Top Menu

The “Allah is the Moon-God” Nonsense Could be the Stupidest Anti-Muslim Conspiracy Theory Yet, Page II

Please make sure to read page I first, which was published yesterday.

Robert Morey et al. argue that the pre-Islamic pagans of Arabia worshiped a moon-god called Allah.  The reality, however, is that there was a moon-god but his name was Sin, not Allah.  Sin had absolutely no relation whatsoever to Allah.  Bible scholar Rick Brown writes:

It is in fact true that before the coming of Islam many “gods” and idols were worshiped in the Middle East, but the name of the moon god was Sîn, not Allah, and he was not particularly popular in [Northern] Arabia, the birthplace of Islam.

Moon-worship was certainly not unheard of in Arabia, something we can safely say based on the Quran itself, which categorically condemns worship of the moon.  In other words, one of the strongest proofs for the historicity of moon-worship comes from the Quran’s rejection of it.

No verse in the Quran links Sin or the moon to Allah. Instead, the only mention in the Quran of moon-worship comes in the form of categorical rejection of such a practice. Yet, somehow the anti-Muslim ideologue links Sin and the moon to Allah–without any proof whatsoever to do this.  This, as Shabir Ally pointed out, is how Robert Morey draws “conclusions for which no evidence was even suggested, much less established.”

Brown concludes:

There is no clear evidence that moon-worship was prominent among the Arabs in any way or that the crescent was used as the symbol of a moon god, and Allah was certainly not the moon god’s name.

*  *  *  *  *

Similarly, some anti-Muslim ideologues claim that Allah refers to the pagan idol Hubal, and that Hubal was a moon-god.  This seems to be a case of throwing the kitchen sink at Islam and hoping something sticks: well, was Allah the same as the moon-god Sin or the pagan idol Hubal?  Since Sin and Hubal were clearly not the same, how can Allah have been both?  This exposes the insincerity of the anti-Muslim camp, whereby they will attribute whatever they possibly can to Allah and Islam in general, so long as it is something derogatory, even if it contradicts one of their earlier claims or other anti-Muslim beliefs.

Just as it can be concluded that Allah was not the moon-god based on the Quran’s categorical rejection of moon-worship, so too can we safely conclude that Allah was not the same as Hubal based on the fact that the Prophet Muhammad quite clearly differentiated between the two.  When the pagans of Arabia won a decisive battlefield victory against the early Muslims, the leader of the pagans (Abu Sufyan) yelled in triumph:

“Superior is Hubal!”

To which the Prophet Muhammad replied in defiance:

“Allah is more exalted and more majestic!”  (Sahih al-Bukhari, Vol. 5, Book 59, #375)

The above narration is found in Sahih al-Bukhari, the most well-respected book of hadith (prophetic traditions).  When Islamophobes find a “useful” narration in this collection, they are quick to push the absolute authenticity of it.  When a narration like this one is found in the very same collection suddenly they doubt it! [Hat tip: Saifullah et al.]

For example, Christian polemicist Timothy W. Dunkin disregards this prophetic tradition as mere “redaction,” giving absolutely no proof for this claim except his own whim.  Thus does the conspiracy theorist construct and reinforce his far-fetched belief: whatever text supports the moon-god theory even in a convoluted and miserably indirect way is accepted, and whatever text clearly and categorically rejects the conspiracy theory (Quranic verses that forbid worship of the moon, hadiths that differentiate Hubal from Allah, etc.) is simply rejected.  Once all contrary evidence is taken out of the equation, then aha!, see all the evidence points to Allah being the moon-god!

It is interesting to note, however, that not even Yoel Natan, author of Moon-O-Theism (and the most ardent proponent of the moon-god theory), could accept the claim that Allah was the same as Hubal.  Natan admits that “Hubal was not a moon-god” (Vol. II, p.168) and that in fact “Hubal was Allah’s competitor” (Ibid., p.167), which is clear from the prophetic tradition we have cited above.

This is not to say that the pagans rejected Allah altogether.  However, they focused their worship on idols such as Hubal, neglecting to worship Allah except in times of severe distress–for which the Quran condemns them (see Quran 29:65).  Hubal had become the chief idol of the Kaaba, outstripping Allah in terms of day-to-day importance and cultic worship, even while Allah retained nominal supremacy as “Lord of the Kaaba.”  Scholars believe that Hubal was likely a Syrian or Mesopotamian god that was accepted into the Arabian pantheon of deities, much like the Israelite god Allah was accommodated by the pagan belief system as the creator god (more on this later).

