Allah Is Same As Elohim

[Dirty Penguin]

Hi Des,

Let’s start by defining the classical definition…


اللَّهُ = “allah”

“allahu” definition:

Written with the disjunctive alif, meaning God, i.e. the only true god, according to the most correct of the opinions respecting it. It is a proper name to the Being who exists necessarily, by Himself, comprising all of the attributes of perfection; a proper name denoting the true god (TA), comprising all the excellent divine names; a unity comprising all of the essences of existing things; the “al” being inseparable from it; not derived.

It comes from the root “ilaha”, which means he served, worshipped, or adored; to adore, worship, deify any one, call any one god. He was, or became, confounded, or perplexed, and unable to see his right course. An object of worship or adoration; i.e. a god, a deity; anything that is taken as an object of worship or adoration, according to him that takes it as such. It signifies the goddess; and particularly the serpent; because it was a special object of worship of some of the ancient Arabs; or the great serpent; and the new moon.

References:
An Arabic-English Lexicon, E.W. Lane, volume one, pp. 82 - 83
The Dictionary of the Holy Qur’an, 1st edition, Abdul Mannan Omar, pp. 28 - 29


The implications…

• Observe the revealing definition for “allah”, that is given by Lane...“i.e. the only true god”
• Lane is referencing a very specific example in his definition by his illustrated example (i.e.)
• It is abundantly clear that he is referencing a “god” (lower case) to represent the “allah” of the Koran
• To re-enforce the fact that the “allah” of the Koran is no more than a “god”, and to erase any notion of error, Lane repeats his very same remarks a few lines farther down in his lexical definition for “allah”, by referencing a separate entry – this time from the legendary “Ta’j el-‘Aroos” (TA)
• (TA )“a proper name denoting the true god, comprising all the excellent divine names; a unity comprising all the essence of existing things”
• Further, “allah” is derived from the root “ilaha”, which means “he was, or became, confounded, or perplexed, and unable to see his right course”
• This would hardly seem a logical definition for true deity
• “ilaha” also means “an object of worship or adoration; i.e. a god, a deity; anything that is taken as an object of worship or adoration, according to him who takes it as such”…which signifies idolatry as mentioned in Revelation
• “ilaha” also signifies the goddess; and particularly the serpent; because it was a special object of worship of some of the ancient Arabs; or the great serpent; and the new moon

There is no need for anger, Des, the evidence is very clear...

All of the scholars..no matter what degree they have CAN NOT DENY that the ELOAH of the OT and ALLAH of the Qur'an are ONE IN THE SAME....Please PROVE ME WRONG....

Take the hebrew letters for ELOAH and turn them on their side (Clockwise) and it reads ALLAH (Arabic).

do the same with Shalom and Salaam.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mem

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shalom_aleichem

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assalamu_alaikum

Even the greeting is the same. Look at the lettering. Open your mind and as you compare the two you will see that they are THE SAME....

If you don't do anything else go to the website above and you will see what I mean.

PLEASE....PLEASE.... I thought this was a forum for understanding.........Click the link......

 

[Apple Pie]

All of the scholars..no matter what degree they have CAN NOT DENY that the ELOAH of the OT and ALLAH of the Qur'an are ONE IN THE SAME....Please PROVE ME WRONG....

Done...

Take the hebrew letters for ELOAH and turn them on their side (Clockwise) and it reads ALLAH (Arabic).

do the same with Shalom and Salaam.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mem

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shalom_aleichem

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assalamu_alaikum

"Turn the letters on their sides".....?

Again...where are the verifiable lexical refernces...?

You have none.

 

[Dirty Penguin]

Let's look...

114.1 Say: "I seek refuge from the people's lord."
114.2 "The people's king."
114.3 "The people's god."
114.4 "From the evil whisperer, the devil.”
114.5 "Whom he whispers in the people's heart."
114.6 "From the jinn and the people."



You are missing the initiator...



قل أعوذ برب الناس

Qul aAAoothu birabbi alnnasi

114.1 Say: "I seek refuge from the people's lord."


The writer is listing things that he want s refuge from...not in....

I did later quote it as saying...(from)...my bad......

Are you translating this or is this a known translation......???

http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/quran/114.qmt.html

These three scholars translations are far different from yours....

 

[Apple Pie]

I did later quote it as saying...(from)...my bad......

Are you translating this or is this a known translation......???

http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/quran/114.qmt.html

These three scholars translations are far different from yours....

Now...you can see that the Islamic belief is not holding to its scripture set...

