Who Is Allah?

There are 220130 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.

Rabbeen Al Jihad

Salt Lake City, UT

#182864 Jul 15, 2013
JOEL THUMBS UP wrote:
Inbreeding or marriage between cousins is turning the Muslims across the world into intellectually crippled and stupid people. But, Muslims are not ready to accept the well-researched reports of scientific investigations and argue that, since Allah has not declared marrying cousins as haram (non-permissible), there cannot, as a result, be any harmful effect due to such incestuous marriages. So, they deplore the scientific evidences in this field and say that all such scientific reports are concocted to malign Islam. ROFL.
SalaamZ & Ramadan Mubarakh! L M A O ! Aristocracies world wide and generations deep have practiced Incest in order to keep it(ALL) in the family,so to speak.Yet no one seems to be giving a shite about it.Its only when it becomes a Muslim-practice that renders it appalling! CheerZ
MUQ

Jubail, Saudi Arabia

#182865 Jul 15, 2013
Mr. Seeker

I know how busy you are in dealing with these multiple discussions, with so many people on the thread.

That is why I suggested, to you that we discuss with only one person at one time, but you ignored it.

I am resending my last post so that you might answer it

"01. I really appreciate your "cooperation" in dealing with this "little matter" of prophesies.

02. I am not controlling this discussion, I am only proceeding in small step-by-step way.

03. May be this is a new experience for you, but this is how a discussion should be held. So we are clear on out stands and there is no ambiguity.

04. And I am sure, you will get as much chance to "cross examine" me as the discussion progresses.

05. As you said, I will only concentrate on Isaiah 9:6, because according to you, it is the "Most Clear and Most direct prophesy about Jesus".

06. I want to ask you some clarification before we analyze this prophesy:

a. What is the time difference between Isaiah and birth of Jesus?

b. How are you sure than this prophesy remained unfulfilled all those years.

PS:

These questions will set rules for our further discussions on this subject.

I am really thankful to you for your patience and the way you are "suffering" from my "eccentric" demands. "
Simon

UK

#182866 Jul 15, 2013
Rabbeen Al Jihad wrote:
<quoted text>SalaamZ & Ramadan Mubarakh! L M A O ! Aristocracies world wide and generations deep have practiced Incest in order to keep it(ALL) in the family,so to speak.Yet no one seems to be giving a shite about it.Its only when it becomes a Muslim-practice that renders it appalling! CheerZ
Aristocracies and the wide world have realised and accepted that incest is immoral and unhealthy. How come islam is moving ever so slow? Stuck in the 7th century?
bmz

Since: Mar 08

Singapore

#182867 Jul 15, 2013
Alex123 WM wrote:
When Man creates God in his image, his "god" inevitably turns out to be anthropopathic.

Allah does NOT need us. Allah is eternal, self subsisting, unique etc etc.

Ascription of human passions or feelings to Allah is very simplistic and a typical trait of of mangod worshippers and ex mangod worshippers.
Exactly! Well-said, bro
bmz

Since: Mar 08

Singapore

#182868 Jul 15, 2013
Shamma wrote:
God is a Trinity Alex, And Gods Holy Spirit can use an animals and have the animal speak the words given it by Gods Holy Spirit.

Muslims insult God Alex instead of giving all praise and glory to God.
Do not say that God is a Trinity. You have no proof of that direct from the Horse's mouth, I mean Jesus' mouth.

If Jesus had taught and preached it, only then you could have made that absurd claim.

Since you have nothing from Jesus, chuck it off! Discard it and throw it into the bin of Apocrypha.

Calling God Almighty a Trinity, is like calling God a bad name. Trinity does not exist. It is unholy. If you read Revelation, the book that I consider crap, you will notice that there is only One on the Throne, not three. No Jesus and no Holy Spirit.

So, stop insulting and blaspheming God Almighty.
bmz

Since: Mar 08

Singapore

#182869 Jul 15, 2013
Shamma wrote:
<quoted text>
Jews have their own problem in obeying God.
So you cannot personally use the Jews as an example of Gods Holiness and truth.
For when you use the Jews as an example of their sins against as Gods Holiness and truth you blasphemy God by using Gods name in vain.
You cannot defend the Muslim false prophet Muhammad by using the sins of the Jews as Jews being an example of Gods Holiness and truth.
You are ignorant of God BMZ!
Muslims blasphemy God by the mere suggestion that the Holy Trinity of
God not having a Son is based on God not having a wife.
Gods Holy Trinity comes forth from within God Himself as the Spirit Being of God Himself.
There is only one God!
Jews are fiercely monotheistic as Muslims. They believe in One God only.

