THE QURAN FROM ALLAH?
31 March 2013
No god ever delivered holy book of that quality - it is an insult and slander to blame all those errors, etc. on a god. Our Book A, "1000+ Mistakes in the Quran" proves that far more than 100% - and the same does the Quran.
####01 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:
There are lots and lots of mistakes in the book.
There are lots and lots of invalid “signs” and “proofs” in the book.
There is lots and lots of invalid logic in the book.
There are lots and lots and lots of invalid statements in the book.
There are lots and lots of contradictions in the book.
There is lots and lots of unclear language in the book.
There are lots and lots of grammatical and linguistic errors in the book.
There are at least a few obvious lies in the book.
There are lots and lots of non-Arab words in a book claiming to be in pure Arab.</0l>
This proves 100% or more that the Quran is not made by an omniscient god.
#02 10/37a: “This Quran is not such as can be produced by other than Allah - - -”. Very wrong. Many a good writer can write stories as good as, and better than, the collection of surahs in the Quran. In spite of what Islam says, the Quran is not good literature. The same stories are repeated again and again. They frequently are not well told. There are no new stories or ideas – only stories and ideas borrowed from others. Honestly large parts of the book are rather dull reading. And the fabled high quality of Muhammad’s Arab language? - what Muslims seldom mention, is that it took some 250 years to perfect the language - it was not until around 900 AD that it had got something like today’s language. It also existed in much more than one text. For one thing even Muhammad (according to Hadith) said it was sent down in 7 varieties which all were true ones - even if details were different. For another thing some of the old, original texts existed in the Muslim world for a long time after the “official” one was finished around 650 AD ( at some time there were at least 14 canonized varieties – 2 are used today: Hafs and Warsh, but most uneducated Muslims does not even know this). For still another thing the texts may have been slightly changed through the time - at least very old Qurans found in Yemen in 1972, had “small, but significant differences” from the modern edition. The dominating Quran today (Hafs), is the edition that was the official one in Egypt when first printed in 1924, according to what we have read. The version after Warsh is used in parts of Africa. Also see Preface in "1000+ Mistakes in the Quran" (list of the earlier 14 canonized ones + there were some accepted ones). In addition good literature demands that the facts given shall be correct, no contradictions, correct logic, etc., etc.
####A challenge to all real knowers of good literature: Please read the Quran with the claim that the Quran is top quality literature in your mind. Are you able to do so with an open mind without laughing? (No serious knower of quality literature will call the Quran good literature.)
The claim in this verse Muhammad could tell his uneducated and to a large degree an-alphabetic followers. People versed in quality literature today just will smile at hearing such a claim, if they know the Quran - it is not high quality even if you do not mind all which is wrong in the book. The one exception may be the Arab language in the book, as this as mentioned was polished by top scholars for some 250 years.
But in that connection we would like to quote an old American film critic some decades ago. He was shown a high quality film favoring narcotics. The question was if he did not think the film work was good?
"Well", he answered, "I always have meant that a work which was not worth doing, also was not worth doing good". (And on top of this there are even college students able to write better literature than in the Quran - and that is no overstatement.)
#03 26/211b: “- - - nor would they (non-Muslims*) be able (to produce it) (something similar to the Quran*)”. Wrong. In spite of all the glorious words Muslims use about the Quran, it is not good literature. There are lots and lots of mistakes and contradictions. There is lots of wrong logic. There are numbers of linguistic errors. There hardly is anything original in the book - the stories are taken from the Bible and a few other old books, from some pagan religions, from made up religious tales, from folklore and from legends and fairy tales and just changed a little. Also in thinking and in laws and morality there was little new - if any; there were a few changes compared to the old Arabia, but those ideas came from neighboring cultures or religions. And the same stories are told again and again - most boring. Also good writers - not the original composer - polished the Arab language in the book for some 250 years (until ca. 900 AD).
Claims like that the Quran is good literature you can tell to the naïve, uneducated illiterate savages of the old (and for that case modern) times. Skip it when you are talking to an educated modern person who knows the Quran (far too few does – many had been disgusted) and knows a little about literature. The Quran may be intelligent religious tales for its time, but it is not and was not a good piece of literature. Boring, repetitive, a melee of this and that – no logical system in the tales, the tales all “borrowed” from others and well known, no new thoughts, boringly told, etc.
There would be no problem for a good or medium writer to collect stories and write something similar - or better. But for what? - no matter how well written, not one single believing Muslim had admitted it was better than the Quran, as that had meant the Quran was and is not from a god.
