Who Is Allah?

Who Is Allah?

There are 256358 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.

MUQ

Dammam, Saudi Arabia

#183435 Jul 23, 2013
Seeker wrote:
But the Jews cannot identify what immediate relief was provided or any special child that was a sign. The verses give no time frame. Also, why is a childbirth itself supposed to be a "sign"? However, if it was a virgin birth, then that most definitely is quite a sign.
MUQ wrote:



2.

Look, I said this before. Saying that anybody fulfills a prophecy is always ultimately a guess, and one can only make their best guess, and people on all sides will disagree based on what they would like to be the truth. First, you see if there is anything that outright excludes the person from being the one prophecized, and if there is, there is no need to go any further. I see nothing that outright excludes Jesus from being the fulfillment of the prophecy. Ay most, one could say that he has not set up a kingdom, but then again, Jesus himself predicted his death and resurrection and predicted his return and how he will rule over all things. So the fulfillment could be said to be started, but not yet completed. There are no specifics given that would exclude this possibility.



Then, we take a look at how much similarities this person has to the prophecy, and that's where the guessing begins.

This seems to be the most rational way to examine something like this.
Ans.

A. Emmanuel Prophesy:

01. Why would Jews would go "looking for the child"? He had nothing to do with the prophesy. The prophesy was about in what time frame enemies of Ahaz would be vanquished. The Child will not take part in that.

02. The Virgin birth is never intended here and has no connection with the birth of Jesus.

03. Emmanuel meaning God with us, is also no connection with Jesus, as I mentioned that no one called Jesus as "Emmanuel" during his life time, neither Jesus said it was his name.

B. Jesus and his kingdom:

01. This is beside the point, what Kingdom Jesus shall have. The point is that Jesus did not sit on the "throne of David".

02. Jesus' Crucifixion and resurrection is another topic and not connected with our discussion.

03. There are enough evidences that all events recorded in Gospels are for "hearsay", there is not a single "eyewitness" account.

C. How to interpret any prophesy:

01. We should first look in the context and see if there is really a prophesy or not in those verses.

02. Then we should list out ALL the points mentioned in that prophesy and then see how many our "prospective candidate" meets them.

03. If he fulfills "majority and most critical of these properties" then he can be considered a "prospective candidate".

04. But if he fulfills only outer criterion and misses "important points" then he is certainly not a candidate for that.

05. We should be objective and not keep on unnecessarily "multiplying these prophesies".

06. Even if one or two "clear cut prophesies" about Jesus are enough to prove that he was prophesized by OT prophets.

PS:

As I told you, I do not deny that Jesus was not prophesized by earlier prophets.

What I want are some clear prophesies about him, that do not pose "difficulties" and you have to twist and bend and frame "strange rules" to fit it on Jesus.

When we will see prophesies about our prophet in OT and NT books, we will see, that we do not need all these twists and bends. And we do not say that OT and NT books are "filled with prophesies" about our prophet.

But let us get over the subject of Jesus and his advent foretold in OT books.
susanblange

Norfolk, VA

#183436 Jul 23, 2013
Atheist Silurist wrote:
<quoted text>
I would also like to know why people still believe in such mindless nonsense?
What would happen if Jesus had come in modern times? He claims Satan appears to him and offers him the world if he would worship him, then he comes out of that experience preaching the kingdom. He hears voices. There are no signs and wonders. He would've been locked up as a demon possessed lunatic. He is executed for capital crimes and his followers say he bodily rose from the dead and they saw him go to heaven. They would've been labeled liars and false witnesses. Who in their right mind would believe such garbage today? Part of the lure of Christianity is its size and establishment but that doesn't mean it's true.
MUQ

Dammam, Saudi Arabia

#183437 Jul 24, 2013
susanblange wrote:
<quoted text>What would happen if Jesus had come in modern times? He claims Satan appears to him and offers him the world if he would worship him, then he comes out of that experience preaching the kingdom. He hears voices. There are no signs and wonders. He would've been locked up as a demon possessed lunatic. He is executed for capital crimes and his followers say he bodily rose from the dead and they saw him go to heaven. They would've been labeled liars and false witnesses. Who in their right mind would believe such garbage today? Part of the lure of Christianity is its size and establishment but that doesn't mean it's true.
Jesus christ SHALL return to earth at the appointed time and place decided by God. And it shall be very close to the Final Hour and is one of the Major Sign for approaching hour.

