What Color is Allah to Muslims?

a reply to: ChesterJohn

originally posted by: ChesterJohn
Well you have the right to accept what is present or not. I hope you wouldn't be so hard against the truth as you are but nothing I can do about that. I was hoping to show you that your view is loped sided. I have presented the side you don't want presented.

Side I don't want to be presented? I have no issue looking at stuff from different perspectives, but what's wrong is wrong, and what is fact is fact. Truth isn't a view or opinion or personal preference.

For example:

originally posted by: ChesterJohn
At least both views are there and we let the people decide. When I read through the different articles, I was looking for those that show that they were used both ways but until then the MAJORITY used MOSLEM until the 1970's.

Again, no, I don't know how many different ways to explain this is wrong. The shift from MOSLEM to MUSLIM occurred in the early 40s, not the 70s, and again, had nothing to do with the Iranian Revolution, as you suggested earlier. I am at a loss as to what different way I can explain this to you. I had mentioned using google ngram's analysis of all texts printed, but...I guess you don't want to see that? How about a pretty picture instead, then?

originally posted by: ChesterJohn
No I referred to the one put out by another professor at Oxford, the one I refereed to was a sixth edition. Actually was much older than 1880's but the version I use uses the term Moslem.

It's odd how you speak so vaguely about a thing that doesn't appear to exist. If you have it, if it is such beautiful translation that will "open my eyes", why not mention the author? Because there was no 19th (or earlier) century translator of the Quran from Oxford. From the 17th Century (although these were translations from European languages to English) Alexander Ross studied at King's College, Aberdeen, and George Sale from King's School, Canterbury. In the 19th century we have Rodwell (who used MUSLIM when he translated the Quran in 1861) who was from Cambridge, and Palmer, who I've already mentioned, also from Cambridge.
So yeah, who on earth are you talking about, then? Or is Cambridge the same as Oxford to you (don't let any of them see you say that, though)?

So yeah, it's definitely not personal preference. If you want to stick to an archaic and derogatory transliteration, that's fine, but then own it and don't hide behind "tradtion" or whatever. Say it loudly and proudly: "I want to be offensive to muslims (moslems)"!

And if that's not your intention, the solution is very simple, say it with me: "MUSLIM".

a reply to: TerryDon79

originally posted by: TerryDon79
Just a heads up.

It’s pointless trying to correct him. He can’t tell the difference between 6 million and 600 million. Trying to get him to understand that Moslem is used as a slur these days, is futile.

Kind of like trying to tell someone from 100 years ago the n word is bad.

If he won't learn, maybe someone else will. Or at least it'll delegitimise what he says.

a reply to: TerryDon79

Perhaps any colour of the spectrum? After all if Allah is the creator (as they imply, I've no skin in that) then it (because surely it is beyond gender) can be any colour. In the end the colour will be the perception of the individual, not the actual reality, or lack of it

a reply to: Noinden

Or maybe it really has no colour at all? Kind of like a see through jelly fish.

If it exists, that is

a reply to: ChesterJohn

One would think that all of us would have been warned. I know I have not. For the record it is Noinden, the Irish term for a period of time, often associated with geasa.

However I've been ontopic in here. I've approached the thread from my own polytheistic theology. I am sorry for you that you can't see that. But you have myopia regarding the fact Allah is Jehovah is your god. As I've said, if (and I don't hold too this) your God/Allah/Jehovah is the creator then he must be all colours, because all would eminate from him, and how he is perceived by mortals, is the colour that is attributed to him.

Instead you get stuck in your own gnoses, and old science about race

Ta ta

a reply to: TerryDon79

You will probably find that even Jellyfish have a colour under certain lights. Even if that colour was say "microwave" or "Xray". Just because we can't see it with our eyes, does not mean it has no hue

a reply to: babloyi

If he won't learn, maybe someone else will. Or at least it'll delegitimise what he says.

These are the only reasons I even waste time replying to some of these people. They have no problem spreading falsehoods & no one can change that. But we can change how their flawed interpretation is received by others.

a reply to: babloyi

oh so now you become the authority on what should be presented and what should not ATS?

I thought that is what ATS was all about having all the side presented and the viewer decides.

But no, it is ridicule, slander, malign and misrepresent, those who wont come to your view or hold another view. Or just do as ISIS does lop off some heads.