 

[Dirty Penguin]

Hi dg7,

Thanks for your reply…

Unfortunately your googled wikipedia links do not show any classical lexicography with which to verify your assertion…

I'm sorry. I thought that you would have taken it upon yourself to try and type a few hebrew words or arabic words to see that they are rooted from a common language.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mem

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shalom_aleichem

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assalamu_alaikum

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Semitic_language

I'm really not sure what more you're looking for......

Is it your contention that these languages are not basically the same or similar?

Are ELOAH and ALLAH not the same?

I didn't think that it was hard to see that they were the same. You can even do the test yourself. Take the hebrew letters of ELOAH turn them on their side (Clockwise) and you will see that it matches ALLAH. The same can be done with Shalom and Salaam.

 

[Apple Pie]

[/size][/font]

I'm sorry. I thought that you would have taken it upon yourself to try and type a few hebrew words or arabic words to see that they are rooted from a common language.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mem

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shalom_aleichem

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assalamu_alaikum

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Semitic_language

I'm really not sure what more you're looking for......

Is it your contention that these languages are not basically the same or similar?

Are ELOAH and ALLAH not the same?

I didn't think that it was hard to see that they were the same. You can even do the test yourself. Take the hebrew letters of ELOAH turn them on their side (Clockwise) and you will see that it matches ALLAH. The same can be done with Shalom and Salaam.

It is your assertion that these terms are the same...

Thus, it is also your responsibility to convince others with verifiable references...

Where is the lexicography?

 

[Dirty Penguin]

Done...




"Turn the letters on their sides".....?

Again...where are the verifiable lexical refernces...?

You have none.

hmmmmm... I didn't know that wikipedia could not be used as a verifiable source. Is this something new?

Mideast web is good. I guess in my opinion.. Maybe not yours.

If this doesn't doi t it for you then I guess nothing that I will show will. Now when you actually click the links and see for yourself can you tell me if my "asertions" are still incorrect?

If you believe that they are can you show me how you have disproved them other than by saying..."Done"??????

I would like to see how you went about it.

http://www.mideastweb.org/arabic_hebrew_eng.htm

http://www.mideastweb.org/dictionary_arabic_hebrew.htm

 

[Dirty Penguin]

Now...you can see that the Islamic belief is not holding to its scripture set...

I'm not sure I follow. I would venture to say lost in translation. It's like trying to translate French to english or Spanish to english.

 

[Dirty Penguin]

It is your assertion that these terms are the same...

Thus, it is also your responsibility to convince others with verifiable references...

Where is the lexicography?

I will contend that I DID......I'm not sure it was good enough for you though.

 

[Dirty Penguin]

Let's look...

114.1 Say: "I seek refuge from the people's lord."
114.2 "The people's king."
114.3 "The people's god."
114.4 "From the evil whisperer, the devil.”
114.5 "Whom he whispers in the people's heart."
114.6 "From the jinn and the people."



You are missing the initiator...

قل أعوذ برب الناس

Qul aAAoothu birabbi alnnasi

114.1 Say: "I seek refuge from the people's lord."


The writer is listing things that he want s refuge from...not in....

Can you tell me where this version (translation) comes from. Can you cite your source?

 

[Sahar]

Let's look...

114.1 Say: "I seek refuge from the people's lord."

What's this?!!!!
"I seek refuge with the Lord of mankind" or "I seek refuge in the Lord of mankind"

قل أعوذ برب الناس

Qul aAAoothu birabbi alnnasi

114.1 Say: "I seek refuge from the people's lord."

ِaha?! your citing the original arabic ayah and then make a wrong translation!

Qul (Say!) 'A`ūdhu (i seek refuge) Bi (with) rabbi An-Nās (Lord of mankind).

​

There are many things that need to be corrected but i have no time!

 

[Dirty Penguin]

What's this?!!!!
"I seek refuge with the Lord of mankind" or "I seek refuge in the Lord of mankind"

ِaha?! your citing the original arabic ayah and then make a wrong translation!

Qul (Say!) 'A`ūdhu (i seek refuge) Bi (with) rabbi An-Nās (Lord of mankind).

​

There are many things that need to be corrected but i have no time!

Thank you for helping to clear this up. I'm not very learnt in arabic. At times when some one tells me something like apple pie did...i find myself going to the many different scholars who have translated it and are fluent in the language.

He attempted to give (maybe HIS OWN) translation. I asked where did he get that from or was it his translation and I got no reply. I later asked If he could cite his source but I got no reply. As you can see he and I went through many of post where he wanted me to show him proof that ELOAH in hebrew was related to or the same as ALLAH...I thought that I did in fact show him..over and over that it was...I'm not sure If he was satified with that.

