Is Allah The God Of The Bible?.
Carl
the "Allah" of Islam is not the one true God (Yahweh, El Shaddai, Adonai,
etc.) of the Bible.
May God bless,
Carl
my website -- http://www.nettally.com/saints/
my blog -- http://www.anniemayhem.com/cgi-bin/wordpress/
---
IS ALLAH THE GOD OF THE BIBLE?
by Sam Shamoun
This study examines the crucial question that needs to be addressed which is
whether the God presented in the Quran is indeed the same God revealed in
the Holy Bible. The Quran alleges that the God of Islam, Allah, is indeed
the God of Abraham and hence the God of Scripture, Yahweh Elohim. But is
this the case?
Are we to assume that just because the Quran states that Allah is Yahweh of
the Bible that both Jews and Christians are obligated to believe this to be
true? Or do we examine the nature and attributes of Allah in order to
compare them with the biblical portrait of Yahweh to find if this is the
case?
This process of examination is essential since our objective is to discover
the true nature of God, a process whose outcome entails eternal consequences
in regards to man's future destiny in the afterlife. After all, if Allah is
the God of Abraham then Jews and Christians are wrong for not embracing
Islam. But if Allah is not Yahweh, then Muslims are not worshiping the same
God only with a different name.
We will examine certain qualities of Allah as stated in the Quran and
briefly compare them to Yahweh and see where the evidence leads us. The
reason why we are comparing Allah to Yahweh as opposed to contrasting Yahweh
to the quranic portrait of Allah, using the Quran as the standard, is due to
the fact that it is Islam that claims to worship the same God of the Holy
Bible. Thus, the burden of proof rests upon the Muslims to defend this
contention since they believe Allah is the same as Yahweh.
AUTHOR OF EVIL
The Holy Bible teaches that God cannot be tempted by evil and neither tempts
anyone with evil; evil being understood as referring to immorality and sin.
James 1:13 (c.f. Psalm 5:4-5; Habakkuk 1:13)
Yet, the Quran teaches that Allah is the author of evil:
Verily, the hypocrites seek to deceive Allah, but it is He Who deceives
them. And when they stand up for As-Salat (the prayer), they stand with
laziness and to be seen of men, and they do not remember Allah but little.
S. 4:142 Hilali-Khan
And (the unbelievers) schemed and planned, and Allah schemed also, and the
best of schemers is Allah. S. 3:54
Are they then secure from Allah's scheme (makra Allahi)? None deemeth
himself secure from Allah's scheme (makra Allahi) save folk that perish. S.
7:99 Pickthall
Remember how the unbelievers schemed against thee, to keep thee in bonds, or
to slay thee, or get thee out (of thy home). They scheme and plot, but the
best of schemers is Allah. S. 8:30
And when We make people taste of mercy after an affliction touches them, lo!
they devise schemes (makrun) against Our communication. Say: Allah is
quicker to scheme (makran); surely Our apostles write down what you plan. S.
10:21
And those before them did indeed scheme (makara), but all scheming
(al-makru) is Allah's; He knows what every soul earns, and the unbelievers
shall come to know for whom is the (better) issue of the abode. S. 13:42
So they schemed a scheme: and We schemed a scheme, while they perceived not.
S. 27:50
The term for scheme in Arabic is makara which denotes one who is a deceiver,
one who is conniving, a schemer. It is always used in a negative sense.
Allah is thus seen as the best of deceivers, the premiere schemer and
conniving one.
This is not simply a Christian perspective but one thoroughly endorsed by
Muslim theologians as well.
For example Dr. Mahmoud M. Ayoub in his book, The Quran and Its
Interpreters, Vol. II The House of Imran, brings up the question of "how the
word makr (scheming or plotting), which implies deceitfulness or dishonesty,
could be attributed to God." (Ibid. [1992 State University of New York
Press, Albany], p. 165)
After listing several Muslim sources he quotes ar-Razi as arguing that
"scheming (makr) is actually an act of deception aiming at causing evil. It
is not possible to attribute deception to God. Thus the word is one of the
muttashabihat [multivalent words of the Quran]." (Ibid., p. 166)
Moreover, here is how one of the earliest sources on the life of Muhammad
interpreted Q. 8:30:
Then he reminds the apostle of His favour towards him when the people
plotted against him 'to kill him, or to wound him, or to drive him out; and
they plotted and God plotted, and is the best of plotters.' i.e. I DECEIVED
them with My firm GUILE so that I delivered you from them. (The Life of
Muhammad: A Translation of Ibn Ishaq's Sirat Rasul Allah, with introduction
and notes by Alfred Guillaume [Oxford University Press, Karachi, Tenth
impression 1995], p. 323; capital emphasis ours)
In fact the Quran furnishes plenty of examples on some of the methods Allah
adopts in devising evil:
Remember in thy dream Allah showed them as a few: if he had showed them to
thee as many, ye would surely have been discouraged, and ye would surely
have disputed in your decision: but Allah saved you: for He knoweth well the
(secrets) of (all) hearts. S. 8:43
Allah is said to have shown the opposing fighting forces as few to Muhammad
since if he had shown them as they actually were, the Muslims would have
been afraid to fight. Hence, Allah had to use deception in order to
encourage the Muslims to fight in his cause.
And when We desire to destroy a city, We command its men who live at ease,
and they commit ungodliness therein, then the Word is realized against it,
and We destroy it utterly. S. 17:16
Allah commands men to sin in order to destroy them completely.
They (Jinns- demon spirits) worked for him (Solomon) as he desired ... then
when We decreed death upon him, nothing showed them his death except a
little creeping creature of the earth, which gnawed away at his staff. And
when he fell the Jinns saw clearly how, if they had known the unseen, they
would not have continued in the humiliating penalty (of work). S. 34:13-14
Allah deceived the Jinns into working for Solomon by preventing the latter's
death from being disclosed to them, otherwise they would have stopped their
work.
Allah also deceived both Christians and Jews into thinking that Jesus was
crucified when in fact "it was so made to appear unto them", seeing that he
never was crucified or killed. S. 4:157
According to S. 9:51, nothing befalls Muslims except what Allah has
ordained. And in S. 14:4, we are told,
"Allah leads astray whomsoever He will and guides whomsoever he will."
And,
"Whomsoever Allah guides, he is the one who follows the right way; and
whomsoever He causes to err, these are the losers. And certainly We have
created for hell many of the jinn and the men; ... Whomsoever Allah causes
to err, there is no guide for him; and He leaves them alone in their
inordinacy, blindly wandering on." S. 7:178-179, 186
"If thy Lord had so willed, He could have made mankind one People: but they
will not cease to differ. Except those on whom thy Lord hath bestowed His
Mercy: and for this did He create them: and the Word of thy Lord shall be
fulfilled: 'I will fill Hell with Jinns and men all together.'" S.
11:118-119
Not only does Allah guide people astray, but also has created men
specifically for hell. To make matters worse, he even ordains the evil one
commits as we have already seen in S. 17:16 and further clarified by this
Muslim tradition:
Abu Huraira reported Allah's Apostle as saying:
Verily Allah has fixed the very portion of adultery which a man will indulge
in, and which he of necessity must commit (or there would be no escape from
it)." Sahih Muslim #6421, 6422
To even imagine that Allah causes adultery is not only horrendous but
disqualifies him from being the God of Moses.
A keen reader might raise the objection that the Bible itself indicates in
several places that God had intended to do evil to certain nations and
individuals such as Absalom in 2 Samuel 17:14. Or that Jeremiah had been
deceived by God in Jeremiah 20:7:
"O LORD, thou hast deceived me and I was deceived." King James Version
Firstly, in regards to 2 Sam. 17:14 as we had noted earlier God does not
tempt anyone with moral evil in the form of sin but brings upon man calamity
as a consequence of their sins. In fact, the term which the King James
translates as evil is the Hebrew ra. Accordingly, some Hebrew scholars see
it as being derived from the word ra'a which means to "break, smash, crush."
(Vine's Complete Expository Dictionary of Old and New Testaments, p. 232)
Strong's Exhaustive Concordance of the Bible gives various meanings some of
which include adversity, affliction, calamity, distress, evil, grief (#7451
of the Hebrew Dictionary Section).
Thus, the evil God poured out upon these individuals was not immorality like
that of the Quran but judgement upon the wicked due to their persistence in
sin and a refusal to come into repentance.
The Hebrew term for deceive used in Jeremiah 20:7 is pathath. Strong's lists
it as #6601 in the Hebrew section with the following meanings; allure,
enlarge, entice, deceive, flatter, persuade, silly. In light of the wide
range of meanings, there is no reason to assume that Jeremiah meant that God
was actually deceiving him.
In fact the context itself shows that the word can only mean "persuade"
since Jeremiah is complaining that God is persuading him to continue his
ministry, even though he doesn't want to:
"O LORD, You induced me, and I was persuaded;
YOU ARE STRONGER THAN I, AND HAVE PREVAILED.
I am in derision daily;
Everyone mocks me.
For when I spoke, I cried out;
I shouted, 'Violence and plunder!'
Because the word of the LORD was made to me
A reproach and a derision daily.
Then I said, 'I will not make mention of Him,
Nor speak anymore in His name.'
But His word was in my heart like a burning fire
Shut up in my bones;
I was weary of holding it back,
And I could not." Jeremiah 20:8-9 NKJV
God was therefore insisting that Jeremiah continue and did so by constant
persuasion. This passage has nothing to do with deception whatsoever.
Another possible objection would be the King James rendering of Ezekiel
20:25 where God says to Israel that he "gave them also statutes that were
not good, and judgements whereby they should not live." This strongly
suggests that God is the author of evil.
The context of the passage is referring to Israel's reluctance in observing
God's holy commands, which prompted God to hand them over to their own
desires (all of chapter 20).
Scripture clearly teaches that when God sees that a nation refuses to
embrace the truth he has revealed, the Lord then hardens their hearts that
they might continue in their wickedness. This is done that he might bring
upon them the judgement that they deserve for their evil (c.f. Romans
1:18-32; 2 Thessalonians 2:9-12).
Therefore, God does not give them unholy commands but allows them to embrace
statutes which are evil. This is the meaning of the Hebrew text as
accurately reflected in the New King James Version:
"Therefore, I also gave them up to statutes that were not good, and
judgements by which they could not live."
Yet, the Arabic makara does not allow for other possible meanings. And the
Quran itself gives examples of Allah using deception and sin to fulfill his
will.
AUTHOR OF ABROGATION
According to the Quran Allah reveals a verse only to have it canceled out a
short time later:
None of Our revelations do We abrogate or cause to be forgotten but We
substitute something better or similar- Knowest thou not that Allah has
power over all things? S. 2:106
When We substitute one revelation for another- and Allah knowest best what
He reveals (in stages)- They say, "Thou art but a forger"; But most of them
understand not. S. 16:101
This leaves us with the difficulty of having a God who does not remain
consistent and often changes his revealed purpose. This being the case, how
is one to know that the promises of such a Being in regards to eternal
security can be trusted? Just as he changes his mind in relation to the
revelation, he can also decide to change his mind in regards to the
believer's ultimate destiny without anything stopping him from doing so.
This is different from Yahweh of the Holy Bible who does not change and as
such can be totally trusted in fulfilling all his promises:
God is not a man that he should lie, nor a son of man that he should repent.
Has he said, and will he not do? Or has he spoken, and will he not make it
good? Numbers 23:19
For I, Yahweh, do not change. Malachi 3:6
If we are faithless, he remains faithful; he cannot deny himself. 2 Timothy
2:13
Jesus Christ is the same yesterday, today, and forever. Hebrews 13:8
Because the God of the Bible is immutable he can promise, "Heaven and earth
will pass away but my words will never pass away" (Matthew 24:35).
Two responses can possibly be presented and often are by Muslims. The first
is the fact that abrogation is not referring to the Quran but to previous
scriptures such as the Bible.
Unfortunately for the Muslims making this argument, this interpretation
cannot be defended in light of S. 87:6-8:
By degrees shall We teach thee (Muhammad) to declare (the Message) so thou
shalt not forget, except as Allah Wills: For He knoweth what is manifest and
what is hidden. And We will make it easy for thee (to follow) the simple
(Path).
It becomes obvious that certain parts of the revelation given to Muhammad
will eventually be caused to be forgotten, since Allah later willed it.
The second response often presented is that the Bible clearly speaks of God
regretting to create man or having repented of bringing on a certain
disaster which he had planned to do. (c.f. Genesis 6:6; Exodus 32:14)
There are basically two responses for this assumed Muslim allegation. First,
both the Holy Bible and the Quran use anthropomorphic language in describing
both the nature and acts of God. For instance, both books speak of God's
eyes, hands and feet without implying that these things are to be taken
literally. The purpose of using such language is to communicate certain
incomprehensible truths of God in human language in order for man to grasp
certain realities of the divine nature. Hence, statements such as God having
regrets is used to communicate certain realities to man in relational terms,
i.e. that God identifies with our human condition and grieves for man's
fallen state, having compassion for him.
Secondly, the reason for indicating that God refrained from fulfilling an
act he had decreed is an indication of his divine patience. God does not
desire to destroy the wicked but to save them, desiring that they come into
repentance:
Say to them: "As I live", says the Lord God, "I have no pleasure in the
death of the wicked, but that the wicked turn from his way and live. Turn,
turn from your evil ways! For why should you die, O house of Israel?"
Ezekiel 33:11
Likewise, if a nation which has been promised prosperity turns to
wickedness, God will also refrain from fulfilling his promises of blessing.
This is pointed out in Jeremiah 18:7-10:
"The instant I speak concerning a nation and concerning a kingdom, to pluck
up, to pull down, and to destroy it, if that nation against whom I have
spoken turns from its evil, I will relent of the disaster I thought to bring
upon it.
"And the instant I speak concerning a nation and concerning a kingdom, to
build and plant it, if it does evil in My sight, so that it does not obey My
voice, then I will relent concerning the good with which I would benefit
it."
An example of this is seen in I Kings 21:29 where God had sworn to destroy
Ahab for his wickedness, but decided against it:
"See how Ahab has humbled himself before Me? Because he has humbled himself
before Me, I will not bring the calamity in his days. In the days of his
son, I will bring the calamity on his house."
Or God deciding not to destroy Ninevah after seeing their sincere repentance
and humbleness:
"Then God saw their works, that they turned from their evil way; and God
relented from the disaster that He had said He would bring upon them, and He
did not do it." Jonah 3:10
These examples indicate that certain warnings are given specifically to lead
the person(s) into right standing with God, and are not given as a sign that
the matter has been sealed and there is no averting the disaster.
AUTHOR OF HISTORICAL ERRORS
The Quran contains historical errors which implies that Allah is not an
Omniscient Being, since an all-knowing Being would be able to accurately
recall historical events. Below is a list of just some of the many problems
we find in the Quran.
In S. 17:1 we are told that Muhammad was taken to the farthest Mosque,
Masjid al-Aqsa. The problem with this is that the Aqsa Mosque had not been
erected since Abd al-Malik only built it in AD 691. It cannot be referring
to the Temple in Jerusalem since that was destroyed by the armies of the
Roman general Titus in AD 70.
S. 18:9-26 alludes to several men and their dog who slept for approximately
309 years only to be awakened in perfect condition.
According to S. 18:83-98, Alexander the Great called Zhul Qarnain, "the Two
Horned One," was a Muslim who traveled till he found the Sun literally
setting in a muddy spring. When we keep in mind that the title "the Two
Horned One" was a title given to Alexander in pre-Islamic times, the Muslim
attempts of trying to deny this fact utterly fails.
According to S. 4:157 the unbelieving Jews boasted by saying, "We killed the
Messiah Jesus the son of Mary, the apostle of Allah." The only problem with
this is that the unbelieving Jews never admitted that Jesus was Messiah and
would not have killed him if they had believed that he was their
long-awaited Messianic Deliverer. The unbelieving Jews had Jesus killed
because they believed he was a false Messiah:
"And they began to accuse him, saying, 'We have found this man subverting
our nation. He opposes payment of taxes to Caesar and CLAIMS to be Christ a
king.'" Luke 23:2 NIV
Christians are accused of worshiping Mary and Jesus as two gods apart from
the true God:
And behold! Allah will say: "O Jesus the son of Mary! Didst thou say unto
men, Worship me and my mother ... " S. 5:116
Christ the son of Mary was no more than an apostle- many were the apostles
that passed away before him. His mother was a woman of truth. They had both
to eat their (daily) food. See how Allah doth make His Signs clear to them
... S. 5:75
In blasphemy indeed are those that say that Allah is Christ the son of Mary.
Say: "Who then hath the least power against Allah, if His Will were to
destroy Christ the son of Mary, his mother, and all - every one that is on
the earth..." S. 5:17
This presumes that since Mary ate food and could be destroyed by Allah she
could not possibly be divine. This gives the misleading impression that
Christians believe that she is more than simply human.
In fact, the Quran proceeds to accuse Christians of worshiping three gods:
"They do blaspheme who say: Allah is the third of three (inallaaha thaalithu
thalaatha)" S. 5:73
"... so believe in Allah and His apostles. Say not three (thalaatha):
desist: It will be better for you: for Allah is one Allah ..." S. 4:171
According to Muslim biographer Ibn Ishaq in his work, Sirat Rasulullah, a
Christian deputation from Najran came to debate Muhammad on the person of
Jesus. Accordingly, these Christians allegedly believed that Jesus, "is God;
and He is the son of God; and He is the third Person of the Trinity, which
is the doctrine of Christianity." (Alfred Guilliame trans., The Life of
Muhammad [Oxford University Press, Karachi], p. 271)
He goes on to say, "They argue that he is the third of three in that God
says: We have done, We have commanded, We have created and We have decreed,
and they say, If He were one He would have said I have done, I have created,
and soon, but He is He and Jesus and Mary. Concerning all these assertions
the Quran came down." (Ibid., pp. 271-272)
The errors in the Quranic teaching on what Christians believe becomes
apparent to anyone familiar with the basics of Christian doctrine. Firstly,
Christians have never taken Mary as a goddess alongside God. Secondly,
Christians have never said God is three or the third of three which is
tritheism, three separate gods forming a unity; as opposed to Trinity, ONE
God who exists in Three distinct yet inseparable Persons: Father, Son, and
Holy Spirit.
Thirdly, Christianity has never taught as part of its doctrine that Jesus is
the third Person of the Trinity. Rather, he is the Second Person, with the
Holy Spirit being the third Person of the Godhead. Matthew 28:19
Fourthly, Muslims believe that Allah of the Quran is the same as God the
Father of the Holy Bible since they do not believe in God the Son, Jesus
Christ, nor in God the Holy Spirit who to Muslims is the angel Gabriel. This
again causes a problem since if Allah is indeed the same Person as God the
Father then the Quran is wrong in saying that Christians believe that the
Father is the third of three. Christians teach that the Father is the First
Person of the One True Godhead, not the third deity of three gods.
And finally, Christians do not believe that Allah is the Messiah, or that
God is the Messiah since this implies that Jesus is the entire Godhead,
which would be modalism. The correct and biblical statement is that Jesus is
God, since this suggests that although Jesus is fully God by nature he is
not the only Person who shares the essence of Deity perfectly. The Bible
also teaches that both the Father and the Holy Spirit are fully God.
Mary the Mother of Jesus is confused with Mary the sister of Aaron and
Moses, the daughter of Amram:
Behold! The wife of Imran (i.e. Amram) said, "O my Lord! I do dedicate unto
thee what is in my womb"... When she was delivered, she said: "O my Lord!
Behold! I am delivered of a female child ... I have named her Mary... " S.
3:35, 36
"And Mary the daughter of Imran, who guarded her chastity.." S. 66:12.
"... They said: O Mary! Truly an amazing thing hast thou brought! O sister
of Aaron! Thy father was not a man of evil, nor thy mother a woman
unchaste." S. 19:27-28
"Then Mary (Heb. Mariam), the prophetess, the sister of Aaron, took the
timbrel in her hand ..." Exodus 15:20
"The name of Amram's wife was Jochebed, the daughter of Levi, who was born
to Levi in Egypt; and to Amram she bore Aaron and Moses and their sister
Miriam." Numbers 27:59
This is an error of nearly 1400 years! How could Moses' sister Mary be
Jesus' mother, making Moses his uncle?
Muslims give two responses in trying to deal with this anachronism. First,
it is stated that the expressions "sister of Aaron" and "daughter of Amram"
refers to Mary's lineage, i.e. that Mary was a descendant of Aaron and Amram
of the tribe of Levi. Unfortunately for Muslims, this assertion cannot
possibly be the case since Mary was a daughter of Judah and a descendant of
David:
"Now Jesus Himself began his ministry at about thirty years of age, being
(as was supposed the son of Joseph, the son of Heli ... the son of David ...
the son of Judah." Luke 3:23, 31, 33
The words, "as was supposed," are given to clarify the fact that it is
Mary's genealogy which is being presented, with Joseph acting as the male
representative. This is supported by extrabiblical documents such as the
Jewish tractate of the Talmud, Chagigah, where a certain person had a dream
in which he saw the punishment of the damned. There, "He saw Mary the
daughter of Heli amongst the shades." ( John Lightfoot, Commentary On the
New Testament from the Talmud and Hebraica [Oxford University Press, 1859;
with a second printing from Hendrickson Publishers Inc., 1995], vol. 1, p.
v; vol. 3, p.55)
In the book of Hebrews we are told that, "it is evident that our Lord (
Jesus ) arose from Judah, of which tribe Moses spoke nothing concerning
priesthood" Heb. 7:14.
And,
"I ( Jesus ) am the Root and Offspring of David, the Bright Morning Star."
Revelation 22:16
It is therefore impossible for Mary to be a descendant of Levi, since both
the orthodox Jewish understanding and the biblical record agree that Messiah
would arise out of Judah (c.f. Genesis 49:10-12; Matthew 22:42-45).
Someone might interject at this point and suggest that the Bible calls
Elizabeth a relation of Mary:
"Now, indeed, Elizabeth your relative also conceived a son in her old
age..." Luke 1:36 NKJV
This seems to imply that Mary is of Levitical descent, since Elizabeth is
addressed as one of Aaron's descendants. (Cf. Luke 1:5)
The term used for relative in the Greek is syngenes. Gerhard Kittel and
Gerhard Friedrich define it as:
a. " The adjective refers to a person of common origin, i.e., belonging to
the same family, race, tribe, or people. It can then mean 'related' in
disposition, 'corresponding', 'analogous', or 'similar.'
b. The noun means 'relationship' by descent or disposition, then more
broadly 'analogy' (e.g. between deity and humanity, or ideas and the senses,
or the stars and human destiny), whether in philosophy or popular belief."
(Theological Dictionary of the New Testament, abridged in one volume by
George W. Bromiley [Eerdmans, 1985], p. 1097)
Hence, Elizabeth and Mary were related in the sense of being of the same
race of people, i.e. the Israelites. But this meaning seems to be unlikely
since this could be said about any other Israelite woman's relationship to
Mary. It seems more likely that Elizabeth and Mary were blood relatives.
