Chapter 31


Muhammad could not accept that Jesus was the son of God. For one thing he never understood Jesus position (there normally only is one king in a country, but there in addition well may be a crown prince), and he was strong in his demand for monotheism. But at least as serious: Not one would believe Muhammad was the greatest of prophets, if Jesus was the son of God.

But in the Bible Jesus at least 89 times is called the son of Yahweh, and Yahweh at least 204 times called the father of Jesus - many of these times by Jesus himself, and even the Quran admits Jesus was reliable.

01 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 89 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!)).

02 9/30e: “- - - the Christians call Christ the son of God - - - (in this) they but imitate what the Unbelievers of old (the Jews or perhaps the old Arabs who told that al-Lah/Allah had children*) used to say. Allah’s curse be on them: - - -”. We are back to the old facts: Jesus himself many times called God “father”. There were lots of witnesses to this. It was written down a few years later. The Quran vehemently denies it. The Quran has neither witnesses nor any other proofs. The Quran was written more than 600 years later and all the same offers only claims and statements - not one document. Muhammad had a lot to gain if Jesus was not the son of God - if Jesus is closely related to God, Muhammad obviously is not the greatest of prophets (irony; he in reality was no real prophet as he did not have the gift of being able to make prophesies - he never even claimed or pretended to have it), and though Muslims may be right that Muhammad personally did not care all too much about money except for using it for bribes, there is no doubt that he liked power and that he spent large sums for “buying” followers (his lust for power is easy to see from the texts in the Quran and the Hadiths). The end of the quote is rather sympathetic (?!). Similar statements in 2/116 – 4/171 – 10/68 – 17/111 – 18/4 – 18/5 -19/88-89 – 23/91 – 25/2.The reason for this quote may be threefold:

Muhammad’s obsession with that there only was one god.

The fact that if Jesus in some way was the son of God/Yahweh, Muhammad very obviously was not the greatest of prophets.

If Jesus was the son of the god, would be difficult to make people listen to Muhammad and not to the Bible – tales about falsified Bible or not.

If Muhammad partly believed in his own religion, point 1 may have been the main one. If he did not – and very clearly he knew that parts of it were not true (f.x. the explanations why he could not make miracles) – parts 2 and 3 were the main ones (minding his platform of power).

*03 18/5a: “No knowledge have they (the Christians*) of such a thing (that Yahweh may have a son*)”. Wrong. There is a lot of information in the Bible. Now of course Muhammad, the Quran, and Islam all declare that the Bible has been falsified - they have to, as that was the only way for Muhammad to explain the differences between his “quoting” the Bible and his quoting of religious legends, fairy tales, etc., and the Bible proper (it also is common among religious sects or religions to say that other sects or religions have misunderstood or falsified information), and also between Islam and Christianity. But science clearly has shown that the Bible is not falsified - and Islam has shown it even clearer by not finding one single proved falsification in some 44ooo relevant manuscripts from before 610 AD.

But the Quran is based only on what a single man said - only one man. A man who lived 600 years later, who brought not one single proof or witness - only claims and statements taken from nowhere and from legends. Also a man for whom it was essential (just read the Quran and see) to be the greatest of prophets, which meant he had to reduce Jesus. And a man who craved very much for power - once more; just read the Quran and see how he glues himself to his platform of power; his religion and the god of that religion - which meant that his teachings had to gain priority over other teachings. And a man telling he got his teachings directly from an omniscient god - which meant it was impossible to accept that there were mistakes in the teachings (a problem which today is a nightmare for Islamic scholars, because there very obviously are lots of mistakes, and it is difficult to find good enough ways of “explaining” the mistakes away, except for to people with no - or not enough - knowledge, or not able to think for themselves - - - or believing so strongly that they anyhow do not want to see facts that do not fit what they believe.)

Whereas the Bible is written by many different persons, and as for NT many of whom knew Jesus or his closest co-workers, the Disciples, and nearly all wrote at times when there still were thousands of witnesses alive that had personally heard and seen what Jesus said and did.

We do not say that the Bible is right. We even less say that all details in the Bible are right, as it is clear that some details are wrong also in the Bible, at least in Genesis (creating it all).

