Digital Book on the Quran and Quranic Contradictions With Proof

Note: I can be reached at  iris89cheerful@gmail.com

Details on Chapters:

Chapter #1 – Quran corrupted from the beginning by Caliph Uthman

Chapter #2 - Crimes Against Women, the Bible vs. the Quran:

Chapter #3 - Apparent Contradictions in the Bible Compared To Real Ones In The Quran and the Book of Morman:

Chapter #4 - God's Word The Bible Proven Un-Changeable by the Quran:

Chapter #5 - Series Apparent Bible Contradictions vs. Real Contradictions in the Quran:

Chapter #6 - Now let's get down to reality On The Bible, The Quran - Without Word Games:

Chapter #7 - Book Review Shows Quran A Knockoff of The Bible

Chapter #8 - Some Muslims Falsely Claim The Bible Has Been Corrupted:

Beginning of the digital book proper:


Chapter #1 - The Quran Corrupted From The Beginning by Caliph Uthman:

INTRODUCTION:

Members of Islam love to falsely claim that the inspired word of the true God (YHWH) of Abraham, Isaac, Ishmael, and Jacob, creator of all there is, has been corrupted and that the Quran has not, but this is a LIE.

From earliest of times many versions were in circulation that did NOT agree with each other. Caliph Uthman wanted to eliminate this situation, but the way he did ensured the permanent corruption of the Quran by eliminating all checks and balances. He made an "official" version, and burned all others to prevent cross checking for errors and corruption; whereas, with the inspired word of the true God (YHWH) of Abraham, Isaac, Ishmael, and Jacob, creator of all there is, the Bible, there are over 30,000 ancient Manuscripts, Codex's, fragments, and scrolls that permit checking for errors and corruption's and which make possible the correction of any corruption.

This article will go in-depth with regard to the impossibility that the Quran is without corruption and highlight why it must be corrupt beyond any possibility of repair.

THE EARLY QURANIC SITUATION BEFORE CALIPH UTHMAN:

Islam's 'history' claims that in 650 AD, some 18 years after Muhammad's death, during Caliph 'Uthman's reign, there was much contention amongst certain followers of Islam concerning the recitation of the Qur'an [[Mention has not been made of the first collection of the Qur'an, generally said to have been made under the first Caliph Abu Bakr, passed to the second Caliph `Umar, and left at his death to his daughter Hafsah, one of Muhammad's wives. Part of the text of Bukhari, Vol. 6, #509, reads:

"Narrated Zaid bin Thabit; Abu Bakr as-Saddiq sent for me when the people of Yamama had been killed... (I went to him) and found `Umar bin Al-Khattab sitting with him. Abu Bakr then said (to me); "Umar has come to me and said; "Casualties were heavy among the Qurra of the Qur'an (i.e. those who knew the Qur'an by heart) ...and I am afraid that more heavy casualties may take place... whereby a large part of the Qur'an may be lost. Therefore I suggest, you (Abu Bakr) order that the Qur'an be collected." I said to `Umar, "How can you do something which Allah's Messenger did not do?"... "Umar kept urging me until Allah opened my chest for it and I began to realise the good idea which `Umar had realised."... "then Abu Bakr said (to me).'...So you should search for (the fragmentary scripts of) the Qur'an and collect it (in one book)."...So I started looking for the Qur'an and collecting it... Then the complete manuscripts (copy) of the Qur'an remained with Abu Bakr till he died, then with `Umar till the end of his life, and then with Hafsa, the daughter of `Umar."]].

It is recorded that he commanded copies to be made of one consonantal symbol text, and sent these to the centres of the Islamic empire with the command that all texts that varied from those copies were to be burnt. [[/ The Hizb ut-Tahrir state almost the same thing:
"Abu Bakr instructed Zaid bin Thabit to collect the Qur'an... The compiled Qur'an was kept by Abu Bakr (ra) until he died, then by Umar bin Khattab, and when he died it was given to his daughter Hafsa (ra).... During the time of Uthman (ra) differences in reading the Qur'an became obvious and after consultation with the companions, Uthman had a standard copy made for [edit.- from] the Suhuf (pages) of Abu Bakr (ra) that were with Hafsa (ra). the copy was prepared by Zaid bin Thabit, Abdullah..., Said..., and Abdur-Rahman Harith bin Hisham. Copies were made and distributed, 2 of these copies can today be found in the Topkapi Museum in Istanbul and in Tashkent." (What is The Qur'an?, Al Khalifah Publications)]].

"During the time of 'Uthman differences in reading the Qur'an became obvious, and after consultation with the Companions, 'Uthman had a standard copy prepared from the suhuf of Abu Bakr kept with Hafsa at that time.