This being the case, this still wouldn't prove that Mary was of the tribe of
Aaron. All this would prove is that Elizabeth had Judean blood in her, since
Levites were allowed to marry women from any of the twelve tribes:
"The woman he (the Levitical Priests) marries must be a virgin. He must not
marry a widow, a divorced woman, or a woman defiled by prostitution, but
only a virgin from his people." Leviticus 21:13-14 NIV
Ezekiel, in his vision of a restored priesthood and temple, further
clarifies this point:
"They shall not marry a widow or a divorced woman, but only virgins of the
offspring OF THE HOUSE OF ISRAEL, or a widow who is the widow of a priest."
Ezekiel 44:22 ESV
The Holy Bible even provides an example of a priest who had married a woman
from Judea, who was actually a descendant of king David:
"Now when Athaliah the mother of Ahaziah saw that her son was dead, she
arose and destroyed all the royal family of the house of Judah. But
Jehoshabeath, the daughter of the king, took Joash the son of Ahaziah and
stole him away from among the king's sons who were about to be put to death,
and she put him and his nurse in a bedroom. Thus Jehoshabeath, the daughter
of King Jehoram and wife of Jehoiada the priest, because she was a sister of
Ahaziah, hid him from Athaliah, so that she did not put him to death." 2
Chronicles 22:10-11
The foregoing demonstrates the plausibility of Elizabeth's mother being from
the line of David, from the tribe of Judah, accounting for her being related
to Mary.
Elizabeth could also be an aunt to Mary, see the entry on Luke 1:36 in the
Bible Commentary section.
Muslims are not to be blamed for taking the phrase "brother of" as a
reference to Mary's lineage since Muhammad also used a similar line of
reasoning to cover up this error. In Sahih Muslim Mughirah ibn Shu'bah
narrates:
"When I came to Najran, they (the Christians of Najran) asked me: You read
'sister of Harun' (i.e., Mary), in the Quran, whereas Moses was born well
before Jesus. When I came back to Allah's Messenger I asked him about that,
and he said: 'The (people of old age) used to give names (to their persons)
after the names of Apostles and pious persons who had gone before them.'"
#5326
Again,
Ibn Abi Ahaybah and Ahmad and Abdel Hameed and Muslim and At-Tirmidhi and
An-Nassaa'I and Ibn Al-Mundhir and Ibn Abi Haatim and Ibn Hibbaan and
At-Tabaraani and Ibn Mardaweih ans Al-Bayhaqi in ad-dalaa'il, narrated that
Al-Mughirah Ibn Shu'bah said: "The Prophet of God (PBUH) sent me to the
people of Najran. They asked me: DO you see what you read? O sister of Harun
while Moses precedes Jesus with such a long time? He (Al-Mughirah) said: So
I went back to the Prophet and mentioned that to him. He told me: "Would you
tell them the folk used to be called after Prophets and pious people who
preceded them?" (Jalaaluddeen As-Suyuti, Ad-durr Al-Manthur)
The only difficulty with Muhammad's statement is that the Jews before and
during the time of Christ never used this phrase in this manner at all. Not
one single reference from the Bible, either Old or New Testaments, the
Jewish literature before the birth of Christ, or even the Jewish Talmud and
Targums after Christ can be found to support Muhammad's assertion. This is
simply a gross error which cannot be swept away.
The second argument is actually a clarification of the first in that it is
suggested that both the Bible and the Quran furnish further evidence for the
term "sister of" being used to imply ancestry:
"His (Zechariah) wife was of the daughters of Aaron, and her name was
Elizabeth." Luke 1:5
It is obvious that the term "daughters" is speaking of Elizabeth's lineage
and is not to be taken to literally mean that her father was actually Aaron
the brother of Moses.
Again it is unfortunate for Muslims that this argument does not help them,
but actually serves to weaken their argument. Although the Bible does use
the phrases "son of," or "daughter of" to refer to ancestry, it never uses
the terms "brother of" or "sister of" to indicate this fact. A few examples
of the former usage include:
"So ought not this woman, being a daughter of Abraham, whom Satan has bound-
think of it - for eighteen years, be loosed from this bond on the Sabbath'?"
Luke 13:16
"And Jesus said to him, 'Today salvation has come to this house, because he
also is a son of Abraham." Luke 19:9
"And behold, two blind men sitting by the road, when they heard that Jesus
was passing by, cried out, saying, 'Have mercy on us, 0 Lord, Son of David.'
" Matthew 20:30
Scripture never addresses a person as a "brother of Abraham," or "sister of
David" when wishing to imply lineage. Hence, the Muslim position cannot be
defended biblically.
The second example is from the Quran where Salih is called Thamud's brother:
"We sent ( aforetime ) to the Thamud, their brother Salih ..." S. 27:45
The term brother here refers to kinsmen, not actual bloodbrothers,
exemplifying the many different ways the term is used.
Once again the problem is far from being resolved since the term "brother"
is used to address Salih's contemporaries, not his ancestors. This implies
that to call Mary Aaron's sister meant that Mary and Aaron were
contemporaries, living at the same time.
Unlike the Quran, the Holy Bible contains no historical errors. Most attacks
on the Bible stem from arguments from silence, i.e. the fact that no
independent archeological research has been discovered in support of certain
recorded biblical events. Yet, such arguments only prove that as of yet
archeology has failed to furnish evidence against an event reported in the
Bible. Other attacks center on the precise dating of certain archeological
findings which some see as contradicting the Holy Bible's chronology. Again,
one cannot say that the Holy Bible is in error when archeologists themselves
are divided over the precise dating of certain discoveries. This is
especially so when one realizes that there are certain archeologists who
provide evidence which they feel proves that the data corresponds perfectly
with the Bible's chronology of the events in question.
This is far different from archeology providing evidence to show that
certain events did not occur in the same manner in which the Bible says it
did. In fact, not one archeological discovery has ever proven the Bible
wrong; discovery after discovery has demonstrated the amazing historical
accuracy of scripture. The following quotations from the world's leading
archeologists affirms this fact:
"Nowhere has archeological discovery refuted the Bible as history." ( John
Elder, Prophets, Idols and Diggers [New York; Bobs Merrill, 1960], p. 16 )
"Near Eastern archeology has demonstrated the historical and geographical
reliability of the Bible in many important areas. By clarifying the
objectivity and factual accuracy of biblical authors, archeology also helps
correct the view that the Bible is avowedly partisan and subjective. It is
now known, for instance, that, along with the Hittites, Hebrew scribes were
the best historians in the entire ancient Near East, despite contrary
propaganda that emerged from Assyria, Egypt, and elsewhere." (E. M.
Blaiklock, editor's preface, New International Dictionary of Biblical
Archeology [Grand Rapids, MI; Regency Reference Library/ Zondervan, 1983],
pp. vii-viii)
The late William F. Albright, one of the world's foremost archeologists,
stated:
"There can be no doubt that archeology has confirmed the substantial
historicity of Old Testament tradition." (J. A. Thompson, The Bible and
Archeology [Grand Rapids, MI; Eerdmans, 1975], p. 5)
Nelson Glueck, world renowned archeologist, concurs: "As a matter of fact,
however, it maybe clearly stated categorically that no archeological
discovery has ever controverted a single biblical reference. Scores of
archeological findings have been made which confirm in clear outline or
exact detail historical statements in the Bible." ( Norman Geisler & Ron
Brooks, When Skeptics Ask; A Handbook on Christian Evidences [Wheaton, IL;
Victor, 1990], p. 179)
It should be noted that both Albright and Glueck were not conservative
Christians and did not believe in the inspiration of scripture. Their
conclusions were based strictly on the archeological data, forcing them to
make the above admissions.
This cannot be said of the Quran with all of its historical and scientific
mistakes.
AUTHOR OF CARNAL PLEASURES
The Quranic paradise is totally different from the biblical portrait of
heaven. In Allah's paradise, we find sexual and carnal pleasures for
believers to engage in throughout eternity:
But give glad tidings to those who believe and work righteousness, that
their portions is Gardens, beneath which rivers flow, every time they are
fed with fruits therefrom, they say: "Why, this is what we were fed with
before," for they are giving things in similitude; And they have therein
damsels (Arabic - Houris ) pure (and holy); and they abide therein
(forever)." S. 2:25
But to those who believe and do deeds of righteousness, We shall soon admit
to Gardens, with rivers flowing beneath, their eternal home. Therein they
have damsels pure and holy; We shall admit them to shades, cool and ever
deepening. S. 4:57
Of a rare creation have We created the Houris, and We have made them ever
virgins, dear to their spouses, of equal age with them for the people of the
right hand. S. 56:35-38
But for those who fear Allah is a blissful abode, enclosed gardens and
vineyards, and damsels with swelling breasts (Arabic - Kawa'eb), their peers
in age, and a full cup. S. 78:31-34 (Arberry and Rodwell translate this part
correctly, see also this overview page)
The orthodox Islamic understanding of these references are that Muslim men
shall have a host of swelling breasted maidens to engage in sex with, who
return to their virginal state after intercourse.
The paradise of Yahweh is one that is devoid of such carnality, being filled
with the infinite love and joy of God instead. Hence, the believers' reward
is to dwell with God forever in eternal glory:
"Jesus answered and said to them, 'The sons of this age marry and are given
in marriage. But those who are counted worthy to attain that age and the
resurrection from the dead, neither marry nor are given in marriage; nor can
they die anymore for they are equal to the angels and are sons of God, being
sons of the resurrection." Luke 20:34-36
"The kingdom of God is not food or drink, but righteousness, peace and joy
in the Holy Spirit." Romans 14:17
"And I heard a loud voice from heaven saying, 'Behold, the tabernacle of God
is with men, and He will dwell with them, and they shall be His people. God
Himself will be with them and be their God. And God will wipe away every
tear from their eyes; there shall be no more death, nor sorrow, nor crying.
There shall be no more pain, for the former things have passed away."
Revelation 21:3-4
AUTHOR OF FOREIGN WORDS
The Quran claims to be in pure Arabic speech:
We have sent it down as an Arabic Quran, in order that ye may learn wisdom.
S. 12:2
"An Arabic Quran, wherein there is no crookedness..." S. 9:28
And We know very well that they say, "Only a mortal is teaching him." The
speech of him at whom they hint is barbarous- and this is Arabic, pure and
clear. S. 16:103
But according to Arabic scholars the Quran is not in pure Arabic, containing
dozens of foreign words:
Abariq, S. 56:18, Persian
Adam, S. 2:34, Akkadian
Araik, S. 18:31, Persian
Firdaus, S. 18:107, Pahlavi
Fir'awn, S. 73:15, Syriac
Habr, S. 9:31, Hebrew (Haver)
Istabraq, S. 18:31, Persian (Istabar)
Sakina, S. 2:248, Hebrew
Sijjil (baked clay), S. 105:4, Persian
Taghut (idols), S. 2:257, Syriac (Teghutha)
Zakat, S. 2:110, Syriac (Zkhutha)
Zanjabil (ginger), S. 76:17, Pahlavi
Muslims respond by presuming that all living languages adopt words from
other cultures, and it is therefore not an error for the Quran to contain
foreign words. This argument only works in regard to imperfect human beings
who continually adopt and adapt to other cultures and customs.
Unfortunately for Muslims, this argument will not work for an all-powerful
Being who is the Originator of human language. Such a Being is capable of
inspiring his word in perfect Arabic completely devoid of foreign words,
especially when he himself states that the Quran is in pure Arabic. This is
even more so in light of the claim that the Quran is the eternal speech of
God, i.e. that the Quran existed (on an eternal tablet) before the creation
of human language. How can God's speech contain foregin words when these
foreign languages did not exist in eternity? As one Muslim writer stated:
The Qur'an itself repeatedly asserts that it is a unique and inimitable
"Arabic Qur'an" (12.2, 13.37, 16.103) in order to communicate its meaning in
a perfect manner to a people who took great pride in the expressive quality
of their language. Much of the early discussion about the linguistic
components of the Qur'an centred on the presence, or otherwise, of
non-Arabic words in it - of course, based on the premise that it was
essentially an Arabic text. The verses referred to above became the key
supportive texts for those who argued that the Qur'an did not contain any
non-Arabic terms. The earliest exegetes, particularly those associated with
'Abd Allah ibn 'Abbas (d. 68/67-68), a cousin of Muhammad, freely discussed
a large number of non-Arabic words in the Qur'an. Hadith literature credits
Ibn 'Abbas and "his school" with having a special interest in seeking their
origin and meaning. Later eminent scholars of the Qur'an such as the
philologist/exegete Abu 'Ubayd (d. 838), however continued to argue that the
Qur'an contained foreign words. Others such as Ibn 'Atiyyah (d. 541/1146),
Suyuti (d. 911/1505), and 'Abd al-Rahman al-Tha'labi (d. 1468) tried to
reconcile theology with linguistic principles. They argued that the foreign
words in the Qur'an came into Arabic through the ancient Arab's contacts
with other languages in foreign travel and commerce but that they had been
thoroughly Arabized by the time of the Prophet [Sam- If this were so then
there would have been no need to highlight the fact that these foreign words
had become part of the language since this would have been common knowledge
to native Arab speakers like Ibn Abbas. That an explanation was needed to
explain why foreign words appear in the Quran demonstrates how weak this
Muslim claim actually is!] Various theories were evolved to resolve THE
CONTRADICTION between the notion ascribed to Ibn 'Abbas and the one which
subsequently gained greater acceptance, i.e., that the Qur'an does not
contain any foreign terminology. To deal with the actual occurrence of words
in the Arabic language that were also found in non-Arabic languages, some of
these scholars, such as Muhammad ibn Idris al-Shafi (d. 204/819) and Tabari,
developed the notion of tawafuq (coincidence). They argued that both Arabic
and other languages employ the same words with identical meanings and that
this uniformity of meaning was purely coincidental.
The idea of any language or discourse being absolutely free from expressions
or words used in another language is alien to one of the most basic
linguistic principles, i.e., the inter-relatedness of human speech. While
this may sound trite, two factors, however, ensured that this notion was
rejected by the "orthodoxy": first, the Qur'an IS NOT REALLY REGARDED AS
HUMAN SPEECH BUT RATHER GOD'S AND GOD'S SPEECH CANNOT BE SUBJECTED TO ANY
LINGUISTIC PRINCIPLES. Indeed, as is commonly known, Qur'anic Arabic became
the standard of Arabic grammar. (The problem of God's speech of necessity
having to coincide with human speech for effect and meaning remains.)
Second, for the "orthodoxy", God's own eternalness and self-subsistence
fused with those of His revelation. The Qur'an and its language thus came to
be viewed as equally timeless and independent of any "non-divine" elements,
non-Arabic included. The fact of God's revelation occurring in Arabic (or
any other language for that matter) alongside the insistence that this is
the unmediated medium which was used by God raises an interesting question:
If all comprehensible language and speech is the result of social
interaction THEN DOES THIS IMPLY THAT GOD IS ALSO 'LIMITED' OR CONFINED TO
THE LIMITATIONS OF LANGUAGE? If so, then WHAT DOES THIS IMPLY FOR THE
ALL-POWERFUL NATURE OF GOD? (Farid Esack, The Qur'an - A Short Introduction
[Oneworld Publications, Oxford 2002], pp. 68-69; bold and capital emphasis
mine)
AUTHOR OF GRAMMATICAL ERRORS
Not only does the Quran contain foreign words, but according to Arabic
grammarians it also contains grammatical mistakes:
The Qor'an contains sentences which are incomplete and not fully
intelligible without the aid of commentaries; foreign words, unfamiliar
Arabic words, and words used with other than the normal meaning, adjectives
and verbs inflected without observance of the concords of gender and number-
illogically and ungrammatically applied pronouns which sometimes have no
referent- and predicates which in rhymed passages are often remote from the
subjects ... To sum up, more than one hundred Qor'anic aberrations from the
normal rules and structures have been noted... ( Ali Dashti, 23 Years: A
Study of the Prophetic Career of Muhammad [Costa Mesa, Ca. 1994; Mazda
Publishers], pp. 48, 50)
A few examples include the following passages:
S. 7:56 - "The mercy of Allah is near"
Arabic - "inna rahmata Allahi qaribun min al-mohseneen."
The word qaribun is the predicate of rahmata Allahi, and as such should
match in gender. Since rahmata is feminine the word qaribun (which is
masculine ) should be qaribah, its feminine form.
S. 7:160 - "We divided them in twelve tribes"
Arabic - "wa qata'nahom 'ethnata 'ashrata asbatan."
In Arabic, any noun which is counted by a number above ten should be
singular, as is the case in S. 7:142; 2:60; 5:12; 9:36; 12:4. As such the
Arabic asbatan should be sebtan.
S. 5:69 - "Surely they that believe, and those of Jewry, and the Sabians,
and the Christians, whosoever believes in Allah and the Last Day, and works
righteousness- no fear shall be on them, neither shall they sorrow."
Arabic- "Innal-laziina 'aamanuu wal-laziina haaduu was-Saabi'uuna
wan-Nasaara man'amaana bilaahi wal-Yawmil Aakhiri wa 'amila saali-hanfalaa
khaw-fun 'alay-him wa laa hum yah-zanuun."
According to scholars, the Arabic Saabi'uuna has been wrongly declined.
Compare the same grammatical structure found in the following suras:
S. 2:62- "Innal-laziina 'aamanuu wal-laziina haaduu wan-Nasaara
was-Saabi'iina..."
S. 22:17- "Innal-laziina 'aamanuu wal-laziina haaduu was-Saabi'iina
wan-Nasaara..."
In the last two suras the term was declined correctly, Saabi'iina, as
opposed to Saabi'uuna. This is due to the word inna found in the beginning
of the sentence causing a form of declension called "nasb" (as in the cases
of accusative or subjunctive) with the "yeh" being the "sign of nasb". But
the word Saabi'uuna is given the case of 'uu, a sign of "rafa" ( as in cases
of nominative and indicative ). Accordingly, the verse in 5:69 is wrong.
S. 91:5 - "By the heaven and that which built it."
Arabic- "was-samaaa-i wa maa ba-naahaa."
The word ma is impersonal in Arabic. Yet, the subject of the verse is Allah,
heaven's Creator. As such the word man, meaning "him who", should have been
used instead of the impersonal ma.
It should be pointed out that it is not only Arabic scholars who have
discovered dozens of grammatical mistakes within the Quran, but Muhammad's
very own companions in the past have also admitted this fact. The Muslim
scholar Ibn al-Khatib in his book al Furqan quotes Muhammad's wife Aisha as
saying:
"There are three grammatical errors in the Book of Allah, they are the fault
of the scribe: In 20:63 ... And in 5:69 ... And in 4:162." (Muhammad M. abd
al-Latif Ibn al-Khatib, Al-Furqan [Dar al-Kutub al-Elmiyah, Beirut], p. 91)
After seeing the first standard copy of the Quran, Islam's third Caliph
Uthman proclaimed, "I see grammatical errors in it, and the Arabs will read
it correctly with their tongues." (Ibid., p.90)
For the Quran to be the word of Allah and for Allah to be God one should
find no grammatical mistakes, especially since Muslims claim that the Quran
contains no human element whatsoever. Muslim view is that the Quran was
dictated word for word to Muhammad, which implies that Allah is the Author
of these grammatical errors. This disqualifies Allah from being God,
especially Yahweh God of the Holy Bible.
To avoid this problem, Muslims assert that the Quran was revealed in a style
called balaagha, which is an eloquent method of expressing the Arabic. Due
to this feature, the Quran is not required to be grammatically correct since
its aim is at eloquence.
Once again this assumption serves to undermine the Muslim position. It may
be true that a document written by man cannot be both grammatically correct
and still retain an optimum level of eloquence, since a human writer most
often sacrifices one literary feature over the other. But this cannot be
said of God since he can easily produce a book which contains both perfect
grammar and eloquence without ever sacrificing one for the other. This the
Quran fails to do.
ALLAH AND OATHS
A real point of difference between Allah and Yahweh is that Yahweh swears by
himself, since there is nothing greater for him to swear by:
For when God made a promise to Abraham, because He could swear by no one
greater, He swore by Himself. Hebrews 6:13
For men indeed swear by the greater, and an oath for confirmation is for
them an end of all dispute. Hebrews 6:16
Hence, every time God makes a pledge he swears only by himself to insure
believers that he will do all that he promises:
"I have sworn by Myself; the word has gone out of My mouth in righteousness,
and shall not return, that to Me every knee shall bow..." Isaiah 45:23
"I swear by Myself, says the LORD." Jeremiah 22:5
Yet, Allah swears by things less than him:
Swears by the Quran
By the Quran, full of wisdom. S. 36:2
By the Quran, full of admonition. S. 38:1
Swears by the sky and constellations
By the sky and the night visitant S. 86:1
Nay verily: By the moon, and by the night as it retreateth, and by the dawn
as it shines forth. S. 74:32-34
By the star when it goes down. S. 53:1
Swears by the pen
By the pen and by the record which [men] write. S. 68:1
Swears by the city
Nay I do swear by this city. S. 90:1
Swears by the Creation
By the night as it cancels [the light]; by the day as it appears in glory;
by the Creation of male and female. S. 92:1-3
The fact that Allah swears by practically anything and everything, while
Yahweh swears only by himself, makes it very difficult for the two to be the
one and the same God.
ALLAH IS NOT TRIUNE
The final proof that Allah is not Yahweh Elohim of the Holy Bible is that
Allah is not a trinity. According to the Holy Bible, there is only One true
God (Deuteronomy 6:4; Galatians 3:20).
Yet, at the same time Scripture affirms that this One God eternally exists
in three Persons:
The Father
"...elect according to the foreknowledge of God the Father..." 1 Peter 1:2
The Son
"... looking for that blessed hope and glorious appearing of our Great God
and Savior Jesus Christ..." Titus 2:13
The Holy Spirit
"But Peter said, 'Ananias, why has Satan filled your heart to lie to the
Holy Spirit... you have not lied to men but to God." Acts 5:3-4
Three in One
"... baptizing them in the Nam e(singular- implying unity) of the Father,
and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit..." Matthew 28:19
But the Allah of the Quran is not any of the three Persons mentioned above.
For example S. 112 states,
Say: He is Allah, the One and Only; Allah, The Eternal, Absolute-, He
begetteth not, Nor is He Begotten; And there is none like unto Him. S. 112:
1-4
Allah does not "beget" meaning that Allah has no children either in a
spiritual or carnal sense. Thus, Allah can never be the Father. Nor does he
allow himself to be "begotten", i.e. does not take on human nature such as
God the Son did when he became man for our salvation. Finally, in orthodox
Islam the Holy Spirit is not God, but the angel Gabriel. This fact separates
Allah from ever possibly being the same God that Christians worship.
Furthermore, we read in I John 2:22-23:
"Who is a liar but he who denies that Jesus is the Christ? He is Antichrist
who denies the Father and the Son. Whoever denies the Son does not have the
Father either; he who acknowledges the Son has the Father also."
Thus, to the Christians Allah cannot be the biblical God since the inspired
New Testament record teaches that anyone denying the Father and Son as God
is Antichrist.
One common Muslim allegation needs to be briefly addressed before
concluding. In Exodus 31:17 it says that after Yahweh created the universe,
he rested on the Sabbath and was refreshed. This description is not
befitting God since he never fatigues nor does he need to be refreshed.
In response to this, as we have already noted scripture often uses
anthropomorphic language in describing God's relations with man. The context
of this passage deals with the necessity of Sabbath observance as a sign
between God and Israel, and as such God is speaking to his covenant people
in relational terms.
Just as God rested on the seventh day, it is important for Israel to do
likewise especially in light of the fact that they are the chosen people of
God and must imitate him by observing all his commands.
