Nov 2015
Here are the booklet and an online essay side-by-side.
The booklet was written by a British bloke calling himself Abu Zakariya for some reason. Why do people in European countries pretend they have Arabic names?
The whole thing consists of approximately 18 chapters, where the exact number is unclear due to the strange structure. The author pretends he has studied ancient Arabic and liberally sprinkles ancient Arabic words throughout the text. It makes me wonder whether he also uses “Krung Thep Mahanakhon Amon Rattanakosin Mahinthara Ayuthaya Mahadilok Phop Noppharat Ratchathani Burirom Udomratchaniwet Mahasathan Amon Piman Awatan Sathit Sakkathattiya Witsanukam Prasit” instead of “Bangkok”.
These are the chapter headings, well, sort of.
What is the Qur’an? 6
What does it teach? 8
What are its main themes? 13
Belief in God Almighty 13
Stories of the Prophets and past nations 19
The Hereafter 21
Why Believe in the Qur’an? 28
The Concept of God 29
Preservation 32
Relevancy 42
Literary Features 52
Structure 57
Accurate predictions about the future 65
Reveals lost knowledge from history 73
Cannot be imitated 78
Impact on society 85
Reflections on the signs of the Qur’an 102
Who authored the Qur’an? 103
Some final thoughts 117
References 120
So I’ll just go through this by chapter and simply note my reaction. I’ll start with the
Preface
And immediately I have some questions pop up in my head. Why does it take a human to explain Islam and the Koran? Why not the god who came up with it and wrote the book? Why would a perfect god write an imperfect book? Why would a god make all these mistakes, knowing full well in advance that I will notice and then expose them?
}”I wrote this book because there was a need for a comprehensive and up-to-date work about the Qur’an”
Why would anyone assume this? What is this assumption based on? What methodology was applied to come to this conclusion? What qualifies this person to undertake such endeavour?
}”I want to give readers an insight into why the Qur’an has captivated the hearts
and minds of over 1.5 billion Muslims around the world, including my own.”
No, the Koran has not captivated the hearts of millions. Rather, they are told they need to believe and love this or they will be tortured. Forever.
}”it’s not possible for one book to cover every nuance of the Qur’an”
What exactly is the “nuance” of a book? The format? The statements? The analysis of a particular topic? Nobody knows. And why not point out the different claims and the variations if you are writing a book about the book? Why deliver a shallow and superficial commentary?
}”We value any feedback that you might have”
There is no reason to believe that feedback, suggestions or the correction of errors is welcome, as the Muslims associated with iERA immediately block those who offer differing opinions or who offer to correct mistakes.
}”Most importantly, I am grateful to Allah for His help, without which nothing could have been done”
If an allah helped write this book, why not have this allah write it right from the start and take it straight from the horse's mouth? Why would a human be required to explain the words of a perfect god? If this allah helped, why not do it properly? Why leave room for contention and why not address all of them? Or is the Koran so badly written that it takes volumes to correct all the mistakes? Or are all the critics just haters who simply want to damage the reputation of this incompetent god when they point out flaws and mistakes?
}”this is the first book of its kind”
This is simply taking some ancient old, long refuted and debunked Islamogetics and repackaging them as a booklet. There is nothing unique or new here.
}”I am especially grateful to Hamza Tzortzis and Subboor Ahmad for entrusting me with writing a book of this importance.”
If a known liar like Hamza Tzortzis was a contributor I think I know what to expect from this text.
What is the Qur’an? 6
The standard fairy tale.}”What is the Qur’an, and how did it come about?”
Revelation Sequence, where a god writes a book, reads a sentence to an angel, the angel flies off to Earth, locates Muhammad, tells him the sentence and flies off again to get the next sentence, leaving Muhammad to tell others who hire scribes who eventually write this down. Then it all gets mixed up, re-arranged and adapted and voila, the Koran.
}”it acknowledges all of the Messengers sent by God”
Then it talks about the names mentioned by the Jews as prophets and this Abu then pretends that these were all the prophets who ever existed, since there is only one god according to him and these are all those "sent", sent in what way I wonder, by that one god. And what about angel Moroni and prophet Smith? Where do they appear in the Koran?
}”Although the Qur’an was revealed in 7th century Arabia, it contains a universal message for the whole of mankind”
The writer then mentions a universal message, without specifying, what it actually is. Why the word “although”? If the message is universal it makes no difference when this was conveyed.
