MDI recently took part in a debate all the way in Trinidad and Tobago, with the topic of the discussion on whether Islam or Christianity is the path to salvation.
Representing MDI was Ijaz Ahmed, with his debating colleague Reverend Steven. The following debate version is the raw version with no editing.
Categories: Christianity, Debates, Featured, Islam, MDI Trinidad, Videos
The Muslim Debate Initiative 
I think debates like this can actually cause more harm than good. I’m not sure I would even consider the topic. There are as many paths to God as there are people on the planet. Who are we to judge which is better or worse? Is that not in the eye of the beholder? Just because one is more popular than another does not necessarily mean it is better. I learned that the hard way.
Please cite in the Quran or other Islamic holy text where it is written that men are allowed to have sex with dead women or animals. I was under the impression that those two acts were forbidden (which they should be) but I also heard from someone that Islam permits it because the prophet Muhammed did these things and it was recorded by his companions. Thank you in advance for clarifying this topic.
Neither the Qur’an nor any Islamic holy text says man can have sex with dead woman.
The text that the detractors cite is inauthentic and thus not considered as holy text in Islam besides the fact that having sex with a dead woman is not even mentioned or even implied in it.(see here: http://thefactsaboutislam.blogspot.in/2010/07/false-allegation-of-muhammad-having-sx.html
Also, the so-called Egyptian parliamentary issue about necrophilia is phoney: http://theamericanmuslim.org/tam.php/features/articles/about-that-egyptian-necrophilia-law/0019097
All authentic sources of Islam prohibits out-of-marriage sex, necrophilia and sex with animals.
Islam is a false religion, a fact that is not difficult to prove. Muhammad simply took the Meccan deity Allah and reinvented him as the only true God without partners. He also identified this deity with the god of the Jews, but this claim cannot be maintained without losing intellectual integrity. But for Muslims no price is too high if it helps sustains faith in Muhammad.
Those who rejected his lies, Muhammad demonised as “kafirs” or deniers of the “truth”. He made belief in his fraud i.e. “imaan” as the greatest virtue. To retain this all-important imaan Muslims deny a mountain of real evidence that gives the lie to Muhammad’s claim of divine selection. If Muhammad had not existed then the world today would not have known about Allah or Islam. Islam certainly cannot be found in the Torah as this book clearly condemns Muhammad’s Allah as a fraudulent deity impersonating YHWH. The Meccan deity then, would have probably disappeared into oblivion like countless others have. Muhammad was the sole witness to Allah’s existence and Islam is in fact nothing more than the cult of Muhammad.
Reg,
You people find a sort of comfort writing all sorts of crap against Islam! Allah is the proper name of the only Creator and God of the world recognized and worshipped by Arab Jews and Christians in Arabia since before the advent of the Prophet.
@ Mujahid
Ishaq:263 “Abu Bakr went into a Jewish school and found many pupils gathered around Finhas, a learned rabbi. Bakr told the Jews to fear Allah and submit. He told them that they would find that Muhammad was an Apostle written in the Torah and Gospels. “Finhas replied, ‘We are rich compared to Allah. We do not humble ourselves to Allah. He humbles himself to us. We are independent of him, while he needs us. Why does your god ask us to lend him money as your master pretends.’ Bakr was enraged and hit Finhas hard in the face. Were it not for the treaty between us I would cut off your head, you enemy of Allah. So Allah said, ‘They will taste Our punishment of burning.’” (Quran 2:245)
It is clear from learned rabbi Finhas’ disparaging remarks that for him, Muhammad’s Allah was nothing more than a poor pagan deity, whom Muhammad pretended was asking the Jews for a “beautiful loan”. When Finhas referred to “Allah” here, he obviously did not have in mind “the proper name of the only Creator and God of the world”!!!
When Jews (including Christian Jews in the New Testament) referred to deity by the Greek word ‘theos’ they certainly did not have in mind the Greek god Zeus. They only had in mind their own particular deity. They were using “theos” just in a generic sense. Similarly Jews could call their god by the Arabic word “allah” if this term was used only as a general term for deity. They would then not have in mind the Christian triune god, or a Meccan deity with three daughters or any deity other than YHWH.
Since the Bible gives and the Jews recognise only one proper name for deity, “Allah” could only be recognised by pre-Islamic Jews as a GENERIC name for deity. For Jews the name Allah can never REPLACE the name YHWH. No name, including Allah, can even RIVAL, let alone be superior to the name YHWH!
According to Moses in the Torah “YHWH” is his god’s one and only proper name and forever.
Quote.
God also said to Moses, “Say to the Israelites, ‘YHWH, the God of your fathers—the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac and the God of Jacob—has sent me to you.’
“This is my name FOREVER,
the name you shall call me
from GENERATION TO GENERATION.
Exodus 3:15 (emphasis added)
Quote:
“Strictly speaking, Yahweh is the only ‘name’ of God. In Genesis wherever the word sem (‘name’) is associated with the divine being that name is Yahweh. When Abraham or Isaac built an altar ‘he called on the name of Yahweh’ (Gen.12:8, 13:4, 26:25).
“In particular, Yahweh was the God of the Patriarchs, and we read of ‘Yahweh the God (Elohim) of Abraham’ and then of Isaac and finally ‘Yahweh, the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob,’ concerning which Elohim says , ‘this is my name for ever’ (Exo.3:15). Yahweh, therefore, in contrast to Elohim, is a PROPER NOUN, the name of a Person, though that Person is divine. (New Dictionary of the Bible p.478)
So it is only about the name “YHWH” that the god of Moses says “THIS is my name forever”.
The Jewish Bible never recognises ELOI, EL, ELAH, ELOHIM, ELOAH, ILLAHI, ALLAH, ALLAHI or any other noun as a proper name for deity. In addition unlike the name Allah which can be replaced by the name “Rahman”, YHWH is irreplaceable. (Quran 17:110) Also YHWH (not Allah) was the only name that was considered so sacred that its pronunciation was forbidden by Jews. Rabbi Finhas (or any other Jew) never had any qualms about pronouncing the name Allah.
Recently (27/09/2014) a debate took place between Shabir Ally and Jay Smith entitled “Which is the Word of God? The Bible or the Qur’an?”
In this debate Ally gave 5 criteria for determining the divine inspiration of a book. One of the criteria he gives in the 15th minute was that ”if a book calls us to worship a God other than YHWH, the God of the Israelite forefathers, then that book or the person who is doing that is not under inspiration from God”
Ally again 2hrs and 25 minutes into the debate repeats this point by saying that “one of the criteria for determining whether or not a book qualifies as being the Word of God is that it should not preach another god other than YHWH”.
So according to Shabir Ally, for a book to qualify as the Word of God it must not preach a god other than YHWH!!!
I have given this quote because some Muslims deny that YHWH is the name of the god of Moses in the Torah. Shabir Ally is one of the world’s leading Muslim apologists.
.
@ Reg,
It is obvious that you could not see that your argument based on the report in Ibn Ishaq Seerah is quite invalid.
First, since you value the alleged words of Finhas in the report so much ( thinking that it is historical), why not complete the quotation of the very same report in that very same source which concluded that Finhas took Abubakar to the Prophet and complained that Abu Bakr hit him for which Abu Bakr mentioned the alleged words spoken by Finhas as the cause, but Finhas DENIED that he uttered the words!!
Secondly, Ibn Ishaq lived and died more than a century AFTER the Prophet. So he was only reporting what came to him to that effect. So He must have relied on sources for the tale. Since his source was oral tradition, he must trace the tradition through transmitters back to the time of the Prophet. Any missing link renders the tale not historical, just a tale. And that is what happens! This report has missing links and thus is not considered as reliable source by Muslims. It is thus the equivalent of the apocryphal or even pseudephigraphical Gospels. So, for your argument against Islam be considered valid, avoid apocryphal and psudephigraphical reports!
Thirdly, even in the report under discussion, Finhas did not show that the name Allah is a common, generic, name. He just denied the name; he never spoke of another Allah they worshipped. So, to claim that in this false report Finhas show that Allah is a generic name is disingenuous.
The fact that the Name Allah is not a common, generic, noun but a proper noun is as clear as the Sun to all that understand Arabic language. The generic word for a deity is “ilah” ( when they two the word is “ilahain” and when more than two “aliha”). It is the word used for any deity. But the word “Allah” is a word for a specific Being, the Living and Heavenly Creator of the world. In the whole history of Arabia since before Islam, no idol was ever referred to as “Allah” but only “ilah” which is a generic word for deity. The Qur’an, which is the oldest Arabic document, points out clearly: “And set not up other ilah (deity) with Allah. Exalted is He above all they associate as partners with Him.”( Qur’an 51: 51). “So invoke not with Allah another ilah (deity) lest you should be among those who received punishment.”(Qur’an 26:213)
For a word to be proper name, it should be the word by which a n individual is called. Allah is the Arabic word for the heavenly Being that created the heavens and the earth. The Name ‘Allah’ has never been used of any idol or person but the Creator of the world alone ever in the history of Arabia. This established the Name to be not common, generic, but proper per excellence.
For the fact that the pre-Islamic Arab Jews and Christians used Allah as the Arabic Name of the true God, let me quote from Rick Brown, an evangelical Bible scholar:
“However the term Allah came into Arabic, we know from ancient inscriptions that Arabic-speaking Christians were using the [word] Allah before the rise of Islam…Even today, Allah is the Arabic name for God that is commonly used by Jews and Christians… Imad Shehadeh (2004), director of an Arab Christian seminary, notes the oldest extant Arab Christian translations of [Biblical] Scripture use Allah, and that this practice is documented from ancient times until the present. This fact is well exemplified in the essays in David Thomas (2006a), especially (Kachouh 2006). Shehadeh notes the total lack of evidence that anyone ever used the term allâh as the name of a moon god.”( http://www.ijfm.org/PDFs_IJFM/23_2_PDFs/Brown_WhoIsAllah.pdf ).
Dr. Miroslav Volf, distinguished Professor of Theology at Yale University, writes:
“Arab Christians and Arabic-speaking Jews since long before the time of Muhammad have used the name ‘Allah’ to refer to God.” (Miroslav Volf, Allah: A Christian Response, p.82).
Professor Timothy George reveals:
“The word Allah is found 2,685 times in the Quran. Muhammad did not invent the word. In fact, it was the common word of address for God used by Arabic Christians centuries before Muhammad was born. Millions of Arabic-speaking Arab Christians still address God as Allah today…Christians called God Allah long before Muslims did. (Timothy George, Is the Father of Jesus the God of Muhammad?, Ch.4).
The Qur’an, the Sunnah and Muslims in general ever in history recognized Allah to be Arabic Name of the same God of the patriarchs and all other prophets of Israel and before Israel. Contrary to popular THEORY, the Name ALLAH is not a derivative (contraction) for “Al” and “ilah” for many linguistic and historical reasons. In linguistics, the meaning of a word is the meaning generally attached to the word by general usage. Thus the meaning of the Name Allah is the Living Being that creates all and sent prophets in history. The Hughes Dictionary of Islam says:
“Allah is supposed to be derived from ilah, a deity or God, with the addition of the definite ‘Al’ – Al-ilah or the God. Or, according to some authorities, it is from Lah, that is Al Lah, The Secret One. BUT ABU HANIFA SAYS THAT JUST AS THE ESSENCE OF GOD IS UNCHANGEABLE, SO IS HIS NAME, AND THAT ALLAH HAS EVER BEEN THE (ARABIC) NAME OF THE ETERNAL BEING (see ‘Giyasatul Lughah)” (Dictionary of Islam, 1965, page 14, Patrick P. Hughes).
You wrote:
” Since the Bible gives and the Jews recognise only one proper name for deity, “Allah” could only be recognised by pre-Islamic Jews as a GENERIC name for deity. For Jews the name Allah can never REPLACE the name YHWH. No name, including Allah, can even RIVAL, let alone be superior to the name YHWH!According to Moses in the Torah “YHWH” is his god’s one and only proper name and forever.”
This is a categorical ignorance of how languages function. The four consonants YHWH is Hebrew given to the Hebrews in Hebrew scriptures to be the name of God forever in Hebrew language. The proper Name Allah is Arabic used by Arabs including pre-Islamic Arab Jews and Christians for the only Being that Creates the world ever in history. The Arabic Name of God Allah does not clash with any other name of the Creator in all other languages. Islam allows for all languages to call God by the name accepted in that language provided the name is not defective and refers to Him. Even J G.I Moshay says:
“The God of heaven has been called by different names in different languages. But that has not hindered the relationship too significantly so far as their understanding of Him is right. Since God has deliberately split the human language too many, He may not expect us all to use the same name for Him all over the world.” (Who is This Allah, page 11, J G.I Moshay).
Shabir Ally does never believe that Allah is other than the God of the patriarchs and the prophets. What he points out is that Christians take Jesus as their God who was never recognized let alone be worshipped as God by the Jews. For this fact, the Jews do not believe that they worship the same God with the Christians, that the Christians recognized and worship a different god other than the God They recognized and worship.
@ MUJAHID
My comments regarding Ishaq:263 were only valid for Muslims who accept the authenticity of this report. Even if Finhas denied having made these comments, Muslims who accept this report are likely to believe Abu Bakr as opposed to Finhas. You are however right that Finhas’ reference to Allah in Ishaq:263 is not a generic name for deity because the Allah Finhas had in mind was as dead as a door nail.
I never claimed that Finhas, in THIS report, used Allah as a generic name. What I did say was that “Jews could call their god by the Arabic word “allah” if this term was used only as a general term for deity”.
