Does Allah have a sense of humour?

One of the few reasons why I am proud to be English is Monty Python.

As I was watching the Meaning of Life last night, it struck me that if God does exist (which he doesn't) then he must surely have a sense of humour - if for no other reason than he designed our bodies.

So let us rejoice in the sheer lunatic brilliance of Palin et al as they precisely and mercilessly dissect the preposterous idea of  a merciful God  torturing his flock, who in turn spend their precious lives bowing and scraping and toadying to this sadistic creation...and thank our lucky stars we live in a society where we are free to make and watch such brilliance...and perhaps in turn give a passing thought to Alexander Aan jailed for 30 months in Indonesia for saying on Facebook that God doesn't exist

Oh Lord, please don't burn us! Don't kill or toast your flock! Don't put us on the barbecue, or simmer us in stock! Don't braise or bake or boil us or fry us in a wok! Oh please don't lightly poach us, or baste us with hot fat! Don't fricasse or roast us or boil us in a vat. And please don't stick your servants, Lord in a Rotisomat!

And let us not forget that Muslims reading this have to believe they will pass through Hell, however perfect a life they have led: There is not one of you who will not go down to it (Hell); that is settled and decided by the Lord. 19:72.
That would be the same most merciful of all who are merciful Lord, would it? Hmmm.

Ramses II and/or Merneptah and the Islamic miracle of the preserved Pharaoh

We took the Children of Israel across the sea: Pharaoh and his hosts followed them in insolence and spite. At length, when overwhelmed with the flood, he said: "I believe that there is no god except Him Whom the Children of Israel believe in: I am of those who submit (to Allah in Islam)." (It was said to him): "Ah now!- But a little while before, wast thou in rebellion!- and thou didst mischief (and violence)! "This day shall We save thee in the body, that thou mayest be a sign to those who come after thee! but verily, many among mankind are heedless of Our Signs!"[Qur'ân 10:90-92]

I've posted before on this but it seems that many Muslims and putative Western converts are still falling for this errant nonsense because of the lies (I use the word advisedly) told by the charlatan Yusuf Estes (seen in the above video) and others.


The mummy shown in this particular video is that of Ramses II. Ramses II was the mummy displayed in Dallas that Estes says he visited and saw behind the glass case with its mouth open leading to the comment, "What do you think he was saying, huh? Oh God!..." According to Estes this is the mummy of the Pharaoh that Allah saved as a sign for all mankind so we might believe in him. It is also, according to Estes, the mummy that Maurice Bucaille examined. (Actually it was the mummy of Merneptah that Bucaille writes about in his book but we'll come to that later)
In the video, Estes says that Bucaille was astounded that the Muslim scholars in the Cairo museum knew about the preserved Pharoah. He even tries to suggest that Bucaille knew nothing of the Qur'an. "They said we know (about the mummy being preserved) because it's in the Qur'an. He (Bucaille) said, ""The what?"". What a disingenuous, patronising toad you are, Yusuf Estes! Bucaille had been the Saudi royal family's physician for two years by this stage (He was employed in 1973). Are you seriously suggesting that he had never heard of the Qur'an?
In any case, let's deal with the claim that Ramses II was the Pharaoh who chased Moses and the Israelites into the Red Sea on a chariot. Here is what Wikipedia has to say about Ramses II - my bolding (I've kept in the references so that those interested can follow them up):

