HOME   People do good because they are human, not because they are religious! 

Do not give God any credit for the good they do, they did it!


In Islam, the Koran/Quran, is fully the word of God. It is the standard against which all matters of faith and morals are measured. The tradition of Islam takes second place and the Koran is preferred if there is a contradiction.


By default, by claiming to be the only book given directly by God and by claiming that God not Muhammad produced it and that Muhammad was secretary more than Prophet the Koran would have to be the book to go to not the Bible or anything else.  The Koran is literally authored only by Allah.


The Koran is also preferred to the Bible which it says has been altered and changed by heretics.

The Koran accuses the Bible of being inaccurate and then it says that the Bible shows that it is true. How can it if it is corrupt?

The Koran does not contain a single prophecy that indicates that a God who knows the future wrote it. The only prophecy it has is a vague one that had to come true one day anyway. If the Jews and Christians rewrote the Bible why would they put in the material that the only sure sign that God is speaking is when there is no error when the future is predicted?

It is believed by many scholars that the book was not in existence when Muhammad died and was pieced together from parchments and memory. The man who may have been the author though he is presented as the final editor is Zaid ibn Thabit. We know that there is no evidence that the Quran existed as we now have it in the seventh or eighth centuries. We have no Korans from that period or even pieces of any import.


450 of the original memorisers of the Koran perished in battle so how accurate is the current Koran?


The Koran we have to day is just one version of what was around soon after Muhammad. Sahih al-Bukhari 6:51:510 shows how variants were gotten rid of but we have no way of knowing what the original really looked like.  The Muslim claim that what we have now is the word of God is just based on circular reasoning.

The Catholic Church says that Catholics and Muslims have the same God. But the Muslim God is revealed entirely through the Koran. They have the wrong way of looking at God and so they are worshipping their own perception and not the real God. Therefore if the Koran is man-made or inspired by a familiar spirit then it is an idol dressed up as God that is worshipped by Muslims.


Core Christian doctrine says that adultery is a sin and the Koran by contrast allows it under certain circumstances by letting a man marry a second wife while the first is alive and have sex with the second wife.  Even if polygamy was often about taking girls into the family to look after them why could they not be adopted instead or taken as wives but non-sexual wives?  The Koran permitted sex with slaves and concubines as well!  For that reason, there is no way anybody could say that one religion is as good as another.




From The Universe Next Door, page 248-9

The unequaled greatness of Allah becomes the linchpin of all further considerations of his nature. Anything that could conceivably be construed as detracting from his greatness must be considered to be false, or even offensive. The worst sin in Islam is shirk, which is commonly translated as “idolatry,” but literally means “association” and thus implies far more than the common understanding of idolatry, such as worshiping statues of deities. Shirk means to conjoin Allah with any of his creatures, to ascribe a partner to him, or to understand him to possess limitations that are characteristic of his creatures but not of him.


Not only does this prohibition rule out notions such as an incarnation or any direct revelation of God himself in any humanly apprehensible form, but it also means that whatever attributes God has revealed about himself cannot be measured by human standards. For example, Allah is just, but if we come up with a definition of justice and then think that, therefore, we can understand what it means for Allah to be just, we are overstepping the bounds of what is allowable. Similarly, Allah is merciful, gracious and forgiving, but knowing these truths about Allah does not give us any warrant for drawing implications concerning how he should be expected to act toward any specific person. Allah is not unknowable, but it would be presumptuous for us to infer from his attributes specifically how he would manifest them in any particular cases.  An integral part of any theism is that God is both transcendent (beyond the world) and immanent (present and active within the world). In the case of Islamic theism, God’s transcendence far outweighs his immanence. Any notion of a possible relationship with Allah must respect this boundary.  God and a human person can never meet on the same plane. In the (perhaps slightly overstated) words of Isam’il Ragi al Faruqi, Islam is transcendentalist. It repudiates all forms of immanentism. It holds that reality is of two generic kinds—transcendent and spatiotemporal, creator and creature, value and fact—which are metaphysically, ontologically unlike as different from each other. These two realms of being constitute different objects of two modes of human knowledge, namely, the a priori and the empirical. Consciousness of this duality of being is as old as man; but it has never been absolutely free of confusion, absolutely clear of itself, as in Islam. . . . Islam takes its distinguishing mark among the world religions precisely by insisting on an absolute metaphysical separation of transcendent from the spatiotemporal.


