1000+ Mistakes in the Quran, Booklet 11
01 Jan 2015
In the "1000+ Mistakes in the Quran" series.
1. Book F is the "mother book" for this book. There will be references below you will not find in this book, but you will find them in Book F.
2. The word "apocryphal" covers stories of many grades of reliability - from likely true to the totally unreliable. When we use the word, we always and without exception refer to the made up ones, if we do not say anything else. The main reason is that the absolute majority of apocryphal stories are made up ones (f.x. Islam has made up many to make the Mosaic and the Christian religion look like it "really" have originated from Allah, the Quran (or really the claimed "Mother of the Book" in Heaven - they f.x. made lots in Spain during the 800s.), and from the claimed "original religion", Islam.
3. On the net it is said that our Book A, "1000+ Mistakes in the Quran", is the most dangerous book Islam ever met. Our Book F, "1000+ Comments on the Quran", may be a good number 2.
4. It also is said that nobody should decide become - or stay - a Muslim until after he/she has read at least Book A and preferably also Book F.
5. Islam tells that most religious people believe in their religion because of "taqlid" = because they have been and are told by their fathers and surroundings that this is the truth and the only truth. They forget(?) that this also is the fact for most Muslims.
6. Religious persons who are "sure" they are right, even if it only is from belief and not from proved facts, may react strongly - even with anger - when they meet opposition or opposing information/facts, especially if they themselves do not have good arguments to meet the opposing information/facts. You often meet this from Muslims.
7. It is typical for strong believers in an ideology - included in religions - that they often do not believe because of proved facts, but because of (often indoctrinated and often irrational) belief and claims. It also is typical for them that they are so sure they are right, that they dismiss - often out of hand and without even checking - any facts or proofs indicating, showing, or even proving that they are wrong. This also definitely goes for Muslims.
8. It also is typical for strong believers that they believe not because of proved facts, but often in spite of their belief or religion is proved wrong. This also definitely goes for Muslims.
9. Occam's Broom (the same Occam as the one with the razor): "The intellectual dishonest trick of ignoring facts that refute your argument in the hope that your audience won't notice". (New Scientist 21.Sept. 2013.) This trick is frequently used by Muhammad, by Islam, and by Muslims claiming that the Quran's texts and Islam are right - just use your ears and/or eyes, and brain, and you will find lots and lots of samples, f.x. in some of Muhammad's lies in the Quran.
10. Graham Lawton: "'Surely' (etc.*) and rhetorical questions (or statements*) - whenever you encounter these in a text, stop and think. The author usually wants you to skate over them as if the claim is so obvious as to be beyond doubt, or the answer self-evident. The opposite is often the case." Try to count such cases in the Quran - they are MANY. Especially the never proved claim "the Truth" and similar are very often used - f.x. words like: "Without doubt", "certain", "verily", "clear", "right", "fact", "wrong", "sign", "proof" (even modern Muslims disuse this word often), "self evident", and more. + there are many rhetorical questions in the Quran.
11. Daniel Kahneman (2002 Nobel Prise winner for rechearch on psychological biases that distort rational decition-making - New Scientist 14. Aug. 2014, p. 24)): "An assimilation bias (is a bias*) that bends information to fit people's existing values and prejudices". You find much of assimilation biases in the Quran, in Islam, and among Muslims, all based on the wish to make the Quran seem true - or on the belief that it is true.
12. Who needs tricks like in points 8 and 9? And who needs the use of al-Taqiyya, Kitman, Hilah, deceit and other forms of dishonesty in words or deeds like Muhammad accepted and used? - the one without real arguments and real facts, and the cheat and deceiver, the swindler and the charlatan.
13. Is it possible for humans to know better than an omniscient god what the god "really" wants to say? And is it possible for humans to then explain things better and clearer than an omniscient god? - what the clumsy god "really" means and "really" tries to say? This is the logic behind many "explanations" from Islam and from Muslims.
14. The ways Islam and Muslims most frequently use for fleeing from facts and arguments they cannot answer or do not like are:
- A: "You just are a Muslim hater, (and therefore I do not have to think over or check what you say)". But most non-Muslims do not squander energy on hating Islam. They may be incredulous on Muslims' ability to see only what they want to see, their ability to "explain" away all facts and points they do not want to see, and disgusted by Islam's and the Quran's brutality and acceptance of dishonesty and blood, but the large majority do not bother to hate Islam.
- B: "You just are a Jew lover, (and therefore I do not have to think over or check what you say)". There are many who far from love the Jews, and all the same question f.x. all the wrong facts, other errors, contradictions, etc. in the Quran.
- C: "You cannot understand the meaning of a verse or something in the Quran, unless you know the entire surah (or the entire Quran)". For one thing this mostly is nonsense: There are points where the context may give a word, an expression, or a verse a special meaning, but mostly the fact is that if you are not able to read what a word, an expression, or a verse means, you are too dull or uneducated and should stay out of debates. (But it is an efficient argument, because most people do not know the Quran well enough to know if the claim is true or not. It mostly is not.) For another Islam and Muslims far from use such a rule themselves when discussing f.x. the Bible - cfr. f.x. their cherry-picking and disuse of the word "brother" in 5. Mos. 18/15 and 18/18 where they use only the single word "brother" and state that this means "Arabs", in spite of that the context strongly shows that Moses spoke about Jews (and also in 18/21 warned against false prophets).
