Back to main page

Debunking "Islam Watch" Part 1/??

-Miracles of the Quran Exposed Debunking-
-Absurdities in the Quran Debunked-
-Hate verses in the Quran Debunked-
-Contradictions in the Quran exposed-
-Pseudo science in the Quran debunked-
-Stolen stories of bible in the Quran debunked-
-Stories of Mohammed’s wives?-
-Unlinked arguments?-
-Abrogated verses in the Quran Debunked?? Is it even a problem?-
-Satanic verses in the Quran Debunked-
-Dreams of heaven in the Quran ??-
-Torture of hell in Quran-
-Fact talk debunked-
-Non Arabic words in Quran Debunked-
-Is everyone who didn't know about Islam in hell?-
-Al-waleed's story in short-
-Muhammad hatred for Jews? Debunked?-
-Muhammad married his daughter in law. DEBUNKED?-
-The story that did nothing to Islam until now-
-pedophilia in the Quran?-
-Broken oaths-
-Scriber’s wording-
-Verse of stoning-
-Who are these people?-

This article has been updated to remove subjectivity, fix mistakes, and over all improving it.


Someone sent me a page from a site called Islam Watch the page titled " Miracles of the Quran Exposed", if you want a short answer: that page is a joke, and you could clearly see that in this article which debunk their debunk about embryology in the Quran, and if you want a long answer here you have it: the page has links to different anti-Islam sites that share the same content (lying, misleading, and acting dumb), so debunking them will need many parts, so here is part 1:

Miracles of the Quran Exposed Debunking

So lets read the page:

About 90% of Muslims do not bother to read Quran with its translation.

First line has 2 lies, first where did you found that 90% number? Muslims read the Quran everyday when they pray, and should finish it once each month, and in Ramadan we do what we call Tarawih in which we pray each night of Ramadan reading all the Quran verses through out the month, and Islam oblige us to read the Quran:

Read (Prophet Muhammad) in the Name of your Lord who created [Quran chapter 96 verse 1]
Anas reported God’s messenger as saying, “The search for knowledge is an obligation laid on every Muslim" [Mishkat al-Masabih 218 Book 2, Hadith 20]

And what better knowledge we have other then the Quran.

Lets continue:

But still, they believe that Quran is a “miracle” of Allah. If Muslims ever bother to study Quran with an understanding of its meaning and an objective mind..

Just look at a Muslim scholar library, here is some photos:

lets continue:

they will find absurdities, hate verses, contradictions, Pseudo science, stolen stories of bible, stories of ...’s wives, stories of his companions, abrogated verses, satanic verses, grammatical errors, dreams of heaven, torture of hell, Allah’s anthropomorphic face, non Arabic words, inequalities, badly copied biblical verses, humor, vulgar language ,...’s nervousness, his anger, his feelings, his hatred for Jews, his lust, his marriage with daughter in law, his atrocities, his lootings, his pedophilia, his hallucinations, his broken oaths, his broken treaties, misogynist verses, scriber’s wording and many other “miraculous” things. And they will never find any wording for peace except of some ayats of Mecca when ... was weak and a poor shepherd. But they will not get the idea of missing verse of stoning, lashing and list of missing verses and the Quran which is hidden to Muslim “ummah”. Only Shia Imam has “hidden” knowledge about that part of “miraculous“ Quran.

Anyone looking at this will think that there is no way the Quran is right with all these errors, but don't be fooled, we will debunk them one by one without missing a single one Insha'a Allah, lets start with the first one:

Absurdities in the Quran Debunked

The link will take us to this page from another site, lets read:

Solomon ... said: O mankind! Lo! we have been taught the language of birds.--27:16

OK, that's a verse from the Quran, Allah gave prophet Solomon the ability to understand the language of birds, meaning he can understand what they say, so he can order them to do something, and when they done it he can understand the results, and there is a whole story about Solomon and the hoopoe bird:

He reviewed the birds and said: 'Why is it that I do not see the hoopoe here? Or is he among the absent? Surely, I will punish him with a terrible punishment, or I will slaughter him or he gives me a good reason.' He was not long in coming, and said: 'I know what you do not know. I come to you from Sheba with certain news. There I found a woman ruling over them. She possess everything and has a great throne. But she and her people prostrate to the sun instead of Allah. And satan has made their deeds seem pleasing to them and barred them from the Path, and therefore they are not guided. Do they not prostrate themselves to Allah who brings forth all that is concealed in the heavens and earth and He knows what they hide and what they reveal? Allah, there is no god except He, the Lord of the Mighty Throne.' He replied: 'We shall see if what you have said is true or whether you are among those who lie. Take my letter, and drop it to them. Then turn aside and see what they shall return.' [Quran 20-29]

So Solomon understood the hoopoe (which is a bird) talk and ordered him, no human can do that, where is the absurdity?

Alif. Lam. Mim." [Quran chapter 2 verse 1] Many surahs start with three Arabic letters. No one knows why.

Muslims don't say something about the Quran without a proof, or at least enough knowledge about the subject, and because there is no proof of the reason why these letters are there, so no Muslim tired to explain it, while knowing that are not there no reason, but some Muslims did gave interesting theories about it, but still can't be the right thing with a proof.

Again this is not absurdity to Muslims. lets continue:

"This is the Scripture whereof there is no doubt, a guidance unto those who ward off (evil)." There is no doubt about this or any other "Scripture". It is false. It wasn't revealed by God and it won't "ward off evil."

So objective here, next:

"Shall we believe as the foolish believe?" According to the Quran, the answer is, yes. To be truly wise you must believe whatever the foolish believe. 2:13

Lets read from the verse before it:

There are some people who say: 'We believe in Allah and the Last Day,' yet they are not believers.
They seek to deceive Allah and those who believe, but they deceive none except themselves, though they do not sense it.
There is a sickness in their hearts which Allah has increased. For them there is a painful punishment because they lie.
When it is said to them, 'Do not corrupt in the land,' they reply, 'We are only reformers.'
But it is they who are the evildoers, though they do not sense it.
And when it is said unto them: Believe as the people believe, they say: Shall we believe as the foolish believe? Are not they indeed the foolish? But they know not.

So the one who said "Shall we believe as the foolish believe" are the non-believers, and the Quran says to them "Are not they indeed the foolish?", indeed they are, so this whole page is just him fooling the reader?, I don't want waste time on this, lets go to another topic:

Hate verses in the Quran Debunked

The link take you to this long page, I skipped the unimportant parts and also the harassing parts, lets read:

Everything Those Infidels Have Everywhere In the World Already Belongs to the Muslims, Take It
Qur’an 33.27 And He made you heirs to their land and their dwellings and their property, and (to) a land which you have not yet trodden, and Allah has power over all things.
Qur’an 21:44 Do they see Us advancing, gradually reducing the land (in their control), curtailing its borders on all sides? It is they who will be overcome.

Lets read some of the verses before 33:27 and 33:27:

When the believers saw the confederates they said: 'This is what Allah and His Messenger have promised us. Surely, Allah and His Messenger have spoken in truth.' And this did not increase them except in belief and submission.
Of the believers are men who are true to that which they covenanted with Allah. Some of them have paid their vow by death (in battle), and some of them still are waiting; and they have not altered in the least;
so that Allah will recompense the truthful for their truthfulness and punish the hypocrites if He will, or turn again to them. Surely, Allah is the Forgiver and the Most Merciful.
Allah sent back the unbelievers in their rage, and they gained no good. Allah spared the believers from fighting, surely Allah is the Strong, the Mighty.
He brought down from their fortresses those who had supported them from among the People of the Book (Jewish) and cast terror into their hearts, so that some you killed and others you took captive.
He made you inheritors of their land, their houses, and their possessions, and another land on which you had never set foot before. Truly, Allah is Powerful over everything.

So not all infidels things belong to Muslims, as those in the verse your mentioned are the one that united with enemies of Islam against Islam, lets see your other verse:

The thing is that We provided those and their fathers with the good things (of this world), until a long period (of enjoyment) passed over them (and now they are steeped in negligence). But do they not see that We are invading the land (of disbelief) and are gradually reducing it from its outlying borders? Can they even then be the victors?

Now how did you understood that this verse means "Everything The Infidels Have Everywhere In the World Already Belongs to the Muslims"? until you answer here is something to take into account while attacking Muslims:

Christians destroyed and killed everyone in their first crusade, the USA troops who are known to "KILL ANYTHING THAT MOVES", Jews used to kill (and still killing) based on their Torah, lets continue:

Qur’an 9:123 “murder them and treat them harshly”

LIAR, there is no verse that says that, Quran chapter 9 verse 123 says:

Believers, fight the unbelievers who are near you. Let them find firmness in you. Know that Allah is with those who are cautious.

No murdering or treating harshly is being said, you lied and you know you lied, that alone debunks everything you said, because you are proven to be a liar, but lets see what lies you got:

Qur’an 3.28 Let not the believers take the unbelievers for friends rather than believers; and whoever does this, he shall have nothing of (the guardianship of) Allah, but you should guard yourselves against them, guarding carefully; and Allah makes you cautious of (retribution from) Himself; and to Allah is the eventual coming. NOTE: By ‘guarding carefully’, a Muslim should deceive the infidel. Acting as a friend is fine as long as it is to benefit the Muslim and protect Islam.

Didn't stop lying them, here is a better translation for the verse:

Let not the believers take the disbelievers for friends in preference to the believers unless you very carefully guard against evil from them. Indeed he who acts likewise (in a careless manner let him remember) he has nothing to do with Allâh. And Allâh cautions you against His punishment, for to Allâh is the eventual returning.

As we already see you are a non-believer and you lied, because non-believers have no problem doing anything, unlike Muslims who watch themselves and try not to do any sins or harm anyone, so it is safe to stay with a Muslim who fear Allah then to stay with non-believer who doesn't believe in any punishment.

There is so many times in history in which the non Muslims betrayed the Muslims (It is out the focus of this article, but maybe one day we will talk about that, Insha'a Allah), as your enemy won't "friend you", but rather act, until he gets the chance to harm you, and because of not applying this verse, Muslims came to what they are today (like wars in middle east).

Now the "NOTE" he says, "a Muslim should deceive the infidel" is another lie (Unless in a war situation or to survive the infidel).

The article is so long that also can take so long, I know it is full of lies just like the one I showed.

And Allah knows best.

lets see what's the next topic:

Contradictions in the Quran exposed

The link will take you to another anti-Islam site, skipping all the useless introduction that makes you feel here is right, we go to the list of "121" contradiction, I will chose 3 "cool titled" ones to debunk, so lets go with: "Can Allah be seen and did Muhammad see his Lord? ", "Wine: Good or bad?", "Does Allah forgive shirk?" (Just from the titles I know this guy has nothing to do with Islam at all.) lets start with the first link and read:

The Quran suggests that Muhammad saw Allah, that he had a vision in which Allah appeared to him visibly: By the Star when it plunges, your comrade is not astray, neither errs, nor speaks he out of caprice. This is naught but a revelation revealed, taught HIM by ONE terrible in power, very strong; HE STOOD POISED, being on the higher horizon, THEN DREW NEAR and suspended hung, two bows’-length away, or nearer, then REVEALED TO HIS SERVANT that HE REVEALED. His heart lies not of what he saw; what, will you dispute with him what he sees? Indeed, he SAW HIM ANOTHER TIME by the Lote-Tree of the Boundary nigh which is the Garden of the Refuge, when there covered the Lote-Tree that which covered; his eye swerved not; nor swept astray. Indeed, he saw one of the greatest signs of his Lord. S. 53:1-18 Arberry
The above refers to an unnamed comrade who hasn’t gone astray and who doesn’t speak out of caprice. Muslims unanimously take this to be an obvious reference to Muhammad. It goes on to say that he (Muhammad) was taught by one terrible in power, very strong (Allah), and that he (Allah) stood poised and drew near and revealed to his servant (Muhammad) the revelation.

