Who Is Allah?

Who Is Allah?

There are 256391 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.

El Cid

Saint Albans, WV

#200263 Feb 4, 2014
MUQ wrote:
<quoted text>
How biased could one become, people should learn from your posts.
And please "invent" another name for God other than Allah for Arabic speaking Christians and Jews!!
Try and Try till you are blue in face!!
Well, gee, your "prophet" ALSO called God "Ar-Rahman," so maybe that's the name that Arabic speaking Christians and Jews should use when addressing YHWH/G-d, instead of Allah.

Qur'an 13:30 "They do not believe in Ar-Rahman. Tell them,'He is my Lord. There is no other Ilah (God) but He. In Him I have placed my trust.'"

Qur'an 67:28 "Say:'He is Ar-Rahman; in Him we believed, and in Him we have placed our trust: Soon will you know which one of us is in manifest error.'"

The point is that it's not the name of God in whatever language that is being used, but the kind of behavior that such a belief inspired in your "prophet." What I've been able to determine so far from the Qur'an and Hadiths is that Mohammad's belief in "Allah" transformed him over 23 years of "service" into a thieving, lying, enslaving ,rape-enabling, bigot and murderer whose very oaths could not be trusted. That's why his "Allah" is in quotes, because Mohammad, for all intents and purposes, WAS "Allah."

Bukhari:V9B92N384 "Allah's Apostle said,'Whoever obeys me will enter Paradise, and whoever disobeys me will not enter it.'"
Truth Seeker

New Delhi, India

#200264 Feb 4, 2014
El Cid wrote:
<quoted text>That's why his "Allah" is in quotes, because Mohammad, for all intents and purposes, WAS "Allah."
Bukhari:V9B92N384 "Allah's Apostle said,'Whoever obeys me will enter Paradise, and whoever disobeys me will not enter it.'"
Excellent Buford, I totally agree with you ...

bmz

Since: Mar 08

Location hidden

#200265 Feb 4, 2014
El Cid wrote:
Ignoramus,
Catholics consider themselves to be Christians.
That is not the point!

Those, who call themselves Christians, do not consider the Catholics as Christians.

Please educate yourself through these links, coming from Christian sources:

http://www.diffen.com/difference/Catholicism_...

http://www.gotquestions.org/Catholic-Christia...

http://christianity.net.au/questions/what_is_...

http://www.everystudent.com/forum/difference....
Alex WM

London, UK

#200266 Feb 4, 2014
No-Doubt wrote:
<quoted text>
Do you envy Alex
Jesus Son of god sent
Yep just like Adam peace be upon him ~
&#9668; Luke 3:38 &#9658;
Parallel Verses
New International Version
the son of Enosh, the son of Seth, the son of Adam, the son of God.
• jesus saying he prophet :
Said to jesus peace be upon him
1 At that time some Pharisees came to Jesus and said to him,“Leave this place and go somewhere else. Herod wants to kill you.”
Jesus replied :
for surely no prophet can die outside Jerusalem!
Assalaam Alaikum, dear brother...
When Buford/ el cid panics, we know he is running out of material of any worth...

This is quite moving...
http://www.eaalim.com/download/index.php/blog...

http://www.eaalim.com/download/index.php/blog...

Ma'Salaams
Alex WM

London, UK

#200267 Feb 4, 2014
bmz wrote:
<quoted text>
That is not the point!
Those, who call themselves Christians, do not consider the Catholics as Christians.
Please educate yourself through these links, coming from Christian sources:
http://www.diffen.com/difference/Catholicism_...
http://www.gotquestions.org/Catholic-Christia...
http://christianity.net.au/questions/what_is_...
http://www.everystudent.com/forum/difference....
Very true, brother...
I am doing some real close work with some "Christians" and they have no doubt what would happen to the Pope and his followers.
Salaams
Alex WM

London, UK

#200268 Feb 4, 2014
Truth Seeker wrote:
<quoted text>
Excellent Buford, I totally agree with you ...
And Jesus is Krishna according to buford el cid le dic?
Alex WM

London, UK

#200270 Feb 4, 2014
Truth Seeker wrote:
<quoted text>
It was quite Obvious what I meant ..... You are filthy because you are ashamed of your Origin .... I am not ..... I have not hidden where am I from ... I am neither proud nor, ashamed to be an Indian .... I thank God for giving me birth in this life as an Indian ....
But you have a serious Identity crisis it seems ....
I am an indian now,eh?
But you said you guys were filth from the sub continent..
or am i a fellow filth from your part of the world?
Alex WM