Moses in the Torah recognized YHWH as the only proper name for deity. You need to provide credible evidence to show that the Jews recognised Allah as being equivalent to YHWH. Thus far, this you have UTTERLY failed to do. Can you tell us why the Jews refused to pronounce the name YHWH on account of it being too sacred and yet had no such respect for the name Allah? Did Jews consider the Hebrew divine name for deity holier than its “Arabic equivalent”??? Does this not make it abundantly clear that the Jews did not recognize Allah as the Arabic equivalent of YHWH?
It should be noted that Jesus and his disciples, out of respect for the Jewish tradition, also refused to pronounce the name YHWH. There is no evidence that they ever came into conflict with the Jewish authorities over this issue.
You need to provide pre-Islamic citations of Jewish usage of Allah so we can determine whether or not they support your argument.
Can you cite any translation of the Bible made by Jews which replaces the name YHWH with Allah in the following verse:
God also said to Moses, “Say to the Israelites, YHWH the God of your fathers—the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac and the God of Jacob—has sent me to you.’ “This is my name forever, the name you shall call me from generation to generation. (Exodus 3:15)
Your quote from J G.I Moshay is hardly convincing “…He MAY not expect us all to use the same name for Him all over the world” (emphasis added). To make your argument more convincing, what you really need to do, is not quote Moshay the scholar but Moshay THE PROPHET!!!
About the authenticity of ishaq:263.
I googled Ishaq:263 and the first five or six sites that came up, quoted this report without any of them saying that it was false. Among these sites were ALIM, The tafsirs, ISLAM BASICS.COM, Authentic Tauheed. Another site “Islam for life” gave the following comment regarding this incident:
Abu Bakr and Finhas the Jew
Abu Bakr and Finhas the Jew. One day Abu Bakr came across Finhas, one of the Jewish rabbis. Abu Bakr invited him to Islam, but Finhas ridiculed the offer. The Holy Prophet had enjoined on the Muslims to spend in the way of Allah, and according to the Holy Quran this was to be a loan against God repayable manifold the original amount. The Muslims were forbidden to charge interest. According to the religion of the Jews, interest was permissible. In this context Finhas argued: “We are rich, but your Allah is poor for He asks loan of us. Had He been independent of us He would not have given us interest, which He has denied to you.”
The blasphemy
Abu Bakr felt outraged at this blasphemy. In a fit of anger Abu Bakr slapped him in the face and said: “Were it not for the treaty between the Muslims and the Jews, I would have cut off your head, you enemy of Allah.” Finhas went to the Holy Prophet and complained that Abu Bakr had struck him on the face. When put to explanation, Abu Bakr said, “This enemy of Allah spoke blasphemy. He alleged that Allah was poor and they were rich. At such insolence against Allah I could not control myself, and I hit him.”
Revelation of the Holy Quran. Finhas denied the charge leveled against him by Abu Bakr. A revelation, however, confirmed what Abu Bakr had alleged. According to the revelation it was said that Allah had heard the speech of those who had said that Allah was poor and they were rich. About Abu Bakr’s anger, the following verses were revealed: ” And you will certainly hear from those Who received the Book before you and from the polytheists much that is wrong, But if you preserve and fear God, That is the steadfastness of things.”
According to “Islam for Life” (and others) Allah even responded to this incident! (Q 3:186)
Perhaps you will care to present your evidence for why this report should be rejected as false.
@MUJAHID
Quran 5:64. The Jews say: “(Allah)’s hand is tied up.” Be their hands tied up and be they accursed for the (blasphemy) they utter. Nay, both His hands are widely outstretched: He giveth and spendeth (of His bounty) as He pleaseth. But the revelation that cometh to thee from Allah increaseth in most of them their obstinate rebellion and blasphemy. Amongst them we have placed enmity and hatred till the Day of Judgment. Every time they kindle the fire of war, Allah doth extinguish it; but they (ever) strive to do mischief on earth. And Allah loveth not those who do mischief.
The following is a quote from Ibn Kathir:
The Jews Say That Allah’s Hand is Tied up!
Allah states that the Jews, may Allah’s continuous curses descend on them until the Day of Resurrection, describe Him as a miser. Allah is far holier than what they attribute to Him. The Jews also claim that Allah is poor, while they are rich. `Ali bin Abi Talhah reported that Ibn `Abbas commented on Allah’s statement,
(The Jews say, “Allah’s Hand is tied up.”) “They do not mean that Allah’s Hand is literally tied up. Rather, they mean that He is a miser and does not spend from what He has. Allah is far holier than what they attribute to Him.” Similar was reported from Mujahid, `Ikrimah, Qatadah, As-Suddi and Ad-Dahhak. Allah said in another Ayah,
(And let not your hand be tied (like a miser) to your neck, nor stretch it forth to its utmost reach (like a spendthrift), so that you become blameworthy and in severe poverty.) In this Ayah, Allah prohibits stinginess and extravagance, which includes unnecessary and improper expenditures. Allah describes stinginess by saying,
(And let not your hand be tied (like a miser) to your neck. ) Therefore, this is the meaning that the Jews meant, may Allah’s curses be on them. `Ikrimah said that this Ayah was revealed about Finhas, one of the Jews, may Allah curse him. We mentioned before that Finhas said,
(“Truly, Allah is poor and we are rich!”) and that Abu Bakr smacked him. Allah has refuted what the Jews attribute to Him and cursed them in retaliation for their lies and fabrications about Him. Allah said,
(Be their hands tied up and be they accursed for what they uttered.) What Allah said occurred, for the Jews are indeed miserly, envious, cowards and tremendously humiliated. ( Tafsir ibn Kathir)
According to Quran 5:64 “. The Jews say: “(Allah)’s hand is tied up”…
It is inconceivable that the Jews would ever have said: “YHWH’s hand is tied up”
The QURAN testifies that these Jews considered Muhammad’s Allah to be nothing more than a third rate pagan deity.
Is it any wonder that Ibn Kathir (and Allah) curses them so much?
“The Jews also claim that Allah is poor, while they are rich” (Tafsir Ibn Kathir)
Ibn Kathir appears to accept the gist of Ishaq: 263.
Reg,
You wrote: ” My comments regarding Ishaq:263 were only valid for Muslims who accept the authenticity of this report”.
Response: The fact is that this report could either be authentic or not. It could not be both at the same time! Your argument should have been made against Islam and not some particular Muslims that you assumed take the report to be authentic.
You wrote: “Even if Finhas denied having made these comments, Muslims who accept this report are likely to believe Abu Bakr as opposed to Finhas”
Response: The fact is that either Finhas DENIED having uttered these words or he CONCEEDED. The report clearly says he DENIED having uttered the words! And if Muslims are likely to believe Abu Bakr ( for faith-bias), whom Jews and Christians are likely to believe ( for the same faith bias)? Thus you are more likely to overlook what Abu Bakr said and confirmation by the verse and believe what Finhas said (that he didn’t actually said the words). Then your whole argument based on this inauthentic report is quite moot.
You wrote: “I never claimed that Finhas, in THIS report, used Allah as a generic name. What I did say was that “Jews could call their god by the Arabic word “allah” if this term was used only as a general term for deity”.
Response: Thanks for conceding that Finhas in this tale did not view the Name Allah as a generic word. And the fact is that the word Allah has never ever been used as a generic term for deity, as I pointed out above. To reiterate, the Arabic term used as a generic term for deity is “ilah” (when the deities are two in number the term used is “ilahain”, and when the deities are more than two the term used is “alihatu” (or “aliha” for short). Allah is actually never derived from the generic term “ilah” as pointed out above. The word Allah has ever been used for the Singular Being alone, the Creator and Sustainer of the world. The word Allah has never been used as a name for, or to refer to, any idol or any other being than the Eternal Heavenly Being that created the world. These facts distinguished the Name Allah to be proper Name per excellence and different from the Arabic generic term for deity which is “ilah”.
You wrote: “Moses in the Torah recognized YHWH as the only proper name for deity. You need to provide credible evidence to show that the Jews recognised Allah as being equivalent to YHWH. Thus far, this you have UTTERLY failed to do. Can you tell us why the Jews refused to pronounce the name YHWH on account of it being too sacred and yet had no such respect for the name Allah? Did Jews consider the Hebrew divine name for deity holier than its “Arabic equivalent”??? Does this not make it abundantly clear that the Jews did not recognize Allah as the Arabic equivalent of YHWH?”
Response: I don’t know what exactly you mean by the word equivalent here.
YHWH is Hebrew language while Allah is Arabic language. How could Moses who spoke only the Hebrew, who never spoke the Arabic as he was only Hebrew and not Arab, have used any other proper name for the Divine Being than Hebrew proper name? The fact that Moses used only Hebrew proper name for the Universal God of the world did not mean that other languages like the Hebrew would not have proper names in the respective languages for the same Divine Being. You can remember that there prophets that were not Hebrews since before Moses such as Enoch. And linguistically, the Arabic Name Allah is equivalent to the Hebrew name YHWH as both are linguistically proper names each in its language. If Arab Jews failed to recognize this then it’s a linguistic error from them for being theologically driven to overlook the linguistic fact. And I will soon present an archaeological evidence that the pre-Islamic Arabs recognized the Name Allah as equivalent to the Name YHWH.
You wrote: “Perhaps you will care to present your evidence for why this report should be rejected as false.”
Response: Yes, the report you referred to in the Seerah of Ibn Ishaq is not authentic for the following reason. You know, since Ibn Ishaq is more than a century removed from the time when the Prophet lived, he must provide sources tracing back to the time. His sources were oral transmitters. So He must provide reliable oral transmitters linked back to the time and place. Missing links render reports of such a nature unreliable and thus inauthentic.
Now, here is the chain of the transmitters of this report not only in the Seerah of Ibn Ishaq but even in the famous Tafsir of Imam Tabari (under Qur’an 5: 64) and other sources of the tale: Haddathana Muhammad bn Hussain, Haddathana Ahmad bn Mufaddhal, Haddathana Asbat AN SUDDI.
The tale is traceable to Suddi and then to none connecting/linking Suddi and any of the Companions of the Prophet who might have told him the story. Imam Suddi was not a companion. Therefore, it is established that there is a missing link which renders the report inauthentic, a mere tale. You, Mr. Reg, will make this report acceptable source for Muslims only if you can provide this same report with unbroken chain of reliable transmitters either from the Seerah Ibn Ishaq or any other source recognized by Islam. Without doing this, this report will continue to be regarded as unreliable and inauthentic till the Day of Reckoning! Thus basing your argument on such a report is completely UN-called for!
You wrote: “You need to provide pre-Islamic citations of Jewish usage of Allah so we can determine whether or not they support your argument.”
Response: Thank you for calling me to do so! See my next comment ,,, ,
Before presenting evidences that proved that the pre-Islamic Arab Jews and Christians used the Name Allah for the God they worshipped, let me address the following argument of yours:
“According to Quran 5:64 “. The Jews say: “(Allah)’s hand is tied up”…It is inconceivable that the Jews would ever have said: “YHWH’s hand is tied up”.
Response: Only after you pre-conceived the wrong notion that the Muslims used the Name Allah for a Being other than the God of Abraham and the other patriarchs and prophets you will give this Qur’anic passage the interpretation you conjured up!
Throughout the Qur’an and authentic Hadiths as well as Muslims tradition since the time of the Prophet to the present time, the Name Allah has been used for the Only Divine Heavenly Being who alone created the world, the only God that created Adam and Eve and tested them in the Garden, the God of Noah, Enoch, Abraham, Moses and all the Prophets. This fact is quite indisputable! And word is nothing but what it refers to – it’s meaning is derived from its general usage, from the meaning given to it by general usage!
Therefore, the Jews referred must have known this established fact of Islam and Muslims. So their contention could not be on the word or the Being referred with the world by Muslims. Their contention could only be on the Muslims’ (or the Qur’anic) conception of God’s nature. They must have only objected to the Qur’anic depiction of God as urging for loan to be given to HIM. The Qur’an in the passage requires Muslims to be giving charity ACTUALLY to the needy people and ACTUALLY not to HIM. Allah promised to repay back the charity givers in the next world. The Jews somehow misconstrued this to mean that the Qur’an and thus Muslims take God to be needy looking for charity or a miser that could not give Himself! But it is only an urge for Muslims to be always charitable!
So their argument was only on how the Qur’an and Muslims conceived God’s nature not on the usage of the Name Allah or the Being referred by Muslims with the Word.
By the clause “Allah’s Hands are tied up”, those Jews pointed out that by conceiving His nature as not giving but demanding (as they misunderstood what the passage actually says) it means Allah was a miser, was not a giver. They thus just pointed out what they thought to be a misconception of God’s nature by the Qur’an and Muslims. Allah responded to them that it does not mean that He was a miser (that His Hands are tied up) by denying the charge and pointed out that they were rather the misers, not giving out to people!
Therefore, your argument from this passage is only subjective re-interpretation. It is only valid to provide concrete objective evidence to establish your case.
And the archaeological and other historical evidence I will soon present for the fact that pre-Islamic Arab Jews and Christians recognized Allah as the Name of the God they worshipped will show that this interpretation of yours (wherever you got it) is not correct.
There is no question that the Jews knew that Muhammad was claiming to be sent by (YHWH) the god of the Torah. What Q 5:64 clearly shows is that the Jews rejected this claim by insulting Muhammad’s god. The Jews would not have insulted Allah if they believed he was the true God! If the Jews believed that Allah was YHWH then why did they insult him? The meaning of this verse is unmistakable: The Jews are saying to Muhammad/Muslims “YOUR god’s hand is tied up”. They are definitely not saying “OUR god’s hand is tied up”
.