Then he goes off and demonstrates what a childish disposition is required to be in awe of this or to marvel at the Koran. The Koran clearly says that you will be tortured if you don't believe it and will be rewarded for believing, for holding the Koran in high esteem and accepting the Koran as something special, namely that this book was written, word for word, by god. So it is bloody obvious that if you indoctrinate kids with this message they trust their parents and will accept it. Then, adults in other countries who are adequately impressionable and childlike will see all of this and will find themselves attracted to the rituals and the worldwide acceptance of a fairy tale as being real. It's terribly easy to understand if you know just a little about the human brain.
The booklet mentions that only 20% of humans are Muslims, making it sound great, not realising that it actually demonstrates the incompetence of this creator/god who declares everything he/she/it creates as worshipping it.
}51:56 “I have not created jinn and mankind except to serve Me”
But only 20% do. So the failure rate is 80%. That is someone I would fire.
}”there are many millions of Muslims alive today who have memorised the entire Qur’an”
We know that Muslims are rewarded for their feats, whether it is praying, fighting for their god or learning to recite the Koran by heart.
35:29 “Those who recite the Book of God, and perform the prayer, and spend of what We have provided for them, secretly and publicly, expect a trade that will not fail”
There are several hadith all promising special rewards to those who memorize the book. And with 6500 sentences it is nothing special. People have memorised the Bible with over 31.000 sentences, so I ask: so what? Why does anyone see a necessity to point out that there are people who have actually committed it to memory? Especially since these people are paid for it. There are 1000s of professional Muslims who don't have a job, just spreading their childish nonsense and making a living out of it.
Ok I for one, would be embarrassed.
}”Whether you have read the Qur’an or not, whether you’ve even heard
of the Qur’an before or not, it has already shaped and influenced your life in ways”
Sure, we can’t go on holiday where we want any longer, we need to waste time at airports, we need to educate and support those who can’t support themselves, we need to send peacekeepers to regions where the Koran entices people to rape, kidnap, behead, torture and execute others. Every time there is a special event we need to worry where the next bomb will go off in the name of an allah. I need to dress differently in some countries and can’t do or eat or drink or say what I want and I can’t even give my wife a kiss in public or sleep with my Muslim secretary, even if she wanted. How long would a list be of instances where Islam impacts me, a non-Muslim?
This Abu guy next goes into esoteric waffling with "Muslims don’t just believe that the Qur’an is from God based on blind faith. The Qur’an is a living miracle, one that we can all experience for ourselves."
}”don’t all religions make fantastical claims?”
Yes, they do. And they are all wrong. All claim the other gods are not real and I agree with all of them.
And then he digs his own grave by stating:
}”Bold claims need to be backed up by strong evidence”
So why not come up with some evidence? Why not practice what you preach? Why continue making assertions without providing evidence? Hypocrite!
Then we get the usual Tzortzis bullshit: "the Qur’an challenges its reader and engages our intellect by providing many testable and verifiable proofs of its divine origin"
Why can't these guys stop using "proofs"? And "evidences"?
And why can't they practice what they preach? Tzortzis himself almost cried when he pleaded with Essence of Thought to come and talk to them, to ask before making a statement. He then ran away and went into hiding, but the point is, why didn't they come and ask what the contentions are before attempting to address them?
Does this chapter in any way explain something? Does it show the reader what the Koran is? No, in no way does it do that. I’ve seen better and I’ve even done better. Because I was more nuanced and provided additional opinions, explanations, options and possibilities.
What does it teach? 8
Oh boy. Another misconception.
}”Why am I here? What is my purpose?”
No, wrong. Unlike what this Abu something thinks, hardly any normal human being reflects on or considers this to be a profound question: what is my purpose?
No, only primitive, ignorant people who were indoctrinated with stories about gods think like this. Normal people don't have a purpose. A toaster has a purpose. Not a human being. I have ambitions, goals, achievements and social interaction.
And no, the next no in a long string of no's, I did not "begin to exist". Nothing “begins to exist”. This is sheer stupidity and ignorance. I have explained this over and over and they simply can't grasp it.
This is followed by more Tzortzis bullshit. No we don't ponder and least of all over stupid and nonsensical sentences we find in the Koran. There is no logical question in the Koran.
No, there is no cosmological evidence that the Universe had what they call "a beginning". And it is not the predominant view of cosmologists either. Why do they always stray into areas covered by science which they don't understand?
Does the Koran teach any of this? No, it does not. So why lie and pretend it does?
}BGV Alan Guth says “no, not beginning”
It is that simple. Why can't these people understand this? Why?
