Søk

Kategorier

Arkiv


Blogglisten
Bloggurat
Skriv ut Skriv ut

Fredagsfilmen: Koranen

koran3Koranen er blitt den mest innflytelsesrike boken i verden.  I dag skaper den debatt. Da den nederlandske islamkritikeren sammenliknet Koranen med Hitlers Mein Kampf, og på samme måten som Mein Kampf er forbudt i Nederland, også ville forby Koranen, ble han trukket for retten ankaget for å ha fornærmet muslimene.

 Da noen danske karikaturtegnere tegnet profeten Muhammed, som ifølge islam taler til menneskeheten gjennom Koranen, førte det til voldsomme opptøyer mange steder i verden. I dag skal det demonstreres i Oslo mot at Dagbladet trykket en annen karikaturtegning av profeten.

Også da denne dokumentarfilmen fra Channel 4 ble vist for første gang førte det til protester, først og fremst fra sjiamuslimer som mente at deres religion ikke ble fremstilt riktig. Du kan dømme selv. Se dokumentaren om Koranen her.

Se også denne filmen om Koranen:

VG: demonstrasjoner mot muslimhets

VG: Oppfordrer til muslimsk satire

VG: Vi er varsomt på vakt

VG: Her demonstrerer Bhatti

VG: Vil ikke ha bråk

VG: Nordmenn aner ikke hvem Muhammed er

VG: 2 av 3 kritiske til Muhammed-aksjon

VG: Usivilisert aksjon vil ødelegge for muslimer

50 comments to Fredagsfilmen: Koranen

  • PC

    IKKE la dere lure, kjære naiva nordmenn, skandinaver…

    Dette er det sanne fjeset til Islam!!!

    Dispatches -- Undercover Mosque
    video.google.co.uk…r+mosque&dur=3#

    Undercover Mosque: The Return

    A year-and-a-half after the critically-acclaimed film Undercover Mosque was first screened, Dispatches goes undercover again to see whether extremist beliefs continue to be promoted in certain key British Muslim institutions

    http://www.truthtube.tv/play.php?vid=601

    http://www.truthtube.tv/play.php?vid=602

    http://www.truthtube.tv/play.php?vid=603

    http://www.truthtube.tv/play.php?vid=604

    http://www.truthtube.tv/play.php?vid=605

    video.google.co.uk…r+mosque&dur=3#

    Sjekk linken og les boka, God Is Not Great, How Religion Poisens Everything, Christopher Hitchens. youtube.com/watch?…YPmt8TUoX4&NR=1

  • walther mitchell

    Muhammed hadde et sekssuelt forhold til en jente på 9 år da han var 60. Derfor passer grisen utmerket.

    • Anonym

      To prove his sexual orientation ..
      Ishaq:311 “The Apostle saw Ummu’l when she was a baby crawling before his feet and said, ‘If she grows up, I will marry her.’ But he died before he was able to do so.”
      Of course, Muhammad would have waited for a couple of decades for that baby to mature before marrying her, since he was 60 years older than she.
      Tabari VII:7 “The Prophet married Aisha in Mecca three years before the Hijrah, after the death of Khadija. At the time she was six.”
      Ishaq:281 “When the Apostle came to Medina he was fifty-three.” Well, maybe he would have at least waited until the baby was potty-trained.
      Some more on Moe’s young maiden:
      Tabari IX:128 “When the Prophet married Aisha she very young and not yet ready for consummation.”
      Bukhari:V9B87N139-40 “Allah’s Apostle told Aisha, ‘You were shown to me twice in my dreams [a.k.a. sexual fantasies]. I beheld a man or angel carrying you in a silken cloth. He said to me, “She is yours, so uncover her.” And behold, it was you. I would then say to myself, “If this is from Allah, then it must happen.”‘”
      Tabari IX:131 “My mother came to me while I was being swung on a swing between two branches and got me down. My nurse wiped my face with some water and started leading me. When I was at the door she stopped so I could catch my breath. I was then brought in while the Messenger was sitting on a bed in our house. My mother made me sit on his lap. Then the men and women got up and left. The Prophet consummated his marriage with me in my house when I was nine years old.”
      Bukhari:V1B4N1229-33 “Aisha [who was 9] said, ‘I used to wash semen off the Prophet’s [who was 53] clothes. When he went for prayers I used to notice one or more spots on them.’”
      We know how Aisha came onto the scene now, but what about some of the other wives?
      Tabari VIII:187 “The [sixty-two-year-old] Messenger of Allah married Mulaykah. She was young and beautiful. One of the Prophet’s wives came to her and said, ‘Are you not ashamed to marry a man who killed your father during the day he conquered Mecca?” She therefore took refuge from him.”

  • Hahahaha

    fredagsfilm nummer 2:

    • uderzo

      ha ha!meg her og der!
      norske sitter idag og frykter
      politisk islam
      disse ubarberte
      jeg frykter dem ikke!!!!

      kristendommen skal engang bli politisk!!!!!!!
      de som har kjempet Hans navn og ikke var feig i kampens hete.
      listen up:

      den som seirer og tar vare på mine gjerninger inntil enden ham vil jeg gi makt over folkeslagene

      han skal styre dem med jernstav og knuse dem som leirkar slik som også jeg har fått det av min Far

      om du vil bli en ekte og sann politiker
      hold fast ved statsministern fra golgata!!!!!!!

      mvh uderzo
      fra hardanger

      • uderzo

        derfor jeg har hevdet i lang tid nå
        islam er i en slags «dødsralling»
        frykt ikke imamer/mullaer
        de er utgått på dato!!!!!
        desverre vet de ikke selv!!!

        uderzo
        wh/lofth

      • uderzo

        ismaels sønner skal få bite i seg all denne spott og hån mot europa
        vi tok imot Herren!
        dere forbannet og ringaktet Ham
        dere om det!!!!!!!!!
        uderzo

        • uderzo

          har aldri vært i en moskee
          om så var tilfelle
          akter ikke å ta av meg sko
          Norge er Kristi eiendom!!!!!
          i all evighet
          Olav(haraldson) rex perpetuae norvegiae!!!!!
          norges evige konge(til forskjell fra dette i drammens veien 1)

          lar meg ikke true av beduiner!!!!!!!
          uderzo

      • uderzo

        min oppriktige mening
        man bør snart stille visse politikere til ansvar
        for sine holdninger
        jens stoltenberg
        kjell magne bondevik
        sponheimen fra ulvik
        lysbakken
        halvorsen
        etc etc
        erna og siv krangler!!!!

        da er ett alternativ tilbake

        Jan Simonsen og Vidar Kleppe!!!!!!!!!!!
        uderzo

      • uderzo

        man kan sitte på bønnemøter i all evighet
        å gråte å sippe over tingenes tilstand i vårt land
        når fienden står for våre porter!
        man må ha tempelriddere som vet å sikte pilene
        rett i muhammeds hjerte for å få utradert
        islam fra våre enemerker.
        men vær sikker vi har trojanere
        i forvaltningen
        ministere/statsekretærer/byråsjefer etc. etc

        uderzo
        willy fra lofthus

        • uderzo

          norge er i «krise»
          takket være
          bondeviken
          stoltemberg
          sponheim

          siv og erna krangler!!!!!!!kvinner om det!!!

          dette «triumviratet»
          skulle vært aresstert og satt på akershus
          sammen med «klimaprinsen»
          uderzo

          capthacoden er ADHD!!
          har tatt medesiner i år!!!!!!!!!!!’uderzo

  • Morten

    Har vi noen TROVERDIGE kilder på at Muhammed;

    1, i det hele tatt eksisterte?
    2, virkelig hadde et seksuelt forhold til en ni-åring?

    Mange muslimer jeg kjenner mener at deres kilder sier at Aisha var langt over ni da hun ble gift. Men hverken deres eller andres kilder om Muhamemd er jo troverdige, da de er skrevet flere tiår etter Muhammeds død. Ergo er det dumt og bastant påstå hverken det ene eller det andre om Muhammed.

    Skjønner heller ikke hvordan det kan lages film om en bok som tolkes på millionsvis av forskjellige måter. Hivlken koran tolkning er lagt til grunn for denne filmen? Hvorfor er den mer trovedgie enn de fire hundre og femti millioner andre tolkningene?

    Lær å kjenne mennesker utifra de personene de er, ikke hva de angivelig tror, eller ikke tror på.

  • Anonym

    walther mitchell:

    Dt r folk som dg som har ingen religion tenker kun på sex.Hold deg unna med din skittene tanker .fra seriøse saker

  • kjemper

    Til Morten ,svar på sporsmål 2- mange muslimske forfatere ( Al belazeri , Ibn hisham , Ibn khaldon , Al vaqrdi ,…….. ) har skrevet at mohamed befølte Aisha da hun var bare mellom 6 og 7 år og tatt henne til seng da hun var mellom 8 og ni år gammel.
    Mohamed var en skamløs pedogris og murder og plynder .
    Koran basert på løgn , drap, tortur, plyndring , osv.
    Islam er absolutt ikke relegion ,men bestialsk og barbarisk ideologi .
    Islam er absolutt den verste menneske ( udyre ) skapte fenomen noensinne.
    Islam er absolutt den verst og alvorligste trussel i modernetid som true menneskerettigheter og menneskeverdier .

  • Morten

    Mange muslimske forfattere har også skrev et det motsatte. Men poenget mitt er, hvor troverdige er disse kildene? Og hvorfor skal man tro den ene fremfor den andre?`

    Det fins ingen TROVERDIGE kilder om muhammeds liv. Alt man har er synsninger. Hvorfor er den ene synsningen mer korrekt enn den andre?

    • Reven

      @Dhimmi-Morten

      Det mest interessante fra et praktisk perspektiv i vår tid er ikke hvorvidt disse historiene faktisk har funnet sted eller ikke, men at mange muslimer tror på dem og innretter seg etter dem. Slik at for eksempel småjenter blir tvangsgiftet til godt voksne menn og seksuelt misbrukt av disse før de kommer i puberteten selv i våre dager.

      • Morten

        Ja det forekommer. Men støtter ALLE muslimer det? Søtter en gang majoriteten av muslimene dette?
        Og hvor mange norske muslimer bedriver med dette?

        Men det er ikke det vi debatterer her, det vi debatterer er hvorvidt Muhammed virkelig utførte disse handlingen eller ei, og det har vi ingen troverdige kilder på. Dermed har vi ikke belegg til å beskylde Muhammed for dette.

        Som sagt muslimene er delte i sitt syn på dette, hvorfor fremhever vi kun det ene synet og ikke det andre? Fordi det passer vår agenda best?

        • Reven

          @Morten

          Du spør: «Som sagt muslimene er delte i sitt syn på dette, hvorfor fremhever vi kun det ene synet og ikke det andre? Fordi det passer vår agenda best?»

          Grunnen til at man ikke fokuserer på muslimer som ikke støtter det synet at voksne menn kan ha sex med 9 år gamle jenter er vel snarere at muslimer som ikke er for seksuelt misbruk av barn ikke er noe problem, mens derimot de som støtter dette synet er det.

          En annen diskusjon er jo hvorvidt den ideologoen man bekjenner seg til sanksjonerer slikt eller ikke, og når selve religionsstifteren hengav seg til slik, ja da…..

          • Morten

            Igjen påstås det bastant at Muhammed misbrukte barn seksuelt, til tross for at vi har ingen troverdige kilder på at han gjorde det. Og skal man først bruke muslimenes kilder, så man man huske at de er delte i sitt syn på dette.

            Dermed er man tilbake til mitt initielle spørsmål, har man noen troverdige kilder på at dette faktisk forekom? Svaret er simpelheten nei. Noen muslimske kilder sier ja, noen sier nei, men faktum er at alle disse kildene er mildt sagt av skjør kvalitet, da de er skrevet flere tiår etter muhammeds død, og de er basert på «je sa, du sa» prinsippet;

            Min onkel fortalte min bestefar, som fortale sin kompis, som fortalte sin grandonkel som fortalte sin sønn som fortalte.., som fortalte… at Muhammeds kompis fortalte at Aisha fortalte han at hun var ni år da Muhammed fullbyrdet ekteskapet.

            Troverdig kilde dette?

            Muslimenes kilder er delte på sitt syn på dette. Likevel forsøker man bastant å påstå at Muhammed innledet et seksuelt forhold til et barn, når enkelte kilder sier noe annet. Hvorfor foretrekke den ene kilden fremfor den andre? Fordi den samsvarer bedre med ens agenda?

            Det er nettopp det som er problemet med religiøse tekster, de spriker i alle retninger, og kan ikke taes seriøst. Dette er som du sier, kun et problem blant de muslimene som syns det er greit å ekte niårige jenter. Men det er jo de aller aller færreste (kanskje 3-4 stykker?) av norske muslimer som gjør, hvorfor da bruke dette mot dem?

  • Rettigheter i Islam
    Rettigheter som alle mennesker bør ha i følge Islam. (fra 600 tallet)

  • knut Karlstad

    Jeg synes nå at Dagbladet her gjemmer seg bak ordet ytringsfrihet.Men jeg må få lov til å spørre om de ikke heller er ute etter å selge aviser.Har muslimene brukt Gud eller Jesus på samme måte som vi spotter Muhammed?Nei,religion er noe vi ikke kødder med.Husk at de fleste kriger i verden har startet på grunn av religion.

  • Muslim

    Muhammad (saw) giftet seg første gang med en dame som het Khadija (ra) som var femten år eldre enn han selv. Og den siste konen Hans (saw) var Aisha (ra) som var 6 år da de forlovet seg og 9 år da de inngikk ekteskapspakten.

    For ikke mer enn 100 år siden kunne vi finne aldersgrensen for å gifte seg i USA på 11 år. I Norge har vi seksual grensen på 15 og 16 år, men du kan ikke gifte deg med engang.
    I islam er det ingen fast aldersgrense for når man blir kjønnsmoden, og på den tiden vår kjære profet levde pleide folk å bli kjønnsmodne mye tidligere.
    Hvis vi går noen år tilbake, så var det ikke uvanlig å gifte seg med yngre kvinner.
    Profeten vår hadde utrolig mange fiender på den tiden han levde. De pleide alltid å plage Han (saw) for forskjellige ting. Mange pleide å såre han med at han ikke hadde noen sønner osv…
    Men vi har til i dag aldri funnet noen rapport eller noe slags bevis på at fiendene hans noen gang plaget han med ekteskapet hans med Aisha (ra). Kan du gi meg et bedre svar enn at det var helt et helt vanlig fenomen den gangen?
    I kristendommen ser vi jo at Joseph giftet seg med Maria da hun kun var 12-14 år. Hvis du går 50 eller 100 år tilbake i tid, vil du finne dette helt vanlig i Norge også.
    Du kan blant annet lese om en 9 år gammel jente i 2011 som fødte et barn:
    answering-christia…ty.com/thai_girl.htm

    Les mer her: http://www.answering-christianity.com/aisha.htm
    Vil du har flere bevis på unge brud og mødre opp gjennom tiden, og dette er hendelser som faktisk er langt fra så gamle og fra den tiden Profeten vår levde:
    Nedenfor vil du se en hel liste over unge mødre:

    Age 5
    1939: Lina Medina of Paurange, Peru gave birth to a 2.7 kg (6.0 lb) son, Gerardo, by caesarean section on May 14, 1939 in Lima at the age of 5 years, 7 months and 21 days. Her parents, who assumed their daughter had a tumor, took her to a hospital, where she was determined to be seven months pregnant. Although Medina’s father was arrested on suspicion of rape, he was later released due to lack of evidence, and the identity of who impregnated Medina was never uncovered. The reason for her precocious fertility was cited to not lie in the ovaries themselves, but to have stemmed from an extraordinary hormonal disorder of pituitary origin, causing her to have regular periods since the age of 3.
    Age 8
    2006: A girl from Huánuco, Peru, gave birth to a baby weighing 2 kg (4.4 lb) by caesarean section at a hospital in Lima in December 2006. Her ninth birthday occurred a couple of days later. She became pregnant after being raped by two of her cousins.
    Age 9
    1957: Hilda Trujillo gave birth to a girl weighing over 6 lb (2.7 kg) at a hospital in Lima, Peru in December 1957. Her 22-year-old cousin, who was staying in her family’s one-room house at the time, was arrested for rape.

    2004: A Singaporean girl gave birth to a boy in 2004 after being impregnated by a fellow student at her school. Her mother initially thought she had a urinary tract infection, but, upon taking her to the doctor, learned she was already six months pregnant. The baby was given up for adoption.

    2005: A girl gave birth to a baby boy by caesarean section at a hospital in Butare, Rwanda in December 2005. The child, who underwent breast development at age six and menarche at age eight, became pregnant after being raped by her family’s domestic servant.

    2006: A girl of the Apurinã, an indigenous people from the Amazon Rainforest in Brazil, gave birth to a baby girl weighing 2.2 kg (4.8 lb) by caesarean section at a hospital in Manaus in July 2006. Police are investigating the case.
    Age 10

    1834: Sally Deweese of Butler County, Kentucky, U.S. was reported by Dr. D. Rowlett to have delivered a baby girl weighing 7.75 pounds (3.52 kg) on April 20, 1834. Deweese allegedly developed breasts within weeks of birth and began menstruating at 12 months.

