The "Moon God" conspiracy

page: 1
8
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join

posted on Nov, 14 2009 @ 06:56 AM
link   
I wasn't sure whether this should go in the Disinfo or the in the Research forum instead, but since I figured that the maximum exposure to the relevant audience would occur in the "Conspiracies in Religion" forum, I decided to post it here. If somewhere else is more suitable, I'm sure a moderator will move it.


Now I've recently noticed that a lot of people have started unquestioningly taken up the idea that "Allah was a pagan moon-god". It seems to generally be used by some christians in an attempt to denigrate Islam, make it "less monotheistic" or as a response to claims against the trinity. As far as I can ascertain, it seems to all have stemmed from misattributed and incorrecly researched data from a certain Mr. Robert Morey. (If someone has information about someone else who claimed Allah is a moon-god from before that, I'd appreciate it if you could provide it to me, as I could not find any).


Anyhow, first I'd like to provide some undeniable facts that I'd hope everyone can agree on:
 
-Islam categorically condemns polytheism (no offense to any polytheists I might know here
). It claims quite openly and absolutely that:
"There is no god but God".
-Islam categorically condemns and rejects moon-worship
"Do not prostrate to the sun and the moon, but prostrate to Allah, Who created them, if it is Him ye wish to serve. "
 



We done with that now? Alright, let me now relate the concept of God, moon-gods and polytheism in Pre-Islamic Arabia according to Islamic sources (the Quran and Hadith). You may agree or disagree with these sources (and I'd like to hear your alternate), but following is what these sources say:
 
See, the pre-islamic arabs DID believe in "Allah", the "Main God" or the "Sky God" or "Creator God". This was supposed to be a remnant of the teachings of Ishmael. They had added extra gods to their pantheon for various tasks such as war, fertility, etc (as well as yes, children and a spouse). Muhammad's mission wasn't to convince them of the existence of God. It was to remove all the extra gods and deities they had added, saying that God can handle all these tasks, why would there be a need for departmental deities".

Now about the Ka'abah: It is said to have housed 365 idols, of deities from all over Arabia. One of the reasons the Meccans were so adamantly against Muhammad was because all these idols brought them business: when pilgrims came to pay homage to their particular deity, they would also rest, trade and exchange news with the meccans.
When Muhammad came into control of Mecca, he destroyed ALL the idols in the Ka'abah, except some iconography depicting Abraham and Jesus and Mary (not because he considered them deities, but out of respect).
 



Okay, now about the claims that Allah is a moon-god.
 
First off, people like associating "Allah" with "Hubal" (who was the patron deity of the Quraish tribe). The problem with this is that they cannot possibly be the same, because Hubal and Allah are referred to separately here. Hubal was "imported" some centuries before the birth of Muhammad, long after the concept of "Allah" was firmly entrenched in the nomad arabs. In fact, some sources consider Hubal to have been a "grandchild" of Allah, through the "daughter Allat".

Another claim is that "Sin" is Allah. Again, this seems highly unlikely, as Sin was a figure in Ancient Mesopotamian mythology (2600 to 2400 BC), and there is no contemporary reference to "Sin" in Muhammad's time.

Others claim that "Allah" is the same as "Baal" (sometimes even connecting it to "Hubal"). Again, this is not possible, because again, they are referred to as separate entites!

Now the most absurd claim that critics use is to call attention to the Islamic Lunar Calendar, or display an image of various flags of muslim nations, showing the "Star and Crescent", and using this as "proof" that Islam is based off moon-worship. Unfortunately, this is totally wrong. The Star and Crescent symbol was introduced by the Turks (possibly from the Byzantians), and the symbol has no connection to Islam. In fact, the first "flags" used by muslims were plain green or black or white sheets, with nothing on them (or perhaps a Quranic verse on them), and there is no muslim iconography involving the star and crescent before the turks introduced it.
 



Thanks for listening (or reading). Please post any questions or comments or "refutations" you might have, everyone (me included) deserves to learn! I do ask, however, that you restrict your discussion to Allah, or his supposed moon-god origins, or any connections with moon-gods.


Further Reading:
Reply To Robert Morey's Moon-God Allah Myth: A Look At The Archaeological Evidence

Was Allah The Moon God of Ancient Arab Pagan?

Is Hubal The Same As Allah?
The Crescent Moon: Is it a symbol of Islam?

[edit on 14-11-2009 by babloyi]




posted on Nov, 14 2009 @ 07:51 AM
link   
I think the evidence is overwhelming that Allah is simply derivative of Arabian moon god worship. It's hard to take Islamic apologists seriously as they are the same ones that claim Islam is a religion of peace and that Allah is the creator God of the Bible.

