We should never underestimate the power of religious beliefs in obtunding senses of its followers. A person’s mind becomes moulded to fit only with his/her set of religious beliefs. Under the effect of such ‘opium’, the person becomes disillusioned and disorientated to the perception of what is morally right or wrong. I wonder how, as a Muslim, could I easily gulp such Islamic insanities for so many years. Now that I am free from Islam, 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.

It is evident from the Quran that, just like an angry rude Arab, Allah often loses His temper and uses obscene and vulgar words against His creations! Allah sides with Mohamed against his adversaries and treats them as His personal opponents. He swears at them with offensive remarks and threatens them with severe torture and promises that He and His prophet will prevail.

To prove this misdemeanour of Allah, I am going to discuss the cases of only two Arabs who, through their rejection to Mohamed’s claims, caused Allah to lose His temper and refer to them by using some strong language in the Quran:

Abul Uzza Ibn Abdulmuttalib

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.

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.

Sura Almasad is another proof that the Quran is a reflection of a sick man’s thoughts. 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! 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. 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. If desired, 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.

Al waleed Ibn Almugheera, the son of a bitch!

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. Mohamed must have harboured a deep hatred for Alwaleed. The obscene verses in sura Alqalam (also known as sura Nun) reveals Mohamed’s intense disdain for AlWaleed’s rejection of the Quran.

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!’

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. 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.

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.

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?

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. 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. Mohamed’s Allah had to interfere again to reassure his beloved prophet that He will torture Alwaleed. Allah asks the readers of the Quran to just leave Him alone with Alwaleed and watch what happens! This is how Allah describes his plans in dealing with Alwaleed:

Q.74
11. Leave Me alone, (to deal) with the (creature) whom I created (bare and) alone!
12. To whom I granted resources in abundance,
13. And sons to be by his side!
14. To whom I made (life) smooth and comfortable!

Then:
26. Soon will I cast him into Hell-Fire!
27. And what will explain to thee what Hell-Fire is?
28. Naught doth it permit to endure, and naught doth it leave alone

Every time I read the above verses, it conjures my mind the image of a common scenario when two bad-mannered Arabs engage in a street quarrel but held back from each other by the crowd, and each party shouts ‘leave me alone with him’

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.

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.
 

comments

---

rawandi@googlemail.com