1- Who is Deaf, Dumb and Blind?

A Muslim wrote to me saying he read some of my

articles and believes that I got it all wrong.
He advised that I should read the Quran to have
a correct understanding of Islam. When a Muslim
tells me I should read the Quran I know that he
has not read that book. The Quran is an ugly
book, written by an illiterate who could not
compose clear and comprehensive sentences. As
the result the book is tedious and no fun to
read. Few Muslims ever read it.
I told this Muslim that I know the Quran as
well and the life of Muhammad quite well and
suggested he should read them. He wrote back
saying he opened the Quran at random and read
the Sura 47 and found it quite interesting. He
asked me what is wrong with that sura.
It is amazing that even when Muslims read the
Quran they can’t see what is wrong with it. In
this article I will explain the content of this
short chapter and encourage Muslims to read the
Quran as they would any other book, i.e. with
critical eyes, not as believers. They then may
get a different picture.

1
The Sura 47 is named after Muhammad because he
mentioned his name in verse 2. The other name
of this sura is ‘al Qital’ (fighting), which is
derived from the sentence wa dhukira fi-hal-
qital in verse 20 that encourage Muslim to
fight.
This chapter was dictated after Muhammad
migrated to Medina and began his career as a
highway robber, raiding and looting villages
and towns.
It says that Muslims should fight the non-
Muslims whose good deeds are devoid of virtue,
“All the good deeds of the non-Muslims are in
vain. (47:8-9) Only Muslims are righteous. This
is typical of cults. Cult leaders divide the
world between believers and unbelievers (us vs.
them) and vilify the unbelievers while instill
in the believers a sense of superiority.
Muhammad said the unbelievers are the worst
animals, (8:55) hated by God and fuel for hell.
They are like cattle and will have for their
dwelling hell fire (47:12) while Muslims are
the best people (3:110). He also said. God
forgives the sins of the righteously striving
believers who have faith in what is revealed to
Muhammad – which is the Truth from his Lord
(47:2).

2
Worst than animals
The best of people
In nowhere Muhammad attempts to prove his
claim. He simply testifies to the truth of his
own claim and expects everyone to believe him
with no evidence. His proof is threat. In
verse10 he says, “Have they not traveled
through the land and seen the terrible end of
those who lived before them? God brought upon
them utter destruction and the disbelievers
will also face similar perdition.” And “How
many towns, (bigger than Mecca) have We
destroyed and left helpless?” (47:13).
Everyone dies. How can death be the proof for
the claim of Muhammad? Can’t any charlatan use
the same argument to establish his claim? “One
day you will die and will have to answer God so
you better believe in me,” is a stupid
argument. It does not prove the truth of one’s
claim.
Threats such as “How terrible it will be for
them when the angels take away their souls by
striking their faces and their backs” (47:27)
that abound as proof of Islam can easily be
used against Muhammad and Muslims too. If God

3
is just, it is Muhammad and Muslims who would
spend their eternity in hell for all the crime
they have committed and Muslim continue to
commit against mankind.
The only argument Muhammad ever gave in support
of his claim was threat which abound in the
Quran. To say “if you don’t believe me my
followers will kill you an you will also burn
in hell, therefore I am a prophet of God,” is
not a very intelligent argument.
After establishing his truth, with logical
fallacies, Muhammad then instructed his
followers to fight and strike off the heads of
those who disbelieve (47:4). Most translators
have felt the need to insert in parenthesis,
(in the battle). However, the Arabic verse
says, “When you meet those who disbelieve,
smite their necks.” The battle starts anytime
Muslims want it. A Muslim can arm himself with
AK 47 and start shooting non-Muslims, and a
peaceful day is transformed in a day of war.
The same verse says, take the unbelievers as
captives, whom then you can free with ransom.
That is what ISIS and Boko Haram do.
He says fighting the unbelievers “is a law” and
had God wanted, He could have granted the
believers victory without needing them to

4
fight, but He wants to test the believers’
faith. Thus a Muslim can prove his faith by
fighting and by killing the non-Muslims. “We
shall certainly test you until We know those
who fight hard for the cause of God and those
who exercise patience. (47:31).
It is not hard to see the similarity of Islam
to any gangster group where the newcomers have
to kill someone in order to prove their loyalty
to the gang. The verse 4 in this sura clearly
states that Allah can make his religion
victorious without needing Muslims to kill, but
he wants them to kill the unbelievers to prove
their faith. The history of early Islam is full
of examples where Muslims offered to kill their
own father and mother to prove their faith. I
have given details of some of those stories in
my book The Life of Muhammad.
He asked his followers to fight for him and to
finance his raids and called those who did not
pay handsomely, niggardly and humiliated them
publicly. “Should He ask for your possessions
you would be niggardly as it would be hard for
you to give. Thus, He would make your malice
become public (47:37).” And, “It is you who are
asked to spend for the cause of God, but some
of you behave in a niggardly way. Whoever

5
behaves miserly does so against his own soul.
God is Self-sufficient and you are poor. If you
were to turn away from Him, He would just
replace you with another people, who will not
be like you.” (47:38).
He promise everlasting happiness and
improvement of the condition of those who wage
war for him and also admission to Paradise
where streams of unpolluted water, milk of
unchangeable taste, delicious wine, and crystal
clear honey flow, and where they can eat all
kinds of fruits. On the other hand, he promised
to those who did not believe in him eternal
hellfire and drinks of boiling water which will
rip their intestines to bits? (47:15).
Arabs were never famous for their morals at any
time in history. However, even for them the
idea that God would want His believers to fight
and kill other was something hard to swallow.
Most believers of Medina were particularly
loath in fighting. Since they feared for their
live to say Muhammad is lying, they said “Why
is a chapter about fighting for the cause of
God not revealed?” (47:20) He said there is
sickness in the heart of those who say such
thing and went on to ordering the believers to
fight and to kill. All the suras he dictated in

6
Medina are injunctions to fight. He said,
“Since they have (pledged) us obedience, it
would be more proper for them, when it is
decided (that everyone must take part in the
battle), to remain true (in their pledge to
God) (47:21) and obey Muhammad.
That is the problem with being a Muslim. Once
you pledge obedience to Islam you can’t refuse
the orders of Muhammad to fight, or you won’t
be true in your pledge and faith. Once a person
accepts Islam he or she becomes a potential
terrorist.
In Medina Muhammad created a state of total
terror. No one dared to say what they thought
about him openly. So when he insisted that they
should go to war some of the believers said,
“We shall obey you in some matters,” They did
not want to kill people. They knew that a real
God would not tell people to engage in highway
robbery, to raid, to loot and to rape.
The atmosphere of Medina was no different to
James’ Town or any cult compound where the
cultists fear each other and where the
dissenters are punished harshly. Muhammad said
he could sense some people did not like to go
to war from the “tone of their speech.” (47:30)
He condemned them and warned them of their

