Who Is Allah?

Who Is Allah?

There are 253878 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.

Seeker

Lowell, MA

#189078 Sep 15, 2013
STEFANO COLONNA wrote:
<quoted text>
What vain means is pretty subjective some may agree with what you said some others may take a more extremist view after a rationalization over that commandment. The latters are the Jews who thought that the name of their lord is too holy that an human being is not worth of pronouncing for any whatsoever reason, hence they avoid to put vowels when they write its name or to avoid to pronounce its name at all, they started to use nouns like hashem (the name), adonai (our lord) etc.
Your statement about not even uttering God's name brings up a very interesting point. There are Eastern and/or Mystic concepts that say the word is not the thing. And it refers to people using words so much and categorizing things, that things that are actually unique are not seen for their uniqueness and instead are seen in terms of their category or the word that one has for it. Transcendentalism also says something similar, where a tree is not really a tree or a tree is not really the concept we have for it, and it's existence and essence is actually something completely independent of our ideas for it. Krishnamurti had an interesting thing to say when he said the moment the child learns the name of the bird, that child will never see that bird again. Despite similarities that things have, everything is actually unique and there are no two identical creatures in nature. So the child will not see that unique bird, he will see his preconceived category for it based on the word he has for it.

So words can be helpful, but they can also throw you off the track, especially if we are talking about an abstract notion such as God. So what was alarmingly interesting about the Jewish concept for God is that God did not give them a name for him, as that would then lead them to have false notions for God or to put God into some sort of category. God identified himself in the most core way that one can by simply calling himself "I am". So if the whole thing is made up and fictional, I found this to be alarmingly wise for the author to choose God as not giving himself a name. It's things like this that make me think twice before I say that the whole thing is nothing but a fairy tale, as you might believe. I wouldn't see an author who is simply making things up being this wise and deep.
yehoshooah adam

Denver, CO

#189079 Sep 15, 2013
Seeker wrote:
<quoted text>
That did not answer how your ideas clearly contradict the Torah. Now you are being evasive, which is a minor form of dishonesty. Again, criticizing me is going to do nothing to solve the problem of your ideas clearly contradicting what is written clearly in the Torah. God clearly promised to never repeat the same actions he took in the story of Noah. Either you are wrong, or the Torah is false, but you can't have it both ways. And sweeping it under the rug and hiding this fact by criticizing me is not going to solve the problem.
rabbee: i do not have to answer to any of you, refusing to answer to G-D here in TheTorah. i do not answer, to demons i talk at. the very same demonic mistakes, shall always result in the same precise reply from G-D. G-D is not about to change what happens here in TheTorah, to appease your ignorance and stupidity.
yehoshooah adam

Denver, CO

#189081 Sep 15, 2013
Seeker wrote:
<quoted text>
You would be wise to take your own advice.
rabbee: i already have advice from G-D, why would i want my own from you or anyone else? i already gave up, my own advice from this worlds grandmother in 1994. when i decided that G-D'S advice, was better than any of her's or yours.
yehoshooah adam

Denver, CO

#189082 Sep 15, 2013
Seeker wrote:
<quoted text>
I never said God is wrong or a delusional lunatic. That would be crazy for me to say. I am clearly saying that YOU are a lunatic, not God. Whether God is a lunatic or you are a lunatic are two completely different situations. Don't try to make them into one.
rabbee: hey! i am only giving to you, the same advice G-D came and gave to me. so you are actually calling G-D and THEIR advice as stupid and loony to you. your making the same mistake i and your grandmother of all did except for your blasphemy, when G-D came to tell me about this all. and thank G-D i was never stupid enough, to blaspheme RUACH HAKODESH as you did.

