Who Is Allah?

Who Is Allah?

There are 256291 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.

bmz

Since: Mar 08

Location hidden

#188360 Sep 10, 2013
Seeker wrote:
<quoted text>
Yeah, so says Muhammad. He also said the sky will become weak and crack open, and that the sky has to be held up with invisible pillars. I have no idea why the word pillars ever needed to be mentioned unless he thought the sky was some sort of structure and that pillars are needed to hold structures up. So I don't take anything that he said very seriously.
No!

Neither Qur'aan nor he said that the heavens were held up with pillars.

The first part of Surah 13:2 confirms that:

"God is the One Who raised the heavens without a pillar as you can see."
Seeker

Lowell, MA

#188361 Sep 10, 2013
yehoshooah adam wrote:
<quoted text>
you can't handle the truth of G-D, about you all here in TheTorah. so you make up all your own vain truth, not here in TheTorah you think you can handle.
Hey, I don't make up any special claims about myself, and I do not make up any verses that aren't actually in the Torah. So look in the mirror first if you want to find someone who is making stuff up.
Seeker

Lowell, MA

#188362 Sep 10, 2013
bmz wrote:
<quoted text>
No!
Neither Qur'aan nor he said that the heavens were held up with pillars.
The first part of Surah 13:2 confirms that:
"God is the One Who raised the heavens without a pillar as you can see."
Seems like most translators seem to think that it is talking about pillars that we cannot see, not the absence of pillars.
http://www.islamawakened.com/quran/13/2/defau...
Seems like the little tweak game is being played once again, just like you added the words "as if" to 69:16, which didn't really end up making much difference anyway. Maybe you can also re-translate where it says the sky was raised above the earth rather than saying the earth is contained within the sky or is surrounded by it. There are words in Arabic for "within" and "surround", but curiously, we don't see those words. Instead, we see "raised" and "above". Curiously enough, that perfectly matches what 7th century Bedouins thought about the sky.
yehoshooah adam

Denver, CO

#188363 Sep 10, 2013
really wrote:
<quoted text>
You didn't answer the question. In the Aramaic portions of the Torah, what word is used for elohim? Since you are skirting the issue, the answer is the word alef lamed alef hay. Allah. Check it out since you have your own personal Torah.
rabbee: i just finished, telling their are no truly aramaeech portions in TheTorah. your version of all-h has too many consonants, to be aramaeech either.

and you can't even, get that right. since according to you it should be aleph, lamech, lamech, aleph hey. with 5 consonants, and only two vowels. both aramaeech and eevreet, one vowel per consonant.

and there are no double lamech words, in eevreet or aramaeech. and the aleph or ayeen, are not necessarily pronounced with an ah or hard a sound. they take on the phonetics of the vowel associated with them. which can be ah aa eh ee oh oo - oh oo. with the last oh oo, vowels being the special case vowels that are included in TheTorah and only for very few consonants.

and there are no words in aramaeech or eevreet, with the sequence aleph lamech aleph hey - more or less aleph lamech lamech aleph hey. so all you have, is totally made up bogus stuff. your only trying to give the illusion of something 100% wrong as if 100% right.

maybe you are ignorant enough to let, somebody pull your leg with that. but i am not, ignorant enough here to accept it. if it, walks like a con, writes like a con, and talks like a con. then it, is a con.
really

Lisle, IL

#188364 Sep 10, 2013
Seeker wrote:
<quoted text>
So if Allah is Aramaic, then that means the Quran has some Aramaic terms in it?
No the 3 scriptural languages are all Semitic and therefore, they have similarities. Allah; Allah; El.
Have you factored into your analysis that the Quran is memorized?
Seeker

Lowell, MA

#188365 Sep 10, 2013
bmz wrote:
<quoted text>
No!
Neither Qur'aan nor he said that the heavens were held up with pillars.
The first part of Surah 13:2 confirms that:
"God is the One Who raised the heavens without a pillar as you can see."
And here is another curios thing that you probably will ignore and pretend that I never mentioned, as is usually customary for you if I raise the right questions. Were the heavens RAISED ABOVE the earth? Were the heavens and earth one, and then they got separated and the heavens were then RAISED ABOVE the earth or did the heavens in all likelyhood exist before the earth? Seems like we would need a flat earth for the Heavens to be raised ABOVE the earth because in a round earth, there really is no such thing as above. Above according to which part of the earth? The North Pole? The South Pole? The Americans? The Chinese?

