Islam Muhammads' genocide: Banu Qurayza

[JosephZ]

I apologize, but I can see you are offended by my remarks. This comes out in your mocking of my posts. That is fine you can mock them, but I in turn do not need to reply to them. If you wish to have a change of heart and start to debate nicely, then of course I will address all of your concerns. Take care and thank you for the debate.

No need to apologize, I haven't been offended in any way by your remarks. As for your claim that I'm mocking your posts, I'm sorry if my line of questioning came across in such a way, that was never my intention. I was only seeking clarity as your replies in this thread appear to be inconsistent.

Let's continue shall we? I will re-post the questions I asked in my previous reply below to save you the trouble of having to reread the entire post.

You made the claim that you have never said Allah means moon god, but it appears that you have in the past.

Muhammed picked out of all the nomadic dieties of mecca a moon God to worship. And It is that moon God that is what is called God in islam.

Allah is not another term for God, but is the god of the Islamic people...
Allah is the god Muhammad chose out of over 200 plus pagan deities that were worshiped by the desert-nomadic people (-Arabs) there in A.D.620. When Muhammad was attempting to take control of the power base there in the Middle East He chose for His god, one of the many gods that were served or acknowledged there by the desert people in the Arabian peninsula. This happened to be Allah the moon god. He said then that this is Allah the only valid god.

And in this thread you have posted the following:

from muhammeds own biographer we know that muhammed worshipped the moon god and that is why they have the crescent on everything.

Allah’s symbol was the crescent moon, which Muhammad also carried over into Islam. This symbol is still seen on mosques, minarets, shrines, and Arab flags. When he conquered Mecca...Muhammad smashed the idols in the Ka’aba, including Allah,

allah was a moon god, one of hundreds of desert nomadic dieties in mecca.

How can what you are saying in the examples be taken any other way than Allah is a "moon god", or means, "moon god"?

again arabic was originally a pagan language. One can say the same for greek, but greek at least was endorsed by God to be used in the majority of the new testament, arabic was not chosen by God to do so. Less than 5% of the Bible is arabic.

How does this change the fact that Allah is the standard Arabic word for God used by Arabic-speaking Christians, Jews, and Muslims. Are you saying that God doesn't "endorse" Bibles that are translated into other languages or that He doesn't accept when people call Him by a name that is familiar to them in their native tongue?

Your source mentions Ibn Ishaq in his article, but Ibn Ishaq never said that "Muhammed chose for his particular allah one of the many desert nomadic deities currently worshipped in mecca when he conquered it by brute force." Do you really believe that Ibn Ishaq, a Muslim historian, would make such an outlandish claim?

Does the source you sent me to have a background in Islamic Studies, Islamic History, or linguistics? If so, can you provide some evidence of this?

 

[createdtoworship]

My point is that there is nothing magical or holy about Hebrew or Greek that make them inherently superior

again if I say the Bible says "dios" instead of Yah for example. That would be technically wrong. Yes spanish translations of the hebrew say "dios" but the original bible did not use spanish, it used hebrew and greek for the most part.

We are not like Muslims who believe that God's revelation must be kept in some hypothesized 'original language' in order to remain uncorrupted.

you are missunderstanding me, I never said that the Bible cannot be translated into other languages it should, but it should be called a translation of Holy Scripture, not the Holy Scripture themselves. See the Bible is only inspired in the original greek and hebrew. The copies are not inspired, the translations are not either. But God's hand was upon it all through the centuries.

It is clear from that same revelation that Christ spoke Galilean Aramaic, even as the apostles themselves likely wrote in Greek (Aramaic primacy arguments notwithstanding). Whatever languages the Jews preferred to use is immaterial, spiritually-speaking.

but it was a pagan language that is what I am getting at. It originated in pagan cultures. It's ok to use those languages, but don't look at them as a better translation of God's word for example.

 

[createdtoworship]

No need to apologize, I haven't been offended in any way by your remarks. As for your claim that I'm mocking your posts, I'm sorry if my line of questioning came across in such a way, that was never my intention. I was only seeking clarity as your replies in this thread appear to be inconsistent.

Let's continue shall we? I will re-post the questions I asked in my previous reply below to save you the trouble of having to reread the entire post.

You made the claim that you have never said Allah means moon god, but it appears that you have in the past.

again your confusing what I said. I said that muhammed chose FOR HIS particular form of Allah, a desert nomadic diety. See in mecca at the time there were hundreds, and He chose the moon god for his particular Allah. I worship allah too, it's just aramaic for God. But my Allah is different than the moon god.

And in this thread you have posted the following:

How can what you are saying in the examples be taken any other way than Allah is a "moon god", or means, "moon god"?

I think I answered this, if I didn't please tell me

How does this change the fact that Allah is the standard Arabic word for God used by Arabic-speaking Christians, Jews, and Muslims. Are you saying that God doesn't "endorse" Bibles that are translated into other languages or that He doesn't accept when people call Him by a name that is familiar to them in their native tongue?

I know allah means God. But when muhammed chose the mood god for his allah, it became a false god. The crescent moon is to this day a symbol of islam. But you have to go to the original historians for the true meaning of it.