Stop thinking and believing that God is a man. Once you do that, you will reject Trinity. Brother Jesus never said, "My Father and your Father is a man". Once you do that, you will reject Trinity.

Trinitarians came only in the 6th Century and Trinity was hardly finalized in the 5th Century.
bmz

Since: Mar 08

Singapore

#182870 Jul 15, 2013
STEFANO COLONNA wrote:
<quoted text>
God means different things to different people. So when you talked about god I made sure you were talking about Allah who is an anthropopatic god.

Anthropopathy is the ascription of human passions or feelings to a thing or a being not human, as to a deity.

How many times man wished to be an animal or a thing for its own purpose? So an anthropopatic god can become whatever thing he wishes, because he's anthropopatic, i.e. similar to us.
Either you act blur or you do not understand at all.

Now, imagine a people who worship a timber post and believe that piece of wood, is their deity. Can the timber post become a big cucumber or a goat or a man?

All these terms such as anthropopathy, incarnation, hypo-static union, etc ascribed by man, are rubbish. Trinity also falls under that but is it true? Of course, not. It is therefore absurd!
Seeker

Lowell, MA

#182871 Jul 16, 2013
bmz wrote:
<quoted text>
6:101 can be translated using 'can' or 'could' or 'would' or 'should' or in other words. The verse gives the reason of God having no son.
The actual keywords that change the meaning are "how" and "why". How denotes a question as to how Allah could or would have a son without a consort. Why denotes a reason for Allah to do so, in that he could have a son without a consort, but why would he choose to do that. So how can he, or even how should it be, both say that it could not be possible unless Allah has a consort. But why should he, as you said, denotes that Allah would have no reason to do it, but could have a son without a consort if he chose to. Two totally different meanings and you know exactly what you are doing when you do this. You sure play a lot of games and I'm not the only person who makes this clear observation about you.
bmz wrote:
<quoted text>
It can also be understood this way: Since God does not have a wife, therefore God does not have a son.
However, since you like the translation: "How can He save a son while He has no consort?", the reason given remains the same.
No it does not.
bmz wrote:
<quoted text>
Yes, there are somethings, which God cannot do. For example God cannot come as a monkey or a donkey or a dog or a man.
Are you saying that God could never do that or would never choose to do that? You have actually just said that there are things that God CANNOT do and this violates the Islamic concept of God. And even if you say that God would never choose to do that, you are making yourself into God and applying your own reasoning to God. Completely flawed reasoning that contradicts the Islamic idea for God, and even many Muslims would slap your hand for doing that. You play many many little games with the Quran and they don't actually work.
Seeker

Lowell, MA

#182872 Jul 16, 2013
MUQ wrote:
Mr. Seeker
06. I want to ask you some clarification before we analyze this prophesy:
a. What is the time difference between Isaiah and birth of Jesus?
I don't know exactly off hand and I have no idea how that is relevant. Do prophecies have to come true in a certain amount of years, even when the prophecy doesn't state any time frame?
MUQ wrote:
b. How are you sure than this prophesy remained unfulfilled all those years.
Well, if you can suggest someone else who fits this description, then by all means do so.

For to us a child is born,
to us a son is given,
and the government will be on his shoulders.
And he will be called
Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God,
Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace.

First of all, why is child and son mentioned? We know that Jesus was supposed to have been born of a virgin, which would be why child born was mentioned, and we know that it has been claimed that he is the Son of God. Then we have the words Mighty God, Everlasting Father, and Prince of Peace.

Here is another verse From Isaiah, same book, same author.

13 Then Isaiah said,“Hear now, you house of David! Is it not enough to try the patience of humans? Will you try the patience of my God also? 14 Therefore the Lord himself will give you[c] a sign: The virgin[d] will conceive and give birth to a son, and[e] will call him Immanuel.

