Islam Are Allah and God of the Bible the same Person?

[John 1720]

Well, I should emphasize here that they very well could have been Nestorians. There were both Orthodox and Nestorians in Arabia, and depending on which part of Arabia you want to look at (keeping in mind that Arabia is more than just Saudi Arabia, where Muhammad began his prophetic career), it is highly likely that there were more Nestorians in a given place than Orthodox. .........
the Axumites first invaded south Arabia/Yemen in response to reports of the Himyarite king's persecution of Christians there, which would seem to indicate some Oriental Orthodox affinity on the part of the Christians of the area -- that is, until we remember that the kingdom of Axum would've just been the nearest Christian kingdom in the neighborhood. Of course, in that light it would make sense to appeal to them in particular, rather than Christians in other regions.
Similarly, you can find in older sources (e.g. Jeffery's "Christianity in South Arabia", in Anglican Theological Review Vol. XXVII, No. 3, July, 1945, pp. 193-216) Simeon of Beth Arsham being introduced as "Bishop of the Persians", which would seem to make it sound to modern ears like these Christians would have been Nestorians, as the Nestorian Church was undoubtably the largest within the Sassanid Persian empire. However, we know from Simeon's other writings already presented that this was not his theological view nor confessional allegiance. Here it is important to note that the "land of the Persians" at this time would not have been limited to Persia/Iran proper, but would have also included Yemen and the east coast of Arabia, in addition to Al-Hira, the capital of the Arabs in Mesopotmia (marked as Al-Hirah in the map below, taken from Wiki; apparently known as Hirta d-Beth Nu'man in Syriac), where Simeon was actually based. So in reality what we have throughout the region -- in Arabia proper and places further east -- is Syriac/Assyrian/Syrian (these being three designations for Aramaic and/or Syriac-speaking Christians), Arab, and Persian populations under both Syriac Orthodox and Nestorian bishops, depending on the allegiance of particular people as they are found in a location (with many places being mixed, no doubt; the Orthodox Syrians and the Nestorian Syrians shared and continue to share a lot culturally, including language, though it is conventional to refer to the Orthodox as 'West Syrians' and the Nestorians as 'East Syrians'; as a matter of history, both communities had dioceses in the "others'" territories, with Syriac Orthodox in Iran and even Afghanistan, and Nestorians in Alexandria, Damascus, and Jerusalem, as already mentioned).

Possibly, but you were right in your earlier post that if they were Nestorians they would not anathematize themselves. It's enough for me to examine the evidence more closely and to look elsewhere. Thanks also for the maps. This is such an important period to research and to understand. Whenever the Kingdom of God recedes I believe His Church ("capital C") should look deeply. We learn more from our failures than we do from our successes and I believe God teaches us in this manner in order for us to grow in Him. When the Great commission was not moving outward from Judea and Galilee within the early church God allowed the fermenting opposition to the Gospel to create a wave of persecution. As we know our Lord never was reticent to meet His attackers head on but set His eyes like flint towards the cross, whereby He overcame sin and death. In like manner the Church must model His overcoming power and will. The Jerusalem church reacted to the persecution by taking the Gospel far and wide. So God took an evil and made it into a good by spreading His life giving message to the Gentiles. Paul and Barnabas argues hotly about John Mark, thus breaking the unity of the mission. But God, even used that for the greater spread of the Gospel and we see while many others had left Paul in his later imprisonment by the Roman authorities that John Mark was there - that bond completely made whole by our God who is the doctor of wholeness, healing divisions than man believes cannot be healed.
I like to examine history from that perspective and always ask myself were they following their own wisdom or the Wisdom of God? Of course I was not there so I try not to be overly critical of someone's intent but I do believe we can always learn from history - certainly I've learned much from my own. God's correction is our compass and I'd be lost without it. God is good and God is patient with us all!

Sure. I would recommend anything from the aforementioned (Arthur) Jeffery, who did a lot of important work on both early Arab Christianity and also early Islam. I only personally own his Foreign Vocabulary of the Qur'an, but he also wrote a few other works in a similar vein, in addition to many more journal articles such as the one already referenced (which contains a translation of Simeon of Beth Arsham's letter, in addition to a few other early sources on Christianity in pre-Islamic Arabia).

As far as primary sources are concerned, I would definitely recommend the Chronicle of (Ps.-)Dionysius of Tel Mahre, more accurately (and anonymously) known as the Chronicle of Zuqnin. It was at one time attributed to Dionysius of Tel Mahre (9th century Syriac Orthodox patriarch), but has since 1896 been recognized to have been written earlier, likely by a monk of the monastery of Zuqnin (in Mesopotamia, near what is today Diyarbakir, Turkey). It is written in four parts, covering up to 775 (the likely death of its author, assumed by many to be the stylite monk Joshua). I only have the third part (translated by Witakowski as part of Liverpool University's "Translated Texts for Historians" series), but it contains a version of the letter of Simeon of Beth Arsham as well as other interesting insights. Apparently the fourth part is the most historically important (and also probably the only 'original' -- the others being based to varying degrees on earlier sources such as the Chronicle of Eusebius and the History of John of Ephesus), being an account of the Arab Muslim conquest of the Levant and the daily life of Christians in the aftermath. This chronicle is interesting not only for what it contains, but also because the only surviving manuscript (Vat. 162) is the autograph, which, as you might guess, is pretty unusual for a work of this age.

Apparently the Iraqi scholar Amir Harrak, who has written much on early Syriac Christianity, has translated parts III and IV of the chronicle into English (covering the years 448 to 775), but I have not been able to find a copy of that book at a reasonable price. Witakowski's translation of part III alone seems to be more widely available, however. I purchased it for under $10 brand new on E-bay some time ago (it is rather short, at under 200 pages).

Another good work is Brock and Harvey Holy Women of the Syrian Orient (1987, though I know there are subsequent editions; it is widely available). Its fourth chapter covers the women martyrs of Najran, from both Simeon of Beth Arsham's letter and the Book of Himyarites. I know that the recently-reposed Palestinian scholar Irfan Shahid, who wrote a lot on the history of the Arab Christian tribes as they related to Byzantium (e.g., his three-volume work Byzantium and the Arabs in the Sixth Century, 1995-2010; earlier works on the same theme covering the fifth and fourth centuries are also surely worth looking into), also published on the martyrs of Najran, but I have not read his work on the topic.

For a more general historical study on the subject of Christianity in pre-Islamic Arabia, I can recommend Trimingham (1978) Christianity Among the Arabs in Pre-Islamic Times. Trimingham goes into the linguistic situation in Arabia before the rise of Islam, the character of Arabian Christianity and how that might explain why it was not able to withstand the onslaught of the Muslims as well in Arabia proper as it did elsewhere, and so on. It's quite good, but unfortunately a bit hard to find these days. A trip to the library is probably in order to track down a copy, as I am unaware of it having been reprinted or made available electronically at any point.

Since I mentioned the Synod of Dadisho' earlier, you can read about that in brief summary in Suha Rassam's Christianity in Iraq (2010; third edition 2016). Understandably, this one gets harder to read the closer it gets to the modern day, given the precarious state of Christianity in that country today, but it is nonetheless a very good historical overview the topic, and importantly (in my view, anyway), it is written by an Iraqi Christian (I believe she is Catholic, but she covers all the Christian sects in Iraq to at least some degree, and to the best of my recollection in a fair manner). That one is still available directly from the publisher, or even cheaper used on Amazon.

