http://www.prophetofdoom.net/Does_Allah_mean_God.Islam
Q: “no god but Allah?” Isn’t “Allah” another word for “God?”
A: The transliterated phrase from Arabic reads, “La ilaha illAllah.” A word for word translation into English would read: La [no] ilaha [god] ill [except or but] Allah [Allah]. The important thing to note is that the word “Allah” is a name and is not the word for god. If “Allah” were the word for god, then the phrase would read, “there is no allah but allah. Clearly it does not. The Qur’an itself claims that Allah is the personal name of the Islamic god: (Qur’an 17:110) “Say, Call Him Allah or call Him Ar-Rahman; whatever the name you call Him, all His names are beautiful.” If “Allah” were the word for god, then Islam’s god is nameless. There is also no evidence that the word “Allah” is a contraction of the words “al ilah,” which means, “the god.” If it were, then again, the phrase would read, “there is no allah but allah.” As part of the first “Pillar of Islam,” this issue is critical as Islam claims that the God of the Bible (whose name is Yahweh) and Allah are one in the same and that we all, therefore, worship the same god.
Excerpts from Prophet of Doom
From chapter 6, “Heart of Darkness”
Then one day, sun boring down on the treeless town, Muttalib was struggling to clear the well of Zamzam when: Ishaq:66/Tabari VI:2 “It is alleged, and Allah only knows the truth, that Abdul Muttalib encountered opposition when he was digging Zamzam. He vowed that if given ten sons, to make his labor less arduous and to protect him, he would sacrifice one of them to Allah at the Ka’aba.” Bad move, because eventually he had ten sons. So, foolishly faithful to the rocks, he tossed divining arrows at Hubal’s feet to determine which son should die. Ishaq:67 “They used to conduct their affairs according to the decisions of the arrows.” His youngest lost. The boy’s name was Abd-Allah, or Slave-to-Allah.
Now why would someone name a kid “Slave-to-Allah” a generation before Islam’s prophet claimed Allah was the creator-god of the universe? The answer is as embarrassing as any in the annals of religious lore. For all Muhammad really did was promote one of the existing Meccan idols, the moon god Allah, above Hubal, Al-Lat, Manat, Al-Uzza, and hundreds of others. On this day Allah had to compete for adoration, as Muttalib’s tossing arrows at Hubal’s feet attests. A Bukhari Hadith confirms the godly congestion: Bukhari:V5B59N583 “When the Prophet entered Mecca on the day of the Conquest, there were 360 idols around the Ka’aba. The Prophet started striking them with a stick.”
Islamic scholar Montgomery Watt, one of the English translators of Tabari, adds an interesting footnote. He says, “The name [not word] Allah has throughout been [wrongly] translated as ‘God.’ It should be kept in mind, however, that in the pre-Islamic period it does not necessarily mean “God” in a monotheistic sense. It is known from the Qur’an (29:61 and 39:38) that many pre-Islamic Arabs believed in Allah as a god who was superior to the other gods whom they also recognized.”
Allah was a name, much like the Judeo-Christian “Yahweh.” But Muslims desperately needed the world to see it otherwise. For if Allah was a proper name - not a word - their religion was a fraud. The creator of the universe can’t be a pagan god, no matter how big a stick Muhammad swung. And Allah can’t be Yahweh any more than I can be George Washington.
Arabic, like Hebrew before it, is a Semitic language. In Hebrew, “el,” was the word for god - lower case “g” - as in idols. Elohiym was used with the article to convey “God” with a capital “G.” In Arabic, “el” became “il.” Then, over time, Arabs derived a secondary word for god, “ilah.” With “al” being the Arabic word for “the,” Muslims would have us believe that “Allah” is a contraction of “al” and “ilah.” But the first pillar of Islam contradicts this claim when it says: “There is no ilah but Allah.” If “Allah” were the Arabic word for god it would have been written: “There is no allah but Allah. Moreover, the Qur’an itself uses “Ilah” when Allah claims to be “the God of Abraham” (Qur’an 2:132). And that ends the debate because the only way Muslims can claim Allah, not Ilah, is the Arabic word for “God” is for the Qur’an to be errant or for its author to be either ignorant or deceitful. Further, there are hundreds, if not thousands, of Islamic traditions like the one we just reviewed that confirm that Allah was the name of a well-known pagan deity (at least in Mecca). Their own scriptures profess that Allah had an ignominious rule as a Meccan rock idol centuries before he was transformed from god to God, from an ilah to Allah. All of which serves to destroy the most essential Islamic myth: “We all worship the same God.”
