Who Is Allah?

Who Is Allah?

There are 230949 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.

Seeker

Lowell, MA

#181817 Jul 3, 2013
MUQ, here's what you said.

"I think Jesus did not love God with his heart, mind and body, neither did the chosen disciples of Jesus".

That's not trashing Jesus?

And how is anybody supposed to love somebody with their "body"? It's supposed to be soul, not body.

Deuteronomy 6
And you shall love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your might.

You just replaced soul with body because apparently Islam does not believe in the soul.
bmz

Since: Mar 08

Singapore

#181818 Jul 3, 2013
Shamma wrote:
<quoted text>It does not say wives.
1 wife. If she violates her wedding vowels and has sex with another other then her husband, the husband nay divorce her.
It is not multiple wives.
If the male has sex out side his marriage, the wife may divorce him.
Muhammad's religious law on marriage volatiles Gods law.
Muhammad violated Gods law by making his own laws.
According to the Quran, Muhammad was to follow the laws Jesus spoke of in the Gospels.
Allah said it is Jesus who came with the law.
"Behold! the angels said,'Oh Mary! God gives you glad tidings of a Word from Him. His name will be Christ Jesus, the son of Mary, held in honour in this world and the Hereafter, and in (the company of) those nearest to God. He shall speak to the people in childhood and in maturity. He shall be (in the company) of the righteous... And God will teach him the Book and Wisdom, the Law and the Gospel'" (3:45-48).
So it is Jesus and not Muhammad that Muslims are to follow.
No where else in the Quran does it say that God would teach Muhammad
the book and wisdom, the law and the Gospel.
So the book Muslims say is the Word of God is the Gospels taught by God to Jesus.
Totally off-topic like the writers of the New Testament. I wrote this in response to Matthew 19:9 and the other stuff which you quoted:

4 “Haven’t you read,” he replied,“that at the beginning the Creator ‘made them male and female,’[a] 5 and said,‘For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh’[b]? 6 So they are no longer two, but one flesh. Therefore what God has joined together, let no one separate.”

7 “Why then,” they asked,“did Moses command that a man give his wife a certificate of divorce and send her away?”

8 Jesus replied,“Moses permitted you to divorce your wives because your hearts were hard. But it was not this way from the beginning.

9 I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, and marries another woman commits adultery.”

Now read Matthew 19:9 again:

You fools quote us what you cannot understand yourself.

If you know how to read and comprehend, then you should know that Jesus also permitted divorcing a wife for sexual immorality. He qualified it soooooo well.

So, after the two become one flesh and one goes after another flesh and those two become one flesh unlawfully, then Jesus strongly recommends divorce.

Read V9 again, clueless fool!

The point is that Jesus was pro-divorce in case a man's wife had committed sexual immorality.

So, if a man divorced his wife on the basis of sexual immorality on her part, Jesus would have gladly issued a certificate of divorce by putting his thumb print.

Jesus gave no advice or solution for such a case. Qur'aan tells us how to deal in such cases and tells us to admonish such women and lecture them to behave well and improve their conduct. No straight divorce recommended by Jesus. Divorce only as a last resort.

In Matthew 19:9, the biblical Jesus supports the male chauvinists.
uhuh

Jumilla, Spain

#181819 Jul 3, 2013
G-d "emptied himself" (Phil 2:7) says Paul
i.e. gave up His divine nature from the birth to the resurrection of J-sus
voluntarily of course lol
uhuh

Jumilla, Spain

#181820 Jul 3, 2013
Paul the false prophet
covered his very rotten core teaching of: Christ is God over all (Rom 9:5) who took the form of a man (Phil 2:7)
with his whitewash plaster (Ezek 13:10) such as the 10 articles of love, "I wrote to you through many tears that you might know the deep love that I have for you" etc.

the crocodile tears of The Dark Prophet..
Seeker

Lowell, MA

#181821 Jul 3, 2013
bmz wrote:
<quoted text>
I never copy from others and paste. To copy and paste articles is something Christian. I write my own thoughts.
I did say not literally. Read it again. But you take it all out of someone elses playbook. This is why you don't know what to do when I offer you my interpretation of the matter of Jesus, because it's different than the standard interpretation and my interpretation isn't found in any Muslim, anti Christian playbook, even though I'm actually not the only person who sees the interpretation that I give.

