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:
In http://www.1000quran-comments.com you find:
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 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.
THE LIST STARTS 4 - 5 A-4 PAGES DOWN.
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?
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:
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:
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:
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:
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.
(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.)
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:
In http://www.1000quran-comments.com you find:
*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:
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:
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:
In http://www.1000quran-comments.com you find:
*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):
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:
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:
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.
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:
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).
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.
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. 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.
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.
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:
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:
(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:
In http://www.1000quran-comments.com you find:
**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*)".
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.
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:
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:
In http://www.1000quran-comments.com you find:
#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".
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:
In http://www.1000quran-comments.com you find:
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*)":
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:
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?
The comments on the separate verses start some 4-5 A-4 pages further down.
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?
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:
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:
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:
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:
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.
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:
In http://www.1000quran-comments.com you find:
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.
(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:
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:
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:
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:
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.
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:
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.
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:
In http://www.1000quran-comments.com you find:
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:
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.:
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.
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:
In http://www.1000quran-comments.com you find:
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:
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):
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:
In http://www.1000quran-comments.com you find:
**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(:*)"
(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:
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