If a prophet had come to the Jews in the name of YHWH, depicting him as urging for a loan to be given to him, they would not have rejected or refuted such a prophet by blaspheming or insulting their own god by saying “YHWH’s hand is tied up”.
What we are trying to determine is not how Muslims viewed the name Allah but how pre-Islamic Jews viewed it.
If the pre-Islamic Arabs Jews held YHWH and Allah in equal respect and esteem then these Jews considered Allah to be the Arabic equivalent of the Hebrew YHWH.
First , the Qur’an – which is the oldest Arabic document in existence and which was contemporaneous with the Arab Jews and Christians – quoted the contemporary Arab Jews and Christians using the Name Allah for the only true God. Bible scholar Rick Brown says:
“In later stages of his work, the prophet of Islam faced increasing resistance and disputation from Christians. There are a number of passages in the Qur’an that cite these disputes. Some of these passages quote statements made by the Christians, and it might be noted that the Christians are quoted as using the term Allah. Examples include their claim that “Allah is Jesus” (Al-Ma’ida 5:17), that Christians are “sons of Allah” (Al-Ma’ida 5:18), and that Jesus is a “son of Allah” (At-Tawba 9:30). Nowhere in the Qur’an is there any indication that Arab Christians and Jews referred to God by a name different from those used in the Qur’an. All of the disputation passages reflect situations in which the same God is in view and is referred to in the same basic ways.”(Rick Brown, Who was ‘Allah’ before Islam? Evidence that the term ‘Allah’ originated with Jewish and Christian Arabs (2007), page 14).
Hundreds upon hundreds of authentic Hadiths quoted former Jewish rabbis such as Abdullah bn Salam and professed Arab Jews and Christians using the Name Allah as the Arabic Name of the only true God.
Ignoring all these to capitalize on a mere stretched interpretative argument against this fact of Islam is a clear case of cherry-picking and disregard of evidences.
Secondly, there are independent evidences in form of archaeological and independent historical evidences that established the fact that the pre-Islamic Arab Jews and Christians used the Name Allah for the only true God. Rick Brown, the evangelical Christian Bible scholar, reveals:
“Kenneth Thomas (2006b) followed up with an article showing that Arabic-speaking Jews, Christians, and Muslims have always referred to the one true God as Allah, while Massey (2003) and Cox (2006) have emphasized that Arab Christians call God Allah, and that the term is related linguistically to Hebrew terms for God. Imad Shehadeh (2004), director of an Arab Christian seminary, notes the Scripture use Allah, and that this practice is documented from ancient times until the present. This fact is well exemplified in the essays in David Thomas (2006a), especially (Kachouh 2006). Shehadeh notes the total lack of evidence that anyone ever used the term Allah as the name of a moon god.” (Rick Brown, Who was ‘Allah’ before Islam? Evidence that the term ‘Allah’ originated with Jewish and Christian Arabs (2007), page 8).
Rick Brown says:
“Harding’s Index and Concordance of Pre-Islamic Names and Inscriptions includes the following observation (1971: 907): “A feature which emerges very clearly from these lists [of theophoric names] is the overwhelming popularity of ’l , ’lh .” So while many inscriptions bore theophoric names that incorporated the names of pagan deities, there was an “overwhelming” number of theophoric names that incorporated ’lh [Allah] and the shortened form ’l. The widespread usage of these terms in the two centuries before Islam correlates with the well-documented spread of Christianity throughout most of Arabia that during that same period (Guillaume & Ibn Ishaq 2002 [1955]: 18)” (Rick Brown, Who was ‘Allah’ before Islam? Evidence that the term ‘Allah’ originated with Jewish and Christian Arabs (2007), page 8.).
Note that Rick Brown did publish his research in the International Journal of Frontier Mission, Summer 2006.
See my next comment…
The Wikipedia says:
“Some archaeological excavation quests have led to the discovery of ancient pre-Islamic inscriptions and tombs made by Arabic-speaking Christians in the ruins of a church at Umm el-Jimal in Northern Jordan, which contained references to Allah as the proper name of God, and some of the graves contained names such as “Abd Allah” which means “the servant/slave of Allah”.[48][49][50]” (http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allah ).
Bible scholar Rick Brown reveals:
“This archaeological evidence is corroborated by historical sources as well. For example, a leader of the Christians who was martyred in Najran in 523 AD is said to have been ‘Abdullah ibn Abu Bakr ibn Muhammad. Not only does he bear a theophoric name that means “servant of Allâh”, he is also said to have worn a ring that said “Allah is my Lord” (Guillaume & Ibn Ishaq 2002 [1955]: 18).
The Wiki reveals:
“In an inscription of Christian martyrion dated back to 512 AD, references to Allah can be found in both Arabic and Aramaic, which called him “Allah” and “Alaha”, and the inscription starts with the statement “By the Help of Allah”.[8][53][54]
In pre-Islamic Gospels, the name used for God was “Allah”, as evidenced by some discovered Arabic versions of the New Testament written by Arab Christians during the pre-Islamic era in Northern and Southern Arabia.[55][56][57]
Pre-Islamic Arab Christians have been reported to have raised the battle cry “Ya La Ibad Allah” (O slaves of Allah) to invoke each other into battle.[58]” (http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allah ).
The foregoing are some of the archaeological and historical evidences that established the fact that the pre-Islamic Arab Jews and Christians used the Name Allah for the true God in Arabic.
Points of note are:
1. The common or generic term for deity in Arabic is ILAH (ilahain when the deities are two, and aliha when they are more than two). But the Name Allah has never been a common, generic term, for deity in Arabic but specific Name of the only Living Heavenly Being who created the heavens and the earth and sends all the Prophets. Thus the equivalent of the English word GOD is ILAH in Arabic. not Allah which is not a common name. Thus the equivalent of the Hebrew El or Elohim or the Greek Theos is the Arabic ILAH which is generic like these words. Thus any attempt to take the Proper Arabic Name Allah as generic is total violation of the grammar and language usage of the Arabic language. Only theological drive , but not linguistic one, could lead any people to try to make use of this Arabic proper Name as generic.
3. The Name Allah proves beyond shadow of doubt to be a Proper Name as it is used of only Singular Heavenly Being that created the world and sent all the patriarchs and the prophets.
4. Whenever Muslims used the Word Allah they undeniably only refer to the Ever-living Heavenly Being that creates the world and sent all the Prophets and the patriarchs. To counter this well-established fact, you have to bring evidence that the Muslims meant not this Divine Being of the patriarchs and the prophets whenever they used the Name Allah!! In the absence of anything worth an evidence to the contrary, one cannot contend that the Proper Arabic Name Allah is not equivalent to the Hebrew Proper Name YHWH for both being proper not generic and refer to the same Divine Being in two different languages.
5. For a superstitious belief, the Jews for millennium lost the actual pronunciation of the tetragammaton (four Hebrew consonants that have no vowels). And the ancient manuscripts have been consonantal, without vowels. This creates the confusion concerning the actual original pronunciation of the word. Thus some pronounce it as YAHWEH, some as YAHOWAH, some as YAHAWEH etc. In other words, the actual pronunciation is lost! Further, the actual meaning of the four consonants is also lost! These made the letters now defective and thus unfit for the Perfect God Almighty to whom nothing defective is attributed.
6. The word YHWH could be meant to be the Proper Name of God in Hebrew language especially before it lost its original pronunciation and meaning. This does never mean that any other language would never have proper Name of the same God in that particular language.
7. The Jews did avoid pronouncing the Hebrew Word YHWH in their language due to their superstitious tradition which now corrupted the Name of its actual pronunciation and meaning. But other people that don’t have that tradition of pure superstition concerning God’s proper Name in their language could well pronounce the Name. Thus Jewish tradition of not using the term YHWH for pure superstition would not prevent them from using an equivalent proper Name of the same God in another language such as Arabic that don’t have that traditional superstition for God’s Proper Name.
@ Reg,
Let me conclude the present response with the following facts from the Christian Bible scholar Rick Brown: –
Evangelical Bible scholar Rick Brown reveals that Jews and Christians translates the Hebrew YHWH as Allah thus using the names as equivalent proper names for the same Divine Being: –
“There were other Jewish Arabic translations as well, notably the one made by the Karaites at the same time as Saadia. All of these Jewish translations use Allah as the name of God, using it to translate both Elohim and YHWH.” (International Journal of Frontier Mission, 2006-2007, page 80, Rick Brown).
Note this sincere admission of evidence by Dr. Rick Brown:
“for there is no inscription that identifies Allah as a moon god or as a pagan deity. This contrasts with the Hebrew, Greek, Latin, and English words for God, all of which descend from words that were commonly used by pagans in reference to pagan deities. So the name Allah is freer of pagan roots than are these other names!” (International Journal of Frontier Mission, 2006-2007, page 81, Rick Brown).
Dr. Brown cautions you people:-
“But when Muslims encounter Christian religious materials that have carefully avoided all mention of the name Allah, they often fear the materials are intended to lead them away from God. And if Western Christians “explain” to their Muslim friends that Muslims use the name Allah to invoke a demon or moon god, then they lose all credibility.” ( Rick Brown, Who was ‘Allah’ before Islam? Evidence that the term ‘Allah’ originated with Jewish and Christian Arabs (2007), page 2).
Quran 3:181. Allah hath heard the taunt of those who say: “Truly, Allah is indigent and we are rich!”- We shall certainly record their word and (their act) of slaying the prophets in defiance of right, and We shall say: “Taste ye the penalty of the Scorching Fire!
No Jew who believed that Allah was the “Only Divine Heavenly Being who alone created the world, the only God that created Adam and Eve and tested them in the Garden, the God of Noah, Enoch, Abraham, Moses and all the Prophets” would ever say such a thing. You need to come out of denial and accept that for these Jews, Allah was a much a deity as the Black Stone in his house.
Addendum
Quote
Sa`id bin Jubayr said that Ibn `Abbas said, “When Allah’s statement, (Who is he that will lend to Allah a goodly loan so that He may multiply it to him many times) ﴿ 2:245 ﴾ was revealed, the Jews said, `O Muhammad! Has your Lord become poor so that He asks His servants to give Him a loan’ Allah sent down, (Indeed, Allah has heard the statement of those (Jews) who say: “Truly, Allah is poor and we are rich!”) ﴿3:181.(Tafsir Ibn Kathir).
Notice here what these Jews say to Muhammad:
“Muhammad! Has YOUR Lord become poor so that He asks His servants to give Him a loan” (emphasis added)
It is as clear as daylight that these Jews saw Allah of the Quran as being only MUHAMMAD’S lord and NOT their own. THIS is clearly why they were making such derogatory remarks about him. These Jews would never have said such a thing about YHWH.
You said: “They thus just pointed out what they thought to be a misconception of God’s nature by the Qur’an and Muslims. Allah responded to them that it does not mean that He was a miser (that His Hands are tied up) by denying the charge and pointed out that they were rather the misers, not giving out to people!”
According to the Quran the Jews described Allah as a miser and they said Allah was poor and they were rich.
As a result Abu Bakr became violent (and would have beheaded if it was not for a treaty), the commentators want the Jews continually cursed till the Day of Judgement, Allah curses the Jews and threatens to burn them in Hell – and you want us to believe, all this for simply pointing “out what they thought to be a misconception of God’s nature by the Qur’an and Muslims”???
What did the Jews have to do then to reject Allah? Had they described YHWH as a miser and poor (and claimed to be richer than him) would that not have been a rejection of YHWH?
Allah and other Muslims took these Jewish insults far more seriously than yourself. It appears you are determined to hold on to your contention that the Jews believed that Muhammad’s Allah was the god of the Torah and you are not going to let the evidence get in the way.
As I said above “He (Muhammad) made belief in his fraud i.e. “imaan” the greatest virtue. To retain this all-important imaan Muslims deny a mountain of real evidence that gives the lie to Muhammad’s claim of divine selection”.
Since these Jews described Muhammad’s Allah in a way they would never have dared to describe YHWH, it follows that they did not consider the two to be the same.
Another source I found in relation to this was:
Then Allah mentioned the Jews, Finhas Ibn ‘Azura’ and his friends when they said: “O Muhammad! Allah is poor: He is asking us to give Him a loan”, saying (Verily Allah heard the saying of those) Finhas Ibn ‘Azura’ and his fellows (who said, (when asked for contributions to the war): “Allah, forsooth, is poor) He needs us to give Him a loan, (and we are rich!”) and we do not need a loan from Him. (We shall record their saying) We shall preserve for them what they have said in the Hereafter (with their slaying of the Prophets) just as We shall record for them their slaying of the prophets (wrongfully) without them having committed any crime (and We shall say: Taste ye the punishment of burning!) which is very severe. (Tanwîr al-Miqbâs min Tafsîr Ibn ‘Abbâs;
Reg,
I can see how you conveniently ignored all I pointed out in the published comments before you commented.
I pointed out how the tale of Finhas is inauthentic, apocryphal, yet you desperately cling to it! Tayside Al-Miqbas ascribed to Ibn Abbas is considered by all authorities, Muslim and non-Muslim alike to be not by Ibn Abbas and unreliable. Quoting the same unreliable tale of Finhas from this unreliable source shows your utter desperation.