Since: Apr 11

Location hidden

#181822 Jul 3, 2013
bmz wrote:
<quoted text>
Totally off-topic like the writers of the New Testament. I wrote this in response to Matthew 19:9 and the other stuff which you quoted:
4 “Haven’t you read,” he replied,“that at the beginning the Creator ‘made them male and female,’[a] 5 and said,‘For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh’[b]? 6 So they are no longer two, but one flesh. Therefore what God has joined together, let no one separate.”
7 “Why then,” they asked,“did Moses command that a man give his wife a certificate of divorce and send her away?”
8 Jesus replied,“Moses permitted you to divorce your wives because your hearts were hard. But it was not this way from the beginning.
9 I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, and marries another woman commits adultery.”
Now read Matthew 19:9 again:
You fools quote us what you cannot understand yourself.
If you know how to read and comprehend, then you should know that Jesus also permitted divorcing a wife for sexual immorality. He qualified it soooooo well.
So, after the two become one flesh and one goes after another flesh and those two become one flesh unlawfully, then Jesus strongly recommends divorce.
Read V9 again, clueless fool!
The point is that Jesus was pro-divorce in case a man's wife had committed sexual immorality.
So, if a man divorced his wife on the basis of sexual immorality on her part, Jesus would have gladly issued a certificate of divorce by putting his thumb print.
Jesus gave no advice or solution for such a case. Qur'aan tells us how to deal in such cases and tells us to admonish such women and lecture them to behave well and improve their conduct. No straight divorce recommended by Jesus. Divorce only as a last resort.
In Matthew 19:9, the biblical Jesus supports the male chauvinists.
No, No, No.
You are a demon hell.
Muhammad is a demon from hell.
The religion of the Muslims is a religion from hell.

The Quran proved Muslims are to follow Jesus and not Muhammad.
uhuh

Jumilla, Spain

#181823 Jul 3, 2013
The prophets who submitted (aslamu) judged the Jews by the Torah, and so too did the rabbis and the learned.
And let the people of Injil judge by what God has revealed in it.
For each of you We have made a Law and a Way of life.(Quran 5:44-48)

interesting

Since: Apr 11

Location hidden

#181824 Jul 3, 2013
uhuh wrote:
Paul the false prophet
covered his very rotten core teaching of: Christ is God over all (Rom 9:5) who took the form of a man (Phil 2:7)
with his whitewash plaster (Ezek 13:10) such as the 10 articles of love, "I wrote to you through many tears that you might know the deep love that I have for you" etc.
the crocodile tears of The Dark Prophet..
You are ignorant of the scripture in the Quran.
Muhammad is a demon from hell.
Muhammad's religion is from Satan.
That is what the Quran says UhUh.
Read it.
Muslims are to follow Jesus not Muhammad.
"Behold! the angels said,'Oh Mary! God gives you glad tidings of a Word from Him. His name will be Christ Jesus, the son of Mary, held in honour in this world and the Hereafter, and in (the company of) those nearest to God. He shall speak to the people in childhood and in maturity. He shall be (in the company) of the righteous... And God will teach him the Book and Wisdom, the Law and the Gospel'" (3:45-48).
Seeker

Lowell, MA

#181825 Jul 3, 2013
bmz wrote:
<quoted text>
Seeker, your explanation and your take means nothing. Jesus was NO manifestation of God on earth. Period.
That is not an answer and it does not point out any flaw in my interpretation, and I can use scriptures to back my interpretation up. The problem you have with it is that it DOES explain how Jesus could be seen as a physical manifestation of God on earth in that everything he did was not his will, but the will of God and therefore it was actually God acting THROUGH the physical form of Jesus to manifest himself in a tangible way, and yet he could also be considered Son of God (Jesus had no earthly, biological Father), and yet it can also be said that God is greater. I think it explains how all three things can be simultaneously said to be true. It's not my fault that nobody ever explained this angle to you and that it doesn't fit in the anti Christian playbook that you probably read.
Seeker

