Islam Muhammads' genocide: Banu Qurayza

[createdtoworship]

I don't know who Dave Hunt is, and I'm pretty sure this wasn't meant for me anyway (since your Research Gate link leads to the same paper in Der Islam that I linked to in my post), but just so it's clear for the thread, I'm not suggesting a 'pagan' origin for Allah (I don't think words can have religions ), but saying that if the available evidence suggests -- as it seems to -- that it was used by both Christian and pagan (although I would have to follow the evidence I just presented recently in another thread that suggests that its use by different peoples in pre-Islamic Arabia could represent different periods of adoption for each, even if the result is that everyone would use the same word by the time of Muhammad), then this does not really mean anything different for the word than is meant by the similar adoption of words like Theos in Greek, Gott in German, Nouti in Coptic, etc. by Christians: the adoption of a preexisting word for God to mean God.

It seems that non-Muslim people who want to make Allah into 'the Muslim God' are (often unknowingly) operating according to distinctly Islamic theological arguments about the word, which is pretty odd when you consider what their opinion of Islam usually is. That's why I try to say things like "Muhammad's/Islam's recension of Allah/God" instead, because of course God is not the problem -- Islam is. (And, more obviously, I belong to an Arabic-speaking Church, so I can't sit here posting all kinds of negative stuff about the use of a word that we ourselves use approximately a zillion times per liturgy to address and/or talk about God.)

allah was a moon god, one of hundreds of desert nomadic dieties in mecca. he was worshipped by muhammeds grandfather.

 

[dzheremi]

allah was a moon god, one of hundreds of desert nomadic dieties in mecca. he was worshipped by muhammeds grandfather.

Again, that may be so (though I've never been convinced of the "moon god" aspect of this claim), and it wouldn't affect Christian usage of the term at all. If it's a word of the supreme God of some pantheon of some kind, then it makes sense that Christians would use that word to denote the supreme God Who we worship, because that's the word that is more commonly understood among the people to mean God. (Christians not being a majority in pre-Islamic Arabia; some specific tribes, definitely, but not overall.)

 

[createdtoworship]

Again, that may be so (though I've never been convinced of the "moon god" aspect of this claim), and it wouldn't affect Christian usage of the term at all. If it's a word of the supreme God of some pantheon of some kind, then it makes sense that Christians would use that word to denote the supreme God Who we worship, because that's the word that is more commonly understood among the people to mean God. (Christians not being a majority in pre-Islamic Arabia; some specific tribes, definitely, but not overall.)

we can trace the hebrew usage of the word God in the Bible, but islam is harder. But from muhammeds own biographer we know that muhammed worshipped the moon god and that is why they have the crescent on everything.

 

[dzheremi]

we can trace the hebrew usage of the word God in the Bible, but islam is harder.

Okay...but Arabic and Islam are not synonyms. I speak Arabic. I don't speak Islam.

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

But the crescent and star was previously a Byzantine symbol (as in Byzantine Empire, the eastern half of the Roman Empire that collapsed in the west in 476 AD) that was associated with the city of Constantinople before being adopted by the Ottomans. The Ottomans didn't even form a distinct empire until c. 1299, some 667 years after Muhammad's death in 632. The earliest Islamic usage of the star and crescent wasn't until even later than that, in the 14th century.

So no, that's not the case.

 

[createdtoworship]

Okay...but Arabic and Islam are not synonyms. I speak Arabic. I don't speak Islam.



But the crescent and star was previously a Byzantine symbol (as in Byzantine Empire, the eastern half of the Roman Empire that collapsed in the west in 476 AD) that was associated with the city of Constantinople before being adopted by the Ottomans. The Ottomans didn't even form a distinct empire until c. 1299, some 667 years after Muhammad's death in 632. The earliest Islamic usage of the star and crescent wasn't until even later than that, in the 14th century.

So no, that's not the case.

Sir if you could provide a non wiki based source for that, that would be wonderful. Wikipedia is one of the most anti christIan sites out there, not to mention it's open source, meaning I can literally edit the page you are quoting if I don't like what it says. People can login and edit pages without anY degrees or even a highschool diploma. So I typically only use Wikipedia for fast food info, not for technical things, history. Science or mediCal sources. Google scholar is a nice source for technical ideas. I am not saying it's wrong, but it's just not really authoritative.

