The Concept of God

@BeTheChange that is why "iqra'" was the first word. Told to a unlettered man .. a message for the world but answering those who question at that times.

The Quran is filled with ayats asking us to ponder, think, consider etc.

The subject is big. The Concept of God .. wow

format_quote Originally Posted by jubal

Um, don't the majority of Gods command something from there followers?

Hi Jubal - is that with a silent J?

brrrr, anyway, I reject the idea of "majority of gods" simply because the idea of many gods seems ridiculous given the strength of monotheist theology all over the world - as seen in the OP.

format_quote Originally Posted by jubal

That's pretty strong evidence God wants or needs something, after why would you command a action otherwise?

I think you are seeing things from an altogether biased perspective - if you can entertain an idea, entertain this:

God doesn't need or want anything - HE is self sufficient, rather we humans worship HIM for our own benefit.

Scimi

format_quote Originally Posted by ReckonerH

Super fascinating read, I enjoyed it and learned a lot.

JazakAllahu Khairan,

format_quote Originally Posted by ReckonerH

I have a question regarding that quote on hadith methodology you mentioned:


We have a preserved Qur'an, and even the Ahadeeth have been commented on by non Muslim scholars with comments such as "The stringent methodology by which the early Muslims collated the sayings of their prophet, is an example by which we can authenticate any known word attributed to another, but only if we take a leaf out of their (the Muslims) book."

Can you provide a source for this please. I feel like this will help me when in similar discussions I have with some atheist/non Muslim friends.

I couldn't find the exact reference, but this should suffice for now in sha Allah (it's actually really interesting and if you read the link, you will see the Oriental Skeptic's issues with Hadeeth literature, only to have their issues (bias) examined by Fueck and corrected - here you go:

It can be observed that all of the orientalists mentioned so far share a common skeptical attitude towards the hadith literature. At this point, we may refer to a different view in the orientalist literature, namely that of Johann Fueck (1894-1974), who criticizes the skeptical approach of his predecessors, arguing that the Prophet had set an ideal example for Muslims from the beginning. He stresses the uniting, as opposed to dividing, aspects of the hadith literature, focusing on independent and neutral hadith scholars rather than an idea of competing groups fabricating prophetic traditions. According to Fueck, those who see the hadith literature as simply a collection of views of later generations ignore the deep influence of the Prophet on believers. They thus fail to see the originality of the hadith literature, regarding it instead as a ‘mosaic' composed of many foreign elements. Consequently, they accept the hadiths as fabricated until proven otherwise. For Fueck, however, despite the fact that hadith scholars were not completely successful in eliminating fabricated hadiths, the hadith literature contains many authentic traditions. For when the activities of collecting hadith started fifty years after the death of the Prophet, only the younger Companions were still alive and the ulema of hadith narrated only from them. In this context, the fact that there are very few traditions narrated from such companions as Abu Bakr and Omar, who were closer to the Prophet, increases the credibility of the hadith scholars. (For, according to Fueck, if these scholars had been fabricating the hadiths as was claimed, they would have attributed them to older companions who were closer to the Prophet, rather than the younger ones, for this would support the soundness of their [fabricated] hadiths; but the fact that they did not do so proves their trustworthiness.) On the other hand, Fueck argues that the narrative chains of hadiths can ultimately be traced back only to the second century (AH), while there is no sound evidence for the preceding period. Although he admits the idea that the roots of the sunnah can be found in the first century, he claims that some modifications and revisions in the hadiths were made by later generations. Nevertheless, he still differs from earlier orientalists in arguing that in many cases the authentic essence beneath these modifications can be established on the basis of certain criteria.

