Brian Whitaker - "In God's name"

On Monday, there was an excellent article on one of my pet peeve topics...the God-versus-Allah issue:

In God's name
by Brian Whitaker
The mainstream media should take a closer look at whose agenda they are following when they use the word 'Allah' to mean 'God'.
Guardian Unlimited - January 22, 2007

Some key excerpts from the article:

"Arab Christians worship 'Allah' too, and the first verse of the Arabic Bible informs us that 'In the beginning Allah created heaven and earth.'"

"By opting for 'Allah' they are aligning themselves, in effect, with those who view international politics in terms of a clash of civilisations and even seek to bring it about."

"Since (Edward) Said wrote his influential book, however, we have also seen the rise of another phenomenon which might be called 'reverse orientalism', where Arabs and Muslims deliberately 'other-ise' themselves in order (they hope) to better resist western influence...Consequently, the pressure to turn God into 'Allah' when writing about Muslims comes from two opposing but equally suspect directions...This is not so much a clash of civilisations as a collision of bigotries, and news organisations should not play along with it. If they are referring to God, then 'God' is what they should say."

He also uses the following quotes from Dr. Umar F. Abd-Allah's article One God, Many Names:

"From the standpoint of Islamic theology and salvation history, it is simply unacceptable to deem the Biblical God and that of the Qur'an to be anything but the same..."

"Muslims, Christians and Jews should have no difficulty agreeing that they all turn to the God of Abraham, despite their theological and ritual differences. Historical arguments between their faiths have never been over what name to call Abraham's God."

Brian Whitaker mentions that Dr. Umar Abd-Allah, "criticises English-speaking Muslims who insist on talking about 'Allah' instead of 'God' since that "serves only to reinforce the groundless claims of the religious right." In One God, Many Names, Dr. Umar also makes the following useful observations--especially for those involved in Islamic outreach (da'wah):

"It is natural for English-speaking Muslims to have a special attachment to the word 'Allah'... but it rarely has that same effect on non-Muslim, non-Arab listeners..."

"'Allah' continues to evoke a wide range of deeply ingrained cultural prejudices and negative associations, conscious or subconscious. On the other hand, 'God' creates an immediate associative response in most non-Muslim native speakers of English that would be virtually impossible for 'Allah' to evoke even after years of positive exposure."

For the sake of da'wah, please take this to heart!

Deen On...

The Attributes of God - New from Amal Press

Since I've had it posted as my Book-of-the-Month for some time now, I was determined to write something about The Attributes of God: Ibn al-Jawzi's Daf' Shubah al-Tashbih bi-Akaff al-Tanzih, which has recently been published by Amal Press, before yet another month rolls around. I've been excited about the publication of this book ever since receiving an advanced copy of it to review early in 2006, so I want to do what I can to ensure it gets wider recognition.

This book is much needed in our age and should serve as a treasure for those contemporary Muslims who have been confused by "Salafi"/Wahhabi propaganda efforts. The intent behind the original Daf' Shubah al-Tashbih bi-Akaff al-Tanzih, written by Ibn al-Jawzi roughly eight hundred years ago, was to show the tenuousness (if not outright ridiculousness) of the anthropomorphic 'aqidah that some (but not all!) of his Hanbali contemporaries had fallen into. Insha'llah, this excellent English translation by Ustadh Abdullah bin Hamid Ali will fulfill this same purpose in our age. I just hope that enough copies of this finely presented book find their way into the right hands, since I sincerely feel that there are plenty of truth-seeking minds and honest hearts out there in our communities that have simply been duped by the Saudi-backed calls of "returning to the creed of the Salaf" when in reality they're spending their petrodollars in an attempt to get Muslims to adhere to a creed, spread by a small but vocal group of Hanbalis, which was rejected by the large majority of Muslims scholars. Here's one of my favorite excerpts from The Attributes of God (pages 89-90):

The Twenty-Fourth Hadith

Bukhari and Muslim related in the two Sahihs that Ibn Mas'ud said that, "A Jewish scholar came to the Prophet—salla Allahu 'alayhi wa salam—and then said, 'O Muhammad! Surely God will hold the Heavens on the Day of Resurrection on a finger, the Earth's on a finger, the mountains and the trees on a finger […]' In another narration the wording is "[...] and the water and the soil on a finger. Then He will shake them." So the Messenger of God—salla Allahu 'alayhi wa salam—smiled and then he said: “And they have not considered God according to His true worth (Qur'an 39: 67).”

