Who Is Allah?

Who Is Allah?

There are 256264 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.

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#164105 Feb 17, 2013
Who said Muhammad elevated the arabs, his mother, wife, children? Father Fraud understands whatever his unbalanced mind suggest to.

Allah preferred Muhammad only over the rest of the world population. This is clear to anyone who has not mental problems, or doesn't suffer of complex of inferiority...

““You must not lose faith ”

Since: Jun 11

Location hidden

#164106 Feb 17, 2013
Alex123 aka WM wrote:
<quoted text>
Oh lordy!!
If God "becomes" (instead of PRETENDING TO BE...watch my words...) his creation then he is no longer God..

Buford: This is exactly what I mean by your presumptuous arrogance. It is NOT your place to say what God can and can't do. Nor was it ever Mohammad's, not that you've ever allowed yourself to consider the possibility that this wannabe Jewish prophet was just plain wrong.

Judaisn as panENtheism and a henotheistic approach.
In the era (centuries) of Saadia Gaon, p.221.:
'In general I say: "Ant description of G-d or of his actions occurring in the scriptures or in the words of others among us, the monotheists; which is found to contradict what is demanded by sound reasoning is undoubtedly a figure of speech."'

““You must not lose faith ”

Since: Jun 11

Location hidden

#164107 Feb 17, 2013
Ant-Any
JOEL

Mumbai, India

#164108 Feb 17, 2013
REVIVING THE DEAD:

1) The easiest way to resurrect the dead is to touch the cardiac center of the dead person while mentally repeating the activated mantra of the vital plane with full concentration with the stationing of one's own consciousness in one's own cardiac center that lies in the middle of the chest region.

2) After a time, it's usually seen that the dead person revives.

3) I've seen this happening on 2 occasions.

4) This is the easiest way to resurrect the dead - no need to chase the exited vital of the corpse, connect with it and draw it back into the body.

“Legumes of the World Unite ”

Since: Sep 11

Location hidden

#164109 Feb 17, 2013
JOEL wrote:
Raising the dead is done by connecting one's vital force with the disembodied vital force of the corpse and then drawing it back into the cataleptic body provided this can be done within 72 hours. Only the yogis can engineer such a feat. It's not a very advanced yogic feat, however.
http://www.zombierama.com/brainwaves/toptenli...

Top Ten Zombie Movies of all time

0. White Zombie.--The one that started it all. This classic horror is eerie, inventive, and suspenseful, without one gut being munched. It set the mythos for zombie films for years to come.

9. Bio Zombie.--This movie has action, horror, and suspense, but I think what really made it for me was the heroes. The fact that Woody and Bee are so funny together and that their dialog is so great (at least, their translated dialog) is what raises this film above others of its kind.

8. Braindead.--Peter Jackson has a flair for gore, and he makes full use of it in this movie, but the gore is just a backdrop to the engaging storyline of a mild-mannered man who has to wade through a host of zombies to find love. Add in several truly original and bizarre ideas, and you have this classic.

7. Shaun of the Dead.--This is the same kind of film as Braindead (combining horror and intelligent humor), but the storyline was even more interesting, and it's in a more classic zombie film style.

6. Zombieland.--This movie was creative, vibrant, and funny, and made me leave the theater smiling. Despite being set in a post–zombie apocalypse world, it's almost cheerful, and excellently done.

5. 28 Days Later.--This movie kept me on the edge of my seat when I thought that I had become desensitized to zombie movies. After watching it for the second time at a friend's house, as I was leaving I managed to partially convince myself that there was an enraged zombie waiting quietly for me in the dark of the stairwell. A scary, engrossing movie.

4. Army of Darkness.--Raimi improves on the straight slapstick of Evil Dead II by adding an epic adventure, Ash-style, and more ways for Ash to harm himself. Campbell also perfects his smarmy portrayal of the hero.

3. Dawn of the Dead (1978).--I think it's because Romero manages so well to convey the sense of acopalypse that his movies have such an impact. There is a desperation underlying everything that does not let up, and so an already well-written action/horror becomes even more gripping. This movie, as opposed to Night of the Living Dead, spawned many "sequels" in Italy, and the idea of being trapped in a large building (mall, warehouse, etc.) seemed to catch on much more than the idea of being trapped in a farmhouse.

2. Dellamorte Dellamore.--I once summarized the plot of this movie to a friend in the following way: "First there's some sex and arty stuff, and then it gets down to the zombies." This was an unjust simplification of a complex and interesting movie, which at the same time, on the surface, is a thoroughly enjoyable zombie flick. I probably still haven't figured out everything that's going on in it.

1. Night of the Living Dead (1968).--Although some of the ideas from Dawn of the Dead may have caught on more readily, Night of the Living Dead was first, and its impact on the world of zombie films is unquestionable. Eerie, tense, and imaginative, it is still a great film to this day.

