Proof of that there is one God

[AVG-JOE]

"Goddess_Ashtara said: ↑

YHWH is ALLAH who is also GOD, who has been called ADONAI, who is also known as ELOHIM, among many other names."

True. In addition, Islam has some 99 names for God, Judaism too.

"And you are?"

"My name is not important..."

"Trust you, a man who wont tell me his name?"

"Slartibartfast."

That there's so much confusion over "God's" name is suspect.

Not if you consider that The God of Abraham, as described in The Torah, The New Testament and The Koran is buried with Abraham, and The God of (insert your name here) is sad because few and far between are the Monkeys who try to relate to Him without filtering Him through ancient stories that, while glorious stories, are just irrelevant stories of past relationships.

 

[AVG-JOE]

I don't have proof of that law. I don't really care. But few and far between are the people who want to kill me or convert me because of my lackadaisical attitude toward it.

we have no interest in forcing you to convert or to force any other christian/ jewish / athesist.

we only give you advice. if you make the wrong decision. it is you who will afford consequences.

Thanks, Bud. Your unsolicited advice is duly noted.

Do you know what the BEST thing about being an American is?

You can actually ask for advice and then proceed to ignore it.

 

[AVG-JOE]

I will cross that bridge when I get to it, if that bridge ever comes. Until then, my own respect for Mohamed will remain as is.

​

Thank you. but i wish to inform you that Islam ideology and western ideology are very different and in many times contradictory. so i expect that we will have much to disagree about.

but I believe that even enemies can make benefit of clean debate.

Why?

One would think that if The God of Abraham, as described in The Torah, The New Testament and The Koran is, He would not have created such a dysfunctional collection of enemies to worship Him.

The historic relationship between the three sects who follow this God is proof enough to me that The God of Abraham is either impotent or cruel. Why anyone would choose to follow such a Deity?

 

[AVG-JOE]

Without going into too much detail, rather than “numerous” sahabahs with perfect recollections of the Koran, there is compelling evidence that these earliest sahabahs had different and differentially complete memories. How else is one to make sense of the ahadith (repeated in one form or another at least seven times) concerning the last verse being found in the memory of only a single man; Abi Khuzaima Al-Ansari? Doesn’t that require the understanding that every other sahabah had an incomplete memory?

How does one further account for the conflicts among those sahabahs that required the Uthmanic rescension?

In fact, how does one account for Uthman’s rescension at all?

It is pretty clear that the “perfect preservation” of the Koran did not commence until after the rescension. And even then, we could get into a wonderful discussion of the multiple readings, but why bother. The point is made. Second, giving the fact we have a historical record of the event during which the Koran was standardized and competing versions burned, the maintenance of a standard since that time hardly qualifies as suggesting that Mohammed would have even recognized the writings. The completely human engine for that standard is evident and obvious. We have in our possession, at best, the musshaf of Uthman. We really do not know what the musshaf of Muhammad contained, and how different the two might be.

the readings (القراءات) is simply readings!! the fact that there are many readings of quran is related to the history of the arabic language.

at the time of Messenger, arabs were speaking arabic with different (tongues). (a normal phenomena in all languages, such as there is different tongues of french in france).
there were slight variations in the pronouncement of words among arabic tribes. It is also reasoned that arabic language wasn't standardized yet. so the same word might be written with different spellings.

It wasn't until a century later, that muslims established grammar rules for the language and dictionaries of the words of the language were written with the spelling of words fixed.

returning to the period of the Messenger,
The Messenger was from Quraish tribe, which has its own tongue. Quran was downed from the heaven with this tongue.

To ease the recitation and reading of quran to the rest of arabs, an allowance regarding pronunciation/some grammatical variations/... was given. it was reported by the messenger himself that there are (أحرف سبعة) seven variations in the reading scheme.

