Tumah
Veteran Member
What I have been apparently unsuccessfully trying to argue is that whatever the source or lieange of the name "Allah", the concept behind it with the advent of Muhammad/the Quran is not pagan.Well the evolution of the belief answers (2) of the proposition definitely then. If Allah really is a Pagan god, then his lineage cannot be traced back to Abraham.
Maybe I misunderstood. I was reading where you said "I would not say Muslims worship the same God as the Christians and Jews". I thought you were putting Jewish and Christian god-concept into its own category.I never said Christians and Jews worship the same God, in fact I said the exact opposite above.
Why?I accept that Mohammed's Allah is far closer in spirit to the Jewish God, I also said that. However, the difference in origin still makes a difference.
To me you are just describing two ways two different religions came to the same god-concept. I don't see a problem with that.The Jews's God is YHWH the God of Moses; The Muslims God is Allah the God of Mohammed. YHWH became the only God of the Jews only after all the other Gods were eliminated and this became the official creed of the Jewish religion of YHWH being the only God and having no partners. Allah became the only God after all the other Gods were eliminated and this became the official creed of the Muslim religion of Allah as the only God with no partners. However, one ends up with YHWH and the other with Allah. They are different deities both carrying the claim of being the only God.
If we add to the list of claimants some Vaishnava Hindus who claim Vishnu is the only God or some Shaivas that Shiva is the only God, then we will have four claimants each claiming that their deity is the only God. However, I don't see Muslims and Jews accepting Vishnu and Shiva as God.
That's not so simple. As I think I said in an earlier post, I'm not sure exactly what the Jewish requirements are to a god-concept in order for it to be considered acceptable by Jewish standards. I'm certain that it requires a monotheistic concept, incorporeality (and non-incarnate), and creator of the universe. What I'm unsure of, is if it also requires belief that this G-d is the G-d of Abraham and that the Jews received the Torah from Him at Mt. Sinai.
Muslims can check all the boxes. Hindus may be able to check some of the boxes, but I'm unsure if those few are enough. If the former conditions already exist in Hinduism and the latter conditions are not necessary by Jewish standards, then I would be amenable to believing the Hindu god is the one I worship albeit under a different name.
From my perspective, whether you are right or wrong is immaterial. The only thing that matters is what concept are people intending when they say the word "Allah". Whether Muhammad abused or didn't abuse that concept is totally irrelevant to how we judge it. We don't judge the religion as a whole. We break apart all the different parts and analyze each facet on its own merit.I do not just see a theological claim, but a political claim. There was a time when YHWH was just one among many gods that different tribes worshipped, the YHWH tribe wiped out the other tribes to establish the supremacy of their deity as the only God and by that accepting their prophets as messengers of God whose word by virtue of being messengers of God becomes authority hence giving them absolute political power. Similarly, there was a time when Allah was just one god among many that different Arabic tribes worshipped, the Allah tribe wiped out the other tribes to establish the supremacy of Allah and the absolute authority of Mohammed as the final prophet. Mohammed used this power on many occasions for self-benefit, e.g. to get the wife of his son or to get most of the share of booty won in war and raids. Mohammed commanded absolute political power. Hence, I do not see Islam as a religion of Allah, but as a religion of Mohammed. Recall, that I said, that Mohammed position is more central than Allah.