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.

The KJV Old Testament Hebrew Lexicon
Strong's Number: 0426
Original Word: hhla
Word Origin: corresponding to (0433)
Transliterated Word: 'elahh (Aramaic)
Phonetic Spelling: el-aw'
Parts of Speech: Noun Masculine
god, God
god, heathen deity
God (of Israel)

1. "elahh" is the way the word "hhla" (spelled from right to left as it is Aramaic) is pronounced.

2. The words "Elahh", "hhla (read from right to left)" and "Allah" all have the "h" letter and pronunciation in them.

If we pronounce the words "Allah" in Arabic and "Elahh (pronounced as 'El-aw')" in Aramaic, then we would hear almost the same exact word.

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.

Important Note: In Arabic it is important to know that the letter "h" is inserted at the end of every word that ends with the "a" sound. For instance, take my name "Osama". Although it is pronounced as "Osama", but in Arabic it is written as "Osamah". If you pronounce "Osama" and pay close attention to your pronunciation, then you would notice that you are pronouncing it as "Osamah". There is a small "h" pronunciation at the end of it. Take another example "Maria". In Arabic, it is written as "Mariah", because of the slight "h" pronunciation at the end of it. "Angela" is also written as "Angelah" and so on. Arabic does not ignore the slight "h" pronunciation at the end of the words that have the "a" sound at the end of them.

In the case of "Allah". In Arabic, it is in many cases pronounced heavily as "Alla" and slightly as "Allah" unless the person purposely pronounces the "h", which would then be pronounced heavily as "Allah".

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.

In the case of the Aramaic word "El-law (hhla)" above, if you pronouce the word, then you will notice a slight pronunciation of the letter "h". The pronunciation of the word "El-law" is pronounced heavily as "El-law" or "El-la", but it is also pronounced slightly as "El-lah" or "El-lawh" or "Al-lah" or "Allah". Arabic as I said inserts the letter "h" at the end of the words that end with the "a" pronunciation, thus making "Osama" be "Osamah", "Maria" be "Mariah", "Alla" be "Allah", etc...

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:

A technical note regarding transliteration:

For technical reasons and clearer accuracy in this linguistic section, we use an uncommon method of transliteration, but which is closer to the reality of the Arabic scripts and sounds, as follow:

E: alif (A: consonant)
E': alif with hamzah (A: consonant)
L: lam (L: consonant)
Ll: lam with stress (LL: double consonant)
H: Ha (H: consonant)
a: fatha (a: short vowel)
i: kasra (i: short vowel)
o/u: damma (o: short vowel)
aa: fatha with alif (a: extended vowel)
iy: kasra with ya (i: extended vowel)
ou/ow: damma with waw (o: extended vowel)
e: sukoun (soudless/quite)
Words transliteration:
Allah: allaah (sound) and Ea-LLlaaH or ELLlH (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.

"El-law" or "El-lawh" in Aramaic means "GOD", while "Eloi" in Aramaic means "My GOD" as Jesus used the word "Eloi" when he was put on the cross and said "My GOD My GOD why have you foresaken me? (Eloi, Eloi, lama sabachtani?)....(Mark 15:34)"

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:

"'ilaahiy, 'ilaahiy limaadaa taraktani?"

It will be grammatically incorrect to say:

"allaahiy, allaahiy limada taraktani?"


"allaah, allaahiy limada tarktani?"

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!!

In Arabic, "GOD" means "Allah", and "My GOD" means "Ilahi" or "Elahi" which is derived from the word "Allah".

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:

[15:96] who set up another god ('ilaahan) beside Allah (allaahi)

[16:51] Allah (allaahu) has proclaimed: "Do not worship two gods ('ilaahayni); there is only one god ('ilaahun)…"

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".

Muhammad’s Allah: “ALLAH” is not a GOD, by Ahmad Hulusi It is “ALLAH,” not “God!” Yet, it is never a name for a god!… There is no god to be worshipped, there is only ALLAH! This statement also reveals that: "ALLAH is not a GOD…” Nobody can comprehend what the “Religion of Islam” is about and why it has ever come, unless one fully understood the difference in meaning between a concept of “god” and the name “ALLAH” signified. Due to this, one can keep misinterpreting the matter of religion (Islam)!… I have tried to make it clear that any idea that the word “god” implies is completely different in meaning than the name “ALLAH” implies. These are two different words with completely different meanings... The word “god” is a common adjective, yet “ALLAH” is a proper noun for a unique essence… The original Religion of Islam” in effect is fully based on the meaning implied by the name “ALLAH.”