- D: "This and this text with errors in the Quran, are not errors, but allegories, parables, etc." This in spite of that the Quran MANY places and in many ways tells that the claimed omniscient god has explained everything exactly and in detail so that it is easy to understand = to be understood literally where nothing else is clearly indicated - and that the search for hidden meanings where such are not indicated, only is "for the ones sick of heart" + that the possible hidden meanings only are for Allah to understand. All the same they pretend that they know better than Allah what he "really" wanted to tell, and that they are better at explaining things than the omniscient Allah.
- E: "You cannot understand the Quran properly unless you read it in Arab". One word: Nonsense - but an efficient pseudo-argument because most people do not know enough about such things to know if it may be true. But for one thing linguists tell that Arab just is a medium difficult language to translate. For another Arab around 650 AD was the language of primitive nomad tribes mainly, and far from an advanced and refined difficult language.
- F: "Arab has special words you only have in Arab". This goes for absolute every language. All it takes to solve this problem - in any language - is to have those words explained. Such Arab words relevant to the Quran are not too many.
A fact: "What one brain is able to express and explain, another brain of similar quality and education is able to understand". What a Muslim is able to express and explain, a non-Muslim of similar intelligence is able to understand - and often understand if it is right or wrong. This even more so as many a non-Muslim is better educated than many a Muslim.
15. ####Explanation or "explanation" of a few errors in a "holy" might be understandable. But how is it possible to accept long series of wrong facts, other errors, contradictions, etc. in a book pretending to come from an omniscient god, without asking questions? - in a book the god even claims is plain and easy to understand = to be understood literally, and hidden meanings just are for "the sick of heart"?
16. Personally we have learnt much about human nature by witnessing Islam's and Muslims' ability to see only what they want to see, their ability to accept even the most far out "explanations", included dishonesty, trying to make errors, contradictions, etc. "correct facts" in the Quran, their ability to flee from any fact or argument they dislike or are able to meet, and not least their ability to flee instead of thinking over that non-Muslims may be as well-educated and well-informed as Muslims, and check what is true or not, instead of using blind belief in what their fathers have told - "taqlid".
17. The Bible is written by humans - and humans may make mistakes (there are some f.x. in Genesis). The Quran claims to be from an omniscient god. Omniscient gods do not make errors or contradictions. If there are errors or contradictions in the Quran, the book thus is not from a god. What then is Islam in case?
18. If there is a next life, and if there somewhere is a real god - f.x. Yahweh - they have been prevented from looking for, where will Muslims end if the Quran is a made up book? - and all the errors, etc. at least prove it is from no god.
19. If the Quran is not from a god - and all the wrong facts, other errors, contradictions, etc. denies that any god delivered the book - Islam is a made up religion.
20. It is easy to check if our quotes and points are correct. Before a Muslim flees from them, he/she should check them, instead of fleeing into "taqlid", because if our points - even only some of them - are right, the Quran is not from a god, and what is then Islam? - it is not the Truth unless it is true.
"Love your enemies, because they tell you your mistakes". Benjamin Franklin.
LITERAL LANGUAGE IN THE QURAN - ACCORDING TO THE QURAN
This chapter brings strong circumstantial/empirical proofs for that the claim "mistakes, contradictions, etc. in the Quran, are not mistakes, but allegories, parables, similitudes, etc. which can be explained" are wrong. And the cumulative sum of all these circumstantial/empirical proofs makes up at least one proof of mathematical strength for that those claims are wrong. (The linguistics are good - no wonder as it was polished by Islam's best brains for some 250 years (until ca. 900 AD)) - but the rest of the aspects which build up a book, are far from good. Some of them even deplorable.
Islam and its Muslims often try to explain away mistakes, contradictions, and other difficult points in the Quran by claiming - like so often for Muslims, without even trying to document the claim - that the text means something different from what it really says; it is a parable, an allegory, or something. They also frequently claim that the Quran is so difficult to understand, that you have to know whole the surah or more - may be all the Quran - to understand the real meaning of a verse (normally said in connection to errors, immoral or other bad points, etc. they want to explain away or flee from).
As you see below this is absolutely wrong. The Quran itself is totally at odds with those claims. The Quran clearly and not possible to misunderstand states MANY times that Allah uses a plain and easy language - possible also for primitive, uneducated, naive desert dwellers to understand. The texts are to be understood like they are written - literary and "of established meaning"- where nothing else is indicated or explained. To look for hidden meanings - like Muslims do when they use claims for hidden meanings to explain away errors, contradictions, etc. - only is for "the sick of heart" or perverse. This even more so as the Quran directly says that hidden meanings in the book only are possible for Allah to understand - and all the same Muslims claim they understand those hidden meanings and will explain away the wrong meanings Allah in his bumbling ineptness has expressed in the book. They are as clever as Allah or more, and can explain where he fails, they indirectly, but clearly state.
As you see below: To claim that the Quran uses a language - a prose - so complicated that you have to know large parts of the Quran to understand what is said in a verse, is directly at odds with what the Quran itself says about using a plain and easy to understand language. Oh, it is a nice and convenient claim to use when debating with non-Muslims who do not know the Quran too well - and also a nice and convenient way for you to flee from errors or other unsavory points in the book. But each time you do, you are saying that Allah and Muhammad are lying each and every time the Quran tells it uses a plain and easy to understand language, and each and every time the book tells that only "the sick of heart" or the perverse look for hidden meanings in the Quran - meanings "only Allah can understand" anyhow.
