Who Is Allah?

Who Is Allah?

There are 250935 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.

I KEEL U 2 DETH

Lowell, MA

#203629 Mar 20, 2014
bmz wrote:
<quoted text>
I have already demolished your Al-Lat nonsense by telling you that there is no 'al lat in the Arabic verse". English, Greek and Latin are scripturally very poor and unfit languages.
She is not talking about Arabic or Greek or English, she is talking about the transliteration. From a transliteration one can gleam what the Arabic words actually are by the sound that the transliteration makes. As far as I can tell, you are merely dancing and hiding behind the Arabic and using it as you see fit counting on nobody to know Arabic well enough to catch you.
I KEEL U 2 DETH

Lowell, MA

#203630 Mar 20, 2014
bmz wrote:
<quoted text>
I don't believe that you have debated with people who know Arabic. How can you debate with me,
She probably can't unless she knows Arabic, because won't be able to catch you merely adding your own words to verses and then claim the Arabic says this when it does not. A perfect example is when you added the words "as if" to 69:16 when there are no such words as that at all, and you did it to attempt to shift the meaning of the verse. And when asked for the Arabic words that represent "as if" in that verse, you fell silent and pretended as though the request was never made and waited for the request to slowly fade away. This is what you always do. When you get caught, you pretend as though you don't see it, and you come back the next day in hopes that everybody forgets it and you don't have to address it. There is no "as if" in 69:16. Period And yet you insisted there was. So this makes your word completely non trustworthy when it comes to Arabic.
I KEEL U 2 DETH

Lowell, MA

#203631 Mar 20, 2014
Allah's slaves are so faithful and willing to lie for Allah. The supposed truth often gets defended with lies. And there seems to be no feeling that anything is wrong with that among Muslims. Lie, cheat, twist etc....anything, just as long as one hopes they can make Islam look like it's true. That's all that matters. Actual truth is secondary and can be examined later after Islam is defended. And if one thing fails, no biggie, no embarrassment. Just create something else and try that. And keep throwing as much dung against the wall as possible in hopes that some of it, any of it, actually sticks. That seems to be the general mentality or the way the game is supposed to be played in the Muslim mind. It happens every day here over and over again, and it is a very consistent trait among Muslims.

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#203632 Mar 20, 2014
TO BMZ

Convince other Muslims from other forums to help you out in this thread. You're too dumb for most of us. LOL

Best Regards

Stefano Colonna.
I KEEL U 2 DETH

Lowell, MA

#203633 Mar 20, 2014
It's funny. Muslim throw so much sh!t at the wall, that's it's like they think it they can just overwhelm people with a steady stream of sh!t, eventually people will just believe them, if they try enough angles. Yes, overwhelm them with so much shit, that they don't even know what hit them. Kind of like the Zakir Naik approach. There are probably many Muslims who owe their dishonest tactics to him, whether they even realize that or have learned them indirectly. But so often, it seems like almost all Muslims have the same reasoning pattern and have been taught by the same incompetent debating coach who himself probably does not have a decent grasp on proper objective reasoning.
I KEEL U 2 DETH

Lowell, MA

#203634 Mar 20, 2014
I think the most classic facet of Muslim logic is that they invent things, and then, in their mind, it's not up to them to prove their invention right, it's up to you to prove it wrong. So if they can invent it, then by default, it must be true unless you prove it wrong. Completely, twisted, reverse, backwards logic from backwards people.

Another classic one is inventing a rule and applying it in one situation, and then changing that rule in situations where it is inconvenient for their point, and then changing the rule back again when convenient for their point. So in their mind, they are allowed to apply a rule any way they need to given the situation, and they see absolutely no logical problem with this. Nobody has ever pointed out the logical flaw in this to them. This is why you will often see them telling people to trust nothing from the Bible and they might as well throw it out, and then they pull the Bible back out of the trash and start quoting from it, but only parts that they think meets their needs. And they can't understand any logical problem with doing this. It's as though they are logically crippled or hypnotized.
LiLyknows

