Allah in the Quran, Chapter 38
01 Jan 2015
Section IV: THE REAL "GOD" ALLAH: THE GOD OF WAR
SOME OF ALLAH'S RULES OF WAR
001 Until around unbelievable 1930 AD all the 4 Muslim "law schools" accepted that the fact that your opponent was non-Muslim, was reason enough to declare jihad - holy war. (In principle any slave hunter could declare jihad against their intended victims, because they were "kafirs" - non-Muslims - and then Muslims did good deeds to Allah by stealing, looting, raping, murdering, and taking slaves.
002 Also the rules for raids and war were simple: Use any means you wanted. F.x. with the result that dr. David Livingston tells that for each slave taken in black Africa, 5 Negroes died - killed, died later from wounds or mistreatment, from hunger because they had to flee or had their crops destroyed, or children died from hunger or animals, because their parents were killed or taken for slaves, and there were none left to feed or defend them. Etc. (And among the ones taken into slavery there was a horrible death rate - from wounds, from mistreatment, from the killing march through the Sahara or in the heavily overcrowded boats up along East Africa, and not least from radical castration of more or less all males without painkiller and without medical treatment. The death rate was so high - 80-90% - that it was difficult for us to believe it - it would mean economical losses to the slave hunters. But it seems that the numbers are correct. Well, as long as Negroes could be taken into slavery for free south of Sahara, why not? - it was good business anyhow. (The death rate for transport of slaves to the Americas was much, much lower.)
003 When you meet Muslims claiming that Islam always intended to stop slavery, and would have succeeded eventually - do not laugh, as there are the ones who even believe what they themselves say.
004 Well, back to the wars. Also conquered people who were not made slaves, often did not fare well. Mass killing by torture, or skinning alive was not uncommon. The same were burying alive or burning alive - Christians f.x. could be chased into churches and then the churches were set ablaze. And there were the more human(?) mass murders by means of the sword or other means - and at times we talk about tens of thousands in once. You will find some more about this in the chapter about the claimed "Golden Age" in "1000 Mistakes in the Quran", Book A.
005 Such were - and are - some of the rules for war according to Islam. Just look at Muslims' behavior in the war between Pakistan and Bangladesh, at Muslims' behavior during the war for freedom from them in East Timor, and at the behavior during recent wars in Africa. Are you naive enough to believe it will be better if Islam grows strong enough to try to fulfill the Quran's plans and orders to attack the rest of the world, to gain world hegemony and suppress every non-Muslim? For that is the clear and unmistakable and official goal for and order from the Quran. "By any means available".
Finally: Always when you read the Quran, Hadiths, and other Islamic books, you should remember that Muhammad accepted the use of and himself used dishonesty in many forms in words and deeds. Even if the names are younger, it was he who institutionalized dishonesty like al-Taqiyya (the lawful lie), Kitman (the lawful half-truth), Hilah (the lawful pretending/circumventing), the use of deceit ("war is deceit" - and "everything" is war), betrayal (f.x. the peace delegation from Khaybar), and even the disuse of oaths (2/225, 5/89, 16/91, 66/2 - and the star case 3/54 (if Allah could cheat, cheating is ok)), which also includes the disuse of words and promises, as they are weaker than oaths = when oaths can be disused, so can words and promises. On top of this it is very clear from the Quran and all other central Islamic books, that Muhammad also liked respect and power and women. Combine these lusts with his acceptance of and personal use of dishonesty - even the gravest kinds. How reliable are that kind of men normally? - and how true and reliable are their never proved claims and tales?
¤ ¤ ¤ ¤ ¤ ¤ ¤ ¤ ¤ ¤ ¤ ¤ ¤ ¤ ¤ ¤ ¤ ¤ ¤ ¤ ¤ ¤ ¤ ¤ ¤ ¤ ¤ ¤ ¤ ¤ ¤ ¤ ¤
###006 2/216b: “Fighting is prescribed for you (Muslims*) - - -.” Incompatible with the NT. Incompatible with OT except for making and safeguarding a Jewish national territory, totally incompatible with NT except perhaps in sheer self defense. (Christians have sinned against this, but the Bible is clear: "You shall not kill".)
007 3/19g: “But if any deny the Signs of Allah, Allah is swift in calling to account.” He can call no one to account as long as not a single proved sign exists to deny. He also cannot call anyone to account unless he exists and is a major god, neither of which is proved. Also see 3/77b below.
008 3/148d: “For Allah loveth those who do good (in this case: To wage war for Allah and Muhammad*)”. To do battle for Allah - to steal and burn and kill and murder and destroy and rape for the good and benevolent deity - is a good thing which Allah loves. (Actually that it shall be made in the name of the god, makes it even more disgusting.) Did anyone say that modern terrorists have to twist the words of the Quran to find incitements to their deeds? And also: Muhammad got cheap warriors and gained wealth and power - in wars and robberies which really were illegal according to the Quran, as they in reality were wars of aggression, not really of defense. And they gave him the possibility to rape at least two women - Rayhana bint Amr and Safijja bint Huayay.
009 3/174a: “And they returned (from war) with Grace and Bounty from Allah: no harm ever touched them - - -”. A fairy tale picture of war and easy riches. A good pep talk for recruiting new warriors if the men are uneducated and naïve. Glorifying war and spoils of war attracts new warriors. The larger the “army” the better chance of success and power for leaders.
But never a word about the catastrophes for the victims and for the destroyed cultures, etc. Compassion and empathy nearly does not exist in the Quran - and definitely not concerning non-Muslims.
###010 4/40a: “Allah is never unjust in the last degree - - -.” Wrong. Examples: Suppression of others (non-Muslims) is “good and lawful and just” . The same is stealing and robbing if it is possible to find an excuse to call it jihad (to do things like this in the name of the god makes it extra disgusting) – and the same for rape of any not pregnant female captive or slave. But a top of injustice is: A raped woman is to be punished strongly for indecency if she cannot produce 4 male witnesses to the actual rape - nearly always impossible. Allah in the Quran at times is extremely unjust.
####Another point is that this is one of the places where Muhammad knew he was lying in the Quran. F.x. stealing/looting was normal practice in Arabia, but there is no way for the follower of a good and benevolent god to honestly believe that to steal or rob is just deeds. The same goes for hurting or killing others - f.x. in a war or fight not in real self defense. A third sample is taking slaves - impossible to justify morally (but easy economically if you see it only from your own side). F.x. even the old Greeks with their advanced and deep moral thinking, were unable to find a general moral justification for taking slaves. And rape - destroying other human's lives just for your own pleasure! But to Muhammad and the Quran and thus to Islam it is "lawful and good" and to be enjoyed (8/69). A cheap way for Muhammad to get warriors - and a nice life for many a Muslim man - but unjust to a high power - - - and no way for an intelligent man like Muhammad not to know this.