How often have you - a good Muslim - f.x. claimed that this and this point in the texts do not mean what the words say, but something else? - claimed f.x. that it is a parable or an allegory? This in spite of the many and strong statements in the Quran that it is using a plain and simple language which shall be understood literally, and that only the bad ones look for hidden meanings - meanings only Allah can understand anyhow? What Allah has explained in easy details, you can not only can explain better, but also you do correct his helpless inability to express what he wants to say, and explain what he "really" means.
There also is another fact, valid in all kinds of debates: With some exceptions, if you are unable to extract the essence from one or a few facts or arguments - in this case one or a few verses - you have so little brain that you should stay out of debates. To claim that one cannot grasp the essence of the one or few verses expressing a meaning, in most cases is nonsense.
Also see the PS below.
YA = Abdullah Yusuf Ali: “The Meaning of the Holy Quran”. A = Muhammad Azad: "The Message of the Quran".
###001 3/7b: “He (Allah*) it is who has sent down to thee (Muhammad or Muslims*) the Book (the Quran*); in it are verses basic or fundamental (of established meaning); they (all the verses which are to be understood literally*) are the foundation of the Book: others are allegorical. But those in whose hearts are perversity follow the part thereof that is allegorical, seeking disorder, searching for hidden meanings, but no one knows the hidden meaning, except Allah.” But maybe this one is allegorical, too, because Islam and many a Muslim are hunting for the hidden meanings behind what they claim is an allegory as soon as there are errors or mistakes they cannot otherwise “explain” away. Is this because of “perversity” in their heart? – or perhaps because they do not have the brain, the guts and the backbone needed to meet the question: What does it mean that there are lots of mistakes and other wrongs in the Quran? – or: If all the mistakes and other wrongs in the Quran means that Islam is a made up religion like so many others – what then whit all us Muslims, if there all the same is a Day of Doom? - - - and especially if there somewhere is a benevolent god whom Muslims have been prohibited from looking for?!
It is very clear here that the plain and obvious meaning in the texts mainly is the correct understanding. When you remember that Muhammad’s congregation mainly was uneducated and often naïve and primitive people, it is even easier to understand that this had to be the case.
#######002 3/7c: “- - - in it (the Quran*) are verses basic or fundamental (of established meaning); they (all the verses that are to be understood literally*) are the foundation of the Book”: There is no doubt that the Quran is meant to be understood literally where nothing else is specified.
We also want to add a little more about this verse - an essential addition in some of all the places Islam/Muslims try to “explain” away statements, etc., that obviously are not true, by saying they are allegories:
There are some scattered verses said to be allegories or similar, and which are explained the meanings of. As the meanings are explained, these must be understood as included in “verses basic or fundamental”.
There are no clear allegories in the Quran, where the meaning is not obvious or explained. There are a number of verses where the meaning is difficult or impossible to see. But unclear speech does not mean an allegory – an allegory is a (clear) story which clearly means something else. Unclear speech only is indistinct or unclear speech.
003 3/138a: "Here (in the Quran*) is a plain statement to men - - -". No doubt: The texts are plain and literal - or hidden points meant for man is indicated or explained.
004 6/114c/d: “- - - He (Allah*) it is Who hath sent unto you (Muslims*) the Book (the Quran*)” explained in detail - - -". In other words: Allah has explained what he means exactly and detailed in the Quran. No guesswork or fancy "explanations" needed, or - according to other points in the book - permitted "because that only is for the perverse or sick of heart, and anyhow only Allah can understand hidden meanings in the texts". (There are allegories, etc. in the book, but explained/clearly indicated allegories are not hidden meanings).
Besides, what Allah has explained in detail, who can explain this better than him?
*005 6/154c: “- - - is explaining all things in detail”. See 7/52d just below. All the same; in order to "explain" away mistakes, contradictions, and worse, or to flee from difficult points, Muslims indicate that Allah is so bumbling and helpless in his thoughts and words and with expressing himself, that they have to help him and "explain what he really means".
006 7/52d: “- - - a Book, based on knowledge, which We (Allah*) explained in detail - “. Very clear words - and what human being is able to explain the details better than an omniscient god?
####007 11/1b: “(This (the Quran*) is a Book, with verses basic or fundamental (of established meaning) - - -.” In plain words: The verses are in plain language and are to be understood literally where otherwise is not clearly said – in “basic and fundamental” words. But all the same Muslims try explaining away anything which is wrong in the Quran and which they do not find “explanations” for, with that it "this is not to be understood literally – it must be allegories", etc. It is one of their three "last" – and often used - lines of defense” when errors in the Quran cannot be explained or explained away. (The other two are: “You cannot deduce anything from one or a few verses which looks wrong – the Quran (or the surah) must be understood as a whole”. And the really “low prose” one: “You are lying or making up things because you are an Islam-hater or are listening to Islam-haters” – this no matter how correctly you are quoting the Quran or the Hadiths or whatever.) Well, one more: "You do not know what you are talking about" - also this one frequently in cases where the opponent knows the Quran well, as it is a convenient and soothing (for themselves) way for Muslims to flee from hard points.
This is a very essential point to remember when Muslims try to claim clear mistakes are allegories or similar. They often do. And Muslims trying to flee from indications or proofs in the Quran for that things are seriously wrong in the religion of Muhammad, might remember that the only main person they in case cheat, is themselves. The only thing which should count concerning a religion, is if it is a true one or not, and one never finds the truth by fleeing from harsh facts.
