Who Is Allah?

Who Is Allah?

There are 256295 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.

bmz

Since: Mar 08

Location hidden

#172936 Apr 22, 2013
STEFANO COLONNA wrote:
<quoted text>
But even I take the premise you made, which carry straw man argument because you cannot arrive to conclude by it that Allah isn't an absurd god, then I still don't see how faith plus his approach make pass Allah for a "valid god", if I can use that expression.

My claim of god being absurd is dervied after the main source that in that case was Quran. So yes ALSO bmz's god is absurd. He said a man cannot be god, so god is not anthropomorphic, but at the same time he believes in an anthropopatic god. Though the difference is little one cannot reject an anthropomorphic god (Yeshua) and accept without problem the existence of an anthropopatic god (Allah).

It's not the oneness of god that make the idea of god clearer or valid.

His approach is rude and fruitless when it comes to arrive to make points. I due to suggest to him to prove the fallacy of Christian doctrine by pointing out their proof, found in the Gospels, against Christians themselves, rather than making affermations backed up by nothing but his words.

Not to speak of his approach with Hadiths where he rejects them labeling to as tales when is more convenient but endorse them when he wants. Is also this approach clear?
Shamma and bmz are on the same level.
How can you say that I believe in an anthropopathic God? That was absurd!

And how could you accept that Yeshua was an anthropomorphic God?

God Almighty is neither anthropopathic nor anthropomorphic.

These terms were coined by philosophers in the 16th Century for various pagan deities.

" The conception of these deities was anthropopathic, in their motives and passions they were more powerful and more perfect men, they had a human body and a human countenance, human thoughts and feelings, they resided in the clouds or on a high mountain; they dwelt in a heavenly palace.”

I only see you and Joel using those words foolishly in discussions.

My approach is right for folks like your good self and Shamma. You make rude and vain statements and expect me to be courteous to you?

You know nothing about Hadith and neither Qur'aan. Hadith is not our Scripture, Qur'aan is.

Hadith is classified in the following manner:

1. Correct or true

2. Wrong and not true

3. Not reliable

4. Authentic

5. Weak or defective

And so on.

So, I reject those, which have been classified by the scholars of Islam as not reliable, untrustworthy, weak, defective, etc.

The New Testament is exactly like Hadith but in the New Testament, right, wrong, weak, defective and untrustworthy accounts are all considered true. That is why I consider the gospels as mothers of all grand confusions.
bmz

Since: Mar 08

Location hidden

#172937 Apr 22, 2013
JOEL wrote:
,Al Qaeda is a front of international intel agencies. BMZ comes across as a crypto-Jew. He has no class, no intelligence, no ethics, no conscience and no money.
lol! Upstart!
bmz

Since: Mar 08

Location hidden

#172938 Apr 22, 2013
Shamma wrote:
<quoted text>What do you have to offer?
The Muslim Allah god of Israel?
The Boston bombers?
The Muslim Brother Hood?
Just what do you have to offer?
Oh, you did it. I hope Stefano does read your response.

Good night, Drone!

Since: Apr 11

Location hidden

#172939 Apr 22, 2013
Frijoles wrote:
<quoted text>
But I dont see BMZ spamming anybody. I see him reacting to the nonsense. Whether that is a worthwhile endeavor is arguable, I agree. But there is a world of difference in motive.
My motive is to point out that taking the right of freedom away, raping, robbing, censor ship and killing innocent people for an false god and a false prophet is evil, and that unjustly killing anyone is evil.

Every one has a right to worship or not to worship God, but no one has the right to use God or any group of people as a wedge for oppressing the human rights of others.
JOEL

India

#172940 Apr 22, 2013
If Allah is neither anthropathic nor anthropomorphic then why does the demonic Baal El (Allah) have 99 human-like attributes and how is it that he is said to sit on a throne in an extra-cosmic heaven?

So, if this demon, Allah, is neither anthropopathic nor anthromorphic then is it a fictitious creationist being? LOL.
JOEL

India

#172941 Apr 22, 2013
Moses, Muhammad and Mao are 3 of the most vicious fruitcakes in the annals of history. They were incarnated demons.

Since: Apr 11

Location hidden

#172942 Apr 22, 2013
bmz wrote:
<quoted text>
Oh, you did it. I hope Stefano does read your response.
Good night, Drone!
Frijolie offers nothing but dissent against the human rights of others.
Frijolie and you BMZ uses social justice in a backward sense to create social injustice.

The moral values of Islam is tainted with blood from the unjust murdering of innocent people.
Good night idiot.

