God, Arab Christians, and One Big Misconception

[Seeker]

Hi all, and peace be with you! My intention in starting this is to highlight a very important misconception relating to the sanctity of God and the sanctity of many people across the world. I am mentioning it because I was saddened to find some quite derogatory things said in other threads which people - further, many Christians - would find hurtful. I do not want to start an inter-religious debate here (though if there is something you wish to discuss with me, please feel free), I am not trying to 'promote' any other religions (in accordance with the rules), this is nothing but a matter of respect and shedding light on this misconception. I am posting it in the Other Religions category because of the common associations with what I will discuss, but in reality it is much more suited to an exclusively Christian category.

The matter I want to inform you of is this: that Arab Christians use the word Allah. This is John 1, 1 written in Arabic: [فِي الْبَدْءِ كَانَ الْكَلِمَةُ، وَالْكَلِمَةُ كَانَ عِنْدَ اللهِ، وَكَانَ الْكَلِمَةُ اللهَ] Now I don't know if you can see it or not, but as a student of French and Arabic, I can tell you that the word الله (Allah) is present twice.

http://www.injeel.com/audio/Arabic/43_John/43_01_John.mp3
You will hear the word "Allah" twice in the first verse and again in the following (starts about 45s); rightly so, given that - as most of you know - it says: "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God..."

I can imagine all sorts of theories trying to explain this, but really, it wouldn't stand up. If one was to say "this is done just to draw in Muslims", this would not only be disrespectful to the Bible but also inaccurate. Christians throughout the Arab world use this word, regardless of denomination, and even carry the name "slave of Allah" (Abdullah). Not only that, but the word pre-dates the advent of Islam.

In fact, I would go so far as to say that the word used by the blessed Jesus Christ was much more akin to the word used by Arab Christians (Allah) than what is used in any other language. Not only the Hebrew word for God (Eloh - found also as El or Elohim, with the -im for respect), but the Aramaic word: Alaha. Note that these are the conventional spellings, and in fact the correct pronunciation and elongation of vowels heightens the similarities further. I am sure any users familiar with Semitic languages can confirm this.

In conclusion, if you want to say anything about other religions' theology - that is fine. If the nature of the God they worship is different - that is fine. But to emphasise the point of the "name" or even to attribute this name to - what was it? - a "moon" deity is not only inaccurate but, to be honest, a shot in your own foot - rather, a shot in your brother's foot! I hope this clarifies the matter.
May peace and blessings be with you all, Seeker

 

[handy]

Is Allah a name of God...or a word for God?

 

[Seeker]

Is Allah a name of God...or a word for God?

Very intelligent question... I will try to give a clear, but detailed answer.

In fact, Arabic has the word "ilaah" which is just the word for "deity". It is much more akin to the word "god" (small G) in English, and it can have a plural (aaliha) just as we can have "gods", and it can become feminine (ilaaha), just as we can have "goddess".

The word "Allah", however, is what we in English commonly use as "GOD" or "God" with a capital G. This is done to distinguish it from any heresy - for example, you will never find any monotheist use the word "GODS"/"Gods" or "GODDESS"/"Goddess"... Because that's not what we believe!! It can only be GOD/God and nothing else. This is exactly, uncannily the same in Arabic: the word Allah is unchangeable. It cannot become feminine, it cannot become plural. It just is what it is.

In summary:
god = any god (can become plural, feminine, etc.)
ilaah = any god (can become plural, feminine, etc.)
God or GOD = only refers to the one, supreme, Creator God
Allah = only refers to the one, supreme, Creator God

As you can see, it is difficult to answer your question directly. Because on the one hand, it is just a word for God. Yet because it is SPECIFIC to the One, Supreme, Creator, I guess I have to also say it is a name (a name is by definition a way of specifying something, right?).

 

[Tina]

Not only the Hebrew word for God (Eloh - found also as El or Elohim, with the -im for respect), but the Aramaic word: Alaha. Note that these are the conventional spellings, and in fact the correct pronunciation and elongation of vowels heightens the similarities further.

God is also known as


Jehovah / Yahweh
Jehovah - Elohim
Jehovah - Elyon
Jehovah - Jireh
Jehovah - Repheka
Jehovah - Tsidqenu
Jehovah - Tsebaoth
Jehovah - Nissi
Jehovah - Shalom
Jehovah - Shamah
El - Shaddai


....... and more.


Allah being the name of God used by Arab Christians is perfectly fine and logical if the characteristics, nature and attributes of Allah is in line with the Bible and not the Quran. The moon deity has nothing to do with God/Allah of the Bible.