7
terrible punishment. “Those who have reverted
to disbelief after guidance has become manifest
to them, have been seduced and given false
hopes by Satan. (47:25)
The truth is that Muslims are the ones who are
given false hope by Satan. Those who reverted
did not do so in the hope to enrich themselves
with booty, wealth, and the lust for captured
women or virgins in Paradise. They left Islam
because they realized Muhammad was a liar
giving them false hopes.
In this sura he said, “Do not be weak hearted
and do not appeal for a settlement when you
have the upper hand.” And “God is with you and
He will never reduce the reward for your deeds”
(47:35). Those who think they can co-exist with
Muslims are deluded. Muslims will settle for
nothing less than total supremacy.
As long as Muslims have the upper hand they
will continue waging jihad and with each
victory they will increase their terror. They
will only settle when they are crushed and have
no chance of winning. The reason jihad is
launched again is because Muslims feel strong
again. It will end when they are defeated and
subdued. Muslims are peaceful only when they
are kept under the boot. If not they will be at

8
your throat. This is the ethos of Islam, and
the mindset of the psychopath. Muslims are
psychopathic to the extent that they emulate
their prophet.
The irony is that despite numerous injunctions
to fight and to loot the wealth of others
Muhammad also said, “The worldly life is only a
childish game. If you have faith and piety, you
will receive your rewards and God will not ask
you to pay for them.” (47:36). If the worldly
life is only a childish game why was he so keen
to rob the wealth of others and amass so much
wealth? Why would he brag, “I have been
promised the wealth of this world?” Jesus did
live a life worthy of a prophet. Muhammad’s
life was that of a thug and a highway robber.
The verse 11 of this sura says God is the
guardian of the believers, but the disbelievers
have no guardian. Considering the wretched
state of the Muslim world it seems that
Muslims’ god is doing a very poor job in
guarding them. They all want to escape their
Islamic countries where Allah is in charge and
come to kafir lands.
Anyone who reads the Quran can see this book is
evil. Muslims are ignorant of its content and
yet they encourage others to read it. In this

9
sura Muhammad said the disbeliever are deaf,
dumb, and blind (47:23). Who is deafer, dumber
and blinder than Muslims? He said the
unbelievers do not think about the Quran or
their hearts is sealed. (47:24). As we saw, it
is the hearts of Muslims that is sealed. Any
rational person who reads the Quran can see
this book is satanic.

2-Does the Quran Prohibit

Killing
To demonstrate that Islam does not promote
violence Muslims often quote a part of the
quranic verse 5:32. “Whosoever killed a person
it shall be as if he killed all mankind; and
whoso saved a life, it shall be as if he has
saved the life of all mankind.”
That sound pretty good. The problem is that it
is not a teaching of Muhammad. It is a quote
from Judaic scriptures.
“Whoever destroys a soul, it is considered as
if he destroyed an entire world. And whoever
saves a life, it is considered as if he saved
an entire world.” Jerusalem Talmud Sanhedrin
4:1 (22a)

10
Killing one person is not the same as the
genocide of all mankind. It only makes sense
in its context. It is related to the mythology
of Abel and Cain. Since these two brothers
were the only men at that time, killing one of
them would have prevented his offspring to be
born and humanity would not come to exist.
Actually despite Muslims’ claim Muhammad did
not say this is his own teaching. The complete
verse is as follow:
“On account of this, WE prescribed for the
Children of Israel that whosoever killed a
person it shall be as if he killed all mankind;
–unless it be for murder or for spreading
mischief in the land– and whoso saved a life,
it shall be as if he had saved the life of all
mankind. And our Messengers came to them with
clear Signs, Yet even after that, many of them
commit excesses in the land.”
Muhammad is quoting a biblical fable. How can
Muslims claim credit for it?
The problem does not end there. Talmud is not
considered to be the word of God. It is the
recorded teachings of Sanhedrin, the high
council of rabbis.

11
So why Allah says “WE prescribed for the
Children of Israel…”?
The god of the Quran is claiming ownership of
something he never said. This leaves us with
few options.
1- Allah has plagiarized the teachings of
the rabbis.
2- He was confused and had forgotten that
those words were not his.
3- This verse is not from God. Muhammad
admitted that sometimes Satan came and
whispered some verses to him that he thought
were from God. Could this verse be one of those
satanic verses?
4- Muhammad lied. The Quran is not the
word of God.
I cannot think of another option to explain why
Allah claims ownership of a verse that he never
said. The quote is not in the Bible; it is
from Talmud and Talmud is not considered to be
the word of God.
Now, this verse emphasizes that killing is bad.
But Muhammad told his followers that waging
war, fighting and killing are the best
commerce, which will have the highest reward.

12
“O you who believe! Shall I guide you to a
commerce that will save you from a painful
torment? That you believe in Allah and His
Messenger and that you strive hard and fight in
the Cause of Allah with your wealth and your
lives… (Q .61:10-11)
So he had to make a disclaimer. While quoting
the Talmud he inserted “unless it be for murder
or for spreading mischief in the land” in the
verse. This disclaimer does not exist in the
original text of the Talmud.
With this disclaimer his followers were left
free to raid and to kill non-Muslims. Those
who resisted Islam and opposed it were
considered to be spreading mischief.
The word mischief is the translation of the
word “fitnah”, which means dissension,
opposition, sedition. If you dissent Islam or
oppose it you are causing sedition and
spreading mischief. You are considered to be
waging war against it. This war does not have
to be violent. Your mere disagreement with
Islam is the same as waging war against it. If
you criticize Islam or preach a faith other
than Islam to Muslims you are causing sedition.
All these are mischief.

13
What is the punishment of those who spread
mischief? He prescribes it in the verse 5:33,
just one verse after he quotes the Talmud,
which Muslims never read or like to point out.
“The punishment of those who wage war against
Allah and His Messenger, and strive with might
and main for mischief through the land
is: execution, or crucifixion, or the cutting
off of hands and feet from opposite sides, or
exile from the land: that is their disgrace in
this world, and a heavy punishment is theirs in
the Hereafter.”
So the only verse that Muslims oft quote to
claim Muhammad prohibited killing is from
Judaism, is wrongly attributed to Allah and it
contains a disclaimer, which allows Muslims to
kill all those who don’t agree with Islam.
It is funny how Muslims quote the verse 5:32
totally out of contest and attribute it to
their prophet when not even he made such a
claim and fail to read the one that follows
it. To what shall we attribute this willful
blindness?

