Catholics and ALLAH

[LittleLambofJesus]

This was an interesting thread. Liberate appears to know the Koran inside and out, and is probably one of the better Christ-ian apologist against the Koran.

http://www.christianforums.com/t5503055-got-another-question.html

Like all classical lexicons Lane's lexicon has the root first and then it's offshoots. The great serpent, a new moon, as it was an
object or worship of the ancient arabs, are encapsulated in 'ilaha/ilaaha', which precedes 'allah'. Lane further states on the succeeding page under allah "originally ilaha or ilaaha.

What the lexicon was showing was the offshoots of 'ilaha/ilaaha' i.e it's masculine and feminine plural derivatives which all signify idols, the meanings of serpent, new moon, object of worship are filed under ilaha because it's origins are steeped in idol worship. The next page of that lexicon states that allah is "originally ilaha or ilaaha". The implication is crystal clear.

 

[PaladinValer]

Yahweh was originally a part of a pantheon of deities too. Does that mean that you shouldn't worship Him either?

 

[Epiphoskei]

Jews only worship one deity too.

And it was a horrible struggle to find proper translations for their names for God too. "El," "Adonai," "El Shaddai," "El Elyon," etc., do not perfectly line up with the modern use of the word "God." Language is relative. Not baseless nor relative to the postmodern excess of true communication being impossible, but ultimatly there isn't a right and wrong meaning for words, only an understandable or not understandable meaning. If I say "stop" for "go," that's improper, but not wrong as much as it's confusing and not understandable.

It boils down to this. Making "peace" with Islam in this matter is not worth confusing billions whom the western world is trying to convince that Judaism, Christianity, and Islam are equally valid. If people will get confused, do not use it, regardless of which one is "right" or not. The connotation is not worth it. Choice of words should be made based on what the guy down on the street understands, not on obscure etymology.

Yahweh was originally a part of a pantheon of deities too. Does that mean that you shouldn't worship Him either?

Nitpick- The Israelites in idolatry worshipped Him as one of many gods, not a pantheon per se, nor was He "originally" anything as he has no origins, but has always existed.

 

[Theophorus]

Negative. John 3:16

اللّٰه (fourth word in from the right).

Is the Arabic script for God...anyone want to guess how is is pronounced?

This is why the ecumenical councils convened, and why in the liturgy the theology of the undivided Trinity is proclaimed throughout.

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

And it was a horrible struggle to find proper translations for their names for God too. "El," "Adonai," "El Shaddai," "El Elyon," etc., do not perfectly line up with the modern use of the word "God." Language is relative. Not baseless nor relative to the postmodern excess of true communication being impossible, but ultimatly there isn't a right and wrong meaning for words, only an understandable or not understandable meaning. If I say "stop" for "go," that's improper, but not wrong as much as it's confusing and not understandable.

It boils down to this. Making "peace" with Islam in this matter is not worth confusing billions whom the western world is trying to convince that Judaism, Christianity, and Islam are equally valid. If people will get confused, do not use it, regardless of which one is "right" or not. The connotation is not worth it. Choice of words should be made based on what the guy down on the street understands, not on obscure etymology.


Nitpick. The israelites in idolatry worshipped Him as one of many gods, not a pantheon per se, nor was He "originally" anything as he has no origins, but has always existed.

I guess that would be another good reason to do a deep study on the Hebrew.

http://www.originalbible.com/articles/1/1/Why-another-Translation

. The idea has a certain appeal, but how many of you could figure out the following: Mitzraim (Egypt); Paras (Persia); Yishme’elim (Ishmaelites); and Par’o (Pharaoh)? Several English translations have adopted this practice, including the Koren Jerusalem Bible Tanakh and David Stern’s edition of The Complete Jewish Bible. We made a decision several years ago that since this is an English translation, we should stay with English versions of Biblical names. What is the point of pronouncing names as if one were speaking Hebrew? Think about it—the word Yochanan in Hebrew becomes Ioannes in Greek, John, in English, but then Juan in Spanish, Johann in German, and Jean in French! There is one obvious exception—we have determined, as most of you know, to leave the various names of God untranslated—thus YHVH, ELOHIM, EL SHADDAI, and so forth.

http://www.ancient-hebrew.org/

 

[PaladinValer]

And it was a horrible struggle to find proper translations for their names for God too. "El," "Adonai," "El Shaddai," "El Elyon," etc., do not perfectly line up with the modern use of the word "God."