 

[Seeker]

The moon deity has nothing to do with God/Allah of the Bible.

Indeed. And likewise I would like to categorically state that this moon thing has absolutely zilch to do with any monotheistic tradition I know of, be that Christianity, Islam or Judaism. I have never heard of anyone who believes this, in fact.

God is also known as
Jehovah / Yahweh
Jehovah - Elohim
Jehovah - Elyon
Jehovah - Jireh
Jehovah - Repheka
Jehovah - Tsidqenu
Jehovah - Tsebaoth
Jehovah - Nissi
Jehovah - Shalom
Jehovah - Shamah
El - Shaddai

....... and more.

The cognates are quite remarkable really. I have not studied Hebrew, but I can straight away several which are present in Arabic and, by extension in the traditions among Arab Christians and Muslims. Please correct me if my cognate's translation is not similar to the original Hebrew - but I'll give it a go!

Hebrew - Arabic (translation)
Yahweh - Yahuwa (O He that is/exists!)
Eloh - Ilaah (god, deity, lord) [I removed the Hebrew term of respect "-im" in order to make a closer cognate]
Elohim - Alahum (O God!)
Elyon - Aliyon (Most High)
Shalom - Salam (the All-Peace)
El Shaddai - Al-Shadeed (God the Powerful) [not sure about this cognate]

The rest I can't determine really what they are/mean, but anyway, languages have cognates but they are not the same!

The point I am trying to get across is that much of what we consider as points of difference in theology and creed, are in fact merely points of difference in linguistic tradition (which are even closer than one might expect!). I do not deny that there are difference in creed - certainly - but it is too easy a cop-out to halt at these superficialities in theology.

 

[handy]

Seeker,

Thank you for the clarification...I had always thought that Allah was a word for God, not the name of God. When I was in high school and had friends from Iran, Christian Iranians who left the country during the fall of the Shah, they always said, "Allah" instead of God.

I do understand your point, and I also think it's good to try to meet on common ground whenever we possibly can. I think of the Apostle Paul's brilliant sermon to the men of Athens where he used one of the temples dedicated to "an unknown god" as a spring board for our gospel message.

However, since this is about names, and this is about Christianity, there is one name that does indeed set the Christians irrevocably apart from all others...the name of Jesus Christ and that at the name of Jesus Christ every knee will bow and every tongue will confess. This is at the heart of our faith, that Jesus is Allah, God, not His prophet, but God Himself.

 

[Davies]

I'd like to give you a perspective on the crescent moon for your consideration. Since I'm not a linguistic expert, I have to depend on the opinions of others, and most of the time, these issues are secondary. I would say that it should be a priority for Arab Christians around the world to not get confused with the use of the word Allah because the god of the Muslim faith has nothing to do with the God of the Bible.

For your consideration:

Isaiah 14:12-14
New King James Version (NKJV)
The Fall of Lucifer

12 “How you are fallen from heaven,
O Lucifer,[a] son of the morning!
How you are cut down to the ground,
You who weakened the nations!
13 For you have said in your heart:
‘I will ascend into heaven,
I will exalt my throne above the stars of God;
I will also sit on the mount of the congregation
On the farthest sides of the north;
14 I will ascend above the heights of the clouds,
I will be like the Most High.’

"In this passage we are given the name Lucifer, which has, through the ages, come to signify Satan. In truth, the passage doesn't so much give us a proper name as it provides us with a description of who Satan really is. In Hebrew, the name for this Lucifer is three words: Heylal Ben Shahar. Translated fully, this means "Shining One Son of the Morning Star", or "the Shining Brilliant One." Etymologically, Hebrew Helel corresponds to the Ugaritic hll which occurs in the following expressions: bnt hll b'l gml, 'Daughter of Brightness, Lord of the Crescent Moon."

Hilal is an Arabic word that means "Crescent Moon". When we put the whole phrase together, Heylal Ben Shachar simply means "Crescent Moon, Son of the Morning Star" (or the Dawn)- or in simpler terms, a crescent moon with a star lingering over it. Of course, this is the very symbol and image of Islam. Remember, we are discussing the "image" of the Beast. Nearly every Islamic flag carries this symbol. Nearly every mosque displays this symbol on the pinnacle of its dome and/or its minarets. Consider the implications of this. Islam applies to itself the very description that the Bible uses to describe Satan. When it comes to Islam, everything is upside down. But what makes this so damning to Islam is that Hilal was the very name of the Lord of the Ka'ba, according to Muhammad's biographer, Ibn Hisham. He admits that the pagan Kinanah tribe and Quraysh (Muhammad's tribe) called the supervising god of the Kaaba IHLAL. They called the Kaaba "Beit-Allah", the house of Allah!" - Walid Shoebat with Joel Richardson, God's War on Terror; Islam, Prophecy and the Bible

There does appear to be an etymological connection with the word Allah and the moon god. Again, this is a secondary issue, but I do think there is a danger for Arab Christians naming the God of the Bible with the word Allah.