The moon god went by various names, we know from Archeology Sin was the god of Abraham's native Ur. Which is why God of the Bible called him to separate himself.

I trace it from the Tower of Babel to Muhammad Here

There's nice Archeological photo gallery full of evidence Here

Here's an excerpt from a website with a good deal of historical research:



The evidence reveals that the temple of the Moon-god was active even in the Christian era. Evidence gathered from both North and South Arabia demonstrate that Moon-god worship was clearly active even in Muhammad's day and was still the dominant cult. According to numerous inscriptions, while the name of the Moon-god was Sin, his title was al- ilah, i.e. "the deity," meaning that he was the chief or high god among the gods. As Coon pointed out, "The god Il or Ilah was originally a phase of the Moon God." The Moon-god was called al- ilah, i.e. the god, which was shortened to Allah in pre-Islamic times. The pagan Arabs even used Allah in the names they gave to their children. For example, both Muhammad's father and uncle had Allah as part of their names.

The fact that they were given such names by their pagan parents proves that Allah was the title for the Moon-god even in Muhammad's day. Prof. Coon goes on to say, "Similarly, under Mohammed's tutelage, the relatively anonymous Ilah, became Al-Ilah, The God, or Allah, the Supreme Being."

This fact answers the questions, "Why is Allah never defined in the Qur'an? Why did Muhammad assume that the pagan Arabs already knew who Allah was?" Muhammad was raised in the religion of the Moon-god Allah. But he went one step further than his fellow pagan Arabs. While they believed that Allah, i.e. the Moon-god, was the greatest of all gods and the supreme deity in a pantheon of deities, Muhammad decided that Allah was not only the greatest god but the only god.


Allah the Moon God

I don't have time for a big debate. The fruit of Islam, its horrible treatment of women, its hatred of the Jews is really all anyone need to examine to see that Allah is a dark malevolent spirit of hate. Islam is a warrior code against all other religions, inspired by the Fallen Angel, once venerated as the moon god and today known as Allah.



posted on Nov, 14 2009 @ 10:29 AM
link   
reply to post by Bigwhammy
 

Hey Whammy!
Pity you don't have time to discuss, as there is much that could be discussed. I had looked over your previous thread, and the link your provided right now, and...suffice it to say, the conclusion is pretty much incorrect.


First off, I hope you'll excuse me for pointing out that:

Originally posted by Bigwhammy
It's hard to take Islamic apologists seriously as they are the same ones that claim Islam is a religion of peace and that Allah is the creator God of the Bible.

Isn't really an argument. There's probably a latin phrase of "argumentum ad [something or the otherum]"
to describe it, but that is neither here nor there.

Okay, now directing myself to the bible.ca link you provided:
As I said, quite simply, it is false. Most of it has been lifted from Morey's research, which has been shown to be fabricated, and it is a pity that it is still passed around as truth.
For example, Morey claims:

Two idols of the moon-god were found. Each was a statue of a man sitting upon a throne with a crescent moon carved into his chest (below left). The accompanying inscriptions make it clear that these were idols of the moon-god


Fact of the matter is, none of this is true. Yigael Yadin, who directed the excavations that Morey referenced said they were

Basalt statue of deity or king from the stelae temple.


In "Treasures Of The Holy Land: Ancient Art From The Israel Museum" (1986), it is described as:

It depicts a man, possibly a priest, seated on a cubelike stool. He is beardless with a shaven head; his skirt ends below his knees in an accentuated hen; his feet are bare. He holds a cup in his right hand, while his left hand, clenched into a fist, rests on his left knee.

There were certainly no inscriptions identifying the idol as a moon god, and neither were there any other smaller statues identified as "daughters of the moon god".

It is obvious Morey is just making things up, and if you research the man, you'll see that he's probably not the best person to get your information from.

Still, you quote from Morey in your very post in this thread. Again, however, Morey is distorting the truth (this time by distorting a quote from Coon). The actual quote was:


The god Il or Ilah was originally a phase of the Moon God, but early in Arabian history the name became a general term for god, and it was this name that the Hebrews used prominently in their personal names, such as Emanu-el, Israel, etc.