““You must not lose faith ”

Since: Jun 11

Location hidden

#164111 Feb 17, 2013
Amongst the Romans some gipe went that the Jews had written their law one year earlier when they got hold of the rumour that such a law would be vigorating everywhere in the empire's territories, that had no written law allready. So Moses, an old jewish women in Rome, sat about writing and presenting it, one year before they did.
450 BC

I can't give you a source. i read this ages ago when looking into various roman lawbooks.

““You must not lose faith ”

Since: Jun 11

Location hidden

#164112 Feb 17, 2013
MAAT wrote:
<quoted text>
Well PaulVW does not rise above the level of quoting church tenets.
Let's find my notes.( as not ordered yet, so i end up giving something also usually that is also relevant. There is however a distictly different idea about what saving means and about what afterlife means. Also the concept of trial and fair hearing was developed in torah. What you read in the gospel is a farcical presentation.)
However:
Eccle. 12:3
The end of the matter having been heard, fear YHWH (ultimate dispenser of justice, since humans can't oversee all, are limited. Someone will always complain.)and keep his commandments, for this is the entire man. See Iraneus, we find jesus only later becoming an elder. Frankly of age. But now people read it as if he was a learned scholar.
The person alludes thus to the law.
Roman law as a personification of dies fillae would thus be hanging from a stake after a shambolic trial and in that way find it's presentation in the gospel. So in that sense jesus coud be a rebel.
Dogs :greek-persians with their mastiffs and romans.
As from the relocating of people that continued for a long time.
The population of the provinve Galilea f.i.
pigs: all those eating pig meat, a big contingent of Germanic Romans was based in the syrian part.
Eccl.12:3 would also make clear as to what is understood by 'a righteous man'.
Buford

Scott Depot, WV

#164116 Feb 17, 2013
MAAT wrote:
Amongst the Romans some gipe went that the Jews had written their law one year earlier when they got hold of the rumour that such a law would be vigorating everywhere in the empire's territories, that had no written law allready. So Moses, an old jewish women in Rome, sat about writing and presenting it, one year before they did.
450 BC
I can't give you a source. i read this ages ago when looking into various roman lawbooks.
Grandma Moses?

http://search.yahoo.com/search...
Buford

Scott Depot, WV

#164117 Feb 17, 2013
STEFANO COLONNA wrote:
Furthermore if the Nazarene was able to perform miracles like healing sick people and resurrect men, then the news would have reached the Romans that would have taken him to Rome, and then sent him in battle to cure any roman soldier hurt or killed in wars, making therefore the roman soldiers, an army of immortals.
Sounds like a Spielberg plot, but just like Raiders of the Lost Ark, there is no way in hell that the Nazis were going to force YHWH via the Ark to destroy their battlefield opponents. Jesus would likewise have not allowed himself to be used as a tool of Roman conquest.
Alex123 aka WM

London, UK

#164118 Feb 17, 2013
Frijoles wrote:
<quoted text>
http://www.zombierama.com/brainwaves/toptenli...
Top Ten Zombie Movies of all time
0. White Zombie.--The one that started it all. This classic horror is eerie, inventive, and suspenseful, without one gut being munched. It set the mythos for zombie films for years to come.
9. Bio Zombie.--This movie has action, horror, and suspense, but I think what really made it for me was the heroes. The fact that Woody and Bee are so funny together and that their dialog is so great (at least, their translated dialog) is what raises this film above others of its kind.
8. Braindead.--Peter Jackson has a flair for gore, and he makes full use of it in this movie, but the gore is just a backdrop to the engaging storyline of a mild-mannered man who has to wade through a host of zombies to find love. Add in several truly original and bizarre ideas, and you have this classic.
7. Shaun of the Dead.--This is the same kind of film as Braindead (combining horror and intelligent humor), but the storyline was even more interesting, and it's in a more classic zombie film style.
6. Zombieland.--This movie was creative, vibrant, and funny, and made me leave the theater smiling. Despite being set in a post–zombie apocalypse world, it's almost cheerful, and excellently done.
5. 28 Days Later.--This movie kept me on the edge of my seat when I thought that I had become desensitized to zombie movies. After watching it for the second time at a friend's house, as I was leaving I managed to partially convince myself that there was an enraged zombie waiting quietly for me in the dark of the stairwell. A scary, engrossing movie.
4. Army of Darkness.--Raimi improves on the straight slapstick of Evil Dead II by adding an epic adventure, Ash-style, and more ways for Ash to harm himself. Campbell also perfects his smarmy portrayal of the hero.
3. Dawn of the Dead (1978).--I think it's because Romero manages so well to convey the sense of acopalypse that his movies have such an impact. There is a desperation underlying everything that does not let up, and so an already well-written action/horror becomes even more gripping. This movie, as opposed to Night of the Living Dead, spawned many "sequels" in Italy, and the idea of being trapped in a large building (mall, warehouse, etc.) seemed to catch on much more than the idea of being trapped in a farmhouse.
2. Dellamorte Dellamore.--I once summarized the plot of this movie to a friend in the following way: "First there's some sex and arty stuff, and then it gets down to the zombies." This was an unjust simplification of a complex and interesting movie, which at the same time, on the surface, is a thoroughly enjoyable zombie flick. I probably still haven't figured out everything that's going on in it.
1. Night of the Living Dead (1968).--Although some of the ideas from Dawn of the Dead may have caught on more readily, Night of the Living Dead was first, and its impact on the world of zombie films is unquestionable. Eerie, tense, and imaginative, it is still a great film to this day.
lol..
Thank you for injecting the dead back into life...
lol..
Alex123 aka WM

