Home Page | Links  | Comments | Page 1 | Page 2 | Page 3 | Page 4 | Page 5 | Page 6 | Page 7 | Page 8 | Page 9 | Page 10 | Page 11 | Page 12 | Page 13 | Page 14 | Page 15  

Why I Think The Quran Is Not The Word Of God. (PART 2)


Before I continue I must raise the question, do we really need to be critical of religions or beliefs and practices or actions etc?


My response is that it is absolutely necessary to be critical of beliefs and actions, our own as well as of others. Why?


In short, because we each act out what we believe. The world is a global village and humans in it are a single family. Whatever each of us does anywhere in the world somehow ends up affecting us sooner or later and forces us to react to it. This chain reaction is known as interaction and is the origin of the saying, what goes round comes round.


Since we are all affected by each others actions therefore we each must keep each other in check to make our world a better and a safer place for all of us. This means we all need to have such beliefs as help us achieve this objective and anyone who holds any twisted desires for our world must be stopped in his/her tracks.


At the same time just because we have the said goal does not mean that it will happen all by itself, people must make individual and collective as well as organised effort to make it happen or bring it about. If some people pulled our world one way and the others the other way, it will never become a better place. A dispute between the family members is not a healthy sign if the objective of the family is peace, progress and prosperity, for divided family cannot achieve this objective. Not only that but the family I am talking about does not even agree on its objective or is at least not consistent in its goal or its achievement. So this family therefore first and foremost must decide its goal and the way it is going to go about achieving it. In other words, the world is full of people that are a single family regardless they like it or loathe it, they must get their act together and pull in the same direction for the very same purpose or goal, or else they are not going to make it or achieve it.


Unity is only possible in two ways a) by totally controlling all elements of our society and b) by helping people to see sense and come together for their own good and help each other to the best of their ability to get where we should be.



Now in order to get rid of disputes amongst us, we need to lay down proposals as a formula and thrash them out completely to see which of them will work for our set out purpose, if any, and which of them would not. This requires serious critical examination of all ideas from each and everyone of us and that is where in comes religious criticism as well. It is because each and every religion claims to have perfect solutions to all our problems, thus religions force us to examine them thoroughly to see if any of them stands the necessary scrutiny. If any does, fine otherwise they all must be discarded one by one just like political candidates who make big promises but cannot back them up with substance.


Now the question is, why islam is particularly singled out?


The answer is because all other followers of religions have accepted the idea of partition between religious and state affairs or if you prefer spiritual and secular affairs save muslims. India being a hindu majority state is not based on hindu constitution. Parsees do not have any state of their own, for they are living as minorities in various countries through out the world including India, iran, bangladesh and pakistan. Jews have their own state wherein they are the majority but their state is not based on jewish constitution. The USA, and the european states are mostly christian majority states but their constitutions are not based on christianity. Sikhs do not have their own state either and they too are living in many states as minorities.


None of these people desire religious constitutions, full-stop. Once a people accept that their religion must be kept out of politics, they take away other people's right to criticise it, for their faith becomes personal and non-scriptural therefore private. If you are not taking part in public life as a politician, people have no right to interfere with your private life in that respect. However as soon as you  put forth your self as a political candidate, you are putting yourself on the line for public scrutiny and if you are not up to scratch, you are in for humiliation.


It is therefore up to muslims to accept the separation between the church and the state (or if you prefer the masjid and the state) or face the public scrutiny. No point in complaining after you let the cat out of the bag.



1) The main problem is with ourselves being born ignorant. It takes decades to learn to be able to learn provided our circumstances and environment are helpful for this purpose. Our graduations or even masters do not teach us everything about life, they only prepare us or train us better or enable us to learn things we have not learned during our schooling but are essential for living a well fulfilled worthwhile life. Even the phd is only a first step in this direction hence  the cliché, life is for learning. This is not the only problem we face after our births but also the problem of untangling the issues that for one reason or another have been tangled by one or the other individual or group ie our problems have been compounded by silliness of some people from among us, thanks to their actions out of unawareness of the situation and the serious consequences that ensue.