“Legumes of the World Unite ”

Since: Sep 11

Location hidden

#172943 Apr 22, 2013
Shamma wrote:
<quoted text>Like setting off bombs in Boston for Allah.
Are you accusing BMZ of terrorism?

“Legumes of the World Unite ”

Since: Sep 11

Location hidden

#172944 Apr 22, 2013
STEFANO COLONNA wrote:
<quoted text>
But even I take the premise you made, which carry straw man argument because you cannot arrive to conclude by it that Allah isn't an absurd god, then I still don't see how faith plus his approach make pass Allah for a "valid god", if I can use that expression.
My claim of god being absurd is dervied after the main source that in that case was Quran. So yes ALSO bmz's god is absurd. He said a man cannot be god, so god is not anthropomorphic, but at the same time he believes in an anthropopatic god. Though the difference is little one cannot reject an anthropomorphic god (Yeshua) and accept without problem the existence of an anthropopatic god (Allah).
It's not the oneness of god that make the idea of god clearer or valid.
His approach is rude and fruitless when it comes to arrive to make points. I due to suggest to him to prove the fallacy of Christian doctrine by pointing out their proof, found in the Gospels, against Christians themselves, rather than making affermations backed up by nothing but his words.
Not to speak of his approach with Hadiths where he rejects them labeling to as tales when is more convenient but endorse them when he wants. Is also this approach clear?
Shamma and bmz are on the same level.
Again - you are confusing your arguments.

If you want to argue from the perspective of atheism - yes, all religion is absurd

But if you want to examine the internal logic - religion is based on faith. That is not absurd, that is a premise.

BMZ is monotheistic - by internal logic that makes more sense than arguing that ones polytheistic religion (Christianity) is monotheistic. The internal logic of the latter position is absurd.

Re" Hadiths - my understanding is that he holds them in the same status as us Jews hold the midrash. He is free to choose his premises, and I as a Jew, I dont see anything extraordinary about his position.

Re" rudeness - you yourself recently commented that there was nothing wrong with rudeness.

“Legumes of the World Unite ”

Since: Sep 11

Location hidden

#172945 Apr 22, 2013
Shamma wrote:
<quoted text>What do you have to offer?
The Muslim Allah god of Israel?
The Boston bombers?
The Muslim Brother Hood?
Just what do you have to offer?
What do I have to offer? That is a broad question. In what area?

Why does it matter anyhow. No matter what I say you will reply you are right and I am wrong, and that I am going to hell and it is all the Jews fault..;..

“Legumes of the World Unite ”

Since: Sep 11

Location hidden

#172946 Apr 22, 2013
Shamma wrote:
<quoted text>Frijolie offers nothing but dissent against the human rights of others.
Frijolie and you BMZ uses social justice in a backward sense to create social injustice.
The moral values of Islam is tainted with blood from the unjust murdering of innocent people.
Good night idiot.
GOod night? Where do you live? In the east coast it is 430 pm.

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#172947 Apr 22, 2013
bmz wrote:
<quoted text>
How can you say that I believe in an anthropopathic God? That was absurd!
And how could you accept that Yeshua was an anthropomorphic God?
God Almighty is neither anthropopathic nor anthropomorphic.
These terms were coined by philosophers in the 16th Century for various pagan deities.
" The conception of these deities was anthropopathic, in their motives and passions they were more powerful and more perfect men, they had a human body and a human countenance, human thoughts and feelings, they resided in the clouds or on a high mountain; they dwelt in a heavenly palace.”
I only see you and Joel using those words foolishly in discussions.
My approach is right for folks like your good self and Shamma. You make rude and vain statements and expect me to be courteous to you?
You know nothing about Hadith and neither Qur'aan. Hadith is not our Scripture, Qur'aan is.
Hadith is classified in the following manner:
1. Correct or true
2. Wrong and not true
3. Not reliable
4. Authentic
5. Weak or defective
And so on.
So, I reject those, which have been classified by the scholars of Islam as not reliable, untrustworthy, weak, defective, etc.
The New Testament is exactly like Hadith but in the New Testament, right, wrong, weak, defective and untrustworthy accounts are all considered true. That is why I consider the gospels as mothers of all grand confusions.
Allah is not an anthropopatic god? And then you complain Shamma, when you came out like that?

That word comes from two Greek words anthropos and pathos where the first one means man and the latter means suffering, feeling, emotion and calamity. In other words human feelings. Now do you deny your god hasn't human feelings, like anger, revenge, love and so on?

As for Hadiths give me the name of them who are considered trustworthy, strong and reliable. I will read them and point out all their flaws, but I'm sure you won't give me any name.