Why do they need to lie and then spread these lies in books, articles and videos? Why?
It is embarrassing that this Abu character does not leave any absurdity untouched. Whether it's Paley’s watch, fine-tuning or the junkyard, nothing is too embarrassing for these guys. It's pitiful and I feel embarrassed at being a human who shares a genome with these mentally challenged fools. It's unbelievable.
And what is worse is that 100s will believe this nonsense. Because they want to believe fairy tales and reject reality.
But please, before you believe anything, please just consider the level of this booklet, the outright lies, the ignorance, stupidity and simplistic platitudes.
Like here on page 12, comparing a human to phone:
"We both have a lifespan, we both require energy to function correctly, and we can both be damaged if we are not properly taken care of."
What is this? This goes for humans, grass and submarines. This applies to almost anything, except maybe a pet rock. How is this profound? How is this deep thinking? So what? It even goes for the Koran. Why is this book not exempted from decay if I bury it in the ground - if it is so special? If it is a miracle and only one of a kind.
The level of ignorance in this text is stupendous. Now, I have demonstrated how wrong this claim is and have shown in a response video how embarrassingly bad this is - but they don’t learn. This is the summary of the consistency of a phone.
}”Plastic comes from oil, glass and silicon come from sand. So basically, what you are holding in your hand is oil and sand”
It’s unbelievable. And I showed this rough sketch
Back in 2014 already to help them understand where they went wrong
Only a few weeks ago I showed how the fine-tuning claim is plain ridiculous and not even wrong it’s so bad.
}”Why would an All-Powerful, All-Wise Being send us guidance?”
What is the consequence of this being “all-powerful”? Can this “all-powerful” god create something indestructible? The obvious flaw in the “all-powerful” claim is so obvious, I can’t believe a sane human being living in the 21st century still dares bring it up. The same with the “all-wise” claim.
}”the Qur’an is like an instruction manual for humanity”
And sorry, no again, decapitation, sex-slaves or hitting my wife is not an instruction manual I care for. A god where - as a believer - I can see my non-believing parents burn in a hell he put them - for not believing - without being able to help them, is not a god worth worshipping.
Those are just a few examples of what the Koran teaches and that is not my kind of instruction manual.
What are its main themes? 13
It says it’s page 13, but in reality, we are on page 15 for some reason.
Narcissism. A god writes a book where 96% of the sentences are about how grand and wonderful this god is.
}”It turns out that there is consistent design throughout nature”
The author of the booklet is a simpleton, claiming that nature follows a consistent design. Bollocks. How does he warrant such a claim? What “design”? How is grass or a virus similar to a mountain or a bee comparable to a black hole?
}”there are many repeating numbers such as the Fibonacci Sequence”
The Fibonacci Sequence has no repeating numbers. Idiotic.
}”Fibonacci numbers recur over and over in many unrelated phenomena in nature”
No, they don’t. What an idiotic statement. The representation of what was found by the Italian Leonardo Bonacci in a mathematical recurrence he copied from India, the representation and pattern is found everywhere in nature, not the numbers.
Is the Fibonacci Sequence mentioned in the Koran and is it a theme in the Koran? No! So why mention it?
DNA is found in so many organisms due to evolution. Is DNA mentioned in the Koran and is it a theme in the Koran? No! So why mention it?
How on earth would this fool know what a Universe with multiple gods looks like? That's incredibly presumptuous.
}” If there were multiple gods, multiple creators, then this would be reflected in the reality of the world around us”
And mere fabrication. This joker doesn't even understand our Universe and he goes off and speculates about different ones?
Oh goodness, what a primitive, illogical fool.
I explained this to Hamza - who obviously did not understand it.
}"absurdity of a never ending chain of creators. To illustrate this better, if the creator of the universe had a creator, and that creator had a creator, and that creator had a creator, and so on and so forth, then we wouldn’t have a universe"
How stupid. We have a universe. Obviously. If the creator required a creator and this went on, it only shows one thing: it does not end. If he defines the last creator as the creator of this universe then none of these creators imagined by this guy, actually created the Universe.
It's just made up by someone who is illogical and afraid of infinite regressions and infinity in general.
}"Everything within the creation has to reproduce in order for life to continue"
No, wrong again. Oh boy! Why not get a basic education in biology before attempting to write about biology?
"This is the natural disposition God instilled in mankind…” [30:30]"
Just another lie. And it’s so easy to see. Why bring it up if it is so obviously wrong?
And then Tzortzis still refuses to back down from his position everyone I know has told him he’s wrong.
