which was much milder than the customs for revenge before that time, though), to mildness in the NT and its New Covenant, and then back to something more harsh than the laws of Moses?
093 5/51b: “Take not the Jews and the Christians (pagans are not even valid to be mentioned*) for your friends and protectors.” If people a leader looks upon as (possible) enemies or as possible subjects for attacking and suppression, are made up to look for you like something bad and degenerated and kept at a distance personally, it is much easier for that leader to make his followers believe that “that vermin” deserves to be attacked and killed and raped and suppressed and to have their possessions stolen - especially if the warriors among his followers are permitted to rob and rape and enslave and steal for themselves valuables and women “lawful and good“.
And with no intermingling from the outside the leader also greatly reduces the risk of that his subjects meets unwanted ideas or facts. Thus: No friendship, thank you. The method is known from a number of fanatic sects.
094 5/54e: “- - - fighting in the way of Allah - - -”. Unlike when you fight for Jesus and Yahweh - and many other gods - with your brain and words and good deeds, when you fight for Muhammad and Allah you fight with weapons and wage war and terror, and is paid by loot and rape and slaves - the laudable thing to do according to the Quran. Or - ?
095 5/64h: “Amongst them (the Jews*) We (Allah*) have placed enmity and hatred till the Day of Judgment. Every time they kindle the fire of war, Allah doth extinguish it; but they (ever) strive to do mischief on earth. And Allah loveth not those who do mischief”. And why should you love them when Allah obviously did dislike them? Allah’s dislike is a good motif and explanation for ruthlessness against them. (Muhammad treated the Jews in and around Medina very ruthless – chased away (because too strong opposition did that he could not kill them in the beginning) a large part, enslaved big groups of women and children and murdered the rest of the survivors – except some who for some years were permitted to live as semi slaves on what used to be their own farms, for a very stiff price. Plus he personally raped and enslaved for his own harem at least two of the women after having murdered or enslaved their families – Rayhana bint Amr and Safijja bint Huayay (he later married Safijja)). Well, the verse is good hate propaganda – and hate is a good background for incitements to war, and for explanations for atrocities.
It is irony - but normal - for a religion of war to accuse others for enmity.
096 5/68f: "- - - their ("the People of the Book") obstinate rebellion and blasphemy". Very bad people. Stay away from them - or fight them. Characteristics like this leads up to dislike and worse - - - and the possibility for raids against them and suppression or even enslavement or killing, like we see in Islamic history.
097 5/83g: "- - - their (Christians*) eyes overflowing with tears - - -". Remembering the real points of view of the Jews in and around Medina (there were few Christians there) and that at this time (632 AD) most of them had had to flee, were made slaves or semi-slaves, or murdered by the many hundreds (some 700 one believe only from the Qurayza tribe) because they refused to become Muslims, one gets a bad taste in the mouth when reading dramatic claims like this. And one wonders what kind of naivety and religious blindness it takes to believe in fairy tales like this when one knows the truth - after all they had taken part in the atrocities and torture and enslaving and murdering themselves! But it makes it easy to understand why Muslims do not see what they really read in the Quran and the Hadiths: Indoctrination by the religion of the parents since baby age, parents and surrounding telling this is true, religious blindness, wishful thinking, a bent moral code, etc.(taqlid)
#####098 5/89b: “Allah will not call you to account for where is futile in your oaths, but He will call you to account for your deliberate oaths: (if you break such one*) for expiation, feed 10 indigent persons, on a scale of the average for the food of your families: or clothe them, or give a slave his freedom. If that is beyond your means, fast for three days. That is the expiation for the (breaking of*) oaths ye have sworn. But keep to your oaths.” In principle: Keep your oaths, at least if you meant them. But if you break them, not much is lost, as it is just to pay expiation, and everything is ok. And if the oath was made without thinking things over, you are not even bound to it or bound to pay expiation for it. Guess if this is different from NT! (- and from most other religions included all the big ones!)
No other of the big religions has dishonesty as an integrated and accepted part of the religion - also here remember al-Taqiyya (the lawful lie) and Kitman (the lawful half-truth) - and "war is deceit". Just for the record: Al-Taqiyya, Kitman, and Hilah can be used at least in these cases (for broken oaths there are given no real limitations if the broken oath will give a better result. By implication this also goes for ordinary words and promises, as an oath is something stronger than a normal word or promise):
- To save your or others' health or life.
- To get out of a tight spot or a dangerous problem.
- To make peace in a family.
- When it will give a better result than honesty or honoring one’s oath.
- To cheat women (should be remembered by girls with Muslim boyfriends wanting sex - or wanting a marriage to get residence permit or work permit in a rich country.)
- To deceive opponents/enemies.
- To betray enemies.
- To secure one’s money (very clear from Hadiths).
- To defend Islam. (Advised if necessary to succeed.)
- To promote Islam. (Advised if necessary to succeed.)
But al-Taqiyya is a double-edged sword: In the short run you may cheat and deceive someone – actually also in the long run if the opposite part does not know about this side of Muslims and of Islam, or if he/she is naïve. But in the long run one learns that there is no way to really be sure a Muslim speaks the full truth - or the truth at all - in serious questions. (This also may be a big problem for Muslims telling the truth about something without being believed - they have no reliable way of strengthening their words.)
####099 6/45b: "Of the wrongdoers the last remnant was cut off (killed*). Praise be to Allah - - -". ########This "Praise be to Allah" is one of the points which makes Islam a morally sick and distasteful religion. A claimed benevolent and good god who is to be praised for stealing, rape, slave taking, extortion, repeated atrocities, apartheid, and mass murder, and for the reason they had another religion only, is distasteful outside our vocabulary, and as wrong morally. We are sorry - we have big vocabularies from lives in reading and learning, but we do not have strong enough words for this.
######A pinnacle of a high moral code of moral for any religion anywhere in the world.
Not to mention one of the really strong proofs for that Yahweh and Allah are not the same god, and for that Jesus and Muhammad are not in the same religion, not to mention in the same line of prophets. Read this claim from Muhammad, and then read the words of Jesus - ########it will take a great amount of naivety and wishful thinking to be able to believe those two ever were in the same religion or represented the same god.
Are there any similarities between the Quran's moral code and the ones of f.x. the Mafia, the Cosa Nostra, the Chinese Triads, etc.?
Muslims able to glorify Muhammad, must be somewhat special beings.
100 6/48a: "We (Allah*) send the Messengers only to give good news and to warn." In that case Muhammad was no messenger from Allah - he was too much of a thief/robber/enslaver and of a bloody robber baron/warlord/murderer and more. And later an enforcer: "Become Muslim or fight us and die"- that was the choice much of Arabia (and others) got. "- - - only to give good news - - -"? Not even wrong, but much stronger than wrong. (But this was in 621 AD before he started to become powerful and either became morally destroyed or could show his true moral and personality. Absolute power often works like that.
101 6/90d: "No reward do I ask of you - - -". This was one of Muhammad’s claims, and then it was good to have the earlier prophets say the same - indicating this was what real prophets said. And Muhammad took nothing? No, only 1/5 of everything stolen or robbed, included slaves - 100% if the victims gave in without fighting - (for comparison: Yahweh once in the Bible (4. Mos. 31/28) demanded 1/500 of half and 1/50 of the rest, and not for himself - - - and only 1 time) - Allah via his representative (?) Muhammad demanded 1/5 = 10 - 100 times as much each and every time, and 5 times as much again if the victims gave in without a fight. FIGHT! The same god?), tax = 2.5% on average of everything you own (not earn, but own) each and every year (if you are not too poor) and 10% of everything dug out of the earth + plenty of women + total obedience and total power over you. No, Muhammad demanded "nothing" from his followers!(Reality incompatible with at least NT). Well, not all of what he took was only for himself, but all the same: Simply and plainly a lie.
**102 6/99c: “- - - with it (rain) We (Allah*) produce vegetation of all kinds - - - in these things there are Signs for people who believe.” Well vegetation grows no matter in the nature. We only have the words of one single man for that Allah is involved - a man who Islam itself admits is a highwayman, an extorter, an assassin of opponents, a mass murderer of helpless prisoners, a womanizer, a rapist, a breaker of his words (f.x. by killing 29 men - 1 got away - he had promised safe conduct), an enslaver "en masse", etc., aspiring for power - all in all a perfect and absolutely reliable witness according to himself and to Islam. And not to mention his slogan according to Ibn Ishaq: "War is betrayal" - betrayal and even breaking of one’s oaths was ok (2/225, 3/54, 5/89, 16/91, 66/2). Well, flattery feels good at least – especially for people naïve enough to believe everything they want to believe.
103 6/131b: "- - - their wrongdoing - - -". Beware that when the Quran uses words like this, it is in accordance with its own partly immoral moral code. F.x. it is wrongdoing not to go to war to steal and enslave and kill when a leader has a jihad ("holy" war) declared, whereas f.x. to rape any captive female, even children, is "lawful and good" (if the female is not pregnant) - and the fact that this formally has to be done in the name of the god, makes both the deeds, the religion and the god even more distasteful, repulsive - and immoral.
104 6/151d: "Come not nigh to shameful deeds - - -". Quite an ironic sentence when you remember the shameful deeds the Quran advices or accepts - sex with children (at least from 9 years), rape, slavery, lying, stealing (in connection with raids and wars), suppression, murder, just to mention some.
105 6/153e: "- - - thus doth He (Allah*) command you, that you may be righteous". Is it righteous ("just and good") to steal or rob in the name of Allah? - is it righteous ("just and good") to enslave in the name of Allah? - is it righteous ("just and good") to extort in the name of Allah? - is it righteous ("just and good") to attack peaceful people in the name of Allah? - is it righteous ("just and good") to rape captive or slave women in the name of Allah? - is it righteous ("just and good") to rape captive or slave children in the name of Allah? - is it righteous to punish a raped woman because she cannot produce 4 men - men - who have seen the very act, to prove it was a rape? (one of the most disgusting and unjust laws in this complete world)! - is it righteous ("just and good") to lie, or cheat or break your word or your oath (al-Taqiyya, Kitman, "break your oath if that gives a better result" (Muhammad))? - is it righteous ("just and good") to murder opponents because they do not agree with you? - is it righteous ("just and good") to kill persons because they do not believe in Islam or wants to leave it - a religion based on a book full of mistakes, contradictions, wrong logic, etc., dictated by a man believing in al-Taqiyya, in Kitman, and in breaking his words and his oats even - is it "lawful and good"? The horrible truth is that many Muslims will answer "yes" to some or all of these questions. These rules of moral and justice - or rather immoral and injustice - have been so strongly imprinted on them since they were babies, that they are unable to see the horror and the places of inhuman injustice in their code of so-called moral - and moral philosophy which could have mended the terrible cultural rules does not exist in Islam - and the as disgusting injustice in some of their laws. They really believe those are the best of rules, and that everybody not living by them are second rate "Untermench" - In parts of Pakistan imams/mullahs have debated if non-Muslims have half the value or less compared to Muslims. And according to Wall Street Journal, 9. April 2002 Muslims in the laws for "blood money" in Saudi Arabia have the double value of Jews or Christians and 15 times the value of Pagans - - - and women half of this. No comments. But also see 6/108d above and 23/24b (A23/11) and 26/74c below.
###106 7/28b: “Allah never commands what is shameful - - -.” This is contradicted by several points in the Quran, f.x.:
- 2/230: “If a husband divorces his wife (irrevocably), he cannot, after that, remarry her until after she has married another husband and he has divorced her.” This situation is not common, but it does happen in a culture where divorce is so easy as in Islam. In Islam the woman then has to prostitute herself in legal forms, to be permitted to do so (the intermediate marriage has to be a “fulfilled" one).
- Enslaving is “lawful and good”.
- Killing and murdering and war are not only lawful and good, but the best service to Allah.
- A raped woman who cannot produce 4 male witnesses to the very act, is to be punishes severely for indecency.
- Allah commands/permits sex with children. For an adult to enjoy sex with a child is utterly shameful. For an adult to introduce a child to sex is inhuman and even more shameful. Muhammad even demonstrated that it was ok at least from the girl is 9 – and worse: She – Aisha - became his favorite wife the rest of her childhood.
- Allah commands that one can take slaves in a jihad - and nearly any skirmish or war where Muslims are involved, is declared jihad. For centuries (till ca. 1930 – 1940) all the four law schools of Islam said that if the opposite parts were pagans, this was good enough reason to declare jihad – which means that at least theoretically any slave hunter in Africa or Asia could claim to be waging jihad. To force fellow humans to become slaves, to toil for free for you, to be free for you to sell or mistreat or use for a sex toy, is utterly inhuman, utterly selfish, utterly immoral – and utterly shameful. Not to mention that it is a grotesque act to commit in the name of a presumed god and benevolent good.
- To rape a child captive/slave/victim is grotesquely selfish, immoral, inhuman and grotesquely shameful - - - but Allah has commanded that it is ok if the child is mot pregnant - and over 9 years according to Islam (the age of Aisha when Muhammad started to have sex with her - anything Muhammad did is just and right).
- To rape any woman prisoner/slave/victim – a fellow human being – is nearly as selfish and shameful and bad as raping a child. But in the Quran it is “lawful and good” if the woman is not pregnant. That it is "lawful and good" may be a reason why rape is so common by Muslim warriors/soldiers. (Another possible reason is that empathy is not an integrated part of Islam - and the same with moral philosophy).
- To murder opponents – also personal opponents – in the name of a presumably good god is something much more than shameful.
- To incite to discrimination, hate and war, in the name of a presumably good god is even worse than this again – and a proof for a god or a “prophet” full of hypocrisy.
- To steal/rob/plunder and extort in the name of such a god – and with his permission as “lawful and good” - is nearly a bad and as much hypocrisy as raping and killing and apartheid/suppression. And to do so in the name of a god, makes the god, the religion and the acts even more perverted and distasteful. But all these points have this in common:
- They attract selfish warriors to a robber “prophet’s” army – and to his successors’.
- They attract greedy warriors to a robber “prophet’s” army – and to his successors’.
- They attract inhuman warriors to a robber “prophet’s” army – and to his successors’.
- They attract primitive warriors to a robber “prophet’s” army – and to his successors’.
- It is a cheap way for a robber “prophet” – and for his successors – to get an army – a cheap army and an inhuman army.
Finally: Severe or capital punishment for a woman who has been raped, but is unable to produce 4 male eye witnesses to the very act most likely is the most inhuman, most immoral, most unjust, and most shameful law we have ever come across in any at least half civilized religion or culture, and Allah/Muhammad has introduced this law.
107 7/43i: "- - - the Prophets of our (Muslims'*) Lord (Allah*) - - -". This of course intends to include also Muhammad, but: No god uses a messenger telling his audiences a lot of things which are wrong. And no good and benevolent god uses a robber baron and warlord living from stealing, extortion, rape and paying his men by permitting them to rob, to rape even children, slave taking/dealing, apartheid, and blood and murder.
108 7/85h: "- - - (Muslims*) do not make mischief on earth - - -". Read the Muslim political, military, raiding and slave hunting history, and weep - especially if Islam is a made up religion, and remember here what the fact that there is no god behind the Quran indicates (no god was ever involved in a book of that quality).
109 7/102a: “Most of them (people*) We (Allah*) found not men (true) to their covenant - - -“. “The Message of the Quran” (A7/81 - A7/83 in 2008 English edition) tells (in the Swedish edition) that the exact word-for-word translation is: “We found by them nothing that tied them to what is truth and right”. Not a word about a covenant.
And that book continues by telling that this may include man’s capability to instinctively to see the difference between right and wrong.
Now the fact that some of the most fundamental moral questions get the same answer in many societies indicates that something deep inside man tells some common moral truths: You shall not steal, you shall not be a nuisance – or worse – to others, you shall not rape, you shall not kill, etc. But Islam and the Quran is the best proof for that these inner messages are easy to override for a charismatic leader and for a society, and make immoral behavior praiseworthy and a moral code: To steal/rob, rape, enslave, murder, and more – it all is “good and lawful” if you just observe the right formalities in Islam. To what claimed covenant are they true?
Besides: Is there really a clear covenant between Allah and the Muslims, or have Muhammad and his followers just made promises and believe it is a covenant? - and if there is a covenant: What is it worth if Allah is a made up god? - not to mention if he is from the dark forces, like many of the moral rules, etc. may indicate.
To be scientific: It is likely man has a conscience. But this conscience has to be trained by the community to learn what is right and what is wrong. To claim that this knowledge is instinctive, is nonsense according to science.
110 7/146h: "- - - right conduct - - -". Beware that when the Quran uses expressions like this, it is in accordance with its own partly immoral moral code - good conduct was f.x. to raid for valuables, slaves and power for Muhammad.
111 7/157f: “- - - for he (Muhammad*) commands them (Muslims*) what is just, and forbids them what is evil”. The last statement is solidly contradicted both by reality and by the Quran. The book – not to mention Muhammad and his successors not only permitted but demanded murders and war, robbing and extortion, rape and enslavement, etc. It is possible to make such things “lawful” by sick laws. But there exists no way to make such inhumanities “good”, or “just” or “pure” – and this includes calling what in reality are raids for loot and slaves, or wars of aggression, for “self defense” or jihad (like Muslims have done legion times throughout history – often with a real but minor detail or made up arguments as pretext).
112 7/158r: "- - - follow him (Muhammad*) that (so) ye (Muslims/people*) may be guided." Thieving/robbing, extorting, raping, enslaving, slave dealing, womanizing, discrimination mongering, hate mongering, torture, murder, mass murder, suppression, war mongering, war, al-Taqiyya and Kitman (lies), breaking your oaths, and more. Yes, follow him and be guided! - Muslims do so?
#113 8/1b: “They (the warriors*) ask thee (Muhammad*) concerning (things taken as) spoils of war (riches and slaves and sometimes land*)". One more of the many texts or quotes in the Quran which could not have been reliably written into the claimed "Mother Book" (13/39b, 43/4b+c, 85/21-22) in Heaven (of which the Quran is claimed to be a copy) eons ago, unless predestination was and is 100% like the Quran claims many places (if you look, you will find more cases than we mention - we only mention some of the obvious ones). If man has free will - even partly only (an expression some Muslims use to flee from the problem full predestination contra free will for man (and also contra that there is no meaning in praying to Allah for help, if everything already is predestined in accordance with a plan "nobody and nothing can change" - a problem which Muslims seldom mention), and an expression no Muslim we have met has ever defined) - and can change his mind, full and reliable clairvoyance about the future, not to mention the distant future, is impossible even for a god, as the man always could/can change his mind or his words once more, in spite of Islam's claims. There are at least 5 reasons - at least 3 of them unavoidable - for this:
- When something is changed, automatically the future is changed.
- The laws of chaos will be at work and change things, if even a tiny part is made different. And multiply even a tiny change with some billion people through the centuries, and many and also big things will be changed.
- The displacement of a happening - f.x. the death of a warrior in battle - of only one yard or one minute may or even will change the future forever (that yard or minute f.x. may mean that the warrior killed - or not killed - an opponent). The laws of chaos and the "Butterfly Effect" and the "Domino Effect" kick in.
- The so-called "Butterfly Effect"; "a butterfly flapping its wing in Brazil may cause a storm in China later on" or "a small bump may overturn a big load".
- The so-called "Domino Effect": Any change will cause this and this to change, which will cause this and this to change, which will cause this and this to change - - - and so on forever. Also each cause may cause one or more or many changes. And: The Butterfly Effect only may happen, whereas the Domino Effect is unavoidable and inexorable - a main reason why if you in a battle is killed 5 meters from or 5 minutes later than where and when Allah has predestined - not to mention if you die when tilling your fields 50 miles off - unavoidably the entire future of the world is changed. Perhaps not much changed, but like said; multiply it with many billion people through the centuries, and the world is totally changed. And full clairvoyance of course totally impossible - except in occultism, mysticism, made up legends, and in fairy tales.
This that Allah predestines everything like the Quran claims and states many places, is an essential point, because besides totally removing the free will of man (in spite of the Quran's claims of such free will, or some Muslims' adjusted "partly free will for man" - to adjust the meanings where the texts in the Quran are wrong, is typical for Islam and its Muslims) - it also removes the moral behind Allah's punishing (and rewarding) persons for what they say and do - Allah cannot reward or punish people for things he himself has forced them to say or do, and still expect to be believed when he (Muhammad?) claims to be a good or benevolent or moral or just god. Also see 2/51b and 3/24a above.
And as mentioned above, full predestination also makes prayers to Allah meaningless, as everything already is predestined according to Allah's Plan - a Plan which no prayer ("nobody and nothing") can change.
####114 8/1c: “They (the warriors*) ask thee (Muhammad*) concerning (things taken as) spoils of war (riches and slaves and sometimes land*). Say: (Such) spoils are at the disposal of Allah and the Prophet (Muhammad*)”. This is one of the rules Muhammad or the omniscient Allah had to change later (and not much later) - in the end Muhammad only got 20%, except if the victims gave in without a fight (then Muhammad still got 100%). (Islam has another explanation - all belongs to Allah, but 80% may be given to the warriors and to their leaders. But when a "may be" becomes a rule, it is not a "may be" any more). You meet Muslims saying Allah/the Quran never changed anything, but here is one point which was changed shortly afterward. Often Muslims explains changes with that the rules really were not changed, only made stricter or clarified (why should that be necessary for an omniscient god?) Here is an absolute rule which later had to be changed - the warriors demanded their share of the spoils. Besides: How primitive or greedy has a person to be in order to see a good and benevolent god in a god who permits stealing/robbing, rape, enslaving, suppression, murder, etc. in his name?Incompatible with NT.
####But there is another and very - extremely - serious point here: When raids and wars and slave-taking expeditions and whatever are planned and executed just for that purpose: To be able to see this as anything but plain and dishonest thievery or robbing, you have be a very special person or belong to a very special culture.
####It happens that Muslims asks about why on Earth they are disliked just because they are Muslims? Parts of the Quran's moral code explain a large percent of that question - it is too far from normal moral codes. (But Muslims are so used to it, that they are unable to see its excesses, dishonesty and inhumanity, and honestly believe it is a perfect and most honorable code.)
####115 8/1d: “(The spoils of war*) “are at the disposal of Allah and the Prophet (Muhammad*) - - -.” All that was stolen and looted and robbed in raids and war included, slaves and prisoners for extorting money (this early – 624 AD – it mainly was raids to steal/rob/extort) belonged to Allah – represented by his envoy on earth: Muhammad. But his officers and warriors were too greedy to accept this – they wanted a share of the riches, too. So a bit later in the surah – a few “revelations” later (?) there came a contra order – and abrogation:
- ***8/41: “And know that out of all the booty that ye may acquire (in war), a fifth share is assigned to Allah - - -.” Muhammad had to give the warriors their share – except that he saved everything for himself in the cases where the victims gave in without fighting – then the warriors had done nothing and could not demand a share. Muhammad needed riches. Though it is likely it is true he was not much interested in much luxury, he needed riches for bribes/"gifts" and for waging war to get more power and more riches, included slaves – war cost money even if he paid his warriors with religion and religious promises, then all the same food and equipment cost money – and he needed riches for “gift” to attract more warriors/followers/believers and to keep some of the lukewarm-warm ones - - - and some for social use (help to the poor). Muslims tries to explain away this contradiction and abrogation by saying that it all belongs to Allah/the leader, but 80% is given to the warriors/robbers. But the moment it becomes a right for the robbers in raids and warriors in war, the rank and file’s share no longer belongs to the leader.
####116 8/1e: “(The spoils of war*) are at the disposal of Allah and the Prophet (Muhammad*) - - -.” Incompatible with the Bible. One more proof for that Yahweh and Allah is not the same god - and for that Jesus and Muhammad was not in the same line of prophets - Just try to think about Jesus demanding his share of things stolen in war, not to mention his share of slaves taken!! - the very thoughts are utterly impossible for anyone knowing NT. In OT it was permitted to take booty, but for the warriors. Only once (4. Mos. 31/28-29) did Yahweh ask for a share of the booty: 1 in 500 from half and 1 in 50 from the other half for the priests and Levites (the priest tribe). In NT there is no question about booty at all. Allah demands 1 in 5 if there was fighting and everything if the victim gave in without fighting. The same god? Just guess!! (When it comes to treatment of victims and also of their possessions, it is easy to think about the Mafia or the Triads, and about primitives and greed, when we read about Muslims' raids and wars).