The very strong and terrible in power is Gabriel, and you seem to know that, lets continue:

The expression "revealed to his servant" clearly shows that this is speaking of Allah and Muhammad, that Allah appeared to Muhammad in order to grant him revelation. The text cannot be saying that Gabriel appeared to Muhammad since this would imply that the latter is the servant of Gabriel.

Muhammad is the servant of Allah, not Gabriel, but since you are Christian, you truly want that to be true right? anyway lets debunk it:

First no Tafsir scholar ever explain that "revealed to his servant" means Muhammad peace be upon him was the servant of Gabriel, however they came up with these Tafsirs:

1-revealed to Allah's servant what Allah revealed to him

2-Allah revealed to his servant what he revealed through Gabriel

3-revealed to Muhammad the servant what he revealed

And so your explanation is wrong, lets continue:

Lo! I swear by the slinkers, the runners, the sinkers, by the night swarming, the dawn sighing, truly this is the word of a noble Messenger (rasoolin kareemin) having power, with the Lord of the Throne secure, obeyed, moreover trusty. Your companion is not possessed; he truly SAW HIM on the clear horizon; he is not niggardly of the Unseen. And it is not the word of an accursed Satan; where then are you going? It is naught but a Reminder unto all beings, for whosoever of you who would go straight; but will you shall not, unless God wills, the Lord of all Being. S. 81:15-29 Arberry
The above reference seems to be saying that Muhammad is the companion who is not possessed, the noble messenger having power who is secure with the Lord of the throne, i.e. Allah. There is even another text which identifies Muhammad as a noble messenger:

Now I can confirm that you didn't even think while reading the verse, the prophet in these verses is Gabriel, who is indeed a noble messenger, the proof is the verse above, but here is another better translation:

Possessor of power, occupying a (glorious) secure position with the Lord of the Throne

Now who has this power? Muhammad is just a human, while Gabriel is an angel who has abilities humans don't have, OK lets see one last thing:

It is narrated on the authority of Ibn ‘Abbas that he (the Holy Prophet) saw (Allah) with his heart. (Sahih Muslim, Book 001, Number 0334)

Now into some Muslims talk, indeed no one has saw Allah before, and Allah can not be seen by anyone now, even when prophet Moses asked to see him this what happened:

And when Moses came at the appointed time and his Lord spoke to him, he said: 'Lord, let me see, that I can look at You.' He replied: 'You shall not see Me. But look at the mountain; if it remains firm in its place, then shall you see Me.' And when his Lord was revealed to the mountain and caused it to be crushed and leveled whereupon Moses fell down senseless, and when he recovered, he said: 'Exaltations to You! I repent to You. I am the first of believers.' [Quran chapter 7 verse 143]

So the mountain couldn't handle looking at Allah, so how do humans can? but, still people will see Allah's face, those people are the people of paradise, the people who enters paradise will be rewarded to see Allah's face, and it is the best reward they got:

Patient men, desiring the Face of their Lord, establish their prayers, and spend of what We have given them in private and in public; and who ward-off evil with good. Theirs shall be the Ultimate Abode. [Quran chapter 13 verse 22]

Now to answer did Muhammad Peace be upon him saw Allah, short answer: No, Long answer: There are other Hadiths that prove that, like:

I asked the Messenger of Allah (PBUH): Did you see thy Lord? He said: (He is) Light; how could I see Him? [Sahih Muslim 178a Book 1, Hadith 348, Source]
I said to Abu Dharr: Had I seen the Messenger of Allah, I would have asked him. He (Abu Dharr) said: What is that thing that you wanted to inquire of him? He said: I wanted to ask him whether he had seen his Lord. Abu Dharr said: I, in fact, inquired of him, and he replied: I saw Light. [Sahih Muslim 178b Book 1, Hadith 349, Source]

And that's because:

The Messenger of Allah (PBUH) was standing amongst us and he told us four things. He then narrated the hadith like the one reported by Abu Mua'wiya, but did not mention the words" His creation" and said: His veil is the light. [Sahih Muslim 179b Book 1, Hadith 351, Source]

And we know from the Quran that:

It does not belong to any human that Allah should speak to him except by Revelation, or from behind a veil, or that He sent a Messenger to reveal whatsoever He will by His Permission. He is the High, the Wise. [Quran 42:51]

And so we now know that the prophet didn't saw Allah, but what about Ibn ‘Abbas hadith? the answer is in the hadith itself, it says "with his heart" not eyes, and Ibn ‘Abbas was from few (if not the only) follower who said this, and that even if we give that he meant this, I hope that helps.

And Allah knows best.

Lets go to the next link and read:

Wine is forbidden for a Muslim here on earth:O you who believe! Strong drink and games of chance and idols and divine arrows are only an infamy of Satan's handiwork. Leave it aside that you may succeed.-- Sura 5:90 See also Sura 2:219.
On the other hand in Paradise are rivers of wine:
A similitude of the Garden which those who keep their duty (to Allah) are promised: Therein are rivers of water unpolluted ... and rivers of wine delicious to the drinkers. -- Sura 47:15
Surely the pious will be in bliss ... their thirst will be slaked with pure wine sealed. -- Sura 83:22,25
Is wine good or bad? Are we forbidden on earth something that is truly good? Or in Paradise are we not only allowed it, but even provided in overflowing measures (rivers of ...) something that is so bad that it is called "Satan's handiwork"?

You are applying this earth rules into paradise? and also saying that this earth wine is the same wine as paradise? they are not, earth wine makes you drunk, paradise one doesn't, but you seem to understand that:

Save single-minded slaves of Allah; For them there is a known provision, Fruits. And they will be honoured In the Gardens of delight, On couches facing one another; A cup from a gushing spring is brought round for them, White, delicious to the drinkers, Wherein there is no headache nor are they made mad thereby. And with them are those of modest gaze, with lovely eyes, (Pure) as they were hidden eggs (of the ostrich). S. 37:40-49 Pickthall
The heavenly wine, it is claimed, which believers will drink will not cause headaches or madness, thereby justifying Allah's decision to permit it in paradise.

So what's the problem?

The main problem with citing this is that the passage nowhere identifies this drink as wine. It does not even mention either the word wine or strong drinks/intoxicants. It simply says that believers will drink from a cup something which is white in color which does not cause headiness. If anything, one can make an argument that this drink is actually milk. After all, the Quran does mention the fact that believers will be given rivers of milk, and milk is indeed white
A similitude of the Garden which those who keep their duty (to Allah) are promised: Therein are rivers of water unpolluted, and rivers of milk whereof the flavour changeth not, and rivers of wine delicious to the drinkers, and rivers of clear-run honey; therein for them is every kind of fruit, with pardon from their Lord. (Are those who enjoy all this) like those who are immortal in the Fire and are given boiling water to drink so that it teareth their bowels? S. 47:15 Pickthall

Don't you see that red part? the paradise wine is "delicious to the drinkers" while the wine river is also "delicious to the drinkers" but its not the same thing for milk or milk river, got it? lets go next link:

Allah does NOT forgive shirk:
Allah forgiveth not that partners should be set up with Him; but He forgiveth anything else, to whom He pleaseth; to set up partners with Allah is to devise a sin most heinous indeed. -- Sura 4:48
Allah forgiveth not (the sin of) joining other gods with Him; but He forgiveth whom He pleaseth other sins than this: one who joins other gods with Allah, Hath strayed far, far away (from the right). -- Sura 4:116
Allah forgives shirk (even in the same sura):
... Yet they [the Israelites] worshipped the calf even after Clear Signs had come to them; even so We forgave them; and gave Moses manifest proofs of authority. -- Sura 4:153

This only means you didn't understood Islam, but before I debunk you lets finis your claim:

I just came across another verse in surat az-Zumar (39:53) where it is stated in general terms:
Say: "O my Servants who have transgressed against their souls! Despair not of the Mercy of Allah: for Allah forgives all sins: for He is Oft-Forgiving, Most Merciful. -- Sura 39:53
Taking this statement in its literal and absolute sense, it clearly contradicts to the first two verses quoted above.

Knowing that Allah forgives all sins, why doesn't he forgive shirk? the answer to that is : he doesn't forgive shirk in the afterlife, if non Muslim became a Muslim all his sins are forgiven, he comes like he already born :

'Amr b. al-‘As said:I came to the Prophet and.... He said, “Do you not know, 'Amr, that Islam demolishes what preceded it, that the Hijra demolishes what preceded it, and the Pilgrimage demolishes what preceded it?” [Mishkat al-Masabih 28 Book 1, Hadith 26]

BUT, if someone with shirk sin died with it, it is done, nothing can save him from hell, and he will burn forever, but saying "forever" does this mean there is people that will burn for a time? yes, those are the people who do not have the shirk sin, because Allah forgives everything but shirk, so at a point of time they will be forgiven, and get to paradise.

And Allah knows best.

So the whole thing is just you not understanding the verses and you came to write +121 page about it? into the next topic:

Pseudo science in the Quran debunked

Before I start, I should say that I indeed agree that some Muslims over use the Quran to explain science, which is a bad thing and can result in many confusions, and also be used as an argument against Islam.

The link take you to this page from the same site I just debunked, which has many links to different pages, I will chose 3 : "Are Mountains “Pegs” Which Prevent the Earth from Shaking?", "Different Points in the Rising and Setting of the Sun", "Male and Female Fruits?", lets start with the first link, I read:

The Qur’an, in several passages, tells us that Allah placed mountains on the earth so that the earth would not shake:
Sura 16:15 : And He has set up on the earth mountains standing firm, lest it should shake with you; and rivers and roads; that ye may guide yourselves;
Sura 21:31 : And We have set on the earth mountains standing firm, lest it should shake with them, and We have made therein broad highways (between mountains) for them to pass through: that they may receive Guidance.
Sura 31:10 : He created the heavens without any pillars that ye can see; He set on the earth mountains standing firm, lest it should shake with you;
Sura 78:7 : And the mountains as pegs?
Sura 79:32-33 : And the mountains hath He firmly fixed;- For use and convenience to you and your cattle.
Note that only Sura 78:7 refers to mountains as “pegs”. The Qur’an says nothing about mountains having “roots”. However, as we look at several Muslim arguments, Muslim apologists often refer to the “roots” of mountains as “pegs” in an attempt to align the term with the Qur’an
Muslims see this as a “miracle” since Muhammad could not have known that mountains had “roots” – so Muhammad’s reference to mountain roots (in spite of the fact that the Qur’an uses the term pegs and not roots) could only come from Allah. However, the existence of the roots of mountains was known in ancient times. Here are three verses from the Bible:
Job 28:9 : People assault the flinty rock with their hands and lay bare the roots of the mountains.
Psalm 18:7 : The earth trembled and quaked, and the foundations of the mountains shook; they trembled because he was angry.
Jonah 2:6 : To the roots of the mountains I sank down; the earth beneath barred me in forever. But you, LORD my God, brought my life up from the pit.
It is semantically incorrect to equate “roots” with “pegs” because “roots” are not the same as “pegs”. Roots are the result of natural processes. In the case of mountains, the “roots” are created by the collision, and subduction, of continental plates. “Pegs” are made by humans and are driven into the ground by humans. It should also be mentioned that not all mountains, such as volcanoes, have roots.

