Originally posted by Jakko
Hmmm once again, what the actual words may mean in some language is not relevant to the discussion.
Since it was presented as evidence supporting Hubal being allah, yes, it is relevant.
The conspiracy is about wether or not the god "Baal" that the OT speaks of, is connected or maybe even the same as todays Allah.
Its not. Pretty simple. The arabs didn't worship any god named Baal. They were pagans, who had lots of other gods. Then, one of them supposedly
received a divine message, just like an urukian a few thousands years ago supossedly received a divine message. He converted all the other arabs into
their pantheon of gods with a completely new
god in a monotheistic religion. He did not say, as with Akhenaton in
egypt, that there was one Super god who's the one worth worshipping. He said, these other gods never existed, there's only ever been, and will ever
be, one Supreme God, The Lord.
1. According to the Bible, the Ishmaelites were not worshiping Yahweh God.
I'm not saying it doesn't say that, but where does it say that, for reference? Also, whats it matter? We know
already that the arabs didn't
worship god before Mo, they were pagans. They
claim that in the past their worshipped the lord, and then over time became lax in their
monotheism and forgot it mostly, and the lord spoke to Mo to set everyone straight. Interestingly, the hebrew bible tells a very similar story. Even
after leaving uruk, the hebrews constantly 'fell' back into paganism, makikng golden calfs at the mountian, or the ammonites with their worship of
Molech-Baal, etc etc. The truth of the matter is probably that both groups, at some point, concentrated on monotheism, and then interpreted their own
history to be as if they had allways worhsiped only 'the lord', which some of the weaker members falling into 'polytheism'.
2. Their alliance with nations that worshiped Baal suggests that they were also worshiping the false god Baal.
The arabs were nomads and tribesmen, they didn't maintain real allegiances. Thats extremely weak evidence for them worshipping the same god.
Both Muslim and non-Muslim sources state that Hubal was recognized as the chief presiding deity of the Kabah.
This is interesting because later on the chief presiding deity of the Kabah is suddenly Allah. How did this transition occur?
Its somethign called 'early islamic history'. Mo brought the good news of this new supreme sole god. The arabs said 'this super rock from the
heavens then, it must've been sent by allah'
Several sources claim that more members of Muhammads family were praising Hubal before it became Allah.
If hubal was the big god of the paganistic arabs, then why shouldn't
they, paganistic arabs, be worshipping him? Then Mo comes along with his
The Muslim sources claim that Hubal was brought to Mecca from Syria due to the influence of the Moabites and/or the Amalekites. These nations
worshiped Baal which demonstrates that Hubal is actually the Arabic form of Hebrew Ha Baal or the Baal.
Sounds plausible enough. But, then again, remever that Baal isn't an actual person, out there, in the world. The way the syrians worship Baal, and
the israelites worship Baal, is probably different from the way the meccan arabs worshiped baal. Just like the way the Romans thought of Mars was
different from the way the Greeks thought of Ares, of Jupiter and Zeus.
And, again, it'd be folly ot ignore the fact that Baal probably
is more of a title, indicating 'the god', rather than a personal name of the
god (not unlike Zeus is 'strangely similar' to the greek word concerning divinity, and not unlike Jupiter 'just happens' to be like the sanksrit
words that mean sky father 'Dyaeus Pater').
It seems to me it is clear that Hubal and Baal are the same
Lets agree that hubal is a type of baal.
, and that Muhammeds family were worshipping Hubal.
It also seems clear that where people first praised Hubal, they later on praised Allah, allthough it is not clear to me how this transition
I don't understand what the dilema is. At one point abram was worshiping Anu and Enki and Lagash, as was his family. Then they were all worshiping
YHWH. Same thing. Divine Revelation leads to a new religion, which replaces the old, even tho some traditions are kept up. The hebrews kept their
flood myth, creation myth, and all their myths, and certainly most of their rituas and traditions when they made the move. The pagans in europe kept
almost all of their traditions when they changed over. Heck, they didn't even 'really' replace the gods. Atop the temple to the God of Medecine
you'd know find a Shrine to the Patron Saint of Healing. They make easter the holiday on which their new god rises from the dead, but keep the
paganistic fertility symbols of the eggs and rabbits, heck even santa claus
is an old pre-christian tradition, not to mention the various other
folk tales, variably beleived, about elves and fairies and dragons. Formerly they were gods. Does that mean that Italians still worhsip Jupiter?
They pray to the Skyfather don't they? If you go to a church in scandanavia and see a cross, would you say its a symbol of the hammer of Thor?
Heck, the jesus story is nearly identical
to other dead-dying-resurecting god myths throughout the ancient world. Does that
jesus is actually one of these gods?
I mean, if Allah is Hubal because of that really weak evidence, then jesus surely is really isis. Allah doesn't seem to have any of the
characteristics of Hubal, whereas jesus directly
with the Koran Muslims have a full new text rewriting all earlier text and mixing their own beliefs into it.
But the christians had to rewrite it all also. They didn't photocopy the penteteuch. And they didn't include the talmud or any of the other
writtings, and, apparently, don't have any 'discussion tradition' like that of the talmud or
islamic hadiths. Similarly then, that would
make christianity the 'odd man out'. Also, isn't the implication that christiantiy 'lifted' its holy book much more upsetting as to its
authenticity than the korans' entirely divinely inspired retelling of it? I mean, if anything, woudln't one expect
the god to retell the
story, since, afterall, the god is starting a 'new' religion? I mean, why start a new one if it wasn't for something missing, or gone wrong, in the
1. Baal was certainly a pagan god worshipped in Old Testament times by Arabs. It has nothing to do with YHVH, the Hebrew God, in fact the Bible
specifically says God becomes extremely upset with the worship of Baal.
Are you questioning that the arabs didn't worship the God of the Old Testament before Mo came along, or that the god Mo evangelized for was Hubal,
and it somehow became 'Allah'?
We do not
know that the arabs worshipped the syrian/phoenecian god Baal. The paganistic arabs had a god named Hubal. The arabs are a semetic
people speaking a semitic language. Its not surprising that they have a big god with 'baal' worked into his name. Thats not
the same as
worshiping The God Baal that the bible talks about.
I agree, its extremely unlikely that the arabs were worshiping jehovah, and then over teh generations that worship became corrupted, as their holy
book reports.. Then again, I also think its extraordinarily unlikely that the hebrews were allwaysworshipping jehovah and that sometimes some groups
corrupted the practice, as their holy book reports.
Please provide some real scripture backing up a claim of a feminine "goddess consort" to the one true God, YHVH...
My understanding of hte arguement, which is not complete, is that the second creation story in the bible has textual and linguistic evidence of having
once been an older myth in which a pair of gods, a male and female, created the world, as opposed to the first creation story, in which the Elohim
with God at the front make the world. Not
saying I agree with the argument, but if we're going to say that Mo was evangelising for Hubal, and
that islam is the worhsip of Hubal on such flimsy evidence (actually, no
evidence has been presented), they we are forced to
accept these things about the bible.
YHVH is a tetragrammaton of the original Hebrew usually translated into English as "The LORD,
Yes, the vowels drop out. I beleive that this word is why the term Jehovah is often used as a name for god.