Koran Interpretation, by Hamdi Yazir of Elmali (Religious Affairs Directory, Vol.1, p.24-25)

The word ALLAH has never been applied to any other than ALLAH, neither in proper form nor in common. Take the names such as “ilah” and “huda,” for example; none of them is a proper name as “Allah.” They imply a concept of “god” or “lord.” It has been said “gods” as the plural form of “god,” “lords” as for “lord,” etc. Unlike, it has never been said “Allahs” and can never be so… So, the common name God is not synonymous for the proper noun “Allah,” and is not an equivalent for “Allah.” “God” is a very common name! Therefore one should never translate the name “Allah” as “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.

Does "Allah" in Arabic really mean "oak" in Aramaic?

The following was written by me after brother Yishan Jufu sent to me the definition reference of the Aramaic word "Elah"; may Allah Almighty always be pleased with him.

Some Christians tried to prove that the word "Allah" in Aramaic means "oak". They relied on "Elah" in Aramaic meaning "Oak" See the

Strong's Number: 0425 Browse Lexicon Original Word: "hla" Word Origin: the same as (0424) Transliterated Word: "Elah" TDNT Entry: None Phonetic Spelling: "ay-law" Parts of Speech: Proper Name Definition: Elah = "An oak"

This type of deception is quite common among many of the Christians who hate Islam. In the Aramaic words above "hhla (GOD)" and "hla (oak)", we see an obvious difference between the two words, not only in spelling, but also in pronouciation as well.

1- The Aramaic word "hhla (read from right to left)", which is transliterated as "elahh" which means "GOD" is pronounced as "El-aw" as show above.

2- The Aramaic word "hla (read from right to left)", which is transliterated as "elah" which means "oak" is pronounced as "Ay-law" also as shown above.

3- "Allah" in Arabic is pronounced as "Al-lawh" or "Al-lah" depending on the sentence that it is used in. In Arabic, the sound of the word "Allah" could be thicker (Allawh) or thiner (Allah) depending on the sentence.

The point is however is that we see no "y" sound for the words that mean "GOD" in both Arabic and Aramaic. The "y" sound is only used for the word "oak" as shown above. The words "Elahh" and "Allah" in Aramaic and Arabic respectively sound almost exactly.

So to say that "Allah" in Arabic means "oak" in Aramic is a big hoax.

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:

"yahowshuwa kathab dabar cepher towrah 'elohiym (God) laqach gadowl 'eben quwm 'allaah (oak) miqdash yahowah."

* [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.

Further proofs from brother Yishan Jufu:

Here is brother Yishan's response to a Christian who calls himself "Queball23" on the internet regarding the name of GOD Almighty in the Bible:

Queball has maintained that the name "Allah" is derived from "ILAH", a pagan name! And that "Allah" was derived from "ilah" through the use of the definitive "AL" in Arabic, which makes it "Al-Ilah" and then with dropping out of the "i", it becomes "Allah" meaning "The God"!

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

...the Arabian Ilah familiar to us in the form Allah, which is compounded of al, the definite article, and Ilah by eliding the vowel 'i', is not clear. Some scholars trace the name to the South Arabian Ilah, a title of the Moon god, but this is a matter of antiquarian is clear from Nabataen and other inscriptions that Allah meant 'the god.'

The other gods mentioned in the Quran are all female deities: Al-Lat, al-Uzza, and Manat, which represented the Sun, the planet Venus, and Fortune, respectively; at Mecca they were regarded as the daughters of Allah... As Allah meant 'the god', so Al-Lat means 'the goddess'. (Alfred Guilaume, Islam, Penguin, 1956 pgs. 6-7)

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

I answered his fallacies by stating that "Allah" is not what he claimed it to be, and is not "Al-Ilah" as he mentioned. Quennel cited some muslims who confirmed his notion, however he failed to realize that the use of such expression as "The God" (al-ilah) is to denote the fact that "Allah" is The Only True God The Creator, and not to mean literally "The God". For onething, "ilah" does not mean "God", it means "god" (notice that there is no capitalisation of letters in Arabic, it is used here for the western audience's sake).

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.

When i replied to Quennel's views with the fact that the word "ilah" could also be spelled "elah" in English since there is no "i" & "e" in Arabic; and that the word "ilah/elah" means "god" generally, in Arabic; Quennel responded with the saying that "elah" means "oak tree" in hebrew and not God.

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

Upon investigating a "christian" hebrew lexicon on the web at site:, i came across the word "elahh" which is Aramaic and used in the Hebrew bible.