This fact was known and accepted by sahabas and later generations of muslims.
By the adoption of Osman's mushaf, the spelling and drawing of words were fixed. any other spelling were abandoned in the sake of unification. but the allowance for the different readings remained provided that it is compatible with the Osmanic musshaf.

in the sake of unification, 10 readings were selected and fixed. no other variations were allowed. These readings were confidentially traced to the Messenger. each reading has its chain of (tellers) that each one of them heared this reading from the mouth of the next one in the chain up to the Messenger. (of course this was backed by the written musshafs)

The reading includes fine details on how to pronounce each word, how long to pronounce each letter (for example the two forms wood and woooooood were distinguished) and other many fine details. All these readings are rooted to the Messenger.

The islamic literature included so much detail on the description of Quran words, pronounciation, detailed reading instructions.

the claim that different readings are different versions of quran is like saying that the two statements
( it is a cat) and ( it's a cat) are different versions.

Just thinking out loud here, but why would God allow His Word to be subject to such frailties of man?

 

[Hollie]

Correct. There are variations in the various Korans. As I noted earlier, we have no way of knowing what the earlier Korans contained as they destroyed by Uthman.

your ignorance is not knowledge.

the real problem with you is that you don't trust sahabas, you are in doubt of them. if you don't trust some one, you won't trust any of his actions.

regarding your descriptions for (various koran), it is wrong it is various readings.

we accept that these variations are attributed to the messenger.

we trust sahabas too much, so we trust their actions.

I see you're getting angry but that won't help your argument.

I have no reason to trust sahabas and, by the way, the point is immaterial. You can’t burn variant recitations. You can’t burn a variant pronunciation. You can only burn variant texts. The rescension was a standardization of the text. The koran has not been miraculous preserved.

It has been ordinarily preserved, just like any other old book.

How sad for you that the early Muslims were more honest than modern Muslims are. How sad for you that the early Muslims were perfectly okay with behaviors that you find embarrassing today, and so they faithfully recorded a history you would prefer had never happened. How sad for you that early Muslims had no problems admitting that parts of the koran were lost forever.

 

[BillyP]

So Mo, what happens to me if i don't kiss carpets and don't worship Allah? No virgins for me?

no muslim kiss carpets, please be more polite.

you should recognize the power of God, he created all these living beings on the earth, all the universe including millions and billions of galaxies is created and supervised by God.

all of us, i and you and every one are just slaves to the great allah. we are constrained to live a short time window. we are constrained to limited conditions of temperature and pressure. accept it or not to accept, we will be sooner or later a useless piece of meat buried in the dust.

so it's better for all of us to believe and worship allah - The God of every thing-, requesting merci from him.

those that are good slaves to allah, believing in him and all of his messengers and books torah, gospel, quran and others following allah orders: pray, zakah, being honest and fair. treat your parents well. avoid lying, cheating, usury, adultery, .....will be rewarded.

others who are haughty, refuse to worship allah and follow his orders, lie and tyrannize others will be punished by allah.

you can choose for your self. no one will force you. you are responsible for your actions and will be accounted for them.

So what happens to me if I don't obey Allah and beat my wife? So those Muslims who tyrannize others are going where? Do you have a hell? With no virgins? Just slappers?
And do you wipe your ass with an uneven number of rocks like the real Mo described for good Muslims? Or are you a fake Muslim?

 

[Mohamed]

I see you're getting angry but that won't help your argument.

I have no reason to trust sahabas and, by the way, the point is immaterial. You can’t burn variant recitations. You can’t burn a variant pronunciation. You can only burn variant texts. The rescension was a standardization of the text. The koran has not been miraculous preserved.

It has been ordinarily preserved, just like any other old book.

How sad for you that the early Muslims were more honest than modern Muslims are. How sad for you that the early Muslims were perfectly okay with behaviors that you find embarrassing today, and so they faithfully recorded a history you would prefer had never happened. How sad for you that early Muslims had no problems admitting that parts of the koran were lost forever.

