Does Allah = Moon God?

*sigh* the one proper name of the god of abraham is: : yah.
: hu.
: -eh.the name is composed of three semi-vowels. if i wanted to spell "jehovah" in hebrew, it would look like: '‘. notice the tsadi-apostrophe? that "ja" and the bet is the "va" sound. the vav, in this case, makes an "oh" sound. in normal usage, it's an oh or a oo in the middle of the word. only a va at begining of a word, as the conjunction "and."and gee, that's really too bad for anyone who calls god "god," isn't it? including, i dunno, 99% of christianity, including any arabic christian. you have not established this. there is an extensive portion of the qu'ran about abraham. you quoted part of itThis message has been edited by arachnophilia, 05-05-2006 01:07 AM

---

This is just a string of assertions, you do realise that don't you? You said that the Qu'ran doesn't disasociate from the polytheists, yet it does. The Qu'ran says, Allah is the God of the Scriptures, the God of the Jews, the God of Christians. We are not talking about Islamists by the way, we are talking about Muslims. Muslims do not reject the Biblical God, nor do they reject the Bible.

quote:

---

[87.16] Nay! you prefer the life of this world,
[87.17] While the hereafter is better and more lasting.
[87.18] Most surely this is in the earlier scriptures,
[87.19] The scriptures of Ibrahim and Musa.

---

However, they believe it has been corrupted in unknown ways, and believe it cannot be relied on (your immortal soul is something you gotta be careful with). You are just repeating the same assertions over and over again. Normally I'm quite patient about this, but at least keep the theme of the conversation in your mind. A division is made between polythiesm (moon, star and sun worship specifically get a mention) and the God (Allah) that was revealed to Ibrahim.There were two Allah's of note. One was the pagan God and one was the God of the Jews and Christians. The Qu'ran goes to great pains to point out which Allah it was talking about, yet you still get it wrong. Naturally that is under debate too - but here is the thing, the Arabs do call Allah by a surprisingly similar Arabic version of YHWH (and if Jehovah is OK as an anglicization of his name, them al-Qayym seems to be OK as an Arabianism (?)). Naturally Jehovah isn't God's 'real' name, that's just silly.

Hi Ifen. Long time no postages.I took a deep breath on that last paragraph of yours. I understand the sarcasm to make your point, but there is a logical factor no one seems to have voiced yet;that if we look at the Koran as claiming something, then it's irrelevant what the Koran says.If this isn't so, then why the double standard of asking for extra-biblical sources when we attampt to show that the bible says something? (You can't have it both ways).The fact is that the Koran ludicrously claims that Allah is God despite that claim contradicting the whole of the biblical theme. Now this claim was hundreds of years after the fact, at an implausible and unlikely edition to the bible, after it's told us everything.Parsimoniously, the Koran would be an inapropriate addage to the completion of the scriptures in Christ Jesus.So Buz can claim that Jesus is the pink unicorn but that won't alter the fact that it's the Koran writers that are ultimately the claimants here.So literally, who cares how many verses Mod and others pull from it? They can recite the whole thing and it wouldn't make a difference logically.Forgive me, but I just had to use Buz's queen or she would have sat there all month.(Just jesting Buz).So really, what's more likely? That it was the Lord God, or touted to be?Today, I shall write the chronicles of the Pink Unicorn, and I want you to assume that the unicorn is Jesus because I say he is and it won't matter that my teachings are something entirely different from his.Here's the facts;

​

1. It is not proven that Allah is the Lord God (bible).
2. It is not proven that Allah is the moongod.

​

3. There is apparently a sharing of characteristics between the moongod previously worshipped, and Allah. Which means it follows that he might have originated from that god, as they did afterall believe in that god previously. (as far as I know, from the information I have read).