    2000: A girl from Bolivia gave birth to a baby girl weighing 2.5 kilograms (5.5 lb) by caesarean section at a hospital in Parque Patricios, Buenos Aires, Argentina on September 25, 2007. A 28-year-old was arrested on a charge of rape.

    2005: A girl from Calama, Chile gave birth to a baby boy by caesarean section at a hospital in Antofagasta on April 13, 2005. The child became pregnant after having been raped by her father at age nine. Her parents, who both came from Bolivia, were jailed.

    2005: A girl gave birth to a baby girl at a hospital in Sion, Switzerland in August 2005. She had immigrated to Switzerland from Cameroon with her siblings when her mother married a Swiss citizen. A 68-year-old man who was in a relationship with the mother admitted to having molested the girl but a DNA test found that he was not the father of the girl’s child.

    2006: A girl in Abbeville, South Carolina gave birth by caesarean section in 2006 after having been raped by then-26-year-old William Edward Ronca. Ronca admitted to having molested the girl over a two year period and was sentenced to 25 years in prison as a result. The baby was given for adoption.

    2006: A girl from Charleroi, Belgium gave birth in 2006. After the child began gaining weight, her mother put her on a diet, but when the girl visited a doctor, it was discovered that she was nine months pregnant. The father was a then-13-year-old boy who attended the same school as the girl. News of the birth did not become publicly known until 2007.

    2006: A girl from Jaral del Progreso, Guanajuato, Mexico gave birth naturally to a baby girl weighing 2.3 kilograms (5.1 lb) on April 3, 2006. She became pregnant after being raped by a 47-year-old neighbour, who was sentenced to 11 years, 6 months in prison for the crime.

    2007: A girl from San Lorenzo Cacaotepec, Oaxaca, Mexico gave birth to a baby boy on July 2, 2007. Her pregnancy was the result of a rape committed by the 65-year-old landlord of the house which her parents rented. The man was jailed.

    2008: In St. Anthony, Idaho, U.S., a girl gave birth to a 6 pounds (2.7 kg) baby at Madison Memorial Hospital. 37-year-old Guadalupe Gutierrez-Juarez was jailed on one felony count of rape.

    Her har du nok av bevis at det er mulig å være kjønnsmoden i tidlig alder, om du gifter deg med en 9-åring vil det ikke si at du dermed skal stemples som pedofil. Vær derfor oppmerksom og varsom med ordbruken.
    Når du snakker om at Aisha (ra) ble voldtatt av vår kjære Profet som er det beste eksempelet til hele menneskeheten som er sendt av Allah swt, så GI MEG BEVIS!!!! Ikke kom med påstander mot påstander uten bevis. Du har fått bevis for det motsatte av det du skrev.

    Islam har Koranen som sin hellige bok. Den ble åpenbart 600 år etter Jesus, og viderefører en rekke opplysninger fra den hebraiske Bibel. Koranen pålegger alle muslimer å tro på åpenbaringene som kom før den. (4,136)

    Koranen understreker den viktige rollen som Noah, Abraham, Moses, Jesus og andre profeter har spilt i å gjøre kjent Guds åpenbaringer for menneskene.
    Muslimene er altså pålagt til å tro på Bibelen (Det gamle testamentet) og Toraen. Men vi skal følge Allahs (swt) siste ord og ordre til menneskene på jorda som ble formidlet med hjelp av Profeten Muhammad (saw).

    Hvis du vil ha noen flere bevis på om Koranen er det rette budskapet i denne verden så kan du fortsette å lese.

    I koranen finner vi en veldig spesiell form for tallharmoni, her har du noen eksempler:

    Jahanam – “helvete” er repetert 77 ganger Al-jannah – “paradis” er repetert 77 ganger
    Rajul – “Mann” er repetert 24 ganger Imra’ah – “Kvinner” er repetert 24 ganger
    Shahr – “Måned” forekommer 12 ganger som i et år Yawm – “Dag” er funnet 365 ganger som i solar år
    Al-mala’ikah – “Engler” er repetert 88 ganger Al-shayatin – “djevler” er reptetert 88 ganger
    Al-dunya – “Dette livet” forekommer 115 ganger Al-akhira – “livet etter døden” forekommer 115 ganger

    Ordet “hav” er repetert 32 ganger, og “land” er repetert 13 ganger
    Hva er forholdet mellom hav og land i koranen?
    “hav” er nevnt 32 ganger “land” er nevnt 13 ganger
    = Tilsammen blir det 45
    32/45 =71,111%
    13/45 =28,888%
    Dette er det presise forholdet mellom land og hav på jorden! SJEKK WIKIPEDIA

    Hvis du orker å lese enda mer så fortsett å bla nedover. Jeg kan skrive om islam i det uendelige, og du vil få bevis for alt jeg skriver, så du kan være sikker på at det er riktig og ikke en såkalt form for ”hjernevasking”. Det jeg vil skrive nå, vil du få bekreftet om du selv søker på nett etter de kjente vitenskapsmennene.

    Den biologiske faktaen i Koranen ble åpenbart fjorten hundre år tidligere. Men disse har blitt bekreftet for å være ganske nøyaktige i nåtiden av mange vitenskapelige teknikere.

    I den tiden Muhammad saw levde og Koranen ble skrevet, var der lite kunnskap tilgjengelig for å kunne konkludere vitenskapelig fakta.

    Hjernen
    Allah sier i surah Al-Alaq:
    «Nei, sannelig, hvis han ikke slutter, skal vi ta ham i luggen, En løynaktig, syndefull lugg! «(96:15-16)
    Boken, «Essentials of Anatomy & Physiology» skrevet av Seeley sier
    «Motivasjon og innsikt for å planlegge og initiere bevegelser foregår i forreste del av frontlappen, d.v.s. prefrontal området…»

    Samme boken hevder også følgende:
    «det prefrontale området er også kjent for å være den funksjonelle sentra for aggresion… » (s. 211)

    En studiehåndbok av A.C. Guyton «Medical Physiology» hevder på side 656:
    «Viktigheten av prefrontal cortex (hjernebarken (omtrentlig) i fremre del av hjernen), i å kontrollere aktiviteter mht. moralsk lov er godt fremvist når denne delen av hjernen ødelegges. Vedkommende reagerer truende til liten grad av provokasjon, og mister mest sannsynlig mange av sine moralske oppfatningner.»
    Følgelig er frontlappen ansvarlig for plannlegging, motivering og initiering av væremåte (bra eller dårlig). Den er også ansvarlig for moralsk oppførsel som for eksempel å fortelle sannheten eller å lyve.

    Dermed kan man konkludere at forr delen av hodet kan lyve og være syndig slik Allah beskriver den i 96:16 «en løynaktig og syndefull lugg!» Vitenskapen har funnet ut av dette nylig. Det var ikke før 1930 tallet at vitenskapsmenn fant ut funksjonen av denne delen av hjernen. Koranen pekte på det allerede fjorten hundre år i forveien.

    Huden og smerte
    Fra moderne fysiologi vet vi at huden er følsom mot ytre påvirkinger på grunn av nerveendinger i smerte reseptorer. (Se «Medical Physiology av A.C. Guton s.854). Det er også kjent at hvis bransåret er dypt og huden er fullstendig brent, vil huden miste følsomheten for smerte. Allah sier i surah an-Nisa ayat 59:
    De som fornekter Vårt ord, vil Vi la møte ilden. Hver gang deres hud er avbrent, vil Vi bytte den og gi dem en ny, så de kan få føle smerten. Gud er mektig.(4:59)

    Professor Tajasen fra det medisinske universitetet i Chiang-Mai, Thailand, ble vist dette koranske ayat, på den 8ende Saudi Medical Conference (tilgjenglig på video fra Al-Nasr), ble han overrasket. Han hevdet at dette dermatologiske fenomenet ikke kunne ha vært kjent av noen mennesklig kilde for 1400 år siden. Vitenskapen har kunn nylig oppdaget at huden innholder nerve-endinger og at hvis de blir brent mistes
    følsomheten for smerte. Professoren konverterte til Islam.

    Universets skaper
    Hele universet var en gang i tiden ikke noe annet enn et sky av røyk. Dette har blitt bekreftet av moderne observasjonell og teoretisk astronomi. Denne røykskyen hadde en avlang, ugjennomsiktig og tykk form, og den innholdt varm gass. («The First Three Minutes, a Modern View of the Origin of the Universe», Weinberg, s94-105).

    Allah åpenbarte over 1400 år siden i Koranens surah Fussilat (også kjent som surah Ha-Mim As-Sajdah): «Så henvendte Han seg mot himmelen, som var røk og damp…» (41:10)
    «The Bible, the Quran and Science», en bok skrevet av den franske vitenskapsmannen Dr. Maurice Bucaille hevder at:
    «Grunnprosessen i formasjonen av universet ligger i kondensering av materie i den primære nebulaen etterfulgt av dens partisjonering i deler som opprinnelig var galaktiske masser. Det sistnevnte ble i sin tur partisjonert i stjerner og planeter.»

    Moderne vitenskap hevder at jorden og himlene (m.a.o. planeter, stjerner, galakser o.s.v) var alle sammenhengende. De ble formert og så separert fra hverandre. Koranen sier i surah Al-Anbiya:
    «Innser ikke de vantro at himmel og jord var tettest masse og at Vi skilte dem?» (21:31).

    Professor Alfred Kroner ved Universitetet i Mainz, Tyskland, en velkjent forsker, har hevdet følgende:
    «Med tanke på hvor Muhammad kom fra, vil jeg si at det er umulig for ham å vite om universets felles opphav, dette fordi vitenskapsmenn kun nylig har oppdaget dette i løpet av de siste årene, ved hjelp av kompliserte og avanserte tekniske metoder. Noen som ikke viste noe som helst om kjernefysikk 1400 år siden ville ikke være i stand med sin egen fornuft å formulere at jorden og himlene har felles opphav.»
    (Se den 7ende Saudi Medical Conference Proceedings, 1982, den er tilgjenglig på video fra Al-Nasr Trust).

    Med vennlig hilsen

    • Sigurd

      @muslim
      Du må gjerne tro at du kan lure folk, og spesielt oss vantro kjøtere, men vi vantro kjøtere vet bedre!

      Muhammed (mhrigm) var ikke noe annet enn en psyk mann.
      Sammenliknet med Jesus som også tilbrakte tid i ødemarka for å motstå satans fristelser, så fremstår muhammed (mhrigm)som en person som tok imot fristelsene fra satan med åpne armer.

      Hele historien om muhammed (mhrigm) er gjennomsyret av satanisme, hele koranen er satanisk.
      Jeg forstår at en med innsikt engang skrev boken om de sataniske verser!

      Muslim, kanskje du våkner en dag og innser sannheten om hva du tilber, uheldigvis for deg vil det da være en pris på ditt hode, men du er ikke alene, mang en muslim har innsett at det er tvers igjennom satanisme! Intet medmenneskelig, ingen personlig frihet, ingen godhet, kun ondskap og frykt.
      Og frykt er ikke synonymt med respekt! Alle Nordmenn med unntak av noen få ser nedlatende på folk som kommer med trusler for å tilegne seg respekt!

      Trusler til Nordmenn…… jaja, bare fortsett sier jeg bare, for jeg vil ikke røpe hemmeligheten som kommer til å åpenbare seg for de som farer med trusler her til lands! Det skal dere få erfare selv!
      Om dere er såkalte moderate eller ekstreme, men du som jeg vet at det er ikke noe moderat eller ekstrem islam, det er kun islam! Så lykke til!

      Muslim, du kan spare deg alt bablet ditt i kitman og taqyja form, for koranen er oversatt, muhammed (mhrigm) livshistorie er oversatt og tolkningene er oversatt til et forståelig språk!

      Vi som er oppdratt til å tenke selvstendige tanker ser bildet liksom, vi ser ondskapen!

      Og til dere andre nyttige idioter som tydeligvis ikke tenker! Hvordan kan en muslim som forkaster menneskerettighets erklæringen påberope seg denne selv? For…. ja selv Darwins skyld, begynn å tenke!

      Jeg hater ikke muslimer, de kan konvertere til bedre tanker når som helst, men ideologien islam har jeg særdeles lite til overs for!
      Til sammenlikning vil jeg bare si at Tyskere er hyggelige mennesker, ja selv etter at de forstå at nazismen ikke var en så innmari bra!
      Tyskerne konverterte til bedre mennesker under og etter krigen når sannheten gikk opp for dem!

      Muslimer, les bibelen, og se at muhammed (mhrigm) misbrukte bibelen i sin sataniske ønske om å ødelegge Guds fred på jorden!
      Muslimer, allah er ikke Gud! Allah er etter mitt skjønn Guds motpol, altså den fallende engel som vil utslette Guds skaperverk.
      Dette ser vi daglig i den muslimske verden! Muslimer som dreper alt og alle, mennesker, om de er muslimer, kristne, jøder eller buddister spiller ingen rolle.
      Muslimer sprenger seg i luften i allahs navn for å drepe og ødelegge Guds skaperverk!
      Islam er liksom en fredelig og tolerant religion!
      Fredelig mot hvem? Ingen! Tolerant mot hvem? Kun islam! Og islam er ingen person eller personlighet, islam er kun satans ødeleggende kraft! Ergo, islam er intolerant! Islam tolererer ingen ting annet enn undertrykkelse og ødeleggelse av menneskeheten, ie Guds skaperverk, det frie og tenkende mennesket!
      Qaradawi selv har belyst dette problemet, han henviste i en tale at muslimer ikke skaper noe!
      Men talen ble av en eller annen mystisk grunn slettet fra nettet, sikkert med satans innvirkning!

      Lykke til! Og til dere Jorsalfares menn: Ingen over, ingen ved siden!

    • Anonym

      The first thing Muslims would discover by exposing the Qur’an to rational, historic, scientific, and linguistic scrutiny is that Arabic didn’t exist when the Qur’an was allegedly scribed by the Pen on Heavenly Tablets. Scholars have determined that written Arabic evolved relatively recently from Aramaic by way of Syriac. The earliest trace of Syriac turned Arabic is found, ever so appropriately, on a gravestone. The earliest document is the Qur’an itself.
      By way of background, the Aramaic and Syriac languages had fewer consonants than Arabic; so, during the 7th century new letters were created by adding dots to existing ones in order to avoid ambiguities. Diacritics indicating short vowels were introduced, but they are only used so that the Qur’an can be recited. There are two types of written Arabic. Classical or Religious Arabic is the language of the Qur’an. It differs from Modern Standard Arabic in style and vocabulary, much of which is archaic -- antiquated beyond understanding.
      Arabic inscriptions were virtually unknown prior to the birth of Islam in the seventh century. The Nabataeans, living in modern-day Jordan, wrote with a highly cursive Aramaic alphabet that some believe eventually evolved into Classical Arabic. The first inscriptions in what could be called an Arabic alphabet are also found in Jordan. They were carved by Syriac Christians. Scholars suggest that a range of inscriptions in northern Arabia, datable to the fifth century A.D., exhibit a group of dialects which may be the ancestors of Arabic as we know it, although they cannot be termed Arabic any more than Anglo-Saxon could be termed English. The dialects of pre-Islamic South Arabia are a separate language within the Semitic family, and are not in any sense ancestors of the Qur’anic language.
      As evidence that written Arabic was unknown in Mecca during Muhammad’s lifetime, Ishaq, the first to write on behalf of Islam, tells us: Ishaq:85 «The Quraysh found in the corner [of the Ka'aba's foundation] a writing in Syriac. They could not understand it until a Jew read it for them. It read: ‘I am Allah the Lord of Mecca. I created it on the day that I created heaven and earth and formed the sun and moon.’» This was «found» as the crumbling Ka’aba stones were being restacked. The Tradition is the final Sunnah event prior to Muhammad’s battle with the cave-dwelling spirit that became the Qur’an’s initial revelation. Yet no Arab could read the script from which written Arabic was derived and Allah’s «Book» was allegedly written. As always, the Islamic scripture does a better job destroying Islam than does any scholar.
      Here’s the bottom line: Arabic, especially in written form, is a recent phenomenon linguistically. Not only wasn’t it one of man’s earliest languages, it was derived from a language that predated it by 3,000 years. There is no evidence that written Arabic existed in Mecca when the Qur’an was handed down. Therefore, it couldn’t have been the language of Allah if, as the Qur’an and Hadith attest, written scrolls were given to Adam, Abraham, Moses, and Jesus prior to the time written Arabic was conceived. And that would make Allah a liar and the Qur’an a fraud.
      There is more you should know about the difference between the Classical Arabic of the Qur’an and the language spoken by Arabs today. First, there is a wide gap between written Arabic and all varieties of the spoken language. The spoken dialects aren’t used in writing. The modern colloquial dialects are not mutually intelligible. In nations where Modern Standard Arabic (MSA) is used, speakers must learn a local colloquial Arabic dialect to communicate as their native language and then gain a greater or lesser fluency with MSA as an educated and commercial language.
      Second, there are major differences between Modern Standard Arabic and Religious Arabic. Classical Arabic only survives in some questionable poetry and in the Qur’an. Being schooled in MSA does not prepare a student to understand the Qur’an, as its form of Arabic is substantially different than MSA and massively different than spoken dialects. For example, Muslims are required to take classes called Tagweed, every year for ten years just to learn how to recite the Qur’an. But even then, they don’t know what the words mean.The situation is similar to contemporary Italian and Latin. Being literate in one does not make one literate in the other.

