Muslim here. Ask me a question..

[Greg Jennings]

If you want people to decide for themselves

People are more intelligent than you give them credit for...they have this entire thread with which to draw a conclusion....and they can see for themselves that you were soundly rebutted.

Correct!

That's why everyone should look up the Surahs for themselves. Then they'll see how much of a dishonest person you are, and your life's work of trying to mislead honest people on an online forum will be for nought (though truly it already is, as your entire life's work is only taken seriously on an online forum! It's not even entertained by people who study this kind of thing! I wonder why?)

Of course, Apple, you like to conveniently ignore the fact that the Canaanite god that you claim is Allah actually is named El. Do you know where else the word "El" refers to a god? The only other place? It's the Bible. That's it.

So explain how Allah is a representation of the Canaanite god El, but El is not?


Btw: you're a very mature person. You don't like it when people don't answer you, but you hate it so much when they do that you whine to the mods until they're banned. Bravo. You truly are a child

 

[Apple7]

Correct!

That's why everyone should look up the Surahs for themselves. Then they'll see how much of a dishonest person you are, and your life's work of trying to mislead honest people on an online forum will be for nought (though truly it already is, as your entire life's work is only taken seriously on an online forum! It's not even entertained by people who study this kind of thing! I wonder why?)

Of course, Apple, you like to conveniently ignore the fact that the Canaanite god that you claim is Allah actually is named El. Do you know where else the word "El" refers to a god? The only other place? It's the Bible. That's it.

So explain how Allah is a representation of the Canaanite god El, but El is not?


Btw: you're a very mature person. You don't like it when people don't answer you, but you hate it so much when they do that you whine to the mods until they're banned. Bravo. You truly are a child

Please stop wasting your energy on lame attempts at character defamation, and concentrate on refuting Lane's Lexicon.

 

[Sherman]

Correct!

That's why everyone should look up the Surahs for themselves. Then they'll see how much of a dishonest person you are, and your life's work of trying to mislead honest people on an online forum will be for nought (though truly it already is, as your entire life's work is only taken seriously on an online forum! It's not even entertained by people who study this kind of thing! I wonder why?)

Of course, Apple, you like to conveniently ignore the fact that the Canaanite god that you claim is Allah actually is named El. Do you know where else the word "El" refers to a god? The only other place? It's the Bible. That's it.

So explain how Allah is a representation of the Canaanite god El, but El is not?


Btw: you're a very mature person. You don't like it when people don't answer you, but you hate it so much when they do that you whine to the mods until they're banned. Bravo. You truly are a child

Stop it with the character assassination. There is a school of thought that believes that Allah did originate with a pagan deity. This does not mean the person is dishonest. This is your final warning.

 

[Greg Jennings]

Please stop wasting your energy on lame attempts at character defamation, and concentrate on refuting Lane's Lexicon.

You were right about Lane's lexicon, sort of. It does suggest that Allah is "lord of the jinn," because he is "lord of all things." Fun fact: jinn fall under the category of "all things."

That being said, you have yet to tell me why no professors, theologians, religious scholars, and so on agree with your translation. You just keep dodging a very simple, straightforward question.

Now maybe you won't dodge this one a second time (fingers crossed): How is El from the bible not the pagan god El, but Allah is?
Hint: the answer is that they are both derived from the pagan god, El, in nomenclature. However, they are both quite different from the pagan god El in their qualities

 

[Greg Jennings]

Stop it with the character assassination. There is a school of thought that believes that Allah did originate with a pagan deity. This does not mean the person is dishonest. This is your final warning.

That same school of thought says that "El" is the pagan god that Allah is supposed to be. Care to explain to me how El (from the bible) isn't El, but Allah is?

 

[Apple7]

You were right about Lane's lexicon, sort of. It does suggest that Allah is "lord of the jinn," because he is "lord of all things." Fun fact: jinn fall under the category of "all things."

Wrong.

Let's go over the lexical definition, yet again, as you seem to suffer the same selective reading disorder as that of FL.

This time, actually read the parts highlighted in yellow, and see for yourself, that the phrase رب العلمين is confirmed as pertaining specifically to the 'lord of the jinn', or genii, and mankind' and is confirmed as a valid definition by two lexicologists...