Since: Apr 11

Location hidden

#189083 Sep 15, 2013
bmz wrote:
<quoted text>
Shamma,
I know that God is not the president of a state. Address the points in the following post and try to refute, if you can. Read my post again.
I would like to comment on those two absurd verses.
John1:1 is a 15th Century forgery.
Wycliffe did the FIRST translation in English in the late 14th Century and this is how he translated John 1:1
"In the bigynnyng was the word, and the word was at God, and God was the word."
This means that in the beginning it was only God and God was the only word.
End of the silly word Word!
Now, I wish to comment on John 8:24, in which I find the words 'would die in your sins" extremely absurd.
The Jews believed in God, the prophets, the books, etc., so how could they die in sins if they did not believe that Jesus was the messiah.
The translation "die in your sins", which the Church likes, preferred and promoted is therefore ridiculous and absurd!
This false translation churned out by the Bible Mills has always bothered me. The correct message is given by the following translation only and all the rest are incorrect and rubbish:
"John 8:24 Worldwide English (New Testament)(WE)
24 That is why I said, "You will die doing wrong things." If you do not believe that I am who I said I am, then you will die doing wrong things.'"
Look at this funny translation, which also gives a better picture:
"Yochanan 8:24-25 Orthodox Jewish Bible (OJB)
24 I said, therefore, to you that you will go to your mavet in your averos (sins), for if you do not have emunah (faith) that Ani Hu [YESHAYAH 41:4; SHEMOT 3:14-16], you will die in your chatta’im."
It shows THE ABSURD GREEK word 'AVEROS' for SINS and also shows the correct HEBREW word "CHATTA'IM" for doing wrong or mistakes.
You can see how the Church Mills distorted by looking at the absurdities.
End of the story and I can tell you that you will die in your sins if you do not believe in my post above!
Your choice.
You are a dumb ass Muslim!
You are the one that needs to be concerned for your sins.
You blasphemy God in your ignorance by following your desert bandit prophet Muhammad.
This link explains Adam and Eve from scripture of the Quran.
I assure you that you have misrepresented the Quran in your posting.
This link examines the Quran on the matter of Adam and Eve.
Study this link:
http://www.answering-islam.org/Gilchrist/Shar...
yehoshooah adam

Denver, CO

#189084 Sep 15, 2013
Seeker wrote:
It's very interesting to watch Jimmie tap dance after his own twisted logic and ideas have painted himself into a corner. It is interesting to watch what a "supposed" special prophet of God is willing to do when he finds himself in a situation like this.
It is interesting to watch a special Prophet of God become evasive, and sometimes even downright dishonest. The guy is even willing to lie about people seeing him glow blue if he thinks that it will get people to believe his claims. So what does that say right there? Nothing more than what everybody already knew about him anyway.
I would actually just leave him alone if he didn't trash everybody else and say that everybody in the world is wrong except for him. Even I don't say that, for as critical as I can sometimes be. That's the annoying part. Nobody pays any attention to him in the real world, so he has to bring a twisted bullhorn to topix and spout off his delusional rants to a captive audience.
rabbee: you who painted yourself into a corner blaspheming, THE HOLY SPIRIT. is accusing somebody else, of what? call me loony all you want, but i am not that stupid.

rant and rave all you want, you have already lost it.
bmz

Since: Mar 08

Singapore

#189085 Sep 15, 2013
STEFANO COLONNA wrote:
<quoted text>
It's kind hard to establish if the low rate of crime in Singapore is due by the death penalty, since the Singapore's laws are full of strict laws plus education through campaign against crime, etc. I'd say the sum of all that have reduced the crime rate.
<quoted text>
You already failed to prove that is the death penalty that has decreased the crime in your country. To get another point I would suggest you to look at U.S.A. There are States that have death sentences and other who don't. Is crime rate significally lower in the countries with death sentence in U.S.A.?
<quoted text>
LOL
Me or you?
According to Singapore laws and to yourself a man who has killed lots of people, raped and/or favored the raping, stolen and/or favored the stealing, cheated lots of people, would be sentenced to death or not?
Stefano,

Talking to you is really like talking to a fool! We are not counting numbers.

The point is that if you prescribe the death penalty for murderers and drug dealers/traffickers/pusher, the crimes will surely reduce and will be less. People will think a hundred times before doing that.