(compare to your version of the quote)

However, I still take issue with Coon's conclusion. In fact, the dictionaries compiled from the very excavations that Coon participated in show his conclusion to be incorrect:
1 from S. D. Ricks, "Lexicon Of Inscriptional Qatabanian" (1989)
2 from S. D. Ricks, "Lexicon Of Inscriptional Qatabanian" (1989)
J. C. Biella, "Dictionary Of Old South Arabic: Sabaean Dialect" (1982)
(There is no mention of ANY moon phase definition)

And for good measure:

... for the Christians and the monotheists, al-ilāh evidently means God; for the poets it means merely "the one who is worshipped", so al-ilāh indicates: "the god already mentioned"... By frequency of usage, al-ilāh was contracted to Allāh, frequently attested in pre-Islamic poetry (where his name cannot in every case have been substituted for another), and then became a proper name (ism ‘alam)...

ilāh is certainly identical with elōah and represents an expanded form of an element -l- (il, el) common to the semitic languages.

From D. B. Macdonald in "The Encyclopaedia of Islam" (1971)


As for your research thread, I'm sorry, but there appears to be a break. I see nothing showing how you connected Sin to Allah.


Hope to hear back from you!

[edit on 14-11-2009 by babloyi]



posted on Nov, 14 2009 @ 10:39 AM
link   
sorry but its a load of bull. Islam came about through the barbaric actions of christian soldiers called the crusaders. Where the name allah is from the moon god may or not be correct but Islam itself was born when someone stood up to the crusaders and saw their evil. He then surmised that if these men who do evil follow certain traditions and do things one way he concluded then in order for us to be good men we must do the opposite of Christainity. This is why the 2 religions are opposite each other.

Learn history b4 posting......
also Allah could have originated here maybe?

It seems unlikely that the name Allah comes from al-ilaah "the God",
but rather from the Aramaic/Syriac alaha, meaning 'God' or 'the God'.
The final 'a' in the name alaha was originally the definite article
'the' and is regularly dropped when Syriac words and names are
borrowed into Arabic. Middle-eastern Christianity used 'alah' and
'alaha' frequently, and it would have often been heard.

But in the Aramaic/Syriac language there are two different 'a' vowels,
one rather like the 'a' in English 'hat' and the other more like the
vowel in 'ought'. In the case of 'alah', the first vowel was like
'hat' and the second like 'ought'. Arabic does not have a vowel like
the one in 'ought', but it seems to have BORROWED this vowel along
with the word 'alah'. If you know Arabic, then you know that the
second vowel in 'allah' is unique; it occurs only in that one word
in Arabic.


[edit on 14-11-2009 by loner007]



posted on Nov, 14 2009 @ 12:41 PM
link   
reply to post by babloyi
 


I must say it's a wonderful and well thought out thread. Since we are discussing about Islam I'd thought I'd put forth a few questions although it may not be exactly relevant of this thread.

What is the concept about entering heaven with 72 virgins? For what purpose and why is it specified so?

What is the concept of heaven according to Islam?

Who, what and why have we angels? Whence they arise and whence do they go and where do they exist? I believe that the angel Gabriel gave God's message to Mohammad, why did Gabriel have to do that? Jesus received his message directly from God before entering this mortal world. Why did we need another prophet after Jesus?

Creation itself is a sin. Why are we worshiping a creator instead of the one supreme god of heaven.

What does 'Rahman' signify in Islam, is it a diety or a metaphor.

Thanks!



posted on Nov, 14 2009 @ 01:26 PM
link   
reply to post by CuteAngel
 

Hello Cuteangel!
Thank you for your kind words. I hope you learnt something from this thread!

And since you asked so politely, I suppose no harm could come from responding to your questions.

First off, there is a little confusion in regards to the whole "72 virgin" thing. It is mentioned in the Quran that those in heaven (both men and women) will have "hour" (translatable to "Companions with beautiful eyes" or "modest gaze" or "pure"). There is no explicit mention of them being virgins, although I suppose you could assume it if you wanted.

Now the number 72 actually comes from suspect Hadith (with a weak chain of narrators). Another interpretation (floating about on ATS here somewhere) is that "hour" actually refers to "raisins", but I don't know about that.

Heaven in Islam is called "Jannat", which literally translates to "Garden". There is a lot of imagery that draws on this in the Islamic scriptures. I'd suggest you check it out, as it is too much to relate to in a single ATS post.

According to Islam. Angels are beings made of light. They have some form of free will, but they cannot disobey God. They can be in multiple places at one time, and exist to do the will of God. Muhammad received much of his revelation through the Angel Gabriel, but also on occasion spoke with God.

I'm not sure I understand your point about creation. According to Islam, we are all created by God. God is the "one supreme god of heaven". God is also the "Best of Creators", meaning that while we have the ability to "create" something (using God's gifts of inspiration, and materials, etc), God is the best of creators, having created everything in the first place. Creation itself is not a sin. Creating something with intent to worship it, or to assume it is a "better creation" than God's would be a sin.