From chapter 14, “The Anti-Semite”
Since this is supposed to be a religion, let’s review the first surah revealed in Medina to find a more inspired reason. The 2nd surah, the Qur’an’s longest, is really its first surah, as the 1st is “The Prologue,” a sixty-word invocation. Its speaker isn’t Allah. The 2nd surah, which was the ninetieth received, is called “The Cow” in reference to the golden calf cast by the Israelites during their Exodus nearly 2,000 years before Islam was invented. Muslim scholars acknowledge that the surah was handed down in pieces over the course of a decade.
Maududi, our Qur’anic scholar says: “’The Cow’ has been so named from the story of the golden calf associated with Moses. It has not, however, been used as a title to indicate the subject of the surah. It will, therefore, be as wrong to translate the name Al-Baqarah into ‘The Co.’ as to translate any English name, say Baker, Rice, or Wolf into their equivalents in other languages or vice versa, because this would imply that the surah dealt with the subject of “The Cow.’” This argument is as irrational as it is telling. It goes to the very heart of Muhammad’s deception. Names and words are different things. We can and should translate the word for the profession of baker but never the name of a person named Baker. Baqarah is the Arabic word for cow. It is not the name of a cow. Similarly, “il” and “ilah” are Arabic words for god, not the names of gods. Words for things must always be translated, while the personal names of deities and people should never be. Ar-Rahman, Allah, and Yahweh are the personal names of very different gods. Anyone who replaces the name “Allah” with the word “God” is guilty of deceiving their audience and of contradicting the Qur’an.
Maududi goes on to explain: “The greater part of Al-Baqarah was revealed during the first two years of the Prophet’s life at Medina. Some of it was revealed at a later period and has been included in this surah because its contents are closely related to those dealt with in this surah. For instance, the verses prohibiting interest were revealed during the last period of the Prophet’s life. For the same reason, the last verses of this surah which were revealed in Mecca before the migration of the Prophet.” This argument is inconsistent with the Qur’an as a whole. If it were god’s plan to have like subjects grouped together, the never-ending argument and related depictions of hellish torments wouldn’t be randomly strewn throughout the book. All things related to Moses would be brought together, not disseminated in two-dozen surahs. Further, the last verses are unrelated to the business discussion preceding them. They are therefore out of context and chronology.
A perfect book cannot by definition be disordered. Yet there is a larger problem. This surah contains the verse on abrogation which says: “Whenever We cancel a message or throw it into oblivion, We replace it with a better one.” Without dismembering the entire Qur’an so that every line follows the revelation that immediately preceded it, the “cancel and replace” concept is futile. How is anyone to know which verses Allah “threw into oblivion?” Without context and chronology, the “cancel and replace” verse renders the entire Qur’an irrelevant. If one line encourages slavery and another condones it, which is to be believed? If one verse says that infidels are to be taxed to death and others order them put to death, what are Muslims to do?
The answer is obvious, but apparently not to Muslims (or those in our statehouses, media, and pulpits) who coddle Islam. A “god” who changes his mind repeatedly over a score of years and needs a verse to deal with his contradictions cannot be “God.” A religion devoted to a false spirit isn’t worth protecting - especially when it motivates men to murder.
Maududi wasn’t finished incriminating his religion. “At Mecca the Qur’an generally addressed the Quraysh who were ignorant of Islam. At Medina it was concerned with the Jews who were acquainted with the unity of Allah, Prophethood, Revelation, the Hereafter and angels. They also professed to believe in the law which was revealed by Allah to their Prophet Moses, and in principle, their way was the same Islam that was being taught by Prophet Muhammad.” Like all things Islam, the truth has been inverted. The reason both Jews and Muslims believed in prophets, revelation, and angels was because Muhammad stole these concepts, words, and names from them.
Further, Jews believed in the oneness of Yahweh - not in some pathetic pagan rock idol named Allah. They knew that the dark spirit of the Qur’an was Lucifer. It’s obvious to anyone familiar with the Bible. Yahweh used his name 6,868 times in his scriptures. In addition, every seventieth Hebrew letter in the Torah’s central book - Leviticus - forms YHWH, bringing the grand total to a perfect 7,000. Allah’s name was never mentioned. The closest Hebrew word means “oak tree.” The Jews had a word for god, too. It was “el,” and they used it when describing pagan idols like the Islamic deity.
As for “the Jewish way” being “the same Islam,” that’s donkey dung. Jewish prophets predicted the future and condemned immoral behavior. The Islamic prophet authorized immoral behavior and condemned the future. They are opposites.
Torah means “instructions” not “laws,” but either way those guidelines were summarized in the Ten Commandments. Muhammad declared war on all of them, as did his god. They could not have been chiseled in stone by the rock idol who established a false doctrine promoting theft and murder.
