01 48/23b: "(Such has been) the practice (approved) of Allah in the past - - -". Even if Muhammad had been right and Yahweh and Allah had been the same god (see f.x. 29/46ec and 48/23a above), this claim had been wrong. For a period - mainly from Moses and for some centuries afterwards Yahweh according to the Bible was a bit aggressive in order to establish and secure a national country for the Jews. That finished - and perhaps because of the Pax Romanum making it possible for a peaceful religion to take hold - he sent (according to the Bible) Jesus and his mild new covenant of love and peace.

###02 18/83c: "They ask thee (Muhammad*) concerning Dhu'l-Quarnayn." Dhu'l-Quarnayn was an Arab name for Alexander the Great (!!) (he lived around 340 BC)

Alexander the Great is a man one does not expect to find as a hero in a “holy book”. But in the Quran you find him – mainly in surah 18.

The book uses an Arab name for him: Dhu’l Quarnayn – "the two-horned one" (horn was a symbol for power). But it is well known in history that this was a name used for Alexander in Arabia. In addition there are facts like the description made by the well known Muslim scholar Ibn Hisham (around 900 AD) in his comments to Ibn Ishaq’s “The Life of Muhammad”: “Alexander was a Greek and he founded Alexandria”. Alexander really was from Macedonia, but he also was king of Greece, and it is very elementary knowledge that he founded Alexandria (in Egypt) – and gave it his name.

You will find Muslims who vehemently oppose this fact, because it makes an extremely unbelievable story even worse: Every educated person know that here something is horribly – not to say laughably – wrong. Alexander was not involved in stupidities like this, and he definitely was no Muslim, but a polytheist. Some Muslims even try to use the mistake the book makes by telling he is a good Muslim, as a proof for that Dhu’l Quarnayn cannot be Alexander, because today we as said know he was a polytheist. The trouble is that Muhammad’s uneducated followers in 622 AD when this surah is dated, did not have the faintest idea about that – Allah (or at least Muhammad) told it, and then it had to be true! But there is no doubt: Dhu’l Quarnayn is Alexander the Great. In some translations of the Quran – f. ex. Dawood – you even will find they simply write Alexander the Great instead of Dhu’l Quarnayn in the Quran.

03 23/6b: “(Good Muslims*) abstain from sex except with those joined to them in marriage bonds, or (the captives) whom their right hands possess (= slave women*) – for (in their case) they are free from blame - - -:” To rape captive women and slave women - and girl children - was/is completely ok (with one exception; it was prohibited if they were pregnant – but most likely not if they were pregnant with your child). Take a woman captive in a “holy” war – and anything was named “holy war” – jihad - as long as the victims were non-Muslims, not to mention if they were Pagans – and you could freely rape her with Allah’s blessing, because it was “good and lawful”. And even slave raids theoretically could be defined as holy war - “jihad” - as the victims were non-Muslims, and all the 4 Islamic law schools accepted the fact that the "enemies" were non-Muslims as "bona fide" reason for declaring jihad. It was – and is (rape is very common in armed conflicts where Muslims are involved) – a nice life for the warriors. But it tells something about both Islam and some Muslims - something ugly.

F.x. during the Bangladeshi war of freedom it is officially estimated that the Pakistani soldiers raped 200ooo or more women and children - MUSLIM ones.

04 26/83a: "- - - wisdom - - -". Beware that when the Quran talks about wisdom, knowledge or similar, it nearly always is about knowledge about the Quran and Islam + a few sciences which were helpful to the religion, like Arab (to understand the Quran) or astronomy (to keep track of religious days in Islam's moving year - it is some 11 days shorter than the natural year so that 100 natural years = ca. 103 Muslim years). This was "Islamic knowledge".

