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.

““You must not lose faith ”

Since: Jun 11

Location hidden

#193511 Oct 25, 2013
HughBe wrote:
Maat, also explain why the GENEALOGIES in the Tanach were based on the fathers and NOT the mothers given that WOMEN made you a Jew.
It is interesting to note that Joseph a MAN was a JEW and his two sons became TWO tribes of Israel notwithstanding the fact that their MOTHER was NOT Jewish.
Read: "Pharaoh called Joseph's name Zaphnathpaaneah; and he gave him to wife Asenath the daughter of Potipherah priest of On."
Can you think of any other examples?
Now, tell me the LIES or explanations of your masters/rabbis.
p9122
55 generations are mentioned, as in worth of mentioning for the impact of living in torah.
You can have a famine for food or a famine for torah, as in spiritual.(see time when the judges judged and no king ruled.
Elimelech went out to avoid a more stern law of the holy land, and Naomi and Ruth happened.)

But see wiki on the tribe of Joseph and the split.
Benjamites becoming part of Judah and not Israel.

I know you will critizise any redenation different from yours as deception.
But throw the old KJV away and read properly.

http://www.artscroll.com/images/insides/ruth-...
10 pages giving insight.
As to why not only the good deeds are mentioned. Torah claims no holier than though attitude. None can learn from that.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tribe_of_Joseph
Why and how did they split and textual critisism.

““You must not lose faith ”

Since: Jun 11

Location hidden

#193512 Oct 25, 2013
Hugh Be saif in the other thread:
HughBe--- I was wrong to think that you were not able to tell the difference between males and females.

Based on what you are saying I have concluded that your problem is not with identifying the difference between men and women it lies in your misclassification of them . So for you men are women and women are men.
----
Well HB if think i could replace 'males and females' and 'man and women' with 'old tribes constituting Israel and Judah.'

You could broaden your repertoire with rantings against the Elohist, or the Priestly source a.s.o.
Seeker

Lowell, MA

#193513 Oct 25, 2013
Alex WM wrote:
<quoted text>
You need to wake up Seeker.
Does Allah give permission to lie in the QURAN?
Was that my question or did I simply ask whether Muhammad ever gave permission for his men to lie? So once again, you alter the question and answer the altered version. And you KNOW you are doing that. Remember, you have two Angels sitting on your shoulders recording your actions. You often seem to forget that.
HughBe wrote:
<quoted text>
The how on earth can you claim that the messenger of Allah went against the Quran?
Can't you see a tiny problem there?
There are many writers and many books like the Gospel writers who NEVER met Jesus.
Do you get the hint?
Well, this is deemed a reliable hadith by even Muslims themselves because it is corroborated by more than one source and meets the criteria used in "hadith science". Now I have no idea how they can use the word science in that term, but they do.

QUOTE FROM BUKHARI, VOLUME 5,#369

Narrated Jabir Abdullah:

Allah's messenger said "Who is willing to kill Ka`b bin al-Ashraf who has hurt Allah and His apostle?" Thereupon Maslama got up saying, "O Allah's messenger! Would you like that I kill him?" The prophet said, "Yes". Maslama said, "Then allow me to say a (false) thing (i.e. to deceive Ka`b). The prophet said, "You may say it."

So what did this guy do? He merely wrote bad words about Muhammad after Muhammad had his friends and allies dumped into a ditch after a battle that was started because Muhammad and his men were waiting to ambush and rob a defenseless trade caravan of the Meccans. So I suppose the the Meccans were just supposed to ignore that and not send their soldiers out to meet Muhammad's men. So this guy wrote negative poetry about Muhammad. And for mere words, he needed to be assassinated. And apparently, according to that hadith, Muhammad's men took advantage of the guy's generosity to pull it off.

"Abu Na'ila. Ka`b invited them to come into his fort and then he went down to them. His wife asked him, "Where are you going at this time?" Ka`b replied, None but Maslama and my (foster) brother Abu Na'ila have come." His wife said, "I hear a voice as if blood is dropping from him." Ka`b said, "They are none by my brother Maslama and my foster brother Abu Na'ila. A generous man should respond to a call at night even if invited to be killed."