In your countries, they know they will not be given death sentence. So, they will continue. And if caught, they know they will spend time in jail and can even be released on good behavior.

The drug dealers are no more active here. We have already hanged many of different nationalities, who were involved in drug trafficking. Malaysia, Indonesia and Thailand are also doing the same.

And nobody carries fire arms here. If one does and gets caught, he is sent to reside with Jesus.
bmz

Since: Mar 08

Singapore

#189086 Sep 15, 2013
Shamma wrote:
<quoted text>You are a dumb ass Muslim!
You are the one that needs to be concerned for your sins.
You blasphemy God in your ignorance by following your desert bandit prophet Muhammad.
This link explains Adam and Eve from scripture of the Quran.
I assure you that you have misrepresented the Quran in your posting.
This link examines the Quran on the matter of Adam and Eve.
Study this link:
http://www.answering-islam.org/Gilchrist/Shar...
Off topic like a true Christian apologist. I wrote this:

"I know that God is not the president of a state. Address the points in the following post and try to refute, if you can. Read my post again.

I would like to comment on those two absurd verses.

John1:1 is a 15th Century forgery.

Wycliffe did the FIRST translation in English in the late 14th Century and this is how he translated John 1:1

"In the bigynnyng was the word, and the word was at God, and God was the word."

This means that in the beginning it was only God and God was the only word.

End of the silly word Word!

Now, I wish to comment on John 8:24, in which I find the words 'would die in your sins" extremely absurd.

The Jews believed in God, the prophets, the books, etc., so how could they die in sins if they did not believe that Jesus was the messiah.

The translation "die in your sins", which the Church likes, preferred and promoted is therefore ridiculous and absurd!

This false translation churned out by the Bible Mills has always bothered me. The correct message is given by the following translation only and all the rest are incorrect and rubbish:

"John 8:24 Worldwide English (New Testament)(WE)

24 That is why I said, "You will die doing wrong things." If you do not believe that I am who I said I am, then you will die doing wrong things.'"

Look at this funny translation, which also gives a better picture:

"Yochanan 8:24-25 Orthodox Jewish Bible (OJB)

24 I said, therefore, to you that you will go to your mavet in your averos (sins), for if you do not have emunah (faith) that Ani Hu [YESHAYAH 41:4; SHEMOT 3:14-16], you will die in your chatta’im."

It shows THE ABSURD GREEK word 'AVEROS' for SINS and also shows the correct HEBREW word "CHATTA'IM" for doing wrong or mistakes.

You can see how the Church Mills distorted by looking at the absurdities.

End of the story and I can tell you that you will die in your sins if you do not believe in my post above!

Your choice."

Q: How can you expect the Greeks to have the concept of Sin, when they were not given any Scripture, nor was a prophet sent to them and neither a scripture was given?

What is the actual word that the scripturally very poor language Greek used in the NT for Sin? Do you even know? It is AMARTIA.

Another point is that the Church maintains the lies through most of the translations. Truth comes only through some modern daring translators. 
yehoshooah adam

Denver, CO

#189087 Sep 15, 2013
STEFANO COLONNA wrote:
<quoted text>
What vain means is pretty subjective some may agree with what you said some others may take a more extremist view after a rationalization over that commandment. The latters are the Jews who thought that the name of their lord is too holy that an human being is not worth of pronouncing for any whatsoever reason, hence they avoid to put vowels when they write its name or to avoid to pronounce its name at all, they started to use nouns like hashem (the name), adonai (our lord) etc.
rabbee: invoking TheName of G-D, when you are not really on The-Side of G-D - is all vanity. even Abe Lincoln, knew this. with all the G-D is on our side, oh now HE isn't cause G-D is on our side stuff. while the atheist claim, there is no G-D on our side.