All other sciences - included even medicine - were "foreign knowledge" and thus an enemy to the religion. The Muslim area had a period from around 820 AD to 1095 AD (ca. 100 years more in the far west) when sciences at times flowered, but it was in spite of Islam, not because of Islam, and Islam finally won and killed all scientific thinking not related to the Muslim religion. The final battle was won by the book "The Incoherence of the Philosophers" in 1095 by "the greatest Muslim after Muhammad" according to Islam, al-Ghazali. For some 800-900 years there did not come one single new idea or thought which could benefit humanity from all the Islamic area (even today nearly all new ideas, new thoughts, new inventions, new products in the Islamic world are imported ones - many of them strictly against Islam's wishes). In spite of these facts Islam grabs all glory for saving the old knowledge from the old Greece, Persia, etc. - - - this even though the plain story is that this happened against Islam's wishes and even strong opposition and at times bloody persecution - it is like giving the Inquisition the honor for the Renaissance in Europe. And also remember that old knowledge also came from Constantinople before it was conquered and massacred by the invading Muslim Turks - a fact no Muslim mentions.

We also may point to the several of the scientists and doctors, etc. who after all existed in the Muslim area, at least up till 1095 AD - doctors also later - were non-Muslims (many of them Jews), but as they wrote in Arab, Islam today takes the honor for their work.

If Islam gains the upper hand in the world, one must be prepared for a similar stagnant existence - conservative Islam still fights all "foreign knowledge".

But then what do you need f.x. medicine for, if Allah already has predestined your future or death? - you only insult Him by using medicine by trying to disturb his Plan.

###05 35/24j: “- - - and there never was a people, without a warner (a prophet for Allah*) having lived among them (in the past) - - -”. As said before: Neither in archaeology, nor in architecture, nor in art, nor in history, nor in literature, nor in folklore, nor in folk tales - not even in fairy tales - do we find a single trace of any teaching of monotheism before 610 AD, with two well known exceptions (Jews and Christians) and two or three less known exceptions (Pharaoh Akn-Aton, praying to the sun, a semi-Christian sect in Persia, an Arab sect around 600 BC - likely inspired by the two monotheistic religions in the area – plus the Zoroastrians after a fashion). Some places one or a few gods dominated, but no monotheism.

In the Americas - absolutely nothing.

In Australia - absolutely nothing.

In the Pacific - absolutely nothing.

In Europe - absolutely nothing except Christians and some Jews.

In Africa - absolutely nothing with the exception of one single man: Pharaoh Akn-Aton (+ Jews and Christians) - but he so definitely was not speaking about Allah. He wanted the sun for the only god..

In Asia - absolutely nothing, except in what we now call the Middle East: The Christians, the well known Jews and as already mentioned the Zoroastrians mainly in Persia (after a fashion) and a couple of monotheistic old sects. Of course there was Buddha, but he was/is no god, and besides he accepted that gods existed, but told they were on wrong ways not leading to nirvana - no monotheism.

124ooo (or more - the number is said to be symbolic, as there may have been more) prophets had to have left some traces somewhere, if the tale was true.

This statement simply is not true. If Islam still insists, they will have to produce strong proofs. “Strong statements demands strong evidence”, to quote science. And not just loose claims, invalid “signs” and “proofs”, and more loose statements like Islam normally produces- real proofs are needed.

###06 43/37e: (YA4639): "The downward course in evil is rapid. But the most tragic consequence is that evil persuades its victims to believe that they are pursuing good. They think evil to be their good. They go deeper and deeper into the mire, and become more and more callous." Think of the immoral parts of the Quran's moral code, the unethical parts of its ethical code, the unjust parts of its laws, the inhuman parts of its war code (compare all of it to the one and only main moral code "do onto others like you want others do onto you", and you easily see the immoral, etc. parts) - is this point describing Muslims?