It isn't hard at all. My NRSV has all literal translations of those words printed as footnotes.

I might also add that many are either titles for pagan deities or are actual pagan deities themselves. "El" is a fantastic example of the latter.

Language is relative. Not baseless nor relative to the postmodern excess of true communication being impossible, but ultimatly there isn't a right and wrong meaning for words, only an understandable or not understandable meaning. If I say "stop" for "go," that's improper, but not wrong as much as it's confusing and not understandable.

It is wrong, period. And yes, there is a right and wrong meaning for words.

I

t boils down to this. Making "peace" with Islam in this matter is not worth confusing billions whom the western world is trying to convince that Judaism, Christianity, and Islam are equally valid.

No, it has to do with proper translation of the ancient languages.

What truly amazes me is how so many Christians have issues with the word "Allah." Arabic is a Semitic language that is akin to Hebrew and very close to Aramaic. The Arabic "ilah" and the Aramaic "eloi" are practically the same, just for one key example.

Choice of words should be made based on what the guy down on the street understands, not on obscure etymology.

So you would choose to ignore valid etymology and decided to pick a word just because it fits your theology? That's entirely backwards.

Nitpick- The Israelites in idolatry worshipped Him as one of many gods, not a pantheon per se, nor was He "originally" anything as he has no origins, but has always existed.

Not a nitpick; a pure analogous argument. If he's right, then Christianity is bunk. That's the only logical conclusion.

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

We do get a little help from the atheists once in awhile.

http://www.christianforums.com/t5839092-questions-for-muslims.html


redmartian89
Regular Member
17

So, constitutional freedoms mean nothing to you?

Are you saying that you back the death threats made on a peaceful cartoonist making a non-violent, if not dumb, bit in his newspaper by pious Muslims using tactics similar to Osama's, albeit if your prophet has been made fun of?

How does this present a good image for Islam and for the peace it seeks to offer the world?

I still await on logical proof for Islam not found in the Koran.

 

[PaladinValer]

Fallacy of Hasty Generalization. A few "pious" (arguable) Muslims compared to what? The vast rest?

 

[Epiphoskei]

So you would choose to ignore valid etymology and decided to pick a word just because it fits your theology? That's entirely backwards.

First thing I have been taught in every class when it comes to determining the "right" meaning of a word: Appeals to etymology are fallacious. You should appreciate this, having hastily dismissed every argument on the grounds of "fallacy".

Language exists for communication. If you're miscommunicating, it's being done wrong. That's what miscommunication means. Appealing to etymology, now that's a fallacy.

 

[Fireinfolding]

1. I personally don't think it is funny. Particularly since you'd be doing nothing more than insulting millions of your fellow brothers and sisters in Christ who speak Arabic for a primary language. Are you serving God by making fun of how they talk?!

No PV thats YOUR WAY you are trying to put on me. I INSULT MYSELF constantly on this forum and those who know me know that very well. I was making fun of MY OWN INABILITY to comprehend what it says.

THAT is something fairly typical of me PV but perhaps most likely something you wouldn't be caught dead doing to yourself? If so, I can understand (better) your own personal judgment, thinking I had evil intentions to insult others when what is truly common to me speaks contrary to that assumption overall.

Not understanding something thats ~written~ (and guessing) having a bit of humour over it is not making fun of someone ELSE who is ~personally~ SPEAKING.

TO ME (and it was my intent as GOD very well knows it is) was to poke fun of MYSELF because I obviously havent the slightest clue as to what it says.

I exposed my own ignorance (as I often do here) and thats how I meant it.

