Who Is Allah?

There are 219942 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

#189909 Sep 20, 2013
BMZ, see if you can understand this very basic logic. It almost seems as though you are saying that if one sneaks into someone's home when they are not home or are asleep and quietly takes things, that is theft. But if someone breaks into someone's home, takes it over and kills them and takes their stuff, suddenly that is not theft, but "booty". How do you arrive at these bizarre conclusions?

Not to change the subject, but as an example, when the US invaded Iraq, they didn't start carting off the Iraqis' possessions back to the US and no Generals said it was OK to rape and sell the Iraqi women that they found. But Muhammad DID do things like this. George Bush Jr had more morals than Muhammad did and I have no idea why any Muslims should hate him so badly when he didn't do or condone as many bad things as Muhammad himself did.

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#189910 Sep 20, 2013
Seeker wrote:
<quoted text>
Why are Muslims always so dishonest about their religion?
If you come from a religion where a certain indivudual is considered perfect even though he was a liar, dishonest, slaves maker, pedophile, killer, robber, raping enabler etc. What kind of behaviour do you actually expect from his followers?
Seeker

Lowell, MA

#189911 Sep 20, 2013
STEFANO COLONNA wrote:
<quoted text>
If you come from a religion where a certain indivudual is considered perfect even though he was a liar, dishonest, slaves maker, pedophile, killer, robber, raping enabler etc. What kind of behaviour do you actually expect from his followers?
I begin to think that there really isn't much feelings of guilt over dishonesty and instead that is viewed as clever in Muslim culture, especially if one is being dishonest to the kafir, because the kafir need to be lied to and tricked because God doesn't like them anyway. So the truth can be defended with dishonesty if that's what it takes. And they really see no problem with this.

Another possibility is that they are taught that anybody who reads the Quran can and must surely see it as the truth. So if one reads it and concludes that it is not the truth, then they are surely lying and are just jealous of Islam and want to bring it down because they are jealous. So if one points out problems, they are not merely pointing out what they see, they must be lying and trying to bring Islam down due to their jealousy of it. Therefore, they assume that you are lying, so to them, it becomes a game to see who can be the more clever liar. I'm not kidding about this theory and I derived it from much experience with Muslims and from ex Muslims who flat out have told me that this is the way they actually think. They only care about the image of Islam and increasing their numbers because numbers are everything to them and automatically equate to proof that Islam is true, and they don't care what they have to do to accomplish this. So this must be how they don't even feel any guilt for behavior like that, and instead it is deemed clever.

It's the only possible explanation that I can think of, and this was indeed confirmed by some ex Muslims I have participated with on forums. If you want the hard cold truth, talk to an ex Muslim who knows all about it.
yehoshooah adam

Denver, CO

#189912 Sep 20, 2013
El Cid wrote:
"The shameful part is that the Father deceived Jesus and never told him that he was going to get him killed." ~ bmz,
rabbee: not true, according to their scripture. Yeshooah already knew, and predicted Their death in advance. the multitudes having been in a failure mode, for already too long is not a good sign. and They knew this even before, they rode into Yeroosalem on a jenny instead of a horse. even before the fig tree, refused to bear fruit out of season on Their command.

in this story version, should Adam be put to death. it is not a good sign, for them to be returned as adam and his mate. it means the whole world, has failed again to be all here in TheTorah from HaShem just again. and that jews, christians, muslems, and other atheists, are all lying to you about this again. and the whole world and everyone not here in it, are all at fault as the enemies of G-D.
Seeker

Lowell, MA

#189913 Sep 20, 2013
STEFANO COLONNA wrote:
<quoted text>
If you come from a religion where a certain indivudual is considered perfect even though he was a liar, dishonest,
Here is something to consider. When Muhammad had no army and was in a disadvantaged position, it was no compulsion in religion. This worked well for him because he was in a position where people could try to force their religion upon him. Then, after he gained a big army, the tone of the Quran changed and many earlier verses were abrogated, and there most certainly was compulsion in religion, at least when it came to the pagans. Clearly it was convert or die. The Christians and Jews were spared after he conquered all of the pagans because they could be a source of income for Muslims to extort. So they were allowed to survive and be treated as second class citizens so that money could be extorted from them via the jizyah, and the jizyah was set at whatever rate Muslims felt like. These are FACTS that cannot be denied. Here is some historical substantiation from IBN Kathir for the creation of the jizyah. Very interesting read that Muslims do not want you to see, honest people that they are.

http://www.qtafsir.com/index.php...