IN this way you become god. Oh I get it!!! you're the final authority for all things religious. You will use older names and stuff for Israel and Christian. You see what you don't see is what blinds you.

the Newer Teachers of which there are thousands today, of Islam is they have to create an a word of derision where there was none to make their religion seem equal to that of Christianity. want to know how and why? Ok here it is. The Christian Scholars (in it for the $$ but then so is Islam), have wrongly attributed to the world that the r term Christian was first used in derision. But not one of those so called scholars could quote a single verse from scriptures. They go to a historical scholar to set the record straight again the become the authority, make themselves god in God place, to preserve something the Bible did not.

But the context of the ONLY Three instances of the word Christian are found in Acts11:26, 26:28 and 1 Peter 4:16, and neither of those uses imply the term was of derision. In the context of Act 11 it is Paul and Barnabas who called them Christians not the Romans. The context of ac 26 does not show it as a term of derision but as a title of a religious sect of Judaism. and in ! Peter it issued a s a term of endearment.

But it had been taught that is a term of derision not wanting Christians to be more hated of the world created a false flag if you will, claiming that the OLDER use of a word is in error and was used exclusively as a term of derision when the opposite was the truth. The first one to give the Moslem spelling was Martin Luther and it was transliterated from German to English, hence MOSLEM. But only up until modern critical age 1880's to the present has any one saying it was used in derision and the newer copies of OLDER Korans were changed from Moslem to Muslim and from Koran to Quran.

The Islamic Scholars (in it for the $$$), changed the older Korans because there was no copy right so they couldn't make money off of selling them. They had to change them to publish them under a copy right so they could sell the newer versions of the Koran, it s all about the Benjamins and always has been.

They needed a derision to match the Christian derision term. Hence Moslem became the derision and the claim all who use it don't know anything about it. But the same this that happened to their books also happened to the Bible they copied that too, hence why they will claim the NEWER Ones are more reliable than the OLDER ones. ( I think we were talking about people thinking the OLDER stories being better than the NEWER but yet when it comes to Christian English Bible and English Koran translations it is the NEWER better than the Older.

My how hypocritical they all are. Just because it is online does not make it more accurate or truer, over that which cannot be found online. It is all about making Islam a true religion of God, but it is not. That is why the OLDER forms of Allah worship were destroyed to cover up the lie for the NEWER forms of Allah worship, where they make him the same as the Jewish God. Please read "Will the Real Allah "the god" please stand Up? Written by a brilliant man whose IQ was measured to be at 198, a genius.

a reply to: ChesterJohn

originally posted by: ChesterJohn
oh so now you become the authority on what should be presented and what should not ATS?

I thought that is what ATS was all about having all the side presented and the viewer decides.

Authority? If someone is talking about how the earth is flat, the first response might be to try and explain how that is patently untrue, and if they go on and on and on, they're going to be mocked. Falsehood isn't a "side" to be presented. You keep talking as if this is all a matter of opinion, I keep trying to explain to you that you are dealing with cold hard facts, not opinion. Everything you say can be verified as either being true, or false. If you keep saying falsehoods, then you're going to keep being called out on it. If you even then continue, you'll gain a reputation for spreading falsehoods.

You seem to have become emotional now, because much of your post is not coherent. I will try to parse it as best I can, and verify what can be verified, and ignore the drama. Hope that's okay with you!

originally posted by: ChesterJohn
the Newer Teachers of which there are thousands today, of Islam is they have to create an a word of derision where there was none to make their religion seem equal to that of Christianity. want to know how and why? Ok here it is. The Christian Scholars (in it for the $$ but then so is Islam), have wrongly attributed to the world that the r term Christian was first used in derision. But not one of those so called scholars could quote a single verse from scriptures. They go to a historical scholar to set the record straight again the become the authority, make themselves god in God place, to preserve something the Bible did not.

But the context of the ONLY Three instances of the word Christian are found in Acts11:26, 26:28 and 1 Peter 4:16, and neither of those uses imply the term was of derision. In the context of Act 11 it is Paul and Barnabas who called them Christians not the Romans. The context of ac 26 does not show it as a term of derision but as a title of a religious sect of Judaism. and in ! Peter it issued a s a term of endearment.

I could agree with this, I could disagree with this, but instead, I choose to ignore it as irrelevant, again, I hope you don't mind. I don't see any parallels with Christianity here, but if you do, and if it brings you back into your comfort zone of Christian knowledge, then so be it. "Muslim" isn't a rare word in the Quran, it is used quite extensively, the issue here is your insistence of "Moslem" rather than "Muslim", and that doesn't stem from the Quranic text.

originally posted by: ChesterJohn
But it had been taught that is a term of derision not wanting Christians to be more hated of the world created a false flag if you will, claiming that the OLDER use of a word is in error and was used exclusively as a term of derision when the opposite was the truth.

