Who Is Allah?

Who Is Allah?

There are 220462 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.

““You must not lose faith ”

Since: Jun 11

Location hidden

#162656 Feb 9, 2013
MAAT wrote:
162605 SC answered. Apropos Moses: recall that the story is written down in times of great stress.
----
MAAT wrote:
Alex wrote:
That's why I refer to this "hashem" as tribal, racist, sexist, bigoted, antigentile, mini slave god of non-gentiles who is ocncerned only with non-gentiles who wrote their own books.
end quote.
The "hashem" I refer to is NOT the TRUE GOD of Adam who would have not favoured just a few tribes or races.
I am not insulting the God/Hashem who created Adam, Abraham Isaac and Ishmael. I apologise if my post gave that impression.
I am criticising the writers who have managed to write books to suit their own needs.
-When it comes to merciless killing we have loads of verses in the "OT"..just numbers 31 alone is enough to make you sick and Moses does not come across as a caring kind man!

>>The problem is that with all those claims of ownership and often the quoting out of context none would actually understand any underlying meaning.

There is also another misconception about Abraham.
>>>there are many.
There a pureline Arabs among the ancestors of Abraham!
These are beign conveniently forgotten by writers who are bent on promoting their own cause.
Ironically Arab blood is already inside Abraham, Isaac and Jacob!!!!
Ishmael is not the father of arabs!
>>>On the latter i agree. But in the thread on messianism, I posted a study by Margoliouth.(Also in codex sinaiticus.1600...thread. just a few pages back) that would state that ancestors were previously not defined, since tribal adherence was more important. We see that reflected in the Hadith.
So only later would they attempt to sort it out. I gave it a go to. Impossible. Then i would have the Syrian claim on the arab heritage. As well as the definition of the early muslms, not by that term but with the term for immigrants. In Mekka and in Medina.
So it becomes more complex than previously thought.
And the issue of the setting aside/apart of the hanief of Abraham.

What is needed is unity of purpose when worshipping GOD.
All believers have equal rights and access to GOD who created all of us.
>>> And that is what is impossible since the definitions all differ.
You can't establish unity if you can't even get the most basic principle of your religion accross.
And people do not work like that. We all have in-and outgroups.
We identify with a certain culture.
The work we do even defines us, sets us aside in purpose.

No tribe race or nation has prefential access to GOD indefinitely.
>>>Why not?

Any GOD who prefers a race or tribe above all other humans for all time is NOT God in my view.
>>>that would however be the case if a god would define itself in that way.

I believe that Allah judges all humans not by tribe or race but by deed and piety.
>>>That seemed to have been the entire point.
---
I'll have to get back to a lot.
or rather point by point.
I'll post a quote to make the relationship and interwovenness clearer.
truth

Perth, Australia

#162657 Feb 9, 2013
What your Abraham waithing?

Blessing.

Ah yes yes yes..then please tell me who is that person..who can give blessing.

He is been before Abraham.
Who?
''i don't descover myself to them''..

you follow tradition and culture but not real God..

““You must not lose faith ”

Since: Jun 11

Location hidden

#162658 Feb 9, 2013
quote:

Chazal tell us that all mitzvos were given at Sinai, repeated from the Ohel Moed, and repeated once more in the plains of Moav. While this would seem to assign equivalent roles to all mitzvos, this cannot be the case. Why does the Torah emphasize the Sinaitic nature of some but not all mitzvos? Why does it tell us about some but not all that they were given from the Ohel Moed?

We see that Hashem had reason to attach certain mitzvos to particular locations. The long inventory of the various offerings in the Mishkan belong especially to the Ohel Moed, the place from which revelation continued to come once the Shechinah had taken up residence with the Jewish camp. The Torah, however, is an indivisible and non-subdividable entity.Hashems Torah is perfect. 5 A perfect entity cannot be divided and partitioned. Therefore, all the mitzvos of the Torah were visited anew in the course of the Ohel Moed communication.

HKBH had two goals in commanding mitzvos upon His people. The first was simply to bring them, as it were, into His domain and control. The Dibros impressed upon the people that their role for all time would be faithful servants, ready and eager to do the bidding of their Creator and Commander.

A second goal was to perfect each individual. The rest of the mitzvah system the vast majority of mitzvos of the Torah support this goal. The process began at Sinai; the purpose of Hashems descent upon the mountain was to launch the program with a number of specific commandments: the ones identified in some manner as specific to Sinai. These mitzvos were presented to the people at a mountain still enveloped in the presence of the Shechinah; other mitzvos waited for a later time. Because of the essential oneness of Torah, however, all the other mitzvos were also became part of the package. They were not the reason for which the Shechinah descended, but they were included because the Torah is a unified entity. More accurately, they were given by way of allusion and hint, but not explicitly. And they were given to Moshe alone. It would not be till later that the people would learn of their demands.