Hopefully these will be enough to get you started.

Great stuff! This is such an important period for Christians to understand and it is not commonly taught, at least to the level whereby we can understand the dynamics. Thank you for the many references for further edification.
May the Lord Bless you and your family
Patrick

 

[ViaCrucis]

Infancy Gospel of Thomas is said to date from 80 A.D

That's the absolute earliest that it could date, based on the fact that it borrows from the Gospel of Luke and Luke is generally dated to about the year 80.

As such this statement of yours is disingenuous and is intended to give credence to the borrowed account found in the Qu'ran. This is misleading, probably unintentionally, but still misleading.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[Muslim-UK]

That's the absolute earliest that it could date, based on the fact that it borrows from the Gospel of Luke and Luke is generally dated to about the year 80.

As such this statement of yours is disingenuous and is intended to give credence to the borrowed account found in the Qu'ran. This is misleading, probably unintentionally, but still misleading.

Even if we say it was written in 200 A.D for example, it doesn't mean it contains no truth. There were stories being passed down orally for decades after the events. We've already established there were Christians who believed in the Infancy Gospel of Thomas as being authentic. What we can't do is go back in a time machine and see what events occurred in the missing years of the life of Jesus pbuh as a baby, child or teenager. There things that happened in his 20's and we have no clue about them either.

Some say he travelled to India to be taught by sages and wise men. Who knows right?
It's just one of those things when you sadly lose track of GOD incarnate :/

 

[FredVB]

The Bible and the Quran are not revelation from the same God. With Yahweh giving revelation that is the Bible, the God shown in the Quran is not that being. But Allah means "the one God" so Yahweh is known with that word to Arabic speaking Christians.

 

[DWA2DAY]

The Bible and the Quran are not revelation from the same God. With Yahweh giving revelation that is the Bible, the God shown in the Quran is not that being. But Allah means "the one God" so Yahweh is known with that word to Arabic speaking Christians.

thank you your reply. However Allah does not mean the one god. But the god. Also keep in mind Allah is not an Arabic word it is a Syriac word coming from Petra and was worshiped in Petra as one of the many gods. If fact the pagan god Allah had three daughters who interceded on behalf of the people to Allah.

 

[Kiwi Christian]

Muslims, Jews and Christians agree in the worshipping of one God or monotheism. Jews and Muslims do not accept the deity of Jesus Christ as the Messiah. While this is fundamental basis for the Christian faith, however the topic is direct at what is God verse what is Allah in respect of Muslim and Christian faith texts rather than the who is God or Allah.

Muslims and Christians view Jesus Christ as the Son of God as well as the Christian doctrine of the Holy Trinity in vastly different light and needs to be discussed in order to obtain a true picture in the light of making the best decision for each person individual status in Paradise. Yet I feel including this in this discussion would not justify the vast subject matter already proposed moves to the Who and not the What, that needs to be addressed first in order to understand the Who. Thus with respect the deity of Christ and the doctrine of the Holy trinity can be discussed separately.

Islam requires all to submit to Allah according to the prescripts in Muhammad’s revelation called the Quran. Allah is the lord of the Kaaba ( The big black square structure Muslim pilgrims to Mecca walk around seven times and kiss the black meteorite stone) and god of the city of Mecca and Allah alone may be worshipped.

This statement of Islamic tradition is filled with problems for me as a Christian, however in fairness to Islam, Christianity does agree with Muslims that both Gods and Allah are viewed as eternal and self-sustaining, who created all things, seen and unseen. His essence is self evident in creation, He hold us accountable for our deeds or sins, who amazes those who have hardened hearts to the errors of there ways, His attributes include among others, compassion, mercy and justice and who does not depend on man and has no need for anything.

The Quran says in Surah 29:46 the God of the Bible is the same as Allah of the Quran, further there are a number of Suarah’s that call Muslims to respect the books (Bible) set down before the Quran. (Surah 5:36-38, 35:31, 3:3, 12:111, 29:46, 10:37, 5:66, 2:113, 3:78-79, 16:43, 5:68, 9:30, 10:94 are some of the key passages.) Yet there is little if no peace between the two faiths.

Logic tells us there can only be one truth and since both Muslims and Christian believe in the hereafter, a life of eternity with God or Allah, it is important we make the correct choice as both faith agree submitting to a false god is as good as a first class ticket to hell. In the same manner giving godly attributes to a false god wins us no favor with God. This is seen in Exodus 32:4-5 when the Israelites fashioned and worshipped a golden calf. The Quran supports idol worship as an unforgivable sin. (Surah 4:48, 31:13, 4:116) and there are other common grounds but let’s get to the discussion at hand.

As a Christian I believe that the God of the Bible is the One True God, below is my reason for believing this and thank you in advance for your consideration and look forward to your comments.

• What is God? God is Love. 1 John 4:7-8 Beloved, let us love one another, for love is from God, and whoever loves has been born of God and knows God. Anyone who does not love does not know God, because God is love. This passage forms the basis of my premise and my view of God. In understanding the Love of God I believe on has no other option as to accept the Biblical God as the One true God.

• What is Allah? In Arabic the word is a combination of “al” and “ilah” which means “the god”. Yet as Surah 30:30 says - Therefore, you shall devote yourself to the religion of strict monotheism. Such is the natural instinct placed into the people by ALLAH. Such creation of ALLAH will never change. This is the perfect religion, but most people do not know. say there can be only one god.

By examining What is Allah from the perspective of Islamic tradition and the Quran I will draw on you to consider a number of questions and leave you to make your own conclusion.

A. Origin.
Islamic source show that Allah was one of many pagan gods in Mecca prior to Muhammad’s revelations of the Quran that were worshiped at the Kaaba (The Kaaba is the square structure in Mecca Muslim pilgrims walk around seven time and kiss the black meteorite stone, which is reminiscent and remains from this period) Not must be made that three goddess were taken as daughter of Allah and worshiped as intercessors, al-Lat, al-Uzza and Manant. (Ibn al-Kalbi’s ‘Kitab al-Asnam-The Book of Idols, see chapter ‘Al-Uzza.)

Muhammad himself seemed reluctant to use the name Allah exclusively as it seldom used early Sunah’s. however after migration the qibla (direction of prayer) was change from facing Jerusalem to Mecca did Allah become the unmistakable identity of the Islamic god.

Idolatry from a Christian perspective is a no no and is made clear as the second commandment. Exodus 20:3-6 “You shall have no other gods before me.“You shall not make for yourself a carved image, or any likeness of anything that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth. You shall not bow down to them or serve them, for I the Lord your God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers on the children to the third and the fourth generation of those who hate me, but showing steadfast love to thousands[b] of those who love me and keep my commandments.

The God of the Bible is the uncreated Creator who created the universe and everything in it. To prove the origin of god is beyond human comprehension and if this could be done would pose the question of why do humans need any god. God is simply the I Am who is there and offers us His love as a true Father love his children. Rev 3:20 Behold, I stand at the door and knock. If anyone hears my voice and opens the door, I will come in to him and eat with him, and he with me.


Question:- your choice a god refined from pagan worship with all the associated baggage or the God of Love that has existed before time and offers you the in-comprehendible love of a Father.


B. There are many differences:-

a. Names of God. Both the bible and the Quran use multiple names for god. The most important one in the bible is YHVH in Hebrew translated as Jehovah. This name is mentioned in some 6,521 time in the Bible, a book written of 1300 years of continued prophecies.