      • Anonym

        The biggest differences between Religious and Standard Arabic are word order, grammar, and vocabulary. Classical Arabic is always verb-subject-object, rather than the more familiar subject-verb-object. If someone aims to learn Arabic he or she would have to learn MSA, Classical, and at least one local dialect. To make matters worse, Arabic has a wicked property -- diglossia -- a phenomenon in which two forms of one language are used side by side. One variety is formal; the other is mostly oral.
        This brings us to a shocking conclusion. Less than three percent of the world’s population speaks Arabic, and almost all of them need to have the Qur’an translated into MSA before they can understand it. Thus the Islamic apologists who scream that the Qur’an must remain in Religious Arabic are saying that they only want an infinitesimal fraction of three percent of the world’s population to understand it. Fortunately, you know why.
        The Qur’anic headaches get worse, not better. During the Qur’an’s first century, the emerging Arabic alphabet did not have diacritical points, and letters were omitted. The text Uthman canonized, if this actually occurred, was a bare consonantal text with no marks to show verse endings, to distinguish consonants, or vowels. Without them it is impossible to comprehend the intended meaning of the text. In the introduction to his translation of the Qur’an, Dawood said, «Owing to the fact that the Kufic script in which the eighth and ninth century Qur’ans were originally written contained no indication of vowels or diacritical points, variant readings are recognized by Muslims as of equal authority.»
        For example, without the diacritical points the following words would be indistinguishable: repent, plant, house, girl, and abide, as are rich and stupid. There are thousands of Arabic words like these in which the meaning changes depending upon the placement of the diacritical marks. Yet the Qur’an was neither revealed nor initially scribed with these designations. Thus men had to guess as to what Allah was trying to say. The Qur’an cannot be letter for letter as Allah revealed it, because without the diacritical points and vowels, the identity of most letters is missing.
        The principles of sound Arabic demand that words have diacritical points and their letters should be written in complete form. It is inconceivable that God would have revealed a book in such an inferior condition. To demonstrate the magnitude of this problem, try to establish the meaning of the following sentences extracted from this page with vowels removed along with one out of every five consonants and punctuation: ltrs r ssng h smlst pncpls snd rc lngg mnd tt wrd hv dctcl pts nd hr ltrs shd be wttn n mplt fm t s nmprhnbl th gd wl hv rvd bk n ch n nrr cndn t. Now, imagine trying to do this without having an intelligible text right before your eyes. Then, to equate this challenge to deciphering the Qur’an, remove every fifth word and replace some of those that remain with an unknown vocabulary. This is what you would have left: r ssng h adgh snd rc lngg tt wrd hv dctcl nd hr ltrs shd be n mplt fm @$%&*! th wl hv rvd bk n ch n nrr cndn. Try to make sense of that.

        Our Muslim brethren claim the eloquence of the Qur’an, the supremacy of its language and the beauty of its expression, is conclusive evidence that it was revealed by Allah. «Forget the content,» they say. «The inimitability of the Qur’an lies in its stylistic use of the Arabic language.» Yet how can this be if there are so many omissions and errors pertaining to acceptable principles of style, literary expression, and grammatical rules? We even find many words that don’t have any meaning whatsoever and aren’t found in any language. Simply stated: much of the vocabulary no one understands, and much of the text is oblique, obscure, and senseless.
        But even so, the eloquence of any book cannot be an evidence of the greatness of the scripture or proof that it was revealed by God. What must be important to God in communicating to man is not manifest in style, but substance -- the power, truth, clarity, and usefulness of the revelation. And this is where the Qur’an fails so miserably.
        Speaking of style over substance, in his Comprehensive Commentary on the Qur’an, E.M. Wherry, wrote: «Though it be written in prose, the Qur’an’s sentences generally conclude in a long continued rhyme. And for the sake of rhyme the sense of what is being communicated is often interrupted. Unnecessary repetitions too frequently made, appear still more ridiculous in a translation, where the ornament, such as it is, for whose sake they were made, cannot be perceived. However, the Arabians are so mightily delighted with this jingling, that they employ it in their most elaborate compositions, which they also embellish with frequent passages of, and allusions to, the Qur’an. It is probable the harmony of expression which the Arabians find in the Qur’an considerably contributes to making them relish the doctrine and efficacy of argument which, had they been nakedly proposed without this rhetorical dress, might not have so easily prevailed.» He is saying that Muhammad’s militants, like Hitler’s minions, were stupefied. Beguiled by a twist of phrase, they were unable to see the base and vile nature of the words themselves. The Qur’an is Islam’s equivalent of rap music.
        Stealing a page from Mein Kampf, Wherry concludes: «Very extraordinary effects are related to the power of words well chosen and artfully placed, whose power can ravish or amaze. Wherefore much has been ascribed to the best orators. He must have a very bad ear who is not uncommonly moved with the very cadence of a well-turned sentence; and Muhammad seems not to have been ignorant of the enthusiastic operation of rhetoric on the minds of men. For this reason he has not only employed his utmost skill in reciting his pretend revelations. The sublimity of style might seem worthy of the majesty of that being whom he gave out to be the author of them as he tried to imitate the prophetic manner of the Old Covenant. Yet it was only in the art of oratory wherein he succeeded, strangely captivating the minds of his audience. Some thought it the effect of witchcraft and enchantment, as the Qur’an itself so often complains.»

        • Anonym

          Wherry’s conclusion squares quite nicely with Muhammad’s confessions: Bukhari:V6B60N662 «Allah’s Apostle said, ‘Some eloquent speech is as effective as magic.’» Bukhari:V9B87N127 «The Prophet said, ‘I have been given the keys of eloquent speech and given victory with terror so the treasures of the earth were given to me.’»
          The Qur’an is like a Christmas tree. Decorated in its holiday finery it appears beautiful, but the tree is dead. Worse, everything it stands for is pagan, even Satanic. The festival, its date, tree, ornaments, and exchange of presents all date back to the time when they were used to celebrate Lucifer’s birthday. Trimmings can be deceiving. (The Messiah was born on the Feast of the Tabernacles, in September.) The Winter Solstice was the birthday of Tammuz, the Babylonian sun god -- and all sun gods thereafter. Lucifer wasn’t called the Morning Star for nothing.
          But the ornamentation of the Qur’an was only superficial. The document is severely flawed. Jalal al-Suyuti dedicated a hundred pages of his Itqan to explain the difficult vocabulary. Under the title «Foreign Words of the Qur’an,» he suggests that Religious Arabic is incomprehensible. «No one can have a comprehensive knowledge of the language except the Prophet.» (Itqan II: p 106)
          Jalal al-Suyuti states: «Muhammad’s Companions, in whose dialect the Qur’an was given, failed to understand the meaning of many words, and thus they said nothing about them. When Bakr was asked about the Qur’anic statement «and fruits and fodder,» he said, «What sky would cover me or what land would carry me if I say what I do not know about the book of Allah?» Umar read the same text from the rostrum, then said, «This fruit we know, but what is fodder?» Then he was asked about the Qur’anic text in chapter 13 discussing Mary and he had no response. Ibn Abbas [the most prolific source of Islamic Hadith] said that he did not know the meanings of Qur’an verses like 69:36, 9:114, and 18:9.» Suyuti suggests that only Muhammad knew what they meant. Ibn Warraq in his scholastic anthologies on Islam compiled thick tomes of linguistic analysis of the Qur’an’s hopelessly incoherent condition.
          Next we learn that the Arabic found in the Qur’an was not as sound as Muslims infer. In the Itqan, Suyuti speaks explicitly about things which no one expected to find in the Qur’an -- defects which shouldn’t occur in any Arabic book. For example: «The word ‘after’ was used twice in the Qur’an so as to mean ‘before.’ As in this saying: (Qur’an 21:105) «We have written in the Psalms after the reminder» while He meant ‘before.’ Also in this saying, (Qur’an 79:30) «The earth after that He has extended» while Allah meant «before» Suyuti wrote: «The Qur’an means: ‘Do not those who believe «know» that had Allah willed, He could have guided all mankind’, but Allah said, ‘Do not those who believe «despair»‘ instead of writing «know» as He meant. The Qur’an says in chapter 2:23: ‘… your martyrs’, but it means, ‘… your partners.’ The martyr is supposed to be the person who is killed, but here it means ‘your partners.’ In chapter 20 on Joseph the word ‘bakhs’ (too little) is meant to be ‘haram’ (forbidden or sacred). In surah 46, Mariam, the phrase, ‘I certainly will stone you’ is interpreted to mean, ‘I certainly will curse you’, and not, ‘I will kill you’ as its literal meaning suggests.»
          In another illustration from Itqan, Jalal al-Suyuti claims, «In the Rahman chapter the Qur’an says: ‘The «nagm» stars and the trees bow themselves.’ Here the Qur’an does not mean by ‘the stars’ but the plants which do not have trunks. This is the far-fetched meaning.» There are hundreds of similar examples, but there is no need to belabor the point.
          As you have read, the Qur’an claims that it is pure Arabic. But this is not true. First the erroneous claim: Qur’an 46:2 «And before it the Book of Musa was a guide: and this [Qur'an] is a Book verifying (it) in the Arabic language.» Qur’an 39:27 «We have coined for man in this Qur’an every kind of parable in order that they may receive admonition. (It is) a Qur’an in Arabic, without any crookedness (therein).» Qur’an 41:3 «A Scripture Book, whereof the verses are explained in detail; a Qur’an in Arabic, for people who have knowledge.» Then… Qur’an 41:44 «Had We sent this as a Qur’an (in the language) other than Arabic, they would have said: ‘Why are not its verses explained in detail? What! (a foreign tongue, a Book) not in Arabic and (a Messenger) an Arab?’ Say (to them, Muhammad): ‘It is a Guide to those who believe; and for those who do not believe it, there is a deafness in their ears, and a blindness in their (eyes)!’» While the purpose of these Qur’an quotes was to confirm Allah’s Arabic claims, consider the number of words the translators had to add inside the parenthesis for Allah’s message to make any sense.
          The Qur’an’s Arabic assertion is not true. There are many foreign words or phrases which are employed in the Qur’an. Arthur Jeffrey, in his book Foreign Vocabulary of the Qur’an devoted 300 pages to this study. One must wonder why so many foreign words were borrowed, as they refute the Arabic claim and put doubt on whether «Allah’s language» was sufficient to explain what Muhammad intended. According to Alphonse Mingana in his Syriac Influence on the Style of the Qur’an, almost all of the religious terms found in Allah’s book were derived from Christian Syriac. These include the words Muhammad used for: priest, Christ, judgment, scribes, parable, salvation, infidel, sacrifice, resurrection, heaven, garden, angel, holy spirit, soul, sign, verse, proof, God, prayer, fast, sin, pagan, hanif, Muslim, idolatry, Qur’an, faith, creation, grace, and even the zakat tax. The proper names of Biblical personages found in the Qur’an are used in their Syriac form rather than Hebrew or Arabic. These include: Solomon, Pharaoh, Isaac, Ishmael, Israel, Jacob, Noah, Zachariah, Mary, John, Jonah, and Isa supposedly for Yahshua (commonly known as «Jesus»). The words for demons, the path, disciple, and Muhammad’s first «god,» Ar-Rahman are Persian. Rahman is a derivative of the Persian name for the Devil.

          • Anonym

            Adam and Eden are Akkadian words from Mesopotamia. A more correct term for «Adam» in Arabic would be basharan or insan, meaning «mankind.» «Eden» should have been janna in Arabic, which means «garden.» Yet the foreign words were repeated over twenty times. Abraham, sometimes recorded as Ibrahim, comes from the Assyrian language. The correct Arabic equivalent is Abu Raheem.
            Harut and Marut are Persian names for angels. The Persian «sirat» meaning «the path» was repeated thirty times yet it has an Arabic equivalent, altareeq, which was not used. The Persian «hoor» meaning «disciple» has the Arabic equivalent, tilmeeth. Guess which one Allah selected?
            The Persian word «Jinn» meaning «demon» is used consistently throughout the Qur’an. Entire surahs are dedicated to Satan’s allies. Yet there is an Arabic equivalent, Ruh. Going the other way, Islam’s decadent heaven is called by the Persian word «firdaus» meaning «the highest or seventh heaven» rather than the Arabic equivalent, jannah.
            Some of the Hebrew words are: heber, Sakinah for Yahweh’s presence, maoon, taurat, jehannim, and tufan, which means deluge. The Greek word «Injil,» which means «gospel» was borrowed, even though there is an Arabic equivalent, bisharah. Iblis, the Qur’anic name for Lucifer or Satan, is not Arabic. It is a corruption of the Greek word Diabolos. Muhammad said that believing in the «Day of Resurrection» was a third of his message, yet he chose a Christian Syriac derivative of an Aramaic word, Qiyama, for resurrection rather than the Arabic one.
            The Qur’an is fixated on stripping the Messiah of his divinity and of the sacrifice he made to save mankind. You’d think that Allah would at least get his name right. But Christ’s Qur’anic name, «Isa,» is erroneously applied. Isa is the Arabic equivalent of Esau, the name for the twin brother of Jacob. The correct Arabic name for Yahshua would be Yesuwa, yet the «all-knowing» Allah doesn’t mention it. And this mistake is unlike the erroneous translations of the Bible. God got his name right in Hebrew; the English translators erred. Even Arabic speaking Christians in the Middle East use the name Yesuwa for «Jesus.» Only Muslims use Isa.
            By way of recap, we’ve learned that the Qur’an wasn’t, as Allah claims, a book memorialized on heavenly tablets, but instead consisted of evolving text. The oldest Qur’ans differ from one another and from today’s version. We discovered that the original written copies were devoid of diacritical points, so most words were chosen on the basis of educated guesses. Their meanings were interpreted two centuries after the Qur’an was revealed orally. It’s not pure Arabic as Allah claims, as there are a plethora of foreign words. There are also missing words, wrong words, and meaningless words. And most important of all, the leading authority of the initial script of the Qur’an, studying the oldest fragments says: «One out of every five verses is indecipherable -- meaningless in any language.»
            Moving on, let’s see if what is left is accurate historically and scientifically. Allah’s claim, «This Qur’an must be the Word of Allah or they would have found fault in it» is torn asunder if it contains obvious errors of fact.
            A number of online websites were kind enough to chronicle a plethora of errors, so I have elected to present some of their findings. Let’s start with the historical blunders. The Qur’an claims that the Samaritans enticed Israel to make a golden calf when Moses was receiving the Ten Commandments on Mt. Sinai. Yet the term «Samaritan» hadn’t been coined when the events depicted in Exodus unfolded. The Samaritan people could not have existed during the life of Moses as they didn’t become a nation until 800 years later. The city of Samaria was founded by King Omri in 875 B.C. and the Samaritans became a «people» just after the tribes of Israel were dispersed by the Assyrians in the seventh century B.C. Thus Qur’an 20:85-7, and 95-7 are erroneous.
            In surahs 7:124 and 26:49 we find Pharaoh admonishing his sorcerers because they believed in the superiority of Moses’ power over them. Pharaoh threatens his magicians with cutting off their hands and feet on opposite sides (Qur’an 5:33), and then says they will all die on the cross by crucifixion. But there were no crosses in those days. Crucifixion was first practiced by the Assyrians in 519 B.C. under the rule of Darius I. Encyclopedia Britannica reports: «Crucifixion did not exist any earlier than about 500 B.C.» Muslim scholar, Malik Farid, in his translation of the Qur’an, says in footnote 1033, «Incidentally, the verse shows that even as early as in the time of Moses the punishment of death by crucifixion was in vogue» Rather than admit the Qur’an contained a historical blunder, a Muslim rewrote history to bail his god out.