Why is this birth supposed to be a sign unless it was a miraculous sort of birth? Otherwise, why even bother to mention about the birth? And Immanuel literally translates into God with us. It isn't supposed to be a literal name, it is supposed to be symbolic of what that son is supposed to be. Isaiah wrote almost all of the stuff he said in symbolic terms. You aren't supposed to read much of what Isaiah said in completely literal terms, if you are familiar with the whole book of Isaiah.
MUQ wrote:
PS:
These questions will set rules for our further discussions on this subject.
I am really thankful to you for your patience and the way you are "suffering" from my "eccentric" demands. "
Here's the problem. I know where we are going to end up, and then if and when we do, I'm going to be pissed at wasting so much unnecessary time. But I like to think of myself as being as fair of a person as possible, so I suppose that I'm just going to have to put up with all of these unnecessary theatrics. I'm sure you think they are necessary, but wait until you find out why they were not.

Since: May 13

Location hidden

#182873 Jul 16, 2013
"Our Casuarina Tree" by Toru Dutt - a great poem!
bmz

Since: Mar 08

Singapore

#182874 Jul 16, 2013
Seeker wrote:
<quoted text>
The actual keywords that change the meaning are "how" and "why". How denotes a question as to how Allah could or would have a son without a consort. Why denotes a reason for Allah to do so, in that he could have a son without a consort, but why would he choose to do that. So how can he, or even how should it be, both say that it could not be possible unless Allah has a consort. But why should he, as you said, denotes that Allah would have no reason to do it, but could have a son without a consort if he chose to. Two totally different meanings and you know exactly what you are doing when you do this. You sure play a lot of games and I'm not the only person who makes this clear observation about you.

Are you saying that God could never do that or would never choose to do that? You have actually just said that there are things that God CANNOT do and this violates the Islamic concept of God. And even if you say that God would never choose to do that, you are making yourself into God and applying your own reasoning to God. Completely flawed reasoning that contradicts the Islamic idea for God, and even many Muslims would slap your hand for doing that. You play many many little games with the Quran and they don't actually work.
Which ever way you turn, the question does not change.

Yes, I have said openly that there are certain things, which God will not do, would not do and CANNOT do and I gave examples of what God cannot become. I even said that God, the Most High cannot become the Most Low or the Lowest of the Low. We are talking about the Grand Majesty of God Almighty, Seeker.

Let me translate another way:

When the wonderful Creator has no mate, why should he have a son?

OR

When the wonderful Creator has no mate, how could he have a son?

OR

How can the wonderful Creator have a son without having a mate?

The verse in a question form, is therefore simply denying that God has a son. It also shows that God is not a man to have a son.

All Muslims will agree with me on what I have written.
Seeker

Lowell, MA

#182875 Jul 16, 2013
bmz wrote:
<quoted text>
Which ever way you turn, the question does not change.
It sure as heck does. How and why are too totally different words with two totally different meanings and you knew exactly what you were trying to do.
bmz wrote:
<quoted text>
Yes, I have said openly that there are certain things, which God will not do, would not do and CANNOT do and I gave examples of what God cannot become.
Then you shouldn't have even bothered to replace the word how with why.
bmz wrote:
<quoted text>
I even said that God, the Most High cannot become the Most Low or the Lowest of the Low. We are talking about the Grand Majesty of God Almighty, Seeker.
Then God can't do everything and therefore cannot be said to be all powerful, even though Islam claims that God is all powerful. You are merely saying what you think God would not or should not do, but that is merely according to your own standards. You are saying that God should behave just like you think God should behave, and are therefore putting yourself on the level of God by assuming that God surely must think just like you do.
bmz wrote:
<quoted text>
Let me translate another way:
When the wonderful Creator has no mate, why should he have a son?
OR
When the wonderful Creator has no mate, how could he have a son?
OR
Those two statements mean two entirely different things. One suggests that he would have no reason to have a son, the other asks how he could possibly have a son, which is to suggest that he couldn't. Two completely different meanings, and you had a reason for changing the words in that verse. Otherwise, you would have never bothered to. So you know exactly what it was you were attempting and why.
bmz wrote:
<quoted text>
How can the wonderful Creator have a son without having a mate?
The verse in a question form, is therefore simply denying that God has a son. It also shows that God is not a man to have a son.
All Muslims will agree with me on what I have written.
When a statement asks "how can", it is clearly saying that he cannot. "Why should" clearly suggests that he can, but would have no reason to. Again, two entirely different meanings, and you couldn't just leave the words of the Quran alone because I pointed out the problem with them. Otherwise, you had no reason to change one single word of the verse. These are the little games that you play all of the time. Funny how you never see me try to change the words in a Quran verse and I deal with them as they are. So the non Muslim does not change the words, while the Muslim does. Amazing.
bmz