London, UK

#200271 Feb 4, 2014
Truth Seeker wrote:
<quoted text>
Just to please your own thinking, you can not change some message on your own and claim that to be Message of Pure Monotheism. This is absolutely Foolish!!!!!
And please stop talking in your primitive mindset .... Here no one is talking about anything but Monotheism ... Everyone is in agreement that there is only One God Almighty .... And everyone knows that there is only One God Almighty ....
Mr fool and a half..
The "bible" has been changed many times..
When you bother to learn English, you might even notice that the various "versions" don't even agree....thanks to folks who "change" some message..!
Alex WM

London, UK

#200272 Feb 4, 2014
El Cid wrote:
<quoted text>
"Here is what I chewed and SPAT out," it should read.
This is what BMZ "spat" out....
"According to Matthew Henry (1662–1714) in his commentary, Jesus is called in this opening verse because he was the Son of God sent to earth to reveal his Father's mind to the world. A plain reading of the verse has John the Evangelist to be understanding the verse as proof that Jesus is God; that Jesus has been with and existed as God the Father from the very beginning, the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

The proper rendering into English from the original Koine Greek text continues to be a source of vigorous debate among Bible translators."

Here, we note the absurdity of Jesus existing as God the Father.

Then I moved on to the absurd "Source text and translations", which gave me:

Greek to English: "In beginning was the Word, and the Word was with (toward) the God, and God was the Word."

Then comes Latin to English: "In beginning was Word and Word was beside (alongside) God and God was Word."

So, this was in the beginning before 14th Century. Then came the 15th Century fraudulent translation:

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

As I chewed it further, I read Difficulties, which says:

"The text of John 1:1 has a sordid past and a myriad of interpretations. With the Greek alone, we can create empathic, orthodox, creed-like statements, or we can commit pure and unadulterated heresy."

The words SORDID and MYRIAD" caught my eye and I cracked up. The article paints a sordid picture of fraud and scam.

I also chewed up other variations of rendering John 1:1 which also exist as:

"14th century - Wycliffe's Bible (from the 4th-century Latin Vulgate) reads: "In the beginning was the word, and the word was at God, and God was the word."

This simply means that God was only word in the beginning.

"1808 “and the Word was a god”- Thomas Belsham The New Testament, in An Improved Version, Upon the Basis of Archbishop Newcome’s New Translation: With a Corrected Text , London."

So, you can see the massive forgeries, lies and confusion, which can only be found in the texts of the Christian Bible. This is the reason that no one testified that book.

This is another fact which no one can deny! lol!

Please chew on this seriously.

bmz

Since: Mar 08

Location hidden

#200273 Feb 4, 2014
Alex WM wrote:
This is what BMZ "spat" out....

"According to Matthew Henry (1662–1714) in his commentary, Jesus is called in this opening verse because he was the Son of God sent to earth to reveal his Father's mind to the world. A plain reading of the verse has John the Evangelist to be understanding the verse as proof that Jesus is God; that Jesus has been with and existed as God the Father from the very beginning, the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

The proper rendering into English from the original Koine Greek text continues to be a source of vigorous debate among Bible translators."

Here, we note the absurdity of Jesus existing as God the Father.

Then I moved on to the absurd "Source text and translations", which gave me:

Greek to English: "In beginning was the Word, and the Word was with (toward) the God, and God was the Word."

Then comes Latin to English: "In beginning was Word and Word was beside (alongside) God and God was Word."

So, this was in the beginning before 14th Century. Then came the 15th Century fraudulent translation:

""In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.""
As I chewed it further, I read Difficulties, which says:

"The text of John 1:1 has a sordid past and a myriad of interpretations. With the Greek alone, we can create empathic, orthodox, creed-like statements, or we can commit pure and unadulterated heresy."

The words SORDID and MYRIAD" caught my eye and I cracked up. The article paints a sordid picture of fraud and scam.

I also chewed up other variations of rendering John 1:1 which also exist as:

"14th century - Wycliffe's Bible (from the 4th-century Latin Vulgate) reads: "In the beginning was the word, and the word was at God, and God was the word."

This simply means that God was only word in the beginning.

"1808 “and the Word was a god”- Thomas Belsham The New Testament, in An Improved Version, Upon the Basis of Archbishop Newcome’s New Translation: With a Corrected Text , London."

So, you can see the massive forgeries, lies and confusion, which can only be found in the texts of the Christian Bible. This is the reason that no one testified that book.

This is another fact which no one can deny! lol!

Please chew on this seriously.
lol!

Salaams, bro

Buford was supposed to chew on that.

