Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.


Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 [6] 7 8 9
« on: July 24, 2013, 03:23:08 PM »

 Brothers and sisters, please read the following article and download the slide show:

 You must download the slide show. It's amazing and it will take some few seconds.


Is there any proof from any authentic Hadith or any other thing that the present ordering of the verses in the Surahs and the Surahs in the Quran is correct?

Many people ask this Question but I'm unable to answer this. Please help.


 Brother some anti-Islamists like to claim that adding vowel mark has changed the Quran. Besides they claim that a language undergoes changes with the change of time. They ask, how did how did Hajjaj Bin Yusuf who came many many years after Muhammad (SAW), Hazrat Abu Bakr, Hazrat Umar, Hazrat Uthman and Hazrat Ali ,know where to put the vowel marks? They say at first Quran didn't make any sense, so to give it a meaning the early Muslims added vowel marks. Below are their claims:

1.  A simple definition of language is.  How we communicate information to others. 
2.  Eternal medium for this transfer of information is by sound symbols.  This is called speech.
3.  Since, sound dies as soon as it is uttered from speakers.  It could not be preserved until modern times, unless it was preserved in the form of script.   Hence, Language, meanings and script are very interdependent.
4.  Furthermore, languages change overtime.  All aspect of language that is, Lexical (meanings/concepts associated with words), grammar, phonology, semantics and syntax, all of these.
5.  Hence, in the face of changing landscape, preservation in the form of script is/was very important and related.

 They say that the vowel marks can be put anywhere according to its necessity to give a word a meaning.

So, How do we answer these anti-Islamists to shut their mouth once and for all?

« on: July 21, 2013, 01:06:52 PM »






وَنَفْسٍ وَمَا سَوَّاهَا



Brother the above is the 7th verse of the Surah Ashams.I copied the verse from the online Quran. Okay, as you can see there is no shaddah/tashdeed  over " وَ "  in the word " وَمَا   " But the Quran which I have at my home contains a shaddah/tashdeed   over " وَ ".


So, I'm confused. Is this a mistake or one of the rules of Arabic Grammar ? Please explain me this.


 Brothers, we don't know how far the Qiyamah is, but if we die before the Qiyamah, will we be able to experience it?

« on: July 18, 2013, 10:46:03 AM »

  I'm a Muslim who prays 5 times a day and I'm very proud to be a Muslim. But, everyday hundreds of questions and suspicions about Islam arise in my mind. After getting their answers, again questions and suspicions arise. I tried my best to get rid of them but I couldn't.

I read many articles containing scientific, historic facts of the Quran on different Islamic sites. After reading them I realize Islam is the only true religion and I'm on the right path. I feel confident. But after some while again suspicions and questions arise.

 So, Is there any way I can get rid of these suspicions about Quran and Sunnah? Please somebody help me.

Take Care.



 An article of Answering Islam claims that Quran contains Historical errors. Bellow is a portion of that article:

[Alexander the Great

It is amazing to see the Qur'an talking about Alexander the Great as if he were a righteous man and a teacher, though it is well-known that the Greek, Alexander, was idolatrous and claimed to be the son of Amun, the God of Egypt. If the reader wonders where it is recorded in the Qur'an that Alexander was a righteous man, we would refer him to the chapter of the Cave 18:83-98 where we encounter sixteen verses which talk about this military general. These verses explicitly say that God assisted him, guided him and removed all obstacles from his way in order that he could accomplish his plans and fulfill his desires. They indicate that Alexander was the one who reached the place of the sunset and found it set down in a well of water and mud. They claim that he encountered some people and God gave him the option to torment them, to kill them or to take them captive, call them to the faith and to lead them in a straight path.

These comments are expressed by all the scholars without any exception (refer to Baydawi, p. 399, al-Jalalan, p. 251, al-Tabari, p. 339, al-Zamakhshari, part 2 of al-Kash-shaf, p. 743). If we do not refer to these great expounders of the Qur'an to whom, then, shall we refer? The Greek Alexander was not a righteous servant of God as the Qur'an said, but he was a licentious, belligerent, idolatrous man. He did not have any relationship with God and God never asked him to guide people and to teach them the faith.


Other Historical Errors

Does the reader believe that Abraham did not offer Isaac, but Ishmael, as a sacrifice? This is what all Muslim scholars say. Do you know that the Qur'an claims that Haman was pharaoh's prime minister even though Haman lived in Babylon one thousand years later? Yet the Qur'an says so. The Qur'an says that the one who picked Moses from the river was not his sister but his mother (28:6-8), and that a Samaritan was the one who molded the golden calf for the children of Israel and misguided them, and the golden calf was lowing (refer to chapter 20:85-88) though it is well-known that Samaria was not in existence at that time. The Samaritans came after the Babylonian exile. How could one of them have made the golden calf for the people of Israel?

Concerning the birth of Christ, the Qur'an teaches that the Virgin Mary gave birth to him under the shade of a palm tree and not in a manger of sheep (refer to Mary 19:23). The Qur'an ignores all the documented historical evidence available to all people across the ages and brings us new discoveries!
The Qur'an claims (Chapter 2:125-127) that Abraham and Ishmael, his son, are the ones who built The Ka'ba in Mecca in Saudi Arabia. The late Dr. Taha Husayn (the most famous professor of Arabic literature in Egypt) acknowledges that the information recorded in the Qur'an pertaining to the construction of Ka'ba at the hand of Abraham and Ishmael is not historically documented. He said:

"The case of this episode is very obvious because it is of recent date and came into vogue just before the rise of Islam. Islam exploited it for religious reasons" (quoted in Mizan al-Islam by Anwar al-Jundi, p. 170).

This declaration invoked the rage of the Muslim scholars against him. The former president of Tunisia did the same thing when he stated that the Qur'an contains mythical stories. Muslim scholars revolted against him and threatened to kill him because these are Muhammad's orders - kill anybody who insults the Qur'an. So what could Taha Husayn or Abu Ruqayba [better known in the West as Bourgiba] (or we) do if the Qur'an rejects the most scientifically documented historical stories? Are we supposed to shut up our mouth and close our minds lest we be killed?]


 Brothers, a site claims that they have found 1000+ mistakes in the Quran. I'm posting a portion of their article bellow containing the alleged 1000+ errors. Please answer their claims in detail.

[A common technique from Muslims also is to go away from a difficult point and answer something which in reality is something else, or to answer just one not too difficult part of a fact or question.

Muslims and Islam all too often and all too easily jump from "This is a possibility", to "This is proved here", "This the reality", or "This is the Truth" - a claim or a not documented something becomes a "proof".

In spite of that Muslims themselves jump from "this is a possible explanation" to claiming it is a proof, they demand mathematical quality proofs (absolute proofs) from all opponents. Remember that empirical proofs (99% proofs) are more than adequate on most points. And remember that it is the Muslim who makes the claims, and thus it is his duty to prove those claims, not your duty to prove them wrong, which may be difficult just there and then. DEMAND THAT HE PROVES HIS CLAIMS BEFORE YOU EVEN START DEBATING WITH HIM/HER - AND REMEMBER THAT THE QURAN IS SO FULL OF MISTAKES, THAT IN MOST CASES A QUOTE OR FIVE FROM THAT BOOK PROVE NOTHING UNLESS THERE ARE ADDITIONAL PROOFS.

This refuter seems to be a trained one, because he uses all these evading techniques, except "You just are a Jew lower".

Well, the result of the scream for help, where he/she could not think and evaluate for him-/herself, were some answers, and as said the one most liked (at least under "Mistakes in the Quran" on Google, Yahoo, and others) by the Muslims you find on . Please read it and weep; this is the best they have to offer - and worse; this is accepted without questions by the Muslims - the only remarks are thanks for the refutations, and some requests for more refutations.

It is not strange that the industrial revolution did not happen in the Muslim world with its unquestioned belief in what their fathers, their surroundings, and their leaders told them, but in the West, where people slowly were permitted to think - and had some training in thinking - themselves.

This seemingly semiprofessional refuter, continued: "I will help you in finding refutation - - -". Quite telling compared to what ought to be the task of a religious scholar, as the result of believing in an invalid religion is so serious, if there is a next life: To try to find out what is really the truth. And further: "I can not access the site since it is blocked here - - -". Which confirms that at least in some Islamic countries one prefers to block difficult questions and information, instead of meeting it. It also confirms our information that our page is so difficult to meet, that it is blocked in some Muslim areas. And likely it places the refuter in Pakistan, as to our knowledge the page only was blocked in Pakistan at the time this refuting was posted on the net (and most informed persons know what some Pakistani Muslims may be like, especially in North Pakistan).

For the sake of convenience we need a name for him - he has not given his name. There are two logical choices: His alias on the net, or his title - here "a refuter", as he himself confirms and promises he is going to refute us, not to try to find the truth. His alias on the net is not his correct name, whereas his title is a correct one, so we choose to use his title: Mr. Refuter - this also will serve to remind the readers of the admitted fact that he is a man who writes his stuff because he has promised to refute things, not a man trying to find the truth.

Mr. Refuter starts his proper answer with a double al-Taqiyya (lawful lie). We quote: "According to the Quran there is no compulsion in Islam".

This is a very normal dishonesty from Muslims. For one thing what the Quran really says, is: "Let there be no compulsion in religion" - it is a wish, not a fact. And for another: This verse - 2/256, which came shortly after Muhammad fled to Medina, and when he still hoped to include the Jews in his congregation - is abrogated (made invalid) by at least some 30 later verses. Both these facts any Muslim scholar knows well - - - but he never mentions any of them and even pretends 2/256 is a reality, not a wish or something and not abrogated, all the same. Not very honest.

Next not documented claim: "- - - they (the mistakes in the Quran*) are just anti Islamic propaganda".

For one thing this is one of the standard Muslim ways of fleeing from difficult debates about points in the Quran: "You are just a Muslim hater, so your facts do not count." For another thing it is not true - the quotes are 100% correct from the according to Islam likely best translator ever of the Quran to English: Abdulla Yusuf Ali. No Muslim has till this day informed us about any divergence from this book, which is most highly recommended by Islam and its scholars. This about enemies of Islam is repeated some lines further down - without any documentations, like quite normal from Muslims in such cases. Not to forget: It is free for anybody to compare our quotes to the original.

Then: "- - - Without checking the truth - - -".

It is extremely easy to check the truth of . And NO Muslim scholar in a position where he might have to prove his words (f.x. in papers trying to have the page evicted from Internet) has claimed there are untrue quotes in the page - yes, not even that there is hate or enmity in it. But of course when "refuting" on an Internet page, not searching the truth, it is easy to throw accusations around - and it sounds good to readers who wish to believe it is true.