Quitman, TX

#203635 Mar 20, 2014
bmz wrote:
<quoted text>
I don't believe that you have debated with people who know Arabic. How can you debate with me, when you are the one, who knows nothing about Arabic, copies and pastes translations and transliterations, without knowing how Arabic is spoken and how it is read?
Do you read the 'at' in Lat as the 'at' in Bat? I am sure you do that. That would be hilarious if you do that.
I have already demolished your Al-Lat nonsense by telling you that there is no 'al lat in the Arabic verse". English, Greek and Latin are scripturally very poor and unfit languages. You can see how ridiculous the NT is!
I have already explained and shown you that there is no article "The" before Lat, which you twisted to ilat to make a foolish point.
Dismissed!
I don't care if you believe it or not. I had ongoing discussion with 'muslims' for over 10 years in another forum. They were actually helpful sometimes, often unintentionally. You are the one that said that the transliterations were to teach people about Arabic, now you are claiming that they aren't reliable transliterations of to learn from? Make up your mind bmz!

Does the 'al mean AND or not? Is the root for the arabic words used for for 'deity'- il(ah) as it shows in the transliteration not correct? You are evading those questions, and trying to run away. You have not demolished the allat theory since it is referred to as the 'god(dess)' and no matter how you want to avoid it, it implies a feminine deity that was associated with your 'the god' allah that was called 'allat'. Are you trying to deny that the personal name for your 'allah' is not a contraction of 'the god' in arabic?
LiLyknows

Quitman, TX

#203636 Mar 20, 2014
I KEEL U 2 DETH wrote:
<quoted text>
She probably can't unless she knows Arabic, because won't be able to catch you merely adding your own words to verses and then claim the Arabic says this when it does not. A perfect example is when you added the words "as if" to 69:16 when there are no such words as that at all, and you did it to attempt to shift the meaning of the verse. And when asked for the Arabic words that represent "as if" in that verse, you fell silent and pretended as though the request was never made and waited for the request to slowly fade away. This is what you always do. When you get caught, you pretend as though you don't see it, and you come back the next day in hopes that everybody forgets it and you don't have to address it. There is no "as if" in 69:16. Period And yet you insisted there was. So this makes your word completely non trustworthy when it comes to Arabic.
I recognize a lot of the arabic transliterations that are used from referring to a parallel translation versions. I have seen enough of it that I usually notice what translation they are using or when they are interjecting/changing the translations, but I didn't catch that one. Thanks for for pointing it out. I'll have to keep a better eye on him.
LiLyknows

Quitman, TX

#203637 Mar 20, 2014
LiLyknows wrote:
<quoted text>
I don't care if you believe it or not. I had ongoing discussion with 'muslims' for over 10 years in another forum. They were actually helpful sometimes, often unintentionally. You are the one that said that the transliterations were to teach people about Arabic, now you are claiming that they aren't reliable transliterations of to learn from? Make up your mind bmz!
Does the 'al mean AND or not? Is the root for the arabic words used for for 'deity'- il(ah) as it shows in the transliteration not correct? You are evading those questions, and trying to run away. You have not demolished the allat theory since it is referred to as the 'god(dess)' and no matter how you want to avoid it, it implies a feminine deity that was associated with your 'the god' allah that was called 'allat'. Are you trying to deny that the personal name for your 'allah' is not a contraction of 'the god' in arabic?
oops, I just noticed that I ask if 'al is 'and' instead of 'the', because I was thinking about the 'wa prefix (that means 'and') while I was typing. So rephrase, does the 'al in the transliterated arabic indicate a 'the' and the 'wa' prefix indicate an 'and'? And go ahead, explain what the double AA's mean and while you are at it. I was also wondering why there are some places in the transliterated that looks more like bi allah(i) similar to the rendering in Aramaic for the idol god Baal?