Indeed, he should chew on what I wrote seriously.

Thanks, bro
BMZ

bmz

Since: Mar 08

Location hidden

#200274 Feb 4, 2014
El Cid wrote:
"Here is what I chewed and SPAT out," it should read.
No, it should not be read that way.

bmz

Since: Mar 08

Location hidden

#200275 Feb 4, 2014
El Cid wrote:
"Here is what I chewed and SPAT out," it should read.
Now, please address the post, which contains all the points, which I took from the link you provided.

Here it is, once again and quite an easy read, I must say:

"According to Matthew Henry (1662–1714) in his commentary, Jesus is called in this opening verse because he was the Son of God sent to earth to reveal his Father's mind to the world. A plain reading of the verse has John the Evangelist to be understanding the verse as proof that Jesus is God; that Jesus has been with and existed as God the Father from the very beginning, the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

The proper rendering into English from the original Koine Greek text continues to be a source of vigorous debate among Bible translators."

Here, we note the absurdity of Jesus existing as God the Father.

Then I moved on to the absurd "Source text and translations", which gave me:

Greek to English: "In beginning was the Word, and the Word was with (toward) the God, and God was the Word."

Then comes Latin to English: "In beginning was Word and Word was beside (alongside) God and God was Word."

So, this was in the beginning before 14th Century. Then came the 15th Century fraudulent translation:

""In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.""
As I chewed it further, I read Difficulties, which says:

"The text of John 1:1 has a sordid past and a myriad of interpretations. With the Greek alone, we can create empathic, orthodox, creed-like statements, or we can commit pure and unadulterated heresy."

The words SORDID and MYRIAD" caught my eye and I cracked up. The article paints a sordid picture of fraud and scam.

I also chewed up other variations of rendering John 1:1 which also exist as:

"14th century - Wycliffe's Bible (from the 4th-century Latin Vulgate) reads: "In the beginning was the word, and the word was at God, and God was the word."

This simply means that God was only word in the beginning.

"1808 “and the Word was a god”- Thomas Belsham The New Testament, in An Improved Version, Upon the Basis of Archbishop Newcome’s New Translation: With a Corrected Text , London."

So, you can see the massive forgeries, lies and confusion, which can only be found in the texts of the Christian Bible. This is the reason that no one testified that book.

This is another fact which no one can deny! lol!

Please chew on this seriously."

Alex understood it well and so should you.

bmz

Since: Mar 08

Location hidden

#200276 Feb 4, 2014
Alex WM wrote:
And Jesus is Krishna according to buford el cid le dic?
Good question.

I had asked TS to discuss his note on baptism with Buford. So far he has not.

I don't think he will because it may hurt the operation of sucking-up-to-Buford.

Salaams
BMZ

bmz

Since: Mar 08

Location hidden

#200277 Feb 4, 2014
Truth Seeker wrote:
Excellent Buford, I totally agree with you ...
Now read this and say: "Excellent BMZ, I totally agree with you."

"Whoever believes in the Son has eternal life; whoever does not obey the Son shall not see life, but the wrath of God remains on him."

Bonus verse: "Mark 16:16 ESV

Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved, but whoever does not believe will be condemned."

This will show you the importance of baptism in Christianity. That is a fact, which Buford cannot deny. Do you still wish to deny the importance of baptism in Buford's eyes?

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#200278 Feb 4, 2014
Truth Seeker wrote:
<quoted text>
Bhagavan or, Ishvar or, "Krishna" told me that "Jesus Christ" (Kristos) is God and is one of His plenary expansion. Please look at the following verse from Gita -
ajo 'pi sann avyayatma
bhutanam isvaro 'pi san
prakrtim svam adhisthaya
sambhavamy atma-mayaya (Gita 4:6)
Meaning: Although I am unborn and My transcendental body never deteriorates, and although I am the Lord of all sentient beings, I still appear in every millennium in My original transcendental form.
yada yada hi dharmasya
glanir bhavati bharata
abhyutthanam adharmasya
tadatmanam srjamy aham (Gita 4:7)
Meaning: Whenever and wherever there is a decline in religious practice, O descendant of Bharata, and a predominant rise of irreligion--at that time I descend Myself.
Explanation: The Lord declared in Gita that he appears in his original transcendental form in every Millennium. The Lord also says that whenever and wherever there is decline in religious practice, he comes to straighten the things ….. And all of us know it very well that when “Jesus” arrived in Judea, the Religious practices of the Jews were at their lowest. There was imminent need to overhaul the existing anarchy and establish the true Religious practices.
Precisely that is what “Jesus” deed. Hence, the prophesy that “Krishna” made around 3050 BCE in India while delivering Bhagavat Gita, was fulfilled by “Jesus” exactly the same manner and under same situation and for the same purpose. On top of it, when I see that the essence of their message and their very conception of GOD Almighty is same, there is naturally very little room left to us mortals for any speculation. There remains no doubt that they are from the same source and that source is God Almighty and “Krishna” or,“Jesus” or,“Christ” or,“Kristos” are the same God Almighty (Ishvar or, Bhagavan).
Thanks ….
Gita 4:6 says that this god appear every millenium. Who was he last millenium?