I would like to give Maududi another chance, since this is the fulcrum surah of the Qur’an. More changed than just the Qiblah. He wrote, “The Jews had strayed away from Islam during the centuries of degeneration and had adopted many un-Islamic creeds, rites, and customs of which there was no mention and for which there was no sanction in the Torah. Not only this: they had tampered with the Torah by inserting their own explanations and interpretations into its text. They had distorted even that part of the Word of God which had remained intact in their Scriptures and taken out of it the real spirit of true religion and were now clinging to a lifeless frame of rituals.” This is the very heart of the matter. It is the Qur’an’s justification, its sole tenuous hope of authenticity. It is the reason for the change in Qiblah, and the impetus behind Islamic hatred and Muslim militancy.
If Islam were not so ruthless, so fixated upon submission for the benefit of cleric and king, this assertion would have killed it. The claim that the Torah was inspired by Allah and its characters were Muslims requires it to have been corrupted beyond recognition. The Septuagint and the Dead Sea Scrolls prove beyond any doubt that tampering did not occur. Since archeology has proven that the Jews did not distort the Torah, the Qur’an is a lie. Muhammad deceived men on behalf of a god no bigger than the rock he occupied.
However, it was not all as simple as that. The dark spirit that inspired Muhammad to make these preposterous claims was in a predicament himself. He (like his prophet) was covetous, so Lucifer wanted what belonged to Yahweh: the Jews and their Torah. It is no coincidence that a race representing a tiny fraction of one percent of the world’s population became the victim of Islam’s wrath. It should be no surprise that modern history’s most famous occultist, Adolf Hitler, also wrapped himself in Bible symbols and picked the same enemy. They were both possessed by the same spirit. I dedicated the “Bad Boys” chapter in Tea With Terrorists to exposing the similarities between these men and their doctrines. I encourage you to read it if you haven’t already.
From chapter 23, “Jihad”
The next verse confirms what the Islamic clerics deny and what the American media ignores. Allah is the name of the Islamic god - it was never the Arabic word for “God.” Qur’an 5.4 “Pronounce the Name of Allah: and fear Allah; for Allah is swift in reckoning.” Every time you read the word “God” in an Associated Press article emanating from the Islamic world, know that they are unwittingly propagating this deception. Muslims have a perfectly good word for “god” and they use it with great regularity. They say, “There is no ilah but Allah, and Muhammad is His Messenger.”
This deception is at the very core of Islam, and thus of Islamic terror. If Allah isn’t Yahweh, the Qur’an is rubbish - it’s a horrid job of plagiarizing, nothing more. If Allah isn’t Yahweh, Muhammad was speaking on his own behalf - and for his own benefit - he could not have been among the line of Biblical prophets. If Allah isn’t Yahweh, the god of Islam is fictitious - an impotent mirage. But knowing that most people are blissfully ignorant - unwilling to read or think for themselves - they’ll never know that Allah is the inverse of Yahweh. So the ruse works.
Islam is NOT an “Abrahamic religion,” no matter how much its liberal supporters want it to be such.
I assume everybody is aware that pagan Rome had a “black stone” that was supposedly buried at the center of the city and had been brought from some place in the Middle East. Romans used to swear by the Black Stone.
Since Arabia also had a black stone (these stones were all meteors, which had obviously seemed quite spectacular to primitive peoples), and since the ME had been dominated by Rome and it was only the collapse of Rome that allowed Mohammed’s military force to take over, it was a no-brainer for Mohammed to include the black stone as part of his cult as well.
He picked up whatever he thought would serve his desire for conquest. Islam has NO connection with Abraham.
ping for later
12 posted on 08/23/2007 10:08:40 AM PDT by pacelvi (In general, Democrats are the only real reason to vote for Republicans. - Thomas Sowell)
Nice post!
Very enlightening article === Thanks
>> Arabic, like Hebrew before it, is a Semitic language. In Hebrew, “el,” was the word for god - lower case “g” - as in idols. Elohiym was used with the article to convey “God” with a capital “G.” In Arabic, “el” became “il.” Then, over time, Arabs derived a secondary word for god, “ilah.” With “al” being the Arabic word for “the,” Muslims would have us believe that “Allah” is a contraction of “al” and “ilah.” But the first pillar of Islam contradicts this claim when it says: “There is no ilah but Allah.” If “Allah” were the Arabic word for god it would have been written: “There is no allah but Allah. <<
Very unconvincing argument. “There is no god but God” actually makes loads of sense. Likewise, “there is no allah but Allah” makes sense.