            • Anonym

              Another interesting historical glitch occurs when Allah erroneously calls Mary the sister of Aaron in Qur’an 19:28, and the daughter of Imran (the Biblical Amran) in 66:12. While Miriam and Mary are the same name, the first Miriam, the sister of Aaron and the daughter of Amran, died 1,500 years before Mary, the mother of Yahshua, was born. (18:28; 66:12; 20:25-30) Hearing Muslims explain away the spectacular coincidence that both Mary and Miriam had a brother named Aaron and a father named Amram sounds identical to the way Catholics perform etymological gymnastics to explain away the fourteen Bible passages that clearly state Mary had other children.
              Another difficult passage concerns Haman. In the Qur’an he is a servant of Pharaoh and built a high tower to ascend up to the God of Moses (Qur’an 28:38; 29:38; 40:25,38). Yet the Babel tower dates 750 years earlier and is Babylonian, not Egyptian. The name Haman is brought to us by Esther. She writes about what became Persia 1,100 years after Pharaoh. While Muslim apologists say it is simply another Haman, the name is not Egyptian, but uniquely Babylonian.
              Qur’an 17:1 claims Muhammad went to the «farthest mosque» during his Night’s Journey. Consistent with the Hadith, Muslims believe this was the either the Jewish Temple or the Dome of the Rock, in Jerusalem. But neither existed in 620 A.D. The last Temple was destroyed in 70 A.D., and the Dome of the Rock was not built until 691, 59 years after Muhammad’s death! There are a host of other chronological breakdowns. One of my favorites is Allah’s insistence that Nimrod was a contemporary of Abraham.
              This ignorance of history and earlier Scripture speaks of a certain isolationism, which one would expect if the stories had been transmitted orally in an environment distant from that in which they originated. Although Muslims attempt to talk their way out of Mary being called a sister of Aaron, the misplaced and mistimed the tower of Babel, and Samaritans at the time of Moses, they just throw in the towel without a fight and proclaim world history wrong when it comes to crucifixion.
              As impossible as it is to reconcile these Qur’anic mumblings with the historical record, the «setting place of the sun» and the tales of Alexander the Great are more challenging still. Qur’an 18:86 states, «Until, when he reached the setting of the sun, he found it set in a spring of murky water: Near it he found a people: We said: O Dhu al Qarnayn…» The sun does not set in a muddy spring. There are no extraterrestrials living where the sun goes to bed, and no human -- and that would include Alexander the Great -- has ever visited with such creatures.
              In the continuing story of the Islamicized version of the Greek conqueror, we learn that Alexander’s power was given to him by Allah. Muslims contend, as the Hadith confirms, that he was an Islamic prophet. He was even credited with building an enormous wall of iron and brass between two mountains, which was tall enough and wide enough to keep an entire army at bay. Muhammad claimed that a hole was cut in the wall during his lifetime. Yet it is simple to test these claims because Alexander lived in the full light of history. We know that he was a great general whose debauchery and drunkenness contributed to his untimely death. He was an idolater, actually claiming to be the son of the Egyptian god Amun. The temple drawing depicting Alexander worshiping the sun god Amun is still present in Egypt. To say that he was an Islamic prophet, and that Allah was the agent for his power, is historically inaccurate. And why is there is no evidence anywhere that Alexander built a wall of iron and brass between two mountains, a feat which would have proven him to be one of the greatest builders and engineers in history? It’s one thing that the Qur’an has no prophecies -- predictions of things that are to come -- but it can’t even get the past right.

              • Anonym

                Moving from history to science, surahs 16:15; 21:31; 31:10; 78:6; 88:19 tell us that Allah threw down mountains like tent pegs to keep the earth from shaking. For illiterate men this would sound logical, since mountains are large and therefore, their weight would seemingly have a stabilizing effect. Yet the opposite is true. Mountains were built up, not thrown down. Rather than create stability they are the result of instability. Colliding tectonic plates push up the earth’s surface forming all non-volcanic mountains.
                Qur’an 16:66 says that cow’s milk comes from between the excrement and the blood of the cow’s abdomen. That doesn’t make sense, and it isn’t true. In Qur’an 16:69 we’re told that honey comes out of a bee’s abdomen. That’s not true either. Then, Qur’an 6:38 claims all animals and flying beings form communities like humans. While some do, most don’t. Take for example spiders, where in some species the female eats the male after mating. That’s not exactly a community like ours. Qur’an 25:45 maintains that the sun moves to create shadows. In other surahs it is shown orbiting and swimming. Even the moon was said to be effaced and racing the sun.
                Other statements make no sense at all. Qur’an 4:59 states, «Greater surely than the creation of man is the creation of the heavens and the earth; but most men know it not.» This implies that greatness is only measured by size. Yet we have learned that the complexity of life is much greater than the simplicity of all stars and dirt combined. Qur’an 65:12 reads, «It is Allah who has created seven heavens and as many earths.» Where might we find the other six earths? If these refer to the planets in our solar system, then they are short by two or three depending upon how one looks at Pluto.
                Meteors, and even stars are said to be missiles fired at eavesdropping Satans and Jinn who seek to listen to the reading of the Qur’an in Heaven (15:16-8; 37:6-10; 55:33-5; 67:5; 72:6-9 & 86:2-3). Are we to believe that Allah throws meteors (which are made up of carbon dioxide or iron-nickel) at non-material devils who listen to heavenly council? Are we to believe that there is a Jinn convention each time there’s a meteor shower? I don’t think so.
                Adlibbing on the Bible, Allah stammers. He claims king Solomon was taught the speech of birds and the language of ants (27:16-9). In addition to birds and ants, Jinn were forced to work for Solomon, making him whatever he pleased, such as palaces, statues, large dishes, and brass fountains (34:11-3). A malignant jinn was even commissioned to bring the Queen of Sheba’s throne in the twinkling of an eye (27:38-44).
                Following Solomon’s lead, in the 105th surah, Allah claims to have used birds to drop clay pebbles on Abraha’s army. But according to the historical record, his troops withdrew after smallpox broke out, not because they were dirty.
                Qur’an 18:9-25 tells the story of «some youths and a dog who sleep for 309 years with their eyes open and their ears closed» which is a clever trick in itself. The object was to show Allah’s ability to keep people and dogs without food or water for as long as he likes. In actuality the whole story was pilfered from a 6th century Syriac Christian manuscript: The Seven Sleepers of Ephesus.
                In surahs 2:65-6 and 7:163-7, Allah turns people who break the Sabbath into apes for their disobedience. Darwin must have been confused because he had it the other way around.
                In Qur’an 11:81 and 15:74 the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah are turned upside-down with angelic wings. There are as many errors in the accounting as there are sentences. We know this because these cities have been unearthed. The Bible’s account is accurate. The Qur’an’s is not.
                Moving on to theological errors, Qur’an 5:116 represents Christians as worshipping Mary as the third member of the Trinity. The Qur’an says: «Allah will say, O Jesus, son of Mary, did you say to the people, Make me and my mother idols beside Allah?» It was not until the seventeenth century -- a thousand years after the Qur’anic revelation -- that Alphonsus Liguori, (1696-1787) wrote his book, The Glories of Mary, in which he hoodwinked Catholics into promoting Mary to her present-day status. Interestingly, an insignificant and heretical sect called the Cholloridians held this view, and lived in the Middle East at the time of the Qur’an’s compilation in the eighth century. While this might have been be the source for such a gross error, an all-knowing God should have been aware of a core tenet of the Christian faith. But Allah got the whole of Yahshua the Messiah’s message and mission wrong.
                In an effort to show the scientific accuracy of the Qur’an, Muslim’s are quick to say that the embryology revealed in it was beyond what man had discovered for himself. However, Muslims are completely unaware that all of the information in the Qur’an about embryology had already been revealed many centuries before. Furthermore, it has all been shown to be scientifically inaccurate -- as is the totality of the Sunnah on this subject. The alleged «genius» of the Qur’an is found in its repetitive stories concerning the stages of formation of a fetus (surahs 22:5; 23:12-4; 40:67; 75:37-9; & 96:1-2). According to these surahs it passes through four stages, starting with torab, which means dust. Using a little hocus pocus, Muslims scholars translate torab as sperm, just to keep Allah from looking foolish. It becomes nutfah and alaqa. Though no one seems to know what the words «nutfah» or «alaqa» mean. Many have tried, contending that they are something which clings, a clot, an adhesion, an embryonic lump, and even chewed-up meat. The alaqa then creates motgha and uncreated motgha. But no one has a clue what motgha means. So some brilliant scholar suggested: «bones that are finally covered by flesh.» The alaqa to bone stage is also in Qur’an 23:13-4 which introduces us to: «We made him a nutfah (mixed drops of male and female sexual discharge) in the safe lodging. Then We made the nutfah into an alaqa (piece of thick coagulated blood), then a motgha (little lump of bones clothed in flesh).» A more accurate translation would be: «I haven’t got a clue.»
                Yet even the translators’ wishful interpretations are inaccurate. Neither sperm nor dust becomes a «lump» or «adhesion.» There is no clotting stage during the formation of a fetus. «The thing which clings» does not stop clinging to become «chewed meat,» but remains clinging for nine months. And the skeleton is not formed independent of flesh. In fact, muscles form several weeks before there are calcified bones, rather than arriving later as the Qur’an implies. It is, therefore, ironic to hear the above accounts cited as proof by modern day apologists of the Qur’an’s divine authority, when in fact, once the truth is known, the very science which they hope to harness for their cause proves to be their undoing.
                Before we leave professor Allah’s lecture on gestation, I’d like to repeat what Muhammad had to say about such things: Bukhari:V4B55N549 «Allah’s Apostle, the true and truly inspired said, ‘As regards to your creation, every one of you is collected in the womb of his mother for the first forty days, and then he becomes a clot for another forty days, and then a piece of flesh for forty days. [Four months, not nine.] Then Allah sends an angel to write four words: He writes his deeds, time of his death, means of his livelihood, and whether he will be wretched or blessed. Then the soul is breathed into his body. So a man may do deeds characteristic of the people of the Hell Fire…but he enters Paradise. A person may do deeds characteristic of Paradise…but he will enter the Hell Fire.’» It’s easy to see where Allah got his material and why he was so confused.
                In Qur’an 16:4, one of Allah’s twenty-five variant creation accounts, says, «He has created man from a sperm-drop,» But this was understood 2,000 years before Allah’s book was revealed. The Bible says, «Onan knew that the offspring would not be his; so when he went in to his brother’s wife, he wasted his seed on the ground in order not to give offspring to his brother.» (Genesis 38:9) Another Qur’anic assertion, that «man was created from the dust of the earth» was recorded in Genesis a few millennia before Muhammad ennobled his town’s rock idol.
                Muslim doctors, like Ibn-Qayyim, were first to blow the whistle when they saw the Qur’anic material mirrored by a much earlier Greek doctor named Galen. He lived in 150 A.D. In 1983 Basim Musallam, Director of the Center of Middle Eastern Studies at the University of Cambridge, concluded, «The stages of development which the Qur’an and Hadith established for believers agreed perfectly with Galen’s account. In other words when it comes to embryology, the Qur’an merely echoes the scientific knowledge man had already discovered 450 years earlier.»
                The Qur’an is wrong when it states: «He is created from a drop emitted, proceeding from between the backbone and the ribs.» This echoes the error of Hippocrates who believed semen originated from all the fluid in the body, starting from the brain down the spinal chord, before passing through the kidneys, testicles and penis. While Hippocrates error is understandable, Allah’s is not.
                In addition to factual errors, grammatical mistakes are prevalent and frequent. And while that wouldn’t be a big deal if we were talking about the Bible, it destroys the Qur’an. Yahweh never claimed that the Bible was inerrant. He knew better because he inspired men to write it with an imprecise tool called language. Allah wasn’t that smart. He claimed that his Qur’an was perfect because he says he wrote it himself. A single deficiency in a book claiming to be written by God, and dictated letter for letter as Muhammad memorialized it, is sufficient to destroy its credibility. But as you have grown to expect, grammatical errors abound. In Qur’an 2:177, the word sabireen should be sabiroon because of its position in the sentence. In 7:160, the phrase «We divided them into twelve tribes,» is written in the feminine plural: «Uthnati ashrat asbaataan.» To be grammatically correct, it should have been written in the masculine plural: «Uthaiy ashara sibtaan,» as all human plurals are automatically male in Arabic.
                In Qur’an 4:162, the phrase «And (especially) those who establish regular prayer» is written as «al Muqiyhina al salaat,» which again is in the feminine plural form, instead of the masculine plural. The following phrases, «(those who) practice regular zakat, and believe in Allah» are both correctly written in the masculine plural form. So the first phrase is simply a grammatical error. Qur’an 5:69 uses the title al Sabioon, referring to the Sabians, but it should be al Sabieen. And then we have schizophrenia. Allah refers to himself in first and third person, singular and plural, in the same surah. Subjects, verbs, and objects are routinely omitted from Allah’s sentences and dangling modifiers abound.
                While there are scores of examples, copyediting Allah is hardly entertaining. So for those who are still in doubt as to whether the Qur’an is subject to grammatical errors, consider the insights of one of the last Muslim scholars to write before such revelations became a dead sentence. Dashti said: «The Qur’an contains sentences which are incomplete and not intelligible; foreign words, unfamiliar Arabic words, and words used with other than the normal meaning; adjectives and verbs inflected without observance of the concords of gender and number; illogically and ungrammatically applied pronouns which sometimes have no referent [dangling modifiers]; and predicates which in rhymed passages are often remote from the subjects… To sum up, more than one hundred Qur’anic aberrations from the normal rules and structure of Arabic have been noted.» (Ali Dashti, Twenty-Three Years: A Study of the Prophetic Career of Muhammad, p 48)

                The Qur’an contains so many grammatical errors, Muslims defend it by finding similar errors in pre-Islamic poetry. What they don’t know, however, is that this poetry was fabricated for the specific purpose of defending the Qur’an. Egyptian scholar Taha Hussein, said, «The vast quantity of what is called pre-Islamic poetry has nothing to do with the pre-Islamic literature, but it is fabricated after Islam. Thus our research will lead us to a very strange conclusion; that this poetry cannot be used in interpreting the Qur’an.» (Fil-Adab al-Jaheli, Taha Hussein, Dar al-Ma’aref, p. 65-7)

                • Anonym

                  As we analyzed the Qur’an’s bastardization of the Biblical patriarchs, I suggested that Muhammad garnered much of his errant material from Jewish oral traditions -- the Talmud, Midrash, Targum, and other apocryphal works. Here is proof as revealed by Abraham Geiger in 1833, and further documented by Jay Smith and Dr. Abraham Katsh, of New York University (The Concise Dictionary of Islam, Katsh; The Bible and the Qur’an, Jomier; Studies, Sell; Islam, Guillaume).
                  I’ll begin with Smith’s analysis. «Possibly the greatest puzzlement for Christians who pick up the Qur’an and read it are the numerous Biblical stories which bear little similarity to the original accounts. The Qur’anic versions include distortions, amendments, and some bizarre twists. So where did these stories come from, if not from the previous scriptures?
                  «Upon investigation we discover that much of it came from Jewish apocryphal literature, the Talmud in particular. These books date from the second century A.D. -- about seven hundred years before the Qur’an was canonized. By comparing stories we destroy the myth that the Qur’an was inspired by God. The similarities between these fables, or folk tales, and the stories which are recounted in the Qur’an, are stunning.»
                  It’s ironic in a way. By plagiarizing fairytales and claiming that they were divinely inspired histories, Muslims actually destroyed the credibility of the book they were trying to bolster. And by writing such nonsense, the Jews loaded the gun Muslims are using to kill them.
                  The Talmudic writings were compiled from oral folklore in the second century. They evolved like the Islamic Hadith. As Jews became more numerous and urbanized, clerics and kings desired a more comprehensive set of laws and religious traditions to help them control their subjects. So Jewish rabbis set an example for Islamic imams. They created laws and traditions and artificially traced them back to Moses via the Torah. Then to help make the medicine go down, the rabbis coated their new commands in a syrupy slew of fanciful tales. Very few Jews consider the Talmudic writings authoritative, and none consider them inspired. They are only read for the light they cast on the times in which they were conceived.
                  So how did these uninspired Jewish Talmudic writings come to be included in the Qur’an? There are two ways, equally likely. After being hauled into captivity by the Babylonians, many Jews elected to stay. In fact, in 1948 when Israel became a state, the fourth largest concentration of Jews was in Iraq. So the Persians who canonized the Qur’an in the eighth and ninth century would have had ample access to them. And we know that Yathrib was principally a Jewish community. According to the Qur’an and Sunnah, Muhammad bought oral scripture recitals from the Jews before he robbed, banished, enslaved, and killed them.
                  Some scholars believe that the Islamic compilers of the eighth to ninth centuries merely added this body of literature to the nascent Qur’anic material to fill it out and make it seem more like scripture because scores of Qur’anic tales have their roots in second century Jewish apocryphal literature. Since the devil is in the details, I beg your patience as we work our way through them.
                  One of the Qur’an’s Cain and Abel stories is found in Qur’an 5:30. It begins much as it does in the Biblical account with Cain killing his brother Abel, though Allah doesn’t seem to recall their names in this rendition. Yet the moment one unnamed brother kills the other, the story changes and no longer follows the Biblical trail. The Qur’an’s variant was plagiarized from books drafted centuries after the Old Covenant had been canonized, after even the Renewed Covenant was written: the Targum of Jonathan-ben-Uzziah, The Targum of Jerusalem, and The Pirke-Rabbi Eleazar. All three are Jewish myths composed from oral traditions between 150 to 200 A.D.
                  The Qur’an says: Qur’an 5:31 «Then Allah sent a raven who scratched the ground to show him how to hide the shame of the dead body of his brother. ‘Woe is me!’ said he; ‘Was I not even able to be as this raven, and to hide the dead body of my brother?’ Then he became full of regrets.» We find a striking parallel in Talmudic sources. The Targum of Jonathan-ben-Uzziah says: «Adam and Eve, sitting by the corpse, wept not knowing what to do, for they had no knowledge of burial. A raven came up, took the dead body of its fellow, and having scratched at the ground, buried it thus before their eyes. Adam said, ‘Let us follow the example of the raven,’ so taking up Abel’s body, he buried it at once.» Apart from the contrast between who buried whom, the two stories are otherwise uncannily similar. We can only conclude that it was from here that Muhammad, or a later compiler, obtained his «scripture.» A Jewish fable came to be repeated as a historical fact in the Qur’an.
                  Yet that is not all. We find further proof of plagiarism of apocryphal Jewish literature; this time in the Jewish Mishnah Sanhedrin. The Qur’an reads: Qur’an 5:32 «On that account: We ordained for the Children of Israel that if anyone slew a person -- unless it be in retaliation for murder or for spreading mischief in the land -- it would be as if he slew all mankind: and if anyone saved a life, it would be as if he saved the life of all humanity.» The Mishnah Sanhedrin 4:5 says: «We find it said in the case of Cain who murdered his brother, the voice of thy brother’s blood cries out [this is a quote from Genesis 4:10, but not the rest...], and he says, it does not say he has blood in the singular, but bloods in the plural. It was singular in order to show that to him who kills a single individual, it should be reckoned that he has slain all humanity. But to him who has preserved the life of a single individual, it is counted that he has preserved all mankind.»
                  There is no Qur’anic connection between the previous verse, 31, and that which we find in the 32nd. What does the murder of Abel by Cain have to do with the slaying or saving of the whole people as there were no other people? Yet a rabbi’s comments on the verse are repeated almost word-for-word in the Qur’an. The muses of a mere human become the Qur’anic holy writ, and were attributed to God. That’s real embarrassing.

