Who Is Allah?

Who Is Allah?

There are 252826 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.

Eric

Aurora, IL

#209777 Jun 30, 2014
Shamma wrote:
<quoted text>Your a Jew and you live up to your Jew character of being a Schmuck..
I laugh in your face Eric.
Jesus, I love pulling your chains.
Eric

Aurora, IL

#209778 Jun 30, 2014
MUQ1 wrote:
<quoted text>
The problem in Malaysia was a special one and the court ruled so that the word was not "misused" by certain Christian Churches.
It was a selective ruling, not a religious stand.
And even in that, many Muslims (from outside Malaysia, who did not the actual circumstances in Malaysia) did not like that ruling.
That ruling would not make it a "religious law"
So, what word should the Malay Christians use? How can one misuse the monotheistic G-d of Abraham. Haven't you been arguing that Allah is the monotheistic G-d of Abraham and that it's the word used by Christian Arabs?
El Cid

Saint Albans, WV

#209779 Jun 30, 2014
Eric,

bmz insists that only a Jewish source will suffice regarding the Temple Tax.(See: http://www.topix.com/forum/religion/islam/TT8... )

That is, he doesn't trust "polemic" Christian or Hindu sources to tell the truth about ANYTHING, it seems...
Eric

Aurora, IL

#209780 Jun 30, 2014
El Cid wrote:
Eric,
bmz insists that only a Jewish source will suffice regarding the Temple Tax.(See: http://www.topix.com/forum/religion/islam/TT8... )
That is, he doesn't trust "polemic" Christian or Hindu sources to tell the truth about ANYTHING, it seems...
Are you two arguing semantics or just seeking a payment required by Torah (Ex. 30:13)?
El Cid

Saint Albans, WV

#209781 Jun 30, 2014
Eric wrote:
<quoted text>Are you two arguing semantics or just seeking a payment required by Torah (Ex. 30:13)?
A payment required is a tax, by my reckoning, but bmz stepped in it when he posted that such a tax never ever existed with regard to the Temple. He's been trying to spin his way out of it ever since I proved him wrong.

He's like that.
El Cid

Saint Albans, WV

#209782 Jun 30, 2014
El Cid

Saint Albans, WV

#209783 Jun 30, 2014
Kareem O Wheat

Lowell, MA

#209784 Jun 30, 2014
Eric wrote:
<quoted text>Hugh, did you read the article or are you just assuming what it said? No where in the article does it say that Hitler was Jewish. In fact, one can interpret the article as stating that Hitler was African:
"Hitler's dominant haplogroup, E1b1b, is relatively rare in Western Europe - but strongest in some 25 percent of Greeks and Sicilians, who apparently acquired the genes from Africa: Between 50 percent and 80 percent of North Africans share Hitler's dominant group, which is especially prevalent among in the Berber tribes of Morocco, Algeria and Tunisia, and Somalis."
Therefore, Hitler was Black.
Even you who have a closer connection to being Jewish have consistently stated that you are not Jewish. If you are not Jewish with your ancestry, how can Hitler be Jewish with his clearly African roots?
Oh man, you are going to go there with someone who doesn't even have a proper understanding of the clear differences of meaning between the words belief and fact? Really? LOL!!! This oughta be GREAT!!! Thank you.
Kareem O Wheat

Lowell, MA

#209785 Jun 30, 2014
El Cid wrote:
<quoted text>A payment required is a tax, by my reckoning, but bmz stepped in it when he posted that such a tax never ever existed with regard to the Temple. He's been trying to spin his way out of it ever since I proved him wrong.
He's like that.
Oh yeah. Most definitely. No matter who he is talking to. But you have to understand, he does not feel funny at all about having to resort to the things he clearly does. In his mind, it's not shameful, it clever. This isn't a discussion of truth, to him, it's a discussion about who can be more clever in winning the argument, even deceptive, if necessary. He doesn't even consider any point that anybody says the moment it questions Islam, he only thinks about how he can counter it. They think it's all a game of wits, and truth really has nothing to do with it. Fair enough. But if it's all a game about wits, couldn't they at least show some wits, rather than tangling themselves in their self created mess all of the time? They are like retarded spiders. They try to spin what they think is their "cleaver little webs and stories", but they end up getting the web back all over them and having it stick to them. They need to take lessons from a spider.
bmz

Since: Mar 08

Singapore

#209786 Jun 30, 2014
Quadratus wrote:
Either that or he simply quits talking.
Bmz said:
Either John lied or Matt Mark and Luke did in regards to who carried the cross.
In the Synoptics they met Simon in the way to Golgotha. That means Jesus had to have carried His cross at least part of the way.
Mark is very clear, he mentions that Simons progeny are known to his readers, implying that they can be consulted to check on the story.
I don't see a contradiction.
I see two incomplete accounts that complete each other.
The fact that Mark mentions the progeny of Simon who carried the cross, shows how close to the historical Jesus the gospel was written.
These three agree:

Mark: They forced a man coming in from the country, who was passing by, to carry Jesus’ cross.