London, UK

#164119 Feb 17, 2013
STEFANO COLONNA wrote:
Who said Muhammad elevated the arabs, his mother, wife, children? Father Fraud understands whatever his unbalanced mind suggest to.
Allah preferred Muhammad only over the rest of the world population. This is clear to anyone who has not mental problems, or doesn't suffer of complex of inferiority...
This cretin has many marbles missing and he simply refuses to acknowledge the ever present hyper deficiency in "his" language department!

He reminds me of two things that are infinite - the universe and human stupidity and he is not the universe!

Let me repeat and hope he understands it this time...

That "man" came for all mankind and that "man" did not go around elevating arabs, his mother, his children and wife....but he elevated Mary the Jewish woman above other women.

That man proclaimed Jesus was a virtuous man of God when a whole host of Jews at that time called him a BSTD!!

He did not say, only Arabs were superior or that Allah was just for Arabs.

He said an arab is not superior to non arab and a non arab not superior to arab; a black is not superior to white or a white superior to black...

He was concerned with good deeds and piety that God wanted instead of your race, money, wealth, beauty and power!

God will OBVIOUSLY favour such a man above all other!!

You are the chap who needs to take a load of pills.
Alex123 aka WM

London, UK

#164120 Feb 17, 2013
STEFANO COLONNA wrote:
<quoted text>
Let there be no compulsion in religion? In Islam a muslim is not free to leave it.
Quranic verse and context will be helpful
Alex123 aka WM

London, UK

#164121 Feb 17, 2013
MAAT wrote:
<quoted text>
The entire retelling till we get to the form it is in today, allows for all sorts of interpretations.
I would for instance point out that the sanhendrim were disrobed and had no more power.
They were replaced with roman-greek pansies.
If so he would have been a rebel against these new instated rulers.
But reading the entire story we defnitely are not given that impression.
What sticks with people is the the jewish judges and people didnot accept him and thought him a criminal.
Add to that that all jewish writing and thought and culture and religion were banned and you end up with a very twisted account that is a polemic against anything jewish, who were with the Celts and Germanic tribes considered most opposed to Roman/greek rule.
And all three suffered.
Everybody forgets the greeks but they had been lording it since Alexanders day. The romans were just another extention.
So i see it al as
There was a lot of politics and horse trading going on at that time.
Jesus must have annoyed many and pleased only few ineffective cowards?
Not withstanding this, I believe he did prick the consciences of an arrogant bunch or two somewhere among that lot!
Perhaps he was a scape goat...or should we say lamb?lol.
Thanks for the good post.
Alex123 aka WM

London, UK

#164122 Feb 17, 2013
Buford wrote:
<quoted text>This is exactly what I mean by your presumptuous arrogance. It is NOT your place to say what God can and can't do. Nor was it ever Mohammad's, not that you've ever allowed yourself to consider the possibility that this wannabe Jewish prophet was just plain wrong.
You are the arrogant one and you don't even know it!

With all due respect it is NOT your place to say what God can and can't do, by turning him into a peeing pooing "creation" especially when GOD has not made such promises.

Even Jesus NEVER made any such claim.

If you are talking about God and Jesus at least try and get their proper permission by getting clear statements from them about Jesus' divinity!

That's why I have to keep repeating things to you...such as..
Oh lordy!!
If God "becomes" (instead of PRETENDING TO BE...watch my words...) his creation then he is no longer God..

““You must not lose faith ”

Since: Jun 11

Location hidden

#164123 Feb 17, 2013
Buford wrote:
<quoted text>Grandma Moses?
http://search.yahoo.com/search...
I know the winterpainting from xmass cards.