"concerning the psychology of the human being and God’s existence. She discovered that infants are hard-wired to believe in God, and atheism has to be learned"
No, she did not. A blatant lie.
What he makes out to be a source, is actually a newspaper article, from 2008, not a scientific study at all. Where are the studies you mention? Here, a journalist, a Barney Zwartz writes, “INFANTS are hard-wired to believe in God, and atheism has to be learned, according to an Oxford University psychologist.
Dr. Olivera Petrovich told a University of Western Sydney conference on the psychology of religion that even preschool children constructed theological concepts as part of their understanding of the physical world.”
So not only does the Abu Moronic lie about the quote, but does not mention that all she talks about are “theological concepts”, adding “it was important not to build too much into the concept of God”. It’s his own bloody source and he doesn’t even read it? All he sees are the catch-words he needs without even understanding the contents. So the claims in the Muslim booklet are hokum, not more.
The same goes for Dr. Justin Barrett, something I debunked years ago.
The primitive lies continue, where the author, this Abu whatever now claims Russia replaced religion with what he calls "atheism".
And the "source"? An essay by Hamza “The Liar” Tzortzis.
What is telling is that some sentences used here in this booklet are copied word-for-word from an essay Tzortzis wrote, as shown above.
All this nonsense now gets a description: “evidence”. Really!?
They have been told over and over again that they are propagating lies and their house of cards crumbles right at the bottom and in the beginning where there are people on this planet, even an entire tribe where a belief in gods is non-existent. Millions of people, one of them me, have never had a belief in gods. Oaf.
I just realised that we have a somewhat disjunct table of contents. Because page 13 had 2 topics somehow.
Stories of the Prophets and past nations 19 well, 21 actually
Somehow this is getting wilder and crazier by the page. I am now compared to an unruly child in class in need of a teacher to restore order. Insane.
}” school being a very rowdy environment, many of us would struggle to understand the information contained in the book”
Why would a creator/god, especially the best of the creators as it is claimed by the god itself,
} 23:14 “blessed be Allah, the best of the creators”
why would it create humans incapable of understanding its own message? I thought it's a god which knows everything.
No, the Koran does not mention anything here about a final messenger, but a seal. So this is sheer interpretation, human interpretation.
Just as the Jews said:
(Isaiah 52:7)”The herald is the final prophet who announces and "prepares the way of" Melchizedek, just as John the Baptist announced and "prepared the way of" Jesus”, “This is possibly mediated through His servant, the final prophet, who is said to reveal deep secrets and foretell all that will happen to the elect through the interpretation of the Prophets of Old”
http://www.inspiredbooks.com/The-Final-Prophet.htm
So the idea of a final messenger or prophet is nothing new.
If Muhammad was sent to all people to deliver some good news, he failed miserably. Muhammad, according to authentic Islamic sources raped, plundered, enslaved, beheaded, tortured and killed. Is that what this god considers to be good news?
The Hereafter 21
}” The Qur’an informs us that there is an existence beyond our worldly lives here on earth”
Another ridiculous and unsubstantiated claim.
The Koran says that souls will taste death and return. There is no mention of the alleged afterlife here. There is no mention of human beings.
}”why God tests us, why he allows hardship and adversity to befall us. It is all in accordance with God’s wisdom and planning”
It says humans require testing. Why? Doesn’t this creator have confidence in what it does? Testing by a god which knows the results of the tests in advance? A creator which knew the result of the test and still created this human, even if it knew full well this human was going to fail this test. It still created this human and punishes the human for its own incompetence. And then blames the human. Horrible.
This now drops to the lowest level of esoteric mumbo-jumbo, saying things like
"We have a choice: to embrace God’s eternal unbounded mercy, or to run away from it. Accepting His mercy, by responding to His message, and obeying, worshipping and loving Him, will facilitate our eternal happiness in Paradise."
Complete nonsense. If there were this "eternal unbounded mercy", there would be no maximum punishment, always a lesser degree. So why is there this thingy called hell? It's illogical.
You get the story of a person being spoilt on a plane, a story I debunked when it surfaced. They still use it here, not caring whether it is stupid and illogical or not.
I will skip the rest as it is just a collection of words, which don’t say anything. Just misrepresentation and polemics.
Why Believe in the Qur’an? 28
A single message: use blind faith and you will be rewarded, think and you will be tortured.
The Concept of God 29
This chapter is best summarised with what Abraham says in 21:66:
"How can you worship what can neither benefit nor harm you"
Preservation 32
If I come across the word "preservation", I think of food or animals, not really books.
