1000+ QURAN-COMMENTS - Skeptics facts and thoughts

Part I: Contents

1000+ tit-bits from the book.

(To find verses referred to here, you often have to go to the "complete" list in http://www.1000quran-comments.com from which the points below are cherry-picked.)

These are just tit-bits from the book "1000+ Quran-comments - skeptics' facts and thoughts". You will find the complete book under http://www.1000quran-comments.com. (The surah reference numbers are like in that book.)

In http://www.1000mistakes.com you find:

  1. Book A: "1000+ Mistakes in the Quran" - http://www.1000mistakes.com.
  2. Book B: "1000+ comments in Jihad - (un)holy war" - http://www.1000mistakes.com/jihad-holywar/index.php
  3. Book C (this one): "1000+ Quran-comments - skeptics' facts and thoughts" (1000+ tit-bits from the complete book) - http://www.1000mistakes.com/qurancomments.php.
  4. Book D: "Correcting much wrong refuting on http://www.1000mistakes.com - and a lesson in Muslim ways of debating.
  5. Book E: "What the Bible really says - when the Quran uses legends, fairy tales, or phantasy, instead of the Bible as sources for 'Biblical' texts, like it often does. (Expected late 2011 or early 2012).

In http://www.1000quran-comments.com you find:

  1. "1000+ Quran-comments - skeptics' facts and thoughts" (the "complete" list - 20ooo+ comments on the Quran) - as said in http://1000quran-comments.php.

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.

PART I: CONTENTS:

Part I: Contents

Part II Tit-bits from surahs 1 through 5.

Part III: Tit-bits from surahs 6 through 10.

Part IV: Tit-bits from surahs 11 through 20.

Part V: Tit-bits from surahs 21 through 30.

Part VI: Tit-bits from surahs 31 through 40.

Part VII: Tit-bits from surahs 41 through 60.

Part VIII: Tit-bits from surahs 61 through 80.

Part IX: Tit-bits from surahs 81 through 114.

For the "complete" list see "1000+ Quran-comments - skeptics' thoughts and facts" http://www.1000quran-comments.com.




PART II: SURAHS 1-5

THE LIST STARTS 4 - 5 A-4 PAGES DOWN.

Introduction.

The introduction is more or less similar for all surahs - skip it if you already have read it and if you do not need to refresh anything, and start at the comments a little further down.

Muslims tried to block us from the net (see "How to control if our information is correct"): An angry, excited Muslim attack against "bad" people telling facts Islam and Muslim scholars do not like - but not able to find one single piece of wrong information or of hate in https://www.1000mistakes.com worth mentioning in the complaint to strengthen it! Not even top marks from Cambridge or Oxford had been a better guarantee for that our information is correct.

##You will find pages on Internet trying to refute especially "1000+ Mistakes in the Quran" (http://1000quran-comments.com is young yet (launched Now. 2010 AD), but there are reactions to this page, too, already). Please read them, but check their claims, information and "information" - laugh at their mistakes and naivety, be stupefied at the lack of real knowledge, weep at the dishonesty (Islam is the only of the big religions which not only accepts, but often advises the use of dishonesty - al-Taqiyya, Kitman, deceit and even broken words/oaths (see separate chapters in "1000+ Mistakes in the Quran) - to promote or defend "the Religion of Truth" (quite an ironic slogan for a religion partly relying on dishonesty)).

###As for "1000+ Mistakes in the Quran" and all the mistakes, contradictions, cases of invalid logic and of unclear language, etc. in that book: One or a few mistakes, etc. could be accepted even from an omniscient god, as the ones writing it down might have made errors (the Quran is claimed sent down by Allah, but necessarily copied by humans). But to be able to believe that an omniscient god has such a bad command of the language, that humans have to explain away mistakes, etc. with "what he really meant" or "parable", etc. hundreds of times and more + hundreds of contradictions and cases of invalid logic and of unclear language, etc., takes a blindness, naivety or wishful thinking far beyond the incredible and deep into the unbelievable.

The Quran claims it quotes Allah when it says that the Quran has a plain, clear and easy to understand language which is to be understood easily and literally if nothing else is indicated (f.x. 3/7, 11/1, 15/1, 18/2, 18/54, 19/97, 26/2,27/1, 28/2, 36/69, 41/3, 43/2, 44/2, 44/58, 54/17, 54/22, 54/32), and that only bad people "sick of heart" or "in whose hearts is perversity" (f.x. 3/7) look for hidden meanings - meanings "only Allah can understand". Then one has to be naive in the extreme to believe in Muslims' claims that all the mistakes, contradictions, invalid logic, unclear language, etc. in the book in reality are not mistakes, etc. but only the omniscient god who are so clumsy expressing himself that he has been unable to say what he meant, and that clever Muslims have to help him and tell what he "really" meant or explain that "it is parables". Or that Allah does not mean what he clearly says, but that the mistake, etc. in reality is an allegory - a hidden meaning - and clever humans have to explain the "real" meaning of his helplessly chosen words. Strangely you mainly find such claims from Muslims in connection with mistakes, etc., - clearly the omniscient Allah is not mastering neither science nor the plain Arab language properly, and really do need the help from intelligent and clever mere humans to be able to express himself. One or a few such cases should be disturbing for the believers, as an omnipotent god does not make mistakes and he also should be a master of expressing himself clearly and impossible to mistake in clear words with distinct and unmistakable meaning. One or a few cases could be explainable, but when it runs in the hundreds and even a few thousands of such cases, it requires blindness, naivety and/or wishful thinking beyond the unbelievable to be able to believe in such "explanations". Even with lots of wishful thinking it takes blindness and naivety far into the incredible to be able to make oneself believe this.

"One case is coincidence, two cases are suspicious, three cases are proof", Stalin said. Hegre Are May 㟢e 3000 cases!!


Our books are to be read and studied - and printed or copied in diskettes or Xerox to be given away (f.x. as promotion - diskettes and paper are cheap) or sold at meetings, in the street, in shops - everywhere. The Main ting is to spredd te informasjon. We also think at least "1000+ Mistakes in the Quran" should be printed at least in paper-back - it will sell well at least here in the US, in Europe and - strangely (or may be not so strangely) - in India. There will be no royalty to pay - our pages are for free. (And "free publicity" from Islam and Muslims will make it sell even better - though the new Danish book containing the famous Muhammad cartoons has until now (9. Oct. 2010) not made much noise - perhaps the cases of western way of debating Muslims have met, slowly are teaching them civilized behavior? (To stand up for free speech is the only way of teaching them to accept free speech).

Our books are intended for persons with no, little or medium knowledge of the Quran. This means some 99.8% of non-Muslims and 90-95% of Muslims. (It may be a surprise, but most Muslims do not know the Quran well - many have just superficial knowledge or superficial knowledge + better knowledge of cherry-picked parts of it.)

In addition they are meant for Muslims with better knowledge of the book, but with no, little or moderate knowledge of the background scriptures, mainly the Bible (for the sake of convenience, we use the word "Bible" also for the Jewish scriptures, even when NT sometimes is irrelevant for the point debated just there, and for the same reason we use the name "Jews" for the descendants of Jacob also in times before the name really was coined).

And finally it is intended for the really learned scholars - to force them to think over difficult point to be able to explain to us that we are wrong and to correct us.


PS: Beware that Islam in reality are many things. There is Islam like you find it described in the Quran - what some scientists call "Islam I". Then there is Islam as it is interpreted by Muslim scholars (Islam II), which may vary not a little. And you have Islam as it is thought and practiced different places and to different times (Islam III) - which may vary quite a lot. We mainly write about Islam I, because this is the basic, and this is how anyone finds it when they search for answers or ideas in the Quran, and not least: This is how the Quran itself says it shall be understood (f.x. 3/7b-e, 6/114c-d, 11/1b, 16/103f). And not to forget: Islam I is how the conservative Muslims, fundamental Muslims, terrorists, etc. - the best organized and thus powerful groups in Islam - read it, often strengthened by "strong" interpretations.


To find the real Muhammad in the Quran, you skip the glorious and glorifying words about him, but read what he demanded and did, what moral he stood for and what rules he introduced, etc., and think over what this tell about him. Glorious words are cheap and are used by all dictators and politicians - like Muhammad - and by many others for propaganda. Deeds, etc. is the reality and tell the truth. When there is divergence between nice words and reality, we always believe in the reality. And even in the Quran the historical Muhammad is very different from the glossy picture Muslims and Islam - and the propaganda in the Quran - paint.

In the same way you find the real Allah and the real Islam.


Beware that we often do not give conclusions, but ask questions or simply give the information and you have to think it over yourself what the information really tells about the Quran, Muhammad and/or Islam. We also frequently use the Quran's claims or information and treat a point as if this was true, to show the conclusions it gives. In both cases this partly is done to highlight a point in the best possible way, and partly to try to make the reader think things over him-/herself.


And beware of one more thing: If it is true what Internet now (Oct./Nov. 2010) tells, that Muslims have launched a partly falsified Bible - falsified in a pro-Muslim direction - and with comments not always honest (Muslims f.x. too often find points in texts which - with or without some twisting - among different possible ways of understanding it, have one they like. Then they skip all other interpretations, and in addition do not say that "this is a possible understanding", but all too often declare: "This is the explanation!", or "This is the Truth!") If they now have made a partly falsified Bible, they are within a solid Muslim tradition going back at least to the many falsified scriptures made up in Muslim Spain in the 8. and 9. century. (The famous and infamous apocryphal - made up - "Gospel of Barnabas" may be one of them.) Lying (al-Taqiyya and Kitman) to defend or promote the religion is no sin in Islam - on the contrary; it is advised "if necessary" to reach a "good" result.

But how much are tales from persons and a religion relying partly on lies, worth? - how much is truth and how much is al-Taqiyya (lawful lies)? Not to mention: What about the religion itself? - how much is truth and how much is al-Taqiyya?


Points to remember before you start reading.

THE USE OF http://www.1000quran-comments.com (and http://www.1000mistakes.com ):

1. We repeat: Some time in 2010 we were to visit www.faithfreedom.org, but made the mistake of writing www.faithfreedom.com. Up came a disinformation page from Islam telling that there had not been any activity on the page for some months. The clear intention was to cheat new readers to believe Faith Freedom was inactive. This kind of dishonesty is permitted for a number of wide topics in Islam - f.x. for cheating women or saving your money - and not only permitted, but advised to use "if necessary" when it comes to defend or promote Islam.

Because we did not want to meet the same dishonesty, we decided not to put all of it only in http://1000mistakes.com , but also use this name for an extra page and put some of the highlights there, too. So now you in http://www.1000quran-comments.com to find a number of highlights about the topic, but go directly to http://www.1000quran-comments.com to find the "complete" list of comments - on average 2-3 comments for each verse in the Quran.

2. Read first these 2 small chapters in "1000+ Mistakes in the Quran" (= http://www.1000mistakes.com ): "Some Essentials for how the Quran is to be read and understood" (VII-10-1) and "The Quran is to be understood literally if nothing else is indicated" (VII-10-2).

3. NB: As for Internet: We frequently receive empty messages or messages which are unreadable because the letters are mixed in one porridge. If you have something essential to say and do not get an answer, try again - we try to answer all polite letters. And one more thing: If you want an answer you have to write your mail address, because in our "answer box" your address will not show unless it is written in the text.

ABOUT THE PAGES:

4. Please inform all and everybody and all relevant fora - f.x. Internet pages for debate or information - about the address http://www.1000mistakes.com. It is information that is urgently needed by many, not least by Muslims. No god made a book with so many mistakes and other wrongs - and if the Quran and Islam are made up by humans or dark forces, where are the followers of this inhumanly dark and brutal war religion heading for in a possible next life?

5. http://www.1000mistakes.com is one of 9 pages which Muslim organizations warned especially against in 2009 - it could make especially proselytes lose their belief in Islam; correct and "down-to-the-earth" information works. In this connection it is worth noticing that in the "warning" http://www.1000mistakes.com was one of 3 which neither was accused of bringing wrong facts, nor of being a hate page.

6. Abbreviations used: YA = Abdullah Yusuf Ali: "The Meaning of the Quran". A (or MA) = Muhammad Asad: "The Message of the Quran". OT = Old Testament of the Bible (on which the Mosaic (Jewish) religion is built - NB: for the sake of convenience we) NT = New Testament of the Bible (on which the Christian religion is built - with OT mainly as historical background).

7. Words in ( ) are from the original English translated texts - often additions or explanations made by the translator. But if there in addition is a "star" inside like this ( *) the comment inside is made by us. 1 - 3 ** or 1 - 3 ## (stronger) in front of our serial number for a verse or part of verse means NB or stronger. And NB: If there are points we have not commented on, that does not mean they could not merit a comment.

8. As none of us originally had English as our mother language, and only these last years have had English as our 1. language, there will be imperfections in our English (and our references to Arab are taken from other sources as our Arab is not up to that job). But we must admit that each time we receive a complaint where excited and angry Muslims find nothing but not perfect English to complain about, we feel it is a diamond compliment to the quality of our work. But in so much stuff there has got to be other mistakes, too - we are not gods like Allah. Though the fact that Muslims and others all over the world - we after all are on top of Google and Yahoo on "Mistakes in the Quran" - in these 2.5 years have reported exactly no - zero - mistakes except for linguistic ones, proves and documents that every mistake, etc. we have pointed to in the Quran, are real errors, there may be wrong points somewhere. But if we have made mistakes (but real ones), please inform us - there is so much which is wrong in the Quran, that there is no reason for us or for anybody else to point to any but real mistakes, contradiction, cases of invalid logic, unclear language, etc. If we have overlooked points which ought to be included (but real ones), please inform us about this, too.

9. As mentioned none of us has English as mother language, and there may be linguistic errors. But these means little for the real contents - you may be an excellent farmer even if you are a lousy fisherman.

10. As http://www.1000mistakes.com is blocked in some Muslim areas (f.x. Pakistan) which shows they are afraid of it and lack arguments (if they had real arguments for that http://www.1000mistakes.com is wrong, blocking it was unnecessary) - "cut and paste" whatever you want from it and send, if you want to inform about or to debate there. Remember to omit the name http://www.1000mistakes.com.

11. If we are blocked centrally - f.x. by spam (there is too much at times already from unfriendly sources) we will reopen with a new address somewhere else, and announce the new address on f.x. http://www.topix.com/forum/religion/islam and/or the pages of http://www.faithfreedom.org.

12. Muslims often haughtily tell that many through the times have told negative facts about Islam without an effect. For one thing it is not true - many have left Islam. But in addition some things are different now:

  1. Internet and the modern flow of information. The Mullahs and imams slowly are losing their monopoly on information. They can block Internet - like f.x. Pakistan has done for our books (and thus show that our information is too difficult for them to meet or argue against) - but they can block it only partially and information and facts will drip in even there.
  2. Many non-Muslims know more about the Quran and about Islam than before, and thus know more about what they are talking about - and thus easier can point to the weak spots of that book and of Islam.
  3. Many Muslims get more education and thus easier see the errors in the Quran - and the inhumanities.
  4. There now are much more - and correct - information about the Quran and about Islam, and f.x. about the impossibility that the Quran can be made by any omniscient god. It is heresy and slander and an insult against any god to accuse him of having sent down a book so full of mistakes, contradictions, invalid logic, unclear language, etc. Information which slowly reaches also Muslims. F.x. our books.
  5. Science has found that 3. generation Muslim emigrants in "the West" are losing interest in Islam - information works.

13. ### Muslims insist it is impossible to translate the Quran correctly (just like the Japanese used to do about their language before they learnt other languages well - then they stopped claiming it). That is rubbish. What one human brain is able to think, another human brain at the same level of intelligence is able to understand. At most it will take some extra explanation.

14. Science talks about Islam I = Islam like you find it in the Quran, Islam II = Islam like it is explained (and problems "explained") by Islamic scholars, and Islam III = Islam like it is told by imams and mullahs and practiced by the followers - which may vary a lot from time to time and from place to place - there is a great difference between Islam in f.x. Sabah, Malaysia, and f.x. in North Pakistan or Saudi Arabia. We as mentioned mainly concentrate on Islam I because that is the basic, and that is how every Muslim meets the texts when he open the book. But we touch Islam II and III a little.

ABOUT THE CONTENTS OF THE PAGES:

15. Comment 141 (to verse 6/149) in "The Message of the Quran" (see point 5) explains (translated from Swedish) about Allah's claimed omniscience vs. man's claimed free will:

"With other words: The real connection between Allah's knowledge about the future (and consequently about the unavoidability in what is to happen in the future*) on one side and man's relatively (!!*) free will on the other two statements that seems to contradict each other lies outside what is possible for humans to understand, but as both statement are made by Allah (in the Quran*) both must be true". Unbelievable. Blind belief is the only correct and intelligent way of life according to Islam, even in the face of the utterly impossible!!- this even though that in all other aspects of life, blind belief is the most sure way to be cheated.

15a. ###Prayers are essential and one of the 5 religious "pillars" in the Quran and Islam. But: What is the idea of praying for anything in Islam? According to the Quran - and Hadiths - Allah has predestine every detail in your and everyone else's life according to his unchangeable Plan - a plan "nobody and nothing" can change. According to Hadiths f.x. your time of death and whether you are to end in Hell or Heaven is decided by Allah 5 months before you are born. Thus prayers can change nothing and is a waste of time and effort - a fact (if the stated predestination is correct - and if not the Quran is wrong) no Muslim ever mention or tries to explain. The 5 fixed prayers also is one of the 100% proofs for that Yahweh and Allah is not the same god: For Allah they are so essential that he has made it one of the 5 "pillars" of Islam - Yahweh does not care about such formalism at all; pray when there is a reason, a need, or a wish.

15b.###From 6/149a: "You meet the lack of moral backbone and the ability in Islam and in Muslims to overlook or explain away even the strongest facts, at every point in the Quran where there are mistakes, contradictions or other proofs for that something is wrong in the Quran, and thus with Muhammad and with his religion - proofs they are unable to face for that Islam as told in the Quran is not a religion, but a superstition".

15c:#### from 9/39a: "Unless ye (Muslims*) go forth (in war/battle*), He (Allah*) will punish you with a grievous penalty (normally in the Quran a synonym for Hell*) - - -". An order not possible to misunderstand for a pious - or fanatic - Muslim.

Yes, a religion built on peace, goodness and heavenly ethics. Plus a good and benevolent god.

This is the order also today - see 9/38d.

This verse tells horribly much about Islam as it is thought in the Quran - and some other places.

16. There exists a letter dated 27. Dec. 1998 in which is admitted rather reluctantly that there are no proofs for Allah, and that it is not possible to prove him. (Actually it is not possible to prove a god - this only the god himself can do by doing something supernatural.) An additional point here is that if there is no proof for Allah and impossible to prove him, automatically there also is no proof for, and impossible to prove Muhammad's claimed connection to a god. And if there is no Allah and/or no connection between Muhammad and a god, what then is Islam?

17. ####Further: All the mistakes, contradictions, cases of invalid logic, etc. in that book, prove 100% that the Quran is not made by an omniscient god - no god makes such and so many mistakes, etc. If then Islam is a made up religion, what then about all the Muslims who have been prohibited from looking for a real religion (if such one exists)? And where will they in case wake up after living and practicing such an inhuman war religion (f.x. it's partly immoral moral code, rules for thieving/robbing, lying (al-Taqiyya, etc.), raping girls and women, enslaving, suppression, war, etc.) like Islam is according to the Quran (and to Hadiths), if there is a second life with a benevolent god somewhere? - Hell or Paradise?

18. NB and PS: No matter how sure you are about something, if it is not proved, it is not knowledge, only belief or strong belief, and can be wrong. Only what is proved or possible to prove is knowledge. And remember: "A proof is one or more PROVED facts which can give only one conclusion". Islamic debate and information normally build only on claims and statements which are not proved, so demand proofs in any debate with Muslims (you seldom will get them, and never in basic questions - their method normally is to throw out claims, and demand proofs from you for the opposite, and such proofs can be difficult there and then, and then they have "won" the debate, even if they may be wildly wrong. Demand proofs for their claims first, after all it is they who launch the claims and then it is their job to prove them - and you win many a debate just on this because Islam has no proofs on any central point of the religion).

19. But do remember that many uneducated Muslims honestly believe slogans like "Islam is the religion of peace" - they simply have not read much of the Quran, or they have read the glorious words, and are unable to see the harsh realities told in the book by the claims and deeds and introduced rules it tells about. The flowering words is the propaganda, the demands and deeds and rules are the reliable realities. The religiously educated ones know better - - - which sometimes s difficult to believe from what we hear from mosques, madrasas (religious schools) and other fora.

20. Note how often the word "the Truth" and similar are used in the Quran, mostly as a claim for the claimed high value and quality of the texts. In normal life the ones needing to tell so often and strongly that they are speaking the truth, are the ones not telling the truth and having no way of proving their tales - natural if they are made up. Simply the cheat and the deceiver. We also quote the infamous "Minister of Propaganda" in Nazi-Germany: Joseph Goebbels: "Tell a lie often enough, and people starts believing it". (The word also is used in the Bible, but far from so often, and "not spoken with such big letters".

SOME RELIGIOUS FACTS FROM THE PAGES:

21. We remind you that Muhammad claimed Allah = Yahweh - a claim which is easy to see is wrong, as the fundamental ideas and ideologies in the teachings/religions are too deeply different (Jesus love and peace and empathy, Muhammad Nazi-like (Carl Gustav Young) haughtiness, stealing/robbing, rape of girls and women, discrimination and war - and lawful dishonesty (al-Taqiyya, etc)). Because of this claim, he uses the name Allah for Yahweh (God). The differences between Yahweh (especially as we meet him in NT and his New Covenant - f.x. Luke 22/20) are so obvious and so easy to see (claims never documented by Islam, but proved wrong by science as they and also Islam have proved the Bible is not falsified), that mostly we do not bother to comment on it.

22. You often meet the claimed miracles connected to Muhammad used as arguments for that he must have been a real prophet and with connections to a god. You find these claims in the Hadiths only, not in the Quran.

This is very strange and peculiar - and revealing for the mentality of Muslim leaders and scholars - as the Quran indirectly, but most clear proves that all those stories are made up ones and untrue. If there had been miracles connected to or preformed by Muhammad:

  1. Opponents had not asked for miracles to prove Muhammad's tales and claims - they had known there were miracles.
  2. If they all the same had asked, they had promptly been told about miracles which had happened.
  3. Followers had definitely not asked - they had known about each and every miracle.
  4. If any follower all the same had asked, you bet they had got information instead of "explanations away".
  5. If there had been miracles, his followers had used them to propagate the religion. There is no tale about this being done in the Quran.
  6. Also Muhammad had used them in his preaching. There is no such case in the Quran and hardly in the Hadiths.
  7. And the strongest of the indirect, but clear and solid proofs: If there had been miracles connected to or performed by Muhammad, he had not had to explain away - even lying in the Quran - requests for proofs for his religion and god and for his own connection to a god: He simply had told about the miracles. There are many places in the Quran where Muhammad must use fast talk and worse to explain away requests for proofs/miracles. There is not one case of him telling about miracles connected to himself or performed by him.

In addition there is the fact that Islam itself tells: "There are no miracles connected to Muhammad, except the (claimed*) delivery of the Quran".

Also f.x. Aishah - Muhammad's famous and infamous child wife - clearly states in Hadiths that Muhammad made no miracles - f.x. was "unable to see the unseen" = unable to make prophesies.

All the same imams, mullahs, scholars and Islamic literature tell about, glorifies, and use as proofs for Muhammad and Allah the tales/legends about such miracles - and therefore many Muslims honestly believe in them; Of course their cherished religious leaders tell them the truth!? But it is permitted in Islam - even advised - to lie "if necessary" to defend or promote the religion (al-Taqiyya - the lawful lie, Kitman - the lawful half-truth, "war is deceit" - and "everything" is war, and "break even your oaths - pay expiation if necessary - if that gives a better result".

This is a kind of dishonesty you do not expect from honest leaders in an honest religion, and it tells not a little about the honesty, reliability, etc. and about the religious leaders in Islam.

Worse: As these stories about the miracles are untrue, but glorified by Muslims, how much more is untrue in the religion?

Worst: If the Quran is a made up book - and it clearly is not from a god (too many mistaken facts and other errors, too many contradictions and unclear language, too much invalid logic, etc.) - what then is Islam? - and where will Muslims end if there is a next life?

SOME COMMENTS:

23. One standard way for Muslims to explain away mistakes or bad meanings, is to claim that it means something else than what the words say - "they are parables". But for one thing the Quran itself as mentioned above states in words not possible to misunderstand, that the verses are to be understood literally if nothing else is said, and that only "those with an illness in their hearts" go looking for hidden meanings - meanings only Allah can understand according to the book (3/7 and others). But worse: Is it possible for anyone really to believe that an omniscient god is so clumsy expressing himself, that he needs a lot of help from more of often less educated humans to explain helpless clumsiness and contradictions and to explain away that this god is so retarded that he often says other things than he mean, and that thus we clever humans have to tell what he "really" means in his stumbling over wrong facts, etc.?

24. It would be possible to explain away one or a few mistakes, etc. in a book made by a god. But to be able to believe in the "explaining" away for hundreds and hundreds and more mistaken facts, invalid logic, contradictions, etc., takes either a well developed mental blindness - it is impossible to see, not to mention admit even for yourself what you strongly do not want to see - or a naivety far beyond what normally is claimed possible and deep into the incredibly unbelievable. It also is slander, an insult and heresy to blame a quality like in the Quran with all its errors, etc. on an omniscient god. But then it take a mental stamina and backbone many do not have, to face the possibility that the foundation you have built your culture and your personal life on - your religion - may be a made up fairy tale or legend. Or simply a tool for gaining power.

25. Some special words and expressions:

"Arabism": Anything which is typical only or mainly for Arabia or its near neighbor or other areas with similar climate, nature, culture, etc. there are lots of cases in the Quran which indicates that the maker of the book thought such conditions were the typical ones for humans - and lots and lots of cases where relevant differences from other parts of the world are not mentioned, this even though Allah is claimed to be an omnipotent god for all the world. There are more than the ones we list.

"Historical anomaly": The Quran claims that Allah sent down copies of the claimed "Mother Book" (13/39b, 43/4b+c, 85/21-22) in Heaven to prophets and messengers from Allah in the past (Hadiths mention 124000 or may be even more through the times from Adam to Muhammad - and all over the world. The Quran is such a copy, which means that the other copies are similar to the Quran - all copies of a book have to be similar naturally. What we call a "historical anomaly" in our book, is something which cannot have been written into the Quran a long time before it happened or was said (Islam claims it was written by Allah even before man was created, or it has existed since eternity and was never written (as nobody reveres his own work like it is said Allah does with the original book, the claimed "Mother Book (13/39b, 43/4b, 85/21-22) the second explanation may be the most likely(?) one) , unless there is total predestination of everything, like the Quran claims and states (as normal without any proofs) many places (but in this case free will for man is impossible). We stress that what we call historical anomalies mostly had not been such ones if things like in normal history were told after it happened. What make them anomalies, is the claim that the claimed "Mother Book" was written long time before things happened or were said, and then copies of this claimed "Mother Book" was sent down to all the claimed 124000 or more prophets and messengers through the times and all over the world, so that these persons could read also about what was to happen in their future - Moses surely would like to know how his people were to survive in the Sinai Desert, not to mention that Jonah would like to know the fish would spit him out - - - and both would like to learn about the great Muhammad who would be the only prophet(?) really succeeding with the "real" message of the old god Yahweh, now renamed(?) Allah. Remember that as all the books claimed sent down were copies of the claimed "Mother Book", they had to be more or less identical to the Quran, as the Quran was such a copy, too, Islam claims.

Also a prophet/messenger/reader might feel unsure about things because the incident told about had not happened yet or the person referred to was not born or at least not active yet when the mentioned prophet/messenger/reader lived, and perhaps in a for the reading prophet totally unknown culture (f.x. an aborigine prophet in Amazonas 15000 years ago - according to the Quran all humanity sporadically had its messengers to all times and all over the world (f.x. 6/42, 6/90, 10/47, 16/36, 35/24)) - remember here that the claimed Mother Book as mentioned was made by Allah before man was created, or perhaps has existed since eternity, and that a copy to f.x. Abraham some 3800 - 4000 years ago, Noah some 5600 years ago or may be more (the number is uncertain), must be similar to the Quran Muhammad god - if not it is not a copy of the same book. There are many more than the ones we list.

An extra point here which the Quran never mentions and Muhammad, Muslims and Islam never explain, is that if the claimed "Mother Book" was made before man was created, or even has existed since eternity, the unchangeable Quran (Allah's words cannot be changed - f.x. 10/64) - copy of that "Mother Book" - and the older copies claimed sent to older prophet, had to be a pure book of foretelling about the future for the older prophets. In their copies they could read about future prophets like Moses and Jesus and others, about things which would happen in the future, etc. And f.x. Jacob could read about what had happened to his son Joseph, and that they would meet again. There is no - no - mentioning in the Quran of this obvious and self evident effect of such a book if it was given to the claimed prophets of the old - may be too difficult for Muhammad to explain? (Muslims claim that there were different books for different times, but this is strongly contradicted in the Quran by what is said about the claimed "Mother Book", and if what the different copies the claimed prophets got according to the Quran, were copies of the same claimed "Mother Book", the copies just were new copies with identical texts). Islam never mention that because of this the old prophets would have good overview of main points and persons in the future, and never explain neither this nor why this effect never is mentioned in the Quran - actually the texts in the book pretends this effect never existed. Unexplainable - like total predestination versus free will for man.

A small problem: The Quran on one side says that the claimed "Mother Book" is eternal. On the other hand it says that the books varied - "each time a book" - as times varied. It does not explain how exact copies - like the Quran - of one and the same eternal book can be different.

NB: There are many more historical anomalies in the Quran than the ones we mention - everything written in the Quran in the beginning of time which the free will of man - acts, words, etc - could influence, are such anomalies, as if a person changed his mind a little, the text would be wrong, and thus the only possibility for that it could be written that early and still be reliable, is that predestination was and is absolute - - - and thus no free will for man.

For short: A HISTORICAL - OR TIME - ANOMALY IN THIS BOOK IS SOME PERSON OR SOME HAPPENING WRITTEN ABOUT IN THE CLAIMED ETERNAL "MOTHER BOOK" BEFORE IT HAPPENED OR THEY LIVED, AND THUS HAD NO MEANING - OR WERE REVEALING THE FUTURE - WHEN COPIES OF THIS CLAIMED BOOK WERE SENT DOWN FOR READENG TO CLAIMED MESSENGERS OR PROPHETS LIVING BEFORE THE HAPPENINGS OR MENTIONED PERSONS, AND THUS WERE TIME ANOMALIES TO THOSE READERS.

"This could not reliably be written in the claimed 'Mother Book' long time before it happened, unless predestination is 100%" or similar sentences. Also this in reality are historical anomalies, but stronger. Historical anomalies/time anomalies are destroying for the credability of any story. In the Quran an explanation had been possible if a god had been behind the anomalies, but all the errors in a book claimed to come from a god, proves absolutely that no god has created it or in other ways certifies it - not to mention reveres it in his heaven, like Muslims claim. So much is wrong in the Quran, and the general quality, except perhaps its eloquence when written in Arabic, of the book so miserable - in spite of Islam's claims (read it yourself and see) - that it is an insult, slander and heresy to blame a god for it. No omniscient god makes mistakes, contradictions, etc. There are many more historical anomalies - both "normal" and these stronger ones - in the Quran than the ones we point to. Just go looking, and you will find them. As mentioned: Historical anomalies are destroying for the reliability of any story - except in science fiction and in fairy tales - and of course the stronger the anomalies, the less credability.

"Not in the Bible". This simply means that what is told in the debated point in the Quran, is not from the Bible, and there is nothing closely similar in the Bible. Beware that there are much more of this than the cases we list - there is much in the Quran which is not from the Bible or has any parallel in the Bible, even in the stuff pretending to be Biblical stuff - one of the many indications for that Allah is not the same god as Yahweh/God and for that Muhammad was not in the same line of prophets as the Jewish ones - in both cases the contents of those two books would have had to be at least roughly similar, which they very far form are. (And remember here that both science and Islam has brought formidable proofs for that the Bible is not falsified - the standard claim and the standard way out of problems for Muslims claiming there are no mistakes in the Quran). Also see 12/30-34 about this.

"Contradicting the Bible". Similar comments like for "Not in the Bible", except that here you find similar texts in the Bible, but with contents contradicting the Quran. It is up to anyone what they want to believe, but beware that in any normal scientific evaluation, the Bible will be judged to be more likely to be true - if any is true - than the Quran. (There are several valid reasons for this - and especially so as the claim that the Quran is from a god is proved incorrect by all the mistakes, etc. in the Quran: No omniscient god makes mistakes, etc. "en gros" - and Muhammad had no other sources, except old legends, fairy tales, etc. about this.) There are many more than the "few" we list.

NB: In most cases we do not tell which of the two books is right or wrong. We just points to some of the places where there are differences, and as it is the Quran which claims the Bible is falsified, according to normal rules it then is Islam's and the Muslims' job to prove what they claim, and prove that the Quran is correct.

"Incompatible with the Bible". These are cases where the Quran clearly is contradicted on central or essential points by the Bible - so central or essential that it is clear both standpoints cannot come from the same god. Each and every of these incompatible points separately prove that Allah and Yahweh cannot be the same god, not to mention how strong this proof becomes when you combine the effect of several or all such incompatible points. These points prove very strongly that Allah and Yahweh are not the same deity. (And in addition there are the other proofs and indications for the same). There are more than the ones we list (we do not use this expression often - a number of places we call contradictions in reality are incompatible with the Bible).

NB: In most cases we do not tell which of the two books is right or wrong. We just points to some of the places where there are differences, and as it is the Quran which claims the Bible is falsified, according to normal rules it then is Islam's and the Muslims' job to prove what they claim, and prove that the Quran is correct.

NB: WE REPEAT THAT WE JUST MENTION SOME OF THESE 5 KINDS OF POINTS, BUT FAR FROM ALL - JUST GO LOOKING, AND YOU WILL FIND MORE.

26. The hard fact is that the Quran seems to be one of the apocryphal (made up) religious books, but further removed from Christianity and/or the Mosaic religion than most of the others - on the fringe even of the apocryphal literature simply.

27. ###Muslims further insist it is impossible to translate the Quran (just like the Japanese used to say about Japanese before they learnt other languages well). That is rubbish. What one human brain is able to think, another human brain at the same level of knowledge and intelligence is able to understand. At most it will take a little extra explanation.

28. As for point 27 just above, this claim is impossible to combine with the claim that similar copies were sent to the other claimed prophets through the times and all over the world - nearly none of them would understand Arab. (Some Muslims claim that the reason why only Arab can be used, is that it is Arab which is spoken in Heaven. But Arab like all languages "drifts" - words disappear or change meaning, new words comes, pronunciation may change. Is it then the Arabs who ape the "drift" in Heaven, and how do they in case learn about the changes - or is it Allah and his angels who "ape" the Arabs? Some Muslims even have "proved" that Arab is the original language in the world. Believe it if you want and are totally uneducated.)

29. This one we repeat: Since http://www.1000mistakes.com was first posted on Internet in spring 2008 it has become a central reference book. But there still are many who do not know about it. Please post the addresses http://www.1000mistakes.com and http://1000quran-comments.com on all your debate pages, information pages, and other relevant pages on the net - the pages you use, the pages you know about, and the pages you come across. Not for the benefit of us, but for the benefit of the ones who may need or want some of the enormous amount of information in the page. Information - quotes - not even Islam claims are wrong (even though they dislike what the quotes tell about the religion). The information may benefit:

  1. Muslims unsure about Islam.
  2. Muslims thinking about leaving Islam.
  3. Muslims looking for facts concerning Islam.
  4. Muslims trying in rational ways to evaluate their religion.
  5. Non-Muslims thinking about converting to Islam.
  6. Non-Muslims seeking information about Islam.
  7. Non-Muslims debating with Muslims - Muslims f.x. sometimes are not always 100% honest in such debates.
  8. Politicians and others meeting Muslims in daily life or job.

As for debate pages, the address should be mentioned every now and then (once a fortnight? - once a month each place?), because as new "letters" are posted, they "cover up" a posted address, and it drifts into oblivion if it is not repeated.

At the time of writing just this (21. Aug. 10), we have up to between 6000 and 7000 hits a day - yesterday f.x. 6611 hits. The average of course is lower, but all the same we reach a lot of people. With your help we may reach a lot more - this is information which should reach as many as possible.

Experience by now has shown that Muslims often have problems arguing against http://www.1000mistakes.com - they may pooh-pooh it, or deny it or refuse to believe it, but the proofs are too strong to argue against for many. Therefore you not only are spreading the address by referring to it - you may also win a point or the debate by referring to it and its address as an argument.


30. To Muslim fanatics: Do you want to kill us for writing these books, showing you facts you do not like to meet? - it often is easier to murder than to meet unwanted facts or "the lie of life" to quote Henrik Ibsen, which takes a lot of backbone. But it is too late as the books already are published: The cats are out of the bag.


Ps: We remind you that Muhammad claimed Allah = Yahweh - a claim which is easy to see is wrong, as the fundamental ideas and ideologies in the teachings/religions are too deeply different (Jesus love and peace and empathy, Muhammad Nazi-like (Carl Gustav Yung) haughtiness, discrimination and war - and lawful dishonesty (al-Taqiyya, etc. and stealing/robbing/looting, etc.)). Because of this claim, he uses the name Allah for Yahweh. This mistake is so obvious and so easy to see (and the claim never documented by Islam, but proved wrong by science - and by Islam), that mostly we do not bother to comment on it.

Islam also claims that the Bible is falsified and that it has been changed through the centuries. Ask for proof any time you hear this - the claims are wrong and never documented. Both science and even more so Islam have thoroughly proved these claims wrong by being unable to find one single proved falsification among all the know some 44000 relevant manuscripts and fragments. (Guess if Islam had announced it with huge and capital letters if they had found even one proved case!)

Finally two small quotes from the Bible and Jesus for comparison to the Quran and Islam:

  1. I: (Matt.7/12): "So in everything, do to others what you would have them do to you, for this sums up the Law and the Prophets.
  2. Compare this to the Quran's ethical, moral and judicial codes: Totally different too many places. One of the 100% proofs for that Yahweh and Allah are not the same god - not unless he is strongly schizophrenic.
  3. Compare this to Muhammad's teaching and behavior and raids and wars: It is very difficult to be more unlike than Jesus and Muhammad - one of the 100% proofs for that Jesus was not in the same line of prophets like Muhammad (and Muhammad on top of all was no real prophet - he only "borrowed" that impressive and imposing title - as he even according to Islam was unable to make prophesies) - they not only were not in the same line; they were not in the same moral world even.
  4. Muslims often cherry-pick a brutal piece of the Mosaic law, and say that as Jesus accepted that law (in spite of that even the Quran says he changed it), this justifies and sanctifies the brutal parts of Muslim laws, moral codes, etc. But the quote above and not cherry-picked details, was Jesus' essence of how one should understand the law one should obey.
  5. II: (Matt. 7/15-16): "Beware of false prophets. They come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly they are ferocious wolfs. By their fruits you will recognize them." There is no doubt Muhammad with all his raids (83? www.1000mistakes.com lists 62 of them) - mainly for riches and slaves/extortion, and later also for power - and his religion of war, was a ferocious wolf. And his fruits? - terrible for non-Muslim surroundings. And as his book - the Quran - with all its mistaken facts, other errors, contradictions, unclear language, etc. is from no god, the fruits may be even worse for all Muslims if there is a next life, and especially so if there is a real god somewhere they have been prohibited from looking for. Not to mention if that god is a good and benevolent one, not too fond of followers of a (made up?) god of discrimination, apartheid, dishonesty, blood, terror, and war. (That Islam is "The religion of peace" is a joke or an al-taqiyya (a lawful lie) you will see if you read the some 22 - 24 surahs from Medina.)

Some central facts about Muhammad, the Quran, and Islam:

A. Born ca. 570 AD. Married first a rich older widow. Started Islam in Mecca in 610 AD. Fled to Medina 13 years later - in 623 AD. Lived in Medina 10 years - as a highway-man, later robber baron/warlord (83? raids/wars, mostly for stealing/robbing, slave taking and extortion + later spreading Islam by the sword). Died quite rich with estates in Medina, Fadang and Khaybar in 632 AD.

B. 36 women known by name: 11 long time wives, (9 of them 20 - 36 years younger than him + favorite wife Aishah 6 years old (9 when sex started - he well past 50)), 16 short time wives, 2 concubines, and 7 who may be, may be not, really was married to him. Raped at least two girls/women; Rayhana bint Amr and Safiyya bint Huayay.

C. He in reality was not a prophet - he was unable to make prophesies, also according to the Quran and the Hadiths. See 9/88b and f.x. 65/1a.

D. He according to the Quran made no miracles - Islam today says: "The only miracle connected to him is the Quran".

E. He believed in using dishonesty (though al-Taqiyya and Kitman - f.x. 2/26h, 13/42 - formalized later), deceit/betrayal (f.x. the 29 from Khaybar murdered), and even broken words/promises/oaths (f.x. 2/224e, 2/225a, 5/89c, 16/91e).

F. He use lies even in the Quran - f.x. 6/7a, 6/28c, 6/109i, 7/120a, 20/70a.

G. He is speaking (f.x. 6/104c, 19/36b, 27/91a, 51/50-51) and MANY others referred speaking/acting in the Quran. How is that possible in a book claimed to be timeless and written before the world was created, if not 100% predestination?

H. If Allah predestines everything and according to his unchangeable Plan like the Quran states absolutely, man has no free will in Islam - mutually excluding each other, and thus impossible, in spite of Muhammad's and Islam's claims.

I. If Allah predestines everything and impossible to change, like the Quran states absolutely, prayers have no value or effect in Islam - mutually excluding each other, and thus impossible in spite of Muhammad's and Islam's claims.

"Muhammad lived far from the golden rule for moral: 'Do against others like you want others do against you', and as far from: 'Say the truth, or say nothing' - but he at least preached some of it".

There is a long distans between the historical, real Muhammad, and the semi-saint Muslims wish for and many even honestly are able to believe in.

1000+ QURAN-COMMENTS - Skeptics facts and thoughts

Part II: Surahs 1 through 5

(To find verses referred to here, you often have to go to the "complete" list in http://www.1000mistakes.com from which the points below are cherry-picked.)


SURAHS 1 THROUGH 5

NB: The list.


These are just tit-bits from the book "1000+ Quran-comments - skeptics' facts and thoughts". You will find the complete book under http://www.1000quran-comments.com. (The surah reference numbers are like in that book.)

In http://www.1000mistakes.com you find:

  1. Book A: "1000+ Mistakes in the Quran" - http://www.1000mistakes.com.
  2. Book B: "1000+ comments in Jihad - (un)holy war" - http://www.1000mistakes.com/jihad-holywar/index.php
  3. Book C (this one): "1000+ Quran-comments - skeptics' facts and thoughts" (1000+ tit-bits from the complete book) - http://www.1000quran-comments.php.
  4. Book D: "Correcting much wrong refuting on http://www.1000mistakes.com - and a lesson in Muslim ways of debating.
  5. Book E: "What the Bible really says - when the Quran uses legends, fairy tales, or phantasy, instead of the Bible as sources for 'Biblical' texts, like it often does. (Expected late 2011 or early 2012).

In http://www.1000quran-comments.com you find:

  1. "1000+ Quran-comments - skeptics' facts and thoughts" (the "complete" list - 20ooo+ comments on the Quran) - as said in http://1000quran-comments.php.

*001 1/1-7b: "In the name of Allah, Most Gracious, Most Merciful, Praise be to Allah - - - Thee do we (Muhammad and Muslims*) worship and thine aid we seek. Show us the strait way - - -". The Quran starts with a contradiction. All the places where Muhammad quotes Allah starts with the word "Say". It is not present here, which means that it is Muhammad or Muslims who are praying - as said above in a book claimed and presumed to have been made by Allah at least before Adam, since also Adam (who in reality never existed as man developed from earlier primates according to science) was introduced to the book, but perhaps have existed since eternity which means at least since before the Universe was created some 13.7 billion years ago). And a book which is the revered and unalterable "mother book" in Heaven (13/39, 43/4, 85/21-22) revered by Allah and his angels in his own "home". Impossible and a solid internal contradiction.

Muslims try to explain it with that Allah is omniscient and knows everything, and of course knew this, too that Muhammad would be praying, and included it in the "mother book" at the beginning of time.

The problem only is that this is even theoretically impossible if man has free will and if man has no free will, then for one thing the Quran is lying, and for another thing: How then explain that all the bad and unjust persons in reality are acting according to Allah's wishes, and how justify that a presumably good and benevolent god forces humans to behave in such ways that they end in Hell?

The combination of that Allah knows everything long before not to mention that he decides everything and free will for man is an absolute impossibility, even for gods. Actually it is a version of "the Time Travel Paradox" and that paradox is long since proved unsolvable.

An easy way to understand this is:

  1. If Allah is omniscient: The moment Allah says: Now I know the future, man can do nothing that changes what Allah knows, because that would make Allah's knowledge wrong. Man has no free will from that moment (and remember that Allah has decided and knows your life since before you were born, and in this special case much longer - he f.x. according to Hadiths decides whether you are to end in Hell or in Heaven when the fetus which is to become you, is 4 months old = 5 months before you even are born) .
  2. If man has free will: Then it is not possible for Allah to know the future, because a man can always change his mind one more time, after Allah thought that now he knows the future. Then Allah is not omniscient, or at least not fully clairvoyant.

Actually Islam admits they are unable to explain this probably largest contradiction. Their solution simply is to say: We cannot understand or explain it, but is has to be true, as Allah say so in the Quran (!!!) We quote from "The Message of the Quran" - a book certified by Al-Azhar Al-Sharif Islamic Research Academy (Al-Azhar in Cairo is one of the 2-3 foremost Islamic universities in the world),(A6/141 - In the English 2008 edition A6/143): "- - - the real relationship between Allah's knowledge of the future (and, therefore, the ineluctability of what is to happen in the future) on the one side, and man's free will, on the other - two propositions which, on the face of it, seem to contradict one another - is beyond man's comprehension; but since both are postulated by Allah, both must be true.

The ultimate defeat for intelligence and knowledge. And the ultimate victory for blind belief.

But as for this explaining away of how the prayer is taken into in the Quran a copy of the claimed very old "mother book" - there are only these 5 possible solutions:

  1. Allah was praying to himself in the "mother book". Too ridiculous to discuss.
  2. Muhammad was really praying, but outside the text from the "mother book" and then adding it into the book. But how much more of the texts in the Quran is then from outside the "mother book"?
  3. It really is from the "mother book", but Allah or Gabriel forgot the essential word "say" but how many more words are then forgotten in the Quran?
  4. It - the order "Say" - was in the "mother book" and neither Allah nor Gabriel forgot but Muhammad did? But then if he forgot something, how much more did he forget that should have been in the Quran?
  5. Muhammad or someone made up the Quran and this surah, and forgot to pretend it was from Allah.

Pick your choice.

There are similar contradictions - Muhammad speaking - with the claim that it is all from Allah, at least in these verses: 2/286, 6/104, 6/114, 11/2b, 19/36b, 27/91a, 42/10a and 51/50-51. In addition there as mentioned above, is at least one place where it is clear that angels are speaking (41/30-32) - which makes it impossible that the book can be from eternity, as at least some of the angels had to be created before the book (if not angels could not speak in the book (and as they spoke to humans, the book could not be made before there were humans) - and actually the similar goes for Muhammad - he could not speak in the Quran before he was born.


These are just tit-bits from the book "1000+ Quran-comments - skeptics' facts and thoughts". You will find the complete book under http://www.1000quran-comments.com. (The surah reference numbers are like in that book.)

In http://www.1000mistakes.com you find:

  1. Book A: "1000+ Mistakes in the Quran" - http://www.1000mistakes.com.
  2. Book B: "1000+ comments in Jihad - (un)holy war" - http://www.1000mistakes.com/jihad-holywar/index.php
  3. Book C (this one): "1000+ Quran-comments - skeptics' facts and thoughts" (1000+ tit-bits from the complete book) - http://www.1000quran-comments.php.
  4. Book D: "Correcting much wrong refuting on http://www.1000mistakes.com - and a lesson in Muslim ways of debating.
  5. Book E: "What the Bible really says - when the Quran uses legends, fairy tales, or phantasy, instead of the Bible as sources for 'Biblical' texts, like it often does. (Expected late 2011 or early 2012).

In http://www.1000quran-comments.com you find:

  1. "1000+ Quran-comments - skeptics' facts and thoughts" (the "complete" list - 20ooo+ comments on the Quran) - as said in http://1000quran-comments.php.

*002 2/2a: "This is the Book (the Quran*); in it is guidance sure, without doubt - - -". As you will see, there are a lot of mistaken facts, contradictions, and unproven arguments, etc. in the Quran. This means that the guidance is far from sure. All the mistakes etc. also produce a lot of doubt about the rest of the text. Two statements, both without proofs - and both doubtful.

**003 2/10a: "In their hearts is a disease - - -". Not to believe in Islam = to be sick in your mind or heart. What is the case for Muslims if the Quran is a made up book?

004 2/20c: "- - - Allah hath power over all things". Often claimed in the Quran - never proved anywhere.

**005 2/23c: "- - - then produce a surah like (these*) - - -." This is one of the star arguments for that the Quran must be made by a god, according to Muslims. But in spite of all the glorious words from Islam, the Quran is not a good piece of litterateur: The composition is lousy to say the least of it - things repeated and repeated, contents mixed in one melee to say the least of this, too, just to mention 2 central points. There is no structure concerning the information. It is not well told - quite dull and boring (just read it yourself and see - you will find our remarks dull and boring, too, because we have to answer the same remarks again and again and again). The style of the language is said to be excellent - - - but it was originally written in an unfinished alphabet (lacking vowels, the points used to mark some Arab letters (diacritical points), and the signs one use when writing - even the comma), and because of this the language was polished and polished by the best Muslim brains for some 250 years, until around 900 AD when the alphabet finally was completed - no wonder the language is nice, but it was not like that in the start.

There also are no original ideas or stories - all is "borrowed" from surrounding religions and cultures, except some which is "taken" from old pagan Arab religion, legends, and even fairy tales. And so on. There would be no problem for a good writer to collect stories, legends and fairy tales and make better literature of it. Or to be more blunt: No neutral knower of good literature will be in the slightest doubt about that many a good writer can write a similar book like the Quran quite a lot better - viewed as literature the Quran is not good (but why bother with writing a new one? - no matter how well it is written, not one single believing Muslim will admit it is better than the present one - that would mean that something is wrong with Allah power explaining, and thus with Muhammad and with Islam, and few have the moral backbone to face such a possibility). This Islamic "proof" is invalid - or they will have to prove it. Also see 2/24a below. Similar claims in 10/38, 11/13, and 17/88.

006 2/26d: "- - - it (the Quran*)is the truth from their (Muslims'*) Lord (Allah*) - - -". Wrong. So full of all kinds of errors, contradictions, etc. like the Quran is, it at best can be partly the truth and, and definitely not from any god.

*007 2/26g: "- - - He (Allah*) causes many to stray - - -." The main point here is that it is Allah who causes it. Can Allah then be a benevolent god when straying means you will end in Hell? There is quite a difference between this and "the lost sheep" in NT (the shepherd - God/Jesus - lost a sheep (similitude for a human) and went far out to find it). This is one of the places where there are worlds between the basic ideas of Allah and of God/Yahweh - so fundamental differences that it is clear that Muhammad's claim that Allah = Yahweh is wrong - - - unless the god is highly schizophrenic.(See f.x. Luke 15/8-10 and 15/11-31 or Matt. 18/12-14 and 20/8-13).

As this means Allah is deceiving persons. We also here touch Al-Taqiyya (the lawful lie) and Kitman (the lawful half-truth) and lawfully breaking of even oaths (and what then about normal promises?) which is something that is special for Islam. You find this kind of accepted dishonesty in no other of the major religions and in few of the minor ones.

Actually al-Taqiyya and Kitman are not explicitly introduced in the Quran. It is based on conclusions Islamic scholars have made from things said and done about (dishonest) planning or cheating, honesty, breaking of oaths (introduced in the Quran), etc. in the book and in Hadiths. See the verses below.

The Quran and Islam tell that in principle you should be honest. But in many cases where dishonesty will give a better result, you are permitted to lie (Al-Taqiyya, Kitman) and even to make false oaths or to break oaths you have made (2/225a, 5/89a+b, 13/42, 27/50 and some more)). In some cases Allah will say it is ok because it is a minor thing or because you did not really mean your oath, and in other cases he will say; "ok if you pay me some money or give me a gift for expiation afterward". And then in some cases it is not only permitted, but obligatory to use it if necessary: To defend or promote Islam.

Al-Taqiyya and Kitman 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 promises, as an oath is something stronger than a normal promise):

  1. To save your or others' health or life.
  2. To get out of a tight spot or a dangerous problem.
  3. To make peace in a family.
  4. When it will give a better result than honesty or honoring one's oath.
  5. To cheat women (should be remembered by girls with Muslim boyfriends wanting sex - or wanting a marriage to get residence permit in a rich country.)
  6. To deceive opponents/enemies.
  7. To betray enemies.
  8. To secure one's money (very clear from Hadiths).
  9. To defend Islam. (Compulsory if necessary to succeed.)
  10. To promote Islam. (Compulsory if necessary to succeed.)

But al-Taqiyya is a double-edged sword: In the short run you may cheat and deceive some ones 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 na.

But the serious side effect is that people quickly learn that one can never know for sure when to believe a Muslim in serious questions: Is he honest or is he using f.x. an al-Taqiyya?

And there is another side effect: Muslims have difficulties being believed even when they are telling the full truth for very good reasons the opposite parts are reluctant to fully believe them, as may be they tell the truth or maybe they just are practicing al-Taqiyya or Kitman.

And yet another side effect: How can Muslims know when to believe their leaders and others? (This may be one of the reasons for why Muslims produce so may conspiracy theories - they go looking for "the real truth" behind what is told, no matter if the tale is an al-Taqiyya or the plain, sterling truth).

And all these side effects which really over time may be the main effects are made worse because Muslims have no way of strengthening their words by swearing, as oaths from Muslims are without much value, because they are permitted false oaths and to break their oaths it is no sin to do so if you did not really mean the oath or have a reason for breaking it, and especially not if you give Allah a gift for expiation afterwards (necessary in serious cases).

*008 2/42d: "- - - nor conceal the Truth when you know (what it is)". The contents of this and the entrance above: This is said by Muslims aimed at the Jews who did not want to misunderstand 5 Mos. 18/15 (and 18/18) to mean that this verse foretells Muhammad - (translated from Swedish): "A prophet from among your own people, from your brothers, the Lord, your God, let come to you. Listen to him". That means God is saying: "I will let a prophet come forth from among your brothers - - -".Muslims say "brothers" here mean the Arabs, and that the Bible here talks about Muhammad. But very honestly: The brother of Jews is another Jew, especially as it is said he shall come "from among your own people" - the Jews' own people. (We use the word Jew, because that is the normal word today, even if the word is much younger than the time of Moses. Also Yusuf Ali uses it). This simply may be foretelling about Jesus, but Muslims has "adjusted" the meaning.

That Moses with "brothers" meant fellow Jews, becomes even more clear when one knows that 5. Mos. is a long speech Moses made to and about his Jews (see 5. Mos. 1/1), and that he during this speech used the word "brother/brothers" figuratively at least 32 places meaning their fellow Jews - several places he even uses the expression "brother Israelites".

Actually the word "brother" or similar is used in figurative meaning at least 82 times in OT according to our last leafing through the Bible, nearly always meaning another Jew or other Jews (1 exception: A king talks to another king. A very few other exceptions: About Lot's people and about Edomites - descendants of Esau, the brother of the patriarch Jacob), and absolutely never about Arabs. Arabs and Arabia are mentioned something like 15 times in the Bible without exception either in neutral forms or as enemies, never as friends or relatives (see further down). Worse and never mentioned by Muslims: The word "brother" is used in the Quran at least 30 times, and always about fellow (Muslim) Arabs (one exception, where the main point is that the bad hypocrites stick together). There simply exists no place neither in the Bible nor in the Quran expressing brotherhood between Jews and Arabs (but many to the contrary). Besides 5. Mos. 15. and 18. continues into 21. (NEVER mentioned by Muslims) which explains that one will recognize the Lord's prophet on that they make prophesies, and correct prophesies. Muhammad never made real prophesies he did not even pretend to or claim to have that gift, not one single time in all the Quran. Aishah also tells in the Hadiths (Al-Bukhari) that "the ones claiming Muhammad could foretell the future, were wrong".(He simply was no real prophet, but borrowed that imposing and impressive title.) On the contrary he was busy explaining away why he was unable to make miracles (prophesying is a kind of miracle - seeing the unseen (in the oldest times the name for a prophet even was "a seer")). Muhammad thus could not also because of 5. Mos. 18/21. be Yahweh's promised prophet. And as he in reality was no prophet at all he had as mentioned not that gift he absolutely could not be a special prophet as he in reality was no prophet (well, there are made other definitions for a prophet, but without being able to make true prophesies you are no real prophet), and the claim is out of the question.

It simply is a case of a word (brother) that is possible to give more than one meaning, and a religion in dire need from lack of proofs for their presumed god and their presumed prophet, and from sheer necessity because they falsely were promised to find proof or at least indications in the Bible, cling to a meaning which is not intended in the Bible, and foreign to the Bible's normal use of the word, and then quote it out of context (f.x. 5. Mos. 18/21 even makes Muhammad impossible as an explanation here), but full of wishful thinking.

Also the word "Arabs" or similar is not at all mentioned in the 5 Books of Moses (except that he lived in Midian some years - Midian is on the Arab peninsula). But you can find it at least these places in OT:

  1. Judges 6/1: Midianites (if you here read "Arabs") (enemies of the Jews).
  2. 1. Kings 10/15 (revenue to King Solomon).
  3. 2. Chr. 9/14 (revenue - tax? - to King Solomon.
  4. 2. Chr. 17/11 (tribute to King Jehoshaphat of Jerusalem).
  5. 2. Chr. 21/16 (enemies of the Jews).
  6. 2. Chr. 22/1 (enemies of the Jews).
  7. Neh. 2/19 (enemies of the Jews).
  8. Neh. 4/7 (enemies of the Jews).
  9. Neh. 6/1 (enemies of the Jews).
  10. Isaiah 13/20 (just mentioned - in a neutral way).
  11. Isaiah 21/13 (a prophesy against Arabia).
  12. Isaiah 21/14 (from the same prophesy as just above).
  13. Jer. 25/24 (must drink the cup of Yahweh's Wrath).
  14. Ez. 27/21 (made business with the city of Tyre).
  15. Ez. 30/5 (another prophesy against Arabia).

All together 15 times, always either in neutral words, in negative words or in strongly negative words (enemies). There nowhere any hint of friendship, not to mention brotherhood. As bad: Also in the Quran there are nowhere any words about brotherhood between Jews and Arabs.

**Islam will have to produce strong proofs if they want anyone to believe that Moses meant Arabs and Muhammad in 5. Mos. 18/15 and 18/18. After all it is they who produce this unlikely claim, and then it is up to them to prove it not up to others to disprove it. (But then Islam lives on unproved claims and statements and blind belief - demand proofs from a Muslim in a debate, and you often win the debate, because he has not one single real proofs about central claims - a lot of arguments, but not one of them based on real proofs when you debate central religious facts - or claimed facts).

To be blunt: The claim not true. One simply has carefully cherry-picked a couple of quotes, taken them out of context, omitted all the points in the texts proving the claims are wrong, and finally twisted the surrounding facts to make the quotes fit the answer Islam desperately - and the word is literally meant - needs, as the Quran as mentioned claims Muhammad is mentioned both in OT and in NT and he simply is not there, a fact they cannot afford to admit, because that proves things are much wrong with the Quran and thus with Islam. Muslims often claim that you cannot understand texts in the Quran unless you know all the Quran or at least all the relevant surahs. But they themselves frequently cherry-pick sentences, omit the contexts and texts proving the claimed meaning of the quotes wrong, and with some twisting get "strong" evidence for what they want to believe, is true.

008a 2/51b: "- - - in his (Moses'*) absence ye (the Jews*) took the calf (for worship), and did grievous wrong". How come that this could be written in the claimed "Mother Book"? Muslims do not quite agree on how old the claimed "Mother Book" is - either it is made by Allah before man was even created, or it has existed since eternity and is never made. In both cases it in case is older than Adam, and unchangeable - the word of Allah is unchangeable. And in both cases it is claimed written long before the time when the different stories in the Quran took place and long before the persons were even born.

But to tell a story where people are involved, millennia's and more before it happens or to quote persons eons before something is said, only - only - is possible if Allah really predestines everything in absolutely all details - just like the Quran claims many places. Not the most miniscule detail can be changed from what he predestines, because if even the smallest detail is changed, the laws of chaos will throw the foreseen act or words wide off the track. This in case is a 100% proof for that in Islam man has no free will - if he had, he could always change his mind once more about whatever it was - - - and what Allah foresaw or predestined suddenly was wrong. Man just is a puppet on a string.

Even Islam admits that it is not possible to understand how Allah can predestine everything, and man at the same time has free will. We quote Muhammad Asad, "The message of the Quran (A6/141 - in the English 2008 edition A6/143): "- - - the real relationship between Allah's knowledge of the future (and, therefore, the ineluctability of what is to happen in the future) on one side, and man's free will, on the other - two propositions which, on the face of it, seem to contradict one another - is beyond man's comprehension - - -" (but the book continues lamely that all the same it has to be true, because Allah says so in the Quran - the brain giving in to blind belief). Actually predestination contra man's free will is a version of the "time travel paradox" - a paradox which is proved unsolvable. And actually in the non-material realms of life there are things impossible also for an omniscient and omnipotent god. The perhaps easiest way to show this, is to make a god add one mathematical 1 with another mathematical 1. The only possible answer even for a god is 2. Predestination versus free will of man is another such non-material unsolvable case - unsolvable even for a god. Therefore, if Allah predestines everything, man has no free will, no matter what the Quran claims - just one more of the many mistakes in that book - or what Islam and its Muslims want to believe.

But if man has no free will, Allah has no moral right to punish - or reward - him/her for what he or she does. We again quote from the same remark from "The Message of the Quran": "- - - the very concept of morality and moral responsibility presupposes free will on man's part". Which means that if Allah predestines everything and man thus has no free will, it is immoral for Allah to punish man for his/her deeds or words which he/she/they has/have been forced to act by Allah's predestination. (But Muhammad needed predestination to make his warriors believe war was not dangerous, and he needed free will of man to make his followers believe Allah was fair when threatening with Hell.)

Then we finally are back to the quote from the Quran at the start of this remark: For this quote to be correct in a book claimed to be thousands and millions and even billions of years old, there only is one possible explanation: Allah predestines absolutely every detail in the world and in your life. If what the Quran here tells is correct, this means full predestination and no free will for man. There is no alternative to this.

Which means Allah is an extremely unjust god rewarding some of his marionettes and damning others to Hell because he has forced them to do bad things.

Another effect of the predestined texts in the Quran - written long before things happened, and copies sent down to all the many (124000?) claimed prophets and messengers for Islam, is that those prophets plainly could read about future persons and stories - though in many cases with references they could not understand. This is an inevitable effect of the "fact" that the claimed "Mother Book" naturally was/is unchangeable, and so was and is the words of Muhammad, and of the fact that all books claimed sent down by Allah, was copies of the Mother Book (and copies of one book naturally are identical - here = the Quran, which was and is claimed to be such a copy). Noah could read about Abraham and Jacob and Joseph, Abraham could read about what he himself was going to do, what battles he was going to win, etc., and about f.x. Moses and Jesus - and Muhammad. Etc., etc., etc. There is no indication about such an effect in the Quran, though, and also Islam and Muslims never mention it.

Perhaps Muhammad and Allah did not think about this inevitable result from giving prophets of the very old, copies of the claimed "Mother Book" - similar to the Quran?

(Muslims will here claim that the Quran tells the different prophets got different books, as the Quran tells they were sent new books. That the Quran says new books were sent down, is correct. But as it also implies that those books were copies of the claimed "Mother Book", an unchangeable book from a god whose word was/is unchangeable, this only can mean new copies of the same book - and copies of one and the same book are similar, and in this case similar to the Quran, as also the Quran is claimed to be a copy of that book.) One more and big contradiction in the Quran.

The point quoted on top of this comment is one of the many in the Quran which impossibly could have been written into the claimed "Mother Book" (13/39b, 43/4b, 85/21-22 below) in the far distant past, unless Allah predestines everything 100%. We will point to a number of other such points, but far from all - only some of the most obvious ones. All incidents and quotes where humans are involved and could have changed something, is a case which could not have been written into the claimed "Mother Book" a really long time ago if Allah did not predestine absolutely everything. Just go looking and you will find - but you will find no real explanation from Islam or its Muslims.

One final point: Islam tells that Allah (and his angels) reveres the claimed "Mother Book" in his Heaven. It is highly unlikely Allah would revere his own work - only Pagans revere things they have made themselves. Which means that the other claimed explanation for the existence of the Quran must be the true one: The Quran is never made, but has existed since eternity. But in that case it is even more impossible to have in the Quran things which was to happen or to be said much later, unless the predestination is absolute - With a much larger time-scale the chances for that things might happen or be said which would change the future is much larger.

009 2/62c: "- - - righteousness - - -". Beware that when the Quran uses words like this, they are meant in accordance with the Quran's own partly immoral moral code.

010 2/75b: "- - - seeing that a party of them (the Jews and/or Christians*) heard the word of Allah, and perverted it knowingly after they understood it - - -." Wrong. Science have shown very clearly that the Bible is not falsified and consequently that it has never been something like the Quran, which here is claimed - indicated. If Islam means something else, they will have to bring proofs, not only but only loose claims and even looser statements. If Islam had had even a small proof, the world had been forced to hear it every two hours or more at least. (The fact is, however, that Islam has proved even stronger than science that the claims about falsification of the Bible is wrong, but for one thing being unable to explain how it would be technically possible to falsify may be a few hundred thousand (some 44000 has survived till today, and there must have been many more) manuscripts on 3 continents in exactly the same ways, for another how it was possible to do it so perfect that modern science is unable to find traces from the falsifications, for a third how it was possible to make Jews, Christians, and different sects to agree on making exactly the same falsifications (f.x. about Jesus), and for the fourth there is no credible claims for when all these falsifications should have been done, and for the fifth - and very essential: How come that Islam - and science - has been unable to find even one single proved falsification of a relevant manuscript?!!

As for "when" Muslims often mention the council on Nicaea in 325 AD. But even if that had been true, that council could not falsify all the older manuscripts. Even more essential: This council represented only the mainstream Christians - no Jews and no sects - so that only the mainstream Christians in case could agree to which falsifications to make. Still more essential: The agenda for the council is well known. There is not anything about "correcting" texts in the Bible. And finally may be the most essential: It is just as easy to make mainstream bishops change texts in the Bible, as it is to make ayatollahs to change texts in the Quran - and for the same reason.

We f.x. have seen on Internet men with imposing titles blasting headlines like "57 points falsified in the Bible in Nicaea". At best it is al-Taqiyyas (lawful lies) - and besides 57 falsifications is far - far - too little to make the Bible similar to the Quran. At least a few thousand points would have to be falsified to transfer a book similar to the Quran into the Bible, like Islam claims is the case.

*We may add that Islam and Muslims here try to use the Bible to prove their words f.x. Jeremiah 23/36: "Ye have perverted the words of the living God." This one is dishonesty on at least two levels:

  1. Level 1:It is for one thing quoted out of context, and - level 2 - for another thing it is twisted. Jeremiah tells: "If a prophet or a priest or anyone else (incorrectly*) claims, ‘This is the oracle of the LORD (Yahweh*), I (Yahweh*) will punish that man and his household. - - - But you must not mention ‘the oracle of the LORD' again because (if you do*) every man's word becomes his oracle and so you distort (pervert*) the words of the living God". (NIV). There is an abyss between this meaning and the meaning Islam put into the above slightly twisted cherry-picked quotation from the Bible. Dishonest and slightly disgusting and quite revealing about some Muslim methods and lacks of real facts and arguments.
  2. *(Muhammad lived to lose all his children except one daughter (Fatima - who died some months later) - a punishment for claiming to represent Yahweh alias Allah?)
  3. Even if it had been true even if Jeremiah had said that the Jews had perverted (though "perverted" is a stronger word than "distorted") this did not tell one millimeter about distorting claimed old Quranic texts, like here is indicated - only Biblical ones.

Knowing that this is taken from the widely distributed and highly praised "The Message of the Quran", canonized or at least certified by the foremost Islamic intellectual institutions in the world, cases like this gives us a bad taste on their behalf: To resort to intellectual dishonesty of this kind is distasteful - and it is humiliating for Islam when found out.

And for what reason? Just in order to be right, instead of to try to find out what is right. This in spite of the fact that the price if they are wrong, is the loss of the soul of each and every Muslim - - - if there is a Hell in the perhaps next life.

011 2/76b: "- - - what Allah hath told you - - -". This rather obscure sentence many Muslim scholar claims refer to the Islamic claim that Muhammad is mentioned in the Bible, here likely referred to 5. Mos. 18/15 and 18/18 (and conveniently omitting f.x. 18/1-2 and 18/20-21). The Quran clearly states that Muhammad is mentioned on both the OT and in the Gospels and easy to find there, and then Islam HAS to find him there, because if not the Quran is wrong and a book from a god cannot be wrong - so if there is a mistake, this proves it is not from a god.

What is absolutely sure, is that Muhammad is not easy to find anywhere in the Bible. Then Islam has to look for him in hidden places. And the most frequent claim is 5. Mos. 18/15 and 18/18, where Moses in a speech to Jews tells them that once there shall come a prophet like himself "from among their brothers". It is clear from the context that he meant from among the Jews, But Islam - the religion of the truth and the religion which claims you cannot understand the Quran unless you see the verses in context - drops the contexts and claims: "The Arabs are the brothers of the Jews - this is about Muhammad".

We may add that they also drop a few other facts:

  1. The word "brother" or similar is used figuratively more than 300 times in the Bible, and not one of these in connection with Arabs - practically always about members of a closed group (Jews in OT, mainly fellow Christians in NT, though in NT a few times meaning all humanity as potential Christians).
  2. Of these the word at least is used at least 82 times in OT - also here mainly about members of a closed group: The Jews - and not a word about Arabs in such connections. In the OT there are 5 exceptions from this rule: 4 which include extended groups with accepted connection to the Jews (Lot and Edomites) and 1 where a king tells a foreign king that they are brothers = good friends. But not one word about the slightest relationship to Arabs.

    5. Mos. is a speech Moses made to and about his fellow Jews included some about their future. He used the words "brother/brothers" at least 31 times in his speech. With 2 exceptions (2/4 and 2/8) it is about members of the closed group the Jews - in spite of the wishful claims from Islam. Also the 2 exceptions are from a closed group, but a somewhat extended one, as they are about Edomites - descendants of Esau. Esau was within the linage of the covenant which according to the Bible was promised by Yahweh, as he was the son of Isaac, through whom Yahweh according to the Bible said that linage should go (1. Mos. 21/12) and thus reckoned to be distant relatives of the Jews. Ishmael, from which the Arabs (most likely wrongly, as Ishmael and his descendants settled on the border of Egypt and not in Arabia according to the Bible 1. Mos.24/18 - and in addition was outside this linage, and in addition placed themselves outside the group/family (1. Mos. 24/18).

  3. The word is used 3 times in 5. Mos. 18, the short chapter Islam takes its Quotes from (verse 2, 15 and 18) each time clearly meaning "your fellow Jews" like nearly all the other places in his speech.
  4. Worse: Arabs and Arabia is mentioned something like 15 times (2/42d above) in OT according to our latest leafing through the book. Without exception the connection is neutral or negative - not one single positive connection, not to mention any close relationship, let alone brotherhood.
  5. Even worse: The words "brother" and "brothers" also are used figuratively at least some 30 times in the Quran - not one time linking Jews and Arabs. (There is one after a fashion exception: Hypocrites and Jews are linked - but that is something else). Not one word in all the Quran about Jews and Arabs being brothers. Not even a whisper.
  6. Worst: Moses in his speech said "a prophet like me". But Muhammad in reality was no prophet - he did not even have the gift of being able to make prophesies - he only "borrowed" that impressing and imposing title. The definition of a prophet is a person who:
  1. Have the gift of and close enough connection to a god for making real prophesies.
  2. Makes prophesies that always or at least mostly come true. (If not he is a false prophet.)
  3. Makes so frequent and/or essential prophesies, that it is a clear part of his mission.

A few things Muhammad said, came true like it has to do for a person saying many things through many years (but much less than chance and the law of probability should have granted a man who spoke so much - sheer chance should have made him hit the truth more often, but it did not. But then the Quran shows he had little imagination) and most of what he said that did not come true, was forgotten (also this is what normally happens among believing followers). The main things here are that Muhammad never indicated that anything of what he said was meant as prophesies, he never indicated, not to mention pretended to or claimed, that he had the gift of prophesying, that it nowhere is documented that all/most of what he said about the future came true (point 2), and finally both he and Islam said and says that there were no miracles connected to Muhammad "except the Quran" prophesying is a kind of miracle. Also Aishah said that those who said Muhammad could see the future, were wrong (Al-Bukhari).(This last fact also is a solid proof for that all the miracles connected to Muhammad mentioned in the Hadiths, are made up stories). Also see 30/40a and 30/46a.

  1. And when he was no real prophet - he in reality was so far outside prophethood that he is not even inside the Bible's definition even of a false prophet (5. Mos. 18/22) as he did not even try to make prophesies - how could he then be a prophet like Moses?".

The claim in reality is logical rubbish and taken far out of the context. But it is the only "real" claim they try to cling to (there are some others, but they are even more far out) - they have to, because if not the Quran is not from a god and Islam a made up religion. Also see the chapter "Muhammad in the Bible" in "1000+ Mistakes in the Quran" - https://www.1000mistakes.com.

012 2/81a: "- - - 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.

*013 2/87b: "We (the god*) gave Jesus - - - clear (signs) - - -". Yes, if the Bible speaks the truth, Jesus had clear signs. But the Jew Jesus was speaking about the Jewish (and Christian) god Yahweh. Now Muslims like to tell that Allah and Yahweh is the same god, but that is not possible unless that god is mentally ill. There is so big difference between Yahweh, especially as we meet him in NT and its New Covenant - f.x. Luke 22/20 (the teachings on which the Christian religion is based), and the hard and bloody and unforgiving warrior god we meet especially in the some 22-24 surahs from Medina, that it is not possible it can be the same one - not unless he at least is deeply schizophrenic.

014 2/92: "- - - ye (Jews*) worshipped the Calf - - -". In the desert after fleeing from Egypt - during Moses' absence - the Jews made a golden calf as their god (after traditions in Egypt - at least one such calf has been found by archeologists, though not from gold. The "rationale" behind it is the "god-ox" Apis in Egypt). We may add that this and some of the other comments we write, are elementary for members of the 3 big monotheistic religions, but as we also have many readers from other religions who sometimes do not know too much about details in the mentioned 3 religions - f.x. India with all its Hindus lays around country no. 5 of our readers - we try to explain also what may be diffuse for them.

015 2/95b: "- - - the (sins) which their (people's*) hands have sent before them". Sins one has done in this life, which at the Day of Doom will be taken into account when the diction is made whether to send you to Hell or Paradise. Well, at least this is what Muslims claim - forgetting that according to Hadiths Allah decides whether you are to end in Hell or Paradise already 5 months before you even are born.

##016 2/125e: "We (Allah*) covenanted with Abraham and Ishmael - - -". The Bible is contradicting: (1.Mos.17/21) Yahweh says: "But my covenant I will make with Isaac". And many years later to Isaac's son Jacob (and now Ishmael is totally out of the picture) similar words like the ones which were said to Abraham 2 generations earlier (1.Mos. 28/14): "All peoples on earth will be blessed through you and your offspring". There is no doubt according to the Bible with which branch of Abraham's descendants the god covenanted. Even if the Arabs really were descendants of Ishmael, they had belonged to the wrong branch of the family - they were not the offspring of Jacob, and not even of Isaac. And it is likely this might be the reality - at the time when the Torah was written, there was no reason for the writers to place Ishmael and his descendants at the border of Egypt (1.Mos. 25/18) if he really lived in Arabia - Muhammad and his competing religion still was 1000 years into the unknown future when it was written. But for Muhammad the situation was different: It is quite common for emerging sects and religions to "high-jack" parts of a mother religion - it gives "weight" and tradition to the new sect/religion. For Muhammad it would pay to "take over" a known name like Ishmael. It obviously also would pay for him to take over the claimed center of the religious word - even a made up claim works if people believe in it.

Another fact: Modern DNA-analysis has shown that the Arabs are no coherent tribe. They are a mixture of many nations - not strange lying at a crossroad with travelers passing thought, and where sex and alcohol were "the two delightful things" until Muhammad took over. And also Arab tradesmen brought brides and slaves back home even long before Muhammad, not to mention all the slave women who were brought home after the robberies made the Arabs rich enough to afford more/many women. The "Arab Blood" is strongly diluted and mixed up, and even was never a homogenous tribe originally.

What the Bible really says about Ishmael in relevant connections is:

(1. Mos. 16/7): The pregnant Hagar fled from Abraham and Sarah (then named Sarai - not mentioned in the Quran), and "The angel of the Lord found Hagar near a spring in the desert; it was the spring that is beside the road to Shur". Shur was a desert area east of the Gulf of Suez in Egypt. Shur extended southwards past the northern end of the Red Sea, "opposite Egypt" = roughly east of where the Suez Canal now runs and a little down the east side of the Red Sea. 1): Hagar may have headed towards her home country Egypt. 2): Abraham had to be far west - and very far from Arabia/Mecca - for her to find that road, as that road run inland from the Mediterranean Sea (far inland but in that region).

(1. Mos. 21/12-13): "But God/Yahweh said to him (Abraham*), 'Do not be so distressed about the boy (Ishmael*) and your maidservant (Hagar - Ishmael's mother*). Listen to what Sara (Abraham's wife*) tells you, because it is through Isaac that your offspring will be reckoned. I will make the son of your maidservant into a nation also, because he is your offspring".

(1. Mos. 20/1): "Now Abraham moved - - - into the region of Negev and lived between Kadesh and Shur. Kadesh was a town West of the southern end of the Dead sea, between the Dead Sea and the Mediterranean Sea, and a bit more than halfway to the Mediterranean Sea. The desert of Shur was west of Kadesh direction Egypt and near the Gulf of Suez in Egypt and southwards past the northern end of the Red Sea.. (You will meet Muslims claiming Kadesh was in or near Mecca, and others claiming it was near Petra in Jordan - necessary to be able to move the Paran desert area to the Faran Mountain and the Faran Wilderness on the Arab peninsula, rename it Paran like the Muslims have done, and claim this Paran/Faran is the Paran of the Bible? (- even though there is no doubt where the Paran of the Bible was - there is a little too much of this kind of dishonesty in Islam.)) But to tell Abraham settled between Shur, near Egypt, and Jordan or Mecca is not even comical - Muslims often are very clever at finding solutions they want to find, but forgetting or "forgetting" details - or big things - making the claimed solution wrong or invalid.) The point here is that Abraham now was living in Negev in the west, not so very far from the Mediterranean Sea area, and in the region where the road to Shur and on to Egypt crossed. The Bible tells when Abraham made major moves, and it does not mention that Abraham left this region until after Isaac was born and after Hagar and Ishmael (who must have been something like 14 - 16 years by then - he was born when Abraham was 86 years (1. Mos. 16/16) and circumcised when Abraham was 99 and Ishmael 13 years old (1. Mos. 17/24-25), and this was a bit later) had left Abraham's camp. Which indicates that Hagar and Ishmael left his camp in this area - something which may correspond well with that they took the road to Shur and on to the border of her homeland, Egypt, and settled there like the Bible tells: 1. Mos. 25/18: ""His (Ishmael's*) descendants settled in the area from Havilah to Shur, near the border of Egypt". The desert of Shur is well known, but this Havilah (there is another connected to the Garden of Eden) is not clearly located, but is believed to have been in the southern part of Palestine.

(1. Mos. 21/18): "- - - I (Yahweh*) will make him into a great nation". See further down.

(1. Mos. 21/14): "She (Hagar) went on her way and wandered in the desert of Beersheba", which meant that she had to leave Abraham somewhere in what is now the south of Israel (Beersheba itself is some 70 miles (ca. 115 km) south of Tel Aviv) in a part of the Negev desert bordering or part the Paran area bordering Sinai - Sinai as you most likely know is a peninsula to the southwest of Israel, bordering Egypt (the Arabian peninsula is to the southeast and with the Acaba Bay between it and the Sinai peninsula).

(1. Mos.21/15): "When the water in the skin was gone, she put the boy under one of the bushes". It would not be possible for Hagar to walk to Mecca - hundreds of miles through hot desert - with the only water she had was one water skin. (Besides there was no sane reason for her to walk that way - this even more so as she was not from Arabia, and had absolutely no known connection to that area, but was from Egypt = in the west.)

(1. Mos. 21/21): "While he (Ishmael*) lived in the desert of Paran, his mother (Hagar*) got a wife for him from Egypt". Muslims dearly wants Paran to mean Paran in Arabia (the name really was Faran, but has become Paran because Muslims wanted it to be a reference from the Bible), but Paran Desert was an area south of Canaan - and south of Beersheba - bordering North Sinai and reaching towards Elath. The name of the area today is el-Tih. The Desert of Paran also contained the Mountain of Paran mentioned in 5. Mos. 33/2. As Paran bordered Canaan, Moses sent his 12 spies into Canaan from here (from in or near the town of Kadesh) - if he had sent them from Paran/Faran in Arabia, they first would have had to cross hundreds of miles - and kilometers - of forbidding desert to reach Canaan. And how far would Hagar have had to travel to find a wife from Egypt to him? (It is typical for Muslim argumentation to produce claims where details - or not details - are omitted to get the (made up) argument they want - you meet this technique a bit too often. It is one of the problems we meet when studying Islamic - all information has to be checked, because you never know what is true and what is f.x. an al-Taqiyya (lawful lie), a Kitman (lawful half-truth), or even just wishful thinking helped by invalid logic (Muslims often jumps from "this may be a possibility" or even weaker to "it is like this") to make things fit the Quran. It may seem like many Muslims in addition are little trained in the use of the laws of logic and in critical thinking.))

But the Muslims' high-jacking of Paran has one good effect: They have placed lots of pictures from Paran/Faran in Arabia on Internet. Paran/Faran itself is a mountain, and the wilderness is lying near and mainly north of Mecca, and Abraham would have had to cross the large desert now called the Paran Wilderness by Muslims to reach Mecca - and live in it, as Mecca used to be similar to this at that time. Open some of the pages and look at the pictures: How tempted would Abraham be to go into hundreds of miles of this with all his cattle? Exactly not at all. (This in addition to that it is well known where the real Paran from the Bible was).

(1. Mos. 25/16): "These (the 12 sons of Ishmael*) are the names of the 12 tribal rulers - - -" = the great nation mentioned in 1. Mos.21/18 - Muslims never mention this verse. (But there is a large difference between a promise to make them a great nation and a covenant. Also remember that a great nation at that time was something different from today - f.x. Abraham with his 318 men beat the combined forces of 4 kings in battle near Dan (1. Mos. 14/14-15))

(1. Mos. 25/18): "His (Ishmael's*) descendants settled in the area from Havilah to Shur (see above*), near the border of Egypt, as you go toward Asshur (= eastwards*)". One more verse Muslims never - never - mention.

(1. Mos. 25/18): "And they (the sons of Ishmael) lived in hostility toward all their brothers". Also this a verse Muslims never mention - perhaps because they want it to have been a good relationship so that there still could be a brotherhood when Moses made his speech in 5. Mos. 500 - 700 years later, and when Muhammad came some 2500 years later - - - if the Arabs are descendants from among many others Ishmael.

There are two ways to understand this sentence: They lived in hostility towards each other, or they lived in hostility towards the sons of their uncle Isaac. As it is said in 1. Mos. 21/18 that they - the 12 tribes descending from Ishmael - became a great nation, the second meaning is the likely one. May be partly for this reason, the descendants of Ishmael are never in the Bible reckoned by the Jews to be relatives, or at least very, very distant such ones.

All this points to that Hagar and Ishmael left the camp of Abraham in west Negev, took the road towards Shur, direction Egypt and settled near the border of Egypt, likely north the desert Shur - i.e. between Shur and the Mediterranean Sea somewhere - - - pretty far from Arabia and Mecca, and in nearly exactly opposite direction.

One final and partly different point: As mentioned costal Arabia was settled around 5000 BC (or earlier). The interior was settled 1000 years or a bit more later. By 1800 BC the peninsula had a reasonably big population. Even if Ishmael took all his 12 sons and moved to Arabia, how big percent of the total population of Arabia would they make up? In other words: How big percent of the forefathers of the Arabs of today, or at the time of Muhammad, did Ishmael represent? - a small number behind a lot of zeroes behind a comma. Even in the unlikely case that Ishmael had settled in Arabia and not near Egypt, Arabs 2400 years later (Muhammad) or 3800 years later (today) were/are not the descendants of Ishmael, but the descendants of all the people living in Arabia in the old times, of which Ishmael in case had made up only a miniscule part of a percent (for the Jews the picture is a bit different, because of the restrictions on marrying outside the group - a restriction often broken, but all the same relatively effective). This in addition to all later mixing with people from the outside, included hundreds of thousands (likely a some millions) slave girls imported to a miserable life in the harems of Arabs before and after Muhammad.

Also see 2/127a below.

##017 2/127a: "And remember that Abraham and Ishmael raised the foundations of the House (Kabah*) (with this prayer): - - - ". Abraham never built the foundation of Kabah (and a contradiction; other verses say he built the building, not only the foundation of it) - and there are several reasons for this:

  1. He was born in Ur in Chaldea (if he really existed) in what is now south Iraq. Together with his father, (Terah according to the Bible (1. Mos. 11/26-32), Azar in the Quran (6/74)), he later travelled northwest up along the Euphrates valley to Haran in what is now north Iraq. Years later - after his father was dead - he continued south-southwest to Canaan and the town Sikem in what is now Israel (Sikem is north of Jerusalem. It is now named Nablus). That is to say he travelled along the so-called Fertile Crescent - the natural route when you travel with flocks of animals. The alternative was to take a shortcut through the Arab desert, but few of his numerous sheep and goats and cows would survive such a trip. He never visited Mecca on his way from Ur to Sikem. (Besides this was too early in the story - Ishmael was not born yet, and he is a part of the building of the Kabah according to the Quran).
  2. Abraham then settled in the western part of Canaan (now approximately Israel), whereas his nephew Lot settled in the Jordan valley and in the Arabah Valley south of the Dead Sea further east. Later Abraham moved south to Negev in Sinai. Negev today is most known for its desert, but not all was desert. All this is according to the Bible, but the Quran has no conflicting information, except that his father had another name, and that he quarreled with his father about Allah, which is not told in the Bible (on the contrary - they lived together till Terah died). The point is that between Canaan and Mecca and also between West Negev and Mecca are hundreds and hundreds of miles or kilometers of the tough and dry and hot Arab desert. Abraham was rich and had huge flocks of animals. He could not take those huge flocks of sheep, etc., through Lot's area and then through that desert, and especially so when there was no reason for doing it.
  3. Abraham lived hundreds of miles from Mecca - and had to cross harsh terrain to get to and from (see 2/125d above). Nobody builds a big temple for himself and his family at a place they can never or nearly never visit.
  4. Abraham was a nomad. Nomads do not have the know-how and technology to build large stone buildings.
  5. Hadiths tell than when Mecca restored the Kabah some years before Muhammad took over, they rebuilt it smaller than Abraham's(?) foundations. Which means that the nomad Abraham and his son built so big, that it was too big and too expensive for the full city of Mecca to rebuild in the same size. A nomad and his son building that big a temple for himself and his small family, even though he lived hundreds of miles away and at the very best hardly ever could visit the place? Of course you are free to believe it if you want.
  6. Abraham and Lot split up for practical reasons - Lot moved east whereas Abraham moved west (1. Mos. 13/11-12). Arabia and the place which was to become Mecca many generations later was to the east - much further east and south than even Lot settled.

    (1. Mos. 14/6): "- - - in the Hill country of Seir, as far as El Paran near the desert". Seir was the hilly country east of the southern end of the Dead Sea. To the west of this was the Arabah Valley (running from Elath to the Dead Sea), and across that valley you met the Paran Desert - quite a long way from Mecca.

  7. Abraham simply was not involved in the building of Kabah, and it is highly unlikely he ever visited Mecca and even the Arab peninsula. It looks like a fairy tale made up to give weight to Kabah and to Islam. And not least to give weight to Muhammad, who 2500 years later could tell he was direct descendant from Abraham - without the slightest written paper from all those years. 2500 years of mostly an-alphabetic nomads without any written history. Believe it if you want and if you know who were all your forefathers the year 500 BC (= ca. 2500 years ago), as after 2500 years you have, and Muhammad had a large number of them (something like 80 generations give you quite a number of forfeiters, not only one - Abraham - like Muhammad claimed).

    It also is worth adding that Muslims say that Mecca was where Abraham's (or actually Sarah's) slave, Hagar, and his and her child Ismail (Ishmael) were sent away from Abraham's camp, that the two lived there, and that Abraham frequently visited them later. There is no source of information for this. The OT says they lived in Negev, which is weeks by camel from Mecca - and much, much longer for large flocks of sheep, goats, and cattle (American cowboys driving flocks of cattle to the railway, made 10-12 miles 16-20 km - a day. The nomads in the south hardly moved any faster - - - if they could find water). In addition to the long time it would take, many animals hardly would survive the long trek through the harsh Arab desert with little food and hardly any water. And there was in addition no reason for him and his family to take such a dangerous and meaningless trip with their animals to a barren and dry valley. And as he never visited Mecca, he could not have left Hagar and Ismail there (this even more so as the Bible mention that Ishmael lived near the border of Egypt and got his wife from Egypt (see below) - - - and science and Islam both have proved that the Bible is not falsified (Islam has delivered a very strong proof by being unable to find even one clear falsification among all the tens of thousands of relevant old manuscripts) - the easy way out for Muslims when the Bible mentions things they do not like). If Islam wants to insist that he ever visited Mecca, they have to produce strong proofs, as it is extremely unlikely - and "special statements demands special proofs". It is highly likely this just is a story made up or "borrowed" from f.x. Arab folklore to give the teachings of Muhammad credence.

  8. One more fact: The Bible a book which Islam insists is correct every time there is some text they like, but which may be the truth other times, too - says (1. Mos. 21/21): "While he (Ishmael*) was living in the Desert of Paran, his mother got a wife for him from Egypt". Except for religious Muslims who strongly wishes this to be a reference to Paran or Faran near Mecca, all serious scientists say that this was Paran in or bordering Sinai - - - which also made it easier for his mother (who was from Egypt) to find him a wife from Egypt even though that made his children ¾ Egyptian and only ¼ descendants of Abraham's stock (there is mentioned only one wife for Ishmael). Also remember that the old Egyptians were not Arabs, even if modern Egyptians often are called Arabs - where is the pure Arab blood of Ishmael's descendant?
  9. Further (1. Mos. 25/18): "His (Ishmael's) descendants settled in the area from Havilah to Shur, near the border of Egypt, as you go toward Asshur". The border of Egypt means near the Red Sea or north of the Red Sea up to the Gulf of Suez. Just where scientists place Paran - it run from there and towards Elath. (It is a bit ironic that Islam say the Bible has the name correct, (but claim it is meaning Faran in Arabia), but all the rest of the information about place, wife from (neighboring) Egypt, etc. wrong. Though if you go looking, you will find that according to Islam, the Bible never has a mistake and is reliable when what it says fits Islam. Only when it tells things or facts that contradicts Islam, the Bible is falsified - or like here one simply omits the contradicting facts - - - which one safely can do, as hardly any Muslim knows the Bible well enough to see the cherry-picking of information, unless he has higher religious education). And NB: This was written 1000 or more years before Muhammad, and thus with no reason to place Ishmael far from Arabia if it was not the truth.
  10. There also is another fact: The Bible reports on what Abraham built: He built an altar at Shechem (1. Mos. 12/6-7), an altar at Betel (1. Mos. 12/8), and an altar at Mamre, near Hebron (1. Mos. 13/18) - altars simply were a regular heap of natural, not artificially formed stones - - - and that is it. This is all the Bible tells he built (except for Sarah's grave, but that was not a building, but a cave (1. Mos. 23/19)). Then the Quran claims he suddenly built a huge temple (mosque), a big stone building which for one thing is far outside the know-how of a nomad to build, and for another thing is situated far away from all places Abraham ever was (as far as we can find the nearest he ever was Mecca, was Hebron, a good number of miles (multiply wit 1.6 to get km) south of Bethlehem. And not least: The building of this big temple is not at all mentioned in the Bible, even if it had to take a number of years to build it - Solomon with his enormous resources and his army of highly qualified builders (though no jinns, etc. like the Quran claims) used 7 years to build his temple (1. Kings 6/38), and a big church in medieval Europe could take up to 30 years. These years of building the Kabah is not in any way mentioned in the Bible - neither the building, nor the years it took, nor when it was done. Actually the time and resources it took also is not mentioned in the Quran - it just is indicated (though not directly said) that the Kabah was built during one or a few short visits to Mecca, and nothing about the skill and resources needed and the time it takes for building such a big temple/mosque. No comments - and none necessary.

Besides:To go all the way to Mecca as mentioned was too forbidding for a man with large flocks of animal and there never was a reason to go there for Abraham. On the contrary: Little food for his animals, no water in Mecca before the Zamzam was found later (?) and Ishmael living "near the border of Egypt". He never was in Mecca and consequently never built the Kabah the big temple that he anyhow did not have the know-how to build, and worse; could not use, because he lived the better part of 1000 km away (this even more so as he could not travel "as the crow flees", but had to go as the cow grazes). And one he did not need as it was far too big for his small family - 2 sons included Ishmael, one wife and some workers. This claim, too, is a clear contradiction to the Bible.

Also remember that science clearly says: "It is practically sure that Abraham never visited Mecca" (and the claim that he built the Kabah, they do not even bother to comment on). And: The ones writing OT some 9oo-1400 or may be a bit more before Muhammad started his preaching - even if they had falsified the scriptures, they had no reason to falsify Abraham out of Arabia as Muhammad and his religion was unknown to them. And: Abraham as said had his pastures in the west whereas Lot had chosen the eastern area (1. Mos. 13/11-12) - i.e. according to the agreement between them Lot's pastures were around and south of the Dead Sea towards Acaba, whereas Abraham grazed his cattle in the western parts of Canaan and later in Negev, both nearer the Mediterranean Sea. Which means that to visit Mecca, Abraham had to move all his cattle from the Mediterranean region and all the way through Lot's area down to Acaba, and then through the forbidding desert to Mecca - a place in or near the Faran Wilderness, a wilderness which now Muslims now have renamed Paran (Muslim sources on Internet admits that the real Arab name was Faran - but you f.x. meet Muslims claiming that Faran just is the Arab name, and that it is named Paran by others - - - a well chosen "explanation" as Muslims saw the name Paran in the Bible, and said: This sounds very like Faran - it must mean Faran. And then they started to tell that Paran, yes, that was in Arabia near Mecca! And foreigners not knowing the real name, used - and uses - the new Arab name Paran as they did not and do not know it is wrong - very few non-Arabs know that the correct name of that wilderness is Faran). Just take a look at the pictures from Faran/Paran, Arabia (they today use only the name Paran to be able to claim that Ishmael was there according to the Bible) and see how tempting this area was for a nomad with lots and lots of animals - Abraham was rich. No rich nomad in his right mind would even think of moving hundreds and hundreds of miles - and more in kilometers - from good pastures in the west to dry desert - Mecca did not even have a well, because this according to the Quran was before the Zamzam well was found.