Furthermore, the term for Sabbath in Hebrew is shabat. It is listed in
Strong's as #7673 with the following meanings: to stop, to cease, to rest,
to end. Also, the term "refreshed" doesn't necessarily mean that God needed
to take a breather after creating the universe anymore than the expression
"my heart was refreshed" implies fatigue. Rather, it refers to God rejoicing
over the goodness of his creation.
Thus, these terms do not imply that God literally needed to rest and be
refreshed. It simply means that after the formation of man God stopped his
work of creation and rejoiced at the fact that all creation up to that point
was very good. (c.f. Genesis 1:31)
This interpretation is consistent with the clear teaching of Scripture that
God never fatigues:
"He will not allow your foot to be moved- He who keeps you will not slumber.
Behold, He who keeps Israel shall neither slumber nor sleep." Psalm 121: 3-4
"Have you not known? Have you not heard? The everlasting God, the LORD, the
Creator of the ends of the earth, neither faints nor is weary. His
understanding is unsearchable." Isaiah 40:28
To then try and use Exodus 31:17 as a prooftext while neglecting the overall
context of scripture is rather poor exegesis and unscholarly, since the
Bible is clear that God has inexhaustible power and energy.
Our brief examination of Allah as presented in the Quran leads us to
conclude that he cannot possibly be the same God worshiped by Abraham and as
described in the Holy Bible. The contradictions in attributes and nature
between Yahweh and Allah are too numerous to pass over, and cannot be
reconciled.
With that in mind, we must point out another major difference between the
two; namely that the God of the Holy Bible gives an assurance of salvation
through Jesus Christ the Lord, something which Allah never guarantees:
For God so loved the world that he gave his only begotten Son that whoever
believes in him should not perish, but have everlasting life. John 3:16
Most assuredly, I say to you, he who hears my word and believes in him who
sent me has everlasting life, and shall not come into judgement, but has
passed from death into life. John 5:24
And if anyone hears my words and does not believe, I do not judge him; for I
did not come to judge the world but to save the world. John 12:47
The Bible clearly teaches that there is no other way for man to be saved,
since Jesus alone can guarantee eternal life, something which the Quran
cannot promise any Muslim:
"Jesus said to him, 'I am the Way, the Truth, and the Life. No man comes to
the Father except through me.'" John 14:6
"Nor is there salvation in any other, for there is no other name under
heaven given among men by which we must be saved." Acts 4:12
The reason why Christ alone can promise salvation is because he alone paid
the penalty for sin which is death. By his death on the cross Christ
provided the only acceptable sacrifice to God on behalf of sinners:
"Being justified as a gift by His grace through the redemption which is in
Christ Jesus; whom God displayed publicly as a propitiation) a sacrifice
offered which satisfies the divine justice of God) in his blood ..." Romans
3:24-25
"For the wages of sin is death, but the gift of God is eternal life through
Jesus Christ our Lord." Romans 6:23
It is therefore up to Muslims to decide whether to accept Jesus Christ as
Yahweh's Son and the Savior of the world and receive the assurance of
eternal salvation. Or continue to worship Allah of the Quran who never
promises Muslims the joy of knowing that their sins have been forgiven,
giving them the assurance of eternal salvation. The choice is left for the
reader to decide.
NOTE TO THE READER
We are well aware that the name Allah is used by Arab speaking Christians
for the God of the Bible. In fact, the root from which the name is derived,
ilah, stems from the ancient Semitic languages, corresponding to the
Mesopotamian IL, as well as the Hebrew-Aramaic EL, as in Ishma-el,
Immanu-el, Isra-el. These terms were often used to refer to any deity
worshiped as a high god, especially the chief deity amongst a pantheon of
lesser gods. As such, the Holy Bible uses the term as just one of the many
titles for Yahweh, the only true God.
Yet the problem arises from the fact that Muslims insist that Allah is not a
title, but the personal name of the God of Islam. This becomes problematic
since according to the Holy Bible the name of the God of Abraham is
Yahweh/Jehovah, not Allah:
God spoke further to Moses and said to him, "I am Yahweh (YHVH) and I
appeared to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, as God Almighty; BUT BY MY NAME,
YAHWEH, I did not make myself known to them." Exodus 6:2-3
Therefore, Christians can use Allah as a title but not as the personal name
for the God of the Bible.
Steve Hayes
>IS ALLAH THE GOD OF THE BIBLE?
Another disingenuous title.
"The Christian usage of Allah predates Islam. Allah is the name of God
in the old Arabic Bible as well as in the modern Arabic Bible," he
said, adding Allah was widely used by Christians in Egypt, Lebanon,
Iraq, Indonesia and other parts of the world without problem.
http://www.iht.com/articles/ap/2007/12/27/asia/AS-REL-Malaysia-Allah-Ban.php
--
Steve Hayes from Tshwane, South Africa
Web: http://hayesfam.bravehost.com/stevesig.htm
Blog: http://methodius.blogspot.com
E-mail - see web page, or parse: shayes at dunelm full stop org full stop uk
Zadok
"Steve Hayes" <haye...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:267be45oljrl548tg...@4ax.com...
> On Thu, 2 Oct 2008 19:25:57 -0400, "Carl" <sai...@nettally.com> wrote:
>
> >IS ALLAH THE GOD OF THE BIBLE?
>
> Another disingenuous title.
>
> "The Christian usage of Allah predates Islam. Allah is the name of God
> in the old Arabic Bible as well as in the modern Arabic Bible," he
> said, adding Allah was widely used by Christians in Egypt, Lebanon,
> Iraq, Indonesia and other parts of the world without problem.
Steve, Please do not reply to this SPAMMER'S messages.
You only encourage him.
Zadok
"john w @yahoo.com>" <> wrote in message ...
> He's helped me more than the lot of you have!
A kid in fucking kindergarten could teach you a lot.
Smile.
Steve Hayes
He's not a spammer.
Spammers are people who post off-topic messages to 20 or more newsgroups.
Though he has posted to several newsgroups, his posting is not off-topic in
any of them, as far as I can see,
He posts articles from various sources, and that's also OK in newsgroups.
Some of his articles contain somewhat dubious content, like this one.
Again, in newsgroups, one is free to disagree with what others post, as I have
doen in this case.
Spammers don't usually respond to responses to their posts. Carl has
responded, showing he isn't a spammer.
Steve Hayes
Christian newsgroups with titles like "Is Allah the God of the Bible?"
The titles have been disingenuous, because the correct answer is obviously
Yes, Allah is the God of the Bible, but the author tries to persuade the
reader, by convoluted and twisted reasoning, that Allah is not the God of the
Bible.
That Allah is the God of the Bible can be seen by reference to a Bible in
Arabic, Malay, or any other language in which Allah is the name of God.
As another poster pointed out
:
"The Christian usage of Allah predates Islam. Allah is the name of God
in the old Arabic Bible as well as in the modern Arabic Bible," he
said, adding Allah was widely used by Christians in Egypt, Lebanon,
Iraq, Indonesia and other parts of the world without problem.
http://www.iht.com/articles/ap/2007/12/27/asia/AS-REL-Malaysia-Allah-Ban.php
So the question is: Why are the authors of the articles, and the people who
post them to these newsgroups, so anxious to get people to believe this lie?
Why are they prepared to pile lie upon lie, falsehood upon falsehood, in order
to persuade people of the truth of a proposition that is patently false?
And when people point out the weaknesses in their arguments, they immediately
resort to ad hominem arguments to try to hide the holes.
Why are these people prepared to resort to such desperate measures to make
people believe in a lie?
Perhaps one should begin by pointing out that some things are not in dispute.
The name "Allah" is used for God by both Christians and Muslims, but they have
radically different understandings of the nature of God. Christians believe
that God is Father, Son and Holy Spirit; Muslims do not.
That is a fact.
But the authors of the articles, and those who posted them, try to argue from
a fact to a lie -- that because of these theological differences, Allah is not
the God of the Bible.
One of the proponents then argued that the name "Allah" did not apperar in the
Bible in its original languages, Greek, Aramaic and Hebrew.
The problem with that argument is that it also applies to the word "God". The
name "God" does not appear in the Bible in its original languages.
If that is the argument, then the conclusion that "Allah is not the God of the
Bible" is not simply false, but meaninglerss, because, given the premisses,
there is NO "God of the Bible". If that is so, then not only is Allah not the
God of the Bible, but God is not the Dios of the Bible, and Dios is not the
Dieu of the Bible, and Dieu is not the uNkulunkulu of the Bible, and
uNkulunkulu is not the Modimo of the Bible, and Modimo is not the Mukuru of
the Bible, and Mukuru is not the Bog of the Bible.
What those who use this argument are in fact asserting is their belief that
while it is OK to worship God in English, it is not OK to worship God in
Arabic.
They are trying to use plausible theological arguments to promote a political
agenda of racism, ethnocentrism and hatred against people who speak Arabic.
They are promoting the idea that English=speaking people are superior to
Arabic-speaking people; that God listens to people who pray in English, but
prayers to God in Arabic go astray, and end up with some other deity.
It seems to be a new variant of British-Israelitism -- a popular heresy of the
19th century.
Steve Hayes
>On Mon, 06 Oct 2008 12:08:05 +0200, Steve Hayes
><haye...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> Š 2008 John D Weatherly all rights reserved; no portion of this post
>may be used anywhere else without written permission of the author.
>>Over the last couple of weeks someone has been posting articles in various
>>Christian newsgroups with titles like "Is Allah the God of the Bible?"
>>
>>The titles have been disingenuous, because the correct answer is obviously
>>Yes, Allah is the God of the Bible, but the author tries to persuade the
>>reader, by convoluted and twisted reasoning, that Allah is not the God of the
>>Bible.
>>
> Then put it this way.
>
> the Allah that the Muslims worship is not the same deity as the God
>/ Yhwh Christians and Jews worship.
>
> Is THAT clear enough?
That is a different question, and it is not what the titles of the posts and
the articles were saying, and the message they were trying to convey.
> probably not.
Indeed not.
John Fraser
I will accept that modern Arabs use the term Allah to mean God, but to
say that Allah has always been equal to Jehovah is somewhat misleading. At
the time of Muhammad, Allah was one of 360 gods. Muhammad's family lineage
included priests who served Allah. Taken a step further, it could
substitute Jehovah. Were those priests serving the God of the Hebrews?
Can God be found in the original languages the Bible was composed in?
According to Strong's Concordance, the Hebrew word elohim in sinular form
means god. Used as a pronoun, it becomes Elohiym (God), same as Allah.
Another common name is Jehovah, and even Adonai is used. Koine Greek uses
theos for god. This context in Christianity is taken to mean God the
Father.
I'm sure that you're already quite aware of the above. Is there any way
you could show some Muslim equivalencies to Jehovah which exist in modern
Islam? How about before Islam was established?
Feel free to correct me if I'm in error.
Cheers,
John
"Steve Hayes" <haye...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:mamje4hvfnd0dch86...@4ax.com...
Steve Hayes
wrote:
> I will accept that modern Arabs use the term Allah to mean God, but to
>say that Allah has always been equal to Jehovah is somewhat misleading. At
>the time of Muhammad, Allah was one of 360 gods. Muhammad's family lineage
>included priests who served Allah. Taken a step further, it could
>substitute Jehovah. Were those priests serving the God of the Hebrews?
>
> Can God be found in the original languages the Bible was composed in?
>According to Strong's Concordance, the Hebrew word elohim in sinular form
>means god. Used as a pronoun, it becomes Elohiym (God), same as Allah.
>Another common name is Jehovah, and even Adonai is used. Koine Greek uses
>theos for god. This context in Christianity is taken to mean God the
>Father.
>
> I'm sure that you're already quite aware of the above. Is there any way
>you could show some Muslim equivalencies to Jehovah which exist in modern
>Islam? How about before Islam was established?
Why should I even attempt to show such a thing?
It is quite irrelevant.
The point is that Allah is the name of God in CHRISTIAN Bibles.
John Fraser
"Steve Hayes" <haye...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:eihke49dbqa0qds57...@4ax.com...
> On Mon, 6 Oct 2008 09:53:10 -0300, "John Fraser" <jfr...@ns.sympatico.ca>
> wrote:
>
>> I will accept that modern Arabs use the term Allah to mean God, but
>> to
>>say that Allah has always been equal to Jehovah is somewhat misleading.
>>At
>>the time of Muhammad, Allah was one of 360 gods. Muhammad's family
>>lineage
>>included priests who served Allah. Taken a step further, it could
>>substitute Jehovah. Were those priests serving the God of the Hebrews?
>>
>> Can God be found in the original languages the Bible was composed in?
>>According to Strong's Concordance, the Hebrew word elohim in sinular form
>>means god. Used as a pronoun, it becomes Elohiym (God), same as Allah.
>>Another common name is Jehovah, and even Adonai is used. Koine Greek uses
>>theos for god. This context in Christianity is taken to mean God the
>>Father.
>>
>> I'm sure that you're already quite aware of the above. Is there any
>> way
>>you could show some Muslim equivalencies to Jehovah which exist in modern
>>Islam? How about before Islam was established?
>
> Why should I even attempt to show such a thing?
>
> It is quite irrelevant.
> The point is that Allah is the name of God in CHRISTIAN Bibles.
I found this statement on a website which lends limited support to your
claim: Allah is the personal name of God in Aramaic, the language of Jesus
and a sister language of Arabic. But, it would not be found in the Hebrew
and Greek languages.
Cheers,
John
AGGreen
"John Fraser" <jfr...@ns.sympatico.ca> wrote in message
news:48ea0a44$0$5500$9a56...@news.aliant.net...
AGGreen
> On Mon, 6 Oct 2008 09:53:10 -0300, "John Fraser" <jfr...@ns.sympatico.ca>
> wrote:
>
>> I will accept that modern Arabs use the term Allah to mean God, but
>> to
>>say that Allah has always been equal to Jehovah is somewhat misleading.
>>At
>>the time of Muhammad, Allah was one of 360 gods. Muhammad's family
>>lineage
>>included priests who served Allah. Taken a step further, it could
>>substitute Jehovah. Were those priests serving the God of the Hebrews?
>>
>> Can God be found in the original languages the Bible was composed in?
>>According to Strong's Concordance, the Hebrew word elohim in sinular form
>>means god. Used as a pronoun, it becomes Elohiym (God), same as Allah.
>>Another common name is Jehovah, and even Adonai is used. Koine Greek uses
>>theos for god. This context in Christianity is taken to mean God the
>>Father.
>>
>> I'm sure that you're already quite aware of the above. Is there any
>> way
>>you could show some Muslim equivalencies to Jehovah which exist in modern
>>Islam? How about before Islam was established?
>
> Why should I even attempt to show such a thing?
>
> It is quite irrelevant.
>
> The point is that Allah is the name of God in CHRISTIAN Bibles.
***It's not the word, Steve, but the theological concept behind the word.
Digim...@starpower.net
neither in Aramaic nor in Hebrew. Even on the Cross he called The
Father Eli (My God) in Hebrew or Elahi (Aramaic). Allah is NOT the
same. In fact, they are mutually exclusive. Muslims say the Koran is
from their Allah. Well, our OT and NT are NOT the same in theology as
the Koran is, so the same "God" could NOT have authored both.
Linards Ticmanis
> I remain convinced that Steve AND "Zayton" (I call him "Zardoz")
> both believe that the Muslim deity "Allah" and the Hebrew/Christian
> Yhwh are the same deity.
> I maintain that scripture (the Bible) says the Muslim deity "Allah
> " and the Hebrew / Christian Yhwh are NOT the same deity.
But the Allah of Arabic bibles and the Arabic-language Holy Liturgy IS
the same deity as the God of English-speaking Christians, right?
--
Linards Ticmanis
Steve Hayes
wrote:
>"Steve Hayes" <haye...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>> The point is that Allah is the name of God in CHRISTIAN Bibles.
>
> I found this statement on a website which lends limited support to your
>claim: Allah is the personal name of God in Aramaic, the language of Jesus
>and a sister language of Arabic. But, it would not be found in the Hebrew
>and Greek languages.
The point is that the statement that "Allah is not the God of the Bible", is a
calculated insult to Arabic-speaking Christians.
The disingenuous titles of the articles that were posted are calculated to do
just that.
It is quite subtle racist propaganda, and has clearly deceived many.
Steve Hayes
>***Allah of Islam is not the Holy Trinity of Christianity.
But, in spite of what you say, elastic DOES stretch, and round things DO roll.
Raymond
> Over the last couple of weeks someone has been posting articles in various
> Christian newsgroups with titles like "Is Allah the God of the Bible?"
>
> The titles have been disingenuous, because the correct answer is obviously
> Yes, Allah is the God of the Bible, but the author tries to persuade the
> reader, by convoluted and twisted reasoning, that Allah is not the God of the
> Bible.
A educated obvious answer is No the god of Islam called by them as
"Allah" IS NOT THE GOD OF THE HOLY BIBLE!
Only a ignorant person unlearned in the Hebrew/Greek and the Old
Testament as well as the New Testament would say that the Muslim Allah
is even found in the Bible unless one wants to call the Devil, Satan
that god as he tried once to take over Heaven and the God of the Bible
tossed that "angel of light" out of Heaven. He and those that follow
him, will all end up in Hell.
> That Allah is the God of the Bible can be seen by reference to a Bible in
> Arabic, Malay, or any other language in which Allah is the name of God.
You can find lots of false teachings in other languages and false gods
thinking they are God.
> So the question is: Why are the authors of the articles, and the people who
> post them to these newsgroups, so anxious to get people to believe this lie?
So tell us, why you are lying.
>
> Why are they prepared to pile lie upon lie, falsehood upon falsehood, in order
> to persuade people of the truth of a proposition that is patently false?
Good question ask the Islamic murders and killers in Iraq about they
are not only prepared to lie but do all kind of things the way the
devil does and Hell is their end.
>
> And when people point out the weaknesses in their arguments, they immediately
> resort to ad hominem arguments to try to hide the holes.
What do you do, make this up and try to apply it to them that are
believers in the true God, while not applying it to the false muslism
god as it fits them.
>
> Why are these people prepared to resort to such desperate measures to make
> people believe in a lie?
Then tell us, why you do such here.
>
> Perhaps one should begin by pointing out that some things are not in dispute.
All things are in dipute when they are evil and do not want the truth,
that is one reason they killed Jesus in the first place.
>
> The name "Allah" is used for God by both Christians and Muslims, but they have
> radically different understandings of the nature of God. Christians believe
> that God is Father, Son and Holy Spirit; Muslims do not.
Proving that the God of the Bible and the allah of the muslims are not
one and the same.
>
> That is a fact.
Raymond
Raymond
> On Mon, 6 Oct 2008 09:53:10 -0300, "John Fraser" <jfra...@ns.sympatico.ca>
> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > I will accept that modern Arabs use the term Allah to mean God, but to
> >say that Allah has always been equal to Jehovah is somewhat misleading. At
> >the time of Muhammad, Allah was one of 360 gods. Muhammad's family lineage
> >included priests who served Allah. Taken a step further, it could
> >substitute Jehovah. Were those priests serving the God of the Hebrews?
>
> > Can God be found in the original languages the Bible was composed in?
> >According to Strong's Concordance, the Hebrew word elohim in sinular form
> >means god. Used as a pronoun, it becomes Elohiym (God), same as Allah.
> >Another common name is Jehovah, and even Adonai is used. Koine Greek uses
> >theos for god. This context in Christianity is taken to mean God the
> >Father.
>
> > I'm sure that you're already quite aware of the above. Is there any way
> >you could show some Muslim equivalencies to Jehovah which exist in modern
> >Islam? How about before Islam was established?
>
> Why should I even attempt to show such a thing?
Yeah all you could do is attempt, as your wrong and that is why you
can not answer his statement.
>
> It is quite irrelevant.
Yes any reply you would post, I agree would be irrelevant!
>
> The point is that Allah is the name of God in CHRISTIAN Bibles.
Not in any English Christian Bible or the original Jewish/Christian
Holy Bible either. You can twist but you can not change what is fact
and Islam is not of the God of the Bible and is false a teachings of
an anti[Christ.
>
AGGreen
> On Mon, 6 Oct 2008 15:59:36 -0300, "John Fraser" <jfr...@ns.sympatico.ca>
> wrote:
>
>>"Steve Hayes" <haye...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>
>>> The point is that Allah is the name of God in CHRISTIAN Bibles.
***Not in my Orthodox Study Bible.
>>
>> I found this statement on a website which lends limited support to
>> your
>>claim: Allah is the personal name of God in Aramaic, the language of Jesus
>>and a sister language of Arabic. But, it would not be found in the Hebrew
>>and Greek languages.
>
> The point is that the statement that "Allah is not the God of the Bible",
> is a
> calculated insult to Arabic-speaking Christians.
>
> The disingenuous titles of the articles that were posted are calculated to
> do
> just that.
>
> It is quite subtle racist propaganda, and has clearly deceived many.
***Racist? Bullpoop. It's the theology behind the Islamic "Allah" that makes
it different from the Christian God of the Holy Trinity. I'm surprised that
you, as an Orthodox Christian, doesn't get it.
AGGreen
> On Mon, 6 Oct 2008 15:01:21 -0400, "AGGreen" <agg...@nomorespam.org>
> wrote:
>
>>***Allah of Islam is not the Holy Trinity of Christianity.
>
> But, in spite of what you say, elastic DOES stretch, and round things DO
> roll.
***All of which doesn't make the Islamic "Allah" the Christian "Allah."
You're the "alt.idiot", Steve.
AGGreen
"Raymond" <rwk...@aim.com> wrote in message
news:e785332e-7b55-4dc7...@v53g2000hsa.googlegroups.com...
Steve Hayes
All of which does not mean that elastic does not stretch and that round things
do not roll.
Steve Hayes
So you to are a racist determined to denigrate Arabic-speaking Christian.
Steve Hayes
>On Oct 6, 6:08 am, Steve Hayes <hayesm...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> Over the last couple of weeks someone has been posting articles in various
>> Christian newsgroups with titles like "Is Allah the God of the Bible?"
>>
>> The titles have been disingenuous, because the correct answer is obviously
>> Yes, Allah is the God of the Bible, but the author tries to persuade the
>> reader, by convoluted and twisted reasoning, that Allah is not the God of the
>> Bible.
>
>A educated obvious answer is No the god of Islam called by them as
>"Allah" IS NOT THE GOD OF THE HOLY BIBLE!
Do you really not get it, or are you being disingenuous too?
>> That Allah is the God of the Bible can be seen by reference to a Bible in
>> Arabic, Malay, or any other language in which Allah is the name of God.
>
>You can find lots of false teachings in other languages and false gods
>thinking they are God.
So are you also a British-Israelite?
It certainly looks like it.
Steve Hayes
>***Racist? Bullpoop. It's the theology behind the Islamic "Allah" that makes
>it different from the Christian God of the Holy Trinity. I'm surprised that
>you, as an Orthodox Christian, doesn't get it.
I'm really surprised at your failure to realise that round things roll and
that elastic streches.
--
The unworthy deacon,
Stephen Methodius Hayes
Contact: http://hayesfam.bravehost.com/stevesig.htm
Orthodox mission pages: http://www.orthodoxy.faithweb.com/
John Galt
> On Mon, 6 Oct 2008 15:59:36 -0300, "John Fraser" <jfr...@ns.sympatico.ca>
> wrote:
>
>> "Steve Hayes" <haye...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>
>>> The point is that Allah is the name of God in CHRISTIAN Bibles.
