A proposal by a Roman Catholic bishop in the Netherlands that people of all faiths refer to God as "Allah" is not sitting well with the Catholic community.
Tiny Muskens, an outgoing bishop who is retiring in a few weeks from the southern diocese of Breda, said God doesn't care what he is called.
"Allah is a very beautiful word for God. Shouldn't we all say that from now on we will name God Allah? ... What does God care what we call him? It is our problem," Muskens told Dutch television.
"I'm sure his intentions are good but his theology needs a little fine-tuning," said Father Jonathan Morris, a Roman Catholic priest based in Rome. Morris, a news analyst for FOX News Channel, also called the idea impractical.
"Words and names mean things," Morris said. "Referring to God as Allah means something."
They sure do, and God and Allah are not just interchangeable. The suggestion is quite stunning in that it presumes that names aren't all that important. The name Allah is extremely important in Islam, and the God of the Bible reveals Himself through the names He uses, especially in the Old Testament. Attention to the details makes it quite obvious that Allah and God aren't interchangeable.
Tolerance and pluralism are premised on respecting differences, not expecting some to sacrifice critical distinctions in what they believe.
As with most statements, much depends on "what do you mean by that?" Muskins is free to call God by whatever name suits his fancy, but if by calling God, "Allah", he is intending to make a connection between the God of the Bible and the god of the Koran, then Chrisians, Jews, and Muslims are all going to disagree with him (and rightly so). If this is a move to "make nice" with Muslims, it isn't going to work -- Muslims aren't any more wooed by this idea than are Christians and Jews.
This is similar to when post-moderns give a new definition for "truth" (one in which there is no objective nature to the definition). If they want to pour that (subjective) meaning into the word "truth", then there must simply be a new word used that entails (by definition) the notion of "objective truth", and then what has really been accomplished? They haven't defeated the *idea* of objective truth by merely hijacking the word.
Posted by: Paul A | August 15, 2007 at 04:32 PM
I say we start calling Tiny Muskens...Stalin. After all, it's just a name. I wonder how he would react to that kind of thing.
Posted by: Louis Kuhelj | August 15, 2007 at 05:07 PM
"Tiny Muskens, an outgoing bishop who is retiring in a few weeks from the southern diocese of Breda, said God doesn't care what he is called"
Yeah and lets go offer a strange fire before him also.
Brad
Posted by: Brad | August 15, 2007 at 06:39 PM
The Roman authority structure really has no place for a bishop like that, and they have the tools to immediately rebuke such foolishness, which hardly merits argumentation. One week Rome is affirmed by the Pope as the only true church, the next Allah is a beautiful name for God.
DUHHHH!
(Sorry, but that is an age old rhetorical device I cannot say goodbye to - it alliterates a sort of tacit awareness of the profoundly stupid that we all have!)
Posted by: Patrick, Holland, MA | August 16, 2007 at 06:03 AM
I agree with Louis. Shouldn't we all call Tiny Muskins, "Tiny Muskrat" and see how he feels. What does Muskin care what we call him? It is our problem.
And also, why Allah? Whats wrong with the name Yahweh? Why not refer to God as Satan and refer to Satan as God? I believe this is a poor move to "make nice" with Muslims.
Posted by: Alexis Ch- | August 16, 2007 at 06:55 AM
It’s so tiresome to always hear about how something within Christianity or the Church ‘doesn’t really matter’ or that “what does God care” as long as we praise him, spread the Good News, etc.
Whether it’s calling God “Allah” or an Episcopal priest being both Christian and Muslim (Seattle Times story) or some in the Emergent Church warping up things at times; a very important question needs to be asked:
If certain things are so arbitrary; then why the strong need to change them?
Perhaps a Ring of Hope would look better than a Cross above a church alter?
Posted by: Kevin W | August 16, 2007 at 08:44 AM
I have to say that I believe the revelation given in the Bible to be against nominalism.
If we are to believe the text of Exodus as it is presented today, then when God is asked his name he doesn't reply with a name like "Bob" or "Larry" but rather he says "I am who I am." God rejected a simple label in the naming of himself choosing instead to make a statement about his self existence and immutability, which, to say the least, is far more meaningful than some empty label.
What I must ask is: What practical reasons are there for so vehemently proposing or opposing "Allah?" Does anyone on this blog know what Christian Arabic speakers call God in Arabic? I am told that in Arabic "Allah" is used to indicate the same God of the Christians. If this is true, and may I stand correct before an Arabic speaker if it is not, then, in translation "God" = "Allah."
What I believe one may object to is an effort to force a change in the language upon a group of people who speak that language, particularly in a word so central to their thought and everyday discussions.
As for names acceptable to God, one can find many. There are titles bestowed upon or claimed by God throughout the Bible. Muslims too have many names/title for God and I think that the translation of these are quite agreeable to most Christians.
Personally, I think that we should use more names for God; these might help explain who he is and serve as a more frequent reminder.
For Bible names of God go to:
http://www.ldolphin.org/Names.html
Reference also the 99 names of Allah.
Lastly, before anyone fires back at me for what I have not said, the God of the Bible and the God of the Koran are not the same because they have different relationships with others.