####008 13/2m: “- - - explaining the Signs in detail - - -“. This is a claim you frequently meet in the Quran: The claimed signs (Quran-speak for "Proof for Allah" or similar) are explained in detail - and who can explain details better than an omniscient god? - not mere humans at least.
009 16/103f: “- - - this (the Quran*) is in Arabic, pure and clear”. Allah even delivered the Quran in Arabic to the Arabs, so that the texts should be easy to understand.
(Another question is if Allah here made a good choice:
- The Arab language of that time at least mainly was the language of primitive desert nomad tribes.
- The old Arab alphabet only had the consonants - it partly because of this even today is unclear what is the real meaning of many words, expressions, and sentences.
- The old Arab alphabet did not have reading marks like full stop or comma – even though many a Muslim today claims that the Hafs version of the Quran he is reading – or may be the Warsh version if he is from Africa – is an exact copy of Muhammad’s words “down to the last comma”.
- The written Arab language and alphabet was not perfected until ca. 900 AD - perfect writing thus was impossible around 650 AD when the official Quran was made.)
012 18/1d: “(Allah*) hath allowed therein/the Quran*) no Crookedness.” Which means that the Quran is to be understood straightly and directly like it is written.
#013 18/1e: (A18/1): "The above phrase ("no Crookedness"*) is meant to establish the direct, unambiguous character of the Quran - - -". Do remember this each time Muslims claim that mistakes in the Quran "in reality" are allegories or similar.
014 18/1g: (A18/1): "The above phrase ("no Crookedness"*) is meant to establish the direct, unambiguous character of the Quran and to stress its freedom from all obscurities and internal contradictions". The Quran clearly is meant to be understood just like it is written.
015 18/1-2: “Praise be to Allah, Who hath sent to his servant (Muhammad*) the Book (the Quran*), and hath allowed therein no Crookedness: (He hath made it) strait (and Clear) - - -.” In plain words: The verses in the Quran are in straight and clear and not crooked or incorrect words = to be understood literally (where not something else is said strait and clear about it being an allegory or something).
016 18/2a: “(He (Allah*) hath made it) Straight (and Clear) - - -”. Not to be misunderstood: The Quranic texts are to be understood at face value (where nothing else is clearly indicated).
####017 18/2b: “(He (Allah*) hath made it) Straight (and Clear) - - -". This is one of the verses you should remember each time a Muslim tries to explain away or flee from a clear mistake by "no, this is not literally meant - - -", which is one of the 3-4 most used last ditch defenses (the two others are: "You cannot understand a text in the Quran alone - you have to see the whole Surah (or the whole Quran)". And: "You cannot really understand the Quran unless you read it in Arab". Both of which are rubbish. (Well, there are one or two more: "You do not know the Quran/what you are talking about", and: "You just are an Israel lover/Muslim hater quoting what you have heard or read".) There are places where you have to know more than the actual verse and the nearest few ones to understand the meaning, but mostly the simple answer is: "If you are not able to see the essence in a meaning or something said on one or a few verses, you should stay out of debates" - this Muslim claim simply is a means to make the opponent unsure, because few know the Quran well enough to see that mostly this claim is invalid. And as for reading it in Arab to understand it: For one thing the Arab of Muhammad mainly was the language of primitive desert nomads even though it later is linguistically polished - there is no problems for rich modern languages like f.x. English to compete with it in vocabulary. (Also in Japan they had the same haughty self-centered meaning once upon a time: Primitive foreigners impossibly would be able to express what a highly refined language like their could. They stopped claiming it after many enough had learnt foreign languages to see the nonsense in it. And that was really was a refined cultural language, not something from primitive tribes, even though polished afterward. Well, there always will be some words which are special for a language, and which need explanation, but that is it - and this goes for any language and is nothing special for Arab.) The remaining fact is that what one brain can think, another brain of the same quality and similar education can understand, at least with a little explanation. But the claim is difficult to leave for Muslims, because they need it as an "explanation" or a means of flight when they lack real arguments.
018 19/97b: "So We (Allah*) made the (Quran) easy - - -". Please do remember this each time a Muslim tries to tell you that a mistake in the Quran does not mean what is written, but something entirely different or a parable, which he has to explain for you. Because the god was to clumsy expressing himself in his claimed easy to understand book, mere humans must help him and explain what he really means when he is talking./p>
019 19/97c: "So We (Allah*) made the (Quran) easy in thine (Muhammad's*) own tongue - - -". The Quran even was written in their own tongue, so that everything should be easy to understand.
020 20/113a: “Thus We (Allah*) sent this (the Quran*) down - - -“. And who can send better quality and a book easier to understand than a god?
021 20/113b: "- - - an Arabic Quran - - -". See 19/97b above. (But rationally speaking the Quran originally in Arabic was and still is a bad luck for Muslims, and bad policy for a god wanting world dominance:
- The really hard thing was that the Arab alphabet was not completed - it was completed only around 900 AD. This means there even today are lots and lots of words, expressions, and sentences where Islam does not exactly know what Muhammad really wanted to say. They camouflage the problem with calling it "different ways of reading", but in reality it is different versions of the texts, and no-one knows which "way of reading" really is the correct one.
- A god for the world should want a world language. Many more could have read it and over much wider areas + that f.x. Greek and Latin and Persian and others were mature languages - it would have been possible to write down exactly what Muhammad said. (Arabic lacked vowels plus all the signs used when reading (diacritical points, etc.). The result is that one has to guess the missing letters and the signs. If you f.x. in English have the consonants "h" and "s" and know it represents a word, but have to guess the vowels, you can f.x. get "his" or "has" - or "house" or "hose". This is the problem Islam meets when it tries to read the old manuscripts - do not laugh when a Muslim next time tells you the Quran is exactly Muhammad's words to the last comma (and on top of all the comma did not exist in Arab at that time).