I would answer this by stating that the apparent reason for the Prophet's smile—salla Allahu 'alayhi wa salam—is [to show his] disapproval [of the Jew's statement]. The Jews liken God to His Creation, and the revelation of the verse is proof of the Messenger's condemnation of such beliefs. Similar in meaning to this hadith is his saying, "Verily the hearts of the children of Adam are between two of the fingers of the All-Merciful One. He turns them about however He pleases." Since the heart between two fingers is tractable and subdued, this indicates that the one who turns them about subjugates hearts. But, Qadi [Abu Ya'la] said, “It is not wrong to hold and understand the report according to its outward meaning in affirming fingers as Attributes that refer back to the Divine Essence, since we do not affirm fingers that are limbs and parts.”

This is the statement of a confused person, because he is either to affirm limbs or he is to interpret it. As for understanding and holding them on their outward meanings, their outward meanings are limbs. Then he says, “But they are not parts.” So this is the statement of one who stands while sitting down. So the comments of whoever states this are spoiled.

Yes, this is the statement of “one who stands while sitting down” indeed, so hopefully reading and reflecting on this text will help some of our contemporary Muslim brothers and sisters—those who have bought into the so-called "Salafi" claims without ever hearing the view of the mainstream Ahl al-Sunnah wa al-Jama'ah—see through the misinformation and confusion.

The biography of Ibn al-Jawzi, the author of the Arabic original, is given as follows: "Ibn al-Jawzi al-Qurashi al-Taymi al-Bakri al-Baghdadi al-Hanbali (509/510-597) was, with Shaykh 'Abd al-Qadir al-Gilani, the Imam of H.anbalis and foremost orator of kings and commoners in his time, whose gatherings reportedly reached one hundred thousand, a hadith Master, philologist, commentator of Qur'an, expert jurist, physician, and historian of superb character and exquisite manners." The text in question, Daf' Shubah al-Tashbih bi-Akaff al-Tanzih, is actually a shorter version of his much more detailed Kitab Akhbar As-Sifat, which has also been translated into English and published as: A Medieval Critique of Anthropomorphism: Ibn Al-Jawzi's Kitab Akhbar As-Sifat. However, as with most texts published by Brill Academic Press, this book is prohibitively expensive since it lists at $169! For the sake of accuracy, please be aware that it is actually 446 pages in length, not 2229 as shown on Amazon.com—which I know since my local university library has a copy.

I should also mention that Ustadh Abdullah bin Hamid Ali has an outstanding lecture which discusses and critiques the flawed methodology of contemporary so-called "Salafis", especially in regards to their approach to fiqh (jurisprudence) , which is now available on CD from his Lamppost Productions website. I encourage anyone who is unaware of the methodological shortcomings of "Reformist" and "Do-It-Yourself" Islamic movements to purchase a copy of this reasonably-priced CD.

Deen On...

Some Advice for Muslims Involved in Outreach

In response to a recent posting on DeenPort, I was prompted to rant and rave on a topic that I feel is of utmost importance if we want to make progress in overcoming misconceptions that non-Muslims have about Islam and make our outreach efforts more effective. This was something of a follow up to my recent posting in response to the question: Do Catholics and Muslims Worship the Same God?, and here's what I had to say:

---

As-salamu 'alaykum,

Well I'll second Arfan Shah's opinion that you need "some more explanation on the word Allah". Actually, I would strongly recommend simply using "God" in lieu of "Allah". No, I take that back. Rather, I would very, very, very strongly recommend that you use the word "God" instead of "Allah" or, at the very least, offer a well thought out explanation of the word "Allah" that makes it clear that it means "God"—the same God that Jews and Christians believe in (which is not meant to imply that these two abrogated religions don't have serious flaws in their understanding of God). Likewise, I would omit all, and I do mean ALL, of the Arabic terminology and instead translate these words into 100% pure English. Based on my experiences, both prior to converting to Islam and well over a dozen years being active in Islamic outreach (i.e. da'wah), I know that such an approach is usually much more effective than confusing non-Muslims with words that they don't understand and aren't in a position to appreciate.

In His Noble Book, Almighty God informs us that He never "sent a messenger except (to teach) in the language of his (own) people, in order to make things clear to them" (Qur'an 14:4), so I sincerely feel—needless to say—that Muslims ought to employ the same modus operandi in their da'wah efforts. One would think that it's rather obvious that we should speak to people in a language that they can actually understand, but the fact that this needs to be explained speaks volumes about the state that much of our Ummah is in these days. Please understand that this isn't meant to imply that knowing the Arabic language isn't an important (even essential) part of understanding Islam or that the deep meanings of Qur'anic Arabic can necessarily be translated into English (or any other language, for that matter). Rather, I'm only trying to point out that one needs to strive to keep things simple when presenting Islam to non-Muslims who are more than likely misinformed about it. Based on the fact that you named your article "My Simple Guide to Islam", I think that we're probably in agreement on this point.

