Who Is Allah?

Aug 24, 2007 | Posted by: roboblogger | Full story: The Brussels Journal

“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

Comments
172,201 - 172,220 of 201,369 Comments Last updated 8 min ago
Alex123 WM

London, UK

#182859 Jul 15, 2013
Shamma wrote:
<quoted text>You are an babbling idiot.
You are unable to come to the knowledge of truth.
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.
Hello dear Shamma, keep your hair on.
You claim that "God is a Trinity".
Surely such a claim needs to be verified by ATLEAST Jesus.
Please can you produce evidence from Jesus that "God is a Trinity" and that he is part of that Trinity?
Why not try showing me some proof from the Synoptic gospels.
While at it please answer the following in a DIRECT manner because Seeker is unable to tackle this:
We need you to show Jesus making claims in the first person as follows, in Synoptic Gospels starting with MARK:
1. "I am God in 'the' flesh"
2. "I am God!"
3. "I am THE only begotten son of God"
4. "I am God in person"
5. "I am God Incarnate"
6. "I am THE Father and Father and I are one and the same person" 7. "I am made of sin"
8. "God is a trinity and I am part of that trinity or triune"
9. "I am your God who came to earth in human form as my own son to die on a Roman cross for the sins of Gentiles or the world or the entire humanity/"
10. "Through belief in my unconditional/loving/willing sacrifice as your God in human form as my own son, you can have eternal life"
11. "Therefore, Worship me and the cross"
12. "Father, ghost and I are co equal, co eternal and consubstantial gods forming a godhead"
13.“I, Jesus, existed before God as Word and I, Jesus, became God” 14.“Hey Philip! I am THE Father"
15. "Worship and kiss the cross and get your pope to kiss it, carry it with him and raise it like Moses' serpent"
16.“My mission is not to bring a book, but to die for sins of GENTILES and JEWS”
17. "I am your saviour (dear gentiles)

If you can't show proof from the Synoptic Gospels starting with Mark, then you best admit it.
Thank you, Shamma.
Alex123 WM

London, UK

#182860 Jul 15, 2013
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.

Since: Apr 11

Location hidden

#182861 Jul 15, 2013
Alex123 WM wrote:
<quoted text>
Hello dear Shamma, keep your hair on.
You claim that "God is a Trinity".
Surely such a claim needs to be verified by ATLEAST Jesus.
Please can you produce evidence from Jesus that "God is a Trinity" and that he is part of that Trinity?
Why not try showing me some proof from the Synoptic gospels.
While at it please answer the following in a DIRECT manner because Seeker is unable to tackle this:
We need you to show Jesus making claims in the first person as follows, in Synoptic Gospels starting with MARK:
1. "I am God in 'the' flesh"
2. "I am God!"
3. "I am THE only begotten son of God"
4. "I am God in person"
5. "I am God Incarnate"
6. "I am THE Father and Father and I are one and the same person" 7. "I am made of sin"
8. "God is a trinity and I am part of that trinity or triune"
9. "I am your God who came to earth in human form as my own son to die on a Roman cross for the sins of Gentiles or the world or the entire humanity/"
10. "Through belief in my unconditional/loving/willing sacrifice as your God in human form as my own son, you can have eternal life"
11. "Therefore, Worship me and the cross"
12. "Father, ghost and I are co equal, co eternal and consubstantial gods forming a godhead"
13.“I, Jesus, existed before God as Word and I, Jesus, became God” 14.“Hey Philip! I am THE Father"
15. "Worship and kiss the cross and get your pope to kiss it, carry it with him and raise it like Moses' serpent"
16.“My mission is not to bring a book, but to die for sins of GENTILES and JEWS”
17. "I am your saviour (dear gentiles)
If you can't show proof from the Synoptic Gospels starting with Mark, then you best admit it.
Thank you, Shamma.
Its all true Alex.
You have a mental block in your brain that is stopping you from coming to the knowledge of truth.
You are not a humble person Alex.
If you humble yourself before the Lord, God will enlighten your mind to Gods truth.
You need to repent and make an act of contrition from within your heart and confess your sins to God and put your self pride aside and allow Jesus the Son of God to come into your life.

An act of contrition is acknowledging you have sinned against God and you are sorry for offending the Holiness and Goodness of God your creator.

Since: May 13

Location hidden

#182862 Jul 15, 2013
Alex123 WM wrote:
Ascription of human passions or feelings to Allah is very simplistic and a typical trait of of mangod worshippers and ex mangod worshippers.
You're a retard.

The Christians have not ascribed human-like traits to Allah.

The Quran itself is replete with examples of the anthropopathy of Allah who raves, rants, threatens, curses, loves, forgives, sympathizes, gets jealous and so on. These are typical human traits.

So, little Allah is a minor being - a highly anthropopathic one.

LOL.

Since: May 13

Location hidden

#182863 Jul 15, 2013
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.
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

Tell me when this thread is updated: (Registration is not required)

Add to my Tracker Send me an email

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
Bloomfield woman behind Ten Commandments monume... 21 hr weez 1
Who exactly was Gjoub, and should I trust him? (Mar '09) 22 hr christy 502
SHADOW PEOPLE... i need help (May '07) Aug 25 Only1Likeme212 347
Speaking of religion: Pagans stir a fuss in Beebe Aug 25 Ernie 117
Pagan community northern kentucky? (Nov '12) Aug 25 scorpion123 27
Reagan appointee sides with Wiccans: NM town mu... Aug 20 Kathwynn 5
Looking for a Pagan community in Kentucky? (Mar '12) Aug 13 Lady shay 8
•••
Enter and win $5000
•••

Pagan/Wiccan People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE

•••