- Davies

 

[Seeker]

Thank you for the clarification...I had always thought that Allah was a word for God, not the name of God. When I was in high school and had friends from Iran, Christian Iranians who left the country during the fall of the Shah, they always said, "Allah" instead of God.

I do understand your point, and I also think it's good to try to meet on common ground whenever we possibly can. I think of the Apostle Paul's brilliant sermon to the men of Athens where he used one of the temples dedicated to "an unknown god" as a spring board for our gospel message.

However, since this is about names, and this is about Christianity, there is one name that does indeed set the Christians irrevocably apart from all others...the name of Jesus Christ and that at the name of Jesus Christ every knee will bow and every tongue will confess. This is at the heart of our faith, that Jesus is Allah, God, not His prophet, but God Himself.

Yes sister, exactly. Everything you have said is true. Even the difference you highlighted, namely about the nature of Christ, is the true difference, and this is where respectful discourse should be focussed in the realm of Judaeo-Islamo-Christian (I made that up sounds alright though!) theology, rather than contrived or perceived differences.

 

[Seeker]

Davies; Thank you for raising this clearly. I wondered where this weird and wonderful theory came from, so it is nice to have it straight from the horse's mouth for me to examine! Now, as much as I can see the motivations behind (literally) demonising Islam especially in post-9/11 America (e.g. support for war on terror, vilifying invaded countries, Islam as an historic threat to Christendom, etc.), it does seem - in the face of any level of scrutiny - that this argument is ridden with flaws, and is a mish-mash of weak / non-existent connections and false premises. My looking down upon this hypothesis is not out of emotional rage or anything, but simply because it is a house of cards and I have a choice as to which to remove for it all to collapse!

Before even getting into ANY of that - is it not presumptuous that the guy who wrote the work in which this passage is found ("God's War on Terror; Islam, Prophecy and the Bible" - the title alone gives away that this can never be an objective work!) has stumbled across something that has eluded both the Christian populace and scholarship of the Arab world from the very advent of Christianity in the region? That all of a sudden, this theory that jumps for A to P to J to Q to Z has cast light on centuries of Christian misguidance? I think a sincere answer to this gives the answer before I've even begun. Furthermore, I would kindly request you to read what I put in the earlier posts with regards to cognates in Hebrew and - more importantly - Aramaic. If it is established that the word used by Christ himself is the Aramaic, Alaha, then one is playing a dangerous game to cast accusations on its Arabic sister-word, Allah, the meanings of which I have already clarified. A history of that word alone (as in my first and second post) will dispel any myths associated with it. These reasons - along with what I have written throughout - are sufficient, but if you are still not convinced, then read on (otherwise save yourself the time!).


Now to address this text itself (I would not ordinarily consider it worthy of an intellectual response, but for the apparent fact that people seem to accept it without critical analysis). One of the false premises here, upon which much of the conclusion is based, is that the crescent and star represent Islam. "Nearly every Islamic flag carries this symbol." Really? Er, no. This is false, and either betrays a high level of ignorance in the topic he claims to research, or that he already has a conclusion and is willing to contrive his way towards it. The crescent and star is a symbol that is not found in ANY of the texts of Islam, nor in the prophetic history, nor in any of the early generations. So to claim it is 'Islamic' is quite simply untrue. It is a MUCH later interpolation of the Ottoman Turks used by a handful of nations, and if one wants a nice, pictorial proof, then please look up the flags of ALL Middle-Eastern countries. Not a single one has a crescent/star. Only when you get to more distant countries such as Tunisia in the West, Turkey to the North, and Pakistan to the East, does one find this to appear! As a symbol, it has been popularised more by the West in trying to categorise Islam, than by Muslims, though this last part is more my own theory.