My comment on that is that the Bible proclaims Jesus as the revelation of God and says that is what he is about so the Bible is totally and at core contradicted by the Koran.  There is a core difference between the Muslim Issa the figure taken to be Jesus and the Bible Jesus. 

The version of the Koran we are using is published by Penguin and N.J. Dawood (London, 1994).

The book boasts that it is infallible (98:1).

Sura 1:2:47 says that there will come a day when there will be nothing you can do to save yourself from the anger of God. This puts a limit on God’s mercy so he has mercy on some who want to be saved and not on others.

The Koran claims to be infallible and perfect. Yet in 10:106 we read that if a verse is cancelled it will be replaced by a better or a similar one! That is good if you regret making a doctrine for you can then change it. But the omnipotent Allah who wrote the Koran could surely do better than that! The same verse has the cheek to then say that God has power over all things! It refutes the argument that the Koran must be of God when it is a masterpiece for God would have the intelligence to get it right the first time.

In 2:142 we learn that Muslims were told to turn to Mecca when they pray though God originally told them to turn to Jerusalem. They were told that if unbelievers brought this up then to tell them that the east and west belong to God and he does what is right. In other words, though it is either right or wrong to face one of those places, God is right to say that it is wrong to face Jerusalem and right to face Mecca God is right to contradict himself! The vice of stubbornness pervades this book.
2:178 commands retaliation in bloodshed and decrees a slave for a slave and a free person for a free person. A fine was allowed as the only punishment if the relatives forgave the killer. It says that retaliation is for protecting yourself. That is bunkum for fines are no deterrent when you want to kill a member of a forgiving family. This evil law allows you to make money out of the murder of your relative. It is mercenary.

Sura 2:180 makes it a duty to make your will out to family. That is a disgraceful rule.  And there is no reason to assume that God is making this rule for people who have poor families so it is a general rule.

2:190 says that Muslims must fight for the sake of God against aggressors. They are not to attack them first and are to kill them wherever they find them. They are to battle on until idolatry is obliterated and Islam is the only religion. Obviously, this is saying that if a foreign army attacks a Muslim area the Muslims have the right to slaughter all who will not convert to Islam in that country. It is silly if God only permits this genocide when Muslims are attacked. If the attack is the excuse for it and a terrible one at that then why not do away with it?

It is also disgusting that the fighting is to be done for the sake of God. A principle like that only gives people more to go to war over as if we have not got too much as it is.

2:269 says that it is good to give alms in public but better to give them in private which will atone for sins. But with some imagination it is easy to find ways in which all giving is secret. The Koran fails to see that public charity must be sinful – an important error. And it even says that the good act of public charity cannot make up for sins! The doctrine of atonement here is nightmarish for you will never be able to do enough to atone when sin deserves everlasting torment according to the Koran’s dreadful God. The atoning is really evil for it is like throwing God some scraps from the banquet table.

The Koran says that we may give a debtor who can’t pay us more time but that it is better to let him keep what he owes (2:80). This is the stupid doctrine that morality is rules and not what maximises good. The doctrine of slaves and zombies! The debtor should have made sure he could pay back before he asked for the money. In certain circumstances the Koran would be right but nothing is said about circumstances here and it says it means a man who gets more time meaning a man who says he will be able to pay and needs more time.  

Sura 4:16 says that God forgives those who have sinned without realising it. But there is nothing to forgive in that case. Here, the Koran proves that it cannot be called a gospel because if accidents are sins then there is no hope of salvation for anybody. The book says that God will not forgive those who live sinfully and repent on their deathbeds. This will be accepted as true because people don’t like the thought of evil people escaping their come-uppance. But it is discrimination to refuse to pardon anybody. When God forgives he is saying that it is the most loving thing to do. This doctrine says that he is not saying that which is absurd.

