Muhammad in the Quran, Vol. 3: Chapter 77
15 Dec. 2015
Muhammad often claimed that the Quran was knowledge and truth and for the intelligent and wise ones. But:
"Knowledge = proved facts. If it is not proved or provable, it either is a hypothesis, a theory, or a belief. And both hypothesizes, theories and beliefs may be wrong". This is the case even if you believe so strongly that you believe it is hard knowledge. We may add here that religion mostly/overwhelmingly = belief (for Islam it is 100% belief, as there is not one valued proof for any of the central claims in the religion). For a comparison: "Wisdom" is the ability to understand, to conclude correctly from, and to use knowledge.
Knowledge/belief under Islam after a few centuries became, and to a degree still is, split in "Islamic knowledge" - knowledge/belief about the Quran and Islam + subjects which could help the understanding of religious points in Islam - and "foreign knowledge" = all other kinds of knowledge. "Islamic knowledge" was promoted, whereas "foreign knowledge" definitely was not. This of course over time resulted in stagnation of the culture. Another result was that many of the famous doctors, philosophers, scientists, etc. in the Muslim areas through the centuries were non-Muslims - Jews and Christians mainly. It is a bit ironic when Islam today claims all the honor for what science, etc. there after all was during these centuries in this area, "because also the non-Muslims lived in Muslim land and wrote in Arab".
There is no doubt that this distaste for non-religious philosophy and science in Islam was a major reason for why Europe and later the North America caught up and then surpassed the Muslim areas in scientific knowledge, and then in power. One may speculate on how the world had been today if this had not happened in the West, and f.x. the industrial revolution and the corresponding power instead had happened in the Islamic countries. What is absolutely sure judging from the Quran's clear goal for Islam of gaining total world dominance and suppressing all non-Muslims till "they pay Jizya (extra tax*) with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued", is that the World had been very different from the one we live in today.
Relevant here also is Allah's claimed knowledge:
To claim that a god is omniscient, is very easy, as least as long as the claimants can evade proving their words (like Muhammad did and Islam does). It is worse, however, when one meets points which must be proved. In such cases there only are two ways out even for a believing person: Either to accept the facts or proofs - the reality - and accept the consequences, or to flee from them if one does not like the facts or their logical conclusions. It is a human trait that it is difficult to accept that what one has accepted as the fundamentals in life, and which their fathers and surroundings have stated and repeatedly stated is the truth, and on which one perhaps has built one's life, is wrong - it is believed to be hard knowledge, even if few really have checked if it is knowledge and not only belief. In such cases the normal reaction is to oppose the facts which conflict what one wants to believe, and to try to explain then away or simply to try to flee from them. In religious debates with Muslims you see this daily. A star and very revealing sample:
Comment 141 (to verse 6/149) in “The Message of the Quran” explains (translated from Swedish) about Allah's claimed omniscience vs. man's claimed free will:
###### “With other words: The real connection between Allah’s knowledge about the future (and consequently about the unavoidability in what is to happen in the future*) on one side and man’s relatively (!!*) free will on the other – two statements that seems to contradict each other – lies outside what is possible for humans to understand, but as both statement are made by Allah (in the Quran*) both must be true”. Unbelievable. Blind belief is the only correct and intelligent way of life according to Islam, even in the face of the utterly impossible!!- this even though that in all other aspects of life, blind belief is the most sure way to be cheated.
Here Islam simply leaves knowledge and enters occultism.
NB and PS: No matter how sure you are about something, if it is not proved or provable, it is not knowledge, but only belief or strong belief, and can be wrong. Only what is proved or possible to prove is knowledge. And remember: ###"A proof is one or more PROVED facts which can give only one conclusion". Islamic debate and information normally build only on claims and statements which are not proved, so demand proofs in any debate with Muslims (you seldom will get them, and never in basic questions - their method normally is to throw out claims, and demand proofs from you for the opposite. Such proofs can be difficult for you to find there and then there and then, and then they have "won" the debate, even if they may be wildly wrong. Demand proofs for their claims first: After all it is they who launch the claims and then it is their job to prove them - and you win many a debate just on this demand for proofs, because Islam has no real proofs on any central point of the religion).
Some more quotes about proofs and invalid or made up proofs:
- "Strong claims need strong proofs.
- "A claim without a proof maybe dismissed without a proof".
- "Claims are cheap, but only proofs are proofs".
- "The use of invalid proofs normally proves that something is fishy".
- "The cheat or deceiver naturally must rely on claims pretending to be facts or proofs".
- "A made up "proof" makes the man very suspect".
- "A strong belief is not a proof - not necessarily even a truth" .
- "Wrong claims and invalid 'proofs' are working tools of the cheat".
- "A student with correct facts gets a more correct answer than 20 professors with wrong facts". (Invalid "signs", claims, "proofs", etc. of course are wrong facts.)
###One piece of knowledge: Muslims insist it is impossible to translate the Quran (just like the Japanese used to say about Japanese before many enough learnt other languages well). That is rubbish. What one human brain is able to think, another human brain at the same level of knowledge and intelligence is able to understand. At most it will take a little extra explanation.
######An extra point here is that if it is true that Allah sent down the Quran to all peoples in the entire world and through all times, he did not send it down in Arab, except to the Arabs. This proves that for Allah it does not matter in which language you read the book, as long as you understand the contents. This again proves that Islam's claim that the Quran has got to be red in Arab, is a made up one (though a convenient one to use for fleeing from arguments and facts one are unable to meet or to face, and often is uses as such by both Islam and Muslims, because it is difficult for many to know what to answer if they do not know enough about the subject). In a poetic and rhythmical language like used in the texts in the Arab versions of the Quran - after all many of the old Arabs were highly skilled poets (a fact Islam and Muslims never mention when telling about the linguistics in the Quran) - it may be difficult to "translate" the rhythms, etc., but it will always - always - be possible to translate the contents; "What one brain is able understand or to express, another brain at the same level of knowledge and intelligence is able to understand - perhaps with some additional explanation", to use the full quote, as said above.
And in religion it is the contents which counts, not the poetic linguistics.
¤ ¤ ¤ ¤ ¤ ¤ ¤ ¤ ¤ ¤ ¤ ¤ ¤ ¤ ¤ ¤ ¤ ¤ ¤ ¤ ¤ ¤ ¤ ¤ ¤ ¤ ¤ ¤ ¤ ¤ ¤ ¤ ¤
001 2/3a: "(Muslims*) believe in the unseen - - -". As there exists no proof for anything of any consequence in Islam, the Quran glorifies blind belief (and ridicules wishes for real knowledge or proofs). In a question as serious as a possible next life, it takes a lot of naivety not to ask questions and to evaluate the reliability and credibility of sources - ##you check on hotel, beach, food, and whatever before you book a 2 weeks holiday, but the whole eternity you accept to "book" blindly? If a religion is true, this is the most essential question in life (if not it does not matter - - - unless there is a true religion somewhere else). In all other aspects of life, you are advised to use your brain and knowledge, because if not you are easily cheated - but in the claimed most essential aspect of all, Islam demands blind belief, blind acceptance and obedience, no difficult questions and no evaluation of any argument skeptical to unproved claims in the religion. This tells something about the Quran and Muhammad and Islam. And about the believer.
PS: Linguists say that Arab only is a medium difficult language to translate.
002 2/13a: "Believe as the others believe - - -". This is an invalid argument, as the fact that some or even many believe, does not prove that their belief is true. The argument merits that one looks into the belief and check if it may be true or not. To follow believers without checking their belief, is just to go along with the flock of sheep, and as sheep are not the most intelligent of animals, they not always end at the best places. But honestly: If you just follow the sheep in blind belief, you deserve whatever you get.
Islam has the word "taqlid" = to deny what conflicts with old and wishful thinking f.x. inherited from ones fathers. (Or to be more exact: "To accept what fathers and scholars and others say, without asking for or checking proofs for that what they say is true".) This quote tells Muslims that they shall rely on taqlid and what others believe. Do not use your brain and knowledge to evaluate if what your father and others told you is right - use taqlid.
***003 2/26c: "Those who believe, know it is the truth from their Lord (Allah*) - - -". Correction: Those who believe strongly enough, believes so strong that they think it is knowledge - religious "knowledge" newer is real knowledge, just so strong belief which one mistakes it for knowledge (if the miracles, etc. told about f.x. Jesus in the Bible and in the Quran are true, there is an exception there). Only what is proved or provable is real knowledge. But as "knowledge" is a much stronger word than "belief", the word often is disused by Islam (and by other religious persons and institutions).
*004 2/29g: "He (Allah*) hath perfect knowledge". Not if the Quran is representative for his knowledge - too many mistakes, contradictions, cases of invalid logic, etc. - not to take it the other way around: If Allah has perfect knowledge about all things, this proves that he did not make the Quran and all its errors.
005 2/90d: "- - - (the revelation) - - -". Were they really revelations, and in case from whom? As no god would be involved in a book of that quality, only 3 possibilities in case remain: From a dark force (like parts of the moral code, etc. may indicate), or a fictive one from an illness (f.x. TLE - Temporal Lobe Epilepsy - like modern medical science suspects). It of course also can have come from a cold, scheming brain, but in that case it was no revelation.
As for Iblis - the Devil - being behind the revelations(?) we personally are skeptical to that, even though the very special "moral" code, etc. in the Quran as said may indicate this. The reason is that not even a devil would use a book with that much wrong contents as the basis for his teachings - he had to know he would be found out sooner or later. There is a possibility, though, if the god only permitted the devil to launch his book on the condition that there should be so many mistakes, etc., that man should have a reasonable chance to see the trap if he used his "small grey ones". As for the delivery, that would make no problem - Muhammad would have no chance to see the difference between the real Gabriel which he in this case never met, and the Devil dressed up like Gabriel.
And then of course there remains the possibility that the Quran is a pure human product. This in reality is the most likely explanation - strongly indicated f.x. by the fact that many of the errors are in accordance with human knowledge in Arabia and its surroundings at the time of Muhammad.
006 2/91c: “- - - yet they (the Jews of Medina*) reject all besides - - -". = They rejected Muhammad's new religion. Not strange as he in his naive lack of knowledge claimed it was the same religion, whereas they easily saw how different the Mosaic (Jewish*) religion was from Muhammad's new one. (Christians saw it even easier, but there were not many Christians in Medina.)
***007 2/113g: "- - - the ones who know not - - -". Most likely this refers to the Pagan Arabs - like so often the Quran is not clear, in spite of strong claims for being clear and easy to understand. Remember here that when the Quran speaks about knowledge, it means religious knowledge - knowledge about the Quran and Islam. The Pagans could be full of knowledge, but as they did not accept Muhammad and his new teachings, they were "the ones who know not". Symptomatic here also is the Islamic name for the times before Islam: "The Time of Ignorance". This in clear contradiction to that f.x. in Persia the learned people had much more knowledge than the backward Arab tribes - but they did not know about or dismissed Islam. One of Muhammad's many negative names for non-Muslims - a not very strong one here.
008 2/118a: “Say those without knowledge: ‘Why speaketh not Allah unto us? Or why cometh not unto us a Sign?” As said first in this quotation: So say those without knowledge - and who wants to be said to be reckoned to be without knowledge? This is one of the many fast-talks Muhammad had to use to get away from questions and demands for proving what he told - he was unable to prove anything of any consequence concerning his religion, and blind faith was the demand. But who has least knowledge - the ones in blind faith, or the ones knowing that in most aspects of life, the most sure way to be cheated, is to be blind and to be naive?
009 2/132d: "Allah hath chosen the Faith for you - - - Islam". Strongly contradicted by the Bible, and also by history, which shows not one single trace of a religion like Islam anywhere in the world before 610 AD and Muhammad's preaching. Also see 67/9c below - a strong one. But of course it is ok for Islam to prove - prove - the Bible wrong and the Quran right. But as we say: Prove, not just loose claims and as loose and invalid words like the Quran always use instead of proofs.
########## WELL, IT MAY BE POSSIBLE TO CLAIM THAT THE BIBLE IS FALSIFIED - LOOSE CLAIMS COST NOTHING (BUT ALSO PROVE NOTHING). BUT IT IS NOT POSSIBLE TO DISCLAIM STRONG HISTORICAL FACTS: THERE NEVER ANYWHERE OR ANY TIME IN THE WORLD WAS A GOD LIKE ALLAH, A RELIGION LIKE ISLAM OR A BOOK LIKE THE QURAN, BEFORE 610 AD. THE SUM OF KNOWLEDGE AND PROOFS ABOUT HISTORY MAKES THIS A MATHEMATICAL STRENGTH FACT.
IT ALSO IS A FACT THAT AS FAR BACK AS WRITTEN HISTORY REACHES, FOR ONE THING THE BIBLE WAS NOT FALSIFIED, AND FOR ANOTHER THAT JUST AS FAR BACK THE GOD OF JEWS AND CHRISTIANS WAS YAHWEH, NOT ALLAH.
010 2/139f: "- - - that we (Muslims*) are sincere (in our faith) in Him (Allah*)". This is completely without any consequence as a proof for the religion - any strong believer in any religion is sincere in his faith, and it means nothing and proves nothing about the one and only essential question for a religion: Is the religion a real religion with a real god (or gods) behind it? Or is it a superstition? As there is no god behind the Quran - too much is wrong in the book for a god to be involved - it is very easy to believe Islam is not a real religion, but a superstition. The fact that Allah in no way clearly has proved his existence, plus the knowledge of what kind of a person Muhammad really was, make this belief more or less a certainty.
011 2/145f: "- - - after knowledge hath reached you (persons*) - - -". As the Quran normally does not mean "real" knowledge, but knowledge about the Quran and Islam (also called Islamic knowledge - vs. everything not related to the religion was "foreign knowledge" and opposed) sentences like this does not mean after you have got education or something - it really means "after you have got information about Islam" or "after you have become a Muslim".
012 2/151h: "- - - in Scripture and Wisdom, and in new Knowledge." So "new" "knowledge" (the Quran) that it is clear much of it is wrong. And is it then wisdom? But psychologically it was wise to talk about knowledge: Who especially among uneducated, naive primitives are not influenced by idols - hardly heroes, but idols - telling them they have knowledge?
013 2/169c: "- - - say of Allah that of which ye (people*) have no knowledge". If one overlooks all the glorious words in the Quran, and reads the realities, one gets a lot of knowledge about both Allah and Muhammad. Much of it is very negative.