                  • Anonym

                    Speaking of embarrassing, I’d like to share something directly related to this Qur’an passage. The largest commercial radio station in the United Kingdom asked me to spend two hours speaking about the relationship between fundamental Islam and terrorism. Over the course of the interview, the station received several hundred phone calls and emails from irate Muslims. One woman, toward the end of the program, said, «You are typical of Americans who speak about things that you know nothing about. You don’t understand Islam or the Qur’an. You’ve taken everything out of context and have interpreted it too literally.» She went on to explain, «Islam is nonviolent because the Qur’an says: ‘If anyone kills a person, it is as if he killed all mankind and if anyone saves a life, it is as if he saves all of mankind.’ This was the very line the President of the United States, George W. Bush, quoted in a most revealing speech on terrorism. He said that Islam was a noble religion, and was peaceful because of the supposed existence of this verse, which he too improperly quoted in his speech.
                    Forgetting for a moment that the entire quote was pilfered verbatim from Mishnah Sanhedrin 4:5, proving that Qur’an 5:32 was plagiarized and not inspired, the Islamic apologist omitted the core of the verse and all of what follows. She misquoted the Qur’an by omitting the exemption for murder from the verse: «except in retaliation or the spread of mischief.» The «spread of mischief» is «non-Islamic behavior» and a «mischief maker» is anyone who does not «submit to and obey Allah and his Apostle.» The caller and President Bush took the verse out of context by not completing the point Allah was making. The next verse flows from the previous one. Qur’an 5:33 is violent, murderous, and intolerant: Qur’an 5:32 «The punishment for those who wage war against Allah and His Messenger and who do mischief in the land is only that they shall be killed or crucified, or their hands and their feet shall be cut off on opposite sides, or they shall be exiled. That is their disgrace in this world, and a dreadful torment is theirs in Hell.» Then: Qur’an 5:34 «Except for those who came back (as Muslims) with repentance before they fall into your power.»
                    In trying to defend Islam and the Qur’an, the President of the United States and the Muslim woman quoted a verse that was inspired by Jewish folklore rather than Muhammad’s god. Then they did what she falsely accused me of doing; she and George misquoted the Qur’an and took it out of context. But worst of all, they tried to deceive the millions into believing that Islam, the Qur’an, and its god were peaceful when the very passage they selected required Muslims to «punish» and «disgrace» non-Muslims with: murder, torture, mutilation, enslavement, or exile so that Allah might «torment them in Hell.»
                    It’s hard to know if the woman and the President of the United States had been deceived or if they were intent on deceiving. Both are equally bad, and both are symptomatic of Islam. In the President’s case, either is criminal.
                    And lest I forget, the next caller angrily told me, «I pledge to kill you to save mankind from you.» Trying to save Muslims from the deception of Islam and non-Muslims from the terror it inspires, requires patience and love.
                    Moving on, in Qur’an 21:51-71, we find one of the Qur’an’s many stories of Abraham. It says that Abraham confronted his people and his father because of the idols they worshiped. After an argument between Abraham and the people, they depart and Abraham breaks the smaller idols, leaving the largest one intact. When folks see this, they call Abraham and ask if he’s responsible, to which he replies that it must have been the larger idol who axed the little guys. After challenging the mutilated idols to speak, the locals reply, «You know full well that these idols do not speak!» To which Abraham gives a taunting retort, and they throw him into a fire. Then in the 69th verse, Allah commands the fire to be cool, making it safe for Abraham, and he miraculously walks out unscathed.
                    There are no parallels to this story in the Bible. But there is an equivalent in a second century book of Jewish folktales called The Midrash Rabbah. In its account, Abraham breaks all the idols except the biggest one. His father and the others challenge him on this, and he claims the bigger idol smashed the smaller ones. The enraged father doesn’t believe his son’s account, and takes him to a man named Nimrod, who throws him into a fire. But God made it cool, and he walked out unscathed. The uncanny similarity between these stories is unmistakable. Second century Jewish folklore and myth is repeated in the Qur’an as if it were divinely inspired scripture.
                    The next example is even more incriminating. In the 27th surah, named «Ants,» the Qur’an makes up a story along the lines of something you’d expect to see in a children’s fairytale. Come to find out, that’s where it came from. In 27:17-44 Allah tells a story about Solomon, a Hoopoe bird, and the Queen of Sheba. Let’s compare the Qur’anic account with one taken from Jewish folklore, the II Targum of Esther, which was written nearly five hundred years before the creation of the Qur’an.» (Tisdall and Shorrosh)
                    Qur’an 27:17 «And before Solomon were marshaled his hosts of Jinns and men, and birds, and they were all kept in order and ranks. And he took a muster of the Birds; and he said: ‘Why is it I see not the Hoopoe? Or is he among the absentees? I will certainly punish him with a severe penalty, or execute him, unless he brings me a clear reason (for absence).’ But the Hoopoe tarried not far: he (came up and) said: ‘I have compassed (territory) which you have not compassed, and I have come to you from Saba with tidings true. I found (there) a woman ruling over them and provided with every requisite; and she has a magnificent throne.’ (Solomon) said: ‘Soon shall we see whether you have told the truth or lied! Go you, with this letter of mine, and deliver it to them: then draw back from her, and (wait to) see what answer she returns.’ (The queen) said: ‘You chiefs! Here is delivered to me -- a letter worthy of respect. It is from Solomon, and is as follows: «In the name of Allah, Ar-Rahman, Ar-Rahim: Be you not arrogant against me, but come to me in submission (Islam, the true Religion).»‘ She said: ‘You chiefs! Advise me in (this) my affair: no affair have I decided except in your presence.’ They said: ‘We are endued with strength, and given to vehement war: but the command is with you; so consider what you will command.’ She said, ‘But I am going to send him a present, and (wait) to see with what (answer) return (my) ambassadors.’ So when she arrived, she was asked to enter the lofty Palace: but when she saw it, she thought it was a lake of water, and she (tucked up her skirts), uncovering her legs. He said: ‘This is but a palace paved smooth with slabs of glass.’»
                    From: II Targum of Esther : «Solomon gave orders ‘I will send King and armies against you (of) Genii [jinn] beasts of the land the birds of the air.’ Just then the Red-cock bird, enjoying itself, could not be found; King Solomon said that they should seize it and bring it by force, and indeed he sought to kill it. But just then, the cock appeared in the presence of the King and said, ‘I had seen the whole world (and) know the city and kingdom of Sheba which is not subject to you, My Lord King. They are ruled by a woman called the Queen of Sheba. Then I found the fortified city in the Eastlands (Sheba) and around it are stones of gold and silver in the streets.’ By chance the Queen of Sheba was out in the morning worshipping the sea, the scribes prepared a letter, which was placed under the bird’s wing, and away it flew, and (it) reached the Fort of Sheba. Seeing the letter under its wing Sheba opened it and read it. ‘King Solomon sends to you his Salaams. Now if it please you to come and ask after my welfare, I will set you high above all. But if it please you not, I will send kings and armies against you.’ The Queen of Sheba heard it, she tore her garments, and sending for her Nobles asked their advice. They knew not Solomon, but advised her to send vessels by the sea, full of beautiful ornaments and gems…also to send a letter to him. When at last she came, Solomon sent a messenger to meet her…Solomon, hearing she had come, arose and sat down in the palace of glass. When the Queen of Sheba saw it, she thought the glass floor was water, and so in crossing over lifted up her garments. When Solomon seeing the hair about her legs, (He) cried out to her…»

                    • Anonym

                      There are only two rational options available to us. If Solomon really marshaled devils, spoke to birds, and castles were made of glass, then both the Qur’an and Targum could have been inspired writings. But if this is not historically or scientifically accurate, then the Qur’an is a fake, a rotten job of plagiarism, nothing more. This counterfeit alone is sufficient to prove that the Qur’an is a colossal forgery. If you are Muslim reading these words, wake up.
                      One of the most documented and damaging facts about the Qur’an is that Muhammad used heretical Gnostic Gospels and their fables to create his «scripture.» The Encyclopedia Britannica comments: «The Gospel was known to him chiefly through apocryphal and heretical sources.»
                      The odd accounts of the early childhood of «Jesus» in the Qur’an can be traced to a number of Christian apocryphal writings: the Palm tree which provides for the anguish of Mary after Jesus’ birth (Qur’an 19:22-6) comes from The Lost Books of the Bible; while the account of the infant Jesus creating birds from clay (Qur’an 3:49) comes from Thomas’ Gospel. The story of the baby ‘Jesus’ talking (Qur’an 19:29-33) can be traced to an Arabic apocryphal fable from Egypt named The First Gospel of the Infancy of Christ.
                      The source of Qur’an 3:35 is the book called The Protevangelion’s James the Lesser. From it, Allah has Moses’ father beget Mary and then show his disappointment for having a girl. The source of Qur’an 87:19′s fictitious «Books of Abraham» comes from the apocryphal Testament of Abraham. The fantastic tale in Qur’an 2:259 that God made a man «die for a hundred years» with no ill effects on his food, drink, or donkey was from The Jewish Fable. The false notion in Qur’an 2:55-6 and 67 that Moses was resurrected came from the Talmud. The errant account of Abraham being delivered from Nimrod (surahs 21:51-71; 29:16; 37:97) came from the Midrash Rabbah .
                      In Qur’an 17:1 we have the report of Muhammad’s «journey by night from the sacred mosque to the farthest mosque.» From later Traditions we know this verse refers to him ascending up to the seventh heaven, after a miraculous night journey (the Mi’raj) from Mecca to Jerusalem, on an «ass» called Buraq. Yet we can trace the story back to The Testament of Abraham, written around 200 B.C., in Egypt, and then translated into Greek and Arabic centuries later.
                      The source of the devilish encounter in the Jewish court depicted in the 2nd surah is found in chapter 44 of the Midrash Yalkut. The Qur’anic myth in 7:171 of God lifting up Mount Sinai and holding it over the heads of the Jews as a threat to squash them if they rejected the law came from the apocryphal book Abodah Sarah .
                      The making of the golden calf in the wilderness, in which the image jumped out of the fire fully formed and actually mooed (7:148; 20:88), came from Pirke Rabbi Eleazer. The seven heavens and hells described in the Qur’an came from the Zohar and the Hagigah. Muhammad utilized the apocryphal Testament of Abraham to teach that a scale or balance will be used on the day of judgment to weigh good and bad deeds in order to determine whether one goes to heaven or hell (42:17; 101:6-9).
                      Neither the Jewish nor Christian apocryphal material is canonical or inspired. They have always been considered to be heretical by believers and literate people everywhere. For this reason scholars find it suspicious that the apocryphal accounts should have made their way into a book claiming to be the final revelation from the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob.
                      Another analogous account is that of The Secrets of Enoch (chapter 1:4-10 and 2:1), which predates the Qur’an by four centuries. What Allah didn’t steal from the Jewish fable, he borrowed from an old Persian book entitled Arta-i Viraf Namak. It tells how a pious young Zoroastrian ascended to the skies, and, on his return, related what he had seen, or professed to have seen.
                      The Qur’anic description of Hell resembles the portrayals in the Homilies of Ephraim, a Nestorian preacher of the sixth century,» according to Sir John Glubb, although I’m convinced most of hell’s torments came from the abuse Muhammad suffered in the desert as a youth.
                      The description of Paradise in suras 55:56, 56:22, and 35-7, which speak of the righteous being rewarded with wide-eyed houris, or virgins, who have eyes like pearls has interesting parallels in the Zoroastrian religion of Persia, where the maidens are quite similar. The rivers in the Persian Paradise flow with wine as well. Bukhari:V4B54N469 «Allah’s Apostle said, ‘The first batch who will enter Paradise will be like a full moon; and those who will enter next will be like the brightest star. Their hearts will be as the heart of a single man, for everyone of them shall have two wives from the houris, each of whom will be so beautiful, pure and transparent that the marrow of the bones of their legs will be seen through the flesh. They will never fall ill, and they will neither blow their noses, nor spit. Their utensils are silver, their combs are gold, the fuel used in their centers will be aloe, and their sweat will smell like musk.’»
                      Muhammad, or whoever compiled the Qur’an, incorporated parts of the religion of the Sabeans, Zoroastrianism, and Hinduism into Islam. He adopted such pagan rituals as: worshiping at the Ka’aba, praying five times a day towards Mecca, the zakat tax, and fasting in Ramadhan.
                      This caustic brew of uninspired ingredients may be why William St. Clair Tisdall, in his Original Sources of the Qur’an, wrote: «Islam is not an invention, but a concoction; there is nothing novel about it except Mohammed’s mixing old ingredients in a new panacea for human ills and forcing it down by means of the sword.» He went on to say: «Islam’s scriptures came to reflect the carnal and sensual nature of its founder. Islam therefore may aptly be compared with: ‘that bituminous lake where Sodom flamed,’ which, receiving into its bosom the waters of many streams that united form a basin that turns them into one great Sea of Death, from whose shores flee pestilential exhalations destructive to all life within reach of their malign influence. Such is Islam. Originating from many different sources, it has assumed its form from the character and disposition of Muhammad; and thus the good in it serves only to recommend and preserve the evil which renders it a false and delusive faith, a curse to men and not a blessing. Muhammad’s concoction has turned many of the fairest regions of the earth into deserts, deluged many a land with innocent blood, and has smitten with a moral, intellectual, and spiritual blight every nation of men which lies under its iron yoke and groans beneath its pitiless sway.»
                      It’s hard to imagine a more adept description of the poisons that oozed from Muhammad’s soul or a more adept summation of Islam’s legacy. Tisdall went on to write: «While the devout Muslim believes that the rituals and doctrines of Islam are entirely heavenly in origin and thus cannot have any earthly sources, scholars have demonstrated beyond all doubt that every ritual and belief in Islam can be traced back to pre-Islamic Arabian culture. In other words Muhammad did not preach anything new. Everything he taught had been believed and practiced in Arabia long before he was ever born. Even the idea of ‘only one God’ was borrowed from the Jews and Christians.»
                      Carlyle’s dictum on the Qur’an was also enlightened: «It is as toilsome reading as I ever undertook, a wearisome, confused jumble, crude, incondite. Nothing but a sense of duty could carry any European through it.» Samuel Zwemer, in The Influence of Animism on Islam wrote: «In no monotheistic religion are magic and sorcery so firmly entrenched as they are in Islam; for in the case of this religion they are based on the teaching of the Qur’an and the practice of the Prophet.» In other words, it’s Satan’s book.

  • uderzo

    kommentatoren ovenfor her!!!!!!!
    hva mener vedkomende???
    jeg har u tuben
    Lipps Inc- Funky Town(1980)
    uderzo

    • Ugle Sett

      Han har i hvertfall ramset opp en del overgrep mot småjenter(lik det Muhammed gjorde) pluss en del kvasivitenskap.
      Noe lignende er det kun Jehovas Vitner som presterer.

      • Sigurd

        @UG
        Når så du sist en aktiv muslim som ikke motsier seg selv rent logisk eller rent språklig logisk!

        Islam er ondskap og løgn!