Mishpatim are included among the mitzvos that were part of this mitzvah launch. That is what Rashi means to tell us. Just as the Aseres HaDibros were part of the Sinai experience, and just as the short parshah of the altar also part of it, so was Mishpatim.

Dinim, civil laws, point to an element that is not necessarily apparent or present in other mitzvos. In a sense, mitzvos like tzedakah are made for humans. They tug at human emotions, and they dont require absolute precision to be effective. Dinim are much the opposite. Justice demands finding the absolute point of propriety, without any deviation in any direction. We quickly realize that humans cannot attain this goal. Such perfection can only be found within Hashem. It is for this reason that the Torah attributes mishpat to Hashem (Judgment belongs to Hashem 6 ), unlike any other mitzvah.

The narrative just before matan Torah describes the queues waiting for Moshe to adjudicate disputes. Revelation is thus part of a Mishpatim sandwich, with sections about law surrounding the filling of the Aseres HaDibros.

The reason should be clear. Just as true mishpat can only be found in Hashem, the Aseres Hadibros and the entire mitzvah system that it symbolizes is much more a product of the Divine than the possession of the human. It belongs to a higher place, and should not be seen as simply a guide to proper living.


end quote.
Sanhendrin, elders are set near the altar. But so is the dinim civil law (mishpath larger) since the wordchoice implies this, stresses it. The people are part and package. The elements cannot work without each other.

Most people are kind of used to projecting god outside of them, far away, an abstraction, and have lost that direct warmth and intent.
I feel that is also present in your definitions.
MUQ

Jubail, Saudi Arabia

#162659 Feb 9, 2013
Paul WV wrote:
<quoted text>
Does the gospel of barnabas agree with the Holy Bible? NO! Therefor it rejected as a false gospel; most likely wirten in the 16th century.
It depends what you call "Holy Bible"...Who gave it title Holy? at the time of Jesus there was nothing in existence called a Holy Bible.

Gospel of Barnabas presents the true teaching of Jesus as told to his chosen disciple Barnabas.

It agrees in part with present gospels and also disagrees in parts.

There is no "evidence" that it was written in 16th Century. It is one more of the various "assumptions" on which Christianity is based.
MUQ

Dammam, Saudi Arabia

#162660 Feb 9, 2013
Excerpts from the Gospel of Barnabas, Part-48

Chapter 101 On Penitence

Then Jesus said: "Penitence is a reversing of the evil life: for every sense must be turned around to the contrary of that which it wrought while sinning. Instead of delight must be mourning; for laughter, weeping; for revellings, fasts; for sleeping, vigils; for leisure, activity; for lust, chastity; let storytelling be turned into prayer and avarice into almsgiving." Then he who writes answered: "But if they are asked, how are we to mourn, how are we to weep, how are we to fast, how are we to show activity, how are we to remain chaste, how are we to make prayer and do alms; what answer shall they give? And how shall they do penance properly if they do not know how to repent."

Jesus answered: "You have asked [a good question], O Barnabas, and I wish to answer all fully if it is pleasing to God. So today I will speak to you of penitence generally, and that which I say to one I say to all. Know then that penitence more than anything [else] must be done for pure love of God; otherwise it will be vain to repent. I will speak to you by a similitude. Every building, if its foundation be removed, falls into ruin: is this true?" "It is true," answered the disciples.

Chapter 102 Continued

.'Behold the guilty one, O Lord, who has offended You without any cause at the very time when he ought to have been serving You. Here he seeks that what he has done may be punished by Your hand, and not by the hand of Satan, Your enemy; in order that the ungodly may not rejoice over your creatures. Chastise, punish as it pleases you, O Lord, for you will never give me so much torment as this wicked one deserves.'

There was a king who adopted one of his slaves as [his] son [and] he made him lord of all that he possessed. Now it happened that by the deceit of a wicked man the wretched one fell under the displeasure of the king, so that he suffered great miseries, not only in his substance, but in being despised, and being deprived of all that he won each day by working. Do you think that such a man would laugh for any time?" "No," answered the disciples, "for if the king should have known it he would have had him slain, seeing him laugh at the king's displeasure. But it is probable that he would weep day and night."

. And the world simply laughs, and, what is worse, he that is the greatest sinner laughs more than the rest! It will be, therefore, as you have said: that God will give the sentence of eternal death upon the sinner who laughs at his sins and does not weep."

