Allah doesn't exist in the Bible

Here was a message addressed to me dealing with the idea of Allah being the same as Elahh in the Bible. It is written by a Muslim named Yishan and is repeated by Osama. Notice, Muslims always seem to repeat these same arguments, so while it is addressed to him first and foremost, it can be used in answering any Islamic claims dealing with this issue.

Osama Abdallah claims that Allah is in the Bible because because of pronunciation. This is a etymological fallacy since you don't find a word from a different language by sound.

This is all fine, however Osama is attempting to impress the reader by diverting the subject from Aramaic to Arabic. Because these rules are prevalent in Arabic doesn't prove whatsoever that it is the same in Aramaic. We will continue to investigate Osama's bogus theories to expose his non-knowledge about Aramaic.

So this is his methodology, but trying to elminate the "H" he will then interplate this to be Allah. However one immediately sees the fallacy of this approach since Osama is using the pronounciation as the spelling!! El Law is how you pronounce the word "elahh. Therefore if we eliminate one "H" then the word would still be "elah". He would still have an extra "H" left to try and explain!! This is a great deception, he doesn't use the transliterated word but the pronounciation. Ellaw isn't spelled with a "vav", this would be "W" in Aramaic. How stupid can you get. To debunk this silly theory lets look at the transliteration of Allah and Elahh in Arabic Script:

With this being showed, keep this information in mind because we will look at the correct scripts in light of Osama's argument to expose him.

Osama counts on his reader being uninformed about this information however if we translate this statement to Arabic and in the context of the sentence, it should be:

It will be grammatically incorrect to say:

The NT was written in Greek however it points us to him speaking the Aramaic language not Arabic. Jesus was quoting Psalm 22:1. So why is the transliteration ilah instead of Allah? Osama uses an age old trick to fool his reader who knows less than he does!!

Mere speculation by Osama, Allah isn't derived from "ILAH" What proof do you have to back this up? What linguistic evidence? None. Even the Quran doesn't use Allah as a common noun for "GOD". Read these verses:

In all the contexts of application of the term allaah, it is used as a proper name. There is not even one example where it was used as a common noun. Meanwhile the term ‘ilaah is the term that was always applied for common nouns. Q.38:5 is a very clear example that shows us that linguistically (lexicon) the two terms are distinct and have separate definitions. Therefore Osama is guilty of lying to his audience, especially since he is an Arabic speaker. Even Muslims say that Allah is never a common word or noun used as "god" or "GOD".

Osama's theory about Allah being the word "GOD" or "god" is purely a hoax. I challenge him to show us anywhere in the Quran where Allah is used as a common name. He won't be able to substantiate this claim therefore his whole theory is based on nothing more than wishful thinking.

Again Osama's whole theory is based on pronunciation and nothing more. YOu don't spell a word in another language based on it's pronunciation.

What is the closest term to allaah in the Bible?

Logically, if we want to use comparative terminology, we better start first by the closest in sound and spelling and look at the meanings and context. Surprisingly, the closest Hebrew word to the Arabic allaah is the noun for oak (tree) and terebinth (post), 'allaah. The difference between the two words is very slight in writing: EaLLlaaH verses EaLlaaH, but the pronunciation is very identical. Here is the evidence from Jos.24:26:

* [0427] 'allaah {EaLlaaH}; n m
1) oak, 2) terebinth.
* [0430] 'elohiym {EeLoHiYM}; n m p
1a) rulers, judges 1b) divine ones 1c) angels 1d) gods
2a) god, goddess 2b) godlike one 2c) works or special possessions of God 2d) the (true) God 2e) God More interestingly, both words 'elohiym (God) and 'allaah (oak) are used in the same verse and sentence. So, why would God, who is an all knowing God and not a God of confusion would put those two words together and in two different contexts? Maybe the answer is that before hand God showed that allaah is not and have never been a name of His! It is obvious that those who argue that allaah is one of God's biblical names, especially by using comparative terminology, either forgot to do their homework thoroughly or just avoided what doesn't suit their ideas and claims. The god allaah is an oak tree, and linguistically demonstrating, those use such tactics to prove their arguments are actually putting a rope around their necks.

