T
tomarin
Guest
I can answer that one. The Arabic word for god is actually al lilah but it’s been contracted to Allah in order to designate the special status of God.
- Status
D
dzheremi
Guest
There was a thread on this subject a while ago. I cannot remember the name (or maybe it was part of some larger thread that got pulled off topic), but maybe do a search for “allah proper name” or something like that. I remember that inJESUS posted in it a lot, and it was a very fruitful discussion because we actually settled the matter to the satisfaction of almost everyone, so far as I can remember.
The bottom line was/is that Allah is “the God” in Arabic, but in Islam carries the additional meaning of a proper name like Jim or Bob or Kathy or something (sort of like how Islam’s “Isa” has a list of qualities that the Christian Arabs’ “Yesuaa” does not, even though they’re ostensibly referring to the same person). Christian Arabs use the word just as their non-Arab counterparts use the term “God”: to denote the concept, rather than as a name.
The bottom line was/is that Allah is “the God” in Arabic, but in Islam carries the additional meaning of a proper name like Jim or Bob or Kathy or something (sort of like how Islam’s “Isa” has a list of qualities that the Christian Arabs’ “Yesuaa” does not, even though they’re ostensibly referring to the same person). Christian Arabs use the word just as their non-Arab counterparts use the term “God”: to denote the concept, rather than as a name.
J
jakasaki
Guest
Yes and thank you. I was just reading that information about the “name” bit.
M
M0nkey
Guest
Because allah is a false god. There is only one God: father, son and holy spirit.
P
planten
Guest
Yes, jakasaki, Allah is the personal name of God in Arabic. It is used in as such in the Quran many times. Can you please tell me from your bibleNT what is the name of your God? It should be from the bible and preferrably from Jesus. Welcome.
P
planten
Guest
**MOnkey, You said “There is only one God.” Followed by “Father, son and holy spirit.”
Can I reframe your words as “There is only one God, Father and** son and holy spirit.” I hope you can see the company of your gods.
C
cthulhubryan
Guest
The nature of the trinity is a divine mystery. Saying that the fact that God is triune makes Him 3 gods is facetious at best and willfully ignorant at worst.
I
Iamnotafraid
Guest
Is this an example of what your talking about?
2 Kings 23;24
From there Elisha went up to Bethel. While he was on the way, some small boys came out of the city and jeered at him. “Go up, baldhead,” they shouted, “go up, baldhead!”
The prophet turned and saw them, and he cursed them in the name of the LORD. Then two she-bears came out of the woods and tore forty-two of the children to pieces.
I
Iwesshome
Guest
Even to this day I never understood the term “Son of” if Jesus really is God. When I was growing up I went to a christian school and how we were taught was Jesus was the son of God in which God delivered his son to the Earth to die for our sins. I was never taught Jesus was God. If Jesus is God then why the Trinity? Why not just refer to Jesus as God and call it a day. I guess the term “Son of” could be used to describe God’s human form but to me he is still God but not a “Son of.” He could return to us as a leprechaun and still be God no matter his form.
So if Jesus is God what is God’s true name? Is it Jesus or is it Yahweh?
C
cthulhubryan
Guest
Many names have been given to God, but we do not know his true name. The names we give are attempts: Jesus is the name of the Son of God on earth. As far as being a true name, we can call Him God, YHWH, Jehovah, Tetragrammaton, Adonai, Elohim, or others as we attempt to understand the true nature of God, which is beyond mortal capacity.
Jesus is called the Son of God to make it easier for men to understand. Since the beginning God has referred to himself as We. God is Triune, whether we can completely understand it or not.
Men have, over the years, increased their understanding of many things. Years ago we thought that maggots spontaneously produced from dead meat, now we know different.
Not being able to completely understand something does not excuse willful ignorance.
I
Iwesshome
Guest
Thanks for the feedback and the info.
M
M0nkey
Guest
The nature of God is Jesus. If you see His holy countenance, you have seen His Father.
You see, God is something so intangible we can’t possibly understand. That is why God took on the form of man in Jesus Christ, and revealed His great Love by dying on a Cross.
A
a_slave_of_God
Guest
Moses came First before christianity and Jesus is Born, so answer yourself.
The jews don’t worship jesus, they even critisiced him and his mother in Israel 2 mounth ago, so why not following the chosen people?
Remember
And remember
All The Praises and Thanks be to Allah who provide us with hears, sights and hearts.
- It is only those who hear will respond, but as for the dead (disbelievers), Allâh will raise them up, then to Him they will be returned (for their recompense).
The Bible says:
“His mouth is most sweet: yea, he is altogether lovely. This is my beloved, and this is my friend, O daughters of Jerusalem.”
And in the original language of the Holy Bible:
“Hikko Mamittakim we kullo Muhammadim Zehdoodeh wa Zehraee Bayna Jerusalem.”