As we open our eyes and, if lucky, come across a variety of people who believe and do different things, some good others bad, we begin to see the need for understanding what is going on. The problem is created for many of us by childhood brainwashing ie systematic religious dogmatic indoctrination. Religious doctors do say that there is no compulsion in religion but they do not mean it because as soon as a child is born in a community s/he is taught religion and so all her/his curiosity is dissipated the while still a child by providing her/him with all answers in religious context only. This is only the beginning of the problems created by shear unawareness of religious communities as to what it consequentially means in terms of loss to humanity. It is as if one is drugged and then left on one’s own to make sensible decisions for oneself including finding one’s own way in this chaotic world of many tangled paths. The right way to raise a child would have been to educate him/her in general so that one ends up with good commonsense and ability to judge things properly and dispassionately for their truth and benefit to humanity. Once one grows up, both in body and mind, that is the time one may be introduced to religion to judge it for its truth and make a conscious choice for oneself. This clearly shows that religion is not taught honestly even if religion itself is true. The question is why is that the case? There must be some benefit for someone in this who is creating this situation or is continuing it. It does not benefit the child for sure nor humanity at large rather damages it, so the only beneficiary of this system and exercise would seem to be the person who promotes it and even that may not be true in real sense, for such people may well be imagining the imaginary benefits in the imaginary world, for it has no basis in reality.             


2) Beside we being born ignorant the other problem is variety of religions that are available to us to choose from. That is if we are lucky enough to have freedom to choose one, if any. Looking at religions, one will clearly find the evidence that each religion seems to have come from another ie each religion seems to be child of another religion. In case of islam, one can clearly see that doctrine of one god was already around eg jews believed in one god only. In fact the Christians also believe in one god only that has three personalities in form of trinity. There was already concept of prophet-hood, miracles, revelation, divine commandments, worship, forgiveness, chosen people, angels, demons, spirits, heaven or hell etc etc etc just to name the few. There was already history of alleged divine participation in our world. So one may ask, what is new that islam offers that was not there before Muhammad declared his divine messenger-ship?


To understand let us see, what Judaism offered people as a way of life. It was a simplest form of religion to begin with ie originally Moses asked people to believe the jewish god called Yahweh and  that was all till jews became free people. Yahweh then gave moses miraculously the ten commandments as jewish constitutional framework to which some more were added about daily living eg about food, clothes and rituals etc etc. In other words the jewish religion became more and more commandment oriented till people became fed up with it. One may ask, why people got fed up with it? Because if you have more and more commandments, there comes a time when they begin to interfere with daily living more and more leading to eventual strangulation. Let me explain it by help of an example, let say that we have a growing up baby and a dress for him that we reduce in size on daily basis by trimming. Let us take baby’s growth as the daily growth of our world and the reduction of his dress size as the restrictions that are brought about by increasing number of commandments. If baby keeps on growing and the baby’s dress is also trimmed on daily basis and so reduced in its size, there will come a time when eventually baby will not fit in it and will become strangled or suffocated.


Since our world is dynamic and throws up new situations for us on daily basis creating more and more problems for us to solve on daily basis and like wise increasing number of commandments put more and more restrictions on us, eventually there will come a time that restriction would be so many that we will  not be able to function at all in the real world. When this happens people start looking for a way out. This gives birth to new ways of life ie people think enough is enough let us approach the matter in a new way. This creates disputes between people, some who become so used to living in a particular way would not give it up and the other who would not live that way any more. Call them conservatives and liberal perhaps or moderates. Amongst moderates people may split, some trying to modify the old way of life the while the others head for a completely new way of life ie this lays foundation for the birth of a new religion for example. Thus some jews ended up inventing Christianity. The Christianity too was a simple religion when it began but as it too grew and became politically organised, people began to live by commandments rather than by doctrine of salvation alone therefore dissention took over chritianity as well.


So it should not be difficult to imagine as to what islam offered the world that other religions did not. The answer is, originality that was offered by all new religions or cults. Islam too was originally a simple religion concentrating on spiritual aspects of humanity ie having nothing to do with politics. Only faith in one god was the demand. As soon as it grew ie got many followers, jumping into political arena was inevitable for it too. As a result, the commandments came one after the other till they became what we more or less have today. Muslims too ended up divided just as other religious communities before them. 