>> I found this statement on a website which lends limited support to your
>> claim: Allah is the personal name of God in Aramaic, the language of Jesus
>> and a sister language of Arabic. But, it would not be found in the Hebrew
>> and Greek languages.
>
> The point is that the statement that "Allah is not the God of the Bible", is a
> calculated insult to Arabic-speaking Christians.
Is it? My in-laws are "over there", and they would agree with the idea
that the god described as "Allah" in the Quran could not possibly be the
same God described as "Allah" in the Bible, that their characteristics
were too different. I don't know if that's common reasoning "over
there", but it's certainly their reasoning.
JG
I don't know if that's common thinking among
Steve Hayes
>Steve Hayes wrote:
>> The point is that the statement that "Allah is not the God of the Bible", is a
>> calculated insult to Arabic-speaking Christians.
>
>Is it? My in-laws are "over there", and they would agree with the idea
>that the god described as "Allah" in the Quran could not possibly be the
>same God described as "Allah" in the Bible, that their characteristics
>were too different. I don't know if that's common reasoning "over
>there", but it's certainly their reasoning.
So would your in-laws agree that Allah is not the God of the Bible?
Would they agree that Arabic Bibles that use Allah are the name of God are bad
translations?
Would they agree with the action of the Malaysian government in trying to ban
the use of Allah as the name of God by Christians?
ARAH
My dear Raymond.
You have to do lot more research and reading but what is most
important is to have a CLEAN HEART
What is His Name?
By Ahmed Deedat
SAY: "CALL UPON ALLAH,
OR CALL UPON RAHMAN
BY WHATEVER NAME YE CALL UPON HIM (it is well):
FOR TO HIM BELONG THE MOST BEAUTIFUL NAMES
Holy Qur'aan 17:110
CHAPTER ONE
BELIEF IN GOD UNIVERSAL
WHAT IS HIS NAME?
At the end of my public talk on the subject - "MUHUMMED (p.b.u.h)
the Natural Successor to CHRIST (p.b.u.h.) at question time, a
Christian Missionary posed the question: "What is His Name?" Meaning
thereby as to the name of God. I stood up to answer. But before I
opened my mouth, he spoke into the mike, provided for questioning,
that he would answer his own question. I said, "You posed the question
so the obligation is on me to reply to your question". He said, "Yes,
but I will answer the question." (Laughter in the audience). He was
actually begging for an opportunity to be heard. Where else on earth
would he get such a large audience, and that at the Muslim's expense,
to preach. I said, "Carry on!" (Give him enough rope to hang himself).
After some rambling, he concluded that the name of God was "JESUS
CHRIST!"
It was not the time, at that meeting; nor is it expedient here to
discuss the subject fully - "IS JESUS GOD?" It is enough, for the
moment, to say that in the language of Moses, Jesus and Muhummed
(Peace be upon them all) the name of God Almighty is ALLAH! Proof will
be provided in Chapter 4.
Belief in God is ingrained in the nature of man. As long as man
existed on earth, the knowledge of God Almighty also co-existed. As
Professor Max Fuller in his Hibbert Lectures said:
"RELIGION IS NOT A NEW INVENTION. IT IS, IF NOT AS OLD AS THE WORLD,
AT LEAST AS OLD AS THE WORLD WE KNOW. THERE NEVER WAS A FALSE GOD NOR
WAS THERE EVER A FALSE RELIGION, UNLESS YOU CALL A CHILD A FALSE MAN.
ALL RELIGION, SO FAR AS I KNOW THEM, HAD THE SAME PURPOSE. ALL WERE
LINKS IN A CHAIN WHICH CONNECTS HEAVEN AND EARTH, AND WHICH HELD, AND
ALWAYS WAS HELD, BY ONE AND THE SAME HAND."
This is truly a very charitable attitude; truly Islamic.
Allah subha nahu wa ta-aala (God Almighty) tells us in the Holy
Qur'aan:
AND THERE NEVER WAS A PEOPLE WITHOUT A WARNER HAVING LIVED AMONG THEM
(In the past).
Sura Fatir 35:24
AND TO EVERY NATION THERE WAS (sent) A GUIDE.
Sura1 Ra'd 13:7
1. Sura in Arabic means Chapter.
GOD NOT PARTIAL
If God Almighty is not partial to His creatures with regard to
material blessings like - fresh-air, rain, sun- shine etc., why should
He be partial in regard to His spiritual blessings (The Guidance of
God)? He has not been partial! There is no nation or language group on
earth who does not know God by some name. This knowledge was given by
the Creator Himself through the lips of His chosen messengers. The
names of a very few of these messengers we know, the rest have been
lost or clouded in superstition.
Though all theology (knowledge of God) originated with God, mankind
played fast and loose with those pure and holy concepts, adding frills
and adornments where no embellishments was needed - it despoiled the
language. In the words of Mrs. Ellen G. White, a "prophetess" of the
7th Day Adventist Movement, in her Bible Commentary it is said:
"LEARNED MEN HAD IN SOME INSTANCES CHANGED THE WORDS, THINKING THAT
THEY WERE MAKING IT PLAIN, WHEN IN REALITY THEY WERE MYSTIFYING THAT
WHICH WAS PLAIN."1
In the Religious Annals of the world, the Jewish and Christian
Scriptures called the Holy Bible abound with graphic examples of
portraying God after man's own pattern:
1. For further detailed references to Mrs. White, see my book - "Is
the Bible God's Word?". Available free online.
IMPERFECT DESCRIPTIONS OF GOD
LIKE A MAN
(Genesis 11:5)
"And the Lord came down to see the city and the tower, which the
children of men builded."
MOSES SEES GOD'S BACK PARTS?
(Exodus 33:23)
"And I will take away mine hand, and thou shalt see my back parts: but
my face shall not be seen."
WRESTLES WITH JACOB
(Genesis 32:28)
"And He (God) said, thy name shall be called no more lacob, but
Israel: for as a prince hast thou power with God and with men, and has
prevailed."
LIKE ONE DRUNK
(Psalm 78:65)
"Then the Lord awakened as one out of sleep, and like a mighty man
that shouteth by reason of wine."
REGRETS MAKING MAN
(Genesis 6:6)
"And it repented the Lord that he had made man on the earth, and it
grieved him at his heart."
SMELLS SWEET FLAVOUR
(Genesis 8:21)
"And the Lord smelled a sweet savour; and the Lord said in his
heart..."
A CROUCHING LION
(Numbers 24:9)
"He couched, he lay down as a lion, and as a great lion: who shall
stir him up?"
DEVOURING FIRE
(Exodus 24:17)
"And the sight of the glory of the Lord was like devouring fire on the
top of the mount in the eyes of the children of Israel."
RESTED AND REFRESHED
(Exodus 31:17)
" ... in six days the Lord made heaven and earth, and on the seventh
day he rested AND WAS REFRESHED." 1
Out of the encyclopaedia of 73 Books of the Roman Catholics and 66
Books of the Protestants called the "BIBLE"2, endless number of
quotations can be culled to fill a book larger than this publication
to illustrate man's various imperfect descriptions of God. The above
examples will suffice, I hope.
In the realm of the spirit, no nation has had as much opportunities as
the children of Israel. And despite repeated warnings to the effect
that:'THY GOD IS A JEALOUS GOD, HE SHALL HAVE NO OTHER GOD BEFORE HIM,
NOT EVEN OF THE LIKENESS OF THE THINGS ON EARTH, OR IN THE HEAVENS
ABOVE, OR IN THE WATERS BENEATH THE SEA ... (Exodus 20:3-5), they took
the golden calf for worship, and again and again reverted into
idolatry. Nor is the bulk of Christendom any freer from this taint.
Visit St. Paul's Cathedral in London, or St. Peter's Cathedral in Rome
and you will have very little to distinguish them from the Tempte of
Somnath in India. It is a question of Tweedle Dum and Tweedle Dee.3
You do not really have to go to England or Italy to verify my
statement. Why not an inspection in loco to an Anglican or a Roman
Catholic Cathedral in your own home town!
1. "....and was refreshed": to commemorate the Sabbath because God
Almighty became tired and needed to be rejuvenated after His six days
of hard labour - IS A STANDING INSULT TO GOD. Says the Holy
Qur'an:"...No slumber can seize Him nor sleep...His Throne extends
over the heavans and the earth, and He feeleth no fatigue in guarding
and preserving them..." (Sura 2:255)
For more reading please visit:
http://www.geocities.com/maa_imran/deedat.html
http://www.jamaat.net/name/name.html
At least we can differentiate who is educated and who is ignorant!!!!!
> - Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
John Galt
> On Tue, 07 Oct 2008 07:24:12 +0200, John Galt <kad...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Steve Hayes wrote:
>>> The point is that the statement that "Allah is not the God of the Bible", is a
>>> calculated insult to Arabic-speaking Christians.
>> Is it? My in-laws are "over there", and they would agree with the idea
>> that the god described as "Allah" in the Quran could not possibly be the
>> same God described as "Allah" in the Bible, that their characteristics
>> were too different. I don't know if that's common reasoning "over
>> there", but it's certainly their reasoning.
>
> So would your in-laws agree that Allah is not the God of the Bible?
Careful here. That question isn't germane as phrased. It oversimplifies
the matter.
The assertion of my in-laws would be that if you look at the attributes,
characteristics, and behaviors of God as described by the Quran, they
are very different from the attributes, characteristics, and behaviors
of God as described by the Bible. Further, they would remind us that the
label "Allah" in Arabic and Syriac just means "God".
So, they (well, my FIL, who holds a theological degree) would say that
the same label is being used to refer to two different beings, one who
is the creator-God, and the other which is some other sort of spiritual
creature, perhaps a demon of some sort.
>
> Would they agree that Arabic Bibles that use Allah are the name of God are bad
> translations?
See above. Whether or not they are bad translations is not germane to
the point. If you want to refer to your dog as "cat", that is within
your ability to do; it is not correct to do so, but it is within your
ability and your perogative. Likewise, the Muslims can call their god
"Allah" all they want, but if (hypothetically speaking, and for example)
they are really referring to the entity named in the Bible as "Baal",
they are not correct in doing so.
>
> Would they agree with the action of the Malaysian government in trying to ban
> the use of Allah as the name of God by Christians?
I expect that they would not see this as a theological issue, but
instead one of libertarianism.
JG
>
>
John Galt
> My dear Raymond.
>
> You have to do lot more research and reading but what is most
Why is a clean heart important? Do Muslims not believe that Allah is
powerful enough to teach even the evil?
JG
Steve Hayes
>Steve Hayes wrote:
>> On Tue, 07 Oct 2008 07:24:12 +0200, John Galt <kad...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Steve Hayes wrote:
>>>> The point is that the statement that "Allah is not the God of the Bible", is a
>>>> calculated insult to Arabic-speaking Christians.
>>> Is it? My in-laws are "over there", and they would agree with the idea
>>> that the god described as "Allah" in the Quran could not possibly be the
>>> same God described as "Allah" in the Bible, that their characteristics
>>> were too different. I don't know if that's common reasoning "over
>>> there", but it's certainly their reasoning.
>>
>> So would your in-laws agree that Allah is not the God of the Bible?
>
>Careful here. That question isn't germane as phrased. It oversimplifies
>the matter.
Ah, but that is precisely why it is germane as phrased.
See the subject line, and what I wrote originally.
>The assertion of my in-laws would be that if you look at the attributes,
>characteristics, and behaviors of God as described by the Quran, they
>are very different from the attributes, characteristics, and behaviors
>of God as described by the Bible. Further, they would remind us that the
>label "Allah" in Arabic and Syriac just means "God".
So the question then comes down to "Is God the God of the Bible?"
"The Christian usage of Allah predates Islam. Allah is the name of God
in the old Arabic Bible as well as in the modern Arabic Bible," he
said, adding Allah was widely used by Christians in Egypt, Lebanon,
Iraq, Indonesia and other parts of the world without problem.
http://www.iht.com/articles/ap/2007/12/27/asia/AS-REL-Malaysia-Allah-Ban.php
>So, they (well, my FIL, who holds a theological degree) would say that
>the same label is being used to refer to two different beings, one who
>is the creator-God, and the other which is some other sort of spiritual
>creature, perhaps a demon of some sort.
So, with his theological degree, would he disagree with the following
statement?
"The Christian usage of Allah predates Islam. Allah is the name of God
in the old Arabic Bible as well as in the modern Arabic Bible," he
said, adding Allah was widely used by Christians in Egypt, Lebanon,
Iraq, Indonesia and other parts of the world without problem.
http://www.iht.com/articles/ap/2007/12/27/asia/AS-REL-Malaysia-Allah-Ban.php
>> Would they agree that Arabic Bibles that use Allah are the name of God are bad
>> translations?
>
>See above. Whether or not they are bad translations is not germane to
>the point.
It is PRECISELY germane to the point. In fact it IS the point.
See above.
If, as has been alleged by some, Allah is not the God of the Bible, then
translations of the Bible into Arabic, or Malay, or other languages that use
the name "Allah" for God must be in error, or else they must be saying that
(with the Malaysian government) the Arabic language language may not be used
by Christians to speak of or pray to Go.
> If you want to refer to your dog as "cat", that is within
>your ability to do; it is not correct to do so, but it is within your
>ability and your perogative. Likewise, the Muslims can call their god
>"Allah" all they want, but if (hypothetically speaking, and for example)
>they are really referring to the entity named in the Bible as "Baal",
>they are not correct in doing so.
That is not germane to the point.
As far as I am aware, translations of the Old and New Testament into Arabic
were not made by Muslims, and (unless you can [produce evidence to the
contrary) I do not believe the translators had Muslim concepts in mind when
they made them.
>> Would they agree with the action of the Malaysian government in trying to ban
>> the use of Allah as the name of God by Christians?
>
>I expect that they would not see this as a theological issue, but
>instead one of libertarianism.
So whether Christians speak of God as Allah is to be determined by liberterian
and not theological criteria?
ARAH
Dear John Galt.
Only those whose heart are clean and sincere will be save.
Let understand what Allah the Almighty Creator said in the Quran
2:1 Alif. Lam. Mim. [1]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2:2 THIS DIVINE WRIT - let there be no doubt about it is [meant to be]
a guidance for all the God-conscious. [2]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2:3 Who believe in [the existence of] that which is beyond the reach
of human perception, [3] and are constant in prayer, and spend on
others out of what We provide for them as sustenance; [4]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2:4 And who believe in that which has been bestowed from on high upon
thee, [O Prophet,] as well as in that which was bestowed before thy
time: [5] for it is they who in their innermost are certain of the
life to come!
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2:5 It is they who follow the guidance [which comes from their
Sustainer; and it is they, they who' shall attain to a happy state!
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2:6 BEHOLD, as for those who are bent on denying the truth [6] - it is
all one to them whether thou warnest them or dost not warn them: they
will not believe.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2:7 God; has sealed their hearts and their hearing, and over their
eyes is a veil; [7] and awesome suffering awaits them.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2:8 And there are people who say, "We do believe in God and the Last
Day," the while they do not [really]. believe.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2:9 They would deceive God and those who have attained to faith-the
while they deceive none but themselves, and perceive it not.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2:10 In their hearts is disease, and so God lets their disease
increase; and grievous suffering awaits them because of their
persistent lying. [8]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2:11 And when they are told, "Do not spread corruption on earth," they
answer, "We are but improving things!"
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2:12 Oh, verily, it is they, they who are spreading corruption but
they perceive it not? [9]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2:13 And when they are told, "Believe as other people believe," they
answer, "Shall we believe as the weak-minded believe?" Oh, verily, it
is they, they who are weak-minded -but they know it not!
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2:14 And when they meet those who have attained to faith, they assert,
"We believe [as you believe]"; but when they find themselves alone
with their- evil impulses, [10] they say, "Verily, we are with you; we
were only mocking!"
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2:15 God will requite them for their mockery, [11] and will leave them
for a while in their overweening arrogance, blindly stumbling to and
fro:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2:16 [for] it is they who have taken error in exchange for guidance;
and neither has their bargain brought them gain, nor have they found
guidance [elsewhere].
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2:17 Their parable is that of people who kindle a fire: but as soon as
it has illumined all around them, God takes away their light and
leaves them in utter darkness, wherein they cannot see:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2:18 Deaf, dumb, blind - and they cannot turn back.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2:19 Or [the parable] of a violent cloudburst in the sky, with utter
darkness, thunder and lightning: they put their fingers into their
ears to keep out the peals of thunder, in terror of death; but God
encompasses [with His might] all who deny the truth.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2:20 The lightning well-nigh takes away their sight; whenever it gives
them light, they advance therein, and whenever darkness falls around
them, they stand still. And if God so willed, He could indeed take
away their hearing and their sight: [12] for, verily, God has the
power to will anything.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2:21 O MANKIND! Worship your Sustainer, who has created you and those
who lived before you, so that you might remain conscious of Him
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2:22 who has made the earth a resting-place for you and the sky a
canopy, and has sent down water from the sky and thereby brought forth
fruits for your sustenance: do not, then, claim that there is any
power that could rival God, [13] when you know [that He is One].
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2:23 And if you doubt any part of what We have, bestowed from on high,
step by step, upon Our servant [Muhammad], [14] then produce a surah
of similar merit, and call upon any other than God to bear witness for
you [15] -if what you say is true!
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2:24 And if you cannot do it-and most certainly you cannot do it-then
be conscious of the fire whose fuel is human beings and stones [16]
which awaits all who deny the truth!
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2:25 But unto those who have attained to faith and do good works give
the glad tiding that theirs shall be gardens through which running
waters flow. Whenever they are granted fruits there from as their
appointed sustenance, they will say, "It is this that in days of yore
was granted to us as our sustenance!"-for they shall be given
something that will recall that [past]. [17] And there shall they have
spouses pure, and there shall they abide.
To know more kindly visit:
http://www.islamicity.com/QuranSearch/
Cheers
John Fraser
"Steve Hayes" <haye...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:47ele4dqc14o5p3k1...@4ax.com...
> On Mon, 6 Oct 2008 15:59:36 -0300, "John Fraser" <jfr...@ns.sympatico.ca>
> wrote:
>
>>"Steve Hayes" <haye...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>
>>> The point is that Allah is the name of God in CHRISTIAN Bibles.
>>
>> I found this statement on a website which lends limited support to
>> your
>>claim: Allah is the personal name of God in Aramaic, the language of Jesus
>>and a sister language of Arabic. But, it would not be found in the Hebrew
>>and Greek languages.
>
> The point is that the statement that "Allah is not the God of the Bible",
> is a
> calculated insult to Arabic-speaking Christians.
>
> The disingenuous titles of the articles that were posted are calculated to
> do
> just that.
>
> It is quite subtle racist propaganda, and has clearly deceived many.
I know that modern Arabs (Christian or Muslim) use the term Allah.
Personally, I don't have a problem with it. Others may because Allah
doesn't stand out in English language Bibles translated from either Hebrew
or Greek.
Cheers,
John
John Galt
> On Tue, 07 Oct 2008 08:19:30 +0200, John Galt <kad...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Steve Hayes wrote:
>>> On Tue, 07 Oct 2008 07:24:12 +0200, John Galt <kad...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Steve Hayes wrote:
>>>>> The point is that the statement that "Allah is not the God of the Bible", is a
>>>>> calculated insult to Arabic-speaking Christians.
>>>> Is it? My in-laws are "over there", and they would agree with the idea
>>>> that the god described as "Allah" in the Quran could not possibly be the
>>>> same God described as "Allah" in the Bible, that their characteristics
>>>> were too different. I don't know if that's common reasoning "over
>>>> there", but it's certainly their reasoning.
>>> So would your in-laws agree that Allah is not the God of the Bible?
>> Careful here. That question isn't germane as phrased. It oversimplifies
>> the matter.
>
> Ah, but that is precisely why it is germane as phrased.
>
> See the subject line, and what I wrote originally.
I don't get it.
>
>
>> The assertion of my in-laws would be that if you look at the attributes,
>> characteristics, and behaviors of God as described by the Quran, they
>> are very different from the attributes, characteristics, and behaviors
>> of God as described by the Bible. Further, they would remind us that the
>> label "Allah" in Arabic and Syriac just means "God".
>
> So the question then comes down to "Is God the God of the Bible?"
>
> "The Christian usage of Allah predates Islam. Allah is the name of God
> in the old Arabic Bible as well as in the modern Arabic Bible," he
> said, adding Allah was widely used by Christians in Egypt, Lebanon,
> Iraq, Indonesia and other parts of the world without problem.
>
> http://www.iht.com/articles/ap/2007/12/27/asia/AS-REL-Malaysia-Allah-Ban.php
>
>> So, they (well, my FIL, who holds a theological degree) would say that
>> the same label is being used to refer to two different beings, one who
>> is the creator-God, and the other which is some other sort of spiritual
>> creature, perhaps a demon of some sort.
>
> So, with his theological degree, would he disagree with the following
> statement?
>
> "The Christian usage of Allah predates Islam. Allah is the name of God
> in the old Arabic Bible as well as in the modern Arabic Bible," he
> said, adding Allah was widely used by Christians in Egypt, Lebanon,
> Iraq, Indonesia and other parts of the world without problem.
That's simply fact.
>
> http://www.iht.com/articles/ap/2007/12/27/asia/AS-REL-Malaysia-Allah-Ban.php
>
>
>>> Would they agree that Arabic Bibles that use Allah are the name of God are bad
>>> translations?
>> See above. Whether or not they are bad translations is not germane to
>> the point.
>
> It is PRECISELY germane to the point. In fact it IS the point.
>
> See above.
>
> If, as has been alleged by some, Allah is not the God of the Bible, then
> translations of the Bible into Arabic, or Malay, or other languages that use
> the name "Allah" for God must be in error, or else they must be saying that
> (with the Malaysian government) the Arabic language language may not be used
> by Christians to speak of or pray to Go.
>
>> If you want to refer to your dog as "cat", that is within
>> your ability to do; it is not correct to do so, but it is within your
>> ability and your perogative. Likewise, the Muslims can call their god
>> "Allah" all they want, but if (hypothetically speaking, and for example)
>> they are really referring to the entity named in the Bible as "Baal",
>> they are not correct in doing so.
>
> That is not germane to the point.
OK, then obviously we're talking past each other.
JG
John Galt
> Dear John Galt.
>
> Only those whose heart are clean and sincere will be save.
Obviously. Which comes first?
JG
AGGreen
> On Mon, 6 Oct 2008 23:26:02 -0400, "AGGreen" <agg...@nomorespam.org>
> wrote:
>
>>***Racist? Bullpoop. It's the theology behind the Islamic "Allah" that
>>makes
>>it different from the Christian God of the Holy Trinity. I'm surprised
>>that
>>you, as an Orthodox Christian, doesn't get it.
>
> I'm really surprised at your failure to realise that round things roll and
> that elastic streches.
***Which has nothing to do with the question at hand. The Christian
Trinitarian is the One God and the ONLY God. The Islamic god is different
and thus not the One True God. A true Orthodox Christian, as you purport to
be, understands this.
AGGreen
"John Galt" <kad...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:ZnCGk.109732$ZM7....@en-nntp-08.am2.easynews.com...