Now if I offended any Arabics here I do (without hesitation) appologize sincerely to all of you here because that was not my intent.

That intent was smeared onto me.

And if (in poking fun at MYSELF) you (PV) didnt see it as very funny, then again I am sorry you did not. You cant humour everyone and I certainly dont live to humour you PV. I honestly dont even try.

I personally would never take offense at someone else who cannot read English and who (in such a post) can laugh at their own inability as well. In fact I'd laugh with them not at them, theres a difference.

Neither would I judge them as sinning against English speaking people. English (like any language) is a TOOL (for communication) not an IDOL to be offended over. I certainly dont get that thought at all.

2. You shouldn't make accusations you yourself do not have proof of.

What accusations would that be PV?

3. It is a debate thread.

I thought it was a "topic" of dicussion.

Don't take criticism so personally unless they make it personal. I have not made any of my posts personal in this thread. Therefore, you shouldn't take my posts personally.

I take critism just fine PV. Dont forget, I am the one who posted THE VERY LINK to that which I THOUGHT ~I~ STOOD CORRECTED ON. So I dont REALLY think I'm the one who has the problem with it.

Not to mention the fact that if YOUR RIGHT then I AM RIGHT PV because I posted in agreement WITH YOU on that very thread concerning Allah being a word for God.

I THOUGHT I stood corrected, therefore if what I posted (of S Walsh) is shown as incorrect then I (personally) would stand correct (rather then corrected).

Though I'm not the one who cares so much about being right


Fireinfolding

 

[SeraphimSarov]

I can't believe all the people on this forum who don't speak Arabic who think they know something about it. I was just at an Arabic church this weekend (St. George Antiochian Orthodox Church in Cicero, IL). The Liturgy was in both English and Arabic. I heard worship of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit, and then in Arabic, I distinctly heard the word Allah.

The parish consists mostly of people who have fled the Middle East because of Islamic persecution. I'd love to see their reactions to accusations that they're actually worshiping the god of Islam.

 

[Fireinfolding]

I can't believe all the people on this forum who don't speak Arabic who think they know something about it. I was just at an Arabic church this weekend (St. George Antiochian Orthodox Church in Cicero, IL). The Liturgy was in both English and Arabic. I heard worship of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit, and then in Arabic, I distinctly heard the word Allah.

The parish consists mostly of people who have fled the Middle East because of Islamic persecution. I'd love to see their reactions to accusations that they're actually worshiping the god of Islam.

Thats what we were saying on the thread. What we were told is that Illa sounds much like Allah and it was a common misconception (or something or other) even within their own tradition that was in some sorta error.

Given I didnt know and ran it online searching it out not familiar with either the language or their book I had no clue. My freind Angelmom's best friend is Arabic and its Him she consulted concerning the word where S Walsh appeared to show to the contrary.

Peace

Fireinfolding

 

[Fireinfolding]

I'm posting part of what I was wrestling with and the response I received (emphasis mine). Also just small parts of the conversation with another poster from the link (previously posted) for reference.

I wrote...

Im getting lost... ILAH corresponds to ~our English~ "WORD" GOD (I get God and Lord are "titles" and NOT names) Yet ALLAH is ~A NAME~ but it MEANS GOD?

But its A NAME and NOT a TITLE here?

Oh man I'm losing it, so GOD (ALLAH) here can be a NAME for GOD (which is a TITLE in our English?)

Almost there - Allah, as far as anyone can actually tell, doesn't mean "God" - it's apparently a contraction of il and ilah (il = the, ilah = God), so Allah could mean "the God" but never just "god". But no one as of yet has been able to provide any evidence that Allah is indeed a contraction of il and ilah.

That is reserved only for the Arabic ilah (or ilaah, differen't way of transliterating it) which corresponds to our English god/God.

That make sense?

I would say that Arab Christians saying "Allah" is more of a culture thing - Just like we English people use the LORD and God instinctively when refering to God.

But that doesn't mean to say that God is a name, or that Allah is a title.

