Five-year-old Ukrainian boy slaughtered by Muslim shouting "Allahu akbar"

"Islam is not from Allah, but from Satan."

Yeah, Mohammed never did realize when he was hearing the real Gabriel, and when Satan pretending to be Gabriel. He only caught, and expurgated, a few verses (the ones Rushdie cited). In fact the bulk of the Koran is from Satan, and poor Mo never caught on. Some prophet!

But, Marisol, I would very respectfully ask how is it possible that JW can't be a "sectarian" site from time to time? How can a devout Christian not conclude that Mohammed was an impostor, a wicked man, and aver so from a Christian perspective (the wonder for me, and I write this as an agnostic, is that any Christian can be complimentary of Mohammed or Islam at all)?

Yes, I understand the need to bury differences in order to oppose the most effective spiritual totalitarian ideology ever (I and many others who post here at JW have said as much time and time again), but how is it possible for devout Christians or Jews, followers of the only other two major monotheistic religions, not to bring in their religious perspectives from time to time? Can't always put this on the shelf, I would contend, though I would add that, for followers of the two "enlightened" monotheistic faiths (yes, this is a tendentious statement but that doesn't mean it is incorrect), it is incumbent upon them to realize that many who are not Christian or Jewish (like myself) are on their side in this struggle against Islamic supremacism. And so they too should act with wisdom, understanding, tolerance and a sense of the possible.

I want you to know that I appreciate the difficult task you have been assigned to keep things "on topic." You do a magnificent job of this. But devout Christians and Jews MUST take into account how inimical, ugly and destructive Islam is to their worldview and belief system, and from a Christian or Jewish perspective and not just from a humanitarian or "non-sectarian" one. Imagine a site where Nazism is the subject of much criticism but it is disallowed to promote the idea that democracy is in accord with the best form of government ever devised by man and sullies Nazi principles most effectively. Same here I would argue. Some slack should be cut, but neither should it be too much slack. Ah, like most everything in life, it's a question of drawing lines and getting things approximately right. Perfection is never possible, only an ideal to be aimed for.

With affection and respect I convey to you what I just have. Hope you and your loved ones are doing well.

Thank you, Boneshack ...you're right, it is baffling; and we don't dare confuse muslims with the truth about muhammad and/or allah. I think that pride prevents them from facing how evil this demonic-duo truly are.

There is nothing in your reply, Marisol, with which I disagree (yes indeed, proselytizing and speaking the truth is sometimes a close call---always has been, always will be). Please, most definitely, keep up the good work, which has been very good work indeed. I'm certain that most regular posters here at JW would second my assessment without hesitation respecting your delicate touch and performance. In short, you are most appreciated by the vast majority here at JW. Of this, I have no doubt, even though I am a great doubter by nature.

"Allah is not Jesus"

Agreed, Undaunted.

Muhammad conveniently and willingly mistook the Devil for Allah because doing so sanctioned and justified his evil desires: his lust for women, his greed for material wealth, and his obsession with power over women, as well as over Muslims and non-Muslims alike.

So, after 1 and/or 2 and/or 3, the ball is back in our court.

The more that ask and get 1 and/or 2, and/or 3, the more that will come to understand (as we do) the nature of islam. There are still too many westerners unaware and this kind of repeated questioning is needed from all quarters. The muslims will accuse, deceive and reject but this in itself is instructive and, I think, the point of asking, no?

FYI, "Allah" is the Arabic word for "God". If you believe that Jesus is God, which I do, then Jesus is Allah.

Not too long ago, Christians (or was it a Christian newspaper) in a certain country were sued by Muslims for using the name "Allah" to refer to their God. Surprisingly, the court sided with the Christians because these Christians have been referring to their God as "Allah" for more than a thousand years.

But as I have clarified, all the evil commandments in Islam that are attributed to Allah are not from Allah.

If someone committed a crime in your name, even though you did not tell that person to commit such a crime, are you to be blamed for that crime? If a hundred people committed many crimes in your name, crimes that you never told them to commit, are you to be blamed for those crimes? Of course not.

In the same way, these Muslims that commit all kinds of evil in the name of Allah, Allah should not be blamed for their crimes. Allah never commanded them to do evil despite their claim.

Islam is not from Allah, despite Muhammad's claim. To say that Islam is from Allah is to buy into the lie of the Devil.

Hesperado,
You are aware of how certain Muslim leaders, supremacists, jihadists, invite non-Muslims to Islam, as a prelude to making war on those non-Muslims. That, I gather, is Islamic law: in certain circumstances, before you can make war on the infidel, you must invite him to Islam.

What Robert Spencer is doing seems to me somewhat similar, except that it expresses a genuine just war ethos of the West, rather than Islamic imperialist belligerence. In a public way, so that he represents many others, Spencer is, shall we say, trying diplomacy first, before hostilities. He is asking for reform, and the fact that reform has so little chance is in one sense irrelevant. One of the more important things about diplomacy is that Westerners often cannot in good conscience go to war unless they have at least given diplomacy a chance. Once they have tried diplomacy, they can sometimes achieve all the more unity in going to war.

So Spencer's public, tough diplomacy has two results: 1) though this outcome is extremely unlikely, one can't absolutely rule out that his work might help provoke the development of a significant Islamic reform movement and, 2) if, as is likely, no significant reform movement appears, and things just go on getting worse and worse, Spencer will have helped prepare the public for war one day. He will have done so by using diplomacy for so many years to ask Muslims to reform, and he will have done so by educating large numbers of non-Muslims about Islam.

You have your reasons for thinking all of that is wrong-headed in this situation. You believe, I guess, that all Muslims should be kicked out of the U.S. in fairly short order (over a year's time? Two years? Six months? Three months?) You believe that Americans should learn whatever they need to know in order to want to adopt some such deportation program as you propose.

I wonder if you have really considered, in detail, what such a deportation program might entail. I suspect that if you did, you might not be so sure about it. I also wonder if you have thought through what the response to Spencer would be if, as you desire, he supported mass deportations (he has repeatedly rejected anything like that).

Spencer himself has said in a video that he considers such things -- mass deportations -- not in tune with "our values" -- by which he meant, I gather, what was born in ancient Athens, Rome, and in particular Jerusalem. In the same video, he went on to talk about how we could remain in tune with our values and deal with the problem of Islam: he started talking about how we dealt with Shinto at the end of World War II, banning all its political aspects, but permitting any purely private elements to remain. In Japan that approach kept us in tune with the American First Amendment. I don't know if such an approach could be made to work with Islam.

Part of Robert's suggestion to non-Muslims, is simply to enforce existing laws, including laws against sedition.

But I think you know about all this...

"The problem with Islam is that it teaches that virtue should be practiced, even if by force, under pain of death. That's where the Devil comes in. That's when the Devil, Satan, takes over, and runs the entire Islamic show."

Dear Laurence ...

allah is NOT the God of the Bible, and your above comment unwittingly supports this fact. I mean it doesn't make sense when you write that on the one hand allah is the God of the Bible, but on the other hand you describe him as satan. Sorry, but your conclusion is impossible at best.