His main job will be to slay the Anti Christ, who shall be tormenting people on this earth.

He will clarify all the "Myths" that Pauline Christianity has put around him, he will clarify that he was no God, no Son of God and No person in the Unholy Trinity.

He will clarify that he did not die on cross and there was no question of any resurrection.

That would end all conflicts between Islam, Judaism and Christianity and there will be one Universal religion in which ALL CHILDREN OF ADAM shall be united once again.

This is what Islamic teachings are about Second Coming of Jesus.

Find holes in it, if you can.

Allah Knows Best.
MUQ

Qatif, Saudi Arabia

#183439 Jul 24, 2013
PS:

The followers of Anti Christ shall meet a humiliating defeat, and we are told that majority of them will be Jews, who denied the "original Messiah" Jesus Christ, the Son of Mary.
Alex123 WM

London, UK

#183440 Jul 24, 2013
Seeker wrote:
<quoted text>
It had nothing to do with what God should do.
It has everything to do with what God should do according to you.
You have interpreted the relationship between God and his messenger in a way that the messenger has been given or assumed divine qualities either directly or through a form of ostensible authority.
We can use your logic to assign divinity to many others.
Alex123 WM

London, UK

#183441 Jul 24, 2013
susanblange wrote:
<quoted text>What would happen if Jesus had come in modern times? He claims Satan appears to him and offers him the world if he would worship him, then he comes out of that experience preaching the kingdom. He hears voices. There are no signs and wonders. He would've been locked up as a demon possessed lunatic. He is executed for capital crimes and his followers say he bodily rose from the dead and they saw him go to heaven. They would've been labeled liars and false witnesses. Who in their right mind would believe such garbage today? Part of the lure of Christianity is its size and establishment but that doesn't mean it's true.
Very good observations, Susan.
There is another KEY point the Church is unable counter.
Satan appears to have had dealings with God in the past almost since inception including the famous serpent episode!
Satan and God appear to be fully familiar with each other, albeit God has very distinct advantage over Satan.
When Satan tempted the BJ, with limited bounties that the eye can see, surely Satan should have known in advance that he was dealing with, BJ the " "Christian god of Israel"!!!
If Satan had any brains he would have had to offer a whole lot more than planet earth or even this universe!
To tempt "god", Satan needs to offer something that is bigger than God himslef, which is impossible!

Therefore, clearly Satan tempted a man and not god in any shape or form!

This kills off any attempt by the Church to turn BJ into "god".
Alex123 WM

London, UK

#183442 Jul 24, 2013
bmz wrote:
<quoted text>
Why did you wonder? Wasn't my post clear to you?
Is God a man that he should have a son?
Nice one!

You know what his problem is, bro?
He is unable to get out of his Christian closet syndrome.

Islam is very clear about such a SIMPLE matter:

- A man needs a woman (or her eggs) or a woman needs a man (or his sperms) to have a son or daughter.

- God is NOT a human.

- God is THE (self sufficient) creator.

- God does NOT need a son or daughter.

- Then how can they say that God has a son or daughter, which is (usually!) a human act involving the opposite sexes?

Salaams, Alex WM
Alex123 WM

London, UK

#183443 Jul 24, 2013
Shamma wrote:
<quoted text>You are insane!
You have no sense of reality of what I have enlightened you through my posting.
You express God to me as God being Muhammad chopping off some infidels head.
Its shameful that the only God Muslims know is their evil master Muhammad.
lol...
Are you sure, Shamma?
The evil master is tempting you from a pole doing his naked dance. Look very closely ....His one eye is shut. That is quite telling.
Satan is very clever, Shamma.
He has lured you away from God to worshipping a naked man.
Hope you wake up soon.
Good luck.
Seeker

Lowell, MA

#183444 Jul 24, 2013
yehoshooah adam wrote:
<quoted text>
believe in G-D, here and now in TheTorah. and you shall improve, G-D shall see to this.
Okay, so what you mean by "here in TheTorah" is living in the here and now. If so, why don't you just say so? What is all of the jargon about? I'm aware of this idea and have been for about 15 years. I didn't have God visit me. God doesn't need to.