Matthew: As they were going out, they found a Cyrenian man named Simon. They forced this man to carry His cross.

Luke: As they led Him away, they seized Simon, a Cyrenian, who was coming in from the country, and laid the cross on him to carry behind Jesus.

John does not agree with the three and confirms that he went all the way carrying his own cross:

Therefore they took Jesus away. Carrying His own cross, He went out to what is called Skull Place, which in Hebrew is called Golgotha."

Either John is right and the other three are wrong or the three are right and John is wrong.

John is not a continuation of anything. This book was needed just to show some divinity of Jesus, when in fact he had none.

Without the alleged crucifixion and the alleged resurrection, Christianity falls flat. And it has not even got her accounts right. Right?

There are dozens of serious contradictions on this subject and they cannot be simply brushed off.
bmz

Since: Mar 08

Singapore

#209787 Jun 30, 2014
El Cid wrote:
Where is that in the Qur'an?
Silly question!

Why should that be in Qur'aan?
bmz

Since: Mar 08

Singapore

#209788 Jun 30, 2014
No-Doubt wrote:
So don't watch news,
In order to have a healthy mind, it is imperative that Americans stop watching Fox. This channel is corrupting and destroying the average American's mind and is turning them into Christian fruit loops.

That channel is full of hardcore Jesus freaks disguised in reporter's clothes. They have nothing else to discuss but the following:

Benghazi

Obamacare

I forgot the popular third.

RT (Russian Television ridicules Fox soooooo well). Will check it out.
bmz

Since: Mar 08

Singapore

#209789 Jun 30, 2014
Eric wrote:
Are you two arguing semantics or just seeking a payment required by Torah (Ex. 30:13)?
Eric,

I just objected to the words "Temple Tax". Never came across that word in the Tanakh.

Please read my post #209702 0n page 9905 and also to posts before that.

http://www.topix.com/forum/religion/islam/TT8...

This post was written after Buford brought in Exodus 30:11-16. Here it is, in case you can't find:

"You will realize what a better mind do I have, compared with the inferior minds who wrote stories in the gospels, when you read the last lines in this post!!!

I am prepared to accept if you can produce the word "Temple Tax" from solely Jewish sources and also, I can accept that on condition that it should not be called Temple Tax.

Here is why and I quote from Exodus, which you brought in:*(Corrected, as I had wrongly typed Genesis))

"11. The Lord spoke to Moses, saying:

12. "When you take the sum of the children of Israel according to their numbers, let each one give to the Lord an atonement for his soul when they are counted; then there will be no plague among them when they are counted.

13. This they shall give, everyone who goes through the counting: half a shekel according to the holy shekel. Twenty gerahs equal one shekel; half of [such] a shekel shall be an offering to the Lord.

14. Everyone who goes through the counting, from the age of twenty and upward, shall give an offering to the Lord.

15. The rich shall give no more, and the poor shall give no less than half a shekel, with which to give the offering to the Lord, to atone for your souls."

*****It also means that Jesus gave that money to atone his own soul and to atone for Peter's soul.*****

Now, no one can deny this fact which I wrote! Right, Buford?"

JOEL COOL DUDE

Since: Jan 14

Location hidden

#209790 Jun 30, 2014
MALAYSIA has an average national IQ of 92 because of its huge Chinese and Indian population who compensate for the low scores of the Malay Muslims. In Malaysia, Chinese control big businesses, while both the Chinese and Indians form the cream of the intelligensia. Malay Muslims only know how to breed like rats and demand the abomination called Sharia with most of them wallowing in poverty. LOL.

JOEL COOL DUDE

Since: Jan 14

Location hidden

#209791 Jun 30, 2014
Typo

intelligentsia, not intelligensia.
Eric

Aurora, IL

#209792 Jun 30, 2014
bmz wrote:
<quoted text>
Eric,
I just objected to the words "Temple Tax". Never came across that word in the Tanakh.
Please read my post #209702 0n page 9905 and also to posts before that.
http://www.topix.com/forum/religion/islam/TT8...
This post was written after Buford brought in Exodus 30:11-16. Here it is, in case you can't find:
"You will realize what a better mind do I have, compared with the inferior minds who wrote stories in the gospels, when you read the last lines in this post!!!
I am prepared to accept if you can produce the word "Temple Tax" from solely Jewish sources and also, I can accept that on condition that it should not be called Temple Tax.
Here is why and I quote from Exodus, which you brought in:*(Corrected, as I had wrongly typed Genesis))
"11. The Lord spoke to Moses, saying:
12. "When you take the sum of the children of Israel according to their numbers, let each one give to the Lord an atonement for his soul when they are counted; then there will be no plague among them when they are counted.
13. This they shall give, everyone who goes through the counting: half a shekel according to the holy shekel. Twenty gerahs equal one shekel; half of [such] a shekel shall be an offering to the Lord.
14. Everyone who goes through the counting, from the age of twenty and upward, shall give an offering to the Lord.
15. The rich shall give no more, and the poor shall give no less than half a shekel, with which to give the offering to the Lord, to atone for your souls."
*****It also means that Jesus gave that money to atone his own soul and to atone for Peter's soul.*****
Now, no one can deny this fact which I wrote! Right, Buford?"
So it is a question of semantics.