I pointed out to you clearly that what the Jews objected in the passage was about the conception of God’s nature not the Arabic Divine Name or whom Muslims meant by the Name. The passage just urges Muslims to be charitable to people. The language by the passage was misconstrued by the Jews under discussion to mean that Allah needed charity for Himself or that He does not give Himself and thus was a miser. Clearly this was about God’s nature and not His Name or His identity. And clearly these Jews misconstrued what the passage means. By saying that when the Qur’an urges charity to be given to Allah it means that Allah’s Hands are tied up, that He is a miser, the Jews were questioning the Qur’anic conception of God’s nature. They were definitely not questioning the Name or whom the Muslims referred to as Allah. It is only the language they use in trying to point out what they misconstrued (Allah’s Hands are tied up) that confused you to think that they question the Name or whom the Muslims referred by the Name.
You quoted : “`O Muhammad! Has your Lord become poor so that He asks His servants to give Him a loan’”.
This also proves my point above as they were here just asking whether about what the passage meant – whether it means that the Lord to the Muslims became poor to ask for loan. It was asking for the loan alone – which concerns God’s nature alone not His Name or who he was meant by the Muslims – that their polemics was all about. And they plainly misconstrued the passage as neither the passage or any other place in the Qur’an urges people to give charity not to people but actually to Allah Himself. In fact, in many passages Allah says that He is self-sufficient ( Al-Ghaniy) and that He need not creatures to provide for Him when He is the Provider to all (Qur’an 6:14).
And your polemics based on this passage about some Jews question Qur’anic depiction of Allah’s urge for charity to people also fails completely upon the consideration that the Jews were quoted throughout the Qur’an referring to the God they worshipped as Allah. I already pointed this out above. Therefore, your isolation of that passage alone for your whole polemics while ignoring the general and plain current of the Book quoting the Jews referring to the God they worshipped as Allah in Arabic is a clear case of cherry-picking from the Qur’an and the other sources of Islam.
Further, the independent archaeological and historical evidences presented above to the effect that both the pre-Islamic Arab Jews and Arab Christians referred to the God they worshipped as Allah and had translations of the scriptures in Arabic translating not only Elohim but also YHWH as Allah put the last nail on the coffin of your desperate uninformed argument.
Let me repost a comment I made above for your further consideration:
Evangelical Bible scholar Rick Brown reveals that Jews and Christians translates the Hebrew YHWH as Allah thus using the names as equivalent proper names for the same Divine Being: –
“There were other Jewish Arabic translations as well, notably the one made by the Karaites at the same time as Saadia. All of these Jewish translations use Allah as the name of God, using it to translate both Elohim and YHWH.” (International Journal of Frontier Mission, 2006-2007, page 80, Rick Brown).
Note this sincere admission of evidence by Dr. Rick Brown:
“for there is no inscription that identifies Allah as a moon god or as a pagan deity. This contrasts with the Hebrew, Greek, Latin, and English words for God, all of which descend from words that were commonly used by pagans in reference to pagan deities. So the name Allah is freer of pagan roots than are these other names!” (International Journal of Frontier Mission, 2006-2007, page 81, Rick Brown).
Dr. Brown cautions you people:-
“But when Muslims encounter Christian religious materials that have carefully avoided all mention of the name Allah, they often fear the materials are intended to lead them away from God. And if Western Christians “explain” to their Muslim friends that Muslims use the name Allah to invoke a demon or moon god, then they lose all credibility.” ( Rick Brown, Who was ‘Allah’ before Islam? Evidence that the term ‘Allah’ originated with Jewish and Christian Arabs (2007), page 2).
It is irrelevant whether the Jews interpreted correctly or incorrectly Allah’s asking for a loan. What is relevant is whether or not they insulted him. There can be no doubt whatsoever that they DID knowingly and deliberately insult him.
Quran 5:64 “. The Jews say: “(Allah)’s hand is tied up…” (“Allah is a miser”)
Quran 3:181. Allah hath heard the taunt of those who say: “Truly, Allah is indigent and we are rich!…”
If this is not an insult to Allah then we need to redefine the word.
Is it credible that the Jews so clearly, openly, deliberately and fearlessly insulted a deity they considered to be the only true and living God??? Is this what you are really asking me to believe?
Please note that with regards to this issue I quote other sources as back-up but Allah is my greatest witness.
You said: “The fact that Moses used only Hebrew proper name for the Universal God of the world did not mean that other languages like the Hebrew would not have proper names in the respective languages for the same Divine Being.”
Can you then tell me what is the proper name of Allah in English?
The Greek New Testament does not even once use or recognize YHWH as the proper name for god so why would Christians want to use its “Arabic equivalent”? Since god does not even have a proper name in the Gospels no translation of this book could have one either. If the Injeel was revealed in Greek by Allah why then did he not give his proper name in this language? Since Muslims do not recognize the Christian Allah as the one true god, would be correct for Muslims to say that Christians were using the name Allah for the one true god before Islam? The Allah, the Christian Abdullah was named after consisted of three persons (which included a “Muslim prophet” who lived in the first century.
Muhammad’s father’s name was Abdullah and his Allah had three daughters. So Abdullah does not necessarily mean the slave of the one true god without partners.
There may have been Jews named Abdullah but this does not prove that they recognized Allah as the equivalent of YHWH especially given the Christian and Meccan use of this name. We have seen extremely strong evidence from the Quran that they rejected Allah as a proper name for deity because they insulted Allah by name. When the Jews translated the Torah into Greek they translated YHWH as theos, this did not mean that they then recognized “theos“ as the proper name of god in Greek. Similarly if Jews translated YHWH into Arabic as Allah this does not mean that the name of God for them had changed. This is further shown by the fact that the Jews were prepared to pronounce Allah but not YHWH. Interestingly the Quran puts Allah into the mouths of Jesus and his early followers although they refused to pronounce the name YHWH.
You accuse me of cherry picking. Even if I considered all Jewish comments in the Quran to favour Allah except the two I quoted, am I not entitled to bring these to your attention?
The Quran also puts Allah into the mouths of Moses and the Israelites, a name they never recognized for deity. Perhaps this is the context in which at least some of the verses of the Quran (and other Islamic sources) should be seen when it puts Allah into the mouths of Muhammad’s contemporaries.
CORRECTION: When the Hebrew Bible was translated into Greek (the Septuagint), YHWH was represented by the Greek word kyrios meaning lord.
Reg,
It quite clear now that you are not interested in honest discussion thus you repeatedly ignore mountain of evidences from Islamic sources, archaeological sources, historical sources and linguistic evidences presented above which soundly refuted your misinformed claims. This is usually expected of highly biased polemecists.
Now, let me re-addressed your invalid argument based on your interpretation of two isolated verses.
You wrote: “It is irrelevant whether the Jews interpreted correctly or incorrectly Allah’s asking for a loan. What is relevant is whether or not they insulted him. There can be no doubt whatsoever that they DID knowingly and deliberately insult him.”
Response: Pointing out the fact that they misinterpreted the passage they intended to find fault with proves that their premise was wrong and thus necessarily their conclusion based on the wrong premise must also be wrong.
And in the two passages, the Jews in question did not make the negative remarks about Allah just without cause. The cause was not about the Name or Whom the Muslims referred by the Name. The cause was clearly on their misconception that the Qur’an wrongly depicts Allah as demanding charity for Himself. So, they were clearly only questioning the Qur’anic depiction of Allah’s Nature – that if Allah is in need of charity then He is poor! So. whether you like it or not, the contention of those Jews was only on the Qur’anic depiction of Allah’s Nature.
Now, they used a terse metaphorical language in stating their objection of what they conceived as Qur’anic wrong depiction of Allah’s Nature when they stated it thus: Allah’s Hands are tied up or Allah is poor and we are rich! By such a remark, they only questioned Qur’anic depiction of Allah’s Nature. They did not make the remarks for no cause than that they disbelieved in the One Whom the Muslims referred by the Name Allah or just merely the Name.
The remarks might well be taken as an insult but they were not insulting anything but what they misconceived as Qur’anic wrong depiction of Allah’s Nature.
Now, let me show you that immediately after Qur’an 5: 64 about that remark, few verses quoted the then Christian Arabs referring to whom they took to be God as Allah:
لَقَدۡ كَفَرَ الَّذِيۡنَ قَالُوۡۤا اِنَّ اللّٰهَ هُوَ الۡمَسِيۡحُ ابۡنُ مَرۡيَمَ ؕ وَقَالَ الۡمَسِيۡحُ يٰبَنِىۡۤ اِسۡرَآءِيۡلَ اعۡبُدُوا اللّٰهَ رَبِّىۡ وَرَبَّكُمۡ ؕ اِنَّهٗ مَنۡ يُّشۡرِكۡ بِاللّٰهِ فَقَدۡ حَرَّمَ اللّٰهُ عَلَيۡهِ الۡجَـنَّةَ وَمَاۡوٰٮهُ النَّارُ ؕ وَمَا لِلظّٰلِمِيۡنَ مِنۡ اَنۡصَارٍ
“And surely they disbelieved when they said: ‘Christ, the son of Mary, is indeed Allah’….”(Qur’an 5:72).
Also, the next verse:
لَـقَدۡ كَفَرَ الَّذِيۡنَ قَالُوۡۤا اِنَّ اللّٰهَ ثَالِثُ ثَلٰثَةٍ ۘ وَمَا مِنۡاِلٰهٍ اِلَّاۤ اِلٰـهٌ وَّاحِدٌ ؕ وَاِنۡ لَّمۡ يَنۡتَهُوۡا عَمَّا يَقُوۡلُوۡنَ لَيَمَسَّنَّ الَّذِيۡنَ كَفَرُوۡا مِنۡهُمۡ عَذَابٌ اَ لِيۡمٌ
“Those who said: ‘Allah is one in the Three’, certainly they disbelieved, for there is no god save the One God. And if they do not give up this claim, all who have disbelieved among them shall be subjected to painful chastisement.”(Qur’an 5:73)
And another passage quoted both Arab Jews and Christians referring to their God as Allah:
“The Jews call `Uzair a son of Allah, and the Christians call Christ the son of Allah. That is the saying from their mouth; (In this) they are intimate; what the Unbelievers of the old used to say. Allah’s curse be on them: how they are deluded away from the truth” (Qur’an 9:30].
So, as per as the Qur’an is concerned, it is taking it out of context to isolate just some two verses from it and concluded that according to it the Arab Jews and Christians never believed the Name Allah as an Arab name of the God they worshipped while ignoring all other verses plainly denoting that both Arab Jews and Christians referred to the God they worshipped as Allah.
So you clearly could not maintain your wrong interpretation and conclusion without falling over into the guilt of cherry-picking your source and interpreting it out of context!!
Also. you referred to Quran 3:181 where some Jews were quoted making the remark that Allah was poor while they were rich for the Qur’anic urging of charity giving. You misinterpreted the statement, the passage and the actual contention of those Arab Jews in question.
Now, reading that very verse in its context disprove your misintferpretation (that Arab Jews never recognised Allah as the God they worshipped). Read:
The ones who said, “Surely Allah has covenanted with us that we should not believe any Messenger until he comes up to us with an all-sanctified sacrifice to be eaten up by fire.” Say, “Messengers even before me already came to you with supreme evidences and with that which you said. Why then did you kill them in case you are sincere?”(Qur’an 3:183).
So the context proves that the Arab Jews believed that the God they worshipped was Allah.
Therefore, Qur’an as a source clearly reveals that the Arab Jews and Christians believed that Allah was the God they worshipped.
It is only the fallacy of cherry-picking, isolating some few verses out of context, failing to read the Qur’an in context and injecting your pre-conceived bias into the verses you severed out of context that make you reached your wrong conclusion concerning the Qur’an as a source.
I noticed that you completely ignored all the archaeological and historical evidences I presented that established without doubt that Arab Jews and Christians since before Prophet Muhammad used the Arab proper Noun Allah for the true God they worshipped. This reflects greatly against your sincerity of purpose and your honesty!
First, you quoted the tale about Finhas which I showed you that it cannot be traced back to the time of the Prophet through linked transmitters as it’s chain of transmitters terminated on a person known as Suddi who never witnessed either the alleged Finhas or Abu Bakr or the Prophet. Thus it is evidently unreliable and thus a mere tale! You then quoted the same tale from the Tafsir Al-Miqbas Min Ibn Abbas which all scholars agreed was not written by Ibn Abbas and is unreliable. Quoting apocryphal report for your argument shows your misguidance.
I quoted archaeological and historical evidences selectively only by Christians scholars published in reputable peer-reviewed Journal proving that pre-Islamic Arabs and Jews recognized Allah as the true God they worshipped. But you turned a blind eye to all these to continue in your misinformed argument!
I quoted Dr. Rick Brown, reputed evangelical Christian Bible scholar, publishing in reputable peer-reviewed Christian Journal that the Pre-Islamic Jews translated both Elohim and YHWH as Allah:
“There were other Jewish Arabic translations as well, notably the one made by the Karaites at the same time as Saadia. All of these Jewish translations use Allah as the name of God, using it to translate both Elohim and YHWH.” (International Journal of Frontier Mission, 2006-2007, page 80, Rick Brown).
This historical fact exposed as fallacious the argument you begin with that Prophet Muhammad invented Allah as the God worshipped by Arab Jews and Christians!!
Evangelical Bible scholar Rick Brown published the research in the reputable Christian Journal that the Name Allah was never used of any idol even before the advent of the Prophet:
“for there is no inscription that identifies Allah as a moon god or as a pagan deity. This contrasts with the Hebrew, Greek, Latin, and English words for God, all of which descend from words that were commonly used by pagans in reference to pagan deities. So the name Allah is freer of pagan roots than are these other names!” (International Journal of Frontier Mission, 2006-2007, page 81, Rick Brown).
This fact proves the Name to be the personal Name of only the Heavenly Divine Creator of the world. This is what it takes a name to be a Proper Name per excellence!