Very well, now lets read the Quran verse again:

Sura 78:7 : And the mountains as pegs

So the mountains are pegs, you seem to understand that, but lets continue:

The most obvious problem, with the idea that mountains prevent the earth from shaking, is that there are earthquakes each and every day on planet earth. Anyone can go on the United States Geological Survey site Latest Earthquakes in the World - Past 7 days to see where Magnitude 4.5, and above, earthquakes have occurred. Please go to this site and notice where the past week’s earthquakes have taken place: western North and South America, the Aleutian Islands, the Pacific “Ring of Fire”, and the Himalayas – all are regions with large mountains! Also, take a look at the Latest Earthquakes in the USA - Last 7 days and notice where these take place - in the Rocky and Cascade Mountains in the west and in the Appalachian Mountains of the east!
The author also cites a scientific paper which tells us:
"San Gabriel Mountains act as a natural seismic insulator for metropolitan Los Angeles. The topography of the mountains scatters the surface waves generated by the rupture on the San Andreas fault, leading to less-efficient excitation of basin-edge generated waves and natural resonances within the Los Angeles Basin. The effect of the mountains reduces the peak amplitude of ground velocity for some regions in the basin by as much as 50% in the frequency band up to 0.5 Hz. These results suggest that, depending on the relative location of faulting and the nearby large-scale topography, the topography can shield some areas from ground shaking."
The idea that the topography of these mountains reduces the peak amplitude of surface waves, in some places, is interesting. However, these mountains obviously do not prevent earthquakes in the Los Angeles Basin. Since this article discusses the surface topography of mountains, in relation to earthquakes, the mountains do not serve as “pegs”.
Muslims attempt to rescue their Qur’an from these obvious errors by asserting that mountains are actually “pegs” and proclaim this a miracle! Muslim apologists turn to a number of Geology texts and suspend any pretense of intellectual honesty by removing the author’s text, from the illustrations that they present, and insert their own text. After all, Muslims cannot cite one single Geologist who claims that mountains are “pegs”, or that they prevent earthquakes.

Lets see:

Some Islamic websites (e.g., 1, 2) cite a Geology text book, Earth, by Frank Press. The Muslims cite incorrectly and dishonestly reproduce an image from this text:
Figure 7: Mountains have deep roots under the surface of the ground. (Earth, Press and Siever, p. 413.)
There are two problems with this citation.
First, this image appears on page 429, not page 413 and, as discussed previously, “roots” are not the same as “pegs”. [The Muslims have not specified which edition of this text book they are referring to. I consulted the fourth edition published in 1985.]
The second, and larger, problem is that the Muslims removed the original text from Press’s book and inserted their text under the illustration to fit their agenda. Compare the above text (quoted from a Muslim website) with the image taken from the book that the Muslims claim to cite:

Lets check the links you gave, the first link takes me to non existence page of a site that has nothing to do with Islam, but I checked the link more and found it from a website called "sodahead" spelled Soda-head, using the wayback machine (a site archive), to see how that site looked like and I found this, I quote:

SodaHead is a dynamic discussion community where you can discover, debate and discuss issues that get you fired up. Over 1.5 million SodaHeads share their unique views on hot topics, breaking news and controversial issues and a diverse panel of staff writers provide original and exclusive content daily. With that many angles, the discussions on SodaHead will open your eyes to a panoramic view of your world that you won't get anywhere else, allowing you to see the big picture and discuss it!

Using the wayback machine more, SodaHead site turn into:

SodaHead is part of the Prodege, LLC network. Prodege, is a leading Internet and media company that operates multiple customer engagement brands.

Some time it was Acquired by Prodege which is where the site takes you, so the site was never Islamic in the first place.

The second like takes you to this page, and indeed it says:

A book entitled "Earth" is considered a basic reference text in many universities around the world. One of the authors of this book is Frank Press. He is currently the President of the Academy of Sciences in the USA. Previously, he was the science advisor to former USA President Jimmy Carter. His book says that mountains have underlying roots [p. 435]. These roots are deeply embedded in the ground. So mountains have a shape like a peg as is seen in an example on page 220 in the same book. Another illustration shows how the mountains are peg-like in shape, due to their deep roots [p. 158].

Now I have looked all over the internet about the book "Earth" I found two versions of it in internet archive, and both of them doesn't have what that website said, the Islamic website was wrong (as far as I can see), lets continue:

There are two problems with this citation.
First, this image appears on page 429, not page 413 and, as discussed previously, “roots” are not the same as “pegs”. [The Muslims have not specified which edition of this text book they are referring to. I consulted the fourth edition published in 1985.]

I didn't found anything published in 1985, but I did found 1986 and 1982 and it had this:

So you were wrong, the page is indeed 413, lets continue:

Figure 7: Mountains have deep roots under the surface of the ground. (Earth, Press and Siever, p. 413.)
The second, and larger, problem is that the Muslims removed the original text from Press’s book and inserted their text under the illustration to fit their agenda.

Well, I didn't see that in the site that worked, (I mean the quote as you typed it) could be in the missing link, lets continue:

Professor Press used this picture to illustrate the principle of isostasy – that instead of mountains being “pegs” that hold the earth’s surface preventing movement, they, and the rest of the crust, are floating on the mantle.
The obvious fallacy here is that mountains are a part of the earth’s crust which also “float” on the mantle along with the rest of the earth’s crust. Pegs cannot hold something firm when they are “floating”! Mountains do not stabilize the earth’s crust through isostacy, it is the crust that stabilizes itself through its own isostacy. Additionally, the collisions between the tectonic plates, of the earth’s crust, that cause earthquakes rather than prevent them.
One of the more bizarre claims made by some Muslim apologists is
By fixing the Earth’s crust they prevent any sliding over the magma layer or amongst the layers themselves. In short, mountains can be compared to nails holding strips of wood together. The fixing effect of mountains is known as isostasy in scientific literature.
Muslims simply cannot decide what isostasy is! Professor Press, whom numerous Muslim websites mentions, says “the crust of the earth floats on a liquid”. So how can mountains play the role of “nails” holding the solid crust to a liquid?

Enough said, lets see the if this claim by Muslims have bases:

First I will ignore all the sites that talked about this topic, and only use videos or books.

Second lets understand the problem, I won't talk about the naming, as that's not as important as the fact that mountains hold the earth from shaking, now lets first clear something up, shaking is not earthquake.

Third, lets see this book titled "THE GEOLOGICAL CONCEPT OF MOUNTAINS IN THE QUR'AN", link here, I won't quote everything in it to explain how the thing work, but I will quote the conclusion that matters to us:

The role of mountains as stabilizers for the Earth's crust can be clearly seen in their very deep roots, and can be justified by the fact that the motions of the lithospheric plates only come to halt when a continent collides with another, producing a collisional type mountain, which is believed to be the last phase in mountain-building. Without mountains, the movement of lithospheric plates would have been much faster and their collision more drastic, Even though mountains do act as retarders for the plate movements, they should not be understood to be an independent force or factor, because they are the very product of this motion in the first place.[Page 60]

Now I have a little note I toke while looking at the book, If you go to page 76 in the PDF file, you will see this:

That's looks differnet from the one I saw in the book:

Could the text in the previous sites been right, and only the new books doesn't have them? Allah knows best.

Now to look at a video from 2008 about this topic, the video is in Arabic, I am going to translate and type the last secs on it, in which it says:

"the second meaning in which the mountain has a role in fixing the earth surface ... this meaning is still under study and debate, but we still after all believes it, since there is a Quran verse..." (not very accurate translation)

So this video shows us that the study about mountain role in fixing the earth is still in debate, despite it being old (uploaded at 2008) I think it is what every Muslim should say about this topic, so in this case the Quran isn't the one to blame for saying something still in study in which some Muslims rushed to claim it.

And Allah knows best.

next topic:

The link takes you to this page, and I will have to say something I didn't expect to say, that article is correct, the Christian guy attack a Muslim guy named "Harun Yahya" about him explaining a verse in the Quran as a miracle (while indeed the Quran is a miracle by itself), the problem is the site says that It is Quran's fault, in which its not, It is said in the article that Harun Yahya did the mistake, next topic:

The link takes you to this page, the page has a sense of humor in it, I will Ignore all the non sense and just fixes the problems:

is most likely that Muhammad knew that the date palm has separate male and female plants. Perhaps Muhammad simply extrapolated from the date palm to all plants, believing that all of them have this characteristic? Maybe his experience with the date palm is the reason that he claimed that every fruit comes in pairs?

Kinda like you are saying that Muhammad Peace be upon him wrote the Quran, but you know he doesn't know how to write nor read, now to speed up things, the verse translations look so weird? here is a link with better translations, I read:

Therein are two kinds of every fruit. [Quran Chapter 55 verse 52]

The verse talks about fruits in 2 of the 4 paradises that were mentioned in the verse, the people he gain the 2 higher paradise will be rewarded with every kind of fruit, and they will came in two pairs, in which they are (based on Tafsir we got) different in both taste and look (or just different).

So no "Male and Female Fruits" to be talked about, I don't think any Muslim believed that, but again just like the previous topic, the one to blame is the one who came with the idea, in this case "Khalid Baig" is to blame, not the Quran.

And Allah knows best.

Lets go to the next link:

Stolen stories of bible in the Quran debunked

the link takes you to a site that is Pro-Islam, seems like something happen with the old link, oh well whatever, next topic:

Stories of Mohammad's’s wives?

The link takes you to this page, I read:

What is the correct translation? "Families" is obviously a much broader term than "offspring". The family includes also the spouse (or, in Islam, possibly wives in the plural), and perhaps even parents. The Arabic original, however, says "seed", which refers to the children only. Why, then, would Yusuf Ali render the word as "families"? Is this only a minor inaccuracy? Unintentional carelessness? Or is he again trying to cover up a serious problem by his mistranslation?

Now I don't know where you get your translations from, but here is a good site for that, now you didn't like Yusuf Ali translation, indeed its not like the others, the reason being that Quran isn't translated literally (like word per word, because the Arabic language and English language are too different), but translators keeping in mind the meaning and Tafsir (explanation) of it, but lets continue for now:

It should be obvious: If there are children (seed, offspring), then there must be mothers as well!

Now again you have applied this world rules in paradise, however there is some stuff to be considered when talking about children in paradise, It is a wide subject and its out of the focus of this article, but in short many scholars agree that there is no children in paradise (I mean human children), everyone in the paradise (Human remember) are 30 or 33 years old, proof:

Mu'adh bin Jabal narrated that the Prophet (s.a.w) said: "The people of Paradise shall enter Paradise without body hair, Murd, with Kuhl on their eyes, thirty years of age or thirty-three years." [Jami` at-Tirmidhi 2545 Book 38, Hadith 23]
And Allah knows best.

lets continue:

Without question, children are part of a man's pride and achievement in life. Certainly it will be a great comfort for them to know that their children will be with them in Paradise.

I do want to see all my family in paradise, and also with me, may Allah guide us all.

However, mothers often love their children even more than the fathers do, they have sacrificed much in raising them. While the men go out, have a career, earn money, have success in this world and get most of the recognition, the women stay at home, and invest themselves in their chilren. The children are often all they have,

That has Islamic taste in it.

and now they are told in this passage: In the next life, your children will be with their fathers, who also get other women, and you are not even worth mentioning!

I know you didn't search for it, or ask Muslim about it, but here is the answer : First the wives of the fathers are going to be together in paradise, so just like the children are with the father, the wive is also with the father, unless they are divorced, and even then, what's stops the children from seeing their mothers, in paradise you still can do anywhere you want (That's also has a wide talk to understand), proof from the Quran:

They will say: 'Praise belongs to Allah who has been true to His promise to us and given us the earth to inherit, that we shall live in Paradise wherever we wish.' How excellent is the recompense of those that labor! [Quran 39:74]
And Allah knows best.

Lets continue:

The believers are promised that they will get houris in Paradise (v. 20), i.e. not their earthly wives

As I said the wife is still there, you get houris + your wife, some scholars say that the wife will be much better then houris in everything, so its not like you will leave it for houris.

but beautiful women especially created to be available as sex partners to the faithful

Who told you that? they indeed love their husband and does everything for his happiness, they are also your family, as (for example) everyone you know went to hell, who will be your family? well them, along with your servants etc (How ever it is known who will be your family, I got this as conclusion from the Tafsir of this verse):

Then, he who is given his Book in his right hand shall have an easy reckoning and will return rejoicing to his family. [Quran 84:7-9]
And Allah knows best.

