Allah= Al+ilah ?

[AhmedBahgat]

Here is Allah in Arabic found 1010 times in the Arabic NT:



http://injeel.com/Search.aspx?svn=2&btp=3&stp=0&tx=%u0627%u0644%u0644%u0647&vn=1,3

[AhmedBahgat]

Here is Allah in Arabic found 1024 times in the Arabic OT:



http://injeel.com/Search.aspx?svn=2&btp=2&stp=0&tx=%u0627%u0644%u0644%u0647&vn=1,3

[AhmedBahgat]

Here is Allah in Arabic found 2034 times in the entire Arabic Bible:



http://injeel.com/Search.aspx?svn=2&btp=1&stp=0&tx=%u0627%u0644%u0644%u0647&vn=1,3

[Centaur]

oops says a muslim who is not happy with any of the existing translation of the koran.You can find the local vernacular for god in all OT translations.Its no big deal.
PS: again that does not make allah god

[manfred]

I am quite sure we mentioned previously that"allah" became the word for "god" in Arabic translations of the bible. We have have also seen that easliest Arabic bible is about 300 years AFTER Mohammed. By that time all Arabic speaking Christians where dhimmis and translating the bible into Arabic certainly required permission from the Muslims potentates and attracted very close supervision.In fact, "allah" was used at Muslims insistance.

Christians did not make much of a fuss about it, and we know the reason why: the understood the ambivalence of the term "allah". To them, it was "al-ilah", and they did not care that the same word also happened to be the name of that false god nasty old Mohammed used to control his thugs.

[The Cat]

A few days ago 'Q' came with his usual spamming, in order to avoid this question concerning the inheritance of prophethood,
which according to 29.27 belonged rightfully to the seed of Lot, Isaac and Jacob, without even slightly mentioning Ishmael.

viewtopic.php?p=96461#p96461
29.27 (85th): And We bestowed on him (Lot) Isaac and Jacob, and We established the prophethood and the Scripture among his seed...

'Q' then published sura 112, and we've been looking upon it's first verse, based around the word 'Ahad', just to find out that it
didn't have any real connection with the 'sole one', as wrongly translated, but with 'One Of', 'One From' or 'One among a group'.
viewtopic.php?p=96642#p96642

I've said we'd look upon 112.2 and its wording: As-Samad... Yusuf Ali said it was among the most difficult word to translate.
Here are some definitions for As-Samad from a Muslim site:
http://wahiduddin.net/words/99_pages/samad_68.htm

From the root s-m-d which has the following classical Arabic connotations:
--to endeavor, to reach or attain something
--to turn to, to need
--to direct oneself toward or aim toward something
--to set up, to erect something
--to remain unaffected, unchanged
--to be sublime, everlasting

It's obviously not self-evident to chose the rightful meaning of such a word, which has been translated with much variants,
by all who tried to convey this meaning in English. Sura 112 (4 verses only) is supposed to be about Allah's being One and
Only, which is challenged by the opening 'Ahad'. Is As-Samad best translated by any of those, like ' The Everlasting Refuge'?

Some translations (there are many more.....)
--God, the Eternal, Absolute; Yusuf Ali
--Allah, the eternally Besought of all! Pickthall
--The Self-Sufficient Master, Whom all creatures need, He neither eats nor drinks. Hilali-Khan
--Allah, the Independent. Daryabadi
--God the eternal. M.A.S. Abdel Haleem
--God the Eternal, the Uncaused Cause of All Being. Muhammad Asad
--Allah is He on Whom all depend. Shakir
--God is Absolute. Muhammad Sarwar
--God is the Source [for everything]; T.B. Irving

Muhammad Asad, a Muslim scholar wrote about As-Samad: ''It comprises the concepts of Primary Cause and eternal, independent Being,
combined with the idea that everything existing or conceivable goes back to Him as its source and is therefore, dependent on Him for
its beginning as well as for its continued existence.'' But we've seen in the first quotation that many times it could mean -- to reach or
attain something; --to turn to, to need; --to direct oneself toward or aim toward something; --to set up, to erect something; --to remain
unaffected, unchanged. I personally think that the later definition is the appropriate one but, in such a mess, no one could ever be sure.