14
3-Masjid-ul-Aqsa: Muhammad’s
Error
Temple of Solomon was build in 960 BC.
There is a hadith that reports Muhammad one
night, rode on a winged horse that took him
from Masjidu’l Haram (the temple of Ka’ba) to
Msjidu’l Aqsa (in Jerusalem) and from there to
the seventh heaven where he was shown the hell
and the paradise and then taken to the presence
of Allah. This story that is commonly accepted
by All the Muslims and is known as Mi’raj is
also confirmed in the Quran
Glory to (Allah)
Who did take His Servant for a journey by
night,
From the Sacred Mosque to the Farthest Mosque.
— Quran 17:1
Here we are not going to talk about the
absurdity of such trip. If God is omnipresent
why one would have to go anywhere to meet him.
If Muhammad could travel from Mecca to the
palce of Allah, riding on a winged horsy, and
come back in one night, then Allah’s throne
must not be too far from Mecca. I wonder how
come no one has found it yet?Is God inside the
universe or outside of it? If inside it, then

15
he is contained by it and therefore cannot be
infinite. If outside it, then he must be
billions of light years away from us and no
winged horsy can reach his throne in one night
and come back. And if He is omnipresent, like
air in the atmosphere, then one does not need
to go anywhere to meet Him. God must be where
you are right now. This story is simply
fairytale. Its very existence belies Muhammad
lack of understanding of the concept of
omnipresence.
We are not also going to ask why Muhammad had
to stop at Jerusalem before going to Heaven. Is
there a gateway to Heaven in Jerusalem? The
problem we want to discuss is that Masjid’ul
Aqsa “the Farthest Mosque” did not exist at the
time of Muhammad. First Temple on that site was
built in 960 BC, allegedly by Solomon to house
the Ark of the Covenant which his father,
David, had brought to Jerusalem. The temple was
burned to the ground by the Babylonians in 586
BC. The Second Temple was rebuilt by Herod in
20 BC
Here we are not going to talk about the
absurdity of such trip. If God is omnipresent
why one would have to go anywhere to meet him.
If Muhammad could travel from Mecca to the

16
place of Allah, riding on a winged horsy, and
come back in one night, then Allah’s throne
must not be too far from Mecca. I wonder how
come no one has found it yet?
Is God inside the universe or outside of it? If
inside it, then he is contained by it and
therefore cannot be infinite. If outside it,
then he must be billions of light years away
from us and no winged horsy can reach his
throne in one night and come back. And if He is
omnipresent, like air in the atmosphere, then
one does not need to go anywhere to meet
Him. God must be where you are right
now. This story is simply fairytale. Its very
existence belies Muhammad lack of understanding
of the concept of omnipresence.
We are not also going to ask why Muhammad had
to stop at Jerusalem before going to Heaven. Is
there a gateway to Heaven in Jerusalem?
The problem we want to discuss is that
Masjid’ul Aqsa “the Farthest Mosque” did not
exist at the time of Muhammad.

First Temple on that site was built in 960 BC,

allegedly by Solomon to house the Ark of the
Covenant which his father, David, had brought

17
to Jerusalem. The temple was burned to the
ground by the Babylonians in 586 BC.

The Second Temple was rebuilt by Herod in 20 BC

The Second Temple was consecrated in 515 BC,
rebuilt by Herod in 20 BC and destroyed by
Titus in 70 AD.

The Dome of the Rock (Masjid-ul-Aqsa) was built

im 691 AD.
When Caliph Omar Ibn al-Khattab conquered
Jerusalem in 638 AD, he performed a prayer in
the site where Temple of Solomon used to
stand. It was Caliph ‘Abd al-Malik ibn Marwan
who built a mosque on that site around 691 A.D.
Muhammad’s alleged Mi’raj took place around the
year 621. There is 70 years gap between Mi’raj
and the construction of Masjid ul Aqsa. [This
is reported in The Concise Encyclopedia of
Islam, Harper & Row, 1989, p. 46 and 102.]
How could Muhammad mention Masjid ul Aqsa when
such a mosque did not exist? Either Muhammad
did not know that that temple was destroyed in
70 AD or the Quran is manipulated and
“enriched” years after the death of its author,

18
permitting the fables that were constructed
around Muhammad after his death to creep into
his book.
In my opinion the former is the case. Muhammad
was an unlettered man. His knowledge was
limited to what he heard from others – story
tellers and priests. His references to historic
and Biblical stories are sketchy. He throws a
name hear and mentions an event there and often
makes mistakes. This is to be expected of a man
who is not acquainted with books and whose only
source of knowledge is hearsay.
Muslims may argue that “Masjid’ means any place
of worship (sojda), that is why the prophet
refers to the temple of Solomon as Masjid. In
that case, all churches, synagogues and the
Zoroastrian Ateshkadehs are Masjids. During the
time of Muhammad there were many such “Masjids”
built in cities much farther than Jerusalem.
(i.e farthest from Mecca or Medina) and the
Masjid’ul Aqsa actually was not the farthest
mosque.
This, is an obvious blunder of Muhammad so much
so that many Islamic scholars, including Yusuf
Ali are of the opinion that by Masjid’u’ Aqsa,
it is intended the SITE of the building and not
the actual building.

19
This apologetic line could have been a way out
of the dilemma if it were not for the following
hadith, which unequivocally asserts that
Masjid’ul Aqsa was an actual building which
existed in the time of Muhammad.
Sahih Bukhari, Volume 4, Book 55, Number 636:
Narrated Abu Dhaar:
I said, “O Allah’s Apostle! Which mosque was
built first?” He replied, “Al-Masjid-ul-Haram.”
I asked, “Which (was built) next?” He replied,
“Al-Masjid-ul-Aqs-a (i.e. Jerusalem).” I asked,
“What was the period in between them?” He
replied, “Forty (years).” He then added,
“Wherever the time for the prayer comes upon
you, perform the prayer, for all the earth is a
place of worshipping for you.”
This hadith presents yet another problem.
According to Muslims, Masjid’ul Haram (Ka’ba)
was built by Abraham who lived in 2000 BC and
the Temple of Solomon (the site of the Msjid
ul’Aqsa) was built about 958-951 BC. There is
a gap of over 1040 years between the dates of
the construction of the two buildings.