Lowell, MA

#181826 Jul 3, 2013
bmz wrote:
<quoted text>What ever absurd claims Christianity makes, Jesus HAS to be on record for saying that. And there is nothing from Jesus himself to substantiate those claims.
All you do is to try and wipe out and discredit any book or verse that DOES say these things. All of the discredit of John are admitted to merely be guesses by the historians themselves that make this claim. Not one single legitimate historian claims that they have actually proven anything against John and they admit that it's just their guess. And there are also many who defend the legitimacy of John, and you merely ignore that because they don't say what you want to hear.
bmz

Since: Mar 08

Singapore

#181827 Jul 3, 2013
Shamma wrote:
<quoted text>No, No, No.
You are a demon hell.
Muhammad is a demon from hell.
The religion of the Muslims is a religion from hell.
The Quran proved Muslims are to follow Jesus and not Muhammad.
Off-topic again.

I did not say this. It is your Jesus, who said, "I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, and marries another woman commits adultery.”

Here Jesus confirms that one can divorce his wife for sexual immorality. If she has not shwon any sexual immorality, then one cannot divorce the woman.

I did not write that. That demon Matthew wrote it when he was high on something..

Now read Matthew 19:9 again:
You fools quote us what you cannot understand yourself.
If you know how to read and comprehend, then you should know that Jesus also permitted divorcing a wife for sexual immorality. He qualified it soooooo well.
So, after the two become one flesh and one goes after another flesh and those two become one flesh unlawfully, then Jesus strongly recommends divorce.
Read V9 again, clueless fool!
The point is that Jesus was pro-divorce in case a man's wife had committed sexual immorality.
So, if a man divorced his wife on the basis of sexual immorality on her part, Jesus would have gladly issued a certificate of divorce by putting his thumb print.
Jesus gave no advice or solution for such a case. Qur'aan tells us how to deal in such cases and tells us to admonish such women and lecture them to behave well and improve their conduct. No straight divorce recommended by Jesus. Divorce only as a last resort.
In Matthew 19:9, the biblical Jesus supports the male chauvinists.
bmz

Since: Mar 08

Singapore

#181828 Jul 3, 2013
Shamma wrote:
"Behold! the angels said,'Oh Mary! God gives you glad tidings of a Word from Him. His name will be Christ Jesus, the son of Mary, held in honour in this world and the Hereafter, and in (the company of) those nearest to God. He shall speak to the people in childhood and in maturity. He shall be (in the company) of the righteous... And God will teach him the Book and Wisdom, the Law and the Gospel'" (3:45-48).
So, God taught him Matthew, Mark, Luke and John. Is it?
bmz

Since: Mar 08

Singapore

#181829 Jul 3, 2013
Seeker wrote:
<quoted text>
All you do is to try and wipe out and discredit any book or verse that DOES say these things. All of the discredit of John are admitted to merely be guesses by the historians themselves that make this claim. Not one single legitimate historian claims that they have actually proven anything against John and they admit that it's just their guess. And there are also many who defend the legitimacy of John, and you merely ignore that because they don't say what you want to hear.
It is a well-known fact that the Gospel, According to John, was written by many Johns. This is a fact which no one can deny.

Historians have nothing on John and others. What we hear is from historians of the Church.

This is from John 20:

" The Purpose of John’s Gospel

30 Jesus performed many other signs in the presence of his disciples, which are not recorded in this book.

31 But these are written that you may believe that Jesus is the Messiah, the Son of God, and that by believing you may have life in his name."

So, the main purpose of that gospel is to tell you that Jesus is the Messiah. John did not say that you may believe that Jesus was God or the Father.

Son of God is another fraud.

If you read the first ever translation of the Bible in English by Wycliffe, he wrote:

"In the bigynnyng was the word, and the word was at God, and God was the word."

Which means in the beginning, God was the only word.

How do you expect us to accept the 15th Century deliberate mistranslation and a forgery, "In the beginning was The Word, the Word was with God and the Word was God"?