Then, speaking of more dishonesty, in the case of Mecca, when Muhammad did not have a big enough army, he fooled the Meccans by entering into a 10 year treaty with them so that he could lull them into a false sense of security while Muhammad grew his army. He never had one single intention of ever keeping that treaty one moment longer than he had to. Do you think that Allah's apostle should be denied the Kaaba for one moment longer than he had to? Of course not, so the treaty was made from dishonest intentions from the very beginning, and all that he had to do was to create theories of them "conspiring" against Muslims as soon as his army got big enough, and that was the end of them and they had to surrender without even a fight. Everybody was always "conspiring" against Muslims. It's a very easy excuse to use. I don't know why they hate Bush so much for his conspiracy theories of Iraq used to justify his invasion, when Muhammad did the same exact sort of things.
bmz

Since: Mar 08

Singapore

#189914 Sep 20, 2013
Seeker wrote:
BMZ, see if you can understand this very basic logic. It almost seems as though you are saying that if one sneaks into someone's home when they are not home or are asleep and quietly takes things, that is theft. But if someone breaks into someone's home, takes it over and kills them and takes their stuff, suddenly that is not theft, but "booty". How do you arrive at these bizarre conclusions?

Not to change the subject, but as an example, when the US invaded Iraq, they didn't start carting off the Iraqis' possessions back to the US and no Generals said it was OK to rape and sell the Iraqi women that they found. But Muhammad DID do things like this. George Bush Jr had more morals than Muhammad did and I have no idea why any Muslims should hate him so badly when he didn't do or condone as many bad things as Muhammad himself did.
Very simple. You have to go back in time.

If there were a US back then, it would have done the same. Nobody does that now, not even the Europeans, who looted the East.

Just 200 plus years ago, the Americans, the British and the French looted the Indian lands and properties. Right?

No General or a Commander would ask his troops to loot and rape. Soldiers may do that. For example, in Okinawa, the Commander has never been accused of rapes but the US soldiers get frequently accused of rapes. Right?

What morals does that wretched liar George Bush Jr. have as a former Commander-in-Chief?
bmz

Since: Mar 08

Singapore

#189915 Sep 20, 2013
Seeker wrote:
<quoted text>
If you brought up panty in response to his post and denied that the Quran mentioned that, then this means that you thought he was referring to that, whether directly or indirectly. Otherwise, there would be no reason to even mention the word panty because he never said that. But you brought that word up and the only logical reason to do that is if you thought the other person was referring to that either directly or indirectly. There is no reason to deny that the Quran said something, panty in this case, unless you thought the other person was saying that it did. Why does this have to be explained to you? And it's not a language barrier, so it is a logic barrier. I can't understand how you reason.
I added the word panty myself to ridicule the Christian poster. Spare me your Bulverism, please.
Seeker

Lowell, MA

#189916 Sep 20, 2013
yehoshooah adam wrote:
<quoted text>
in this story version, should Adam be put to death. it is not a good sign, for them to be returned as adam and his mate.
I think it has been foolish of me to even bother to challenge any of your unfounded claims that cannot be found in the scriptures. It's not going to matter what someone shows you. It is far wiser for someone to simply ignore them, and accept that there simply is no reaching you, and just let you carry on ranting. It's a free forum and there is nothing that anybody can do about it except to ignore it.
bmz

Since: Mar 08

Singapore

#189917 Sep 20, 2013
Seeker wrote:
<quoted text>
You guys just keep repeating the same things to each other and you never get anywhere. All you are doing is exchanging dogmatic opinions so neither of you will ever get anywhere with each other.
No, I have to keep reminding Shamma that Trinity is silly and absurd. There is no logic in it and the men, who came up with that, were extremely illogical.

And one has to keep telling Shamma that Trinity is something, which Jesus did not teach and preach.