It is clear that all the orientalists mentioned so far, with the notable exception of Johann Fueck, basically agree with, and expand upon, the views put forward by Goldziher. Nevertheless, Joseph Schacht (1902-1969), who made an impact on his successors similar to that of Goldziher, complained that the findings of the latter had been ignored and consequently the ‘standards lowered'. By ‘lowered standards' he meant, of course, the abandonment of Goldziher's skepticism towards hadiths. He saw his own studies as an extension of Goldziher's work, and started from the basic premise that the hadiths were not traditions that conveyed the Prophet's sayings and practices, but were rather simply a reflection of developments and dominant views in second-century Islamic society. According to Schacht, it was al-Shafi's (150/767-204/820) efforts that allowed the hadiths to become a legitimate source of Islamic law, gaining an ultimately authoritative position vis-à-vis opinion; within 50 years there was a great wave of marfu (hadiths that belonged to the Prophet) narrations. Accordingly, Schacht alleges that the marfu hadiths first emerged in the middle of the second century (AH), and the legitimate hadiths belonging to the Companions (mawkuf traditions) emerged in the early second century. As is apparent from this periodization, he claims that the adoption of the hadiths of the Prophet as a source of law in Islam took place at a later date than that of the traditions of the Companions - that is, the latter were adopted at a time closer to the Prophet himself. Nevertheless, as mentioned above, the date he provides for the traditions of the Companions does not reach further back than 100 (AH), which also invites another of his assertions. According to Schacht, it is not possible to find any authentic tradition among those attributed to the Companions either. He argues that authentic legal traditions can only be found among those attributed to the subsequent generation, the generation of Successors (tabiun). Thus, the implications of his allegations are serious. Furthermore, although he admits that the hadiths about theological issues could be dated to an earlier time than the legal traditions, Schaht nevertheless asserts that not all of these hadiths can be dated to the first century. He also maintains that his conclusions about legitimate hadiths can be applied to historical narratives as well. Considering all this, his assertions might be said to have far-reaching implications. Thus, Schacht became a major figure in orientalist literature, greatly influencing the later scholars - so much so that the subsequent generations of orientalists have been divided into either those who accept his claims or those who do not, making him a central figure in the literature.
The orientalists briefly discussed so far are those who represent the mainstream tradition of Islamic studies in the West. The designation of Schacht as a turning point is not only due to his great influence on his successors, but also because he shaped the direction of the discipline by generating a strong reaction against his assertions. The common allegation of his own work and this period in general can be summarized thus: contrary to what Muslims think, there was no intense activity of hadith narration or any systematic scientific effort on the part of Muslim scholars in this area during or after the lifetime of the Prophet. For this reason, the orientalists of this period do not believe in the authenticity of the hadith literature, nor do they ever directly relate it to the Prophet in any way. However, this attitude makes it impossible to say anything about the first century and prevents further research, turning it into a closed period. Those Western scholars who have realized this and tried to make use of the hadiths on the basis of certain criteria they have established, on the other hand, are accused (by Schacht) of "lowering the standards".

Source

format_quote Originally Posted by ReckonerH

Other source material will greatly be appreciated too, would love to read them.

If there is anything in particular, do ask in sha Allah.

You may find this Christian forum attempting to convert me, rather "interesting" http://www.vigilantforums.com/viewtopic.php?f=29&t=2674

format_quote Originally Posted by ReckonerH

As this is an older topic and I'm not a regular on this forum, have you written similar posts on Gog and Magog? You mentioned researching them and would enjoy reading what you found.

Ah,

Well, there a few threads here on the forum but the one I put some interesting info into was this one: https://www.islamicboard.com/-ilm-kn...t=dhul+qarnayn

Enjoy

Scimi

format_quote Originally Posted by Scimitar

IN THE NAME OF ALLAH, THE OWNER OF THE DAY OF JUDGEMENT

The Concept of God

For most of us, we presuppose a premise that God is above any need or want - and hold fast to this idea as a firm base for belief.

However, we as a species are diverse and have many languages. And with prejudice, we often build up barriers which stop us from learning about each others true theology.

We may find we have more in common than not.

One of the main factors I see prop up on forums is the idea that if a God is of a different name - it is a different God. If the theology is different, then yes - it's a different god that is worshipped.

But in most cases I have found that people of the world, even parts where Islam may never have reached, have had held onto the idea that God is 1 and is above need and want - is the creator of all. And this alludes to the possibility of prophets who may have visited these people in an ancient past undocumented.

As wondrous as this is, we find ourselves arguing and debating idiots with agendas on forums without giving eachother much of a chance to actually share something amazing which can make us all really take a step back in wonderment and appreciate God in all His magnificence as much as we humanly can.

yes, we still find the odd person who will say "Your God is different to my god because the names are different".

I don't believe it matters, as long as we are referring to the same God - the Creator of the Heavens and the Earth, Everything - we should aim to call him by the best of names.

It's quite fascinating to learn that even the jungle cultures of this world have remarkable similarities to the Monotheistic concept of God, and how the concept relates directly to the rendering of the spoken name of God.