Rahman means "most merciful". It is one of the attributes of God in Islam, and is said at the beginning of almost every surah in the Quran ("In the name of God, Most Gracious, Most Merciful"). Interesting you brought this up, though. It was being discussed here on ATS a while back, and someone brought up "Rahman", claiming it was some pagan moon-god. Turned out to be a whole lot of nonsense, though. Pity I can't find out where that thread is...

[edit on 14-11-2009 by babloyi]



posted on Nov, 14 2009 @ 05:38 PM
link   
If it's OK, I'd like to agree in part and disagree in part.


As far as I can ascertain, it seems to all have stemmed from misattributed and incorrecly researched data from a certain Mr. Robert Morey. (If someone has information about someone else who claimed Allah is a moon-god from before that, I'd appreciate it if you could provide it to me, as I could not find any).

The origin of the idea can be traced as far back as the Ninth Century (more or less) and the so-called "Satanic Verses" (searchable), which are Koran 53: 19-23 and a supposed earlier verse which the current verses 21-23 are said, by some, to have replaced.

The sources for the controversy are devout Muslims, and their writings have been transmitted to us through Islamic channels. Of the various versions of how and why Mohammed may have replaced an earlier version with the current text, I like Tabari's (searchable), but his is not the earliest.

Basically, 53: 19 and 20 invoke the three daughters of the Moon god Hubal by name (Lat, Uzza and Manat). The current text then mocks them and those who believe in them, which is standard anti-pagan fare.

What was alleged, however, is that the original verse was, in some way or other, an acknowledgment that these goddesses would continue to play the same intercessor role in the new montotheism as they did in the old polytheism. That is, these were Daddy's little girls, so if they asked for a favor on your behalf, then you'd maybe get it.

The issue in this thread isn't whether the Koran was really altered, but rather that educated Muslims early on recognized a specific and important resemblance between the new Allah and the old Hubal. Anybody else who noticed it recently, then, would be a millennium too late to claim it as their own original idea.

As to the name, al-ilah apparently was an epithet of Hubal, and is simply the god literally. But he wasn't "the god," just the alpha dog in a kennel of 300 or so. It is not news that worship often consists of shamelessly flattering the god. Allah really is the god, or so the new story goes.

Mohammed's problem was to sell a national-unity montheism to a culture of tribal-rivalry poytheists. Ultimately, he fought and won a civil war to accomplish that. But, before then, it is very likely that he tried his best to postpone or avoid that civil war. He probably did make a number of concessions to his pagan target audience in the interest of persuasion.

The pagans already worshipped an al-ilah, so let's worship an allah instead. If you have a snoot full of sand, it's the same word. One story about the Satanic Verses is that it, too, was a concession.

Lat, Uzza and Manat were popular, so Mohammed thought he might work them in as "special spirits, favorites of Allah" rather than goddesses and daughters (Allah doesn't have children and won't). Islamic "monotheism" has plenty of "special spirits." Why allow jinns and not the three popular sisters?

Even if stories like the Satanic Verses legend were true, would that make Allah the same as the Moon god Hubal? No. They are not identical, we have already seen that. Allah has no children and is unique. Hubal does have children and is one among many.

Do they have enough in common to assert that Allah is "a version of" Hubal? That is a philosophical question, not a factual one. Is Odin a version of Hermes? They can both be traced to a common Indo-European ancestor. And it might be a question of more or less, rather than of yes or no. Mercury seems much more similar to Hermes than Odin does, for example.

The better question, in my opinion, is whether the "Big Three Abrahamic" religions all worship the same god. For what it is worth, I think the three familiar Abrahamic Gods are very different from one another, even if they are all based upon some original tribal Hebrew prototype, worshipped sometime in the remote past.

Allah might easily be judged to resemble Hubal more closely than Jesus and his Father, from one or both of whom the Holy Spirit proceeds, which isn't really much like Yahweh, at least not as Jews tell the tale.



posted on Nov, 15 2009 @ 02:05 AM
link   
reply to post by eight bits
 

Hey eight bits!

You bring up the story of the satanic verses, which if you ask me, are inaccurate, mostly because they're illogical and don't fit in with the narrative. So-called "devout muslims" gave many narrations, and many of these were rejected and found to be wrong. There are several hadith that are universally confirmed to be inauthentic (and serve only as examples of inauthentic hadith).

But as you said, this isn't the point. The point is the connection you made, which I will address. I suppose some may have missed out where I linked showing that Hubal and Allah cannot be the same:

Sahih Bukhari, Volume 5, Book 59, Number 375:
...Abu Safyan said, "Superior may be Hubal!" On that the Prophet said (to his companions), "Reply to him." They asked, "What may we say?" He said, "Say: Allah is More Elevated and More Majestic!"...