The scientists are right: Abraham never was in Mecca - and to comment on the claim that he built the Kabah is not even worth to bother about.

And see 2/125e above.

018 2/136d: "- - - (all) Prophets (included Muhammad*) - - -". But Muhammad was no real prophet. The definition of a prophet was a person who could see at least parts of the unseen, and thus a person who:

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

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

The main things here are that Muhammad never indicated that anything of what he said was meant as prophesies, that he never indicated, not to mention claimed, that he had the gift of prophesying, that it nowhere is documented that all/most of what he said about the future came true (point 2 above), and finally that both he and Islam said and says that Muhammad was unable to see the unseen (extra revealing here is that the old Biblical title for a prophet, was "a seer" - one who saw the unseen (see further down)) and also that there were no miracles connected to Muhammad "except the Quran" (prophesying is a kind of miracle - seeing what has not yet happened). (This fact that Islam admits there were no miracle connected to Muhammad "except the revelation of the Quran" also is a solid proof for that all the miracles connected to Muhammad mentioned in the Hadiths, are made up stories). We also should add that his favorite wife (and infamous child wife) Aishah, according to Hadiths (f.x. Al-Bukhari) states that anyone saying Muhammad could foresee things, were wrong.

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

Also relevant here is as said that the original title of the Jewish prophets was not "prophet", but "seer" - one who saw at least parts of the unseen. (F.x. 1. Sam. #9/9, 1. Sam. 9/11, 1. Sam. 9/18, 1. Sam. 9/19, 2. Kings. 17/13, 1. Chr. 9/22, 1. Chr. 26/28, 1. Chr. 29/29, 2. Chr. 9/29, 2. Chr. 16/7, 2. Chr.16/10, 2. Chr. 19/2, 2. Chr. 29/25, Amos 7/12, Mic. 3/7 - some places the two titles even are used side by side in transition periods). Muhammad thus so definitely was no seer - prophet - even according to his own words; he had no "knowledge of the unseen".

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

***This is a fact no Muslim will admit: Muhammad in reality simply was no real prophet or seer. Perhaps a messenger for someone or something or for himself or perhaps an apostle but not a real prophet. He only "borrowed" that impressive and imposing title. It is up to anyone to guess why. It also is anybody's guess why he more often used the far less imposing title "Messenger" - a messenger boy is something far smaller than a prophet. Did he know or suspect that it was not true, and that explanations for the lack of prophesies from a self proclaimed prophet would be difficult to explain? Like the reason why he so seldom claims he is found in the Bible, may have been that he knew or suspected it was not true?

Besides: To belong in a special line of prophets, the teachings and the prophesies of course must be in line with the other prophets in that line, because a god follows a steady course and teaching (one of the proofs for that something is wrong with the Quran - Allah changes too much back and forth in his claimed teachings, and especially so if he had been identical to Yahweh: From rather harsh up to Jesus, then mild under the new covenant, then harsher, but reasonably mild under Muhammad in Mecca, and finally a full and partly immoral and unjust war god in Medina from ca. 622 - 624 AD when Muhammad started to need warriors to gain riches (mainly for bribes) and power). If not, one either belongs to another line - another god with another teaching/religion - or one simply is a false prophet (there have been many more false prophets than real ones through the times). Muhammad's religion was far from both the OT and even much further from NT, and in addition he was unable to make prophesies - even if he had been a prophet, he is far too far from the teaching of Yahweh and Yahweh's Jewish prophets. He is not in that line of prophets and not speaking for the same god - too much is different. The Quran simply may be one of the many apocryphal - made up - manuscripts/books more or less loosely built on biblical traditions and "adjusted" to fit the religious teaching of sects more or less distant from the mother religion - the Quran in case is one of the more distant ones.

Also see 30/40h below.

The claim in reality is logical rubbish and taken far out of the context. But it is the only "real" claim they try to cling to (there are some others, but they are even more far out) - they have to, because if not the Quran is wrong and thus not from a god and Islam a made up religion. Also see the chapter "Muhammad in the Bible" in "1000+ Mistakes in the Quran" - https://www.1000mistakes.com - and 2/77a and 7/157e below.

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 - and more successful - than most of the others.

019 2/146a: "The People of the Book - - -". This is an expression you often meet in the Quran and in Islam. "The Book" her is the Bible, and the expression means the Jews, the Christians, and the Sabeans (Sabeans - see 2/62f). Later sometimes also the Zoroastrians were included, as it was discovered that also they had a book and a religion to a degree compatible with Islam - something a god had known from the very beginning. But normally the expression means the Jews, the Christians, and the Sabeans only.

020 2/171a: "- - - those who reject Faith are as if one was deaf, dumb, and blind, they are void of all wisdom". Here it may be relevant to think of what happened in the religious Muslim middle ages: All knowledge not related to religion little by little were frozen out or forbidden. From 1095 AD on (because of the book "The Incoherence of the Philosophers" by "the greatest Muslim after Muhammad", Al-Ghazali) there did not come one single new idea or thought which could benefit humanity for some 850 years from central and eastern Muslim area (in the western are the freeze came ca. 100 years later). No more comment.

A ps. about al-Ghazali: Full name Abu Hamed Muhammad ibn Muhammad al-Ghazali (1058 AD - Des. 1111 AD). To be very short he vehemently rejected science and philosophy (thinking), partly because persons like Aristotle, Socrates, etc. were non-Muslims, and their ideas thus could corrupt Islam. It instead was Allah who made everything happen. Not strange that no new ideas came for the better part of a millennium from Muslim area.

021 2/177i: "- - - 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!!!). 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.

022 2/185d: "- - - (the Quran is) a guide to mankind - - -". A book with that much errors, that partly immoral moral code, and that harsh a war religion, is neither a good nor a reliable guide - this even more so as no god ever sent down a book of a quality like the Quran.

###023 2/191a: "And slay them (the non-Muslims*) wherever ye catch them - - -". A straight, no-nonsense order - not to be misunderstood. Very good words for terrorists.

024 2/197e: "- - right conduct - - -". Beware that when the Quran uses words like this, it is meant in accordance with the Quran's own partly immoral moral code. Remember f.x. that the best deed and the most right conduct according to the Quran, was to go to war and steal, rob, suppress and kill for Muhammad/Allah. What is right conduct in Islam, sometimes varies quite a lot from what is right conduct in normal religions (Islam is at some points abnormal, as it is a war religion, and has to serve this purpose - see the book about Jihad/Holy War (Book B) under https://www.1000mistakes.com ).

025 2/198g: "- - - celebrate His (Allah's*) praises as He has directed you - - -." Actually this sentence is a bit strange - or funny - as most, if not all, the rites during Hajj in Mecca are taken over from the older pagan Arab religion.

026 2/207c: "- - - Allah is full of kindness to (His) devotees". Is he? - if he exists? Life under Islam is a harsh, stagnant life for too many, especially mentally. But there is one exception: The ones who needs a religion to lean to - and beware that these are not only from the weak ones; science has found that the need for religion is in the genes of a minor percent of all humans - there is a longing, and finding a religion gives them a feeling of a fulfilled life. Science even has found one of the implicated gens, named VMAT2 (Ill. Vitenskap 1/2006, p. 70-71). The percentage is unclear, but we have seen numbers up to 10%. Mostly it does not matter what religion, as long as they do believe in it, which is one of the reasons why you meet people in any religion - included Islam - who are sure their religion is the one and only, and feel they live a perfect life in it.

Well, of course there is one more exception: Leaders who get power and sometimes riches - and women?

027 2/209d: "- - - Allah is Exalted in Power - - -". He in case never clearly has proved that power.

028 2/209e: "- - - Allah is - - - Wise". Not if he made the Quran - too much is wrong.

####029 2/216a: "Fighting is prescribed for you (Muslims*) - - -." A more direct verbal incitement is difficult to find, unless it is accompanied by threats and/or promises of wealth, power/status and women in this and/or the next life - - - like it is in the Quran.

030 2/245b: "Who is he that will loan Allah a beautiful loan, which Allah will double unto his credit and multiply many times?" In the Quran the expression "loan Allah a beautiful loan" normally means to risk your life or lose it in war, but sometimes it also may mean to give money to Muhammad, mainly for war purposes. In both cases no repayment is promised in this world only in the next. A most cheap way in this world for Muhammad to finance his wars and get willing warriors especially if the religion is made up and Allah does not exist or if there is a god, but a different one from the god you meet in the Quran, and who consequently is not bound by Muhammad's words.

These are tit-bits from the book "1000+ Mistakes in the Quran". You will find the complete book as Book C under http://1000mistakes.com.

031 2/252a: "These are all Signs of Allah - - -". If they were signs, they were signs of the Jewish god Yahweh, not of Allah. See 2/87.

The Quran is built on claims like this and on statements, "signs" and "proofs", not one of them proved (as we said before: With the possible exception of some signs from the Bible that in case may be prove Yahweh). Plus it is built on a lot of psychology and knowledge about human nature. As for the never proved claims, etc. there is an awful lot of them, and they are easy to find once you go looking for them.

Besides in this case: How can they be valid signs if the story is wrong?

032 2/253f: "- - - the holy spirit - - -" This is one of the few times the Spirit - also named the Holy Spirit, the Holy Ghost, the Spirit of Truth, the Spirit of God/Yahweh, the Spirit of the Lord - like Allah and like Muhammad it has several names) is mentioned in the Quran. Muhammad had very vague ideas about it and f.x. believed the Trinity consisted of Yahweh, Jesus and Mary. Muslims often claim it is another name for the angel Gabriel - and idea no-one who ever read the Bible with an open mind would get. And in addition to everything else which makes the claim ridiculous, the old Jews knew well the difference between angels and spirits, and in the entire Bible there is not one single case where the two are mixed or mistaken. (But never think that a religious person will believe facts if they do not fit his belief).

###033 2/256b: "- - - no compulsion in religion - - -". This "flagship" for "proving" the peaceful Islam, disused daily by most Muslims and very frequently by Islam itself, is very wrong, because it is abrogated (made invalid) by at least these verses (ca. 30 all together) from the more bloody and inhuman later Medina surahs: 2/191 2/193 3/28 3/85 4/91 - 5/33 5/72 5/73 - 8/12 8/38-39 8/39 - 8/60 9/3 - 9/5 - 9/14 9/23 9/29 9/33 - 9/73 9/123 14/7 25/36 - 25/52 33/61 33/73 35/36 - 47/4 66/9 (also see further down) (as for 5/33: Remember that practically all the wars and raids Muhammad fought, were wars of aggression, even if he called it jihad even Badr, Uhud and the Trench (Medina) were battles of defense in a war of aggression, started and kept alive by Muhammad's raids. Non-Muslims thus should not defend themselves and their belongings, according to 5/33).

In addition to this there are other kinds of compulsion than the sword economy, brutal taxes, social stigma, "Berufsverbot" (good jobs prohibited), physical insecurity, etc. And all of them were backed by the sword "conform and obey and pay or else - - -"!!

It must be added that some Muslims say this nonsense ("there is no compulsion in religion") in good faith. But not one single Muslim educated in his religion, does not know he is lying each time he says that there is no compulsion in religion under Islam, as he knows 2/256 is abrogated (made invalid) but then defending and promoting Islam are two of the cases where Al-Taqiyya (the lawful lie) and Kitman (the lawful half-truth), are not only lawful, but advised to use in Islam, if it is necessary to use it to reach the result you wish. (A small PS: One or two of the verses abrogating 2/256 may or may not be a little older than 2/256 itself, but there once was a long debate in Islam if an older verse could abrogate a younger, and the conclusion was that this sometimes was possible). Surah 2 is from 622-624 AD - early Medina.

Besides Muslims normally misquote the verse, and tell you it says: "There is no compulsion in religion". What it really says is: "Let there be no compulsion in religion" - a wish or a demand, not a fulfilled fact. And in addition as said: An abrogated - invalid - verse.

If this verse had not been abrogated, it had been "Glad Tidings". Yes, even if Muslims had been honest and told the verse is abrogated by at least some 30 harsh later verses it had helped at least it had helped the moral standard of Muslims to be that honest.

But NB! NB! As mentioned the surah says: "Let it be - - -." It only is a demand or judging also from 2/255 more likely a wish. It is not something which existed or exists. It is a hope or a goal for the future, it is not something that one have already and all the same most Muslims quote it like this: "There is no compulsion in Religion" - - - a small, little "Kitman" (lawful half-truth an expression special for Islam together with "al-Taqiyya", the lawful lie) makes the Quran and the religion sound much more friendly and tolerant. But not one single of them mention the fact that this verse is contradicted and in most cases abrogated by at least these 29 verses:

  1. **2/191: "And slay them (your opponents*) wherever you catch them, and turn them out from where they have turned you out; for tumult and oppression (from them*) is worse than slaughter (of them*) - - -."
  2. ***2/193: "And fight them (your opponents*) on until there is no more tumult or oppression, and there prevail justice and faith in Allah ("No compulsion in religion"*) - - -."
  3. 3/28: "Let not the believers take for friends or helpers unbelievers rather than believers: if any do that, in nothing will there be help from Allah - - -." Social pressure, but may be meant defensive originally, as it is from 625 AD - before Muhammad gained full control in 630 AD. It is offensive today.
  4. 3/85: "If anyone desired a religion other than Islam (submission to Allah), never will it be accepted of him - - -." Yes: "No compulsion in religion." (Hardly defensive see 3/28 just above).
  5. 3/148: "- - - and help us against those who resist Faith". This is from 625 AD the Medina period. It can be meant as defensive or offensive help. After 630 the possible defensive use was gone Islam became powerful, and only the offensive aspect is left, and it contradicts not only 2/256, but some more verses, too.
  6. 4/81: "- - - so (Muslims*) keep clear of them ("infidels" or hypocrites*) - - -." (626 AD) Social pressure, etc. also is pressure especially when everybody knows it is backed by the sword if you protest.
  7. **4/91: "- - - if they ("infidels"*) withdraw not from you, and (instead) send you guarantees of peace (remember that in nearly all the conflicts, the Muslims were the aggressors*) besides restraining their hands, seize them and slay them wherever you get them - - -." No comments about "No Compulsion in Religion".
  8. 5/33: "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 attack from the Muslims even the battles of Badr, Uhud and Medina/the Trench were battles in a war of aggression started and kept alive by Muhammad and his raids for robbing and extortion 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. In spite of Islam's peaceful words, the surrounding Arabs often only got two choices: Become Muslims or fight/die. "No compulsion in religion".
  9. 5/72: "They (Christians*) do blaspheme who say: ‘God is Christ the son of Mary.' - - - and the Fire will be their abode." A serious warning also is a compulsion.
  10. 5/73: "They do blaspheme who say: Allah is one of three in a Trinity - - -." This was to put two other gods at the side of Allah two times the ultimate sin. Also a warning about blasphemy is a compulsion.
  11. 8/12: "I (Allah*) will instill terror into the hearts of the Unbelievers: smite ye above their necks and smite ye all their fingertips off them (making them unable to use a bow*)." Remember: Nearly all skirmishes, raids, battles and wars at least for 110 years (till the Battle of Tours, France, against Carl Martell in 732 AD) and actually much longer, were wars of aggression started by the Muslims): "No compulsion in religion.".
  12. **8/38-39: "Say to the Unbelievers, if (now) they desist (from Unbelief (become Muslims*)), their past would be forgiven them, but if they persist, the punishment for those before them is already (a matter of warning for them). And fight with them until there is no more tumult and oppression, and there prevail justice (sharia?*) and faith in Allah altogether and everywhere". Well, to say the least of it: This contradicts and abrogates and kills 2/256 - and more.
  13. ***8/39: "And fight them (the Unbelievers) until there is no more tumult and oppression, and there prevail justice and faith in Allah altogether and everywhere - - -." Is it possible to get a more direct order about wars of religion and of suppression of the vanquished "infidels"? And if "justice" means sharia, that is not too god for the non-Muslims, to be polite.
  14. **8/60: "Against them (the non-Muslims*) make ready your strength to the utmost of your power - - - to strike terror into (the hearts of) the (attacked the Muslims nearly always were the aggressors in spite of peaceful words today*) enemies of Allah - - -." War for the religion and for riches and slaves and power but "no compulsion in religion."
  15. 9/3 (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.
  16. ***9/5: "But when the forbidden months are past, then fight and slay the Pagans (unbelievers*) wherever ye find them, and size them, beleaguer them, and lay in wait for them in every strategy (of war)" This is the famous and infamous "Verse of the Sword" from the "Religion of Peace" which at least preaches "No compulsion in religion". But then to preach peace often is a good strategy of war. (Also see 9/5 in the chapter "Abrogations".) PS: "Every strategy of war" also sanctifies terrorism and even the most horrible methods of killing and molesting.
  17. **9/14: "Fight them (the "infidels"*), and Allah will punish them by your hand (you are fighting on behalf of Allah*), cover them with shame, help you (to victory) over them - - -." No comments necessary. A peaceful religion with no religious overtones in their wars and plans, stratagems and teachings? And why does Allah need primitive help from humans if he is omnipotent?
  18. ****9/23: "Take not for protectors your fathers, your sons, your brothers, your mates, or your kindred if they love infidelity above Faith (Islam*): if any of you do so, they do wrong." Social pressure and for that case economical pressure (often used against non-Muslim underlings in the form of high taxes, etc.) also is "Compulsion in Religion" which does not exist in Islam (?)
  19. **9/29: "Fight those who believe not in Allah, nor the Last Day, nor holds that forbidden which hath been forbidden by Allah and his Prophet (Muhammad*), not acknowledge the religion of the Truth (even if they are) of the People of the Book (Jews and Christians mainly), until they pay the jizya ("infidel"-tax where Islam has set no upper limit, and which frequently through the history has been very high*) with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued". Conquer and suppress the infidels and then let them live like Negroes under apartheid in South Africa or in the southern states in USA in the early 1900s - - - the ones that were not taken into slavery especially the women. Yes, no compulsion neither by the sword first, nor by destroyed economy and social life, etc. after the defeat. True?
  20. 9/33: "It is He (Allah*) Who hath sent his Messenger with Guidance and the Religion of the Truth, to proclaim it over all religion, even though the Pagans may detest it". With plain words: Accept Islam's hegemony whether you like it or not as there is "no Compulsion in Religion."
  21. 9/73: "O Prophet! Strive hard against the Unbelievers and the Hypocrites, and be firm against them." The highest leader and of course his followers should strive hard against the "infidels" but "No Compulsion in Religion". Well, at least the claim is good propaganda which proves how "peaceful" the Quran is.
  22. 9/123: "O ye who believe! Fight the Unbelievers who gird you about and let them find firmness in you - - -." If you are a good Muslim, then fight the non-Muslims but "no compulsion" not in religion.
  23. 25/36: "'Go ye both (Moses and Aaron*) to the people who have rejected our Signs'. And those (people) We (Allah*) destroyed with utter destruction." A clear message.
  24. 25/52: "Therefore listen not to the Unbelievers, but strive against them with the utmost strenuousness, with the (Quran)". As you see: Peace in religion is not included when you strive against the "infidels".
  25. ***33/61: "They (hypocrites - not good enough Muslims or non-Muslims*) shall have a curse on them whenever they are found, they shall be seized and slain (without mercy)." If you are not good enough Muslims you are to be killed without mercy. A most clear order. Only do not mention it, because the propaganda line is: "The Religion of Peace" and "No compulsion in Religion". NB: This also is one of the verses behind the demand for expulsion from all the society (not only the religious parts) and even killing of Muslims leaving Islam.
  26. 33/73: (Because man the Arabs undertook the Trust of the Quran/Islam -) "With the result that Allah has to punish the Hypocrites, men and women, and the unbelievers, men and women (why? - not all humanity undertook it*) - - -." And Muslims works on behalf of Allah.
  27. 35/36: "But those who reject (Allah) for them will be the Fire of Hell". Not exactly compulsion on the surface, but at least a clear threat and a stigma. We include it because this threat and stigma are repeated often, so it makes up a considerable psychological compulsion anyhow for anyone.
  28. 47/4: "Therefore, when ye meet the Unbelievers (in fight), smite at their necks; at length, when ye have thoroughly subdued them, bind a bond firmly (on them) - - -." Yes, unbelievers have to be killed or subdued. AND: According to our sources the words "(in fight)" do not exist in the Arab original - which makes the text one hec of a lot more sinister.
  29. 66/9: "O Prophet. Strive hard against the Unbelievers and the Hypocrites, and be firm against them." No pardon for "infidels" compulsion makes more new Muslims than no compulsion - - - and loot is loot if Muhammad has to be firm against the ones that are stubborn in their infidelity.

(2/256 is abrogated by at least these 29 points and in reality by more).

2/256 is the most disused verse in all the Quran and all the worse as each and every educated Muslim, and a large percentage of the uneducated ones know it is totally abrogated and totally invalid - and often wrongly quoted.

##034 2/256e: "Truth stands clear from Error". When one knows how much error there is in the Quran, this unintended irony really makes one start thinking.

035 2/286e: "- - - (Allah*) grant us forgiveness". There only are 2 who can forgive - the victim and a god. Is Allah an existing god? - if not he cannot forgive.


These are just tit-bits from the book "1000+ Quran-comments - skeptics' facts and thoughts". You will find the complete book under http://www.1000quran-comments.com. (The surah reference numbers are like in that book.)

In http://www.1000mistakes.com you find:

  1. Book A: "1000+ Mistakes in the Quran" - http://www.1000mistakes.com.
  2. Book B: "1000+ comments in Jihad - (un)holy war" - http://www.1000mistakes.com/jihad-holywar/index.php
  3. Book C (this one): "1000+ Quran-comments - skeptics' facts and thoughts" (1000+ tit-bits from the complete book) - http://www.1000quran-comments.php.
  4. Book D: "Correcting much wrong refuting on http://www.1000mistakes.com - and a lesson in Muslim ways of debating.
  5. Book E: "What the Bible really says - when the Quran uses legends, fairy tales, or phantasy, instead of the Bible as sources for 'Biblical' texts, like it often does. (Expected late 2011 or early 2012).

In http://www.1000quran-comments.com you find:

  1. "1000+ Quran-comments - skeptics' facts and thoughts" (the "complete" list - 20ooo+ comments on the Quran) - as said in http://1000quran-comments.php.

**036 3/3h: "- - - the Book (the Quran*), confirming what went before it (the Torah and the Bible*) - - -". (A3/3) here comments that it is not confirming the Bible as we know it today, but like it was originally. We quote: "- - - the fact - - - that in the course of the millennia the Bible has been subject to considerable and often arbitrary alterations - - -". To say the least of it: This is distasteful. Top Muslim scholars know that science long since has proved this claim is not true. They also know that Islam has proved the same even more strongly by not finding one single falsification in all those tens of thousands of old papers - and by not even being able to explain how the identical falsifications in very many points in each of may be hundreds of thousands of relevant manuscripts (some 44000 have survived till today) spread over thousands of kilometers and many lands and cultures could be done - and how to make f. x. Jews and Christians make identical falsifications. The ones of them who know something about human nature, also know that to make bishops falsify the Bible (like Muslims claim - as normal for Muslims without documentation - happened in Nicaea - is exactly as easy as making imams or ayatollahs falsify the Quran, and for just the same reason: Strong religious belief simply do not work that way (this in addition to that the agenda for that council is well known, and changes of Biblical texts were not even mentioned). But all the same they write thing like this!

Al-Taqiyya (lawful lie) of the most obvious kind.

But then they have no choice if they want to save the religion.

But if there is a next life, the consequences in believing in an invalid or made up religion is so severe, that the most essential and basic question should be just this: 'Is the religion true?' instead of using al-Taqiyyas (lawful lies) as argument for that "what our forefathers believed in must be true".

###037 3/3i: "- - - He (Allah*) sent down - - - the Gospel (of Jesus) - - -." This is one of the really bad ones, as it is historically clear that the Gospels (there were/are 4, not 1 like Muhammad seems to have believed) were not sent down, but written by humans here on Earth. Most Muslims try to get out of the syrup by claiming they are speaking of an older one - one so old that even Jesus could read it as a child. Which shows they do not even know what the Gospels are: They are the history of Jesus' life, death, resurrection, and ascension to Heaven, and consequently could not be written until after all this had happened - actually the oldest one was written some 25-30 years after his death (= around 60 AD). Now, science says there may have existed an older one, but for very obvious reasons it cannot have been much older, not to mention old enough for Jesus to have read, and even more so read it as a child - not unless Islam claims full predestination, and then the free will of man disappears. This mistake simply is caused by the fact that Muhammad did not know the Bible - only legends, etc., and obviously was not aware of what the Gospels really is. And an older Gospel as source for 3 of the present ones, in case makes them even more reliable - an older, written source for them. (The other possible explanation for why 3 of the gospels are very similar, is that the oldest was used as a model for the 2 younger ones - a possibility Muslims never mention.)

###038 3/7b: "He (Allah*) it is who has sent down to thee (Muhammad or Muslims*) the Book (the Quran*); in it are verses basic or fundamental (of established meaning); they (all the verses which are to be understood literally*) are the foundation of the Book: others are allegorical. But those in whose hearts are perversity follow the part thereof that is allegorical, seeking disorder, searching for hidden meanings, but no one knows the hidden meaning, except Allah." But maybe this one is allegorical, too, because Islam and many a Muslim are hunting for the hidden meanings behind what they claim is an allegory as soon as there are errors and mistakes they cannot otherwise "explain" away. Is this because of "perversity" in their heart? or perhaps because they do not have the brain, the guts and the backbone needed to meet the question: What does it mean that there are lots of mistakes and other wrongs in the Quran? or: If all the mistakes and other wrongs in the Quran means that Islam is a made up religion like so many others what then whit all us Muslims if there all the same is a Day of Doom? - - - and especially if there somewhere is a real god that we have been prohibited from looking for?! It is very clear here that the plain and obvious meaning in the texts mainly is the correct understanding. When you remember that Muhammad's congregation mainly was uneducated and often na people, it is even easier to understand that this had to be the case. Similar in 6/114c-d, 11/1b, 16/103f, 18/1d-g, 18/1-2, 18/2a-b, 19/97b, 26/22a, 27/1b, 28/2, 41/3a-d, 43/2a-b, 44/2a-b, 44/58b-e, 54/17a, 54/32a-b, 54/40a.

***039 3/7e: "He (Allah*) Who has sent down to thee the Book (the Quran*): in it are verses basic or fundamental (of established meaning) (= to be read literally*); they (the verses to be read literally*) are the foundation of the Book (the Quran*): others are allegorical (there are a number of allegorical or similar verses in the Quran - they either are easy to see are allegorical, or the meaning is explained, or both*). But those in whose hearts is perversity (,*) follow the part thereof that is allegorical, seeking disorder, for its hidden meaning (= only bad persons seek the hidden meanings - also from the allegories*), but no one knows the hidden meanings except Allah (= the possibly hidden meanings are not for humans*)".

****In clear text: The Quran is to be read literary if nothing else is said or indicated - hidden meanings are for Allah, and trying to find hidden meanings are done by perverts. This is very essential for Muslims to remember when they are tempted to explain away mistakes and blunders as allegories with hidden meanings ever so often. There is no hidden meaning unless it is indicated this verse says, and only the bad humans looks for such.

The Quran and Islam for one thing claim that the clear and easy language is a proof for that the book is made by a god, and for another that the perfect language is a proof for the existence of Allah (no such proofs exist, so they try to find some). And not least that the book and its perfect language is to be understood literally if nothing else is indicated - that the language is "clear and easy" and that only those "in whose hearts are perversity" go looking for hidden meanings - hidden meanings "it only is for Allah to understand".

040 3/9e: "- - - Allah never fails His promise." One more claim that only rests on the word of a man with a rather doubtful moral, who accepted both lies, half-truths and even breaking of oats. But in this case it may be true: There is no proof for that Allah ever gave any promise - only the words of a morally suspect person. If he never gave a promise, he also never failed one. (We may add that there never has been any proved case where Allah was proved to have kept a promise - and Islam had not given you a chance to forget it if it had ever happened.)

041 3/24b: "- - - their (Jews, Christians*) forgeries (of the Bible*) - - -". The Quran, Muhammad, Islam and most Muslims claim that the Bible is falsified claim, but NEVER document or in other ways prove it. Not only claim it is falsified, but that it is falsified on purpose. This in spite of the fact that science long since has proved it is not falsified - one knows literally thousands of relevant old papers and scraps of paper (some 12000 (included some copies of 300 the Gospels) older than 610 AD + some 32000 relevant references - quotes - to the Bible in other manuscripts), which documents it has not been falsified and with royal disregard for the fact that as the Bible was spread over enormous distances, here, there and everywhere. It also was physically impossible to co-ordinate the falsification of each and every copy all over the world, so that all the falsifications were identical, not to mention that all similar points and all references to all these in other papers also had to be falsified correspondingly. And not to forget: The falsifications of the older manuscripts all had to be so cleverly done, that even modern science of today cannot find traces of scratching, chemical blotting out, wrong ink or wrong handwriting where new words are filled in, etc., etc. "Those facts does not matter - we need the Bible to be falsified, because if not something is seriously wrong with Islam. Period!!"

***Demand proofs next time a Muslim tells you the Bible is falsified. His game is to throw not documented claims around, and demand proofs from you for the opposite which can be difficult if you do not have enough knowledge. But it his duty to prove his claims not yours to disprove them. NB: They do not have such proofs if they had had only a feeble one, be sure you and the rest of the world had heard about it by some ones using big letters. Actually the lack of documentation from Islam is the best of proofs for that the claim is something made up - even better than the same proofs from science, as Islam have very strong motifs for finding such proofs, and has been unable to do so. And as actually; to throw loose claims and statements around, pretending that they are facts, are typical for Muslims and Islam in religious debates, not to mention in religious propaganda - the game is to win the debate, not to find out what really is true.

But to claim that the Bible was falsified, was the only way out for Muhammad to explain away his wrong quotes from the Bible and it still is the only way out for Islam. If they admit that the Bible is not falsified each and every place the Quran "collides" with it, this means to admit that Islam is a made up religion which is too difficult to admit for the believers, and too expensive for the leaders.

We may add that it is quite normal for fringe sects which Islam once was to claim that the mother religion(s) is wrong and they themselves are the only ones who are right. To be believed on this point by us, Islam will have to produce real proofs, not only cheap and loose words to back up their claim. As there exist so many old papers, proving it should be very easy - - - if the claims were true.

Islam's claim here simply is proved wrong by science and with even stronger proofs from Islam unless Islam produces proofs showing the opposite. But proofs, not only loose claims like they normally use.

Also see 2/75b, 2/130 above and 3/77a below.

042 3/28c: "Let not the believers take for friends or helpers unbelievers rather than believers: if any do that, in nothing will there be help from Allah, except by way of precaution, that ye may guard yourself from them." Only if the non-Muslims are too strong for you and may hurt you, you may form good friendship with them!! Comments?

043 3/32c: "- - - His (Allah's*) Prophet - - -". No omniscient god can be behind a man telling so much wrong facts and other mistakes - and no good and benevolent god would be behind a teaching demanding such a partly immoral moral code (compare it to the gold standard: "Do onto others what you want others do onto you, and weep - or laugh) and so much hate and blood and dishonesty.

***044 3/35a: "Imran's wife - - -". The Quran here is talking about the mother of Mary (see also 3/33b above). But Imran was the father of Aaron, Moses and Miriam, who lived some 1200 years earlier! Muhammad did not know the Bible very well, and it is clear that he thought Mary was the sister of Aaron and Moses. In 19/28 this is directly said, when talking about Mary: "O sister of Aaron". It is likely that the reason for this mistake is that in Arab Mary (mother of Jesus) and Miriam (the older sister of Moses and Aaron) are written the same way: Maryam. With his limited knowledge of the Bible he believed it was the same woman. Any god had known better. We may add that some Muslims say it is not the same Imran, but scientists agree on that Muhammad meant the same man - the Imran that "was chosen by Allah" like Adam, Noah and Abraham (see 3/33a) - the father of Aaron, Moses - - - and Maryam/Miriam/Mary. That Muhammad really was wrong here, and thought Mary was the sister of Aaron and Moses, is documented by the fact that according to Hadith (the other Muslim main source of information about their religion and about Muhammad) Muhammad was corrected, and he tried to find explanations to repair the mistake (without success). He also did not add information showing that he and Allah for some reason was right in his mistaken statement all the same.

You will also meet Muslims telling that the Quran does not mean that Mary really was the sister of Aaron (they say it was meant figuratively a normal way out for Muslims, when things are difficult to explain), and that the book does not mean that she was the daughter of Imran - only a descendant of him. Islam should after so many hundreds of years have found better "explanations" - "explanations" which on top of all is said to be contradicted by the fact that already Mohammad himself tried to correct the mistake, but without success as mentioned. But there is no other explanation they can try to use. Also see 19/28 below.

**** There also is another aspect of all the points which are wrong or helplessly expressed or something - may be unbelievable some 3000 places in the book - very roughly one in every second verse on average (there are 6247 verses). Who is willing to believe that an omniscient and intelligent god is so helpless expressing himself in a book where he tells he uses a simple language and a language easy to understand, and so uneducated that he uses hundreds of mistaken facts, so that mere humans time and again and again and again have to step in and explain or "explain" what he "really means"? - not to mention "explain" or explain away mistakes? It takes a lot of naivety, brainwashing and plain old blindness and lack of moral courage not to at least ask questions. You believe just because your grandmother told you so, and it is difficult to question your old beliefs and the basis of your "facts of life"?

045 3/35-37: The birth of Mary. This story is taken from the fanciful book "The Protoevangelion's James the Lesser", and contradicts the Bible quite a lot.

But if Christians had falsified the Bible, their main object would have been to strengthen Jesus' position and his connections to Yahweh - the Jewish and Christian god. There is no chance at all that they had omitted a miracle connected to his mother, telling about a direct connection between Yahweh and her. (That she served in the Temple, which also is told in the Quran, also is new to the Bible and had never been omitted there if it were true. Besides: Only men served in the Temple).

It also tells something that when Muhammad differs from the Bible, his/the Quran's stories mostly correspond to proved untrue religious fables and legends (often based on apocryphal scriptures and often Gnostic). This tells it is not the Bible which is wrong, but that the Quran may have used legends, fairy tales, etc. as sources. Would a god need fairy tales as sources?

046 3/39c: "- - - the truth of a word from Allah - - -". The only words claimed to be from Allah is the Quran. But the Quran with all its mistakes, etc. is not from any god (it is slander and an insult and heresy to blame a god for a product of a quality like the Quran with all its mistakes, etc.) - and thus not from Allah even if he should happen to exist.

047 3/45c: "- - - his name will be Christ Jesus, the son of Mary - - -". This is the full name the Quran uses for him - to underline their claim that he was not the son of Yahweh. And it is entirely wrong - he never was called "the son of Mary". When a parent's name was mentioned as part of his name (normal in those countries), he was "son of Joseph" - "ben Joseph" - the name of his father on Earth. And to be even more accurate: As Jesus is the Greek version of the Hebrew name Joshua, Jesus' name there and then would be "Joshua ben Joseph". Any - any - god had known this - Muhammad obviously not. Then who made the Quran?

##048 3/47a: "How shall I (Mary*) have a son when no man hath touched me?" It may be worth noticing that the Quran here and at least one more place confirm the virgin birth of Jesus. This because you meet Muslims throwing around ugly dirt about Yahweh and sex with a 8-9 year old girl in the Bible - refusing the virgin birth. Now, no-one knows the age of Mary, but it is likely that she was young. No-one guesses younger than 12 years, but looking to Muhammad's regular sex with Aishah from she was 9, Muslims sometimes claims Mary was 8-9 - the younger, the uglier - - - and an alibi for Muhammad's pedophilia. But the claimed virgin birth and thus no early sex, is confirmed in the Quran.

049 3/48: "And Allah will teach him (Jesus*) - - - the Gospel." For one thing: Muhammad does not seem to know there were 4 Gospels - he always uses singular (though also others sometimes use singular). For another: The Gospels did not exist at that time - the oldest one is from ca. 60 AD. For a third: Muhammad obviously did not know what the Gospels are about, as he tells Allah would teach Jesus the Gospels: The Gospels are the history of Jesus' life, death, resurrection, and ascension to Heaven, and could not be written until after all this had happened - not unless total predestination.

You meet the never documented claim that the Quran talks about an older Gospel - and in a way they may be right, as there may - may - have existed an older one. But for obvious reasons also this one cannot have been written until after things had happened - far too late for Jesus, not to mention the child Jesus, to read. Finally there of course are the naive ones who boldly claim that Allah knew everything before and could have it written down - but then out of the window goes free will for man and the benevolent god - predestination and free will for man is not possible to combine. Either the god knows everything before - and man is a puppet forced not to make that knowledge wrong. Or man has free will - and the god is not fully clairvoyant because man always can change his mind once more - the "time travel paradox" which this is a variant of, is long since proved even theoretically unsolvable. There are among the immaterial natural laws a few not even gods can cross (f.x. the mathematical 1 + another mathematical 1 always = the mathematical 2 no matter what trick a god tries).

###050 3/54b: "- - - and Allah too plotted and planned, and the best of planners is Allah." It in reality is Allah that decides everything "the best of planners". (This verse in addition is one of the verses the Muslim phenomenon al-Taqiyya (the lawful lie) and Kitman (the lawful half-truth) are based on when Allah can "plot and plan" (indicating using dishonest means) of course his followers can do the same as long as it is not forbidden which it is not).

0951 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).

*052 3/64b: "- - - 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 and 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 from Jewish slave women even? 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).

053 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 Muhammad or you will end in Hell and be subject to the most sadistic and infernal torture thinkable (few things are as painful as burns). 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.

##054 3/81a: "I (Allah*) give you (the prophets*) a Book - - -". As mentioned other places the prophets got books. The Quran claims that all societies to all times and all places have been sent prophets teaching Islam (but neither science nor Islam has found the tiniest traces of such prophets or teaching) - Hadiths mention 124000 through the times, and even this may just be a symbolic number. And as you see here they as mentioned each got a book which was a copy of the claimed "mother book" in Heaven, similar to the copy Muhammad claimed he got - the Quran. The claimed "mother book" either is made by the god or have existed since eternity according to Muslims - and is revered by Allah and his angels. You of course are permitted to believe this, but the normal reaction when you meet this claim after having read the Quran and all its mistakes, contradictions, invalid logic, helpless language (helpless in bringing clear messages not to be misunderstood), etc., is a hearty laugh - no god would revere a quality like the Quran.

055 3/82b: "- - - perverted transgressors - - -". One of the many nice Islamic names for non-Muslims who does not want to become Muslims - or in this case perhaps for Muslims leaving Islam. Such names have their psychological effect, and is even today one of the reasons why integration between Muslims and non-Muslims are difficult - who wants to make friends with perverted transgressors?

056 3/94c: "- - - unjust wrongdoers - - -". The word "Wrongdoers" in the Quran normally means "non-Muslims". It is one of the many unsympathetic names - here strengthened by "unjust" - Muhammad uses many places for creating distance between his followers and all the others (extreme sects and new religions often want such a distance, partly to make admission to correcting information from the outside more difficult, partly to give the followers a feeling of exclusivity, and sometimes for other reasons like creating a superiority feeling like in Islam - a feeling making war and killing easier, because the victims are not reckoned to be fully human, or at least bad people - f.x. "unjust wrongdoers".

*057 3/96a: "The first House (= Kabah*) (of worship) appointed for man was that at Bakkah. Wrong. Even if we should accept that Abraham "made the foundations" of the Kabah in Mecca, he lived (if he is not fiction) around 2000-1800 BC. At that time the first temples, etc. in f.x. Egypt and Mesopotamia were old. Today it is possible to find the real age of many things. It is symptomatic that as far as we know, Islam has not tried to see if it is possible to find the real age of the oldest parts of the Kabah. Wagging tongues insinuates that may be the reason is that they are afraid it is younger than 3800 years. - what if it turns out it is built around 100 BC - or AD - f.x? - or even later?

Islam also has one problem concerning measuring the age of the Kabah: They will have to use qualified western experts. If they use Muslim experts - who may be well qualified to do it - and find that it f.x. is 5630 years old, not one single soul will believe them unconditionally, because of "al-Taqiyya" - the lawful lie - which Muslims not only are permitted to use, but are advised to use "if necessary", when it comes to promoting or defending Islam. But non-Muslims are not permitted to visit Kabah. We may also add that it is further said that Abraham built on the even older ruins of a temple made by Adam - of course Adam like Abraham went all the way to the desert proto-Mecca and built a big temple he never could visit from his home a thousand kilometers off (Adam - and his Paradise - real of fiction, mostly are believed to have been placed somewhere in the rich wetlands in what is now South Iraq), but then Adam's temple was destroyed at the time of Noah - but as often before Muslims only claim, seldom/never prove, so believe it who wants.

(We may add that some Muslims have corrected this verse to that the Quran is talking about the first house of worship for a monotheistic god, but that is not what the Quran says. Besides: If the Quran or the Hadiths is correct and there have been prophets to all times and every people 124000 the Hadith says Islam will have a tough time to prove that not one single all those prophets or their followers in the very early time before Abraham, have ever built even a small house for worship." Also see 2/127a.

One extra small detail: The foundations/temple the Quran claims Abraham built for his small family in Mecca - at the time of Abraham a desert and empty valley - was so big that when the rich Mecca rebuilt it around 600 AD they could not afford to rebuild to the same size. Any comments necessary?

058 3/110f: "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 - or in a book backed by thousands of witnesses (though in both these cases something or details may be wrong), compared to believe in a medium large businessman liking power much, 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, murderer, mass murderer, believer of al-Taqiyya (the lawful lie) and Kitman (the lawful half-truth), deceiving ("war is deceit" - and "everything is jihad),breaker of his words f.x. murdering 29 men from Khaybar he had guaranteed safety during peace talks), and even a few places clearly lying in the Quran, and an inciter to hate, discrimination and war - a man liking power, 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 on 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?

059 3/116e: "- - - dwelling therein (Hell*) (for ever)". There are some verses in the Quean which may indicate that Hell is not quite forever - at least not for Muslims who have not been good enough Muslims to end in Paradise originally. See 6/128c, 11/107b, 43/74d, 51/13c, and 78/23. (And 11/108c indicates that may be also Paradise is not quite forever.

060 3/118g: "We (Allah*) have made plain to you the Signs - - -". Wrong. The only thing which is made plain about the so called signs is that at least the ones not "borrowed" from the Bible without exception are just lose statements and cheap words any priest and any believing man or woman can use about any god in any religion - real or imagined.

What does it tell about the Quran and about Muhammad that loose statements and as loose claims are pretended to be facts and proofs? After all that kind of argumentation is one of the hallmarks for cheaters, deceivers and swindlers. The same for fast talk - you find also that in the Quran.

061 3/124c: "- - - three thousand angels (specially) sent down - - -". Remember this sentence (and other sentences in the Quran) each time Muhammad - and others - claim Allah could not send down an angel or two to prove Muhammad's claims about representing a god, or even the claimed god's very existence.

062 3/125b: "- - - if you (Muslims*) remain firm - - -". Time and again and again the Quran tells that if the Muslims just persevere, the "enemy" grows tired in the end and the Muslims win. Far too often this has proved correct, a fact all non-Muslims growing tired should remember. This especially the democracies, as they have problems when a fight lasts for a long time - there always are many voices wanting out of the struggle, as they see the short-time gain but not the long-time loss possible.

063 3/136d: "- - - (Paradise is) an eternal dwelling - - -". 11/108c tells that may be the Quran's and Islam's paradise is not quite forever. Muslims explain this with that this in case means the "inmates" will be transferred to an even better place (not too difficult - this paradise mainly is bodily pleasures), but this you do not find in the Quran.

064 3/138a: "Here is a plain statement to men - - -". The interesting point concerning a statement, is not if it is plain, but if it is true. How can one without any proof relay on a statement built on nothing but loose words, and made by a very doubtful man - and made in a book full of mistakes, etc.?

065 3/144c: "- - - many were the Messengers that passed away before him (Muhammad*)". The Quran claims that all societies through all times have been sent prophets teaching Islam - Hadiths mention the number 124000. Neither science nor Islam have been able to find any trace of such prophets or such a religion (except in the Bible, but those prophets preached about another religion and another god - Yahweh - a god Islam wrongly and without proofs claims is the same god as Allah, but the fundamentals of the teachings are too different for this to be true).

066 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?)

###067 3/154a: "Even if you had remained in your homes, those for whom death was decreed would certainly have gone forth to the place of their death (anyhow*)." This is the "manifest" of predestination. And: This also is one of the points in the Quran where Muhammad knew he was lying. It is so obviously wrong, that an intelligent man like him knew this was not true. But he was a clever manipulator ("is it not more worth that I live among you, and spend the booty on the people not sure in their belief to make them stay in Islam?" f.x.) and he understood people. Lies like this worked because his followers were primitive and in addition wanted to believe. And for primitive, uneducated souls really believing mish-mash like this (it is easy to prove by statistics that it is untrue, if one are un-intelligent enough not to see at once that it is a lie) it was a mighty incitement fighting in battles was not dangerous, because Allah had decided when you were to die, and at that time you would die whether you were in a battle or sleeping in your bed. It is worth noticing that even today this is the official point of view of Islam. To quote footnote 3/119 to this surah in "The Message of the Quran" (translated from the Swedish 2006 edition - not found in the English 2008 edition):

"(The) incorrect, heathen belief that humans by acting in special ways can avoid death (even for a time*)".

Unbelievable!!

Today it as said is easy to prove by statistics that it is very wrong - but Muhammad did not know about statistics (and a god had not even needed statistics to know it was stupidity). On the other hand this claim is so contra all logic, that this as said is one of the points where Muhammad knew he was lying - he was too intelligent to believe in this. Actually Islam today back-pedals very much concerning predestination telling f.x. that the Quran does not mean real predestination (but not explaining what they claim it means). But in some cases the book is so clear, that it is impossible to explain it away.) f.x. many places connected to statements that when your time is out, you will die anyhow, and therefore you can as well go to war.

068 3/156d: "It is Allah that gives Life or Death - - -". Again this claim which is interesting for the simple reason that this is repeated several times in the Quran, but Allah has never proved it - - - but both Jesus and Yahweh have done so repeatedly if the old books tell the truth.(1. Kings 17/22, 2. Kings 4/34-35, Matt. 9/25, Luke 6/14-15, Luke 8/53-55, John 11/43-44, Acts 9/40, Acts 20/10 - and Jesus himself). But Allah? - nothing but words, not even a peanut. When we have the choice between lofty words only and reality, we always believe in reality.

**069 3/158a: "And if ye die, or are slain, lo! It is unto Allah that ye are brought together". Be killed in war for Allah, and go to paradise - good "knowledge" for a warrior or terrorist. Whoever said the Quran has to be disused to justify terrorism, hardly ever read the Quran. See also 3/157 just above.

070 3/159c: "- - - ask for (Allah's) forgiveness for them (some sinners*) - - -". But to what avail if everything is predestined by Allah long time ago like the Quran states many places? - predestine in accordance with Allah's Plan which nothing and no-one can change, if the Quran tells the truth. There are too many points in the Quran where the logic breaks down - even central and serious points like this. If everything is predestined by Allah long time ago, praying for help or something simply has no meaning, as Allah's Plan is unchangeable. And there are more places in the Quran where the logic is as hopeless. No omniscient god stumbles around like this.

071 3/161b: "No prophet could (ever) be false to his trust." There is another and much more serious fact here: Through the times most not to say (nearly?) all self-proclaimed prophets have been false prophets. Most of the false prophets have been (and are) men, and in religion they have found a way to money, women, esteem, and power the 4 normal reasons for impostors. Some are mentally special or ill Muhammad is among those if he had TLE (see the chapter "What is TLE Temporal Lobe Epilepsy" in "1000+ Mistakes in the Quran"). Some really believe they are prophets, others just are cheats if Muhammad had TLE, he may honestly have believed he had some connection to a god, but it also is very clear from the Quran that he at least sometimes knew he was cheating/lying; some of the arguments he used in the book, any intelligent person knows are lies (f.x. that miracles would not make doubters believe), and Muhammad was an intelligent man. And some of the self proclaimed "prophets" simply were/are cold and calculating sometimes even psychopathic - - - and when one looks at Muhammad's cold-blooded treatment of victims and opponents, his total disregard (he f.x. had a lot of them murdered) for the life and well-being of everybody that stood between him and power and riches (to use for bribing greedy warriors and chiefs to come to or stay on in his religion and his army), and his clever psychological (every clever salesman knows much about human nature and psychology) manipulation of his uneducated, na early followers, it is easy to believe Muhammad belonged to these may be combined with the effect of the possible TLE or something.

And it is here worth noticing that the other possible explanation for this sentence in the Quran, is that it is a defense against accusations for making up the whole or parts of the book. Interesting here is that in (A3/123), Swedish 2006 edition both accusations are accusations are debated, and it is confirmed that Muhammad really was accused for not dealing fair when sharing the booty (this also is mentioned in other sources), whereas in the slightly more "correct" English 2008 edition this is omitted. One only tells that to accuse Muhammad for making up the Quran is "contrary to reason" - which is an invalid (not to use stronger words) argument when you for one thing know there have been literally thousands of false prophets throughout the history, for another thing know how many mistaken fact and other errors there are in the Quran, and for a third know that many of the mistakes are from wrong science of different kinds one believed in in Arabia at the time of Muhammad, and not to forget Muhammad's point of view about honesty when dishonesty might give a better result - not even his own oaths did he respect in such cases. Also see 3/161a just above.

072 3/161c: "- - - prophet - - -". But Muhammad was no real prophet. The definition of a prophet was a person who could see at least parts of the unseen, and thus a person who:

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

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

The main things here are that Muhammad never indicated that anything of what he said was meant as prophesies, that he never indicated, not to mention claimed, that he had the gift of prophesying, that it nowhere is documented that all/most of what he said about the future came true (point 2 above), and finally that both he and Islam said and says that Muhammad was unable to see the unseen (extra revealing here is that the old Biblical title for a prophet, was "a seer" - one who saw the unseen (see further down)) and also that there were no miracles connected to Muhammad "except the Quran" (prophesying is a kind of miracle - seeing what has not yet happened). (This fact that Islam admits there were no miracle connected to Muhammad "except the revelation of the Quran" also is a solid proof for that all the miracles connected to Muhammad mentioned in the Hadiths, are made up stories). We also should add that his favorite wife (and infamous child wife) Aishah, according to Hadiths (f.x. Al-Bukhari) states that anyone saying Muhammad could foresee things, were wrong.

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

Also relevant here is as said that the original title of the Jewish prophets was not "prophet", but "seer" - one who saw at least parts of the unseen. (F.x. 1. Sam. #9/9, 1. Sam. 9/11, 1. Sam. 9/18, 1. Sam. 9/19, 2. Kings. 17/13, 1. Chr. 9/22, 1. Chr. 26/28, 1. Chr. 29/29, 2. Chr. 9/29, 2. Chr. 16/7, 2. Chr.16/10, 2. Chr. 19/2, 2. Chr. 29/25, Amos 7/12, Mic. 3/7 - some places the two titles even are used side by side in transition periods). Muhammad thus so definitely was no seer - prophet - even according to his own words; he had no "knowledge of the unseen".

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

***This is a fact no Muslim will admit: Muhammad in reality simply was no real prophet or seer. Perhaps a messenger for someone or something or for himself or perhaps an apostle but not a real prophet. He only "borrowed" that impressive and imposing title. It is up to anyone to guess why. It also is anybody's guess why he more often used the far less imposing title "Messenger" - a messenger boy is something far smaller than a prophet. Did he know or suspect that it was not true, and that explanations for the lack of prophesies from a self proclaimed prophet would be difficult to explain? Like the reason why he so seldom claims he is found in the Bible, may have been that he knew or suspected it was not true?

Besides: To belong in a special line of prophets, the teachings and the prophesies of course must be in line with the other prophets in that line, because a god follows a steady course and teaching (one of the proofs for that something is wrong with the Quran - Allah changes too much back and forth in his claimed teachings, and especially so if he had been identical to Yahweh: From rather harsh up to Jesus, then mild under the new covenant, then harsher, but reasonably mild under Muhammad in Mecca, and finally a full and partly immoral and unjust war god in Medina from ca. 622 - 624 AD when Muhammad started to need warriors to gain riches (mainly for bribes) and power). If not, one either belongs to another line - another god with another teaching/religion - or one simply is a false prophet (there have been many more false prophets than real ones through the times). Muhammad's religion was far from both the OT and even much further from NT, and in addition he was unable to make prophesies - even if he had been a prophet, he is far too far from the teaching of Yahweh and Yahweh's Jewish prophets. He is not in that line of prophets and not speaking for the same god - too much is different. The Quran simply may be one of the many apocryphal - made up - manuscripts/books more or less loosely built on biblical traditions and "adjusted" to fit the religious teaching of sects more or less distant from the mother religion - the Quran in case is one of the more distant ones.

Also see 30/40h below.

The claim in reality is logical rubbish and taken far out of the context. But it is the only "real" claim they try to cling to (there are some others, but they are even more far out) - they have to, because if not the Quran is wrong and thus not from a god and Islam a made up religion. Also see the chapter "Muhammad in the Bible" in "1000+ Mistakes in the Quran" - https://www.1000mistakes.com - and 2/77a and 7/157e below.

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 - and more successful - than most of the others.

073 3/164e: "- - - Wisdom - - -". Beware that when the Quran uses words like this, it normally means religious wisdom (= Islam). All sciences not related to Islam, in reality were disliked or stronger by Muslim leaders, who fought against such "foreign knowledge" - and won that war in 1095 AD with the book "The Incoherence of the Philosophers" by "the greatest Muslim after Muhammad", al-Ghazali. (It took another some 100 years in the far west).

074 3/167b: "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 going to Paradise if you are killed. 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.

075 3/168c: "Say, ‘Avert death for yourselves (not good Muslims*) - - -." This also refer to the Islamic belief in predestination: You cannot avert death - not even for a short wile - because Allah decided 5 months before you were born (according to Hadiths) when you are to die, and no-one can change Allah's decisions - he at the same time even decided if you were to end in Paradise or in Hell according to Hadiths.

076 3/171f: "- - - reward - - -". It is quite a "religion of peace" who gives its highest rewards to warriors, and mostly warriors of aggression.

077 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 same god?

###078 3/176a: "Let not those grieve thee who rush head-along into unbelief - - -". The Bible: "Search for the lost sheep" (f.x. Matt. 18/12-14). Even this small verse alone proves 100% and more that the Quran and the NT cannot come from the same god - the basic ideas behind the religions are totally different. Well, unless the god is mentally ill.

079 3/184a: "Then if they reject thee (Muhammad*), so were rejected Messengers before thee - - -." This also is one of the remarks you meet here and there in the Quran: There is nothing strange in that Muhammad and his teachings were not accepted at once - that is normal for messengers. "Ergo" the situation is normal for a "messenger" when Muhammad is rejected. "Ergo" Muhammad is a (normal) messenger.

080 3/187a: "And remember Allah took a Covenant from the People of the Book (= Jews and Christians*), - - - but they threw it away - - -".

Yahweh took a covenant with the Jews. It was sometimes respected, sometimes mistreated and broken and fell into disuse - - - and renewed time and again. What the Quran and Islam never mention, is that Yahweh never terminated it (well, it is claimed it was terminated "de facto" by the Jews' breaking and mistreating it, but not even the Quran says that the god told he terminated it). As not even the Quran claims the covenant was a fiction, at least formally it was valued at the time of Muhammad, and even today.

Yahweh took a "new covenant" with the followers of Jesus, formalized via Jesus during "the Last Supper" (Luke 22/20 and a number of other places) and more or less the same can be said about this one. The new covenant is never mentioned by Muslims. (Most Muslims have never heard about it even, even though their scholars know it.)

081 3/194a: "Grant us (Muslims*) what Thou (Allah*) didst promise through Thy prophets - - -." The Quran claims that all the old prophets - 124000 Islam says (included the old Jewish ones) are "their" prophets, and prophets in a long line leading up to Muhammad. But for this to be true, Muhammad's teachings, moral, ethics, etc. have to be in accordance with the corresponding ones of the old prophets - if one belongs to the same tradition from the same god, at least the main points have to be similar and nothing contradicting. In this case these facts do not add up. Muhammad cannot be in the same line unless the god suddenly changed his mind very much on several points - his teaching is very different from the known prophets. A fact few non-Muslims are aware of an no Muslims ever mention.

082 3/200b: "Persevere in patience and constancy; vie in such perseverance; strengthen each other; and fear Allah; that ye may prosper". If George Bush had read this, he had listened to his generals and used more troops - for once USA used too few troops in an invasion when they invaded Iraq. Non-Muslims also should be aware that the Quran imprints and imprints and imprints that if you persevere, the opponent grows tired and gives in. Too often it is correct.




These are just tit-bits from the book "1000+ Quran-comments - skeptics' facts and thoughts". You will find the complete book under http://www.1000quran-comments.com. (The surah reference numbers are like in that book.)

In http://www.1000mistakes.com you find:

  1. Book A: "1000+ Mistakes in the Quran" - http://www.1000mistakes.com.
  2. Book B: "1000+ comments in Jihad - (un)holy war" - http://www.1000mistakes.com/jihad-holywar/index.php
  3. Book C (this one): "1000+ Quran-comments - skeptics' facts and thoughts" (1000+ tit-bits from the complete book) - http://www.1000quran-comments.php.
  4. Book D: "Correcting much wrong refuting on http://www.1000mistakes.com - and a lesson in Muslim ways of debating.
  5. Book E: "What the Bible really says - when the Quran uses legends, fairy tales, or phantasy, instead of the Bible as sources for 'Biblical' texts, like it often does. (Expected late 2011 or early 2012).

In http://www.1000quran-comments.com you find:

  1. "1000+ Quran-comments - skeptics' facts and thoughts" (the "complete" list - 20ooo+ comments on the Quran) - as said in http://1000quran-comments.php.

#083 4/3a: "If ye fear that ye shall not be able to deal justly with the orphans, marry women of your choice two or three or four - - -". An ok excuse for a marriage? At least it is from this verse that Muslims know they can have up to 4 wives (+ concubines and slave women of course).

084 4/11+12: The verses about inheritance are far from clear in Islam. Muhammad stated fixed proportions. But the trouble is that those proportions may add up to more than the full value of the property. If there f.x. are these inheritors after a man's death: 1 wife = 1/8 (3/24), 3 daughters = 2/3 (16/24), 1 father = 1/6 (4/24) and 1 mother = 1/6 (4/24). If you add these you will see that they are to inherit 27/24, which is mathematically and practically impossible. Or if a man dies and leaves only a sister and a brother: The sister gets ½ and the brother the double of what the sister gets = 3/2, which is an absurd joke. And what if a man had 2 wives, one with a child and the other not? Does the one with child get 1/8 and the other ¼? Etc. Juridical problems concerning inheritance are complicated under Islam because of these mistakes. But the shares are said to be ordained by Allah, the All-knowing!!!

085 4/13d: "- - - Gardens with rivers flowing beneath - - -". The Quran's and Islam's paradise - see 10/9f below. Also typical is the central value given to water - valuable and a dream situation for desert dwellers. (For the sake of convenience, we call such local connections, marks or values, etc. "Arabisms" as they in the Quran describes the situation in and around Arabia - and typical for the Quran there is no other climatic or other local characteristics than what you meet in dry and hot places used as background in the book, except for the corresponding dreams people living in such places had about what would be pleasant or a paradise. Any god had known about the rain forests, the pleasant summer sun of 60 - 70 degrees latitude, the unpleasant drizzle of winter England, the cold of Siberia, etc., whereas Muhammad obviously did not know about this. Did an omniscient god create his own holy book in such a way that only a small part of his intended followers could recognize their own life and situation, and all the rest would feel like outsiders or even sometimes not understand what was meant? - or did someone with little knowledge of what was the reality outside what we now call the Middle East compose it?). The above mentioned is the most frequently used Arabism in the Quran, but there are many others - f.x. the total dominance of Muhammad and of his period of time, in a book claimed sent down to all prophets in all times (124000 and more according to Hadiths) and all places on Earth. Or to be more exact: They all got their copy of the claimed "mother book" which Allah and his angels revered in Heaven, and which also the Quran was a copy of. But how many from Greenland or Siberia or the rain forests in Brazil or Congo would understand the Arabisms in their copy of the "mother book"/Quran, which necessarily had to be similar to Muhammad's Quran as they were copies of the same claimed "mother book"? Not to mention how many hundreds and thousands of years earlier would understand all the references to Muhammad and his family and co-workers and daily life?

086 4/24a: "Also (prohibited (for Muslims to marry*) are) women already married, except those whom your right hands possess (= slave women*) - - -". = 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 official slavery abolished in the last Muslim country Mauritania. (And not until even more unbelievable 2007 did it become a punishable crime there). That is to say; we have heard that Niger was even later, but we have found no confirmation on this. Also remember that according to UN (2008 AD) some 24 million humans today "live as slaves or under slave like conditions" a good percentage of them in Muslim areas. And not least: According to old Islamic laws (later than Muhammad though), all so-called "new ideas" became prohibited and punishable early in the Islamic period. That meant everything not in the Quran or traditions (Hadith) was prohibited. This turned out to be too harsh, and they were forced to accept some changes: Changes that 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 only is rubbish to be very polite. Islam was forced backwards and fighting into abolition slavery by the west.

In addition Muhammad both took, raped (at least Rayhana bint Amr and Safiyya bint Huayay), used as gifts, accepted as gift (at least his black 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? at least as long as the slaves are not Muslims? There are many who would not be surprised. Especially slave women is a temptation.

###087 4/29c: "- - - nor kill (or destroy) yourselves - - -". A most essential sentence in a time with lots of self murder terrorists - self murder clearly is against this verse in the Quran.

088 4/34c: "- - - and because they (men*) support them (women*) - - -". This was/is a result of the culture, not a necessary side of human nature. Given the possibility a woman can well support herself, and in many old cultures the woman did her share of the work to feed and to bring up the family - in some cultures more than her share. But because some places in Arabia - not all - a woman could not do that, it is used as an argument for that she is inferior to the man - in Mecca (originally not in Yathrib/Medina or among many other Arabs) and soon in Muslim societies (partly because of Umar) and now in all the world.

089 4/34f: (YA547): "- - - spank them (lightly) - - -." But the Arab word used here "daraba" "is used in the Quran with about 17 - seventeen - different meanings - - -." Has Allah so limited a vocabulary that he has to use such a diffuse speech? At least it is very clear that the texts in the Quran frequently are very unclear.

***090 4/40a: "Allah is never unjust in the last degree - - -." Wrong. Examples: Suppression of others (non-Muslims) is "good and lawful 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 prisoner 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.

*091 4/47d: (The Quran is*) "confirming what was (already) with you (= the Bible, the Torah, etc.*) ". There are too many basic thoughts which are different between the Quran and the Bible especially compared to the NT and the new covenant (f.x Luke 22/20). Incitement to war against non-believers vs. the "lost lamb", "do not kill" vs. "do not kill except for a good reason", all the incitements to war, etc., etc. The Quran is no confirmation of the Bible, and definitely not of NT. It is also not possible that the same god is behind so different ideas, unless he is mentally ill. See also 2/89b, 2/139a-b and 3/3e+f above 29/46 and 29/46c-e below + "Falsification of the Bible?" in https://www.1000mistakes.com

092 4/50a: "How they (Jews and Christians*) invent a lie against Allah". = How they have falsified the Bible! = the only defense Muhammad had against the fact that there were large differences between what he told about the Bible and what really was in the Bible. See 2/75b, 2/89ab, 2/130 and 4/47d above and "Falsifications in the Bible?" in https://www.1000mistakes.com.

093 4/52: "They (the People of the Book - Jews, Christians, Sabeans*) are (men) Allah hath cursed - - -". To use small letters: BAD PEOPLE!

094 4/53: "Behold, they give not a farthing to their fellow-men". A bit strange claim as generosity always has been a positive thing in Christianity. And not less strange as hardly any of the really international aid or help NGOs started in Muslim countries. Not to mention that at least from Scandinavia there has been mentioned in the papers that when the big help or aid organizations tries to raise money for their work, Muslims give little or nothing (exceptions may be for organizations working only/mainly among Muslims).

095 4/57e: "- - - therein (Paradise*) shall they (deserving Muslim men*) have companions pure and holy (houris*) - - -." 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. Very different from the Bible's Paradise to use an understatement (f.x. Luke 20/36) - very different. The same god? You bet!

###096 4/57g: This is what the Muslim paradise has to offer: Good food and drink (and never to the toilet), lots of women (a small share of their husband for women - if they are able to compete with the houris), peace and quiet, nice shades and enough water, nice clothes and riches. You must be primitive, uneducated, poor, and from a hot desert to be able to think about this as the ultimate Paradise. F.x. exceedingly boring in the long run.

097 4/58a: "- - - judge with justice - - -". On the face of it, this is a good demand. The minus is that it is meant "justice" according to the Quran's partly immoral moral code and the sometimes very unjust sharia laws.

098 4/59b: "Obey Allah, and obey the Messenger (Muhammad*) - - -." This is one of Muhammad's standard mantras to glue himself to Allah and his platform of power - here in a strengthened version - doubly nice as "Obey Allah" on Earth = obey Muhammad. An interesting and often repeated order from Allah(?) - at least interesting for a man who obviously liked power (and respect).

099 4/74b: "To him who fighteth in the cause of Allah - whether he is slain or gets victory - soon shall we give him a reward of great (value) (= Paradise*)". What can be a better reward - - - if it is true? And what can be a cheaper way for leaders to get warriors, than promises of payment in the next life? May be Allah forgot this alternative?

100 4/76f: "- - - the friends of Satan - - -". A name used by Muhammad and the Quran for non-Muslims. Quite understandable that Muslims may be reluctant to be integrated with such detestable persons. (If this had been a novel or a modern sect religion, it had been prohibited in most civilized countries for hate mongering, incitement to war and discrimination, etc.)

****101 4/80a: "He who obeys the Messenger, obeys Allah - - -". It is not possible to express Muhammad's mantra more directly than this. The ultimate dictator with ultimate power.

102 4/83c: "- - - all but a few of you would have fallen into the clutches of Satan." This sentence is a bit ironic, as one of the theories about the origin of the Quran, is that the maker is Satan/the Devil. It cannot be from a god, as no god would make so many discrepancies, mistakes, etc., and many of the verses, especially from Medina, are so devilish and inhuman - stealing/robbing, dishonesty, raping, apartheid, discrimination, enslaving, murder, mass murder, war, hate - that there is a good reason for suspecting dark forces. But personally our group does not believe so - not even a devil would make a book with that many errors, as he/she had to know he/she would be found out sooner or later and loose credence. Well, there may be one possibility: People in religious fervor and blindness often are unable to see the reality if it do not fit their unshakable blind belief - it is like this among strong believers in all religions, included Islam. May be a devil gambled on this fact? Or maybe he only was permitted by the god to try to lead more humans to Hell, on the condition that the trap should be easy to see by persons able to think.

103 4/87e: "And whose words can be truer than Allah's?" Reality can be truer when Allah - or at least the Quran - is wrong; facts are facts even if a claimed god makes mistakes. And honestly: When Allah is wrong - like many places in the Quran - many a person can be truer.

##104 4/91b: "- - - seize them (unreliable non-Muslims*) and slay them wherever you (Muslims*) get them - - -." Whoever believes NT and the Quran is from the same god, has never seen a Bible - let alone opened one. And: "Let there be no compulsion in religion"?

105 4/91c: "- - - We (Allah*) have provided you (Muslims*) with a clear argument against them (non-Muslims you do not rely on*)". And the clear argument is: If you do not trust them, kill them - and how many non-Muslims do f.x. extremist Muslims rely on? The Quran and NT from the same god? You bet!!

##106 4/95a: "Not equal are those believers who sit (at home) and receive no hurt, and those who strive in the cause of Allah with their goods and their person. Allah hath granted a grad higher to those who strive with their goods and their persons". Clear words: Go to war or terrorism and end in a better part of Paradise - there are at least 4 or 6 different qualities of Gardens there + the higher heavens according to the Quran. Incitement "de luxe".

#107 4/95c: "Unto all (in Faith (= all Muslims*)) hath Allah promised good: but those who strive hath He distinguished above those who sit (at home) by special reward -." Are any comments necessary? - except f.x. compare this to NT. The Quran is war and murder. Compare it to the pacifistic and anti-war NT or f.x. Buddhism!

What a nice verse for a terrorist!

But what if the Quran is a made up book? - by man or dark forces? (with all its mistakes, etc. it is not from any god). Where will Muslims end if there is a next life?

108 4/101a: "- - - for the unbelievers are unto you open enemies." An unmistakable message - no good basis for building trust between religions, or for integration of Muslims in non-Islamic cultures. Hate mongering simply.

109 4/115a: "If anyone contends with the Messenger (Muhammad*) even after guidance has been plainly conveyed to him (he ends in Hell*)". Disagree with Muhammad and you end in Hell! The perfect commandment for the total dictator.

110 4/116b: "- - - one who joins gods with Allah - - -". Non-Muslims do not join gods with Allah. They simply do not believe he exists, and believe in their own god(s). An exception may be the old Arabs, who believed in their main pagan god, al-Lah, which Muhammad claimed in reality was the only god Allah - this in case is one of the Arabisms in the Quran.

111 4/122b: "- - - deeds of righteousness - - -". Beware that when the Quran uses words like this, it is in accordance with its own partly immoral moral code.

112 4/125a: "Who can do better in religion than one who submits his whole self to Allah - - -". Anybody if Allah does not exist - and there are at least 3 very good indications for that he is fiction: 1) Muhammad was never able to prove anything. 2) He has never in 1400 years given the slightest clear indication for his existence. 3) And the Quran is not from a god - no god would ever be connected to a book of that quality.

113 4/127d: "- - - stand firm for the justice to orphans". One of the plusses for the Quran, is its insisting on good treatment of orphans. This may be because Muhammad himself early became an orphan.

114 4/133b: "If it were His (Allah's*) Will - - -". This is one of very many places where the Quran tells about what Allah could do if he would - - - it just happens that he never will. Similar to what you often hear from children and immature persons wanting to impress others. An impolite word for this is boasting. Also see 14/19d below.

115 4/139a: "Yea, to those who take for friends Unbelievers rather than Believers (you will not get honor from Allah*)" You are permitted to have non-Muslims as friends - in the real world it is impossible to prohibit it - but not close friends. Beware of possibility of social extrication and of punishment from Allah if you "sin" against this.

####116 4/142a: "The hypocrites they think they are overreaching Allah, but he will overreach them (literal meaning: 'He (Allah*) is their deceiver'*) - - -." This is one of Islam's alibis for Al-Taqiyya and Kitman: When Allah could cheat, then of course his followers can do the same.

Just for the record: Al-Taqiyya and Kitman can be used at least in the cases mentioned below (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 promises, as an oath is something stronger than a normal promise). As for deceit/betrayal this at least is permitted in wars - but "everything" outside Islam is "the land of war".

  1. To save your or others' health or life.
  2. To get out of a tight spot or a dangerous problem.
  3. To make peace in a family.
  4. When it will give a better result than honesty or honoring one's oath.
  5. To cheat women (should be remembered by girls with Muslim boyfriends wanting sex - or wanting a marriage to get work permit or residence permit in a rich country.)
  6. To deceive opponents/enemies.
  7. To betray enemies.
  8. To secure one's money (very clear from Hadiths).
  9. To defend Islam. (Compulsory if necessary to succeed.)
  10. To promote Islam. (Compulsory if necessary to succeed.)

But al-Taqiyya is a double-edged sword: In the short run you may cheat and deceive some ones 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 na. But in the long run one discovers that Muslims can lie without sinning, and thus that it is impossible to rely 100% on a Muslim's word in serious cases - he may be using an al-Taqiyya, a Kitman or even be relying on Muhammad's words about deceiving or about breaking oaths if this gives a better result.

Also see 4/142b just below.

117 4/149b: "- - - evil - - -". Beware that when the Quran uses expressions like this, it is in accordance with its own partly immoral moral code. F.x. one of the best deeds is to wage raids and wars and suppress - and worse - others.

*118 4/156c: "- - - they uttered against Mary a grave false charge (that Jesus was crucified and dead*)". There were so many witnesses, included many who knew Jesus well (f.x. Matt.27/54, Mark 15/40, John 19/25), and included so many that hated him and definitely had made revolt if he was not executed the Jewish clergy was powerful - that this charge was definitely not false. If Islam says something else, they will have to provide good proofs, not only bring forth lofty statements taken out of thin air 600 years later. Because that is all the Quran has got to offer: A few lofty statements backed by nothing - no proofs and not even an indicia indicating that all those witnesses - and the rulers and the hateful Jewish clergy - were wrong. Words are very cheap - - - and the only fact Islam can produce is that neither Muhammad nor Islam can accept that Jesus died and was resurrected - in that case he clearly was a greater prophet and/or had closer connections to the god than Muhammad - or slightly divine -, and that is taboo for Muslims. It simply is unacceptable for them.

*119 4/157e: "- but they killed him not, nor crucified him, but so it was made to appear for them - - -". See 4/156c above. In addition to what is said in 4/156c: If no one else made sure that it was no impostor and that the correct killing really took place, the angry and spiteful Jewish clergy and scholars would see to that. This claim is made up by someone that could not accept that Muhammad was not the greatest prophet (even though Muhammad in reality was not really a prophet he did not have the gift of being able to make prophesies), and who did not know the political and religious situation in Israel at that time. If Islam wants to say something else, they will have a lot of explanation and proving to do - this even more so as the Quran always demands proofs for what non-Muslims say about their religion, but it NEVER itself offers any real proofs for Islam or Allah. In spite of all the "signs" it boasts of, not one single of those "signs" - with the possible exception of some taken from the Bible - proves any god at all, and definitely not one single one proves anything about Allah or the teachings of Muhammad. Words are very cheap, and there is not one single of those "signs" which cannot as well and as easy be used by priests or believers or "prophets" of all other religions: Manito did this, Thor did that, Kali made something, Osiris something else, Baal created the Earth, and al-Uzza is great. Islam always only claims that Allah did this and this and that this is a "sign" or a "proof" for Allah. But they NEVER prove that it really was Allah that did this and this. Because of that each and every such "sign" and "proof" are intuitively and logically and even judicially invalid as an indication or a proof and for the same reason any priest in any religion can say exactly the same valueless words about his god(s). The claims are totally invalid as indications or indicia, not to mention as proofs. There is not one single valid proof for Allah or for the teachings of Muhammad anywhere - - - or for the undocumented claim that Jesus was not crucified and died. Similar claims f.x. in 4/156c as mentioned (above).

No matter it is reckoned as a fact that Jesus really was a historical person. He was heard and seen by so many after his death and resurrection, that it is possible also this part of the story may be true that he really existed after his execution. (He also is mentioned by the old writers Josephus, Tacitus, Suetonius, and Plinius the younger - just mentioned, but mentioned.)

But he was never heard or seen after his final farewell to his disciples.

And actually: Whether he died and was resurrected like told in the Bible, or he was miraculously saved and taken up to Heaven alive like claimed in the Quran, it very clearly indicates a much closer connection to the god than what Muhammad had. This even more so if the Quran is a completely or partly made up book.

##120 4/157f: (YA 663):"- - - nor crucified him - - -." We quote from the book "The Meaning of the Holy Quran" one of the "heavy" ones in Islam - comment 663: "The Gospel of St. Barnabas supported the theory of substitution (another man than Jesus was crucified*) on the Cross". This is one of Islam's pet claims for explanation of the claim that Jesus was not crucified, this in spite of that nothing neither in the Quran, nor in Hadiths indicates anything like this. But we must admit we reacted when we saw the so called "Gospel of Barnabas" used as a documentation for this claim in a book told by Islam to be of high quality - "The Gospel of Barnabas" is a well known apocryphal - made up - scripture. Now many of these made up scriptures were made by fringe semi-Christian sects in the old times. But this one most likely is not even one of them. It is likely it is written by Islam - most likely one of the not few falsifications which were made in Spain around 800 - 900 AD during its Muslim period, to prove pet Muslim theories or cheat people. But it also is a possibility that it was made in Baghdad at the court of the caliph - remember that Muslims are not only permitted to lie (al-Taqiyya, Kitman, etc.) when defending or forwarding Islam, but are told to lie "if necessary" if that gives a better result. That it is a falsification is so well known, that there is no chance Yusuf Ali did not know this. The use of this well known falsification, then tells quantities about how reliable even presumed high quality Islamic religious literature sometimes is - or not is. It also tells mountains about lack of true facts and arguments - or total lack of such (no sane person uses arguments he knows are faked, if he has true arguments). And not least: It tells something about even top Muslim scholars. Honestly we had preferred not to meet things like this - there are more than enough facts which document that something is wrong, so we did not need this al-Taqiyya. It makes the Islamic religion so dirty and "small" - we had preferred honest mistakes. And the sad thing is: It is not the only time we have met this kind of debate from Muslims.

To repeat the final point: The use of known falsifications prove that Islam has no honest arguments and no real proofs for their claim - if they had, they had not been forced to use known falsifications as a last resort.

121 4/158b: (YA664): "Nay, Allah raised him (Jesus*) up unto Himself - - -". There is difference among Muslims what this exactly means: Was Jesus raised up to heaven bodily and never died? Or did he die later than the crucifixion Islam denies and spared the indignities the Jews intended for him? Muslims will give you different answers, because the text is not clear - but it is clear that the god somehow was involved even according to the Quran. (But none we have ever met has given a clear answer to where Jesus disappeared if he lived on on Earth a person like Jesus would have left traces no matter where he fled if he fled, which he absolutely did not do according to the Bible).

What is for sure is for one thing that a person like Jesus could not disappear anywhere - he was too special a personality. And for another: If he was taken up to Heaven alive - which is the most often met explanation - that is just a good proof for the involvement of something supernatural - a god - as resurrection.

122 4/163b: "We (Allah*) have sent thee (Muhammad*) inspiration, as We sent it to Noah and the Messengers after him - - -". As Muhammad claimed he got much of the Quran by inspiration, it was good psychology to claim also earlier prophets got messages from the god the same way - it "documented" that Muhammad was a prophet like the older ones. The word "inspiration" is not used anywhere in the Bible in such connections.

*123 4/170c: "The Messenger (= Muhammad*) hath come to you in truth from Allah: - - -". With so many mistaken facts in Mohammad's tales (the Quran), it is impossible he really got the surahs and verses from a god, at least not from an omniscient god. Also see 13/1g and 40/75 below.

124 4/171e: "- - - Christ Jesus, the son of Mary, was (no more than) a Messenger- - -." Well, he frequently called Yahweh (the Jewish and Christian god) his father - the word is used for Yahweh in the relationship between Yahweh and Jesus at least 204 times in the Bible, and the word "son" at least 87 times, many of those times by Jesus himself - and Jesus was reliable also according to the Quran (and remember: Neither science nor Islam has been able to find one single falsification in the Bible - lots of claims from Islam, but not one documented case (just guess how loudly Islam had screamed about it, if they had ever found one!)).

125 4/171l: "- - - so believe in Allah and His Messengers (included Muhammad*) - - -". The most sure way in life to be cheated, is to believe blindly in things you are told - especially when the tales not proved and are from persons of low moral standard, but with ambitions.

126 4/172a: "Christ disdaineth not to serve and worship Allah." In 3/51a is implicated in the explanation why this is wrong. The only possible exception is if Yahweh and Allah really is the same god. But only Islam states that, and the teachings of Yahweh (especially in NT and the New Covenant f.x. Luke 22/20) are so different at essential points from the teachings of Allah, that they cannot be the same god unless he is mentally ill (schizophrenic). Islam will in case have to prove what they say, not only to claim it.


These are just tit-bits from the book "1000+ Quran-comments - skeptics' facts and thoughts". You will find the complete book under http://www.1000quran-comments.com. (The surah reference numbers are like in that book.)

In http://www.1000mistakes.com you find:

  1. Book A: "1000+ Mistakes in the Quran" - http://www.1000mistakes.com.
  2. Book B: "1000+ comments in Jihad - (un)holy war" - http://www.1000mistakes.com/jihad-holywar/index.php
  3. Book C (this one): "1000+ Quran-comments - skeptics' facts and thoughts" (1000+ tit-bits from the complete book) - http://www.1000quran-comments.php.
  4. Book D: "Correcting much wrong refuting on http://www.1000mistakes.com - and a lesson in Muslim ways of debating.
  5. Book E: "What the Bible really says - when the Quran uses legends, fairy tales, or phantasy, instead of the Bible as sources for 'Biblical' texts, like it often does. (Expected late 2011 or early 2012).

In http://www.1000quran-comments.com you find:

  1. "1000+ Quran-comments - skeptics' facts and thoughts" (the "complete" list - 20ooo+ comments on the Quran) - as said in http://1000quran-comments.php.

127 5/8c: "- - - justice". Beware that when the Quran uses words like this, it is in accordance with its own partly immoral moral code and its partly unjust and partly immoral sharia law.

128 5/14a: "We (the god*) did take a Covenant (with the Christians, too*) - - -". It is crystal clear that this covenant was made by Jesus' words the last supper (Luke 22/20).This is so well known and so central in the Christian religion, that not one single Muslim really educated in religion do not know this. All the same this almost always is omitted when Muslim scholars write or talk - and the lay Muslim mostly have never heard about it. And then you even in presumably good quality Islamic literature meet claims like this - claims which have to be written against the writers knowledge, as it is so well known (YA: The Meaning of the Quran", comment 715): "The Christian Covenant may be taken to be the charge which Jesus gave to his disciples, and which the disciples accepted, to welcome Ahmad (= Muhammad*)":

  1. 1. There exists a verse in the Quran where it is claimed Jesus said there should come a messenger named Ahmad (= Muhammad) - but only in the Quran, a book dictated by Muhammad. Not very strange if Muhammad foretold himself. BUT NOT EVEN THERE IT IS SAID THAT JESUS' DISCIPLES ACCEPTED THE MESSAGE. (It is claimed in the Quran that the disciples said they were Muslims, but not that they got the claimed message about Muhammad). Honesty in argumentation?
  2. There is no-where in the Bible said anything even remotely similar to this. And it is worth remembering that science - and Islam - long since has proved the claims in the Quran about falsifications in the Bible wrong - not to say fakes.
  3. Jesus' order to his disciples before he left them (according to the Bible and not opposed by the Quran) was to find proselytes and make them Christians by baptizing them - something very different from what here is said.
  4. Jesus also told them he should send them a helper - and they received their "parts" of the Holy Spirit some days later, something which helped them quite a lot according to the NT. But Islam strongly claims this helper Jesus promised, was Muhammad - who was born nearly 500 years after the last of the disciples was dead! (But this is the only place they can twist the NT so much that an al-Taqiyya may look distantly believable for the ones not knowing the Bible, and as it is told in the Quran that Muhammad was foretold also in the Gospels, they HAVE to find such a foretelling, come Hell or high water. See 7/157e below.
  5. Another fact worth mentioning here is that in absolutely no foretelling in the Bible about anything not in the foreteller's near future, are names given - sometimes titles, but never names. In the verse in the Quran claimed to be parallel to one in the Bible, there is a clear name - typical for a deceiver overdoing his "job".

129 5/15b: "- - - revealing to you (Jews and Christians*) much of that ye used to hide in the Book (the Bible*) - - -". To believe in the theory that the Bible is falsified, one has to know very little about how to make identical falsifications of tens of thousands of copies of many different manuscripts, where on top of all all the different falsifications have to be synchronized in all the different manuscripts, so that the different manuscripts do not tell widely different facts. And not least: All references to and from the different papers must have been synchronized try to do that even today with 100000 papers spread over large areas and without using mass communications, or even a post office.

With 12000 relevant papers or scraps of papers still existing today, there must have been at least 100000 and many more in the old times, spread all over papers are destroyed or rot or disappear over the centuries - all identically falsified or falsified so that each corresponded to all the others, because at that time nobody knew which papers would survive until today!!! And then we have not even included the some 32000 other manuscripts with quotes from the Bible which also have survived till today. All together at least half a million papers had to be falsified - on 3 continents - from 2 religions + sects - in a time nearly without communications. And all had to be falsified in exactly the same ways and no point where falsification was necessary could be forgotten - and EVERY relevant paper had to be found and falsified (if not they could be found in the future). And not least: The falsifications all had to be so cleverly done that it is impossible for modern technology of today can find any traces of it.

It is up to you if you will weep or laugh - the two only normal reactions to a claim like this, if it was not because it was so serious.

Judge for yourself after you also have read all under 2/75, 3/24, 5/13 and 5/14.

130 5/18d: "He (Allah*) forgiveth whom He pleaseth, and punish whom He pleaseth". Whereas the Christian god according to the Bible forgives anyone who regret honestly and tries to make amends, and punishes only those who deserve it. The same god? Guess twice.

###131 5/19g: "But now hath come to you (Jews, Christians, Sabeans*) a bringer (Muhammad*) of glad tidings and a warner (from evil)." Read the Quran - skip the glorious words, and read the realities; the demands, the introduced rules, the deeds, the moral code, the lack of ethics, the sharia law, its code of war, etc. Glorious words are cheap to use for propaganda, the underlying realities are the realities. Read these realities and see what "glad tidings" and warning from real evil you find. Muhammad probably is the single man who has brought most terror and misery into this world - and if his Quran with all its errors is made up or from dark forces, also into the possible next world for his followers.

132 5/27a: "- - - the truth of the stories of the two sons of Adam (Cain and Abel*)". Well is it the truth? The murder is from the Bible, but the dialogue between the two just before the murder is borrowed from the made up scripture Targum of Jerusalem (better known as pseudo-Jonathan).

Did an omniscient and omnipotent god really have to borrow from made up texts and then call it "the truth"?

133 5/32a: "- - - if anyone slew a person - - - it would be as if he slew the whole people (often quoted/translated "- - - as if he killed the whole mankind/world - - -") - - -". (Also see 5/31-32 just above.) This is a sentence much quoted by Muslims to prove how peaceful Islam is. But this was not said to the Muslims; for some reason or other, they without exception drop the first part of the quote: "We (Allah*) ordained for the Children of Israel that if anyone slew a person - - - it would be as if he slew the whole people - - -". They never "remember" to mention that this was said to the Jews, not to the Muslims or Arabs. Forgotten?

It is also worth to note that the Quran often is quoted/translated: "- - - as if he killed the whole mankind - - -" or "- - - as if he killed the whole world - - -". There is a difference between killing a people and killing the whole mankind/world. Also see 5/31-32 just above.

Is this the work of an omniscient god?

134 5/34a: "Except for those (opponents of Islam*) who repent before they fall into your (Muhammad's*) power." If you are negative to Islam and fall into Muslim hands it is too late to change your mind - punishment is just and right and to be expected. With Muhammad the great idol, there is no wonder terrorists murder victims, guilty or not guilty of anything.

Compare this f.x. to "the 11. hour" - f.x. Matt. 20/8-13.

135 5/35a: "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.

136 5/35c: "- - - strive with might and main (see 5/35a-b just above*) in His (Allah's*) cause: that you may prosper." Fight for Allah (and Muhammad) then you may get a prosperous life. The alternative - death - was glorious. The alternative war cripple is never - not once - mentioned in the Quran. Only the "two glorious fates": Rich from stealing/loot or dead and in Paradise. 20-30-40 years dependant on others or as a beggar because you were too much hurt to work - may be in pain - such alternatives are never mentioned. The same for what about your children and your family if you are crippled or killed.

137 5/42c: "If thou (Muhammad*) judge, judge in equity between them (non-Muslims*)". The words are good - and varieties of these words are repeated some times in the Quran, also concerning Muslims. But is it possible always to judge fair and just, if you have to go by the sharia laws and its partly immoral and unjust rules?

138 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. 22/20 and other places in NT) you never find in the Quran (you may forgive, but that is based on quite another moral idea). 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 at least as harsh as the laws of Moses?

*139 5/46e: "We (Allah*) sent him (Jesus‘) the Gospel". Any god had known that the Gospels did not exist at the time of Jesus - the oldest of the 4 was written about 1 generation after his death.(Islam tries to get out of this fix by claiming the Quran talks about an older Gospel. And actually there may have existed an older one. But as a Gospel is the story of Jesus' life, death and resurrection, also this in case could not be written until after all that had happened - not unless there is full predestination, and thus no free will for man. And only the Quran claims predestination - one more serious difference between the two books and the two religions proving once more that Yahweh and Allah is not the same god.. See 3/3g-k and 3/48 above.

When it comes to foretelling about Muhammad, which is mentioned in the Quran, it seems that just this was and is more essential to Islam and Muslims, than to Muhammad himself, because he did not return to that topic often (or maybe he was careful because he suspected or knew it was not true?). For Islam and Muslims it is an essential question, however, because Islam has not one single valid proof neither for Allah nor for Muhammad's connection to a god a real foretelling had been if not a proof, then at least a good indication. There exists no such one in the Bible, in spite of Islam's claims - they cherry pick and then twist some words and quote them out of context, and try to make it look like foretelling about Muhammad, but they can cheat only people not knowing the Bible.

Besides the Quran tells that Muhammad is easy to find both in OT and NT, and then Islam has to find him "come Hell or high water" if not the Quran is wrong and then something is wrong with the religion. An indication of how essential this claim is to the Muslim clergy, is that in Hadiths f.x. Al-Bukhari you find "quotations" about Muhammad presumably taken from the Bible and presumably quoted from the Bible at about the time of Muhammad (and thus it is impossible even for Islam to claim that the Bible is falsified afterwards), which are not from the Bible, but the commentators do not whisper one word about that the quotes are wrong, but just let readers who do not know the Bible (= f.x. 99.9% of the Muslims) believe it is a "bona fide" and correct quote). An Al-Taqiyya.

140 5/48a: "To thee (Muhammad*) We (Allah*) sent the scripture - - -". As there are many mistakes, contradictions, etc. in the Quran, there are reasonable doubts about if a god really sent down the Quran. This even more so as a number of the mistakes is in accordance with what one believed to be true at the time of Muhammad in the Middle East. Muhammad would have believed it was the truth, a god had known it was wrong. Then who made the Quran?

Islam will have to prove the statement to be believed by rational thinkers with some knowledge.

141 5/48h: "- - - diverging from the Truth (the Quran*) that hath come to thee." With that many mistakes, the Quran at best is only partly the Truth. Islam repeats and repeats and repeats the claim that this is "the Truth". It is tempting to remember Minister of Propaganda (!) in "Das Reich" Nazi Germany Joseph Goebbels: "If you repeat a lie often enough, people starts believing it". (There also are many other similarities between Islam and Nazism, and Nazism was liked and respected in large parts of the Muslim populations in the Nazis' satanic days.) It also is tempting to mention that none are more eager to claim he is telling the truth, than the cheater and the deceiver.

142 5/50a: "- - - (the Days of) Ignorance - - -". Believe it or not, but "the Days of Ignorance" or "the Time of Ignorance" is the official and accepted name for the times before Islam in Muslim area. Extra ironic when you know parts of that area - f.x. Egypt and even more so Persia - were far less ignorant before being conquered by culturally primitive Muslim warriors, not to mention that Islam over some time stopped all scientific thinking except what was connected to religion - from 1095 (100 years later in the far west) after having fought it for centuries, and nearly till today there did not come one new idea or thought which could benefit humanity from all the Muslim area. So when was the real Time of Ignorance?

143 5/51c: "And he (the Muslim*) who turns to them (non-Muslims*) (for friendship) is of them." If you take non-Muslims for friends, you are as bad as they. Have you heard words like "discrimination" or "superiority complex" or similar before? It is not strange that Muslims f.x. in the west are reluctant to mingle with non-Muslims. If Christians - who after all has moral codes much closer to the gold standard; "do against others like you want others do against you", said something similar against Muslims in widespread media (like the Quran after all is), what would happen? Not to mention: How would Muslims react?

144 5/52a: "Those in whose hearts is a disease - - -". If you are not a Muslim, your heart has a disease. One of Muhammad's many negative and antipathy creating names for non-Muslim. Comments?

145 5/58a: "- - - that is because they are a people without understanding - - -". Just this sample of pep-talk is older than Adam and will never become too old - there always will be lots of naive people falling for it - "we intelligent ones know, those stupid do not know" - - - and it is just the least intelligent and least learned ones who most easily are duped by this worn out claim. Besides: Who is the one without understanding? - the one who believes anything told to him, or the one who is able to think things over?

146 5/59d: "Do ye ("People of the Book"*) disapprove of us for no other reason than that we believe in Allah - - -?" No. When Islam is disliked today, it is mainly because of its partly immoral moral code and its inhuman war religion. And we are not a little incredulous about how it is possible not to see that there is no god behind a "holy" book where so much is wrong. Human ability for blindness, naivety and wishful thinking is incredible.

147 5/64f: "Every time they (here mainly the Jews*) kindle the fire of war - - -". Irony to say the least of it - and a lot of gall - as practically all raids, wars, and armed skirmishes during Muhammad's stay in Medina (82 in all?) were initiated by and aggression from Muhammad and his followers.

148 5/64i: "And Allah loveth not those who do mischief". Whom Allah dislikes naturally is for "us" to detest. On the other hand: Muslims did and do a lot of mischief according to all normal moral rules - what about their relationship to a possible god? - this question is even more urgent if Allah is a made up god and if there exists another, benevolent god somewhere, not liking lies (al-Taqiyya, etc.), stealing, rape, mistreatment of innocents, torture or murder.

##149 5/66a: "If only they (Jews and Christians*) had stood by the Law, the Gospel (Muhammad seems to have believed there was only one - he always uses singular*) and all the revelations that was sent to them from their Lord - - -". That was exactly what they did. But the powerful Muhammad said they lied, and power often wins against the truth - at least in the short run (and even 1400 years is "short run" compared to eternity).

But truth has an uncanny tendency to win in the end - at least if it gets known. And the truth about the Quran is getting known.

150 5/67d: "For Allah guideth (via the Quran*) not those ("infidels") who reject Faith (Islam*)." The Quran is so full of mistakes, etc. that it is from no god, and consequently no guidebook in religion.

151 5/69a: "Those who (believe in the Quran), and those who follows the Jewish (scriptures), and the Christians and the Sabeans any who believe in Allah (here included Yahweh/God*) and the Last day, and work righteousness on them shall be no fear, nor shall they grieve." This may indicate that also Jews and Christians (and Sabeans - most likely people from the then mainly Christian Sabah/Sheba, but also a couple of other explanations may be possible - see 2/62f above) may go to Paradise. But see 5/69b just below.

*152 5/72c: "They do blaspheme who say: ‘God is the son of Mary'". No Christians say that Yahweh is the son of Mary, Jesus. (Though catholic people use the expression "Mother of God" meaning "Mother of (the holy) Jesus", but also they clearly know the difference between God/Yahweh and Jesus).

153 5/72e: "But said Christ; ‘O Children of Israel! Worship Allah, my Lord and your Lord‘". If Jesus had tried to teach about the in Israel known polytheistic god al-Lah from a heathen neighboring country, he had got very few followers and had been quickly killed by the clergy in the religious climate in Israel at that time. This is told by someone not knowing the religious and political situation in Israel at the time of Jesus.