Before getting involved in any efforts to present Islam to non-Muslims, especially in an age where Islamophobia is rampant in the media and on the Internet, one needs to be keenly aware of the misinformation many people have been subjected to in order to avoid playing into the hands of the enemies of Islam. As I touched upon in a recent blog posting, there's no doubt that one of the main tactics that Christian missionaries and Islamophobes are using in order to "poison the well" of Islam (i.e. get people to reject it before they even take it into honest consideration) is to claim that "Allah" as a pagan god or, at a minimum, portray Him as a completely different God than Jews and Christians worship. As one can plainly see by reading the comments and opinions expressed by non-Muslims here (which represents a fairly typical mixed bag of opinions), this tactic has been rather effective. This can be confirmed by not only doing some Google searches, but by simply listening to the opinions voiced on conservative (and sometimes even liberal) news outlets. In my opinion, that this misunderstanding about Allah is nearly all-pervasive is very much backed up by what I've personally observed in my interactions with non-Muslims. Even as a relatively open-minded truth seeker who was already willing to admit that my previous religion of Christianity had some substantial flaws, it still took me about a year to struggle through the misconceptions that I had about Islam, including the one in question. Thus any Muslim involved in dealing with non-Muslims needs to understand and be sympathetic to the fact that English-speaking non-Muslims sometimes wonder, "If Allah is really God, then why don't you just call Him God?" I've actually been asked this question (and they probably just think it more than they actually ask it!), which I feel is a great indicator of the frame of mind that we often have to deal with. Every age has its issues, misunderstandings, hang-ups and pet peeves—and this seems to be the one for our age.

Unfortunately, Muslims are to blame for a lot of these misunderstandings, since not only are a lot of our so-called "da'wah" efforts not very well thought out, but many Muslims are grossly misinformed and narrow-minded on this subject as well. A good example of this comes from an article about a seemingly well-intentioned but rather misguided Muslim teacher, Israr Khan, that appeared in The Daily Mail several months ago. While I certainly agree with his view that Muslim children should not be singing Christmas carols, his handling of the situation was (at least as portrayed in the article) not only ill-mannered, rough and unwise, but his condemnation of "God" played directly into the hands of the enemies of Islam and smacked of henotheism as well. Indeed, Israr Khan's stating, "Who is your God? Why are you saying Jesus and Jesus Christ? God is not your God - it is Allah" is the type of thing that makes me want to cry out in frustration (or collapse in anguish, since it really does break my heart). Not only do such statements serve to confirm the misconceptions and misinformation that many, if not most, non-Muslims have been exposed to, but they should make one wonder how a "Muslim teacher" living in the West became so bigoted and misinformed in the first place.

Even though I would normally hesitate to base my view of a Muslim on one (non-Muslim) newspaper article, the point here isn't about an individual but about a particular "our God is better than your God" mentality that I've been opposing for many years. In regards to our brother Israr Khan, I'll say "Allahu 'alim" and simply point out that I don't find this story hard to believe, not because of him personally, but because of my own personal experiences. I don't know if he's an anthropomorphic "Salafi" who might be accused (in a tongue-in-cheek sort of way) of "worshipping the sky god of Najd", a Muslim who has fallen victim to a narrow cultural and tribal religious mentality, or simply a well-intentioned and pious man who has been unjustly slandered by The Daily Mail. That's all beside the point, since the sad fact that I want to make clear is that I've had the unenviable experience of coming across quite a few "walking, talking da'wah disasters" (as a convert friend of mine in Kuwait once labeled them) in my fourteen plus years as a Muslim. Even though they almost always counter these feelings and clarify their real views when properly questioned—the universality of the Islamic message being something that almost all Muslims take to heart, unfortunately it often seems that Muslims believe in an anthropomorphic tribal deity that they perceive to be "the god of the Muslims", thus we cannot just blame Islamophobic misinformation for this rather grave misunderstanding.

In order to improve the situation, if it was up to me I would require that every Muslim who wants to get involved in making outreach to non-Muslims in the English-speaking world read Dr. Umar Faruq Abd-Allah's article One God, Many Names and pass a detailed test on it. This Nawawi Foundation article is a masterpiece in regards to clarifying misconceptions that many Muslims have, largely due to linguistic double-standards, intellectual laziness or popular myths, and contains a wealth of information useful to anyone involved in talking about the Deity in any language. It's essentially written with a Muslim audience in mind with the aim of informing them about an important topic and thus to turn them into better-informed ambassadors of Islam...so please read it.

