Who Is Allah?

Who Is Allah?

There are 256616 comments on the The Brussels Journal story from Aug 24, 2007, titled Who Is Allah?. In it, The Brussels Journal reports that:

“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?”

From the desk of Soeren Kern on Fri, 2007-08-24 11:56 Europeans love to mock the salience of religion in American society. via The Brussels Journal

Join the discussion below, or Read more at The Brussels Journal.

Buford

Scott Depot, WV

#156997 Dec 31, 2012
bmz wrote:
Tell me Buford, why would the Romans take his clean garments, which he was wearing for two days or may be more?
Braindead Muslim Zealot,

Because they could.
rabbee yehoshooah adam

Denver, CO

#156998 Dec 31, 2012
Buford wrote:
<quoted text>I heard from a reliable source that it was a flying carpet that Abraham used to visit his relatives in Mecca and even in Ur.
rabbee: only because it looks funny, when any person flies without a personal car-pet.
Buford

Scott Depot, WV

#156999 Dec 31, 2012
bmz wrote:
How can you believe in that bullshit of four Roman soldiers dividing a condemned man's clothes and the fifth grabbed his tunic? Absolutely hilarious!
Braindead Muslim Zealot,

"Then the soldiers, when they had crucified Jesus, took His garments and made four parts, to each soldier a part, and also the tunic. Now the tunic was WITHOUT SEAM, woven from the top in one piece. They said therefore among themselves, "Let us not tear it, but cast lots for it, whose it shall be," that the Scripture might be fulfilled which says:

"They divided My garments among them, and for My clothing they cast lots."

"Therefore the soldiers did these things." (John 19:23-24)
Buford

Scott Depot, WV

#157000 Dec 31, 2012
Psalm 22:18 They divide my garments among them and cast lots for my clothing.
Buford

Scott Depot, WV

#157001 Dec 31, 2012
"Absolutely hilarious!" ~Braindead Muslim Zealot, Who Knows What Constitutes Absolute Hilarity
Buford

Scott Depot, WV

#157002 Dec 31, 2012
But wait! If "every gospel is a forgery," as Braindead Muslim Zealot avers, then where is the original "gospel" that served as the basis for the forgeries?

Let me guess! The "original gospel" was revealed to Mohammad by Jibreel, and he in turn revealed it to his scribes, who in turn recorded it on bits and scraps of things that would eventually be compiled by Caliph Uthman and produced as the one and only infallible Qur'an!!!

Am I a good guesser, or what?
Buford

Scott Depot, WV

#157003 Dec 31, 2012
CORRECTION:

But wait! If "EACH gospel is a forgery," as Braindead Muslim Zealot avers, then where is the original "gospel" that served as the basis for the forgeries?

Since: Dec 12

Location hidden

#157011 Dec 31, 2012
MUQ wrote:
Excerpts from the Gospel of Barnabas, Part-21
Chapter 42: Testimony of Jesus
..Wherefore they sent the Levites and some of the scribes to question him, saying: "Who are you?"
Jesus confessed, and said the truth: "I am not the Messiah." They said: "Are you Elijah or Jeremiah, or any of the ancient prophets?" Jesus answered: "No." Then said they: "Who are you? Say, in order that we may give testimony to those who sent us." Then Jesus said: "I am a voice that cries through all Judea, and cries: "Prepare you the way for the messenger of the Lord," even as it is written in Isaiah."
They said: "If you be not the Messiah nor Elijah, or any prophet, wherefore do you preach new doctrine, and make yourself of more account than the Messiah?" Jesus answered: "The miracles which God works by my hands show that I speak that which God wills; nor indeed do I make myself to be accounted as him of whom you speak. For I am not worthy to unloose the ties of the hosen or the ratchets of the shoes of the Messenger of God whom you call "Messiah," who was made before me, and shall come after me, and shall bring the words of truth, so that his faith shall have no end."
And having said this, Jesus departed and went to the mount Tabor, and there ascended with him Peter ;and James ;and John his brother, with him who writes this. Whereupon there shone a great light above him, and his garments became white like snow and his face glistened as the sun;, and lo! there came Moses and Elijah; speaking with Jesus concerning all that needs must come upon our race and upon the holy city
Note: Transfiguration of Jesus is as mentioned in other Gospel, but John puts the word spoken by Jesus to John the Baptist. There is a clear discrepancy here-MUQ
Chapter 43
.. Then said Andrew: "You have told us many things of the Messiah, therefore of your kindness tell us clearly all." And in like manner the other disciples besought him.
Accordingly Jesus said: "Everyone that works, works for an end in which he finds satisfaction. Wherefore I say to you that God, truly because he is perfect, has not need of satisfaction, seeing that he has satisfaction himself. And so, willing to work, he created before all things the soul of his Messenger, for whom he determined to create the whole, in order that the creatures should find joy and blessedness in God, whence his Messenger should take delight in all his creatures, which he has appointed to be his slaves. And wherefore is this, so save because thus he has willed?
Freakshow, no one reads your crap. If we want, we go to the bible or Koran. Who are YOU TO DICTATE OUR THOUGHTS????? You must have a Freak family as well.
uhuh