The following is from

Thee KJV Old Testament Hebrew Lexicon
Strong's Number: 0426
Original Word: hhla
Word Origin: corresponding to (0433)
Transliterated Word: 'elahh (Aramaic)'
Phonetic Spelling: 'el-aw'
Parts of Speech: Noun Masculine
- god, God
- god, heathen deity
- God (of Israel)

From the above, it was noticed that the word "elahh" does exist in the hebrew bible and it means the above-stated definitions. Its phonetic spelling is 100% identical to that of the Arabic "ilah/elah" and its meanings do include the same "god" meaning. Quennel was surpprised, to say the least, so he had to resort to some tactics to get out of the dilemma! This time he tried to accuse me of telling a lie and posting an Aramiac word, not a Hebrew word from the Hebrew bible! This is the most silly argument, indeed! The word "elahh" is Aramaic, but is used in the Hebrew bible, so Quennel has no case.

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.


from (01961)
Transliterated Word
TDNT Entry
TWOT - 484a
Phonetic Spelling
Parts of Speech
Proper Name
Jehovah = "the existing One"
1.THE PROPER NAME of the one true God
a.unpronounced except with the vowel
pointings of 0136

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

allaah is the Arabic transliteration of 'eloha in Hebrew and 'elaahh in Aramaic:

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

Again, in this case also, there is no evident etymological and linguistic connection between 'eloha (ELWH) and 'elaahh (EeLaaHh), although they both were used as terms for God in the Bible. It is also important to remind that both terms are nouns, meanwhile allaah is a pronoun. Which means, there is no ground for such comparison. Besides, we also find ourselves facing at least two other challenges:

If we want to transliterate one of those terms into Arabic, it won't be allaah (Ea-LLlaaH) but 'ilaah (E'i-LaaH). Otherwise, how would we transliterate the Hebrew word for oak, allaah (EaLlaaH)?

If 'eloha or 'elaahh was indeed transliterated as allaah, why its feminine form, allaat, differs from the feminine form of 'eloha and 'elaahh?

If 'ilaah is a transliteration of 'eloha or 'elaahh, so how would we deal with the Arabic noun, 'ilaah, which derives from the root verb 'alaha?

The term allaah was in use in Arabia long before Muhammad traveled to Damascus and met with the Christians monks, who spoke Aramaic/Syriac at that time and used the term 'elaahh/'alaha for God. So, if Muhammad confused their term for God with the term of his pagan god, we can't pick up his mistake and try to find a way to legitimate it.

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

For onething, "ilah" does not mean "God", it means "god" (notice that there is no capitalisation of letters in Arabic, it is used here for the western audience's sake).

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

"'ilaahiy, 'ilaahiy limaadaa taraktani?"

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

Then Quennel moved on to say that this word "elahh" had two "H"s in it and that this cannot be ignored! I replied that my interest was not in the spelling, but in the pronunciation and meaning.

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"!!

Allah's & Elahh's scripts are different!


Arguments refuting Elahh=Allah

The stress in the middle of allaah is very significant in Arabic and should never be neglected. Dropping or adding it into a word changes the whole meaning and lexicon of it, i.e. BaTaLun=hero (a noun); BaTtaLa=to cancel (a verb).
(Note: Yishan nor Osama even tried to address this above).

The word 'alaha is already a verb in Arabic (to deify), allaah doesn't derive from it.
(Note: If Allah doesn't arrive from to deify why are they making it do?)

The Arabic vocabulary has already its word for deity ('ilaah) so why would the Arabs import a foreign word?

But, knowing Quennel, he would not accept anything that proves his lengthy "anti-Allah" articles void and he kept on about the "extra H" in the word "elahh"! This is beyond our point of discussion, what i was trying to prove to him is that his false claims against the name "Allah" through the abuse of "ilah" were refutable since the hebrew bible does contain a similar-sounding word which means exactly what "ilah/elah" (in Arabic) does.

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.

It is therefore very easy to notice that "ilah/elah" (in Arabic) sound exactly the same as the Aramaic word "elahh" that is used in the hebrew bible to mean -god,god (pagan diety), God, God (of Israel), etc. I wonder if Mr. Gale would use the same argument against the word "elahh" also?!

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!!!

The correct comparison is between "ilah/elah" (Arabic) and "elahh" (Aramaic) in phonetic spelling and in their meaning of "god". "elahh" is not the same as "Allah" in pronunciation, although one of its meanings is "God" and "God of Israel", but my emphasis was on the similar sound to "ilah/elah" (Arabic) and in it, "elahh", taking on the meaning of "god".

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!!

Quennel Gale can be silenced about his "anti-Allah" attitude and articles if one only consulted any Arabic translation of the christian bible from Genesis to Revelation; one would be surprised to see the christian bible using none other than the very word "ALLAH" for God Almighty The One True God The Creator! I ask Quennel and his christian comrads to explain to us why does the Arabic translation of the bible use the name "Allah" for God and not the name "YHWH"?