Since: Apr 11

Location hidden

#189088 Sep 15, 2013
Adam

The Man of Dust, the Man from Heaven

The Fall of Adam and Eve in the Qur’an

Convincing atheists, humanists, evolutionists, naturalists and agnostics of the authenticity of the Biblical story of Adam and Eve is no easy task, but fortunately in Muslim evangelism the issue is not in dispute. The Qur’an describes both the creation of Adam and Eve as well as their transgression and fall in very similar terms to those found in the Bible and Muslims not only recognise the story but even regard Adam as one of the great prophets of God. The narrative, like so many of the brief biographical records of the Old Testament prophets and patriarchs, is very sketchy in the Qur’an and lacking in detail, but it is sufficient to establish much common ground between Christians and Muslims on the subject.

Adam was created from an ‘alaq, a clot of blood (Surah 96:2), and was taught the nature of all things (Surah 2:31). Both he and his wife Eve were placed in al-Jannat, the Garden, and told to eat freely of all the bountiful fruits therein save one tree which they were not to approach lest they ran into harm and wrongdoing (Surah 7:35). When Allah commanded all the angels of heaven to bow down to Adam they did except Iblis, the Devil, who refused to do so. When challenged on his disobedience he replied that he would not bow down to a creature moulded from mud and clay (Surah 15:29-33). For this he was cast out of heaven and became ash-Shaytaan, Satan the Devil. He then appeared to them to tempt them into sin and unbelief. The narrative continues:

Then Satan whispered an evil suggestion to them, to show them clearly their shame that had been hidden from them and said, "Your Lord has only forbidden you this tree lest you should become angels or such beings as live for ever." And he swore to them both: "Surely I am a sincere adviser to you." Surah 7:20-21

The Qur’an does not say how Eve was created, nor does it point out that it was Eve alone who was tempted by the devil. The story, however, compares with the Biblical record in all its essentials, especially their fall which is recorded in the following passage:

Then Satan made them slip from it, and caused them to depart from the state they were in. And We said "Get Down, all of you with enmity towards each other. On the earth there will be a dwelling place for you for a time." Surah 2:36

Adam, however, relented towards his Lord who thereafter taught him words of inspiration. The command to "Get down!" is repeated in verse 38 where Allah commands "all of you," meaning the whole human race, to leave the Garden with the promise that when guidance comes from Allah, those who follow it will have nothing to fear. The Qur’an follows the Bible in declaring that Adam and Eve fell by eating of the forbidden tree. Yusuf Ali, the well-known Muslim translator of the Qur’an, says in a footnote to this passage that as the plural of the Arabic word habata, meaning to fall down, is used in the verse quoted, "evidently Adam is a type of all mankind" while Mohammed Marmaduke Pickthall, another Muslim translator, says the same: "Here the command is in the plural, as addressed to Adam’s race." The word for "all of you" in Surah 2:38 is jamii’aa, an Arabic word defined in Kassis’ A Concordance of the Qur’an, as "a host, a congregation, all, together, altogether" (p.595). Not only, therefore, does the Qur’an clearly teach the fall of Adam but it also, like the Bible, implicates the whole human race in his act of disobedience and its consequences.
yehoshooah adam

Denver, CO

#189089 Sep 15, 2013
STEFANO COLONNA wrote:
<quoted text>
It's kind hard to establish if the low rate of crime in Singapore is due by the death penalty, since the Singapore's laws are full of strict laws plus education through campaign against crime, etc. I'd say the sum of all that have reduced the crime rate.
<quoted text>
You already failed to prove that is the death penalty that has decreased the crime in your country. To get another point I would suggest you to look at U.S.A. There are States that have death sentences and other who don't. Is crime rate significally lower in the countries with death sentence in U.S.A.?
<quoted text>
LOL
Me or you?
According to Singapore laws and to yourself a man who has killed lots of people, raped and/or favored the raping, stolen and/or favored the stealing, cheated lots of people, would be sentenced to death or not?
rabbee: the best way to change, your crime statistics. is to make, some murder legal.