But wait! I needn't have even gone that far in the argument, because it can be cut much earlier in the stem. What is plain to see in his linguistic 'reasoning' is that all of these translations and meanings do NOT support his hypothesis, but he is relying on weak, minority connections (and sometimes brushing over the absence of even that) as a guise to fool the average reader - unlikely to possess any knowledge of Semitic language - into buying his theory. With all due respect, you yourself have admitted this. Now to come to the matter translation. One does not need to be an expert to compare the translation of the author and what the translation in the Bible is. "O Lucifer,[a] son of the morning!" This is the Biblical translation. Why has he then changed the word "morning" or "dawn" into the word star? The Hebrew given is Shahar, a cognate of the Arabic Sahar, meaning early morning (specifically the time just before the break of dawn). Where does star come into it? He even writes: "Heylal Ben Shachar simply means "Crescent Moon, Son of the Morning Star" (or the Dawn)" What is this guy talking about! Has this guy graduated from the university of Wikipedia or something? To be perfectly honest, if one reads what he says rather than be intimidated by supposed 'detail', one finds this to be a poor equivalent of Glenn Beck's chalkboard, drawing connections where they do not exist (we have Fox in England too!).

"But what makes this so damning to Islam is that Hilal was the very name of the Lord of the Ka'ba, according to Muhammad's biographer, Ibn Hisham. He admits that the pagan Kinanah tribe and Quraysh (Muhammad's tribe) called the supervising god of the Kaaba IHLAL. They called the Kaaba "Beit-Allah", the house of Allah!"
O Lord, where to start on this one? Ignoring the rhetoric positioned here to dramatise this 'revolutionary' discovery, what is he actually saying? Hilal was God of the Kabah? No, it wasn't. For century upon century after the building of the Kabah by earlier prophets, it was a house of pure monotheism (as it is today). But in the time just prior to Muhammad, tribes had begun to profit from this house of pilgrimage and began storing idols in it - idols that were later destroyed entirely by Muhammad upon the opening of Makkah. In that gap of idolatry before their removal by the Muslims, the chief idol was HUBAL, not HILAL (I can't believe he made such an amateur mistake!), along with Laat, Uzza, Manaat, etc. Even to those pagans, however, there was one God supreme above them all for which there could be no image, the one recognised as the ultimate creator: Allah (simply meaning God with capital G in Arabic). Their idols were intended as intermediaries to Allah/God, which is something that Islam wanted to rid (hence the testification of faith is "there is none worthy of worship but God" or perhaps translated as "there is no god but God"). Please see post number three in this thread. Finally, where the author wants you to see shocking new links, I see a contradiction. He admits that the Ka'ba was (and is still) indeed called the house of Allah/God (baytullah), but this is evidence that it was not the house of any other idol or so-called god! Least of all this made-up 'hilal'! This does not - as the author purports - support the hypothesis that there is any similarity between the two.



And finally... you concluded: "There does appear to be an etymological connection with the word Allah and the moon god. Again, this is a secondary issue, but I do think there is a danger for Arab Christians naming the God of the Bible with the word Allah."

I can't blame you for thinking this, if you took that extract and swallowed it whole. But I truly believe that if you read what I have written throughout this thread, you will see this for what it is... One. Big. Misconception! Please pardon me if I caused you personally offence in any way - may peace be with you.

 

[Davies]

Hi Seeker,

I haven't taken any offense. I really can't defend Walid or Joel since I just don't know Arabic. I don't have any reason to believe that Walid or Joel is not a brother in Christ, but I would not bring an accusation against them publicly. I would address with them privately.

If I remember the earlier posts I read, you identified yourself as a Muslim? If this is true, then you'll understand if I think Allah is an idol. That doesn't mean I don't respect your choice to believe what you want, it just means that there is no common ground between Bible and Islam. We would claim different things regarding Abraham and the integrity of the Bible, it should be clear that Christians and practicing Jews, or anyone of any other faith are brothers or sisters. I don't know what level of knowledge of Christianity you have, but because my time is short this morning, I'll put it this way: We were brothers and sisters at one point in Adam, but when a person puts their faith in Jesus Christ, the Father, and the Holy Spirit (One God), then that person is born again, born of God, and is no longer found in Adam, but in Christ. The only thing we have in common now is our sinful nature because we are still in our bodies, something we shouldn't try to find common ground on.

I hope I didn't put that too bluntly. Perhaps we can talk more privately or in a different thread. As far as the misconceptions you talk about, I can't make any judgment on. I appreciate your reply.

- Davies

 

[Seeker]

I somewhat agree with you actually, on the point of talking privately - I haven't been on the forum long but it seems some of these discussions might offend some sensibilities and my number one priority is to be respectful. Correct, I am a Muslim - I mentioned it earlier but it is in every one of my posts too (see my signature ). And don't worry - being blunt is something I actually appreciate! It's always important to separate between intellectual discourse and personal attacks.

