Talk:Allah

Edit request from 27.251.83.11, 23 July 2011

allah is really great

115.119.146.174 (talk) 07:04, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Jnorton7558 (talk) 07:46, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Allah and Croatia

Croatian writer Giancarlo Kravar: The European Croatia is a country of Jesus Christ and Allah!93.137.47.97 (talk) 21:13, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Allah is not the Arabic word for God, The arabic word for god is al rab (ex. My god= rabi in arabic). Allah is the name of god. thx — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.33.90.14 (talk) 01:07, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Rab means 'Lord' 96.55.183.132 (talk) 09:10, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

YHWH and Elohim

I believe JHWH or Yahweh is generally translated as "God," while Elohim is generally translated as "the Lord." The article confuses the two. 173.21.65.42 (talk) 22:20, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

Etymology

I feel that this sentence, "There are both similarities and differences between the concept of God as portrayed in the Qur'an and the Hebrew Bible." should not be in the Etymology section, but in a different section (Usage in Arabic: Christianity) because it is not related to what that paragraph is speaking of--pagan and Christian uses of "Allah." Maybe, these similarities and differences between Yahweh and Allah should be enumerated in the footnote, or expanded upon in a different article, maybe even including a link in this article to that new article. What do you think? Joshuajohnson555 (talk) 01:55, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

In Christianity

I changed the suggestion that Aramaic was "the language of the New Testament" since this is at best controversial and more likely false based on consensus that Koine Greek was the language of the New Testament. The premise gave the impression that 1st century Christians and Jews worshiped the God of the Scriptures "Allah". The name of the God of the Scriptures has been YHWH ever since he declared it to his people, occuring over 6,000 times in scripture, and in paleo-Hebrew inscription found that dates as early as the 9th century BC. Nor was it a secret among Jews and Christians of the first century, since the Jews didn't begin to consider the name too sacred to say or write until after the temple had been torn down in 70 AD. — Preceding unsigned comment added by PeterWaldo (talk • contribs) 12:32, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

This propaganda piece gets lots worse than that though.

"According to Marshall Hodgson, it seems that in the pre-Islamic times, some Arab Christians made pilgrimage to the Kaaba, a pagan temple at that time, honoring Allah there as God the Creator.[35]"

Because some author made a claim we're supposed to believe that the followers of Jesus Christ, left the Holy Land of the prophets and patriarchs in Jerusalem, to travel across 1200 kilometers of harsh desert, to march around a Kaaba with a bunch of pagan moon, sun, star and jinn-devil worshipers engaged in veneration of 360 idols? A Kaaba that available evidence suggests did not exist until the early 5th century AD when immigrants from Yemen built it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by PeterWaldo (talk • contribs) 13:09, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

The author and especially the book being referenced here seem to be very widely supported by historians, so it doesn't appear to be a case of just "some author." The self-published article you link to about construction dates doesn't really seem like a convincing source for a counter-argument either. Since the deleted material is verifiable, significant and relevant to the article, I've restored it. The wording also clearly attributes the statement to Hodgson, rather than presenting it as plain fact, so I find it very hard to argue for its removal. -- Fyrefly (talk) 16:12, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

What "seems" and "appears" to me, is that just because an American author that "...reimagined the terminology and focus of Islamic history..." wrote a book, and folks sympathetic to Muhammad support it, doesn't make the preposterous notion from it included in this article true. Wikipedia is increasingly rife with articles that are supposed to be about history, that are instead littered with Islamic so-called "tradition" - that was all penned in the 7th to 10th centuries AD - that masquerades as thousands of years of pre-Muhammad history. Just because 1.5 billion people are willing to believe it does not make it magically become a historical record.

1. the preposterous notion of Christians leaving the Holy Land to instead worship 360 idols with a bunch of Arab pagans in the SW Arabian desert 1200 kilometers away is just the kind of Wikipedia content that will eventually relegate Wikipedia to irrelevance - or worse.

2. the source I used regarding the absence of record of the pagan's kaaba prior to the 5th century AD is from a first-language-arabic author's 20 year full time study of Arabian history and Islam, including original source material. The extensive bibliography in the article you rejected includes mostly Arabic Islamic authors.