This informative link lays out solid arguments to why allah is not the God of the Bible:

http://www.kingmessiahproject.com/is_allah_not_God.html

"Non-sectarian" doesn't mean you can't mention religion, or your own religion ...

Thank you for clarifying this issue, Marisol :)

"Reasonable minds can disagree respecting whether "Allah" is the same deity as that worshipped by the Jews and Christians. Well, either it is or it isn't."

......

"So, what's the big deal here? Either the Muslims got it wrong one way or the other. That's the bottom line."

The answer is very simple. If the deity is attributed the exact same characteristics then the three monotheistic religions are referring to the same deity whatever name they use.

As this is clearly not the case, then logically it can not be the same deity they are worshiping. Whether such a deity exist in reality or only different concepts of the deity exist in the minds of the believers is the really hard question.

The answer depends on how you define the words "exist" and "reality". And that is a question we must leave to conceptual philosohpy to answer.

I hope my answer is not too sectarian. ;-)

Have a nice day Wellington.

The first Arabic translation of the Bible was made about the 9th century. Nowhere is the name of Allah found in the Old or New Testament. When Islam became the dominant political force people were coerced to use the name Allah for God or suffer the consequences from the hands of militant Muslims. Because of Islam's dominance Allah became the common name of God. The translators of the Bible gave in to the religious pressures and substituted Allah for Yahweh in the Arabic Bibles, but this is not the name of the God of the Hebrews, nor of the creator who made heaven and earth because of its source in paganism

traeh, I copied and stored your response to Hesperado, because it so appealed to me + gave me new formulations in arguments I use in the discussions I have and love so much about Islam & Democracy.

Yes, it seems so hopeless to entice big numbers of Muslims to reform Islam (but, who knows, in view of all this information about it disseminated worldwide and new generations absorbing it and the arguments going back and forth, real freedom of speech may yet save us all).

But indeed, as you point out so well, there are other reasons to act as Geert Wilders and Robert Spencer do. In a way PCMC-people, if they were not so bloody ignorant or heavily prejudiced most of the time, could be admired for their feeling of fair play and golden rule. I feel that to persuade them takes a lot of logical/ rational thinking/ speaking.

But with monitoring and information headway may be made. As was shown in Holland where the Freedom Party got 15 % of the vote on 9 june, out from 6 %. Moreover, the Liberals, who had an anti-immigration-point of sorts, also won big (from # 15 % to 24 %). Whereas Christian-Democrats, still leaning to old PCMC-standpoints, were halved, from # 30 % to # 15 % of the votes. And it was shown by commentators that many of their voters defected to Freedom Party and Liberals. Whereas the leftist and centre parties remained the same or lost.

But what I learned from Hesperado was that: There are criminals and crazies doing horrible acts among all the peoples of the world. And in that respect all peoples roughly are a lot the same. But that on top of that there are religiously motivated criminal horrible acts, in which Islam "excels". (With to my knowledge no highly beneficial acts motivated by Islam to compensate for that).

Of course many Muslims and Islam-apologists will again and again say: "Do not blame Islam for what Muslims do".
(And we may respond with: "Do not then praise Islam for what Muslims do also).

They will forever maintain that the motivation of the heinous deeds done by self-confessed Muslims, shouting "Allahu Akbar" was ANYTHING but Islam, or perhaps "Mainstream Real Islam".

But JW, FFI, Islam Watch keep monitoring and recording, disseminating knowledge about Islamic teachings and deeds of self-confessed Muslims and connect the 2. There are many incidents that connect the 2 and the arguments for it are very strong.

This means a (big) part of Islam and of the Muslim-community very probably has detrimental (on balance) influence on mankind.

This realization we put forward and it is this eventually that: A. will persuade a large enough number of voters to treat Islam and Muslims differently, like Geert Wilders and co want. That is, if Muslims DO GET OFFERED, BUT NOT TAKE some reasonable way out of the CURRENT ISLAM.
B. Will enable governments to eventually consider Muslims guilty of being in favor of a totalitarian detrimental ideology (at least in part, intention and potential) and enable to give them a way out in promising and showing another loyalty or real neutrality, or if this way out is not taken, to DISCRIMINATE wisely but resolutely against them in some crucial respects.

The how still remains to be figured out, but the old paradigm that it must be forbidden to discriminate on grounds of religion, in respect to Islam, must eventually be replaced.

That's it!?!?!?

Show us how this isn't muhammad driven violence...
You can't, so you won't...

Sad nethadi...

"Your attempts to portray this (deplorable) tragedy as an exclusively Islamic phenomenon immediately discredits you and your followers/supporters."

You are absolutely right - scientifically speaking. No matter how many times Muslims commit premeditated murders on children, women and innocent civilians it can never be proven with absolute certainty that ALL these atrocities were committed because the perpetrator(s) believed in and acted in accordance with certain Islamic doctrines.

It is nothing more than a good working hypothesis among many other possible hypotheses and it is based upon inductive reasoning, also known as induction or inductive logic.

It is a kind of reasoning that allows for the possibility that the conclusion is false even where all of the premises are true. The premises of an inductive logical argument indicate some degree of support (inductive probability) for the conclusion but do not entail it; i.e. they do not ensure its truth.

For this reason all scientific claims (theories) are temporary and in principle falsifiable.

Among the possibilities (alternative hypothesis) are that some Muslims may murder innocent non-Muslim children because of insanity and not because they believe in the doctrines demanding them to kill infidels indiscriminately.

What is the case here can only be determined after careful psychiatric evaluation of the perpetrator.

Technically you are wrong...Dump the name Allah...Allah is not God and does not even come close...Allah is nothing more than a name change of the ancient Chaldean god Sin...The 'moon god'...Putting the 'name' Allah in the same sentence as Jesus, is an insult to Jesus...Mahound gave Allah a promotion from moon god the 'The God'...The promotion was self serving and undeserved...To believe that Allah is the ultimate God of the universe and created everything, is a delusion...There is no reason to give credit for Mahoundian delusions...it only encourages them...

Hesperado,

What do we do then? Ask them again?

Most apt reply.
But it will never get you equaly apt answer, since the propagation of the whole delusion you are pointing at rests on the scret hope that the question will never be asked.

It reminds one of frenzied attacks by the Israeli Left on Meir Kahane for asking them what are they going to do when “Israeli” Muslims, if not expelled, together with the “Palestinians” will become numerous enough to effectively end the short history of modern Israel as the Jewish country.
The Left hated him most passionately because, being unable to convincingly reply to that simple question, it knew it has been exposed as propagators of a fraud.

"Muhammad conveniently and willingly mistook the Devil for Allah because doing so sanctioned and justified his evil desires: his lust for women..." Posted by Laurence

Laurence is wrong about Allah. Shiva nailed it and prominent Christian theologians agree that Allah is a different entity then God. It is a flimsy and lonely argument to suggest that the big Mo mistook the Devil for Allah.

My opinion is that big Mo used the prevailing middle eastern pagan god diety of the time (Allah) as cover for his lust for power and anything else he wanted.