Since: Mar 08

Singapore

#182876 Jul 16, 2013
Seeker wrote:
<quoted text>
It sure as heck does. How and why are too totally different words with two totally different meanings and you knew exactly what you were trying to do.
<quoted text>
Then you shouldn't have even bothered to replace the word how with why.
<quoted text>
Then God can't do everything and therefore cannot be said to be all powerful, even though Islam claims that God is all powerful. You are merely saying what you think God would not or should not do, but that is merely according to your own standards. You are saying that God should behave just like you think God should behave, and are therefore putting yourself on the level of God by assuming that God surely must think just like you do.

Those two statements mean two entirely different things. One suggests that he would have no reason to have a son, the other asks how he could possibly have a son, which is to suggest that he couldn't. Two completely different meanings, and you had a reason for changing the words in that verse. Otherwise, you would have never bothered to. So you know exactly what it was you were attempting and why.

When a statement asks "how can", it is clearly saying that he cannot. "Why should" clearly suggests that he can, but would have no reason to. Again, two entirely different meanings, and you couldn't just leave the words of the Quran alone because I pointed out the problem with them. Otherwise, you had no reason to change one single word of the verse. These are the little games that you play all of the time.

Funny how you never see me try to change the words in a Quran verse and I deal with them as they are. So the non Muslim does not change the words, while the Muslim does. Amazing.
Seeker, you quote translations. And you do not make any change in the translation to improve it or make it better. I do. The actual verse in Arabic stays as it is.

Let us take some translations done by non-Muslim Westerners:

Arberry: "The Creator of the heavens and the earth -- how should He have a son, seeing that He has no consort, and He created all things, and He has knowledge of everything?"

Palmer: "The inventor of the heavens and the earth! how can He have a son, when He has no female companion, and when He has created everything, and everything He knows?"

George Sale: "The Originator of the heavens and the earth. How can He have a son when He has no consort, and when He has created everything and has knowledge of all things?"

Rodwell: "Sole maker of the Heavens and of the Earth! how, when He hath no consort, should He have a son? He hath created everything, and He knoweth everything!"

And here are the translations by Westerners, who became Muslims:

Asad: "the Originator of the heavens and the earth! How could it be that He should have a child without there ever having been a mate for Him - since it is He who has created everything, and He alone knows everything?"

Pickthall: "The Originator of the heavens and the earth! How can He have a child, when there is for Him no consort, when He created all things and is Aware of all things?"

Irving: "Deviser of Heaven and earth! How can He save a son while He has no consort? He created everything and is aware of everything!"

And this is from a Muslim:

Sarwar: "How could the One Who is the Originator of the heavens and the earth and who has no companion, have a son? He created all things and has absolute knowledge of all things."

All are using different words but the substance remains the same. One cannot accuse any of them to have changed the words of Qur'aan. So, how can you accuse me of changing words of Qur'aan?

It is the translation that I try to improve.

So, finally it boils down to this:

You come to me and say, "God has a son."

I ask you: "How can God have a son, when God has no wife?"

And that is a perfectly valid question, which ever way, I put it.

Since: May 13

Location hidden

#182877 Jul 16, 2013
How can the creator be a him? LOL.
Rabbeen Al Jihad

Salt Lake City, UT

#182878 Jul 16, 2013
Simon wrote:
<quoted text>
Aristocracies and the wide world have realised and accepted that incest is immoral and unhealthy. How come islam is moving ever so slow? Stuck in the 7th century?
SalaamZ LOL! The aristocracy still indulges in what ever they desire,inspite of moralities. Holy-islaam moves at the pace written for them by GOD-ALMIGHTY. CheerZ
Rabbeen Al Jihad