The Quran revealed in a mere 23 years has 99 diferent names for Allah, yet not one of them is YHVH or Jehovah.


Question: if our Gods are one and the same why is the most important name for God nowhere to be found in the Quran.


b. Plural verses Singular. The Hebrew word for God is also “elohim” the im at the end shows it is a plural and is used approximately 2,500 times in the Bible.

Allah is singular and again raises the question if the Quran teach revelations sent down before it are true why the inconsistency?

c. The God of the City. The god of the bible is inextricably linked to the city of Jerusalem. Until such time as Jesus Christ facilitates universal access directly to God. (Deuteronomy 12:5-7 and John4:21-24)

With reference to the Quran Surah 27:91 - [Say, O Muhammad], "I have only been commanded to worship the Lord of this city, who made it sacred and to whom [belongs] all things. And I am commanded to be of the Muslims [those who submit to Allah ]


The Question is since Christ crucifixion and the out pouring of the Holy Spirit Christian have direct access to Gods throne room and thus no longer require a temple to worship God. Why would God now change his mind and go back to temple worship? Not to mention this new temple is not even in the land of the Jews Gods promised people so how would recondition and forgiveness of sins occur?

d. Ultimate Revelation. Both Islam and Christianity agree and believe God has revealed himself many times through history. They also agree that it all concludes in a final revelation. According to Islam this is revealed as a book the Quran through Muhammad. According to the bible and its prophecies it is God Himself. The God of the bible is personal and relational (Genesis 3:8-9 8 And they heard the sound of the Lord God walking in the garden in the cool[c] of the day, and the man and his wife hid themselves from the presence of the Lord God among the trees of the garden. 9 But the Lord God called to the man and said to him, “Where are you?”)


God of the bible is inseparable in His final revelation and seek our love and worship through relationship in eternity. This is not so with the god of Islam, his final revelation is a book of this world and not eternity.

e. Purpose in Creation. The Quran teaches we are created to be no more than slaves to Allah. (Surah 52:56 And I did not create the jinn and mankind except to worship Me. Surah 19:93 There is none in the heavens and the earth but cometh unto the Beneficent as a slave.)

The God of the Bible created us to become his Chrildren. The revelation of God the Father is not only absent from the Quran it is expressly reject by Islam. An it is in this revelation, A God of Love, the love of a Father to be enjoyed in eternity and not life filled fear and uncertainty with the stark prospect to be an eternal servant that requires the Islamic faith to consider.


C. The All Knowing God.
The omniscience of God of the bible is proved from foreknowledge. Much of the bible prophecies concerns events in the future, the fact these were spoken in advance is proof that God is all knowing. Isaiah spoke of Jesus atoning death seven hundred year before the event. See Isaiah 53. Daniel Jesus coming, His rejection and the destruction of the Temple. See Daniel 9. Jeses prepared His disciples by speaking of His death ahead of time. See Mathew 16:21
The god of the Quran deals with events after they happen. When Muhammad exceeded his quota of wives. Surah 4:3 namely four, only then was Surah 33:50 revealed, after the event. When Muhammad permitted his adopted son to divorce his newlywed wife so the he could marry her, the revelation of Surah 33;37 came after the event. When Muhammad broke his oath concerning Mary the copt an opportune revelation came after the event permitting him to break his oath.

Surly it would be more credible if these extraordinary events had been foreseen and condoned ahead of time.


D. All Powerful.
Both the Quran and the God of the bible make this claim to be omnipotent. However Islam has a different understanding as what this power is and how it is to be used. Islam understands “all powerful” as being unlimited by any quality of god. Islam goes beyond the belief that nothing is impossible for God or to difficult. Surah 76:1-4 to a belief that there is nothing he is tied to perform, nor can any injustice be supposed in him or be under any obligation to any person what so ever. Al-Ggazzali, Gerhard Nehls, p22

Allah is not bound to tell the truth, not keep his promises. He can do what he has promised not to do, and refrain from doing what he has promised to do. He can change his mind any time (as implied by Surah 13:39) He can revoke the Quran or part of it and replace it with something else (Surah 17:89). He can condemn to hell those who have faithfully obeyed him, and admit to paradise those who have persistently disobeyed him Mitshakatul Masabih, vol 3, page 761)

Compared to the God of the Bible who is eternally true to Himself, who dose not exercise power randomly or unpredictably, but keeping with his own character. He does not change (Malachi 3:6) and in Him is no shadow of turning, the same today, yesterday and tomorrow 9Hebrews 13:8). The biblical sense of “all powerful” includes the power to surrender sovereignty (Genesis 1:26-28, Psalm 8:5-8) and to bind Himself in covenant relationship with those who remain faithful. All powerful to god of the bible means He that God will not act against His own nature. (2 timothy 2:12)


E. Allah wills all things.
The Islamic concept of Allah’s power leaves no room for the responsibility and free will of man. Surah 9:51 and Surah 57:22. This has dramatic implications in respect of human suffering it is because Allah has willed it. With regard to salvation we have no control as Allah has willed it. With regards to sin and human accountability Allah has expressly willed it.

How it this compared to the God of the Bible. Man has been given authority over the earth and is held fully responsible for all the misery that has result from our poor choices in been disobedient to God. Gods will is not disobedience but freedom. Freedom is a precondition of Love and since God is Love , and he has created us in His image (Geneses 1: ) with the capacity to love and for a relationship based on love. By making us free to chose God created the potential for sin. Thus sin is the price god pays for our freedom to love him.

Despite the consequences of mans rebellion, God continues in all things to work for the good of those who love him and are called according to his purpose (Romans 8) The harmony between creature and perfection is only possible in a condition of perfect unity between God and man. Sin disturbs this relationship. God’s redemptive work though out history is designed to deal with sin absolutely and restore man to Himself.


F. Merciful and Just
A phrase use 113 times in the Quran is “most merciful and most compassionate” besides been merciful and compassionate Allah is also just. (tract entitled “The Concept of god in Islam”, published by the Islamic Propagation Center International, Durban south Africa, undated)

a. If I asked how many sins should I forgive to be most merciful, I am sure you will agree all of them or 100%. Is Allah rightly described as most merciful when there are many sins he does not forgive

How many sins must I forgive to be absolutely just? Surly 1% is too many. You see the problem to be merciful you must be able to forgive but to be just you must receive exactly what you deserve that means justice and mercy are on too different end of the scale and cannot be measured out without the expenses of the other. Islam dose not a solution to this imbalance.

However the God of the bible promises that he will forgive your sins 100%, in fact every persona sin in the world. Jesus has become the atoning sacrifice for our sins (1 John 2:2). You see the debit of our sin has been paid on the cross, and it is only on the cross mercy and justice coexist as absolutes within a single godhead. This is the basis for Christian monotheism expressed as the love of the father will to sacrifice His son for his creation. Foreseen in the sacrifice in Genesis 21 of Abraham and Isaac and proclaimed in John 3:16.

b. If every instance of misery and suffering is expressly willed and decreed by Allah how does this make him compassionate? Thus if every sin is by the predetermined will of Allah then no one is responsible and thus no need for mercy. For the same reason if sin is ordained by Allah there is no need for Allah to forgive for committing those sins except himself.

c. The day to day application of sharia (Islamic law) does not bear out any of the claims of Allah’s nature. Punishment is only just when metered out fairly and equally. Arbitrary disproportionate punishment proves injustice rather than justice. Cutting off hands and feet for minor offence like theft compared with random forgiveness of major transgressions is injustice not justice. The Quran promises eternal damnation and humiliating punishment for apparently minor crimes like annoying the prophet (Surah 33:35), while at the same time legitimizing systematic rape of women captured in war (Surah 4:24).