Since: Apr 11

Location hidden

#189090 Sep 15, 2013
Continued:
Adam

The Man of Dust, the Man from Heaven

The Fall of Adam and Eve in the Qur’an

The root meaning of the word habata is to crash down, to descend, to fall, or to get down. In Surah 2:36 the form used is the imperative, ihbit (ahbituwa in the text), and means simply "Get out! Descend! Fall down!" The same word is used two verses later in the command to the whole human race to descend with them both. The traditions of Islam teach that the Garden, known in Islam as al-Jannatul-’Adn, the Garden of Eden, was in heaven and that Adam and Eve were cast out of Paradise after they had disobeyed God. Both they and their offspring, the whole human race, have since been confined to a temporal, earthly existence where they have all died and been buried. The story of Adam’s expulsion from Paradise reads as follows:

Adam was externed from the Paradise between the zuhr (afternoon) and ‘asr (the declining of day) prayers. His stay in Paradise had been half the day of the next world, and the day there is equal to one thousand years based on the calculation made by the people of this world. He was cast down on a mountain in India known as Nawdh and Eve was cast at Juddah. Ibn Sa’d, Kitab al-Tabaqat al-Kabir, Vol.1, p.21

Despite this similarity with the Biblical record of Adam’s sin and fall and the imputation of his transgression to the whole human race, the Qur’an does not pursue the matter further. It thereafter regards sin simply as an act of individual wrongdoing either to be forgiven by Allah or condemned at his pleasure, or to be cancelled out by a good deed. Another passage does, however, strongly emphasise not only the seriousness of the first transgression but also its wider consequences:

So by deceit he caused them to fall. When they had tasted of the tree their shame was revealed to them and they began to cover themselves with leaves from the Garden. And their Lord called to them: "Did I not forbid you that tree and say to you that Satan is a sworn enemy to you?" They said, "Our Lord! We have wronged our souls. If you do not forgive us or have mercy on us, we will be of the losers." He said, "Get down – with enmity between yourselves. And you will have the earth as your abode and provision for a time." Surah 7:22-24

It should be obvious that there is tremendous material here for an effective witness to God’s saving grace in Jesus Christ, the second Adam, who voluntarily descended from heaven to become man, committed no sin, and reversed the effect of Adam’s sin. We shall see how this can be done.

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#189091 Sep 15, 2013
Seeker wrote:
<quoted text>
Your statement about not even uttering God's name brings up a very interesting point. There are Eastern and/or Mystic concepts that say the word is not the thing. And it refers to people using words so much and categorizing things, that things that are actually unique are not seen for their uniqueness and instead are seen in terms of their category or the word that one has for it. Transcendentalism also says something similar, where a tree is not really a tree or a tree is not really the concept we have for it, and it's existence and essence is actually something completely independent of our ideas for it. Krishnamurti had an interesting thing to say when he said the moment the child learns the name of the bird, that child will never see that bird again. Despite similarities that things have, everything is actually unique and there are no two identical creatures in nature. So the child will not see that unique bird, he will see his preconceived category for it based on the word he has for it.
So words can be helpful, but they can also throw you off the track, especially if we are talking about an abstract notion such as God. So what was alarmingly interesting about the Jewish concept for God is that God did not give them a name for him, as that would then lead them to have false notions for God or to put God into some sort of category. God identified himself in the most core way that one can by simply calling himself "I am". So if the whole thing is made up and fictional, I found this to be alarmingly wise for the author to choose God as not giving himself a name. It's things like this that make me think twice before I say that the whole thing is nothing but a fairy tale, as you might believe. I wouldn't see an author who is simply making things up being this wise and deep.
I think god gave them its name which is YHVH (I am that I am). This is why there is a commandment that say to not take its name in vain. I understood it like that and so do the Jews. My personal view is that it's ridiculous that a god has a proper name like us, but that's what Torah says.

Back to Krishnamurti, he meant in the very moment you try to define something you loose the essence of that thing giving just a partial definition thereof. Is not a big issue if god called itself Robert, Carl or YHVH, the problem starts right when someone tries to define god. We as human beings have only 5 senses plus a brain who tries to elaborate the data it gets, but mankind seems always to forget that our perceptions are limited, hence the subjectivity of reality that surround us.