07 54/1b: “- - - the moon is cleft asunder.” This is said in the Quran without any explanation, but clearly it is something which will happen at the start of the Day of Doom. In Hadiths it is treated like one of Muhammad's claimed miracles, even though the Quran pro delivery of the Quran", to quote the Islamic religious establishment, mainly the scholars. But when the Americans landed on the Moon, there early came the rumor that they had found that the Moon had been cleft, but had suppressed the information. If there is one thing you may be sure of finding in the Muslim area, it is conspiracy theories - perhaps because they never have been used to getting reliable facts, and perhaps because they know al-Taqiyya (the lawful lie), Kitman (the lawful half-truth), and even broken oaths not only can, but sometimes should be used "if necessary", so they try to find "the real truth" behind even completely correct information.

08 55/56c: "- - - (Maidens), chaste - - - whom no man or Jinn before them (the Muslims in Paradise*) has touched - - -". The houris are virgins at arrival, but hardly for a long time.

Compare this to f.x. Matt.22/30: "At the resurrection people will neither marry nor be given in marriage; they will be like the angels in heaven". 200+% sure that Yahweh and Allah do not run the same paradise, and thus are not the same god. And as these are the words of Jesus: As sure that Jesus and Muhammad do not belong in the same moral world neither in this nor in a possible next life. A lot of things in this world are not true even if they are repeated often - f.x. that Jesus and Muhammad belong to the same line of prophets (in addition to that Muhammad was no real prophet - he had not the gift of prophesying).

09 70/4a: “The angels and the Spirit (“ruh” in the Arab text) - - -.” The word “ruh” is used a few times in the Arab text – at least in 16/2, 78/38, 97/4c and here. It really means “the Spirit” or “the Holy Spirit”, but is f.x. in 16/2 given another translation (“inspiration”). A number of Muslims wants it to be another name for the angel Gabriel (simply because it was he who was said to bring down the surahs to Muhammad, and it is said a couple of places that the “ruh” – the Spirit or Holy Spirit – brought down such ones, “ergo” the Holy Spirit = the angel Gabriel). But the logic is not correct – by means of the rules of logical deductions it is possible only to say they may be the same. And here is another piece of information which makes that deduction unlikely or impossible: The “ruh” – the Holy Spirit” - is not included among the angels ("The angels and the Sprit" the text says). Neither is it the other places – which makes it highly unlikely logically that the Holy Spirit is an angel - the angel Gabriel. (In the Bible it is clear they are not the same).

It also is said in the Bible that the spirit would be in the disciples. That is possible for a spirit, but not for an angel.

10 104/1: "Woe to every kind of scandalmonger - - -". Does this also go for all the Muslims making up all kinds of conspiracy theories and other "wishful" ideas, blaming everything bad on others - especially on the bad West?.

11 42/7f: “- - - the Day of Assembly, of which there is no doubt - - -”. In a book with as many mistakes (see 40/75) there is reason for doubting anything:

Is Allah omnipotent and made the Quran? – or not?

Is Allah omnipotent, and did not make the Quran? Also the fact that many of the mistakes etc. in the book are in accordance with what was believed to be good knowledge and science in Arabia at the time of Muhammad, makes one wonder.

Did some human in Arabia make the Quran? - that would explain a lot, especially if he was mentally ill.

Did the dark forces make the Quran? - that in case would explain many verses in the Quran, especially in the surahs from Medina, and many points in the Quran's moral code and in the Sharia laws.

Is there a Hell? – and in case is the description in the Quran correct? – there are so many other mistakes in the book.

Is there a Day of Doom? – and in case is it run by Allah? – or by Yahweh? – or by some other god(s)?

Is there a Paradise? – and is it in case a paradise for the body like in the Quran? – or for the soul like in the Bible and in many other religions? – or something else.

This is a problem with the Quran: There are so many mistakes that there are reasons for doubting anything, and impossible to know if something is true, and in that case what? What is true? - what is al-Taqiyya? – what is plainly and simply wrong?

A last day will come for man sometime in the future – but as there are so much wrong in the Quran, there is every reason to doubt that the description (or even existence) of Allah, and then consequently to believe that the description of Allah’s arrangement of the last day, also is wrong.