Since: Apr 11

Location hidden

#209793 Jun 30, 2014
bmz wrote:
<quoted text>
These three agree:
Mark: They forced a man coming in from the country, who was passing by, to carry Jesus’ cross.
Matthew: As they were going out, they found a Cyrenian man named Simon. They forced this man to carry His cross.
Luke: As they led Him away, they seized Simon, a Cyrenian, who was coming in from the country, and laid the cross on him to carry behind Jesus.
John does not agree with the three and confirms that he went all the way carrying his own cross:
Therefore they took Jesus away. Carrying His own cross, He went out to what is called Skull Place, which in Hebrew is called Golgotha."
Either John is right and the other three are wrong or the three are right and John is wrong.
John is not a continuation of anything. This book was needed just to show some divinity of Jesus, when in fact he had none.
Without the alleged crucifixion and the alleged resurrection, Christianity falls flat. And it has not even got her accounts right. Right?
There are dozens of serious contradictions on this subject and they cannot be simply brushed off.
"They took Jesus away, carrying his own cross". That is a true statement.
"He went out to what is called Skull place". That is a true statement. which in Hebrew is called Golgotha. That is a true statement.
The fact that John did not mention the details of Jesus falling and needed help does not lesson the truth of John's account of Jesus crucifixion.

The bottom line is that it was Jesus that was nailed to the cross and not an impostor as the Quran states.

“SATYAMEV JAYATE-TRUTH WINS ”

Since: Mar 14

JUBAIL, KSA

#209794 Jul 1, 2014
Quadratus wrote:
Sir William Ramsay,The Archaeologist whoDiscovered Jesus       Sir William Ramsayranks among the greatest of all the archaeologists, and was by all accounts, an intellect of the very first order. At the time of his death in 1939, he was considered the foremost authority on the history of Asia Minor. In his life, he held the post of Professor of Classical Art and Architecture at Oxford, and he was appointed Regius Professor of Humanity (the Latin Professorship) at Aberdeen. He was knighted in 1906 to mark his distinguished service to the world of scholarship. Ramsay also gained three honorary fellowships from Oxford colleges, nine honorary doctorates from British, Continental and North American universities and became an honorary member of almost every association devoted to archaeology and historical research. 
      But long before all these accolades were heaped upon him, he was just another Oxford undergraduate, and an agnostic. He believed, as did most of his peers, that the gospel’s accounts of the life of Christ were mostly an accrual of mythology and legend. According to the thinking of the day, the gospels were written so long after the events they purported to represent, they had very little historic value. After graduation, Ramsay’s area of 
Main reason that Christians had "little interest" with human historical Jesus was mainly because of St. Paul, because he was more interested in "mythical" figure of "Risen Christ" than "human Jesus".

Therefore Christians did not take much interest in preserving anything that was related to "Human Jesus" and now it is next to impossible to find them.

The so called Gospels we have have been edited so many times by "unknown hands" and made to "comply" with the mythical figure of Risen Christ, that every thing is muddled.

Why Sir Ramsey alone, any unbiased scholar would come to the same conclusion.

“SATYAMEV JAYATE-TRUTH WINS ”

Since: Mar 14

JUBAIL, KSA

#209795 Jul 1, 2014
Eric wrote:
<quoted text>So, what word should the Malay Christians use? How can one misuse the monotheistic G-d of Abraham. Haven't you been arguing that Allah is the monotheistic G-d of Abraham and that it's the word used by Christian Arabs?
It is not which word Malay Christians use, the case was because some Malaysian Churches were misusing this word and took refuge with their beliefs.

Supreme Court did not set a "religious ruling", Muslims do not heap insults of God or YHWH or Ishwar or any other names that other religions use.

If people respect and have broad mindedness, such situations shall not reach.

Allah Knows Best
Kareem O Wheat

Lowell, MA

#209796 Jul 1, 2014
Eric wrote:
<quoted text>So it is a question of semantics.
He often demands that a scripture say the exact words he thinks it should. So the exact words Temple Tax must be there, rather than words that ultimately mean the same thing. To him, if it meant Temple Tax, it must use that exact term. There is no depth to this person at all.

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) 2 hr Thinking 4,482
News Ancient Spirituality and Commerce Clash in Mari El (Aug '10) Sat yav1112 13
News Pastor: Church sign on Ramadan drew angry call,... Jun 20 The Prophet MO LIES 9
omens of dead animals (Aug '08) Jun 15 Jakes mom 112
News This Halloween, Think of Islam as a Religion of... May '16 Im a poet and I k... 2
News Who Is Allah? (Jul '08) May '16 Joel 13,168
News Atheist billboard near Lincoln Tunnel scheduled... (Nov '10) May '16 Patrick 219
More from around the web