In summary The God of the Bible is Love and desires a relationship with his children. While the god of the Quran is unpredictable, is the author of all misery and pain, and has created mankind to be slaves and servants and has predetermined you fate in paradise, by removing your free will.

Regards Doug

The pagan Arabs worshipped the Moon-god Allah by praying toward Mecca several times a day; making a pilgrimage to Mecca; running around the temple of the Moon-god called the Kabah; kissing the black stone; killing an animal in sacrifice to the Moon-god; throwing stones at the devil; fasting for the month which begins and ends with the crescent moon; giving alms to the poor, etc.,

The Muslim's claim that Allah is the God of the Bible and that Islam arose from the religion of the prophets and apostles is refuted by solid, overwhelming archeological evidence. Islam is nothing more than a revival of the ancient Moon-god cult.

 

[Limo]

The pagan Arabs worshipped the Moon-god Allah by praying toward Mecca several times a day; making a pilgrimage to Mecca; running around the temple of the Moon-god called the Kabah; kissing the black stone; killing an animal in sacrifice to the Moon-god; throwing stones at the devil; fasting for the month which begins and ends with the crescent moon; giving alms to the poor, etc.,

The Muslim's claim that Allah is the God of the Bible and that Islam arose from the religion of the prophets and apostles is refuted by solid, overwhelming archeological evidence. Islam is nothing more than a revival of the ancient Moon-god cult.

Your level of information about pagan Arabs and Islam is very poor.
Who said that Allah is the god of Bible?
We know nothing called Bible. We recognize nothing called Bible.
There is nothing called moon god in history or in relegion of Arabs
Even pagan Arabs didn't worship moon
Regards

 

[Kiwi Christian]

Your level of information about pagan Arabs and Islam is very poor.
Who said that Allah is the god of Bible?
We know nothing called Bible. We recognize nothing called Bible.
There is nothing called moon god in history or in relegion of Arabs
Even pagan Arabs didn't worship moon
Regards

You are ignorant of the history of "allah", my friend.

1. Moon worship has been practiced in Arabia since 2000 BC. The crescent moon is the most common symbol of this pagan moon worship as far back as 2000 BC.
2. In Mecca, there was a god named Hubal who was Lord of the Kabah.
3. This Hubal was a moon god.
4. One Muslim apologist confessed that the idol of moon god Hubal was placed upon the roof of the Kaba about 400 years before Muhammad. This may in fact be the origin of why the crescent moon is on top of every minaret at the Kaba today and the central symbol of Islam atop of every mosque throughout the world:
   About four hundred years before the birth of Muhammad one Amr bin Lahyo ... a descendant of Qahtan and king of Hijaz, had put an idol called Hubal on the roof of the Kaba. This was one of the chief deities of the Quraish before Islam. (Muhammad The Holy Prophet, Hafiz Ghulam Sarwar (Pakistan), p 18-19, Muslim)
5. The moon god was also referred to as "al-ilah". This is not a proper name of a single specific god, but a generic reference meaning "the god". Each local pagan Arab tribe would refer to their own local tribal pagan god as "al-ilah".
6. "al-ilah" was later shortened to Allah before Muhammad began promoting his new religion in 610 AD.
7. There is evidence that Hubal was referred to as "Allah".
8. When Muhammad came along, he dropped all references to the name "Hubal" but retained the generic "Allah".
9. Muhammad retained almost all the pagan rituals of the Arabs at the Kaba and redefined them in monotheistic terms.
10. Regardless of the specifics of the facts, it is clear that Islam is derived from paganism that once worshiped a moon-god.
11. Although Islam is today a monotheist religion, its roots are in paganism.

 

[Kiwi Christian]

Your level of information about pagan Arabs and Islam is very poor.
Who said that Allah is the god of Bible?
We know nothing called Bible. We recognize nothing called Bible.
There is nothing called moon god in history or in relegion of Arabs
Even pagan Arabs didn't worship moon
Regards

Allah, the moon god of the Kaba:

There are a number of scholars who believe that Allah, was originally the name of the moon god of Northern Arabia. It is important to remember that the word "Allah" simply means "the god" and corresponds to "ho theos" in the Greek New Testament as "the God" which refers to the Father in John 1:1 and the Son in John 20:28 and Heb 1:8. What is interesting is that Hubal was the top pagan moon god of the Kabah. So Allah is the generic and Hubal, may have been the actual name, in the same way that "the God" is generic and "Jehovah" is the name. The Arabs may have referred to "Hubal" as "Allah", just like Jews would refer to "Jehovah" as "The God".

1. "Allah, the Supreme Being of the Mussulmans: Before Islam. That the Arabs, before the time of Muhammed, accepted and worshipped, after a fashion, a supreme god called Allah,--"the Ilah, or the god, if the form is of genuine Arabic source; if of Aramaic, from Alaha, "the god"—seems absolutely certain. Whether he was an abstraction or a development from some individual god, such as Hubal, need not here be considered...But they also recognized and tended to worship more fervently and directly other strictly subordinate gods...It is certain that they regarded particular deities (mentioned in 1iii. 19-20 are al-'Uzza, Manat or Manah, al-Lat'; some have interpreted vii, 179 as a reference to a perversion of Allah to Allat as daughters of Allah (vi. 100; xvi, 59; xxxvii, 149; 1iii, 21); they also asserted that he had sons (vi. 100)..."There was no god save Allah". This meant, for Muhammed and the Meccans, that of all the gods whom they worshipped, Allah was the only real deity. It took no account of the nature of God in the abstract, only of the personal position of Allah. ...ilah, the common noun from which Allah is probably derived..." (First Encyclopedia of Islam, E.J. Brill, 1987, Islam, p. 302)
2. Allah. Islamic name for God. Is derived from Semitic El, and [Allah] originally applied to the Moon; he [Allah] seems to have been preceded by Ilmaqah, the Moon-god. Allat is the female counterpart of Allah. (Everyman's Dictionary of Non-Classical Mythology, Egerton Sykes, Godspeed, Allah)
3. The Bedouin's astral beliefs centred upon the moon, in whose light he grazed his flocks. Moon-worship implies a pastoral society, whereas sun-worship represents a later agricultural stage. In our own day the Moslem Ruwalah Bedouins imagine that their life is regulated by the moon, which condenses the water vapours, distils the beneficent dew on the pasture and makes possible the growth of plants. On the other hand the sun, as they believe, would like to destroy the Bedouins as well as all animal and plant life. (History Of The Arabs, Philip K. Hitti, 1937, p 96-101)
4. There are stories in the Sira of pagan Meccan praying to Allah while standing beside the image of Hubal. (Muhammad's Mecca, W. Montgomery Watt, Chapter 3: Religion In Pre-Islamic Arabia, p26-45)
5. "The relation of this name, which in Babylonia and Assyrian became a generic term simply meaning 'god', to the Arabian Ilah familiar to us in the form Allah, which is compounded of al, the definite article, and Ilah by eliding the vowel 'i', is not clear. Some scholars trace the name to the South Arabian Ilah, a title of the Moon god, but this is a matter of antiquarian interest" (Islam, Alfred Guillaume, 1956, p 6-7)
6. "The first pre-Islamic inscription discovered in Dhofar Province, Oman, this bronze plaque, deciphered by Dr. Albert Jamme, dates from about the second century A.D. and gives the name of the Hadramaut moon good Sin and the name Sumhuram, a long-lost city....The moon was the chief deity of all the early South Arabian kingdoms—particularly fitting in that region where the soft light of the moon brought the rest and cool winds of night as a relief from the blinding sun and scorching heat of day. In contrast to most of the old religions with which we are familiar, the moon god is male, while the sun god is his consort, a female. The third god of importance is their child, the male morning star, which we know as the planet Venus...The spice route riches brought them a standard of luxurious living inconceivable to the poverty-stricken South Arabian Bedouins of today. Like nearly all Semitic peoples they worshipped the moon, the sun, and the morning star. The chief god, the moon, was a male deity symbolized by the bull, and we found many carved bulls' heads, with drains for the blood of sacrificed animals." (Qataban and Sheba, Wendell Phillips, 1955, p. 227)
7. "...a people of Arabia, of the race of the Joktanites...the Alilai living near the Red Sea in a district where gold is found; their name, children of the moon, so called from the worship of the moon, or Alilat." (Gesenius Hebrew and Chaldee Lexicon to the Old Testament Scriptures, translated by Samuel Prideaux Tregelles, 1979, p. 367)
8. Allat, according to recent study of the complicated inspirational evidence, is believed to have been introduced into Arabia from Syria, and to have been the moon goddess of North Arabia. If this is the correct interpretation of her character, she corresponded to the moon deity of South Arabia, Almaqah, `Vadd, `Amm or Sin as he was called, the difference being only the oppositeness of gender. Mount Sinai (the name being an Arabic feminine form of Sin) would then have been one of the centers of the worship of this northern moon goddess. Similarly, al-`Uzza is supposed to have come from Sinai, and to have been the goddess of the planet Venus. As the moon and the evening star are associated in the heavens, so too were Allat and al-`Uzza together in religious belief, and so too are the crescent and star conjoined on the flags of Arab countries today. (The Archeology Of World Religions, Jack Finegan, 1952, p482-485, 492)