> Steve Hayes wrote:
>> On Mon, 6 Oct 2008 15:59:36 -0300, "John Fraser"
>> <jfr...@ns.sympatico.ca>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> "Steve Hayes" <haye...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>>
>>>> The point is that Allah is the name of God in CHRISTIAN Bibles.
>>> I found this statement on a website which lends limited support to
>>> your claim: Allah is the personal name of God in Aramaic, the language
>>> of Jesus and a sister language of Arabic. But, it would not be found in
>>> the Hebrew and Greek languages.
>>
>> The point is that the statement that "Allah is not the God of the Bible",
>> is a
>> calculated insult to Arabic-speaking Christians.
>
> Is it? My in-laws are "over there", and they would agree with the idea
> that the god described as "Allah" in the Quran could not possibly be the
> same God described as "Allah" in the Bible, that their characteristics
> were too different. I don't know if that's common reasoning "over there",
> but it's certainly their reasoning.
>
> JG
***It goes beyond characteristics. It goes to theological concept. The
Islamic "allah" is not Trinitarian.
AGGreen
> On Tue, 07 Oct 2008 07:24:12 +0200, John Galt <kad...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>Steve Hayes wrote:
>>> The point is that the statement that "Allah is not the God of the
>>> Bible", is a
>>> calculated insult to Arabic-speaking Christians.
>>
>>Is it? My in-laws are "over there", and they would agree with the idea
>>that the god described as "Allah" in the Quran could not possibly be the
>>same God described as "Allah" in the Bible, that their characteristics
>>were too different. I don't know if that's common reasoning "over
>>there", but it's certainly their reasoning.
>
> So would your in-laws agree that Allah is not the God of the Bible?
>
> Would they agree that Arabic Bibles that use Allah are the name of God are
> bad
> translations?
>
> Would they agree with the action of the Malaysian government in trying to
> ban
> the use of Allah as the name of God by Christians?
***How is it that a purported Orthodox christian could even possibly argue
that the name "allah" is the only criteria? The islamic "allah" is NOT
Trinitarian. End of argument.
AGGreen
"ARAH" <arah...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:52657483-94ec-4534...@d31g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
Dear John Galt.
Only those whose heart are clean and sincere will be save.
***Au contrare! Only those who believe on the Lord Jesus Christ will be
saved!
AGGreen
> On Mon, 6 Oct 2008 23:28:16 -0400, "AGGreen" <agg...@nomorespam.org>
> wrote:
>
>>
>>"Steve Hayes" <haye...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>>news:npfle4961fqg7kbns...@4ax.com...
>>> On Mon, 6 Oct 2008 15:01:21 -0400, "AGGreen" <agg...@nomorespam.org>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>>***Allah of Islam is not the Holy Trinity of Christianity.
>>>
>>> But, in spite of what you say, elastic DOES stretch, and round things DO
>>> roll.
>>
>>
>>***All of which doesn't make the Islamic "Allah" the Christian "Allah."
>>You're the "alt.idiot", Steve.
>
> All of which does not mean that elastic does not stretch and that round
> things
> do not roll.
***What kind of lame argument is THAT?? How is your statement germane?
***BTW, the Idiot South African, when he responds to me, tries to thwart my
response by changing the names of the NGs this thread is going to to
"alt.idiots." I guess Steve really doesn't have a valid argument.
Steve Hayes
>***How is it that a purported Orthodox christian could even possibly argue
>that the name "allah" is the only criteria? The islamic "allah" is NOT
>Trinitarian. End of argument.
No matter how much you may deny it, elastic stretches and round things roll.
Steve Hayes
>***It goes beyond characteristics. It goes to theological concept. The
>Islamic "allah" is not Trinitarian.
No matter how much you may deny it, elastic stretches and round things roll.
Steve Hayes
wrote:
> I know that modern Arabs (Christian or Muslim) use the term Allah.
>Personally, I don't have a problem with it. Others may because Allah
>doesn't stand out in English language Bibles translated from either Hebrew
>or Greek.
Is it just Americans who fail to grasp that point, or are there people in
other parts of the world who also fail to get it.
"God" is the English name for God, so you will find it in English Bibles.
"Allah" is the Arabic name of God, so you will find it in Arabic Bibles.
If you look at an Arabic Bible you will see that Allah is the God of the
Bible.
"The Christian usage of Allah predates Islam. Allah is the name of God
in the old Arabic Bible as well as in the modern Arabic Bible," he
said, adding Allah was widely used by Christians in Egypt, Lebanon,
Iraq, Indonesia and other parts of the world without problem.
http://www.iht.com/articles/ap/2007/12/27/asia/AS-REL-Malaysia-Allah-Ban.php
AGGreen
> On Tue, 7 Oct 2008 08:15:31 -0400, "AGGreen" <agg...@nomorespam.org>
> wrote:
>
>>***How is it that a purported Orthodox christian could even possibly argue
>>that the name "allah" is the only criteria? The islamic "allah" is NOT
>>Trinitarian. End of argument.
>
> No matter how much you may deny it, elastic stretches and round things
> roll.
***That you keep repeating this mantra tells all that your original argument
was and is lame. The Islamic "Allah" is not the Christian "Allah." Deal with
it.
Steve Hayes
>Steve Hayes wrote:
>> On Tue, 07 Oct 2008 08:19:30 +0200, John Galt <kad...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Steve Hayes wrote:
>>>> On Tue, 07 Oct 2008 07:24:12 +0200, John Galt <kad...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Steve Hayes wrote:
>>>>>> The point is that the statement that "Allah is not the God of the Bible", is a
>>>>>> calculated insult to Arabic-speaking Christians.
>>>>> Is it? My in-laws are "over there", and they would agree with the idea
>>>>> that the god described as "Allah" in the Quran could not possibly be the
>>>>> same God described as "Allah" in the Bible, that their characteristics
>>>>> were too different. I don't know if that's common reasoning "over
>>>>> there", but it's certainly their reasoning.
>>>> So would your in-laws agree that Allah is not the God of the Bible?
>>> Careful here. That question isn't germane as phrased. It oversimplifies
>>> the matter.
>>
>> Ah, but that is precisely why it is germane as phrased.
>>
>> See the subject line, and what I wrote originally.
>
>I don't get it.
So it would appear.
>> "The Christian usage of Allah predates Islam. Allah is the name of God
>> in the old Arabic Bible as well as in the modern Arabic Bible," he
>> said, adding Allah was widely used by Christians in Egypt, Lebanon,
>> Iraq, Indonesia and other parts of the world without problem.
>
>That's simply fact.
Well, if you know that much, why do you say that you don't get it?
>> It is PRECISELY germane to the point. In fact it IS the point.
>>
>> See above.
>>
>> If, as has been alleged by some, Allah is not the God of the Bible, then
>> translations of the Bible into Arabic, or Malay, or other languages that use
>> the name "Allah" for God must be in error, or else they must be saying that
>> (with the Malaysian government) the Arabic language language may not be used
>> by Christians to speak of or pray to Go.
>>
>>> If you want to refer to your dog as "cat", that is within
>>> your ability to do; it is not correct to do so, but it is within your
>>> ability and your perogative. Likewise, the Muslims can call their god
>>> "Allah" all they want, but if (hypothetically speaking, and for example)
>>> they are really referring to the entity named in the Bible as "Baal",
>>> they are not correct in doing so.
>>
>> That is not germane to the point.
>
>OK, then obviously we're talking past each other.
So it would seem.
How then do we get onto the same page?
John Galt
> On Tue, 07 Oct 2008 13:24:17 +0200, John Galt <kad...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Steve Hayes wrote:
>>> On Tue, 07 Oct 2008 08:19:30 +0200, John Galt <kad...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Steve Hayes wrote:
>>>>> On Tue, 07 Oct 2008 07:24:12 +0200, John Galt <kad...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Steve Hayes wrote:
>>>>>>> The point is that the statement that "Allah is not the God of the Bible", is a
>>>>>>> calculated insult to Arabic-speaking Christians.
>>>>>> Is it? My in-laws are "over there", and they would agree with the idea
>>>>>> that the god described as "Allah" in the Quran could not possibly be the
>>>>>> same God described as "Allah" in the Bible, that their characteristics
>>>>>> were too different. I don't know if that's common reasoning "over
>>>>>> there", but it's certainly their reasoning.
>>>>> So would your in-laws agree that Allah is not the God of the Bible?
>>>> Careful here. That question isn't germane as phrased. It oversimplifies
>>>> the matter.
>>> Ah, but that is precisely why it is germane as phrased.
>>>
>>> See the subject line, and what I wrote originally.
>> I don't get it.
>
> So it would appear.
So explain it better.
>
>
>
>>> "The Christian usage of Allah predates Islam. Allah is the name of God
>>> in the old Arabic Bible as well as in the modern Arabic Bible," he
>>> said, adding Allah was widely used by Christians in Egypt, Lebanon,
>>> Iraq, Indonesia and other parts of the world without problem.
>> That's simply fact.
>
> Well, if you know that much, why do you say that you don't get it?
Are you talking about semantics or theology?
>
>>> It is PRECISELY germane to the point. In fact it IS the point.
>>>
>>> See above.
>>>
>>> If, as has been alleged by some, Allah is not the God of the Bible, then
>>> translations of the Bible into Arabic, or Malay, or other languages that use
>>> the name "Allah" for God must be in error, or else they must be saying that
>>> (with the Malaysian government) the Arabic language language may not be used
>>> by Christians to speak of or pray to Go.
>>>
>>>> If you want to refer to your dog as "cat", that is within
>>>> your ability to do; it is not correct to do so, but it is within your
>>>> ability and your perogative. Likewise, the Muslims can call their god
>>>> "Allah" all they want, but if (hypothetically speaking, and for example)
>>>> they are really referring to the entity named in the Bible as "Baal",
>>>> they are not correct in doing so.
>>> That is not germane to the point.
>> OK, then obviously we're talking past each other.
>
> So it would seem.
>
> How then do we get onto the same page?
See above.
JG
>
>
AGGreen
between the Islamic "Allah" and the Christian "Allah." I think he realizes
that when "Allah" is mentioned, the first thing people think of is Islam.
Disingenuous, to say the least.
Al
"John Galt" <kad...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:M0KGk.1494$_o1...@en-nntp-02.am2.easynews.com...
Steve Hayes
>Steve Hayes wrote:
>> On Tue, 07 Oct 2008 13:24:17 +0200, John Galt <kad...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Steve Hayes wrote:
>>>> On Tue, 07 Oct 2008 08:19:30 +0200, John Galt <kad...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Steve Hayes wrote:
>>>>>> On Tue, 07 Oct 2008 07:24:12 +0200, John Galt <kad...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Steve Hayes wrote:
>>>>>>>> The point is that the statement that "Allah is not the God of the Bible", is a
>>>>>>>> calculated insult to Arabic-speaking Christians.
>>>>>>> Is it? My in-laws are "over there", and they would agree with the idea
>>>>>>> that the god described as "Allah" in the Quran could not possibly be the
>>>>>>> same God described as "Allah" in the Bible, that their characteristics
>>>>>>> were too different. I don't know if that's common reasoning "over
>>>>>>> there", but it's certainly their reasoning.
>>>>>> So would your in-laws agree that Allah is not the God of the Bible?
>>>>> Careful here. That question isn't germane as phrased. It oversimplifies
>>>>> the matter.
>>>> Ah, but that is precisely why it is germane as phrased.
>>>>
>>>> See the subject line, and what I wrote originally.
>>> I don't get it.
>>
>> So it would appear.
>
>So explain it better.
Why did you say you think it "oversimplifies the matter"?
Because that is The basis of my original complaint -- that it oversimplifies
the matter.
So if you can explain why you think it oversimplifies the matter, pderhaps we
might find some common ground.
>>>> "The Christian usage of Allah predates Islam. Allah is the name of God
>>>> in the old Arabic Bible as well as in the modern Arabic Bible," he
>>>> said, adding Allah was widely used by Christians in Egypt, Lebanon,
>>>> Iraq, Indonesia and other parts of the world without problem.
>>> That's simply fact.
>>
>> Well, if you know that much, why do you say that you don't get it?
>
>Are you talking about semantics or theology?
Semantics mostly.
Orthodox Christyians in places like Syria, Lebanon and Egypt, who use Arabic
in the scriptures and the Divine Liturgy, use the word "Allah" for God. I
don't think their theology differs from those inj Greece who speak of O Theos,
those in Russia or Bulgaria who speak of Bog, those in Albania who speak of
Perendi or those in English-speaking countries who speak of God.
The words may differ, but the theology is the same.
So it is a semantic point rather than a theological one.
AGGreen
> Orthodox Christyians in places like Syria, Lebanon and Egypt, who use
> Arabic
> in the scriptures and the Divine Liturgy, use the word "Allah" for God. I
> don't think their theology differs from those inj Greece who speak of O
> Theos,
> those in Russia or Bulgaria who speak of Bog, those in Albania who speak
> of
> Perendi or those in English-speaking countries who speak of God.
>
> The words may differ, but the theology is the same.
>
> So it is a semantic point rather than a theological one.
***Since the concept of the Islamic "Allah" and the Christian "Allah" are so
different, it is NOT a question of semantics. It is, definately,
theological. Almost all Orthodox Christians understand this. Geesh!
John Galt
OK, that's where we started talking past one another.
JG
John Fraser
"Steve Hayes" <haye...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:ghnme4h4hpa2fce8k...@4ax.com...
> On Tue, 7 Oct 2008 08:13:51 -0300, "John Fraser" <jfr...@ns.sympatico.ca>
> wrote:
>
>> I know that modern Arabs (Christian or Muslim) use the term Allah.
>>Personally, I don't have a problem with it. Others may because Allah
>>doesn't stand out in English language Bibles translated from either Hebrew
>>or Greek.
>
> Is it just Americans who fail to grasp that point, or are there people in
> other parts of the world who also fail to get it.
>
> "God" is the English name for God, so you will find it in English Bibles.
> "Allah" is the Arabic name of God, so you will find it in Arabic Bibles.
>
> If you look at an Arabic Bible you will see that Allah is the God of the
> Bible.
>
> "The Christian usage of Allah predates Islam. Allah is the name of God
> in the old Arabic Bible as well as in the modern Arabic Bible," he
> said, adding Allah was widely used by Christians in Egypt, Lebanon,
> Iraq, Indonesia and other parts of the world without problem.
>
> http://www.iht.com/articles/ap/2007/12/27/asia/AS-REL-Malaysia-Allah-Ban.php
Unfortunately, Allah, like the word gay, is becoming distorted into a
different context. Therein lies the dilemna as the word Allah to those of
non-Arabic speaking nations is not associated in the same context with Jesus
as the word Jehovah is.
Cheers,
John
Steve Hayes
wrote:
And that is precisely the kind of distortion and misunderstanding that I am
seeking to overcome, and which is exacerbated by the kind of misleading
article titles I have been referring to.
AGGreen
***Yet, you refuse to admit that the Islamic "Allah:" is NOT the same as the
Christian Trinitarian "Allah."
John Fraser
"Steve Hayes" <haye...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:ov2ne4teh5o5c7cgj...@4ax.com...
Unfortunately, Aramaic is all but dead. The Aramaic used in the movie,
The Passion of the Christ, was the Ancient dialect because that was the
familiarity of the scholar who contributed the transcription. Jesus
supposedly spoke a different dialect. To those of us unfamiliar with the
lingo, we wouldn't know the difference. Regardless of whether one uses
Allah or Jehovah, the determinative topic is Jesus.
Cheers,
John
Steve Hayes
wrote:
I'm not suggesting that we should try and worship in Aramaic.
The events on the day of Pentecost as describes in Acts 2 tells us that each
heard of the mighty works of God in their own tongues and Acts 2:11 tels us
that among those who did so were Cretans and ARABIANS.
The English weren't mentioned!
There have been people who have sought to restrict the languages used for
worship to those used by Pilate for the inscription on the cross -- Hebrew,
Greek and Latin (which is why the Roman Catholic Church used Latin for many
centuries) but there is scriptural warrant for using Arabic (in the verse I
cited) and I see no reason why English should be excluded either.
Steve Hayes
>Steve Hayes wrote:
>>> Are you talking about semantics or theology?
>>
>> Semantics mostly.
>
>OK, that's where we started talking past one another.
What's that supposed to mean?
John Galt
> On Tue, 07 Oct 2008 17:52:20 +0200, John Galt <kad...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Steve Hayes wrote:
>>>> Are you talking about semantics or theology?
>>> Semantics mostly.
>> OK, that's where we started talking past one another.
>
> What's that supposed to mean?
What it says.
If you're having a discussion on grammar, quite obviously the Arabic
word for "God" is "Allah". Muslims and Christians both use it to refer
to the deity they worship.
The theological question of whether or not the deity they worship is the
*same* deity, or two entirely different deities, is another matter.
JG
Steve Hayes
So it is.
And the question is whether you can use a theological argument to draw a
semantic conclusion, as the articles under discussion tried to do.
AGGreen
> On Wed, 08 Oct 2008 09:29:33 +0200, John Galt <kad...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>Steve Hayes wrote:
>>> On Tue, 07 Oct 2008 17:52:20 +0200, John Galt <kad...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Steve Hayes wrote:
>>>>>> Are you talking about semantics or theology?
>>>>> Semantics mostly.
>>>> OK, that's where we started talking past one another.
>>>
>>> What's that supposed to mean?
>>
>>What it says.
>>
>>If you're having a discussion on grammar, quite obviously the Arabic
>>word for "God" is "Allah". Muslims and Christians both use it to refer
>>to the deity they worship.
>>
>>The theological question of whether or not the deity they worship is the
>>*same* deity, or two entirely different deities, is another matter.
>
> So it is.
***I pointed this out to you two days ago! LOL!
>
> And the question is whether you can use a theological argument to draw a
> semantic conclusion, as the articles under discussion tried to do.
***As Orthodox Christians the answer is undeniably "yes."
Steve Hayes
<Digim...@starpower.net> wrote:
>That is strange since the term "Allah" is NEVER uttered by Christ,
>neither in Aramaic nor in Hebrew. Even on the Cross he called The
>Father Eli (My God) in Hebrew or Elahi (Aramaic). Allah is NOT the
>same. In fact, they are mutually exclusive. Muslims say the Koran is
>from their Allah. Well, our OT and NT are NOT the same in theology as
>the Koran is, so the same "God" could NOT have authored both.
The same could be said of the term "God". It was never uttered by Christ.
More at:
http://www.abc.net.au/rn/linguafranca/stories/2008/2356581.htm
Digim...@starpower.net
has nothing to do with the Muslim "Allah". Nice try...
bob young
Carl wrote:
> In the following article, Sam Shamoun explains many areas which shows that
> the "Allah" of Islam is not the one true God (Yahweh, El Shaddai, Adonai,
> etc.) of the Bible.
>
> May God bless,
> Carl
> my website -- http://www.nettally.com/saints/
> my blog -- http://www.anniemayhem.com/cgi-bin/wordpress/
>
> ---
>
> IS ALLAH THE GOD OF THE BIBLE?
NO - there are no gods
other than those dreamed up by insecure humans
Bob
Humanist, atheist, realist, sentimentalist, Brit.
Member of S.M.A.S.H.
(Sarcastic Middle-aged Atheists with a Sense of Humor)
Man creates his gods in his own image;
and then spends the rest of his life
manipulating them to his heart's content.
>
> by Sam Shamoun
>
> This study examines the crucial question that needs to be addressed which is
> whether the God presented in the Quran is indeed the same God revealed in
> the Holy Bible. The Quran alleges that the God of Islam, Allah, is indeed
> the God of Abraham and hence the God of Scripture, Yahweh Elohim. But is
> this the case?
>
> Are we to assume that just because the Quran states that Allah is Yahweh of
> the Bible that both Jews and Christians are obligated to believe this to be
> true? Or do we examine the nature and attributes of Allah in order to
> compare them with the biblical portrait of Yahweh to find if this is the
> case?
>
> This process of examination is essential since our objective is to discover
> the true nature of God, a process whose outcome entails eternal consequences
> in regards to man's future destiny in the afterlife. After all, if Allah is
> the God of Abraham then Jews and Christians are wrong for not embracing
> Islam. But if Allah is not Yahweh, then Muslims are not worshiping the same
> God only with a different name.
>
> We will examine certain qualities of Allah as stated in the Quran and
> briefly compare them to Yahweh and see where the evidence leads us. The
> reason why we are comparing Allah to Yahweh as opposed to contrasting Yahweh
> to the quranic portrait of Allah, using the Quran as the standard, is due to
> the fact that it is Islam that claims to worship the same God of the Holy
> Bible. Thus, the burden of proof rests upon the Muslims to defend this
> contention since they believe Allah is the same as Yahweh.
>
> AUTHOR OF EVIL
>
> The Holy Bible teaches that God cannot be tempted by evil and neither tempts
> anyone with evil; evil being understood as referring to immorality and sin.
> James 1:13 (c.f. Psalm 5:4-5; Habakkuk 1:13)
>
> Yet, the Quran teaches that Allah is the author of evil:
>
> Verily, the hypocrites seek to deceive Allah, but it is He Who deceives
> them. And when they stand up for As-Salat (the prayer), they stand with
> laziness and to be seen of men, and they do not remember Allah but little.
> S. 4:142 Hilali-Khan
> And (the unbelievers) schemed and planned, and Allah schemed also, and the
> best of schemers is Allah. S. 3:54
>
> Are they then secure from Allah's scheme (makra Allahi)? None deemeth
> himself secure from Allah's scheme (makra Allahi) save folk that perish. S.
> 7:99 Pickthall
>
> Remember how the unbelievers schemed against thee, to keep thee in bonds, or
> to slay thee, or get thee out (of thy home). They scheme and plot, but the
> best of schemers is Allah. S. 8:30
>
> And when We make people taste of mercy after an affliction touches them, lo!
> they devise schemes (makrun) against Our communication. Say: Allah is
> quicker to scheme (makran); surely Our apostles write down what you plan. S.
> 10:21
>
> And those before them did indeed scheme (makara), but all scheming
> (al-makru) is Allah's; He knows what every soul earns, and the unbelievers
> shall come to know for whom is the (better) issue of the abode. S. 13:42
>
> So they schemed a scheme: and We schemed a scheme, while they perceived not.
> S. 27:50
>
> The term for scheme in Arabic is makara which denotes one who is a deceiver,
> one who is conniving, a schemer. It is always used in a negative sense.
> Allah is thus seen as the best of deceivers, the premiere schemer and
> conniving one.
>
> This is not simply a Christian perspective but one thoroughly endorsed by
> Muslim theologians as well.