011 4/94f: "- - - with Allah are profits and spoils abundant". One more sentence which alone proves that Yahweh and Allah are not the same god - and then there are all the other proofs in addition.
As you also see stealing/robbing was one of the lawful dishonesties - the stolen riches and slaves even were payment from Allah for being a good Muslim, fighting and stealing and enslaving for him(?) and for Muhammad.
012 4/95+96a: “- - - those who strive hath Allah distinguished above those who sit (at home) by a special reward – Ranks specially bestowed by Him (Allah*), and Forgiveness (for anything if you are killed in battle*) and Mercy.” No doubt who is the best Muslim and what is the best deed in Islam – the warrior and the war are most pleasing to Allah. (To call Islam “The religion of peace” is an insult to the intelligence of everybody who has read the surahs from Medina with an open mind.)
As for forgiveness see 4/43h and 4/64g - and 2/187d - above.
But remember as for punishment and rewards - and forgiving: They cannot be given unless there are made changes in the Plan of Allah, which several verses in the Quran states nobody and nothing can make. (A predestined reward is not a reward, but theater.)
013 8/1d: “(The spoils of war*) “are at the disposal of Allah and the Prophet (Muhammad*) - - -.” All that was stolen and looted and robbed in raids and wars, included slaves and prisoners for extorting money (this early – 624 AD – it mainly was raids to steal/rob/extort) belonged to Allah – represented by his envoy on earth: Muhammad. But his officers and warriors were too greedy to accept this – they wanted a share of the riches, too. So a bit later in the surah – a few “revelations” later (?) - there came a contra order and abrogation:
- ###8/41: “And know that out of all the booty that ye may acquire (in war), a fifth share is assigned to Allah - - -.” Muhammad had to give the warriors their share – except that he saved everything for himself in the cases where the victims gave in without fighting – then the warriors had done nothing and could not demand a share. Muhammad needed riches. Though it is likely it is true he was not much interested in much luxury, he needed riches for bribes/"gifts" and for waging war, to get more power and more riches, included slaves – war cost money even if he paid his warriors with religion and religious promises, then all the same food and equipment cost money – and he needed riches for “gift” to attract more warriors/followers/believers and to keep some of the lukewarm-warm ones - - - and some for social use (help to the poor). Muslims try to explain away this contradiction and abrogation by saying that it all belongs to Allah/the leader, but 80% is given to the warriors/robbers. But the moment it becomes a right for the robbers in raids and warriors in war, the rank and file’s share no longer belongs to the leader.
Are Yahweh and Allah the same god? Or Jesus and Muhammad in the same religion? The rules of war - and of spoils of war - are strong mathematical strength proofs to the fifth power for that none of those two never documented claims are true.
014 8/1e: “(The spoils of war*) “are at the disposal of Allah and the Prophet (Muhammad*) - - -.” Incompatible with the Bible, not to mention with NT. One more proof for that Yahweh and Allah is not the same god - and for that Jesus and Muhammad was not in the same line of prophets - Just try to think about Jesus demanding his share of things stolen in war or thieving raids, not to mention his share of slaves taken!! - or for raping some captive women or children! - the very thoughts are utterly impossible for anyone knowing NT. In OT it was permitted to take booty, but for the warriors. Only once (4. Mos. 31/28-29) did Yahweh ask for a share of the booty: 1:500 from half and 1:50 from the other half for the priests and Levites (the priest tribe). In NT there is no question about booty at all. Allah demands 1 in 5 if there was fighting, and everything if the victim gave in without fighting. The same god? Just guess!! (When it comes to treatment of victims and also of their possessions, it is easy to think about the Mafia or the Triads, and about primitives and greed, when we read about Muhammad's and his Muslims' raids and wars - not about somebody like Jesus).
015 8/12b: “I (Allah*) will instil terror into the hearts of the Unbelievers: smite ye above their necks and smite all their fingertips off them, but this is told by Muslims (comment A8/15 translated from Swedish) to be an Arab expression meaning : ###"Kill absolutely every one of them". (Only to smite off their fingertips, would make them unable as good archers afterwards). A good and benevolent religion full of mercy.*) - - -.” “The god of Peace heading the Religion of Peace”? To call this religion “the Religion of Peace” is an insult to the intelligence of the world – and the reason why the world does not laugh at the claim, is lack of knowledge about the Quran.
To repeat: Is this really “The god of Peace" heading "the Religion of Peace”? To call this religion like it emerges from the Quran, for “the Religion of Peace” really is an insult to the word and to the world – and the reason why the world does not laugh at the claim, really is lack of knowledge. (That is to say: If they knew what the Quran demands against non-Muslims, few would laugh.) But also see 8/12d below.
016 8/16a: “If any (Muslim warrior*) do turn his back to the (the enemy*) on such a day (during battle) - - - he draws on himself the wrath of Allah, and his abode is Hell - - - “. Fight for Allah and Muhammad or end in Hell. One verse is the carrot, this one the whip. War is a central part of the life and the religion in "the Religion of Peace"!!! (The claim that Islam is the religion of peace is a joke for anyone who really has read the Quran. The surahs from Medina - the dominant ones as they are the youngest - make Islam a pure religion of apartheid and war.)
###017 8/39a: “And fight with them (the Unbelievers who will not convert to Islam*) on until there is no more tumult or oppression, and there prevail justice and faith in Allah altogether and everywhere”. Comments should be unnecessary. Fight war till Islam dominates everywhere. An order and an incitement.
We may add that “The Message of the Quran adds (remark 41 to surah 8) that only war in self defense is permitted, but self defense in “the widest meaning of the word”. And the “widest meaning” is a very wide expression – absolutely anything can be (and is) explained as being done in self defense, as the non-Muslims are the guilty ones for everything. One striking sample you may meet, is the “fact” that “all Americans are guilty of aggression against Islam and can be killed, because they pay tax to the state of USA”. No concession because they after all are forced to pay tax – few do it gladly. No concession to the millions who do not pay tax (f.x. students). No concession to the ones who oppose the war in the Middle East. Not even concession to the - still some millions (f.x. youths) - who do not pay tax (f.x. students) and in addition oppose that war. Everybody is guilty – slay them. That is how “in the widest meaning” sometimes is used. "Only in self defense" here in many cases simply is a bitter joke with no real meaning or value except as propaganda. A camouflage for dishonest use of words.