So, if Christians can think logically, they would find it easy to reject Trinity, which was introduced 500 plus years after Jesus passed away.
Seeker

Lowell, MA

#189918 Sep 20, 2013
bmz wrote:
<quoted text>
So, if Christians can think logically, they would find it easy to reject Trinity, which was introduced 500 plus years after Jesus passed away.
So now it's 500 years. Your figures keep changing.
bmz

Since: Mar 08

Singapore

#189919 Sep 20, 2013
Seeker wrote:
It's the only possible explanation that I can think of, and this was indeed confirmed by some ex Muslims I have participated with on forums. If you want the hard cold truth, talk to an ex Muslim who knows all about it.
Seeker,

I have had the fun and pleasure with men like Ali Sina, Haik Monsieur aka Khalil, Kamran Mirza, Abul Kasem and many others and I found them to be ignorant fools.

Even Ali Sina and Abul Kasem agreed that they do not understand a word of Arabic and discuss through translations in English. That makes them incompetent fools. But they are okay with you because you too discuss through translations in English.
Seeker

Lowell, MA

#189920 Sep 20, 2013
bmz wrote:
<quoted text>
Seeker,
I have had the fun and pleasure with men like Ali Sina, Haik Monsieur aka Khalil, Kamran Mirza, Abul Kasem and many others and I found them to be ignorant fools.
I meant common ex Muslims like the ones that I talked to on the council of ex Muslims forum. They all say that this is why Muslims think it is ok to be tricky.

Since: May 13

Location hidden

#189934 Sep 20, 2013
WORDS OF GAUTAM SIDDHARTHA - THE BUDDHA:

"Do not dwell in the past, do not dream of the future, concentrate the mind on the present moment."

Since: May 13

Location hidden

#189947 Sep 20, 2013
MOST SUPERIOR RELIGIONS OR PATHS LEADING TO BEING & BECOMING:

Buddhism, Jainism and some parts of Vedanta are the most superior religions or paths to self-realization in the world. The other religions/cults are rubbish or are harmful exercises in demon-worship, fanaticism and barbarism.
bmz

Since: Mar 08

Singapore

#189948 Sep 20, 2013
Seeker wrote:
So now it's 500 years. Your figures keep changing.
Nobody is sure. What is sure is that it was definitely not there for the 1st 400 years.

Depends upon which Council you take. When was the last important Council held. 561 AD, is it?

It was definitely just before the arrival of our Prophet, because he was the first one to refute it through Qur'aan.
bmz

Since: Mar 08

Singapore

#189950 Sep 20, 2013
Seeker wrote:
<quoted text>
I meant common ex Muslims like the ones that I talked to on the council of ex Muslims forum. They all say that this is why Muslims think it is ok to be tricky.
Oh, that is a hilarious lot. Most of them are also ignorant fools. Only Omar aka Hasan and Sahara appeared to be genuine ex-Muslims. Remember both could not stand the lies against Islam and the Muslims and left FFI?

Seeker, one who claims to be an ex-Muslim, must be able to show that one knows about Islam.

Most of all these so-called ex-Muslims fail to show that they were.

Since: May 13

Location hidden

#189951 Sep 20, 2013
BMZ,

It's time for you to go to bed. Don't forget to take your meds that'll cure you of brainwashing, illogic and fanaticism. Bye.

Since: Apr 11

Location hidden

#189952 Sep 20, 2013
bmz wrote:
<quoted text>
No, Trinity is not there in the Scripture.
It is a post-Jesus crude derivative. God never revealed that filth, Shamma.
Then how did Jesus become into being if there is no Christian Holy Spirit?
How could Allah say "BE" and Jesus became into existence when Allah does not inter act himself among His creation?
If it was Gabriel that blew into Mary to have Mary conceive by leave of Allah then Allah has a partner in Gabriel with the power to create.
But scripture says Allah does not share His glory with anyone!
So who was it that blew into Mary that allowed Mary to conceive Jesus?
Seeker

Lowell, MA

#189954 Sep 20, 2013
JOEL THUMBS UP wrote:
WORDS OF GAUTAM SIDDHARTHA - THE BUDDHA:
"Do not dwell in the past, do not dream of the future, concentrate the mind on the present moment."
True true.
Seeker

Lowell, MA

#189955 Sep 20, 2013
bmz wrote:
<quoted text>
Nobody is sure. What is sure is that it was definitely not there for the 1st 400 years.
Well let us all know when you are sure, rather than making up whatever you feel like.

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... 25 min Dawn of Reality 3
Covertly clearing negative energy from the office (Sep '07) Thu 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