No announcement yet.

When the religion becomes difficult to challenge......

  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

    When the religion becomes difficult to challenge......

    Assalamo ALaikum!

    I give below a post from a Muslim brother on another forum and shall appreciate input.

    Allah Hafiz

    A xtian friend of mine posed the following question to me requesting for a comprehensive and convincing answer. The question, he said, was part of the subjects discussed by his pastor in the day’s service (the day was a Sunday).

    To have a clear view of the question, he gave the following indisputable analysis:

    1. The prophet of Islam, Muhammad (PBUH)was fathered by ABDULLAH.

    2. ISLAM was not known to the Arabs before the birth of Muhammad (PBUH), the Arabs then were worshipping idols kept in the Ka’bah with different names.

    3. Lexically, ABDULLAH is the Arabic word for “Servant of ALLAH”.

    His question:
    “ If it is agreed that ALLAH (in the Islamic perspective) is not known to the Arabs until the advent of Islam, and that ABDULLAH means “the Servant of ALLAH”; could it be wrong to infer that ALLAH is a name of one of the numerous idols being worshipped by the Banuu Haashim (to which Abdullah belonged) before the advent of Islam. If this can not be proved wrong, could it then be wrong to conclude that Muslims are worshipping the same idol being worshipped by Muhammed’s tribe while wrongly believing to be serving God?”

    Al-iyaazu bil Lahi min ‘an nushrika bihi!

    His Argument:
    “If ABDULLAH means “servant of ALLAH” and Abdullah never live to worship ALLAH (in the Islamic perspective), then which God or god is the name ALLAH in ABDULLAH referring to? Also if it could be established that ABDULLAHI lived his life worshipping idols as his kinsmen, would ALLAH not refer to one of the idols being worshipped then?

    My Dillema:
    While knowing and believing that this assertion (or is it assumption) is baseless and untrue. I am at a great loss on how best to explain that ALLAH is the Supreme, Omnipotent and Almighty GOD who is the Most Beneficent and Most Merciful. The minds of these xtians are being hardened and their thought tailored at discrediting ISLAM. It will then require a convincingly strong evidence to proof them otherwise.
    Rabbeshrah lee sadree; wa yassirlee amree; yafqahoo qaulee.

    [This message has been edited by FactFinder (edited February 21, 2002).]

    I am not a Muslim but I know enough I think to answer that one.
    Allah means God in Arabic. Mohammed's contribution was that he said God or Allah is one and this is the one God Christians and Jews are talking about.
    That's why having partners to God is a big sin for Muslims.
    So from the stand point of a non-muslim Mohammed neither invented Allah nor Monotheism.
    He just connected the two.


      2. ISLAM was not known to the Arabs before the birth of Muhammad (PBUH), the Arabs then were worshipping idols kept in the Ka’bah with different names.
      According to Islamic beliefs, Islam is the one and the same religion (for e.g. the basic belief that There is no god except Allah** has always been the same) that has been sent with all the prophets(though there were different shari'ats for different age). So Islam (I mean the basic beliefs) were known to Arabs before the Prophet(PBUH). Unfortunately throughout the history of divine religions, the religious teachings were distorted by their followers, nonetheless, there always have been some people (though very insignificant some times) who retained the true teachings. So NOT all the arabs at that time were idol worshippers.

      **An exposition of the word Allah itself is instructive. As far as I could remember reading some where, in Arabic 'Al' plays the role of 'the' in English, which makes noun Particular. So Al-lah refers to not any God but only a particular One. So combining the two, I mean what I said above (people retained the beliefs) and in this para, I am not surprised with the name Abdullah.

      Therefore, as the premises themselves are objectionable and invalid, in my opinion, they couldn't lead to the conclusion presented.


        Well, maybe Islam didn't exist at that time, but Allah surely did. We are all Abdullah, i.e. servants of Allah. So this argument really is baseless.


          Ibrahim says: Eid Mubarak and salaams to all Muslims and greetings of peace to the rest. Sorry about the length, but if you fail to read the whole , you might miss something’s which are best known to get a CLEAR picture.