But there is no doubt that according to all rules for evaluating information, the Bible should be more reliable than the Quran. The OT is written some 1000 or more years earlier and consequently 1000 years or more closer to what happened, and also had at least a lot of verbal traditions to build on. And NT was written 450 – 600 before the Quran, and with lots and lots of witnesses to what had happened still alive when much of it was written. Muhammad on the other hand had few sources, and they were mixed up with fairy tales (like the Child Gospels, from which he f.x. has got the story of the bird Jesus made from clay) or so-called apocryphal gospels or books - which mostly are proved to be made up or propaganda for sects, or - well - fairy tales. Ok, he said he got his information from a god - but that is very easy and very cheap to say - many a founder of many a sect or religion have said the same thing. And there is not a single proof - not one single - for it being true in the entire Quran, in spite of wishes and demands from both skeptics and followers. Questions which at best were answered with some fast-talk about what Allah could do if he wanted (but he never “wanted”) or that none of them would believe even if Allah sent real (supernatural) proofs (something any person who knows a little about people or about psychology knows is not true - supernatural proofs/wonders had made at least some believe. What is worse: Muhammad was a wise man who understood human nature - he had to know that he was lying each time he told this). And do not forget: The glorified ideal Muhammad was in reality a highwayman and thief, an extorter, a rapist, a murderer and mass murderer, an enslaver, a warlord lusting for power and for wealth for bribes, and a warlord telling that “war is betrayal”, not to mention his al-Taqiyya (lawful lie) and Kitman (lawful half-truth), etc.

There also is the fact that science knows some 12ooo - 13ooo scriptures or fragments with relation to the Bible or biblical circumstances. Plus 32ooo other manuscripts with references to the Bible. All of these from before 610 AD = before there was any reason to falsify Muhammad or something out of the Bible - if he had ever been there. They all are in accordance with the modern Bible, and when they find that the translators of the Bible have misunderstood or not been quite exact enough, the translation of the Bible is corrected in later editions - one wants and strives for to have everything as correct as possible. In stark contrast: When Islam finds scriptures or fragments which are not quite the same as the 2 Qurans they use today, the findings are denied and hidden - a star example is the many copies of the Quran found in Yemen in 1972; when it became clear that details - some of them of significance - were unlike what was written in the Quran(s) of today, scientists were denied access to them anymore.

Conclusion: Any student and any professor of history will say that according to normal rules for evaluation, the Bible is far more reliable than the Quran as a source for historical information. And any psychologist will confirm that Muhammad must have known he lied each and every time he said that (supernatural) proofs of Allah had made no-one believe in Allah anyhow. And more: No serious scientist uses information from the Quran from before 610 AD in his science - it is not reckoned to be reliable.



Muhammad very far from was anything holy.


05 19/35a: “It is not befitting to (the majesty of) Allah that He should beget a son”. We hope it really is the god that is talking here, because if it is Muhammad; how is a human to know what is befitting for a god? - and majesties often have children - many children. F.x. Ramses II had 67 sons (well, the number varies some from one source to another) and an unknown number of daughters, and Djingis Khan had so many children that science still can trace his DNA in Asia (source: New Scientist). And if this statement is true, there is the enigma of Jesus’ saying “father” and “my father” about Yahweh (the word “father” (of Jesus) is used at least 204 times in the Bible, and the word “son” at least 89 times about the relationship between Yahweh and Jesus according to our latest leafing through the Bible – frequently by Jesus himself) – both the Bible and the Quran says Jesus was honest - and science has shown that the Bible is not falsified in spite of Islam's never documented claims. (Also remember: Muhammad calls Yahweh Allah, as he insists it is the same god - something that is possible only if Yahweh/Allah is schizophrenic, as there are too many and too grave differences between the two teachings.) Also see 19/92 – 37/152 – 37/180 below.

###06 36/82b: "Verily, when He (Allah*) intends a thing, His Command is 'Be', and it is!" It is not for mere humans to speculate about why a god might want company, but if the god for some reason did want it, he according to the Quran just could say "Be a son" and Jesus was. This as a comment to Muslims' - and the Quran's - repeated question about how the god could have a son when he had no consort. (Besides in the very old Hebrew religion there also was a female deity - the male god's Amat. (Source "New Scientist" and others). Thus Jesus well could have been created "the natural way" if that is necessary for gods. The Amat was over time forgotten - the strictly masculine society of the old Hebrews did not respect a female, even not a female deity.)

##07 39/4f: (YA4246): "It is blasphemy to say that Allah begot a son. If that were true, He should have had a wife - - -". This argument is nonsense in this case. For one thing Islam claims that Allah is the same god as Yahweh, and it is known that in the really old times Yahweh had a female companion - his Amat (source New Scientist and others). Even if this is not widely known, it is unlikely that a learned man like Abdullah Yusuf Ali did not know it. And what is 110% sure he knew is that according to the Quran if the god wished something "He just could say 'Be' and it was" - the god just could say "Be a son" and Jesus was. This simply is one of the many places where Muslims find the answer they want, by omitting facts which make their wanted answer invalid and often even impossible.


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)