Who is ALLAH? The Sovereign of the Unseen and the Manifest

[HoldAll]

We should start a poll and ask people if they find it more annoying if a member constantly uses ALL CAPS or huge fonts.

 

[Robert Ramsay]

We should start a poll and ask people if they find it more annoying if a member constantly uses ALL CAPS or huge fonts.

I'm not all that keen on purple or dark red on black either.

 

[Angelkesfarl]

"Simply remove it from the writing panel. In the mobile version, optimize the container's display to accommodate large fonts and ensure it automatically reformats them within the page. I will make sure to adjust the font size slightly in the future."

We should start a poll and ask people if they find it more annoying if a member constantly uses ALL CAPS or huge fonts.

 

[Mh4419]

YouTube Video by Dr Neil Hamson[

Post automatically merged: Yesterday at 10:17 PM

YouTube Video by Dr Neil Hamson[

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

 

[AlfrunGrima]

I'm not all that keen on purple or dark red on black either.

My eyes aren't either. Even not with my new glasses with those varifocus parts in it. (Computer screens are a pain in the ass for the most eyes anyway)

 

[Angelkesfarl]

YouTube Video by Dr Neil Hamson[

Post automatically merged: Yesterday at 10:17 PM

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

This is how men and mature friends act. You brought me Dr. Neil Hamson: his thinking is critical and scientific, and he wishes to speak only through historical evidence. I want the response to be against him.

Then the man invented his first words: First: Analysis of the video's thesis Dr. Hamson claims that: The word "Allah" is not derived from the attribute "Al-Ilah" (The Deity), but is a proper name for an ancient pagan god that was part of a "Henotheism" (a pantheon of gods) and not "Monotheism" (oneness). Islam "redefined" this name and monopolized it, exactly as Judaism did with the name "Yahweh." Archaeological evidence (inscriptions) shows "Allah" alongside other gods such as "Al-Lat."

The first linguistic fallacy Dr. Neil Hamson claims in his first errors is that proper names mean nothing. This is a fatal scientific error from him; when he wants to present a theory, it was more appropriate for him to apply the rules of science with discipline when analyzing the Arabic language within its Semitic environment. The scientific fact, according to the majority of linguists like "Sibawayh" and "Al-Khalil," is that it is an abbreviation for the words "Al + Ilah" (The Deity), where the glottal stop (Hamza) was deleted due to frequent use. This was indeed as said anciently, but he forgot the meaning of archaeological research for the sake of building convictions based on personal whim. Let me demolish them as is my habit.

First, the linguistic root is "A-L-H," which is a shared root from the same linguistic base as Hebrew and its sister Arabic, and whoever followed the guidance of the tongues due to the proximity of locations in that vast region from Iraq to the borders of the Mediterranean in Syria, passing through Yemen. So let us dive in our time-travel suit to see the facts of history by history as he requests. First, what is the proper name defining the word God? The root (A-L-H) is a common root in Semitic languages: (Eloah) in Hebrew, and (Alaha) in Syriac Aramaic. These words mean "The Worshiped" or "God." Therefore, if we assume that Ishmael came as the son of Abraham to the Arabian Peninsula, according to the historical hypothesis, he would recognize the God his father Abraham already worshiped, especially since he "rebuilt the Kaaba for pilgrimage and raised its foundations that Adam established when he descended from the Garden of Eden"? Believe it or not, let us just continue our path; I am presenting the full linguistic hypothesis here, not the religious one. And let us assume an even more radical assumption: that neither Abraham nor Ishmael existed—what is his opinion and yours? We are freed from all weight; we return to history. We ride the carpet of thought and penetrate to the oldest of all, to Ancient Egypt, and we see.

We walk historically: contrary to the common belief that Akhenaten was the inventor of monotheism, funerary texts and prayers indicate the concept of the "One God" (NTR W`) from an early time:

A text from the "Book of the Dead" (Chapter 17): "I am the One God who created himself; I am the existence that has no beginning and no end."

The Great Hymn to the Aten says clearly: "O One God, like whom there is no other, You created the earth by Your will alone." This text dates back to approximately 1350 BCE, and it is a damning historical document of the existence of "pure monotheism" centuries before Islam and Christianity. We review the writings of Selim Hassan in the Encyclopedia of Ancient Egypt and also the research of Erik Hornung on monotheism.

Thus, we conclude that the idea of the One and Only God, the Creator of everything, existed before in the oldest archaeological texts that he wants. Did he mention that or think about it? Of course not, because he is presenting an selective viewpoint, so his mind will deceive him as he walks a path pre-prepared for him alone, prepared by his fertile and private imagination.