But, in a flat earth scenario, this statement makes absolute perfect sense and the term above most certainly can be accurately used, as in a roof raised above a flat floor. Then it seems to make perfect sense and it works perfectly.
yehoshooah adam

Denver, CO

#188366 Sep 10, 2013
Seeker wrote:
<quoted text>
Hey, I don't make up any special claims about myself, and I do not make up any verses that aren't actually in the Torah. So look in the mirror first if you want to find someone who is making stuff up.
rabbee: my claim to be here in TheTorah, is no more special than Noach, Avraham, Yeetzak, Yaachov or Moshe. G-D is THE-ONE WHO came and told this to me. G-D is THE-ONE, WHO claimed i am adam. and i was the one, arguing against it then. so i really don't care how you are, altering scripture to avoid being here in IT.

you are the one, making some special claim to not be here in TheStory G-D is giving. you are the one claiming, to not be here in scripture from G-D. i am the one who quit claiming, that jimmie c boswell was somebody special in 1993.

and then accepted what G-D came and said to me, that i am just ordinary plain old adam again in TheTorah. whose actual mate, and all of the her grandchildren have betrayed with their being special too. all running off with mr lizards lips, declaration of never being here in TheTorah again. and to make up your, own stuff as g-ds.
really

Lisle, IL

#188367 Sep 10, 2013
yehoshooah adam wrote:
<quoted text>
rabbee: i just finished, telling their are no truly aramaeech portions in TheTorah. your version of all-h has too many consonants, to be aramaeech either.
and you can't even, get that right. since according to you it should be aleph, lamech, lamech, aleph hey. with 5 consonants, and only two vowels. both aramaeech and eevreet, one vowel per consonant.
Go back and reread. I didn't put 2 lameds in the word. Only one.
Seeker

Lowell, MA

#188368 Sep 10, 2013
really wrote:
<quoted text>
No the 3 scriptural languages are all Semitic and therefore, they have similarities. Allah; Allah; El.
Have you factored into your analysis that the Quran is memorized?
I have factored in what the article mentioned about the diacritical marks being added later in the 8th century to the earlier written form to make it consistent with Arabic, and the following verse.

43:3 Indeed, We have made it an Arabic Qur'an that you might understand.

So apparently, whoever was writing the Quran before the 8th century, was not writing it the way Arabic should be written, and this had to be corrected in the 8th century.
yehoshooah adam

Denver, CO

#188369 Sep 10, 2013
really wrote:
<quoted text>
Go back and reread. I didn't put 2 lameds in the word. Only one.
rabbee: well hypocrite! then you, did not read my post. cause i made, a special note of that. and noted in either case, it is still wrong.
Seeker

Lowell, MA

#188370 Sep 10, 2013
yehoshooah adam wrote:
<quoted text>
rabbee: my claim to be here in TheTorah, is no more special than Noach, Avraham, Yeetzak, Yaachov or Moshe. G-D is THE-ONE WHO came and told this to me. G-D is THE-ONE, WHO claimed i am adam. and i was the one, arguing against it then. so i really don't care how you are, altering scripture to avoid being here in IT.
What verses have I altered?
yehoshooah adam wrote:
<quoted text>
you are the one, making some special claim to not be here in TheStory G-D is giving. you are the one claiming, to not be here in scripture from G-D. i am the one who quit claiming, that jimmie c boswell was somebody special in 1993.
Do you mean that you were not special after the first time God visited you? I distinctly remember you saying that it was 41 years between one visit and the next. How does 1993 fit into the math?
yehoshooah adam wrote:
<quoted text>
and then accepted what G-D came and said to me, that i am just ordinary plain old adam again in TheTorah.
Well according to the Torah, plain old ordinary Adam was the first human and did not have a mother. But you claimed to have a surrogate mother named Jewel. Can't find her anywhere in the Torah as well. I can't find very much of anything that you say in the Torah. And as you yourself told me, use the Torah to verify, verify, verify. So it's not my fault that I am actually taking your advice.
yehoshooah adam