THE ZULU CONCEPT

In South Africa, the Zulus, a very virile and militant people - a nation akin to the Qureish of pre- Islamic Arabia - have given a name to God Almighty - uMVELINQANGI. This word when properly articulated in its own dialect, sounds identical to the Arabic words Walla-hu-gani, meaning - "And Allah is Rich" (Bounteous). It also sounds like "Allegany" of the Red Indians of North America (Remember their ALLEGANY mountain). The origin or real meaning of the word "Allegany," is not commonly known to the American people. But ask any Zulu as to who or what this uMvelinqangi is and he will surely explain to you in Zulu:

"HAWU UMNIMZANI! UYENA, UMOYA OINGCWELE. AKAZALI YENA, FUTHI AKAZALWANGA; FUTHI, AKUKHO LUTMO OLU FANA NAYE."

Believe me, this is almost a word for word translation of Sura Ikhlas, Chapter 112 of the Holy Qur'an.




SAY: HE IS ALLAH THE ONE AND ONLY;

ALLAH, THE ETERNAL ABSOLUTE;

HE BEGETTETH NOT, NOR IS HE BEGOTTEN:

AND THERE IS NONE LIKE UNTO HIM. - Holy Qur'an 112:1-4

Now, compare the above verses with my free translation of what the Zulu actually said:

"Oh Sir! He is a pure and Holy Spirit, He does not beget and He is not begotten, and further there is nothing like Him."

Every African tribe, South of the Zambesi River, that is, in Southern Africa, have given different names to the Almighty - Tixo, Modimo, uNkulunkulu, etc., and each and every African language group will take pains to explain the same pure and holy concept as the Zulu. It is to the glory of the African nations that though they had no written languages, and hence no written records, therefore not being able to recount the names of their respective prophets, yet not a single one of the tribes ever stooped down to worshipping idols or images of either of men or animals, until the White man first introduced his religion and gave the African his anthropomorphic concept of God the Father, God the Son and God the Holy Ghost, and brought the African down to bowing before the statues of Jesus, Mary, St. Joseph, St. Christopher and so on.

Out of the dozens of African tribes inhabiting this part of the world, not a single one of them ever made "umfanegisos"(images) of their God. Yet they were capable of carving out of wood, elephants and lions, and reproducing men and women also, in clay. Besides, the Zulus also had some knowledge of metallurgy. When questioned an old Zulu as to the reason, why the Africans did not make umfanegisos of their Gods, he replied, "How could we make images of Him (God Almighty) when we know that He is not like a man, He is not like a monkey, or an elephant or a snake: He is not like anything we can think of or imagine. He is a pure and Holy Spirit."

LIKE THE ARABS

This term, uMVELINQANGI, though well known to the Zulus, was not commonly used. Again they were like the pagan Qureish of Pre-Islamic Arabia who knew the name Allah, but passed Him by, because they felt that He was too High, too Pure, too Holy to be approached, so they went for their substitutary and imaginary gods - their Al- Lats, AI-Uzzas and Al-Manats and a hundred besides. The Zulus too would not call upon uMvelinqangi directly, but he was better than the Arab of the Ayyam-ul-jahiliyya (days of ignorance), because he did not go after false gods; he only invoked the spirits of his ancestors to intercede with uMvelinqangi on his behalf, exactly as the Catholics do in invoking the Virgin Mary and the Saints.

The more common term used by the Zulus for their God is uNKULUNKULU which literally means - the Greatest of the Great or the Mightiest of the Mighty (Almighty). More colloquially when taking oath, they would exclaim "iNkosi phe-Zulu" meaning - the Lord Above (knows), or the God in Heaven (knows), or Heaven knows, that I am speaking the truth. The word "zulu" in the language of the Zulu literally means High Heaven, and they consider themselves to be superior to the numerous other tribes of Southern Africa, being in this respect like the Querish among the dwellers of the desert before Islam.

CONCEPT FROM THE EAST

The Hindi word for God Almighty is PRAMATMA. In Sanskrit, the language of ancient India, "Atma" meant the soul, and"Pram-atma" meant the Great and Holy Soul, or the Holy Spirit, which is really a beautiful description of the "Father" in Heaven. The Bible says, "God is Spirit: and they that worship Him must worship Him in spirit and truth" (John 4:24). Not in form, shape or size, but in SPIRIT.

Despite his pantheistic* interpretation of the Divinity, the name the Hindu gives the Supreme Being, in his classical language, is OM (Aum), which means Guardian or Protector. A very suitable attribute about which the Muslim can have no misgivings.