Any sensible person reading John will find ZERO divinity of Jesus. Do you see any divinity of Jesus in Mark's gospel, which was copied wholesale by Matthew and Luke?
bmz

Since: Mar 08

Singapore

#181830 Jul 3, 2013
Normal Man wrote:
I'm still watching!!
Shamma will provide popcorn, bro, before he hits the keyboard with his toes.
Seeker

Lowell, MA

#181831 Jul 3, 2013
bmz wrote:
<quoted text>
Off-topic again.
I did not say this. It is your Jesus, who said, "I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, and marries another woman commits adultery.”
Here Jesus confirms that one can divorce his wife for sexual immorality. If she has not shwon any sexual immorality, then one cannot divorce the woman.
I did not write that. That demon Matthew wrote it when he was high on something..
Now read Matthew 19:9 again:
You fools quote us what you cannot understand yourself.
If you know how to read and comprehend, then you should know that Jesus also permitted divorcing a wife for sexual immorality. He qualified it soooooo well.
So, after the two become one flesh and one goes after another flesh and those two become one flesh unlawfully, then Jesus strongly recommends divorce.
Read V9 again, clueless fool!
The point is that Jesus was pro-divorce in case a man's wife had committed sexual immorality.
So, if a man divorced his wife on the basis of sexual immorality on her part, Jesus would have gladly issued a certificate of divorce by putting his thumb print.
Jesus gave no advice or solution for such a case. Qur'aan tells us how to deal in such cases and tells us to admonish such women and lecture them to behave well and improve their conduct. No straight divorce recommended by Jesus. Divorce only as a last resort.
In Matthew 19:9, the biblical Jesus supports the male chauvinists.
Do you know the background scenario of these verses and why the Quran said them?

1. O Prophet! why do you forbid (yourself) that which Allah has made lawful for you; you seek to please your wives; and Allah is Forgiving, Merciful. 2. Allah indeed has sanctioned for you the expiation of your oaths and Allah is your Protector, and He is the Knowing the Wise. 3. And when the prophet secretly communicated a piece of information to one of his wives-- but when she informed (others) of it, and Allah made him to know it, he made known part of it and avoided part; so when he informed her of it, she said: Who informed you of this? He said: The Knowing, the one Aware, informed me. 4. If you both turn to Allah, then indeed your hearts are already inclined (to this); and if you back up each other against him, then surely Allah it is Who is his Guardian, and Jibreel and -the believers that do good, and the angels after that are the aiders.5. Maybe, his Lord, if he divorce you, will give him in your place wives better than you, submissive, faithful, obedient, penitent, adorers, fasters, widows and virgins.

Muhammad's WIVES (plural) were angry with him because he was cheating on them with a slave girl. 18 wives apparently weren't good enough for him. Muhammad cheats on them, and then creates a Sura to say that it is lawful for him and make it look like he didn't want to sleep with the beautiful slave girl, but Allah told him to do that. Are you kidding me?

I have no idea in the world why you would ever want to discuss an issue like this given Muhammad's behavior.

Since: Nov 11

United States

#181832 Jul 3, 2013
bmz wrote:
<quoted text>Here, we see a grand Taqaiyyah and a great lie. Christians do not go direct to God.

They approach Jesus and his mother. You, a Catholic, is the living proof.

When you have a problem, you call Mary only, the Mother of your God. So, please stop lying. Pope Francis did not even call God or Jesus on day one. He asked for Mary's help!!!!!!!!!!

Christians do not have direct dialing facility to God. All the calls have to go through the operators Jesus and Mary. The largest number of calls are made through Mary's telephone exchange.
You are so ignorant you think all Christians are Catholics!!!

Good grief!!!

Since: Nov 11

United States

#181833 Jul 3, 2013
bmz wrote:
<quoted text>No.
I will pray Allah for you or a loved one of yours die or get hurt by a terrorist attack in the name of Islam!!!

Then you come back and tell me THA Islam is not Satan's cloak!!!