To me, One God, Many Names was really a breath of fresh air, especially coming from a convert who is, relatively speaking, up there in years. This is because, based on what I've seen, many converts over the years seem to forget about their old pre-conversion questions, obsessions and sensibilities once they get fully immersed in the beauty of Islam and the Arabic language...having left behind the facile and childish debate whether "Allah" is really God a long time ago. I admit that I've even caught myself falling into this trap, but when I see clear examples of Muslims being bull-headed and thus turning sincere people away from Islam and making our enemies cheer, then I snap out of it and jump in with both feet (at least some of the time). So in the future, whenever you encounter a Muslim da'i wannabe who is laboring under misconceptions about how the Islamic understanding of God should be explained to non-Muslims, refer them to One God, Many Names, by Dr. Umar Faruq Abd-Allah...and thank God that we still have such wise and articulate scholars in this trying age.

On a side note, I've sometimes considered asking Muslims who are resistant to the views which I've expressed above how they think most Muslims would feel if someone refused to use the word "Allah" when speaking to them and instead used the word for God from another language because they felt that it was much superior? My guess is that they would think that this would be ridiculous, misguided and very offensive-and rightfully so. Hopefully a word to the wise is sufficient in this case, thus I won't attempt to explain this hopefully clear point in detail. On the other hand, this question also serves as a response to the hate-mongers who claim that "Allah" is some false pagan deity, since one wonders how Arabs, regardless of their religion convictions or world-view, would be able to talk about God if they completely stopped using the word "Allah" when they spoke, since it's simply the word for "God" in the Arabic language. Indeed, not only do contemporary Arabic-speaking Jews, Christians and Muslims use this blessed word, but it has been used by all Arabs from time immemorial to refer to the Deity, from the theologically depraved pagan Arabs to the free-thinking neo-Platonic Arab philosophers of the High Middle Ages...since "Allah" is simply the word for God in the Arabic language. As I touched upon in Accidental Paganism Based on a Name, this entire polemic is as ridiculous as asking English-speaking people to stop using the word "God" because it has pagan German origins, since how then, pray tell, would we talk about God in English if we couldn't say the word "God"? Food for thought, I hope...

Before closing, I also want to address the issue of translating the Islamic Testification of Faith (i.e. Shahadah), since this presents some challenges that often lead to misunderstandings. Personally, I prefer to state the Shahadah as: "There is no god but God and Muhammad is the Messenger of God", although I find other all-English formulations, such as "There is nothing divine except for Almighty God and Muhammad is the Messenger of God" acceptable as well. However, I find the use of translations of the Shahadah that mix English and Arabic words to be somewhat questionable since they, based on my personal empirical observations, often confuse non-Muslims. Indeed, I've heard Shaykh Hamza Yusuf clearly state that such translations of the Shahadah are indeed "problematic". This is because the statement "There is no God but Allah" could be (and sometimes is) taken to imply that Muslims are claiming that the "God" that English-speaking Jews and Christians believe in doesn't exist (or is a false god) and "Allah" (the deity of the Arabs) is the only true God. This is certainly not how it's meant, but that's how it often comes across, so in order to avoid being counterproductive in our outreach efforts, one has to be sensitive to the state-of-mind and point-of-view of the audience that one is addressing.

On this note, I'll also point out that the article in question uses both "no God but Allah" and "no god but Allah" (the differences in upper and lower case being significant) in its translations of the Shahadah. This is worthy of note, since these slightly different formulations can both carry different subtle implications and thus spawn varied misunderstandings. Although I've already mentioned the pitfalls that the "There is no God but Allah" formulation presents, one should understand that saying "there is no god but Allah" could be taken in a rather different way (i.e. as an implication that Allah is something less than a full Deity since He's only a "god" with a lowercase "g"). It's due to all of these complications that I feel it's a good idea to stick to using "god" and "God" when translating the Shahadah into English (and I often quip that the ones that don't are really only partial translations), since when both of the words used to express divinity come from the same language, some of these difficulties are clearly avoided. No doubt, the original Arabic formulation is beautifully unhampered by any of these problems, which is why it remains not only a deep and profound theological statement, but the deepest truth ever revealed to mankind...so let's get busy spreading it amongst them in a meaningful way.