This is found in Bukhari vol.5 book 59 no.360 p.248 and a very similar account is found in Sahih Muslim vol.3 no.4436 p.990-991

““You must not lose faith ”

Since: Jun 11

Location hidden

#193514 Oct 25, 2013
el cid apropos hidden-Ester the gentile name for Hasaddah who became queen Ester (Esther in english and other languages.
http://www.beingjewish.com/yomtov/purim/esthe...
psalm 22:1

““You must not lose faith ”

Since: Jun 11

Location hidden

#193515 Oct 25, 2013
I have things to do but Shamma i really would like the source.
Apropos gen 3:15

shamma wrote:
In Genesis God explains the battle that He will win over Satan through His Son Jesus Christ.
Genesis 3:15
New International Version (NIV)

15 And I will put enmity
between you and the woman,
and between your offspring[a] and hers;
he will crush your head,
and you will strike his heel.”

Jesus gained victory over Satan on the cross.

And it also means:
Shamma wrote:
The Jews got it wrong!
You missed the point Maat!
The post has nothing to do with false prophets.
The posting explains Jesus relationship with God the Father who sent Jesus to do the Will of God.
The Jews ignored Genesis:
Genesis 3:15
New International Version
And I will put enmity between you and the woman, and between your offspring and hers; he will crush your head
This is the basis for the coming of the Messiah.
The Messiah was to come from the seed of a women, not from the seed of a male Jew.
The reason for the Jews not accepting Jesus on the basis that the messiah was to be born of a male and female parents is not a valid reason to reject Jesus.
The Jews got it wrong!
Jesus was a virgin birth just as God said from the lone seed of a women.

end quote.

Well i think christians just make it up as the find usefull so my opinion and analysis (not analogy was hitting the mark:
MAAT wrote:

But the entire book and discussion of early churchfathers was exactly about excluding all things and ideas jewish.
But thaat would make the gospel a truly weird book, plus forget the milliondollar claims of the holy lannd and the revenues.
If people would read it as was first written, with the HE they would understand that the NT is nothing to do with Torah and other jewish writings and that they should stop trying to proof anything.
The Stolen Scriptures might have adapted their translatiion and cutting through verses any old how to make it work, but the Original hebrew text language will proof them wrong.
But that also goes for muslims wanting to use either tanakh or OT and NT or other writings to proof quraan.
It's different if people would say i find here a similar redenation or simili used.
Or this or that supports the following notion better.
Instead of people now claiming any and all understanding.
And Alex has a point about culture and allusions that are not understood.
Apart from grammar like revolving vavs that make all completed perfect past.
---
I'm not entering your heated anti everything debate.
I just look at tekst and whether they are out of context.
Yes Hugh be since christinas do use verses in any old way and interpretation and given meaning as they see fit.
Very split-tongued.
---------
If no source follows it's more difficult to quietly work on it.
But most will be disjointed from their actual context. The usual messianic mess at work.
bmz

Since: Mar 08

Location hidden

#193516 Oct 25, 2013
Seeker wrote:
<quoted text>
Then why did you give me the wrong interpretation for do not let your left hand know what your right is doing? You told me that it meant that one should not do it for praise from OTHERS, but that is what the verse before it meant, but not the verse I quoted. It is easy for one to say they already knew something AFTER someone else has pointed out a meaning. It would have been more impressive if you would have said it BEFORE someone pointed out the meaning to you. It doesn't really matter if you say you know the meaning AFTER someone pointed it out to you. That's just someone pretending they knew the meaning the whole time. But if they did, then they would say it BEFORE someone points it out, not AFTER.
I already gave you the precise interpretation even before you quoted more. Just did not want to elaborate.

