Allah is to Arabic Speakers as God is to English speakers

Post #43,826 by ChrisR 6/28/02 4:52:40 PM Reply	Allah is to Arabic Speakers as God is to English speakers The question you forward is nonsensical because you are phrasing it in one language, but using the terminology of a second language. For a [link\|http://www.submission.org/allah-god.html\|Muslim] person that speaks English, the words Allah and God are interchangeable. For the [link\|http://www.christiananswers.net/q-eden/allah.html\|Christian] speaker that does not necessarily speak Arabic, Allah is the Arabic term that is used for God. Hence, although the Christian will generally acknowledge that the Muslim believes in God, it's not likely that the English speaker will invoke Arabic terminology as it's not engrained into our cultural and religious history. So the answer to your question is simple. If the pledge were written in Arabic, it would say 'Under Allah'. If the pledge were written in English, it would say 'Under God'. So, from the outside it looks like you are asking whether it would be acceptable if the pledge were written in Arabic - which is probably not the case. The terms Allah and God are substitutable if one wishes to translate language and culture. But a pledge which is bent on nationalistic identity is probably not a place where cross-cultural boundaries are going to be explored to any significant extent.
Post #43,835 by Brandioch 6/28/02 5:34:28 PM Reply	Not quite. The question you forward is nonsensical because you are phrasing it in one language, but using the terminology of a second language. Really? Pomme Frites is to the French as _________ is to the British. "Nonsensical"? Hardly. Even though I'm mixing languages in the above example, it is still clear. For a Muslim person that speaks English, the words Allah and God are interchangeable. Negative. Ask a Muslim who/what Zeus is. You will NOT get "Zeus is Allah". For the Christian speaker that does not necessarily speak Arabic, Allah is the Arabic term that is used for God. True. But also incorrect. "Allah" is the name of the god of the Muslims. The name of the god of the Muslims is "Allah". The god the Muslims worship is "Allah". "Muslim" is not a language. "Muslim" is a religion. In Persian, the word for god is "xuda". A Persian who was a Muslim would worship the "xuda" called "Allah". (Note, the spellings and such are courtesy of a friend and they don't even use the same alphabet we do so it isn't an easy translation) The terms Allah and God are substitutable if one wishes to translate language and culture. This was what I was illustrating when I suggest altering the PoA to "One nation, under Allah". If "God" in that context was NOT meant to mean the god of the Christians, then such a substitution would not be unthinkable. But a pledge which is bent on nationalistic identity is probably not a place where cross-cultural boundaries are going to be explored to any significant extent. Agreed. But it goes even deeper than that. Christianity is part of the culture of the USofA. And the god of the Christians is named "God". So the PoA does reference the god of the Christians as opposed to a generic "god".
Post #43,848 by ChrisR 6/28/02 6:44:04 PM Reply	The question is nonsensical because you... ...are mixing language translation with religious identity. If the question were straightforward, it would be a simple matter of translation: Pomme Frites is to the Huguenot as _________ is to the Calvinist. That question wouldn't mix the concept of belief with language translation. But mixing language terminology with religious identity, you automatically stack the deck against a positive answer. Or put another way, God is to the Orthodox Jew as ___________ is to the Reformist Jew. or God is to the Baptist as ___________ is to the Catholic. Note, that we're using the same term in both questions, but they are nonsensical questions - e.g. the perception of God by the Baptist is quite distinct from the perception of the Catholic (although there is overlap). The Baptist and the Catholic will, at times, acknowledge that they both believe in God, but the nature of that god, and what that belief encompasses, are quite different. Negative. Ask a Muslim who/what Zeus is. You will NOT get "Zeus is Allah". More to the point, ask a Muslim if he believes in God? Since that's the word in question, I think it a more relevant question as to whether the capitalized English term of God is exclusively associated with the Christian religion. You seemed to have missed my point above. Let me explain it differently. The interpretation of the capitalized word God is a subjective term. When the Christian says they believe in God, they have a whole set of mental baggage that is associated with the term. When a Jew says they believe in God, they also have a specific idea that is somewhat different than the Christian. Same with the Muslim. My presumption is all three would agree that they believe in God (capitalized or not). When dealing with politics, one tries to carve out terminology which is pleasing to their electorate. In this case, the terminology (including the capitalization) is acceptable to almost any monotheistic religion. They can state the pledge without accepting the ultimate validity of each others religion. They are bound together by their belief in a god that is singular in being. Just as the Eastern Orthodox, Catholic and Evangelical Christians can agree that they believe in Jesus, but disagree (sometimes violently) what it actually means to believe in the same. "Muslim" is a religion. Islam is a religion. A muslim is a follower of Mohamet. A Persian who was a Muslim would worship the "xuda" called "Allah". Or the person who was Muslim would worship Allah as their God? From a language translation standpoint, the difficulty presented is that Islam is both a mixture of Religion and Pan-Arabic culture. The term Allah roughly means God - roughly speaking because words, especially those of a religious nature, rarely, if ever, can be translated from one language into another without changing semantics. So the PoA does reference the god of the Christians as opposed to a generic "god". So you claim. Yes, God means one thing to Christians and quite another to Muslims. And, yes, the English language is mostly influenced by Christianity (even though Christianity itself is more mired in Greek and Latin as a matter of history).