- Arab has become so "elite" and holy, that also non-Arabs have to learn the Quran in Arabic - often by heart - even though they do not understand the words.
But it had two pluses for Muhammad:
- It was possible for him and his first, primitive followers to use that one - and hardly any other - language.
- Muhammad felt that the Arabs were inferior to Jews and Christians who had holy books. The Quran repaired parts of this inferiority feeling.
But what is for sure: A book meant for primitive, uneducated folks had to be plain and easy and to be understood literally, except where difficult points were indicated the meaning of or explained. Just see 20/113c just below!
022 20/113c: (YA2638): "The Quran is in clear Arabic, so that even an unlearned people like the Arabs might understand and profit by its warning". Remember this each time a Muslims tries to explain away mistakes, contradiction, etc. with claims that the text does not mean what it says, but something else, or that it is figuratively meant or that it is a metaphor or something. AND THIS WAS THE WORDS OF A LEADING MUSLIM SCHOLAR AND TRANSLATOR, ABDULLAH YUSUF ALI - a top translator knows something about the language.
023 20/113d: "- - - explained in detail some of the warnings - - -". This is worth remembering: It claims to explain in detail some of the warnings. Most Muslims - and other texts in the Quran - claims the book explains everything in detail. Can you explain better than an omniscient god?
024 24/34: "We (Allah*) has sent down to you (Muhammad*) verses making things clear (the Quran*) - - -”. See f.x. 27/1b below.
025 24/54j: "- - - preach the clear (message)". The clear and easy Quranic texts.
###M026 26/2a: “These are verses of the Book that makes (things) clear.” See 27/1b just below.
###027 27/1b: “- - - a Book (the Quran*) that makes things clear - - -”. See f.x. 20/113c above or 31/2a
###028 28/2: “These are verses of the Book (the Quran*) that makes (things) clear”. See 27/1b just above.
029 31/2a: “These are Verses of the Wise Book”. No wise book, and especially not from an omniscient god, needs its arguments or "facts" explained away - yes, it should not even be possible for mere humans to explain anything at all better or more correct than a god! (Is it symptomatic that the name of this surah, Luqman, is the name of a wise man in old Arab fairy tales, not a real one?)
###030 41/3b: “A Book (the Quran*) whereof the verses are explained in detail - - -”. These words at least make it clear that the texts in the Quran are fully explained, and that there f.x. are no hidden meanings behind them (unless otherwise is specified). This means that when Muslims and Islam explain away mistakes, etc. by claiming that it is not the clear and/or explained meaning which is meant, but some hidden meaning or parable or something behind it, they are wrong. Muslims often try such ways of "explaining" errors, etc. away - or as ways for fleeing from difficult facts.
###031 41/3da: "A Book (the Quran*) whereof the verses are explained in detail - - -.” The main and the essential point with this verse, is that it is one of those verses which kills Muslims' nearly innumerable tries to explain away mistakes, etc. - or fleeing from hard facts - by trying to claim it "in reality" means something else than what it is saying. Here it is clearly stated that the verses are explained in detail = they are meaning exactly what they say and explain.
Anyone wanting to try to “explain” away difficult points like mistakes or invalid logic or contradictions by calling them allegories etc. should read this sentence. It even is written 4 times and thus a solidly cemented and nailed truth: The Quran is to be understood literally, and search for hidden meanings is only for Allah, and such search only is for the ones “in whose hearts is perversity - - -.”
Muslims also should remember that each and every time they claim the texts in the Quran means something different from what the words say - that they are parables, allegories, etc. - they at the same time say that Allah and Muhammad is lying in the Quran each time the two tells that the prose is plain and easy and thus to be understood literally.
###032 43/2a: “By the Book (the Quran*) that makes things clear - - -.” Which also must mean the language is not hiding the meanings and it is intended that everything shall be easy to understand, plus it explains things in ways clear to see.
##033 43/2b: “- - - the Book that makes things clear - - -”.
Anyone wanting to try to “explain” away difficult points like mistakes or invalid logic or contradictions by calling them allegories etc. should read this sentence. It even is written 4 times in this chapter, and thus a solidly cemented and nailed truth: The Quran is to be understood literally, and hidden meanings is only for Allah to understand - and such search by humans only is for the ones “in whose hearts is perversity - - -.”
034 43/3c: "We (Allah*) have made it a Quran in Arabic, that ye may be able to understand - - -". It is clear that Allah has done everything to make the Quran plain and easy to understand - he even made the Quran in the local language. Worth remembering each time Muslims tries to explain away mistakes with that the text does not mean what it says, but something else or something hidden.
##035 44/2b: “By the Book (the Quran*) that makes things clear - - -.” Which also must mean the language is not hiding other meanings and it is intended that everything shall be meant like it is said and easy to understand, plus it explains things in ways clear to see - literary.
#036 44/2c: “- - - the Book (the Quran*) that makes things clear - - -”.
Anyone wanting to try to “explain” away - or flee from - difficult points like mistakes or invalid logic or contradictions by calling them allegories, etc. should read this sentence. The Quran is to be understood literally and search for hidden meanings is only for Allah, and such search only is for the ones “in whose hearts is perversity - - -.”
037 44/58b: “Verily, We (Allah*) have made this (Quran) easy - - -". Plain words for your money.