You do realise, you're the only one propagating this, right? Ask yourself this: Multiple muslims have mentioned how "Moslem" is considered a derogatory term. You can easily search online and find multiple sources corroborating this. Then why do you insist on continuing with it? Why are you using "Moslem"?

originally posted by: ChesterJohn
The first one to give the Moslem spelling was Martin Luther and it was transliterated from German to English, hence MOSLEM. But only up until modern critical age 1880's to the present has any one saying it was used in derision and the newer copies of OLDER Korans were changed from Moslem to Muslim and from Koran to Quran.

I'm going to have to call you out on this. I've checked the original german of all three texts by Luther that dealt with Islam/Muslims (Vom Kriege wider die Türken/On War Against the Turks, Heerpredigt wider den Türken/Army Sermon Against the Turks and Vermahung zum Gebet wider den Türken/Appeal for Prayer against the Turk), and Luther doesn't use the word "Muslim" or "Moslem" at all. He refers to them as "Turks". So yeah, despite the fact that "Martin Luther first used it" isn't really an argument for anything (while he perhaps had grudging respect for some parts of it, his texts on the whole were quite antagonistic towards Islam), unless you can prove otherwise, I'm going to say this is another falsehood.

originally posted by: ChesterJohn
The Islamic Scholars (in it for the $$$), changed the older Korans because there was no copy right so they couldn't make money off of selling them. They had to change them to publish them under a copy right so they could sell the newer versions of the Koran, it s all about the Benjamins and always has been.

You can't copyright the text of the Quran, but no one is prevented from making a copy and selling it, so your point makes no sense. Now if you're talking about the TRANSLATIONS of the Quran (not the same thing as the Quran), then your point STILL makes no sense. What has something not being in copyright got to do with making money of it? The Canterbury Tales are not in copyright. I could find a version of the text for free online, print it out and sell it.
Your point DOUBLY makes no sense, because, as I keep explaining, the older Quran translations ALSO use "Muslim", so the idea that people wanted to make money by changing a word is dumb. The "older" English translation of the Quran that did use "Moslem" (only George Sale, as far as I can see), is a horrible translation. Why would anyone use or trust that? George Sale translated it to English from a Latin translation of the Quran, and even if he didn't have biases (he openly did), it is still chock full of errors due to the double-translation.

originally posted by: ChesterJohn
They needed a derision to match the Christian derision term. Hence Moslem became the derision and the claim all who use it don't know anything about it. But the same this that happened to their books also happened to the Bible they copied that too, hence why they will claim the NEWER Ones are more reliable than the OLDER ones. ( I think we were talking about people thinking the OLDER stories being better than the NEWER but yet when it comes to Christian English Bible and English Koran translations it is the NEWER better than the Older.

The comparison is again not valid, because unlike with the Bible, we still have the original text of the Quran in the original language. It can be translated and retranslated and retranslated till the end of time, readable for each new generation. So yes, "older" translations ARE absolutely worse.

a reply to: ChesterJohn

originally posted by: ChesterJohn
My how hypocritical they all are. Just because it is online does not make it more accurate or truer, over that which cannot be found online. It is all about making Islam a true religion of God, but it is not. That is why the OLDER forms of Allah worship were destroyed to cover up the lie for the NEWER forms of Allah worship, where they make him the same as the Jewish God. Please read "Will the Real Allah "the god" please stand Up? Written by a brilliant man whose IQ was measured to be at 198, a genius.

Oh goodie goodie! Not a 198 IQ! Oh wow! What an absolutely important reason to read someone's book, he must be right!
...Yeah, no. This is the umpteenth time I've seen you hawk that book. I'm sorry, I'm not going to spend money funding nonsense. Are you related to the sales of the book somehow? Why do you keep hawking it?
If it has something you feel is meaningful, make a thread about it. I look forward to looking into the brain that feeds you so much of your falsehood.

a reply to: ChesterJohn

Hey Chester, here's a thought. Why don't you just read the Qur'an for yourself? Here's a link to a completely free cersion of the Pickthall translation of the Qur'an (HERE). It has a separate link/page for each of the 114 Surahs/Surats in the Qur'an.