117 8/14a: "- - - for those who resist Allah, is the penalty of the Fire". As practically all the 82 or more armed "episodes" - one every 6 weeks in Medina for "the Religion of Peace"!! - ( http://www.1000mistakes.com/jihad-holywar/index.php names more than 60 of them and what was the purpose of each of them) under Muhammad, were aggression from Muhammad and his Muslims - mostly for loot, slaves and extortion - this is an interesting statement: Defend yourself against Muhammad's raiders who wants to steal everything you have got, rape and enslave your women and children, kill or enslave yourself - - - and go to Hell for "resisting Allah" as everything and every attack Muhammad made were "holy battles" - Ghazwa - and "holy war" - jihad. Included every single attack and raid for wealth which made up 90% of his raids or more!
118 8/17b: (The fights are acts of Allah) "in order that He might test the Believers - - -". But why - why - should Allah need to test his Muslims if he is omniscient and knows everything on beforehand? - not to mention if he on top is omnipotent and decides everything before it happens? There is no logic in this. But if the real story was that Muhammad needed an "explanation" for why a mighty god wanted them to fight - in reality for Muhammad - then this sentence suddenly is easy to understand; it is unbelievable what you can make people believe if they are naive or uneducated or both, not to mention if they want to belief from f.x. religious reasons or to have an excuses to steal and enslave and rape women and to become rich.
119 8/40a: “If they (the enemy*) refuse (to stop fighting – and remember that for hundreds of years the Muslims mostly were the aggressors*), be sure that Allah is your Protector - - -.” Allah helps you in any fight against “infidels”- real defense or "defense in the widest meaning of the word" = attack or raids for wealth and slaves and power and for expanding Islam.
120 8/41d: “And know that out of all the booty that ye may acquire (in war), a fifth share is assigned to Allah (/Muhammad*) - - -.” Which means that 80% are for the warriors and leaders in the war – an economical incentive which for many a poor man counted much more than the religion – war and terror = good business. Many became well-to-do, many became rich, and some became very rich – and were dream models for new generations of robber warriors and robber barons. But Muslims and Islam never mentions the cost in destruction and destroyed lives which were the price millions had to pay for this unjust prosperity of the robbers and destroyers. It frequently took (the surviving) locals 100-200 years and more just to regain their standard of life, not to mention freedom. The warriors of the good and benevolent god of “the Religion of Peace” frequently mass murdered and massacred and enslaved “en gross” – and stole everything. Jerusalem f.x. got a hunger catastrophe after being occupied in 638 AD - the Muslims stole everything, included the food.
#121 8/57a: “If you gain the upper hand over them in war, disperse, with them those who follow them, that they may remember.” Many a Muslim warrior and warlord followed this order thoroughly – they certainly were remembered many places - - - except by all those who were dead. Sind (now approximately Pakistan), India, Armenia, Greeks in Turkey to mention a few - and not to forget Africa, included the slave hunters - tens of millions to the Muslim areas north of Sahara and in Asia (15 millions arrived alive according to Encyclopedia Britannica - the lowest number we have found (to all the Americas 14 mill. and a much lower death rate during transport, also this number according to E. B.)), plus the millions of slaves in Muslim areas south of Sahara and the millions sold to American slave captains. (The American and other slave traders seldom hunted for slaves themselves. They bought from local slave hunters - a large percentage of them Muslims.)
***122 8/67a: “It is not fitting for a Prophet (Muhammad*) that he should have prisoners of war until he hath thoroughly subdued the land”. One of the moral and ethical real pinnacles in Islam. It takes an effort - and resources - to take care of prisoners. This Muhammad did not like - and voila! - Allah ordered him to kill all prisoners (of course with the exception of the ones one wanted as slaves or wanted to keep for extorting money for from their families - or women and girls for "personal use").
No doubt at all: A morally and ethically superior god and religion, and with lots of empathy - not to forget the perfect and good and kind and good-hearted Muhammad who was free from sins. (Actually there never were philosophers thinking on morality and ethics in Islam like f.x. in the old Greece or later in the West. Muhammad just picked from the contemporary traditions - in some cases he picked good ideas, in other cases he chose rather inhuman ideals, and that was it, as it never later has been permitted to think about whether his rules are good - or the best - or not.)
This quote also tells a lot about the person Muhammad.
Does anybody wonder why Muslim warriors and terrorists sometimes murder prisoners - guilty or not?
NB!! NB!! NB!! NB!! NB!! NB!! NB!! NB!! NB!! NB!! NB!! NB!! NB!! NB!!!
This is one of the most disgusting and revealing sentences in the Quran.
NB!! NB!! NB!! NB!! NB!! NB!! NB!! NB!! NB!! NB!! NB!! NB!! NB!! NB!!!
######123 8/69a: “ "But (now) enjoy what ye took in war, #######lawful and good - - -”. This is one more of the moral and ethical pinnacles in the Quran: Wage war, and then it is “lawful and good” to steal and rob and plunder - and rape the women and girl children and take slaves. It actually is connected to 8/68a above, but like so often in the Quran specific episodes, etc, are given general meaning.
But of course this made it easy and cheap for Muhammad and his successors to get warriors. That such behavior is a catastrophe for any and all victims - and in some cases set back the civilization may be some 100-200 years like in Persia/Iran - does not count, as non-Muslim “Untermench” ("sub-humans" in Nazi German) do not count.
This even more so as for fanatics nearly every situation they do not like, can be defined as war against Islam “in the widest meaning of the word” - not to mention that according to Islam’s definition all areas not dominated by Islam are “land of war”. Really a morally and ethical superior religion - compare f.x. to the silly and invalid "Do unto others like you want others do against you", which many religions and culture have as their "constitution". And really a peaceful one.
And honestly the word “good” in ”lawful and good” classifies Muhammad, the Quran and Islam. Laws can be twisted and remade and it is no problem for an absolute dictator to make what laws he wants and thus make things “lawful” – quotation marks used on purpose. But the word “good” is an absolute – flexible “borders”, but fundamentally an absolute. Allah’s/Muhammad’s real rules for behavior against all outsiders is way outside “good”, and the hypocrisy in the using of abrogated verses in the Quran to make outsiders believe something else, makes this aspect of the religion and its hypocrisy even more disgusting.
This quote also tells a lot about the person Muhammad.
########To us this is perhaps the most disgusting and revealing sentence in the entire Quran and the entire Islam.
Also: Combine this quote with Islam's slogan: "Islam is the Religion of Peace" and "Allah is good and benevolent" and weep - or laugh.
NB!! NB!! NB!! NB!! NB!! NB!! NB!! NB!! NB!! NB!! NB!! NB!! NB!! NB!!!
#####124 8/69c: "- - - lawful and good - - -". If these words and the context it is taken from ("- - - enjoy what (loot, slaves, and women* + destruction and murder) ye took in war (normally of aggression*), lawful and good - - -", were all you knew about the Quran and Islam, this alone would be enough to remove it from the civilized world and transfer it to the dark, harsh, and inhuman Medieval ages or earlier. This even more so as this is not "abrogated" by today's Islam, but on the contrary preached and even practiced today (during armed conflicts) in some Islamic forums and groups.
125 8/70b: “O Prophet! Say to those who are captives in your hands: ‘If Allah findeth any good in your hearts, He will give you something better than what has been taken from you - - -.” Muhammad was a great taker of slaves, and here he promises the slaves a better life in Paradise – the always cheap words. Some religion.
126 8/70c: “O Prophet! Say to those who are captives in your hands: ‘If Allah findeth any good in your hearts, He will give you something better than what has been taken from you, and He will forgive you - - -.” #######It also is a bit ironic that Muhammad had attacked and stolen and raped and murdered and enslaved - - - but it was his victims who needed forgiving. Muhammad the hypocrite. Some religion.
The hypocrite side of Allah is visible not a few times in the Quran. Worth a sardonic laugh.
As for forgiving from Allah: See 2/187d above.
##127 9/3h: (631 AD): “And proclaim a grievous penalty to those who reject Faith”. Muslims may say it is meant figuratively and for the next life. But it is said in connection to 9/5, which indicates this life. This verse contradicts (and abrogates) at least these verses (here are 88 out of the 124 Muslim scholars say are abrogated by 9/5): 2/109, 2/190, 2/256, 2/272, 3/20, 4/62, 4/81, 4/90, 5/3, 5/28, 5/48, 5/99, 6/60, 6/66, 6/70, 6/104, 6/107, 6/112, 6/158, 7/87, 7/188, 7/193, 7/199, 8/61, 9/68, 10/41, 10/99, 10/102, 10/108, 11/12, 11/121, 13/40, 15/3, 15/94, 16/35, 16/82, 16/125, 16/126, 16/127, 17/54, 18/29, 18/56, 19/39, 20/130, 21/107, 21/112, 22/49, 22/68, 23/54, 23/96, 24/54, 26/216, 27/92, 28/50, 28/55, 29/18, 29/46, 32/30, 34/25, 34/28, 35/23, 35/24a, 36/17, 39/41, 41/34, 42/6, 42/15, 42/48, 43/83, 43/89, 44/59, 45/14, 46/9, 46/135a, 46/135b, 46/135b, 50/39, 50/45, 51/50-51W, 51/54, 52/45, 52/47, 53/29, 67/26, 73/10, 73/11, 79/45, 86/17, 88/22, 109/6. They are quoted under 9/5 (also see "1000+ Mistakes in the Quran"). (At least 91 contradictions).
###Also note that this was said in 631 AD. Muhammad was powerful and for one thing able to give a "grievous penalty" and for another he needed moral "reasons" for attacking and raiding non-Muslims for stealing their riches, raping, enslaving, killing, and to claim he was punishing them on behalf of an omnipotent god who needed help from humans to do so, was an ok "explanation" in a primitive time and to primitive, uneducated people - not least to his own warriors who eagerly wanted to believe such things, so that they could steal themselves rich, rape a few women or children, and perhaps get themselves one slave or three.
128 9/5c: The Muslims and Muhammad had treaties with some pagan tribes who had kept their part of the treaties as promised. Muhammad therefore could not attack them before the time/months of agreement (or holy months?) were over, “for Allah loveth the righteous”.
“But when the forbidden months are past, then fight and slay the Pagans wherever you find them, and seize them and beleaguer them, and lie in wait for them in any stratagem of war”.
- Do you see the sick irony? Your partners - kill them as soon as permitted because they are not Muslims. Can the same happen to others they have treaties with?
- Pagans - also Arab pagans - got a very rough treatment often (though modern Muslims never mention this when talking about how well past Muslims treated non-Muslims); frequently they only got two choices: Die or become Muslims - in open violation of the Quran’s word about no compulsion in religion. (A word they often like to quote today even though they know it is dead - abrogated by 2-3 dozen later verses.)
- This verse may be one of the reasons for the Muslims’ behavior f.x. when conquering India (now Pakistan + India + Bangladesh) and in Africa. There were large-scale mass murders, enslavement, etc.
- It also is a very nice word for terrorists today, as words from one situation in the Quran, normally can be used in similar situations - and as Muslim terrorists have no treaties with non-Muslims, and especially not in the West, it is just to start killing, because even if Europeans are not pagans, they are not Muslims. The same goes for Muslims' behavior in f.x. Darfur.
**129 9/14e: “Fight them (the “unbelievers”*), and Allah will punish them by your hands, cover them with shame, help you (to victory) over them - - -”. When you fight non-Muslims, you are doing the work of the good and benevolent god Allah.
Some religion: Hating, fighting, stealing, plundering, raping, enslavement, and murdering are the work of the god.
And remember: The “ethics” in the Quran was for then, for now and forever - for us and for our children and our descendants for all future.
“What a wonderful world!” to quote Louis Armstrong.
But why does an omnipotent god need humans for doing the killing and suppression?
NB!! NB!! NB!! NB!! NB!! NB!! NB!! NB!! NB!! NB!! NB!! NB!! NB!! NB!!!
#########130 9/29c: “Fight those who believe not in Allah - - - until they pay jizya (extra tax - sometimes heavy (and there may be land tax in addition - often 50% or more)) with willing submission and feel themselves subdued.” A clear and unmistakable order. The softest word possible: Discrimination or apartheid. There are a number of stronger ones. And the jizya frequently was high. Comments on how it is to live under such helpless apartheid conditions is not necessary - the Negroes in South Africa or the Southern States in USA in earlier times could tell you - even though they at least did not have to pay an extra tax on top of all.
Also see other chapters (in "1000+ Mistakes in the Quran") - f.x. “Muslims are better than other people”, like 25/44 or 68/35+36, and “Age Golden Age of Coexistence".
THE CLAIM THAT ISLAM IS THE RELIGION OF PEACE, IS SERIOUSLY WRONG.
One more fundamental point: There NEVER was anything like this in the Bible - see f.x. Jesus' words: "Give to Caesar (meaning the emperor*) what is Caesar's and to Yahweh what is Yahweh's", and also the Bible's damning words about "serving Mammon (money*)". Allah's and Muhammad's greed for riches is one more of the really strong proofs for that Yahweh and Allah are not the same god, and Jesus and Muhammad far from in the same religion.
NB!! NB!! NB!! NB!! NB!! NB!! NB!! NB!! NB!! NB!! NB!! NB!! NB!! NB!!!!
BUT THE MAIN POINT MAY BE THAT THIS IS THE MAIN AND CENTRAL POLITICAL MESSAGE AND ORDER TO ALL ISLAM AND ALL MUSLIMS THEN AND FOREVER - A FACT NON-MUSLIMS SHOULD BE AWARE OF AND N E V E R FORGET. THE OFFICIAL GOAL AND ORDER FOR ISLAM IS TO CONQUER EVERY COUNTRY AND SUPPRESS ALL NON-MUSLIMS TO BECOME SLAVES OR SEMI SLAVES UNDER ISLAM, (and pagans worse off than Jews and Christians.
This sentence must be seen in connection to 9/33j below.
This is the promised future for non-Muslims under Islam. A religion so full of errors that the book itself proves there is no god behind it. Perhaps the dark forces, but not any god.
NB!! NB!! NB!! NB!! NB!! NB!! NB!! NB!! NB!! NB!! NB!! NB!! NB!! NB!!!
131 9/51c: “Nothing can happen to us except what Allah has decreed for us - - -”. Well, Islam tells it is the free will of man that brings on bad incidents and life. This verse contradicts that, to say the least of it. So just go safely to war.
A warrior or terrorist can only win - riches and glory or Paradise. (Mutilation, becoming a cripple etc. is never mentioned).
Well, as said he may become a cripple f.x. and live a long life in misery - but that is never mentioned. Also his family may live in misery - also never mentioned.
Also the Quran NEVER mentions that the non-Muslims are humans and what the devastation of their culture and lives means to them - it is of absolutely no consequence and without the slightest interest to Islam or Muslims. The destruction of Persia - and for that case the East Roman culture or the terror in Pakistan/India and Africa - represented long series of terrible dramas and catastrophes for people and culture and science, but the only things which counted - and still counts - for Islam, was a lot of spoils of war - and power and riches for their leaders, and like it or not: Frequently forcing people to become Muslims - frequently by weapons, and always using social and other kinds of pressure - and by extra tax (jizya), often high. Even today we have never met a Muslim able to see this side of their wars or murders or suppression, not to mention what rape and enslavement meant to millions of victims - never to this day, not one single time have we heard a Muslim regret this. Only in the western culture the ability to see the fate of the victims is widespread - a military weak spot, but one of the points which perhaps make the western culture better than some others of the big ones. (To say anything good about the West is politically incorrect, but we do not care for what is politically correct - we are able to think ourselves, and what counts is what is correct, not what is politically correct).
###132 9/60a: "Alms are for(:*)"
- - the poor and the needy,
- - and (for*) those employed to administer the (funds);
- - for those whose hearts have been (recently) reconciled (to Truth (= new Muslims*)) (many new Muslims were not very strong in the belief, and besides many did not enter Islam because of the religion, but to be able to gain/rob riches, slaves and women. Hadiths tells about "gifts" to tribal chiefs of up to a hundred camels - stolen/robbed from non-Muslims - given to make those chiefs wanting to continue to follow Muhammad, and also tell about episodes where his older followers grumbled because new follower got too much of the spoils and they themselves too little, and where Muhammad explained that it was wise to give weak believers much to make them continue in the religion*);
- - for those in bondage (NB: Muslim such*) and in debt;
- - in the cause of Allah (= for spreading Islam - without or with use of arms. According to our sources a lot was used for this - military actions cost money. There are few other religions where gifts for financing of raids for stealing/robbing, etc., and for war - normally of aggression - is reckoned to be alms);
- and for the wayfarer (to a large degree pilgrims to Mecca*):
- (thus is it) ordained by Allah - - -".
(For the sake of better overview, we here have use another lay-out than the Yusuf Ali.)
These rules also were for the use of the zakat - the so-called "poor-tax" - a tax every Muslim who was/is not too poor had/has to pay to the rulers. Mainly it is 2.5% of what you own - not of your income, but of what you own - but up to 10%).
133 9/84a: “Nor do thou ever pray for any of them (those that did not want to go to war*) that dies, nor stand at his grave, for they rejected Allah and (not least?*) His Messenger (Muhammad*), and died in a state of perverse rebellion.” It is perverse not to obey when Islam wants war. If not the carrot of stealing riches, taking slaves and raping women should attract the ones reluctant to go to war, then use heavy social pressure to force them. War is very essential for the Quran. And “is”, not only “was” - “is” for all future.
134 9/88a: “But the Messenger (Muhammad*), and all those who believe with him, strive and struggle with their wealth and their persons (= wage war*): for them are (all) good things (like spoils of war, slaves, women to rape, etc.*): and it is they who will prosper”.
To say the least of it: Incitement to wage war for Muhammad/Islam. But NB: This claim was never proved - it just is words.
135 9/88aa: “But the Messenger (Muhammad*), and all those who believe with him, strive and struggle with their wealth and their persons (= wage war*): for them are (all) good things (like spoils of war, slaves, women to rape, etc.*): and it is they who will prosper”. Incompatible with the Bible, and especially with NT. One more of the proofs for that Yahweh and Allah are not the same god and for that Jesus and Muhammad very far from are in the same line of prophets - even if Muhammad had been a real prophet.
#136 9/95c: “So leave them (the ones not wanting to wage war*): for they are an abomination, and Hell is their dwelling-place - a fitting recompense for the (evil) they did”. Not to hate and kill and steal and rob and rape and enslave and murder is an abomination and evil, which ends you in Hell. Your not wanting to go to war will make the raise of power for Muhammad and Islam go slower.
To wage war is the absolute duty for any fit Muslim who can afford it. No misunderstanding possible.
Brave future world.
Do you still believe that Allah is the same god as the Yahweh in NT?
But it is a weighty incitement to naive, uneducated primitives.
137 9/99i: "- - - Allah is Oft-Forgiving, Most Merciful". If Allah made the surahs from Medina, he is very far from most merciful. Destroying lives and communities, torture, rape, enslavement, murder, mass murder, apartheid and suppression and more - little mercy.
138 9/120a: “It was not fitting for the people of Medina and the Bedouin Arabs of the neighborhood, to refuse to follow Allah’s Messenger (to wage war - it refers to the expedition to Tabuk*) - - - “. But it is fitting for Islam to steal and rob and kill end enslave and suppress.
And it was “fitting” to make Muhammad a powerful warlord.
What then about “let there be no compulsion in religion”? - or about religious wars? - not to mention what about honesty and "do unto others like you want others do unto you"? - the basic law behind all real inter human morality. Not to mention: Can Jesus and Muhammad be in the same line of prophets - (they in case have to preach approximately the same truths, the same basic ideas and the same moral code). No answer necessary - and the same goes for "is Yahweh the same god as Allah"?
139 9/126b: "See they (Muslims*) not that they are tried every year once or twice?" In reality more often - at least the Muslims. The war period under Muhammad was from some time after he arrived in Medina in 622 AD, till he died in 632 AD. During that time it is said there were 82 armed "incidents" ( http://www.1000mistakes.com names 63 of them) - by far most of them were raids for stealing valuables and taking prisoners for slaves or extortion. Split over some 10 years that means some 8 "armed incidents" a year - about one every 6 week - and practically always the aggression were from Islam - not untypical for this religion. If you took part in all of them (which hardly anyone did) that meant you were tested not once or twice a year, but 8 times a year. And if you survived - which most of them did - they became rich, or at least richer than before. (If they survived and were not crippled.)
But we have never in all our reading - old or new Islamic literature - or debating, seen or heard one single sentence or thought about what terror, catastrophe, or destruction this meant to all its victims - only the heroism of the destructors. Even today Islam is too primitive to see anything but the glory of "our" victories.
We do hope none of the Muslims in our neighborhood thinks like that. The problem is that many Muslim terrorists also were thought to be good persons before they started terrorism - it is not possible to know who the few are. How do you see the difference between a human and an inhuman Muslim? Like the ones who filmed victims they burned alive or beheaded or in other ways murdered.
140 10/2f: "- - - good news to the believers - - -".
- It is good news to the believers at least in the next life if they behave well, AND if the Quran tells the truth - but it is clear that so much is wrong in the book, that at best it tells partly the truth, and all the mistakes, contradictions, etc. also makes it clear it is not from a god.
- It is good news to the believers in this life also if the book is made up - they can steal and rob and enslave and become powerful and rich and keep many women. At least in this life.
- It may be bad news to the believers if the book is made up - and as mentioned it at least is not from a god - if there is a next life. Where will they in case end with the immoral moral code they have believed in? - no other big religion and few small have such horrors in a moral code. Compare it to "do against others like you want others do against you" and weep.
- It clearly is bad news for the believers if there somewhere is a real religion with a next life. No matter which religion it is that (perhaps) turns out to be true, the Islamic moral code is so rotten, that no Muslim who has lived according to it and to the Quran, will be permitted to enter a paradise, no matter to which religion it belongs - with a possible exception of fringe, dark sects or ditto mini religions. And Muslims have been prohibited from looking at other religions than their own war religion, and thus to find out what is true or not. In this case they just will have to hope there is no hell.
141 10/12b: "Thus does the deeds of the transgressors seem fair in their (non-Muslims'*) eyes". Comment to this in (YA1400): "Those without Faith (= non-Muslims*) are selfish - - - (and) - - - They do not see their own faults." Clear distinctions from Muslims - selfish and no good.
One of the many curiosa in this connection is why f.x. slavery abolishment came from Europe and later USA. Another why most of the NGO help organizations originated in the so-called West with few Muslims? Or in more modern times: The Tsunami in Asia - was it the good Muslims or the selfish non-Muslims who did the heavy task and who financed the better part of it? Small Norway (4.9 million inhabitants gave some 210 - 220 million US dollars in the first phase, from mainly Christians to mainly Muslims (except for Sri Lanka most places who asked for large scale help, were Muslim areas). How much did the super rich of the Gulf States give until international opinion forced them to give more? - from Muslims to Muslims. Find your own examples and draw your own conclusion of whether YA are honest when he teaches that Muslims are unselfish and non-Muslims selfish. But of course many Muslims believe such things when they are told so - true or not true. An extra tit-bit which surfaced in Scandinavia in 2010 AD: People doing the foot-work during large actions to collect money for NGO help and relief organizations, divulged when they came to doors with Muslim names, mostly they were given little or nothing.
Well, correct shall be correct: Muslim help and relief organizations, etc. used to help Muslims mainly, but international information tells that in later years they to a larger degree have helped also non-Muslims. There is a long way to go to catch up with non-Muslim help and relief organizations, but at least it is measurably better than before.