The Koran considers idolatry or the adoration of other Gods to be a most grievous sin which he will not pardon though he pardons all other sins (4:47). This proves that the book is man-made for all sins involve idolatry. They are choosing something over God. It is actually better to sincerely worship an idol than to sin which is wilful idolatry. Man does not like you rejecting his God for he can command things in the name of God to get you to do his own will while pretending that it is for God.

In 5:30, we are told that Abel refused to murder Cain even to save his own life because he hoped that Cain would kill him and go to Hell for it. He wanted Cain to sin more and kill him. That was a suicidal wish and all to make his brother’s hell hotter. Abel was an evil hypocrite despite the Koran saying he was a nice righteous person. Because of the story of Cain and Abel, God says he made it the law that if a person kills he should be treated as if he kills the whole world. The hypocrisy in this is evident: the Koran decrees that the hands of a thief must be hacked off – why not the arms and legs too for if a murderer is treated as if he killed all then the thief should be treated as if he stole from all. Such reasoning could justify putting all offenders to death.


"On that account: We ordained for the Children of Israel that if anyone kills a person - unless it be for murder or for spreading mischief in the land - it would be as if they killed all people. And if any one saved a life, it would be as if they saved the life of all people."  This verse could be read as saying honour killing is fine. And is a verse that makes out you are the same as mass murderer for killing one person really concerned about justice? No.

5:48 gives us the astonishing statement that the Koran conforms to the scriptures of the Jews and the Christians! But these writings are contradicted by the Koran which maintains that they have been edited and rewritten by enemies of God. How can you confirm writings when you can’t sort out the truth from the fiction in them.

The Koran prohibits Muslims from having a friendship with Jews or Christians for whoever befriends them will leave Islam (5:51).

5:90 forbids wine and gambling and games of chance.

In 6:8, Muhammad struggles to give an explanation for why no angel was sent down to shoulder some of his burden which was to oversee and promote Islam. His explanation is that if God had done that then the people would have had no excuse for rejecting Islam and their fate in Hell would have been sealed for remaining sceptical. The miracle would prove it. That is a lie for the Devil can appear as an angel of God and there can be no miracle great enough to convince everybody. And if the angel, we are told, looked like an ordinary man it would only confuse the people. Nonsense. The message should be able to stand up for itself anyway. And God doesn't really know how we will react. He cannot know a future or past that will never happen or never happened.


Quran 65:4 has God speak with approval of wives who have not menstruated yet. It approves extreme paedophilia

6:164 commands the Muslim to believe that all he does should be done only for God. A being whose existence is not as certain as that of yourself or other people is put before you and them!

God decreed that one fifth of the spoils of war belong to God, Muhammad and those who are poor (8:41). Does this not suggest that the prophet was trying to make money of out his religious hoax?

Zul-qarnain is Alexander the Great and he is reported to have found the sun at the edge of the flat world and found it in a spring of dirty water. Presumably when the water was too dirty that was when night fell (Sura 18 Kahf) vs. 85-86).


We hear a lot about this verse but it does not change the fact that it is outnumbered hugely by verses where God tells Muslims to revel in violence.  To concentrate on it is to insult that blood dripping context.

2:257 says that nobody must be forced in religion. Let there be no compulsion in religion: Truth stands out clear from Error: whoever rejects evil and believes in Allah hath grasped the most trustworthy hand-hold, that never breaks. And Allah heareth and knoweth all things.