This also is an ironic demand from a Mr. Refuter, who has declared he will refute - not that he will find the truth. And even more ironic, as you further down will see that he does not check on his claims himself. But then it is VERY normal for Muslims, included Islam itself/the scholars, and the Quran, to demand proofs from every opponent, but themselves mainly debates by means of not documented - or in other ways proved - loose claims and as unfunded statements. "A proof is one or more proved facts which can give only one conclusion". Muslims, included representatives for Islam, not to mention Muhammad/the Quran, seldom live up to that standard. They "forget" for one thing that the basis for conclusions has to be proved, if not any conclusion is invalid, and for another thing they "forget" (or often simply do not know) that for a conclusion to be logically valid, one has to follow the laws for making logical conclusions. (Unlike in the "West", Muslim pupils are not always thought such knowledge. Even more strange for us is that they are thought that there may be more than one truth, even if the "truths" mutually exclude each other, something which is impossible in reality - but necessary for Islam in order to be able to explain away some of the inconsistencies in the Quran.)

Contradictions in the Inheritance Law.

Here we point to the general fact that the splitting of inheritance according to the rules in the Quran, often do not add up to 1 (= the exact value of the inheritance). Here Mr. Refuter uses some clever claims and finds that it is correct. But the interesting thing is that he does not touch the real problem: The well known fact that the Islamic rules for splitting an inheritance often adds up to between 0.33 (one of the samples in verse 4/12) to 1.25 and even 1.50 times the inheritance. Complicated rules for sharing inheritances have given Muslim lawyers good money through the times.

But Mr. Refuter has saved the law of inheritance - at least for those able to believe so.

1000 contra 50ooo years.

The Quran many places clearly states that the language is clear and not to be misunderstood. This is one of the many places in the Quran, where Muslims have to say; 'oh, no! Here Allah has not been able to express himself clearly, so that we clever mere humans have to help him and explain what he "really" meant! Good for Allah to have so good helpers, each time he expresses himself clumsily and unclear.

For good measure the clever refuter tries to explain this with the theory of relativity - which in case would demand that heaven and Allah traveled away from Earth (or Earth away from Heaven and Allah) with speeds approaching 300ooo km/sec. This is the ONLY way to explain so dramatic change of the time by time dilation - - - and in case there quickly would be enormous distance between Earth and the 7 heavens, included the stars fastened to the lowest one, and the moon (and sun?) in between them. And it had been even worse if he had been right about traveling "many times the speed of light".

The Special Theory of Relativity came in 1905. The general one as far as we remember in 1918. In these some 100 years Mr. Refuter has learnt the name of the theory, and not much more it seems. He is using the time dilation as an explanation for a claimed god's different perception of time, without taking into account the consequences - an enormously distant heaven very quickly - and this even though he mention the need for speed. But then it is quite normal to meet Muslims in triumph "explaining" or "proving" things without caring about or being unable to see that other aspects of the case or other facts, kill the "explanation" or "proof".

And he easily talks about speeds far above the speed of light, obviously not knowing that for all known material particles, the speed of light is an absolute and uncrossable barrier. And clearly not knowing that if theoretical particles able to travel faster than light - f.x. the tachyon - should exist, it will not be time dilation anymore, because if you cross the speed of light, you start going backwards in time.

These are elementary knowledge about the Theory of Relativity - so elementary, that as Mr. Refuter does not know this, it shows that he has not the faintest real knowledge about what he is talking about.

As for his claim that this proves that the Quran foresaw the theory and the dilation effect, it is so pathetic - especially as he has proved he does not know what he is talking about at all - that we do not bother to comment on that side of the claim.

But we mention that you frequently meet Muslims claiming - never backed by proofs - that this and that is foreseen by the Quran. But all relevant science says that there is absolutely nothing in the Quran which reliably can be said to foresee anything at all about the future (the future as relative to the time of Muhammad). This is indirectly, but very strongly confirmed by Islam: If there had been even one proved case - f.x. foreseeing time dilation - Islam had told about it in big letters long time ago - but Islam is totally silent on such points (except for some persons like Mr. Refuter here, who claim, but never prove anything. Normally such claims come from persons knowing little about what they are talking about, or from persons using al-Taqiyya (lawful lies) relying on that their listeners/readers do not know enough to see that their claims or statements are lies).

We also mention that in all the Quran, there is not one indication of something even remotely like time dilation. This piece simply is a wishful thought or an al-Taqiyya (lawful lie) from a Mr. Refuter, who already has proved he knows nothing about the Theory of Relativity, but he as a Muslims scholar also has got to know that there is nothing about time dilation in the Quran. (It is clear from his writing that he knows - though sometimes twists a little - the Quran).

One final remark about this point: This is a super example of Muslims jumping from "this may be an explanation" to "this is a proof". Here time dilation hardly in any case is possible to use as an explanation for Allah's claimed different experience of time, and all the same it "proves" that time dilation is foreseen in the Quran! Clever - and nice to hear for naive or not educated believers - but far outside the rules for logical deductions. And far outside physics and science.

How many gardens?

Garden (singular) does not contradict gardens (plural) because in both cases the Quran speaks in general, is the claim. No comment - judge for yourself. We may add that the Quran talks about at least 4, and Hadiths indicate 6 or even a higher number - perhaps much higher.

Then we again meet one of the standard ways of fleeing from difficult points in Islam: The text is not really the text, but claimed to be an allegory. A claim here backed by many words, but omitting that other words many places in the Quran tell that the book uses plain and straight forward language, and that "only those sick of heart, look for hidden meanings (f.x. not announced allegories). Not to mention not explaining why there should be a need for using an allegory for the number of gardens in paradise - everybody understands numbers.

How many groups at the Day of Doom?

One more case of the clumsy god unable to express himself clearly, in spite of his claims that his language in the Quran is most clear and easy, and not to be misunderstood. One more case where the clever humans must explain that Allah here does not really mean what he says, but something else which we clever refuters may explain you to "explain" away the god's mistake. Some omniscient god!

Who Takes the Souls after Death?

At the very minimum here is forgotten that the Quran claims it is using a clear and easy and not to be misunderstood language. Islam/Muslims claim it is so clear, that it is one of the proofs for that it must be made by a god. (Quite an irony, taken into account how often clever humans must intervene and explain what the god "really" meant, instead of the mistakes he made, and in the light of the at least 450 cases where Muslim scholars admit that they cannot be sure about what the book really means, etc. - see "Unclear words in the Quran" in ).

The infinite loop problem?

In reality this is not a loop at all: The Quran claims that all the books claimed sent down to claimed prophets/messengers, were copies of the timeless "Mother of Books" created by Allah before the creation of Earth or may be existed since eternity and never created. True copies of the same timeless book must be identical. Or does Mr. Refuter once more want to explain that he can explain things in more clear word than a simple omniscient god?

Then once more one of the standard Muslims claims to flee from problems: "You do not understand". (This in spite of that we have proved we understand the Quran, both by being able to pick out the mistakes, and by being able to understand what those mistakes mean. Not to mention by being able to see the difference between glorifying words - propaganda - and the under-lying realities in the tales in the book. Whereas Mr. Refuter only has showed that he accepts the superficial words of the Quran - accepts, and tries to explain that they must be correct, true or not - but nothing more.

"The (Quran*) has been prophesied in the books of the earlier generations".

This claim is wrong. There is not one place in the Bible where there is a prophesying about the Quran. What is more just here, is that even Islam/Muslim scholars do not seriously try to point to any verse in all the Bible, where the Quran is claimed to be prophesied. For foretelling about Muhammad such claims - claims - exists, but not for the Quran - nothing serious enough to that Muslim scholars bother to mention it at least.

Prophesies about the Quran?

"In every (the Arab word used here, is used only when there are 3 or more*) divine Scripture we are told prophesies of the prophets (wrong, see below*) and the scriptures (wrong, see below*) to follow. The Old Testament contained many prophesies about the coming of Jesus Christ (the OT really did not talk about Christ - that is a Greek, later version of the name - but about Messiah). Similarly the Bible contained prophesies about the coming of a prophet after Jesus who brings a scripture from God."

Here is much nonsense:

Which books? - OT and the Bible is the same book - OT is the first part of the Bible simply (and NT the second part).

The old Jews had many prophets and not one of them was foretold in OT except perhaps Jesus. The prophets were not foretold, except perhaps one of them only.

There is no - no foretelling neither of the NT, nor of the Quran in OT (and no foretelling about the Quran in NT). There are not even serious claims about this from serious Muslims scholars.

There is no foretelling about a prophet after Jesus neither in OT nor in NT, and we must admit we are a bit surprised Mr. Refuter bases his claim about foretelling of Muhammad on John - normally when they claim only one point, Muslims base the claim on cherry-picked words (5. Mos. 18/15+18) in a speech Moses made to his Jews, and which need somewhat less cherry-picking of words, omissions of information, twisting of information, etc. to sound believable at least to persons who want to believe such things. The claim concerning John is so far out, needs so much twisting of the Bible, and "correction" of realities + overlooking of plain proofs for that the claims are wrong, that it normally is not chosen as a lone sample, when they instead can use Moses (they normally only use John because the Quran claims Muhammad is found also in NT, and this is the point in NT which needs least twisting and omissions to make wishful thinkers believe it is a truth). Much more about this other places both in "1000+ Mistakes in the Quran" and in "1000+ Comments on the Quran".

There is definitely no foretelling in the Bible about a new Scripture after the ones about Jesus (= after NT). And just to mention it once more: There also is no foretelling about NT in OT (not to mention about the Quran). Also these claims you never meet from serious Muslim scholars - not to mention that they never point to where in the Bible such claimed foretelling are claimed to be found, as there are no such foretelling.

But Mr. Refuter claims without documentation that our knowledge of facts like these, is because of one of the Muslim standard ways of fleeing from difficult points: We do not know what we are talking about.


The moon between the heavens".

First one correction of Mr. Refuter's quotations of a point in our texts: The Quran says the moon is between the heavens. This we have referred to - not quoted, but referred to - as if it is in a middle heaven. (According to the astronomy of the Middle East at the time of Muhammad, the moon was fastened to one of the invisible 7 heavens - old Greek and Persian astronomy. Do not ask us why Allah used old earthly and very wrong astronomy.) This Mr. Refuter has changed to "the middle heaven", which in case would mean heaven nr. 4, a position neither we nor the Quran has quantified. Honestly done. And then he continues by stating: "That is in your wild imagination" = You do not know what you are talking about - which might have been true if we had written what he has changed our text into. "If you have no wrong facts, make them up and attack them" - a technique often used by politicians.

But it is no piece of imagination - wild or not - that the Quran states that there are 7 heavens (the word "heavens" is used in plural ca. 200 times and "7 heavens" many times in the book), and that it clearly is stated that the stars are fastened to the lowest heaven, whereas the moon is between the heavens. Mr. Refuter conveniently skips commenting on such facts at all, just talks about "imaginary claims" = "You do not know what you are talking about once more", this even though he already now has documented thoroughly that we know quite a lot more about science than he does (we happen to be well informed about many sciences, included astronomy and physics, as you may be understand from what we write.)

The 7. Universes(!!)

Then he goes on without explanation to talk about "the 7 universes". For one thing the Quran talks about 7 heavens - and a proof for that it really means the visible sky as we see it, is that it also uses the word "firmament", a word which directly means "the heaven/sky as we see it" (mostly used about the night sky). A word or an expression carrying the modern meaning of the word "universe", did not exist at the time of Muhammad, neither in Arab, nor in any of the surrounding languages, included in the on scientifical themes much more advanced languages at that time, Persian, Greek, and Latin.