"Here's the deal...?

WTF?

In Islam, Jesus is just a prophet, and inferior to Muhammad at that. Jesus is not, in their delusion, the perfect, risen son of God to whom every knee shall bow.

And, to them, there is no such thing as the virgin birth.

The concept of a divine trinity is called "shirk", the most henious Muslim sin because it suggests to them that there is something equal to Allah.

Ergo, the God of the Christians and the Jews is most certainly not the god of Muslims.

And you, sir, are a fool.

big-pete,

"The more that ask and get 1 and/or 2, and/or 3, the more that will come to understand (as we do) the nature of islam. There are still too many westerners unaware and this kind of repeated questioning is needed from all quarters. The muslims will accuse, deceive and reject but this in itself is instructive and, I think, the point of asking, no?"

The only problem with your theory is that Spencer wasn't talking about just old anyone asking Muslims -- but authorities: i.e., our Western political representatives (or in this case, Uzbek representatives of a quasi-Western polity). So far throughout the West, and indeed throughout the world, not one country has yet done what Spencer suggests. So it seems this is a double-tiered suggestion:

1) on the ostensible level, calling on our political authorities to call on Muslims to renounce violence

2) hoping that the exhortation of #1 will slowly have an effect on our societies as part of the wake-up process of the West.

Let's assume that #1 is rhetorical and not meant to be literal. We then move to #2.

I'm all for waking up the West; but I think calling on Muslims to renounce Islam (which is in effect what #1 is all about) needs a tremendous apparatus of teeth behind it -- and that apparatus, in turn, needs a society already awake. Then it comes down to defenders of the Spencerian model arguing (or rather hypothesizing) that the gentle approach to waking up the West is the best way, because PC MC, when slumbering and snoring can get mighty rude if woken up too precipitously and the whole thing can get botched, so the theory goes, unless we proceed in gingerly eggshell-walking manner. I on the other hand note from history that most major sociopolitical change has been helped by people pushing aggressively ahead of the curve (e.g., the Abolitionist movement, the Suffrage movement) -- for sociopolitical change and paradigm shifts don't just happen by themselves: they are people changing their minds. My analogy of the Abolitionist movement does not mean I advocate the extremism of a John Brown; but on the other end of the spectrum, I think more robust language is needed than exhortations to Muslims and expectations from them to, in effect, leave Islam.

traeh,

Your diplomacy theory only makes sense when there is a cease-fire, not when the enemy is actively attacking you and mass-murdering you. Then all bets are off. Just war is already in place: it's called self-defense.

"...one can't absolutely rule out that his work might help provoke the development of a significant Islamic reform movement...

Oh yes, one can, and must. Anyone who still thinks Islamic reform of a kind sufficiently signficant in numbers to solve the problem which Muslims through their Islam are causing the world (and has been causing the world for 1400 years) is viable, has not fully digested the horror of the mountain of data about Muslims -- a horror not only of grotesquely gruesome and ghoulish deeds but also indicative of a uniquely obsessive and recalcitrant fanaticism -- of which even this ever-rising volcano of information Jihad Watch is but the tip of the monstrous iceberg.

..."if, as is likely, no significant reform movement appears, and things just go on getting worse and worse, Spencer will have helped prepare the public for war one day."

I think his reportorial (and descriptively analytical) project of presenting that horrible mountain of data is doing that; but I think his theoretical prescriptions whether explicit or implicit are too gingerly and vague (if not sometimes positively Glazovian) and more often than not incoherently contradict the force of that mountain of data. At best, the gingerliness of his theoretical methodology might serve to stave off our PC MC Masters (who include millions of ordinary folks, by the way, and not just some cabal of dastardly Leftist elites) from hobbling his influence more than it already is hobbled. As I argued to big-pete just above, I note from history that many important sociopolitical movements of change -- e.g., the Abolitionist movement, the Suffrage movement -- were helped by people agitating aggressively for change, pushing ahead of the curve: for sociopolitical change and paradigm shifts in society don't just happen by themselves, and I maintain require aggressive pushing, not merely gingerly avoidance of breaking eggshells. At any rate, however, one gets the sense that Spencer sincerely believes in his gingerly moderated approach out of some ethical concerns for Muslims, as well as possibly some romantic hopes about their capacity for reform (e.g., his Byronesquish enthusiasm for those masses of Iranian Muslims whose opposition to the present regime and penchant for blue jeans apparently were sufficient to
override the fact that they were Muslims).

He will have done so by using diplomacy for so many years to ask Muslims to reform, and he will have done so by educating large numbers of non-Muslims about Islam.

The latter yes; not so much the former.

I also wonder if you have thought through what the response to Spencer would be if, as you desire, he supported mass deportations (he has repeatedly rejected anything like that).

He doesn't have to support mass deportation; but I wish he wouldn't publish formulations that explicitly or implicitly contradict it.

Spencer himself has said in a video that he considers such things -- mass deportations -- not in tune with "our values"...

So which is it? He's chary of the proposal of mass deportation because supporting it would damage his needed influence in the anti-Islam movement? Or because he sincerely opposes it?

...he started talking about how we dealt with Shinto at the end of World War II, banning all its political aspects, but permitting any purely private elements to remain. In Japan that approach kept us in tune with the American First Amendment.

Um, we had just finished bombing the living shit out of Japan, killing over 200,000 men, women and children. That's how we got into the position of being able to dictate how Japanese should restructure their sociopolitical regime. Spencer's analogy is strangely suspended in abstraction from that massive fact.

I stand corrected. Thanks.

"Let's take a look at the faith of Mohammed. …"

Yes! Let us take a real hard look!

Actually we don´t know anything about the faith of Mohammad. I am dead tired of Westerners, Christians in particular, who take the Islamic writing of history at face value.

Islam and Muslims do not make that mistake. Everything in the Bible is distorted or outright rejected if it is not consistent with the Koran and the Islamic dogma, tradition and history writing.

Muslim scholars and historians have a much more Orwellian approach to history, and it works: "He who controls the past, controls the future". (Party slogan in the novel "1984").

No doubt it makes the discussions less complicated when the origin of all the "evils" of Islam is concentrated in one person, his all too human lusts and desires becoming the centerpiece of disgust and rejection. But we should remember that we are fighting an Islamic straw man here.

From a scientific point of view all evidence point to that the Prophet of Islam is fiction, a convenient myth created more than a hundred year after Muhammad’s supposed year of death in 632.

This view is (primarily) based upon the research by John Edward Wansbrough (1928-2002) in the 1970s. He was an American historian who taught at the University of London's School of Oriental and African Studies (SOAS). Wansbrough's emphasis was on the critique of traditional accounts of the origins of Islam. Born in Peoria, Illinois, Wansbrough completed his studies at Harvard University, and spent the rest of his academic career at SOAS.