Salt Lake City, UT

#182879 Jul 16, 2013
Shamma wrote:
<quoted text>
You are the one that is an embarrassment to Christianity.
You falsely accept the Muslim god Allah as the God of Israel.
That in itself is an insult to all Christians.
And by your accepting the Muslim God as the God of Israel you have become a slave of the Muslims.
You call my rejecting the Muslims god Allah arrogant, and hateful.
Rebuking evil deeds of murder is an Commandment from God you dumb slave of the Muslims.
Murdering innocent people using Gods name in vain does send people to hell according to Gods Commandments.
Thou shalt not take the name of the Lord thy God in vain (KJV, also "You shall not make wrongful use of the name of the Lord your God" (NRSV) and variants)
is one of the Ten Commandments. It is a prohibition of blasphemy, specifically, the misuse or "taking in vain" of the name of the God of Israel. Exodus 20:7 reads:Exodus
You don't understand what Sura 9:29 is saying:
Sahih International
Fight those who do not believe in Allah or in the Last Day and who do not consider unlawful what Allah and His Messenger have made unlawful and who do not adopt the religion of truth from those who were given the Scripture -[fight] until they give the jizyah willingly while they are humbled.
The point you miss is that "And His Messenger [Muhammad]
have made unlawful and who do not adopt the religion of truth from those who were given the scripture".
Here Muhammad is falsely claiming he has the authority from God to murder those that do not accept the religion of Muhammad, and the man made laws instituted by Muhammad as Gods laws.
That is falsely using Gods name in vain.
So, it is you Seeker that refuses to accept Gods Commandment "Thou shall not take the name of thy Lord your God in vain".
There is a hell Seeker, and those that murder using the name of thy Lord God in vain is blasphemy, and the punishment for that sin is hell.
SalaamZ Shammy! & Happy Ramadan. You! LOL, are as the pot accuseing the Kettle of being black!LOL! And a myopic one at that.Perhaps just a cursory exam of the attributes of the Almighty may render your arguments null & Void. Yes! there is a hell! 666 planes of it to be exacting.And you are destined for the one designed for blabbermouthes,rachet-jaws, & tongue waggerz. CheerZ
bmz

Since: Mar 08

Singapore

#182880 Jul 16, 2013
JOEL THUMBS UP wrote:
How can the creator be a him? LOL.
That is a great question. LOL!

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#182881 Jul 16, 2013
bmz wrote:
<quoted text>
Either you act blur or you do not understand at all.
Now, imagine a people who worship a timber post and believe that piece of wood, is their deity. Can the timber post become a big cucumber or a goat or a man?
All these terms such as anthropopathy, incarnation, hypo-static union, etc ascribed by man, are rubbish. Trinity also falls under that but is it true? Of course, not. It is therefore absurd!
The only one with no understanding of anything is you.

In the previous post you were arguing what god can come as, while now you are talking what a timber post can come as. What kind of comparison is that?

Like I said before an anthropopatic god is not a monkey, or man or a timber post but if he wants he can become each of them. Otherwise your supposed almighty Ilah isn't that almighty, right?
bmz

Since: Mar 08

Singapore

#182882 Jul 16, 2013
Rabbeen Al Jihad wrote:
<quoted text>SalaamZ LOL! The aristocracy still indulges in what ever they desire,inspite of moralities. Holy-islaam moves at the pace written for them by GOD-ALMIGHTY. CheerZ
Hello, Skinner

It does not go down well with the Westerners but it did go well with the patriarchs and many in the Orient, who produced excellent men and women.

Marrying relatives' children was never considered incest.

Women forbidden, have been defined in the Scriptures.

Salaams
BMZ
bmz

Since: Mar 08

Singapore

#182883 Jul 16, 2013
STEFANO COLONNA wrote:
<quoted text>
The only one with no understanding of anything is you.
In the previous post you were arguing what god can come as, while now you are talking what a timber post can come as. What kind of comparison is that?
Like I said before an anthropopatic god is not a monkey, or man or a timber post but if he wants he can become each of them. Otherwise your supposed almighty Ilah isn't that almighty, right?
This will enable you to understand.

Almighty God would never stoop low to become a thing which Almighty God created. Do you understand this or not?

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 Beheading Sura: Robert Spencer's Blogging t... May 23 Dragnet52 5
Covertly clearing negative energy from the office (Sep '07) May 21 Debra 49
News No, American Christianity is not dead May 19 New Perspective 1
News POLL: Americans Turning Away from Religion May 15 Bible boy 1
News Carl Sagan as prophet of neo-Pagan Atheism May 12 geezerjock 1
Who exactly was Gjoub, and should I trust him? (Mar '09) May 11 garnetten 502
Shadow Energy / Shadow Magic (Feb '08) May 8 Over and Done 27
More from around the web