We take the Akkadian and Sumerian civilizations; we find a root he assumed but did not know well, and I know it well for him to understand: there is a very ancient root, "Anu." By reviewing historical texts and ancient Mesopotamian myths, "Anu" was the god of the heavens and the earth and the prime mover, "the first mind," the source, Ein Sof, the infinite God. After that, we find that humans began attributing to him sons and daughters, marrying them off, and inventing their own gods. If we put all the theories side by side, we will find a reference indicating monotheism in every one of those civilizations, linking them—review my article as a whole.

And we continue, let's go. The root (El) is originally Abrahamic Canaanite. Canaanite inscriptions say (El) is [the Creator of creatures and the father of mankind?]. We link the two roots easily now; we find that the meaning of the deity "Allah" is linguistically derived from the same Semitic root—though I have some reservations, I will continue with him so the article does not become longer for you than his thesis. This all indicates that there is a deep history among the Arabs themselves in venerating "One God" that was not polluted by the ideas of priests to impose taxes in the names of other gods. But I will not be drifted away; I will continue in his same way. (Note: do anyone’s eyes hurt from the light of truth? Wear protective glasses over your heart and continue with me).

Finally, (Dr. Neil Hamson) demolished his myth saying that inscriptions show Allah among other gods before Islam: the inscriptions of Jabal Hima and Duma (5th-6th century CE). The "Paleo-Arabic" inscriptions revealed decades before Islam the use by Arab Christians of the words "Allah," "Al-Ilah," and "Al-Rahman" to denote the One and Only God, some of them paired with the drawing of the "Cross," which proves that the word was used monotheistically centuries before the Quran?

Finally, because he is a Western scholar, he neglected poetry; it is, as they say, the Diwan of the Arabs and their history. We may not know exactly the moment or the archaeological event that determines when the name "Allah" was first said as a proper name for the One God, but we find that ancient Arabic inscriptions (such as Safaitic and Nabataean) used similar forms (such as "h-’lh") and evolved linguistically over the centuries. Therefore, any claim that it began as a "specific idol" is a guess not supported by a single material trace, as no "idol" or "statue" named "Allah" was ever found. The inscriptions of Al-Lat, Al-Uzza, Manat, Hubal, Isaf... etc., all have shapes and drawings, but Allah remained the only one never linked in any historical scientific reference to a single unique idol to say he was an idol being worshiped?

Welcome dear, you can put on some skin creams because the sun of truth is summery, and let us continue, O master of linguistic and archaeological remains. Labid bin Rabi'ah (Pre-Islamic): said his famous verse which the Prophet ﷺ approved: "Lo! Everything save Allah is void." This is an explicit recognition of the absolute sovereignty of Allah before Islam. Zuhair bin Abi Sulma: says in his Mu'allaqa: "Do not hide from Allah what is in your souls... to be concealed, for whatever is hidden, Allah knows it." Here we see the attribute of "Absolute Knowledge" attributed to Allah in the pre-Islamic consciousness.

The name Al-Rahman: Researchers found the name "Rhmanan" in inscriptions in the south of the Peninsula (Yemen) centuries before Islam, and it referred to the One God among the monotheists of the Arabs (Hanifs and Christians), which refutes the lie that the name is "invented" or "pagan." Rejection of the name "Al-Rahman": Historically, when the Treaty of Hudaybiyyah was written, Suhayl bin Amr refused to write "In the name of Allah, the Beneficent (Al-Rahman), the Merciful," saying: "As for Al-Rahman, by Allah we do not know what it is." This proves that the dispute was not over the existence of "Allah" (whom they knew), but over the unification of His attributes (Al-Rahman), which the polytheists saw as a name for another god or an attribute they did not accept.

Even though "Al-Rahman" as a proper name for the Deity himself refutes their argument in refusing to write with it, according to the Arabic poetry saying: "Has that girl struck her hybrid... has Al-Rahman my Lord severed her right hand" / and also Salamah bin Jandal al-Tahawi: "You hastened against us, our two hastenings against you... and what Al-Rahman wills, He binds and releases."

Thus we find that the name "Sharhab-il Yakkaf" appeared in a writing dated to the year "575" of the Himyarite calendar, corresponding to the year "460 CE." In the writing, the phrase appeared: "Rahmanan and his son Christ the Victorious," using the word "Krshsh" in exchange for the word Christus, indicating that its owner was a Christian. "Abraha" was titled in this text, as he was titled in the Marib Dam text, with the title that the kings of Yemen were titled with, which is: "King of Saba, Dhu Raydan, Hadramawt, Yamnat (Yemen) and its Arabs in the highlands (Tawdam), and in the lowlands (Tihamat)." He opened it with the phrase: "By the power of Rahmanan and His Messiah." Abraha had previously opened his text which he recorded on the "Marib Dam" with the phrase: "By the power and strength and mercy of Al-Rahman and His Messiah and the Holy Spirit." These two phrases are among the phrases that appear in the texts of Yemen for the first time, due to Abraha being a Christian, and Christianity in the days of the Ethiopian occupation of Yemen became an official religion of the government.