With regards to your perception of Allah as an idol - this is the topic of discussion. There are two independent channels within this thought, as far as I can see. The first is that you associate the word or name 'Allah' exclusively and intrinsically with Islam. The second is the nature of the God of Muslims, which was not the original topic I must admit, but is related enough to address here.

As for the first, I want to clearly convey this: that the word Allah is not exclusive to Muslims. It is just not true, as any Arab or Middle-Eastern historian will tell you. Why do I mention Arabs? Because it is merely an Arabic word to describe the one, supreme Creator (much like God in English with a capital G). Indeed, even amongst Aramaic-speaking peoples (I believe Christ spoke Aramaic in addition to Hebrew?), the word they use for God is the closely-related "Alaha".

The question now is thus: how has the word Allah come to (apparently) belong to Muslims alone, while the reality is that even Christians and Jews who speak that language use it in all forms of worship and in their scriptures? The answer to this is quite simple, really - Christian worship is predominantly in the language of the worshipper. I don't think it is controversial to say that there is little connection between the average, English-speaking Christian and the Hebrew, Greek or Aramaic languages. Sure, you will find Jehovah and the tetragrammaton used on occasion, but the tendency has traditionally been - as is evident in translations of the Bible - to translate into the existing English word: "God".

In contrast to this, however, is the tradition of Islam: there is a very strong connection between every single Muslim and Arabic, the language of all the primary texts of Islam. The daily prayers, the call to prayer, the equivalent to the Lord's prayer, etc., are all in Arabic and Muslim children - whether Canadian, British, or Indonesian - all tend to be taught how to read it to some degree. What am I getting at? What I am getting at, is that it is much easier to understand why Muslims continue to utilise the Arabic word for God. In some translations of the Quran, the word Allah will be rendered as God, but more often than not it is left in its undisturbed form, Allah, because Muslims are so used to it. This is not very helpful in communicating with non-Muslims, that is true, and results in all sorts of misconceptions (evidently!), but amongst Muslims it is not really that big a deal.

Now, as for the second channel of thought, namely that the God of Muslims is an idol in nature. I don't think - even from a Christian or Orientalist perspective - that idol is a fair word. My Oxford English Dictionary gives idol as "an image or representation of a god used as an object of worship". The truth is that while it is your prerogative to disagree with the described characteristics or attributes of God in Islam, Muslims do tend to be quite strict when it comes to images or representations of God. While it may be common in churches to have pictorial representations or statues of Jesus and - indeed - of God the Father (for example in the Sistine Chapel), there has never been anything like this in the Muslim tradition (rather, our scripture says: "The Originator [is He] of the heavens and the earth. He has given you mates of your own kind - just as [He has willed that] among the beasts [there be] mates - to multiply you thereby: [but] there is nothing like unto Him, and He alone is all-hearing, all-seeing." Underlining is my own).

Wow, I didn't expect it to come to be that long haha, I think I'm enjoying our discussion too much! Peace be with you my brother!

 

[Davies]

Hi Seeker,

I can appreciate the role that language plays when it comes to putting a name to God. Even in the English language, people use the word God all the time, but they don't have any Biblical knowledge and so it normally is a reference to the image of God they have in their mind.

When it comes to different religions or people who don't associate with any organized religious groups, and even within the Christian community, idol worship is probably the number one sin. Whenever we make God to be someone he's not, this is called making an idol. If we are not obedient to God, then we are serving an idol, something that isn't God. An idol is not limited to a physical object. Self can be an idol. The only way to keep from serving idols is to worship the only God that ever existed, Jesus Christ, the Father, and the Holy Spirit. I know the Trinity can be a stumbling block, but that's what is represented in the Bible.

I'm glad you haven't taken offense at my being upfront. I'm stating core beliefs of the Christian faith, and because you understand this, then you seem to understand that what I'm saying is what I believe, and is not a negative attitude towards you personally.

As I think we would both agree, the truth is not relative. Because our faiths contradict one another, even if other Christians use the same name for God as Muslims, both of us cannot be right. This is normally where a discussion of this nature gets heated. Because we disagree, that doesn't mean I hate Muslims, but I would say I hate their faith. Here is why I say that: Because you don't believe that Jesus is God, died on the cross, rose from the dead, and can't earn your way to paradise, your faith will in the end condemn you. Jesus stated Himself, 'I am the way, the truth, and the life. No man comes unto the Father except by Me.' This is an all exclusive statement. This means I believe you and any other person who does not have faith in Jesus, to include Mormons, Jehovah's Witnesses, Buddhists, Hindus, and every stripe in between, are on the wide road to destruction. We share discordance, but it must be tolerated because no one should be forced to believe a particular faith, even if a Muslim wanted to become a Christian. It's very telling that when people disagree, they cannot control their anger to the point of verbal abuse and to the extreme, sectarian violence.