I didn't say that all of them were the same spelling, it is reasonable to think that were some differences in the spelling. the reason that it was burnt was the need of unification of (text drawing) and establishing a highly confident reference that all muslims should copy from despite other copies that were written by personal effort.

i am not sad about any thing because i don't bother about your unproven claims. and i am also very proud of sahaba actions and policy and not at all embarrased.

for the third time: i instruct you to answer this question.

are you an arabic-language speaker?

 

[Mohamed]

So what happens to me if I don't obey Allah and beat my wife? So those Muslims who tyrannize others are going where? Do you have a hell? With no virgins? Just slappers?
And do you wipe your ass with an uneven number of rocks like the real Mo described for good Muslims? Or are you a fake Muslim?

although it is clear that you are mocking, it is good chance to highlight some of islamic regulations:

1) Allah declared both men and women to be responsible and accounted for their actions.

Allah says:

إِنَّ الْمُسْلِمِينَ وَالْمُسْلِمَاتِ وَالْمُؤْمِنِينَ وَالْمُؤْمِنَاتِ وَالْقَانِتِينَ وَالْقَانِتَاتِ وَالصَّادِقِينَ وَالصَّادِقَاتِ وَالصَّابِرِينَ وَالصَّابِرَاتِ وَالْخَاشِعِينَ وَالْخَاشِعَاتِ وَالْمُتَصَدِّقِينَ وَالْمُتَصَدِّقَاتِ وَالصَّائِمِينَ وَالصَّائِمَاتِ وَالْحَافِظِينَ فُرُوجَهُمْ وَالْحَافِظَاتِ وَالذَّاكِرِينَ اللَّهَ كَثِيرًا وَالذَّاكِرَاتِ أَعَدَّ اللَّهُ لَهُمْ مَغْفِرَةً وَأَجْرًا عَظِيمًا (35)

which its meaning is translated as:

{Indeed, the Muslim men and Muslim women, the believing men and believing women, the obedient men and obedient women, the truthful men and truthful women, the patient men and patient women, the humble men and humble women, the charitable men and charitable women, the fasting men and fasting women, the men who guard their private parts and the women who do so, and the men who remember Allah often and the women who do so - for them Allah has prepared forgiveness and a great reward.}

Allah assigned both men and women a complementary rights/responsibilities. they are not assigned the same roles because they are different. Men is given a supervisory role in which they are responsible to take care of women, defend them from dangers, they should afford family, children and their wives' own expenses. women are not responsible for such task, even if they get divorced, the father is responsible to children's expenses not the mother. the women are ordered to obeys their husband within the scope of legal actions. in the extreme condition that a woman behaves in a bad manner, her husband is ordered to give her advice, be apart on bed, hit her.

الرِّجَالُ قَوَّامُونَ عَلَى النِّسَاءِ بِمَا فَضَّلَ اللَّهُ بَعْضَهُمْ عَلَى بَعْضٍ وَبِمَا أَنْفَقُوا مِنْ أَمْوَالِهِمْ فَالصَّالِحَاتُ قَانِتَاتٌ حَافِظَاتٌ لِلْغَيْبِ بِمَا حَفِظَ اللَّهُ وَاللَّاتِي تَخَافُونَ نُشُوزَهُنَّ فَعِظُوهُنَّ وَاهْجُرُوهُنَّ فِي الْمَضَاجِعِ وَاضْرِبُوهُنَّ فَإِنْ أَطَعْنَكُمْ فَلَا تَبْغُوا عَلَيْهِنَّ سَبِيلًا إِنَّ اللَّهَ كَانَ عَلِيًّا كَبِيرًا (34)

which its meaning is translated as
{
Men are in charge of women by what Allah has given one over the other and what they spend from their wealth. So righteous women are devoutly obedient, guarding in absence what Allah would have them guard. But those from whom you fear arrogance - advise them; , forsake them in bed; and , strike them. But if they obey you , seek no means against them. Indeed, Allah is ever Exalted and Grand.
}