154 5/74a: "Why turn they (Christians*) not to Allah - - -?" For the very simple reasons:

  1. They believed - and believe - in a religion and saw/see that Islam was/is so far away from that religion, that it could not be the same 0ne.
  2. 2. They saw that the teachings were so very different, that it impossibly could be the same god, and preferred their own Yahweh.
  3. 3. They saw that Muhammad was teaching a very different religion - he impossible could be a prophet from Yahweh.
  4. 4. They saw that f.x. according to 5.Mos. 18/21 he could be no prophet at all - he did not even make wrong prophesies, he made no real prophesies at all. He consequently - and also because his teachings were wrong - was a false prophet.
  5. 5. Muslims like to claim the reason why Jews and Christians did not accept Muhammad, was that Muhammad was no Jew, but that only is a smokescreen to hide and explain away the real reasons.

155 5/75a: "Christ, the son of Mary, was no more than a messenger; - - -". The Bible says something else that Jesus called Yahweh his father (this relationship according to our latest leafing through the Bible, is mentioned at least 204 times as "father" + at least 87 times as "son" in the NT - frequently by Jesus himself), and far from always only his spiritual father - and as the Bible is written relatively short time after Jesus' death, and on this point on the basis of thousands of witnesses who could tell what Jesus said, and protest if the narrators quoted Jesus falsely, it is likely that the Bible is more reliable here, than the Quran. The Quran is written 600 years later, and offers only unfounded statements and claims without any proof or even indicia backing up the claims. This even more so as the only Islamic source for the claims was a man who demanded to be the greatest prophet of all times, something he definitely could not be if Jesus was a relative of Yahweh and this even more so as Muhammad in reality was not a prophet: He did not have the gift of being able to make prophesies (he did not even claim to or pretend to have it) perhaps a messenger for someone or something, or an apostle, but not a prophet. And not least: Muhammad clearly had a deplorable moral - easy to see even in the Quran if you omit all the glossy, big words and look for the facts which are told about him.

Also as mentioned Jesus himself frequently called Yahweh his father - and Jesus is reliable also according to the Quran. A sticky fact Islam cannot accept (as said the Quran/Mohammad cannot accept that Jesus may be the son of Yahweh, because then Muhammad is not the greatest of "prophets" and the defense of Muhammad also is essential, as he in reality was a dubious and immoral character, and all the same all Islam is built only - only - on this man's words).

156 5/76a. "Will ye (Christians*) worship, besides Allah (Yahweh*) - - -". No Christian worships something besides Allah. They do not believe in Allah at all, and worship another god, Yahweh, INSTEAD OF Allah. There is a huge difference between these two concepts. (Oh, we know the Quran claims - and as normal for the Quran without proofs - that Yahweh and Allah is the same god, but their teachings are far too different for that to be true.)

157 5/76c: "- - - something which hath no power either to harm or benefit you - - -". The ironic fact here is that in all history there is not one - one - proved case of Allah helping or benefitting one single being, human or not. There only are words and claims, both of which are very cheap as long as they do not have to be proved.

158 5/82: "- - - nearest among them (non-Muslims*) in love to the believers (Muslims*) are (the Christians*) because amongst these are men devoted to learning - - -". The first part may be right, but the reason is wrong: For one thing many (far from all) Christians are very open-minded towards other religions, but the main thing is that few Christians really have studied the Quran and seen what kind of religion it really is and what is its ultimate goal on Earth.

159 5/83e: "- - - their (Jews and Christians*) eyes overflowing with tears - - -". Remembering the real points of view of the Jews in and around Medina (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 after Khaybar) because they refused to become Muslims, one gets a bad taste in the mouth when reading dramatic propaganda 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 - religious blindness, wishful thinking, a bent moral code, etc.

###160 5/84a: "What cause can we (Muhammad and the people*) have not to believe in Allah - - -?" Well, there are strong answers to that all the mistakes etc. in the Quran, the inhumanity of Muhammad and Islam, the at some points sick morality of Muhammad, the Quran and Islam, etc., etc., etc. But the main point is that the question is wrong. The correct and relevant question had been: "What cause can we have to believe in Allah?"

##161 5/89c: "That is the expiation for the oaths ye (Muslims'*) have sworn (and broken*)". Even though it is advisable to keep your oats, if you break one, it is just to pay expiation, and everything is ok. The Religion of Truth?!?

###162 5/101b: "Ask not questions about things which, if made plain to you, may cause you trouble". Guess if this is a revealing sentence! Do not ask questions - debate - if the result may be something that put question marks to the Quran!! - the criterion is not to find the truth, but not to find anything which may give you reason to question Islam - true or not is not part of the statement. This tells something serious about Muhammad, about the Quran, and about Islam. And most likely a main reason why Islam ended in its intellectually and culturally vigor, and petrified and stagnant dark ages from around 1100 AD - dark ages they were forced backwards and protesting (f.x. printing was prohibited in Egypt for 300 years, because "it could be used to hurt Islam") out from by ideas, impulses and technical and military realities mainly during the last century only. Also see 5/102a below.

###163 5/104e: "'Enough for us (non-Muslims*) are the ways we found our fathers following' What! Even though their fathers were void of knowledge and guidance?". This is exactly the Muslims' position: The reason why they believe in the Quran, is that their parents and everyone else was and is telling them that the tales of Muhammad must be true - a strong and blind belief only.

164 5/110a "O Jesus the son of Mary!". This is a claimed name you some places find for Jesus in the Quran. The point is to fortify Muhammad's claim that he was not the son of Yahweh (in that case he may be was divine, and in any case clearly was a greater and more central prophet than Muhammad, which Muhammad could not accept).

But officially Jesus was the son of Joseph (his official and formal father - the least you can say about the connection between those two, is that Joseph "de facto" had accepted Jesus as his adopted son). If anyone used a "full name" for him in the very man-dominated Israel, it would be "Jesus son of Joseph" - "Jesus ben Joseph" and not "Jesus ben Mary" ("ben" means "son of" in Hebrew - the same as "bin" in Arab). Or to be quite complete: Jesus is the Greek version of his name. The Hebrew version is Joshua. So to be exact his name was "Joshua ben Joseph".

And to make the picture of Muhammad's problems with Jesus' name complete: Muhammad uses the name Isa for Jesus in the Quran. This is wrong. Isa is the Arab version of Esau (the brother of the Jewish patriarch Jacob). The Arab form for the name Jesus - or Joshua in Hebrew - is Yoshuwa (the spelling may vary a little). Any god had known this - Muhammad obviously not. Who then made the Quran?

Finally: As for Muhammad's never documented claim that Jesus was not the son of Yahweh, we may mention that the name "father" is used is used for Yahweh in this connection at least 204 times in the Bible, and the name "son" for Jesus in the same connection at least 87 times - many of those times by Jesus, a prophet also the Quran admits is very reliable.

But an extra point here is that if the Quran and Muhammad claim that Jesus was not the son of Yahweh, like they strongly do to try do to make Muhammad the greatest of prophets, the only alternative is that he was the son of Joseph. Then in a strongly male society like the Hebrew - or the Arab - no son of a married couple would accept to be named after his mother. F.x. Muhammad never was called Muhammad bin Amina (his mother's name was Amina). In this case the only name possible for Jesus - and the only name one honestly could use in the old Israel - was Joshua(Jesus) ben Joseph. Any god had known - but Muhammad needed a twist to be able to claim he was the greatest.

165 5/110b: "- - - the holy spirit - - -". The Spirit is mentioned a few times in the Quran, even though Muhammad most did not understand it properly. Muslims today often claim that this is just another name for the angel Gabriel, even though this is not said in the Quran - perhaps because Muhammad used to claim it was Gabriel who brought him many of his claimed revelation (though other times he dreamt them), and once it is mentioned that the Holy Spirit brought him some revelations; viola! - the Holy Spirit = Gabriel. The logic is invalid (the most you can say logically, is: "perhaps the Holy Spirit is Gabriel" - there is a long distance from "perhaps" to "is", but you will often see Muslims doing this kind of logically invalid "jumps" to get answers they wish or want. Just keep an eye open and you will see such logically invalid "conclusions" here and there.) No-one who knows the Bible would get that idea, as the Holy Spirit clearly is something special (and also the old Jews knew the difference between an angel and a spirit) - but Islam as normal just claims without any documentation.

##166 5/110f: "And behold, thou (Jesus*) bringest forth the dead by My leave". For Muhammad it was essential to stress that it was not Jesus himself who resurrected the dead ones, but the god. (If it was Jesus himself, he clearly was a superior prophet to Muhammad - and Muhammad wanted to be the greatest). But the main thing here really is that if the Quran tells the truth here, it confirms that Jesus was connected to something supernatural and powerful - a god. For Muhammad and Allah this never and nowhere is proved - not one single time (of course Islam still will claim Allah = Yahweh, but the teachings fundamentally are so different that this only is possible if the god is strongly schizophrenic).

167 5/110g: "- - - Clear Signs - - -". There exists no clear sign (Quran-speech for proof) for Allah in all the Quran, and also nowhere else. To be valid proofs, first what the Quran claims are signs (for Allah) must be proved really is made by a god - which never is proved. Then it must be proved that this god is Allah - which also never is proved. Muhammad frequently got requests for proofs, but all he was able to produce, were some fast words and at least some lies (f.x. that proofs would not make anyone believe anyhow) to explain away "why Allah did not want to give profs."

168 5/114d: (Jesus said*): "O Allah our Lord! Send us from heaven a Table - - - for - - - a solemn festival and a Sign from Thee - - -". This is not a story from the Bible. And if it had been true, you can be 100% sure it had been there, as it would be one more solid proof for Jesus' connections to something supernatural. Muslims explains away any discrepancy between the Quran and the Bible with the (as normal for Islam unproved) statement that the Bible is falsified. But if any Christian had wanted to falsify parts of the Bible, it would have been to strengthen Jesus, not to weaken him. A miracle like this had strengthen his esteem a lot, and it never had been omitted if it was true - falsification of the Bible or not. Science believes the tale is inspired by a twisted recollection (Muhammad did not know the Bible well, and especially not NT) of the last supper of Jesus. This in addition to that Jesus had been killed years before if he had been preaching about the known foreign polytheistic god al-Lah (the name changed to Allah by Muhammad).

*169 5/117a: (Jesus said*): "Worship Allah, my Lord and your Lord". A story made up to strengthen Islam. If Jesus had said things like this about the known foreign and pagan god al-Lah, he had had very few followers - - - and had been killed within months by the Jewish clergy. See 3/51a above for further explanation.

Subtotal 169 tit-bits.

NB: THE LIST CONTINUES 4-5 PAGES (A-4) FURTHER DOWN.


NB: If you find any mistakes anywhere, please inform us. If it is a real mistake, it will be corrected. Please also inform us if we have overlooked points or errors.


(A6/92 - English 2008 edition A6/93): "- - - it is in the nature of man to regard the beliefs which have been implanted in him(!) from his childhood, and which he now shares with his social environment, as the only true and possible one - - -". He forgot(?) to mention that this also goes for Muslims.

10/32: "- - - apart from the Truth, what (remains) but error?"


#####8/69a-d: "- - - lawful and good - - -". If these words and the context they are 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 them 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" (made invalid) by today's Islam, but on the contrary are preached many places all over even today in some Islamic fora and groups and countries. (And even practiced during armed conflicts - Bangladesh, East Timor, East Africa, and Indonesia a "short" time ago. Low intensity active in f.x. Indonesian New Guinea and parts of Africa even now (2010).)

Just remember that most Muslims are ok. Only a minority is militant - 1-2% according to Muslims (but 2% of 1.2 billion = 24 million). Then according to international science some 30% (= some 360 million) are willing to help the militants actively or with money, or at least "understand" them. The rest - the majority - are ok. (But our problem is to know who is who.)

But what is absolutely sure, is that apologists telling that "there are verses in the Quran which can be misused by terrorists", are talking nonsense. According to the Quran it is very clear it is the peaceful Muslims who are not good Muslims, and the activists who are laudable and obeying Muhammad and Allah.


From 6/149a: "You meet this lack of moral backbone and the ability in Islam and in Muslims to overlook or explain away even the strongest facts, at every point in the Quran where there are mistakes, contradictions or other proofs for that something is wrong in the Quran, and thus with Muhammad and with his religion - proofs they are unable to face for that Islam as told in the Quran is not a religion, but a superstition".

"Religious 'knowledge' nearly always in reality only is belief - often strong belief, but only belief". (In Islam exactly nothing of any consequence is proved - on the contrary: Much is proved wrong and thus that it is from no omniscient god.)

A world dominated by Islam is quite possible - Islam is expanding. Will it end up like North Pakistan or Afghanistan or like Saudi Arabia without oil - or somewhere in between? - and this because of a religion which itself proves that something is seriously wrong with its teaching, and also that there is no god behind its "holy" book (no omniscient god makes mistakes), and thus not behind the religion.

A nice future for our grandchildren?


10/32: "- - - apart from the Truth, what (remains) but error?"

(A6/92 - English 2008 edition A6/93): "- - - it is in the nature of man to regard the beliefs which have been implanted in him(!) from his childhood, and which he now shares with his social environment, as the only true and possible one - - -". This goes for Muslims more than for any other, because the imprinting is much stronger.

From 6/149a: "You meet this lack of moral backbone and the ability in Islam and in Muslims to overlook or explain away even the strongest facts, at every point in the Quran where there are mistakes, contradictions or other proofs for that something is wrong in the Quran, and thus with Muhammad and with his religion - proofs they are unable to face for that Islam as told in the Quran is not a religion, but a superstition".

"Religious 'knowledge' nearly always in reality only is belief - often strong belief, but only belief". (In Islam exactly nothing of any consequence is proved - on the contrary: Much is proved wrong and thus that it is from no omniscient god.)

A world dominated by Islam is quite possible - Islam is expanding. Will it end up like North Pakistan or Afghanistan or like Saudi Arabia without oil - or somewhere in between? - and this because of a religion which itself proves that something is seriously wrong with its teaching, and also that there is no god behind its "holy" book (no omniscient god makes mistakes), and thus not behind the religion.

A nice future for our grandchildren?




PART III: SURAHS 6 THROUGH 10

The comments on the separate verses start some 4-5 A-4 pages further down.

Introduction.

The introduction is more or less similar for all surahs - skip it if you already have read it and if you do not need to refresh anything, and start at the comments a little further down.

Muslims tried to block us from the net (see "How to control if our information is correct"): An angry, excited Muslim attack against "bad" people telling facts Islam and Muslim scholars do not like - but not able to find one single piece of wrong information or of hate in https://www.1000mistakes.com worth mentioning in the complaint to strengthen it! Not even top marks from Cambridge or Oxford had been a better guarantee for that our information is correct.

##You will find pages on Internet trying to refute especially "1000+ Mistakes in the Quran" (http://1000quran-comments.com is young yet (launched Now. 2010 AD), but there are reactions to this page, too, already). Please read them, but check their claims, information and "information" - laugh at their mistakes and naivety, be stupefied at the lack of real knowledge, weep at the dishonesty (Islam is the only of the big religions which not only accepts, but often advises the use of dishonesty - al-Taqiyya, Kitman, deceit and even broken words/oaths (see separate chapters in "1000+ Mistakes in the Quran) - to promote or defend "the Religion of Truth" (quite an ironic slogan for a religion partly relying on dishonesty)).

###As for "1000+ Mistakes in the Quran" and all the mistakes, contradictions, cases of invalid logic and of unclear language, etc. in that book: One or a few mistakes, etc. could be accepted even from an omniscient god, as the ones writing it down might have made errors (the Quran is claimed sent down by Allah, but necessarily copied by humans). But to be able to believe that an omniscient god has such a bad command of the language, that humans have to explain away mistakes, etc. with "what he really meant" or "parable", etc. hundreds of times and more + hundreds of contradictions and cases of invalid logic and of unclear language, etc., takes a blindness, naivety or wishful thinking far beyond the incredible and deep into the unbelievable.

The Quran claims it quotes Allah when it says that the Quran has a plain, clear and easy to understand language which is to be understood easily and literally if nothing else is indicated (f.x. 3/7, 11/1, 15/1, 18/2, 18/54, 19/97, 26/2,27/1, 28/2, 36/69, 41/3, 43/2, 44/2, 44/58, 54/17, 54/22, 54/32), and that only bad people "sick of heart" or "in whose hearts is perversity" (f.x. 3/7) look for hidden meanings - meanings "only Allah can understand". Then one has to be naive in the extreme to believe in Muslims' claims that all the mistakes, contradictions, invalid logic, unclear language, etc. in the book in reality are not mistakes, etc. but only the omniscient god who are so clumsy expressing himself that he has been unable to say what he meant, and that clever Muslims have to help him and tell what he "really" meant or explain that "it is parables". Or that Allah does not mean what he clearly says, but that the mistake, etc. in reality is an allegory - a hidden meaning - and clever humans have to explain the "real" meaning of his helplessly chosen words. Strangely you mainly find such claims from Muslims in connection with mistakes, etc., - clearly the omniscient Allah is not mastering neither science nor the plain Arab language properly, and really do need the help from intelligent and clever mere humans to be able to express himself. One or a few such cases should be disturbing for the believers, as an omnipotent god does not make mistakes and he also should be a master of expressing himself clearly and impossible to mistake in clear words with distinct and unmistakable meaning. One or a few cases could be explainable, but when it runs in the hundreds and even a few thousands of such cases, it requires blindness, naivety and/or wishful thinking beyond the unbelievable to be able to believe in such "explanations". Even with lots of wishful thinking it takes blindness and naivety far into the incredible to be able to make oneself believe this.

"One case is coincidence, two cases are suspicious, three cases are proof", Stalin said. Hegre Are May 㟢e 3000 cases!!


Our books are to be read and studied - and printed or copied in diskettes or Xerox to be given away (f.x. as promotion - diskettes and paper are cheap) or sold at meetings, in the street, in shops - everywhere. The Main ting is to spredd te informasjon. We also think at least "1000+ Mistakes in the Quran" should be printed at least in paper-back - it will sell well at least here in the US, in Europe and - strangely (or may be not so strangely) - in India. There will be no royalty to pay - our pages are for free. (And "free publicity" from Islam and Muslims will make it sell even better - though the new Danish book containing the famous Muhammad cartoons has until now (9. Oct. 2010) not made much noise - perhaps the cases of western way of debating Muslims have met, slowly are teaching them civilized behavior? (To stand up for free speech is the only way of teaching them to accept free speech).

Our books are intended for persons with no, little or medium knowledge of the Quran. This means some 99.8% of non-Muslims and 90-95% of Muslims. (It may be a surprise, but most Muslims do not know the Quran well - many have just superficial knowledge or superficial knowledge + better knowledge of cherry-picked parts of it.)

In addition they are meant for Muslims with better knowledge of the book, but with no, little or moderate knowledge of the background scriptures, mainly the Bible (for the sake of convenience, we use the word "Bible" also for the Jewish scriptures, even when NT sometimes is irrelevant for the point debated just there, and for the same reason we use the name "Jews" for the descendants of Jacob also in times before the name really was coined).

And finally it is intended for the really learned scholars - to force them to think over difficult point to be able to explain to us that we are wrong and to correct us.


PS: Beware that Islam in reality are many things. There is Islam like you find it described in the Quran - what some scientists call "Islam I". Then there is Islam as it is interpreted by Muslim scholars (Islam II), which may vary not a little. And you have Islam as it is thought and practiced different places and to different times (Islam III) - which may vary quite a lot. We mainly write about Islam I, because this is the basic, and this is how anyone finds it when they search for answers or ideas in the Quran, and not least: This is how the Quran itself says it shall be understood (f.x. 3/7b-e, 6/114c-d, 11/1b, 16/103f). And not to forget: Islam I is how the conservative Muslims, fundamental Muslims, terrorists, etc. - the best organized and thus powerful groups in Islam - read it, often strengthened by "strong" interpretations.


To find the real Muhammad in the Quran, you skip the glorious and glorifying words about him, but read what he demanded and did, what moral he stood for and what rules he introduced, etc., and think over what this tell about him. Glorious words are cheap and are used by all dictators and politicians - like Muhammad - and by many others for propaganda. Deeds, etc. is the reality and tell the truth. When there is divergence between nice words and reality, we always believe in the reality. And even in the Quran the historical Muhammad is very different from the glossy picture Muslims and Islam - and the propaganda in the Quran - paint.

In the same way you find the real Allah and the real Islam.


Beware that we often do not give conclusions, but ask questions or simply give the information and you have to think it over yourself what the information really tells about the Quran, Muhammad and/or Islam. We also frequently use the Quran's claims or information and treat a point as if this was true, to show the conclusions it gives. In both cases this partly is done to highlight a point in the best possible way, and partly to try to make the reader think things over him-/herself.


And beware of one more thing: If it is true what Internet now (Oct./Nov. 2010) tells, that Muslims have launched a partly falsified Bible - falsified in a pro-Muslim direction - and with comments not always honest (Muslims f.x. too often find points in texts which - with or without some twisting - among different possible ways of understanding it, have one they like. Then they skip all other interpretations, and in addition do not say that "this is a possible understanding", but all too often declare: "This is the explanation!", or "This is the Truth!") If they now have made a partly falsified Bible, they are within a solid Muslim tradition going back at least to the many falsified scriptures made up in Muslim Spain in the 8. and 9. century. (The famous and infamous apocryphal - made up - "Gospel of Barnabas" may be one of them.) Lying (al-Taqiyya and Kitman) to defend or promote the religion is no sin in Islam - on the contrary; it is advised "if necessary" to reach a "good" result.

But how much are tales from persons and a religion relying partly on lies, worth? - how much is truth and how much is al-Taqiyya (lawful lies)? Not to mention: What about the religion itself? - how much is truth and how much is al-Taqiyya?


Points to remember before you start reading.

THE USE OF http://www.1000quran-comments.com (and http://www.1000mistakes.com ):

1. We repeat: Some time in 2010 we were to visit www.faithfreedom.org, but made the mistake of writing www.faithfreedom.com. Up came a disinformation page from Islam telling that there had not been any activity on the page for some months. The clear intention was to cheat new readers to believe Faith Freedom was inactive. This kind of dishonesty is permitted for a number of wide topics in Islam - f.x. for cheating women or saving your money - and not only permitted, but advised to use "if necessary" when it comes to defend or promote Islam.

Because we did not want to meet the same dishonesty, we decided not to put all of it only in http://1000mistakes.com , but also use this name for an extra page and put some of the highlights there, too. So now you in http://www.1000quran-comments.com to find a number of highlights about the topic, but go directly to http://www.1000quran-comments.com to find the "complete" list of comments - on average 2-3 comments for each verse in the Quran.

2. Read first these 2 small chapters in "1000+ Mistakes in the Quran" (= http://www.1000mistakes.com ): "Some Essentials for how the Quran is to be read and understood" (VII-10-1) and "The Quran is to be understood literally if nothing else is indicated" (VII-10-2).

3. NB: As for Internet: We frequently receive empty messages or messages which are unreadable because the letters are mixed in one porridge. If you have something essential to say and do not get an answer, try again - we try to answer all polite letters. And one more thing: If you want an answer you have to write your mail address, because in our "answer box" your address will not show unless it is written in the text.

ABOUT THE PAGES:

4. Please inform all and everybody and all relevant fora - f.x. Internet pages for debate or information - about the address http://www.1000mistakes.com. It is information that is urgently needed by many, not least by Muslims. No god made a book with so many mistakes and other wrongs - and if the Quran and Islam are made up by humans or dark forces, where are the followers of this inhumanly dark and brutal war religion heading for in a possible next life?

5. http://www.1000mistakes.com is one of 9 pages which Muslim organizations warned especially against in 2009 - it could make especially proselytes lose their belief in Islam; correct and "down-to-the-earth" information works. In this connection it is worth noticing that in the "warning" http://www.1000mistakes.com was one of 3 which neither was accused of bringing wrong facts, nor of being a hate page.

6. Abbreviations used: YA = Abdullah Yusuf Ali: "The Meaning of the Quran". A (or MA) = Muhammad Asad: "The Message of the Quran". OT = Old Testament of the Bible (on which the Mosaic (Jewish) religion is built - NB: for the sake of convenience we) NT = New Testament of the Bible (on which the Christian religion is built - with OT mainly as historical background).

7. Words in ( ) are from the original English translated texts - often additions or explanations made by the translator. But if there in addition is a "star" inside like this ( *) the comment inside is made by us. 1 - 3 ** or 1 - 3 ## (stronger) in front of our serial number for a verse or part of verse means NB or stronger. And NB: If there are points we have not commented on, that does not mean they could not merit a comment.

8. As none of us originally had English as our mother language, and only these last years have had English as our 1. language, there will be imperfections in our English (and our references to Arab are taken from other sources as our Arab is not up to that job). But we must admit that each time we receive a complaint where excited and angry Muslims find nothing but not perfect English to complain about, we feel it is a diamond compliment to the quality of our work. But in so much stuff there has got to be other mistakes, too - we are not gods like Allah. Though the fact that Muslims and others all over the world - we after all are on top of Google and Yahoo on "Mistakes in the Quran" - in these 2.5 years have reported exactly no - zero - mistakes except for linguistic ones, proves and documents that every mistake, etc. we have pointed to in the Quran, are real errors, there may be wrong points somewhere. But if we have made mistakes (but real ones), please inform us - there is so much which is wrong in the Quran, that there is no reason for us or for anybody else to point to any but real mistakes, contradiction, cases of invalid logic, unclear language, etc. If we have overlooked points which ought to be included (but real ones), please inform us about this, too.

9. As mentioned none of us has English as mother language, and there may be linguistic errors. But these means little for the real contents - you may be an excellent farmer even if you are a lousy fisherman.

10. As http://www.1000mistakes.com is blocked in some Muslim areas (f.x. Pakistan) which shows they are afraid of it and lack arguments (if they had real arguments for that http://www.1000mistakes.com is wrong, blocking it was unnecessary) - "cut and paste" whatever you want from it and send, if you want to inform about or to debate there. Remember to omit the name http://www.1000mistakes.com.

11. If we are blocked centrally - f.x. by spam (there is too much at times already from unfriendly sources) we will reopen with a new address somewhere else, and announce the new address on f.x. http://www.topix.com /forum/religion/islam and/or the pages of http://www.faithfreedom.org.

12. Muslims often haughtily tell that many through the times have told negative facts about Islam without an effect. For one thing it is not true - many have left Islam. But in addition some things are different now:

  1. Internet and the modern flow of information. The Mullahs and imams slowly are losing their monopoly on information. They can block Internet - like f.x. Pakistan has done for our books (and thus show that our information is too difficult for them to meet or argue against) - but they can block it only partially and information and facts will drip in even there.
  2. Many non-Muslims know more about the Quran and about Islam than before, and thus know more about what they are talking about - and thus easier can point to the weak spots of that book and of Islam.
  3. Many Muslims get more education and thus easier see the errors in the Quran - and the inhumanities.
  4. There now are much more - and correct - information about the Quran and about Islam, and f.x. about the impossibility that the Quran can be made by any omniscient god. It is heresy and slander and an insult against any god to accuse him of having sent down a book so full of mistakes, contradictions, invalid logic, unclear language, etc. Information which slowly reaches also Muslims. F.x. our books.
  5. Science has found that 3. generation Muslim emigrants in "the West" are losing interest in Islam - information works.

13. ### Muslims insist it is impossible to translate the Quran correctly (just like the Japanese used to do about their language before they learnt other languages well - then they stopped claiming it). That is rubbish. What one human brain is able to think, another human brain at the same level of intelligence is able to understand. At most it will take some extra explanation.

14. Science talks about Islam I = Islam like you find it in the Quran, Islam II = Islam like it is explained (and problems "explained") by Islamic scholars, and Islam III = Islam like it is told by imams and mullahs and practiced by the followers - which may vary a lot from time to time and from place to place - there is a great difference between Islam in f.x. Sabah, Malaysia, and f.x. in North Pakistan or Saudi Arabia. We as mentioned mainly concentrate on Islam I because that is the basic, and that is how every Muslim meets the texts when he open the book. But we touch Islam II and III a little.

ABOUT THE CONTENTS OF THE PAGES:

15. Comment 141 (to verse 6/149) in "The Message of the Quran" (see point 5) explains (translated from Swedish) about Allah's claimed omniscience vs. man's claimed free will:

"With other words: The real connection between Allah's knowledge about the future (and consequently about the unavoidability in what is to happen in the future*) on one side and man's relatively (!!*) free will on the other two statements that seems to contradict each other lies outside what is possible for humans to understand, but as both statement are made by Allah (in the Quran*) both must be true". Unbelievable. Blind belief is the only correct and intelligent way of life according to Islam, even in the face of the utterly impossible!!- this even though that in all other aspects of life, blind belief is the most sure way to be cheated.

15a. ###Prayers are essential and one of the 5 religious "pillars" in the Quran and Islam. But: What is the idea of praying for anything in Islam? According to the Quran - and Hadiths - Allah has predestine every detail in your and everyone else's life according to his unchangeable Plan - a plan "nobody and nothing" can change. According to Hadiths f.x. your time of death and whether you are to end in Hell or Heaven is decided by Allah 5 months before you are born. Thus prayers can change nothing and is a waste of time and effort - a fact (if the stated predestination is correct - and if not the Quran is wrong) no Muslim ever mention or tries to explain. The 5 fixed prayers also is one of the 100% proofs for that Yahweh and Allah is not the same god: For Allah they are so essential that he has made it one of the 5 "pillars" of Islam - Yahweh does not care about such formalism at all; pray when there is a reason, a need, or a wish.

15b. ###From 6/149a: "You meet the lack of moral backbone and the ability in Islam and in Muslims to overlook or explain away even the strongest facts, at every point in the Quran where there are mistakes, contradictions or other proofs for that something is wrong in the Quran, and thus with Muhammad and with his religion - proofs they are unable to face for that Islam as told in the Quran is not a religion, but a superstition".

15c: #### from 9/39a: "Unless ye (Muslims*) go forth (in war/battle*), He (Allah*) will punish you with a grievous penalty (normally in the Quran a synonym for Hell*) - - -". An order not possible to misunderstand for a pious - or fanatic - Muslim.

Yes, a religion built on peace, goodness and heavenly ethics. Plus a good and benevolent god.

This is the order also today - see 9/38d.

This verse tells horribly much about Islam as it is thought in the Quran - and some other places.

16. There exists a letter dated 27. Dec. 1998 in which is admitted rather reluctantly that there are no proofs for Allah, and that it is not possible to prove him. (Actually it is not possible to prove a god - this only the god himself can do by doing something supernatural.) An additional point here is that if there is no proof for Allah and impossible to prove him, automatically there also is no proof for, and impossible to prove Muhammad's claimed connection to a god. And if there is no Allah and/or no connection between Muhammad and a god, what then is Islam?

17. ####Further: All the mistakes, contradictions, cases of invalid logic, etc. in that book, prove 100% that the Quran is not made by an omniscient god - no god makes such and so many mistakes, etc. If then Islam is a made up religion, what then about all the Muslims who have been prohibited from looking for a real religion (if such one exists)? And where will they in case wake up after living and practicing such an inhuman war religion (f.x. it's partly immoral moral code, rules for thieving/robbing, lying (al-Taqiyya, etc.), raping girls and women, enslaving, suppression, war, etc.) like Islam is according to the Quran (and to Hadiths), if there is a second life with a benevolent god somewhere? - Hell or Paradise?

18. NB and PS: No matter how sure you are about something, if it is not proved, it is not knowledge, only belief or strong belief, and can be wrong. Only what is proved or possible to prove is knowledge. And remember: "A proof is one or more PROVED facts which can give only one conclusion". Islamic debate and information normally build only on claims and statements which are not proved, so demand proofs in any debate with Muslims (you seldom will get them, and never in basic questions - their method normally is to throw out claims, and demand proofs from you for the opposite, and such proofs can be difficult there and then, and then they have "won" the debate, even if they may be wildly wrong. Demand proofs for their claims first, after all it is they who launch the claims and then it is their job to prove them - and you win many a debate just on this because Islam has no proofs on any central point of the religion).

19. But do remember that many uneducated Muslims honestly believe slogans like "Islam is the religion of peace" - they simply have not read much of the Quran, or they have read the glorious words, and are unable to see the harsh realities told in the book by the claims and deeds and introduced rules it tells about. The flowering words is the propaganda, the demands and deeds and rules are the reliable realities. The religiously educated ones know better - - - which sometimes s difficult to believe from what we hear from mosques, madrasas (religious schools) and other fora.

20. Note how often the word "the Truth" and similar are used in the Quran, mostly as a claim for the claimed high value and quality of the texts. In normal life the ones needing to tell so often and strongly that they are speaking the truth, are the ones not telling the truth and having no way of proving their tales - natural if they are made up. Simply the cheat and the deceiver. We also quote the infamous "Minister of Propaganda" in Nazi-Germany: Joseph Goebbels: "Tell a lie often enough, and people starts believing it". (The word also is used in the Bible, but far from so often, and "not spoken with such big letters".

SOME RELIGIOUS FACTS FROM THE PAGES:

21. We remind you that Muhammad claimed Allah = Yahweh - a claim which is easy to see is wrong, as the fundamental ideas and ideologies in the teachings/religions are too deeply different (Jesus love and peace and empathy, Muhammad Nazi-like (Carl Gustav Young) haughtiness, stealing/robbing, rape of girls and women, discrimination and war - and lawful dishonesty (al-Taqiyya, etc)). Because of this claim, he uses the name Allah for Yahweh (God). The differences between Yahweh (especially as we meet him in NT and his New Covenant - f.x. Luke 22/20) are so obvious and so easy to see (claims never documented by Islam, but proved wrong by science as they and also Islam have proved the Bible is not falsified), that mostly we do not bother to comment on it.

22. You often meet the claimed miracles connected to Muhammad used as arguments for that he must have been a real prophet and with connections to a god. You find these claims in the Hadiths only, not in the Quran.

This is very strange and peculiar - and revealing for the mentality of Muslim leaders and scholars - as the Quran indirectly, but most clear proves that all those stories are made up ones and untrue. If there had been miracles connected to or preformed by Muhammad:

  1. Opponents had not asked for miracles to prove Muhammad's tales and claims - they had known there were miracles.
  2. If they all the same had asked, they had promptly been told about miracles which had happened.
  3. Followers had definitely not asked - they had known about each and every miracle.
  4. If any follower all the same had asked, you bet they had got information instead of "explanations away".
  5. If there had been miracles, his followers had used them to propagate the religion. There is no tale about this being done in the Quran.
  6. Also Muhammad had used them in his preaching. There is no such case in the Quran and hardly in the Hadiths.
  7. And the strongest of the indirect, but clear and solid proofs: If there had been miracles connected to or performed by Muhammad, he had not had to explain away - even lying in the Quran - requests for proofs for his religion and god and for his own connection to a god: He simply had told about the miracles. There are many places in the Quran where Muhammad must use fast talk and worse to explain away requests for proofs/miracles. There is not one case of him telling about miracles connected to himself or performed by him.

In addition there is the fact that Islam itself tells: "There are no miracles connected to Muhammad, except the (claimed*) delivery of the Quran".

Also f.x. Aishah - Muhammad's famous and infamous child wife - clearly states in Hadiths that Muhammad made no miracles - f.x. was "unable to see the unseen" = unable to make prophesies.

All the same imams, mullahs, scholars and Islamic literature tell about, glorifies, and use as proofs for Muhammad and Allah the tales/legends about such miracles - and therefore many Muslims honestly believe in them; Of course their cherished religious leaders tell them the truth!? But it is permitted in Islam - even advised - to lie "if necessary" to defend or promote the religion (al-Taqiyya - the lawful lie, Kitman - the lawful half-truth, "war is deceit" - and "everything" is war, and "break even your oaths - pay expiation if necessary - if that gives a better result".

This is a kind of dishonesty you do not expect from honest leaders in an honest religion, and it tells not a little about the honesty, reliability, etc. and about the religious leaders in Islam.

Worse: As these stories about the miracles are untrue, but glorified by Muslims, how much more is untrue in the religion?

Worst: If the Quran is a made up book - and it clearly is not from a god (too many mistaken facts and other errors, too many contradictions and unclear language, too much invalid logic, etc.) - what then is Islam? - and where will Muslims end if there is a next life?

SOME COMMENTS:

23 One standard way for Muslims to explain away mistakes or bad meanings, is to claim that it means something else than what the words say - "they are parables". But for one thing the Quran itself as mentioned above states in words not possible to misunderstand, that the verses are to be understood literally if nothing else is said, and that only "those with an illness in their hearts" go looking for hidden meanings - meanings only Allah can understand according to the book (3/7 and others). But worse: Is it possible for anyone really to believe that an omniscient god is so clumsy expressing himself, that he needs a lot of help from more of often less educated humans to explain helpless clumsiness and contradictions and to explain away that this god is so retarded that he often says other things than he mean, and that thus we clever humans have to tell what he "really" means in his stumbling over wrong facts, etc.?

24 It would be possible to explain away one or a few mistakes, etc. in a book made by a god. But to be able to believe in the "explaining" away for hundreds and hundreds and more mistaken facts, invalid logic, contradictions, etc., takes either a well developed mental blindness - it is impossible to see, not to mention admit even for yourself what you strongly do not want to see - or a naivety far beyond what normally is claimed possible and deep into the incredibly unbelievable. It also is slander, an insult and heresy to blame a quality like in the Quran with all its errors, etc. on an omniscient god. But then it take a mental stamina and backbone many do not have, to face the possibility that the foundation you have built your culture and your personal life on - your religion - may be a made up fairy tale or legend. Or simply a tool for gaining power.

25 Some special words and expressions:

"Arabism": Anything which is typical only or mainly for Arabia or its near neighbor or other areas with similar climate, nature, culture, etc. there are lots of cases in the Quran which indicates that the maker of the book thought such conditions were the typical ones for humans - and lots and lots of cases where relevant differences from other parts of the world are not mentioned, this even though Allah is claimed to be an omnipotent god for all the world. There are more than the ones we list.

"Historical anomaly": The Quran claims that Allah sent down copies of the claimed "Mother Book" (13/39b, 43/4b+c, 85/21-22) in Heaven to prophets and messengers from Allah in the past (Hadiths mention 124000 or may be even more through the times from Adam to Muhammad - and all over the world. The Quran is such a copy, which means that the other copies are similar to the Quran - all copies of a book have to be similar naturally. What we call a "historical anomaly" in our book, is something which cannot have been written into the Quran a long time before it happened or was said (Islam claims it was written by Allah even before man was created, or it has existed since eternity and was never written (as nobody reveres his own work like it is said Allah does with the original book, the claimed "Mother Book (13/39b, 43/4b, 85/21-22) the second explanation may be the most likely(?) one) , unless there is total predestination of everything, like the Quran claims and states (as normal without any proofs) many places (but in this case free will for man is impossible). We stress that what we call historical anomalies mostly had not been such ones if things like in normal history were told after it happened. What make them anomalies, is the claim that the claimed "Mother Book" was written long time before things happened or were said, and then copies of this claimed "Mother Book" was sent down to all the claimed 124000 or more prophets and messengers through the times and all over the world, so that these persons could read also about what was to happen in their future - Moses surely would like to know how his people were to survive in the Sinai Desert, not to mention that Jonah would like to know the fish would spit him out - - - and both would like to learn about the great Muhammad who would be the only prophet(?) really succeeding with the "real" message of the old god Yahweh, now renamed(?) Allah. Remember that as all the books claimed sent down were copies of the claimed "Mother Book", they had to be more or less identical to the Quran, as the Quran was such a copy, too, Islam claims.

Also a prophet/messenger/reader might feel unsure about things because the incident told about had not happened yet or the person referred to was not born or at least not active yet when the mentioned prophet/messenger/reader lived, and perhaps in a for the reading prophet totally unknown culture (f.x. an aborigine prophet in Amazonas 15000 years ago - according to the Quran all humanity sporadically had its messengers to all times and all over the world (f.x. 6/42, 6/90, 10/47, 16/36, 35/24)) - remember here that the claimed Mother Book as mentioned was made by Allah before man was created, or perhaps has existed since eternity, and that a copy to f.x. Abraham some 3800 - 4000 years ago, Noah some 5600 years ago or may be more (the number is uncertain), must be similar to the Quran Muhammad god - if not it is not a copy of the same book. There are many more than the ones we list.

An extra point here which the Quran never mentions and Muhammad, Muslims and Islam never explain, is that if the claimed "Mother Book" was made before man was created, or even has existed since eternity, the unchangeable Quran (Allah's words cannot be changed - f.x. 10/64) - copy of that "Mother Book" - and the older copies claimed sent to older prophet, had to be a pure book of foretelling about the future for the older prophets. In their copies they could read about future prophets like Moses and Jesus and others, about things which would happen in the future, etc. And f.x. Jacob could read about what had happened to his son Joseph, and that they would meet again. There is no - no - mentioning in the Quran of this obvious and self evident effect of such a book if it was given to the claimed prophets of the old - may be too difficult for Muhammad to explain? (Muslims claim that there were different books for different times, but this is strongly contradicted in the Quran by what is said about the claimed "Mother Book", and if what the different copies the claimed prophets got according to the Quran, were copies of the same claimed "Mother Book", the copies just were new copies with identical texts). Islam never mention that because of this the old prophets would have good overview of main points and persons in the future, and never explain neither this nor why this effect never is mentioned in the Quran - actually the texts in the book pretends this effect never existed. Unexplainable - like total predestination versus free will for man.

A small problem: The Quran on one side says that the claimed "Mother Book" is eternal. On the other hand it says that the books varied - "each time a book" - as times varied. It does not explain how exact copies - like the Quran - of one and the same eternal book can be different.

NB: There are many more historical anomalies in the Quran than the ones we mention - everything written in the Quran in the beginning of time which the free will of man - acts, words, etc - could influence, are such anomalies, as if a person changed his mind a little, the text would be wrong, and thus the only possibility for that it could be written that early and still be reliable, is that predestination was and is absolute - - - and thus no free will for man.

For short: A HISTORICAL - OR TIME - ANOMALY IN THIS BOOK IS SOME PERSON OR SOME HAPPENING WRITTEN ABOUT IN THE CLAIMED ETERNAL "MOTHER BOOK" BEFORE IT HAPPENED OR THEY LIVED, AND THUS HAD NO MEANING - OR WERE REVEALING THE FUTURE - WHEN COPIES OF THIS CLAIMED BOOK WERE SENT DOWN FOR READENG TO CLAIMED MESSENGERS OR PROPHETS LIVING BEFORE THE HAPPENINGS OR MENTIONED PERSONS, AND THUS WERE TIME ANOMALIES TO THOSE READERS.

"This could not reliably be written in the claimed 'Mother Book' long time before it happened, unless predestination is 100%" or similar sentences. Also this in reality are historical anomalies, but stronger. Historical anomalies/time anomalies are destroying for the credability of any story. In the Quran an explanation had been possible if a god had been behind the anomalies, but all the errors in a book claimed to come from a god, proves absolutely that no god has created it or in other ways certifies it - not to mention reveres it in his heaven, like Muslims claim. So much is wrong in the Quran, and the general quality, except perhaps its eloquence when written in Arabic, of the book so miserable - in spite of Islam's claims (read it yourself and see) - that it is an insult, slander and heresy to blame a god for it. No omniscient god makes mistakes, contradictions, etc. There are many more historical anomalies - both "normal" and these stronger ones - in the Quran than the ones we point to. Just go looking, and you will find them. As mentioned: Historical anomalies are destroying for the reliability of any story - except in science fiction and in fairy tales - and of course the stronger the anomalies, the less credability.

"Not in the Bible". This simply means that what is told in the debated point in the Quran, is not from the Bible, and there is nothing closely similar in the Bible. Beware that there are much more of this than the cases we list - there is much in the Quran which is not from the Bible or has any parallel in the Bible, even in the stuff pretending to be Biblical stuff - one of the many indications for that Allah is not the same god as Yahweh/God and for that Muhammad was not in the same line of prophets as the Jewish ones - in both cases the contents of those two books would have had to be at least roughly similar, which they very far form are. (And remember here that both science and Islam has brought formidable proofs for that the Bible is not falsified - the standard claim and the standard way out of problems for Muslims claiming there are no mistakes in the Quran). Also see 12/30-34 about this.

"Contradicting the Bible". Similar comments like for "Not in the Bible", except that here you find similar texts in the Bible, but with contents contradicting the Quran. It is up to anyone what they want to believe, but beware that in any normal scientific evaluation, the Bible will be judged to be more likely to be true - if any is true - than the Quran. (There are several valid reasons for this - and especially so as the claim that the Quran is from a god is proved incorrect by all the mistakes, etc. in the Quran: No omniscient god makes mistakes, etc. "en gros" - and Muhammad had no other sources, except old legends, fairy tales, etc. about this.) There are many more than the "few" we list.

NB: In most cases we do not tell which of the two books is right or wrong. We just points to some of the places where there are differences, and as it is the Quran which claims the Bible is falsified, according to normal rules it then is Islam's and the Muslims' job to prove what they claim, and prove that the Quran is correct.

"Incompatible with the Bible". These are cases where the Quran clearly is contradicted on central or essential points by the Bible - so central or essential that it is clear both standpoints cannot come from the same god. Each and every of these incompatible points separately prove that Allah and Yahweh cannot be the same god, not to mention how strong this proof becomes when you combine the effect of several or all such incompatible points. These points prove very strongly that Allah and Yahweh are not the same deity. (And in addition there are the other proofs and indications for the same). There are more than the ones we list (we do not use this expression often - a number of places we call contradictions in reality are incompatible with the Bible).

NB: In most cases we do not tell which of the two books is right or wrong. We just points to some of the places where there are differences, and as it is the Quran which claims the Bible is falsified, according to normal rules it then is Islam's and the Muslims' job to prove what they claim, and prove that the Quran is correct.

NB: WE REPEAT THAT WE JUST MENTION SOME OF THESE 5 KINDS OF POINTS, BUT FAR FROM ALL - JUST GO LOOKING, AND YOU WILL FIND MORE.

26 The hard fact is that the Quran seems to be one of the apocryphal (made up) religious books, but further removed from Christianity and/or the Mosaic religion than most of the others - on the fringe even of the apocryphal literature simply.

27 ###Muslims further insist it is impossible to translate the Quran (just like the Japanese used to say about Japanese before they learnt other languages well). That is rubbish. What one human brain is able to think, another human brain at the same level of knowledge and intelligence is able to understand. At most it will take a little extra explanation.

28 As for point 27 just above, this claim is impossible to combine with the claim that similar copies were sent to the other claimed prophets through the times and all over the world - nearly none of them would understand Arab. (Some Muslims claim that the reason why only Arab can be used, is that it is Arab which is spoken in Heaven. But Arab like all languages "drifts" - words disappear or change meaning, new words comes, pronunciation may change. Is it then the Arabs who ape the "drift" in Heaven, and how do they in case learn about the changes - or is it Allah and his angels who "ape" the Arabs? Some Muslims even have "proved" that Arab is the original language in the world. Believe it if you want and are totally uneducated.)

29 This one we repeat: Since http://www.1000mistakes.com was first posted on Internet in spring 2008 it has become a central reference book. But there still are many who do not know about it. Please post the addresses http://www.1000mistakes.com and http://1000quran-comments.com on all your debate pages, information pages, and other relevant pages on the net - the pages you use, the pages you know about, and the pages you come across. Not for the benefit of us, but for the benefit of the ones who may need or want some of the enormous amount of information in the page. Information - quotes - not even Islam claims are wrong (even though they dislike what the quotes tell about the religion). The information may benefit:

  1. Muslims unsure about Islam.
  2. Muslims thinking about leaving Islam.
  3. Muslims looking for facts concerning Islam.
  4. Muslims trying in rational ways to evaluate their religion.
  5. Non-Muslims thinking about converting to Islam.
  6. Non-Muslims seeking information about Islam.
  7. Non-Muslims debating with Muslims - Muslims f.x. sometimes are not always 100% honest in such debates.
  8. Politicians and others meeting Muslims in daily life or job.

As for debate pages, the address should be mentioned every now and then (once a fortnight? - once a month each place?), because as new "letters" are posted, they "cover up" a posted address, and it drifts into oblivion if it is not repeated.

At the time of writing just this (21. Aug. 10), we have up to between 6000 and 7000 hits a day - yesterday f.x. 6611 hits. The average of course is lower, but all the same we reach a lot of people. With your help we may reach a lot more - this is information which should reach as many as possible.

Experience by now has shown that Muslims often have problems arguing against http://www.1000mistakes.com - they may pooh-pooh it, or deny it or refuse to believe it, but the proofs are too strong to argue against for many. Therefore you not only are spreading the address by referring to it - you may also win a point or the debate by referring to it and its address as an argument.


30. To Muslim fanatics: Do you want to kill us for writing these books, showing you facts you do not like to meet? - it often is easier to murder than to meet unwanted facts or "the lie of life" to quote Henrik Ibsen, which takes a lot of backbone. But it is too late as the books already are published: The cats are out of the bag.


Ps: We remind you that Muhammad claimed Allah = Yahweh - a claim which is easy to see is wrong, as the fundamental ideas and ideologies in the teachings/religions are too deeply different (Jesus love and peace and empathy, Muhammad Nazi-like (Carl Gustav Yung) haughtiness, discrimination and war - and lawful dishonesty (al-Taqiyya, etc. and stealing/robbing/looting, etc.)). Because of this claim, he uses the name Allah for Yahweh. This mistake is so obvious and so easy to see (and the claim never documented by Islam, but proved wrong by science - and by Islam), that mostly we do not bother to comment on it.

Islam also claims that the Bible is falsified and that it has been changed through the centuries. Ask for proof any time you hear this - the claims are wrong and never documented. Both science and even more so Islam have thoroughly proved these claims wrong by being unable to find one single proved falsification among all the know some 44000 relevant manuscripts and fragments. (Guess if Islam had announced it with huge and capital letters if they had found even one proved case!)

Finally two small quotes from the Bible and Jesus for comparison to the Quran and Islam:

  1. I: (Matt.7/12): "So in everything, do to others what you would have them do to you, for this sums up the Law and the Prophets.
  2. Compare this to the Quran's ethical, moral and judicial codes: Totally different too many places. One of the 100% proofs for that Yahweh and Allah are not the same god - not unless he is strongly schizophrenic.
  3. Compare this to Muhammad's teaching and behavior and raids and wars: It is very difficult to be more unlike than Jesus and Muhammad - one of the 100% proofs for that Jesus was not in the same line of prophets like Muhammad (and Muhammad on top of all was no real prophet - he only "borrowed" that impressive and imposing title - as he even according to Islam was unable to make prophesies) - they not only were not in the same line; they were not in the same moral world even.
  4. Muslims often cherry-pick a brutal piece of the Mosaic law, and say that as Jesus accepted that law (in spite of that even the Quran says he changed it), this justifies and sanctifies the brutal parts of Muslim laws, moral codes, etc. But the quote above and not cherry-picked details, was Jesus' essence of how one should understand the law one should obey.
  5. II: (Matt. 7/15-16): "Beware of false prophets. They come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly they are ferocious wolfs. By their fruits you will recognize them." There is no doubt Muhammad with all his raids (83? www.1000mistakes.com lists 62 of them) - mainly for riches and slaves/extortion, and later also for power - and his religion of war, was a ferocious wolf. And his fruits? - terrible for non-Muslim surroundings. And as his book - the Quran - with all its mistaken facts, other errors, contradictions, unclear language, etc. is from no god, the fruits may be even worse for all Muslims if there is a next life, and especially so if there is a real god somewhere they have been prohibited from looking for. Not to mention if that god is a good and benevolent one, not too fond of followers of a (made up?) god of discrimination, apartheid, dishonesty, blood, terror, and war. (That Islam is "The religion of peace" is a joke or an al-taqiyya (a lawful lie) you will see if you read the some 22 - 24 surahs from Medina.)

Some central facts about Muhammad, the Quran, and Islam:

A. Born ca. 570 AD. Married first a rich older widow. Started Islam in Mecca in 610 AD. Fled to Medina 13 years later - in 623 AD. Lived in Medina 10 years - as a highway-man, later robber baron/warlord (83? raids/wars, mostly for stealing/robbing, slave taking and extortion + later spreading Islam by the sword). Died quite rich with estates in Medina, Fadang and Khaybar in 632 AD.

B. 36 women known by name: 11 long time wives, (9 of them 20 - 36 years younger than him + favorite wife Aishah 6 years old (9 when sex started - he well past 50)), 16 short time wives, 2 concubines, and 7 who may be, may be not, really was married to him. Raped at least two girls/women; Rayhana bint Amr and Safiyya bint Huayay.

C. He in reality was not a prophet - he was unable to make prophesies, also according to the Quran and the Hadiths. See 9/88b and f.x. 65/1a.

D. He according to the Quran made no miracles - Islam today says: "The only miracle connected to him is the Quran".

E. He believed in using dishonesty (though al-Taqiyya and Kitman - f.x. 2/26h, 13/42 - formalized later), deceit/betrayal (f.x. the 29 from Khaybar murdered), and even broken words/promises/oaths (f.x. 2/224e, 2/225a, 5/89c, 16/91e).

F. He use lies even in the Quran - f.x. 6/7a, 6/28c, 6/109i, 7/120a, 20/70a.

G. He is speaking (f.x. 6/104c, 19/36b, 27/91a, 51/50-51) and MANY others referred speaking/acting in the Quran. How is that possible in a book claimed to be timeless and written before the world was created, if not 100% predestination?

H. If Allah predestines everything and according to his unchangeable Plan like the Quran states absolutely, man has no free will in Islam - mutually excluding each other, and thus impossible, in spite of Muhammad's and Islam's claims.

I. If Allah predestines everything and impossible to change, like the Quran states absolutely, prayers have no value or effect in Islam - mutually excluding each other, and thus impossible in spite of Muhammad's and Islam's claims.

"Muhammad lived far from the golden rule for moral: 'Do against others like you want others do against you', and as far from: 'Say the truth, or say nothing' - but he at least preached some of it".

There is a long distans between the historical, real Muhammad, and the semi-saint Muslims wish for and many even honestly are able to believe in.


SURAHS 6 THROUGH 10

The quotes and comments:


These are just tit-bits from the book "1000+ Quran-comments - skeptics' facts and thoughts". You will find the complete book under http://www.1000quran-comments.com. (The surah reference numbers are like in that book.)

In http://www.1000mistakes.com you find:

  1. Book A: "1000+ Mistakes in the Quran" - http://www.1000mistakes.com.
  2. Book B: "1000+ comments in Jihad - (un)holy war" - http://www.1000mistakes.com/jihad-holywar/index.php
  3. Book C (this one): "1000+ Quran-comments - skeptics' facts and thoughts" (1000+ tit-bits from the complete book) - http://www.1000quran-comments.php.
  4. Book D: "Correcting much wrong refuting on http://www.1000mistakes.com - and a lesson in Muslim ways of debating.
  5. Book E: "What the Bible really says - when the Quran uses legends, fairy tales, or phantasy, instead of the Bible as sources for 'Biblical' texts, like it often does. (Expected late 2011 or early 2012).

In http://www.1000quran-comments.com you find:

  1. "1000+ Quran-comments - skeptics' facts and thoughts" (the "complete" list - 20ooo+ comments on the Quran) - as said in http://1000quran-comments.php.

001 6/1e: "Praise be to Allah, who created the heavens (plural and wrong*) and the earth - - -." And what does it look like? In short (included Earth, the Universe and living beings): According to the Quran the "everything" = this:

High above everything - above the 7. heaven - resides Allah.

Under him are the seven heavens one on top of the other.

The heavens are from something material - if not one could not fasten the stars to one of them.

The heavens are held up by invisible pillars - if not they of course would fall down.

The heavens contains Paradise - and better the higher a Heaven (= closer to Allah).

The Paradise for normal good Muslims seems according to Hadiths to be in 1. heaven. It consists of 4 or 6 or more (exact number not clear) Gardens, one more luxurious than the other

In between the heavens are the sun and the moon (the sun is not said, only indicated to be just here).

Also the sun moves across the sky. (It in reality is the Earth that spins around.)

The sun raises in the east from the Earth, and sets in a pool of dirty water on Earth in the west.

The places for sunrise and sunset was found by Dhu'l Quarnayn = Alexander the Great.

Under the sun and moon, and fastened to the lowest of the 7 heavens, are all the stars. (The movements of the planets are not explained.)

Stars also are used as shooting stars to chase away bad spirits and jinns spying on Heaven.

Under the heavens and stars are clouds.

The clouds Allah sometimes breaks to pieces (raindrops).

Under the clouds the birds are kept aloof by only the will of Allah.

Then there is our flat Earth.

On the Earth mountains are set down - not grown up, but set down.

The Earth is kept steady by the mountains.

Without the steadying mountains Earth might start wobbling and tip around

(today Islam points to earth-quakes, but that was not the original meaning according to Muslim scholars of the old).

On "our" Earth are rivers. Hadiths tell that 2 of them - the Nile and the Euphrates - start in Paradise.

On Earth there further are highways - made by Allah.

On the Earth also all kinds of beings live created from clay or something or nothing.

The first man was Adam - a single man - created in somewhere between 5 and 13 different ways*.

Under our Earth (Hadith) there are more flat Earths 7 all together.

Islam has named for all the different Earths - and tells (in Hadiths) that the lower down, the more hellish life for the inhabitants.

And at the bottom (Hadith) is Hell.

Hell has seven gates, each leading to a separate part of Hell - one worse than the other.

* Modern Islamic literature seems to indicate that the official point of view of Islam is that man really was created by clay or similar.

Just like what your school and modern science tell you?

(This is one of the really strong and easy to see proofs for that the Quran is not made by an omniscient god - no omniscient god makes mistakes, and absolutely not of this quantity, magnitude and stupidity.)

002 6/2b: "He (Allah*) is it who created you from clay - - -". But how man was created, is complicated in the Quran; the one and first man - Adam - was made in no less than 13 different ways (or 5-6-7 if you say that some of them were different names for the same raw material). This even though one man cannot be created in more than one way. The Quran says he was made:

From clay: 6/2 7/12 17/61 32/7 38/71 38/76.
From sounding clay: 15/26 15/28 15/33.
From ringing clay: 55/64
From sticky clay: 37/11
From essence of clay: 23/12
From mud: 15/26 15/28 15/33.
From dust: 3/59 22/5 35/11 40/67.
From earth: 20/55
From a clot of congealed blood: 96/2
From semen:# 16/4 75/37 76/2 80/19.
From nothing: 19/9 19/67.
From water: 21/30 24/45 25/54.
From base material: 70/39.

#(It is not told where the semen came from).**

** Mostly when the book talks about semen, it is in connection with (making) children. But also children are not made from semen - it only is 50% of the truth. A child is made from semen + an egg cell, but an egg cell is so small, that Muhammad did not know about it - human eggs can hardly be seen in the blood and gore in a carcass or a slaughtered animal. Actually at the time of Muhammad one did not know how conception happened - one theory was that semen was a seed that grew when placed in a woman - though far from each time. Strangely this is how the Quran explains it. Any god had known better.

Strictly speaking all the different ways of creating man/Adam, means that the Quran tells that man/Adam was created in 13 different ways, even if Adam was created only once (in reality he never was created and never existed man developed from earlier primates). If one lump similar "creations" together, there still remains at least 5-7 different creations. Only one can even according to the Quran be right (as Adam was created only once even according to the Quran and to the Bible) - and the irony is that science long since has shown that all alternatives are wrong, as man as said evolved from a prehistoric primate.

Some Muslims explain that Adam was created from a little clay, a little dust, a little earth, a little blood, a little semen, a little nothing and some water. But that is far from what the Quran tells - and even if it were the true story of the Quran, it is wrong. For one thing man does not consist of clay, etc., and for another he as mentioned was not created, but developed from prehistoric beings.

(Yes, we know about the Eve from archaeology who lived in East Africa some 160000 - 200000 years ago, and the corresponding Adam that lived in Asia some 60000 - 70000 (64000?) years ago, but that is something different).

Contradicting even 3. form primary school knowledge.

003 6/5d: "- - - soon they (non-Muslims*) shall learn the reality of what they used to mock at". One thing is that this just is pep-talk - a well-known technique even. Another is that many non-Muslims already knew the reality; that the Quran with all its mistakes, etc. is not from any god. No god ever was involved in a book of that quality.

004 6/6a: "See they (non-Muslims*) not how many of those before them We (Allah*) did destroy?" There were scattered ruins in and around Arabia and there were legends about earlier people. Muhammad told that all of them had been destroyed by Allah as punishment for sins. Science tells there are many other possible reasons for a house or a hamlet or a village or a town to become empty in a harsh, warlike area.

As normal in the Quran this claim is put forth without a proof. It is tempting to quote Christopher Hitchens: "What can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence" - they have to bring proof to be believed by rational minds.

005 6/7a: "If We (Allah*) had sent unto thee (Muhammad*) a written (message) on parchment, so that they (Muslims and non-Muslims*) could touch it with their hands, the Unbelievers have been sure to say: 'This is nothing but obvious magic!'" Muhammad never ever was able to prove anything about what he told his mostly na and uneducated audience. But he got questions about and demands for such proofs many times from followers and others this is mentioned repeatedly in the Quran. He had to evade those requests and demands, and an obvious way was to find ways of explaining them away. Here the technique he uses is "No matter what proofs I produce, they will not believe anyhow, so why produce proofs at all?" Swindlers and cheats frequently use such techniques. It is obvious for anyone able to think for himself or herself that the logic is twisted and wrong but the ones wanting to believe or the very na might believe in it. What is more serious is that Muhammad was an intelligent man and a man knowing a lot about how to treat and sway people. There is no way he did not know he used twisted logic and dishonest psychology and story, and that a real miracle - or more than one - had made new believers, even if some would try to call it magic. And no way that he did not know that if he produced real evidence that would strengthen his followers enormously and make huge numbers of unbelievers become believers. In a short sentence: There is no way an intelligent man did not know this excuse was a lie.

006 6/9c: "If We (Allah*) had made it (the proof*) an angel, We should have sent him as a man, and We (= our proof/angel*) should certainly have caused them confusion in a matter (religion*) which they have already covered with confusion." Actually this is contradicted by Hadiths, which tell that Muhammad saw Gabriel - an angel - and he had 600 wings. Not much like a man. (But we man add that you nowhere in the Bible find angels described with wings - seraphs, yes, cherubs, yes, angels, no. Angels in Christian art got wings around 300 AD, simply because it was the only way of flying the artists at that time knew - but Muhammad gave his angel Gabriel 600 wings (which aerodynamically is hopeless for flying.))

*007 6/11a: "Travel through the earth and see what was the end of those who rejected the Truth". Scattered around in Arabia and neighboring countries there were ruins of old houses, villages and towns, and there also were folk tales about older tribes and people now gone. Muhammad told these were the remains and rumors left by people destroyed by Allah because of not believing in or sins against Allah - which hardly is true in most cases. To tell the truth: Not one serious professor of history believes in this. And not one serious scientific book about history mentions such claims as a credible reason for why houses or villages or towns or cities became empty. It will take heavy proofs from Islam to convince them.

008 6/14b: "- - - Allah, the maker of the heavens (plural and wrong) and the earth - - -". Contradicted by the Bible, which claims Yahweh did this - and according to science, both may be wrong as may be nature did this itself. 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.

009 6/14d: "But I (Muhammad*) am commanded to be the first of those who bow to Allah (in Islam) - - -". This obviously is wrong according to Islam (though in reality it may be 100% correct - may well be that Muhammad was the very first Muslim), as the Quran claims that many were Muslims before Muhammad. (Muslims often claim - as "always" without documentation - that what the Quran really means here, is the first of a group, in this case the Arabs. But for one thing at least the claimed prophets Hud and Salih were good Muslims according to the Quran, and both lived in Arabia before Muhammad - even before Moses, as Moses mentioned them according to the Quran. For another thing that is not what the Quran says - it nowhere indicates that it means the first of a group, but the first. And the language in the Quran is perfect and not to be misunderstood according to Islam. Besides: If the book here means something else than what is clearly said, how many other places in the Quran does it mean something other than what the text really says? Other Muslims claim it means the first in quality. But in a book with perfect and unmistakable language that would be written "I am the best of those - - -."

Well, it is contradicted by at least:

  1. 2/37: "Then learnt Adam from his Lord (Allah*) the words of inspiration (the Quran*) - - -." It is clear that according to the Quran, Adam was the first Muslim (even though he according to science never existed, as man developed from earlier primates) and then the first to bow to Allah in Islam.
  2. 2/127-132: This is too long to quote, but it is clear that according to the Quran Abraham was a devoted Muslim and bowed to Allah in Islam long before Muhammad. This verse thus clearly contradicts the verse 6/14 and some others in one of the two possible meanings of that verse.
  3. 3/67: "Abraham - - - bowed his will to Allah's (which is Islam) - - -."
  4. 4/163: "We (Allah*) have sent thee (Muhammad*) the inspiration, as We sent it to Noah and the messengers after him: We sent it to Abraham, Ishmael, Isaac, Jacob, and the tribes (the Jews?), to Jesus, Job, Jonah, Aaron, and Solomon, and to David We gave the Psalms." It is very clear that according to the Quran there were many Muslims who of course bowed to Allah in Islam before Muhammad.
  5. 7/143: "(Moses said*) "- - - and I am the first to believe." Obviously only one could be the first.
  6. 26/51: Pharaoh's magicians said: "Only, our desire is that we shall but return to our Lord (Allah*), and that we may become foremost among the Believers". One more group of devote Muslims (according to the Quran) practically 2000 years before Muhammad.

If Muhammad meant he was the first in time to bow to Allah, he may well have spoken the very truth if the Quran is wrong also on this point, but according to the Quran, what he in that case said, was very wrong.

If he meant he was the foremost among 'unequals', he may according to the Quran have been right - - - though persons like Abraham and Moses might have wanted a debate about just that and with Jesus as a strong outsider (also he was a Muslim according to the Quran), as he clearly was a much greater prophet than Muhammad. Muhammad did not have the gift of making real prophesies the minimum requirement for being a real prophet. Neither was he able to make or have made miracles. According to both the Bible and the Quran Jesus was good at both. And when Muhammad in reality was no prophet at all, whereas Jesus was a great one still according to both books there is no doubt who was the greatest prophet.

Islam/Muslims may debate Muhammad's other titles Messenger and Apostle but as for who was the greatest prophet, there is no doubt at all in spite of all the claims from Islam.

(6 contradictions).

010 6/19b: "Allah is witness between me (Mohammad*) and you (Muslims*) - - -". Not unless he exists - a witness who does not exist, is no witness.

011 6/19c: "- - - this Quran hath been revealed to me (Muhammad*) by inspiration - - -". Information transferred "by inspiration" is a very unreliable way, as it is impossible to know from where the inspiration came - one may believe, but not know. It also is very convenient to claim inspiration if one needs or wants to add a little - some texts in the Quran has nothing to do in holy books, but were very convenient for Muhammad. It also is contradicted by the Bible: (4. Mos. 12/6) "When a prophet of the Lord, I (Yahweh*) reveal myself to him in visions, I speak to him in dreams, (or sometimes speak to him directly*)" - there never in the whole Bible is mentioned "by inspiration" in such cases. Also see 26/52a below. 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.

012 6/19k: "- - - blasphemy - - -". To disbelieve in Allah only is blasphemy if Allah really exists and really is what the Quran claims, but never was able to prove - there only are the words of a not very reliable man, who on top of all had much to gain from making people believe in his tales. At least it is very clear that there is no god behind a book so full of mistakes, etc. as the Quran - and what then about the claims about Allah?

013 6/20c: (YA850): "Those to whom We (Allah*) have given the Book (Jews, Christians*) know this as they know their own sons." But "this" instead here may mean "him" the Arab word has double meaning. Then the meaning becomes: "- - - know him (Muhammad) as - - -." A tiny wee bit different. Clear language in the Quran?

014 6/21b: "Who doth more wrong than he who invented a lie (said something else than Muhammad*) against Allah - - -". But is it a lie against Allah if Allah - and the Quran - is invented? (He has not one single time proved himself, and the Quran is full of mistakes). Well, at least it is not a lie against Allah if Allah does not exist.

015 6/24c: "But the (lie) which they (non-Muslims*) invented will leave them in the lurch". This i typical kind of pep-talk religious - and sometimes political and other - leaders frequently use. "The others will lose and we will win". It works well among believers and often among others with little knowledge (among people with knowledge it only works if it is likely the claim is true - in this case it did not work among f.x. the local Jews who know something was much wrong with Muhammad's teaching, and thus that thus it was unlikely the claim was correct).

016 6/25a: "- - - We (Allah*) hath thrown a veil on their hearts, so they understand it not - - -". Allah often denies people the possibilities of finding Islam and believing in it. And then he sends them to Hell as sinners. A fair and benevolent god? - compare to f.x. "The Lost Lamb" or "- - - in the 11. hour - - -" (Luke 15/8-10 and 15/11-31, Matt. 18/12-14 and 20/8-13) in NT: Definitely not the same god as Allah. (Islam often tries to explain that it is the person who is the really guilty one, not Allah, because Allah doing things like this grates against claims that Allah is a good and benevolent god. But when they make such explanations, they never mention the fact that according to MANY places in the Quran, Allah decides and predestines everything which happens in the world - and thus everything you do. Thus there is no rational way of getting around what is told here: Allah denies you the possibility to find the way to Paradise if he just decides so.

017 6/25g: "These (the tales in the Quran*) are nothing but tales of the ancient." This skeptic's had good reason to say. None of the tales in the Quran is made by any god - and hardly any even by Muhammad. They practically without exception are histories, legends, fairy tales, etc. which were known or well known in Arabia at that time. Muhammad just "borrowed" them, twisted them some, and told he had got that version from Allah. But we honestly doubt an omniscient god was unable to tell his own tales - and if he had to borrow from Earth, why only from in and around Arabia if he wanted to be god for the whole Earth? Only if humans in Arabia made the verses and surahs that was necessary.

018 6/27a: "If thou (Muslims`) couldst but see them when they (non-Muslims*) when they are confronted with the Fire!" Psychological pep-talk of a standard kind frequently used by religious and other leaders: "Just wait and see; "they" will be the losers and "we" the winners - and "they" will fare badly. An ever so well known technique - but it often works. You meet this kind of pep-talk MANY places in the Quran - we mention just some of them.

##019 6/28c: "But if they (sinners in Hell*) were returned (to a second chance on Earth*), they would certainly relapse to the things they were forbidden - - -". This is one more of the places in the Quran where Muhammad knew he was lying. There is not one chance that a man as intelligent and with so much knowledge about people as Muhammad, did not know that after really experiencing a place like Hell, each and everybody would do their outmost not to end there again - and after such a terrifying lesson, most of them would succeed. This even more so as such an experience would make more or less all of them believers, as they had got a solid proof for that the religion was true. It is nearly incredible that intelligent people - not to mention educated modern people of today - are able to believe a claim like this.

020 6/32b: "- - - righteous". beware that when the Quran uses words like this, it is in accordance with its own partly immoral moral code.

021 6/32c: "Will they (non-Muslims*) not understand?" But that was just what at least some of them understood very clearly; that there were so big and so fundamental differences between the Bible and the Quran, that Yahweh and Allah were not the same god.

022 6/34a: "Rejected were the Messengers before thee (Muhammad*) - - -." Muhammad was rejected by many. But cheer up: Rejection was normal for real prophets! - "ergo" Muhammad is consequently a prophet like other prophets. Pep-talk. There is some pep-talk in the Quran.

023 6/34c: "- - - already thou (Muhammad*) hast received - - -". A historical anomaly - see 4/13d above.

024 6/36f: "- - - as to the dead, Allah will raise them up - - -". This is an interesting claim you meet several places in the Quran - interesting because Allah never proved he could resurrect dead ones - often claimed, but never proved - whereas Yahweh proved it several times if the old books tell the truth (f.x. 1. Kings 17/22, 2. Kings 4/35-36, Mark 5/41, John 11/44, Luke 7/15, Matt. 27/52, Acts 9/40, Acts 20/10 - and the Quran 5/110a. And of course Jesus.).

025 6/37b: "They (people*) say: 'Why is not a Sign sent down to him (Muhammad*) from his Lord (Allah*)?" 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 3 reasons - 2 of them unavoidable - for this:

  1. When something is changed, automatically the future is changed.
  2. The laws of chaos will be at work and change things, if even a tiny part is made different.
  3. 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".

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.

026 6/37d: "- - - Sign(s) - - -." Invalid as proof for Allah. See 2/39b above.

*027 6/38c: "Nothing have We (Allah*) omitted from the Book (the Quran*)". Wrong. A lot is omitted even of essential things (that f.x. is why Islam has had to make many more laws than quoted in the Quran), and a lot of the facts - and may be other statements - are wrong. (There also is another possible meaning of the word "Book" here - the book in Heaven in which Allah is said to write down everything which happens. In this case this sentence is meant as a warning. But why does an omniscient god need to write down things?).

028 6/39e: "- - - whom Allah willeth, He leaveth to wander (end in Hell*) - - -". This refers to predestination. According to Hadiths (al-Bukhari) Allah decides 5 months before you are born whether you are to end in Paradise or in Hell. Compare this to "the lost coin" (Luke 15/8-10), "the lost sheep" (Matt. 18/12-14), "the lost son" (Luke 15/11-31), "the 11. hour" (Matt. 20/8-13), and weep. Yahweh and Allah the same god? Just guess!!

####029 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 repeated atrocities and mass murder, 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.

030 6/49c: "- - - them (non-Muslims*) shall punishment touch, for that they ceased not to transgress". Some irony when you know that practically all armed strife was a result of armed aggression from Muhammad. "I hit you, because you hit me afterwards". "You are bad because you defended yourself against our thieving, enslaving and murder raids". Also see 3/77b above.

###031 6/50a: "- - - nor do I (Muhammad*) know what is hidden - - -". Muslims and Islam often tell about things Muhammad foresaw, and claims this and this prove Muhammad was connected to something supernatural - in spite of Muhammad's problems with explaining away his total lack of proofs and miracles, including foreseeing. Also in spite of Aishah's clear statements in Hadiths that the ones claiming Muhammad could foresee the future, were wrong. And here he himself states that he does not know what hidden.

This verse - 6/50 - also is a clear proof for that Muhammad was no prophet: A person unable to make prophesies - "know what is hidden" - by definition is no prophet. (F.x. 5. Mos. 18/21 - in the same speech of Moses where Islam claims Moses foresees Muhammad when talking about "a prophet like me" - quite an irony when 18/21 indirectly, but clearly tells Muhammad was not even a prophet. (And among many others 18/2 tells Moses were speaking about Jewish "brothers" - Islam has cherry-picked and twisted 18/15 and 18/18 in an al-Taqiyya.)).

### Surah 6 is a bit hard upon the wishful thinking of Muslims. In 6/50 Muhammad confirms he cannot see what is hidden - the future - killing all the claimed miracles claimed in Hadiths to be made by Muhammad concerning seeing what was hidden, and indirectly also documenting he was no prophet - not knowing the future = unable to make prophesies, and a person unable to make prophesies is no prophet. Also connected to 6/50;(A.6/39): "This denial on the part of the Prophet (Muhammad*) of any claim to supernatural power - - -". This states that Islam admits Muhammad had no supernatural power at all = absolutely no prophet. In connection to 6/108 "The Message of the Quran" (comment6/93) explains "- - - it is in the nature of man to regard the beliefs which have been implanted in him from childhood, and which he now shares with his social environment, as the only true and possible ones" - which explains in details why Muslims believe in spite of all facts proving something is seriously wrong with the religion. In connection with 6/148 (comment 6/141 in the same book) Islam has to admit that the claim that Allah decides everything - predestination - is impossible to combine with the claimed free will for man (and without free will it is morally wrong to punish man for sins) - but "it all the same must be true, because Allah says so (in the Quran*)" the ultimate defeat for brain against blind belief. And in 6/151 may be the most well-known of the mistakes in the Quran accepted by Islam to be a mistake: "You are prohibited from - - - being good to your parents" (well, may be "Mary, sister of Aaron" is even more well-known, but that one is frequently tried explained away).

*032 6/57e: "He (Allah) declares the Truth". May be he does, but in that case outside the Quran, as what is referred in the Quran, is at best only partly the truth - too many mistaken facts, too many contradictions, too many mistakes in the Arab language according to literature, too many invalid "signs" and "proofs" - and may be some other mistakes, too - - - perhaps even religious mistakes (why should they be exceptions?) Plus a lot of unclear language. Actually: With so many mistakes that you find in the Quran, it at best is partly the truth.

033 6/57g: "- - - He (Allah*) is the best of judges". Not if he judges according to some parts of the morality code in the Quran, and some of the rules in sharia - a couple of those are the most horrible and unjust laws we have met in any judicial system.

034 6/61b: "He (Allah*) is - - - (watching) from above over His servants (Muslims*)- - -." Allah looks after you. But also remember: Allah sees what you do, so remember your discipline; be good and obedient! - and obedience on Earth in reality meant - and means - Muhammad and his successors."

035 6/62d: "- - - Allah - - - the (only) Reality - - -". Is he a reality? There exists not ones single documentation - ONLY the word of a not very reliable man unable to prove one single of his words - a man with very doubtful morality, a man who clearly lied sometimes, a man who made lying, half truths (al-Taqiyya and Kitman) parts of his religion, a man who advocated breaking even your oaths if that gave a better result - and a man lusting for riches for bribes and for power - and for women - and not "specific" on how to lay his hands on any of those three.

036 6/64c: "- - - yet ye (non-Muslims*) worship false gods!" As far as Jews and Christians go, this is contradicted in the Bible - a book which on top of all neither mentions Allah nor Muhammad nor many of the most essential parts of Islam - like the duty to pray 5 times a day, the duty to go on pilgrimage to Mecca, the duty to wage war for the religion, etc. 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.

037 6/65c: "- - - Signs - - -". There exist no signs proving Allah, neither in nor outside the Quran. In each and every case it for one thing never is proved that the effect or thing even is made by a god, and in each and every case any believer in any religion can claim exactly the same for his god(s). Utterly invalid indications or proofs - and who uses invalid proofs and fast talk? - the cheater and deceiver.

038 6/66a: "But thy (Muhammad's*) people reject this (Muhammad's preaching and his claimed signs*), though it is the Truth". The reason was that many of them saw it was not the truth, or at least that something was very wrong. Especially for the ones knowing the Bible, this was very easy to see, as much of what Muhammad claimed was from the Bible, was not from that book, but from religious legends, apocryphal (made up) books, folklore and even fairy tales.

039 6/69a: "On their (non-Muslims*) account no responsibility falls on the righteous, but (their duty) is to remind them (everybody*), that they may (learn to) fear Allah". A complicated way to say this: "It is the duty of all good Muslims to work for spreading Islam procelyting". Something to remember and beware of - especially as using also al-Taqiyya (the lawful lie) and Kitman (the lawful half-truth) both are recommended if they will give a better effect at defending or forwarding procelyting - Islam.

##040 6/70d: "- - - every soul delivers itself to ruin (Hell*) by their own acts - - -". Here we are back to one of Islam's impossible contradictions: Muhammad needed the predestination, because it gave many and unafraid warriors - they were not to die until Allah had when decided, so war was not dangerous. But if Allah predestined everything there was no moral reason for him to punish humans for sins he had predestined they should do - thus man had to have free will. Muhammad was and Islam is unable to explain the very serious contradiction: Allah decides and predestines everything, but man had free will and decides for himself. Islam only has the weak claim "it is impossible for man to understand, but has to be true as Allah says so in the Quran" - see 6/149a below. Some Muslims tries to explain that what is meant, is that man has partly free will, but that is a nonsense explanation. For one thing no human had fully free will - he always was partly dependant on nature and on others, and never had any more than partly free will at best, so then it is not a way out of the problem to claim he only had partly free will. And for another: When it is made totally clear that Allah decides and predestine absolutely every detail on Earth, there is no kind of free will left for man, not even a partly one. And not forget that for a third: The laws of chaos would make even partly free will, spoil Allah's predestination and unchangeable Plan,

041 6/73d: "- - - He (Allah*) saith, 'Be', behold, it is." The Quran other places claims Jesus could not be the son of the god, because the god had no woman (wrong: In the very old Hebrew religion there was a female - Yahweh's Amat - but over centuries and millenniums she was forgotten in that very masculine society. Source: New Scientist and others, and thus the god might have got a son in the "normal" way in spite of the Quran's words about this a couple of places). But may be the god said: "Be a son", and behold, Jesus was. And who are we who say that a god does not like a son?

042 6/74d: "Lo, said Abraham to his father Azar: 'Takest thou Idols for gods? For I see thee and thy people in manifest error". This is not from the Bible. In the Bible there is not even a hint about that Terah/Azar or his people had other gods than Yahweh. There also is not one hint about a disagreement between Abram (his original name according to the Bible - the name Abraham he got from Yahweh much later (not mentioned in the Quran - Muhammad hardly knew this)) and his father or between Abram and his people. Also there is no hint about religious disagreement and there further is no other reason to believe that another god than Yahweh was involved - though this early they may have used f.x. the name El for him. From where did Muhammad get this story? No god was involved in a book with so much wrong like the Quran, and but for a god there is no other source about Abram/Abraham than the Bible. Oh, well, there are the dark forces, there are the legends and fairy tales, and there is the fantasy (though Muhammad seems not to have had a very creative fantasy - he normally "borrowed" stories from where he found them and just twisted them so as to make them fit his new religion).

043 6/82b: "It is those who believe (in the Quran*) - - - that are (truly) in security - - -". Are they? Relying on a book full of mistakes, dictated by a man relying at least partly on untruth and dishonesty, and a man wanting riches for bribes, wanting power, and wanting women - - - and not being too mindful about how he got hold on any of those three. If Allah does not exist or if he exists but is not correctly described in the Quran, the one thing they may be secure about is that they have no security. Yes worse: If Allah is made up, at least the ones of them living according to the harsher parts of the Quran can be pretty sure not to end in a paradise - yes, this may be the case for all Muslims, if they believe in a non-existing god. (And at least the Quran with all its mistakes, etc. is from no god.)

044 6/85a: "And Zakariyya and John, and Jesus and Elias - - -". 4 historical anomalies. See 4/13d.

##045 6/91c: "Who then sent down the Book which Moses brought?" This is intended as a rhetoric question with only one possible answer: Allah.

One thing is that the Bible tells he got what he got not from Allah (neither Allah nor Muhammad is mentioned in the Bible). More essential just here is that Moses did not get any book(s) - both according to the Bible which says he got 2 stone tablets + vocal information, and according to science which tells that the Books of Moses were written long time after his death. This simply is a try to make up a "proof" for that Allah might have sent down the Quran, but as the god did not send down the Bible, this claim is a total miss. Any god had known this and not made such a flop. Then who made the Quran?

Actually surah 6 is a bit hard upon the wishful thinking of Muslims:

  1. In 6/50 Muhammad confirms he cannot see what is hidden - the future - killing all the claimed miracles claimed made by Muhammad concerning seeing what was hidden, and indirectly also documenting he was no prophet - not knowing the future = unable to make prophesies, and a person unable to make prophesies is no prophet. (F. ex. 5. Mos. 18/21 - in the same speech of Moses where Islam claims Moses foresees Muhammad when talking about "a prophet like me" - quite an irony when 18/21 indirectly, but clearly tells Muhammad was not even a prophet - he only "borrowed that impressive and imposing title" to quote an unknown wise man. (And among many others 18/2 tells Moses was speaking about Jewish "brothers" - Islam has cherry-picked and twisted 18/15 and 18/18 in an al-Taqiyya.)
  2. Also connected to 6/50;(A6/39): "This denial on the part of the Prophet (Muhammad*) of any claim to supernatural power - - -". This states that Islam admits Muhammad had no supernatural power at all = absolutely no prophet.
  3. In connection with 6/108 "The Message of the Quran" (comment 6/93) explains "- - - it is in the nature of man to regard the beliefs which have been implanted in him from childhood, and which he now shares with his social environment, as the only true and possible ones" - which explains in details why Muslims believe in spite of all facts proving something is seriously wrong with the religion.
  4. In connection with 6/148 (comment 6/141 in the same book) Islam has to admit that the claim that Allah decides everything - predestination - is impossible to combine with the claimed free will for man (and without free will it is morally wrong to punish man for sins) - but "it all the same must be true, because Allah says so (in the Quran*)" the ultimate defeat for brain against blind belief.
  5. And in 6/151 may be the most well-known of the mistakes in the Quran accepted by Islam to be a mistake: "You are prohibited from - - - being good to your parents" (well, may be "Mary, sister of Aaron" is even more well-known, but that one is frequently tried explained away).

046 6/91e: "- - - ye (Jews*) conceal much (of its (the Torah's = first part of the OT*) contents - - -)". The old and never proved claim from Muhammad that the Bible is falsified - his only possible defense against the fact that the Bible says a lot of things differently from what he claimed it said. Science has ever so clearly - and Islam even more clearly - shown that this Islamic claim is wrong: Many really old documents (the numbers vary some, but some 300 copies or fragments of the Gospels, some 12000 of other parts of the bible + some 32000 other manuscripts with quotations from the Bible) have shown that the texts of today are like the really old ones. Not even Islam has found a proved falsification!! Islam will have to bring real proofs for this repeated claims in the Quran and elsewhere till now they only have produced claims; unfunded claims and loose words, and we are back to the old fact: If Islam had found one single hard fact showing that the Bible in any way was falsified, the world had been told quickly and with large letters. This because Islam does not have one single real proof for the existence of Allah, for Gabriel as a messenger to Muhammad, for Muhammad's connection to a god or anything at all everything rests only only on what Muhammad told, and the historical Muhammad (in contradiction to the Islamic glossy picture) was a man that would not have been accepted in any serious court as a reliable witness. A proof for falsification of the Bible would be an indication for that the Quran was correct at least on this one point, and thus very welcome. But in 1400 hundred years no real proof has been found only claims and words. Therefore a real proof for a falsified Bible had been big news in all Muslim media and for all Muslims debating religion forever after. No such proof has ever been produced by Islam or anyone else.

Also see 3/24, 5/13, 5/14, 5/15. Similar claims in 2/42 5/14 5/15. And the chapter about differences between the Bible and the Quran, which will be added in 2011 or 2012 AD.

*047 6/92c: "(The Quran is*) "confirming (the revelations) which came before it (the Bible*)". Wrong. There are so many fundamental differences, that the Quran is no confirmation of the Bible. See f. ex. 2/89 and 3/3 for further explanation. Similar claims in 26/196 - 35/31 46/12 46/30. See also separate chapter about the Bible in "1000+ Mistakes in the Quran".

048 6/92h: "- - - they (Muslims*) are constant in guarding their Prayers". Why? - if it is true what the Quran claims many places, that Allah has predestined everything for you in accordance with his unchangeable Plan, which nothing and no-one can change, no prayer can change his predestinations - prayers to Allah thus are meaningless and a waste of time. (Muslims never - never - mention this).

As for the value of prayers in Islam, also see 62/9c. And if you combine 62/9c with 67/9c - a strong one - you get something thought-provoking. (And relevant here: Muslims often are thought that a question or problem can have 2 or more true and correct solutions - Islam is forced to teach this, because if not, many of the mistakes and contradictions in the Quran become too obvious. But this ONLY is true if parallel true solutions are possible. In cases where 2 or more possible solutions are mutually excluding each other, maximum 1 of the mutually excluding ones can be true. It should be a bit thought provoking for Muslims, that just this "small" difference in theoretical thinking and teaching, was one of the reasons (there were several of course) for why Europe and the West exploded into the Technical Revolution, while the Muslim area stagnated). Two star examples are: 1) Full predestination is not possible even for an omnipotent god to combine with even the smallest piece of free will for man - the two are mutually excluding. The same for full and unchangeable predestination long time before, combined with any claimed effect of prayers - the two are mutually excluding each other.)

049 6/93c: "- - - inspiration - - -". Muhammad claimed he got most of his claimed information from his god by means of inspiration - a very convenient way, especially if some things in reality are made up, as it is impossible for others to check if it is true, and also easy for a claimed prophet to add or subtract or simply to make up. Remember here that all the mistakes etc. in the Quran proves at least 110% that it is not from a god, and someone or someone(s) has/have to have made it. In this verse two things are the subject: Prevent that others got the idea to make (competing?) inspirations", and to stress the claim that his own "inspirations" were reliable. We may here remind you that the word "inspiration" never is used in such connection in the Bible - 4. Mos. 12/6-8 tells that Yahweh speaks to his prophets directly, in visions or in dreams - inspiration is not an alternative. Muhammad also never tells how he sees the difference between Allah's inspirations and his own - all humans have inspirations now and then. Neither does he mention how he can be sure the ones not his own, are from a god and not from a sick brain (remember TLE) or from a dressed up member of the dark forces (Muhammad would have no chance to see the difference if it was f.x. a dressed up Iblis (the Muslim devil) posing as Gabriel).

050 6/98b: "It is He (Allah*) Who hath produced you (man*) from a single person (Adam*) - - -". According to science it takes two to make a baby. But that aside: Where is the proof for that any god - not to mention Allah - is involved at all? One thing is that Adam never existed man developed from earlier primates according to science. Another thing is that 1 person even 1 pair of persons would give too little DNA-variety to make man as a viable race. One more invalid sign.

051 6/100a: "Jinns" - beings "borrowed" from pagan Arab religion and Arab fairy tales. They are strange creatures to tell about for universal god, as they mainly exist only in old Arab pagan religion and folklore (though they do exist also in old Jewish tales, but not in their religion) Islam even today disputes what they really are, but most agree on that they are individuals of quite another kind than humans, but all the same not dissimilar. There exist Islamic laws for marriage between jinns and humans, so they have to be material beings. They are not demons, but another kind of invisible beings - ruled by Allah like en, and like man claimed in a not explainable way to all the same have free will. Most of them seem to end in Hell in the claimed next life.

052 6/100e: "- - - sons - - -". Simply Jesus. Muhammad could not accept that Jesus perhaps was son of the god. For one thing he thought it would spoil his claim about only one god (not correct - Christians believe in Jesus, but all the same only one god, Jesus' father Yahweh). For another: Muhammad wanted to be the greatest of prophets, which was impossible if Jesus is the son of the god.

053 6/102a: "There is no god but He (Allah*) - - -". Well, not mentioning other claimed gods in different religions, there still remains Yahweh. The basics of Islam and the basics especially of NT are so different that they cannot be the same god, no matter what wishful thinking and not documented claims the Quran or Muslims put forth. (One possibility: The two may really be one god, if the god is strongly schizophrenic.) If there is one, but just one god, that means that only Allah or only Yahweh can exist. And Allah only is to be found in a book with hundreds and more mistakes, told by a man with very suspect moral and liking power, using Allah - real or made up - as his platform of power. Well, of course Allah is to be found in the old pagan Arab religion, then obeying(?) the name al-Lah - "the god". Whereas there after all is a chance for that Yahweh exists - there f.x. were so many witnesses to Jesus' miracles, death and resurrection, that one may wonder.

##054 6/104c: "Now have (the Quran*) come - - - from your (Muslim's) Lord (Allah*) - - - I (Muhammad*) am not here to watch over your (people's) doings". THIS IS A SERIOUS ONE: Here it is Muhammad who is speaking - - - in a book presumably made eons ago in Heaven!!! - an impossibility and a clear contradiction of the Islamic claim that it is a copy of the Mother Book in the Heaven. (There are some 8 such cases in the Quran, and at least one case where angels are speaking - see 6/114a below.) Clear proof(s) for that the Quran is not from Heaven - at least not all of it. This lines up with facts like:

  1. There are lots and lots of mistakes in the book.
  2. There are lots and lots of invalid "signs" and "proofs" in the book.
  3. There are lots and lots and lots of invalid statements in the book.
  4. There are lots and lots of contradictions in the book.
  5. There are lots and lots of unclear language in the book.

This proves 100% or more that the Quran is not made by an omniscient god.)

##055 6/106b: "- - - there is no god but He (Allah*) - - -". Often claimed in Islam, but never proved.

  1. There actually is no natural law prohibiting more than one god. (The Quran tries to claim these one or a few places, but uses invalid arguments and invalid logic). Or prohibiting even no god.
  2. But if we for the sake of simplicity say that polytheism is out, there still remains the problem with Yahweh - the god of Jews and Christians.
  3. Yahweh is an old god - he (his religion) can be traced by science all the way back through history and far into prehistory. If the books are reliable on this point, there is no doubt about his existence and his power - this according to both the Bible and the Quran.
  4. There is not one single trace of the Muslim version of Allah - or of his claimed earlier prophets (except the Biblical ones) - older than 610 AD, not within ANY kind of science: Archeology, architecture, art, literature, history - not even in legends or in fairy tales.
  5. Allah only - only - exists in a book full of mistakes, and dictated by a man believing in al-Taqiyya (the lawful lie), etc., and wanting power and money for bribes and women - - - and according to Islamic sources with few qualms about how he got hold of it (including using a new religion as his platform of power).
  6. To make matter worse: That book is so full of mistakes, contradictions, etc. and except for polished language of such an amateur quality, that no god was involved in it - to claim the opposite is slander and an insult and heresy against the god one blames the work on.
  7. There is nowhere even the smallest trace of a mosque older than 610 AD (Kabah in Mecca may partly be older, but that was a pagan temple taken over by Muhammad).
  8. There nowhere exists one single proof for the existence of Allah or for Muhammad's connection to a god
  9. There are hundreds and more of mistakes, contradictions, unclear language, etc. and even some obvious lies in the Quran - 110% proofs for that it is not from a god.
  10. Muhammad tried to claim - and with considerable success - that Yahweh was the same god as Allah, and that Allah thus was an old and mighty god.
  11. But the fundamental differences between the two teachings and also between the codes of moral and ethics of the two, and other things, are so many and so deep, that this claim simply is not true (one possible exception: If the god is deeply schizophrenic).
  12. Muhammad tried to explain the differences by claiming - as always without a proof - that the Bible is falsified. Modern science has long since proved that this is not true (some 44000 relevant manuscripts and each and every one of them without any trace of falsification). Islam has proved it even stronger: If there had existed one single real falsification, the world had been told about it several times a day.
  13. Then there is the question of the Bible, which both in OT (f.x. several places in Isaiah 44 and 45) and many places in NT declare that there is no god but Yahweh - in spite of Muhammad's claims a very different god.
  14. And not to forget: If Allah all the same exists, there remains the question: What is he? He is no god - no god delivers a book of a quality like the Quran. But he may be something from the dark forces dressed up to cheat Muhammad. Muhammad would not have a chance to see the difference. (Personally we doubt that even a devil would make such a sorry book like the Quran - he had to know all the errors would be discovered sooner or later, and he would loose credibility. But there is the chance that may be there was a god prohibiting him to use anything better - - - and he also might have taken into account the standard human religious blindness - the inability many humans have to see what they do not wish to see.

Decide for yourself: What are the chances for that Allah exists and in case is a lone god?

####056 6/108d: "Thus have We (Allah*) made alluring to each people its own doings".

Comment A6/92 (A6/93 in the 2008 English edition): "Lit., ‘thus godly have we made….', etc. implying that it is in the nature of man to regard the belief which have been implanted in him from babyhood, and which he now shares with his social environment, as the only true and possible ones whit the result that a polemic against those beliefs often tends to provoke a hostile psychological reaction." This is said as an explanation why Islam sometimes meets a negative reaction. But the book skips the fact that this also goes for Muslims: If they are strongly indoctrinated, they may react strongly to arguments and facts they do not like and without thinking over or being mentally able to think over even true facts. This is likely to be the explanation for why most Muslims are able to be blind to all the mistakes and proofs for that things are very wrong in the Quran and thus with Muhammad and in Islam.

057 6/108e: "Thus have We (Allah*) made alluring to each people its own doings". This sentence should be extremely thought-provoking also to Muslims.