So, based on what we've shared so far. I ask really only one thing. Please don't refer to me as your brother. I will call you Mr. Seeker if you like;), but if I accent to you using brother with me, it feels like I'm giving credence to your faith or that our faith has something in common.

Thank you for an informative post. I'll try to be sensitive to my Arab brothers and sisters in Christ when they refer to God as Allah.

- Davies

 

[Seeker]

Very well, Mr Davies, it is as you wish no problem (As Muslims it is common to use the term brother for fellows in faith also, but in addition to that for brothers in humanity as we are all of Adam, so pardon me!)

However I would disagree that we share nothing in common! We share a lot in common - albeit not the key tenants which you mentioned (the Trinity and death/resurrection of Christ) - but there is much overlap: the principle of monotheism; the faith in every single prophet/messenger - bar an addition on our side; belief in revealed texts of God; the Judgement and Afterlife. I can't help but to think that in the shadow of politics, history and disagreements, we often forget how close the Abrahamic faiths really are, and all the kinds of other beliefs that exist out there that are so different to us. You mentioned Hinduism - to put this ancient tradition beside Judaism, Christianity and Islam makes us look a lot more homogeneous than we ourselves consider! To repeat: the theological differences are important - both to me and to you - but I don't think civil unity and respect for those similarities necessitate the abandoning of our beloved uniqueness. In order to live peacefully side-by-side, we don't need to do that - we leave them for the table of polite discourse, and get on with practising our moral laws. (This may well have inspired me to start another thread, were I not so busy with exams ) There do seem to be forces trying to convince us that is not possible, but I think every single country where Christians and Muslims (among others) have coexisted for centuries is evidence in our favour.

When it comes to different religions or people who don't associate with any organized religious groups, and even within the Christian community, idol worship is probably the number one sin. Whenever we make God to be someone he's not, this is called making an idol. If we are not obedient to God, then we are serving an idol, something that isn't God. An idol is not limited to a physical object. Self can be an idol. The only way to keep from serving idols is to worship the only God that ever existed, Jesus Christ, the Father, and the Holy Spirit. I know the Trinity can be a stumbling block, but that's what is represented in the Bible.

Yes, with regards to the meaning of idol, I would have to agree with you. I, personally, would use deity or god for those kind of non-material worshipped things (e.g. I find in my scripture, "Hast thou ever considered him who who makes his own desires his deity?" Italics are mine) but it is just a matter of semantics. I completely agree. Whether that also encompasses differences in the nature of God also... It's difficult to say, because of the ill-defined parameters of what your or my God "is". For example, for me to look at what I see as the God described by Christians - it is not black and white for me to say "this is / is not an idol". In fact, what I would say in reality is that I believe in and worship what I understand to be God the Father. Likewise, I think for a Christian to look at the description of the God described by Muslims, the primary concern (from what I see as the key differences between the faiths) would be the non-Trinitarian nature, though do correct me.

May peace be with you and with all!

 

[Davies]

Whether that also encompasses differences in the nature of God also... It's difficult to say, because of the ill-defined parameters of what your or my God "is". For example, for me to look at what I see as the God described by Christians - it is not black and white for me to say "this is / is not an idol". In fact, what I would say in reality is that I believe in and worship what I understand to be God the Father.

Good day Seeker,

It is true that we rely on who we think God is, but you come to the truth, you no longer have to investigate to the full all the other religions. I've learned enough about most religions to understand they are false. Plus, you seem to know enough about Christianity to reject it. If I found something that was false in the Bible, I would know the God of the Bible was false, thus we could say 'he' was an idol. In fact, the parameters of describing who God is in the Bible is quite clear. Most of the time, Christians are labeled as judgmental and intolerant because we are faithful to our God. Based on your faith, for me to say Mohammed is not a prophet, wouldn't that be considered blaspheme, and in some places, a consideration for the death penalty? One last example. You say you worship what you believe to be God the Father. Yet the Bible says:

1 John 2:22-23
New King James Version (NKJV)
22 Who is a liar but he who denies that Jesus is the Christ? He is antichrist who denies the Father and the Son. 23 Whoever denies the Son does not have the Father either; he who acknowledges the Son has the Father also.