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

OT: Exo.3:14-15; Jer.33:2; Mic.4:5

And God (Elohiym) said to Moses, "Hayah-Hayah (I Am/Who Is)”; and He said, "Thus you shall say to the sons of Israel, 'YHWH (the Eternal) has sent me to you' … 'YHWH, the God of your fathers, the God (El) Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, has sent me to you.' This is My name forever, and this is My memorial name to all generation…” Thus says Yahweh who made the earth, Yahweh who formed it to establish it, “Yahweh is His name.” …All the nations may walk in the name of their gods (elohiym); we will walk in the name of YHWH our God (Elohiynu) forever and ever.

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:

[Exo.3:14-15] fa'ajaabahu ‘allaahu (‘elohiym/God): "hayah ashir hayah" {wa ma3naahaa alkaa’inu ‘addaa’imu} wa adaafa: "hakada taqoulu libani ‘isra'ela: alkaa’inu (hayah/I-Am) howa alladi arsalani ilaykum." Wa qaala aydan limousaa: “haakadaa taqoulu lil’isra’eila: alkaa’inu, ‘ilaahu (‘elohiym/the-gods/God) ‘aabaa’ikum, ‘ilaahu (‘el/the-god) ‘ibraahiyma wa ‘is7aqa wa ya3qouba qad ‘arsalani ‘ilaykum. Hada huwa alismu alladi ‘ud3aa bihi min jiylin ‘ilaa jiylin.”

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.

It will become even more interesting when one hears the claims of some Arab christians that it was the Arab christians who "sort of" developed the Arabic language that we know and that they were the ones to first use such a word as "Allah" and that the Arabic gospel was preached from the time of Paul!! If such claims were true, then why would the Arab Christians, and Paul {supposedly inspired by Jesus} use the name "Allah" for God Almighty?

Really? Is this historical? Lets see:

"Among the Northern Arabs of early times, particularly in the region of Safa, THE WORD EL 'GOD' was still very commonly used as a separate name of the Deity." The IL and ILAH formations came much later. This means that EL was used by Arabs at one time as the name of God. This would be verified in the Bible, where the father of the Arabs, IshmaEL, was given a name with the name of God, EL, in it. (Hastings, James, Encyclopedia of Religion and Ethics, Vol 1, p. 664).

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!!

THE PARENT OF THE ARABIAN SCRIPT WAS THE parent of the Arabian script was the “OLD THAMUDIC” (Old Negev) script.(The Origin and Emergence of West Semitic Alphabetic scripts. Part I, pg. 1).

Drawing from the main geographic location of its apparent origins the term "Old Negev" script refers to unique archaic (2nd to 1st millennium BC) West Semitic inscriptions found initially on rock surfaces and pottery fragments in the region located between the boarders of Egypt, Israel and the Jordan today. Specifically, a corpus of more than 140 panels have been identified in the deserts and the steppes between the Edomite Escarpment and the Aravah of Jordan and Israel, and extending through the central Negev (Nahal Avadot, Har Karkom) and the Northern Sinai regions. A few have also been discovered in materials from Lachish, Bet Shemish, Jerusalem and Shechem. This distinctive script was first identified and classified by Brigham Young University Professor Emeritus James R. Harris, Ed. D. (Brigham Young University). He was assisted in this work by Dann W Hone M.A. (Jerusalem University College), an administrator with the Jerusalem Center for Near Eastern Studies (Brigham Young University) and instructor of Ancient Scripture at B.Y.U. Prof. Harris's discovery was made while comparing Proto-Sinaitic, Proto-Canaanite AND PRE-ARABIC SCRIPTS OF THE ARABIAN DESERT (such as Thamudic) with the Dedanite & Lihyanite-like scripts of the Negev. His materials were drawn from the Palestine, Sinai and Arabian Desert rock inscriptions discovered and published by 19th and 20th Century scholars, linguists, and explorers, and from numerous personal explorations in the region. (IBID, Introduction)

The content of the inscriptions along with their archaeology, time and location combine to suggest that the persons responsible for these inscriptions were a Canaanite people, speaking and writing a Canaanite language. Further researches indicate its translation to be consistent with the Proto- Canaanite language. In modern terms this language is best expressed through Biblical (Old) Hebrew transliteration/translation rather than the more recent West Semitic tongue of Arabic. Translated expressions evidence Biblical phraseology and worship indicating a close tie to early Israelite culture. Additionally, the content suggests that these people observed a covenant relationship with their God "Yah" (also referred to in the inscriptions as "EI Yah", Yahu" and "Yahh") all of which are the designation of the Hebrew and Midianite God of Israel YHWH (Jehovah) worshipped in this same area and time period. (IBID)

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.