The following is the report transmitted in Sahih Bukhari:
"Narrated Anas bin Malik: Hudhaifa bin Al-Yaman came to 'Uthman at the time when the people of Sham and the people of Iraq were waging war to conquer Arminya and Adharbijan. Hudhaifa was afraid of their (the people of Sham and Iraq) differences in the recitation of the Qur'an, so he said to 'Uthman, 'O chief of the Believers! Set this people right before they differ about the Book (Qur'an), as the Jews and the Christians did before'. Then 'Uthman sent a message to Hafsa saying, 'Send us the manuscripts of the Qur'an so that we may copy the Qur'anic materials in perfect copies and return the manuscripts to you. Hafsah sent it to 'Uthman. 'Uthman then ordered Zaid bin Thabit, Abdullah bin az-Zubair, Sa'id bin Al-'As and Abdur Rahman bin Harith bin Hisham to rewrite the manuscripts in perfect copies. 'Uthman said to the three Quraishi men, 'In case you disagree with Zayd bin Thabit on any point in the Qur'an, then write it in the dialect of the Quraish, as the Qur'an was revealed in their tongue'. They did so, and when they had written many copies, 'Uthman returned the original manuscripts to Hafsah. 'Uthman sent to every Muslim province one copy of what they had copied, and ordered that all the other Qur'anic materials, whether written in fragmentary manuscripts or whole copies, be burnt...."" [Reference - Sahih Bukhari, Vol.6, #510, p. 479).(Ulum, p.52f)].

CALIPH UTHMAN'S SOLUTION:

Caliph Uthman came up with a "solution" with regard to these differences that rendered any future checking of corruption of the Qur'an impossible. He burnt all other copies to prevent cross checking for corruption. One Encyclopedia says, <<<" There is no proof of purity - yes, the Qur'an has remained unchanged since the time of Uthman but prior to him various versions of the Qur'an existed. This is a fact.

The reason for the existence of the various versions was that Mohammed's saying were NOT written but commited to memory alone. It is only since Islamic scholars "harmonised" the various verions of the Qur'an as ordered by Uthman that the Qur'an has remained unchanged.

perhaps; but there is no shame in that. And your faith in man's ability to memorise is misplaced.

As said above - the Qur'an when commited to the memory of men was subject to change and variation. It was due to this fact that the Caliph Uthman decreed that the various records be harmonised and written. And all the prior text were destroyed by fire. So just be honest - and

If EVERY Qur'an on the earth were to be destroyed - and if the Qur'an were to be transmitted by memorisation alone - in 100 years there would be 100's, if not 1,000's, of variations in the text.

IS only one version of the Qur'an. But that fact is there WERE many versions. If there were not then the Caliph Uthman would never have gathered a council of Islamic scholars to harmonise the differing version to come up with a standard.

And the fact that it is in Arabic is neither here nor there. God can speak any language. Nothing special bout Arabic or any other language for that matter.

"Please show us the different versions you have insinuated". This is no "insinuation" but a fact that is well known to Imams and Islamic scholars. The fact of the matter is that the Caliph Uthman ordered the burning of ALL pre-existant Qur'an - an order which was carried out - again a fact know to Islamic scholars.

"I await the different versions"...... stupidity. As you very well know they were all destroyed by the command of Caliph Uthman. And what happens if a Christian or some other poor soul happens to deface or destroy the Qur'an ? they get executed!! Was Caliph Utham executed for the same? NO!! So were is Islamic justice??[Source - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia]>>>.

So given this course of events, it can be seen there is no possibility that the Qur'an can be "pure." In fact many writers have presented proof with respect two missing Suras that were in the original. Let's look at some of the sources for this statement and facts on other missing items.

Muslims attack the Bible on the grounds that it sometimes has conflicting wording from different manuscripts. Yet this is exactly the case with the text of the Quran. There are many conflicting readings on the text of the Quran as Arthur Jeffery has demonstrated in his book, Material for the History of the Text of the Quran (New York, Russell F. Moore, 1952).[source - Material for the History of the Text of the Quran, by Arthur Jeffery, New York, published by Russell F. Moore, 1952].

At one point Jeffery gives 90 pages of variant readings on the text. For example, in Sura 2 there are over 140 conflicting and variant readings on the text of the Quran. ).[source - Material for the History of the Text of the Quran, by Arthur Jeffery, New York, published by Russell F. Moore, 1952].

All Western and Muslim scholars admit the presence of variant readings in the text of the Quran [Sources - Dashti, 23 Years, p. 28; Mandudi, Meaning of the Quran, pp. 17-18; McClintock and Strong, Cyclopedia, V152)].