In conclusion, I'll clarify that I'm not calling on Muslim to completely stop using the word "Allah" when speaking to non-Muslims (much less amongst themselves), but just trying to make them aware of the dire misunderstandings that exist and the state of mind of their audience. I'll even admit that it's probably even a good idea to use the word "Allah" a bit around non-Muslims, since this sometimes serves to make it clear that this is just another word for Almighty God. However, I would hesitate to do this in initial presentations or discussions with non-Muslims, since they're most probably been exposed to the misinformation that I described above. So a distinction should be made between making presentations to (probably misinformed) non-Muslims and simply going about our daily lives as Muslims (i.e. performing our salat, reading the Qur'an, doing our dhikr and carrying on conversations sprinkled with Arabic terminology).

On a positive note, I feel that the views that I advocate above are really catching on amongst English-speaking Muslim scholars, especially the well-known converts that are active in da'wah. Not only does Dr. Umar's article make this clear, but several months ago, I asked another knowledgeable, well-known and well-respected Muslim scholar about the issue of effective outreach to non-Muslims, and he agreed that we should certainly use the word "God" when presenting Islam to English-speaking non-Muslims, otherwise we'll just end up being misunderstood. He then stated, with wise and sound logic, that "God is Allah and Allah is God" so it's certainly nothing that a thinking person should get hung-up on or confused about. I also recall, back from the years that I spent as a hot-headed young "Salafi" in Kuwait, hearing a Shaykh that had spent many years in America explain to some of my fellow narrow-minded cohorts that if they used the word "Allah" in their da'wah to non-Muslims, they'd probably just be misunderstood...and that's the point that I want to get across.

Here endeth the lesson. To those of you who read all of this lengthy rant, I want to say, "Thanks!" since I sure feel better after getting that off my chest...

Do Catholics and Muslims Worship the Same God?

Discouraged by some of the rather narrow-minded and misinformed comments that I read, several days ago I submitted the following response on Joee Blogs - A Catholic Londoner. Since my somewhat detailed comments, which were posted in regards to the question "Do Catholics and Muslims worship the same God?", are still yet to show up on Joee Blogs, I've decided to post them here (slightly modified and updated):

As an American Muslim, and former Christian, here's what I have to say in regards to this important question. While I agree with Andrew's statement that "God does not give conflicting revelations", it seems this is poses a problem for Christianity, not Islam. To explain: since Muslims believe in the same non-Trinitarian and unadulterated monotheism as Abraham, Moses and Jesus—peace be upon them all, it is Trinitarian Christianity that is thus guilty of theological innovation and burdened with a new fangled creed...which is certainly not the pure Semitic monotheism that Muslims and Jews adhere to. Indeed, by focusing on the unambiguous statements about the nature of God both in the Tanakh (a.k.a. Old Testament), Synoptic Gospels and the Qur'an, a well-intentioned and unbiased person who has their theological priorities in order can see a very consistent theology. This is why the Islamic belief that God's message via all of His prophets was consistent in regards to basic beliefs not only makes sound theological sense but can be supported from the Bible as well. On the other hand, Christians have to contend with the fact that believers in the Old Testament were clearly non-Trinitarian—and if you doubt this coming from a Muslim, try reading some Jewish refutations [(1)(2)(3)] of Christian misuse and misinterpretation of the Old Testament—while after the time of Jesus many (but not all) Christians became Trinitarians. It's probably worth mentioning that Trinitarian Christianity was largely rejected by the Jews, who were about the only religious community in the Middle East that placed strong emphasis on monotheism, thus the concept of a Triune God found fertile ground largely spread in the pagan communities of the Near East, amongst whom concepts like divine incarnation, triune gods, etc., were not a problem. An astute exposé of Trinitarian thinking entitled Trinitarians: Searching for Evidence of Divine Plurality, can be found here.

As far as crucis3's comments, without discussing in detail his weak grammatical formulations, I'll just say that it seems he's just uncritically accepted what the hate-mongers have spewed out. Unfortunately for him, the same accusations of (alleged) pagan origins can be shown for the words used in the Bible for "God" and "god"—in the original Biblical languages of Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek. Please see my detailed blog posting Accidental Paganism Based on a Name? for a detailed refutation of such ideas. For those lacking the courage to read the entire article, I'll just mention that even the English words "God" and "god" are of pagan German origin...not that it really matters, since Jesus didn't speak English (which may come as a surprise to some people). Indeed, the word for "God" in Jesus' native language of Aramaic was "Alaha", which is obviously much closer to the Arabic word "Allah" than the English word "God".