This is confirmed if I look up the word. But on freedictionary.com I also find
1. To keep from injury, peril, or harm; protect.
2. To keep in perfect or unaltered condition; maintain unchanged: fossils preserved in sediments; a film preserved in the archives.
3. To keep or maintain intact: tried to preserve family harmony.
and then the usual definitions.
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/preservation
So you can, with a bit of imagination and the art of interpretation Muslims are used to anyway, get to preserving a book, keeping it protected from harm.
}"Thanks to innovations like the printing press"
I don't want to be a stickler here, but the last time a printing press was an innovation was 600 years ago. I think the internet would be a more suitable example of today’s distribution of information.
The author now jumps from distribution to the copy process before machines did the copying and printing. He uses examples of typical mistakes made through manual copying. Exactly what we see in the Koran. Simply because the language was in its infancy and had not developed into a written language yet. So it was actually impossible to accurately document and preserve what was said decades or centuries earlier.
}"We believe in what was originally sent down to Moses and Jesus"
No, Muslims don't believe that.
Muslims don't believe that their god had a son and one which was a man-god who died on top of it. Muslims have a hell, not what Moses believed. This comparison could fill an entire book.
}There are numerous versions of the Bible in existence today
So what? It’s a straw-man. The fact that something is true for the Bible does not change the condition of the Koran, where, by the way, the same is true of the Koran. Ah, but Muslims deny that for some reason because they are stuck in the past and don't realise we have an internet, where different versions can be compared and differences can be easily marked and demonstrated.
He quotes his favourite god as saying that it "sent down" - whatever that may mean - the Koran and is guarding it. Which is a lie. For example hundreds of thousands of Korans were printed in Kuwait and had to be scrapped again as nobody "preserved" or "guarded" the contents and it contained errors. Tough shit. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/335404.stm
But why would this god lie? Why say that a book will be guarded and then allow for such a stupid mistake?
}God made the Qur’an easy to remember is the unique style of the Qur’an itself; it has a rhyming style much like poetry.
No, sorry no. The Koran comes in different styles, as though different people wrote it. They repeated some stories, just like you find in the Koran. They created rhymes and different styles because they were poets. Some better and some worse.
And no, memorisation is nothing special and not a reliable method of documenting a text. Everyone knows Chinese Whispers and its effect and even Islamic texts show the hazards, where sections are missing from the Koran and others were memorised by only a single person because all the others had been killed in the peaceful and harmonious transfer of Islam to others.
Then you have variations in the pronunciation, which exacerbates the problem, leading to approximately 32 different Koran versions which are accepted right from the start.
The author asks the question, "Is there any reason to doubt the reliability of the oral tradition?"
The answer is a resounding “yes”.
Courts prefer data to eyewitnesses and science excludes personal accounts completely.
And no, the alleged "millions" who have memorised the Koran did not get the text from Muhammad himself.
}"who could doubt the authenticity of this oral tradition?"
Me.
First off, we can't even transmit one sentence via a 20-people-chain accurately.
Then, what exactly is the original? We don't have one.
The first complete Koran is from the 12th century or so. And the previous segments have very different contents, even saying the opposite in some cases.
What is in use today is the 1924 printed version from Cairo. And even there we find differences in different countries, as I pointed out above.
Next we get a sad and totally irrelevant explanation, why Arabic was the best language around at the time, opening up more questions. Why not wait a few years and use the net?
Why not come around earlier and in China, where the language was better developed and a written language available for distribution?
The worst and most hilarious sentence is probably, "It’s an eloquent language".
Eloquence (from Latin eloquentia) is
“fluent, forcible, elegant or persuasive speaking”. It is primarily the power of expressing strong emotions in striking and appropriate language, thereby producing conviction or persuasion.
adjective
1. having or exercising the power of fluent, forceful, and appropriate speech:
an eloquent orator.
2. characterized by forceful and appropriate expression:
3. movingly expressive
A speaker or a speech can be eloquent, the usage of a language, not the language itself.
As anyone who listened to the sound snippet above can appreciate, to me Arabic is an ugly language, like Dutch, Klingon, Spanish or Polish. It's also imprecise and requires endless explanations of what you are actually talking about, the context.
The other thing is that the author of this booklet suddenly uses examples using the Arabic in use today, which is markedly different from what was used 1000 years ago. In addition, Arabic is not equal to Arabic. Some of our guys were laughing about expressions others from a different region were using because it was a different Arabic.
