Why I Never Converted To Islam

Warning: I wrote this because I am sick of Muslim liars like Zakir Naik and Yusuf Estes, and “Peace TV” in general. Muslim activists (such as Zakir Naik) employ deceptive tactics in their attempts to sugar coat Islam's image, thus making it more attractive to prospective converts. I’m going to expose Zakir Naik and Yusuf Estes. This article is over 19,400 words long. This article contains Buddhist, Christian, Sikh and Hindu apologetics and takes a dim view of Islam.
The reason I use the word Muhammadan extensively over the words Muslim or Islam is explained in section 9b.
Contents:
Use CTRL + F plus a relevant number to easily get to the various sections.
1.	A brief note from the author
2.	Introduction
3.	Using Islamic texts to justify biased in favour of Islam Islamic texts(circular logic and its flaws)
4.	What I believe happens after death...
5.	Extra dimensions we cannot see, “demons”, ancient aliens and how they affect “prophets”
6.	Destiny and deities
7.	Historical errors of Islam (I had fun with this one and be sure to read sections 1 and 3 first)
8.	Questions Muslims don’t have the answer to...
9.	Tengrism plus the crescent moon on Lord Shiva’s head and other similarities Islam has with Hinduism (be sure to read section 7 first)
10.	Science in Koran? (he didn’t need to be literate as he was still capable of learning)
11.	The Biblical criteria for a “true prophet” and apologist Sami Zaatari’s apparent error...
12.	Apparent copying of the Koran and the result of 365x23
13.	A brief look at some contradictions in the Koran
14.	Why does the Koran have no errors?
15.	Some things for Muslim apologists to search for!
16.	Conclusion

Section 1: A brief note from the author
Muhammadans often say people who aren’t Muhammadans don’t know Muhammadan history every well (and say that it is to be expected) yet they don’t know the history of the religion of Kaffir very well. This evident when Yusuf Estes says Alexander the Great started the Catholic Church*, or when he says King James had no input in the creation of the King James Version of the Bible*. The Muhammadans are very cynical and deceptive. Muhammadans don’t know the meaning of the word context and take verses (or sometimes only part of a verse) from the Bible/Torah and Hindu scriptures at face value (that is to accept something exactly the way it appears to be) without exploring the verses around them which would completely destroy their arguments; therefore I shall be taking verses from the Koran at face value, like the Muhammadans do to the verses of non-Muhammadan religious texts. I don’t claim to be a scholar of any kind. I’m simply using their own approach to the religious texts of infidels. Muhammadans also like to misrepresent the views of scientists: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eu1p3-Hy1gk
*See section 9.
I don’t care what any Muhammadans have to say about my interpretations because non-Muhammadan theists are sick and tired of the double standards employed by these Dawah, and for the record Muhammad, is not in the Svetasvatara Upanishad (or any Hindu text), nor is he predicted in the Bible, Torah, or anywhere else outside of the fervent imagination of the propagators of the Muhammadan fairy tales. The desperation of some Dawah is laughable, and I do indeed laugh at Ahmed Deetat’s lack of knowledge of the Hebrew and Greek languages*. If the Muhammadans are going to be stubborn with their argumentation that been refuted time and again, then I will be stubborn with my argumentation too.
Video about the Hebrew language: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=od-xkRDw6nk
I find it funny that Islamic Awareness accesses Hindus of:
“Hence Hinduism has a lot of problems on account of misinterpretation of sacred texts as well as adulteration of sacred texts.”
http://www.islamawareness.net/Hinduism/hindu.html
The first verse in the article from the Koran is clearly denunciation of the Bible, and has nothing to do with the Hindu text it is being compared to. I’m sure anyone with even the most basic knowledge of Hinduism could easily refute this silly argumentation. Well that’s the moron Zakir Naik talking right there; always in denial, always employing his double standards. Probably with his fake Jadadguru Shankaracharya of Puri as well? Who knows? He is a dirty man and the funny thing is millions of Muhammadans blindly believe what he says, despite his obvious lack of scientific or Biblical knowledge. Look it up. You silly Muhammadans will never be able to change me. With that said, we can move on.

Section 2: Introduction
This article is over 19,400 words long and I may add more and edit bits as I see fit over time, as I gain more knowledge, because knowledge is power.
What’s interesting is “fern message not good” is anagrammatic reference to “not a messenger of god”, and there will be more on ferns when I discuss apparent science in the Koran because ferns, along with many other living things, defy a particular verse in the Koran. They’ll be more on that later but for now I want to say a few things about why I am writing this article.
If people who aren’t Muhammadans treated history or science like the Muhammadans do, there would be a huge outcry, death threats even, like people such as James White and David Wood have to put up with, simply for exposing the lies of the Muhammadan religion, albeit from a Christian perspective. Yet the amount of twisting, bending and general deception Muhammadans do in order to try and prove their point is ridiculous. Between fake Shankaracharyas used for talks on the Muhammadan religion and people who were never who they claimed to be before converting to Islam – I don’t know where to start. So why Muhammadans, why the double standards?
A preliminary note from me the author: I consider myself an Atheist because I don’t worship any gods. I consider ancient contact with aliens is the reason for religion, and Erich von Däniken has influenced me, as has Rosa Luxemburg, who says: “freedom is always freedom of the dissenter, for the one who thinks differently”. If you believe in freedom, then you’ll accept that I have a right to my views, even if you disagree with them. The freedom of one person ends where that of another person begins. With what I just said in mind, I am not what you would say is a “stereotypical Atheist” as some of my propositions differ slightly, though I still retain some traditional atheistic ideas.
However, I must mention I do have my doubts about the big bang, but that doesn’t mean I should praise your god(s). Just like the big bang, the idea that deities exist, is an explanation for things which currently cannot be explained, and society advances we gain more logical explanations for things. I don’t think anyone will ever be able to concisely prove how time (the universe) began; therefore it cannot be proved a god(s) started time either, outside of books written by mortals. I say time, because there can be an infinite number of universes created by choice and chance, and if we can travel between universes I think we may discover some religions do not exist in those versions of reality. I don’t see not being able to prove the big bang as being a reason for being part of a religion.
However I do find it odd that someone would come along and corrupt Christian teaching and that echoes of Hinduism have found their way into all major world religions (though the Christian trinity is debatable because it is an explanation not a representation). Protestant Christianity appears to have the least to do with Hinduism, and those arrogant Muhammadans are in for a real shocker.
In order to prove the Koran wrong, Adnan Rashid says in a debate* with James White, you must prove the Bible is the infallible word of god. This is certainly not the case, and by examining the history of Mecca and Kaaba of Mecca and the lack of history for the Hanif religion, we discover it is ridiculously easy to prove the Koran is in error. Circumstantial evidence (which even if included as accurate would not make Mecca or its Kaaba any only than Christianity) and Muhammadan sources aren’t good enough. What Adnan Rshid basically says in the debate is the (Gnostic) Gospel of Thomas is more reliable than the entire New Testament simply because it exists.
This is quite obviously gross double standards on the part of the Muhammadan. I go into these debates looking for religion, but wrongly assuming one person is right the other person is wrong, and that I think has been my mistake. The Gospel of Thomas does not directly point to Jesus' divinity; it also does not directly contradict it, and therefore neither supports nor contradicts Gnostic beliefs, although Adnan refuses to critically analyze it in the same way as the Bible. Adnan has not thoroughly researched the Bible and simply quotes people who agree with what the Koran allows him to accept, regardless of their credibility.
*Debate:
http://www.premierradio.org.uk/listen/ondemand.aspx?mediaid={1edf8609-c764-4e40-8281-64bcfe0a02da}
At this point you can skip to section seven unless you want a justification for my Atheism, but to be honest I was actually considering return to religion, just not Islam. I find it interesting that the mother of Yusuf Estes no less, refused to accept Islam and died a Christian, in spite of his convincing lies and his tendency to make things up on the spot. He’s supposed to be a Sheikh and yet he could not convince his own mother to convert to Islam.

Section 3: The Flaws of circular logic
Firstly, I want to say a few things. Whoever controls the past controls the future. Whoever controls the present controls the past. It is easier to create a dead man than a living one. History tends to be written by the winners. The Muslim sources are obviously written by Muslims are therefore biased in favour of the Muhammadan religion. They are not going to tell Muslims what they don’t want the Muslims to know. The Hadith have been under a Muslim microscope and give a largely airbrushed view of Muhammad. If I were to quote the Hadith I’d be in enemy territory, unless of course what the Hadith is saying supports my interpretation of the Koran, in which case Muslims are in trouble.
Although there are hints in certain Hadith that the Koran has been corrupted, they are not going to outright admit “the Koran has been corrupted” or “certain parts of the Koran have been lost”. It is only natural that the Muslim sources want to give Muslims a false sense of security and put a positive spin on events which would otherwise cause the Muhammadan religion to fall to pieces. I can make the Muhammadan religion fall to pieces anyway, without quoting any of the Muhammadan sources, purely by examining the absurd claims the Muslims make about history and through comparison with Hinduism, since Muhammadans like to make the claim that the Muhammadan religion is devoid of Pagan practises (though it cannot be proved archeologically that the Kaaba of Mecca is older than Hinduism). And this is before I even touch on some of the absurd science in the Koran, which should be the final nail in the coffin for the Muhammadan religion, if it hasn’t already died by this point.
Now I want to bring your attention to this image:
http://www.justsaypictures.com/images/the-bible-cycle.jpg
What this image is saying (and it can apply to any religious text), is that we know the Bible is the word of god because the Bible says so and we know the Bible is the word of because it is infallible and it goes around in a cycle. Obviously, someone who wrote such a book would want to cover their tracks, and at present, I don’t accept that either book (Bible or the Koran) is the word of a god.
We can put the Koran in the place of the Bible in the above image. We cannot used a flawed book to justify the same flawed book, because what is written inside of that book. The book itself is saying it’s not flawed when in fact it is flawed but people believe it isn’t because that’s what the book is saying. The book only tells you what it wants you to believe. What the image is saying “we know this is the word of god because it says so” (but we have not cross examined this book as we just assume it’s correct). Muhammadans can use the same logic, and this article is specifically to counter them, since I believe the Bible has taken enough of a battering over the years, so it’s now the turn of the Koran.
Ok then, here I am with a book I recently acquired. I turn the first of this book and inside it says “This book is the word of god”. On the next page is goes onto say “The word of god is incorruptible, therefore this book has not been, and cannot be corrupted” and it also says in places “the person whom this book was revealed to was illiterate”.  That’s what person or people writing book wants you to believe, though it doesn’t matter if the person if the person is literate or not and I will discuss that later.
The book I have with me says it is the word of god, and you saw that it said that; therefore it must be the word of god. Of course you know it’s not really the word of god because I just pulled the book out of thin air. But why is the argument ridiculous when referring to my book but not yours? One thing I have noted is that history is always written by the winners because they live to tell the tale of their version of events whilst the losers tend to perish. The further we go back in time, the more obscure the truth becomes. Is it perhaps then that you have an emotional investment in your book being the word of god?
We are told Uthman burnt many copies of the Koran, not to hide anything, but for the sake of unanimity. Yet I’m pretty sure this is what we are wanted to believe. If a lie is passed down through history it is eventually treated as a fact. Do you honestly expect me to believe the Koran has been uncorrupted? Why do the seven Aruf exist then? It almost sounds as if this is something Muhammad came up with as a heat of the moment sort of thing because some people were reciting the Koran differently to others. Rather than admit there has been corruption he says both ways of reciting the Koran are correct and claims there are seven different ways, yet the doctrine of the seven Aruf is not supported by any verse in the Koran, and nobody really knows what these seven different ways are.
Muhammadan don’t treat the religions of others fairly and honestly so I’m going to have a dab at some pseudo scholarly Muhammadanism. After all, any claims a Muhammadan makes about other religions tend to be pseudo scholarly. Muhammadans like to parade fake Hindu Shankaracharyas and fake ex-Christian ministers so I’m just giving them a taste of their own medicine if you will. We are told “unauthentic” Hadith were disposed of. As the Hadith have airbrushed the life of Muhammad because they are Muhammadan accounts, we can postulate that he is guilty of genocide.