And what about each and every Muslim if the Quran is partly or completely wrong, and they because of threats, social pressure or simply by the glorified plain and blind belief have not had the chance to find out in time? If there is nothing after this life, they will have lost nothing – except they have made this life difficult or a hell or worse for many. But if there is something afterwards, it may be a rude awakening, because there only are two things which are sure about the Quran: No god – omniscient or not – made (not to mention revered in his own Heaven) a book with that many mistakes, contradictions, etc., and with that much invalid logic and as invalid “signs” and “proofs”. And no good and benevolent god made a religion with partly immoral or highly immoral moral codes, partly unethical ethical codes, and partly unjust - some of them highly unjust - laws.

12 17/49c: "What! When we (humans*) are reduced to bones and dust, should we really be raised up (to be) a new creation?". It is said that the old Arabs did not value the next life much, but at least they knew it existed in many religions - it was no surprise to them. But Islam claims that Allah picks up all the atoms and juices of your rot and nullified body and puts it all back to recreate you - though as a young person (nothing is said about fixing the body of handicapped or the mind of mentally retarded), and that was a bit much for the non-believers to believe. We must admit we find it somewhat unbelievably, too - but for another reason: Why! - why recreate the body, when a soul free from cumbersome bones and meat are much freer? - and when mental and intellectual pleasures and experiences are much more fulfilling than bodily ones? May the reason be that in a primitive culture(?) like in the old Arabia, the bodily pleasures were the only ones rough warriors really knew and were able to picture? - and to experience bodily pleasures one needed bodies. Is the explanation for bodily recreation simply that Muhammad needed "carrots" his primitive and self centered (f.x. unable to feel empathy with their victims or with children and women they raped) rough bunches of warriors were able to visualize?

13 40/17c: "- - - no injustice will there be that Day (the Day of Doom*) - - -". Wrong: If Allah has predestined everything you have done, like the Quran clearly and many places claims, there is nothing but the most horrible injustice in judging "sinners" to Hell. (Both the Quran, Islam and all Muslims try to claim man has free will in addition to Allah's total predestination, but in the immaterial realms of life there are things impossible even for an omniscient and omnipotent god, and to combine total predestination with free or even partly free will for man, is one of them - the laws of chaos sees to that. Also Islam is unable to explain this claimed combination.

14 40/37c: "- - - thus was made alluring, in Pharaoh's eyes, the evil of his deeds - - -". This is a very common human tendency: What you learn is right, what you think is right, and what your surroundings think is right, - well, that is right. A very good example of this is Islam. They (at least shall) live according to the Quran and its partly immoral moral code, its partly unethical ethical code, its partly unjust judicial code, etc., and feel very well - not seldom even haughty and high above non-Muslim - because they have such good and high standards to live up to. Before you judge them and their moral, etc. immoral, remember that most of them honestly believe they are superior.

###15 43/48b: (A43/41): "The concept of 'returning' to Allah implies that the instinctive ability to perceive His (Allah's*) existence is inherent in human nature as such - - -". #####Scientifically this is nonsense and gobbledygook. No such "instinctive ability" has ever been found - not even a shadow of it. One has found that a minor percentage has a longing for something strong to lean to or look forward to - a god. But nothing more - no "ability to perceive" a god. But Islam is built on absolutely nothing - only on never proved words and claims from a man of doubtful character, but with a liking for power and women - and needs dogmas like this. True or not true does not matter very much, as al-Taqiyyas (lawful lies) and Kitmans (lawful half-truths), etc. are not only permitted, but advised to use "if necessary" for defending or advancing the religion

Islam sometimes is a bit "special" when it comes to honesty.

####16 74/11c: (YA5784): "The question of Justice and Punishment to men is for Allah alone. For man at his best (also Muslims*) can see only one side of the truth, and only Allah is All-Knowing". Muslims - f.x. Muhammad and judges or terrorists - should remember this. They also should remember that this is even more true if the claimed Truth in the Quran is not true or if Allah is a made up god, not to mention if he is something real, but something from dark forces dressed up like a god, like parts of the Quran and parts of its moral code may indicate.


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)