Winnett was a tireless researcher of the nine or ten pre-Arabic scripts of the Arabian Desert, among which he spent a major part of his professional life. He also attempted to reconstruct the emergence, and identify some relationships, between these alphabets. No doubt his work with pre-Arabic scripts was excellent but his brief exposure to Old Negev resulted in his participation in perpetuating the error that the Negev inscriptions were graffiti left by post Thamudic vagabonds. The extensive research and study of J. R. Harris & D. W Hone has led to a more probable and substantial conclusion, i.e. that the Negev inscriptions are Post Proto-Canaanite and the major parent script of the pre-Arabic Thamudic scripts. (IBID, pg. 3)

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:

To the Thamüd people (We sent) Sálih, one of their own brethren: He said: "O my people! worship Allah. ye have no other god but Him. Now hath come unto you a clear (Sign) from your Lord! This she-camel of Allah is a Sign unto you: So leave her to graze in Allah's earth, and let her come to no harm, or ye shall be seized with a grievous punishment. "And remember how He made you inheritors after the Àd people and gave you habitations in the land: ye build for yourselves palaces and castles in (open) plains, and carve out homes in the mountains; so bring to remembrance the benefits (ye have received) from Allah, and refrain from evil and mischief on the earth." The leaders of the arrogant party among his people said to those who were reckoned powerless - those among them who believed: "Know ye indeed that Sálih is a messenger from his Lord?" They said: "We do indeed believe in the revelation which hath been sent through him." The Arrogant party said: "For our part, we reject what ye believe in." Then they ham-strung the she-camel, and insolently defied the order of their Lord, saying: "O Sálih! bring about thy threats, if thou art a messenger (of Allah)!" So the earthquake took them unawares, and they lay prostrate in their homes in the morning! So Sálih left them, saying: "O my people! I did indeed convey to you the message for which I was sent by my Lord: I gave you good counsel, but ye love not good counselors!" S. 7:73-79

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.

To see inscription of EL in Ancient Negev


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.

But this is absurd! We are not talking about nature or attributes of God here, we are talking about His One Name, the same name used in both the Arabic bible and in the Quran.

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:

Interesting remark from the Arabic Bible:

In all of the Arabic translations of the Bible, the translators who used allaah as a generic name in them never combined allaah (for 'elohiym) with arrab (for YHWH). Wherever YHWH was used in combination with 'elohiym the translators always used al-'ilaah instead of allaah.

Just to let you know, what is Yahweh?

Exodus 3:15-YHWH, the God of your fathers, the God (El) Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, has sent me to you.' This is My name forever, and this is My memorial name to all generation

Thus says Yahweh who made the earth, Yahweh who formed it to establish it, “Yahweh is His name. Jer. 33:2

All the nations may walk in the name of their gods (elohiym); we will walk in the name of YHWH our God (Elohiynu) fore ever and ever. Micah 4:5.

Yishan continues:

I would like also to point out to one more fact that is being circulated about the mention of "Allah" in the hebrew bible, i.e. the deleted word "Alah". This word, according to some christians, means "swear". So, I would not depend too much on it since we need to have something of concrete evidence and of acceptability from the christian critics.

It should suffice to say that none of the anti-Islam critics has come up with any documented, archeological proof on the authenticity and the real and full pronunciation of "YHWH", which is supposed to be the name of God in Hebrew. We all know that "Yahweh" & "Jahovah" are not Hebrew words, the first includes inserted vowels to make possible the pronunciation of "YHWH", while the latter is a western version of "YHWH" with vowels!

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,

The Universal Jewish Encyclopedia adds the following information:

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:

Says the New Dictionary of the Bible:

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!

Another fact, according to the bible, is that when Moses asked God about His name, He told him that His name is "I am that I am"! The Jews and Christians do a lot of manipulations and interpolations to "guess" the name of God, they make "YHWH" to mean "to be" or "the one who was, the one who is and the one who will always be"! Those are verbs and attributes, not a name! God has One name, and that's "ALLAH". If anyone has any doubts or proofs otherwise, let them bring their proof, starting with an archaeological evidence on how was "YHWH" pronounced in full with vowels, not the later-inserted ones!

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.

The proper name of God, YHWH in Hebrew, derives from the verb HaYaH (to be).

The word for book in Arabic is kitaab, it derives from the root verb kataba (to write).

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!!

One really wonders why do jews not pronounce the name of God? Could this have anything to do with the fact that they forgot God's name at one stage in history, and that being afraid to mispronounce it from "YHWH", they chose to use literal biblical instructions of not taking God's name in vain?