3) When Islam was simple, there were less number of commandments and so it was less confusing because it had less contradictory elements eg compare life of prophet in makkah to his life in madina. Also compare his early makkan life to his later makkan life when he went to madina and like wise compare his early madinan life to his latter life before his death. The quran does not contain many commandments, so it is not as restrictive as the hadith and the hadith is not as restrictive as fiqh because it too does not contain as many commandments as the fiqh. As we got more and more commandments, life became more and more restricted and in many cases unbearable in muslim states. Now sects began to appear as would reject fiqh, and even hadith amongst muslims as well as those who rejected even the quran partially or completely, turning moderate and even atheists. It is all logical reaction and expected. Thus even prophets began to appear after Muhammad amongst muslims who brought about new versions of islam. So disputes and conflicts between muslims are just the same as between the people of other faiths and that is nothing new. Bhais, ahmadis,  submiters, parwezis, sunnies, shias, nation of islam are all attached to islam despite condemning each other as heretics and even kafirs etc etc. Many from amongst muslims turned atheists.


4) Now question is, can the quran unite muslims? No it cannot. Why not? Because if the quran had the ability to unite people, they would not have separated in the first place to begin with. So looking at their quran for muslims for uniting the muslim ummah is as absurd as looking of hindus to their stone gods for guidance. Because confusing books and silent idols do not have the necessary ability to guide human beings who are born ignorant and have to climb the mount knowledge to be sensible enough to learn from other people’s experiences, which is not easy. Take an example of a curious child who asks question after question to learn but his dad is silent. However, as the child tries to do something his dad suddenly jumps up and down, shouting at him, don’t do this, it is bad. This child stops but after a while he tries to do something else. The dad once again tells the kid don’t do that. So the story goes on and on till child gets fed up with his dad for telling him don’t do this and don’t do that and not making things clear in a simple and straight forward way. Not only that but child also becomes aware that his dad is not helpful to him at all when it comes to guidance to good things in life so that he could go and get them. His dad is only interested in stopping him if he decides to do something which dad does not like for some reason that only dad knows.


The situation is very similar in case of alleged divine guidance and its followers. It is not interested what people need for living their lives, how they may enable themselves to get it or whether they get it at all or go to hell, but one thing is certain that they must find out everything for themselves. If this was not the case, no way   better equipped people could ever be envisaged to have upper hand in competition in this world. Those who are looking for hereafter cannot compete effectively with those competing for better life in this world. These are two opposing objectives, if one goes for one the other becomes out of reach. It is simple as that. Now one has to think about it that if going after this world full speed ahead does not guaranty a better life then how can the half hearted effort for the same when mind is not even focused one way or the other? So it is absolutely necessary that people put their money where there mouth is. Religions therefore clearly interfere and hinder human progress on a grand scale.   


Muslims keep mentioning that people are deliberately disbelieving in islam and doing this or that, it shows that they are not aware of human psychology. How can they be when the quran assumes that people think with heart instead of the brain. A human being can never do anything deliberately wrong knowing full well the truth ie being aware of it and knowing the serious consequences. Humans only and only act out of motivation and that what motivates them they assume it to be worth while thing that somehow benefits them in some way. They never act out against their own self interest knowingly. Even those who claim to be selfless are motivated by personal gain, for that is how they feel comfortable within themselves. So why we do wrong is because we are either mentally insane or ignorant of the truth and the consequences therefore unaware what is to follow. Here the quran is seriously wrong when it keeps telling us that people are rejecting the truth deliberately after knowing it full well and being fully aware of it and the consequences for doing so.

Tell me, would you kill an innocent person and be comfortable with it knowing that you are going to be caught and put
in prison for rest of your life? You will only kill somebody if you are driven to it and yet be able to justify it in your own mind at least, so that it does not make your life hell. Likewise, it is impossible for a psychologically normal minded person to disbelieve in god knowing that he does exist, especially due to the consequences as stated in all the religious scriptures. So Please think about it.

I do not challenge people with wrong ideas and beliefs and never argue with them to accept what I say because I am interested in putting forth the information and let it work out itself on the mind
s of the readers. The human mind always accept what it deems to be right, for it makes sense to it. Human mind does not like confusion because it puts it into awkward position, which makes it feel uncomfortable. This is the reason a contradiction is seen by mind an unacceptable state of existence.

My own peace of mind is important for me and that is why I rather believe what makes better sense to my mind than accept something that I do not understand and remain uncomfortable with it for as long as this situation l

So you see dear friend
s, my approach is very simple, I am only here to share my thoughts regarding various issues for a reason. If they make sense to you, you would have no choice but to accept them because they please your mind and by not accepting what is right you will feel awkward within yourselves, if they do not make sense to you, you have nothing to worry about.