Wansbrough caused a furor in the 1970s when his research on early Islamic manuscripts, including the analysis of the repeated use of monotheistic Judeo-Christian imagery found in the Qur'an led him to posit that the rise of Islam was a mutation of what was originally a Judeo-Christian sect trying to spread in Arab lands. As time evolved the Judeo-Christian scriptures were adapted to an Arab perspective and mutated into what became the Qur'an which was developed over centuries with contributions from various Arab tribal sources. Wansbrough's research suggests that a great deal of the traditional history of Islam appeared to be a fabrication of later generations seeking to forge and justify a unique religious identity. Within this context, the character of Muhammad could be seen as a manufactured myth created to provide the Arab tribes with their own Arab version of the Judeo-Christian prophets.

Wansboroughs theories about the origin of Islam was confirmed and supported by other scholars:

"For al-Rawandi, Islam is an invention for the purpose of providing a religious justification for Arab imperialism. The Conquest is the reason and explanation for Islam, not the other way around.

While there may well have been a historical individual named Ubu'l Kassim who was later entitled Mohammed ("The Praised One"), who raised followers and participated in the initiation of the Arab Conquest, he likely came from northeast Arabia in what is now southern Jordan.

The deity that Ubu'l Kassim chose to follow was Allah, a contraction of al-Lah, the ancient Arab God of the Moon [note: which is why the symbol of Islam to this day is the crescent moon]. Ubu'l Kassim died, however, some years before the Arab Conquest was fully under way (the traditional date is 632). Al-Rawandi summarizes what then happened:

Once the Arabs had acquired an empire, a coherent religion was required in order to hold that empire together and legitimize their rule. In a process that involved a massive backreading of history, and in conformity to the available Jewish and Christian models, this meant they needed a revelation and a revealer – a Prophet – whose life could serve at once as a model for moral conduct and as a framework for the appearance of the revelation.

Hence (Ubu'l Kassim was selected to be the Prophet), the Koran, the Hadith (Sayings of the Prophet), and the Sira were contrived and conjoined over a period of a couple of centuries. Topographically, after a century or so of Judaeo-Moslem monotheism centered on Jerusalem, in order to make Islam distinctively Arab … an inner Arabian biography of Mecca, Medina, the Quraysh, the Prophet and his Hegira (flight from Mecca to Medina alleged in 622, Year One in the Islamic calendar) was created as a purely literary artifact.

An artifact, moreover, based not on faithful memories of real events, but on the fertile imaginations of Arab storytellers elaborating from allusive references in Koranic texts, the canonical text of the Koran not being fixed for nearly two centuries.

Al-Rawandi concludes that the Sira, the life of Mohammed in Mecca and Medina, is a myth, a "baseless fiction." This is the conclusion of a substantial number of serious academic historians working in Islamic studies today. They include Mohammed Ibn al-Warraq, Mohammed Ibn al-Rawandi, John Wansbrough, Kenneth Cragg, Patricia Crone, Michael Cook, John Burton, Andrew Rippin, Julian Baldick, Gerald Hawting, and Suliman Bashear. Yet they and their research are virtually unknown."

Link to article "The Myth of Mecca":

http://archive.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2001/9/24/152943.shtml

Robert has responded to your concerns and viewpoint. As for my thoughts I am not trying to put forth (or defend) an argument as to how best to "awaken" western peoples to the realities of islam.

If you find Roberts tactics too mild or ineffectual then so be it. I would argue that Robert, using such tactics, has become a credible expert on matters islamic on the national media scene. This, as you know, is a very powerful platform from which reach a lot of people.

We all play to our part. I, for one, am grateful to Robert for playing to his.

Joe Blough wrote:

Yup. Don't want to risk igniting any tension.

Better break out the Valium and Quaaludes.

That tension can be a real problem.

A much worse problem than mohammedans running around in the street murdering children.
...................

Exactly, Joe Blough. 9/11, with its almost 3000 murdered and its destruction of the WTC, was nothing in itself—the only concern is that it might cause a "backlash" against Muslim Americans.

The horrific Jihad terror attacks on Mumbai were of no account—except that they might have induced India to "increase tension" with Pakistan.

7/7, The Madrid train bombings, the annual orgy of car burnings outside Paris, are only of concern in that they might lead to Muslims in Europe feeling further "oppressed", or make it more difficult for them to find employment from 'racist' Europeans.

Attacks on Israel do not count in terms of dead Jews or damage from rocket attacks—but only in that they might make it more difficult for "Palestinians" to access checkpoints for entry into Israel, or for Gazans to bring in consumer goods.

Jihad attacks, anywhere in the world, no matter how bloody or horrific-including the murder of this poor little boy—are of no consequence. If they should result in any sort of "tension" with Muslims, though, that is a great tragedy.

Robert lists what he argues are false assumptions I have made:

"1. He assumes that I am recommending "calling upon the Muslim community to renounce once and for all any and all teachings involving any kind of violence against Infidels" as my sole and only prescription for the fix we're in"

For now, I will only say generally that:

To be flawed, a prescription doesn't have to be the sole and only one of a number of prescriptions prescribed by the same person: it can remain flawed and irrelevant to the other prescriptions; or it can remain flawed and to one degree or another serve to impede the force of the other prescriptions.

And secondly, just because a person has other prescriptions in tandem, doesn't automatically confer an unproblematic blessing on any one or more of those other prescriptions. They too have to be analyzed.

I won't burden this thread with a long post, so any interested readers can read the fuller response here:

http://hesperado.blogspot.com/2010/06/robert-spencers-response-to-me-and-my.html

Wellington,

Very respectfully, very well, said. A true believer cannot help but act and speak, at least some of the time, and to some degree, upon their belief. Hopefully, all of the time as far as respect for others and love for what is right...just...and when appropriate, exactly what he/she believes and why they believe as they do. Belief systems color all actions and words. Thankfully, Jews, Christians and those who are still questioning are directed by a conscience that speaks loudly about what Islam is and what it's followers are endeavoring to do to all others.

Laurence its quite obvious that the word "Allah" here in English speaking circles is not a neutral word that can be used as a all encompassing identity that would include how the Bible presents God Almighty. It is also quite odd to use the same identity for God, from other religion that calls Christian doctrine pure heresy. You plainly know what separates Christianity from all other belief systems is that it very specific & strict in it's presentation on who God is and that His word [the Bible] is in perfect unity with His character. "Allah" as a description brings with it a whole lot of baggage of Islamic doctrine in the eyes of most people on this forum. Besides people have already pointed out the word "Allah" technically is not a neutral word for God, but is specifically referring to "the deity" of the ka'ba and the deity specifically identified with the teachings of Muhammad in which "there is no God but Allah. And his messenger, Muhammad." The historical context of "the Deity" of Islam is not even remotely similar to the Hebrew Deity "YHVH" that Yeshua/Jesus exalted by His teachings. So why create confusion in this? Are you pandering to Muslims in a deceptive manner by using "Allah"???

Undaunted, Muslims actually do believe (as stated in the Quran) that Maryam (Miryam, Mary) WAS indeed a virgin when she gave birth to Jesus.

"So why create confusion in this? Are you pandering to Muslims in a deceptive manner by using 'Allah'???"