014 2/171b: "- - - those who reject Faith are as if one was deaf, dumb, and blind, they are void of all wisdom". Here it may be relevant to think of what happened in the religious Muslim middle ages: All knowledge not related to religion little by little were frozen out or forbidden. From 1095 AD on (partly because of the books "The Incoherence of the Philosophers" and "Revival of the Religious Sciences" by "the greatest Muslim after Muhammad", Al-Ghazali) there did not come one single new idea or thought which could benefit humanity for some 850 years from central and eastern Muslim area (in the western area the freeze came ca. 100 years later). No more comment.
A ps. about al-Ghazali: Full name Abu Hamed Muhammad ibn Muhammad al-Ghazali (1058 AD - Des. 1111 AD). To be very short he vehemently rejected science and philosophy (thinking), partly because persons like Aristotle, Socrates, etc. were non-Muslims, and their ideas thus could corrupt Islam. It instead was Allah who made everything happen. (The second book mentioned included some mysticism.) Not strange that no new ideas came for the better part of a millennium from Muslim area.
###015 2/210c: "But to Allah do all questions go back (for decision)". Here we are back to the predestination: Allah decides everything, and he decides it according to his unchangeable Plan. And then we are back to the question of man's free will: If Allah decides everything, man's claimed free will is just an illusion. But if man's free will is an illusion, how then can Allah punish humans? - not to mention how can he punish for it and still be a benevolent, fair and good god? This is an unsolvable problem for Islam. The lay members of Islam are fed good words about the free will of man and that Allah is able to see the future no matter, and thus only reacts to what you do. Fast words are cheap and if the naive or the strong believers want to believe these logical impossibilities, it is easy to make them believe it. But the moment Allah "writes down" your future, your free will is gone - if not Allah's knowledge may turn out to be wrong. Or if you really have free will, Allah can never know the future for sure, because you always can change your mind once more. Most Muslims happily overlook or are not aware of this impossibility, but among the scholars you meet it (though they never debate it with their lay followers if they can avoid it). We quote from Azad: "The Message of the Quran", surah 6, comment 143 (to verse 149):
#####"In other words, the relationship between Allah's knowledge of the future (and, therefore, the ineluctably of what is to happening the future) on one side, and man's free will, on the other - two propositions which, on the face of it, seem to contradict one another - is beyond man's comprehension; but since both are postulated by Allah (in the Quran*), both must be true. The very concept of "Allah" presupposes omniscience; and the very concept of morality and moral responsibility presupposes free will on man's part."
This is a version of the "Time Travel Paradox" - a paradox which is proved unsolvable. But instead of facing this fact, Islam makes the ultimate surrendered to blind belief - even blind belief in the impossible. (Actually they have to - or face the fact that something is wrong. A fact which is too difficult to meet, because that means something is seriously wrong with the religion). But they are giving in to a claim in a book full of mistakes, dictated by the man who institutionalized al-Taqiyya (the lawful lie), Kitman (the lawful half-truth), etc. - formalized later, but the foundations for it were introduced by Muhammad - and advocated breaking even your oaths if that gave a better result, not to mention that he practiced deceit ("war is deceit" or "war is betrayal" - and "everything" is war). Further comments should be unnecessary.
016 2/258d: “But it is Allah that causeth the sun to rise from the east - - -”. Abraham is said to use this as a (also for other reasons totally invalid) proof for Allah. But for one thing it is not the sun which rises, but the Earth which turns. For another thing this is a totally natural process which in no way is proved made by a god - not to mention by Allah. But any priest of Baal - or others - could say as much: 'Baal makes the sun rise in the east. Allah cannot make it rise in the west - which means Baal is proved to be the real god and Allah a fake one!'. Both claims are equally cheap, equally stupid - and totally invalid as proofs + logically total nonsense, as long as it is not proved the god really was/is behind the phenomenon. Did a god use such "proofs"?
Another pressing question is this: ##What on Earth is the quality of the brains and the knowledge of the followers you can dupe with so hopelessly naive arguments like this?
017 2/269a: “He (Allah*) granteth wisdom to whom He pleaseth - - -”. Wisdom is a result of genes/intelligence and knowledge (with a possible exception for Yahweh). Many gods say they provided it - not one single of them has proved it till this date, with the possible exception of Yahweh. Words and lose statements are much cheaper than proofs.
018 2/285d: "The Messenger (Muhammad*) believeth in what hath been sent down (the Quran*) to him from his Lord (Allah*), as do the men of faith". Yes, but it must be the men of blind faith, not the men of knowledge and intelligence - too much is wrong in the book.
019 3/18c: "- - - those endued with knowledge - - -". = good Muslims. As non-religious knowledge had little value, it was the religious knowledge - Islam - which counted. And this so strictly that intellectual activity outside Islam and related subjects became more or less prohibited, with the final closed down in/after 1095 AD with the book "The Incoherence of the Philosophers" by "the greatest Muslim after Muhammad", al-Ghazali. (It took some 100 years more in the far west.) Also see 13/3j below.
020 3/19e: "- - - knowledge - - -". Beware that when the Quran speaks about such things, it normally only meant religious knowledge, and primarily Islam. All other knowledge - called "foreign knowledge" or similar - over some time simply came to a standstill for 800-900 years because of strong opposition and dislike from Islam. (Even today many Muslim areas are quite backward partly because of the domination of the religion over other aspects of life and knowledge).
021 3/21e: "- - - those - - - who slay the prophets, and slay those who teach just dealing with mankind - - -" = non-Muslims, may be especially Jews (Christians should go free here, as the known prophets lived before this religion started, except for Jesus, and he was not killed by Christians). This with slaying the prophets is an often repeated black spot, but if you read the Bible, you will see that in reality few of the known prophets were slain. But it is a very good and heavy argument when speaking to people not knowing this. And as for "teaching just dealing with mankind" - was the Muslim "dealing with mankind" through history "just"? - only the ones who do not know history - or Muslims - can answer "yes" to this question - and Muslims only because most of them only have been told a very colored story about how heroic their heroes have been and how Muslims have won and have been rich and mighty and how "just and good" everything have been - totally without empathy with the victims or giving even one thought to how life - or death - became for them, not to mention total destruction of whole cultures, and the slowness of the rebuilding of culture and civilization in spite of Islam and its struggle against all knowledge not related to religion - cfr. fanatics like al-Ghazali. A rebuilding which finally had to take place in the West - outside the old area of culture from the eastern Mediterranean to India (China stagnated for other reasons). The old cultural center in what we call the Middle East and the Mediterranean area simply was destroyed as a center for knowledge, and a new one had to be rebuilt from scratch in Europe. One may wonder what had happened to the world, if f.x. Persia and other cultural centers in the region had not been destroyed, and later again had its science, philosophy and knowledge suppressed around 1100 AD after a partial rebuilding. From the Muslim area there came not one single new idea or thought which could benefit humanity after ca. 1100 AD - a little later in the western Muslim area.
022 3/22b: "They (non-Muslims*) are those whose work will bear no fruit in this world and in the Hereafter - - -." Wrong. At least in this world history has shown the Quran very wrong on this point - all real progress for mankind in this world for hundreds of years have come from outside the Muslim area. As for the possible next world, we have no real knowledge - beliefs and even strong beliefs and beliefs in many directions and religions included Islam, yes, but no real knowledge. It must also be mentioned that "knowledge" is a very weighty word which everybody wants connected to themselves. You see this in the obvious way also the Quran and Islam try to high-jack the word: If they have no real knowledge based on discovered facts, they try to tell that strong ideas, strong beliefs, strong wishful thinking = knowledge. Because somebody you believe in have told you so, you call things "knowledge" - without checking if it is true, they claim "instinctive 'knowledge'" (= thoughts or conclusions corresponding with your own ideas - much stressed by f.x. Islam), and also other names of non-scientific "knowledge". You even frequently meet the claim that this kind of "knowledge" is the real knowledge, and that scientific knowledge is something suspect - a point of view often peddled by f.x. religious groups where science shows they are on thin ice or wrong on some or many points - like Islam. Muslims are one of the groups who pooh-pooh fact based science, because such science often shows Islam to be wrong (cfr. all the mistakes, etc. in the Quran, or f.x. al-Ghazali's ideas of a good intellectual culture) - a pooh-pooh it is not too difficult to defend because in the forefront of science there always will emerge theories which later turns out to be wrong - science checks and corrects and goes on, but the ones who cling to their own ideas, picks up the discarded wrong theories: "This was wrong and this was wrong and this was wrong - that means all was and is wrong, but our never checked ideas or wishful thinking are right!"
They NEVER mention the simple fact that a scientist simply is a person knowing much about what he is talking about, and that mostly he, therefore, is right.
**023 3/51b: (Jesus said*): “It is Allah who is my Lord and your Lord; then worship Him”. This must be written/told by someone with no knowledge of Israel at the time of Jesus. It was one of the periods when the Jewish religion was strong and the religious establishment powerful. Further the name of the (Muslim) god was not Allah - it was al-Lah, which means “the god” - not “god”, but “the god” (well, the name Allah was used to a degree, though perhaps not as early as the time of Jesus - Allah seems to mean "the hidden one" or something like that). Muslim missionaries in the west today, often use the word God instead of Allah, because then a number of the differences between Yahweh (our god) and Allah are more difficult to see. They say that Allah means God, but strictly speaking “al-Lah” = “the god“, whereas Allah as said means something like "the hidden one"). The Jews also of that time were a traveling people, and they knew Arabia and the polytheistic religion there.
- If Jesus had preached that people should pray to a known polytheistic god from another country (and remember that at that time gods in addition were at least to a degree thought to take care mostly of their own country or tribe or whatever) - call him al-Lah or the older al-Ilah or Il - he had got very few followers.
- If Jesus had preached about al-Lah - a known polytheistic foreign god - the Jewish religious establishment had had him killed years before for heresy, disrespect for Yahweh and things like that.
This statement is made up by someone not knowing the religious and political situation in Israel around 30 AD (but the purpose for making it up is very obvious). It also is very clear from history facts that the Jewish god at that time was Yahweh, and that around the year 30 AD there was a time when the religion had a strong position and strong power in Israel.
024 3/61b: “- - - now after (full) knowledge hath come to thee - - -”. With so many mistakes in the Quran, it is at best partly knowledge.
025 3/95d: "- - - the Truth - - -". That the Quran is the truth is contradicted and denied by the Bible (and by science - too much is wrong in the Quran compared to scientific knowledge) - see 2/42c above. Also see 67/9c below - a strong one. But of course it is ok for Islam to prove - prove - the Bible wrong and the Quran right. But as we say: Prove, not just loose claims and as loose and invalid words like the Quran always use instead of proofs.
026 3/125a: “Yea – if you remain firm - - - your Lord (Allah*) would help you with five thousand angels making a terrific onslaughter”. Go to war in the secure knowledge that Allah sends large battalions of soldiering angels fighting beside you. It is not explained why an omnipotent god had/has to send angles and by the thousands to strain your enemy’s forces to give you a better chance to win. But a mighty pep-talk for believers – especially the uneducated and/or naïve ones. But again: Why does an omnipotent god have to bring his followers to war to strengthen his position? If it was Muhammad who wanted more power and more riches to use for bribes and more power and women, the logic is easy to understand, but an omniscient god - - - ?
027 3/154d: "- - - suspicion due to ignorance - - -". In this case the honest explanation was greed, not ignorance - but what is quoted here fitted the religious claims better. And mainly the "suspicion" - read "disbelief" - at least the Jews and the few Christians in the area felt for Muhammad and his Allah, was based not on ignorance, but on the knowledge that the Bible told different - often very different - stories from what Muhammad claimed it told.
**028 3/158a: “And if ye die, or are slain, lo! It is unto Allah that ye are brought together”. Be killed in war for Allah, and go to paradise - good “knowledge” for a warrior or terrorist. Whoever said the Quran has to be disused to justify terrorism, hardly ever read the Quran - or uses an al-Taqiyya (a lawful lie - this "convenient" Islamic only phenomenon). See also 3/157b above.
029 3/164c: “- - - He (Allah) sent among them (Muslims*) a Messenger (Muhammad*) from among themselves - - -“. The Quran and all the mistakes and wrong logic, etc. there, makes it clear that Muhammad was not sent by any omniscient or omnipotent god. But there is a small possibility that he was contacted by a minor god, and a larger possibility that what he believed was Gabriel, in reality was the Devil/a devil in disguise (Muhammad’s inhuman behavior and the inhuman religion he introduced – stealing/robbing, raping, enslaving, torture, murder, mass murder, hate, discrimination, and war – may indicate this). Finally there is an even larger possibility that it was all man-made (f.x. all the mistakes which were "correct knowledge" in Arabia at the time of Muhammad, indicates this - no god and hardly any devil would use wrong facts in a "holy" book).
030 3/164g: "- - - (Muhammad*) instructing them in Scripture and Wisdom (the Quran*)- - -". There is not much wisdom in a book full of mistakes, contradictions, etc., and as for what there after all is of such; it is not easy - often not possible - to pick out what is wisdom and what is of no value or of negative value, unless you on beforehand have enough wisdom - = intelligence + knowledge - to evaluate every detail which is told, to see if it is wisdom or invalid or "unwisdom" or worse. And if there all the same are points you are unable to evaluate, you have to lay them aside till you are able to evaluate it. That is the only way a wise person can treat a book overflowing with mistakes. But when you already have gained so much wisdom, how much is there then to learn from such a book? (In reality the Quran neither is very "deep", nor containing much knowledge except for religious claims and statements - and undocumented claims and statements may be called hypotheses or theories, but are not knowledge, no matter how sure you are that your hypotheses or beliefs are right - knowledge needs some kind of proofs, not necessarily the mathematical 100% ones, but at least the 99.998% ones from natural sciences - circumstantial proofs, inductive proofs, empirical proofs).
But one thing which is easy for any wise, not brainwashed, person to see, is that no god would base his religion on a book full of errors - if not for other reasons, then because he had to know that he would be found out sooner or later and lose credibility. A dark force - f.x. a devil - might do it to deceive victims, but if he is wise, he would use as few mistakes as possible to make it difficult for the victims to see the trap (there is an exception if the god permitted the Devil to make up a religion to lure more people to Hell, only on the condition that the trap should be easy to see for persons able to think). A human maker of the book is the only really credible possibility, and this even more so as all the real "knowledge" - right or wrong - in the book, is in exact correspondence to the "knowledge" one had in and around Arabia at the time of Muhammad (this in spite of the many claims Muslims make trying to "prove" that the Quran contains facts that was not known at that time - we have not seen one such till now which is not in reality wishful thinking.) And if there is no god behind the Quran, what then is Islam? - and what about all Muslims in a possible next life if Islam is a made up religion like many others?