 

[dzheremi]

Okay. Here's an abbreviated history from the Encyclopedia Britannica's article on the Turkish flag: Flag of Turkey

 

[createdtoworship]

Okay. Here's an abbreviated history from the Encyclopedia Britannica's article on the Turkish flag: Flag of Turkey

that may be when islam officially put it on their flag or banners, but islam was associated with the moon god from mecca, as muhammed's biographer states, this is probably what justified the later use of the crescent as your source states.

 

[muichimotsu]

All boys that reached puberty were killed, that would include 13 and 15 year old boys. The Banu Qurayza never took part in any battle against the Mohammedans in-fact they even refused to aid the Quraysh against the Mohammedans. Had the Banu Qurayza aided the Quraysh, then the pagans would have entered the city and slaughtered Mohammad’s forces. I wouldn’t call it genocide, but it’s a massacre, God never commanded Moses or David to massacre a people that had a treaty with Israel for no obvious reason, so there’s a big difference between this and the wars in the Old Testament.

If we just goalpost shift to suggest that the Israelites were "justified" in their genocide, then of course you can say the Muslims were horrible in their context by suggesting a standard that would've been irrelevant with a group that thought they were God's chosen people and the notion of treaties would've been almost optional

 

[Barney2.0]

If we just goalpost shift to suggest that the Israelites were "justified" in their genocide, then of course you can say the Muslims were horrible in their context by suggesting a standard that would've been irrelevant with a group that thought they were God's chosen people and the notion of treaties would've been almost optional

Well for one certain people’s were killed for antagonizing the Israelites in the same way the Israelites would later do to them, also the Bible frequently uses hyperbole like many near eastern literature, so there are sometimes literary exaggerations within the text themselves commanding the enemy to be utterly destroyed. The Israelites had relations with the Phoenicians, ever read them breaking it and murdering every Phoenician for some unknown reason. Being God’s people doesn’t make honoring a treaty irrelevant, Mohammed broke the treaty with the Banu Qurayza and genocided them for no other reason then the excuse to pillage them, if the Mohammadan god allows Mohammadans to break treaties, then doesn’t that make their god a liar?

 

[muichimotsu]

Well for one certain people’s were killed for antagonizing the Israelites in the same way the Israelites would later do to them, also the Bible frequently uses hyperbole like many near eastern literature, so there are sometimes literary exaggerations within the text themselves commanding the enemy to be utterly destroyed. The Israelites had relations with the Phoenicians, ever read them breaking it and murdering every Phoenician for some unknown reason. Being God’s people doesn’t make honoring a treaty irrelevant, Mohammed broke the treaty with the Banu Qurayza and genocided them for no other reason then the excuse to pillage them, if the Mohammadan god allows Mohammadans to break treaties, then doesn’t that make their god a liar?

It's not even universally agreed amongst the Abrahamic faiths that Muslims are God's people and your lumping them together is a half hearted notion of being "nice" when you refer to them with outdated terminology like Mohammedan instead of just saying Muslim.

Also, don't believe I remotely said anything like that in terms of that understanding within the general Abrahamic perspective, that somehow violating a treaty was just expected, but that it could be justified under the idea that God's commands supersede treaties ultimately.

 

[JosephZ]

The Israelites had relations with the Phoenicians, ever read them breaking it and murdering every Phoenician for some unknown reason. Being God’s people doesn’t make honoring a treaty irrelevant, Mohammed broke the treaty with the Banu Qurayza and genocided them for no other reason then the excuse to pillage them, if the Mohammadan god allows Mohammadans to break treaties, then doesn’t that make their god a liar?

It's recorded that the Qurayza broke the treaty.