As I said, I find what Jesus said and meant, very easy to understand.
Seeker

Lowell, MA

#193517 Oct 25, 2013
MAAT wrote:
Seeker wrote:
well matthew made that Obvious dead people are resurrected in heaven. Greek idea of soul an heaven introduced.
Spiritual...hogwash
Matthew was using literal speech.
Now why would Jesus say that there is indeed a resurrection, but then completely contradict this by saying that God is the God of the living, and Abraham, Issac.... not the dead. Why would you think that the author would say there is a resurrection that God will do, but then say something that says his claim is wrong? Is it possible that you are simply not interpreting it correctly? Are you saying that Matthew is saying that God would not resurrect people but only Satan would or some other God would? Where is the mention of what God that is? There is only the God of Abraham, Isaac....mentioned. And it even says "have ye not read". It is telling them that even their own scriptures say this. Now maybe they did in some fashion, I don't know for sure. But Jesus is clearly telling them who their God is and is defending the position of the resurrection by saying that the Hebrew God himself says this. And again, whether the Hebrew God did say this or not, is not the point. The point is what point or claim Jesus is making. Your idea simply does not add up.
MAAT wrote:

And might have borrowed again from some wisdom literature.
Mate no confusion at all.
I sincerely doubt that. Why would he say "have ye not read" if he was referencing something other than the Hebrew scriptures and act as though they are supposed to know of this idea? It is clearly acting as though they are supposed to know of this. It is telling them that God himself, the God of Abraham, Isaac.... claims there is a resurrection. Now whether that is true or not, that is what he is trying to say. It's very clear. If one does not believe in the resurrection, then they do not believe God and they are of the dead, not the living, but the God of Abraham, Isaac...is the God of the living. And living means living forever after they are resurrected. Now you can disagree with that claim that the resurrection is true, but the point is what claim Jesus is trying to make, not whether you believe it is correct or not. We are discussing what the verses mean, not whether someone should believe they are correct in their assertions or not. I don't expect you to think that one single thing that Jesus said is actually correct, because that would have some very problematic implications and repercussions for you. But the discussion is not about whether he is correct or not, that would be a pointless discussion of mere opinions. It is about what he is trying to claim.
bmz

Since: Mar 08

Location hidden

#193518 Oct 25, 2013
El Cid wrote:
Blithering Idiot,
How old was Mary when she became pregnant? What does the Qur'an say, since it is the ONLY TRUE record of what actually happened?
Qur'aan does not give her age but after reading various Christian books and the gospels, I would say she was about 8-9.

What is your guess?
Seeker

Lowell, MA

#193519 Oct 25, 2013
MAAT, maybe this was what Jesus was referring to when he said "have ye not read". I can't tell for sure because I am not heavily studied in Judaism, but we would have to imagine that Jesus was. This seems like a fairly credible source to me or at least a great place to start.

http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/articles/12...

So I don't know why the people that Jesus was talking to would think there is no resurrection, and it seems to me that he is REMINDING them that there is, and not creating a new, Greek related idea at all.
Seeker

Lowell, MA

#193520 Oct 25, 2013
bmz wrote:
<quoted text>
Qur'aan does not give her age but after reading various Christian books and the gospels, I would say she was about 8-9.
What is your guess?
What books are those? The ones I have read suggest 13. And I don't see any book that says that God had sex with her. I've seen Muslims try to make strange twists and interpretations to try to say that God had sex with her, but they usually turn out to be ridiculous misunderstandings at best, whether they are willful misunderstandings or not. And at worst, they are willful misunderstandings and a willful attempt at slander.
bmz

Since: Mar 08

Location hidden

#193521 Oct 25, 2013
Seeker wrote:
<quoted text>
Someone who marries a little girl when she is 6 or 7 and then consummates the marriage, meaning has sex with her, when she is 9. Especially someone who probably could have had any mature woman that he wanted.
Maybe you think that if he married her first, then he should not be looked upon as a pedophile. But the marrying part isn't even the real problem, although I think it is a problem. The real problem is the consummation of the marriage. Consummation means having sex. It does not merely mean making a marriage official. That happens when the marriage is made official the moment the ceremony is completed. Consummating it a few years later means having sex. And it wasn't consummated right away because there was no grass on the field, so to speak.
But even aside from trying to twist or dilute the definition for pedophile, let's even throw that word out so that we don't have to play the little tap dancing and "technicalities" game. Let's remember something. For a man to have intercourse he must FIRST be sexually aroused. That is simply a biological fact. So for Muhammad to be able to have intercourse with Ayisha, he would have to be sexually aroused by her. So the form of the body of a 9 year old girl could sexually arouse him. Could the form of a 9 year old girl sexually arouse you? I don't know, but it could never arouse me. I prefer mature women. So what should someone who can be sexually aroused by the form of a 9 year old girl be called? You can invent a different word other than pedophile if you choose, but would it make any difference?
Interesting question, you wrote:

"So what should someone who can be sexually aroused by the form of a 9 year old girl be called? "

Should be called the Holy Ghost or the Holy Spirit.
bmz

Since: Mar 08

Location hidden

#193522 Oct 25, 2013
Seeker wrote:
<quoted text>
What books are those? The ones I have read suggest 13. And I don't see any book that says that God had sex with her. I've seen Muslims try to make strange twists and interpretations to try to say that God had sex with her, but they usually turn out to be ridiculous misunderstandings at best, whether they are willful misunderstandings or not. And at worst, they are willful misunderstandings and a willful attempt at slander.
Luke suggests that it was the Holy Ghost, who overpowered her and fathered Jesus. 13 is an exaggeration.

Why should you consider that slander?

Muslims never believe that God has sex with her or sex was involved. Nothing of that sort. Christianity suggests that the Christian God had sex with her, otherwise how else could he have been begotten?
Seeker

Lowell, MA

#193523 Oct 25, 2013
bmz wrote:
<quoted text>
Interesting question, you wrote:
"So what should someone who can be sexually aroused by the form of a 9 year old girl be called? "
Should be called the Holy Ghost or the Holy Spirit.
I don't think it makes a difference, as they are both meant to mean the same exact thing. Just two different choices of words. But ghost is not supposed to mean ghost as in Halloween or ghost as in someone who has died and hangs around in graveyards. You won't hear a Christian say "Holy Ghost" and then hear another Christian correct them and say "no, that's Holy Spirit". They know it means the same thing. I don't know why you would ask that question. I often simply cannot understand your reasoning, or lack thereof. It's bizarre.
Eric

United States

#193524 Oct 25, 2013
bmz wrote:
<quoted text>
Eric,
Why are you bugging HughBe, who has nothing to do with my reply to 'news', the poster.
You wrote: bmz said it.
HughBe wrote: Said it to WHO?
I said that to news. Forget Seeker and his rant, and tell me why did you not take news to task, when he was demeaning Islam, the Prophet, etc?
I involve Hugh because Seeker is correct that Hugh takes to task Christians who demean Muhammad and Islam but doesn't take to task Muslims who demean Jesus and Christianity. Your quote was convenient and egregious.

I have stayed out of the terrible banter between the Muslims and Christians on this site. I care not what you say to each other. Again, I only used your post to show the hypocrisy of Hugh. Seeker is correct in that assertion.
Eric

United States

#193525 Oct 25, 2013
HughBe wrote:
<quoted text>
You are a waste of time.
That's your opinion only because you can't admit that you made a mistake.
bmz

Since: Mar 08

Location hidden

#193526 Oct 25, 2013
Seeker wrote:
<quoted text>
I don't think it makes a difference, as they are both meant to mean the same exact thing. Just two different choices of words. But ghost is not supposed to mean ghost as in Halloween or ghost as in someone who has died and hangs around in graveyards. You won't hear a Christian say "Holy Ghost" and then hear another Christian correct them and say "no, that's Holy Spirit". They know it means the same thing. I don't know why you would ask that question. I often simply cannot understand your reasoning, or lack thereof. It's bizarre.
Now, all of them say "Holy Spirit", which was started somewhere around the 19th Century. Before that, all translations contained Holy Ghost, which was used by bizarre folks. It took time to whitewash the Holy Ghost too.
Seeker

Lowell, MA

#193527 Oct 25, 2013
bmz wrote:
<quoted text>
Luke suggests that it was the Holy Ghost, who overpowered her and fathered Jesus.
35 And the angel answered and said unto her, The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee, and the power of the Highest shall overshadow thee: therefore also that holy thing which shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of God.