142 10/72a: "- - - no reward have I (Noah*) asked of you (his followers*) - - -". This was one of Muhammad's claims about himself, and then it was psychologically wise to "show" that former claimed prophet said the same - it made Muhammad a normal prophet. And Muhammad only claimed 20% of everything stolen, included enslaved victims - 100% if they did not have to fight for it - some 2.5% of all your belongings each and every year in tax (zakat), all fit men as warriors for him whenever he wanted, 100% power, 100% dictatorship, 100% control of what you said and meant. And lots of women (at least 36 are known by name). Of course this was all (except the women?) for Allah, but here on Earth the reality was for Muhammad. Yes, we agree; Muhammad like Noah demanded no reward. Or - - -?
143 10/88c:"- - - they (Ramses II and his people*) mislead (men) from Thy (Allah's*) Path". According to the Bible there was no religious controversy here - only that the Pharaoh did not want to lose so many slaves - slaves after all have a value. Besides: Neither Islam nor science has found one single trace from a god like Allah, a religion like Islam, or a book like the Quran older than 610 AD - nearly 2ooo years after the Jewish Exodus from Egypt.
144 11/19c: "Those (non-Muslims*) who would hinder (men) from the path of Allah and would seek in it something crocked - - -." M. Asad (A11/35 - 11/38 in the 2008 English edition) tells that the Quran her implies that "belief in resurrection, Allah's judgment and a life in the hereafter is here postulated as the only valid and lasting source of human morality".
A most illuminating piece of information, because all your good deeds in this case is motivated only from: "What merit can I gain with Allah?" There is an ocean between this and NT: Help your fellow humans from love or at least empathy and because he/they need help - and gain merit in Heaven on top. One hidden reason why so few of the help and aid NGOs originated in Muslim area? - why Islam had to be forced into abolishing slavery? etc.? Allah and Yahweh the same god? - only possible to believe if you strongly want to believe it and overlook lots of facts.
Remember that the foundation under all inter-human real moral codes is: "Do onto others like you want others do onto you". Read the Quran and look for things which do not fit this rule, and you will find too much.
Besides the claim is naively wrong. Most of human moral codes are based on old experience and knowledge about what gives the best results, though sometimes colored by ideologies - like the robbing, suppression, apartheid, etc. and war ideology in Islam - but that often results in partly immoral moral codes.
###145 11/19d: "(See 11/19c just above*) - - - belief in resurrection, Allah's judgment and a life in the hereafter is here postulated as the only valid and lasting source of human morality". Look at this sentence and think it over. What deep truths does it divulge about Muhammad, about the Quran, and about Islam - even today? - and about the ethics, value of empathy, and the moral of those three? For sexual morality parts of it is better in Islam than f.x. among Christians (though not better than what the Bible wants Christians to practice), in other parts from worse to much worse (f.x. lawful rape of slaves or captives, and sex with children, the easy divorces for men, etc.). Also in most other branches of morality the Quran/Islam is inferior to NT if you use "do to others like you want others do to you" as a basis.
146 11/85b: "- - - commit not evil in the land with the intent to do mischief". We had better not list the history's cases of Muslim aggression through the times - intending on power, riches, rape, slaves, suppression, etc. Besides the list may be too long for a PC if we knew all of them - much horror have happened during raids, wars, slave hunting, suppression, etc. (Muslims often complain about the Crusaders, but the Crusaders were in orphanage compared to some Muslim atrocities in especially Africa and Asia. Only that during the crusades the Muslims were victims, whereas in other cases they were "heroes".)
147 12/2f: “We (Allah*) have sent it down as an Arabic Quran, in order that ye may learn wisdom". But:
- There is little wisdom in a book where so much is wrong like in the Quran.
- 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.
- 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 300 years, instead of the West.)
- Strong things have been said about the West and its power. But think over this alternative.
148 12/7c: "Joseph and his brethren - - -". Benjamin was Joseph's only full brother - both sons of Rachel, Jacob's favorite wife. The other 10 had 3 different mothers (Rachel's sister, Leah, was the mother of Reuben, Simon, Levi, Issachar, and Zebulon - Bilha (slave of Rachel) of Dan and Naphtali - Zilpah (slave of Leah) of Gad and Asher. (1. Mos. 35/23-26.))
149 12/19-20: (Also see 12/19a-d above.) Here is something wrong - or one more contradiction. Verse 19 tells that “travelers” found Joseph in the well where his brothers had thrown him down, and took him for a slave and concealed him. Verse 20 tells his brothers sold him for a few dirhams (small silver coins). Both cannot be true. Also the dirham did not exist at that time.
150 12/20c: “The brethren (of Joseph*) sold him (Joseph*) for a miserable price – for a few dirham”. Dirham was a small silver coin - but serious here: Dirhams did not exist until some 2ooo years later. (The Bible says 20 shekels = ca. 200g silver.(1.Mos. 37/28)). Science tells this was a normal price for a young male slave at that time, not "a miserable price". Well, in verse 19 he was found, here in 20 he was bought. See 12/19a and 12/19-20 above.
(In Arabia at the time of Muhammad one used Greek drachms. The first dirhams were copies of Persian coins where the words "In the name of Allah" were added, and made under caliph Utman. The first "real" dirhams were made under Abdalmalik in 695 AD. The Persian coins may have been called dirhams - a word derived from drachme - but it is ever so clear that even they did not exist at the time of Joseph some 2ooo+ years earlier.)
151 12/21a: "The man in Egypt who bought him - - -". Joseph was sold as a slave in Egypt, according to the Bible to a mighty man called Potiphar, according to the Quran to a man called the Aziz. But as “the Aziz” simply means “the Great One”, it may be a title – perhaps for Potiphar.
After some time the wife of his owner wanted to seduce him. Joseph refused – and everything was found out. According to the Bible his owner got angry and put him in prison. According to the Quran Joseph proved he was not guilty, but was all the same put in prison on a very lame and not logical “reason” – lame and illogical, but necessary for the rest of the story.
(As for Joseph’s age when he was brought to Egypt, Yusuf Ali in “The Meaning of the Holy Quran” says he was 16 or 17 or may be even 18. (The Bible says he was 17 - 1. Mos. 37/2)).
152 12/21d: "- - - may be he (Joseph*) will bring us much good, or we shall adopt him as a son". Not much likely a rich and mighty man saying such things on buying a lowly slave.
***153 12/24b: "- - - evil and shameful deeds - - -". Beware that when the Quran uses expressions like this, it is in accordance with its own partly immoral moral code. In cases like here the Quran also is unintended irony and black comedy: Sex out of wedlock is "evil and shameful", whereas to rape captive or slave women - or for that case to take slaves - and destroy their - fellow humans' - lives, is "lawful and good". Some religion!
*154 12/51e: The women from Potiphar’s (this name is from the Bible - the Aziz (title or job?) in the Quran) - or actually his wife's - banquet, said: “Allah preserve us”. The name and the god Allah did not exist in the old polytheistic pantheon in Egypt - and definitely not among the upper class (from slaves and traders they might have heard about Yahweh, but not Allah, and hardly even al-Lah that early). Their gods were Ptah, Osiris, Aton, Amon, and other ones. Actually there is found not one single trace of monotheism among the upper class (and also not in lower classes) in Egypt in the old times. (Except Akn-Aton (pharaoh 1372 - 1355 BC) and his sun god). Similar claim in 12/52.
155 12/104a: “And no reward dost thou (Muhammad*) ask of them (people/Muslims*) for this (the new religion*) - - -“. No, nothing except 20% of all stolen/robbed values and slaves from raids and wars, 100% of all values taken from victims who surrendered without fighting, plenty of women and lots and lots of absolute and undisputed power/dictatorship, and lots and lots of free warriors – he only had to pay them with promises about paradise and promises about rich spoils of war stolen from humans and countries. And the “poor-tax” - zakat - (normally 2,5% - 10% not of your income, but of your possessions each year if you were not too poor) – which he far from only spent for the poor – and the jizya – the tax from non-Muslims (free for the ruler to say how much – and that sometimes meant really much). Much of this as said was spent for waging more wars and for “gifts”/bribes to make neighboring Arabs good Muslims + some was given to the poor.
And the price for their riches was neighboring cultures and humans and lives they destroyed – to gain more power for him and riches and slaves for his warriors. It is indisputably clear from the Quran that he at least liked women and power and that he needed riches for bribes - f.x. up to 100 camels to a chief. You must steal a lot to be able to give lots of such bribes - and who cares about the victims?! Long live the Quran's moral code! Similar claims in 25/57a – 34/47 - 38/86 – 42/23.
156 13/31n: "- - - (ill) deeds - - -". Beware that when the Quran uses expressions like this, it is meant in accordance with its own partly immoral moral code. To refuse to go to war and steal, enslave and kill for Muhammad was - and is - a very ill deed.
157 13/35e: "- - - righteous - - -". Beware that when the Quran uses expressions like this, it is meant in accordance with its own partly immoral moral code. F.x. to refuse to go to war and steal, enslave and kill for Muhammad was - and is - a very ill deed, and very far from righteous behavior.
158 13/36d: “Those to whom We (Allah*) have given the Book rejoice at what hath been revealed unto thee (Muhammad*) - - -". Clearly wrong if he was talking about the Jews and the few Christians in the area. That Muhammad had to murder and enslave or chase away most of the many Jews in the area, tells another and more sinister story than glossy claims.
If Muhammad's later treatment of them had not been so inhuman and horrible (suppression, extortion, robbing, enslaving, raping, murder and mass murde//r), this claim had merited a sardonic laughter.
159 14/37a: "- - - I (Abraham*) have made some of my offspring to dwell in a valley without cultivation - - -". It here is referred to Muhammad’s never documented claim that Ishmael - Abraham's son out of wedlock with the slave girl Hagar - settled in Mecca (which did not exist then, but is situated in a dry, quite narrow desert valley). This is directly contradicted by the Bible, which clearly states that Ishmael and his descendants settled on the border of Egypt some place north of the Red Sea (1. Mos.25/18: "His (Ishmaels*) descendants settled in the area from Havilah to Shur, near the border of Egypt - - -"). And NB: This was written down at least 1ooo years before there was any reason for the writers not to give correct information. Also see 67/9c below - a strong one. But of course it is ok for Islam to prove - prove - the Bible wrong and the Quran right. But as we say: Prove, not just loose claims and as loose and invalid words like the Quran always use instead of proofs.
Another fact is that there lived tens of thousands of people in Arabia at the time of Abraham. Even if Abraham and Ishmael had settled in Arabia, they had made up less than one ten-thousandths of the "Arab forefather" - and in addition this less than 0.01% was much diluted by f.x. a large import of slave women from f.x. Africa (2/3 of the slaves imported to Muslim areas were women and children for the harems, and only 1/3 men. Slaves imported to the Americas were 2/3 men for work and only 1/3 women and children - also this 1/3 mainly for work, though plenty of exceptions happened.)
But to claim to descend from Abraham gave both Muhammad and his new religion weight. Such things have been done many a time through history.
160 16/33c: "But Allah wronged them (the sinners*) not: nay, they wronged their own souls". This is wrong if Allah decides everything - predestination - like the Quran strongly states several places. It may be correct if man has free will - but then Allah is not omniscient. (Muhammad needed predestination to get fierce and willing warriors - you did not die until Allah had decided, and then you could as well go to war and win wealth and women and slaves and merit in Heaven, as sleep in your bed. And he needed free will for man for his little cultivated and proudly free tribe people and even more for making punishment morally possible for a claimed good and benevolent and fair god. And unbelievably he was able to use both, even though they are impossible to combine even for gods. It is unbelievable what you can make people believe when they wish and want to believe - or are brainwashed and not really thinking.
161 16/45a: "- - - those who devise evil (plots) - - -". Non-Muslims - opponents of Muhammad. These devised evil plots, Muhammad and his followers devised good plots - f.x. planning raids for stealing riches, extortion, rape, and hunt for slaves).
Also one of Muhammad's many negative names for non-Muslims.
162 16/64b: “And We (Allah*) sent down the Book (the Quran*) to thee (Muhammad*) - - -”. As no god sent down a book of a quality like the Quran, also no god sent it down to Muhammad. It also is an open question if a good and benevolent god could have used such a brutal and immoral man like Muhammad - rapist, enslaver, robber, torturer, murderer, mass murderer, hate monger, etc. Islam's glossy painting of Muhammad is not very correct.
163 16/71c: "- - - those more favored (rich because Allah has made them so*) are not going to throw back their gifts (from Allah*) to those whom their right hand possess, so as to be equal in that respect." Equality among human beings is not for Islam - it is to deny the favors of Allah.
164 16/71d: "- - - those whom their right hands possess - - -". = An Arab expression - an Arabism - for slaves.
165 16/71e: "Will they (rich Muslims*) then deny the favors of Allah". An arrangement giving others, or slaves, part in the riches, is an insult - denying the favors - to Allah. No further comments.
166 16/75a: “Allah set forth the Parable (of two men: one) a slave (here aka "infidel") under the dominion of the other - - - and (the other) a man (= Muslim*) on whom We (Allah*) have bestowed goodly favors from Ourselves, and he spends thereof (freely), privately and publicly: are the two equal?” A rhetoric question with only one answer – of course "we" are better than those who are slaves under pagan gods. (Though it is an open question who really were/are blind slaves under their religion – the Pagans/People of the Book or the Muslims? In intense and extreme sects the followers frequently are informal slaves of the leaders – not of the god(s) but of the leader(s)).
##167 16/75b: “- - - a slave under the dominion of another - - - a man on whom We (Allah*) have bestowed goodly favors - - - are the two equal? (By no means); praise be to Allah.” This “praise be to Allah,” tells many pages about the Muslims’ evaluation of slaves and of fellow humans.
168 16/75c: "But most of them (people, non-Muslims*) understand not (that it is better to be well off under Allah, than slave under other gods*)".But Islam makes no secret of that all Muslims are slaves under Allah - whereas f.x. Yahweh does not demand that you are his slave. But Muslims are so used to this slavery that they do not think it over. And what is really their status if Allah is a made up god and they are slaves under the leaders' and the mullahs' imagined "fata morgana"? Also see 16/74c above.
169 16/76a: “Allah sets forth (another) Parable of two men: one of them (non-Muslim*) dumb, with no power of any sort; a wearisome burden is he to his master (Allah*) - - - is such a man equal with one (Muslim*) who commands justice, and is on a Straight Way?” If possible this strengthens the comments about 16/75a and 16/75b above.
This is one of the many points in the Quran telling Islam's moral code that non-Muslims are second rate or worse.
170 16/90c: “- - - and He (Allah*) forbids shameful deeds - - -.” Strongly contradicted by f.x.:
- 2/230: “So if a husband divorces his wife (irrevocably), he cannot, after that, remarry her until after she has married another husband (and “fulfilled” that marriage*) and he has divorced her.” This situation is not often to meet, but it does happen. It is a most shameful deed in those cases to force the woman to prostitute herself to be permitted to go back to her husband.
Not to mention that 16/90 is contradicted by some of the “moral” rules in the Quran: Stealing/robbing, discrimination, enslavement, rape, murder, war, etc. – all “lawful and good” if you in some way can claim you do it in the name of a benevolent, good god. Or the rule that a raped woman who cannot produce 4 male witnesses who have seen the actual act – and will be punished for not helping her in case – is to be strictly punished for illegal sex. Most likely the most unjust and shameful law we have ever heard about.
171 16/96h: "- - - the best of their actions". Remember here that the best of actions was to go on raids and war for Muhammad - mainly for riches, captives, extortion, and slaves - but some for revenge and later also for spreading Islam (most of Muhammad's armed incidents were for this).
172 16/97i: "- - - the best of their actions". Remember here that the best of actions was to go on raids and war for Muhammad - mainly for riches, captives, extortion, and slaves - but some for revenge and later also for spreading Islam (most of Muhammad's armed incidents were for this).
173 16/102k: “- - - revelations from thy Lord (Allah*) in Truth, in order to strengthen those who believe, and as a Guide and Glad Tidings to Muslims”. What kind of glad tidings can be built on at least to a large part mistaken and/or valueless statements and as wrong facts? It is bad if Islam really believes everything - that means they are too blind - or blinded - to see even the most obvious mistakes. But it is much worse if (some of) the leaders and learned men/teachers see the mistakes and bluff their audiences. And not least: If all the mistakes means that Islam is a made up religion - such religions do happen - and blocks the way for its (un)believers to a true religion (if such one exists), what then? Besides: Is it permission to steal and rob and rape and take slaves that are “glad tidings”? – fighting, women and looting are very central in the Quran.
##174 17/4c: “- - - (and twice they (the Jews*) should be punished)!” This is not from the Bible - it also is wrong, as they have been punished more than 2 times (the Quran all too often is wrong on facts): At least:
- Israel (the northern part) conquered and the people enslaved and sent away by the Assyrians in 722 BC.
- Judah (the southern part) conquered and much of the people (25ooo?) taken to Babylon and Babylonia as slaves by Nebuchadnezzar in 586 BC.
- Totally destroyed by Titus and his Romans in 70 AD - the start of the Diaspora.
- Conquered with brutality by the Muslims in 837 or 838 AD.
- Holocaust during WW2 (this is denied by many Muslims). So strong proofs as there are for Holocaust, this tells a lot about both Islam and Muslims - the ability to believe what one wishes to believe no matter how wrong it is and no matter against how strong proofs. Nobody is as blind as the one who refuses to see.
These just were some of the worst cases. Also see 17/6-7 below.
###175 17/9b: “Verily the Quran doth guide to that which is most right (or stable) - - -”. That is not possible on basis of a book with unbelievable may be 3000+ mistakes, contradictions, invalid logic, and worse. It is worth adding that “The Message of the Quran” (remark 10 to this surah) specifies that “most right” includes “ethical principles and everything that promotes human life”. A bit special for a religion that has no ethical or moral philosophy, only the dictates from the morally very special war lord and robber baron Muhammad – and reckons robbing, enslavement, rape of captives and slaves, suppression, discrimination, murder, hate, war as “lawful and good” and very clearly permitted, and even encouraged by the god and the religion - and often very far from "do unto others like you want others do unto you". (Well, Allah and Muhammad got many warriors – and for free - and a lot of valuables and slaves). Similar claims, see 2/213 – 48/28. And also see 17/9d below.
176 17/32: "Nor com neigh to adultery - - -". But to rape captives or slaves or bought concubines is "lawful and good”. Not to mention to keep a harem of willing or unwilling women. One of the many distasteful (or stronger) cases of "double moral" in the Quran - aspects of Islam which makes it disliked (and with a reason), especially the rape and forced sex + pedophile.
177 17/54d: “We (Allah*) have not sent thee (Muhammad*) to be a disposer of their (“infidels’”*) affairs for them”. Allah or Muhammad started to change his mind about this one year later – in 622 AD – when Muhammad started to gain enough military power to decide “their” religion for them. (In spite of what Islam likes to tell, Islam to a large degree was introduced by the sword – and by the wish for taking part in the looting/robbing/stealing, raping and slave taking – in Arabia). This verse is contradicted and often “killed” by at least these verses: 2/191, 2/193, 3/28, 3/85, 3/148, 4/81, 4/90, 5/33, 5/72, 5/73, 8/12, 8/38-39 (the warning), 8/39, 8/60, 9/3, 9/5, 9/14, 9/23, 9/29, 9/33, 9/73, 9/123, 25/36, 25/52, 33/61, 33/73, 35/36, 47/4, 66/9. This includes many advising or permitting political, social, economical, etc. compulsion (with the sword in the background if you protest) – we mention a few here: 3/28, 3/85, 3/148, 4/81, 5/72, 5/73, 9/23, 14/7, 15/3, 33/73, 35/36. They are all quoted under 2/256. (At least 29 contradictions).
178 17/82e: "- - - for the unjust it (not believe in the Quran*) causes nothing but loss after loss". If one here talks about the Muslims with their partly unjust moral code, unjust rules for conflicts and strife, and partly unjust laws, etc., they have lost much on the intellectual level, as philosophy/new thoughts have been disliked and to a large degree prohibited for long periods. The mentioned twisted moral code etc. also have made too many of them as human personalities become like the feet of women in the old China: Small, malformed, and all the same the persons themselves believing it all was top - only because their parents and everybody else told them so - - - and everything in reality because one single person (in this case an empress or princess) once in the distant past was malformed). If one means non-Muslims (which is the real intention here) they have lost much to the aggressive Islam through the centuries - enormous amounts of wealth representing millions and billions of hours of work, their cultures have lost hundreds of years of development, the humans have lost at least a billion years of freedom as slaves (at least 15 millions from black Africa, some millions owned by Muslims in black Africa, a good part of the 14 millions sold to slave traders to the Americas, may be a similar number from Asia (f.x. in what now is Pakistan, India and Bangladesh the situation at times was horrible). And finally 1.5 million from Europe, included some 300ooo captured by pirates at sea, included some from the Americas (a close relative of Napoleon's Josephine from the Americas (not USA) was captured at sea and sold to the sultan's harem in Istanbul). And finally the loss for non-Muslims included millions of dead ones - the highest estimates are far above 100 millions. Wars, murders, mass murders, pogroms, (for these three last, negroes, Buddhists, Hindus and other Pagans may have been worst off, simply because as Pagans they were worth nearly nothing), hunger, and not least deaths during slave transports - especially the marches of black slaves through Sahara could be horrendous (some of the estimates for the number of deaths on these routes are so high, that we are reluctant to mention them - they are difficult to believe (up to 80-90%). Finally as for loss in the possible next life, this will depend on if there really are gods, if Allah is one of them, etc. What is sure in this connection, is that the Quran is so full of mistakes, that no god has been involved in the making of it, and that Allah never in all the 1400 years one has claimed he existed, not one single time in any way has manifested himself or in any other way has proved his existence.
And what have all Muslims lost in a possible next life, if Islam is a made up religion and Allah a made up god? An ominous thought as no god ever made a book as full of mistakes, etc. as the Quran.
*179 17/102c: “- - - I (Moses*) consider thee indeed, O Pharaoh, to be one doomed to destruction!” (Not from the Bible.) Pharaoh Ramses II was not doomed to destruction, at least not this time. He did not drown, in spite of what the Quran (and the Bible) says (but for the Bible there is a possible explanation for the mistake - not so for the Quran, as gods make no mistakes). – and he lived for several years after the possible exodus around 1235 BC. (This may be one of the reasons why some Muslims want the Exodus from Egypt to have happened under pharaohs we do not know so well as Ramses II - preferably one we do not know if he may have drowned or not. You, therefore, frequently see or hear Muslims claim the Exodus was in the 1500s or 1600s BC or even earlier, and that the time in Egypt was 200-300 or even 100-200 years - claims which collide also with other information (f.x. the number of Jews leaving Egypt, and the mentioning of the city Pi-Ramsesses (built by Ramses II) at least two times (2. Mos. 1/11 and 12/37) in connection to the Exodus)). The Bible clearly says 430 Years, and science (included Encyclopedia Britannica if we remember correctly) is pretty unanimous: If Exodus ever happened, it happened around 1235 BC = during the reign of Ramses II.
The Pharaoh then honored his word to Moses and “let his people go” – though only after 10 serious plagues. But then he regretted the loss of all those slaves and followed them. The Jews were caught against a sea, but Yahweh made a path for them across it.
180 17/103a: "So he (Ramses II*) resolved to remove them (the Jews*) from the face of earth - --". This is not from the Bible. The Bible tells Ramses regretted loosing so many slaves and wanted to recapture them. (2. Mos. 14/5).
#181 18/1d: “(Allah*) hath allowed therein (in the Quran*) no Crookedness.” In a book that full of mistaken facts and other mistakes, there is a lot of crookedness. Especially the mistakes, the use of invalid “signs”, ”proofs” and as invalid logic, and the partly immoral moral code and laws, the acceptance of dishonesty in words (lies, deceit, broken oaths, etc.) and deeds (thieving/looting, extortion, slave taking, etc), "smell".
BUT THERE IS NO DOUBT THE QURAN ITSELF DECLARES THAT THERE IS NO CROOKEDNESS IN THE BOOK - THE TEXTS ARE TO BE UNDERSTOOD LITERALLY.