And there are some people who say: We believe in Allah and the last day; and they are not at all believers. 2:8

Wamina alnnasi man yaqoolu amanna *biAllahi wabialyawmi al-akhiri wama hum bimu/mineena

Word: f9b
Lexeme: f9b
Root: L9b
Word Number: 3106
Meaning: Baal
Pronunciation:(Eastern) B'aELaA
(Western) B'aELoA
Part of Speech: Proper Noun
Gender: Masculine

http://www.peshitta.org/

Have you then considered the Lat and the Uzza, Afaraaytumu allata *wa*alAAuzza
El Cid

Saint Albans, WV

#203638 Mar 20, 2014
El Cid

Saint Albans, WV

#203639 Mar 20, 2014

Since: Nov 13

Denver, CO

#203640 Mar 20, 2014
I KEEL U 2 DETH wrote:
<quoted text>
And the fleas in your beard.
<quoted text>
And in your beard.
<quoted text>
Really? I never heard you say this before. I think your record has a skip.
rabbee: because you have not heard it before, does not mean i have not said this before. either you are here in TheTorah HaShem G-D is giving again, or you are just another subtle talking critter. either you are here in This Story from G-D again, or you are just another not here in TheTorah animal.

Since: Nov 13

Denver, CO

#203641 Mar 20, 2014
I KEEL U 2 DETH wrote:
<quoted text>
crabbee: You must be a really big hit at a Flea Market.
rabbee: well apparently not according, to all of you talking fleas.

Since: Nov 13

Denver, CO

#203642 Mar 20, 2014
I KEEL U 2 DETH wrote:
<quoted text>
I've heard of pea brains, but now I have met a flea brain.
rabbee: and your brains have fled, you a long time ago.

Since: Nov 13

Denver, CO

#203643 Mar 20, 2014
STEFANO COLONNA wrote:
<quoted text>
The term "mashiach" comes from the Mem-Shin-Chet which means to paint, smear, or annoint. The word "moshiah" comes from the root Yod-Shin-Ayin, which means to help or save.
rabbee: there is no letter i in eevreet, so why should i trust anything you say? and there is no consonant ayeen, in either mosheeach, or masheeach. every consonant, must have its one associated vowel mo-shee-ach or ma-shee-ach. and the consonants are mem sheen chet. and every consonant and its vowel, forms a syllable. so even the alleged tetragammen, is not that difficult to figure out. TheTorah is written almost entirely without vowels, except for the special case vowels. so it is just a matter of knowing the right vowel for each consonant. and that the last vowel in a word, is generally placed in front of the last consonant.

and you have been taught enough, of someone else corrupted eevreet to be dangerous. and one of the first signs of corrupted eevreet, is when they call it hebrew. which should be, a red warning flag right there.

Since: Nov 13

Denver, CO

#203644 Mar 20, 2014
I KEEL U 2 DETH wrote:
<quoted text>
So you are a hermaphrodite?
rabbee: well that is your, errant way of thinking. and in the second coming, adam is a male only. not like The Unique One as Adam. so you don't don't even know this story, even untruly sarcastically speaking. as you do not even know, what happens next after G-D has Adam is crucified. your just another nobody, here in this story from G-D just again. and your version is not going to prevent, G-D from giving this whole story again. so your grandchildren can have a diluvium good time in the first day again here in always TheTorah.
LiLyknows

Quitman, TX

#203645 Mar 20, 2014
bmz wrote:
<quoted text>
Dead Sea Scrolls mean nothing to me and they do not mean anything to Jews either, who still have their ancient scrolls.
By the way, the DSS does not support Christianity at all. There is nothing in there about the unholy New Testament. DSS belonged to dead sects of Judaism. I am not impressed with DSS.
The everlasting God has already been pressed into the mould to create an abomination, monstrosity and absurdity know as the ridiculous Triune God of Christianity. The three characters are like the gods of pagans, who had their trinities.
There is only one true God Almighty and your biblical god is not that God. Trust me!
The Tanakh has no God the Father, God the son and God the Holy Spirit. Think hard!
It is Christianity that has butchered the true God of Abraham, Moses and Jesus.
Of course, if it doesn't allegedly come out of the filthy mouth of a pagan false prophet you don't believe it unless you think that you can somehow make anything that sounds divine about him. The prophecies that promise the coming of God as Salvation does support the teachings of Christianity. How could it not? You need to stop banging your head on the floor all day long it's causing major brain damage.

The point wasn't to impress you with an ancient Scroll that was scribed hundreds of years before mohammed went out of his way to try to make a prophecy out of it to be about himself. Of course you don't like it, because you cannot claim that it has been corrupted to try to explain the contradictions with 'what came before' because the evidence predates moh's delusions and claims and it more than proves that moh/allah a fraud (through and through).