* "Pantheism:" a doctrine in which people believe that God is everything, and everything is God. The Muslim puts the right emphasis when he says - "EVERYTHING IS GOD'S!" Do you realise the stupendous difference this apostrophe 's makes to the concept of God?

CONCEPT FROM THE WEST FROM THE WEST

The Anglo/Saxon and the Teuton in their own and other allied European languages call their object of worship "GOD" or words of similar sound and import, i.e.

God in English;
Got in Afrikaans (the language of the descendants of the Dutch from Holland in South Africa);
Gott in German; and
Gudd in Danish, Swedish and Norwegian languages.

The ancient Phoenicians called their God - ALLON - (not far from Allah if we could only hear it articulated), and the Canaanites - ADO. The Israelites not only shared the word EL with the original people of Palestine, but borrowed the name of their chief deity - ADO and turned it into ADONAI, and everywhere the four-letter word YHWH occured in their Holy Scriptures, they read "Adonai" instead of "Yahuwa." You will not fail to notice the resemblance between the Jewish Adonai and the heathen Adonis. ADONIS was a "beautiful godling loved by Venus" in the Greek pantheon.

THE LATIN CONCEPT

In the Latin-dominated languages of Western Europe, where Latin had remained dominant in learning and diplomacy for centuries, the chief term used for God is DEUS:

Deus in Portuguese;
Dieu in French;
Dio in Italian;
Dies in Spanish;
Dia in Scotch and Irish; and
Duw in Welsh.

Surprisingly in all the languages above, Deus and all the similar sounding words mean heaven.

Moulana Vidyarthi, in his monumental work - "Muhammad in World Scriptures," devotes a hundred pages to the names of God in the different languages. And out of a list of 155 attributive names, over 40 of them use the word "Heaven" or the "Above," in their language in describing God. Though the Muslim chants the Asma-ul-husna (the most beautiful names), 99 as derived from the Holy Qur'an with the crowning name, ALLAH; "Heaven" is not one of those ninety-nine attributes. Symbolically, heaven may be described as the abode of God, and in the words of Wordsworth in Tintern Abbey:

WHOSE DWELLING IS THE LIGHT OF SETTING SUNS, AND THE ROUND OCEAN AND THE LIVING AIR, AND IN THE BLUE SKY, AND IN THE MIND OF MAN: A MOTION AND A SPIRIT THAT IMPELS ALL THINKING THINGS, ALL OBJECTS OF ALL THOUGHTS, AND ROLLS THROUGH ALL THINGS.


CONCEPT FROM BEYOND THE FAR EAST

Among all the 155 tantalising names of God in the various tongues, the one that tickled me most was - "A-T-N-A-T-U!"

WHAT IS SO FUNNY OR SO NOVEL ABOUT ATNATU?

The aborgine of South Australia calls his God "Atnatu" because some philosopher, poet or prophet had programmed him, that the Father in Heaven is absolutely free from all needs; He is independant; He needs no food nor drink. This quality, in his primitive, un-inhibited language, he conversely named ATNATU, which literally meant "the One without an anus - the One without any flaw" - i.e. the One from Whom no impurity flows or emanates. When I started sharing this novel idea with Hindu, Muslim and Christian friends, without exception, their immediate reaction was one of mirth, they giggled and laughed. Most of them not realising that the joke was on them. The boot was on the other foot. Though the word "anus" is a very small word, only four letters in English, most people have not heard it. One is forced to use the colloquial substitute which I hesitate to reproduce here, nor will I use the same in public meetings because of people's hypersensitivity - because in the words of Abdullah Yusuf All, people "HAD PERVERTED THEIR LANGUAGE ONCE BEAUTIFUL, INTO JARGONS OF EMPTY ELEGANCE AND UNMEANING FUTILITY."

Therefore to ease the situation, in a round-about-way let us say that where you have an "input," you must allow for an "output." The one who eats, must have the call of nature - the toilet or the bush - and our primitive friend smelt the need, which he could never attribute to his Creator. Therefore, he called his God - ATNATU! 'The one without the excretory system or its tail end.

GOD EATS NOT!