>
> For example Dr. Mahmoud M. Ayoub in his book, The Quran and Its
> Interpreters, Vol. II The House of Imran, brings up the question of "how the
> word makr (scheming or plotting), which implies deceitfulness or dishonesty,
> could be attributed to God." (Ibid. [1992 State University of New York
> Press, Albany], p. 165)
>
> After listing several Muslim sources he quotes ar-Razi as arguing that
> "scheming (makr) is actually an act of deception aiming at causing evil. It
> is not possible to attribute deception to God. Thus the word is one of the
> muttashabihat [multivalent words of the Quran]." (Ibid., p. 166)
>
> Moreover, here is how one of the earliest sources on the life of Muhammad
> interpreted Q. 8:30:
>
> Then he reminds the apostle of His favour towards him when the people
> plotted against him 'to kill him, or to wound him, or to drive him out; and
> they plotted and God plotted, and is the best of plotters.' i.e. I DECEIVED
> them with My firm GUILE so that I delivered you from them. (The Life of
> Muhammad: A Translation of Ibn Ishaq's Sirat Rasul Allah, with introduction
> and notes by Alfred Guillaume [Oxford University Press, Karachi, Tenth
> impression 1995], p. 323; capital emphasis ours)
>
> In fact the Quran furnishes plenty of examples on some of the methods Allah
> adopts in devising evil:
>
> Remember in thy dream Allah showed them as a few: if he had showed them to
> thee as many, ye would surely have been discouraged, and ye would surely
> have disputed in your decision: but Allah saved you: for He knoweth well the
> (secrets) of (all) hearts. S. 8:43
> Allah is said to have shown the opposing fighting forces as few to Muhammad
> since if he had shown them as they actually were, the Muslims would have
> been afraid to fight. Hence, Allah had to use deception in order to
> encourage the Muslims to fight in his cause.
>
> And when We desire to destroy a city, We command its men who live at ease,
> and they commit ungodliness therein, then the Word is realized against it,
> and We destroy it utterly. S. 17:16
>
> Allah commands men to sin in order to destroy them completely.
>
> They (Jinns- demon spirits) worked for him (Solomon) as he desired ... then
> when We decreed death upon him, nothing showed them his death except a
> little creeping creature of the earth, which gnawed away at his staff. And
> when he fell the Jinns saw clearly how, if they had known the unseen, they
> would not have continued in the humiliating penalty (of work). S. 34:13-14
> Allah deceived the Jinns into working for Solomon by preventing the latter's
> death from being disclosed to them, otherwise they would have stopped their
> work.
>
> Allah also deceived both Christians and Jews into thinking that Jesus was
> crucified when in fact "it was so made to appear unto them", seeing that he
> never was crucified or killed. S. 4:157
>
> According to S. 9:51, nothing befalls Muslims except what Allah has
> ordained. And in S. 14:4, we are told,
>
> "Allah leads astray whomsoever He will and guides whomsoever he will."
> And,
>
> "Whomsoever Allah guides, he is the one who follows the right way; and
> whomsoever He causes to err, these are the losers. And certainly We have
> created for hell many of the jinn and the men; ... Whomsoever Allah causes
> to err, there is no guide for him; and He leaves them alone in their
> inordinacy, blindly wandering on." S. 7:178-179, 186
> "If thy Lord had so willed, He could have made mankind one People: but they
> will not cease to differ. Except those on whom thy Lord hath bestowed His
> Mercy: and for this did He create them: and the Word of thy Lord shall be
> fulfilled: 'I will fill Hell with Jinns and men all together.'" S.
> 11:118-119
>
> Not only does Allah guide people astray, but also has created men
> specifically for hell. To make matters worse, he even ordains the evil one
> commits as we have already seen in S. 17:16 and further clarified by this
> Muslim tradition:
>
> Abu Huraira reported Allah's Apostle as saying:
> Verily Allah has fixed the very portion of adultery which a man will indulge
> in, and which he of necessity must commit (or there would be no escape from
> it)." Sahih Muslim #6421, 6422
>
> To even imagine that Allah causes adultery is not only horrendous but
> disqualifies him from being the God of Moses.
>
> A keen reader might raise the objection that the Bible itself indicates in
> several places that God had intended to do evil to certain nations and
> individuals such as Absalom in 2 Samuel 17:14. Or that Jeremiah had been
> deceived by God in Jeremiah 20:7:
>
> "O LORD, thou hast deceived me and I was deceived." King James Version
> Firstly, in regards to 2 Sam. 17:14 as we had noted earlier God does not
> tempt anyone with moral evil in the form of sin but brings upon man calamity
> as a consequence of their sins. In fact, the term which the King James
> translates as evil is the Hebrew ra. Accordingly, some Hebrew scholars see
> it as being derived from the word ra'a which means to "break, smash, crush."
> (Vine's Complete Expository Dictionary of Old and New Testaments, p. 232)
>
> Strong's Exhaustive Concordance of the Bible gives various meanings some of
> which include adversity, affliction, calamity, distress, evil, grief (#7451
> of the Hebrew Dictionary Section).
>
> Thus, the evil God poured out upon these individuals was not immorality like
> that of the Quran but judgement upon the wicked due to their persistence in
> sin and a refusal to come into repentance.
>
> The Hebrew term for deceive used in Jeremiah 20:7 is pathath. Strong's lists
> it as #6601 in the Hebrew section with the following meanings; allure,
> enlarge, entice, deceive, flatter, persuade, silly. In light of the wide
> range of meanings, there is no reason to assume that Jeremiah meant that God
> was actually deceiving him.
>
> In fact the context itself shows that the word can only mean "persuade"
> since Jeremiah is complaining that God is persuading him to continue his
> ministry, even though he doesn't want to:
>
> "O LORD, You induced me, and I was persuaded;
> YOU ARE STRONGER THAN I, AND HAVE PREVAILED.
> I am in derision daily;
> Everyone mocks me.
> For when I spoke, I cried out;
> I shouted, 'Violence and plunder!'
> Because the word of the LORD was made to me
> A reproach and a derision daily.
> Then I said, 'I will not make mention of Him,
> Nor speak anymore in His name.'
> But His word was in my heart like a burning fire
> Shut up in my bones;
> I was weary of holding it back,
> And I could not." Jeremiah 20:8-9 NKJV
> God was therefore insisting that Jeremiah continue and did so by constant
> persuasion. This passage has nothing to do with deception whatsoever.
>
> Another possible objection would be the King James rendering of Ezekiel
> 20:25 where God says to Israel that he "gave them also statutes that were
> not good, and judgements whereby they should not live." This strongly
> suggests that God is the author of evil.
>
> The context of the passage is referring to Israel's reluctance in observing
> God's holy commands, which prompted God to hand them over to their own
> desires (all of chapter 20).
>
> Scripture clearly teaches that when God sees that a nation refuses to
> embrace the truth he has revealed, the Lord then hardens their hearts that
> they might continue in their wickedness. This is done that he might bring
> upon them the judgement that they deserve for their evil (c.f. Romans
> 1:18-32; 2 Thessalonians 2:9-12).
>
> Therefore, God does not give them unholy commands but allows them to embrace
> statutes which are evil. This is the meaning of the Hebrew text as
> accurately reflected in the New King James Version:
>
> "Therefore, I also gave them up to statutes that were not good, and
> judgements by which they could not live."
>
> Yet, the Arabic makara does not allow for other possible meanings. And the
> Quran itself gives examples of Allah using deception and sin to fulfill his
> will.
>
> AUTHOR OF ABROGATION
>
> According to the Quran Allah reveals a verse only to have it canceled out a
> short time later:
>
> None of Our revelations do We abrogate or cause to be forgotten but We
> substitute something better or similar- Knowest thou not that Allah has
> power over all things? S. 2:106
>
> When We substitute one revelation for another- and Allah knowest best what
> He reveals (in stages)- They say, "Thou art but a forger"; But most of them
> understand not. S. 16:101
>
> This leaves us with the difficulty of having a God who does not remain
> consistent and often changes his revealed purpose. This being the case, how
> is one to know that the promises of such a Being in regards to eternal
> security can be trusted? Just as he changes his mind in relation to the
> revelation, he can also decide to change his mind in regards to the
> believer's ultimate destiny without anything stopping him from doing so.
>
> This is different from Yahweh of the Holy Bible who does not change and as
> such can be totally trusted in fulfilling all his promises:
>
> God is not a man that he should lie, nor a son of man that he should repent.
> Has he said, and will he not do? Or has he spoken, and will he not make it
> good? Numbers 23:19
> For I, Yahweh, do not change. Malachi 3:6
>
> If we are faithless, he remains faithful; he cannot deny himself. 2 Timothy
> 2:13
>
> Jesus Christ is the same yesterday, today, and forever. Hebrews 13:8
>
> Because the God of the Bible is immutable he can promise, "Heaven and earth
> will pass away but my words will never pass away" (Matthew 24:35).
>
> Two responses can possibly be presented and often are by Muslims. The first
> is the fact that abrogation is not referring to the Quran but to previous
> scriptures such as the Bible.
>
> Unfortunately for the Muslims making this argument, this interpretation
> cannot be defended in light of S. 87:6-8:
>
> By degrees shall We teach thee (Muhammad) to declare (the Message) so thou
> shalt not forget, except as Allah Wills: For He knoweth what is manifest and
> what is hidden. And We will make it easy for thee (to follow) the simple
> (Path).
> It becomes obvious that certain parts of the revelation given to Muhammad
> will eventually be caused to be forgotten, since Allah later willed it.
>
> The second response often presented is that the Bible clearly speaks of God
> regretting to create man or having repented of bringing on a certain
> disaster which he had planned to do. (c.f. Genesis 6:6; Exodus 32:14)
>
> There are basically two responses for this assumed Muslim allegation. First,
> both the Holy Bible and the Quran use anthropomorphic language in describing
> both the nature and acts of God. For instance, both books speak of God's
> eyes, hands and feet without implying that these things are to be taken
> literally. The purpose of using such language is to communicate certain
> incomprehensible truths of God in human language in order for man to grasp
> certain realities of the divine nature. Hence, statements such as God having
> regrets is used to communicate certain realities to man in relational terms,
> i.e. that God identifies with our human condition and grieves for man's
> fallen state, having compassion for him.
>
> Secondly, the reason for indicating that God refrained from fulfilling an
> act he had decreed is an indication of his divine patience. God does not
> desire to destroy the wicked but to save them, desiring that they come into
> repentance:
>
> Say to them: "As I live", says the Lord God, "I have no pleasure in the
> death of the wicked, but that the wicked turn from his way and live. Turn,
> turn from your evil ways! For why should you die, O house of Israel?"
> Ezekiel 33:11
> Likewise, if a nation which has been promised prosperity turns to
> wickedness, God will also refrain from fulfilling his promises of blessing.
> This is pointed out in Jeremiah 18:7-10:
>
> "The instant I speak concerning a nation and concerning a kingdom, to pluck
> up, to pull down, and to destroy it, if that nation against whom I have
> spoken turns from its evil, I will relent of the disaster I thought to bring
> upon it.
>
> "And the instant I speak concerning a nation and concerning a kingdom, to
> build and plant it, if it does evil in My sight, so that it does not obey My
> voice, then I will relent concerning the good with which I would benefit
> it."
>
> An example of this is seen in I Kings 21:29 where God had sworn to destroy
> Ahab for his wickedness, but decided against it:
>
> "See how Ahab has humbled himself before Me? Because he has humbled himself
> before Me, I will not bring the calamity in his days. In the days of his
> son, I will bring the calamity on his house."
>
> Or God deciding not to destroy Ninevah after seeing their sincere repentance
> and humbleness:
>
> "Then God saw their works, that they turned from their evil way; and God
> relented from the disaster that He had said He would bring upon them, and He
> did not do it." Jonah 3:10
>
> These examples indicate that certain warnings are given specifically to lead
> the person(s) into right standing with God, and are not given as a sign that
> the matter has been sealed and there is no averting the disaster.
>
> AUTHOR OF HISTORICAL ERRORS
>
> The Quran contains historical errors which implies that Allah is not an
> Omniscient Being, since an all-knowing Being would be able to accurately
> recall historical events. Below is a list of just some of the many problems
> we find in the Quran.
>
> In S. 17:1 we are told that Muhammad was taken to the farthest Mosque,
> Masjid al-Aqsa. The problem with this is that the Aqsa Mosque had not been
> erected since Abd al-Malik only built it in AD 691. It cannot be referring
> to the Temple in Jerusalem since that was destroyed by the armies of the
> Roman general Titus in AD 70.
>
> S. 18:9-26 alludes to several men and their dog who slept for approximately
> 309 years only to be awakened in perfect condition.
>
> According to S. 18:83-98, Alexander the Great called Zhul Qarnain, "the Two
> Horned One," was a Muslim who traveled till he found the Sun literally
> setting in a muddy spring. When we keep in mind that the title "the Two
> Horned One" was a title given to Alexander in pre-Islamic times, the Muslim
> attempts of trying to deny this fact utterly fails.
>
> According to S. 4:157 the unbelieving Jews boasted by saying, "We killed the
> Messiah Jesus the son of Mary, the apostle of Allah." The only problem with
> this is that the unbelieving Jews never admitted that Jesus was Messiah and
> would not have killed him if they had believed that he was their
> long-awaited Messianic Deliverer. The unbelieving Jews had Jesus killed
> because they believed he was a false Messiah:
>
> "And they began to accuse him, saying, 'We have found this man subverting
> our nation. He opposes payment of taxes to Caesar and CLAIMS to be Christ a
> king.'" Luke 23:2 NIV
>
> Christians are accused of worshiping Mary and Jesus as two gods apart from
> the true God:
>
> And behold! Allah will say: "O Jesus the son of Mary! Didst thou say unto
> men, Worship me and my mother ... " S. 5:116
>
> Christ the son of Mary was no more than an apostle- many were the apostles
> that passed away before him. His mother was a woman of truth. They had both
> to eat their (daily) food. See how Allah doth make His Signs clear to them
> ... S. 5:75
>
> In blasphemy indeed are those that say that Allah is Christ the son of Mary.
> Say: "Who then hath the least power against Allah, if His Will were to
> destroy Christ the son of Mary, his mother, and all - every one that is on
> the earth..." S. 5:17
>
> This presumes that since Mary ate food and could be destroyed by Allah she
> could not possibly be divine. This gives the misleading impression that
> Christians believe that she is more than simply human.
>
> In fact, the Quran proceeds to accuse Christians of worshiping three gods:
>
> "They do blaspheme who say: Allah is the third of three (inallaaha thaalithu
> thalaatha)" S. 5:73
>
> "... so believe in Allah and His apostles. Say not three (thalaatha):
> desist: It will be better for you: for Allah is one Allah ..." S. 4:171
>
> According to Muslim biographer Ibn Ishaq in his work, Sirat Rasulullah, a
> Christian deputation from Najran came to debate Muhammad on the person of
> Jesus. Accordingly, these Christians allegedly believed that Jesus, "is God;
> and He is the son of God; and He is the third Person of the Trinity, which
> is the doctrine of Christianity." (Alfred Guilliame trans., The Life of
> Muhammad [Oxford University Press, Karachi], p. 271)
>
> He goes on to say, "They argue that he is the third of three in that God
> says: We have done, We have commanded, We have created and We have decreed,
> and they say, If He were one He would have said I have done, I have created,
> and soon, but He is He and Jesus and Mary. Concerning all these assertions
> the Quran came down." (Ibid., pp. 271-272)
>
> The errors in the Quranic teaching on what Christians believe becomes
> apparent to anyone familiar with the basics of Christian doctrine. Firstly,
> Christians have never taken Mary as a goddess alongside God. Secondly,
> Christians have never said God is three or the third of three which is
> tritheism, three separate gods forming a unity; as opposed to Trinity, ONE
> God who exists in Three distinct yet inseparable Persons: Father, Son, and
> Holy Spirit.
>
> Thirdly, Christianity has never taught as part of its doctrine that Jesus is
> the third Person of the Trinity. Rather, he is the Second Person, with the
> Holy Spirit being the third Person of the Godhead. Matthew 28:19
>
> Fourthly, Muslims believe that Allah of the Quran is the same as God the
> Father of the Holy Bible since they do not believe in God the Son, Jesus
> Christ, nor in God the Holy Spirit who to Muslims is the angel Gabriel. This
> again causes a problem since if Allah is indeed the same Person as God the
> Father then the Quran is wrong in saying that Christians believe that the
> Father is the third of three. Christians teach that the Father is the First
> Person of the One True Godhead, not the third deity of three gods.
>
> And finally, Christians do not believe that Allah is the Messiah, or that
> God is the Messiah since this implies that Jesus is the entire Godhead,
> which would be modalism. The correct and biblical statement is that Jesus is
> God, since this suggests that although Jesus is fully God by nature he is
> not the only Person who shares the essence of Deity perfectly. The Bible
> also teaches that both the Father and the Holy Spirit are fully God.
>
> Mary the Mother of Jesus is confused with Mary the sister of Aaron and
> Moses, the daughter of Amram:
>
> Behold! The wife of Imran (i.e. Amram) said, "O my Lord! I do dedicate unto
> thee what is in my womb"... When she was delivered, she said: "O my Lord!
> Behold! I am delivered of a female child ... I have named her Mary... " S.
> 3:35, 36
>
> "And Mary the daughter of Imran, who guarded her chastity.." S. 66:12.
>
> "... They said: O Mary! Truly an amazing thing hast thou brought! O sister
> of Aaron! Thy father was not a man of evil, nor thy mother a woman
> unchaste." S. 19:27-28
>
> "Then Mary (Heb. Mariam), the prophetess, the sister of Aaron, took the
> timbrel in her hand ..." Exodus 15:20
>
> "The name of Amram's wife was Jochebed, the daughter of Levi, who was born
> to Levi in Egypt; and to Amram she bore Aaron and Moses and their sister
> Miriam." Numbers 27:59
>
> This is an error of nearly 1400 years! How could Moses' sister Mary be
> Jesus' mother, making Moses his uncle?
>
> Muslims give two responses in trying to deal with this anachronism. First,
> it is stated that the expressions "sister of Aaron" and "daughter of Amram"
> refers to Mary's lineage, i.e. that Mary was a descendant of Aaron and Amram
> of the tribe of Levi. Unfortunately for Muslims, this assertion cannot
> possibly be the case since Mary was a daughter of Judah and a descendant of
> David:
>
> "Now Jesus Himself began his ministry at about thirty years of age, being
> (as was supposed the son of Joseph, the son of Heli ... the son of David ...
> the son of Judah." Luke 3:23, 31, 33
>
> The words, "as was supposed," are given to clarify the fact that it is
> Mary's genealogy which is being presented, with Joseph acting as the male
> representative. This is supported by extrabiblical documents such as the
> Jewish tractate of the Talmud, Chagigah, where a certain person had a dream
> in which he saw the punishment of the damned. There, "He saw Mary the
> daughter of Heli amongst the shades." ( John Lightfoot, Commentary On the
> New Testament from the Talmud and Hebraica [Oxford University Press, 1859;
> with a second printing from Hendrickson Publishers Inc., 1995], vol. 1, p.
> v; vol. 3, p.55)
>
> In the book of Hebrews we are told that, "it is evident that our Lord (
> Jesus ) arose from Judah, of which tribe Moses spoke nothing concerning
> priesthood" Heb. 7:14.
>
> And,
>
> "I ( Jesus ) am the Root and Offspring of David, the Bright Morning Star."
> Revelation 22:16
>
> It is therefore impossible for Mary to be a descendant of Levi, since both
> the orthodox Jewish understanding and the biblical record agree that Messiah
> would arise out of Judah (c.f. Genesis 49:10-12; Matthew 22:42-45).
>
> Someone might interject at this point and suggest that the Bible calls
> Elizabeth a relation of Mary:
>
> "Now, indeed, Elizabeth your relative also conceived a son in her old
> age..." Luke 1:36 NKJV
>
> This seems to imply that Mary is of Levitical descent, since Elizabeth is
> addressed as one of Aaron's descendants. (Cf. Luke 1:5)
>
> The term used for relative in the Greek is syngenes. Gerhard Kittel and
> Gerhard Friedrich define it as:
>
> a. " The adjective refers to a person of common origin, i.e., belonging to
> the same family, race, tribe, or people. It can then mean 'related' in
> disposition, 'corresponding', 'analogous', or 'similar.'
>
> b. The noun means 'relationship' by descent or disposition, then more
> broadly 'analogy' (e.g. between deity and humanity, or ideas and the senses,
> or the stars and human destiny), whether in philosophy or popular belief."
> (Theological Dictionary of the New Testament, abridged in one volume by
> George W. Bromiley [Eerdmans, 1985], p. 1097)
>
> Hence, Elizabeth and Mary were related in the sense of being of the same
> race of people, i.e. the Israelites. But this meaning seems to be unlikely
> since this could be said about any other Israelite woman's relationship to
> Mary. It seems more likely that Elizabeth and Mary were blood relatives.
> This being the case, this still wouldn't prove that Mary was of the tribe of
> Aaron. All this would prove is that Elizabeth had Judean blood in her, since
> Levites were allowed to marry women from any of the twelve tribes:
>
> "The woman he (the Levitical Priests) marries must be a virgin. He must not
> marry a widow, a divorced woman, or a woman defiled by prostitution, but
> only a virgin from his people." Leviticus 21:13-14 NIV
>
> Ezekiel, in his vision of a restored priesthood and temple, further
> clarifies this point:
>
> "They shall not marry a widow or a divorced woman, but only virgins of the
> offspring OF THE HOUSE OF ISRAEL, or a widow who is the widow of a priest."
> Ezekiel 44:22 ESV
> The Holy Bible even provides an example of a priest who had married a woman
> from Judea, who was actually a descendant of king David:
>
> "Now when Athaliah the mother of Ahaziah saw that her son was dead, she
> arose and destroyed all the royal family of the house of Judah. But
> Jehoshabeath, the daughter of the king, took Joash the son of Ahaziah and
> stole him away from among the king's sons who were about to be put to death,
> and she put him and his nurse in a bedroom. Thus Jehoshabeath, the daughter
> of King Jehoram and wife of Jehoiada the priest, because she was a sister of
> Ahaziah, hid him from Athaliah, so that she did not put him to death." 2
> Chronicles 22:10-11
> The foregoing demonstrates the plausibility of Elizabeth's mother being from
> the line of David, from the tribe of Judah, accounting for her being related
> to Mary.
>
> Elizabeth could also be an aunt to Mary, see the entry on Luke 1:36 in the
> Bible Commentary section.
>
> Muslims are not to be blamed for taking the phrase "brother of" as a
> reference to Mary's lineage since Muhammad also used a similar line of
> reasoning to cover up this error. In Sahih Muslim Mughirah ibn Shu'bah
> narrates:
>
> "When I came to Najran, they (the Christians of Najran) asked me: You read
> 'sister of Harun' (i.e., Mary), in the Quran, whereas Moses was born well
> before Jesus. When I came back to Allah's Messenger I asked him about that,
> and he said: 'The (people of old age) used to give names (to their persons)
> after the names of Apostles and pious persons who had gone before them.'"
> #5326
>
> Again,
>
> Ibn Abi Ahaybah and Ahmad and Abdel Hameed and Muslim and At-Tirmidhi and
> An-Nassaa'I and Ibn Al-Mundhir and Ibn Abi Haatim and Ibn Hibbaan and
> At-Tabaraani and Ibn Mardaweih ans Al-Bayhaqi in ad-dalaa'il, narrated that
> Al-Mughirah Ibn Shu'bah said: "The Prophet of God (PBUH) sent me to the
> people of Najran. They asked me: DO you see what you read? O sister of Harun
> while Moses precedes Jesus with such a long time? He (Al-Mughirah) said: So
> I went back to the Prophet and mentioned that to him. He told me: "Would you
> tell them the folk used to be called after Prophets and pious people who
> preceded them?" (Jalaaluddeen As-Suyuti, Ad-durr Al-Manthur)
> The only difficulty with Muhammad's statement is that the Jews before and
> during the time of Christ never used this phrase in this manner at all. Not
> one single reference from the Bible, either Old or New Testaments, the
> Jewish literature before the birth of Christ, or even the Jewish Talmud and
> Targums after Christ can be found to support Muhammad's assertion. This is
> simply a gross error which cannot be swept away.