To RevParadigm:

If there are Muslims here that read this blog, then I would say to them that the true Allah/God is not a deceiver and does not command to murder unbelievers. I would say to them that the true Allah/God is the Holy Trinity. I would say to them that Muhammad was not a prophet of Allah/God, and that Islam was not from Allah/God. That's the truth and that's the exact opposite of deceit.

As Christians, do we accept Islam's teaching that Jesus is not divine/God? No, we don't. So, why should we accept Islam's teaching that Allah/God commanded all those evil things that are contained in Islam? I say we shouldn't.

As I keep pointing out, Islam is not from Allah/God. And the true Allah/God is the Holy Trinity. That is part of the gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ. That is not deceit.

Remember: "Allah" is the Arabic word for "God". If you had to bring the gospel to Arabic speaking Muslims in their own Arabic language, are you going to tell them in Arabic something like "Allah is not Allah"? I'm sure you won't because that would be absurd. But you would have to say something like "the true Allah is the Holy Trinity".

For the last time "Allah" is not the Arabic word for "God"...it is "Il'lah". This is more over the Arabic equivalent of Hebrew "El-ohim". Reverse translate "Allah" in Hebrew and the closest word means "to curse" [how ironic].

"Allah" is referring to a specific deity that was identified with the ka'ba, which Muhammad exalted over hundred's deities in Mecca. This specific god of the ka'ba became "the deity" supreme after Muhammad exalted this singular one over the hundreds of other idols he destroyed.

Muslims refer to Yeshua/Jesus as "Isa" also...so are you going to call the New Testament Messiah by a misleading name likewise? Even though the Arabic name for Him is actually "Yahshua"???

Or how about call Jerusalem "Al-Quds" because Muslims have tried to rename it???

Calling the Christian presentation of God "Allah" is like calling Him "Zeus" or "Odin"...they have about as equal merit as Islam's specific deity of the ka'ba. If Muslims wanted to identify their supreme one with the Bible's "YHVH" ,why not attempt a translation of it, in the fashion of the english rendering "Yahweh"? Probably for the same reasons they attempt rename Yahshua/Jesus "Isa"...because the name exalts the specific Hebrew Deity.

"For the last time 'Allah' is not the Arabic word for 'God'...it is 'Il'lah'. This is more over the Arabic equivalent of Hebrew 'El-ohim'."

To RevParadigm:

If what you said above is true, then many people, including Mr. Robert Spencer, are mistranslating "Allahu Akbar" to mean "God is great".

If the Arabic word "Allah" is not the exact equivalent of the English word "God", then I take back everything I've said about "Allah".

But if "Allah" is, in fact, the exact equivalent of "God," then I stand behind everything I've said about "Allah": that the true Allah/God is the Holy Trinity, and that Muhammad was NOT a prophet or messenger of Allah/God, and Islam itself is NOT from Allah/God.

Hesperado

truth or dare.

What direct, robust action - away from the keyboard - are *you* taking?

I don't think you have ever, in this forum, unlike many of the rest of us, alluded to attempts to instruct and warn family, workmates, or friends; indeed, you have never mentioned the existence of any such people, except for one friend who is a missionary in Africa whom you have dismissed as clueless about Islam.

Have you communicated with your elected representative and laid things on the line?

Have you done, for example, done something like **I** have done - giving 'Politically Incorrect Guide to Islam and the Crusades' to a close relative...whom it scared the sh*t out of, to be blunt, and his wife too, and her dad to whom she lent it? They drew the simple and obvious conclusion: that stopping Muslim immigration would be a damn good idea. God alone only knows how many other people they have warned, by now.

I have joined the Mothers Union. In that organisation I can encourage people to lobby against, for example, **any** recognition of sharia. A couple of months back, I gave a simple, factual presentation on what sharia does to women, to a group of church ladies. I gave NO prescriptions or political advice whatsoever; I simply stated the facts. Two of those ladies, afterwards, spontaneously expressed grave fears about Muslim immigration into Australia, and Islam's inroads into Africa. I did not pooh-pooh those fears; I expressed agreement.'

Soo - what are **you** doing, however small, face to face in your own social circle, that may be classified as 'direct action', or as a species of what you castigate Mr Spencer for **not** doing?

Laurence ...

Then why would God tell Moses, "Thou shalt have no other gods before me" and "Thou shalt not make unto me any graven image". Do you now disagree with God?

allah is a pagan moon god, so stop attempting to rewrite history concerning this particular god's pagan roots.

I suppose you think that Baal is God, too, but those evil pagans simply got it all mixed up as well.

With all due respect, sir, you are fast becoming a false teacher whom Jesus warned against.

Sorry, Laurence, but your position is not only very weak, but wholly and completely wrong ...

The website below is among one of many that I have researched that thoroughly disputes your wrongheaded claims that allah and God are one in the same:

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

MYTH #3

"Allah is the Same as the God of the Bible"

There are many differences between the attributes of God and Allah. First, there is the attribute of knowability, the idea that human beings may know God and enjoy a personal relationship with the Creator. God, as He is revealed in the Bible, allows Himself to be known and fellowshipped with on a personal basis by those who have trusted in Him through His Son Jesus Christ. John 17:3 says, "And this is life eternal, that they might know thee, the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom thou hast sent." The Bible presents God as a Being who intimately reveals Himself to man, and who encourages us to learn of Him and enter into ever closer fellowship with Him. The Bible presents a God who had a personal relationship with Abraham such that Abraham was called "The friend of God." The God of the Bible wants for mankind to come to Him, be cleansed of their sins, and enjoy this close personal fellowship. "Draw nigh unto God, and he will draw nigh to you. Cleanse your hands, ye sinners; and purify your hearts, ye double minded." (James 4:8)

Excerpt:
http://www.studytoanswer.net/myths_ch3.html

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

This link is very informative and accurate, and it covers numerous other myths in relation to islam. Consider reading all of MYTH # 3.

To Champ:

With regards to "Allah", Robert Spencer has already kindly settled this matter. Below are his comments about "Allah":

"Arabic-speaking Christians use the word 'Allah' for the God of the Bible. They've been doing so since before Islam."

You said: "Then why would God tell Moses, 'Thou shalt have no other gods before me' and 'Thou shalt not make unto me any graven image'. Do you now disagree with God?"

My response: I fully agree with God. I said nothing about worshiping other gods.

My question to you: are there three different Gods in Heaven (Jewish God, Christian God, and Muslim God) each claiming to be the Creator of the universe?

The answer is no. There is only One God in Heaven, who is the Creator of the universe, and this One God is acknowledged and worshiped by Jews, Christians, and Muslims alike. Nonetheless, Jews, Christians and Muslims do not fully agree as to the nature and attributes of this One God, Creator of the universe.

Laurence ...

Robert settled this issue, eh? Hold on! Hey, I can read, and you've conveniently omitted this part of his comment:

"This doesn't mean that the God of the Bible and the God of the Qur'an are the same. They manifestly aren't."