Orense, Spain

#157015 Dec 31, 2012
see the lost Aramaic gospel in Hebrew script "which is called by many the Matthaei authenticum" (Jerome)

if that was the authentic Matthew, then the one we have today must be the fake Matthew lol
bmz

Since: Mar 08

Location hidden

#157016 Dec 31, 2012
Buford wrote:
<quoted text>Braindead Muslim Zealot,

"Then the soldiers, when they had crucified Jesus, took His garments and made four parts, to each soldier a part, and also the tunic. Now the tunic was WITHOUT SEAM, woven from the top in one piece.

They said therefore among themselves, "Let us not tear it, but cast lots for it, whose it shall be," that the Scripture might be fulfilled which says: "They divided My garments among them, and for My clothing they cast lots."

"Therefore the soldiers did these things." (John 19:23-24)
This not only gets absurd but it gets more hilarious and un believable.

Let me show you. "They said therefore among themselves," refers to the Roman soldiers. Right?

Of course , right! Now you cannot deny this fact, which you presented.

What scripture were the Romans getting fulfilled? They had no scripture and they had nothing to get fulfilled. See how absurd that report is?

Were those Roman soldiers Jews?
bmz

Since: Mar 08

Location hidden

#157017 Dec 31, 2012
Buford wrote:
Psalm 22:18 They divide my garments among them and cast lots for my clothing.
This dividing of garments and casting lots for clothes is taken by Christendom literally and that is foolish.

"To divide somebody's garments among others", simply meant that the invaders, who won, looted and shared the property and wealth of the vanquished, which is known as booty or spoils of war.

No one made David naked by taking his clothes away.

The so-called scripture, in our view, was not fulfilled at all, because the Romans had still not taken his underwear or briefs.
bmz

Since: Mar 08

Location hidden

#157018 Dec 31, 2012
Buford wrote:
"Absolutely hilarious!" ~Braindead Muslim Zealot, Who Knows What Constitutes Absolute Hilarity
This, which you wrote and quoted, causes the Absolute Hilarity:

""Then the soldiers, when they had crucified Jesus, took His garments and made four parts, to each soldier a part, and also the tunic. Now the tunic was WITHOUT SEAM, woven from the top in one piece. They said therefore among themselves, "Let us not tear it, but cast lots for it, whose it shall be," that the Scripture might be fulfilled which says:

"They divided My garments among them, and for My clothing they cast lots."

"Therefore the soldiers did these things." "

Isn't it hilarious to see the Romans fulfilling the Scripture of Jews?

Or would you like to change it to the Kewish soldiers?
bmz

Since: Mar 08

Location hidden

#157019 Dec 31, 2012
Correction, Buford

The last line should read:

Or would you like to change it to the Jewish soldiers?