Section 4: My views on death
It’s only natural for a religious text to say there is a god.  It’s not going to say there is no god or that it’s not the word of god because it doesn’t want you to believe that. It wants you to believe what it wants. Religion is a way of controlling people, and the idea of hell/underworld is scaremongering of the worst kind. There have in fact been documented cases of reincarnation (like that boy who remembered the life of a World War Two fighter pilot), and reincarnation seems to agree with notion in psychics that energy cannot be created or destroyed. With that in mind, reincarnation isn’t necessarily supernatural (and can eventually be explained by science) and reincarnation is what I believe happens after death. Monotheism doesn’t given a satisfactory explanation.
Cases of reincarnation that don’t have a religious bias:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WoSrzpLoODo
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_EWwzFwUOxA
Humanity has recently discovered the Higgs Boson “god particle” at a sigma of five (sigma of five is the best, but I personally had no doubts that it was there all along so the bit about sigma is merely an addition), so who knows where science will lead us next now that we live in an age where religion tends not to hold us back. Maurice Bucaille is the main reason people think there is science in the Koran because he wrote a book on the subject, despite never actually becoming a Muslim. If he was so sure of science in the Koran why is there no evidence of him becoming a Muslim? It almost sounds like Maurice Bucaille want to make some quick money at the expense of millions, and indeed his book sold. People didn’t claim science in the Koran until recently or maybe I’m the blind one? Why isn’t Maurice Bucaille a Muslim then? If there really was any new science in the Koran we may all be Muslim already and Arabian countries would be the ones producing technology rather than buying. Instead their economies rely almost exclusively on oil, and exploiting the Earth in general.
A short video about the Maurice Bucaille connection:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y8A9DEeglXI
An explanation of the Higgs Boson:
http://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Higgs_Boson

Section 5:
This section will come later. The idea of extra dimensions beyond the ones that we can see has varying effects on each of the religions discussed in the article (Buddhism, Christianity, Hinduism and Muhammadan). I know what I want to write here, but I feel there are more pressing issues, so I’ll leave it for later. Besides, I’m currently undecided on whether to follow a religion, and I do have some questions about Christianity.

Section 6: Destiny and deities
As I will reiterate, I am taking the verses of the Koran at face value and use the same tactic Muslims use when reading the religious books of others. They take Biblical verses and text from the Vedas at face value so I am merely doing the same thing they do. So everybody has to die sooner or later (which is obvious) then why does Koran 5:3 exist?
5:3 says: “Whoso is forced by hunger, not by will, to sin: (for him) lo! Allah is Forgiving, Merciful.”
If god is all seeing and all knowing god will have planned out our lives so if there is a famine it will be because that's what god wanted, therefore god deciding when we die so we have no reason to eat the pork. If we’re going to have the argument about pork then why not ban breathing and drinking too? I can get water intoxication/over hydration and too much water can have a negative effect on the process of osmosis in the body. If I breathe too quickly I can hyperventilate, and can also breathe in second hand smoke from smokers, fumes, haze, dust, insects, spores, airborne bacteria (like Legionella), viruses, diseases from coughs and sneezes and toxins in general - respiration about as dangerous as eating pork.
 In theory any meat can give you diseases. I could get bird flu or salmonella from eating chicken or Orf from touching a lamb, but these deities don’t seem to have anything against these meats. If I stop eating certain food because of diseases, then I should stop breathing and drinking too, so I cannot suffer any ill effects from the intake of air or water. Today we have better cooking, storage and agricultural methods, but it seems these deities don’t change with the times. I should also be mentioned that some cuts of lamb contain more fat than a typical cut of pork (i.e. the common cuts you find at the average supermarket).
There is another verse in the Koran that caught my eye, and it says:
4:79 “Whatever of good befalleth thee (O man) it is from Allah, and whatever of ill befalleth thee it is from thyself. We have sent thee (Muhammad) as a messenger unto mankind and Allah is sufficient as Witness.”
I wonder, is there is a similar verse in the Bible? After all, it’s convenient for Christians to say that “god gave us free will”. But then I wonder why the Koran would go through the monumental effort of rewording the Bible (which took twenty-three years; ample time to perfect the new book). There must have been something in it for someone (or people) to go through the effort of rewording it. The Bible will be my next target.
What that verse is basically saying, is if something bad happens it’s not gods fault, even though this “Allah” will have created black holes, Sol and meteorites. We cannot affect the trajectory Earth though the universe so if we are sucked into a black hole it is somehow not gods fault even though this “Allah” created black holes knowing what they could do. In the same way, we cannot (yet?) control Sol, our sun, so when it inevitably dies and consumes the Earth in the process this is again not gods fault even though god created Sol in such a way that it would eventually die an destroy the Earth as we know it in the process.
Let’s look at the verse another way. Why is it that more people die in the most religious countries? The deities they worship should be thanking them for their loyalty and never ending stream of prayers, because whenever something they can’t explain happens they put it down to a deity. But what do these deities reward them with? The lone mother prays constantly for her lost child because her god(s) have rewarded her peoples’ loyalty with famine and natural disasters, a tropical storm perhaps, and then if that wasn't enough, an earthquake as well. With a tsunami added in for good measure too. Yet her child is eventually found dead, whilst that of the mother in a society less concerned with deities is more likely to live. This is how the deities reward the loyalty of the poor mother, is it not? But still she holds her beliefs, and soon starves to death.
Maybe it’s because she looked around and the only structures that survive are those built in order to serve her god(s) survive. But why is this? Is it because the people blindly point to the heavens without examining the facts and searching for a logical explanation? Is it perhaps because her house was made of something simple? Like a few sticks or some sheets of corrugated iron, whilst the grand temple was made of a much tougher substance? A great amount of care goes into pleasing beings that nobody can conclusively prove the existence of, whilst the cattle continue suffer. Surely the fact that the place of worship survives is a mere coincidence? After all, such occurrences are not limited to the place of worship of just one of the deities, and one would be a fool to say so.

Section 7: Some historical errors in the Muhammadan religion
Why is it that I cannot find any debates in which Muhammadans discuss the historical accuracy of the Koran? I can easily find debates where they discuss the historical accuracy of the New Testament, but when Muhammadans claim the Koran is historically accurate, there are two subjects in particular that they do not mention. Below is a discussion of these two areas which Muhammadans try to dodge when they are attempting to mislead people.
1.	Mecca and the Kaaba of Mecca (no evidence of any mosques before Muhammad was born)
2.	The Hanif Religion (which never existed)
3.	Crucifixion in Egypt? (debatable I suppose, unlike the other two)
There is one big historical error of the Muhammadan religion. Where was the Kaaba of Mecca or Mecca before the 3rd century AD? When I ask people this question they try to dodge it. The best response I’ve had so far is, “just because something isn’t there doesn’t mean it didn’t exist”. We can assume the same for an uncorrupted Koran, given that Hadith are Muslim accounts and they will be biased in favour of the Muhammadan religion, as I have already established. In certain Hadith there are hints of Koranic corruption, but quote the Hadith and you are in enemy territory. Someone else was blind and said they’d remain Muslim no matter what. Whoever controls the past controls the future and whoever controls the present controls the past, and this exactly what we find with the Hadih. Islamic awareness has an article on the subject of historical Kaaba of Mecca:
http://www.islamic-awareness.org/History/kaaba.html
It claims the Valley of Baca in the Bible is the site of Mecca (Is that the best you can come up with? Answering-Islam has an article on the subject too*).  Baca is actually a “valley of weeping”, although some state that the valley to be named after a species of plant. The next verse after that containing the Valley of Bacca mentions Mt. Zion, a place near to Jerusalem (unlike Mecca which is over 700 miles away, and the Valley of Bacca seems to be a place on the way to Jerusalem) which is mentioned over 100 times in the Bible. The Bible mentions clearly places such as ‘Damascus’, ‘Bethlehem’ and ‘Jerusalem’ several times so why can the Muhammadans only find this one obscure verse for they silly game?
This is exactly why I ask for archaeological evidence; so that people cannot show me weak circumstantial evidence or fall into the trap of misreading of religious texts, namely those of the Jews and Christians, which do constitute evidence unless it can be cross-examined with evidence from history (such as evidence of human activity). Is archaeological evidence too much to ask? It seems like it, because Muhammadans cannot provide it. Something as important as Mecca should be mentioned in the records of the great ancient empires, but it isn’t. You’d think they’d want to control Mecca, as the Hajj has always been a solid source of income, even in pre-Islamic times. Since Abraham didn’t exist in the 2nd, 3rd or 4th century AD we can assert that the Hajj has always been Pagan.
•	http://answeringislam.net/BibleCom/baca.html
With this in mind, all of the great ancient empires were Pagan, so why is there no mention of it in their records? Whoever controls Mecca controls the Hajj, and whoever controls the Hajj controls the economy of Mecca, so it should be in the interest of the rulers of these empires to control Mecca. However, there no evidence of the Romans, Carthaginians, Greeks, Persians, Assyrians, Hittites, Babylonians, Phoenicians, Macedonians, Spartans, Ethiopians, Egyptians, Armenians, Celts or any other empire setting foot anywhere near Mecca. The Ethiopians are closest and yet they never mentioned Mecca in pre-Islamic times.
What the islamic-awareness article is assuming is that Bible is the word of the same god (in that respect I find it awfully funny when Muhammadans say the Bible is violent and sexual because it is Allah [and the Koran says the Bible is the uncorrupted word of Allah*), the same god who is in the Bible according to the Muhammadan religion, even though the god of the Bible never swears by things in creation). What if both the Koran and the Bible are false though? People go into this assuming one religion is right and other wrong. But what if both are wrong? I’m sure this claim has been refuted by Christians and Jews alike, and I stress the Bible is not archaeological evidence even if the Koran says it’s the uncorrupted word of god.
*This is discussed later.
Is the Bible the only source they have to go on? Shouldn’t something so important be mentioned in the history of the great ancient empires? We are told Meccans have always made their money from the Hajj, so wouldn’t it be in the interest of these empires to control Mecca and therefore make money from the Hajj? The Bible is supposed to be corrupted after all, so why are you quoting it? I highly doubt that the entire Bible is cross-examinable, but it seems more of it can be proven using non-Christian/Jewish sources than the Koran Muhammadan sources. The Koran makes more very obscure claims, and they go further than saying Mecca and the Kaaba of Mecca were around before the 3rd century AD.
Someone once said to me “the Kaaba (of Mecca) was destroyed in a great sandstorm and rebuilt by Muhammad”. However, there are flaws with this argument too because many ancient artefacts have survived worse natural disasters, and even if the Kaaba of Mecca was destroyed there should still be evidence of human activity in the area around it. Take the ancient city of Dwarka in India, the city of Lord Krishna. It many buildings and artefacts from it have survived being under the sea for thousands of years yet Mecca/Kaaba of Mecca cannot survive a meagre (in comparison to the flooding of Dwarka) sandstorm? I thought this “Allah” was supposed to be powerful, yet this Hindu city was sent asunder to a watery grave in the Indian Ocean and it survives. Even if the sandstorm account is assumed to be true we still have a problem because there are no written records of the Kaaba of Mecca from around that time and there is no evidence of the any of the great ancient empires going anywhere near Mecca.
The Muhammadan claim means Mecca existed, without historical mention, in an area where even cities with a short existence are documented in the many historical records of the region. Since there is so little rain you’d think records of such a city would survive, and indeed many pre-Muhammad peoples of Arabia have abundant historical records but Mecca is not mentioned. The Muhammadan claim about the Kaaba of Mecca being as old as Abraham is nowhere supported by history. It is illogical for Muhammadans to claim Mecca existed for as long as the Koran says it did. We have two options at this point. Either Abraham didn’t exist, or the Muhammadan account is a falsification.
Further reading:
http://religionresearchinstitute.org/mecca/archeology.htm
Rafat Amari is a thorn in the Muhammadan side, but not my primary source of information. When somebody told Abraham built the Kaaba of Mecca I was naturally curious and wanted to investigate this claim. As expected, the claim is proved false. To say this proves Muhammadan religion is s false religion, just like any other (until I have evidence to the contrary for that particular religion), is a bold claim, but I have yet to be refuted on this assertion with any credible evidence. Most of the time people ignore my question asking for evidence because they know they can’t give a sensible answer.
By this point, the Muhammadan religion should be as good as dead, but some might still be clinging on, which is fine. I don’t mind. I still have lots more I would like to discuss. Abraham having built the Kaaba of Mecca is not the only historical error in the Muhammadan religion. There are quite a few but in this section I seek to pick out some of the more important ones I have noted, and with that we move onto the next historical error of the Muhammadan religion.
In the Islamic sources we see a religion known as “Hanif”, yet there is no mention of such a religion outside of the Islamic sources. How could such a religion elude history? Why are there no Hanif today? Why was there no law sent down to Abraham? So many questions, but no Muhammadans who can answer them without using flawed circular logic.
Therefore, because there is no record of the Hanif religion outside of the Muhammadan sources and because of what has already been discussed, we can come to the assertion that the Muhammadan religion has Pagan roots and it only pretending to be monotheistic, as the original, and now replaced Koran chapter 53 verses 21 shows (popularly known as the satanic verses). Muhammadans thrive on ignorance and in the Muhammadans religion ignorance is considered strength, slavery is considered freedom and war is considered peace. Any peaceful verses Muhammadans allude to happened before the Hijra (the migration of Muhammad from Mecca to Medina) and were therefore abrogated, which the below verses explain because peaceful revelations have been contradicted by violent ones:
Koran (2:106)—“Whatever verse we shall abrogate, or cause [thee] to forget, we will bring a better than it, or one like unto it. Dost thou not know that God is almighty?”
And
Koran (16:101)—“When We substitute one revelation for another—and God knows best what He reveals (in stages)—they say, “Thou art but a forger”: but most of them understand not.”