​

4. Allah, if biblical, makes no biblical sense whatsoever.So, you tell me what makes sense by forgetting ideological differences, and just looking at the facts.For me, a reasonable conclusion is that the Muslims believe Allah is the God of the bible in some loose fashion.Ultimately, if the Muslims reserve the right to tell us who Allah is, then we reserve the right to tell you who bibleGod is, and he isn't Allah.This message has been edited by mike the wiz, 05-05-2006 09:24 AM

Hey Mike,You're actually closer to the mark than you realize. One of the key points to realize in this rather lengthy and somewhat circular discussion has been that from an "outsider" perspective Islam has no more nor less claim to be the "Truth" (tm) than do the Christians, Jews, pagans, etc. The Prophet (or whoever actually wrote the Qu'ran) literally plagiarized vast portions of the Biblical Old Testament (as well as the Torah) mythology. The verses cited by several people here pretty much "prove" it. Of course, the Christians ripped off the Jewish Torah whole cloth, as well - unabashedly I might add. The Ba'hai ripped off all three (they claim to be the "fourth revealed religion"). However, that's precisely what Islam claims: the Qu'ran "completes and corrects" - not the Bible or Torah, per se - the misunderstandings and misrepresentations of the "worshipers". From an atheist's perspective, il n'y a pas un qui en vaut l'autre. They're all based on an unevidenced supernatural deity and there's not much to choose between them.The reason for this thread's existence is simply the utterly spurious and patently false claims made by Buz's source in the OP. Those claims have been very effectively rebutted on the thread. Islam is not based on some pagan deity, any more than Christianity is. If anything, Islam is based on Christianity (at least the OT) - albeit for an arguably different end than what the Bible was designed for. Actually, the point is there aren't any characteristics shared between the Islamic Allah and any pagan god. There are lots of characteristics shared with the Judeo-Christian God, OTOH. Buz's source's attempt to "paganize" Islam just doesn't work. Of course not. Islam is not Christianity. There are many, many points of difference. It is completely reasonable for the Christians to reject Islam, and vice versa - and for pretty much the same reasons. I think one of the key perspective differences, however, is that Islam "officially" accepts Jews and Christians as fellow "people of the Book" (guess which book they're referring to), whereas (at least Christians) consider Moslems the worst kind of heretics. Never the twain shall meet, probably. Yep. Spot on. Now just try and convince Buz of this very rational conclusion.Demonizing the "other guy" is a pretty standard human response to threat - and Islam has looong been regarded as a threat to Christianity. Secularly OR religiously. The interactions between the two religions make for some very interesting history.

Quetzal! Wow, another great poster I haven't heard from in a long time. Good to hear from one of my teachers.Some great points there. Not much I disagree with, which is far more pleasing than a belidgerant post. I understand why you say that. From your perspective, it's pretty much the same thing. You have the advantage for sure! I admitt that the NT would also have to come under the same logic I applied to the Koran. That's the penalty I have to pay I go about claiming objectivity. So I will stay true and concede that point.I just think there is a better connection theology-wise with Christianity. I only have musings though. That is, the story of the Messiah, and the plan of the adoption of ALL people, because of the promise to Abraham. The giving up of God's son because Abraham was willing to do the same, etc...Logically, it's entirely possible that the Christians made it all up. I simply believe there has to be the truth about God somewhere, if he exists, so I choose the NT knowing that I have no proof whatsoever other than trying to make a coherent theology that would make sense to people. For me, this guy Jesus just stinks of truth. That's all it is. I have no argument as such other than showing how the wisdom is good. Well, this is why I envy the atheist and wish I could be one in a way. Because to me, it all looks like stupidity, but unfortunately I have to be part of the mess if I believe in Christ.I know we must claim our God is God, etc... just like the other guy does, but ofcourse I think this doesn't mean that we can't get along peacefully.But science and logic don't always have a say concerning truth-value of scriptures, as is clear as we cannot deduce which is true.As for Buz, I cannot say he is any guiltier than the opposition, who insist on defending the Koran-claim.(ofcourse, nothing personal, just my humble evaluation which isn't worth much). For why do they favour it? What is their motive? I still think he is probably correct. (only probability-wise). It just seems the OT and NT are slightly more of the same thing. They're both Jewish origin. (I stick to my conclusion from the other post, nevertheless)Bye for now.:edited out flem. My posts get longer as I get older: Lol.This message has been edited by mike the wiz, 05-05-2006 10:55 AM