031 3/179g: "But He (Allah*) chooses of His Messengers (for the purpose) whom He pleases". Muhammad claimed the Jews did not believe in him because he was not a Jew (the real reason was that they knew their own old scriptures, and saw how much in Muhammad's teaching and what he claimed the old god said and wanted, were wrong compared to those scriptures. This is an argument against the Jews, but meant for his followers - the Jews knew he was not speaking the truth here. Worse: The last years - when Muhammad had got more knowledge about at least the OT, he had to see the difference himself and had to know something was wrong. But he blamed everything on falsification of the Bible even if he at this time had to know he was lying - his only way out if he wanted to save his religion and his platform of power - - - and his "face".
032 3/184c: "- - - the Book of Enlightenment." It is possible to guess here is meant the Bible, but most likely the reference is to the Quran - a book giving little enlightenment, as there are too many mistakes, etc. - making the "knowledge" unreliable or invalid, and also proving that it cannot be made by a god (an omniscient god makes no mistakes, contradictions, etc.), which further makes also the religious claims and statements unreliable or invalid.
033 4/70c: "- - - and sufficient is it that Allah knoweth all". This is strongly contradicted by the fact that Allah time and again and again had and has to test his followers - Allah's knowledge is not enough, he has to try and test to find out. Or was it Muhammad's wish for warriors which dominated?
034 4/87e: "- - - the Day of Judgment, about which there is no doubt." Wrong - there is good reason for doubt. There will come a last day for humanity - but there is no special reason to believe there will be a Day of Doom a la the one Islam claims. For one thing not one single claim is proved about this, and for another the claims are from a book so full of errors, that it is impossible to know what is correct and what not - except that such a book is not from a god. Strong and often blind belief is possible, but not blind knowledge. Blind knowledge simply is not knowledge.
035 5/35c: “Do your duty to Allah, seek the means of approach unto Him, and strive with might and mind (= make war*) in His Cause: that ye may prosper”. You prosper if you do like this. Islam after fighting non-religious knowledge for a few centuries (winning from ca 1100 AD - or actually 1095 AD in the eastern and central Muslim area and ca. 1198 in the western) found that there was no prosperity in thinking and researching and studying - except just studying and repeating the religion and related subjects - to fight and steal/rob/suppress/enslave on the other hand was good. The result was stagnation after some time, and not prosperity.
###036 6/50a: "- - - nor do I (Muhammad*) know what is hidden - - -". Muslims and Islam often tell about things Muhammad foresaw, and claims this and this prove Muhammad was connected to something supernatural - in spite of Muhammad's problems with explaining away his total lack of proofs and miracles, including foreseeing. Also in spite of Aisha's clear statements in Hadiths that the ones claiming Muhammad could foresee the future, were wrong. And here he himself states that he does not know what hidden - the not visible and the future.
#### Muhammad here simply confirms that he is unable to make prophesies - and thus he is killing all such claims from Muslims!!
This verse - 6/50 - also is a clear proof for that Muhammad was no prophet: A person unable to make prophesies - "know what is hidden" or "see the unseen" - by definition is no prophet. (F.x. 5. Mos. 18/21 - in the same speech of Moses where Islam claims Moses foresees Muhammad when talking about "a prophet like me" - quite an irony when 18/21 indirectly, but clearly tells Muhammad was not even a prophet. (And among many others 18/2 tells Moses were speaking about Jewish "brothers" - Islam has cherry-picked and twisted 18/15 and 18/18 in an al-Taqiyya.)).
#### 037 6/50g: (A. Comment 6/39 to verse 6/50): "This denial on the part of the Prophet (Muhammad*) of any claim to supernatural power - - -". That Islam accepts and states that Muhammad had no supernatural powers, is worth remembering when Muslims talk about all his miracles - f.x. from Hadiths (which the Quran by means of among others this verse proves are all made up). But far worse: It is here - and other places in the Quran - clear that Muhammad had no supernatural powers, and that in addition Allah made no miracles connected to him, and all the same Islam in its books and through its imams etc. tells and boasts about and uses for proof for Allah and for Muhammad's connection to Allah, to all its followers the shining miracles Muhammad is claimed to have performed - miracles or prophesies they know the Quran proves are fairy tales! What does this tell about Islam as an institution, about the religion, and about the religious leaders in Islam?! Not to mention the question: Can a religion be a true one, when its leaders have to use what they know are made up tales and lies? - and how much of the teaching and arguments then are lies?
Also: His admitted total lack of supernatural power - and this includes the power of prophesying - strengthens the proof in 6/50a for that he was no real prophet.
Actually surah 6 is a bit hard upon the wishful thinking of Muslims:
- ###In 6/50 Muhammad confirms he cannot see what is hidden - the future - killing all the claimed miracles claimed made by Muhammad concerning seeing what was hidden, and indirectly also documenting he was no prophet - not knowing the future = unable to make prophesies, and a person unable to make prophesies is no prophet. (f.x. 5. Mos. 18/21 - in the same speech of Moses where Islam claims Moses foresees Muhammad when talking about "a prophet like me" - quite an irony when 18/21 indirectly, but clearly tells Muhammad was not even a prophet - he only "borrowed that impressive and imposing title. (And among many others 18/2 tells Moses was speaking about Jewish "brothers" - Islam has cherry-picked and twisted 18/15 and 18/18 in an al-Taqiyya.)
###Also connected to 6/50;(A.6/39): "This denial on the part of the Prophet (Muhammad*) of any claim to supernatural power - - -". This states that Islam admits Muhammad had no supernatural power at all = absolutely no prophet.
###Then 6/91c: "Who then sent down the Book which Moses brought?" This is intended as a rhetoric question with only one possible answer: The god. But as Moses did not get any book(s) both according to the Bible and according to science, this try to make up a "proof" for that Allah might have sent down the Quran, was a total miss. Any god had known this and not made such a flop. Then who made the Quran?
###In connection to 6/106 (6/106b) Allah's very existence is doubted.
###In connection to 6/108 "The Message of the Quran" (comment6/93) explains "- - - it is in the nature of man to regard the beliefs which have been implanted in him from childhood, and which he now shares with his social environment, as the only true and possible ones" - which explains in details why Muslims believe in spite of all facts proving something is seriously wrong with the religion.
###In connection to 6/149 (comment 6/141 in the same book) Islam has to admit that the claim that Allah decides everything - predestination - is impossible to combine with the claimed free will for man (and without free will it is morally wrong to punish man for sins) - but "it all the same must be true, because Allah says so (in the Quran*)" the ultimate defeat for brain against blind belief.
###And in 6/151 may be the most well-known of the mistakes in the Quran accepted by Islam to be a mistake: "You are prohibited from - - - being good to your parents" (well, may be ###"Mary, sister of Aaron" is even more well-known, but that one is frequently tried explained away).
###038 5/104g: "'Enough for us (non-Muslims*) are the ways we found our fathers following'
What! Even though their fathers were void of knowledge and guidance?". This is exactly the Muslims' position: The reason why they believe in the Quran, is that their parents and everyone else was and is telling them that the tales of Muhammad must be true no matter if Muhammad is reliable or a Baron von Münchausen (a teller of wild fantasy tales from international literature) - a strong and blind belief only.
039 5/104h: "- - - their fathers (non-Muslims*) were void of knowledge and guidance - - -". Many of the people the Arabs conquered had a lot more knowledge than themselves. But Islam only counted religious and related knowledge - and many a Muslim believes mainly because of "taqlid" (the uncritical acceptance of what others/the father claims is true).
040 6/24c: "But the (lie) which they (non-Muslims*) invented will leave them in the lurch". This is typical kind of pep-talk religious - and sometimes political and other - leaders frequently use. "The others will lose and we will win". It works well among believers and often among others with little knowledge (among people with knowledge it only works if it is likely the claim is true - in this case it did not work among f.x. the local Jews who know something was much wrong with Muhammad's teaching, and thus that it was unlikely the claim was correct).
041 6/108e: “Thus have We (Allah*) made alluring to each people its own doings”. ######This sentence should be extremely thought-provoking also to Muslims. All the mistakes, etc., in the Quran prove 100% and more that the book is not from any god. And large parts of the religion and its moral code may - may - indicate that dark forces are involved (whereas all the wrong knowledge one believed was correct science in Arabia at that time + all the tales "borrowed" from Muhammad's surroundings, strongly indicates that the Quran is made by one or more humans in Arabia at the time of Muhammad - with Muhammad as the prime suspect.)
042 7/33h: "- - - saying things about Allah of which ye have no knowledge". There at least is one point where the knowledge is obvious: No omniscient good ever had anything to do with the Quran - too much is wrong in that book.
043 7/52c: “- - - a Book (the Quran*), based on knowledge, - - -”. With that many mistakes, the book at best is based just partly on knowledge - or for the better part of the mistakes; on outdated and wrong knowledge. An omniscient god would not use knowledge which was wrong or would become outdated. Also see 26/83a below.
044 7/157f: “- - - for he (Muhammad*) commands them (Muslims*) what is just, and forbids them what is evil”. The last statement is solidly contradicted both by reality and by the Quran. The book – not to mention Muhammad and his successors - not only permitted, but demanded murders and war, robbing and extortion, rape and enslavement, etc. - and accepted the use of lies and dishonesty. It is possible to make such things “lawful” by sick laws. But there exists no way to make such inhumanities “good”, or “just” or “pure” – and this includes calling what in reality are raids for loot and slaves, or wars of aggression, for “self defense” or jihad (like Muslims have done legion times throughout history – often with a real but minor detail or made up arguments as pretext).
045 7/158r: "- - - follow him (Muhammad*) that (so) ye (Muslims/people*) may be guided." Thieving/robbing, dishonesty, extorting, raping, enslaving, slave dealing, womanizing, discrimination mongering, hate mongering, torture, murder, mass murder, suppression, war mongering, war, al-Taqiyya and Kitman (lies), deceiving, breaking your oaths, and more. Yes, follow him and be guided! - do Muslims do so?
Muhammad in the Medina period behaved something like IS does today (2014). Like it or not: It is IS, Boko Haram, etc. who live according to Mohammad's example and rules and the Quran's rules and demands, not the moderate Muslims. Something to think over for the rest of the world? - especially as all the errors, etc. in the Quran prove that that book is not from any god.
#####046 7/188b: "If I (Muhammad*) had knowledge of the Unseen - - -". "- - - the Unseen" = the future or what is hidden. This is one of the places where Muhammad clearly tells he is unable to see the future = unable to make foretelling (prophesies). Aisha says the same in Hadiths. Muhammad simply was no real prophet (this becomes even more clear when you know that the original title for a prophet was "a seer" - person able to see the unseen (f.x. 1. Sam. 9/9) - a person unable to make prophesies, must use a "tailored" definition to call himself a prophet. (But then Muhammad had "tailored" definitions for this and that.) Similar in f.x. 6/50a, 10/20c+d, 10/49a, and 72/26.
THIS IS ONE OF THE VERSES YOU SHOULD REMEMBER WHEN YOU MEET MUSLIMS CLAIMING MUHAMMAD FORETOLD THIS AND THAT. MUHAMMAD ACCORDING TO HIMSELF AND ACCORDING TO MOST AND POSSIBLY ALL LEADING MUSLIM SCHOLARS, WAS UNABLE TO MAKE FORETELLINGS/PROPHESIES. IN THE QURAN THIS IS CONFIRMED AT LEAST THESE PLACES: 3/144, 3/179, 6/50, 7/188 (HERE), 10/20, 27/65, 44/9, 72/26, AND 81/24.
As prophesies are a kind of miracle - to be able to see what is hidden or what has not happened yet - this also proves that Muhammad was unable to make at least this kind of miracles (this really also goes for the other verses telling he was unable to make foretelling/prophesies).
047 9/6b: "- - - they (pagans*) are men without knowledge (when the Quran speaks about knowledge, it always religious knowledge - Islam)". Sometimes one may wonder: What is best - no knowledge, or wrong knowledge? - the Quran is full of mistakes, etc. Besides: A lot of people had more knowledge than the early Muslims, but for Muhammad only knowledge about his new religion counted. A fact which in the long run destroyed the power of Islam - Europe and later USA caught up with them and took the lead in most aspects of life. Not least in moral philosophy, where Islam was totally stagnant in a moral thinking from a war tribal way of thinking in an area which already at that time culturally was a backward, primitive backstreet. Most of the area still is in that backstreet, even though thoughts and ideas from the outside have forced their way in in most of the Muslim countries. But lacking real knowledge about moral thinking - like "do to others like you want others do to you" - and basic facts, Muslims and Islam often boast about their leading position in morality. Many or most of the Muslims even believe in the boasting.
048 9/78b: "Know they not that Allah doth know their secret (thoughts) and their secret counsels - - -". The answer simply is no. It is not possible to know something which is not proved - one can believe, even believe strongly, but it only is belief, not knowledge. (But remember that there exist at least three kinds of proofs in addition to the mathematical one; the circumstantial one, the inductive, and the empirical ones - when you give f.x. empirical proofs for that something is wrong with the Quran, Muslims normally demands mathematical proofs, and not all questions fit the frame for mathematical proofs - - - whereas they themselves never prove anything at all - they just use claims and demands for that you shall prove it wrong. In such cases demand proofs from them for that their claim(s) is/are right before even starting debating - it always is the duty of the one who put forth a claim, to prove his/her claim, not yours to disprove it - - - and besides they never will be able to give real proofs for anything central in Islam. (Remember here that a proof is "one or more proved facts which can only give one conclusion" - Muslims use not proved claims and/or information which sometimes even can give more than one conclusion, but claiming that the conclusion they want, is the correct one. In none of these cases the proof is a valid one.