[the Song of Solomon chapter 5 verse 16]
“In the Hebrew language im is added for respect. Similarely im is added after the name of Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) to make it Muhammadim. In English translation they have even translated the name of Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) as “altogether lovely”, but in the Old Testament in Hebrew, the name of Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) is yet present.” [Dr. Zakir/ IRF].
Also, remember that:
J
jakasaki
Guest
Can any of our Jewish members confirm the **above **statement.
And if anyone reads Hebrew, can they confirm from what is written below has mohamads name in there.
I know that Dr. Zakir is very anti-Jewish and anti-Christian and I’ve read some of his works and it’s… well… hmmm… what’s the word I’m looking for…
… I’ll stop!שיר השירים 5:16 Hebrew OT: BHS (Consonants & Vowels)
חִכֹּו מַמְתַקִּים וְכֻלֹּו מַחֲמַדִּים זֶה דֹודִי וְזֶה רֵעִי בְּנֹות יְרוּשָׁלִָם׃
שיר השירים 5:16 Hebrew OT: BHS (Consonants Only)
חכו ממתקים וכלו מחמדים זה דודי וזה רעי בנות ירושלם׃
שיר השירים 5:16 Hebrew OT: Westminster Leningrad Codex
חִכֹּו֙ מַֽמְתַקִּ֔ים וְכֻלֹּ֖ו מַחֲמַדִּ֑ים זֶ֤ה דֹודִי֙ וְזֶ֣ה רֵעִ֔י בְּנֹ֖ות יְרוּשָׁלִָֽם׃
שיר השירים 5:16 Hebrew OT: WLC (Consonants Only)
חכו ממתקים וכלו מחמדים זה דודי וזה רעי בנות ירושלם׃
שיר השירים 5:16 Hebrew OT: WLC (Consonants & Vowels)
חִכֹּו מַמְתַקִּים וְכֻלֹּו מַחֲמַדִּים זֶה דֹודִי וְזֶה רֵעִי בְּנֹות יְרוּשָׁלִָם׃
שיר השירים 5:16 Hebrew OT: Aleppo Codex
טז חכו ממתקים וכלו מחמדים זה דודי וזה רעי בנות ירושלם
שיר השירים 5:16 Paleo-Hebrew OT: BHS (Font Required)
חכו ממתקים וכלו מחמדים זה דודי וזה רעי בנות ירושלם׃
שיר השירים 5:16 Paleo-Hebrew OT: WLC (Font Required)
חכו ממתקים וכלו מחמדים זה דודי וזה רעי בנות ירושלם׃
שיר השירים 5:16 Hebrew Bible
חכו ממתקים וכלו מחמדים זה דודי וזה רעי בנות ירושלם׃
Thanks!
J
jakasaki
Guest
Does Song of Songs mention Muhammad’s name?
Some refer chapter 5:16, of the Song of Songs, to Muhammad, simply because in the Hebrew the word mahamaddim, “delights,” “delightfulnesses,” occurs there.
But we find that the word in Hebrew is a common, and not a proper noun (i.e. not a name), as the use of the plural here shows.
The same word occurs again as a common noun in:
Hosea 9:6,16;
1 Kings 20:6;
Lamentations 1:10,11; 2:4;
Isaiah 64:10;
2 Chronicles 36:19;
Ezekiel 24:16,21,25.
In the last passage (Ezekiel 24:16, “the desire of thine eyes”) it is applied to a woman, Ezekiel’s wife (compare verse 18), and to the sons and daughters of the idolatrous Jews (verse 25).
It would be just as wise to apply the word to Muhammad HERE as in the Song of Songs.
In Arabic many words are formed from the same root , but they do not on that account denote Muhammad.
An ignorant Muslim might just as well assert that Muhammad’s name occurred in Surah 1, Al Fatihah, verse 1: Al hamdo lillahi Rabbi 'lalamin (“Praise be to God, the Lord of the worlds”).
In the same way a Hindu might assert that the name of Ram or some other of his deities was mentioned in the Qur’an, because in Sura 30, Ar-Rum, verse 1, we read " the Romans have been overcome," where Arabic dictionaries give “Rum” as if derived from the root “ram”. This kind of argument is unworthy of men of learning and judgement.
A newsgroup article in regard to that:
It is also interesting to note:
Many Muslims are “outraged” that something like the Song of Songs by Solomon which is a love song and sometimes very open in its erotic language could be part of the Word of God, the Bible.
But then, they completely “forget” this argument and try to find in the middle of this very same love poem expressing this woman’s desire for her lover the name of Muhammad and are not the least embarrassed by this. Have a look at the whole context of Song of Songs 5-6.
The argument goes: This should not be in the Bible, such erotic language is unworthy of the Word of God, but it is a prophecy of Muhammad nevertheless.
A further problem is that even though Muslims need to find Muhammad mentioned because the Qur’an claims so, the Song of Songs is neither part of the Torah nor the Gospel, so that this verse wouldn’t help at all to satisfy this demand of the Qur’an even if it were to speak about Muhammad.