And his claim about 7 universes, one outside the other, is such a scientific nonsense and gobbledygook, that you do not even find it in science fiction novels. But he uses the rubbish with a straight face like it was/is a recognized fact! A lie so big that it goes far on the outside of even the concept "al-Taqiyya" (the lawful lie) - and what here is even worse: It is so well known that universes one outside the other is something entirely unscientific, that his readers have to be extremely badly informed, naive and/or bent on believing anything which sounds like something they wish to believe, to be able to believe it. Not to mention what this fairy tale tells about Mr. Refuter.

And his readers send him "thank you for the refuting and information"! Without checking anything!!

This point of Mr. Refuter’s tales tell volumes about his honesty: There is no learned man on this Earth who does not know that this nonsense fairy tale about one universe inside another - 7 times - has nothing to do with reality or science, and there is not one learned Muslim who does not know that around 630 AD no-one in the Middle East - or in the Quran or among Muhammad's followers - talked about a universe in the modern meaning of that word.

These are so well known facts among all educated people - even just medium educated ones (it belongs in the primary or secondary school textbooks) - that there is no chance Mr. Refuter does not know about it. In plain words: These facts are so well known, that there is no chance Mr. Refuter does not know he is lying about this when he pretends it is facts and uses it in his argumentation like this.

And to make the cheating of his uneducated readers - the only possible believers in this scientific nonsense - complete, he continues: "Before clinging to such imaginary claims (to produce correct quotes from the Quran which are wildly wrong compared to scientific knowledge, and not even possible to explain with his made up "7 universes", which may be why he does not try to explain any details*) you (his readers*) may better learn to appreciate so many other verses in the Quran which corroborate the modern finding, which was totally unknown during the time of the prophet". But there is not one point at all in the Quran which truly foretells anything about the future, included future discoveries of any kind. This goes for science as well as for history - a fact so well known, that there is no chance Mr. Refuter does not know about it if he have even middle level education, and a fact thoroughly proved true by Islam and its scholars: If there had been true foretelling, Islam and its top scholars had told about it in huge letters at every opportunity and in university textbooks. There are no such words from them - only claims from uneducated wishful thinkers and from more or less professional refuters using al-Taqiyya (lawful lies), Kitman (lawful half-truths), deceit (lawful in Islam as Muhammad used deceit - f.x. to have opponents murdered), etc. (There are some co-incidences where things he said, happened to come partly true - if there are sayings which came completely rue, Muslim scholars at least have not informed about it - which has to be the case for any person talking much over many years. But for one thing it was not said to be prophesies at the time it was said, for another thing Muhammad himself said in the Quran that he was unable to make prophesies ("to see the unseen"), for a third Aishah said in Hadiths that Muhammad was unable to see the unseen, and for the forth Muslim scholars say that "there were no miracles connected to Muhammad, except the making of the Quran" (tellers of made up stories of miracles connected to Muhammad should remember this) - foretelling is a kind of miracle (to be able to "see the unseen"), and the fifth and perhaps heaviest point: These coincidents are fewer and less accurate than the result of normal pure chance according to the laws of probability should indicate - Muhammad simply had little imagination (which also is easy to see from the texts in the Quran and from quotes in Hadiths - they mainly are old stories "borrowed" from different sources and twisted some to fit Muhammad's new religion).

But using gobbledygook and even lies on points where the scientific facts are so well known that there is no chance he does not know that he is lying if he have at least medium level education, and so well known that it is easy for him to check if his claims are true or not, if he at least knows how to read and write and use books or Internet, tells something about Mr. Refuter.

And the fact that some of his readers are able to accept such scientific imbecility and dishonesty and send him "thank you for the information", also tells something about his readers and their ability to perform critical thinking.

The Sun and the Moon.

Mr. Refuter tells verse 21/33 says: "Each one (sun and moon*) is travelling in an orbit with its own motion". Abdulla Yusuf Ali says: "Swim along, each in its rounded course". Which is something different, and like what Muhammad believed he saw. In 36/40 Yusuf Ali is closer to Mr. Refuter: "Each (just) swims along in (its own) orbit (according to law)". But Mr. Refuter forgets(?) to mention 2 facts: One is that the texts in () are texts added by the translator - to clarify or too often in the Quran to adjust it to more scientifically correct text - and are not in the original Arab text. Adjust Mr. Refuter's quote for this, and you see he has transformed the Arab original not a little - a nice little Kitman (lawful half-truth). The other fact he "happens" to "forget" is that the modern meaning of the word "orbit" used in astronomy - a trajectory determined only by the speed of a "body" and by the influence of gravity on it - did not exist at the time of Muhammad. An orbit at that time was the movement of a "body" - f.x. the sun or the moon or the stars - fixed to a crystal clear heaven which was slowly turning (there were 7 such heavens).

These are facts I - the one who writes just this - learnt in secondary school, and there is no chance Mr. Refuter did not know this when he wrote his wrong information, or at least had easy access on Internet to places where he could check if what he believed was correct or not, before he wrote it - and even wrote it in a haughty tone.

But it is very convenient facts to "forget" or "forget to check" if one wants to arrive at dishonest answers. Going for refuting, not for finding the truth.

Big Bang.

This has been one of some Muslims' favorite subjects for some years - most people does not know much about this, except the name and that it was a big explosion, so that it is easy to bluff most of them, and especially naive or little educated Muslims who on top dearly want to believe.

To explain Bib Bang and its resulting astronomy very shortly:

Until some 13.7 billion years ago all matter AND time were gathered in a very small point. This point exploded the mentioned some 13.7 billion years ago into an extremely hot cloud (NB: Cloud, not smoke) consisting only of ionized hydrogen, minor quantities of ionized helium and lots and lots of free atomic particles like electrons and positrons. The explosion also started Time.

After some 300ooo - 360ooo years this cloud had expanded and cooled enough for the ions to start coming together to atoms and molecules. But still there only existed hydrogen - H2 - and helium (He). On the other hand these two existed both as matter and as antimatter - which annihilated each other (may be even before they had left the ion phase). How some matter survived to make our universe, nobody really knows. But remember: Still there only were these two gases, which formed a big cloud - there was no smoke (smoke is miniscule particles of matter normally produced by fire, and to be smoke and not ash, these particles have to drift or float in gas, and there only was gas yet, no condensed matter to make smoke particles).

The next step was that the gas now also grew cold enough for gravity to start pulling together huge "lumps" of it - gas which little by little condensed into stars. And as there was much and concentrated gas, these first stars for a large part became HUGE. In these stars atomic reactions started - reactions which fused together gas atoms to ever heavier atoms. But this process is possible only up to a certain level - up to iron. Then the fusing together stops releasing energy, and instead claims energy for producing heavier atoms. This lack of new energy makes a big star unstable. Such processes goes faster in big stars because of higher pressure and temperature, and because these stars often were from big, via super big, to hyper big, this shortage of energy started already after some 50 million years for the biggest ones. They then became unstable - and when big stars becomes unstable, they go supernova (for a sample look to f.x. Eta Carinae - this is a big star science think is unstable for this reason, and in astronomically near future will go supernova). And in these extreme explosions there was so much energy that the heavier elements were created - created and dispersed into the universe by the explosion.

This was the first cycle of star creation.

Then there was cycle number 2. Now the gas in the universe was more rarified, and the stars became not quite so big. Because of this this cycle took a lot longer time. Also the stars were not made only by hydrogen and helium any more - there were dust and lumps and boulders of other elements in the gas they were made from. But after enough time also the stare made in the second cycle went supernova if they were big enough. And spread more dust and lumps and boulders into the interstellar gas.

And then slowly the 3. cycle started - the 3. generation of stars. Our star or sun - Sol - belongs to this generation. It condensed out of a cloud consisting of a mixture of gases and dust and lumps and boulders and perhaps mini-planets some 4.567 billion years ago. Earth was created from the same cloud - not smoke, but cloud - about the same time, but ended up with much more hard elements and much less gases. But the moon - Luna - was made later. One is not quite sure how, but the dominating theory is that Earth collided with a smaller planet, perhaps the size of Mars (which is a lot smaller than Earth), and then the moon condensed out of the debris from that collation. Originally it was much closer to Earth - we have seen numbers as low as 15ooo km (which in case made it circle Earth a more than once a day). But gravity transferred energy from Earth's spin and slowly made it drift away. It still is drifting away a few centimeters (3.8 cm) a year.

There is no scientist who has found this process described in the Quran. There is no Muslim scholar speaking to educated non-Muslims knowing also the Quran, who tries to claim this process is described in the Quran - but perhaps when they are talking to uneducated Muslims?. But there are a lot of little educated Muslims and a lot of refuters who claim that here is the proof for foretelling in the Quran! From the naive and the not educated it may even be honest wishful belief.

Just try yourself to make this reality fit the Qurans story about first the two parts - the claimed 7 heavens on one side, and the Earth (or 7 Earths, 65/12b) on the other - first come together, and then to be split again.

From educated refuters that explanation is not possible unless they know the tale is not true - they at least know where to check if their wishful thinking may be correct or not. But then dishonesty - f.x. al-taqiyya (the lawful lie), Kitman (the lawful half-truth), etc. is not only permitted, but advised in Islam "if necessary" to defend or promote the religion.

We think this point needs no more comments, except that we dare any Muslim - included Mr. Refuter - to tell us where in the Quran the Big Bang and the following creation of our planetary system really is described. And Mr. Refuter: Before you try another bluff, remember that I who write just this know a lot about those things - as you perhaps understand from what I write. Also remember that in spite of your haughty standard words about "he does not know", I know the Quran better than most Muslims - which you also see from our work on the Quran - and I understand the Quran better than most Muslims; so well that I am able to see the difference between what the Quran really says and means, and the ways things are explained away by refuters, and also I know enough about psychology and about human nature to often be able to read what the Quran really says behind the glossy words. There often is a big difference between the glorifying words in the Quran, and the facts it really tells. Because of this my knowledge a bluff has to be very good to make me believe in it. And if you now jump up and scream "boasting", come down to earth: It does not take so much knowledge that there is a reason for boasting, to see these things, not to mention how easy it is to see many of the mistaken facts in the Quran.

That is to say - if one is not going all out to refute (like you promised your questioner) instead of trying to find out what is true and what is not. Then everything one wants to be difficult, is difficult or impossible.

And remember: I dare you and any other Muslim prove to me where the scientific process of Big Bang and the creation of the Sun and Earth is described in the Quran. But proofs, not just claims like one too often meet from Muslims.

The spinning of the Earth

Mr. Refuter claims 39/5 says: "He (Allah*) coils the night onto the day and the day onto the night", and claims this proves that the Quran speaks about the spinning Earth. For one thing a coil is not a spin, and it talks about "movement" of day and night, not of the Earth. But worse is that what 39/5 really says, is: "He (Allah*) makes the Night overlap the Day, and the Day overlap the Night - - -".