182 18/4d: "(It is wrong*) that Allah hath begotten a son”. Well, we are back to the old facts that Jesus according to the Bible - written on the background of thousands of witnesses/listeners and thus difficult to falsify - many times called God/Yahweh Father (Yahweh is called the father of Jesus at least 204 times in the Bible, and Jesus the son of Yahweh at least 89 times - many of those cases by Jesus himself, a very reliable person also according to the Quran), that humble humans - f.x. Muhammad - are unable to understand completely the ways and wishes of a god (may be Yahweh wanted a son for some reason), and that Islam has to deny that Jesus was the son of Yahweh, in order to make (or pretend?) Mohammad the greatest prophet. Besides: Where are Islam’s proofs? - in spite of Islam’s glorifying of blind belief - a psychologically wise slogan when all they have are doubtful and at least partly wrong texts from a doubtful, self proclaimed “prophet” of at least as doubtful character - it is naïve in the extreme to believe blindly in so serious matter as eternity. If your chosen religion is a made up one - which every blind believer in every religion believes just their religion is not - where do you end if there is a next life? - and what if there is a real religion that you have not found, because of your blindness. Perhaps all religions are made up and just is a result of an inner longing in some people for something absolute (science have found that many weak - and some stronger - souls have such a longing in their genes or psyche - one of the genes active here is the gene VMAT2, according to The American Institute of Cancer Research, who stumbled across it in their research for cancer genes), but in that case one at least does not have to make life as miserable for ones fellow men (and even more for the women) as Islam preaches - hate, suppression, rape, stealing, enslavement, and war.
#183 19/49b: "- - - We (Allah*) bestowed on him (Abraham*) Isaac and Jacob - - -". Abraham got the son Isaac with his wife Sarah. It is strange that in 614 - 615 AD the Quran does not mention his son with Sarah's slave Hagar - Ishmael. Had Muhammad not yet got the Idea of claiming ancestry from Abraham (via Ishmael?) - surah 19 is from 614-615 AD = early in Muhammad's preaching. We may also mention that 1. Mos. 25/1-2 and also 1. Chron. 1/32 says that Abraham took another wife/concubine and had 6 sons with her: "The sons born to Keturah, Abraham's concubine: Zimran, Jokshan, Medan, Midian, Ishbak and Shuah". Not mentioned in the Quran. Had Muhammad claimed ancestry via one of these, his claim had been stronger, because little is said about where they ended. But most likely he never knew about these sons of Abraham. (To claim to be descendants via an Ishmael living in Mecca, is hopeless if the stories in the Bible are true - and at the time when they were written down, there was no reason for the Jews not to be honest about this - because the place where it is told Abraham left Hagar, is some 1200 km from the dry, empty desert valley where Mecca later came (1. Mos. 20/14), and the place it tells Ishmael settled is even a little further off (1. Mos. 25/18). And the track form those places to the nowhere, empty, narrow desert valley of later Mecca was for large parts through harsh and forbidding hot desert - - - and without any attractions giving the least reason to go there.
184 20/47b: “Verily we (Moses and Aaron*) are messengers sent by thy (Ramses II’s*) Lord (Allah*) - - -“. Wrong – Ramses II was a polytheist. Besides: He might have heard about Yahweh (but would not respect the god of slaves very much), but never about Allah.
185 20/87b: "- - - the weight of the ornaments - - -". There is some dishonest Muslim slander connected to this. When the Jews left Egypt, they were given valuables by the locals. Muslims say they must have use dishonest means to get it and cheated the Egyptians (A20/73). This is dishonest because it is told in the Bible how it happened, and Muslim scholars who read the Bible to find weak point to use, impossibly can have overlooked it, especially as it was a point of interest for them - the Bible is bigger than the Quran, but it is not that big. The Bible says (2. Mos. 12/35-36): The Israelites did as Moses instructed and asked the Egyptians for articles of silver and gold and clothing. The Lord had made the Egyptians favorably disposed toward the people, and they gave them what they asked for; so they plundered the Egyptians". It thus was not a question of cheating, but of divine action according to this book. But it is easy for Muslims to believe in the cheating Jews (according to Islamic sources it cannot have been too much - YA2607 hints at one or two man-loads.) The real mechanism for the Egyptians' willingness to give, may f.x. have been panic over what had just happened; the unanimous death of all firstborn in Egypt, and a desperate wish to for any price get these people away.
One point we have heard not one Muslim comment on, and not seen one Muslim scholar write about, is if this limited amount of gold and valuables were fair payment for generations of slave work they had been forced to do in Egypt?
186 20/123d: "- - - whosoever follows My (Allah's*) Guidance, will not lose his way, nor fall into misery". This is strongly contradicted by the Bible - incompatible really. F.x. some of the moral codes are so different that if a Muslim lives according to them, and then meets Yahweh at "the other side", he will not only get a ticket to Hell, but be placed on the fast track for Hell. Look f.x. at the fundamental basis for all inter-human morality: "Do unto others like you want others do unto you". The Quran and its war and suppressing religion and ideology does not live up to that by far on all too many points.
As Allah's(?) guidance includes dishonesty in words and deeds, suppression, slave taking, extortion, war, etc. this sentence influences Islam's moral code in those directions.
187 21/32d: "- - - they (non-Muslims*) turn away from the Signs (of Allah*) which all these things (point to)!" When someone uses logically invalid arguments - like claiming not proved "signs" are indication or proof for a god - the logical reaction is to be skeptical. After all the use of false and/or invalid arguments is the hallmark of the cheat and the swindler, and Muhammad on top of this believed in al-Taqiyya (the lawful lie), Kitman (the lawful half-truth), in breaking promises and words - even sworn ones - if that gave better results, and in deceit ("War is deceit") - - - and he wanted power and riches for bribes for more power - and women (like many false prophets in and outside the Bible, but few of the real ones in the OT. Here beware that men like David and Solomon are not reckoned among prophets in the Bible, but kings. This is one more difference between Muhammad and the Biblical prophets - not one of them had a harem of any size. Even if you include men like Abraham and Jacob, they had maximum 1-2 wives and 1-2 concubines if any at all. Abraham had Sarah, Kethura (1. Mos. 25/1 - but only after Sarah was dead) and Sarah's slave Hagar, Jacob had Leah and Rachel plus the two slaves Bilhah and Zilpath (1. Mos. 35/23-26). Muhammad had 36 we know by name, included his 11 long time wives and 2 concubines/slave women - the 16 short time wives and the 7 where it is unclear if he was married to them or not, and thus if sex was a sin or not - a Muslim is only permitted to have sex with his wives and his slave women - are normally not mentioned by Muslims. That he in addition raped at least two women, Rayhana bint Amr and Safiyya bint Huayay, after taking them slaves - also normally is not mentioned by Muslims).
188 21/107: “We (Allah*) sent thee (Muhammad*) not, but for a Mercy for all creatures.” Muhammad was not much of a mercy to the world – read the surahs from Medina. Neither was he a mercy for all Muslims – read the surahs from Medina + the verses about women, law, slavery, not to mention the to a large part inhuman ethical and moral codes. This verse is contradicted and often “killed” by at least these verses: 2/191, 2/193, 3/28, 3/85, 3/148, 4/81, 4/90, 5/33, 5/72, 5/73, 8/12, 8/38-39 (the warning), 8/39, 8/60, 9/3, 9/5, 9/14, 9/23, 9/29, 9/33, 9/73, 9/123, 25/36, 25/52, 33/61, 33/73, 35/36, 47/4, 66/9. This includes many advising or permitting political, social, economical, etc. compulsion (with the sword in the background if you protest) – we mention a few here: 3/28, 3/85, 3/148, 4/81, 5/72, 5/73, 9/23, 14/7, 15/3, 33/73, 35/36. They are all quoted under 2/256. (At least 29 contradictions).
189 22/78e: "- - - it (Islam*) is the cult of your father Abraham". For one thing it is unlikely Abraham is the forefather of the Arabs - Ishmael and his sons settled near the border of Egypt, according to the Bible (written at a time when there was no reason for the writer to falsify this), not in Arabia (1. Mos. 25/18). Also DNA-analysis indicate that the Arabs in reality is a mixture of people who drifted into the desert from different places and nations when the domestication of the camel made life there possible + the result of being at a crossroad for the caravans + the result of large import of slaves/concubines from Europe, Asia and Africa. What once - impolitely - was called a bastard production. And for another thing there is no reason to believe Islam was Abraham's religion, but strong reason reasons for to believe that the claim is wrong - there nowhere is found any kind of traces from a religion like Islam older than 610 AD, when Muhammad started his proselyting. Islam will have to produce proofs in order to be believed by us.
There also is an extra point here: The so-called Mosaic religion never was a proselyting one. And for nearly 2ooo years Abraham and his descendants never did much proselyting (not until Jesus, who ordered it before he left - and remember here that the Quran (21/91) confirms that Jesus was for all peoples, (and in 19/19 that he was holy, which Muhammad definitely was not)). Islam is a strongly proselyting religion - even by means of strong compulsions and sometimes even death warnings and murder to force people stay or become Muslims. This very central difference - a historical fact - is one more proof for that Abraham and his descendants (f.x. Moses and the Jewish prophets) never were Muslims. This on top of that neither science nor Islam has found traces from a god like Allah, a religion like Islam, a book like the Quran, or prophets preaching Islam before 610 AD, when Muhammad started his proselyting, and this on top of the fact that Abraham like mentioned did not have camels, and thus could not go back and forth between Canaan/Sinai and Mecca like the Quran claims. These are facts from history. Also as far back as history goes, it tells that the Jews had the god Yahweh and the Mosaic religion, not the very different Allah and Islam or similar.
(To specify a little concerning the settlement of humans in Arabia: Modern humans may have entered the coastal area, river areas, etc. as early as 75ooo-50ooo years ago. The Neolithic period started around 6500 BC with a likely expansion of the population because of some agriculture, expansion of the use of domesticated animals, and trade. The interior of Arabia except for some oasis, etc. were settled much later and not until well after the camel was domesticated and more widely used. It is unclear where and when it was domesticated, but likely in south of the peninsula (Oman?) something like 2ooo BC (the number varies some), but it did not come into wide use until the 9. or 10. century BC.)
#190 23/5+6a: “(Those Muslims are good*) Who abstains from sex, Except with those joined to them in the marriage bond, ####or (the captives) whom your right hand possess - for (in their case) they are free from blame”. Catch a girl and make her your captive - and you are free from any blame if you rape her - or gang-rape her - or make more women your captives and rape them, too - or exchange girls with your mates every half hour or day or week. A slave is a slave - and spoils of war you take “lawful and good”, according to the Quran and Islam. We sometimes wonder if this is the reason for so much mass rape sometimes when Muslims wage war - Darfur and Bangladesh are/were examples to remember. Forget that the women are humans - take them captive and you are free to rape them without any blame. Really a good religion. And we do not mention the word empathy - it is something you hardly find in the Quran. Probably one of the most rotten points in any somewhat civilized pretended moral code.
But it brought Muhammad cheap highwaymen and later cheap warriors.
It is verses like this - and worse - which make people with normal moral codes - codes in reasonable nearness to "do to others like you want others do to you" - sometimes want to puke over the Quran and over Islam.
191 23/5+6b: “(Those Muslims are good*) Who abstains from sex, Except with those joined to them in the marriage bond, ####or (the captives) whom your right hand possess - for (in their case) they are free from blame (if they rape them - included children!!)”. Part of the basis for the sharia laws.
It is verses like this - and worse - which make people with normal moral codes - codes in reasonable nearness to "do to others like you want others do to you" - loose respect for the Quran and for Islam.
##########192 23/5+6c: "- - - except - - - (the captives) whom their right hand possess - for (in their case) they (Muslim men/warriors*) are free from blame (if they rape the women or girls*) - - -". This is not the most rotten (im)moral rule and sharia law in Islam, but one of them.
####193 23/5+6d: "- - - except - - - (the captives) whom their right hand possess - for (in their case) they (Muslim men/warriors*) are free from blame (if they rape the women or girls*) - - -". No comments - and non necessary. Except perhaps: Would you like to be raped? - "do to others like you want others do to you"! On some points Islam has a very sorry moral code.
194 23/6a: "- - -(those*) whom your right hand possess - - -". An old Arab - and Muslim - expression for slaves - your captives were your slaves. You were - and are - free to f.x. rape them. One more of the 100+% sure proof for that Yahweh and Allah are not the same god - and Jesus and Muhammad not in the same line of prophets (even if we omit the fact that Muhammad was no real prophet - he only "borrowed" that impressive title (he did not have the gift of making prophesies - "to know the unseen".))
195 23/6b: “(Good Muslims*) abstain from sex except with those joined to them in marriage bonds, or (the captives) whom their right hands possess (= slave women*) – for (in their case) they are free from blame - - -:” To rape captive women and slave women was/is completely ok (with one exception; it was prohibited if they were pregnant – but most likely not if they were pregnant with your child). Take a woman captive in a “holy” war – and anything was named “holy war” – jihad - as long as the victims were non-Muslims, not to mention if they were Pagans – and you could freely rape her with Allah’s blessing, because it was “lawful and good”. And even slave raids theoretically could be defined as holy war - “jihad” - as the victims were non-Muslims, and all the 4 Islamic law schools accepted the fact that the "enemies" were non-Muslims as "bona fide" reason for declaring jihad. It was – and is (rape is very common in armed conflicts where Muslims are involved) – a nice life for the warriors. But it tells something about both Islam and some Muslims - something ugly.
F.x. during the Bangladeshi war of freedom it is officially estimated that the Pakistani soldiers raped 200ooo women and children, we were told somewhat shamefacedly and somewhat angry in Bangladesh - MUSLIM women and children.
#196 23/7: "But those whose desires exceed those limits (see verses 5 and 6*) are transgressors - - -". This means that you do not transgress Allah’s laws if you rape a captive female child or a woman. One more proof for that Allah and Yahweh is not the same god: NT says "Do against others like you want others do against you". Very few Muslim men like to be raped, but rape of girls and women are ok, especially if it is done in the name of Allah in a Jihad - and "every" conflict is a Jihad (holy war). The fact is that this permission for raping, stealing, lying, killing, etc., had been less morally distasteful of it was an open rule, and not one connected to serving the god. Honestly what kind of animal is this claimed god?
197 23/51b: "O ye messengers (included Muhammad*)! Enjoy (all) things good and pure - - -". Which for Muhammad among other things meant lots of women - we know the name of 36 ones: 11 long time wives, 16 short time wives, 2 concubines, 7 to whom he may be or may be not was married (if he was not married to them, the sex was unlawful according to Islam's rules. As for raping captives we know no number, but at least 2 (Rayhana bint Amr and Safijja bint Huayay). And "things good and pure" also were supreme power and plenty of riches - when he died he f.x. had estates in Medina, Khaybar and Fadang - a fact often "forgot" by Muslims claiming he lived a poor man's life.
198 24/2c: “The woman and the man guilty of adultery of fornication – flog each of them with a hundred stripes: let not compassion move you (Muslims*) in their case, in a Matter prescribed by Allah, if ye believe in Allah and the Last Day: and let a party of the Believers witness their punishment”. Compare this to Jesus: "The one who is without sin, may throw the first stone". The same god? Jesus and Muhammad in the same line of prophets? No.
Another point: To rape in the name of Allah, or in the name of Allah to make girls or women slaves and then force them to have sex, is "lawful and good" (8/69 - one of the most disgusting and revealing sentences in the entire Quran).
199 24/3c: “Let no man guilty of adultery or fortification marry any but a woman similarly guilty, or an Unbeliever - - -”. An unbeliever has the value of a depraved Muslim. It tells the Muslims something about the difference between themselves and others. The fact that unlawful sex is so strictly forbidden, but that any not pregnant captive woman or slave can be raped "lawful and good" also tells very much about the Quran and about Islam - and about their (im)moral(?) code.
200 24/30a: "Say to the believing men that they should - - - guard their modesty - - -". - - - except when they rape captive - or slave - girls and women "lawful and good"? One of the most rotten and immoral law which exists - NB exists, not only existed - on this planet. And made even more immoral and disgusting by the fact that to be lawful it must be done in the name of Allah (it only is lawful if you make her your slave or if the raping is done during/after jihad - holy war - - - but almost any conflict is jihad). One relevant(?) piece of information here: According to UN some 24 million persons today live as slaves or under slave-like conditions - a good percent of them in Muslim area.
201 24/31d: "- - - those whom their right hand possesses - - -". = An old Arab expression - an Arabism - for slaves.
#202 24/31e: "- - - male servants free of physical needs - - -". Very old or evenuchs.(Evenuchs is a special case Islam very seldom mentions. Few of them became evenuchs from free choice - normally they were slaves. #####There also is a dark fact here: More or less all Negro male slaves were castrated - without any kind of pain release or medical treatment. This is one reason why the death rate for Negroes who were captured for slavery was so terribly high - even normally reliable sources talk about 80% and more. It was far, far lower for Negro slaves transported to the Americas. Castration of - mainly Negro - slaves is not mentioned in the Quran, and neither by Islam or Muslims - a bit too inhuman topic even for them, especially when they boast about how well slaves were treated by Muslims.)
Well, 2/3 of the slaves from Africa to f.x. Arabia were women. They were not castrated, but used - and put a lot of Negro blood into the Arab and other Muslim tribes. Similar for slaves from f.x. India and other parts of Asia + some from Europe.
203 24/32a: “Marry those among you who are single, or the virtuous ones among your slaves, male or female - - -“. Also for male slaves marriage to a free woman was possible – and with luck to marry himself out of bondage. We have seen no numbers, but would guess the chances for such a marriage were far better for a female slave than for a male. For female slaves it was normal they were let out of bondage when they married a free man - and if there later was a divorce, they normally staid free also afterwards.
In this way the distance between slave and free was less than f.x. in the Americas. But to tell slaves were well treated under Islam, is not much more correct than to say the same about slaves in the Americas; slaves living in close connection to the family often were in a way ok treated both places, whereas slaves in fields or mines or other places often had a tragic life.
204 24/33a: “And if any of your slaves ask for a deed in writing (to enable them to earn their freedom for a certain sum), give them such a deed if you know any good in them- - -”. This mostly was a sleeping paragraph, but as far as we have heard, it did happen now and then. We do not know of any western law in the really old times saying the same, but slaves sometimes were given their freedom and at least a few times got a chance to work themselves free also in the west. (Actually it f.x. happened among the Vikings that slaves were given the chance to work themselves free.) But from shortly after 1800 the movement for freeing the slaves rapidly grew in strength in the West. That is to say; at that time slavery "de facto" had been more or less abolished in Europe for centuries (it did not conflict with the words of the Bible, but all the same with the morality of that book), though often not formally prohibited, but from early 1800th century the movement - headed by the English - aimed at abolishment in all the world.
But how did Islam f.x. make a forcibly castrated man - often Negroes - "man" again?
The claim you today sometimes meet from Islam/Muslims that "Islam always aimed at abolishing slavery" is an al-Taqiyya - a lawful lie. Muhammad took and kept and gave away and sold and used and sexually exploited slaves, and everything Muhammad did was and is lawful and morally correct, and may be practiced by any Muslim if not other rules directly are specified - which definitely is not the case concerning slavery in Islam. For this simple reason slavery will reemerge if Islam ever gains world dominance.
205 24/33b: “But force not your maids (female slaves*) to prostitution when they desire chastity (notice the choice of words – if the slave woman is willing, it seems to be ok*), in order that ye may make a gain in the goods of this life.” We have not found out how widespread such forced – and not forced – prostitution was and still is in some Muslim societies. But it is thought provoking that Arab is said to have 26 words for prostitute; It is a general tendency in languages that frequently used expressions have many varieties and synonyms. And what is clear is that this was a rule that was much broken - and even today is much broken (and not only among Muslims) as a huge part of the 24 million slaves UN rapports about, are women in forced prostitution or sexual abuse.
206 24/33c: "But if anyone compels them (slave women*), yet, after such compulsion, is Allah Oft-Forgiving, Most Merciful (to them)". Women who were forced to prostitution, did not sin - they were forced to do it. But it tells something that Islam needed such a verse - - - and that the omnipotent and predestining Allah can permit such things, ###yes, if the Quran is correct and Allah really decides and predestines everything, he even predestines and decides that forced prostitution is to happen.
###207 24/55f: "- - - He (Allah*) will establish in authority their religion (Islam*) - - -". See 24/55b above. A likely scenario for most places will be something like a Saudi Arabia without the oil - in a stagnant future with no more impulses and no new products from the "West", as the "West" will exist no more. In the some 900 years (ca. 1000 AD to ca. 1900-1950 AD) when the Muslim area got few or no impulses from the outside - and before and after most of the imported ideas against the resistance of the Islamic clergy and scholars - little progress took place in the area, except what followed from riches looted or conquered from neighboring lands and non-Muslims, included enslavement and taxation.
208 24/55k: "If any do reject Faith (Islam*) after this, they are rebellious and wicked". Are they wicked if they refuse to live by the immoral parts of Islam? - and are they good if they do live by those immoral parts? (f.x. steal, rape, enslave, suppress, kill, lie, break words and promises included your oath, etc.?) And are they wicked if they reject a claimed religion in which they see there are so many things wrong, that they understand the teaching is not from a god?
209 24/58b: “- - - those whom your right hand possess - - -". = An old Arab expression - an Arabism - for slaves.
210 24/58c: “Let those whom your right hand possess, and the (children) among you who have not come of age, ask your permission - - -”. Further down on the social ladder in a house it is not possible to place a slave if he at all shall be able to do the work you demand from him - or her.
*211 25/56c: “- - - glad tidings (the Quran*) - - -“. Wrong. At the very best one can say that the Quran brought some glad tidings to all the bad ones, wanting loot and slaves, and among some longing for a strong religion - - - if it was not because the Quran itself proves 100% that something is very wrong in the book. So wrong that it neither can be made nor revered by any god – not even by a small mini god. Too much is wrong in the book. And a "holy" book not connected to a god, also is not "glad tidings".
212 25/75b: "- - - the highest place in heaven - - -". In the Islamic Heaven there are many levels. As far as we understand the common people - medium good Muslims - stay in the lowest heaven, whereas the higher heavens are shared among extra good Muslims, and the better Muslim the higher heaven and the nearer Allah. A somewhat good Muslim like Jesus ends in 2. heaven f.x. (he is the main competitor to Muhammad and has to be reduced - 19/19 confirms that Jesus was holy, something Muhammad was not, but all the same Muhammad wanted to be the greatest), whereas the thief/robber, womanizer, rapist, enslaver, murderer, liar, deceiver (all according to the Quran, Hadiths, etc.) and a lot more, Muhammad, of course ends in the 7. and best heaven. Also the 1. heaven is split in good, better, best - at least 4 "gardens", may be 6 or more. Different from f.x. the Christian one to say the least of it. The same god do you believe?
213 26/11a: "The people of the Pharaoh: will they not fear Allah?" The people of Egypt were polytheists. It is likely at least many of them had heard about Yahweh, the god of their Jewish slaves, but Allah they had never even heard about - perhaps al-Lah (or in case more likely his earlier names al-Ilah or the even older Il), but not Allah. There is not even a trace found from monotheism under Ramses II - the pharaoh of Moses. (Islam prefers to talk about other pharaohs - preferably older ones - because science knows Ramses II did not drown, but science is not in doubt.)
#####214 26/56: (A26/30): "Thus the Quran illustrates the psychological truth that, as a rule, a dominant nation is unable really to understand the desire for liberty on the part of the group or groups which it oppresses, and therefore attributes their rebelliousness to no more than unreasonable hatred and blind envy of the strong". Something to think over for Muslims who through the times suppressed and worse so many? And who have as an official goal in the Quran to conquer and suppress every country and every non-Muslim.
###########And one more and related point: Most Muslims are unable to understand why the religion/they are disliked and sometimes hated. They are unable to see that memories of a horrible history, added to a partly immoral moral code, an aggressive and suppressive ideology, glorification of oppression of all non-Muslims, and haughtiness, etc. are the real reasons. They are so used to their own ways of thinking and of their own moral code, etc. that they are unable to see that much of it far from are laudable, and honestly believe they are the best and with the best religion and best rules. Living that far from "do to others like you want others do to you", they are unable to see the reality, and believe that they are victims of unjust dislike and hate.