##058 6/109i: "- - - what will make you (Muslims) realize that (even) if (special) Signs came, they (non-Muslims*) will not believe?" Wrong. If there were real proofs of a god - miracles - at least a good number of people would believe - that is a psychological fact (look f.x. at the Pharaoh's magicians and at the results of Jesus' miracles). The sentence really is fast-talk to "explain" away why Allah/Muhammad was unable to produce unmistakable proofs for Allah. Worse: An intelligent man like Muhammad knew this argument is a lie - and all the same he used it frequently. This simply is one of the places in the Quran where Muhammad knew he was lying.

059 6/111b: "- - - they (non-Muslims*) are not the ones to believe, unless it is Allah's Plan". This is even worse than 6/107a above - Allah simply has made it impossible for non-Muslims to become Muslims, if it does not fit him. But still he condemns them to Hell!!! Predestination at its worst - perhaps except when luring people to their death or mutilation in battle.

No comment could possibly explain our point of view or distaste.

##060 6/114a: "Say ‘Shall I (Muhammad*) seek for another judge than Allah?" The point here is that according to Ibn Warraq: "Why I am no Muslim" p.174, the word "Say" is not in the Arab text. Besides making a clear contradiction of claims many places in the Quran, it means two things:

  1. It is not Allah, but Muhammad himself that is speaking. How can that be in a book claimed to be made eons ago? See 1/1-7a above.
  2. Even a top Muslim translator like Abdullah Yusuf Ali "doctors" his translations a "tiny wee bit" to make the Quran sound more correct. How much more is "doctored" and how much is "doctored" in translations of the Quran from lower quality translators? (And it was the same at least in 2/286c.)

061 6/115b: "The words (the Quran*) of thy Lord (Allah*) doth find its fulfillment in truth". As said many times: With that many mistakes, contradictions, cases of invalid logic, etc., it maximum is partly the truth. Also see 2/2a above and 13/1g and 40/75 below.

062 6/116d: "- - - they (disbelievers*) do nothing but lie". The irony once more: The only one of the large religions which accepts - even sometimes advices - the use of lies and dishonesty (al-Taqiyya, Kitman, deceit, betrayal, broken words/oaths), is accusing others of lying - - - and as normal for the Quran without proofs behind the claim. A lie?

063 6/119a: "- - - except under compulsion of necessity - - -". If a Muslim is forced to or if there is strong hunger and nothing else to eat, a Muslim is not sinning even if he eats forbidden food. (The same goes if he is cheated into eating such food, honestly believing it is ok food - which means you score no point and only is impolite by f.x. cheating Muslims to eat food containing pork or blood).

064 6/122d: "- - - to those without Faith their own deeds seem pleasing". The same goes for Muslims, and here it is very serious, as much of what they are permitted or expected to do, sin against the constitution of all inter-human ethical and moral code, and against what a really benevolent and good god would have ordered: "Do onto others what you want others do onto you".

065 6/132a: "To all (Muslims in the Quran's paradise*) are degrees (or ranks) according to their deeds - - -". It is many places in the Quran made clear that the Islamic paradise is a class society. (But it is nowhere explained how you can get all your family around you in the paradise, it they do not all merit the same level or class).

066 6/134b: "- - - nor can you frustrate it (Allah's predestination*) (in the least bit)". Nobody and nothing can change Allah's predestination and Plan - nothing and nobody at all. Then where is free will - total or partly - of man, and where is the rationale in praying?

067 6/141c: "But waste not by excess - - -". The Quran is against wasting your money and your fortune by excesses. In this way it is similar to Buddhism: Use "the Middle Way". Actually there is a slight chance that Muhammad got the idea about "the middle way" from Buddhism - as known hardly any of his ideas was his own, he "borrowed" more or less everything from others. The Arabs were traders and had business connections also with India, and at least later also with China. The idea of "the middle way" may have come from India where a large percent of the population were Buddhist (until Muslims later murdered them by the hundreds of thousands and ended Buddhism in India (= Pakistan, India and Bangladesh today) nearly completely, even though India was the origin of Buddhism. Islam's demonstrations of "let there be no compulsion in religion" were horrible and grotesque f.x. in Sind - now mainly Pakistan - but also in what is now India. Really worthy the claimed "Religion of Peace". To quote a wise man: "When someone says one thing, but acts differently, I believe in his acts, not in his words").

068 6/142b: "- - - and follow not in the footsteps of Satan - - -". Here the meaning is: To make restrictions on what Allah has permitted, is to follow Satan (f.x. restrictions on raping captive girls and women during and after a war claimed to be for Allah but which may give riches and power in this world - also for the leaders?).

But it is a curiosa here that Just Satan is one of the theories for who is the real maker of the Quran, as it is clear that a book of that quality is from no god. Some of the moral and judicial rules in the Quran and in Islam may back up that theory.

069 6/146b: "For those who followed the Jewish Law, We (Allah*) forbade (to eat*) every (animal) with undivided hoof, and We forbade them the fat of the ox and the sheep - - -". Skipping the fact that Allah and the god of the Jews, Yahweh, is not the same god not unless he is schizophrenic the correct is: - - - "the fat of cattle, sheep or goat" (3. Mos. 7/23). A minor mistake, but an omniscient god had not forgotten the goat.

070 6/148e: "Say: 'Have ye any (certain) knowledge? If so, produce it before us." Islam and the Quran are quick to demand proofs from anyone else, but hardly ever prove anything themselves - they rely on unproved claims and on statements built on other unproved claims. Beware of this when you debate with Muslims: They often put forth loose claims without any proofs, and demands that you prove it is wrong - if you are unable to that, they claim they are right, no matter how wrong they are. And if you are able to prove a claim wrong, they utter disbelief and instead make another unproved claim. One technique is quoting a known writer speaking about things he knows no more about than ordinary people - but he is a known writer. By cherry-picking quotes Islam has found a number of "good" claims, and it is not always easy to prove they are wrong, even when they are far from reality. But it is not for you to prove him/her wrong. It is he/she who is making the claim, and thus it is for him/her to prove it. Demand proofs for all claims from them before you at all start answering them - mostly they are unable to prove anything when they are using dishonest arguments or loose claims, and loose claims are especially often used.

####071 6/149a: (A6/141 in 2008 edition 6/143): "With Allah is the argument that reaches home (= the decisive arguments = it is Allah who decides*) - - - ". Predestination again - because Allah long since has decided everything according to his Plan. And man's claimed free will?

"The Message of the Quran" has this comment:

"In other words, the real relationship between Allah's knowledge of the future (and, therefore, the ineluctably of what is to happen in the future) on one side, and man's free will, on the other two propositions which, on the face of it, seem to contradict one another is beyond man's comprehension; but since both are postulated by Allah, both must be true.

Simply the ultimate pinnacle of clear speech. And the ultimate victory not for blind faith, but for blind faith based on naivety and intellectual unconsciousness.

IT ALSO IS THE ULTIMATE DEFEAT FOR THE CLAIM THAT IT IS POSSIBLE TO COMBINE THE CLAIM THAT MAN HAS FREE WILL WITH THE CLAIM THAT ALLAH DECIDES EVERY DETAIL OF YOUR LIFE.

Predestination contra man's free will actually is a version of "the Time Travel Paradox", which is long since proved unsolvable. (In short: The king is murdered. A FTL-message (FTL = Faster Than Light) is sent to a star-ship off Sirius. FTL according to Einstein moves backwards in time, and arrives earlier than it was sent. The ship sends a warning to the king, and as it uses FTL, the warning arrives before the murder and the king avoids the murderer. Because of that no message is sent to the ship, which sends no warning to the king - and the king is murdered. Then a FTL message is sent to the ship - - - -".) There is no way Allah can even be fully clairvoyant, not to mention decide everything on beforehand, and man at the same time have free will. (More in the chapter about predestination.)

PREDESTINATION ALSO MAKES PRAYERS MEANINGLESS: IF ALLAH HAS PREDESTINED EVERYTHING, PRAYERS CAN CHANGE EXACTLY NOTHING.

This point perhaps is the pinnacle in all Islam's ability to flee even from facts they see themselves, its inability to face hard facts even when they see them, and its ability and willingness to be blind and to overlook even the strongest facts and proofs for that things are very wrong in the Quran and thus with Muhammad and in Islam. Central claims which cannot be true, are accepted in pure superstition.

"Our fathers told us and our neighbors and mullahs tell us this is true, and then it must be true".

"We built our lives on this belief - it has to be true because it is too difficult for me to face the alternative".

You meet this lack of moral backbone and the ability in Islam and in Muslims to overlook or explain away even the strongest facts, at every point in the Quran where there are mistakes, contradictions or other proofs for that something is wrong in the Quran, and thus with Muhammad and with his religion - proofs they are unable to face for that Islam as told in the Quran is not a religion, but a superstition.

072 6/150d: "- - - our (Allah's*) Signs - - -". There exists nowhere - absolutely nowhere - signs which indicate or prove Allah; absolutely without exception they just are claims which as easily and cheaply can be used by any believer in any religion on behalf of his god(s) - totally invalid as proofs. The only possible exception is the signs "borrowed" from the Bible, but they in case prove Yahweh, not Allah.

###073 6/151a: "Come, I (Muhammad*) will rehearse what Allah hath (really) prohibited you from - - - (f.x.*) be good to your parents". This very obviously is wrong and a bit of a contradiction compared to other places in the Quran Muhammad very obviously meant exactly the opposite; that you were ordered to be god to your parents. An omniscient god would not make such a mistake. Who made the Quran? PS: This is one of the verses Muslim scholars (but not always imams or laymen) admits must be wrong - - - and omniscient gods do not make mistakes.

Also practically all Muslim scholars as mentioned agree that here the text is wrong there is said there are 19 such ones, www.1000mistakes.com lists 15 it is absolutely contrary to what the Quran says about this all other places. Which give you an unbeatable proof against any Muslim boasting that the book being without any mistakes at all. A proof and a fact sanctioned by Islam! (And besides: If here is one mistake, how many more are there?) Just remember: 6/151 (6 in Scandinavian = sex, and 151 has sex in both ends (1 + 5 = 6, and 5 + 1 = 6). Easy to remember.

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

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

- In 6/50 Muhammad confirms he cannot see what is hidden - the future - killing all the claimed miracles claimed made by Muhammad concerning seeing what was hidden, and indirectly also documenting he was no prophet - not knowing the future = unable to make prophesies, and a person unable to make prophesies is no prophet. (F. ex. 5. Mos. 18/21 - in the same speech of Moses where Islam claims Moses foresees Muhammad when talking about "a prophet like me" - quite an irony when 18/21 indirectly, but clearly tells Muhammad was not even a prophet - he only "borrowed that impressive and imposing title. (And among many others 18/2 tells Moses was speaking about Jewish "brothers" - Islam has cherry-picked and twisted 18/15 and 18/18 in an al-Taqiyya.)

Also connected to 6/50;(A.6/39): "This denial on the part of the Prophet (Muhammad*) of any claim to supernatural power - - -". This states that Islam admits Muhammad had no supernatural power at all = absolutely no prophet.

Then 6/91c: "Who then sent down the Book which Moses brought?" This is intended as a rhetoric question with only one possible answer: The god. But as Moses did not get any book(s) both according to the Bible and according to science, this try to make up a "proof" for that Allah might have sent down the Quran, was a total miss. Any god had known this and not made such a flop. Then who made the Quran?

In connection with 6/106 (6/106b) Allah's very existence is doubted.

In connection with 6/108 "The Message of the Quran" (comment6/93) explains "- - - it is in the nature of man to regard the beliefs which have been implanted in him from childhood, and which he now shares with his social environment, as the only true and possible ones" - which explains in details why Muslims believe in spite of all facts proving something is seriously wrong with the religion.

In connection with 6/149 (comment 6/141 in the same book) Islam has to admit that the claim that Allah decides everything - predestination - is impossible to combine with the claimed free will for man (and without free will it is morally wrong to punish man for sins) - but "it all the same must be true, because Allah says so (in the Quran*)" the ultimate defeat for brain against blind belief.

And in 6/151 may be the most well-known of the mistakes in the Quran accepted by Islam to be a mistake: "You are prohibited from - - - being good to your parents" (well, may be "Mary, sister of Aaron" is even more well-known, but that one is frequently tried explained away).

074 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.

075 6/154a: "We (Allah*) gave Moses the Book, - - -". As said some times before: The 5 books of Moses also called "the Book of Moses" - (or the Torah) - were written 400-700 (500-800?) years later according to science. Moses only got the 10 Commandments in writing. That is to say: He also got "the Law" which later became part of "the Book of Moses"- but only verbally, and then wrote it down himself later according to the Bible (what he wrote down sometimes is called "The Book of Covenant" - f.x. 2. Mos. 24/7). But the law for one thing is just part of the book, and for another: Science as said all the same means the full book is written centuries later. And NB: According to the Bible, he got the Commandments and the law from Yahweh, not from Allah - and the teachings of Jesus and of Muhammad are far too different; it is impossible they represented the same god or the same line of prophethood (in addition to that Muhammad was no real prophet - he was unable to make prophesies or "to see the unseen"). And we remind you: Science have long since proved beyond any reasonable or unreasonable doubt that Muhammad's never documented claims that the Bible is falsified, are wrong. Islam has proved the same even stronger by not finding one single clear case of falsifications in all the tens of thousands relevant old manuscripts or fragments.

076 6/161g: "- - - the Path of Abraham (Islam*) - - -". One thing is that the Bible disagrees and talks about connection to Yahweh, not to Allah. Another thing is that the Quran never documents any connection to Abraham - there only are claims. And a third is that nearly nothing of the central claims in the Quran agrees with what the only other source about Abraham, the Bible, tells.

077 6/165c: "- - - that He (Allah*) may try you (Muslims or people*) - - -". The never answered question: WHY does an omniscient and predestining god who according to the Quran knows every detail and innermost secrets about everybody, have to try anyone?!


These are just tit-bits from the book "1000+ Quran-comments - skeptics' facts and thoughts". You will find the complete book under http://www.1000quran-comments.com. (The surah reference numbers are like in that book.)

In http://www.1000mistakes.com you find:

  1. Book A: "1000+ Mistakes in the Quran" - http://www.1000mistakes.com.
  2. Book B: "1000+ comments in Jihad - (un)holy war" - http://www.1000mistakes.com/jihad-holywar/index.php
  3. Book C (this one): "1000+ Quran-comments - skeptics' facts and thoughts" (1000+ tit-bits from the complete book) - http://www.1000quran-comments.php.
  4. Book D: "Correcting much wrong refuting on http://www.1000mistakes.com - and a lesson in Muslim ways of debating.
  5. Book E: "What the Bible really says - when the Quran uses legends, fairy tales, or phantasy, instead of the Bible as sources for 'Biblical' texts, like it often does. (Expected late 2011 or early 2012).

In http://www.1000quran-comments.com you find:

  1. "1000+ Quran-comments - skeptics' facts and thoughts" (the "complete" list - 20ooo+ comments on the Quran) - as said in http://1000quran-comments.php.

078 "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 and captured - and see if you agree. Always when there is a distance between words and corresponding demands and deeds, we personally believe in the demands and deeds. Glorious words are cheap, demands and deeds are reliable. Glorifying words and claims are too cheap for anyone to use and disuse - when you read, judge from realities, not from propaganda.

079 7/2a: "A Book (the Quran*) revealed unto thee (Muhammad*)". Can a book with so many mistakes be revealed by an omniscient god? Simply no.

080 7/4b: "How many towns have We (Allah) destroyed (for their sins)?" Some complain about Yahweh being harsh in OT. Some claim that Allah is a good and benevolent good. But if you read the Quran you will find that Allah has destroyed and killed many more than Yahweh - and if Allah = Yahweh like the Quran and Islam claim, Allah has made all the destruction and killing in the Bible (under the name of Yahweh), plus all the destruction and killing in the Quran, plus all the destruction and killing his followers have done till now through history in accordance with the Quran, plus all the destruction and killings the Muslims do today and will do in the future in accordance with the Quran's incitements and orders. A good and benevolent god and religion? The religion of peace? The claims are insults to the intelligence of anyone who have studied the facts with an open mind. (One may counter that also Christians have caused destruction and deaths. But for one thing: Read the NT and you will see it is in spite of the texts there - even though the Bible sometimes has been disused for purposes of power or wealth - not because of the "holy" texts, like in the Quran. Even in OT the fighting was for a nation, not for a religion. And for another: Bad deeds by non-Muslims do not make bad deeds made by Muslims one molecule or atom better. And especially not so when it is done by religious demands and orders from their god - orders which are stated to last forever until everybody else are "thoroughly suppressed" under the Muslims.

*043 7/16a: (A10 in 2008 edition A11): "Because Thou (Allah*) has thrown me (Iblis the Devil*) out of the Way - - -." But is this really what Muhammad meant? Because the Arab word "aghwahu" which is used here, is an unclear word with many meanings. This sentence at least can have these meanings:

  1. "Because Thou has thrown me out of the way - - -."
  2. "Because Thou hast thwarted me - - -."
  3. "Because Thou hast caused me to err - - -."
  4. "Because Thou hast allowed me to err - - -."
  5. "Because Thou hast caused me to be disappointed - - -."
  6. "Because Thou hast caused me to fail my desire - - -."

As said before: Also Arab language like all other languages - has words with more than one meaning. And in such cases Arab is not one millimeter more exact than other languages, even if you find only one word (with multiple meanings) in the Quran, but have to use different words in another language to cover the different meanings. To claim that Arab in such cases is more clear and/or exact when it in reality is vague and unclear, is just hypocrisy or dishonesty - - - or al-Taqiyya.

##081 7/24: "Get ye (Adam and Eve*) down, with enmity between yourself". May be Islam has comments on this, but we have never seen one. The message is clear: There will be enmity between man and woman. And when you see the status and the treatment of women in Islam, that may well be the case in Islam - with the man as the winner and the woman as the suppressed vanquished loser.

On this point the Bible has another story. In the Bible it was the snake who made Eve pick the forbidden fruit, and because of that Yahweh said there should be enmity between man and snake - and that is quite something different from enmity between man and woman.

A possible explanation for the story in the Quran is that Muhammad did not know the Bible well - this is a well known fact - and misunderstood the story (especially before he came to Medina where there lived many Jews, in 622 AD, he had very superficial knowledge of the Bible, and this surah is from 621 AD).

###082 7/28ab: "We found our fathers doing so". The reason why Muslims keep believing in the Quran, is that their fathers - and surroundings - tell them that the Quran must be true, and then they blindly believe this. But it is not possible for a person with reasonable knowledge about the world and different sciences, and with a reasonable quality brain, who study the Quran honestly trying to find out; "is this true or not" not to end in skepticism or stronger.

###083 7/28b: "Allah never commands what is shameful - - -." This is contradicted by several points in the Quran, f.x.:

  1. 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).
  2. Enslaving is "good and lawful".
  3. Killing and murdering and war are not only good and lawful, but the best service to Allah.
  4. A raped woman who cannot produce 4 male witnesses to the very act, is to be punishes severely for indecency.
  5. 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 Aishah - became his favorite wife the rest of her childhood.
  6. Allah commands that one can take slaves in a jihad - and 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.
  7. 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 Aishah when Muhammad started to have sex with her - anything Muhammad did is just and right).
  8. 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 "good and lawful" if the woman is not pregnant. That it is "good and lawful" 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).
  9. To murder opponents also personal opponents in the name of a presumably good god is something much more than shameful.
  10. 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.
  11. To steal/rob/plunder and extort in the name of such a god and with his permission as "good and lawful" - 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:
    1. They attract selfish warriors to a robber "prophet's" army and to his successors'.
    2. They attract greedy warriors to a robber "prophet's" army and to his successors'.
    3. They attract inhuman warriors to a robber "prophet's" army and to his successors'.
    4. They attract primitive warriors to a robber "prophet's" army and to his successors'.
    5. 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.

##084 7/31b: "- - - prayer - - -".What is the idea of praying for anything in Islam? According to the Quran - and Hadiths - Allah has predestined every detail in your and everyone else's life according to his unchangeable Plan - a Plan "nobody and nothing" can change. Thus prayers can have no effect and can change nothing, and just is a waste of time and effort - a fact (if the stated predestination is correct - and if it is not, the Quran is wrong) no Muslim ever mentions or tries to explain.

As for the value of prayers in Islam, also see 62/9c. And if you combine 62/9c with 67/9c - a strong one - you get something thought-provoking. (And relevant here: Muslims often are thought that a question or problem can have 2 or more true and correct solutions - Islam is forced to teach this, because if not, many of the mistakes and contradictions in the Quran become too obvious. But this ONLY is true if parallel true solutions are possible. In cases where 2 or more possible solutions are mutually excluding each other, maximum 1 of the mutually excluding ones can be true. It should be a bit thought provoking for Muslims, that just this "small" difference in theoretical thinking and teaching, was one of the reasons (there were several of course) for why Europe and the West exploded into the Technical Revolution, while the Muslim area stagnated). Two star examples are: 1) Full predestination is not possible even for an omnipotent god to combine with even the smallest piece of free will for man - the two are mutually excluding. The same for full and unchangeable predestination long time before, combined with any claimed effect of prayers - the two are mutually excluding each other.)

085 7/32e: "- - - those who understand". Flattery works - especially when talking to the not too intelligent, to the little educated, and to the naive ones. You find it a number of places in the Quran. Also few want to admit they are not among the ones who understand.

086 7/33g: "- - - assigning partners to Allah - - -". Wrong. Most non-Muslims do not assign partners to Allah. They simply do not believe he exists and instead believe in other gods - or another god (like Yahweh). Assigning partners to Allah, was only done in the old Arabia, and really not to Allah, but to Allah before he was dressed up by Muhammad and still was the pagan god al-Lah - an Arabism (see 4/13d above).

087 7/34c: "- - - not an hour can they (humans*) cause delay, nor (an hour) can they advance (it in anticipation)." Predestination is absolute - man can do exactly nothing. Which means that man's claimed free will is an illusion. But it also means that war and battles are not dangerous - you do not die until your time is out, but then you die either you are in the midst of a hard battle, working in your fields, or sleeping in your bed. A very nice religion for a robber baron and for a warlord - wrong of course, which is easy to prove nowadays with statistics, but naive people even today may believe in it. But also see 7/34a above: Have prayers any meaning at all in Islam, when prayers can change nothing?

As for the value of prayers in Islam, also see 62/9c. And if you combine 62/9c with 67/9c - a strong one - you get something thought-provoking. (And relevant here: Muslims often are thought that a question or problem can have 2 or more true and correct solutions - Islam is forced to teach this, because if not, many of the mistakes and contradictions in the Quran become too obvious. But this ONLY is true if parallel true solutions are possible. In cases where 2 or more possible solutions are mutually excluding each other, maximum 1 of the mutually excluding ones can be true. It should be a bit thought provoking for Muslims, that just this "small" difference in theoretical thinking and teaching, was one of the reasons (there were several of course) for why Europe and the West exploded into the Technical Revolution, while the Muslim area stagnated). Two star examples are: 1) Full predestination is not possible even for an omnipotent god to combine with even the smallest piece of free will for man - the two are mutually excluding. The same for full and unchangeable predestination long time before, combined with any claimed effect of prayers - the two are mutually excluding each other.)

088 7/36f: "- - - to dwell therein (Hell*) (for ever)". There are some verses in the Quran which may indicate that Hell is not quite forever - at least not for Muslims: 6/128c, 11/176b, 43/74d, 51/13c, and 78/23. One of the verses also may indicate that Paradise also is not quite forever: 11/108c.

089 7/37a: "Who is more unjust than one who invents lies against Allah or rejects His Signs?" A pretty ironic sentence if the Quran is a made up book, not to mention if it is from the dark forces - and with all those mistakes, contradictions, etc, it at least is not from a god - no god makes such mistakes. But nice for Muhammad if it was he who made it up - he knew that no matter what he said or did there was no Allah to punish him if the religion was fiction,

090 7/42c: "- - - no burden do We (Allah*) place on any soul, but that which it can bear - - -". Can this be true? also among Muslims self murder (or seeking death for Allah, when the real reason is a too difficult life), deserting one's family or child, resorting to crime to be able to live on, etc. happens.

091 7/52a: "We (Allah*) had certainly sent unto them a Book (the Quran*), - - -". The recurring question: Is a book with that many mistakes wrong facts, contradictions, invalid proofs, unclear language, orthographic and perhaps even religious mistakes - really sent down by a god? Impossible - not to say heresy and an insult against any omnipotent or omniscient god.

092 7/54a: "You (people's*) Guardian-Lord is Allah - - -". One more of the many not proved claims you find in the Quran - claims any believer in any religion can make on behalf of his or her god(s), free of charge as long as no proofs are required, and claims which are totally without value as proofs as long as it is not first proved it is the god who really is behind what happens. In this case the claim only may be - may be, not is - true if Allah really exists, if he really is a dominant god, and if the Quran in addition tells the full truth and only the truth about this. But not even the existence of Allah is proved, and it is thoroughly proved that the Quran is full of mistakes, etc., both of which proves that Islam has to produce proofs for the claim, if they want to be believed - and proofs, not just loose words or more unproved claims.

093 7/54f: Muhammad Asad has this translation: "(Allah*) created the heavens (plural and wrong*) and the earth in six eons" (the same in 11/7c - actually this point is from 11/7c)- telling that the Arab word used here for "day" (yawm) also may mean f.x. eon, even though it is very clear that Muhammad's listeners and later Muslims understood "day" - - - until science proved that days could not be right. Mr. Asad(?) also is forced to change from "day" to "eon" in order to use the word "evolution" instead of "creation" in his comment 11/10 to this verse.

Honesty seems not to count too much in Islam, compared to the essential: To make the Quran look right. But where goes the reliability of the religion when you discovers small and big "twists" and lies? - and how much more of the religion, the teaching and its arguments are in reality untrue?

One more point: In the Swedish somewhat older edition, is used "days". It thus may look like it is the editors of the new English edition who have falsified Mr. Azad to get a text nearer to what is scientific correct instead of giving a correct translation of the Quran. Once more: Honesty does not seem to count too much in Islam.

Do you understand why we have to be careful and check a lot, when working with Islamic literature?

###094 7/64c: (A7/46): Muslims even scholars and Al-Azhar University - do not need difficult language to get troubles with the claimed true meanings and the claimed Truth and reality. 7/64 "do not support the theory of a world deluge" gallantly omitting the fact that Islam and the Quran claim the ark stranded on a 2089 m high mountain (Mt. Al-Judi - 11/44b) in Anatolia in Turkey - other sources say in Syria (not Ararat in Turkey ), which is impossible if the deluge was not universal, as the water then had streamed away to lower, not flooded places. And "The Message of the Quran" also in the 2008 edition!! as gallantly explains it with the filling up of the Mediterranean Basin "during the Ice Age" (ended some 10000 - 15000 years ago), this in spite of that this filling up happened 4-5 million years ago, and also for several other reasons f.x. wrong place and by far wrong way of filling up cannot explain the deluge. These are well known facts which the honorable professors have to know, or at least had to and easily could check before they "broadcast" their "explanation". A typical al-Taqiyya (lawful lie - here to explain away a clear mistake and thus defend Islam) as the time for and way of the filling up of the Mediterranean Sea as said are well known scientific facts.

The filling up of the Black Sea could be an explanation with some extra "explanations" - - - but it cannot explain the stranding of the Ark on the 2089 m high mountain Mt. al-Judi (11/44b) (in Anatolia in Turkey according to Wikipedia - other sources say in Syria), and neither the terrible weather and the enormous waves, as that too was a slow filling up (at least months of a slowly raising water level.)

As said: Some Muslims even elite scholars do not need difficult language to get different meanings at least different from well known facts. Al-Taqiyya etc. are easy ways out, but produces a number of not intended reactions and thoughts in the listener/reader if found out. Dishonesty does not induce respect or trust.

Also this is a typical example on what you often meet from Muslims: Claimed "explanations" which obviously are wrong because they only "explain" one or some aspects with a case, but then the other aspects prove them wrong. Like here: The Mediterranean once filled up - perhaps an explanation for the flood? - we use it!

But wrong time - some 5 million years too early. Wrong place - the Mediterranean Salt Desert where no man lived (there at places are found sun-baked salt under it), whereas Noah is believed to have lived (if he is not fiction) around what is now south Iraq, and only some 5000-6000 years ago. Wrong effect I - such a filling up produces no bad weather. Wrong effect II - such a filling up produces no big waves, except just close to the inlet (here Gibraltar). Wrong duration - the Mediterranean took at least 100 years to fill up, as the opening was not very big in the beginning. (Well, there is a new theory saying that the rush of water made a big opening, but even in that case at least 1 - 2 years.) Wrong drama - as it took long time, the water rose just some meters a year, and produced no storm. Wrong finish - such a filling up only could fill up to sea level, whereas the Quran as said tells the Ark ended on the 2089 m tall Mt. Al-Judi (in Anatolia in Turkey according to Wikipedia, other soursces say in Syria). Also see 7/64b just below and 11/44b.

But the really dark point is that most of these facts are so well known among educated people, that there is no chance that Islam does not know it - not to mention how easy it is to check on such fact. All the same they use it - people with little education or a strong wish to believe, believes in even such fairy tales, not to use the correct word: Al-Taqiyya - the lawful lie - a specialty for Islam.

But such stories - and there are too many of them - totally destroy Islam's and Muslims' credibility among those of educated, intelligent people used to critical thinking.

Also see 7/64d just below.

095 7/65d: "To the 'Ad people, (we (Allah*) sent) Hud - - -". As for the claimed prophet Hud we have been unable to find out if also he is a person from old Arab legends, or if he "surfaced" with Muhammad's tales. But notice one thing: Muhammad is some places in the Quran said to be the first prophet to the Arabians. The claim that there was a prophet Hud in Arabia (and also a few others) contradicts that claim - one of many contradictions in the Quran. To quote comment (A7/47) (translated from Swedish): "Hud is told to have been the first Arab prophet". Also see 7/73a below.

096 7/66a: Muhammad like so often makes the story a parallel to himself (he too often does) - it tells his audience that meeting disbelief and little success was normal for prophets - and consequently Muhammad's situation (in 621 AD) was normal, and thus that Muhammad was a normal prophet.

097 7/73g: "This she-camel of Allah - - -". Connected to the legend about the tribe Thamud, you time and again are told in the Quran that the self-proclaimed prophet Salih brought them a camel and told it was a sign a proof from Allah. Like it is told in the Quran it gives absolutely no meaning just a claim hanging in the thin air. How can a camel be a proof for a god in a country where there are 15 camels to a dozen?

*But then we run across the explanation: This is taken from old Arab folklore an old legend that everybody in Arabia knew at the time of Muhammad (but would an omniscient god who wanted to reach all the world, use an old fairy tale known only to Arabs and in such a way that one does not understand if one does not know the rest of the story?)

Very briefly the legend runs like this: There once was a mountain cliff. Out from that solid cliff one day there came a camel. This camel then became a prophet for a god.

With such a background the camel was so special, that it could be a sign for something only that the Quran just told part of the story, because everybody there and at that time knew the rest. But as we asked: Would an omniscient god wanting to reach the entire world, tell just part of the story, when he knew most of the world would not understand the point? (But as expected; in modern times you find Muslims telling that it was not this camel from the superstitious tale, but without giving a credible alternative.)

098 7/74c: "- - - the benefits (ye (Muslims*) have received) from Allah - - -". There is not documented one single case of benefit clearly given by Allah in all the history of Islam - a number of claims, but only claims based on air or belief, and nothing provably from him. The best proof: If there had existed clear cases, Islam had told about the proofs often and in big words. There are no such words.

099 7/75c: "'Know ye (believers*) indeed that Salih (a claimed prophet for the tribe or people Thamud. He according to the Quran lived sometime between Noah and Moses, but after the claimed prophet Hud Moses is said to speak about him, though not in the Bible*) is a prophet from his Lord?' They said:' We do indeed believe in the revelation which has been sent through him.'"

Comment to 7/75 (A7/58 - 7/60 in the 2008 English edition): "The contents of this message (lit., "that with which he has been sent") appeared to them justification enough to accept it on its merits, without the need of any esoteric "proof" of Silah's mission. In this subtle way this statement of faith has a meaning which goes far beyond the story of the Thamud. It is an invitation to the skeptic who is unable to believe in the divine origin of a religious message, to judge it on its intrinsic merits and not make his acceptance dependant on extraneous, and objectively impossible, proofs of its origin: for only through the contents can its truth and validity be established".

Well, proofs or at least documentation is not more "objectively impossible" than that the Christians have got documentation in NT, and partly confirmed in the Quran, for that something supernatural was involved with Jesus and with Yahweh (another question is whether one wants to believe in that documentation or not). It ALWAYS is possible for a god to prove his existence (but not for a human to prove a god). What to be aware of here is that Islam has not one single proof for anything concerning the religion not one single bit; only the word of a man with a very special mentality and morality or amorality. Therefore they have to argue for blind belief and for that proofs are unnecessary, yes, that demands for proofs are intellectual stupidity and lack of intelligence. Which they do. And which is wrong - in all aspects of life the most sure way to be cheated now and then, is to believe blindly. Besides: If intelligence is given by a god, surely his meaning was that we should use it.

One problem here is that it is logically and intellectually impossible to know something that is not proved. One maximally can believe strongly sometimes so strongly that one believes one knows. But not proved beliefs never are more than beliefs strong or not. But even strong beliefs ever so often have been and are wrong. People "knew" the Earth was flat and it was wrong. Then people "knew" Earth was the centre of the geocentric Universe and it was wrong. Then people "knew" Sol or Helios (2 names for our sun) was the centre of heliocentric Universe wrong. And then they "knew" our galaxy ("The Milky Way") was the entire Universe wrong once more. And in all religions f. ex. Islam - there are people that "know" they are right and that all others are wrong - - - and most of them have to be wrong (and Muslims with their somewhat special founder and everything built only on claims and with lots and lots and lots of mistakes, etc. in their holy book, in reality are in a most weak position for being among the ones if any who are right).

But because their total lack of proofs and even of real indicia, Islam claims and claims and strongly claims that the texts in a book with lots of mistakes and errors and wrongs, prove that a god has made it, that lack of ability to see this is your stupidity, not that the book is not perfect - and that blind belief is the ideal. Which is a main if not the main reason why Muslims and Islam cannot accept or see any mistake in the Quran, no matter how obvious: If there are mistakes in the Quran, it is not from a god - and then Islam is a false religion. That is a possibility too hard to face.

*100 7/80e: "- - - lewdness (homosexuality*) such as no people in creation (ever) committed before you?" Wrong. Homosexuality is an integrated part of some peoples' nature. Science has even found what gene it is connected to and that the reason why it has not died out, is that the same gene gives a tendency to have many children among the female blood relatives of the homosexual, though nobody can explain the exact mechanism. You even find homosexuality with some animals there it sometimes is a proof of dominance.

***We may add that even though the Quran use strong words about homosexuality, it is silently and widely accepted in some Muslim areas - which makes f.x. the young men serving in the Quran's Paradise an interesting question.

101 7/85d: "To the Madyan people we (Allah*) sent Shu'ayb - - -". Shu'ayb is the third of the claimed three Arab prophets of the old according to the Quran - a claimed prophet with whom Muhammad makes yet another parallel to his own position in Mecca: What Muhammad experienced there, was indicated to be what prophets normally experienced - no reason for his few followers to be depressed even if the majority of the people did not accept his teachings. Also Shu'ayb may or may not be from folklore. Islam likes to claim he was identical with the father-in-law of Moses, Jethro (in 2. Mos. 2/18, and 4. Mos. 10/29 also called Hobab). There is no rational reason for believing this. Also YA in his comment to this, YA1054, says: "His identification with Jethro, the father-in-law of Moses, has no warrant, and I reject it." The Quran f.x. tells Shu'ayb was 4. generation (= ca. 100 - 120 years) after Abraham, but there were some 500 years between Abraham and Moses (if they ever lived), which in case also makes the claim that Shu'ayb was identical to Jethro impossible.

102 7/100c: "- - - if We (Allah*) so willed - - -". This is a kind of expression you find MANY places in the Quran: Allah or Muhammad boasting that "if Allah just willed" or similar words. This is the kind of boasting you meet from children, youths, and immature adults needing to feel or give the impression of being bigger or stronger or more influential than they are. The strange coincidence is that they never "will". And strangely also Allah never "willed" or "will". Bashful boasting - very cheap words. But strong believers and naive souls may believe in it even if it never becomes anything but big words - both of which only are claims put forth by a very unreliable man in a book full of mistakes, contradictions, etc. Just engage your knowledge and your brain + omit the cheap glorifications, and see the reality about him and his tales yourself the next time you read the Quran.

##103 7/101d: "- - - they (non-Muslims*) would not believe what they had rejected before." (Literally: "- - - to which they had given the lie aforetime".

Comment A7/80 (7/82 in the 2008 English edition): "- - - an allusion to the instinctive unwillingness of most people to give up the notions positive or negative to which they are accustomed."

But the book skips also here the fact that this also goes for Muslims: If they are strongly indoctrinated like Muslims are, they may react strongly to arguments and facts they do not like and without thinking over or being mentally unable to think over even true facts.

104 7/105d: One small "en passent" here as Muslims do not like the timing of the Exodus, and as M. Yusuf Ali makes a comment (in A1073 to this verse): "(The Jews stayed in Egypt*) perhaps two to four centuries. (Renan allows only one century).": The Bible is very clear on how long time the Jews spent in Egypt: 430 Years, and there was no reason for the Jews to falsify this number, in addition to that in spite of Islam's claims no falsification is known in the Bible, mistakes yes, falsifications no (again: Guess if Islam had screamed about it if even one documented case had been found!). But as Ramses II did not drown, Islam needs to use an earlier pharaoh where one does not know how he died - f.x. Thothmes I (ca. 1540 BC) is mentioned. But Jacob - the patriarch who took the Jews to Egypt lived around 1800 BC (if he is not fiction), or to be exact: Abraham lived - if he is not fiction - around 2000 - 1800 BC. Jacob was his grandson, and as Abraham was old when he got Isaac (the father of Jacob) it is realistic to say Jacob lived around 1800 or perhaps a bit later. Then it is not possible to use earlier pharaohs than Ramses II if the Jews stayed 430 years. A little twist is necessary in case - and voila!: Islam says (the mentioned YA comment 1073): "- - - Israel stayed there perhaps two to four centuries." Problem solved - without any source for the estimate given. May be the 430 years in the Bible is a falsification? (but in case why?) - the standard and easy "explanation" Muhammad always used.

And there is another point here you never hear Muslims mention: According to the Bible (1. Mos. 46/27) the Jews were 80 - 90 (70 + the wives of Jacob's sons) when they settled in Egypt. The same book mentions 2 - 3 places that when they left Egypt, they were 600000 men = something like 2.000.000 included women and children. It at least theoretically is quite possible for say 80 to become 2.000.000 in 430 years. But it is in no way possible in 200 or 300 years (and 100 years is a joke) , and even 400 may be unlikely - for a geometrical curve like this is, one extra generation makes a big difference. Also this makes an exodus and a pharaoh around 1500 - 1600 BC like Islam likes to claim to get rid of Ramses II, impossible.

###105 7/120a: After Moses made his miracle "the sorcerers fell down prostate in adoration" and convinced that the god of Moses was a strong and real one. This is one of the proofs for that Muhammad knew he was lying when he time and again told his audiences that it would have no effect to perform miracles, because disbelievers would not believe anyhow; disbelievers - even sorcerers - became Muslims because of one small miracle in his own story(!), and thus explained away the fact that he (and his presumed god) was unable to make miracles. Here he tells just the opposite - a psychologically much more correct tale on just this one point. The same story in 20/69-70. That Muhammad told this story, also shows that he knew miracles works, and thus that he knew he was lying in the Quran when he told Allah did not send miracles because it would make nobody believe anyhow.

###106 7/126b: "- - - Muslims - - -". Wrong. The word was not known and is not found in any inscription or any scripture until some 2000 years later. But as said this story is one of the proofs for that Muhammad knew he was lying each time he claimed that miracles would not make anyone believe anyhow, so that because of that Allah made no miracles connected to him (Muhammad).

107 7/130a: "We (indicated Allah*) punished the people of the Pharaoh with years (of draught) - - -." There is nowhere said directly how long time it took Moses to get his people free and out of Egypt neither in the Quran nor in the Bible. But the few sources indicate a limited time. The Bible has one piece of information that gives a clear indication and we had better once more mention that science has proved beyond any legal and reasonable and any unreasonable doubt that the Bible never was falsified, in spite of never documented loose claims and loose statement from the Quran and from Islam. Moses was 80 years old when he came to the Pharaoh to get the freedom for the Jews. Afterwards he and his people spent 40 years in Sinai, and he died 120 years old which means it must have taken less than one year, perhaps weeks or a few months, because if not the numbers do not add up. Also the texts in the Bible indicate weeks or months, even though it is not directly said. Further there is no mentioning of draught or shortness of food or anything else in the Bible connected to this incident. This verse may be a mix up with Joseph and the 7 bad years 430-440 years earlier.

*108 7/137b: "- - - We (indicated Allah*) leveled to the ground the great works and fine Buildings which Pharaoh and his people had erected - - -". There is no trace neither in archaeology, nor in history, literature or art, not even in folklore or fairy tales of such a catastrophe around the year 1235 BC (some years before the end of the reign of Ramses II) when this should have happened at the time of the exodus from Egypt. On the contrary; Ramses II was one of the strongest and most successful of the pharaohs, and also a great builder leaving MANY great buildings behind after many years of - among other things - building. Has Muhammad put more drama to his story, believing it would be impossible to control if it were true? Islam will have to find proofs - and they do not exist. (You will meet Muslims claiming the Quran here refers to the natural wear and tear which today means there are many ruins in Egypt, but that has nothing to do with a punishment of the pharaoh and his people to do - just another "explaining away", and a very primitive one.)

109 7/145b: "And We (Allah*) ordained the Laws for him (Moses*)in the Tablets - - -". According to the Bible, the 2 stone tablets contained only the 10 Commandments ("Moses turned and went down the mountain with the two tablets of the Testimony (10 Commandments*) in his hands" - 2. Mos. 32/15) - the law he only was told and wrote it down later. If Muhammad had been thinking a little before he told these verses, he also had understood that all the "laws of Moses" had been too heavy to carry down from the mountain if they had been on stone tablets - they cover a number of pages.(It is completely ok to use your brain when you read the Quran, not only your eyes - at least as long as you are not a Muslim.)

110 7/146e: "- - - even if they (non-Muslims*) see all the Signs (of Allah*), they will not believe in them - - -". For the very natural reason that there nowhere exists not one "sign" clearly from Allah, and when one meets made up "proofs" (which the claimed "signs" in the Quran pretend to be), one naturally grows skeptical - the use of made up or false proofs is a "flag of danger" and an indication - often a proof - of a cheat, a deceiver, a swindler.

111 7/155g: "- - - and Thou (claimed to be Allah*) leadest whom Thou wilt into the right path (to Paradise*)". Another 100% - or 110% proof for the difference mentioned in 7/155f just above. Allah leads whom he will, Yahweh leads anyone who really wants and lives accordingly.

*112 7/157e: "- - - the unlettered Prophet (Muhammad*), whom they (Jews and Christians*) find mentioned in their own (Scriptures)". You often meet Muslims claiming or stating that Mohammad is foretold in the Bible - as normal for Muslims without documentation. They have to claim this, as it is said here in the Quran, and if there are mistakes in the Quran, the book is not from a god - an omniscient god do not make mistakes - and then Islam is a religion built on a made up "holy" book. We have never been able to find a complete list of where he is said to be mentioned obviously because the educated Muslims mainly speak about one in OT (5. Mos. 18/15+18) and one in NT (John 14/26), but there are some other "weaker" places, too. The ones below are the ones we have found (more or less copied from "Moses in the Bible?" in "1000+ Mistakes in the Quran" - https://www.1000mistakes.com ).

There is one point here which Muslims never mention: If Muhammad really was mentioned in the Quran, this had been a strong argument for him to use when trying to win over the Jews (and for that case the Christians, but there were not many Christians in the Mecca/Medina area, compared to the number of Jews) to his religion. As far as we can find, he never used it when speaking to Jews. He also seldom used this claim under other circumstances, even though also for his Arab followers such an indication for that he really was a prophet, would have had great value. A very likely reason for that he did not use such a valuable claim, is that he knew or at least suspected that it was not true, and that the Jews with their books easily would see this.

There is another serious point to this Islamic claim: Many of the Islamic scholars know the Bible quite well - this is obvious from the fact that they frequently quote the Bible when there are points there which they like or where they wants to express that the Quran has a better point of view on just this-and-this than the Bible. They thus have to know f.x. how the word "brother" - the main word in this case in 5. Mos. 18/15+18 - in the figurative meaning is used in the Bible. It is used figuratively at least 325 times in that book, and no-one knowing the Bible would get the idea that in any - not one - of all these places Arabs are indicated. It is very clear that practically always in OT it means fellow Jews (there are something like 5 exceptions - one place a king is calling another, friendly king his brother, 3 times it is specified one meant descendants after Esau (the brother of Jacob) and one time Abraham says it to Lot. Well, actually there may be one more exception (1. Mos. 25/18): "And they (the 12 sons of Ishmael*) lived in hostility to all their brothers". If this means they were quarreling between themselves, the meaning is literal. If it means they quarreled with the sons of Isaac, the meaning may be figurative or it may be literal - meaning the closest relatives (this is nearly the last time Ishmael and his descendants are mentioned in the Bible - after all they lived far off - - - and far from Mecca where Muhammad claimed they lived.) All the other times it refers to other Jews. It is not possible to study the Bible/OT and not see this. Also in the Quran the word is used figuratively - more than 30 times. The only time it refers to Jews there, is one case where Muhammad links hypocrites to Jews and claims they are brothers. Also Arabia and Arabs are mentioned in the Bible - some 13 times - and always in neutral words or as enemies, never as friends, not to mention brothers. All the same Islam and its scholars straight-facedly tell their readers and their audiences that "brothers" in 5. Mos. 18/15+18 refer to Arabs and thus to Muhammad. There only are 2 possible explanations for such dishonesty: An al-Taqiyya (a lawful lie) to "explain" Muhammad's perhaps slip of the tongue, or wishful thinking stronger than their intellectual integrity.

Nearly as bad is the Muslim scholars' position concerning the main claim in NT, John 14/26. It f. ex. is both physically and biologically impossible that Muhammad could be a helper of Jesus' disciples, as he was born something like 500 years after they were dead. All the same they tell their audiences that John 14/26 is about Muhammad and a proof for that he was foretold and a prophet. (John 14/26 refers to the Holy Spirit which according to the Bible came to and in a way became parts of the disciples some days later at Pentecost. More further down.)

You find most of the Muslims' main claims about this under 9/157e in Book C under http://www.1000mistakes.com , and also in separate chapter about "Muhammad in the Bible?" in Book A the same place. None of the claims are valid.

Flatly stated: Muhammad is not in the Gospels. If not Islam produces something better than wrong and not documented claims, this debate just is a waste of time, except that the claims permit Muslims not really to have to face a serious question: Is Islam a made up religion? and except that the claims are useful propaganda for Islam towards little educated non-Muslims and pagans, and even more towards Muslims who strongly wants to believe and to have their belief cemented.

There only exist undocumented claims and as unproved statements if documents or other proofs had existed, Islam had produced them at least a thousand years ago. But there exist lots of old documents proving the opposite of what Islam claims.

Besides: When f.x. Moses said there was going to come "a prophet like me", and the Muslims claim that is a foretelling about Muhammad, that is a joke: In addition to all the other points - how could Muhammad be "a prophet like Moses" when he in reality was no prophet at all?!.

It also is remarkable that Muhammad relatively seldom used the title "prophet" about himself in the Quran. He mostly used the title "Messenger", even though messenger in reality means an errand-boy (Muslims try to make this title something big and imposing, but this is the meaning of it). "Prophet" on the other hand is a heavy and impressive title telling a lot about the person. May the reason for why he did not use it so often, be that he knew he did not have what it took to merit that title, and was a little careful using it, so as not to provoke questions or comments? (And is this also the reason why Muslims try to pretend that "messenger" is something more impressive and heavy than "prophet"?)

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.

Muhammad was no real prophet, as he was unable make prophesies ("to see the unseen") he only "borrowed" the title.

A "forgotten" fact, together with the fact that the Bible and the Quran fundamentally are so different and with so fundamentally different basic thoughts, ideas, moral rules, and a number of other basic items, that the books represent 2 different gods - real or made up or one of each.

113 7/157g: "- - - just - - -". Beware that when the Quran uses words like this, it is in accordance with its own partly immoral moral code.

114 7/157h: "- - - evil - - -". Beware that when the Quran uses words like this, it is in accordance with its own partly immoral moral code.

115 7/157i: "- - - good - - -". Beware that when the Quran uses words like this, it is in accordance with its own partly immoral moral code.

116 7/157j: "- - - bad - - -". Beware that when the Quran uses words like this, it is in accordance with its own partly immoral moral code.

117 7/157n: "- - - the Light (the Quran*)which is sent down with him (Muhammad*)- - -". There is not much light in a claimed holy book so full of mistakes, etc. that it proves it is not from any god, and so full of immoral moral rules, that it absolutely is not from any good and benevolent god.

118 7/158k: "So believe in Allah and His Messenger (Muhammad*) - - -." Muhammad's main mantra - here in a strengthened version. It glued him to his god. A platform of power many have used - though none with a success like Muhammad's.

119 7/160b: "- - - by inspiration - - -". This word is not used in such connections in the Bible. Yahweh told he use direct speech, visions, or dreams to communicate with his prophets (4. Mos. 12/5-6). But as Muhammad claimed he got many of his verses and surahs this way, it had value for him to impress on his followers and others that this was a normal way for prophets to get information, true or not true - and thus that Muhammad was a normal prophet.

120 7/163c: "(Fish*) openly holding up their heads (above the water*) - - -." It is not possible for fish in the sea to hold their heads over the water they can jump and they can touch the surface, but they cannot keep their heads above the surface. Marine mammals can, but not freely swimming fish. Any god had known but seemingly not the desert dweller Muhammad.

121 7/163d: In this verse Muhammad tells that fish learnt that during the Sabbaths - every 7. day - things were safe. No fish is able to learn this, at least not without much and long and systematic instruction - among other reason because few if any of them are able to count to 7 or to remember abstracts for long time. Fish counting and holding their heads over the water? - this is from a fairy tale.

122 7/169a: "Was not the Covenant of the Book (here indicated with Allah*) taken from them (the Jews*), that they would not ascribe to Allah anything but the truth?" To use an understatement: The Jews hardly had promised Allah this - Yahweh, yes, but not Allah. Another thing is that Islam and the Muslims included Muhammad would dearly like the Covenant between Yahweh and Israel to be terminated - and here they use claimed sins in unnamed place(s) in an unspecified time - difficult to check - as background for the question (and you also may meet it as a - as normal from Islam not proved - statement and claimed "fact"). But no: There nowhere - not even in the Quran - anywhere is said that that Covenant is terminated - disused and broken, but never terminated. (The same goes for the New Covenant which Jesus formalized the Last Supper between Yahweh and the followers of Jesus, later called Christians - never terminated according to any known scripture.) Also see 7/170a+c below.

###123 7/107ba: "- - - regular prayers - - -". Why prayers? If Allah has predestined everything like the Quran claims many places, prayers in Islam just is waste of time and effort - and the same are the killing of animals for the honor of Allah - as nobody and nothing can change Allah's Plan. Yes, what can even a Hajj (a pilgrimage to Mecca) mean, as nothing can change Allah's decided Plan? - f.x. the time of your death is decided before you are even born, and according to Hadiths also whether you are to end in Heaven or Hell.

As for the value of prayers in Islam, also see 62/9c. And if you combine 62/9c with 67/9c - a strong one - you get something thought-provoking. (And relevant here: Muslims often are thought that a question or problem can have 2 or more true and correct solutions - Islam is forced to teach this, because if not, many of the mistakes and contradictions in the Quran become too obvious. But this ONLY is true if parallel true solutions are possible. In cases where 2 or more possible solutions are mutually excluding each other, maximum 1 of the mutually excluding ones can be true. It should be a bit thought provoking for Muslims, that just this "small" difference in theoretical thinking and teaching, was one of the reasons (there were several of course) for why Europe and the West exploded into the Technical Revolution, while the Muslim area stagnated). Two star examples are: 1) Full predestination is not possible even for an omnipotent god to combine with even the smallest piece of free will for man - the two are mutually excluding. The same for full and unchangeable predestination long time before, combined with any claimed effect of prayers - the two are mutually excluding each other.)

124 7/172d: "- - - made them (people*) testify concerning themselves". Another interesting claim: (A7/138 - in English 2008 edition A7/139) tells that "According to the Quran, the ability to perceive the existence of the Supreme Power (= god*) is inborn in human nature (fitrah); and it is this instinctive cognition - which may or may not be subsequently blurred by self-indulgence or adverse environmental influence - that makes every sane human being "bear witness about himself" before Allah". Science has never found any trace of such inborn, instinctive knowledge. (They have found that a minor percent of humans have an inborn longing for something strong to lead them - a god - but nothing like an inborn, instinctive knowledge. Actually man has very few real instincts, and very little inborn knowledge - almost everything has to be learnt.)

But when one meets claims like this from Islam and Muslims, one should remember that they frequently use claimed instinctive knowledge or understanding and similar expressions as arguments for why Islam is the correct religion and for why one should believe in Muhammad and his religion. As they have exactly no proof or documentation for the religion they have to do two things: Glorify Muhammad so that he sounds as trustworthy as possible, and resort to unclear and not documented claims like "instinctive knowledge" about Allah or at least about divinity.

In reality this only is mysticism. But neither Muhammad nor Islam had/has anything better to offer for a proof.

125 7/180a: "The most beautiful names belong to Allah - - -". Islam claims Allah has 99 names - and the names do exist in long lists. If the meaning of those names - like "the Oft-Forgiving", "the Most Merciful", etc. - had been true, the meaning of the names had been attractive. But the names themselves are far too prosaic to be beautiful. A curiosa: Even though Allah has 99 names and Muhammad a number, Muslims claim that the fact that the Holy Spirit one place cannot be the Holy spirit, because there is used another name, "!The spirit of Truth" - "ergo" the Spirit of Truth" must mean Muhammad, they claim (in their main claim for Muhammad in NT in John , ch. 14 -16). Logic? - especially when you know that the Holy Spirit is known by at least 6 different names in the Bible, included the Spirit of Truth?

126 7/181d: "- - - justice - - -". Beware that when the Quran uses words like this, it is in accordance with its own partly immoral moral code and with the partly both immoral and unjust sharia laws.

###127 7/188b: "If I (Muhammad*) had knowledge of the Unseen - - -". "- - - the Unseen" = the future. This is one of the places where Muhammad clearly tells he is unable to see the future = unable to make foretelling (prophesies). Aishah says the same in Hadiths. Muhammad simply was no real prophet (this becomes even more clear when you know that the original title for a prophet was "a seer" - person able to see the unseen (f.x. 1. Sam. 9/9) - a person unable to make prophesies, must use a "tailored" definition to call himself a prophet. (But then Muhammad had "tailored" definitions for this and that.) Similar in 6/50a, 10/20c+d, 10/49a+b, and 72/26.

128 7/191a: "Do they (non-Muslims*) indeed ascribe to Him (Allah*) - - - partners - - -". An Arabism. Except for in Arabia where the pagan god al-Lah (renamed to Allah by Muhammad) had many colleges, no non-Muslims ascribed or ascribe partners to Allah, because they simply do not believe in him. They believe in one or more entirely different god (Jews and Christians) or gods (polytheists).See 2/165c above and 25/18a below.

129 7/196c: "- - - Allah, who revealed the Book (the Quran*) (from time to time) - - -". The Quran claims that as the times changed, new messages had to be sent (but not after Muhammad, even though there have been much more - MUCH more - changes after Muhammad than during all the times before him put together: 124000 prophets before Muhammad according to Islam, zero and nil after. And also no new holy book. Understand it who can.)

####130 7/198b: In connection to this verse M. Yusuf Ali - a Muslim scholar who knew the real, historical side of Muhammad, not only the glossy picture from the imams, very well, in all his robbing, raping, womanizing, lying, torture, murder, and blood - wrote this about Muhammad (YA 1169): "Even now, after fourteen centuries, a life (Muhammad*) of unexampled purity, probity, justice, and righteousness is seen in the false light by blind detractors!" It simply is very difficult to believe that it is humanly possible honestly to believe in such a shining picture for a learned scholar. And what then about uneducated Muslims?

Is this really the "realism" in Islam?

In that case it is easy to see why many such areas are pretty backwards.

Are we living in the same world?

Or is this really what the Muslim moral code is like?

Did Yusuf Ali really believe what he said? - one of the foremost Muslim scholars and translators in last century?! - or is it perhaps an al-Taqiyya meant to satisfy the clergy/religious scholars?"

Or does this tell something about Islam and al-Taqiyya - the lawful lie Muslims are urged to use if necessary to defend and forward the religion (and some other things)???

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

131 7/204: "- - - that ye (Muslims*) may receive Mercy (from the Quran*)". Is there real mercy in a religious book not from any god and with LOTS of mistakes, etc. + a partly highly immoral moral code and similar law?


These are just tit-bits from the book "1000+ Quran-comments - skeptics' facts and thoughts". You will find the complete book under http://www.1000quran-comments.com. (The surah reference numbers are like in that book.)

In http://www.1000mistakes.com you find:

  1. Book A: "1000+ Mistakes in the Quran" - http://www.1000mistakes.com.
  2. Book B: "1000+ comments in Jihad - (un)holy war" - http://www.1000mistakes.com/jihad-holywar/index.php
  3. Book C (this one): "1000+ Quran-comments - skeptics' facts and thoughts" (1000+ tit-bits from the complete book) - http://www.1000quran-comments.php.
  4. Book D: "Correcting much wrong refuting on http://www.1000mistakes.com - and a lesson in Muslim ways of debating.
  5. Book E: "What the Bible really says - when the Quran uses legends, fairy tales, or phantasy, instead of the Bible as sources for 'Biblical' texts, like it often does. (Expected late 2011 or early 2012).

In http://www.1000quran-comments.com you find:

  1. "1000+ Quran-comments - skeptics' facts and thoughts" (the "complete" list - 20ooo+ comments on the Quran) - as said in http://1000quran-comments.php.

132 8/1a: "They (the warriors*) ask thee (Muhammad*) - - -". A historical anomaly. See 4/13d above.

133 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).

***134 8/1g: "- - - the Prophet (Muhammad*) - - -". But Muhammad was no real prophet. The definition of a prophet was a person who could see at least parts of the unseen, and thus a person who:

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

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

The main things here are that Muhammad never indicated that anything of what he said was meant as prophesies, that he never indicated, not to mention claimed, that he had the gift of prophesying - of "seeing the unseen" - that it nowhere is documented that all/most of what he said about the future came true (point 2 above), and finally that both he and Islam said and says that Muhammad was unable to see the unseen (extra revealing here is that the old Biblical title for a prophet, was "a seer" - one who saw the unseen (f.x. 1. Sam. 9/9)) and also that Islam even today admits there were no miracles connected to Muhammad "except the Quran" (prophesying is a kind of miracle - seeing what has not yet happened). (This fact that Islam admits there were no miracles connected to Muhammad "except the revelation of the Quran" also is a solid proof for that all the miracles connected to Muhammad mentioned in the Hadiths, are made up stories - but all the same many a mullah and imam and scholar use these stories, which Islam admits are made up ones, as "proofs" for that Muhammad had supernatural powers and was a prophet. Honesty is not the strong side of Muslim religious leaders.) Also see 30/40a and 30/46a, and we also should add that his favorite wife (and infamous child wife) Aishah according to Hadiths (f.x. Al-Bukhari) stated that anyone saying Muhammad could foresee things, were wrong.

Verse 7/188b also is very relevant here: "If I (Muhammad*) had knowledge of the Unseen (= what is hidden or what has not happened yet*), I should have - - -". IT IS VERY CLEAR THAT MUHAMMAD DID NOT HAVE THE PROPHETS' ABILITY TO SEE "THE UNSEEN" - he was no real prophet. Similar in 6/50a, 7/188b, 10/20c+d, 10/49a+b, and 72/26.

As mentioned: Also relevant here is that the original title of the Jewish prophets as mentioned was not "prophet" but "seer" - one who saw at least parts of the unseen. (F.x. 1. Sam. 9/9#, 1. Sam. 9/11, 1. Sam. 9/18, 1. Sam. 9/19, 2. Kings. 17/13, 1. Chr. 9/22, 1. Chr. 26/28, 1. Chr. 29/29, 2. Chr. 9/29, 2. Chr. 16/7, 2. Chr.16/10, 2. Chr. 19/2, 2. Chr. 29/25, Amos 7/12, Mic. 3/7 - some places the two titles even are used side by side). Muhammad thus so definitely was no seer - prophet - even according to his own words; he had no "knowledge of the unseen". One more proof for that he was not in the same line - not to say league - as Jesus, if the Bible and/or the Quran tell the truth about Jesus on this point.

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

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

Also see 30/40h below.

135 8/1h: "- - - obey Allah and His Prophet (Muhammad*) - - -". A nice order for Muhammad, because here on Earth that in reality meant "obey Muhammad - completely (as he represent the god)".

136 8/1i: "- - - obey Allah and His Prophet (Muhammad*) - - - if ye do believe". You were not a good Muslim and believer unless you obey Allah and Muhammad - which here on Earth just meant Muhammad.

***137 8/5e: "- - - in truth - - -". There are so much wrong in the Quran that one cannot accept anything there as true unless there is extra documentation. Confirmation of this point of view: Even though the Quran is pretended to come from a god and should be 100% correct and reliable, no serious scientist - not one single in all the wide world - uses the book as a reliable source for information of any kind on subjects from before 610 AD - nearly everything is wrong or unreliable.

138 8/9d: "- - - He (Allah*) answered you - - -". In all history and prehistory there is not one single proved case of an answer - or anything else - from Allah. Guess if Muslims had kicked you in the head with it if there had been even one single proved case!!

139 8/16aa: "If any (Muslim warrior*) do turn his back to the (the enemy*) on such a day (during battle) - - - he draws on himself the wrath of Allah, and his abode is Hell - - - ". Incompatible with NT. In reality also with OT as in OT the fighting was for securing a national territory, not to fight "holy" wars. Yahweh and Allah the same god? Jesus and Muhammad in the same line of prophets - if Muhammad had been a real prophet? Answers not necessary.

140 8/19a: (A22 in 2008 edition A21): "(O Unbelievers!) if ye prayed for victory and judgment, now hath the judgment come to you: if ye desist (from wrong), it will be best for you: if you return (to the attack) so shall We (Allah*)." This seems to be a clear-cut warning to the enemy (the Quraysh/Mecca at Badr). But remember that what is written in ( ) is put there by the translator to explain or to make things more clear and if the translator has guessed wrong, the explanations are wrong. F.x. Razi thinks the meaning is this: "If you have been praying for victory (O believers) victory has now indeed come onto you. And if you abstain (from sinning), it will be for your own good; but if you revert to it, We (Allah*) shall revoke (Our promise of aid)." Unclear language opens for many ways of understanding verses. And these variants of course also are in the Arab text, as the relevant word(s) there has/have more than one meaning.

141 8/22b: "- - - deaf and dumb - - -". Non-Muslims must be deaf and dumb not to hear that Muhammad preaches the truth. But it is one of the big facts in life that nobody is as deaf - and blind - as the one who is sure he has the answer - right or wrong and often wrong - and does not want to hear or see anything which can disturb his belief, or alternatively he is so sure that his belief is right that he does not bother to listen to conflicting information.

142 8/29e: "- - - forgive you - - -". Only two can forgive - the victim (or his representative) and a god. Is Allah really a god - if he exists? Muhammad is the only source for claims about him, and the real Muhammad was not very reliable (cfr. al-Taqiyya - lawful lies, Kitman - lawful half-truths, broken oaths, deceptions, etc.). Also his book, the Quran, is choke full of mistakes, contradictions, etc. and not from any god.

####143 8/30d: "They (non-Muslims*) plot and plan, and Allah too plans; but the best of planners is Allah". When Allah can make devious and cheating plans, of course his followers also can. This verse is may be the main alibi for the institution of al-Taqiyya (the lawful lie) and its brother Kitman (the lawful half-truth) - two lawful ways of dishonesty you find in no other of the large religions. Worse: For promoting or defending Islam, they are not only permitted, but advised to use "if necessary".

Just for the record: Al-Taqiyya and Kitman 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):

  1. To save your or others' health or life.
  2. To get out of a tight spot or a dangerous situation.
  3. To make peace in a family.
  4. When it will give a better result than honesty or honoring one's oath.
  5. To cheat women (should be remembered by girls with Muslim boyfriends wanting sex - or wanting a marriage to get residence permit in a rich country.)
  6. To deceive opponents/enemies.
  7. To betray enemies.
  8. To secure one's money (very clear from Hadiths).
  9. To defend Islam. (Advised if necessary to succeed.)
  10. 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 some ones 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 na. But in the long run it means that people learn Muslims cannot be relied on in serious questions. And it also means p0roblems for Muslims telling a plain truth without being believed - there is no way for them to strengthen their words, as even oaths are unreliable.

Also remember that Muhammad in addition to "normal" dishonesty - he f.x. knows he is lying at least a few places in the Quran - used both betrayals, deceiving and broken oaths - the Islamic personification of truth and honesty?

All this is "good and lawful" in Islam.

144 8/31d: "- - - these (Muhammad's tales in the Quran*) are nothing but tales of the ancients". Something the skeptics had every right to say, as the tales in the Quran may be absolutely all are taken from older tales well known in Arabia at that time - folklore, tales, legends (even seemingly Biblical stories mostly were not from the Bible, but from legends - that is the real reason why they differ so much from the Bible), and even fairy tales were given some twists and repeated by Muhammad as true stories from his god. No god would need to do this - and if he did, he would not need to take stories only from in and around Arabia.

###145 8/39a: "And fight with them (the Unbelievers who will not convert to Islam*) on until there is no more tumult or oppression, and there prevail justice and faith in Allah altogether and everywhere". Comments should be unnecessary. Fight war till Islam dominates everywhere. An order and an incitement.

We may add that "The Message of the Quran adds (remark 41 to surah 8) that only war in self defense is permitted, but self defense in "the widest meaning of the word". And the "widest meaning" is a very wide expression absolutely anything can be (and is) explained as being done in self defense, as the non-Muslims are the guilty ones for everything. One striking sample you may meet, is the "fact" that "all Americans are guilty of aggression against Islam and can be killed, because they pay tax to the state of USA". No concession because they after all are forced to pay tax few do it gladly. No concession to the millions that do not pay tax. No concession to the ones that oppose the war in the Middle East. Not even concession to the - still some millions (f.x. youths) - who do not pay tax (f.x. students) and in addition oppose that war. Everybody is guilty slay them. That is how "in the widest meaning" sometimes is used. "Only in self defense" here in many cases simply is a bitter joke with no real meaning or value except as propaganda.

146 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% is 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 was 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.

147 8/46d: "- - - and fall into no disputes, lest ye lose heart - - -". Do not debate the religion - you may come to know the weak spots of it and see that something is wrong and start thinking. A normal point of view from leaders of extreme sects. Procelyting, yes, disputing and perhaps getting unwanted facts, no.

148 8/46e: "- - - be patient and persevering - - -". This is an expression which is imprinted and imprinted and impressed on Muslims in the Quran - and an expression and a word no non-Muslim should never forget: Be patient and persevering and sooner or later the opposite part or enemy grows tired and gives in, and you win, whereas the "enemy" must withdraw or accept suppression.

###149 8/46f: "- - - Allah is with those (Muslims*) who patiently persevere - - -". Well, at least it is very clear that this stratagem works, and especially against democracies, as one of the weak sides of democracies is that all too often fractions - often big fractions - do not like to fight, and wants to evade fighting, or if it starts they wants to stop it too early.

##150 8/51: "Allah is never unjust to his servants". Wrong. A star example: A woman is to be strictly punished for illegal sex after being raped, if she cannot produce 4 male eye witnesses to the rape. This is one of the most inhuman, immoral and unjust laws which exists on this Earth at least in civilized or semi-civilized cultures.

#151 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.)

#152 8/60a: "Against them (the unbelievers*) make ready your strength to the utmost of your power, included steeds of war, to strike terror into (the hearts of) the enemies of Allah and your enemies (and Muhammad's enemies*) - - -." Inside information from "the Religion of Peace".

We may add the modern Muslim point of view (YA1226): "It is your duty to be ready against all, for the sacred Cause under whose banner you are fighting". (YA1227): Be always ready to put your resources (wealth and life*) into your Cause. You will not do so in vain. Allah's reward will come in various forms. He knows all, and His reward will always be more generous than you can possibly deserve". (YA1228) "It (fighting for Islam*) should be a joyful duty not for itself, but to establish the reign of peace and righteousness (remember here that words like this is used in accordance with the Quran's partly immoral moral code*) and Allah's Law". There are more like this. Also today Islam really is "the Religion of Peace".

***153 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.)

Does anybody wonder why Muslim warriors and terrorists sometimes murder prisoners - guilty or not?

####154 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, is 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 hundred 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.

#####155 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 fora and groups.


These are just tit-bits from the book "1000+ Quran-comments - skeptics' facts and thoughts". You will find the complete book under http://www.1000quran-comments.com. (The surah reference numbers are like in that book.)

In http://www.1000mistakes.com you find:

  1. Book A: "1000+ Mistakes in the Quran" - http://www.1000mistakes.com.
  2. Book B: "1000+ comments in Jihad - (un)holy war" - http://www.1000mistakes.com/jihad-holywar/index.php
  3. Book C (this one): "1000+ Quran-comments - skeptics' facts and thoughts" (1000+ tit-bits from the complete book) - http://www.1000quran-comments.php.
  4. Book D: "Correcting much wrong refuting on http://www.1000mistakes.com - and a lesson in Muslim ways of debating.
  5. Book E: "What the Bible really says - when the Quran uses legends, fairy tales, or phantasy, instead of the Bible as sources for 'Biblical' texts, like it often does. (Expected late 2011 or early 2012).

In http://www.1000quran-comments.com you find:

  1. "1000+ Quran-comments - skeptics' facts and thoughts" (the "complete" list - 20ooo+ comments on the Quran) - as said in http://1000quran-comments.php.

**156 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, 51/50-51, 51/54, 52/45, 52/47, 53/29, 67/26, 73/10, 73/11, 79/45, 86/17, 88/22, 109/6. They are quoted under 9/5 (also see "1000+ Mistakes in the Quran"). (At least 91 contradictions).

157 9/4c: "- - - Allah loveth the righteous". Can he then love the Muslims living according to also the immoral parts of the Quran's moral code and the unjust parts of the sharia laws?

###158 9/5b: "But when the forbidden months are past, then fight and slay the Pagans wherever ye find them, and size them, beleaguer them, and lay in wait for them in every stratagem (of war.)"

This is "the Verse of the Sword" the single verse in the Quran that is reckoned to contradict and to abrogate most peaceful verses of all the harsh and inhuman and bloody verses from the Medina period. Muslim scholars say it abrogates 124 verses in the book, We have seen no numbers for how many it contradicts, but hardly fewer (also all abrogations in reality are contradictions that is why they are deemed abrogations: to make one or more of the contradicting points invalid so that it is possible to live and behave according to the book - - - and to claim there are no contradictions in it as the contradicting point is abrogated, though this last fact Muslims never mention).

There are so many verses that 9/5 contradicts, that we have not found all. But note that all abrogations also were contradictions before one or more of the contradicting verses were abrogated (which is one of the reasons why it is nonsense when some Muslims say abrogations do not exist in the Quran abrogations mean Allah is not omniscient, but had to try and fail and/or changed his mind every now and then. Without abrogations you have a lot more of serious contradictions in the book, and which is worst of contradictions which make the book impossible to follow in life, or abrogations that at least makes you wind your way through life? (but shows that Allah often was unable to find the best solution with the first try)). You will find more in the chapter about abrogations in "1000+ Mistakes in the Quran".

Surah 9, including 9/5, came in 631 AD and according to the Islamic rules for abrogations, this means that it overrides nearly everything in the Quran (as normally the youngest abrogates the older).

Some of the contradictions (many of them also abrogations) in 9/5e.

159 9/5m: "- - - charity - - -". One of the positive sides with Islam is its stress on charity - though the moral value are reduced by the fact that the main thing is not to help, but to gain merit in Heaven, and by the fact that you gain just as much merit from helping your nearest family as from helping strangers - which places strangers far down on the priority list.

160 9/6b: "- - - they (pagans*) are men without knowledge (when the Quran speaks about knowledge, it always religious knowledge - Islam)". Sometimes one may wonder: What is best - no knowledge, or wrong knowledge? - the Quran is full of mistakes, etc. Besides: A lot of people had more knowledge than the early Muslims, but for Muhammad only knowledge about his new religion counted. A fact which in the long run destroyed the power of Islam - Europe and later USA caught up with them and took the lead in most aspects of life. Not least in moral philosophy, where Islam was totally stagnant in a moral thinking from a war tribal way of thinking in an area which already at that time culturally was a backward, primitive backstreet. Most of the area still is in that backstreet, even though thoughts and ideas from the outside have forced their way in in most of the Muslim countries. But lacking real knowledge about moral thinking and basic facts, Muslims an Islam often boast about their leading position in morality.

161 9/9a: "The Signs of Allah - - -". There is no not one single sign in the Quran - or anywhere else - which with correct logic proves Allah. (There is not one single case in the entire book where it is proved that it really is Allah who has caused what is said to be signs. And then it proves nothing and signifies nothing any priest in any religion can say just the same about his god(s)!! Words are that cheap ). Guess if Muslims had told about it if a real proof had existed!

162 9/12f: "- - - for their (non-Muslims*) oaths are nothing to them - - -". Strange words from a man who practiced himself and impressed on his followers that it is better to break an oath if that gave a better result, and who lived by his slogan "war is betrayal" or "war is deceit". (F.x. 2/225a and 5/89a+b above, and 16/91e and 66/2a below.

163 9/19a: "Do ye make the giving of drink to pilgrims, or the maintenance of the Sacred Mosque, equal to (the pious service of) those who believe in Allah and the Last Day and strive with their might and mind (wages war - see 9/16 just above*) in the cause of Allah?"

Of course the active warriors or terrorists - are the best. F. ex. the warriors in Darfur and terrorists anywhere think they are doing a pious service by killing and murdering - - and gang raping like in Darfur and other places where it is more like normal wars, not hit and run - and of course stealing and robbing for "good and lawful" reward also in this world.

Yes, a good and human and benevolent religion.

And some future for non-Muslims - one place in the Quran, the warriors are reminded that there are places with rich spoils of war not taken yet. In the West? or other places? It does not matter this verse tells once more that the warriors are the best Muslims - - - and that spoils of war are tempting.

164 9/20-21: These two verses (and many more - we specifies this only now and then) are not from the Bible. There also is nothing similar - especially not in the NT. It simply is the antithesis to the NT. For this to be true - if Yahweh and Allah had been the same god - the god had to change from a bit harsh in OT, then more benevolent from Jesus and the New Covenant (f.x. Luke 20/22), for then not only to go back to his somewhat harshness, but to become a pure god of suppression and war not with the start of Muhammad, but after Muhammad came to Medina and started to need warriors.

165 9/21g: "- - - wherein (in Paradise*) are delights that endure". The delights in the Muslims' paradise are good food and drinks, excellent clothes, an excellent place to live, good weather and cool shades plus plenty of women for the men. More or less a poor, uneducated and naive warrior's dream of the life of a king or something here on Earth - an Earth-like and exceedingly boring paradise in long eternities. Is this the best an omniscient, omnipotent god has to offer? (And he has even less to offer women.)

Also note how different the Bible's paradise is from Muhammad's: In the Quran royal, Earth-like luxury + lots of sex/women, in the Bible (f.x. Luke 20/35-36 there is no sex or Earthlike luxury, but "they will become like angels". The same god behind two so incompatible paradises?

###166 9/29c: "Fight those who believe not in Allah - - - until they pay jizya (extra tax - sometimes heavy) with willing submission and feel themselves subdued." A clear and unmistakable order. The softest word possible: Discrimination. 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".

167 9/31e : "- - - yet they (the Christians*)were commanded to worship but One God - - -". Muhammad never understood the Christian thinking. According to Christians there is only one god. Then there is a figure - a helper or something (the son, Jesus) - who in reality gets his light and his power from God/Yahweh. And then there is something more diffuse and seldom seen; The messenger boy or something named the Holy Spirit (sometimes wrongly claimed to be the arch angel Gabriel by Muslims who have never read the Bible, or who have read it with a closed mind). To use a picture: There is one sun. Then there is a moon which gets its light from the sun. And there is the seldom seen satellite somewhere around. But only one sun. And that is the complete "pantheon". To mix Mary into the Trinity (like Muhammad does at least one place in the Quran) just is one more proof for that no god made the Quran, and for that Muhammad did not understand the trinity. Mary and the other saints (only for the Catholics, and not for all of them) are not divine. In Islam some good Muslims end in the higher heavens closer to Allah. In the same way Catholics believe that some really good Christians end up closer to God in Heaven - though figuratively. And just like Muhammad claimed he can interfere for whom he like on the Last Day, Catholics believe that as these normal, but good, humans called saint can interfere with God on our behalf, as they are closer to him. But as this is not a part of the Bible, the Protestants - and Muslims - may be right: May be there are no saints.

168 9/38ba: "O ye who believe! What is the matter with you, that, when ye are asked to go forth in the Cause of Allah (= to go to war*), ye cling heavily to the earth. Do ye prefer the life of this world to the Hereafter?" Incompatible to the Bible, and especially to NT. One of the many 100% proofs in the Quran for that Yahweh and Allah are not the same god, and Jesus and Muhammad not in the same line of prophets - in addition to that Muhammad with his inability to make prophesies, was no real prophet at all.

169 9/48e: "- - - the Decree of Allah became manifest - - -". The "decrees from Allah" the Quran - contains so many mistakes, etc., that they are not from an omniscient god. That is: Either Allah is not omniscient or it is not from Allah. Something is seriously wrong.

***170 9/51ca: "Nothing will happen to us except what Allah has decreed for us - - -". Allah decides everything. The predestination - - - and totally incompatible with the Bible, even though Yahweh sometimes directs the future.

171 9/54b: "- - - Allah and His Messenger (Muhammad*) - - -". Muhammad's main mantra for gluing himself to his god and his platform of power".

172 9/58a: "- - - men who slander thee (Muhammad*) in the matter of (the distribution) of the alms - - -". Muhammad often used the riches of Islam as "gifts"/bribes to make unsure persons stay Muslims or become Muslims. Then it was not always plenty for the needy - nor always leaving a "fair" share of the booty to the real warriors. Both produced dissatisfaction.

###173 9/60a: "Alms are for(:*)"

  1. - the poor and the needy,
  2. - and (for*) those employed to administer the (funds);
  3. - 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*);
  4. - for those in bondage (NB: Muslim such*) and in debt;
  5. - 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);
  6. 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%).

174 9/61a: "Among them (non-Muslims*) are men who molest the Prophet (Muhammad*) - - -". This may refer to an episode where some put intestines from an animal on Muhammad's back when he was praying, and also to verbal disagreement. But in any case it is a historical anomaly - see 4/13d above.

175 9/67d: "- - - are close with their hands - - -". One of the many Arab expressions in the book of a claimed universal god. It means he/she/they give as little as possible, and covers also other subjects than money, etc. With another word: Tight-fisted, but not only with money, etc. - also f.x. with any kind of help and advice. A PS: The claim is not a little ironic when you know that none of the big help or relief NGOs were started or are run by Muslims (except of course specific Muslim ones). And also that at least in Scandinavia it has come to light that local Muslims give little or nothing to such organizations - except perhaps to the ones working specifically among Muslims or in Muslim areas.

176 9/67i: "- - - perverse - - -". This is one of the strong, but cheap bad words Muhammad rather often uses about non-Muslims. For persons believing it - and other such words - is true, it has a strong effect of inducing distance and distaste and stronger reactions - effect often wanted by leaders of religious, political and other organizations - especially among the more extreme ones. In aggressive ideologies it also makes it easier to make followers react violently and often with hate against others. E.g. Nazism, other strong fascistic organizations, extreme Muslims, extreme communism. etc.

177 9/70c: "- - - Abraham's people - - -". Here is a list of people and tribes who according to the Quran were destroyed because they did not accept Allah or sinned against him. But the possible sin and punishment of Abraham's people are not mentioned in the Quran. Some Muslim scholars tell it must be the Babylonians who were "Abraham's people" (Ur in Chaldea was not too far off) and the fall of the first Babylonian empire the punishment. But Abraham - if he is not fiction - lived around 1800 - 2000 BC. Babylon fell to Assyria around 1100 BC. The time simply is wrong by some 800 years (but then Islam too often does not care too much about the truth or not, as long as one can get a seemingly logical explanation which corresponds to the Quran, and which little educated and/or wishful believers may believe in - you meet this fact a little too often.)

In the Bible there is nothing about punishment of Abraham's people. It only says that his father left them and went north, heading for Canaan in the northwest, and brought his son Abram (later renamed by Yahweh to Abraham) and his grandson Lot along - which means that in the Bible there also is nothing about religious or any other quarrel between Abram and his father. Also the story about the pagan gods Abram destroyed and the religious quarrel he had with his people according to the Quran, is not from the Bible - the only perhaps reliable source for information about Abram/Abraham.

178 9/75b: "- - - a covenant with Allah - - -". Such a covenant demands that Allah exists, but it does not demand that he is a god, only that he is some sort of supernatural being - this even more so as the dark forces are unreliable and can promise anything without intending to keep it.

179 9/75c: "- - - a covenant with Allah - - -". Some Boers in South Africa once made a covenant with Yahweh: They promised to do so-and-so-and-so, and then Yahweh should do so-and-so. What they forgot about, was to make sure that Yahweh agreed to be part of the covenant. Is this the same kind of "covenant"? - there only are some words in the Quran indicating there may be, and the Quran has so many mistakes that it is too unreliable if there is no additional proof - especially as it is made by a man who even himself admitted he was unreliable, and a man who liked power and riches for more power - and women - and was not too squeamish about how to reach his goals.

180 9/80a: "Whether thou (Muhammad*) ask for their forgiveness, or not (their sin is unforgivable): if you ask seventy times for their forgiveness, Allah will not forgive them - - -." Some contrast to the NT: There is no sin which is unforgivable if there is honest regret and remorse. And Jesus said: "You shall forgive seventy times seven times" (if there is real regret and remorse). The same god? - prophets in the same line of traditions? Hardly, to use an understatement.

###181 9/80b: "- - - (their (some bad persons*) sin is unforgiveable - - -". One more of the abysmally deep differences between especially the NT and its New Covenant and the Quran, and on one of the most fundamental points in the religions: As mentioned just above, in the NT no sin is unforgiveable if you really and honestly regret. One more of the 110% proofs for that Yahweh and Allah are not the same gods and for that Jesus and Muhammad did not belong to the same line of prophets (this even omitting the fact that Muhammad was no real prophet as he was unable to make prophesies).

**182 9/85b: "Allah's plan is to punish them (the ones not wanting to go to war*) with these things in this world, and that their souls may perish in their (very) denial of Allah". Refusing war means:

  1. Social contempt.
  2. To most likely end in hell.
  3. To deny Allah.

Is it possible to put more social and religious pressure on a man to make him go to war - willing or not? Anyone saying Islam is peaceful, either has not read the Quran, is repeating "correct" words but wrong meanings, or is a Muslim (who believes it or not believes it).

183 9/88b: "- - - the Messenger (Muhammad*) - - -". Was he really a messenger? It is clear he was not a prophet, in spite of repeated claims - claims are cheap and like in the Quran often not true even when wrapped in beautiful or strong words. It is very clear he was unable to make prophesies - "see what had not happened" - and no person unable to make prophesies really is a prophet. (Oh, there are other definitions for a "prophet" - many like that title. But one unable to make prophesies, is not a prophet - this even more so as the original title was not "prophet", but "a seer" - one who was able to see the unseen (1. Sam. #9/9, 9/11, 9/18, 9/19, 2. Sam. 15/27, 1. Chr. 9/29, 26/28, 29/29, 2. Chr. 16/7, 16/10, 19/2, 29/25, Micha 3/7, 2. King 17/13.) But was he a messenger? - and in case for who? Not for a god - no god makes a "holy" book where so many facts are wrong and with so many other errors, contradictions, cases of invalid logic, unclear language, etc. Was he a messenger for dark forces - f.x. for a devil dressed up like Gabriel? - the stealing and raping and blood and injustice and war may indicate this, as may the partly immoral moral code and the partly unjust laws, and Muhammad would not have one chance of seeing the difference between Gabriel and a well dressed up copy. Or a "messenger" for a mental illness? - modern medical science suspects he had TLE (Temporal Lobe Epilepsy) - a mental illness which can give religious hallucinations like the ones Muhammad claimed he had. Or a messenger for helpers in the background? - there were rumors about that. Or for himself?

##184 9/93b: "They (the ones not wanting to go to war, but without a "good" reason*) prefer to stay with the (women) - - -". An expression of contempt in many cultures and - as far as we have been able to find out - in all war cultures. (Unnecessary to say: Islam was/is one of the more extreme war cultures, as the war part of it is religiously motivated and very central and strong.)

185 9/94m: "- - - then will He (Allah*) show you the truth of all that ye did". Do not cheat Muhammad! - Allah sees everything and will punish you. Also see 2/233h above.

#186 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". Incompatible to the Bible to say the least of it, and especially to NT. But words impossible to misunderstand. Anybody believing that the Quran has to be disused to find incitements to war and hate and blood and murder?

187 9/97-104: "The Arabs of the desert are among the worst in Unbelief and hypocrisy - - -". In the beginning Muhammad had great problems winning the nomads and semi-nomads in the desert for his religion. One possible reason was the freedom they were used to - to accept Muhammad as a supreme leader and to accept Islam's on many points strict regime - and its tax - took some coercion. But the combination of a clear message: Become Muslims or fight us and be killed - in spite of Islam's nice claims about the opposite - and the possibility to make money from stealing, robbing, and enslaving did the job. Much of Arabia became Muslim at the point of the sword - combined with some honest new believers, a number won over by Muhammad by means of rich "gifts", and a lot of men among the desert Arabs who wanted to become - and became - rich from looting; well, in some years this combination worked and most Arabs became more or less honestly believing Muslims.

188 9/104a: "Know they (people*) not that Allah doth accept repentance - - -". But what is the idea if Allah already has predestined everything according to his unchangeable Plan? If the Plan and the predestinations are unchangeable and made eons before like the Quran states, also repentance cannot have any effect. See 9/103a above.

189 9/104b: "Know they (people*) not that Allah doth accept repentance - - - and that Allah is verily He - - -". This is a serious problem: The ONLY source for claimed information about the claimed god Allah, is a man with a very special view on honesty (al-Taqiyya, Kitman, "war is betrayal", break even your oaths if that gives a better result) and a liking for power. No-one in reality knows anything about Allah - many believe, but with such an unreliable source, no-one knows, only believes. The only thing which is proved and thus possible to know, is that there are very many mistakes and other errors in the Quran, and thus that no god has been involved in making or delivering it, and that consequently also much is seriously wrong with Islam.

190 9/109b: "And Allah guideth not - - -". He cannot guide unless he exists.

191 9/109c: "And Allah guideth not - - -". He cannot guide by means of a guidebook - the Quran - which is full of mistakes + a partly immoral moral code.

192 9/109e: "- - - do wrong". Beware that when the Quran uses words like this, it is meant in accordance with its own partly immoral moral code.

**193 9/111f: "- - - they fight in His (Allah's*) cause, and slay and are slain: a promise binding on Him in truth, through the Law, the Gospel, and the Quran - - -". As for the Gospels: This is not even is wrong - it is nonsense, and can only be made up by someone not knowing the Gospels. There is nothing like this in the Gospels - this even if Islam pretends the text refers to a Gospel that has disappeared (there are references to the word "sword", but not as part of war or incitement to war - not to mention the pacifistic picture the total NT give). There is a theoretical possibility for that there existed an older Gospel, but this fairy tale or nightmare is not taken from that one either. Because if it ever existed, we know the contents of it, as three of the present Gospels in case used that one as their main source (the other possibility is that two of those Gospels used the oldest one as their source - in that case there is no reason to believe there ever was older Gospel, but it is to be hoped there was, because that gives an even older written source for the Bible - and makes it even more reliable according to all rules for study of history and for such science. By the way: No serious student or professor of history use the Quran as a source for happenings older than 610 AD - which tells volumes about how they evaluate the reliability of this book presumably sent down by an omniscient god).

But the real reason why it is not the slightest doubt that this is made up, is that the sentence so totally and 180 degrees oppose the very teachings of the NT - and the entire NT. incompatible. Yahweh and Allah the same god? No answer necessary.

194 9/111j: "- - - who is more faithful to His Covenant than Allah?". Many if Allah does not exist or if he is not correctly described in the Quran. Not to mention if he is part of the dark forces, which the dark parts of the Quran may indicate.

195 9/112e: "- - - glad tidings - - -". A book with so much war and blood and apartheid and suppression and rape and incitement to dislike and distaste and hate and lying and much more, is no "glad tiding". This even more so if the book is a made up one - and at least it is not from a god; no god makes that many errors, etc. And we refrain from mentioning the case "what if there is a true religion somewhere which Muslims have been prohibited to look for?" - what kind of (perhaps) next life then for Muslims?

##196 9/113a: "It is not fitting, for the Prophet and those who believe, that they should pray forgiveness for Pagans - - - (who are bound for Hell*)". In NT it always is permitted to pray for the lost souls - we are back to the search for f.x. "the lost lamb" and to "the 11.th hour" (Luke 15/8-10 and 15/11-31, Matt. 18/12-14, 20/8-13). Definitely Allah is not like Yahweh - and Muhammad not in the same line of prophets as Jesus (if they had been, their teachings had had to be similar). And remember: Science has proved far beyond any even unreasonable doubt that the Bible and especially the NT is not falsified in spite of Muhammad's never proved claims - may be some mistakes, but no falsifications. The best proof for this is Islam: If one single real falsification had been found, Islam had screamed about it to every living being on Earth, included rats and worms. No such scream has ever been heard.

197 9/114f: "- - - for Abraham was most tenderhearted, forbearing". A man who uses his wife as a bite for riches and lets her be taken away by men obviously intending her for their harems (1. Mos. 12/13-19 and 20/1-3), a man who sends away his son and the son's mother to survive as best they could in a foreign land, a man who is willing to kill his own and only remaining son, and his only son by then in wedlock (1. Mos. 22/2-12) (He got 6 more later - 1. Mos. 25/1-2 - but these disappeared from the story) - well, such a man is not most tenderhearted. To quote a wise man: "That something is said or written does not necessarily mean that it is true" - a fact we should have mentioned more often when talking about the Quran.

198 9/118a: "- - - the three who were left behind - - -". This refers to 3 men (Ka'b ibn Malik, Mararah ibn at-Rabi, Hilal ibn Umayah) who did not want to take part in the big expedition towards Tabuk (it came to nothing), and who chose to be honest about it. They had to live through serious psychological terror and punishment when Muhammad returned. They were uneducated and naives and did not understand what was done to them, but any somewhat educated person today recognizes the cruel method Muhammad used for punishment, for preventing similar things to happen in the future, and for giving people other things to talk about than no loot from the unsuccessful war expedition. You find the story in Hadiths - f.x. Al-Bukhari.

199 9/120d: "It was not fitting for (them - see 9/120a just above*) to refuse to follow Allah's Messenger, nor to prefer their own lives to his - - -". Muhammad demanded blood and lives. According to the Bible Jesus gave his life. The same line of prophets? Yahweh and Allah the same god? No-one with real knowledge is able to believe that - except some Muslims (religiously blind = one who believes not because of proofs, but in spite of proofs).

#200 9/123c: "Fight the Unbelievers who gird you about, and let them find firmness in you: and know Allah is with those who fear Him (= the Muslims*)". If "I" do not like what you do - or if "I" use a little conspiracy theories, like Muslims and especially the ones in the Middle East often do, and think you are up to bad things, you surely are girding "me" about, and it is "my" right according to the Holy Quran to kill you.

201 9/126a: "See they (non-Muslims*) not that they are tried every year - - -." But why does an omniscient god have to try people, if he knows everything on beforehand? - and what value has a trial if Allah has already decided what is going to happen? - Allah decides everything according to the Quran. The only case where all this makes sense and logic, is if it in reality was Muhammad who had to find "explanations" for why raids for riches and power and wars for power were necessary.

202 9/125b: "But those in whose hearts are disease - - -". One of Muhammad's many distance and distaste inducing names for non-Muslims.

203 9/129d: "- - - He (Allah*) the Lord of the Throne (of Glory) Supreme!" Yes - if the Quran is not a made up book, and if it speaks the truth. And if Allah exists - nothing of which is proved.


These are just tit-bits from the book "1000+ Quran-comments - skeptics' facts and thoughts". You will find the complete book under http://www.1000quran-comments.com. (The surah reference numbers are like in that book.)

In http://www.1000mistakes.com you find:

  1. Book A: "1000+ Mistakes in the Quran" - http://www.1000mistakes.com.
  2. Book B: "1000+ comments in Jihad - (un)holy war" - http://www.1000mistakes.com/jihad-holywar/index.php
  3. Book C (this one): "1000+ Quran-comments - skeptics' facts and thoughts" (1000+ tit-bits from the complete book) - http://www.1000quran-comments.php.
  4. Book D: "Correcting much wrong refuting on http://www.1000mistakes.com - and a lesson in Muslim ways of debating.
  5. Book E: "What the Bible really says - when the Quran uses legends, fairy tales, or phantasy, instead of the Bible as sources for 'Biblical' texts, like it often does. (Expected late 2011 or early 2012).

In http://www.1000quran-comments.com you find:

  1. "1000+ Quran-comments - skeptics' facts and thoughts" (the "complete" list - 20ooo+ comments on the Quran) - as said in http://1000quran-comments.php.

204 10/1b: "- - - ayat - - -". Normally translated in the Quran with "verse", but may also mean proof, evidence, lessons, signs (often "Quran-speak" for proof), revelations, etc. In this case may be it means proof - some irony in case that something with so many mistakes is called proof. On the other hand much of what Islam and Muslims call proofs, have little logical connection to real proofs.

#205 10/1c: "- - - the Book (the Quran*) of Wisdom." With that many mistaken facts, it is not a book of wisdom - and when there are many mistakes you see, how many others are there? - it is difficult to trust the rest of the text, too.

#206 10/2c: "- - - inspiration - - -". This word is nowhere mentioned in the Bible in connection with information from the god to a prophet. The Bible clearly states that such contacts were made by dreams, vision or direct contact. Muhammad, however, claimed both that he got much of his messages from Allah via "inspiration" and that this was a normal way for the earlier prophets, included the Biblical ones, to get such messages. Inspiration is a normal part of human intellectual life, and the Quran never tells how Muhammad in case saw the difference between his own inspirations and the claimed ones from Allah. "Inspiration" also is ever so easy to fake.

207 10/3f: "- - - Allah, Who created the heavens (plural and wrong) and the earth in 6 days". Even though the Bible say the same number of days, it is extremely wrong - - - and any god had known that. As bad: The Quran contradicts itself by saying 8 days one place. This even though the claimed lack of contradictions in the Quran, Islam claims is a proof for that Allah made the book. (Consequently the presence of mistakes proves that Allah did not make the book).