###018 8/39aa: “And fight with them (the Unbelievers who will not convert to Islam*) on until there is no more tumult or oppression, and there prevail justice and faith in Allah altogether and everywhere”. Religious war is incompatible with the Bible, not to mention the NT.
Also: Islam should - and shall - be the dominant religion.
#019 8/39b: “- - - there (shall*) prevail justice and faith in Allah all together and everywhere - - -”. There shall be the rule of law - but the Muslim rule of law, where f.x. a non-Muslim cannot witness against a Muslim. But to be fair, the Quran several places tells that judges shall judge correctly, so if there is no special reason, if the judge is not against non-Muslims, if he is not corrupt, etc., there was a reasonable chance to get a fair decision - fair according to Muslim laws. At least as long as your opponent was not a Muslim, or worse, a powerful Muslim. In that case the law was/is not fair.
But Islam should - and shall - be the dominant religion.
####020 8/39c: “- - - there (shall*) prevail - - - faith in Allah all together and everywhere - - -”. No compulsion in religion? At least this is a clear declaration of Islam's goal.
021 8/41a: “And know that out of all the booty that ye may acquire (in war), a fifth share is assigned to Allah (/Muhammad*) - - -.” These 20% - 100% in some cases - in reality were for Muhammad to use. Did he "demand no payment for what he did", like he claims some places in the Quran?
022 8/41b: “And know that out of all the booty that ye may acquire (in war), a fifth share is assigned to Allah (/Muhammad*) - - -.” Part of the background for paragraphs in the sharia law.
023 8/41c: “And know that out of all the booty that ye may acquire (in war), a fifth share is assigned to Allah (/Muhammad*) (all if the victims gave in without a fight*) - - -.” Try to find something like this in the Bible, not to mention in the NT! Yahweh and Allah the same god? An imbecile question. (The only time Yahweh asked for part of a booty - and then for his priest and the Levites (4. Mos. 31/28-29) he asked for 1/500 of half and 1/50 of the other half).
024 8/41d: “And know that out of all the booty that ye may acquire (in war), a fifth share is assigned to Allah (/Muhammad*) - - -.” Which means that 80% is for the warriors and leaders in the war – an economical incentive which for many a poor man counted much more than the religion – war and terror = good business. Many became well-to-do, many became rich, and some became very rich – and were dream models for new generations of robber warriors and robber barons. But Muslims and Islam never mentions the cost in destruction and destroyed lives, which were the price millions had to pay for this unjust prosperity of the robbers and destroyers. It frequently took (the surviving) locals 100-200 years and more just to regain their standard of life, not to mention freedom. The warriors of the good and benevolent god of “the Religion of Peace” frequently mass murdered and massacred and enslaved “en gross” – and stole everything. Jerusalem f.x. got a hunger catastrophe after being occupied in 638 AD - the Muslims stole everything, included the food.
We have seen numbers as high as 200 million Negroes dead directly or indirectly because of Islam's/Muslims' wars, slave hunting, mistreatment, etc. through the times, and a similar number for Asia - much less for Europe, but also there far too much. Reduced standard of living and insecurity are not included here.
This is the religion and the culture which has as official program in their "holy" book to take over the world, and to suppress every non-Muslim.
025 8/41e: "- - - out of all the booty that ye may acquire - - - a fifth share is assigned to Allah - and to the Messenger (and to be paid to Muhammad*) - - -". No place in the NT Yahweh or Jesus demands part of stolen things (politely called booty). One single place in OT Yahweh demands a small share (see 8/41c above). Even compared to this, Muhammad - not one, but each time - demanded on behalf of Allah 10 - 100 times as much - and not for sacrifice (mostly for "gifts" (bribes) to stay popular and stay in power, for "gifts" to buy new or keep doubting followers, to pay for more war, and some for Muhammad and his family - and some for the poor. The same god, like the Quran and Islam claims? - and Muhammad and Jesus in the same line of prophets like that book and Islam claims? - believe it if you want, but you have to want to believe it to be able to do so.
026 8/41g: "- - - to Allah - and to the Messenger (Muhammad*), and to near relatives (In YA1209 we find "In the Prophet's (Muhammad's*) lifetime a certain portion was assigned to him and his near relatives"), orphans, the needy, and the wayfarer- - -". He forgot to mention (?) for the expansion of Islam and for war. Also see 63/5a above.
027 8/58c: "- - - Allah loveth not the treacherous". What then about Muslims when they follow their great idol Muhammad, who said - and practiced - "War is betrayal", "War is deceit"?
#028 8/60a: “Against them (the unbelievers*) make ready your strength to the utmost of your power, included steeds of war, to strike terror into (the hearts of) the enemies of Allah and your enemies (and Muhammad’s enemies*) - - -.” Inside information from “the Religion of Peace”.
We may add the modern Muslim point of view (YA1226): "It is your duty to be ready against all, for the sacred Cause under whose banner you are fighting". (YA1227): Be always ready to put your resources (wealth and life*) into your Cause. You will not do so in vain. Allah's reward will come in various forms. He knows all, and His reward will always be more generous than you can possibly deserve". (YA1228) "It (fighting for Islam*) should be a joyful duty not for itself, but to establish the reign of peace and righteousness (remember here that words like this is used in accordance to the Quran's partly immoral moral code*) and Allah's Law". There are more like this. Also today Islam really is "the Religion of Peace", as you see.
The Quran at many points, included ones like this, is the antipode of especially NT. War of religion is another strong proof for that Yahweh and Allah are not the same god, and Jesus and Muhammad not in the same religion. (Oh, also Christians have been involved in religious wars, but in spite of the Bible's message, not because of it.)
##029 8/60c: (A8/64 - 2008 English edition 8/65): "- - - the enemies of Allah - - -". Definition according to A8/64: "(The enemies of Allah are*) everyone who deliberately opposes and seeks to undermine the moral laws lay down by Allah" - and those people automatically are "an enemy of those who believe (Muslims*) in Him (Allah*)". The definition of "the enemies of Allah" is very interesting, because of the Quran's too often very primitive, medieval or even pre-medieval, and at too many point immoral moral code based on a Nazi-like apartheid suppressive ("Übermench" rule, "Untermench" suppressed) war ideology, and because of the often extremely immoral moral underlying and expressed in some of the Sharia laws (f.x. "a woman is to be seriously punished for unlawful sex if she is raped, but cannot bring 4 male witnesses to the act" or: "a man who correctly accuses a woman for unlawful sex, is unjust unto Allah, if he cannot bring 4 witnesses" - even though an omniscient Allah knows he is speaking the truth). The definition is given is these words: Allah's enemy is "everyone who deliberately opposes and seeks to undermine the moral laws laid down by Allah (= Muhammad's quoted words in the Quran*) - - -". Oppose f.x. the "lawful and good" military (nearly always Muslim) aggressions and raids, stealing/robbing, raping, extortion, enslaving, betraying ("war is betrayal"), murdering, etc., etc. during "holy wars" - and practically everything is called jihad (holy war) - or opposing the incitements for going to war on the slightest religious reason or alibi ("self defense in the widest meaning of the word" - the ideology that makes every disagreement a jihad) and you are an enemy of Allah.