This novel concept of God by primitive man, is not really altogether novel. God Almighty conveys the same truth to mankind, as in His Last and Final Revelation - The Holy Qur'an - but in a language so noble, so sublime, as befitting its Author. But because of its very finesse, and refined manner of expression we have overlooked the Message. We are commanded to say to all those who wish to wean us from the worship of the One True God -

SAY: "SHALL I TAKE FOR MY PROTECTOR ANY BUT ALLAH
THE ORIGINATOR OF THE HEAVENS AND THE EARTH?

WHEN IT IS HE WHO FEEDS BUT HAS NO NEED TO BE FED." - Qur'an, Surah An'am 6:14

In other words, we are made to declare that - "WE WILL NOT TAKE ANYONE AS OUR LORD AND PROTECTOR, OTHER THAN ALLAH (Lit. - The One God), WHO IS THE WONDERFUL ORIGINATOR OF THE UNIVERSE.".

__________

What you shouldn't do is attempt to claim you worship a different God based on the name you are knowing HIM by.

What you may be surprised to find is that theologically, people actually have a lot more in common and Islam has the truth of the fruit to prove it. Just re-read this post if you do not believe me.

God bless,

Scimi

When beginning with the name of God, did you really have in mind God as maalik مَالِكِ “owner,” according to the Hafs text of the Quran http://tanzil.net/#1:4 or God as malik مَلِكِ “king” according to the slightly different Warsh text of the Quran https://www.scribd.com/doc/36966315/Warsh-an-Nafi-Tajweed-مصحف-التجويد-برواية-ورش-عن-نافع ?


Your source (Deedat?) or sources were heavy on diatribe. What was with all the rancour toward whites? Perhaps your sources did not know how the ahadith described Muhammad https://sunnah.com/search/?q=this+white+man+reclining and https://sunnah.com/search/?q=white+complexion and https://sunnah.com/muslim/43/130 and https://sunnah.com/search/?q=black+slave


The Zulu gods seem to provide more material for a contrast than a comparison. According to The Religious System of the Amazulu by Henry Callaway (available on Google Books), Umvelinqangi was identical to Unkulunkulu, who was said to be the first man and no longer exists. And according to Wikipedia, the sky god Umvelinqangi had a wife Uthlanga and begot a daughter Mbaba Mwana Wares.


Regarding anthropomorphism, the Bible teaches that mankind has been made in God’s image. Man thus reflects God’s image both individually and communally. The father-son relationship therefore is not an anthropomorphism applied to God but rather an ennobling theomorphism applied to men.


As even the Quran affirms, the New Testament writers were inspired and authoritative. So why would your source call it “sacrilegious” for them to render the Hebrew Tetragrammaton into Greek as “Kyrios”?


The Jehovah’s Witnesses are considered heretical, as I think you pointed out in a previous thread. Christians are not bound by the mistakes of the JW's. But regarding something your source mentioned concerning the Divine name, the New Testament phrase “Alleluia” is the Greek transliteration of the Hebrew phrase, “Hallelu Yah” and means, “Praise Yah”—“Yah” being a short form of the Tetragrammaton. The phrase does not derive from Arabic “Allah” as your source insinuated.


Your source also claimed there was a royal plural used in ancient Hebrew. But there is no demonstrable example of a royal plural in the Hebrew Bible. Kings in the Old Testament refer to themselves with a singular pronoun. Historically, the “royal we” came later. In light of the New Testament, it is natural to infer that something plural is in view when the Hebrew Scriptures use the plural word “Elohim” for God and when they record a first-person plural pronoun referring to God.


Accusing Europeans of a “sickness” and “infatuation” for the letter “J” was puerile and unworthy of anyone trying to pass himself off as a serious scholar. The letter “J” began as an elongated form of the letter “I” and accordingly is still pronounced as an English “Y” in various northern European languages. The shift in pronouncing initial “I” or “J” from a “Y” phoneme to a different phoneme, as in modern English, French, or Spanish, was an organic linguistic development. Pronunciation simply can change over time and across people groups. In modern Arabic, for example, the word for Gospel, “Injil,” has an English “J” sound where the original Greek has a hard “G” sound: “Euangelion.” According to A Grammar of Classical Arabic, p. 19, note 4
https://archive.org/stream/AGrammarOfClassicalArabic#page/n31/mode/2up the original pronunciation of the Arabic letter ج “jim” was a hard “G” and not the “J” sound that occurs in most modern Arabic dialects. Would your source, then, accuse most Arabic speakers also of having a “sickness” and “infatuation” for the “J” sound?