Thanks

Since: Dec 12

Location hidden

#157020 Dec 31, 2012
MUQ wrote:
<quoted text>
You read it and commentated on it!! Who is freak now? you or me?
ABSOLUTELY YOU..........The more words doesn't work here freak. More words doesn't make it truth freak. You are an imbecile freakshow with nothing but worthless words......... You are uneducated because it takes you 30 times the words to get things out. You are a freak of nature......all of us recipients agree. Just die.....please die.
bmz

Since: Mar 08

Location hidden

#157021 Dec 31, 2012
Mahmood wrote:
<quoted text>
Your problem is that you have gotten yourself in a quagmire, and don't know how to get out of it. And then you are lying by saying that you have history on Mo prior to Ben Issac - bulls&hit!! You have nothing. You have no names, no books, nothing. If were any, people would be writing and referring to it. Unfortunately for you, Ishaq is the earliest existing source information. Whether his narratives are true or not we dont know.

Why do you believe earlier sources and not Ishaq? All these years, you have been rejecting any material outside the Koran. I have asked you numerous times to name books and authors, and now you came up with some stupid link. Sigmud Frued is right about people like you. Men of religion are guilty of intellectual dishonesty and intellecutal misdemeanor - you sir happens to be one of them.

Happy New Year,
Mahmood.
No, not at all.

That is not my problem. It is your problem and the problem of those ignorant fools, who tell the world that there is no history on the Prophet, prior to that written by the idiot Ibn Ishaq.

You are on record for asserting that silly notion and keep on repeating that the history came only from an idiot who completed his work 130 years after the Prophet had passed away. Ibn Ishaq was a story-teller, not a scholar of Islam.

And you asked me a very silly question: "Why do you believe earlier sources and not Ishaq?"

How can I believe that fool, who just wrote unsubstantiated stories about creation, the battles, plagiarized Christian biblical stories to create his own stories, and quotes Ali, Hasan and others but not Abu Bakr, Umar and Uthman, etc.? Was he an early Shia?

His Seerah is not comprised of a single story based on facts which are verifiable through documents. Even your beloved scholar Patricia Crone completely rejects the Seerah as a
source for historical information for this reason. Even Robert Spencer considers his extremely work hagiographical like Christians.

Now, have you found the names of other writers who were there long before him? Why don't you believe in other sources, who wrote before him?
Buford

Scott Depot, WV

#157023 Dec 31, 2012
MUQ wrote:
PS:
It seems that my excerpts from Gospel of Barnabas, is causing pains in the insides of our friend Bufford!!
He is feeling pains inside his stomach and cannot digest his food unless he repeats (on this thread) at least ten times that GOB is a forgery!!
Now I know how those unbelievers would have felt when prophets of God were delivering to them the message of truth coming from God Almighty.
You can see his inner pain from every word he writes on this subject!!
MUQtard,

The problem is that you honestly do believe that the medieval Muslim forgery known as the "Gospel of Barnabas" is the truth, and why? Because it agrees with what that bloody fool of a "prophet" of yours cooked up more than six centuries after the events in question.

So, you go right ahead and continue posting line after line of "Barnabas," along with your running commentary, and I'll continue to point out that you are an idiot for believing something that is patently absurd and even blasphemous.

Case in point:(from http://www.answering-islam.org/Gilchrist/Chal... ) "The Gospel of Barnabas teaches that when Judas arrived with soldiers to arrest Jesus, God sent four angels to take Jesus out of the world into the third heaven while Judas "was so changed in speech and in face to be like Jesus" that Barnabas and the other disciples believed him to actually be Jesus (Gospel of Barnabas, para 216). Judas was duly crucified in his place."

No doubt this is why your Dr. Elsiaeiou believes in the Judas switcheroo, something that you hailed as "another miracle," even though it PROVES, if true, that "Allah" is a deceiver, not just of the disciples and Mary, but of the entire world.
Buford

Scott Depot, WV

#157024 Dec 31, 2012
bmz wrote:
<quoted text>
This dividing of garments and casting lots for clothes is taken by Christendom literally and that is foolish.
"To divide somebody's garments among others", simply meant that the invaders, who won, looted and shared the property and wealth of the vanquished, which is known as booty or spoils of war.
No one made David naked by taking his clothes away.
The so-called scripture, in our view, was not fulfilled at all, because the Romans had still not taken his underwear or briefs.
Braindead Muslim Zealot,

There you go again, PRESUMING something to be true about Jesus' "underwear or briefs" that you do not honestly know to be true. This is why I wrote earlier that you are so dishonest that you don't even know when you are lying.
Buford