The historical context is that it is about letting Jewish, Christian or Magian people choose between conversion and paying the  jizyah.  Some choice!
But pretend it is about real religious freedom  - it does not say that it is a command. 
It is careful not to say it is a command directly from God. That gives Islam a loophole which it can use to force conversion on people.
If it merely says that man cannot force that may imply that only God can. So man can force and say the converts that result were God's work. It is like how Christians say that doctors do not heal but only God heals and he does it with doctors.
 The verse speaks as it refers to how the ideal is for people to join Islam freely. Scholars hold that there is need for force for any person can see that Islam is true. It is using the word religion for religion as in faith. There is to be no compulsion in faith for all can see the faith is right.
What if they will not embrace the faith regardless of its obvious truth? Perhaps then they must be forced but is it really force when they must know anyway the faith is true. No. The verse does not really support religious tolerance at all.
The Koran forces people to obey God in many things. If you join Islam freely you are not allowed to leave. The command that there is to be no compulsion in religion only speaks of people entering Islam. There are other examples of forcing – for example, your hand is to be cut off if you are a thief so it attempts to compel you not to steal. It sees a choice between God and execution as a real choice. The no compulsion in religion verse does not prove that Muslims can believe in live and let live.
What the verse condemns is any deliberate forcing of a person to be a Muslim in such a way that the only result will be them pretending to be a Muslim and since their heart is not in Islam or its faith they are not Muslims. But if you force a Muslim to stay a Muslim and not to disobey the faith why not force a person to become one? The contradiction is plain. And the Islamic reply that it is different for the Muslim for he knows that Islam is true is a cop-out.
The traditions used to give more light on the Koran state that forcing Muslims to stay Muslims is a duty. The following Hadith is interesting. "The Prophet said, "The blood of a Muslim, who confesses that Lâ ilâha ill-Allâh (there is no god but Allâh), cannot be shed except in three cases: 1. Life for life (in cases of intentional murders without right i.e., in Al-Qis̩âs̩ - Law of Equality in punishment); 2. A married person who commits illegal sexual intercourse; and 3. The one who turns renegade from Islâm (apostate) and leaves the group of Muslims. [9:17-O.B]" - Sahih al-Bukhari, 9:83:17.


Oddly enough the verse saying that to kill one person is to kill the human race is said to condemn murder.  But in fact that can be read as an encouragement to murder at least within limits.  And the context does just that.  Here we are. 


Quran 5:32 For that cause We decreed for the Children of Israel that whosoever killeth a human being for other than manslaughter or corruption in the earth, it shall be as if he had killed all mankind, and whoso saveth the life of one, it shall be as if he had saved the life of all mankind. Our messengers came unto them of old with clear proofs (of Allah's Sovereignty), but afterwards lo! many of them became prodigals in the earth.

Quran 5:33 The only reward of those who make war upon Allah and His messenger and strive after corruption in the land will be that they will be killed or crucified, or have their hands and feet on alternate sides cut off, or will be expelled out of the land. Such will be their degradation in the world, and in the Hereafter theirs will be an awful doom.


Disgracefully dishonest Muslims and their leftist political enablers quote 5:32 and do not mention the context.  Anyway it is a kind of murder and hate to make out that the killer of one should be treated as a genocidal person.  The Koran by the way says Issa taught Israel so by implication he may have taught the doctrine and we may as well assume he did.  The Bible God clearly says that it is a life for a life which means he frejects the unbalanced ravings of that text.




“God loves not the unbelievers” (III.25)

“God loves not evildoers” (III. 30)

“God loves not the proud” (IV. 40)

“God loves not transgressors” (V. 85)

“God loves not the prodigal” (VI. 140)

“God loves not the treacherous” (VIII.60)

“God is an enemy to unbelievers” (II. 90)


The no compulsion text is nothing compared to these.  They show that it refers to the impossibility of getting some to convert not to the wrongness of forcing them.  It would not see that as wrong if it could be done.

The argument that the violent verses of the Koran are abrogated by the peaceful ones ignores the fact that it is the other way around. The violent verses came after the peaceful ones. And the peaceful ones came about when Muhammad didn’t have the military strength

The Koran says it has no contradictions in it for it came from Allah (Sura 4:82)

Yet to use some of the contradictions in Contradictions in the Qur’an, Difficulties in the Qur’an, it does have contradictions.

Sura 70:4 says a day for Allah is 50,000 of our earthly years and Sura 22:47 says it is 1,000 of our years.

Sura 7:157 has Allah telling Moses what is in the Gospels more than a thousand of years before they were written. Muslims say that he can do that for he knows the future. But the law of simplicity says it is a mistake. You can’t assume that all anachronisms are miracles for then you will be able to date nothing.