Your source mentions Ibn Ishaq in his article, but Ibn Ishaq never said that "Muhammed chose for his particular allah one of the many desert nomadic deities currently worshipped in mecca when he conquered it by brute force." Do you really believe that Ibn Ishaq, a Muslim historian, would make such an outlandish claim?

do you know that mecca was a polytheistic city? It had hundred of gods, and when muhammed defeated it militarily speaking he chose one of the local dieties and believed it was the true and living god. We do that today, we see buddha for example and then some one shows us a famous buddhist, and we think....oh what a nice person I want to worship what he does, and thus we become buddhist.

Does the source you sent me to have a background in Islamic Studies, Islamic History, or linguistics? If so, can you provide some evidence of this?

sir again my sources have studies this stuff for thousands of years. Jews and christians understand islam better than islam understands itself. Because we see all of the history, not just the good stuff, but the good and the bad. So am sorry if I don't honor islamic historians as much as contemporary ones. Again palestinian means "phillistine country." Who are you to say the islam worshipped abraham and didn't worship the gods of the phillistines for example?

 

[JosephZ]

my Allah is different than the moon god.

As is the God that Muslims worship.

I know allah means God. But when muhammed chose the mood god for his allah, it became a false god. The crescent moon is to this day a symbol of islam. But you have to go to the original historians for the true meaning of it.

Can you please provide me with the source or sources that you are using that support your claim that Muhammad chose the moon god for his god?

do you know that mecca was a polytheistic city? It had hundred of gods, and when muhammed defeated it militarily speaking he

Yes, I am aware that Mecca was a polytheistic city, but I know from history that Muhammad didn't chose one of the local deities and recognized it as the true and living god. Once again, what sources are you using that support this claim?

sir again my sources have studies this stuff for thousands of years. Jews and christians understand islam better than islam understands itself. Because we see all of the history, not just the good stuff, but the good and the bad. So am sorry if I don't honor islamic historians as much as contemporary ones.

Can you give some examples of non-Islamic historians that you do honor who support your theory that Muhammad chose a local deity known as the moon god as the true living god and that Muslims worship a moon god rather than the God of Israel as a result?

One of the reasons I'm interested in the sources you are using is because the last one you provided, Dave Hunt, majored in Mathematics and was once a CPA. He had no background in Islamic Studies or Islamic History. Accountants who later in life choose to become Christian Apologists are not going to be your best sources when it comes to learning about Islam.

 

[createdtoworship]

As is the God that Muslims worship.


Can you please provide me with the source or sources that you are using that support your claim that Muhammad chose the moon god for his god?


Yes, I am aware that Mecca was a polytheistic city, but I know from history that Muhammad didn't chose one of the local deities and recognized it as the true and living god. Once again, what sources are you using that support this claim?


Can you give some examples of non-Islamic historians that you do honor who support your theory that Muhammad chose a local deity known as the moon god as the true living god and that Muslims worship a moon god rather than the God of Israel as a result?

One of the reasons I'm interested in the sources you are using is because the last one you provided, Dave Hunt, majored in Mathematics and was once a CPA. He had no background in Islamic Studies or Islamic History. Accountants who later in life choose to become Christian Apologists are not going to be your best sources when it comes to learning about Islam.

well my sources surprised me they said that allah is not generic for God.

"Allah is a contraction of al-Ilah, the name of the moon god of the local Quraish, Muhammad’s tribe, which they had worshiped with animal and human sacrifices for centuries before Islam was invented."

I didn't remember the whole article, and I looked for the word god in arabic, it's not just allah, there is like 13 words for God in arabic, and not they are not even remotely close to the same as far as using similar arabic letters.

god - Translation into Arabic - examples English | Reverso Context
So one must prove that Allah only means "the God of abraham." and since you cannot Prove that. Then we are done with our talk. It means god in arabic, along with 12 other words for god in arabic. See Muhammad chose a desert nomadic deity from mecca. Mecca was not monotheistic as islam was, so ultimately at some point the leader of the religion had to choose his God. Palestine means "Palestina" or philistine country. So I would only assume Muhammad chose a pagan god, my sources above break the word down and actually define it to mean moon god by it's very etymology.

 

[JosephZ]

So one must prove that Allah only means "the God of abraham." and since you cannot Prove that. Then we are done with our talk.

Below are a few verses from the Qur'an:

"...there is no god but He, the Living, the Eternal. He sent down to you the Book with the Truth, confirming what came before it; and He sent down the Torah and the Gospel." (Qur'an 3:2-3)

All food was permissible to the Children of Israel, except what Israel forbade for himself before the Torah was revealed. Say, “Bring the Torah, and read it, if you are truthful.” Whoever forges lies about God after that—these are the unjust. Say, “God has spoken the truth, so follow the religion of Abraham... (Qur'an 3:93-95)

In their footsteps, We sent Jesus son of Mary, fulfilling the Torah that preceded him; and We gave him the Gospel, wherein is guidance and light, and confirming the Torah that preceded him, and guidance and counsel for the righteous. So let the people of the Gospel rule according to what God revealed in it. Those who do not rule according to what God revealed are the sinners. (Qur'an 5:46-47)

What god are these verses describing? A moon god, or the God of Abraham?