In regards to Mark Durie's article...well he does a great job of demonstrating that he doesn't know much about the Qur'an or Islamic theology, which seems about par for the course as far as the Christian missionaries that I've come across. However, the most nonsensical reply that I found above was where "by their fruits" linked to an article which informs us that some Muslims murdered an Assyrian Christian priest in Iraq—as if an entire religion is to blame for the actions of a few of its misguided followers, especially when their actions contradict the teachings of the religion thus being attacked. As I've often pointed out, if religions were proven false by the misguided actions of some of its followers, then Christianity would have been proven false long ago. Ignorance is bliss, thus it seems that some Catholics need to reflect on Matthew 7:3, since not only did their co-religionists massacre the entire city of Jerusalem when they "liberated" it for Christ back in 1099, but there are many other examples of massacres carried out by Christians that I could reference. And regarding the treatment of Christians in Muslim lands, one should feel compelled to ask: How did Christian communities manage to survive in every Middle Eastern country for the past 1,400 years if Muslims were commanded to annihilate them? The answer should be obvious to anyone with a single active brain cell and a decent sense of fair play. However, this is not to say that Muslims have always lived up to the high ideals of their religion when dealing with non-Muslim minorities, but they generally did a much better job in this regard than Christians the pre-Enlightenment West. If you doubt this, read [(1)(2)(3)(4)(5)] about how heretics, Jews and other non-Christians were treated in Europe, not by a few misguided fanatics, but by the large majority of the population often urged on by the dictates of the Papacy and the likes of (Saint) Augustine of Hippo.

Speaking of (Saint) Augustine, who along with (Saint) Thomas Aquinas and Martin Luther was one of the most influential theologians in all of Christian history, it should be pointed out that he was very much a pre-Enlightenment figure who didn't have much sympathy for humanist concepts such as freedom of conscious and religious tolerance. Protestants should take note that Augustine's views aren't just another example un-Biblical Catholic dogmas, since he got them right out of the New Testament. Indeed, in the Parable of the Great Banquet, found in Luke 14, the master tells the servant: "Go out into the highways and hedges, and compel them to come in, that my house may be filled" (Luke 14:23). The metaphor here, based on the word "compel", is rather clear: When necessary, it is permissible to force people to enter the church. Indeed, it was based upon this parable of Jesus that Augustine of Hippo justified his principle of Cognite Intrare (i.e. "compel them to enter"), which justified using force to bring heretics and the unconverted into the church. This principle would be used throughout the Middle Ages by the Roman Catholic Church to convert non-Christians, suppress dissent and deal with heretics. If you doubt these facts, or feel that I'm misinterpreting this towering figure of Catholic Theology, take a look at Paragraph 24 of (Saint) Augustine's A Treatise Concerning the Correction of the Donatists starting where he asks: "For what else is the meaning of 'Compel them to come in'...?"—which is a very good question. After reflecting on that, please also take note of the fact that The Catholic Encyclopedia, in their rather lengthy article on the Donatist heresy, proves itself untrustworthy and deceitful by omitting these ugly details, which leads one to justifiably assume that this was a premeditated attempt to preserve the image of (Saint) Augustine in the minds of its Catholic readers.

Anyway, based on many years of studying comparative religion; reflecting on the teachings of Judaism, Christianity and Islam; being disturbed by misinformed and simplistic articles on Islam meant for popular consumption; and being involved in heartfelt interreligious dialogues; what I see in this debate over whether "Allah" is the same God that Jews and Christians worship, especially the misguided attempts to portray "Allah" as some pagan god, is an attempt by Christians to divert attention from tough questions about their own Trinitarian theology. Indeed, when faced with the pure Abrahamic monotheism of Islam, instead of trying to address troubling questions about the shaky Biblical foundations of Trinitarian theology and the influence that Greek thought had on both its initial and later formulations (i.e. Thomas Aquinas "blended Greek philosophy and Christian doctrine..."), Christians instead try to poison the well. By this I mean they attempt to portray Islam as foreign and pseudo-pagan religion that worships "a different god" in order to keep Christians from doing some unbiased research about this viable alternative to their faith. While this might be an effective (albeit dishonest) tactic when it comes to keeping your average uninquisitive pew warmer in-line, it doesn't work so well on those who are informed, educated and know how to think for themselves. This is one reason that many former Christian converts to Islam are not only highly educated, but well versed in comparative religion. As a life-long truth seeker, I'd personally recommend learning about a religion from those who adhere to it, not from those who despise it. Such an approach would thus dictate that if you want to learn about Christianity, don't ask an atheist or a Hindu, but ask a believing Christian. And if you want to know whether Muslims worship the same God as you do, ask a Muslim (to which they should respond with a resounding, "Yes!") or, short of that, try reading the Qur'an with an open mind, if not an open heart (since it repeatedly makes it clear that the God of Abraham, Noah, Moses and Jesus is the God of Muhammad—peace be upon them all—as well). Although such an approach would seem to be rather obvious, many people apparently think they can get a religious education by watching FoxNews or listening to conservative talk radio shows. Unfortunately, such people seem to be well represented in the comments above. Hopefully these comments will make them feel the need to hold their gross double-standards in check and then set about trying to actually learn something before they post further misinformed comments...but God knows best.