Although my experience with Muslims is limited, I must say you have been the most pleasurable, yet, still disagreeable Muslim I've met so far. Usually the differences in faith are enough to limit a conversation because, let's face it, faith is a very personal matter. There's nothing quite as unpleasurable as someone telling you that you're wrong. But even in your profession to Islam, that's effectually what you are saying to me. I'm afraid, Seeker, any similarities that we might have in common are miniscule when compared to the differences in our faiths. If we are to stay true to our faith, we will acknowledge this.

- Davies

 

[Seeker]

Good day to you as well sir!

Based on your faith, for me to say Mohammed is not a prophet, wouldn't that be considered blaspheme, and in some places, a consideration for the death penalty?

For one to say Muhammad is not a prophet is - obviously speaking - false from the Muslim perspective. Therefore, it is no more or less blasphemous than saying "there is no God" to a Christian. I'm not sure really what more there is to be said! As for a death penalty - you know, nowadays every Tom, Dick and Harry considers himself an expert on Islamic jurisprudence (I'm not aiming this at you, your sincerity is clear to see). This goes for both Muslims (the internet means many young people think they can become scholars with a few Google searches, rather than the rigorous legal and linguistic training. You will never find so-called extremism in such seminaries, e.g. Zaytuna College in Califonia) and it also goes for critics/Orientalists (our jurists have been writing for centuries debating capital punishments, as there is nothing[/i] about killing people for mere disbelief in the Qur'an (FACT), so I don't know where people get their preconceptions from).

In a nutshell (capital punishment is so heavily discouraged that it's difficult to summarise), the first thing to state is that any punishments must be done through legitimate courts, and as far as capital punishments, through the highest authorities. I am mentioning this as number one, because it straight away rules out what 99% of people worry about, namely, the image in our heads of loonies running around desert countries kidnapping people and carrying out extra-judicial punishments (how often this actually happens in reality I'm not certain). In any case, it is nothing to do with the Islamic Law. Secondly, mere disbelief does not necessitate punishment (2:256 There is no compulsion in religion.), neither does apostasy in itself. The punishment applies to the one who leaves the fold and harms or turns against them (again, the specifics of which are much-debated) - what we in the English language would call treason. To substantiate this, as it may seem contrary to what a lot of non-Muslims not exposed to Islam believe, see this verse: 4:137 "Those who believe, then reject faith, then believe (again) and (again) reject faith, and go on increasing in unbelief,- God will not forgive them nor guide them on the way." If what a lot of people think was true, then this verse should have ended after the first six words! This happened to Muhammad to his face as well, believers committing acts of apostasy, who were not killed! And always, if there is a shred of doubt in any part of the process (the person's sanity, bias of courts, possibility of inaccuracies...) it is forbidden to apply capital punishments.

One last example. You say you worship what you believe to be God the Father. Yet the Bible says:

1 John 2:22-23
New King James Version (NKJV)
22 Who is a liar but he who denies that Jesus is the Christ? He is antichrist who denies the Father and the Son. 23 Whoever denies the Son does not have the Father either; he who acknowledges the Son has the Father also.

As far as the passage you quoted is concerned - I do believe that! I do not deny that Jesus is the Christ (Christos = mashiach = masih in the Quran). And I do not deny that he is word of God (also one of his titles in the Quran) nor that he is son of God - however, son in the sense similar to those others called sons of God in the Bible, rather than in the Trinitarian sense.

 

[God's_gift]

Good day to you as well sir!

For one to say Muhammad is not a prophet is - obviously speaking - false from the Muslim perspective. Therefore, it is no more or less blasphemous than saying "there is no God" to a Christian.

As far as the passage you quoted is concerned - I do believe that! I do not deny that Jesus is the Christ (Christos = mashiach = masih in the Quran). And I do not deny that he is word of God (also one of his titles in the Quran) nor that he is son of God - however, son in the sense similar to those others called sons of God in the Bible, rather than in the Trinitarian sense.

Hi Seeker,

when i was in college , my roomate who is a muslim once let me read the Qur'an but won't let me touch the book coz she say's it is " haram" or forbidden for me to touch (why is that so is that one of the misconceptions too)? But anyways, so she had shown me some context about Isa al Masih ( Jesus Christ ) if i am not mistaken in the book of Sura and so it was clear to me that the Qur’an and the Bible do not agree about the physical Sonship and spiritual Sonship of Jesus.

 

[reba]

Hi Seeker,

I can appreciate the role that language plays when it comes to putting a name to God. Even in the English language, people use the word God all the time, but they don't have any Biblical knowledge and so it normally is a reference to the image of God they have in their mind.