Lets continue:

The believers (i.e. the men) will be given perfect, beautiful, sensuous houris. Why should they care about those old, nagging, and comparatively ugly wives that were so difficult to live with on earth?

Again applying this world rules into paradise, first I told you it will look better then houris, second the problems that you had in this life aren't going to happen in paradise, no stupid fights over stupid things there.

Islamic paradise is a man's world. The Quran grew out of the fantasy and imagination of one man trying to secure the loyalty of the men around him by the promises he included in his "revelations". It is not the word of God.

I asked Christians before, what do your God promise you? they hardly named anything, so? Islam does way better job at motivating us then your Christianity.

This passage is unjust and incredibly cruel to women.
Seemingly, Yusuf Ali was at least embarrassed. His mistranslation of S. 52:21 reveals how uncomfortable he was with this, so that he tried to render it more politically correct for his western readers.
Note: If such a "revelation" had been given to one particular faithful believer who had an unbelieving wife with a difficult character, this could perhaps be accepted. However, this is a general statement, a promise directed to all Muslim believers, including those whose wives are faithful and devoted Muslim believers themselves.
Anyone who believes that God is just will have to reject the Quran. It is not the word of God.

I just debunked that, so when Yusuf Ali used the word "family" he wasn't wrong, as he toke into account the Hadiths that talk about wives going to paradise with her husband.

A question to ponder for all Muslim women: What will you get in Paradise?

I am not a women, I wont answer, next topic:

Unlinked arguments?

Now the page did some arguments without links and they are : "stories of his companions", " grammatical errors", "Mohammed’s nervousness, his anger, his feelings ...", So I will consider them debunked, next:

Abrogated verses in the Quran Debunked?? Is it even a problem?

The link takes you to a long page, I read:

We present here a list that highlights some of the many verses that have been abrogated. We are quite aware that not all Muslims believe that the Quran abrogates itself and would therefore reject the traditions presented here. Yet, the aim of our paper is to provide a handy list for Christians witnessing to or dialoguing with Muslims who do believe that the Quran abrogates itself. We want to provide evidence for those that do accept the authority of these sources. We chose to cite only the views of Muslim scholars where they identify the abrogated verses.

ahuh continue:

But before we do so, we would like to cite Brother Mark’s quotation of Muslim scholar Ahmad Von Denffer regarding the conflicting views held by Muslim scholars over the precise nature of abrogation:

Who is Ahmad von Denffer?

The ‘founding’ scholars couldn't even agree in ‘basic principles’ over what abrogates what between the Sunnah and Qur'an!


The number of verses that are considered to have been abrogated increased dramatically between the eighth and eleventh centuries


With the foregoing behind us we now turn our attention to the hadith collections usually considered to be authoritative by Sunni Muslims.

I think I didn't understand anything from this page, so I will skip it, until I found someone who had a problem with that argument, Next topic:

Satanic verses in the Quran Debunked

The link takes you to this page,I read:

Few books have had the publicity that surrounds The Satanic Verses by Salman Rushdie. This brief article seeks to provide some background material for the book's title and for reasons why even the title might disturb Muslims.
Islam strongly opposes idolatry, polytheism, associating anything or anyone with God

Yes, that's the most important thing, continue:

In fact, Islam's creed in Arabic begins with a negative: Not is there a god except God. It contrasts sharply with the contention of Muhammad's Arab contemporaries that God had associates. Some of these associates are even mentioned in the Qur'an, among them three female deities: al-Lat, al-Uzza and Manat. Each had a shrine in separate places not far from Mecca in Arabia, where Muhammad was born and began his mission. They were even considered to be daughters of God!
The Qur'an, as it now reads, obviously rejects these deities. But—and here comes the issue—did the Qur'an and Muhammad always reject them?

The answer is yes, but continue:

While Muhammad was in Mecca, his followers were few, his movement grew painfully slowly and he, too, felt the pain of estrangement from his tribe. According to early and treasured biographical and historical accounts of Muhammad, authored by competent Muslim scholars (such as writings of at-Tabari and Ibn Sa’d), Muhammad longed for better relations and reconciliation with his community. Thereafter, the accounts continue, God revealed Surah 53 to Muhammad up to and including vss. 19, 20. These two verses read:
Have ye thought upon al-Lat and al-Uzza
And Manat, the third, the other? (53:19,20)

I won't comment on that for the sake of time, continue:

Then, originally, the verses (known today as the satanic verses) followed:
These are the exalted cranes (intermediaries)
Whose intercession is to be hoped for.

I have never saw someone used that as an argument against Islam, I wonder if it is the first time in history that this happen?

The story goes like this, Indian-born British-American named Salman Rushdie, wrote a book titled The Satanic Verses, the book (in short and as I understood it) talks about story of two protagonists (Gibreel Farishta and Saladin Chamcha, are both actors of Indian "Muslim" background, Note that the first guy name is Gibreel which is the Arabic spelling of the name Gabriel, so he already started messing with Muslims, and the story shows that the name wasn't their by accident) got into a plane that exploded and they magically survived that, one of the protagonists (Farishta) turned into "angel like" (If am correct) after forward in the story had dream visions of Muhammad Peace be upon him life

Now ignoring that he didn't only disrespect Muslims in his book, for example I found this:

his determination to become thething his father was-not-could-never-be, that is, a good and proper Englishman, Yes, an English, even if his mother had been right all along, even if there was only paper in the toilets and tepid, used water full of mud and soap to step into after taking exercise, even if it meant a lifetime [The Satanic Verses page. 44-45]
eliciting a second inverted wince, "Proper London, bhai! Here we come! Those bastards down there won't know what hit them [The Satanic Verses page. 3]
white women -- never mind fat, Jewish, non-deferential white women -- were for fucking and throwing over. What one hates in whites -- love of brown sugar -- one must also hate when it turns up, inverted, in black. [The Satanic Verses page. 261]

Now into the talk, the guy made up dirty stories about prophet Muhammad peace be upon him (about 98% of what he said), and even the 2% were 3 stories that he filled with his dirty fantasies, in this article I debunked all of them, so lets debunk the story of the so called "satanic verse":

The story of the so called "verse" was found in some history and Tafsir books, and also Muhammad al-Bukhari which is one of the main sources of knowledge, how ever the story that was told by al-Bukhari is different, and so lets see all the stories and their sources:

Lets start with the best source, reported by al-Bukhari the Hadith:

Narrated `Abdullah bin Mas`ud:
The Prophet (PBUH) recited Surat-an-Najm (53) and prostrated while reciting it and all the people prostrated and a man amongst the people took a handful of stones or earth and raised it to his face and said, "This is sufficient for me. Later on I saw him killed as a non-believer." [Sahih al-Bukhari 1070 Book 17, Hadith 4, Source, Arabic Source]

And no trace of "satanic verse" in this Hadith, that was reported by Ibn Abbas, and he is one of the most trusted reporters, the rest of who reported this aren't trusted, so the story is false and doesn't exist.

Some Tafsir scholars mentioned the story with the "verse" while explaining this verse:

Never have We sent a Messenger or a Prophet before you, but when he hoped, satan tampered with his hope. But Allah supersedes the tampering of satan and confirms His verses. And Allah is the Knower, the Wise. [Quran 22:52]

But as I said, the story is nothing but a lie, you may ask why Tafsir scholars used it then? the answer is that Tafsir scholars use all the resources found in order to explain the verse, even history books, that's why we don't have a single Tafsir, as Tafsir scholars explain the verses biased on their knowledge.

Also why use this fake story that no Muslims believes on as an argument? you don't have something from sources trusted by Muslims to make your arguments?

This argument was never used (or used rarely) against Muslims, that's why it is normal to see Muslims who never heard this story, including me, I didn't know it exist either, as Muslims don't care about "made up stories and Hadith".

Now to answer someones question about if this story was true then how can we be sure the Quran isn't filled with such verses? the funny part is that the question was posted by a Christian, and for those who don't know, Christians don't know if If John, Matthew, Mark and Luke wrote their gospels.

And to answer that, the story itself says that the angel Gabriel came to Muhammad and told him about the mistake, so any "satanic verse" was going to be captured anyway, keeping the Quran clear, but as I said the story is fake nonsense.

And Allah knows best.

And lets finish this with this verse to think about it:

Will they not contemplate upon the Koran? If it had been from other than Allah, they would surely have found in it many contradictions. [Quran 4:82]

Dreams of heaven in the Quran ??

The link takes you to this page, I read:

Eternal life is not called “heaven” in the Qur'an. The Muslim concept of a heavenly reward is much different than it is described in the Bible. Thirty-seven paraphrased verses from the Qur'an are included in this chapter to better explain the Muslim view of the Gardens of Paradise.

I don't use the word "heaven" when talking about paradise, as heaven could mean sky, and paradise is not the sky.

The Qur'an describes these gardens as places of sensual pleasures. Some of these pleasures were those denied to Muslims while on earth. On earth, Muslim men were limited in the number of wives they could have at one time. The Qur'an promises an unlimited supply of virgins waiting for them

Who said it is unlimited number? you are making stuff up.

Another earthly restriction was against the drinking of alcohol. In the Eternal Gardens there are endless supplies of wine, which can be drunk without harmful consequences. The residents of the Gardens are continually grateful.

I debunked the drinking of alcohol above.

The image of heaven, revealed in the Bible, does not include sexual relations. The Lord Jesus made it clear that those in heaven will not be married, but will be like the angels of God (Matthew 22:30). The prevailing image of heaven in the Bible is that of worship of God and fellowship between people from every ethnic group (Revelation 7:9).

Sorry but can't see any pleasure in that, paradise people in Islam will see Allah's face, and will talk to him and such, If you are just angels of God (by name or definition) what makes it good?

The rest of the article is him pointing what the Quran says about Paradise, but he missed the most important one:

There they have all that they desire, and there is more with Us. [Quran Chapter 50 verse 35]

So you know what's that "more"? It is looking at Allah's face, the best thing ever in paradise.

Those are just what the Quran says, the hadith add more stuff like : "houses", "100s man pleasure in eating and enjoying women ", "the weekly visit" ..., nothing to debunk about this article.

And Allah knows best.

Torture of hell in Quran

The link sends you here, I read:

One of the more significant differences between the Bible and the Qur'an is the emphasis placed on Hell. The Bible’s New Testament only mentions Hell fourteen times. None of the references contain a great deal of specifics. Even though the Qur'an is a shorter text than the New Testament, Hell is mentioned ninety-five times (repetitious verses are not covered in this collection of forty-seven verses). Mohammed often used references to Hell as a threat to those who would reject the Qur'an.

Well just like the bible failed to motivate us to do good, so do it when trying to keep us from not doing bad.

The Bible associates Hell with Gehenna, which was the garbage dump outside of Jerusalem where the trash constantly burned. It generally described it as a place of outer darkness, weeping and fire. The Bible proclaims that Hell is the inevitable end of people unless God rescues them. God loved the world so much that he came in Christ Jesus to suffer death and Hell as a substitute for all those who would accept his forgiveness and eternal life.

Every time I think of that I confirm that Christianity isn't the right path, as who is this God who can't simply forgive, and had to kill another god (his "son") for him to forgive, who stopped him? and can God be stopped? if so he is weak, in Islam no one born with the apple sin, It was forgiven when Adam asked for forgiveness, and that's it, no killing or burning or drama happened.

The Qur'an repeats the Biblical principle of a fiery Hell, but goes further to describe very physical aspects of torture. The specific details include beatings by angels and marching in chains. It gets so detailed that it contradicts itself at times.