I pointed out that the generic word for God in Arabic is “ilah” and that the word “Allah” is actually never even derived from the generic term “ilah”. Thus the equivalent of the English word GOD is ILAH in Arabic not ALLAH which is a proper noun – and thus the equivalent of the Greek Theos in Arabic is only the term ILAH and the equivalent of the Hebrew El (or any other Hebrew generic term) is only ILAH in Arabic. Allah is just the Arabic equivalent term of the Hebrew YHWH being both proper names in the respective languages used for the Heavenly Living Creator of the world.
The English word GOD is a generic term equivalent to the Arabic ILAH which is the generic term for God in Arabic. The fact that English language does not have proper Name of God does not mean that all other languages in the world do not have proper names for the Creator of the world – many other languages have proper names in the respective languages used for the Only Creator of the world.
Now, if you were not so much highly biased and insincere, I would have expected you to recognize all the evidences and accept the fact pointed out by the evidences: that Allah is ever the Arabic Proper Name used only for the Ever-living Heavenly Creator God of the world used even before Prophet Muhammad by Arab Jews and Christians for the true God.
You said: “This historical fact exposed as fallacious the argument you begin with that Prophet Muhammad invented Allah as the God worshipped by Arab Jews and Christians!!”
Note what I ACTUALLY said “Muhammad simply took the Meccan deity Allah and reinvented him as the only true God without partners.
I did not say “Muhammad invented Allah” but “REinvented him”. There is a MASSIVE difference in what I said and what you thought I said!
Arab Jews and Christians (like Muhammad) also learnt of Allah from the Arabs and may have used this Arabic term to refer to deity in the Arabic language. Since the Bible does not recognise Allah as a proper name for deity, if any Jew or Christian did recognise Allah as a proper name for their deity then they were in gross error because this contradicted the teachings of their own scriptures. The Bible only gives one name for god and nowhere does it say that Allah is equivalent to YHWH in Arabic. Similarly a Muslim would be in error for recognising the English word “God” as a proper name for Allah since this is not sanctioned by the Islamic sources. If any translations of the Quran rendered Allah as “God” then they were also in error.
You say the “English language does not have proper Name of God…” What then is the proper name of God in Greek? And would you accept that the injeel was given to Jesus in Greek?
If the Jews believed Allah to be the only true God of the universe but wanted to disagree with their understanding of the Quran’s presentation of him, then they could have said something like:
“To Allah belong the heavens and the earth and it is far above his majesty that he should require a loan from anybody, and he gives abundantly to all who humbly ask him and worship him in truth”
AND NOT:
“Allah is poor and we are rich” and “Allah’s hand is tied up” i. e. he is a miser.
They did not have to insult Allah using his name and boast that they were superior to him in order to disagree with a certain Quranic verse. You don’t have to insult your own God to disagree with someone’s description of him.
As I said before If a prophet had come to the Jews in the name of YHWH, depicting him as urging for a loan to be given to him, they would not have rejected or refuted such a prophet by blaspheming or insulting their own god by saying “YHWH’s hand is tied up” or “YHWH is poor and we are rich”.
On the one hand we have the Jews refusing to pronounce the name of a deity because it is too sacred to utter and on the other hand they insult a deity using and uttering his name, and you are asking me to believe that these Jews considered both these deities to be one and the same???
Reg,
You wrote: “Note what I ACTUALLY said “Muhammad simply took the Meccan deity Allah and reinvented him as the only true God without partners.”
Response: And I say that you are completely wrong and clearly a victim of misinformation to have made these claims.
First, no source ever say that Allah is only a Meccan deity. All sources – the contemporaneous Qur’an, Hadiths, archaeological evidences and historical evidences proved that Allah was used as the Proper Name of the Living Heavenly Creator throughout Arabia since before Islam. Therefore, for you to claim that Allah was a Meccan deity is to demonstrate your misinformation and irresponsibly careless assertions.
Secondly, even the Arabs that recognized idols as deities did recognize Allah as the Name of the Living Heavenly Creator of the world and never dared named any of their many idols as Allah. The contemporaneous Qur’an says about them:”If you ask them, who created them? They will surely say: Allah” (Qur’an 43:87). “If you ask them, who is it that created the the heavens and the earth? They will surely say: Allah. Say (in reply): ‘Praise be to Allah’. But most of them understand not.”(Qur’an 31:25). So as they recognized Allah as the sole Living Heavenly Creator of the world, why did they worship the idols, what were the position and the function of their many idols? The contemporaneous Qur’an says that when they were asked the same question is they responded:”We only worship them so that they may bring us closer to Allah.”(Qur’an 39:3). So their worship of the idols was a gradual development and arose due to a developed superstition that Allah was too holy and distant to be worshipped directly so that they developed means of getting closer to Him, developed intercessors as they were not holy enough to worship Him directly. The Qur’an says:”And they worshipped besides Allah that neither hurt them nor profit them, and they say:’these are our intercessors with Allah. Say (to them):”Do you inform Allah of that which He knows not in heavens or on earth? Glorified and exalted is He above that which they associate with Him in worship.”(Qur’an 10:18). “What! Do they take for intercessors others besides Allah? Sa: Even if they (the idols taken as intercessors with the only Divine Creator) have no power whatever and no intelligence (I.e were not even aware of their being taken as intercessors let alone have the power to do so)?!”(Qur’an 39:43).
Therefore, the Qur’an was reasoning with them to discard all their idols which were a development in their relationship with Allah the Living Heavenly Creator – they developed and introduced the worship of the idols as intercessors or ladders to the only Creator due to a developed superstition that Allah – the Ever Living Heavenly Creator – was too high to be worshipped directly.
So, even those pre-Islamic Arabs that worshipped idols recognized Allah to be alone the Living Heavenly Creator. They never recognized any of their idols and images as Allah or representation of Allah. Dr. Rick Brown, the evangelical Christian Bible scholar, reveals:
“Suppose for the sake of argument that the ancient Arabs did worship the moon. This would have no bearing on the name Allah, for there is no inscription that identifies Allah as a moon god or as a pagan deity. This contrasts with the Hebrew, Greek, Latin, and English words for God, all of which descend from words that were commonly used by pagans in reference to pagan deities. So the name Allah is freer of pagan roots than are these other names!”(International Journal of Frontier Mission, Summer 2006, page 81).
Thirdly, there has been a record of the fact that many pre-Islamic Arabs sought to worship Allah directly without the agency of any idol or image, that many worshipped Allah as the Living Heavenly Creator alone without taking any idol as intercessor to Him. In other words, many Arabs worshipped Allah without recognizing idols or images for worship. There are known as Hunafa (plural of Hanif) and the Prophet of Islam was among them since before Islam.
Fourthly, there were the Arab Jews and Arab Christians that recognized Allah as the true God they worshipped since before Islam, as demonstrated all along.
Therefore, to claim that Allah was a Meccan deity is plain ignorance. To claim that the Prophet simply took a Meccan deity and re-invented him as the true God without partners , as you asserted, is gross ignorance resulting from gross misinformation.
You wrote: ” Arab Jews and Christians (like Muhammad)also learnt of Allah from the Arabs and may have used this Arabic term to refer to deity in the Arabic language.”
Response: The Arabs never in history used the word Allah to refer to anything but the Living Heavenly Creator of the heavens and the earth alone. All their idols were later developments and never recognized any of the idols as Allah, the Only Creator of the heavens and the earth. Since this name is ever reserved of only a Single Being – the Heavenly Creator of all – by all Arabs since the pre-Islamic times, is is evident that the Name is a Proper Name. That is what it takes a name to be proper. The generic term used for all deities in Arabic is “ilah” when referring to one deity and “ilahain” when referring to two deities and “alihah” when referring to more than two deities. So any attempt you make to relegate the Divine Name Allah to a common, generic, name is repulsed by the grammar and usage of the Arabic language and the usage of the Divine Name ever in history. Perhaps you will wisely give up this attempt now which is equal to an attempt to square a circle!
You wrote:”Since the Bible does not recognise Allah as a proper name for deity, if any Jew or Christian did recognise Allah as a proper name for their deity then they were in gross error because this contradicted the teachings of their own scriptures. The Bible only gives one name for god and nowhere does it say that Allah is equivalent to YHWH in Arabic. Similarly a Muslim would be in error for recognising the English word “God” as a proper name for Allah since this is not sanctioned by the Islamic sources. If any translations of the Quran rendered Allah as “God” then they were also in error.”
Response: I have already addressed this ridiculous argument above and yet you desperately repeat it!
The Old Testament was written in HEBREW language for the HEBREWS . So what name would you expect it to use for God Almighty? Of course it would only use HEBREW name for God as it only used the HEBREW language and intended for HEBREWS. To expect such an Old Testament to have used the name for the same Universal God of any other language is absurd!
And the fact that Moses is said to have been revealed that name, YHWH (now only four pronounceless and meaningless Hebrew consonants), to be used for God for ever in the Biblical Torah that evidently was not written by Moses but long after him by anonymous guy/guys applies only to the Hebrews and they were the only people so addressed then and it was a name (now consonants) for them in their own language.
To supposed that God could only have a name only in Hebrew language is to limit the Universal God to only to the Hebrews, is to make God Himself to be a Hebrew!
God Almighty is a Universal God. to be recognized and worshipped in all languages. A tribal god is never the True God Almighty.
All languages originated from God, came from God. In the Biblical story of the tower of Babel, it is revealed:”Now the whole earth had one language and few words….And the LORD said , ‘Behold, they are one people, and they have all one language….Come let us go down and there confuse their language, that they may not understand one another’s speech….Therefore its Name was called Babel because there the LORD confused the language of all the earth…”(Genesis 11: 1-9).
This biblical story shows that God deliberately splitted the human languages into many Himself. Thus, these languages originated from God, came from God. For this biblical fact, the Christian missionionary, J.G.O Moshay says:
“The God of the heavens has been called by different names in different languages. But that has not hindered the relationship too significantly so far as thier understanding of Him is right. SINCE GOD HAS SPLITTED THE HUMAN LANGUAGE INTO MANY, HE MAY NOT EXPECT US TO USE THE SAME NAME FOR HIM ALL OVER THE WORLD.”(Who is This Allah, 1991, page 11, G.J.O Moshay).
The missionary went on to say that his mother tongue had a name for the true God (Jewhe) “since before the white man carried his Bible to Africa.”(Who is This Allah, 1991, page 11-12). Yes, many other languages have proper names used only for the God and Creator of the world ( my own language, The Fulfulde, has a Proper Name for the heavenly Creator of the world which is “Jomirawo”. Besides the Arabic language and these other languages, many other languages throughout the world each has a name reserved only for the Creator and God of the world. Therefore, it is the logical fallacy of hasty generalization to think that since some languages lack proper names for God (such as the Greek and English) so all other languages also must not have proper names for God except the HEBREW language.
So, the Bible gives only one name for God because the Bible (Old Testament) only used one language (Hebrew language) for Hebrews only. Had the Bible used all the languages of the earth and intended for all the peoples of the earth and then give only one universal name for God then your argument would be valid. So the fact that the HEBREW Bible gives one name (which actual pronunciation and meaning now lost leaving only some four Hebrew consonants) does not mean that God could not be called by the Proper Name of any other language reserved only for Him in that language.
Also, millions of Arab Jews and Arab Christians scholars translated the HEBREW YHWH to the Arabic Proper Name Allah for the only Creator in their scriptures since before Islam and up to this day used Allah for the true God they worship proved that they recognized that the Name Allah refers only to the only Universal True God in Arabic language as they recognized YHWH as the Name of the only true God in Hebrew language. Orthodox Christian bodies and Christian scholars (like Rick Beown) urged them to maintain using the Name for the true God as is evidenced in their Church services and Arabic scriptures. And any attempt by them to use the Arabic Proper Name Allah as common NOUN is obviously only polemically driven and is repulsed by the grammar and the usage of the language ever in history.
You wrote: “Similarly a Muslim would be in error for recognising the English word “God” as a proper name for Allah since this is not sanctioned by the Islamic sources. If any translations of the Quran rendered Allah as “God” then they were also in error.”
Response: Muslims are not so tribalistic and limited to think in this line!
Even though English has no proper name equivalent to the Arabic Proper Name Allah, Muslims recognized that the word used for the true God in English which is God (with capital G) whenever it refers to the True God.
The Qur’an says: “”And the most Beautiful Names belong to Allah, so call on Him by them, and leave the company of those who deny (or utter impious speech against) His Names.”(Qur’an 7: 180)
We do not worship a tribal god, but the Universal God. We don’t limit God only to Hebrew or Arabic language – He is far more than that! God is Universal and any word used to refer to Him in whatever language is acceptable to refer to Him in with it provided it is used rightly for Him and is not defective. Only in special devotional prayers , such as the five daily prayers, which are done only in Arabic language globally for unity, sameness, originality and order that the Arabic Name Allah must be used for the fact that such prayers are done in Arabic whose proper name for the true God is only Allah.
See my next comment…
You seem to think, like most others misguided, that since the father of the Prophet was named Abdullah that means “Servant of Allah” and since you assumed that the father of the Prophet must be an idolater so the Allah for whom he was a servant must be different from the Allah recognized by Arab Jews and Christians. Here is what you wrote:
“Muhammad’s father’s name was Abdullah and his Allah had three daughters. So Abdullah does not necessarily mean the slave of the one true god without partners. There may have been Jews named Abdullah but this does not prove that they recognized Allah as the equivalent of YHWH especially given the Christian and Meccan use of this name”.
All these assertions are totally wrong.