###039 44/58e: “Verily, We (Allah*) have made this (Quran) easy, in thy (Muhammad’s or Arabs') tongue in order that they (people*) may give heed.” = in a language clear and easy to understand - not in a language where you have to guess where and how to guess the "real" meaning. There is no doubt that Muhammad/Allah meant the Quran to be understood literally. To search for hidden meanings "a la" not clearly indicated allegories, is wrong. All the same Muslims and Islam use such claims in east and west as a last resort to be able to “explain” that which is not explainable if one reads the Quran literally and in the way Allah clearly states that it is to be read and understood – recommended for everyone except for those “in whose hearts is perversity” (3/7).
Anyone wanting to try to “explain” away difficult points like mistakes or invalid logic or contradictions by calling them allegories etc. should read this sentence and other similar sentences in the Quran: The Quran is to be understood literally and hidden meanings is only for Allah to understand - and such search by humans only is for the ones “in whose hearts is perversity - - -.”
##### 025 53/10f: "- - - (conveying (to Muhammad*)) what He (Allah*) (meant) to convey". Knowing all the mistakes, etc. in the Quran, this is unintended irony and an as unintended black joke. No omniscient god ever intended to make so much wrong or to make hundreds and hundreds of mistakes, etc. as a basis for his own holy book.
###### BUT THIS ALSO MAY BE THE STRONGEST DENIALS AND REFUTATIONS OF ISLAM'S AND MUSLIMS' MANY CLAIMS FOR THAT ALLAH WAS SO CLUMSY WHEN MAKING THE QURAN, THAT HA WAS UNABLE TO EXPRESS WHAT HE MEANT VERY MANY PLACES IN THE QURAN, SO THAT INTELLIGENT MAN HAS TO HELP ALLAH BY EXPLAINING WHAT HE "REALLY" MEANT. HERE IT IS CLEARLY SAID THAT ALLAH DID "CONWAY WHAT HE MEANT". This kills all the claims that errors are not errors, but that Allah means something different than he according to the Quran said.
####040 54/17a: “And We (Allah*) have indeed made the Quran easy to understand - - -.” Anyone wanting to try to “explain” away difficult points like mistakes or invalid logic or contradictions by calling them allegories etc. should read this sentence and there are a number of similar sentences in the Quran, so that there is no doubt Muhammad really meant it. It even is written 4 times just in this small chapter and thus a solidly cemented and nailed truth: The Quran is to be understood literally, and search only for hidden meaning by humans only is for the ones “in whose hearts is perversity - - -.” This even more so as only Allah can understand such hidden meanings anyhow.
That the Quran is easy to understand - the texts meant literally and clear and like the words say - is mentioned many places in the Quran. As Allah this clearly states that the Quran is written in a clear, plain, and easy to understand language + as he some places states that the ones seeking hidden meanings are the ones "sick at heart" and hypocrites + not least as Allah some places tells that it is he who has explained the texts in the Quran - what human being can explain things more correct, more exact and not to misunderstand than a god - it is very clear that Muslims claims that clever humans had/have to "explain" that errors, etc. in the Quran are not errors, but similitude, parables, allegories, etc. where Allah's helpless words, information, and explanations need help, are wrong.
###041 54/22b: “And We (Allah*) have indeed made the Quran easy to understand - - -.” Anyone wanting to try to “explain” away difficult points like mistakes or invalid logic or contradictions by calling them allegories, parables, etc. should read this sentence. It even is written 4 times only in this chapter, and thus a solidly cemented and nailed truth: The Quran is to be understood literally, and search for hidden meanings by mere humans only is for the ones “in whose hearts is perversity - - -.” - this even more so as hidden meanings only is possible for Allah to understand.
042 54/32a: “And We (Allah*) have indeed made the Quran easy to understand - - -”.
The statement that it is easy to understand, also means that it is to be understood like it is written if nothing else is explained - if not it was not "easy to understand".
###043 54/32b: “And We (Allah*) have indeed made the Quran easy to understand - - -.” Anyone wanting to try to “explain” away difficult points like mistakes or invalid logic or contradictions by calling them allegories etc. should read this sentence. It even is written 4 times only in this chapter, and thus a solidly cemented and nailed truth: The Quran is to be understood literally and search for hidden meanings is only for Allah, and such search only is for the ones “in whose hearts is perversity - - -.” . This is stated many places in the Quran.
###044 54/40a: “And We (Allah*) have indeed made the Quran easy to understand - - -.” Anyone wanting to try to “explain” away difficult points like mistakes or invalid logic or contradictions in the Quran by calling them allegories etc. should read this sentence. It even is written 4 times only in this short surah, and thus a solidly cemented and nailed truth: The Quran is to be understood literally and search for hidden meanings for the ones “in whose hearts is perversity - - -.”
There is no doubt whatsoever about that the Quran itself means that the Quran is to be understood literally mainly. And that to look for hidden meanings is wrong. Remind any Muslim trying to “explain” away problems by pretending or claiming they are allegories, about this fact - - - and about that each time he/she claims Quranic texts means something different from what they say, he/she states that Allah and Muhammad are lying in the Quran each time those two tells that the texts are plain and clear and easy and thus to be understood literally.