Meaning that Allah and His attributes were known and recognized anciently, older than his history, unique, having no idol worshiped nor anything mentioned. I conclude by thanking everyone; every scientific discussion illuminates the way for us and adds to, rather than subtracts from, our ability to expand ideas and analyze historical facts with a clear and correct scientific methodology.

 

[BBBB]

YouTube Video by Dr Neil Hamson[

Post automatically merged: Yesterday at 10:17 PM

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Well, that returns us to my original thesis here: Who is ALLAH? The Sovereign of the Unseen and the Manifest
I honestly don't see a problem with Allah being used before Islam, it is explained in semantics - it's just a god, who became God. So, people worshipped many gods and were made to worship only one, so? Is Allah in Islam so insecure that it requires erasing all the "shameful" past? Is it even about faith? If Islam is superior to old beliefs, why fear them?

The problem with the past only exists when somebody wants to destroy history, erase people's memory - what is exactly being done by terrorists in radical Islam. They are responsible for destruction of many historical sites in Middle East and in Syria (and whatever they can get their hands on) - why? Because their masters need to "reboot" people's worldview, erase their memory, so it would be easier to radicaize them. Syria was the area in which many cultures and religions met, leaving rich historical legacy in monuments, many proofs of different religions and philosophies coexisting (or even existing which may be inconvenient, like other Arab cultures). Destroying this, imposing a single ideology on everyone is what they try to do there, and it's what Angelkesfarl was doing here, attacking every religion and faith with no regard to it's truth and value.

If presented with something better, people would naturally chose it over what they did in the past (excluding fanatics). Only when something new is not better, there is a problem with history and memory. When something worse needs to be accepted by people, it is necessary to leave them no choice, and so that they would not rebel it's useful to erase their memory. Is it what is happening here?

"Scripture is belief, not evidence." - basically, yes. It always amazes me how people try to prove scriptures. If the truth in a scripture is not self-evident, then any number of historical proof will not make it valid. If no history can back the scripture which is basically well and good - who cares if it's not ancient? Should we settle for ancient science, just because we can find many evidence of it being used before? Maybe continue memorising Aristotle's works because they are older than recent theories.

If someone had some beliefs in the past, which were tied to some events, and we find traces of these events, how does it prove the belief? Proving God like that is a huge leap. God isn't proven by the past, it can only be proven by subjective experience in concrete life circumstance. This is the "secret", you don't need to study manuscripts in some mountain fortress to figure out what God wants, you just ask Him and be attentive for how your life circumstances change. You do that in (true) magic, you do that in (true) religion.

Faith without deed is worthless, beliefs without decisions are hollow. But acting on faith and belief leads to experience. This is poison to erroneous beliefs. Reading scripture and never applying, reading occult tomes and never practicing - same thing. Talking with armchair practitioners after to pass the time and scratch the ego, your only reward. On the upside - no danger. If you don't count wasted life.

And the only thing achieved by having the same scripture memorised by many people is egregorial unity, which is a prerequisite for being subject to egregorial magic, not for religion and community with God. In other words, scriptures are only imposed by occult leaders who use them as leverage, and to cut people from direct communion with God. One of the reasons pictures of God are forbidden in Islam - as to not allow fake projections in worshippers psyche being used by Iblis or magicians. But no amount of rules can ensure correct practice. But when someone is trying to prove scripture with history, they are taking the question away from "Is the scripture true spiritually and sociologically?" to "Is the scripture true because God wills it as proven by those events" - this is NOT the correct proof. Circumstantial evidence. Interpretation of those is subjective, not objective.

Post automatically merged: Today at 8:27 AM

My eyes aren't either. Even not with my new glasses with those varifocus parts in it. (Computer screens are a pain in the ass for the most eyes anyway)

Using bold text also makes your arguments thicker, more solid and weighty I suppose. Almost feels like the weight of Moses tablet in there... Must be the truth then.

 

[Morell]

The Great Hymn to the Aten says clearly: "O One God, like whom there is no other, You created the earth by Your will alone." This text dates back to approximately 1350 BCE, and it is a damning historical document of the existence of "pure monotheism" centuries before Islam and Christianity. We review the writings of Selim Hassan in the Encyclopedia of Ancient Egypt and also the research of Erik Hornung on monotheism.

You are referring here to Akhenaten, A Pharaoh, who invented monotheism of Sun God, slowly removing other gods so he himself would be an incarnation of that god. This religion none before him in Egypt followed and it died out not too long after him. (I assume that his interests were far from being an honest devotee of a god)

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

The oldest Egyptian texts we have seem to be about 1 000 years older that this Pharaoh and he is the oldest monotheist, so his work is hardly among the earliest texts. 1 000 years is a long time.