20
4-Absurdities in hadith and
Muslims’ Denial
Editor’s Note: This is rather a worthy study,
published earlier in 2001, that shows the
dilemmas involved in denying the authenticity
of Hadith to Muslims. Hadith is an integral
part of the Islamic faith, and denying it
denies important pillars of Islam, and raises
doubts about the Qur’an itself and about the
life of Muhammad.
There are two categories of Muslims: those who
accept the authenticity of the Quran and the
Hadith with no ifs or buts, and those who deny
the Hadith, partially or totally. They try to
reinterpret the Quran contrary to its apparent
meaning so that it becomes acceptable to a
reasonable mind.
For nearly 1200 years Bukhari’s collections of
hadith were regarded (and still are) by the
majority of Muslims, only second to the Quran.
Apart from the Quran, Muslims, especially the
Sunnis consider the Hadith as the source of
guidance. Hadith are stories of the life of
Muhammad, collected by scholars in the second
and third century after the Hijra. The most
famous and revered ones are those of Bukhari

21
and his student Muslim ibn al-Hajjaj. They are
called Sahih (correct, sound, authenticated,)
because they went through a rigorous process of
authentication called Ilmul Hadith.
However, there is a new trend amongst some
Muslims, especially the Submitters, to deny the
authenticity of hadith altogether. They would
go as far as to call these eminent compilers of
the hadith, liars and charlatans. This is
killing the messenger. The collectors of hadith
did not invent these stories to deserve such
disparaging insults. They simply collected
them, compiled them and gave the chain of
narrators that that went all the way back to
Muhammad and is companions.
Early Muslim scholars accepted a hadith as
Sahih only when its authenticity was
established on the basis of both Fann-i-
Riwaayat (The art of sequence of narration)
and Fann-i-Daraayat (The art of logical
concordance). Moreover, a Hadith should not
have contradicted the Sunnah and the Quran.
None of us is qualified to determine the
accuracy the methodology used for accepting or
rejecting a hadith based on Fann-i-Riwaayat.
These are old stories. All those who reported
them are dead more than a thousand years ago

22
and we have no way to verify their
trustworthiness. At this moment the only method
left to determine the sihhat (soundness) of a
hadith is Fann-i-Daraayat and its compatibility
with the Quran.
The Islamic scholar, Asif Iftikhar writes,
“Therefore, a Hadith can be regarded as a
source of religious guidance only `if the basis
of that Hadith exists in the Quran or the
Sunnah or the established principles of human
nature and intellect. Moreover, it should not
be contradictory to any of these bases” (from
The Authenticity of Hadith)
The same author writes, “Imam Ibni Ali Jauzee
is reported to have said: ‘If you find a Hadith
against the dictates of commonsense or contrary
to a universal rule, consider it a fabrication;
discussions about the trustworthiness of its
narrators are needless. Similarly, such Ahadith
(plural for hadith) should be suspected as are
beyond comprehension to the extent that they
leave no room for any possible explanation.
Also, a Hadith in which colossal recompense is
promised for a minor deed and a Hadith which is
absurd in meaning are suspect.”
By examining some of the ahadith in the light
of ‘commonsense’, and taking to heart the

23
recommendations of Ibni Ali Jauzee we find many
of them, despite being acknowledged as Sahih do
not qualify as such. Take the following Hadith
for example:
Sahih Bukhari Volume 3, Book 43, Number 652
Narrated Abu Huraira:
Allah’s Apostle said, “While a man was on the
way, he found a thorny branch of a tree there
on the way and removed it. Allah thanked him
for that deed and forgave him.”
Here, the recompense outweighs the good deed
and if we were to follow the sound advice of
Ibni Ali Jauzee, we must discard this Hadith as
false.
This may seem something trivial, but the
implication is immense. By proving that a
hadith that has been categorized as sahih is
not sahih, we establish that it is prudent to
be suspicious of the authenticity of all the
ahadith classified as sahih. In fact this
proves that despite the fact that 90% of
Muslims believe in the collections of Bukhari
and Muslim, and despite the fact that these
ahadith are considered to be the soundest
guidance after the Quran, they are not
trustworthy after all.

24
Now, let us take another hadith and litmus test
it with commonsense. Before that we have to
define what do we mean by commonsense. I have
come to the conclusion that commonsense is not
that common at all, and it may have different
meaning for a religious person whose senses are
flavored by his beliefs.
For example, an unimpaired commonsense says
that men and women, are at the same level of
intelligence. Of course there are stupid people
and intelligent people among both sexes, but
this has nothing to do with their gender. No
real serious scientific study, not marred by
religious preconceptions, has ever demonstrated
that there is any difference in intelligence
between men and women. What has been found is
that some parts of the brain in women is more
advanced than the same parts in men’s brain
while in other areas men are more advantageous.
Any logical person would conclude that men and
women should enjoy the same rights.
This difference is also evident in the
comparison between the members of the same sex.
Not all men are intellectually equal. Some are
more intelligent than others. Yet all men are
equal in front of the law. The testimony of
Einstein and Joe Blow are of the same weight.

25
There is no indication that women are less
intelligent than men, and even if we process
the data differently, there is no justification
for women not to have the same rights as men
do. Science, justice and commonsense all
acknowledge that men and women are equal and
should have the same rights.
When influenced by spurious doctrines,
commonsense is ignored. Islam has a different
set of criteria that defies commonsense.
Baffling as it is, some Muslim women happily
fight for their inequality and suppression of
their rights and call it “liberation.” They
think that hijab elevates their statues. Being
rebuked, punished and even beaten by their
husband is good for them. They believe to have
lower intelligence and that the majority of
them will go to hell because Muhammad said so.
So when I talk about commonsense. I am not
talking about the commonsense of a religious
person, but about the commonsense that is
supported by “real” science and approved by
“real” scientists. I put the word real between
quotation marks because all religions have made
their own version of pseudo-science and have
their own brand of pseudo-scientists and
pseudo-philosophers. What charlatans like