What Osama nor his minion Yishan mentions to the reader is that this theory was started by Muslim scholars particularly Alfred Guilliame:

So what is Yishan's and Osama's excuse now? We await their answers. If they can ever provide any credible answer.

For one thing Yishan gives a generalized Islamic reply, by saying that it means that "Allah is the one true God", however how does he actually know that? He only assumes and then he builds an argument from an assumption. As for the capitilization bid, this is also a joke since in the Quran "ALLAH" is never used as a term for "GOD" either. This is another dilemma that Yishan or Osama has been afraid to directly address.

It does however lets look at Yishan's point below:

For one thing this is a strawman arguement since I challenged Yishan to show us where explictedly where the word "ALLAH" is used in the Bible and where in HEBREW where Elah is used as THE NAME OF GOD. He couldn't even do it. Infact he ignored this below.

Yishan claims that Elah is the same as Allah This is part of this common argument highlighted in Bold below:

There are many arguments against this theory, and neither Osama nor Yishan, can answer them legitamately:

Now lets look at Yishan's statement which will also debunk him and Osama's theory:

However since elahh and Eloah can only be translated as ILAH in Arabic and not Allah, which grammatically incorrect this statement by Yishan has just proven that Allah can't be Elahh!! Again look at the correct transliteration of My God MY God

Yishan has just refuted Osama's theory himself!!!

We asked the critic how come he couldn't accept this? He is basing his whole argument on pronunciation to avoid the obvious fact that ELAHH CAN'T BE EQUALED TO ALLAH! Using Osama't theory, if we eliminate one "H" from Allah then ELAHH would still have an extra "H"!!

Actually Yishan hasn't proven anything other than saying that Elahh, a common noun is used for God. However he hasn't shown that a pronoun in Arabic corresponds to a Hebrew or Aramaic noun! Also I said show us where ELAH is used as the NAME OF GOD. None of Yishan's examples prove this this matter.

Again both Yishan are basing everything on how something sounds, however the script in Arabic proves different. If Yishan and Osama are so sure of this theory, how come they didn't consult an Aramaic speaker to verify their claims? Strange isn't it. Ilah does correspond to Elahh, but what does this have to do with Allah? Allah doesn't mean "GOD" or "god", in Arabic, even Yishan mentioned this. If it did then it would be a common noun in Arabic. Therefore Osama and Yishan are attempting to transform the Arabic language to make Allah confirm to Aramaic, by making a pronoun (Allah) into a noun!!!

Since it isn't Allah, Yishan has just refuted Osama's theory above in claiming that Elahh was God! Also Yishan has just proved what I said above: "THAT ALLAH DOESN'T MEAN A COMMON WORD FOR GOD". Therefore all he has just proven is that elahh corresponds with Ilah in Arabic. However the Quran doesn't say that God's name is ILAH does it gentlemen? Neither does the Bible. They have just proven my arguement!!

Really? Lets look at this to see if Yishan is truthful or not:

For one thing if Yishan's or Osama's argument was legitamate then it should be based on the Hebrew Bible and not the Arabic one. Reason why is because they have proven that Allah is used as a name on an account of mistranslation! However the Arabic Bible disproves Yishan, read:

Alkaa'inu and Al Rabb are used as synonyms of Yahweh in the Arabic to represent the name of God in the Arabic Bible. I presented this to Yishan and he can't answer it legitamtely.

Really? Is this historical? Lets see:

For the Muslim to claim that Allah is or was God is a lie. Allah isn’t the equivalent to God nor Yahweh, because the Arabs mentioned El as God, first!!! In the first ancient pre-Arabic writings, there was no mention of Allah!!