Anyhow, aside from that, the three "goddesses" mentioned in the verse were not children of Hubal, they had been attributed to be (by the pagan meccans), children of Allah, which is what Islam denied, saying that God had no child.

The pre-islamic pagan pantheon is somewhat complicated, and I doubt anyone has the whole picture, but from what I've been able to pick up, it is something like this.

Allah is at the top, the main guy.
He'd been attributed 3 "daughters", the first being Al-Uzza
The other is Al-Latt, who is also supposedly the mother of Hubal, and another deity, Wadd.
The third is Manat, who was also the wife of Hubal.
That, aside from the other dozen deities.

[edit on 15-11-2009 by babloyi]



posted on Nov, 15 2009 @ 04:15 AM
link   
Hello, again, babloyi

I share your doubts about the literal factual accuracy of the Satanic Verses tales, largely because the emergence of "urban legends" is a predictable psychological phenomenon among "true believers." I think these stories tell more about the people who invented and transmitted them, believers, than about Mohammed, the focus of their beliefs.

It is also predictable that opponents will pick up on anything like that, and use it as ammunition in debate. Similarly with any parallels between Allah and earlier Arabian gods.

But, there is a big difference between discussing some authentic "difficult point" about an opponent's view versus making something up. So, when you attribute the source of Allah-Hubal parallels to a modern Christian author, as you did in your OP, you misstate the terms of the ongoing debate. That is not meant to be a strong criticism of you personally, since you did allow that your attribution could be corrected.

The reason why Christian apologists bother to discuss the relationship between Hubal and Allah is its convenience for them. However, that there is a relationship that can be discussed is not something that modern Christians fabricated nor misunderstood because of sloppy scholarship.

Mohammed's chief literary creation, Allah, is visibly a blend of Hebrew, Christian, and native Arabian material. If there is a rhetorical weakness in the case he made for Allah, the sermons collected in the Koran, it is that Mohammed acknowledged his Abrahamic sources at length, but played down the Arabian ones.

Voluntary profession of Islam goes up or down depending solely on whether the word of Mohammed is to be believed. Anything that erodes his credibility or judgment is grist for the mill of debate. That is true even if the question is philosophical or a matter of more or less.


The pre-islamic pagan pantheon is somewhat complicated, and I doubt anyone has the whole picture, but from what I've been able to pick up, it is something like this.

Lack of full confidence about the facts is probably because of the total catastrophic displacement of the pagan religion by Islam.

The summary you give is based on the good guess (I think) that Lat, Uzza and Manat were an Arabian instance of the "Triple Goddess," who crops up in many religions. Based on what we know of the Triple Goddess archetype, we look for three different stages of a woman's life: nubile viriginal, motherly, and older woman. Three generations of women, each defined by their relation to the Moon, fits this mold nicely.

It would not be unusual for different relationships to have figured in other stories. Wife, mother, sister, daughter... meh, goddesses are not bound by human categories
. So, it's not even necessarily so that one set of relationships is right, and another set is wrong. Several "incompatible" versions could easily have circulated, all current at the same time.



posted on Nov, 15 2009 @ 05:05 AM
link   
reply to post by eight bits
 

Good to hear from you again, eight bits!

Yes, it is true that I attributed the Hubal-Allah connection to Robert Morey.
You brought up the idea of the Satanic verses to show that this may not be the case.

However, as I pointed out, the Satanic Verses story makes no mention of Hubal, and I can't find any literature that shows that Hubal was the father of those 3 goddesses in the Pre-Islamic Arabian Pantheon (thus establishing a connection).

The summary I gave is based off the literature I found on the subject. To be honest, I'm not learned in the least on paganism or such topics as the "triple-goddess archetype". From a cursory internet search I found that in the case of the arabian goddesses:
Al-Lat ("the Goddess"), Al-Uzza ("Power") and the youngest, and Manat ("Fate") the crone, "the third, the other" were known collectively as the three cranes, or "three daughters of Allah".

However, I see no connection to Hubal (aside from Manat being married to him).
You bring up their fitting into the triple-goddess archetype as an example of how they could be the three phases of the moon (although in this case, "Goddess", "Power" and "Fate" don't seem to match up with moon phases, perhaps your mention of their age fits more?).

So are you saying that since they vary in ages, they could be representative of the three phases of the moon, which, connected to being the daughters of Allah, might imply that Allah was a moon-god?