          1. The prophet of Islam, Muhammad (PBUH)was fathered by ABDULLAH.
          Ibrahim says: Yes! And Abdullah was the son of Abdul Muttalib . Abdul Muttalib had ten sons. The youngest, `Abdullah, was his favorite son. He was married to Amina, the daughter of Wahb ibn `Abd Manaf ibn Zuhrah. A few days after his marriage, `Abdullah had to proceed on business to Syria with a caravan. While returning he fell seriously ill and breathed his last at Madina.

          Now take note that, Abdullah's father also used the word, “Abdul” (the slave of) Muttalib which was not his original name .

          Hence, when Abdul Muttalib named his son Abdullah, (the slave of Allah) this itself established the fact that the Banu hashim were not worshipping any idols but were worshipping Allah (swt) alone but did not have the strength to forbid or remove the idols in the ka ‘bah

          The Quraish were divided amongst themselves, children of `Abdu Manaf had the rights over levying taxes and providing food and drink to the pilgrims, whereas the sons of `Abd al-Dar would retain the keys of the Ka`bah and their house would continue to be the House of Assembly.

          Thus amongst the quraish, the Abdu Manaf ( which through his son Hashim became known as the Banu hashim) group were devoted to Allah and the Abd al-Dar group were more concerned about prestige and were more secular and must have maintained the idols. [b] This is like Catholics and protestants calling themselves Christians in principal, although the Catholics enjoin more idols and the protestants may still use the cross (idol/icon).

          Second we must understand that there was NO IDOL for Allah (swt) since Allah does not have a form , this is why we cannot find an Idol for Brahman in Hinduism. The idols were basically representing the Prophets and saints (this can be verified by looking at Christianity, there is NO idol for God, but idols exist for Jesus, Mary, Joseph, Peter and numerous saints)

          2. ISLAM was not known to the Arabs before the birth of Muhammad (PBUH), the Arabs then were worshipping idols kept in the Ka’bah with different names.
          Ibrahim says: this is false, Islam is practiced by EVEN the angels, hence all that were created by Allah (swt) had only ONE religion . Our generation is to be judged from prophet Ibrahim (pbuh) aka Brahma /Abraham lineage, hence when Prophet Ibrahim (pbuh) had practiced Islam , his sons Ishmael and Ishak/Isaac also practiced Islam and from that chain of prophets comes Prophet Mohammed (pbuh)

          BTW the notion that Isaac practiced another religion then his father and FIRST son Ishmael, is silly but Christianity is based on such notions.

          This can be proved by the fact that it was Prophet Ibrahim (pbuh) who rebuilt the Ka’bah ( can be proved from the Veda (Hindu scriptures) as well as the Qur’an)

          I repeat the idols were basically images of prophets and saints which they used , just like Hindus and Christians are using them today. But Allah (swt) NEVER had an image so there was NO IDOL for Allah (swt)
          The religion practiced by prophet Ibrahim (pbuh) is Islam ( submission to the will of Allah (swt) which can be proved by the fact that he destroyed idols) and HE rebuild the Ka’bah

          Thus naturally the house that he rebuilt will have NO idols , and the idols that crept in after him and his immediate children, can be understood better when we consider why catholic churches have them today even though Christ and the Jerusalem temple NEVER had such things.

          3. Lexically, ABDULLAH is the Arabic word for “Servant of ALLAH”.
          His question:

          “ If it is agreed that ALLAH (in the Islamic perspective) is not known to the Arabs until the advent of Islam, and that ABDULLAH means “the Servant of ALLAH”; could it be wrong to infer that ALLAH is a name of one of the numerous idols being worshipped by the Banuu Haashim (to which Abdullah belonged) before the advent of Islam. If this can not be proved wrong, could it then be wrong to conclude that Muslims are worshipping the same idol being worshipped by Muhammed’s tribe while wrongly believing to be serving God?”
          Ibrahim says: That would be a misconception, because , as explained above, the banu hashim can be considered the puritans amongst the Quraish and the Quraish NEVER had an Idol for Allah (swt) .

          We can understand this better by looking at the events that took place in the year of the elephant when the ka bah was being attacked and the quraish FLED Makkah and left everything to ALLAH!