http://whenthepiecesfit.org/
Seeker

Lowell, MA

#181834 Jul 3, 2013
bmz wrote:
<quoted text>
It is a well-known fact that the Gospel, According to John, was written by many Johns. This is a fact which no one can deny.
It is NOT a well known fact, it is merely guesses by SOME historians, and when pressed they admit that it is just their guess.
bmz wrote:
<quoted text>
Historians have nothing on John and others. What we hear is from historians of the Church.
This is from John 20:
" The Purpose of John’s Gospel
30 Jesus performed many other signs in the presence of his disciples, which are not recorded in this book.
31 But these are written that you may believe that Jesus is the Messiah, the Son of God, and that by believing you may have life in his name."
It says that it only speaks of SOME things that Jesus did, not all. And it says that what was recorded was so that you may believe, but that it can't record everything. What is the matter with your ability to read properly?
bmz wrote:
<quoted text>
So, the main purpose of that gospel is to tell you that Jesus is the Messiah.
And it also says Son of God, which is something that you deny, and you blatantly left that part out. Very dishonest.
bmz wrote:
<quoted text>
John did not say that you may believe that Jesus was God or the Father.
Son of God is another fraud.
That's just your opinion, but you say that the Church itself says it's a fraud and then you quote an explanation from them that clearly says Son of God. What is the matter with your reasoning abilities oh veritable scholar? Didn't you say earlier that anybody who says you are smart is right? Sorry, but I just don't see that at all. You have a difficult time with even the most basic forms of logic and reasoning.
bmz wrote:
<quoted text>
If you read the first ever translation of the Bible in English by Wycliffe, he wrote:
"In the bigynnyng was the word, and the word was at God, and God was the word."
Which means in the beginning, God was the only word.
How do you expect us to accept the 15th Century deliberate mistranslation and a forgery, "In the beginning was The Word, the Word was with God and the Word was God"?
Then Yusuf Ali forged the Quran as well in his translations. It's just a translation.

KJV
1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

NIV
In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

Sometimes I just can't understand how your cross eyed mind thinks.
bmz wrote:
<quoted text>
Any sensible person reading John will find ZERO divinity of Jesus. Do you see any divinity of Jesus in Mark's gospel, which was copied wholesale by Matthew and Luke?
Who says they were copied? Look, if you want to ask a real question, ask why some Gospels were considered canonical and others weren't. That's perhaps the REAL question. I don't know why you fancy yourself to be smart. I think that they just took toe ones that told about the story of Jesus, but there are other Gospels such as the Gospel of Thomas that does nothing but quote sayings of Jesus and has no story to it.
Seeker

Lowell, MA

#181835 Jul 3, 2013
martinezjosei wrote:
<quoted text>
I will pray Allah for you or a loved one of yours die or get hurt by a terrorist attack in the name of Islam!!!
If he lived in present day Iraq, that could happen to him.
Rabbeen Al Jihad

Salt Lake City, UT

#181836 Jul 3, 2013
Seeker wrote:
<quoted text>
So are you saying that we should throw all of the hadiths out, or should we keep the ones you like, and throw out the ones you don't like?
SalaamZ GeeKR LOL! Are you implying that there are only TWO choices!? LMAO! How simple! Let me answer you with this; A'isha-Ra(pbuh) states" You and your transmitters may not intend to lie,however sometimes one can easily misunderstand." A great collection of false & fabricated haadith & sunnah traditions are those of Abdul-Faraj-Ibn-Al-Jawzi and are declared to be 'Al-Mawdu-At-Al-Kubra' containing over 1,847 false narrations. Sunan-Al-Tirmidi books were said to be more benificial than Bukhari or Muslim because of better organizations,least amount of repititions,and showing differing views and clarifications with endorseing remarks regarding narrators. What you seekR would regard as an either,Or answer is easily stinted by Holy-Islaams Criteria for judgeing Haadith & Sunnah thusly..it is as follows.Sahih;authentic and sound.Thiqah;most reliable.Muta wa'tir;reported by reliable isnad & transmitters.maqbul;acceptable .Hasan;good.Salih;Satisfactory .Da'If; weak and unreliable.maw'Du;fabricated.M unkar;denounced. A good muhaadith should be aware of at least 400,000 Haadith & Sunnah. CheerZ

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
Rev. Mirado Crow (Sep '13) 5 hr juicy 12
News Pagans Out Of The 'Broom Closet' In Southwest R... (Jan '10) Wed Kathwynn 241
News The Episcopal Church, Wiccans, and the Divine F... (Mar '10) Tue Really 64
News Why Atheism Will Replace Religion (Aug '12) Aug 31 thetruth 14,715
News Si Robertson, 'Duck Dynasty' Star, Says Atheist... Aug 29 thetruth 59
Doris w/ Spells4free Aug 25 Redd 1
News Looking for a Pagan community in Kentucky? (Mar '12) Aug 19 Dude 12
More from around the web