You have a fantastic ability of twisting facts out of proportion, even when they are right in front of you; as you've just demonstrated here with Robert's comment. What, don't you think I can read what Robert wrote? Hey, he doesn't exactly agree with your position, pal. Hello!

allah is NOT the God of the Bible. Period.

Hi, Hesp ...

Your analogy is great, even with it's minor pitfalls; so is your analysis of both. It even made me chuckle, lol ...

Great post!

"P.S.: This other guy, "revparadigm", who is disputing Laurence, is I believe mistaken on an elementary level about Arabic. According to revparadigm, the labels "Allah" and "Il'lah" are different. I believe he is mistaken: in fact, they are permutations of the same thing. Both "al" and "il" are the Arabic definite article, and they change form for various reasons. What we have with "Allah" and "Il'lah" are simply two differently-spelled synonyms of each other, which differ in their initial vowel for reasons purely linguistic, and not semantic -- much less theological."

My findings fully support your assertion, and I offer the details, although somewhat tedious, found regarding the origin of both Ilah and Allah -- which is really quite fascinating -- under MYTH #3 from the same above link.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Ilah and the Sumerian Origins of Allah:

The quest for the historical Allah begins in Sumeria, over three millennia before Christ. The Sumerians worshipped a well-organized and highly developed pantheon of gods. The greatest of the Sumerian gods after the distant sky-god Anu (who had little to do with human affairs) was the active and vigorous atmospheric god Enlil. The name “Enlil” is a compounded Sumerian word meaning "lord of the storm/air" (en = lord, lil = storm, air). It is from this god Enlil that we see the beginning of Allah, for it is from this deity that we find the beginning of the lexical track which leads us to al-Ilah, that was mentioned above as the title ("the god") which grew to be "Allah" by elision.

Enlil was the principle god of the Sumerian pantheon, ruler of the atmosphere, bringer of winds and storms, and was also known by the epithet of "the great mountain", perhaps emphasizing his great strength or connection with the cosmic mountain, the seat of divine sovereignty35. This god was known among the Sumerians from earliest times, with his name appearing in engravings dating as far back as the Jemdat Nasr period, at the beginning of the Sumerian Bronze Age36. As stated before, the name "Enlil" is a compound of "en" and "lil". This latter particle, "lil" is of interest in this discussion because it is the source of the word "il/ilu" which came to mean "god" in the branch of Semitic languages, starting with Akkadian, from which the Arabic word "ilah" ultimately derived.

In the Akkadian civilization, a Semitic group which occupied the northern part of Mesopotamia, and which was roughly contemporaneous with the Sumerians, Enlil was brought over and introduced to the Semitic world. In Akkad, the pronunciation of his name gradually changed to "Ellil" through assimilation of the n37. The Akkadian word for "god" was "il" or "ilu". It is likely that this meaning developed as a result of eliding the syllables in the name of this high god "Ellil", eventually giving "il". Because of "il"'s position at the head of the pantheon, it would be natural for the meaning of his name to expand beyond the idea of wind and storms to encompass a fuller understanding of his sovereign divinity. Thus, it is likely that the term later used to describe deity throughout Arabia originated from the Sumerian god Enlil as he passed down to later generations of Semites in Akkad and elsewhere. Indeed, an Old Babylonian copy of an Akkadian myth-hymn (but which Jacobsen says "speaks with the voice" of the 3rd millennium BC), specifically names Enlil "Ilu"38, showing the particularization of that term to this god.

One point of confusion that arises in the discussions surrounding the Mesopotamian Lil/Il is that many will confound this god-name with the western Semitic names El/Eloah, which appear both in the Bible as a name for God, as well as in various mythologies among the Canaanites and allied peoples as the name for the chief god of their pantheon. Guillaume presents a typical example of the assumed relation of El and Il,

"The oldest name for God used in the Semitic world consists of but two letters, the consonant 'l' preceded by a smooth breathing, which was pronounced 'Il' in ancient Babylonia, 'El' in ancient Israel." There is not, however, necessarily reason to think that the western Semitic El descends from the Akkadian Il. As noted before, Lil is a Sumerian term denoting "wind" or "air", and this carried over into the Akkadian adaptation of the god-name. Scott informs us, however, that the origin of the term El, as it appears as a god-name across the breadth of Semitic languages, is unknown - the most frequently mentioned etymological suggestions for the original meaning of the term are "fear" or "power", but he agrees that even these are widely contested. The mere similarity of the lexical root does not clinch a direct connection between El and Il. As Shahid informs us in another context,

"Arabic and other Semitic languages are full of homophonous but non-synonymous roots and lexemes...." El may well present a similar sense to the Akkadian Il, while yet not being directly related or directly descended. The word/particle "il" may be related to the Akkadian verb elu (vocalized with a long "e"), which has various related meanings of "to raise, to ascend, to be high, to be exalted", and which itself may be connected with the Sumerian lil through the sense of the heights of the air or atmosphere. This verb would be cognate with the Hebrew verb calah, which has similar meanings to the Akkadian elu, and from which comes the epithet caliyan/celyon, "most high". This connection is plausible because in Akkadian, the pharyngeal fricative letter c is lost, while it would be present in cognates in Proto-Semitic, Ethiopic, Hebrew, and Aramaic. Further, the proposed etymology for il/ilu given above accords well with the actual role and character of Enlil, from whom Il/Ilu came. Whereas in western Semitic religions, El was generally viewed as a distant, transcendent deity largely uninvolved with human affairs, Enlil was an active, vigorous sky and storm god. Conversely, Ringgren notes about El that "A large number of gods are sky gods, but there is no direct evidence that El was regarded as identical with the sky or any celestial object". The conceptions of deity between El and Enlil/Il/Ilu appear to be quite distinct from each other, as will be shown more fully below.

As such, there is not necessarily a direct, genetic connection between the Akkadian Il/Ilu (and thus, the Sumerian Lil from which came the Akkadian) and the West Semitic El/Eloah. Hence, we cannot necessarily say with confidence that El came from the Mesopotamian Il. We can, however, say this about the Arabian Il/Ilah, for which genetic link there is much attestation in the relevant literature.

The "il/lil" root appeared widely throughout Semitic Mesopotamia. It appears in the Semitic name for Babylon (which is a Greek term), "bab ilani", meaning "gate of the gods". Roberts, in his catalog of the names of gods and goddesses in Sumero-Akkad, demonstrated the great prevalence that the "il" root enjoyed among divine names all the way up to the Ur III period (2115-2000 BC). Muller shows that this name-form still existed in Mesopotamia as far forward as the Persian period, beginning with the conquest of Babylon in 539 BC. He states,

"Allah [al-ilah, remember] himself was ancient - a thousand years before Mohammed the Persians wrote 'Allah is exalted' - but he was only one of many deities." Thus, the god-name "il", often lengthened to "ilah" (remember, "al-ilah" = allah) in northern Arabian languages spoken by Arab tribes who had spread even into southern Mesopotamia by this time, was spreading from its Mesopotamian origins. Indeed, scholars have provided evidence that the origin of the Arabian use of god-names with "il/lil", and hence the origin of "al-ilah", is Mesopotamian. Winnett and Reed observed a number of appearances of "il/ilah" bearing names in northern Arabian epigraphic finds dated as far back as the 5th century BC. They noted Thamudian epigraphs from the area around al-Jawf which bore the god-name Ilat (such as Ham'ilat), the feminine counterpart to Il, and a number of inscriptions with both Il and Allah were found at the site 46. The feminine counterparts - Ilat and Allat - were also found, with Winnett and Reed attributing Ilat to being the original Arab name, only later appearing as Allat due to Syrian influences. At another site in North Arabia, al-Ula, they found a number of Lihyanite and Dedanite (early Arab groups) inscriptions containing names such as Mar'Allah and Adar'il concurrently. Hence we see that the LIL/IL names were found in northern Arabia millennia after their appearance in Mesopotamia, with Arabian forms concurrent with the older Mesopotamian form.