          Kindly read the quote from Maududi below………

          Maududi Sura Introductions Surah 105. Al-Fil

          As we have explained in E. N. 4 of Surah Al-Buruj above, in retaliation for the persecution of the followers of the Prophet Jesus Christ (peace be on him) in Najran by the Jewish ruler Dhu-Nuwas of Yaman, the Christian kingdom of Abyssinia invaded Yaman and put an end to the Himyarite rule there, and in 525 A.D. this whole land passed under Abyssinian control. This happened, in fact, through collaboration between the Byzantine empire of Constantinople and the Abyssinian kingdom, for the Abyssinians at that time had no naval fleet. The fleet was provided by Byzantium and Abyssinia sent 70,000 of its troops by it across the Red Sea to Yaman. At the outset one should understand that all this did not happen under the religious zeal but there were economic and political factors also working behind it, and probably these were the real motive, and retaliation for the Christian blood was just an excuse. Since the time the Byzantine empire had occupied Egypt and Syria, it had been trying to gain control over the trade going on between East Africa, India, Indonesia, etc., and the Byzantine dominions: from the Arabs, who had been controlling it for centuries, so as to earn maximum profits by eliminating the intermediary Arab merchants. For this purpose, in 24 or 25 B.C., Caesar Augustus sent a large army under the Roman general, Aelius Gallus, which landed on the western coast of Arabia, in order to intercept and occupy the sea route between southern Arabia and Syria. But the campaign failed to achieve its objective on account of thc extreme geographical conditions of Arabia. After this, the Byzantines brought their fleet into the Red Sea and put an end to the Arab trade which they carried out by sea, with the result that they were left only with the land route. To capture this very land route they conspired with the Abyssinian Christians and aiding them with their fleet helped them to occupy Yaman.
          The Arab historians statements about the Abyssinian army that invaded Yaman are different. Hafiz Ibn Kathir says that it was led by two commanders, Aryat and Abrahah, and according to Muhammad bin Ishaq, its commander was Aryat, and Abrahah was included in it. Then both are agreed that Aryat and Abrahah fell out, Aryat was killed in the encounter, and Abrahah took possession of the country; then somehow he persuaded the Abyssinian king to appoint him his viceroy over Yaman. On the contrary, the Greek and Syriac historians state that when after the conquest of Yaman, the Abyssinians started putting to death the Yamanite chiefs, who had put up resistance, one of the chiefs, named As-Sumayfi Ashwa (whom the Greek historians call Esymphaeus) yielded to the Abyssinians and promising to pay tribute obtained the Abyssinian king's warrant to be governor over Yaman. But the Abyssinian army revolted against him and made Abrahah governor in his place. This man was the slave of a Greek merchant of the Abyssinian seaport of Adolis, who by clever diplomacy had come to wield great influence in the Abyssinian army occupying Yaman. The troops sent by the Negus to punish him either warned him or were defeated by him. Subsequently, after the death of the king, his successor was reconciled to accept him as his viceregent of Yaman. (The Greek historians write him as Abrames and the Syriac historians as Abraham. Abrahah perhaps is an Abyssinian variant of Abraham, for its Arabic version is Ibrahim).
          This man through passage of time became an independent ruler of Yaman. He acknowledged the sovereignty of the Negus only in name and described himself as his deputy. The influence he wielded can be judged from the fact that after the restoration of the dam of Marib in 543 A.D. he celebrated the event by holding a grand feast, which was attended by the ambassadors of the Byzantine emperor, king of Iran, king of Hirah, and king of Ghassan. Its full details are given in the inscription that Abrahah installed on the dam. This inscription is extant and Glaser has published it.(For further details, see E. N. 37 of the commentary of Surah Saba).
          After stabilizing his rule in Yaman Abrahah turned his attention to the objective which from the very beginning of this campaign had been before the Byzantine empire and its allies, the Abyssinian Christians, i.e. to spread Christianity in Arabia, on the one hand, and to capture the trade that was carried out through the Arabs between the eastern lands and the Byzantine dominions, on the other. The need for this increased because the Byzantine struggle for power against the Sasanian empire of Iran had blocked all the routes of the Byzantine trade with the East.