http://www.answering-islam.org/Shamoun/ahad.htm

What is believed to be equivalent to a third of the Quran is far from being a clear text. Sura 112, intended to delineate the heart of Islamic monotheism, has been a major source of mass confusion and embarrassment for Muslims. After all, if Allah is so concerned with wanting people to have an accurate and precise understanding of his nature then why didn’t he make this Sura clear? If the Quran is supposed to be clear Arabic, the standard of Arabic eloquence, then why does this particular Sura use words which left even Muslim scholars perplexed to the extent that they couldn’t even decipher the exact meaning in order to insure that their theology was sound?

In other words, even Muhammad’s companions and also the early commentators simply did not know what "Samad" means..... From Arabic sources, we learn that an idol of 'Ad was allegedly called samud, which brings us rather close to the environment of Muhammad... In view of this material, the suggestion may be made that as-samad in the Qur'an is a survival of an ancient Northwest Semitic religious term, which may no longer have been understood by Muhammad himself, nor by the old poets (if the sawahid should be genuine).

See also: http://www.answering-islam.org/Shamoun/samad.htm
The 'Ad tribe was related to the important Thamudic people: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thamud

It is strange for me to see how monotheist religions are upholding this notion of G-d being 'One' like there's no tomorrow
while its really unfit to indicate anything infinite. In the end, it comes down to worship a number, which can't be a perfect
symbol of Unity. I suspect it has more to do with the tribal notion of ONE chosen people than to anything related to G-d.

[manfred]

Muhammad Asad, a Muslim scholar wrote about As-Samad: ''It comprises the concepts of Primary Cause and eternal, independent Being,
combined with the idea that everything existing or conceivable goes back to Him as its source and is therefore, dependent on Him for
its beginning as well as for its continued existence."

It appears that this particular Muslim scholar read some Thomas Aquinas....

His argument was that all things all around us have a necessary condition for their existence, which he called a cause. IF (a big if) you accept that then it follows that causes must be arranged in chains.

The chain cannot be circular as that means all things cause themselves, which contradicts the "if" sentence we started with. The chain cannot be infinite (Thomas argues) because that would mean that all things are caused by each other, which does not make sense, there must have been a beginning. This means something must have caused the FIRST thing.

This first cause must be eternal, and have no other cause, otherwise it would obviously not be the first cause. It is connected with all things and yet different from all other things.

This first cause can also only be one, as,if there were two,if follows that either one caused the other or there is a third thing that caused both.

This first cause he then procedes to define as "God", as simple as that. In his mind he has therefore proved the existence of one only, eternal God.

Even though 1000 years old, it is pretty neat as far "proofs" for the existence of God go. (except, I have to add, it is of course not a proof as such, an argument, yes, a good one,yes, proof, no...) For a start, this argument does not by necessity lead to a personal God,much less a "he", or even any sort of "allah", and it says nothing at all about God's involvement in the world,if any.

I find it quite hilarious that Muslims resort to using Thomas's theology, the same Thomas who had nothing at all good to say about Islam.

[Skenderbeg]

A few days ago 'Q' came with his usual spamming, in order to avoid this question concerning the inheritance of prophethood,
which according to 29.27 belonged rightfully to the seed of Lot, Isaac and Jacob, without even slightly mentioning Ishmael.

Come on Muslims Don't hide and Answer Cat, seems clear according to the Quran Mohammed is ruled out as a prophet.

[GrupoCupda]

A few days ago 'Q' came with his usual spamming, in order to avoid this question concerning the inheritance of prophethood,
which according to 29.27 belonged rightfully to the seed of Lot, Isaac and Jacob, without even slightly mentioning Ishmael.

Come on Muslims Don't hide and Answer Cat, seems clear according to the Quran Mohammed is ruled out as a prophet.

You need to take classes in reading

29.27 (85th): And We bestowed on him (Lot) Isaac and Jacob, and We established the prophethood and the Scripture among his seed...