Okay. Do you think the god of the Catholics, the Jehovah witnesses, the Lutherans, the Jews, and the Mormons the same god? or different gods? What about the god of the inquisitors and the god of St. Francis?The religions are different. God is a term that can't be proven true or false and has no referent that we can point to. We certainly do have a wide range of religions.Denying Allah is the moon god is talking about the historical source of Islam. Assering that Allah is the moon god or the god of the Jews amounts to the same meaningless statement in the end. I could as easily say Allah equals unknown meaningless term. Moon God equals unknown meaningless term. Ywhw equals unknown meaningless term. Does unknown meaningless term equal unknown meaningless term or not? Well, how would we know?lfen

Most of Qu'ran verses I have quoted recently have been because Buz and his source state that the Qu'ran never says this, or discusses that. The verses I quote do say this and that. The claims about what the Qu'ran doesn't say can easily be addressed by posting what the Qu'ran says. Assuming that the Holy Bible is the inerrant word of God. Muslims do not believe that this is the case. Muslims believe that the inerrant word of God is in the Qu'ran and the Holy Bible is unreliable. The Holy Bible is pretty right, says Islam, but its got some vital bits wrong. This is the problem. The only characteristics they share are their titles. They are both called God. If them being called God means there are shared characteristics, then YHWH also shares that characteristic, since they called the Christian and Jewish God 'God' too.Other than that, they both have Mecca as a holy ground. Did you ever here how the transition from pagan worshipping at Mecca became God's worship?It turns out that Muslims believe the Kaaba was built by Abraham as a place of worship to God. They believe that pagans took over the place, and Muhammed came to take it back for God (it wasn't a friendly take over). After that the shrine was dedicated back to the God that Abraham worshipped.And finally, there is the crescent moon. A symbol adopted by the Ottoman empire, and thus is associated now with Islam. It is no secret that the moon played a pivotal role in Arabic culture, so its not surprising to see Arabs using it. Almost Precisely! (Actually its not Muslims that tell us, it is the Qu'ran) People are having difficulty with this concept but its very simple. If Christians or Jews accepted that Allah was their God, they'd all be Muslim, or Muslims would all be Christian/Jewish. However, Allah is defined in terms of YHWH. It says that Allah = YHWH and that what Allah had to say to the earlier prophets was recorded incorrectly, or was sometimes corrupted afterwards.contemporary Non-Muslims agree according to this source (New York Times),

quote:

---

Since there are no Arabic chronicles from the first century of Islam, the two [scholars] looked at several non-Muslim, seventh-century accounts that suggested Muhammad was perceived not as the founder of a new religion but as a preacher in the Old Testament tradition, hailing the coming of a Messiah. Many of the early documents refer to the followers of Muhammad as "hagarenes," and the "tribe of Ishmael," in other words as descendants of Hagar, the servant girl that the Jewish patriarch Abraham used to father his son Ishmael.

---

Christianity began as a sect of Judiasm so this makes sense. The two sects grew apart especially when Constantine adopted Christianity as the official religion of the empire.Mohammed for some reason was careful to base his religion on Jewish traditions.I'm not a fan of Islam. My opposition to Buz's OP is based on my intolerance with bs and stupidity in the mass marketing of religion. The idea that if we sell the false notion that Muslims are worshipping a pagan moon god we will some how mobilize anything more than more dollars for the coffers of the televised Christian money making machines is ridiculous. Pat Robertson and his slimey ilk have enough ill gotten gains as it is.We've enough real political, social, cultural conflicts with Islamic nations without creating something as patently stupid as this.lfen

Your unicorn is just a painted horse with a banana strapped to his nose.Thanks for the interesting information about the link with Abraham. I'll read more about that. Certainly the Muslims hold some similar views to mine, in that I reject some biblical texts as wrong, but I do that for reasons to do with the psychology of people's actions and contradictions between teachings and events. (Example; spoils of war is murder, which is against the commandment). That's fair enough. I understand. Yes. My position is more along the lines that if God does exist, then what the bloody hell does he say, and which one is he? I'm not really bothered what his name is, I just want to know what he says. That's why one has to, if he is to believe, discern what is most likely to be true. For me that's Christ, for others it's Allah. It's the same thing really, the desire to believe. That much I do apreciate.