Note: Beautiful preaching of Jesus is the hallmark of this Gospel- MUQ
(Abridged)
truth

Perth, Australia

#162661 Feb 9, 2013
sometimes people can't win themself..no
your manhood desire is to have anything so ever..no
path of destruction you choose

““You must not lose faith ”

Since: Jun 11

Location hidden

#162662 Feb 9, 2013
truth wrote:
What your Abraham waithing?
Blessing.
Ah yes yes yes..then please tell me who is that person..who can give blessing.
He is been before Abraham.
Who?
''i don't descover myself to them''..
you follow tradition and culture but not real God..
Hi.
Elohim defined as YHWH and El would have been Abrahams.
All words have meaning, extra layers.
It's not about going for the minimum in explanations but for the maximum. The same goes for experience.
But if you talk about A or THE REAL GOD, you are allready placing the abstraction outside the realm of your experience.
You cannot experience more or give more meaning than you can handle/see (would be the verb used) at a certain moment.
We learned that Abram could see a lot.

It's like the BBC's revision bytesize teaching programs.;)
But i think the quote will make it clearer.

““You must not lose faith ”

Since: Jun 11

Location hidden

#162663 Feb 9, 2013
Here: Revelation=unveiling=des covering

Since: Apr 11

Location hidden

#162664 Feb 9, 2013
truth wrote:
What your Abraham waithing?
Blessing.
Ah yes yes yes..then please tell me who is that person..who can give blessing.
He is been before Abraham.
Who?
''i don't descover myself to them''..
you follow tradition and culture but not real God..
&#9668; Isaiah 55:11 &#9658;

So shall my word be that goes forth out of my mouth: it shall not return to me void, but it shall accomplish that which I please, and it shall prosper in the thing whereto I sent it.

John 1:1-15
New International Version (NIV)

The Word Became Flesh

1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2 He was with God in the beginning. 3 Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made. 4 In him was life, and that life was the light of all mankind. 5 The light shines in the darkness, and the darkness has not overcome[a] it.

6 There was a man sent from God whose name was John. 7 He came as a witness to testify concerning that light, so that through him all might believe. 8 He himself was not the light; he came only as a witness to the light.

9 The true light that gives light to everyone was coming into the world. 10 He was in the world, and though the world was made through him, the world did not recognize him. 11 He came to that which was his own, but his own did not receive him. 12 Yet to all who did receive him, to those who believed in his name, he gave the right to become children of God 13 children born not of natural descent, nor of human decision or a husbands will, but born of God.

14 The Word became flesh and made his dwelling among us. We have seen his glory, the glory of the one and only Son, who came from the Father, full of grace and truth.

God sent His Word down from heaven in the form of Jesus Christ that the world might be saved through Him.

John 3:16
New International Version (NIV)
16 For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life.

Through Gods Will , God brought fourth His only Son Jesus To accomplish Gods plan of Salvation for mankind.

Do you know God loves you?
truth

Perth, Australia

#162665 Feb 9, 2013
Why your god is enemy of my god?
Think about that.

You try tell me story;''How two goat meet each other on bridge..did they fight?''

Many many many lived Godly life.

““You must not lose faith ”

Since: Jun 11

Location hidden

#162667 Feb 9, 2013
Isaiah 55:11 and John are entirely unrelated.

John diminishes the very idea in Isaiah 55:11.

For a moment i was thinking...hey good start.

At least the links were read...no

bummer.

““You must not lose faith ”

Since: Jun 11

Location hidden

#162668 Feb 9, 2013
Quote:

These mitzvos were presented to the people at a mountain still enveloped in the presence of the Shechinah; other mitzvos waited for a later time. Because of the essential oneness of Torah, however, all the other mitzvos were also became part of the package. They were not the reason for which the Shechinah descended, but they were included because the Torah is a unified entity. More accurately, they were given by way of allusion and hint, but not explicitly.

end quote

And than we took a pair of scissors and started cutting snippets...a bit here another bit...let'shave a halleluyah too...and another bit and let's then give it to the romans to make us non-existent.

Do you know god loves you?
Well not if i would do that!
And it's not about god loving me but of me loving god. simplistic, but there you go.
So i leave The Word intact, and don't play hide and seek with it.
bmz

Since: Mar 08

Singapore

#162669 Feb 9, 2013
JOEL wrote:
However, by any yardstick, it can easily be shown that the characteristics and teachings of Hashem, the Hebrew deity, are very different from those of the Muslim deity, Allah.
Wrong!