049 9/122c: "- - - studies in religion - - -". This is typical for Islam: What counts of knowledge, is the religion and things that can strengthen the religion - f.x. astronomy (necessary to place the religious days in the Islamic drifting year), etc. The Muslim area - not Islam, but the Muslim area - had a period from ca. 820 AD till 1095 AD (ca. 1198 in Muslim Spain) when science flourished, but it mostly was in spite of Islam, not because of. Islam split sciences in two: Islamic sciences - the Quran + sciences with relevance to the religion or to the study of the Quran. All other sciences - unbelievably also medicine - were "foreign sciences" and were fought against. Islam won the final battle in that war with a book against philosophy in 1095 AD: "The Incoherence of the Philosophers" - by "the greatest Muslim after Muhammad", al-Ghazali - though in Muslim Spain the end did not come until ca. 1198 AD. After that there did not come on single new thought or idea which could benefit humanity from the entire Islamic area until far into the 20th century. Literally speaking not a single one. You meet Muslims boasting about Islam's golden time of science. It is mainly untrue, as mostly it was against Islam's will and at times very strong opposition, not because of the religion. Even today a demand is - we quote from (A9/163) (translated from Swedish): "The duty for the believer is to 'make his knowledge deeper in the religion'".
It also is a fact that a considerable percentage of doctors and scientists, etc. in Muslim areas in the old time were non-Muslims - often Jews. But as they wrote in Arab, Islam takes the glory.
050 9/124b: "Yea, those who believe - their belief is increased and they rejoice". This may well be true, as believers - in any religion - does need more real knowledge, but the only claims they accept, are to be strengthened in their belief - this is one of the differences between belief and knowledge, and between religion and science. A believer can be selective in what to believe, and he can believe without documentation - yes, against proofs - whereas a scientist has to find out what is the truth, before he can call something knowledge.
But what is the value of rejoicing, if the reason for rejoicing is a made up religion? - something which may well be the case if they do not check what is really true and what not. Not to mention: What is the value of rejoicing in a religion if their religion is a made up one - and Islam at least is from no god, as the Quran is far too full of mistakes, contradictions, etc. to come from a god - and there somewhere exists a real religion, which they are prevented from searching. (If Allah in reality is from the dark forces, this is an excellent outcome for him.)
051 10/15d: "- - - but what is revealed unto me (Muhammad*) - - -". That is just the question: Is it revealed? It is clear it is not revealed from a god, as no god makes so many mistakes, contradictions, etc. But it also is unlikely that dark forces would produce a book with so much wrong - he/it/they had to know that sooner or later it would be found out and followers disappear. This even though the at many point horrible moral and ethical codes can make one think in this direction. Then there is illness - modern medicine believes that Temporal Lobe Epilepsy (TLE) explains Muhammad's possible experiences. In that case Muhammad may have at least partly have believed in the stories himself. And finally there is the possibility that it is made up by a man/men in Arabia - all the mistakes and stories which are in accordance with correct or wrong knowledge in that area at that time, hints at this solution.
As for dark forces there is one possible explanation, if it is they who have made such a sorry quality book: That the god only has permitted them to make such a trick for luring more humans to Hell, only if the book contained so many mistakes, etc., that humans with some brain easily should see the trap - f.x. if the god did not want the too stupid or naive or egocentric ones into his Paradise.
052 10/30c: "- - - they (every soul*) will be brought back to Allah - - -". Comment A18/48: "I.e., will be brought back to the realization of Allah's oneness, uniqueness and almightiness - the instinctive cognition which has been implanted in human nature as such". As Islam has no proofs or even clear indications at all for the existence of a top god named Allah or for Muhammad's connection to a god, you rather frequently will meet claims like this about instinctive knowledge, etc. about Allah/a god. Science has found no traces from such knowledge (actually man has few if any intellectual instincts). Neither has Islam - claims, yes - documentation, no. (Science has found longing for a god in a minor part of humans - some few (5 - 10?) percents - but a longing or a need for something strong to lean to, is something very different from knowledge, and as said only in a minor group of man).
**053 10/39c: “- - - (the Quran*) whose knowledge they cannot compass, - - -”. For the uneducated, often an-alphabetic members of Muhammad’s early followers, that might be true, except for the question: Who has most knowledge – the one without knowledge, or the one with much wrong knowledge?. But the claim is in no case true today - and we see that a lot of the “facts” Muhammad used, are wrong - something any god had known and not used it. A god also had made none of all the other errors in the book.
054 10/60d: "- - - Allah is full of Bounty to mankind - - -". There still was much and rich loot to be taken, Muhammad said. Whereas at least for the old Protestants, the world was full of work to be done - work which turned out to bring the word forwards, instead of war and robbery bringing it into stagnation, like happened to the Islamic parts of the world. (And which is likely to happen to the whole world if Islam with its view on non-religious knowledge and on religious ruling of the communities and the world, wins out in the end. But remember we say Islam, not Arabs or Berbers, or other groups of people).
055 10/67a: "He (Allah*) it is who hath made you Night - - - and Day - - -." Yet another natural phenomenon Muhammad grabs as a "sign"/"proof" for his god - totally invalid as anything as long as it is not proved it really is Allah who causes it. Just another of very many loose and never documented claims in the Quran any believer in any religion can claim for his god(s) - unproved words are that cheap and worthless. And the fact that the Quran only have such logically worthless words for "proofs", is a main reason why Islam so strongly glorifies blind belief and so frequently talks about "instinctive" knowledge, etc., even though man may be the one of the higher animals with least instinctive knowledge. And of what such we after all have got, hardly anything is at any intellectual level, where "instinctive knowledge about god" would have to have been situated. (Another thing is that a small percent of humans - 10% or lower - have a drive for something stronger than oneself to lean to. A drive which perhaps is based on insecurity. But that is a drive, not knowledge - and strong belief in any religion satisfies it). It also is a main reason why Islam so often backbites and derides requests for intellectual or scientific knowledge; as they have no facts to show for themselves, the value of facts and real knowledge must be downplayed and discredited.
056 11/14f: “- - - this revelation (the Quran’) is sent down (replete) with the knowledge of Allah, - - -”. This is one of the many texts in the Quran with at least 2 possible meanings. It also may mean "knowledge about Allah". But there is no knowledge at all - nothing was ever documented or proved. There only is belief about him - and worse: The tales about him all are from a man with doubtful moral and reliability. (The meaning instead may be that Allah knows the claimed revelation is sent down, but this only can be the case if he exists and is something supernatural.)
057 11/29c: "- - - ignorant ones - - -". Persons not knowing or not wanting Muhammad and his new religion. The Quran - and at least partly Islam - is a bit peculiar here; When it comes to knowledge or lack of such, the only thing which according to the Quran really counts for the evaluation of somebody's knowledge, is their knowledge about (and acceptance of) Islam.
058 11/29d: "- - - ignorant ones - - -". There is an irony here, as the non-Muslims often were a lot more knowledgeable than the Muslims. This grew even more clear as the uneducated hordes from the deserts started to attack old cultures like the Greek/Roman and the Persian ones. And also later the non-Muslims in Muslim areas made up more than their share of the educated people for most kinds of science. It f.x. is a fact Muslims never mention that a large percentage of the non-religious scholars, doctors, translators of f.x. Greek scriptures, etc. in Muslim areas were non-Muslims (mostly Jews or Christians), but as they wrote in Arab, Islam takes the honor for their work. We may here mention that it took more than 400 years before the first Islamic university was built - the Nizamiyya madrasa (in 1066 - a year easy for at least the British to remember). And in 1095 AS - just 29 years later - Abu Hamid ibn Muhammad al-Ghazali (born in 1058 AD in Khorasan in Persia, died 19. Des. 1111 AD) put an end to philosophy and scientific thinking not related to religion/Islam with his books "On the Incoherence of the Philosophers" (a book sometimes not mentioned by Islam, even though as for the progress of their culture it was devastating), and his book - based partly on mysticism - "Revival of the Religious Sciences", which also meant not a little to the petrifaction of and to over time making obsolete the Muslim parts of the world.
059 11/47b: Noah has just lost one of his 3 sons, but says: "O my Lord (here claimed to be Allah*)! I do seek refuge with Thee, lest I ask Thee for what I have no knowledge. And unless Thou forgive me (for praying for his son's life*) and have Mercy with me, I should indeed be lost!" Being humans, we refrain from any comments on this verse. But it tells very much about Islam.
As for forgiving from Allah: See 2/187d above.
060 12/3f: "- - - before this (the surahs of the Quran*), thou too (Muslims*) wast among those who knew it (the religion?*) not". Comment A12/3: "(The Arab words "la'allakum ta'qilun" here*) are meant to impress upon everyone who listens to or reads the Quran that its appeal is directed, primarily, to man's reason, and that the "feeling" alone can never provide a sufficient basis of faith". Muhammad understood psychology and used similar claims rather frequently - impressing on his followers that "you are intelligent who understand and follow my teachings" - to be told they are wise and intelligent is flattering, especially for uneducated and/or naive persons. #####But if Islam had been based on knowledge and peoples' intelligence and reason, it had disappeared fast and become a bloody comma and a sample of peoples' incredible ability to believe in spite of knowledge and facts, and of their as incredible ability to be blind to everything they do not want to see. Islam rests on the gut feeling that what my parents and everyone else told me was right when I was a child and later, and what all my surroundings and imams claim is the truth, is the truth - and the mistakes in the Quran are just that the others do not know anything or do not understand that the "explanations" mean there are no mistakes anyhow, and the facts others point to are just lies from "Muslim-haters", and, therefore, there is no reason to check or think over facts not consistent with Islam. The same goes for its partly horrible moral code.
(There is much in that moral code - and Islam only have a moral code, no moral philosophy, as everything has to be done like Muhammad said or did - which is far from the basis for all real inter-human moral: "Do unto others like you want others do unto you".)
061 12/22b: "- - - We (Allah*) gave him (Joseph*) power and knowledge: thus do We reward those who do right". If you are naive enough to believe that doing right results in power and knowledge, just go on believing it. Also see 12/22c just below.
062 12/33c: "- - - the ignorant - - -". Normally in the Quran a name for non-Muslims But Muslims at the time of Joseph? - some 2000 - 2500 years before Muhammad and the first traces of Islam?
But it is quite telling that the Quran - and Islam - uses the expression "the ignorant" for persons not believing in Islam, no matter how well educated, intelligent, and knowledgeable they were about any other subjects. When the Quran speaks about knowledge, only knowledge about Islam and related subjects counted and for many still counts. Everything else was "foreign knowledge" and to be dismissed at best and fought against at worst - a good thing for the rest of the world, because this was one of the reasons why the war and suppression culture Islam stagnated, and gave the rest of humanity the chance to outpace it.
063 12/108b: "I (Muhammad*) do invite you unto Allah - on evidence clear as seeing with one’s eyes",
- Muhammad here indirectly, but very clearly makes it clear that evidences are heavy arguments and essential.
- He also makes it clear that evidence you see with your own eyes, are clear evidences.
- The only evidences which really prove a god, are supernatural beings or acts.
- Muhammad never was able to prove one single of his claims about Allah or his own connection to a god - in spite of that he here admits and states that evidences are heavy and essential arguments. Not one essential point did he prove.
- He was frequently asked for proof, but had only fast-talk and sometimes even lies to offer to explain it away - in spite of here and other places arguing that evidences are heavy arguments - f.x. Moses' miracles made all sorcerers Muslims - and in spite of claiming proofs from everybody else.
- Whenever he was asked for proofs, he claimed that evidences had no value - no-one would believe anyhow - - - in spite of that he here and other places argues with that his "signs" and "proofs" should decide you. (This was some of his obvious lies in the Quran - so obvious that there is no chance he did not know it himself (he was intelligent).)
- And another argument was the glorification of blind belief and the stupidity in needing proofs - in spite of that all and everybody in reality knows that the most sure way to be cheated, is believing blindly.
- Whenever Islam today is asked for proofs, they tell how un-intellectual and stupid it is not to see that intuition and inspiration is the sure way to knowledge and how silly it is to ask for proofs (they have nothing to offer, and what then to say?) - in spite of that every not too naive soul on Earth knows fast-talk is a sign of danger.
- And another argument is the glorious blind belief vs. the little reliability of the imbecile science - and the stupidity of needing proof, in spite of as mentioned that everybody know that the sure way to be cheated every now and then, is to believe blindly in this or that. And in spite of that scientists just are humans knowing much about something.
"A proof is one or more proved facts which can give only one conclusion". For one thing Muhammad never proved it really was Allah who was behind what Muhammad claimed were "signs" or "proofs", and for another a number of his claims may have more than one possible explanation/conclusion.
064 13/5a: "If thou dost marvel (at their want of faith) - - -". No we do not. It is easy to understand that intelligence and real knowledge make it difficult to believe in a book with that much wrong and told only by that kind of a man. But we marvel at the believers - not at their belief, because belief always is possible, especially by the naive, the uneducated with little knowledge, or the brain washed. But we marvel at many peoples' ability to believe without even checking the truth of what they believe in - yes, taking pride in believing without ever checking if what they believe in can be true! - taking pride in believing blindly without ever thinking over that blind belief is blind! And as bad: Believing not because of proofs, but in spite of proofs for things being wrong! Sometimes a little flattery is all which is needed to make them take the bait.
065 13/13b: "Yet these (are the men) who (dare to) dispute about Allah - - -". It takes very little guts to dispute and doubt a claimed god you very honestly believe is a made up one, especially as the doubt and dispute are based on the proved facts that for one thing the only basis for the belief in him is a book of a sorrowful quality so full of mistakes, etc. that no god ever was involved in it, and for the other the man behind that book, when you peel off the glorifying words, is described even in his own "holy" book as a morally no-good character liking power and money for more power and women - like so many such men through history. Psychologically the belief in Muhammad is worth a study in human ability for being duped by good words, superstition, feelings, fear, and wish for something strong to lean to, and for study of superstition's dominance over knowledge, logic and brain. Allah clearly is a dressed up, non-existing pagan god (al-Lah).
066 13/19g: "(Is a good Muslim not better than') one who is blind?" The recurring question: Who is most blind ? - the one with little knowledge but honestly searching the truth, or the one with wrong knowledge?
067 13/27d: “The Unbelievers say: ’Why is not a Sign sent down to him (Muhammad*) from his Lord (Allah*)?” Signs were dearly needed and would clearly have meant something - but Muhammad was unable to deliver one. Did not Allah want? Or was Muhammad not really his representative? Or was Allah a fiction? Who knows as long as nothing is proved? - it is possible to believe, especially if one wants to, but there is no knowledge without a proof - this also goes for religion. (Also see f.x. 13/7a and 13/7c above.)