The Quraysh aided the Banu Bakr with weapons, and some members of Quraysh fought on their side under cover of darkness until they drove Khuza'ah into the sacred territory... When Quraysh leaguered together [with Banu Bakr] against Khuza’ah and killed some of their men, breaking the treaty and covenant that existed between them and the Messenger of God by violating the Khuza’ah, who had a pact and treaty with him. ‘Amr b. Salim al-Khuza’i, one of the Banu Ka‘b, went to the Messenger of God in Medina. This was one of the things that prompted the conquest of Mecca… (The History of Al-Tabari: The Victory of Islam, Volume VIII, pp. 160-163)

Ibn Kathir:

The Messenger of Allah and the Muslims preserved the terms of the treaty with the people of Makkah from the month of Dhul-Qa`dah in the sixth year of Hijrah, until the Quraysh broke it and helped their allies, Banu Bakr, against Khuza`ah, the allies of Allah's Messenger. Aided by the Quraysh, Banu Bakr killed some of Bani Khuza`ah in the Sacred Area! The Messenger of Allah led an invasion army in the month of Ramadan, of the eighth year, and Allah opened the Sacred Area for him to rule over them, all thanks are due to Allah. The Messenger of Allah freed the Quraysh who embraced Islam after they were overpowered and defeated. These numbered around two thousands, and they were refered to by the name `Tulaqa' afterwards. Those among them who remained in disbelief and ran away from Allah's Messenger were sent promises of safe refuge for four months, during which they were allowed to move about freely. They included Safwan bin Umayyah, `Ikrimah bin Abi Jahl and many others. Allah later on guided them to Islam, and they became excellent believers. Surely, Allah is worthy of all praise for all His actions and decrees.

And according to Ibn Ishaq:

...the Banu Qurayzah committed treachery during the battle of Khandaq (trench) also known as ahzab, betrayed the Muslims during the battle of ahzab, breached the treaty between the two sides (Muslims and Banu Qurayzah), and supported the large anti-Muslim coalition (ahzab) headed by the infidels of Makka. This was against the treaty they had with the Muslims which stated that both sides shall defend the city together against any external attack. Once the battle was over, the Muslim army besieged the forts of Banu Qurayzah who eventually surrendered and were taken captives by the Muslim army and their fate was referred to an arbitrator Sa‛d b. Mu‛ad who was their former ally and the head of Aws tribe. It is reported that he decided that “their combatants should be executed,their women and children enslaved, and their properties be divided”

 

[JosephZ]

we can trace the hebrew usage of the word God in the Bible, but islam is harder.

It's actually quite simple. The reason the word "Allah" is used in Islam and by Muslims is because it was the only word they had for God at the time of Muhammad. Prior to Muhammad, both Jews and Christians living in the Arab world worshipped God with the only word in Arabic that could be used to depict the God of creation. That word was “Allah.” Muhammad simply took the name "Allah" from the Jewish and Christian communities that existed in his day.

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

Do you have a source for this?

“And of His signs are the night and day and the sun and moon. Do not prostrate to the sun or to the moon, but prostrate to Allah, who created them, if it should be Him that you worship” (Quran 41:37)

Abraham, when he said to his people, “Worship God, and fear Him. That is better for you, if you only knew. You worship idols besides God, and you fabricate falsehoods. Those you worship, instead of God, cannot provide you with livelihood. So seek your livelihood from God, and worship Him, and thank Him. To Him you will be returned.” (Qur'an 29:16-17)

Below is what Muslims believe and what God they follow according to 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 in what was given to the prophets—from their Lord. We make no distinction between any of them, and to Him we surrender.” (Qur'an 2:136)

"...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)

“Follow the religion of Abraham, the Monotheist. He was not an idol-worshiper.” (Qur'an 16:123)

"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)

As we we know, Abraham worshiped the one true God.

The following verse from the Qur'an tells how Jesus fulfilled what is written in the Torah:

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)

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.

It's impossible to come to the conclusion that Muslims worship a different god, much less a "moon god" if one reads the Qur'an and/or talks to Muslims about their faith and what they believe. Muslims are no doubt worshiping the one true God; the God of Israel. Muslims do of course miss the most important aspect of Jesus. That He is the Way, the Truth, and the Life; and the importance of Him being crucified and resurrected as a sacrifice for our sins, but regardless, they are still worshiping the God of Israel.

Since Muslims do not know Jesus as we do, if you ever plan to witness to a Muslim and you start out by trying to convince them that they are not worshiping the same God, you will push them even further away from Christ than they already are. You're not going to get very far with our Muslim neighbors if you try tell them that they are worshipping a moon god.

 

[createdtoworship]

It's actually quite simple. The reason the word "Allah" is used in Islam and by Muslims is because it was the only word they had for God at the time of Muhammad. Prior to Muhammad, both Jews and Christians living in the Arab world worshipped God with the only word in Arabic that could be used to depict the God of creation. That word was “Allah.” Muhammad simply took the name "Allah" from the Jewish and Christian communities that existed in his day.