The Prophet Muhammad was intent on aligning the early Muslims with the Israelite god Allah and away from the pagan god Hubal, exclaiming the superiority of Allah over Hubal.  This culminated in the eventual destruction of the Hubal idol by the Prophet Muhammad once he conquered Mecca.  How could Allah be the same as Hubal when the Prophet Muhammad declared Allah’s supremacy to Hubal, and even went on to destroy the idol Hubal?

The only “evidence” used to link Hubal to Allah is the fact that the Quran does not mention Hubal by name.  The argument goes: the Quran repudiates al-Lat, Manat, and al-Uzza but makes no mention of Hubal; therefore, Hubal is Allah.  This, as rightfully pointed out by M.S.M. Saifullah and Abdullah David, is an argumentum e silentio–using the absence of proof as a proof in and of itself:

…While the Qur’an railed against Allat, Manat, and al-ʿUzza, whom the pagan Arabs referred to as the “daughters of Allah”, it stopped short of attacking the cult of Hubal. Although such an argument can be applied to any of the pagan idols not mentioned in the Qur’an, such as Dhul-Khalasa and Dhul-Shara, the argumentum e silentio of Wellhausen became a rallying cry for the missionaries and apologists to claim that Hubal was none other than Allah.[24] This is clearly a logical fallacy.

The verse in the Quran that “railed against Allat, Manat, and al-‘Uzza” can be found in verses 53:19-23, which reads:

Have you considered al-Lat and al-Uzza–and the last of the three–Manat?  What!  Why for yourselves you would choose only male offspring, whereas to Him you assign females?  What a bizarre distribution!  These are nothing but names you have invented yourselves, you and your forefathers, for which God (Allah) has sent no authority for.  These people merely follow guesswork and their own whims, even though guidance has come to them from their Lord. (Quran, 53:19-23)

The Islamophobes argue that the Quran mentions al-Lat, al-Uzza, and Manat by name but not Hubal and that this somehow means that Hubal is Allah.  This is a very dubious claim, based only in the negative vacuum of proof.

It should be noted that the style of the Quran is very different than the Bible in that it does not generally name names–rather, general and generic references are made.  To this effect, it should be noted that Muhammad is only mentioned by name in the Quran a grand total of four times.  Only one of the many disciples of the Prophet Muhammad is mentioned by name.  The most revered disciple, Abu Bakr, is not mentioned by name a single time in the entire Quran; instead, his story is told using generic pronouns (the Arabic equivalent of he and him).  Therefore, it is not at all surprising that the name Hubal is not taken in the Quran.

Secondly, if we were to accept the dubious claim that Hubal was the moon-god, then in that case the Quran does mention him in verses 7:54, 13:2, and 21:33, in which worship of the moon is rejected.  After all, if we accept (as we must) the idea that the Quran in general refrains from naming names and focuses instead on concepts and stories, then in that case–if Hubal was indeed the moon-god–then he is referenced in those verses.  Here, the Islamophobic opponent is caught in a Catch-22: if Hubal was really the moon-god, then he is rejected in the Quran in those passages; if he was not the moon-god, then proving Allah was Hubal would actually prove that Allah was not the moon-god.

Thirdly, the Quran mentions al-Lat, al-Uzza, and Manat in a very specific context: the passage condemns the pagans for attributing daughters to Allah even while they themselves prefer sons for themselves.  Hubal was a male deity and therefore it would not make sense to mention him in a verse about daughters.  Saifullah et al. write:

…The Qur’an is referring to the concept of “daughters of Allah”, and to mention a male deity like Hubal would be against the very argument the Qur’an is drawing attention to.

What! for you the males and for Him the females! This indeed is an unjust division! [Sūrah al-Najm:21]

The Qur’an uses irony to drive home a point. While many of the Arabs buried their daughters alive, as well as holding the position that women were inferior to men in all aspects, they still fabricated daughters for Allah.

Fourthly, there were over three-hundred idols worshiped by the pagans of Arabia, Hubal being one of them.  The Quran doesn’t mention any of the rest of them; by the logic of argumentum e silentio could we argue that Allah was not Hubal or the moon-god but any or all of the many gods in the pantheon of deities?  This indicates the flawed logic behind argumentum e silentio.

Fifthly, some argue that Hubal originated from–and is the same as–the Semitic god Baal.  This is certainly something accepted by many anti-Muslim ideologues who wish to link the evil Baal to Allah through Hubal.  Yoel Natan, for example, endorses the idea that Hubal came from–and was–Baal.  If this was indeed the case, then the Quran does mention Hubal/Baal by name:

Will you invoke Baal and forsake the best of Creators, Allah, your Lord and the Lord of your forefathers? (Quran, 37:125-126)

In the process of trying to make this fantastic juxtaposition between Allah and the moon-god, the Islamophobes attribute any and all negative points to Islam that they possibly can, often unknowingly furthering multiple, contradictory claims.  The truth-seeker should doubt their sincerity, and refrain from taking them seriously.  Whichever way you slice it, it is very difficult to link Allah to the moon.