The Koran says in one place that anybody who slanders the chastity of an innocent woman can be pardoned by Allah (24:5) and later it says this is unforgivable (24:23). Muslims say if it is not repented it cannot be pardoned and if it is repented it will be forgiven and that is the solution ignoring the fact that the Koran does not say it just means in the second case that the sin will not be pardoned if it is not repented. Repentance is not mentioned.

Sura 10:22 says that Pharaoh called to God and repented as he was about to drown in the Red Sea and God said he would save his body that day. But 28:40 says he drowned. The Koran then accidentally makes God a liar. Muslims explain that Pharaoh was saved by God but before he left the water he hardened his heart so Allah refused to save him and let him drown.  That is pure speculation and it is terrible to accuse Pharaoh of having done that just to avoid seeing a contradiction. Plus, God spoke to Pharaoh in the water which stands for something. It shows Pharaoh was extremely unlikely to have changed his mind and given God reason to cancel the promise. And would Pharaoh have wanted to die? God does not speak unless he plans to make it worth his while. He saw the change in Pharaoh’s heart and trusted him.

See how the Muslims solve their contradictions just like the believers in Christianity do. With ingenuity like that and such craftiness the only fruit can be complete confusion as to what religion is true. God would want things kept simple for the seeker and so would carefully make sure his inspired word would not need contrived solutions to contradictions for he would be as clear as newly washed crystal.
The contradictions are rationalised away. This is doing conjuring tricks with facts to cover up the errors.

The Koran seems to be a book dictated by God from Heaven to Muhammad. The book was complied from bits of text written on just about everything including palm leaves. Many of those who knew what the prophet revealed were dead soon after him and Zaid who was the secretary of Muhammad had to set about getting the records and testimonies together to create the Koran. This haphazard way of preserving the word of God is an admission of failure. God would not be so careless. How do we know that a word was not changed or a sentence expanded here and there and wasn’t the so-called final version intended to silence anybody who said that this was a variant or a corruption? Read page 15 of An Introduction to Asian Religions. God went to the trouble of writing the book on a tablet in Heaven to show its permanence and yet he had the earthly version put together so haphazardly. And yet this book contains much clumsy repetition which betrays a human origin and that there was indeed much confusion about the text.

In The Varieties of Religious Experience we read that Muhammad sometimes heard ringing like a bell which caused something to come over him, other times he talked to the angel face to face – though nobody saw the angel but him and the angel often changed itself to look like it was somebody else, other times he had dreams in which things were revealed to him and other times he saw God in disguise (page 461). This bears the hallmarks of credulity and mental disorder. “Perhaps he mistook things for God in disguise like Abraham did when he saw God in the form of three men. It is possible for a man to give reasonably intelligent revelations and be gullible about the visions that verify his thoughts,” we are told. But if you think a man talking to you is an apparition of God then how could your revelations be reliable? The whole point of revelations is having them come from a reliable source.

The Koran warns against letting error thrive and seeks to eradicate error and yet in Sura 4:88 the Muslim is forbidden to try and guide a person who Allah has led astray. God is said to addala in many Koranic verses. This is translated as lead astray or draw into evil but some say it means let one be drawn into evil (page 177, The Light Shineth in Darkness). They say that God cuts the light of truth and his grace from the person who does not want to know. But how is the person supposed to change when he does that? The person is abandoned because he wants to abandon God. But if the person wants to abandon God the person needs grace and light to rebel against and get up God’s nose.

The Koran indulges in a spot of apologetics in Jonah or Sura 10. There God inspires the argument that he must exist for the change of day to night and night to day is a sign of the existence of God. One would need a better sign than that though it says that everything in heaven and earth is a sign but we are taking issue with the book on this one. Something could change from dark to light without a God. The prophet says in the Sura that if he invented the Koran himself why can’t anybody come along with a Sura they have written themselves that is as good as his. But if you read the book you can see that anybody can meet this challenge. The Koran says in this chapter that it explains the Jewish and Christian scriptures and confirms them. That is dishonest when it maintains that they have been altered.

A man with Muhammad’s guile would never have challenged anybody to write a Sura as good as one of his especially when a Sura can just be a few lines. Faked miracles and crafty prophecies that he ensured were fulfilled would have been a cleverer option if he wanted to make a the best impact he could. False revelations some of which Muhammad never made but which were falsely attributed to him have been woven into the Koran.