Also if Krishna appeared around 3050 BCE (4th millenium) while Yeshua around 0 (between the 1st millenium AC and the 1st millenium) who appeared in the 3rd and 2nd millenium BCE?

Gita 4:7 says that Krishna will appear whenever and wherever there is a decline in religious practice. If Krishna should arrive when there is a decline in religious practice, then he should appear more often than once every millenium, and not only in India or Israel, especially in Europe, since religious practice started to diminish since the Age of Enlightenment, but we haven't seen any god coming in Europe, last millenium.

“Here again in The Torah”

Since: Nov 13

Denver Colorado 80218

#200279 Feb 4, 2014
Alex WM wrote:
<quoted text>
Mr fool and a half..
The "bible" has been changed many times..
When you bother to learn English, you might even notice that the various "versions" don't even agree....thanks to folks who "change" some message..!
rabbee: are you saying the devil, is more satisfied with the way the quran is written? and is having a more difficult time, rewriting the bible?

for when you are listening what muhammed said about g-d, this is called idolatry. when you are listening what G-D, has to say about muhammed this is not called idolatry.

and this is what G-D, said about muhammed to me:
Alex WM

London, UK

#200280 Feb 4, 2014
yehoshooah adam wrote:
<quoted text>
rabbee: are you saying the devil, is more satisfied with the way the quran is written? and is having a more difficult time, rewriting the bible?
for when you are listening what muhammed said about g-d, this is called idolatry. when you are listening what G-D, has to say about muhammed this is not called idolatry.
and this is what G-D, said about muhammed to me:
Seeing "gods" and claiming "gods" visited you is IDOLATRY, Jimmie.
Holy Prophet Muhammed PBUH did not make such silly claims. Jesus did not make such silly claims.
Did Jesus ever say "gods" visited me?
Did Jesus ever say I have seen "gods"?
uhuh

Spain

#200281 Feb 4, 2014
those who do not believe that Jesus is God in human form,

Jesus said of them, "He who does not believe, will be condemned" (Mark 16:16)
John said "He who does not believe in him, has been judged already" (John 3:18)
and Paul said "Lord Jesus will come down in flaming fire, inflicting vengeance on those who do not obey his Gospel" (2 Thess 1:8)
uhuh

Spain

#200282 Feb 4, 2014
it doesn't matter if muslims love Jesus and honor his name with "alaihi salam" (instead of "yemach shemo") or not,
Jesus will still shoo them off to hell "Depart from me into everlasting fire!"
...so much for Jesus' love

“Here again in The Torah”

Since: Nov 13

Denver Colorado 80218

#200283 Feb 4, 2014
Alex WM wrote:
<quoted text>
Seeing "gods" and claiming "gods" visited you is IDOLATRY, Jimmie.
Holy Prophet Muhammed PBUH did not make such silly claims. Jesus did not make such silly claims.
Did Jesus ever say "gods" visited me?
Did Jesus ever say I have seen "gods"?
rabbee: you must not of done, your christian homework - and g-d/s is not G-D. WHO were THE GLOWING ONE'S, Yeshooah was speaking to on the hill?

and my claim is no more absurd than Noach, Avraham or Moshe. and it even tells you in TheTorah, that G-D always comes to visit me here in IT. so is that absurd, to you too? and yes i know everything of G-D, is absurd to you demonic critters rejecting G-D here in The Story. you have never been a righteous person alex, and it appears you never desired to be righteous.

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 'Everyone will be Muslim because of our stupidi... Jan 14 Einstein Nukes 16
News Harrogate mother says foster families are relig... (Nov '15) Dec 29 Sugar plum 50
News Who the Crusaders Are in 2016 Dec 28 Playa 7
confusion 3 Dec 26 taylor810 1
confusion Dec 26 taylor810 2
News The war on Christmas (Dec '10) Dec 26 Eagle 12 4,912
News What's wrong with wishing others a Merry Christ... (Dec '08) Dec 26 Jesus Is 52
More from around the web