 

[benelchi]

You are ignorant of the history of "allah", my friend.

1. Moon worship has been practiced in Arabia since 2000 BC. The crescent moon is the most common symbol of this pagan moon worship as far back as 2000 BC.
2. In Mecca, there was a god named Hubal who was Lord of the Kabah.
3. This Hubal was a moon god.
4. One Muslim apologist confessed that the idol of moon god Hubal was placed upon the roof of the Kaba about 400 years before Muhammad. This may in fact be the origin of why the crescent moon is on top of every minaret at the Kaba today and the central symbol of Islam atop of every mosque throughout the world:
   About four hundred years before the birth of Muhammad one Amr bin Lahyo ... a descendant of Qahtan and king of Hijaz, had put an idol called Hubal on the roof of the Kaba. This was one of the chief deities of the Quraish before Islam. (Muhammad The Holy Prophet, Hafiz Ghulam Sarwar (Pakistan), p 18-19, Muslim)
5. The moon god was also referred to as "al-ilah". This is not a proper name of a single specific god, but a generic reference meaning "the god". Each local pagan Arab tribe would refer to their own local tribal pagan god as "al-ilah".
6. "al-ilah" was later shortened to Allah before Muhammad began promoting his new religion in 610 AD.
7. There is evidence that Hubal was referred to as "Allah".
8. When Muhammad came along, he dropped all references to the name "Hubal" but retained the generic "Allah".
9. Muhammad retained almost all the pagan rituals of the Arabs at the Kaba and redefined them in monotheistic terms.
10. Regardless of the specifics of the facts, it is clear that Islam is derived from paganism that once worshiped a moon-god.
11. Although Islam is today a monotheist religion, its roots are in paganism.

You said: "The moon god was also referred to as "al-ilah". This is not a proper name of a single specific god, but a generic reference meaning "the god". Each local pagan Arab tribe would refer to their own local tribal pagan god as "al-ilah"."

Like much of your post, this is a mix of truth and error. You are correct that ilah is a generic word for a god, but the article in Arabic, like all Semitic languages, is attached to the noun. There never was al-ilah, it was always allah i.e. al + ilah is was not changed to allah, it was always allah.

Additionally, it was highly unlikely that there was ever a moon God worshiped in Mecca. Most archeologists don't believe Mecca was even inhabited when Islam began. Many scholars today are looking at Petra as possibly being the original Mecca.

 

[benelchi]

DUPLICATED

 

[dzheremi]

All addressed here:

Reply To Robert Morey's Moon-God Allah Myth: A Look At The Archaeological Evidence

Fill your boots

What isn't disputed is, Sun god worship was the pagan belief of the Romans, they replaced Mithras with Jesus pbuh.

One depicted a bull on his shoulder from whose blood life was made new.
The other depicts a lamb on his shoulder whose blood grants everlasting life.

Dec 25 was a special day dedicated to Mithras

"And when we say also that the Word, who is the first-birth of God, was produced without sexual union, and that He, Jesus Christ, our Teacher, was crucified and died, and rose again, and ascended into heaven, we propound nothing different from what you believe regarding those whom you esteem sons of Jupiter." CHURCH FATHERS: The First Apology (St. Justin Martyr)

Only of course, this time it's the real deal. Let's just sidestep the real followers of Jesus pbuh including his family and make this repackaged 'Sun' worship the Religion of the vast Empire.

So because a poster advances a theory that is discredited about your religion, you answer by advancing one that is discredited about Christianity, even insisting that it is not disputed? This is both poor reasoning and poor behavior.

For one thing, you have transparently taken from what little is available about the Mithras cult only what can be superficially connected to Christianity, not any less or any differently than your interlocutor has with regard to Arabian paganism. Even a cursory review of the evidence shows many aspects of Mithras worship that really have no analogue to the birth of Jesus in the Christian story: Mithras was born of a rock (nope; Christ in both your religion and mine was born of Mary, so you cannot dispute this and keep your fidelity to your own religion), Mithras slaughters a bull (nope), and shares a banquet meal with the sun god Sol (nope).

For another thing, the Nativity ('Christmas') was not celebrated at all in the Christian world until about the fourth century, and had no connection to December 25th outside of the Church of Rome (it is still celebrated in the East on January 6/7 to this day; December 25th is just another day in the Nativity fast in my Church), and Christian sources like the website of the Antiochian Orthodox Christian Archdiocese of America openly state that in Rome in particular the 25th of December was chosen to celebrate the birth of Christ as the coming of the 'Sun of Righteousness' -- so this connection with the Mithras cult was intentional, as a replacement for the celebration of Sol Invictus (the Unconquerable Sun) to emphasize that Christianity had won out over paganism: whereas the pagans worshiped the literal sun (as in, the light in the sky which rises every morning), we worship the Son of God Jesus Christ, who is metaphorically treated in hymns of both the Nativity and Epiphany as the light which illuminates us (not with light as the sun does, but with spiritual knowledge).

Hence the Byzantines have hymns like this one:

ميلادُكَ أَيُّها المسيحُ إلهنا ، قد أظهرَ نورَ المعرفةِ للعالم. لأَنَّ الساجدينَ للكواكب ، فيه تعلموا من الكوكبِ السجودَ لكَ يا شمسَ العدل ، وعرفوا أَنكَ المشرِقُ الَّذي من العَلاء. يا ربُّ‘ المجدُ لك​

And the Copts have hymns like this one:

"Tentheeno epchoi nishiri nte piouoini ntenhos epchois nte nijom..."
(Arise, O children of the light, let us praise the Lord of hosts...")