““You must not lose faith ”

Since: Jun 11

Location hidden

#164124 Feb 17, 2013
Alex123 aka WM wrote:
<quoted text>
There was a lot of politics and horse trading going on at that time.
Jesus must have annoyed many and pleased only few ineffective cowards?
Not withstanding this, I believe he did prick the consciences of an arrogant bunch or two somewhere among that lot!
Perhaps he was a scape goat...or should we say lamb?lol.
Thanks for the good post.
I never really bother unless i came accross something salient.
But most of what christians or others consider great saying are allready attested as originating elsewhere.
We talked a little about the story structure and general content upon discussing f.i. Atwill, the gospels a retelling of certain themes in jewish history or even of certain books that were not included in the official church canon. So a christian would never know and being pointed out call them not divinely inspired.
Well they must be if jesus quoted from them.;p
So conversely we see jesus becoming a teacher.

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#164125 Feb 17, 2013
I recall my point was that if he was dvine then he would have been able to make miracles. If that is true then the Romans would have recorded it, but they didn't because the miracles attributed to him were inventions.
Buford wrote:
<quoted text>Sounds like a Spielberg plot, but just like Raiders of the Lost Ark, there is no way in hell that the Nazis were going to force YHWH via the Ark to destroy their battlefield opponents. Jesus would likewise have not allowed himself to be used as a tool of Roman conquest.
The Nazarene performed miracles. If such a person existed and done it, then the Romans who were present there would have recorded it, but they didn't.

I see something wrong with it.

So if the Nazarene was able to make miracles, I think would have been logic for the Romans who were there to capture him and bring him to Rome. But nothing of all that happened.

If the Nazarene was brought to Rome, then the Romans would have used him to heal and resurrect its soldiers. If the Nazarene rejected such a task, then Romans would have menaced of death his mother, brothers, sisters, cousins, friends and disciples. At that point he cannot kill the Romans, being himself a pacifist so was forced to heal roman soldiers.

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#164126 Feb 17, 2013
Alex123 aka WM wrote:
<quoted text>
This cretin has many marbles missing and he simply refuses to acknowledge the ever present hyper deficiency in "his" language department!
Thanks for your self portrait, demented.

““You must not lose faith ”

Since: Jun 11

Location hidden

#164127 Feb 17, 2013
Alex123 aka WM wrote:
<quoted text>
Very interesting.
Also in Gospel of Luke 1:15 it gives a lot more respect to JTB, compared with wine making drunken BJ!!
Also his head was chopped off like that of a lamb!!
Have you ever come across a sacrificial lamb that was nailed to a roman pagan cross?
or that got up and ran off?
LOL////
I wish they would learn to understand the symbolic language.
You would still have a discussion but if would be different.
Buford

Scott Depot, WV

#164128 Feb 17, 2013
Alex123 aka WM wrote:
You are the arrogant one and you don't even know it!
With all due respect it is NOT your place to say what God can and can't do, by turning him into a peeing pooing "creation" especially when GOD has not made such promises.
So now GOD'S interventions in human history MUST be tied to prior promises that GOD makes. I believe that there is something in the Qur'an about tying God's hands. Yes, that's right. It was an accusation that your "prophet" made against the Jews.
Alex123 aka WM wrote:
Even Jesus NEVER made any such claim.
And he shat and pissed his entire life, didn't he?
Alex123 aka WM wrote:
If you are talking about God and Jesus at least try and get their proper permission by getting clear statements from them about Jesus' divinity!
Jesus forgave sin, in one Gospel account, and forgiveness of sin is God's prerogative, isn't it? In another Gospel account, Jesus claimed identity with YHWH, and even prexistence, which prompted his hearers to want to kill him as a blasphemer.
Alex123 aka WM wrote:
That's why I have to keep repeating things to you...such as..
Oh lordy!!
If God "becomes" (instead of PRETENDING TO BE...watch my words...) his creation then he is no longer God..
You keep repeating things to me because you are unteachable.

Consider this, MUSLIM. God can do whatever it pleases God to do, including becoming a "peeing pooing 'creation'," and the sooner you realize that God doesn't need your PERMISSION to do anything, the sooner you will stop being such an arrogant know-it-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.

Anthropology Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News India is on the hunt for 24 - untraceable' hist... Mon Archaeonaut 1
Atlantis-Lost or Never Existed? Jan 7 Zeke 1
News La. Choctaw-Apache Tribe growing (Dec '08) Dec '17 Bruce 25
News Saudi prince throws his weight behind archaeology Nov '17 LUKE 2
News Team excavates sod house near Iqaluit, with sit... Nov '17 Time Change Weekend 1
News Great Pyramid's previously hidden 'void' hailed... Nov '17 Time Change Weekend 1
News Mystery of human skeletons found buried at Halt... Nov '17 Time Change Weekend 1
More from around the web