Post #43,852 by Brandioch 6/28/02 8:13:49 PM Reply	No I'm not. The question is nonsensical because you... ...are mixing language translation with religious identity. No. English speaking Muslims still refer to "Allah". God is to the Orthodox Jew as ___________ is to the Reformist Jew. No. You're looking at different sects of the same religion. God is to the Baptist as ___________ is to the Catholic. Again, different sects, same religion. Do you have an example of different religions, same language? Because I know Muslims raise in the US as native "English" speakers who still refer to "Allah". Note, that we're using the same term in both questions, but they are nonsensical questions - e.g. the perception of God by the Baptist is quite distinct from the perception of the Catholic (although there is overlap). I'll disagree. The god is the same. The associated practices and which practice takes precedence is what varies. More to the point, ask a Muslim if he believes in God? But it is a monotheistic religion. They believe in one god. An example, certain Islamic fundamentalist groups hate us because we don't follow Allah. But our PoA and currency both clearly state that we are under "God". So, do they believe in "God"? No. If you define "God" as the all-powerful, omniscient god OF THE CHRISTIANS. Do they believe in "God"? Yes. There is no God but Allah. This discussion would be a lot easier if the Christians had a name for their god other than "God". So, asking someone if s/he believes in "God" is not enough to distinguish whether s/he is Muslim, Christian or Jew. Since that's the word in question, I think it a more relevant question as to whether the capitalized English term of God is exclusively associated with the Christian religion. The TERM is not. Just as "Jesus" is NOT exclusively associated with the Christian "Son of God". The interpretation of the capitalized word God is a subjective term. True. In a limited sense. Now, do you believe that Ike was refering to the god of the Muslims when he endorsed that change? Or do you believe he was refering to the god of the Christians? Just as having a sign that said "Jesus" in every classroom MIGHT be considered to be refering to some Mexican kid so it isn't "religious". My presumption is all three would agree that they believe in God (capitalized or not). Yes, they would. And there's a Mexican woman who says she loves Jesus. Of course, she means her son. And there's another woman who says she loves Jesus. She's the daughter-in-law of the first woman. And lots of ministers on TV talk about how they love Jesus. Yet each person means something different. But they all use the same words. My point is that, yes, you can stretch the words and build elabourate situations where it COULD mean something else. But it means what it was meant as. The god of the Christians. In this case, the terminology (including the capitalization) is acceptable to almost any monotheistic religion. If you split the terminology from the situation, yes, you're right. But that terminology in this situation does NOT refer to Allah or Yahweh or Zorastor or anyone but the god of the Christians. They can state the pledge without accepting the ultimate validity of each others religion. Yes. They can believe what they want to believe about what they're saying. Mental masturbation. By that same token, an atheist could say those words and, since there is no "God", saying that we are a nation under "God" is meaningless and therefore, free of any baggage. But it doesn't work like that. Just as the Eastern Orthodox, Catholic and Evangelical Christians can agree that they believe in Jesus, but disagree (sometimes violently) what it actually means to believe in the same. But I believe in Jesus. I've met him. I know where he lives. And someone can ask me if Jesus is cool and I can say "Yeah, Jesus is cool". Context. So you claim. Yes, God means one thing to Christians and quite another to Muslims. Yes. That is my claim. And I have yet to see anyone provide any support that Ike meant anything else. Now, what any theoretical person can bring himself to believe when uttering those words, the fact that people have a problem with swapping "Allah" for "God" provides enough support for my position. Yes, it would be using a word from another language. So what? It's not like it will be the FIRST time we've done so.
Post #43,857 by Ashton 6/28/02 9:08:28 PM Reply	I think it's as obvious as, what is meant when a Fundamentalist mouths the phrase, 'we' Love the sinner but Hate the sin. Yes, all can see that there is a theoretical 'difference' implicit: yet Acts speak Louder (and the judgmentalism is evident in any case) - and, we see the dripping sarcasm and hatred in the Believers' recitations. And sometimes in their fatal 'actions'. Shall we ignore Body Language too? Whatever the cavilling over nuance, and given the fact that even the word 'nuance' is apt to go way Overhead when used in a sentence today: This is STILL the Evident breach of any Wall of Separation intended: to keep All religious codewords out of Civil operations. Even token ones which imply a "Nation of Believers". THAT - the 'USA' ain't and never was. Ashton

Welcome to IWETHEY!