Firstly, even the idolaters recognized Allah to be alone the Heavenly Living Creator of the heavens and earth. They even recognized that Allah has angels. It was His angels that they mistook as His daughters:
“And they make into females (goddesses) angels who themselves serve Allah. Did they witness their creation? Their assertion will be recorded, and they will be called to account!”(Qur’an 43:19).
The had some three idols (Lat, Uzzah and Manat) as image representations of what they mistook as daughters of Allah (angels).
Therefore even these idolaters still had regarded Allah as the sole Creator and Lord of the world and that they only mistook angels to be His daughters. Therefore, their mistaking of ANGELS to be females and daughters of Allah does not mean that they meant anyone other than the Sole Living Heavenly Being that created everything by their use of the Word Allah. They got right about Allah as the Living Heavenly Creator of the world. And they only got it wrong when they thought that angels were females and daughters of Allah. Thus it doesn’t mean that they had an Allah in mind different than the Living Heavenly Creator whom the Arab Jews and Christians referred by the same Arabic word Allah.
Secondly, you people committed the logical fallacy of false assumption by assuming that all pre-Islamic pagan Arabs must be polutheists as the pre-Islamic Arabia was largely idolatrous. This was not the case! As pointed out above, there were others there that sought to worship Allah without the agency of idols. They are known as Hunafa in Islam. The Prophet was among them. And so was his wife Khadijah and her uncle Waraqa bn Nawfal before he later converted to Christianity and after which continued referring to the true God as Allah as evidenced in all Islamic sources.
So it is wrong to conclude that just because the father of the Prophet lived in the pre-Islamic Arabia he must be a polytheistic. And even if he were, the then Arab polytheists themselves recognized Allah as the Proper Name of only the Living Heavenly Creator and God of the world whom they sought to worship through their idols. Rick Brown reveals:
“Muhammad’s father, for example, was named ‘Abdullah, and there is no reason to think that the one who named him, his father ‘Abdul Muttalib, was a monotheist rather than a polytheist or henotheist. There is evidence, however, that henotheism had become widespread among the pagan Arabs, i.e., that they acknowledged that the God of the Bible was the Lord and Creator of the universe, while continuing to fear and appease lesser beings instead of God alone. This is reflected in the Qur’an in verses like ‘Ankabūt 29:61, 63, which speaks of pagan Arabs who refused the message of Muhammad: If indeed thou ask them who has created the heavens and the earth and subjected the sun and the moon (to his Law), they will certainly reply, “Allah”. How are they then deluded away (from the truth)? … And if indeed thou ask them who it is that sends down rain from the sky, and gives life therewith to the earth after its death, they will certainly reply, “Allah!” Say, “Praise be to Allah!” But most of them understand not. (Yusuf Ali translation)”( Rick Brown, Who was ‘Allah’ before Islam? Evidence that the term ‘Allah’ originated with Jewish and Christian Arabs (2007), page 11-12).
As even the idolaters’ use of the Name Allah was only for the same Living Heavenly Creator of the world and as even the idolaters’ attribution of daughters to Allah does not mean that they had any Allah in mind other than the very same Living Heavenly Creator of the world couple with the fact that the father of the Prophet’s living during the pre-Islamic Arabia does not necessarily proves that he was a polytheist proved beyond doubt that Allah for which the father of the Prophet was a Slave was not other than the Living Heavenly Creator recognized by pre-Islamic Arab Jews and Christians and later by Muslims as the true God.
You wrote: “As I said before If a prophet had come to the Jews in the name of YHWH, depicting him as urging for a loan to be given to him, they would not have rejected or refuted such a prophet by blaspheming or insulting their own god by saying “YHWH’s hand is tied up” or “YHWH is poor and we are rich”.
I have adequately addressed this polemic but you completely ignore my points to continue with your baseless claims.
First, if the Arab Jews thought that the Name Allah was a name of an idol and not of the Living Creator of the world they would have plainly rejected any use of this Name. But they constantly used this Name for the true God in the Qur’an and the archaeological and historical evidences, as presented above.
What caused them to use those remarks was only the Qur’anic urge of people to give charity which He promised to repay back. They misconstrued it to mean that Allah was demanding for a loan to Himself which would then have shown that He was poor while they (as the givers) were rich. Yes, they were only disagreeing with what they thought to be a Qur’anic error about God’s nature. And you failed to recognize that the Qur’an is not in Hebrew but Arabic. So you must expect Arabic idioms when dealing with the Qur’an. The Arab Jews’ remark “Allah’s Hands are tied up” is not literal but figurative. And so the whole remarks in Arabic idioms are not as literal as you misconstrued. The remarks are just metaphorical rejection of what they misconstrued as Qur’anic error concerning God’s nature not literal rejection of the Name Allah or what the Arabs meant by the Name which is proved above to be none but the Heavenly Living Creator of the heavens and the earth. This fact is buttressed by the fact that the Qur’anic response to them is not telling them that the Name Allah was just meant for the same God they worshipped alone but that “Allah’s Hands are not tied” (meaning He was the giver and thus not needing as a poor and not a miser). This fact completely demolished your misconstrued interpretation and remarks upon their idiomatic remarks. Also it is a fact destroying your cherry-picked misinterpretation and wrong remarks that throughout the other parts of the same Qur’an, both the Arab Jews and Christians referred to Allah as the true God they worshipped, as already pointed out. Enough for consideration is that immediately after Qur’an 3:181 in which they remarked that Allah was then poor and they rich (for misconceiving the verse about charity), the same Arab Jews claimed that they had covenanted with Allah, meaning the God they worshipped:
“Surely Allah has covenanted with us that we should not believe any Messenger until he comes up to us with an all-sanctified sacrifice to be eaten up by fire.” Say, “Messengers even before me already came to you with supreme evidences and with that which you said. Why then did you kill them in case you are sincere?”(Qur’an 3:183).
They were Arab Jews and thus they had the word Allah in their vocabulary. The Qur’an was a contemporaneous document and thus would never have just put the wrong term in their mouths without them protesting it right there and then.
Now, let us disregard the Arabic idioms they used being Arabs in rejecting what they misconstrued as Qur’anic error concerning God’s nature and assumed that the remarks of the Arab Jews in question were not couched in Arabic idiom but just were just literal rejection of the term Allah or what the term referred to….see next………..
Now, let us disregard the Arabic idioms they used being Arabs in rejecting what they misconstrued as Qur’anic error concerning God’s nature and assumed that the remarks of the Arab Jews in question were not couched in Arabic idiom but just were just literal rejection of the term Allah or what the term referred to, still this will not prove that the whole of the Arab Jews them rejected the term Allah as referring only to the Heavenly Living Creator of the world. This is because the same Qur’an says that many Arab Jews and Christians believed in Allah as the true God:
“And there are, certainly, among the People of the Book (Jews and Christians), those who believe in Allah, and that which has been revealed to you and in that which has been revealed to them, humbling themselves before Allah: They will not sell the Revelations of Allah for a miserable gain! For them is a reward with their Lord, and Allah is swift in account.”{Holy Quran 3:199}
So you could only maintain your claim that the Arab Jews rejected Allah by disregarding the fact that the Arab Jews had their remarks couched only in Arabic idioms and concerned only a rejection of what they misconcrued as Qur’anic error about God’s nature, by disregarding the fact that throughout the Qur’an the Arab Jews and Christians were quoted referring to the same Allah as the true God, by cherry picking from the same Qur’an and by forcing your biased conclusion as the conclusion of the Qur’an concerning Arab Jews and Christians used of the Divine Name Allah!
You wrote:
“On the one hand we have the Jews refusing to pronounce the name of a deity because it is too sacred to utter and on the other hand they insult a deity using and uttering his name, and you are asking me to believe that these Jews considered both these deities to be one and the same???”
I have addressed this repeated wrong argument already above which you conveniently ignored to continue with your wrong claims. This is typical of you people!
The Jews developed a superstitious belief that the Name YHWH was too sacred to be pronounced and thus stopped pronouncing the term. They were not required by their scriptures to stop pronouncing the Name for this reason or any other reason. Thus it was only a Hebrew superstition concerning the HEBREW term for God. But the Arabs had no such a superstition concerning the term Allah used for the same Creator of the world. This was the language usage and all that used the language necessarily conformed with the language usage. So when they could not pronounce God’s name in Hebrew due to Hebrew superstition does not mean that God’s Name in Arabic and other languages should also be applied the superstitious HEBREW language usage and thus no Proper Name of the same Divine Being of any other language could be pronounced!! How fallacious to even suggest this or think in this line!!
So, if you have no new argument to make but only the foregoing well addressed claims and assumptions, let us call off the discussion here. And it is up to you to consider all the Qur’anic, archaeological, historical and linguistic evidences establishing the fact that Allah is clearly Arabic Proper Name of the only true God of the world recognized as such since before Islam up to the present day by Arab Jews and Christians and by all informed scholars throughout the world.
Let me conclude by these words of Dr. Rick Brown, evangelical Christian Bible scholar:
“And if a Christian tells a Muslim that he is worshipping the moon rather than the creator of the universe, then the Christian will be viewed as a liar and a blasphemer, and his testimony will have no credibility at all, because the Muslims know that it is God whom they fear and whom they seek to please.”(Journal of Frontier Mission, Summer 2006-2007, page 82).
Thanks.
You said: “Evangelical Bible scholar Rick Brown reveals that Jews and Christians translates the Hebrew YHWH as Allah thus using the names as equivalent proper names for the same Divine Being: –”
It is simply not true that any words or names by which YHWH has been translated into various languages were recognised by the translators to be “equivalent proper names for the same Divine Being”. Jews and Christians are not governed by any law which states that YHWH must be translated or represented by an equivalent proper name. Nor has there been any tradition or recognised practice that YHWH must be translated by an equivalent and proper name. In fact I do not know of a single Jewish or Christian translator of the Bible who has stated that he recognises another proper name for deity in addition to YHWH.
Some Jewish English translations for example render YHWH in EXO 20:8 as:
THE LIVING TORAH – “Lord”
SAMSON RAPHAEL – HIRSCH “God”
ARTSCROLL – “HASHEM”
1985 NEW JPS TANAKH – “the LORD”
It is highly unlikely that these Jewish translators recognised any of these renderings as being proper names like YHWH.
The oldest and most important of all the versions made by Jews is called “The Septuagint” and in this translation YHWH was rendered as “kyrios”. Yet kyrios was never recognised by the Jews as being a proper name like YHWH. So why should we simply assume that Jewish translators considered “Allah” to be the equivalent of YHWH? The Jewish scriptures do not recognise Allah as a proper name for deity any more than they recognise Kyrios, Hashem, the LORD or God as a proper name for deity.
Given the above the only way of knowing if a translator considered Allah or any other name he rendered, as being a proper name like YHWH is if he explicitly stated this. Muslims need then to provide credible evidence to show that where YHWH has been rendered as Allah the translator has made it clear that he considers Allah to be a proper name like YHWH.
You said: “The Jews developed a superstitious belief that the Name YHWH was too sacred to be pronounced and thus stopped pronouncing the term. They were not required by their scriptures to stop pronouncing the Name for this reason or any other reason. Thus it was only a Hebrew superstition concerning the HEBREW term for God.”
There is no evidence that it was only a HEBREW superstition. The most likely reason why they prohibited the pronunciation of this name was so that it was not misused, if no one utters the divine name then no can say it or use it in an inappropriate way. The reasoning would therefore be the same whatever the language. Jesus himself did not condemn the Jews for this prohibition and in fact observed it himself.
RE: Quran 5:64, 3:181.
If you cannot reject a deity as false by describing him as poor, miserly and inferior then the Jews did not reject Allah.
You quote: “And they make into females (goddesses) angels who themselves serve Allah. Did they witness their creation? Their assertion will be recorded, and they will be called to account!”(Qur’an 43:19).
Did the Meccans admit making angels into goddesses or did they reject the Quran and maintain their belief that their goddesses WERE the daughters of Allah? If the latter then the Meccan Allah could not be the same as Muhammad’s Allah. Neither could it be the same as the Christian or Jewish Allah. No one but Muslims are forced to accept the Quran’s description of Allah.
After so many attempts in trying to answer the question as to whether the Jews considered Allah to be a proper or improper name you have failed to provide a convincing answer as to why the Jews had no qualms about pronouncing the name Allah and yet considered YHWH to be ineffable. The idea that the Jews considered the name of god to be ineffable only in one language does not make any sense. Whatever the reason for not pronouncing the name in Hebrew could also well be applicable in other languages. You need to provide credible evidence to show, why the Jews considered the name of their god to be unpronounceable only in Hebrew.
You wrote: “It is simply not true that any words or names by which YHWH has been translated into various languages were recognised by the translators to be “equivalent proper names for the same Divine Being”.
Response: This is a straw man argument. I never claimed this about all other languages in the world – some of which I already pointed out do not even have proper names for God on their respective languages. What I said is that both YHWH and Allah are proper names of the same Heavenly Creator of the world in Hebrew and Arabic languages respectively. Therefore, when the Jews translated YHWH into Allah in the Arabic translations that means that they recognized the Arabic Proper Name of the Heavenly Creator (Allah) to take the place of the Hebrew proper name (YHWH) in the Arabic translations. It is the case of using the only proper name of the Creator in Arabic in place of the only proper name of the same Creator in Hebrew. These proper names are equivalents in their being proper names of the same Heavenly Creator in the respective languages. Translators’ use of the Arabic Name to replace the Hebrew name in Arabic translations means replacing a Proper Name with an equivalent proper Name for the same Heavenly Being. That is exactly what I mean by saying that the Jews: “translate the Hebrew YHWH as Allah thus using the names as equivalent PROPER NAMES for the same Divine Being”.