  1. 41/9-12: Here Allah used 2 + 4 + 2 days = 8 days for the creation (Muslims claims that the two days for creating Earth is included in the 4 days. But the Quran is very clear: 2 days for creating Earth, then 4 days for creating what is on Earth, and finally 2 days for creating the 7 firmaments (wrong there only is one, and even that is an optical illusion except the stars). No doubt about what is written. (Some Muslims also tries to tell that the Arab written word for day also may mean eon (the old Arab alphabet had no vowels or the points modern Arab use to signify some letters, and when one adds vowels, etc. as one likes, a lot is possible.) But there is little doubt that the spoken word Muhammad used to his congregation was "day" and none of the accepted good translators uses any other word. Eons also makes Allah and his capabilities to a joke: 2/117: "When He (Allah*) decreeth a matter, He said to it: ‘Be' and it is" should he use eons for this small job?) We also should remind you that this verse contradicts reality quite a lot: Creation of the universe has till now taken 13.7 billion years, and of Earth 4.567 billion - and both processes are still continuing.

208 10/4c: "The promise of Allah is - - - sure". Wrong - as it comes via the Quran with all its mistakes, etc. it definitely is not sure. And of course as the Quran does not come from any god - not with all those errors, etc. - it cannot bind Allah - if he exists.

*209 10/5b: "It is He (Allah*) who made the sun to be a shining glory - - - (Thus) doth He explain His Signs in detail, for those who understand". Those who understand know that the sun is a shining glory because of radioactive activity inside it - a fact Muhammad did not know. If Islam insists it is Allah who causes it - not just a god, but Allah - they will have to prove it, not just use megalomaniac, but lose statements. Added flattery often gives good effect for cheap money when talking to uneducated, naive listeners. But an unproved claim still is unproved claim - and an unreliable "explanation" for Muhammad's followers.

**210 10/6e: "- - - heavens - - -". This and word is used in plural something like 200 times in the Quran. (The words "heavens", "seven heavens"," firmaments", "seven tracts", and "seven firmaments" are used altogether at least 199 times in plural - there is no doubt that the Quran believes in 7 heavens). The plural of the word refers to what was correct astronomy in the Middle East at the time of Muhammad: That the stars, the planets, the sun and the moon were fixed to 7 invisible, but strong heavens formed like hemispheres (actually the Greeks knew the Earth was a sphere, so then the heavens there had to be spheres) over the Earth. The Arabs and many others got this picture of the "universe" from Greek and from Persian astronomy. Muslims today of course know it is wrong, and are "explaining" the 7 heavens in different ways - from vague thoughts about space, to telling that it means something else as - they say - in old Arabia the number 7 also could mean "many" (as if that is more correct in this case than 7), and to referring to 7 layers in the atmosphere (without explaining how the stars in that case were fixed to the lowermost of the heavens, or explaining how resurrected material humans can walk around up there, which the Quran tells), etc. Strangely till now none of our group have met a single Muslim mentioning that 7 heavens were the correct local astronomy at the time of Muhammad - may be they prefer not to mention that, because the logical next question then is: A god knew there were no 7 heavens, Muhammad believed there were. Then who made the Quran?

211 10/9b: "Those who believe, and work righteousness (included fighting in wars, stealing, raping, and killing*) their Lord (Allah*) will guide them because of their Faith: beneath them will flow rivers in Gardens of bliss." The paradise of a primitive warrior from the hot desert - most boring in the long run to say the least of it. Has an omniscient, omnipotent god nothing better to offer? A curiosum: According to Hadiths 2 of "our" rivers - the Nile and the Euphrates - start in Heaven/Paradise.

212 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 (4.7 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.

213 10/15c: "- - - (non-Muslims) say: 'Bring us a Reading other than this (some surahs*), or change this'". How could this end in the "Mother Book" (of which the Quran is a copy according to Muhammad) billions of years before it was said? 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 3 reasons - 2 of them unavoidable - for this:

  1. When something is changed, automatically the future is changed.
  2. The laws of chaos will be at work and change things, if even a tiny part is made different.
  3. 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".

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.

#214 10/17a: "Who doth more wrong than such as forge a lie against Allah - - -". Well, for Muhammad's sake we can hope he did not make lies (which he did) in the Quran - that it f.x. was all TLE (the illness Temporal Lobe Epilepsy) or something dressed up as Gabriel who cheated him. On the other hand if Allah did/does not exist, Muhammad's lies were without consequence - - - if there did/does not exist some other god who disliked lies.

####215 10/21b: "- - - they (people*) take to plotting against our (Allah's*) Signs! Say: ‘Swifter to plan is Allah!'" (The original - translated from Swedish (omitted in the English 2008 edition) A10/33: "Allah is swifter (than you) making plans"). This is another of the main alibis for al-Taqiyya (the lawful lie) and Kitman (the lawful half-truth*): When Allah can use devious means like indicated here, of course any Muslim can.

Just for the record: Al-Taqiyya and Kitman 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 promises, as an oath is something stronger than a normal promise):

  1. To save your or others' health or life.
  2. To get out of a tight spot or a dangerous problem.
  3. To make peace in a family.
  4. When it will give a better result than honesty or honoring one's oath.
  5. To cheat women (should be remembered by girls with Muslim boyfriends wanting sex - or wanting a marriage to get residence permit in a rich country.)
  6. To deceive opponents/enemies.
  7. To betray enemies.
  8. To secure one's money (very clear from Hadiths).
  9. To defend Islam. (Advisable if necessary to succeed.)
  10. To promote Islam. (Advisable if necessary to succeed.)

But al-Taqiyya is a double-edged sword: In the short run you may cheat and deceive some ones 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 na. But in the long run the real result is that you have no way of strengthening your word to be believed - yes, knowing about al-Taqiyya, Kitman. etc. anyone has to be a bit careful believing a Muslim - you never know when he may be using a lawful lie, etc.

216 10/25b: "He (Allah*) doth guide whom He pleaseth to a Way that is straight (= direction Heaven*)". It is Allah who decides ("whom He pleaseth"), not you (in Hadiths it even is made clear that Allah decides whether you are to end in Hell or Heaven before you are born, and there is nothing you can do about that decision). A bit different from NT to say the least of it: Yahweh wants everybody to Paradise - you have to be a sinner by your own merit and from real free will, and not honestly regretting your sins, to be closed out. The same god? Hardly. Or Nyet!

217 10/26b: "- - - do right - - -". Beware that when the Quran uses expressions like this, it is in accordance with its own partly immoral moral code.

###218 10/32b: "- - - apart from Truth, what remains but error?" It is very clear that much of what is said in the Quran is not true and then "what remains but error"?

##219 10/33a: "Thus is the Word of thy Lord (Allah*) proved true - - -". The trouble is that the sentence refers to nothing - there is nothing even remotely like a proof in the neighborhood. It may refer to 10/31, but what is said there are just some not proved claims, and has nothing to do with a proof - and most non-Muslims would not even give the intended answer (and even if they did, it was no proof). On the other hand this is the kind of argumentation you too often meet from Muslims: They take an argument which at most may merit the conclusion "this may indicate that - - -", and instead say "this proves that - - -". This is not argumentation worthy a god - not even a minor, uneducated one hidden in a distant corner.

#####220 10/35i: "How judge ye?" We judge that religion and a possible eternal life is too serious a matter to accept that mistakes, contradictions, lies, etc., etc. can be hidden when trying to find out if a god/gods exist(s), and in case which one(s) is/are true and which not. Only complete honesty can lead to a correct answer in such a question - and the Quran/Islam most likely is the most dishonest of all big religions - the only one who on top of all not only accepts, but advocates dishonesty on central points "if necessary" to win a discussion - not to find the truth, but to win a discussion or a new believer.

221 10/36a: "But most of them (non-Muslims*) follow nothing but fancy." This is true if none of the other religions is a true religion. It also is true for Muslims if the Quran is a made up book - a fancy - - - and it at least is not from a god with that many mistakes, etc. It is wrong if the Quran is not from a god, and there somewhere else is a true religion. There f.x. are indications for that Yahweh is not fantasy - if the old books tell the truth.

#222 10/37a: "This Quran is not such as can be produced by other than Allah - - -". Very wrong. Many a good writer can write stories as good as, and better than, the collection of surahs in the Quran. In spite of what Islam says, the Quran is not good literature. The same stories are repeated again and again. They frequently are not well told. There are no new stories or ideas only stories and ideas borrowed from others. Honestly large parts of the book are rather dull reading. And the fabled high quality Muhammad's Arab language? - what Muslims seldom mention, is that it took some 250 years to perfect the language - it was not until around 900 AD that it had got something like today's language. It also existed in much more than one text. For one thing even Muhammad (according to Hadith) said it was sent down in 7 varieties which all were true ones - even if details were different. For another thing some of the old, original texts existed in the Muslim world for a long time after the "official" one was finished around 650 AD ( at some time there were at least 14 canonized varieties 2 are used today: Hafs and Warsh, but most uneducated Muslims does not even know this). For still another thing the texts may have been slightly changed through the time - at least very old Qurans found in Yemen in 1972, had "small, but significant differences" from the modern edition. The dominating Quran today (Hafs), is the edition that was the official one in Egypt when first printed in 1924, according to what we have read. The version after Warsh is used in parts of Africa. Also see Preface in "1000+ Mistakes in the Quran" (list of the earlier 14 canonized ones).

The claim in this verse Muhammad could tell his uneducated and to a large degree an-alphabetic followers. People versed in quality literature today just will smile hearing such a claim if they know the Quran - it is not high quality even if you do not mind all which is wrong in the book. The one exception may be the Arab language in the book, as this as mentioned was polished by top scholars for some 250 years.

But in that connection we would like to quote an old American film critic some decades ago. He was shown a high quality film favoring narcotics. The question was if he did not think the film work was good?

"Well", he answered, "I always have meant that a work which was not worth doing, also was not worth doing good".

#223 10/38d: "Bring then a surah like unto it - - -". This that the Quran is so perfect that it only can be made by a god, is one of the most used "alibis" Islam has for that the Quran must be from a god. This is a tale they could tell to uneducated desert dwellers. ANYONE used to quality literature sees that the Quran is not high quality literature (perhaps excepted the language - which was polished for some 250 years before it got the present form), and that many a writer could write a book of considerably higher standard from collected legends, etc. The reason why it is not done and why nobody wants to do it, simply is that no matter how good a book and no matter how close to the contents of the Quran one writes, Muslims will claim it is not like the Quran and not as good as the Quran - if it is, their religion may be a faked one, and that is too hard to face. Also see 10/37a above.

**224 10/39c: "- - - (the Quran*) whose knowledge they cannot compass, - - -". For the uneducated, often an-alphabetic members of Muhammad's early followers, that might be true, except for the question: Who has most knowledge the one without knowledge, or the one with much wrong knowledge?. But the claim is in no case true today - and we see that a lot of the "facts" Muhammad used, are wrong - something any god had known and not used it. A god also had made none of all the other errors in the book.

225 10/44b: "Verily, Allah will not deal unjustly with man in aught - - -". Perhaps. But some of the moral rules and some of the laws said to be from him, are pretty unjust and/or immoral - some even worse. Actually 1 or 2 of the laws in sharia - Allah's laws - may be the most unjust and immoral in any somewhat civilized culture in this whole world.

226 10/47b: "To every people (was sent) a Messenger - - -." Hadith mention 124000 messengers or prophets. There is not one single trace from prophets teaching monotheism (except in Israel and a couple of other special cases), not to mention Islam, in the old times, neither in archaeology, art, literature, folk tales, nor in religions. Some of them should have left small traces at least, when they were so many. This verse is not true.

227 10/52e: "Ye (sinners*) get but the recompense of what ye earned!" When you look at the partly immoral moral rules of the Quran (compare them to "do against others like you want others do against you" - the only really ethical and moral guideline) - do humans who are judged according to Muhammad's, the Quran's, and Islam's partly immoral and unjust moral and judicial rules always get fair punishment or fair reward?

228 10/55d: "Is it not (the case) that Allah's promise (the Quran*) is assuredly true?" The Quran itself in this case like in many others proves it is not true too many mistakes, etc. For short here: No, it is a claim, not a truth. Because of all he mistakes in the book, nothing there is assuredly true there, unless it is proved. The claim even is seriously weakened by the fact that the Quran is not from a god - no god makes that many mistakes.

229 10/55e: "Is it not (the case) that Allah's promise (the Quran*) is assuredly true?" There has not been one single proved case in all history and prehistory of a promise proved coming from Allah, has been proved to be true. Lots of claims, not one proved case - - - and the best proof for this is the silence from Islam about such a case.

230 10/57d: "- - - the (diseases) in your (unbelievers'*) hearts - - -". From other places in the Quran it is clear that if you do not believe in "Allah and His Prophet Muhammad" the reason is a disease in your heart.

No comments - and none necessary.

###231 10/64b: "- - - in the life of the Present and in the Hereafter; no change can there be in the words of Allah". What Allah decides is final - pure predestination. And many things he decides early f.x. the day of your death and whether you will end in Hell or Heaven is (according to Hadiths) decided 5 months before you are born. And remember: According to the Quran Allah's predestined Plan is impossible to change by anyone or anything. Good or bad deeds, prayers or whatever - nothing can change Allah's predestined Plan, according to the Quran.

232 10/66d: "What do they (non-Muslims*) follow who worship as His (Allah's*) 'partners' other than Allah?" The trouble is that a similar question can be asked about Muslims, as all the mistakes, etc. in the Quran prove that the book is not from a god.

The answer in reality is plain and simple: They simply did not believe in Muhammad and his new religion or in Allah - some of them because they saw that things were very wrong in that religion.

234 10/68b: "Allah hat begotten a son!" An exclamation in disbelief. But Jesus many, many times called God/Yahweh his father (the word "father" (of Jesus) is used for God/Yahweh at least 204 times in NT and the word "son" (of God/Yahweh) is used for Jesus at least 87 times.) Some of the times it is meant figuratively, but most times it is clear it is meant literally. And even the Quran says Jesus was reliable - and both science and Islam have proved that the Bible is not falsified.

235 10/70c: "- - - blasphemies". It is not possible to blaspheme against Allah unless he for one thing exists, and for another is a god (if he is from the dark forces which f.x. the partly immoral moral code in the Quran, and its acceptance of dishonesty, its partly unjust laws, its drive for hate- and war-mongering, etc. may indicate, we think blasphemy also is not possible - who can blaspheme dark forces? - and how to do it?).

236 10/72a: "- - - no reward have I asked of you - - -". 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 - - -?

237 10/78b: "Hast thou (Moses*) come to us to turn us away from the ways we found our fathers following - - -". Contradicted by the Bible: In the Bible there is no religious debate between Moses and Ramses II - only: "Let my people go". (But one may wonder if the reason why Muslims are so reluctant even to check the truth behind all the mistakes in the Quran, is because they are unable to question the indoctrination from their fathers.) 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.

238 10/83e: "- - - certainly Pharaoh was mighty on the earth - - -". Pharaoh Ramses II was one of the mightiest - if not the mightiest - pharaoh ever in old Egypt. Worse: We know his history pretty well, f.x. that he did not drown. Because of this Muslims wants Exodus (the Jews leaving Egypt) and Moses to have happened earlier under less well known pharaohs which perhaps may have drowned (they often indicate around 1500 - 1600 BC, and never an indication about from where they have the numbers). But science is clear: If Exodus ever happened, it happened around 1235 BC, (sources f.x. Encyclopedia Britannica) which means during the reign of Ramses II.

239 10/89d: "- - - know not". Expressions like this in the Quran, normally means they have not enough knowledge about Islam and the Quran. "Knowledge" in the Quran normally refers only to religious knowledge - and then only to the Quran and Islam.

240 10/92c: "- - - many among mankind are headless of Our (Allah's*) Signs". With a good reason, as many among mankind know there is not and never was one single proved sign clearly from Allah - not even his very existence is proved, and that the claim that he exists only rests on the word of one single, quite unreliable man who provably and according to the Quran did not even respect his own oaths if breaking them gave a better result (f.x. 2/225a, 5/89a+b, 16/91e, and 66/2a).

***241 10/96b: "Those against whom the Word of thy Lord has been verified - - -." This is one of the main problems for Islam as it was for Muhammad: There exists no verification of Islam not one single proof, not in the Quran and not any other place. Only cheap words and claims which in NO case are verified. But glorification of and demands for blind belief you find aplenty, and the same with invalid "signs" and "proofs". (Necessary when there is nothing else to build on than the words of a man of very doubtful character and morality. Reliance on untrue arguments and bluffs are strong indicators for a cheat, a deceiver, a swindler.)

Whenever we meet people using bluffs and defending bluffs, not to mention glorifying blind belief like here for us that strongly indicates not only that they have no real arguments, but also that they know it themselves, and just try to defend wishful thinking or beliefs they are mentally and morally unable to question.

242 10/99a: "If it had been thy (Muhammad's or Muslims'*) Lord's (Allah's*) Will - - -". This is an argument you meet again and again and again in the Quran: If Allah only will, he can do everything to show you his existence, power and much more. But for some reasons or other he never "will". A boasting? - similar to what you hear from children, from youths not secure of their social position, and from adults of the same kind needing to boast to enlarge the world's picture of them? They mostly do it in vain, as most people - at least among the intelligent and wise ones - looks straight through boasting and see it for what it is: a slightly - or more - negative fact about the person.

###243 10/101b: "- - - neither Signs or Warners profit those who believe not". It is a matter of course that when you understand that claimed "signs" are invalid, you grow skeptical, because who relays on invalid, but claimed "signs"? - the cheat, the swindler, the deceiver. And you have to be very naive or stupid or blind if you take such a person for a warner without checking his claims and words - and when it turns out that everything just are loose words, not documented as loose claims, and as invalid statements - words and claims and statements anyone can use for free as long as he or she can evade any request for proofs - and when it on top of all turns out that the claimed "warner's" tales are so full of mistaken "facts" and other mistakes, contradictions, cases of unclear language, etc. that no god can be involved, it is not possible for a not brainwashed, intelligent person to believe in such stories told by a not reliable person liking power, riches of bribes - and women. You simply do not base your possible next and eternal life on obvious fairy tales made up by dark forces or humans - the only alternatives as no god ever was involved in a book of a quality like the Quran.

###244 10/104b: "If ye (non-Muslims*) are in doubt as to my (Muhammad's*) religion - - -". Wrong: When something is proved wrong - like all the mistakes, etc. in the Quran proves the book is not from any god, and thus that something is very wrong - you are not in doubt any more. When something is proved wrong, you know it is wrong - you do not doubt any more.

245 10/109d: "- - - He (Allah*) is the Best to decide." Only if he exists and if the Quran is from a god - and if Allah in addition is a god (and Allah f.x. not from the dark forces - - - if he as questioned exists).

Sub-total: 245 + 169 = 414 tit-bits.

NB: THE LIST CONTINUES 4-5 PAGES (A-4) FURTHER DOWN.


NB: If you find any mistakes anywhere, please inform us. If it is a real mistake, it will be corrected. Please also inform us if we have overlooked points or errors.


(A6/92 - English 2008 edition A6/93): "- - - it is in the nature of man to regard the beliefs which have been implanted in him(!) from his childhood, and which he now shares with his social environment, as the only true and possible one - - -". He forgot(?) to mention that this also goes for Muslims.

10/32: "- - - apart from the Truth, what (remains) but error?"


#####8/69a-d: "- - - lawful and good - - -". If these words and the context they are 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 them 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" (made invalid) by today's Islam, but on the contrary are preached many places all over even today in some Islamic fora and groups and countries. (And even practiced during armed conflicts - Bangladesh, East Timor, East Africa, and Indonesia a "short" time ago. Low intensity active in f.x. Indonesian New Guinea and parts of Africa even now (2010).)

Just remember that most Muslims are ok. Only a minority is militant - 1-2% according to Muslims (but 2% of 1.2 billion = 24 million). Then according to international science some 30% (= some 360 million) are willing to help the militants actively or with money, or at least "understand" them. The rest - the majority - are ok. (But our problem is to know who is who.)

But what is absolutely sure, is that apologists telling that "there are verses in the Quran which can be misused by terrorists", are talking nonsense. According to the Quran it is very clear it is the peaceful Muslims who are not good Muslims, and the activists who are laudable and obeying Muhammad and Allah.


From 6/149a: "You meet this lack of moral backbone and the ability in Islam and in Muslims to overlook or explain away even the strongest facts, at every point in the Quran where there are mistakes, contradictions or other proofs for that something is wrong in the Quran, and thus with Muhammad and with his religion - proofs they are unable to face for that Islam as told in the Quran is not a religion, but a superstition".

"Religious 'knowledge' nearly always in reality only is belief - often strong belief, but only belief". (In Islam exactly nothing of any consequence is proved - on the contrary: Much is proved wrong and thus that it is from no omniscient god.)

A world dominated by Islam is quite possible - Islam is expanding. Will it end up like North Pakistan or Afghanistan or like Saudi Arabia without oil - or somewhere in between? - and this because of a religion which itself proves that something is seriously wrong with its teaching, and also that there is no god behind its "holy" book (no omniscient god makes mistakes), and thus not behind the religion.

A nice future for our grandchildren?




PART IV: SURAHS 11 THROUGH 20

The comments on the separate verses start some 4-5 A-4 pages further down.

Introduction.

The introduction is more or less similar for all surahs - skip it if you already have read it and if you do not need to refresh anything, and start at the comments a little further down.

Muslims tried to block us from the net (see "How to control if our information is correct"): An angry, excited Muslim attack against "bad" people telling facts Islam and Muslim scholars do not like - but not able to find one single piece of wrong information or of hate in https://www.1000mistakes.com worth mentioning in the complaint to strengthen it! Not even top marks from Cambridge or Oxford had been a better guarantee for that our information is correct.

##You will find pages on Internet trying to refute especially "1000+ Mistakes in the Quran" (http://1000quran-comments.com is young yet (launched Now. 2010 AD), but there are reactions to this page, too, already). Please read them, but check their claims, information and "information" - laugh at their mistakes and naivety, be stupefied at the lack of real knowledge, weep at the dishonesty (Islam is the only of the big religions which not only accepts, but often advises the use of dishonesty - al-Taqiyya, Kitman, deceit and even broken words/oaths (see separate chapters in "1000+ Mistakes in the Quran) - to promote or defend "the Religion of Truth" (quite an ironic slogan for a religion partly relying on dishonesty)).

###As for "1000+ Mistakes in the Quran" and all the mistakes, contradictions, cases of invalid logic and of unclear language, etc. in that book: One or a few mistakes, etc. could be accepted even from an omniscient god, as the ones writing it down might have made errors (the Quran is claimed sent down by Allah, but necessarily copied by humans). But to be able to believe that an omniscient god has such a bad command of the language, that humans have to explain away mistakes, etc. with "what he really meant" or "parable", etc. hundreds of times and more + hundreds of contradictions and cases of invalid logic and of unclear language, etc., takes a blindness, naivety or wishful thinking far beyond the incredible and deep into the unbelievable.

The Quran claims it quotes Allah when it says that the Quran has a plain, clear and easy to understand language which is to be understood easily and literally if nothing else is indicated (f.x. 3/7, 11/1, 15/1, 18/2, 18/54, 19/97, 26/2,27/1, 28/2, 36/69, 41/3, 43/2, 44/2, 44/58, 54/17, 54/22, 54/32), and that only bad people "sick of heart" or "in whose hearts is perversity" (f.x. 3/7) look for hidden meanings - meanings "only Allah can understand". Then one has to be naive in the extreme to believe in Muslims' claims that all the mistakes, contradictions, invalid logic, unclear language, etc. in the book in reality are not mistakes, etc. but only the omniscient god who are so clumsy expressing himself that he has been unable to say what he meant, and that clever Muslims have to help him and tell what he "really" meant or explain that "it is parables". Or that Allah does not mean what he clearly says, but that the mistake, etc. in reality is an allegory - a hidden meaning - and clever humans have to explain the "real" meaning of his helplessly chosen words. Strangely you mainly find such claims from Muslims in connection with mistakes, etc., - clearly the omniscient Allah is not mastering neither science nor the plain Arab language properly, and really do need the help from intelligent and clever mere humans to be able to express himself. One or a few such cases should be disturbing for the believers, as an omnipotent god does not make mistakes and he also should be a master of expressing himself clearly and impossible to mistake in clear words with distinct and unmistakable meaning. One or a few cases could be explainable, but when it runs in the hundreds and even a few thousands of such cases, it requires blindness, naivety and/or wishful thinking beyond the unbelievable to be able to believe in such "explanations". Even with lots of wishful thinking it takes blindness and naivety far into the incredible to be able to make oneself believe this.

"One case is coincidence, two cases are suspicious, three cases are proof", Stalin said. Hegre Are May 㟢e 3000 cases!!


Our books are to be read and studied - and printed or copied in diskettes or Xerox to be given away (f.x. as promotion - diskettes and paper are cheap) or sold at meetings, in the street, in shops - everywhere. The Main ting is to spredd te informasjon. We also think at least "1000+ Mistakes in the Quran" should be printed at least in paper-back - it will sell well at least here in the US, in Europe and - strangely (or may be not so strangely) - in India. There will be no royalty to pay - our pages are for free. (And "free publicity" from Islam and Muslims will make it sell even better - though the new Danish book containing the famous Muhammad cartoons has until now (9. Oct. 2010) not made much noise - perhaps the cases of western way of debating Muslims have met, slowly are teaching them civilized behavior? (To stand up for free speech is the only way of teaching them to accept free speech).

Our books are intended for persons with no, little or medium knowledge of the Quran. This means some 99.8% of non-Muslims and 90-95% of Muslims. (It may be a surprise, but most Muslims do not know the Quran well - many have just superficial knowledge or superficial knowledge + better knowledge of cherry-picked parts of it.)

In addition they are meant for Muslims with better knowledge of the book, but with no, little or moderate knowledge of the background scriptures, mainly the Bible (for the sake of convenience, we use the word "Bible" also for the Jewish scriptures, even when NT sometimes is irrelevant for the point debated just there, and for the same reason we use the name "Jews" for the descendants of Jacob also in times before the name really was coined).

And finally it is intended for the really learned scholars - to force them to think over difficult point to be able to explain to us that we are wrong and to correct us.


PS: Beware that Islam in reality are many things. There is Islam like you find it described in the Quran - what some scientists call "Islam I". Then there is Islam as it is interpreted by Muslim scholars (Islam II), which may vary not a little. And you have Islam as it is thought and practiced different places and to different times (Islam III) - which may vary quite a lot. We mainly write about Islam I, because this is the basic, and this is how anyone finds it when they search for answers or ideas in the Quran, and not least: This is how the Quran itself says it shall be understood (f.x. 3/7b-e, 6/114c-d, 11/1b, 16/103f). And not to forget: Islam I is how the conservative Muslims, fundamental Muslims, terrorists, etc. - the best organized and thus powerful groups in Islam - read it, often strengthened by "strong" interpretations.


To find the real Muhammad in the Quran, you skip the glorious and glorifying words about him, but read what he demanded and did, what moral he stood for and what rules he introduced, etc., and think over what this tell about him. Glorious words are cheap and are used by all dictators and politicians - like Muhammad - and by many others for propaganda. Deeds, etc. is the reality and tell the truth. When there is divergence between nice words and reality, we always believe in the reality. And even in the Quran the historical Muhammad is very different from the glossy picture Muslims and Islam - and the propaganda in the Quran - paint.

In the same way you find the real Allah and the real Islam.


Beware that we often do not give conclusions, but ask questions or simply give the information and you have to think it over yourself what the information really tells about the Quran, Muhammad and/or Islam. We also frequently use the Quran's claims or information and treat a point as if this was true, to show the conclusions it gives. In both cases this partly is done to highlight a point in the best possible way, and partly to try to make the reader think things over him-/herself.


And beware of one more thing: If it is true what Internet now (Oct./Nov. 2010) tells, that Muslims have launched a partly falsified Bible - falsified in a pro-Muslim direction - and with comments not always honest (Muslims f.x. too often find points in texts which - with or without some twisting - among different possible ways of understanding it, have one they like. Then they skip all other interpretations, and in addition do not say that "this is a possible understanding", but all too often declare: "This is the explanation!", or "This is the Truth!") If they now have made a partly falsified Bible, they are within a solid Muslim tradition going back at least to the many falsified scriptures made up in Muslim Spain in the 8. and 9. century. (The famous and infamous apocryphal - made up - "Gospel of Barnabas" may be one of them.) Lying (al-Taqiyya and Kitman) to defend or promote the religion is no sin in Islam - on the contrary; it is advised "if necessary" to reach a "good" result.

But how much are tales from persons and a religion relying partly on lies, worth? - how much is truth and how much is al-Taqiyya (lawful lies)? Not to mention: What about the religion itself? - how much is truth and how much is al-Taqiyya?


Points to remember before you start reading.

THE USE OF http://www.1000quran-comments.com (and http://www.1000mistakes.com ):

1. We repeat: Some time in 2010 we were to visit www.faithfreedom.org, but made the mistake of writing www.faithfreedom.com. Up came a disinformation page from Islam telling that there had not been any activity on the page for some months. The clear intention was to cheat new readers to believe Faith Freedom was inactive. This kind of dishonesty is permitted for a number of wide topics in Islam - f.x. for cheating women or saving your money - and not only permitted, but advised to use "if necessary" when it comes to defend or promote Islam.

Because we did not want to meet the same dishonesty, we decided not to put all of it only in http://1000mistakes.com , but also use this name for an extra page and put some of the highlights there, too. So now you in http://www.1000quran-comments.com to find a number of highlights about the topic, but go directly to http://www.1000quran-comments.com to find the "complete" list of comments - on average 2-3 comments for each verse in the Quran.

2. Read first these 2 small chapters in "1000+ Mistakes in the Quran" (= http://www.1000mistakes.com ): "Some Essentials for how the Quran is to be read and understood" (VII-10-1) and "The Quran is to be understood literally if nothing else is indicated" (VII-10-2).

3. NB: As for Internet: We frequently receive empty messages or messages which are unreadable because the letters are mixed in one porridge. If you have something essential to say and do not get an answer, try again - we try to answer all polite letters. And one more thing: If you want an answer you have to write your mail address, because in our "answer box" your address will not show unless it is written in the text.

ABOUT THE PAGES:

4. Please inform all and everybody and all relevant fora - f.x. Internet pages for debate or information - about the address http://www.1000mistakes.com . It is information that is urgently needed by many, not least by Muslims. No god made a book with so many mistakes and other wrongs - and if the Quran and Islam are made up by humans or dark forces, where are the followers of this inhumanly dark and brutal war religion heading for in a possible next life?

5. http://www.1000mistakes.com is one of 9 pages which Muslim organizations warned especially against in 2009 - it could make especially proselytes lose their belief in Islam; correct and "down-to-the-earth" information works. In this connection it is worth noticing that in the "warning" http://www.1000mistakes.com was one of 3 which neither was accused of bringing wrong facts, nor of being a hate page.

6. Abbreviations used: YA = Abdullah Yusuf Ali: "The Meaning of the Quran". A (or MA) = Muhammad Asad: "The Message of the Quran". OT = Old Testament of the Bible (on which the Mosaic (Jewish) religion is built - NB: for the sake of convenience we) NT = New Testament of the Bible (on which the Christian religion is built - with OT mainly as historical background).

7. Words in ( ) are from the original English translated texts - often additions or explanations made by the translator. But if there in addition is a "star" inside like this ( *) the comment inside is made by us. 1 - 3 ** or 1 - 3 ## (stronger) in front of our serial number for a verse or part of verse means NB or stronger. And NB: If there are points we have not commented on, that does not mean they could not merit a comment.

8. As none of us originally had English as our mother language, and only these last years have had English as our 1. language, there will be imperfections in our English (and our references to Arab are taken from other sources as our Arab is not up to that job). But we must admit that each time we receive a complaint where excited and angry Muslims find nothing but not perfect English to complain about, we feel it is a diamond compliment to the quality of our work. But in so much stuff there has got to be other mistakes, too - we are not gods like Allah. Though the fact that Muslims and others all over the world - we after all are on top of Google and Yahoo on "Mistakes in the Quran" - in these 2.5 years have reported exactly no - zero - mistakes except for linguistic ones, proves and documents that every mistake, etc. we have pointed to in the Quran, are real errors, there may be wrong points somewhere. But if we have made mistakes (but real ones), please inform us - there is so much which is wrong in the Quran, that there is no reason for us or for anybody else to point to any but real mistakes, contradiction, cases of invalid logic, unclear language, etc. If we have overlooked points which ought to be included (but real ones), please inform us about this, too.

9. As mentioned none of us has English as mother language, and there may be linguistic errors. But these means little for the real contents - you may be an excellent farmer even if you are a lousy fisherman.

10. As http://www.1000mistakes.com is blocked in some Muslim areas (f.x. Pakistan) which shows they are afraid of it and lack arguments (if they had real arguments for that http://www.1000mistakes.com is wrong, blocking it was unnecessary) - "cut and paste" whatever you want from it and send, if you want to inform about or to debate there. Remember to omit the name http://www.1000mistakes.com.

11. If we are blocked centrally - f.x. by spam (there is too much at times already from unfriendly sources) we will reopen with a new address somewhere else, and announce the new address on f.x. http://www.topix.com /forum/religion/islam and/or the pages of http://www.faithfreedom.org.

12. Muslims often haughtily tell that many through the times have told negative facts about Islam without an effect. For one thing it is not true - many have left Islam. But in addition some things are different now:

  1. Internet and the modern flow of information. The Mullahs and imams slowly are losing their monopoly on information. They can block Internet - like f.x. Pakistan has done for our books (and thus show that our information is too difficult for them to meet or argue against) - but they can block it only partially and information and facts will drip in even there.
  2. Many non-Muslims know more about the Quran and about Islam than before, and thus know more about what they are talking about - and thus easier can point to the weak spots of that book and of Islam.
  3. Many Muslims get more education and thus easier see the errors in the Quran - and the inhumanities.
  4. There now are much more - and correct - information about the Quran and about Islam, and f.x. about the impossibility that the Quran can be made by any omniscient god. It is heresy and slander and an insult against any god to accuse him of having sent down a book so full of mistakes, contradictions, invalid logic, unclear language, etc. Information which slowly reaches also Muslims. F.x. our books.
  5. Science has found that 3. generation Muslim emigrants in "the West" are losing interest in Islam - information works.

13. ### Muslims insist it is impossible to translate the Quran correctly (just like the Japanese used to do about their language before they learnt other languages well - then they stopped claiming it). That is rubbish. What one human brain is able to think, another human brain at the same level of intelligence is able to understand. At most it will take some extra explanation.

14. Science talks about Islam I = Islam like you find it in the Quran, Islam II = Islam like it is explained (and problems "explained") by Islamic scholars, and Islam III = Islam like it is told by imams and mullahs and practiced by the followers - which may vary a lot from time to time and from place to place - there is a great difference between Islam in f.x. Sabah, Malaysia, and f.x. in North Pakistan or Saudi Arabia. We as mentioned mainly concentrate on Islam I because that is the basic, and that is how every Muslim meets the texts when he open the book. But we touch Islam II and III a little.

ABOUT THE CONTENTS OF THE PAGES:

15. Comment 141 (to verse 6/149) in "The Message of the Quran" (see point 5) explains (translated from Swedish) about Allah's claimed omniscience vs. man's claimed free will:

"With other words: The real connection between Allah's knowledge about the future (and consequently about the unavoidability in what is to happen in the future*) on one side and man's relatively (!!*) free will on the other two statements that seems to contradict each other lies outside what is possible for humans to understand, but as both statement are made by Allah (in the Quran*) both must be true". Unbelievable. Blind belief is the only correct and intelligent way of life according to Islam, even in the face of the utterly impossible!!- this even though that in all other aspects of life, blind belief is the most sure way to be cheated.

15a. ###Prayers are essential and one of the 5 religious "pillars" in the Quran and Islam. But: What is the idea of praying for anything in Islam? According to the Quran - and Hadiths - Allah has predestine every detail in your and everyone else's life according to his unchangeable Plan - a plan "nobody and nothing" can change. According to Hadiths f.x. your time of death and whether you are to end in Hell or Heaven is decided by Allah 5 months before you are born. Thus prayers can change nothing and is a waste of time and effort - a fact (if the stated predestination is correct - and if not the Quran is wrong) no Muslim ever mention or tries to explain. The 5 fixed prayers also is one of the 100% proofs for that Yahweh and Allah is not the same god: For Allah they are so essential that he has made it one of the 5 "pillars" of Islam - Yahweh does not care about such formalism at all; pray when there is a reason, a need, or a wish.

15b.###From 6/149a: "You meet the lack of moral backbone and the ability in Islam and in Muslims to overlook or explain away even the strongest facts, at every point in the Quran where there are mistakes, contradictions or other proofs for that something is wrong in the Quran, and thus with Muhammad and with his religion - proofs they are unable to face for that Islam as told in the Quran is not a religion, but a superstition".

15c:#### from 9/39a: "Unless ye (Muslims*) go forth (in war/battle*), He (Allah*) will punish you with a grievous penalty (normally in the Quran a synonym for Hell*) - - -". An order not possible to misunderstand for a pious - or fanatic - Muslim.

Yes, a religion built on peace, goodness and heavenly ethics. Plus a good and benevolent god.

This is the order also today - see 9/38d.

This verse tells horribly much about Islam as it is thought in the Quran - and some other places.

16. There exists a letter dated 27. Dec. 1998 in which is admitted rather reluctantly that there are no proofs for Allah, and that it is not possible to prove him. (Actually it is not possible to prove a god - this only the god himself can do by doing something supernatural.) An additional point here is that if there is no proof for Allah and impossible to prove him, automatically there also is no proof for, and impossible to prove Muhammad's claimed connection to a god. And if there is no Allah and/or no connection between Muhammad and a god, what then is Islam?

17. ####Further: All the mistakes, contradictions, cases of invalid logic, etc. in that book, prove 100% that the Quran is not made by an omniscient god - no god makes such and so many mistakes, etc. If then Islam is a made up religion, what then about all the Muslims who have been prohibited from looking for a real religion (if such one exists)? And where will they in case wake up after living and practicing such an inhuman war religion (f.x. it's partly immoral moral code, rules for thieving/robbing, lying (al-Taqiyya, etc.), raping girls and women, enslaving, suppression, war, etc.) like Islam is according to the Quran (and to Hadiths), if there is a second life with a benevolent god somewhere? - Hell or Paradise?

18. NB and PS: No matter how sure you are about something, if it is not proved, it is not knowledge, only belief or strong belief, and can be wrong. Only what is proved or possible to prove is knowledge. And remember: "A proof is one or more PROVED facts which can give only one conclusion". Islamic debate and information normally build only on claims and statements which are not proved, so demand proofs in any debate with Muslims (you seldom will get them, and never in basic questions - their method normally is to throw out claims, and demand proofs from you for the opposite, and such proofs can be difficult there and then, and then they have "won" the debate, even if they may be wildly wrong. Demand proofs for their claims first, after all it is they who launch the claims and then it is their job to prove them - and you win many a debate just on this because Islam has no proofs on any central point of the religion).

19. But do remember that many uneducated Muslims honestly believe slogans like "Islam is the religion of peace" - they simply have not read much of the Quran, or they have read the glorious words, and are unable to see the harsh realities told in the book by the claims and deeds and introduced rules it tells about. The flowering words is the propaganda, the demands and deeds and rules are the reliable realities. The religiously educated ones know better - - - which sometimes s difficult to believe from what we hear from mosques, madrasas (religious schools) and other fora.

20. Note how often the word "the Truth" and similar are used in the Quran, mostly as a claim for the claimed high value and quality of the texts. In normal life the ones needing to tell so often and strongly that they are speaking the truth, are the ones not telling the truth and having no way of proving their tales - natural if they are made up. Simply the cheat and the deceiver. We also quote the infamous "Minister of Propaganda" in Nazi-Germany: Joseph Goebbels: "Tell a lie often enough, and people starts believing it". (The word also is used in the Bible, but far from so often, and "not spoken with such big letters".

SOME RELIGIOUS FACTS FROM THE PAGES:

21. We remind you that Muhammad claimed Allah = Yahweh - a claim which is easy to see is wrong, as the fundamental ideas and ideologies in the teachings/religions are too deeply different (Jesus love and peace and empathy, Muhammad Nazi-like (Carl Gustav Young) haughtiness, stealing/robbing, rape of girls and women, discrimination and war - and lawful dishonesty (al-Taqiyya, etc)). Because of this claim, he uses the name Allah for Yahweh (God). The differences between Yahweh (especially as we meet him in NT and his New Covenant - f.x. Luke 22/20) are so obvious and so easy to see (claims never documented by Islam, but proved wrong by science as they and also Islam have proved the Bible is not falsified), that mostly we do not bother to comment on it.

22. You often meet the claimed miracles connected to Muhammad used as arguments for that he must have been a real prophet and with connections to a god. You find these claims in the Hadiths only, not in the Quran.

This is very strange and peculiar - and revealing for the mentality of Muslim leaders and scholars - as the Quran indirectly, but most clear proves that all those stories are made up ones and untrue. If there had been miracles connected to or preformed by Muhammad:

  1. Opponents had not asked for miracles to prove Muhammad's tales and claims - they had known there were miracles.
  2. If they all the same had asked, they had promptly been told about miracles which had happened.
  3. Followers had definitely not asked - they had known about each and every miracle.
  4. If any follower all the same had asked, you bet they had got information instead of "explanations away".
  5. If there had been miracles, his followers had used them to propagate the religion. There is no tale about this being done in the Quran.
  6. Also Muhammad had used them in his preaching. There is no such case in the Quran and hardly in the Hadiths.
  7. And the strongest of the indirect, but clear and solid proofs: If there had been miracles connected to or performed by Muhammad, he had not had to explain away - even lying in the Quran - requests for proofs for his religion and god and for his own connection to a god: He simply had told about the miracles. There are many places in the Quran where Muhammad must use fast talk and worse to explain away requests for proofs/miracles. There is not one case of him telling about miracles connected to himself or performed by him.

In addition there is the fact that Islam itself tells: "There are no miracles connected to Muhammad, except the (claimed*) delivery of the Quran".

Also f.x. Aishah - Muhammad's famous and infamous child wife - clearly states in Hadiths that Muhammad made no miracles - f.x. was "unable to see the unseen" = unable to make prophesies.

All the same imams, mullahs, scholars and Islamic literature tell about, glorifies, and use as proofs for Muhammad and Allah the tales/legends about such miracles - and therefore many Muslims honestly believe in them; Of course their cherished religious leaders tell them the truth!? But it is permitted in Islam - even advised - to lie "if necessary" to defend or promote the religion (al-Taqiyya - the lawful lie, Kitman - the lawful half-truth, "war is deceit" - and "everything" is war, and "break even your oaths - pay expiation if necessary - if that gives a better result".

This is a kind of dishonesty you do not expect from honest leaders in an honest religion, and it tells not a little about the honesty, reliability, etc. and about the religious leaders in Islam.

Worse: As these stories about the miracles are untrue, but glorified by Muslims, how much more is untrue in the religion?

Worst: If the Quran is a made up book - and it clearly is not from a god (too many mistaken facts and other errors, too many contradictions and unclear language, too much invalid logic, etc.) - what then is Islam? - and where will Muslims end if there is a next life?

SOME COMMENTS:

23 One standard way for Muslims to explain away mistakes or bad meanings, is to claim that it means something else than what the words say - "they are parables". But for one thing the Quran itself as mentioned above states in words not possible to misunderstand, that the verses are to be understood literally if nothing else is said, and that only "those with an illness in their hearts" go looking for hidden meanings - meanings only Allah can understand according to the book (3/7 and others). But worse: Is it possible for anyone really to believe that an omniscient god is so clumsy expressing himself, that he needs a lot of help from more of often less educated humans to explain helpless clumsiness and contradictions and to explain away that this god is so retarded that he often says other things than he mean, and that thus we clever humans have to tell what he "really" means in his stumbling over wrong facts, etc.?

24 It would be possible to explain away one or a few mistakes, etc. in a book made by a god. But to be able to believe in the "explaining" away for hundreds and hundreds and more mistaken facts, invalid logic, contradictions, etc., takes either a well developed mental blindness - it is impossible to see, not to mention admit even for yourself what you strongly do not want to see - or a naivety far beyond what normally is claimed possible and deep into the incredibly unbelievable. It also is slander, an insult and heresy to blame a quality like in the Quran with all its errors, etc. on an omniscient god. But then it take a mental stamina and backbone many do not have, to face the possibility that the foundation you have built your culture and your personal life on - your religion - may be a made up fairy tale or legend. Or simply a tool for gaining power.

25 Some special words and expressions:

"Arabism": Anything which is typical only or mainly for Arabia or its near neighbor or other areas with similar climate, nature, culture, etc. there are lots of cases in the Quran which indicates that the maker of the book thought such conditions were the typical ones for humans - and lots and lots of cases where relevant differences from other parts of the world are not mentioned, this even though Allah is claimed to be an omnipotent god for all the world. There are more than the ones we list.

"Historical anomaly": The Quran claims that Allah sent down copies of the claimed "Mother Book" (13/39b, 43/4b+c, 85/21-22) in Heaven to prophets and messengers from Allah in the past (Hadiths mention 124000 or may be even more through the times from Adam to Muhammad - and all over the world. The Quran is such a copy, which means that the other copies are similar to the Quran - all copies of a book have to be similar naturally. What we call a "historical anomaly" in our book, is something which cannot have been written into the Quran a long time before it happened or was said (Islam claims it was written by Allah even before man was created, or it has existed since eternity and was never written (as nobody reveres his own work like it is said Allah does with the original book, the claimed "Mother Book (13/39b, 43/4b, 85/21-22) the second explanation may be the most likely(?) one) , unless there is total predestination of everything, like the Quran claims and states (as normal without any proofs) many places (but in this case free will for man is impossible). We stress that what we call historical anomalies mostly had not been such ones if things like in normal history were told after it happened. What make them anomalies, is the claim that the claimed "Mother Book" was written long time before things happened or were said, and then copies of this claimed "Mother Book" was sent down to all the claimed 124000 or more prophets and messengers through the times and all over the world, so that these persons could read also about what was to happen in their future - Moses surely would like to know how his people were to survive in the Sinai Desert, not to mention that Jonah would like to know the fish would spit him out - - - and both would like to learn about the great Muhammad who would be the only prophet(?) really succeeding with the "real" message of the old god Yahweh, now renamed(?) Allah. Remember that as all the books claimed sent down were copies of the claimed "Mother Book", they had to be more or less identical to the Quran, as the Quran was such a copy, too, Islam claims.

Also a prophet/messenger/reader might feel unsure about things because the incident told about had not happened yet or the person referred to was not born or at least not active yet when the mentioned prophet/messenger/reader lived, and perhaps in a for the reading prophet totally unknown culture (f.x. an aborigine prophet in Amazonas 15000 years ago - according to the Quran all humanity sporadically had its messengers to all times and all over the world (f.x. 6/42, 6/90, 10/47, 16/36, 35/24)) - remember here that the claimed Mother Book as mentioned was made by Allah before man was created, or perhaps has existed since eternity, and that a copy to f.x. Abraham some 3800 - 4000 years ago, Noah some 5600 years ago or may be more (the number is uncertain), must be similar to the Quran Muhammad god - if not it is not a copy of the same book. There are many more than the ones we list.

An extra point here which the Quran never mentions and Muhammad, Muslims and Islam never explain, is that if the claimed "Mother Book" was made before man was created, or even has existed since eternity, the unchangeable Quran (Allah's words cannot be changed - f.x. 10/64) - copy of that "Mother Book" - and the older copies claimed sent to older prophet, had to be a pure book of foretelling about the future for the older prophets. In their copies they could read about future prophets like Moses and Jesus and others, about things which would happen in the future, etc. And f.x. Jacob could read about what had happened to his son Joseph, and that they would meet again. There is no - no - mentioning in the Quran of this obvious and self evident effect of such a book if it was given to the claimed prophets of the old - may be too difficult for Muhammad to explain? (Muslims claim that there were different books for different times, but this is strongly contradicted in the Quran by what is said about the claimed "Mother Book", and if what the different copies the claimed prophets got according to the Quran, were copies of the same claimed "Mother Book", the copies just were new copies with identical texts). Islam never mention that because of this the old prophets would have good overview of main points and persons in the future, and never explain neither this nor why this effect never is mentioned in the Quran - actually the texts in the book pretends this effect never existed. Unexplainable - like total predestination versus free will for man.

A small problem: The Quran on one side says that the claimed "Mother Book" is eternal. On the other hand it says that the books varied - "each time a book" - as times varied. It does not explain how exact copies - like the Quran - of one and the same eternal book can be different.

NB: There are many more historical anomalies in the Quran than the ones we mention - everything written in the Quran in the beginning of time which the free will of man - acts, words, etc - could influence, are such anomalies, as if a person changed his mind a little, the text would be wrong, and thus the only possibility for that it could be written that early and still be reliable, is that predestination was and is absolute - - - and thus no free will for man.

For short: A HISTORICAL - OR TIME - ANOMALY IN THIS BOOK IS SOME PERSON OR SOME HAPPENING WRITTEN ABOUT IN THE CLAIMED ETERNAL "MOTHER BOOK" BEFORE IT HAPPENED OR THEY LIVED, AND THUS HAD NO MEANING - OR WERE REVEALING THE FUTURE - WHEN COPIES OF THIS CLAIMED BOOK WERE SENT DOWN FOR READENG TO CLAIMED MESSENGERS OR PROPHETS LIVING BEFORE THE HAPPENINGS OR MENTIONED PERSONS, AND THUS WERE TIME ANOMALIES TO THOSE READERS.

"This could not reliably be written in the claimed 'Mother Book' long time before it happened, unless predestination is 100%" or similar sentences. Also this in reality are historical anomalies, but stronger. Historical anomalies/time anomalies are destroying for the credability of any story. In the Quran an explanation had been possible if a god had been behind the anomalies, but all the errors in a book claimed to come from a god, proves absolutely that no god has created it or in other ways certifies it - not to mention reveres it in his heaven, like Muslims claim. So much is wrong in the Quran, and the general quality, except perhaps its eloquence when written in Arabic, of the book so miserable - in spite of Islam's claims (read it yourself and see) - that it is an insult, slander and heresy to blame a god for it. No omniscient god makes mistakes, contradictions, etc. There are many more historical anomalies - both "normal" and these stronger ones - in the Quran than the ones we point to. Just go looking, and you will find them. As mentioned: Historical anomalies are destroying for the reliability of any story - except in science fiction and in fairy tales - and of course the stronger the anomalies, the less credability.

"Not in the Bible". This simply means that what is told in the debated point in the Quran, is not from the Bible, and there is nothing closely similar in the Bible. Beware that there are much more of this than the cases we list - there is much in the Quran which is not from the Bible or has any parallel in the Bible, even in the stuff pretending to be Biblical stuff - one of the many indications for that Allah is not the same god as Yahweh/God and for that Muhammad was not in the same line of prophets as the Jewish ones - in both cases the contents of those two books would have had to be at least roughly similar, which they very far form are. (And remember here that both science and Islam has brought formidable proofs for that the Bible is not falsified - the standard claim and the standard way out of problems for Muslims claiming there are no mistakes in the Quran). Also see 12/30-34 about this.

"Contradicting the Bible". Similar comments like for "Not in the Bible", except that here you find similar texts in the Bible, but with contents contradicting the Quran. It is up to anyone what they want to believe, but beware that in any normal scientific evaluation, the Bible will be judged to be more likely to be true - if any is true - than the Quran. (There are several valid reasons for this - and especially so as the claim that the Quran is from a god is proved incorrect by all the mistakes, etc. in the Quran: No omniscient god makes mistakes, etc. "en gros" - and Muhammad had no other sources, except old legends, fairy tales, etc. about this.) There are many more than the "few" we list.

NB: In most cases we do not tell which of the two books is right or wrong. We just points to some of the places where there are differences, and as it is the Quran which claims the Bible is falsified, according to normal rules it then is Islam's and the Muslims' job to prove what they claim, and prove that the Quran is correct.

"Incompatible with the Bible". These are cases where the Quran clearly is contradicted on central or essential points by the Bible - so central or essential that it is clear both standpoints cannot come from the same god. Each and every of these incompatible points separately prove that Allah and Yahweh cannot be the same god, not to mention how strong this proof becomes when you combine the effect of several or all such incompatible points. These points prove very strongly that Allah and Yahweh are not the same deity. (And in addition there are the other proofs and indications for the same). There are more than the ones we list (we do not use this expression often - a number of places we call contradictions in reality are incompatible with the Bible).

NB: In most cases we do not tell which of the two books is right or wrong. We just points to some of the places where there are differences, and as it is the Quran which claims the Bible is falsified, according to normal rules it then is Islam's and the Muslims' job to prove what they claim, and prove that the Quran is correct.

NB: WE REPEAT THAT WE JUST MENTION SOME OF THESE 5 KINDS OF POINTS, BUT FAR FROM ALL - JUST GO LOOKING, AND YOU WILL FIND MORE.

26 The hard fact is that the Quran seems to be one of the apocryphal (made up) religious books, but further removed from Christianity and/or the Mosaic religion than most of the others - on the fringe even of the apocryphal literature simply.

27 ###Muslims further insist it is impossible to translate the Quran (just like the Japanese used to say about Japanese before they learnt other languages well). That is rubbish. What one human brain is able to think, another human brain at the same level of knowledge and intelligence is able to understand. At most it will take a little extra explanation.

28 As for point 27 just above, this claim is impossible to combine with the claim that similar copies were sent to the other claimed prophets through the times and all over the world - nearly none of them would understand Arab. (Some Muslims claim that the reason why only Arab can be used, is that it is Arab which is spoken in Heaven. But Arab like all languages "drifts" - words disappear or change meaning, new words comes, pronunciation may change. Is it then the Arabs who ape the "drift" in Heaven, and how do they in case learn about the changes - or is it Allah and his angels who "ape" the Arabs? Some Muslims even have "proved" that Arab is the original language in the world. Believe it if you want and are totally uneducated.)

29 This one we repeat: Since http://www.1000mistakes.com was first posted on Internet in spring 2008 it has become a central reference book. But there still are many who do not know about it. Please post the addresses http://www.1000mistakes.com and http://1000quran-comments.com on all your debate pages, information pages, and other relevant pages on the net - the pages you use, the pages you know about, and the pages you come across. Not for the benefit of us, but for the benefit of the ones who may need or want some of the enormous amount of information in the page. Information - quotes - not even Islam claims are wrong (even though they dislike what the quotes tell about the religion). The information may benefit:

  1. Muslims unsure about Islam.
  2. Muslims thinking about leaving Islam.
  3. Muslims looking for facts concerning Islam.
  4. Muslims trying in rational ways to evaluate their religion.
  5. Non-Muslims thinking about converting to Islam.
  6. Non-Muslims seeking information about Islam.
  7. Non-Muslims debating with Muslims - Muslims f.x. sometimes are not always 100% honest in such debates.
  8. Politicians and others meeting Muslims in daily life or job.

As for debate pages, the address should be mentioned every now and then (once a fortnight? - once a month each place?), because as new "letters" are posted, they "cover up" a posted address, and it drifts into oblivion if it is not repeated.

At the time of writing just this (21. Aug. 10), we have up to between 6000 and 7000 hits a day - yesterday f.x. 6611 hits. The average of course is lower, but all the same we reach a lot of people. With your help we may reach a lot more - this is information which should reach as many as possible.

Experience by now has shown that Muslims often have problems arguing against http://www.1000mistakes.com - they may pooh-pooh it, or deny it or refuse to believe it, but the proofs are too strong to argue against for many. Therefore you not only are spreading the address by referring to it - you may also win a point or the debate by referring to it and its address as an argument.


30. To Muslim fanatics: Do you want to kill us for writing these books, showing you facts you do not like to meet? - it often is easier to murder than to meet unwanted facts or "the lie of life" to quote Henrik Ibsen, which takes a lot of backbone. But it is too late as the books already are published: The cats are out of the bag.


Ps: We remind you that Muhammad claimed Allah = Yahweh - a claim which is easy to see is wrong, as the fundamental ideas and ideologies in the teachings/religions are too deeply different (Jesus love and peace and empathy, Muhammad Nazi-like (Carl Gustav Yung) haughtiness, discrimination and war - and lawful dishonesty (al-Taqiyya, etc. and stealing/robbing/looting, etc.)). Because of this claim, he uses the name Allah for Yahweh. This mistake is so obvious and so easy to see (and the claim never documented by Islam, but proved wrong by science - and by Islam), that mostly we do not bother to comment on it.

Islam also claims that the Bible is falsified and that it has been changed through the centuries. Ask for proof any time you hear this - the claims are wrong and never documented. Both science and even more so Islam have thoroughly proved these claims wrong by being unable to find one single proved falsification among all the know some 44000 relevant manuscripts and fragments. (Guess if Islam had announced it with huge and capital letters if they had found even one proved case!)

Finally two small quotes from the Bible and Jesus for comparison to the Quran and Islam:

  1. I: (Matt.7/12): "So in everything, do to others what you would have them do to you, for this sums up the Law and the Prophets.
  2. Compare this to the Quran's ethical, moral and judicial codes: Totally different too many places. One of the 100% proofs for that Yahweh and Allah are not the same god - not unless he is strongly schizophrenic.
  3. Compare this to Muhammad's teaching and behavior and raids and wars: It is very difficult to be more unlike than Jesus and Muhammad - one of the 100% proofs for that Jesus was not in the same line of prophets like Muhammad (and Muhammad on top of all was no real prophet - he only "borrowed" that impressive and imposing title - as he even according to Islam was unable to make prophesies) - they not only were not in the same line; they were not in the same moral world even.
  4. Muslims often cherry-pick a brutal piece of the Mosaic law, and say that as Jesus accepted that law (in spite of that even the Quran says he changed it), this justifies and sanctifies the brutal parts of Muslim laws, moral codes, etc. But the quote above and not cherry-picked details, was Jesus' essence of how one should understand the law one should obey.
  5. II: (Matt. 7/15-16): "Beware of false prophets. They come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly they are ferocious wolfs. By their fruits you will recognize them." There is no doubt Muhammad with all his raids (83? www.1000mistakes.com lists 62 of them) - mainly for riches and slaves/extortion, and later also for power - and his religion of war, was a ferocious wolf. And his fruits? - terrible for non-Muslim surroundings. And as his book - the Quran - with all its mistaken facts, other errors, contradictions, unclear language, etc. is from no god, the fruits may be even worse for all Muslims if there is a next life, and especially so if there is a real god somewhere they have been prohibited from looking for. Not to mention if that god is a good and benevolent one, not too fond of followers of a (made up?) god of discrimination, apartheid, dishonesty, blood, terror, and war. (That Islam is "The religion of peace" is a joke or an al-taqiyya (a lawful lie) you will see if you read the some 22 - 24 surahs from Medina.)

Some central facts about Muhammad, the Quran, and Islam:

A. Born ca. 570 AD. Married first a rich older widow. Started Islam in Mecca in 610 AD. Fled to Medina 13 years later - in 623 AD. Lived in Medina 10 years - as a highway-man, later robber baron/warlord (83? raids/wars, mostly for stealing/robbing, slave taking and extortion + later spreading Islam by the sword). Died quite rich with estates in Medina, Fadang and Khaybar in 632 AD.

B. 36 women known by name: 11 long time wives, (9 of them 20 - 36 years younger than him + favorite wife Aishah 6 years old (9 when sex started - he well past 50)), 16 short time wives, 2 concubines, and 7 who may be, may be not, really was married to him. Raped at least two girls/women; Rayhana bint Amr and Safiyya bint Huayay.

C. He in reality was not a prophet - he was unable to make prophesies, also according to the Quran and the Hadiths. See 9/88b and f.x. 65/1a.

D. He according to the Quran made no miracles - Islam today says: "The only miracle connected to him is the Quran".

E. He believed in using dishonesty (though al-Taqiyya and Kitman - f.x. 2/26h, 13/42 - formalized later), deceit/betrayal (f.x. the 29 from Khaybar murdered), and even broken words/promises/oaths (f.x. 2/224e, 2/225a, 5/89c, 16/91e).

F. He use lies even in the Quran - f.x. 6/7a, 6/28c, 6/109i, 7/120a, 20/70a.

G. He is speaking (f.x. 6/104c, 19/36b, 27/91a, 51/50-51) and MANY others referred speaking/acting in the Quran. How is that possible in a book claimed to be timeless and written before the world was created, if not 100% predestination?

H. If Allah predestines everything and according to his unchangeable Plan like the Quran states absolutely, man has no free will in Islam - mutually excluding each other, and thus impossible, in spite of Muhammad's and Islam's claims.

I. If Allah predestines everything and impossible to change, like the Quran states absolutely, prayers have no value or effect in Islam - mutually excluding each other, and thus impossible in spite of Muhammad's and Islam's claims.

"Muhammad lived far from the golden rule for moral: 'Do against others like you want others do against you', and as far from: 'Say the truth, or say nothing' - but he at least preached some of it".

There is a long distans between the historical, real Muhammad, and the semi-saint Muslims wish for and many even honestly are able to believe in.


SURAHS 11 THROUGH 20

The quotes and comments:


These are just tit-bits from the book "1000+ Quran-comments - skeptics' facts and thoughts". You will find the complete book under http://www.1000quran-comments.com. (The surah reference numbers are like in that book.)

In http://www.1000mistakes.com you find:

  1. Book A: "1000+ Mistakes in the Quran" - http://www.1000mistakes.com.
  2. Book B: "1000+ comments in Jihad - (un)holy war" - http://www.1000mistakes.com/jihad-holywar/index.php
  3. Book C (this one): "1000+ Quran-comments - skeptics' facts and thoughts" (1000+ tit-bits from the complete book) - http://www.1000quran-comments.php.
  4. Book D: "Correcting much wrong refuting on http://www.1000mistakes.com - and a lesson in Muslim ways of debating.
  5. Book E: "What the Bible really says - when the Quran uses legends, fairy tales, or phantasy, instead of the Bible as sources for 'Biblical' texts, like it often does. (Expected late 2011 or early 2012).

In http://www.1000quran-comments.com you find:

  1. "1000+ Quran-comments - skeptics' facts and thoughts" (the "complete" list - 20ooo+ comments on the Quran) - as said in http://1000quran-comments.php.

####001 11/1b: "(This (the Quran*) is a Book, with verses basic or fundamental (of established meaning) - - -." In plain words: The verses are in plain language and are to be understood literally where otherwise is not clearly said in "basic and fundamental" words. But all the same Muslims try explaining away anything which is wrong in the Quran and which they do not find "explanations" for, with that it "this is not to be understood literally it must be allegories", etc. It is one of their three "last" and often used - lines of defense" when errors in the Quran cannot be explained or explained away. (The other two are: "You cannot deduce anything from one or a few verses which looks wrong the Quran (or the surah) must be understood as a whole". And the really "low prose" one: "You are lying or making up things because you are an Islam-hater or are listening to Islam-haters" this no matter how correctly you are quoting the Quran or the Hadiths or whatever.) Also see 3/7b+c above and 19/97, 26/2, 27/1, 28/2, 41/3, 43/2, 44/2, 44/58, 54/17, 54/32.

A very essential point to remember when Muslims try to claim clear mistakes are allegories or similar. They often do. And Muslims trying to flee from indications or proofs in the Quran for that things are seriously wrong in the religion of Muhammad, might remember that the only main person they in case cheat, is omeself.

##002 11/2b: "(Say) ‘Verily, I (Muhammad') am (sent) unto you (people*) from Him (Allah*) - - -". According to Ibn Warraq and to Muhammad Asad the word "(Say)" does not exist in the Arab original. This means that here it is Muhammad who speaks. There are a few places (8? + angels speaking according to Ibn Warraq) like that in the Quran. But how is it possible that Muhammad speaks in a book (presumed to (?) be made by Allah or existed since eternity and sent down by Allah? (Some Muslims say the word is just forgotten but how many more words may then have been forgotten in the Quran?). Also see 2/286c.

003 11/4b: "(Allah*) hath power over all things". A claim which never was proved - like everything in the Quran and in Islam (for comparison: If either the Quran or the Bible is correct, Jesus proved his father's(?)/god's power and his own connection to something supernatural many times - Muhammad never).

004 11/7a: "He (Allah*) it is who created the heavens (plural and wrong*) and the earth - - -". Many, many places in the Quran you find Muhammad is claiming natural phenomena for his god - for glorification, for "sign" (normally "Quran-speak" for proof) or directly for "proof". He never even tried to prove or document it - there only was and is his word: The word of the man who was behind the institutionalization of al-Taqiyya (the lawful lie), Kitman (the lawful half-truth), breaking of promises and your words, included your oaths, the man who lived by "war is deceit" - and everything was war - etc. But cheap words like this any mullah - yes, even an ordinary believer - in any religion as easily can claim for his god(s) as long as he can avoid the requests for proofs - loose words and loose claims are as cheap as that - - - one of the reasons why they often are used for propaganda.

But such words and such claims have some things in common:

  1. Unless it is proved that the god really is behind the claimed phenomena, such words and claims are totally without any logical value.
  2. Without such proofs, they also are totally without any value as indications or proofs.
  3. Such claims also show that the user has no valid arguments or facts - if he had, he had used them instead.
  4. Invalid arguments normally are the hallmarks of persons trying to cheat you - be it a politician, a cheat, a deceiver, a swindler - Muhammad may have been all of this as he was going for power and for riches for bribes - and for women. And he was not the glossy semi-saint Muslims like to claim - just read the Quran about his demands and deeds and some lies, and you see this. Skip the glorifying words and claims, and read what he demanded, introduced and did, and you get the real picture - glorious words are cheap, demands and deeds are by far more reliable when you want the truth about a person.

005 11/7b: "He (Allah*) it is who created the heavens (plural and wrong*) and the earth in six days". It is said 6 days several places in the Quran, but:

  1. 41/9-12: Here Allah used 2 + 4 + 2 days = 8 days for the creation (Muslims claim that the two days for creating Earth is included in the 4 days. But the Quran is very clear: 2 days for creating Earth, then 4 days for creating what is on Earth, and finally 2 days for creating the 7 firmaments (wrong there only is one, and even that is an optical illusion except for the stars, etc.). No doubt about what is written. (Some Muslims also tries to tell that the Arab written word for day also may mean eon (the old Arab alphabet had no vowels or the points modern Arab use to signify special letters, and when one adds vowels, etc. as one likes, a lot different meanings are possible many places in the Quran.) But there is little doubt that the spoken word Muhammad used to his congregation was "day" and none of the accepted good translators use any other word. Eons also makes Allah and his capabilities to a joke: 2/117: "When He (Allah*) decreeth a matter, He said to it: ‘Be' and it is" should he use eons for this small job?) We also should remind you that this verse contradicts reality quite a lot: Creation of the universe has till now taken 13.7 billion years, and of Earth 4.567 billion - both processes are still continuing.

Once more: It took a lot of more time. And any god knows that - but Muhammad did not. Who made the Quran? Also see the 4 Mega Mistakes in "1000+ Mistakes in the Quran".

006 11/11b: "- - - righteousness - - -". The Quran's definition of the word is to live according to Islam's partly immoral moral code and Muhammad's words and deeds. Righteousness?

007 11/11c: "- - - for them (good Muslims*) is forgiveness - - -". There only are two who can forgive - the victim and a god. Thus Allah only can forgive if he exists and is a god.

008 11/13c: "He forged it (the Quran*)". Already at that time, many thought this. It is impossible to prove it - others (men or perhaps dark forces) may have made it. But what the Quran itself proves 100% - or 110% or more - is that it is not made by a god. No god makes that many and often big mistakes, that many contradictions, that many cases of invalid logic and unclear language, etc. It simply is heresy and slander imbecility to accuse a god for having made this book.

009 11/17f: "- - - the Book of Moses before it (the Quran*) - - -". Comment YA1512: "- - - the Holy Quran which is compared to the original Revelation given to Moses - - -". The Quran and Islam claims that all prophets of the old got a book similar to the Quran (not necessarily identical in all details, but similar - and the difference cannot have been big, as they and the Quran all were copies of the "Mother Book" mentioned in 13/39, 43/4 and 85/21-21, and revered by the god in his Heaven). There are not many knowledgeable non-Muslims who would get the idea that Moses got something similar to the Quran. Islam needs strong proofs here. The same goes for all the other Jewish prophets, included Jesus. We have not heard about one non-Muslim who knows both those books, who believe in such a claim. (Most of them do not even laugh when this is mentioned - it is too far out even for laughing.)

010 11/20c: "- - - protectors (gods*) besides Allah - - -". Except for in Arabia where the pagans had gods beside al-Lah (not Allah, but the original pagan god al-Lah whom Muhammad took over and renamed Allah*), no other places had gods besides Allah/al-Lah. They simply did not believe in this god and had their own - and if the Quran's claim that its god was for the entire world, the god had known that this expression was wrong. But by repeating and repeating it, Muhammad gave a picture of a god known all over - or at least had been known all over, but with competition from local (false) gods. Good psychology as long as the listeners accepts anything in blind belief.

011 11/25-49: The story about Noah is told several times in the Quran - the Quran is not very good literature in this way, too. The only known older source for information (?) about Noah, is the Bible - mainly 1. Mos. 5/28 to 9/28. Some of what is told about him in the Quran, is like in the Bible, some is a dramatizing of what is told about him in the Bible, some has little or nothing to do with what is told about him in the Bible - and some conflicts with what is told in the Bible. As Muhammad had no divine connections - no god was ever involved in a book of a quality like the Quran with all its mistakes, etc. and all its deplorable quality as literature - and thus had no sources of information that way, from where did he get this new information?

##012 11/31b: "- - - nor do I (Muhammad*) know what is hidden - - -". = I do not see the future = I cannot make prophesies. And a man who cannot make prophesies is no real prophet. (There are made other definitions for a prophet, but how many are willing to accept that a person unable to make prophesies is a real prophet? In the really old Israel the title even was "a seer" not "a prophet".) Muhammad just "borrowed" this weighty and glorious title, and may be needed one more alibi for that prophets could lack the ability to make prophesies. (But what kind of prophet is one such who is unable to make prophesies - and on top of all never is able to produce a single proof for a connection to a god?)

####013 11/35d: "If I (Muhammad*) has forged it (the Quran*) on me were my sin! But if Muhammad forged the Quran or parts of it, the resulting sins were very far from being only hitting him. Very far from! They will hit each and every Muslim living according to a made up religion in case (and too many facts indicate that this is the reality.) Especially terrible if there somewhere exists a real god Muslims have been prohibited from looking for.

014 11/40b: "- - - and the fountains of the earth gushed forth (and made the flood for Noah*) - - -." The Quran does not explicit say that the flood covered the entire world, and as there are no traces of such a flood found, many Muslims try to tell you that the flood only was regional. Not educated Muslims may honestly believe so, but the educated ones know that is one more untrue story another al-Taqiyya or Kitman because the Quran clearly tells that the Ark ended on a high mountain in Syria (According to Wikipedia it lies in Anatolia in Turkey), Mt. Al-Judi (11/44b), 2089 m high, something which demanded so high a level of water that it was physically impossible unless the flood was universal (the water had disappeared to non-flooded places if not). Perhaps 1000 - 2000 m above our sea level? - or more?

But that makes a problem for this verse. Really big quantities of water - giving may be 1000 m or more of water all over the globe - could not gush forth from the Earth without leaving huge empty holes in there either really empty, or at least with highly reduced pressure, (though most likely empty, as it is nearly impossible to compress water and then explain the gushing with expansion of the water (to compress water to double density, we have read that you need a pressure of 44000000 kg/cm2 or very roughly 30 times the pressure at the centre of Earth)). These holes would be too big (in order to contain enough water) to be stable, and would collapse. There is nowhere on Earth traces from such big collapses.

(It is here among other places you will meet the explanation like the flood = the filling up of the Mediterranean Basin a story so obviously an al-Taqiyya (lawful lie) that it is distasteful. That filling up happened 4 5 million years ago, and long before modern man existed. Besides it happened because Africa and Europe slowly drifted apart and the Strait of Gibraltar very slowly opened centimeters a year which means that the opening and thus the stream of water was small in the beginning. The filling up took a hundred years and may be much more, with the water level rising slowly one or a few meters a year and nothing like the cataclysm of the flood of Noah. Something no educated Muslim has an excuse for not checking up before telling stories like this, especially since this is a well known story among educated people, and they most likely were aware of the real facts before spinning such a tale. (There is a theory that the water may have dug out a canal much faster, but even in that case it took some years).

Also the filling up of the Black Sea a few thousand years ago cannot explain the Big Flood - not like that flood is described.

015 11/40e: "Embark therein (in the ark*) - - - (included*) the Believers". This tells that not only Noah and his family were on board, but also some followers. This contradicts the Bible, where only Noah and his family were there - included all his 3 sons (in the Quran one is lost). On the other hand, by introducing some poor followers (11/27) it was possible for Muhammad to make Noah's situation before the flood a parallel to his own in Mecca in 621 AD when this surah was released, and thus indicate that Muhammad's situation was rather normal for prophets.

016 11/43a: "The son (of Noah*) replied - - -". In that kind of weather neither a call nor a reply was possible the roaring of the wind and the crashing of the waves are far too noisy even if a short distance had been possible. In addition you have the effect of the wind "blowing away" the sound of your voice. Any god had known - then who made the Quran? Also see 11/42b above.

017 11/48b: "- - - Peoples (non-Muslims*) whom We (Allah*) shall grant their (some people*) pleasures (for a time), but in the end will a grievous Penalty reach them from Us (Allah*)". Muhammad's standard explanation for why non-Muslims often had a better life than Muslims: It was/is Allah's unfathomable decision - but take comfort; he will punish them in the end and you will come out on top. There is much comfort to be found in such a belief, especially for small souls.

###018 11/52e: "- - - sin - - -". Beware that when the Quran uses words like this, it is in accordance with its own partly immoral moral code. We also may mention that just this word often covers very different deeds, acts, words, and thoughts in the Quran and Islam, than in more normal religions (Islam is a religion of war - in spite of its loud slogans), not to mention how much its meaning in the Quran often differs from the basic of all human moral; "do against others like you want others do against you". Read the surahs from Medina and weep.

019 11/61e: "- - - it is He (Allah*) Who hath produced you from the earth." This is one of the may be 13 different ways man - Adam - is created according to the Quran. See chapter about the creation of man in "1000+ Mistakes in the Quran" - http://www.1000mistakes.com . Even if you are a creationist, Adam could not be created in more than one way, and evolutionists believe all the 13 ways the Quran claims he was created, are wrong, as man was not created, but developed from earlier primates. Even in modern Islamic litterateur you find that man was created, most often from clay.

020 11/69a: "There came Our (Allah's*) Messengers to Abraham - - -". It is clear from the following verses that these messengers were angels. But this is clearly contradicted by:

  1. 12/109: "Nor did we send before thee (humanity, man*) (as Messengers) any but men."
  2. 16/43: "And before thee (Muhammad*) also the Messengers we sent were but men - - -".
  3. 21/7: "Before thee (Muhammad*), also, the messengers we sent were but men".
  4. 25/20: "And the messengers whom We (Allah*) sent before thee were all (men) - - -."

Well, 3/42 - 6/130 - 11/69 11/77 11/81 19/17b 19/19 22/75 all say that not all were men. A nice little contradiction to 12/109 16/43 21/7 25/20 which all says all messengers were men.

(8 contradictions - actually many more, as each "yes" contradicts each "no").

021 11/78a: "- - - his (Lot's*) people - - -". The people of Sodom (outside which it is likely Lot lived just then) and Gomorrah were not the people of Lot. For one thing he was a foreigner from far away (Ur in Chaldea in what is now South Iraq, and it is likely Sodom and Gomorrah - if they are not fiction - was settled near the Dead Sea), and for another it is very clear from both the Bible and from the Quran that he was not naturalized into that culture or people. (But the Quran needs this remark to be able to claim that prophets were sent to their own people, like the Arab Muhammad to Arabs).

022 11/82c: "- - - brimstones - - -(see 11/82b just above)". A11/114 here has one of Muslim scholars' many dishonest comments to "explain" things: "If this supposition (the meaning of the name*) is correct, the "stones of petrified clay" would be more or less synonymous with "brimstones" (so far correct*), which in its turn would point to, which in its turn would point to a volcanic eruption - - -".

This is about as wrong geology as it is possible to get - and even worse: This is tertiary school level - no really educated scholar does not know that this is wrong. Clay is made only in one way: Stone is eroded to very fine grains, and these grains is then separated out in water - and can by chemical processes and physical pressure over millennia be petrified. What comes out of volcanoes, is magma. This can be of different qualities, but not one of those is even a distant relative of clay or clay stone. Any student knows there is a fundamental difference - or many differences - between sediment stone and eruptive stone.

And the comment continues: "- - - probably in connection with a severe earthquake - - -". Also scientific nonsense which educated people at least know enough about to know this they have to check on before they give it as an explanation: There often are minor and sometimes even medium earthquakes connected to volcanic eruptions, but the severe ones you only get in connection with tectonic activity (movement of the tectonic plates the Earth's consists of.) Volcanoes often are found in the intersection zones between tectonic plates, but volcanic eruptions and severe earthquakes come from two entirely different mechanisms. In addition even the worst volcanic eruptions do not unlash enough energy - and not fast enough - to produce a severe earthquake. (Though volcanoes once in a while produce explosions - but the earthquakes from these are reduced proportional to the inverse of between the 2. and the 3. power of the distance. Besides we have never heard about traces of such an explosion some 3800-4000 years ago near the Dead Sea.)

These "explanations" are scientific nonsense - and the facts are so well known, that scholars know it - or at least know enough to know they have to check on the facts before they write about it. This is not even a Kitman (a lawful half-truth), but it may be an al-Taqiyya (a lawful lie). Clay stones NEVER come from volcanoes. Never. Thus a volcano cannot explain a rain of clay stones.

One meets a bit too many Kitmans and al-Taqiyyas in Muslim religious literature, and grows a little disillusioned.

023 11/84d: "- - - Shu'ayb - - -". To place the special Arab claimed prophets chronologically, it seems that Islam claims the succession was this (YA1064): Noah (not Arab prophet, though*), Hud, Salih, Lot/Lut (not Arab), and Shu'ayb. Shu'ayb is said to be 4 generations after Lot, though we do not find this specified in the Quran. Lot of course was a contemporary of Abraham - his nephew. Abraham lived - if he is not fiction - ca. 1800-2000 BC according to science, which means that Shu'ayb (if not fiction) lived about one century later or a bit more, BC. Which makes impossible the Muslim claim that Shu'ayb was identical with the father-in-law of Moses, Jethro. Science tells that if the Exodus ever took place, it happened ca. 1235 BC, and if the Bible is correct Moses then was 80 years, which means he lived from ca.1315 BC to ca. 1195 BC (he became 120 years according to the Bible). There in case are some 300 - 500 years between Shu'ayb and Moses (and Jethro).

All prophets told about in the Quran, had experiences to Muhammad's. Hardly a coincidence - it "told" his followers and others that Muhammad's problems were "normal" for prophets, and thus that he was a normal prophet (true or not true).

024 11/91c: "Were it not for thy (Shu'ayb's*) family, we should certainly have stoned thee. For thou hast amongst us no great position!" Is it possible to make a closer parallel to Muhammad's position in Mecca in 621 when this surah was released? - he had to flee shortly after, because the support from his family grew weaker. It is strange how all prophets in the Quran fit Muhammad's position at the time when the respective surahs are launched - and thus "verify" that his position is normal for prophets, and thus that he is a normal prophet. Some co-incidence!

025 11/102b: "- - - wrong - - -". Beware that when the Quran uses words like this, it is in accordance with its own partly immoral moral code.

026 11/108e: (A11/134 in 2008 edition A11/135): (Good Muslims will stay in heaven forever), "except as thy Lord (Allah*) willeth - - -." Exactly nobody knows or understands what this means - the last part of the sentence is explained nowhere in the Quran. The same words are used about Hell in 11/107b (and similar in 6/128c, 43/74d, 50/13c, and 78/23), and some Muslim thinkers say it may mean that perhaps Hell will not last forever - at least not for all its inmates. Can Heaven come to an end? Can it change? Can it become ever better? Or what? Islamic scholars are bound by duty and indoctrination and by lack of training in critical thinking - to be optimists, and promises that nothing will happen "unless Allah wills to bestow on them a yet greater reward (which will not take much the Muslim heaven mainly is materialism and sex, and for women only materialism mostly because of all the houris who compete with them*) (Razi). But not one single soul has ever been able to do anything but guessing and hoping when it comes to this sentence. And as said before these variants also are in the Arab text, as the relevant word(s) there has/have more than one meaning or here: No clear meaning.

####027 11/114b: "- - - prayers - - -". These are the times for prayers (translated from Swedish):

  1. Fajr: Before dawn.
  2. Zuhr: Shortly after dinner time.
  3. 'Asr: During the afternoon.
  4. Maghrib: Shortly after sundown.
  5. 'Isha' After night has fallen.

Allah forgot(?) to tell how to arrange things in the high north and south - and Muhammad hardly knew there was a problem. Muslims later had to make rules for this themselves.

More serious: For Allah was the fixed prayers so essential, that he made it one of the pillars in Islam. Yahweh on the other hand, was/is totally uninterested in such formalism. One of the many proofs for that Yahweh and Allah are not the same god - if one or both exists.

As for the value of prayers in Islam, also see 62/9c. And if you combine 62/9c with 67/9c - a strong one - you get something thought-provoking. (And relevant here: Muslims often are thought that a question or problem can have 2 or more true and correct solutions - Islam is forced to teach this, because if not, many of the mistakes and contradictions in the Quran become too obvious. But this ONLY is true if parallel true solutions are possible. In cases where 2 or more possible solutions are mutually excluding each other, maximum 1 of the mutually excluding ones can be true. It should be a bit thought provoking for Muslims, that just this "small" difference in theoretical thinking and teaching, was one of the reasons (there were several of course) for why Europe and the West exploded into the Technical Revolution, while the Muslim area stagnated). Two star examples are: 1) Full predestination is not possible even for an omnipotent god to combine with even the smallest piece of free will for man - the two are mutually excluding. The same for full and unchangeable predestination long time before, combined with any claimed effect of prayers - the two are mutually excluding each other.)

028 11/115a: "- - - be steadfast in patience." Something all the world should know and remember: The Quran impresses and impresses and impresses "patient perseverance": Persevere and sooner or later the "enemy" tires and you have won, whereas the "enemy" must retreat or even accept you as his Master(s) - some future for non-Muslims!! We have visited most Muslim areas except south of Sahara, and there are few, if any, place we would like to live for a long time. A possible - possible - exception is Sabah on Borneo.

029 11/119c: "I (Allah*) will fill Hell with jinns (a being from old Arab pagan religion, legends, and fairy tales*) and men all together." A benevolent and good god? - Hell is no nice place. And he will fill it. Try to find something like this in the Gospels.


These are just tit-bits from the book "1000+ Quran-comments - skeptics' facts and thoughts". You will find the complete book under http://www.1000quran-comments.com. (The surah reference numbers are like in that book.)

In http://www.1000mistakes.com you find:

  1. Book A: "1000+ Mistakes in the Quran" - http://www.1000mistakes.com.
  2. Book B: "1000+ comments in Jihad - (un)holy war" - http://www.1000mistakes.com/jihad-holywar/index.php
  3. Book C (this one): "1000+ Quran-comments - skeptics' facts and thoughts" (1000+ tit-bits from the complete book) - http://www.1000quran-comments.php.
  4. Book D: "Correcting much wrong refuting on http://www.1000mistakes.com - and a lesson in Muslim ways of debating.
  5. Book E: "What the Bible really says - when the Quran uses legends, fairy tales, or phantasy, instead of the Bible as sources for 'Biblical' texts, like it often does. (Expected late 2011 or early 2012).

In http://www.1000quran-comments.com you find:

  1. "1000+ Quran-comments - skeptics' facts and thoughts" (the "complete" list - 20ooo+ comments on the Quran) - as said in http://1000quran-comments.php.

***030 12/1b: (A12/2) "These are the Symbols (or Verses (already 2 meanings in the text*)) of the Perspicuous (Arab: "mubin") Book." But the word "mubin" may refer either to the noun's quality (then "mubin" literally means something which is clear, obvious, manifest, etc.) or to its function (then "mubin" literally means something that is making something clear or obvious or -". Most Islamic scholars mean it refers to Joseph's ability to give interpretations of dreams. "The book makes the story it tells clear". There is no small distinction between those two meanings. Muslims will tell you both meanings are included. But the language is unclear here like many places in the Quran.

Pure Arab also is the language spoken in Heaven, according to some Islamic literature. This without consideration for that the Arab of Muhammad was a language mainly for primitive nomadic tribes - Heaven hardly was that primitive. When the language change, f.x. the meaning of words change or new words are added, do Arab get messages from Heaven about this? Or does Heaven follow language changes in Arabia? (Some Muslim sects - notably the Ammaddiyya - even have "proved" Arab also is the original language on Earth, believe it or not.)

031 12/1c: "- - - the Perspicuous Book (the Quran*)". A book with this many mistakes, invalid logical points, etc, hardly is perspicuous.

032 12/2a: "We (Allah*) has sent it down as an Arabic Quran - - -." An Arabic "holy book" meant something to Muhammad - he felt that the lack of such a book made the Arabs inferior to Jews and Christians.

###033 12/3b: "- - - the most beautiful of stories - - -." Please read the Quran. How many of the stories are beautiful, even seen from a religious point of view? Then read it ones more, and now you use your brain and omit all the glossy and glorious words, and read only the reality which are told by the demands and deeds and introduced rules in the book - the glossy words are the propaganda, the demands and acts and deeds and rules are the true and real stories. How many beautiful stories are left now - if any? The moral in the Quran some places is a mixture of "ugly", "horrible", and "inhuman".

034 12/7-18: The main story is like in the Bible, but not the details. This actually is the case for the entire story about Joseph. (From where did Muhammad get these new details which partly even contradict the Bible? As the Quran is not from a god, also these details are not from a god. Then there remain the alternatives; dark forces, illness, old tales, or making up things.)

035 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.

036 12/20a: "The brethren (of Joseph*) sold him (Joseph*) - - -". Historical anomalies. See 4/13d above.

***037 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 "good and lawful". Some religion!

038 12/26-27: "If it be that his (Joseph's*) shirt is rent from the front, then is her (the wife of Joseph's owner*) tale true, and he is a liar! But if it be that his shirt is torn from the back, then is she the liar, and he is telling the truth!" One thing is that this logic at best is valid as an indicium, not as a proof - but as mentioned Muhammad was very liberal with the use of the word "proof", as you see all over the Quran. But may be worse: This is not from the Bible - where did Muhammad get this from?

#039 12/30-34: This is not from the Bible. From where did Muhammad get it? (There many places are reason for using this question in the Quran - and Muslims claims:"From Allah". But as it is clear no god vas ever involved in a book of a quality like the Quran, only these possibilities remains: From dark forces - and the hate and blood and acceptance of dishonesty, not to mention the partly immoral moral code, etc. may indicate this. Or a mental illness - modern medical science believe he had TFL (Temporal Lobe Epilepsy), as both his religious "experiences" and the seizures Islam describes he had, indicates this. Or made up tales - Muhammad had a reputation for being a little naive when it came to discerning truth from made up tales, and the fact that most of the tales in the Quran are known apocryphal (made up) tales, legends, folk tales, and fairy tales from the old Arabia and its surroundings, may indicate this. Or Muhammad himself or some accomplice(s) made it all up - the very many cases of wrong facts which were believed to be correct at the time of Muhammad, which you find in the Quran, the fact that "everything" fitted Muhammad's position at the time when the surahs were released (nothing really pointed forwards - wishes, etc. yes, but no real facts about the future), and all the times Muhammad personally got help from Allah (like so many a self proclaimed prophet), may indicate this. Or may be a combination of 2 of more of these possibilities. (Just for the record: When mentioning this, we often lump the fairy tales, etc., together with the scheming, cold brain.))

040 12/31e: "Allah preserve us (some women in Egypt*)!" This tells indirectly, but clearly that the women were Muslim. But Islam was totally unknown in Egypt around 1700-1800 BC (Joseph lived something like a century after Abraham, his great grandfather, who lived around 1800-2000 BC according to science - if they were not both fiction. Or to recon the other way: Exodus was ca. 1335 BC. Then the Jews had lived in Egypt for 430 years according to the Bible (2. Mos. 12/40-41). This happened(?) a few years before the Jews moved to Egypt - if the numbers are correct it must have happened around 1770 BC. In Egypt people (likely except the Jews partly) were polytheists - no trace of monotheism is found at this time. (There was Akn Aton and his sun god, but not just then).

Muhammad claimed Islam had existed to all times and in all places - obviously wrong.

041 12/33c: "- - - the ignorant - - -". Normally in the Quran a name for non-Muslims But Muslims at the time of Joseph? - some 2000 - 2500 years before Muhammad and the first traces of Islam?

But it is quite telling that the Quran - and Islam - uses the expression "the ignorant" for persons not believing in Islam, no matter how well educated, intelligent, and knowledgeable they were about any other subjects. When the Quran speaks about knowledge, only knowledge about Islam and related subjects counted and for many still counts. Everything else was "foreign knowledge" and to be dismissed at best and fought against at worst - a good thing for the rest of the world, because this was one of the reasons why the war and suppression culture Islam stagnated, and gave humanity the chance to outpace it.

042 12/40b: "- - - for which Allah hath sent down no authority - - -". Allah does not have the power for sending down authority to anyone at all, if he does not exist - hardly so even if he exists, but belongs to the dark forces (all the mistakes in the Quran proves that he is no god if he was involved in that book).

043 12/43a: "The king (=pharaoh*) of (Egypt) said - - -". A historical anomaly. See 4/13d in the complete book - Booc C in http://www.1000mistakes.com .

044 12/43b: "The king (=pharaoh*) of (Egypt) said: '- - - Expond to me - - -'". How could this end up in the claimed "Mother Book" (of which the Quran is a copy according to Muhammad) billions of years before it was said or happened? 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 3 reasons - 2 of them unavoidable - for this:

  1. When something is changed, automatically the future is changed.
  2. The laws of chaos will be at work and change things, if even a tiny part is made different.
  3. 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".

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.

045 12/49a: "Then will come after that (period) a year in which the people will have abundant water - - -". But the Arab word that is used her, and that is translated with "abundant water" is "yughathu" or "yughath" which in reality is said to mean "to be relieved by rain" (Joseph Al-Fadi (Christian)). As also "The Message of the Quran" has this translation (translated from Swedish): "- - - a year when the people will be blessed by rain - - -", and has a similar comment to the word, and as we have met this translation before, we judge that Yusuf Ali has "stretched" his transcription a little (in case the true meaning is "rain", it tells something). In Egypt one has little and no rain it is the flood in the Nile which brings water - - - which means the Quran once more is wrong. ("The Message of the Quran" elegantly explains that it must mean rain further south in Africa, that made the Nile big, but this is not what the book says). Also see 12/49b just below.

*046 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 and his sun god). Similar claim in 12/52.

047 12/52d: "- - - Allah will never guide the false ones". Muhammad had as slogans "War is deceit" and "War is betrayal" - did Allah guide him in such falseness? And what about al-Taqiyya (the lawful lie) and Kitman (the lawful half-truth)? - or broken oaths (2/225a, 5/89a+b, 16/91e, 66/2a)?

048 12/52f: "- - - the false ones - - -". Beware that when the Quran uses expressions like this, it is in accordance with its own partly immoral moral code. You f.x. are not sinning if you find it necessary to be false to defend or promote Islam. Or if you are false to cheat a woman or defend your money - al-Taqiyya and Kitman are permitted in all these cases and some more.

049 12/64c: "- - - he (Allah*) is the Most Merciful - - -". Skipping the fact that the Bible tells his god was Yahweh, not Allah - the two gods and their teachings fundamentally are too different, so they cannot be the same god no matter what the Quran and Islam (like normal without the slightest documentation) claim - see 1/1a in the complete book, Book C in http://www.1000mistakes.com . Was and is Allah merciful?

050 12/75c: (A70 in 2008 edition A74): "They said: 'The penalty should be - - -." But who said this? If it was the Egyptians, that was the law one had to follow. If it was Joseph's brothers, it was an offer to the Egyptians, but not a consequence of a law one had to obey. The Quran does not give a clue and some Muslim scholars guess this, others that. Would an omniscient god use a language that so often is unclear, has double or even multiple meanings, and that so frequently demands guesswork? at least anyone who use the often unclerar language in the Quran as a proof for a god, is far out in the wilderness.

051 12/76g: "He (Joseph*) could not take his brother (Benjamin*) by the law of the king - - -". This is rubbish to use polite words. One thing is that Joseph was not after his brother Benjamin - Benjamin had not wronged him. He was after his half-brothers - to frighten them (hardly any more). But the main point is that in a full dictatorship like the old Egypt, the king/pharaoh AND his highest officers could - and can - do almost what they wanted, included detain a man or more. At most they had to find an excuse. F.x. Joseph could use the excuse he according to the Bible used to hold back in prison his half-brother Simeon from the first trip (1. Mos. 42/12-24). This storey is told by someone who did not know what he was talking about, or someone who did not have a more creative mind - - - and to believe it, also the listeners had to be little bright or little knowledgeable.

052 12/83a: "Jacob said - - -". According to the Bible the brothers made 2 trips to Egypt before Jacob emigrated there. In the Quran there seems to be 3 trips: 1. trip arrives in 12/58, home 12/63. 2. trip arrives in 12/69, home in 12/83 to tell Jacob that Benjamin was a thief. 3. trip arrives in 12/88, home in 12/96-97. Contradiction and not a small one really, as the whole story gets a mix-up.

053 12/93a: "Go with this my (Joseph's*) skirt - - -". This story is not in the Bible. If Allah really made the Quran, it may be true. If not also this part of the Quran is made up, as there existed no other source who should tell the maker of the Quran this story some 2400 years later - except perhaps legends and fairy tales - - - and perhaps black forces.

054 12/98b: "Soon I (Jacob*) will ask my Lord (here indicated to be Allah*) for forgiveness for you". Why - if Allah predestines everything, the brothers only did what Allah forced them to do, and is there then a reason for asking for forgiveness? - and besides: If Allah has predestined everything according to a plan nobody and nothing can change, like the Quran states many places, why spend time and effort on prayers, when they can change nothing?

055 12/101f: "Take Thou (Allah) my (Joseph's*) soul (at death) as one submitting to Thy (here indicated Allah's*) Will (as a Muslim) - - -". For one thing there is nothing even remotely similar to this in the Bible, and for another: This text is incompatible with the Bible to say the least of it - according to the Bible Joseph's god was Yahweh, not Allah, and according to facts neither science, nor Islam has found one single trace of Muslims/Islam older than 610 AH - Joseph (if he is not fiction) lived 2000-2500 years earlier.

056 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.

##057 12/108a: "- - - evidence clear - - -". There is not one single clear evidence neither for Allah nor for Muhammad being a prophet in all the Quran. Not one. (There may be some exceptions for evidences for a god in points taken from the Bible, but those in case are proofs for Yahweh, not for Allah those two gods cannot be the same one, unless that god is mentally ill schizophrenic as the teachings are fundamentally too different, especially like one meets Yahweh in "the new covenant" in NT f. ex. Luke 22/20). Also see 2/99. NB: Islam admits they have no real proofs for Allah, and that it is impossible for them to find any. (If they had had one, you bet they had brandished it all over.)

A small tit-bit here: There does not even exist a reliable proof for the existence of Muhammad. Oh, it is likely he is a historical person, but no reliable proof exists - you will find scientists honestly believing he is a made up person created to become the "salvator" in a new religion emerging in Arabia around 600 AD.


These are just tit-bits from the book "1000+ Quran-comments - skeptics' facts and thoughts". You will find the complete book under http://www.1000quran-comments.com. (The surah reference numbers are like in that book.)

