Chapter 13

THE QURAN'S CLAIMED RELIABILITY


Muhammad accepted and used dishonest as working tools - this is confirmed by both the Quran, Hadiths, and Islam. He also wanted respect and power and money for bribes - and women. It had been a surprise if a book about his platform of power, delivered by a man with such a morality and such ambitions, had been totally reliable. (It also is remarkable that his followers are fully aware of that he lied to and cheated everybody else, but refuse to see that a man of that quality also easily could cheat them to reach his goal.)

A religion which needs to use dishonesty - well, it tells something about that religion and about its reliability.

###By the way: Have you noticed how many points in the Quran's moral, ethical, and even judicial codes there are which have similarity to the corresponding ones in organized crime? - f.x. in the Mafia or in the Chinese Triads?

###01 13/1g: “(the Quran*) is the Truth“. That the Quran is the truth, is just a claim, not a proved fact. And actually that claim is one of the ones in the Quran which are proved wrong.

There are many mistaken "facts" which history, geography, archaeology, literature, art, science, etc., prove are wrong. (At least unbelievable 1700+ !!! places with mistaken facts, and perhaps 3000+ errors all together).

There are “more than 100 divergences (mistakes*) from the rules and structure of normal Arab language”, according to Ali Dashti's “Twenty-three years”.

There are verses where it clearly is Muhammad who is speaking, in stark contradiction to all statements that the book is made by Allah before the creation of the Earth or has existed since eternity (though some of the places - f.x. 6/114a in Yusuf Ali or 27/91a in Pikthall or Dawood - the mistakes are camouflaged by dishonest translators inserting the word “Say”, according to Ibn Warraq.)

The Quran states that the Quran is in pure Arab language. But according to al-Suyuti there are at least 107 foreign words used in the book, and Arthur Jeffery (specialist in Arab and in non-Arabic words in the Quran) says ca. 275 words from Aramaic, Hebrew, and Greek, and also from Syria, Ethiopia, and Persia. Even the word Quran is said to be from Syria. (The Arabs later found an excuse for those mistakes: Al-Tha’alibi tells that the Arab started to use those words and made them Arabic. An easy but dishonest explanation.)

They used an alphabet without vowels, and to make it even worse, when writing the Quran/surahs in the old time, they did not even use the small points newer Arab uses to specify different letters. Because of this it often is difficult or impossible to know which word is meant. To use an English example: If you only have the consonants “h” and “s” and put in vowels, the result may be “house” or “hose” or “his” or “has”. Because of this there are thousands of possibilities for mistakes - or different meanings. Muslims tell the Quran was finished not later than 656 AD, but that is not true - only the simplified version using the old unfinished alphabet was used then was finished by Caliph Uthman not later than 656 AD, and lots of versions were written as the language and the alphabet were completed. Not until 900 AD was the Quran really finished, and by then there existed numbers of versions. Muslims under the very learned Ibn Mohair (died 935 AD) finally canonized 7 + 7 = 14 versions + there were a number of other accepted ones - see at the end of this chapter. Over the centuries 11 plus the accepted ones fell out of use (though we are told that some of them still are used locally a few places), and then one more - today there are mainly two - one dominant ('Asim after Hafs) and one somewhat used in parts of Africa (Nafi after Warsh). After all that, how can anybody pretend that the Quran of today is sent down from Allah letter-by-letter and comma-by-comma? – the comma did not even exist in Arab at the time of Muhammad!

The language in the original Quran was so little exact, that it frequently is necessary to insert explanations (or "explanations").

And how then can anyone pretend that the language in the Quran of today is perfect and correct language word for word and meaning for meaning just as dictated by Allah, when one knows that they spent 250 years “de-coding” without full success the original texts and polishing the language?

And even more so: How can anyone pretend with a straight face that the Quran(s) of today is the one and perfect one from Allah, when the clergy/religious leaders and the educated elite at least, know that there were at least 14 + 10 (+ 4 original ones) “correct” versions earlier (to camouflage that they were different versions, Muslims call them “ways of reading” – you meet the word even today, because even today there are “different ways of reading”) - versions that over the centuries by an arbitrary process were reduced to 3 and then to 2. (The one dominating today, most likely dominates because it happened to be used when Egypt printed Qurans in 1924, according to Ibn Warraq).