I often wondered what the link at the bottom of his signature was so I clicked it. It appears it is some one's attempt to ripoff the wikipedia layout but as I enter certain arabic words in the search.. it yielded (NOTHING).....

 

[Apple Pie]

What's this?!!!!
"I seek refuge with the Lord of mankind" or "I seek refuge in the Lord of mankind"

ِaha?! your citing the original arabic ayah and then make a wrong translation!

Qul (Say!) 'A`ūdhu (i seek refuge) Bi (with) rabbi An-Nās (Lord of mankind).​

There are many things that need to be corrected but i have no time!

Let’s look…


قل أعوذ برب الناس

Qul aAAoothu birabbi alnnasi

114.1 Say: "I seek refuge from the people's lord."




The classic definition of the preposition in question…


ب= “bi”

“bi” definition:

An inseparable preposition, prefixed to the word it governs, which, when a noun, is put in the genitive; it has diverse significations as: in, by, at, with, to, into, upon, for, or by reason of; from; with the help of; during; On account of; according to, near, through. It is used to denote adhesion of the verb to that to which it is itself prefixed; and adjunction, or association. It is also used to render a verb transitive. It is used to denote the employing a thing as an aid or instrument. It denotes a cause. It is used to denote concomitance. Before a noun signifying a place or time. It denotes substitution, meaning instead of, as in place of. It denotes requital; or the giving, or doing, in return. It is said to be peculiar to interrogation. It denotes a part of the whole. It is used to denote swearing. It denotes the end of an extent or interval. It is also redundant, to denote corroboration: and is prefixed to the agent. Frequently an expletive, when put before the compliment of a negative proposition. It also denotes the object of a transitive verb and supports the subject that is termed “zaidah” (additional). It is also used as a corroborative to confirm and to make more certain. It also denotes swear, comparison, in place of, for, from, over, on, a part of, at all, rest of.

References:
An Arabic-English Lexicon, E.W. Lane, volume one, pp. 141 – 144
A Grammar of the Arabic Language, W. Wright, Third edition, volume 1, pp. 278 - 279
The Dictionary of the Holy Qur’an, 1st edition, Abdul Mannan Omar pp. 40 - 41
A Dictionary and Glossary of the Koran, John Penrice, p. 14




Combining what is stated in 114.1 with the subsequent ayahs…



114.1-6 Say: "I seek refuge from the people's lord, the people’s king, the people’s god, from the evil whisperer, the devil, whom he whispers in the people's heart, from the jinn and the people.


Sura 114 lists-out the things that the writer seeks refuge from:

• From the people’s lord
• From the people’s king
• From the people’s god (lower case…“allah”)
• From the evil whisperer, the devil
• From the jinn (demons)
• And from the people, themselves

All of these things listed in this ayah are the evil things, from which, refuge is sought…

 

[Dirty Penguin]

Let’s look…


قل أعوذ برب الناس

Qul aAAoothu birabbi alnnasi

114.1 Say: "I seek refuge from the people's lord."




The classic definition of the preposition in question…


ب= “bi”

“bi” definition:

An inseparable preposition, prefixed to the word it governs, which, when a noun, is put in the genitive; it has diverse significations as: in, by, at, with, to, into, upon, for, or by reason of; from; with the help of; during; On account of; according to, near, through. It is used to denote adhesion of the verb to that to which it is itself prefixed; and adjunction, or association. It is also used to render a verb transitive. It is used to denote the employing a thing as an aid or instrument. It denotes a cause. It is used to denote concomitance. Before a noun signifying a place or time. It denotes substitution, meaning instead of, as in place of. It denotes requital; or the giving, or doing, in return. It is said to be peculiar to interrogation. It denotes a part of the whole. It is used to denote swearing. It denotes the end of an extent or interval. It is also redundant, to denote corroboration: and is prefixed to the agent. Frequently an expletive, when put before the compliment of a negative proposition. It also denotes the object of a transitive verb and supports the subject that is termed “zaidah” (additional). It is also used as a corroborative to confirm and to make more certain. It also denotes swear, comparison, in place of, for, from, over, on, a part of, at all, rest of.

References:
An Arabic-English Lexicon, E.W. Lane, volume one, pp. 141 – 144
A Grammar of the Arabic Language, W. Wright, Third edition, volume 1, pp. 278 - 279
The Dictionary of the Holy Qur’an, 1st edition, Abdul Mannan Omar pp. 40 - 41
A Dictionary and Glossary of the Koran, John Penrice, p. 14


Dude I understand where you'r trying to go with all of this but as I see it from your own source you cited the (IN, WITH...THROUGH)... tthey still aknowledge and associate as well.

Are you just picking and choosing to try and prove your point?