Why does come upon thee and overshadow her mean overpower her as if she is resisting but God is overpowering her and raping her? That's so weird that you would take it to mean that. Which translation are you reading that gives you this idea?
bmz wrote:
<quoted text>
13 is an exaggeration.
Who says that?
bmz wrote:
<quoted text>
Why should you consider that slander?
Because you are making it out like God not only had sex with her, but even raped her. That's pretty bad.
bmz wrote:
<quoted text>
Muslims never believe that God has sex with her or sex was involved.
Neither do Christians and there is nothing to suggest that God did in the verses except for a willfully perverted interpretation of the verses. Let me point something out to you. When a man has sex with a woman, she is not immediately pregnant. That takes at least a few days. Would you please take a biology class or two?
bmz wrote:
<quoted text>
Nothing of that sort. Christianity suggests that the Christian God had sex with her, otherwise how else could he have been begotten?
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/beg...
be·get
transitive verb \bi-&#712;get, b&#275;-\

: to cause (something) to happen or exist

: to become the father of (someone)

What Christians mean by beget is that God was the Father of Jesus because Jesus had no earthly Father. It does not necessarily mean that God literally had sex with Mary at all. Have you ever heard of one single mention of Christians talking about God's penis in all of the history of Christianity? Why not? You guys make up the craziest and most confused ideas that simply are not true. Why are you guys so twisted and confused? That's like someone who says that since the Quran says that by Allah's hand Muslims will be victorious, it means that Allah has a hand. What would you think of someone who was ever stupid enough to say that? Well, think of what you would think of that person, and realize that this is exactly what I think of you right now.
bmz

Since: Mar 08

Location hidden

#193528 Oct 25, 2013
Eric wrote:
<quoted text>I involve Hugh because Seeker is correct that Hugh takes to task Christians who demean Muhammad and Islam but doesn't take to task Muslims who demean Jesus and Christianity. Your quote was convenient and egregious.

I have stayed out of the terrible banter between the Muslims and Christians on this site. I care not what you say to each other. Again, I only used your post to show the hypocrisy of Hugh. Seeker is correct in that assertion.
Wrong!

You should have used my post only if were the culprit, who had started that.

You are just not being honest, Eric! You accuse HughBe of hypocrisy and yet you displayed a ton
of hypocrisy by using only me.

Seeker

Lowell, MA

#193529 Oct 25, 2013
Eric wrote:
<quoted text>That's your opinion only because you can't admit that you made a mistake.
Well, I have definitely learned that that isn't going to ever happen. Not many people here can ever do that. I remember one time I made a mistake about the meaning of a Jewish word. Well, I'm not Jewish, so I might make a mistake like that. So as soon as I admitted that I made a mistake, crazy Alex pounced on it and tried to suggest that I lied, rather than just simply made a mistake. The reason why he NEEDED to paint it that way, was because he has been caught lying about being an ex Priest. So when someone gets caught lying, it makes them very angry, and they will do anything that they can to retaliate and try to make you out to be a liar. So he needed to get maximum mileage out of a mistake by trying to turn it into a lie. These are the desperate and stupid little games that people play here, and it's downright pathetic and awful and it's all about ego here. And what is even worse is that they have no sense of shame over behaving like this. That's the most amazing part.
Seeker

Lowell, MA

#193530 Oct 25, 2013
bmz wrote:
<quoted text>
Now, all of them say "Holy Spirit", which was started somewhere around the 19th Century. Before that, all translations contained Holy Ghost, which was used by bizarre folks. It took time to whitewash the Holy Ghost too.
BMZ, some Christians STILL say Holy Ghost, and nobody corrects them and says no, it's not Holy Ghost, it's Holy Spirit. In this context, the two words mean the same exact thing. Why is that so hard for you to understand? The normal meaning of Ghost is a person who has died and is still hanging around in apparition form. So are you saying that when Christians say Holy Ghost, they are saying that the Holy Ghost is someone who has died and is still hanging around in apparition form? Your sense of logic and reasoning is so bizarre. Captain Literal strikes again.

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
Accept offer. Citizens save £2B. Fri YHWH Allah 2
News Why did Vikings have 'Allah' embroidered into f... Oct 17 Grassclipper 4
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