It doesn't.

For example, it says that the only food in Hell will be “dari” or a bitter plant. Then the Qur'an states that the only food would be filth, and later it states that their food will be the fruit from the Zaqqum tree. Another

Simple, just like there is layers of paradise, in which the great people will be above the good people etc.. so do hell people, from bad to worst, and just like each layer of paradise has its own pleasures and tastes, so do hells, so each one eats a type of the food and only that type, so who eat Zaqqum will only eat it and will never eat dari.

Another conflicting portrayal has to do with chains. The lost will either march pulling a heavy load, be dragged through boiling water and fire, or linked together with others in a pit.

That's a little wide topic, the heavy load that you are talking about isn't for hell people, it is for everyone, that load is your sins, but that's not the focus of this article, also where is the contradiction?

One of the main objections that Muslims have with the Bible is the free gift of forgiveness offered by God (Ephesians 2:8-10). The Bible reveals that the cross of Christ and the victory of his resurrection defeated the powers of Hell for those who believe, which gives them the motivation and ability to live for God.

Lets not forget that the hell was made by God, who will "defeated the powers of Hell"?

Muslims insist that the threat of Hell must always be in front of everyone, even Muslims, so that they will live good lives.

Because what else will give you that motivation and oblige to follow the right path, you may say you can do it with you will? but you must not forget that you are human, you are weak, and you make mistakes, you must always be aware of what will happen to you if you didn't seek forgiveness, all these resulted in Islam being the strongest religion today, as a Muslim will rarely leave Islam, unlike Christians who when they sin, they won't try to seek forgiveness, or even care, they trust Jesus and that's it, and just like that It is the weakest, most of its followers follow it for the sake of faith.

The rest of the article talks about some Hell qualities from the Quran, he missed some, but still fits the need, like hell people asking Allah to get another chance :

The fire lashes their faces and therein are shriveled lips. (We shall say): 'Were My verses not recited to you, and did you not belie them?' 'Lord,' they will reply, 'adversity prevailed over us and we were erring. Our Lord, bring us out of it. If we return (to sin), then we shall indeed be harmdoers.' He saith: Begone therein, and speak not unto Me. [Quran Chapter 23 verse 104-108]

They will seek another chance, the answer will be:

Among My worshipers there were a party who said: "Lord, we believed. Forgive us and have mercy on us: You are the Best of the merciful." But you took them for laughing-stock, mocking at them, until they caused you to forget My remembrance. [Quran Chapter 23 verse 109]

As a Muslim, I saw that a lot, so what happened to those then? the answer:

Today I shall recompense them for their patience, for it is they that have won. [Quran Chapter 23 verse 111]

They won, now the question is to you, Hell people:

And He will ask: 'How many years did you live on earth?' They will reply: 'A day, or part of a day; ask those who have kept count.' He will say: 'You have tarried a little, did you know? [Quran Chapter 23 verse 112-114]
Did you think that We had created you only for play, and that you would never be returned to Us?' [Quran Chapter 23 verse 115]
High Exalted be Allah, the King, the Truth. There is no god except He, the Lord of the Noble Throne. [Quran Chapter 23 verse 116]
And Allah knows best.

Lets go to the next topic:

Fact talk debunked

Update: Due to how disrespectful the article was and how false its claims I removed this section, nothing in it is true, and he didn't bring any source to prove his point other then unconfirmed claim by unknown guy named "Ali Dashti", unless he brings a claim by one of the trusted scholars that all Muslims follow, then we talk.

There is nothing like Him. He is the Hearer, the Seer. [Quran Chapter 42 verses 11]

next topic:

Non Arabic words in Quran Debunked

The link takes you to this page, the page lists so many words that claims they are not Arabic, lets see :

The article is created by ARTHUR JEFFERY, Ph.D.Professor of Semitic Languages, and for those who doesn't know the Arabic language is the oldest Semitic language, and other Semitic languages borrowed words from Arabic like the Aramaic language, I don't want go in detail about the history of languages, you can look that up yourself.

First we need to remove the names from that list, as no matter the name of someone, it will be written the way he calls himself, so your English name can not be Arabic name and that doesn't mean the Arabic language doesn't have it, so remove : "Adam" "Iram" "Azar" "Ismail" "Amr" "Babil" "Dawud" "As-Samiri" "Qur'an" "Al-Majus" "Madyan" "Malik" " Isra'il" "Musa" "Nasara" "Haman" "Yajuj wa Majuj" "Yahya" "Yunas" "Yusuf"...

Second lets read why this page even exist:

is that of the amount of material therein which is borrowed from the great religions that were active in Arabia at the time when the Qur'an was in process of formation.

I debunked that above.

From the fact that Muhammad was an Arab, brought up in the midst of Arabian paganism and practising its rites himself until well on into manhood

Muhammad peace be upon him never practiced paganism in his whole life, you are a liar, if you think so then give proofs.

Convincing proof of this is found in the statement of the Prophet quoted in Yaqut, Mu'jam, iii, 664, to the effect that on a certain occasion he sacrificed a ewe to Uzza, which he excuses on the ground that at that time he was following the religion of his people.

Yaqut, Mu'jam, iii, 664? First I couldn't found such book or Mujam anywhere!, Second it is a Mujam meaning it is used for translation or explaining, Third there are true sources that show that he didn't even eat meat of something that was sacrificed to any of what the Arabes were worshiping, like this one:

Abu Sa'id Maqburi reported:Abu Hurairah (May Allah be pleased with him) said that he happened to pass by some people who had a roast lamb before them. They invited him, but he declined, saying: "The Messenger of Allah (PBUH) left the world without having eaten his fill with barley bread." [Riyad as-Salihin 492 Introduction, Hadith 492]

And there are more, so where is your source? and why you didn't show it? you are a liar, lets continue:

one would naturally have expected to find that Islam had its roots deep down in this old Arabian paganism.

No, we would expect to have nothing to do with paganism at all, but you say that to fool the reader.

It comes, therefore, as no little surprise, to find how little of the religious life of this Arabian paganism is reflected in the pages of the Qur'an.

Just like I explain above, the Arabes held some of what Abraham left for them, so if you found them in Islam, that because they are from Islam at the first place.

The names of a few old deities2; odd details of certain pagan ceremonies connected with rites of sacrifice and pilgrimage3; a few deep-rooted superstitions connected with Jinn, etc.

I didn't understand.

all the traces one can discover therein of this ancient religion in the midst of whose devotees Muhammad was born and bred.

Again as I said above, if Islam is talking about an event that happened, and other religions (mostly Judaism and Christianity) talk about it differently, that doesn't mean it was copied, this seems to be the best argument and the most used by people trying to disprove Islam.

but even a cursory reading of the book makes it plain that Muhammad drew his inspiration not from the religious life and experiences of his own land and his own people

What's your proof?

but from the great monotheistic religions which were pressing down into Arabia in his day.6 Most of the personages who move through the pages of the Qur'an, viz. Ibrahim, Musa, Dawud, Sulaiman, Nuh, 'Isa, are well-known Biblical characters.

And what? first lets agree that Muhammad Peace be upon him can't read nor write, so it is unlikely that he managed to know these names just like that, also just because these names are real and are prophets that Allah sent, doesn't make them just for Bible use, those names are one of Islam blocks of believe, as you must believe in those prophets in order to be a Muslim.

So also the place-names - Babil, Rum, Madyan, Saba', and many of the commonest religious terms - Shaitan, Tawrah, Injil, Sakina, Firdaus, Janannam, are equally familiar to all who know the Jewish and Christian Scriptures. So one is not surprised

Now explain how Muhammad knew all of these without even knowing how to read and write? who gave him all that knowledge, and why didn't he step to fight Muhammad when he used it to build his religion? that's non sense, the Quran have those for a reason.

Closer examination of the question reveals even further and more detailed correspondences than these which appear on the surface,1 and forces on one the conviction that not only the greater part of the religious vocabulary, but also most of the cultural vocabulary of the Quran is of non-Arabic origin. The investigation of the "Fremdwörter" of the Qur'an thus becomes a question of primary importance for the study of the origins of Islam, for as Hirschfeld remarks: One of the principal difficulties before us is . . . to ascertain whether an idea or expression was Muhammad's spiritual property or borrowed from elsewhere, how he learnt it and to what extent it was altered to suit his purposes.2 By tracing these words back to their sources we are able to estimate to some extent the influences which were working upon Muhammad at various periods in his Mission, and by studying these religious terms in their native literature contemporary with Muhammad, we can sometimes understand more exactly what he himself means by the terms he uses in the Qur'an.

I don't want waste time commenting on that, lets see what left:

Quite early in the history of Islam, Muslims themselves were confronted with the perplexing problem of these foreign words, for it presented itself immediately they were called upon to face the task of interpreting their Scripture

Why don't you show us a proof for that? the fact that Muslims didn't have a problem with these words is enough to prove you wrong, because how the Arabes (who they care so much about the language and the meaning of words) didn't use this as an argument against Muhammad Peace be upon him, in fact it is the other way, the Quran impressed the Arabes with how Fasih (Very well done in terms of the language) was.

With the death of the Prophet and the cutting off of the fountain of revelation, came the necessity of collecting the scattered fragments of this Revelation and issuing them in book form.

Good that you mentioned that, lets first say something very important about the Quran, the Quran in its core, is not a book, the Quran is a sound book, and it is the first of its kind, now what do I mean by a sound book, lets see Muhammad Bin Shams Al-Din (the scholar in the first picture of this article) isnad (path of learning):

In the bottom we see his name, going step above we see the name "Rashad Ismail Heikal" the one who taught him the Quran, and above we see another name, and another, we keep moving up until we see important name "Aasim ibn Abi al-Najud", if you move up 2 more steps we see our prophet name Muhammad Peace be upon him, moving a single step we see name of Gabriel, moving another step we see Allah's name, so going down we see that Allah revealed the Quran to Gabriel and Gabriel revealed to Muhammad Peace be upon him, Muhammad Peace be upon him taught it to his followers, then the followers taught to their followers, and we come down until we found our scholar name.

Those scholars didn't read the book called Quran to became scholars, but rather have taught the Quran from their scholars, letter per letter, with the right vowels, as the Quran isn't just a book you read, but you must read it the right way, every scholar has such chain of scholars to prove he has learned the Quran and how to read it.

The Arabes didn't have a writing system until the Quran came, and the rules of the Arabic language was made after the Quran.

So why I am saying all of this? the answer is some sick people, go to the Quran and check the shape of the words, and compare it with other words from other languages, found similarity, then say the Quran is not Arabic to mislead people.

And now to answer: The fact that the Arabes had no problem understanding the Quran back then is a proof for this claim to be pointless.

And Allah knows best.

Badly copied biblical verses in the Quran Debunked

The link takes you here, I read:

Muslims today attack the credibility of the Bible partly because they misunderstand the twenty-two Qur'an verses collected in this chapter. They think these verses teach that Jews and Christians have taken the divinely inspired Bible and corrupted it by adding stories and teaching of their own invention.

Do you want some proofs from the bible that is it corrupted?

Interpreted properly, these verses from the Qur'an actually support the credibility of the Bible. This is an important chapter as it relates to Christian-Muslim relations.

Two holy books that work in the same time? lets see:

In the same way, the Qur'an claimed that there were Christians and Jews in Mohammed’s day that also invented verses. The Qur'an accuses them of selling their counterfeit verses as actual portions of the Bible. The Qur'an makes it clear that these inventions or misrepresentations were not added to the Bible as the Qur'an challenges false teachers to read the actual Bible publicly to prove that their counterfeit verses were not Scriptural.