And similar hymns are found throughout the Christian world to mark both the Nativity and Epiphany, as they were once one celebration (and still are, for the Armenians).

This all ties in quite nicely with the quote that you have provided from St. Justin's Apology. You should understand from the outset when dealing with Christianity and Christians that we do not have the mindset of the people of your religion, who consign everything from before the coming of your prophet Muhammad to the "time of ignorance" on account of it being before the revelation of your religion. Precisely due to the writings of people like St. Justin, and other saints such as St. Basil, the Christian has traditionally understood other religions' relation to his own as being what St. Justin called "seeds of the Word", whereby other religious philosophies contain within them some kernels of truth that is only fully revealed with the coming of Christ. Hence we would or should not be so quick to reject everything that is not Christianity on that basis alone, but recognize what is true in it, and what points to its fulfillment in Jesus Christ. (Though it should be said that plenty of early Christian writers maintained at the same time that this similarities are also corruptions of the Christian belief and practice. As you can read via the same Wikipedia page earlier linked in this post, St. Justin also wrote the following concerning Mithras: "Wherefore also the evil demons in mimicry have handed down that the same thing should be done in the Mysteries of Mithras." This is a slightly different translation of a passage in chapter 66 of his first apology, on the Eucharist, which you can read at the link you yourself left, Muslim-UK.)

So anything you read from St. Justin or another early Christian writer which seems to speak approvingly of paganism should be understood in that context, as this is the same context by which St. Paul earlier preached to the Greeks concerning their "unknown God", Sts. Bartholomew and St. Thaddeus later to the Armenians (who are notable in this context because they, like their neighbors the Persians, were actual worshipers of Mithras before the coming of Christianity), and so forth. It wasn't until much, much later that some Christians, primarily in the West, became obsessed with eradicating 'paganism' from their religion, and hence came to reject things as diverse as the veneration of icons, the celebration of the nativity, the Christian marriage ceremony, etc. You will note at this comparison page between Christianity and Mithras, which is maintained as part of the Tertullian project (a repository of early Christian writings), that it was not until the 1880s that scholars began suggesting any kind of explicit link between the two. So what you have suggested is not some kind of time-tested theory that is accepted by scholars the world over or whatever, but a necessarily later one built on subjective conclusions not any less than this "Allah = pagan moon god" nosense.

 

[dzheremi]

Alright, I tried to be nice about it, but I can see from your reply that I am going to have to be more blunt in my rejection.

I am not going to pay your ridiculous conspiracy videos any mind, and I don't recommend that you or anyone else do so, either. You have clearly already made your mind up with regard to the supposed connections between Mithras and Christianity, and have even produced some 'scholar' (who is this gentleman in the video, and what are his scholarly or religious bona fides?) who says the same, but it is noteworthy that the scholars on Mithras as listed already at the Tertullian project (with full footnotes, not anonymously uploaded YouTUbe videos from God knows where) and elsewhere, who first noticed these similarities in an academic context, were not so convinced, and the theory that Christianity grew from Mithraism or that Jesus is a rip-off Mithra does not attract the backing of serious scholars of either religion, only nutjobs on YouTube. You agree with these particular nutjobs as you think that they advance your religion's claims against my religion, but it is so easy to find millions of these videos that I don't doubt that you would suddenly become much more selective regarding what you take as reliable source were the videos directed at your religion instead of mine (and, believe me, the type who produce these kinds of videos are likely to view your religion as a 'rip off' of others, as well; see below).

The claims of the conspiracy theorists are not even in accord with each other, in any case.

Maybe Islam is rooted in Hinduism:

Or maybe Islam was created by the Roman Catholic Church:

Or maybe Christianity, Judaism, and Islam are all pagan-rooted religions:

If you scoff at all of the above videos as nonsensical ramblings (and you should; they are all grade-A baloney), then you should understand that this is how the ridiculous videos you have posted look, as well. It is the same trash, the difference being that I have already addressed the supposed links between Mithra and Christianity from Christian sources that admit that there are connections to be found there (they just don't add up to Christianity being a copy or a rip-off of Mithraism any more than the Kaaba's role in pre-Islamic Arabian paganism makes Islam a rip-off of pre-Islamic Arabian paganism; you borrowed some preexisting sites and rituals, we borrowed some preexisting sites and days; so what? They don't mean the same thing as they did in pagan times, in either case), as the Antiochian Orthodox website and the Tertullian project both do, whereas you seem to think that simply reiterating the same claims while turning up the crazy to 11 makes those claims more believable. It doesn't, and if I were you I would really think about what I'm trying to accomplish by posting such things. By relying on conspiracy videos, you make yourself look like a conspiracy theorist, which of course also casts a long shadow on your protestations about how "We know from the Qur'an" that this or that is the case. You mean the Qur'an, the book of the rip-off pagan religion of Islam? Why should anyone place any trust in that when Islam is a Hindu, Roman Catholic, Pagan religion, as the above videos prove?

See, this is not a good way to discuss things. Take your conspiracy theories elsewhere, please. There is a whole sub-forum for that stuff on this website, which is where it belongs: Conspiracy Theories

 

[Limo]

Allah, the moon god of the Kaba:

There are a number of scholars who believe that Allah, was originally the name of the moon god of Northern Arabia. It is important to remember that the word "Allah" simply means "the god" and corresponds to "ho theos" in the Greek New Testament as "the God" which refers to the Father in John 1:1 and the Son in John 20:28 and Heb 1:8. What is interesting is that Hubal was the top pagan moon god of the Kabah. So Allah is the generic and Hubal, may have been the actual name, in the same way that "the God" is generic and "Jehovah" is the name. The Arabs may have referred to "Hubal" as "Allah", just like Jews would refer to "Jehovah" as "The God".