Guillaume points out that the Quran at first "had a large number of variants, not always trifling in significance" [Source - Islam, by Professor Guillaume, p. 189].

"It is interesting to note that in scholarly Muslim journals, there is beginning to be a grudging acknowledgment of the fact that there are variant and conflicting readings on the text of the Quran" [Reference - One example would be Saleh al-Wahaihu, "A Study of Seven Quranic Variants," International Journal of Islamic and Arabic Studies, Vol. V (1989), #2, pp. 1-57)].

According to Professor Guillaume in his book, Islam, (pp. 191ff.), some of the original verses of the Quran were lost. [Source - Islam, by Professor Guillaume, pp. 191ff.]

For example, one Sura originally had 200 verses in the days of Ayesha. But by the time Uthman standardized the text of the Quran, it had only 73 verses! A total of 127 verses had been lost, and they have never been recovered.[source - The Islamic Invasion," by Dr. Robert Morey; Harvest Home Publishers, 1992. ISBN 0-89081-983-1].

The Shiite Muslims claim that Uthman left out 25 percent of the original verses in the Quran for political reasons [McClintock and Strong, Cyclopedia, V:152)].

That there are verses which got left out of Uthman's version of the Quran is universally recognized [References - Shorter Encyclopedia off Islam, pp. 278-282; Guillaume, Islam, p. 191; Wherry, A Comprehensive Commentary on the Quran, pp. 110-111)].

[Other References - John Burton's book, The Collection of the Quran, which was published by Cambridge University, documents how such verses were lost (London University Press, 1977, pp. 117ff. See also Arthur Jeffery, Islam: Muhammad and His Religion, New York; Liberal Arts Press, 1958, pp. 66-68)].

Burton states concerning the Muslim claim that the Quran is perfect:

"The Muslin accounts of the history of the Quran texts are a mass of confusion, contradiction and inconsistencies" [Source, The Collection of the Quran, by John Burton, published by Cambridge University, page. 231].

In fact Caliph Ultman had verses added to the Qur'an, let's look at that:

Not only have parts of the Quran been lost, but entire verses and chapters have been added to it.

For example, Ubai had several Suras in his manuscript of the Quran which Uthman omitted from his standardized text.

Thus there were Qurans in circulation before Uthman's text which had additional revelations from Muhammad that Uthman did not find or approve of, and thus he failed to place them in his text.

Also, there are No Originals:
As to the claim that the original manuscript of the Quran is still in existence, we have already pointed out there was no single "manuscript" of the Quran.

Caesar Farah in his book on Islam, states:

"When Muhammad died there existed no singular codex of the sacred text" [source - Caesar Farah, Islam: Beliefs and Observations, New York; Barrons, 1987, p. 28)].

"One thing only is certain and is openly recognized by tradition, namely, that there was not in existence any collection of revelations in the final form, because, as long as he was alive, new revelations were being added to the earlier ones" [source - The Shorter Encyclopedia off Islam comments: (p. 271)].

ISLAM'S FALSE ACCUSATIONS AGAINST THE BIBLE ARE HYPOCRITICAL AND CONCLUSION:

First, let's delve a little deeper in into the true state of the Qur'an after Caliph Uthman.

Restrain this people before they differ in the book, as do the Jews and the Christians." [Source - Tafsir, vol. 1, p. 20: cited from W. Campbell, The Qur'an and the Bible in Light of History and Science, p.110f]

Ibn Mas`ud and Ubai were sent by the 2nd Caliph `Umar as the Islamic governors and teachers of their respective provinces. They were not rebels who went out to spread error! They were teaching their particular 'version' (Islam's own word for differing Arabic texts) of the Qur'an which they both claimed adamantly came from Muhammad.

Yet, Ahmed Von Denffer who already admitted graphic differences in the Companion readings has the gall to misstate the facts as:
"Later on, with Muslims settling in many parts of the world, the Qur'an was recited in a variety of ways, some of which were not in accordance with the accepted text, and the transmitted readings of the Prophet and the Companions. This necessitated a thorough screening and distinction between what is sahih (sound) and what is shadh (exceptional)." [Source - Ulum al Qur'an, by Ahmed Von Denffer, P. 119].

Although many claim that the codices of the Companions were different simply because they were 'personal notebooks', the differences Tabari mentions were those actually recited by their pupils, the citizens of Iraq and Syria, as 'Qur'an' from these men. These were not 'notebooks', and Sahih Muslim (Vol. 2, p. 393f., #1797-1801) records examples of the differences taught to the followers.[Source - Shih Muslim, Vol. 2, p. 393, #1797-1801].