You argued that Jews used non-proper names in English translations and thus you wrongly assumed that any other name the Jews used in other languages to translate YHWH must also be non-proper. This argument is also quite irrational. English language has no proper name for God and thus using English language as a premise for such an argument is quite fallacious.
You wrote: “The oldest and most important of all the versions made by Jews is called “The Septuagint” and in this translation YHWH was rendered as “kyrios”. Yet kyrios was never recognised by the Jews as being a proper name like YHWH. So why should we simply assume that Jewish translators considered “Allah” to be the equivalent of YHWH?”
Response: Another fallacious argument. Septuagint is the translation of the Hebrew scriptures into Greek and the Greek has no proper name for God. If the Greek had a Proper Name for God but the translators intentionally avoided using it in place of YHWH in the Greek translation then your argument could hold some water.
Also, it is wrong to claim that in place of YHWH the Septuagint always used the word kyrios. This is because many manuscripts versions of the Septuagint have the same Hebrew Word YHWH retained for there is no proper name for God in Greek to used in place of it. The following are some of the versions that retain the Hebrew tetragammaton:
4Q LXX Levb. Ambrosiano O 39 sup. Aq Burkitt. Aq Taylor. LXX IEJ 12. LXX P. Fouad Inv. 266. • LXX P. Oxy. VII.1007. LXX VTS 10a. • LXX VTS 10b. • Sym. P. Vindob. G. 39777.
The New International Dictionary of New Testament Theology reveals:
“Recent textual discoveries cast doubt on the idea that the compilers of the LXX [Septuagint] translated the tetragrammaton YHWH by kyrios. The oldest LXX MSS (fragments) now available to us have the tetragrammaton written in Heb[rew] characters in the G[ree]k text. This custom was retained by later Jewish translators of the O[ld] T[estament] in the first centuries A.D.” (Volume 2, page 512).
This speaks volumes as the translators never retain the Hebrew tetragammaton in Arabic translations but used the Arabic Proper Name Allah instead. Greek has no proper name for God hence they retain the Proper Name in Hebrew in some of the versions of the Septuagint, while Arabic language has a Proper Name (Allah) used only for the Heavenly Creator and thus they used it in place of the tetragammaton in the Arabic translations.
Whether a translator considers the Name Allah as proper name or not, it is indisputable fact it is the name ever used of the only invisible heavenly Creator of the world used of none other ever but Him alone in Arabia. No idol or other being ever shares this Divine Name. This proves the Name to be a Proper Name per excellence.
You wrote: ” There is no evidence that it was only a HEBREW superstition. The most likely reason why they prohibited the pronunciation of this name was so that it was not misused, if no one utters the divine name then no can say it or use it in an inappropriate way. The reasoning would therefore be the same whatever the language”.
Response: The Jews tradition of refusing to pronounce the Name is not based on any scriptural injunction or rational premise. Thus the tradition is just superstitious. Dr. Claude Mariottini, conservative Christian professor of the Old Testament, reveals:
“The fear of pronouncing the divine name may come from a possible misunderstanding of the meaning of the word נקב (naqab) in Leviticus 24:16….So, the issue in question is: does the word naqab mean “to blaspheme” or “to pronounce”? I believe that the proper interpretation of this text determines whether the divine name can be pronounced. According to J. Scharbert, the root naqab appears in most Semitic languages and it means “pierce, make a hole.” The word also appears in Akkadian with the meaning of “deflower.” However, the word never appears with the meaning “to pronounce.” Scharbet wrote (p. 552):In Lev. 24:11,15f.naqabtakes on a different nuance in conjunction with the name of Yahweh. Because the verb parallels the piel of qll, it is usually translated “blaspheme (the name of Yahweh).” The different legal consequences (“bear the sin” in the sense of “have to live with the curse conjured up by the act” vs. ‘be put to death”’ show that nqb denotes a more serious offense than qillel. “Cursing” refers to careless derogatory speech concerning God; “blaspheming” refers to deliberate slanderous speech concerning Yahweh, with explicit emphasis on Yahweh’s name. It is unlikely that this passage already interprets the prohibition against wrongful use of Yahweh’s name (Ex. 20:7; Dt. 5:11) as an absolute prohibition against any use whatever of the name. The text refers rather to a negative “branding” of the name of Yahweh. God said: “I am YHWH, this is my name” (Isaiah42:8). God also said: “This is my name forever, the name by which I am to be remembered from generation to generation” (Exodus 3:15). Giving his name to Moses and to all Israel was an act of divine grace which demonstrated how serious God was in his desire to establish a personal relationship with his people. As Fretheim wrote in his commentary on Exodus: Giving the name entails a certain kind of relationship; it opens up the possibility of, indeed admits a desire for, a certain intimacy in relationship. A relationship without a name inevitably means some distance; naming the name is necessary for closeness. Naming makes true encounter and communication possible. Naming entails availability. By giving the name, God becomes accessible to people. God and people can now meet one another and there can be address on the part of both parties. So, I do not believe there is a biblical admonition against pronouncing God’s personal name. But, should Christians pronounce God’s name? Since God revealed his name, a name by which he wants to be remembered from generation to generation, I believe Christians should be free to use God’s personal name with respect and reverence. However, SINCE WE DO NOT KNOW HOW TO PRONOUNCE THE TETRAGAMMATON, the use of “Yahweh” may suffice.”( http://claudemariottini.com/2008/08/28/pronouncing-the-divine-name-part-3/ – emphasis mine).
So, it has been evidently wrong and superstitious for them to stop referring to God with the name He reveals to be referred and remembered by them from generations to generations forever. Their superstition thus defeats the purpose of revealing the name for them. Now their superstition of stopping using the Name since many centuries ago corrupted the Name of its actual pronunciation and meaning and thus renders the Name now defective and thus unsuitable to be used for the Perfect God Almighty to whom no defective name or anything defective is to be ascribed.
You wrote: “Jesus himself did not condemn the Jews for this prohibition and in fact observed it himself.”
Response: You do not have have Jesus’ original words in Hebrew or Aramaic. The Gospels and other New Testament writings have originally been in Greek. Thus the writers unquestionably translated what they thought to be Jesus’ words they wrote into Greek that has no equivalent proper name for God. Given this fact, how can you know whether or not Jesus actually used that name YHWH? And if Jesus was also carried away by the Jewish superstition that speaks against this Jesus of the New Testament being actually always the historical Jesus.
You wrote: ” RE: Quran 5:64, 3:181.If you cannot reject a deity as false by describing him as poor, miserly and inferior then the Jews did not reject Allah.”
Response: Thanks for deliberately ignoring all the refutations against this desperate polemics I offered just to continue with your baseless claims!
I pointed out that the remarks were evidently not literal but figurative and yet you ignore it!
I pointed out that their objection was only on what they misconstrued to be Qur’anic error concerning nature of God as is evidently clear in the text and the context. Yet you conveniently ignore it!
I pointed out their negative remarks about Qur’anic conception of God’s nature in figurative expressions could not be taken as outright rejection of either the Name Allah or the Heavenly Creator always meant by the Name. Immediately after the passage about their remarks in Arabic idiom that then Allah is poor and they rich, they are quoted immediately acknowledging Allah as the God they worshipped and had covenants with (Qur’an 3:183). Yet you chose to ignore all these evidences!!
I pointed out that even if we can assume that the remarks of these Arab Jews were not only rejecting what they misconceived as Qur’anic error on God’s nature but a rejection on the use of the Name Allah or what the Name refers to which has ever been the Heavenly Creator of the world, this still will never help your claims as the same Qur’an shows that many Arab Jews and Christians believed in Allah as the God they worshipped, as already pointed out. The Qur’an severally quoted the contemporary Arab Jews and Christians using the Name Allah as the true God they worshipped. Therefore, you are clearly only ignoring evidences, cherry picking from the same Qur’an you claim to derive your argument from. If this is not a fallacy nothing could be a fallacy!
I quoted from reliable academic sources that since before Islam, pre-Islamic Arab Jews and Christians recognized Allah as the true God they worshipped. Yet, you ignored this independent evidence to continue with your misguided claims!
You can convince only yourself with such a skewed argument that is based on convenient ignoring of a mountain of evidences against it.
You wrote: ““And they make into females (goddesses) angels who themselves serve Allah. Did they witness their creation? Their assertion will be recorded, and they will be called to account!”(Qur’an 43:19). Did the Meccans admit making angels into goddesses or did they reject the Quran and maintain their belief that their goddesses WERE the daughters of Allah? If the latter then the Meccan Allah could not be the same as Muhammad’s Allah. Neither could it be the same as the Christian or Jewish Allah.”
Response: The Qur’an is a contemporaneous document. It directly addressed their contemporaneous beliefs and practices. They never opposed what the Qur’an pointed out to them as their contemporaneous beliefs and practices. And at last, not only the Meccans but almost the whole of Arabia wisely accepted the Qur’an and the Prophet and became Muslims before the demise of the Prophet.
Yes, they believed that Allah was the Invisible Heavenly Creator of the world and that they mistook angels to be daughters of Allah. Their mistake about angels being daughters of Allah ( and even have idol representations of some as Lat, Uzzah and Manat) does never mean that they took Allah to be other than the Invisible Heavenly Creator of the world that they dared not represented on earth by any idol or image.
Conclusion:
I showed from the Qur’an and other sources that even the pre-Islamic Arabs that recognize idols used the Name Allah as a Proper Name for the heavenly Creator of the heavens and the earth alone;they never used the Name for any other and never recognized or named any idol or image as Allah. This fact demolishes your baseless assumption that the idolatrous Arabs Allah was different from the the Invisible Heavenly Creator of the heavens and the earth.
I pointed out from Islamic sources that Allah is a proper name for the Universal Creator God of the heavens and the earth.
I pointed from the Qur’an and independent archaeological and historical sources that pre-Islamic Arab Jews and Christians recognized Allah as the true God they worshipped who was the Heavenly Creator of the heavens and the earth.
Therefore, you have no way of showing that the Allah of the pre-Islamic Arabs was different from the Allah of the pre-Islamic Arab Jews and Christians. This claim of yours is devoid of all evidences but mere biased assumptions and wishes which if they were horses beggars can ride!
You claim without a shred of linguistic, archaeological or historical evidence that Allah is just a generic, common, name. But the linguistic, archaeological and historical facts are not on your side.
In Arabic, the common, generic, name for any god is “ilah” (“ilahain” for two gods and “alihah” for more than two gods). This is a fact of the Arabic language which you cannot deny.
And the Name Allah was/has been consistently used only of the Invisible Living Heavenly Creator of the world by: 1. All pre-Islamic Arabs including those that recognized idols as deities. 2. Pre-Islamic Arab Jews and Christians. 3. All Muslims . 4. Arab Jews and Christians up to this day. This fact proves that nobody ever took Allah to refer to any idol or image or any other being than the Invisible Heavenly Creator of the heavens and the earth. This fact completely bulldozed your speculatory claim that the Allah of the pre-Islamic Arab Jews and Christians was different from the Allah of the other pre-Islamic Arabs especially those among them that had idols. Both had the same Allah in mind.
The Word Allah is a proper Name per excellence as it has ever been used only of the Invisible Heavenly Creator and God of the world by every Arab (Jew, Christian, pre-Islamic polytheists, pre-Islamic henotheists, Muslims and Arab Jews and Christians up to his day). Dr. Rick Brown, the evangelical Christian Bible scholar, reveals:
“Suppose for the sake of argument that the ancient Arabs did worship the moon. This would have no bearing on the name Allah, for there is no inscription that identifies Allah as a moon god or as a pagan deity. This contrasts with the Hebrew, Greek, Latin, and English words for God, all of which descend from words that were commonly used by pagans in reference to pagan deities. So the name Allah is freer of pagan roots than are these other names!”(International Journal of Frontier Mission, Summer 2006, page 81).
As the Name Allah has ever been used only of One and Only Heavenly Creator of the world, it proves beyond any shadow of doubt to be a Proper Name.
Therefore, these combine evidence of Arabic language usage, archaeology and history are more than enough to establish the fact that Allah is a proper name of the Heavenly Divine Being that created the heavens and the earth. Therefore, any attempt by any translator with theological drivel to try to make use of this Proper Name as generic is repulsed by the language itself along with the archaeological and historical evidences.
Now, in linguistics, the meaning of a word is what the users of the word in their language generally mean by the word. So, what all Muslims mean by Allah is the Invisible Heavenly Creator of the world who is omnipotent, omnipresent in his power, glory and knowledge, who is omniscient, everlasting, just, merciful, loving and the God and sender of all the known patriarchs and prophets in history. Evangelist Rick Brown says:
“The meanings of a word are a matter of social convention. If Muslims use the term Allah to refer to the one and only God, the creator of the universe, the sustainer of all life, the bestower of all blessings, the sender of all prophets and Scripture, then that is what the term means for them, and not a moon god. Allah is God.”(International Journal of Frontier Mission, 2006, page 81).
Thus, Muslims just feel sorry for the misguided non-Muslims that come along insulting Allah thinking that Allah is other than the Heavenly Creator of the heavens and the earth. Evangelist Rick Brown reveals:
“And if a Christian tells a Muslim that he is worshipping the moon rather than the creator of the universe, then the Christian will be viewed as a liar and a blasphemer, and his testimony will have no credibility at all, because the Muslims know that it is God whom they fear and whom they seek to please.”(Journal of Frontier Mission, Summer 2006-2007, page 82).
In conclusion, let me reiterate: let’s bring this discussion honourably to an end here if you have no new argument to make. Don’t expect me to respond if you will not so better than recycle your already addressed speculatory claims.