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:

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 . . .

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.

In Islam and according to the Arabic bible and sincere Arab christians, God has one name only and it is "ALLAH".

"Allah" is the name of God, it has no derivatives and no definitive & non-definitive formats.

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.

The use of the pagan idol's name "al-lat" to try and prove that "Allah" is the masculine gender whereas "al-lat" is the feminine gender is ridiculous, since this can be refuted from the history of the early Arabs who used to worship idols including "al-lat", but they have always maintained that "Allah" was The Supreme God; The God of Abraham. The pagan Arabs, prior to Isalm, never claimed that "Allah" is an idol, nor can any critic bring any proof to "Allah" being a name for any carved idol that was worshipped by the pagan Arabs. And as a matter of fact, the Quran rebukes the Arab pagans for taking "al-lat", "al-uzza" and "manat" as the daughters of "Allah"!

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:

With Muhammad he becomes Allâh, God of the Worlds, of all believers, the one and only who admits no associates or consorts in the worship of Him. Judaic and Christian concepts of God abetted the transformation of Allâh FROM A PAGAN DEITY TO THE GOD OF ALL MONOTHEISTS.

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

There is no reason, therefore, to accept the idea that "Allah" PASSED TO THE MUSLIMS FROM CHRISTIANS AND JEWS.

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.

The christian apologists try hard to refute Islam, and claiming that "Allah" is the name of the "moon god" worshipped by pagan Arabs, and that Muhammad [pbuh] came and made "Allah" to be "The Only True God" is a false and wicked statemnt. One only needs to read the Quran without any bias to notice that Allah forbids the worship of sun, moon and stars; to notice that Allah forbids us to follow the steps of satan (the devil).

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!

What the some christians need to notice is that you cannot force your trinity on others, which is a man-made, later interpolated dogma. Just read your bible (OT & NT) with an open heart and notice what Jesus maintained about his status as compared to that of God who sent him. Start with John 17:3 for biblical proof that Jesus was no more than a special prophet of God to the children of Israel.

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:

"After Jesus said this, he looked toward heaven and prayed: 'Father, the time has come. Glorify your Son, that your Son may glorify you. For you granted him authority over all people that he might give eternal life to all those you have given him. Now this is eternal life: that they may know you, the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom you have sent. I have brought you glory on earth by completing the work you gave me to do. And now, Father, glorify me in your presence with the glory I had with you before the world began." John 17:1-5

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:

I am the LORD, that is My name; And My glory I WILL NOT GIVE TO ANOTHER, Nor My praise to carved images. Isaiah 42:8 LET THEM GIVE GLORY TO THE LORD, And declare His praise in the coastlands. Isaiah 42:12

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:

For you granted him authority OVER ALL PEOPLE that he might give eternal life to all those you have given him.

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.

"To Him belongs the dominion of the heavens and the earth: It is He who gives life and death; and He has power over all things." S. 57:2

"And certainly We! We it is Who give life, and cause death, and We are THE HEIRS." S. 15:23

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

When Allah saith: O Jesus, son of Mary! Remember My favour unto thee and unto thy mother; how I strengthened thee with the holy Spirit, so that thou spakest unto mankind in the cradle as in maturity; and how I taught thee the Scripture and Wisdom and the Torah and the Gospel; and how thou didst shape of clay as it were the likeness of a bird by My permission, and didst blow upon it and it was a bird by My permission, and thou didst heal him who was born blind and the leper by My permission; and how thou didst raise the dead by My permission; and how I restrained the Children of Israel from (harming) thee when thou camest unto them with clear proofs, and those of them who disbelieved exclaimed: This is naught else than mere magic; S. 5:110

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):

How disbelieve ye in Allah when ye were dead and He gave life to you! Then He will give you death, THEN LIFE AGAIN, and then unto Him ye will return. S. 2:28

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

Jesus said to her, "I AM THE RESURRECTION AND THE LIFE. He WHO BELIEVES IN ME, though he may die, he shall live. And whoever lives and BELIEVES IN ME shall never die. Do you believe this?" She said to Him, "Yes, Lord, [Kurios in Greek, Yahweh in Hebrew] I believe that You are the Christ, the Son of God, who is to come into the world." John 11:25-27

Jesus said to him, "I AM the way, the truth, and THE LIFE. NO ONE comes to the Father EXCEPT THROUGH ME. "If you had known Me, you would have known My Father also; and FROM NOW ON YOU KNOW HIM AND HAVE SEEN HIM." John 14:6-7

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:

Philip said to Him, "Lord, show us the Father, and it is sufficient for us." Jesus SAID TO HIM, "Have I been with you so long, and yet you have not known Me, Philip? HE WHO HAS SEEN ME HAS SEEN THE FATHER; so how can you say, "Show us the Father'? John 14:8-9

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:

Now this is eternal life: that they may know you, the only true God, AND Jesus Christ, whom you have sent. I have brought you glory on earth by completing the work you gave me to do.