Read f.x. relevant pages on Internet, and see all the promises from Muslims that Islam will conquer and suppress "Italy and all Europe", etc., etc. Are there rational reasons for non-Muslims to react? - especially if they know there is a real possibility for this to come true, because of the inhuman war ideology behind Islam? - and even more so if they know enough about Islam to know that the Quran with all its errors is not from any god, and the religion thus a made up pagan one, under which they risk becoming slaves?
215 26/58-59: (YA3169): “Treasures, and every kind of honorable position; Thus it was, but We (Allah’*) made the Children if Israel inheritors of such things”. But the alternative meaning of these two verses is: Verse 58 “We (Pharaoh*) have dispossessed the Israelis from everything good in the land, and made them our slaves”. Verse 59 (Allah comments): “Poor ignorant man (Pharaoh*)! You may oppress those who are helpless, but We (Allah) have declared that they shall inherit these things”. As one understands, the language in the original Quran is clear, distinct and impossible to misunderstand (!). Some very different meanings.(We may add that according to the Bible, the Jews were given valuables when leaving. Muslim scholars claim this proved the dishonesty of the Jews - and not one of them as far as we have seen, has mentioned that this could be part of this inheritance if they were promised inheritance by the god. Also not one of them as far as we have seen, mention that even if they had got very much, it would be lousy payment for likely some generations of slave work. For some reason or others, they just claim it proves Jewish dishonesty.)
#216 26/59a: "- - - but We (Allah*) made the Children of Israel inheritors of such things (riches, etc. - see 26/58 just above*) - - -". Also the Bible says the god (via Moses) saw to that the Jews received some riches when leaving Egypt (2. Mos. 12/36). Muslims today have a tendency to blame the Jews for dishonesty and robbing in this connection, but is such an accusation right, fair, or honest when both the Bible and the Quran indicate that this was the work of the god?
Besides: We have till this date not met one Muslim saying that perhaps this was fair payment of centuries of slave work.
*217 26/63a: “Then We (Allah*) told Moses by inspiration: ‘Strike the sea with thy rod’. So it divided, and each separate part became like the huge, firm mass of a mountain”. According to science the Jews started the exodus (if it ever happened - and if it did, it happened ca. 1235 BC during the reign of Pharaoh Ramses II - one of the greatest pharaohs ever - and some years before Ramses II’s death (Muslims often wants to change this – preferably to around 1500-1600 BC - because we know Ramses II did not drown, but science is clear on this point)) from Goshen in the north east of Egypt – to be specific: In the Nile delta. They travelled south roughly parallel to what is now the Suez Canal, and to the west of it. Then they turned south east, before they again headed south - still roughly parallel to what is now the Suez Canal, but now to the east of where the canal now is. Then they continued south parallel to the Red Sea. Before the Suez Canal came, between the Mediterranean Sea and the Red Sea, here was unbroken low and quite flat land with some scattered lakes, the biggest of which were the Bitter Seas.
According to science the Jews may have been cornered against one of the seas during the above mention leg towards southeast, a sea named the Timsah Sea – or Yam Suph in Hebrew (meaning the Sea of Reeds). In the old Hebrew scriptures the Jews were cornered against Yam Suph, which can mean the Red Sea (the most frequently used translation) or the Sea of Reeds – both names are possible. The Sea of Reeds was a shallow sea - as for the exact depth our sources are vague, but quite likely just a few meters at most. (The longest reed we have been able to find, is a special kind of rice growing in the Tonle Sap Lake in Cambodia. It can be up to 5-7 m. The reeds growing in Egypt are shorter, and to get the name “Sea of Reeds”, the lake had to be shallow enough for the reeds to get their “heads” above the water over at least a large part of the lake). To guess: From one or two and up to a few - perhaps 3 to 4 - meters deep as indicated above, or perhaps a bit more at the deepest places.
In such shallow seas there simply was not deep enough water to make “each separate part - - - like the huge, firm mass of a mountain”. Wrong in case – and it is likely this is the case, even if the more dramatic Red Sea most often is used as a translation. This because for Moses it had been plain stupidity to march south along the western side of the Red Sea when he wanted to go east to Sinai, and then have to cross that sea to reach his destination, with all those people, equipment, animals, etc. in boats they did not have. (The Bible tells they were 600ooo men, which means some 2 mill. included women and children – a number which is mathematically possible (though not likely) after the 430 years the Bible says the Jews lived in Egypt - but it is likely many other slaves came along to get out of bondage, and thus added considerably to that number. 2. Mos. 12/38 indicates so).
##218 26/209: “- - - and We (Allah) never are unjust”.
- A man correctly telling that a woman has been indecent, is lying to Allah if he cannot produce 4 witnesses - even if an omniscient Allah has to know he is speaking the truth.
- A woman who has been raped, is forbidden to tell who it was, unless she can produce 4 MALE witnesses WHO HAS ACTUALLY SEEN THE ACT. If she cannot produce 4 such witnesses, and all the same tells who the rapist is she shall have 80 whiplashes for slander.
- **A woman who is raped and cannot produce 4 MALE witnesses (who on top of all will be punished for not helping her if they witness about what they saw) who saw the very act, is to be strictly punished – may be stoned – for indecency - if she is unable to hide that she has been raped - . Probably the most unjust and amoral law we have ever seen in a “modern” society.
- It is 100% permitted for an owner to rape his female slaves or captives of war (may be this is why Muslims so often rape women during conflicts - f.x. earlier in Bangladesh, and earlier and now (2012) in Africa). The Quran even directly tells that it is no sin to rape also your married slaves or prisoners of war, as long as they are not pregnant. NB: As for raping a captive there is an even more disgusting fact: It has to be done in the name of Allah - during or after a jihad ("holy war" - practically all conflicts are declared jihad).
- **It is glorious and the Muslims’ right to steal, rob, plunder, rape, enslave and to kill non-Muslims during jihad - and almost any conflict is declared jihad (holy war). It is “just and good”.
There are more if you look. Please never tell us that Allah as described in the Quran never is unjust. These 5 points - and more - are morally horrible. Some of it actually the most unjust we have ever seen in any law. And rape in the name of Allah perhaps the most disgusting, especially of children.
219 27/2b: “- - - glad tidings - - -“. Wrong. At the very best one can say that the Quran brought some glad tidings among all the bad persons, wanting loot and slaves, among some longing for a strong religion, and among some leaders wanting power - - - if it was not because the Quran itself proves 100% that something is very wrong in the book. So wrong that it neither can be made nor revered by any god – not even by a small mini god. Too much is wrong in the book. And a "holy" book not connected to a god, is that glad tidings? Also see 2/97i and 17/9d above and 61/13 below.
220 28/4b: "- - - (Pharaoh*) broke up its (Egypt's*) people in sections - - -"Comment YA3329: "For a king or a ruler to make individual distinctions between his subjects, and especially to depress or oppress any particular class of his subjects, is a dereliction of his kings duties - - -". Is it here pertinent to remind the reader about how Muslims at times and places have treated non-Muslims and sects of Muslims? Or the Arabs' superiority compared to other Muslims, especially the first centuries. Not to mention that it is the Quran's official policy that all non-Muslims shall be suppressed.
Besides the argument is dishonesty, as the Jews were slaves. There never was a society who did not make distinctions between slaves and free - just ask the Quran. This also Muslim scholars know ever so well, but all the same they use arguments like this to blacken the pharaoh. But Ramses II was in exactly the same class as Muhammad on this point - f.x. Muhammad permitted the owner to rape his female slaves included children, but not free ones - - - not unless he first made her/them his slaves/captives. As every Muslim scholar know, Muhammad also practiced this himself.
221 28/5a: "And We (Allah*) wished to be gracious to those who were being depressed in the land - - -". There were others who were depressed/slaves in Egypt than the Jews. The Quran here says Allah wanted to help all - contradicting the Bible, where Yahweh this early only took care of the Jews (though it seems many non-Jews left Egypt together with the Jews if the number 600ooo men is correct). We only hear about help to the Jews - neither the Bible nor the Quran mentions freeing of other slaves (though it is said that others came along on the Exodus).
222 28/5b: "And We (Allah*) wished to be gracious to those who were being depressed in the land, to make them leaders (in Faith) and make them heirs". This directly contradicts the Bible - and actually also other parts of the Quran: It here says that Allah wanted to make them - in reality the Jews - the religious leaders and the heirs (of Egypt?). But in the Bible and most places in the Quran it is very clear that the subject only was to get the Jews out of Egypt and out of the slavery.
223 28/9b: "- - - we (Pharaoh - likely Horemheb - and one of his wives - see 28/8d and 66/11a*) may adopt him (Moses*) as a son." How likely is it that a mighty pharaoh would even think about adopting a slave baby as a son without a good reason? One thing is for the daughter of a pharaoh to do so, if she or her husband f.x. was sterile. Quite another thing it was for a Pharaoh to do so - a born slave from a non-Egyptian tribe as a crown prince?
224 28/52b: “(Jews and Christians*) – they do believe in this (Revelation) - - -“. Flatly wrong. And flatly dishonest. A few became Muslims according to Islam, but the overwhelming majority had to flee, were made slaves, or were killed/murdered/executed because they refused to believe in Muhammad’s tales. Cfr. f.x. what happened in and around Medina and Khaybar in the years after this surah was told (in 621 AD or later). Contradicted by reality and history. And: One more place where an intelligent man like Muhammad knew he was lying, because this he knew.
225 28/76c: "Qarun was doubtless of the people of Moses - - -". This story with Qarun as one of Moses' men is meaningless. Except for his youth in Egypt (where the Jews were slaves and consequently very poor), he was a nomad in Sinai/Midian all his life, both according to the Quran and to the Bible. Qarun may have been a Jew, but not one of Moses' close people. But as for being a Jew: The Jews were poor slaves, and who has heard about so rich a poor slave? Strong contradiction to a slave's reality.
226 29/3b: "- - - Allah will certainly know - - -". As Allah is claimed to be for one thing omniscient, and for another thing predestines everything before it is said or happens, he of course knows everything. (All the same he had/has to test even his followers - f.x. by sending them on raids for riches and slaves/victims for extortion for Muhammad.)
227 29/6a: “And if any strive for (with might and main) - - -". This is an expression which in the Quran normally means fight in raid or war (raids mainly were for stealing and for taking captives for extortion or slaves).
228 29/28c: “Do you (men of Sodom and Gomorrah*) commit lewdness (homosexuality*), such as no people in Creation (ever) committed before you.” Wrong. Homosexuality was nothing new – it even exists among some “higher” animals, sometimes as a sign of dominance – and it is in the DNA of a minor part of humanity (women with this gene has a tendency to get more children than average, therefore the gene has survived). Islam also will have to answer what all the young slave boys for the harems were for (2/3 of the slaves imported to Muslim areas were women and children, included boys, according to Encyclopedia Britannica - to the Americas 2/3 were men for the plantations). If Islam stays on their claim that this was something “no people in humanity (ever) committed before”, they will have to prove it. Any god had known this - then who made the Quran? Similar claim in 7/80.
229 29/45f: "- - - Prayer restrains from shameful and unjust deeds - - -". Like f.x. rape a female captive in the name of Allah - or stone a raped woman who cannot bring 4 male witnesses to that it really was rape? Also see 29/45g just below.
230 29/45g: "- - - shameful and unjust deeds - - -". Beware that when words like this are used in the Quran, it is with references to the partly immoral moral code in the Quran itself - raping captive women or girls or stealing/robbing, all in the name of Allah, f.x. are not shameful.
*231 29/45h: “- - - remembrance of Allah is the greatest (thing in life) without doubt.” There is much doubt about this if he has composed the Quran - the mistakes prove he in case is very far from omniscience, the valueless “signs” and “proofs” prove he is not very good at logical thinking, and his use of invalid excuses and his inability to send proofs of his existence, prove he is not omnipotent. And if someone else made the Quran, the doubt is even greater, as then both the Quran and Islam are without any value at all - or with negative value, as much of the religion is rather inhuman (f.x. wars, terrorism, suppression of all non-Muslims, suppression of women and freedom to rape many of them, thoughts about slavery, and enmity towards non-Muslims, and more).
232 29/47b: "So the people of the Book (Jews and Christians mainly*) believe therein (in the Quran*)". Simply wrong. A few became Muslims according to Islam, but most not. There were few Christians, but a lot of Jews in the area - who mainly refused to accept Islam. They preferred to flee or even be killed or enslaved instead of accepting Islam. At this time (621-624 AD - and at least after 622AD) Muhammad knew this very well, and at least if this verse is younger than 622 AD, this is one of the places Muhammad knew he was lying when he said things like this. "Some Jews" could be possible to explain, but not "the Jews" or an even somewhat bigger group "the People of the Book".
233 30/28a: “- - - do ye (Muslims*) have partners among those your right hand possess, to share as equals in the wealth We (Allah*) have bestowed on you? Do you fear them as ye fear each other?” Oh, no - Muslims do not. Arabia was a to a degree a slave society, and slaves for one thing got little part in the riches of the Master, and for another were too suppressed to be of any danger - and for a third all the imported slave women made the mixture named Arabs an even less pure race. A fitting similitude for Muslims?
234 30/28b: “- - - those your right hand possesses- - -". This is an Arab expression for slaves - an Arabism. See 13/4d above.
*235 30/43a: “- - - the right Religion (Islam*) - - -”. Is it possible that the right religion can be based on a book with that many mistakes, contradictions, invalid logic, etc. repeated or made by an Arab salesman, highwayman, murderer (he let opponents and others murder - the number 26 is mentioned, Ibn Ishaq names 10), torturer and rapist (he - at an age of nearly 60 - at least raped the newlywed, 17 year old Safijja after he had let her husband Kinana be tortured to death, and Rayhana bint Amr after he had murdered the male part of her family and made the rest slaves.) Source for this information: Muhammad Ibn Ishaq: “Life of the Prophet Muhammad” - the in Islam most respected of the old (dead 768 AD) writers about Muhammad. (It was written for the second Abbasside caliph in Baghdad, Mansur, around 750 AD). Neither Arab salesmen, nor highwaymen, nor torturers, nor murderers, nor rapists have the best of reputations for being honest (this even if Islam insists he was, but Islam hardly is the most reliable source on just that point - if he was not honest, Islam is a made up religion, so Islam HAS to make him look honest and saintly). This Arab salesman, highwayman, torturer, murderer and rapist and inhuman warlord, was even unable to produce one single small proof for his story. But he (?) produced lots of loose statements and invalid “signs” and “proofs”. Similar claim in 12/40. And what about his institutionalizing al-Taqiyya (the lawful lie) and Kitman (the lawful half-truth) by his example, and his telling (in Hadiths and in the Quran) that even oaths can be broken - is that part of the right religion?
He is the only source Islam is built on.
Plus a book so full of wrong facts and other errors, that the book itself proves it is from no god - no god makes errors by the hundreds and more.
Can this be "the Right Religion"?
236 31/3d: "- - - Good - - -". Beware that when the Quran uses words like this, it is relative to the book's own partly immoral moral code. Compared to the one and fundamental "constitution" of all moral and all ethics and of moral and ethical rules: "Do unto others like you want others to do unto you", the Quran's - and thus Islam's - moral code is unethical and immoral a number of places, even horrible some places. (F.x. the best deeds were raids and wars in the name of Allah - most of them in reality for riches, slaves and power. Muslims defend this with that such behavior only is permitted during and after jihad - holy war. But that is no defense - doing it in the name of the god in reality makes stealing, rape, enslavement, torture, and murder even more despicable).
237 31/8b: "- - - righteous deeds - - -". Beware that when the Quran uses words like this, it is relative to the book's own partly immoral moral code. Compared to the one and fundamental "constitution" of all moral and all ethics and of moral and ethical rules: "Do unto others like you want others to do unto you", the Quran's - and thus Islam's - moral code is unethical and immoral a number of places, even horrible some places. (f.x. the best deeds were raids and wars in the name of Allah - most of them in reality for riches, slaves and power. Muslims defends this with that such behavior only is permitted during and after jihad - holy war. But that is no defense - doing it in the name of the god in reality makes stealing, rape, enslavement, torture, and murder, etc. even more despicable).
238 31/16g: "- - - forbid what is wrong - - -". Beware that when the Quran uses expressions like this, it is relative to the book's own partly immoral moral code. Compared to the one and fundamental "constitution" of all moral all ethics and of moral and ethical rules: "Do unto others like you want others to do unto you", the Quran's - and thus Islam's - moral code is unethical and immoral a number of places, even horrible some places. (F.x. the best deeds were raids and wars in the name of Allah - most of them in reality for riches, slaves and power. Muslims defends this with that such behavior only is permitted during and after jihad - holy war. But that is no defense - doing it in the name of the god in reality makes stealing, rape, enslavement, torture, and murder, etc. even more despicable).
239 31/22b: "- - - a doer of good - - -". Beware that when the Quran uses expressions like this, it was relative to the book's own partly immoral moral code. Compared to the one and fundamental "constitution" of all inter human moral all ethics and of moral and ethical rules: "Do unto others like you want others to do unto you", the Quran's - and thus Islam's - moral code is unethical and immoral a number of places, even horrible some places. (F.x. the best deeds were raids and wars in the name of Allah - most of them in reality for riches, slaves and power. Muslims defend this with that such behavior only is permitted during and after jihad - holy war. But that is no defense - doing it in the name of the god in reality makes stealing, rape, enslavement, torture, and murder, etc. even more despicable).
**240 31/30a: “That is because Allah is the (only) Reality - - -”. Is Allah really a reality? All the tales about him derives from just one man - a man even canonized Islamic history tells for long time lived as a chief highwayman and from robbing and extortion (for kidnapped salesmen, etc.). A man initiating assassinations and murders on his opponents (f.x. Asma bint Marwan (female poet), al-Nadr, Abu Uzza, and Ocba after the battle of Badr, Abu Afaq (said to be over 100 years old), Kab ibn al-Ashraf, Ibn Sunayana, Othman bin Moghira, Abi ‘l Huqayq, and not to forget Kinana b. l-Rabi whom he tortured to death to find riches, and afterwards he personally raped Kinana's 17 year old, newlywed wife Safijja (Muhammad was nearly 60 then)). A man who initiated mass murder - once some 700 helpless male prisoners, and made all their children and women slaves - one of them, the mentioned Safijja bint Huayay (and another time Rayhana bint Amr), for his own personal use), a rapist with permission from Allah for himself and all his men to rape (“have sexual connections with” to use more polite words) all female slaves and captives - girls and women - who were not pregnant (this tells something about Allah, too). A man who initiated raids and wars and got 20% or more of all spoils of war, included slaves (though not all for his personal use). And a man lusting for power - easy to see both from the Quran and from Hadith. And a man - and a god - entirely unable to produce one iota of a real proof for the tales. (Sources: Among others: Ibn Hisham and Ibn Ishaq - Ibn Ishaq is the by historians most respected biographer about Muhammad. His “The Life of Muhammad“ is the by historians most respected of the old ones of all Muhammad biographies - written for the caliph in Baghdad around 750 AD - and commented on around 900 Ad by Ibn Hisham. Plus the Quran and Hadiths – Al-Bukhari and Muslim).
Only this man told the tales in the Quran - tales that on top of all have hundreds and hundreds of mistakes, at least hundreds of loose statements and hundreds of invalid “signs” and “profs”, etc. And loose statements, claims, and invalid “signs”/”proofs”, not to forget that most of his tales were from made up sources - apocryphal scriptures, legends, fairy tales, etc - ARE the hallmarks of cheats and deceivers, and of persons without true arguments.
A good and perfect man, according to Islam. If that is true, we hope never to meet a bad Muslim.
A man normal people would say was dubious or stronger, and with a dubious morality. Is a dubious man with dubious morality and who is unable to produce the slightest proof, but for a lot of airy and partly illogical excuses for this inability, and even “signs” and “proofs” without value, plus at least some lies even in the Quran itself (like that real miracles would make no-one believe), is this such a man who tells just and only the undeniable and full truth?
And the only indication Islam has for the reality of Allah is the tales of that kind of a man. (This is in reality a main reason why Muhammad has to be pretended to be perfect and without any spot for Islam - if not the Quran is untrue and Islam a made up religion.)
Not to mention that one has to be naive in the extreme or brainwashed, to believe that a man with such a morality and lust for power, could not deceive also his followers.
241 31/30f: "- - - Falsehood - - -". Beware that when the Quran uses words like this, it is relative to the book's own partly immoral moral code. Compared to the one and fundamental "constitution" of all moral all ethics and of moral and ethical rules: "Do unto others like you want others to do unto you", the Quran's - and thus Islam's - moral code is unethical and immoral a number of places, even horrible some places. (f.x. the best deeds were raids and wars in the name of Allah - most of them in reality for riches, slaves and power. Muslims defends this with that such behavior only is permitted during jihad - holy war. But that is no defense - doing it in the name of the god in reality makes stealing, rape, enslavement, torture, and murder, etc. even more despicable).
242 31/32b: "- - - (right and wrong) - - -". Beware that when the Quran uses words like this, it is relative to the book's own partly immoral moral code. Compared to the one and fundamental "constitution" of all inter human moral and all ethics, and of moral and ethical rules: "Do unto others like you want others to do unto you", the Quran's - and thus Islam's - moral code is unethical and immoral a number of places, even horrible some places. (F.x. the best deeds were raids and wars in the name of Allah - most of them in reality for riches, slaves and power. Muslims defends this with that such behavior only is permitted during and after jihad - holy war. But that is no defense - doing it in the name of the god in reality makes stealing, rape, enslavement, torture, and murder, etc. even more despicable).
243 32/12b: "- - - the guilty ones - - -". Beware that when the Quran uses words like this, it is relative to the book's own partly immoral moral code. Compared to the one and fundamental "constitution" of all inter-human moral and ethics, and of moral and ethical rules: "Do unto others like you want others to do unto you", the Quran's - and thus Islam's - moral code is unethical and immoral a number of places, even horrible some places. (F.x. the best deeds were raids and wars in the name of Allah - most of them in reality for riches, slaves and power. Muslims defends this with that such behavior only is permitted during jihad - holy war. But that is no defense - doing it in the name of the god in reality makes stealing, rape, enslavement, torture, and murder, etc. even more despicable).
244 32/14c: "- - - the Penalty of Eternity for your (evil) deeds!" Beware that when the Quran uses expressions like this, it is in accordance with its own partly immoral moral code. Remember that among the most evil deeds you could do, was and is to refuse to go to war to strengthen Islam, rob other people and give Muhammad his share, and suppress, enslave or kill fellow humans. Admittedly it is said that this only could be done in a jihad - holy war - and Muslims are very quick to say so. But as there hardly was one single armed conflict throughout these 1400 years where Muslims were one or other parts, which was not a jihad, this just becomes a meaningless excuse. And honestly to do it in the name of one’s god, makes both the deed and the god more disgusting and immoral.
But also see 3/77b above.
245 32/17c: "- - - a reward for their (good Muslims') (good) Deeds". Included robbing, suppressing, slave taking, and killing. See 32/14 above.
246 33/4b: "- - - divorce by zihar - - -". - an extra sadistic form for divorce: You tell your wife she is to you like your mother's back. Then you are free from her, but she is not free to marry again, and in a society where women hardly could find work, this could make life very difficult for her - she more or less had to stay on as your slave.
247 33/5c: "(What counts is) the intention of your (Muslims'*) heart - - -". How many times was the real motif behind Muhammad's "holy" raids loot, extortion, slaves and riches? - and how often was this the real motif behind the Muslim warriors' lust for such raids?
##248 33/19b: "- - - covetous of goods". Stealing/robbing - and raping, enslaving and suppressing - were heavy motifs for many of the warriors. And Islam never debates the economic, cultural and human catastrophes "the religion of peace" under a good and benevolent god and a semi-saintly self proclaimed prophet inflicted on millions. They only talk about the glorious warriors, stolen riches, lots of slaves and slave women, and power. Where is the ethics, the moral, the empathy? If you read Muslim religious literature, you will see that the fundamental mentality and ideology are the same today.
"Do unto others like you want others do unto you"?