His seed meaning Abraham seed and prophet Mohamed was Abraham grand son

[yeezevee]

GrupoCupda

His seed meaning Abraham seed and prophet Mohamed was Abraham grand son

don't be silly, both these guys were generations apart so Muhammad can not be Abraham's grand son dear GrupoCupda. What all you can say is that they are genetically connected .. well we are all connected one way or other way down to the Monkeys...

[manfred]

His seed meaning Abraham seed and prophet Mohamed was Abraham grand son

Abraham was born around 2000 to 2100 BEFORE CHRIST and Mohammed was born around 570 AFTER CHRIST.

it was Mohammed who claimed that Ishmael was his forefather, but in fact the claim that Ishmael was the founding father of the Arabs comes from a Jewish text called the book of Jubilees,not part of the bible.

The real Ishmaelites assimilated with a number of other people and simply disappeared, died out as a tribe or nation. Their diluted blood line in found in many people of the Middle East today.

The term "Arab" here is a translation of the Hebrew Arvim referring to the Nabateans. The Nabateans were known as rather nasty pirates and bandits hanging round the Red sea area around Aqaba, and into the Arabian peninsula. They did not make an appearance untill about 580BC, so they cannot have a connection to Abraham at all. They do, however, seemt o have taken over at some point the city of Petra in Jordan.

It was Mohammed who, upon hearing the story of Ishmael, and possibly also the historically false apocryphal reference to Ishmaelites being Arabs, recognised the immense usefulness of this idea for his own purpose. Thus Ishmael was promoted from immigrant into Arab land into the father of all Arabs. This was Mohammed's way to write himself into the line of prophets. Jews and Christians laughed at him for being so silly, and he never foregave mockery,not even from his own family.

In short, the quranic Ishmael is a lie, from start to finish, and apart from the fact that he MAY have lived in land that later became Arab, Ishmael has no connection with Mohammed at all.

[Marie]

A few days ago 'Q' came with his usual spamming, in order to avoid this question concerning the inheritance of prophethood,
which according to 29.27 belonged rightfully to the seed of Lot, Isaac and Jacob, without even slightly mentioning Ishmael.

Come on Muslims Don't hide and Answer Cat, seems clear according to the Quran Mohammed is ruled out as a prophet.

You need to take classes in reading

29.27 (85th): And We bestowed on him (Lot) Isaac and Jacob, and We established the prophethood and the Scripture among his seed...

His seed meaning Abraham seed and prophet Mohamed was Abraham grand son

Hey moron if Muhammed was Abraham's grandson, then I guess you and I are brother and sister.

[The Cat]

The heart of the matter from 29.27 is that Allah is NOT bestowing prophethood to Ishmael at all. He's unnamed but Isaac and Jacob.
I didn't investigated the matter so far but it seems that Ishmael is hardly mentioned in the Koran, not even in 37.100-113 dealing
with The Promised son. More troubling for Muslims is that his mother, Hagar, is never mentioned at all! I concur with 'manfred' that
Ishmael cannot be related to Muhammad and even the Islamic tradition has it that Abraham sacrificed him through some journeys on
'Buraq'... ! Because the Islamic accounts clearly stated that Abraham left Hagar and Ishmael in Mecca, never to go back.

Many Muslims scholars, including Al-Tabari, realized that this tradition was a much later one fully fabricated along the need to change
Mecca into a holy sanctuary. The Abbasid dynasty was in the habit of constructing false genealogies, first to justify their 'Coup d'Etat'.

Excerpts: http://www.answering-islam.org/Gilchrist/Vol2/4d.html

It is most significant to find the Qur'an once again taking no issue with the Bible and we read (surah 29.27): And We gave (Abraham) Isaac and Jacob, and ordained among his progeny Prophethood and Revelation, and we granted him his reward in this life: and he was in the Hereafter (of the company) of the Righteous. Yusuf Ali's translation is not strictly correct. The text says that God placed the Nubuwwah and the Kitaab, the Prophethood and the Scripture, into Isaac's line, and in another place the Qur'an says that al-Nubuwwah, the Prophethood, was expressly given to the Children of Israel (Surah 45.16).

