Allah is Satan and Mohammad was jealous of Christianity

[VermilionUK]

Taken from: http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... hp?t=12279

Muhammad wrote the koran in response to Judiasm and Christianity. He was jealous and wanted all the attiontion and praise, so he annointed himself as the one to be worshopped. Him and Allah(Satan). He would not humble himself in light of the truth. When his followers are confronted with the truth they act out as Muhammad would do. They turn into homicidal crybabies. Everyone that worshops Islam are worshopping the epitome of evil.

Question for debate: Is there any evidence to suggest that this (or any of this) is true?

[Goat]

Taken from: http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... hp?t=12279

Muhammad wrote the koran in response to Judiasm and Christianity. He was jealous and wanted all the attiontion and praise, so he annointed himself as the one to be worshopped. Him and Allah(Satan). He would not humble himself in light of the truth. When his followers are confronted with the truth they act out as Muhammad would do. They turn into homicidal crybabies. Everyone that worshops Islam are worshopping the epitome of evil.

Question for debate: Is there any evidence to suggest that this (or any of this) is true?

I would say that there is absolutely zero evidence of this, and a lot of evidence to the contrary. The term 'Allah' is merely Arabic for 'god', and Islamic Christians have been using the term Allah for centuries.

[Apple Pie]

Taken from: http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... hp?t=12279

Muhammad wrote the koran in response to Judiasm and Christianity. He was jealous and wanted all the attiontion and praise, so he annointed himself as the one to be worshopped. Him and Allah(Satan). He would not humble himself in light of the truth. When his followers are confronted with the truth they act out as Muhammad would do. They turn into homicidal crybabies. Everyone that worshops Islam are worshopping the epitome of evil.

Question for debate: Is there any evidence to suggest that this (or any of this) is true?

That the Koranic god "allah" is Satan is revealed to us by the very definition of the term itself...


الله = “allah�

“allah� 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


Key points:

• 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


Clearly, with the "allah" of the Koran, idol worship is an inherent part of its root origin!

[Goat]

Clearly, with the "allah" of the Koran, idol worship is an inherent part of its root origin!

I guess that's why Arab Christians called god "allah". because Christain Arabs call God ALLAH. That must mean that Christianity worships Idols and is evil.

[Goat]

Clearly, with the "allah" of the Koran, idol worship is an inherent part of its root origin!

I guess that's why Arab Christians called god "allah". because Christain Arabs call God ALLAH. That must mean that Christianity worships Idols and is evil.

According to your logic at least.

[Apple Pie]

Clearly, with the "allah" of the Koran, idol worship is an inherent part of its root origin!

I guess that's why Arab Christians called god "allah". because Christain Arabs call God ALLAH. That must mean that Christianity worships Idols and is evil.

According to your logic at least.

Arabic was never an original language in the Holy Bible.

Arabic Bibles use the term Allah as a translation into their language….not as the original meaning that exists at the time that the Koran was penned.

[Goat]

Clearly, with the "allah" of the Koran, idol worship is an inherent part of its root origin!

I guess that's why Arab Christians called god "allah". because Christain Arabs call God ALLAH. That must mean that Christianity worships Idols and is evil.

According to your logic at least.

Arabic was never an original language in the Holy Bible.

Arabic Bibles use the term Allah as a translation into their language….not as the original meaning that exists at the time that the Koran was penned.

So?? Why does that matter? English wasn't the original language of the Bible either, nor was Greek the original language of the OT, yet the writers of the NT used the Greek Septaguiant as their source, and not the original Hebrew.

Your objection is irrelevant.

[Apple Pie]

Clearly, with the "allah" of the Koran, idol worship is an inherent part of its root origin!

I guess that's why Arab Christians called god "allah". because Christain Arabs call God ALLAH. That must mean that Christianity worships Idols and is evil.

According to your logic at least.

Arabic was never an original language in the Holy Bible.

Arabic Bibles use the term Allah as a translation into their language….not as the original meaning that exists at the time that the Koran was penned.

So?? Why does that matter? English wasn't the original language of the Bible either, nor was Greek the original language of the OT, yet the writers of the NT used the Greek Septaguiant as their source, and not the original Hebrew.

Your objection is irrelevant.

You just answered yourself in your reply, brother.

Any translation, into another language, takes on the original language intent.

[Goat]

You just answered yourself in your reply, brother.

Any translation, into another language, takes on the original language intent.

On the contrary.. Any translation from one language to another takes on the flavor of the translators bias.

Translation is interpretation.. and that is why CHristian translations of the Tanakh will have more of a 'Jesus colored Glasses' feel than Jewish ones.

[Apple Pie]

You just answered yourself in your reply, brother.

Any translation, into another language, takes on the original language intent.

On the contrary.. Any translation from one language to another takes on the flavor of the translators bias.

Translation is interpretation.. and that is why CHristian translations of the Tanakh will have more of a 'Jesus colored Glasses' feel than Jewish ones.

As usual, you provide yet another unreferenced opinion.