To Muhammadans, the words “war” and “slavery” have more than meanings than simply the ones that are currently widely accepted. In the Muhammadan religion slavery is considered freedom, which I think is very odd. And what is considered a kind of peace, for some reason. We all see that ignorance is considered a virtue, and as has already been discussed some Muhammadans are very ignorant and are like a broken record.
Take the hundreds of thousands of slaves in the Islamic Republic of Mauritania for example, or the ethnic cleansing that is going on in Sudan and around it, namely on its border with South Sudan. How about Nigeria? What the Hindu temples destroyed during Muhammadan rule of India? Ah yes, of course, the Muhammadan religion only advocates war as self defence. That’s a loud of bull crap and you know it, well actually you don’t because you deny it. Maybe the Muhammadans wanted to eliminate Hinduism because they knew Islam is a derived from Hinduism? Much to their detriment Hinduism survived, and we can all see where Islam got many of its Pagan practices from.
Crucifixion in Egypt...?
Hmm ...the Islamic awareness article on this subject is attempting loosen the definition of a cross. At first I was reluctant to include this part of the section but I thought I’d include it anyway. How you can nail people to a wooden stake I have no idea. Besides the fact that there is no archaeological evidence implying Egyptians specifically used crucifixion as a means of punishment, I think the Muhammadans need to learn basic geometry, as well as take up lessons in Greek, Latin and especially Hebrew (for when they dissect the Bible). It’s funny how Muhammadans expect Kaffir to know Arabic yet they make no serious effort to properly learn the aforementioned languages. I think it silly how they claim to know more Arabic than the early Koran commentators who would have had more knowledge of the Arabic present in the Koran than the modern interpreters.
They have many translations of the Koran at Koran explorer, but I see a lack of a modern Arabic translation. The mistranslation argument is a puny Muhammadan attempt to hide behind a veil, and suddenly, according to them, the counter argument falls flat. Zakir Naik is quite happy to reinterpret verses so why don’t Muhammadans have a problem with him? Yet in the article they make no attempt consult the Islamic sources on the Issue. Yes of course, I viewed the article at Answering-Islam, and to be honest I think both sides are just as bad as each other, and my mistake was going into these debates assuming one was right and the other wrong. Every religion has its flaws. If anything Hinduism would be the one true religion because it predates the rest and is not a means of control like monotheism is.
With that we come to the final portion of this section: Questions Muhammadans cannot answer. So far I have a few questions but this section will build over time. I find it hilarious how little most Muhammadans know about history and how few of them know what the “archaeology” actually means. Archaeological evidence means proof of human activity, and there is none at Mecca from before the 3rd century AD. Similarly, there is no proof of any mosques having existed before the time of Muhammad, therefore the prophets of the Muhammadan religion could not have been Muhammadans themselves, as some Muhammadans like to claim.

Section 8: Questions Muhammadans don’t have the answer to
When people convert to Islam there are number of reasons they give. However this “Allah” seems to take a back seat. Common reasons are: “All my questions were answered”, “Islam is perfect”, “Muhammad was a champion of women’s’ rights” (what drugs are they on*), “My preconceptions about Islam where wrong”, “Muslims are nice people”, “There is lots of science in the Koran”, “The Koran is uncorrupted” (in case of Yusuf Estes). The only time I heard god mentioned was in the case of a Roman Catholic priest who converted to the Muhammadan religion, who said this “Allah” was apparently guiding him. All of these the above reasons are great in theory, but the reality is they have no real connection to divinity. I think some people are merely yearning for another religion as they have had a bad experience of their old one and as soon as Muhammadan comes along, they think “Oooh great” or something along those lines.
*Some Muslims, especially Sufi, use Cannabis. To anyone who says the majority of converts to Islam are female, I would say Eve ate the apple first, and Muslims are desperate for females to fulfil their desire for polygamy which spreads sexually transmitted diseases. While it is true that Koran 3:4* exists, the standard for women’s right has risen much higher than the bar Muhammad set 1400 years ago, and actions speak louder than words and mere sentence doesn’t really change much (is that all you can come up with?). At the same time, Koran 4:34* and 65:4* exist.
*Koran (3:4): “And give unto the women (whom ye marry) free gift of their marriage portions; but if they of their own accord remit unto you a part thereof, then ye are welcome to absorb it (in your wealth).”
*Koran (4:34): Men are in charge of women, because Allah hath made the one of them to excel the other, and because they spend of their property (for the support of women). So good women are the obedient, guarding in secret that which Allah hath guarded. As for those from whom ye fear rebellion, admonish them and banish them to beds apart, and scourge them. Then if they obey you, seek not a way against them. Lo! Allah is ever High, Exalted, Great. (34)
*Koran (65:4): “And for such of your women as despair of menstruation, if ye doubt, their period (of waiting) shall be three months, along with those who have it not. And for those with child, their period shall be till they bring forth their burden. And whosoever keepeth his duty to Allah, He maketh his course easy for him.”
Paedophilia in the Koran - I don’t know? The Koran is giving rules about marriage relating to people who are too young to have a menstrual cycle. Why would the Koran need to do this if it’s wrong? Obviously Muhammad thought it was ok because he was a paedophile. Muhammadans may say other people at the time married young girls, but there is a problem with this. People have always killed each other and still do today, but does that mean killing is right? No, and two wrongs don’t make a right. What they’re saying is that it was perfectly acceptable for Muhammad to marry a nine year old. As I said before, women’s rights have come a long way since the bar Muhammad set all those years ago. Child abuse in the name of Allah! Allah-u-Akbar! Yes indeed. But there are people who insist the Muhammadan religion is very good when it comes to women’s right or purposely misinterpret the verses by process of taqiya (the Muhammadan principle of lying for the sake of Allah).
Muhammad also abolished adoption because he lusted over his adopted son’s wife.
The problem is, Muhammadans in the West are quite organized and know how to trick people in to converting to the Muhammadan religion. Contrary to popular belief the Muhammadan religion is not the fasting growing religion in the West or at least not in all Western countries, and that’s assuming irreligion is counted as a religion. The only reason it’s growing is because of immigration and people being born into the religion. Converts tend to be offset by people leaving the Muhammadan religion. In actual fact, I think it’s safe to assume that Buddhism is the fastest growing religion by number of converts in a number of Western countries, especially in a country like Australia* where the number of Buddhists is actually greater than the number of Muhammadans. There were twice was twice as much growth to Buddhism when compared to the Muhammadan religion, and even Hinduism had greater growth in Australia. It is interesting to note that 9% of immigrants were Muhammadan, which would explain the majority of the increase, so it seems that the Muhammadan lies fall on largely death ears in Australia. The reality is though; irreligion is growing faster than any religion.
Sources:
http://www.pewforum.org/future-of-the-global-muslim-population-related-factors-conversion.aspx
*Between 1996 and 2001 the number of Buddhists in Australia grew from around 200,000 to about 360,000 says the Australian Bureau of Statistics and 9% of immigrants where Buddhist. Buddhism saw an increase of 80% whilst Islam 40% and Hinduism 42% but only 5% of immigrants were Hindu.
http://www.abs.gov.au/Ausstats/abs@.nsf/0/9658217eba753c2cca256cae00053fa3?OpenDocument
Buddhism seems to be growing the UK too:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/religion/5977093/Buddhism-is-fastest-growing-religion-in-English-jails-over-past-decade.html
Questions Muhammadans can’t answer:
1.	Can you show me any archaeological evidence the Kaaba of Mecca or Mecca existed before the 3rd century AD?
2.	Can you show me archaeological evidence of any mosque that was built before Muhammad was born? If not, then why do you think people before Muhammad could be Muslims? If there were no mosques around before Muhammad how could Muslims have existed?
3.	What happened to the Hanif religion? Why is there no proof of it ever existing outside of the Islamic sources?
4.	Why do you have to use circular logic to make your claims?
5.	How can water, a material substance, flush out Satan, a spiritual entity, from your nose?*
6.	Which mosque does/did Maurice Bucaille go to?*
7.	Which mosque does Neil Armstrong go to?* (lol, and Muslims say I’m the brainwashed one)
*Sahih Bukari (number 32, 95) mentions snorting water in and out of the nose three times. Why is Satan in everyone’s noses? I thought only god could e omnipresent. Maybe I was wrong.
*There are popular videos claiming such things. Neil Armstrong recently died, and he died without ever reciting the Shahada. He was buried in a Christian cemetery.
Questions Muhammadans may be able to answer, but with difficulty:
8.	Why is the doctrine of the seven Aruf not supported by any verse in the Koran?
9.	What are the seven different ways you can recite the Koran?
10.	Why are there seven Aruf?
11.	Why is there no Hadith commentary on such an important verse as Koran 4:157? (I have yet to find any)
Islam: in light of history:
http://www.scribd.com/doc/36935160/Islam-in-Light-of-History