When it comes to different religions or people who don't associate with any organized religious groups, and even within the Christian community, idol worship is probably the number one sin. Whenever we make God to be someone he's not, this is called making an idol. If we are not obedient to God, then we are serving an idol, something that isn't God. An idol is not limited to a physical object. Self can be an idol. The only way to keep from serving idols is to worship the only God that ever existed, Jesus Christ, the Father, and the Holy Spirit. I know the Trinity can be a stumbling block, but that's what is represented in the Bible.

I'm glad you haven't taken offense at my being upfront. I'm stating core beliefs of the Christian faith, and because you understand this, then you seem to understand that what I'm saying is what I believe, and is not a negative attitude towards you personally.

As I think we would both agree, the truth is not relative. Because our faiths contradict one another, even if other Christians use the same name for God as Muslims, both of us cannot be right. This is normally where a discussion of this nature gets heated. Because we disagree, that doesn't mean I hate Muslims, but I would say I hate their faith. Here is why I say that: Because you don't believe that Jesus is God, died on the cross, rose from the dead, and can't earn your way to paradise, your faith will in the end condemn you. Jesus stated Himself, 'I am the way, the truth, and the life. No man comes unto the Father except by Me.' This is an all exclusive statement. This means I believe you and any other person who does not have faith in Jesus, to include Mormons, Jehovah's Witnesses, Buddhists, Hindus, and every stripe in between, are on the wide road to destruction. We share discordance, but it must be tolerated because no one should be forced to believe a particular faith, even if a Muslim wanted to become a Christian. It's very telling that when people disagree, they cannot control their anger to the point of verbal abuse and to the extreme, sectarian violence.

So, based on what we've shared so far. I ask really only one thing. Please don't refer to me as your brother. I will call you Mr. Seeker if you like;), but if I accent to you using brother with me, it feels like I'm giving credence to your faith or that our faith has something in common.

Thank you for an informative post. I'll try to be sensitive to my Arab brothers and sisters in Christ when they refer to God as Allah.

- Davies

I appreciate your post very much.

 

[Seeker]

when i was in college , my roomate who is a muslim once let me read the Qur'an but won't let me touch the book coz she say's it is " haram" or forbidden for me to touch (why is that so is that one of the misconceptions too)? But anyways, so she had shown me some context about Isa al Masih ( Jesus Christ ) if i am not mistaken in the book of Sura and so it was clear to me that the Qur’an and the Bible do not agree about the physical Sonship and spiritual Sonship of Jesus.

Hmm, there is some element of truth here but a lot more misunderstanding (on your friend's part). Firstly, there is no difference between Muslims/non-Muslims here: even when we touch the Qur'an it is after washing (hands, face, arms, feet, etc.) or ritual bath (I don't like the word ritual.. it's just a shower ). In fact the second opinion is - surprisingly to you perhaps! - that because non-Muslims are not responsible for our laws, they do not even need to do that. But the bottom line is this: all of that only applies to the Arabic Quran. Any book that has only translation, or more translation than Quranic text even, does not fall under this, so your roommate could easily have gone and got you a translation (which would be more helpful anyway!).

You're right that the Quran does mention about the (physical) Sonship of Jesus. However I was referring earlier to the way Son is used in the OT and with others as a title of honour (e.g. "Adam, the son of God" in Luke when talking about Joseph's lineage - can't remember exactly but near the beginning). In this sense, I have no problem.

I actually asked a question regarding the question of "Son" here and would appreciate any perspectives: http://www.christianforums.net/showthread.php?t=41906
Please remember that my goal here is in no way to offend - I don't see why anyone should be, but I just want to state that.

 

[Stormcrow]

but it is too easy a cop-out to halt at these superficialities in theology.

Christ died on the cross to redeem mankind from sin and was raised from the dead the third day. Islam denies this. I'd hardly call such a vast divergence from the gospel of Christ in this (and many other points) "superficialities [sic] in theology."

 

[Stormcrow]

even if other Christians use the same name for God as Muslims, both of us cannot be right.

"God" is a title, like "President." "Jehovah" is a name. The confusion lies in the fact that Allah is both a title and a name: a title used by Arabic Christians, a name used by Muslims.

That said, the God of the Bible is not and never has been the "Allah" Muslims worship. This is simply because were they the same God, the Bible and Koran would agree on the fundamentals of Biblical faith. They do not.

Therefore, either "Allah" of Islam is too stupid to remember what he told all those OT prophets about the coming of Christ (including His virgin birth as the Son of God), and His death, burial, and resurrection, or Allah of Islam is not the God of the Bible, regardless of what terms Arabic Christians may use to describe the Judeo-Christian God.

This thread is little more than Islamic propaganda intended to confuse rather than enlighten.