For this reason Ibn Mas'ud is known to have refused to hand over his text to `Uthman's agents declaring that he received his from Muhammad and he was not willing to accept what young Zaid ibn Thabit recited. And, Sahih Muslim #6022 (Vol. 4, p. 1312; English version) records his admission that he told his followers to likewise withhold their copies! [Reference - Shih Muslim #6022, Vol. 4, p. 1312].

The equally problematic choice faced by those who falsely claim that 6 out of 7 Forms of the Qur'an were simply withdrawn that there are admitted variations in writing. This is clearly shown since no Sunni would accept this; thus they are forced by their beliefs to falsely claim that the variants were simply "notebooks" which is an outright lie.

However, many in Islam have the nerve to make claims with respect the "purity" of the Bible. But their own "house" is far out of order as shown by "Abu Amr who states that he received the following revelation from Katada as-Sadusi:
"When the first copy of the Qur'an was written out and presented to [the khalif] Othman Ibn Affan, he said: 'There are faults of language in it, and let the Arabs of the desert rectify them with their tongues." [Source - Biographical Dictionary, Ibn Khallikan, p. 401].

Even in this first copy corruption had occurred which was readily visible to Caliph Uthman, but he cared not as he wanted a uniform text oven an accurate test.

Inspite of the terrible corruption of the text of the Qur'an, Members of Islam
Repeat that the Bible has been corrupted which is patently absurd given the true state of affairs with regard the Qur'an. This is especially so given that <<<" In the English language, the alphabet has both consonants and vowels, but at that time the Arabic alphabet had only consonants. The consonants were represented by only seventeen symbols so that the symbol for one consonant could stand for one of two or more letters. And there was no way of indicating vowels."[source - Language, Dialect and Interpretation of the Koran, by Manfred Davidmann]>>>.

And,

"The 'hamza', the 'alif' indicating 'long-a', the other vowels, and particularly the diacritical points which were added later and which fixed the underlying consonantal text, had by this time all been added to the Koran's text. Luxenberg considers that these changes to the original text by themselves resulted in the text of the Koran in many places being misread and distorted. In his thorough analysis {4} he makes the point that linguists (scholars) who inserted the diacritical and vowel points assumed that the particular 'reading' they were fixing was reliable and concludes that their assumption was now in doubt.[Refernece - Die syro-aramaeische Lesart des Koran; Ein Beitrag zur Entschlüsselung der Qur'ansprache. Berlin, Germany: Das Arabische Buch, First Edition, 2000. Pp. ix + 306, Vol. 6, No. 1, January 2003].

Now one should ask why Islam must hide the truth with respect the Qur'an. Of course the reason is obvious - they could not openly attack the inspired word of the true God (YHWH) of Abraham, Isaac, Ishmael, and Jacob, creator of all there is, the Bible, and it many manuscripts all delineating one text, and every one of them able to be compared with each other as a safeguard against error if they admitted the truth about the Qur'an, so they must live a lie.

Thus it is essential for Islam's survival to avoid the truth about the early details with regard to the Qur'an. To admit the facts would "blow" their cover-up with respect the none purity and the many variant versions of the Qur'an which once existed and all the other problems with regard the Qur'an.

PS: Expecting Allah to say anything shows credulous if one looks at where the name came from.   Let’s look at reality, “Allah is a contraction of the Arabic definite article ‘al-‘ the and ‘ilah’ god; thus ‘al-ilah’ Allah in Islam is the corresponding term for ‘god’ in Judaism and Christianity,† and NOT a proper name.  [source - retrieved from  Islam by Frederick M. Denny – ISBN 0-06-061875-2 by HarperSanFrancisco a division of Harper Collins Publishers  on  3/3/2012] .  So in no way can he be the Almighty God (YHWH) of the Hebrews.

Chapter #2 - Crimes Against Women, the Bible vs. the Quran:

INTRODUCTION:

Under the old law covenant with Israel, God (YHWH) required they live a moral life and viewed the raping of a women as a grave wickedness. Also, immorality was considered a grave immorality. This was clearly highlighted in Deuteronomy 22:18-29, ".And the elders of that city shall take the man and chastise him; 19 and they shall fine him a hundred [shekels] of silver, and give them unto the father of the damsel, because he hath brought up an evil name upon a virgin of Israel: and she shall be his wife; he may not put her away all his days. 20 But if this thing be true, that the tokens of virginity were not found in the damsel; 21 then they shall bring out the damsel to the door of her father's house, and the men of her city shall stone her to death with stones, because she hath wrought folly in Israel, to play the harlot in her father's house: so shalt thou put away the evil from the midst of thee. 22 If a man be found lying with a woman married to a husband, then they shall both of them die, the man that lay with the woman, and the woman: so shalt thou put away the evil from Israel. 23 If there be a damsel that is a virgin betrothed unto a husband, and a man find her in the city, and lie with her; 24 then ye shall bring them both out unto the gate of that city, and ye shall stone them to death with stones; the damsel, because she cried not, being in the city; and the man, because he hath humbled his neighbor's wife: so thou shalt put away the evil from the midst of thee. 25 But if the man find the damsel that is betrothed in the field, and the man force her, and lie with her; then the man only that lay with her shall die: 26 but unto the damsel thou shalt do nothing; there is in the damsel no sin worthy of death: for as when a man riseth against his neighbor, and slayeth him, even so is this matter; 27 for he found her in the field, the betrothed damsel cried, and there was none to save her. 28 If a man find a damsel that is a virgin, that is not betrothed, and lay hold on her, and lie with her, and they be found; 29 then the man that lay with her shall give unto the damsel's father fifty [shekels] of silver, and she shall be his wife, because he hath humbled her; he may not put her away all his days." (American Standard Version; ASV). Now note the Hebrew word, 'taphas,' commonly translated 'rape' has a slightly different meaning than the English word 'rape.' Hebrew does not mention the word rape, the word is used only by certain translations. The Hebrew which speaks about seizing, etc, also means manipulation. Hence you cannot strictly argue for rape here, but for any type of sexual manipulation no matter how accomplished.

Of course some Muslims will wrongly claim regarding raping war captives, that the Bible clearly permits raping the captives and point to Deuteronomy 20:10-14 to justify this false claim. Let's look at these verses, "When thou drawest nigh unto a city to fight against it, then proclaim peace unto it. 11 And it shall be, if it make thee answer of peace, and open unto thee, then it shall be, that all the people that are found therein shall become tributary unto thee, and shall serve thee. 12 And if it will make no peace with thee, but will make war against thee, then thou shalt besiege it: 13 and when Jehovah thy God delivereth it into thy hand, thou shalt smite every male thereof with the edge of the sword: 14 but the women, and the little ones, and the cattle, and all that is in the city, even all the spoil thereof, shalt thou take for a prey unto thyself; and thou shalt eat the spoil of thine enemies, which Jehovah thy God hath given thee. " (ASV). With this verse they claim that rape was one of the rights of spoils of a victory; which of course it was not. Why? Let's find out.

IS RAPE IMPLIED?

Exactly, where does the passage refer to rape? True it does speak about killing, true it does speak about the spoil, but where does it speak about rape? IN fact there is no where in the Torah where actual rape is legalized with the law-code. In fact, an as an Israelite who is attracted to a captive women, had to allow her time to grief and marry her, before any sexual relationship took place per Deuteronomy 21: 10-14, " When thou goest forth to battle against thine enemies, and Jehovah thy God delivereth them into thy hands, and thou carriest them away captive, 11 and seest among the captives a beautiful woman, and thou hast a desire unto her, and wouldest take her to thee to wife; 12 then thou shalt bring her home to thy house; and she shall shave her head, and pare her nails; 13 and she shall put the raiment of her captivity from off her, and shall remain in thy house, and bewail her father and her mother a full month: and after that thou shalt go in unto her, and be her husband, and she shall be thy wife. 14 And it shall be, if thou have no delight in her, then thou shalt let her go whither she will; but thou shalt not sell her at all for money, thou shalt not deal with her as a slave, because thou hast humbled her." (ASV). Probably many women were married away in this manner, perhaps all, but marriage was certainly demanded.

THE BIBLE REQUIRES MATRIMONY BEFORE RELATIONS WITH CAPTIVE:

Islam legalized the raping of slaves without any consideration of marriage, and in fact these women were according to Islamic sources sold on the slave market after the whole event. This is strange as the Quran says at Sura 29:46, "Do not argue with the people of the scripture (Jews, Christians, and Muslims) except in the nicest possible manner - unless they transgress - and say, "We believe in what was revealed to us and in what was revealed to you, and our god and your god is one and the same; to Him we are submitters." (An Authorized English Version, Translated from the original by Dr. Rashad Khalifa, Ph.D.; RK). Which clearly shows that Muslims should deal kindly with Jews and Christians. This is made clear at Sura 10:94, "If you have any doubt regarding what is revealed to you from your Lord, then ask those who read the previous scripture. Indeed, the truth has come to you from your Lord. Do not be with the doubters." (RK).