Greetings and peace be with you Scimitar my friend;

I have a simple belief in; 'The One God, the creator of all that is seen and unseen' so we are all created by the same God, and the same God hears all our prayers despite our differences. We have a duty to care for all of God's creation, so that has to mean, caring for each other despite our differences.

Mankind is too stupid and sinful to do things one way. There is only One Jesus Christ, we know this, but there are thousands of Christian denominations almost in competition with each other, and each one claiming 'truth'. We are now in Christian Unity week, and generally we try and acknowledge each other and work together.

True Christian Unity would almost be like a marriage. A man and a women come together in marriage, and talking from experience, we have huge differences, but somehow, through loving kindness we just try very hard to make this relationship work. We have to do things together, help each other and share. If I tried too hard to make my wife believe as I do, we would probably have separated years ago.

Tonight I shall be praying with, and praying for Christians from four denominations. I would like to extend this to interfaith relationships, when people of all faiths can pray together, and pray for each other. After praying together, it would be a good time to do charitable work in the community together.

In the spirit of searching for a greatest meaning of 'One God'

Eric

Morning goodwill and ericH dear brothers, thank you for responding here. I will reply hopefully later tonight or at some point tomorrow God willing - got a full on day here and will not have much time before 7pm to reply.

Goodwill, you bought up some interesting points which I will discuss with you God willing.

EricH, ecumenalism is much needed in Christianity so I commend your effort for unity within the Christian traditions.

God bless

Scimi

format_quote Originally Posted by BeTheChange

Asalmaualykum,

. . . . .

Maybe this is why the first word that prophet Muhammad saw was given was 'Iqra' - Read!

. . . . .

I believe it is!

Allah knew the prophet (pbuh) could not read and really had no 'teacher'. So the message was not for him. It was for mankind. Allah will teach our prophet (pbuh) and thus, mankind.

Apart from the learning aspect, we are also supposed to write down any agreements and have a witness (as said in the Quran but I can't remember where). Besides, how can we know the content if we cannot read? The whole thing fits for me.

I enjoyed re-reading this, I feel quite in my element in this area of study.

format_quote Originally Posted by goodwill

When beginning with the name of God, did you really have in mind God as maalik مَالِكِ “owner,” according to the Hafs text of the Quran http://tanzil.net/#1:4 or God as malik مَٰلِكِ “king” according to the slightly different Warsh text of the Quran https://quran.com/1/4-14 ?

He is both KING of ALL and OWNER. Why would they be separated? When HE has DOMINION over all. This is Arabic, a language where one word can have many associated meanings, the name Malik or Maalik, are still rooted from the same three letters - Meem, Laam and Kaaf - surely Goodwill - you knew that. Yet you still wrote the above? Strange.

format_quote Originally Posted by goodwill

Your source (Deedat?) or sources were heavy on diatribe. What was with all the rancour toward whites? Perhaps your sources did not know how the ahadith described Muhammad https://sunnah.com/search/?q=this+white+man+reclining and https://sunnah.com/search/?q=white+complexion and https://sunnah.com/muslim/43/130 and https://sunnah.com/search/?q=black+slave

You prefer to look at the messenger and not the message? Well, that is a very Christian thing to do, so I cannot really blame you for that, it's in your nature as a Christian to do so.

I fail to see how you claiming racism has anything to do with what I posted? Unless you are referring to the white minority ruled Africa in which Deedat grew up in. Which has nothing to do with me, nor you... lol

Please do explain your bias in more detail.

format_quote Originally Posted by goodwill

The Zulu gods seem to provide more material for a contrast than a comparison. According to The Religious System of the Amazulu by Henry Callaway (available on Google Books), Umvelinqangi was identical to Unkulunkulu, who was said to be the first man and no longer exists. And according to Wikipedia, the sky god Umvelinqangi had a wife Uthlanga and begot a daughter Mbaba Mwana Wares.

Wikipedia is your "source" ???? You're being serious aren't you?

Did you read my post? In it's entirety? The Zulu prayer I quoted - I'd love to hear you get a translation of it - just so you can realise how wrong you are, and how wiki can make you look like you don't know an elbow from an ankle.

Look again bro Goodwill, at this:

"HAWU UMNIMZANI! UYENA, UMOYA OINGCWELE. AKAZALI YENA, FUTHI AKAZALWANGA; FUTHI, AKUKHO LUTMO OLU FANA NAYE."

and the translation: "Oh Sir! He is a pure and Holy Spirit, He does not beget and He is not begotten, and further there is nothing like Him."