The Qur'an is roughly 1/10th the size of the King James Version of the Bible (based on word count), so it should actually be a quick read for you. I point to the Pickthall translation because it's a very easy to read version for English speakers, but you can always compare it to other translations afterwards.

Anyway, it'll answer your questions and the OP's questions, which I actually answered way earlier in this thread. That way, you can form your own opinions based on the source itself in context. Because right now, you sound like someone who's criticizing Shakespeare but never actually read any of his works, relying solely on cliff notes and online critiques of Shakespearean works to form your opinions.

a reply to: enlightenedservant

I have read the Koran three time in three different English versions. But confessing that he last time here a few years back I was told I couldn't KNOW the Koran because i had to know Arab. Just like the apostates of Christianity telling me I can't know the Bible in English and I have to know the Greek and Hebrew. But there are no Greek and Hebrew Originals available that is the problem.

Absolute trash in my opinion. Not even in the same league with The Inspired preserved word of God in the English AVKJ Bible.

We can stand on the shoulders of those men who are brighter and more informed. "Will the real Allah "the god" Please stand up" is a great work on Islam's false god.

All I see is Middle-Easterners trying to make Islam and Christianity equal on the names Moslem and Christian were given in derision to those groups, Need to go back to original language to know it, that there Koran is equal to or better than the Bible when they disagree on just about everything.

The AVKJ Bible is all I need.

a reply to: ChesterJohn

Ooo you read it three times. How many times did you have to read you "preserved word of god" to come to any conclusions.

a reply to: ChesterJohn

Sorry, but I don't believe your claim. You get far too many of the basics wrong for that to be true.

You claimed that Muslims are supposed to put the Prophet Muhammad "out to be equal with Allah" (in this post), which is so absurdly false that your countless other false claims became irrelevant. The single biggest sin in Islam is putting others as equals to God/Allah, and the fact that you didn't know that destroyed any credibility you had with your other arguments about Islam.

It would be akin to saying that Islam doesn't believe in a Heaven, Hell, Angels, or Satan. LOL Saying something so absurd ruins any credibility the speaker/writer has and shows that they need to actually review the source materials before commenting any further. Hence, my suggestion to you.

a reply to: enlightenedservant

Thats the problem though, in these discussions. How many people are coming from a point of honesty? Let alone even a lay understanding. When I started my path, I had been to a Christian Highschool (as a non Chrisitan) and had a good understanding of Presbyterian (so Calvinist) Christianity, But other faiths (than my burgeoning Paganism) not so much. Over the years, I took the time to learn other faiths to the point of at least minimal understanding. Even if I did not like them.

That for me is a point of honesty. When I say "I don't like Christianity for me" I say this from experience. Not "it annoys me from a distance"

a reply to: Noinden

That's the thing: I have no problem with people rejecting Islam for personal reasons or even from a distance. I just think they should be honest about it. I'd respect it more if the person just said they didn't accept Islam, they thought it was a false religion, or whatever. But deliberately making up stuff and even making claims that contradict our most basic beliefs is unnecessary.

a reply to: enlightenedservant

I don't accept Islam and it is my desire that no more people be led astray by the lie of Mohammad, and his followers. You all say Christianity is a lie and that your own gnoses is correct and true, and never ever say anything against Islam yourselves.

So you argue and go about trying to destroy people faith in the word of Truth, while I try to strengthen it. Calvinism is one of the worst forms of so called Christian Doctrines, so are the extreme Charismatic Doctrines as well, just as bad as the Southern Baptist, Lutheran, Anglican, Roman Catholicism, JW's, British Israelism, Evangelical Televangelist, Episcopalia, et al.

You want to know what they all have in common. They all hold true to these things.

1) The Belief that the only inspired Bible were the originals. When saying that they lied because not a one of them ever saw an original in their life. I have been looking for an original. Contacted every Christian University in the US Including Yale, Notre Dame, Liberty University, Texas Theological Seminary, Tennessee Baptist Theological Seminary and many more, and Europe, Rhineland School of Theology, Oxford, Cambridge, I even sought such at the Vatican. And guess what in every place they all said they don't have any originals. A number of those schools pointed out they only have pieces and nothing complete in any location. I looked further to discover they all use the same four Greek Texts that was used to produce the English 1582 Jesuit Rheims Bible.

2) The belief that no English version since 1611 is inspired or without Error.

3) The belief that he AKJV had errors but their new versions were more accurate when compared with the Originals. Again a lie see number one above.