العَالَمُ ذ , (S, Msb, K, &c.,) said by some to be also pronounced ↓ العَالِمُ , (MF, TA,) and pronounced by El-Hajjáj with hemz [i. e. العَأْلَمُ], is primarily a name for That by means of which one knows [a thing]; like as الخَاتَمُ is a name for “ that by means of which one seals ” [a thing]: accord. to some of the expositors of the Kur-án, its predominant application is to that by means of which the Creator is known: then to the intelligent beings of mankind and of the jinn or genii: or to mankind and the jinn and the angels: and mankind [alone]: Es-Seyyid Esh-Shereef [El- Jurjánee] adopts the opinion that it is applied to every kind [of these, so that one says عَالَمُ الإِِنْسِ (which may be rendered the world of mankind) and عَالَمُ الجِنِّ (the world of the jinn or genii) and عَالَمُ المَلَائِكَةِ (the world of the angels), all of which phrases are of frequent occurrence], and to the kinds [thereof] collectively: (TA: ) or it signifies الخَلْقُ [i. e. the creation, as meaning the beings, or things, that are created], (S, Msb, K,) altogether [i. e. all the created beings or things, or all creatures]: (K: ) or, as some say, peculiarly, the intelligent creatures: (Msb: ) or what the cavity (lit. belly) of the celestial sphere comprises, (K, TA,) of substances and accidents: (TA: ) [it may often be rendered the world, as meaning the universe; and as meaning the earth with all its inhabitants and other appertenances; and in more restricted senses, as instanced above: and one says عَالَمُ الحَيَوَانِ meaning the animal kingdom, and عَالَمُ النَّبَات the vegetable kingdom, and عَالَمُ المَعَادِنِ the mineral kingdom:] Jaafar Es-Sádik says that the عَالَم is twofold: namely, العَالَمُ الكَبِيرُ, which is the celestial sphere with what is within it; and العَالَمُ الصَّغِيرُ, which is man, as being [a microcosm, i. e.] an epitome of all that is in the كَبِير: and Zj says that العَالَمُ has no literal sing., because it is [significant of] a plurality [of classes] of diverse things; and if made a sing. of one of them, it is [significant of] a plurality of congruous things: (TA: ) the pl. is العَالَمُونَ (S, M, Msb, K, &c.) and العَوَالِمُ: (S, TA: ) and the sing. is [said to be] the only instance of a word of the measure فَاعَلٌ having a pl. formed with و and ن, (ISd, K, TA,) except يَاسَمٌ: (K, TA: ) [but see this latter word:] العَالَمُونَ signifies the [several] sorts of created beings or things: (S: ) [or all the sorts thereof: or the beings of the universe, or of the whole world:] it has this form because it includes mankind: or because it denotes particularly the sorts of created beings consisting of the angels and the jinn and mankind, exclusively of others: I'Ab is related to have explained رَبُّ العَالَمِينَ as meaning the Lord of the jinn, or genii, and of mankind: Katádeh says, the Lord of all the created beings: but accord. to Az, the correctness of the explanation of I'Ab is shown by the saying in the beginning of ch. xxv. of the Kur-án that the Prophet was to be a نَذِير [or warner] لِلْعَالَمِينَ; and he was not a نذير to the beasts, nor to the angels, though all of them are the creatures of God; but only to the jinn, or genii, and mankind. (TA.) ― -b2- عَالَمٌ is also syn. with قَرْنٌ [as meaning A generation of mankind; or the people of one time]. (O, voce طَبَقٌ, q. v.)

 

[Apple7]

That being said, you have yet to tell me why no professors, theologians, religious scholars, and so on agree with your translation. You just keep dodging a very simple, straightforward question.

For the 100th time, I have shown you that Lane does.

Now....

Deal with it, as best you can...or come back with some more attempts at character defamation...your call...


:cigar:

 

[Apple7]

Now maybe you won't dodge this one a second time (fingers crossed): How is El from the bible not the pagan god El, but Allah is?
Hint: the answer is that they are both derived from the pagan god, El, in nomenclature. However, they are both quite different from the pagan god El in their qualities

Your assertion, your googled evidence...