Once again, I admit, I'm no expert on ancient religions or paganism, but that seems something of a stretch to me, and I'd get the feeling that you're the first person to draw such a connection
.
Could you help me out here?



posted on Nov, 15 2009 @ 06:55 AM
link   
On the off chance that other readers don't know what you and I are talking about, here is a nice scholarly summary of the Satanic Verses controversy, from its beginnings all the way through Salman Rushdie's novel.

www.wsu.edu:8001...

I am not on the hook for the finer points of Arabian pagan mythology as it was practiced before the adoption of Islam. I have already said why I believe that a full reconstruction of that corpus is nearly hopeless.

My discussion of the Triple Goddess archetype was responsive to your account of the relationships to Hubal which you found. The relationships of these women to the Moon is "a nice touch," because Moon imagery in connection with feminine archetypes is commonplace, but it is not essential to this archetype, nor would any one-to-one mapping between the women and the phases of the Moon be essential. Still nice, though.

My point was that the source of the idea that there was some Hubal-Allah connection is not modern and not Christian. In establishing an ancient non-Christian source, I relied on the Satanic Verses affair, and the literature surrounding that.

If Ninth Century Islamic scholars got their Arabian mythology completely wrong, then it doesn't affect the point I was making. If contemporary Isalmic commentators get their mythology wrong, too, then that doesn't affect my point, either.

On the specific question of a father-daughter relationship, I agree with some Islamic sources that 53: 22

Are the males for you and for Him the females?

refers to paternity. For example,

www.muslim.org...

(I do not, however, agree with that source on all other matters. The point of citing them here is to bring in a non-Christian source for this question.)

That is, the sense of the verse would be that if creatures can have sons, then the creator would not have daughters. This is mockery of the goddesses and the idea of their having any special relationship with Allah. Identifying the relationship as daughterly is based on the implausibility that an Arabian man would have a male wife or lover, and male mother makes no sense at all.

As to the lack of mention of Hubal, some connection(s) between the goddesses and Hubal in the pagan religion seems uncontroversial. In any case, the idea reaches us who live today via Islamic sources.

Some connection between the goddesses and Allah is what the Satanic Verses story alleges. Even the canonical Koran as it exists today is visibly refuting somebody's idea that these three goddesses have a relationship with Allah comparable with their traditional relationship with Hubal, as told to us by Islamic sources.

That much is a connection between Hubal and Allah. It doesn't mean "they are the same god." They obviously aren't. But it wasn't modern Christians who first saw connectable dots between them. And that's all I propose to argue in this thread.

[edit on 15-11-2009 by eight bits]



posted on Nov, 15 2009 @ 07:06 AM
link   
reply to post by eight bits
 


Ahhh!
I think I understand your point now. You are saying that while they may not have been the same entity, there was definitely some connection between Hubal and Allah in the Pre-Islamic Pagan pantheon? Something along the lines of a family connection (eg. Allah may have supposedly been Hubal's grandfather in the pantheon setup), or a connection in that they were part of the same pantheon?


In that sense, you are in agreement with muslim historians, although they'd probably add that all these family and pantheon additions were added to the original monotheism (supposed to have been imported from Abraham via Ishmael).
My point was that while Hubal may have been a moon god, Allah was not.



posted on Nov, 15 2009 @ 12:33 PM
link   
reply to post by babloyi
 


Star and flag for you, for not just strong research, but also stepping up to educate the slobbering islamophobes that swarm around ATS


And it looks like Eight Bits doesn't realize Salman Rushdie is to Islam what Dan Brown is to chrisitanity
"Oh, I bet I can completely fabricate an expansive work of fiction around this odd nugget!"



posted on Nov, 15 2009 @ 01:58 PM
link   
TheWalkingFox

The Koranic verses beginning at 53: 19 had been discussed as a unit for a thousand years before Salman Rushdie was born. His name appeared in this discussion once, solely as a marker for the breadth and recency of a scholarly webpage which I cited. No point made by Salman Rushdie has informed any comment I have made here.

The verbatim record of my postings is here to be read by anyone who cares to. It is foolish to describe them falsely. Perhaps next time, you will read thoroughly first, and then post.

babloyi

As I say, I am happy with resolution of who were the sources of the idea that there is some connection between Allah and Hubal. The further questions of how much Allah and Hubal resembled each other in the minds of Arabian pagans living in the Seventh Century, and precisely what their connection was, is much harder to sort out.

There are too many possibilities, and the nature of polytheism is that two or more "incompatible" possibilities might have circulated side by side. I don't think there is any way for living people to place ourselves confidently in the mind of a typical pagan listener to one of Mohammed's sermons.