Arabic is a Hamatic-Semitic language, when the discoveries of the inscriptions were found what characteristics did they show? Those of the Canaanites. Canaanite people were Hamatic and the writings of the early Arabs and thinking were consistent with theirs. The inscriptions of the Canaanites and the early Arabs worshiped the God of the Bible as “EL” and “Yah”-short for Yahweh! We see that the language of Arabic was a later addition and was more recent. Allah historically through inscriptions has been proven to have originated from Sumer and was a later addition after El.

The Negev inscriptions were the parent of the Arabic script and the pre-Arabic writing had the name El, same as the Bible, as God! Even the Quran mentions the tribe of Thamud:

Since the Quran verfies that a prophet was sent to Thamud we see from history that the god name that they used wasn't Allah but EL!! This is very destructive to the Islamic argument of Allah being EL. Notice this from the Quranic passage- "b>no other god but Him". Since the IL or AN of Allah was known, and even Hallah was also known in Babylonia and then we see from history that EL was used at this time for God, it shows us that the other gods included the name types of Allah which are used by Muslims today!! Allah wasn't called God at this time, EL was and this Quranic passage along with history shows us that Allah was a pagan. If not why not use the name Allah in their inscriptions as God at this time? This is a very intruging fact indeed.

Not only is Yishan's claim bogus at best but he presents no information whatsoever proving that Allah was used as the name of God before Islam, by Arab Christians. Arab Christians call God's name Al Kaa-inu or Al Rabb, not Allah.

Maybe somebody should tell Yishan and Osama that the Arabic Bible never uses Allah as a name for God. In fact look at this remark from the Arabic Bible:

Just to let you know, what is Yahweh?

Yishan continues:

Again Yishan never fails to amaze us by changing history. First he commits an etymological fallacy and then he continues by using a fallacy of equivocation. His whole argument is based on the pronunciation of God's name? It could be Yahweh or Yahovah? However what he fails to admit is that this YHWH is called the memorial name of in the Old Testament. He then astonishes us by saying that Yahweh isn't a Hebrew word?

Says the Gesenius Hebrew-English Lexicon of this name,

"pr. name of the supreme God amongst the Hebrews. The later Hebrews, for some centuries before the time of Christ, either misled by a false interpretation of certain laws (Ex.20:7; Lev.24:11), or else following some old superstition, regarded this name as so very holy, that it might not even be pronounced . . . Whenever, therefore, this nomen tetragrammaton occurred in the sacred text . . . they were accustomed to substitute for it [Adonai], and thus the vowels of the noun [Adonai] are in the Masoretic text placed under the four letters [YHVH] . . . . This custom was already in vogue in the days of the LXX translators . . . ."

The Universal Jewish Encyclopedia adds the following information:

"YAHVEH. 1. The Word. Yahveh is the most probable transliteration of the ancient Hebrew name for God. It is frequently, especially among German scholars, written Jahweh, Jahveh, Jahve or Yahweh; but these forms call either for the German pronunciation of j as y, or of w as v, or both. The oldest traditions as to the pronunciation of the name Yahveh are found in the church fathers. Of these, Clement of Alexandria (about 215 C.E.; Stromata 5, 6:34) writes Iasuai = Iaove [Yahveh], while Theodoret (about 386-457 C.E. . .) gives IaBe [Yahbeh] as the Samaritan pronunciation and 'Ia [Yah] as that of the Jews . . ." (p.584).

In the light of these and other facts, says the Jewish Universal Encyclopedia, the first syllable of the divine name was clearly "Ya," and the only possible uncertainty would involve the second syllable. Let us educate Osama and Yishan from their folly and let them know that the vav in Hebrew which is in Yahweh, is both "W" or "V". Yishan's illogical knowledge of Hebrew has led him to erroneously use this as a defense, while Osama ignorantly copies and pastes this stuff.

The Torah: A Modern Commentary, adds that:

"Overwhelming scholarly opinion holds that [YHVH] was in Moses' time pronounced. . . (Yahveh). There is also a shorter form of the Name, Yah . . . which may represent the original from which Yahveh was expanded or may, contrariwise, be a contraction of the longer ascription" (p.426).