Of the 28 and more versions which existed, how can one be sure that the most correct versions were the ones which finally came to dominate? - or that those versions ('Asim after Hafs and Nafi after Warsh) had all interpretations of the primitive writings correct (especially as the two are not quite similar)?

There are lots of places in the Quran where the logic is wrong – mainly because Muhammad draws conclusions or make statements without first proving that it really is Allah who made this and this. F.x. the sun and the moon and night and day may be good proofs for Allah, but ONLY if it first is proved that it really is Allah who made them and runs them. Muhammad never really proves anything essential. Never. He just claims or states. The results are invalid claims with invalid logic, not real “signs” or “proofs”. Valueless. Or even worse, as the use of such arguments proves to the entire world that he has no real and true facts/arguments - if he had, he had used them instead. Still even worse: The use of bluffs, etc. is the hallmark of cheats and deceivers.

"Proofs". The facts in the point above are even more essential here in this point - in points where he indicates or even uses the word “proof”. The problem is the same, and the only possible conclusion is the same: Valueless demagogy that proves that he had no real and true facts/arguments. Even worse: The use of invalid arguments is the hallmark of cheats and deceivers.

There is little reason to believe the Quran ever was perfect and without mistakes, and even less reason to believe that the Quran of today is so (it simply is not). This even if you omit all the mistakes we know about. At very best the book only is partly true. Also see 13/39a+b, 43/4, 85/21-22 below.

02 16/103f: “- - - this (the Quran*) is in Arabic, pure and clear”. Wrong in many ways: There are alien words, there are orthographical mistakes, there are grammatical errors and there are lots and lots of places where even today Islam does not know the exact meaning of words or verses (the last partly because the book originally was written by means of an unfinished alphabet - no short vowels, no diacritical points (points user to signify some letters)).

Also as said the book is not very pure Arabic:

The old Arab alphabet as mentioned only had the consonants - it even today is unclear what is the real meaning of many sentences.

The old Arab alphabet did not have the points (“diacritical marks”) used later to mark different letters.

The old Arab alphabet did not have marks like full stop or comma – even though many a Muslim today claims that the Hafs version of the Quran he is reading – or may be the Warsh version if he is from Africa – is an exact copy of Muhammad’s words “down to the last comma”.

The written Arab language and alphabet was not perfected until ca. 900 AD - perfect writing was impossible around 650 AD when the official Quran was made.

03 21/4b: (A21/5): Variation in explanations: In the Swedish 2006 edition “The Message of the Quran” here tells that the Arab word is spelled “qul” (imperative of "say") in the “way of reading” - variety of the Quranic texts - after Warsh, used in much of North Africa. Whereas in the variety after Hafs, used in the rest of the Muslim area, it is spelled “qala” (“he (Allah) said” (though A. Yusuf Ali uses "say"). In the original old manuscripts it was written just q-l , so both interpretations are possible. 2 varieties because of unclear language in the original Arab text - like so often. But the main thing here is not this minor variety. ####The main thing is that “The Message of the Quran” here confirms that there are varieties of the book - something any Muslim scholar know, but all the same the lay people are told there never is or was more than one variety. Only 2 today remain in daily use – the 2 mentioned – but once there were 14 + 10 (+4) accepted varieties (and before that many more). Well, there is one more – and ominous – as interesting fact: This little known, but most essential, fact has “disappeared” from the English 2008 edition. The fiction that there only is and always was only one Quran, is more essential than honesty in Islam it seems. But if a religion is true, it should not be necessary to lie about it - remember the IT-slogan RIRO: Rubbish In = Rubbish Out.

In the English 2008 edition one has omitted the references to Warsh and Hafs, and thus that there even today is 2 varieties of the Quran. In all the cases we have found where the English 2008 edition is changed compared to the Swedish 2006 one, the changes has been in "correct" direction. You may yourself guess why they here have omitted the fact that there even nowadays are 2 varieties of the Quran (and the many older varieties are never mentioned by the Muslim scholars - and many Muslims honestly do not know it, or are not aware of that "ways of reading" just is another expression for "variety", and thus claims that their variety/"way of reading" of the Quran, is the exact copy of Muhammad's words. Orthodoxy too often is more essential to Muslim scholars than honesty. (cfr. f. x. al-Taqiyya - the lawful lie, and Kitman - the lawful half-truth, etc.).

