Chapter 26


(There are more cases than mentioned here.)

There are several more cases where Muhammad lied in the Quran than the one mentioned below. This is the man absolutely the entire religion of Islam is based on - this man and his words. And this is the man Muslims believe cheated and lied and broke his oath quite a few times - and even told his followers to do the same in many cases if dishonesty paid. And this is the man they strongly believe was too honest and saintly to cheat or lie to his followers.

No more comments - and hardly any necessary.

####01 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.

###02 7/120a: After Moses made his miracle “the sorcerers fell down prostate in adoration” and were 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 about Moses(!), 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.

03 15/14+15: “- - - They would only say (when experiencing a miracle*): ‘Our eyes have been intoxicated - - -”. Wrong. At least some had come to believe. These two verses are a piece of fast-talk. There is some fast-talking in the Quran - trying to explain away things and facts and ideas and not least questions which are difficult to explain or answer. See the chapter about fast talk in the Quran. And there are even more fast-talk among Muslims today, trying to explain away mistakes, abrogation, changes in Islam around 622, etc., not to mention trying to present Islam as a peaceful religion. Just in this case one tries to explain away questions for proofs for Allah and for Muhammad's connection to a god.

##############But the really bad thing about this point is that it is one of the points where Muhammad himself knew he was lying – at least some would believe in Islam if he produced miracles or could in other ways prove his claims. He was too intelligent and knew too much about people not to know this – this even more so as he himself told about heathens becoming Muslims after they had experienced miracles (f. ex. the magicians of Pharaoh), and he also had a good example in Jesus who got many believers from making miracles – some refused to believe no matter, but quite a number of others did after miracles made by Jesus (made also according to the Quran).


#####04 17/59a: "And we (Allah*) refrain from sending Signs (Quran-speak for "proofs for Allah"), only because the men of former generations treated them as false - - -".

This is one of Muhammad's standard "explanation" for why Allah would not and Muhammad himself was unable to give any real proofs for the existence of Allah or for Muhammad's connection to a god - Allah or someone else. And it is not a good one, as for one thing it obviously is not true:

There were stories both in the Bible and in the Quran - f.x. the sorcerers of Pharaoh Ramses II and Moses - about people believing after performed miracles/real proofs (if true stories).

Muhammad knew about at least some of the stories about the miracles Jesus performed, and how huge flocks of believers he got from the miracles.

It is not contra, but incompatible with, human nature and psychology that not a good percentage of the ones who witnessed real miracles/proofs would not come to believe.

Muhammad was intelligent and he understood people and how to manipulate them. He knew this. But he obviously was unable to find a better excuse - there are not many excuses which would work.

What is really strange, is that Muslims have not seen through this "explanation" centuries ago, and still are unable to do so.

This is a monument over the effect of brainwashing, of wishful thinking, of ability to refuse to see the obvious, of lack of ability/training in critical thinking, uncritical acceptance of authorities, and more. A monument over a weak point of the human brain.

There are some cases of weak points in the brain in the Quran. The most prominent and serious in addition to Muhammad's "explanations" for why he could prove nothing, may be the impossible combination of full predestination like the Quran states many places, and free will of man, and the as impossible combination of full predestination, and claims about forgiving and the claims about any effect of prayers. 

And the impossibility of lots of mistakes, etc. in the Quran, and the claim that it is from an omniscient god.


###05 17/107a: “Say: ‘Whether you believe it or not, it is true that those who were given knowledge beforehand (= Christians and Jews mainly*), when it (the Quran*) is recited to them, fall down on their faces in humble prostration”. One word: Nonsense. Or a stronger word: Propaganda. And what is worse: The one who composed this verse, knew it was a lie – which also Muhammad knew when he made or recited it. It is one of the places where Muhammad lied in the Quran. A few Jews and Christians are said to have converted by 656 AD when the Quran is said to be written, though very few if any in 621 when this surah was made, but as a general rule: Utter nonsense. Just look at the history of conflicts between Islam, Jews and Christians, not to mention all the Jews in and near Medina who rather became fugitives or were killed, than to accept Islam – f.x. the Qurayza - and no more is necessary to say. You sometimes meet dishonesty like this in new, emerging religions and sects. It is a way of gaining “weight” for their statements, especially when they have few facts or proofs to show for themselves. Just one small fact that disproves this fairy tale: The 700 Jews of the Qurayza tribe - the last big Jewish tribe in Medina - could have saved their lives and possessions by becoming Muslims in time. To a man they chose not to (well one man did - 1 out of some 700). This verse contradicts solid historical science and knowledge. And one more fact: Remember that Muslims not only are permitted to lie to defend or forward Islam, but are urged to do it "if necessary" (al-Taqiyya and Kitman - the lawful lie and the lawful half-truth).

