Would you deign to reconsider your sanctimonious attitudes towards Arabic speaking Christians?

Submitted by zzazzeefrazzee (United States), Mar 10, 2008 at 00:20

Sorry Oliver, I'm having an argument with you, not with Jesus or anyone else. Rather, you are having an argument without much experience with Arabic Speaking Christians that is rooted in a deep-seated bias against a name that you have literally come to hate due to "guilt by association" fallacy that the term "Allah" is inherently Islamic. The view that "Allah" is a pagan Moon god may be the view of Robert Morey, who coined the ridiculous term "moon-o-theism", and who largely derived his ideas almost solely from Danish scholar Ditlef Nielsen. Such views have since been popularized ad nauseum through the Internet and professional tract writers like Jack Chick. Yet these arguments reduce to little more of a Fallacy of "argumentum ad populum" than actual scholarship.

"Allah" is usually used by Arabic speaking Christians to refer to "God the Father" not "God the Son". For that, the name of Jesus is used, which is "Yasu" or "Yesu", from the same root as "Yashua". Asking people to state that Allah is "Yasu" would be fine with Arabic Speaking Christians as an expression of trinity. Of course, that is not a view held by Muslims. Hence my original argument that there are diverging views of of the nature of God- not different gods.

A truly objective person is able to differentiate and characterize such variant beliefs in a civil manner without resorting to rancor, demeaning accusations of "falsehood", much less general hostility. As I said before, many Arabic speaking Christians that I know personally would be very offended by your comments, much less your sanctimonious demands that they never use a term in their own language that has a credible historic precedent. No amount of self-righteous scripture posting on your part will mitigate this kind of offense. I'm sorry that your chosen absolutist interpretation of faith leads you to behave in such a manner.

As I said before, I stand with Daniel Pipes on this matter, and I think I've also shown my reasons to have full merit. Whether your particular chosen interpretation of what constitutes "theological correctness" as you phrased it is really quite irrelevant to the discussion. That said, one can never persuade an absolutist, no matter the flavor of faith that they practice.

Note: Opinions expressed in comments are those of the authors alone and not necessarily those of Daniel Pipes. Original writing only, please. Comments are screened and in some cases edited before posting. Reasoned disagreement is welcome but not comments that are scurrilous, off-topic, commercial, disparaging religions, or otherwise inappropriate. For complete regulations, see the "Guidelines for Reader Comments".