95% of the Bible is in hebrew and greek, who cares about arabic?

Do you have a source for this?

“And of His signs are the night and day and the sun and moon. Do not prostrate to the sun or to the moon, but prostrate to Allah, who created them, if it should be Him that you worship” (Quran 41:37)

yes in my circles islam is fully understood and studied, wikipedia for example is not a great source for stuff like this. (not saying that you are sourcing wikipedia, but many do).

read this post, it has a link to all my sources:
Islam - Muhammads' genocide: Banu Qurayza

 

[dzheremi]

95% of the Bible is in hebrew and greek, who cares about arabic?

Hate to step into this, but isn't the obvious answer to "Who cares about Arabic" going to be the Arabs? They were among the people mentioned as being present in the crowd on the day of Pentecost, where the miracle of tongues was manifest with each hearing in his own language (Acts 2:11). They ought not be discarded or not cared about just because centuries later a pagan from among them established a god-hating religion. There have been Arab Christians since day one in Christianity (St. Paul preached in Arabia, after all; Galatians 1:17), and some who study the region's pre-Islamic history (e.g., Trimingham's Christianity Among The Arabs in Pre-Islamic Times) note that by the time of Muhammad some of the most influential tribes were Christian, such as the Banu Taghlib or of course the Lakhmids (whose kings at Al Hira had converted to Christianity by the 6th century, the population of the kingdom having been solidly Christian for centuries before that, as testified to by 3rd century crosses discovered in that region of what is now Iraq).

It is wrong to be so dismissive of the Arab Christians or their language as a vehicle for translation or transmission of the faith and the Bible itself. Based on what I have read on the Bible's history in Arabic (thanks to 'pop-academic' sources like Griffiths' The Bible in Arabic from a few years ago), it would probably not be too outlandish to suggest that had the Bible been widely available in translation in their language prior to the coming of Islam (which it wasn't), a great many would not have subsequently converted to the pagan barbarians' new faith, or at least would have held out against it for even longer than they did (which was already quite a long time in some places).

Arab Christianity is beautiful, and easily the equal of anything you may find in Hebrew or Greek, and the section of the Arabs who never left our Lord have been faithful under extreme circumstances, and should be recognized for their dedication, which we ought to emulate. Besides, there is neither Jew nor Greek, remember?

 

[createdtoworship]

Hate to step into this, but isn't the obvious answer to "Who cares about Arabic" going to be the Arabs? They were among the people mentioned as being present in the crowd on the day of Pentecost, where the miracle of tongues was manifest with each hearing in his own language (Acts 2:11). They ought not be discarded or not cared about just because centuries later a pagan from among them established a god-hating religion. There have been Arab Christians since day one in Christianity (St. Paul preached in Arabia, after all; Galatians 1:17), and some who study the region's pre-Islamic history (e.g., Trimingham's Christianity Among The Arabs in Pre-Islamic Times) note that by the time of Muhammad some of the most influential tribes were Christian, such as the Banu Taghlib or of course the Lakhmids (whose kings at Al Hira had converted to Christianity by the 6th century, the population of the kingdom having been solidly Christian for centuries before that, as testified to by 3rd century crosses discovered in that region of what is now Iraq).

It is wrong to be so dismissive of the Arab Christians or their language as a vehicle for translation or transmission of the faith and the Bible itself. Based on what I have read on the Bible's history in Arabic (thanks to 'pop-academic' sources like Griffiths' The Bible in Arabic from a few years ago), it would probably not be too outlandish to suggest that had the Bible been widely available in translation in their language prior to the coming of Islam (which it wasn't), a great many would not have subsequently converted to the pagan barbarians' new faith, or at least would have held out against it for even longer than they did (which was already quite a long time in some places).

Arab Christianity is beautiful, and easily the equal of anything you may find in Hebrew or Greek, and the section of the Arabs who never left our Lord have been faithful under extreme circumstances, and should be recognized for their dedication, which we ought to emulate. Besides, there is neither Jew nor Greek, remember?