249 33/26a: "And those of the people of the Book (in this case the Jews in and around Medina*) who aided them (Muhammad accused these Jews of helping his enemies*) - Allah did take then down from their strongholds and cast terror into their hearts". Not Allah, but Muhammad attacked and conquered their villages. The first ones were chased away because one of the Arab tribes refused Muhammad to kill and enslave them. Later - when he was military stronger - the later victims fared worse (see 33/26b).
**250 33/26d: “And those of the People of the Book (the Jews of the Qurayzah tribe - see above*) who had aided them (historian say it is not correct) - Allah did take them down from their strongholds and cast terror in their hearts. (So that) some ye (the Muslims/Muhammad) slew, and some ye made prisoners.” Very simple and “lawful and good” - to quote another verse - mass murdering, enslavement, rape, and robbery. The same happened to most of the ones who earlier had been chased away from Medina, but not fled far enough - the ones who had stopped in Khaybar had men killed and the women and children raped and enslaved. Allah is good and benevolent and gave the Arabs much loot and many slaves to and use in other ways. Muslims - not even today - never reflected over that to steal and rape and enslave and murder you had to ruin and destroy the lives of other humans. This fact is never mentioned by "the religion of peace", never reflected on, never compared to ethics or moral or sympathy or empathy in any Islamic media or publication we have met or heard about.
Well, on thinking it over we are wrong - it is compared to the Quran's moral code: The Quran clearly says "it is lawful and good". This tells a lot about the religion.
A good and loving god and a peaceful religion - and this were far from the only pogrom in Muslim countries through the times. But it is typical that Allah sanctified the attack only afterwards. (Perhaps except Khaybar - if Muhammad told the truth).
#251 33/26g: "- - - some (the Jewish men and male youths*) ye (Muslim's*) slew, and some (= the Jewish women and children) ye made prisoners." The word "slave" is a loaded word today - and Muslims not always 100% honest. Muhammad did not make them prisoners, but slaves, and he sold and gave them away. Muhammad also personally raped first Rayhana bint Amr, and when Khaybar finally was taken a couple of years later, Safijja bint Huayay - Safiyya was 17, and married very shortly before - and Muhammad raped her after he had tortured her husband Kinana to death (he lit a fire on his chest, let it burn till Kinana was practically dead, and then beheaded him - he believed Kinana knew about hidden money Muhammad wanted to steal). Also Muhammad’s slave Marieh likely had little choice when he wanted sex with her. We do not know if he raped more women - or children - but the casual way his man reacted to his raping women, may be an indication. Muslims are very right: Muhammad is a moral idol for Muslims - Islam after all is a war religion.
252 33/27a: (Continued from 33/26 above): "And He (Allah*) made you heirs of their land, their houses, their goods, and of land ye had not frequented (before) - - -". Muhammad "on the war-path" stole everything - in this case also their homes and land - - - in addition to making the women and children slaves and murdering the men (some 700 men and youths).
Muhammad was very different from Jesus. Very. And living in a totally different religion.
253 33/27b: “And He (Allah*) made you (Muslims*) heirs of their (Jews'*) land, their houses, and their goods, and of a land which ye had not frequented (before). And Allah has power over all things”. Some rich spoils of war can justify much, and quiet many a man’s conscience - especially when a god sanctifies it. Could such things happen today or in the future? - we do not mention names like Darfur or Indonesia or East Timor or the Turks against Christian underlings around 1900 AD - f.x. in Armenia and Smyrna. Looting, slave taking, slavery, murder, etc. in the name of Allah is accepted in the Quran as "lawful and good" and the Quran cannot be changed - a fact those forget who talk about liberalizing Islam. If Islam gains the upper hand, things like this may happen again, as it is part of the Quran's unchangeable and partly immoral moral code.
Muhammad was very different from Jesus. Very. And living in a totally different religion.
254 33/29g: "- - - well-doers - - -". Beware that when the Quran uses words like this, it is relative to the book's own partly immoral moral code. Compared to the one and fundamental "constitution" of all moral all ethics and of moral and ethical rules: "Do unto others like you want others to do unto you", the Quran's - and thus Islam's - moral code is unethical and immoral a number of places, even horrible some places. (F.x. the best deeds were raids and wars in the name of Allah - most of them in reality for riches, slaves and power. Muslims defends this with that such behavior only is permitted during jihad - holy war. But that is no defense - doing it in the name of the god in reality makes stealing, rape, enslavement, torture, and murder, etc. even more despicable).
255 33/50c: “O Prophet! We (Allah*) have made lawful (for sex*) to thee (it is not unusual that the god "permits" this towards the founder of a religion or a sect – it happens not infrequently*) thy wives to whom thou hast paid their dowers: and those to whom thy right hand possesses out of the spoils of war (which was quite a huge number*) whom Allah has assigned to thee; and the daughters of thy parental uncles and aunts, and the daughters of maternal uncles and aunts, who migrated (from Makkah (= Mecca*)) with thee; and any believing woman who dedicates her soul to the Prophet if the Prophet wishes to wed her – this is only for thee, and not for the Believers (at large); we know that We have appointed for them (permitted sex*) as to their wives and those whom their right hands possess – in order that there should be no difficulty for thee.” As for slaves, a huge number passed through Muhammad’s hands – perhaps 2000 or more only from the Qurayza tribe. We do not know if and in case how many of them he personally raped, except Rayhana bint Amr and Safiyya bint Huayay (which we know about because the first later became one of his concubines, and the other one of his wives), but the casual way and the minimal fuzz with which two rapes happened and made, makes it easy to think that they neither were the first, nor the only ones – to rape ones captives and slaves was (and formally still is) completely ok in Islam. That just was the way life was/is for slave women and captive women under Islam.
And once more: Read 33/28-29 through 33/33 + 33/50 and 33/51 together to get a picture of his – and very many other dominant religious persons in strong and dark religious societies – technique. One of the much used – and proved efficient – ways of manipulating dependant persons. Even the use or disuse of the god, is typical for such persons. All this formally is about Muhammad’s private intimate life, but as what he said and did was and is the correct ethical and moral code in Islam, it became the norm for all women concerning this aspect of life under Islam.
Besides: Does Muhammad's private sex life belong in a claimed holy book for all times and the entire world? - or as part of a religion?
If the Quran simply belongs among the apocryphal books, many things are easy to understand, and it at least belongs in that line and tradition, even if it is further "out" than most of the others. Muhammad also fits the picture of the leader of an apocryphal sect, admittedly more immoral and bloody than most of the others.
Also see 30/40h and 30/47b above.
Another point: The fact that marriages between close relatives is clearly permitted and mentioned, may be a reason why this is very common in many Muslim countries and areas. Some facts from today:
INBREEDING IN MUSLIM AREAS
Marriages between 1. cousins in some Muslim countries:
- Nubia (in south Egypt) 80%
- Pakistan 70%
- Saudi Arabia 67%
- Kuwait 64%
- Jordan 64%
- Sudan 63%
- Iraq 60%
- Qatar 54%
- United Arabic Emirates 54%
- Libya 48%
- Mauritania 47%
- Bahrain 46%
- Yemen 45%
- Lebanon 42%
- Syria 40%
- Tunisia 39%
- Egypt 33%
- Turkey 25-30%
If this has been going on for 1400 years, it may have had some effect. Inbreeding often has negative effect, and can affect both the physiology and the intellect of the children made and later generations, and the possibility for such negative effects naturally grows if it is repeated over more generations.
###256 33/50d: "- - - We (Allah*) have made lawful for you (Muhammad and Muslims*) - - - those whom thy right hand possesses (= your slaves*) out of the spoils of war - - -". This plainly tells that Muslims are permitted to rape any female captive of war (and remember all wars in reality are named jihad, so Muslims cannot explain that it only is for jihads - and honestly it is quite a god who says: "When you fight for me - or at least your leaders claim you are - you are permitted to rape any female child (at least if she is 9 years or older - Muhammad's start of sex with Aisha), girl, woman or married not pregnant woman you come across if you just can call her your captive. But just look at armed conflicts the last couple of generations included Bangladesh and Eritrea - that is just what even regular Muslim armies have practiced - with inhuman examples in Bangladesh, where the 200ooo of or more rape victims even were fellow Muslims. This sentence tells more about reality in the Islamic moral code and about the benevolence of Allah, than all the nice claims about such things in the Quran combined - acts and rules showing reality, always are more reliable than nice claims. And honestly: To do it in the name of their god makes the deeds even more disgusting, and tells a lot about the real Allah - - - if he exists.
###257 33/50e: "- - - We (Allah*) have made lawful (for sex/rape) for you (Muhammad and Muslims*) - - - those whom thy right hand possesses (= your slaves*) out of the spoils of war - - -". "Do unto others like you want others do unto you".
#####There are other moral rules in Islam which are worse and more immoral, but this is the one we find most repulsive - this one and the one permitting sex with/rape of children.
258 33/50f: "(Muhammad may have for a wife*) any believing woman who dedicates her soul to the Prophet (Muhammad') - - -". The literally correct translation according to M. Azad (A33/59 - A33/60 in the English 2008 edition): "if she offered herself as a gift (Arab: "in wahabat nafsaha") to the Prophet (Muhammad*)". Here is an interesting piece of information: Most Muslim commentators take this to mean "without demanding or expecting a dower". The dower was and is an integrated part of the Muslim formalities of a wedding. Here it seems that also here Muhammad got special treatment from Allah: Cheap wives. This in addition to that he could take a prisoner of war, make her slave, marry her and "give" her her freedom - except from her new husband - as a dower. Muhammad did this at least with Safiyya bint Huayay - a very cheap wife, as the dower cost him nothing.
Muhammad was pretty different from Jesus, also on this point. Definitely not from the same religion.
Besides: Does Muhammad's private sex life belong in a claimed holy book for all times and the entire world? - or as part of a religion?
If the Quran simply belongs among the apocryphal books, many things are easy to understand, and it at least belongs in that line and tradition, even if it is further "out" than most of the others. Muhammad also fits the picture of the leader of an apocryphal sect, admittedly more immoral and bloody than most of the others. He f.x. has points and ideas common with Djingis Khan and the Zulu king Shaka (or Chaka).
Also see 30/40h and 30/47b above.
259 33/50-52: Some serious questions: These verses - 33/50-52 - are about how many women Muhammad was permitted to have and have sex with - nearly any woman and more or less as many as he wanted for marriage plus any not pregnant captive or slave girl or woman. And like some other founders of sects and religions there were special rules for this and that for himself. Does this really belong in a holy book - a book which is a copy of the claimed "mother book" which is revered by the god and his angels in Heaven (13/39b, 43/4, 85/21-22)? And how does this compare with the real prophets in the Bible - the ones he claims to be in the same line of? (Remember that in the Bible men like David and Solomon are not reckoned among the prophets, but among the kings.) And finally: How does rape/forced sex with captive or slave women compare with NT's view of rules for sex?
- Allah revering such texts in his Heaven? Some god.
- Yahweh and Allah the same god? Perhaps - if he is strongly schizophrenic.
- Yahweh and Allah the same god? Perhaps - if he is strongly schizophrenic.
- Jesus and Muhammad in the same religion and moral code? You bet!
#260 33//51b: "Thou (Muhammad*) mayest defer (the turn of (for sex*)) any of them (Muhammad's women - wives and slaves*) that thou pleasest, and thou mayest receive any (of his women for sex*) thou pleasest: and there is no blame on thee if thou invite one whose (turn (for sex with Muhammad*)) thou hadst set aside". Honestly what has this to do in a claimed holy book for all times, a book which is claimed to be a copy of the claimed "Mother Book" in Heaven - a "Mother Book" all the may be 124ooo or more claimed earlier prophets got their copies of (but a claimed "Mother Book" not giving the same rights to the 124ooo claimed earlier prophets who Muhammad claimed were in the same line of prophets as himself), and a "Mother Book" claimed revered by the god and his angels in Heaven. What kind of god reveres texts like this - a sex freak?
The ones saying there are serious similarities between the person Jesus and the person Muhammad, knows very little about what he/she is talking about.
Normally in the old times one found stuff like this only in pornography (Greek = tales about whores).
###261 33/51g: "- - - Allah is All-Knowing - - -". How can it then be possible he does not know that to be made a slave is destroying for the life of any human? - and how can it be possible that he does not know that to be raped is destroying for the life of a woman - not to mention a child?. Or does he know, but does not care as long as his warriors and terrorists get money and pleasure and power?
262 33/52a: “It is not lawful for thee (Muhammad*) (to marry more) women after this - - - except any thy right hand should possess (= slaves*) - - -”. Slave women did not count, so Muhammad still had a way out if he wanted more women.
263 33/52c: (A64 – in 2008 edition A65): “It is not for thee (Muhammad*) (to marry more) women after this - - -.” Does this relate to no more than the 4 categories women that he in verse 52 was told were lawful for him? Or does it refer to all women – except slaves? Islam tends to believe the last, but f.x. Tabari said the first. And no-one will ever know. Clear language? (This verse is from 629 AD or later according to Islam - it has to be, as he married his last wives, Maymuna bint al-Harith, in February 629 AD, and Safiyya bint Huayay around the same time, and if the verse is older, he broke the rule of the Quran on this point). Muhammad then was nearly 60. May be he felt the pressure from having to satisfy a dozen wives and concubines?) plus short-time wives and women one does not know if he was married to or not. (Muhammad over the years had 11 wives, 2 concubines, 16 short-time wives and 7 with unclear status, known by name = 36 all together which are known by name.) All the same some Muslim scholars believe this verse is from 627 AD - before he married Zainab. Not good in case. (Surah 33 is from sometime between 625 and 629 AD, so that this prohibition may be from as early as 625 AD. If it is from any time before 629 AD - likely 627 - Muhammad broke this order from Allah).
264 33/55a: “There is no blame (on the ladies if they appear (indecently dressed*)) before their fathers or their sons, their brothers or their brothers’ sons, or their sisters’ sons, or their women, or the (slaves) whom their right hands possess.” It is unclear what the two last groups really cover. “Their women” may mean their slave women – literally “their”. Or their close female friends or relatives. Or – if this verse is directed mainly to Muhammad’s wives like some commentators mean – Muslim women in general. As for “the (slaves) whom their right hands possess” that simply means the slaves they owns, but it is not clear if it means of both sexes – that male slaves counted so little that it was ok – but commentators mostly wants it to mean “female slaves".
265 33/55b: “There is no blame (on the ladies if they appear (indecently dressed*)) before their fathers or their sons, their brothers or their brothers’ sons, or their sisters’ sons, or their women, or the (slaves) whom their right hands possess.” Part of the basis for the sharia laws.
266 33/55c: (A71 – in 2008 edition A72): “- - - or their (believing women*) women - - -“. To what women does this relate? – as slaves are mentioned separately later in the sentence, it cannot be slave women. Close relatives? Other close or not very close ones? Or all women? Islam tends to believe the last, but the verse is open for all those meanings. And these variants as normal also are in the Arab text, as the relevant word(s) there has/have more than one meaning. Allah (?) really uses a clear language worthy a god.
###267 33/62a: “(Such was) the practice (kill non-believers without mercy*) (approved) of Allah among those who lived aforetime: no change wilt thou find in the practice (approved) of Allah.” Muhammad here refers to the Mosaic and the Christian religions (and he wrongly sets Allah = Yahweh) when he talks about “those who lived aforetime”. But even though OT is hard against many non-Jews, the war and the killing was to get room for living for the Jews, not wanton murdering just because they were not Jews or for plunder and slaves. And in NT: Try to find a single place saying that non-believers shall be murdered just because they have another religion – such an order simply does not exist. (There are 1-2 places in the OT where Yahweh disliked that the Jews did not kill many enough of the enemies, but because the survivors represented future problems, not because they refused to change religion.) The Quran here actually is a 180 degree contradiction to the very core of the teachings of Jesus.
Any god had been lying if he said this, but Muhammad did not know the Bible well, so may be – just may be – he thought from wishful thinking that he spoke the truth, but no matter he was too intelligent not to know he had no reliable source for the claim. In any case it was a good statement for a warlord trying to secure and enlarge his platform of power. (This surah is believed to be from 627 – 629 AD – before he had gained absolute control by conquering Mecca.)
***268 34/47b: “No reward do I (Muhammad*) ask of you - - -“. - - - except absolute power and plenty of women. Yes, and 20% of all stolen/looted valuables and slaves – 100% if there is no fight – and poor-tax (on average ca. 2.5% of everything you own each and every year, but up to 10%) as I need money for bribes, for strengthening my religion and platform of power, and for war and myself and my large family (NB: There is reason to believe that he did not take from the so-called "poor-tax" (the 2.5%) for personal use*), and some for the poor.
269 35/24h: “- - - Glad Tidings - - -.” Wrong. Islam is no glad tiding, except for the ones not suppressed – and really glad only for the ones looking for booty and slaves and stolen riches, and not least for the ones near the top of the pyramid who got – and get – a lot of power in addition. It often is like that in war religions, especially when made to fit a strong and charismatic leader (and his successors), though many war religions have not been as hypocritical as Islam in trying to make its members and others believe it is good and just and humane and benevolent. And well, it may have been glad tidings for the minor percentage of people who needs a religion to lean on – at least for the possible ones who found the old pagan religion not strong enough.
##270 36/19: "- - - ye (the claimed messengers for Allah*) are a people transgressing all bounds!". If you look at all the immoral, injustice, and inhumanity in Muslim political, military, and f.x. slave history, may be the ones who said this were right.
271 37/48a: “And beside them (Muslims*) will be chaste women, restraining their glances, with big eyes (of wonder and beauty)”. The famed houris – for free use. And what use did primitive – and for that case some other – men think of? Hardly of polite and intellectual conversation.
There is no place in the Quran mentioned one single thought about how Paradise is for the houris. The Quran seldom cares about the life and feelings of others than the main persons – the male Muslim, preferably a warrior. Houris, slave woman, slaves, servants, and others - even to a large degree the free(?) Muslim women: Just things for the brave warrior to use and to serve him. Things.
272 37/48b: “And besides them (Muslim men in Paradise*) will be chaste women, restraining their glances, with big eyes (of wonder and beauty).” These are the famous houris that are to comfort Muslim men in Paradise. And what comfort did primitive – and for that case some other – men think of? The women are solely for man’s pleasure in Paradise, too, (well, on Earth they also are for giving him sons). Nothing is said in the Quran about where the houris come from, nothing is said about how they like to be in the harems of often rough, uneducated and primitive – and naïve? – warriors - - - and also nothing is said about how the wives enjoy the competition. Only what the man likes counts.
There as mentioned is another mystery: From where did the houris come? – and what were they. A theory that the early Muslims – f.x. Hasan al-Basri - believed, is that they were women who had lived a pious and good life on Earth. Of necessity they could not have been married (or married to men that ended in Hell?), because married women followed their husbands – it is not said which one if they had been married more times, but perhaps the last one). But how many such single women existed compared to the millions of warriors that had a right to up to 70 each? And how did such women like to be sex slaves for often rough and self centered and primitive men – was it a Paradise for them too, or - - -? Another theory was/is that they were girls that died as babies or unmarried children - but then they in case should belong to their father's household in Paradise. And the same question: How many children died compared to how many houris needed as gifts to warrior and terrorist?
273 37/101: "- - - a boy - - -". This is meant to be Ishmael, the son Abraham got with the Egyptian slave woman, Hagar, and whom the Arabs claim are their forefather - even though the Bible tells he and his mother settled near the border of Egypt - 1. Mos. 25/18. (The Quran claims he settled in Mecca - a claim which extremely unlikely can be true).
###There also is the fact that Arabia was settled thousands of years before Abraham and Ishmael. Thus there were tens of thousands of forefathers for the Arabs of Muhammad's generation. Thus if all the same some descendants of Ishmael settled in Arabia, they in case meant only a miniscule part of a percent of an Arab's blood at that time, and even less today, mainly because of import of millions of slaves from Africa and other places through the years. That much for Arab's relationship to Abraham and for the pure Arab blood today (the pure Arab blood even never existed - modern DNA shows that the Arabs never was a "pure" race, but are the descendants of people who drifted into the peninsula from neighboring countries all around - - - + from the millions of imported Negros and other slaves.
274 38/9c: "(Allah*) the Grantor of Bounties without measure". Also a never proved claim. Many Muslims grew rich by stealing/robbing from non-Muslims and often killing them or in other ways destroying their lives - acts forever after glorified by Islam and by Muslims. But many a Pagan other places grew rich the same way - it was not the work of a Allah, but of injustice, immoral and inhumanity. And as for a possible next life, the claimed benefits only are claims in a book full of wrongs, and told by the man who institutionalized things like al-Taqiyya (the lawful lie), Kitman (the lawful half-truth), "break even your oath if that gives a better result", and "war is betrayal" (and everything outside Islam is the "land of war") simply by accepting it or even use it or advice it himself.
The permission to steal/rob, rape and take slaves also was a main reason for many Arabs - and others later - to join Islam.
275 39/22c: "- - - (- - - one hardhearted) - - -". One of Muhammad's many negative names for non-Muslims.
Also look at the old Islam, look at the old Muslim warriors, look at the old Muslim slave hunters, look at the militant Muslims throughout the times and today; was and is it possible to be much more inhuman and hardhearted?
***276 39/23c: “Allah has revealed - - - the most beautiful Message - - -”. Incitement to hate, dishonesty, suppression, extortion, taking slaves, murder, mass murder and war + full permission for raping any slave or prisoner and + 100% dictatorship by the warlord (Muhammad and his successors). Yes that is a beautiful message. (or in reality: Horrible). Or to say it in another way: If this is the most beautiful Message, we hope never to meet a normal one. .
277 39/29a: "- - - a man belonging to (being the slave of*) many partners - - - and a man belonging to (being the slave of) one master - - -". Muslims even officially are the slaves of Allah. Perhaps a man knowing he was a free man was even better - especially if there is no Allah, and the slavery just is a slavery of mind and perhaps under the religious and religious/political leaders?
278 39/36e: "For such as Allah leaves to stray, there can be no guide". Well, we are back to the fact that as the Quran's moral and other codes are made for a thieving, suppressing, and discriminating slave and war religion, these were so "far out", that even if Allah do not like you, a god with more normal codes of moral and conducts, may think you were a very good person and intervene - f.x. the often mentioned Yahweh.
279 39/41g: “He, then, that receive guidance (see 39/41c*) benefits his own soul - - -“. How can it benefit your soul to steal/loot, hate, rape, murder, mass murder (many, many cases in Muslim history), enslave, etc? It benefits your pocket – and gives Muhammad and his successors many and cheap warriors – but your soul? Wrong. This kind of life only brutalizes a man – and his culture and religion. For similar claims see 2/2 – 2/5 – 2/120 – 10/35 – 12/111 – 16/64 - 16/89 - 18/55 – 22/54 - 27/2 – 31/3 – 41/44 – 45/11 – 46/30 – 47/32 – 68/7 – 71/13 – 87/3.
280 40/25e: Pharaoh said: “Slay the sons of those who believe with him (Moses*), and keep alive their females”. A new punishment for the Jewish slaves, and it is clear that this is to start fast. But contradiction:
- 2/49: “- - - We (Allah*) delivered you from the people of Pharaoh (who*) - - - slaughtered your sons - - -“. This already was praxis.
- 7/141: “- - - Pharaoh’s people - - - who slew your male children and saved alive the females - - -.” The Bible tells more than one place that the killing of male babies started long before the situation in 7/127, and that those killings were the reason for why the baby Moses was set adrift on the Nile (the Quran gives no real reason - but the reason was that male babies were killed).
- 14/6: “(Moses said about Pharaoh that he*) slaughtered your sons and let your women-folk live - - -.” This already was practice.
281 40/26c: "What I (Pharaoh Ramses II*) fear is lest he (Moses*) should change your religion - - -". For one thing this is naivety - it is not that easy for a little known leader of some slaves to change the religion of a mighty country, which Egypt was under Ramses II, and for another thing this is not from the Bible. See 40/24b above. There was nothing about the religion during Exodus in the Bible, only: "Let my people go". Besides Egypt already had perhaps 2ooo gods, and one more would not matter.