If your interest is really in contributing to Wikipedia, then the burden is on you to present a source in addition to the single American author that you are championing, that made the ridiculous suggestion that Christians traveled 1200 kilometers into the SW Arabian desert, to worship with a bunch of naked pagan idolaters. Why not also be responsible enough to present some historical or archaeological evidence, that suggests an earlier dating for construction of the Kaaba, and opposes the information I included from Dr. Rafat Amari, before you erase it? I've searched the web and asked Muhammad's followers to present evidence of a pre-5th century Kaaba, or even a pre-4th century AD Mecca, for a year and a half now, with no result.PeterWaldo (talk) 21:50, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

Alas, what seems and appears to me is that your opinion holds less weight than recognized historians. Remember, our opinions do not matter on this. If he's deemed an expert in the field by his peers, and thus a reliable source, our own personal biases of him are not suitable reasons for original research. Best, ROBERTMFROMLI | ^TK/_CN 22:24, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

The title of the section is "Christianity". That's why I created the new category. Please explain what pagan Arabian worship of 360 idols, in the SW Arabian desert 1200 kilometers away from the Holy Land of Jesus Christ and the prophets and patriarchs, has to do with ChristianITY? That is, the state of being a Christian. Try this source. — Preceding unsigned comment added by PeterWaldo (talk • contribs) 22:44, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

As for why the statement fits just fine in the Christianity section, I would say that it's because it specifically talks about the acts of a group of Christians, which I believe is rather directly related to Christianity. But to get back to your previous statement, could you clarify exactly what it is you're claiming I erased? I believe I haven't erased or removed anything. -- Fyrefly (talk) 22:54, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Perhaps this? "some Arab Christians'" - as in those who follow Christianity? Nonetheless, you seem to have already indicated that you simply don't think idolatry applies to Christianity - which is sadly very false. Best, Rob ROBERTMFROMLI | ^TK/_CN 22:55, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

The idolatry that is being suggested through the vague reference is the preposterous notion of Christians traveling 1200 kilometers across harsh Arabian desert to engage in pagan Arabian veneration of 360 stone idols in moon, sun, star and jinn devil worship, even though no historical or archaeological record suggests that the kaaba existed before the 5th century AD, or Mecca before the 4th century AD.PeterWaldo (talk) 11:48, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

Quite frankly it doesn't matter whether any of us consider them to be Christians or not, regardless of idolatry. The author identified them as Christians, so it clearly fits in the Christianity section if it remains in the article. -- Fyrefly (talk) 23:07, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

That's right. It doesn't matter that something so unhistorical, preposterous and heinous, is casually included in Wikipedia under the category "ChristianITY", despite its being expressed as conjecture. "According to Marshall Hodgson, IT SEEMS that in the pre-Islamic times...".

Wikipedia is built on unique denigrating claims, of what "seems" to some individual, in regard to something so antichrist? It seems to who? "It seems" to American author Marshall Hodgson in 1959, or "it seems" to the person who authored the single source Wikipedia paragraph it is what he believed Hodgson meant? Decisive isn't it. Is that the way someone writes when they are truthfully stating matters of historical record? Or more like someone creating history a couple thousand years after the fact? But sadly evermore typical of Wikipedia. Which of the 3 volumes of Hodgson's book is the conjecture from? I even left it the second time, and created a category for that single source "it seems" opinion expressed, because pagan Arabian moon, sun, star and jinn-devil worship circumambulation of the Kaaba and veneration of 360 rock idols had nothing whatsoever to do with Christianity, even if the Kaaba had existed prior to the 5th century AD. There's no question that Christians traveled that far, as they did throughout the world, but it would have been to save those pagans from Arabian Star Family and jinn-devil worship, not to go on "pilgrimage" to the pagan's Kaaba in Mecca to join them in it. So much effort expended since, to lump pagan Arabian idol worship in with Christianity, "seems" to have developed into little more than a transparent effort to tar Christians with it.PeterWaldo (talk) 11:48, 11 November 2011 (UTC)