The bluff - or al-Taqiyya(?) (lawful lie) - dismissed.

Solomon and the ants.

First we remind you that the Quran several places states that the book has a clear and easy to understand language, and that only the "sick of heart" look for hidden meanings - anomalies, etc. - they are for Allah if not otherwise is said. All the same one of the most often used ways to flee from difficult problems in the Quran, is to claim that "the god was not able to express himself clearly, so that this means something else than what is said - it is a similitude or analogy - and intelligent me will explain to you what the clumsy god was unable to tell himself - - - something entirely different from the mistake he made".

That ants were speaking in the Quran, so obviously is wrong, that there is no other solution than to try to explain it away - so Mr. Refuter uses this well worn claim: "This really means something else than what the omniscient, clumsy god said, and wise me will explain away his mistake". Thus the ant did not vocalize what he said, but transmitted his words in other ways Mr. Refuter does not specify, but he likely meant by smell, as that was mentioned (also it is the only remaining possibility, as there only were 3 possible ways of transmitting information: Sound (impossible here), sight (but ants do not use visible signals for transmitting information), and smell). But he bumps into 3 mistakes: For one thing ants still have too small brains to verbalize - even by smell - coherent sentences. For another when animals - often insects - communicate by means of smelly molecules - pheromones - they only are able to transmit rudimentary messages like "I am here", "I am ready for sex", etc. And finally: Man is not able to smell the pheromones except a few of them, and also then only if there is much of it - and insects do not produce much "smell", but have an exquisite "nose" for their own art's pheromones. (There are insects which can smell one single molecule of a relevant pheromone, and male butterflies which can smell a female "in heat" 10 km off. The human nose is not of that quality and not geared for insect pheromones. Solomon would be totally unable to smell it, and even if it had been possible, no coherent message could have been transmitted.

Fast talk and bluff dismissed - and I dare Mr. Refuter to prove that he is right if he disagrees - proofs, not just cheap words and easy and wrong claims.

The creation of a baby.

Here he first skips the fact that the Quran takes the semen from inside a man's body - like in f.x. Greek science of that time - not from the scrotum. Then he skips the fact that the baby is created when the semen cell and the egg cell fuses together to a zygote. He only starts when this zygote - now a few cells big - inserts itself into the maternal uterus. Because here by accident - or more likely from old knowledge - there is something in the Quran which partly is correct (The old Arabs to a large degree lived mainly or partly from animal production, and from slaughtering they knew a lot of what was and happened inside animals - and humans. Egg cells, semen cells, and early zygotes were too small to be seen in the blood and gore in a carcass, but what happened in the uterus after some time, they knew.) As they knew what happened in the uterus, there is no miracle to that the Quran describes roughly the evolving of a fetus. What is more strange is that in spite of this knowledge, the Quran for one thing reports that the fetus grows in stages, just like f.x. Greek medicine believed - this was the dominant medical "science" at the time of Muhammad - and for another it refers the development of the fetus wrong: It says that an early stage was a clot of blood (though there are translators saying something like Mr. Refuter - a leech-like clot - or things like that, either from another understanding of the indistinct original Arab alphabet - it lacked a number of vowels and points, so one often has to guess the meaning - of from "adjusting" the text to fit modern knowledge) and then it unmistakably says that the bones were made and then clothed with flesh - it is the other way around: The bones grow and solidify inside the flesh.

Dr. Maurice Bucaille.

This is a strange fish in the pond. He read not a little, but his brain was a bit special, to say it like this. His conclusions all too often had little to do with normal evaluation of facts or with the laws of logic. Normal scientists mostly either smile or shrug their shoulders from many of his thoughts and ideas and conclusions. One of the few things which are sure about him, is that persons having to resort to quoting him, tell a lot about themselves and about their lack of real arguments or facts. It also tells not a little about Islam that Muslims quite often quotes him - and without mentioning one word about his reputation, except using his impressive title: Dr. It also is ever so dishonest by you and by each and every Muslim we have met using dr. Bucaille, to use his title as a mark of expertise, without mentioning one word about the fact that he was a doctor of medicine, not of science or astronomy or of anything relevant. He was the family physician of King Feisal of Saudi Arabia, and the physician of other high Muslims. In science he just was an amateur dabbler - which no Muslim mention. As for your strong claim that he was not a Muslim, and that he thus was more reliable, Wikipedia dryly remarks: "Some sources claim he was not a Muslim".

Your refuting of our correct remarks about mistakes in the Quran, also here shows an impressing degree of honesty and reliability.

Anyone is free to check on this information. We do not think quotations from Mr./dr. Bucaille need or deserve any more space. The same really goes for refuters needing to use that kind of "proofs".

Sunup and sundown.

We quote Mr. Refuter: "- - - I find it ludicrous to even contemplate these passages in a literal sense". Then he cannot be much of a Muslim - not even knowing that the Quran several places most clearly states that the language in the book is clear and to be understood like it is said - to search for hidden meanings only is for "the sick of heart" and only for Allah to understand. But as we have mentioned before: To claim that others do not understand is one frequently used way to flee from explaining unexplainable points and mistakes in the Quran. To claim that the clumsy god was unable to express what he meant, is another - in spite of Muhammad's stating that the Quran is "the book which makes things clear", and then to claim Allah's real meaning is something entirely different and hidden in an allegory or something, and that clever refuters wants to correct the mistake the omniscient god made in his unlucky chaise of words - well, this is normal for Muslims (though they say it in less clear words).

Dear Mr. Refuter, we are able to read plain language. We also know how Muhammad's contemporaries understood these verses - and it was not as poetry or mysticism.

Fast talk - and in this case not even good quality, as the mistake is so obvious, that it takes a lot more - and more reliable facts - to explain it away.

As for the "hundreds of verses in the Quran wherein the movement of the sun and other scientific facts are clearly discussed": They are not there. For one thing this is a bluff - there are not hundreds of verses about such topics in the Quran. But worse: If this undocumented claim had been even partly true, we had read about it in scientific textbooks in university. But it only is to be found among little educated Muslims and among Muslim refuters on f.x. Internet. Give those "hundreds of verses" to us, and we will pick them to pieces or explain the scientific reality about it to you - and remember that we know the Quran, so we know what quality we are talking about. Bluffs like this do not impress us.

Why Stars were Created.

Here Mr. Refuter's argumentation so obviously just is fast-talk + the standard claim that the omniscient god believing he used clear language like the Quran many places states, was unable to express himself, and clever humans have to call it a metaphor or something, so as to explain away the silly story - this is so obvious and easy to see, that we do not squander time on it. Yes, and plus the standard: "You do not know or understand" (a small irony here: I who write just this have a measured IQ for what it is worth of 160, and I am widely read as you perhaps have noticed. I understand some things.) Read Mr. Refuter's tale yourself and see. Laugh if you want, though it is impolite.

It at least seems that we - our group - understand the Quran and its clear language much better than Muslims, who in spite of Allah's direct words about that the book shall be understood like it is written if nothing else is indicated, are unable to read the plain text like the Quran itself says, but claims that large parts of the book are allegories, and not mistakes. Are Muslims the "sick at heart"?

The Sun and the Moon are subject to humans?

There is a lot of wrong science above, and here follows even more:

First to clarify something: One thing is that even if Mr. Abdullah Yusuf Ali also sometimes "stretches" his translations a little to adjust the Quran to modern science and knowledge, he mostly is reliable, and according to Islam/its scholars he also is "one of the three best translators of the Quran to English - perhaps the very best". We also have a Quran with comments in Swedish, translated by a Swede converted to Islam, but still with his old Scandinavian respect for the real truth and for scientific accuracy, so that when there are points where the translation is unsure, he for one thing gives the alternative possible translations, and for another often gives the exact literal translation - also here with alternatives if there are more than one - which there often is in the Quran, as the original Arab alphabet was incomplete (it was not completed until around 900 AD, whereas the Quran was written around 650 AD). We believe more in Mr. Yusuf Ali than in a person who has promised to refute texts many Muslims do not like. We also trust the Swede more - he has proved he mostly is honest. And especially if those two have more or less similar translation, we trust them more than the translations from the mentioned refuter - especially as the refuter on top of all already has showed he uses dishonesty, and for another clearly has proved that in all too many cases he does not know what he is talking about, and all the same has not checked his claims and statements to see if they are true. Or perhaps everything is al-Taqiyya/Kitman? At least some of what he says is impossible he does not know is wrong or does not know he should have checked on it, if he has at least some education - the facts in some cases are too widely known for him not at least to have heard about them.

Thus we believe more in Mr. Yusuf Ali's translation here than in Mr. Refuters - or in Mr. Refuter's choice of translator (there are/have been more than 60 translations to English of the Quran - not all of them good or reliable).

Exact distance from the sun essential?

Then Mr. Refuter gives more wrong scientific information. The sun, Earth and Moon have been ordained to very precise specifications to fit mankind:

If Earth was much closer to the sun than 93 million miles (150 mill. km), the temperature would rise sharply and exterminate all life, he claims. Wrong. The field of possible life around our sun is quite wide. If Earth - Tellus - WITH OUR ATMOSPHERE was placed where Venus is today, the result would be a tropical planet - too hot for comfort at equator, but ok at high latitudes (the reason why Venus is a hot Hell, is not the distance from the sun itself, but that its atmosphere is full of CO2, which retains the heath). And if we placed Earth where Mars is now, still with our atmosphere, it would become an arctic planet, but a wide belt around equator would be habitable.

This is how sharply the temperature would rise or fall, and how exact the distance from the sun has to be.

A "somewhat" smaller Earth?

"If the Earth were somewhat smaller - - - say the size of the moon". Then the Earth would not be "somewhat" smaller, but MUCH smaller - the moon has about 1/16 of the volume of Earth or a bit less, and measurably less than that of the weight (as it has much less of heavy elements), a fact which counts a lot, as there is proportionality between its weight and is gravity. Earth then was no planet any more, but a mini-planet. The claimed effect would be correct, but as a result of a very dramatic reduction in size. The other way life is much more though when it comes to high pressure: It can stand pressure at least up to 1ooo atmospheres (there is life even at the bottom of our deepest oceans, and there the pressure is nearly 1ooo atmospheres). An atmospheric pressure of 1ooo times the one on Earth, indicates a much bigger Earth with a dramatically much deeper atmosphere. So much for the exactly correct size of Earth and the pressure of its atmosphere. And for the indication that the atmospheric pressure relies on the gravity - it relies as much or more on how deep the atmosphere is (forgotten by Mr. Refuter).

A closer moon?

If the moon was closer - tides would destroy the possibility of life. In case it had to be dramatically much closer. The power of gravity falls by the second power of the distance, so that the distance did not have to be all too big before the tide just were an inconvenience, not a prohibition to life on Earth. This fact also is demonstrated by the fact that the distance between the moon and Earth varies from some 363ooo km to some 405ooo km because it is not travelling in a circle - varying more than 40ooo km - without most kinds of life register any difference at all. And if the moon disappeared today, it would have limited effect on the oceans and seas - the tide for one thing just pulls the water a bit back and forth - it is the winds, and salt gradients and temperature gradients in the seawater which drives the great streams in the oceans and seas. Besides there still is the sun to make tides - it just would be once a day instead of twice a day.