          To achieve this objective, Abrahah built in Sana, the capital of Yaman, a magnificent cathedral, called by the Arabian historians al-Qalis, al-Qullais, or al-Qulais, this word being an Arabic version of the Greek word Ekklesia, church. According, to Mahammad bin lshaq, after having completed the building, he wrote to the Negus, saying: "I shall not rest until I have diverted the Arabs pilgrimage to it." Ibn Kathir writes that he openly declared his intention in Yaman and got it publicly announced. He, in fact, wanted to provoke the Arabs into doing something which should provide him with an excuse to attack Makkah and destroy the Ka'bah. Muhammad bin Ishaq says that an Arab, enraged at this public proclamation somehow went into the cathedral and defiled it. Ibn Kathir says this was done by a Qurai****e and according to Muqatil bin Suleman, some young men of the Quraish had set fire to the cathedral. Either might have happened, for Abrahah's proclamation was certainly provocative and in the ancient pre-Islamic age it cannot be impossible that an Arab, or a Qurai****e youth, might have been enraged and might have defiled the cathedral, or set fire to it. But it may well also be that Abrahah himself got this done secretly by his own agent so as to have an excuse for invading Makkah and thus achieving both his objectives by destroying the Quraish and intimidating the Arabs. In any case, whatever happened, when the report reached Abrahah that the devotees of the Ka'bah had thus defiled his cathedral, he swore that he would not rest until he had destroyed the Ka'bah.

          So, in 570 or 571 A.D., he took 60,000 troops and 13 elephants (according to another tradition, 9 elephants) and set off for Makkah. On the way, first a Yamanite chief, Dhu Nafr by name, mustering an army of the Arabs, resisted him but was defeated and taken prisoner. Then in the country of Khath'am he was opposed by Nufail bin Habib al-Khath'am, with his tribe, but he too was defeated and taken prisoner, and in order to save his life he accepted to serve him as guide in the Arab country. When he reached near Ta'if, Bani Thaqif felt that they would not be able to resist such a big force and feeling the danger lest he should destroy the temple of their deity Lat, too; their chief, Mas'ud came out to Abrahah with his men, and he told him that their temple was not the temple he had come to destroy. The temple He sought was in Makkah, and they would send with him a man to guide him there. Abrahah accepted the offer, and Bani Thaqif sent Abu Righal as guide with him. When they reached al-Mughammas (or al-Mughammis), a place about 3 miles short of Makkah, Abu Righal died, and the Arabs stoned his grave and the practice survives to this day. They cursed the Bani Thaqif too, for in order to save the temple of Lat they had cooperated with the invaders of the House of Allah.

          According to Muhammad bin Ishaq, from al-Mughammas Abrahah sent forward his vanguard and they brought him the plunder of the people of Tihamah and Quraish, which included two hundred camels of Abdul Muttalib, the grandfather of the Holy Messenger of Allah (upon whom be His peace). Then, he sent an envoy of his to Makkah with the message that he had not come to fight the people of Makkah but only to destroy the House (i.e. the Ka'bah). If they offered no resistance, there would be no cause for bloodshed. Abrahah also instructed his envoy that if the people of Makkah wanted to negotiate, he should return with their leading chief to him. The leading chief of Makkah at that time was Abdul Muttalib. The envoy went to him and delivered Abrahah's message. Abdul Muttalib replied: "We have no power to fight Abrahah. This is Allah's House. If He wills He will save His House." The envoy asked him to go with him to Abrahah. He agreed and accompanied him to the king. Now Abdul Muttalib was such a dignified and handsome man that when Abrahah saw him he was much impressed; he got off his throne and sat beside him on the carpet. Then he asked him what he wanted. Abdul Muttalib replied that he wanted the king to return his camels which he had taken. Abrahah said: "I was much impressed when I saw you but your reply has brought you down in my eyes: you only demand your camels but you say nothing about this House which is your sanctuary and the sanctuary of your forefathers." He replied: "I am the owner of my camels and am requesting you to return them. As for the House, it has its own Owner: He will defend it." When Abrahah said that He would not be able to defend it against him, Abdul Muttalib said that that rested between Him and him. With this Abdul Muttalib left Abrahah and he restored to him his camels.