Now, the name - I am that I am (YHVH), is very interesting since its lead to the essence of that being without trying to determinate it, avoiding therefore the mistake of he subjectivity.

Since: Apr 11

Location hidden

#189092 Sep 15, 2013
The Biblical account of Adam’s Sin and Fall

In the Qur’an it is interesting to note that Satan calls the forbidden tree the "tree of Eternity" (Surah 20:120), another hint to the fact that by disobeying God and eating from it, Adam would implicate the whole of humanity in serious long-term consequences. It is in the Bible, especially the description it gives of the tree, that we obtain a much more comprehensive picture of why God commanded Adam and Eve to leave it alone:

And the Lord God commanded the man saying, "You may eat freely of every tree of the garden; but of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat, for in the day that you eat of it you shall die." Genesis 2:16-17

The tree had to be avoided because it was the tree of "the knowledge of good and evil," meaning that if they ate of it, Adam and Eve would come to know what evil was and its distinction from good. In consequence of this, being partakers of evil, they would be cut off from the tree of life, lose their experience of the life of God in their hearts, and eventually die and return to the ground. Hence, when they did sin, God declared:

You are dust, and to dust you shall return. Genesis 3:19

Muslims really have no knowledge or understanding of what it was about the forbidden tree that made the act of eating its fruit so terribly wrong. The Qur’an gives no explanation other than to declare the tree forbidden, but the Bible does in its description of the tree and in Satan’s temptation to Eve when he said:

You will not die. For God knows that when you eat of it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil. Genesis 3:4-5

Satan and his angels had fallen because of their desire to be like God, to oppose his authority, and to set themselves up as the masters of their own destiny (Isaiah 14:12-14, 2 Peter 2:4). Now he was tempting Eve, and through her Adam, to break faith with God and do the same. It was a call to declare independence from God, to refuse to submit to his authority, and to establish their own. When God created Adam he gave him dominion over everything on the earth, in the seas, and over all living creatures (Genesis 1:26). God made man in his own image, in his likeness (Genesis 5:1), meaning that man was able to bear all the attributes of God and reflect his glory. God did not make man already perfected in righteousness but rather in an innocent state with a potential and inclination towards uprightness. "God made man upright" (Ecclesiastes 7:29) and, while putting all things under his feet, only commanded in return that man should be subject to him in his personality, dominion and character.

The tree of the knowledge of good and evil symbolised this sole area where man would not have authority. By not eating of it Adam would acknowledge God’s authority over him and that he was called to be a servant of God. Satan’s temptation was to shake off God’s authority and become gods in their own right, to become "like God" and so determine their own destiny. Adam and Eve did not know that the actual result would be exactly the opposite – that they would fall from their dignity and upright state, lose their relationship with God and the spiritual life surging within them, and become evil like the devil instead. The Qur’an also makes Satan mislead them into believing they would benefit from disobeying God and obtain an exalted status of their own when he promises them they would become like angels or immortal beings (Surah 7:20).
bmz

Since: Mar 08

Singapore

#189095 Sep 15, 2013
yehoshooah adam wrote:
<quoted text>
rabbee: the best way to change, your crime statistics. is to make, some murder legal.
Love you, Rabbee

You always do this at the right time.

Thanks for the advice to Stefano. He would be very pleased to read that.

Since: Apr 11

Location hidden

#189096 Sep 15, 2013
Continued:
The Biblical account of Adam’s Sin and Fall

We will see, it is important to point out to Muslims that the sin of Adam and Eve was not just a transgression. It was a deliberate act of defiance, a renunciation of authority. God’s only command was that they should, in their characters, hearts and inner beings, remain subject to him. Instead they fell for Satan’s temptation that they could become "like God" and so grasped at equality with God. This was tantamount to shirk, associating themselves as partners with God. It was to arrogate to themselves a complete likeness with him in authority and dominion. Quite simply it was an appalling blasphemy. To the unenlightened the act of eating of the forbidden fruit might seem like no more than a transgression of a simple command. It was not. The tree symbolised God’s right to complete authority over man’s obligation to be righteous, faithful, obedient, true and devoted to him. By breaking the command not to eat of its fruit, Adam and Eve thoroughly defied God at the root of their beings, disowning his lordship over their lives. The consequences for the human race have been horrendous.