And at least as bad: As the Quran with all its mistakes, etc. is from no god, also its so-called moral is not from any god, included Allah if he was a god.
Also of sinister meaning is YA's comment that "- - - everyone - - - who actively opposes and seeks to undermine - - - (Allah's/Muhammad's (im)moral laws*) is, "eo ipso", an enemy of those who believe in Him (Allah*)". If you talk against Islam and its partly immoral moral rules, etc. you do not disagree with the Muslims, but you are an enemy of them. No wonder connections - or lack of such - sometimes are strained, and no wonder killing non-Muslims often are ok. Who wants to make friends with enemies? - enemies it is ok to kill. "The Religion of Peace" founded by a good and benevolent god?
***030 8/67a: “It is not fitting for a Prophet (Muhammad*) that he should have prisoners of war until he hath thoroughly subdued the land”. One of the moral and ethical real pinnacles in Islam. It takes an effort - and resources - to take care of prisoners. This Muhammad did not like - and voila! - Allah ordered him to kill all prisoners (of course with the exception of the ones one wanted as slaves or wanted to keep for extorting money for from their families - or women and girls for "personal use").
No doubt at all: A morally and ethically superior god and religion, and with lots of empathy - not to forget the perfect and good and kind and good-hearted Muhammad who was free from sins. (Actually there never were philosophers thinking on morality and ethics in Islam like f.x. in the old Greece or later in the West. Muhammad just picked from the contemporary traditions - in some cases he picked good ideas, in other cases he chose rather inhuman ideals, and that was it, as it never later has been permitted to think about whether his rules are good - or the best - or not.)
Does anybody wonder why Muslim warriors and terrorists sometimes murder prisoners - guilty or not?
030a 8/67-68: The day after the Battle of Badr, Omar according to al-Tabari tells he came to Muhammad and Abu Bakr. Both sat weeping, and Muhammad told "he had feceived a message from Allah". In this message Allah shall have told he should punish his men for takimg prisoners of war instead of killing them in the battle fields. The message Muhammad claimed to have received (verse 8/67) said (Yusuf Ali's translation*): "It is not fitting for a Prophet that he should have prisoners of war until he hath thoroughlu subdued (at least one translation says "slaughtered"*) the land.Ye look for the temporal goods of this world; but Allah looketh to the Hereafter; and Allah is Exalted in might, Wise".
However, Muhammad continued, Allah also had said that this had been his words if it was not because an order he had given earlier (Quoted(?) in 8/68): "Had it not been for a previous ordainment from Allah, a severe penalty would have reached you for the (ransome) ye took (instead of killing the opponents/captives*)".
An extra point here is that Muhammad had given orders that captives from his own clan, the Banu Hashim, should not be killed ("One law for me, another for you".)
A clear order: Opponents shall be killed, not taken prisoners. Do you wonder why some Muslims - f.x. IS (the claimed "Islamic State") - are as blody and inhuman as they are?
###031 9/5a: "“But when the forbidden months are past, then fight and slay the Pagans wherever ye find them, and size them, beleaguer them, and lay in wait for them in every stratagem (of war).” Not even an incitement, but a clear order. (The old Arabia had 4 holy months a year - no. 1, 7, 11, 12 - when it was forbidden to wage war – though the Muslims at least made one raid during such a month. Islam took over this pagan custom like so many other pagan customs. These months are quite likely what “the forbidden months” refer to.)
032 9/5aa: “But when the forbidden months are past, then fight and slay the Pagans wherever ye find them, and size them, beleaguer them, and lay in wait for them in every stratagem (of war).” Guess if this collides with NT! Yahweh and Allah the same god? Jesus and Muhammad in the same line of prophets? Is there a stronger word than impossible anywhere? Incompatible with the Bible.
###033 9/5b: “But when the forbidden months are past, then fight and slay the Pagans wherever ye find them, and size them, beleaguer them, and lay in wait for them in every stratagem (of war.)”
This is “the Verse of the Sword” – the single verse in the Quran which is reckoned to contradict and to abrogate most peaceful verses of all the harsh and inhuman and bloody verses from the Medina period. Muslim scholars say it abrogates 124 verses in the book, We have seen no numbers for how many it contradicts, but hardly fewer (also all abrogations in reality are contradictions – that is why they are deemed abrogations: to make one or more of the contradicting points invalid, so that it is possible to live and behave according to the book - - - and to claim there are no contradictions in it, as the contradicting point is abrogated, though this last fact Muslims never mention).
There are so many verses that 9/5 contradicts, that we have not found all. But note that all abrogations also were contradictions before one or more of the contradicting verses were abrogated (which is one of the reasons why it is nonsense when some Muslims say abrogations do not exist in the Quran – abrogations mean Allah is not omniscient, but had to try and fail and/or changed his mind every now and then. Without abrogations you have a lot more of serious contradictions in the book, and which is worst of contradictions which make the book impossible to follow in life, or abrogations that at least makes you wind your way through life? (but shows that Allah(?) often was unable to find the best solution with the first try)). You will find more in the chapter about abrogations in "1000+ Mistakes in the Quran".
Surah 9, including 9/5, came in 631 AD and according to the Islamic rules for abrogations, this means that it overrides nearly everything in the Quran (as normally the youngest abrogates the older).
Some of the contradictions (many of them also abrogations) follow a little further down.
034 9/5c: The Muslims and Muhammad had treaties with some pagan tribes who had kept their part of the treaties as promised. Muhammad therefore could not attack them before the time/months of agreement (or holy months?) were over, “for Allah loveth the righteous”.
“But when the forbidden months are past, then fight and slay the Pagans wherever you find them, and seize them and beleaguer them, and lie in wait for them in any stratagem of war”.
- Do you see the sick irony? Your partners - kill them as soon as permitted because they are not Muslims. Can the same happen to others they have treaties with?