In http://www.1000mistakes.com you find:

  1. Book A: "1000+ Mistakes in the Quran" - http://www.1000mistakes.com.
  2. Book B: "1000+ comments in Jihad - (un)holy war" - http://www.1000mistakes.com/jihad-holywar/index.php
  3. Book C (this one): "1000+ Quran-comments - skeptics' facts and thoughts" (1000+ tit-bits from the complete book) - http://www.1000quran-comments.php.
  4. Book D: "Correcting much wrong refuting on http://www.1000mistakes.com - and a lesson in Muslim ways of debating.
  5. Book E: "What the Bible really says - when the Quran uses legends, fairy tales, or phantasy, instead of the Bible as sources for 'Biblical' texts, like it often does. (Expected late 2011 or early 2012).

In http://www.1000quran-comments.com you find:

  1. "1000+ Quran-comments - skeptics' facts and thoughts" (the "complete" list - 20ooo+ comments on the Quran) - as said in http://1000quran-comments.php.

***058 13/1g: "(the Quran*) is the Truth".

  1. There are many mistaken "facts" which history, geography, archaeology, literature, art, etc., proves are wrong. (At least unbelievable 1700+ !!! places with mistaken facts, and perhaps 3000+ errors all together).
  2. There are "more than 100 divergences (mistakes*) from the rules and structure of normal Arab language", according to Ali Dashi "Twenty-three years".
  3. There are verses where it clearly is Muhammad who is speaking, in stark contradiction to all statements that the book is made by Allah or has existed from eternity (though some of the places - f.x. 6/114a in Yusuf Ali or 27/91a in Pikthall or Dawood - the mistakes are camouflaged by dishonest translators inserting the word "Say", according to Ibn Warraq.)
  4. The Quran states that the Quran is in pure Arab language. But according to al-Suyuti there are at least 107 foreign words used in the book, and Arthur Jeffery (specialist in Arab and in non-Arabic words in the Quran) says ca. 275 words from Aramaic, Hebrew, and Greek, and also from Syria, Ethiopia, and Persia. Even the word Quran is said to be from Syria. (The Arabs later found an excuse for those mistakes: Al-Tha'alibi tells that the Arab started to use those words and made them Arabic. An easy but dishonest explanation.)
  5. They used an alphabet without vowels, and to make it even worse, when writing the Quran/surahs in the old time, they did not even use the small points newer Arab uses to specify different letters. Because of this it often is difficult or impossible to know which word is meant. To use an English example: If you only have the consonants "h" and "s" and put in vowels, the result may be "house" or "hose" or "his" or "has". Because of this there are thousands of possibilities for mistakes - or different meanings. Muslims tell the Quran was finished not later than 656 AD, but that is not true - only the simplified version using the old unfinished alphabet was used then was finished by Caliph Uthman not later than 656 AD, and lots of versions were written as the language and the alphabet were completed. Not until 900 AD was the Quran really finished, and by then there existed numbers of versions. Muslims under the very learned Ibn Mohair (died 935 AD) finally canonized 14 versions (see Preface of "1000+ Mistakes in the Quran"). Over the centuries 11 fell out of use, and then one more - today there are mainly two - one dominant (Hafs) and one somewhat used in parts of Africa (Warsh). After all that, how can anybody pretend that the Quran of today is sent down from Allah letter-by-letter and comma-by-comma? the comma did not even exist!
  6. The language in the original Quran was so little exact, that there frequently is necessary to insert explanations.
  7. And how then can anyone pretend that the language in the Quran of today is perfect and correct language word for word and meaning for meaning just as dictated by Allah, when one knows that they spent 250 years "de-coding" the original texts and polishing the language?
  8. And even more so: How can anyone pretend with a straight face that the Quran(s) of today is the one and perfect one from Allah, when the clergy/religious leaders and the educated elite at least, know that there were at least 14 "correct" versions earlier (to camouflage that they were different versions, Muslims call them "ways of reading" you meet the word even today, because even today there are "different ways of reading") - versions that over the centuries by an arbitrary process was reduced to 3 and then to 1-2. (The one dominating today, most likely dominates because it happened to be used when Egypt printed Qurans in 1924, according to Ibn Warraq).
  9. Of the 14 and more versions which existed, how can one be sure that the most correct versions were the ones which finally came to dominate? - or that those versions (Hafs and Warsh) had all interpretations of the primitive writings correct (especially as they are not quite similar)?
  10. There are lots of places in the Quran where the logic is wrong mainly because Muhammad draws conclusions or make statements without first proving that it really is Allah who made this and this. F.x. the sun and the moon and night and day may be good proofs for Allah, but ONLY if it first is proved that it really is Allah who made them and runs them. Muhammad never really proves anything essential. Never. He just claims or states. The results are invalid claims with invalid logic, not real "signs" or "proofs". Valueless. Or even worse, as the use of such arguments proves to the entire world that he has no real and true facts/arguments. Still even worse: The use of bluffs is the hallmark of cheats and deceivers.
  11. "Proofs". The facts in the point above are even more essential here in this point - in points where he indicates or even uses the word "proof". The problem is the same, and the only possible conclusion is the same: Valueless demagogy that proves that he had no real and true facts/arguments. Even worse: The use of invalid arguments is the hallmark of cheats and deceivers.

There is little reason to believe the Quran ever was perfect and without mistakes, and even less reason to believe that the Quran of today is so (it simply is not). This even if you omit all the mistakes we know about. At very best the book only is partly true. Also see 13/39a+b below.

059 13/3f: "(Allah set on the Earth*) mountains standing firm - - - verily in these things are Signs for those who consider". Mountains are not set, but grow - and they grow from tectonic or volcanic activity, not from the work of a god, unless a god proves this wrong. But the mission of the mountains according to the Quran, is that they stand firm and stabilizes Earth so it do not start wobbling and tips over. (Muslims normally claim the books means it stabilizes against earthquakes, but this is what the Quran really says, not earthquakes. Besides even this Muslims "explanation" is wrong - mountains have no stabilizing effect against earthquakes - on the contrary sometimes).

060 13/6c: "They (non-Muslims*) ask thee (Muhammad*) to hasten the evil - - -". Muhammad's surroundings asked him for proofs for his tales and his claimed god. One method was to dare him/his god to do things against them. Muhammad never was able to anything of this or in any other way prove his words or his contact with anything supernatural.

##061 13/11a: "For every (such person (here in reality everybody*)) there are (angels) in succession (= working shifts*), before and behind him - - -". Remember this and similar verses each time the Quran or a Muslim tells you that angels could not visit Muhammad and prove to his followers and doubters and opponents that he spoke the truth, because the sending down of angels meant that the Day of Doom had arrived.

062 13/14d: "- - - any others (other gods than Allah*) they call upon besides Him hear them (not*) - - -". May be they are in the same boat as Muslims? - also Allah to this date - during 1400 years - has never one single time given an answer unmistakably from him. Lots of claims, but never a proved case (guess if the world had known it if it had happened even once!)

#063 13/16g: "Or (is*) the depth of darkness equal with Light?" There is much darkness in a war religion with a partly immoral moral code - and little light in a "holy" book not from a god.

064 13/19a: "(Is a good Muslim*) like one who is blind?" Blind belief often is stronger blindness than blind eyes. Besides: Who is worst off - the one blindly believing in wrong facts like Muslims, or the one checking his facts?

065 13/20: "- - - the Covenant of Allah - - -". Is there anywhere a proof for this claimed covenant? We may add that it has no value if Allah does not exist or if he exists, but has not agreed to it. As Allah is no god if he is behind the Quran - no god is behind a book of that quality - the situation becomes interesting if Allah exists and is from the dark forces.

We also are reminded of the Boers who made a covenant with Yahweh without checking if Yahweh agreed to the covenant or took part in it.

066 13/22a: "- - - patiently persevere - - -". This is an expression the world - and American presidents - should never forget: The Quran repeats and repeats and repeats: If you stay on and persevere, in the end you always win, because the "enemy" grows tired and gives in - retreats or even accepts you as his/their lord.

##067 13/2324b: "Gardens of perpetual bliss: they (Muslims*) shall enter there, as well as the righteous among their fathers, their spouses, and their offspring - - - how excellent is the final Home." And all shall live in luxury - and plenty of sex for the men. Totally incompatible with the Bible, and at least a 110% proof for that with so different paradises, yahweh and Allah are not the same god - in Yahweh's paradise you "will be like angels" (f.x. Luke 20/36).

068 13/25c: "- - - after having pledged their words - - -". There are few things as serious as for a Muslim to leave Islam. The penalty may be severe. "No compulsion in religion".

069 13/27d: "The Unbelievers say: 'Why is not a Sign sent down to him (Muhammad*) from his Lord (Allah*)?" Signs were dearly needed and would clearly have meant something - but Muhammad was unable to deliver one. Did not Allah want? Or was Muhammad not really his representative? Or was Allah a fiction? Who knows as long as nothing is proved? - it is possible to believe, especially if one wants to, but there is no knowledge without a proof - this also goes for religion. (Also see f. ex. 13/7a and 13/7c above.)

###070 13/27e: (A13/48 - in the English 2008 edition 13/49): "- - - their (humans'*) original, innate faculty to realize the existence of Allah and their own dependence of His guidance - - -". Science has nowhere and to no time found such an "innate faculty" concerning any god. This includes all Islamic universities and other Islamic research centers. (Guess if Muslim newspapers and others had had big letters on their front pages if such a faculty had ever been found!) But Islam needs arguments even like this, as there is no clear documentation for any of their central religious claims. Scientifically it is not even "goblydygock".

071 13/29a: "For those who work righteousness, is (every) blessedness, and a beautiful place of (final) return". If the Quran is from a god and in addition tells only the truth, but the full truth, this is nice. But where does this leave the Muslims even in this case? - some parts of f.x. their moral code and their rules for aggression and war are horrible and has nothing to do with real righteousness (even though Muslims are so used to these rules and codes themselves, that they honestly think they are glorious).

And where it leaves the Muslims if the Quran is not the full and only truth, but there all the same is a next life, we refrain from mentioning.

072 13/33c: "Is then He (Allah*) - - - (like all the others) - - -". Difficult to say, because of no reliable information. But if he does not exist, he is like all other non-existing, made up gods. He is no real god if he is behind the Quran - too much is wrong there. If he exists and belongs to the dark forces, he may be like others from those forces.

073 13/38b: "We (Allah*) did send Messengers before thee (Muhammad*), and appointed for them wives and children - - -". We quote A1861: "All prophets of whom we have any detailed knowledge, except one (Jesus*), had wives and children (= Muhammad was a normal prophet also in this way - well, extra normal with 36 known women). But this claim needs a selective use of the expression "detailed knowledge". Not all prophets are known to have had wives - f.x. not John the Baptist - and for many that situation simply is not mentioned in the Bible. Use the expression "detalied knowledge" selectively enough, and you get the answer you want.

But more dishonest her - a Kitman (lawful half-truth) - is that one does not mention that none - not one - of the prophets in the Bible had a harem (beware that f.x. David and Solomon are kings, but not reckoned among the prophets in the Bible). Of claimed prophets only Muhammad had - science knows the name of 35 women who for shorter or longer time belonged to his harem (in addition there was Khadijah, but she died before he got a harem). Also in this way Muhammad does not belong in the line of Yahweh's prophets in Israel.

###074 13/41a: "See they (non-Muslims*) not that We (Allah/Muslims*) gradually reduce the land (in their (non-Muslims'*) control) - - - ".No comment necessary. But this sentence should NEVER be forgotten by non-Muslims.


These are just tit-bits from the book "1000+ Quran-comments - skeptics' facts and thoughts". You will find the complete book under http://www.1000quran-comments.com. (The surah reference numbers are like in that book.)

In http://www.1000mistakes.com you find:

  1. Book A: "1000+ Mistakes in the Quran" - http://www.1000mistakes.com.
  2. Book B: "1000+ comments in Jihad - (un)holy war" - http://www.1000mistakes.com/jihad-holywar/index.php
  3. Book C (this one): "1000+ Quran-comments - skeptics' facts and thoughts" (1000+ tit-bits from the complete book) - http://www.1000quran-comments.php.
  4. Book D: "Correcting much wrong refuting on http://www.1000mistakes.com - and a lesson in Muslim ways of debating.
  5. Book E: "What the Bible really says - when the Quran uses legends, fairy tales, or phantasy, instead of the Bible as sources for 'Biblical' texts, like it often does. (Expected late 2011 or early 2012).

In http://www.1000quran-comments.com you find:

  1. "1000+ Quran-comments - skeptics' facts and thoughts" (the "complete" list - 20ooo+ comments on the Quran) - as said in http://1000quran-comments.php.

*075 14/1f: "- - - in order that thou (Muhammad by means of the Quran*) mightest lead mankind out of the depths of darkness and into light - - -". No book with that many mistakes and that doubtful moral can lead anyone into light. The same goes for any religion so suppressing, inhuman and so full of Nazi-like ideology (before you protest, beware that these are not our words), discrimination, blood and war, and "all power to Muhammad/the leader".

076 14/4d: (A14/4): "Now Allah leaves straying those whom He pleases." Or may be "- - - Allah lets go astray him that wills - - -"? The first one is the literal meaning, though both are possible from the Arab text. But it paints a truly unsympathetic picture of the benevolent god Allah, so Muslim scholars to a large degree agrees on that something like the second meaning must be the true one. If it is clear, but do not fit the picture one likes, then explain that it is unclear and in reality means something else - the god has not been able to express himself correctly. And as said many times before; these variants also are in the Arab text, as the relevant word(s) there has/have more than one meaning.

077 14/6d: "(Pharaoh Ramses II*) slaughtered your (the Jews'*) sons, and let your women-folk live: therein was a tremendous trial from your Lord". According to the Bible this was a misdeed from the Pharaoh, not a trial from the god.

###078 14/10a: "Is there a doubt about Allah - - -?" Yes, there clearly is:

  1. The absolute only source for the claims of his existence, the Quran, is a book so full of mistakes, contradictions, etc. that it is highly unreliable.
  2. This book was dictated by a man with lust for power, a moral which was pretty amoral - cfr. his acceptance of lying (al-Taqiyya, Kitman and breaking of oaths), thieving, enslaving, womanizing/rape, murder, etc. - and possibly with a mental illness (TLE?).
  3. It is claimed that the religion is from Adam and before, but not one single trace of any kind older than 610 AD exists anywhere.
  4. There never was any kind of reliable proof for any of the claims - including the existence of Allah. Absolutely nothing."
  5. Allah has never - neither before Muhammad, nor during Muhammad's life, nor after Muhammad given one single reliable sign showing that he exists".
  6. The only possible conclusion is that there are good reasons for strong doubts about Allah's existence.
  7. And even if he should exist there are good reasons for strong doubts about how he wants his followers to behave - partly because there is so much difference between Islam before 622 AD and after 622 AD when Muhammad started to need warriors, and partly because so much is wrong in the book, that also the claim about a possible Allah may be wrong.

##079 14/12a: "No reason have we (Muslims*) why we should not put our trust in Allah". Wrong. All the mistakes, etc. in the Quran proves 100% that it is not from a god. And all the mistaken facts which are in accordance with wrong science in the Middle East at the time of Muhammad, strongly indicate that it is made by one or more humans in Arabia at the time of Muhammad. In both cases the religion is a made up one, and Allah may not even exist. In addition one has the fact that Muhammad simply lied when it fitted him and did not even respect his own oaths. There is every reason for not putting any trust in Allah. Similar claim in 5/84.

080 14/12d: "Indeed He (Allah*) has guided us (Muslims*) to the Way we (follow)". But going where? - with a guidebook full of mistakes and not from a guide/(god)! (If Allah here should happen to be from the dark forces, then "bonne voyage" - - - and mercy to the followers!)

081 14/24-25: This must be understood like if a man brings forth good deeds, he will receive admonition. And of course the best of deeds was to go to war when Muhammad wanted.

082 14/31c:"- - - the Sustenance We (Allah*) have given them (Muslims*) - - -". It is Allah who gives you everything (and as everything is predestined and you will get what Allah has decided, then why work?)

833 14/35b: "Remember Abraham said: 'O my Lord! Make this city (Mecca*) one of peace and security; - - - ". Abraham never visited Mecca. Besides: There was no city at the time of Abraham this both according to reality and to the Quran. Remember how Hagar run back and forth there without finding people and without finding water. And even the nearby verse 14/37 mentions a valley, but no town. Mecca as a town was only some generations old at the time of Muhammad - some 2500 years after Abraham. Wrong and a contradiction with both the Quran and with reality. Also see 2/127a above and 14/35c just below.

084 14/37b: "- - - a valley without cultivation - - -". Remember this when Muslims claim Abraham lived in or near the Valley of Mecca when he sent away Hagar and Ishmael, and that they therefore ended up living in that valley and town (the town/city did not exist then, also according to the Quran - Hagar could not find people at all). This valley was a dry and rather narrow desert valley - according to the Quran not even the Zamzam well existed then. Abraham was a rich nomad with big flocks of all kinds of domesticated animals - so big that according to the Bible Lot and he had to split up because their flocks were so big that the land could not feed and water them when they stayed together (1. Mos. 13/5-9). A man with so big flocks of animals should travel with his everything deep into the desert and settle in a dry desert valley without food or water for his animals - and far from where he lived in Canaan - now ca. central Israel west of Jordan. This on top of everything else we know about Abraham and his travels.

Believe it who is able to. (Singular with a reason - there cannot be many, except perhaps in religious blindness.)

And even more: When Lot and Abraham split up, Lot choose the eastern part with Jordan Valley and down along the Dead Sea (where it is likely Sodom and Gomorra lay) - and thus the "neighborhood" of the border of Arabia - whereas Abraham settled in Canaan = further west towards the Mediterranean Sea. To get to Mecca a normal way, he thus had to cross all the territory of Lot with his huge flocks of animals, and march hundreds of miles (multiply by 1.6 to get km) away from home, partly through harsh desert, to get to Mecca - a place where nothing existed at that time.

Any further comments necessary?

085 14/37c: "- - - Sacred House - - -". The Kabah in Mecca. Muhammad claimed its original foundation was made by Adam, and its next one by Abraham and Ishmael = some 3800 - 4000 years old. In addition to all the other improbabilities here which deny this, it today is possible to find out how old the oldest parts of Kabah are. As far as we know, Islam has not tried to find out - their own belief in the Quran is not strong enough to run the risk of finding an age of f. ex. 1900 years.

Besides they have a problem: They will have to use a non-Muslim expert to find out. Because of al-Taqiyya no-one will really believe any Muslim claiming he has found an age of f.x. 3850 years for Abraham's stones (f.x. the one with his claimed foot-marks), and f.x. some 5700 for Noah's part if he was involved, not to mention if they found an age compatible with Adam's life.

086 14/52a: "Here is a message (the Quran*) for mankind - - -". Ok, but from whom? No god ever was involved in a book of a quality like the Quran, so who then? Dark forces? A sick brain? A cold brain? - or a combination of 2 or 3 of these?


These are just tit-bits from the book "1000+ Quran-comments - skeptics' facts and thoughts". You will find the complete book under http://www.1000quran-comments.com. (The surah reference numbers are like in that book.)

In http://www.1000mistakes.com you find:

  1. Book A: "1000+ Mistakes in the Quran" - http://www.1000mistakes.com.
  2. Book B: "1000+ comments in Jihad - (un)holy war" - http://www.1000mistakes.com/jihad-holywar/index.php
  3. Book C (this one): "1000+ Quran-comments - skeptics' facts and thoughts" (1000+ tit-bits from the complete book) - http://www.1000quran-comments.php.
  4. Book D: "Correcting much wrong refuting on http://www.1000mistakes.com - and a lesson in Muslim ways of debating.
  5. Book E: "What the Bible really says - when the Quran uses legends, fairy tales, or phantasy, instead of the Bible as sources for 'Biblical' texts, like it often does. (Expected late 2011 or early 2012).

In http://www.1000quran-comments.com you find:

  1. "1000+ Quran-comments - skeptics' facts and thoughts" (the "complete" list - 20ooo+ comments on the Quran) - as said in http://1000quran-comments.php.

087 15/1c: "These are the ayat of Revelation - - -". Well, is the Quran a revelation? and in case by whom? There theoretically are 5 possibilities:

  1. 1. A god but the Quran proves that is not the case; too many mistakes, etc.
  2. 2. Some dark forces, f.x. the Devil perhaps in disguise. Muhammad had not one chance to see the difference between Gabriel and the Devil dressed up like Gabriel. The inhuman religion of war may point in this direction.
  3. 3. A mental illness. Modern medical science suspects he had TLE (Temporal Lobe Epilepsy). This illness can give religious experiences and fits just like Muhammad is claimed to have had.
  4. 4. Humans at the time of Muhammad. The fact that many of the mistakes in the book are in accordance with wrong science in the Middle East at that time, may point in this direction.
  5. 5. Muhammad himself. Muhammad's lust for power - and women - may point this way. It also easily will explain point 4. Add his lack of ethics and moral and it also may explain point 2.
  6. The clear conclusion is that it at least was not revealed by a god, like the Quran claims - too much is wrong in the book. Points 3 and 5 may be the most likely ones - may be combined.

088 15/3a: "Leave them (the disbelievers*) alone, to enjoy (the good things of this life) and to please themselves - - -." Many places in the Quran you will find claims similar to this - that the reason why non-Muslims stay non-Muslims, was/is that they were/are so bent on living a good life - or a selfish or bad life - here on Earth, that they were not interested in the next life. Anyone knowing people will know that the truth was not as simple as that, but again it is a psychologically good idea to paint the opposition in dark colors and make them "small" and selfish and unwise - they do not "see the truth" because of stupidity and selfishness. It also makes "us" contrast favorably with "them", a psychology and a technique often used by manipulating leaders, especially in politics and in religion - it works especially well among naive and uneducated followers and among people who want to believe or who have tendencies to wishful thinking and with little of critical sense. Muhammad knew people.

089 15/7+8: "'Why bringest thou (Mohammad*) not angels to us if it be that thou hast (speak*) the Truth?' We (Allah*) send not the angels down unless for just cause: if they came (to the ungodly), behold, no respite would they have (it would suddenly be the Day of Doom*)."

It is no just cause to prove to millions of non-Muslims and to doubting Muslims that Islam is a true religion? See 6/8a+b+c above.

090 15/9c: "- - - We (Allah*) will assuredly guard (it (the Quran*) (from corruption)". Some Muslims mention this as a proof for that the Quran is an exact copy of Muhammad's words - Allah guards it against corruption, and then nothing can possibly have changed even a comma. But the history of the Quran is pretty turbulent, and many versions have existed - nobody knows how many. This mainly because of the unfinished Arab alphabet - it was not completed until around 900 AD. Finally 7 different editions were canonized, each of them in 2 versions = 14 different. Slowly most of them fell into disuse, and today there are 2 versions in daily use - after Hafs and after Warsh. So just you guess if the Quran has been corrupted!

091 15/17a: "- - - We (Allah*) have guarded them (the Zodiacal Signs*) from every evil spirit accursed: - - -" According to the Quran, the stars included the Zodiacal signs are fastened to the lowermost of 7 heavens (material ones they have to be if the stars can be fastened to one of them). But jinns/bad spirits wanted to spy on the heavens, and had to be chased away by stars used as shooting stars. And then the Zodiacal signs were guarded at the same time. According to science this is utter nonsense to at least the fifth power. Any god had known even baby ones but Muhammad not. Then who made the Quran with all its mistaken facts, etc.?

092 15/26b: "We (Allah*) created man from sounding clay - - -." But: This is contradicted by 6/2, 7/12, 17/61, 32/7, 38/71, and 38/76 that tell man/Adam was made from clay, 55/64 that tells man/Adam was made from ringing clay, 37/11 that tells man/Adam was made from sticky clay, 23/12, that tells man/Adam was made from essence of clay, 15/26, 15/28, and 15/33 that tell man/Adam was made from mud, 3/59, 22/5,35/11, 40/67, that tell man/Adam was made from dust, 20/55 that tells man/Adam was made from earth, 96/2 that tells man/Adam was made from a clot of congealed blood, 16/4, 75/37, 76/2, 80/19, that tell man/Adam was made from semen (without explaining from where the semen came), 21/30, 24/45, and 25/54 that tell man/Adam was made from water (NB! NB! Not in water, but from water!), 70/39 that tells man/Adam was made from "base material", and not to mention the greatest contradiction in this case: 19/9 and 19/67 which both tell that man/Adam was created from nothing. (Also see verse 6/2 in the chapters about the 1000+ mistakes in the Quran.) (Strictly reckoned this contradicts 28 other verses. But minimum 15 contradictions.)

##093 15/30a: "So the angels prostrated themselves (for Adam) - - -". Proving that man is something much higher than Allah's angels. And on background of that in the Bible angels are something of high esteem - not specified, but clearly higher than man - it at the same time is proving that there is a marked difference between the biblical angels of Yahweh and Allah's angels - a clear proof for that the two gods and their divine spheres are not the same, as their angels are of different value and standard compared to man - Allah's ones clearly much lower than Yahweh's , as they are lower than man.

094 15/33c: In short: Iblis' reason was racism to use a modern word but age old way of thinking. He does not point to that he is of a superior group of beings, but he points to a non-essential fact and uses this for setting himself in a higher position - an excuse for a claim of being superior, simply, just like in any earthly society built on discrimination. (It may be impolite to mention it, but Islam is a typical discrimination society: Muslims on top - for some strange reason in a discrimination society the "we" who set up the society always are on top - the "people of the book" lower, and the Pagans at the bottom, and with these layers subdivided according to how bad sinners, etc. the different persons are, etc. The old South Africa or South States of USA, but built on religion, not on color of skin.)

####095 15/46: "(Their (the righteous'*) greeting will be): 'Enter ye here in Peace and security". This is all very nice - but who are the really righteous ones? Remember here that real morality and ethics does not build on Muhammad's selfish, self centered, and primitive war related "moral" code, but on something like "Do unto others like you want others do unto you".

096 15/54b: "Do you give me (Abraham*) the glad tiding that old age has seized me?" Abraham is skeptical to the message because of his age (he was not older, though, than he later got 6 sons with a new wife, Keturah, something the Quran does not mention (1. Mos. 25/1-2).

097 15/71a "There are my daughters (to marry)". Here modesty has got the better of the Quran (or the translator). The men of Sodom or Gomorrah were not going for marriage - neither could a few daughters (Lot had 2 according to 1. Mos. 19/30) marry a lot of men. It is talk about sexual abuse. Most likely a dishonest translation but in that case: How many other places in the Quran are explained dishonestly?

098 15/73: "But the (mighty) blast overtook them before the morning". Contradicted by other places in the Quran telling they were killed by a rain of brimstones (f.x. next verse - 15/74). (Muslims "explain" this away with a volcanic explosion and eruption, but you do not get brimstones from volcanism.) It also is contradicted by the Bible which tells they were killed by a rain of burning sulfur (1. Mos. 19/24) - which by the way is possible to combine with volcanism. 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.

099 15/83b: "- - - a mighty blast seized them (non-Muslims*)- - -". Comment YA2004: "The mighty rumbling noise and wind accompanying an earthquake". There is no wind (and thus no blast) accompanying earthquakes - the mechanism producing wind is totally different, a fact even educated Muslim scholars know, but all the same they produces arguments like this. Intellectual dishonesty - there is a bit much of this in Islam. And in a religion using dishonesty/lies, how much is true of their arguments? - and of their religion?

100 15/89: "I (Muhammad*) am indeed he that warned openly and without ambiguity - - -". This may have been true in Mecca in 621 AD, but it changed to also to include enforcing as soon as he gained power in Medina a very few years later.

##101 15/99: "- - - the Hour that is Certain (the Day of Doom*)". Because of all the mistakes in the Quran, certainly also the Day of Doom is uncertain at least in the form described by the Quran as this easily may be an error, too. This even more so as all the mistakes in the book prove that it is not made by a god, and Muhammad was a self proclaimed prophet unable of prophesying, and who then is left to tell us the true future? (By the way: What is a prophet unable to prophesy? a title stolen because it sounds impressive? Muhammad never made real prophesies (there were a few sayings which are remembered because they happened to become true or partly true, but no real prophesying). Whereas a real prophet is a man/person making prophesies, and prophesies which at least mostly - or always - are coming true. The only possible conclusion: Muhammad was no real prophet; he only "borrowed" the title like so many other things he borrowed, and like so many self proclaimed "prophets" through the times. May be a messenger for someone or something perhaps for himself(?) - but not a genuine prophet.)


These are just tit-bits from the book "1000+ Quran-comments - skeptics' facts and thoughts". You will find the complete book under http://www.1000quran-comments.com. (The surah reference numbers are like in that book.)

In http://www.1000mistakes.com you find:

  1. Book A: "1000+ Mistakes in the Quran" - http://www.1000mistakes.com.
  2. Book B: "1000+ comments in Jihad - (un)holy war" - http://www.1000mistakes.com/jihad-holywar/index.php
  3. Book C (this one): "1000+ Quran-comments - skeptics' facts and thoughts" (1000+ tit-bits from the complete book) - http://www.1000quran-comments.php.
  4. Book D: "Correcting much wrong refuting on http://www.1000mistakes.com - and a lesson in Muslim ways of debating.
  5. Book E: "What the Bible really says - when the Quran uses legends, fairy tales, or phantasy, instead of the Bible as sources for 'Biblical' texts, like it often does. (Expected late 2011 or early 2012).

In http://www.1000quran-comments.com you find:

  1. "1000+ Quran-comments - skeptics' facts and thoughts" (the "complete" list - 20ooo+ comments on the Quran) - as said in http://1000quran-comments.php.

102 16/1g: "- - - far is He (Allah*) above having the partners (likely the other gods of the pagan Arabs, but other gods and Jesus may be included*) they (the pagan Arabs and perhaps the Christians*) ascribe unto Him (Allah*)!" Is Allah far above anything at all if the Quran is a made up book - and Allah perhaps a made up god?

103 16/2b: "He (Allah*) sent down His angels with inspiration ("ruh"*) - - -." It may here be worth reminding you that Yahweh did not use inspiration when giving messages to his prophets - he either used direct contact, visions or dreams (4. Mos. 12/6-8). Yahweh and Allah the same god?

104 16/11b: "- - - verily this (different food plants*) is a Sign for those who are given thought." Verily it will be - - - but not until the day when Islam proves it really was Allah who created these food plants. Until that day it only is a clear sign that Islam and the Quran only have claims and cheap words and no proofs to show. Because if they had real arguments, they did not have to resort to logically invalid claims only. (This is an unavoidable conclusion from some persons giving things thoughts).

*105 16/15b: "And He (Allah*) has set upon the earth mountains standing firm, lest it should shake with you; - - -". What the Quran here really means, is that the Earth can start wobbling and even perhaps drop you off, if the mountains do not keep the flat Earth stable. Modern Muslims normally claim the book talks about earthquakes - but mountains do not stabilize earthquakes, too - on the contrary sometimes - so also this "explanation" is wrong. You may also meet the claim that the Quran means the 10 - 60 km thick crust of the Earth can start wobbling on the liquid magma underneath, if mountains do not stabilize it (do not laugh - it is impolite).

106 16/20b: "Those (other gods*) whom they (non-Muslims*) invoke besides Allah create nothing and are themselves created". This may be correct - perhaps with exceptions for f.x. Yahweh (not the same god as Allah - too deep an fundamental differences in the teachings - - - and science and Islam both have proved there are no falsifications in the Bible, in spite of the Quran's claims, by finding that there are no falsifications in the known tens of thousands of relevant old papers). But a relevant, serious and never solved question: Is also Allah created? The quality of the Quran indicates, and all the mistakes prove that something is wrong. Also the fact that Muhammad some places speaks in the Quran proves this. Also see 21/30a below.

107 16/32d: "- - - enter ye (Muslims*) the Garden, because of (the good) which ye did (in the world)". Ones more serious difference between Yahweh and Allah: In the Bible you do not enter Paradise so much because of your good deeds - though they count - as because of the goodness of Yahweh, who forgives your bad deeds. In the Quran your good and bad deeds are weighted on a scale against each other (even though you can pray for forgiveness - but for unclear purposes, as for one thing Allah has predestined your destination, and for another nothing can change his predestined Plan, both facts according to many statements in the Quran), whereas in the Bible honest remorse and prayers for forgiveness removes the "debt of sins" and open the gate of Paradise.

As for the value of prayers in Islam, also see 62/9c. And if you combine 62/9c with 67/9c - a strong one - you get something thought-provoking. (And relevant here: Muslims often are thought that a question or problem can have 2 or more true and correct solutions - Islam is forced to teach this, because if not, many of the mistakes and contradictions in the Quran become too obvious. But this ONLY is true if parallel true solutions are possible. In cases where 2 or more possible solutions are mutually excluding each other, maximum 1 of the mutually excluding ones can be true. It should be a bit thought provoking for Muslims, that just this "small" difference in theoretical thinking and teaching, was one of the reasons (there were several of course) for why Europe and the West exploded into the Technical Revolution, while the Muslim area stagnated). Two star examples are: 1) Full predestination is not possible even for an omnipotent god to combine with even the smallest piece of free will for man - the two are mutually excluding. The same for full and unchangeable predestination long time before, combined with any claimed effect of prayers - the two are mutually excluding each other.)

####095a 16/35e: YA here has an interesting comment (YA2057: "- - - the limited free will granted to man, which is the whole basis of Ethics". The Quran claims man has free will. As this obviously is wrong, as Allah predestines everything, some Muslims try to save the day by adjusting it to that the book and Allah in reality mean limited free will. The flat reality, though, is that if Allah decides everything, like the Quran states MANY places there is nothing left for man to decide. Thus also "limited free will" is an impossibility. Worse: The fact that if Allah decides everything, there is nothing left for man to decide, is such a simple mathematics, that it is not possible YA and all other learned Muslims do not know it. x - x = 0. There exists no other possible answer. All the same they use this argument - and many simpleminded or uneducated or wishful believers believe it. You meet a little too much of this kind of dishonesty in Islamic literature.

But the really interesting point just here, is that YA clearly states the obvious: If man has no free will, all ethical questions concerning him disappears. What you are forced to do, tells nothing about your ethics. But on the other hand it tells a lot about the ethics of the one who forces you to do it. Not to mention what it tells about the ethics of the one forcing you, if he punishes you for bad things he has forced you to do. Allah predestines everything according to his Plan, according to the Quran. All the same Allah punishes you for the bad deeds he forced you to do to follow his Plan. What kind of god is this?!!

Thus Islam has two - or actually at least three - problems concerning predestination where the contradictions are so strong, that they are unsolvable even for an omniscient and omnipotent god:

  1. If Allah predestines everything like the Quran states most clearly many places, there is no room for free will of man, not even for "partly free will". x - x = 0 simply, and no other answer is possible. (Also full clairvoyance from Allah would be impossible - with free will man always could change his mind once more.) It also is symptomatic that we no place in Muslim literature have met an explanation for how "partly free will" should be possible. Like so much in Islam, it just is a claim hanging on nothing.
  2. If Allah predestines everything, and you thus just do what he has decided you shall do, how is it then ethically and morally possible to punish you for bad deeds? - and for that case reward you for good deeds? What kind of god is this?!
  3. ##########################And the third problem - one Muslims and Islam NEVER mention: If Allah predestines everything, and does so according to his unchangeable Plan like the Quran states many places - and decides it even years and decades before it is to happen (your death and whether you are to end in Hell or Heaven f.x. are decided 5 months before you are born according to Hadiths) - there is no value in prayers, as prayers like everything else can have no effect on his decisions made according to his Plan which nobody and nothing can change.

These are the reasons why you meet Muslims claiming that Allah's predestinations are not real predestinations, without explaining what it then is - and in stark contradiction to many clear statements in the Quran. And why you meet Muslims claiming the impossible - and as so often in Islam without logical explanation for how it is possible - that man has free will or at least partly free will, in spite of the 100% predestination stated frequently in the Quran, "because the claim has to be true because Allah says so in the Quran".

#####108 16/38j: "- - - a promise (binding) on Him (Allah*) - - -". Not least: How binding is a promise for a claimed god who accepts and he himself uses dishonesty (f.x. al-Taqiyya - the lawful lie - and Kitman - the lawful half-truth), deceit ("Allah is the best of 'planners' (our quotation marks - because this verse indicates he uses deceiving plans*)" and "war is deceit"), and even broken words/oaths (according to the Quran - 2/225a, 5/89a+b, 16/91b, 66/2a)?

109 16/42c: "- - - persevere in patience - - -". Words non-Muslims should never forget: The Quran again and again and again tells that if Muslims only persevere, the opponents sooner or later tires and have lost. The book too often has been right, because democracy is weak on this point; in conflicts too many are not willing to pay the price for victory if it takes time and effort - not unless they have the back against the wall.

16/44b: "- - - Clear Signs - - -". Allah never has sent one single unmistakable sign for his existence - never since Adam till today. As Muslims claim that Allah = Yahweh, they may refer to the signs in the Bible. But as the abyss between the basic ideas in those two religions by far is too big to have come from the same god, also this never proved claim from the Quran is wrong - the miracles in the Bible in case they are right, only document Yahweh.

110 16/52a: "To Him (Allah*) belongs whatever is in the heavens (plural and wrong*) and on earth - - -". Often claimed, never proved - nothing of any consequence is proved in Islam.

111 16/58b: "When news is brought to one of them (Arabs at the time of Muhammad*), of (the birth) a female (child), his face darkens, and he is filled with inward grief! With shame does he hide himself from people, because of the bad news he has had!" It hardly is as bad today, but only a boy is a boy in many Muslim societies.

###112 16/63e: "- - - but Satan made, (to the wicked), their own acts seem alluring - - -". Compare the Quran's ethical and moral codes to "do unto others like you want others do unto you". Do you start thinking? (This question we found on Internet.)

###113 16/63f: "- - - he (Satan*) is also their (bad non-Muslims'*) patron today - - -". No comments. But if Muslims accuse us or you for negative words about Muslims or Muhammad, there are some points in the Quran which are difficult to surpass. Practical to know if you are accused of indecency towards Muhammad or something sometime.

114 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.

##115 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.

116 16/81i: "- - - His (Allah's*) favors to you - - -". There has never been documented one case of proved favor from Allah from the time of Muhammad and till this day - lots of claims, but not one clear case.

117 16/89e: "- - - We (Allah*) have sent down to thee (Muhammad*) the Book (the Quran*) - - -". Yes, that is the big question for Islam. If Allah exists, and if he sent down the Quran, and if Muhammad retold everything correctly - f.x. did not "doctor" the surahs in Medina to get warriors or peace in his family - then Islam is a religion. If it is not true, what then? - and what happens in case to all Muslims if there is a next life run by a real god they have been prohibited to search for? - especially if they have lived according to the harsh, discriminating and bloody parts of the Quran, and the possible god is one teaching love and "do unto others like you want others do unto you"? Can a book full of mistakes, etc. be sent down by a god - not to say an omniscient one? Flatly no.

118 16/90a: "Allah commands justice - - -". Contradicted by f.x. the sharia law demanding strict punishment for a raped woman if she cannot show 4 male witnesses who have actually seen the rape (and who in many cases will be punished for not helping her) - perhaps the most horribly unjust and shameful law which exists on this whole Earth. And also contradicted by the immoral parts of the Quran's moral code.

####119 16/92g: "- - - on the Day of Judgment He (Allah*) will certainly make clear to you (non-Muslims*) (the truth of) that wherein (the Quran*) ye disagree". Not possible unless he exists. But beware that explaining away he can do even if lives up to the moral code in the Quran. Not to mention his freedom to explain errors away if he exists, but belongs to the dark forces - a fact which makes Muslims' and Islam's explaining away of even obvious errors thought provoking, and this to at least the second power when it comes to dishonest explanations away meant for lay Muslims made by the Muslim clergy and scholars.

120 16/102j: "- - - revelations from thy Lord (Allah*) in Truth, in order to strengthen those who believe, and as a Guide - - - to Muslims". It tells volumes about Islam, if they use a book full of mistakes + discrimination, hate and war against non-Muslims as a guide for their believers - the Muslims. And even more if the religion/religious leaders try to "explain" away even obvious mistakes in it, instead of finding out what is true and what not.

121 16/106a: "Anyone who, after accepting faith in Allah, utters Unbelief (= doubt or wish to leave Islam*) - - - on them is Wrath from Allah - - -". It is prohibited not only to leave Islam (though many does so nowadays), but even to doubt the teachings - full of mistaken facts or not. Here it is indicated that the punishment is for Allah - remember this is in 622 AD and Muhammad still is weak - it changed later. But you bet this verse counts for the ones who wish to "help" Allah with the punishment.

122 16/120d: "- - - he (Abraham*) joined no gods with Allah - - -". If the Bible tells the truth the simple reason for this was that Abraham did not believe in Allah at all - most likely had never heard about him - as his god to whom he according to the same Bible was much devoted to. Incompatible with the Bible.

123 16/124b: "The Sabbath was only made (strict) for those who disagreed - - -." The Quran here indicates that the day of rest once a week is a punishment for Jews and Christians, and pretend to quote the Law of Moses as a proof for this. But there nowhere in the Bible included the Laws of Moses and the complete books of Moses where it is indicated that the day of rest is a punishment. It also nowhere in the Bible is indicated that the Sabbath - the day of rest - was initiated by the Laws of Moses, like you may meet Muslims telling you (for both claims see f.x. YA2159). Actually as far as we have read, in the old times with much hard physical work, the body needed some rest to be able to do its best. But of course if a leader thought days of rest were wasted time, it might have been tempting to say: "Pray your Friday Prayer and go on working" - - - and then tell his followers how lucky they were who did not have to take a break.

But one funny thing here is that when the Muslims claim this is from the Law of Moses, they quote nothing from that law to prove it (there is nothing there which says this), but instead quotes from the Quran (f.x. 2/74). You meet this technique sometimes from Muslim scholars who are teaching lay Muslims - YA is meant for lay Muslims and a little up. Honesty?

As for the value of prayers in Islam, also see 62/9c. And if you combine 62/9c with 67/9c - a strong one - you get something thought-provoking. (And relevant here: Muslims often are thought that a question or problem can have 2 or more true and correct solutions - Islam is forced to teach this, because if not, many of the mistakes and contradictions in the Quran become too obvious. But this ONLY is true if parallel true solutions are possible. In cases where 2 or more possible solutions are mutually excluding each other, maximum 1 of the mutually excluding ones can be true. It should be a bit thought provoking for Muslims, that just this "small" difference in theoretical thinking and teaching, was one of the reasons (there were several of course) for why Europe and the West exploded into the Technical Revolution, while the Muslim area stagnated). Two star examples are: 1) Full predestination is not possible even for an omnipotent god to combine with even the smallest piece of free will for man - the two are mutually excluding. The same for full and unchangeable predestination long time before, combined with any claimed effect of prayers - the two are mutually excluding each other.)


These are just tit-bits from the book "1000+ Quran-comments - skeptics' facts and thoughts". You will find the complete book under http://www.1000quran-comments.com. (The surah reference numbers are like in that book.)

In http://www.1000mistakes.com you find:

  1. Book A: "1000+ Mistakes in the Quran" - http://www.1000mistakes.com.
  2. Book B: "1000+ comments in Jihad - (un)holy war" - http://www.1000mistakes.com/jihad-holywar/index.php
  3. Book C (this one): "1000+ Quran-comments - skeptics' facts and thoughts" (1000+ tit-bits from the complete book) - http://www.1000quran-comments.php.
  4. Book D: "Correcting much wrong refuting on http://www.1000mistakes.com - and a lesson in Muslim ways of debating.
  5. Book E: "What the Bible really says - when the Quran uses legends, fairy tales, or phantasy, instead of the Bible as sources for 'Biblical' texts, like it often does. (Expected late 2011 or early 2012).

In http://www.1000quran-comments.com you find:

  1. "1000+ Quran-comments - skeptics' facts and thoughts" (the "complete" list - 20ooo+ comments on the Quran) - as said in http://1000quran-comments.php.

124 17/4b: "- - - (and twice they (the Jews*) should be punished)!" The Jews have been "punished" at least twice during history does that mean they are in reality are safe now, except for minor episodes?

125 17/8g: "- - - and We (Allah*) have made Hell a prison for those who reject (all Faith)". Is this another indication for that in reality it is Allah who is behind Hell? What kind of "good and benevolent god" is he in case?.

126 17/13b: "Every mans fate - - -". In just this case it is likely Muhammad has forgotten about predestination, and refers to the claimed list of punishable sins versus good deeds, which he claimed would decide whether you will end in Paradise or Hell. He never even tried to explain how it was possible to combine full predestination with free will - and thus fair punishment for sins - for man, and Islam today admits they are unable to explain it. "But it must all the same be true, because it is said so in the Quran", is the unbelievable "explanation" (A6/141).

127 17/18a: "If any do wish for transitory things (of this life), We (Allah*) readily grant them - - -". This simply is not true. There are millions of people living in poverty wishing a little more for the daily life, without getting it. And there are millions more not quite as poor longing for a little luxury, and gets nothing. And even millions more who do need this or that - and getting nothing. (And remember this verse also talks about non-Muslims*).

128 17/26a: One of the good points in Islam - for after all there are a few good points, too - is the insistence on helping the poor. There are some very telling aspects to this side of Islam, though:

  1. 1. The one and only reason given for such kindness to others, is to gain merit with Allah. In many other religions the main point is empathy with the ones in difficulties - and the merit in Heaven is just a welcome extra plus. In the Quran "I" - my gaining of merit - am/is the central person/thing and the one moral reason. In f.x. the NT the care for and empathy with fellow humans is in the center for the moral behind your act, and the merit with Yahweh just a good, but after all secondary reason. You do not have to be much of a philosopher to see there is quite a difference here - but then all philosophy in Islam finally died in 1095 AD with the famous and infamous book against philosophy - thinking new thoughts - "The Incoherence of the Philosophers" by "the greatest Muslim after Muhammad", al-Ghazali, after a long starvation (well, it lingered on for about 100 more years in the far west - but from then on there came not one single new idea or new thought which could benefit man until far into the 20th century from all the Islamic world). To say the least of it: There is a moral difference between: "I help others because I benefit from it", and: "I help others because I feel empathy with them".
  2. 2. In Islam also you gain just the same merit from helping your own nearest family - wife and children and other close relatives - as from helping strangers. Then why help strangers? - at least not until your family has got everything they need. In many other religions to help your nearest is a duty and a matter of course, and only to help the ones outside your nearest family are genuinely good deeds. This difference in the roots of the moral thinking may be one of the reasons why NGO help organizations are weaker in Muslim areas than many other places. To quote Turks after a really bad earthquake some years ago: "From where did we get help when we really needed it? Not from our Muslim brothers, but from the West - even from (their partly enemy*) Greece!" (This was one of the arguments in Turkey for wanting into Europe. It seems to be difficult though - anti-EU in Turkey names the European reluctance to accept Turkey as a member in EU with bad names, but the real reasons are genuine fear for Islam's aggressive sides and as genuine fear and honest distaste for too many of Islam's ethical and (im)moral ideologies - Europe paid a terrible price to get rid of Nazism, and not a little to make an end to Fascism and Communism and helped with ending Apartheid - they are very reluctant to accepting a new and very strong ideology built on the same kind of elitism ("are non-Muslims worth half of a Muslim or less" - modern Pakistani scholars. "Islam shall be the dominant religion and all others be suppressed and pay zakat (extra tax*) with willing submission" - the Quran. Etc.). But that is another debate.
  3. 3. In Islam the duty to help other only exists for the ones who can afford it - do not use too much of your wealth for helping others ("squander not (your wealth) - - - (like*) - - - a spendthrift" to quote just this verse in the Quran, and in the next - 17/27 - "Verily spendthrifts are brothers of the Satans - - -" ). In f.x. NT the central question only is: "Does he/she need help?" and "Love your fellow human" - see f. ex. the story about the old widow and the small coin (Mark. 12/41-44). In Islam "I" am the central one again, in NT the central words are "Love" and "Fellow humans" (the word "love" hardly exists in the Quran, except in connection to members of your closest family). Also here are fundamental differences in the ideology behind the basics of the moral and ethics.(Actually the quoted words are very telling about the difference on these points between the Quran and NT - Allah and Yahweh so definitely are not the same god - - - and Muhammad and Jesus as surely not from the same line of prophets, as their moral and their teachings are too different. (To be from the same line of prophets, every new prophet has to build on what the former prophets in the line said and thought and did - Muhammad thus does not belong in Yahweh's line of prophets/messengers (in addition to that he was no real prophet - he had not the gift of being able to make prophesies.)

129 17/32: "Nor com neigh to adultery - - -". But to rape captives or slaves or bought concubines is "good and lawful". 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). Not to mention to keep a harem of willing or unwilling women.

130 17/34: "Come not neigh to an orphan's property - - -". Muhammad's care for orphans - perhaps because he was one himself - is one of the sympathetic sides of the Quran. There is one bad point though: A man with an orphan young girl in his house - it is too easy for him to marry her (for lust or for her money if she has inherited something).

131 17/40a: "Has then your Lord (O Pagans!) preferred for you sons, and taken for Himself (al-Lah/Allah*) daughters - - -?" The angels and the central goddesses al-Lat, al-Uzza and Manat, were reckoned to be the daughters of al-Lah (renamed to Allah by Muhammad) in the old Arabia. In a strictly masculine society Muhammad obviously thought it was a heavy and killing argument that as all men wanted sons and not daughters, it was unthinkable that a god should want daughters! Any god had known that in many cultures the religion you would meet "mother" goddesses and there this argument was laughable or at least invalid, and used universal arguments instead - at least if he wanted the religion to be universal.

132 17/44g: "(Allah*)is Oft-Forbearing, Most Forgiving!" Please read the surahs from Medina and the most unjust of his (?) sharia laws and see if you agree. That a claim is repeated many times, does not make it true - though it may make people start believing it; just ask the Nazi Minister of Propaganda Joseph Goebbels: "Repeat a lie often enough, and people will start believing it."

133 17/51d: "May be it will be quite soon!" This is a method used by we thing all religions: You do not say that the Day of Doom will be soon, but you tell the congregations that may be it will be soon, so they should behave accordingly. The natural reaction for very many, is that "you never know - best to behave so as to be prepared if something happens". "It is difficult to foretell, especially about the future", to quote the Dane Storm P. And then they behave themselves according to the religion - - - and according to the leader's wishes.

134 17/56b: "- - - they (other gods*) have neither the power to remove your troubles from you nor to change them". This may be correct, but a deep question never even mentioned neither in the Quran, nor in Hadiths, nor anywhere else in Islam as far as we have seen, is: If Allah predestines everything, and often years before like the Quran states, and if nothing can change his decisions and Plan: Why then pray to Allah for help in troubles at all? - nothing can change his decisions anyhow, so prayers for such changes are just so much wasted time. This fact is never mentioned by mullahs, etc., so we have never seen how they explain it away.

#####136 17/59a: "And we (Allah refrain from sending Signs (Quran-speak for "proofs for Allah"), only because the men of former generations treated them as false - - -".

This is Muhammad's standard "explanation" for why Allah would not and Muhammad himself was unable to give any real proofs for the existence of Allah or for Muhammad's connection to a god - Allah or someone else. And it is not a good one, as for one thing it obviously is not true:

  1. There were stories both in the Bible and in the Quran - f.x. the sorcerers of Pharaoh Ramses II and Moses - about people believing in the performed miracles/real proofs (if true stories).
  2. Muhammad knew about at least some of the stories about the miracles he performed, and how huge flocks of believers he got from the miracles.
  3. It is not contra, but incompatible with, human nature and psychology that not a good percentage of the ones who witnessed real miracles/proofs would not come to believe.

Muhammad was intelligent and he understood people and how to manipulate them. He knew this. But he obviously was unable to find a better excuse - there are not many excuses which would work.

What is really strange, is that Muslims have not seen through this "explanation" centuries ago, and still are unable to do so.

This is a monument over the effect of brainwashing, of wishful thinking, of ability to refuse to see the obvious, of lack of ability/training in critical thinking, uncritical acceptance of authorities, and more. A monument over the weak point of the human brain.

There are some such cases in the Quran, the most prominent and serious may be the impossible combination of full predestination like the Quran states many places, and free will of man, and the as impossible combination of full predestination, and claims about any effect of prayers.

136 17/59i: "We (Allah*) only send the Signs by way of terror (and warning from evil). This perhaps was what Muhammad did with all his raids - mainly for looting and extortion, but later also for spreading Islam (continued by his successors). Terror and evil brought the message across many places.

137 17/61b: "Behold We (Allah*) said to the angels: 'Bow down to Adam'". This is one of the many proofs for that Yahweh and Allah are not the same god: In the Quran man is superior to angels. In the Bible the situation is not as clearly told as in the Quran, but angels clearly are "higher" than man. Which shows that Yahweh's angels are not the same as Allah's, and thus also that the Paradises are different (angels are an integrated part of Yahweh's Paradise, but are not mentioned in Allah's) are different. With marked different angels and very marked different Paradises, the two are not the same god.

138 17/62: Here Iblis asks for respite to lead people astray, before Allah has ordered him unwanted. Most places in the Quran where this story is told, Iblis asks for this afterward. Quite a contradiction - An omniscient god had remembered how it happened and what was first and last - Iblis also had little reason for this request until he was thrown out. A small, but revealing contradiction.

139 17/72a: "But those who were blind in this world - - -". If there are not mistakes in the Quran, the non-Muslims were blind. If there are mistakes, the Muslims were/are blind (as this means the book is not from a god). Indications are that they are doubly blind: Believing in a book not from a god, and too blind to see the facts.

140 17/76b: "Their (the Quraysh leaders in Mecca*) purpose was to scare thee (Muhammad*) - - -". This is dishonest political fast-talk. Their purpose was to neutralize him as a political and economical danger by letting him share power and be part of the establishment. But the fast-talk afterwards sounded better for his followers.

141 17/82a: "We (Allah*) sent down - - - in the Quran - - -". Islam will have to prove that the Quran really is sent down, and sent down from an omniscient god. Without VERY good proofs, it is difficult to believe an omniscient god has sent down such a quality book, and especially if he intended to save people for his Heaven. Yes, without such proofs, it simply is impossible to believe it. (If Allah belongs to the dark forces, the miserable moral code, etc. may be easier to understand - and also all the mistakes if they are a condition for being permitted by a god to make a trap for humans.

*142 17/88a: "If the whole mankind and Jinns were gathered together to produce the like of this Quran, they could not produce the like thereof". Wrong. A flock of na primitives or people indoctrinated from childhood might believe this. But a number of good writers today and through history would be able to do that - this everyone knows who have read some good books. The Quran is not especially good literature to be polite, in spite of what Islam declares - rather dull, repeating the same stories time and time again, and using the same points and the same finish over and over, and not least: There are few if any original stories, thoughts, or ideas - they are "borrowed" from other sources, included made up scriptures, legends and fairy tales. See also 10/37a and 10/37b above. But why do it? - no matter how well it was done Islam would never admit that the bluff had been trumped - they cannot afford it, because that would prove that this statement and at least one more are wrong and just a bluff - - - and a god neither is wrong nor needs bluffs, which means that mistakes and bluffs prove that it is not from a god - which proves that something is seriously wrong with Muhammad, with the Quran, and with Islam. PS: You find this bluff at least 2 places in the Quran.

##143 17/93c: "Am I (Muhammad*) aught but a man - a Messenger?" = I (Muhammad) am unable to perform miracles. Which is one more proof for that all the miracles claimed by Hadiths and by folklore and legends to be connected to Muhammad, all are made up tales. We also quote (A17/111 - in English 2008 edition 17/109): "- - - the only miracle granted by Allah to Muhammad is the Quran itself - - -". This is a most well-known fact in Islam, and all the same the lay people in the religion are told about the wonderful miracles Muhammad preformed, and there is no comments telling that the stories are made up according to the Quran when Hadiths tells about the miracles. Are any further comments on Muslim honesty and reliability necessary?

####144 17/99b: "See they (non-Muslims*) not that Allah, Who created the heavens (plural and wrong*) and the earth, has power to create the like of them (anew)?". This is a debate technique you meet many places in the Quran and from Muslims: They take a loose claim, treat it as a proved fact, and use it as basis for "logical" conclusions. Such "conclusions" are totally without logical or factual value, but they look logical. To reveal the cheating you do not attack the invalid conclusion, because the logic itself may be ok, but show that the claim they build the logic and the conclusion on, is invalid as it is not a proved fact.

***145 17/107a: "Say: ‘Whether you believe it or not, it is true that those who were given knowledge beforehand (= Christians and Jews mainly*), when it (the Quran*) is recited to them, fall down on their faces in humble prostration". One word: Nonsense. Or a stronger word: Propaganda. And what is worse: The one that composed this verse knew it was a lie which also Muhammad knew when he made or recited it. A few Jews and Christians are said to have converted by 656 AD when the Quran is said to be written, though very few if any in 621 when this surah was made, but as a general rule: Utter nonsense. Just look at the history of conflicts between Islam, Jews and Christians, not to mention all the Jews in and near Medina who rather became fugitives or were killed, than to accept Islam f.x. Khaybar - and no more is necessary to say. You sometimes meet dishonesty like this in new, emerging religions and sects. It is a way of gaining "weight" for their statements, especially when they have few facts or proofs to show for themselves. Just one small fact that disproves this fairy tale: The 700 Jews in Khaybar could have saved their lives and possessions by becoming Muslims in time. To a man they chose not to. This verse contradicts solid historical science and knowledge. And one more fact: Remember that Muslims not only are permitted to lie to defend or forward Islam, but are urged to do it "if necessary" (al-Taqiyya and Kitman - the lawful lie and the lawful half-truth).


These are just tit-bits from the book "1000+ Quran-comments - skeptics' facts and thoughts". You will find the complete book under http://www.1000quran-comments.com. (The surah reference numbers are like in that book.)

In http://www.1000mistakes.com you find:

  1. Book A: "1000+ Mistakes in the Quran" - http://www.1000mistakes.com.
  2. Book B: "1000+ comments in Jihad - (un)holy war" - http://www.1000mistakes.com/jihad-holywar/index.php
  3. Book C (this one): "1000+ Quran-comments - skeptics' facts and thoughts" (1000+ tit-bits from the complete book) - http://www.1000quran-comments.php.
  4. Book D: "Correcting much wrong refuting on http://www.1000mistakes.com - and a lesson in Muslim ways of debating.
  5. Book E: "What the Bible really says - when the Quran uses legends, fairy tales, or phantasy, instead of the Bible as sources for 'Biblical' texts, like it often does. (Expected late 2011 or early 2012).

In http://www.1000quran-comments.com you find:

  1. "1000+ Quran-comments - skeptics' facts and thoughts" (the "complete" list - 20ooo+ comments on the Quran) - as said in http://1000quran-comments.php.

#146 18/1d: "(Allah*) hath allowed therein 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 "smell".

####147 18/2b: "(He (Allah*) hath made it) Straight (and Clear) - - -". This is one of the verses you should remember each time a Muslim tries to explain away a clear mistake by "no, this is not literally meant - - -", which is one of the 3 most used last ditch defenses (the two others are: "You cannot understand a text in the Quran alone - you have to see the whole Surah (or the whole Quran)". And: "You cannot really understand the Quran unless you read it in Arab". Both of which are rubbish. (Well, there are 2 more: "You do not know the Quran/what you are talking about", and: "You just are an Israel lover/Muslim hater quoting what you have heard or read".) There are places where you have to know more than the actual verse and the nearest few ones to understand the meaning, but mostly the simple answer is: "If you are not able to see the essence in a meaning or something said, you should stay out of debates" - this Muslim claim simply is a means to make the opponent unsure, because few know the Quran well enough to see that mostly this claim is invalid. And as for reading in Arab to understand it: For one thing the Arab of Muhammad mainly was the language of primitive desert nomads even though it later is linguistically polished - there is no problems for rich modern languages like f.x. English to compete with it in vocabulary. (Also in Japan they had the same haughty self-centered meaning once upon a time: Primitive foreigners impossibly would be able to express what a highly refined language like their could. They stopped claiming it after many enough had learnt foreign languages to see the nonsense in it. And that was really was a refined cultural language, not something from primitive tribes, even though polished afterward. Well, there always will be some words which are special for a language, and which need explanation, but that is it - and this goes for any language and is nothing special for Arab. The remaining fact is that what one brain can think, another brain of the same quality and similar education can understand, at least with a little explanation. But the claim is difficult to leave for Muslims, because they need it as an "explanation" when they lack real arguments.

*148 18/9a: "Or dost thou reflect that the Companions of the Cave - - -". This is an old tale - a religious legend - that is incorporated in the Quran pretending it is a true story and even "a wonder among Our (Allah's*) Signs". The story of the 7 sleepers is well known - and is just a well known fairy tale. The 7 were Christians from Ephesus in what is now Turkey, who fled to a cave during a pogrom under "Cesar" Decius the story goes.

Decius had the cave walled up to kill them. Instead the 7 fell asleep, and did not wake up until in the 30.th year of the reign of the pious emperor Theodosius - that is in 448 AD. Decius reined for just over two years around/just after 250 AD. That means that if the fairy tale had been true, they had slept some 195 years (the Quran says 300 or 309 years - even in the fairy tale it is wrong). Islam has troubles explaining this story, and the "explanations" we have seen, are very "lofty" and diffuse - f.x. that it really is told about an older Jewish fairy tale - or that it derives from misunderstandings about the Esseers - the members of the Qumran society (near the Dead Sea) but without giving any sources or documentation - only speculations. Besides the age does not matter it is as made up even if it should happen that the original is a bit older. They also tell it is an allegory - which they mostly do when they have difficulties finding "explanations" which are possible to believe. But an allegory of what? And it obviously is not meant to be an allegory - among other things the meanings of an allegory in the Quran normally are very easy to see or are explained. The Quran further normally tells when it is telling an allegory or something similar, and not least; the Quran itself stresses that it shall be understood literally if nothing else is said. The sleepers also mentioned in 18/22 18/25. Also see 18/13 below.

149 18/17b: "- - - the signs of Allah - - -." There is not one single sign in the Quran that clearly is from Allah, and thus not one single "sign" that proves anything about Allah. Any priest in any religion can just as easy say they are signs of his god(s). Words are that cheap. And this "sign" is extra revealing, as the story ("the 7 sleepers") simply is a retold fairy tale. Some proof! ("Sign" in the Quran mostly is Quran-speak for "proof for Allah".)

150 18/21c: "- - - that they (people*) might know that the promise of Allah is true, and that there can be no doubt about the Hour of Judgment". This is said without any context in the story. There is absolutely nothing about "the Hour of Judgment" in this story about "the 7 sleepers", not to mention any proofs for it. Both the claim and the logic are invalid. No omniscient god uses invalid logic and invalid proofs - only the ones without real facts and proofs need to do that. And the Quran excellent literature??

###151 18/31a: A partly description of the Islamic Paradise. As you see it is like a poor and naive person's vision of an earthly king's luxurious life, with good food and drinks and lots oe women. Very different from the Bible's Paradise where people become "like angels" (Luke 20/3), not to mention: "For the Kingdom of God/Yahweh is not a matter of eating and drinking (or sex*) - - -", (Rom.14/17). Not to mention ""When the dead rise, they will neither marry nor be given in marriage; they will be like the angels in heaven" (Mark12/25). Definitely not the same gods - their paradises are extremely different. Yet another proof for that Yahweh and Allah are not the same one - the differences are so extreme between the two paradises, that this proof must be set to 200% sure.

152 18/39b: "There is no power but with Allah". This may be correct if Allah exists - no proof or unmistakable indication for this has ever been seen - if he is behind the Quran, and if the Quran in addition is truthful. Besides: If there are other gods - f.x. Yahweh - it is not true. (Very much is wrong in the Quran - perhaps also this claim).

0153 18/46b: "- - - but the things that endure, Good Deeds, are the best in the sight of thy (Muslims'*) Lord (Allah*) - - -". And as the best of all deeds were to go on raids or to war for riches, captives/extortion and power for Muhammad/Allah, may be Muhammad also liked these words?

154 18/49e: "- - - injustice". Beware that when the Quran uses words like this, it is in accordance with its own partly immoral moral code.

##155 18/51c: "- - - nor is it for Me (Allah*) to take as helpers such as lead (men) astray!" All the same many Muslim scholars think Iblis/the Devil is working for Allah, because Iblis could not - and cannot - run his Hell without the permission of Allah, and without being part of the omnipotent Allah's predestined Plan. This in case tells a lot about how good and benevolent Allah is.

156 18/57e: "Verily We (Allah*) have set veil over their (sinners'*) hearts lest they should understand this - - -". Allah refuses them to find the right way, and then punishes them for not finding it - all history shows that at least a few had found it if they had the chance. Yahweh the same god as Allah? Nyet - a strong English word for NO.

157 18/59a: "- - - the populations We (Allah*) destroyed - - -". Allah was and is(?) a bloody god, far worse than Yahweh in OT before the new covenant, not to mention compared to the new covenant in NT.

158 18/60-82: A story about Moses you do not find in the Bible, (contradiction to the Bible). As the Bible is the only possible source for information about Moses (as it is clear the Quran with all its mistakes is not from a god), one can speculate on from where this story is.

##159 18/80a: Moses and a wise man that in Islam (not in the Quran) is named al-Kadir or Al-Khidr ("the green one") are in a legend retold in the Quran on a long walk. They meet a young man whom the wise man without being provoked slays (18/74). Later he explains that the reason was that "we feared that he would grieve" his good Muslim parents. If that is enough to kill their son, it is no doubt that Muslims his parents were much better than non-Muslims, and perhaps that apostates at least bad ones, deserve to be killed? No matter: That it is better to kill even their children than to perhaps - perhaps - meet problems, tells much about ethic and moral in Islam. And does it tell something about Muhammad and the Quran that they use legends for true stories in the "holy" book?

###160 18/83c: "They ask thee (Muhammad*) concerning Dhu'l-Quarnayn." Dhu'l-Quarnayn was an Arab name for Alexander the Great (!!) (he lived around 340 BC)

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

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

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

161 18/90a: "- - - he (Alexander*) came to the rising of the sun - - -". It is not physically possible to come to the place where the sun rises from the Earth like the Quran indicates, because it does not rise from the Earth - and if it had, both Alexander and the Earth had been rather fried. Also see 18/86a-d above. Any god had known this - then who made the Quran?

*162 18/94c: "- - - Gog and Magog - - -". These are from the Bible - and f.x. Muhammad Azad uses this as an alibi for the names in the Quran (A18/95), without mentioning anything more. But in 1. Mos. 10/2 and 1. Chr. 1/5 the name Magog just is the name of a grandson of Noah, and not given as a founder of a tribe. The other name, Gog, is not mentioned. More relevant are the tales about Gog and Magog in Ezekiel, chapters 38 and 39: King Gog of Magog - or more exactly: "- - - Gog, chief prince of Meshech and Tubal (tribes, towns or areas*)(Ez.38/3) - - - of the land of Magog (Ez.38/2 - also see Ez. 39/11). And they will all be dead and buried (Ez.39/11) and thus also cannot be the people we meet in the Quran. Finally Gog and Magog are mentioned in Rev.20/8, but there the names are used for all humans: "- - - the nations in all four corners of the world - - -". None of these in reality 3 cases corresponds to Gog and Magog in the Quran even though the names clearly are taken from the Bible - 2 wild tribes according to the Quran. We may add that many Muslim scholars believe Gog and Magog represent the Tatars and the Mongols who fought terrible wars against Muslims. But they lived some 1500 years after Alexander, and cannot be the ones he is claimed to have met. When Islam met mighty and bloody opponents, the opponents were terrible and devilish and Gog- and Magog-like. When Muslims did the same and worse against others - their history is horrible at times - they were heroes. Strange don't you think so?

163 18/97: "Thus they (Gog and Magog*) were made powerless to scale it (the wall*) or dig through it". That wall had to be mighty high and quite thick = much iron/too expencive at best iron was expencive around 340 BC. Besides it still is ridiculous: They could dig under - by means of fire + water they could dig through even rock given some time. But the real screamer is that there exists not one single valley in this whole world big enough to feed two big peoples (that they were many is told another place in the Quran - "swarming over all hills"), with only one possible way out - they simply could walk around the wall. It takes a lot of naivety or strong wish to believe in storie06:33 27.01.2011s like this.

164 18/110d: "- - - the inspiration (the Quran*) has come to me (Muhammad*) - - -". The biblical prophets never got their information from the god by means of inspiration according to the Bible - in stark contradiction to what Muhammad often claimed (to make himself like them and thus being able to claim he was a real prophet) - but by direct contact, visions or dreams (4. Mos.12/5-8). One more indication for that Yahweh and Allah are not the same god.


These are just tit-bits from the book "1000+ Quran-comments - skeptics' facts and thoughts". You will find the complete book under http://www.1000quran-comments.com. (The surah reference numbers are like in that book.)

In http://www.1000mistakes.com you find:

  1. Book A: "1000+ Mistakes in the Quran" - http://www.1000mistakes.com.
  2. Book B: "1000+ comments in Jihad - (un)holy war" - http://www.1000mistakes.com/jihad-holywar/index.php
  3. Book C (this one): "1000+ Quran-comments - skeptics' facts and thoughts" (1000+ tit-bits from the complete book) - http://www.1000quran-comments.php.
  4. Book D: "Correcting much wrong refuting on http://www.1000mistakes.com - and a lesson in Muslim ways of debating.
  5. Book E: "What the Bible really says - when the Quran uses legends, fairy tales, or phantasy, instead of the Bible as sources for 'Biblical' texts, like it often does. (Expected late 2011 or early 2012).

In http://www.1000quran-comments.com you find:

  1. "1000+ Quran-comments - skeptics' facts and thoughts" (the "complete" list - 20ooo+ comments on the Quran) - as said in http://1000quran-comments.php.

165 19/4c: "(Zakariyya prayed*): O my Lord (here indicated Allah*)!" Zakariyya was a Jewish priest, and not only a priest, but a priest in the Temple in Jerusalem, in a period when religion was very strong in Israel. We also are at a time from which we have written documents (f.x. Josephus Flavius just few a years later), so the strength of the Jewish religious society is no guesswork - it is written facts. Not one single Jewish priest would ever get the idea of praying to the Arab pagan god al-Lah (whom Muhammad later renamed Allah). And if he did, he hardly would survive many days. And as we now have entered times with written history, there also is not the slightest doubt that the Jewish god was Yahweh, not Allah. And we know for sure that the Jewish religion, its ceremonies, and its basick thoughts at this time were in accordance with OT, and very far from what Muslim later outlined in the Quran.

166 19/9d: "I (Allah*) did indeed create thee (man or Zakariyya?*) before, when thou hadst been nothing! (from nothing*)." But:

This is contradicted by 6/2, 7/12, 17/61, 32/7, 38/71, and 38/76 that tell man/Adam was made from clay, 15/26, 15/26, and 15/33 that tell man/Adam was made from sounding clay, 55/14 that tells man/Adam was made from ringing clay, 37/11 that tells man/Adam was made from sticky clay, 23/12, that tell man/Adam was made from essence of clay, 15/26, 15/28, and 15/33 that tell man/Adam was made from mud, 3/59, 22/5, 35/11, 40/67, that tell man/Adam was made from dust, 20/55 that tells man/Adam was made from earth, 96/2 that tells man/Adam was made from a clot of congealed blood, 16/4, 75/37, 76/2, 80/19, that tell man/Adam was made from semen (without explaining from where the semen came), 21/30, 24/45, and 25/54 that tell man/Adam was made from water (NB! NB! Not in water, but from water!), 70/39 that tells man/Adam was made from "base material", and not to mention the greatest contradiction in this case: 19/9 and 19/67 which both tell that man/Adam was created from nothing. (Also see verse 6/2 in the chapter about the 1000+ mistakes in the Quran.) (Strictly reckoned this contradicts 29 other verses. But minimum 15 contradictions.) (NB: In just this case a Muslim can say Allah created Zachariah, not "man" (Adam) - but not even Zakariyya was made from nothing. But later in the same chapter it is made clear that Allah talked about he had made man from nothing in the very worst case he at least has said this one place, so the contradiction stands. But for any case we do not count the extra contradictions here.)

This with Allah and creation also is an interesting claim, because neither Allah nor Muhammad was ever able to prove he had power for neither creation, nor recreation - whereas Yahweh several times proved he at least had the power of recreating, if the old books tell the truth (and also for creation according to the Quran - remember the clay bird from which he/Jesus created a live bird).

#167 19/12: "- - - the Book - - -". At this time only the old Jewish scriptures existed. All the same the Quran may indicate an older copy of the claimed "mother book" in Heaven = a book similar to the Quran. A book - included a Gospel - they claimed existed when Jesus was born, so that Jesus could read it. If it was not because we know we have many non-Christian readers - f.x. Hindus and actually some Muslims - we had said "no comments". But we add that a Gospel is the history of Jesus' birth, life, death, resurrection, and ascension to Heaven, so most likely it had been very interesting reading for Jesus and all other Jews and others to read when Jesus was a child and before - before it all happened. Physical impossible - Muhammad just claimed Jesus read it as a child, but like so often Muhammad did not know what he was talking about (he knew the name Gospel, but obviously did not know what it really was - he did not know the Bible much). And for another thing it is a historical fact that even the oldest of the Gospels - there are 4 - was not written until a small generation after Jesus was killed.

168 19/16c: "- - - she (Mary*) withdrew (just before her message*) from her family to a place in the East (where she got her message*) - - -." Here Muslims have an interesting theory. Remember that Muhammad and the Quran say her mother dedicated her to service in the Temple (in Jerusalem). Because of this the "East" mentioned here, must be "a private eastern chamber, perhaps in the Temple".

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

A brutal mistake in the Quran too difficult to face?

169 19/19: "He (the angel*) said: ‘Nay, I am only a messenger from thy (Mary's*) Lord - - -". But contradictions:

  1. 12/109: "Nor did we send before thee (humanity, man*) (as Messengers) any but men."
  2. 16/43: "And before thee (Muhammad*) also the Messengers we sent were but men - - -".
  3. 21/7: "Before thee (Muhammad*), also, the messengers we sent were but men".
  4. 25/20: "And the messengers whom We (Allah*) sent before thee were all (men) - - -."

Well, 3/42 - 6/130 - 11/69 11/77 11/81 19/17b 19/19 22/75 all say that not all were men. A nice little contradiction to 12/109 16/43 21/7 25/20 which all says all messengers were men.

(4 contradictions).

170 19/21c: "- - - (Jesus will be) a mercy from Us (Allah*) - - -". We think it is no big secret that the Bible contradicts this and says Jesus was from Yahweh.

171 19/27a: Contradiction of the Bible: Her parents said when she came with the surprise, a baby: "O Mary! Truly a strange thing (the baby Jesus*) hast thou brought!". Mary had had to be very fat and very lucky if none of "her people" had noticed she was pregnant - be it at home or in the Temple. In the Bible she also did not hide the pregnacy.

*172 19/34d: "- - - (it is) a statement of truth - - -". This an interesting claim: A story without sources given - actually with a wrong source given (so much is wrong in the Quran, that it is not from a god). A story clearly taken from known made up legends, etc. A story wildly different from the only possible more or less true known story. A story contradicted by known historical facts (f.x. Mary claimed setvice in the temple in the Temple). A story going against several laws of nature. Etc.

This story the Quran strongly states is a statement of truth.

If the Quran strongly claims such stories is the truth, what then about other "truths" in the book?

Thought provoking.

##173 19/36b: "Verily Allah is my (Muhammad's*) Lord and your (Muslims'*) Lord - - -". This is a serious one: Here clearly it is Muhammad himself Muhammad the man - that is speaking. How is that possible in a book made by a god before the universe was created or may be one which has existed since eternity, and a copy of a revered Mother Book sent down from Heaven by Allah? (There are a few mistakes (?) like this (8?) in the Quran see 6/114a.)

174 19/42-50: The story of Abram (according to the Bible) - later named Abraham - in the Quran is entirely different from the one in the Bible. Entirely. Also see 19/48-49 below. AND: As the bible is the only source for information about Abraham, and as it is clear the Quran is not from a god - too much is wrong - from where did Muhammad get this new information about Abraham?

Two curios: The Quran claims Abraham too khis family and all his huge flocks of animals - he was rich - and went from Canaan or Sinai through the hot and forbidding and dry Arab Desert with little or no food for his animals to a narrow, empty, desert valley without water or grass in the middle of absolutely nowhere and withour any attractions, and lived there for at least long enough time to leave his son Ishmael and his concubine Hagar there.

The Quran further claims Abraham later built a big mosque in that dry, empty, narrow, desert valley where Mecca is now, for his small family.

No muslim ever mentions that there are some 750 miles - some 1200 km - between where he lived and Mecca, and much of it was harsh, forbidding, glowing desert where his lifestock would die on the road - - - and a good Muslim shall visit his mosque at least each Friday.

175 19/48-49: "And I (Abram/Abraham*) will turn away from you (all) - - - etc. - - -". Strong contradiction to the Bible where he never left his father. On the contrary his father Terah, his nephew Lot whose father died, and he went together for all the rest of his father's life. Together they went from Ur in Chaldea (south Iraq) to Haran (north Iraq) where they lived until his father died years later (1. Mos. 11/31-32) - only then did he leave his people and set out for Canaan (1. Mos. 11/1+4).

176 19/54d: "- - - a messenger (and) a prophet". In the Bible you hardly see this distinction, as the word "messenger" hardly is used as a title, but in the Quran and in Islam it of some essence. You meet Muslims telling you that a prophet only is a prophet, whereas a messenger is something much more - though no Muslim has ever been able to tell us what the superiority of being a messenger is. In normal language it is the other way around: A prophet is distinct title telling about a close connection to a god. Whereas a messenger only is someone who brings a message - something the messenger even may know nothing about or do not understand - from one place to another. One reason for this claim about the superiority of being a messenger, may be that Muhammad in reality was no prophet - he never in all his life made a real prophesy, and a prophet unable to make prophesies is no real prophet. Muhammad knew this, and Islam knows it - and then messenger is a safer title than prophet (which many could question). Another fact is that Muhammad in reality was a doubtful character - just look at his claims and deeds and introduced rules, etc. - and they need to "enlarge" him to something even better than the old prophets, as all Islam rests only on this man's rather suspect words, moral and integrity. An imposing title kills some questions, so make the title imposing.

177 19/61b: "Gardens of Eternity - - -". But 11/108c may indicate it is not quite for eternity.

178 19/65f: "- - - knowest thou of any who is worth of the same Name as He (Allah*)" We honestly do not know if he is worthy a name at all, as there never was a proof neither for his existence, nor for his power - only lofty words. And then there is the recurring question of Yahweh, which the Quran admits existed, but who is not the same god as Allah as the basics of the religions are too different - - - and the excuse about falsified Bible is invalid as science - and Islam (by never finding a falsified document among the relevant old ones) - has proved this untrue.

179 19/71a: "Not one of you but will pass over it (possibly the bridge Sirat - to be passed the Last Day*)". Very similar to Zoroastrian (Persia - with whom Arabia had much contact), where the bridge is named Chinavad. Also see 55/56 below

180 19/73a: "- - - Our (Allah's*) Clear Signs - - -". There is not one single clear sign (= Quran-speak for proof) for neither Allah nor for Muhammad's connection to a god in all the Quran (or anywhere else) only claims and statements backed by not proved words or by nothing.

181 19/84: "- - - We (Allah*) but count out to them a (limited) number (of days)". Once more the predestination - Allah has decided how long - or short - they are to live (according to Hadiths he does so 5 months before you are born, and at the same time he decides if you are going to end in Heaven or Hell). And if they live a good life; remember that this only is for a short time, and sooth yourself: They will be strictly punished in the next life.

182 19/89b: "Indeed ye (Christians*) have put forth a thing most monstrous (that Jesus is the son of Yahweh*)!" If Jesus is the son of Yahweh/God, Muhammad impossibly can be the greatest of prophets. On the other hand one cannot totally omit that may be Muhammad really wanted the god to be the only big one, and believed Christians had Jesus as god number 2 (and Maria(!!) as number 3 in the trinity).

183 19/97f: "- - - righteous - - -". Beware that when words like this is used in the Quran (and often by Islam or Muslims) it is in accordance with the Quran's partly immoral moral code.


These are just tit-bits from the book "1000+ Quran-comments - skeptics' facts and thoughts". You will find the complete book under http://www.1000quran-comments.com. (The surah reference numbers are like in that book.)

In http://www.1000mistakes.com you find:

  1. Book A: "1000+ Mistakes in the Quran" - http://www.1000mistakes.com.
  2. Book B: "1000+ comments in Jihad - (un)holy war" - http://www.1000mistakes.com/jihad-holywar/index.php
  3. Book C (this one): "1000+ Quran-comments - skeptics' facts and thoughts" (1000+ tit-bits from the complete book) - http://www.1000quran-comments.php.
  4. Book D: "Correcting much wrong refuting on http://www.1000mistakes.com - and a lesson in Muslim ways of debating.
  5. Book E: "What the Bible really says - when the Quran uses legends, fairy tales, or phantasy, instead of the Bible as sources for 'Biblical' texts, like it often does. (Expected late 2011 or early 2012).

In http://www.1000quran-comments.com you find:

  1. "1000+ Quran-comments - skeptics' facts and thoughts" (the "complete" list - 20ooo+ comments on the Quran) - as said in http://1000quran-comments.php.

184 20/2b: "We (Allah*) have not sent down the Quran to thee (Muhammad*) to be (an occasion) for thy distress - - -". The main question here is: Was anything sent down to Muhammad at all? All the errors make involvement by a god impossible and a devil unlikely - even a devil would not use means so easy to look through (if not the god forced him in order to give the humans a better chance to look through the trap). If nothing supernatural was involved, there remains mental illness (TLE - Temporal Lobe Epilepsy, which is the suspicion of modern medical science), or accomplices or a cold manipulation from Muhammad himself - he had plenty of motifs in case: Power, riches for bribes for more power - and women.

185 20/3a: "(The Quran is meant*) only as an admonition to those who fear (Allah) - - -". Look at the Islamic societies and look at Islamic history - has the Quran been an admonition? - and especially if the Quran is a made up book like it seems to be with all its mistaken facts, etc. which make it impossible it is from any god.

186 20/8b: "To Him (Allah*) belong the Most Beautiful Names." Please read the Medina surahs and the most unjust sharia laws and afterwards think it over if f.x. names like "Most Merciful" or "Most Forgiving" really belongs to him. (Just to mention it: According to the Quran, Allah has 99 beautiful names - by co-incidence not one of them is Yahweh, even though the Quran wrongly claims Yahweh and Allah are the same god. But maybe it is no co-incidence that that name is missing?

187 20/14d: "- - - regular prayers - - -". One of the 100+% proofs for that Yahweh and Allah were not the same god: For Allah the 5 prayers a day were so essential that he made them one of the pillars of Islam. Yahweh did not even bother to mention such a formality (not once in the entire Bible) - pray when there was a reason or a need or a wish to do so.

As for the value of prayers in Islam, also see 62/9c. And if you combine 62/9c with 67/9c - a strong one - you get something thought-provoking. (And relevant here: Muslims often are thought that a question or problem can have 2 or more true and correct solutions - Islam is forced to teach this, because if not, many of the mistakes and contradictions in the Quran become too obvious. But this ONLY is true if parallel true solutions are possible. In cases where 2 or more possible solutions are mutually excluding each other, maximum 1 of the mutually excluding ones can be true. It should be a bit thought provoking for Muslims, that just this "small" difference in theoretical thinking and teaching, was one of the reasons (there were several of course) for why Europe and the West exploded into the Technical Revolution, while the Muslim area stagnated). Two star examples are: 1) Full predestination is not possible even for an omnipotent god to combine with even the smallest piece of free will for man - the two are mutually excluding. The same for full and unchangeable predestination long time before, combined with any claimed effect of prayers - the two are mutually excluding each other.)

188 20/15e: "- - - every soul to receive its reward by the measure of its Endeavour". In the Quran a main question for the claimed next life is the balance of your good contra bad deeds - and the best of deeds was to go to war for Muhammad (Allah?) and destroy, steal, take captives for extortion, etc., and later also to force Islam on them and Iblis take the abrogated flagship 2/256: "Let there be no compulsion in religion". In especially NT the main way to salvation is the love and forgiving from Yahweh, as much as good deeds, though they count.

**189 20/39: In this verse the mother of Moses is ordered by the god to set her baby adrift on the Nile - no reason given. You find the reason in the Bible (2. Mos. 1/22). The vagueness on far too many details is one of the reasons why the Quran evaluated as literature is not god - the same goes for the fact that far too many places where details are given, they only are claims, even though they are referred to like being facts. Pretending that claims are facts is not good literature, except sometimes in fiction.

190 20/44: "- - - he (Ramses II*) may take a warning or fear (Allah*)". There is not one sign of any kind in any kind of science indicating that the claimed god Allah was known in Egypt around 1235 BC, and thus no reason to believe Ramses II would fear him.

191 20/47g: "- - - guidance - - -". We are a little in the twilight zone when we are commenting on Moses, because the Quran to a degree follows the Biblical story, but mixing Allah with Yahweh, and with unknown details (wherever Muhammad got them from, as the Bible is the only source, except legends, fairy tales and fantasy - Muslims claim he got them from the god, but a book of a quality like the Quran is from no god.). But here it clearly is meant guidance from Allah = something similar to the Quran, but nothing similar to the Quran gives reliable guidance - too much is wrong. Also see 2/2b, 7/192a, and 16/107b above.

192 20/53a: "He Who has made for you the earth like a carpet spread out; - - -". In the Quran the Earth is flat. May be round like a pancake, but in case definitely flat - not like a sphere. That is what Muhammad believed, as that is what geography was like at his time - but a god had known it was wrong. (Actually there are 7 Earths according to the Quran (65/12) - one on top of the other according to Hadiths.) See also 2/22(?), 15/19, 43/10, 71/19, 79/30, 88/20.

193 20/60a: "The Pharaoh (Ramses II) withdrew - - -". From an audience with a pharaoh it is not the pharaoh who withdraws - and definitely not from a mighty potentate of the East like Ramses II. This is aid by someone who did not know about or forgot about the formalities at such a court. No god would make such a break of rules. Then who made the Quran?

#####194 20/69-70a: The magicians of the pharaoh all became Muslims when they saw Moses performing real miracles. All the same the Quran - and Muhammad - repeats and repeats and repeats that the reason why Muhammad was unable to perform miracles, included making real prophesies, was that nobody would believe anyhow. This is one of the scenes which make it clear that Muhammad knew he was lying each time he used those excuses and "explanations". That no-one would believe if they witnessed miracles, contradicts all psychological knowledge strengthened by the fact that Muhammad himself told it worked. He also knew at least some of the miracles Jesus performed, and all the followers they brought him. Contradiction both of Muhammad's intelligence - he was too intelligent not to know it was a lie - of reality, and of science.

195 20/70-76: This is not from the Bible. From where is it? (But it fits Muhammad's standard concept for Muslims contra non-Muslims very well. Little or no creative fantasy gives little variety and a boring result. No god literature - Muslims saying the Quran is excellent literature simply have not an idea what they are talking about. But not unlikely mullahs and religious scholars have read little real literature from good writers.

196 20/77a: "- - - inspiration - - -". Not from the Bible - but it might have been handy for Muhammad to "document" that his own claimed means for his claimed contact with his god was normal for prophets. Also see 20/57a+b above. Actually Yahweh never used inspiration for transferring messages - only Muhammad claimed that. He used direct contact, visions or dreams (4. Mos.12/6-8).

There is an extra irony in the fact that the Bible directly specifies that to Moses Yahweh used to speak directly (4. Mos. 12/8).

**197 20/85b: "- - - the Samiri had led them astray". But the Jews still had not arrived in Samaria and there existed no Samaris (actually the name Samaria/Samirians/Samaritans as far as we can find, was not coined until 722 (?) BC under the little known king Omri who bought the land and built and named the town (1. Kings 16/24) - more than 500 years after the exodus that happened (if it happened) ca. 1235 BC). Also no Samiri is mentioned here in the Bible. Muslims try to "explain" the mistake by saying may be it is meant "shmeer" = stranger, or "shomer" = watchman = samara in Arab (irrelevant as the Jews did not speak Arab). - - - but if you cherry-pick from a whole language, it always is possible to find words that are look-alike and that the Arab word here is a look-alike, is totally irrelevant, as these Jews of the old hardly spoke Arab as mentioned and thus did not use the word "samarar". It also is clear that the top translator, Abdullah Yusuf Ali, meant it is a name, not a work or something - he used capital 1. letter in the name. The same goes for other translations we have. But if the Quran means some other thing than it says here or is possible to misunderstand - how many other places in the book are there similar or worse/religious mistakes? Similar claims in 20/87 20/95.

It is here telling about Islam's ways of getting out of problems or mistakes, that one of the "explanations" for who this person could have been who was a Samiri (the name Samaritan is used in some translations) at the time of Moses, is that was "'a man of the Jewish clan of the Samaria', i. e. the ethnic and religious group designated in later times as the Samaritans - - -" (quoted from A20/70a). This in spite of that no such group or clan or sect existed at that time and not for another 600+ years. This "explanation" is backed by top Islamic thinkers like Tabari and Zamakhshari.

If no explanation is possible, then make up one.

198 20/89: "Could they (the Jews*) not see that it could not return them a word (for answer), and that it had no Power either to harm them or to do them good?". This also goes for Allah: He has to this date never given an unmistakable answer, never unmistakably harmed anybody, nor unmistakably done the least good to anybody (guess if Islam had told about it if there had been just one single proved incident!)

199 20/96a: "- - - the Messenger - - -". Here is meant Moses, but the title "Messenger" is not used anywhere in the Bible and has no definition and thus no meaning there (the word is used infrequently, but not as a title). Muhammad has used it as a parallel to his own self introduced title - a confirmation of that he was in the same league as Moses.

200 20/104: "Ye tarried not longer than a day!" See 20/103 just above. Remember this when you in the Hadiths meet the dogma of "punishment in the grave" - it is not mentioned in the Quran. The time the dead ones experience in the grave, is not enough for any punishment in the grave, not to mention any protracted such punishment.

201 20/113b: "- - - an Arabic Quran - - -". Rationally speaking an Arabic Quran was and still is a bad luck for Muslims, and bad policy for a god wanting world dominance:

  1. The really hard thing was that the Arab written language was not completed - it was completed only around 900 AD. This means there even today are lots and lots of words where Islam does not really know what Muhammad really wanted to say. They camouflage the problem with calling it "different ways of reading", but in reality it is different versions of the book, and no-one knows which "way of reading" really is the correct one.
  2. A god for the world should want a world language. Many more could have read it and over much wider areas + that f.x. Greek and Latin and Persian and others were mature languages - it would have been possible to write down exactly what Muhammad said. (Arabic lacked vowels plus all the signs used when reading (diacritical points). The result is that one has to guess the missing letters and the signs. If you f.x. in English have the consonants "h" and "s" and know it represents a word, and have to guess the vowels, you can f.x. get "his" or "has" - or "house" or "hose". This is the problem Islam meets when it tries to read the old manuscripts - do not laugh when a Muslim next time tells you the Quran is exactly Muhammad's words to the last comma (and on top of all the comma did not exist in Arab at that time).
  3. Arab has become so "elite" and holy, that also non-Arabs have to learn the Quran in Arabic - often by heart - even though they do not understand the words.

But it had two pluses for Muhammad:

  1. It was possible for him and his first, primitive followers to use that language - and hardly any other.
  2. Muhammad felt that the Arabs were inferior to Jews and Christians who had holy books. The Quran repaired parts of this inferiority feeling.

###202 20/116b: "Prostrate yourself to Adam". This is one of the revealing differences which make it impossible that Yahweh and Allah can be the same god: The differences between the paradises - here the differences between the angels. In Allah's paradise the angels indisputably is of a much lower standing than humans - if not they did not have to prostrate themselves to the humans. In Yahweh's paradise it is not so directly said, but angels clearly are of higher standing than man. (In addition there f.x. are the enormous differences between how humans live in the two paradises). If Yahweh and Allah had been the same god, they had had the same paradise. To use the understatement of the century: That is not the case.

This is one of the at least 100% proofs for that also this of Muhammad's claims is wrong.

203 20/133d: "- - - Sign - - -". There is not one single clear sign (Quran-speak for proof) anywhere in or outside the Quran neither for Allah nor for Muhammad's connection to a god. Without exception all the "signs", "clear signs", and "proofs" only are claims or statements resting only on air and/or twisted logic or on other not proved claims. (There may be one exception; arguments taken from the Bible but they in case tell about Yahweh, not about Allah. Islam likes to claim that they are one and the same god, but the teachings especially as you find them in NT (the new covenant Muslims never mention cfr. the last Easter of Jesus, f.x. Luke 22/20) fundamentally are so different, that it is impossible that the two can be one and the same, not unless the god at least is schizophrenic.)

Sub-total 203 + 414 = 617 tit-bits.

NB: THE LIST CONTINUES 4-5 PAGES (A-4) FURTHER DOWN.


NB: If you find any mistakes anywhere, please inform us. If it is a real mistake, it will be corrected. Please also inform us if we have overlooked points or errors.


(A6/92 - English 2008 edition A6/93): "- - - it is in the nature of man to regard the beliefs which have been implanted in him(!) from his childhood, and which he now shares with his social environment, as the only true and possible one - - -". He forgot(?) to mention that this also goes for Muslims.

10/32: "- - - apart from the Truth, what (remains) but error?"


#####8/69a-d: "- - - lawful and good - - -". If these words and the context they are 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 them 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" (made invalid) by today's Islam, but on the contrary are preached many places all over even today in some Islamic fora and groups and countries. (And even practiced during armed conflicts - Bangladesh, East Timor, East Africa, and Indonesia a "short" time ago. Low intensity active in f.x. Indonesian New Guinea and parts of Africa even now (2010).)

Just remember that most Muslims are ok. Only a minority is militant - 1-2% according to Muslims (but 2% of 1.2 billion = 24 million). Then according to international science some 30% (= some 360 million) are willing to help the militants actively or with money, or at least "understand" them. The rest - the majority - are ok. (But our problem is to know who is who.)

But what is absolutely sure, is that apologists telling that "there are verses in the Quran which can be misused by terrorists", are talking nonsense. According to the Quran it is very clear it is the peaceful Muslims who are not good Muslims, and the activists who are laudable and obeying Muhammad and Allah.


From 6/149a: "You meet this lack of moral backbone and the ability in Islam and in Muslims to overlook or explain away even the strongest facts, at every point in the Quran where there are mistakes, contradictions or other proofs for that something is wrong in the Quran, and thus with Muhammad and with his religion - proofs they are unable to face for that Islam as told in the Quran is not a religion, but a superstition".

"Religious 'knowledge' nearly always in reality only is belief - often strong belief, but only belief". (In Islam exactly nothing of any consequence is proved - on the contrary: Much is proved wrong and thus that it is from no omniscient god.)

A world dominated by Islam is quite possible - Islam is expanding. Will it end up like North Pakistan or Afghanistan or like Saudi Arabia without oil - or somewhere in between? - and this because of a religion which itself proves that something is seriously wrong with its teaching, and also that there is no god behind its "holy" book (no omniscient god makes mistakes), and thus not behind the religion.

A nice future for our grandchildren?




PART V: SURAHS 21 - 30

The comments on the separate verses start some 4-5 A-4 pages further down.

Introduction.

The introduction is more or less similar for all surahs - skip it if you already have read it and if you do not need to refresh anything, and start at the comments a little further down.

Muslims tried to block us from the net (see "How to control if our information is correct"): An angry, excited Muslim attack against "bad" people telling facts Islam and Muslim scholars do not like - but not able to find one single piece of wrong information or of hate in https://www.1000mistakes.com worth mentioning in the complaint to strengthen it! Not even top marks from Cambridge or Oxford had been a better guarantee for that our information is correct.