Section 9: Islam and Hinduism (Paganism)
1.	Zakir Zaik And His Use Of Fake Hindu(s) (And Fake ex-Christian ministers)
2.	Crescent Moon Symbol Of Muhammadans and Mosques
3.	The Shiva Lingam in Mecca
4.	The triad and the trinity and verses of the Koran that contradict the oneness of Allah
5.	Do you know why the number 786 is on the (Arabic) Koran? (Hinduism has the answer)
6.	Is Muhammad the reincarnation of a demon as predicted in the Hindu scriptures?
As has already been established Islam could not have existed before the founder of the Muhammadan religion because there is no record of the Hanif religion ever having existed nor is there any proof the Kaaba of Mecca was around for as long as the Muhammadans claim it to be. Often, people who attack the Muhammadan religion point to pre-Muhammadan Paganism without realizing that rather than study history they can take a brief look at the Hinduism of today. Zakir Naik (who uses a FAKE Shankaracharya for some of his talks it must be said, and the Hindus know this person is a FRAUD) says this “Allah” is the third common source for any Pagan influences in Islam, but is this really true? For starters, this fake Hindu religious leader is able to twist the Hindu texts and make them say things that his audience like to hear, and mislead any naive Hindus watching. Muhammadans thrive on ignorance, and it takes a gullible person to convert to the Muhammadan religion. A true Hindu would not come to the conclusions his fake Shankaracharya has. Zaikr Naik faked the Jadadguru Shankaracharya of Puri.
Similarly Yusuf Estes is a person who makes regular appearances on Zakir Naik’s channel known as “Peace TV”. How can we know he’s a fake? Would an ex-Christian ([minister?] whose friend used to be a Catholic priest) say that the Catholic Church was started by Alexander the Great? Or say that King James had no input in the Creation of the King James Bible? An ex-Christian minister should have at least some knowledge of Christian history and get the dates right as a minimum, but he has no real knowledge of Christian history. Yusuf Estes’s imagination is just a fanciful as the founder of the Muhammadan religion, so there is no way he could have been an ex-Christian minister. An ex-Christian maybe, but to become a Christian minister you need a decent knowledge of Christian history, one assumes. What was his pre-Muhammadan name? He’s worse than Maurice Bucaille who, by the way, never actually became a Muhammadan.
Catholic Church was started by Alexander the Great: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_YRV_LiHIZU
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PfANSmIw0mI (Yusuf Estes on the Deen Show: Part 6 of 8)
Rebuttal to Zakir Naik’s idiocy regarding Hinduism:
http://www.scribd.com/doc/31583531/Rebuttals-to-Zakir-Naik-s-fraud
Zakir Naik’s FAKE Hindus (the Hindus know these people are actors):
http://hinduismcalls.blogspot.com/2009/08/drzakir-naik-exposed-series-1.html
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dXt_ZNeX_m0
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7DSu3qSUM0Q
More fake claims from Zakir Naik:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FqtpSDf832E
Zakir Naik 25 mistakes in 5 minutes:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bk5q9TeGo14
Muhammadans often like to say the Christian trinity (which is an explanation for what the Bible describes and is therefore not mentioned by name in the Bible) is from Hinduism and therefore Pagan. Why the double standards though? To find Pagan influences in Islam, one need look no further than Mecca. Why is the trinity a Pagan concept but not the “venerating” of the al-Hajar al-Aswad found in Masjid al-Haram too? Black stones from Hinduism too, so why is it suddenly not Pagan because it’s in the Muhammadan religion? As we shall discover, the al-Hajar al-Aswad has more in common to a Shiva Lingam than the Christian trinity has with Hindu triads, but first I want discuses the crescent moon symbol of Muhammadans and mosques.
On the top of the minaret of the Masjid al-Haram we find the moon symbol of Islam. Allah might not be a moon god, but there seems to be a lot of Pagan (Hindu) influence at the Great Mosque.  As has already been discussed, Zakir Naik is not a reliable source of information, because he is a great deceiver, just like Muhammad. One person has the potential to fool millions, and this is exactly what we find with the two. With that said, I would like to bring your attention to the below images:
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/4/42/Minarets_in_Makkah_(Mecca).jpg
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/8/89/Medina_Grab_des_Propheten.JPG (Medina)
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/52/Bangalore_Shiva.jpg
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/3/32/Lord_Shiva.jpg
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/2/2f/Shiva_Pashupati.jpg
Belief in the god Tengri is a pre-Islamic Turkic belief, and it is interesting to note that the symbol of Tengrian is a crescent moon. Tengri is not quite a moon god, but is described as a “sky god”. Close, but not quite.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Tengrian_crescent.svg
Tanit, a Phoenician lunar goddess, worshiped as the patron goddess at Carthage:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tanit
Both lack the pentagram associated with Islam. Some mosques have it, others don’t. Others still, like the Great Mosque of Damascus, have a full circle on top of them. The Koran says this (9:28): "O ye who believe! Truly the Pagans are unclean; so let them not, after this year of theirs, approach the Sacred Mosque". And yet we find much Pagan influence at the Sacred Mosque. Below is an article I found interesting, as it denies the symbolism of Islam is Pagan. I would like to discuss the article.
http://islam.about.com/od/history/a/crescent_moon.htm
http://islam.about.com/od/muslimcountries/ig/Crescent-Moon-Flags/ (Of Muhammadan counties, Singapore is not included.)
The article states and I quote: “Legend holds that the founder of the Ottoman Empire, Osman, had a dream in which the crescent moon stretched from one end of the earth to the other. Taking this as a good omen, he chose to keep the crescent and make it the symbol of his dynasty.” I’m unsure why Osman thought it was a good omen to adopt a Pagan symbol for the Islamic Caliphate given that Paganism is supposed to be Haram. After all, the Koran itself says Pagans are “unclean” and should be “kept away from the Sacred Mosque”. Unfortunately for the Muhammadans the Pagan influence doesn’t stop with the Ottomans. There is more I want to say about the Sacred Mosque.
As has already been discussed, the Kaaba of Mecca and Mecca could not have existed prior to the 3rd century AD. Even if you consider the circumstantial to be reliable, the Kaaba of Mecca and/or Mecca are no older than Christianity. So which came first; Muhammadans or Hinduism? Hinduism can trace its roots back to the Indus Valley civilization yet there is no archaeological evidence showing Muhammadans or mosques existed before Muhammad. Shivaism is one of the oldest Hindu sects and Lord Shiva is one of the favourite deities of Hindus and there are further evidences of Lord Shiva which will be discussed. Along with the symbol on the top of the minaret, the clothes many Muhammadans wear when visiting the Masjid al-Haram bears a striking resemblance to that of certain Pagans on certain pilgrimages.
Muhammadans at the Kaaba of Mecca:
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/f/f3/Kaaba_mirror_edit_jj.jpg
Druids at Stonehenge:
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/75/Druids_celebrating_at_Stonehenge_(1).png
More Druids:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Druid_Order_Spring_Equinox_Ceremony_Tower_Hill_2010.JPG
Why do many Muhammadan women dress like druids? If Allah wanted people to cover their faces Allah would have provided a flap of skins for people to use when covering their faces.
Hindus at the Ganges River:
http://www.tropicalisland.de/india/uttar_pradesh/varanasi/images/VNS%20Varanasi%20or%20Benares%20-%20Hindu%20pilgrims%20in%20colourful%20dress%20crossing%20the%20holy%20waters%20of%20river%20Ganges%20by%20boat%20near%20Harishchandra%20Ghat%203008x2000.jpg
The similarities should be obvious. What we see is these “Pagans” have much the same dress as Muhammadans on pilgrimage to Mecca. To be fair, not all of the Hindus were wearing white, though the dress is fairly similar, but neither were all of the Muhammadans, although many do. What has already been discussed in this section would not be enough to go on so thankfully I have more to discuss.
As mentioned earlier, black stones are no unique to Islam. Hindus use black stones as part of their religion too. Hindus believe black stones to be manifestations of Lord Shiva and/or Lord Vishnu. There are Hindus that assert that the black stone of the Kaaba of Mecca is really a Shiva Lingam, and some similarities will be discussed. I’m of the impression that the black stone of the Kaaba of Mecca is a pre-Islamic Pagan influence and not necessarily from Hinduism. There are two main types of black stones Hindus use:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lingam (of Lord Shiva)
 and
 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sila_(murti) (salagrama)
Hindu guide on: How to Worship Salagrama or Saligrama? – Black Stone symbol of Vishnu:
http://www.hindu-blog.com/2009/04/how-to-worship-salagrama-or-saligrama.html
The Black Stone - the Omphalos of the Goddess: http://www.indigogroup.co.uk/edge/blstone.htm
Hindus go around a Shiva Lingam seven times and also shave their heads on certain pilgrimages. As has already been discussed, the Hanif religion never existed and the Kaaba of Mecca was not around before the 3rd century AD and Hinduism has been around for about 7000 years, and as a result, Hindu teachings passed down in the Vedas, predate Islam by thousands of years. Therefore, “Allah” could not be the third common sources as some Muhammadans like to claim, because there were followers of “Allah” before Muhammad, unless of course Muslims concede that this “Allah” is really a god for Paganism, masquerading as the same god as that of Judaism and Christianity. This “Allah” is supposed be omnipresent and yet Muhammadans are required to touch black stones and face towards the Shiva Lingam in Mecca.
In Tamil Nadu Kabaalishwaran temple is Lord Shiva's temple and Kabaali refers to Lord Shiva, so does that mean the Kaaba of Mecca is derived from Hinduism simply because of the similarity between the two words? If we use the logic Muhammadans apply to the word “Muhammadi” in the Bible (which is really the word “Machmad” but Ahmed Deedat, in his ignorance, refuses to take up lessons in Hebrew), then yes it does. The world Kabaali is so similar that the Kaaba of Mecca has to bear some relation to it. As has been seen, the Kaaba of Mecca has references to Lord Shiva so they have to be related. There are loads of videos by Hindus showing the similarities between the Muhammadan religion and their own.
Hindu triads and the Christian trinity plus verses that contradict the oneness of Allah:
With what has just been said in mind, this verse in the Koran caught my eye:
Koran 5:73-74 says: “They surely disbelieve who say: Lo! Allah is the third of three; when there is no God save the One God. If they desist not from so saying a painful doom will fall on those of them who disbelieve. (73) Will they not rather turn unto Allah and seek forgiveness of Him? For Allah is Forgiving, Merciful. (74)”
Yet this is exactly what Muhammadans doing at the Hajj, because Lord Shiva is part of the Trimurti and they seem to follow what people who worship Lord Shiva do in many respects, namely at pilgrimage. The verse can’t be referring to Christians because they don’t believe god is the “third of three”. Below I have provided somewhat of an explanation of the Christian Trinity. At first I would have used the family analogy to defend Christians, who were being viciously attacked by a Muhammadan, but then it evolved into the water cam be ice and steam but still water. Lastly, I came to the conclusion that the trinity can be explained by physics and this is in Section 5*. My first analogy describing the trinity goes something like this:
*if I write it...
Some people have trouble with the idea that Jesus is 100% human and 100% god and that god is 100% father, 100% son and 100% holy spirit. Let’s look at that idea. Christians believe all three of the trinity are the one god. I can use my own mother for this analogy. She is 100% a mother, 100% a sister, 100% a cousin and 100% a wife. She cannot be 25% of each thing, as that would mean she is only partially a cousin, only partially a wife and only part sister, when in fact she cannot be anything less than 100% of each of these 3 things. In the same way that Christians believe god is 100% son, 100% holy spirit and 100% the father. Next I’ll mention some key bits of information which I believe can show the Christian idea of the trinity is different to Hinduism. And by the way the trinity is an explanation for what the Bible describes. It’s an analogy in itself rather than a representation of god.
Thomas the apostle is believed to have gone beyond the Roman Empire to preach and he is said to have gone all the way to India and the triads in Hinduism first appear after the death of Jesus.  The term trinity more an explanation or an attempt to describe god; and the oldest existing use of the word “trinity” is in a text by Tertullian (but not the Bible) and he was born in AD 160. I’ll provide a link to a page with information on him below.
http://www.gotquestions.org/Trinity-Bible.html
http://tertullian.org/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tertullian
http://www.hindubooks.org/sudheer_birodkar/hindu_history/christianity.html
The so called Hindu “trinities” always refer to three separate gods as opposed to just the one in Christianity. A triad means a group of three and the Hindu triads show the relationships between specified gods*. There is also the Trimurti, which the triad of gods consisting of Brahma the creator, Vishnu the preserver, and Shiva the destroyer as the three highest manifestations of the one ultimate reality. But again the Hindu gods are not referred to as trinities. A trinity in Christianity is a union of three divine persons. Notice the word union. In Hinduism the gods in a triad are still separate entities but the Christian trinity always refers to one god not three and there is only one god in Christianity.
*If I’m understood the concept correctly. I’m sure a Hindu will correct me if I’m wrong. I don’t want a Muhammadan to correct me on Hindu beliefs. We all should know by now how deceptive Zakir Naik is with his FAKE Hindus.
http://home.earthlink.net/~mysticalrose/pagan1.html
Even my interpretation is wrong, I have these verses too, which suggest even Muslims shall have a taste of hell:
Koran (19:68-72 [72 especially]):  “And, by thy Lord, verily We shall assemble them and the devils, then We shall bring them, crouching, around hell. (68)Then We shall pluck out from every sect whichever of them was most stubborn in rebellion to the Beneficent. (69) And surely We are best aware of those most worthy to be burned therein. (70) There is not one of you but shall approach it. That is a fixed ordinance of thy Lord. (71) Then We shall rescue those who kept from evil, and leave the evil-doers crouching there. (72)”
Section 9b: The Muhammadan religion is not Unitarian and might actually be pantheistic:
Muhammadans often attack the three divine persons of Christianity without realizing that the spirit of Allah is a separate entity to the angels. There are certain verses in the Koran which conflict the absolute oneness of their god Allah.
Koran (97:4): “The angels and the Spirit descend therein, by the permission of their Lord, with all decrees.”
The angels and the spirit are described as separate entities. Who is this “Spirit”? It can be none other than the Spirit of Allah, because if that verses wasn’t clear enough, here is another:
Koran (16:2): “He sendeth down the angels with the Spirit of His command unto whom He will of His bondmen, (saying): Warn mankind that there is no God save Me, so keep your duty unto Me.”
Notice how it says “the Spirit of His”. There can be no doubt that this “Allah” is not a Unitarian god. Also, Muhammadans have to be sure to utter the name of Muhammad if they want salvation, rather than saying something ambiguous that would encompass all of the prophets of Allah such as “I believe in Allah and all of the messengers/prophets sent by Allah” or just saying “I believe in the oen true god Allah”. Muhammad is the only prophet mentioned by name in the Shahada, for example, so we find a distinction and other prophets of the Muhammadan religion do not have this distinction. I find that to be a curiosity. And whenever Muhammadans says “there is not god but Allah”, they are wording is as if Allah is the name of their god because it should say “there is not god but the one god” (which is sometimes also the case so there seems to be some confusion) without wording it as if Allah is a name of a god. It should be noted that one definition of shirk is to associate partners with Allah* (such as Al-Lat and Al-‘Uzzá and Manāt) an in the Shahada Muhammad is associated with Allah.
Koran (4:48): “Lo! Allah forgiveth not that a partner should be ascribed unto Him. He forgiveth (all) save that to whom He will. Whoso ascribeth partners to Allah, he hath indeed invented a tremendous sin.”
Koran (15:72): “By thy life (O Muhammad) they moved blindly in the frenzy of approaching death.”
Koran (69:38-39): “But nay! I swear by all that ye see (38) And all that ye see not (39)”
So Allah and Muhammad are partners? I don’t know. But what I do know is that Allah is swearing by the life of Muhammad and Muhammad, if he existed, is amongst the things we can see and those that we can’t because he is part of Allah’s creation. Why does Allah need to swear upon anything if Allah is all powerful? Koran 69:38-39, if taken literally, means that Allah has sworn by everything creation. Why is Allah committing this sin? This means Allah has sworn by Satan, pork, all of the Jinn, every Kaffir and alcohol, amongst everything else.
Pantheism is the view that everything is part of an all encompassing immanent God, and as we seen Allah has partnered with every single entity within creation as Allah has sworn upon everything in creation. If Allah has sworn by everything, why is there is a need to swear by anything else? As will be discovered in section 13 Allah swears by many different things in the Koran, and swearing by anything other than Allah is a sin (i.e. Shirk), according to the Muhammadan sources. Why is Allah allowed to break the rules? Allah is supposed to be setting an example because Allah is perfect. If Allah doesn’t even know the rules of the Muhammadan religion how can Allah be all knowing? I see a contradiction.