26
Maurice Bucaille and Keith Moore have said
about the Quran being scientific is not
science. It is sheer nonsense made up to fill
their bank accounts.
Let us get see if the following hadith is
scientific and acceptable by commonsense.
Sahih Bukhari Volume 4, Book 54, Number 414
He (Muhammad) said, “First of all, there was
nothing but Allah, and (then He created His
Throne). His throne was over the water, and He
wrote everything in the Book (in the Heaven)
and created the Heavens and the Earth.”
How this story can make sense? If there was
“nothing”, how could Allah put his throne over
the water? Which water? What was holding that
water? How could Heavens and Earth be created
after the waters? Doesn’t water need an earth
to contain it, and doesn’t the earth need a
heaven to hold it? Beyond the fact that the
whole notion expressed in this Hadith is
scientific balderdash, there is an error in the
order of things created.
Isn’t the Earth a planet of the solar system,
which is an insignificant part of a galaxy that
is one of the billions of galaxies of the
Universe? Can anyone, including Maurice

27
Bucaille who found a lot of “$cience” in the
Quran to fill his bank account (yet refused to
convert to Islam), tell us which part of this
is scientific?
So we can conclude that the above hadith is a
fabrication because is against the dictates of
commonsense and contrary to a universal rule.
Or can we?
The problem is that this hadith is in
conformity with the Quran and as Asif Iftikhar
said “a Hadith can be regarded as a source of
religious guidance only `if the basis of that
Hadith exists in the Quran or the Sunnah.” What
if we find something in the Quran that
corroborates the above absurdity? There is more
than one verse that does that. See the
following:
Until, when he reached the setting of the sun,
he found it set in a spring of murky water:
Near it he found a People: We said: “O Zul-
qarnain! (thou hast authority,) either to
punish them, or to treat them with kindness.”
Then followed he (another) way, until, when he
came to the rising of the sun, he found it
rising on a people for whom We had provided no
covering protection against the sun. (Q. 18:86,
89, 90)

28
The Sun rises and sets in ALL places, or to be
more precise, in no place at all. One does not
have to go “another way” to find it rising.
This gives us the clue that Muhammad really
believed that the Earth is flat and the Sun
moves in the sky rising from one place and
setting in another.
How can we be sure this is what Muhammad
thought? The answer can be found in another
hadith.
Sahih Bukhari Volume 4, Book 54, Number 421
Narrated Abu Dhar:
The Prophet asked me at sunset, “Do you know
where the sun goes (at the time of sunset)?” I
replied, “Allah and His Apostle know better.”
He said, “It goes (i.e. travels) till it
prostrates Itself underneath the Throne and
takes the permission to rise again, and it is
permitted and then (a time will come when) it
will be about to prostrate itself but its
prostration will not be accepted, and it will
ask permission to go on its course but it will
not be permitted, but it will be ordered to
return whence it has come and so it will rise
in the west. And that is the interpretation of
the Statement of Allah: “And the sun Runs its
fixed course For a term (decreed). That is The

29
Decree of (Allah) The Exalted in Might, The
All-Knowing.” (Q. 6: 38)
Here we have a case where a hadith is confirmed
by the Quran, which is ratified by another
hadith and again reiterated the Quran.
Is this hadith against the science and the
commonsense? It sure is. However, it is not
against the Quran. The message conveyed by the
hadith is wrong, despite the fact that it is an
authenticated Hadith.
If we have any doubt about what Muhammad really
thought of the shape of the Earth, we can
safely put them to rest when we read the
following verses.
Have We not made the earth as a wide expanse,
and the mountains as pegs? Q. 78: 6-7
Expanse” gives the idea of something flat. The
Arabic word used in the Quran is mehad, (bed).
Beds are made flat. They are not spherical.
Furthermore, mountains are not like peg keeping
the earth from shaking.
Don’t these ahadith, backed by the Quran,
clearly describe a flat Earth, with the Sun
rising from one end and setting in the muddy
waters on the opposite end? Is there a Throne
somewhere in the sky that the Sun goes under it

30
to get permission? When and how the Sun
prostrates itself? This concept sounds
ludicrous. In the ancient times the common
folks believed that the earth is, floating on
waters, surrounded by high mountains beyond
which there an abyss. Muhammad’s depiction of
the cosmos made sense to his ignorant
followers. But it makes no sense today.
This erroneous vision of the universe is not an
invention of Muhammad. It was part of the
folklore of his people. In a book entitled The
Oldest Stories in the Word, Theodor H. Gaster
has compiled the lore of the Babylonian, the
Hittite and the Canaanite people of 3500 years
ago. These stories were lost for centuries. In
mid 20th century they were found and unearthed.
They were deciphered and printed in 1952. The
similarities of those old stories and the
stories in the Quran, including the above
Hadith, are astonishing. It helps us understand
the origin of the Quran as well as the Bible.
The Quran has no divine origin. What Muhammad
told were stories he heard from storytellers,
old tales that were part of the tradition of
the people of his time.

Miracles in Islam

31
There are also many ahadith attributing
miracles to Muhammad. What should we make of
them? Again as Asif Iftikhar indicated, a
hadith that contradicts the Quran should not be
trusted. I suppose this is acceptable by all
Muslims. If there is a controversy between a
hadith and the Quran the authority of the Quran
overrides the hadith.
What the Quran says in respect to Miracles? It
categorically denies them.
According to the Quran Muhammad did not perform
any miracles and all those ahadith that report
stories about miracles are false. Their falsity
also can be proven logically.
The eminent scholar Ali Dashti asked: If
Muhammad could really perform miracles, make
stones speak, split the moon, multiply the
food, visit the hell and the heaven in a night,
etc., as some of the ahadith suggest, why he
did not perform the logical and useful miracle
and did not learn how to read and write? Does
it make sense that a man who can see the next
world, when given a piece of written paper in
his own language find it difficult to read?
Muslims believe that he could look into one’s
eyes and reads their mind. He himself claimed
that when he leads the congregational prayer he

32
can see his followers behind him without
turning. Yet, he could not read a simple letter
written in his own language? Among all the
miracles that he performed wasn’t reading the
most useful of all?
Apart from the Quran, there are many hadiths
that also deny any supernatural power or hidden
knowledge attributed to Muhammad.
Sahih Bukhari Volume 3, Book 43, Number 638
(the wife of the Prophet) Allah’s Apostle heard
some people quarreling at the door of his
dwelling. He came out and said, “I AM ONLY A
HUMAN BEING, and opponents come to me (to
settle their problems); maybe someone amongst
you can present his case more eloquently than
the other, whereby I may consider him true and
give a verdict in his favor. So, If I give the
right of a Muslim to another by mistake, then
it is really a portion of (Hell) Fire, he has
the option to take or give up (before the Day
of resurrection).”
How a man who is aware of this world and the
next, who, as Muslims say, predicted all the
inventions that has happened since, is capable
of splitting the moon and performing any
miracle cannot trust his own judgment fearing