Once again, below is what Islam teaches about Jesus:

• His mother, Mary, was a virgin;
• Jesus was the "Word" of God;
• Jesus was the Messiah sent to the children of Israel;
• Jesus confirmed the validity of the Torah;
• Jesus lived a righteous life; Jesus performed miracles. Healed the blind, the sick, and raised the dead;
• Jesus removed some of the law of Moses;
• Jesus was raised into Heaven, currently sits with God, and will return at the day of the Resurrection (Judgement Day);
• Jesus is the only living prophet today.

Do you think that Jesus of the four gospels and the Qur’an’s Jesus, although not divine and not crucified, are different historic individuals?

Some more verses from the Qur'an:

“We believe in God, and in what was revealed to us; and in what was revealed to Abraham, and Ishmael, and Isaac, and Jacob, and the Patriarchs; and in what was given to Moses, and Jesus, and the prophets from their Lord. We make no distinction between any of them, and to Him we submit.” (Qur'an 3:84)

"Who would forsake the religion of Abraham, except he who fools himself?" We chose him in this world, and in the Hereafter he will be among the righteous. (Qur'an 130)

"We will worship thy God, the God of our forefathers Abraham and Ishmael and Isaac, the One God; and unto Him will we surrender ourselves." (Qur'an 2:133)

Since the Qur'an clearly teaches Muslims to believe in the God of Abraham and there is no mention of Muslims ever worshiping a moon god in Islamic texts or in Islamic history, why would anyone believe that Muhammad chose a moon god to be his god?

 

[createdtoworship]

Below are a few verses from the Qur'an:

"...there is no god but He, the Living, the Eternal. He sent down to you the Book with the Truth, confirming what came before it; and He sent down the Torah and the Gospel." (Qur'an 3:2-3)

All food was permissible to the Children of Israel, except what Israel forbade for himself before the Torah was revealed. Say, “Bring the Torah, and read it, if you are truthful.” Whoever forges lies about God after that—these are the unjust. Say, “God has spoken the truth, so follow the religion of Abraham... (Qur'an 3:93-95)

In their footsteps, We sent Jesus son of Mary, fulfilling the Torah that preceded him; and We gave him the Gospel, wherein is guidance and light, and confirming the Torah that preceded him, and guidance and counsel for the righteous. So let the people of the Gospel rule according to what God revealed in it. Those who do not rule according to what God revealed are the sinners. (Qur'an 5:46-47)

What god are these verses describing? A moon god, or the God of Abraham?

Once again, below is what Islam teaches about Jesus:

• His mother, Mary, was a virgin;
• Jesus was the "Word" of God;
• Jesus was the Messiah sent to the children of Israel;
• Jesus confirmed the validity of the Torah;
• Jesus lived a righteous life; Jesus performed miracles. Healed the blind, the sick, and raised the dead;
• Jesus removed some of the law of Moses;
• Jesus was raised into Heaven, currently sits with God, and will return at the day of the Resurrection (Judgement Day);
• Jesus is the only living prophet today.

Do you think that Jesus of the four gospels and the Qur’an’s Jesus, although not divine and not crucified, are different historic individuals?

Some more verses from the Qur'an:

“We believe in God, and in what was revealed to us; and in what was revealed to Abraham, and Ishmael, and Isaac, and Jacob, and the Patriarchs; and in what was given to Moses, and Jesus, and the prophets from their Lord. We make no distinction between any of them, and to Him we submit.” (Qur'an 3:84)

"Who would forsake the religion of Abraham, except he who fools himself?" We chose him in this world, and in the Hereafter he will be among the righteous. (Qur'an 130)

"We will worship thy God, the God of our forefathers Abraham and Ishmael and Isaac, the One God; and unto Him will we surrender ourselves." (Qur'an 2:133)

Since the Qur'an clearly teaches Muslims to believe in the God of Abraham and there is no mention of Muslims ever worshiping a moon god in Islamic texts or in Islamic history, why would anyone believe that Muhammad chose a moon god to be his god?

sir lots of christian cults use sections of the Bible. But it's all or none. They either endorse all of it, and nothing else, or you get none of it. If it's good for a Judge to ask for "all of the truth and nothing but the truth." Shouldn't we apply that same standard towards God's word?

 

[JosephZ]

sir lots of christian cults use sections of the Bible. But it's all or none. They either endorse all of it, and nothing else, or you get none of it. If it's good for a Judge to ask for "all of the truth and nothing but the truth." Shouldn't we apply that same standard towards God's word?

You are the one that made the claims that Allah refers to a moon god, Muhammad chose a moon god as his god, and that Muslims are worshiping a moon god. The burden of proof lies on you to show this.

I have clearly shown that Islam teaches Muslims that they are to worship the God of Abraham and that Allah refers to the God of Abraham according to the Qur'an.

So far you haven't been able to provide any real evidence that Muhammad chose a moon god as his god and Muslims worship such a god. If you are unable to provide solid evidence of this, that would put you at risk of bearing false witness against our Muslim neighbors would it not?

The only source you have provided so far comes from a former accountant turned Christian apologist with no background in Islamic Studies. Do you have any sources written by legitimate historians or Islamic scholars that can support the claims you have made?