- Pagans - also Arab pagans - got a very rough treatment often (though modern Muslims never mention this when talking about how well past Muslims treated non-Muslims); frequently they only got two choices: Die or become Muslims - in open violation of the Quran’s word about no compulsion in religion. (A word they often like to quote today even though they know it is dead - abrogated by 2-3 dozen later verses.)
- This verse may be one of the reasons for the Muslims’ behavior f.x. when conquering India (now Pakistan + India + Bangladesh) and in Africa. There were large-scale mass murders, enslavement, rape, etc.
- It also is a very nice word for terrorists today, as words from one situation in the Quran normally can be used in similar situations - and as Muslim terrorists have no treaties with non-Muslims, and especially not in the West, it is just to start killing, because even if Europeans are not pagans, they are not Muslims. The same goes for Muslims' behavior in f.x. Darfur.
***035 9/5d: “- - - and lie in wait for them with any stratagem of war”.
- As the Quran overrides any earthly law or agreement, this sentence may nullify the laws of war.
- The laws of war have laboriously been agreed on little by little since the battle of Solferino and before, to make war a little less inhuman. Terrorists accept not one single of the rules, partly because of this verse. The more inhuman the better often. A good religion.
- This sentence is a clear “go ahead” for terrorists for absolutely any atrocity - in Europe or anywhere.
Nice neighbors (but just remember that only a few Muslims are that kind of neighbors - though it may at times be difficult to know who is who, and this is a problem for any non-Muslim).
***036 9/5e: Pagans - and often others - often got a rough deal from Muslims. See the other parts of 9/5 above. The choice often was: Fight and be killed or become Muslims: “But if they (the pagans, etc.) repent, and establish regular prayers (= become Muslims) and practice regular charity, then open the way for them (= let them live*)”. Muslims say that according to the Quran, there is no force or compulsion used by Islam to change religion (except pressure, economy, etc. and some pogroms). But this verse says the straight opposite - though we never hear it quoted by Muslims, for some reason or other. But this verse is from as late as 631 AD. According to Islam’s rules if two or more verses “collide”, the newest of them normally is the right one, and the older ones are invalidated - abrogated. And this verse preaches: Kill them unless they become Muslims. What is a poor non-Muslim to believe? Especially as we know Muslims under some circumstances are permitted - or even advised to if that gives a better result - to lie for non-Muslims.
This verse is said by Islamic scholars to abrogate - make invalid - 124 older and milder verses in the Quran. Here are some of them:
- 2/109 “- - - but (Muslims*) forgive and overlook (Jews and Christians*) - - -.” But that was long before 9/5 and other hard verses.
- 2/190: “Fight in the cause of Allah those who fight you, but do not transgress limits - - -.” 9/5 does not care much about limits.
- ###2/256: “Let there be no compulsion in Religion - - -.” This is the flagship for all Muslims who wants to impress non-Muslims about how peaceful and tolerant Islam is. But NB! NB! The surah says: “Let there be - - -.” It is an incitement or – judging also from 2/255 – more likely a wish, it is not something which was a fact or a reality. It is a hope or a goal for the future, it is not something that existed (or exists - just ask a fundamentalist or a terrorist) – and all the same most Muslims quote it like this: “There is no compulsion in Religion” - - - a small, little “Kitman” (lawful half-truth – an expression special for Islam together with “al-Taqiyya, “the lawful lie”, Hilah, "the lawful pretending/circumventing", etc.) in addition to the obvious al-Taqiyya as there in many a Muslim country are compulsions towards non-Muslims and towards Muslims wanting to change religion. This makes the Quran and the religion sound much more friendly and tolerant than the reality is some places.
Do not tell that to 9/5.
- 2/272: “It is not required of thee (O Messenger (Muhammad*)) to set them on the right path - - -.”
- 3/20: “If they (“infidels”*) do (become Muslims*), they are in right guidance, but if they turn back, thy duty is to convey the Message - - -.” This – that his duty was to convey the message (only), was deeply contradicted – and abrogated - by at least those of these verses which came after surah number 3 (in 625 AD), and we add the ones of them that came before, too, because Islam says an older verse in clear cases can abrogate a younger one (it is the one exception from the standard rule that the newest abrogates the older ones, though it is seldom used). Anyhow it is a clear-cut contradiction – and abrogated by many verses.
- 4/62: “Those men (not good Muslims or apostates*) - - - keep clear of them, but admonish them, and speak to them a word to reach their very soul.”
- 4/81: “- - - so keep clear of them (hypocrites, “infidels”) - - -.” 9/5 instead wants you to kill them.
- 4/90: “- - - if they withdraw from you but fight you not, and (instead) send you (guarantees of) peace, then Allah hath opened no way for you (to war against them.)” Guess if this changed later!!!
- 5/28: “If thou (“infidels”, Cain*) dost stretch thy hand against me (Muslims, Abel*), it is not for me to stretch my hand against thee to slay thee - - -.”
- 5/48: “- - - so strive as in a race in all virtues.” In a race you strive peacefully. 9/5 is terror and war and inhumanity.
- 5/99: “The Messenger’s duty is but to proclaim (the Message) - - -.” Oh??
- 6/60: “Leave alone those who take their religion to be mere play and amusement - - -“.
- 6/66: “Not mine (Muhammad’s*) is the responsibility for arranging your (“infidels’”*) affairs.” No, his responsibility only is to kill you or suppress you or force you to become a Muslim.
- 6/70: “Leave alone those who take their religion to be mere play and amusement - - -.” No comment necessary.
- 6 /104: “I (Muhammad*) am not (here) to watch over your doings”.
- 6/107: “- - - but We (Allah*) made thee (Muhammad*) not to watch over their (“infidels’) doing - - -.”
- 6/112: “- - - so (Muhammad*) leave them (opponents*) and their Invention (gods*) alone.”
- 6/158: “Wait ye (“infidels”*): we (Muhammad*) too are waiting.” He later stopped waiting.
- 7/87: “- - - hold yourselves in patience until Allah doth decide between us: for He is the best to decide.”
- 7/188: “I (Muhammad*) am but a warner, and a bringer of glad tidings – to those who have faith.” A warner and a warrior.
- 7/193: “- - - for you (Muhammad*) it is the same whether ye call them or ye hold your peace!”
- 7/199: “(Muhammad*) Hold to forgiveness (towards the “infidels”*)".
- 8/61: “But if the enemy incline towards peace, do thou (Muhammad*) (also) incline towards peace - - -.”