04 23/83: "They (Muhammad's tales*) are nothing but tales of the ancient". This to a large degree is correct, as a large part of Muhammad's tales in the Quran are old tales - fables, legends, folk tales, apocryphal (made up) stories from the Bible, fairy tales - known in Arabia at his time, which were given suitable twists to fit his new religion - no god would need to do that.

#####05 36/7b: "- - - proved - - -". Whenever you meet words like "proof", "proved". etc in the Quran, in Islam, or from Muslims, you had better be careful, as they are very free with using such words (also beware that the word "Sign" in Quran-speak indicates a "proof" for Allah or Islam or Muhammad). A proof is "one or more proved facts which can give only one solution/answer". Muhammad, the Quran, Muslims, and Islam all have a strong tendency to use a not proved claim or something, skip proving Allah has anything to do with it, and then tell that this and this are proofs for Allah or Muhammad or Islam. NEVER accept or believe in such claims until you have checked that they really have proved that Allah is behind the phenomenon they say proves something. If not the proof is totally without value - even worse: They may simply be trying to cheat you by using an al/Taqiyya (a lawful lie) or a Kitman (lawful half-truth) - forms of permitted dishonesty you only find in Islam of the big religion. (But do not accuse a Muslim too quickly of willful dishonesty in such cases - many are so used to misuse of words like "proof" that they think they are honest when they call a loose claim a proof, especially if they themselves find the claim logical).

06 39/23d: “(The Quran*) is consistent with itself”. Wrong – there are plenty of contradictions. Plenty - several hundred (at least 300 internal contradictions + all the external ones)! Islam even needs a special abrogation rule for deciding which paragraph is the correct one when two or more “collide” (the youngest one is normally claimed to be the correct one - that is one of the reasons why the age of the different verses counts in Islam, and why the question of ages of the surahs is an integrated part of Islamic judicial procedures). Some Muslims tell this is not true - Allah just made the rules stricter. It may look like an ok explanation in some, but only some, cases, f.x. concerning alcohol. But what kind of omniscient god did not know from the very beginning what kind of rules was needed? – besides; more strict rules also are abrogations.

Contradicted by all the contradictions in the book.

##07 40/75: “- - - the Truth (the Quran*) - - -”. To repeat things:

The Quran contains more than 1750 (likely 2ooo+) places with wrong facts. Add the ones we have overlooked (some more we have found during the work with this book will be added - perhaps 250 new ones? - 2ooo all together?) + all the other kinds of mistakes and other types of wrongs and you may have some 3000 or more places with mistakes, contradictions, etc. in one single book.

The Quran in addition contains at least 200+ “most likely“ wrong facts.

The Quran is likely to contain more mistaken facts we have not seen.

The Quran contains lots of invalid “signs” claiming to be indicating or “proving” Allah/Islam. The use of invalid arguments is the hallmark of cheats.

The Quran contains a number of invalid “proofs,” pretending to indicate or “prove” Allah/Islam. The use of invalid “signs” and “proofs” is a strong hallmark for cheats, swindlers, and deceivers.

The Quran contains a huge number of claims and statements taken from thin air or resting on other invalid claims, statements, “signs”, or “proofs”. The use of such invalid arguments and cheap words is the hallmark of cheats and deceivers.

There is not one single statement, “sign” or “proof” in the Quran which really proves Allah - they without exception are logically invalid, mostly because it is not first proved that it really is Allah who is behind them. There are a few taken from the Bible that may indicate a god - not Allah, but a god. But the Bible talks about Yahweh, not about Allah (and the teachings are fundamentally so different - see 29/46 - that in spite of what the Quran and Hadith say, Allah is not the same god as the one Jesus told about - not unless he is schizophrenic.)

The Arab Quran contains more than 100 linguistic mistakes according to linguists.

The Quran is said to be pure Arabic. It contains a lot of non-Arabic words. We have seen different numbers, but perhaps 275 different words according to Arthur Jeffries (the word Quran is said to be one of them). For the story these are not serious, but they are mistakes compared to what the Quran says, and the Quran pretends to be perfect and without mistakes - sent down from an omniscient god. Islam has an explanation, though: Arabs has used the foreign words and made them Arab. A Negro does not become an Arab even if he moves to Arabia. A very practical way of making something look true only.

The Quran contains at least ca. 400 contradictions.

The Quran contains at very least 400+ places where the original Arab text is so unclear that it is impossible to be sure what is really meant.