:cigar:

 

[Sherman]

You are free to have your moronic belief system, but as long as you are on a Christian board you are to be respectful toward God in your posts. Don't like this, find yourself a liberal board.

Actually Allah was derived from a pagan moon god. He was not the Creator of the universe. People that are not Christians have a hard time with this.

 

[Greg Jennings]

For the 100th time, I have shown you that Lane does.

Now....

Deal with it, as best you can...or come back with some more attempts at character defamation...your call...


:cigar:

I said that Lane used it, though he uses it in a context that you choose to ignore.

But Lane is none of what I asked for. He is a centuries-old Arabic translator. No single professor, theologian, religious scholar, or language expert alive today agrees with Allah being "lord of the jinn."

Now you can either tell me why that is, or you can keep playing dodgeball with simple questions. What's it going to be?

 

[Greg Jennings]

You are free to have your moronic belief system,

You name-called. I guess TOL has a "do as I say, not as I do" policy when it comes to such things.

but as long as you are on a Christian board you are to be respectful toward God in your posts. Don't like this, find yourself a liberal board.

Hmm....maybe you didn't get my point. It was that the idea that Allah and/or God are actually references to El the Canaanite deity (your moon god) is not accurate. It is not accurate for God, or for Allah. That might be because God and Allah are the same thing.
You obviously should know this, but perhaps you don't: "Allah" is simply "God" translated into Arabic. More accurately, "God" is the translated version of "Allah," as Arabic is far far older than English.

Sorry if that was too "liberal" for your liking. Where I come from (Texas), that's called information. But to each his own.

Actually Allah was derived from a pagan moon god. He was not the Creator of the universe. People that are not Christians have a hard time with this.

Can you find me one source outside of answeringislam that says such garbage, please? I'll be patiently waiting.

Why won't answeringislam work, you ask? Because answeringchristianity has the same argument about a moon god, except they say God and not Allah is he. If you're not willing to accept answeringchristianity, then you can't accept what answeringislam says either. For the record, they're both garbage sites.

 

[Greg Jennings]

Wrong.

Let's go over the lexical definition, yet again, as you seem to suffer the same selective reading disorder as that of FL.

This time, actually read the parts highlighted in yellow, and see for yourself, that the phrase رب العلمين is confirmed as pertaining specifically to the 'lord of the jinn', or genii, and mankind' and is confirmed as a valid definition by two lexicologists...