33
the eloquence of one party may deceive him and
make him err?
Let us examine more hadiths with our own Fann-
i-Daraayat, unclogged from preconceptions and
prejudice.
Sahih Bukhari Volume 1, Book 6, Number 315
Narrated Anas bin Malik:
The Prophet said, “At every womb Allah appoints
an angel who says, ‘O Lord! A drop of semen, O
Lord! A clot. O Lord! A little lump of flesh.”
Then if Allah wishes (to complete) its
creation, the angel asks, (O Lord!) Will it be
a male or female, a wretched or a blessed, and
how much will his provision be? And what will
his age be?’ So all that is written while the
child is still in the mother’s womb.”
This hadith is a joke. Just the thought of this
little angel that gets in there and stands in
front of the womb each time a man thrust his
wife watching the whole show from inside her
vagina, supplicating Allah for a drop of semen
right on his face, is hilarious. Shall we
discard this hadith as a fabrication? It
certainly goes against our commonsense. But it
was not against the commonsense of those who
used to narrate it to each other 1200 years
ago. It does not make sense to us, but it made

34
perfect sense to them. A few hundred years ago,
commonsense dictated that the Earth is flat.
All the philosophers and prophets agreed. Today
it doesn’t? Can we say that the hadiths that go
against our modern commonsense are false now,
but they were true then because they were in
accordance with the commonsense of the ancient
folks?
The point is that we cannot dismiss a hadith as
unauthentic based on our commonsense. Muslims
have taken for granted that Muhammad was the
messenger of God and therefore he could not be
wrong. So they reevaluate the hadiths as time
goes by and keep discarding those that their
newfound understanding of science proves
unsound.
This method is highly biased. We can’t discard
evidences that show Muhammad was a liar simply
because we have accepted him to be
truthful. An unbiased jury would weigh all the
evidences; the good and the bad.
To examine the truth of the claim of Muhammad
we have to decide which side we are standing.
Are we part of the defense team or are we part
of the jury? The majority of Muslims, as it’s
expected will choose to be part of his defense
team. They are not interested to know whether

35
Muhammad was right or he was an impostor. That
question does not arise in their minds. They
have accepted him as the messenger of God. They
approach the subject with prejudice. Their
objective is not to find the truth about him
but to acquit him.
Today the more educated Muslims find many
absurdities in the hadith and deny their
authenticity. However, since the majority of
the hadiths are nonsensical, the growing
consensus is to deny all of them to vilify the
unfortunate Bukhari and Muslim who were revered
for over a millennium. This is unfair. Bukhari
and Muslim, along with other Muhaditheen
(collectors of hadith) did not invent these
hadiths. They meticulously recorded them. It is
also unethical to defile these scholars and
deny what they painstakingly collected, because
what they reported blemish Muhammad.
Some of the hadiths are fabricated, but many of
them are true. You’d not throw away all your
money because there are a few counterfeit bills
and you can’t tell which is which. Likewise, we
must not discard all the hadiths just because a
few of them are false.
Although it’s wise for Muslims not to rely on
hadith as the infallible source of guidance,

36
they are the only history of Islam. It’s
through them that we know about Muhammad and
his life.
If we discard the hadith how can we prove the
historicity of the Prophet? If all those
stories are false and someone with a diabolic
wit has forged them all, then perhaps someone
equally malignant has fabricated the Quran and
the whole Islam is nothing but a fanciful tale.
Without the hadith, we know nothing about
Muhammad, his life and his history. Without
them, Muslims have no way to know how to
perform prayers or fast. These are the pillars
of Islam.

Absurdities of Quran
To deny the authenticity of hadith on the
ground of their logical absurdity poses a
bigger problem. What to do with the equally
absurd verses of the Quran? Can we dismiss the
Quran because it is just as illogical as the
hadith?
This is a line Muslims will never cross. So
what do they do when confronted with quranic
verses that are illogical? They reinterpret
them esoterically. The desire to interpret the

37
Scriptures and assign esoteric meanings to them
is born out of the fact that they are crude and
lack meaning.
The Mu’tazelits (early Islamic rationalists)
were the first to notice the inadequacy of the
Quran and Sufism is entirely based on giving
esoteric meanings to the Quran. Sufism is the
effort to “interiorize” the Quran, to break
away with the purely legalistic religion and
experience the mystical significance of the
encounter of Muhammad with Allah in the night
of Mi’raj, which to the Sufis was also
spiritual in nature.
There are two categories of Muslims. The first
are those that defend Muhammad and whatever he
did, irrespective of any consideration for
decency, rightness or justice. They don’t deny
his marriage to a 9-year-old child, his
assassinations, his massacres of his prisoners
of war, his genocides, his rapes, his lewdness,
and his other less than admirable deeds. He is
to them the perfect man, and it is not up to
anyone to question his actions.
The second group, are those that deny part or
all of these historic facts about Muhammad and
twist the evidence to make him acceptable by
the modern morality. These are called moderate

38
Muslims. In a nutshell the moderates are the
ones who deny the unsavory truth about their
prophet, prefer lies to truth and live with
their heads stuck in the sands.
I certainly admire the honesty of the first
group. Many so called moderate Muslims try hard
to hide the brutalities of the Quran and
present it in a different light. They would
quote the earlier verses of Quran when Muhammad
was weak and his preaching was sugary. But they
would play down the harsher verses that were
dictated in Medina.

The Submitters
During 1970s an Egyptian Muslim scholar came up
with his brilliant solution that would entice
many Muslims and renew their faith in Islam.
His name was Rashed Khalifa. At first he
claimed to have found a mathematical miracle in
the Quran. This claim is refuted by several
thinkers as a “lie-free deception.” Because of
this claim he gained respect and fame amongst
Muslims, until he decided to launch his own
prophetic career, a decision that angered
Muslims and cost him his life.