Mr. Refuter should avoid topics he does not know - or at least he should check if his beliefs are correct. "These very precise measurements - - -". Well, at least he gives people who know about such things, some good laughs.

A not spinning Earth.

"If the Earth did not spin, it would empty all its waters - - -". Why? Where to?

A fast spinning Earth.

"If the Earth spun much faster (than once in 24 hours*) it would empty its water into space". When the Earth was young, it spun once in every 5 - 6 hours. The oceans still are there. Worse: To launch something into space from Earth, it needs an initial velocity of ca. 11,2 km/sec. + margin for being retarded through the atmosphere. Earth's velocity even at equator is some 1600 km an HOUR = ca. 0.45 km/sec. To get a velocity of 11,2 km/sec. even at equator, Earth must spin roughly once an hour. And the picture is even bleaker, at it only could throw things - included water - tangential to itself ("parallel" to itself at the point of launching to say it like that), and to throw things off tangentially, you need more initial velocity than when it starts vertical to be able to throw it off the planet.

So much for these "narrow margins".

Coils are not spin.

"- - - coils - - -". This wrong claim is commented on further up in this page (coils actually are cork-screws).

Earth's rotation and tilted axis.

About the only correct thing here, is that Earth orbits the sun in a year. The tilting is wrong - it is far below Mr. Refuter's 33 degrees - the correct is 23.5 degrees at present, but it varies slowly over the years. The effect of no tilt is wrong, too. It would give stable temperatures in belts around the globe and larger ice caps at the poles, but in principle that is it. Also remember here that large and thick concentrations of ice are not stable - they float slowly downstream - in these cases towards lower and hotter heights and latitudes and towards - for large areas on Earth - the sea. All water at the poles therefore had not been an option.

Thicker crust.

This claimed danger is dependent on so many "ifs", that I will ask Mr. Refuter to specify under which conditions this is likely to happen? Also: The part which could solidify, is the magma just under the crust. Will he please document that normal magma binds oxygen when it solidifies?


We further quote Mr. Refuter: "All these precise specifications were referred to in - - -: 'It is He (Allah*) who created the heavens (there are no 7 heavens*) and the Earth in true proportions". One thing is that it is not documented that this - or all this - is what is referred to; it only is a claim. As bad is: As all the references are wrong, what does then this verse prove?

And more: "In that respect, it is evident how the sun, earth, and the moon are ordained by Allah to very precise attributes in service of mankind". But what is it then really evidence of, as all the claimed "very precise attributes" are ever so wrong?

Why mountains were created.

We quote Mr. Refuter: "Only crude hermeneutics would inspire the kind of objections has been raised here - - -". And then he goes on to debate how mountains are made - which is no secret for most educated people. (Though it is a fact that the Quran says they are set down). But the question was "why" - which he just touches, but do not answer: The Quran tells it is to stabilize Earth, and he does not explain one millimeter about how it stabilizes it - fact is that in special cases mountains can be slightly destabilizing.

When you do not like the question, answer about something else.

He also scolds "literalist" reading of the Quran - forgetting that good Muslims several places in the Quran are told that the texts are clear and shall be understood like told = literally. Only those "sick at heart" looks for hidden meanings - analogies, etc. - according to that book, if something else is not specified.

The Moon's light.

Here Mr. Refuter uses a number of words - plus dr. (of medicine) Maurice Bucaille - to explain what is not necessary to explain: That the sun and the moon are different. This even Muhammad saw, and used different words for their effect. But the essential point is that the Quran tells - like Mr. Refuter confirms in his quote of 25/61 - that the moon is "giving light". (We may add that there are worse refuters than Mr. Refuter, as we have met the ones claiming the Quran says the moon reflects light, but such an expression does not exist in the original Arab Quran at all). A god trying to use a clear and not to be misunderstood, precise language, like the Quran claims the language is in the book, and like Muslims claim is a proof for that the Quran is made by a god ("the language in the Quran is so clear and impossible to misunderstand, that only a god can have made it" - such claims you meet every now and then from Islam and its Muslims) - if an omniscient god had written this trying to make such a clear language, he had not here used a word normally used for light sources, but one for reflected light. "Giving light" in normal speech means producing light.

Dr. Bucaille once more.

As for dr. Bucaille - and for the ones so short of witnesses and arguments and facts that they have to use him, not to mention have to use him often - We have clarified his position in the scientific world, and his religion, further up in this page.

Everything created in pairs?

This honestly is a funny one. First Mr. Refuter drops half of the sentence: "- - - that ye (Muhammad and his followers*) may receive instruction" - words which show Allah talks about things Muhammad & Co could learn from (the Quran talked about living things on Earth), and then he drops our whole question/comment, which was about the topic the Quran talked about: Living things on Earth, and their always being in two sexes (which is wrong). Then he starts debating elementary particles in physics, claiming they always come in pairs - particle and anti-particle. Even if this had been true, it had not proved that "everything is created in pairs" and it had told nothing about what Muhammad spoke about; plants and animals, etc. Unluckily for him he does not know much about particle physics, too. We dare him to find an anti-graviton (gravitons transfer gravitation), or an anti- magnet (no, we do not mean + and - magnetism, as those are two effects of the same particle - mono-magnets do not exist. We mean the particle which transmits anti-magnetism. Or what about anti-Higgs boson (well, to be a little fair, also not the normal Higgs boson is found).

A well known technique of debate: If you have no answer, debate something else.

But as we have indicated, we are little impressed by bluffs. And this even more so when the man clearly shows he does not know what he is talking about. Not to mention a man so "smart" that he leaves the relevant subject for another, not relevant, but cherry-picked subject which in no case can prove the original point - - - and then on top of all stumbles head along into blemishes from lack of knowledge even about his cherry-picket subject.

He produces strong profs for the Quran, yes; but for that it is wrong, not for that any points - even his chosen points - are right.


And as if his revealing lack of knowledge about quantum physics was not enough, he stumble as much head along in normal physics. He gives a correct description of the main properties on matter and anti-matter - except that not for all particles there has been found an anti-particle. But then he continues that anti-matter until recently only was theoretical stuff, as it never was produced in laboratories. Anti-matter has been a physical reality for at least a couple of generations - and produced and measured in many a cyclotron many places in the industrialized world, and for all we know also in less industrialized parts - it is daily food in advanced physical science and has been for a long time (we think the first was produced in 1932). The only thing which is new, is that in this new and very big and international machine on the border of Switzerland and France, one now are able to produce not only atomic particles of anti-matter, but full anti-hydrogen atoms (hydrogen atoms are the smallest of atoms) and even anti-heliom4 (helium 4 = normal helium). That is to say, they have for some years been able to produce anti-hydrogen, but have been unable to stabilize it, and it has been annihilated at once. Some time ago they for the first time were able to stabilize we think it was 38 molecules - out of some million created ones.

The claim that 51/49 talks about quantum physics, is so far into fairy tale land, that we do not bother to comment on it. Especially as the claim comes from a stated refuter who thoroughly has proved he knows more or less nothing about quantum physics.

The Samaritan.

First thing first: Mr. Refuter jokes about the "mistake" that the Bible can be more reliable that the Quran, and that the fact that it is much older can have any weight. If Mr. Refuter had known anything at all about historical science, he also had known that age may count much for the reliability of a historical book. The reason is that the written word is much more stable than memory and the spoken word. And if something is written down shortly after it happened, it is far more likely to be correct, than if it was written down 100 or 1000 or 2000 years later. And coincidence did that the first written Jewish books were written around or a bit before the time Samaria was founded - around 800 BC, and Samaria was founded a small century later, and as it was founded by a king, it was written down in the books: King Omri of Israel (the northern country) founded Samaria in 722 BC. That there are speculations about if the year is correct, is a fair deal, but there never was a reason to falsify it (only Muslims have a reason for doing that - to make the Quran lose one mistake). Also if Mr. Refuter wants to claim the year is wrong, it is for him to prove it - but prove, not only throw around claims like he does here, like he does other placed, and like is one of the standard ways for Muslims to debate, especially when they want to explain away mistakes in the Quran - we meet the method all too often.

And what is absolutely sure is that the relevant claimed Shamari in the story about the Exodus in the Quran, was not from Samaria. For one thing it happened 600 years too early according to the books, and that much the writers were not wrong (Islam even wants Exodus to have happened earlier to camouflage another mistake in the Quran - Pharaoh Ramses II did not drown). And for another they were refugees coming out of Egypt, not from Israel (or Canaan to be correct - there were no Jews there yet). Mr. Refuter also states - likely correct - that people lived in the area before that. But his is irrelevant for the point, because the point is that the name Samarians could not exist until the name was coined - there existed no Samarians until Samaria got its name.

Gospel at the time of Moses.

For once it is possible you are right on a point. This part of the Quran is about Moses, but the Quran is so helter-skelter constructed, that there suddenly can be a verse about Muhammad in another context. We will look into this when we make the last look into next year. If it is wrong, it will be corrected - and congratulations to you in case, because it in case is the first mistake Muslims and Islam has found in "1000+ Mistakes in the Quran" except wrong spellings, etc. Luckily it in case only is a historical detail, not anything of any religious consequences.

It also is interesting to see that you claim the correct translation is not "unlettered" (Muhammad hardly was unlettered according to science and also according to Hadiths), as Muslims often try to use the claim that Muhammad was analphabetic to "prove" he could not have made the Quran (nonsense as a proof anyhow). There is a difference between "unlettered" (= analphabetic) and Gentile (= non-Jew). But like always we will have to check it - it is a nice point - as Muslim sources too often "bend" the truth to make the Quran sound true. And in this case the source already has proved such tendencies and more.

That it is confirmed in 7/158 counts little - too much is wrong in the Quran (f.x. what you mention that Muhammad is mentioned in the Bible - the only place where he is mentioned in the Bible, is in the Quran).


The general agreement in science is that Haman of Pharaoh Ramses II of Egypt (ruled ca. 1279 to 1213 BC) is the same person in the Quran as Haman of Xerxes I of Persia (ruled ca. 486 to 465 BC) some 700 - 800 years later. If you disagree, please

« on: July 14, 2013, 03:14:35 PM »

 Brothers, we know that Quran says about Black Holes and Pulsar Stars but what about white dwarfs. Quran only says, Sun will turn into a white dwarf as explained by Brother Osama in one of his articles. But what about other stars similar to the Sun?

 Does Quran say only Sun will turn into a White dwarf? What about other stars similar to the mass of the Sun?

 At many places of the Quran Allah swears by the Black Holes and Pulsar Stars.

Is there any Ayah in the Quran where Allah swears by the White dwarfs  or mentions about them?

Brothers please help me with this.