Scott Depot, WV

#157025 Dec 31, 2012
P.S. The reason why "Barnabas" could create the Judas switcheroo scenario is because the infallible "prophet" of Islam made it possible!

http://quran.com/4/157

Sahih International
And [for] their saying, "Indeed, we have killed the Messiah, Jesus, the son of Mary, the messenger of Allah ." And they did not kill him, nor did they crucify him; but [another] was made to resemble him to them. And indeed, those who differ over it are in doubt about it. They have no knowledge of it except the following of assumption. And they did not kill him, for certain.
__________
Before "Barnabas the Muslim" settled the question, once and for all, about the one who "was made to resemble him to them," namely, Judas, Muslim scholars must have been "in (SERIOUS) doubt about it," having "no knowledge of it except the following of assumption."
Buford

Scott Depot, WV

#157026 Dec 31, 2012
http://www.answering-islam.org/Gilchrist/Chal...

The Messiah – Jesus or Muhammad?

John the Baptist denied that he was the Messiah when challenged by the Jewish leaders (John 1:20). The Gospel of Barnabas makes Jesus deny the same thing in much the same words:

Jesus confessed and said the truth:‘I am not the Messiah ... I am indeed sent to the house of Israel as a prophet of salvation; but after me shall come the Messiah’. Gospel of Barnabas, paras 42, 82

Who was to be the coming Messiah, then? Elsewhere the Gospel makes Jesus say "The name of the Messiah is Admirable ... God said: Wait Mohammed; for thy sake I will to create paradise ... Mohammed is his blessed name" (para 97). Here the author of the Gospel of Barnabas completely overreaches himself for the Qur’an clearly states, no less than eleven times, that Jesus alone is the Messiah. The Bible confirms this too on many occasions (John 4:26, Matthew 16:20) and one quotation from the Qur’an will be sufficient to prove the point:

O Mary! Lo! Allah gives you glad tidings of a Word from him, whose name is the Messiah, Jesus son of Mary, illustrious in the world and the hereafter. Surah 3:45

The title here is Al-Masih, "the Messiah", and Jesus himself is called Al-Masihu Isa, "the Messiah Jesus", elsewhere in the book (Surah 4:171). So the Gospel of Barnabas incontrovertibly contradicts the Qur’an when it declares that Muhammad was to be the Messiah. No Muslim can be true to his own holy book while at the same time trying to defend the Gospel of Barnabas as an authentic Gospel.
__________
So, the Gospel of Barnabas does NOT agree entirely with what the "prophet" of Islam cooked up.

I stand corrected.
bmz

Since: Mar 08

Location hidden

#157027 Dec 31, 2012
Buford wrote:
<quoted text>Braindead Muslim Zealot,
There you go again, PRESUMING something to be true about Jesus' "underwear or briefs" that you do not honestly know to be true. This is why I wrote earlier that you are so dishonest that you don't even know when you are lying.
Forget his underwear or brief. I was just trying to educate you, Buford.

Now read this, please:

This dividing of garments and casting lots for clothes is taken by Christendom literally and that is foolish.

"To divide somebody's garments among others" in Hebrew, simply meant that the invaders, who won, looted and shared the property and wealth of the vanquished, which is known as booty or spoils of war.

The term 'divided my garments' meant looting of property and wealth.

It was not a prophesy that had to be fulfilled by the Roman soldiers. Nobody took David's clothes away.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Pagan/Wiccan Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News Speaking of religion: Pagans stir a fuss in Beebe (Jun '14) Feb 28 guest 119
News Looking for a Pagan community in Kentucky? (Mar '12) Feb 27 Not a modern Chri... 15
News Man wins OK to wear goat horns in driver's lice... Feb 26 stalk this 19
News The war on Christmas (Dec '10) Feb '17 Eagle 12 4,947
omens of dead animals (Aug '08) Feb '17 Nicole Orsak 117
ecoven on Facebook. secret group free classes a... (Apr '14) Feb '17 Kcreoke 2
News 'Everyone will be Muslim because of our stupidi... Jan '17 Rabbeen Al Jihad 20
More from around the web