Number 786 on the (Arabic) Koran:
http://maseeh1.tripod.com/advices7/id152.htm
 This first article denies the numbers 786 are anything special but acknowledges that:
 "More astonishing is that fact that '786' is an aggregation of the numbers of Hindu 'Lord Hari Krishna'"
 But then there is this second article (you can probably search on the same site for similar articles discussing Islam and below is taken from the below article):
 http://www.scribd.com/doc/20730947/Islam-From-Hinduism
If you look carefully at the figure on page 8, the article says, that is the figure “OM”. If the Sanskrit symbol “OM” is read backwards in Arabic, it says, anyone who knows Sanskrit realizes that when it is read backwards, the numbers 786 in Arabic ‘magically appear’, the same numbers that are on Arabic versions of the Koran. Apparently no Muslim scholar has been able to determine why that number in particular is there on the Koran. “OM” the article says, is a Vedic holy letter. Look at this symbol of Om in a mirror it says, and you can make out the Devnagari (Sanskrit-Hindi) the numerals 7-8-6.
Muhammad was a reincarnation of demon Tripurasura as prophesied in Bhavishya Purana?
At first I thought this was absurd but we should not be so quick to discount the matter. I have pulled out some key facts from the story. Tripurasur was the son of Sage Gritsamad in the story. It is said none but Lord Shiva could destroy this demon. The village Ranjangaon is considered to be the place where Lord Shiva himself sought the blessings of Ganesh and ultimately destroyed Tripurasur. As has already been discussed, Islam could be classed as a demented form of Shivaism. Of course, people like Zakir Naik try to distort the facts, like they do with Jewish and Christian teachings too.
The village:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ranjangaon
This what the article says about the word: म्लेच्छ mleccha (similar to Mecca in same way the Muslims logic applies to the word Muhammadi in the Bible which they have actually translated wrongly):
1 A barbarian, a non Aryan ( One not speaking the Sanskrit Language or not conform in to Hindu or Aryan institutions),a foreigner in general
2 An Outcast, a very low man, Bodhayana thus defines the word:
gomAmsakhAdako yastu viruddhaM bahubhAshhate | sarvAchAravihInashcha mlechchha ityabhidhiiyate |
He who eats cow's meat, and speaks a lot against shastras and he, who is also devoid of all forms of spiritual practice, is called a mlechha.
3 A sinner, A wicked person, A savage or barbarian race
This is a good article (where I got the information from):
http://forum09.faithfreedom.org/viewtopic.php?f=26&t=6114
Section 10: A brief look at science in the Koran
The accepted idea is that the creator of the Koran was illiterate, so how could have he have known the science of the ancients? To come to that conclusion, Muhammadans have to use circular logic and/or say the founder of the Muhammadan religion was incapable of learning (yet he is described as a merchant). The key point is that any apparent the science in the Koran was already proposed at the time as it was not necessarily taken from Greek sources since we can find many examples of technology lost to history (one reason why I believe ancient aliens). We go into this assuming he was the only working on the Koran, but his scribe is charged with editing the “revealed” verses. The Muhammadan accounts will seek to put this in a positive light and of course, Muhammadans today will deny this editing ever took place. Whether or not the verses were edited by his scribe doesn’t change a great deal though.
Even if he was indeed illiterate that doesn’t make that much difference. He could have had someone to read texts for him, like one of his many wives, or other early followers. Not that it matters, because most people where illiterate back then anyway. I think it would have been more of a surprise if he was actually literate. I can also make the assumption (by postulating that the biased in favour of Islam Islamic sources managed to create a version of this man that never existed in history) that he was merely the face of this new religion and that there were others working behind the scenes. It is only natural that the Muhammadan texts don’t tell us he had help from other humans in formulating the Koran because they don’t want people to know that. Naturally, if the creators of the Koran want people to believe the Koran is the word of god the Koran will say that. Similarly, the Koran and Hadith are not going to say he was not alone in creating the Koran because that’s not what they want you to believe, if indeed that was the case.
When Muhammadans say he was not influenced on his travels as a merchant (which would have meant he met lots of people) and could not read, what they essentially doing is calling him stupid. But he was not stupid. One genius has the potential to dupe millions; this is exactly what has happened because of the flawed circular logic of Muhammadans. Not to mention the Koran was only complied after his death, which I find very suspicious. He is obviously capable of listening and indeed Nafi ibn al-Harith (amongst others), who was an early convert to this new religion, was a physician he would have had extensive knowledge in certain areas of science. I must mention the founder of religion was not unique in suffering for his message and rejecting riches and wealth. His example is by no means unique.
Buddha was born into royalty, yet decided to leave his family and riches and chose to become homeless (so the story goes) and Jesus suffered for his message too, as did Charles Darwin, but all of them stayed on their path. I’m sure there are other examples too. Even today, communists all over the world suffer for their message, but they keep fighting, and I’ll concede that some do spread lies intentionally. Rosa Luxemburg, advocate of anarchist communism (not totalitarian or authoritarian), is another example of a person who suffered for their message, but she did not give up, and unlike the Muhammadans emphasized a nonviolent struggle in spite of persecution by the German government. And Cuba for example, actually sounds like a nice place to live, because unlike in the USA there is free universal health care, and you don’t get kicked out of your house if you can’t pay the rent, amongst other things.
To say the founder of the Muhammadan religion is sinless is using circular logic. A sinless person wouldn’t go to war, because innocent people always die in wars. Somehow this person is allowed to kill people and therefore remains sinless. Was these people’s only crime not accepting the Muhammadan teachings? I certainly think it was, and we must remember the Hadith are biased in favour of Islam, so they want to make the people who aren’t Muhammadans look like the bad people. Below is part of what the Bible says about Ishmael, whom the founder of the Muhammadan religion is supposed to be directly descended from:
“The angel of the LORD also said to her: "You are now with child and you will have a son. You shall name him Ishmael, for the LORD has heard of your misery. He will be a wild donkey of a man; his hand will be against everyone and everyone's hand against him, and he will live in hostility toward all his brothers." (Genesis 16:11-12)”
“He will be against everyone” and “he will live in hostility towards all of his brothers” it says. That sounds a lot like the founder of the Muhammadan religion and his followers, even today, in places like Nigeria, Pakistan, Sudan (on the border with South Sudan) and Iraq, where people who aren’t Muhammadans face much brutality. Now we see why the founder of the Muhammadan religion is descended from Ishmael – he has the same traits. The founder of the Muhammadan religion built a great (if you can call it that) nation by slaughtering his brothers and the caliphate is indeed great nation too, with its hands against everyone (of course) and a major player in the Arab slave trade. Even today, in places like the Islamic Republic of Mauritania (yes that’s its official name) and Sudan, slavery is still a significant issue. The naive Muhammadans are blind to these facts. They’ll be more on those verses later, in the section.
Common Muhammadan arguments against people who critique their religion are first and foremost, lost in translation/mistranslated (these commoners think they are smarter than the experts who translated the Koran). Why did this “Allah” pick such a complicated language anyway? Shouldn’t the word of god resonate in all languages? The Arabic of the Koran is also very old and outdated as the language has evolved since then. However, this is double standards and they make no attempt to learn Greek or Hebrew as the original language goes deeper than any translation.
Secondly, another common argument is “taken out of context”. One or two verses sure, but whenever something crops up that they don’t like they call foul. However, when they claim the Koran agrees with the big bang, the verses are somehow not taken out of context or misinterpreted. Why wasn’t this “Allah” explicit? Well it suits them to claim the Koran agrees with the big bang. Perhaps they are quoting a translation of the Koran that was created after the big bang theory was widely acknowledged. After all, it is quite possible that there can be errors in translation, right? However, when science does prove the Koran wrong they say its scientists/science not agreeing with god not the Koran giving misinformation and this is example is evident with the case of embryology.  Perhaps Muhammadans don’t want their bubble to be burst. I wish Muhammadans would examine the Koran in the same they way they dissect “The True Furqan”, more on that later.
23:14 says: “Then fashioned We the drop a clot, then fashioned We the clot a little lump, then fashioned We the little lump bones, then clothed the bones with flesh, and then produced it as another creation. So blessed be Allah, the Best of creators!”
The Koran states the bones are formed before the flesh, which is the same thing the ancient Greeks taught. Who is this “we” exactly? Anyway, it doesn’t appear to mention fertilization.  Who taught this supposedly divinely inspired science? Well for starters, Galen, although others like Aristotle and Hippocrates are also known to have studied embryology. Hippocrates and Galen, unlike Aristotle, wrote that the contribution of females to children is equal to that of males, and “the vehicle for it is a substance similar to the semen of males”. I also believe Ibn-Qayyim, amongst others, noted the similarity between the Koran and Galen’s work; however I have not read his Hadith. Why would I want to? They are attempts to prop up the myths, to try and give them more credence.
In addition, 26 books of Galen's work were translated into Syriac as early as the sixth century AD by Sergios of Resh' Aina. Sergios was a Christian priest who studied medicine in Alexandria and also worked in Mesopotania, and he died in Constantinople in about AD 532. He was one of a number of Christians who translated the Greek medical corpus into Syriac, the dominant language of Arabia at the time.