Well, it's like Jesus said. The pharisees thought they had the same God as Jesus didn't they? But apparently their father was the devil.Their precepts were not the same. They thought they worshipped God, but apparently they were of satan according to Christ. If these sects claim they believe in Christ, they won't concentrate on making money, they'll concentrate on the teachings of Christ, won't they? That's how you'll know who they are.It doesn't really matter what they claim. Their actions will show you who they're of.

Only 34 posts left until End of Thread.

​

It is a good time to start winding down and presenting summaries or conclusions.

​

Remember, keep on topic.

​

Thanks for debating, carry on.

It revises the very same polytheist moon god Allah as was worshipped at Mecca before Islam into Mohammed's monotheist deity. As I said, Mohammed had no conversion. He converted his pagan deity. You call this disasociation? For one reason only - to proselyte Christians into the Muslim fold and empower Islam as the only religion as the Quran advocates. You're getting pickey here. Islamists are Muslims. Muslim clerics and leaders do not tolerate the proclamation of the Bible and/or the Bible's god Jehovah in Muslam lands. How many times do I need to repeat this? As per usual, Mohammed applies the scriptures only when he can do so to his advantage and the promotion of his own book and his own god. Talk is cheap. In practice he and his followers all pick and choose only what scriptures fit their cause. Why must Bibles need be smuggled into many Muslim nations? Yes. Why? Because you people who have yet to substantially refute keep insisting your same falacies. There are thousands of gods/allahs/elohim, including others of note. Allah doesn't cut it for identifying with the Bible, especially when there is so much opposition between the two religions due to the doctrinal differences of the respective gods and their prophets. WHY DOES iSLAM REJECT JEHOVAH? PLAIN AND SIMPLE. THEIR GOD IS THE PAGAN MOON GOD OF MOHAMMED'S ANCESTORY. HE NEVER EVER REJECTED HIS POLYISTIC FAMILY DEITY, ALLAH. Then pray tell, why is it in the OT manuscripts over 6000 times?? Jehovah is not Biblically generic for all gods as is elohim/god. It applies only to the one god. What is the proper name of the Muslim god/allah/elohim? It certainly is not Jehovah. Do you understand what the term proper name means in English grammer?

---

BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW

1. It has been empirically documented that Mohammed's family god Allah has historical and archeological ties to the moon god.2. Because of Mohammed's aspirations of having his god Allah exclusively worshipped he erased the moon aspects of his god Allah and dropped the other gods of his heritage. Thus Muslims are pretty much unaware of the history of their god verified by archeology.3. That Muslims are unaware of the history of their god does not change that historical record.3. Jerimiah 10:10 says Jehovah is the true god. If Mohammed and his followers had any regard for the credibility of the Biblical scriptures or the god of these scriptures, they would respect this god Jehovah and allow that name to be published. That name is mentioned in the scriptures more than any other proper name of any deity, over 6000 times. That they don't implicates their pagan moon god Allah as other than the god Jehovah of the scriptures.4. Corroborating (I say corroborating) the above is the fact that the crescent moon is a symbol on the mosques of Islam as well as on other things related.

---

BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW

I do know what the term proper name means in English grammar and Jehovah isn't what the Jews called God. You are doing what I said you would do, clinging to your ignorant repetition. Arach can explain this better but here is something you can check out. So Buz you know better than the Bible and the Koran. We don't need know stinkin' books we just ask you. The books are wrong, the people are wrong, Buz knows and is the only one who is right. Now, I leave you to bask in your smug Willowtree self ignorance. Its a waste of time to talk to you about science or anything else for that matter. You think you already know everything and are seemingly unwilling to learn anything. lfen

i've explained it to him numerous times. i had a whole thread about this. twice, i have broken it apart into syllables, and explain how they are pronounced. one example can be found at the top of this page. the other, i even did it with the correct vowels. in fact, in the example above, i even spelled out "jehovah" in hebrew, for buz to compare.your source explains it as well as can be said -- but buzsaw does not want or care to listen. buz knows better. who are we to tell him he's getting the name of his god wrong?This message has been edited by arachnophilia, 05-05-2006 10:56 PM

---