 Brothers, I heard that there is a giant footprint on one of the peaks in Srilanka. It is said to be Adam's footprint. But what's the proof? And what's the proof it's not fake?'s_Peak

« on: July 12, 2013, 08:52:56 AM »

  (So I swear by Mawaqi (setting or the mansions) of the stars * and verily, that is indeed a great oath, if you but know.){Sûrat Al-Wâqi‘ah- The Event-verse 75-76}.

 Brothers, What does Quran mean by setting or mansions of the stars? Does it mean that stars set in the dawn?

 Brothers I have read some articles where it says that, by setting or mansions of the stars Quran refers to supernova. But how? Does setting or mansions of the stars means explosion of the stars? Can anyone prove it?

 Please someone explain this to me.


   Brothers, I'm confused about verse 15 and 16 of Chapter no-81.

    So I swear by the retreating stars -(81:15)

    Those that run [their courses] and disappear -(81:16)

 Brother I have read many articles including brother Osama's one, where it says the above verses are talking about "Black Holes". But there is a problem.

  Some Muslims still believe that, the above verses are not talking about "Black Holes". They think, the above verses are talking about the night stars which run through out the night and disappear or hide themselves in the morning.

 To support their claim they bring verse 17 and 18 of the same surah, where Allah says:

               And by the night as it closes in(81:17)

                And by the dawn when it breathes(81:18)

 From the above verses we can see that Allah is talking about the worldly matters which we experience everyday. The stars which we see in the night sky disappear or hide themselves in the morning and again appear in the night. If we consider verse 15 and 16 this way, we find a link of these two verses with verse 17 and 18. But if we say verse 15 and 16 are talking about "Black Holes" then we don't find any link between verses 15,16 and 17,18.

So, What's the proof that verses 15 and 16 of Chapter no-81 are talking about "Black Holes"?

 Brothers, I'm confused please help me to remove my confusions.

« on: July 03, 2013, 10:54:54 AM »

    Brother Osama, please write an article exposing the lies of "The Rationalizer" about Scientific miracles in the Quran and also exposing the lies about Sana Manuscripts. Brother these two things are confusing our Muslim brothers a lot.

 Brother like brother mclinkin I also think due to his evil tricks many Muslims who don't know Arabic or about Quran and Sunnah are falling into the trap of "The Rationalizer". So he's gaining ground. We must do something about this. Some Christens and also Hindus like to claim that Muslims like Hamza Tsoztis , Zakir Naik and Harun Yahya are afraid of debating "The Rationalizer". They say, he has exposed all scientific miracles of the Quran including the verses related to Big Bang theory.

 In this circumstances, brother Osama I'm requesting you to write an article exposing the lies of "The Rationalizer" in order to save the Muslims from being deceived by his evil tactics.

 May Allah The Most High shower His unending blessings upon you, your family and the entire Muslim Ummah. Ameen


  Brother Osama, an article from Islam Watch claims that Sana Manuscripts prove that Quran is corrupted. They say, there are unconventional verse ordering, small but significant textual variations, different orthography (spelling) and different artistic embellishment (decoration).

Brother Osama,some sites like Islam watch also like to claim that if Sana manuscripts are not written by the Muslims but by the Jews to prove Uthmanic manuscripts wrong, then what is the proof? And what is the proof that Uthmanic manuscripts are correct and Sana manuscripts are not? They say many verses like verse no-5 of Chapter no-85 in Sana's manuscripts is totally different from Uthmanic manuscript.

Brother below is the article from Islam watch site. Please brother answer all their claims in order to prove them totally wrong and remove all my confusions regarding the preservation of Quran permanently. Brother please explain them in vast details. May Allah Bless you.

 [The earliest Quranic manuscripts discovered in the Sana'a mosque in Yemen not only differ from the standard version, but disagree amongst themselves. Since Muslims believe that the Quran contains the verses of Allah word for word, the new finds may unravel the 'Pandora's Box' for Islam...


“Respect for the faith of sincere believers cannot be allowed either to block or deflect the investigation of the historians... One must defend the rights of elementary historical methodology”.  -- Maxime Rodhinson, 1981, p. 57

Sana'a QuranMuslims generally believe, thanks to Quranic assertions, that both the Old and New Testaments are corrupted and seriously changed. They say, for a Holy Scripture to be authoritative, it has to be preserved without any changes at all, and point to the Quran, which, they claim, has been preserved word by word and letter by letter, as was revealed to Muhammad by Allah. The Quran itself claims: ‘no change there can be in the words of God’ (10:64) and, ‘there is none that can alter the words (and decrees) of God’ (6:34).

But then how ridiculous the ‘doctrine of abrogation’ is, by which later revelations cancel previous ones, as Quran (2:106) confirms, ‘revelations… We abrogate or cause to be forgotten’. Also, a Hadith (6:558) from Sahih Bukhari confirms that Muhammad forgot many verses. Again Sunaan ibn Majah (3: 1944) records that, after Muhammad’s death, some revelations were eaten up by a goat.

How divine words can be eaten, changed, cancelled or abolished, in spite of Allah’s specific claim in 10:64 and 6:34? Are not all these claims of Allah self-contradictory?

Amazingly, these plain truths do not bother the Muslims at all. Probably, if we can present another “authentic” Quran, which is different from existing standard form, Muslims may give way to logical thinking.

The devastating truth is that a large number of ancient Quranic manuscripts, dating from first century of Hijra were discovered in the Great Mosque of Sana’a (Yemen), which significantly differs from the present standard one. Carbon dating system confirmed that these Qurans are not forged one by religious rivalries. Moreover, these Qurans were discovered by Muslims, not infidels.

This is, probably, the most embarrassing event to Muslims in the 1,400-year history of Islam.

The Great Mosque of Sana’a is one of the oldest Mosques in Islamic history. The date of building goes back to 6th year of Hijrah when Muhammad entrusted one of his companions to build a Mosque at Yemen, which was extended and enlarged by Islamic rulers from time to time.

In 1972, during the restoration of this Great Mosque (heavy rain had caused the west wall of the Mosque to collapse), laborers, while working in a crown space between the structure’s inner and outer roofs, stumbled upon an amazing grave-site, which they did not realize at that time. Mosques do not accommodate graves, and this site contained no gravestone, no human remains and no funeral relics. It contained an unappealing mountain of old parchment and paper documents, damaged books and individual pages of Arabic text, fused together by rain and dampness for over a thousand years.

Sana'a Quran manuscriptsThe ignorant laborers gathered up the manuscripts, pressed them carelessly into some 20 potato sacks, and set them aside on the staircase of one of the Mosque’s minarets, where they were locked away. The manuscripts would have been forgotten once again, were it not for Qadhi Isma’il al-Akwa, then the President of Yemeni Antiquities Authority, who realized the potential importance of the find. Al-Akwa sought international assistance in examining and preserving the fragments, because no scholar in his country was capable of working on this rich find. In 1977, he managed to interest a visiting non-Muslim German scholar, who in turn persuaded the German government to organize and find a restoration project.

Soon after the project began, it became clear that the “paper grave” is a resting place for, among other things, tens of thousands of fragments from close to a thousand different codices of the Quran. Muslim authorities during early days cherished the belief that worn out and damaged copies of the Quran must be removed from circulation leaving only the unblemished editions of the scripture for use. Also such a safe place was required to protect the books from looting or destruction if invaders come and hence the idea of a grave in the Great Mosque in Sana’a, which was a place of learning and dissemination of the Quran and was in existence from the first century of the Hijrah.

Restoration of the manuscript has been organized and supervised by Gerd R. Puin of Saarland University, Germany. Puin is a renowned specialist on Arabic calligraphy (the study of fine and artistic handwriting) and Quranic paleography (the study of ancient writing and documents). For ten years he extensively examined those precious parchment fragments. In 1985, his colleague H. C. Graf V. Bothmer joined him.

Carbon-dating puts the origin of some of the parchments to 645–690 CE, while calligraphic dating has pointed to their origin in 710–715 AD. Some of the parchment pages seemed to date back to the seventh and eighth centuries, i.e. Islam’s first two centuries, perhaps the oldest Quran in existence.

In 1984, the House of Manuscripts (Dar al Makhtutat) was founded close to the Great Mosque, as part of a cooperation project between the Yemeni and German authorities. An enormous endeavor began to restore the Quranic fragments. Between 1983 and 1996, approximately 15,000 out of 40,000 pages were restored, specifically 12,000 fragments on parchment and manuscripts dating back to the seventh and eighth centuries.

Dar-al-Makhtutat-Library-Yemen-Sanaa-quran-manuscriptUntil now, only three ancient copies of the Quran are found. The one preserved in the British Library in London, dates from the late seventh century and was thought to be the oldest one. But the Sana’a manuscripts are even older. Moreover, these manuscripts are written in a script that originates from the Hijaz—the region of Arabia where prophet Muhammad lived, which makes them not only the oldest to have survived, but one of the earliest authentic copies of the Quran ever. Hijazi Arabic is the script (Makkan or Madinan), in which the earliest Quran was written. Although these pieces are from the earliest Quran known to exist, they are also palimpsests (manuscripts on which the original writing has been effected for re-use).

The rare style of fine and artistic handwriting in the manuscripts had fascinated both Puin and his friend Bothmer, but more surprise was awaiting them. When these ancient Qurans were compared with the present standard one, both of them were stunned. The ancient texts were found to be devastatingly and disturbingly at odds with the existing form. There are unconventional verse ordering, small but significant textual variations, different orthography (spelling) and different artistic embellishment (decoration).

It shattered the orthodox Muslim belief that the Quran, as it has reached us today, is “the perfect, timeless, and unchanging Word of God”. It means Quran has been distorted, perverted, revised, modified and corrected, and textual alterations had taken place over the years purely by Human hands.

The sacred aura surrounding this Holy Scripture of Islam, which remained intact for some 14 centuries is gone with this astonishing discovery and the ‘core belief’ of 1.4b Muslims that the Quran is the eternal, unaltered word of God is now clearly visible as a great hoax, a downright falsehood.

Not only this, the Quranic claim that nobody can alter the words of God is also a fake. Quran is supposed to be, in the words of Guillaume (1978, p. 74), “The holy of holies. It must never rest beneath other books, but always on top of them, one must never drink or smoke when it is being read aloud, and it must be listened to in silence. It is a talisman against disease and disaster”. Muslims call the Quran the ‘Mother of Books’, and believe that no other book or revelation can compare (Caner & Caner, 2002, p 84). However, it’s all gone now. The end-result of whole Islamic struggle of the last fourteen centuries is a big zero.

As if it is not enough, many manuscripts showed the sign of palimpsests, i.e., versions very clearly written over even earlier washed off versions. The underwriting of palimpsest is, of course, often difficult to read visually, but modern tools, such as ultraviolet photography, can highlight them. It suggests that the Sana’a manuscripts are not only variants to the present version of the Quran, but the Sana’a manuscripts themselves were variants of earlier version, re-written on the same paper. It means, Allah’s claim that original text is preserved in heaven on golden tablets (Q 56: 77–78; 85:21–22), which none can touch except angels is also a fairy-tale.