      • uderzo

        jeg tar avstand fra jehovas vitner!
        svermeri og atter svermeri!!
        men som troende(kat)
        tross alt apokalypsen er del av våre hellige
        skrifter

        fullstendig klar over at det er et komplekst og sammensatt skrift
        man må nærme seg det i ydmykhet skritt for skritt!

        men dog utrolig spennende!

        uderzo

      • uderzo

        men denne kommandanten i auswitz
        rudolf høss (i sit hovmod)(i sin «dagbok»)
        fikk seg til å håne jv
        jeg forbanner nazismen!!!
        totalt menneskefiendtlig ideologi

        uderzo

        • Ugle Sett

          Mitt poeng er at diskusjon håpløs med troende muslim og JV,fravær av sunn fornuft.
          Islam opptrer i blant som ulv i fåreklær, i forkledningen ,, moderat,,.
          Har du Uderzo noen gang hørt om ,, moderat kristendom,,?
          Forøvrig hvordan går det med ferieplanene?
          Du må også ta turen innom Rosslyn Chapel, Sinclairenes hovedkirke, katolsk til 1800.
          Denne klanen nedstammet fra normannerre som slo seg ned i Nord-Øst-Skottland(Wick-Caithnes, dvs Vik og Katarnes).De snakket og forstod norsk, og det sies at Sinclairere var innom sine slektniger på Giske før de landet i Romsdalsfjorden og møtte sin skjebne i Kringen under det det kjente
          ,, skottetoget,,.
          Clan Sinclair har egen hjemmeside.
          De er også nevnt i fantasiromanen Da Vinci-koden.

          Selvsagt må du også besøke klosteret på øya Iona (Hebridene)hvor st.Columba endelig slo seg ned.
          Både norske,irske(Dublin), manske og skotske konger ligger begravet der.
          Ute av tema nok en gang, men hva gjør vel det??

          • Ugle Sett

            Sinclair, normannere fra Møre som var fra samme fylke eller i slekt med mørejarlene.
            De giftet seg med kvinner fra landsbyen St.Clair,Normandie.
            Derav navnet Sinclair.
            Gangerolf(Rollo)var i slekt med mørejarlene.
            Senere skulle denne slekt fordrive islamske arabiske herskere fra Sicilia.
            Normannerne viste stor toleranse ovenfor araberne, men de det gikk ikke i lengden.
            Islam ser på seg som ,,superb,,.
            Alle muslimer ble forvist.
            Intet er nytt under solen Broder Tuck.

  • Munich Machine

    Krigersk og noe ganske annet enn en fredlig religion :

    Al-Husayni besøkte Bosnia i 1941, og overtalte muslimske ledere om at Muslim S.S. divisjon ville være i Islams interesse.

    Muslimsk SS på Balkan var altså godkjent av stor-mufti av Jerusalem, Mohammad Amin al-Husayni. Han traff Hitler og hadde ikke bare kjennskap til Holocaust, han ville påvirke den også. Han forsøkte å blokkere transporten av jøder fra Ungarn, Romania og Bulgaria, fordi han hadde fått informasjon om at flere jøder hadde nådd Palestina.

    Han forsøkte å få Tel Aviv bombet, og sendte agenter ned for å forgifte drikkevannet. Og skulle Afrikakorpset under Rommels ledelse vinne, så skulle de opprette Einsatzkommando Ägypten med formål å drepe alle jøder i Palestina-området. Dette var planer som Mohammad Amin al-Husayni var med på å planlegge.

    Så muslimske ledere visste om Holocaust tidligere enn det folk flest vet om. De var også respektert av flere naziledere samt Hitler selv.

    Nevøen til muftien var Mohammed Abdel-Raouf Arafat As Qudwa al-Hussaeini, eller vi kalte ham for Yasser Arafat. Så da vet vi hvor PLO fikk sine kommandoer fra, og hva de var gjennomsyret av.

  • Sammenligningen mellom Mein Kampf og Koranen er ikke spesielt urimelig, for Mein Kampf var en inspirasjonskilde til jødehat, mord på annerledestenkende og generell intolleranse, noe Koranen tydeligvis fortsatt er.

  • Nadia

    Herregud. At jeg har giddi å lest dette her.
    skal si dere en ting!. ISLAM BETYR FRED, for dere som er uvitende. Vesten driver en gigantisk propaganda mot Islam, nettop fordi ISLAM er i ferd med å bli verdens største relgion. Get over it. Og SE BEGGE SIDER AV EN SAK.. før dere uttaler dere!!! TV2, CNN, NBC osv.. er jo selvsagt vestens-kanaler. VÅKN OPP!!!Og begynn å se litt på El-djazzerra også. Først da kan dere uttale dere. BUSH-Obama adm er de støste terroristene i verden!

    • Anonym

      «The definition of Islam is simple: Peace and Submission,» is accurate so far as it goes. The consonants form the root of the word «peace» in Arabic and when voweled the word means «submission.»
      Islam is growing only because of population explosion in the Islamic world and because Muslims kill those who reject Islam.
      And sadly, there is another reason Islam continues to grow. Its deception is seductive. Clerics and kings have deceived people into believing that Muhammad was a prophet and that Allah was a god. And that is particularly easy as Muslims don’t read or understand their own scriptures. If you would read Ishaq’s Sira, the History of Tabari, or even the Qur’an set in the context of Muhammad’s life, you wouldn’t be a Muslim. Islam wins with ignorance. You lose the same way!
      Muhammad called «bad Muslims» hypocrites or apostates. From the definition of Jihad provided to us by al-Bukhari, we learn: Book of Jihad «Jihad is an obligatory duty in Islam on every Muslim. He who tries to escape this duty, or does not fervently fulfill this obligation, dies as a hypocrite.»
      The next Hadith (Ishaq:394) clearly shows that the difference between «bad» (peace loving) Muslims and «good» (loyal) Muslims: «Allah said, ‘I let them get the better of you to test you. So fear Me and obey Me. If you had believed in what My Prophet brought from Me you would not have received a shock from the Meccan army. But We cause days like this so that Allah may know those who believe and may choose martyrs from among you. Allah must distinguish between believers and hypocrites so that He can honor the faithful with martyrdom…. Did you think that you would enter Paradise and receive My reward before I tested you so that I might know who is loyal? You used to wish for martyrdom before you met the enemy. You wished for death before you met it. Now that you have seen with your own eyes the death of swords…will you go back on your religion, Allah’s Book, and His Prophet as disbelievers, abandoning the fight with your enemy?’» Speaking of peaceful Muslims, the Qur’an says, 4.77 «Have you not seen those to whom it was said: Withhold your hands from fighting, perform the prayer and pay the zakat [religious tax]. But when orders for fighting were issued, a party of them feared men as they ought to have feared Allah. They say: ‘Our Lord, why have You ordained fighting for us, why have You made war compulsory?’» The Qur’an ordains Muslims to fight, whether they like it or not. War is compulsory. And the enemy is all non-Muslims. Islam is unambiguous: good Muslims kill. Good Muslims are loyal to the order to fight and kill all non-Muslims: Muslim:C9B1N33 «The Prophet said: ‘I have been commanded to fight against people till they testify that there is no god but Allah, that Muhammad is the Messenger of Allah, and they establish prostration prayer, and pay Zakat. If they do it, their blood and property are protected.’» Islam’s penalty for being a peace-loving Muslim is: Qur’an 33.6 «Truly, if the Hypocrites, those in whose hearts is a disease, those who stir up sedition, the agitators in the City, do not desist, We shall urge you (O Muhammad) to go against them and set you over them. Then they will not be able to stay as your neighbor for any length of time. They shall have a curse on them. Whenever they are found, they shall be seized and slain without mercy -- a fierce slaughter -- murdered, a horrible murdering. (Such was) the practice (approved) of Allah among those who lived before. No change wilt thou find in the practice of Allah.» Muhammad also orders: Bukhari V4B52N260 «If a Muslim discards his Islamic religion, kill him.»

  • Til Nadia og andre muslimer her.

    Problemet er at det ikke finnes andre historiske bevis for at Mohammad var noe annet enn en hærfører.

    Hans egen stamme ville ikke ha den nye moneteistiske retningen, noe Salman Rushdie skrev i Sataninic Verses.

    Koranen ble til i årene 710-714, Mohammad døde i Medina 632.

    Islam betyr underkastelse, så du er Allah’s slave.

    Rundt år 750 var det en kidnapping av en 4 årig gammel gutt som splittet muslimene i minst to fraksjoner, det var nesten krig mellom dem.

    Senere er dette omskrevet som forskjeller i synet på hvordan man tiltaler Allah osv.

    Mellom år 750 og 813 var det like mye uroligheter innen Islam som det er i dag.

    Så ser man om dette er guddommelig eller ikke, deres månegud er ikke Abrahams Gud desverre. For så mye vold som Islam har forvoldt siden 813 kan ikke være guddommelig.

  • Anonym

    As we analyzed the Qur’an’s bastardization of the Biblical patriarchs, I suggested that Muhammad garnered much of his errant material from Jewish oral traditions -- the Talmud, Midrash, Targum, and other apocryphal works. Here is proof as revealed by Abraham Geiger in 1833, and further documented by Jay Smith and Dr. Abraham Katsh, of New York University (The Concise Dictionary of Islam, Katsh; The Bible and the Qur’an, Jomier; Studies, Sell; Islam, Guillaume).
    I’ll begin with Smith’s analysis. «Possibly the greatest puzzlement for Christians who pick up the Qur’an and read it are the numerous Biblical stories which bear little similarity to the original accounts. The Qur’anic versions include distortions, amendments, and some bizarre twists. So where did these stories come from, if not from the previous scriptures?

    «Upon investigation we discover that much of it came from Jewish apocryphal literature, the Talmud in particular. These books date from the second century A.D. -- about seven hundred years before the Qur’an was canonized. By comparing stories we destroy the myth that the Qur’an was inspired by God. The similarities between these fables, or folk tales, and the stories which are recounted in the Qur’an, are stunning.»

    It’s ironic in a way. By plagiarizing fairytales and claiming that they were divinely inspired histories, Muslims actually destroyed the credibility of the book they were trying to bolster. And by writing such nonsense, the Jews loaded the gun Muslims are using to kill them.

    The Talmudic writings were compiled from oral folklore in the second century. They evolved like the Islamic Hadith. As Jews became more numerous and urbanized, clerics and kings desired a more comprehensive set of laws and religious traditions to help them control their subjects. So Jewish rabbis set an example for Islamic imams. They created laws and traditions and artificially traced them back to Moses via the Torah. Then to help make the medicine go down, the rabbis coated their new commands in a syrupy slew of fanciful tales. Very few Jews consider the Talmudic writings authoritative, and none consider them inspired. They are only read for the light they cast on the times in which they were conceived.

    So how did these uninspired Jewish Talmudic writings come to be included in the Qur’an? There are two ways, equally likely. After being hauled into captivity by the Babylonians, many Jews elected to stay. In fact, in 1948 when Israel became a state, the fourth largest concentration of Jews was in Iraq. So the Persians who canonized the Qur’an in the eighth and ninth century would have had ample access to them. And we know that Yathrib was principally a Jewish community. According to the Qur’an and Sunnah, Muhammad bought oral scripture recitals from the Jews before he robbed, banished, enslaved, and killed them.

    Some scholars believe that the Islamic compilers of the eighth to ninth centuries merely added this body of literature to the nascent Qur’anic material to fill it out and make it seem more like scripture because scores of Qur’anic tales have their roots in second century Jewish apocryphal literature. Since the devil is in the details, I beg your patience as we work our way through them.

    One of the Qur’an’s Cain and Abel stories is found in Qur’an 5:30. It begins much as it does in the Biblical account with Cain killing his brother Abel, though Allah doesn’t seem to recall their names in this rendition. Yet the moment one unnamed brother kills the other, the story changes and no longer follows the Biblical trail. The Qur’an’s variant was plagiarized from books drafted centuries after the Old Covenant had been canonized, after even the Renewed Covenant was written: the Targum of Jonathan-ben-Uzziah, The Targum of Jerusalem, and The Pirke-Rabbi Eleazar. All three are Jewish myths composed from oral traditions between 150 to 200 A.D.

    The Qur’an says: Qur’an 5:31 «Then Allah sent a raven who scratched the ground to show him how to hide the shame of the dead body of his brother. ‘Woe is me!’ said he; ‘Was I not even able to be as this raven, and to hide the dead body of my brother?’ Then he became full of regrets.» We find a striking parallel in Talmudic sources. The Targum of Jonathan-ben-Uzziah says: «Adam and Eve, sitting by the corpse, wept not knowing what to do, for they had no knowledge of burial. A raven came up, took the dead body of its fellow, and having scratched at the ground, buried it thus before their eyes. Adam said, ‘Let us follow the example of the raven,’ so taking up Abel’s body, he buried it at once.» Apart from the contrast between who buried whom, the two stories are otherwise uncannily similar. We can only conclude that it was from here that Muhammad, or a later compiler, obtained his «scripture.» A Jewish fable came to be repeated as a historical fact in the Qur’an.

    Yet that is not all. We find further proof of plagiarism of apocryphal Jewish literature; this time in the Jewish Mishnah Sanhedrin. The Qur’an reads: Qur’an 5:32 «On that account: We ordained for the Children of Israel that if anyone slew a person -- unless it be in retaliation for murder or for spreading mischief in the land -- it would be as if he slew all mankind: and if anyone saved a life, it would be as if he saved the life of all humanity.» The Mishnah Sanhedrin 4:5 says: «We find it said in the case of Cain who murdered his brother, the voice of thy brother’s blood cries out [this is a quote from Genesis 4:10, but not the rest...], and he says, it does not say he has blood in the singular, but bloods in the plural. It was singular in order to show that to him who kills a single individual, it should be reckoned that he has slain all humanity. But to him who has preserved the life of a single individual, it is counted that he has preserved all mankind.»

    There is no Qur’anic connection between the previous verse, 31, and that which we find in the 32nd. What does the murder of Abel by Cain have to do with the slaying or saving of the whole people as there were no other people? Yet a rabbi’s comments on the verse are repeated almost word-for-word in the Qur’an. The muses of a mere human become the Qur’anic holy writ, and were attributed to God. That’s real embarrassing.

    Speaking of embarrassing, I’d like to share something directly related to this Qur’an passage. The largest commercial radio station in the United Kingdom asked me to spend two hours speaking about the relationship between fundamental Islam and terrorism. Over the course of the interview, the station received several hundred phone calls and emails from irate Muslims. One woman, toward the end of the program, said, «You are typical of Americans who speak about things that you know nothing about. You don’t understand Islam or the Qur’an. You’ve taken everything out of context and have interpreted it too literally.» She went on to explain, «Islam is nonviolent because the Qur’an says: ‘If anyone kills a person, it is as if he killed all mankind and if anyone saves a life, it is as if he saves all of mankind.’ This was the very line the President of the United States, George W. Bush, quoted in a most revealing speech on terrorism. He said that Islam was a noble religion, and was peaceful because of the supposed existence of this verse, which he too improperly quoted in his speech.

    Forgetting for a moment that the entire quote was pilfered verbatim from Mishnah Sanhedrin 4:5, proving that Qur’an 5:32 was plagiarized and not inspired, the Islamic apologist omitted the core of the verse and all of what follows. She misquoted the Qur’an by omitting the exemption for murder from the verse: «except in retaliation or the spread of mischief.» The «spread of mischief» is «non-Islamic behavior» and a «mischief maker» is anyone who does not «submit to and obey Allah and his Apostle.» The caller and President Bush took the verse out of context by not completing the point Allah was making. The next verse flows from the previous one. Qur’an 5:33 is violent, murderous, and intolerant: Qur’an 5:32 «The punishment for those who wage war against Allah and His Messenger and who do mischief in the land is only that they shall be killed or crucified, or their hands and their feet shall be cut off on opposite sides, or they shall be exiled. That is their disgrace in this world, and a dreadful torment is theirs in Hell.» Then: Qur’an 5:34 «Except for those who came back (as Muslims) with repentance before they fall into your power.»

    In trying to defend Islam and the Qur’an, the President of the United States and the Muslim woman quoted a verse that was inspired by Jewish folklore rather than Muhammad’s god. Then they did what she falsely accused me of doing; she and George misquoted the Qur’an and took it out of context. But worst of all, they tried to deceive the millions into believing that Islam, the Qur’an, and its god were peaceful when the very passage they selected required Muslims to «punish» and «disgrace» non-Muslims with: murder, torture, mutilation, enslavement, or exile so that Allah might «torment them in Hell.»

    It’s hard to know if the woman and the President of the United States had been deceived or if they were intent on deceiving. Both are equally bad, and both are symptomatic of Islam. In the President’s case, either is criminal.

    And lest I forget, the next caller angrily told me, «I pledge to kill you to save mankind from you.» Trying to save Muslims from the deception of Islam and non-Muslims from the terror it inspires, requires patience and love.