- 9/68: “- - - therein (Hell*) shall they (hypocrites and “infidels”*) dwell: sufficient is it for them - - -.” Later it was not sufficient - Muhammad and his followers sent them there (or at least killed them).
- 10/41: “My work to me (Muhammad*), and yours to you! Ye are free from responsibility for what I do, and I for what you do.” Later he took the responsibility of forcing them to believe.
- 10/99: “Wilt thou (Muhammad*) then compel mankind, against their will, to believe!” Irony.
- 10/102: “Wait ye “non-Muslims*) then: For I (Muhammad), to, will wait with you.”
- 10/108: “- - - those (“infidels”*) who stray, do so for their own loss, and I (Muhammad*) am (not set) over you to arrange your affair.” Muhammad did not want them to arrange their own affairs, but later when he became stronger – then he wanted them to become Muslims and soldier, so that they could strengthen his own affairs of war and power.
- 11/12: “But thou (Muhammad*) art only there to warn”. And then some more – at least after 622 AD.
- 11/121: “Say to those who do not believe: ‘Do what ye can: we shall do our part’”. This was in 621 AD. Muhammad/Allah was/were still speaking peace – but not for much longer.
- 13/40: “- - - thy (Muhammad’s*) duty is to make (the Message) reach them (“infidels”): It is Our (Allah’s*) part to call them to account.” Well, from 622 AD this also became a part of the "duty" of Muhammad and his men.
- 15/3: “Leave them (the disbelievers*) alone, to enjoy (the good things of this life) and to please themselves - - -.” This was in 621 AD. It did not take long before Allah needed to change and contradict his word, when he started to change his rather peaceful religion to one of inhumanity and blood and war (luckily many Muslims do not live according to those parts in the Quran).
- 15/94: “- - - turn away from those who join false gods with Allah.”
- 16/35: “But what is the mission of the Messengers but to preach the Clear Message?” Surah 16 is one of the very last surahs from Mecca – months later the contents started to change, and contradictions – and abrogations – were necessary for the changes to a war religion. Then - was the message clear in 622 AD?
- 16/82: “- - - thy (Muhammad’s) duty is only to preach the clear Message.” This was just months before Muhammad fled from Mecca in 622 AD. But a little later he came to Medina and started to gain power.
- 16/125: “Invite (all) to the Way of thy Lord (Allah*) with wisdom and beautiful preaching; and argue with them in ways that are best and most gracious - - -.”
- 16/126: “And if ye do catch them out, catch them out no worse than they catch you out: but if ye show patience, that is indeed the best (course) for those who are patient.”
- 16/127: “And do thou (Muhammad*) be patient, for thou patience is but from Allah; nor grieve over them: and distress not thyself because of their plots.”
- 17/54: “We (Allah*) have not sent thee (Muhammad*) to be a disposer of their (“infidels’”*) affairs for them”. Allah or Muhammad started to change his mind about this one year later – in 622 AD – when Muhammad started to gain enough military power to decide “their” religion for them. (In spite of what Islam likes to tell, Islam to a large degree was introduced by the sword – and by the wish for taking part in the looting/robbing/stealing/raping and slave taking – in Arabia).
- 18/29: “- - - let him who will, believe, and let him who will, reject (it) - - -.” Guess if this peaceful line from the last year in Mecca was short-lived before it was abrogated by bloodier ones from Medina like 9/5!
- 18/56: “We (Allah*) only sent the messengers to give glad tidings - - -.” Well, the self proclaimed messenger started to change his mind shortly after he came to Medina. And so did his god.
- 19/39: “But warn them of the Day of Distress - - -.” Here in ca. 615 AD Muhammad should just warn them. The picture changed somewhat as he gained more power some years later.
- 20/130: “Therefore (Muhammad/Muslims*) be patient with what they (“infidels”) say - - -.” That was Muhammad’s tone in Mecca 615 AD or before – and until his flight to Medina in 622 AD. It changed quite a lot from 622 AD and onwards and later surahs contradicted quite a lot of the mild words from the Mecca period.
- 21/107: “We (Allah*) sent thee (Muhammad*) not, but for a Mercy for all creatures.” Muhammad was not much of a mercy to the world – read the surahs from Medina. Neither was he a Mercy for all Muslims – read the surahs from Medina + the verses about women, law, slavery, not to mention the to a large part inhuman ethical and moral code and also the war code.
- 21/112: “(Allah*) is the One Whose assistance should be sought against blasphemies.” Well, that was in 621 (?) AD. After 622 AD the sword was handier – blasphemy soon carried a death penalty - - - and there came a number of contradicting texts.
- 22/49: “I (Muhammad*) am (sent) to you (men*) only to give a Clear Warning - - -.” Well this was ca. 616 AD. But from some 6 years later on it was no longer only a warning, but the sword - - - and a lot of contradictions and abrogations in the texts and the teaching.
- 22/68: “If they (“infidels”) do wrangle with thee, say. ‘Allah knows best what it is ye are doing” – and leave them alone. This was ca. 616 AD. But from some 6 years later and more came lots of contradictions and abrogations.
- 23/54: “But leave them (“infidels”*) in their confused ignorance for a time”. This was in 621 or 622 AD, shortly before his – Muhammad’s – flight to Medina. When he started to become military strong enough, it was finish with "leaving them alone" – and there came a lot of contradictions and abrogations in the teachings and in the religion – from peace to inhumanity and war.
- 23/96: “Repel evil with what is best”. Later it became: Repel evil with evil – do against “infidel” like they do against you or more – at least when it comes to the bad things. Further comments identical to 23/54 above.
- 24/54: “- - - if ye (people*) turn away (from Muhammad*), he is only responsible for the duty placed on him, and ye for that placed on you.”
- 26/216: “I (Muhammad*) am free (of responsibility) for what ye (“infidels”*) do!” This was in Mecca ca. 615 – 616 AD. The tone rapidly grew more unfriendly after 622 AD when he grew military strong – and the teachings needed some “adjustments” to fit a war religion = some more contradictions and abrogations.
- 27/92: “I (Muhammad’) am only a Warner”. That was in 615 – 616 AD. From 622 he fast became a robber baron, warlord and dictator – and more verses with contradictions and abrogations appeared. Many of the older verses were abrogated and contradicted when Muhammad grew military strong after 622 AD and the religion was changed to one of war, apartheid, and conquest.
- 28/50: But if they (“infidels”*) hearken not to thee (Muhammad*), know that they only follow their own lusts - - -.”