In the mean time, could you answer this quick question for me? Do you think that Jesus of the four gospels and the Qur’an’s Jesus, although not divine and not crucified, are different historic individuals?

 

[createdtoworship]

You are the one that made the claims that Allah refers to a moon god, Muhammad chose a moon god as his god, and that Muslims are worshiping a moon god. The burden of proof lies on you to show this.

Yes I provided a source. But you quote wikipedia which is publicly edited by non professionals, they are not even Islamic scholars they are just random people. In fact if you disagree with what wikipedia says you can log in and create an account and literally change it to what you think is right. No vetting required. So again wikipedia is not a great source. So if it's good enough for you and others to quote then me quoting dave hunt should be fine.

I have clearly shown that Islam teaches Muslims that they are to worship the God of Abraham and that Allah refers to the God of Abraham according to the Qur'an.

Sir jehovah's witnesses, mormons all claim to worship Christ as the Jesus is mentioned in their books. But it is not the Jesus mentioned in the Bible. Same with the Quran mentioning abraham. Of course it would, ishmael is the root decendant of Islam. He was a son of Abraham. But after many years His religion got blended with the philistine religion so it was not His fathers religion anymore. It was a new god that he chose to worship, the moon God.

So far you haven't been able to provide any real evidence that Muhammad chose a moon god as his god and Muslims worship such a god. If you are unable to provide solid evidence of this, that would put you at risk of bearing false witness against our Muslim neighbors would it not?

I provided links sir, I can't read them for you. You need to read some of that stuff.

The only source you have provided so far comes from a former accountant turned Christian apologist with no background in Islamic Studies. Do you have any sources written by legitimate historians or Islamic scholars that can support the claims you have made?

Sir Dave Hunts entire ministry is devoted to studying various factions of religions. He what we call a 'cult expert.' He was one of the best before He passed away. He knew far more about islam than most muslims.

In the mean time, could you answer this quick question for me? Do you think that Jesus of the four gospels and the Qur’an’s Jesus, although not divine and not crucified, are different historic individuals?

that is a weird question, I don't think the Quran is historic at all. It has no valid prophetic spirit, it has geographical, scientific, and other errors. So I can't tell you if it's account is Historic or not, I would bet no it's not.

 

[dzheremi]

again if I say the Bible says "dios" instead of Yah for example. That would be technically wrong. Yes spanish translations of the hebrew say "dios" but the original bible did not use spanish, it used hebrew and greek for the most part.

There is no one 'original' language of the Bible. Parts are written in Greek, parts in Hebrew, and parts in Aramaic. They're all the 'original language' Bible, not to mention the fact that the Apostles were all Aramaic-speaking Jews, just as Christ Himself was. That they wrote in Greek was a reality of the makeup of the empire in which they lived. In other places they never used Greek or Hebrew. The Armenians, for instance, had worshiped in Syriac prior to the invention of their alphabet in the beginning of the fifth century, so their connection to the Biblical text via Greek is quite removed, as it arrived through an intermediary, just Greek itself was a kind of intermediary between the Aramaic speech of our Lord and His apostles and what we have recorded in the NT itself.

It is absolutely not wrong that a Spanish-language Bible should say Dios, or an Arabic one Allah, or a German one Gott, etc.

you are missunderstanding me, I never said that the Bible cannot be translated into other languages it should, but it should be called a translation of Holy Scripture, not the Holy Scripture themselves. See the Bible is only inspired in the original greek and hebrew.

No, I understand you quite clearly. You did type that translations of the scriptures are not the scriptures themselves, and that the scriptures are only inspired in Greek and Hebrew. That is very clear. It is also insane, and not a Christian attitude at all. It sounds like you would be more at home in Islam, where they believe that their scriptures are similarly only inspired in the original (Arabic) language. That's not a Christian stance, to be this kind of 'language fetishist'. (And I say that as someone who has a master's degree in Linguistics, so I really love language and hold both Greek and Hebrew in high regard for their place in the history and present life of the Church.)

The copies are not inspired, the translations are not either. But God's hand was upon it all through the centuries.

If you don't believe that the scriptures can be translated into other languages and remain the inspired word of God, then why are you a Christian to begin with, given that we do not have the 'original' autographs of any of the Biblical text? Or do you seriously only read the Bible in Greek and Hebrew? (I'm assuming you read it in English at least sometimes, since you're clearly an English-speaking person.)

but it was a pagan language that is what I am getting at.

Languages don't have religions or stances on religion; the people who use languages do. There is no such thing as a 'Pagan language'.

It originated in pagan cultures.

So did literally every language ever.

It's ok to use those languages, but don't look at them as a better translation of God's word for example.

Okay. You have some very esoteric ideas regarding the place and use of language in religion, so I'm not sure what your personal preferences have to do with anything. Certainly you can read the Bible in Hebrew and Greek all you want. I don't care and I doubt anyone else cares. It's the putting down of literally everything that isn't those two languages as somehow not being the word of God (what about the Aramaic of the OT? That's neither Hebrew nor Greek) that is inherently offensive and misguided, even if you say you are doing it out of love for the word of God, which I have no doubt is genuine.