###045 75/19: "- - - it is for Us (Allah*) to explain it (the Quran - this refers to 75/16*) (and make it clear) - - -". A very clear and not to be misunderstood message: It is for Allah to explain things - and who can explain things better than a god? - not humans at least. And all the same as soon as a Muslim sees that the clear text Allah has explained and made clear, is wrong or with bad moral, he claims Allah has been unable to express what he really meant; the meaning is something different - an allegory or something - and he - a mere human - has to help Allah by explaining what he "really" meant. This is one of Muslims' and Islam's 3 - 4 - 5 most used ways out when explaining away mistakes, contradictions, etc. in the Quran, when they do not have real arguments, or when they want to flee for difficult facts.
PS: But remember: Do not judge a Muslim bad just because he/she is a Muslim. The great majority of them are just as human as you and me. (Well, we admit it may be difficult to know who belongs to the dangerous and/or dishonest minority.)
(But is there anybody out there who can show us one single place in the Quran where a claimed sign is explained in detail? - first explained and proved why and how it is a sign for Allah and for nothing else, and secondly how it proves Allah or Islam or Muhammad’s connection to Allah - or even to any god at all? Muhammad threw around a lot of claims about signs and even proofs and explanations. But not one of them is logically valid - and not one of the "explanations" explains anything as they either just are loose words or are building in not proved claims. All these claimed signs and proofs and "explanations" are just claims and totally without value as proof and mostly also as indicia. And who is it who has to rely on invalid proofs and fast-talk? The cheat, the impostor, the swindler, the deceiver. In the Bible there at least are some proofs if the stories are true - in the Quran there is nothing.
No wonder blind belief and glorifications are in high esteem.
No wonder nonsense like "instinctive (intellectual) knowledge", etc. are words of honor.
No wonder the use of real knowledge and logic or asking logical questions are frowned at.
No wonder it is death penalty to make true comments about Muhammad - the clay feet, hollow moral, wrong facts, and lust for power and women everything rests on.)
010 17/6b: "We (Allah*) gave you (the Jews*) increase in resources and sons - - -". We will guess few Jews believe in the statement that it was Allah who did so.
011 17/6-7: We are now at the 2. punisher, which may have been Nebuchadnezzar, though this is not clear. (As the Assyrians and the Babylonians mainly attacked different parts of David's old country, Muhammad might have reckoned f.x. the later Romans, as they were number 2 the different places. The Quran after all says "2 times", and in this case the arithmetic of main destruction adds up. Also the fact that they had been permitted to return before the second destruction, may point to the Romans. Simply unclear.)
The two first ones in case were the Assyrians (722 BC, Northern Kingdom - Israel) and the Babylonians (586 BC, Southern Kingdom - Judah (from which the name Jews derive))- (Solomon's temple in Jerusalem was destroyed by the Babylonians under Nebuchadnezzar in 586 BC. (Actually Jerusalem was taken in 597 BC - the rest of Judah in 586 BC and the Temple destroyed then.) And that was it according to the Quran = 2 times. But the Quran as so often has got history wrong. Because - still omitting the lesser stories - then came Alexander the Great (named Dhu'l Quarnayn in the Quran), though he was not too bad for the Jews - followed by the Romans (61 BC), revolt against the Romans (66 - 73 AD, and the new Temple destroyed 70 AD - remember this when you are told about Muhammad's trip to Heaven from "the Farthest Mosque - there was no mosque or temple there at the time of Muhammad), Persia (614 AD), Persia beaten (628 AD). Then the Muslims - Jerusalem fell in 637 AD (some sources say 638 AD), and the Muslims stole everything resulting in a hunger catastrophe, this in addition to lots of murdering in the land. Then the Muslim Fatimids - with destruction of f.x. churches and synagogues ("no compulsion in religion"?). The crusaders (1099 AD). The Mamelukes (Muslims) (1244 AD), The Ottomans (1517 AD). These are some. Plus pogroms against Jews in different parts of the world - Muslim and non-Muslim - and the Nazi not included.
##038 44/58c: “Verily, We (Allah*) have made this (Quran) easy, in thy (Muhammad’s or Arabs') tongue - - -". Perhaps because of this some Muslims claim that the claimed "Mother of Books" in Heaven is written in Arab - because if not the Quran cannot be an exact copy, like Islam claims. (The Ammaddiyya Muslims even have "proved" that the language in Paradise is Arabic(!!). Do not laugh - it is impolite.)
This chapter strongly proves that according to Allah/the Quran/Muhammad the texts in the Quran is meant to be understood literally - "clear and easy to understand" + "only the perverse at heart look for hidden meanings" + "only Allah can understand the hidden meanings anyhow" - where nothing else is clearly indicated, said, or explained.
###This chapter also is a strong proof for that the claim that the texts in the Quran often have to be understood like allegories, parables, etc. because Allah in his helplessness was unable to explain or tell exactly what he meant, and that clever humans therefore can "explain away" errors, contradictions, etc. in the Quran by "explaining what Allah really meant" - well, this chapter strongly proves that this claim is wrong. For one thing the chapter as said strongly documents that according to the Quran/Allah/Muhammad, the texts are meant literally where not something different is said or clearly indicated. For another: Allah/the Quran/Muhammad several places directly states that Allah has explained everything in detail - and who can explain the details better and more correct than an omniscient god? - not humans at least.
Please remember that our lists are not complete (here none the MANY unofficial versions is included).
THE 28 CANNONIZED OR ACCEPTED VERSIONS OF THE QURAN THROUGH HISTORY:
There were a lot more of unofficial versions - that was why the official ones had to be made and authorized.
Before Utman had his official edition made - not later than 656 AD - there were 4 much used edition - and they varied not a little.