282 40/33b: "- - - no defender shall ye (non-Muslims*) have from Allah - - -". Now we are back to the fact that many moral, ethical and even judicial codes are very different between especially NT and the Quran. This means that Yahweh may think you are a good person who at least tries to live according to his basic ideal: "Do unto others like you want others do unto you", even if Allah wants to send you to hell for not wanting to steal/rob, enslave, suppress, and murder for him and Muhammad. So may be Yahweh will interfere? - if any of them exists. (Well, to interfere against Allah should not be too difficult, as it is highly unlikely he exists - the only rumor about him is in a book full of mistakes, dictated by an man with doubtful morality, believing in the use of dishonesty, and liking respect, power, riches - at least for bribes - and women.)
283 41/12b: “So He (Allah*) created them (heaven(s)*) as seven firmaments (wrong - there only is one, and even that one in a way is an illusion*) in two days - - - Such is the Decree of (Him) the Exalted in Might“. Just look up, and you see the firmament - it may be especially impressive at night. Nature at its most colossal, even though it looks petite from Earth. Did any god make it? Was that god in case Allah? There are few reasons to believe so, and definitely no proofs. And what is 100% sure: It was not made in two days - it all started 13.7 billion years ago according to science, and may be the first stars became visible not much later - - - and the creation is still not completed.
The number 7 also is laughably wrong. There are no 7 - material - heavens.
Allah decreed this in the Quran - a most unlucky choice for a “proof", as it is wrong.
Sometimes our impression is that Muhammad/the Quran behaves like some second rate politicians: They steal arguments and claims, then run in front of people and say they are leading them - in this case leading them to stolen riches, slaves and power. Muhammad/the Quran find good phenomena and tell that Allah has made them. Only statements, only claims, and only words any “prophet” for any god can use just as cheaply - and sometimes like here 120% wrong. Impressive profs - and for what?
284 41/30d: “- - - Glad Tidings - - -.” Wrong. Islam is no glad tiding, except for the ones not suppressed – and really glad only for the ones looking for booty and slaves and stolen riches, and not least for the ones near the top of the pyramid that got – and get – a lot of power in addition. It often is like that in war religions, especially when made to fit a strong and charismatic leader (and his successors), though many war religions have not been as hypocritical as Islam in trying to make its members and others believe it is good and just and humane and benevolent. And well, it may have been glad tidings for the small percentage of people who need a religion to lean on – at least for the possible ones where the old pagan religion was not strong enough. Also see 2/97i and 17/9d above and 61/13 below.
285 42/14a: "And they (Jews, Christians*) became divided only after knowledge reached them - through selfish envy as between themselves." Oh, no, this hardly was the reasons for the division of the Christians from the Jews. The reason was that the most Jews did not accept Jesus. Partly was he not the earthly king they hoped for (to free them out from the Romans), and partly was his teaching a bit different from what they were used to. The real reason often was different understanding - or misunderstanding - of points in the scriptures. But the Quran may be partly - partly - true here, as there clearly have been many a self proclaimed prophet who has been as interested in power and/or wealth - and a few times women. A central question here is: Was Muhammad one of those? The enormous number of mistakes in the Quran proves 120%+ that it is not from a god. The fact that nearly everything and every not Biblical tale is from or around Arabia, indicates that the maker of the book knew little or nothing about the rest of the world. The mistakes which was in accordance with wrong "science" at the time of Muhammad, strongly indicates the book was made by someone living at that time. On the other hand there is a chance that Muhammad himself believed at least parts of what he told, if he had this mental illness - TLE (Temporal Lobe Epilepsy) - which modern medical science suspects.
There also is this repeated and repeated claim that the Jews and Christians falsified the Bible to have an (economically) richer life here on Earth. But neither Muhammad nor Islam nor any Muslim has ever been able to explain how it was possible to falsify tens of thousands or more of manuscripts spread over 3 continents, how it was possible to agree on what to falsify, when it was done, or how it was possible to falsify all of them in ways impossible for modern technology to trace (many claims, but none of them possible).
#####But perhaps as revealing is that neither Muhammad nor Islam nor Muslims ever gave a believable explanation on how Jews and Christians could become richer by means of making a war and robbery religion peaceful and honest, as contrast to Muslims becoming rich just on stealing/robbing, extortion, slave taking, suppression, etc.? (Oh, we know Christians have been involved in lots of wars, etc. (though seldom as horribly inhuman as some of the Muslims wars - read Muslim political history before you protest), but that was in spite of or disusing the religion, not because the religion incited to it.)
286 42/15g: "- - - on us (Muhammad/Muslims*) (is the responsibility for) our deeds, and on you (non-Muslims*) for your deeds." This was in 616 - 618 AD. A few years later when Muhammad started to grow powerful, he also started to "take care of" non-Muslims' "deeds", too, by forcing them to become Muslims: "Become Muslims, or fight us and die!" Much of Arabia was made Muslim by the sword (and many by the lust for the plunder and slaves they could gain by joining Muhammad) - in spite of what many Muslims today often like to claim.
287 42/19c: "- - - He (Allah*) has Power and can carry out His Will". Thought provoking here: Allah NEVER clearly has demonstrated his claimed power - yes, not even his existence. Everything only are words from a man whom even central and relevant Islamic literature shows wanted riches (for attracting and keeping followers) and power - and women - and had a doubtful moral (al-Taqiyya (the lawful lie), Kitman (the lawful half-truth), break your oaths if that paid, rob and rape and enslave your victims, murder your opponents, etc.). Whenever reality tells one story, and nice words another, we always believe in the reality, not in the nice propaganda.
288 42/23g: "No reward do I (Muhammad*) ask of you for this except the love of those near of kin". Well, except 20% of all stolen goods and enslaved people - 100% if they gave in without a fight - 2.5% (average) of all your belongings each and every year in tax (though it is likely Muhammad used little or nothing of just this point personally), plenty of women and undisputed and total power over you, + lots of warriors to fight and may be die for me, among other things. One of the in reality most and strongest contradicted and abrogated by reality verse in the entire Quran. Good propaganda towards followers unable to think for themselves.
Yes, and Jizya from non-Muslims - tax with no specified upper limit (and later rulers sometimes demanded much) - and from the ones using land he had taken from them and thus "belonged" to him, also land tax (here he normally took 50% of everything produced - this also became the norm for other land grabbers, but up to 70% happened). Life could be difficult for non-Muslims - so difficult and meager that they had to flee to get out from the dire poverty or worse.
Two words: Hypocrisy. Dishonesty.
One of the places where Muhammad knew he was lying in the Quran.
289 42/27d: "- - - He (Allah*) is with his Servants (see just above*) Well-Acquainted - - -". The old warning: Be bad and get punishment, be good and get reward. But if it is true that Allah knows everything: WHY THEN DOES HE HAVE TO TEST THEM - F.X. BY SENDING THEM ON RAIDS FOR RICHES AND CAPTIVES/SLAVES - LIKE THE QURAN TELLS TIME AND TIME AGAIN?!
##290 43/24b: "Even if I (a self proclaimed prophet in Muhammad's tradition*) brought you (non-Muslims - here pagan Arabs most likely*) a better guidance than that which ye found your fathers following". The Quran is not better than the religion of the old pagan Arabs on the main point: None of them really represented gods - this included Islam, as it is built on a book so full of errors and worse, that no god ever was involved in its making. As for details, the Quran was/is a little better morally on a few points, but worse on others - like the nearly deification of raids and wars mainly for riches, slaves, power and forcing (by weapons or pressure) the new religion on others.
291 43/32d: "- - - the Mercy of thy (Muslims') Lord (Allah*) - - -". Read the surahs from Medina, the immoral parts of the Quran's moral code, the unjust and/or immoral parts of the sharia laws, plus the Quran's rules for murders, suppression, rape, enslavement, war, etc., and sum up Allah's real level of mercy. Nice words are cheap, reality is reliable.
192 43/49c: "- - - for we (Pharaoh Ramses II*) shall truly accept guidance - - -". One thing is that nothing like this is in the Bible. Another thing is: How likely is it that Ramses II - probably the mightiest Pharaoh ever - said things like this about the god of a bunch of slaves? One god among perhaps 2ooo in Egypt!
And how likely is it that Ramses II had even heard about Allah nearly 2ooo years before Muhammad?
293 44/30a: "We (Allah*) delivered the Children of Israel from humiliating punishment - - -". According to the Bible the Jews had been reduced from honored guests to slaves over a period of 430 years since Joseph. In addition the pharaoh had started killing their male babies, because they had become so many that the Egyptians found them to be a threat and wanted to reduce their numbers.(This f.x. was the reason why the baby Moses was set afloat on the Nile in a desperate hope of saving him).
But a central point here is that according to the Bible it was Yahweh who helped them out, not Allah.
294 46/11e: "This is an (old) falsehood". There were good reasons for saying so - everybody saw that Muhammad's stories just were twists on old stories, and many saw that things were wrong. But the robber baron and later warlord Muhammad became too strong and forced a foothold for his religion on the people - a foothold they rapidly enlarged, mainly by weapons or money or permission to steal/rob/rape/enslave.
295 46/12h: “- - - Glad Tidings - - -.” Wrong. Islam is no glad tiding, except for for the ones not suppressed – and really glad only for the ones looking for booty and slaves and stolen riches, and not least for the ones near the top of the pyramid who got – and get – a lot of power in addition. It often is like that in war religions, especially when made to fit a strong and charismatic leader (and his successors), though many war religions have not been as hypocritical as Islam in trying to make its members and others believe it is good and just and humane and benevolent. And well, it may have been glad tidings also for the minor percentage of people that need a religion to lean on – at least for the possible ones where the old pagan religion was not strong enough. But for the majority of people, no. Even not for the majority of the Muslims.
**296 47/4b: “Therefore, when ye meet the Unbelievers (in fight (and remember the Muslims practically always were the aggressors – to gain riches and slaves and power - - - and some new proselytes*)), smite at their necks - - -.” Surah 47 is from 622 AD and Mecca, but some verses likely from Medina – and it is possible to see the change towards war already. It contradicts and abrogates a lot of peaceful verses. This verse contradicts (and abrogates) at least these verses (here are 88 out of the 124 Muslim scholars say are abrogated by 9/5): 2/109, 2/190, 2/256, 2/272, 3/20, 4/62, 4/81, 4/90, 5/3, 5/28, 5/48, 5/99, 6/60, 6/66, 6/70, 6/104, 6/107, 6/112, 6/158, 7/87, 7/188, 7/193, 7/199, 8/61, 9/68, 10/41, 10/99, 10/102, 10/108, 11/12, 11/121, 13/40, 15/3, 15/94, 16/35, 16/82, 16/125, 16/126, 16/127, 17/54, 18/29, 18/56, 19/39, 20/130, 21/107, 21/112, 22/49, 22/68, 23/54, 23/96, 24/54, 26/216, 27/92, 28/50, 28/55, 29/18, 29/46, 32/30, 34/25, 34/28, 35/23, 35/24a, 36/17, 39/41, 41/34, 42/6, 42/15, 42/48, 43/83, 43/89, 44/59, 45/14, 46/9, 46/135a, 46/135b, 46/135b, 50/39, 50/45, 51/50-51, 51/54, 52/45, 52/47, 53/29, 67/26, 73/10, 73/11, 79/45, 86/17, 88/22, 109/6. They are all quoted under 9/5. (At least 91 contradictions).
297 47/4f: "- - - (- - - time for) either generosity or ransom - - -". When the battle or raid or war was over, it happened some of the prisoners were set free, either from generosity or other reasons or simply because the prisoners and their families were too poor to pay ransom. But often it was a question of extortion: Pay ransom or else - - -".
What the Quran here does not mention, is that there were two more options which were frequently used: Kill the prisoners - later it happened that this was done by the thousands and tens of thousands and more, and sometimes in inhuman ways like skinning alive, burning alive, burying alive. And enslavement - also here often by the thousands and tens of thousands and more. Captives to a large degree were kept or sold or given away for slavery - included women and girls for work and rape for the rest of their lives "lawful and good" according to the Quran ”The religion of peace" at work. Try to find also something like this in NT and the new covenant! One more of the at least 200% sure proof for that Yahweh and Allah are not the same god - and for that Jesus and Muhammad not only are in the same line, but does not even belong in the same moral world.
298 47/4j: "- - - but (He (Allah*) lets you fight) in order to test you - - -". There are so many ways of testing a person. Why did "the Religion of Peace" have to do it by raids and wars for wealth and slaves and power?!! There is no logic in this, too, unless the explanation is that in reality it was Muhammad who wanted warriors and needed to "explain" why "Allah wanted it".
And: Why did an omniscient, predestining god at all need to test his followers? - he already knew everything!!
But if Islam is a made up religion - and at least the Quran and all its errors are not from any god - and the Quran made up by f.x. Muhammad, this claim is easy to explain: A bluff to "explain" the needs for warriors.
299 47/6a: (YA4825): “Soon will He (Allah*) guide them and improve their condition - - -.” But who does “them” refer to? If it is the dead ones (see 48/4 above), it here means a good life in the hereafter. If it is the ones fighting, it simply may refer to riches and money and loot and slaves and raping women. Pick your choice.
#####300 47/31d: This verse - and quite a number of others - does not give meaning if Allah is omniscient and knows everything. If he is omniscient, he also knows everything about you. Not to mention if he on top of all predestines everything, so that you just are a puppet in a puppet theatre, reacting to his Plan only.
But if this is Muhammad needing an explanation for why he sends warriors out to steal and enslave and enlarge his power, then suddenly tales like these are logical - if his followers were naive enough or blind enough.
301 48/8c: “- - - Glad Tidings - - -.” Wrong. Islam is no glad tiding, except for the ones not suppressed – and really glad only for the ones looking for booty and slaves and stolen riches, and not least for the ones near the top of the pyramid who got – and get – a lot of power in addition. It often is like that in war religions, especially when made to fit a strong and charismatic leader (and his successors), though many war religions have not been as hypocritical as Islam in trying to make its members and others believe it is good and just and human and benevolent. And well, it may have been glad tidings for the minor percentage of people who need a religion to lean on – at least for the possible ones where the old pagan religion was not strong enough.
Of the war religions the world has seen, only Islam remains today - at least among the big ones still preaching war, and where war still is a basic element in the "holy" book.
**302 48/15b: “Those who lagged behind (did not take active part in the battle or fight*) (will say), when ye (the “real” warriors*) (are free to) march and take booty (in war) - - -”. The stealing and robbing and taking of slaves and raping of girls and women, are for the active warriors only - a huge incentive for poor, uneducated ruffians. Is it partly the same effect we saw f.x. in Darfur, Bangladesh, and East Timor? - easy to find warriors, and most inhuman behavior. May such things happen other places if Islam grows strong enough and fanatics - or the "right" kind of mullahs or imams - take over the leadership? There are tendencies in London, and many of the 9/11 terrorists came from Hamburg - not to mention the unrest in many cities in France in 2006, and for that case in some a little liberal countries in (North) Africa where fanatics want to take over power (one exception may - just may - be Turkey, which has been secular since Ataturk in the 1920s. There may be a chance. Strangely enough also Bangladesh and Malaysia have a small chance to become human democracies - and perhaps Jordan and a couple of the emirates benevolent dictatorships. But the rest of the Muslim world either is in the grip of fanatics or is drifting that way at present - towards what some call Muslim radicalism, others Muslim conservatism - likely the most correct expression - and even others Islamism, but which all just are different names for fanatics). (This was written before the unrest in Muslim countries in 2011).
What had the world looked like today if the Muslim world had not petrified into stony fundamentalism and stagnated around 1100 AD? - 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.
303 48/16c: "- - - the desert Arabs who lagged behind - - -". In the beginning the Bedouins were not too interested in Muhammad's new religion. This changed considerably after Muhammad started his raids for riches and captives/slaves.
304 48/17a: "No blame is there on the blind, not blame is there on the lame, nor on one ill (if he joins not the war) - - -". Only the seriously handicapped were not to blame for not going to war when Muhammad wanted, and he wanted very often (it is said he was involved in 82 armed "episodes" - www.1000mistakes.com/jihad-holywar/index.php names 63 - all the last 10 years = the Medina period = ca. 1 every six weeks, practically all of them Muslim aggression, and most of them raids to steal and take prisoners for slaves or ransom - facts Muslims never mention).
####305 48/19a: "And many gains will they (Muslims*) acquire (besides) - - -". Well, a good number of Muslims became rich or at least well off from plunder, extortion, slave taking, etc. But we have never till this day met a single Muslim - not to mention a Muslim religious or profane leader or Islam itself - reflecting on what price others had to pay for that. You meet boasting about riches and power, but never a thought about the victims. And as it was "lawful and good" according to Muhammad, none of them will ever do or think so - not among the religious Muslims at least. That is ethics and moral in Islam.
306 48/20d: "- - - and He (Allah*) has given you these beforehand - - -". Like so often in the Quran it is unclear what is meant here, but many Muslim scholars think it refers to the rich plunder and slave taking - from the conquest of Khaybar.
307 48/20f: (A48/23 – in 2008 edition A22): “Allah has promised you many gains that ye shall acquire - - -.” Booty. A good and cheap way to get warriors. But does it here only talk about “gold and slaves and a few rapes” in this life (may be Khaybar in this case), or also riches in the next life like among others Ibn Abbas thought?
308 48/29c: “Muhammad is the Messenger of Allah”. No omniscient god uses a messenger telling so much which is wrong. An omniscient god does not make mistakes. And no good and benevolent god accepts a religion with basic elements like stealing/robbing, apartheid/suppression, dishonesty, and murder for working tools, slave taking, rape, and looting as "lawful and good", glorification of and extra reward for terrorism and for going to war to mutilate and kill for the religious leaders, etc.
1. An omniscient god has correct information about everything.
2. No good and benevolent god does not introduce suppression and terrorism, etc.
3. "Do to others like you want others do to you".
A. Occam's Broom (the same Occam as the one with the razor): "The intellectual dishonest trick of ignoring facts that refute your argument in the hope that your audience won't notice". (New Scientist 21.Sept. 2013.) This trick is frequently used by Muhammad, by Islam, and by Muslims as argument for the Quran's texts and for Islam - just use your ears and/or eyes, and brain, and you will find lots and lots of samples, f.x. in some of Muhammad's lies in the Quran.
B. "'Surely' (etc.*) and rhetorical questions - whenever you encounter these in a text, stop and think. The author usually wants you to skate over them as if the claim is so obvious as to be beyond doubt, or the answer self-evident. The opposite is often the case." (Graham Lawton.) Also this trick is very often used in the Quran, by Islam, and by Muslims.
Try to count such cases in the Quran - they are MANY. Especially the never proved claim "the Truth" and similar are very often used. Samples: "Without doubt", "certain", "verily", "clear", "right", "fact", "wrong", "sign", "proof" (even modern Muslims disuse this word often), "term appointed", "predestined", "If Allah wanted - - -", "non-Muslims are bad, Muslims are good", "error", "wisdom", and more.
#######Like said these two rhetorical ways of dishonesty are used very many places in the Quran - we have not counted, but hundreds. Each of them may be a hidden lie - is a lie if the orator knows his point is a claim or bluff or worse, and not a proved or provable fact. And according to the Quran what is said in the Quran, is said by Allah.
###309 56/24: “(The houris are*) A reward for the Deeds of their past (life).” How do women like to simply be a reward to some previously unknown – and often uncultivated – man? – and to be his sex slave or sex doll for eternity? A Paradise? This kind of sex-trade in the name of the god, gives us a sick and distasteful feeling. Paradise like a luxury brothel? What is for sure is that this claimed paradise is not even a distant relative of the one in the NT, where "you become like the angels". The same god? Do not be ridiculous - a 200% proof.
The "institution" of houris - sex slaves - Muhammad borrowed from the old pagan Zoroastrians - the religion of the old Persia. There they were named paaris.
310 56/35: “We (Allah*) have created (their Companions (houris*)) of special creation". This may be the reason why nobody knows from where they come. It is a mystery in Islam. (But the idea came from Persia.)
The houris simply were sex slaves and courtesans, an idea extremely far from the Bible's, Yahweh's, and Jesus' Paradise. A very strong proof for that Yahweh and Allah were not the same god - and Jesus and Muhammad not in the same religion.
311 56/35-37a: “We (Allah*) have created (their Companions (houris*)) of special creation. And made them virgin-pure (and undefiled) – beloved (by nature), equal in age (for good Muslim men in Paradise*) - - -.” Houris are a bit special kind of women, but the “fact” that they are given to the men arriving in Paradise as repayment for good (?) deeds, tells miles and square miles about Islam’s view of women. The servile nature of the houris – the ideal women – in the descriptions, also tells volumes about Islam’s point of view on how women shall behave.
The houris simply were sex slaves and courtesans, an idea extremely far from the Bible's, Yahweh's, and Jesus' Paradise, where you "become like the angels". A very strong proof for that Yahweh and Allah were not the same god - and Jesus and Muhammad not in the same religion.
312 56/35-37b: “We (Allah*) have created (their (Muslims*) Companions) of special creation. And made them (houris*) virgin-pure (and undefiled) – Beloved (by nature), equal in age - - -”. The wives and slave girls from this world are not even mentioned. But the strange sentence “equal in age” reappears – why, if all are resurrected like young men/people? (The houris are "borrowed" from the Zoroastrian paradise, where they were named paaris). A very strong proof for that Yahweh and Allah were not the same god - and Jesus and Muhammad not in the same religion. (The idea of houris is "borrowed" from Persian old religion, where they were named paaris.)
313 56/36: "And made them (the houris - sex slaves in Paradise*) virgin-pure (and undefiled) - - -". This is information which is totally irrelevant if you do not intend to hint about sex - and you can bet a continent on that sex was on the mind of the Muslim warriors when being told things like this.
314 56/37: (A56/15): “- - - equal in age - - -“. Your wives (and concubines and slave women?) will be resurrected as forever young virgins (it is nowhere said for how long) women equal of age to you, who also are resurrected as a young adult. But the Arab word that here is translated to “forever young”, “atrab” – plural “tirb” – also may mean “well-matched”. Also good – perhaps even better – but not the same meaning. And these variants also are in the Arab text, as the relevant word(s) there has/have more than one meaning. Allah (?) really uses a clear language.
315 58/3a: “But those who have divorced their wives by zihar (a very simple ceremony - see 58/2a above*), then wish to go back on the words they uttered - (it is ordained that such a one) should free a slave before they touch each other - - -”. Some sins one could repair by freeing a slave. If one was not rich enough to do that, one often could fast (not eat or drink or have sex during daytime) for some time - in this case two months. Two months fast = the real value of a human if he or she was a slave.
##316 58/4h: In connection to among others this verse and its expression according to M. Azad "- - - if anyone has not (the wherewithal) - - -" you may find - or meet - a nice sample of Islamic honesty in debate - or in propaganda: (A58/7): "As regard the phrase 'he who does not find the wherewithal (lam yajid)', it may indicate either lack of financial means or the impossibility of finding anyone else who could be redeemed from factual or figurative bondage (- - -). According to many Islamic scholars of our times (e.g., Rashid Rida - - -), this relates, in first instance, to circumstances in which 'slavery will have been abolished ####in accordance with the aim of Islam' (Manar V, 337)". This simply is an al-Taqiyya - a lawful lie - and even a distasteful such one.
- First note that the translation of the Arab text is changed a little compared to Yusuf Ali's one, and "by coincidence"(?) fits the "explanation" of the claim about Islam's intention of abolishing slavery better. The Quran in reality is clear on that it speaks about the economy of the person.
- There is nowhere in the Quran said that slavery is bad or for other reasons should be terminated (it is a good deed to free a slave, but slavery is nowhere in the Quran condemned).
- There is nowhere in the Quran even indicated that slavery is bad or for other reasons should be terminated. Not one place.
- There is nowhere in the Quran said or in other ways indicated that slavery is morally wrong.
- There is nowhere in the Quran even indicated that it would be good moral or good ethics to abolish slavery. To set free a slave - at least a Muslim slave - is a good thing, but slavery as an institution is nowhere attacked or even questioned.