العَالَمُ ذ , (S, Msb, K, &c.,) said by some to be also pronounced ↓ العَالِمُ , (MF, TA,) and pronounced by El-Hajjáj with hemz [i. e. العَأْلَمُ], is primarily a name for That by means of which one knows [a thing]; like as الخَاتَمُ is a name for “ that by means of which one seals ” [a thing]: accord. to some of the expositors of the Kur-án, its predominant application is to that by means of which the Creator is known: then to the intelligent beings of mankind and of the jinn or genii: or to mankind and the jinn and the angels: and mankind [alone]: Es-Seyyid Esh-Shereef [El- Jurjánee] adopts the opinion that it is applied to every kind [of these, so that one says عَالَمُ الإِِنْسِ (which may be rendered the world of mankind) and عَالَمُ الجِنِّ (the world of the jinn or genii) and عَالَمُ المَلَائِكَةِ (the world of the angels), all of which phrases are of frequent occurrence], and to the kinds [thereof] collectively: (TA: ) or it signifies الخَلْقُ [i. e. the creation, as meaning the beings, or things, that are created], (S, Msb, K,) altogether [i. e. all the created beings or things, or all creatures]: (K: ) or, as some say, peculiarly, the intelligent creatures: (Msb: ) or what the cavity (lit. belly) of the celestial sphere comprises, (K, TA,) of substances and accidents: (TA: ) [it may often be rendered the world, as meaning the universe; and as meaning the earth with all its inhabitants and other appertenances; and in more restricted senses, as instanced above: and one says عَالَمُ الحَيَوَانِ meaning the animal kingdom, and عَالَمُ النَّبَات the vegetable kingdom, and عَالَمُ المَعَادِنِ the mineral kingdom:] Jaafar Es-Sádik says that the عَالَم is twofold: namely, العَالَمُ الكَبِيرُ, which is the celestial sphere with what is within it; and العَالَمُ الصَّغِيرُ, which is man, as being [a microcosm, i. e.] an epitome of all that is in the كَبِير: and Zj says that العَالَمُ has no literal sing., because it is [significant of] a plurality [of classes] of diverse things; and if made a sing. of one of them, it is [significant of] a plurality of congruous things: (TA: ) the pl. is العَالَمُونَ (S, M, Msb, K, &c.) and العَوَالِمُ: (S, TA: ) and the sing. is [said to be] the only instance of a word of the measure فَاعَلٌ having a pl. formed with و and ن, (ISd, K, TA,) except يَاسَمٌ: (K, TA: ) [but see this latter word:] العَالَمُونَ signifies the [several] sorts of created beings or things: (S: ) [or all the sorts thereof: or the beings of the universe, or of the whole world:] it has this form because it includes mankind: or because it denotes particularly the sorts of created beings consisting of the angels and the jinn and mankind, exclusively of others: I'Ab is related to have explained رَبُّ العَالَمِينَ as meaning the Lord of the jinn, or genii, and of mankind: Katádeh says, the Lord of all the created beings: but accord. to Az, the correctness of the explanation of I'Ab is shown by the saying in the beginning of ch. xxv. of the Kur-án that the Prophet was to be a نَذِير [or warner] لِلْعَالَمِينَ; and he was not a نذير to the beasts, nor to the angels, though all of them are the creatures of God; but only to the jinn, or genii, and mankind. (TA.) ― -b2- عَالَمٌ is also syn. with قَرْنٌ [as meaning A generation of mankind; or the people of one time]. (O, voce طَبَقٌ, q. v.)

Freelight already refuted this very post, I believe at least three times.

Ok, here we go.....

All you have above is a 'lexicon' from one person. And please note carefully the entire commentary which mentions other translators and their opinions about this 'term',...it can refer to all sentient beings and creation itself (inanimate, insentient matter, sun, moon, stars, heavenly bodies, elementals, etc.) and includes a 'plurality' of orders and catagories of life-forms. Also it appears in some places that the term is used more exclusively to indicate 'mankind' and 'jinn' more exclusively (as sentient beings/souls/spirits), but never only 'jinn' exclusively, unless the word 'jinn' is actually in the text being referred.

So,...this 'lexicon' (which is not an official translation necessarily btw) does not really support your assumption, except to say that Lane describes Allah as 'Lord of the jinn' merely as a descriptive title, BUT NOTE,...it is NOT of jinn only, but of MANKIND too.....and...this is only the case in some passages, whereas the term usually includes all beings, all creation. Remember the term being used in 'proper context'. Honest 'exegesis'.

Remember, only the not so good Hilali/Khan translation throws in the word 'jinn' in parenthesis, but 'jinn' it not in the original text. We keep reminding you of this.

This is still a day late and a dollar short of proving Allah is a 'satan' or 'devil' of any kind, and simply holds the fundamental monotheistic truth that 'God' (Allah, YHWH, Elohim, Brahman, The Supreme Being, Ain Soph, call 'Deity' by whatever name)...is the Lord and Creator of all beings, all creation.

Anything else other than this basic monotheistic proposition (that 'God' is Lord of all, Lord of all worlds) is something being 'super-imposed' into the text. - and that my friend is the 'truth' of the matter.

 

[Apple7]

I said that Lane used it, though he uses it in a context that you choose to ignore.

Nope.

But Lane is none of what I asked for. He is a centuries-old Arabic translator. No single professor, theologian, religious scholar, or language expert alive today agrees with Allah being "lord of the jinn."

You got exactly what you asked for.

Now....deal with it.


:cigar:

 

[Apple7]

Freelight already refuted this very post, I believe at least three times.

Nope.

Say bye...bye...

 

[Greg Jennings]

Nope.





You got exactly what you asked for.

Now....deal with it.