QURAN DOES NOT REQUIRE MATRIMONY BEFORE RELATIONS WITH CAPTIVE AND CONTRADICTS ITSELF:

Let's look at what the Quran has to say on the subject. First consider Sura 23:5-6, "And they maintain their chastity. [23:6] Only with their spouses, or those who are rightfully theirs, do they have sexual relations; they are not to be blamed." (RK) where the Quran seems to require that one have only sexual relations with his own wife. And this is emphasized Sura 4:24, "Prohibited for you (in marriage) are your mothers, your daughters, your sisters, the sisters of your fathers, the sisters of your mothers, the daughters of your brother, the daughters of your sister, your nursing mothers, the girls who nursed from the same woman as you, the mothers of your wives, the daughters of your wives with whom you have consummated the marriage - if the marriage has not been consummated, you may marry the daughter. Also prohibited for you are the women who were married to your genetic sons. Also, you shall not be married to two sisters at the same time - but do not break up existing marriages. GOD is Forgiver, Most Merciful." (RK).

However, According to Tabari vol.39, p.194 the ruler of Alexandria gave a young Christian girl as a gift to Muhammad, her name was Mariyam. Muhammad never married her but he used to sleep with her, and she even gave birth to a son who died after 18 months..

According to Sahih Bukhari vol.5#637 Ali had sex with a slave girl whom he saw and found beautiful, and Muhammad seemed to have no objections.

Narrated Buraida: The prophet sent Ali to Khalid to bring the Khumus (part of the war booty) and I hated Ali, and Ali had taken a bath (after a sexual act with a slave girl from the Khumus). I said to Khalid, "Don't you see this (i.e. Ali)? When we reached the prophet I mentioned that to him. He said, "O Buraida! Do you hate Ali?" I said, "Yes." He said, "Do you hate him for he deserves more than that from the Khumus." (Sahih Bukhari, vol.5, #637)

Now, let's be realistic, what is sex with a slave else but rape, I mean, what choice has she anyway?

MOHAMMAD ON RAPE OF FEMALE CAPTIVES:

According to Sahih Bukhari vol.9#506; Sahih Muslim vol.2#3371 Muhammad's followers used to come to Muhammad after battles, to seek permission and advise to engage in sexual activity with the girls taken in battle. They doubted for several reasons, however, permission was granted.

At one point Muhammad gave them permission and told them that it is up to Allah who gets created anyway, thus permission was given.

Permission from the Quran:

This fact is clearly shown in the Quran at Sura 33:50, "O prophet, we made lawful for you your wives to whom you have paid their due dowry, or what you already have, as granted to you by GOD. Also lawful for you in marriage are the daughters of your father's brothers, the daughters of your father's sisters, the daughters of your mother's brothers, the daughters of your mother's sisters, who have emigrated with you. Also, if a believing woman gave herself to the prophet - by forfeiting the dowry - the prophet may marry her without a dowry, if he so wishes. However, her forfeiting of the dowry applies only to the prophet, and not to the other believers. We have already decreed their rights in regard to their spouses or what they already have. This is to spare you any embarrassment. GOD is Forgiver, Most Merciful." (RK).

Doubt due to fear of less money for selling pregnant slaves:

Narrated Abu Said Al-Khudri that while he was sitting with Allah's messenger we said, "Oh Allah's messenger, we got female captives as our booty, and we are interested in their prices, what is your opinion about coitus interruptus?" The prophet said, "Do you really do that? It is better for you not to do it. No soul that which Allah has destined to exist, but will surely come into existence." (Sahih Bukhari, vol.3, # 432) (further reference Bukhari Vol. 3, #718)

About pregnancy:

Narrated Abu Said Al-Khudri that during the battle with Bani Al-Mustaliq they (Muslims) captured some females and intended to have sexual relations with them without impregnating them. So they asked the prophet about coitus interruptus. The prophet said, "It is better that you should not do it, for Allah has written whom He is going to create till the Day of Resurrection". (Sahih Bukhari, vol.9, #506) (further reference Bukhari 5: 459)

Lust or ransom:

Abu Sirma said to Abu Said al Khudri: "O Abu Said, did you hear Allah's messenger mentioning about al-azl (coitus interrupts)?" He said, "Yes", and added: "We went out with Allah's messenger on the expedition to the Mustaliq and took captive some excellent Arab women; and we desired them for we were suffering from the absence of our wives, (but at the same time) we also desired ransom for them. So we decided to have sexual intercourse with them but by observing azl" (withdrawing the male sexual organ before emission of semen to avoid conception). But we said: "We are doing an act whereas Allah's messenger is amongst us; why not ask him?" So we asked Allah's messenger and he said: "It does not matter if you do not do it, for every soul that is to be born up to the Day of Resurrection will be born". (Sahih Muslim vol.2, # 3371)

Doubts since their men were polytheists:

Abu Said al-Khudri reported that at the Battle of Hunain Allah's messenger sent an army to Autas and encountered the enemy and fought with them. Having overcome them and taken them captives, the Companions of Allah's messenger seemed to refrain from having intercourse with captive women because of their husbands being polytheists. Then Allah, Most High, sent down regarding that: "And women already married, except those whom your right hands possess (Quran - 4:24), (i.e. they were lawful for them when their Idda (menstrual) period came to and end). (Sahih Muslim, vol.2, #3432)

Doubt since their husbands watch them being raped:

Abu Said al-Khudri said: "The apostle of Allah sent a military expedition to Awtas on the occasion of the battle of Hunain. They met their enemy and fought with them. They defeated them and took them captives. Some of the Companions of the apostle of Allah were reluctant to have intercourse with the female captives in the presence of their husbands who were unbelievers. So Allah, the Exalted, sent down the Quranic verse, "And all married women (are forbidden) unto your save those (captives) whom your right hand possesses". That is to say, they are lawful for them when they complete their waiting period."" [The Quran verse is 4:24]. (Sunan of Abu Dawud, vol.2, #2150)

RECENT EXAMPLE OF MUSLIM MISTREATMENT OF WOMEN:

Some say Islam is a religion of violence and lack of compasion for women, but here is an example of the truth.

"MULTAN, Pakistan - Nazir Ahmed appears calm and unrepentant as he recounts how he slit the throats of his three young daughters and their 25-year old stepsister to salvage his family's "honor" - a crime that shocked Pakistan.

The 40-year old laborer, speaking to The Associated Press in police detention as he was being shifted to prison, confessed to just one regret - that he didn't murder the stepsister's alleged lover too.
Hundreds of girls and women are murdered by male relatives each year in this conservative Islamic nation, and rights groups said Wednesday such "honor killings" will only stop when authorities get serious about punishing perpetrators.
The independent Human Rights Commission of Pakistan said that in more than half of such cases that make it to court, most end with cash settlements paid by relatives to the victims' families, although under a law passed last year, the minimum penalty is 10 years, the maximum death by hanging.
Ahmed's killing spree - witnessed by his wife Rehmat Bibi as she cradled their 3 month-old baby son - happened Friday night at their home in the cotton-growing village of Gago Mandi in eastern Punjab province.
It is the latest of more than 260 such honor killings documented by the rights commission, mostly from media reports, during the first 11 months of 2005.
Bibi recounted how she was woken by a shriek as Ahmed put his hand to the mouth of his stepdaughter Muqadas and cut her throat with a machete. Bibi looked helplessly on from the corner of the room as he then killed the three girls - Bano, 8, Sumaira, 7, and Humaira, 4 - pausing between the slayings to brandish the bloodstained knife at his wife, warning her not to intervene or raise alarm.
"I was shivering with fear. I did not know how to save my daughters," Bibi, sobbing, told AP by phone from the village. "I begged my husband to spare my daughters but he said, 'If you make a noise, I will kill you.'"
"The whole night the bodies of my daughters lay in front of me," she said.
The next morning, Ahmed was arrested.
Speaking to AP in the back of police pickup truck late Tuesday as he was shifted to a prison in the city of Multan, Ahmed showed no contrition. Appearing disheveled but composed, he said he killed Muqadas because she had committed adultery, and his daughters because he didn't want them to do the same when they grew up.
He said he bought a butcher's knife and a machete after midday prayers on Friday and hid them in the house where he carried out the killings.
"I thought the younger girls would do what their eldest sister had done, so they should be eliminated," he said, his hands cuffed, his face unshaven. "We are poor people and we have nothing else to protect but our honor."
Despite Ahmed's contention that Muqadas had committed adultery - a claim made by her husband - the rights commission reported that according to local people, Muqadas had fled her husband because he had abused her and forced her to work in a brick-making factory.
Police have said they do not know the identity or whereabouts of Muqadas' alleged lover.
Muqadas was Bibi's daughter by her first marriage to Ahmed's brother, who died 14 years ago. Ahmed married his brother's widow, as is customary under Islamic tradition.
"Women are treated as property and those committing crimes against them do not get punished," said the rights commission's director, Kamla Hyat. "The steps taken by our government have made no real difference."
Activists accuse President Gen. Pervez Musharraf, a self-styled moderate Muslim, of reluctance to reform outdated Islamized laws that make it difficult to secure convictions in rape, acid attacks and other cases of violence against women. They say police are often reluctant to prosecute, regarding such crimes as family disputes.
Statistics on honor killings are confused and imprecise, but figures from the rights commission's Web site and its officials show a marked reduction in cases this year: 267 in the first 11 months of 2005, compared with 579 during all of 2004. The Ministry of Women's Development said it had no reliable figures.
Ijaz Elahi, the ministry's joint secretary, said the violence was decreasing and that increasing numbers of victims were reporting incidents to police or the media. Laws, including one passed last year to beef up penalties for honor killings, had been toughened, she said.
Police in Multan said they would complete their investigation into Ahmed's case in the next two weeks and that he faces the death sentence if he is convicted for the killings and terrorizing his neighborhood.
Ahmed, who did not resist arrest, was unrepentant.
"I told the police that I am an honorable father and I slaughtered my dishonored daughter and the three other girls," he said. "I wish that I get a chance to eliminate the boy she ran away with and set his home on fire." [source - Associated Press release]