Ramesses II was originally buried in the tomb KV7 in the Valley of the Kings but, because of looting, priests later transferred the body to a holding area, re-wrapped it, and placed it inside the tomb of queen Inhapy. 72 hours later it was again moved, to the tomb of the high priest Pinudjem II. All of this is recorded in hieroglyphics on the linen covering the body.^[57] His mummy is today in Cairo's Egyptian Museum.
The pharaoh's mummy reveals a hooked nose and strong jaw, and stands at some 1.7 metres (5 ft 7 in).^[58] His ultimate successor was his thirteenth son, Merneptah.
Mummy of Ramesses II
In 1974 Egyptologists visiting his tomb noticed that the mummy's condition was rapidly deteriorating and flew it to Paris for examination.^[59] Ramesses II was issued an Egyptian passport that listed his occupation as "King (deceased)".^[60] The mummy was received at Le Bourget airport, just outside Paris, with the full military honours befitting a king.^[61]In Paris, it was found that Ramesses's mummy was being attacked by fungus, which it was treated for. During the examination, scientific analysis revealed battle wounds and old fractures, as well as the pharaoh's arthritis and poor circulation.
Egyptologists were also interested by the mummy's noticeably thin neck. An X-ray revealed that the neck had a piece of wood lodged into the upper chest, essentially keeping the head in place. It is believed that during the mummification process the head had accidentally been knocked off by those performing the mummification. In Egyptian culture if any part of the body were to come off, the soul of the body would not continue to exist in the afterlife, so those performing the mummification carefully placed the head back and lodged a wooden stick into the neck in order to keep the head in place.^{[citation needed]}It is believed that Ramesses II was essentially crippled with arthritis and walked with a hunched back for the last decades of his life.^[62] A recent study excluded ankylosing spondylitis as a possible cause of the pharaoh's arthritis.^[63] A significant hole in the pharaoh's mandible was detected. Researchers observed "an abscess by his teeth (which) was serious enough to have caused death by infection, although this cannot be determined with certainty." Microscopic inspection of the roots of Ramesses II's hair proved that the king's hair was originally red, which suggests that he came from a family of redheads.^[64] This has more than just cosmetic significance: in ancient Egypt people with red hair were associated with the god Seth, the slayer of Osiris, and the name of Ramesses II's father, Seti I, means "follower of Seth."^[65] After Ramesses's mummy returned to Egypt it was visited by President Anwar Sadat and his wife.

This 90 year-old cripple, mummified in the usual way and found in the Valley of the Kings in a tomb like any other mummy, is the one that Yusuf Estes claims is the Pharaoh who chased the Israelites by chariot into the Red Sea, was drowned by Allah, whose body was miraculously preserved and which shows signs of drowning.


So what of Merneptah, the mummy that Bucaille actually writes about in his book? In a New York Times book review in 1991, Malcolm Brown, science reporter, had this to say about Bucaille's book:

It is hard for an armchair archeologist to dislike a book about mummies, particularly one that describes the mortal remains of a pharaoh supposed to have been killed while pursuing Moses during the Exodus. "Mummies of the Pharaohs," however, is so severely flawed that neither specialist nor casual reader will find much to savor.
Maurice Bucaille, a member of the French Society of Egyptology and a medical doctor, was uniquely privileged during the mid-1970's to conduct forensic examinations of the royal mummies at the Cairo Museum. His book, adequately translated by the author and Alastair D. Pannell, offers some interesting sidelights on these examinations. We learn, for example, that Merneptah, son and successor of Pharaoh Ramses II, probably had his head bashed in around 1204 B.C. while chasing the Hebrews.

Dr. Bucaille asserts that results of a forensic examination of Merneptah's mummy are consistent with the biblical account of the pharaoh's death, in which the Red Sea, miraculously parted for the Hebrews, closes over the Egyptians. The author does not make it quite clear how a surge of water would produce the massive cranial trauma evident in the mummy, but never mind. This is but one of many questions the author leaves hanging.

Because Dr. Bucaille's patients included members of the family of President Anwar Sadat of Egypt, he was given considerable freedom to inspect the royal mummies.
The doctor's major conclusion was that fungus was causing them to decay rapidly in the moist heat of the Cairo Museum, where they had lain devoid of protective wrappings since their discovery at the end of the 19th century.While Dr. Bucaille makes a good case that the royal mummies have been persistently ill used ever since their discovery, too much of his book is devoted to petulant criticism of Egyptologists and museum officials, notably Christiane Desroches-Noblecourt, director of Egyptian antiquities at the Louvre. Dr. Bucaille's feuds leave little room for the mummies; his book badly needs rehabilitation by a professional writer or editor. 