Does not BEGET, nor is he BEGOTTEN, and there is nothing like him (theo-morphism death) - tell that to wiki-moronipedia.

Also, the Zulu girl I quoted in a later post - agreed with all I wrote when I first shared this on vigilantcitizen forum, so I threw that in this thread for good measure. Why did you ignore her, in lieu of wikipedia bro?

Now go and read Surah Al Ikhlas from the Qur'an and see the similarity in theology between Muslims an Zulus.

Heck - try telling a Zulu about wiki's article and watch the Zulu become offended real quick... which begs the question, are you not offended by your own self for trusting Wikipedia? Serious question. Wiki pages are editable by any idiot with an account.

format_quote Originally Posted by goodwill

Regarding anthropomorphism, the Bible teaches that mankind has been made in God’s image. Man thus reflects God’s image both individually and communally. The father-son relationship therefore is not an anthropomorphism applied to God but rather an ennobling theomorphism applied to men.

That's why you believe in an old man with some long beard sitting on a fluffy cloud?

Theo-Morphism lol, you fell for that? Really? the same the Freemasons teach? That we are all "gods" ??? Because - THAT - is where this train of thought you sponsor, will eventually lead you to in argument.

This was explored before, a few years back, on the old vigilantcitizen forum.

format_quote Originally Posted by goodwill

As even the Quran affirms, the New Testament writers were inspired and authoritative. So why would your source call it “sacrilegious” for them to render the Hebrew Tetragrammaton into Greek as “Kyrios”?

I'm really wondering why you have written this? I explained to you, the tetragrammatron - in context from the semitic understanding - I have the feeling you speak only one language fluently and thus, cannot appreciate what I am attempting to tell you.

YHWH / YHVH - Hallelujah... Ya Huwa'llah ilaha Illahu'al Hayyul Qayyum. In case you didn't realise it - that translates to "O' He is Allah, None is worthy of worship save He, the Hayyul Qayyum (The Ever Living, the One Who sustains and protects all that exists).

That verse also sounds very much like what the true form of the tetragrammatron, and the hallelujah mystery, rolled into one - mind blow supreme... would mean in context, and this verse is actually in the Qur'an and is said by some scholars to be containing the Ismul Azam - the Great name of God. The Ismul Azam of the Hebrew folk is the tetragrammaton, YHVH/YHWH. Don't you see the aligment? and the context?

The only difference being, the Children of Israel, have not dared say the full "great and holy name" out loud for millenia+

But the Muslims - we DO. Why is that a problem? Why would the declaration of HIS great name "Ya Huwa'llah ilaha Illahu'al Hayyul Qayyum - the Ismul Azam which the children of Israel refuse to utter aloud, be a problem for you? because Muslims declare the name openly? I don't understand why you are struggling with it.

Would you disagree that God is the sustainer of all that exists - or are you vying for the "theo-morphic" theology which leads to "we are all gods" ????

Decide bro.

Surely, if you know your schisms and nuances within Christianity and Judaism, you would have to be in agreement with me on this, and not feed your bias - oh seeker of truth.

format_quote Originally Posted by goodwill

The Jehovah’s Witnesses are considered heretical, as I think you pointed out in a previous thread. Christians are not bound by the mistakes of the JW's. But regarding something your source mentioned concerning the Divine name, the New Testament phrase “Alleluia” is the Greek transliteration of the Hebrew phrase, “Hallelu Yah” and means, “Praise Yah”—“Yah” being a short form of the Tetragrammaton. The phrase does not derive from Arabic “Allah” as your source insinuated.

How about the Hebrew - Elah? which is the same as the Arabic, Allah. Both, Arabic, and Hebrew Aramaic, being sister languages, with the same root applications which work for both, due to the dna of both languages having a common ancestry from the Phoenician mothering of those tongues? No?

format_quote Originally Posted by goodwill

Your source also claimed there was a royal plural used in ancient Hebrew. But there is no demonstrable example of a royal plural in the Hebrew Bible. Kings in the Old Testament refer to themselves with a singular pronoun. Historically, the “royal we” came later. In light of the New Testament, it is natural to infer that something plural is in view when the Hebrew Scriptures use the plural word “Elohim” for God and when they record a first-person plural pronoun referring to God.