:cigar:

Are you saying that E.W. Lane is a professor, religious scholar, theologian, or modern expert in Arabic languages?
:chuckle:
Sure.....

I guess you're just going to keep dodging the question, "Why do no living professors, theologians, religious scholars, or language experts agree with your translation?"
:rotfl:
I can't imagine why :think:

 

[Greg Jennings]

Nope.

Say bye...bye...

Yep. Here it is again. Your quote first, of course.

Wrong.

Let's go over the lexical definition, yet again, as you seem to suffer the same selective reading disorder as that of FL.

This time, actually read the parts highlighted in yellow, and see for yourself, that the phrase رب العلمين is confirmed as pertaining specifically to the 'lord of the jinn', or genii, and mankind' and is confirmed as a valid definition by two lexicologists...


العَالَمُ ذ , (S, Msb, K, &c.,) said by some to be also pronounced ↓ العَالِمُ , (MF, TA,) and pronounced by El-Hajjáj with hemz [i. e. العَأْلَمُ], is primarily a name for That by means of which one knows [a thing]; like as الخَاتَمُ is a name for “ that by means of which one seals ” [a thing]: accord. to some of the expositors of the Kur-án, its predominant application is to that by means of which the Creator is known: then to the intelligent beings of mankind and of the jinn or genii: or to mankind and the jinn and the angels: and mankind [alone]: Es-Seyyid Esh-Shereef [El- Jurjánee] adopts the opinion that it is applied to every kind [of these, so that one says عَالَمُ الإِِنْسِ (which may be rendered the world of mankind) and عَالَمُ الجِنِّ (the world of the jinn or genii) and عَالَمُ المَلَائِكَةِ (the world of the angels), all of which phrases are of frequent occurrence], and to the kinds [thereof] collectively: (TA: ) or it signifies الخَلْقُ [i. e. the creation, as meaning the beings, or things, that are created], (S, Msb, K,) altogether [i. e. all the created beings or things, or all creatures]: (K: ) or, as some say, peculiarly, the intelligent creatures: (Msb: ) or what the cavity (lit. belly) of the celestial sphere comprises, (K, TA,) of substances and accidents: (TA: ) [it may often be rendered the world, as meaning the universe; and as meaning the earth with all its inhabitants and other appertenances; and in more restricted senses, as instanced above: and one says عَالَمُ الحَيَوَانِ meaning the animal kingdom, and عَالَمُ النَّبَات the vegetable kingdom, and عَالَمُ المَعَادِنِ the mineral kingdom:] Jaafar Es-Sádik says that the عَالَم is twofold: namely, العَالَمُ الكَبِيرُ, which is the celestial sphere with what is within it; and العَالَمُ الصَّغِيرُ, which is man, as being [a microcosm, i. e.] an epitome of all that is in the كَبِير: and Zj says that العَالَمُ has no literal sing., because it is [significant of] a plurality [of classes] of diverse things; and if made a sing. of one of them, it is [significant of] a plurality of congruous things: (TA: ) the pl. is العَالَمُونَ (S, M, Msb, K, &c.) and العَوَالِمُ: (S, TA: ) and the sing. is [said to be] the only instance of a word of the measure فَاعَلٌ having a pl. formed with و and ن, (ISd, K, TA,) except يَاسَمٌ: (K, TA: ) [but see this latter word:] العَالَمُونَ signifies the [several] sorts of created beings or things: (S: ) [or all the sorts thereof: or the beings of the universe, or of the whole world:] it has this form because it includes mankind: or because it denotes particularly the sorts of created beings consisting of the angels and the jinn and mankind, exclusively of others: I'Ab is related to have explained رَبُّ العَالَمِينَ as meaning the Lord of the jinn, or genii, and of mankind: Katádeh says, the Lord of all the created beings: but accord. to Az, the correctness of the explanation of I'Ab is shown by the saying in the beginning of ch. xxv. of the Kur-án that the Prophet was to be a نَذِير [or warner] لِلْعَالَمِينَ; and he was not a نذير to the beasts, nor to the angels, though all of them are the creatures of God; but only to the jinn, or genii, and mankind. (TA.) ― -b2- عَالَمٌ is also syn. with قَرْنٌ [as meaning A generation of mankind; or the people of one time]. (O, voce طَبَقٌ, q. v.)