068 13/31f: "Do not the Believers know - - -". Nobody knows much concerning the Quran and Islam. You do not really know things which are not in some way proved true - by man or by nature. You may believe, and believe so strongly that you believe you know, but you do not know. And here it is even worse, as one knows the book is full of errors.
In Islam many Muslims believe and believe strongly - so much so that they think it is knowledge. But if it is not in some way proved true, it only is belief, not knowledge.
069 13/43f: (A13/84): “Enough for a witness between me (Muhammad*) and you “non-Muslims*) is Allah, and such as have knowledge (Muslims*) of the Book (the Quran*)”. The comment says:"(This is*) - - - implying that a true understanding of the Quran unavoidably leads one to the conviction that is has been revealed by Allah". Pointing to all the mistakes, etc. in the Quran proving 110% that no god is involved in its making, we do not bother to add more comments, except that as Islam has no documentation for any of its central religious claims, it needs even arguments like this.
Islam has not one proof neither for Allah, nor for that a god was involved in the delivery of the Quran, nor for that Muhammad had any connection to any god, and you will find they sometimes use "svada" (a good Scandinavian word meaning "(lots of) meaningless, nice talk") like this to underbuild or "prove" things.
But of course if "true understanding" means blind belief in the Quran after all errors and worse has been "explained" away and glossed over, and the brain and real knowledge of the world is disengaged, then one may put forth claims like Muhammad Asad does here. But you have to disengage your brain from knowledge also to be able to believe such claims. "- - - a true understanding is unavoidable - - -" are impressive words, but nonsense is nonsense.
***070 17/36a: "And pursue not that of which you (Muslims*) have not knowledge - - -". And the most essential thing not to pursue, is knowledge which can make you doubt Islam - true or not. In the old times when Islam really fought science and knowledge until the finally destroyed it in 1095 AD, the question was not if the knowledge was right or wrong - only if it was Islamic or not. "Idle curiosity" is bad. (But the language in the Quran is far from clear; some translators mean this means you shall not listen to rumors, etc. - an aspect Muslims with all their conspiracy theories may be should remember?)
*071 18/5a: “No knowledge have they (the Christians*) of such a thing (that Yahweh may have a son*)”. Wrong. There is a lot of information in the Bible. Now of course Muhammad, the Quran, and Islam all declare that the Bible has been falsified - they have to, as that was the only way for Muhammad to explain the differences between his “quoting” the Bible and quoting of religious legends, fairy tales, etc., and the Bible proper (it also is common among religious sects or religions to say that other sects or religions have misunderstood or falsified information), and also between Islam and Christianity. But science clearly has showed that the Bible is not falsified - and Islam has showed it even clearer by not finding one single proved falsification in some 45ooo relevant manuscripts or fragments from before 610 AD.
There also is the fact that if Jesus was the son of the god, nobody would believe that Muhammad was the greatest ever of prophets. The claim that Jesus was such a son therefore undermined Muhammad's platform of power. Muhammad's drive for reducing Jesus may have been influenced by Muhammad's strongly monotheistic ideas - he did not understand Jesus' position in Christianity - but his own wish for and drive for power may have been as strong a reason.
But the Quran is based only on what a single man said - only one man. A man who lived 600 years later, who brought not one single proof or witness - only claims and statements taken from nowhere and from legends. Also a man for whom it was essential (just read the Quran and see) to be the greatest of prophets, which meant he had to reduce Jesus. And a man who craved very much for power - once more; just read the Quran and see how he glues himself to his platform of power; his religion and the god of that religion - which meant that his teachings had to gain priority over other teachings. And a man telling he got his teachings directly from an omniscient god - which meant it was impossible to accept that there were mistakes in the teachings (a problem which today is a nightmare for Islamic scholars, because there very obviously are lots of mistakes, and it is difficult to find good enough ways of “explaining” the mistakes away, except for to people with no - or not enough - knowledge, or not able to think for themselves - - - or believing so strongly that they anyhow do not want to see facts which do not fit what they believe.) And not least: ####A man who accepted the use of dishonesty - and himself used dishonesty - as a working tool. We remind you of al-Taqiyya (the lawful lie), Kitman (the lawful half-truth), Hilah (the lawful pretending/circumventing), which are all founded on his words and principles, his use and acceptance of to use deceit and even betrayal (f.x. his murdering of the peace delegation from Khaybar, and his lies in the Quran), and his acceptance of breaking of words/promises/oaths (2/225, 3/54 (if Allah can cheat, cheating is ok), 5/89, 16/91, 66/2). #### A man of this moral quality and reliability is the ONLY source Islam is built on.
Whereas the Bible is written by many different persons, and as for NT many of whom knew Jesus or his closest co-workers, the Disciples, and nearly all wrote at times when there still were thousands of witnesses alive who had personally heard and seen what Jesus said and did, and who had protested loudly if they had written something seriously wrong.
We do not say that the Bible is right. We even less say that all details in the Bible are right, as it is clear that some details are wrong also in the Bible, at least in Genesis (creating it all).
But there is no doubt that according to all rules for evaluating information, the Bible should be more reliable than the Quran. The OT is written some 1000 or more years earlier and consequently 1000 years or more closer to what happened, and also had at least a lot of verbal traditions to build on. And NT was written 450 – 590 years before the Quran, and with lots and lots of witnesses to what had happened still alive when much of it was written. Muhammad on the other hand had few sources, and they were mixed up with fairy tales (like the Child Gospels, from which he f.x. has got the story of the bird Jesus made from clay) or so-called apocryphal gospels or books - all of which are proved to be made up or propaganda for sects, or - well - fairy tales. Ok, he said he got his information from a god - but that is very easy and very cheap to say - many a founder of many a sect or religion have said the same thing. And there is not a single proof - not one single - for it being true in the entire Quran, in spite of wishes and demands from both skeptics and followers. Questions which at best were answered with some fast-talk about what Allah could do if he wanted (but he never “wanted”), or that none of them would believe even if Allah sent real (supernatural) proofs (something any person who knows a little about people or about psychology, knows is not true - supernatural proofs/wonders had made at least some believe. What is worse: Muhammad was a wise man who understood human nature - he had to know that he was lying each time he told just this). And do not forget: The glorified ideal Muhammad was in reality a highwayman and thief, an extorter, a rapist, a murderer and mass murderer, an enslaver, a warlord lusting for power and for wealth for bribes, and a warlord telling that “war is deceit”, not to forget his al-Taqiyya (lawful lie), Kitman (lawful half-truth), etc.
There also is the fact that science knows some 13ooo scriptures or fragments with relation to the Bible or to Biblical circumstances. Plus 32ooo other manuscripts or fragment with references to or quotes from the Bible. All of these from before 610 AD = before there was any reason to falsify Muhammad or something out of the Bible - if he had ever been there. They all are in accordance with the modern Bible, and when they find that the translators of the Bible have misunderstood or not been quite exact enough, the translation of the Bible is corrected in later editions - one wants and strives for to have everything as correct as possible. In stark contrast: When Islam finds scriptures or fragments which are not quite the same as the 6 (2 dominate) Qurans they use today, the findings are denied and hidden - a star example is the many copies of the Quran found in Yemen in 1972; when it became clear that details - some of them of significance - were unlike what was written in the Quran(s) of today, scientists were denied access to them anymore.
Conclusion: Any student and any professor of history will say that according to normal rules for evaluation, the Bible is far more reliable than the Quran as a source for historical information. And any psychologist will confirm that Muhammad must have known he lied each and every time he said that (supernatural) proofs of Allah had made no-one believe in Allah anyhow. And more: No serious scientist uses information from the Quran from before 610 AD in his science - it is not reckoned to be reliable.
072 18/21f: "- - - no doubt about the Hour of Judgment - - -". The last day of man will come once, but there is every reason to doubt it will be like described in the Quran. This even more so as so much is wrong in the book, and as there is no supernatural being with real knowledge about also the future, behind a book with so many errors, etc.".
#####073 20/69-70a: The magicians of the pharaoh all became Muslims when they saw Moses performing real miracles. All the same the Quran - and Muhammad - repeats and repeats and repeats that the reason why Muhammad was not made able to perform miracles, included making real prophesies, was that nobody would believe anyhow. This is one of the scenes which make it clear that Muhammad knew he was lying each time he used those excuses and “explanations”. That no-one would believe if they witnessed miracles, contradicts all psychological knowledge – strengthened by the fact that Muhammad himself some times told it worked. He also knew about at least some of the miracles Jesus performed, and all the followers they brought him. Contradiction both of Muhammad's intelligence - he was too intelligent not to know what he said was a lie - of reality, and of science.
074 20/114e: "- - - knowledge". Beware that when the Quran uses words like this, it normally only means knowledge about Islam and related subjects. All other knowledge was "foreign knowledge" and at best disliked, at worst fought against with harsh means.
075 21/10c: (A21/13): “We (Allah*) have revealed for you (O men!) a book in which is a Message for you”. But the Arab word “dhikr” has a number of meanings. F.x. in ”The Message of the Quran”: ”(O men!) We (Allah*) have now bestowed upon you from on high a divine writ containing all that you ought to bear in mind”. The statement that the Quran contains all the knowledge you need, gives a large and interesting difference to the quoted meaning. And there are more possible meanings. Yes, a book with very clear texts, easy to understand and not possible to misunderstand. The information that all knowledge you need is to be found in the Quran, also is interesting in itself. An extra ominous meaning when you remember Islam's suppression of all "non-Islamic thoughts" through history.
076 21/52-71: Abraham delivered from Nimrod's fire. This story is taken from "Midrash Rabbah". And this part has another point: Abraham and Nimrod did not live at the same time (if they ever lived). Muhammad had a strong tendency to mix persons from different times (f.x. Haman and Ramses II - some 800 years wrong. Or Mary and Miriam - some 1200 years wrong.) You do not find this story about Abram (later renamed Abraham) and the gods in the Bible - the only source about Abraham - and 1000 years or more older than the Quran, and a book where one of the heroes had benefited from a tale like this, so no-one would dream of taking it out if it was true.
Who then was Nimrod? Nimrod according to the Bible was the son of Cush, who was the son of Ham, who was one of the three sons of Noah, who - if he ever lived - lived some 3ooo-4ooo years BC. If Abraham ever lived, he lived some 1800-2ooo years BC (well, as Islam claims the Kabah was built by Abraham some 2130 years BC, something is different here, too). This means there were some 2ooo years between Nimrod and Abraham.
It takes a lot of missing knowledge to mix two persons living some 2ooo years apart. No omniscient god makes that kind of mistake.
077 22/8c: "- - - disputes about Allah, without Knowledge - - -." In religion like in all other aspects of life there exists no knowledge without proofs - only belief. The belief may be strong - even so strong that you believe it is knowledge or feel sure it is knowledge. But just the same goes for all strong believers in all religions - - - and most of those religions are wrong if one of the big excluding religions is right. Islam is one of the many religions where absolutely nothing is proved - Islam even admits that Allah cannot be proved, but only when they are forced to speak the truth. Islam is ONLY built on belief. There is no real knowledge concerning the central points.
078 22/8d: "- - - without Knowledge - - -." What is best - no knowledge or wrong knowledge? Or like in this case perhaps not without knowledge, but with correct knowledge Muhammad would not accept?
079 22/52g: “- - - Allah is full of knowledge and wisdom - - -.” Not if the Quran is representative for his knowledge and wisdom – Islam will have to produce real and reliable proofs if they insist that Allah has much knowledge and wisdom. Also see 11/1 – 27/9 – 31/27 – 33/1 – 33/40 - 34/1 – 35/2 – 39/1 – 40/2 – 49/8 – 41/12 – 41/42 – 42/3 – 42/50 – 43/9 -43/84 – 45/2 – 45/37 - 46/2 – 46/4 – 48/7 – 48/8 – 48/19 – 51/30 – 53/6 – 57/1 – 59/1 – 59/22 – 59/24 – 60/5 – 60/10 – 62/1 – 62/3 – 64/18 – 66/2 – 76/30 – 84/23.
Besides: Have you ever noticed that the one who most needs to boast – loudly and frequently – about how truthful he is, is the cheater and the swindler, and the one boasting about his knowledge is the medium to rather ok, but not top intelligent or knowledgeable one? – the really honest and the really intelligent persons never need to boast about those things. Real honesty and real intelligence makes itself felt after some time of close connection – if there is a need for boasting about it, something is wrong. The Quran very often boast - especially about how truthful it is.
080 22/54a: "- - - those on whom knowledge has been bestowed may learn that the (Quran) is the truth - - -". The main thing you can learn if you have much real knowledge, and start reading the Quran, is that there are very many wrong facts and other errors in the book - by far too much for even a minor god to have been involved. Things are really wrong with the Quran, and thus with Muhammad and with Islam.
081 22/54b: "- - - those on whom knowledge has been bestowed - - - may believe therein (in the Quran*) - - -". It is not possible for anyone with real knowledge AND a little training in critical thinking + have a brain which still function, to believe in the Quran. It is not possible to believe in something you see is full of mistakes and worse, or to believe in a religion where it is easy to see no god has ever been involved (no god was ever involved in a book of a quality like the Quran).
But Muhammad often used these age-old tricks; flattery and deception.
082 22/54c: "- - - knowledge - - -". Beware that when the Quran speaks about knowledge and similar words, it normally always means religious knowledge. Islam as a religion always has been in opposition to non-religious knowledge (called "foreign knowledge" as opposed to "Islamic knowledge" which means the religion itself + topics which can help in the understanding or practicing of the religion - like Arab, astronomy (to pin down religious dates in their moving year), etc.). Arab/Muslim culture had a period of some 300 years from ca. 820 AD till 1095 AD (ca. 100 years more in the far vest) when science flowered - but mainly in spite of Islam, not because of Islam. And the religion won the final battle over science and knowledge in 1095 with a book - or likely two ("The Incoherence of the Philosophers" stopping most real thinking, and ""Revival of the Religious Sciences" including mysticism and permitting only religiously related thinking - by "the greatest Muslim after Muhammad" - Abu Hamid Muhammad al-Ghazali).