1. "Allah, the Supreme Being of the Mussulmans: Before Islam. That the Arabs, before the time of Muhammed, accepted and worshipped, after a fashion, a supreme god called Allah,--"the Ilah, or the god, if the form is of genuine Arabic source; if of Aramaic, from Alaha, "the god"—seems absolutely certain. Whether he was an abstraction or a development from some individual god, such as Hubal, need not here be considered...But they also recognized and tended to worship more fervently and directly other strictly subordinate gods...It is certain that they regarded particular deities (mentioned in 1iii. 19-20 are al-'Uzza, Manat or Manah, al-Lat'; some have interpreted vii, 179 as a reference to a perversion of Allah to Allat as daughters of Allah (vi. 100; xvi, 59; xxxvii, 149; 1iii, 21); they also asserted that he had sons (vi. 100)..."There was no god save Allah". This meant, for Muhammed and the Meccans, that of all the gods whom they worshipped, Allah was the only real deity. It took no account of the nature of God in the abstract, only of the personal position of Allah. ...ilah, the common noun from which Allah is probably derived..." (First Encyclopedia of Islam, E.J. Brill, 1987, Islam, p. 302)
2. Allah. Islamic name for God. Is derived from Semitic El, and [Allah] originally applied to the Moon; he [Allah] seems to have been preceded by Ilmaqah, the Moon-god. Allat is the female counterpart of Allah. (Everyman's Dictionary of Non-Classical Mythology, Egerton Sykes, Godspeed, Allah)
3. The Bedouin's astral beliefs centred upon the moon, in whose light he grazed his flocks. Moon-worship implies a pastoral society, whereas sun-worship represents a later agricultural stage. In our own day the Moslem Ruwalah Bedouins imagine that their life is regulated by the moon, which condenses the water vapours, distils the beneficent dew on the pasture and makes possible the growth of plants. On the other hand the sun, as they believe, would like to destroy the Bedouins as well as all animal and plant life. (History Of The Arabs, Philip K. Hitti, 1937, p 96-101)
4. There are stories in the Sira of pagan Meccan praying to Allah while standing beside the image of Hubal. (Muhammad's Mecca, W. Montgomery Watt, Chapter 3: Religion In Pre-Islamic Arabia, p26-45)
5. "The relation of this name, which in Babylonia and Assyrian became a generic term simply meaning 'god', to the Arabian Ilah familiar to us in the form Allah, which is compounded of al, the definite article, and Ilah by eliding the vowel 'i', is not clear. Some scholars trace the name to the South Arabian Ilah, a title of the Moon god, but this is a matter of antiquarian interest" (Islam, Alfred Guillaume, 1956, p 6-7)
6. "The first pre-Islamic inscription discovered in Dhofar Province, Oman, this bronze plaque, deciphered by Dr. Albert Jamme, dates from about the second century A.D. and gives the name of the Hadramaut moon good Sin and the name Sumhuram, a long-lost city....The moon was the chief deity of all the early South Arabian kingdoms—particularly fitting in that region where the soft light of the moon brought the rest and cool winds of night as a relief from the blinding sun and scorching heat of day. In contrast to most of the old religions with which we are familiar, the moon god is male, while the sun god is his consort, a female. The third god of importance is their child, the male morning star, which we know as the planet Venus...The spice route riches brought them a standard of luxurious living inconceivable to the poverty-stricken South Arabian Bedouins of today. Like nearly all Semitic peoples they worshipped the moon, the sun, and the morning star. The chief god, the moon, was a male deity symbolized by the bull, and we found many carved bulls' heads, with drains for the blood of sacrificed animals." (Qataban and Sheba, Wendell Phillips, 1955, p. 227)
7. "...a people of Arabia, of the race of the Joktanites...the Alilai living near the Red Sea in a district where gold is found; their name, children of the moon, so called from the worship of the moon, or Alilat." (Gesenius Hebrew and Chaldee Lexicon to the Old Testament Scriptures, translated by Samuel Prideaux Tregelles, 1979, p. 367)
8. Allat, according to recent study of the complicated inspirational evidence, is believed to have been introduced into Arabia from Syria, and to have been the moon goddess of North Arabia. If this is the correct interpretation of her character, she corresponded to the moon deity of South Arabia, Almaqah, `Vadd, `Amm or Sin as he was called, the difference being only the oppositeness of gender. Mount Sinai (the name being an Arabic feminine form of Sin) would then have been one of the centers of the worship of this northern moon goddess. Similarly, al-`Uzza is supposed to have come from Sinai, and to have been the goddess of the planet Venus. As the moon and the evening star are associated in the heavens, so too were Allat and al-`Uzza together in religious belief, and so too are the crescent and star conjoined on the flags of Arab countries today. (The Archeology Of World Religions, Jack Finegan, 1952, p482-485, 492)

Good that you said "some scholars believe...."
It's some scholars' belief not the Islamic belief

 

[Limo]

You are ignorant of the history of "allah", my friend.

1. Moon worship has been practiced in Arabia since 2000 BC. The crescent moon is the most common symbol of this pagan moon worship as far back as 2000 BC.
2. In Mecca, there was a god named Hubal who was Lord of the Kabah.
3. This Hubal was a moon god.
4. One Muslim apologist confessed that the idol of moon god Hubal was placed upon the roof of the Kaba about 400 years before Muhammad. This may in fact be the origin of why the crescent moon is on top of every minaret at the Kaba today and the central symbol of Islam atop of every mosque throughout the world:
   About four hundred years before the birth of Muhammad one Amr bin Lahyo ... a descendant of Qahtan and king of Hijaz, had put an idol called Hubal on the roof of the Kaba. This was one of the chief deities of the Quraish before Islam. (Muhammad The Holy Prophet, Hafiz Ghulam Sarwar (Pakistan), p 18-19, Muslim)
5. The moon god was also referred to as "al-ilah". This is not a proper name of a single specific god, but a generic reference meaning "the god". Each local pagan Arab tribe would refer to their own local tribal pagan god as "al-ilah".
6. "al-ilah" was later shortened to Allah before Muhammad began promoting his new religion in 610 AD.
7. There is evidence that Hubal was referred to as "Allah".
8. When Muhammad came along, he dropped all references to the name "Hubal" but retained the generic "Allah".
9. Muhammad retained almost all the pagan rituals of the Arabs at the Kaba and redefined them in monotheistic terms.
10. Regardless of the specifics of the facts, it is clear that Islam is derived from paganism that once worshiped a moon-god.
11. Although Islam is today a monotheist religion, its roots are in paganism.

Give me trusted references not your "scholars's believe" justifications
On 2 points only out of wrong many:
First moon is worshipped in Arabia 2000 bc
Second Jubal is moon god and god of kabba
Regards

 

[dzheremi]

The reason why I am convinced of a link, is as nice as the teachings of Christianity are, love thy neighbour and enemy, the concept of God, worshipping a man is not supported by the Torah or Qur'an. That's all.

And I'm not here to convince you or un-convince you of anything, only to say that conspiracy videos from YouTube are not evidence of anything, and using them as though they are trustworthy or come from 'scholars' (Christian or otherwise) is foolish. When I take the time to explain why it is that you find these similarities (as in the case with the date of Western Christmas and such at the Antiochian Orthodox Archdiocese link), or why it is that St. Justin Martyr wrote what he did, and your answer is "but look at what this video on YouTube says; clearly it's true because it agrees with me and the Qur'an", and the video is full of uncourced, crazy nonsense, it tells me that you are not actually interested in discussion here. You have your mind made up despite having no evidence whatsoever and arguing exactly as the OP is doing with regard to your religion, despite I imagine finding his argument deficient, to put it politely. It's incredibly hypocritical, and should be called out as such, because obviously there is a big market for this kind of thing (conspiracies/'hidden roots' of various religions, which the people who are taken in by such nonsense would very easily see are not hidden or conspiratorial at all, if they would just take the time to do a minimum of five seconds of independent research from historical sources rather than relying on some kooky theory they found somewhere on the internet), so some people might watch the "Islam is paganism" or "Christianity is paganism" videos and, lacking the necessary critical eye with which to evaluate things, be taken in by them despite their utter baselessness.

And I don't think lying is a good way to win others to your religion or viewpoint.

The Scholar in the first short vid was Robert Beckford, a British academic theologian and currently a professor in theology at Canterbury Christ Church University here in the UK.

Looking through his resume of BBC and Channel 4 programs, he appears to be a pseudo-historian. I note that his current professorship is in Theology and Culture in the African Diaspora, not Patristics, Classical Languages, or anything else that would actually qualify him to do something other than advance loony theories about Jesus being Mithra or whatever.