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:

Word Origin


apparently, a primary particle, having a COPULATIVE and sometimes also a CUMULATIVE force

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

"The very juxtaposition here of JESUS CHRIST with THE FATHER is a proof, by implication, of our Lord's Godhead. The knowledge of GOD AND A CREATURE could not be eternal life, and such an association of the one with the other would be inconceivable" (Henry Alford, quoted in Jamieson, p.1064; emphases in original; see Job 22:21; Isa 45:22; Joel 2:32; Acts 2:21, cp. Acts 4:12).

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.

The word "Allah" as the name of GOD in the Book of Ezra in the Aramaic Bible:

The following was sent to me by brother Tera Tak Adamar; may Allah Almighty always be pleased with him.

Christians themself not aware that 'Allah' is actually the God of every prophet, the proof is Old Testament itself. In Aramaic God is 'Elah', in Hebrew is 'Eloah' whereas in Arabic is 'Allah', these 3 are actually related to each other. The different in pronounciation is only on slang.


I have found the interesting proof from Christian's source to prove
this. Please read:

AllahinOT.jpg (30012 bytes)


This passage is taken from Vine's Complete Exposition Dictionary by W.E. Vine, Merrill F.Unger, William White, Jr., Thomas Nelson Publishers, Nashville, TN, 1996.

This book also has mentioned that Ezra and prophet Daniel were called their God as "Elah". The passage above is more than enough to encounter back the allegation made by some Christians about Allah=Enlil.

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:

"elahh" is not the same as "Allah" in pronunciation, although one of its meanings is "God" and "God of Israel", but my emphasis was on the similar sound to "ilah/elah" (Arabic) and in it, "elahh", taking on the meaning of "god".

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:

[Gen.1:1 - English Bible] "In the beginning God created the Heaven and the Earth . . . "
[Gen.1:1 - Arabic transliteration] "Fee al-badi' khalaqa Allahu as-Samaawaat wa al-Ard . . . "

[Joh. 3:16 - English Bible] "For God so loved the world, that He gave . . . "
[Joh.3:16 - Arabic transliteration] "Li-annhu haakadha ahabba Allahu al-'Aalama hataa badhala . . . "

[Luke 1:30 - English Bible] " . . . Fear not, Mary: for thou hast found favor with God."
[Luk.1:30 - Arabic transliteration] " . . . Laa takhaafee, yaa Maryam, li-annaki qad wajadti ni'amat(an) 'inda Allahi."

[Luk.3:38 - English Bible] " . . . the son of Enos, the son of Seth, the son of Adam, the son of God."
[Luk.3:38 - Arabic transliteration] " . . . bini Anoosha, bini Sheeti, bini Aaadama, abni Allahi."

[Mat.19:17 - English Bible] " . . . there is none good but One, that is, God"
[Mat.19:17 - Arabic transliteration] " . . . laysa ahadun Saalihaan illa waahidun wa huwa Allahu"

[Q.1:1 - English translation] "In the Name of God, the All-Merciful, the Compassionate"
[Q.1:1 - Arabic transliteration] "Bismi Allahi ar-Rahmani, ar-Raheem"

This argument above is displayed in several Muslim web sites (i.e. 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:

ALLAH in Arabic Bible=NOUN
ALLAH in Arabic language=PRONOUN

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:

[1:1] In the name of Allah (allaahi)…

[Hos.13:4] ‘anaa huwa arrabu ‘ilaahuka (‘elohiym/{your}-god) mundu ‘an kunta fi diyar misra, wa lasta ta3rifu ‘ilaahan (‘elohiym/{other}-gods/God) ghayriy, wa laa munqida laka siwaaya.

[2:133] …We will worship your god ('ilaahuka); the god ('ilaaha) of your fathers Abraham, Ismail, and Isaac; the one god ('ilaahan). [163] Your god ('ilaahukum) is one god ('ilaahun); there is no god ('ilaaha) but He…

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

"Yet I am the LORD (arrabu) your God ('ilaahuka) Ever since the land of Egypt, And you shall know no God ('ilaahan) but Me; For there is no savior besides Me.

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!

[3:2] Allah (allaahu): there is no god ('ilaaha) except He; the Living; the self-subsistent. [18] Allah (allaahu) bears witness that there is no god ('ilaaha) except He… Truthfully and equitably, He is the absolute; there is no god ('ilaaha) but He.