Did Adam Simply Forget His Lord’s Command?

Muslims traditionally underrate the effect of that first transgression. They claim Adam merely slipped in a moment of temporary forgetfulness and that, once he had repented of his oversight and asked forgiveness, he was duly forgiven. It is vital to show them that the Qur’an takes a far more serious view of the matter, stating plainly that Satan brought about their fall (Surah 7:22) and that Allah deliberately chased them out of the Garden and cast them down to earth where their previous state of peacefulness and felicity would give way to malice and hatred (Surah 7:24). It goes on to appeal to the "Children of Adam" to avoid being seduced by Satan "in the same manner as he got your parents out of the Garden" (Surah 7:27). Their sin was not a single act of transgression that could easily be forgiven as a minor, isolated act of wrongdoing. It was an act of gross rebellion, a total rejection of God’s rule over the whole human race, and it had awful consequences.

Sin came into the world through one man and death through sin, and so death spread to all men because all men sinned. Romans 5:12

We do not believe that they were cast out of Paradise as the Bible states the Garden was the source of the Tigris and Euphrates rivers on earth (Genesis 2:14). Nonetheless the Muslim belief actually helps to strengthen the effect of their sin. Ask any Muslim if Adam and Eve could have died in heaven, in Jannat al-Firdaus (the Garden of Paradise). They will invariably say "no." Also ask them if they would have been cast out of the Garden to a decaying earth if they had not sinned and again the answer will be "no." Lastly, would their offspring have perished in Paradise? Once again you’ll get the same answer.

Therefore neither Adam nor Eve, nor any of their billions of offspring, would ever have died had they not broken faith with God and been cast out of Paradise. By implication, Islam supports the Biblical teaching that death was the consequence of their sin – firstly, spiritual death and separation from God in the act of rebellion, and then later physical extinction at the end of a temporal life.

Can it really be argued that there was no intention on Adam’s part to disobey God and that his transgression was no more than an excusable lapse of memory? The Qur’an shows plainly that Adam and Eve succumbed to Satan’s temptation and this despite the fact that Allah had warned them that Satan was an adversary who would seek to get them out of the Garden (Surah 20:117). Adam and Eve must both have had incredibly poor memories to forget God’s one command to them and the one consequence they would have wished to have avoided. Satan words to Adam, according to the Qur’an, were:

Since: Apr 11

Location hidden

#189097 Sep 15, 2013
Continued:
The Biblical account of Adam’s Sin and Fall

O Adam! Shall I lead you to the Tree of Eternity and to a kingdom which never decays? Surah 20:120

Adam chose to believe Satan and to disobey God. Moreover, in Surah 7:20, Satan actually reminded Adam of Allah’s command to him not to eat of the forbidden tree. How can one possibly sustain the argument that Adam merely "forgot" his Lord’s command, the only negative commandment he ever received and that from God himself? Furthermore, if this was only a minor mistake as Muslims claim, why was the penalty so severe? The whitewashing and diluting of Adam’s transgression by Muslims is usually done in the interests of maintaining the hypothesis in traditional Islam, contradicted by the Qur’an, that all the prophets were sinless.(See the companion volume to this book, Facing the Muslim Challenge, pp.46-48). If Adam was a prophet as they believe, then he too could not actually have sinned. Ask any Muslim, then, who it was who introduced sin into the world, when this happened, what the first sin was, and what the effect on the human race was. Obviously there can be no answer based on any sources. The disobedience of Adam was the great single sin that brought the human race into the decaying, sinful world it struggles with today and its ultimate consequence was the worst that could be imagined, death itself.