God = title.

Allah = name.

Speaking to another...

Allah is a personal Name - Even Edward William Lane, the author of the Arabic-English Lexicon says that concerning the word "Allah" that according to the most correct opinions of Arab grammarians, which are more than thirty in number, Allah "is a proper name" - It is not a word/title - which God is.

Ilah is the Arabic word/title for god

But you know, you can ignore dictionaries and lexicons if you so wish

The point is, Allah is a NAME - God on the other hand, isn't a name.

Even the Caner brothers - two ex-muslims now Christians - state that Allah is the name of the Islamic God.

Perhaps you might listen to arabic-speaking turks.

Names and titles are two different things.

And culture certainly dictates the vocabulary that a person uses, when refering to anything.

So, as Arab Christians are using "Allah" when refering to the Christian God, but in contrary to the Muslim God - does this mean that them using "Allah" to mean "God" changes Allah from a personal name to a word/title?

Would using "Zeus" to refer to the Christian God change the fact that Zeus is the personal name of a pagan god? Or Jupiter? Or Mithra?

Allah is a personal name in arabic.

ilah is the word that means "god".

Personal names and words are not the same thing.

My personal name is Stephen. A title put towards constantly is "swalchy". Does that turn "swalchy" into a personal name?

No it doesn't. It's a mere word/title, like the word/title God/theos/dios/ilah.

Allah, Zeus, Stephen, Jupiter, Ishtar, Robert, Moses, etc etc etc are personal names.

As stated, culture certainly has input on what words/names you use to refer to things - such as culture has defined that when Arab speaking Christians say "Allah" they are talking to the same God as the rest of the Christian world - But that doesn't negate the point that Allah is the personal name of a pagan god, and that Ilah is the Arabic word for "god".

Still looking into this.

Peace

Fireinfolding

 

[français]

Sad..

 

[Raul7]

Anyone want to take a stab at this?

لأَنَّهُ هكَذَا أَحَبَّ اللهُ الْعَالَمَ حَتَّى بَذَلَ ابْنَهُ الْوَحِيدَ، لِكَيْ لاَ يَهْلِكَ كُلُّ مَنْ يُؤْمِنُ بِهِ، بَلْ تَكُونُ لَهُ الْحَيَاةُ الأَبَدِيَّةُ.

It is therefore I love the Wise Lord who sacrificed his only son to prevent chastising all those who believe in Him; rather He gives them eternal life instead.

 

[Yekcidmij]

Does "Bengal Tiger" in another language translate to "God"?

Since it does not, Fallacy of False Analogy. Allah translates rather nicely to God.

In fact, I might even argue that it is a better term, since it is very specific; "god" could mean either the Abrahamic Deity we worship or any deity. Allah means "the (one) God," which can only be applied to a specific deity. In this case, it refers to the Abrahamic Deity that all Christians, Muslims, and Jews worship.

I know it was an extreme example and a little crazy. My point was that, at least for christians in america, the name/title Allah is associated with the Muslim god. Right or wrong, that's what it is associated with here in america. So, I think it's very important what title, and escecially what name, we call God. In america "Allah" doesn't, at least in most cases that I know of, bring up an association with the God of christian scripture.


Besides is Allah a name or a title? The distinction between the two is very important.

 

[Oblio]

Worrying about the use of the term Allah by Arabs for the Christian God because Muslims use the term for their allah is like fretting over the use of the term God, because pagans worship gods.

However, the point in the article that we should use the term because we all worship the same God is absurd. Neither Muslims or Jews worship the Holy Trinity, therefore they are in direct conflict with the NC Creed and worship a different God than Christians do.

 

[mont974x4]

You know, out of all God's names in the Bible, I don't recall allah being one of them.

 

[Yekcidmij]

You know, out of all God's names in the Bible, I don't recall allah being one of them.

Well, no English words were used either.

 

[Oblio]

You know, out of all God's names in the Bible, I don't recall allah being one of them.

Perhaps that is because you do not read Arabic Bibles