Are contractions such as "Don't" and "Do Not"; "Who's" and "Who is" completely unrelated and different? Same goes for "Allah" and "al-Ilah".

Submitted by zzazzeefrazzee (United States), Mar 17, 2008 at 21:40

"You have no proof the Allah was NOT used ONLY as the NAME of a pagan god in pre-Islamic Arabia."

And you really don;t have anything to slidly contradict it, do you?

"All you have proved is that pre-Islamic Christians used the term ‘al-ilah' to differentiate the Christian god from the Arab pagan god(s)."

Yes, but then there are those pesky Arabic language bibles that translate theos as "Allah". The contraction or elision of al-Ilah into Allah, is a natural language pattern. Your incessant quibbling is akin to stating that "Don't" and "Do Not", or "Who's" and "Who is" have entirely different meanings and are totally unrelated.

"Tradition is not proof of any thing – the Arabs have no hard evidence that they are descended from Abraham or even Ishmael –"

By that standard, then the Jews really don't have any "hard evidence" either of their ancestry either, do they? Forgive me, but the bible is NOT 'hard" historical evidence, no matter how often you cite it.

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".