##You will find pages on Internet trying to refute especially "1000+ Mistakes in the Quran" (http://1000quran-comments.com is young yet (launched Now. 2010 AD), but there are reactions to this page, too, already). Please read them, but check their claims, information and "information" - laugh at their mistakes and naivety, be stupefied at the lack of real knowledge, weep at the dishonesty (Islam is the only of the big religions which not only accepts, but often advises the use of dishonesty - al-Taqiyya, Kitman, deceit and even broken words/oaths (see separate chapters in "1000+ Mistakes in the Quran) - to promote or defend "the Religion of Truth" (quite an ironic slogan for a religion partly relying on dishonesty)).

###As for "1000+ Mistakes in the Quran" and all the mistakes, contradictions, cases of invalid logic and of unclear language, etc. in that book: One or a few mistakes, etc. could be accepted even from an omniscient god, as the ones writing it down might have made errors (the Quran is claimed sent down by Allah, but necessarily copied by humans). But to be able to believe that an omniscient god has such a bad command of the language, that humans have to explain away mistakes, etc. with "what he really meant" or "parable", etc. hundreds of times and more + hundreds of contradictions and cases of invalid logic and of unclear language, etc., takes a blindness, naivety or wishful thinking far beyond the incredible and deep into the unbelievable.

The Quran claims it quotes Allah when it says that the Quran has a plain, clear and easy to understand language which is to be understood easily and literally if nothing else is indicated (f.x. 3/7, 11/1, 15/1, 18/2, 18/54, 19/97, 26/2,27/1, 28/2, 36/69, 41/3, 43/2, 44/2, 44/58, 54/17, 54/22, 54/32), and that only bad people "sick of heart" or "in whose hearts is perversity" (f.x. 3/7) look for hidden meanings - meanings "only Allah can understand". Then one has to be naive in the extreme to believe in Muslims' claims that all the mistakes, contradictions, invalid logic, unclear language, etc. in the book in reality are not mistakes, etc. but only the omniscient god who are so clumsy expressing himself that he has been unable to say what he meant, and that clever Muslims have to help him and tell what he "really" meant or explain that "it is parables". Or that Allah does not mean what he clearly says, but that the mistake, etc. in reality is an allegory - a hidden meaning - and clever humans have to explain the "real" meaning of his helplessly chosen words. Strangely you mainly find such claims from Muslims in connection with mistakes, etc., - clearly the omniscient Allah is not mastering neither science nor the plain Arab language properly, and really do need the help from intelligent and clever mere humans to be able to express himself. One or a few such cases should be disturbing for the believers, as an omnipotent god does not make mistakes and he also should be a master of expressing himself clearly and impossible to mistake in clear words with distinct and unmistakable meaning. One or a few cases could be explainable, but when it runs in the hundreds and even a few thousands of such cases, it requires blindness, naivety and/or wishful thinking beyond the unbelievable to be able to believe in such "explanations". Even with lots of wishful thinking it takes blindness and naivety far into the incredible to be able to make oneself believe this.

"One case is coincidence, two cases are suspicious, three cases are proof", Stalin said. Here are may be 3000 cases!!


Our books are to be read and studied - and printed or copied in diskettes or Xerox to be given away (f.x. as promotion - diskettes and paper are cheap) or sold at meetings, in the street, in shops - everywhere. The main thing is to spread the information. We also think at least "1000+ Mistakes in the Quran" should be printed at least in paper-back - it will sell well at least here in the US, in Europe and - strangely (or may be not so strangely) - in India. There will be no royalty to pay - our pages are for free. (And "free publicity" from Islam and Muslims will make it sell even better - though the new Danish book containing the famous Muhammad cartoons has until now (9. Oct. 2010) not made much noise - perhaps the cases of western way of debating Muslims have met, slowly are teaching them civilized behavior? (To stand up for free speech is the only way of teaching them to accept free speech).

Our books are intended for persons with no, little or medium knowledge of the Quran. This means some 99.8% of non-Muslims and 90-95% of Muslims. (It may be a surprise, but most Muslims do not know the Quran well - many have just superficial knowledge or superficial knowledge + better knowledge of cherry-picked parts of it.)

In addition they are meant for Muslims with better knowledge of the book, but with no, little or moderate knowledge of the background scriptures, mainly the Bible (for the sake of convenience, we use the word "Bible" also for the Jewish scriptures, even when NT sometimes is irrelevant for the point debated just there, and for the same reason we use the name "Jews" for the descendants of Jacob also in times before the name really was coined).

And finally it is intended for the really learned scholars - to force them to think over difficult point to be able to explain to us that we are wrong and to correct us.


PS: Beware that Islam in reality are many things. There is Islam like you find it described in the Quran - what some scientists call "Islam I". Then there is Islam as it is interpreted by Muslim scholars (Islam II), which may vary not a little. And you have Islam as it is thought and practiced different places and to different times (Islam III) - which may vary quite a lot. We mainly write about Islam I, because this is the basic, and this is how anyone finds it when they search for answers or ideas in the Quran, and not least: This is how the Quran itself says it shall be understood (f.x. 3/7b-e, 6/114c-d, 11/1b, 16/103f). And not to forget: Islam I is how the conservative Muslims, fundamental Muslims, terrorists, etc. - the best organized and thus powerful groups in Islam - read it, often strengthened by "strong" interpretations.


To find the real Muhammad in the Quran, you skip the glorious and glorifying words about him, but read what he demanded and did, what moral he stood for and what rules he introduced, etc., and think over what this tell about him. Glorious words are cheap and are used by all dictators and politicians - like Muhammad - and by many others for propaganda. Deeds, etc. is the reality and tell the truth. When there is divergence between nice words and reality, we always believe in the reality. And even in the Quran the historical Muhammad is very different from the glossy picture Muslims and Islam - and the propaganda in the Quran - paint.

In the same way you find the real Allah and the real Islam.


Beware that we often do not give conclusions, but ask questions or simply give the information and you have to think it over yourself what the information really tells about the Quran, Muhammad and/or Islam. We also frequently use the Quran's claims or information and treat a point as if this was true, to show the conclusions it gives. In both cases this partly is done to highlight a point in the best possible way, and partly to try to make the reader think things over him-/herself.


And beware of one more thing: If it is true what Internet now (Oct./Nov. 2010) tells, that Muslims have launched a partly falsified Bible - falsified in a pro-Muslim direction - and with comments not always honest (Muslims f.x. too often find points in texts which - with or without some twisting - among different possible ways of understanding it, have one they like. Then they skip all other interpretations, and in addition do not say that "this is a possible understanding", but all too often declare: "This is the explanation!", or "This is the Truth!") If they now have made a partly falsified Bible, they are within a solid Muslim tradition going back at least to the many falsified scriptures made up in Muslim Spain in the 8. and 9. century. (The famous and infamous apocryphal - made up - "Gospel of Barnabas" may be one of them.) Lying (al-Taqiyya and Kitman) to defend or promote the religion is no sin in Islam - on the contrary; it is advised "if necessary" to reach a "good" result.

But how much are tales from persons and a religion relying partly on lies, worth? - how much is truth and how much is al-Taqiyya (lawful lies)? Not to mention: What about the religion itself? - how much is truth and how much is al-Taqiyya?


Points to remember before you start reading.

THE USE OF http://www.1000quran-comments.com (and http://www.1000mistakes.com ):

1. We repeat: Some time in 2010 we were to visit www.faithfreedom.org, but made the mistake of writing www.faithfreedom.com. Up came a disinformation page from Islam telling that there had not been any activity on the page for some months. The clear intention was to cheat new readers to believe Faith Freedom was inactive. This kind of dishonesty is permitted for a number of wide topics in Islam - f.x. for cheating women or saving your money - and not only permitted, but advised to use "if necessary" when it comes to defend or promote Islam.

Because we did not want to meet the same dishonesty, we decided not to put all of it only in http://1000mistakes.com , but also use this name for an extra page and put some of the highlights there, too. So now you in http://www.1000quran-comments.com to find a number of highlights about the topic, but go directly to http://www.1000quran-comments.com to find the "complete" list of comments - on average 2-3 comments for each verse in the Quran.

2. Read first these 2 small chapters in "1000+ Mistakes in the Quran" (= http://www.1000mistakes.com ): "Some Essentials for how the Quran is to be read and understood" (VII-10-1) and "The Quran is to be understood literally if nothing else is indicated" (VII-10-2).

3. NB: As for Internet: We frequently receive empty messages or messages which are unreadable because the letters are mixed in one porridge. If you have something essential to say and do not get an answer, try again - we try to answer all polite letters. And one more thing: If you want an answer you have to write your mail address, because in our "answer box" your address will not show unless it is written in the text.

ABOUT THE PAGES:

4. Please inform all and everybody and all relevant fora - f.x. Internet pages for debate or information - about the address http://www.1000mistakes.com . It is information that is urgently needed by many, not least by Muslims. No god made a book with so many mistakes and other wrongs - and if the Quran and Islam are made up by humans or dark forces, where are the followers of this inhumanly dark and brutal war religion heading for in a possible next life?

5. http://www.1000mistakes.com is one of 9 pages which Muslim organizations warned especially against in 2009 - it could make especially proselytes lose their belief in Islam; correct and "down-to-the-earth" information works. In this connection it is worth noticing that in the "warning" http://www.1000mistakes.com was one of 3 which neither was accused of bringing wrong facts, nor of being a hate page.

6. Abbreviations used: YA = Abdullah Yusuf Ali: "The Meaning of the Quran". A (or MA) = Muhammad Asad: "The Message of the Quran". OT = Old Testament of the Bible (on which the Mosaic (Jewish) religion is built - NB: for the sake of convenience we) NT = New Testament of the Bible (on which the Christian religion is built - with OT mainly as historical background).

7. Words in ( ) are from the original English translated texts - often additions or explanations made by the translator. But if there in addition is a "star" inside like this ( *) the comment inside is made by us. 1 - 3 ** or 1 - 3 ## (stronger) in front of our serial number for a verse or part of verse means NB or stronger. And NB: If there are points we have not commented on, that does not mean they could not merit a comment.

8. As none of us originally had English as our mother language, and only these last years have had English as our 1. language, there will be imperfections in our English (and our references to Arab are taken from other sources as our Arab is not up to that job). But we must admit that each time we receive a complaint where excited and angry Muslims find nothing but not perfect English to complain about, we feel it is a diamond compliment to the quality of our work. But in so much stuff there has got to be other mistakes, too - we are not gods like Allah. Though the fact that Muslims and others all over the world - we after all are on top of Google and Yahoo on "Mistakes in the Quran" - in these 2.5 years have reported exactly no - zero - mistakes except for linguistic ones, proves and documents that every mistake, etc. we have pointed to in the Quran, are real errors, there may be wrong points somewhere. But if we have made mistakes (but real ones), please inform us - there is so much which is wrong in the Quran, that there is no reason for us or for anybody else to point to any but real mistakes, contradiction, cases of invalid logic, unclear language, etc. If we have overlooked points which ought to be included (but real ones), please inform us about this, too.

9. As mentioned none of us has English as mother language, and there may be linguistic errors. But these means little for the real contents - you may be an excellent farmer even if you are a lousy fisherman.

10. As http://www.1000mistakes.com is blocked in some Muslim areas (f.x. Pakistan) which shows they are afraid of it and lack arguments (if they had real arguments for that http://www.1000mistakes.com is wrong, blocking it was unnecessary) - "cut and paste" whatever you want from it and send, if you want to inform about or to debate there. Remember to omit the name http://www.1000mistakes.com.

11. If we are blocked centrally - f.x. by spam (there is too much at times already from unfriendly sources) we will reopen with a new address somewhere else, and announce the new address on f.x. http://www.topix.com/forum/religion/islam and/or the pages of http://www.faithfreedom.org.

12. Muslims often haughtily tell that many through the times have told negative facts about Islam without an effect. For one thing it is not true - many have left Islam. But in addition some things are different now:

  1. Internet and the modern flow of information. The Mullahs and imams slowly are losing their monopoly on information. They can block Internet - like f.x. Pakistan has done for our books (and thus show that our information is too difficult for them to meet or argue against) - but they can block it only partially and information and facts will drip in even there.
  2. Many non-Muslims know more about the Quran and about Islam than before, and thus know more about what they are talking about - and thus easier can point to the weak spots of that book and of Islam.
  3. Many Muslims get more education and thus easier see the errors in the Quran - and the inhumanities.
  4. There now are much more - and correct - information about the Quran and about Islam, and f.x. about the impossibility that the Quran can be made by any omniscient god. It is heresy and slander and an insult against any god to accuse him of having sent down a book so full of mistakes, contradictions, invalid logic, unclear language, etc. Information which slowly reaches also Muslims. F.x. our books.
  5. Science has found that 3. generation Muslim emigrants in "the West" are losing interest in Islam - information works.

13. ### Muslims insist it is impossible to translate the Quran correctly (just like the Japanese used to do about their language before they learnt other languages well - then they stopped claiming it). That is rubbish. What one human brain is able to think, another human brain at the same level of intelligence is able to understand. At most it will take some extra explanation.

14. Science talks about Islam I = Islam like you find it in the Quran, Islam II = Islam like it is explained (and problems "explained") by Islamic scholars, and Islam III = Islam like it is told by imams and mullahs and practiced by the followers - which may vary a lot from time to time and from place to place - there is a great difference between Islam in f.x. Sabah, Malaysia, and f.x. in North Pakistan or Saudi Arabia. We as mentioned mainly concentrate on Islam I because that is the basic, and that is how every Muslim meets the texts when he open the book. But we touch Islam II and III a little.

ABOUT THE CONTENTS OF THE PAGES:

15. Comment 141 (to verse 6/149) in "The Message of the Quran" (see point 5) explains (translated from Swedish) about Allah's claimed omniscience vs. man's claimed free will:

"With other words: The real connection between Allah's knowledge about the future (and consequently about the unavoidability in what is to happen in the future*) on one side and man's relatively (!!*) free will on the other two statements that seems to contradict each other lies outside what is possible for humans to understand, but as both statement are made by Allah (in the Quran*) both must be true". Unbelievable. Blind belief is the only correct and intelligent way of life according to Islam, even in the face of the utterly impossible!!- this even though that in all other aspects of life, blind belief is the most sure way to be cheated.

15a. ###Prayers are essential and one of the 5 religious "pillars" in the Quran and Islam. But: What is the idea of praying for anything in Islam? According to the Quran - and Hadiths - Allah has predestine every detail in your and everyone else's life according to his unchangeable Plan - a plan "nobody and nothing" can change. According to Hadiths f.x. your time of death and whether you are to end in Hell or Heaven is decided by Allah 5 months before you are born. Thus prayers can change nothing and is a waste of time and effort - a fact (if the stated predestination is correct - and if not the Quran is wrong) no Muslim ever mention or tries to explain. The 5 fixed prayers also is one of the 100% proofs for that Yahweh and Allah is not the same god: For Allah they are so essential that he has made it one of the 5 "pillars" of Islam - Yahweh does not care about such formalism at all; pray when there is a reason, a need, or a wish.

15b. ###From 6/149a: "You meet the lack of moral backbone and the ability in Islam and in Muslims to overlook or explain away even the strongest facts, at every point in the Quran where there are mistakes, contradictions or other proofs for that something is wrong in the Quran, and thus with Muhammad and with his religion - proofs they are unable to face for that Islam as told in the Quran is not a religion, but a superstition".

15c: #### from 9/39a: "Unless ye (Muslims*) go forth (in war/battle*), He (Allah*) will punish you with a grievous penalty (normally in the Quran a synonym for Hell*) - - -". An order not possible to misunderstand for a pious - or fanatic - Muslim.

Yes, a religion built on peace, goodness and heavenly ethics. Plus a good and benevolent god.

This is the order also today - see 9/38d.

This verse tells horribly much about Islam as it is thought in the Quran - and some other places.

16. There exists a letter dated 27. Dec. 1998 in which is admitted rather reluctantly that there are no proofs for Allah, and that it is not possible to prove him. (Actually it is not possible to prove a god - this only the god himself can do by doing something supernatural.) An additional point here is that if there is no proof for Allah and impossible to prove him, automatically there also is no proof for, and impossible to prove Muhammad's claimed connection to a god. And if there is no Allah and/or no connection between Muhammad and a god, what then is Islam?

17. ####Further: All the mistakes, contradictions, cases of invalid logic, etc. in that book, prove 100% that the Quran is not made by an omniscient god - no god makes such and so many mistakes, etc. If then Islam is a made up religion, what then about all the Muslims who have been prohibited from looking for a real religion (if such one exists)? And where will they in case wake up after living and practicing such an inhuman war religion (f.x. it's partly immoral moral code, rules for thieving/robbing, lying (al-Taqiyya, etc.), raping girls and women, enslaving, suppression, war, etc.) like Islam is according to the Quran (and to Hadiths), if there is a second life with a benevolent god somewhere? - Hell or Paradise?

18. NB and PS: No matter how sure you are about something, if it is not proved, it is not knowledge, only belief or strong belief, and can be wrong. Only what is proved or possible to prove is knowledge. And remember: "A proof is one or more PROVED facts which can give only one conclusion". Islamic debate and information normally build only on claims and statements which are not proved, so demand proofs in any debate with Muslims (you seldom will get them, and never in basic questions - their method normally is to throw out claims, and demand proofs from you for the opposite, and such proofs can be difficult there and then, and then they have "won" the debate, even if they may be wildly wrong. Demand proofs for their claims first, after all it is they who launch the claims and then it is their job to prove them - and you win many a debate just on this because Islam has no proofs on any central point of the religion).

19. But do remember that many uneducated Muslims honestly believe slogans like "Islam is the religion of peace" - they simply have not read much of the Quran, or they have read the glorious words, and are unable to see the harsh realities told in the book by the claims and deeds and introduced rules it tells about. The flowering words is the propaganda, the demands and deeds and rules are the reliable realities. The religiously educated ones know better - - - which sometimes s difficult to believe from what we hear from mosques, madrasas (religious schools) and other fora.

20. Note how often the word "the Truth" and similar are used in the Quran, mostly as a claim for the claimed high value and quality of the texts. In normal life the ones needing to tell so often and strongly that they are speaking the truth, are the ones not telling the truth and having no way of proving their tales - natural if they are made up. Simply the cheat and the deceiver. We also quote the infamous "Minister of Propaganda" in Nazi-Germany: Joseph Goebbels: "Tell a lie often enough, and people starts believing it". (The word also is used in the Bible, but far from so often, and "not spoken with such big letters".

SOME RELIGIOUS FACTS FROM THE PAGES:

21. We remind you that Muhammad claimed Allah = Yahweh - a claim which is easy to see is wrong, as the fundamental ideas and ideologies in the teachings/religions are too deeply different (Jesus love and peace and empathy, Muhammad Nazi-like (Carl Gustav Young) haughtiness, stealing/robbing, rape of girls and women, discrimination and war - and lawful dishonesty (al-Taqiyya, etc)). Because of this claim, he uses the name Allah for Yahweh (God). The differences between Yahweh (especially as we meet him in NT and his New Covenant - f.x. Luke 22/20) are so obvious and so easy to see (claims never documented by Islam, but proved wrong by science as they and also Islam have proved the Bible is not falsified), that mostly we do not bother to comment on it.

22. You often meet the claimed miracles connected to Muhammad used as arguments for that he must have been a real prophet and with connections to a god. You find these claims in the Hadiths only, not in the Quran.

This is very strange and peculiar - and revealing for the mentality of Muslim leaders and scholars - as the Quran indirectly, but most clear proves that all those stories are made up ones and untrue. If there had been miracles connected to or preformed by Muhammad:

  1. Opponents had not asked for miracles to prove Muhammad's tales and claims - they had known there were miracles.
  2. If they all the same had asked, they had promptly been told about miracles which had happened.
  3. Followers had definitely not asked - they had known about each and every miracle.
  4. If any follower all the same had asked, you bet they had got information instead of "explanations away".
  5. If there had been miracles, his followers had used them to propagate the religion. There is no tale about this being done in the Quran.
  6. Also Muhammad had used them in his preaching. There is no such case in the Quran and hardly in the Hadiths.
  7. And the strongest of the indirect, but clear and solid proofs: If there had been miracles connected to or performed by Muhammad, he had not had to explain away - even lying in the Quran - requests for proofs for his religion and god and for his own connection to a god: He simply had told about the miracles. There are many places in the Quran where Muhammad must use fast talk and worse to explain away requests for proofs/miracles. There is not one case of him telling about miracles connected to himself or performed by him.

In addition there is the fact that Islam itself tells: "There are no miracles connected to Muhammad, except the (claimed*) delivery of the Quran".

Also f.x. Aishah - Muhammad's famous and infamous child wife - clearly states in Hadiths that Muhammad made no miracles - f.x. was "unable to see the unseen" = unable to make prophesies.

All the same imams, mullahs, scholars and Islamic literature tell about, glorifies, and use as proofs for Muhammad and Allah the tales/legends about such miracles - and therefore many Muslims honestly believe in them; Of course their cherished religious leaders tell them the truth!? But it is permitted in Islam - even advised - to lie "if necessary" to defend or promote the religion (al-Taqiyya - the lawful lie, Kitman - the lawful half-truth, "war is deceit" - and "everything" is war, and "break even your oaths - pay expiation if necessary - if that gives a better result".

This is a kind of dishonesty you do not expect from honest leaders in an honest religion, and it tells not a little about the honesty, reliability, etc. and about the religious leaders in Islam.

Worse: As these stories about the miracles are untrue, but glorified by Muslims, how much more is untrue in the religion?

Worst: If the Quran is a made up book - and it clearly is not from a god (too many mistaken facts and other errors, too many contradictions and unclear language, too much invalid logic, etc.) - what then is Islam? - and where will Muslims end if there is a next life?

SOME COMMENTS:

23 One standard way for Muslims to explain away mistakes or bad meanings, is to claim that it means something else than what the words say - "they are parables". But for one thing the Quran itself as mentioned above states in words not possible to misunderstand, that the verses are to be understood literally if nothing else is said, and that only "those with an illness in their hearts" go looking for hidden meanings - meanings only Allah can understand according to the book (3/7 and others). But worse: Is it possible for anyone really to believe that an omniscient god is so clumsy expressing himself, that he needs a lot of help from more of often less educated humans to explain helpless clumsiness and contradictions and to explain away that this god is so retarded that he often says other things than he mean, and that thus we clever humans have to tell what he "really" means in his stumbling over wrong facts, etc.?

24 It would be possible to explain away one or a few mistakes, etc. in a book made by a god. But to be able to believe in the "explaining" away for hundreds and hundreds and more mistaken facts, invalid logic, contradictions, etc., takes either a well developed mental blindness - it is impossible to see, not to mention admit even for yourself what you strongly do not want to see - or a naivety far beyond what normally is claimed possible and deep into the incredibly unbelievable. It also is slander, an insult and heresy to blame a quality like in the Quran with all its errors, etc. on an omniscient god. But then it take a mental stamina and backbone many do not have, to face the possibility that the foundation you have built your culture and your personal life on - your religion - may be a made up fairy tale or legend. Or simply a tool for gaining power.

25 Some special words and expressions:

"Arabism": Anything which is typical only or mainly for Arabia or its near neighbor or other areas with similar climate, nature, culture, etc. there are lots of cases in the Quran which indicates that the maker of the book thought such conditions were the typical ones for humans - and lots and lots of cases where relevant differences from other parts of the world are not mentioned, this even though Allah is claimed to be an omnipotent god for all the world. There are more than the ones we list.

"Historical anomaly": The Quran claims that Allah sent down copies of the claimed "Mother Book" (13/39b, 43/4b+c, 85/21-22) in Heaven to prophets and messengers from Allah in the past (Hadiths mention 124000 or may be even more through the times from Adam to Muhammad - and all over the world. The Quran is such a copy, which means that the other copies are similar to the Quran - all copies of a book have to be similar naturally. What we call a "historical anomaly" in our book, is something which cannot have been written into the Quran a long time before it happened or was said (Islam claims it was written by Allah even before man was created, or it has existed since eternity and was never written (as nobody reveres his own work like it is said Allah does with the original book, the claimed "Mother Book (13/39b, 43/4b, 85/21-22) the second explanation may be the most likely(?) one) , unless there is total predestination of everything, like the Quran claims and states (as normal without any proofs) many places (but in this case free will for man is impossible). We stress that what we call historical anomalies mostly had not been such ones if things like in normal history were told after it happened. What make them anomalies, is the claim that the claimed "Mother Book" was written long time before things happened or were said, and then copies of this claimed "Mother Book" was sent down to all the claimed 124000 or more prophets and messengers through the times and all over the world, so that these persons could read also about what was to happen in their future - Moses surely would like to know how his people were to survive in the Sinai Desert, not to mention that Jonah would like to know the fish would spit him out - - - and both would like to learn about the great Muhammad who would be the only prophet(?) really succeeding with the "real" message of the old god Yahweh, now renamed(?) Allah. Remember that as all the books claimed sent down were copies of the claimed "Mother Book", they had to be more or less identical to the Quran, as the Quran was such a copy, too, Islam claims.

Also a prophet/messenger/reader might feel unsure about things because the incident told about had not happened yet or the person referred to was not born or at least not active yet when the mentioned prophet/messenger/reader lived, and perhaps in a for the reading prophet totally unknown culture (f.x. an aborigine prophet in Amazonas 15000 years ago - according to the Quran all humanity sporadically had its messengers to all times and all over the world (f.x. 6/42, 6/90, 10/47, 16/36, 35/24)) - remember here that the claimed Mother Book as mentioned was made by Allah before man was created, or perhaps has existed since eternity, and that a copy to f.x. Abraham some 3800 - 4000 years ago, Noah some 5600 years ago or may be more (the number is uncertain), must be similar to the Quran Muhammad god - if not it is not a copy of the same book. There are many more than the ones we list.

An extra point here which the Quran never mentions and Muhammad, Muslims and Islam never explain, is that if the claimed "Mother Book" was made before man was created, or even has existed since eternity, the unchangeable Quran (Allah's words cannot be changed - f.x. 10/64) - copy of that "Mother Book" - and the older copies claimed sent to older prophet, had to be a pure book of foretelling about the future for the older prophets. In their copies they could read about future prophets like Moses and Jesus and others, about things which would happen in the future, etc. And f.x. Jacob could read about what had happened to his son Joseph, and that they would meet again. There is no - no - mentioning in the Quran of this obvious and self evident effect of such a book if it was given to the claimed prophets of the old - may be too difficult for Muhammad to explain? (Muslims claim that there were different books for different times, but this is strongly contradicted in the Quran by what is said about the claimed "Mother Book", and if what the different copies the claimed prophets got according to the Quran, were copies of the same claimed "Mother Book", the copies just were new copies with identical texts). Islam never mention that because of this the old prophets would have good overview of main points and persons in the future, and never explain neither this nor why this effect never is mentioned in the Quran - actually the texts in the book pretends this effect never existed. Unexplainable - like total predestination versus free will for man.

A small problem: The Quran on one side says that the claimed "Mother Book" is eternal. On the other hand it says that the books varied - "each time a book" - as times varied. It does not explain how exact copies - like the Quran - of one and the same eternal book can be different.

NB: There are many more historical anomalies in the Quran than the ones we mention - everything written in the Quran in the beginning of time which the free will of man - acts, words, etc - could influence, are such anomalies, as if a person changed his mind a little, the text would be wrong, and thus the only possibility for that it could be written that early and still be reliable, is that predestination was and is absolute - - - and thus no free will for man.

For short: A HISTORICAL ANOMALY IN THIS BOOK IS SOME PERSON OR SOME HAPPENING WRITTEN ABOUT IN THE CLAIMED ETERNAL "MOTHER BOOK" BEFORE IT HAPPENED OR THEY LIVED, AND THUS HAD NO MEANING - OR WERE REVEALING THE FUTURE - WHEN COPIES OF THIS CLAIMED BOOK WERE SENT DOWN FOR READENG TO CLAIMED MESSENGERS OR PROPHETS LIVING BEFORE THE HAPPENINGS OR MENTIONED PERSONS, AND THUS WERE TIME ANOMALIES TO THOSE READERS.

"Not in the Bible". This simply means that what is told in the debated point in the Quran, is not from the Bible, and there is nothing closely similar in the Bible. Beware that there are much more of this than the cases we list - there is much in the Quran which is not from the Bible or has any parallel in the Bible, even in the stuff pretending to be Biblical stuff - one of the many indications for that Allah is not the same god as Yahweh/God and for that Muhammad was not in the same line of prophets as the Jewish ones - in both cases the contents of those two books would have had to be at least roughly similar, which they very far form are. (And remember here that both science and Islam has brought formidable proofs for that the Bible is not falsified - the standard claim and the standard way out of problems for Muslims claiming there are no mistakes in the Quran). Also see 12/30-34 about this.

"Contradicting the Bible". Similar comments like for "Not in the Bible", except that here you find similar texts in the Bible, but with contents contradicting the Quran. It is up to anyone what they want to believe, but beware that in any normal scientific evaluation, the Bible will be judged to be more likely to be true - if any is true - than the Quran. (There are several valid reasons for this - and especially so as the claim that the Quran is from a god is proved incorrect by all the mistakes, etc. in the Quran: No omniscient god makes mistakes, etc. "en gros" - and Muhammad had no other sources, except old legends, fairy tales, etc. about this.) There are many more than the "few" we list.

"Incompatible with the Bible". These are cases where the Quran clearly is contradicted on central or essential points by the Bible - so central or essential that it is clear both standpoints cannot come from the same god. Each and every of these incompatible points separately prove that Allah and Yahweh cannot be the same god, not to mention how strong this proof becomes when you combine the effect of several or all such incompatible points. These points prove very strongly that Allah and Yahweh are not the same deity. (And in addition there are the other proofs and indications for the same). There are more than the ones we list (we do not use this expression often - a number of places we call contradictions in reality are incompatible with the Bible).

NB: WE REPEAT THAT WE JUST MENTION SOME OF THESE 5 KINDS OF POINTS, BUT FAR FROM ALL - JUST GO LOOKING, AND YOU WILL FIND MORE.

26 The hard fact is that the Quran seems to be one of the apocryphal (made up) religious books, but further removed from Christianity and/or the Mosaic religion than most of the others - on the fringe even of the apocryphal literature simply.

27 ###Muslims further insist it is impossible to translate the Quran (just like the Japanese used to say about Japanese before they learnt other languages well). That is rubbish. What one human brain is able to think, another human brain at the same level of knowledge and intelligence is able to understand. At most it will take a little extra explanation.

28 As for point 27 just above, this claim is impossible to combine with the claim that similar copies were sent to the other claimed prophets through the times and all over the world - nearly none of them would understand Arab. (Some Muslims claim that the reason why only Arab can be used, is that it is Arab which is spoken in Heaven. But Arab like all languages "drifts" - words disappear or change meaning, new words comes, pronunciation may change. Is it then the Arabs who ape the "drift" in Heaven, and how do they in case learn about the changes - or is it Allah and his angels who "ape" the Arabs? Some Muslims even have "proved" that Arab is the original language in the world. Believe it if you want and are totally uneducated.)

29 This one we repeat: Since http://www.1000mistakes.com was first posted on Internet in spring 2008 it has become a central reference book. But there still are many who do not know about it. Please post the addresses http://www.1000mistakes.com and http://1000quran-comments.com on all your debate pages, information pages, and other relevant pages on the net - the pages you use, the pages you know about, and the pages you come across. Not for the benefit of us, but for the benefit of the ones who may need or want some of the enormous amount of information in the page. Information - quotes - not even Islam claims are wrong (even though they dislike what the quotes tell about the religion). The information may benefit:

  1. Muslims unsure about Islam.
  2. Muslims thinking about leaving Islam.
  3. Muslims looking for facts concerning Islam.
  4. Muslims trying in rational ways to evaluate their religion.
  5. Non-Muslims thinking about converting to Islam.
  6. Non-Muslims seeking information about Islam.
  7. Non-Muslims debating with Muslims - Muslims f.x. sometimes are not always 100% honest in such debates.
  8. Politicians and others meeting Muslims in daily life or job.

As for debate pages, the address should be mentioned every now and then (once a fortnight? - once a month each place?), because as new "letters" are posted, they "cover up" a posted address, and it drifts into oblivion if it is not repeated.

At the time of writing just this (21. Aug. 10), we have up to between 6000 and 7000 hits a day - yesterday f.x. 6611 hits. The average of course is lower, but all the same we reach a lot of people. With your help we may reach a lot more - this is information which should reach as many as possible.

Experience by now has shown that Muslims often have problems arguing against http://www.1000mistakes.com - they may pooh-pooh it, or deny it or refuse to believe it, but the proofs are too strong to argue against for many. Therefore you not only are spreading the address by referring to it - you may also win a point or the debate by referring to it and its address as an argument.


30. To Muslim fanatics: Do you want to kill us for writing these books, showing you facts you do not like to meet? - it often is easier to murder than to meet unwanted facts or "the lie of life" to quote Henrik Ibsen, which takes a lot of backbone. But it is too late as the books already are published: The cats are out of the bag.


Ps: We remind you that Muhammad claimed Allah = Yahweh - a claim which is easy to see is wrong, as the fundamental ideas and ideologies in the teachings/religions are too deeply different (Jesus love and peace and empathy, Muhammad Nazi-like (Carl Gustav Yung) haughtiness, discrimination and war - and lawful dishonesty (al-Taqiyya, etc. and stealing/robbing/looting, etc.)). Because of this claim, he uses the name Allah for Yahweh. This mistake is so obvious and so easy to see (and the claim never documented by Islam, but proved wrong by science - and by Islam), that mostly we do not bother to comment on it.

Islam also claims that the Bible is falsified and that it has been changed through the centuries. Ask for proof any time you hear this - the claims are wrong and never documented. Both science and even more so Islam have thoroughly proved these claims wrong by being unable to find one single proved falsification among all the know some 44000 relevant manuscripts and fragments. (Guess if Islam had announced it with huge and capital letters if they had found even one proved case!)

Finally two small quotes from the Bible and Jesus for comparison to the Quran and Islam:

  1. I: (Matt.7/12): "So in everything, do to others what you would have them do to you, for this sums up the Law and the Prophets.
  2. Compare this to the Quran's ethical, moral and judicial codes: Totally different too many places. One of the 100% proofs for that Yahweh and Allah are not the same god - not unless he is strongly schizophrenic.
  3. Compare this to Muhammad's teaching and behavior and raids and wars: It is very difficult to be more unlike than Jesus and Muhammad - one of the 100% proofs for that Jesus was not in the same line of prophets like Muhammad (and Muhammad on top of all was no real prophet - he only "borrowed" that impressive and imposing title - as he even according to Islam was unable to make prophesies) - they not only were not in the same line; they were not in the same moral world even.
  4. Muslims often cherry-pick a brutal piece of the Mosaic law, and say that as Jesus accepted that law (in spite of that even the Quran says he changed it), this justifies and sanctifies the brutal parts of Muslim laws, moral codes, etc. But the quote above and not cherry-picked details, was Jesus' essence of how one should understand the law one should obey.
  5. II: (Matt. 7/15-16): "Beware of false prophets. They come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly they are ferocious wolfs. By their fruits you will recognize them." There is no doubt Muhammad with all his raids (83? www.1000mistakes.com lists 62 of them) - mainly for riches and slaves/extortion, and later also for power - and his religion of war, was a ferocious wolf. And his fruits? - terrible for non-Muslim surroundings. And as his book - the Quran - with all its mistaken facts, other errors, contradictions, unclear language, etc. is from no god, the fruits may be even worse for all Muslims if there is a next life, and especially so if there is a real god somewhere they have been prohibited from looking for. Not to mention if that god is a good and benevolent one, not too fond of followers of a (made up?) god of discrimination, apartheid, dishonesty, blood, terror, and war. (That Islam is "The religion of peace" is a joke or an al-taqiyya (a lawful lie) you will see if you read the some 22 - 24 surahs from Medina.)

Some central facts about Muhammad, the Quran, and Islam:

A. Born ca. 570 AD. Married first a rich older widow. Started Islam in Mecca in 610 AD. Fled to Medina 13 years later - in 623 AD. Lived in Medina 10 years - as a highway-man, later robber baron/warlord (83? raids/wars, mostly for stealing/robbing, slave taking and extortion + later spreading Islam by the sword). Died quite rich with estates in Medina, Fadang and Khaybar in 632 AD.

B. 36 women known by name: 11 long time wives, (9 of them 20 - 36 years younger than him + favorite wife Aishah 6 years old (9 when sex started - he well past 50)), 16 short time wives, 2 concubines, and 7 who may be, may be not, really was married to him. Raped at least two girls/women; Rayhana bint Amr and Safiyya bint Huayay.

C. He in reality was not a prophet - he was unable to make prophesies, also according to the Quran and the Hadiths. See 9/88b and f.x. 65/1a.

D. He according to the Quran made no miracles - Islam today says: "The only miracle connected to him is the Quran".

E. He believed in using dishonesty (though al-Taqiyya and Kitman - f.x. 2/26h, 13/42 - formalized later), deceit/betrayal (f.x. the 29 from Khaybar murdered), and even broken words/promises/oaths (f.x. 2/224e, 2/225a, 5/89c, 16/91e).

F. He use lies even in the Quran - f.x. 6/7a, 6/28c, 6/109i, 7/120a, 20/70a.

G. He is speaking (f.x. 6/104c, 19/36b, 27/91a, 51/50-51) and MANY others referred speaking/acting in the Quran. How is that possible in a book claimed to be timeless and written before the world was created, if not 100% predestination?

H. If Allah predestines everything and according to his unchangeable Plan like the Quran states absolutely, man has no free will in Islam - mutually excluding each other, and thus impossible, in spite of Muhammad's and Islam's claims.

I. If Allah predestines everything and impossible to change, like the Quran states absolutely, prayers have no value or effect in Islam - mutually excluding each other, and thus impossible in spite of Muhammad's and Islam's claims.

"Muhammad lived far from the golden rule for moral: 'Do against others like you want others do against you', and as far from: 'Say the truth, or say nothing' - but he at least preached some of it".

There is a long distans between the historical, real Muhammad, and the semi-saint Muslims wish for and many even honestly are able to believe in.


SURAHS 21 - 30

The quotes and comments:


These are just tit-bits from the book "1000+ Quran-comments - skeptics' facts and thoughts". You will find the complete book under http://www.1000quran-comments.com. (The surah reference numbers are like in that book.)

In http://www.1000mistakes.com you find:

  1. Book A: "1000+ Mistakes in the Quran" - http://www.1000mistakes.com.
  2. Book B: "1000+ comments in Jihad - (un)holy war" - http://www.1000mistakes.com/jihad-holywar/index.php
  3. Book C (this one): "1000+ Quran-comments - skeptics' facts and thoughts" (1000+ tit-bits from the complete book) - http://www.1000quran-comments.php.
  4. Book D: "Correcting much wrong refuting on http://www.1000mistakes.com - and a lesson in Muslim ways of debating.
  5. Book E: "What the Bible really says - when the Quran uses legends, fairy tales, or phantasy, instead of the Bible as sources for 'Biblical' texts, like it often does. (Expected late 2011 or early 2012).

In http://www.1000quran-comments.com you find:

  1. "1000+ Quran-comments - skeptics' facts and thoughts" (the "complete" list - 20ooo+ comments on the Quran) - as said in http://1000quran-comments.php.

001 21/2a: "- - - a renewed Message - - -". The differences between the Bible (and especially NT with its New Covenant) are so deep and fundamental, that the Quran is no renewal of the Bible. This is even more sure as it is clear that the Muslim standard "explanation" - falsification of the Bible - is wrong (science has long since proved there may be mistakes in the Bible, but no falsifications, and Islam has proved it even better; If there anywhere had existed any clear indication, not to mention a proof for the smallest falsification, they had screamed about it. But there has never in 1400 years been one single such scream). But also see 21/2b just below.

002 21/5c: "- - - he (Muhammad*) forged it (the Quran*)!" Also this is a real possibility. The many cases where Allah(?) supported his personal needs and his hunting for power and for that chase for women (f.x. Zaid's wife) may point to this - there are so many "prophets" through the times who have used similar methods like Muhammad, though the military power of the united Arab tribes gave him/his successors more success than the others - with a partly (but only partly) exception for Indonesia, Islam's expansion was built on war and then suppression (or worse) afterwards of the ones who refused to become Muslims.

003 21/7c: "- - - those who possess the Message (of the old*)". The Jews (and the few Christians around). They could have testified that most messengers from the god were men, but would have added that Muhammad all the same was wrong, as some were angels and a few were women. They also would have protested to that the old prophets, not to mention the angles, mainly got their messages by inspiration, because the word is not at all used in such connections in the Bible. Perhaps a bluff by Muhammad to prove he was a real prophet? As claimed he got his messages via inspiration it was good "documentation" to claim the old ones had got their messages the same way.

004 21/12c: "- - - Our (Allah's*) punishment - - -". Not possible unless he exists (but beware that if he exists and belong to the dark forces, it is possible - he does not bellong to the heaven if he is behind the Quran, as too much is wrong in that book).

005 21/18a: "- - - nay, We (Allah) hurl the Truth against falsehood, and it knocks out its brain, and behold, falsehood doth perish!" Does the same happen if one hurls the Quran With all its mistakes, etc. at falsehood? - the Quran at best is partly true.

006 21/22a: "If there were, in the heavens (plural and wrong*) and the earth, other gods besides Allah, there would have been confusion in both!" The logic is wrong. There exist both hierarchic and parallel (one boss for each department or aspect) systems for management. One can say there could be confusion, but not that there would be. The "proof" is invalid.

007 21/24b: "Bring your (non-Muslims'*) convincing proof - - -". This is one of Muhammad's better ones: He is teaching a religion which to a large degree openly built on known tales from known legends, fairy tales, apocryphal (made up) scriptures, etc. and without proving one single comma or semi-colon - but he demands "convincing proof" from everyone else. Like so often in Islam: Blind belief within, but sharp demands outwards - like so often in extreme sects. "One rule for Loki and another for Thor". (Actually a fitting comparison, as also Thor was a god of war (for the Vikings) like Allah, and also the old Vikings automatically ended in Paradise if they were killed in battle).

**008 21/30a: "Do not the Unbelievers see that the heavens (plural and wrong) and the earth were joined together (as one unit of Creation), before We (Allah*) clove them asunder?" Heaven is an optical illusion - a fact that is well known today, but Muhammad did not know it - and an illusion cannot be "cloven asunder" from a material thing (like Earth). We also have met Muslims saying that the theory of the Big Bang proves the Quran. But the Big Bang "clove something asunder" 13.7 billion years ago, whereas our sun (Helios or Sun*) is a 3. generation star, and it and the planets included Earth are just 4.6 billion years old (the latest numbers actually are 4.567 billion years). The differences in age, and far more the fact that our sun is 3. generation, (which means that the stuff the earth - and the sun is made from, has been through two cycles of being fluid and mixed parts of (former) suns that became super novas (exploding stars) and were spread over large parts of cosmos where it mixed with remnants of other exploded super novas and with gas, and at last coalesce to make a new sun and planets) makes the Big Bang totally irrelevant in this connection for all the first 9 billion years the Earth and the sun and the planets just were scattered atoms, molecules and fragments in a celestial "mixer" not an Earth, etc. that could be identified and could "be joined together" or "cloven asunder" with the sky. At least the professors at Al-Azhar University know this because these are very well known facts, and it is dishonesty to try to cheat people by using this "argument" in f. ex. "The Message of the Quran" - a book pretending to give, as seen from the Muslim point of view, correct information on and explanations of the Quran, certified by one of the highest authorities on the Quran in the Muslim world, the above-mentioned university.

Conclusions: According to the Quran Allah created a quantity of something like smoke, ordered the smoke to "come together", and afterwards split that mass in 2 the Earth (actually 7 Earths) in one part, and the heaven as we see it (but actually 7 material heavens according to the Quran - and Islam) in the other part. It should be unnecessary to mention that this has no similarity to what really happened. The Big Bang spread gas nearly only hydrogen (H), but with traces of helium (He) in ionized and thus opaque form and absolutely no smoke, because even micro particles did not exist yet - over vast realms. After some 300000 380000 years the gas had cooled enough to be able to combine to molecules (mainly H2) that could condense to stars. The first stars tended strongly to be super giants because the gas in space was by far more tightly packed than today and thus easier to mop up to make big stars. In the stars H2 was transformed to different atoms up to iron by means of atomic reactions that releases the energy stars "live" from.

But in super giants these reactions runs fast because of very high temperature and pressure. Already after some 10 million years or more if they were smaller - they explode in super-novas. In the extreme conditions of those explosions the heavier stuff is created and spewed out into the Universe. There it became parts of the gas clouds which over eons condensed to new stars. The average size now was smaller, for natural reasons the gas clouds were less dense. Because of somewhat smaller average size, the average "life" was somewhat longer. But even so a large percentage also of this 2. generation stars were big enough to go supernova sooner or later (often still pretty fast) and then a new circle started. Gas clouds which now contained a small percentage of other matter than H2 and He condensed once more to new stars.

And here finally our star Helios or Sun fits in. Our sun is a 3. generation star and because of that there were enough heavy material to make "rock planets" like the Earth.

But heaven and Earth never was smoke. The stars and the sun never made up one mass with a recognizable Earth (another fact that made that impossible: Earth was made 9.1 billion years and trillions of stars later than the universe). Not to mention that a recognizable Earth and heaven/stars/etc never were one mass which was split apart leaving the Earth like we know it ready for life and living beings.

The Quran and Muhammad could hardly have been more wrong even if they really had tried to.

009 21/36d: "- - - they (skeptics*) treat thee (Muhammad*) not except with ridicule". Already at that time at least some saw that something was very wrong with Muhammad's teachings".

###010 21/44b: "See they (non-Muslims*) not that We (Allah*) reduce the land (in their control) from its outlying borders? A small concession here, a special right there, a new mosque, a little sharia, a little teaching of discrimination against non-Muslims in a child school or a mosque - yes, small pieces from the outside and in. To be remembered when Muslims demand concessions - a little here and a little there.

011 21/47d: "- - - not a soul will be dealt with unjustly - - -". Wrong, if the rules in the Quran are in accordance with Allah's rules. Even if we omit the immoral parts of the Quran's moral code and ethical code, there remain in sharia laws parts which are highly immoral and unjust, the pinnacles of which may be that a raped woman shall be punished for unlawful sex if she cannot bring 4 male witnesses to the very act, that stealing and rape of captives are "lawful and good" in and after a raid in the name of the god - jihad - (a condition which makes this even more repulsive and tells macro words about Muhammad and Islam - and also nearly everything is named jihad), and a number of the rules for raids, terrorism and war.

012 21/51b: "- - - Abraham - - -". The man who denounced and quarreled with his father according to the Quran, but lived and travelled together with him for a long time until Abraham set out for Canaan when he was 75 years according to the Bible (1. Mos. 12/4), and without any serious quarrel mentioned in the Bible. The man who according to the Quran took his family and huge flocks of animals some 1200 km from where he normally lived - much of the way through the harsh and rough and hot and dry and forbidding Arab desert - to a dry, forbidding, empty and narrow desert valley and lived there with his animals without water and measurable fodder for the flocks, till it fit to leave his son Ishmael and his concubine Hagar there in the place which many centuries later was to become Mecca. Then he returned home the same grueling road - but came back years later to build himself a big mosque - - - still some 1200 km (some 750 miles) of partly horrible conditions away from his home, and in an arid, empty place in the middle of not even nowhere.

Believe it if you are able to.

##013 21/56e: "- - - He (Allah*) Who created them (man*) (from nothing): and I (Abraham) am a witness to this (truth)". Wrong even according to the Quran, as the Quran tells Man - Adam - was created from this and that (see 6/2b above). And on top of that: man was made from something, though not created, as he developed from earlier primates. This really is an unintended joke: It is told that Allah did something that is not true - and Abraham witnesses that it is the truth, and this even if he lived millions of years later! (Some 6 million years or a bit more after the first humanoid, and may be 200000 after the first Homo Sapiens). Some proof for Allah! Is it possible that Allah himself has sent down this mistaken "proof"? But it does tell something about proofs in the Quran and from Muslims.

014 21/67c: "Have ye (non-Muslims*) no sense (believing in other gods than Allah*)". May be good sense was just what they had - and then saw something was very wrong in the new religion.

015 21/69b: "We (Allah*) said, ‘O fire! Be thou cool, and (a means of) safety for Abraham". This episode is normally referred to as "Nimrod's (or Nimrud's) Fire". But as Nimrod was the great grandson of Noah and lived - if he ever lived - some 2000 years before Abraham, this is an impossibility. Then Muslims - not for the first or only time - say: "It was another with the same name", in this case an unknown king. We have found no basis for this claim, and Islam will have to produce proofs.

016 21/78b: "- - - the sheep of certain people who had strayed by night - - -". There is no such story in the Bible. Either this is a pure legend retold - there are many made up legends retold in the Quran claimed to be the pure truth - or id is a misunderstood version of the story about David and Bathsheba (2. Sam. 11/2-26), or to be more exact the prophet Nathan's words to David because of this (2. Sam. 12/1-7). Also twisted stories from the Bible you find some of in the Quran - and the crucial word in those cases is "twisted". And as crucial: As the Quran is not from a god, and as the Bible mostly is the only source for these old stories: From where did Muhammad get the claimed information not in the Bible?

017 21/85b: Idris may or may not be Enoch (Gen. 5/21-24). As mentioned before, the language in the Quran often is far from exact. It may also simply be a name invented by Muhammad - and the same goes for Dhu'l-Kifl in 21/85c (and for the claimed Arab prophets Hud, Salih, and Shu'ayb may be).

018 21/89b: "- - - Zakariyya, when he cried to his Lord (here indicated to be Allah*) - - -". This is plainly wrong. One thing is that the Bible says his god was Yahweh, not Allah. Much more serious here is that we now are in the times of history: Zakariyya was a priest in the Temple in Jerusalem according to both the Bible and the Quran, and we are around the times of the birth of Jesus. From these times we have a number of written papers confirming that the cult of Yahweh was totally dominant in Israel - so dominant that to pray to a pagan god (al-Lah) from a neighboring country in the Temple at this time, not to mention for a priest to do so, was much more than unthinkable. Thus we here have not only a statement from the Bible, but a proved fact that it was out of any question for Zakariyya (Zechariah in the Bible) to pray to Allah/al-Lah.

###019 21/91b: "- - - her who guarded her chastity - - -". = Mary. Both the Bible and the Quran agrees on that she was a virgin. (See 3/47b, 19/20 (and -21), 66/12 and here). This is no news neither for Christians, nor for many others (even though many are not aware that the Quran solidly confirms it). All the same you will meet Muslims claiming Mary was a slut going after Roman soldiers, etc. - to slander is i way of debating for some. Then it can be good to remember that any Muslim saying things like that, at the same time tells that the Quran is wrong at least 4 places - the at least 4 places it confirms she was chaste.

020 21/96c: "Until the Gog and Magog (people) are let through (their barrier), and they swiftly swarm from every hill". This will according to the Quran happen shortly before the Day of Doom - which means the two big tribes(?) are still living behind the barrier. BUT: Where is the wall? Where is the valley? Today every inch of the globe is mapped, and there is no walled in valley anywhere. Not in the east where Alexander travelled, and nowhere else. (And we repeat: Gog and Magog are not to be released until shortly before the Day of Doom, according to the Quran, so they should still be in the valley).

021 21/112f: "- - - against the blasphemies ye utter". It is no blasphemies unless the Quran tells the full truth - not necessarily only the truth, but at least the full truth. And not least: Not unless Allah really exists - there only is the word of one man for that. A man believing in al-Taqiyya (the lawful lie), Kitman (the lawful half-truth), breaking of words/promises/oaths (according to the Quran), and deceit ("War is deceit" - and "everything" was jihad). And a man wanting power and riches for bribes to get more power - - - and lots of women.


These are just tit-bits from the book "1000+ Quran-comments - skeptics' facts and thoughts". You will find the complete book under http://www.1000quran-comments.com. (The surah reference numbers are like in that book.)

In http://www.1000mistakes.com you find:

  1. Book A: "1000+ Mistakes in the Quran" - http://www.1000mistakes.com.
  2. Book B: "1000+ comments in Jihad - (un)holy war" - http://www.1000mistakes.com/jihad-holywar/index.php
  3. Book C (this one): "1000+ Quran-comments - skeptics' facts and thoughts" (1000+ tit-bits from the complete book) - http://www.1000quran-comments.php.
  4. Book D: "Correcting much wrong refuting on http://www.1000mistakes.com - and a lesson in Muslim ways of debating.
  5. Book E: "What the Bible really says - when the Quran uses legends, fairy tales, or phantasy, instead of the Bible as sources for 'Biblical' texts, like it often does. (Expected late 2011 or early 2012).

In http://www.1000quran-comments.com you find:

  1. "1000+ Quran-comments - skeptics' facts and thoughts" (the "complete" list - 20ooo+ comments on the Quran) - as said in http://1000quran-comments.php.

022 22/1a: "O Mankind! Fear your Lord (Allah*)!" Muhammad claimed Allah was the god of the entire world. At present he is the nominal god - existing or not existing - for roughly 20% of the world's population (the actual number is very uncertain, but some 1.2 billion). But the number is increasing, partly because of active procelyting (and at the same time hinder or forbid procelyting for other religions or even for telling facts about the Quran or Muhammad in their own countries), and partly because Muslims produce many children - even in modern times when it has become clear that the production of food and other necessities are reaching limits (unless science makes new break-throughs, but no such ones are expected shortly). On opposing tendency, though, is that 3. generation emigrants into other cultures seems to a degree to lose faith - but this possible tendency is not 100% proved yet.

023 22/3a: "Yet among men there are such as dispute about Allah". Already then - this was approximately 616 AD - many saw that something was very wrong with Muhammad's new religion. (But most of them were silenced - some by Muhammad's growing military power, some by honest belief, some by their lust for joining the Muslims in looting, enslaving, rape, etc., and some because of pressure or threats or terrorism.)

024 22/5a: "If ye (people*) have a doubt about the resurrection, (consider) that We (Allah*) created you - - -". This is typical debate from Muhammad: He takes a never proved claim - that Allah created man, etc. - and tries to use this as a proof for Allah's ability to recreate. The argument is totally without any value as long as Islam does not prove that Allah really created "you". The correct, but impolite word is "bluff" as long as absolutely nothing of any consequence in all the religion is proved. Also see 6/2b, 7/158i, and 11/7a above.

Also for another reason this argument for Allah's power to recreate is invalid: Bodily recreation - and especially after the body has decomposed and the soft parts disappeared - goes against both nature and the entropy. This is unlikely more difficult than to use nature to create a new human - even if you are good at painting walls, this is not a proof for your ability to paint a new "Mona Lisa".

025 22/13a: "(Perhaps) they (non-Muslims*) call on one (other god*) whose hurt is nearer than his profit: evil, indeed, is the patron, and evil the companion (for help)". If the Quran is not from a god and/or is not the full and only truth, what is the Muslims' position here? - and what is their position in case, if there in addition somewhere else exist a real god?

026 22/16e: (A22/17): "- - - Allah doth guide whom He will." Or is the meaning: "- - - for (thus it is) that Allah guides him who wills (to be guided)". Quite a difference in the first case Allah decides, in the second case it is the person who decides (if free will exists). Both in the same clear text that is easy to understand according to Islam. And these variants as mentioned also are in the Arab text, as the relevant word(s) there has/have more than one meaning.

027 22/23a: "Allah will admit those who believe and work righteous deeds, to Gardens beneath which rivers flow: they shall be adorned therein with bracelets of gold and pearls; and their garments will be of silk". As said before: A Paradise like the life of the very rich and kings in and around Arabia at that time as seen through the eyes of the poor and the primitive. Has an omniscient god nothing better to offer? Also this is a robust proof for that Yahweh and Allah is not the same god - their Paradises are totally different: "At the resurrection people will neither marry nor be given in marriage; they will be like the angels in heaven" (Matt. 22/30). To say the least of it: There is some difference between Earth-like luxury plus plenty of sex for the men, and to become like angels.

028 22/27a: (A37): "And proclaim the Pilgrimage among men - - -." As Allah was speaking about not to, but about Abraham in the previous verse, many Muslim scholars think this was said to Abraham. But there is no reason at all to believe Abraham institutionalized pilgrimage to Mecca neither in the Bible nor in the Quran there is any hint about that - in addition to that he never visited Mecca (see 2/127a above). So many Muslims f.x. Al-Hasan al-Basri believe the words were meant for Muhammad. Believe what you like the text is unclear enough for both meanings. Like all too often in the Quran

029 22/29b: "- - - circumambulate - - -". In the case of hajj (the pilgrimage to/in Mecca): Walk 7 times around the mosque Kabah in Mecca - the age-old rite concerning the Kabah (= the Cube) taken over unabridged from the old Arab pagan times like the other holy Islamic rites concerning hajj. We may in addition mention that 7 is one of the old magic numbers.

030 22/34g: "- - - the good news (Islam*) - - -". A war religion never is good news, not even to its followers. There are exceptions, though: The leaders who become rich from loot and tax and powerful from suppression, and those of the warriors who become more or less rich from loot. But even these may be destroyed morally and as human beings. (Even the Quran says that the one who does bad things, is destroyed morally.)

031 22/38d: "- - - Allah loveth not any that is a traitor to faith - - -". If Allah does not exist, he loves nobody. If he exists and is a god, whom he loves will depend entirely on how his religion is, and the Quran is no guide to this, as no god ever was involved in a book with that much, mistaken facts and other errors. And if he exists, but belongs to the dark forces, it is anybody's guess whom he loves.

032 22/42c: "If they treat thy (Muhammad's*) (mission) as false, so did the Peoples before them (with their prophets)- - -". The Quran claims there always and in all communities have been prophets from Allah - Hadiths mention the number 124000 prophets throughout the times, and even that number seems to just be symbolic for nearly innumerably many. Science has shown the claim to be wrong, though, as with the exception of the Jewish and Christian religions which are somewhat similar, there exists not one single trace of such a monotheistic religion in the old times from the emergence of Homo Sapiens may be 200000 years ago and up to 610 AD when Muhammad started his religion. An as good proof for that the claim is wrong, is the fact that also Islam has found no such trace older than 610 AD.

033 22/52b: "Never did We (Allah*) send a messenger or a prophet before thee (Muhammad*), but, when he framed a desire, Satan threw some (vanity) into his desire: but Allah will cancel anything (vain) that Satan throws in, and Allah will confirm (and establish) His Signs - - -". (from the middle of the Mecca period mainly - ca. 614 - 617 AD (perhaps 616 AD) and shortly after the infamous "Satanic Verses" Muhammad quoted in 53/19-22 in a situation where he had much to gain from becoming friends with the rulers and ruling class in Mecca: "Have ye seen al-Lat, al-Uzza, And another, the third (goddess), Manat (the three daughters of the main god in Mecca at that time, al-Lah*)? These are exalted idols whose intercession is hoped". Muhammad afterwards changed the 4 short verses to: "Have ye seen al-Lat, al-Uzza, And another, the third (goddess) Manat? What! For you male sex, and for Him, the female (for children*)! Behold, such would be indeed most unfair!" (Muhammad was an Arab and was sure a god would look down on women as much as Arabs did*). This episode made a lot of "noise", and it was most convenient for him to receive(?) a verse like this telling all prophets had had experiences like that, and that he was not to be blamed).

It may be ok to abrogate words of Satan, but how could an omniscient and omnipotent god permit Satan to do it? - something is wrong here. And how could a perfect prophet not notice that 3 goddesses was something way out of his former teachings? - - - if there was not a reason for him to do it? And how many other verses are inspired by whispering from Satan? (- the brutal verses from Medina may make one think this and that.)

##034 22/54b: "- - - those on whom knowledge has been bestowed - - - may believe therein (in the Quran*) - - -". It is not possible for anyone with real knowledge AND a little training in critical thinking + have a brain which still function, to believe in the Quran. It is not possible to believe in something you see is full of mistakes and worse, or to believe in a religion where it is easy to see no god has ever been involve (no god was ever involved in a book of a quality like the Quran.

##035 22/58c: "Those who leave their home in the cause of Allah, and are then slain or die - on them will Allah bestow, verily, a goodly Provision (Paradise*) - - -". Except for real martyrs (the Quran calls everything martyrs, included aggressive warriors, terrorists, and whatever) guess if here is a difference between Yahweh and Allah, between Jesus and Muhammad! Not the same god and not the same kind of representatives on Earth by far.

**036 22/62a: "- - - Allah - He is reality - - -". Well, that is one of the big points which neither the Quran nor Hadith nor Islam's learned men have been able to give the slightest proof for. Even some Muslim intellectuals admit so. This in spite of all the "signs" and "proofs" that say so in the Quran - they have one thing in common: NOT ONE OF THEM GIVES ONE SINGLE VALID PROOF OF ALLAH - they all are claims or statements built on air or on not proved "facts" or other claims or statements that are not proved. A fact that "smells". Gabriel may simply be a result of a sick brain (modern medical science suspects Muhammad had TLE (Temporal Lobe Epilepsy) - which can give such religious "experiences" like it it said Muhammad had) or something made up in the imagination of a Muhammad pretending Allah to be an avatar of - or identical to - Yahweh. The last is not possible, though, as the essences of the two teachings are too different, but Muhammad did pretend so. And: Cheating is the hallmark of cheaters.

037 22/67c: "- - - thou (Muslims*) art assuredly on the Right Way". That only is true if the Quran is correct - - - and the Quran contains lots of mistakes, contradictions, twisted arguments, twisted logic, some outright lies, etc. (all of which are hallmarks for cheats, deceivers and swindlers persons normally looking for money, women and/or power in dishonest ways. Muhammad liked women and power and money for "gifts" - bribes - to possible or lukewarm followers). Similar claim in 45/18. Besides: Have you ever noticed that the one who most needs to boast loudly and frequently about how truthful he is, is the cheater and the swindler, and the one boasting about his knowledge is the medium to rather ok, but not top intelligent and learned one? the really honest and the really intelligent persons never need to boast about those things. Real honesty and real intelligence makes itself felt after some time of close connection if there is a need for boasting, something is wrong. And the Quran talk quite a lot, especially about how truthful it is.

038 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 + the result of being at a crossroad for the caravans + tje result of large import of slaves/concubines fron 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 reasonable reason reasons for to believe that the claim is wrong. Islam will have to produce proofs in order to be believed by us.


These are just tit-bits from the book "1000+ Quran-comments - skeptics' facts and thoughts". You will find the complete book under http://www.1000quran-comments.com. (The surah reference numbers are like in that book.)

In http://www.1000mistakes.com you find:

  1. Book A: "1000+ Mistakes in the Quran" - http://www.1000mistakes.com.
  2. Book B: "1000+ comments in Jihad - (un)holy war" - http://www.1000mistakes.com/jihad-holywar/index.php
  3. Book C (this one): "1000+ Quran-comments - skeptics' facts and thoughts" (1000+ tit-bits from the complete book) - http://www.1000quran-comments.php.
  4. Book D: "Correcting much wrong refuting on http://www.1000mistakes.com - and a lesson in Muslim ways of debating.
  5. Book E: "What the Bible really says - when the Quran uses legends, fairy tales, or phantasy, instead of the Bible as sources for 'Biblical' texts, like it often does. (Expected late 2011 or early 2012).

In http://www.1000quran-comments.com you find:

  1. "1000+ Quran-comments - skeptics' facts and thoughts" (the "complete" list - 20ooo+ comments on the Quran) - as said in http://1000quran-comments.php.

039 23/1b: (YA2865): "The Believers must (eventually) win through - - -." It may be worth mentioning that communism once said the same - their system was superior and had to win in the long run. The Nazi said the same - better system and better quality humans. Also the South States said the same - they were better quality and better warriors than the "merchants" in the North States.

#040 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 "just 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.

*041 23/14a: "Then We (Allah*) made the sperm into a clot of congealed blood - - -". Wrong. And doubly wrong:

  1. The sperm is not made into a clot of congealed blood.
  2. Sperm (1 cell from it) combines with an egg cell and becomes a zygote.

Muhammad did not know better, as this was what one believed in Arabia at his time - without a microscope it is impossible to see exactly what happens. But a god had known. There is a saying that "the taste is the proof of the cake", and this is tasty. Muhammad and the Quran and Islam and Muslims had and have very busy time to find "explanations" - some of them rather unlikely - to "explain" why Allah/Muhammad did not produce one single real proof for that a supernatural being was involved, even though many friends and as many foes asked sincerely for it. But Allah did not even have to make the slightest miracle to prove his existence. All he had to do was to tell the truth in all these cases - like this one - where the Quran now are proved to be wrong. If Allah really did exist, and if he really was/is omniscient - why then did he make up so many wrongs, when correct information had proved something?

As it is, all scientific "facts" in the Quran is in accordance with what was believed to be the truth in Arabia at that time (much of it actually was Greek or Persian "knowledge".)

A disturbing fact is that even today Muslim scholars tries to tell tat in one step of development the fetus is a clot of congealed blood(!!!). F. x. YA2872.

Like it is now, all these facts are incredibly strong proofs for that there was no omniscient god involved in creating the Quran - and what then about Islam? - is it a made up, false religion? Not to mention: What will then in case happen in a possible next life to all humans - Muslims - who have had their chances to look for a real religion (if such one exists) blocked by Islam?

042 23/18a: "And We (Allah*) send down from the sky - - -". A claim just like from any other relevant god in any other religion. As long as it is not proved Allah really does this, such a claim is worth exactly zero as a proof or indication for Allah - just as much as the similar claim from strong believers in other religions. Also see 11/7a above.

A telling tale here is that the Quran another place tells that Allah breaks the clouds to pieces (to make raindrops). The exactly opposite of what happens when raindrops are formed. The maker of the Quran was not much omniscient - was he a god or a human?

043 23/27d: "- - - and the fountains of the earth gush forth (and make the Big Flood*) - - -". The Quran tells (11/44) that the Ark ended on Mount Al-Judi in Anatolia in Turkey. This mountain is 2089 m high. There is no way water in Turkey could be that high unless the flood was universal - it had streamed away to not flooded places in case (a fact Islam knows very well, and all the same tries to explain that the flood only was regional - a clear al-Taqiyya (lawful lie)). But there is no way fountains of the Earth could have gushed forth that much water - not even 10% of it - not even if it was assisted by heavy rain (and there are limits to how much rain the atmosphere can contain and release). And absolutely not without leaving any traces from collapsed enormous chambers or something.

044 23/34s: "(The chiefs said*) If ye (people at the time of Noah*) obey a man like yourself (a la Muhammad*), behold, it is certain that ye will be lost". This was said by non-Muslims. If the Quran is not made by a god - and no god ever made a book with that many mistakes, contradictions, etc., not to mention revered it in his own Heaven - those non-Muslims may be right.

045 23/41a: "And the Blast overtook them (people some generations after Noah?*) with justice (and killed them*), and we made them as rubbish of dead leafs - - -". Excellent literature! - either the Quran without remark or explanation has changed from talking about Noah, or Muhammad has mixed up his stories; there was no blast during the Big Flood, neither in the Bible no in the Quran. Most likely here he has switched from one story to another in the middle of the tales. The ones claiming that the Quran is excellent literature, either do not know the Quran, or they know nothing about literature.

PS: Yahweh caused little killing between Noah and Abraham, but Allah seems to have been busy most of the time.

046 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 also supreme power and plenty of riches - when he dised he f.x. had estates in Medina, Khaybar and Fadang - a fact often "forgot" by Muslims claiming he lived a poor man's lif.

047 23/56b: "- - - they do not understand". One of Muhammad's standard "explanations" for why many did not believe in him. It still is one of the standard Muslim "explanations" for why many see things are very wrong in the Quran. This even though the real fact often is that "they" really understand.

048 23/62a: "On no soul do We (Allah*) place burdens it cannot bear - - -". Wrong. There f.x. are self murder also in Islam - a few of them may even be camouflaged as self murder terrorists. And there are persons fleeing from their families. And persons with mental problems so big that it hurts or destroys them mentally. They are unable to bear their burdens.

##049 23/70d: "- - - but most of them (the non-Muslims*) hate the Truth". Wrong. It in reality seems that the ones really seeking the truth, mostly are non-Muslims. Muslims, and not to mention many of their religious leaders, seem to be seeking - or inciting to and glorifying - blind belief in spite of real knowledge; they seem to be the ones hating the truth in all cases where the truth is not what their religion says.

We ourselves started to study the Quran some years ago to learn about the religion of the Muslim immigrants, and thus better understand their culture. The main thing we have found till now, is that real truths show that there are enormously many mistakes in the Quran, not to mention contradictions, invalid "signs" and "proofs" - hallmarks of deceivers and cheats - etc., so many that it impossibly can come from an omniscient god. And so many mistakes that it is impossible to trust what is said in the book, unless one has solid extra proofs, or at least confirmation from other, reliable sources.

And also that Muhammad in at least some cases has had to know he was not saying the truth - some things he says, contradicts the fact that he was a wise man understanding people. He simply was lying. But then one of his slogans was: "War is deceit", and he also told that the result counted more than even keeping even one's oath sworn by Allah. Not to mention al-Taqiyya (the lawful lie) and Kitman (the lawful half-truth). Sorry.

050 23/78: "It is He (Allah*) Who has created for you (the faculties of) hearing, sight, feeling and understanding - - -". One more in the long line of never documented claims about natural phenomena claimed for Allah - just like believers from other religions claim it for their god(s). Loose words and as loose claims are that cheap as long as you are able to flee from proving anything. Also see 11/7a above.

*051 23/86a: "Who is the Lord of the seven heavens - - -?" Wrong. There are no 7 heavens (and remember: They had to be material ones, because according to the Quran, the stars are fastened to the lowest heaven, and you can fasten nothing to something non-material). All the same you find these claims about 7 heavens/firmaments/tracts in 2/29d+e, 17/44a, 23/17a, 23/86a, 41/12a+b, 65/12a, 67/3a+b and 71/15a+b - all together the Quran mentions "heavens" in plural at least 199 times; there is no doubt the Quran means there are 7 heavens (and as the stars are fastened to the lowermost of them - f. x. 67/5a - they have to be material ones - if not the stars could not be fastened to it). In 67/3 you also are told they are places one above the other, which means they of course are built successively higher above the Earth - which also is clear from most places in the Quran where the place of the heavens are indicated. Some modern Muslims try to place the heavens in space, deep space included. But among others 67/3 prohibits this, as "up" and "down" ("one above the other") has no meaning as part of the real space.

By the way: 67/12b also claims there are 7 Earths, and gives their names according to Islam.

It is some irony to see such a huge scientific mistake used as verification for Allah. And it is not the only time a "proof" for Allah simply is scientifically wrong.

053 23/109b: "- - - Thou (Allah*) art the Best of those who show mercy!" Please read the surahs from Medina - as they are the youngest ones, they are the ones which counts when verses conflict, according to Islam's own rules - and the harshest paragraphs in the sharia laws, and see if you agree. Allah in reality is a harsh god, and we any day believe more in what a man or a god demands and does, than in what he or his followers claim - words are cheap.

#053 23/112: (YA2948): "He (Allah*) will say - - -". Here is an interesting small or big detail when you think about all the claims about how exactly like Muhammad's words the Quran is: A. Yusuf Ali refers directly to the difference between 2 "ways of reading". One is the Hafs version after Kufah, the other is after Basrah Islam uses the expression "ways of reading" ("qira'ah") and pretends that that is something different from versions, which it is not. Islam just use another word to conjure away the fact that there exist and existed different versions of the book there once were 14 "canonized" ones + a lot of others. We quote: "The Hafs reading is "Qala", "He will say". This follows the Kufah Qira'ah. The Basrah Qira'ah reads "Qul", "Say" (in the imperative)." In itself this is a minor detail though far more than "correct to the last comma" like Muslims often claim (in the first case the quote if from Allah, in the second case Allah is ordering someone (Muhammad?) to speak) but it documents that the different versions of the Quran still exist and are used. (Actually the two that are in daily use today, are Warsh in parts of Africa, and Hafs in the rest of the world.)


These are just tit-bits from the book "1000+ Quran-comments - skeptics' facts and thoughts". You will find the complete book under http://www.1000quran-comments.com. (The surah reference numbers are like in that book.)

In http://www.1000mistakes.com you find:

  1. Book A: "1000+ Mistakes in the Quran" - http://www.1000mistakes.com.
  2. Book B: "1000+ comments in Jihad - (un)holy war" - http://www.1000mistakes.com/jihad-holywar/index.php
  3. Book C (this one): "1000+ Quran-comments - skeptics' facts and thoughts" (1000+ tit-bits from the complete book) - http://www.1000quran-comments.php.
  4. Book D: "Correcting much wrong refuting on http://www.1000mistakes.com - and a lesson in Muslim ways of debating.
  5. Book E: "What the Bible really says - when the Quran uses legends, fairy tales, or phantasy, instead of the Bible as sources for 'Biblical' texts, like it often does. (Expected late 2011 or early 2012).

In http://www.1000quran-comments.com you find:

  1. "1000+ Quran-comments - skeptics' facts and thoughts" (the "complete" list - 20ooo+ comments on the Quran) - as said in http://1000quran-comments.php.

##054 24/1c: "(This is*) A surah which We (Allah*) have sent down and which We have ordained: in it have We sent down clear Signs; in order that ye may receive admonition."

"The Massage of the Quran", comment to 24/1 (A24/1): I.e., "the injunctions whereof We (Allah*) have made self-evident by virtue of their wording": thus Abd Allah ibn ‘Abbas explains the expression 'faradnaha' in this context. - - - The same explanation, also on the authority of ibn ‘Abbas, is advanced by Tabari. It would seem that the special stress on Allah's having laid down this surah "in plain terms" (the norm, but here stressed extra*) is connected with the gravity of the injunctions spelt out in this sequence: in other words, it implies a solemn warning against any attempt at widening or re-defining those injunctions by means of deductions, interferences or any other considerations unconnected with the plain wording of the Quran". Any comment necessary?

"the injunctions whereof We (Allah*) have made self-evident by virtue of their wording". What about telling this sentence to Socrates or Pascal or a plain teacher of logic? - they had not been finished laughing - or weeping - until after next Christmas. Add the fact that the wording in the Quran took some 250 years (from ca. 650 AD to ca. 900 AD) to polish, and they hardly had survived the laughing. And this is the kind of arguments and "proofs" Islam relies on!

055 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.

056 24/6-7a: "And for those (men*) who launch a charge against their spouses, and have (in support) no evidence but their own - their solitary evidence (can be received) if they bear witness four times (with an oath) by Allah that they are solemnly telling the truth; And the fifth (oath) (should be) that they solemnly invoke the curse of Allah on themselves if they tell a lie". If you are married to the woman, your oath may be accepted without witnesses - but you have to swear an oath condemning yourself if you lie.

057 24/15c: "- - - it (see 24/11b above*) was most serious in the sight of Allah". Slander may be a serious, but not most serious sin that word you have to reserve for torture, terrorism, murder, mass murder, etc. - and if you are religious for the gravest sins against the god(s). If on the other hand Allah was a made up platform of power for Muhammad and his co-workers, well, then it might have been most serious for him as it touched Muhammad.

#058 24/31a: "And say to the believing woman that they should lower their gaze and guard their modesty; that they should not display their beauty and ornaments except what (must ordinarily) appear thereof; that they should draw their veils over their bosoms and not display their beauty except to their husbands, their sons, their husband's sons, their brothers or their brothers' sons or their sisters sons, or their womenfolk, or those whom their right hand possess, or male servants free of physical needs, or small children who have no sense of shame or sex and that they should not strike their feet in order to draw attention to their hidden ornaments". THIS IS ALL WHICH IS SAID IN THE QURAN ABOUT HOW A WOMAN SHOULD DRESS, WITH ONE EXCEPTION: SHE ALSO SHALL COVER HER HAIR. Things are mentioned other places, but the same as here. (There is talk of a veil one place, but this only concerns the wives of Muhammad, and it is a veil used as a partition of a room, not a veil covering the face). Everything else about a woman's clothes is NOT from the Quran. (But in the Hadiths veils are mentioned).

059 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.

060 24/40b: This verse indicates that non-Muslims live in religious darkness. But what is best - no belief or a strong belief in a made up religion? Besides may be some of the non-Muslims' god is real - there is a chance, something there is not if the Quran is made up or if it is sent down (because if it is sent down, it is not from any god - too brutally much is wrong for any god to be involved).

061 24/43: Here Muhammad takes 4 natural phenomena - clouds, rain, hail, lightning - and claims them for his god, as always without any proof or documentation - - - just like any believer in any religion does for his god(s) as long as he does not have to prove anything. Words are that cheap - also for Muhammad. Also see 11/7a above.

062 24/46e: "- - - Allah guides whom He wills to a Way that is straight". But the black point is that he also denies Paradise for whom he will - something he decides already 5 months before you are born according to Hadiths, and you have no chance to change his mind according to the Quran - even if you try to do your very best to be a good Muslim, Allah will block the road to Paradise for you a little before you are qualified if you are destined for Hell - all this according to Hadiths.

This also differ greatly from the Bible: Allah guides whom he wants - Yahweh guides absolutely everybody who wants strongly enough to qualify (free will for man is real in the Bible, and everybody can choose) according to the Bible.

###063 24/51b: "The answer of the Believers, when summoned to Allah and His Messenger (= always to Muhammad in reality*) - - - is no other than this: they say, 'We hear and we obey'" - "der F�enkt f�". This represents a mentality that does not only chill your spine, but makes it freeze. It took Europe and the West 300 years, long and hard mental and cultural strife, and several wars, included 2 world wars to get rid of this mentality. We do not need to have it introduced once more. And especially not on behalf of the leaders of a religion where central parts are seriously wrong.

###064 24/55b: "Allah has promised - - - that He will, of a surety, grant them (the Muslims*) in the land, inheritance (of power) - - -". This is a serious reminder to all non-Muslims - not the message itself, because if Allah and/or the Quran are made up and fiction, the message itself is void of any value. But the belief of the Muslims - this is what the believers among them believe they are promised; the power in the land, all land. Not only the power, but the power as an inheritance - forever. This is what they believe they are promised, and therefore this is what they are looking forward to and work for - some of them "in every strategy (of war)" (9/5).

###065 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 - no progress took place in the area, except what followed from riches looted or conquered from neighboring lands and non-Muslims, included enslavement and taxation.

066 24/57a: "Never think thou that the Unbelievers are going to frustrate (Allah's Plan) on earth - - -". The Quran makes it very clear many places the Allah predestines absolutely everything, that the predestinations are according to his Plan, and that nobody or nothing can change his Plan (by the way: Why then spill time and energy on praying to him for help or a better future, if everything is predestined already and nothing can change his Plan?).

It also is very clear that the clear and official goal of the Quran is total world dominance for islam and suppressing of all non-Muslims.

067 24/63g: "- - - let those beware who withstand the Messenger's order (that Allah will punish them strictly*) - - -". Total dictatorship and despotism. Also see 3/77b above. Muhammad's repeated claims that he demanded no payment from his followers for his preaching is a little ironic - or worse.


These are just tit-bits from the book "1000+ Quran-comments - skeptics' facts and thoughts". You will find the complete book under http://www.1000quran-comments.com. (The surah reference numbers are like in that book.)

In http://www.1000mistakes.com you find:

  1. Book A: "1000+ Mistakes in the Quran" - http://www.1000mistakes.com.
  2. Book B: "1000+ comments in Jihad - (un)holy war" - http://www.1000mistakes.com/jihad-holywar/index.php
  3. Book C (this one): "1000+ Quran-comments - skeptics' facts and thoughts" (1000+ tit-bits from the complete book) - http://www.1000quran-comments.php.
  4. Book D: "Correcting much wrong refuting on http://www.1000mistakes.com - and a lesson in Muslim ways of debating.
  5. Book E: "What the Bible really says - when the Quran uses legends, fairy tales, or phantasy, instead of the Bible as sources for 'Biblical' texts, like it often does. (Expected late 2011 or early 2012).

In http://www.1000quran-comments.com you find:

  1. "1000+ Quran-comments - skeptics' facts and thoughts" (the "complete" list - 20ooo+ comments on the Quran) - as said in http://1000quran-comments.php.

068 25/7e: "Why were not an angel sent down to him (Muhammad*) - - -". Muhammad was asked for proofs from very early from both followers and opponents. He never was able to prove anything. And in a way worse: Some of the "explanations" he used for evading the requests for proofs, so obviously were untrue, that an intelligent man like him knew he was lying.

069 25/8f: "Ye (Muslims*) follow none other than a man bewitched." They may have been right, as persons with mental disorders often were described as bewitched at that time - modern medical expertise suspects Muhammad had Temporal Lobe Epilepsy (TLE). This mental disorder can give just the kind of symptoms and religious "experiences" Muhammad is said to have experienced. (Source among others BBC).

070 25/17c: "The Day He (Allah*) will gather them (non-Muslims) together as well as those whom they worship (other gods*) besides Allah, He (Allah*) will ask (the other gods*) - - -". According to the Quran the other gods will be given life on the Day of Doom, to be able to witness against their followers. Nothing is said about what happens to them afterwards, except that they belong in Hell - but are they guilty of Hell as they are made by others and had no will of their own? And why does Allah need such witnesses if he is omniscient and has predestined everything - which must include the making of the other gods and the praying to them, if the Quran tells the truth about predestination and about how Allah predestines absolutely everything?

071 25/20a: "And the messengers whom We (Allah*) sent before thee, were all (men) - - -."

Well: In that case these are wrong or contradictions:

  1. 3/42: "Behold the angels (plural*) said (when they came to tell Mary she was going to have the baby Jesus*)".
  2. 6/130: "O ye assembly of Jinns and men! Came there not unto you messengers (from Us, Allah*) from amongst you - - -." A rhetoric question demanding the answer "yes" yes, there came Jinn messengers from Allah to the Jinns, and human messenger from Allah to the humans.
  3. 11/69: "There came Our (Allah's*) Messengers to Abraham - - -". It is clear from the following verses that these messengers were angels.
  4. 11/77: "When Our (Allah's*) Messengers (it is clear from the text they were angles they f. ex ate no food*) came to Lut (Lot*) - - -."
  5. 11/81: "(The Messengers (angels from Allah*)) said: O Lut (Lot*)! We are Messengers from thy Lord!"
  6. 19/17b: "- - - We (Allah*) sent to her our angel (singular to tell Mary she was going to have the baby Jesus*), and he appeared before her as a man in all respects."
  7. 19/19: "He (the angel*) said: ‘Nay, I am only a messenger from thy (Mary's*) Lord - - -".
  8. 22//75: "Allah chooses Messengers from both angels and from men - - -".
  9. There also is the fact that some of the prophets in the Bible (the Bible does not use the title messenger - all are named prophets or seers) were not men but women, f. x. Miriam (sister of Moses - 2.Mos. 15/20), and Huldah (2. Chr. 34/22). One more difference between the Bible and the Quran.

Well, 3/42 - 6/130 - 11/69 11/77 11/81 19/17b 19/19 22/75 all say that not all were men. A nice little contradiction to 12/109 16/43 21/7 25/20 which all says all messengers were men.

(8 - 9 contradictions).

072 25/22d: "There is a barrier forbidden (to you (sinners*)) altogether". It is likely this somewhat unclear sentence means: "It is forbidden for you to cross into Paradise, because of your sins".

Would an omniscient god addressing also the uneducated and the little intelligent ones, use unclear language?

#073 25/29c: "Satan is but a traitor to man". Correct according to any main religion - but was he involved in the making of the Quran? (This is one of the theories about who made the book.) Personally we are reluctant to believe so, as not even a devil would make a book where so much is wrong - he had to know he would be found out and the book loose credence sooner or later. But there is one possibility: May be he got permission from the god to use also this way - making the Quran - to lead people astray, but on the condition that it should be so badly done that intelligent persons had a real chance to see through the deception. To be flippant: Perhaps the god did not want too many stupid persons or persons unable to use their brain into his Paradise?

#074 25/32e: "Why is not the Quran revealed to him (Muhammad*) all at once?)" If it had really been a god behind the book, there had been big pluses with revealing all at once - now f.x. believers had to wait up to 23 years for the verses. If it on the other hand was f.x. Muhammad who made the verses, it is much easier to understand why it came little by little when new situations emerged. It also is much easier to understand all the trying and failing, and the sudden and marked change in the religion from rather peaceful to a robber baron and war religion around 622 - 624 AD. The explanation given in this verse, simply and obviously is an explanation of convenience.

075 25/37d: "- - - We (Allah') have prepared for (all) wrongdoers a grievous Penalty". Who wants to befriend such people? (It is easy to forget that it only is true if Allah exists and is a major god - and if the Quran in addition has described him correctly.)

#076 25/42d: "- - - who is most mislead in the Path!" As the Quran with all its errors is from no god, this is a very open question. But there is a chance that "the narrow road" of Jesus is real. And if all religions are made up - which is not unlikely as no gods show their existence - the war and suppression religion Islam is one of the most inhuman ones, whereas Christianity like it is described in NT (do not protest until you have read the NT) and Buddhism likely are the most human ones, at least of the big religions, and thus alternatives for the ones needing or unable to give in the "highte spheres". Islam is the only of the big religions which itself (in the Quran) really proves things are seriously wrong with the religion, as all the mistakes in a book pretended made/sent down by a god, proves it is from no god.

077 25/45a: "- - - He (Allah*) doth prolong the Shadow!" It is the turning of the Earth that prolongs shadows. Any god had known, but Muhammad not - it is new knowledge. Then who made the Quran? Not an omniscient god. And Allah is said to be omniscient - or is he? Also see 11/7a above.

078 25/52b: "- - - with the (Quran)". We quote YA3110: "The distribution of Allah's Signs (we here remind you that in all history and the entire world there never was a sign proving Allah*) being universal, the Prophet Allah pays no heed to carping critics who reject Faith (= Islam*). He wages the biggest Jihad (holy war*) of all, with the weapons of Allah's Revelation". As you perhaps remember the Jihad means that any weapon and any stratagy of war - included dishonesty, betrayal, and broken oaths, are permitted - everything as long as you win over the opposition/the non-Muslims. (Rather different from Jesus and NT to say the least of it - the same gods and the same line of prophets? You bet!)

***079 25/57a: "No reward do I (Muhammad*) ask of you - - -". Nothing - - - except 20% of everything stolen or extorted in/after raids and wars, 100% of what was looted or extorted without fighting, plenty of women and total and unrestricted power. And 2.5% (up to 10%) of your possessions each year in "poor-tax" - - - partly for the poor, but also at least as partly to pay the lukewarm to become or stay Muslims, and not to forget to use for waging war. And a little to himself and all his women and few children (may be not of the "poor-tax", but plenty from the looting - Muhammad f.x. had estates 3 different places (Medina, Khaybar and Fadang), something which is never mentioned by Muslims, when they talk about how poor he was personally). Hypocrisy.

****To be exact the "poor-tax" - zakat - according to Hadiths after Al-Bukhari (comment 1 to Chapter 24) is for 8 different purposes:

  1. Help the "Fuqara" - a category of poor people.
  2. Help the "Al-Masakin" - another category of poor people. (These two points = the purpose of helping the poor.)
  3. Paying the persons administrating the zakat.(Originally Muhammad).
  4. Bribing people to become Muslims and in other ways to promote Islam.
  5. Bribing lukewarm Muslims to stay Muslims.
  6. To free Muslim captives.
  7. To help indebted persons.
  8. To wage war for the religion - and for its leader(s).
  9. To assist travelers (often pilgrims to Mecca).

It seems that a sizable percentage was used for points 4, 5, and 8. (You also will find claims that there are 5 purposes for the zakat. Then they lump 1 and 2 together and omit something - often 6 and 8. We some places in this book have used that list.)

080 25/63b: "- - - when the ignorant (non-Muslims*) address them (Muslims*), they (Muslims*) say, 'Peace'". They may have done so in 615 - 616 AD when this surah was made. Islam still was weak. When it became stronger, the words more was "become Muslim or fight us and die" - large parts of Arabia and further were forced to change religion. "Let there be no compulsion in religion"?!

081 25/74d: "O Lord (Allah*)! Grant unto us wives and offspring who will be the comfort to our eyes, and give us (the grace) to lead the righteous." "I" pray for good things and reputation for myself, not primarily for a good life for the child, here in the Quran. The only person in the centre for the Quran's interest except Muhammad is the man - the actual or potential warrior.

082 25/77a: "My (Muslim's*) Lord (Allah*) is not uneasy because of you (non-believers who will be lost*) - - -". Compare this to "the lost coin" (Luke 15/8-10), "the lost sheep" (Matt. 18/12-14), "the lost son" (Luke 15/11-31) - one more 100% proof for that Yahweh and Allah are not the same god - and Jesus and Muhammad not in the same line of prophets (Muhammad was not even a real prophet - he did not have that gift. But an imposing title is cheap to "borrow").


These are just tit-bits from the book "1000+ Quran-comments - skeptics' facts and thoughts". You will find the complete book under http://www.1000quran-comments.com. (The surah reference numbers are like in that book.)

In http://www.1000mistakes.com you find:

  1. Book A: "1000+ Mistakes in the Quran" - http://www.1000mistakes.com.
  2. Book B: "1000+ comments in Jihad - (un)holy war" - http://www.1000mistakes.com/jihad-holywar/index.php
  3. Book C (this one): "1000+ Quran-comments - skeptics' facts and thoughts" (1000+ tit-bits from the complete book) - http://www.1000quran-comments.php.
  4. Book D: "Correcting much wrong refuting on http://www.1000mistakes.com - and a lesson in Muslim ways of debating.
  5. Book E: "What the Bible really says - when the Quran uses legends, fairy tales, or phantasy, instead of the Bible as sources for 'Biblical' texts, like it often does. (Expected late 2011 or early 2012).

In http://www.1000quran-comments.com you find:

  1. "1000+ Quran-comments - skeptics' facts and thoughts" (the "complete" list - 20ooo+ comments on the Quran) - as said in http://1000quran-comments.php.

###083 26/2a: "These are verses of the Book that makes (things) clear." In other words: Told an explained in clear words. But all the same Muslims as a last way out, explains and in religious blindness often honestly believe that errors are not errors, but are camouflaging hidden meanings or allegories. In addition there are some hundred points in the book where the exact meaning is unclear - either literally unclear or there are two or more possible meanings, often varying wildly (some places because the meaning has been expressed unclear, other places because the Arab alphabet was not complete when the Quran was written down - the vowels and the points used in Arab to signify some letters were not yet existing - and the reader has to guess these, and then there are many cases where the meaning varies according to what letters you guess are meant. To take an English sample: If you have the consonants h and s and know they represent a word, this word may be "has" or "his" or "house" or "hose").

###084 26/4d: "- - - a Sign, to which they (people*) would bend their necks in humility". Comment A26/4: "Inasmuch as the spiritual value of man's faith depends on its being an outcome of free choice and not of compulsion, the visible and audible appearance of a 'message from the skies' would, by its obviousness, nullify the element of free choice and, therefore, deprive man's faith in that message of all its moral significance'. This is rubbish, politely speaking, and an al-Taqiyya (a lawful lie): Choices made by a person's free will, has got to be made on basis of what the person know, and the more he or she knows about something, the more likely it is that correct choice about that thing is made. Therefore the addition of correct information - f.x. real proof for that a god exists - can have no negative significance morally for the person's decisions or choices. On the contrary: Withholding of essential, correct information forcing the person to make decisions or choices on basis of serious lack of central information easy for a god to provide, is morally a very doubtful deed by that god. Worse: Top Muslim scholars know enough about logic and moral to know that this is the case, and even so they are capable of producing "explanations" like this, trying to cheat less educated people. But then al-Taqiyya is not only permitted when it comes to defend or forward Islam, it is advised if it gives a better effect. How much in the Muslim scholars' arguments are al-Taqiyyas or Kitmans (lawful half-truths) like this?

085 26/8c: "Verily, in this (the natural products claimed made by Allah*) is a Sign: but most of them (non-Muslims*) do not believe". Very naturally as for one thing the "sign" is invalid as long as it is not proved made by Allah - and who except cheats and deceivers use invalid "proofs"? And for another thing already a number of his contemporaries saw that something was very wrong in this new religion - f.x. his claimed quotes/stories from the Bible.

086 26/20b: (YA3149): "Moses said: ‘I did it then, when I was in error." 3 possible implications: "I was wrong in doing it in a temper and in being hasty," or "I was wrong in taking the law into my own hands, but repented and asked Allah's pardon," or "That was a time when I was under your influence, but since then I am a changed man, as Allah has called me." The exact meaning unclear - like so often in the Quran.

087 26/26b: "(Moses) said (to Ramses II*): "Your Lord (Allah*) and the Lord of your fathers from the beginning." This contradicts reality, as we know Allah never was the god of the old Egyptians - there never was any monotheism, except Akn-Aton and his sun god (and on top of all the old al-Lah most likely was the moon god once upon a time). And for another it contradicts the Bible: Moses never tried to pretend Yahweh was the god of the Egyptians according to the Bible, or discussed religion at all - his only topic according to the Bible was: "Let my people go".

*088 26/29c: "If thou (Moses*) dost put forward any god other than me (the pharaoh*), I will certainly put you in prison." Wrong in Egypt one had many gods. Even more: According to one of Islam's tries to explain away the mistake of placing Xerxes' man Haman at Ramses II's court - and hundreds of years wrong - the high priest (Ha-Amon) of one of the main gods Amon even was present and one of the pharaoh's main advisers at this meeting (a "fact" that in case makes this sentence impossibly illogical - but then it is typical for Muslims' explaining away of mistakes in the Quran, that the "explanations" "explain" some aspects with a mistake, but collides with others). It is impossible that Ramses II said this if at the same time a high priest - Haman/Ha-Amon - of a main god was present. Or the other way around: If Ramses II said this, Islam' "explanation" about Haman as Ha-Amon is proved wrong. Make your choice - but science knows that Amon was a top god among many others in Egypt, so it is highly unlikely Ramses II said what the Quran claims, unless Islam has real proofs.

The religious part - and other details - in this debate are not from the Bible. (According to the Bible the only thing Ramses II now said about the god of the Jews, was a short sentence saying that he did not know him and would not respect him (2. Mos. 5/2), and he said pretty little about Yahweh later, too).

089 26/42c: "- - - ye (the sorcerers*) shall in that case (if you win over Moses*) be (raised to posts) nearest to my person (Ramses II)." It is highly unlikely that the mighty pharaoh Ramses II said this to a flock of sorcerers and especially for winning over an after all small opponent. But it sounds good in a religious speech to uncritical believers.

###090 26/46-47: "Then did the sorcerers fall down, prostrate in adoration, Saying 'We believe in the Lord of the Worlds - - -". For one thing this is not from the Bible. But much more serious in this connection is that this is one of the proofs for that Muhammad knew he was lying each time he explained away his inability to produce any miracle as a proof for his god and for his own connection to a god, with that Allah did not want because it would make no-one believe in Allah anyhow. Here Muhammad is telling - early in his career and before many of those "explaining" away - about a minor miracle which made all those sorcerers suddenly become ardent believers in just Allah. Also see 26/51 below.

#####091 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.

092 26/67d: (YA3173): "- - - people who are blind in their obstinate resistance to the Truth, accomplish their own destruction - - -". Worth thinking over as all the errors in the Quran, etc. and also the fact that Muhammad sometimes speaks in the book, proves 100% and more that it is an unavoidable truth that something is seriously wrong with the Quran - and hence with Islam?

093 26/77: "- - - the Worlds - - -". The Quran tells there are 7 (flat) worlds Hadiths adds that they are placed one on top of the other, and names them. Wrong. See 65/12.