If I or anyone pray بِاسْمِ الآبِ وَالاِبْنِ وَالرُّوحِ الْقُدُسِ , it is exactly the same as if the prayer is said in Greek (which it is in my Church; we use both, and English, and of course Coptic), so there is no reason privilege any one language over any other, even though that does happen (e.g., the Syriac people are quite rightly proud to speak 'the language of Jesus', even if their dialect is not 1st century Galilean Aramaic, just closer to it than any other Church; but they also use other languages, and don't mandate that everyone think that Syriac is 'more holy' than the other languages they use; again, this is simply not a Christian attitude; it is an Islamic attitude). Imbuing these discussions with quasi-theological importance epically misses the point. To the Greeks, I became a Greek... ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

 

[createdtoworship]

duplicate

 

[createdtoworship]

There is no one 'original' language of the Bible.

ok so this is an issue that we need to address before going further. You know that the apostles and disciples are not inspired it's the writings correct? That means that 95% of divine scripture in it's original manuscripts was non aramaic language. The actual word of God was not in aramaic for the most part. It never has been. It was greek and hebrew. Aramaic was a pagan language, that got utilized by hebrews. Just like greek did. Greek was a pagan language too. If we adress this first, then I can reply to the rest of your post. But I think we are getting locked up on this one issue and it keeps repeating itself, so once this is resolved we can go to the next one.

a quick google search revealed that pagan nations originated the aramaic, languages.... (I am not sure why it's so controversial.....it should be pretty straightforward). But again wikipedia is not a great source for info in general. I would recommend google scholar for technical stuff.

(click to enlarge)

 

[createdtoworship]

There is no one 'original' language of the Bible. Parts are written in Greek, parts in Hebrew, and parts in Aramaic. They're all the 'original language' Bible, not to mention the fact that the Apostles were all Aramaic-speaking Jews, just as Christ Himself was. That they wrote in Greek was a reality of the makeup of the empire in which they lived. In other places they never used Greek or Hebrew. The Armenians, for instance, had worshiped in Syriac prior to the invention of their alphabet in the beginning of the fifth century, so their connection to the Biblical text via Greek is quite removed, as it arrived through an intermediary, just Greek itself was a kind of intermediary between the Aramaic speech of our Lord and His apostles and what we have recorded in the NT itself.

It is absolutely not wrong that a Spanish-language Bible should say Dios, or an Arabic one Allah, or a German one Gott, etc.



No, I understand you quite clearly. You did type that translations of the scriptures are not the scriptures themselves, and that the scriptures are only inspired in Greek and Hebrew. That is very clear. It is also insane, and not a Christian attitude at all. It sounds like you would be more at home in Islam, where they believe that their scriptures are similarly only inspired in the original (Arabic) language. That's not a Christian stance, to be this kind of 'language fetishist'. (And I say that as someone who has a master's degree in Linguistics, so I really love language and hold both Greek and Hebrew in high regard for their place in the history and present life of the Church.)



If you don't believe that the scriptures can be translated into other languages and remain the inspired word of God, then why are you a Christian to begin with, given that we do not have the 'original' autographs of any of the Biblical text? Or do you seriously only read the Bible in Greek and Hebrew? (I'm assuming you read it in English at least sometimes, since you're clearly an English-speaking person.)



Languages don't have religions or stances on religion; the people who use languages do. There is no such thing as a 'Pagan language'.



So did literally every language ever.



Okay. You have some very esoteric ideas regarding the place and use of language in religion, so I'm not sure what your personal preferences have to do with anything. Certainly you can read the Bible in Hebrew and Greek all you want. I don't care and I doubt anyone else cares. It's the putting down of literally everything that isn't those two languages as somehow not being the word of God (what about the Aramaic of the OT? That's neither Hebrew nor Greek) that is inherently offensive and misguided, even if you say you are doing it out of love for the word of God, which I have no doubt is genuine.

If I or anyone pray بِاسْمِ الآبِ وَالاِبْنِ وَالرُّوحِ الْقُدُسِ , it is exactly the same as if the prayer is said in Greek (which it is in my Church; we use both, and English, and of course Coptic), so there is no reason privilege any one language over any other, even though that does happen (e.g., the Syriac people are quite rightly proud to speak 'the language of Jesus', even if their dialect is not 1st century Galilean Aramaic, just closer to it than any other Church; but they also use other languages, and don't mandate that everyone think that Syriac is 'more holy' than the other languages they use; again, this is simply not a Christian attitude; it is an Islamic attitude). Imbuing these discussions with quasi-theological importance epically misses the point. To the Greeks, I became a Greek... ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

adress some of these issues then I Will address the rest of your post....

you didn't like my sources, that's ok. I used wikipedia for this, God punish me now.....but it is actually good for fast food facts, just not technical stuff.

but here are various links (when you search the canaanite religion page on wikipedia moon comes up 4 times), the dieties that are listed I copied the external hyperlinks into a new window. They are related to canaanite religion as the first link says. Furthermore one may say ....well canaanites are not phillistines, and that would be wrong, canaan was simply an area, technically a tribe that was local to canaan was the philistines. So all links are found here:
OneTab shared tabs

 

[JosephZ]

you quote wikipedia which is publicly edited by non professionals, they are not even Islamic scholars they are just random people. In fact if you disagree with what wikipedia says you can log in and create an account and literally change it to what you think is right. No vetting required. So again wikipedia is not a great source.