Ok, here we go.....

All you have above is a 'lexicon' from one person. And please note carefully the entire commentary which mentions other translators and their opinions about this 'term',...it can refer to all sentient beings and creation itself (inanimate, insentient matter, sun, moon, stars, heavenly bodies, elementals, etc.) and includes a 'plurality' of orders and catagories of life-forms. Also it appears in some places that the term is used more exclusively to indicate 'mankind' and 'jinn' more exclusively (as sentient beings/souls/spirits), but never only 'jinn' exclusively, unless the word 'jinn' is actually in the text being referred.

So,...this 'lexicon' (which is not an official translation necessarily btw) does not really support your assumption, except to say that Lane describes Allah as 'Lord of the jinn' merely as a descriptive title, BUT NOTE,...it is NOT of jinn only, but of MANKIND too.....and...this is only the case in some passages, whereas the term usually includes all beings, all creation. Remember the term being used in 'proper context'. Honest 'exegesis'.

Remember, only the not so good Hilali/Khan translation throws in the word 'jinn' in parenthesis, but 'jinn' it not in the original text. We keep reminding you of this.

This is still a day late and a dollar short of proving Allah is a 'satan' or 'devil' of any kind, and simply holds the fundamental monotheistic truth that 'God' (Allah, YHWH, Elohim, Brahman, The Supreme Being, Ain Soph, call 'Deity' by whatever name)...is the Lord and Creator of all beings, all creation.

Anything else other than this basic monotheistic proposition (that 'God' is Lord of all, Lord of all worlds) is something being 'super-imposed' into the text. - and that my friend is the 'truth' of the matter.

Happy New Year

 

[Lon]

You name-called. I guess TOL has a "do as I say, not as I do" policy when it comes to such things.

It does, but "moronic" is an "adjective." To have to explain that is "ironic" (a little different in spelling and meaning).

Hmm....maybe you didn't get my point. It was that the idea that Allah and/or God are actually references to El the Canaanite deity (your moon god) is not accurate. It is not accurate for God, or for Allah. That might be because God and Allah are the same thing.

:think: My jury is still out. One group following the one, is killing the other group following the other. There are definite discrepancies.

You obviously should know this, but perhaps you don't: "Allah" is simply "God" translated into Arabic. More accurately, "God" is the translated version of "Allah," as Arabic is far far older than English.

More ancient than Hebrew?

Sorry if that was too "liberal" for your liking. Where I come from (Texas), that's called information. But to each his own.

I generally overtly scrutinize anything coming from Texas (not really, trying to say it may not be the best information, I don't believe Texas gives a leg up, but it does remind me of couple of great jokes).

Can you find me one source outside of answeringislam that says such garbage, please? I'll be patiently waiting.

Why won't answeringislam work, you ask? Because answeringchristianity has the same argument about a moon god, except they say God and not Allah is he. If you're not willing to accept answeringchristianity, then you can't accept what answeringislam says either. For the record, they're both garbage sites.

Here are two sources one more strongly ties it than the other. I've been told, however that it is like "god" today, a more generic term for deity.

 

[Greg Jennings]

It does, but "moronic" is an "adjective." To have to explain that is "ironic" (a little different in spelling and meaning).


:think: My jury is still out. One group following the one, is killing the other group following the other. There are definite discrepancies.

You are right here, to an extent. It's not like there aren't Christian militias out there (some in Africa even hunt Muslims), but in modern times obviously Islam is the greater terrorism threat. And by a large margin. I attribute that to the medieval society they live in, and not necessarily to their book.

My assertion that God and Allah are the same stems mostly from the Quran itself. It claims that Allah is the God of Abraham, and they revere Jesus greatly. In fact, he us second only to Mohammed in their eyes. The difference between Islam and Christianity when it comes to Jesus is that Muslims believe he never died and was never divine, but was instead a great prophet and had his soul sucked up to Paradise while on the cross (averting much suffering and death) while his body remained behind in a sort of vegetative state. They believe that worshipping Jesus is idolatry, and claim that he never wanted this.