Not sure why this matters - the royal WE, is a plural of respect, and came later - so what? Is Elah, Elohim or not? The IM being the plural of respect.

Of course - they are the same. Why are you so staunch in denying this, when even Christian scholars do not disagree? Neither do Jewish ones, in case you was tripping or something.

What is your point? I'm really struggling to understand you - as for the first person pronoun - "Worship God, as if ye see HIM". Reflect on that bro. Our scriptures, are subtle in meaning, but the gravity of those meaning leave long insightful impressions.

format_quote Originally Posted by goodwill

Accusing Europeans of a “sickness” and “infatuation” for the letter “J” was puerile and unworthy of anyone trying to pass himself off as a serious scholar. The letter “J” began as an elongated form of the letter “I” and accordingly is still pronounced as an English “Y” in various northern European languages. The shift in pronouncing initial “I” or “J” from a “Y” phoneme to a different phoneme, as in modern English, French, or Spanish, was an organic linguistic development. Pronunciation simply can change over time and across people groups. In modern Arabic, for example, the word for Gospel, “Injil,” has an English “J” sound where the original Greek has a hard “G” sound: “Euangelion.” According to A Grammar of Classical Arabic, p. 19, note 4
https://archive.org/stream/AGrammarOfClassicalArabic#page/n31/mode/2up the original pronunciation of the Arabic letter ج “jim” was a hard “G” and not the “J” sound that occurs in most modern Arabic dialects. Would your source, then, accuse most Arabic speakers also of having a “sickness” and “infatuation” for the “J” sound?

Jacob was not Jacob. He was Yakob. I can go on with the "J" name hijacks but lets stick with Jacob - the father of the Israelites.

What right did the Europeans have to change the names of a people who have an alphabet which is rooted in meanings? Eh?

Don't you know, that rooting Jacob in Hebrew would mean something totally different to the intended meaning of his name, Yakob?

Puerile or no, what the Europeans done when they refused to pronounce the biblical prophets names as they were intended, was absolutely horrendous.

It's a sickness, like it or not - it needs to be cut out altogether in my opinion. Unless you think convoluting meanings and diluting details is a good thing lol.

Scimi

This proves the following verses of the Noble Quran and the hadith which said something like there were more than 120,000 Messengers of Allah that came into this world for the guidance of Man kind. If the Noble Quran did not specify we will never know that Jesus was a Muslim though its just about 2000 years from him. So how about those messengers who have been coming for many 10,000's of years ????

So they are some where over there but in disguise.

Noble Quran 14 :4 ''We sent not a messenger except (to teach) in the language of his (own) people, in order to make (things) clear to them.........................''
''And We certainly sent into every nation a messenger, [saying], "Worship Allah and avoid Taghut." And among them were those whom Allah guided, and among them were those upon whom error was [deservedly] decreed. So proceed through the earth and observe how was the end of the deniers.''

Talibilm thanks bro, you got in before me.

Scimi

Greetings and peace be with you Scimitar;

I don't believe it matters, as long as we are referring to the same God - the Creator of the Heavens and the Earth,

This is the only God worth searching for, and I truthfully believe that we will never look into the eyes of anyone, who does not matter to God. And if everyone is important to God, then everyone should be important to me.

God has to be greater than the sum of all the religions of the world put together, the same God hears all our prayers, despite our differences. I have just been to a unity service tonight in our town, Christians from 16 denominations came together, to say God is One.

I would really welcome a greater interfaith unity service with people from all the diverse faiths of the world.

In the spirit of searching for a greatest meaning of 'One God'

Eric

format_quote Originally Posted by goodwill

Brother Talibilm, greetings. If you are referring to Scimi's Zulu prayer, here’s the thing. A 20th-century Islamic prayer translated into Zulu does not prove that the Zulus practiced Islam thousands of years ago. As the scholarly work, The Religious System of the Amazulu, makes clear, traditional Zulu religion was a form of ancestor worship.

Friend, if they were on Perfect Islam might be there would not require Allah to send more of his messengers to the world. I already gave you a clue in the above post, so i quote it again

''If the Noble Quran did not specify we will never know that Jesus was a Muslim though its ' just ' about 2000 years from him. So how about those messengers who have been coming for many 10,000's of years ???? ( to many corners of the globe ?? )

So they are some where ( & in some form ) over there, but '
" in disguise. ''


here is another link to prove my claims

http://www.ummah.com/forum/showthrea...uhammad-(pbuh)