I don't know how it is in the UK, but here in the US, we have a channel called the History Channel which is infamous for running programs with similar titles as those of Professor Beckford: lots of "____ Decoded", or "Secrets of _____", and so on. These tend to be widely criticized (and yet apparently still watched...I don't know; they keep making them for someone!) because they rely on fringe 'scholars' who put forth any number of theories based on this or that reading of the Bible or history, without regard to either scientific/academic consensus or accurate reading of what the evidence that they're working with actually shows. I would note that one of its frequent 'scholar'-contributors of such illustrious titles as The Exodus Decoded and The Jesus Family Tomb, the Israeli-Canadian television presenter Simcha Jacobvici, has multiple degrees and works as a professor, just like Professor Beckford, but that does not in itself mitigate how thoroughly ludicrous his theories are, and how utterly rejected they are by mainstream scholars working in the fields Jacobvici tends to dabble in (archaeology and related historical pursuits). If you go to his wikipedia page, you will see that virtually every one his documentaries based on a historical subject is heavily disputed by scholars. The point being that having a degree or being a scholar in this or that field does not prevent you from being outside of the mainstream with regard to your research interests, though I would note that Professor Beckford's own background as a black theologian (as in, that is what he is presented as, to be found in readers on 'Black Theology' as a topic; not a theologian who is black) probably insulates him somewhat, since he is presenting Christianity as viewed through the lens of certain members of the African diaspora (I notice his documentaries apparently do not include the traditional beliefs of actual African Orthodox Christians, as you can find by the millions in Egypt, Ethiopia, Eritrea, Sudan, etc.; these predictably do not support his ideas), which is closer to ethnographic or sociological research than anything based in history (outside of history as it applies to those particular groups, e.g., the evangelization of Caribbean Brits, the development of distinctly African diasporic theologies, etc).

But anyway, I didn't start this, it was the Kiwi Christian.

Yes, but you answered in it the same vein. That's the point of all this: his view is not supported but by fringe conspiracy theorists, and neither is yours regarding Christianity. The fact that this includes some of academia who happen to get on TV doesn't mean anything. There is no accounting for what is on TV, or else I could turn to Fox News or similar 'right wing' media which say that Islam is at its root a violent, hateful religion whose believers are untrustworthy and prone to terrorism, and by the manipulation of source materials by the 'experts' involved in those productions come away with a very warped view of your religion, how it arose, what its core ideas and values are, and so on. You have done nothing else, but insist that you are giving some truth here, because it is in line with what your religion tells you about my religion. Do you not see a problem in this, given how easily it can be used to invalidate any religion, including your own?

I have no issue with people linking Islam to ancient religions. Muslims are taught, Allah swt has always sent Messengers to mankind, teaching them to worship alone. Over time the message becomes corrupted, people move and start mixing with other cultures and customs. Hindus are aware of One Supreme God:

Yes, yes...God is the purveyor of the world's longest-running game of telephone. I understand that this is what your religion teaches, but that misses the point of posting the videos: These all say that Islam's roots and beliefs are not what you or your religion say they are, but what the videos claim them to be. I would guess that when presented that way, you'd say that the videos are incorrect, no? And maybe even transparently so, given what you know of your own religion as a believer in it and presumably a student of its history for its primary sources. The same applies to the ridiculous videos you have posted. Something that is ridiculous when posted by a Christian poster who claims that this is the 'true roots' of Islam does not suddenly become fact or otherwise not ridiculous when posted by a Muslim wishing to make a similar point against Christianity. It is the same trash, just directed at different groups of people.

I would if I wanted to start such a thread.

And yet by what you have posted, you have perhaps unwittingly dragged it down to that level. This is not arguing with the non-Muslims according to what is best, is it? (cf. 29:46) Or does your religion teach you to do the same as they do? I though it didn't.

 

[DWA2DAY]

Who said that Allah is the god of Bible?
Regards

Surah 26:46 says "Do not argue with the People of the Book except in good taste - except with those who are wicked among them - and say: "We believe in that which is sent down to us and that which is sent down to you; Our God and your God is the same One God to Whom we submit as Muslims."

Your choice is to believe the Quran or not. Remember the Islamic claim is that the quran is the word of Allah and is unchanged or corrupted.

 

[Limo]

Surah 26:46 says "Do not argue with the People of the Book except in good taste - except with those who are wicked among them - and say: "We believe in that which is sent down to us and that which is sent down to you; Our God and your God is the same One God to Whom we submit as Muslims."

Your choice is to believe the Quran or not. Remember the Islamic claim is that the quran is the word of Allah and is unchanged or corrupted.

Why most of time your mistaken the indexes in the Quran? Give it a minute to verify before posting, or do you do on purpose?
The ayah is 29:46 not 26:46
İn this verse Allah asks Moslems to invite people of the book to Islam.
Moslems should say to people of the book "our god (Creator) and your god (Creator) is one"
İt's an invitation to one Creator not an acceptance of god of changed Bible.
There is one Creator for the universe. He is my, you، Jews, Indus, atheists and all god who is Almighty Creator Allah.
This is what verse tells.
İt's different from what you and some Moslems are saying god in Quran is the same god in Bible, which is totally wrong.

We have multiple gods in Bible. There is a ones god in Old Testimony, and there are multiple contradicting figures of god in New Testimony.

 

[DWA2DAY]

Why most of time your mistaken the indexes in the Quran? Give it a minute to verify before posting, or do you do on purpose?
The ayah is 29:46 not 26:46
İn this verse Allah asks Moslems to invite people of the book to Islam.
Moslems should say to people of the book "our god (Creator) and your god (Creator) is one"
İt's an invitation to one Creator not an acceptance of god of changed Bible.
There is one Creator for the universe. He is my, you، Jews, Indus, atheists and all god who is Almighty Creator Allah.
This is what verse tells.
İt's different from what you and some Moslems are saying god in Quran is the same god in Bible, which is totally wrong.

We have multiple gods in Bible. There is a ones god in Old Testimony, and there are multiple contradicting figures of god in New Testimony.

Sorry for my typo, but as a defense it holds no water.
Clearly you have made a choice to follow Islamic tradition and not the Quran, shame on you. I suggest if you wish to make a case for Islam stay within the bounds of the text, it is simple enough to understand without fabricated interpretations you make up to suit your argument. while at the same time the Quran claims to be the unchanged word of Allah so why try and change it, it just makes a mockery of your faith.
Regarding the Bible stay within the text and its teachings, it too is simple to understand and more to the point if you are in doubt of what is written follow the Quran and ask the people of the book as per Surah 10:94. Clearly it is the superior text that stands in Judgment of the Quran.

 

[Peter1000]

"The root word "shadad" (שדד) means to plunder, overpower, or make desolate. This would give Shaddai the meaning of "destroyer", representing one of the aspects of God, and in this context it is essentially an epithet. The meaning may go back to an original sense which was "to be strong" as in the Arabic "shadiid" (شديد) "strong",[7] although normally the Arabic letter pronounced "sh" corresponds to the Hebrew letter sin, not to shin. The termination "ai", typically signifying the first person possessive plural, functions as a pluralis excellentiae like other titles for the Hebrew deity, Elohim ("gods") and Adonai ("my lords")." - El Shaddai - Wikipedia

The sense of "shaddai" is to overpower, to destroy, etc. El Shaddai, often translated as "God Almighty" can also mean "God Most Strong" or "God Most Powerful". The specific term "almighty" is a fairly literal translation of the Latin omnipotentia, which is also how "shaddai" is translated in the Vulgate. Omnipotentia, literally "all-powerful", omnipotent.

-CryptoLutheran

You are a brilliant scholar, I wish you were on my side of Christian doctrine.

It is fortunate to have you on the Christian side in the Muslim vs Christian questions.