Muhammad did not intend this to be slander, but the claim is slanderous against people who choose death or to flee instead of accepting Islam.

06 26/197a: “Is it not a Sign to them that the Learned of the Children of Israel knew it (as true)?”

This sentence is dishonest - one of the places where Muhammad lied in the Quran. It is not proved, but Islam claims that one or some learned Jew(s) accepted Muhammad as a prophet. But only a few of the thousands of learned Jews in case. If the story is true, an honest sentence had said: “- - - a few of - - -” or at most “- - - some of - - -”. There is quite a difference between "- - - the Learned of - - -" and "- - - a few of the Learned of - - -". Dishonesty in a presumed holy book does not give a favorable impression. And why is dishonesty necessary? - and how many other points in the book stems from dishonesty?

As the great majority of the Jews - learned as not learned - denied that Muhammad could be a prophet even as they were robbed of their possessions, slaughtered in wars, and murdered “en masse” as helpless prisoners, or made slaves, it is absolutely sure that what the Jews - learned or not - meant about him, was no sign for Muhammad or Allah. This even more so as to become Muslim was the only way to keep one’s riches and later one’s life, as Muhammad gained power in Medina, and still most Jews refused him. Some “renegade” swallows make no summer.

A true religion easily can live on - and tell - the truth or what one honestly believes is the truth after honest examination. If a religion or any other story needs to use lies or half-truths or even al-Taqiyyas (the lawful lie) or Kitman (the lawful half-truth), not to mention institutionalizes al-Taqiyya and Kitman and Hilah, deceit, and disuse of even oaths (2/225, 5/89, 16/91, 66/2) as means to defend and forward the religion, one must ask why are lies necessary? - and the natural following up question: How much more of what they tell about their religion in reality is lies?

In the Quran and also in Hadith, it is claimed there were one or a very few learned Jew(s) who accepted Muhammad as may be a prophet. The stories might even be true. But we are back to the old truth: “One swallow makes no summer”. It is absolutely sure that the Jews as a group - learned or not - did not accept his teachings for the truth even in the face of death (f.x. the Qurayza tribe - the last big Jewish tribe in Medina), one or a few exceptions may be expected. The same is the truth today.

There also is another fact here: Islam from Mecca (610 - 622 AD) is quite different from Islam from Medina (622 - 632 AD) - a fact NEVER mentioned by Muslims. Therefore, even if some Jewish and/or Christian scholars should have been inclined towards Islam of Mecca - there only is Islam's words for this - it tells little or nothing about how such scholars viewed Islam of Medina in say 632 AD.

No, an al-Taqiyya or at best a Kitman was and is no valid sign. ####But it definitely is a sign telling a lot about Muhammad, about the Quran, and about Islam.

"The Religion of Honesty"?

07 33/62c: "- - - no change wilt thou (Muslims/Muhammad*) find in the praxis (approved) of Allah". Wrong to say the least of it. Read the NT - it is so different from the war religion of the Quran, that it is not a question of finding changes, but if there exist basic similarities at all. The praxis approved of Yahweh is extremely different from the one approved by Allah - that is to say; Allah has approved nothing if he does not exist. Then somebody else did it on his behalf.

##########This is one of Muhammad's lies in the Quran. But NB NB he knew the Bible so little, that just in this case he perhaps was not sure he was lying - but he was too intelligent not to know that this was a claim he made without a reliable source.

08 42/23g: "No reward do I (Muhammad*) ask of you for this except the love of those near of kin". Well, except 20% of all stolen goods and enslaved people - 100% if they gave in without a fight - 2.5% (average) of all your belongings each and every year in tax (though it is likely Muhammad used little or nothing of just this point personally), plenty of women and undisputed and total power over you, + lots of warriors to fight and may be die for me, among other things. Plus the special tax - zakat - and often land tax (often 50%) from non-Muslim underlings/victims. One of the in reality most and strongest contradicted and abrogated by reality verse in all the Quran. Good propaganda towards followers unable to think for themselves.

Two words: Hypocrisy. Dishonesty.

One of the places where Muhammad knew he was lying in the Quran.


This content was posted with assistance from M. A. Khan, the editor of and the author of "Islam Jihad: A Legacy of Forced Conversion, Imperialism and Slavery" (available online)