          Ibn Abbas's tradition is different. It does not mention the demand for the camels at all. According to the traditions related from him by Abd bin Humaid, Ibn al-Mundhir, lbn Marduyah, Hakim, Abu Nuaim and Baihaqi, he states that when Abrahah reached As- Sifah (a place situated between Arafat and Taif in the mountains near the sacred bounds of Makkah), Abdul Muttalib went to him and said: "There was no need for you to come so far. You should have ordered us and we would have brought before you whatever you needed." He said: "I hear that this House is the House of peace: I have come to destroy its peace." Thereupon, Abdul Muttalib said: "This is Allah's House. He has not allowed anyone so far to dominate it." Abrahah replied: "We will not return until we have destroyed it." Abdul Muttalib said: "You may take whatever you like from us and return." Abrahah refused to budge and ordered his troops to advance, leaving Abdul Muttalib behind.

          Leaving the two traditions as they are, one thing which becomes evident is that the tribes living in and around Makkah did not have the power to fight such a big force and save the Ka'bah. Therefore, obviously, the Quraish did not try to put up any resistance. The Quraish on the occasion of the Battle of the Trench (Ahzab) had hardly been able to muster strength numbering ten to twelve thousand men in spite of the alliance with the pagan and Jewish tribes; they could not have resisted an army 60,000 strong.

          Muhammad bin Ishaq says that after returning from the camp of Abrahah Abdul Muttalib ordered the Quraish to withdraw from the city and go to the mountains along with their families for fear of a general massacre. Then he went to the Ka'bah along with some chiefs of the Quraish and taking hold of the iron ring of the door, prayed to Allah Almighty to protect His House and its keepers. There were at that time 360 idols in and around the Ka'bah, but on that critical moment they forgot them and implored only Allah for help. Their supplications which have been reported in the books of history do not contain any name but of Allah, the One. Ibn Hisham in his Life of the Prophet has cited some verses of Abdul Muttalib, which are to the following effect:

          "O God, a man protects his house, so protect Your House; Let not their cross and their craft tomorrow overcome Your craft. If You will to leave them and our qiblah to themselves, You may do as You please." Suhaill in Raud al-Unuf has cited this verse also in this connection: "Help today Your devotees against the devotees of the cross and its worshippers." Ibn Jarir has cited Abdul Muttalib's these verses also, which he had recited in his supplication; my Lord, I do not cherish any hope from anyone against them except You. O my Lord, protect Your House from them. The enemy of this House is Your enemy. Stop them from destroying Your settlement."

          After making these suppllcations Abdul Muttalib and his companions also went off to the mountains. Next morning Abrahah prepared to enter Makkah, but his special elephant, Mahmud, which was in the forefront, knelt down. It was beaten with iron bars, goaded, even scarified, but it would not get up. When they made it face south, north, or east, it would immediately start off, but as soon as they directed it towards Makkah, it knelt down. In the meantime swarms of birds appeared carrying stones in their beaks and claws and showered these on the troops. Whoever was hit would start disintegrating. According to Muhammad bin Ishaq and Ikrimah, this was smallpox, which was seen in Arabia for the first time in that year. Ibn Abbas says that whoever was struck by a pebble, would start scratching his body resulting in breaking of the skin and falling off of the flesh. In another tradition Ibn Abbas says that the flesh and blood flowed like water and bones in the body became visible. The same thing happened with Abrahah too. His flesh fell in pieces and there arose bores on his body emitting pus and blood. In confusion they withdrew and fled towards Yaman. Nufail bin Habib, whom they had brought as guide from the country of Khatham, was searched out and asked to guide them back to Yaman, but he refused and said: "Now where can one flee when God pursues?

          The split nose (Abrahah) is the conquered; not the conqueror."

          As they withdrew they were continually falling by the bay and dying. Ata bin Yasar says that all the troops did not perish at the spot; some perished there and others perished by the wayside as they withdrew. Abrahah died in the country of Khath'am.