As a matter of fact only Yusuf Ali, as far as I know, included 'Abraham' and in brackets. We usually read 'him' instead. Romanized Arabic:
Wawahabna lahu ishaqawayaAAqooba wajaAAalna fee thurriyyatihi alnnubuwwatawaalkitaba
waataynahu ajrahu fee alddunyawa-innahu fee al-akhirati lamina alssaliheena

Of course this was only a small excerpt, more into the given link. Also:
http://www.answering-islam.org/Response ... /isaac.htm
http://www.answering-islam.org/Shamoun/sacrifice.htm

* Isaac was the only promised child of Abraham, a fact which the Quran agrees with (cf. Genesis 17:15-21; Surah 11:69-73, 37:112-113, 51:24-30). Ishmael was never a promised child.

* Isaac was conceived miraculously to a barren mother and a very aged father, with the Quran likewise agreeing (cf. Genesis 17:15-17, 18:9-15, 21:1-7; Galatians 4:28-29; Surah 11:69-73, 51:24-30). Ishmael was conceived normally without the need of any miraculous intervention.

Sam Shamoun reports a testimony from Ibn al-Athir: ''The nature of the Islamic traditions regarding the Sacrifice suggests that those
locating the act in Syria and assuming Isaac to have been the intended victim WERE THE EARLIEST.....The opposing exegesis of the
Ishmael-Mecca school served not only to explain difficult passages of the Qur’an, but also to provide an acceptable origin for some of
the important ritual acts of the Islamic Pilgrimage. The lapidation and the sacrifice of the Pilgrimage, both holdovers from a pagan
pre-Islamic past, WERE RE-INTERPRETED through the narrative exegesis of the Sacrifice legend to derive from the pure and pristine
monotheism of Abraham…'' (Pp. 150-151)

Muslims like to say that the Bible has been corrupted. Well that's only from their Meccan 'fantasy land' traditions!

[AhmedBahgat]

Time to slam pussy cat again:

The heart of the matter from 29.27 is that Allah is NOT bestowing prophethood to Ishmael at all. He's unnamed but Isaac and Jacob.
I didn't investigated the matter so far but it seems that Ishmael is hardly mentioned in the Koran,

Blah blah

Read this, you ignorant and confused bum:

وَاذْكُرْ فِي الْكِتَابِ إِسْمَاعِيلَ ۚ إِنَّهُ كَانَ صَادِقَ الْوَعْدِ وَكَانَ رَسُولًا نَبِيًّا (54)
And remember in the book Ismail; indeed, he was truthful in (his) promise, and he was a messenger, a prophet.
[Al Quran ; 19:54]

-> See you stupid, Ismael is mentioned as being A MESSENGER AND A NABI: وَكَانَ رَسُولًا نَبِيًّا, i.e. and he was a messenger, a prophet.

UNLIKE Ishaq and Yaqoub, they were only mentioned as NABI, and not messengers:

فَلَمَّا اعْتَزَلَهُمْ وَمَا يَعْبُدُونَ مِنْ دُونِ اللَّهِ وَهَبْنَا لَهُ إِسْحَاقَ وَيَعْقُوبَ ۖ وَكُلًّا جَعَلْنَا نَبِيًّا (49)
So when he withdrew from them and from what they worship other than Allah, We gave him Ishaq and Yaqoub, and each of them We made a prophet.
[Al Quran ; 19:49]

-> See dumby, what the verse says about both Ishaq and Yaqoub: وَكُلًّا جَعَلْنَا نَبِيًّا, i.e. and each of them We made a prophet.

I.e. from the perspective of Allah, Ismael has more of a mission as messenger and a prophet of Allah than both Ishaq and Yaqoub who were not messengers but were only prophets.