39
However, Khalifa’s contribution was important.
By his complete denial of the Hadith and his
serious effort to reinterpret the Quran in a
way that would downplay its harsh and
intolerant message, he started a new movement
amongst the pseudo-intellectuals who could now
pretend to promote a gentler Islam that does
not advocate killing the apostates and
instigating holy wars.
Their denial of the hadith goes as far as
denying everything about the history of
Muhammad. Their zest to present the Quran as a
logical book of miracles has made them bend
every rule of reason to. They use the following
verses to justify their claim.
In their history verily there is a lesson for
men of understanding. It is no invented story
but a confirmation of the existing (Scripture)
and a detailed explanation of everything, and a
guidance and a mercy for folk who believe. Q.
12: 111
And
And of mankind is he who payeth for mere
pastime of discourse, that he may mislead from
Allah’s way without knowledge, and maketh it
the butt of mockery. For such there is a
shameful doom. Q. 31: 6

40
However, these verses do not sanction denying
the hadith. Muhammad was ridiculed by his
contemporaries and his Quran was called non-
sense stories and idle tales. The word story or
tale in Arabic is hadith. In these verses
Muhammad is defending his claim saying what he
is reciting is revelation, not a tale (hadith)
invented or a frivolous discourse. He says that
the idle tales of the people mislead them while
the Quran guides them. Submiters, like all
Muslims are deceivers. The hadiths that
Muhammad is rejecting are the tales of narrated
by his competitors, not his own.

5-Is Muhammad mentioned in the

Bible?
Muslims will cling to any lie to confirm that
their religion is true. Sometimes they make
claims that are downright ridiculous.
A Muslim sent me the following video to prove
that Muhammad is mentioned in the Bible.
The claim is that the chapter 5:16, of the Song
of Songs, mentions Muhammad by name.
This chapter does not mention Muhammad. The
Hebrew word mahamaddim in this verse is not a
proper name and it has nothing to do with

41
Muhammad. It means “delights” or
delightfulness.”
To clarify the trick I will use the same absurd
argument to prove that the Bible mentions my
both names several times. In fact there are
hundreds of references to my names, Ali and
Sina in the Bible. In the following biblical
verses I have highlighted my name for all the
doubters to see.
Genesis 45:26 They told him, “Joseph is
still alive!
1 Corinthians 15:22 For as in Adam all die, so
in Christ all will be made alive.
Colossians 1:21 And you, that were
sometime alienated and enemies in your mind.
Ezekiel 1:16 They sparkled like topaz, and all
four looked alike.
Jeremiah 6:13 From the least to the
greatest, all are greedy for gain; prophets and
priests alike, all practice deceit.
Exodus 19:20 And the LORD came down upon
Mount Sinai,
Psalm 68:8 the earth shook, the heavens poured
down rain, before God, the One of Sinai, before
God, the God of Israel.
If Muhammad is mentioned once in the entire
Bible, my both names are repeated hundreds of

42
times in both the New and the Old Testaments.
That is not all, I can find my name in pretty
much every book written. Is this a miracle or
what? Doesn’t this prove that I am way superior
to Muhammad, foretold by all religious,
scientific, historic, fiction and non-fiction
books of the past and present and most likely
not in one but in many languages?
This is how Muhammad is mentioned in the verse
5:16 of the Song of Songs. Do you see the
deception? Isn’t it embarrassing that Muslims
engage in such tricks? Obviously they are not
embarrassed.
All the so called miracles of Islam are of this
kind. They are deceptions. There are no
miracles in the Quran or for Islam, anywhere.
The only miracle is in the fact that over a
billion otherwise sane people have abandoned
reason and follow a man with a questionable
sanity.
The verse 5:16 of Song of Songs does not talk
about Muhammad any more than the above biblical
verses talk about me. This is an erotic poem
that a woman is singing for her beloved. It’s
not a prophecy. It does not talk about
Muhammad, Jesus or anyone else. In fact, as

43
you’ll see below, Muslims have objected to the
very existanc of this poem in a religious text.
The translation of the verse 5:16 is:
his mouth is sweet Hkw mmtqym

and all of him is delights wklw mHmdym

this is my love zh dwdy

and this is my darling wzh r`y

daughters of Jerusalem bnwt yrwshlm

In the above video the first four letters of
the word mHmdym are selected and passed through
the SDL Translator. Of course the dictionary
translates it as Muhammad. If I cut and paste
the first three letters of Alike in the
translator, the online translator will not
recognize the world Alike because this word is
not entered. Instead it recognizes “Ali” as a
proper name.
Do you see how Muslims play their games of
deception? Why smart people allow themselves
to be fooled with such cheap tricks? It’s
because they want to be fooled. Muhammad said
that he is mentioned in the Bible. Muslims must
find him in the Bible at any cost.

44
Let us try to insert the entire verse in the
SDL Translator and see if we still get
Muhammad.
Copy the verse from its sourse.
‫ִי‬
‫ֶה ֵרע‬ ‫וז‬ְ ‫דֹודי‬
ִ ‫ֶה‬
‫ִים ;ז‬
‫ַד‬
‫ֲמ‬
‫ַח‬‫ מ‬,‫ֻּלֹו‬
‫וכ‬ְ, ‫ִים‬
‫ַק‬‫ְת‬
‫ַמ‬‫מ‬, ‫ִּכֹו‬
‫ח‬,
‫ָׁלָׁם‬
ִ‫ְרּוש‬
‫ְנֹות י‬
‫ב‬.
And paste it in the online
translator. http://www.freetranslation.com/
This is what you get.
“His, sweets, is,.; this is my cousin and this
is my daughters, Jerusalem.”
What happened to Muhammad? Muhammad was never
in this verse in the same way that “Ali” does
not exist in the word “alienate, alive or
alike.”
At the end of the video a shameless man by the
name of Abdul Raheem Green lies and says a
rabbi told him Jews will never accept Muhammad
even though they know he is a true
prophet. How shameless can one get?
So what should be done with these obstinate
Jews who know the truth and still reject it?
The answer was given by Muhammad Kadhab (the
liar).

45
“You will indeed fight against the Jews and you
will kill them to the point where the rock and
the tree will say: ‘O Muslim! O ‘Abdullaah
(slave of Allaah)! There is a Jew hiding behind
me. Come and kill him.’ Except for al-Gharqad
for it is from the trees of the Jews.” Sahih
Muslim Book 041, Number 6985:
—-
Here is how Answering-Islam.com responds to
this inane claim.
The Hebrew word mHmdym is a common, and not a
proper noun (i.e. not a name).
The same word occurs again as a common noun in
Hosea 9:6,16; 1 Kings 20:6; Lamentations
1:10,11; 2:4; Isaiah 64:10; 2 Chronicles 36:19;
Ezekiel 24:16,21,25. In the last passage
(Ezekiel 24:16, “the desire of thine eyes”) it
is applied to a woman, Ezekiel’s wife (compare
verse 18), and to the sons and daughters of the
idolatrous Jews (verse 25). It would be just as
wise to apply the word to Muhammad HERE as in
the Song of Songs.
In Arabic many words are formed from the same
root, but they do not on that account denote
Muhammad. An ignorant Muslim might just as well
assert that Muhammad’s name occurred in Surah
1, Al Fatihah, verse 1: Al hamdo lillahi Rabbi