>
> The second argument is actually a clarification of the first in that it is
> suggested that both the Bible and the Quran furnish further evidence for the
> term "sister of" being used to imply ancestry:
>
> "His (Zechariah) wife was of the daughters of Aaron, and her name was
> Elizabeth." Luke 1:5
>
> It is obvious that the term "daughters" is speaking of Elizabeth's lineage
> and is not to be taken to literally mean that her father was actually Aaron
> the brother of Moses.
>
> Again it is unfortunate for Muslims that this argument does not help them,
> but actually serves to weaken their argument. Although the Bible does use
> the phrases "son of," or "daughter of" to refer to ancestry, it never uses
> the terms "brother of" or "sister of" to indicate this fact. A few examples
> of the former usage include:
>
> "So ought not this woman, being a daughter of Abraham, whom Satan has bound-
> think of it - for eighteen years, be loosed from this bond on the Sabbath'?"
> Luke 13:16
>
> "And Jesus said to him, 'Today salvation has come to this house, because he
> also is a son of Abraham." Luke 19:9
>
> "And behold, two blind men sitting by the road, when they heard that Jesus
> was passing by, cried out, saying, 'Have mercy on us, 0 Lord, Son of David.'
> " Matthew 20:30
>
> Scripture never addresses a person as a "brother of Abraham," or "sister of
> David" when wishing to imply lineage. Hence, the Muslim position cannot be
> defended biblically.
>
> The second example is from the Quran where Salih is called Thamud's brother:
>
> "We sent ( aforetime ) to the Thamud, their brother Salih ..." S. 27:45
>
> The term brother here refers to kinsmen, not actual bloodbrothers,
> exemplifying the many different ways the term is used.
>
> Once again the problem is far from being resolved since the term "brother"
> is used to address Salih's contemporaries, not his ancestors. This implies
> that to call Mary Aaron's sister meant that Mary and Aaron were
> contemporaries, living at the same time.
>
> Unlike the Quran, the Holy Bible contains no historical errors. Most attacks
> on the Bible stem from arguments from silence, i.e. the fact that no
> independent archeological research has been discovered in support of certain
> recorded biblical events. Yet, such arguments only prove that as of yet
> archeology has failed to furnish evidence against an event reported in the
> Bible. Other attacks center on the precise dating of certain archeological
> findings which some see as contradicting the Holy Bible's chronology. Again,
> one cannot say that the Holy Bible is in error when archeologists themselves
> are divided over the precise dating of certain discoveries. This is
> especially so when one realizes that there are certain archeologists who
> provide evidence which they feel proves that the data corresponds perfectly
> with the Bible's chronology of the events in question.
>
> This is far different from archeology providing evidence to show that
> certain events did not occur in the same manner in which the Bible says it
> did. In fact, not one archeological discovery has ever proven the Bible
> wrong; discovery after discovery has demonstrated the amazing historical
> accuracy of scripture. The following quotations from the world's leading
> archeologists affirms this fact:
>
> "Nowhere has archeological discovery refuted the Bible as history." ( John
> Elder, Prophets, Idols and Diggers [New York; Bobs Merrill, 1960], p. 16 )
> "Near Eastern archeology has demonstrated the historical and geographical
> reliability of the Bible in many important areas. By clarifying the
> objectivity and factual accuracy of biblical authors, archeology also helps
> correct the view that the Bible is avowedly partisan and subjective. It is
> now known, for instance, that, along with the Hittites, Hebrew scribes were
> the best historians in the entire ancient Near East, despite contrary
> propaganda that emerged from Assyria, Egypt, and elsewhere." (E. M.
> Blaiklock, editor's preface, New International Dictionary of Biblical
> Archeology [Grand Rapids, MI; Regency Reference Library/ Zondervan, 1983],
> pp. vii-viii)
>
> The late William F. Albright, one of the world's foremost archeologists,
> stated:
>
> "There can be no doubt that archeology has confirmed the substantial
> historicity of Old Testament tradition." (J. A. Thompson, The Bible and
> Archeology [Grand Rapids, MI; Eerdmans, 1975], p. 5)
>
> Nelson Glueck, world renowned archeologist, concurs: "As a matter of fact,
> however, it maybe clearly stated categorically that no archeological
> discovery has ever controverted a single biblical reference. Scores of
> archeological findings have been made which confirm in clear outline or
> exact detail historical statements in the Bible." ( Norman Geisler & Ron
> Brooks, When Skeptics Ask; A Handbook on Christian Evidences [Wheaton, IL;
> Victor, 1990], p. 179)
>
> It should be noted that both Albright and Glueck were not conservative
> Christians and did not believe in the inspiration of scripture. Their
> conclusions were based strictly on the archeological data, forcing them to
> make the above admissions.
>
> This cannot be said of the Quran with all of its historical and scientific
> mistakes.
>
> AUTHOR OF CARNAL PLEASURES
>
> The Quranic paradise is totally different from the biblical portrait of
> heaven. In Allah's paradise, we find sexual and carnal pleasures for
> believers to engage in throughout eternity:
>
> But give glad tidings to those who believe and work righteousness, that
> their portions is Gardens, beneath which rivers flow, every time they are
> fed with fruits therefrom, they say: "Why, this is what we were fed with
> before," for they are giving things in similitude; And they have therein
> damsels (Arabic - Houris ) pure (and holy); and they abide therein
> (forever)." S. 2:25
> But to those who believe and do deeds of righteousness, We shall soon admit
> to Gardens, with rivers flowing beneath, their eternal home. Therein they
> have damsels pure and holy; We shall admit them to shades, cool and ever
> deepening. S. 4:57
>
> Of a rare creation have We created the Houris, and We have made them ever
> virgins, dear to their spouses, of equal age with them for the people of the
> right hand. S. 56:35-38
>
> But for those who fear Allah is a blissful abode, enclosed gardens and
> vineyards, and damsels with swelling breasts (Arabic - Kawa'eb), their peers
> in age, and a full cup. S. 78:31-34 (Arberry and Rodwell translate this part
> correctly, see also this overview page)
>
> The orthodox Islamic understanding of these references are that Muslim men
> shall have a host of swelling breasted maidens to engage in sex with, who
> return to their virginal state after intercourse.
>
> The paradise of Yahweh is one that is devoid of such carnality, being filled
> with the infinite love and joy of God instead. Hence, the believers' reward
> is to dwell with God forever in eternal glory:
>
> "Jesus answered and said to them, 'The sons of this age marry and are given
> in marriage. But those who are counted worthy to attain that age and the
> resurrection from the dead, neither marry nor are given in marriage; nor can
> they die anymore for they are equal to the angels and are sons of God, being
> sons of the resurrection." Luke 20:34-36
> "The kingdom of God is not food or drink, but righteousness, peace and joy
> in the Holy Spirit." Romans 14:17
>
> "And I heard a loud voice from heaven saying, 'Behold, the tabernacle of God
> is with men, and He will dwell with them, and they shall be His people. God
> Himself will be with them and be their God. And God will wipe away every
> tear from their eyes; there shall be no more death, nor sorrow, nor crying.
> There shall be no more pain, for the former things have passed away."
> Revelation 21:3-4
>
> AUTHOR OF FOREIGN WORDS
>
> The Quran claims to be in pure Arabic speech:
>
> We have sent it down as an Arabic Quran, in order that ye may learn wisdom.
> S. 12:2
> "An Arabic Quran, wherein there is no crookedness..." S. 9:28
>
> And We know very well that they say, "Only a mortal is teaching him." The
> speech of him at whom they hint is barbarous- and this is Arabic, pure and
> clear. S. 16:103
>
> But according to Arabic scholars the Quran is not in pure Arabic, containing
> dozens of foreign words:
>
> Abariq, S. 56:18, Persian
>
> Adam, S. 2:34, Akkadian
>
> Araik, S. 18:31, Persian
>
> Firdaus, S. 18:107, Pahlavi
>
> Fir'awn, S. 73:15, Syriac
>
> Habr, S. 9:31, Hebrew (Haver)
>
> Istabraq, S. 18:31, Persian (Istabar)
>
> Sakina, S. 2:248, Hebrew
>
> Sijjil (baked clay), S. 105:4, Persian
>
> Taghut (idols), S. 2:257, Syriac (Teghutha)
>
> Zakat, S. 2:110, Syriac (Zkhutha)
>
> Zanjabil (ginger), S. 76:17, Pahlavi
>
> Muslims respond by presuming that all living languages adopt words from
> other cultures, and it is therefore not an error for the Quran to contain
> foreign words. This argument only works in regard to imperfect human beings
> who continually adopt and adapt to other cultures and customs.
>
> Unfortunately for Muslims, this argument will not work for an all-powerful
> Being who is the Originator of human language. Such a Being is capable of
> inspiring his word in perfect Arabic completely devoid of foreign words,
> especially when he himself states that the Quran is in pure Arabic. This is
> even more so in light of the claim that the Quran is the eternal speech of
> God, i.e. that the Quran existed (on an eternal tablet) before the creation
> of human language. How can God's speech contain foregin words when these
> foreign languages did not exist in eternity? As one Muslim writer stated:
>
> The Qur'an itself repeatedly asserts that it is a unique and inimitable
> "Arabic Qur'an" (12.2, 13.37, 16.103) in order to communicate its meaning in
> a perfect manner to a people who took great pride in the expressive quality
> of their language. Much of the early discussion about the linguistic
> components of the Qur'an centred on the presence, or otherwise, of
> non-Arabic words in it - of course, based on the premise that it was
> essentially an Arabic text. The verses referred to above became the key
> supportive texts for those who argued that the Qur'an did not contain any
> non-Arabic terms. The earliest exegetes, particularly those associated with
> 'Abd Allah ibn 'Abbas (d. 68/67-68), a cousin of Muhammad, freely discussed
> a large number of non-Arabic words in the Qur'an. Hadith literature credits
> Ibn 'Abbas and "his school" with having a special interest in seeking their
> origin and meaning. Later eminent scholars of the Qur'an such as the
> philologist/exegete Abu 'Ubayd (d. 838), however continued to argue that the
> Qur'an contained foreign words. Others such as Ibn 'Atiyyah (d. 541/1146),
> Suyuti (d. 911/1505), and 'Abd al-Rahman al-Tha'labi (d. 1468) tried to
> reconcile theology with linguistic principles. They argued that the foreign
> words in the Qur'an came into Arabic through the ancient Arab's contacts
> with other languages in foreign travel and commerce but that they had been
> thoroughly Arabized by the time of the Prophet [Sam- If this were so then
> there would have been no need to highlight the fact that these foreign words
> had become part of the language since this would have been common knowledge
> to native Arab speakers like Ibn Abbas. That an explanation was needed to
> explain why foreign words appear in the Quran demonstrates how weak this
> Muslim claim actually is!] Various theories were evolved to resolve THE
> CONTRADICTION between the notion ascribed to Ibn 'Abbas and the one which
> subsequently gained greater acceptance, i.e., that the Qur'an does not
> contain any foreign terminology. To deal with the actual occurrence of words
> in the Arabic language that were also found in non-Arabic languages, some of
> these scholars, such as Muhammad ibn Idris al-Shafi (d. 204/819) and Tabari,
> developed the notion of tawafuq (coincidence). They argued that both Arabic
> and other languages employ the same words with identical meanings and that
> this uniformity of meaning was purely coincidental.
>
> The idea of any language or discourse being absolutely free from expressions
> or words used in another language is alien to one of the most basic
> linguistic principles, i.e., the inter-relatedness of human speech. While
> this may sound trite, two factors, however, ensured that this notion was
> rejected by the "orthodoxy": first, the Qur'an IS NOT REALLY REGARDED AS
> HUMAN SPEECH BUT RATHER GOD'S AND GOD'S SPEECH CANNOT BE SUBJECTED TO ANY
> LINGUISTIC PRINCIPLES. Indeed, as is commonly known, Qur'anic Arabic became
> the standard of Arabic grammar. (The problem of God's speech of necessity
> having to coincide with human speech for effect and meaning remains.)
> Second, for the "orthodoxy", God's own eternalness and self-subsistence
> fused with those of His revelation. The Qur'an and its language thus came to
> be viewed as equally timeless and independent of any "non-divine" elements,
> non-Arabic included. The fact of God's revelation occurring in Arabic (or
> any other language for that matter) alongside the insistence that this is
> the unmediated medium which was used by God raises an interesting question:
> If all comprehensible language and speech is the result of social
> interaction THEN DOES THIS IMPLY THAT GOD IS ALSO 'LIMITED' OR CONFINED TO
> THE LIMITATIONS OF LANGUAGE? If so, then WHAT DOES THIS IMPLY FOR THE
> ALL-POWERFUL NATURE OF GOD? (Farid Esack, The Qur'an - A Short Introduction
> [Oneworld Publications, Oxford 2002], pp. 68-69; bold and capital emphasis
> mine)
>
> AUTHOR OF GRAMMATICAL ERRORS
>
> Not only does the Quran contain foreign words, but according to Arabic
> grammarians it also contains grammatical mistakes:
>
> The Qor'an contains sentences which are incomplete and not fully
> intelligible without the aid of commentaries; foreign words, unfamiliar
> Arabic words, and words used with other than the normal meaning, adjectives
> and verbs inflected without observance of the concords of gender and number-
> illogically and ungrammatically applied pronouns which sometimes have no
> referent- and predicates which in rhymed passages are often remote from the
> subjects ... To sum up, more than one hundred Qor'anic aberrations from the
> normal rules and structures have been noted... ( Ali Dashti, 23 Years: A
> Study of the Prophetic Career of Muhammad [Costa Mesa, Ca. 1994; Mazda
> Publishers], pp. 48, 50)
> A few examples include the following passages:
>
> S. 7:56 - "The mercy of Allah is near"
> Arabic - "inna rahmata Allahi qaribun min al-mohseneen."
>
> The word qaribun is the predicate of rahmata Allahi, and as such should
> match in gender. Since rahmata is feminine the word qaribun (which is
> masculine ) should be qaribah, its feminine form.
>
> S. 7:160 - "We divided them in twelve tribes"
> Arabic - "wa qata'nahom 'ethnata 'ashrata asbatan."
>
> In Arabic, any noun which is counted by a number above ten should be
> singular, as is the case in S. 7:142; 2:60; 5:12; 9:36; 12:4. As such the
> Arabic asbatan should be sebtan.
>
> S. 5:69 - "Surely they that believe, and those of Jewry, and the Sabians,
> and the Christians, whosoever believes in Allah and the Last Day, and works
> righteousness- no fear shall be on them, neither shall they sorrow."
> Arabic- "Innal-laziina 'aamanuu wal-laziina haaduu was-Saabi'uuna
> wan-Nasaara man'amaana bilaahi wal-Yawmil Aakhiri wa 'amila saali-hanfalaa
> khaw-fun 'alay-him wa laa hum yah-zanuun."
>
> According to scholars, the Arabic Saabi'uuna has been wrongly declined.
> Compare the same grammatical structure found in the following suras:
>
> S. 2:62- "Innal-laziina 'aamanuu wal-laziina haaduu wan-Nasaara
> was-Saabi'iina..."
> S. 22:17- "Innal-laziina 'aamanuu wal-laziina haaduu was-Saabi'iina
> wan-Nasaara..."
>
> In the last two suras the term was declined correctly, Saabi'iina, as
> opposed to Saabi'uuna. This is due to the word inna found in the beginning
> of the sentence causing a form of declension called "nasb" (as in the cases
> of accusative or subjunctive) with the "yeh" being the "sign of nasb". But
> the word Saabi'uuna is given the case of 'uu, a sign of "rafa" ( as in cases
> of nominative and indicative ). Accordingly, the verse in 5:69 is wrong.
>
> S. 91:5 - "By the heaven and that which built it."
>
> Arabic- "was-samaaa-i wa maa ba-naahaa."
>
> The word ma is impersonal in Arabic. Yet, the subject of the verse is Allah,
> heaven's Creator. As such the word man, meaning "him who", should have been
> used instead of the impersonal ma.
>
> It should be pointed out that it is not only Arabic scholars who have
> discovered dozens of grammatical mistakes within the Quran, but Muhammad's
> very own companions in the past have also admitted this fact. The Muslim
> scholar Ibn al-Khatib in his book al Furqan quotes Muhammad's wife Aisha as
> saying:
>
> "There are three grammatical errors in the Book of Allah, they are the fault
> of the scribe: In 20:63 ... And in 5:69 ... And in 4:162." (Muhammad M. abd
> al-Latif Ibn al-Khatib, Al-Furqan [Dar al-Kutub al-Elmiyah, Beirut], p. 91)
> After seeing the first standard copy of the Quran, Islam's third Caliph
> Uthman proclaimed, "I see grammatical errors in it, and the Arabs will read
> it correctly with their tongues." (Ibid., p.90)
>
> For the Quran to be the word of Allah and for Allah to be God one should
> find no grammatical mistakes, especially since Muslims claim that the Quran
> contains no human element whatsoever. Muslim view is that the Quran was
> dictated word for word to Muhammad, which implies that Allah is the Author
> of these grammatical errors. This disqualifies Allah from being God,
> especially Yahweh God of the Holy Bible.
>
> To avoid this problem, Muslims assert that the Quran was revealed in a style
> called balaagha, which is an eloquent method of expressing the Arabic. Due
> to this feature, the Quran is not required to be grammatically correct since
> its aim is at eloquence.
>
> Once again this assumption serves to undermine the Muslim position. It may
> be true that a document written by man cannot be both grammatically correct
> and still retain an optimum level of eloquence, since a human writer most
> often sacrifices one literary feature over the other. But this cannot be
> said of God since he can easily produce a book which contains both perfect
> grammar and eloquence without ever sacrificing one for the other. This the
> Quran fails to do.
>
> ALLAH AND OATHS
>
> A real point of difference between Allah and Yahweh is that Yahweh swears by
> himself, since there is nothing greater for him to swear by:
>
> For when God made a promise to Abraham, because He could swear by no one
> greater, He swore by Himself. Hebrews 6:13
> For men indeed swear by the greater, and an oath for confirmation is for
> them an end of all dispute. Hebrews 6:16
>
> Hence, every time God makes a pledge he swears only by himself to insure
> believers that he will do all that he promises:
>
> "I have sworn by Myself; the word has gone out of My mouth in righteousness,
> and shall not return, that to Me every knee shall bow..." Isaiah 45:23
> "I swear by Myself, says the LORD." Jeremiah 22:5
>
> Yet, Allah swears by things less than him:
>
> Swears by the Quran
>
> By the Quran, full of wisdom. S. 36:2
> By the Quran, full of admonition. S. 38:1
>
> Swears by the sky and constellations
>
> By the sky and the night visitant S. 86:1
> Nay verily: By the moon, and by the night as it retreateth, and by the dawn
> as it shines forth. S. 74:32-34
> By the star when it goes down. S. 53:1
>
> Swears by the pen
>
> By the pen and by the record which [men] write. S. 68:1
>
> Swears by the city
>
> Nay I do swear by this city. S. 90:1
>
> Swears by the Creation
>
> By the night as it cancels [the light]; by the day as it appears in glory;
> by the Creation of male and female. S. 92:1-3
>
> The fact that Allah swears by practically anything and everything, while
> Yahweh swears only by himself, makes it very difficult for the two to be the
> one and the same God.
>
> ALLAH IS NOT TRIUNE
>
> The final proof that Allah is not Yahweh Elohim of the Holy Bible is that
> Allah is not a trinity. According to the Holy Bible, there is only One true
> God (Deuteronomy 6:4; Galatians 3:20).
>
> Yet, at the same time Scripture affirms that this One God eternally exists
> in three Persons:
>
> The Father
>
> "...elect according to the foreknowledge of God the Father..." 1 Peter 1:2
> The Son
>
> "... looking for that blessed hope and glorious appearing of our Great God
> and Savior Jesus Christ..." Titus 2:13
> The Holy Spirit
>
> "But Peter said, 'Ananias, why has Satan filled your heart to lie to the
> Holy Spirit... you have not lied to men but to God." Acts 5:3-4
> Three in One
>
> "... baptizing them in the Nam e(singular- implying unity) of the Father,
> and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit..." Matthew 28:19
> But the Allah of the Quran is not any of the three Persons mentioned above.
> For example S. 112 states,
>
> Say: He is Allah, the One and Only; Allah, The Eternal, Absolute-, He
> begetteth not, Nor is He Begotten; And there is none like unto Him. S. 112:
> 1-4
> Allah does not "beget" meaning that Allah has no children either in a
> spiritual or carnal sense. Thus, Allah can never be the Father. Nor does he
> allow himself to be "begotten", i.e. does not take on human nature such as
> God the Son did when he became man for our salvation. Finally, in orthodox
> Islam the Holy Spirit is not God, but the angel Gabriel. This fact separates
> Allah from ever possibly being the same God that Christians worship.
>
> Furthermore, we read in I John 2:22-23:
>
> "Who is a liar but he who denies that Jesus is the Christ? He is Antichrist
> who denies the Father and the Son. Whoever denies the Son does not have the
> Father either; he who acknowledges the Son has the Father also."
> Thus, to the Christians Allah cannot be the biblical God since the inspired
> New Testament record teaches that anyone denying the Father and Son as God
> is Antichrist.
>
> One common Muslim allegation needs to be briefly addressed before
> concluding. In Exodus 31:17 it says that after Yahweh created the universe,
> he rested on the Sabbath and was refreshed. This description is not
> befitting God since he never fatigues nor does he need to be refreshed.
>
> In response to this, as we have already noted scripture often uses
> anthropomorphic language in describing God's relations with man. The context
> of this passage deals with the necessity of Sabbath observance as a sign
> between God and Israel, and as such God is speaking to his covenant people
> in relational terms.
>
> Just as God rested on the seventh day, it is important for Israel to do
> likewise especially in light of the fact that they are the chosen people of
> God and must imitate him by observing all his commands.
>
> Furthermore, the term for Sabbath in Hebrew is shabat. It is listed in
> Strong's as #7673 with the following meanings: to stop, to cease, to rest,
> to end. Also, the term "refreshed" doesn't necessarily mean that God needed
> to take a breather after creating the universe anymore than the expression
> "my heart was refreshed" implies fatigue. Rather, it refers to God rejoicing
> over the goodness of his creation.
>
> Thus, these terms do not imply that God literally needed to rest and be
> refreshed. It simply means that after the formation of man God stopped his
> work of creation and rejoiced at the fact that all creation up to that point
> was very good. (c.f. Genesis 1:31)
>
> This interpretation is consistent with the clear teaching of Scripture that
> God never fatigues:
>
> "He will not allow your foot to be moved- He who keeps you will not slumber.
> Behold, He who keeps Israel shall neither slumber nor sleep." Psalm 121: 3-4
> "Have you not known? Have you not heard? The everlasting God, the LORD, the
> Creator of the ends of the earth, neither faints nor is weary. His
> understanding is unsearchable." Isaiah 40:28
>
> To then try and use Exodus 31:17 as a prooftext while neglecting the overall
> context of scripture is rather poor exegesis and unscholarly, since the
> Bible is clear that God has inexhaustible power and energy.