Although I didn't mention it in my original comments, there's a nice article by David B. Burrell, an ordained Roman Catholic priest and Professor of Philosophy at Notre Dame University, called Naming the Names of God: Muslims, Jews, Christians. One interesting thing that is worthy of note in this article, as well as his book Knowing The Unknowable God, is that these great Jewish, Christian and Muslim thinkers (i.e. Maimonides, Thomas Aquinas, Ibn Sina and al-Ghazali) didn't waste their time engaging in idiotic debates about whether they all worshipped the same God. Rather, taking it for granted that they obviously did, they debated about the correct theological understanding of God, since it's on this level that the three world religions that claim Abrahamic roots have some profound and subtle differences (although some strong and obvious similarities as well).

I should point out, since some of my Muslim readers might recognize his name (I didn't!), that David B. Burrell is the co-translator, along with Nazih Daher, of Al-Ghazali on the Ninety-Nine Beautiful Names of God, published by The Islamic Texts Society, and On Faith in Divine Unity and Trust in Divine Providence, a translation of Imam al-Ghazali's Kitab at-Tawhid wa Tawakkul, published by Fons Vitae.

As something of a coup de grâce, I'll mention that there's an article linked to above entitled Estimates of the Number Killed by the Papacy in the Middle Ages and Later [MS Word format], just in case anyone missed it. Any Roman Catholics out there who are still feeling the need to point an accusing finger at Islam in regards to present manifestations of murder and mayhem in the Muslim World should take a good hard look at this article first. Then, for even more balance, try reading The Myth of "The Myth of Moderate Islam", which presents a lot of facts and figures which prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that when it comes to killing, Christians remain second to none. I hope that readers don't find this posting overly harsh, since when one is dealing with ignorant and slanderuos polemics, the unadulterated truth just needs to be told...and God knows best.

Deen On...

Accidental Paganism Based on a Name?

Well M. S. M. Saifullah and company at Islamic-Awareness.org have updated a couple [(1)(2)] of their excellent articles which refute hate-mongers, such as Robert Morey, and their half-baked and dishonest assertions that Allah is a pre-Islamic "moon god"—so please take the time to have a look at them as well as their other articles [(1)(2)(3)] on this topic.

The only potential insight that I want to offer in the whole "moon god" debate is that the underlying premise behind all of these polemics seems to be that Islam is accidentally a pagan religion due to its use of the word "Allah" for the Supreme Deity instead of an allegedly more suitable word—which these linguistically challenged Protestants rather conveniently assume to be the English word "God". Indeed, dishonest pseudo-scholars such as Robert Morey (and please take the time to read this Christian exposé of him, as well as the first article mentioned above in order to see plenty of hard evidence that he resorts to "forgery, deception, suppression of evidence and deliberate misquotation" in a desperate attempt to prove his pre-conceived notions) essentially assert that in spite of the fact that Muslims intend to worship the God of Abraham, Moses and Jesus, that they are, alas, still actually worshipping a pagan god. Needless to say, both at first blush and after detailed consideration, this type of thinking seems not only patently unfair, but to be a product of monstrous double-standards. Indeed, not only does the fact that the Qur'an repeatedly and consistently [(1)(2)(3)(4)(5)(6)] affirms that the God of Prophet Muhammad—salla Allahu 'alayhi wa salam—and the earlier Hebrew prophets is one and the same push such an accusation into the realm of the unreasonable and unfounded, but it's also painfully ironic that the immense hypocrisy that's latent in this hateful diatribe eventually comes back to bedevil the religion of the slanderer himself!

No doubt, what's really worth noting about this nonsensical contention, other than the fact that for years to come it will probably continue to serve as a monumental example of the type of gross intellectual dishonesty and diabolical pseudo-scholarship that some strands of conservative Protestantism have a knack for producing, is the fact that the sloppy reasoning which it employs, if applied to the words used for "God" in the Bible, completely undermines the Christian faith that these textual charlatans are trying to defend!!! This is because both the Hebrew words for God (i.e. 'El, 'Eloah and 'Eloyhim) and the Greek word for God (i.e. Theos) were originally used for pagan gods! This is even true for the English word God and its various derivatives, which originally referred to "Germanic pagan deities" worshipped in pre-Christian northern Europe.