          This event took place at Muhassir by the Muhassab valley, between Muzdalifah and Mina. According to the Sahih of Muslim and Abu Da'ud, in the description of the Holy Prophet's farewell pilgrimage that Imam Jafar as-Sadiq has related from his father, Imam Muhammad Baqir, and he from Hadrat Jabir bin Abdullah, he says that when the Holy Prophet (upon whom be peace) proceeded from Muzdalifah to Mina, he increased his speed in the valley of Muhassir. Imam Nawawt has explained it saying that the incident of the people of the elephant had occurred there; therefore, the pilgrims have been enjoined to pass by quickly, for Muhassir is a tormented place. Imam Malik in Muatta has related that the Holy Prophet said that the whole of Muzdalifah is a fit place for staying but one should not stay in the valley of Muhassir. In the verses of Nufail bin Habib, which Ibn Ishaq has cited, he describes this event as an eyewitness;
          "Would that you had seen, O Rudaina, but you would not see, What we saw by the valley of Muhassab. I praised God when I saw the birds, and I feared lest the stones should fall upon us. Everyone was asking for Nufail as though I owned the Abyssinians a debt."
          This was such a momentous event that it soon spread throughout Arabia and many poets made it the subject of their laudatory poems. In these poems one thing is quite evident that everyone regarded it as a manifestation of Allah Almighty's miraculous power, and no one, even by allusion, said that the idols which were worshipped in the Ka'bah, had anything to do with it. For example, Abdullah ibn Az-Zibara says:

          "The sixty thousand returned not home, Nor did their sick man (Abrahah) survive on return. Ad and Jurham were there before them, and there is Allah, above the servants, Who sustains it." Abu Qais bin Aslat says; "Rise and worship your Lord and annoint the Corners of the House of Allah between the Mountains of Makkah and Mina. When the help of the Owner of the Throne reached you, His armies repulsed them so that they were lying in dust, pelted with stones."

          Not only this, but according to Hadrat Umm Hani and Hadrat Zubair bin al-Awwam, the Holy Prophet (upon whom be peace) said: "The Quraish did not worship anyone but Allah, the Only and One, for ten years (and according to others, for seven years). Umm Hani's tradition has been related by Imam Bukhari in his History and by Tabarani, Hakim, Ibn Marduyah and Baihaqi in their collections of Ahidth. Hadrat Zubair's statement has been related by Tabarani, Ibn Marduyah and Ibn Asakir, and this is further confirmed by the mursal tradition of Hadrat Sa'id bin al Musayyab, which Khatib Baghdadi has recorded in his History.

          The Arabs describe the year in which this event took place as Am al-Fil (the year of the elephants), and in the same year the Holy Messenger of Allah (upon whom be His peace) was born. The traditionists and historians almost unanimously state that the event of the people of the elephant had occurred in Muharram and the Holy Prophet was born in Rabi al-Awwal. A majority of them states that he took birth 50 days after the event of the elephant.

          My Dillema: While knowing and believing that this assertion (or is it assumption) is baseless and untrue. I am at a great loss on how best to explain that ALLAH is the Supreme, Omnipotent and Almighty GOD who is the Most Beneficent and Most Merciful. The minds of these xtians are being hardened and their thought tailored at discrediting ISLAM. It will then require a convincingly strong evidence to proof them otherwise.
          Ibrahim says: this is simple, By the Grace of Allah (swt), all you need to ask them is, How to address their own father ?

          Yes! no kidding

          because according to the current corrupted bible , it forbids anyone from calling anyone “father/Father” (same sound) on this planet !

          Says Jesus …

          Do not call anyone on earth "Father" for you have only one Father and HE is in heaven . ( Matthew 23: 9)

          It is stated that Iesus used the word "Abba" (an Aramaic word) meaning father and it is also known today that "Elah" pronounced as "Alah " or "Allah" (is also an Aramaic word mentioned in the Bible & the Qur'an ) as the name of "God" used by Iesus as well as all the Prophets. ( Aramaic was the common language in Judah at the time of the Messiah/Christ "Iesus" )

          This can be Proven by looking at an Arabic Gospel, where God is addressed as Allah even today.