Some refer chapter 5:16, of the Song of Songs, to Muhammad, simply because in the Hebrew the word mahamaddim, “delights,” “delightfulnesses,” occurs there.
But we find that the word in Hebrew is a common, and not a proper noun (i.e. not a name), as the use of the plural here shows.
The same word occurs again as a common noun in:
Hosea 9:6,16;
1 Kings 20:6;
Lamentations 1:10,11; 2:4;
Isaiah 64:10;
2 Chronicles 36:19;
Ezekiel 24:16,21,25.
In the last passage (Ezekiel 24:16, “the desire of thine eyes”) it is applied to a woman, Ezekiel’s wife (compare verse 18), and to the sons and daughters of the idolatrous Jews (verse 25).
It would be just as wise to apply the word to Muhammad HERE as in the Song of Songs.
In Arabic many words are formed from the same root , but they do not on that account denote Muhammad.
An ignorant Muslim might just as well assert that Muhammad’s name occurred in Surah 1, Al Fatihah, verse 1: Al hamdo lillahi Rabbi 'lalamin (“Praise be to God, the Lord of the worlds”).
In the same way a Hindu might assert that the name of Ram or some other of his deities was mentioned in the Qur’an, because in Sura 30, Ar-Rum, verse 1, we read " the Romans have been overcome," where Arabic dictionaries give “Rum” as if derived from the root “ram”. This kind of argument is unworthy of men of learning and judgement.
A newsgroup article in regard to that:
Code:
Song of Songs 5:16 shyr hshyrym 5,16
his mouth is sweets Hkw mmtqym
and all of him is delights wklw mHmdym
this is my love zh dwdy
and this is my darling wzh r`y
daughters of Jerusalem bnwt yrwshlm
**Song of Songs 5:16 is no more a reference to Muhammad than it is to
Mumattaq or to David. ** Finding the name of Muhammad is child's play.
Because Arabic and Hebrew share a cognate word [Hmd], there are of
course several other similar occurrences in the Hebrew scriptures.
The New Bantam-Megiddo Hebrew & English Dictionary lists...
Hmd (yHmwd) p covet, lust after
Hmd z delight, loviness
Hmdh n desire, object of desire
Hmdnwt covetousness, lustfulnessMany Muslims are “outraged” that something like the Song of Songs by Solomon which is a love song and sometimes very open in its erotic language could be part of the Word of God, the Bible.
But then, they completely “forget” this argument and try to find in the middle of this very same love poem expressing this woman’s desire for her lover the name of Muhammad and are not the least embarrassed by this. Have a look at the whole context of Song of Songs 5-6.
The argument goes: This should not be in the Bible, such erotic language is unworthy of the Word of God, but it is a prophecy of Muhammad nevertheless.
A further problem is that even though Muslims need to find Muhammad mentioned because the Qur’an claims so, the Song of Songs is neither part of the Torah nor the Gospel, so that this verse wouldn’t help at all to satisfy this demand of the Qur’an even if it were to speak about Muhammad.
D
dzheremi
Guest
Excellent post, Jakasaki! I’m starting to believe that there could be an entire book written by someone with a Linguistics background (say…me 
) on refuting Muslim claims to other scriptures and traditions on a linguistic basis. So far we’ve explored the use of “Allah” as a proper name, now “Muhammad”…what comes next, I wonder? Maybe the “Lamb of God” will also somehow turn out to be Muhammad, somehow! 
) on refuting Muslim claims to other scriptures and traditions on a linguistic basis. So far we’ve explored the use of “Allah” as a proper name, now “Muhammad”…what comes next, I wonder? Maybe the “Lamb of God” will also somehow turn out to be Muhammad, somehow!
J
jakasaki
Guest
J
jakasaki
Guest
Ahhh… now I know where you (and other muslims as well) got/get this information from:Oh my goodness, it’s filled with so many “gems” regarding **PROPHET MUHAMMAD (pbuh) IN THE BIBLE ** isn’t it!!!
islam101.net/comparative-religion-mainmenu-34/41-christianity/147-prophet-muhammad-pbuh-in-the-bible.html
I got a belly laugh from the site.
That whole page is filled with false information. Have you ever tried to look up and research each and every thing that is posted under Christianity from Mr. Zakir? And really study it, analyze for fact or fiction or truth or false and make up your own descision?
Based on your quote above, it appears not.
R
ralphinal
Guest
One of my favorites is the “prophacy” is Isaiah 29. What a joke!Ahhh… now I know where you (and other muslims as well) got/get this information from:
islam101.net/comparative-religion-mainmenu-34/41-christianity/147-prophet-muhammad-pbuh-in-the-bible.html
I got a belly laugh from the site.
That whole page is filled with false information. Have you ever tried to look up and research each and every thing that is posted under Christianity from Mr. Zakir? And really study it, analyze for fact or fiction or truth or false and make up your own descision?
Based on your quote above, it appears not.
J
jakasaki
Guest
- Status