I don't understand if you mean that the Jews invented stuff only then or all the time, and if so how did you know that from the verses? The rest of the Article is him commenting about different verses of the Quran, I didn't understand where is the problem here? since he didn't add any problem, lets skip to the next topic:

Vulgar language in the Quran Debunked

Here is the link, we read:

We should never underestimate the power of religious beliefs in obtunding senses of its followers.

Yah how Christians believe in Trinity, continue:

A person’s mind becomes moulded to fit only with his/her set of religious beliefs.

And what do you want? believing for the sake of believing? what logic is this?

Under the effect of such ‘opium’, the person becomes disillusioned and disorientated to the perception of what is morally right or wrong.

Now how can humans agree on what's right and what's wrong since they are all different in the way of thinking? of course with guidance from God, continue:

I wonder how, as a Muslim, could I easily gulp such Islamic insanities for so many years.
Now that I am free from Islam

Here is an article for you, continue:

I really find no reason for my acceptance of much of the Quranic nonsense as moral or logical, having read the Quran for many years.

Lets see what "nonsense" you got for us:

Abul Uzza Ibn Abdul Muttalib was Mohamed’s uncle. He was wealthy and influential, but did not believe his nephew’s claims of being a prophet. However, that did not stop him from providing some protection to his nephew purely based on tribal kinship. Once he was told that Mohamed claimed that the late Abdul Muttalib, who was Abul Uzza’s father, would be burnt in hellfire because he died as a non-Muslim (although there was no Islam at the time of Abdul Muttalib who had died when Mohamed was still a child). This is laughable; nevertheless, that is the logic of Mohamed. Hearing that, Abul Uzza was disgusted at Mohamed’s utter lack of respect for his own grandfather, who had looked after Mohamed when he was a child. Abul Uzza then became openly hostile to Mohamed and denied him any protection or financial support.

First where is the proof that Muhammad Peace be upon him said that Abdul Muttalib is going to hell? so your claim is just a lie.

Is everyone who didn't know about Islam in hell?

This answer is better then anything I can come up with, lets continue:

Sura Al Masad is a short chapter that is solely dedicated to swear at Abdul Uzza, later known as Abu Lahab, and his wife.
Let us read this sura, Q.111
1. Perish the hands of Abu Lahab! Perish he!
2. No profit to him from all his wealth, and all his gains!
3. Burnt soon will he be in a Fire of Blazing Flame!
4. His wife shall carry the (crackling) wood - As fuel!-
5. A twisted rope of palm-leaf fibre round her (own) neck!
In an average street in an average Arab town, it is usual to hear few people shouting and swearing at one another using words like yukassir ideek. This is generally considered to be rude and is only used by bad-mannered people in times of anger. Yet it is exactly the modern equivalent of ‘perish the hands of …’ used in the Quran fourteen hundreds years ago. What is more disturbing is that, every one of the above verses is actually a swearing verse!
The above sura is one of the most commonly recited suras in the Quran, Nearly all Muslims know this sura by heart, even though it serves no religious function whatsoever. One would wonder why Allah, with all his greatness, could be so angry with one man and dedicate an entire chapter of his only book to swear at him and at his wife. Why Allah did not try to punish them during their lives? There is no evidence from Islamic history that Abu Lahab or his wife had ever suffered of any harm when they lived in Mecca.

The sura that you are talking about is a miracle, now lets explain to the reader:

The sura says that Abdul Uzza will be burning in Fire of Blazing Flame, because of him not being a Muslim (and fighting Islam), now he could of became a Muslim (even to cheat Muslims) which will prove the verse wrong and thus destroy the whole religion, but he didn't and he died without becoming a Muslim.

Now to answer "perish the hands of" dirty "argument", lets see when this sura came, check this Hadith:

Narrated Ibn `Abbas:
When the Verse:--'And warn your tribe of near-kindred, was revealed, the Prophet (PBUH) ascended the Safa (mountain) and started calling, "O Bani Fihr! O Bani `Adi!" addressing various tribes of Quraish till they were assembled. Those who could not come themselves, sent their messengers to see what was there. Abu Lahab and other people from Quraish came and the Prophet (PBUH) then said, "Suppose I told you that there is an (enemy) cavalry in the valley intending to attack you, would you believe me?" They said, "Yes, for we have not found you telling anything other than the truth." He then said, "I am a warner to you in face of a terrific punishment." Abu Lahab said (to the Prophet) "May your hands perish all this day. Is it for this purpose you have gathered us?" Then it was revealed: "Perish the hands of Abu Lahab (one of the Prophet's uncles), and perish he! His wealth and his children will not profit him...." (Qurean 111.1-5) [Sahih al-Bukhari 4770 Book 65, Hadith 292, Source]

And so "Arabe town" argument only came from an ignorant.

The crimes of what Abdul Uzza and his wife did are endless (just go and check them out):

Now you lied about Abdul Uzza not suffering in his life, he died after some kind of sickness that can spread, his family (his children) left him to die alone, and after his death, he was left alone 3 days (This is one of the stories, some say he died different ways).

But even if we said that Abdul Uzza didn't suffer, does it matter? isn't it enough that he will suffer in hell forever? since when it is obliged that anyone who work against Islam will suffer in this life? Allah could delay his suffering until his death, and this life suffering is very very less then the other life suffering, lets continue:

This sura should alarm the reader to the falsity of this book. But do Muslims see it that way? Not at all! Muslims can only see miracles in the Quran, and this sura is no exception. Muslim scholars strategy is always to go on the offensive by converting the Quranic errors into miracles!

Now you didn't show any error in the sura you typed?

In this case they say that Abu Lahab died as a non-believer and he could have converted to Islam just to prove that the verse is not accurate. But he did not.

Hey, you got it! so are we ok now?

By making such a claim, Muslim scholars deliberately ignore the principle of abrogation in the Quran in which newer Quranic verses cancel the older verses.
Mohamed could have easily ‘revealed’ other verses in praise of his uncle, or even could have asserted that Allah had ordered him to remove the sura completely.

Show a verse in which Allah promises that he will do something and then another verse that abrogate it before Allah done the promise.

Alwaleed Ibn Almugheera was one of the chiefs of Quraysh. It is claimed that he was one of the most eloquent Arabs. Muslims frequently quote him that once he had praised the Quran. It is the remarks allegedly made by this man that are frequently quoted as evidence of what Muslims claim to be a language miracle of the Quran. The reality however, is that there is no valid historical evidence that Alwaleed had ever praised the Quran. In reality, the contrary is true, because Alwaleed never believed in Mohamed or accepted the Quran.

Tell me, even today, some people found that their believe makes no sense, but still follows it anyway, and never change to another believe, so keeping that in mind it is logical that if someone praised the Quran doesn't necessarily mean he will join Islam, and orientalists who studied the Islamic history and was amazed by it, didn't join Islam (only few did, but I don't have much knowledge about that), and lastly Allah sent prophets to people with miracles and people still didn't believe, is it the prophets to blame? no, does that makes their believe wrong? no, it is the people who done the wrong thing and it is them to blame.

Let us read the following verses from sura Alqalm, Q. 68; Verses 10-13:
But yield not to the man of oaths, a despicable person,
Defamer, going about with slander,
Hinderer of the good, transgressor, criminal,
Harsh--beside this, impure by birth,
All the verses quoted above are severely offending. As an example, let us focus on verse 13 where the Arabic word zaneem has been politely translated to ‘impure by birth’. The exact meaning is the son of the woman who commits zina (unlawful sex). To those who know Arabic it means the ‘son of Manyuka’, which is the most vulgar and most offending words that can be said in the Arabic language. The nearest English translation is ‘son of a bitch!’

Lets see what Muslim scholars say about what the word "zaneem" mean (This is my translation and it is not the best one):

From what we said above, and to clear stuff up, zaneem could me one of the these :

  1. oppressor
  2. has zanama the like of sheep (al-Walīd b. al-Mughīra has zanama the like of sheep) (Al-Akhnas bin Sharik is also said to be the reason for this verse)
  3. born out of unlawful relation
  4. someone who says he is from a tribe he isn't from or accused in his family.
  5. known to talk bad behind people (not accurate translation).
  6. sign of not believing.
  7. ...

I skipped talking about the origin of each explanation and how valid it is.

So who gave you the authority to chose the meaning of that word out of all possible meaning? and who also gave you the authority to say that the verse talks about Al-waleed as being mentioned in the verse out of all possible people? or even the possibly of the verse talking generally without talking about anyone?

But lets simply gave that, and say it means born out of unlawful relation, and it is talking about Al-waleed the reader must know who is Al-waleed first:

Al-waleed's story in short

Alwaleed Ibn Almugheera was one of the richest man man in Quraysh and its chiefs, we found him in the Quran:

Leave Me (to deal) with him whom I created lonely, and designated for him ample wealth, and sons that stand in witness. I made things smooth and easy for him, yet he is eager that I increase him. [Quran chapter 74 verse 11-16]
Not at all! Surely, he has been disobedient to Our verses. I will constrain him to a hard ascent. He reflected, and then determined - death seized him, how was his determining! Again, death seized him, how was his determining! Then he looked, frowned and scowled; then he retreated and grew proud and said: 'This is no more than traced sorcery; It is nothing but the word of a mortal!' I will surely roast him in the Scorching. [Quran chapter 74 verse 16-26]

The story is when Quraysh had to make a name for prophet Muhammad Peace be upon him, they gathered and started talking about what to call him, should he be called a "Liar"? Al-waleed refused this, asking them "Have you see him lie before?", the answer is no, he never lied, and just like that Al-waleed refused every naming that Quraysh made for Muhammad Peace be upon him, and so he started thinking, and Quraysh waiting to see, what will he say, then he come up with "sorcery" and Quran being "word of a mortal", in which Quraysh accepted it very welcomly, and just like that he opened a gate against Muhammad Peace be upon him, not to mention this was one of the early stages of Islam, and Al-waleed refused to believe despite him knowing that the Quran can not possibly be a word of a mortal, but he was arrogant, back to the topic, giving of what we just said does Al-waleed deserve this?

If we said that he is indeed born out of unlawful relation, so the Quran didn't lie, that a fact, now why would chose a quality that Al-waleed has nothing to do with (in terms of him choosing in what relation to born with), the answer is him being arrogant, no one should be arrogant, as everyone are slaves to Allah, and all of them has nothing that makes them "special per default", and how someone who need to sleep be arrogant? how can someone who get sick, who cry, who can't handle pain be arrogant? nothing in man can (or should) make him arrogant, and just like that how can someone be arrogant if he was born out of unlawful relation? so nothing ever is in the support of Al-waleed being arrogant, so why he is?

Lastly saying "son of a bitch" is wrong to explain the meaning here, as this mean that his mother is a wrong as well, but we don't know if it was forced to do this relation, or its her work and it is known for it, lets continue:

The Quran, especially the Meccan verses, like those quoted above, uses an old language. The style and many of its words are now obsolete. This lack of clarity provides a protective shell to a book, which is otherwise no more than a collection of ancient myths.

Just give some proofs that it was collection of ancient myths then we talk, continue:

The Quran becomes even more sanitized when translated in to English because of the PC and apologist approach adopted by the translators. These translators soften the harshness of the Qurnic obscenity by unabashedly adding decency to the vulgar words.

Why don't you come up with a translation that manages to translate two very different languages accurately? the Quran translations take into account its Tafsir, so who doesn't know Arabic doesn't have to go and found translations of Tafsir books in order to understand the Quran (at least before he learn Arabic).

Let us assume that Alwaleed’s mother had indeed committed zina and that alwaleed was the product of that zina. Is that the fault of Alwaleed? Why should Allah blame Alwaleed who even did not exist during the act? After all it was Allah’s wish that Alwaleed should be born in this manner.