- 28/55: “To us (Muslims*) our deeds, and to you (“infidels”*) yours; peace be to you - - -.” Mecca 621 or 622 AD carried a much more peaceful tone than after Muhammad gained strength from 622 – 624 AD on and needed a religion more fit for robberies, raids and war – and got it from Allah (or was it Allah who wanted more blood than before?) – resulting in contradiction with and abrogation of the older teachings.
- 29/18: “- - - the duty of the messenger is only to preach publicly (and clearly).” Well, as Muhammad grew more powerful, so did his wish for controlling the locals’ and later all the Arabs’ lives and religious ideas - - - force and punishment became means to a goal. With the necessary changes in the religion, and contradictions and necessary abrogations compared to the more peaceful 12-13 years in Mecca.
- 29/46: “And dispute ye not with the People of the Book - - -.“ No comments – but read 9/5 and 9/29 once more.
- 32/30: “So turn away from them and wait - - -.” When Muhammad grew more powerful, there was little waiting. The rest of the Arabian peninsula mainly was turned Muslim by the sword – and some by “gifts”/bribes and promises of looted riches – all of which demanded changes in the religion (or was it the other way around, initiated by a god who found his original religion was not good enough – or too little blood and human tragedy?) which caused contradictions between the old and the new version of Islam – and also abrogations naturally.
- 34/25: “Ye (“infidels”) shall not be questioned as to our sins, nor shall we be questioned as to what you do.” This may mean something like “we prefer to live and let live” and was one of the many more peaceful verses which became overruled – contradicted and abrogated – when Muhammad gained more power (34/25 is from ca. or a little after 620 AD.)
- 34/28: “We (Allah*) have not sent thee (Muhammad*) but as a universal (Messenger) to men giving them glad tidings - - -.”
- 35/23: “Thou (Muhammad*) art no other than a warner.” Yes, around 615 – 616 AD he was may be only that. But it changed later – from a warner to an enforcer and a robber baron. With the corresponding changes of the religion – and abrogations of and contradictions to the old sayings, like this one.
- 35/24a: “Verily We (Allah*) have sent thee (Muhammad*) in truth as a bearer of Glad Tidings and as a warner - - -.” As for glad tidings, that only goes for the Muslims, and for far from all of them even.
- 36/17: “And our (Muhammad’s*) duty to proclaim the clear message.” Once more something from Mecca (ca. 615 – 616 AD), that was “killed” by “The verse of the Sword" (9/5) and a number of others when later Muhammad also became – or decided that he also was – an enforcer.
- 39/41: “Nor art thou (Muhammad*) set over them (“infidels”) to dispose of their affairs.” But 5 – 7 years later, when Muhammad started to gain power from 622 AD on, this changed – he became an overseer, enforcer and robber baron – and later a warlord - - - and rules/religion had to change. Or was it the other way around – that it was Allah who changed his mind and wanted more inhumanity, immoral action, and blood? Anyhow the result was contradictions and abrogations compared to the old.
- 41/34: “Repel (Evil) with what is better (Good*); then will he between whom and thee was hatred become as it were thy friend and intimate”.
- 42/6: “- - - thou (Muhammad*) art not the disposer of their affairs.” No, not around 614 – 618 AD. But after 622 AD he became quite a lot, included an enforcer – and verses like this were both contradicted and abrogated.
- 42/15: “There is no contention between us (Muslims*) and you (“infidels”).” May be not in 614 – 618 AD. But later Islam was the power class = Muslims (with Muhammad as dictator), and non-Muslims “thoroughly subdued” - - - and with the religion a lot changed = contradictions and abrogations in the Quran.
- 42/48: “Thy (Muhammad’s) duty is but to convey (the Message (the Quran* - or the peaceful parts which existed in 614 – 618 AD*))”. From some years later on, Islam found some of their duties to be more brutal enforcers, so among other verses this one and a lot more were contradicted and abrogated.
- 43/83: “So leave them (“infidels”*) to babble and play (with their vanities) - - -.” Comments like 42/48 just above.
- 43/89: “But turn away from them, and say ‘Peace.’” Comments like 43/48 above.
- 44/59: “So wait thou (Muhammad*) and watch; for they (people*) (too) are waiting”. Here in the peaceful religion from the middle of the Mecca period, Muhammad should wait and see. He became stricter some 10 years later – much stricter.
- 45/14: “Tell those who believe, to forgive those who do not look forward to the Days of Allah (Day of Doom*).” But the word “forgive" was slowly forgotten after 622 AD – when they also took on the duty of also being enforcers.
- 46/9: “- - - I (Muhammad*) am but a Warner, open and clear.” Yes, in 620 AD he only was a self proclaimed warner. Things changed and verses were really abrogated when he got more power a few years later.
- 46/135a: “(Muhammad*) - - - be in no haste about the (unbelievers) - - -.” When he gained power he got more haste – f.x. the reluctant Arabs (and a lot of others) who were not won by gifts and free plundering/enslaving/rape, were won by the sword – in stark contradiction to what Muslims like to tell. "Become Muslim or fight and die!"
- 46/135b: “(Thine (duty Muhammad is*) but) to proclaim the Message (the Quran*).” This was in 620 AD. The changes came in and after 622 AD.
- 50/39: “Bear, then, with patience, all that they (“infidels”*) say - - -.” The patience became much less talked about from one year later on (622 AD).
- **50/45: “We (Allah*) know best what they (the “infidels”*) say; and thou (Muhammad*) art not one to overawe them by force.” Knowing the later history, this verse is a big, ironic or sardonic joke. This surah is from 614 AD
- 51/50-51b: “I (Muhammad*) am from Him (Allah*) a Warner to you (Muslims*), clear and open. And make not another (person/thing/idea*) an object of worship with Allah: I am from Him a Warner to you, clear and open!” This is from Mecca 620. Muhammad is still military weak – and still only a warner. Later he became an enforcer (much of Arabia became Muslims on the point of the sword).
- 51/54: “So (Muhammad*) turn away from them (“infidels”*) - - -.” One more point that was contradicted and abrogated when Muhammad grew military strong from 2 years later on.
- 52/45: “So (Muhammad/Muslims*) leave them (“infidels”*) alone until they encounter that Day - - -.” Leave them alone till the Day of Doom. But neither Muhammad nor his successors left them alone as soon as Islam was military strong enough. And has Islam at any time ever after left their surroundings alone in periods when Islam was military strong?
- 52/47: “And verily, for those who do wrong (“infidels”*), there is another punishment besides this (that in the long run they will lose – and meet the other punishment: Hell*)” A comforting thought at the difficult end of the Mecca period - so just leave them alone. (A confirmation of 52/45, really).