Simply put: Muslims have a hard time seeing Christianity as monotheistic when Christians worship two beings.

More ancient than Hebrew?

Probably not. But there is no "God" in Hebrew. There is "Elohim", which is shortened at times to "El" in the bible. You can naturally see the connection there between the name of the Jewish "El" and the Canaanite god, "El."
"Allah" is a derivative of "El" or "Elohim." It first went from Hebrew to Aramaic (Ilah or Alilah), then to the Coptic "Allah." The term was used by Arab Christians long before Islam even existed.

I generally overtly scrutinize anything coming from Texas (not really, trying to say it may not be the best information, I don't believe Texas gives a leg up, but it does remind me of couple of great jokes).

:chuckle:

Here are two sources one more strongly ties it than the other. I've been told, however that it is like "god" today, a more generic term for deity.

Indeed it is. Just as "elohim" refers to all deified beings, such as gods, angels, and so on, but "Elohim" refers to only the God of Abraham.

I cannot thank you enough, Lon, for being a reasonable person here in this thread. You seem very willing to look for the facts yourself instead of taking another's word. On an online forum, this is of course always the best course of action. I very much appreciate your comment, and I hope you have a very Happy New Year.

 

[Lon]

You are right here, to an extent. It's not like there aren't Christian militias out there (some in Africa even hunt Muslims), but in modern times obviously Islam is the greater terrorism threat. And by a large margin. I attribute that to the medieval society they live in, and not necessarily to their book.

My assertion that God and Allah are the same stems mostly from the Quran itself. It claims that Allah is the God of Abraham, and they revere Jesus greatly. In fact, he us second only to Mohammed in their eyes. The difference between Islam and Christianity when it comes to Jesus is that Muslims believe he never died and was never divine, but was instead a great prophet and had his soul sucked up to Paradise while on the cross (averting much suffering and death) while his body remained behind in a sort of vegetative state. They believe that worshipping Jesus is idolatry, and claim that he never wanted this.

When Arab Christians speak of God, in Arabic, it is "Allah." As I read, there seems to be controversy specifically because Arabs still speak Arabic. It may not seem a big deal, but for instance, taking Sherman's post that it refers to the moon god, and perhaps even Apples referring to Lord of the Jinn, it could be that the name had at one time applied to them (This is by no means my area of expertise, just from my readings).
In English, we don't have equivalence but a changed term perhaps: "gods."

Simply put: Muslims have a hard time seeing Christianity as monotheistic when Christians worship two beings.

The trinity is a large topic. It is the largest theology topic thread on TOL.

Probably not. But there is no "God" in Hebrew. There is "Elohim", which is shortened at times to "El" in the bible. You can naturally see the connection there between the name of the Jewish "El" and the Canaanite god, "El."
"Allah" is a derivative of "El" or "Elohim." It first went from Hebrew to Aramaic (Ilah or Alilah), then to the Coptic "Allah." The term was used by Arab Christians long before Islam even existed.

:up: This was what I was going to explain if conversation led that direction. I guess I'm somewhat versed, but have a large learning curve on all things Muslim.

Indeed it is. Just as "elohim" refers to all deified beings, such as gods, angels, and so on, but "Elohim" refers to only the God of Abraham.

I cannot thank you enough, Lon, for being a reasonable person here in this thread. You seem very willing to look for the facts yourself instead of taking another's word. On an online forum, this is of course always the best course of action. I very much appreciate your comment, and I hope you have a very Happy New Year.

Tensions are high. If, perchance, Christians somewhere were massing and killing others, we'd be in the hot seat. I think it to be expected, and somewhat right that I should have to take the heat for 'my people' to some degree. Placed in a concentration camp? :nono: Happy New Year.

 

[gcthomas]

It does, but "moronic" is an "adjective." To have to explain that is "ironic" (a little different in spelling and meaning).

I think you meant to say 'interesting' or 'disappointing'.

I love it when people misuse the word 'ironic' in their criticisms of someone else's language use!

Look it up, Lon. It doesn't mean what you seem to think it means.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/02/21/ironic-correct-meaning_n_4824144.html