- The main Islamic idol - Muhammad - took and traded (sold or gave away for bribes) at least a few thousand slaves and expressed no qualms for doing this. Everything Muhammad said - or not said - or did, is the right thing to do for any Muslim, if it is not expressed prohibited (f.x. a Muslim can have only 4 wives as he is forbidden to have as many as Muhammad had (36 we know by name included concubines and 7 we do not know if he was formally married to or not)).
- Muslim countries were forced backwards and kicking and protesting into abolishing slavery - Mauritania as late as in unbelievable 1982 AD (and made it a punishable crime as late as in 2007 AD)!! - and Niger it was criminalized as late as 2003 (and still practiced - there still (2015) may be as many as 800ooo slaves in Niger) - by forces and ideas from the west. We at least have never seen a Muslim whisper from older times about abolishing slavery as an institution.
- Abolishing slavery is a "new idea" and a "foreign idea" in Islam. Such ideas were not accepted by Islam through most of Islam's history - well, necessity after long time made some "new ideas" acceptable if they clearly were in accordance with ideas in the Quran or strong Hadiths. We have found nowhere in older Islamic literature where the "new idea" of abolishing slavery was even aired, not to mention received backing.
- The claim that Islam/Muhammad/the Quran promotes abolishing of slavery you ONLY meets from Muslim scholars born and raised in modern times - times when foreign, mainly Western, thinking, has made slavery extremely immoral. As it is not only permitted in Islam to lie, but advised "if necessary" to defend or promote the religion (and permitted in a number of other wide cases), this al-Taqiyya (lawful lie) is launched: 'Islam is the best also on this - Islam all the time intended to abolish slavery". (You even meet Muslims boasting that Islam forced Europe to end slavery, by stopping the trade from Africa. This simply is nonsense. For one thing European slaves mainly came from the Slavic areas in the East - it was not for nothing that the name "slave" was coined. And for another there hardly has been an area or a time in all history where trade between areas and countries and cultures has stopped for long times if good profit was possible to make. Slavery in Europe died out partly because in agriculture in chilly countries the work season is short and slaves had to be fed all year round, partly because cheap labor became plentiful, but mainly because it was opposed to Christian basic moral and ideas (this even though it is not clearly discredited or forbidden in the Bible).
- There are in the world today some 24 million humans "living as slaves or under slave-like conditions" according to UN (the number is from 2005 if we remember correctly). A good percentage of these live in Islamic areas. We have seen little or nothing of negative reactions from Islam or Muslims to this fact. There may have been, but in case not enough to reach us, even though we have been looking for such reactions.
- As abolishing of slavery is "a new idea" and on top of that "a foreign idea" both of which are despised by conservative Islam, and as Muhammad showed what was right and wrong for Islam in this question by taking and trading and keeping slaves (f.x. his concubines Marieh and Rayhana bint Amr), you can be pretty sure that if the world ever returns to medieval conditions, official slavery will reemerge in Islamic areas "lawful and good".
So much for this Islamic al-Taqiyya - lawful lie.
317 59/3a: "And had it not been that Allah had decreed banishment for them (the Jewish tribe Banu Nadir - Banu means tribe*) - - -". There exists a Scandinavian word "poelsevev" - literally meaning "a weaving made from sausages" - which means utter nonsense with a large dash of stupidity included. This tale is "poelsevev" - Muhammad simply was forced to let them go because a strong Arab tribe (the Khazraiites under Abd Allah b.Ubayy) demanded it, even though he wanted to murder the men and enslave the women and children like he f.x. later did with banu Qurayza, when he was military stronger.
PS: Which god would use "poelsevev"?
###318 59/4a: "That (see 59/2a, 59/2d, 59/3a above) is because they resisted Allah and his Messenger (Muhammad) - - -". This is very interesting information, because practically all Muhammad's armed conflicts were because of aggression from the Muslims - even Badr, Uhud, and the Trench were defense battles in a war of aggression started and kept alive by Muhammad and his raids against caravans, etc. Also in this case it seems that Banu al-Nadir had not helped an enemy, but they had not helped Muhammad, and they were negative to him and Muhammad found an excuse to attack (NB: Most Muslims honestly believe Banu al-Nadir helped some enemy, because that is what they are told). Thus what Muhammad really is saying here, is that it is prohibited to defend yourself from his/Islam's aggression and raids for money and slaves, or other aggression.
######Beware of a crucial word her: "resisted". Not "attacked", but "resisted".
"The Religion of Peace"!! And "The Religion of Honesty"?
#319 59/4e: "- - - if anyone resists Allah (here on Earth read: Muhammad*), verily, Allah is severe in punishment". A clear message: If you resist, you will be severely punished. And it turned out to be the very truth many times. Islamic history of aggression and war, included raids and slave raids, at times and places was horrible.
##320 59/6a: “What Allah has bestowed on His Messenger (Muhammad*) (and taken away) from them (Banu al-Nadir*) – for this ye (the Muslim warriors*) made no expedition with either cavalry or camelery - - -.” This was very nice for Muhammad, because when there was no fight and the enemy just gave in, all the spoils of war was called “fay” and was for Allah/Muhammad alone. Muhammad in a short time got a good economy. We may add that you often find Islam boasting about rich plunder. But you will never - never - find Islam reflecting over what terror, what destruction, what catastrophe - and what setbacks to the culture - the Muslim attacks and destruction and murdering meant to others. Empathy with others, not to mention with non-Muslims, at least was outside Islam's capability - and still is at least within some parts of Islam.
#####It must be added that to be thieves, robbers, enslavers and murderers - and rapists - in the name of a god, makes both the religion and the god extra distasteful - and it makes the claim that Allah is a good and benevolent god an unintended, black joke. Compare Islam to the gold standard; "do against others like you want others do against you" and shudder in distaste. ####Also remember that dishonesty is not only words, but also deeds - to steal/rob/extort are dishonest - to say the least of it - deeds.
321 59/14a: "- - - from behind walls - - -". In these warlike areas the inhabitants lived in fortified villages or towns - and of course fought from behind those wall if possible when attacked. The Jewish tribe Banu al-Nadir was attacked shortly after the military fiasco named the Battle of Uhud in March 625 AD (Muhammad lost that battle, but at a price for Mecca which made them wait too long to follow up the victory). Muslims like to tell a couple of anecdotes and give them together with claims about Banu al-Nadir helping the enemy, as the reason for the attack. Historical science disagrees and says that those anecdotes just are anecdotes, and that for one thing Muhammad needed a victory after Uhud, and for another thing it was a traditional play for power. The Banu al-Nadir nearly to a man disbelieved Muhammad. To evict them or kill them, meant that Medina would be weakened military - they counted 700 warriors. But at the same time it meant that Muhammad got rid of 700 opponents - and to many a politician personal power counts more than the nation - here the town and its surrounding area (and in this case it paid off). The Banu al-Nadir had to give in after some 2 weeks in their fortified quarters. Muhammad wanted to kill the men and enslave the women and children (like he later did with the last of the strong Jewish tribe of Qurayza in Medina), but the Banu al-Nadir were permitted to flee from town, because one of the Arab tribes (the Khazraiites under Abd Allah b.Ubayy) refused Muhammad to kill and enslave them. Unluckily for many of them a large part of the tribe settled near Khaybar, where Muhammad found them when he attacked Khaybar.
322 60/2a: "If they (non-Muslims*) were to get the better of you, they would behave to you as enemies - - -". This is around 629-630 AD and Muhammad needs an enemy picture of the world outside Islam - then why not produce such an enemy picture? This is one of the many droplets in the Quran used to create it. The truth is that also non-Muslims are humans. Some would be enemies of a war religion as harsh as Islam, but many would be friends or "teachers" trying to make Muslims see what was and is wrong in the Quran and how this proved that the book was not from a god - - - and most would not care neither this way nor that way, unless they were forced to make up their minds about it.
The outside world, included Mecca, also gladly had left them alone, if it was not because of the never ending raids for stealing, killing and taking prisoners for slaves or extortion made by the Muslims.
**323 61/4b: “Truly Allah loves those who fight in His Cause in battle array as if they were a solid cemented structure”. The ones who say the Quran is as good as the Bible, not to mention NT, have never read the Quran - which we can say even if we are not very Christian.
- A god loving mass slaughter and murderers!!!
- If that is a good god, I do hope I never meet a bad one.
- And this is the icon and ideal of Islam!
- Will you like to live in a Muslim society in a world ruled by such a religion?
- And remember: War and hate is only one part of Islam.
But a mighty incitement and war propaganda mixed with romancing of war – and everyone at this time knew about spoils of war and slaves and free women to rape, etc.
324 61/7e: "- - - do wrong - - -". Beware that when the Quran uses expressions like this, it is in accordance with its own partly immoral moral code. It f.x. was - AND IS - very wrong not to steal/rob, enslave, suppress, discriminate, and kill for Allah or Muhammad according to that "moral" code.
325 61/12a: “(If you go to war and/or are killed for Muhammad*) He (Allah*) will forgive you your sins, and admit you to Gardens beneath which rivers flow, and to beautiful mansions in Gardens of eternity - - -.” There once was a cheap book named “All this and Heaven too”. It is similar here: all the rape and stealing and slaves you can manage – and for those good, benevolent deeds for your as benevolent god: The Paradise with more luxury and more women. Nice and attractive for naïve, poor and virile – not to say virulent – uncivilized young and not young men.
As for forgiving from Allah: See 2/187d above.
326 61/13e: “- - - Glad Tidings - - -“. Permission to steal/rob, suppress, rape, #enslave, keep harems, murder, etc. which are central parts of the Quran – are those “Glad Tidings”? Direct orders to go to war and kill and suppress and #enslave and loot and destruct – or be killed or mutilated yourself - are those “Glad Tidings”? Direct orders to concentrate only on religious knowledge (indirectly very clear in the Quran and directly and unmistakably very clear in Islam from very early – and totally dominant from 1095 AD) – are those “Glad Tidings”? Total destruction of all advanced countries and cultures they met in Africa, Europe and Asia at least as far east as what was then India – destruction it took the locals at least 200 years to overcome (if ever) – are those “Glad Tidings”? The inhumanity in the war religion – is that “Glad Tidings”? The reduction of women to third class citizens – if really citizens – (Islam’s claim that women were/are better off under Islam than before only is true for some parts of what is now the Muslim area, mainly in towns in parts of Arabia – and even there it had not necessarily been true today if it was not for the suppressing factor of Islam) – is that “Glad Tidings”? The #enslavement and suppression and mass murders/slaughtering of non-Muslims – were and are (see Muslims at waging war and terror even today) those “Glad Tidings”? What a war religion did and does to the societies and the personal soul – are those “Glad Tidings”? The suppression of thinking – all non-religious philosophy, and all religious non-conform (to Islam) thinking – is that “Glad Tidings”? Well, yes, for some Muslims – the ones of the warriors who survived in good health and became rich from looting, and the ones of the leaders who became rich in wealth and women from looting/#slave taking and taxation plus became powerful, then and today.
For everyone else it was everything from “Bad Tidings” to terror – and still is (just look at the backward societies it resulted in once the riches from looting came to an end – and even worse when the hard taxation or pogroms of non-Muslim underlings, reduced the number and/or economy of those underlings. Look f.x. at the development in India, China, Brazil of today – especially India and China were far behind the Islamic countries 60 years ago, but what has been happening during these years? Take away the oil, the money from outside the area and the ideas from outside, more or less forced on the clergy and the leaders from media and others – what has really happened in the Islamic area since f.x. 1950 compared to many other places?
Yes: For everyone else included most Muslims it was and still is everything from “Bad Tidings” to terror.
Especially so if Islam is a made up religion. And even more so if there somewhere is a true religion that Islam blocks its members from even looking for.
The very best one can say about the Quran and “Glad Tidings”, is that for some parts of it partly were glad tidings because they grew rich and/or powerful, and that for some others parts of it brings peace to the soul – like strong believers gain from ANY of the main religions.
For all others – included the majority of Muslims – it as said was “Bad Tidings”. And as said especially so if Islam is a made up religion. Which it seems to be from the proofs of the Quran and the words and life of Muhammad.
This claim about "glad tidings" is contradicted by stark and black reality and history.
######327 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.
- 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 v 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, Micha 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 slogan "war is betrayal" and "war is deceit").
- 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 approaching 60).
- 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 do 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 Marieh 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.
**328 68/12aa: "(Non-Muslims*) are (Habitually hindering (all) good - - -". A small piece of irony here is that nearly all the big international NGOs are started and run from the West (in the wide meaning of that word), that at least in Scandinavia it is said that Muslims give measurably less than others to help or relief organizations (an exception may be organizations working explicitly or mainly among Muslims), that termination of slavery started and was forced through by the West, etc. Even when the victims are Muslim, it happens that the West gives more help than even the rich oil Muslim states, not to mention the medium rich Muslim states.
329 68/46a: "- - - or is it that thou (Muhammad*) dost ask them (Muslims*) for a reward - - -". Muhammad claimed he demanded nothing from his followers - only 2.5% (to be exact 0 - 10%, but average 2.5%) of everything you owned - not of income, but of what you own - each year (called zakat or "poor tax", but only parts of it ended with the poor) + 20% of everything which was stolen/looted + 20% of all slaves taken + 100% of everything stolen and 100% of all slaves if the victim gave in without a fight + extra gifts from the followers + tax from the non-Muslims (jizya). There was no maximum on the jizya, and the result was that at times and places Muhammad's successors set it so high, that the non-Muslims were unable to pay, and had to flee the country, + 50% land tax for users of land he took for himself. So Muhammad really did not ask for a reward, yes.
On top of this his warriors sometimes did not even get their full share of the loot after a raid - so much so, that there was not a little grumbling because of it sometimes. (Muhammad used it as bribes to get new recruits or secure undecided ones, instead of paying his veteran warriors in full sometimes.)
**330 69/50a: “But truly (Revelation (of the Quran*)) is a cause of sorrow for the Unbelievers”. True, but for other reasons than the Quran indicates: Because of all the war and blood and terror Islam has represented through the ages - and the answer is NOT that also other religions have caused wars, etc. as that does not make a hate, rape, suppression, robbery and blood religion like Islam one single iota better – and in most other religions it is done in spite of the real religion, not because of. (CSPI informs that it has been calculated that through the times some 270 million non-Muslims have been killed because of Islam. Of these are some 120 millions from Africa (all the many millions of slaves brought out of Africa or died during transport are not included)). And because many felt pity for souls going lost in a religion built on a book where something is seriously wrong. (May be their own religion(s) also were wrong, but all the mistaken facts, etc., in a book pretending to be from an omniscient god, proves that in Islam there really is something that is wrong - and it makes one doubt very strongly that it really is a divine revelation).
Actually Islam is the only one of the big religions that itself directly proves – by means of their holy book – that it is something seriously wrong with the holy book and thus with the religion.
###331 70/29-30: “And those who guard their chastity, except with their wives and the (captives) whom their right hands possess (= slaves*) – for (then) they are not to be blamed - - -.” There is no blame for raping a captive woman taken captive in the name of Allah, or your slave women – just how and how often you want. A good and benevolent god with an excellent moral (at least for the Muslim free man).
"Do against others like you want other do against you" (Luke 6/31).
One of the really strong proofs for that Yahweh and Allah are not the same god, and for that Jesus and Muhammad are not in the same line of prophets (in addition to that Muhammad was not really a prophet. see 9/88b above.
332 70/30: “(Muslim men should have no sex*) Except with their wives and the (captives) whom their right hands possess - - -.” To force captive women or slave women to have sex – to rape them – was “lawful and good”! What a benevolent religion and what a benevolent god!!
333 73/20j: "- - - whatever good ye (people, Muslims*) send forth for your souls - - -". = Whatever good deeds you do in this life, will benefit you at the Day of Doom - and in the war religion Islam was turned into in/after 622 - 624 AD, nothing was a better deed than to go on raids or war for Muhammad - - - and nearly all of Muhammad's raids were for stealing/looting, taking captives for slaves or extortion, and later also for power and for forcing Islam on the Arabs and others - large parts of Arabia got the choice: "Become Muslims or fight us and die" (though many by Muhammad's successors, not by Muhammad himself). Also see the list about Muhammad's raids and wars, where the purpose of the raids is given, in https://www.1000mistakes.com .
334 74/5a: "And all abomination shun!" Thieving/robbing, womanizing, raping, suppressing, lying, breaking oaths, torturing, enslaving, slave trading, murder, mass murder, hate mongering, war mongering, raids for thieving and enslaving, wars - they all are "lawful and good" if done in the name of Allah (a fact which makes this even more repulsive), so - yes, "all abomination shun!".
This is one of the points which should have had an impact on the Quran's moral code, but the book uses a twisted - often very twisted - way of understanding that word, with the result that Muslims doing even horrible things, believe or at least are able to claim that what they do is good or even glorious.
335 74/25: "This (what Muhammad preached*) is nothing but the words of a mortal". Already at that time many saw something was seriously wrong with Muhammad's new religion. But he became military, economically (from stealing/robbing, slave taking, and extortion included heavy land tax, + tax) and by assassinations too strong for them.
336 74/56b: “He (Allah*) is the Lord of Righteousness - - -.”
- A Lord making laws that f.x. say that killing and raping and stealing are “lawful and good” (8/69a-d) at least when it is done in his name, and who says that a woman shall be strictly punished for indecency if she is raped and cannot bring 4 male witnesses to the very act, is not righteous – on the contrary: He belongs to the most inhuman, worst and most unjust beings in the entire universe. The last mentioned law – about punishing the raped woman – is among the very most unjust laws that have ever existed (may be together with the law that says that stealing/robbing, extortion and killing in jihad – everything is jihad – is “lawful and good”), especially as Allah (if he exists and is omniscient) knows she is not guilty. On many points the opposite of benevolent.
- A man correctly telling that a woman has been indecent is lying to Allah if he cannot produce 4 witnesses - even if an omniscient Allah has to know he is speaking the truth.
- A woman who has been raped, is forbidden to tell who it was, unless she can produce 4 MALE witnesses WHO HAS ACTUALLY SEEN THE ACT. If she cannot produce 4 such witnesses, and all the same tells who the rapist(s) is/are, she shall have 80 whiplashes for slander. And she also is to be strictly punished for illegal sex, even though an omniscient god knows she is telling the truth!! Probably the most unjust and amoral law we have ever seen in any not extremely primitive society or culture.
- It is 100% permitted for an owner to rape his female slaves or prisoners of war (may be this is why Muslims so often rape women during conflicts - f.x. earlier in Bangladesh and earlier and now in Africa). The Quran even directly tells that it is no sin to rape also your married slaves or married prisoners of war, as long as they are not pregnant. The price for the victims is of no interest for Islam and the Quran - and some Muslims.
- It is glorious and the Muslims’ right to steal, rob, plunder, and to kill non-Muslims during jihad - and almost any conflict is declared jihad (holy war). It is “just and good”.
337 76/8b: “And they feed, for the love of Allah - - - the captive - - -". Captives - slaves - is an accepted part of the Quran's teaching. And they did not only feed them - captives mainly were taken for 3 reasons: Extortion if the captive’s family had money, slave work, or sex/rape.
As for slaves there also is a deep difference between the Quran and NT: NT accepted that slavery at that time was a part of reality. The Quran promotes slavery actively as part of the reward for warriors - and income for the leaders - a reward including permission to rape women and girls if you take them captives/slaves. Jesus and Muhammad definitely were not in the same religion.
338 76/19a: "And around them (good Muslims in Paradise*) will (serve) youths - - -". This is one more case of the Quran's total lack of empathy with any others than the main persons - mainly the adult Muslim male. In the entire Quran - and as far as we have read in all central Islamic literature - there is never used one single thought or one single word about how Paradise is for these youths - and neither how it is to be forced to be sex toys and concubines for all kinds of primitive warriors for the houris. And for that case also not a word about how it was to be victims from Muslim conquest or thieving raids or slave hunting (that is to say; we have been told that slaves under Muslims were so well treated, that if they were given freedom, they did not want to go home. Some tellers of tales have never been slaves themselves - and besides; how would a freed slave from f.x. Niger be able to reach home? - and was there any home and any family left to return to after slave raiders had razed the village?).
339 77/50: "Then what Message, after all, will they (non-Muslims*) believe in?" At least one which possibly can be true, and which possible may come from a real god, and preferably a benevolent one - if such one exists. All the mistakes, contradictions, invalid pieces of logic, etc. in the Quran prove 100% and more that something is seriously wrong with the book, and also at least 110% that it is not from a god - to accuse a god for delivering a quality like in the Quran, is heretics, slander, and an insult against the god. Also the blood and war and suppression and slavery and stealing and lying and in other ways partly immoral moral code and partly immoral/unjust laws in the Quran prove that the book in case represents no good or benevolent god. Whenever there is a difference between reality and rosy words, we believe in the reality. No, it is not possible to believe in a book so full of mistakes like the Quran, delivered by a clearly unreliable man wanting riches (at least for bribes), power and women - not unless the message is backed by proofs, and not one single valid proof exists. Not one for Allah. And not one for Muhammad's connection to a god.
340 79/40b: "- - - and had restrained (their) soul from lower Desires". - like stealing/robbing in the name of Allah? - like raping in the name of Allah? - like making fellow humans slaves in the name of Allah? - like suppressing them in the name of Allah? - like destroying their loves in the name of Allah? - like torturing them in the name of Allah (f.x. skinning alive, burning alive, burying alive) - like murdering them in the name of Allah (often in sadistic ways)?
341 80/12: "- - - let whoso will, keep it (the teachings of Muhammad*) in remembrance." A warner. Around 611-614 AD this was Muhammad's message. Some 10 years later he started to tell his fellow Arabians - and Jews and others: Become Muslims and be rich from stolen goods and slaves or die. (Much of Arabia - and other places were won for Islam by the sword. This verse is abrogated – made invalid - and contradicted by at least these verses: 2/191, 2/193, 3/38, 3/85, 3/148, 4/90, 5/33, 5/72, 8/12, 8/38, 8/38-39 (the warning), 8/39, 8/60, 9/3, 9/5, 9/14, 9/23, 9/29, 9/33, 9/73, 9/123, 25/36, 25/52, 33/61, 33/73, 35/36, 47/4, 66/9. This includes many bloody threats, but also verses advising or permitting political, social, economical, etc. compulsion (with the sword in the background if you protest) – we mention a few here: 3/28, 3/85, 3/148, 4/81, 5/72, 5/73, 9/23, 14/7, 15/3, 33/73, 35/36. They are all quoted under 2/256. (At least 28 abrogations).
342 90/12-13: “And what will explain to thee (Muhammad/Muslims*) the path that is steep (in the meaning ascending fast, not that it is hard to walk?*)? – (It is): freeing the bondman, or giving of food in a day of privation (and some other things*) - - -.” To set free a slave was a good thing – but the main argument and the main moral (?) reason was not to help a fellow human, but to gain merit with Allah. With other words: To help yourself now for the coming next life.
343 90/13a: "(It is:) freeing a bondman - - -". (A90/7): "- - - the latter term (bondman*) covering all those forms of subjugation and exploitation - social, economical or political - which can be rightly described as 'slavery'" Does this include the subjugation of all non-Muslims, the exploitation of them by means of extra tax, often very heavy taxation of them, and refusing them any political and most other rights, which is the official goal for the Quran and Islam? (f.x. "suppress them till they pay zakat with willing submission").
344 90/13b: (A90/7) "(It is:) freeing a bondman - - -". Or does it mean: "(It is) the freeing of one's neck (from the burden of sin)"? Once more this clear language, impossible not to understand, in the Quran.
345 93/5b: "And soon will thy (Muslims'/Muhammad's? - unclear*) Guardian Lord (Allah*) give thee (that wherewith) thou (Muslim*) shalt be well-pleased." Wrong if you think about paradise, if the Quran is not from a god or if it for some other reasons does not tell the only and full truth. Correct if you think about the Muslims of Muhammad, and the permission the claimed god gave them to steal, extort, suppress, enslave, and kill and become rich.
346 108/3d: (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. There also is a slight possibility that he had one or two more son(s) - Tahir and/or Tayyab - but also he/they in case died very young. 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.
346 + 10.752 = 11.098 comments (+ basic comments/introductions).
>>> 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".