You have been slam dunked again, pussy cat:

# 76

[GrupoCupda]

GrupoCupda

His seed meaning Abraham seed and prophet Mohamed was Abraham grand son

don't be silly, both these guys were generations apart so Muhammad can not be Abraham's grand son dear GrupoCupda. What all you can say is that they are genetically connected .. well we are all connected one way or other way down to the Monkeys...

if you think that way then Jews are not connected to Abraham either

[GrupoCupda]

His seed meaning Abraham seed and prophet Mohamed was Abraham grand son

Abraham was born around 2000 to 2100 BEFORE CHRIST and Mohammed was born around 570 AFTER CHRIST.

it was Mohammed who claimed that Ishmael was his forefather, but in fact the claim that Ishmael was the founding father of the Arabs comes from a Jewish text called the book of Jubilees,not part of the bible.

The real Ishmaelites assimilated with a number of other people and simply disappeared, died out as a tribe or nation. Their diluted blood line in found in many people of the Middle East today.

The term "Arab" here is a translation of the Hebrew Arvim referring to the Nabateans. The Nabateans were known as rather nasty pirates and bandits hanging round the Red sea area around Aqaba, and into the Arabian peninsula. They did not make an appearance untill about 580BC, so they cannot have a connection to Abraham at all. They do, however, seemt o have taken over at some point the city of Petra in Jordan.

It was Mohammed who, upon hearing the story of Ishmael, and possibly also the historically false apocryphal reference to Ishmaelites being Arabs, recognised the immense usefulness of this idea for his own purpose. Thus Ishmael was promoted from immigrant into Arab land into the father of all Arabs. This was Mohammed's way to write himself into the line of prophets. Jews and Christians laughed at him for being so silly, and he never foregave mockery,not even from his own family.

In short, the quranic Ishmael is a lie, from start to finish, and apart from the fact that he MAY have lived in land that later became Arab, Ishmael has no connection with Mohammed at all.

I know that Abraham was not the father of prophet mohamed do not be silly I am not ignorant like you . You have no proof of what you said about Ishmeal . You are just lying


The following genealogy is taken from Syed Yusuf:


1 Abraham Hanifa (AS) was the father of
2 Isma'il (AS) was the father of
3 Kedar was the father of
4 "Adnaan was the father of
5 Ma'add was the father of
6 Nizaar was the father of
7 Mudar was the father of
8 Ilyaas was the father of
9 Mudrikah was the father of
10 Khuzaimah was the father of
11 Kinaanah was the father of
12 Al-Nadr was the father of
13 Maalik was the father of
14 Quraysh was the father of
15 Ghaalib was the father of
16 Lu'ayy was the father of
17 Ka'ab was the father of
18 Murrah was the father of
19 Kilaab was the father of
20 Qusayy was the father of
21 "Abd Manaaf was the father of
22 Haashim was the father of
23 "Abdul Muttalib was the father of
24 "Abdullah was the father of
25 Muhammad (SAW)

[manfred]

I know that Abraham was not the father of prophet mohamed do not be silly I am not ignorant like you . You have no proof of what you said about Ishmeal . You are just lying

When ever someone gets personal and calling people names, it means they know that they cannot answer.

First, you mean ISHMAEL, not "Ishmeal", right?

Then, what would like me to explain more,or show you evidence for?

Now, have a look at that geneology you supplied: Abraham and Mohammed are a MINIMUM of 2500 years apart. Your have supplied 25 steps,that is 100 years for each generation. So ALL the people mentioned must have been at least 100 years old when they had a child. Pacemakers were not invented yet, nor was Viagra. The normal age-gap between father and son is between 20 and 40 years. There are NO scientifically confirmed cases of a 100 year old man having fathered a baby I have ever heard of. Have you?

So, bin that list, it makes no sense at all. That's just the invention of a well-meaning but not hugely intelligent Muslim. Simple Maths shows this to be obviously wrong.

[Wootah]

You actually saying that Jews and Arab christians did worship god by the name of Allah.

Stawman arguments now? Jews and Christians never worshiped any god called Allah. It's just that "God" in the bible was translated into Arabic into "Allah", by some, due to pressure from their Muslim "overlords".