I haven't used Wikipedia as a source in this thread and I'm not sure what led you to believe that I have. Below are the sources I have linked to:

Ancestery.com: Abdullah Name Meaning
Alim.org: Tafsir Ibn Kathir- Surah 9. At-Tauba, Ayaat 1 To 2
Archive.org: The History of al-Tabari, vol. 8
Britannica.com: Allah
Academia.edu: Islamabad Law Review: Some Reflections on the Story of Banu Quraiza Vol 1 No2

In addition to the linked sources above, I also sourced several passages from the Qur'an. The rest of what I posted came from my personal knowledge of Islam which has been gained over a period stretching back more than three decades. This began in the 1980's while in the Military. It was at that time that I had to take courses in Islamic Studies before I was assigned to an Islamic country. In addition, I have taken numerous courses in Islam from Christian, Islamic, and secular schools of thought over the past 30+ years and have spent 1/3 of that time visiting and/or living in predominantly Muslim communities and/or countries. I'm currently a missionary serving in the predominantly Muslim villages found in Davao City and the predominantly Muslim regions in and around the Sulu Archipelago in the southern Philippines.

I have a rather thorough understanding of Islam through both formal and informal education on the subject and more importantly through my regular interactions and frequent discussions with Muslims about their religion and what they believe when sharing my faith in Christ with them. I have also read the Qur'an in its entirety many times over since the 80's and when time permits I still take some courses online to continue to increase my knowledge of Islam.

Sir jehovah's witnesses, mormons all claim to worship Christ as the Jesus is mentioned in their books. But it is not the Jesus mentioned in the Bible. Same with the Quran mentioning abraham. Of course it would, ishmael is the root decendant of Islam. He was a son of Abraham.

Since there is no disputing the fact that Ishmael is the son of Abraham found in the Bible and Muhammad's lineage can be traced back to him; and the Qur'an instructs Muslims to worship the God of Abraham, shouldn't that be evidence enough to show that the god of Muhammad is not a moon god?

after many years His religion got blended with the philistine religion so it was not His fathers religion anymore. It was a new god that he chose to worship, the moon God.

You haven't been able to produce any real evidence of this, not to mention this goes against all historical accounts of Muhammad and the birth of Islam. You will not find any legitimate school that offers courses in Islamic Studies or Islamic History that teaches Muhammad chose a moon god for his god and that the god of Islam is a moon god.

I provided links sir, I can't read them for you. You need to read some of that stuff.

I went to the link you shared and the articles found on that site contain numerous historical errors, faulty logic, and gross misrepresentations of Islam.

Dave Hunts entire ministry is devoted to studying various factions of religions. He what we call a 'cult expert.' He was one of the best before He passed away. He knew far more about islam than most muslims.

From the material I read, Dave Hunt is either ignorant of Islam and Islamic history, or he has such a disdain for Islam that he has decided to slander it in an attempt to make others view it in the same way he does. I hope it is the former rather than the latter, because I would shudder to think that a follower of Christ would be intentionally misleading others.

I don't think the Quran is historic at all. It has no valid prophetic spirit, it has geographical, scientific, and other errors. So I can't tell you if it's account is Historic or not, I would bet no it's not.

Regardless of the historical accuracy of the Qur'an and your personal feelings towards it, if the Qur'an is not talking about the Jesus we know, then who is it talking about?

 

[createdtoworship]

I haven't used Wikipedia as a source in this thread and I'm not sure what led you to believe that I have. Below are the sources I have linked to:

Ancestery.com: Abdullah Name Meaning
Alim.org: Tafsir Ibn Kathir- Surah 9. At-Tauba, Ayaat 1 To 2
Archive.org: The History of al-Tabari, vol. 8
Britannica.com: Allah
Academia.edu: Islamabad Law Review: Some Reflections on the Story of Banu Quraiza Vol 1 No2

In addition to the linked sources above, I also sourced several passages from the Qur'an. The rest of what I posted came from my personal knowledge of Islam which has been gained over a period stretching back more than three decades. This began in the 1980's while in the Military. It was at that time that I had to take courses in Islamic Studies before I was assigned to an Islamic country. In addition, I have taken numerous courses in Islam from Christian, Islamic, and secular schools of thought over the past 30+ years and have spent 1/3 of that time visiting and/or living in predominantly Muslim communities and/or countries. I'm currently a missionary serving in the predominantly Muslim villages found in Davao City and the predominantly Muslim regions in and around the Sulu Archipelago in the southern Philippines.

I have a rather thorough understanding of Islam through both formal and informal education on the subject and more importantly through my regular interactions and frequent discussions with Muslims about their religion and what they believe when sharing my faith in Christ with them. I have also read the Qur'an in its entirety many times over since the 80's and when time permits I still take some courses online to continue to increase my knowledge of Islam.


Since there is no disputing the fact that Ishmael is the son of Abraham found in the Bible and Muhammad's lineage can be traced back to him; and the Qur'an instructs Muslims to worship the God of Abraham, shouldn't that be evidence enough to show that the god of Muhammad is not a moon god?