Says the New Dictionary of the Bible:

"Strictly speaking, Yahweh is the only 'name' of God. In Genesis wherever the word sem ('name') is associated with the divine being that name is Yahweh. When Abraham or Isaac built an altar 'he called on the name of Yahweh' (Gen.12:8, 13:4, 26:25).

"In particular, Yahweh was the God of the Patriarchs, and we read of 'Yahweh the God (Elohim) of Abraham' and then of Isaac and finally 'Yahweh, the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob,' concerning which Elohim says , 'this is my name for ever' (Exo.3:15). Yahweh, therefore, in contrast to Elohim, is a PROPER NOUN, the name of a Person, though that Person is divine. As such, it has its own ideological setting: it presents God as a Person, and so brings Him into relationship with other, human, personalities. It brings God near to man, and He speaks to the Patriarchs as one friend to another" (p.478).

Therefore we not only debunked Yishan's and Osama's ignorance about Yahweh or Yahovah not being a Hebrew word but we also exposed both of them for not knowing that the vav is either "W" or "V". One thing they fell to explain to is why Yahweh is called the personal name of God and not Allah? Why didn't the Jews just call god "ALLAH"? So osama and Yishan's whole argument is based on what they claimed Arab speaking Jews said, to bad that the Arabic Bible even says that God's name isn't Allah but Al Rabb or Al kaainu!

We already answered his arguement dealing with the vowels, however since Yishan is such a dumb Semitic speaker and Osama is even dumber for believing him, maybe we should educate them and tell them that Yahweh is from the root word "HAYAH" I AM THAT I AM. In Semitic languages words derive from verbs.

Yishan's theory of interpolation and word playing as actually ignorance of his own family of languages!! How can you take Muslims seriously when they don't even know that Semitic language family words come from verbs? Hilarous!!

For one thing if Yishan doesn't understand the situation he is quick to make accusations claiming that something is lost. However let me reintroduce the reason why to satisfy his ignorance:

Here is why the so-called name of God was forgotten, based on what Yishan claimed. However since he didn't know that vav is both w or v in Hebrew we expect him to make dumb conclusions. This Hebrew source says nothing about the name of God being lost it just said that Jews reverenced God's name so much until they didn't even want to mispronounce it. What needs to be answered is how could the Jews of Arabia forget his name? Since Yishan or Osama has yet to furnish us any evidence other than off the wall statements, we wonder can they answer this for us.

Actually the Arabic doesn't say at all that God's name is Allah it uses Allah as a common noun, which is foreign in Arabic. In Islam Allah is the name of God but in the Bible, God's name isn't Allah, therefore, Yishan and Osama have to prove to us that Allah was used before islam as the Jewish and Christian PERSONAL NAME of God. Therefore All Yishan and Osama have proven is that they followed a god who was nothing more than a pagan high god, which was later transformed by Muhammad.

This statment is utterly false since Allah was never thought of as the God of Abraham, Yishan claims that no critic can bring any proof against Allah, however he has yet to bring proof before Islam that shows that ALLAH WAS THE NAME OF THE GOD OF ABRAHAM, ISAAC, AND JACOB. His statement is nothing more than mere conjecture and nothing more and he can't even historically verify it. Islamic expert scholar ceasar Farah says:

Historically we see that Allah was originally a pagan deity which is later stripped of his heathanism by Muhammad. Farah finishes by saying:

This is very important to note due to the fact that Christians and Jews already considered Yahweh as a monotheistic God who was the God of Abraham. It didn't say before Islam but after Islam. Therefore Yishan is reinterpreting Islamic thought into Pre-Islamic thought! He is trying to change history.

For one thing we will get more into this subject into the future, however what Yishan fells to realize is that Muhammad claimed to have followed the religion of Abraham and the prophets, Abraham never said that God's name was "ALLAH", he addressed God as Yahweh or Yahovah or in english "THE LORD". The Quran has just introduced a new name of a deity when God said that he would never ever change his name. You don't automatically consider the Quran as correct based on faith you have to prove it correct. He assumes and then he builds an arugment from this. Too bad that even the Arabic Bible doesn't say that God's personal name is Allah!

