Islam_mullia said:
That does not explain your silly quotation that Muhammad (pbuh) borrowed from
the Jewish Targum.
I see a habit in you from hiding behind irrelevant issues when unable to support
something that you first raised. I find it deceitful and, sorry if I have to say
it bluntly,...cowardly!
Liberate said:
Considering you have been unable to disprove why it is the world's best arabic
lexicon derives allah from "originally
ilaha or ilaaha" and that ilah is derived from pagan origins, i.e
a great serpent or full moon as it was an idol of worship by the
ancient arabs ; other than absurd semantic linguistics.
It is a little presumptuous calling others cowards, when you fail to see the
beam in your own eyes.
Islam_mullia said:
Silly is trying to defend the indefensible when caught with your trousers down.
Islam_mullia said:
I have already replied that the lexicon mentioned Allah is not derived from "OR it is originally ilaah".
You never in the entire discussion answered what the highlighted phrase meant. The implication is you do not understand english grammar or you are obfuscating to save face (i.e a liar). You cannot have it any other way.
Even the concept of islam's god is acknowledged by the best arabic lexicon from
Edward Lane, a classic masterpiece as having pagan roots.
On page 82 of Lane's lexicon there is an entry for the root 'ilaha'
Notice under this root Lane says it means:
"
An object of worship or adoration; i.e. a god, a deity; anything
that is taken as an object of worship or adoration, according to him that takes
it as such. It signifies
the goddess; and particularly
the serpent; because it
was a special object of worship of
some of the ancient Arabs; or the
great
serpent; and the new moon".
On the very next page, p.83 of Lane's lexicon, he describes the origins of the word allah:
Notice that Lane (a christian, despite his decades living with muslims) twice designates the islamic god, with a small g , i.e "
only true god" Notice Lane also says that allah is "
originally ilaha or ilaaha" It would take some semantic acrobatics of absurd proportions to claim that Lane doesn't mean allah is originally "
ilaha or ilaaha" seeing he has given no less than five sources (in brackets) who testify to this.
Recall that the root of this word means: "
An object of worship or adoration; i.e. a god, a deity; anything
that is taken as an object of worship or adoration, according to him that takes
it as such. It signifies
the goddess; and particularly
the serpent; because it
was a special object of worship of
some of the ancient Arabs; or the
great
serpent; and the new moon"
You have already admitted ilaha refers to "
a pagan diety, a new moon,
the great serpent, a god to whoever takes it as such".
There is no point having a discussion with an individual
who resorts to lies, and semantic linguistics when the evidence is blatant before his eyes, it seems you do not realise your position is untenable, H2O for all his theological nuance, understood perfectly well what Lane meant.
Even the team from answering-christianity (a muslim site)
admits allah is related
to ilah. The team from islamic-awareness (another muslim site)
understand that allah is related to ilah,
the team
from islam-online understand allah is related to ilah,
the team from
answering-islam understand allah is related to ilah, even a
google search states that allah and ilah have
the same root in Lane's lexicon It does not get any more damning that
this.
You do not hold the onus on the english meanings of words inorder to save face. If you claim an english phrase means something else other than it's widely accepted meanings there is no point having a discussion, it becomes clear you are simply confused, lying or clutching at straws. Lane cites no less than 5 sources that claim allah
"is originally ilaha or ilaaha"
Islam_mullia said:
You seemed to dismiss the word 'OR' quite easily and come up with some strange interpretations. Please see my reply on your OP again.
I dimissed nothing, it is clear you either do not understand english grammar, or are simply obsfuscating inorder to save face, because the implications that your allah is not the same as the biblical God is clear for all to see.
Islam_mullia said:
The 'coward' statement was on someone who post some debatable points and refused to reply when asked to give clarifications.
Funny you would be calling people cowards who refuse to reply when they post debatable points, when this is precisely what you do. You could not bring yourself to answer what "
originally ilaha or ilaaha" meant in
the entire thread
Can you share with us how you think Muhammad (pbuh)
could have borrowed from the Targum?
Liberate said:
This is blatant from the evidence, the story is traced to the targum of Esther,
apocrypha that precedes islam, as it is said plagiarism is the
highest compliment, this story and many more jewish and christian apocrypha are
incorporated wholesome and almost undiluted verbatim in the quran. Like much of
the biblical material in the quran it is devoid of any meaningful
context, and synonymous with someone who hears and
reiterates a story missing out the details, this is still
plagiarism, Mohammed or whoever wrote the quran did not need to have a book in
hand, all whoever wrote the story in the quran needed was a source, and there
were plenty of jewish and christian sects to have provided the source, albeit
orally.
Islam_mullia said:
Knowing the hatred in you and your friends in the JC forum, I am not surprised you would jump into attacking Islam at all cost.
Ofcourse clarification is hatred
Criticism is racism
Elucidation is hatemongering
Rejection is an offense
Abuse is apologetics
Differing opinions are anathema
Saving a life is unethical
Freedom of speech is cause for riots
Feminism is inconceivable
secular is debauched
Other culture is vile
A handshake is grounds for wudu
Non arabic is subverted
Other culture is a threat
other god is evil...
You can continue living in your little bubble of those against islam and those for islam, and avoid the bigger picture. It is a little tiring to equate every disagreement with hatred, suppose christians started saying "
you hate us you hatemonger" because you do not agree with the trinity, would that make sense?