The imposter named 'allah' that claimed to have done it all, had no power to foresee events to avoid making false claims, made a lot of big mistakes. It couldn't prove what it claimed because it was powerless to protect the proof of what it claimed and created at least two false religions based purely on deception and cowardice!

So all those 'traits' that were stolen by moh to try to recreate his moon god (to be 'like' God) aren't real attributes since your idol is nothing, can do nothing (powerless), can see nothing (blind), sustains nothing (not even itself), and has never been worshiped by any of the persons that the koran falsely claims worshiped it.
bmz

Since: Mar 08

Singapore

#203647 Mar 21, 2014
yehoshooah adam wrote:
rabbee: and your brains have fled, you a long time ago.
I agree with that assessment, Rabbee. Thanks

Same was the case with the men, who founded the Church and Christianity and wrote her books.
bmz

Since: Mar 08

Singapore

#203648 Mar 21, 2014
LiLyknows wrote:
<quoted text>
Of course, if it doesn't allegedly come out of the filthy mouth of a pagan false prophet you don't believe it unless you think that you can somehow make anything that sounds divine about him. The prophecies that promise the coming of God as Salvation does support the teachings of Christianity. How could it not? You need to stop banging your head on the floor all day long it's causing major brain damage.
The point wasn't to impress you with an ancient Scroll that was scribed hundreds of years before mohammed went out of his way to try to make a prophecy out of it to be about himself. Of course you don't like it, because you cannot claim that it has been corrupted to try to explain the contradictions with 'what came before' because the evidence predates moh's delusions and claims and it more than proves that moh/allah a fraud (through and through).

The imposter named 'allah' that claimed to have done it all, had no power to foresee events to avoid making false claims, made a lot of big mistakes. It couldn't prove what it claimed because it was powerless to protect the proof of what it claimed and created at least two false religions based purely on deception and cowardice!

So all those 'traits' that were stolen by moh to try to recreate his moon god (to be 'like' God) aren't real attributes since your idol is nothing, can do nothing (powerless), can see nothing (blind), sustains nothing (not even itself), and has never been worshiped by any of the persons that the koran falsely claims worshiped it.
You are terribly off-topic just like the men,who wrote the New Testament and those who came up with filthy and ridiculous doctrines o Christianity,were.

Please read my post again:

"Dead Sea Scrolls mean nothing to me and they do not mean anything to Jews either, who still have their ancient scrolls.

By the way, the DSS does not support Christianity at all. There is nothing in there about the unholy New Testament. DSS belonged to dead sects of Judaism. I am not impressed with DSS.

The everlasting God has already been pressed into the mould to create an abomination, monstrosity and absurdity know as the ridiculous Triune God of Christianity. The three characters are like the gods of pagans, who had their trinities.

There is only one true God Almighty and your biblical god is not that God. Trust me!
The Tanakh has no God the Father, God the son and God the Holy Spirit. Think hard!
It is Christianity that has butchered the true God of Abraham, Moses and Jesus."

Tell me honestly how can you accept the filth known as God the Father, God the Son and God the Holy Spirit, which in reality do not exist? Jebus aka Jesus is not on record for uttering those filthy titles, which blaspheme both God Almighty and his obedient slave Jeusus.
bmz

Since: Mar 08

Singapore

#203649 Mar 21, 2014
@ Lily

Names of the notoriously famous impostors:

God the Father

God the Son

God the Holy Ghost, now known as God the Holy Spirit.

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) Thu thetruth 4,348
News This Halloween, Think of Islam as a Religion of... May 24 Im a poet and I k... 2
News Who Is Allah? (Jul '08) May 22 Joel 13,168
News Atheist billboard near Lincoln Tunnel scheduled... (Nov '10) May 19 Patrick 219
Convert me from Agnostic to Atheist May 19 New Beginning 1
News Witches for Sanders? Democratic Candidate Finds... May 16 Truth 2
News Athiest tells high schoolers God is evil (May '11) May 16 Eagle 12 770
More from around the web