I just explained that, you can not possibly be arrogant if you was born that way, but he did anyway, didn't he remember that? didn't he looked at himself and asked how he came to this? so why he ignored all of that, and did the wrong thing? continue:

How do Muslims defend such a vulgar language? Again, Muslims can only see a miracle! Muslims claim that Alwaleed questioned his mother and she admitted he was indeed the product of zina, so it must be a miracle! Otherwise how did the Quran know?

Now that's some new information for me, about Al-waleed questioning his mother, I wish you added a source for that.

This is typical Islamic nonsense, because there is no way to believe that an Arab woman will admit to her son that she committed adultery.

That generalization tho, I want a source for that, continue:

This is simply unbelievable. Besides, Alwaleed did not change his treatment to his mother or convert to Islam, but continued to reject and expose Mohammed’s claims
Allah asks the readers of the Quran to just leave Him alone with Alwaleed and watch what happens

"asks the readers of the Quran", I have checked all the Tafsirs again to check if that's right, and found non, the only thing I found in Tafsir Al-Tabari that says the words are for Muhammad Peace be upon him, if you have proof of what you are saying, please link it.

The Quran consistently uses offending remarks whenever it mentions non-Muslims. It describes non-Muslims as animals (Q.7: 179, Q.25: 44, Q.47: 12). Then it describes the Jews as donkeys Q. 62:5 then as apes and pigs (Q.2: 65, Q. 5:60, Q. 7:166). To be described as an animal is a bad insult in Arabic culture, but pigs, apes and donkeys are particularly bad.

I wish you talked about them, but you ignored them knowing that those attacks make sense to non-Muslims, I will also no talk about them as I myself want my article to be short, lets finish your article:

The extensive uses of swearing language in the Quran have escaped criticism for many years, although the use of similar language by other books or articles would make them un-publishable.

We were waiting for you to come and criticize the Quran using such useless argument.

And Allah knows best.

Muhammad hatred for Jews? Debunked?

I tried to open the link, but It seems to be broken, I have checked and found that the problem is not in my side, you can click this link to see, next topic:

Muhammad married his daughter in law. DEBUNKED?

UPDATE: After I finished writing this article I came back to this section in order to make it less disrespecting, what I have done Is change the quotes from the article I am debunking, removing the parts that disrespect Allah and his prophet, keep that in mind.

UPDATE 2: I came to the conclusion that this is a useless section to debunk, So I removed all the quotes and corrected some misunderstandings.

This list explains all the errors I found in the link:

  1. What the Arab say or do is not the source of knowledge to know what's right or wrong.
  2. The story of Zayd ibn Harithah is as follows: Read this verse:
  3. And when you said to he whom Allah had favored and yourself have favored: 'Keep your wife and fear Allah,' and you sought to hide in yourself what Allah was to reveal, fearing people; although Allah has a better right for you to fear Him. And when Zayd had accomplished what he would of her (divorce), We gave her to you (Prophet Muhammad) in marriage, so that there is no fault in believers concerning (marriage to) the former spouse of their foster children if they divorced them. The decree of Allah must be done. [Quran 33:37]

    Zayd ibn Harithah came to Muhammad asking for divorce in which the prophet said : "Keep your wife and fear Allah", while he (the prophet) wanted to marry her if he divorce which Allah was to reveal (some scholars say that he hided that he knew she was going to be her wife before Zayd came to him), but he fear people (what they will say about this act), while Allah has a better right be to feared, but when Zayd divorced, "We gave her to you (Prophet Muhammad) in marriage", "so that there is no fault in believers concerning (marriage to) the former spouse of their foster children if they divorced them." That's the story of it.

  4. For the "need of a marriage ceremony" I answer from Zainab (Zayd's wife before divorce):
  5. We also learn of the virtue of Zaynab, the Mother of the Believers, because Allah ordained her marriage to His Messenger (PBUH) without any proposal or witnesses. Therefore she used to boast of that to other wives of the Messenger of Allah (PBUH), saying: Your families gave you in marriage, but Allah gave me in marriage from above seven heavens. [Tafsir Al-Saadi page 34, Source]
  6. "Nikah" means to marry not to "penetrating some one"
  7. He typed a part of a verse to show he is right, while the full verse is:
  8. Believers, do not enter the houses of the Prophet for a meal without waiting for the proper time, unless you are given permission. But if you are invited, enter, and when you have eaten, disperse, not desiring conversation, for that is hurtful to the Prophet and he would be shy before you; but of the truth Allah is not shy. And when you ask his wives for anything, speak to them from behind a curtain, that is cleaner for your hearts and theirs. You must not hurt the Messenger of Allah, nor shall you ever wed his wives after him, surely, this would be a monstrous thing with Allah. [Quran Chapter 33 verse 53]

  9. The wives of the prophet are the role model for all women and wives, doing wrong is unacceptable, also since they are the wives of the prophet they got the reward of being with him at the highest paradise, and that can not be given to anyone who do wrong.
  10. The guy asks us to ask questions that made him reach the pick of stupidity.
  11. The stories he told were non sense, but he mentioned one story indirectly which I want clear it up:

The story that was debunked by the Quran

When Muhammad Peace be upon him done fighting in expedition of al-Muraysi, he and the Muslims toke the way back to Madina, one day when Muslims were getting ready to leave (The place they stopped at), Ayesha went off for her need, (skipping the not important details), the Arabs used to use something called "houdage" like the one in this picture:

Which is just a little room that a woman gets in, to not get tired of walking and not get burned by the sun, and also to be hidden from anyone, now the Muslims thought that Ayesha was already inside her Hodage (they didn't check because they are Muslims) and left, when she came back she didn't found them, so she stayed waiting, Safwan ibn Muattal for some reason (probably sleeping) also didn't follow the Muslims, he saw Ayesha's face uncovered, he knew she was Ayesha because he had saw her before the "hijab" rule came, he gave his camel for her to ride, the two managed to reach the Muslims, Ayesha swears he didn't say a word through out the way, then some idiots start talking about this story (In a dirty way), Muhammad Peace be upon him didn't believe in what those idiots said, and kept waiting, until these verses were revealed :

those who came with the slander were a number of you. Do not regard it evil for you, rather it is good for you. Every person of them shall have the sin that he has earned charged to him. As for he who took upon himself the greater part there is a mightier punishment.Had you heard it, and the believing men and women, thought good thoughts about one another said: 'This is a clear falsehood!' Why, did they not bring four witnesses against it? But since they did not bring the witnesses, before Allah they are the liars. But for the bounty of Allah and His Mercy towards you in this life and in the Everlasting Life you would have been sternly punished for that which you were involved. You carried with your tongues and uttered with your mouths what you did not know. You have thought it a trifle, but before Allah it was a mighty thing. When you heard it, why did you not say: 'It is not right for us to speak of this. Exaltations to You! This is a mighty slander!' Allah exhorts you never again to repeat the like, if you are believers. Allah makes plain to you His verses, and Allah is the Knower, the Wise. Those who love that indecency should be broadcast about those who believe - theirs is a painful punishment in this world and in the Everlasting Life. Allah knows best, and you do not know. If it was not for the bounty of Allah to you and His Mercy, and Allah is the Gentle, the Most Merciful. [Quran Chapter 24 verse 11-20]
And Allah knows best.


The link takes you to this page, from the anti-Islam site that at least have some respect, I have read some of the the page has, and I found nothing to do with Muhammad lootings, so I will skip it.

pedophilia in the Quran?

The link, takes you to that pro-Islam site that we have seen before, I didn't bother checking for the original site, skipping it:


The page, since the page is long I will simply correct what's wrong, the page talks about two verses that are used by Muslims in order to be protected from Jinn and Magic (and other stuff), he starts talking about stories about magic Jews and boys, they are not important for this debunk so I skipped them all (didn't read them as well), there are titles called "issues" those are one I will focus on the most:

The most important question is: if such an "error", assuming that it was an error, could be committed by a close Companion, could other errors of omissions and insertions have been made during the compilation of the Qur'an?

This is the same arguement used for the "satanic verse", the answer to that is no error can happen without someone noticing it, if you noticed an error today, then please show us what you got, otherwise you can relax and become a Muslim.

Issue 2: Can a "Prophet" be affected by magical spells and what are the implications?

The answer is yes, Prophets can be effected by magic, even Muses had been, this verse form the Quran show that:

Moses replied: 'No, you throw first.' And by their sorcery it seemed to him that their ropes and staffs were sliding. [Quran chapter 20 verse 66]

So it is normal thing.

If we accept that Muhammad was affected by magic, or at least believed that he was affected by magic, the entire Qur'an becomes highly suspect.

If Muhammad would of got the Quran from the effect of his magic, we would of see so many mistakes in it, but we didn't? and so magic didn't effect his infallibility when it comes to religious stuff, so you can relax and become a Muslim.

traditions on the authority of Aisha that clearly say that Muhammad believed that he could be affected by spells and magic

Yes, all Muslims scholars agree that Muhammad Peace be upon him had been affected by magic, but saying that he was affected all the time, like always, that's wrong.

Also, Ibn Sa'd raises a very serious question. If Muhammad could not distinguish between the words of God and the words of Satan, how can we trust anything that he said? In fact, the entire story of Muhammad's "prophethood" and his "revelations" are very suspect when viewed in the light of these suras. Incidentally, the Qur'an mentions an accusation made against Muhammad that he was bewitched (Sura 17:47) and, to make matters worse, these two Suras give evidence that Muhammad had actually been, or believed that he had been, charmed and bewitched. Worst of all, the most serious problem is that Muhammad could be tricked by Satan.

I already debunked the "satanic verse" above, it is a false story, now thinking that the magic (making him thinking he done something he didn't) could effect the Quran, is the same way you can think of a dream you had, which you can't tell if that was a dream or it really happen (I recall having such dreams), and saying that magic could of made him talk somehow wrong, it is the same as saying he wasn't focusing while talking, that all doesn't make any sense, no magic had effected the Quran, if it did, we would of noticed it.

So just to say it again, the magic didn't do anything other then dream like impressions and that's it.

The third issue that arises when we read these two Suras is whether recitation of charms and amulets has any place among people who claim to believe in a sovereign, all powerful God. During Muhammad's last illness (prior to his death), Aisha recited these Suras on his command and blew on his hands, since she believed that they were blessed, and rubbed them on his body. In spite of Muhammad's many superstitions, he, according to the traditions, opposed charms and amulets
according to Syed Maududi, Abdullah bin Abbas reports that Muhammad said:
"The people of my Ummah to enter Paradise without reckoning will be those who neither turn to treatment by branding, nor to enchanting, nor take omens, but have trust in their Lord."
The philosphical problem with these beliefs in amulets, charms, and other superstitions, is that they conflict with the idea of a sovereign, all-powerful God. If one believes in God and in the power of God's will, what is the purpose of amulets and charms? Can any of these things alter or over-ride the will of an all-powerful God? Muhammad's faith in amulets and charms, as well as his belief in superstitions, seriously undermines the theological ideas that he preached and casts doubt on the validity of all of his purported "revelations".

Interesting, at least you question some reasonable questions, unlike the idiots from Islam-Watch site.

First the talk about "amulets and charms" (and I think these are wrong terms, because they are nothing but reading verses and asking Allah for health, and Allah knows best) is wide, to know if it is prohibited or not, but the part to take from here is: believing that those "amulets and charms" can cure by themselves is prohibited, because Allah is the one to cure.

Second, so many stuff are unknown to us, for example to evil eye that you mentioned, we don't know much about it other then it has a harmful effect, we don't even know what it is, same with many other things, so what does the "amulets and charms" do? Allah knows best.

And so we found no conflict like you mentioned.

Broken oaths

The link takes you a page that has verses of chapter 66, I read:

This is one of the most fascinating Suras in the entire Qur'an. In 12 verses, Muhammad violates a deal that he made with his wives, makes and breaks an oath, and receives a "revelation" from God just in time to get him out of trouble.