46
‘lalamin (“Praise be to God, the Lord of the
worlds”). In the same way a Hindu might assert
that the name of Ram or some other of his
deities was mentioned in the Qur’an, because in
Sura 30, Ar-Rum, verse 1, we read ” the Romans
have been overcome,” where Arabic dictionaries
give “Rum” as if derived from the root “ram”.
This kind of argument is unworthy of men of
learning and judgment.
A newsgroup article in regard to that:
Song of Songs 5:16 is no more a reference to
Muhammad than it is to
Mumattaq or to David. Finding the name of
Muhammad is child’s play.
Because Arabic and Hebrew share a cognate word
[Hmd], there are of
course several other similar occurrences in the
Hebrew scriptures.
The New Bantam-Megiddo Hebrew & English
Dictionary lists…
Hmd (yHmwd) p covet, lust after
Hmd z delight, loviness
Hmdh n desire, object of desire
Hmdnwt covetousness, lustfulness
It is also interesting to note: Many Muslims
are “outraged” that something like the Song of
Songs by Solomon which is a love song and

47
sometimes very open in its erotic language
could be part of the Word of God, the Bible.
But then, they completely “forget” this
argument and try to find in the middle of this
very same love poem expressing this woman’s
desire for her lover the name of Muhammad and
are not the least embarrassed by this. Have a
look at the whole context of Song of Songs 5-6.
The argument goes: This should not be in the
Bible, such erotic language is unworthy of the
Word of God, but it is a prophecy of Muhammad
nevertheless.
A further problem is that even though Muslims
need to find Muhammad mentioned because the
Qur’an claims so, the Song of Songs is neither
part of the Torah nor the Gospel, so that this
verse wouldn’t help at all to satisfy this
demand of the Qur’an even if it were to speak
about Muhammad.

6-Is Islam for All Mankind? Not

According to the Quran
Muslims are tirelessly promoting Islam and
claim that soon it will dominate the world. In
doing so, they go against the Quran. Therefore,
it is fair to say they are kafir.

48
The Quran 10:47 says, and for every people
there is a Messenger.
And 14: 4 says, And WE have not sent any
Messenger except with revelation in the
language of his people in order that he might
make things clear to them.
If these verses are true, then Islam is not for
non-Arabs. The Quran attests that every people
have received their divine message in their own
language so they can understand it and the
Quran is for Arabs.
This concept is so important that it is
repeated numerous times.
Q. 16:36.
And WE did raise among every people a Messenger
Q. 5:48
For each of you WE prescribed a clear spiritual
Law and a manifest way in secular matters
Q. 32:3
It [the Quran] is the truth from your Lord;
that you [Muhammad] may warn a people to whom
no Warner has come before you, that they may be
guided.
Q. 36.6
[This is a revelation] That thou mayest warn a

49
people whose fathers were not warned, and so
they are heedless.
These verses leave no room for
misunderstanding. Allah is saying that every
people has had their own messenger who warned
them in their own language, and that Muhammad
is for those who have not yet received any
guidance, and whose fathers were not warned,
i.e. the Arabs. In this way they won’t have any
excuse and can’t say, but we did not receive
any message.
Q. 6: 156- 157 explain,
Lest you should say, `The Book was sent down
only to two peoples before us, (Jews and
Christians) and we were indeed unaware of what
they read.
Or lest you should say, `Had the Book been sent
down to us, we should surely have been better
guided than they.’ There has now come to you a
clear evidence from your Lord and a guidance
and a mercy.
The Quran is clear only to Arabs. Non-Arabs
don’t understand it. Muslims insist that no
translation of the Quran can be accurate.
Hence, it can never be clear to non-
Arabs. That makes sense because it is not
intended for non-Arabs.

50
Another confirmation that the Quran was sent
only for the Arabs is in verses 26: 198-199
And if WE had sent it down to one of the non-
Arabs, and he had read it to them, they would
never have believed in it.
Just as Arabs have no reason to believe in a
book written in a non-Arab language, non-Arabs
have no reason to believe in a book written in
Arabic. That is why Allah sends a messenger to
each people in their own language so they
understand. That makes perfect sense.
To make sure there is no misunderstanding the
Quran 5:19 reiterates:
O People of the Book, there indeed has come to
you Our Messenger, after a break in the series
of Messengers, who makes things clear to you
lest you should say, `There has come to us no
bearer of glad tidings and no Warner.’ So a
bearer of glad tidings and a warner has indeed
come to you. And ALLAH has power over all
things.
According to the Quran all people have received
a revelation. The above verse says the Quran is
for those who never received a revelation, lest
they should say, `There has come to us no
bearer of glad tidings and no Warner’.

51
This matter is clear, but Allah wants it to be
clear even to the dumbest of people. He names
the exact geographic location for which
Muhammad was sent.
Q. 6:92
And this is a Book which WE have revealed, full
of blessings, to fulfill that which preceded
it, and to enable thee to warn the Mother of
َّْ ‫ ُأمَّ ا ْل ُقرَى وَ َم‬e ‫ح ْو َل َها‬
towns and those around it. ‫ن‬ َ
The mother of towns, Umul Qura, is Mecca. This
verse says Islam was sent to warn Mecca and its
surrounding ‫ح ْولَ َها‬
َ . How can it be for all
mankind?
Now this point is clear even to the dumbest of
people, But Allah knows some people are really
stupid and he wants to make this matter clear
even to them. So he repeats the same thing in
verse 42:7
Thus have WE revealed to you the Qur’an in
Arabic, that you may warn the Mother of towns,
and all those around it.
I heard some Muslims say, around it means
everywhere. That is not the definition of
around it. When we say Rome and around it, we
don’t include Paris, London, Tokyo and New York
as Romes surroundings. Those who bring this

52
argument are saying that Allah says something
and means something else. In other words he is
deceiving people. The Quran repeatedly claims
to be a “clear book” (5:15) “easy to
understand” (44:58 , 54:22 , 54:32, 54:40)
“explained in detail” (6:114), “conveyed
clearly”, (5:16, 10:15) and with “no doubt” in
it (2:1).
Now, I am sure some Muslims can quote other
verses that say Islam is for all mankind. If
they do so, they will prove that the above
verses are false.
Either the Quran is a pack of lies and
contradictions or it is only for the Arabs of
Mecca and its surrounding. You decide which.

53