The Messenger instructed muslims not to mis-use their supervisory role over women as he said:

وعن عمرو بن الأحوض الجشمي رضي الله عنه أنه سمع النبي صلى الله عليه وسلم في حجة الوداع يقول بعد أن حمد الله تعالى، وأثنى عليه وذكر ووعظ، ثم قال‏:‏ ‏"‏ألا واستوصوا بالنساء خيرًا فإنما هن عوانٍ عندكم ليس تملكون منهن شيئا غير ذلك إلا أن يأتين بفاحشة مبينة، فإن فعلن فاهجروهن في المضاجع، واضربوهن ضربا غير مبرح، فإن أطعنكم فلا تبغوا عليهن سبيلا، ألا إن لكم على نسائكم حقا، ولنسائكم عليكم حقا، فحقكم عليهن أن لا يوطئن فرشكم من تكرهون، ولا يأذن في بيوتكم لمن تكرهون، ألا وحقهن عليكم أن تحسنوا إليهن في كسوتهن وطعامهن‏"‏ ‏(‏‏(‏رواه الترمذي وقال ‏:‏ حديث حسن صحيح‏)‏‏)‏‏.‏

which is translated as: (not perfect translation but reasonable)

Amr bin Al-Ahwas Al-Jushami (May Allah be pleased with him) reported that he had heard the Prophet (ﷺ) saying on his Farewell Pilgrimage, after praising and glorifying Allah and admonishing people, "Treat women kindly, they are like captives in your hands; you do not owe anything else from them. In case they are guilty of open indecency, then do not share their beds and beat them lightly but if they return to obedience, do not have recourse to anything else against them. You have rights over your wives and they have their rights over you. Your right is that they shall not permit anyone you dislike to enter your home, and their right is that you should treat them well in the matter of food and clothing".

2) Muslims were instruct to keep clean, The Messenger (peace be upon him) ordered muslims to do (wadu) before every pray, washing their hands, legs and faces,.. etc. Muslims were advised to use (swak) to clean their tooth, they were even given instructions how to (yestnja) (the word that describes what you said) by either water or stones. those that live in places where water is available will use water for better, those that lives in places where very little is available sufficient only for drinking had the option of using rocks.

Islam is not destined to a specific group of people like city residents or desert residents or others, it is destined for all people in all environments ,so its regulations are versatile enough to satisfy various conditions of people.

 

[Hollie]

I see you're getting angry but that won't help your argument.

I have no reason to trust sahabas and, by the way, the point is immaterial. You can’t burn variant recitations. You can’t burn a variant pronunciation. You can only burn variant texts. The rescension was a standardization of the text. The koran has not been miraculous preserved.

It has been ordinarily preserved, just like any other old book.

How sad for you that the early Muslims were more honest than modern Muslims are. How sad for you that the early Muslims were perfectly okay with behaviors that you find embarrassing today, and so they faithfully recorded a history you would prefer had never happened. How sad for you that early Muslims had no problems admitting that parts of the koran were lost forever.

I didn't say that all of them were the same spelling, it is reasonable to think that were some differences in the spelling. the reason that it was burnt was the need of unification of (text drawing) and establishing a highly confident reference that all muslims should copy from despite other copies that were written by personal effort.

i am not sad about any thing because i don't bother about your unproven claims. and i am also very proud of sahaba actions and policy and not at all embarrased.

for the third time: i instruct you to answer this question.

are you an arabic-language speaker?

Here you are, admitting that Uthman's Koran is simply a book written by men. I congratulate you on your honesty. As we know, there were textual variations in the various korans before the Uthmanic rescension, And per moslem dogma, these were textual variants supposedly revealed by Allah, and therefore they were subject to Allah’s “promise” to protect them, which of course Allah did not.