Thus the term for deity based upon the "il" root became firmly established in Arabia, and many times was used as a personal name, rather than a titular epithet. That it did so to the detriment of the western Semitic term "El" used by the Hebrews, Aramaeans, Canaanites, and others in the Syria-Palestine region (familiar to us from Biblical names such Israel, Gabriel, etc.) is apparent from the earlier appearances of El in Northern Arabian artifacts which were gradually supplanted by Il,

"Among the Northern Arabs of early times, particularly in the region of Safa, the word El "God" was still very commonly used as a separate name of the Deity." Names containing The Il/Ilah formations came much later. Nöldeke notes the appearance of names like Wahb El, which appeared among Arabs of a later day as Wahbil. This suggests that El was used by the Arabs at one time as the name of God, but later was supplanted by Il/Ilah. This name spread further to South Arabia as we will see, where he again appeared as a high god in their pantheons, just as he was in early Mesopotamia.

This same differentiation between El and Il/Ilah is made by Negev, whose discussion of names of deity even among the much later Nabataeans presents a clearly seen distinction between Il/Ilah/Allah and El. Many Muslim apologists will attempt to associate the God of the Bible with Allah upon the basis of an argument that Allah is basically the same term as the Eloah of Biblical Hebrew (an intensive form of El) and the Alaha of Aramaic. However, what is forgotten is that Allah itself comes directly from "al ilah", so the "al" in "Allah" comes from the article, and is not a part of the Arabic term for "god" itself. This is not the case with Eloah and Alaha, neither of which contain an article, and which are self-contained terms meaning "god". Further, as has been shown above, the El related terms for deity in the Western Semitic areas are not directly related to the Il/Ilah of Mesopotamia and Arabia. Hence, no direct connection between El/Alaha can be made with Il/Ilah. Further, the fact that Christian Arabs today use the term “Allah“ when referring to the Biblical God is of little importance, for that term is simply the word denoting deity in the Arabic language, which Christian Arabs (naturally) use. Despite this commonality, the only connection between the two is that of general reference to a deity, not any specific connection, either personally or conceptually, between the Biblical El and the quranic Allah (whose evolutionary development from pre-Islamic paganism, as will be seen, places him far afield from the God of the Bible). El and Allah are two different beings, from the standpoint of both linguistic and conceptual divergence.

Excerpt:
http://www.studytoanswer.net/myths_ch3.html#ch3-8

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Note his findings at the end: "El and Allah are two different beings, from the standpoint of both linguistic and conceptual divergence."

Laurence ...

"Many Muslim apologists will attempt to associate the God of the Bible with Allah upon the basis of an argument that Allah is basically the same term as the Eloah of Biblical Hebrew (an intensive form of El) and the Alaha of Aramaic. However, what is forgotten is that Allah itself comes directly from "al ilah", so the "al" in "Allah" comes from the article, and is not a part of the Arabic term for "god" itself."

Excerpt from my above comment taken from MYTH # 3.

Laurence ...

The bottom line is that I would never, ever pray in the name of allah -- not ever. For one thing, allah is never mentioned in the Bible, and the very thought of praying to allah sends shivers down my spine given what I have studied and learned about allah's origins and character, and especially when that information is weighed against the Bible. I mean do YOU pray in the name of allah? Apparently ...

In fact, I think that most modern Christians would never consider praying in allah's name, so I think that you are not only in grave error if you do, but you are in the minority of Christians that might. And if I am to remain completely honest with you, I find it troubling that you still maintain your position about allah being God, especially in light of the information being offered; not to mention the fact that allah is never mentioned once in either the old or new testament. Not once. There is a reason why allah was omitted while scripture was being canonized. God has many names in the Bible, but allah is not one of them -- and with very good reason, given allah's evil and pagan origins.

More for you to please read and consider ...

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Allah is never found in the Bible:

Contrary to Muslim claims, the word "Allah" is never found in the Bible in either Hebrew and Greek. The closest two words we find are the Hebrew "alah" (which means to curse, mourn or rise, and is never applied to God) and the Hebrew word "Elah" (Strongs 425) which means has been translated either oak or turpentine tree. Isa 6:13. So apart form the superficial similarity in appearance arguing Allah is in the Bible because of similarities, is like saying Mormon is in the Qur'an because it looks like Muslim.

The first Arabic translation of the Bible came into existence about the 9th century. Nowhere is the name of Allah found in the Old or New Testament.

"Oh Ya, Oh Allah, Oh Really?" Islamic apologists like Ahmed Deedat, falsely argue that Allah is a biblical name for God derived from Hallelujah which he initially misspells "Allelujah" then further misspells "AlleluYa". Deedat comments, "Then what is Alleluya? The last syllable "YA" is a vocative and an exclamatory particle in both Arabic and Hebrew meaning "OH!"

In other words YA = OH, (the vocative); and YA = (!), a note of exclamation, or an exclamatory particle, or as is more commonly known an exclamation mark. The Semite, both Arab and Jew, begins with the exclamatory particle or exclamation mark. The Westerner, in his language ends with the exclamatory particle or exclamation mark, eg. Stop! Go! Fire! Bang! Let us repeat the above Tasbih (words of praise) as an Arab or a Jew: ALLE-LU-YA will be YA-ALLE-LU because, as explained above, YA is always at the beginning in both Arabic and Hebrew. YA ALLE LU would be YA ALLA HU: Meaning, "OH ALLAH!". (Allah in the Bible, What is His Name?, Ahmed Deedat, p 37).

W. E. Vine comments: "Alleluia, without the initial H, is a misspelling". The Hebrew is literally, "hah-lay-loo-yah" = "[let us] praise the Lord". So the similarity is not only invalid, it is in the wrong part of the compound word. "Allah" corresponds to "let us praise" rather than, "YAH" which is the short form of "Jehovah". So Deedat misspells the Hebrew word, finds similarity in the wrong part of the word, misspells YA and says it means "OH", when in fact it is YAH, which is a shortened "Jehovah", and fails to recognize the word "Hallelujah" literally means, "Praise Jehovah", which is the universally accepted meaning for 3500 years, until Deedat comes along! This is not a credit to Deedat's alleged educational credentials.