Here is what Wikipedia has to say about Merneptah (again, links left in):

Merneptah suffered from arthritis and arteriosclerosis in old age and died after a reign which lasted for nearly a decade. Merneptah was originally buried within tomb KV8 in the Valley of the Kings, but his mummy was not found there. In 1898 it was located along with eighteen other mummies in the mummy cache found in the tomb of Amenhotep II (KV35) by Victor Loret. Merneptah's mummy was taken to Cairo and eventually unwrapped by Dr. G. Elliott Smith on July 8, 1907. Dr Smith notes that:The body is that of an old man and is 1 meter 714 millimeters in height. Merenptah was almost completely bald, only a narrow fringe of white hair (now cut so close as to be seen only with difficulty) remaining on the temples and occiput. A few short (about 2 mill) black hairs were found on the upper lip and scattered, closely clipped hairs on the cheeks and chin. The general aspect of the face recalls that of Ramesses II, but the form of the cranium and the measurements of the face much more nearly agree with those of his [grand]father, Seti the Great.^[8] 

So once again there is no suggestion of miraculous preservation. The Merneptah mummy is unremarkable. It was preserved using the normal mummification techniques. Experts suggest Merneptah was an arthritic cripple aged around 70 when he died.

Apart from Bucaille - who at the time of his examination of the mummy was employed as the family physician to King Faisal of Saudi Arabia  and was also treating President Anwar Sadat of Egypt, as well as being well into his infamous treatise on Islam and science - no one has ever suggested that either mummy showed signs of drowning or even a violent death. 


The other Egyptologists who who studied the mummies with Bucaille disagreed profoundly with his conclusions and appear to have been a little frustrated with his obsession.

 En avril 1976, Maurice Bucaille remis ses conclusions. Il constata que Mérenptah dût mourir de traumatismes multiples très importants. En effet des traces de chocs violents reçus de son vivant étaient visibles sur plusieurs parties du corps : Arrière de l'abdomen, thorax enfoncé, idem pour la voûte crânienne qui indique une mort quasi instantanée et de nombreuses lésions sur le côté droit du corps. Cette interprétation des blessures est remise en question par Salima Ikram et Aidan Marc Dodson qui voient dans les nombreuses traces de violence dont a souffert la momie du souverain, l'intervention brutale des voleurs de sépultures. 

It is also to be noted that Bucaille's official report at the time apparently made no mention of his conviction that Merneptah had drowned.

So what are we to make of this miracle claim?

It seems clear that Bucaille saw a chance to enhance his reputation among his powerful new Muslim friends by  making the outrageous claim that Merneptah was the Pharaoh of the (in all likelihood, mythological) Exodus. This was then picked up and exaggerated beyond parody by various Muslim dawah sites and miracle seekers. 


And let's be clear why this is so important. As Yusuf Estes says, this is considered "the most important and impressive miracle of the prophet Muhammad" by a huge number of followers and has convinced innumerable people of the divine nature of the Qur'an.


And there is NO EVIDENCE FOR IT WHATSOEVER.


PS In case any miracle seeker reading this wants to mention salt in the body cavity as evidence of drowning...natron (a mixture of salt and baking soda) was used as part of the preservation technique on all mummies). It's presence is indicative of mummification. NO MIRACLE.

Think I'm making this up about poor gullible miracle seekers? This is typical:

One more sign that proves God exists and powerful is was the discovery of the pharaoh's body in the red sea. The Qur'an tells of the prophet Moses and his followers were chased by the pharaoh and his army. By His power, God splits the sea and drowned Pharaoh and his followers.
All creatures including sea was submissive and obedient to God. How about we as human beings much more perfect?his body (Pharaoh's body) was only discovered in 1898 but the Quran existed nearly 1400 years ago. That is the dead body of Ramses II, The Egyptian King in the era of Prophet Moses (PBUH), it's age is approximately 3000 years old and it was found by the Red Sea at the place called Jabalain. Now in the Royal Mummies Chamber of Egyptian Museum in Cairo.
What is the secret of such good preservation of this body?Dr. Maurice Bucaille was a head and the leader of a group of physicians concern on rebuilding in France. That was in 1981. The result has shown that the residue of salt inside his body was evidence that he died by drowning.
Morris was preparing on final report on what was believed to be a "new discovery" in a Pharaoh's body. Till he was told that Muslims talk about drowning of this mummy he was very surprised!! after he read the story of Pharaoh's drowning in the Quran. Source : Ahmad Deedat Channel