Again show your proof that the Trinity is a man interpolated doctrine, if you want to read John 17:3 then lets look at this entire passage:

In this verse, Jesus specificly tells God the Father to glorify him. To the unsuspected reader, this verse means nothing, but careful study of the scripture helps to eliminate the idea of Jesus being a normal man before we even reach John 17:3. The fact that Jesus himself said that God would glorify him would immediately appear blasphemous to anyone knowledgable within the scriptures. The reason why can be seen from these following verses:

God explictedly says that he will give his glory to no one, which is seen from these previous verses. The O.T. makes it impossible for anything and anyone to recieve God's glory except God himself. Apparently Jesus thinks he is God which explains why he tells God in heaven to glorify him. If the Muslim apologist tries to argue otherwise, then it is up to them to show another person in the Bible telling God to glorify them, even though God refuses to share his glory with anybody else. John 17:2 says:

Here in this verse we see that God has given authority to Jesus which equates him to the position of God. This view is supported from the Quran because only God has dominion and power and only God gives life and death.

Only God gives life in both Quran & Bible, So why does Jesus claim to do what God only does?

Here, in the Quran, we see that the only way Christ was able to give life was by Allah's permission. This verse also shows that Allah only gives life and resurrection (from the dead):

However, Jesus in the Bible NEVER SAYS THAT GOD IS THE RESURRECTION, read:

Jesus said that HE, NOT GOD, is the resurrection. Now if God is the resurection and life in both the Quran and the Bible, and Jesus says that he is the same thing, it doesn't take a rocket scientist to see that he is clearly claiming to due what only God does and therefore claiming to be God. This is verfied by what Jesus says in this verse:

No other prophet ever claimed that when a person looked upon them, that they were seeing God himself. This would be utter blasphemy, which Jesus clearly knew and said anyway which is in clear contradiction to Muslims trying to use John 17:3 as a defense against Jesus deity. So far the idea of Jesus not being God as well as telling God to do what he says, i.e. glorify him when God gives his glory to no one, is non-existent. This fact is clearly shown before we even reach verse 3. John 17:3 says:

I don't know why Muslims try to use this verse to promote the theory of ONE God excluding Jesus. This can only be done by twisting the verse based on Islamic presuppositions or ignoring part of the verse, not to mention the rest of the immediate content. Muslim apologist set themselves up for a great fall by using this verse, which we will begin to see right now. The word for "and" in John 17:3 is the Greek word Kai. Here is it's meaning.--1.and, also, even, indeed, but. Look at the word origin explanation:

Cumulative is defined as increasing or enlarging by successive addition. Acquired by or resulting from accumulation. Linguistically it's impossible to exclude Jesus Christ from God as Muslims would want us to do. This is noted by Greek expert Henry Alford

If Jesus wanted to exclude himself, he clearly would've never mentioned this verse this way. However Yishan never has read the NT but only uses scriptures out of context to prove his points. He has never even seen a bible in his life.

Osama is funny when he appeals to a non-Arabic source to prove his statments, however lets show him what Yishan even said about Allah:

Not only does his partner refute his theory but Osama is guilty of adding more to the quote, by saying that it is mere slang. This quote mentions nothing of that sort. However we will debunk Osama's theory from both linguistic evidence and the Quran. Osama believes that Elah is Allah, howevever if the word Allah means God, which Yishan says it doesn't surely the Quran will show this right? Let see:

This argument above is displayed in several Muslim web sites (i.e. submission.org) and often used by internet Muslim propagandists in their try to convince Western Christians to believe that Allah and Yahweh are basically the same God, since Arab Christians use the term Allah in the Arabic Bible. However there is a problem since the Arabic Bible uses Allah as a generic term while the Quran uses this word as a personal name. Therefore:

Now either the Arabic Bible is wrong or the Quran is correct. Lets compare some examples the Arabic Bible usage with Quranic usage of Allah:

Notice that in the Arabic Bible of Hosea 13:4, ilaah is used as a common noun for "god" This same thing is repeated in Surah 2:133 and 163 of the Quran. You don't see a single example of where the word ALLAH is used a common noun in the Quran nor do you see a single reference where ALLAH is used as a personal name in the Arabic Bible. Look at the English translation of Hos 13:4

The same word used for "GOD" 'ilaahuka, is used also in the Quran in Surah 2:133! This word refers to the true "GOD" in the Bible however in the Quran it is used also for "god"! This shows us that ILAH and not Allah is the correct usage to denote "GOD" or "god" and not "ALLAH". The Arabic Bible is incorrect using the "ALLAH As a common noun for god since the Quran never does this!

So which one is correct? The Quran, with its usage of Allah as a pronoun and a personal name, or the Arabic Bible which uses Allah as a common noun and not a personal name? This is the dilemma we must face when we accept the Arabic Bible's usage of "ALLAH" as a generic form for God!! In fact both the Arabic Bible and the Quranic usage of Allah contradict each other since in the Quran Allah says:

Here in the Quran we see that Allah is THE NAME OF THE GOD OF ISLAM. However in the Arabic Bible it says that ARRABU or is the name of God.

So Osama and Yishan, which one is correct, the Quran or the Arabic Bible? If you say that the Arabic Bible is correct then you have to explain to us why God says I am ARRABU along with why the usage of Allah is a generic term for God. If you say that the Quran is correct then you have to explain to us why there is no usage of Allah as a noun and only a name.

Since Allah doesn't arrive from alaha in Arabic why is the Arabic Bible claiming that it is a term for "GOD" or "god"? Maybe Osama and Yishan can answer this for us.

Osama and Yishan are notorious for this matter.

Allah in Arabic Bible Hoax!

The earliest form of the Arabic Bible we have only comes from around the year 867 AD!!! This is hardly proof that Arab Jews and Christians used the word ALLAH as a generic term for "god" or "GOD" since it is 220 years after the advent of Islam!! Muslims flat out lie when they try to use the Arabic Bible as proof for the word Allah since they don't have an Arabic Bible before the 8th century!!! The Quran uses Allah as a Personal name while the Arabic Bible uses it as a generic term!!

Meanwhile, if any non-Muslim calls his “God” by the name Allah (i.e. Christian, Jew or Hindu…) is to be executed according to Islamic law. Such law is practiced still in counties like Saudi Arabia, Iran and Pakistan, and it is commonly known as: “the law of blasphemy.” However Muslims want us to do the very exact thing, call God "ALLAH" when in Islam the name of God is "ALLAH", they want us to ignore the clear Quranic usage and use Allah as a common noun!!! The idea that ALLAH=God is propogated by a American Non-Arabic Speaking Muslim named Robert Squire. If Allah is only a common noun as Squire claim, the Turks for example, would have been the first to translate it into Turkish and encourage non-Arabs to do the same, and according to their languages. They oppose its translation, because they know that it is the personal name of their god.

For orthodox Muslims, anyone who calls Allah by another name such as God is a heretic if he calls himself a Muslim. The following is a rebuttal to such Muslims, by the same author Ahmad Helusi, who is not an Arab nationalist but a Turk:

How come non-Arab orthodox Muslims never claim that Allah is a common noun for God? Why is two Arabs (Osama and Yishan) Propogating a theory by a non-Arabic speaking Muslim? They must either that the Arabic Bible is correct by using Allah as a common noun instead of a pronoun, like the Quran, or they must reject it. Which one is it gentlemen?

Osama and Yishan, two Arabic speakers tried to impose and to justify their assumptions based on Western principles, which are foreign to Arabic and Semitic languages and people. Even if we want to apply the Western principal of converting nouns into pronouns and contracting words, we should wonder why the Quran never used this methodology and the Arabic Bible does? This makes absolutely non-sense and so this alien theory of contraction in Arabic. More to come soon.

1. Home Back Home
2. New Articles Back to New Section.