As I already said that the quran is confusing, one may ask, why? Because it contradicts itself, obvious facts and logic and such contradictions only and only confuse human mind. For example, if one person tells the other to believe in one god as well as two gods, what sense would the other person make of it other than get confused? One may ask, does the quran really contradict itself, obvious facts and logic? My view is that the quran contains such faults as are raised in the question but one has to see the quran for oneself for that, it may well be that I may have misunderstood the quran. For example, according to the quran as I understand it, it is ambiguous as well as clear 3/7, 18/1, 43/2-3 etc etc. According to the quran hud hud=hoopoe and ants are cleverer than simple human beings 27/16-35 etc. The quran says that infidels are worse than animals, for they have no sense 7/179 etc.


Problem a) If animals are so intelligent as the quran assumes them to be then they are like people so why Allah is allowing muslims to kill them and eat them? Moreover how right are muslims to contradict the quran when it comes to killing of animals the halaal way by claiming that animals do not feel any pain because they are not intelligent and do not have memories like humans etc?


Problem b) Does the quran not insult nonmuslims by calling them worse than animals just because they hold differing opinions regarding islam 8/55 etc?


Problem c) Does the quran not contradict itself by telling us that the animals are intelligent as well as they are deaf and dumb ie have no sense, for that is the only reason for such a comparison?


Here are other similar verses ; 2/18,171, 5/63, 6/25,39, 7/176, 9/28,34, 10/42, 22/46,73, 25/44, 27/81, 43/40, 47/12, 62/5, 63/4 and there are yet more. The verses will make better sense if one replaces their nonmuslim object by muslim. That is just assume that kafirs are calling all these names to muslims. For example, how would it feel to listen if one said, muslims have no sense, they are worse than animals, they are brain dead, they eat like animals etc etc.... Now animals include dogs and pigs etc etc as well and muslims include prophets and saint as well so if one puts all this together what does it mean? After calling people names you cannot explain them away, can you? For damage is already done. Moreover it is part of muslim prayer to read the quran during slah. How does it sound, one standing up praising the lord and saying kafirs are this and kafirs are that etc etc? What kind of prayer is that in which a person stands up and starts swearing at  other people who are not even there listening to all this rubbish?


Could god not find a better way to express himself and teach muslim better? Especially when it is said in the quran that muslims should discuss things with nonmuslims wisely 16/125, 29/46, 31/19, 41/34. It is like somebody is teaching others to do things nicely but ignores the same oneself. How does this reflect on the teacher ie god himself?


Please read verses and realise the task the hoopoe has carried out. For example, the hoopoe goes on a journey and observe a people in detail and remembers the detail and comes back and explains it to solomon. Can a human kid do that? It clearly shows intelligence like humans at work here. Likewise show intelligence the ants. We deal with ants on daily basis and you can see how many are killed under our feet, they do not detect the danger even so close nor run for cover in time and end up crushed never mind sensing the danger from a distance as these ants do according to the quran. Again a human kid is not able to do that? I do not say that these things were cleverer than all human beings but they certainly appear to be more intelligent than a lot of people. Thus we have double contradiction in the quran ie talking nicely as well as insultingly to infidels etc and animals intelligent as well as dumb.


The next issue is of fairness ie treating each other fairly. First, the verses according to which the quran itself demands that people treat each other fairly 2/182, 4/58,135, 5/35,48, 7/29, 16/90, 17/35, 39/29, 42/40, 55/8-9, 83/1-3 etc etc…... Now the verses that seem to contradict these verses.


Problem 1) The verse 4/34 is backed by 38/44. In 4/34, Allah legalises wife beating and in 38/44 explains it by an example that it is ok to beat up your wife, for that is what prophet job=ayub intended and did to his wife. The question is, if men are allowed to beat up their wives for their actions or mistakes, are wives also allowed to beat up their husbands for similar actions or mistakes? The answer is, no. The question is, is that fair? Do husbands never make such mistakes that they may need such treatment by their wives? Please do realise that legalising something and individual acts are two different things. For example, in UK wife beating is illegal but individuals still do it or that in islam drinking is illegal but many muslims still do it. By allowing something, law is letting the individual decide to do as one pleases. Thus in my view the quran is giving man unfair advantage our woman in this matter and thus it is contradicting itself.


Problem 2) In 2/228 we are told that men are a degree better than women. This means that needs, wants, desires etc etc... of men as per Islamic law are superior as compared to needs etc etc …... of women. Is this fair?