That Arabs have different terms specifying a camel could be because it is relatively new in the region, originally having come over from the American continent.
If I were a god and I cared what the beings believed that I created with my own hands, I'd make sure they knew what I wanted. Even if I were a brutal, despotic, fascist god I'd still ensure my commands were conveyed accurately and not dependent on human inventions like languages.
I would reserve a part of the brain and the corresponding DNA for my expectations. Not have some idiots repeat the same thing over and over and add a narcissistic message at the end of every sentence.
If I were a god I would be highly incompetent if I had to transmit the same stuff over and over and simply watch how humans, the humans I had created myself, made a mess of my own messages without correcting it knowing full well from the outset what would happen a few thousand years down the line.
Relevancy 42
Oh boy. Why do Muslims love making a fool of themselves as soon as they talk about anything remotely scientific? Why not stay away from this?
Here, the author has no clue about light, photons or neutrinos and makes a huge mess combining them.
}”No experiment had seen anything moving faster than light, which travels at 186,000 miles per second”
Why?
The Koran does not mention or explain anything scientific, so why not stay away from science? Or abandon the superstitious nonsense in the Koran and learn something verifiable and scientifically accurate?
I don't even think there is anything in the Koran that is correct or verifiable. I can't think of anything off-hand.
No, there is no scientific miracle in the Koran, no embryology and nothing of any interest to science. That's why the Koran is never quoted in any scientific explanations. It's useless. Wrong. Ancient superstitions, not more.
}” the descriptions of the natural world in the Qur’an seem remarkably timeless”
Maybe because there is no description, just a few catch-words, which turn out to wrong.
” i. The Orbits of Planets”
“ii. The Expansion of the Universe”
“iii. The Human Embryo”
None of this, none of what is claimed here can be found in the Koran. The Koran does not mention planets, a Universe or the embryo. It’s deception and misrepresentation. All these claims have been refuted and shown to be blatant lies, but these people don’t care. They will lie and lie again, without any scruples or moral doubts.
The Koran describes a flat, stationary Earth, with sun and moon orbiting Earth and with stars, not the sun, as decoration and weapons, where the entire construct will crash "down" to Earth at some stage. Wow! How primitive.
Next, we get the usual Tzortzis nonsense about limitations of science, from someone who does not know anything at all about science.
}”It has limitations and it cannot be our only way to understand reality”
A hammer also has limitations. So what? Do I blame the hammer for not being able to make coffee? Islam is limited because it does not smell. So what?
Science offers us the only way to understand nature. There is no other way. Science does not make unsubstantiated claims and does not offer certainty or what some fools consider to be the truth. But why bring up science when discussing the Koran? There is nothing about a god in scientific papers on nature and nothing scientific in the Koran. So why bring the one in, when discussing the other?
}”The Qur’an is a book that makes you think”
Hardly. It makes you cringe. And then you marvel at what we have achieved, seeing that this is where we once were and where we've come from.
Literary Features 52
}"The entire Qur’an was first delivered to its audience, a mixture of believers and non-believers"
That's the nonsense and illogical drivel presented here. How can the Koran “first” be delivered, when there are already believers? Believers in what? How can people believe in something when that something does not yet exist, is not described yet? "First" is not the same as "in the beginning", "initially" and "after a while". Maybe he's not used to a precise language.
The example where this creator/god does not put 2 hearts into one chest is also a lie, as humans have been born with 2 hearts. Now we get an example of the precise and oh so eloquent Arabic used in the Koran.
As is the case with every form of art, beauty lies in the eyes of the beholder. There is no way to measure art objectively. Science can measure the impact of art on the brain, but that does not allow for objective comparisons of the level of the art in any way on any imaginable scale.
"He does not turn the wives you reject ... into your real mothers"
"He does not turn the wives you reject and liken to your mothers’ backs into your real mothers"
What is this? What does this tell a Muslim on their way to paradise?
Just look at "mothers' back". Who writes this? How many mothers does a human have?
You need humans to make some sense of god's gibberish. You declare a wife as your mother so you can divorce her, because mothers are unlawful for a man to marry.
It's utter stupidity. This entire section is mindless. Muslims MUST see that this is crock.
How can there be a difference between
2+3=5
and
5=2+3
Come on!
Structure 57
Halfway there...
}” This unique structure on the face of it may appear to be disorganised”
There is no structure.
That was quick. Trying to retro-fit some obscure pattern is infantile and doesn’t work either.
Example: the quoted chapter starts with ALM. Where is the equivalent at the end?