It is interesting to sort through the possibilities, though. Good talking with you; see you out there.



posted on Nov, 16 2009 @ 05:26 AM
link   
Allah was the God of Abraham, aquired by his firstborn son Ismael, half brother of Isaak. Abraham taught Hagar about God, Elohim. In Arabic Eloah or Elohim becomes Allah. There is no other explanation worthy of evaluation.

Etymology is the science of the origins of words, and every language have their own translitteration practises etc, so that In Arabic Allah is identical with Hebrew Eloah or Elohim. It may be reflected in Hebrew Abba, "Father" or rather "Daddy" as seen in the name of Mahmud Abbas etc.



posted on Nov, 16 2009 @ 10:10 PM
link   
You might compare how Heb. Eloah or Elohim becomes Allah in Arabic by how Norse Odin became known as Wedin and Wodan in England and Wotan in Germany, or how Norwegian Onsdag becomes Wedensday in English. Thank God for the Word.

[edit on 16/11/2009 by Neo Christian Mystic]



posted on Nov, 26 2009 @ 04:49 PM
link   


I'm not going to claim to be an authority but there are many sources other than the one you undermine that lead to the conclusion that Muhammad simply repackaged his native Arabian moon god worship. I'll let an ex-Muslim explain it to you. He agrees that Allah is simply a derivative of the moon god worship from Babylon.

There are many other sources than Morey.



"a people of Arabia, of the race of the Joktanites ... the Alilai living near the Red Sea in a district where gold is found; their name, children of the moon, so called from the worship of the moon, or Alilat." (Gesenius Hebrew and Chaldee Lexicon to the Old Testament Scriptures, translated by Samuel Prideaux Tregelles, 1979, p. 367)



[edit on 11/26/2009 by Bigwhammy]



posted on Nov, 26 2009 @ 07:06 PM
link   
reply to post by Bigwhammy
 

Hey Whammy! Great that you could join in the discussion!

Originally posted by Bigwhammy
I'll let an ex-Muslim explain it to you. Allah is simply a derivative of the moon god worship from Babylon.

Unfortunately, for an "ex-muslim", the guy in the video doesn't know much about Islam, or even history. However, I'll stick to his comments that are pertaining to this thread's topic.

He claims (and I quote):

"It is a babylonian religion. You have to understand, Nebuchadnezzar, his son, Nabonidus, came to Arabia, he came to Yathrib, look at the Chronicles of Nabonidus, and he established the worship of Marduk, which did not work, it was not palatable to the arabs. So then he introduced the worship of the moon god, and that flourished in arabia. That's why it's called the "Daughter of Babylon".

And that is the totality of his explanation on why Allah is the moon god. Ignoring whether or not his statements are factual (which they're not, I'll get to that in a second), it still doesn't really provide any conclusive evidence.

Anyhow, now to why his statements are complete rubbish. First off, Nabonidus wasn't Nebuchadnezzar's son. He wasn't even related to him. He came to the throne by overthrowing the king who was there.

Next, he never went to Yathrib, he went to Teyma, which is over 300km from Yathrib.

Next, he certainly didn't "introduce" any religion there, and definitely had no love for Marduk (a fact that caused his priests to hate him).

While he did attempt to impose the worship of Sin, the moon god (his mother was a priestess of Sin), it wasn't in Arabia, IT WAS IN HIS OWN HOMELAND IN BABYLON (another reason the priests hated him).

Oh yes...last of all, Nabonidus died in 539 BC, over a 1000 years difference from Muhammad.

As for the quote you posted, I hope you don't mind me posting the whole quote:

Hebrew and Chaldee Lexicon to the Old Testament Scriptures
יֶרַח m. (comp. Lehrg. p. 512, note 11); pl. יְרָחִים const. יַרְחֵי.

(1) a month, which amongst the Hebrews was lunar, (compare Germ. Wond and Wonat, Gr. μήνη and μήν, a month), i.q. חֹדֶשׁ, but a rarer word, and one used by the older writers (Ex. 2:2), and by poets (Deut. 33:14; Job 3:6; 7:3; 29:2; 39:2; Zech. 11:8); see however 1 Ki. 6:37, 38; 8:2.

(2) [Jerah], a people and region of Arabia, of the race of the Joktanites, Gen. 10:26; Bochart (Phaleg. ii. 19) remarks, not unsuitably, that this name is Hebrew, but a translation from an Arabic name of the same signification. On this assumed ground he understands this people to be the Alilœi, living near the Red Sea in a district where gold is found (Agatharchides c. 49, Strabo xvi. p. 277); their true name he conjectures to have been بنى هلال children of the moon, so called from the worship of the moon, or Alilat (Herodot. iii. 8). As to a tribe bearing this name, near Mecca, see Niebuhr in Descr. of Arabia, p. 270. A more probable opinion, however, is that of J. D. Michaëlis in Spicileg. ii. p. 60, understanding this to be the coast of the moon (غبّ القمر) and the mountain of the moon (جبل القمر), near Hadramaut; for יֶרַח Gen. loc. cit. is joined with the country of Hadramaut.