094 26/93b: "Besides Allah? Can they (other gods*) help you or help themselves?" A rhetoric question leading up to a perhaps correct answer. But another central point: Also Allah has never proved neither his existence nor his power - a main reason why Islam have to stress the ideal of blind belief, etc. so strongly. But blind belief in all other aspects of life is the easiest way to be cheated.

095 26/99b: "- - - guilt". Who are the guilty seducers if the Quran is a made up book? - and remember here that all the mistakes, etc. in that book prove absolutely that no god was involved in making or delivering it.

096 26/108: "(Noah said*) So fear Allah, and obey me". This was one of Muhammad's mantras, and then it was psychologically wise to make it "clear" that this was normal for prophets to say - though you do not find it in the Bible concerning Noah, and also not concerning many biblical known, real prophets". A very nice slogan for any dictator.

097 26/125a: The self proclaimed prophet (according to the Quran) Hud said: "I am to you a messenger worthy of all trust". This was one of the essences of Muhammad's own preaching. In the tales about claimed former prophets in the Quran, you normally find parallels to Muhammad's life and teachings - it seems to have been essential to him to show that his was a very normal life for prophets (and thus that he was a normal prophet).

098 26/130: (A26/58) "- - - a Quranic prohibition, valid for all times, of all unnecessary cruelty in war, coupled with the positive, clearly-implied injunction to subordinate every act of war - as well as the decision to wage war as such - to moral considerations and restraints". Anyone knowing something about Muslim war history and also of treatment of prisoners of war and of suppressed people after many wars, are able to comment on this kind of claims from present-day Muslim scholars, but we do not like to use so impolite words as the ones necessary to correct these claims, perhaps except the word hypocrisy.

099 26/140b: "(Allah is*) the Exalted in Might - - -". But during 1400 years there was not one single proof for that claimed might - only claims based on the words of a man with doubtful moral and who on top of that liked power and was not adverse to lying (f. e. "Miracles will make no-one believe anyhow"), and deception (f. x. "War is deception").

100 26/160a: "The people of Lut (Lot*) - - -". Here is referred to the people of the towns Sodom and Gomorra. They were not the people of Lot, as he was from very far off (Ur of the Chaldeans in what now is south Iraq), and it is clear from both the Bible and from the Quran that he also was not naturalized into the communities - but to make good its claim that prophets were sent to their own people, Muhammad needed this way of saying it. But Lot lived in that neighborhood - likely near Sodom.

101 26/172: "But the rest (Sodom and Gomorrah*) We (here indicated Allah*) We destroyed utterly". Contradicted by the Bible, which tells this was done by Yahweh, not by Allah. (And also by different means.) 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.

102 26/174c: "- - - most of them (non-Muslims*) do not believe". At least some of them - f.x. the Jews - because they saw something was wrong in this new religion.

103 26/186c: "- - - a liar." As a parallel to Muhammad, this is (unintended?) irony, as it is clear Muhammad lied now and then - even broke his oath.

104 26/189d: "The Message of the Quran" here comments the catastrophe that killed the Madyan people, and the connected darkness told about in the Quran, in this way (A26/77): "This may refer either to the physical darkness which often accompanies volcanic eruptions and earthquakes (which as shown in 7/91, overtook the people of Madyan) - - -". This is not repeat: NOT true connected to earthquakes. It is not unusual if a volcano blows out a lot of ash that it becomes dark, but unusual if it only or mainly emits lava, and it is totally untrue for earthquakes. Dishonesty or al-Taqiyya (the lawful lie - here in case to defend the religion).

If we check 7/91, the footnote number 73 says: "Like the 'harrah' once inhabited by the Thamud tribe, the adjoining region of Madyan shows ample evidence of volcanic eruptions and earthquakes". This is everything that is said about volcanic activity. The main volcanism stopped some 400000 years ago, but there has been a little activity later.

Then if you go to 7/91 itself, it says: "Thereupon an earthquake overtook them: and they lay lifeless, in their very homes, on the ground." Not one single word about volcanism.

They started with earthquake. But as earthquakes never kills 100% (normally max 10% and hardly ever more that 30% except combined with low quality high-rise buildings), the footnote added a hint of the possibility of a volcanic eruption. Then in footnote A78 to 26/189 this has evolved to "- - - volcanic eruptions and earthquakes (which, as shown in 7/91, overtook the people of Madyan.)".

This is a kind of dishonesty and a kind of intellectual corruption that one meets far too often in Islamic religious literature, included in literature pretending to be on a scientific level. Al-Taqiyya (the lawful lie) and its brothers are busy sometimes in Islam - you have to check everything (this also go for so-called "refuting" of arguments or facts adverse to the Quran or Islam - you have to check everything to see what is true and what not).

The next life if it exists is a far too serious topic to cheat people about. And if you have to cheat or "al-Taqiyya" or lie or use pressure or threats - to attract people to your religion, or to make its members stay inside, it is height time to stop up and start thinking why you have to lie or cheat or use pressure. In such cases the chances are high for that something is seriously wrong and the religion not true. A true religion can afford to be honest, so if you have to cheat or make lies or use pressure, that indicates that something is wrong to use an understatement.

If your religion cannot afford total honesty, it is a clear indication for that it is not a true religion. And this alone is nearly a proof for that you are heading a wrong way if there is a next life. (If not, the way you are heading does not matter except as a cheap way to a good earthly life for your religious leaders.)

And there is a final, nearly as serious fact: If the persons writing or like "The Message of the Quran" 2008, revising it such literature are intelligent ones (and they clearly are), there is no way they do not themselves see that they are manipulating the truth. They are doing this in a cold and psychologically well planned way efficient to lure and to cheat the na and the little educated and the ones who on beforehand wants to believe, but methods easily recognizable for persons trained in critical thinking. Why do they have to use such methods? - and what is a religion(?) needing such methods worth?

*105 26/193a: "With it (the Quran*) came the Spirit of Faith and Truth". If truth came down with the Quran, it must have been mutilated later. NB: This is one of the places where Quran mentions "the Holy Spirit", (though the Arab "Al ruh al Amin" normally refers to the archangel Gabriel - but Muslims often mix the two, and many do not even know the difference and believe they are the same. This even though Muslim top scholars know the Bible, and no-one really knowing the Bible would mix the two; for one thing it indirectly, but very clear is told in the texts that the two are two different beings, and for another the writers of the Bible knew the difference between angels and spirits.).

##106 26/196b: "Without doubt it (the Quran*) is (announced) in the revealed Books (the Torah, the Bible*) of former peoples." There is very much doubt about that, as the basic elements of the teachings are too different especially compared to NT and "the new covenant" which is the fundamental one for Christianity. It is plainly wrong - it is absolutely sure that the Quran is not announced in the Bible or in any relevant Jewish scriptures. Also see the chapter about "Muhammad in the Bible" in "1000+ Mistakes in the Quran".

Flatly stated: It is incorrect that the Quran is revealed in the Bible (not even Muslims claim this today - and if you run across the claim, their references are not to "documentation" about the Quran revealed in the Bible, but to claimed references to Muhammad there (they only are possible to see if you cherry-pick words and add wishful thinking and a huge dash of al-Taqiyya and/or Kitman - lawful lies and lawful half-truths)). Even this often met claim that Muhammad is foretold in the Bible, as you understand is wrong. And as saidthe basic thoughts are too different between the Bible and the Quran: Both books cannot come from the same god. This is especially easy to see if you compare the Quran to NT.

Some Muslim scholars say it is the basic ideas of the Quran which is foretold in the Bible. Please read the Bible and especially NT, and the Quran and compare - and weep (you will not be tempted to laugh).

107 26/208a: "Never did We (Allah*) destroy a population, but had its warners - - -." Simply wrong. There have been many "acts of God" - natural disasters - which were not warned against. Ache on North Sumatra is heavily Muslim - but was much destroyed by the tsunami to mention a recent story. And the earth quake in North Pakistan 1-2 years later, to mention another.

*108 26/210: "No evil ones have brought down this (Revelation) - - -". A little ironic to meet this claim, as this is one of the theories for who made the Quran. Another thing: When someone has bad conscience, slips of the tongue sometimes just are to deny the thing for which they have bad conscience.

109 26/211a: "- - - it (the Quran*) would neither suit them (the dark forces*) - - -". Please read the surahs from Medina - they on top of all according to Islam's rules for abrogation (making verses invalid when they conflict) are the dominant ones as they are the youngest ones - and then read this sentence once more: There are lots and lots of things in the Quran which suits the dark forces ever so well.

110 26/218a: "- - - Who seeth thee (Muslims*) standing forth (in prayer)." What is the idea and effect of prayers in Islam, if everything is predestined by Allah in accordance with an unchangeable Plan years and decades and more before, like the Quran stated several places?

As for the value of prayers in Islam, also see 62/9c. And if you combine 62/9c with 67/9c - a strong one - you get something thought-provoking. (And relevant here: Muslims often are thought that a question or problem can have 2 or more true and correct solutions - Islam is forced to teach this, because if not, many of the mistakes and contradictions in the Quran become too obvious. But this ONLY is true if parallel true solutions are possible. In cases where 2 or more possible solutions are mutually excluding each other, maximum 1 of the mutually excluding ones can be true. It should be a bit thought provoking for Muslims, that just this "small" difference in theoretical thinking and teaching, was one of the reasons (there were several of course) for why Europe and the West exploded into the Technical Revolution, while the Muslim area stagnated). Two star examples are: 1) Full predestination is not possible even for an omnipotent god to combine with even the smallest piece of free will for man - the two are mutually excluding. The same for full and unchangeable predestination long time before, combined with any claimed effect of prayers - the two are mutually excluding each other.)

111 26/227c: "- - - and defend themselves only after unjustly attacked - - -". We do not think it is necessary to comment this in a world where all the 4 Islamic law schools for centuries judged that if an opponent was a non-Muslim society, that was reason enough to declare jihad (= holy war in self defense) - this law was never even questioned until around 1930 AD. A world where jihad can be declared "in the widest meaning of self defense" - which means in all and every case (at least we have never heard about a conflict where Muslims is the one part, where the word Jihad has not been mentioned). And a world where nearly all terrorists are Muslims.


These are just tit-bits from the book "1000+ Quran-comments - skeptics' facts and thoughts". You will find the complete book under http://www.1000quran-comments.com. (The surah reference numbers are like in that book.)

In http://www.1000mistakes.com you find:

  1. Book A: "1000+ Mistakes in the Quran" - http://www.1000mistakes.com.
  2. Book B: "1000+ comments in Jihad - (un)holy war" - http://www.1000mistakes.com/jihad-holywar/index.php
  3. Book C (this one): "1000+ Quran-comments - skeptics' facts and thoughts" (1000+ tit-bits from the complete book) - http://www.1000quran-comments.php.
  4. Book D: "Correcting much wrong refuting on http://www.1000mistakes.com - and a lesson in Muslim ways of debating.
  5. Book E: "What the Bible really says - when the Quran uses legends, fairy tales, or phantasy, instead of the Bible as sources for 'Biblical' texts, like it often does. (Expected late 2011 or early 2012).

In http://www.1000quran-comments.com you find:

  1. "1000+ Quran-comments - skeptics' facts and thoughts" (the "complete" list - 20ooo+ comments on the Quran) - as said in http://1000quran-comments.php.

###112 27/1b: "- - - a Book (the Quran*) that makes things clear - - -". The more mistakes, contradictions, invalid logic, unclear language, etc. there are in a book, the less clear it can make things. It also simply looses credibility. The Quran in many cases simply is incredible literally speaking. f.x. unbelievably may points with wrong facts or contradictions - in strong spite of its and Muslims' claims about it being a perfect book from a god. Remember this every time a Muslim tries to tell you that you cannot understand the Quran unless so-and-so, or that the "real" meaning of a text is not what it says, but is hidden in an allegory.

113 27/4d: "- - - We (Allah*) have made their deeds pleasing in their (non-Muslims'*)eyes - - -". Guess if that is the case also for Muslims, included warriors, al-Taqiyya (lawful lies) users and terrorists.

114 27/6d: "(Allah is*) Wise and All-Knowing". If that is right, he has not composed the Quran - far too many mistakes, too much unclear language, etc. Or to be blunter: The composer of the Quran is someone who is far from all-knowing.

115 27/8d: "- - - (Allah - *) the Lord of the Worlds". Often claimed, never proved. Words are cheap.

116 27/15b: It is very little likely that either king David or Solomon praised Allah - Islam will have to bring a proof if they stand by their undocumented claim. And remember: Yahweh and Allah is not the same god - the teachings are too different.

117 27/15 - 28: The story about Solomon and the bird (hoopoe) has nothing to do with the Bible, but is "borrowed" from a "fairy tale" ("The second Targum of Ester"). If it had been true, you bet the Jews had not forgotten to include it in their books to praise their hero king Solomon. See 27/16-44 shortly below.

118 27/17b: "- - - his (Solomon's*) hosts of Jinns and men and birds - - -". Believe this whoever wants to. But be 120% sure that if king Solomon had had command over jinns and/or birds, it had neither been forgotten in the Bible, nor falsified out of it - you do not reduce your greatest heroes, and neither does the Jews who in case had done the falsification.

119 27/24e: "- - - no guidance - - -". In Islam only Islam is "guidance". It is symptomatic that the pre-Islamic times in Muslim countries officially are called "the Times of Ignorance" - this even if some of those countries had much more knowledge and education before being conquered by the primitive Muslim nomads, than during the 1 - 2 next centuries among their conqurours - not to mention the disdain many Muslims felt for non-Muslim science and knowledge.

120 27/28b: "Go thou (the hoopoe*), with this letter of mine (Solomon's*), and deliver it to them: then draw back from them, and (wait to) see what answer they return…" No bird is able to do this. Not even the carrier pigeon brings letters it only is able to return home with a letter. (The pigeons have to be brought in cages from the one who is to receive the letter, to the one who is to send the message. Then when the bird is let loose, it simply wants to return home - - - and carries the letter to its nest, where the receiver can collect it. This is the only possible way for using birds for carrying a letter. Except in fairy tales.)

121 27/44c: "- - - she (the Queen of Sabah*) thought it (the floor*) was a lake of water (though it was slabs of glass) - - -".

  1. They did not have the technology to make that quality of glass ca. 1000 BC.
  2. They did not have the technology to make big slabs and they had to be really big not to notice at once the cracks between the slabs - of glass ca. 1000 BC. Even today it is difficult, as it needs months of very exact and slow cooling for big slabs not to crack. (Cfr. the making of large astronomical telescopes).

Contradicted by historical and technical facts.

###122 27/50: "They (non-Muslims*) plotted and planned, but We (Allah*) too planned - - -." As said other places: When Allah can deceive, any good Muslim of course can do the same. THIS IS ONE OF THE VERSES WHICH MAKES THE "MORAL" FOUNDATION FOR AL-TAQIYYA (THE LAWFUL LIE), KITMAN (THE LAWFUL HALF-TRUTH), ETC. - WHEN ALLAH COULD DECEIVE, IT OF COURSE WAS/IS MORALLY OK TO DO SO. Muhammad institutionalized it by his points of view on deceit and breaking of even oaths.

Just for the record: Al-Taqiyya and Kitman 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 promises, as an oath is something stronger than a normal promise):

  1. To save your or others' health or life.
  2. To get out of a tight spot or a dangerous problem.
  3. To make peace in a family.
  4. When it will give a better result than honesty or honoring one's oath.
  5. To cheat women (should be remembered by girls with Muslim boyfriends wanting sex - or wanting a marriage to get work/residence permit in a rich country.)
  6. To deceive opponents/enemies.
  7. To betray enemies.
  8. To secure one's money (very clear from Hadiths).
  9. To defend Islam. (Compulsory if necessary to succeed.)
  10. To promote Islam. (Compulsory if necessary to succeed.)

But al-Taqiyya is a double-edged sword: In the short run you may cheat and deceive some ones 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 na.

123 27/52c: "Verily, in this is a Sign for people of knowledge". Flattery works - especially if people have little knowledge. (Muhammad pretty often uses this kind of flattery. It at the same time "tells" that his new religion was for the intelligent and thus had to be ok.) Also see 13/3j above and 40/75 below.

124 27/58: "- - - a shower (of brimstone) - - -". Another contradiction to the Bible: In the Bible Sodom and Gomorrah were destroyed by a rain of burning sulfur (1. Mos. 19/24).

125 27/59e: "(Who) is better? - Allah or the false gods they (non-Muslims*) associate (with Him)?" False gods have no power and no value and nothing to offer for a perhaps next life - on the contrary, as they waylay and misdirect you in your search for a possible next life - even blocks the road for you if it denies you to search other than wrong roads. The disturbing fact here is that also Allah never has proved his power or even his existence and thus may be a made up and false god - and Muhammad never was able to prove his connection to a god and thus may be a false prophet, this even more so as he clearly liked riches for bribes, and power and women, believed in using lies (al-Taqiyya, Kitman) and even broken oaths if that gave better results (plainly said even in the Quran), and had a very doubtful moral (stealing/robbing, raping, suppressing, murdering, deceiving ("war is deceit" - and every place outside Islam is "the land of war"), lying even in the Quran, just to mention a few facts - all this from central Islamic religious literature and history). If the Quran is a made up book and Allah thus a made up god, Allah is as false god as all the other false gods. What is sure, is that the Quran is not from a god - no god makes that many mistakes, contradictions, unclear language, cases of invalid logic, etc.

126 27/60g: "- - - justice - - -". Beware that when the Quran uses words like this, it is in accordance with its own partly immoral moral code and its partly unjust judicial code.

####127 27/62c: "Little is it that ye (non-Muslims*) heed". We heed the fact that if there is a god who has created us, his greatest gift except life, is our brain. He in case did not give us a good brain for other reasons than that we should use it. He hardly gave such a brain to us for that we should not use it in the most serious of all questions: Is there a next life and how to find the right god in case? He did not give us such a brain for that we just should switch it off and believe blindly in the one with the slickest tongue and/or strongest weapons - and especially not if their teaching was so full of mistakes, that it is not from any god.

And if there is no god, why then squander time and effort and misery for others on a religion as misanthropic (bad to humans) like Islam?

128 27/68b: "- - - these are nothing but tales of the ancient". Mostly the opponents were right - most of the stories in the Quran are older tales Muhammad "borrowed" and then twisted to fit his religion. Most of the sources are known. Is it necessary for a god to use old - and sometimes wrong - stories? - and often wrong facts?

129 27/71c: "(Say) if ye (Muhammad*) are truthful". Muhammad was not always truthful - there was al-Taqiyya and Kitman (even if the names may have come later), there was betrayal and deceit, there were broken words/oaths - even some lies in the Quran (ike miracles - proofs for Allah - would not make anyone believe anyhow). (A small, but serious fact: In Pakistan there is official death penalty for saying things like this, even if it is true and easy to prove from central Islamic books - it is to talk bad about the prophet Muhammad, which carries death penalty. Do you want such a future?

130 27/74a: "And, verily, thy (humans'*) Lord (Allah*) knoweth all that their (humans'*) hearts do hide, as well as all they reveal". This is a reminder you meet in different forms many places in the Quran: Allah knows everything, so do not try to cheat. Also be a good and obedient Muslim so as not to end in Hell. But if you are a good and obedient Muslim you can be glad because then you end in Heaven if the Quran tells the truth, and because the bad ones who are better off than you will be punished in the next life - - - if the Quran tells the truth. Also see 2/233h above.

131 27/82c: "- - - justice - - -". Beware that when the Quran uses words like this, it is in accordance with its own partly immoral moral rules and partly unjust laws. Compare to "do unto others like you want othes do unto you" and judge yourself.

##132 27/89a: "If any do good, good will (accrue) to them therefrom - - -". The good things you do here on Earth will accumulate and count in your favor at the Day of Doom. But beware that this also goes for bad deeds - and not least: What are good deeds and what are bad deeds in Islam, is not necessarily the same as in other religions. In spite of loud claims of being "the Religion of Peace", Islam is a war religion, and its ethical and moral codes are "adjusted" accordingly. It also is a very fascistic religion, which also influences its ideologies and its ethical and moral codes. Well, in the end it mainly will be the balance between your good and bad deeds which will decide whether you will end in Hell or Heaven - the goodness of Allah and forgiving counts, but it is not as essential as the love and goodness and forgiving of Yahweh in NT (there actually is little about love in the Quran, except some among close persons).

133 27/86e: "- - - Signs - - -". There nowhere in the Quran or anywhere else is one single sign (Quran-speak for proof for Allah*) proving Allah - they all and without exception rest on nothing or on other not proved claims or statements. There is no exception to this anywhere (except perhaps the ones "borrowed" from the Bible, but they in case prove Yahweh).

***134 27/91a: "For me (Muhammad*), I have been commanded to serve the Lord (Allah*) of this City (Mecca - this is from 615-616 AD when Muhammad still lived there*) - - - ". This is a serious one: It is Muhammad who is speaking once more - - - in a book presumed to be copy of a "mother book" in Paradise, a book which may be existed from eternity or perhaps was made by Allah. Pikthall and Dawood both camouflage this very revealing mistake (there are a few more where either angles (37/164-166) or Muhammad speaks) by adding the word "say:", but that is not in the original, according to Ibn Warraq, "Why I am not a Muslim", p.175. Dishonest by Pikthall and by Dawood in case. But then it happens you meet dishonesty when Muslims tries to "explain" things - even in books you should believe were intellectually of high quality and moral. (Like Al-Azhar University, Cairo, certifying that the Big Flood could be explained by the filling up of the Mediterranean See. They know very well that both the time and the way it happened prohibit that explanation - some 5 6 million years ago and "slowly" over a period of perhaps 100 years, (though there is a new Spanish theory that there was a sudden, large break-through 5.33 million years ago, and that it was filled up in ca. 2 years - but even according to this theory the water the worst periods rose peacefully and sluggishly 50 cm an hour) and not least; wrong place, as the Garden of Eden is believed to have been situated in what is now south Iraq (if it ever existed)). And how could the slow filling up of the Mediterranean explain that the ark ended on a 2089 m high mountain, which it did according to the Quran?

Anyhow a nice moment for Muhammad he liked power. (Just look at how he glued himself to his platform of power; his god).

135 27/93c: "- - - thy (Muslims'*) Lord (Allah*) is not unmindful of all that ye do". A promise to the good ones, a warning to the bad ones - - - If Allah exists, if he is a god (and not f.x. from the dark forces - like parts of f.x. the Quran's moral code may indicate), and if the Quran has told the full truth and only the truth - which is not the case.


These are just tit-bits from the book "1000+ Quran-comments - skeptics' facts and thoughts". You will find the complete book under http://www.1000quran-comments.com. (The surah reference numbers are like in that book.)

In http://www.1000mistakes.com you find:

  1. Book A: "1000+ Mistakes in the Quran" - http://www.1000mistakes.com.
  2. Book B: "1000+ comments in Jihad - (un)holy war" - http://www.1000mistakes.com/jihad-holywar/index.php
  3. Book C (this one): "1000+ Quran-comments - skeptics' facts and thoughts" (1000+ tit-bits from the complete book) - http://www.1000quran-comments.php.
  4. Book D: "Correcting much wrong refuting on http://www.1000mistakes.com - and a lesson in Muslim ways of debating.
  5. Book E: "What the Bible really says - when the Quran uses legends, fairy tales, or phantasy, instead of the Bible as sources for 'Biblical' texts, like it often does. (Expected late 2011 or early 2012).

In http://www.1000quran-comments.com you find:

  1. "1000+ Quran-comments - skeptics' facts and thoughts" (the "complete" list - 20ooo+ comments on the Quran) - as said in http://1000quran-comments.php.

*136 28/3a: "We (Allah*) rehearse to thee (Muhammad/Muslims*) some of the story of Moses and Pharaoh in Truth - - -". The story about Moses contradicts and differs not a little from the one told in the Bible - which for this part is more than 1000 years nearer in time to what (may be) happened - and with stronger traditions concerning Moses. It is a question, which one is most reliable. In any case: Both have the death of Pharaoh Ramses II wrong (but when it comes to the Bible it is possible to explain this - not so with the Quran, which is told by Allah (or even has existed since eternity and is never made), as Allah is omniscient and omniscient gods makes no mistakes (the human narrator of the Bible may have mixed Ramses II with one of his 67(?) sons or one of his generals - for Allah such a mistake is impossible)).

Moses and his brother Aaron came to Pharaoh Ramses II (one of the really strong and mighty pharaohs in the history of Egypt - may be the mightiest ever). A lot is known about Ramses II, among other things that he did not drown. Because of this you often meet Muslims claiming this happened earlier and under more unknown pharaohs which we do not know from what they died, but science is not in real doubt, and also the years then does not add up.

137 28/3d: If the Quran was written before this happened, or if the book has existed since eternity, like Islam often claims, this verse is a historical anomaly and could not be reliably written in the claimed "Mother Book" unless there is full predestination, because the laws of chaos makes the claim impossible, except if there is 100% predestination of everything (and in that case free will for man does not exist - not even a small piece. In spite of the Quran's claims, not even an omnipotent god can combine those two claims). See heading and 28/4e.

138 28/6c: "- - - Haman - - -". Science says this is the Haman from the book of Esther in the Bible. Another question also is: Was the name Haman at all used in Egypt? it is said to be a Persian name. Uneducated Muslims say it just was another man with the same name. Educated Muslims are more careful with that claim.

Haman was according to the Bible, a powerful minister under the Persian king Xerxes (Hebrew: Ahasuerus) (486 - 465 BC) and a central person in the mentioned book - Muhammad may well have heard about him. In that case something is very wrong, because Ramses II naturally was king/pharaoh in Egypt, and on top of that lived some 800 years earlier. Haman could not be his top minister.

Here Islam has an explanation that just may be true: One of the main gods in Egypt at that time was Amon. According to "the Message of the Quran" the title of the high priest of Amon, was Ha-Amen - which could be understood as Haman. Not very likely, especially as this is the kind of "explanations" one frequently finds when Islam has problems finding better stories. But after all possible. Except that a god does not make such mistakes either - a mistake like this means the surah is based on human fallibility. And except for 28/38a: "Pharaoh said: ‘O Chiefs! No god do I know for you but myself - - -". Pharaoh cannot at the same time be the only god in Egypt ("- - - no other god than me" - very wrong as said, as Egypt was polytheistic), and have the high priest (Ha-Amen) of another god as his second in command. Contradicted by historical facts and by reality - and by the Quran itself. We may mention that such slips you often find in Muslim "explanations" - the "explanation" "explains" some aspects of a mistake or something, but stumble against others and thus shows the "explanation" is a made up one.

So this actually and simply may be one more of the famous Muslim "half-explanations" They as said explain one aspect with a problem, but are unable to find "explanations" that do not collide with other aspects with the same or other problems. Like when they explain the Universe without explaining the stars all fastened to the lowest and material heaven, and the moon among the heavens = outside the stars.

Some Muslims then instead want to explain this with that it was another Haman. But science is not in doubt, it is the same. Another question here is: Was the name Haman at all used in Egypt? it is said to be a Persian name.

139 28/9b: "- - - we (Pharaoh and one of his wives*) 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? (Also Ramses II's father, Seti I, which may be the pharaoh involved here, was one of the really mighty pharaohs - and he had children, so there was no cause for adopting more). 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 - with children - to do so.

140 28/13a: "- - - the promise of Allah is true - - -". If you ask all Islam even today to show you one single proved case of a promise given by Allah which has been fulfilled by Allah throughout the times, they will not be able to answer you. No such case exists. Lots of claims, some co-incidences, not one proved case.

141 28/16a: "So (Allah) forgave him (Moses) - - -". There only are two who can forgive: The victim and a god. Thus this sentence only can be true if Allah exists and is a god.

142 28/26a: "O my (dear) father! Engage him (Moses*) on wages - - -" According to the Bible it was on his own initiative that Jethro (the name is from the Bible) engaged Moses (2. Mos. 2/20). A minor, but clear contradiction to the Bible.

143 28/29b: "- - - a burning firebrand, that we (Moses ø co.) may warm ourselves". It is extremely unlikely nomads had to rely on wildfire to get fire to warm themselves - or make food. Islam will have to prove this to be believed by us. The sentence also contradicts the Bible (2. Mos. 3/2-3).

144 28/31: A main difference between the Bible and the Quran, is that - like in this verse - the story is transformed from telling a history and indirect speech to direct speech. This gives the tale more drama - - - but from where did he get the words and the added details (unlike many places where the same story is told in the two books, the Quran hers has more details than the Bible).

145 28/38c: "(Pharaoh said*) "O Haman (minister for Xerxes some 800 hundred years later and hundreds of km further east in Persia - and not an Egyptian name either*)! - Light me a (kiln to bake bricks) out of clay - - -". Egypt at that time did not use burnt bricks, but bricks made of a mixture of clay and straw (this actually is mentioned in the Bible in 2. Mos.5/7-15) dried in the sun. It even would be meaningless to burn this kind of bricks, because the straw would be burnt to ashes. Egypt had the technology for burning clay - they had pottery. But sundried bricks were much cheaper, and good enough for most purposes in that very dry climate. Any god had known, Muhammad obviously not. Who made the Quran?

146 28/39b: "- - - they (the Egyptians*) thought they would not have to return to Us (Allah - at the Day of Doom)!" Comment YA3372: "They (the Egyptians*) did not believe in the Hereafter." This is an unbelievable comment, as there have been few cultures ever which have been so concentrated on the next life as the old Egyptians. That f.x. was the reason for mummifying and pyramids.

147 28/46g: "- - - (you Muhammad are*) to give a warning to a people to whom no warner had come before thee - - -". According to the Quran, the Arabs had had at least these warners: Abraham (claimed to have been in Mecca), Hud, Salih, Shu'yab, and Moses (some Muslims claim the Quran tells the truth, because none of these had been in Medina. But when you talk about a people, you talk about a people - in this case the Arabs - unless otherwise is specified. If you make the area small enough in cases like this, you may make anything look true.)

148 28/50e: "For Allah guides not people given to wrongdoing." Once more a deep difference in the teachings of the Quran and the NT: Just these ones are "the lost lambs" NT/Jesus/Yahweh tries to reach more than any others with guidance. (Luke 15/8-10 + 15/11-31 and Matt. 18/12-14 + 20/8-13).

149 28/55a: "To us (Muslims*) our deeds, and to you ("infidels"*) yours; peace be to you - - -." Mecca 621 or 622 AD carried a much more peaceful tone in the Quran than after Muhammad gained strength from 622 624 AD and needed a religion more fit for robberies, raids and war and got it from Allah (or was it Allah who wanted more blood than before?) resulting in contradiction with and abrogation of the old teachings. This verse is contradicted and often "killed" (abrogated) 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).

150 28/60b: "- - - will ye (non-Muslims*) not then be wise (and become Muslims*)?" The wise thing to do is first to check if a religion can be true. It often is difficult to prove that a religion is true - actually only the god himself can prove this. But sometimes facts shows that it cannot be true, though Islam is the only of the big religions which itself directly proves that something is seriously wrong, to say it politely - to blame a god for a book with so much mistakes, contradictions, invalid logic, etc. on a god, is an insult, slander and heresy. And if there is no god behind Muhammad and the Quran, what then is Islam?

151 28/70e: "- - - for Him (Allah*) is the command - - -". Similar things are often said in the Quran and by Muslims, but never proved anywhere. The only basis for the claim, is a book full of mistakes, contradictions, etc. based only on the word of a man believing in al-Taqiyya (the lawful lie), Kitman (the lawful half-truth), deceit ("War is deceit" - and "everything" is jihad/holy war), and the breaking of words/promises/oaths according to the Quran itself - a man liking power and riches for bribes - - - and women.

152 28/75a: "And from each people We (Allah*) shall draw a witness - - -". What for if Allah is omniscient?

153 28/79b: "Said (non-Muslims of Moses (!)*): 'Oh that we had the like - - -". How could this be reliably written into the claimed "Mother Book" long time before, if predestination is not 100%? And then free will for man is impossible to arrange even for gods - in spite of the Quran's claims.

154 28/83a: "That Home of the Hereafter We (Allah*) shall give to those who intend not high-handedness nor mischief on earth - - -". The behavior of Muslim warriors, assassins, terrorists and others through the times - is that mischief? If not: What kind of religion and what kind of god is this? And if it mischief: What then about Muslim warriors, assassins, terrorists and others through the times, in the possible next life?


These are just tit-bits from the book "1000+ Quran-comments - skeptics' facts and thoughts". You will find the complete book under http://www.1000quran-comments.com. (The surah reference numbers are like in that book.)

In http://www.1000mistakes.com you find:

  1. Book A: "1000+ Mistakes in the Quran" - http://www.1000mistakes.com.
  2. Book B: "1000+ comments in Jihad - (un)holy war" - http://www.1000mistakes.com/jihad-holywar/index.php
  3. Book C (this one): "1000+ Quran-comments - skeptics' facts and thoughts" (1000+ tit-bits from the complete book) - http://www.1000quran-comments.php.
  4. Book D: "Correcting much wrong refuting on http://www.1000mistakes.com - and a lesson in Muslim ways of debating.
  5. Book E: "What the Bible really says - when the Quran uses legends, fairy tales, or phantasy, instead of the Bible as sources for 'Biblical' texts, like it often does. (Expected late 2011 or early 2012).

In http://www.1000quran-comments.com you find:

  1. "1000+ Quran-comments - skeptics' facts and thoughts" (the "complete" list - 20ooo+ comments on the Quran) - as said in http://1000quran-comments.php.

*155 29/2a: "Do men think - - - they will not be tested?" But why is it necessary to test anyone if Allah is omniscient and knows everything before? yes, in spite of that he even decides everything before? (in spite of the claim that man has (limited?) personal freedom to decide though even Islam is unable to explain how it possible to combine the statement that Allah decides everything before, with the statement that man has free will - full or partly - (not strange, as it is a version of the time travel paradox, and that paradox is proved unsolvable)) if all this, then why are tests necessary to find an answer Allah already knows?

156 29/4a: "- - - those who practice evil - - -". In the Quran expressions like this sometimes refer to real evildoers - though not to jihadists (warriors in "holy wars" - jihads - which is the name of nearly every conflict where Muslims are at least one part) doing even horrible things - and sometimes simply to non-Muslims. The expression has psychological negative effect on relationship to non-Muslims - even stronger than "wrongdoers" which mostly simply means non-Muslims. Often it simply is one of the many negative names Muhammad used for "non-Muslim".

157 29/7e: "- - - We (Allah*) shall reward them (good Muslims in the possible next life*) according to their best deeds (and the best deed for Muslims, is war or raids for Allah and Muhammad and his successors*)". This only is true if Allah exists and is a major god, and if the Quran in addition has told the full truth and only the truth on relevant points.

158 29/13a: "They (non-Muslims*) will bear their own burdens (of sins*), and (other) burdens along with their own, and on the Day of Judgment they will be called to account for their falsehoods". In the Quran sinners on some occasions have to carry also the burden of sins of the one you have sinned against. F.x. if you kill someone "unjustly", the victim loses the chance of being forgiven by Allah later in life, and then he/she is forgiven and you have to take over his/her burden of sins.

If this principle really is valid in a possible next life, it will have serious effect for many a Muslim if Allah is a made up god and/or the Quran has not told only and the full truth in everything. In that case all the millions of killings and murders and assassinations done by Muslims throughout times are "unjust killings" - and the killers only can hope for that there is no next life and no god judging their deeds.

159 29/16a: Abraham delivered from Nimrod's fire. Taken from the story "Midrash Rabbah", not from the Bible - there is nothing similar in the Bible about Abraham in the Bible, but there is one about Daniel 1000+ years later, which may have inspired this "story"). And another point: Abraham and Nimrod did not live at the same time (if they ever lived). Nimrod was the great grandson of Noah (1. Mos. 10/1-8: Noah - Ham - Cush - Nimrod), and if he is not a fiction, he lived 4000 - 6000 BC. Whereas Abraham - if he ever lived - lived some 1800 - 2000 BC. Muhammad had a strong tendency to mix persons from different times (f.x. Haman and Ramses II/Xerxes - some 800 years wrong. Or Mary and Miriam - some 1200 years wrong.)

#####160 29/22a: "Not on earth nor in heaven will ye be able (fleeing) to frustrate (His Plan) - - -". Predestination. No-one can change what Allah has destined in his Plan. What then about the effect of prayers? - and what about free will for man? - not to mention: What then about man's moral responsibility for his words and deeds?

As for the value of prayers in Islam, also see 62/9c. And if you combine 62/9c with 67/9c - a strong one - you get something thought-provoking. (And relevant here: Muslims often are thought that a question or problem can have 2 or more true and correct solutions - Islam is forced to teach this, because if not, many of the mistakes and contradictions in the Quran become too obvious. But this ONLY is true if parallel true solutions are possible. In cases where 2 or more possible solutions are mutually excluding each other, maximum 1 of the mutually excluding ones can be true. It should be a bit thought provoking for Muslims, that just this "small" difference in theoretical thinking and teaching, was one of the reasons (there were several of course) for why Europe and the West exploded into the Technical Revolution, while the Muslim area stagnated). Two star examples are: 1) Full predestination is not possible even for an omnipotent god to combine with even the smallest piece of free will for man - the two are mutually excluding. The same for full and unchangeable predestination long time before, combined with any claimed effect of prayers - the two are mutually excluding each other.)

161 29/25c: "- - - out of mutual love between yourself in this life - - -". Muhammad normally claimed non-Muslims did not believe in him because they wanted the good things in this life. For one thing it was a "better" explanation than to have f.x. to admit that many of them saw there were serious wrongs in his new religion, and besides to make opponents low quality for many naive souls means to make yourself - and your followers - represent a quality superior to that.

162 29/29d: "Bring us (people of Sodom and Gomorrah*) the wrath of Allah if thou tellest the truth". Also in the old times people asked for proofs. Muhammad never was able to bring any neither for his god nor for his own connection to a god (Sodom and Gomorrah is a proof for Yahweh if it is true, not for Allah).

163 29/35a: "- - - an evident Sign - - -." There are no evident or clear signs for Allah or for Muhammad's connection to a God - in all the Quran or anywhere else. See 2/39a and 2/99 above. Besides if Sodom and Gomorrah are signs for anything, it is for Yahweh, not for Allah. Not to mention: Nobody knows where Sodom and Gomorrah were (if they really were), except that it was in the region of the Dead Sea - not much of an evident sign for the posteriority at least.

164 29/35b: "- - - people who (care to) understand". This kind if indicated flattery you meet many places in the Quran. Muhammad knew and understood people - and how to manipulate them.

165 29/39b: "- - - Pharaoh - - -". Pharaoh Ramses II definitely is a historical person, but just in this connection all the same a historical anomaly.

166 29/40a: "- - - some of them (here the Egyptians*) We (Allah*) drowned - - -". This refers to the claimed drowning of the pharaoh - but it is wrong: Pharaoh Ramses II did not drown (and because of that Muslims wants it to have happened earlier under more obscure pharaohs, but science is in little doubt. Also this fits the number of years given in the Bible.)

167 29/45e: "- - - regular prayers - - -". This demand for regular prayers - 5 times a day - was so essential for Allah (he even wanted more often according to Hadiths) that it became one of the 5 "pillars" of Islam. For Yahweh such formalism was so totally without any interest, that no similar rule - not even the idea - at all is mentioned in the entire Bible: Pray when there is a reason or a need or a wish. One of the 100% proofs for that Yahweh and Allah are not the same god. Also see 23/9b above.

As for the value of prayers in Islam, also see 62/9c. And if you combine 62/9c with 67/9c - a strong one - you get something thought-provoking. (And relevant here: Muslims often are thought that a question or problem can have 2 or more true and correct solutions - Islam is forced to teach this, because if not, many of the mistakes and contradictions in the Quran become too obvious. But this ONLY is true if parallel true solutions are possible. In cases where 2 or more possible solutions are mutually excluding each other, maximum 1 of the mutually excluding ones can be true. It should be a bit thought provoking for Muslims, that just this "small" difference in theoretical thinking and teaching, was one of the reasons (there were several of course) for why Europe and the West exploded into the Technical Revolution, while the Muslim area stagnated). Two star examples are: 1) Full predestination is not possible even for an omnipotent god to combine with even the smallest piece of free will for man - the two are mutually excluding. The same for full and unchangeable predestination long time before, combined with any claimed effect of prayers - the two are mutually excluding each other.)

168 29/46f: "- - - revelation (the Quran*) - - -". Is the Quran a revelation? There are 3 alternatives: Revelation (though not from a god as too much is wrong in the book - also hardly from a devil unless the god made all the mistakes a condition to give man a chance to see something was wrong), illness (f. ex. TLE - Temporal Lobe Epilepsy), or cold planning for power, like so many self proclaimed "prophets". Or a combination of 2 or 3 of these

169 29/49f: "- - - none but the unjust reject Our (Allah's*) Signs." Wrong. They also are rejected at least by everyone who see that the claimed "signs" are just loose and never proved claims, and thus without value as indication or proof for Allah or for Muhammad's connection to a god. And they are not "believers", but "knowers".

170 29/59b: "- - - put their trust in their Lord and Cherisher (Allah*)". Risky as long as nothing really is known about him - lots of claims, etc., but no real knowledge. Not even if he really exists is proved.

###171 29/61d: "- - - they will certainly reply,' Allah*". Wrong. If they believed the Earth and the rest were created by a god, they would say the name of their own god. But in Arabia a small cheating was easy: The old Arabs would say the name of their god al-Lah, but this is so close to Allah in pronunciation that it was easy to claim they said Allah. (A similar trick is used today, when Muslims and Islam in the west calls Allah "God" - the Christian name for Yahweh. This camouflages a lot of the differences between God/Yahweh and Allah, at least on the surface."

172 29/67e: "- - - believe in that which is vain - - -". Believe in other gods than Allah. But Muhammad accepted that the old Jewish god Yahweh was real - is belief in him in vain? And the Quran is not from any god - is then belief in Allah in vain or not?


These are just tit-bits from the book "1000+ Quran-comments - skeptics' facts and thoughts". You will find the complete book under http://www.1000quran-comments.com. (The surah reference numbers are like in that book.)

In http://www.1000mistakes.com you find:

  1. Book A: "1000+ Mistakes in the Quran" - http://www.1000mistakes.com.
  2. Book B: "1000+ comments in Jihad - (un)holy war" - http://www.1000mistakes.com/jihad-holywar/index.php
  3. Book C (this one): "1000+ Quran-comments - skeptics' facts and thoughts" (1000+ tit-bits from the complete book) - http://www.1000quran-comments.php.
  4. Book D: "Correcting much wrong refuting on http://www.1000mistakes.com - and a lesson in Muslim ways of debating.
  5. Book E: "What the Bible really says - when the Quran uses legends, fairy tales, or phantasy, instead of the Bible as sources for 'Biblical' texts, like it often does. (Expected late 2011 or early 2012).

In http://www.1000quran-comments.com you find:

  1. "1000+ Quran-comments - skeptics' facts and thoughts" (the "complete" list - 20ooo+ comments on the Quran) - as said in http://1000quran-comments.php.

*173 30/2-4: "The (East*) Roman Empire (Bezants/Constantinople*) has been defeated (by Persia*) in a land close by (Damascus 613 AD, Jerusalem 614 AD, Egypt 615-616 AD may be a battle in Syria in 615 AD just pick your choice (the surah is from 615 or 616 AD)); but they, (even) after (this) defeat of theirs will soon be victorious Within a few ("bid" - an Arab word meaning between 3 and 9) years." Bezants defeated Persia in 628 AD after they first had had a number of defeats at the start of the war - 12 or 13 years after this verse.

  1. 1. The Arab word "bid" means "a few" and "means a number of no less than 3, no more than 9" according to comment 2 to this surah in "The Message of the Quran" (A20/2). It took at least 12 years.
  2. This was a pep-talk to his followers. No-one not even Muhammad himself said that it was a prophesy - - - except that many Muslims say so afterwards.
  3. It is very clear from the Quran that Muhammad did not have the gift of being able to make prophesies (a kind of miracles), and it is as clear that he never even pretended to or claimed to have that gift. This was just one of the (few) cases where a little of all that he said through his life happened to come partly true (actually: So much that he said and spoke it is a miracle that not more happened to come true and more true than in this case. And NB: This is the only heavy claim Islam has about him being able to make prophesies (though there are other claims). The sheer laws of probability should have made him right a lot more often, but then he had little of creative fantasy. Once - nearly - in a lifetime = a prophet? As much as he talked and said, he from pure statistical probability should have had a number - not to say quite a number - of "hits", but he had few.

This is one of Muslims' strongeset - if not the strongest - claims for that Muhammad made foretellings. Not a very convincing case (but then Islam as such does not claim Muhammad was able of foretellings: "The only miracle of Muhammad, was the Quran", is a sentence you often meet - foretelling is a kind of miracle; "to see the unseen".)

###174 30/8d: "- - - for a term appointed, did Allah create the heavens (plural and wrong*) and the earth, and all between them - - -". Natural phenomena where Muhammad like so often without any proofs or debate claims the honor of creation for his god. One may say he only was telling about it. But when all there is is tales, nothing - nothing - is proved in spite of many requests, and in spite of even Muhammad telling proofs had been simple for Allah "if he wished", and when a lot even is clearly wrong, an "explanation" like "he only is telling about things", is not acceptable any more. Somewhere a teller of tales crosses the line between telling about things and bluffing. Muhammad clearly is bluffing.

175 30/10a: "In the long run evil in the extreme will be the End of those who do evil - - -". A lot of what the Islamic moral code permits or even advices are evil, even though Muslims are unable to see it because they are imprinted from infancy that it is good and right and even laudable. The only really acceptable "constitution" to build moral rules and codes on is: "Do against others like you want others do against you". Many of the Islamic moral/immoral rules and even a number of sharia laws conflicts - sometimes brutally - with such a constitution. Which means Muslims often do evil - and obviously things like stealing/robbing, suppression, raping, enslaving, lying, murdering, etc. are bad thing - it is obvious to see when you only think it over ever so little. It should be even more obvious when done in the name of a presumably good and benevolent god. And far more distasteful and repulsive.

But many (most?) Muslims are unable to see the horror and sins and injustice they are performing partly because they are imprinted that this is "lawful and good" and just and laudable in the eyes of Allah, partly because their great idol - Muhammad - in reality on many points had an awful ideology and immoral, and partly because Allah speaks nice words but demands horror and acts horribly and immoral in many ways - the typical war god serving warlords well - and like even children most Muslims learn more from what is demanded and done than from nice words. But they also believe the nice words are true in spite of what deeds, demands, introduced rules, etc. tell is the reality. Unbelievable for people trained in critical thinking, but true.

The conclusion to this is the fact that much of what the Quran wants or permits Muslims to do, very obviously is evil. What will then their end really be if there is a second life? - not to mention what will it be if Allah is a made up god - a real possibility as the Quran with all its mistakes, etc, obviously is not from a god - but there all the same is a god and a paradise and a hell? With their partly sick moral codes they have to hope that this god is not a good and benevolent one.

176 30/15b: "- - - those who have believed and worked righteous deeds - - -". Who are they in reality? - the ones who have lived according to the Quran's demand - not words, but demands - or the ones who have lived according to the one and basic really good rule: "Do unto others what you want others do unto you"? - there are oceans and horrors between those two moral codes.

#177 30/20a: "Among His (Allah's*) Signs is this, that He created you from dust - - -". Wrong. Man was not created from dust - really he was not created at all according to science. See 6/2b above. There is an extra irony in the fact that the Quran uses a piece of wrong information to "prove" Allah. Contradiction of reality - and of the Quran, as the book also tells Adam was created many different ways. Also: Muhammad claims most things for the glory of his god - but he never has anything but words and claims. And see 21/56c above.

178 30/26c: "- - - all (beings*) are devotedly obedient to Him (Allah*)." Wrong. No non-Muslim is devotedly obedient to Allah. And no Muslim sinner is devotedly obedient to any god. Islam further will have to prove that also all non-human beings, included worms and slugs and insects and microbes - are devotedly obedient to him. Yes, they will even have to prove that all believing Muslims are devotedly obedient to him.

179 30/29g: "But who will guide those whom Allah leaves astray?" One more difference between Islam and Christianity: Allah leaves people astray, and he even makes it difficult or impossible for many to find again or even find the road to Heaven - for some he according to the Hadiths blocks it already 5 months before they are born. God/Yahweh according to Jesus and NT always wants to welcome them back - even the worst ones - if there is honest regret. Read f.x. about "the lost sheep" (f. ex. Matt. 18/12-14) and "the 11. hour" (f ex. Matt. 20/1-16).

##180 30/30d: "- - - no change (let there be) in the work (wrought) by Allah: that (Islam*) is the standard Religion - - -". No "standard" religion can be based on a book with so many obvious mistakes. And hopefully no "standard" religion can be based on hate, suppression and blood. (This paragraph is one of the reasons why Islam states - or pretend - that the Quran is perfect, and why Islam can admit not even the most obvious mistakes - all mistakes must be "explained" away, because there can be no change (and of course nothing wrong) in Allah's work the Quran. Another cause of course is that as Allah is omniscient he simply cannot make mistakes, so mistakes proves he is not omniscient and/or that something is wrong with Islam).

181 30/32a: "Those who split up their Religion, and become (mere) Sects - - -". We have been told there have existed and exist some 3000 Muslim sects through the times. We have not been able to verify the number, but it is clear there are quite a number from Wahhbism in Saudi Arabia and stricter, to Ammaddiyyas and others. It also is clear that through the history there have been more some have been eradicated in blood even, as there is no compulsion in religion, according to Islam. As the Quran is said to be very clear and easy to understand, one impertinent, but pertinent question is: Which of the sects understands it correctly? and why do all the others understand it differently? and last, but very far from least: What is really the correct understanding?

182 30/36b: "- - - what their (own) hands have sent forth - - -" An Arab expression meaning "what you yourself have done" - an Arabism (see 4/13d above).

183 30/39b: "- - - that which ye lay out for charity, seeking the Countenance of Allah (will increase (= give you merit with Allah*)) - - -". Clearly not always true on Earth. True in a possible next life only if Allah exists, is a god, and if the Quran has told the truth about him.

184 30/41a: "Mischief has appeared on land and sea because of (the meed) that the hand of man have earned - - -". Muslim scholars do not understand what is meant here. They are guessing at this and that - included foretelling of modern pollution - but their answers are varying so much, that it plainly is guesswork. The plain old clear and easy to understand language in the Quran.

*185 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.

Can this be "the Right Religion"?

*186 30/47b: "We (Allah*) did indeed send, before thee (Muhammad*), messengers to the (respective) peoples - - -". The Quran tells there were sent prophets by Allah too all peoples throughout the times - the Hadith (the second main "pillar" of "knowledge" about Islam) mention 124000, and even that may even be only a symbolic number. But neither in archaeology, nor in architecture (temples or stones reused for buildings f.x.), nor in literature, nor history, nor folklore, nor even in fairy tales are there the slightest traces from those prophets. That so many prophets should leave not even a whisper of a trace - flatly no. And especially so when you see what only 2 (claimed?) prophets - Jesus and Muhammad - resulted in. It is not possible that not at least some out of 124000 left traces.

187 30/53a: "Nor canst thou (Muhammad*) lead the blind (the ones refusing to believe in Muhammad*) back from their straying (and to Islam*)". Non-Muslims = blind. But who is most blind; the one able to see, but who is accused of being blind, or the one refusing to see?

###188 30/56d: (YA3574): "The men of knowledge and faith knew all along of the true values - - -". Wrong, because man often is led astray by popular idea, old ways of thinking, etc. There are good values which are reckoned to be good. There are good values which are reckoned to be bad. There are things with no real value which may be reckoned in one religion or culture to be bad and in others to be good. And not least there are negative values which may be reckoned to be good. In Islam you will find a number of such wrongly evaluated values - not least of bad values reckoned to be good. Search f.x. in Islam's moral code, ethical code, war code, and in sharia, and you will find a number of negative values claimed to be good ones (and honestly believed to be good ones by many Muslims, because "everyone" tell them so). Just by comparing "do onto others what you want others do onto you" - the basis for all inter-human moral - with the mentioned codes and the sharia, and you will find a number of cases. And then there are all the other cases.

189 30/60c: "- - - the promise of Allah is true - - -". The promises of Allah are expressed via Muhammad and the Quran. The first was a man of highly suspect morality according to his words and deeds told in the Quran and other Islamic religious and historical literature (the Quran, Hadiths, and Ibn Ishaq to mention the most central ones). The second is a book dictated by that man, and containing huge numbers of mistakes, contradictions, twisted arguments, twisted logic, inhuman ethics and moral, etc., etc. Islam will have to bring real proofs to be believed and Islam has until now been unable to prove anything fundamental - - - they instead insist on and glorify na blind belief. Also see 16/38 - 32/9 - 35/5 40/77 46/17.

Sub-total: 189 + 617 = 806 comments.

NB: THE LIST CONTINUES 4-5 PAGES (A-4) FURTHER DOWN.


NB: If you find any mistakes anywhere, please inform us. If it is a real mistake, it will be corrected. Please also inform us if we have overlooked points or errors.


(A6/92 - English 2008 edition A6/93): "- - - it is in the nature of man to regard the beliefs which have been implanted in him(!) from his childhood, and which he now shares with his social environment, as the only true and possible one - - -". He forgot(?) to mention that this also goes for Muslims.

10/32: "- - - apart from the Truth, what (remains) but error?"


#####8/69a-d: "- - - lawful and good - - -". If these words and the context they are 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 them 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" (made invalid) by today's Islam, but on the contrary are preached many places all over even today in some Islamic fora and groups and countries. (And even practiced during armed conflicts - Bangladesh, East Timor, East Africa, and Indonesia a "short" time ago. Low intensity active in f.x. Indonesian New Guinea and parts of Africa even now (2010).)

Just remember that most Muslims are ok. Only a minority is militant - 1-2% according to Muslims (but 2% of 1.2 billion = 24 million). Then according to international science some 30% (= some 360 million) are willing to help the militants actively or with money, or at least "understand" them. The rest - the majority - are ok. (But our problem is to know who is who.)

But what is absolutely sure, is that apologists telling that "there are verses in the Quran which can be misused by terrorists", are talking nonsense. According to the Quran it is very clear it is the peaceful Muslims who are not good Muslims, and the activists who are laudable and obeying Muhammad and Allah.


From 6/149a: "You meet this lack of moral backbone and the ability in Islam and in Muslims to overlook or explain away even the strongest facts, at every point in the Quran where there are mistakes, contradictions or other proofs for that something is wrong in the Quran, and thus with Muhammad and with his religion - proofs they are unable to face for that Islam as told in the Quran is not a religion, but a superstition".

"Religious 'knowledge' nearly always in reality only is belief - often strong belief, but only belief". (In Islam exactly nothing of any consequence is proved - on the contrary: Much is proved wrong and thus that it is from no omniscient god.)

A world dominated by Islam is quite possible - Islam is expanding. Will it end up like North Pakistan or Afghanistan or like Saudi Arabia without oil - or somewhere in between? - and this because of a religion which itself proves that something is seriously wrong with its teaching, and also that there is no god behind its "holy" book (no omniscient god makes mistakes), and thus not behind the religion.

A nice future for our grandchildren?




PART VI: SURAHs 31 THROUGH 40

The comments on the separate verses start some 4-5 A-4 pages further down.

Introduction.

The introduction is more or less similar for all surahs - skip it if you already have read it and if you do not need to refresh anything, and start at the comments a little further down.

Muslims tried to block us from the net (see "How to control if our information is correct"): An angry, excited Muslim attack against "bad" people telling facts Islam and Muslim scholars do not like - but not able to find one single piece of wrong information or of hate in https://www.1000mistakes.com worth mentioning in the complaint to strengthen it! Not even top marks from Cambridge or Oxford had been a better guarantee for that our information is correct.

##You will find pages on Internet trying to refute especially "1000+ Mistakes in the Quran" (http://1000quran-comments.com is young yet (launched Now. 2010 AD), but there are reactions to this page, too, already). Please read them, but check their claims, information and "information" - laugh at their mistakes and naivety, be stupefied at the lack of real knowledge, weep at the dishonesty (Islam is the only of the big religions which not only accepts, but often advises the use of dishonesty - al-Taqiyya, Kitman, deceit and even broken words/oaths (see separate chapters in "1000+ Mistakes in the Quran) - to promote or defend "the Religion of Truth" (quite an ironic slogan for a religion partly relying on dishonesty)).

###As for "1000+ Mistakes in the Quran" and all the mistakes, contradictions, cases of invalid logic and of unclear language, etc. in that book: One or a few mistakes, etc. could be accepted even from an omniscient god, as the ones writing it down might have made errors (the Quran is claimed sent down by Allah, but necessarily copied by humans). But to be able to believe that an omniscient god has such a bad command of the language, that humans have to explain away mistakes, etc. with "what he really meant" or "parable", etc. hundreds of times and more + hundreds of contradictions and cases of invalid logic and of unclear language, etc., takes a blindness, naivety or wishful thinking far beyond the incredible and deep into the unbelievable.

The Quran claims it quotes Allah when it says that the Quran has a plain, clear and easy to understand language which is to be understood easily and literally if nothing else is indicated (f.x. 3/7, 11/1, 15/1, 18/2, 18/54, 19/97, 26/2,27/1, 28/2, 36/69, 41/3, 43/2, 44/2, 44/58, 54/17, 54/22, 54/32), and that only bad people "sick of heart" or "in whose hearts is perversity" (f.x. 3/7) look for hidden meanings - meanings "only Allah can understand". Then one has to be naive in the extreme to believe in Muslims' claims that all the mistakes, contradictions, invalid logic, unclear language, etc. in the book in reality are not mistakes, etc. but only the omniscient god who are so clumsy expressing himself that he has been unable to say what he meant, and that clever Muslims have to help him and tell what he "really" meant or explain that "it is parables". Or that Allah does not mean what he clearly says, but that the mistake, etc. in reality is an allegory - a hidden meaning - and clever humans have to explain the "real" meaning of his helplessly chosen words. Strangely you mainly find such claims from Muslims in connection with mistakes, etc., - clearly the omniscient Allah is not mastering neither science nor the plain Arab language properly, and really do need the help from intelligent and clever mere humans to be able to express himself. One or a few such cases should be disturbing for the believers, as an omnipotent god does not make mistakes and he also should be a master of expressing himself clearly and impossible to mistake in clear words with distinct and unmistakable meaning. One or a few cases could be explainable, but when it runs in the hundreds and even a few thousands of such cases, it requires blindness, naivety and/or wishful thinking beyond the unbelievable to be able to believe in such "explanations". Even with lots of wishful thinking it takes blindness and naivety far into the incredible to be able to make oneself believe this.

"One case is coincidence, two cases are suspicious, three cases are proof", Stalin said. Hegre Are May 㟢e 3000 cases!!


Our books are to be read and studied - and printed or copied in diskettes or Xerox to be given away (f.x. as promotion - diskettes and paper are cheap) or sold at meetings, in the street, in shops - everywhere. The Main ting is to spredd te informasjon. We also think at least "1000+ Mistakes in the Quran" should be printed at least in paper-back - it will sell well at least here in the US, in Europe and - strangely (or may be not so strangely) - in India. There will be no royalty to pay - our pages are for free. (And "free publicity" from Islam and Muslims will make it sell even better - though the new Danish book containing the famous Muhammad cartoons has until now (9. Oct. 2010) not made much noise - perhaps the cases of western way of debating Muslims have met, slowly are teaching them civilized behavior? (To stand up for free speech is the only way of teaching them to accept free speech).

Our books are intended for persons with no, little or medium knowledge of the Quran. This means some 99.8% of non-Muslims and 90-95% of Muslims. (It may be a surprise, but most Muslims do not know the Quran well - many have just superficial knowledge or superficial knowledge + better knowledge of cherry-picked parts of it.)

In addition they are meant for Muslims with better knowledge of the book, but with no, little or moderate knowledge of the background scriptures, mainly the Bible (for the sake of convenience, we use the word "Bible" also for the Jewish scriptures, even when NT sometimes is irrelevant for the point debated just there, and for the same reason we use the name "Jews" for the descendants of Jacob also in times before the name really was coined).

And finally it is intended for the really learned scholars - to force them to think over difficult point to be able to explain to us that we are wrong and to correct us.


PS: Beware that Islam in reality are many things. There is Islam like you find it described in the Quran - what some scientists call "Islam I". Then there is Islam as it is interpreted by Muslim scholars (Islam II), which may vary not a little. And you have Islam as it is thought and practiced different places and to different times (Islam III) - which may vary quite a lot. We mainly write about Islam I, because this is the basic, and this is how anyone finds it when they search for answers or ideas in the Quran, and not least: This is how the Quran itself says it shall be understood (f.x. 3/7b-e, 6/114c-d, 11/1b, 16/103c). And not to forget: Islam I is how the conservative Muslims, fundamental Muslims, terrorists, etc. - the best organized and thus powerful groups in Islam - read it, often strengthened by "strong" interpretations.


To find the real Muhammad in the Quran, you skip the glorious and glorifying words about him, but read what he demanded and did, what moral he stood for and what rules he introduced, etc., and think over what this tell about him. Glorious words are cheap and are used by all dictators and politicians - like Muhammad - and by many others for propaganda. Deeds, etc. is the reality and tell the truth. When there is divergence between nice words and reality, we always believe in the reality. And even in the Quran the historical Muhammad is very different from the glossy picture Muslims and Islam - and the propaganda in the Quran - paint.

In the same way you find the real Allah and the real Islam.


Beware that we often do not give conclusions, but ask questions or simply give the information and you have to think it over yourself what the information really tells about the Quran, Muhammad and/or Islam. We also frequently use the Quran's claims or information and treat a point as if this was true, to show the conclusions it gives. In both cases this partly is done to highlight a point in the best possible way, and partly to try to make the reader think things over him-/herself.


And beware of one more thing: If it is true what Internet now (Oct./Nov. 2010) tells, that Muslims have launched a partly falsified Bible - falsified in a pro-Muslim direction - and with comments not always honest (Muslims f.x. too often find points in texts which - with or without some twisting - among different possible ways of understanding it, have one they like. Then they skip all other interpretations, and in addition do not say that "this is a possible understanding", but all too often declare: "This is the explanation!", or "This is the Truth!") If they now have made a partly falsified Bible, they are within a solid Muslim tradition going back at least to the many falsified scriptures made up in Muslim Spain in the 8. and 9. century. (The famous and infamous apocryphal - made up - "Gospel of Barnabas" may be one of them.) Lying (al-Taqiyya and Kitman) to defend or promote the religion is no sin in Islam - on the contrary; it is advised "if necessary" to reach a "good" result.

But how much are tales from persons and a religion relying partly on lies, worth? - how much is truth and how much is al-Taqiyya (lawful lies)? Not to mention: What about the religion itself? - how much is truth and how much is al-Taqiyya?


Points to remember before you start reading.

THE USE OF http://www.1000quran-comments.com (and http://www.1000mistakes.com ):

1. We repeat: Some time in 2010 we were to visit www.faithfreedom.org, but made the mistake of writing www.faithfreedom.com. Up came a disinformation page from Islam telling that there had not been any activity on the page for some months. The clear intention was to cheat new readers to believe Faith Freedom was inactive. This kind of dishonesty is permitted for a number of wide topics in Islam - f.x. for cheating women or saving your money - and not only permitted, but advised to use "if necessary" when it comes to defend or promote Islam.

Because we did not want to meet the same dishonesty, we decided not to put all of it only in http://1000mistakes.com , but also use this name for an extra page and put some of the highlights there, too. So now you in http://www.1000quran-comments.com to find a number of highlights about the topic, but go directly to http://www.1000quran-comments.com to find the "complete" list of comments - on average 2-3 comments for each verse in the Quran.

2. Read first these 2 small chapters in "1000+ Mistakes in the Quran" (= http://www.1000mistakes.com ): "Some Essentials for how the Quran is to be read and understood" (VII-10-1) and "The Quran is to be understood literally if nothing else is indicated" (VII-10-2).

3. NB: As for Internet: We frequently receive empty messages or messages which are unreadable because the letters are mixed in one porridge. If you have something essential to say and do not get an answer, try again - we try to answer all polite letters. And one more thing: If you want an answer you have to write your mail address, because in our "answer box" your address will not show unless it is written in the text.

ABOUT THE PAGES:

4. Please inform all and everybody and all relevant fora - f.x. Internet pages for debate or information - about the address http://www.1000mistakes.com . It is information that is urgently needed by many, not least by Muslims. No god made a book with so many mistakes and other wrongs - and if the Quran and Islam are made up by humans or dark forces, where are the followers of this inhumanly dark and brutal war religion heading for in a possible next life?

5. http://www.1000mistakes.com is one of 9 pages which Muslim organizations warned especially against in 2009 - it could make especially proselytes lose their belief in Islam; correct and "down-to-the-earth" information works. In this connection it is worth noticing that in the "warning" http://www.1000mistakes.com was one of 3 which neither was accused of bringing wrong facts, nor of being a hate page.

6. Abbreviations used: YA = Abdullah Yusuf Ali: "The Meaning of the Quran". A (or MA) = Muhammad Asad: "The Message of the Quran". OT = Old Testament of the Bible (on which the Mosaic (Jewish) religion is built - NB: for the sake of convenience we) NT = New Testament of the Bible (on which the Christian religion is built - with OT mainly as historical background).

7. Words in ( ) are from the original English translated texts - often additions or explanations made by the translator. But if there in addition is a "star" inside like this ( *) the comment inside is made by us. 1 - 3 ** or 1 - 3 ## (stronger) in front of our serial number for a verse or part of verse means NB or stronger. And NB: If there are points we have not commented on, that does not mean they could not merit a comment.

8. As none of us originally had English as our mother language, and only these last years have had English as our 1. language, there will be imperfections in our English (and our references to Arab are taken from other sources as our Arab is not up to that job). But we must admit that each time we receive a complaint where excited and angry Muslims find nothing but not perfect English to complain about, we feel it is a diamond compliment to the quality of our work. But in so much stuff there has got to be other mistakes, too - we are not gods like Allah. Though the fact that Muslims and others all over the world - we after all are on top of Google and Yahoo on "Mistakes in the Quran" - in these 2.5 years have reported exactly no - zero - mistakes except for linguistic ones, proves and documents that every mistake, etc. we have pointed to in the Quran, are real errors, there may be wrong points somewhere. But if we have made mistakes (but real ones), please inform us - there is so much which is wrong in the Quran, that there is no reason for us or for anybody else to point to any but real mistakes, contradiction, cases of invalid logic, unclear language, etc. If we have overlooked points which ought to be included (but real ones), please inform us about this, too.

9. As mentioned none of us has English as mother language, and there may be linguistic errors. But these means little for the real contents - you may be an excellent farmer even if you are a lousy fisherman.

10. As http://www.1000mistakes.com is blocked in some Muslim areas (f.x. Pakistan) which shows they are afraid of it and lack arguments (if they had real arguments for that http://www.1000mistakes.com is wrong, blocking it was unnecessary) - "cut and paste" whatever you want from it and send, if you want to inform about or to debate there. Remember to omit the name http://www.1000mistakes.com.

11. If we are blocked centrally - f.x. by spam (there is too much at times already from unfriendly sources) we will reopen with a new address somewhere else, and announce the new address on f.x. http://www.topix.com/forum/religion/islam and/or the pages of http://www.faithfreedom.org.

12. Muslims often haughtily tell that many through the times have told negative facts about Islam without an effect. For one thing it is not true - many have left Islam. But in addition some things are different now:

  1. Internet and the modern flow of information. The Mullahs and imams slowly are losing their monopoly on information. They can block Internet - like f.x. Pakistan has done for our books (and thus show that our information is too difficult for them to meet or argue against) - but they can block it only partially and information and facts will drip in even there.
  2. Many non-Muslims know more about the Quran and about Islam than before, and thus know more about what they are talking about - and thus easier can point to the weak spots of that book and of Islam.
  3. Many Muslims get more education and thus easier see the errors in the Quran - and the inhumanities.
  4. There now are much more - and correct - information about the Quran and about Islam, and f.x. about the impossibility that the Quran can be made by any omniscient god. It is heresy and slander and an insult against any god to accuse him of having sent down a book so full of mistakes, contradictions, invalid logic, unclear language, etc. Information which slowly reaches also Muslims. F.x. our books.
  5. Science has found that 3. generation Muslim emigrants in "the West" are losing interest in Islam - information works.

13. ### Muslims insist it is impossible to translate the Quran correctly (just like the Japanese used to do about their language before they learnt other languages well - then they stopped claiming it). That is rubbish. What one human brain is able to think, another human brain at the same level of intelligence is able to understand. At most it will take some extra explanation.

14. Science talks about Islam I = Islam like you find it in the Quran, Islam II = Islam like it is explained (and problems "explained") by Islamic scholars, and Islam III = Islam like it is told by imams and mullahs and practiced by the followers - which may vary a lot from time to time and from place to place - there is a great difference between Islam in f.x. Sabah, Malaysia, and f.x. in North Pakistan or Saudi Arabia. We as mentioned mainly concentrate on Islam I because that is the basic, and that is how every Muslim meets the texts when he open the book. But we touch Islam II and III a little.

ABOUT THE CONTENTS OF THE PAGES:

15. Comment 141 (to verse 6/149) in "The Message of the Quran" (see point 5) explains (translated from Swedish) about Allah's claimed omniscience vs. man's claimed free will:

"With other words: The real connection between Allah's knowledge about the future (and consequently about the unavoidability in what is to happen in the future*) on one side and man's relatively (!!*) free will on the other two statements that seems to contradict each other lies outside what is possible for humans to understand, but as both statement are made by Allah (in the Quran*) both must be true". Unbelievable. Blind belief is the only correct and intelligent way of life according to Islam, even in the face of the utterly impossible!!- this even though that in all other aspects of life, blind belief is the most sure way to be cheated.

15a. ###Prayers are essential and one of the 5 religious "pillars" in the Quran and Islam. But: What is the idea of praying for anything in Islam? According to the Quran - and Hadiths - Allah has predestine every detail in your and everyone else's life according to his unchangeable Plan - a plan "nobody and nothing" can change. According to Hadiths f.x. your time of death and whether you are to end in Hell or Heaven is decided by Allah 5 months before you are born. Thus prayers can change nothing and is a waste of time and effort - a fact (if the stated predestination is correct - and if not the Quran is wrong) no Muslim ever mention or tries to explain. The 5 fixed prayers also is one of the 100% proofs for that Yahweh and Allah is not the same god: For Allah they are so essential that he has made it one of the 5 "pillars" of Islam - Yahweh does not care about such formalism at all; pray when there is a reason, a need, or a wish.

15b. ###From 6/149a: "You meet the lack of moral backbone and the ability in Islam and in Muslims to overlook or explain away even the strongest facts, at every point in the Quran where there are mistakes, contradictions or other proofs for that something is wrong in the Quran, and thus with Muhammad and with his religion - proofs they are unable to face for that Islam as told in the Quran is not a religion, but a superstition".

15c: #### from 9/39a: "Unless ye (Muslims*) go forth (in war/battle*), He (Allah*) will punish you with a grievous penalty (normally in the Quran a synonym for Hell*) - - -". An order not possible to misunderstand for a pious - or fanatic - Muslim.

Yes, a religion built on peace, goodness and heavenly ethics. Plus a good and benevolent god.

This is the order also today - see 9/38d.

This verse tells horribly much about Islam as it is thought in the Quran - and some other places.

16. There exists a letter dated 27. Dec. 1998 in which is admitted rather reluctantly that there are no proofs for Allah, and that it is not possible to prove him. (Actually it is not possible to prove a god - this only the god himself can do by doing something supernatural.) An additional point here is that if there is no proof for Allah and impossible to prove him, automatically there also is no proof for, and impossible to prove Muhammad's claimed connection to a god. And if there is no Allah and/or no connection between Muhammad and a god, what then is Islam?

17. ####Further: All the mistakes, contradictions, cases of invalid logic, etc. in that book, prove 100% that the Quran is not made by an omniscient god - no god makes such and so many mistakes, etc. If then Islam is a made up religion, what then about all the Muslims who have been prohibited from looking for a real religion (if such one exists)? And where will they in case wake up after living and practicing such an inhuman war religion (f.x. it's partly immoral moral code, rules for thieving/robbing, lying (al-Taqiyya, etc.), raping girls and women, enslaving, suppression, war, etc.) like Islam is according to the Quran (and to Hadiths), if there is a second life with a benevolent god somewhere? - Hell or Paradise?

18. NB and PS: No matter how sure you are about something, if it is not proved, it is not knowledge, only belief or strong belief, and can be wrong. Only what is proved or possible to prove is knowledge. And remember: "A proof is one or more PROVED facts which can give only one conclusion". Islamic debate and information normally build only on claims and statements which are not proved, so demand proofs in any debate with Muslims (you seldom will get them, and never in basic questions - their method normally is to throw out claims, and demand proofs from you for the opposite, and such proofs can be difficult there and then, and then they have "won" the debate, even if they may be wildly wrong. Demand proofs for their claims first, after all it is they who launch the claims and then it is their job to prove them - and you win many a debate just on this because Islam has no proofs on any central point of the religion).

19. But do remember that many uneducated Muslims honestly believe slogans like "Islam is the religion of peace" - they simply have not read much of the Quran, or they have read the glorious words, and are unable to see the harsh realities told in the book by the claims and deeds and introduced rules it tells about. The flowering words is the propaganda, the demands and deeds and rules are the reliable realities. The religiously educated ones know better - - - which sometimes s difficult to believe from what we hear from mosques, madrasas (religious schools) and other fora.

20. Note how often the word "the Truth" and similar are used in the Quran, mostly as a claim for the claimed high value and quality of the texts. In normal life the ones needing to tell so often and strongly that they are speaking the truth, are the ones not telling the truth and having no way of proving their tales - natural if they are made up. Simply the cheat and the deceiver. We also quote the infamous "Minister of Propaganda" in Nazi-Germany: Joseph Goebbels: "Tell a lie often enough, and people starts believing it". (The word also is used in the Bible, but far from so often, and "not spoken with such big letters".

SOME RELIGIOUS FACTS FROM THE PAGES:

21. We remind you that Muhammad claimed Allah = Yahweh - a claim which is easy to see is wrong, as the fundamental ideas and ideologies in the teachings/religions are too deeply different (Jesus love and peace and empathy, Muhammad Nazi-like (Carl Gustav Young) haughtiness, stealing/robbing, rape of girls and women, discrimination and war - and lawful dishonesty (al-Taqiyya, etc)). Because of this claim, he uses the name Allah for Yahweh (God). The differences between Yahweh (especially as we meet him in NT and his New Covenant - f.x. Luke 22/20) are so obvious and so easy to see (claims never documented by Islam, but proved wrong by science as they and also Islam have proved the Bible is not falsified), that mostly we do not bother to comment on it.

22. You often meet the claimed miracles connected to Muhammad used as arguments for that he must have been a real prophet and with connections to a god. You find these claims in the Hadiths only, not in the Quran.

This is very strange and peculiar - and revealing for the mentality of Muslim leaders and scholars - as the Quran indirectly, but most clear proves that all those stories are made up ones and untrue. If there had been miracles connected to or preformed by Muhammad:

  1. Opponents had not asked for miracles to prove Muhammad's tales and claims - they had known there were miracles.
  2. If they all the same had asked, they had promptly been told about miracles which had happened.
  3. Followers had definitely not asked - they had known about each and every miracle.
  4. If any follower all the same had asked, you bet they had got information instead of "explanations away".
  5. If there had been miracles, his followers had used them to propagate the religion. There is no tale about this being done in the Quran.
  6. Also Muhammad had used them in his preaching. There is no such case in the Quran and hardly in the Hadiths.
  7. And the strongest of the indirect, but clear and solid proofs: If there had been miracles connected to or performed by Muhammad, he had not had to explain away - even lying in the Quran - requests for proofs for his religion and god and for his own connection to a god: He simply had told about the miracles. There are many places in the Quran where Muhammad must use fast talk and worse to explain away requests for proofs/miracles. There is not one case of him telling about miracles connected to himself or performed by him.

In addition there is the fact that Islam itself tells: "There are no miracles connected to Muhammad, except the (claimed*) delivery of the Quran".

Also f.x. Aishah - Muhammad's famous and infamous child wife - clearly states in Hadiths that Muhammad made no miracles - f.x. was "unable to see the unseen" = unable to make prophesies.

All the same imams, mullahs, scholars and Islamic literature tell about, glorifies, and use as proofs for Muhammad and Allah the tales/legends about such miracles - and therefore many Muslims honestly believe in them; Of course their cherished religious leaders tell them the truth!? But it is permitted in Islam - even advised - to lie "if necessary" to defend or promote the religion (al-Taqiyya - the lawful lie, Kitman - the lawful half-truth, "war is deceit" - and "everything" is war, and "break even your oaths - pay expiation if necessary - if that gives a better result".

This is a kind of dishonesty you do not expect from honest leaders in an honest religion, and it tells not a little about the honesty, reliability, etc. and about the religious leaders in Islam.

Worse: As these stories about the miracles are untrue, but glorified by Muslims, how much more is untrue in the religion?

Worst: If the Quran is a made up book - and it clearly is not from a god (too many mistaken facts and other errors, too many contradictions and unclear language, too much invalid logic, etc.) - what then is Islam? - and where will Muslims end if there is a next life?

SOME COMMENTS:

23 One standard way for Muslims to explain away mistakes or bad meanings, is to claim that it means something else than what the words say - "they are parables". But for one thing the Quran itself as mentioned above states in words not possible to misunderstand, that the verses are to be understood literally if nothing else is said, and that only "those with an illness in their hearts" go looking for hidden meanings - meanings only Allah can understand according to the book (3/7 and others). But worse: Is it possible for anyone really to believe that an omniscient god is so clumsy expressing himself, that he needs a lot of help from more of often less educated humans to explain helpless clumsiness and contradictions and to explain away that this god is so retarded that he often says other things than he mean, and that thus we clever humans have to tell what he "really" means in his stumbling over wrong facts, etc.?

24 It would be possible to explain away one or a few mistakes, etc. in a book made by a god. But to be able to believe in the "explaining" away for hundreds and hundreds and more mistaken facts, invalid logic, contradictions, etc., takes either a well developed mental blindness - it is impossible to see, not to mention admit even for yourself what you strongly do not want to see - or a naivety far beyond what normally is claimed possible and deep into the incredibly unbelievable. It also is slander, an insult and heresy to blame a quality like in the Quran with all its errors, etc. on an omniscient god. But then it take a mental stamina and backbone many do not have, to face the possibility that the foundation you have built your culture and your personal life on - your religion - may be a made up fairy tale or legend. Or simply a tool for gaining power.

25 Some special words and expressions:

"Arabism": Anything which is typical only or mainly for Arabia or its near neighbor or other areas with similar climate, nature, culture, etc. there are lots of cases in the Quran which indicates that the maker of the book thought such conditions were the typical ones for humans - and lots and lots of cases where relevant differences from other parts of the world are not mentioned, this even though Allah is claimed to be an omnipotent god for all the world. There are more than the ones we list.

"Historical anomaly": The Quran claims that Allah sent down copies of the claimed "Mother Book" (13/39b, 43/4b+c, 85/21-22) in Heaven to prophets and messengers from Allah in the past (Hadiths mention 124000 or may be even more through the times from Adam to Muhammad - and all over the world. The Quran is such a copy, which means that the other copies are similar to the Quran - all copies of a book have to be similar naturally. What we call a "historical anomaly" in our book, is something which cannot have been written into the Quran a long time before it happened or was said (Islam claims it was written by Allah even before man was created, or it has existed since eternity and was never written (as nobody reveres his own work like it is said Allah does with the original book, the claimed "Mother Book (13/39b, 43/4b, 85/21-22) the second explanation may be the most likely(?) one) , unless there is total predestination of everything, like the Quran claims and states (as normal without any proofs) many places (but in this case free will for man is impossible). We stress that what we call historical anomalies mostly had not been such ones if things like in normal history were told after it happened. What make them anomalies, is the claim that the claimed "Mother Book" was written long time before things happened or were said, and then copies of this claimed "Mother Book" was sent down to all the claimed 124000 or more prophets and messengers through the times and all over the world, so that these persons could read also about what was to happen in their future - Moses surely would like to know how his people were to survive in the Sinai Desert, not to mention that Jonah would like to know the fish would spit him out - - - and both would like to learn about the great Muhammad who would be the only prophet(?) really succeeding with the "real" message of the old god Yahweh, now renamed(?) Allah. Remember that as all the books claimed sent down were copies of the claimed "Mother Book", they had to be more or less identical to the Quran, as the Quran was such a copy, too, Islam claims.

Also a prophet/messenger/reader might feel unsure about things because the incident told about had not happened yet or the person referred to was not born or at least not active yet when the mentioned prophet/messenger/reader lived, and perhaps in a for the reading prophet totally unknown culture (f.x. an aborigine prophet in Amazonas 15000 years ago - according to the Quran all humanity sporadically had its messengers to all times and all over the world (f.x. 6/42, 6/90, 10/47, 16/36, 35/24)) - remember here that the claimed Mother Book as mentioned was made by Allah before man was created, or perhaps has existed since eternity, and that a copy to f.x. Abraham some 3800 - 4000 years ago, Noah some 5600 years ago or may be more (the number is uncertain), must be similar to the Quran Muhammad god - if not it is not a copy of the same book. There are many more than the ones we list.

An extra point here which the Quran never mentions and Muhammad, Muslims and Islam never explain, is that if the claimed "Mother Book" was made before man was created, or even has existed since eternity, the unchangeable Quran (Allah's words cannot be changed - f.x. 10/64) - copy of that "Mother Book" - and the older copies claimed sent to older prophet, had to be a pure book of foretelling about the future for the older prophets. In their copies they could read about future prophets like Moses and Jesus and others, about things which would happen in the future, etc. And f.x. Jacob could read about what had happened to his son Joseph, and that they would meet again. There is no - no - mentioning in the Quran of this obvious and self evident effect of such a book if it was given to the claimed prophets of the old - may be too difficult for Muhammad to explain? (Muslims claim that there were different books for different times, but this is strongly contradicted in the Quran by what is said about the claimed "Mother Book", and if what the different copies the claimed prophets got according to the Quran, were copies of the same claimed "Mother Book", the copies just were new copies with identical texts). Islam never mention that because of this the old prophets would have good overview of main points and persons in the future, and never explain neither this nor why this effect never is mentioned in the Quran - actually the texts in the book pretends this effect never existed. Unexplainable - like total predestination versus free will for man.

A small problem: The Quran on one side says that the claimed "Mother Book" is eternal. On the other hand it says that the books varied - "each time a book" - as times varied. It does not explain how exact copies - like the Quran - of one and the same eternal book can be different.

NB: There are many more historical anomalies in the Quran than the ones we mention - everything written in the Quran in the beginning of time which the free will of man - acts, words, etc - could influence, are such anomalies, as if a person changed his mind a little, the text would be wrong, and thus the only possibility for that it could be written that early and still be reliable, is that predestination was and is absolute - - - and thus no free will for man.

For short: A HISTORICAL - OR TIME - ANOMALY IN THIS BOOK IS SOME PERSON OR SOME HAPPENING WRITTEN ABOUT IN THE CLAIMED ETERNAL "MOTHER BOOK" BEFORE IT HAPPENED OR THEY LIVED, AND THUS HAD NO MEANING - OR WERE REVEALING THE FUTURE - WHEN COPIES OF THIS CLAIMED BOOK WERE SENT DOWN FOR READENG TO CLAIMED MESSENGERS OR PROPHETS LIVING BEFORE THE HAPPENINGS OR MENTIONED PERSONS, AND THUS WERE TIME ANOMALIES TO THOSE READERS.

"This could not reliably be written in the claimed 'Mother Book' long time before it happened, unless predestination is 100%" or similar sentences. Also this in reality are historical anomalies, but stronger. Historical anomalies/time anomalies are destroying for the credability of any story. In the Quran an explanation had been possible if a god had been behind the anomalies, but all the errors in a book claimed to come from a god, proves absolutely that no god has created it or in other ways certifies it - not to mention reveres it in his heaven, like Muslims claim. So much is wrong in the Quran, and the general quality, except perhaps its eloquence when written in Arabic, of the book so miserable - in spite of Islam's claims (read it yourself and see) - that it is an insult, slander and heresy to blame a god for it. No omniscient god makes mistakes, contradictions, etc. There are many more historical anomalies - both "normal" and these stronger ones - in the Quran than the ones we point to. Just go looking, and you will find them. As mentioned: Historical anomalies are destroying for the reliability of any story - except in science fiction and in fairy tales - and of course the stronger the anomalies, the less credability.

"Not in the Bible". This simply means that what is told in the debated point in the Quran, is not from the Bible, and there is nothing closely similar in the Bible. Beware that there are much more of this than the cases we list - there is much in the Quran which is not from the Bible or has any parallel in the Bible, even in the stuff pretending to be Biblical stuff - one of the many indications for that Allah is not the same god as Yahweh/God and for that Muhammad was not in the same line of prophets as the Jewish ones - in both cases the contents of those two books would have had to be at least roughly similar, which they very far form are. (And remember here that both science and Islam has brought formidable proofs for that the Bible is not falsified - the standard claim and the standard way out of problems for Muslims claiming there are no mistakes in the Quran). Also see 12/30-34 about this.

"Contradicting the Bible". Similar comments like for "Not in the Bible", except that here you find similar texts in the Bible, but with contents contradicting the Quran. It is up to anyone what they want to believe, but beware that in any normal scientific evaluation, the Bible will be judged to be more likely to be true - if any is true - than the Quran. (There are several valid reasons for this - and especially so as the claim that the Quran is from a god is proved incorrect by all the mistakes, etc. in the Quran: No omniscient god makes mistakes, etc. "en gros" - and Muhammad had no other sources, except old legends, fairy tales, etc. about this.) There are many more than the "few" we list.

NB: In most cases we do not tell which of the two books is right or wrong. We just points to some of the places where there are differences, and as it is the Quran which claims the Bible is falsified, according to normal rules it then is Islam's and the Muslims' job to prove what they claim, and prove that the Quran is correct.

"Incompatible with the Bible". These are cases where the Quran clearly is contradicted on central or essential points by the Bible - so central or essential that it is clear both standpoints cannot come from the same god. Each and every of these incompatible points separately prove that Allah and Yahweh cannot be the same god, not to mention how strong this proof becomes when you combine the effect of several or all such incompatible points. These points prove very strongly that Allah and Yahweh are not the same deity. (And in addition there are the other proofs and indications for the same). There are more than the ones we list (we do not use this expression often - a number of places we call contradictions in reality are incompatible with the Bible).

NB: In most cases we do not tell which of the two books is right or wrong. We just points to some of the places where there are differences, and as it is the Quran which claims the Bible is falsified, according to normal rules it then is Islam's and the Muslims' job to prove what they claim, and prove that the Quran is correct.

NB: WE REPEAT THAT WE JUST MENTION SOME OF THESE 5 KINDS OF POINTS, BUT FAR FROM ALL - JUST GO LOOKING, AND YOU WILL FIND MORE.

26 The hard fact is that the Quran seems to be one of the apocryphal (made up) religious books, but further removed from Christianity and/or the Mosaic religion than most of the others - on the fringe even of the apocryphal literature simply.

27 ###Muslims further insist it is impossible to translate the Quran (just like the Japanese used to say about Japanese before they learnt other languages well). That is rubbish. What one human brain is able to think, another human brain at the same level of knowledge and intelligence is able to understand. At most it will take a little extra explanation.

28 As for point 27 just above, this claim is impossible to combine with the claim that similar copies were sent to the other claimed prophets through the times and all over the world - nearly none of them would understand Arab. (Some Muslims claim that the reason why only Arab can be used, is that it is Arab which is spoken in Heaven. But Arab like all languages "drifts" - words disappear or change meaning, new words comes, pronunciation may change. Is it then the Arabs who ape the "drift" in Heaven, and how do they in case learn about the changes - or is it Allah and his angels who "ape" the Arabs? Some Muslims even have "proved" that Arab is the original language in the world. Believe it if you want and are totally uneducated.)

29 This one we repeat: Since http://www.1000mistakes.com was first posted on Internet in spring 2008 it has become a central reference book. But there still are many who do not know about it. Please post the addresses http://www.1000mistakes.com and http://1000quran-comments.com on all your debate pages, information pages, and other relevant pages on the net - the pages you use, the pages you know about, and the pages you come across. Not for the benefit of us, but for the benefit of the ones who may need or want some of the enormous amount of information in the page. Information - quotes - not even Islam claims are wrong (even though they dislike what the quotes tell about the religion). The information may benefit:

  1. Muslims unsure about Islam.
  2. Muslims thinking about leaving Islam.
  3. Muslims looking for facts concerning Islam.
  4. Muslims trying in rational ways to evaluate their religion.
  5. Non-Muslims thinking about converting to Islam.
  6. Non-Muslims seeking information about Islam.
  7. Non-Muslims debating with Muslims - Muslims f.x. sometimes are not always 100% honest in such debates.
  8. Politicians and others meeting Muslims in daily life or job.

As for debate pages, the address should be mentioned every now and then (once a fortnight? - once a month each place?), because as new "letters" are posted, they "cover up" a posted address, and it drifts into oblivion if it is not repeated.

At the time of writing just this (21. Aug. 10), we have up to between 6000 and 7000 hits a day - yesterday f.x. 6611 hits. The average of course is lower, but all the same we reach a lot of people. With your help we may reach a lot more - this is information which should reach as many as possible.

Experience by now has shown that Muslims often have problems arguing against http://www.1000mistakes.com - they may pooh-pooh it, or deny it or refuse to believe it, but the proofs are too strong to argue against for many. Therefore you not only are spreading the address by referring to it - you may also win a point or the debate by referring to it and its address as an argument.


30. To Muslim fanatics: Do you want to kill us for writing these books, showing you facts you do not like to meet? - it often is easier to murder than to meet unwanted facts or "the lie of life" to quote Henrik Ibsen, which takes a lot of backbone. But it is too late as the books already are published: The cats are out of the bag.


Ps: We remind you that Muhammad claimed Allah = Yahweh - a claim which is easy to see is wrong, as the fundamental ideas and ideologies in the teachings/religions are too deeply different (Jesus love and peace and empathy, Muhammad Nazi-like (Carl Gustav Yung) haughtiness, discrimination and war - and lawful dishonesty (al-Taqiyya, etc. and stealing/robbing/looting, etc.)). Because of this claim, he uses the name Allah for Yahweh. This mistake is so obvious and so easy to see (and the claim never documented by Islam, but proved wrong by science - and by Islam), that mostly we do not bother to comment on it.

Islam also claims that the Bible is falsified and that it has been changed through the centuries. Ask for proof any time you hear this - the claims are wrong and never documented. Both science and even more so Islam have thoroughly proved these claims wrong by being unable to find one single proved falsification among all the know some 44000 relevant manuscripts and fragments. (Guess if Islam had announced it with huge and capital letters if they had found even one proved case!)

Finally two small quotes from the Bible and Jesus for comparison to the Quran and Islam:

  1. I: (Matt.7/12): "So in everything, do to others what you would have them do to you, for this sums up the Law and the Prophets.
  2. Compare this to the Quran's ethical, moral and judicial codes: Totally different too many places. One of the 100% proofs for that Yahweh and Allah are not the same god - not unless he is strongly schizophrenic.
  3. Compare this to Muhammad's teaching and behavior and raids and wars: It is very difficult to be more unlike than Jesus and Muhammad - one of the 100% proofs for that Jesus was not in the same line of prophets like Muhammad (and Muhammad on top of all was no real prophet - he only "borrowed" that impressive and imposing title - as he even according to Islam was unable to make prophesies) - they not only were not in the same line; they were not in the same moral world even.
  4. Muslims often cherry-pick a brutal piece of the Mosaic law, and say that as Jesus accepted that law (in spite of that even the Quran says he changed it), this justifies and sanctifies the brutal parts of Muslim laws, moral codes, etc. But the quote above and not cherry-picked details, was Jesus' essence of how one should understand the law one should obey.
  5. II: (Matt. 7/15-16): "Beware of false prophets. They come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly they are ferocious wolfs. By their fruits you will recognize them." There is no doubt Muhammad with all his raids (83? www.1000mistakes.com lists 62 of them) - mainly for riches and slaves/extortion, and later also for power - and his religion of war, was a ferocious wolf. And his fruits? - terrible for non-Muslim surroundings. And as his book - the Quran - with all its mistaken facts, other errors, contradictions, unclear language, etc. is from no god, the fruits may be even worse for all Muslims if there is a next life, and especially so if there is a real god somewhere they have been prohibited from looking for. Not to mention if that god is a good and benevolent one, not too fond of followers of a (made up?) god of discrimination, apartheid, dishonesty, blood, terror, and war. (That Islam is "The religion of peace" is a joke or an al-taqiyya (a lawful lie) you will see if you read the some 22 - 24 surahs from Medina.)

Some central facts about Muhammad, the Quran, and Islam:

A. Born ca. 570 AD. Married first a rich older widow. Started Islam in Mecca in 610 AD. Fled to Medina 13 years later - in 623 AD. Lived in Medina 10 years - as a highway-man, later robber baron/warlord (83? raids/wars, mostly for stealing/robbing, slave taking and extortion + later spreading Islam by the sword). Died quite rich with estates in Medina, Fadang and Khaybar in 632 AD.

B. 36 women known by name: 11 long time wives, (9 of them 20 - 36 years younger than him + favorite wife Aishah 6 years old (9 when sex started - he well past 50)), 16 short time wives, 2 concubines, and 7 who may be, may be not, really was married to him. Raped at least two girls/women; Rayhana bint Amr and Safiyya bint Huayay.

C. He in reality was not a prophet - he was unable to make prophesies, also according to the Quran and the Hadiths. See 9/88b and f.x. 65/1a.

D. He according to the Quran made no miracles - Islam today says: "The only miracle connected to him is the Quran".

E. He believed in using dishonesty (though al-Taqiyya and Kitman - f.x. 2/26h, 13/42 - formalized later), deceit/betrayal (f.x. the 29 from Khaybar murdered), and even broken words/promises/oaths (f.x. 2/224e, 2/225a, 5/89c, 16/91e).

F. He use lies even in the Quran - f.x. 6/7a, 6/28c, 6/109i, 7/120a, 20/70a.

G. He is speaking (f.x. 6/104c, 19/36b, 27/91a, 51/50-51) and MANY others referred speaking/acting in the Quran. How is that possible in a book claimed to be timeless and written before the world was created, if not 100% predestination?

H. If Allah predestines everything and according to his unchangeable Plan like the Quran states absolutely, man has no free will in Islam - mutually excluding each other, and thus impossible, in spite of Muhammad's and Islam's claims.

I. If Allah predestines everything and impossible to change, like the Quran states absolutely, prayers have no value or effect in Islam - mutually excluding each other, and thus impossible in spite of Muhammad's and Islam's claims.

"Muhammad lived far from the golden rule for moral: 'Do against others like you want others do against you', and as far from: 'Say the truth, or say nothing' - but he at least preached some of it".

There is a long distans between the historical, real Muhammad, and the semi-saint Muslims wish for and many even honestly are able to believe in.


SURAHs 31 THROUGH 40

The quotes and comments:


These are just tit-bits from the book "1000+ Quran-comments - skeptics' facts and thoughts". You will find the complete book under http://www.1000quran-comments.com. (The surah reference numbers are like in that book.)

In http://www.1000mistakes.com you find:

  1. Book A: "1000+ Mistakes in the Quran" - http://www.1000mistakes.com.
  2. Book B: "1000+ comments in Jihad - (un)holy war" - http://www.1000mistakes.com/jihad-holywar/index.php
  3. Book C (this one): "1000+ Quran-comments - skeptics' facts and thoughts" (1000+ tit-bits from the complete