To top all of this off, modern speakers of Romance languages, such as Spanish, French and Portuguese, might be shocked to find out that their words for God (respectively Dios, Dieu and Deus) are all derived from Deus, which is a Latinized form of the name of the Greek god Zeus!!! Put that in your etymological pipe and smoke it, Robert Morey!

Consequently, based on Robert Morey's own logic (and I use the word loosely), for well over a thousand years the overwhelming majority of Christians in the world were therefore accidentally worshiping the god Zeus as they celebrated the Christian mass in Latin. And when Robert Morey finally came along, in all of his intellectual humility, and pointed out how others had gotten things all wrong…well he was using a word for God that was originally pagan in origin too! I mean really, isn't the sloppy thinking and unintended consequences of some hypocrites just simply amazing?!?

These devastating points don't even address the significant fact that Jesus himself, in spite of what some people seemingly believe, used the word Alaha (sometimes spelled Elah) when he spoke in his native Aramaic. Does that mean that he too was accidentally worshipping one of the Canaanite deities because Alaha is derived from a word that was originally used by pagans? And keep in mind that even in Jesus' time, many Aramaic speakers were pagans, not Jews. So instead of wallowing in such drivel, an intellectually honest person would—after actually considering the linguistic evidence—conclude that the various Semitic languages (Arabic, Hebrew and Aramaic) all use words for "god" and "God" that are very similar in origin, spelling and their root meanings. All of this evidence, coupled with the fact that all believers should find comfort in the certitude that all of these words have as a common ancestor the word for "God" that was originally revealed to Adam and the other early prophets, should be enough to squash the mistaken belief that there's some problem with any of these words when it comes to using them to refer to The One True God. For an excellent and detailed discussion of the various names of God, I highly recommend reading Dr. Umar Faruq Abd-Allah's One God, Many Names—and taking its recommendations to heart.

I'd like to mention that one could well argue that "Allah" is the most theologically superior of the just-mentioned Semitic words for "God", since as a contraction of the definite article "Al-" (i.e. "the") and the word "Ilah" (i.e. "god/God") it literally means "The God"—thus leaving almost no room for any of the ambiguity in regards to Divinity that crept into both the Bible and Christian Trinitarian theology. Indeed, on this level, the word "Allah" stands in stark contrast to the Hebrew words 'El, 'Eloah and 'Eloyhim, which are used in the Old Testament to refer to pagan deities as well as the One True God of the Children of Israel. However, in order to avoid slipping into anything that might appear to be rather pointless "My Word for God is Better Than Yours" antics, for balance I'll just mention that the Greek word for God, in a grammatical sense, is quite similar to the Arabic word, since it too is constructed from the definite article (i.e. "Ho") and the word for god (i.e. "Theos"), thus it (i.e. "Ho Theos") also rather unambiguously means "The God".

All of this should be abundantly clear to a native speaker of any of the languages just mentioned, since the word for God in any person's native language is most often very near and dear to their heart—and thus simply means GOD in spite of what others may feel about it. In spite of what the specific word might actually be, as long as a person is a true monotheist, the word they use for God is good enough—and this is certainly the case if they're intending to worship the God of Abraham, Moses, Jesus and Muhammad—peace be upon them all. Indeed, Almighty God, as Muslims understand Him, doesn't throw people into Hell for linguistic misunderstandings—especially when the only real misunderstanding is in the minds of some bigoted hate-mongers.

A wise shaykh once told me, in regards to some of these debates and antics, what essentially means: "Allah is God and God is Allah, so let's just leave it at that"—and a word to the wise is sufficient.

"Adore not the sun and the moon,
but adore God who created them..."
— Qur'an 41:37

Deen On...

One God, Many Names

Everyone needs to read this article (see link below), especially if you're involved in any type of Islamic outreach (a.k.a. da'wah). Based on some inexcusable misconceptions that I've come across, I feel that this is probably the single most important article that Muslims involved in da'wah need to read - and it certainly wouldn't hurt if non-Muslims read it as well. It's a very timely, thoughtful and highly relevant article for Muslims living in an English-speaking country.

One God, Many Names, by Dr. Umar Faruq Abd-Allah

This official description of this Nawawi Foundation paper is as follows:

“This paper addresses the primordial origin of the divine names of God in order to establish the equivalency of the Biblical ‘God’ to Islam’s ‘Allah’ and the need for American Muslims to embrace both. While Muslims affirm that they worship the ‘God of Abraham,’ recently America’s religious right has denied this common ground. This point is aided by English-speaking Muslims’ avoidance of the word ‘God,’ due to an erroneous assumption that ‘Allah’ alone carries legitimacy.”