- 53/29: “Therefore shun those who turn away from Our (Muhammad’s*) Message - - -.” That was Muhammad’s words around 612 – 615 AD. 10 years lager the “melody” changed.
- 67/26: “- - - I (Muhammad*) am (sent) only to warn plainly in public.” But 3 - 4 years later (from 622 AD) he started to take on more dirty and inhuman jobs, too.
- 73/10: “And have patience with what they say, and leave them with noble (dignity).” This is an early surah (611 – 614 AD). Muhammad has little or no real power, and is a peaceful preacher. Both he and the religion showed other faces when he gained power – or may be Allah wanted more blood and gore and suffering from 622 AD on?
- 73/11: “And leave Me (Allah*) (alone with those) in possession of the good things of life, who (yet) deny the Truth, and bear with them for a little while.” That little while lasted exactly till Muhammad gained enough military power – then he (or Allah*) went for a stricter regime.
- 79/45: “Thou (Muhammad*) art but a Warner - - -.” And he stayed like that - - - until he grew powerful enough to do more than warning – f.x. enforcing and empire-building. And it is a question who changed his mind around 622 AD – Allah or Muhammad? And who changed the religion – Allah or Muhammad? That change demanded that the relatively peaceful religion from the 12 - 13 years in Mecca, had to be both contradicted and abrogated on many a point.
- 86/17: “Therefore grant a delay to the Unbelievers: give respite to them gently (for a while). Guess if this one from 614 AD was abrogated when Muhammad grew more powerful!!
- 88/22: “Thou (Muhammad*) art not to manage (men’s) (religious*) affairs - - -.” One more verse which was abrogated of the more powerful Muhammad – or Allah – later.
- 109/6: “To you (non-Muslim*) be your ways (in religion*), and to me (Muhammad or Muslims*) mine.” It is typical that Muhammad and Islam were peaceful in Mecca – they were not strong enough for anything else. And besides it is possible Muhammad meant it like that, but was destroyed morally by his success in Medina later, like many scientists believe.
These are some of the 124 verses Muslim scholars tell were abrogated - made invalid - by 9/5.
We repeat 9/5: “But when the forbidden months are past, then fight and slay the Pagans wherever ye find them, and size them, beleaguer them, and lay in wait for them in every stratagem (of war).” Not even an incitement, but a clear order.
037 9/5f: See 9/5e and others above. Do you think Jesus and Muhammad were in the same line of prophets? Or Yahweh and Allah the same god?
038 9/5g: "- - - (use*) any stratagem of war - - -". Compare this to NT!
039 9/5h: "- - - (use*) any stratagem of war - - -". Why do you think terrorists behave like they do, and why they - to say the least of it - do not respect the Geneva Conventions, and not behave like, but are depraved and degenerated "inhumans" - - - and heroes to many a Muslim?
040 9/5i: "- - - the forbidden months - - -". The old Arabs had 4 holy months a year (numbers 1, 7, 11, and 12). Muhammad took them into Islam, like much more from the old pagan Arab religion. A clear Arabism. There is nothing similar in the Bible.
###041 24/55f: "- - - He (Allah*) will establish in authority their religion (Islam*) - - -". See 24/55b above. A likely scenario for most places will be something like a Saudi Arabia without the oil - in a stagnant future with no more impulses and no new products from the "West", as the "West" will exist no more. In the some 900 years (ca. 1000 AD to ca. 1900-1950 AD) when the Muslim area got few or no impulses from the outside - and before and after most of the imported ideas against the resistance of the Islamic clergy and scholars - little or no progress took place in the area, except what followed from riches looted or conquered from neighboring lands and non-Muslims, included enslavement and taxation.
042 47/4a: “Therefore, (because Allah wants it!! - see 47/3*) when ye meet the Unbelievers (in fight), smite at their necks - - -.” A clear order.
##043 47/4b: “Therefore, when ye meet the Unbelievers (in fight (and remember the Muslims practically always were the aggressors – to gain riches and slaves and power - - - and some new proselytes*)), smite at their necks - - -.” Surah 47 is from 622 AD and Mecca, but some verses likely from Medina – and it is possible to see the change towards war already. It contradicts and abrogates a lot of peaceful verses. This verse contradicts (and abrogates) at least these verses (here are 88 out of the 124 Muslim scholars say are abrogated by 9/5): 2/109, 2/190, 2/256, 2/272, 3/20, 4/62, 4/81, 4/90, 5/3, 5/28, 5/48, 5/99, 6/60, 6/66, 6/70, 6/104, 6/107, 6/112, 6/158, 7/87, 7/188, 7/193, 7/199, 8/61, 9/68, 10/41, 10/99, 10/102, 10/108, 11/12, 11/121, 13/40, 15/3, 15/94, 16/35, 16/82, 16/125, 16/126, 16/127, 17/54, 18/29, 18/56, 19/39, 20/130, 21/107, 21/112, 22/49, 22/68, 23/54, 23/96, 24/54, 26/216, 27/92, 28/50, 28/55, 29/18, 29/46, 32/30, 34/25, 34/28, 35/23, 35/24a, 36/17, 39/41, 41/34, 42/6, 42/15, 42/48, 43/83, 43/89, 44/59, 45/14, 46/9, 46/135a, 46/135b, 46/135b, 50/39, 50/45, 51/50-51, 51/54, 52/45, 52/47, 53/29, 67/26, 73/10, 73/11, 79/45, 86/17, 88/22, 109/6. They are all quoted under 9/5. (At least 91 contradictions).
####044 47/4c: This is a really serious one: “Therefore, when ye meet the Unbelievers (in fight), smite at their necks; at length, when ye have thoroughly subdued them, bind a bond firmly (on them) - - -.” #####BUT OUR SOURCES TELL THAT THE WORDS “(in fight)” IS NOT WRITTEN IN THE ARAB TEXT – IT IS ADDED BY THE TRANSLATOR (and by more than one). Muslims primarily shall read the Quran in Arab, and there, in case our sources are correct, ######the text is: “Therefore, when ye meet the Unbelievers, smite at their necks - - -“. It in case simply is a permanent order to be aggressive.
The real religion of peace. And of honesty.
44 comments. Sub-total = 4199 + 44 = 4243.
>>> Go to Next Chapter
>>> Go to Previous Chapter
This work was upload with assistance of M. A. Khan, editor of islam-watch.org and the author of "Islamic Jihad: A Legacy of Forced Conversion, Imperialism, and Slavery".