Thanks for the discussion. And big thanks to the MDI for letting us discussed.
REG
Jesus himself never used never called God YHWH but Jesus called God Allah as Allaha in Aramaic when Jesus was on the cross. Eli, Eli Lamasabactani, My Lord, My Lord why have you forsaken me. WHY DID JESUS HIMSELF USED ALLAH BUT NOT YHWH?
Christian Arabs and Jews before and after Islam call God Allah. Islam did not invent Allah as God name but it was there from the beginning and still is there. Take an Arabic Bible and open and you will find Allah as the God of the Christians. If they understand it differently is their prerogative but they did not call God YHWH but call God Allah.
Thanks
REG
You wrote
Did the Meccans admit making angels into goddesses or did they reject the Quran and maintain their belief that their goddesses WERE the daughters of Allah? If the latter then the Meccan Allah could not be the same as Muhammad’s Allah. Neither could it be the same as the Christian or Jewish Allah. No one but Muslims are forced to accept the Quran’s description of Allah.
I correct you.
The Jews believe Allah to be the creator of everything.
The Muslims believes Allah to be the creator of everything.
The Christians(Arabs) believes Allah to be the creator of everything
The Meccans believes Allah to be the creator of everything.
So Mr. REG, it is the same Allah they all believe
The difference is
The Jews and the Muslims believe in the One God of Abraham= True God
The Christians believe in the 3 beings(persons) who is not the One God of Abraham= False God
The Meccan pagans added more lesser gods to Allah and is polytheism = False God.
Same Allah but false representations
Thanks
You said: “First , the Qur’an – which is the oldest Arabic document in existence and which was contemporaneous with the Arab Jews and Christians – quoted the contemporary Arab Jews and Christians using the Name Allah for the only true God…”
Unfortunately we have no independent confirmation of these quotes, we only have the Muslim sources for information. Secondly, even the Quran admits that Muhammad was considered by most of his contemporaries to be highly unreliable.
They called him “an insane possessed poet’” (Q37.33). They accused him of telling “Tales of the ancients” (68:15). They accused him of falsehood (78:28) telling lies (38:4) fabrication (38:7) they rejected the Quran as “medleys of dream” and claimed he had “He forged it” (21:5)
The vast majority of his contemporaries questioned his honesty, reliability and state of mind.
We should also take into consideration the fact that the author of the Quran often puts his own term for deity (Allah) into the mouths of people who didn’t even recognise Allah as a name for god. For example, Jesus and his early followers, Moses and the Israelites, and even an ancient Egyptian (Quran 40:30).
In addition the Quran also testifies that the Jews insulted Allah by name. But this is hardly surprising since the Jewish Bible does not recognise Allah as a name for deity, Allah was seriously contradicting this Bible, and some of “Allah’s words” would have appeared to them as hate-speech.
You said: “Jesus himself never used never called God YHWH but Jesus called God Allah as Allaha in Aramaic when Jesus was on the cross. Eli, Eli Lamasabactani, My Lord, My Lord why have you forsaken me. WHY DID JESUS HIMSELF USED ALLAH BUT NOT YHWH?”
Eli means “My God” and is clearly not a name. Jesus recognised only one name for deity and it was not Allah. Jesus’ own name has YHWH as its divine element and means “salvation is from YHWH”.
Jesus did not pronounce the name YHWH out of respect for the Jewish prohibition. Uttering this name was considered blasphemy and was punishable with death by stoning.
You said: “You claim without a shred of linguistic, archaeological or historical evidence that Allah is just a generic, common, name.”
Notice what I said: “Similarly Jews could call their god by the Arabic word “allah” if this term was used only as a general term for deity. They would then not have in mind the Christian triune god, or a Meccan deity with three daughters or any deity other than YHWH.”
My argument was that since the Jews recognised only one name for deity THEY could only use “Allah” as a general term for deity. This was not a denial that NO ONE used Allah as proper name. The way to determine then as to how the Jews viewed the name “Allah” was to examine its usage, which is why I said: “You need to provide pre-Islamic citations of Jewish usage of Allah so we can determine whether or not they support your argument.”
I have given examples of Jewish translations where YHWH has been rendered but the corresponding word was NOT recognised by the translators as being its equivalent. You have so far failed to cite any examples where the Jewish translators have said that the word by which YHWH was rendered in another language WAS considered by them to be its equivalent.
You also need to recognise that for non- Muslims the Quran is not an independent source of information.
You said “I quoted from reliable academic sources that since before Islam, pre-Islamic Arab Jews and Christians recognized Allah as the true God they worshipped. Yet, you ignored this independent evidence to continue with your misguided claims!”
I quoted from the QURAN to show that the Jews clearly rejected Allah as a false deity. Anyone who insults a deity by name, whether figuratively or otherwise, considers both deity and his name to be worthless. THIS is why Allah threatened to roast them.
It is obvious that your ridiculous interpretations of these clear verses are a desperate attempt to save Allah from the Quran.
I am also very grateful to MDI for allowing this debate.
You said:
“I pointed out that even if we can assume that the remarks of these Arab Jews were not only rejecting what they misconceived as Qur’anic error on God’s nature but a rejection on the use of the Name Allah or what the Name refers to which has ever been the Heavenly Creator of the world, this still will never help your claims as the same Qur’an shows that many Arab Jews and Christians believed in Allah as the God they worshipped, as already pointed out. The Qur’an severally quoted the contemporary Arab Jews and Christians using the Name Allah as the true God they worshipped. Therefore, you are clearly only ignoring evidences, cherry picking from the same Qur’an you claim to derive your argument from. If this is not a fallacy nothing could be a fallacy!”
This proves the point I have been arguing: The Jews could have used the name “Allah” but only as a generic term. If the Jews had considered “Allah” to be a proper name like YHWH then it not credible that they would have blasphemed it. Just as it is inconceivable that Muslims would intentionally blaspheme the name “Allah” it is equally if not more inconceivable that Jews would intentionally blaspheme this name if they had considered it to be the Arabic equivalent of YHWH.
Reg,
You have done just what I pointed out that you would do to sustain your false assumptions: blatantly ignore evidences presented and cherry pick sources. This is typical of people of your mindset.
You wrote: “Unfortunately we have no independent confirmation of these quotes, we only have the Muslim sources for information.”
Response: So archaeological and historical evidences cited are not independent sources (for the fact that the pre-Islamic Arab Jews and Christians recognized Allah as the true God they worshipped)?! Also the Arabic translations of their scriptures since before Islam in which they translated YHWH to Allah are not an independent source!
Unfortunately, we have no independent confirmation for the claim in the Biblical Torah about YHWH being Hebrew Word for a non-idol. We have only your source for this claim which is not even a contemporary source. But what archaeology and history proved is that since before the existence of a nation called Israel a deity known as YHWH together with its wife known as Asherah was being worshipped by idolaters! More on this soon…
You wrote: “Secondly, even the Quran admits that Muhammad was considered by most of his contemporaries to be highly unreliable. They called him “an insane possessed poet’” (Q37.33). They accused him of telling“Tales of the ancients” (68:15). They accused him of falsehood (78:28) telling lies (38:4) fabrication (38:7) they rejected the Quran as “medleys of dream” and claimed he had “He forged it” (21:5)The vast majority of his contemporaries questioned his honesty, reliability and state of mind.”
Response: Let us assume that they made all these negative remarks about the Prophet, this only confirms the reliability of the Qur’an which objectively records all contemporary remarks of the people including the extremely negative ones!
And you clearly distort what the contemporary unbelieving Arabs actually meant and what they actually said. In Qur’an 33:37 they mistook the Prophet for a mere poet not because he was ever a poet before Islam or after but just for the rhymed verses of the Qur’an. They never accused the Prophet with insanity before Islam as he was ever sane; they just made the baseless claim as unbelieving folk as a polemic against the Qur’an only. And at last they dropped this charge and believed in the Prophet before the demise of the Prophet; most of the contemporary Arabs of the Hijaz wisely dropped disbelief and believed before the demise of the Prophet.
In Qur’an 68:15 they only referred to the stories of the past Prophets of God (given for spiritual and moral teachings only) as “tales of the ancients”. You referred to Quran 78:28 as an evidence that they accused the Prophet of falsehood. No, they just referred to the Message of monotheism in the Qur’an as falsehood . Read the verse well in context. To all rational people, there is difference between accusing a person as a liar and accusing what a person brought as falsehood. One can be truthful but at the same time brings a message others consider to be false. Many factors could account for this fact! They did not accused the Prophet in person as telling a lie but the Message he brought was the thing they consisted a lie in Qur’an 38:4 and 7. What they then considered a lie was the Message that idols are worthless and should be discarded (Qur’an 38:5-6). And what they considered a fabrication was for them to leave all idols for only One God (Qur’an 38:5) and thus concluded by urging idolaters to hold on to their idols (Qur’an 38:6). They regarded as fabrication only the urge of the Qur’an for them to discard idols: “Shall we leave our idols for One God!? This (Message) is something quite surprising. We never heard this of the old, this is just a fabrication” (Qur’an 38:5-6). Being idolaters, they never experienced visions of an angel and thus considered such vision as ” medley” of dreams.
The Qur’an explicitly says in the face of these contemporary rejecters that they did not view the Prophet in his person as a liar but that they were just in rejection of the Message he came with: “We know indeed the grief which their words do cause you. It is not you they charge with falsehood, it is the Revelation which the evildoers reject.”(Qur’an 6:33).
As pointed out, you cannot maintain your claims except by cherry picking and ignoring of contextual evidences.
What the non-academic source you derived this distorted view failed to tell you is that even world leading orientalists as Sir William Muir, Thomas Carlyle and Prof. Montgomery Watt, to mention just a few, established that the case for the unique honesty and sincerity of the Prophet recognized by all his contemporaries is strong and reliable and thus they reject all assumptions for the insincerity on the part of the Prophet. Montgomery Watts says:
“The allegation of insincerity or imposture was vigorously attacked by Thomas Carlyle over a century ago, HAS BEEN INCREASINGLY OPPOSED BY SCHOLARLY OPINION SINCE THEN, and yet is sometimes made….On the contrary, the case for his sincerity is strong”(Muhammad At Median, Oxford, 1977, pages 325-326).
Therefore, you are widely wrong to have claimed: “The vast majority of his contemporaries questioned his honesty, reliability and state of mind.” The evidences refuted this assumption.
Now, turning to the Bible, how the contemporaries of Jesus viewed him? Quite an unreliable liar and mad man!
Blasphemer: “This man is blaspheming”(Matthew 9:3).
A Sinner: “A glutton and a drunkard”(Matthew 11:19).
Demonic and possessed: “And many of them said, ‘He has a demon and is mad, why hear he him”(John 10:20). And not only does but even his friends realized he was mad: “And when his friends heard it they went to lay hold on him for they said. he is besides himself”(1 John 7:20). “Are we not right in saying that you are a Samaritan and have a demon? Jesus answered, I have not a demon”(John 8:48). Even the Church of England quite recently announced officially that Jesus might be possessed and mad!
False Messiah:”We know where this man comes from;and when the Christ appears, no one will know where he comes from”(John 7:27).
Contemporaries know Jesus as a sinner (John 9:24).
Blasphemous and false claimant (John 19:7)
Contemporaries rejected him as a liar and blasphemer:”Now the men who were holding Jesus mocked him and beat him. They also blindfolded him and asked him, Prophesy! Who is it that struck you? And they spake many other words against him, reviling him.”(Luke 22:63-65).
Therefore, based on the Bible, I can safely conclude that the vast majority of Jesus’ Contemporaries question his honesty, reliability and state of mind. And this shows, in accordance with your argument, that whatever Jesus said or deed as reported later by unknown disciples is questionable and unreliable. There should be independent sources to confirm the claims in the Bible otherwise all the claims should be rejected!!
See my next comment…
You wrote:” We should also take into consideration the fact that the author of the Quran often puts his own term for deity (Allah) into the mouths of people who didn’t even recognise Allah as a name for god. For example, Jesus and his early followers, Moses and the Israelites, and even an ancient Egyptian (Quran 40:30).”
Response: I have never seen an unreasonable argument like this!
It is clear that the Qur’an is an Arabic document. Thus it only translates the speeches it quoted of all the past none Arabs into Arabic language being the language in which the book was written. Thus it has to replace the terms of deity in their respective languages with corresponding terms in arabic. To question this is utterly irrational!
And, let me point it out for you that your Bible also quoted non Hebrews since the time of Adam using the terms of deity only used by Hebrews. Can we question this and charged like you that the author of the Bible put his own terms for deity into the mouths of people who didn’t recognize these Hebrew terms as terms for God in their respective languages?!
You wrote: “In addition the Quran also testifies that the Jews insulted Allah by name. But this is hardly surprising since the Jewish Bible does not recognise Allah as a name for deity, Allah was seriously contradicting this Bible, and some of “Allah’s words” would have appeared to them as hate-speech.”
Response: I addressed you misconception about the Jews remarks in question. So mere repeating them in derogatory words won’t make them any better. And it is a lie to say that Jewish Bible does not recognize Allah as the Name of the true God. See their ancient arabic translations pointed out above to see! And if you mean their Hebrew scriptures, then I can say: how could Hebrew scriptures intended only for Hebrews have used any term for God other than Hebrew term?!
It is as unreasonable as saying that any term used of anything of any other language which is other the HEBREW term is not acceptable! This is only a nasty tribalism! God is Universal not tribal and thus He is the God of all the world to be called and worshipped throughout the world in all the languages that came directly also from the same God.
See my next comment….