The Quran contains lots and lots and lots of places where the text is unclear - this is openly admitted also by Muslim scholar (you will find it in any reasonably thorough book explaining Quranic texts).

The Quran at best is partly true. There are very good reasons for doubt and skepticism.

It is also told that the Quran is a copy of a revered “Mother of the Book” in the Heaven of Allah. This has to be wrong. An omnipotent god impossibly can have revered - not kept as a funny curiosum, but revered!! - a book with that many mistakes and contradictions, that number of loose and without value claims and statements, invalid logic, not to mention all the invalid “signs” and “proofs” - hallmarks of an swindler or a cheat or deceiver. Besides: The claimed other 124ooo+ earlier prophets according to Islam received a similar copy of the Mother Book. Pretend you were the prophets Hud or Salih living at least 2000 years before Muhammad (because Moses spoke about them according to the Quran, and he lived (?) some 2000 years before Muhammad - Hud and Salih consequently must have lived before that), or that you were one of the Indian prophets in the Americas before 1492 AD – or in the Arctic or in Australia 100 years before Botany Bay – the Quran and Islam claims that all people have had prophets. Then read the Quran and see how much you would understand and how much not – even words like cows, sheep, goats, camels, ships, coats of mail, and a number of other words – what did they mean in South America or Australia? And how much is irrelevant? – f.x. Muhammad’s family problems, all the facts and happenings relevant mostly for Arabia, etc.

Read the Quran with that in your mind – and weep.

Would a god make or revere or use copies of such a claimed timeless and unchangeable book for his prophets through all times and all over the world? – Remember we here talk about the perfect and timeless Mother Book that the Quran and all other not falsified books sent down to the prophets all over the world from Adam to Muhammad, are exact copies of. This in spite of that Islam explains that the reason for new prophets and new scriptures were that time changed, so the scriptures had to be changed a little - how to change perfect copies of the one and perfect Mother Book?

###08 42/24j: “And Allah - - - proves the Truth by His Words.” Muhammad was asked many times to prove his - or presumably Allah’s - words, but he never did, and seemed never to be able to, this even more so, as f.x. some of his “explanations” for why he never could prove anything, an intelligent man like him knew were lies (f.x. that real miracles would make no-one believe anyhow). And the words of the Quran prove not a thing, among other reasons because:

Far too many mistakes pretending to be facts. (Swindle?)

Far too many loose statements pretending to be facts. (Swindle?)

Far too many invalid “signs” pretending to be documentation. (Swindle?)

Far too many invalid or even wrong "proofs" pretending to be documentation. (Swindle?)

Some obvious lies – f. ex. that miracles would make no-one believe, or that Muhammad wanted no payment (in spite of what Muslims claim, Muhammad was well off when he died - estates in Mecca, Medina, and Fadang, and more - even though he had spent fortunes for bribes for followers/power, and lots of women also cost something). (Swindle.)

Muhammad was unable to present anything but fast-talk when asked for proofs. (Swindle?)

Lots of invalid use of logic. (Swindle?)

Lots of contradictions (– proves of lies?)

These all are hallmarks of a crook and a cheat and a deceiver.

####What does this mean for the religion?

09 43/4a: "And verily - - -". It definitely is no proved verity/truth. See f.x. 2/2b or 42/33b above.

When used in the Quran words like "true", "truth", "truly", "sure" "surety", "surely", "verity", "verily", etc. are claims, not proved facts. Also see 2/2b + 13/1g and 67/9c - 2 strong ones - and as for contradictions to the Bible also 40/20b. Also the latter half of the comments to 41/39a is very relevant. These and similar words cannot be taken at face value until they are proved.

#####10 45/5e: "- - - the fact - - -". Beware that the Quran - and Muslims and Islam - often are very free and liberal when using words like "fact", "proof", etc. Always check if the claims really are fact or proofs, etc. before you believe in such words from Muslim/Islamic sources. And do not judge a Muslim if you find out he is lying about this or that, and especially not concerning the religion: Remember that in Islam it often is not a sin to lie - yes, when it comes to defending or promoting the religion, it even is advised to do so "if necessary". Cfr. "Al-Taqiyya" (the lawful lie), Kitman (the lawful half-truth), Hilah (the lawful pretending/circumventing), "war is deceit" (and "everything" is war), and the rules for breaking even words/promises/oaths in the Quran (f.x. 2/225a, 5/89a+b, 16/91d, 16/92a+b, and 66/2a). None this is moral "specialties" do you find in normal religions - not to mention in the Bible or NT. But then the moral code in the Quran is a bit "special" on too many points.