I believe the AKJV Bible not only to be inspired I believe it to be the preserved word of God in English, without error, whole and complete, and where it says the Love of money is the root of all evil, it is. Not a root of much evil or the cause of much harm, or much grief or mush evil as all the English Bibles since 1880 have the verse which aligns with the 1582 Jesuit Rheims Bible.

You see there is only one way, the truth and the Life and it is only found int he AKJV Bible. While all the other versions can be USED to present the gospel, many a christian has a stunted spiritual life because they are with a belief that there is no pure word of God today and we have to rely on Scholars (myself included) to teach us. But in fact God's word says it will teach the simple, that they are pure words, they make wise the man who puts their trust in them, and that it is preserved to every generation forever by the power of God using humble men who fear God and not man. Read psalm 199 and Psalm 12:6,7.

You may believe all you want and any religion you want, I have been there and done that. I sat on the foot of my bed in 1993 prepared to kill myself with my prized Champion Match Colt 1911 45ACP. As I was convincing my self to pick up the Gun I heard a voice as I brought it up to my head say, "Pick up the Bible". To make a long story short I ended up at a church the next morning and received Christ as my personal Lord and Saviour through one of those Newer so called better Versions. In 1994 I went to a Christian University and graduated in 1997 with a Graduate in Theology and later Got my Doctorate in Theology. In 2005 I discovered that the AKJV was indeed the fulfillment of Ps 12:6, 7 and have been believing on that Bible as the preserved word of God ever since.

So no, I do not accept any other Religion or Bible version. My hope is I can help some poor soul from going down the same trail I went down but only end up in Hell for all eternity.

a reply to: enlightenedservant

Any reasonable individual would have no issue with a faith being rejected for personal reasons. What you will have trouble finding is certain individuals being honest about the reasons they are in a faith. I find the stories of WHY someone chose a faith fascinating. IF it is "my parents made me go to church/Temple etc" that is a bit bland for me.

I do hear you about making thing up. I'm part of a group of faiths that got demonized in the late 80s and through the 90s by the "Satanic Panic" movement. People never think to ask "why do you believe' or "Is it really true that XYZ ..." rather they assume that what they read, from a crank, or pastor, or whatever is true.

Mind you my path emphasizes growth through knowledge and critical thinking, while others are just fearful of their deity

a reply to: ChesterJohn

I don't accept Islam and it is my desire that no more people be led astray by the lie of Mohammad, and his followers.

See, that's a lot better. At least you're finally open with your true intentions. However, I fail to see what that has to do with the topic of this thread (which I answered in this post).

So no, I do not accept any other Religion or Bible version. My hope is I can help some poor soul from going down the same trail I went down but only end up in Hell for all eternity.

By deliberately lying about Islam? Don't you realize that you're simply giving your own religion a bad name by acting like this? Why would I or any other Muslim give up our book to follow yours when you don't even follow it? And why would I or any other Muslim take your words of religious "advice" seriously when you blatantly lie about even the basics of our religion?

You're setting yourself up for failure time & time again. All you've done is allow people who actually have knowledge of Islamic scriptures the chance to openly and thoroughly prove that you're being deceptive and don't actually know what you're talking about. How is it supposed to help your case or convince people that you're a good, God-following Christian when you're blatantly lying like this? It gives the impression that the path you walk is one of deception and converting by any means necessary, which I'd think would be the opposite approach of an actual Christian.

Have you even admitted yet that you didn't know that placing others as equals to God/Allah is such a massive sin in Islam?

light octarine - with a hint of pastel

trust me - i has seen teh elephant

I asked a Moslem, what is the name of your god? They answered Allah. Which in Arabic means "the god". I then said I understand that Allah is the god but what is his name? Allah, they replied. The god's name is "the god", if we are to believe what Moslem's tell us. When we corner them on this inconsistency the always come back and say, "you do not understand Arabic." Really!!! Surprising according to their Arabic scholars their ALLAH (the god), is named ALLAH (the god).

In any language, that is stupidity and ignorance of their own language.

They want to claim it is the same god of the Jews, who said he is known as the "I am" later said his name was Jehovah. If you ask a Moslem if their God's name is Jehovah they will say, "No, that is the god of the Jews". Wait a minute you just said that Allah's name is Allah and he is the same god as the Jews, but then when you try to get them to admit that Jehovah is the name of Allah, they suddenly claim that Jehovah is not Allah, therefore not the same god of the Jews.

Does anyone else see this nonsense?

If they cannot know who their god is or his name, how much more do you expect them to know his color?