There is a mystic concept called the eternal moment where one lives in the present moment. The concept says that the only thing that is real is the present moment, which goes on and on and on. The past and future aren't real, they are merely mental constructs or concepts of the mind. They might be accurate concepts (and sometimes not) and they can be useful, but they are still merely mental concepts. The past is a memory. The future is an expectation. But the only thing that is actual reality is the present moment. When a past event occurred, it did so in the present moment. When the future arrives, it does so in the present moment. So the present moment is actually the only thing that exists in reality, and it goes on and on and on. This is called the eternal moment because when one does not think about the past and future and focuses on the present moment, time itself seems to disappear because time itself is also a mental construct that is created by comparing our past to the present moment and comparing the present moment to the future.

The mind often lives in the past and future, but rarely the present. So when we see something, we are not seeing that thing in it's true present moment reality and therefore don't see what that thing really is, and instead we use our past memories and categorize what we see based on those. This involves the eastern concept of "labels" where we don't see the actual reality of something, we see our label for it instead. And then, we decide whether this thing will help us or hurt us, and see it with our concept of the future. So we never pay attention to what that thing really is in it's present state in the present moment. All the mind sees is the past and future.

It's very difficult to constantly be "present" and usually only the best gurus or mystics can do this, and there are plenty of fake gurus. But if one becomes present and is so focused on that, the idea of future threat or even death disappears because we are only concentrating on what is happening now and doing the right thing now because we see things clearly and see them for what they actually are. This is why this is called the "eternal present moment", which just goes on and on and on and the mind never thinks of eventual death. Whether that will occur or not is irrelevant to someone who is constantly present. They are only concerned about seeing true reality which can only be found in the present moment. There is a difference between "everlasting" life, which is still within time. It is time perduring forever. But eternal means timeless no time. It means something outside of time itself where one is so focused on the present that one no longer has any concerns of the past and future and therefore lives in eternal life, not everlasting life. So the eternal life that everyone is searching for is right now, right in front of our eyes but nobody knows that. So if one is completely focused on the present, from moment to moment, heaven and hell are no longer concerns, as they will take care of themselves. The only concern is doing the correct thing in the present moment and seeing it the correct way and seeing true reality and if one focuses on that, this is where God is found and everything takes care of itself. So GanEden, as you say, is actually right here and right now and we can enter it at any moment, but we don't, and God is waiting for us to do so and live there, or live that way, which would be a more accurate way to describe it. So if this is what you are actually saying, then I understand and we can actually discuss this and much more.
bmz

Since: Mar 08

Location hidden

#183445 Jul 24, 2013
Alex123 WM wrote:
<quoted text>
Nice one!
You know what his problem is, bro?
He is unable to get out of his Christian closet syndrome.
Islam is very clear about such a SIMPLE matter:
- A man needs a woman (or her eggs) or a woman needs a man (or his sperms) to have a son or daughter.
- God is NOT a human.
- God is THE (self sufficient) creator.
- God does NOT need a son or daughter.
- Then how can they say that God has a son or daughter, which is (usually!) a human act involving the opposite sexes?
Salaams, Alex WM
Thank you, bro.

Every time we render Shamma and other polemic Christians speechless, Stefano butts in with his incoherence.

Stefano doesn't believe in God but he believes that God has a son. lol!