[6:74] Recall that Abraham said to his father Azar, "How could you worship statues as gods ('aalihatan)?"

[7:127] …Will you allow Moses and his people to corrupt the earth, and forsake you and your gods (aalihataka)? [138] …O Moses, make a god ('ilaahan) for us, like the gods ('aalihatun) they have."

[11:53-54] They said, "O Hood, you did not show us any proof, and we are not abandoning our gods ('aalihatinaa) on account of what you say. We believe that some of our gods ('aalihatinaa) have afflicted you with a curse." He said, "I bear witness before Allah (allaaha), and you bear witness as well, that I disown the idolaters.

[15:96] who set up another god ('ilaahan) beside Allah (allaahi)…

[16:51] Allah (allaahu) has proclaimed: "Do not worship two gods ('ilaahayni); there is only one god ('ilaahun)…"

[18:15] Here are our people setting up gods ('aalihatan) beside Him… Who is more evil than the one who fabricates lies and attributes them to Allah (allaahi)? [110] …I am no more than a human like you, being inspired that your god ('ilaahukum) is one god ('ilaahun)…

[20:88] …This is your god ('ilaahukum), and the god ('ilaahu) of Moses.

[22:34] For each congregation we have decreed rites whereby they com- memorate the name of Allah (allahi) for providing them with the livestock. Your god ('ilaahukum) is one god ('ilaahun)…

[29:46] … and our god ('ilaahunaa) and your god ('ilaahukum) is one…

[37:91] He then turned on their gods ('aalihatihim)…

[38:5] Did he make the gods (al-'aalihata) into one god ('ilaahan)?...

[53:19] Compare this with Allat (allaata) and al-Uzzah.

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:

"Verily, I am Allah (Allahu). There is no god but I: So serve thou Me (only), and establish regular prayer for My remembrance. 20:14

"O Moses! Verily, I am Allah (Allahu), the Exalted in Might, the Wise! ... 27:9

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.

"Yet I am the LORD (arrabu) your God ('ilaahuka) Ever since the land of Egypt, And you shall know no God ('ilaahan) but Me; For there is no savior besides Me.

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.

There are no capital letters and small letters in Arabic scripts, there are no A and a or I and i. Moreover, the alif (i) in the Arabic term ‘ilaah is a capital consonant (E), not a vowel. As a matter of fact, it is one of the three letters (alif, lam, ha) that compose the root verb ‘alaha (E'a-LaHa) from which the noun ‘ilaah (E'i-LaaH) derives. Altering one of those consonants will definitely change the word and its meaning. If we drop the first consonant (alif) from ‘ilaah, the meaning of word will be totally lost. There is no word or prefix laah (LaaH) in the whole Arabic vocabulary.

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.

Unfortunately, the word Ea-LLlaaH (allaah) does not fit or sound with any of the possible derivations of the verb E'aLaHa (‘alaha) and according to the norms of the verb Fa3aLa. There is no wazn (norm) such as Ea-LF3aaL or Fa333aaL, which can support that Ea-LLlaaH is indeed a derivation from the verb E'a-LaHa. Those who claim that the etymological meaning of allaah is “he who is to be worshipped (or deified),” are either unfamiliar with the Arabic grammatical rules or they are purposing trying to manipulate and expect that no one would ever examine their claims!

Osama and Yishan are notorious for this matter.

Allah in Arabic Bible Hoax!

codex_p2.JPG (52603 bytes)

The Mt. Sinai Arabic Codex 151 is indeed a most exciting discovery. It appears to be the oldest Arabic translation of the Bible in existence which was done in 867 AD. Certainly it is the oldest Arabic translation with commentary supplied by the translator. It includes the Biblical text, marginal comments, lectionary notes, and glosses, as found in the manuscript. It was discovered at St. Catherine monastery in Mt. Sinai in the 1800's.

This ancient and important Arabic manuscript is published in one volume by the Institute For Middle Eastern New Testament Studies, edited by Dr. Harvey Staal. The volume is a presentation of the manuscript, preserving all the marginal notes and its intrinsic value as much as possible. Dr. Harvey Staal, a missionary of the Reformed Church in America, labored for years on the transcription and publication of this Arabic manuscript. This discovery is a thrilling discovery for Middle Eastern Christians, because it demonstrates that more than a 1100 years ago, an Arabic Christian translated God's precious word into our Arabic language, complete with notes and comments! (

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:

A group of people who deliver theories about the “Religion” based on their hearsay and false information, have been employing the word “GOD” instead of the name “ALLAH,” being unaware of the mater and thinking that these words both carry the same meaning, and also relating it with their patriotism according to their whims…

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.