The Bible also mentions Embryology, but this could also be plagiarism from Greek sources. Also, I forget which verses were referring to embryology. If I remember correctly, there were a couple of verses in separate places. One was in Psalms I think. I know that’s not much to go on...
http://www.scribd.com/doc/24665426/Islamic-Embryology-and-Galen
This article is huge and says most of the things I want to say and I urge you to read it all:
http://www.foundalis.com/rlg/Quran_and_science.htm
This is a good one too:
http://www.flex.com/~jai/satyamevajayate/koran.html
I’m sure there are other sites too.
Also:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Embryology
Basim Musallam, as Director of the Centre for Middle Eastern Studies in Cambridge, U.K. concludes:
“The stages of development which the Qur'an and Hadith established for believers agreed perfectly with Galen's scientific account.”
Another verse that caught my eye is:
51:49 “And from every thing We have created pairs of twos, so that you may heed.”
Is that really true though? It says “every thing”, but a fair few living things can breed asexually which means that they do not need to mate but the Koran does not mention this.  The Tafisr commentary says things were created in “pairs of twos” but not everything needs to be created in pairs of twos, and not everything comes in pairs. The verse isn’t very clear and so isn’t limiting itself to living things, therefore this not really any science, the people of the time certainly knew about this science.
Any living thing that reproduces using spores (ferns, mosses fungi, many bacteria and algae etc, even the common dandelion) is asexual and does not need to be in pairs. Any single celled organisms that split in half (and do not use spores) also breed asexually, as do viruses. Although to be fair, viruses could fit into the “pairs of two” because they usually need a living cell to reproduce, but I think what the verse is meaning is you need a male and female, which as I have discussed is not always the case.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asexual_reproduction
Also, there is a Greek who calculated the Earth was around before the Koran said it was “ostrich egg shaped” in that notorious verse and he was only a few degrees out. His name is Eratosthenes of Cyrene. He calculated the Earth was round and was born in 276 BC. Cyrene is part of Libya if you were wondering. Eratosthenes was not alone as Pythagoras also believed that the earth was spherical and he went further and said that the planets have their own movements. His successors were responsible for developing the idea that the earth revolved around a central fire (Sol).
In addition to saying that the Earth has four corners (which is allegedly referring to north, south, east and west) the Bible says the Earth is circular, and sphere spheres can have circles which I’ll explain in just a second, and I quote Isaiah 40:22 says “He sits enthroned above the circle of the earth, and its people are like grasshoppers.” And there is another verse in Job which says: “He marks out the horizon on the face of the waters for a boundary between light and darkness.”
A circle of a sphere in a circle is the intersection of a sphere and a plane. In addition you have the great circle of the sphere and which also known as an orthodrome. The Earth’s great circle is the Equator and it divides the Earth into two equal hemispheres. And I’ll provide a link below which explains the circles of a sphere in more detail than I can.
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/great+circle
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Circle_of_a_sphere
http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Isaiah%2040:22&version=NIV
http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Job%2026:10&version=NIV
Let’s look at a verse in chapter 71 briefly, because there was a verse that caught by eye and it is:
71:16 “And hath made the moon a light therein, and made the sun a lamp ?”
The definition of therein from thefreedictionary.com:
1.  In that place, time, or thing.
2.  In that circumstance or respect.
My interpretation could well be wrong, and I’ll get to that in just a second. What I believe the verse is saying is the moon is within the sun, and it is producing its own light when in fact barely any moonlight actually originates from the moon. The moon reflects light from the sun, stars, and the Earth. The moon is nothing like a flame or light bulb.
Even if I am interpreting the verse wrongly (not that I care because Muhammadans are like broken records when it comes to the Bible and the Vedas), the Greek Aristotle was aware that the moon shines by reflecting light from the sun and was aware of the spherical shape of the earth because of the circular shadow it cast on the moon during an eclipse.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GRx3Fe3wzyY
There are other verses like (remembering I am taking the verses at face value just the Muslims do the religious texts of others):
Koran (18:86) which says: “Till, when he reached the setting-place of the sun, he found it setting in a muddy spring, and found a people thereabout. We said: O Dhu'l-Qarneyn! Either punish or show them kindness.”
The above verse is impossible. You cannot ‘reach the place of the setting sun’ because there is no such place. People will try to reinterpret the verse but taken at face value it’s pretty clear what the verse is trying to say. The Muhammadans will try to deny this but it is these same people who don’t realize how Pagan their religion really is, and how Mecca or its Kaaba didn’t exist before the 3rd century AD. The Koran also says the Earth is flat several times whilst another time it implies it is the shape of an Ostrich egg. It also says the Earth has “seven heavens”.
Section 11: The Bible says Muhammad is a false prophet?
It sounds too good to be true, but I was watching a debate between David Wood and Sami Zaatari*, and to my astonishment, Sami unwittingly proved Muhammad is a false prophet, showing how little knowledge he has of the Bible. Why? In this debate he says he is using the Biblical criteria (below) for a prophet and at the same time claims Muhammad meets these criteria. At the same time however, he also acknowledges that the original Koran 53:21 (popularly known as the Satanic Verses) were uttered by Muhammad, claim this proves he is a prophet of god. What he doesn’t know, and this is what makes his lack of knowledge evident, that as soon as Muhammad first uttered the names of Al-Lat and Al-‘Uzzá and Manāt he proved he was a false prophet according to the Biblical criterion.
This is the debate: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3F897ENtvsk
Timings:
At 0:34:37 Sami says: “Since David is a Christian, I will argue from Biblical standards – how do we judge a true prophet?”
At 0:54:56 Sami says: “If you want to accept the first part of the story you have to accept the second part.”
At 0:55:37 Sami says (in reference to the Satanic Verses): “Now this story, although many scholars say it’s not authentic, I’m not gonna do that; because I don’t need to. This story proves Muhammad is a prophet. In fact I hope the scholars say the story is true because it proves he is a true prophet.”
If the video is removed I have the clips saved on my computer. At first I thought Sami was a decent debater, however since he said he is using Biblical criteria in reference to Muhammad, so will I. There are a number of verses that show Muhammad is a false prophet but there are a few verses in particular that I want to focus on. A verse Muhammadans often like to quote, which they claim refer to Muhammad is one from a passage in Deuteronomy known as “The Prophet”. The prophecy can only refer to an Israelite, but that’s another story.
Deuteronomy (18: 15): “The Lord your God will raise up for you a prophet like me from among you, from your fellow Israelites. You must listen to him.”
So according to the Muhammadans this verse is one of the uncorrupted ones. It’s quoted so much them it has to be. So a verse of the Bible suddenly becomes uncorrupted if the Muhammadans can twist to make it seem like it is refer to their religion? Hmmm, ok. They can either they go with Sami says and acknowledge the original Koran 53:21 or they deny the event the Muhammadan sources they mention cannot be trusted. However they have a problem if they go with what Sami is saying. A couple of verses after Deuteronomy 18: 15 (in the same passage) there is another verse and it goes like this:
Deuteronomy (18:20): “But a prophet who presumes to speak in my name anything I have not commanded, or a prophet who speaks in the name of other gods, is to be put to death.”
The uncorrupted (original) Koran 53:21 goes like this: “Have ye thought upon Al-Lat and Al-‘Uzzá and Manāt, the third, the other? These are the exalted gharāniq, whose intercession is hoped for.”
According to the Bible Muhammad should be “put to death”, however it goes further than that. How inconsistent does the Muhammadan want to be? The passage known as “The Prophet” is telling people what to look for in this future prophet. Deuteronomy 18:20 is part of this description, so if the former part is supposed to be referring to Muhammad we have a contradiction. To be consistent Muhammadans, should accept the whole of the Biblical passage. Consistency is something Muhammadans lack.
Deuteronomy 18:5 “For the Lord your God has chosen them and their descendants out of all your tribes to stand and minister in the Lord’s name always.”
But there’s more. Muhammad also broke one of the Sabbath Laws by uttering the names of these Pagan goddesses. Since Muhammadans don’t believe in the divinity of Jesus, they also do not believe that he could have conducted such a blasphemous act as overturn the Sabbath laws (Matthew 5:17-19?). Only somebody who claims to be god could have had that authority (unless of course Jesus didn’t overturn these laws, which allowed Muhammad to utter the names but Koran 10:64* says the Bible is the uncorrupted word of Allah when taken in conjunction with Koran 5:68*). It is true that the Koran states the Bible is the uncorrupted word of god, and I’ll get to that later. The Sabbath Law he broke is as follows:
Exodus (23:13): “Be careful to do everything I have said to you. Do not invoke the names of other gods; do not let them be heard on your lips.”
But Muhammad invoked the names of other god on his lips, therefore breaking the Sabbath Law. As Sami Zaatari says at 54:11 of this debate with Sam Shamoun:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d1fOE-PTRvc
"I'm glad you have more to say, you haven't proven nothing yet."
5:68 “Say O People of the Scripture! Ye have naught (of guidance) till ye observe the Torah and the Gospel and that which was revealed unto you from your Lord...”
And Koran 10:64 says: “Theirs are good tidings in the life of the world and in the Hereafter - There is no changing the Words of Allah - that is the Supreme Triumph.”