######11 67/9c: "(Non-Muslims said*): '- - - ye (Muslims*) are in nothing but an egregious delusion". As for the Quran, all the mistaken facts and other errors, the contradictions, the low quality of the book as literature, the unclear language, all the cases of invalid logic, etc. prove with mathematical certainty that the book is not from any god. As for Allah he of course could have existed in spite of the fact that the Quran is a made up book - made up by dark forces or by humans. But when you add Allah's background - he originally was the pagan god al-Lah which Muhammad simply dressed up, and without the slightest proof claimed was the real god and the only god. Then you add Muhammad himself - a man who wanted respect and power, not to mention riches for bribes for more power - and women, and a man who did not hide that he believed in the use of dishonesty to reach a goal (he lied even in the Quran - f.x. the "explanation" that nobody would believe anyhow, even if Allah proved himself by making some miracles; Muhammad was too intelligent an knew too much about people to believe in that claim himself. And there was al-Taqiyya (the lawful lie) and Kitman (the lawful half-truth), etc., even though they were not formalized until later. And not to forget "War is deceit - war is betrayal", and "break your word/promise/oat if that gives a better result - pay expiation later if necessary - 2/225, 5/89, 16/91, 66/2).

Add this and add to Muhammad's unreliability and low morality (easy to see in the Quran if you skip the glorification and read the reality - what he said and did and demanded), the fact that neither Muhammad, nor Allah ever was able to prove anything at all of any essence concerning Islam or Allah, add the fact that Allah has not manifested himself one single time neither during the life of Muhammad, nor afterwards or before, not manifested or proved himself in any way - numbers of claims, but not one single proved case. Add the fact that both science and even more so Islam (they have searched harder) have delivered so strong empirical proofs for that the Bible is not falsified, that it practically is a mathematical proof (44ooo : 0 in reality is a mathematically strength proof) - and that thus Allah's claimed history from before Muhammad disappears, as he is not the same god as Yahweh (the teachings and everything are fundamentally and morally too different) - yes, not only disappears, but proves that thing are made up and wrong.

Add all this, and you end up with a probability for his existence far below one to a million. The empirical proofs for that he does not exist, are so strong that it, too, practically is a mathematical certainty.

Then finally add the Muhammad's and Islam's partly immoral moral code, their partly unethical ethical code, their very immoral code of war and terror, their code for dishonesty, betrayal, etc., their partly unjust judicial code, their political code (apartheid/fascism/Nazism), and the Quran's cultural code (f.x. knowledge = knowledge related to Islam only), you end up with such a strong empirical proofs proof for that if Allah after all exists, he is no good and/or benevolent god, that also these in practice are so strong that they are to be classified together with mathematical proofs in strength and reliability.

And to what paradise does a religion built on a made up book - in worst case made up by dark forces - and worshipping a god which does not exist, or at best is the pagan, dressed up and malevolent god al-Lah, lead?

THE 28 CANNONIZED OR ACCEPTED VERSIONS OF THE QURAN THROUGH HISTORY:

There were a big lot more of unofficial versions - that was why the official ones had to be made and authorized.

Before Uthman had his official edition made - not later than 656 AD - there were 4 much used edition - and they varied not a little.

Uthman’s edition helped in reducing the virr-varr, but because it was written in an incomplete alphabet - no vowels, no diacritical points, no sign like comma, full stop, etc. it often was and still is difficult or impossible to understand exactly what the texts meant, and different writers guessed different meanings - a sample: If you have the consonants "h" and "s" and know they represent a word, the word at least may be "hose" or "house" or "his" or "has" - and soon the virr-varr was even greater. 