Textual nonsense in the Qur'an

In a previous post, I suggested that one of the reasons why I cannot believe that the Qur'an is divinely inspired and that Muhammad was the prophet of God is that, despite claims to utter clarity made in the Revelation, there are many verses in the text that seem to defy any logical interpretation at all.  
For example, can any Muslim or scholar please explain the following verse to me? (I have given multiple translations lest I am accused of cherry-picking the most obtuse...)
004.003 
YUSUFALI: If ye fear that ye shall not be able to deal justly with the orphans, Marry women of your choice, Two or three or four; but if ye fear that ye shall not be able to deal justly (with them), then only one, or (a captive) that your right hands possess, that will be more suitable, to prevent you from doing injustice. 
PICKTHAL: And if ye fear that ye will not deal fairly by the orphans, marry of the women, who seem good to you, two or three or four; and if ye fear that ye cannot do justice (to so many) then one (only) or (the captives) that your right hands possess. Thus it is more likely that ye will not do injustice. 
SHAKIR: And if you fear that you cannot act equitably towards orphans, then marry such women as seem good to you, two and three and four; but if you fear that you will not do justice (between them), then (marry) only one or what your right hands possess; this is more proper, that you may not deviate from the right course.


How does my decision to marry multiple wives (or one of my slave girls/captives) have anything whatsoever to do with my inability or otherwise to deal justly with orphans? (And that's before we start on the idea that God should find it acceptable that I should marry a captive...)

Am I missing something here? Am I being stupid? 

This is supposed to be God's final words of wisdom and advice to us? Our omnipotent, omniscient maker wanted this passed down generations; wanted this learned word-for-word in madrassas; thought this, when chanted by children who have no idea of the meaning, would help them get into Paradise?

And because I question and research, rather than blindly accepting what I'm told, and find that there is no logic to it all,  I'm going to be burned in Hell for eternity. 

A Hell of a party...

Here is a list of approximately five thousand contributors to society through history. This list contains the names of artists, authors, politicians, statesmen, actors, scientists, judges, designers, philosophers, philanthropists, thinkers, academics, directors, journalists, doctors, adventurers, sportsmen, singers, businessmen....
Apart from their immense and immeasurable gifts to the world, these people also have something else in common.  They were or are gay or bisexual. 
They are, or shortly will be therefore, in Hell - according to the teachings of Islam. 
Well God, you made 'em, you burn 'em! As the saying goes...
It must be a one hell of a party down there! I'm going to head towards the pit containing Leonardo di Vinci, Michelangelo, Alan Turing and Oscar Wilde, I think. We can have chew the cud while we're waiting for Stephen fry to arrive.

10 more questions for Allah

1.     Why give Jesus the message for humanity that we should love our enemies and then contradict his teaching by saying we have a duty to wage war on them?

2.     Why give us the ability to reason and think for ourselves, and then tell us what to think and do down to the tiniest detail of our everyday lives?

3.     Doesn't your claim that the Qur'an is "mubeen" (clear), when approximately one fifth of it is unintelligible - and thus untranslatable - prove you are fallible and therefore a creation of man?

4.     Doesn't also your claim that the Qur'an is written in pure Arabic, when it in fact contains many non-Arabic words, prove that you are fallible and therefore a creation of man?

5.     If Islam is the one true faith, why punish those countries which follow it by making them the most violent, corrupt and dangerous places to live on Earth?

6.     Why is being worshipped so important to you? Isn't creating us solely to worship you a bit - how can I put this - needy?

7.     Aren't there worse things in this life than worshipping the wrong God (or no God at all)? Why reserve all your special, sadistic threats for non-believers instead of those who enslave, rape or kill?

8.     Why is so much of your ""final" revelation specific to a particular time and a particular culture? Shouldn't the last time our creator talks to us before we are all judged contain a more universal and timeless message?