083 22/71e: "- - - knowledge - - -". It is worth remembering that whenever the Quran speaks about knowledge, it means religious knowledge/belief or knowledge related to religion, and religion in this connection only is Islam and the claimed (but proved never existed) former versions - claimed not corrupted - of the Bible (the Bible is proved by science and even stronger by Islam (as they have tried stronger to find falsifications) to be not corrupted - and you bet Islam had told about the proofs if anything but undocumented claims had existed).
*084 23/14a: “Then We (Allah*) made the sperm into a clot of congealed blood - - -”. Wrong. And doubly wrong:
- The sperm is not made into a clot of congealed blood.
- Sperm (1 cell from it) combines with an egg cell and becomes a zygote.
Muhammad did not know better, as this was what one believed in Arabia at his time - without a microscope it is impossible to see exactly what happens. But a god had known. There is a saying that “the taste is the proof of the cake”, and this is tasty. Muhammad and the Quran and Islam and Muslims had and have very busy times to find “explanations” - some of them rather unlikely - to “explain” why Allah/Muhammad did not produce one single real proof for that a supernatural being was involved, even though many friends and as many foes asked sincerely for it. But Allah did not even have to make the slightest miracle to prove his existence. All he had to do was to tell the truth in all these cases - like this one - where the Quran now are proved to be wrong. If Allah really did exist, and if he really was/is omniscient - why then did he make up so many wrongs, when correct information had proved something when confirmed later?
As it is, all scientific "facts" in the Quran are in accordance with what was believed to be the truth in Arabia at that time (much of it actually was Greek or Persian "knowledge".)
A disturbing fact is that even today Muslim scholars try to tell that in one step of development the fetus is a clot of congealed blood(!!!). F.x. YA2872.
Like it is now, all these facts are incredibly strong proofs for that there was no omniscient god involved in creating the Quran - and what then about Islam? - is it a made up, false religion? Not to mention: What will then in case happen in a possible next life to all humans - Muslims - who have had their chances to look for a real religion (if such one exists) blocked by Islam?
085 23/68b: "- - - has anything (new) come to them that did not come to their fathers of the old?" Yes, two things: Education - the fathers and mothers of the old never learnt much even of the knowledge which existed at that time. And in addition there is all the new knowledge from the last centuries, revealing even more mistakes in the Quran. Not to forget that with Internet the mullahs, imams, etc. are losing their monopoly on what people are taught.
##And one more thing: Science has found that 3. and later generations Muslim immigrants in "the West" on average are a lot less interested in Islam than their grandparents.
086 25/33d: “- - - We (Allah) reveal to thee (Muhammad or the Muslims) the truth and the best explanations (thereof).” The best explanations are never - never - built on a lot of mistaken facts. The Quran also many places states that belief in Islam is built on intelligence, intellectual capacity, and knowledge. Is it?
Sometimes it seems like it is built on sheer blind belief and suppression of the true facts. (“The Message of the Quran” even tells that it is primitive not to be able to see that the Quran is made of a god, without any proofs - and another place that it is a no good believer who search for real proofs. The sorry truth is that it is primitive and naïve to believe only because something is said or written. Words are cheap.)
A book with lots of mistakes, contradictions, twisted arguments, as twisted logic, and dictated by a man of very suspect morality, defending and enlarging his platform of power – his self-proclaimed religion – is no reliable guidance and of suspect truths. More proofs are strongly needed to make this book believable.
087 25/63e: "- - - ignorant - - -". Beware that when the Quran uses words like this, it is meant concerning religious knowledge, and only Islam and related subjects. Only such knowledge is of any interest to Islam.
088 26/83a: "- - - wisdom - - -". Beware that when the Quran talks about wisdom, knowledge ("knowledge" = the facts, "wisdom" = the ability to understand and use the facts) or similar, it nearly always is about knowledge about the Quran and Islam + a few sciences which were helpful to the religion, like Arab (to understand the Quran) or astronomy (to keep track of religious days in Islam's moving year - it is some 11 days shorter than the natural year so that 100 natural years = ca. 103 Muslim years). This was "Islamic knowledge".
All other sciences - included even medicine - were "foreign knowledge" and thus an enemy to the religion. The Muslim area had a period from around 820 AD to 1095 AD (ca. 100 years more in the far west) when sciences at times flowered, but it was in spite of Islam, not because of Islam, and Islam finally won and killed all scientific thinking not related to the Muslim religion. The final battle was won by the book "The Incoherence of the Philosophers" in 1095 by "the greatest Muslim after Muhammad" according to Islam, al-Ghazali. For some 800-900 years there did not come one single new idea or thought which could benefit humanity, from the entire Islamic area (even today nearly all new ideas, new thoughts, new inventions, new products in the Islamic world are imported ones - many of them strictly against Islam's wishes). In spite of these facts Islam grabs all glory for saving the old knowledge from the old Greece, Persia, etc. - - - this even though the plain story is that this happened against Islam's wishes and even strong opposition and at times bloody persecution - it is like giving the Inquisition the honor for the Renaissance in Europe. And also remember that old knowledge also came via Constantinople before it was conquered and massacred by the invading Muslim Turks in 1453 - a fact no Muslim mentions.
If Islam gains the upper hand in the world, one must be prepared for a similar stagnant existence - conservative Islam still fights all "foreign knowledge".
But then what do you need f.x. medicine for, if Allah already has predestined your future or death? - you only insult Him by using medicine trying to disturb his Plan.
089 27/24e: "- - - no guidance - - -". In Islam only Islam is "guidance". It is symptomatic that the pre-Islamic times in Muslim countries officially are called "the Times of Ignorance" - this even if some of those countries had much more knowledge and education before being conquered by the primitive Muslim nomads, than during the 1 - 2 next centuries among their conquerors - not to mention the disdain many Muslims felt for non-Muslim science and knowledge.
090 27/52c: "Verily, in this is a Sign for people of knowledge". Flattery works - especially if people have little knowledge. (Muhammad pretty often uses this kind of flattery. It at the same time "tells" that his new religion was for the intelligent ones and thus had to be ok.) Also see 13/3j above and 40/75 below.
091 27/52e: "- - - knowledge - - -". Beware that when the Quran uses words like this, it practically always means "Islamic knowledge" (the Bible is not a little different there, as it also praises other kinds of knowledge). Also see 26/83a above.
092 27/66a: "Still less can their (false gods*) knowledge comprehend the Hereafter - - -". But is Allah any better? He has not proved his power. He definitely has not proved his knowledge if he is behind the Quran. He has not even proved he is not a false god - or his very existence. And all which is said and claimed about him, rests only - only - on the words of a man whom even the Quran and other central Islamic books show has a doubtful moral and doubtful reliability (note that we say "show" not "say" - acts and demands are much more reliable than glorious words and claims).
Another point is that according to the Bible the only really omniscient god is Yahweh.
093 27/66b: "Still less can their knowledge comprehend the Hereafter - - -". This depends entirely on how reliable sources they (f.x. Yahweh) have for their knowledge. (It does not take much to be more reliable than the Quran).
*094 27/77b: “And it (the Quran*) certainly is - - - a Mercy to those who believe.” With all its aversion against knowledge (except religious (Islam) and related knowledge – f.x. astronomy to follow the dates, special days, etc. exactly), its demand for hate and war, its dark and total dominance over all aspects of life, etc., - and the suppression of half its members (the women) - not to mention f.x. its rather "special" moral code, etc., it is no mercy even to believers, and definitely not "certainly".
095 28/14a: "- - - We bestowed on him (Moses*) wisdom and knowledge: for thus do We reward those who do good". Simply wrong - you can be as good as the most goodhearted, and it does not influence your intelligence much. And you may be the incarnation of a sadist or cheater or thief or suppressor or robber baron or war lord or slave taker or mass murderer or rapist and still be intelligent. F.x. Muhammad was wise and intelligent (though with limited knowledge about too many subjects), but he changed into a very brutal and self-centered man (or perhaps his real nature surfaced?) when he gained enough power.
096 28/14b: "- - - knowledge - - -". Beware that in the Quran this word normally means religious knowledge mainly.
097 28/50a: "But if they (“infidels”*) hearken not to thee (Muhammad*), know that they only follow their own lusts - - -.” The fact was that many followed their own knowledge - but to use the word "lust" sounded better for Muhammad and his followers naturally.
##098 28/63: "Those whom we (non-Muslims*) lead astray, as we were astray ourselves - - -”.
Comment A28/66: “In its deepest sense, this passage – as so many similar throughout the Quran – points to #####the moral inadmissibility of accepting an ethical or intellectual proposition as true on no other grounds than that is was held to be true for older generations.”
For members of a religion based only – only – on a book with many mistakes and wrongs and with partly malevolent moral and ethical rules (but so integrated and accepted in and by their religion and culture, that they themselves are unable to see anything wrong or how bad it really is), this should be a reason for some deep thinking, and especially for Muslims where the ONLY basis was a man of very doubtful moral even according to the Quran (f.x. acceptance and personally use of dishonesty - dishonest words - as working tools and of dishonesty - stealing/robbing/extortion - to get riches, and with much power (and women) to gain from making people believe in his god and platform of power).
### Most Muslims today believe in Islam - and in f.x. it’s partly immoral moral code - only because their fathers and surroundings tell them that the Quran is the truth, no matter how many errors one have to explain away. VERY FEW MUSLIMS HAVE SAT DOWN WITH THE QURAN AND ENGAGED THEIR KNOWLEDGE AND BRAIN AND WITH AN OPEN MIND TRIED TO FIND OUT: HOW MUCH OF THIS IS REALLY TRUE? - OR AT LEAST MAY BE TRUE? Not to mention: HOW RELIABLE WAS A MAN WITH A MORAL CODE LIKE THE ONE THE QURAN CLEARLY - IF YOU LOOK BEHIND THE GLORIFICATIONS - TELLS MUHAMMAD HIMSELF HAD?
099 28/71d "Will ye (non-Muslims*) not hearken?". Not as long as nothing is proved, and there only is a book full of mistakes, contradictions, etc. based only on the word of a man believing in al-Taqiyya (the lawful lie), Kitman (the lawful half-truth), Hilah (the lawful pretending/circumventing), deceit ("War is deceit" - and "everything" is jihad/holy war), and the breaking of words/promises/oaths according to the Quran itself (2/225, 3/54 (if Allah can cheat, cheating is ok), 5/89, 16/91, 66/2) - a man liking power and riches for bribes - - - and women. In all other aspects of life the sure way to be cheated, if blind belief. In reality religion is no exception - the most sure way to be cheated, is not to use your other knowledge and your brain - the second greatest gift a possible god gave you after life itself - and evaluate religions and claims and sort out the made up ones. The stronger a preacher asks for blind belief from you, the more likely it is that deception is all he has to offer you.
100 28/80c: "- - - knowledge - - -". Beware that when the Quran uses words like this, it normally refers to knowledge about the Quran and Islam and related subjects - "Islamic knowledge". All other knowledge was "foreign knowledge" and disregarded by the clergy and the scholars. The sometimes strife and sometimes "war" between the ones who worked for secular sciences and Islam was finally won(?) by Islam in 1095 AD by the book "The Incoherence of the Philosophers" by "the greatest Muslim after Muhammad", al-Ghazali. This book stopped "foreign knowledge" under Islam, and another book from him - a book very much praised by Islam even today - "Ihya ulum al-din" = "Revival of the Religious Sciences" (partly based on mysticism) strongly promoted the so-called "Islamic knowledge". Together the two books were one of the main reasons behind the petrifaction of the Muslim culture, so that it over a few centuries became obsolete and backward compared to the forward moving Europe and later America. But this man and his point of view on knowledge still is hailed by Islam as "the greatest and foremost Muslim after Muhammad". (In the far west of Islam philosophy - free and real thinking - lasted ca. 100 more years, to perhaps 1098 AD and the death of Ibn Rushd, also known as Averroes).
####101 29/8e: "- - - knowledge - - -". Comment (A29/4): "According to Razi, this phrase may also allude to concepts not evolved through personal knowledge but, rather, acquired through a blind, uncritical acceptance of other people's views (taqlid)". How many Muslims have become or stayed Muslims because they have studied diverse religions and found that in spite of all the errors in the Quran, this must be the one and true religion? - and #### how many simply have accepted what their fathers and surroundings have claimed to be the truth - a taqlid?
102 29/49e: "- - - those endowed with knowledge - - -". Comment YA3479: "'Knowledge' ('ilm) means both power of judgment in discerning the value of truth and acquaintance with previous revelations." As we have mentioned several places, words like knowledge in Islam only means knowledge related to religion and the Quran/Islam. Other knowledge was "foreign knowledge" and unwanted (and more or less came to an end in Muslim area in 1095 AD - a century later in the far vest - with the book "The Incoherence of the Philosophers" by "the greatest Muslim after Muhammad", al-Ghazali - an effect strengthened by his book "Revival of the Religious Sciences" - to a degree built on mysticism.
Besides YA here is wrong: "Knowledge" represents the facts. The rest - the ability to evaluate the knowledge - is "wisdom".
103 30/29c: "- - - the wrongdoers (non-Muslims at the time of Muhammad*) (are) - - - devoid of knowledge". A nice classification of non-Muslims - especially as many non-Muslims at the time when this was written - not to mention in later centuries - far surpassed Islam and its Muslims in real knowledge.
104 30/30f: "- - - (Islam*) is the standard Religion - - -”. Comment (A30/27): "The term "fitrah", rendered by me as "natural disposition" (Yusuf Ali translates it with "standard (religion*)"), connotes in this context man's inborn, intuitive ability to discern between right and wrong, true and false, and thus to sense Allah's existence and oneness". ###This is bullshit - and the reason why we do not use stronger words, is politeness.
Man - a baby - has an inborn, but vague feeling for that things may be right and wrong, fair and unfair, good and bad. But mind you we say vague. The rules and norms for this have to be learned. This means it is exactly the opposite of the Islamic claim here - that man is born with correct knowledge about this, which is blunted and bent and destroyed by parents and others to adjust it to their norms.
Further: But man has no inborn feeling - even not a vague one - for knowing the difference between true and false. This is something the baby and child and youth has to learn, partly on basis of getting enough knowledge about this and that to be able to see what may be correct and what not, and partly by means of training in evaluating such cases - training in what often is called "critical thinking" (training in combining new information with what you know from before, and weigh facts, claims, etc. against one another to find out what can be true and not true). It is thought provoking that schools in Muslim area give little such training. This again is thought provoking on the background that science has found that 3. generation and later Muslims living in western countries which give good such training, to a marked degree starts losing interest in Islam (scientific research published in May 2010, mentioned even on radio/TV).