          The word Abba still remains in 3 places in the New Testament of the Bible ( Mk 14:36, Ro 8:15, & Gal 4:6 ) , In truth, "Abba" should have appeared at every mention of the word "Father" , that would be truly numerous, why was it removed ?, maybe, because the current Bible is a translation from a Latin/Greek version and seems the earlier scribes believed it translated to father and also it might have been erased/mistranslated when it was translated from Aramaic to Latin/Greek . ( it is also probable that the Priests wanted to keep the original name of God to themselves, such that common folk had to refer to them for prayer and counseling)

          Did Iesus address God as Abba or Alla/Alah/Allah ?

          IF Iesus , had used the word Abba then he would not have forbidden its use (as a personal name or to refer to any men or women) by anyone else for Abba , is normally a child's first words in reference to their father and also commonly used in many parts of the world today referring to their own father.

          Please look at the word Abba and Alla ( very similar lettering, which could habve been altered or misconceived)

          But If he had used the word's Alla then he would have forbidden its use ( as a personal name ) by anyone else , since it belongs to God and no human being should be using it other than God.

          The earlier scribe's (translators ) could have very easily substituted the word Alla to Abba since the meaning of Alla is not known to anyone even today. Just as YHWH ( the letters, indicating God in the old testament ) is currently translated to as "Lord" since its meaning as well as the proper pronunciation is not known.

          Similarly the word "Selah" is mentioned in the Psalms & Habakkuk , 71 times and its meaning is not known. In earlier Bibles the word "Elah" is pronounced as "Alah", Elohim appeared as a name of God in the book of Genesis and the Bible 2500 times. i.e. from the beginning of our generation. But current issues have removed them and they prefer to use "Lord" for God and "lord" for respectable men similarly "Father" for God and "father" for men.

          ( wonder what's the difference in pronunciation's or how we can distinguish, who is who ?)

          In addition , Iesus preferred to call himself "Ben Adam" translated as "Son of Man".... this translation appears in the Gospels , 81 times , in truth , it should only appear as "Ben Adam". The word, Ben ( in Hebrew) or Bin (in Arabic) means "son of " and always used in between first name and fathers name. As such it would be probable to say ...Iesus Ben Adam ( for Iesus birth was like Adam, created without a father.) But Allah (God) address him as Jesus son of Mary ( in the Quran) which is the whole truth . (Further if Iesus proclaimed himself son of God, than Adam will surely qualify for the same title- may God forgive us for this thought and suggestions)

          Further to this the letter J is not known in Latin/Greek or Hebrew, as such the name "Jesus" should be actually read as "Esus", "Iesus" or Esa ( as mentioned in the Qur’an ). This is the reason for the letter J not being pronounced in Latin and Spanish conversations i.e. Jose is actually pronounced Ose and Allejandro is actually pronounced Alleandro. So how did the letter J get in to the English translation when its origin is from Latin copies. Your guess is good as mine.

          To respect a person, even today , would mean addressing him by his proper name, thus , our current trend of addressing , Iesus as Jesus is greatly in error on our part, which even Muslims, have accepted to conform to, in almost all of their writings.

          Finally , we should say , "Alleluia" meaning: Praise the Lord ( according to Christians, which seems absurd since in no language it can be interpreted as such! )

          Look carefully at the first 4 letters Alle or Alla ? The tone of "A" and "E" can be similar in English language (vowels). Off-course people add a H in front and tell you not to pronounce it.

          Thus it is clear that the Prophet Eesa aka Jesus, prayed to ALLAH alone and forbid anyone else to be named as Allah on this planet (which is an Islamic teaching) , which, unfortunately has been changed to father for the current Christians by those who wanted to deceive them.

          Hence when you ask a Christian why Christ said, Do not call anyone on earth "Father" for you have only one Father and HE is in heaven . ( Matthew 23: 9)

          And why a Christian priest has chosen to be addressed as father , and how are you to address your own father? they will quit the scene

          The TRUTH being, Christ did not call upon Abba/father , he called upon Alla the Almighty and christians by saying Alle-luia are calling out to Alla without understanding their own actions

          Was salaam

          [This message has been edited by Ibrahim (edited February 22, 2002).]