Jehovah and allah Discussion

I got the knowlwedge from my own study of Islam in comparison with the Bible years ago. Karen Armstrong's A History of God is one such good source of basic historical info. Also, Revmitchell's last quote is a good example of what I had learned (I guess he was trying to give arguments for both sides of the issue?)

But the old Canaanite word "el' goes back way before Muslim times (obviously) so that certainly does not prove allah was not derived from it, but all the more lends itself as evidence for that. The stepping stone from Canaanit/Hebrew to Arabic was Aramaic where it is "Elah". Just change the E to an I and then add the Arabic definite article "al", and contract it to the word (dropping the I), and there you have it.

And what was "el" originally, but borrowed from the Cananites and derived from Baal!
This right here shows that the Arabic name does not have to be shunned, because a pagan name was taken and applied to God in His inspired scriptures! (But in fact, I know of one sect that takes your principle to its logical conclusion and will not even use the term "el/ehohim" because of that, and changes all references to God in its translation of the Bible to YHWH, and even replaces the "-el" in people's names to "-yah" or "-yl/-wl").

That would be "ilah"; not the specific Al-ilah. In fact; ironically, what I have finally heard those who reject the name Allah instruct Arabic converts to use is just a neutral "Ilah". That is actually making it a generic "god", like telling us to spell it with a lowercase "g" only!

Once again, I acknowledge that theologically, they are different gods. So yes, they kill over it, and Muhammad actually started out with the three prayers towards Jerusalem common in Jewish practice, but when the Jews rejected him, then he turned it towards Mecca, and added two more prayers out of spite. I can even give you the surah where this is mentioned if you want. So then the old shrine became the new "holy site", and he had to rewrite OT history to justify it (and then his followers claim the Bible was "tampered" with).
Unfortunately, with the secular world believing all religions/gods are the same anyway, when we speak of Judaism, Christianity and Islam "worshipping the same God", it causes confusion as to what is meant. Hypothetically, they are the same God of Abraham, (and Adam, Noah, Israel, the prophets, etc) but theologically, when you discuss His nature and plan for the world, they become very different; hence three separate religions in the first place! But again, the Jews, concept does not have a "son" either, and they are actually closer to the Muslims on that point, with the same exact arguments against the Trinity. ("partners with God": shirk in Arabic, shittuf in Hebrew)
And of course, we do not accept "Jehovah" of the JW's or even "God" of the Mormons or any other such group as the truie God, even though they use the same names we accept. So it's not about the name.

Well obviously they did lose knowledge of God if they were polytheistic when Muhammad confronted them! They may have known God then when that scripture was written, but somewhere along the line they became pagan. And even then, that scripture is not saying they knew God then. They were joining with other nations (which were pagan) against Israel, and the prayer there was "That men may know that thou, whose name alone is JEHOVAH, art the most high over all the earth.

 

Not what I learned, but that has been awhile . . .

But, Ba'al and El are spelled differently . . .

 

But that is the point of Psalm 83 - they (Ishmaelites/Arabs) did NOT know God when the Scripture was written, because they were already pagan....

Read Psalm 83 again, please, & you will see that.

Also, the name allah was never used in the Bible pertaining to God, not even once. Everything pertaining to God in the Bible is with an "el" not an "al". BethEL, El Shadai, ELohim....

 

Let me get this straight . . . you know that "those who reject" do so on purpose . . . to move the new believer from an evil god to the One True God . . .

Then what are ya' disagreeing with?

 

Eric, also:

Edited to add link for above: http://answer-islam.org/ShowLetter.htm

ALSO:

http://answering-islam.org.uk/Shamoun/ishmael-baal.htm

IS ALLAH THE GOD OF BIBLE?
http://answering-islam.org.uk/Shamoun/god.htm

 

Quote from Daisy:
Btw, what religion was Abram's daddy?

Daisy, I just re-read your post. Tricky, eh? And my response was based on what I thought you said, not what you said. So, I retract my original response....

Abram's daddy (and Abram before he was called Abraham) were from ancient Ur of the Chaldees. And the religion of Ur included worship of the moon god.

And there are several connections with the black stone sitting in mecca - it is an idol.

http://www.bible.ca/islam/islam-photos-moon-worship-archealolgy.htm

BTW - APAL, sorry for letting your thread get hijacked. It has been interesting, this hijack about allah.....

 

Just to be fair . . .

the moon god of daddy . . . and the moon god of mecca were two different moon gods . . .

Just the meccanized one was allah . . .

 

Of course "allah" is not used in the Bible; for the Bible is Hebrew, and allah is the Arabic derivative of the Hebrew. For one thing, "al" remember, is the definite article. "IL" is what corresponds to "el", and in Arabic versions of those names it IS something like "BethIYL", etc. (not sure if that one is spelled like that, but I do know that Daniel and others are "Daniyl". Of course, later Arabic post-biblical names like we hear today use the other part of the name, "-llah"). The languages are related, so the words will be similar, but slightly changed. Like "God" in other Germanic languages is "Gott" or "Gud" (just check the back of the Gideon's Bible where John 3:16 is translated into various languages. Some go further and try to trace it to the Hebrew "Gad" which means a "troop" [i.e. of demons])
I did know about the oak tree, however; and that's funny, but I'm not saying that is where the name came from. It just happened to be transliterated into English (in Strong's) with the same spelling. Again, that is Hebrew, and Allah is [al] ilah, which comes from the Aramaic Elah, which comes from the Hebrew Eloah (a singular form used only a few times).
I myself always wondered about the Arabic version of YHWH, and that is actually more the "personal name" of God that applies to no other, while Elohim was a title that did refer to others, though wrongly. It was probably because the Jews would never pronounce that name (and avoid it in scripture reading with other words) that Muhammad never considered it.