You haven't been able to produce any real evidence of this, not to mention this goes against all historical accounts of Muhammad and the birth of Islam. You will not find any legitimate school that offers courses in Islamic Studies or Islamic History that teaches Muhammad chose a moon god for his god and that the god of Islam is a moon god.


I went to the link you shared and the articles found on that site contain numerous historical errors, faulty logic, and gross misrepresentations of Islam.


From the material I read, Dave Hunt is either ignorant of Islam and Islamic history, or he has such a disdain for Islam that he has decided to slander it in an attempt to make others view it in the same way he does. I hope it is the former rather than the latter, because I would shudder to think that a follower of Christ would be intentionally misleading others.


Regardless of the historical accuracy of the Qur'an and your personal feelings towards it, if the Qur'an is not talking about the Jesus we know, then who is it talking about?

sorry sir some of this previous post addressed some of your post, I posted it on the wrong reply, but you can check it out none the less to reduce redundant postings on this thread. Here is it, feel free to read it and check it out. By the way saying you are an authority on islam is what is called an appeal to authority. I applaud you on all your journey and no doubt you know much more than I do on it, but I do trust my sources much more than your sources as christians have knowledge of islam even before it was founded. I won't talk much about the Quran right now, but I will save that for later, I have a special resource for that. but for now lets talk about Muhammed and the moon god of the canaanites (philistines).

oh and I looked it all up from wikipedia earlier, I assume you are good with it, if not I can find some other sources it will just take time, most of the information I quote from wikipedia is general knowledge and not in depth science, but sort of fast food information. But sorry for confusing your post with others here, please forgive me.

here is my resources on how the philistines were in canaan and thus canaanitish, and then if we research canaanite religion we find moon worship, no doubt this is why islam has had the crescent in it's religion from the beginning. I don't believe the crescent was a recent addition at all, but traced back to the moon worship, you can find moons on old canaanite documents and pottery.

here is the link:
OneTab shared tabs

 

[dzheremi]

ok so this is an issue that we need to address before going further. You know that the apostles and disciples are not inspired it's the writings correct? That means that 95% of divine scripture in it's original manuscripts was non aramaic language.

If it was 5% or 2% or 0.5% the point would be the same.

The actual word of God was not in aramaic for the most part.

The actual, incarnate Word of God, Jesus Christ, spoke Galilean Aramaic as a native language.

It never has been. It was greek and hebrew. Aramaic was a pagan language, that got utilized by hebrews. Just like greek did. Greek was a pagan language too.

Languages aren't pagan or Christian or Jewish or whatever. There are languages and dialects that are mostly used by people belonging to these different religious communities, but the languages themselves don't have an inherent religious identity, only the connotation (or not) with the people themselves who do.

If we adress this first, then I can reply to the rest of your post. But I think we are getting locked up on this one issue and it keeps repeating itself, so once this is resolved we can go to the next one.

There's not really anything to resolve. This is just how languages work, and you can either accept it or not. I'm not really interested in continuing a conversation with someone who has magical beliefs about particular languages. I've dealt with that enough among Coptic people (where at least it is an interesting sociolinguistic question; it is not, however, a matter of theological fidelity).

a quick google search revealed that pagan nations originated the aramaic, languages.... (I am not sure why it's so controversial.....it should be pretty straightforward). But again wikipedia is not a great source for info in general. I would recommend google scholar for technical stuff.

Again, this doesn't mean anything. Every language originated among a pagan people. Hebrew included.

Heck, on a much more important note, Judaism itself as a religion shows obvious influence from other religions, like Zoroastrianism. Here's a Jewish source on that, if you're curious: ZOROASTRIANISM - JewishEncyclopedia.com

Given that, I don't really see why language issues should take much of our time, especially when they mostly haven't been issues in Christian history. Generally before the invention of Protestantism, the most you get is disinterest from Christians except for a few figures like St. Jerome, since for most of Christian history Hebrew was seen as the language that the Jews were using, whereas we already had the Bible in Greek, Syriac, Coptic, etc. -- languages that were not so closely identified with the Jews.

 

[createdtoworship]

If it was 5% or 2% or 0.5% the point would be the same.



The actual, incarnate Word of God, Jesus Christ, spoke Galilean Aramaic as a native language.



Languages aren't pagan or Christian or Jewish or whatever. There are languages and dialects that are mostly used by people belonging to these different religious communities, but the languages themselves don't have an inherent religious identity, only the connotation (or not) with the people themselves who do.



There's not really anything to resolve. This is just how languages work, and you can either accept it or not. I'm not really interested in continuing a conversation with someone who has magical beliefs about particular languages. I've dealt with that enough among Coptic people (where at least it is an interesting sociolinguistic question; it is not, however, a matter of theological fidelity).



Again, this doesn't mean anything. Every language originated among a pagan people. Hebrew included.