    Moving on, in Qur’an 21:51-71, we find one of the Qur’an’s many stories of Abraham. It says that Abraham confronted his people and his father because of the idols they worshiped. After an argument between Abraham and the people, they depart and Abraham breaks the smaller idols, leaving the largest one intact. When folks see this, they call Abraham and ask if he’s responsible, to which he replies that it must have been the larger idol who axed the little guys. After challenging the mutilated idols to speak, the locals reply, «You know full well that these idols do not speak!» To which Abraham gives a taunting retort, and they throw him into a fire. Then in the 69th verse, Allah commands the fire to be cool, making it safe for Abraham, and he miraculously walks out unscathed.

    • Anonym

      There are no parallels to this story in the Bible. But there is an equivalent in a second century book of Jewish folktales called The Midrash Rabbah. In its account, Abraham breaks all the idols except the biggest one. His father and the others challenge him on this, and he claims the bigger idol smashed the smaller ones. The enraged father doesn’t believe his son’s account, and takes him to a man named Nimrod, who throws him into a fire. But God made it cool, and he walked out unscathed. The uncanny similarity between these stories is unmistakable. Second century Jewish folklore and myth is repeated in the Qur’an as if it were divinely inspired scripture.
      The next example is even more incriminating. In the 27th surah, named «Ants,» the Qur’an makes up a story along the lines of something you’d expect to see in a children’s fairytale. Come to find out, that’s where it came from. In 27:17-44 Allah tells a story about Solomon, a Hoopoe bird, and the Queen of Sheba. Let’s compare the Qur’anic account with one taken from Jewish folklore, the II Targum of Esther, which was written nearly five hundred years before the creation of the Qur’an.» (Tisdall and Shorrosh)
      Qur’an 27:17 «And before Solomon were marshaled his hosts of Jinns and men, and birds, and they were all kept in order and ranks. And he took a muster of the Birds; and he said: ‘Why is it I see not the Hoopoe? Or is he among the absentees? I will certainly punish him with a severe penalty, or execute him, unless he brings me a clear reason (for absence).’ But the Hoopoe tarried not far: he (came up and) said: ‘I have compassed (territory) which you have not compassed, and I have come to you from Saba with tidings true. I found (there) a woman ruling over them and provided with every requisite; and she has a magnificent throne.’ (Solomon) said: ‘Soon shall we see whether you have told the truth or lied! Go you, with this letter of mine, and deliver it to them: then draw back from her, and (wait to) see what answer she returns.’ (The queen) said: ‘You chiefs! Here is delivered to me -- a letter worthy of respect. It is from Solomon, and is as follows: «In the name of Allah, Ar-Rahman, Ar-Rahim: Be you not arrogant against me, but come to me in submission (Islam, the true Religion).»‘ She said: ‘You chiefs! Advise me in (this) my affair: no affair have I decided except in your presence.’ They said: ‘We are endued with strength, and given to vehement war: but the command is with you; so consider what you will command.’ She said, ‘But I am going to send him a present, and (wait) to see with what (answer) return (my) ambassadors.’ So when she arrived, she was asked to enter the lofty Palace: but when she saw it, she thought it was a lake of water, and she (tucked up her skirts), uncovering her legs. He said: ‘This is but a palace paved smooth with slabs of glass.’»
      From: II Targum of Esther : «Solomon gave orders ‘I will send King and armies against you (of) Genii [jinn] beasts of the land the birds of the air.’ Just then the Red-cock bird, enjoying itself, could not be found; King Solomon said that they should seize it and bring it by force, and indeed he sought to kill it. But just then, the cock appeared in the presence of the King and said, ‘I had seen the whole world (and) know the city and kingdom of Sheba which is not subject to you, My Lord King. They are ruled by a woman called the Queen of Sheba. Then I found the fortified city in the Eastlands (Sheba) and around it are stones of gold and silver in the streets.’ By chance the Queen of Sheba was out in the morning worshipping the sea, the scribes prepared a letter, which was placed under the bird’s wing, and away it flew, and (it) reached the Fort of Sheba. Seeing the letter under its wing Sheba opened it and read it. ‘King Solomon sends to you his Salaams. Now if it please you to come and ask after my welfare, I will set you high above all. But if it please you not, I will send kings and armies against you.’ The Queen of Sheba heard it, she tore her garments, and sending for her Nobles asked their advice. They knew not Solomon, but advised her to send vessels by the sea, full of beautiful ornaments and gems…also to send a letter to him. When at last she came, Solomon sent a messenger to meet her…Solomon, hearing she had come, arose and sat down in the palace of glass. When the Queen of Sheba saw it, she thought the glass floor was water, and so in crossing over lifted up her garments. When Solomon seeing the hair about her legs, (He) cried out to her…»
      There are only two rational options available to us. If Solomon really marshaled devils, spoke to birds, and castles were made of glass, then both the Qur’an and Targum could have been inspired writings. But if this is not historically or scientifically accurate, then the Qur’an is a fake, a rotten job of plagiarism, nothing more. This counterfeit alone is sufficient to prove that the Qur’an is a colossal forgery. If you are Muslim reading these words, wake up.
      One of the most documented and damaging facts about the Qur’an is that Muhammad used heretical Gnostic Gospels and their fables to create his «scripture.» The Encyclopedia Britannica comments: «The Gospel was known to him chiefly through apocryphal and heretical sources.»
      The odd accounts of the early childhood of «Jesus» in the Qur’an can be traced to a number of Christian apocryphal writings: the Palm tree which provides for the anguish of Mary after Jesus’ birth (Qur’an 19:22-6) comes from The Lost Books of the Bible; while the account of the infant Jesus creating birds from clay (Qur’an 3:49) comes from Thomas’ Gospel. The story of the baby ‘Jesus’ talking (Qur’an 19:29-33) can be traced to an Arabic apocryphal fable from Egypt named The First Gospel of the Infancy of Christ.

      • Anonym

        Official Islamic dictionaries, websites, and commentaries are consistent when they describe the nature of the elements which compose Islam. The scholastic summation proclaims: «As Islam solidified as a religious and a political entity, a vast body of exegetical and historical literature evolved to explain the Qur’an and the rise of the empire. The most important elements of which are Hadith, or the collected sayings and deeds of the Prophet Muhammad; Sunnah, or the body of Islamic social and legal custom; Sira, or biographies of the Prophet; and Tafsir, or Qur’anic commentary and explication. It is from these Traditions -- compiled in written form in the eighth to tenth centuries -- that all accounts of the revelation of the Qur’an and the early years of Islam are ultimately derived.»
        You’ve seen the following clerical proclamation before, but it’s worth repeating: «The Qur’an is one leg of two which form the basis of Islam. The second leg is the Sunnah of the Prophet. What makes the Qur’an different from the Sunnah is its form. Unlike the Sunnah, the Qur’an is quite literally the Word of Allah, whereas the Sunnah was inspired by Allah but the wording and actions are the Prophet’s. The Qur’an has not been expressed using any human words. Its wording is letter for letter fixed by Allah. Prophet Muhammad was the final Messenger of Allah to humanity, and therefore the Qur’an is the last Message which Allah has sent to us.»
        This is what Islamic clerics and scholars had to say about Bukhari’s Hadith Collection: «Sahih Bukhari is a collection of sayings and deeds of Prophet Muhammad (pbuh), also known as the Sunnah. The reports of the Prophet’s sayings and deeds are called Hadith. Bukhari lived a couple of centuries after the Prophet’s death and worked extremely hard to collect his Hadith. Each report in his collection was checked for compatibility with the Qur’an, and the veracity of the chain of reporters had to be painstakingly established. Bukhari’s collection is recognized by the overwhelming majority of the Muslim world to be one of the most authentic collections of the Sunnah of the Prophet (pbuh). Bukhari Abu Abdallah Muhammad bin Ismail bin Ibrahim bin al-Mughira al-Ja’fai was born in 194 A.H. and died in 256 A.H. His collection of Hadith is considered second to none. He spent sixteen years compiling it, and ended up with 2,602 Hadith (9,082 with repetition). His criteria for acceptance into the collection were amongst the most stringent of all the scholars of Hadith.»

        While there is no question Bukhari’s collection is sound religiously, its complete lack of chronology limits its usefulness. If you are interested in a subject like taxes or jihad you could turn to the appropriate chapter and read what Muhammad had to say about such things. But without the grounding of time, circumstance, constituents, and place, you’d be forced to take everything you read out of context. That’s why every accurate and unbiased presentation of the Muhammad of Islam must be based upon the biographical and historical Hadith collections compiled by Ishaq and Tabari. They, and they alone, enable a person to speak with authority about Islam without taking Muhammad’s example and scriptures out of context.
        Quite recently, however, there has been a new movement afoot in the Islamic world. Cleric and king have come to recognize they have a problem. The Qur’an and Sunnah are repulsive -- so are their prophet, god, and religion. They do not stand up to scrutiny. While they have been able to fool politicians and the media by repeating «Islam is a peaceful religion,» and they have been able to cower religious leaders by threatening them, it hasn’t worked on everyone. Enough Americans have learned the truth to put the Islamic power brokers in a terrible bind.
        So, those who benefit from Islam have deployed a new strategy. They proclaim that the Qur’an may not be translated out of the arcane language only 0.0003% understand. Imagine that; they want 99:9997% of those who listen to the surahs being recited to have no earthly idea of what is being said. In Classic Arabic, the verses have a good beat and the rhyme sounds heavenly. And if the only people who are authorized to interpret them all benefit from Islam, who is going to confess that the words are hellish?
        In this regard, the Qur’an is no different than rap music. Its cadence and rhyme are seductive while its lyrics are often corrupting. And the Qur’an works the same way, too. Those who listen are fleeced.
        While disguising the Qur’an’s evil intent via a language few understand solves one problem, the Islamic establishment still needs to deal with the vile message of the Sunnah. It’s one thing to say Allah’s jingle is too majestic to be translated, but Muhammad’s words were written in prose.
        To fix this problem, Islamic officials unveiled a different strategy during my earliest debates with them. They said that they were «unaware» of Tabari’s History. When that didn’t fly, they protested saying, Tabari isn’t «approved.» Then they claimed that it was just a «history book and not a collection of Hadith.» Some even said that it contained «unauthorized material.» While that’s not true, it created confusion and served their interests.
        Their rejection of Tabari is unsound for several reasons. First, Ishaq’s original manuscripts have been lost, so Tabari is the oldest unedited account of Muhammad’s life and the formation of Islam. Second, Tabari is nothing but a collection of Hadiths. Everything I quoted came complete with a chain of transmitters. In fact, Tabari’s isnads are more complete than Bukhari’s. And third, the Hadith Tabari compiled are no different than those arranged a century earlier by Ishaq, or by his near contemporary, Bukhari. They were all pumping from the same well -- digging out of the same pit.
        So why do you suppose Islamic officials ganged up on their best source? Because it was translated into English and available, while the others were not; that’s why. In each debate I urged listeners to go to the S.U.N.Y. Press website and buy Tabari and then read it for themselves. That was easy enough. If what I was quoting was accurate, everything Muslims were saying about their religion was a lie. America would know the truth. And if I misrepresented Tabari’s message, I promised to go away, never to be heard from again.
        The Islamic apologists knew what I was saying was not only true but devastating. They stopped debating me and started discrediting Tabari because they were aware of what I had discovered: the only English translation of Ishaq’s Sira was out of print and nearly impossible to find. I searched for a year, ordering it from the largest booksellers, the publisher, even used bookstores. I searched libraries, too, but to no avail. Muslims check Ishaq out and burn it. Fortunately, a Christian couple who had listened to one of my debates found a copy in a university library. They photocopied the Sira -- all 900 pages -- and sent it to me.
        The reason this is important is because those who benefit from Islam know that without a chronological presentation of Muhammad’s words and deeds, they can get away with murder -- literally. They can say whatever they like, and they do. Without Ishaq or Tabari, the Qur’an is senseless. Muslims can claim that the god of the Qur’an is the same as the God of the Bible when they are opposites. They can say Islam is peaceful even though it condemns peace and promotes war. They can argue that Muhammad only fought defensive battles, when his scriptures say he was a terrorist. They can posture the notion that Islam made the Bedouins better, when in fact it transformed them into bloody pirates and immoral parasites. They can claim that the Qur’an is Allah’s perfect book; when, by any rational criterion, it’s hideous.
        To put this in perspective, being a Muslim without the information contained in the only chronological presentations of Muhammad’s words and deeds would be like being a Christian without the Gospels. It would be impossible to be Yahshua-like without knowing Yahshua, his message and example. It would be like being a Jew without the Torah. All you’d have are prophets and psalms, and that’s just not enough, not even remotely.
        As you have discovered, the Qur’an isn’t like any intelligent book. It’s jumbled together without context or chronology, rendering it nothing more than a mean-spirited rant, a demented, delusional, and dimwitted tirade. Without the chronological Hadith collections of Ishaq and Tabari, Islam becomes whatever Islamic clerics and kings want it to be. So in their fiefdoms it’s all about jihad. In the free world, it’s all about peace.
        To prove my point, I’d like to review Islam’s Five Pillars to see if they stand without the Hadith collections found in the Sunnah. But before we begin, Islam provides an important clue. To find the Pillars, we must turn to the Hadith, not the Qur’an. And while I will conduct this analysis using the «approved» version of Islam’s Five Pillars, there are competing scenarios we must consider. As you might expect, Muhammad himself couldn’t decide what his priorities were -- much less Allah’s.
        The most famous Islamic proclamations echo the Qur’an’s incessant command to fight jihad in Allah’s Cause. Muhammad established jihad’s preeminence, claiming that fighting was the foundation upon which Islam’s other pillars must stand. Under the title «Fighting In Allah’s Cause -- Jihad,» we read: «Jihad is holy fighting in Allah’s Cause with full force of numbers and weaponry. It is given the utmost importance in Islam and is one of its pillars. By Jihad Islam is established, Allah’s Word is made superior (which means only Allah has the right to be worshiped), and Islam is propagated. By abandoning Jihad Islam is destroyed and Muslims fall into an inferior position; their honor is lost, their lands are stolen, their rule and authority vanish. Jihad is an obligatory duty in Islam on every Muslim. He who tries to escape from this duty, or does not fulfill this duty, dies with one of the qualities of a hypocrite.»
        The reason jihad supercedes the other pillars is because: Bukhari:V4B52N44 «A man came to Allah’s Apostle and said, ‘Instruct me as to such a deed as equals Jihad in reward.’ He replied, ‘I do not find such a deed. Can you, while the Muslim fighter has gone out for Jihad, enter a mosque to perform prayers without ceasing and fast forever?’ The man said, ‘No one can do that.’» So Jihad is superior to endless prayer and fasting. But there was more: Bukhari:V4B52N46 «I heard Allah’s Apostle saying, ‘The example of a Mujahid [Muslim fighter] in Allah’s Cause -- and Allah knows best who really strives in His Cause -- is like a person who fasts and prays without ever stopping. Allah guarantees that He will admit the Mujahid in His Cause into Paradise if he is killed, otherwise He will return him to his home safely with rewards and war booty.’» It’s the Devil’s rendition of the win-win scenario. And that leads us to the capper, the line that confirmed jihad was better than all of the Five Pillars combined: Bukhari:V4B52N50 «The Prophet said, ‘A single endeavor of fighting in Allah’s Cause is better than the world and whatever is in it.’»
        From the very beginning, there was always a direct causal link between the religion of Islam and Islamic terror: Bukhari:V4B52N63 «A man whose face was covered with an iron mask of armor came to the Prophet and said, ‘Allah’s Apostle! Shall I fight or embrace Islam first?’ The Prophet said, ‘Embrace Islam first and then fight.’ So he embraced Islam, and was martyred. Allah’s Apostle said, ‘A Little work, but a great reward.’» Consistent with this message, Bukhari:V1B2N25 «Allah’s Apostle was asked, ‘What is the best deed?’ He replied, ‘To believe in Allah and His Apostle Muhammad.’ The questioner then asked, ‘What is the next (in goodness)?’ He replied, ‘To participate in Jihad (religious fighting) in Allah’s Cause.’ The questioner again asked, ‘What is the next (in goodness)?’ He replied, ‘To perform Hajj (Pilgrim age to Mecca in accordance with the Traditions of the Prophet.’» This is important because it establishes Three Pillars, with Jihad being the second most important.
        The next rendition of Pillars eliminates the Hajj, which was number three above, and replaces it with the Khumus -- Muhammad’s share of stolen booty. Bukhari:V1B2N50 «They said, ‘O Allah’s Apostle, order us to do some religious deeds that we may enter Paradise.’ The Prophet ordered them to believe in Allah Alone and asked them, ‘Do you know what is meant by believing in Allah Alone?’ They replied, ‘Allah and His Apostle know better.’ Thereupon the Prophet said, ‘It means: 1. To testify that none has the right to be worshipped but Allah and Muhammad is Allah’s Apostle. 2. To offer prayers perfectly. 3. To pay the Zakat obligatory tax. 4. To observe fast during Ramadhan. 5. And to pay the Khumus (one fifth of the booty to be given in Allah’s Cause) to Allah’s Apostle.’»
        Contradictions aside and priorities confused, I promised to resolve Islam’s absolute reliance on the Sunnah by analyzing the «officially recognized» Pillars. To begin: Bukhari:V1B2N7 «Allah’s Apostle said: ‘Islam is based on (the following) five (principles): 1. To testify that none has the right to be worshipped but Allah and Muhammad is Allah’s Apostle.’» Let’s tackle them one at a time. In its present order, the Qur’an’s initial surah, the 2nd, (the 1st is an invocation, not a revelation as it speaks to god not to man) makes a transition from Ar-Rahman to Allah. But as we read on, this changes. The Qur’anic God becomes Ar-Rahman again and then a nameless Lord. Without the chronology the Sira’s Hadith provide, Muslims don’t know who God is or how many of them there are. Furthermore, they know nothing about the «Apostle.» Without the Sunnah, acknowledging him in the profession of faith is like a recording device asking to be credited for bringing you the songs of your favorite artist.
        But it gets worse. The Qur’an orders Muslims to obey the Messenger. If you don’t know what he ordered, that’s impossible. The Qur’an alleges that it’s entirely composed of Allah’s commands, not Muhammad’s, so you’d be out of luck. The Qur’an also tells Muslims that they must follow the Messenger’s example, yet the only place that example is established is in the Sunnah. Therefore, Islam’s First Pillar is utterly meaningless, and impossible to implement, without Ishaq and Tabari.
        The Second Pillar is: «2. To offer the (compulsory congregational) prayers dutifully and perfectly.» Once again, that’s not feasible. The «compulsory congregational prayer» isn’t described in the Qur’an. There aren’t even any clues. In fact, the Qur’an says that there should be three prayers, none of which it depicts, and the Hadith demands five. The only explanation of the obligatory prostration is found in the Sunnah -- and even then it’s never described by the prophet himself. Muslims are performing a ritual without Qur’anic precedence. As such, the Second Pillar is rubble.
        Let’s see if the Third Pillar survives without the Sunnah. To find out, we turn to the Hadith: Bukhari:V1B2N7 «3. To pay Zakat.» How is that possible when the terms of the Zakat are omitted from the Qur’an? The first to commit them to paper was Ishaq. A century later, Tabari referenced Ishaq’s Hadith. The only reason Muslims can pay the Zakat is because Ishaq explained it to them. The Profitable Prophet Plan is bankrupt without the Sira.
        Surely the Fourth Pillar will fare better: «4. To perform Hajj.» Nope. That’s impossible too. The only explanations of the Hajj are in the Sunnah. No aspect of the pilgrimage can be performed without referencing the Hadith. Muslims would be lost without it.
        Do you suppose Allah will redeem himself and explain the final pillar in his «perfect, detailed, and final revelation to mankind?» Bukhari:V1B2N7 «5. To observe fast during the month of Ramadan.» Guess what? Allah forgot to explain the nature of the fast. Without the Hadith, Muslims would be expected to forgo eating during the entire month of Ramadhan. But that’s not the way they observe the fast, for it’s not the way it’s explained in the Sunnah. As a matter of fact, without the Hadith, Muslims wouldn’t know why Ramadhan was special. The only account of the initial revelation is in their Traditions -- initially chronicled by Ishaq and then copied by Bukhari, Muslim, and Tabari.
        Without Ibn Ishaq and those who copied and edited his arrangement of Hadith concerning Muhammad’s words and deeds, there would be no Islam. The Qur’an is senseless and the Five Pillars are meaningless. Faith is folly. And that’s especially true since the lone individual responsible for Islam, Allah, and the Qur’an, preached: Bukhari:V9B88N174 «Allah’s Apostle said, ‘Far removed from mercy are those who change the religion of Islam after me! Islam cannot change!’»
        The penalty for escaping Muhammad’s clutches has always been high. Bukhari:V4B52N260 «The Prophet said, ‘If a Muslim discards his religion, kill him.’» This was no ordinary prophet or religion. No, Muhammad was special. He was a terrorist and a pirate, and you don’t find too many of those in religious circles. Bukhari:V4B52N220 «Allah’s Apostle said, ‘I have been made victorious with terror. The treasures of the world were brought to me and put in my hand.’»
        Yes, Islam was the Profitable Prophet Plan. It was all about Muhammad, and he knew it. That is why he required his Sunnah, or example to be enacted as law. Tabari IX:82 «The Messenger sent [killer] Khalid out to collect taxes with an army of 400 and ordered him to invite people to Islam before he fought them. If they were to respond and submit, he was to teach them the Book of Allah, the Sunnah of His Prophet, and the requirements of Islam. If they should decline, then he was to fight them.» His Sunnah has become the basis for Islamic law -- the most repressive code on earth. And Muslims follow his example, which is why they are the most violent people on earth.
        So it all comes down to this: If the Hadith Collections of Ishaq, Tabari, Bukhari and Muslim are true, Muhammad was the most evil man who ever lived, Allah was the most demented god ever conceived, and Islam was the most vile doctrine ever imposed on humankind. If, however, the Hadith Collections are untrue, then nothing is known of Muhammad, the conception of his god, or his formation of Islam. There is no rational reason to believe it, observe it, suffer under it, or die for it.