They were not protected, and were instead destroyed as the result of a decision by ‘Uthman.

We seem to be on the horns of a dilemma. The "Miraculous preservation" of the Koran is a myth as the Koran is just an ordinary book no better preserved than many other ordinary books. We have nothing to indicate that Allah preserved the Koran as Uthman was the author and editor.

 

[Mohamed]

Here you are, admitting that Uthman's Koran is simply a book written by men. I congratulate you on your honesty. As we know, there were textual variations in the various korans before the Uthmanic rescension, And per moslem dogma, these were textual variants supposedly revealed by Allah, and therefore they were subject to Allah’s “promise” to protect them, which of course Allah did not.

They were not protected, and were instead destroyed as the result of a decision by ‘Uthman.

We seem to be on the horns of a dilemma. The "Miraculous preservation" of the Koran is a myth as the Koran is just an ordinary book no better preserved than many other ordinary books. We have nothing to indicate that Allah preserved the Koran as Uthman was the author and editor.

there is a problem regarding your concept of preservation of Quran. it is not necessarily required that some angels be involved in the copying of books or revision process. God's will is manifested through our actions also.

any way, it seems that it is hopeless to come to a common point. you don't trust sahabas or muslims and this is the principal point in your reasoning.

for the fourth time:

are you arabic speaker / reader or not? you should be honest also.

 

[Hollie]

Here you are, admitting that Uthman's Koran is simply a book written by men. I congratulate you on your honesty. As we know, there were textual variations in the various korans before the Uthmanic rescension, And per moslem dogma, these were textual variants supposedly revealed by Allah, and therefore they were subject to Allah’s “promise” to protect them, which of course Allah did not.

They were not protected, and were instead destroyed as the result of a decision by ‘Uthman.

We seem to be on the horns of a dilemma. The "Miraculous preservation" of the Koran is a myth as the Koran is just an ordinary book no better preserved than many other ordinary books. We have nothing to indicate that Allah preserved the Koran as Uthman was the author and editor.

there is a problem regarding your concept of preservation of Quran. it is not necessarily required that some angels be involved in the copying of books or revision process. God's will is manifested through our actions also.

any way, it seems that it is hopeless to come to a common point. you don't trust sahabas or muslims and this is the principal point in your reasoning.

for the fourth time:

are you arabic speaker / reader or not? you should be honest also.

Bit by bit, you're actually acknowledging that a lot of Islamic dogma surrounding the Koran is simply myth and legend.

And no, I don't trust sahabas. Imperfect memories, hearsay evidence, legend-building, etc., was all a part of man's writing of the Koran.

Are you suggesting that the Koran alone is the standard by which we judge islam? Do we really need to "trust" sahabas? I can understand you’re hoping to ignore the fact that islam is an amalgam of religious traditions, dogma, etc., but to dismiss entire parts of Islamism is not just foolish, it’s dishonest. The Koran alone does not represent to islamist practitioners a fully formed and theologically comprehensive religious system. The later hadiths, sunnah, etc., provided corrections, changes and / or clarifications that were needed as an obvious reform, purification, repair or later completion. If you insist on taking the position that the Koran can be used independently of it’s later mid-course corrections and alterations, you cannot fail to embrace charges of special pleading.

 

[Mohamed]

Bit by bit, you're actually acknowledging that a lot of Islamic dogma surrounding the Koran is simply myth and legend.

And no, I don't trust sahabas. Imperfect memories, hearsay evidence, legend-building, etc., was all a part of man's writing of the Koran.

Are you suggesting that the Koran alone is the standard by which we judge islam? Do we really need to "trust" sahabas? I can understand you’re hoping to ignore the fact that islam is an amalgam of religious traditions, dogma, etc., but to dismiss entire parts of Islamism is not just foolish, it’s dishonest. The Koran alone does not represent to islamist practitioners a fully formed and theologically comprehensive religious system. The later hadiths, sunnah, etc., provided corrections, changes and / or clarifications that were needed as an obvious reform, purification, repair or later completion. If you insist on taking the position that the Koran can be used independently of it’s later mid-course corrections and alterations, you cannot fail to embrace charges of special pleading.

you didn't answer my question till now.

if there is no answer, i will conclude that it is no.