I am not dismissing arab christianity, I am saying that the language was not the primary use of the Jews or in Scripture. I would say the same thing for spanish, it's not a semitic language and it's not the typical language of the inspired scriptures. So translating the spanish version of "dios" or God does us no good. But more on arabic languages just for context: the arabic language was from the southern pagan nations or other inhabiters of the holy land. (south of edom (arabic) and north by the ammorites (aramaic)). I can post maps later.

 

[JosephZ]

95% of the Bible is in hebrew and greek, who cares about arabic?

This has already been addressed by another member and I have nothing more to add to their response.

yes in my circles islam is fully understood and studied,

Then you should already know that the word "Allah" when used by Muslims does not refer to a moon god.

read this post, it has a link to all my sources:
Islam - Muhammads' genocide: Banu Qurayza

Below is my response to the post you linked to.

sir what do you think of this article: "The Moon God of Muhammad's Tribe

I think it is rubbish written by someone with no background in Islamic Studies, Islamic History, or linguistics.

Allah is not the generic Arabic word for God but the name of a particular god among many deities....Allah was the chief god among the approximately 360 idols in the aba in Mecca... 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.

Etymologically, the name Allah is probably a contraction of the Arabic al-Ilah, “the God.” The name’s origin can be traced to the earliest Semitic writings in which the word for god was il, el, or eloah, the latter two used in the Hebrew Bible (Old Testament). Allah is the standard Arabic word for God and is used by Arabic-speaking Christians and Jews as well as by Muslims.

The name of Muhammad's father, Abdullah, is a contraction of Abd ul Allah, which means; servant of Allah.

The term "Abd ul Allah" (Servant of Allah/Servant of God) would be used by both Arab Muslims and Christians and in no way would lead anyone to come to the conclusion that this term would be used in reference to a moon god.

Abdullah Name Meaning:

Muslim: from the Arabic personal name Abdullah ‘servant of Allah’. This was the name of the father of the Prophet Muhammad, who died before Muhammad was born. In the Qur’an (19:30), Jesus calls himself Abdullah: ‘He (Jesus) said: I am the servant of Allah’. The name is also borne by Christian Arabs.

Source: Dictionary of American Family Names ©2013, Oxford University

It is a historic fact that Allah was worshiped long before Muhammad was born.

Yes, by Arab Christians and Jews.

When Muhammad rejected polytheism, he took the name of his own tribe's traditional deity, the moon god, as the designation for the one God of Islam, his allegedly new religion."

Muhammad was a merchant and heavily influenced by the many Christian and Jewish traders he encountered during his travels throughout the Middle East. Muhammad obviously incorporated aspects of both Judaism and Christianity into his own religion, Islam. It's only natural that Muhammad would associate himself and his religion with the God of Israel. This is also true of Muslims today.

Associating Allah with a moon god is an insult not only to Muslims, but also to Arab Jews and Christians.

 

[createdtoworship]

This has already been addressed by another member and I have nothing more to add to their response.

I didn't read it sorry, I probably was not addressed in the post, I only read posts to me. If you provide a link I will at least read it.

Then you should already know that the word "Allah" when used by Muslims does not refer to a moon god.

did someone say it was? Allah (which is a general arabic word for God, can be god or false gods as well), just because someone says allah, does not infer they have the right god. Hence the moon god.

Below is my response to the post you linked to.


I think it is rubbish written by someone with no background in Islamic Studies, Islamic History, or linguistics.

again the circles I run with have extensive studies in islamic history. I can quote several more sources but only when I see you treat my existing source with common courtesy .

Etymologically, the name Allah is probably a contraction of the Arabic al-Ilah, “the God.” The name’s origin can be traced to the earliest Semitic writings in which the word for god was il, el, or eloah, the latter two used in the Hebrew Bible (Old Testament). Allah is the standard Arabic word for God and is used by Arabic-speaking Christians and Jews as well as by Muslims.

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.
View attachment 274716

The term "Abd ul Allah" (Servant of Allah/Servant of God) would be used by both Arab Muslims and Christians and in no way would lead anyone to come to the conclusion that this term would be used in reference to a moon god.