Posted by: Alvin | August 16, 2007 at 06:43 PM
I have some really good Muslim friends and when use the term "Allah" they have something very specifc in mind. If Bishop Muskens means the same thing when he says "Allah" as my Arab, Afghan and Bosnian friends, then we have a problem.
What they mean when they say "Allah" is a being who is described in the Koran. He prescribes a specific set of beliefs and behaviors for his followers. These are not consonant with Christian beliefs or behaviors.
For example, Christians believe that Jesus is God incarnate (John 8:58 & 10:30, Titus 2:10 et alia). In the Koran 5:17, Allah's prophet (Mohammed) forbade claiming that Jesus is divine or is God's Son. Christians and Muslims cannot both be right. One of them is right and the other is wrong. How can "God" and "Allah" be the same if they teach two diametrically opposed views of Jesus?
In 4:47, Mohammed quotes Allah to the skeptical Christians and Jews were refused to convert, saying, "You to whom the Scriptures were given! Believe in that which we have revealed, confirming your own Scriptures, before we obliterate your faces and turn them backward, or lay or curse on you." In 9:29 he tells his followers to "Fight against such of those to whom the Scriptures were given as believe in God...who do not forbid what God and his Apostle have forbidden, and do not embrace the true faith unil they pay tribute out of hand and are utterly subdued." I'm sorry, but with all due respect to the bishop, this is foreign to the ethic of Jesus, who never recommended making war on people to make them embrace the Gospel or forcing those wo do not share our beliefs to pay specific taxes (see the Sermon on the Mount). They both cannot be right. To say that they are both the same is nonsensical.
These are not isolated verses from the Koran. The idea of making war on the infidels is a common Koranic theme.
For example:
1. 3:141 - "test the faithful and annihilate the infidels." Also see 8:12-13 - "Smite off thir heads. Strike off their finger-tips...because they defied God and his Apostle."
2. 4:104 - "seek out the enemy relentlessly"
3. 4:74 - "Fight in the cause of God"
4. The Koran even mentions the plunder taken in war: 48:20-21 - "God promised you rich booty and has given you this with all promptness...and God knows of other spoils you have not taken,"
5. 59:7 - "The spoils taken from the town dwellers and assigned by God to his Apostle shall belong to God, to the Apostle... Whatever the Apostle gives you, accept it. And whatever he forbids you, abstain from it."
6. Note also 5:38 - "As for the man or woman who is guilty of theft, cut off their hands to punish them for their crimes" However, raiding homes is apparently encouraged: 24:29 - "There shall be no harm in you entering houses ...for the supply of your needs."
Jesus never advocated making war on those who do not belief in Him. The fact that those in history who claimed to know Jesus did such a thing shows their unfamiliarity with His word and message. The stark differences between the two could not be more pronounced.
If Muskens means the same thing as Muslims when he uses the term "Allah," then he simply does not understand the implications of it or he does not care. Alternatively, devote Muslims will probably note that he does not mean that same thing that they mean when they use this term and will probably take umbrage to his use of it. Either way it is a losing proposition that lacks intellectual substance.
Posted by: Michael Buratovich | August 16, 2007 at 09:10 PM
'If we are to believe the text of Exodus as it is presented today, then when God is asked his name he doesn't reply with a name like "Bob" or "Larry"'
...or Junior Asparagus? :-)
In "Answering Islam" by Geisler and Saleeb, I believe the authors say that some Arabic Christians refer to God as "Allah." I.e., sometimes "Allah" is just the Arabic translation of the English word "God."
So it obviously matters what you intend with the word when you use it.
Unfortunately, what people are generally unlikely to learn in this exchange is the difference in theology between Christians and Muslims regarding the nature (or the lack thereof) of God. The aforementioned book is helpful in this regard.
I'd also like to get Alan Shlemon's notes and mp3 on Islam recently advertised by STR. I was all set to purchase them, in fact, but the website doesn't take Amex (and I didn't have my Visa card handy). Ah well...
Posted by: Cliff Mather | August 17, 2007 at 09:44 AM
Not once do you find the word Allah in the Bible scriptures as Gods' name. If we are going to call Him a sweet endearment choose somthing related to His character. As our Moms sometimes call us "sweethearts".I know He says There is no Other God not even a metaphor,or clone of himself. I am Who Am =GOD....God loves us all..... God bless us All
Posted by: penny | August 24, 2007 at 12:32 PM
"God" is an English word, and the word "God" does not appear in a Hebrew Bible (The Hebrew word is "El"). "Allah" is an Arabic word which means "God," and I think it does appear in Arabic translations of the Christian Bible. See the first paragraph of this Wikipedia article for more information:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allah
I don't think it matters which word you use to refer to God.
To carry the conversation further, is the person Muslims refer to as "Allah" the same person that Christians refer to as "God"? Well, Muslims believe that Allah is the one true God, the all-powerful Creator of the universe, and the God of Abraham. Christians agree with Muslims on all of these points. There is only one God who meets this criteria. I believe that God and Allah are the same person, although, as a Christian, I disagree with Muslim theology in many major areas. As a member of one denomination, I disagree in some ways with the theology of Christians from other denominations, but I believe we all worship the same God.
Just to be clear, I believe it takes more than an acknowledgment that God exists and should be worshiped to be saved. Faith in Christ is necessary.
Posted by: Ben | September 20, 2007 at 06:31 AM