Look, this topic has been debated many times here, so I am getting tired to repeat things over and over. Carry on showing you behind to hubal five times a day, but leave the Jewish and Christian God out of it, He has nothing to do with Allah.

By the way, you do know that hubal also was knowns as the two horned Ba'al? Do you want to tell us about this two-horned prophet or yours?

Also,, tell us the origins of the rites of the hajj...

Manfred - even for my benefit I appreciate if you re-argue the case. New eyes are always watching often anonymously.

[The Cat]

Read this, you ignorant and confused bum:
And remember in the book Ismail; indeed, he was truthful in (his) promise, and he was a messenger, a prophet.
[Al Quran ; 19:54]

-> See you stupid, Ismael is mentioned as being A MESSENGER AND A NABI: وَكَانَ رَسُولًا نَبِيًّا, i.e. and he was a messenger, a prophet.

UNLIKE Ishaq and Yaqoub, they were only mentioned as NABI, and not messengers:
So when he withdrew from them and from what they worship other than Allah, We gave him Ishaq and Yaqoub, and each of them We made a prophet.
[Al Quran ; 19:49]

-> See dumby, what the verse says about both Ishaq and Yaqoub: وَكُلًّا جَعَلْنَا نَبِيًّا, i.e. and each of them We made a prophet.

I.e. from the perspective of Allah, Ismael has more of a mission as messenger and a prophet of Allah than both Ishaq and Yaqoub who were not messengers but were only prophets.

Ishmael is mentioned as a messenger because the Arab people were still to be taught of the Scriptures. Jews were already so given.
It doesn't confer 'superiority' to him, rather than emphasizing the religious illiteracy of his people. Isaac and Jacob didn't have to be
declared messengers since that belonged to their father Abraham's (19.51)! A messenger per nation is what Allah promised and since
Ishmael was already the Messenger of Allah to the Arabs, then Muhammad must have been sent to the Mongols or whomever else !

Ishmael is NOT mentioned as from the rightful seed of Abraham which 19.49 ascertain AGAIN to be Isaac and Jacob. This is underline
again in 19.58: the seed is that of Abraham and Israel. Thus the Koran recognize the biblical account: Ishmael was the messenger send
to his nation, among hundreds of others, ruling out Muhammad as to the Arabs! Yet he's not the legitimate 'son of the Promise'.

So I ask AB and Muslims, where is it stated either in the Koran or the Bible that Ishmael was from the rightful seed of Abraham?
29.27 underlines that this seed is that of Isaac/Jacob so the Koran clearly dismiss Ishmael as the son of the Promise... Surah 37:

37.100-102: --My Lord! Vouchsafe me of the righteous. --So We gave him tidings of a gentle son. --And when (his son) was old enough
to walk with him, (Abraham) said: O my dear son, I have seen in a dream that I must sacrifice thee. So look, what thinkest thou ? He
said: O my father! Do that which thou art commanded. Allah willing, thou shalt find me of the steadfast.

37.112-113: --And we gave him tidings of the birth of Isaac, a prophet of the righteous. --And We blessed him and Isaac. And of their
seed are some who do good, and some who plainly wrong themselves.

Sarah is mentioned (by allusion) as the rightful mother and Hagar is not named even once in the whole Koran! 11:71-72: --And his wife,
standing by laughed when We gave her good tidings (of the birth) of Isaac, and, after Isaac, of Jacob. --She said: Oh woe is me! Shall I
bear a child when I am an old woman, and this my husband is an old man ? Lo! this is a strange thing!

The complete omission of Ishmael (and of Hagar) here talks volumes...

According to the Koran (and the Bible) it is Isaac who is of divine intervention (like Adam and Jesus), Ishmael is not. Period.

[GrupoCupda]

cat said : Ishmael is mentioned as a messenger because the Arab people were still to be taught of the Scriptures. Jews were already so given.

There were no Jews and no Judaism during time of Issac and Jacob . Jews are going to exist as race after Jacob and Judaism during Moses time . You do not even know basic thing