Finally one of the top scholars and some helpers sat down and made a list of 7 edition which became after a fashion canonized, but as each existed in 2 varieties, this meant that 14 varieties were canonized. As the expression "varieties of the Quran" is taboo in Islam, the reality was camouflaged by naming it "ways of reading". These 14 were (NB: The Years are not accurate, but most of them are correct within 2 - 3 years):

Maker: Town: Dead (AH/AD): Reteller: Dead: Reteller: Dead:

Nafi Mecca (169/786) Qalun (220/835) Warsh (197/813)

ibn Katir Mecca (120?/738?) Qunbul (291/904) al-Bazzi (250/865)

abu 'Amr Basra (148|55/766|72) abu 'Umar ad-Duri (246/861) abu Su'aib as-Suzi (261/875) 

ibn 'Amir Damascus (118/737) ibn Dakwan (242/857) Hisam as-Sulami (245/860)

'Asim Kufa (127|9/743|45) abu Bakr Su'ba (193/809) Hafs (180/797)

Hamza Kufa (156/272) Halaf (229/844) Hallad* (220/835)

al-Kisa'i Kufa (189/805) abu l-Harit** (240/855) ad-Duri (246/861) 

The years given are (Islamic years/international years) = (AH/AD) for their death.

Full names: *Hallad (abu 'Isa as-Saibani), **abu l-Harit (al-Lait ibn Halid al-Bagdadi).

Most of them slowly drifted out of use over the centuries, and today mainly 2 are in daily use: Wars after Nafi and Hafs after 'Asim. Yes, even today there are 2 varieties of the Quran in active use in spite of Muslims' claims. (+ sources tell that some of the others still are used locally a few places, but this we have not checked on.)

Then there were 3 well accepted, though not as strongly canonized - also they in 2 varieties’ each:

abu Ga'far Medina (130/744) abu l-Harit* (160/777) abu r-Rabi** (170/787)

Ja'qub ad-Hadrami Basra (205/821) Ruwais*** (234/849) Rauh ibn 'Abdalmu'min (234/849)

Halaf Kufa (229/844) Ishaq al-Warraq (286/899) Idris al-Haddad (292/908)

Full names: *abu l-Harit 'Isa ibn Wardan, **abu r-Rabi (Sulaiman ibn Muslim) ibn Gammasz (az-Zuhri), *** Ruwais (Muhammad ibn Mutwakkil.

Finally there were 4 accepted ones:

ibn Muhaisin Mecca (123/740)

al-Jazidi Basra (202/838)

al-Hasan al-Basri Basra (110/130)

al-A'mas Kufa (148/764)

In addition there were the 4 main older ones from before Uthman. Anybody claiming his Quran is the exact words of Muhammad, is joking. It is impossible to know which one - if any - is the correct one. There even is the possibility that even if there once was a correct one, it may be one of the many versions which were dropped. In addition there is no valid proof for that Muhammad's words really came from a god.

14 + 6 + 4 + 4 = 28 canonized or accepted versions. There were many more versions - more or less accepted - in the old times, especially before the 14 were canonized.)

As for the relative significance of these in the old time on had a unit called "tariq" which represented how significant and how widely spread and used the different editions were reckoned to be - the higher tariq number, the better.

Nafi 144 Qalun 83 Wars 61 tariq

ibn Katir 73 Qunbul 32 al-Bazzi 41

abu 'Amr 154 abu 'Umar ad-Duri 126 abu Su'aib as-Suzi 28 

ibn 'Amir 130 ibn Dakwan 79 Hisam as-Sulami 51

'Asim 128 abu Bakr Su'ba 76 Hafs 52

Hamza 121 Halaf 53 Hallad 68

al-Kisa'i 64 abu l-Harit 40 ad-Duri 24 

abu Ga'far 52 abu l-Harit 'Isa 40 abu r-Rabi 12

Ja'qub ad-Hadrami 85 Ruwais 41 Rauh ibn 'Abdalmu'min 44

Halaf 32 Ishaq al-Warraq 22 Idris al-Haddad 9

As you see they definitely were used - and they varied not a little. Thus when Muslims claim the Quran they use, is the exact words of Muhammad "down to the last comma" (which did not exist in Arabia at that time), it either is lack of knowledge or an al-Taqiyya (a lawful lie). When Islam/Muslim scholars say it, it is an al-Taqiyya, because they know this (but dishonesty - al-Taqiyya, Kitman (lawful half-truth), and Hilah (lawful pretending/circumventing) is recommended to use "if necessary" to defend and/or promote Islam (how many proselytes have been cheated into Islam by such means?), and permitted to use in a number of other wide cases (f.x. to cheat women - f.x. for sex, for marriage for work permit or residence permit in a rich country - or for saving your money). In addition deceit, betrayal, etc. are permitted as Muhammad both accepted and used it, and even disuse of words/promises/oats are ok, as it is permitted several places in the Quran (2/225, 5/89, 16/91, 66/2) - pay expiation afterwards if necessary.


 

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)