Accurate predictions about the future 65
There are none. Saying it will rain in the UK next week is not considered a prediction. No matter how much you tell others it is. The examples used in the booklet are more embarrassing than anything else.
The statement
"As we’ve seen, the prophecies in the Qur’an and Hadith are clear. We’ve only looked at a handful of examples, but the Qur’an and Hadith are filled with many such prophecies about the future which have either been fulfilled, or are transpiring before our eyes today."
is a blatant lie, no more.
Reveals lost knowledge from history 73
It starts by establishing the lies from the previous chapter as the base for this one.
"As we’ve seen in the previous section, the Qur’an makes accurate predictions about the future."
This paragraph actually declares a fault a feature, where the word “Pharaoh”, a title, is used as a name in the Koran, following the mistake in the Bible, not correcting it.
Fail.
Cannot be imitated 78
Ah, yes, the great lie. Hilarious. Dishonest. Ridiculous. Useless.
"Perhaps the greatest miracle of the Qur’an is that it cannot be imitated. This divine challenge has remained undefeated for over 1,400 years"
I've made several videos and written several articles about this, so I will not explain it again.
}” The Qur’an is the peak of Arabic eloquence”
Another example of the hilarious inadequacy of the author of this booklet. Pray tell, what is the unit of eloquence? And how many does the Koran score, compared to what?
Impact on society 85
It seems the author ran out of ideas and energy. It gets worse the longer you read.
It starts off with a lie
}"Before the coming of Islam, the world was in a state of oppression and injustice. Pre-Islamic Arabia was a dreadful place to live in"
The Nabbataens were highly developed, were wealthy with a strong leaning towards arts and crafts, provided more rights to women than Islam ever has and did not expand by military force.
So either this author is highly ignorant or simply a liar.
Until today, Muslims stone humans to death, torture them by lashing, limb amputation, tearing apart or crucifixion. Women in non-Muslim countries fly Boeings, Muslim women can't even ride a bicycle.
Most Muslims today are illiterate and hardly any patents or scientific papers come from the Muslim world. Where is this beautiful Islam he speaks of? Where? All we get to see is killing and torture, hiding women away under bags and restricting human rights. As for the rest, living their lives just like everyone else, they don’t need the Koran to do that, do they?
}”Muslims rescued the populations of Syria, Egypt and Spain from a reign of tyranny “
What is unbelievable and an example of the grade of delusion at work here, he says, actually says the conquest of Spain was a rescue mission. I am not sure the 7 million dead people who died due to this mission would all agree. I doubt the villagers who were plundered and their daughters sold on slave markets in Damascus did. What a depraved, immoral, wicked and revolting person! How can a human being write something like this? This is outrageous.
Is that what is happening to the Christians in Iraq? Are they being liberated?
Is that what is happening to the Yazidis in Iraq? Are they being liberated?
Is that what is happening to the Copts in Egypt? Are they being liberated?
Was I supposed to be “liberated” when Muslims attacked the hotel I was in? If yes, why were they shooting at me?
What is outright weird is that Bush declared he was liberating Muslims when he disposed of Hussein or Ghaddafi - but Muslims today don't agree. Why not?
We have accounts of historians who wrote about the brutal Muslim hordes who invaded their country, killing, raping and plundering and when they left they imposed heavy taxes, like the mafia. That's what the author of this booklet calls liberation?
He then goes back into science and - predictably - makes a complete mess, distributing more lies and deceiving anyone who reads this tripe without any historical background knowledge.
Example: al-Haytham, a brilliant man.
}"he was the first to disprove the ancient Greek idea that light comes out of the eye, bounces of objects, and comes back to the eye"
But was he the first? No, of course not, it's total bullshit.
Even 1000 years earlier, Aristotle said, "In general, it is unreasonable to suppose that seeing occurs by something issuing from the eye". He advocated for a theory of intromission by which the eye received rays rather than directed them outward.
Around 300 BCE, Euclid wrote Optica, in which he ... “postulated that light travelled in straight lines and described the laws of reflection and studied them mathematically.”
In the second century, Galen chose the “extramission theory” because it corresponded well with his image of sight as a function of an optical pneuma, flowing forth from the brain to the eyes through hollow optic nerves.
The non-Muslim al-Razi noted the pupil's contraction and dilation and only 100 years later al-Haytham came along and drew in a book what others had noticed before.
https://web.stanford.edu/class/history13/earlysciencelab/body/eyespages/eye.html
There are so many sources and references it is either incredibly stupid or incredibly intellectually lazy to spread lies like these.