Finally: The claimed inborn ability to "sense Allah's existence and oneness" is scientific gobbledygook. The same goes for the other claim in the same comment: "- - - the 'natural disposition' which, by definition, consists of man's instinctive cognition of Allah and self-surrender (Islam) to Him". To say this with plainer Muslim words you may meet now and then: "All babies are born Muslims, but the religion is corrupted by parents and others to their own religion." This has exactly nothing to do with what is known about such things. There simply exists no "instinctive knowledge about religion" - Muslim or other. Everything a person knows about religion is things he/she has learnt. Science has found a longing for something strong to lean on - a religion - in a minor percent of the population. They even have found at least one gene giving tendency for such longing (they stumbled across it while doing cancer research a few years ago). But there is a long distance between a longing and knowledge.
####This comment by Muhammad Azad simply is his repeating of one of Islam's tries to get around the lack of documentation for Allah and for Islam combined with a need for such. They construct things/claims like "instinctive knowledge about Allah and/or Islam", "self-evident claims or 'facts' about Allah and/or Islam", "requests for proofs for Allah, Islam, Muhammad's connection to a god or for Muhammad's reliability and/or integrity proves shows lack of intellectual ability", and more statements and claims along that street. Islam has not one single proof for anything of this, and needs arguments, and in a religion and a culture where al-Taqiyya (the lawful lie), Kitman (the lawful half-truth), deceit and even the broken word/promise/oat, etc. are incorporated, it does not matter too much if the claims are true or not, as long as it may sound convincing at least for the naive ones, the uneducated ones, the wishful thinkers, etc. In the old times Muslims scholars may even have believed in such wishful self-delusions, but with the knowledge international science has about such things today, arguments like this are dishonesty, as any Muslim scholar today knows the truth or at least has no excuse for not checking on his claims and finding it (well, the god-longing gene and the reduced interest in Islam by 3. and later generations Muslims in the West, is so new knowledge, that some of them may be excused for not knowing just this when this is written in 2010 AD).
######There only is one possible polite remark to claims like the ones Islam makes here: Scientific gobbledygook combined with al-Taqiyya.
###105 30/56d: (YA3574): "The men of knowledge and faith knew all along of the true values - - -". Wrong, because man often is led astray by popular idea, old ways of thinking, (f.x. taqlid) etc. There are good values which are reckoned to be good. There are good values which are reckoned to be bad. There are things with no real value which may be reckoned in one religion or culture to be bad and in others to be good. And not least there are negative values which may be reckoned to be good. In Islam you will find a number of such wrongly evaluated values - not least of bad values reckoned to be good. Search f.x. in Islam's moral code, ethical code, war code, and in sharia, and you will find a number of negative values claimed to be good ones (and honestly believed to be good ones by many Muslims, because "everyone" tell them so). Just compare "do onto others what you want others do onto you" - the basis for all inter-human moral - with the mentioned codes and the sharia, and you will find a number of cases. And then there are all the other cases.
106 31/6d: "- - - without knowledge - - -". Who is without knowledge - the skeptic who asks questions, or the one who blindly believe without asking questions?
107 31/20f: "- - - (non-Muslims are*) without knowledge (the Quran or similar - only religious knowledge is real knowledge according to Islam*) and without guidance (Islam*) - - -". But as so much is wrong in the Quran, who may in reality be "on wrong road" of the three possible parts: Muslims? Non-Muslims without enough knowledge? Non-Muslims with enough knowledge to see that something is seriously wrong in the Quran and hence with Islam?
108 32/26e: "- - - do they (skeptics*) not then listen?" They do, but they also are able to think and not just accept blindly. And using not only their ears, but also their knowledge and their brain, they see that much is wrong in the Quran and hence in Islam - and that the book cannot be from any god, as no omniscient god makes mistakes wholesale style.
109 33/1h: "- - - knowledge - - -". Beware that when the Quran uses words like this, it normally (nearly always) means religious (Islam) and related knowledge. This later used to be called "Islamic knowledge" and was good. All other sciences were "foreign knowledge" and were bad - even violently persecuted at times (a fact never mentioned by Muslims boasting about how Islam saved the old Greek and Persian knowledge (after they had destroyed the old Persia) - which largely was done not because of Islam, but in spite of Islam).
110 33/33c: "- - - Ignorance - - -". Parallel comment to "knowledge" - see 26/83a above. Islam even today officially names all time before the introduction of Islam "the Time of Ignorance" - people did not know Islam, and all other knowledge was and partly is of little interest to the religion and its people and leaders.
And an a bit entertaining word, as the Quran is full - overflowing - of wrong facts and other known errors.
111 34/28b: “We (Allah*) have not sent thee (Muhammad*) but as a universal (Messenger) - - -“. If he was universal, why then is everything in the Quran only from in and around Arabia? – even when correct information existed other places (f.x. the form of the Earth), in the Quran you find wrong knowledge from Arabia. And only things from Arabia and surrounding area. And the made up and wrong legends and fairy tales that circulated in Arabia? No god had done such mistakes as using them instead of using correct information.
#####112 34/50b: “If I (Muhammad*) am astray, I only stray to the loss of my own soul - - -.” Wrong to at least the 9. power (as there are better than a billion Muslims – or the 10. power or more if you reckon the ones through the times). If Muhammad was astray – ALL believing Muslims are astray – and all the mistaken facts, contradictions, invalid logic, etc., tell an ominous tale. The Quran - its mistakes, errors, etc. - also is contradicted 100% by any non-religious knowledge and by logic. ONE MORE PLACE WHERE AN INTELLIGENT MAN LIKE MUHAMMAD HAD TO KNOW HE WAS LYING, BECAUSE THE LOGIC IS WRONG.
*113 35/28a: “Those truly fear Allah - - - who have knowledge - - -“. The fact is that it is more common to be religious if you have little knowledge and/or intelligence (but of course this is a good way of flattering and attracting the naïve and the uneducated). And the Quran also proves that somewhere there was/is a huge lack of correct knowledge – and consequently that something is seriously wrong with the book and hence with the religion.
114 38/29f: “Here is a Book (the Quran*) which We (Allah*) have sent down unto thee (Muhammad*), - - - that they (people*) may mediate on its Signs, and that men of understanding - - -”. What follower would ever admit he was not a man of understanding? - especially if he had little knowledge? But in the Quran there is not one valid sign specifically proving Allah. Not one single. And what is then this “proof” worth for Islam? - negative and less than nothing, because one starts wondering what kind of god - or man - uses invalid proofs?
115 38/69a: "No knowledge have I (Muhammad*) - - -". When one looks at the sorry quality of the Quran, and at all these mistakes, contradictions, etc. in the book, one is tempted to agree to this.
##116 39/4e: (MA 39/4) "He (Allah*) is 'limitless in His glory' - i.e. complete in His excellence and utterly remote from all imperfection - He is 'ipso facto' ('eo ipso' in the more reliable Swedish 2002 edition) remote from the incompleteness inherent in the need of, or desire for, progeny, which logically precludes the possibility of His having a son". The logic here is wrong - a wish for company or a co-worker does not have to be because of an imperfection. And wrong also because:
1. Mr. Azad here presumes he knows how a god thinks or wishes. No-one knows that. Then it impossible to make logical conclusions about a god's thoughts, conclusions and deeds, like Mr. Asad here does, as one does not have the necessary knowledge.
2. From the same logic there also would be no angels - no omniscient and omnipotent god needs angels. According to the Quran there all the same are thousands and millions and more of them.
##This argument is an "ad hock" construction made up - partly outside the rules for logical conclusions - for to explain away a problem. You find quite a number of such ones in Islam - frequently outside the rules for logical conclusions like here (often simply omitting facts which would make the conclusion invalid - like here omitting the fact that no human really can know how a god thinks, or that angels would be as strong an indication for imperfection as a son - stronger actually, as there are so many angels according to the Quran, but only one son).
117 39/9d: “Are those equal, those who know (Muslims*) and those (non-Muslims*) who do not know?” A rhetoric question expecting the answer "No". But what about the ones where the knowledge is not knowledge, but belief, compared to the ones able to see that something is seriously wrong in that belief?
###118 39/29b: “- - - most of them (non-Muslims*) have no knowledge.” But Muslims of course have, and are much better people - - - according to the Quran. This included not one single new thought promoting the life of man in some 800-900 years in the entire Muslim society (from around 1ooo-1100 AD). Actually there is a well-known Hadith saying something like ‘All new ideas (“bida” in Arab*) are heresy (“wrong teaching“*), all heresy is wrong, and everything that is wrong leads to hell’. Islam found a way to moderate it a little, though: If a new idea - a “bida” - is in accordance with the Quran, with all Hadiths (there are some thousands accepted ones) and all decisions made by consensus among the leading learned Muslims through the times (such decisions are called “ijma” in Arab*), the new idea may - may - be a good “bida”.’ If not it is a bad one.
Under such conditions it is not strange that few new ideas emerges - and none that is meant to question (or at least not conflict with) old ideas, not to mention with the religion.
#119 40/57c: "Assuredly the creation of the heavens (plural and wrong*) and the earth is a greater (matter) than the creation of men - - -". As we - humans - know nothing about creation, we also know nothing about what is most difficult to create (if it is created): Dead elementary matters or organic life and consciousness. This "proof" thus is invalid, as it is built on presumptions - like so often in the Quran - not on real knowledge.
*120 41/12h: “(Allah is*) full of Knowledge.” Something is wrong. Either Allah is not omniscient - then he may have sent down the Quran. Or he is full of knowledge - omniscient. Then he did not send down a book like the Quran with that many mistakes - see 41/75. If not Allah, then who composed the Quran?
121 42/16a: "But those who dispute concerning Allah after He has been accepted - - - on them is Wrath, and for them will be a Penalty terrible." After you have become a Muslim, it is prohibited and punishable to utter doubt about anything concerning the religion. This even if you find something is wrong. (All the same out of the non-Muslims who today enters Islam, 3 out of 4 leave it within 3 years. ######It is thought provoking that so many adults leave after having got more knowledge about the religion. (Adults normally have the ability of being able to evaluate facts, claims, etc. - children normally are too strongly indoctrinated before they grow old enough to develop this ability.))
122 44/4: “In that (night) (when the first surah is said to be sent down?*) is made distinct every affair of wisdom”. As for wisdom and knowledge in the Quran - see 26/83a and 40/75 and many others: Only religious knowledge - the Quran/Islam - counts.
Nobody knows for sure which night is meant.
And how much wisdom is there in a book choke full of wrong facts, other errors, contradictions, etc.?
123 44/6a: "(The Quran is sent down*) as a Mercy - - -". Please, please read the 22 - 24 surahs from Medina (according to Islam's rules for abrogation - making points in the Quran invalid when two or more contradicts - these are the dominant surahs mostly), skip the glorious words and read the demands, deeds, introduced rules, moral codes, etc. - the realities. Also use your knowledge and your brain and not only your eyes when you read. How much mercy and how much of the opposite do you find?
Whenever there is a gap between nice words and realities, we believe in the realities.
124 45/4c: "- - - Signs for those of assured Faith". Probably - but not for anyone who is not blinded by belief, but looking for the truth and not for confirmation of what they wish to believe. For anyone with a minimum of knowledge and a minimum of training in seeing realities - also called critical thinking - there is not one valid sign for Allah (Quran-speak for proof for Allah) neither in the Quran, nor anywhere else.
125 45/13e: "- - - in that are Signs for those who reflect." Yes, for those who reflects AND use their knowledge and their brain, there are clear signs for that something is seriously wrong with the Quran, and thus with Islam.
But note the flattery - one of Muhammad's methods.
126 45/18c: "- - - follow not the desire of those who know not". But who are the ones who know not? - the ones who accepts all the mistakes, etc. in the Quran without questions and without checking wrong "facts", etc.? - or the ones who use their knowledge and their brain and see that something is seriously wrong with Muhammad, with the Quran, and with Islam?
127 45/18d: "- - - the ones who know not". One of Muhammad’s many negative names for non-Muslims. Also note here something which is typical for the Quran - whether people are knowledgeable or not, only depends on how much they know about Islam/the Quran and if they accept the religion or not. So much for Islam and knowledge.
128 45/21b: “What! Do those who seek after evil ways (non-Muslims*) think We (Allah*) shall hold them equal with those who believe (Muslims*) and do righteous deeds - - -?” Except for that there is a question whether it is a righteous deed, f.x. for a thousand years to give their believers education only in Muslim sciences - all knowledge that was needed to study Islam, mainly religion and Arab and related knowledge - but block as many believers as possible from all “foreign sciences” = all other knowledge, which was the case at least from al-Ghazali ("The Incoherence of the Philosophers") at the end of the 11th century (in Spain about 100 years later) - except for things like that, may be the Quran is right: Muslims are the top of qualities. It is up to you if you believe it.
129 45/35c: "- - - deceived - - -". Who are most easily deceived - the ones who use their brains and knowledge and thinks things over, or the ones who tumbles into blind belief? - and not to mention the ones brainwashed from baby age and not even able to or wanting to think things over?
130 46/4f: "- - - knowledge - - -". Beware that when the Quran uses words like this, it normally refers to religious and related knowledge. Other sciences - even medicine - were "foreign knowledge" and not good (f.x. most top doctors in Muslim area through the early and medieval times were non-Muslims. Also see 26/83a above.
131 46/23c: "- - - ignorance - - -". As for words related to knowledge, see 26/83a above.
132 47/2c: "- - - (Revelation) - - -". Was it really revelation, and in case by whom or what? - or was it an illness, like TLE (Temporal Lobe Epilepsy) like modern medical science believes? - or was it all made up by Muhammad or someone? - or a mixture of this, f.x. some TLE and some made up? And if it was revelation, then from whom? All the mistakes prohibit a god. The partly horrible moral codes, laws and rules for waging war and parts of the sharia laws may indicate dark forces - and Muhammad would not have a chance recognizing Iblis - the Devil - dressed up like the arch angel Gabriel. But would even a devil make a book with so much wrong facts, etc.? - he had to know that sooner or later he would be looked through. There also are all the mistakes which are correct compared to wrong "knowledge" one had at the time of Muhammad, and all the tales, etc. taken from in and around Arabia at that time, which both cry: Made by man at the time of Muhammad - perhaps by Muhammad himself.