Your translation is FAR different than ALL of the translations I've seen.

I also believe the (bi) is used in a paticular context and with a certain inflexion in arabic. As you are attempting to translate it it gets lost.

 

[Apple Pie]

[/font][/size]

An inseparable preposition, prefixed to the word it governs, which, when a noun, is put in the genitive; it has diverse significations as: in, by, at, with, to, into, upon, for, or by reason of; from; with the help of; during; On account of; according to, near, through. It is used to denote adhesion of the verb to that to which it is itself prefixed; and adjunction, or association. It is also used to render a verb transitive. It is used to denote the employing a thing as an aid or instrument. It denotes a cause. It is used to denote concomitance. Before a noun signifying a place or time. It denotes substitution, meaning instead of, as in place of. It denotes requital; or the giving, or doing, in return. It is said to be peculiar to interrogation. It denotes a part of the whole. It is used to denote swearing. It denotes the end of an extent or interval. It is also redundant, to denote corroboration: and is prefixed to the agent. Frequently an expletive, when put before the compliment of a negative proposition. It also denotes the object of a transitive verb and supports the subject that is termed “zaidah” (additional). It is also used as a corroborative to confirm and to make more certain. It also denotes swear, comparison, in place of, for, from, over, on, a part of, at all, rest of.

References:
An Arabic-English Lexicon, E.W. Lane, volume one, pp. 141 – 144
A Grammar of the Arabic Language, W. Wright, Third edition, volume 1, pp. 278 - 279
The Dictionary of the Holy Qur’an, 1st edition, Abdul Mannan Omar pp. 40 - 41
A Dictionary and Glossary of the Koran, John Penrice, p. 14


Dude I understand where you'r trying to go with all of this but as I see it from your own source you cited the (IN, WITH...THROUGH)... tthey still aknowledge and associate as well.

Are you just picking and choosing to try and prove your point?

Your translation is FAR different than ALL of the translations I've seen.

I also believe the (bi) is used in a paticular context and with a certain inflexion in arabic. As you are attempting to translate it it gets lost.

You must show the context...

"Bi" can only fit the context of the sura if it retains the meaning "from"...

Think on it...

 

[Soundoc]

You are sterotyping here. Not ALL muslims share that kind of view. a lot of muslims read, study and teach OT to their students and children. I suspect you haven't really talked to a lot of muslims.

A lot of muslims have said that through the bible's many translations the book has become corrupted.

The bible being in Aramic, Hebrew, Greek and Latin...then over time gets translated into English may loose a lot of its inflexion (I guess i'm using the right word here to describe this).

We may have had translations of translations of a trasnlation to get the to the current Bible today.

The Original Torah was written by prophet Musa, but given to Musa by the Allah of the quran.

My proof: [5.44] Surely We revealed the Taurat in which was guidance and light; with it the prophets (like Musa and Isa) who submitted themselves (to Allah) judged (matters) for those who were Jews, ... (Musa and Isa were both prophets of Allah and both were Jews).

The Original Injeel was GIVEN to Isa Al Massih by Allah. (Isa did not write it).

My proof: [5.46] And We sent after them in their footsteps Isa, son of Marium, verifying what was before him of the Taurat and We gave him the Injeel in which was guidance and light,

The above 2 proofs establish the fact that both the Taurat and the Injeel were totally the words of the god of Islam.

Do Muslims have any doubt about the above 2 proofs? I hope not! If they doubt, then I doubt their faith in the truthfulness of the Quran.

Now, there is this ayat in the Quran by which Allah says strongly that his words can never be changed.:

[6.115] And the word of your Lord has been accomplished truly and justly; there is none who can change His words, and He is the Hearing, the Knowing.

Now look at the problem Muslims face.

Allah says in the Quran that the original Taurat and the original Injeel were given by him with all the words in both books coming from him.

Then Allah says that no one will ever be allowed by him to change his words.

But, Muslims have been led to believe by their Mullahs that BOTH original books of Allah have been changed or corrupted.

Please tell me: Who do we Jews and Christians believe to be telling the truth?

Allah or the Mullah?

 

[Soundoc]

Originally Posted by DreGod07

You are sterotyping here. Not ALL muslims share that kind of view. a lot of muslims read, study and teach OT to their students and children. I suspect you haven't really talked to a lot of muslims.

A lot of muslims have said that through the bible's many translations the book has become corrupted.

The bible being in Aramic, Hebrew, Greek and Latin...then over time gets translated into English may loose a lot of its inflexion (I guess i'm using the right word here to describe this).

We may have had translations of translations of a trasnlation to get the to the current Bible today.