CONCLUSION:

In Islam you are allowed to have female slaves and you are allowed to have sex with them despite having up to four marriage partners. In a Christian and even Mosaic context that is called rape and adultery.

In Islam you are permitted to have sex with the female captives after a battle, again I ask which age groups? Well Muhammad's youngest wife was nine years old.

But consider the situation here, these women have lost homes, husbands, family, everything (except of course for Sunan of Abu Dawud, there they are raped in the presence of their male captives, and husbands) and now they are exposed to further attrocities that of being raped by the same men who killed and butchered their males, on the same battlefield.

In the Mosaic law things were similar, but there was clear guidance given, that these women in case of sexual relationship should be given a time to grief and then be married before any sexual relationship would take place.

That is not what we see here! Sahih Muslim vol.2, # 3371 clearly revealed that after the mass-rape they would be sold at the slave market as female slaves and then the terror would continue.

Let's face it, the Bible NEVER condoned rape as does the Quran and did Muhammad. It did however encourage a rapist to make matters right with his victim and required the solution to be marriage; whereas, the Quran and Muhammad do/did NOT.
[NOTE: I put this together with the assistance of a scholar on the Quran and Islamic history].


Chapter #3 - Apparent Contradictions in the Bible Compared To Real Ones In The Quran and the Book of Morman:

It is high time that some start to realize that there are only apparent contradictions in the Bible, but when examined closely we find that these are all due to failure to comprehend what is being said, failure to understand the writing styles of the time the item was written, failure to understand the sentence construction of the ancient language, errors in translation, and biases on the part of the translator.

LET'S LOOK AT ONE EXAMPLE, MATTHEW 12:37-40 FROM WELL KNOWN:

"Then some of the scribes and Pharisees answered Him, saying, "Teacher, we want to see a sign from You." But He answered and said to them, "An evil and adulterous generation craves for a sign; and {yet} no sign shall be given to it but the sign of Jonah the prophet; for just as Jonah was three days and three nights in the belly of the sea monster, so shall the Son of Man be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth." (New American Standard Bible; NASB)

"Then some of the Pharisees and teachers of the law said to him, "Teacher, we want to see a miraculous sign from you." He answered, "A wicked and adulterous generation asks for a miraculous sign! But none will be given it except the sign of the prophet Jonah. For as Jonah was three days and three nights in the belly of a huge fish, so the Son of Man will be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth." (New International Version; NIV)

"Then some of the scribes and Pharisees answered, saying, "Teacher, we want to see a sign from You." But He answered and said to them, "An evil and adulterous generation seeks after a sign, and no sign will be given to it except the sign of the prophet Jonah. "For as Jonah was three days and three nights in the belly of the great fish, so will the Son of Man be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth." (New King James Bible; NKJB)

"Then certain of the scribes and of the Pharisees answered, saying, Master, we would see a sign from thee. But he answered and said unto them, An evil and adulterous generation seeketh after a sign; and there shall no sign be given to it, but the sign of the prophet Jonas: For as Jonas was three days and three nights in the whale's belly; so shall the Son of man be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth." (King James Version; KJV)

APPARENT CONTRADICTION AND ITS EXPLANATION WITH REGARD TO MATTHEW 12:37-40:

Some see an error or contradiction in these scriptures related to the amount of time Jesus (Yeshua) was in the grave, but there is NONE. The true facts are:
"Yes, it does seem that way. We must remember that the Bible was written in other languages by cultures far removed from ours. Most alleged contradictions stem from a misunderstanding of certain terms and phrases. For example, Jesus predicted that He would be in the grave for "three days and three nights"(Matt.12:40). When we read the passion narratives, we see that He was crucified late Friday afternoon and that He rose from the dead, early on Sunday morning. It is impossible to get three days and three nights out of this, and I have seen many atheists refer to Jesus' prophecy as a "blatant error which completely destroys the credibility of the Bible."[source - I'd Like To Believe In Jesus, But...By Bob Siegel , Published by Campus Ambassador Press, A ministry of Mission To the Americas Wheaton, Illinois]

See Page 2