What is sure is that no book as full of errors, etc. as the Quran is from no omniscient god.
133 47/16c: "- - - Knowledge (in this case the teachings of the Quran*) - - -". No book full of mistakes gives knowledge unless you know enough from before to cut out what is not true and also what is doubtful, and check if that is true. You have to be pretty naive, brainwashed, or uneducated - or blind - not to see that at least much of what is said in the Quran is not knowledge or truth. Also see 26/83a above.
134 48/26b: "- - - ignorance - - -". Parallel comment to "knowledge" - see 26/83a above. Islam even today officially names all times before the introduction of Islam "the Time of Ignorance" - people did not know Islam, and all other knowledge was and partly is of little interest to the religion and its people and leaders.
135 49/16c: "He (Allah*) has full knowledge of all things".
- If this had been true, why then does he have to test his followers - f.x. by sending them to war?
- Either the claim - never proved like always in Islam - is not true, or Allah has not made the Quran. No omniscient god makes a book with that many mistaken facts, etc.
136 51/28c: "- - - wisdom and knowledge - - -". Beware that when the Quran uses words like this, it means knowledge about the Quran and Islam - other kinds of knowledge were "foreign knowledge" and of negative value. See 26/83a above.
137 53/35a: "Has he (the person leaving Islam*) knowledge - - -". May be that is just what he has got - f.x. the knowledge given by all the mistakes, contradictions, etc. in the Quran, that no god is behind that book.
138 55/33c: "Not without authority - - -". Here is implicated that it means authority from Allah, but the bitter truth is that may be there exists no Allah, and even if he exists, maybe he has no power - or he may be from the dark forces. Nothing is proved about Allah or his powers - there only are loose claims. Many believe - some even strongly - but it only is belief, not knowledge.
139 57/6b: "- - - He (Allah*) has full knowledge of the secrets of (all) hearts". See 57/4h above - and not least: Why - why - then does he have to test his followers - f.x. by sending them to fight wars for Muhammad? - there is no logic in it. Not unless this is a claim where the motif in reality is hiding Muhammad's lust for war and riches (for "buying" followers - which he clearly did according to the Quran) and power.
140 58/7e: "For Allah has full Knowledge of all things". But why then does he so often use or need witnesses in the Quran? With absolute power and total knowledge that does not make sense. And why - why - does he have to test even his followers if he knows everything?
141 60/4g: "- - - but not (= no good example*) when Abraham said to his father: "I will pray for forgiveness for thee - - -". It is normal for leaders of extreme sects to try to cut their followers' connections to people outside the sect, included the nearest family, because knowledge from the outside may tell truths the leaders do not want should reach their often manipulated congregations. Muhammad and Islam was - and is - in good company when doing this.
As for forgiving from Allah: See 2/187d above.
142 63/4c: “How are they (the ones leaving Islam*) deluded (away from the Truth)!” That the Quran is the truth, is just a claim, not a proved fact. At very best away from partly truths - see 40/75 and 41/12. (But there is an impolite thought far behind in our brain: Who are really deluded when it comes to Islam? – the ones just listening to the imams without using their knowledge and their brain and asking no questions, or the other ones?)
##143 64/1e: (A64/1): "- - - all human beings are endowed with the instinctive ability to perceive the existence of the Creator - - -". This is so stupid a claim that it is not even wrong - it is plain imbecility. It also is totally un-scientific - no scientist has till this day found even traces of such an ability. It is a pure al-Taqiyya (lawful lie - something you only find in Islam of the big religions), likely dictated by the fact that Islam has not one single valid proof for its god (lots and lots of claims, but not one real proof - and the word of a man like Muhammad is not much worth), and they are groping for handholds where they can - if you go looking, you will find a number of such invalid claims about indications for a god in Islamic literature. There is a drive or a need for something strong - a god - in a minor part of humanity (may be 5 - 10% of the population). But no-one - included science and included Islam - have ever found even traces of an ability in man to perceive a god.
It also is a fact that small children easily accept the claim that there is religion behind reality - but any religion, not a special one or a special god. But that is it.
Islam has not one single proof for Allah. But they feel the need for one, and use many "clever" ways to try to find something. One recurring claim is this that human instinct can feel/perceive/have knowledge about the god. This is one of the cases.
The only two things such wishful thinking proves, is that Muslims feel the need for proofs for their claimed god very strongly - so strongly that they forget to use their brain. And that they have no such proof - if they had, they would use that proof instead of using more or less occultism and wishful dreams for "arguments".
144 64/2a: “- - - it is He (Allah*) Who has created you - - -”. According to science man was not created, but evolved from an earlier primate. At least man cannot have been created in all the 13 different ways in which the Quran tells the single person Adam was created - see 6/2 + 38/75 + 55/3 and more. Finally: Islam and the Quran only offers a claim that any religion and any person can make for any god they like, as long as they have to prove nothing. Lose claims without proofs can be the basis for belief - even for strong belief - but they are without value as basis for knowledge as long as they are not proved. This especially is so as it is an extremely serious matter if there really is a god somewhere, and this god is not Allah. If the god is not Allah, and at the same time Muslims have been denied the possibility to search for this possible god, by blind belief forced on them by unproved claims anyone can use free of charge about their imagining god(s) and by glorification of blind belief - well, then they are in for a rude waking up if there is a next life.
***145 67/10a: “Had we (non-Muslims*) but listened or used our intelligence - - -”. Islam often tries to tell that it is intelligence which makes Muslims believe, or intelligence that you have to see from the Quran that it is a work from a god - often the claim also is used as flattery (13/3j above). What at least is sure, is that anyone who uses his intelligence and has a reasonable minimum of knowledge of f.x. history, geography, astronomy, archaeology, etc. will find a lot of mistakes in the Quran - if he not for some reason is blind or do not want to see. Also: If he knows a very small minimum of logic and the rules for using logic and for evaluating information, he has to see the lose statements, the invalid “signs” and the as invalid “proofs” - and maybe he will be struck by the thought: Who uses this kind of arguments, except one who has no real arguments, and therefore has to cheat and deceive - f.x. to gain followers and power? Also see 67/9c above.
146 67/13a: “He (Allah*) certainly has (full) knowledge, of the secrets of all hearts”. Then why does he have to test his followers??!!- 2/233.h Also see 40/75.
147 69/51a: “But, verily; it (the Quran*) is Truth of assured certainty“. Wrong - too many mistakes, etc. - - - but words are cheap. For similar claims also see 2/109 – 2/147 – 5/48 – 5/75 – 6/73 – 8/7 – 9/30 – 9/33 - 9/48 – 9/60 – 10/2 – 10/32 – 10/34 – 13/1 - 21/18 - 10/35 – 10/36 – 10/94 – 11/17 – 14/22 - 17/81 - 17/105 – 21/109 – 22/54 – 23/71 – 28/3 – 28/53 – 32/3 – 33/4 – 34/6 – 34/49 – 36/70 – 37/21 – 37/52 -40/62 - 40/75 – 41/12 - 41/41 – 41/53 – 42/18 – 42/24 – 43/29 – 43/87 – 46/16 - 46/30 – 46/34 – 47/2 – 47/3 – 50/19 – 56/57 – 56/92 – 57/16 – 67/21 - 73/11 – 85/19 – 92/16 – 103/3.
Besides: Have you ever noticed that the one who most needs to boast – loudly and frequently – about how truthful he is, is the cheater, the deceiver, and the swindler, and the one boasting about his knowledge, is the medium to rather ok, but not top intelligent and educated one? – the really honest and the really knowledgeable persons never need to boast about those things. Real honesty and real intelligence and knowledge make itself felt after some time of close connection – if there is a need for boasting, something is wrong. (But similar go for dishonesty, bluffs, etc. - in the long run it easily divulges itself, at least to the keen observer).
Remember also Hitler's Nazi Minister for Propaganda, Joseph Goebbels: “If you tell a lie often enough, people start believing it is true.” (There are many similarities between the ideology of the Nazi - and all Fascism - and the ideology of Islam).
#148 69/51g: (YA5673): "All Truth is in itself certain". Correct, but only if it really is a truth, not only a claim pretended to be a proved or self evident truth, like you often find in the Quran and other places in Islam and in debate with Muslims.
Besides even if a truth in itself is certain, that does not mean people will know it is true - even the truth needs to be proved to make people know it is certain and true. This even more so as bluffs and deceit is very cheap and often impossible or at least difficult to know from the truth, unless there are proofs. And this fact is strengthened by the fact that the ones demanding blind belief and/or using dishonesty or made up "facts" and argument ever so often are cheats or deceivers.
###Note that even the truth normally needs proof - without a proof it may be the truth, but it also may just be a claim. Truth + proof = knowledge. Believed truth (or untruth or claims or lies) without a proof = Belief - and belief often is wrong.
One fact: Certainty in one's brain does not necessarily mean that something is true, and this no matter how many it is who feel certain.
#149 72/7a: "And they (Jinns*) (came to) think as ye thought, that Allah would not raise up any one (to Judgment)". Here like so many places in the Quran what is said in the Quran is treated like facts, and thus that skeptics are improbably stupid and wrong - some places things like this even is said, not only indicated. This in spite of that not one single central letter in the entire Quran is anything but belief - nothing is proved and thus nothing is really knowledge, only belief, and worse; blind belief.
150 72/13a: "- - - since we have listened to the Guidance, we have accepted it - - -". Does this mean that the Quran is so obviously true that you have to believe in it once you listen to it? In that case Muhammad had a very low esteem of his listeners' knowledge and ability to use their brain (perhaps with a reason).
151 73/9a: "(He (Allah*) is) Lord of the East and the West - - -". The likely meaning of this - at least according to Muslims from times after Muhammad grew strong enough to get appetite for power also outside the Medina and later Mecca area - is that Allah is the god for all the world. In spite of this when you read the Quran, you find that all the material, tales, legends, fairy tales, etc. used, are specific for Arabia and its nearest surroundings known in Arabia around 610 - 630 AD, and nothing from the rest of the claimed god's claimed dominion or stuff not known in Arabia at that time (as for the last fact; you meet many, many claims from Muslims about the Quran foretelling scientific facts, etc., but they have without exception one thing in common: They all are made up claims - either the texts in the Quran are twisted to fit modern scientific facts, or scientific facts are twisted to fit the Quran, or the claim simply is pure wishful thinking or an al-Taqiyya (a lawful lie) or a Kitman (a lawful half-truth) using peoples lack of real knowledge). No omniscient god for the whole world would use only stuff specific just for one small area and from a short period of time, not to mention many wrong facts and other errors.
#####152 76/4d: (A76/5): "- - - man's - - - inborn cognition of Allah's existence - - -". This is scientific nonsense. No such inborn cognition has ever been found - even by Islam. Science has found that a small percentage has an inborn longing for something stronger to lean on - a god. But any religion and any god(s) do(es) the job as long as the needy believe in it. But no "inborn cognition" has ever been found. It has been found that small children easily accepts the idea of a god, just like they accept most other things they believe are facts, but there are miles between also this and "inborn cognition of Allah's existence". This claim most likely is a result of Islam's lack of proofs for Allah (and for Muhammad's connection to a god) and its search for "strong" arguments for that Allah must exist in spite of the total lack of valid proofs. You find similar claims on "instinctive knowledge", etc. several places in the Quran and other Islamic literature. Scientifically it is totally wrong and invalid - so much so, that al-Taqiyya (the lawful lie) may be a more correct word than "wrong", as this is so well known that also Muslim scholars have got to know it. It tells something about Islam that they have to stoop to the use of "arguments" like this.
As said: Scientific nonsense.
153 76/30b: “- - - Allah is full of knowledge and Wisdom.” Not if he made the Quran.
######154 81/24: "Neither doth he (Muhammad*) withhold grudgingly a knowledge of the Unseen ("the Unseen" in the Quran normally means the future or what is hidden from humans by the super naturals*)". In plain words Muhammad was unable to tell the future or other hidden things = he was unable to make foretelling - prophesies - (and thus no real prophet).
Once more we are back to the fact that Muhammad was unable to see what was hidden and also unable to see the future, which means he was no real prophet - a person unable to make prophesies, is no prophet (the original title for "prophet" even was "a seer" - one who was able to see the unseen). But "prophet" is an imposing title, so Muhammad "borrowed" it, like so many have done trough the times. This even though he here indirectly, but very clearly admits he does not deserve or merit that title.
155 83/27c: (A83/9): "Whereas most of the classical commentators regard the infinitive noun "tasnim" as the proper name of one of the allegorical "fountains of paradise", or, alternatively refrain from any definition of it (because the meaning is unclear*), it seems to me that the derivation of 'tainim' from the verb 'sannama' - 'he raised (something)' or 'made it lofty' - points, rather, to the effect which the 'wine' of divine knowledge (but where does the word knowledge enter?*) will have on those who 'drink' it in paradise. Hence, the tabi'i 'Ikrimah (as quoted by Razi) equates 'tasnim' with 'tashrif', 'that which is ennobling' or 'exalting'". Just two additional comment: Easily understood language in the Quran? And: It is easy to believe what one wants to believe.
Speculation is not knowledge - not even lofty speculation backed by wishful thinking.
156 84/23: "Bur Allah has full Knowledge of what they conceal (in their hearts)". Then why does he have to test them? - or is this only an "explanation" used by Muhammad because he wanted warriors? Also see 2/233h above.
*157 86/6+7b: “He (man*) is created from a drop emitted (semen*) - Proceeding from between the backbone and the ribs”. The minor thing is that it is not tested whether it is nature or Allah that creates babies. Worse: Man is not made from semen, but from 2 different cells. Much worse: The Quran does not know from where the semen originates. Muhammad may have believed it came from the upper part of the abdomen - wrong "knowledge" he got from old Greek science - but any - even half god - had known better. Is this a proof for that Allah is not involved, as he does not know what he is talking about? The danger of bluffing always is to be discovered. And that leaves no credibility. (It f.x. is not possible to believe that an omniscient god has created a book with this many mistakes and invalid - even directly wrong - “signs” and “proofs”.)
158 96/5: "(Allah*) taught man that which he knew not (= gave him knowledge*)". Not if the "knowledge" he gave was like in the Quran - too much of it is lack of knowledge or wrong knowledge.
Sub-total Chapter 77 = 158 + 7.350 = 7.508.
>>> 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".