Puin, after extensively studying these manuscripts, came to the conclusion that the text is actually an evolving text rather than simply the word of God as revealed in its entirety to Muhammad (Warraq, 2002, p. 109). He wrote:

“So many Muslims have this belief that everything between the two covers of the Quran is just God’s unaltered word. They like to quote the textual work that shows that the Bible has a history and did not fall straight out of the sky, but until now the Quran has been out of discussion. The only way to break through this wall is to prove that the Quran has a history too. The Sana’a’s fragments will help us to do this.”

Puin even concluded (cited Taher, 2000) that “It is not one single work that has survived unchanged through the centuries. It may include stories that were written before the prophet Mohammed began his ministry and which have subsequently been rewritten”.

During their research, as Puin (Lester, 1999) recalls, “They [Yemeni authorities] wanted to keep this thing low profile, as we do too, although for different reasons. They don’t want attention drawn to the fact that there are Germans and others working on the Qurans. They don’t want it made public that there is work being done at all, since the Muslim position is that everything that needs to be said about the Quran’s history was said a thousand years ago.”

In fact, Puin and Bothmer knew for sometime during their study that the Quran is an evolving text, but they wisely understood the possible implications of their findings and kept quiet. If Yemeni authorities come to know about this discovery, they may even refuse them further access. This is actually what Puin called ‘different reasons’. So both sides kept quiet, and those two scholars carried on their research unabated.

Puin’s findings also confirm Wansbrough’s assumption on the Quranic text. In the 1970s, Wansbrough concluded that the Quran evolved only gradually in the seventh and eighth centuries after a long period of oral transmissions; different sects used to argue furiously with each other on the genuineness of the revelations. The reason that no Islamic source-materials from the very beginning of Islam never survived is because it never existed. In fact, Puin admitted ‘rereading Wansbrough’ during the course of analyzing the Yemeni fragments (Warraq, 2002, p. 122).

Puin's other radical theory is that pre-Islamic sources have entered the Quran. He argues that two tribes it mentions, As-Sahab-ar-Rass (Companions of the Well) and As- Sahab-al-Aiqa (Companions of the Thorny Bushes), are not part of the Arab tradition, and the people of Muhammad's time certainly did not know about them. He also disagrees that the Quran was written in the purest Arabic. The very word ‘Quran’ itself is of foreign origin. Contrary to popular Muslim belief, the meaning of ‘Quran’ is not recitation. It is actually derived from an Aramaic word, ‘Qariyun’, meaning a lectionary of scripture portions appointed to be read at divine service. Quran contains most of the biblical stories but in a shorter form and is ‘a summary of the Bible to be read in service’.

Bothmer has painstakingly finished taking more than thirty-five thousand microfilm pictures of the fragments by 1997, and brought the pictures back to Germany (Warraq, 2002, p. 109). It means now Bothmer, Puin and other scholars will finally have a chance to scrutinize the texts and to publish their findings freely.

Puin is interested to write a book on this in the future, but already wrote several short essays on their findings in various science magazines, where he pointed out several aberrations between the ancient Quran and the present standard version (cited Warraq, 2002, p. 739–44). In refuting the sacredness of the Quran, Puin wrote:

“My idea is that the Quran is a kind of cocktail of texts that were not all understood even at the time of Muhammad. Many of them may even be a hundred years older than Islam itself. The Quran claims for itself that it is ‘mubeen’, or clear. But [contrary to popular belief] if you look at it, you will notice that every fifth sentence or so simply does not make sense…the fact is that a fifth of the Quranic text is just incomprehensible. If the Quran is not comprehensible, if it can’t even be understood in Arabic, then it’s not translatable into any language. That is why Muslims are afraid. Since the Quran claims repeatedly to be clear but is not—there is an obvious and serious contradiction. Something else must be going on”.

The extraordinary discovery of Puin had fascinated Andrew Rippin, a Professor of religious studies and a leading expert on Quranic studies. Rippin (cited Warraq, 2002, p. 110) concluded, “The impact of the Yemeni manuscripts is still to be felt. Their variant readings and verse orders are all very significant. Everybody agrees on that. These manuscripts say that the early history of Quranic text is much more of an open question than many have suspected. The text was less stable and therefore had less authority, than has always been claimed”.

Rippin’s observation was superb. During the period of early Caliphs, Islam grew as political movement and not as a religious movement. A book like the Quran was required to keep the Muslims united. The Quran is just like a ‘status symbol’ of Islam, without which Islam would have died during the time of Muhammad only. The Quran is purely manmade. Some sort of Divinity was attached to the Quran so that it can command some respect, because it could not stand on its own worth. This way, in acknowledging the claims of the Quran as the direct utterance of the Divinity, the early manipulators had blocked all criticisms, which can otherwise expose it. The Quran itself prohibits criticism in verses 5:101 and 5:102. We do not know when religious blindness crept in, but undoubtedly, the early Muslims after Muhammad were more liberal than the present generation we are seeing today. The authenticity of many verses had been called into question by the early Muslims themselves. Many Kharijites, who were followers of Ali in the early history of Islam, found the Sura recounting the story of Joseph offensive, an erotic tale that cannot belong to the Quran (cited Warraq, 1998, p. 17).

Warraq (1998, p. 14) has the same view as Rippin, “Muslim scholars of the early years of Islam were far more flexible in their position, realizing that parts of the Quran was lost, perverted and that there were many thousand variants which made it impossible to talk of ‘the’ Quran”.

There is another proof that Quranic messages were distorted in the early days of Islam and nothing like ‘The’ Quran does exist any more. Inscriptions of several Quranic verses are decorated on the Dome of Rock of Jerusalem, which is most probably the first Islamic monument meant to be a major artistic achievement, built in 691 CE (Whelan, 1998, p. 1–14). These inscriptions significantly differ from the present standard text (Warraq, 2000, p. 34).

Mingana (cited Warraq, 1998, p.80) laments that “The most important question in the study of the Quran is its unchallengeable authority”.  This is the only reason that critical investigation of the text of the Quran is a study which is still in its immaturity. As Rippin (1991, p. ix) lamented, “I have often encountered individuals who come to the study of Islam with a background in the historical study of the Hebrew Bible or early Christianity, and who express surprise at the lack of critical thought that appears in introductory textbooks of Islam. The notion that ‘Islam is born in the clear light of history’ still seems to be assumed by a great many writers of such texts.’”

Cook and Crone (1977, p. 18) concluded that “[The Quran] strikingly lacking in overall structure, frequently obscure and inconsequential in both language and content perfunctory in its liking of disparate materials and given to the repetition of whole passages in variant versions. On this basis, it can be argued that the book is the product of a belated and imperfect editing of materials from a plurality of traditions.” Crone (cited Warraq, 1998, p. 33) wrote elsewhere that “The Quran has generated masses of spurious information”.

But in case of the Bible, it is different, as Rodhinson (1980, p. viii) observed: “[For Bible] the scientific attitude begins with the decision to accept something as fact only if the source has been proved reliable”. Muslims wrongly interpret the honesty Christians display about some variant readings of the Bible as weakness (Ali & Spencer; 2003, p. 76–9). Christians, like Hindus, want to see their Holy book through scientific and historical point of view. When old Biblical manuscripts, parchments or ancient Hindu manuscripts are discovered, Christian and Hindu scholars almost climb over each other’s shoulder to gain an early access to them. Such findings cause great excitement to them. But sadly, no such excitement exists in Islam. Christians and Hindus are eager to see more and more light shed on the earliest manuscripts of their scriptures, while Muslims resist, often with violent determination. The contrast is really striking: while both Hindu and Christian faiths are strongly backed up by archeological and historical evidence, so far as concerns Islam, neither any archeological exploration was allowed in Mecca and Medina, nor is there any prospect in the future (Peters, 1986, p. 72–4).

Muslim criticism of the Quran is very rare and almost nonexistent as Sina (2008, p. 6) lamented, “Muslims are genuinely incapable of questioning Islam”. Recently, ex-Muslim websites are doing some remarkable work on this. Ultimately, these enlightened people will successfully free their Muslim brothers and sisters from the Islamic prison. Otherwise whatever criticism is done on the Quran are all by the Christian scholars. But Muslims should not take the Christian criticism as a mark of religious opposition. Christian scholars have done much more criticism of their own religion than Islam (Sproul & Saleeb, 2003. p. 17; Spencer, 2007, p. 1).

But once the Sana’a findings are published in details, Islam will not be the same as it was for fourteen centuries. Islam is definitely going to take a strange position. Many Muslims will cast doubt on sacredness of the Quran, and the very ‘romantic’ concept of the Quran will gradually disappear, and then a very interesting development can be observed. The first question, which will appear in their mind is: which version is superior. But then, it is not possible to choose a Quran and discard the other by preference. Because the Muslim belief also confirms that he, who denies a single verse of the Quran, denies the entire revelation. This is a logical impossibility and since scientific research had already spoken out the truth, many Muslims will seek a way out of this nonsense, and will try to free themselves from the tyrannical oppression of living in a false religion.

While discussing Muslim’s apathy to science, reason and natural law, Jaki (cited Spencer, 2002, p. 127) wrote, “What is occurring in the Muslim world today is a confrontation, not between God and devil… but between a very specific God and science which is a very specific antagonist of that God, the Allah of the Quran, in whom the will wholly dominates the intellect”.

The Sana’a discovery will just add fuel to the fire. Today the Muslim world is beset with frustration. Islam is supposed to be the final revelation and Muslims are supposed to be the “Best of Mankind”, but the reality is just opposite. Muslim nations are poorest in the world (Ohmyrus, 2006, p. 128). A time will come when the religious authorities will be asked by common Muslims to refute the critics by logic, science and reason, not by violence or Fatwa. As Parvez Manzoor wrote, “Sooner or later [we Muslims] will have to approach the Quran from methodological assumptions and parameters that are radically at odds with the ones consecrated by our tradition” (Warraq, 2002, p. 123)

The Sana’a manuscripts will also provoke another question. If the Quran is a lie, how the lie survived for so many centuries? The reason is that the Divinity attached to Quran is not ‘A Small Lie’, but ‘The Big Lie’. The big lies are very powerful, and it always has a psychological effect on the listeners. The bigger the lie, the more believable it is. Adolf Hitler wrote in Mein Kamph (1925), “The broad mass of a Nation will fall victim to a big lie than to a small one.” Big lies are extraordinarily convincing, because it offsets the scale of the listener’s commonsense, as Sina (2008, p. 179) explains: an ordinary person does not dare to tell a big lie thinking that it would not be believed and he would be ridiculed. Since there is no one who had never told a lie in his life, small lies are often detectable sooner or later. But the big lies are so strange that it often startle the listener. When the lie is gigantic, the average person is left to wonder how anyone can have the courage, the impudence to say such a thing.

Big lies always work wonder in politics. As George Orwell (cites Sina, 2008, p. 179) said,  “Political language … is designed to make lies sound truthful and murder respectable and give an appearance of solidity to pure wind”.