No fulfilled prophecies or evidence is given that the Koran is the word of God apart from the testimony and visions of Muhammad. All the early sources say that Muhammad was the only witness. And the Koran reportedly came from Gabriel an angel - even if it was Gabriel was he still a faithful angel to God? Didn't Satan fall away from God after being an angel of God? It is really the word of an angel you are taking that the book is from God. What use is that?
A man mentioned in one obscure Hadith or tradition met a man with Muhammad who Muhammad said was Gabriel the angel. But still there is only Muhammad’s word for it that it was Gabriel. We still have only one witness to the apparitions. Three people who testified that they had dreams and visions and brought out a new and more reasonable version of the Koran would be more credible. This man expects his followers to kill and maim over one man’s doctrines - his. The evidence for the Jesus story which Islam rejects and has a different story is better than that for Islam. Muhammad was not the apostle of God in succession to Jesus that he said he was. The Koran attributes miracles to Jesus such as raising the dead. Muhammad was his superior and worked none. How bizarre!
Muhammad met this entity claiming to be the angel Gabriel. He was at times doubtful if the entity was really an angel and thought it might be a jinn - a jinn is a naughty spirit at best or outright evil at worst.

The Hadith which is used to verify the Koran is full of absurd doctrines and admits that Muhammad was a sinner and generally proves that he was a false prophet. So it fails to verify that he was a true Prophet.



It is a fact that long ago Uthman got all the different versions of the Koran he could grab.  All were burnt and one was kept and is the basis of the modern Koran. A book called The Collection of the Qur’an by John Burton gives proof that the Koran was corrupted according to the traditions in the Hadith and shows how Islamic tradition has severe conflicts regarding how the Koran came to be. Most of the people who knew Muhammad opposed Uthman and what he did indicating that the present book is corrupted. The book was corrupt the from the first time it was written down because it mixed up stories from the Old Testament. For example, it says Israel got the Ark back when Allah chose Saul as king though the Bible says they had it back long before that. Corrupted memories led to the corruption. Muslims accuse the Jews of having falsified parts of the Old Testament and used that excuse to justify believing the Koran and not the Bible but what reason would the Jews have had for doing that? None.

In 1972 in a grave in Yemen fragments of what may be the oldest Koran we have were found. They were found to have put verses in different orders and textual variants suggesting that the Koran did not come cut and dried from Muhammad but was gradually formed after his death. The Muslims then should not pay too much attention to the verses that call for the killing of unbelievers for they might be in the wrong context.

A friend of Muhammad’s once said he knew a Sura or chapter of the Koran that he had been forgotten and even he could only remember a line out of it. His name was Abu Musa al-Ash’ari and he was an authority on the Holy Book.

The Koran says that God sometimes does away with verses to replace them with better ones. Muslims say it means the Old and New Testaments though the book explicitly says it confirms these works (Sura 3:3). And wouldn't describe them as verses! The Koran was always concerned very much about the verses format. It bothers the Muslims that God would write the Koran and cancel verses in it and change them. The Koran would have trouble confirming books that it declares to be falsified! How could the book mean them when the context shows it is probably referring to its own deleted verses? Cancelling verses suggests that the book has a human origin. A scripture should have an origin that is different from any other book. In that, the Mormons were right with regard to the Book of Mormon which allegedly came from a miraculous source.


There are many web sites that how the Hadith or tradition states that verses have been dropped from the Koran.


The Koran claims that there is no way that anybody can produce such a masterpiece as it.   "If mankind and the jinn gathered in order to produce the like of this Qur'an, they could not produce the like of it, even if they were to each other assistants." Surah 17:88.  This is nonsense for the book is disorganised and unclear.  It implies that the book is perfect for God dictated it.  Is it any wonder verses could be missing?



The evidence for the Islam being God's religion and its holy book his infallible word is poor. The mere fact that the book expects so much obedience of people and orders many evil and bigoted things to be done in the name of God and can't convince us that it is God's word clearly tells us that it is NOT God's word.