Islam_mullia said:
1. Since you confidently claimed the Targum precedes Islam, maybe you can start with the datings of the Targum.
Let me guess you have read an article from islamic-awareness that claims the Targum of esther is dated post islam?
The claim is a lie for the very simple reason it relies on deceptions, to fool it's readers, simple example, this is what it says:
Outstanding among the stories interwoven into the Targum Sheni is the variegated description of Solomon's throne (1:2)..... Some of these motifs are also found in the Koran (27:20-40), and it has been suggested that the author also made use of Arabic sources.
http://www.islamic-awareness.org/Quran/Sources/BBsheba.html
However this extract which the MSH writers present is edited and selective. This is what the 1996 edition, Vol 13, p 1424, also says:
.... a most elaborate account, however given in the Targum Sheni to Esther which can be supplemented by details found in the Alphabet of Ben Sira and JOSEPHUS (Ant 8:165 - 73) - A Hoopoe { Hudhud } informed Solomon that the kingdom of Sheba was the only kingdom on earth not subject to him and its queen was a sun worshipper.
In later Arabic literature under the influence of her name given by Josephus as Nikaulis the name of the Queen of Sheba (Saba) is given as Bilquis.
It seems that the MSH writers are not too keen on their readers knowing about the parallels in Josephus or the claimed influence his writings may have had on Jewish tradition which appears to have found its way into the Qur'an.
Furthermore Josephus was not alone among the early Jewish writers to comment on the legends of the Queen of Sheba. Rabbi Jonathan also surmises as to who this Queen of legend was when commenting on Josephus (Jewish Encyclopedia 1925 ed, Vol XI, p 235).
http://www.answering-islam.de/Main///Responses//Saifullah/sheba.htm
Are you aware Josephus was a historian of the 1st century?
Are you aware he refers to this very legend in his work Antiquities?
Please be objective about the implications;
how is it Josephus is aware of the story 500 years before islam?
Islam_mullia said:
2. Which Jewish sect are you referring to that claim to have told the story?
3. Please provide us the hadith or Jewish sources (at that time) that accused the Prophet of borrowing from the Jewish Targum. This sounds quite rational as you and Christian buddies have no qualms of saying Islam hated the Jews... and the Jews would love to point to this Targum as a counter response?
Knowing fully well this will only fall on deaf ears, here it is:
Quran 25:5
And they say: "Tales of the ancients, which he has caused to be written: and they are dictated before him morning and evening."
Quran 16:103-104
"We know indeed that they say "It is a man that teaches him." The tongue of
him they wickedly point to is notable foreign while this is Arabic pure and clear. Those who believe not in the Signs of Allah, Allah will not guide them and theirs will be a grievous Penalty."
[6:25] Of them there are some who (pretend to) listen to thee; but We have thrown veils on their hearts, So they understand it not, and deafness in their ears; if they saw every one of the signs, not they will believe in them; in so much that when they come to thee, they (but) dispute with thee; the Unbelievers say: "These are nothing but tales of the ancients."
Tafsir of sura 6:25:
(those who disbelieve say: "These are nothing but tales of the men of old.'') The disbelievers say, what you (O Muhammad ) brought us was taken from the books of those who were before us, meaning plagiarized
http://www.qtafsir.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=1016&Itemid=61
[8:31] When Our Signs are rehearsed to them, they say: "We have heard this (before): if we wished, we could say (words) like these: these are nothing but tales of the ancients."
Tafsir of sura 8:31
Allah describes the disbelief, transgression, rebellion, as well as misguided statements that the pagans of Quraysh used to utter when they heard Allah's Ayat being recited to them,
("We have heard (the Qur'an); if we wish we can say the like of this.'')
They boasted with their words, but not with their actions. They were challenged several times to bring even one chapter like the Qur'an, and they had no way to meet this challenge. They only boasted in order to deceive themselves and those who followed their falsehood. It was said that An-Nadr bin Al-Harith, may Allah curse him, was the one who said this, according to Sa`id bin Jubayr, As-Suddi, Ibn Jurayj and others. An-Nadr visited Persia and learned the stories of some Persian kings, such as Rustum and Isphandiyar. When he went back to Makkah, He found that the Prophet was sent from Allah and reciting the Qur'an to the people. Whenever the Prophet would leave an audience in which An-Nadr was sitting, An-Nadr began narrating to them the stories that he learned in Persia, proclaiming afterwards, "Who, by Allah, has better tales to narrate, I or Muhammad'' When Allah allowed the Muslims to capture An-Nadr in Badr, the Messenger of Allah commanded that his head be cut off before him, and that was done, all thanks are due to Allah.
http://tafsir.com/default.asp?sid=8&tid=20014
and
http://www.qtafsir.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=1549&Itemid=63
[16:24] When it is said to them, "What is it that your Lord has revealed?" they say, "Tales of the ancients!"
Tafsir of sura 16:24:
("Tales of the men of old!'') meaning nothing is revealed to him, what he is reciting to us is just tales of the men of old, taken from the previous Books.
http://tafsir.com/default.asp?sid=16&tid=27456
and
http://www.qtafsir.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=2983&Itemid=71
[23:83] "Such things have been promised to us and to our fathers before! they are nothing but tales of the ancients!"
[25:5] And they say: "Tales of the ancients, which he has caused to be written: and they are dictated before him morning and evening."