Today, when the divinity of the Quran is shattered by the Sana’a manuscripts, the spiritual nature of Islam is also exposed. Islam is nothing but a pure Arab political movement. The Divinity was attached to the Quran, when Arabs started conquering the surrounding nations, and Islam was imposed on them by force. Arabs not only imposed Islam on others, but also imposed this irrational belief of Quranic divinity to the minds of their victims, so that once Arabs are gone, the conquered people cannot come out from this mental enslavement, and return back to their original faith. It is a rare political skill. Many companions of Muhammad clearly knew that the Quran was fake, but they remained with their prophet to share the booty and to enjoy the women. We all know, after Muhammad’s death, several Arab tribes returned back to their original belief, and idolatry flourished, but were forced back to Islam with the sword and bloodbath.

With much shock to Muslims, modern study on Psychology had spoken out the truth that Muhammad was an imposter, a madman, who was suffering from Narcissistic Personality Disorder. Narcissists are such self-absorbed persons, who are pathological liars. It means, either they are unaware of their lies or feel completely justified and at easy in lying to others. Their mental condition is such that they have that rare capability to believe their own lies (Vaknin, 1999, p. 24).

And, yes, Adolf Hitler, who was aware of the power of Big lie, and misguided millions of Germans, is also recognized as a Narcissist. Today Hitler is the most hated historical figure in Germany. Like a mathematical certainty, Muhammad will earn the same fate. But we really do not know, how many million more will die before we can put Muhammad in dustbin with his Allah, Quran and Islam altogether. For Hitler, it was National Socialism (another name of Nazism) and for Muhammad it was Islam, but deep down, both were two sides of same coin—successful manipulators.

Sina (2008, p. iv, 260) commented that “Islam is like a house of cards, sustained by lies. All it takes to demolish is to challenge one of those lies holding it together. It is a tall building, erected on quicksand; once you expose its foundation, the sand will wash away and this mighty edifice will fall under its own weight”, and that “Islam stands on a very shaky ground. It rests on nothing but lies. All we have to do to demolish it is to expose those lies and this gigantic edifice of terror and deception will collapse.”

Let’s see, once the sacred aura of Quran is gone, what other lies are exposed.

First, if there are two or more versions of the Quran, then there must be equal number of Allahs. So, if only two Qurans are authentic, will Islam be deemed monotheistic any longer? And how to decide which Allah gave which Quran? If there is only one Allah, then which Quran is authentic, and which is fake?

Second, if we still believe that one Quran is authentic, then how Allah allowed the others to survive?

Third, is it anymore true as the Quran says Allah’s words do not change (10.64); this is indeed the mighty achievement?

If yes, what more than one Quran is doing now? If not, how this false revelation is recorded in the Quran? Did Satan put it?

Finally, Bukhari (4.52.233) records that “Unbelievers will never understand our signs and revelations.” But we see, for understanding the Sana’a Quran, the Yemeni authorities invited German scholars, because there was no one in Yemen capable of working on this rich find.

No wonder that Sina (2008) concluded: “No matter how you look at Islam it turns out to be a foolish religion.”

Although Muslims have sold their soul to Muhammad, can they logically clear the above doubts? The Sana’a episode had put them in such an awkward position that even circular reasoning or absurd logic will not help. Isn’t it time for prudent Muslims to give a second thought to their cherished faith? Instead of trying hard to reason out the above doubts, isn’t it more sensible to agree that the entire Muslim ummah had been fooled by a vulgar imposter named Prophet Muhammad? Isn’t it time for Muslims to care truth? As poet Thomas Gray (cited Sagan, 1997, p. 12) wrote, “… where ignorance is bliss, “Tis [It is] folly to be wise”.

To protect the Quran from more humiliation, Yemeni authorities already debarred Puin and Bothmer from further examination of those manuscripts. In fact, now they do not allow anyone to see those manuscripts anymore except some very carefully selected non-Quranic parchments, which are at display at the ground floor of Dar al-Makhtutat Library. But this is not going to help; the bird is out of the cage already; it is useless closing the door now. More than thirty-five thousand microfilms are out of Yemen before the authorities came to know; and already, several duplicates have been made. The present author is sure that, at this very moment, in some undisclosed location in Germany, a group of experts are endlessly working on those microfilms and Puin is burning enough midnight oil to complete his book, which, once published, will hammer another nail in the coffin of Islam. Islam is in real danger now.

Obviously, by realizing the Divine downfall within sight, many Muslims are disturbed and offended. The fundamentalists will not accept Puin's and Bothmer’s work as having been done with academic objectivity, but see it as a deliberate attack on the integrity of the Quranic text (Taher, 2000). Naturally, those two German scholars will be at the forefront of Muslims’ rage. Puin fears a violent backlash from orthodox Muslims because of his "blasphemous" theory, which he says, he cannot take lightly. By recalling the Salman Rushdie affair he wrote, “My conclusions have sparked angry reactions from orthodox Muslims. They've said I'm not really the scholar to make any remarks on these manuscripts”. If Puin's views are taken up and trumpeted in the media, and if there are not many Muslims being rational about it, then all hell may break loose. There will be some hostile response and riots causing much death and destruction, may be another fatwa from Khomeini and surely some hollow threats from our camera-loving Bin Laden, and his ideological brothers. But can they stop the truth from spreading?

UNESCO has shown genuine interest in the Sana’a manuscripts ever since the Memory of the World programme started. In 1995, the Organization also produced a CD-ROM in Arabic, English and French illustrating the history of the collection containing both Quranic and non-Quranic materials. The CD-ROM offers 651 images of 302 Quranic fragments, indexed by script, frames etc., a general introduction to the Yemenite manuscripts collections, and a brief description on the evolution of Arabic calligraphy (Abid, 1997).

Ursula Dreibholz, a preservation expert, who worked on the Sana’a project for eight years as the chief conservator, is much frustrated by seeing the lack of concern of Yemeni authorities to protect those manuscripts by using modern technology (1983, p. 30–8). Neither the security devices are correct, nor is adequate attention being given to the manuscripts to avoid further deterioration (1996, p. 131–45). In fact, Dreibholz (1999, p. 21–5) said that it was her greatest concern to create a safe and reliable permanent storage system for the restored fragments. Also, the poor storage hardly has any protection from insects and water. Most importantly, there is a lack of fire prevention or detection system, keeping in mind the truly catastrophic fires that have destroyed important libraries and artworks around the world throughout history. The Yemeni authorities said they have neither money nor means to install fire protection systems. She does not understand the genuine reason behind the apathy of Yemeni authorities.

Here Muslim fundamentalists can see a silver lining in the cloud. No one knows when a devastating fire will break out ‘accidentally’ and destroy all the Quranic manuscripts, a cause of intense heartburn to them. After all, for saving Islam, the Quran must be saved, for which Muslims will go any length. If necessary, they will burn the Quran to save it from logical analysis. Their devotion to stupidity is really that high. Probably, the Yemeni authority’s unwillingness to install fire-protection systems is an initial preparation for such an act in the future. Never underestimate the destructive capability of the brainless bigots.

Author can be contacted at




1.  Abid, Abdelaziz (1997) “Memory of the World”: Preserving Our Documentary Heritage. Museum International, 49:1, January 1997, Blackwell Publishers, Oxford.

2.  Dreibholz, Ursula (1983) A treasure of early Islamic manuscripts on parchment. Significance of the find and its conservation treatment. AIC Preprints of papers presented at the 11th annual meeting in Baltimore, Maryland, 25-29 May 1983. Washington DC.

3. Dreibholz, Ursula (1996) The Treatment of Early Islamic Manuscript Fragments on Parchment in The Conservation and Preservation of Islamic Manuscripts, Al-Furqan Islamic Heritage Foundation, London

4. Dreibholz, Ursula (1999) Preserving a treasure: the Sana'a manuscripts. Museum International. Islamic collections. 51:3, July 1999, Blackwell Publishers. Oxford.

5.  Whelan, Estelle (1998) Forgotten Witness: Evidence for the Early Codification of the Quran. Published in The Journal of America Oriental Society. January to March Issue, 1998.  University of Michigan. USA.


1. Ali, Daniel & Spencer, Robert (2003) Inside Islam: A guide for Catholics. Ascension Press, Pennsylvania.

2. Caner E. M & Caner E.F (2002) Unveiling Islam, Kregel Publications, Grand Rapids, U.S.A

3. Cook, Michael &Crone, Patricia (1977) Hagarism: The making of the Islamic world, Cambridge.

4.  Vaknin, Sam (1999) Malignant Self Love: Narcissism Revisited. Narcissus Publications, Skopje, Czech Republic.

5.  Warraq, Ibn (ed., 1998) The origins of the Koran: Classic Essays on Islam’s holy book. Prometheus Books, New York.

6.  Warraq, Ibn (ed., 2000) The Quest for Historical Muhammad. Prometheus books, New York.

7.  Warraq, Ibn (ed., 2002) What the Koran really says – Language, Text and Commentary. Prometheus books, New York.

8.  Guillaume, Alfred (1978); Islam. Harmondsworth.

9.  Hitler A., Mein Kampf, English translation by Houghton Mifflin and edited of verbosity, a 1939, Reynal & Hitchcock

10.  Ohmyrus (2006) The Left and Islam: Tweedledum and Tweedledee in Beyond Jihad: Critical voices from the inside by Shienbaum, Kim and Hasan, Jamal. Academia Press, LLC, Bethesda.

11.  Peters, F.E (1986) Jerusalem and Mecca: The topology of the Holy City in the near east. NY.

12. Rippin, Andrew (1991) Muslims: their religious beliefs and practices. London.

13. Rodhinson, Maxime (1980) Muhammad (translated to English by Anne Carter). The New Press, New York

14. Rodhinson, Maxime (1981) A Critical Survey of Modern Studies on Muhammad, in Studies on Islam, M. Swartz ed., Oxford University Press, USA

15. Sagan, Karl (1997) The Demon-Haunted World: Science as a Candle in the Dark. Ballantine Books. New York.

16. Sina, Ali (2008) Understanding Muhammad: A Psychobiography.

17. Spencer, Robert (2002) Islam Unveiled: Disturbing questions about the world’s fastest growing faith. Encounter Books. San Francisco.

18. Spencer, Robert (2007) Religion of Peace?: Why Christianity is and Islam isn’t. Regnery Publishing Inc., Washington DC.

19. Sproul R. C. & Saleeb, Abdul (2003) The Dark Side of Islam. Crossway Books, Illinois.

 Internet Sources:

1. Taher, Abul (2000) Querying the Koran, The Guardian. 8 August 2000;  (accessed 3 June 2009)

2.  Sina, Ali (2008) Probing Islam (An internet based debate between J. A. Ghamidi/K. Zaheer and Ali Sina); (Accessed 7 February 2008).

3.  Lester, Toby (1999) What Is the Koran?, Atlantic Monthly, January 1999 issue, (accessed 3 June 2009).

4.  Wikipedia (2009); Gerd R. Puin;  (accessed 3 June 2009) ]

Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 [6] 7 8 9

What's new | A-Z | Discuss & Blog | Youtube