 

[Hollie]

Bit by bit, you're actually acknowledging that a lot of Islamic dogma surrounding the Koran is simply myth and legend.

And no, I don't trust sahabas. Imperfect memories, hearsay evidence, legend-building, etc., was all a part of man's writing of the Koran.

Are you suggesting that the Koran alone is the standard by which we judge islam? Do we really need to "trust" sahabas? I can understand you’re hoping to ignore the fact that islam is an amalgam of religious traditions, dogma, etc., but to dismiss entire parts of Islamism is not just foolish, it’s dishonest. The Koran alone does not represent to islamist practitioners a fully formed and theologically comprehensive religious system. The later hadiths, sunnah, etc., provided corrections, changes and / or clarifications that were needed as an obvious reform, purification, repair or later completion. If you insist on taking the position that the Koran can be used independently of it’s later mid-course corrections and alterations, you cannot fail to embrace charges of special pleading.

you didn't answer my question till now.

if there is no answer, i will conclude that it is no.

You of course are free to make conclusions you wish.

However, excepting Islamic dogma, we have nothing to connect the Koran with authorship from anyone except a mere mortal: Uthman. Not surprisingly, you have carefully avoided addressing the issue of authorship raised previously. Now this is an obvious problem for you since we know that the author of the koran sutured together material from many sources and did so long after the death of the religions’ inventor. What we don’t know is what was contained in the material excluded from Uthmans’ Koran.

You are being much too generous when you claim that the Koran is as authoritative as you would like it to be. The entirety of the Koran concerns itself with grandiose claims, all of which are in concert with the relatively limited knowledge of the time. That is why we have not just discrepancies regarding knowledge of the natural world described in the koran but outright falsehoods and nonsense as compared to modern, scientific observations. Almost nothing in the Koran qualifies as anything beyond mere belief. This is what additionally makes your personal certainty so ironic.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

there is a problem regarding your concept of preservation of Quran. it is not necessarily required that some angels be involved in the copying of books or revision process. God's will is manifested through our actions also.

No, the problem is there those who refuse to accept the fact that the koran was written by men, as was the bible. Religion is a creation of man, where there is no 'god' as perceived by theists.

 

[Mohamed]

You of course are free to make conclusions you wish.

However, excepting Islamic dogma, we have nothing to connect the Koran with authorship from anyone except a mere mortal: Uthman. Not surprisingly, you have carefully avoided addressing the issue of authorship raised previously. Now this is an obvious problem for you since we know that the author of the koran sutured together material from many sources and did so long after the death of the religions’ inventor. What we don’t know is what was contained in the material excluded from Uthmans’ Koran.

You are being much too generous when you claim that the Koran is as authoritative as you would like it to be. The entirety of the Koran concerns itself with grandiose claims, all of which are in concert with the relatively limited knowledge of the time. That is why we have not just discrepancies regarding knowledge of the natural world described in the koran but outright falsehoods and nonsense as compared to modern, scientific observations. Almost nothing in the Koran qualifies as anything beyond mere belief. This is what additionally makes your personal certainty so ironic.

although it is very easy to highlight the falsy concepts you stated, it is useless to be in debate with a fanatic.

if the answer to my question is no,
this means that you are un-aware of what is the readings are, because they are mainly pronunciation/grammatical variances attributed to the arabic language that will not be revealed in translation because they will be identical.

so i conclude that you are simply quoting the fallacies of orientalists blindly, and again this mean there is no use to debate with you.

this is the end of this discussion.

 

[Hollie]

You of course are free to make conclusions you wish.

