Home » Allah(SWT)
Category Archives: Allah(SWT)
فِي الْبَدْءِ خَلَقَ اللهُ السَّمَاوَاتِ وَالارْضَ
Taken from here: http://www.masud.co.uk/ISLAM/bmh/BMH-AQ-offa.htm
Sheikh Abdullah Quilliam, writing as Professor H. M. Léon, M.A., D.C.L., F.S.P., etc. (1916)
In the Numismatical department of the British Museum there is preserved a curious and interesting gold coin, over twelve hundred and thirty years old, on which is inscribed in unmistakable Arabic characters the declaration that ‘There is no Deity but Allah, The One, Without Equal, and Muhammad is the Apostle of Allah,’ and the further declaration, engraved around the margin of the coin, ‘Muhammad is the Apostle of Allah, Who sent him (Muhammad) with the doctrine and the true faith to prevail over every other religion.’
This coin was engraved, struck and issued by Offa, King of Mercia, or ‘Middle England’ (an ancient Anglo-Saxon kingdom, which extended on both sides of the River Trent from the North Sea to Wales), from 757 to 796. The name, originally restricted to the district around Tamworth and Lichfield and the Upper Trent valley, refers to a ‘march,’ a moorland, or frontier, which had to be defended against hostile neighbours; in this case such ‘alien enemies’ being the Welsh, the ‘Ancient Britons,’ who for centuries contended with the Anglo-Saxon invaders for supremacy in that region.
If Yahweh is the personal name of God, and more important than any of the other names of God (mentioned in the Bible), then why is Isra-El (and subsequently the name given to the nation of Israel), not utilizing Yahweh in its name ?
Shouldn’t the proud nation of Israel, the nation of God’s chosen people been given the superior name of Isra-Yahu and not using the so-called lesser name of God, El in its name ? A name of God, that I may add is similar to ALLAH, according to Enclyopedia Britanica
Etymologically, the name Allah is probably a contraction of the Arabic al-Ilāh, “the God.” The name’s origin can be traced back to the earliest Semitic writings in which the word for “god” was il or El, the latter being used in the Hebrew Bible (Old Testament).
Keeping that aside, let us examine what modern scholarship has to say on the issue of Isra-el vs Isra-yahu:
Taken from here:
Prophet Muhammad’s SAW Farewell Sermon / خطبة الودا, Khutbatu l-Wada
9 DhulHijjah 10 AH (9 March 632) at Mount Arafat
After praising and thanking Allah, Prophet Muhammad SAW said:
“O People, lend me an attentive ear, for I know not whether after this year, I shall ever be amongst you again. Therefore listen to what I am saying to you very carefully and TAKE THESE WORDS TO THOSE WHO COULD NOT BE PRESENT HERE TODAY.
Taken from Here:
The paper is from Arabization and Medical Education, pp. 51-58. Proceedings from the Seventh Saudi Medical Conference, King Faisal University, May 3-6 1982.
Keith L. Moore, Ph.D., F.I.A.C.
Professor of Anatomy and Chairman of the Department, Faculty of Medicine, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.
Human beings have always been interested in where they came from and how they developed before birth. We know from the earliest records that primitive peoples realized that the birth of a baby was the sequel to sexual union or intercourse. However, for many centuries the idea about human prenatal development were based on speculation and mysticism. The absence of knowledge about embryological processes and the dominating influence of superstition resulted in a non-scientific approach to human development.
Also from Ibn Taymiyya’s The Madinan Way: The Soudness of the Basic Premises of the School of the People of Madina (page 26-27):
Taken from Bart Ehrman’s Misquoting Jesus, page 10:
“This kind of realization coincided with the problems I was encountering the more closely I studied the surviving Greek manuscripts of the New Testament. It is one thing to say that the originals were inspired, but the reality is that we don’t have the originals—so saying they were inspired doesn’t help me much, unless I can reconstruct the originals. Moreover, the vast majority of Christians for the entire history of the church have not had access to the originals, making their inspiration something of a moot point. Not only do we not have the originals, we don’t have the first copies of the originals. We don’t even have copies of the copies of the originals, or copies of the copies of the copies of the originals. What we have are copies made later—much later. In most instances, they are copies made many centuries later. And these copies all differ from one another, in many thousands of places. As we will see later in this book, these copies differ from one another in so many places that we don’t even know how many differences there are. Possibly it is easiest to put it in comparative terms: there are more differences among our manuscripts than there are words in the New Testament.”