Ok so say a Buddhist believes in some type of god. your logic is because they are using the term god, that therefore it's accurate. I have never said allah means moon god. Muhammed chose for His particular allah one of the many desert nomadic deities currently worshipped in mecca when he conquered it by brute force. (my sources quote muhammeds original biographers)

Muhammad was a merchant and heavily influenced by the many Christian and Jewish traders he encountered during his travels throughout the Middle East. Muhammad obviously incorporated aspects of both Judaism and Christianity into his own religion, Islam. It's only natural that Muhammad would associate himself and his religion with the God of Israel. This is also true of Muslims today.

I understand this is what you believe, but did you know that palestinians, originally refers to "philistine country." That is literally how the term palestinian came to be.

 

[JosephZ]

I didn't read it sorry, I probably was not addressed in the post, I only read posts to me. If you provide a link I will at least read it.

Here is the link: Islam - Muhammads' genocide: Banu Qurayza
You not only read it, you also responded to it.

did someone say it was?

I have never said allah means moon god.

Then why are you posting things like this?

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.

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?

Muhammed chose for His particular allah one of the many desert nomadic deities currently worshipped in mecca when he conquered it by brute force. (my sources quote muhammeds original biographers)

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?

again the circles I run with have extensive studies in islamic history. I can quote several more sources but only when I see you treat my existing source with common courtesy .

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? His article was rubbish as it was not based on the teachings of Islam or Islamic history and my assessment of it was accurate.

Even you disagree with your own source:

Allah (which is a general arabic word for God, can be god or false gods as well), does not infer they have the right god. Hence the moon god.

In your post above you say that Allah is a general Arabic word for God, yet in the quotes below, your source says that it isn't.

If Allah were merely the generic Arabic word for God, then Muslims would not hesitate to use the word for God in each language into which the Qur’an has been translated.

Allah is not the generic Arabic word for God but the name of a particular god among many deities....

The fact of the matter is that "Allah" is the word used by Arab Jews, Christians, and Muslims alike to refer to the God of Israel.

I understand this is what you believe, but did you know that palestinians, originally refers to "philistine country." That is literally how the term palestinian came to be.

It's not only what I believe, it's a historical fact that Muhammad was a merchant and heavily influenced by the many Christian and Jewish traders he encountered during his travels throughout the Middle East. It is also a fact that he incorporated much of what is found in Judaism and Christianity into Islam. One only needs to read the Qur'an to see this. Islam is a progressive religion and in the view of Muslims a continuation of what God revealed to the prophets of Judaism and Christianity with Muhammad being the final prophet.

As for you bringing up the Palestinians, I have no idea what they have to do with what is being discussed in this thread.

 

[createdtoworship]

Here is the link: Islam - Muhammads' genocide: Banu Qurayza
You not only read it, you also responded to it.


Then why are you posting things like this?




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? His article was rubbish as it was not based on the teachings of Islam or Islamic history and my assessment of it was accurate.

Even you disagree with your own source:

In your post above you say that Allah is a general Arabic word for God, yet in the quotes below, your source says that it isn't.


The fact of the matter is that "Allah" is the word used by Arab Jews, Christians, and Muslims alike to refer to the God of Israel.


It's not only what I believe, it's a historical fact that Muhammad was a merchant and heavily influenced by the many Christian and Jewish traders he encountered during his travels throughout the Middle East. It is also a fact that he incorporated much of what is found in Judaism and Christianity into Islam. One only needs to read the Qur'an to see this. Islam is a progressive religion and in the view of Muslims a continuation of what God revealed to the prophets of Judaism and Christianity with Muhammad being the final prophet.

As for you bringing up the Palestinians, I have no idea what they have to do with what is being discussed in this thread.

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.

 

[dzheremi]

I am not dismissing arab christianity, I am saying that the language was not the primary use of the Jews or in Scripture. I would say the same thing for spanish, it's not a semitic language and it's not the typical language of the inspired scriptures. So translating the spanish version of "dios" or God does us no good. But more on arabic languages just for context: the arabic language was from the southern pagan nations or other inhabiters of the holy land. (south of edom (arabic) and north by the ammorites (aramaic)). I can post maps later.

My point is that there is nothing magical or holy about Hebrew or Greek that make them inherently superior as vehicles for the expression of the faith to begin with to the exclusion of Arabic (or, since you've brought it up, Spanish, or any other language). We are not like Muslims who believe that God's revelation must be kept in some hypothesized 'original language' in order to remain uncorrupted. 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.