9.     If, as you claim, the Jews corrupted their scripture, why didn’t they paint themselves in a better light in their new, improved version?

10. Why don't you trust a woman's word as much as a man's? 

Dawah Olympics - iERA go for gold with a giant pyramid selling scam!

iERA, my favourite Islamic educational and research organisation, has launched a new dawah campaign for the Olympics. Abdurraham Green, chairman, has been tweeting excitedly about the tens of thousands of leaflets which will be distributed this summer to coincide with The Games. There will be five flyers which donors can choose from to help publish and distribute - all with a unique, uplifting message such as: Every soul will taste death. Then to us you will be returned. 29.57 A bit different from the ubiquitous: Plan your journey - arrive on time, although now I come to think of it...
In any case, this got me to thinking about dawah and the pyramid selling nature of conversion in Islam.

It seems that in Islam, if you bring one soul to Allah then you get the benefit of all the good works done by that soul. Not only that, you also get the payback from that soul's children's good works.
The nature of this has not escaped Mr Green. But far from being embarrassed that dawah, to all intents and purposes, is predicated on an enormous spiritual ponzi scheme, Abdurraham seems amused and even inspired  by the fact.

"You know pyramid schemes? Anyone ever been bitten by one of those? I know I have! (ironic chuckle) You know what? Well you know what, this is a REAL one, but for adja*! This is where you get adja, 'cause if you start at the top and you start this movement, brothers and sisters, everyone you bring on board, everyone you get to bring dawah, every person who comes to Islam, you're getting the adja for it. Does that sound like something you want to meet Allah on the day of judgement with, yes or no?"

Now I hate to be the fly in the ointment here, but does that mean that if I bring someone to Islam who turns out not to be such a good bet, I get negative points, so to speak? Let's imagine that with my amazing Yusuf Estes-like powers of persuasion I manage to convince Mr Smith down the road to convert to Islam. Unfortunately for me, Mr Smith turns out to be a bad egg and enjoys the odd drink, flutter and occasional petty theft. Does that sound like something I want to meet Allah on the day of judgement with? And what happens if his kids turn out even worse? Suddenly Allah's pyramid scheme doesn't seem like such a good deal after all.

Just asking.

*adja (sp?)

Is Jesse really Ishmael, as Muslims claim?

Ishmael and Haggar                            Jesse, father of king David


As I have explained in previous posts, Muslims believe that Mohammad is prophesied in the Bible because the Qur'an tells them so. This has led to all sorts of imaginative interpretations of various verses in an attempt to find that elusive prophesy.
Recently my Muslim friend directed me to a verse in Isiah (11 1-2): And there shall come forth a shoot out of the stock of Jesse, and a twig shall grow forth out of his roots. And the spirit of the LORD shall rest upon him, the spirit of wisdom and understanding, the spirit of counsel and might, the spirit of knowledge and of the fear of the LORD.
Jesse, he and they say, actually refers to Ishmael (the father of the Arabs and thus an ancestor of Muhammad). Many Muslim sites repeat this, including Islamawareness. How they arrive at this conclusion is interesting, to say the least.... 

 To understand this prophesy we need to study the verses carefully. These verses tell us that the rod (branch) which shall grow out of the stem (trunk) of "Jesse" shall be filled by God with wisdom, understanding, council, might, knowledge, and the fear of God. In other words, he shall be a statesman, a prophet and a judge. The obvious question that springs to mind is: Who was "Jesse"? In the Encyclopedia Biblica we read that Jesse is a contraction of Ishmael, or: "Jesse, for Ishmael… The changes which proper names undergo in the mouths of small children account for a large number of these particular abbreviations - who could guess, to take modern examples, that Bob and Dick arose out of Robert and Richard? … such forms as in ai were particularly common in later times … and many more in the Talmud, which also exhibits various other kinds of abbreviation"

Encyclopaedia Biblica, Rev. T. K. Cheyne D.Litt D.D., J. Sutherland Black M.A. LL.D., Vol. 3, under "Names," p. 3292, item 52 The implication that a descendant of Ishmael would be a major prophet is unacceptable to those Christians who oppose Islam, since the only person to fulfil this description is the prophet Muhammad, peace be upon him. This may explain why Bible scholars assert that the text is referring here to the father of King David (Matthew 1:6). But how likely is it, when describing the pedigree of a man, that reference should be made to an almost unknown person in his family tree (Jesse the father of King David) in preference to a man whose fame has spread across the nations of the earth (Ishmael, the son of Abraham)? It is much more likely that the Jesse of Isaiah 11:10 is Ishmael the son of Abraham, the father of the Arabs, the ancestor of prophet Muhammad.