To be delivered from this shattering consequence the world obviously needs a deliverance from both sin and death. Merely asking God for forgiveness won’t help. Even though the Qur’an teaches that Adam and Eve were forgiven (the Bible is silent on the subject), Allah never let them back into the beautiful Garden of Paradise where the Tree of Eternal Life was. Instead they struggled on with the hardships of an earthly existence and eventually died. Obviously a lot more than merely a declaration of forgiveness is needed for the human race to find its way back to Paradise and here is where the Christian witness to the Muslim comes in. Let’s see how our common ground on this vital subject can be used as a basis for effective witness to the grace of God as it has been revealed in the Lord Jesus Christ.
bmz

Since: Mar 08

Singapore

#189098 Sep 15, 2013
Shamma wrote:
Continued:
Adam
The story of Adam’s expulsion from Paradise reads as follows:

Adam was externed from the Paradise between the zuhr (afternoon) and ‘asr (the declining of day) prayers. His stay in Paradise had been half the day of the next world, and the day there is equal to one thousand years based on the calculation made by the people of this world. He was cast down on a mountain in India known as Nawdh and Eve was cast at Juddah. Ibn Sa’d, Kitab al-Tabaqat al-Kabir, Vol.1, p.21
Was Ibn Sa'ad also up in the Paradise with Jesus, when that happened? Ibn Sa'ad was very famous for telling absurd stories. He was like John.

We don't trust his stories. Ibn Sa'ad was the third in the Liars' Trinity, which had Ibn Ishaq and Ibn Hisham in it.

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#189099 Sep 15, 2013
bmz wrote:
<quoted text>
Stefano,
Talking to you is really like talking to a fool! We are not counting numbers.
The point is that if you prescribe the death penalty for murderers and drug dealers/traffickers/pusher, the crimes will surely reduce and will be less. People will think a hundred times before doing that.
In your countries, they know they will not be given death sentence. So, they will continue. And if caught, they know they will spend time in jail and can even be released on good behavior.
The drug dealers are no more active here. We have already hanged many of different nationalities, who were involved in drug trafficking. Malaysia, Indonesia and Thailand are also doing the same.
And nobody carries fire arms here. If one does and gets caught, he is sent to reside with Jesus.
Time waster,

If a State gives death penalty for drug dealers and drug possessors, and because of it people would stop to use and trafficking drug, then they would focus onto another thing like for example money laundering, which your country seems to be vulnerable about it.

BTW, according to Singaporean laws and to yourself a man who has killed lots of people, raped and/or favored the raping, stolen and/or favored the stealing, cheated lots of people, had sex with a child, would be sentenced to death or not?

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#189100 Sep 15, 2013
yehoshooah adam wrote:
<quoted text>
rabbee: invoking TheName of G-D, when you are not really on The-Side of G-D - is all vanity. even Abe Lincoln, knew this. with all the G-D is on our side, oh now HE isn't cause G-D is on our side stuff. while the atheist claim, there is no G-D on our side.
Not sure what you talking about it. Who invoked the name of god? I didn't. If you meant the Jews the thing doesn't concerning me nor I think there is someone here that can tell who is on god's side and who is not. Let the believers do what they repute is right, and let this god be their judge.

It would be a mistake from your side to tell what atheists say about god, because within atheism there are a lot of different opinions concerning god. In general what most people (non-atheists) think or know about atheism is the most radical view within that current of thought.

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 Airport runway battle heats up in Macon (Mar '09) Aug 15 Curious 31
News Ruby Rose reveals John Wick 2 co-star Keanu Ree... Aug 14 daredevil82 2
News Archaeologists in Serbia Unearth Ancient Spells... Aug 14 srbosjek 2
News Tonga's Nukuleka, the birth place of Polynesia (Jan '08) Aug 11 Faa Samoa 1,978
News Preservation unit under probe - Hawaii News (Aug '09) Jul 26 Georgina 45
Cities’ Identity Through Architecture and Arts ... Jul '16 moabdallah 1
News On This Day: King Tut's Tomb Unsealed (Jan '13) Jul '16 Antonia 4
More from around the web