In fact Europe took far more from the Muslim world than this book can do justice. Among other things: windmills, soap, perfume, sugar, irrigation, spices, universities, street lights, the paper industry, mass literacy, freedom of thought, architecture, poetry, hygiene, libraries and ceramics
Let’s take a look.
Windmills
|
Hero of Alexandria, 1st century
|
Soap
|
ancient Egypt used vegetable oil and fragrance in soap
|
Perfume
|
Pyrgos on Cyprus in 2000 BCE, also 1st century Persia
|
Sugar
|
India during the Gupta dynasty, around 350 CE
|
Irrigation
|
Roman dams and aqueducts
|
Spices
|
too stupid, no comment
|
Universities
|
University of Constantinople, founded 425 CE by Emperor Theodosius II
|
Street lights
|
Peking, 500 BCE, gas via bamboo pipes from volcano leaks
|
Paper industry
|
Chinese-invented paper-making, reached Baghdad 8th century
|
Mass literacy
|
Stupid claim, most Muslims today are illiterate
|
Freedom of thought
|
Idiotic
|
Architecture
|
Idiotic
|
Poetry
|
Idiotic
|
Hygiene
|
Roman baths, Islamic wudu is only a ritual, not hygiene
|
Libraries
|
library of Alexandria Egypt, established around 300 BCE
|
Ceramics
|
Idiotic, most ancient industry on the planet, like 24.000 years old
|
So none of the claims are true and are either outright lies or so idiotic that it is not worth even contemplating them.
}”The concept of putting ideas to the test is encouraged by the Qur’an”
Bullshit. Utter nonsense.
What it says is
5:101 “Ask not about things which, if made plain to you, may cause you trouble”
That’s what it says. The exact opposite of what this clown claims it says.
So, no, the idea that Muslims and Islam invented anything or discovered anything substantial is nothing but a lie.
Reflections on the signs of the Qur’an 102
Almost done
"Muslims don’t just believe that the Qur’an is from God based on blind faith. "
No, that's exactly what happens. There is no rational thought and no reason to believe any of this. It's down to hope and comfort, which then forms blind faith and if the required gullibility and desperation is there, a god is a great crutch.
What is sad is the level and sheer amount of lies and deception are then necessary to keep up this pretence, when they are questioned by outsiders.
Who authored the Qur’an? 103
"There is no doubt that Prophet Muhammad, peace be upon him, was the person responsible for transmitting the Qur’an."
This guy loves starting off a paragraph with a lie. Of course there are doubts. Only a tiny fraction of the population on this planet believes this nonsense, this fairy tale.
We don't even have historical evidence that Muhammad as described in the sunnah existed.
So how can there be historical evidence that he was the one who distributed the Koran?
Now comes the customary ignorance of Muslim apologists, who can't think logically or rationally. It shows what Islam does to otherwise normal people.
Even really smart people, like Dr. Al Khalili, the physicist at CERN, even though he left Islam and finds it ridiculous, still can't free himself totally from the influence of Islam. He actually featured in a BBC documentary where he showed what he thought was Arabic/Persian but also Muslim advances 1000 years ago. He simply believed the tales. As I did, I must admit, before looking into the claims.
The rest is well known and simply the juvenile, simplistic and shallow argumentation of Tzortzis and his claim that Muhammad was great, the Koran is nice and thus, god.
1. Muhammad’s lifelong reputation of being truthful
2. Muhammad’s personal speech does not match the Qur’an
3. The portrayal of Muhammad
4. Other Prophets are mentioned more times than Muhammad
5. The Qur’an went against the customs and norms of society
6. Rejection of the superstitions of the Arabs
7. Muhammad did not boast about the Qur’an.
8. Abundance of falsification tests.
9. Knowledge of the unseen from the past.
10. Predictions about the future.
11. The Qur’an does not conform to human desires.
12. The Qur’an cannot be imitated
Should I really look and analyse each of these claims? They are either false, fabrications or plain nonsense.
These claims are made by someone with a limited mind, an ignorant mind, a person who will not allow reality to correct his beloved book and show what a repugnant and brutal character this Muhammad could be at times, according to the texts this character is mentioned in. This is not my evaluation, but that of the hadiths.
Some final thoughts 117
This is just preaching and then some sources.
So all we have is the usual nonsense with the addition of some lies and misrepresentations. Nothing new, nothing useful.
Now, I could refute every single sentence but see no need to.
But if someone sees a mistake in what I wrote or my lack of explaining something, please feel free to ask.
No comments:
Post a Comment