Denver, CO

#188371 Sep 10, 2013
Seeker wrote:
<quoted text>
What verses have I altered?
<quoted text>
Do you mean that you were not special after the first time God visited you? I distinctly remember you saying that it was 41 years between one visit and the next. How does 1993 fit into the math?
<quoted text>
Well according to the Torah, plain old ordinary Adam was the first human and did not have a mother. But you claimed to have a surrogate mother named Jewel. Can't find her anywhere in the Torah as well. I can't find very much of anything that you say in the Torah. And as you yourself told me, use the Torah to verify, verify, verify. So it's not my fault that I am actually taking your advice.
rabbee: well any idiot can see, that Noach His Family and the 144,000 talking critters, are always the fist here in TheTorah in day One again. where do you see Adam or adam and his mate, in Parashas Noach for the first day. when me and the woman chaooah, don't even get here till this near end of the sixth day.

and don't you believe G-D, that Adam or adam. must Both have some kind of physical Mother, to bring them into the physical world? the only way, you can physically enter into this physical world.

even the woman chaooah, who G-D took from aside of Adam. must also enter this world, by this same method as specified by G-D.
bmz

Since: Mar 08

Location hidden

#188372 Sep 10, 2013
Seeker wrote:
Well, I have no idea why he said this.

14 May the grace of the Lord Jesus Christ, and the love of God, and the fellowship of the Holy Spirit be with you all.

And nobody seemed to think that was odd. It was like he knew that they would know what he was talking about or else he would have never written it.
Yes, I know you have no idea but I know and I can help you get the idea.

Paul used to write that kind of language in his letters.

There is no Trinity in there. The alleged Trinity is composed of the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit in it and the three make one God. Right?

It is therefore quite obvious that 2 Corinthians 14 is not talking about any Trinity at all.

And note that he did not write just the Holy Spirit. He wrote 'fellowship', which means the Christians must be fellows in a holy spirit, not a deceptive spirit.
bmz

Since: Mar 08

Location hidden

#188373 Sep 10, 2013
Seeker wrote:
<quoted text>
And it never even occurs to you in the least that this might be symbolic language? Never? That's impossible to you? And the Anti Christ will literally have ten heads with one of them appearing as though it is mortally wounded? That's literal? My goodness.
No. There is nothing symbolic and nothing figurative. If he had seen Jesus, he would have said he had seen him, not an animal.

In his vision, John clearly saw a bloodied lamb.
bmz

Since: Mar 08

Location hidden

#188374 Sep 10, 2013
Seeker wrote:
<quoted text>
Seems like most translators seem to think that it is talking about pillars that we cannot see, not the absence of pillars.

http://www.islamawakened.com/quran/13/2/defau...

Seems like the little tweak game is being played once again, just like you added the words "as if" to 69:16, which didn't really end up making much difference anyway. Maybe you can also re-translate where it says the sky was raised above the earth rather than saying the earth is contained within the sky or is surrounded by it. There are words in Arabic for "within" and "surround", but curiously, we don't see those words. Instead, we see "raised" and "above". Curiously enough, that perfectly matches what 7th century Bedouins thought about the sky.
There is no need to tweak.

I can translate it to make it very easy for you to understand, without doing any literal translation:

You can see that Allah is the one, who raised the heavens without any pillars.
bmz

Since: Mar 08

Location hidden

#188375 Sep 10, 2013
Seeker wrote:
<quoted text>
And here is another curios thing that you probably will ignore and pretend that I never mentioned, as is usually customary for you if I raise the right questions. Were the heavens RAISED ABOVE the earth?

Were the heavens and earth one, and then they got separated and the heavens were then RAISED ABOVE the earth or did the heavens in all likelyhood exist before the earth? Seems like we would need a flat earth for the Heavens to be raised ABOVE the earth because in a round earth, there really is no such thing as above. Above according to which part of the earth? The North Pole? The South Pole? The Americans? The Chinese?

But, in a flat earth scenario, this statement makes absolute perfect sense and the term above most certainly can be accurately used, as in a roof raised above a flat floor. Then it seems to make perfect sense and it works perfectly.
Flat earth is a Christian biblical concept. That is why the Christian Bible is called Flat-earthers' Bible.

The verse in Surah 13 does not say anything about raising the heavens above or below the earth. In fact, it does not even mention the earth.