How easily can one show that? I would like to see.
bmz

Since: Mar 08

Singapore

#162670 Feb 9, 2013
STEFANO COLONNA wrote:
Why those statements make no sense?
There are no rules over the way to debate. Anyone can set the debate the way he pleases.
My way is based on evidences and thought.
Your way is based on reasoning supported by nothing but yourself, like your gods and their women. At the end apparently you recognized they had sexual relation... Something I've been saying long time ago btw.
Anyway, Shalom
There are. Answer the questions put to you, first. Once you have answered, you can ask other questions. However, do not answer a question by asking another question, like the polemicists do.
MUQ

Jubail, Saudi Arabia

#162671 Feb 9, 2013
Shamma wrote:
<quoted text>

....The Word Became Flesh...


Can you tell me what this sentence means? It is not English even though the letters used are English.

I know Word and I know Flesh....how the Word became Flesh?

Some magic? And then Flesh turned back into Word?

You have a bright future in Sci Fi Films!!

Sometimes I marvel at the "reasoning and understanding powers of these Bible Thumpers".

They just copy and keep on repeating things and statements, they do not understand a any thing about it, what it means and weather it makes any sense or not.

The more non sense and more non understandable it is, the better!!

Word became Flesh!! Forsooth!!

Like saying Chicken became Cow!!
bmz

Since: Mar 08

Singapore

#162672 Feb 9, 2013
MAAT wrote:
Isaiah 55:11 and John are entirely unrelated.
John diminishes the very idea in Isaiah 55:11.
For a moment i was thinking...hey good start.
At least the links were read...no
bummer.
In Isaiah 55:11, whatever God wants to be accomplished, will be done.

That is not the case with John. "the Word" in John 1:1, is a 15th Century forgery. I think John had not even read Isaiah.

Good read.
bmz

Since: Mar 08

Singapore

#162673 Feb 9, 2013
MUQ wrote:
<quoted text>
Can you tell me what this sentence means? It is not English even though the letters used are English.
I know Word and I know Flesh....how the Word became Flesh?
Some magic? And then Flesh turned back into Word?
You have a bright future in Sci Fi Films!!
Sometimes I marvel at the "reasoning and understanding powers of these Bible Thumpers".
They just copy and keep on repeating things and statements, they do not understand a any thing about it, what it means and weather it makes any sense or not.
The more non sense and more non understandable it is, the better!!
Word became Flesh!! Forsooth!!
Like saying Chicken became Cow!!
When one reads John, one can see the Church fathers engaged in discussions, which were recorded and reported. Maat brought up that very valid point.

Salaams, MUQ
John

Australia

#162674 Feb 9, 2013
bmz wrote:
<quoted text>
There are. Answer the questions put to you, first. Once you have answered, you can ask other questions. However, do not answer a question by asking another question, like the polemicists do.
Since when do you answer the questions put to you, you evil muztard rat???
We are awaiting an explanation for the evil behaviour of mad mo the raping murdering paedophile.
We are awaiting an explanation of the many many errors in the koran.
John

Australia

#162675 Feb 9, 2013
bmz wrote:
<quoted text>
In Isaiah 55:11, whatever God wants to be accomplished, will be done.
That is not the case with John. "the Word" in John 1:1, is a 15th Century forgery. I think John had not even read Isaiah.
Good read.
Still making up blatant lies you evil little rat?
So what your sick muztard mind can't understand is a "15th Century forgery" ? LOL.
There are full manuscripts including John 1:1 going back to the mid 300s you moron and fragments from way before that.
MUQ

Dammam, Saudi Arabia

#162676 Feb 9, 2013
John wrote:
<quoted text>
Still making up blatant lies you evil little rat?
So what your sick muztard mind can't understand is a "15th Century forgery" ? LOL.
There are full manuscripts including John 1:1 going back to the mid 300s you moron and fragments from way before that.
Why you insert foul language and abuses and insults in your posts?

Why can't you use civil language in your posts.

Who taught you to use such language?

Jesus told you "Love your enemies" and "Turn the other cheek". It is very difficult to find a Christian debater these days who does not insert at least ten abuses and insults in their posts.

May be you will say "jesus also used such language when he addressed Elders of Jews" as

You Fools,

You of Little faith,

You Wipers!

You White Sepulctures !

Etc. Etc.

Are you working on Jesus' footsteps?

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.

Archaeology Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Screenwriter needs to consult... May 25 Teslafan 1
Hands-on Archaeology of New Mexico Exhibit at t... May 23 Dairine 1
News Hair Extension Found On Ancient Egyptian Woman May 5 Akhenaten 1
News Giant Easter Island 'Hats' Rolled Into Place, S... Apr '15 peterw 1
Is Nebuchadnezzar II responsible for the ruins ... Apr '15 Cyler 1
News The History of Human Migration (Feb '13) Apr '15 jake10 2
News "Digging" the Archaeological Study Bible; Curre... (Jan '08) Apr '15 Crazy Talk 12
More from around the web