Heck, on a much more important note, Judaism itself as a religion shows obvious influence from other religions, like Zoroastrianism. Here's a Jewish source on that, if you're curious: ZOROASTRIANISM - JewishEncyclopedia.com

Given that, I don't really see why language issues should take much of our time, especially when they mostly haven't been issues in Christian history. Generally before the invention of Protestantism, the most you get is disinterest from Christians except for a few figures like St. Jerome, since for most of Christian history Hebrew was seen as the language that the Jews were using, whereas we already had the Bible in Greek, Syriac, Coptic, etc. -- languages that were not so closely identified with the Jews.

well I disagree sir, aramaic was used by pagan nations for most of it's predominant history, and to use Allah as an authoritative use for the name of God is just unusual. Aramaic Christians may use allah or another of the 13 words in aramaic for God if they so choose, that does not make aramaic on the same level as greek or hebrew. Jesus himself can speak every language, it's not like there is a language he doesn't understand so to say because He spoke aramaic that is some how validates it, it does not. God can use any sinful medium He wishes, He often used pagan kings in the old testament that believed in false gods to execute His divine will. So I guess the burden of proof lies on you to prove to us that we should believe Allah is the appropriate name for the True God, and secondly that Allah is better suited versus the other 13 descriptions of god in aramaic. So at this point I feel this discussion is at a dead end, unless you can provide substantial evidence, which I assume you cannot, I guess we are done here.

 

[dzheremi]

well I disagree sir, aramaic was used by pagan nations for most of it's predominant history

Again, that is true of literally any language.

and to use Allah as an authoritative use for the name of God is just unusual.

Arabic-speaking Christians don't use Allah as a name for God. It's just the word that means God, not a proper name. It is only considered a proper name by Muslims.

Aramaic Christians may use allah or another of the 13 words in aramaic for God if they so choose

If they're speaking Aramaic (Neo-Aramaic or Syriac), they're not going to say Allah, because Allah is not an Aramaic word. It's an Arabic word. Arabic and Aramaic are not the same.

that does not make aramaic on the same level as greek or hebrew.

What does that even mean, "the same level"?

Jesus himself can speak every language, it's not like there is a language he doesn't understand so to say because He spoke aramaic that is some how validates it, it does not.

"Validates"?

God can use any sinful medium He wishes

There's nothing "sinful" about any language.

So I guess the burden of proof lies on you to prove to us that we should believe Allah is the appropriate name for the True God

Again, Allah is not a name unless you're a Muslim. Christians aren't Muslims.

So at this point I feel this discussion is at a dead end, unless you can provide substantial evidence, which I assume you cannot, I guess we are done here.

Provide evidence of what? You're not making valid linguistic claims in the first place, and have confused Arabic with Aramaic, and Christian theology with Islamic theology. I hate to be like this, but you really don't seem to understand what you're even saying. Languages being "justified" or "sinful" or whatever...this is all nonsense. My evidence is again that I have a master's degree in linguistics, so I don't present myself as an authority, but I do know what is proper to claim about language and what is not. The types of things you are saying -- putting forward theologically-based value judgments about language(s) -- are simply your own personal evaluations based on nothing greater than your desire that things should be this way. Your claims don't even make sense. You're right we're done here, but I want anyone else who stumbles upon this thread to know that the kinds of things that you are saying are not valid claims about language.

Other CF people: Please don't argue like this. Please disregard this person's strange fetish.

 

[createdtoworship]

Again, that is true of literally any language.

not hebrew

Arabic-speaking Christians don't use Allah as a name for God. It's just the word that means God, not a proper name. It is only considered a proper name by Muslims.

I would agree with this, but others are posting that aramaic christian churches were using this name so I was speaking of that.

If they're speaking Aramaic (Neo-Aramaic or Syriac), they're not going to say Allah, because Allah is not an Aramaic word. It's an Arabic word. Arabic and Aramaic are not the same.

I know this, but you mentioned aramaic so I was talking about aramaic, but both aramaic and arabic can be traced to pagan nations in the old testament.

There's nothing "sinful" about any language.

saying something is of pagan origin is not necessarily saying it's sinful. It's just so we know where it originated.

Again, Allah is not a name unless you're a Muslim. Christians aren't Muslims.

I know this.

Provide evidence of what? You're not making valid linguistic claims in the first place, and have confused Arabic with Aramaic,

this is a fallacy called poisoning the well, just because someone confuses two very similiar languages (which may in fact have been related linguistically to one another), does not mean that all his arguments are void. And you bringing this up at this point appears to me that you are mocking my viewpoint because of that error, so that is a fallacy.

and Christian theology with Islamic theology. I hate to be like this, but you really don't seem to understand what you're even saying.

So I am trying to be nice, but you seem to not be returning the favor so this will be my last post to you regarding this. If however you repost this whole post, and take out the rude sections, I Will out of courteousness reply to THAT one. If you choose not to, that is your choice. Take care and thank you for the debate.

 

[createdtoworship]

I believe Palestinians who are predominantly from palestina or philistine country, which was in canaan, they were canaanites. They were to be annihilated and eradicated as they inhabited the promised laND of israel. And who makes war with Israel today. ONLY PALESTINIANS. No other country does this. But it's interesting to see what God commands regarding canaanites:
“But of the cities of these peoples which the Lord your God gives you as an inheritance, you shall let nothing that breathes remain alive, but you shall utterly destroy them: the Hittite and the Amorite and the Canaanite and the Perizzite and the Hivite and the Jebusite, just as the Lord your God has commanded you,
Deuteronomy 20:16‭-‬17 NKJV