Problem 3) In 4/3, 24 etc men are allowed to have up to four wives at the same time and unlimited female slaves to sleep with. Being able to divorce wives at will, husbands can change wives as they wish. In contrast to this women cannot have more than one husband at the same time and they cannot divorce their husbands at will ie they must get divorce through raising the legal action for this purpose. Now is that fair? Also can a muslim woman have male sex slaves and sleep with them, for this time children will belong to her regardless who the father is because she own the slaves may be inherited them from her father? If not, why not and is that fair? Also muslim men are allowed to marry nonmuslims women but women are not, is that fair?


Problem 4) According to 4/11, 176 etc, sons are allowed to inherit double the share as compared to daughters of their parents, is this fair? If women do not need shares because they are looked after by their male relatives then why give them any share at all?


Problem 5) A woman’s testimony on her own is not acceptable even in civil matters 2/282, is that fair?


Problem 6) Islam allows slavery it is obvious according to many verses and these slaves are not only infidels but muslims as well. This means islam allows master slave concept and thus no matter how good slaves are treated ultimately they do not have the same legal rights as masters and that is what is questionable ie it is not fair and thus the quran contradicts itself. The case is same with husband and wife ie wife is just a slave.


Problem 7) In 2/178 in case of a murder the law dictates to kill, a free person for a free person, a slave for a slave and a woman for a woman etc etc. This is an ancient tribal custom taken in by islam as well. Why, because only tribal people make such demands of each other ie if you kill a member of my tribe I want an alike person to die in your tribe regardless who the actual murderer is. For example, if a woman of your tribe kills a man of my tribe than I am not going to kill her but a person from your tribe that is like the person of my tribe who was murdered eg young for young and old for old etc. One has to ask, if to do this is fair ie kill the person other than the murderer in retaliation?


Problem 8) A fugitive prophet ie moses 28/15,19,33 and killing of an innocent boy 18/74,80, 37/102 and heavenly law 5/35, 25/68 etc. The lesson is that if a muslim kills a kafir, he does not need to own up to it and can run away like moses. God is not just happy with that but makes moses his messenger and an example for muslims to follow. Not only that but even if a muslim fears that a boy is going to grow up and turn in to a kafir he too does not deserve to live. And there is not even compensation for the death of a kafir when killed by a muslim by accident unless there exists some treaty for that between muslims and kafirs 4/92. Moreover Abraham is ready to kill his innocent son for allah the while allah forbids killing of an innocent person without necessity. In fact the quran forbid killing even of animals without necessity. Do these verses not show unfairness and contradictions?


Problem 9) The problem with religious beliefs and scriptures is that if you try to clarify their seeming contradictions in some verses they create contradiction/s with other verses elsewhere in the scripture. For example, if we look at 33/4 and 58/2 then we are told that our mothers are only and only those ladies who gave us the birth. Let us leave aside the fact that eggs and sperms could be donated so biological parents could be different from the parents who give birth or adopt or raise us. The quran then tells us that prophet's wives are your mothers see 33/6 and yet another surprise that he is not father of any man 33/40. The related issue is also of adoption ie the quran does not allow adoption 33/6, yet tells that it is ok for a man to marry the wife of his adopted son 33/37. I would not go into the detail of the fact that the prophet had secret desire for wife of his adopted son 33/37. Nor how can one marry one’s adopted son’s wife if adoption is no longer allowed? All Allah had to do here was to nullify the custom and that would have cleared the way for the prophet without introduction of the contradiction in the quran.


This will do for the example and in my view it would not be correct for muslims to say that that is how the world works therefore the law had to be so. This only justifies man made laws because man is unable to create or for that matter change much the universe and its circumstances and environments so he has to work or do things within set limits of nature, however case is different for god ie he ought to create the universe and its circumstances and environments that were suitable for his law that he was going to give to people to live by ie universe ought to be purpose build. He needed to make sure that there is no conflict between the natural existence of things as he created them and his laws or that he ought to send laws that were right for the kind of universe and the things and their circumstances in it. If in this universe, men had to look-after women then he should not have dictated fairness because that would cause conflict in the commandments of god, which would lead people to confusion.