Salaams
BMZ
bmz

Since: Mar 08

Location hidden

#183446 Jul 24, 2013
Shamma wrote:
<quoted text>
God has a Son and Holy Spirit because it is His will to have them.
God is the author of Wisdom, and in Gods Wisdom His Son and Holy Spirit existed within Gods wisdom, and by bringing Jesus and the Holy Spirit forth by His Will into exist, completed Gods knowledge of all things including omnipresence the state of being everywhere at once.
And Having total knowledge; knowing everything: an omniscient, omnipresence, omnipotent, deity; Having unlimited or universal power, authority, and force; all-powerful.
A non-trinitarian God is limited and is not omnipresence and is fixed in one position setting on a Thrown out side of time and space.
And is not omniscient cannot know all things, and needs messengers to inform Him of things happening in the world He created,
It by the wisdom of God that God is a Trinity
Matthew 3:17
New International Version (©2011)
And a voice from heaven said, "This is my Son, whom I love; with him I am well pleased."
God is self sufficient in wisdom and knowledge of all things before the world was created.
And it is out of Gods love for us before we were created that God planned our relationship with God through His Son Jesus.
As the Bible says all things were per-ordained by God before the world was created.
It is by rational reasoning that we know that if God was not love before He created the world, God then would not be sufficient in all things.
And we know God is sufficient in all things.
Why did God make us? To answer that, we need to know three things:
First, it wasn't because he needed us:
"The God who made the world and everything in it … is not served by human hands, as if he needed anything" (Acts 17:24-25).
And he didn't make us because he was lonely. Long before we were here, God already had "company" with his Son and the Holy Spirit, referred to in Genesis 1:26, "Let us make man in our own image."
And he didn't make us because he needed his ego fed. It's not like God made us to satisfy some craving to be worshiped. God is totally secure in who he is—without us.
Second, despite not needing us, God chose to create us anyway, out of his great love: "I have loved you with an everlasting love" (Jeremiah 31:3). Yes, God loved us before he even created us. It's impossible to get our heads around that idea, but it's true; that's what "everlasting" love means.
God is love (1 John 4:8), and because of that love and his wonderful creativity, he made us so we can enjoy all that he is and all that he's done.
Third, God created us to fulfill his eternal plan.
God, in his infinite wisdom, chose to make us a part of his eternal plan.
What part do we play in this plan? Well, the Bible is full of instructions for how we should live our lives. But here are a few key verses to remember:
1. "Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your strength" (Deuteronomy 6:5).
2. "Love your neighbor as yourself" (Matthew 22:39).
3. "We are God's workmanship, created in Christ Jesus to do good works, which God prepared in advance for us to do" (Ephesians 2:10).
We're also part of the war between God and Satan, and God's ultimate plan to defeat Satan. By putting our faith in God, we can defeat Satan and his lies (see Ephesians 6:10-18).
Finally, perhaps the most important part we play in God's eternal plan is to point people to eternal life with God—through his Son Jesus Christ.
The Bible calls this our "ministry of reconciliation" (2 Corinthians 5:18-19).
That's why we're here. But it's also important to note that we have a choice in all of this. When God created us, he didn't make us pawns in some cosmic chess game. We're not his toy soldiers. God gives us freedom of choice.
What a crap! How do you manage to come with such nonsense?
Seeker

Lowell, MA

#183447 Jul 24, 2013
MUQ wrote:
<quoted text>
03. If he fulfills "majority and most critical of these properties" then he can be considered a "prospective candidate".
04. But if he fulfills only outer criterion and misses "important points" then he is certainly not a candidate for that.
MUQ, all that you are doing is to find reasons where Jesus could be disqualified from being prophecized. And that is correct. This is the first thing that someone should look at before even considering similarities. If there are any IMPORTANT elements of the prophecy that the person does not or even CANNOT meet, then there is no reason to consider it any further. Now, there is nothing that outright disqualifies Jesus as being the person prophecized by Isaiah. You can raise alternative ways to interpret that prophecy to say that it probably isn't Jesus, but there is still nothing that immediately disqualifies him. So we move onto to other considerations or possibilities such as the context of the verses and other matters, and it all becomes someone merely trying to make their best guess, which is exactly what I said to you in my last post. If there is nothing that outright disqualifies Jesus, then it can be discussed back and forth and we try to make our best guess. So far, your logic is correct when it comes to Jesus.