Utman's edition helped in reducing the virr-varr, but because it was written in an incomplete alphabet - no vowels, no diacritical points, no sign like comma, full stop, etc. it often was and still is difficult or impossible to understand exactly what the texts meant, and different writers guessed different meanings - a sample: If you have the consonants "h" and "s" and know they represent a word, the word at least may be "hose" or "house" or "his" or "has" - and soon the virr-varr was even greater.
Finally one of the top scholars and some helpers sat down and made a list of 7 edition which became after a fashion canonized, but as each existed in 2 varieties, this meant that 14 varieties were canonized. As the expression "varieties of the Quran" is taboo in Islam, the reality was camouflaged by naming it "ways of reading". These 14 were (NB: The Years are not accurate, but most of them are correct within 2 - 3 years):
- Maker: Town: Dead (AH/AD): Reteller: Dead: Reteller: Dead:
- Nafi Mecca (169/786) Qalun (220/835) Wars (197/813)
- ibn Katir Mecca (120?/738) Qunbul (291/904) al-Bazzi (250/865)
- abu 'Amr Basra (148|55/766|72) abu 'Umar ad-Duri (246/861) abu Su'aib as-Suzi (261/875)
- ibn 'Amir Damascus(118/737) ibn Dakwan (242/857) Hisam as-Sulami (245/860)
- 'Asim Kufa (127|9/743/45) abu Bakr Su'ba (193/809) Hafs (180/797)
- Hamza Kufa (156/272) Halaf (229/844) Hallad* (220/835)
- al-Kisa'i Kufa (189/805) abu l-Harit** (240/855) ad-Duri (246/861)
The years given are (Ialamic years/international years) = (AH/AD) for their death.
Full names: *Hallad (abu 'Isa as-Saibani), **abu l-Harit (al-Lait ibn Halid al-Bagdadi).
Most of them slowly drifted out of use over the centuries, and today mainly 2 are in daily use: Wars after Nafi and Hafs after 'Asim. Yes, even today there are 2 varieties of the Quran in active use in spite of Muslims' claims. (+ sources tell that some of the others still are use locally a few places, but this we have not checked on.)
Then there were 3 well accepted, though not as strongly canonized - also they in 2 varieties each:
- abu Ga'far Medina (130/744) abu l-Harit* (160/777) abu r-Rabi** (170/787)
- Ja'qub ad-Hadrami Basra (205/821) Ruwais*** (234/849) Rauh ibn 'Abdalmu'min (234/849)
- Halaf Kufa (229/844) Ishaq al-Warraq (286/899) Idris al-Haddad (292/908)
Full names: *abu l-Harit 'Isa ibn Wardan, **abu r-Rabi (Sulaiman ibn Muslim) ibn Gammasz (az-Zuhri), *** Ruwais (Muhammad ibn Mutwakkil.
Finally there were 4 accepted ones:
- ibn Muhaisin Mecca (123/740)
- al-Jazidi Basra (202/838)
- al-Hasan al-Basri Basra (110/130)
- al-A'mas Kufa (148/764)
In addition there were the 4 main older ones from before Uthman. Anybody claiming his Quran is the exact words of Muhammad, is joking. It is impossible to know which one - if any - is the correct one. There even is the possibility that even if there once was a correct one, it may be one of the many versions which were dropped. In addition there is no valid proof for that Muhammad's words really came from a god.
14+6+4+4 = 28 canonized or accepted versions. There were many more versions - more or less accepted - in the old times, especially before the 14 were canonized.)
As for the relative significance of these in the old time on had a unit called "tariq" which represented how significant and how widely spread and used the different editions were reckoned to be - the higher tariq number, the better.
- Nafi 144 Qalun 83 Wars 61 tariq
- ibn Katir 73 Qunbul 32 al-Bazzi 41
- abu 'Amr 154 abu 'Umar ad-Duri 126 abu Su'aib as-Suzi 28
- ibn 'Amir 130 ibn Dakwan 79 Hisam as-Sulami 51
- 'Asim 128 abu Bakr Su'ba 76 Hafs 52
- Hamza 121 Halaf 53 Hallad 68
- al-Kisa'i 64 abu l-Harit 40 ad-Duri 24abu Ga'far 52 abu l-Harit 'Isa 40 abu r-Rabi 12
- Ja'qub ad-Hadrami 85 Ruwais 41 Rauh ibn 'Abdalmu'min 44
- Halaf 32 Ishaq al-Warraq 22 Idris al-Haddad 9
As you see they definitely were used - and they varied not a little. Thus when Muslims claim the Quran they use, is the exact words of Muhammad "down to the last comma" (which did not exist in Arabia at that time), it either is lack of knowledge or an al-Taqiyya (a lawful lie). When Islam/Muslim scholars say it, it is an al-Taqiyya, because they know this (but dishonesty - al-Taqiyya, Kitman (lawful half-truth), and Hilah (lawful pretending/circumventing) is recommended to use "if necessary" to defend and/or promote Islam (how many proselytes have been cheated into Islam by such means?), and permitted to use in a number of other wide cases (f.x. to cheat women - f.x. for sex, for marriage for work permit or residence permit in a rich country - or for saving your money). In addition deceit, betrayal, etc. are permitted as Muhammad both accepted and used it, and even disuse of words/promises/oats are ok, as it is permitted several places in the Quran (2/225, 5/89, 16/91, 66/2) - pay expiation afterwards if necessary.
>>> Go to Next Booklet
>>> Go to Previous Booklet
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".