  • Anonym

    Jan.S you can delete:
    Anonym 30. august 2010 18:00 · Svar and Anonym 30. august 2010 18:02 · Svar

  • Anonym

    Here are some more goodies from Professor Allah: :)
    Islamic Science
    Bukhari:V4B55N546 «Allah’s Apostle said, ‘Gabriel has just now told me of the answer. If a man has sexual intercourse with his wife and gets discharge first, the child will resemble him, and if the woman gets discharge first, the child will resemble her.’»
    Tabari I:258
    Qur’an 15:26 «Allah created Adam from sticky clay, meaning viscous and sweet smelling slime, being stinking. It became stinking slime after having been compact soil.»
    Qur’an 80:17 «Be cursed man! He has self-destructed. From what stuff did He create him? From nutfa (male and female semen drops) He created him and set him in due proportion.»
    Tabari I:258 «Allah sent Gabriel to the earth to bring Him some clay. The earth said, ‘I take refuge in Allah against you mutilating me. Then He sent the angel of death. He took some soil from the earth and made a mixture. He did not take it from a single place but took red, white, and black soil. Therefore, the children of Adam came out different.»
    Bukhari:V4B54N430 «Allah’s Apostle, the true and truly inspired said, ‘Regarding the matter of the creation of a human being: humans are put together in the womb of the mother in forty days. Then he becomes a clot of thick blood for a similar period. He becomes a piece of flesh for forty days. Then Allah sends an angel who is ordered to write four things: the new creature’s deeds, livelihood, date of death, and whether he will be blessed or wretched. He will do whatever is written for him.’»
    Tabari I:293 «When Allah cast Adam down from Paradise, Adam’s feet were on earth while his head was in heaven. He became too familiar with the angels and they were in awe of him so much so that they complained to Allah in their various prayers. Allah, therefore, lowered Adam. But Adam missed what he used to hear from the angels and felt lonely. He complained to Allah and was sent to Mecca. On the way every place where he set foot became a village, and the interval between his steps became a desert until he reached Mecca.»
    Bukhari:V4B54N482 «Allah’s Apostle said, ‘The Hell Fire complained to its Lord saying, «O my Lord! My different parts are eating each other up.» So, He allowed it to take two breaths, one in winter, the other in summer. This is the reason for the severe heat and bitter cold you find in weather.’»
    Bukhari:V1B10N510 «Allah’s Apostle said, ‘If it is very hot, the severity of the heat is from the raging of the Hell Fire.’»
    Qur’an 56:58 «Then tell Me the semen that you emit, throwing out. Is it you who create it, or are We the Creators? [It's only natural - the god of lust is the god of semen.] We have decreed/predestined/ordained Death for you all, and We are not to be frustrated from replacing you with others in (forms) that you know not.»
    Ishaq:255 «Jewish rabbis came to the Apostle and asked him to answer four questions saying, ‘If you do so we will follow you, testify to your truth, and believe in you.’ They began, ‘Why does a boy resemble his mother when the semen comes from the father?’ Muhammad replied, ‘Do you not know that a man’s semen is white and thick and a woman’s is yellow and thin? The likeness goes with that which comes to the top.’ ‘Agreed,’ the rabbis proclaimed. ‘Tell us about your sleep.’ ‘Do you not know that a sleep which you allege I do not have is when the eye sleeps but the heart is awake?’ ‘Tell us about what Israel [Jacob] voluntarily forbade himself.’ ‘Do you not know that the food he loved best was the flesh and milk of camels or perhaps two lobes of liver, kidneys, and fat?’ ‘Tell us about the spirit.’ »Do you not know that it is Gabriel, he who comes to me?’ ‘Agreed,’ the rabbis said. ‘But Muhammad, your spirit is an enemy to us, an angel who comes only with violence and the shedding of blood, and were it not for that we would follow you.»
    Qur’an 33:72 «We did indeed offer the opportunity to the Heavens, the Earth, the Mountains, but they refused to take it, being afraid (of Allah’s torment). But man undertook it. He was unjust and foolish. Lo, he has proved a tyrant and fool, ignorant. Allah has to punish the Hypocrites, men and women, and the Unbelievers.»
    Tabari I:232 «Gabriel brings to the sun a garment of luminosity from the light of Allah’s Throne according to the measure of the hours of the day. The garment is longer in the summer and shorter in the winter, and of intermediate length in autumn and spring. The sun puts on that garment as one of you here puts on his clothes.»
    Tabari I:233 «When the Messenger was asked about that, he replied, ‘When Allah was done with His creation He created two suns from the light of His Throne. His foreknowledge told Him that He would efface one and change it to a moon; so the moon is smaller in size.»
    Tabari I:234 «Allah thus sent Gabriel to drag his wing three times over the face of the moon, which at the time was a sun. He effaced its luminosity and left the light in it. This is what Allah means: [in Qur'an 17:12] ‘We have blotted out the sign of the night, and We have made the sign of the day something to see by.’ The blackness you can see as lines on the moon is a trace of the blotting.»
    Tabari I:244 «Allah then created for the sun a chariot with 360 handholds from the luminosity of the light of the Throne and entrusted 360 of the angels inhabiting the lower heaven with the sun and its chariot, each of them gripping one of those handholds. Allah also entrusted 360 angels with the moon.»
    Tabari I:234 «Then the Prophet said: ‘For the sun and the moon, Allah created easts and wests on the two sides of the earth and the two rims of heaven. There are 180 springs in the west of black clay-this is why Allah’s word says: «He found the sun setting in a muddy spring.» [18:86] The black clay bubbles and boils like a pot when it boils furiously.’»
    Qur’an 18:83 «They ask you about Dhu’l-Qarnain [Alexander the Great]. Say, ‘I will cite something of his story. We gave him authority in the land and means of accomplishing his goals. So he followed a path until he reached the setting place of the sun. He saw that it set in black, muddy, hot water. Near it he found people.»
    Tabari I:236 «‘When the sun rises upon its chariot from one of those springs it is accompanied by 360 angels with outspread wings…. When Allah wishes to test the sun and the moon, showing His servants a sign and thereby getting them to obey, the sun tumbles from the chariot and falls into the deep end of that ocean. When Allah wants to increase the significance of the sign and frighten His servants severely, all of the sun falls and nothing of it remains in the chariot. That is a total eclipse of the sun. It is a misfortune for the sun.’»
    Tabari I:235 «Allah’s Apostle said, ‘Allah created an ocean three farakhs (918 kilometers) removed from heaven. Waves contained, it stands in the air by the command of Allah. No drop of it is spilled. All the oceans are motionless, but that ocean flows at the speed of an arrow. The sun, moon and retrograde stars [planets] by which Allah swears in the Qur’an [81:15], run like the sun and moon and race. All of the other stars are suspended from heaven as lamps are from mosques, and circulate together praising Allah. The Prophet said, ‘If you wish to have this made clear, look to the circulation of the sphere alternately here and there.’»
    Tabari I:236 «Allah created two cities out in space, each with ten thousand gates, each 6 kilometers distant from the other. By Allah, were those people not so many and so noisy, all the inhabitants of this world would hear the loud crash made by the sun falling when it rises and when it sets. Gabriel took me to them during my Night Journey from the Sacred Mosque [the Ka'aba] to the Farthest Mosque [the Jewish Temple in Jerusalem]. I told the people of these cities to worship Allah but they refused to listen to me.»
    Bukhari:V4B54N421 «I walked hand in hand with the Prophet when the sun was about to set. We did not stop looking at it. The Prophet asked, ‘Do you know where the sun goes at sunset?’ I replied, ‘Allah and His Apostle know better.’ He said, ‘It travels until it falls down and prostrates Itself underneath the Throne. The angels who are in charge of the sun prostrate themselves, also. The sun asks permission to rise again. It is permitted. Then it will prostrate itself again but this prostration will not be accepted. The sun then says, «My Lord, where do You command me to rise, from where I set or from where I rose?» Allah will order the sun to return whence it has come and so the sun will rise in the west. And that is the interpretation of the statement of Allah in the Qur’an.’»
    Qur’an 36:38 «The sun keeps revolving in its orbit at the dispensation of the All-Knowing. And the Moon, We have measured for her mansions till she returns like dried date stalks. It is not permitted for the Sun to overtake the Moon, nor can the Night outstrip the Day. Each (just) swims along, floating in (its own) orbit as a Sign as in a race. And we made similar vessels [chariots] for them to ride. But we could have drowned them if we pleased.»
    Tabari I:332 «The sun and the moon were in eclipse for seven days and nights.»
    Qur’an 67:3 «We created seven heavens, one above the other. Muhammad, can you see any fault in Ar-Rahman’s creation? Look again: Can you see any rifts or fissures? Then look again and yet again. Your gaze turns back dazed and tired. We have adorned the lowest skies with lamps, and We have made them missiles to drive away the devils and against the stone Satans, and for them We have prepared the doom of Hell and the penalty of torment in the most intense Blazing Fire.»
    Qur’an 38:27 «We have not created the heavens and earth and all that lies between for nothing.»
    Qur’an 21:26 «Don’t the unbelievers see that the heavens and earth were joined together in one piece before we clove them asunder? …Will they not believe? And We have set on the earth mountains as stabilizers, lest the earth should convulse without them. And We have made therein broad highways for them to pass through, that they may be guided. We have made the heaven a roof well guarded. Yet they turn away from its Signs! All (the celestial bodies) swim along, on a course, floating.»
    Qur’an 2:189 «They ask you about the New Moons. Say: They are but signs to mark fixed seasons in (the affairs of) men, and for Hajj Pilgrimage.»
    Tabari I:204 «I asked the Prophet, ‘Where was Allah before His creation?’ Muhammad replied: ‘He was in a cloud with no air underneath or above it.’»
    Tabari I:219 «When Allah wanted to create the creation, He brought forth smoke from the water. The smoke hovered loftily over it. He called it ‘heaven.’ Then He dried out the water and made it earth. He split it and made it seven earths on Sunday. He created the earth upon a big fish, that being the fish mentioned in the Qur’an. By the Pen, the fish was in the water. The water was upon the back of a small rock. The rock was on the back of an angel. The angel was on a big rock. The big rock was in the wind. The fish became agitated. As a result, the earth quaked, so Allah anchored the mountains and made it stable. This is why the Qur’an says, ‘Allah made for the earth firmly anchored mountains, lest it shake you up.’»

  • Anonym

    What does it REALLY say in the Qur’an about non-believers? Every single one of the verses in the Quran with a positive message for non-Muslims is abrogated, leaving nothing positive for non-Muslims. Not one verse. YOU’VE probably heard someone quote “good” verses from the Quran. Bill Warner wanted to know exactly how many verses in the Quran are positive for non-Muslims, so he counted them. The answer is 245. That’s pretty good. That adds up to 4,018 words in the Quran, and comprises 2.6 percent of the total Quranic text. But, says Warner, “in every case, the verse is followed by another verse that contradicts the ‘good’ verses.” Furthermore, except for seven verses, every “good verse” is abrogated laterin the same chapter (known as a “sura”). Those seven exceptions are abrogated in later chapters.
    There’s more. Warner says, “The media emphasizes Islam’s positive verses about the People of the Book, the Jews and Christians. Even this turns out to be illusory. Christians and Jews receive the goodness of Islam only if they agree that their sacred texts are corrupt, the Koran is true, and that Mohammad is a prophet of the Christian and Jewish religion.” If they do that, they will get the blessings of Islam. Of course, if they do that, they are no longer Christians or Jews; they’re Muslims. So there is nothing positive in the Quran for non-Muslims. Period. And there are 527 verses in the Quran that are intolerant to non-Muslims, 109 verses calling on Muslims to make war on non-Muslims. When non-Muslims read the Quran and don’t like it, sometimes they’re accused of “having an unfavorable view of Islam” or being an Islamophobe. Or they may be simply accused of “hatred.” But, really, what is there to like about any of this if you’re a non-Muslim? citizenwarriors.co…/07/bill-warner.html

Leave a Reply

  

  

  


*

You can use these HTML tags

<a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>