Firstly, just as a matter of passing interest (to me) but given Muslims' feelings towards the  Bahá'í Faith  perhaps more relevant to them, it  should be noted that Cheyne converted to the Bahá'íst Faith towards the end of his life. It is not surprising therefore to find some of his interpretations supporting Mohammad as a prophet foretold in the Bible (and his wish to belittle the importance of the line of David, since Baha'ists consider David a minor prophet). I certainly admit the Enc Bib is authoritative, but Cheyne's theories regarding names has been thoroughly discredited as far as I can make out. 

"The ingenuity of Cheyne's method may be admitted; but the thesis must be rejected as altogether arbitrary. That it has received serious attention is owing solely to the great service rendered by its sponsor in other departments of Old Testament research.

Cheyne frequently mentions this theory in his Encyclopaedia articles, often appending his view to articles written by people with more mainstream interpretations. He does, however, detail the alternative (and therefore mainstream) views, while doing so. Hence the articles are respected, as long as Cheyne's theory about these names is ignored."

In any case, the Muslim determination to see the shoot of root of Jesse as reference to Mohammad completely fails, as I have pointed out before regarding Deuteronomy, to take into account the context of the rest of Isaiah 11.10. This chapter and the following one are obviously referring to a future glorious end-time when peace rules the Earth and the Jews' political torment is finished (seen any lions eating straw or children playing with snakes recently? do you think knowledge and wisdom cover the Earth since the arrival of Mohammad? and what about the Lord recovering His people from Egypt? or "assembling the dispersed of Israel"?) Still not convinced? Let's look at the next chapter, which as you know is simply a continuation as to what is going to happen when the shoot out of the root of Jesse makes his appearance: 4 And in that day shall ye say: 'Give thanks unto the LORD, proclaim His name, declare His doings among the peoples, make mention that His name is exalted.5 Sing unto the LORD; for He hath done gloriously; this is made known in all the earth.6 Cry aloud and shout, thou inhabitant of Zion, for great is the Holy One of Israel in the midst of thee.' 
Sure, take one verse completely out of context if you wish, ignore the obvious references to the Jewish people, retro-fit names and nick-names - but please don't expect anyone else to swallow it all. 
Finally do Muslim miracle seekers really consider the father of the most important king Israel ever had, to be "almost unknown"? Given the obsession with genealogy*  in the Bible do Muslims really think that fair comment? (Note also the irony of your expecting people to accept the genealogical link between Mary and Aaron despite the thousands of years between them, whilst discounting the relationship between a father and son as unimportant!)

To summarise then: we have the Judeo-Christian Biblical tradition established for millennia which maintains that a direct descendant of King David will be the Messiah. We have Jesse whom no one can dispute is the father of King David.  And we have a verse which states a great prophet will be "a shoot out of the root of Jesse". The verses referring to the root of Jesse also include numerous references to Israel and the Jewish nation. And Muslims maintain this verse, by a strange contraction of the name (why use such a bizarre contraction in a prophesy anyway?) using a discredited method of a follower of the Bahá'í Faith from a century ago, refers to Mohammad. 
How can people believe this utter nonsense?


*According to Genesis 46:12 and Ruth 4:18–22, David is the eleventh generation from Judah, the fourth son of the patriarch Jacob (Israel). The genealogical line runs as follows: (1) Judah → (2) Pharez → (3) Hezron → (4) Ram → (5) Amminadab → (6) Nahshon → (7) Salmon → (8) Boaz (the husband of Ruth) → (9) Obed → (10) Jesse → (11) David