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

The Holy Bible has two major parts: 1) Old Testament (OT) given by the Holy Spirit to the Jews of Israel and 2) The New testament (NT) given to all mankind by the very same Holy Spirit.

The OT was given in Hebrew only . (Every scribe who wrote into it were Jews of Israel called in the Quran "The children of Israel).

1. [2.40] O children of Israel! call to mind My favor which I bestowed on you and be faithful to (your) covenant with Me, I will fulfill (My) covenant with you; and of Me, Me alone, should you be afraid.
2. [2.47] O children of Israel! call to mind My favor which I bestowed on you and that I made you excel the nations.

The original NT was writen mainly in Greek with some of it in Aramaic. All the scribes who wrote the words of Almighty God in the NT were fluent in Greek because it was the language of the Roman Empire in the first century after the birth of Jesus Christ.

The Original handwritten OT and NT are not in the world now because they became dust after long years of being there. The originals were written on material that decayed and went into fine powder. (Try this: Take a 50 yr old newspaper and see what happens if you touch it. It goes into powder). The same thing happened to the originals.

Fortunately, those who were taking care of Almighty God's words made sure that before the originals became dust that they made 100% perfect IDENTICAL copies of the originals so that they always had the same original words of Almighty God in thier possession in Synagogues and churches and some homes of very rich people who had the money to buy the HAND-WRITTEN , extremely expensive copies.

Now when the second set of Bibles were about to disintegrate, they made copies from the earlier set. And that is how it went on until for thousands of years until printing was invented 500 yrs ago.

The Hebrew copies and Greek/Aramaic copies of the Holy Bible are preserved in the London and Vatical Museums. (Google for Hebrew Bibles and Greek Bibles, and Dead Sea scrolls, the three separately).

 

[des]

is no need for anger, Des, the evidence is very clear...[/SIZE][/FONT]

The wikiislam that you quote from is an open source "wiki" designed for those who wish to "safely state opinions critical of Islam without fear of censorship." (Anyone can edit it, but there is no requirement as to their knowledge, etc.) Pro-Islamic voices are not allowed.


I wouldn't put it in the same category, as say, Karen Armstrong, or other scholarly figures.

The idea that some word has a very old baseword-- although I highly question this but even if true it is meaningless. Word meanings change over time. I will remind you of a certain four letter word in English that was once a simple non-profane word in Anglo-Saxon meaning "to plant".
Etiologies of words may be interesting, but they are not especially relevant.
I doubt your source though, as I said it is a contraction, not one word. I have read this in much more scholarly sources that wikiislam.


My objection is to hate speech. I think many sites out there are little more than hate speech for anti-Islamic viewpoints.
If there is any hope for the world at all, we have to be vigilant against hate speech. I am angered by hate speech, and think I am justified.

However, since there is such ardent anti-Islamic views, i see no reason to read this stuff. I have better things to do with my time. However, I am surprised that the mods haven't put a stop to this.


--des

 

[Apple Pie]

The wikiislam that you quote from is an open source "wiki" designed for those who wish to "safely state opinions critical of Islam without fear of censorship." (Anyone can edit it, but there is no requirement as to their knowledge, etc.) Pro-Islamic voices are not allowed.

Not quite…

I don’t quote from wiki…it quotes from me…

Further, anyone can contribute – just like any other wiki…

The idea that some word has a very old baseword-- although I highly question this but even if true it is meaningless. Word meanings change over time. I will remind you of a certain four letter word in English that was once a simple non-profane word in Anglo-Saxon meaning "to plant".
Etiologies of words may be interesting, but they are not especially relevant.
I doubt your source though, as I said it is a contraction, not one word. I have read this in much more scholarly sources that wikiislam.

Failure to study your origins can only result in your inability to comprehend the original intent of the Koranic authors.

You already conceded that words change meanings over time…and yet, knowing this, you still insist that it has no merit on scripture comprehension. What kind of logic is this that you are operating under….?

The classic meanings, and the root words from which they are derived, are absolutely key to understanding the text.

You are creating your own self-defeat by shunning your origins.

Too bad for you.

My objection is to hate speech. I think many sites out there are little more than hate speech for anti-Islamic viewpoints.
If there is any hope for the world at all, we have to be vigilant against hate speech. I am angered by hate speech, and think I am justified.

However, since there is such ardent anti-Islamic views, i see no reason to read this stuff. I have better things to do with my time. However, I am surprised that the mods haven't put a stop to this.


--des

Instead of looking for excuses, why not get serious about your faith and put it to the test...or….is your faith not worth the effort….?

 

[des]

My own faith is irrelevant to pointing out hate speech when I see it.

--des