When you say: "Hadith is not our Scripture, Qur'aan is." Are you using 'our' as plural majestic or are you referring to the Muslim community? Because of it is the first one, then you and few others reject the Hadiths, but they are still part of Islam. You have created your own Islam version that I should ask to give the name of your own sect, but If you meant the second one, as I said before, they are still part of Islam.

Since: Apr 11

Location hidden

#172948 Apr 22, 2013
Frijoles wrote:
<quoted text>
I agree. Shamma is the one trying to impose his fantasy belief system on others. It is a false equivalence to consider your side or my side as equal in motives.
However, Scholar does make a valid point. It is kind of fruitless to argue religion with a fruitcake.
You are absolutely wrong.
What is your side and BMZ side?
Is it not you and BMZ intentions Frijolie to destroy the human dignity of human beings?
How is BMZ's devaluing of human life set above the respect for human life?

“Legumes of the World Unite ”

Since: Sep 11

Location hidden

#172949 Apr 22, 2013
STEFANO COLONNA wrote:
<quoted text>

BTW according to what is written in the Torah, a book you dare not to criticize, exist many gods.
You have interesting ideas that are generally not accepted by those whose base their religion (Judaism) on the interpretation of the torah. therefore, despite your views being interesting, they are not very relevant to anybody that actually practices the religion.

“Legumes of the World Unite ”

Since: Sep 11

Location hidden

#172950 Apr 22, 2013
Shamma wrote:
<quoted text>You are absolutely wrong.
What is your side and BMZ side?
Is it not you and BMZ intentions Frijolie to destroy the human dignity of human beings?
How is BMZ's devaluing of human life set above the respect for human life?
Its classic SHAMMA to impute a negative motive.

I dont have a side. I am not here to proselytize.

I exist to correct, to poke fun, and to have fun.
JOEL

India

#172951 Apr 22, 2013
Ignorant fanatic.

LOL.
JOEL

India

#172952 Apr 22, 2013
Torah is trash.

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#172953 Apr 22, 2013
Frijoles wrote:
<quoted text>
Again - you are confusing your arguments.
If you want to argue from the perspective of atheism - yes, all religion is absurd
And this comment comes from an already confused person. I was not carry out any atheistic position, neither I was debating with religious folks about their evidence. My point was both of them are the two faces of the same coin.

At a certain point you popped in giving your straw man argument, to then accusing me to bring a atheistic prespective. If this is your contribution then better if you shut your ignorant mouth.
Frijoles wrote:
<quoted text>But if you want to examine the internal logic - religion is based on faith. That is not absurd, that is a premise.
A premise you made up, since it was not my argument. Now I'm wondering what kind of internal logic you are talking about when you speak about faith.
Frijoles wrote:
<quoted text>BMZ is monotheistic - by internal logic that makes more sense than arguing that ones polytheistic religion (Christianity) is monotheistic. The internal logic of the latter position is absurd.
But Christianity is polytheistic. They say god manifested itself into three "persons". The Joel's example (H2O) is crystal clear to even a confused person, but you.
Frijoles wrote:
<quoted text>Re" Hadiths - my understanding is that he holds them in the same status as us Jews hold the midrash. He is free to choose his premises, and I as a Jew, I dont see anything extraordinary about his position.
Well if you are sure that both of you hold the same position on that matter and agree on being hypocrite, then I don't need to make a debate. I just let you be yourself.
Frijoles wrote:
<quoted text>Re" rudeness - you yourself recently commented that there was nothing wrong with rudeness.
There is nothing wrong with it, if what one says is reporting the truth, but bmz is name calling for no reason, nor he justifies it. Then there is something wrong.
JOEL

India

#172954 Apr 22, 2013
Faith that's devoid of logic, experience, realization and objective proof counts for nothing and is as steril.e and impotent as a fairy tale.
JOEL

India

#172955 Apr 22, 2013
Faith that results in fanaticsm, irrationality, parochialism, prejudice and ignorance is delusional.

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 The war on Christmas (Dec '10) Jul 18 John 4,952
News Harrogate mother says foster families are relig... (Nov '15) Jul 16 aunt jamama 53
Do you know where you will spend eternity? Jul 14 JacquelineDeane55 1
News Woman Explains Why She Kept 100 Dead Cats in He... (Jun '10) Jul 8 Zipp 3
News Athiest tells high schoolers God is evil (May '11) Jul 7 unserve satan 8199 844
Midnight Man Madness Jun 30 just sayin 3
News Why Atheism Will Replace Religion (Aug '12) May '17 John 14,736
More from around the web