However, excepting Islamic dogma, we have nothing to connect the Koran with authorship from anyone except a mere mortal: Uthman. Not surprisingly, you have carefully avoided addressing the issue of authorship raised previously. Now this is an obvious problem for you since we know that the author of the koran sutured together material from many sources and did so long after the death of the religions’ inventor. What we don’t know is what was contained in the material excluded from Uthmans’ Koran.

You are being much too generous when you claim that the Koran is as authoritative as you would like it to be. The entirety of the Koran concerns itself with grandiose claims, all of which are in concert with the relatively limited knowledge of the time. That is why we have not just discrepancies regarding knowledge of the natural world described in the koran but outright falsehoods and nonsense as compared to modern, scientific observations. Almost nothing in the Koran qualifies as anything beyond mere belief. This is what additionally makes your personal certainty so ironic.

although it is very easy to highlight the falsy concepts you stated, it is useless to be in debate with a fanatic.

if the answer to my question is no,
this means that you are un-aware of what is the readings are, because they are mainly pronunciation/grammatical variances attributed to the arabic language that will not be revealed in translation because they will be identical.

so i conclude that you are simply quoting the fallacies of orientalists blindly, and again this mean there is no use to debate with you.

this is the end of this discussion.

That's fine, but your comments regarding "mainly pronunciation/grammatical variances", is entirely false.

Let’s first understand an important point. Even the earliest Korans were interpretations and translations fashioned upon interpretations and translations of stories and fables spoken by “reciters”.

These stories and fables had been recited by numerous reciters and then passed down and recited to others, and then to others and so on such that the original message is long gone and forgotten. If there is no original manuscript (and there isn’t), there is no way to know the level of corruption the Koran has been subjected to. Either way, the Koran now in existence may have no real resemblance to the originally recited tales and fables

I know people like to be excused from the discipline of criteria and definition, but... well, you've run across someone who is insisting that which you define maintains the integrity of its own definition. After all, it's only fair since you're the one making those definitions and arguing that they must be true. That's okay with me, as long as you don't completely dismantle them on your way to attempting to prove they are true.

Your only actually substantive claim here remains that you’re willing to accept some history as long as that history fits a narrowly defined, preconceived nitch. You are willing to prescribe to the author of the Koran; Uthman, a divine interjection when no demonstration is available and none is needed. There are many reasons to reject your pick and choose approach to religious belief, not the least of which is your argument here depends upon the reader believing that the Koran is something other than what its clear language conveys to us: that it is a product of earlier religious faiths and traditions. Your arguments are apologetic excuses, not a reasonable conclusion drawn from the actual human history that produced the Koran.

 

[The Irish Ram]

the name may vary from language to language or from culture to another culture.

but any human believes in one God, is really believing in allah.

Not even close. The God of Abraham has a Son. Allah has no son. That is so important to Muslims, that it is written across the dome in Jerusalem.
The God of Abraham described Hagar's descendants before there were any. Allah is a corruption of the God of Abraham, because Ishmael wanted God's blessing to fall on him and not his half brother.

 

[Hollie]

the name may vary from language to language or from culture to another culture.

but any human believes in one God, is really believing in allah.

Not even close. The God of Abraham has a Son. Allah has no son. That is so important to Muslims, that it is written across the dome in Jerusalem.
The God of Abraham described Hagar's descendants before there were any. Allah is a corruption of the God of Abraham, because Ishmael wanted God's blessing to fall on him and not his half brother.

Caliber of weapons and volume of fire will allow the gods to decide who's side they're really on.

No loser in war has ever gone in to battle with the slogan. "the gods are not on our side"

 

[The Irish Ram]

There's only one. And He promises to fight on Israel's behalf from now until His Son returns. He said who's side He's on.

 

[September]

There's only one. And He promises to fight on Israel's behalf from now until His Son returns. He said who's side He's on.

What makes you think you know that it was God who said that, and not Man?
​