21:30 is a different story. It has nothing to do with 13:2
Seeker

Lowell, MA

#188376 Sep 10, 2013
yehoshooah adam wrote:
<quoted text>
rabbee: well any idiot can see, that Noach His Family and the 144,000 talking critters, are always the fist here in TheTorah in day One again.
Actually, according to the Torah, the earth was not destroyed and recreated at all in the story of Noah. It was merely flooded. And Noah had a mother because he was not the first human. Adam was, and that is why Adam did not have a mother. But you claim to have a surrogate mother named Jewel. And again, I can't find her name anywhere in the Torah.
yehoshooah adam wrote:
<quoted text>
where do you see Adam or adam and his mate, in Parashas Noach for the first day.
He isn't there. Adam existed long before Noah and died long before Noah. And it was not the first day in the case of Noah, as Noah existed before then and had a mother. Again, the earth was not destroyed and recreated in the story of Noah, it was merely flooded.

And the flood was not repeated 3 times over and Genesis itself even proves that in contradiction to your claim that the same exact things have been repeated three times.

Genesis 9:11
I establish my covenant with you: Never again will all life be destroyed by the waters of a flood; never again will there be a flood to destroy the earth.

There it is. Straight from the Torah itself. A verse that makes your claim impossible. Not it does say destroy the earth, but it doesn't mean literally destroy the earth because there is no 7 days of creation repeated to recreate it and Noah existed throughout the flood, so he was no recreated.
yehoshooah adam wrote:
<quoted text>
when me and the woman chaooah, don't even get here till this near end of the sixth day.
I distinctly remember you saying that Mariam existed on the fourth day. And, of course, that is actually nowhere to be found in the Torah as well.
yehoshooah adam wrote:
<quoted text>
and don't you believe G-D, that Adam or adam.
There is no lower case adam in the Torah, there is only Adam.
yehoshooah adam wrote:
<quoted text>
must Both have some kind of physical Mother, to bring them into the physical world? the only way, you can physically enter into this physical world.
Well, the Torah never gives a mother for Adam. In fact, the first woman was created from Adam's side and Adam was the one who gave women their name.
yehoshooah adam wrote:
<quoted text>
even the woman chaooah, who G-D took from aside of Adam. must also enter this world, by this same method as specified by G-D.
But she didn't have a mother, and that's why she had to come from Adam's side, not via childbirth from a mother. Otherwise, she wouldn't need to be created from Adam's side. The Torah is quite clear on this.
Seeker

Lowell, MA

#188377 Sep 10, 2013
bmz wrote:
<quoted text>
Flat earth is a Christian biblical concept. That is why the Christian Bible is called Flat-earthers' Bible.
The verse in Surah 13 does not say anything about raising the heavens above or below the earth. In fact, it does not even mention the earth.
21:30 is a different story. It has nothing to do with 13:2
Yes, it is a second point that I raised. It is no surprise to me at all that you didn't answer a single thing that I mentioned about the Heavens being separated from the earth and being RAISED ABOVE it. That does not surprise me. But what I am most curious about is what you actually tell yourself when you knowingly ignore the clear points and questions that I raise. I don't know how you tell yourself that your tap dance is perfectly acceptable behavior. I guess you just have no choice but to think that. That's all that I can figure.
yehoshooah adam

Denver, CO

#188378 Sep 10, 2013
if you think that being born, into this world. is a natural event excluding G-D, then you have lost all your marbles.

it is too precise of a procedure, that determines who is or who is not brought into this world. to be exclusive of G-D'S, the procedure. you do not get a choice as to who, your parents are. any more than your, parents do.

it is, already predetermined. you do not even get to select, the country you are born in. nor do your parents, get a choice in this.

who comes into existence, in this world or not. is determined, by who are the mates given to adam and Noach. most of you shall exist, should G-D give either adam or Noach with different mates.

there are two sides, to any family linage - the her side and the his side.
yehoshooah adam

Denver, CO

#188379 Sep 10, 2013
sb: most of you shall not exist, should G-D give either adam or Noach with different mates.

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
News Why did Vikings have 'Allah' embroidered into f... Tue Grassclipper 4
Accept offer. Citizens save £2B. Oct 15 Garry Denke 1
News Did Islam reach France 1,300 years ago? DNA and... (Feb '16) Sep 29 Syriana 24
News Mystery Of How The Pyramids Were Built Has Been... Sep 26 NoGoBo 1
HELP - Searching for Archaeology Cartoon Sep '17 Kevin 1
News Tonga's Nukuleka, the birth place of Polynesia (Jan '08) Aug '17 tongangodz 1,979
News Lost cities of the Midwest: A trek back to pre-... Jul '17 Von Zipper 7
More from around the web