There is a very important element of Deuteronomy 18:15 and 18:18 that immediately disqualifies Muhammad, and you know exactly what that is because I have already mentioned how 17:15 immediately disqualifies him. So on the one hand, when it comes to Jesus, you are following the methodology that I suggested where we first try to look at anything that outright disqualifies him. That is a good methodology. But when it comes to Muhammad, suddenly the rules get switched and we are supposed to ignore what disqualifies him, and jump right into where he has similarities. This is exactly what you are attempting to do by building this whole, unnecessary "setup". You are attempting to set it up somehow where we ignore what disqualifies Muhammad, and you are contradicting your own rules that you are applying to Jesus. And you and I know exactly why you are attempting this.

The interesting thing that I notice about so many Muslims, is their willingness to apply one set of rules when they think it suits their needs, and then change the rules in another instance if they think that changing these will suit their needs. This is called a subjective logical fallacy and it is an inconsistency in their logic. And Muslims seem to have a difficult time realizing that they are doing this, and I don't know why, I only know that they do this so often and never see the problem with this. There never seems to be any consistency is their application of a methodology or rules, they just change them to whatever they need them to be at any given moment, and then change them back again when they think they need to.

If you had ever had formal classes in logic and philosophy, you would understand this as a clear, subjective, logical fallacy. Only objectivity and consistent application of the rules counts in discussions like these. Subjectivity is logically flawed and merely self serving. And this is why I mentioned before why formal education in these areas is important so that one recognizes the self serving logical fallacy they are committing, because I saw long ago exactly what you were doing and what you were going to eventually end up doing. You are merely trying to switch the rules of logic to MAKE something into what you NEED it to be. And this is inherently, logically flawed. It is one of the first flaws that someone learns about when formally educated in logic and philosophy. And I see so often where Muslims do this, that I can only conclude that they do not receive a good education, except on the Quran, because in their minds or culture, the Quran is the only thing that matters anyway, and this is why they are so lacking in other areas of education.
bmz

Since: Mar 08

Location hidden

#183448 Jul 24, 2013
Alex123 WM wrote:
<quoted text>
Very good observations, Susan.
There is another KEY point the Church is unable counter.
Satan appears to have had dealings with God in the past almost since inception including the famous serpent episode!
Satan and God appear to be fully familiar with each other, albeit God has very distinct advantage over Satan.
When Satan tempted the BJ, with limited bounties that the eye can see, surely Satan should have known in advance that he was dealing with, BJ the " "Christian god of Israel"!!!
If Satan had any brains he would have had to offer a whole lot more than planet earth or even this universe!
To tempt "god", Satan needs to offer something that is bigger than God himslef, which is impossible!
Therefore, clearly Satan tempted a man and not god in any shape or form!
This kills off any attempt by the Church to turn BJ into "god".
After God, Satan is the 2nd most powerful. Who knew God better than Satan at that time? That is why Jesus was sent to Satan for getting tested.

Satan was smart. His line of questioning proved that Jesus was not the Son of God. And that in turn, proved that Jesus was not God.

Satan asked Jesus twice "If you are the Son of God, then .........."

And Jesus did NOT say at all, "Yes, I am the Son of God but I will not.........."

That story is a hoax, bro.

Salaams
BMZ

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#183449 Jul 24, 2013
Greg wrote:
<quoted text>
To call someone a son automatically means that he has a mother and a father. In the case of Jesus the Son, his father is the Father and his mother is the Mother of God.
Spare me the Christian nonsense. Yeshua is the product of a sexual relation between two persons, one is Mary and the other one could be Joseph.

I think that somewhere in my post I wrote that god is almighty. Did you miss it? Does anyone know what almighty mean by any chance?
Greg wrote:
<quoted text>To produce a co-equal without having a mate is like a virus replicating itself.
But Mary is not co-equal to god, so...?
Greg wrote:
<quoted text>The product then is not called a son but a clone.
The product of asexual relations of plants, virus etc. are called offspiring that happens to be clones.