When we form organisations, we draw up constitutions and make laws etc as we need them not that we form organisations and just make laws disregarding our needs, circumstances and environments. We do not set up too high standard for required evidence that is impossible to obtain for bringing a charge against an accused as is the case in islam regarding adultery or rape. Nor should we put up so harsh sentences that give no second chance. Man can make mistakes but god should not.


So one can see how clear the quran and therefore islam is when it comes to guidance of human beings who are not only born ignorant but have been messed up by religious indoctrination as well by each and every religion they are born in. How many such huge problem can a tiny human being face and figure out for himself before the divine guidance steps in to serve its allegedly divine purpose for him?


This is why people like myself take religions to be problems rather solutions for our problems. The question is not only whether any of the religions is true or false, can guide us or not but also whether we have raised our awareness sufficiently to judge them for what they really are or not?


As I stated in my other posts already that religion as a god sent guidance based upon proof does not exist. All the existing alleged divine scriptures prove to be false and manmade, yet religion as a way of life is necessary but it has to remain relevant and so must evolve with humanity as it has been.


For example, one may ask, what is the ultimate purpose of living things in life? The answer seems to be, survival. How do they survive? By trying to live for as long as they can and by trying to multiply as much as they can by using the best possible method they could adopt under natural circumstances and environments eg humans procreate sexually. No method is 100% perfect hence the natural design is chance based rather than being purpose built comprehensively ie it involves trial and error. A purpose build method works each and every time for the set purpose but the chance is random ie it may work or may not. The chance factors in human reproduction include;


a) A person may not be born as a proper male or a proper female due to genetic disorder in order to be able to reproduce.


b) Even if male and female are able to produce sperms and eggs, these sperms and eggs may not be as good as needed to become proper new individuals.


c) Even if sperms fertilize eggs and produce new individuals, these individuals may not survive to reproduce and so the cycle of process involved in reproduction continues.


Do people have sex for procreation only or would they? No, because even though ultimate purpose of human sexuality is to help humans survive through reproduction by means of sex, nobody has sex for that purpose alone but that that is the by-product of this process. In fact, to have kids is becoming more and more a matter of conscious decision for to be parents. In this respect therefore humans are driven to sex by their genetic make up to actively seek sex as a pleasant bodily function and experience as soon as their hormones kick in.


It is a matter of fact that unless our parents due to social systems did not put some conditions in this path we would be into sex fully and completely as soon as we grew up sexually. In my view it is therefore wrong to condemn people for having sex for pleasure ie treat sex as something dirty or downright evil. However, pleasure means the pleasure of parties involved not the individual through forced sex ie abuse of others eg husband forcing himself on wife even when she rather not have it.


As for social conditions, they were originally brought in to limit the negative results from the sexual pleasure eg sexual abuse or unwanted children etc. As part of animal family we humans are same as animals when it comes to having sex just like we all eat. However being more intelligent and better educated, we are always trying to consciously control our sexual urges so that this process does not cause harmful effects even though it continues to do so but at a reduced level.


Now these social constraints that have been brought about by human societies depended upon the social circumstances and environments within which individuals interacted. People therefore have been improving them always. In order to stop unwanted children for whom no one cared for example, law of marriage was brought in and sex outside marriage was prohibited.


In order to judge whether marriage was a good thing or not, one has to look at it in sense of relative improvement in human society. So compare people having unrestrained sex and having far too many unwanted kids leaving them to suffer in the street. The problems these kids caused for society when they grew up and reacted by paying back to society what they got from it always raised concerns from different angles. The idea of marriage made parents responsible for their kids and kids responsible for their parents, thus old folks did not die the terrible death of loneliness. This without doubt cut down number of unwanted kids and elderly parents even though all parents may not have brought up their kids up right. Nonetheless every little helps in evolutionary process ie little bit improvement is better than  none at all.


As people used to have sex with anyone they liked, the law of marriage needed some teeth to bite hence sex outside marriage was punishable severely to make marriage idea work and it did. Since conflict of interest was there for all living things right from the beginning without exception of humanity, hence all species did not stand the equal chance of survival nor all the members of the very same species. The case being the very same for the humans, some had to take over others hence people enslaved each other. Thus in primitive societies some men were allowed more wives and slave girls, some more than others. The idea was simple that those who could not look after themselves should be looked after by others. In return these masters had the right to use their wives and slaves and children as they wished. Again this solved some social problems and perhaps created some as well, for not all parents are good parents nor all masters are good masters. After all we are all equally human beings and have limits hence some are capable of taking care of themselves while others not etc etc erc.....