This I didn't know about. But we're discussing allah, which I know is akin to the Hebrew Elohim, and is what people are spending all this time condemning. I would never defend Hu, because I know nothing about it. (But I wonder if that could possibly be their translation of YHWH?)
In any case, his concept of God is false, and he could not read, and just put together bits of other religions, so it is possible either way. Just like his "Isa", which is supposed to be Jesus is not the the Arabic for Jesus at all (which would be similar to all the other languages), but is rather Esau, which is what the Jews called Him (in derision, of course!) Muhammad copied it from them without even knowing. Funny that in this case, where we actually do have a false name, you don't hear most of the critics of Islam focusing on God's name pointing this out.

The point there was that they were from Abraham, who knew the true God, and passed that knowledge down to his sons. At what point afterwards Ishmael's descendants became pagan is not the point, for Isaac's descendants would have done the same had God not been working with them.

Because people associate the Arabic term for "THE God" with an evil doctrine built around it; they're trying to substitute a completely neutral ambiguous term that basically refers to any god. Again, like the English "god". Trying so hard to avoid a false god, that is actually having the opposite effect. It is not the name (word) that is false or evil, it is the concept one religion has built around it, and the answer is to teach Who the name (THE God) in that language really applies to, not make up a new name.

 

Eric, I appreciate the study you have put into this subject, but as I pointed out before, archeology disagrees with your premise that allah is just the arabic name for Jehovah or the One True God. If I am understanding your premise correctly.

Here's another interesting article that explores the archeological artifacts further:

http://www.pakistanchristianpost.com/sfdetails.php?id=52

 

What this illustrates, which you have not yet realized, is that there are two issues here. A deity, and a name. One was indelibly pagan, the other was not. It is the name we are really debating about, not what pagan Arabs may have once applied it to. The deity was pagan, but the name, as that quote shows, was generic Arabic term meaning "The God". As an Arabic term, it came from the Hebrew word "el", which also applied to beoth the true God and false gods, as in the Canaanite culture it ultimately derived from. The Hebrew (under the inspiration of God) took the pagan word and applied it to the true God, the God of Abraham. Muhammad later repeated this by taking the Arabic version and applying it hypothetically to the God of Abraham, yet he taught some false things about Him. The Moon god as the quote shows was not even originally "allah", but rather "Sin", and the whole area was named after it. The Arabs believed this was "The God", meaning the highest of a pantheon. Muhammad got rid of the pantheon, and said this was in fact the only God, (hence the same name), and apparently didn't think of "greatest" as suggesting lesser gods, or if it did, it was in the sense that the Bible says that YHWH was greater than the gods of other nations (which of course were really false).

It would be like if Israel had been allowed to follow their course, and keep the golden calf. They would call it "YHWH-Elohim who brought them out of Egypt". Then, they would be influenced bu the Canaanites and other trines as they were, adding their gods, as they did. So after centuries, they would have a whole pantheon led by YHWH-Elohim, the golden calf, with pagan rituals. (Isn't this basically happened to the Northern Kingdom at one point?) Then, a prophet arises and throws out all the gods and the golden calf and says worship YHWH alone. He would not be wrong because of the name.

Once again, the biggest charge of Allah being false is that he "has no Son", but the reason Muhammad's Allah has no Son is not because of the pagan pantheon, because their "moon god" did have sons and daughters! Muhammad got his "Sonless" God from the Jews, and almost none of these Allah critics are saying the Jews worship a false God for that reason!(Our own DHK is one exception, who has been consistent in that respect. But everyone else seems to believe the Jews worship the same God, but only 'don't recognize' the Son).

 

As much as I participated this thread is off topic Maybe another thread should be started or this one divided.

 

Done! Wasn't sure I could do it....but here we are. :smilewinkgrin:

 

The god of Islam is a false and murderous god, no matter what they call him.

 

That's because "El" is a Hebrew word while "al" is an Arabic one.

 

1Ch 14:7 And Elishama, and Beeliada, and Eliphalet. --Note--this is DAVID's child.

2Sa 5:16 Elishama, Eliada, and Eliphelet.


There appears to be an interchangability of terms until a later date when Baal is so prominent as the Canaanite deity that the term falls into disuse and names are editorially modified to replace baal with bosheth--(i.e. Ishbosheth, Mephibosheth--bosheth meaning shameful thing).


אלידע Eliada= "God knows"

Source: BDB

This word is Baal (or Beel in Aramaic), literally meaning "lord" בעל

This word is Beeliada "the lord knows"-- בעלידע

 

You meant that 'El' is transliterated Hebrew and 'ilah' is transliterated Arabic?

And 'al-ilah' became contracted to 'allah'?

 

Amen!

And what I cannot figure out is, since they say Jesus was a great prophet - why don't they listen to what He said about salvation?

Then they wouldn't follow a man-made replacement for a moon-god.

 

I think we all realize that we are transliterating here, but I was referring to "al" not "ilah." I recognize they are referring to two different concepts, but the sounds are similar, which confuses some.

The other theory may have merit; I do not know.

But to argue that "el" vs. "al" is definitive proof is not accurate. It is tantamount to arguing that the lack of the English word "God" in the Hebrew text means that "God" cannot be a correct way to refer to YHWH.

 

That's because they redefine everything that doesn't agree with their system. It's terribly frustrating.

I was chatting with a Muslim a few months ago about Christianity and Islam, and we agreed to listen to each other. Whenever the truth of the gospel confronted him, he ducked it and reinterpreted it through Muslim doctrine. He also ripped things out of context to support his claims.

 

I think it's unrealistic to expect someone in that situation to slap their forehead and exclaim,"You're right, I've been wrong all my life in my most cherished belief!"

It can take years for the message to seep through.

Thanks for providing explanations.