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#183450 Jul 24, 2013
bmz wrote:
<quoted text>
Why did you wonder? Wasn't my post clear to you?
Why do you wonder what I wonder instead of wondering what you should wonder? LOL

Your post wasn't clear because wasn't addressed to my question.
bmz wrote:
<quoted text>Is God a man that he should have a son?
Ilah is not a man but he created man and jinns to be worshipped? LOL

Ilah is not a man but is an anthropopatic deity. LOL

According to Quran your god doesn't have a son simply because is single. Even virus produce offspring without asexually, but he's not able unless he has a partner.

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#183451 Jul 24, 2013
MUQ wrote:
<quoted text>
Jesus christ SHALL return to earth at the appointed time and place decided by God. And it shall be very close to the Final Hour and is one of the Major Sign for approaching hour.
Bmz said that Isa is died and won't come back to the Final Hour. Who between you two Muslims is lying?

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#183452 Jul 24, 2013
CORRECTION POST#183449

Spare me the time from the Christian non-sense.
bmz

Since: Mar 08

Location hidden

#183453 Jul 24, 2013
STEFANO COLONNA wrote:
<quoted text>
Bmz said that Isa is died and won't come back to the Final Hour. Who between you two Muslims is lying?
That is known as difference of opinion.
Eric

Montgomery, IL

#183454 Jul 24, 2013
STEFANO COLONNA wrote:
<quoted text>
Bmz said that Isa is died and won't come back to the Final Hour. Who between you two Muslims is lying?
Another question raised is why would Jesus come back to vanquish the anti-Christ if Muhammad is the last prophet.
Seeker

Lowell, MA

#183455 Jul 24, 2013
STEFANO COLONNA wrote:
<quoted text>
According to Quran your god doesn't have a son simply because is single. Even virus produce offspring without asexually, but he's not able unless he has a partner.
Well, although you don't believe in God, at least you understand the concept of what almighty means, and that if there is a God, who says that God would think like we do and we should expect God to have the same reasoning that we do? This is where Muhammad revealed his shallow philosophical or reasoning abilities. He simply reasoned that God should behave as we would expect God to behave, which pretty much means that God would behave as we do. He was merely using his own sense of reasoning to decide what God would or wouldn't do, and this is why Muslims do the same thing and they think it is all so clear to them and they are so assured that surely they must be right.

To apply this sort of logic to God that is supposed to be almighty and beyond our abilities to understand is in of itself illogical, but they don't understand that mistake because of what the Quran tells them. They surely expect that God should be completely understandable and explainable, and this is what the Quran tries to do, which is why it has such appeal to them.

In my experience, if someone is inventing a lie, they are going to try to make that lie as clear and understandable as possible because their only goal in inventing that lie is to get people to understand it and therefore believe it, and therefore they want to make it as easily understandable as possible. When someone presents weird concepts and admits that they themselves do not fully understand it, then chances are pretty good that they actually are NOT inventing a lie. That's not to say that these concepts are automatically true, but it's an indication that they aren't merely making them up. Muslims think the exact opposite. If it doesn't fit into their limited reasoning abilities, then it cannot be from God. And this is how Muhammad thought as well. As far as I am concerned, if God exists, then I would fully expect such said thing to simply be beyond all capabilities of reasoning. Logically, it would almost HAVE to be that way. And I would expect certain things about God to not make any sense to me. So in my opinion, Muslims have it completely backwards and Muhammad is to blame.

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) Wed John 4,951
News Why Atheism Will Replace Religion (Aug '12) May 27 John 14,736
omens of dead animals (Aug '08) May 26 Tete Rouge 119
News Harrogate mother says foster families are relig... (Nov '15) Apr '17 Jogirl 52
News Magic 101: Who was Aleister Crowley? (Mar '11) Apr '17 skeptic 176
News Speaking of religion: Pagans stir a fuss in Beebe (Jun '14) Feb '17 guest 119
News Looking for a Pagan community in Kentucky? (Mar '12) Feb '17 Not a modern Chri... 15
More from around the web