The purpose of this discussion is to show that human progress is relative and gradual not instant. This is nature at work not heavenly appointed religions. Religions simply adopted these things and turned them into permanent rules fixed in their nature, numbers, time or place, which then ended up stopping further progress and development of humanity.


In primitive human societies it took them ages to realise that unwanted kids and parents were a problem. After they solved that problem and society developed a bit over a very long time they began to see that slavery too was a problem. They began to solve this problem by forbidding it and provided people with help through educational institutions and charities to look after themselves.


Thereafter further development in human thought over a very long period of time, people realised that wife beating was not a good idea either, so they began to do something about that as well. It is only a more recent development that people are beginning to realise that even more than one wife is not a good idea nor is the child beating a good thing. Yet more recent development is, people living together without the need for marriage and appearance of gay and lesbian marriages here and there.


This does not mean that whatever has happened already was a good thing but that we people did not realise it. To realise things is a very slow process looking back at our origin and how we gradually became sensible and thoughtful human beings but we still have a very long way to go. Just as it was not a piece of cake to develop mentally and realise our problems, likewise any correction measures taken to solve the problems also took time to become effective, for people do not and cannot be changed overnight. Even if a person’s mind accepts a fact as a fact, it may not be able to adopt to it. For example, think about something you do not like eating or drinking the while you have no problems with others eating or drinking it.


So one can see that human progress and development is relative and alleged divine religions are fixed in time eg islam is stuck in 7th century Arabian setting and is therefore confusing as well as due to its contradictory dogmas. This proves religions not only false but worse still useless for our time and perhaps in some cases very damaging and even dangerous. It is in this context that religions must be got rid of if humanity is to survive. This is how I see things from where I stand and that is the reason the quran must be discarded, for it has no useful purpose as a divine writ.






Why I Think The Quran Is Not The Word Of God. (PART 4)



2) Concept Of Jihad And The Quran



For online quranic translations visit the following link.



NO COMPULSION IN RELIGION 2/256, 60/8, 109/6 etc.


My understanding is that the quran commands its follower to make nonmuslims embrace islam by all means including force and violence.



Here is why I reached this conclusion.


A) The quran divides the world into two groups, believers and unbelievers. The believers are called the party of Allah and the unbelievers are called party of satan  4/76, 5/59, 58/19-22 etc.


B) The quran clearly states that Allah has sent islam to overcome all other religions 9/33, 14/27, 37/173, 40/51, 48/28, 61/9, 66/6. Moreover it is promised that believers will overcome the unbelievers, perhaps, to give them the sense or encouragement that they should. Not only that but muslim are told to be harsh on nonmuslims, overcome them and humiliate them as much as possible.


C) The ways and means of propagating islam are also stated in the quran eg exchanging ideas nicely to convince the other side 16/125, 25/63, 29/46, 31/18-19 etc etc. Also by insulting, provoking and threatening the other side 2/6-20, 170-171, 6/25, 39, 7/176, 179, 8/55, 59-67, 9/28, 34, 10/43, 21/51-69, 22/46, 73, 25/44, 27/20-44, 80, 31/9, 35/22, 43/40, 46/26, 47/4, 12, 62/5, 63/4, 66/6 etc etc.


The idea seems to be that when weak talk to people nicely to convince them. When no longer weak, just invite people to islam even by provoking them by insults. Should this result in an armed attack, be ready to defend. However, when strong, just order infidels to turn muslims or all hell is going to break loose upon them.


In case of war, go for mass murder do not take captives till you have killed a good number of them and they are well humiliated. The captives are further humiliated by way of being looted and enslaved for good. Their women and children are humiliated by way of slavery. Their women have to sleep with anyone whoever can force himself upon them. I rather abstain from putting too much detail here, for people should read the holy quran and the hadith for themselves in this regard and see what kind of battles were fought by muslims at the time and how they treated their enemies when they had overcome them.


The quran not only condones tribal warfare but takes it a step further in the wrong direction in a more organised and forceful way. The other way to look at the quran is to see its revelational sequence ie which sura or verses were revealed before or after which. This helps to see how muslims behaviour changed as they gained more and more power and older laws were redundant by rule of abrogation. For example, no compulsion in religion verses were revealed earlier than those that cancel them by way of abrogation as is clearly stated in eminent sunni and shia tafaseer or commentaries on the quran.