*04 27/16 – 44: These stories – also repeated other places in the Quran - about King Solomon, the ants, the jinns slaving for him, the hoopoe, and not to mention the Queen of Sabah – are fantastic like were they from a fairy tale - - - which is what they are: They are “borrowed” from the made up - apocryphal, and hardly even apocryphal - scripture “Second Targum of Ester”. No god needs to steal old fairy tales and retell them with small – or big – twists to make them fit his religion/tales, and then call them facts. But Muhammad often did so. This is the reason why his contemporaries so often said that what he told just were old tales – they simply recognized the legends, fairy tales and stories.
05 33/2b: “- - - that which comes to thee (the words of the Quran to Muhammad*) by inspiration from thy Lord (Allah*) - - - “. Can a book with that many mistakes and contradictions, that many “signs” and “proofs” without logical value, and absolutely without one single valid proof, told by a man of such a “good” quality (see 31/30) really and surely come from a benevolent, kind, good and omniscient god? Or is anything wrong with Allah? Actually also Islam most reluctantly accepts that there is no proof of Allah, or of Allah’s sending down the Quran or of Islam. A book like “The Message of the Quran” dismisses this with that intellectually it is impossible not to see from the texts of the Quran that the book is made from Allah, and that it is a primitive way of thinking and reasoning, to have to ask for proofs to accept the full truth of the Quran (actually that is to turn reality upside down; one has to be very primitive - and naive - to accept something to be true, just because a rather suspect book repeats and repeats that it must be true - repeat a lie often enough, and people will start to believe it, Goebbels said.)
Nyet - a good English word meaning doubly no: Such a book is from no-one omniscient.
06 36/5b: “It (the Quran*) is a revelation - - -". Is the Quran really a revelation? - and in case from whom or what, as no god ever was involved in a book of that quality? There are these alternatives: Dark forces - Muhammad would not have a chance to see the difference between the angel Gabriel and a dressed up Iblis/Devil. A sick brain - modern medical science strongly suspects that Muhammad had TLE (Temporal Lobe Epilepsy), an illness which can give just the symptoms and religious illusions Muhammad is said to have experienced. Or a cold brain - f.x. Muhammad's. Also see 36/5a just above.
###07 39/23c: “Allah has revealed - - - the most beautiful Message - - -”. Incitement to hate, dishonesty, suppression, extortion, taking slaves, murder, mass murder and war + full permission for raping any slave or prisoner and + 100% dictatorship by the warlord (Muhammad and his successors). Yes, that is a beautiful message - (or in reality: Horrible). Or to say it in another way: If this is the most beautiful Message, we hope never to meet a normal one. .
08 41/2a: "A revelation - - -". But was it in reality revealed? - and in case by whom? No god was ever involved in a book with so much wrong. Personally we also are reluctant to believe a devil would deliver that kind of quality - he had to know the mistakes would be discovered sooner or later, and then he would lose credence (the only possibility is if the god would not permit him to make the book to lure people unless there were so many and so obvious mistaken facts and other mistakes that it was easy for humans to see the trap and evade it.) The other two possibilities in addition to the devil, are a mental illness like TLE - Temporal Lobe Epilepsy - like modern medical science suspects, or one or more cold, scheming human brains.
09 42/24g: "And Allah - - - proves the Truth by His Words". Muhammad's literal meaning here is that the words of the Quran is of such a quality, that only a god can have uttered them. Muslims and Islam claim the same today - and are as wrong as Muhammad: On most points the Quran really is of miserable quality, and no god ever was involved in a book - not to mention a claimed holy book - of that level.
Besides: That the Quran is the truth, is just a claim, not a proved fact. It also is proved at least is partly wrong.
####10 43/4b: “- - - it (the Quran*) is in the Mother of Books, in Our (Allah’s*) presence, high (in dignity) - - -”. This is one of the places in the Quran where Muhammad claims the Quran is taken from (is a copy of) "the Mother of the Book" in Allah’s own home/Heaven. But no book containing hundreds of mistakes, hundreds of contradictions, hundreds of loose claims and statements, lots of invalid logic, lots of invalid “signs” and lots of invalid “proofs” easy for anybody with good and wide education too see through, hundreds of places with unclear language, etc., is copied from a revered Mother Book, high in dignity and esteem, in the perfect Heaven, the home of and revered by a perfect, omnipotent and omniscient god. See also 13/39,43/4, 85/21-22.
11 45/2b: “The revelation of the Book (the Quran*) is from Allah - - -”. No omniscient god ever was involved in a book of a quality like the Quran - too low quality and too much of the facts are wrong, etc. See 13/1j and 40/75.
This content was posted with assistance from M. A. Khan, the editor of islam-watch.org and the author of "Islam Jihad: A Legacy of Forced Conversion, Imperialism and Slavery" (available online)