"Eli or Allah?" Deedat also teaches that Jesus was calling upon the Muslim God Allah in Matthew 27:46, where the Greek reads: "Eli, Eli, lama sabachthani". Meaning, "my God My God why have you forsaken me". Deedat says of this passage, " Can't they see that the cry is to Allah? "Eli, Eli - Elah, Elah, Allah, Allah!" (Allah in the Bible, What is His Name?, Ahmed Deedat) This kindergarten approach to similar sounding words is so wild, we need not even comment on it. But it is the best Deedat has!

In a silly attempt to show that the Islam word for God, "Allah" is superior to the word for God used by all other cultures because "you cannot make a feminine of Allah". Deedat pontificates: "This Arabic word, Allah, is never used in any other sense. There is no such thing as an "Allah-father" or an "Allah-mother" or a "Tin-Allah." ALLAH is a unique word for the only God. Arabic, like every other language, also has its rules of grammar, but in Arabic you cannot make a plural form for Allah, nor can you make a feminine of Allah. All this is very unlike the English word, God." (Allah in the Bible, What is His Name?, Ahmed Deedat) But this is deception because Deedat knows full well that in 600AD Allah, the moon God of the tribe of Muhammad, had a daughter named "Al-Lat", which is the feminine form of "Allah"! So the word "Allah" is like God and "Al-Lat" is like Godess! Arthur Jeffrey says, "The name Allah, as the Qur'an itself is witness, was well known in pre-Islamic Arabia. Indeed, both it and its feminine form, Allat, are found not infrequently among the theophorous names in inscriptions from North Arabia." (Arthur Jeffrey, ed., Islam: Muhammad and His Religion, 1958, p. 85.)

Excerpt:
http://www.bible.ca/islam/islam-bible-allah.htm

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

If this doesn't convince you, then nothing else will ...

Have a good day.

Thanks, Hesp ...

I agree that from a linquistic standpoint, Laurence DOES have a point, but it's such a weak point. A non point, really. Especially when there are other aspects being presented that thoroughly eclipse the linguistics argument.

Laurence is stuck on the linguistic aspect -- so much so, that he is overlooking some major and key factors about allah:

1) the origin, or history of allah

2) allah's character compared to YAHWEH'S character

3) allah's followers, "you shall know them by their fruit"

4) allah is missing from the Bible

...just to name a few!

Laurence's linguistic argument loses "BIG TIME" when weighed against the more important and weightier aspects of allah -- like his origin and character, etc. Again, Laurence is thoroughly stuck on the linguistics part of this argument, and he's not even considering the more important information put before him.

He reminds me of an attorney intent on proving that his client is innocent, even after the DNA and other supporting evidence is presented which proves that his client is GUILTY AS HELL! I mean how foolish is that?

Sadly, we have another poster claiming to be a Christian who is, in short, only an apologist for islam. I have yet to read other comments from him where he is confronting islam on the whole. I don't read all of his comments, but so far, this is what I have observed. No, it seems that he only wants to defend allah. What does that tell you? It tells me that he's a muslim apologist. Sadly.

Hi, isiscrisis ...

I am flattered that you think I'm a guy.

Anyway, you stated:

"As I understand it, he is correct insofar as the main point, which is that the linguistics would not necessarily link the Islamic conception of God to the source of that idea. He isn't correct that either the linguistics or the ideas suggest a significant Sumerian connection of any sort, but his system is on the right track."

OK, now we are splitting hairs over allah's origin.

The more important issue is this: who is allah today? ...or more to the point, how did MUHAMMAD see allah?

According to muhammad and muslims, allah does not have a SON, and we cannot know allah personally.

Juxtapose allah to the God of the Bible, which says that Jesus is Gods only begotten SON; and that through Jesus Christ, we can come into right relationship with God the Father and know Him personally.

Jesus said, "I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me." -- John 14:6

By todays standards, allah forbids such a connection between God and man!

And I offer yet another wonderful link entitled: Allah is Not the God of the Bible, which details my position on the subject, specifically point #5:

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

5. THE GOD OF THE BIBLE REJECTS ALLAH

Throughout the Holy Scriptures, the prophets of God stressed that there is no god besides Him. According to them, He is the only God. The applicable Scriptural references follow:

Exodus 20:2-3 “I am the LORD thy God, which have brought thee out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of bondage. (3) Thou shalt have no other gods before me.”
Deuteronomy 6:4 “Hear, O Israel: The LORD our God is one LORD.”

Deuteronomy 32:39 “See now that I, even I, am he, and there is no god with me: I kill, and I make alive; I wound, and I heal: neither is there any that can deliver out of my hand.”

Isaiah 44:6 “Thus saith the LORD the King of Israel, and his redeemer the LORD of hosts; I am the first, and I am the last; and beside me there is no God.”
According to John 17:3 Jesus Christ, God’s only begotten Son, confirms that the Father is the one true God. With respect to His Father, Jesus states: “And this is life eternal, that they might know thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom thou hast sent.” In no way is John 17:3 to be used to deny Jesus’ Deity.

Note: See the Answering the Objections to the Deity of Jesus chapter for an explanation of this verse that actually proves the Deity of the Son. Jesus’ statement in this verse denies the Deity of all others. Since this chapter illustrates that Allah is NOT the God of the Bible, there is only one conclusion that can be made: According to Exodus 20:2-3, Deuteronomy 6:4, Deuteronomy 32:39, Isaiah 44:6, and John 17:3, the LORD God of the Bible and His only begotten Son reject Allah. Allah is not a true G(g)od. Therefore, he is a false god!

http://www.kingmessiahproject.com/is_allah_not_God.html

"Personally, I think Arabic Christians should make it a project to purge their Bible of that name, and substitute something else for it -- purely as a matter of principle and as a symbolic stand against Islam."

That's a great idea, Hesp! ...especially since allah is seen primarily in connection with islam, not Christianity.

"By todays standards, allah forbids such a connection between God and man!"

Specifically: By todays "islamic" standards, etc ...

Your comment is very presumptuous concerning what I think. You are welcome to ask me questions, sir, but do not think for me. And I haven't bought into islamic propaganda, as you allege.

You are new to this site, and already you are engaging in friendly fire with both me and Hesp. I prefer attacking the enemy, thank you ...

Goodbye.

Champ: Thank you for your reply. We are apparently not getting through to each other at all.

You said:

"Sadly, we have another poster claiming to be a Christian who is, in short, only an apologist for islam. I have yet to read other comments from him where he is confronting islam on the whole. I don't read all of his comments, but so far, this is what I have observed. No, it seems that he only wants to defend allah. What does that tell you? It tells me that he's a muslim apologist. Sadly."

My response:

For the reason that you have not read my other comments, you are completely mistaken about me.

Good day to you also.

"If you find Roberts tactics too mild or ineffectual then so be it. I would argue that Robert, using such tactics, has become a credible expert on matters islamic on the national media scene. This, as you know, is a very powerful platform from which reach a lot of people."

Well said. Hesp won't get it. He never does, but it was well said, nonetheless.