I am not looking for justifications of these action on the basis of history and historical context but from the perspective of divinity and divine messenger-ship. We can assume for argument sake that the other people were barbarian but purpose of islam was allegedly not to respond in kind but to turn them into sensible human beings. At least that is what is preached nowadays about islam. The quran and the hadith as well as Islamic history tell us a very confusing but telling story.


Some stories in ahadith are not worth posting because they are so graphic about blood shed and mass rape of captured women, they are so low in morality, even tribals used to deal with each other better than that.


My view is that muslim writers have been hyping up stories to create a better contrast for muslims as a better people in sense of their power rather their morals or ethics. However, in reporting things, they made serious errors by not leaving any room for justifying things under the label of ethics ie universally accepted rules of decency.


For example, most Islamic books would have us believe that people in Arabia in time of Muhammad were ignorant, worthless, barbarian and had no respect for life or liberty etc etc. Muhammad came and brought them out of this depth of immorality and darkness of ignorance etc etc.


We are also told that some of these people were literate and very sensible who were businessmen and produced very good pieces of literature etc etc. For example, when muslims talk about the challenges of the quran as to none could produce like it, they very proudly state that the eminent scholars of Arabia at the time could not produce a single sura like that of the quran. So where do these scholars of Arabia suddenly pop out from amongst people in depths in darkness? We are also told that makkah was a centre of trade and commerce. This also means these people were very peaceful and progressive, for it is impossible for such things to happen unless right conditions exist for them. You cannot have a thriving trade centre in middle of war torn city or country. If arabs were busy in tribal warfare then how did Muhammad get married into a different religion family? This indicates the fact that relationship between various tribes belonging to different religious background were really good or why would jews and Christians etc do business with arab pagans and give them jobs or even go for intermarriages etc etc?


To me it would seem that it were muslims who are to be blamed for whatever went wrong after the declaration of Muhammad’s prophet-hood. Somebody is scheming here and fingers would point to a person or a group that has caused this disharmony in a people who are all living peacefully and going about their daily business successfully.


It seems that muslims have been having designs right from the word go to dominate the world. The reason why islam spread so fast and wide is not that Muhammad managed to convince so many people about the truth of islam over night, which jews failed to do then and muslims fail to do today -even though people are more civilised and better educated- but that Arab world was caught by surprise. People who are living peacefully do not expect to be suddenly attacked from all sides. Once a few people joined together in scheming and brought along some members of their tribes, it was not possible for individual tribes to combat them. And as the number grew it gave muslims a great advantage. Most of all it was an easy way to earn one’s livelihood ie by conquering, looting and enslaving people and being praised for it.


The idea is very similar in some suicide bombing campaigns. Even useless people become heroes over night. This fact took ages for America to realise that because people praise these people for carrying out such acts, some really get the buzz out of dying for such causes. Imagine a young lad who is broke and so has no future prospect and no girl would even look at him never mind marry him, suddenly beautiful girls crying for him and shouting his name. I do not mean by this that all causes are useless and so are all those who take part in them but that this is a factor in this story.               


Anyway lets go back, I am talking about problems with my understanding of islam ie in this case my problem with concept of jihad.


I am quite aware of the fact that some muslims take it to mean struggle in general or a defensive war not an offensive war in the name of islam. However, the sense I get after reading the quran and hadith is that in islam jihad is an offensive war as well. For example, notice the emphasis in the quran on war, verses after verses in sura after sura are devoted to it. You do not emphasise things that are not important that way, do you? Also read in the quran the story of King Solomon in sura 27/20-44. He suddenly finds by hoopoe that a people worship the sun etc and invites them to give their this belief up for islam or they will have to face the wrath of his army.


Since there is a lesson in the quran for those who follow it, the lesson here seems to be quite clear that if you can then stop people by force if you have to from having beliefs against islam regardless where-ever they are on the earth or whether they bother you or not. Moreover notice the loss of temper of Solomon when he says, how he is going to deal with hoopoe. Solomon is not only a king to muslims but a divine prophet as well, whose example must be followed.


Take the story of Abraham 21/51– 71 etc. He is hell bent on teaching idol worshipper a lesson. To make his point he breaks their idols in their temple into pieces thus defiles their holy shrine or religious holy place. Is this not a provocative act? Was it at all necessary to make the point Abraham made? Nonetheless muslim must follow Abraham, says the quran 60/4-6.