>
> Our brief examination of Allah as presented in the Quran leads us to
> conclude that he cannot possibly be the same God worshiped by Abraham and as
> described in the Holy Bible. The contradictions in attributes and nature
> between Yahweh and Allah are too numerous to pass over, and cannot be
> reconciled.
>
> With that in mind, we must point out another major difference between the
> two; namely that the God of the Holy Bible gives an assurance of salvation
> through Jesus Christ the Lord, something which Allah never guarantees:
>
> For God so loved the world that he gave his only begotten Son that whoever
> believes in him should not perish, but have everlasting life. John 3:16
> Most assuredly, I say to you, he who hears my word and believes in him who
> sent me has everlasting life, and shall not come into judgement, but has
> passed from death into life. John 5:24
>
> And if anyone hears my words and does not believe, I do not judge him; for I
> did not come to judge the world but to save the world. John 12:47
>
> The Bible clearly teaches that there is no other way for man to be saved,
> since Jesus alone can guarantee eternal life, something which the Quran
> cannot promise any Muslim:
>
> "Jesus said to him, 'I am the Way, the Truth, and the Life. No man comes to
> the Father except through me.'" John 14:6
> "Nor is there salvation in any other, for there is no other name under
> heaven given among men by which we must be saved." Acts 4:12
>
> The reason why Christ alone can promise salvation is because he alone paid
> the penalty for sin which is death. By his death on the cross Christ
> provided the only acceptable sacrifice to God on behalf of sinners:
>
> "Being justified as a gift by His grace through the redemption which is in
> Christ Jesus; whom God displayed publicly as a propitiation) a sacrifice
> offered which satisfies the divine justice of God) in his blood ..." Romans
> 3:24-25
> "For the wages of sin is death, but the gift of God is eternal life through
> Jesus Christ our Lord." Romans 6:23
>
> It is therefore up to Muslims to decide whether to accept Jesus Christ as
> Yahweh's Son and the Savior of the world and receive the assurance of
> eternal salvation. Or continue to worship Allah of the Quran who never
> promises Muslims the joy of knowing that their sins have been forgiven,
> giving them the assurance of eternal salvation. The choice is left for the
> reader to decide.
>
> NOTE TO THE READER
>
> We are well aware that the name Allah is used by Arab speaking Christians
> for the God of the Bible. In fact, the root from which the name is derived,
> ilah, stems from the ancient Semitic languages, corresponding to the
> Mesopotamian IL, as well as the Hebrew-Aramaic EL, as in Ishma-el,
> Immanu-el, Isra-el. These terms were often used to refer to any deity
> worshiped as a high god, especially the chief deity amongst a pantheon of
> lesser gods. As such, the Holy Bible uses the term as just one of the many
> titles for Yahweh, the only true God.
>
> Yet the problem arises from the fact that Muslims insist that Allah is not a
> title, but the personal name of the God of Islam. This becomes problematic
> since according to the Holy Bible the name of the God of Abraham is
> Yahweh/Jehovah, not Allah:
>
> God spoke further to Moses and said to him, "I am Yahweh (YHVH) and I
> appeared to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, as God Almighty; BUT BY MY NAME,
> YAHWEH, I did not make myself known to them." Exodus 6:2-3
>
> Therefore, Christians can use Allah as a title but not as the personal name
> for the God of the Bible.
bob young
"john w
> x-no-archive: yes
> On Fri, 03 Oct 2008 18:56:33 GMT, "Zadok" <nob...@accesswave.ca>
> wrote:
> © 2008 John D Weatherly all rights reserved; no portion of this post
> may be used anywhere else without written permission of the author.
> >
> >"Steve Hayes" <haye...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> >news:267be45oljrl548tg...@4ax.com...
> >> On Thu, 2 Oct 2008 19:25:57 -0400, "Carl" <sai...@nettally.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> >IS ALLAH THE GOD OF THE BIBLE?
> >>
> >> Another disingenuous title.
> >>
> >> "The Christian usage of Allah predates Islam. Allah is the name of God
> >> in the old Arabic Bible as well as in the modern Arabic Bible," he
> >> said, adding Allah was widely used by Christians in Egypt, Lebanon,
> >> Iraq, Indonesia and other parts of the world without problem.
> >
> >Steve, Please do not reply to this SPAMMER'S messages.
> >You only encourage him.
> >
> Unlike some (perhaps Zardoz), Carl is not a "spammer." He's one of
> the good guys, and he's trying to guide along their way those who are
> seeking.
>
> Just because his ministry doesn't ring your bell, don't shoot the
> guy! He's helped me more than the lot of you have!
Yes we homo sapiens have a penchant for helping one another, like many
animals who do the same thing.
What a pity we have to invent 'gods' in order to create the means whereby we
can help others.
Bob
Humanist, atheist, realist, sentimentalist, Brit.
Member of S.M.A.S.H.
(Sarcastic Middle-aged Atheists with a Sense of Humor)
Man creates his gods in his own image;
and then spends the rest of his life
manipulating them to his heart's content.
>
>
> john w
> >
> >
bob young
"john w
> x-no-archive: yes
> On Mon, 06 Oct 2008 12:08:05 +0200, Steve Hayes
> <haye...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> © 2008 John D Weatherly all rights reserved; no portion of this post
> may be used anywhere else without written permission of the author.
> >Over the last couple of weeks someone has been posting articles in various
> >Christian newsgroups with titles like "Is Allah the God of the Bible?"
> >
> >The titles have been disingenuous, because the correct answer is obviously
> >Yes, Allah is the God of the Bible, but the author tries to persuade the
> >reader, by convoluted and twisted reasoning, that Allah is not the God of the
> >Bible.
> >
> Then put it this way.
>
> the Allah that the Muslims worship is not the same deity as the God
> / Yhwh Christians and Jews worship.
Well they are the same in the sense than they are/were both created by the fertile
imaginations of primitive man.
>
>
> Is THAT clear enough?
>
> probably not.
Indeed, nothing about gods is very clear
as one mght expect, knowing their origins !
Bob
Humanist, atheist, realist, sentimentalist, Brit.
Member of S.M.A.S.H.
(Sarcastic Middle-aged Atheists with a Sense of Humor)
Man creates his gods in his own image;
and then spends the rest of his life
manipulating them to his heart's content.
>
>
> >That Allah is the God of the Bible can be seen by reference to a Bible in
> >Arabic, Malay, or any other language in which Allah is the name of God.
> >
> >As another poster pointed out
> >:
> >"The Christian usage of Allah predates Islam. Allah is the name of God
> >in the old Arabic Bible as well as in the modern Arabic Bible," he
> >said, adding Allah was widely used by Christians in Egypt, Lebanon,
> >Iraq, Indonesia and other parts of the world without problem.
> >
> >http://www.iht.com/articles/ap/2007/12/27/asia/AS-REL-Malaysia-Allah-Ban.php
> >
> >So the question is: Why are the authors of the articles, and the people who
> >post them to these newsgroups, so anxious to get people to believe this lie?
> >
> >Why are they prepared to pile lie upon lie, falsehood upon falsehood, in order
> >to persuade people of the truth of a proposition that is patently false?
> >
> >And when people point out the weaknesses in their arguments, they immediately
> >resort to ad hominem arguments to try to hide the holes.
> >
> >Why are these people prepared to resort to such desperate measures to make
> >people believe in a lie?
> >
> >Perhaps one should begin by pointing out that some things are not in dispute.
> >
> >The name "Allah" is used for God by both Christians and Muslims, but they have
> >radically different understandings of the nature of God. Christians believe
> >that God is Father, Son and Holy Spirit; Muslims do not.
> >
> >That is a fact.
> >
> >But the authors of the articles, and those who posted them, try to argue from
> >a fact to a lie -- that because of these theological differences, Allah is not
> >the God of the Bible.
> >
> >One of the proponents then argued that the name "Allah" did not apperar in the
> >Bible in its original languages, Greek, Aramaic and Hebrew.
> >
> >The problem with that argument is that it also applies to the word "God". The
> >name "God" does not appear in the Bible in its original languages.
> >
> >If that is the argument, then the conclusion that "Allah is not the God of the
> >Bible" is not simply false, but meaninglerss, because, given the premisses,
> >there is NO "God of the Bible". If that is so, then not only is Allah not the
> >God of the Bible, but God is not the Dios of the Bible, and Dios is not the
> >Dieu of the Bible, and Dieu is not the uNkulunkulu of the Bible, and
> >uNkulunkulu is not the Modimo of the Bible, and Modimo is not the Mukuru of
> >the Bible, and Mukuru is not the Bog of the Bible.
> >
> >What those who use this argument are in fact asserting is their belief that
> >while it is OK to worship God in English, it is not OK to worship God in
> >Arabic.
> >
> >They are trying to use plausible theological arguments to promote a political
> >agenda of racism, ethnocentrism and hatred against people who speak Arabic.
> >They are promoting the idea that English=speaking people are superior to
> >Arabic-speaking people; that God listens to people who pray in English, but
> >prayers to God in Arabic go astray, and end up with some other deity.
> >
> >It seems to be a new variant of British-Israelitism -- a popular heresy of the
> >19th century.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
Steve Hayes
>That is strange since the term "Allah" is NEVER uttered by Christ,
>neither in Aramaic nor in Hebrew. Even on the Cross he called The
>Father Eli (My God) in Hebrew or Elahi (Aramaic). Allah is NOT the
>same. In fact, they are mutually exclusive. Muslims say the Koran is
>from their Allah. Well, our OT and NT are NOT the same in theology as
>the Koran is, so the same "God" could NOT have authored both.
The same could be said of the term "God". It was never uttered by Christ.
More at:
http://www.abc.net.au/rn/linguafranca/stories/2008/2356581.htm
The word for 'God', in all translations of the Christian Bible into the Malay
language, has always been 'Allah'. But, in Malaysia, the government prohibited
the use of the word by the Catholic weekly paper, The Herald, declaring that
it is only to be used by Muslims. Though, since then, the Kuala Lumpur High
Court has granted leave to review that government order.
Digim...@starpower.net
god" pre-Islam. The goddesses "Allat", "Manat", and "al-Uzza" were
considered to be his daughters. As you can see it is NOT the
same...sorry Steve, try again.
Raymond
> On Mon, 6 Oct 2008 19:16:28 -0700 (PDT), Raymond <rwkn...@aim.com> wrote:
> >On Oct 6, 6:08 am, Steve Hayes <hayesm...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >> Over the last couple of weeks someone has been posting articles in various
> >> Christian newsgroups with titles like "Is Allah the God of the Bible?"
>
> >> The titles have been disingenuous, because the correct answer is obviously
> >> Yes, Allah is the God of the Bible, but the author tries to persuade the
> >> reader, by convoluted and twisted reasoning, that Allah is not the God of the
> >> Bible.
>
> >"Allah" IS NOT THE GOD OF THE HOLY BIBLE!
>
> Do you really not get it, or are you being disingenuous too?
Nope! It is more like you do not get it.
>
> >> That Allah is the God of the Bible can be seen by reference to a Bible in
> >> Arabic, Malay, or any other language in which Allah is the name of God.
>
> >You can find lots of false teachings in other languages and false gods
> >thinking they are God.
>
> So are you also a British-Israelite?
I am not British, German, Irish, native Indian and Dutch. What a
strange question to ask.
>
> It certainly looks like it.
I have no ideal what your talking about with that remark.
Steve Hayes
>> >> That Allah is the God of the Bible can be seen by reference to a Bible in
>> >> Arabic, Malay, or any other language in which Allah is the name of God.
>>
>> >You can find lots of false teachings in other languages and false gods
>> >thinking they are God.
>>
>> So are you also a British-Israelite?
>
>I am not British, German, Irish, native Indian and Dutch. What a
>strange question to ask.
>
>>
>> It certainly looks like it.
>
>I have no ideal what your talking about with that remark.
British Israelites believe that the Anglo-Saxon-Celtic race -- ie the
English-speaking peoples -- are descended from the 12 tribes of Israel and so
are superior to all other races on earth.
With your insistence that it is OK to worship God in English but not in
Arabic, you appear to resemble them.
You can find out more about them here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Israelism
Raymond
> On Fri, 10 Oct 2008 20:10:43 -0700 (PDT), Raymond <rwkn...@aim.com> wrote:
> >> >> That Allah is the God of the Bible can be seen by reference to a Bible in
> >> >> Arabic, Malay, or any other language in which Allah is the name of God.
>
> >> >You can find lots of false teachings in other languages and false gods
> >> >thinking they are God.
>
> >> So are you also a British-Israelite?
>
> >I am not British, German, Irish, native Indian and Dutch. What a
> >strange question to ask.
>
> >> It certainly looks like it.
>
> >I have no ideal what your talking about with that remark.
>
> British Israelites believe that the Anglo-Saxon-Celtic race -- ie the
> English-speaking peoples -- are descended from the 12 tribes of Israel and so
> are superior to all other races on earth.
For one thing that doctrine is called "British Israel" and suppose to
see ten lost tribes of Israel and that Anglo-saxon race are the real
Israel and the USA and other nations are part of those lost tribes. I
do not believe there is or ever was any LOST tribes.
>
> With your insistence that it is OK to worship God in English but not in
> Arabic, you appear to resemble them.
You on the other hand need to learn to read what was said and not try
to imply what was not said, I really do not care what tongue one
worships God in, I use two non-English languages to worship God in.
People that want to use Arabic is fine no problem, what I did point
out and prove by document that Islam made a law saying that non-Muslim
people could not use the term "Allah" for the name of the Christian or
Jewish name for their God. So it is no I but the Arabic Muslims that
it is OK to worship God but not to use the word "Allah" to do so,
unless they follow the Koran and their prophet Mohammand.
>
> You can find out more about them here:
Not the way you put it and presented it as what you said is false and
is not supported by truth or website that is also promoting their own
agenda.
Steve Hayes
>On Oct 11, 12:04 am, Steve Hayes <hayesm...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> With your insistence that it is OK to worship God in English but not in
>> Arabic, you appear to resemble them.
>
>You on the other hand need to learn to read what was said and not try
>to imply what was not said, I really do not care what tongue one
>worships God in, I use two non-English languages to worship God in.
Then perhaps you ought to take your own advise: read what is said and not
imply what is not said, because that is EXACTLY what you and several others in
this NG ahve been doing all along in this thread.
What has been said is that Christians worship Allah and that Allah is the God
of the Bible in several languages, including Arabic and Malay, and that it is
therefore disingeunous to say things like "Allah is not the God of the Bible."
You and several others have persistently, repeatedly and contumaciously
implied that this indicates support for Islamic theology, which it does not.
So take your own advice: read what is said, and do not imply what is not said.
>People that want to use Arabic is fine no problem, what I did point
>out and prove by document that Islam made a law saying that non-Muslim
>people could not use the term "Allah" for the name of the Christian or
>Jewish name for their God. So it is no I but the Arabic Muslims that
>it is OK to worship God but not to use the word "Allah" to do so,
>unless they follow the Koran and their prophet Mohammand.
>
>>
>> You can find out more about them here:
>
>Not the way you put it and presented it as what you said is false and
>is not supported by truth or website that is also promoting their own
>agenda.
--
Raymond
> My dear Raymond.
>
> You have to do lot more research and reading but what is most
> important is to have a CLEAN HEART
No it is not a clean heart that is most important but a love and
accepting Jesus Christ as Lord and saviour that is. I done the
research it be nice if you would also do the same, as your heart is no
Clean as a follower of a false book and a false prophet proves that to
be so. Evil can not produce a clearn heart or life.
>
> What is His Name?
> By Ahmed Deedat
Why can you not reply yourself, then use someone else that is not here
to argue or prove their points, any one can say things but that does
not prove them.
>
> SAY: "CALL UPON ALLAH,
>
> OR CALL UPON RAHMAN
>
> BY WHATEVER NAME YE CALL UPON HIM (it is well):
>
> FOR TO HIM BELONG THE MOST BEAUTIFUL NAMES
>
> Holy Qur'aan 17:110
If that be true one had better tell the leaders of Islam about that as
it was their statements that said Christians can not call their God by
the name of Allah as they are not the same. It is you leaders TODAY,
then they kill their own people in Iraq so really who cares what these
murders say?
>
> CHAPTER ONE
>
> BELIEF IN GOD UNIVERSAL
>
> WHAT IS HIS NAME?
>
> At the end of my public talk on the subject - "MUHUMMED (p.b.u.h)
> the Natural Successor to CHRIST (p.b.u.h.) at question time, a
Your own evidence prove my correct look and read what you post
"Natural Successor to CHRIST". One meaning is this "A person who
follows next in order" another is this found in the dictionary "A
thing or person that immediately replaces something or someone" which
makes if clear to anyone but a blind dumb person. Allah is not the
name of God but someone else, another person, but not the God of the
BIBLE.
The rest of your post just adds on to your statements and only prove I
am correct and your the one that needs to do some research yourself
and repent of your evil and sins and get your heart clean and let
Jesus Christ into your life.
Raymond
> Dear John Galt.
>
> Only those whose heart are clean and sincere will be save.
Not so in the real HOLY WORD the HOLY BIBLE, Acts 16:29-32
29 Then he called for a light, ran in, and fell down trembling before
Paul and Silas. 30 And he brought them out and said,"Sirs, what must I
do to be saved?"
31 So they said,"Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and you will be
saved, you and your household."
NKJV
1 Tim 2:3-7
3 For this is good and acceptable in the sight of God our Savior, 4
who desires all men to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the
truth. 5 For there is one God and one Mediator between God and men,
the Man Christ Jesus, 6 who gave Himself a ransom for all, to be
testified in due time, 7 for which I was appointed a preacher and an
apostle — I am speaking the truth in Christ and not lying — a teacher
of the Gentiles in faith and truth. NKJV
>
> Let understand what Allah the Almighty Creator said in the Quran
For one thing to understand a false god and a fake book such as the
Quran, what it says means nothing, one can understand the God of
creation is to read the Holy Bible as it is the book that shows the
truth.
John 10:8-18
9 I am the door. If anyone enters by Me, he will be saved, and will
go in and out and find pasture. 10 The thief does not come except to
steal, and to kill, and to destroy. I have come that they may have
life, and that they may have it more abundantly.
11 "I am the good shepherd. The good shepherd gives His life for the
sheep. 12 But a hireling, he who is not the shepherd, one who does
not own the sheep, sees the wolf coming and leaves the sheep and
flees; and the wolf catches the sheep and scatters them. 13 The
hireling flees because he is a hireling and does not care about the
sheep. 14 I am the good shepherd; and I know My sheep, and am known
by My own. 15 As the Father knows Me, even so I know the Father; and
I lay down My life for the sheep. 16 And other sheep I have which are
not of this fold; them also I must bring, and they will hear My voice;
and there will be one flock and one shepherd.
17 "Therefore My Father loves Me, because I lay down My life that I
may take it again. 18 No one takes it from Me, but I lay it down of
Myself. I have power to lay it down, and I have power to take it
again. This command I have received from My Father."
NKJV
ARAH
My dear Raymond,
There is no compulsion in religion. The right direction is henceforth
distinct from error. And he who rejecteth false deities and believeth
in Allah hath grasped a firm handhold which will never break. Allah is
Hearer, Knower. (256)
Allah is the Protecting Guardian of those who believe. He bringeth
them out of darkness into light. As for those who disbelieve, their
patrons are false deities. They bring them out of light into darkness.
Such are rightful owners of the Fire. They will abide therein. (257)
Bethink thee not of him who had an argument with Abraham about his
Lord, because Allah had given him the kingdom; how, when Abraham said:
My Lord is He Who giveth life and causeth death, he answered: I give
life and cause death. Abraham said: Lo! Allah causeth the sun to rise
in the East, so do thou cause it to come up from the West. Thus was
the disbeliever abashed. And Allah guideth not wrongdoing folk. (258)
Or (bethink thee of) the like of him who, passing by a township which
had fallen into utter ruin, exclaimed: How shall Allah give this
township life after its death? And Allah made him die a hundred years,
then brought him back to life. He said: How long hast thou tarried?
(The man) said: I have tarried a day or part of a day. (He) said: Nay,
but thou hast tarried for a hundred years. Just look at thy food and
drink which have not rotted! Look at thine ass! And, that We may make
thee a token unto mankind, look at the bones, how We adjust them and
then cover them with flesh! And when (the matter) became clear unto
him, he said: I know now that Allah is Able to do all things.
(259) And when Abraham said (unto his Lord): My Lord! Show me how Thou
givest life to the dead, He said: Dost thou not believe? Abraham said:
Yea, but (I ask) in order that my heart may be at ease. (His Lord)
said: Take four of the birds and cause them to incline unto thee, then
place a part of them on each hill, then call them, they will come to
thee in haste, and know that Allah is Mighty, Wise. (260) The likeness
of those who spend their wealth in Allah's way is as the likeness of a
grain which groweth seven ears, in every ear a hundred grains. Allah
giveth increase manifold to whom He will. Allah is All-Embracing, All-
Knowing. (261) Those who spend their wealth for the cause of Allah and
afterward make not reproach and injury to follow that which they have
spent; their reward is with their Lord, and there shall no fear come
upon them, neither shall they grieve. (262) A kind word with
forgiveness is better than almsgiving followed by injury. Allah is
Absolute, Clement. (263) O ye who believe! Render not vain your
almsgiving by reproach and injury, like him who spendeth his wealth
only to be seen of men and believeth not in Allah and the Last Day.
His likeness is as the likeness of a rock whereon is dust of earth; a
rainstorm smiteth it, leaving it smooth and bare. They have no control
of aught of that which they have gained. Allah guideth not the
disbelieving folk.
(264) And the likeness of those who spend their wealth in search of
Allah's pleasure, and for the strengthening of their souls, is as the
likeness of a garden on a height. The rainstorm smiteth it and it
bringeth forth its fruit twofold. And if the rainstorm smite it not,
then the shower. Allah is Seer of what ye do. (265) Would any of you
like to have a garden of palm-trees and vines, with rivers flowing
underneath it, with all kinds of fruit for him therein; and old age
hath stricken him and he hath feeble offspring; and a fiery whirlwind
striketh it and it is (all) consumed by fire. Thus Allah maketh plain
His revelations unto you, in order that ye may give thought. (266)
O ye who believe! Spend of the good things which ye have earned, and
of that which We bring forth from the earth for you, and seek not the
bad (with intent) to spend thereof (in charity) when ye would not take
it for yourselves save with disdain; and know that Allah is Absolute,
Owner of Praise. (267) The devil promiseth you destitution and
enjoineth on you lewdness. But Allah promiseth you forgiveness from
Himself with bounty. Allah is All-Embracing, All-knowing. (268) He
giveth wisdom unto whom He will, and he unto whom wisdom is given, he
truly hath received abundant good. But none remember except men of
understanding. (269) Whatever alms ye spend or vow ye vow, lo! Allah
knoweth it.
Wrong-doers have no helpers. (270) If ye publish your almsgiving, it
is well, but if ye hide it and give it to the poor, it will be better
for you, and will atone for some of your ill-deeds. Allah is Informed
of what ye do. (271) The guiding of them is not thy duty (O Muhammad),
but Allah guideth whom He will. And whatsoever good thing ye spend, it
is for yourselves, when ye spend not save in search of Allah's
Countenance; and whatsoever good thing ye spend, it will be repaid to
you in full, and ye will not be wronged.