Which is a double negative, so that means that I have proven something – thanks for that Sami. As we see, or rather hear, in the debate, Sami has a very narrow-minded view of the Bible, and takes the verses at face value, and with that in mind I think Sam won the debate, not least because of Sami’s use of a double negative. I could say: “If Muhammad is a true prophet of Allah then he should have said “I am a true prophet of Allah and Jesus is not the son of god” in the same sentence”. Of course he does not say this and it is a very narrow-minded view, not that it matters, because I have already proven Muhammad is false anyway.
And the Koran tells people to read the Bible if they doubt Muhammad (5:68 for example), and by reading the Bible, we discover Muhammad cannot be a true prophet or the Hadith are corrupted.

Section 12:  Is the Koran copied?
As well early Arab sceptics of the Muhammadan religion*,tThese verses in the Koran seem to imply that even the followers of the founder of the religion doubted him:
Koran (6:21-22) Who doth greater wrong than he who inventeth a lie against Allah or denieth His revelations? Lo! the wrongdoers will not be successful. (21) And on the day We gather them together We shall say unto those who ascribed partners (unto Allah): Where are (now) those partners of your make-believe? (22)
This is something the Koran says (and Muhammadans only believe it because it says so in their religious texts [using circular logic]):
25:32 And those who disbelieve say: Why is the Qur'an not revealed unto him all at once ? (It is revealed) thus that We may strengthen thy heart therewith; and We have arranged it in right order.
Muhammadans believe the god had Koran the ready in heaven before the universe was created, but if that’s so, why do the Bible and Torah exist? If Koran was indeed created before the universe we live in then we couldn’t this “Allah” reveal it all in one go, in its entirety. And why did this all powerful “Allah”, require a mere mortal as a messenger? Surely this “Allah” is powerful enough to perform a theophany and doesn’t require a middle man? Even an angel would have been enough, but no, the angel who supposedly is present amongst mortals, requires a human to relay the messages of this “Allah”. That sounds awfully suspicious to me.
The real reason it is not revealed in one go is because the messenger needed time to formulate his message, because although the Koran copied the scientific facts from the Greeks and Bible/Torah, it also copied scientific errors, most notably on embryology, and this will be discussed later on. The fact that Koran mentions embryology is something Muhammadans like to shout about (but not the historical accuracy of certain claims it makes). What they don’t know, and this was discussed previously, is that the Koran is wrong about it because it says the bones are formed before the flesh which is wrong and something certain ancient Greeks taught. If you tell me the man is illiterate you are using circular logic, which is flawed, not that he needed to be literate, as I elaborated on previously. I wouldn’t call saying the science in Koran is from god misinformation, rather naivety on the part of the Muhammadans, because they are accept what is being fed to them without considering what other people have to say.
Are we supposed to believe he revealed two to four verses a day or something? Alright here’s a bit of math for you; 365x23= 8395, and if we take into account leap years that adds about an extra six days. By comparison the Bible has about 31,103, depending on translation, (I couldn’t find a Koran verse count) verses and I’m wondering how the Muhammadans knew how to organise the various parts of the Koran into the chapters we see today. After all, he was supposed to be spouting random verses every now and again. The way the Koran was “revealed” seems rather irregular. One verse could be form Mecca whilst the next could be from Medina. Verses alluding to peace come from Mecca, or in other words, at a time when Muhammadans were in a minority.
Early Christians were arguably persecuted more than the Muhammadans. Thousands were thrown to the lions whilst people mocked and laughed, and others were surely enslaved and many more died. Yet they didn’t form an army come back with a bone to pick. Muhammad slaughtered the Pagan, perhaps even committing genocide, but naturally the Hadith what to make the Muhammadans appears in a positive light so they want the Kaffir to look bad, and of course we never see the true story.
This same god is supposed to have guided the people writing the Bible/Torah. If this is the same god, why does the Muhammadan god “Allah” teach different things? This “Allah” will have known the Bible would become corrupted because god is all seeing and all knowing therefore there would be no need for the Koran since assumption Bible being corrupted is a cornerstone of the Muhammadan belief.
Actually, Christians will dispute that belief because of the things like the Dead Sea Scrolls, Vulgata and the four surviving Uncial Codices (all older than the Muhammadan religion) and if the Bible is uncorrupted that would make the Muhammadan religion redundant. While I accept the Bible may not have been corrupted in at least 2000 years (Allah was rather late with the Koran, about half a centenary too late), this is irrelevant in my arguments as to why I am an Atheist.
Koran acknowledges the Bible is the word of this “Allah” here:
5:68 “Say O People of the Scripture! Ye have naught (of guidance) till ye observe the Torah and the Gospel and that which was revealed unto you from your Lord...”
And Koran 10:64 says: “Theirs are good tidings in the life of the world and in the Hereafter - There is no changing the Words of Allah - that is the Supreme Triumph.”
Pretty big contradiction (remembering that I am taking the verses at face value like the Muhammadans do to other religions)...
I want to mention The Epic of Gilgamesh briefly now. The Epic of Gilgamesh is older than even Old Testament of the Bible, being at least 4000 years old, and that has not been corrupted over the years because much of the ancient text still exists today so it cannot be corrupted by newer text (since we will know it has corrupted). Some would go as far as saying that it influenced Torah/Bible, and therefore the Koran, as some of their stories are very similar to some of those in the Epic of Gilgamesh, which predates all three religious books.
Secondly, how could the Koran be arranged in the “right order” if it’s not arranged in chronological order like the Bible? Surely arranging in chronological order makes sense. I’m struggling to understand how this garbled (more on that in the next paragraphs) Bible can be in any sort of order. It is true that the surahs are arranged in the order of the longest to the shortest, but that doesn’t mean they are in a logical order.
For example, chapter 71 is talking about Noah (the Sura named after him too [Sūrat Nūḥ]) which in the Bible is one of the first stories. Twenty-three years is an awfully long time, plenty of time to reword the Torah/Bible if that was the Muhammadan intention, and actually it’s not just the stories that Koran has reworded, but any apparent references to science too (amongst other things), because whenever someone claims there is science in the Koran, I bring up my search engine and I find someone claiming similar things about the Bible.
Another thing I have noted is that both the Koran and Bible have similar attitudes to slavery. I have yet to find a verse(s) that explicitly condemn slavery, so even though both books say that a person should treat slaves with a certain amount of dignity (explaining how one should treat slaves) they do not say slavery is wrong. According to the Muhammadan sources, the founder of the religion freed slaves. I think this is either pure fantasy or it was a kind of bribe to get people to listen to him.
My country banned slavery in 1807, but what’s interesting is the Ottoman Caliphate where still using slaves right up until the fall of their empire, and even today, in places like Sudan and the Islamic Republic of Mauritania, slavery  is acknowledged as being a problem, and slavers can and do use Islamic texts to justify their actions. In Islamic Republic of Mauritania, though estimates vary, anything up to 20% could be enslaved, most of the slaves being black people slaves to Arabs.
In both the Bible and the Koran there are also verses that people can use to justify acts of violence. You look on the Muhammadan websites and there are all of these things about the Bible and if you look on the Christian and Zionist websites they will happily quote equivalent verses from the Koran. From what I’ve seen so far, it appears to me that both books are mostly the same; it’s just that they have different authors. In the same way, these will tell you the Bible and Koran also advocate slavery, but will neglect to tell you that both books have rules for the way slaves should be treated.

Section 13: A brief look at some contradictions in the Koran
1.	A look at some individual verses taken at face value
2.	Does Allah commit Shirk?
Like any religious book, there are contradictions in the Koran. I should remind the reader that I am taking verses at face value and using the same dirty tricks Muhammadans use when interpreting the Bible or the Vedas as they take the verses from those at face value. Many of these contradictions are only minor but I have found some pretty big contradictions. For example, the Koran cannot decide if Christians are going to hell or not. Two verses I have seen claim they will not go hell, but another two verses suggest they will go to hell. I am using the English Pickthal translation from Koran explorer for all of these verses.
This is the verse that says Christians will not go to hell (and I think it’s rather random that it mentions Sabians (who I have no reason to believe were monotheistic) :
Koran 2:62-63 “Lo! Those who believe (in that which is revealed unto thee, Muhammad), and those who are Jews, and Christians, and Sabians - whoever believeth in Allah and the Last Day and doeth right - surely their reward is with their Lord, and there shall no fear come upon them neither shall they grieve. (62) And (remember, O Children of Israel) when We made a covenant with you and caused the mount to tower above you, (saying): Hold fast that which We have given you, and remember that which is therein, that ye may ward off (evil). (63)”
And 5:69-70 also says Christians will not go to hell (wondering why the word Sabians is spelt differently here even though it’s the same translation):
Lo! those who believe, and those who are Jews, and Sabaeans, and Christians - Whosoever believeth in Allah and the Last Day and doeth right - there shall no fear come upon them neither shall they grieve. (69) We made a covenant of old with the Children of Israel and We sent unto them messengers. As often as a messenger came unto them with that which their souls desired not (they became rebellious). Some (of them) they denied and some they slew. (70)
I’m wondering if when the Koran says slew it is referring to Jesus (Isa) since the Koran acknowledges the crucifixion. I’m probably just acting a bit naively but it is an interesting choice of words.
4:157: “That they said, “We slew the Messiah, Jesus the son of Mary, the messenger of God”-yet they did not slay him neither crucified him, only a likeness of that which was shown to them (Who? Jews, Romans or Samaritans?).”
Interestingly, I have yet to find any Muhammadan (Hadith?) commentary on the verse – no explanation, nothing. Or so I’m told, and maybe I’ve been looking at the wrong sources too? So I challenge the reader to do just that for the above verse. Similarly, I challenge the reader to provide me with any archaeological evidence that shows Mecca has been around for thousands of years. History shows there was nothing at Mecca before the 3rd century AD. There are one or two pieces of purely circumstantial evidence that suggest something resembling Mecca before then, but shouldn’t something so important be referred to more often? Where are the Roman, Yemini, Egyptian and Ethiopian accounts? Anything? Persians, Babylonians, Hittites, Greeks? Let’s imagine I have a religious book. It says Abraham went to the Salisbury Plain and built Stonehenge. I believe my book to be the word of god too, so therefore it must be true, so how are you going to prove my one is lying without referring to your Koran? Did you say I need evidence to back up my claims? If you did, then I’ve just caught you using double standards. You’d think you’d be able to prove such an important cornerstone of your religion was built the Koran says it was built. Does the Koran then not agree with history, or is it then that established history that doesn’t agree the Koran?
Despite the above verse, it is true the founder of the Muhammadan religion said the Bible was the word of god, at least initially, and I want to touch on that later. Another interesting thing is that there seems to be some evidence outside of the Bible that appears to support the crucifixion of Jesus (various Roman, and other, accounts), though I wouldn’t go as far as saying that this apparent evidence supports the entire Biblical story of Jesus, although that could merely be because I haven’t researched it fully yet.
But Koran 5:17 says: “Unbelievers are the ones who say that Allah is the Messiah, son of Mary”
And Koran 5:73-74 says:
They surely disbelieve who say: Lo! Allah is the third of three; when there is no God save the One God. If they desist not from so saying a painful doom will fall on those of them who disbelieve. (73) Will they not rather turn unto Allah and seek forgiveness of Him? For Allah is Forgiving, Merciful. (74)
Before I move onto the next verse, I must mention this is not what Christians believe. They believe the god is all of three, not a third of the three, assuming this verse is referring to Christians. They wouldn’t really be Christians if they didn’t believe Jesus was god and god is only the father or the Holy Spirit. Although the trinity itself maybe a man made concept (to explain god rather than represent god) it is referred to in the Bible here:
Matthew 28:19-20 (Jesus' direct words): "Go, therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit; Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and, lo, I am with you always, even unto the end of the world."
Christians believe god is all of the three rather than just one of the three and they will often use the example of water to justify their claims. Water is still water regardless of if its steam or ice, as ice and steam are different forms of the same thing and therefore still water, just in a different state.
If we assume that verse is referring to Christians we can also assume Christians are going to hell (if we also assume grievous punishment is hell). If that wasn’t clear enough, another verse also implies that they are going to hell.
So basically, what the Muhammadans are saying is when another religion takes something from Hinduism it's "Pagan" but when the Muhammadan religion has similarities with Hinduism it's suddenly not Pagan. They say the trinity is from Hinduism, and therefore Pagan but somehow the kissing of black stones is not a Pagan concept even though it comes from Hinduism. Isn't that double standards? It appears to me that the Muhammadan religion borrows a lot more from Hinduism than Christianity does.
Similarly 3:85-86 says Christians will go to hell (because it doesn’t exempt anyone specifically):
And whoso seeketh as religion other than the Surrender (to Allah) it will not be accepted from him, and he will be a loser in the Hereafter. (85) How shall Allah guide a people who disbelieved after their belief and (after) they bore witness that the messenger is true and after clear proofs (of Allah's Sovereignty) had come unto them. And Allah guideth not wrongdoing folk. (86)
Similarly, Koran (2:111) says: “And they say: None entereth paradise unless he be a Jew or a Christian. These are their own desires. Say: Bring your proof (of what ye state) if ye are truthful.”
Christians and Jews can show their books have been uncorrupted; of course the staunch Muhammadan will always try to find an excuse to disprove the claims of the Christians and Jews so we can safely assume this verse is also implying the Christians and Jews will go to hell.
As I have been reading the Koran I have noted that it cannot make up its mind on what this “Allah” created humans from nor how many days creation was created in. There are several verses claiming several different things about human creation, but I won’t mention them here. So I’m wondering; if the word of god is so perfect then why does it contradict itself? I accept the Bible has contradictions too, but for the purpose of this article I want to focus on the Koran.
Another thing I see is the fact that Muhammadans claim the Bible is the word of their “Allah” whilst at the same time claiming it is corrupted. But the Koran also tells us the word of god cannot be corrupted, right?
This is one thing the Koran says:
61:6 “And when Jesus son of Mary said: O Children of Israel! Lo! I am the messenger of Allah unto you, confirming that which was (revealed) before me in the Torah, and bringing good tidings of a messenger who cometh after me, whose name is the Praised One. Yet when he hath come unto them with clear proofs, they say: This is mere magic.”
It looks as if the Koran is confirming the Old Testament prophecies supposedly relating to Jesus, and that would mean Deuteronomy 18:15 (from the Torah and I’ll get to that shortly) might not be referring the founder of the Muhammadan religion. All religions have flaws and Atheists know this, and this is one of the reasons why I am an Atheist. I have another verse:
5:46-47 “And We caused Jesus, son of Mary, to follow in their footsteps, confirming that which was (revealed) before him in the Torah, and We bestowed on him the Gospel wherein is guidance and a light, confirming that which was (revealed) before it in the Torah - a guidance and an admonition unto those who ward off (evil). (46) Let the People of the Gospel judge by that which Allah hath revealed therein. Whoso judgeth not by that which Allah hath revealed: such are evil-livers. (47)
And 6:115 “Perfected is the Word of thy Lord in truth and justice. There is naught that can change His words. He is the Hearer, the Knower.”
Huh? I thought the Bible was supposed to be corrupted? The Muhammadans appear only to accept the Bible when it suits them, even though the Koran says it’s the word of god. The founder of the Muhammadan religion is telling them to judge a corrupted book? Which Gospel is it referring to? So if the Koran is true, then that means the Gospels are also true? I don’t agree with New Testament yet it seems odd that the Muhammadans say the Bible is corrupted whilst their Koran says the Bible is uncorrupted.
Here is an interesting verse:
7:157 “Those who follow the messenger, the Prophet who can neither read nor write, whom they will find described in the Torah and the Gospel (which are) with them. He will enjoin on them that which is right and forbid them that which is wrong. He will make lawful for them all good things and prohibit for them only the foul; and he will relieve them of their burden and the fetters that they used to wear. Then those who believe in him, and honour him, and help him, and follow the light which is sent down with him: they are the successful.”
That is another example of circular logic because it is the Muhammadan text that is saying he is illiterate. Is he really described in the Old Testament though? Below is a verse Muhammadans often quote from the supposedly corrupted Bible (which is suddenly reliable when they want to quote from it). This next subsection covers the assumption that founder of the religion is in the Bible, or more specifically, Deuteronomy 18:15 (NIV).
I see Deuteronomy 18:15 quoted a lot by Muhammadans and it says, as I'm sure if you're a Christian you are aware:
 "The LORD your God will raise up for you a Prophet like me from your midst, from your brethren."
 This verse is being read to the Israelites (I assume by an Israelite since the Bible is a book about people's relationships with god), which Muhammad clearly is not one of since he was not an Israelite as the term "from your brethren" applies to other Israelites and not anyone else since the words are being read to Israelites. A verse prior to Deuteronomy 8:15 is yet more proof:
 Deuteronomy 17:15: "you shall surely set a king over you s whom the LORD your God chooses; one from among your brethren you shall set as king over you; you may not set a foreigner over you, who is not your brother."
 So there it is saying someone from the "brethren" has to be an Israelite because it is saying it can be foreigner (to the Israelites). What the verse is saying is god will raise up a prophet for you, the Israelites, like me, Moses from amongst your own brethren and Muhammad is not one of the brethren.
So a question you should ask yourself is: “Why do Muhammadans quote a "corrupted" book?” It corrupted to them as far as Jesus is the son of god is concerned but when Muhammadans want to quote from it to proclaim prophecies relating to the Muhammadan religion it suddenly becomes a reliable source of information. What's to say the verses Muhammadans say are related to the founder of their religion aren't corrupted like so many of the other verses apparently are? I often see Muhammadans take information for the religious texts of others to attempt to prove their points whilst at the same time saying they are corrupted. If a text is corrupted why are they using for their arguments? Something corrupted cannot be used as a valid source of information to base prophecies on, or are other religious texts just corrupted until the Muhammadans want to quote them to further their aims?
Another question you should ask yourself is: “Why did that god send all the other prophets to the Jews (Israelites) and Muhammad is an exception to the rule?”