So....according to Bochart, a dude who lived in the 17th century (who Gesenius doesn't really agree with), Yerach, which means "new moon" in hebrew, when translated to arabic (where it also means "new moon"), could relate to the people known as "Bani Hilal" (ie. children of the moon).
Problem is, "Yerach" and "Hilal" (and "Allah") share no etymological connection, and the Bani Hilal tribe resided in northern egypt, pretty far from any connection to Muhammad, and they definitely weren't around far back enough to be talked about in Genesis. The article mentions Herodotus as another reference, but he lived in the 5th century BC. These Alilœi people obviously have no connection to the arabs who lived and worshipped in Muhammad's time.


I'm sorry, Whammy, but I still don't see this great unbroken connection you were on about all the way from the tower of Babel and Muhammad's preaching. Also, I'm somewhat disappointed (although I can't really blame you
) that while you claim muslim sources untrustworthy, you use christian sources that have an obvious agenda as well (and in the cases you presented, the added disadvantage of being -ignorantly or purposefully- factually incorrect).

[edit on 26-11-2009 by babloyi]



posted on Nov, 26 2009 @ 07:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by Bigwhammy


I'm not going to claim to be an authority but there are many sources other than the one you undermine that lead to the conclusion that Muhammad simply repackaged his native Arabian moon god worship. I'll let an ex-Muslim explain it to you. He agrees that Allah is simply a derivative of the moon god worship from Babylon.

There are many other sources than Morey.



"a people of Arabia, of the race of the Joktanites ... the Alilai living near the Red Sea in a district where gold is found; their name, children of the moon, so called from the worship of the moon, or Alilat." (Gesenius Hebrew and Chaldee Lexicon to the Old Testament Scriptures, translated by Samuel Prideaux Tregelles, 1979, p. 367)



[edit on 11/26/2009 by Bigwhammy]


Hahaha.

Thank you for this video.

He is the coolest, the most coolio Arab I have ever heard.

I hope I am not rascist for saying the word "Arab".

In my head it is all good.

If not, please change it for me.



posted on Nov, 27 2009 @ 11:09 AM
link   
reply to post by babloyi
 


I think the reason you fail to make the obvious connection between Allah and the moon god are your presuppositions which I don't share.

I think the Quran is largely a work of deceptive fiction. Containing revisionist history by Muslims.



Abraham had nothing to do with Islam. The god of Islam is nothing like the God of the Abraham. Muslim scholars try to justify Ka'bba was built by Abraham by saying Biblical Baca to be Mecca. But that is not true. Baca and Mecca are two different places thousand miles far apart. The Ka'baa was not built by Abraham it was a pagan center of worship, more akin to Hinduism. It accommodated many Gods but Muhammad's tribe esteemed the moon god as the main god.

You may have a good argument that etymologically the word "Allah" does mean not Hubal or Sin in all contexts. But I am not merely identifying a noun "Allah" but the entity behind him. I do believe that "Allah" is spiritual entity.

You admit that the moon god was the patron deity of Muhammad's tribe.



First off, people like associating "Allah" with "Hubal" (who was the patron deity of the Quraish tribe). The problem with this is that they cannot possibly be the same, because Hubal and Allah are referred to separately here.


And then you also conceded the connection here:



In that sense, you are in agreement with muslim historians, although they'd probably add that all these family and pantheon additions were added to the original monotheism (supposed to have been imported from Abraham via Ishmael). My point was that while Hubal may have been a moon god, Allah was not.


Your argument centers on the fact that the word "Allah" was used separately. But then later you use the argument that "Allah" simply means "the God" or "the one who is worshiped".

Your source:



... for the Christians and the monotheists, al-ilāh evidently means God; for the poets it means merely "the one who is worshipped", so al-ilāh indicates: "the god already mentioned"...

From D. B. Macdonald in "The Encyclopaedia of Islam" (1971)


The moon god was "the one who was worshiped" so by your own definition when Muhammad's tribe worshiped - Allah was the moon god.

So your argument amounts to a shell game where the word Allah applies to the specific god of Islam (allegedly Abraham's God) when it suits you and then "Allah" becomes a generic term when it does not.



[edit on 11/27/2009 by Bigwhammy]





top topics
 
8
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join