Why isn't it a reason to allow dissolution of oaths? because man make mistakes and if he made an oath and breaks it, then what will he do? see how we learn Islam from our prophet, and its not like the oath that the prophet made was big deal.

Hafsah and Aishah were, according to the traditions, often competitors for Muhammad's attention

Add that to the list of why you should have more then one women, right CHRISTIANS.

If we believe the testimony of the Qur'an, God tells Muhammad that it is acceptable for him to break his own oaths

Why? can't Muslims break oaths (some oaths)? they can.

Allah will not take you to account for a slip in your oaths. But He will take you to account for the oaths which you solemnly swear. Its expiation is the feeding of ten needy (people) with such food as you normally offer to your own people; or the clothing of them; or the freeing of a slave. He who does not have must fast three days. That is the expiation of your oaths when you have sworn; but keep your oaths. Allah makes plain to you His verses, in order that you are thankful.

So what's the problem again?

But wait, things become much worse! God warns Muhammad's wives against conspiring against the "Prophet". If they do not heed this warning, they will face Almighty God, the Archangel Gabriel and all of the angels, as well as all of the righteous. What chance would these poor women have against such opposition?

Tell that to every non believer and see what they will say.

In the Old and New Testaments, God said that the making and taking of oaths was a very serious matter and was not to be entered into lightly.

Don't get me to use the list of times Christians broke their oaths to Muslims through out history, also does that takes into account the ability to do mistakes? and lets not forget that the Bible is filled with stories of prophets doing wrong, explain that.

However, if we believe the Qur'an, God allowed Muhammad to break his own oaths for his own convenience to satisfy his own desires! Why would God change his eternal will and his eternal word to fulfill the desires of one man?

First who said that Muhammad Peace be upon him desire was to break the oath? Allah corrected something Muhammad Peace be upon him mistakenly did, which is making something allowed not allowed for him, Second Allah didn't change his "eternal will" or "his eternal word" Allah knew this is going to happen before it happen, and he forgive mistakes, Muhammad Peace be upon him did a mistake, and Allah forgave him.

Another difficulty with this Sura is the fact that God rushes head on into Muhammad's domestic disputes in order to intervene on Muhammad's behalf! If we believe the Muslim argument that the Qur'an is the eternal, uncreated word of Almighty God, then why would God record these threats for all of eternity? What moral lesson are we to learn from all of this?

The moral lesson to learn from all is that there is not a single mistake in Islam, this debunks the magic argument you said, as how can such little mistake not pass, and a bigger one like "satanic verses" pass? Ignoring the last part of the article, I hope you truly become a Muslim after this, as you indeed asked some very good questions that shows us you are understanding stuff, sadly you didn't ask these to a Muslim scholar, he would of guided you, next topic:

Misogynist verses

From the page I read:

The general perception is that Muslim men treat women as if they are inferior. Is this behavior a cultural problem or is it based squarely on the teaching of the verses Mohammed recited, which are recorded in the Qur'an? The twenty-nine verses gathered in this chapter make it obvious that Islam teaches that men are not only superior, and thus have authority over women, but they are even commanded to beat them if they are rebellious.
There are many instances of women being mistreated by men in countries that have a Christian heritage as well. The difference is that the Bible primarily promotes the dignity of each individual regardless of their gender. History shows that where the gospel is embraced, human rights gradually improve. There are significant reasons for this trend.

Want me to talk about human rights in the first crusade? skipping to the verses:

Inferiority of Women Men have authority over women because they were made to be superior and because men spend their resources to take care of women (4:34).
Men are the maintainers of women for that Allah has preferred in bounty one of them over another, and for that they have spent of their wealth. Righteous women are obedient, guarding in secret that which Allah has guarded. Those from whom you fear rebelliousness, admonish them and desert them in the bed and smack them (without harshness). Then, if they obey you, do not look for any way against them. Allah is High, Great.[Quran chapter 4 verse 34]
Men have a higher status or are considered a degree above women, so in matters of divorce, the man has more rights (2:228).
Divorced women shall wait by themselves for three periods. It is unlawful for them, if they believe in Allah and the Last Day, to hide what He has created in their wombs, in which case their husbands would have a better right to restore them should they desire reconciliation. And for them similar to what is due from them with kindness. But men have a degree above them. Allah is Mighty and Wise.

First, here is your Bible:

To the woman he said, “I will make your pains in childbearing very severe;with painful labor you will give birth to children. Your desire will be for your husband, and he will rule over you.” [Genesis 3:16 New International Version]

Second, I won't do a better job then this Video (It has English subtitle), lets go to the next topic:

Scriber’s wording

link is to a page titled "Sources of the Qur'an", and I don't feel good about it:

Muhammad had scribes write his revelations down for him. One scribe was `Abdullah Ibn Sa'd Ibn Abi Sarh. As Sarh wrote these revelations down, he frequently made suggestions on improving their wording. Muhammad often agreed and allowed the changes to be made. Eventually, Sarh left Islam, knowing it could not be from God if a mere scribe were allowed to change God's word. Later, after the conquest of Mecca, Muhammad ordered Sarh's death.
Abdullah Sarh was one of Muhammad's scribes. Evidently, Sarh had some literary skills, sometimes suggesting improvements to Muhammad in the wording of the recited Qur'an. Muhammad often agreed with Sarh's improvements, and allowed the changes to be made.

The story of Sarh faking the Quran is debunked by all Muslim scholars, non of them agreed on the validity of it, the real story however shows that the devil guided him out of Islam as shown here:

Abdullah ibn AbuSarh used to write (the revelation) for the Messenger of Allah(PBUH). . Satan made him slip, and he joined the infidels. The Messenger of Allah (PBUH) commanded to kill him on the day of Conquest (of Mecca). Uthman ibn Affan sought protection for him. The Messenger of Allah (PBUH) gave him protection.[Sunan Abi Dawud 4358 book 40 hadith 8, Source]

Without going to the details of the story, and for Muhammad Peace be upon him ordering Sarh's death, it is known that any Muslim who left Islam his punishment is death.

And Allah knows best.

Verse of stoning

the link takes you to this page, lets see this:

Time and again we have had to repeat that textual variants do not undermine the overall purity of the biblical text

Even of those variants have errors in them? well I will leave that to my Christianity article, next:

We have even tried to show that both the official Muslim sources and the available manuscript evidence demonstrate that the Quran itself has hundreds, if not thousands, of variant readings

The largest number I know is 10, how did they come to 1000?

To do so before Muhammad's time implies that they knew what kind of messenger he would be and what kind of message he would bring, i.e. an Arab prophet who would bring a hostile message to them. Obviously, this is not possible. Yet, if they did remove these references during that time then it is easy to show this by examining the extant pre-islamic MSS of the Old Testament.

What if I told you that they didn't? what if I told you even the Torah that we have today, has Muhammad Peace be upon him in it, check this article.

Further evidence which shows the high improbability, if not impossibility, of the Jews doing this can be seen from the fact that ever since the time of Christ, Christians have copied and transmitted the Hebrew Scriptures from one generation to the next. And yet the OT which the Christians have transmitted agrees with the Scriptures in the hands of the Jews.

That's why the oldest scripture you got date to around 350CE, where are your copied one from the time of Jesus?

Thus, Jalalayn is simply in error for saying that the Jews omitted the verse on stoning.

Now I don't know why you chose Jalalayn from all Tafsir scholars, just go with another one and you will be fine, as for the stoning order that were with Jews that hided it, the Torah already had, and that's the Tafsir of this verse in the Quran:

But how will they come to you for judgment when they already have the Torah in which is the judgement of Allah? Then they turn away after that; those are not believers. [Quran 5:43]

Some Tafsir scholars explained that the judgment in this verse is stoning, found in the Torah, but Jews didn't like It and wanted to see another judgment from Muhammad Peace be upon him, but they didn't found what they want.

From the foregoing we can conclude that the Muslims have corrupted the Quran since a verse regarding the stoning of adulterers has been expunged from it.

That's the same as saying it was corrupt because of abrogates, make your mind, the verse wasn't missing, was abrogated, as a way to show Jews that even without a stoning verse from our book we still do what Allah ordered us to do, unlike Jews as I explained above.

It is quite evident that the Quran, at one time, did contain this command to stone adulterers which was then taken out by Muslims. This proves, per Jalalayn's logic, that Muslims corrupted the Quran.

I don't know what jalalayn's logic you are talking about, but what I have explained is enough I guess.

And Allah knows best.

Now lets finish our main website continue:

lashing and list of missing verses and the Quran which is hidden to Muslim “ummah”. Only Shia Imam has “hidden” knowledge about that part of “miraculous“ Quran.

The Shia has no "hidden" knowledge.

It is a common belief amongst Muslims that the Quran is a treasure-trove of miracles and all kinds of sciences. They universally believe that Westerners get all their sciences from the Quran.

And how is that proving the falseness of the Quran?

It is as much their fault as of some Western (pseudo)scientists, who find all kinds of "$cience in Quran”. Yet, they do not accept Islam

I have explained how that's not an argument above, and to add more I have debunked evolution in my website and despite linking to papers of scientists who claim to have found errors in the theory, they still follow it, It doesn't have to make sense, some people are just trolling their life.

And just like you, you know that you are a liar and we debunked a single debunk you did, and proved you did nothing but use joke resources, misguide people, and lie.

We, ex-Muslims, have debunked all the deceptive claims of Quranic Sciences over the past years. But they are spread in the form of pieces in FFI forum. I have collected all the data regarding “miracles of the Quran” in this E-Book.
I urge readers to distribute this e-book among your fellows. You can email that to anyone. If you want your offspring to live on the planet earth happily, in peace, then Islam is to be tamed or eradicated.

You could learn more about happiness in this article, happiness that people gain after they ignore Islam, in other hand Islam is the fastest growing religion, and you little site isn't going to stop it, not even slow it, Muslims all over the world are waking up from the crusade that happened to them, and soon they will repel the attack in a way that will make those who worked behind the screens surprised, so prepare for the coming storm.

We have to reach the Muslim youth before the jihadis reach them. If we can not reach them ahead of the jihadis, the world will suffer. If you want to save the world, stop terrorism and stop oppression then you will have to tell people the truth of Islam and its founder.

By the time of writing this article, taliban (which is "jihadis") are already in every world channel, and not only they reached Muslim youth, but Christians, Jews, atheists, and basically everyone who has a TV or internet.

Forward it to others; perhaps your email stops a suicide bomber or someone from funding terrorism. Your single click of the mouse may save human blood, which is being shed in the jihad for Islam, which, in all likelihood, will increase further in the time ahead.

Just by email you can stop a criminal, that doesn't happen even in a cartoon.

Perhaps, your distribution of this book will alleviate sufferings of the billion-plus Muslims

Muslims already know this verses:

They will not cease to fight against you until they force you to renounce your religion, if they are able.[Quran 2:217]
They desire to extinguish the Light of Allah with their mouths; but Allah seeks only to perfect His Light, though the unbelievers hate it.[Quran 9:32]

They already know your truth.

who are the primary victim of Islam. It will, perhaps, many nations from horrendous attacks like the 9/11 (US), 7/7 (London), 3/11 (Madrid) and 11/26 (Mumbai). Perhaps your action slowly, and eventually stop, the site meter of Islamic terror attacks, which stands at 12690 today since 9/11.

Because of 9/11 many Americans became Muslims, each 9/11 Muslims spread the truth about that event, which convinces people into joining Islam.

Enough said, lets see what we got now:

Who are these people?

Those Anti-Islam sites spread false information about Islam, lying and misleading people and guiding them out of Islam, they have articles, channels, books, most of them never ever try to debate a true Muslim with knowledge, as they will be exposed as we did in this article, if you have read their articles and lies, be careful, ask Muslims about their religion, not random people who disrespect it and shows that they are biased.

And Allah knows best.