Allah commits Shirk?
http://www.scribd.com/doc/2463612/Sahih-Bukhari-Vol-5
Volume 5, Book 58, Number 177:
Narrated 'Umar:
 “The Prophet said, "If anybody has to take an oath, he should swear only by Allah." The people of Quraish used to swear by their fathers, but the Prophet said, "Do not swear by your fathers. "”
Video:
http://www.answeringmuslims.com/2011/10/does-allah-commit-shirk.html
Is Allah exempt from the rules? I don’t know, but it seems like Allah is exempt from these rules.
If you swear by something other than the god Allah you have committed Shirk. This is what Islam teaches. With than in mind, we see that Allah swears by things other than Allah for example, in the beginning of chapter 53 of the Koran Allah swears by the star. If Allah is all powerful, why does Allah need to swear by things in creation? I don’t know. As we see, Allah swears by both the moon and star, the two main symbols of Islam.
 Below are some examples:
Koran (50:1): “Qaf. By the glorious Qur'an,”
Koran (52:1): “By the Mount,”
Koran (53:1): “By the Star when it setteth,”
Koran (68:1): “Nun. By the pen and that which they write (therewith),”
Koran (77:1): “By the emissary winds, (sent) one after another,”
Koran (79:1-5): “By those who drag forth to destruction, (1) By the meteors rushing, (2) By the lone stars floating, (3) By the angels hastening, (4) And those who govern the event, (5)”
Koran (86:1): “By the heaven and the Morning Star”
Koran (91:1-2): “By the sun and his brightness, (1) And the moon when she followeth him, (2)”

Section 14: Lack of errors in the Koran
When Muhammadans say the Koran has a lack of errors, they say it like this is the only book without any grammatical or spelling errors in it. I’m not going to dispute this assertion; though I wish they would dissect the Koran in the same way the ridicule the True Furqan, Bible and the Vedas. What I will say though, is the Koran having no errors would be nothing special. The Koran is not unique in not having any errors. Other religious books, along with all published books, have been meticulously proofread. We can also ascertain there are no grammatical or spelling errors in the Bible too, so I can’t understand why a book with no errors in it is anything special. What I’m saying is that it’s not exactly something worth shouting about.
As I have already discussed there are contradictions, more than I care to list (you can search for them), but now I want to look at the apparent lack of errors. Since people believed the Koran to be the word of god they would have taken great care when compiling it. The founder of the Muhammadan religion was apparently illiterate, so he could not have written it down, if we go by what the Islamic texts say about him (how did he write the letters to the heads of state of the time?).
I do find the below verse rather suspicious though, and perhaps the Koran did contain more errors and contradictions at one point:
Koran (2:106)—“Whatever verse we shall abrogate, or cause [thee] to forget, we will bring a better than it, or one like unto it. Dost thou not know that God is almighty?”
Koran (16:101)—“When We substitute one revelation for another—and God knows best what He reveals (in stages)—they say, “Thou art but a forger”: but most of them understand not.”

Section 14: Some things for Muslim apologists to search for...
1. Armenian Genocide
 2. Assyrian Genocide
 3. Greek Genocide
 4. Arab Slave Trade
 5. Plastering of mosaics in the Haga Sophia
 6. Guru Tegh Bahadur, the 9th Guru of the Sikh religion (his only crime was refusing to become a Muhammadan) http://www.sikhs.org/guru9.htm Other Sikh gurus suffered a similar fake.
 7. Persecution of Hindus (the Muhammadans have demolished hundreds of places of worship on the Indian subcontinent).
 8. South Thailand insurgency
 9. Slavery in the Islamic Republic of Mauritania
 10. Ethnic Cleansing in Sudan/use of *cluster bombs* by the Muslim Sudanese government to bomb civilians, like those on the border with Southern Sudan.
 11. Youcef Nadarkhani
 12. Into YouTube search bar I want you to type in the “The struggle for Pakistan’s Christians”.
OR go here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sSvZYxlFzhQ
They are forced to live in a walled settlement full of garbage because the Muslims think that they are dirty drug dealers.
 Also, the guy (in the video below) is a Pakistani living the UK, and the Muslims in his community told his family that if they didn't come back to Islam, if he was in Pakistan they would be the first to chop of his head because (according to them) he and his family bring dishonour to Islam.

 Part of a documentary "Persecution of Ex-Muslim Christians in UK":
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rvsx4kMui-I
 I ask you, what would bring more dishonour to Islam? One man and his family becoming Christian, or a gang of Muslims killing this man and his family for refusing to listen to them? As we see with the above topics, Muhammadans tend to be very intolerant people, and there are more examples of intolerance if one cares to look. It should be noted however, that thereligionofpeace.com tends not to be a reliable source of information.

Conclusion:
To close, I’d like to say that you’re never going to get me to become a Muslim. Even though I know some Muslim terrorists (not all, but Al-Qaeda specifically) are actors and really from the CIA, a favourite past time of mine is to prove Muslims wrong. Anjem Choudrary is probably being used by the British media/govertment, I know this already and there are other fake Muslims like Faizrakhman Sattarov, just like there are fake Christians, and of course Hindus, like the actors Zakir Naik employs. My interest in Islam came about after talking to a girl from Libya on the website fanfiction.net. We no longer talk because he Internet connection was lost. Our conversation spurred me into researching the religion and I soon discovered that many Muslims are very deceptive.
That last is example seems like subconscious destiny at work. The children did not choose this destiny. Does that mean the child's father chose abusing the children as part of his destiny? Or does that mean because the children cannot consciously control the father it was predetermined? Surely god would not choose this destiny for the innocent children...
What’s interesting is you don’t need a degree in theology or Islamic studies to know Islam is not from god. All you really need is a good brain that will not falter easily. Here in the Koran it even acknowledged people doubted the founder of the Muhammadan religion:
10:94 “And if thou (Muhammad) art in doubt concerning that which We reveal unto thee, then question those who read the Scripture (that was) before thee. Verily the Truth from thy Lord hath come unto thee. So be not thou of the waverers.”
And the Koran itself acknowledges it has been corrupted (bearing in mind I am taking verses at face value and this verse was revealed at the time when he was still alive):
Koran (15:91) says: “Those who break the Qur'an into parts. (91) Them, by thy Lord, We shall question, every one, (92) Of what they used to do. (93)”
Many Muhammadans suffer from gnosiophobia and eleutherophobia. Verses like Koran 2:7 and 4:157 (which has already been discussed) present a problem for me. I cannot believe in an unjust god and intentionally misleads Kaffir.
Koran 2:7: “Allah hath sealed their hearing and their hearts, and on their eyes there is a covering. Theirs will be an awful doom.”
This article is one of the things that led me want to look again at Christianity, and all Christians reading my article should make a note of the ideas being put forward in the article below:
http://answering-islam.org/Authors/JR/Future/index.htm
Surah 5:101 O ye who believe! Ask not questions about things which, if made plain to you, may cause you trouble.
102 Some people before you did ask such questions, and on that account lost their faith.