Stay tuned for page III…

, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

  • Solid Snake

    Can you help me understand the ‘arab’ culture? Can you help me understand the pre Islamic ‘arab’ culture? I believe you, I just want you to help me understand what you know. Really I am waiting. I hope you will provide a coherent informational reply.

    (By the way ‘arab’ is capitalized in the English language , ie Arab )

    Thanks

  • Zakariya Ali Sher

    Why would he want to do that? He doesn’t need to cite the Qur’an, or the Hadith, or the Sunnah, or even Western scholarly articles because “he KNOWS what taqiyya is.” Never mind that even freaking Wikipedia contradicts him, he “knows.” No doubt he learned all of this from late night internet sessions in his parents’ basement.

    I know that sounds harsh, but I’ve found so many of the Islamophobes repeating the same arguments over and over again, and it’s getting kind of old. Pretty much they are all the same at this point.

  • Zakariya Ali Sher

    It would appear you don’t know what taqiyya is, and are unlikely to see it in practice unless you live someplace where Shi’a are repressed, such as Bahrain or Saudi Arabia. Not to mention that most Muslims, especially Sunnis and other non-Shi’ites, won’t even know what taqiyya is…

  • Zakariya Ali Sher

    نعم. وأنا أتكلم العربية. أنا العربي. عائلة والدتي هي من ليبيا. هل تتكلم العربية؟

    Anyway, if I had to guess, I would say you are either an Evangelical Christian or a right-wing conspiracy nut who reads the same sort of literature they do. The obsession with the idea that Allah isn’t the same as the God of the Bible, and the associated idea that if Islam was “pagan” it would somehow discredit our entire religion, comes from that intellectual stream.

    The fact is, I doubt you speak Arabic, or know about Arab culture. LW is a non-partisan, non-sectarian site, but there are Muslim writers and commentators who regularly post here, as well as non-Muslims with scholarly backrounds pertaining to the Middle East and North Africa, some of whom DO speak Arabic. Pulling that old card just isn’t going to work here, especially when some of us ARE Muslim and/or Arab, do speak Arabic, and in some cases were born in or have lived in the Middle East.

    There isn’t some vast conspiracy. Mainstream scholars – including non-Muslims – agree that Allah is the Arabic word for God, and that Jews and Christians use the same word. As I said above, the cognate Alla appears in Maltese. If you want to read about Arab paganism and the connections between the Semitic languages, then I would recommend reading a scholarly book. You know, not some mass marketed paperback put out by politically driven pundits like Robert Spencer or Pamella Geller (who can’t even pretend to call herself a ‘scholar’; she’s a freaking blogger for crying out loud).

  • Zakariya Ali Sher

    Hahaha… what? Seriously, a “desert dwelling people”? Is that meant to be some sort of insult or something? As if that has anything to do with whether or not we worshipped a “moon god.” The Hebrews, Egyptians, Sumerians, Babylonians and Persians were all “desert people” too by your logic, not to mention the Anasazi, Hopi, Zuñi, Navajo, Apache, Moche, Rajputs, Mongols and many others once you get outside the Middle East. I fail to see what that has to do with ANYTHING though.

    The fact is that Arabic speaking Jews, Christians and Muslims all use the word Allah (الله in Arabic script) to refer to God. The fact that you CLAIM all of this dubious knowledge about Arabic without being able to speak it is… well rather silly. Even if we were to accept the premise that Allah was once the name of a pagan deity, it doesn’t mean much. It would be akin to arguing that Spanish speaking Christians don’t worship the same God as you because they refer to him as Dios, which in turn is derived from the Latin Deus, and ultimately the Greek Ζεύς. But you wouldn’t make that argument, partly because there is no agenda in it and partly because Westerners, especially in the US, are too familiar with Spanish for that to work.

    If you DID speak Arabic, I would say go get an Arabic Bible and look up what God is called there. You would find that it is also Allah. In fact, in the closely related Semitic language of Maltese, God is also called Alla. Yes, I’m not kidding here. You can feel free to look that up. The Maltese are not Muslim; they are overwhelmingly Catholic, and historically were important in European resistance of the Ottoman Empire. It would seem the Maltese would have no reason to deceive you.

    As for taqiyya, well, do you actually know what it means? It refers to denying one’s religion for the sake of self-preservation. It’s really more of a Shi’a thing, and a theological one at that. I doubt most Muslims, particularly Sunnis, have ever heard of it. If you don’t believe me then feel free to look it up yourself. There’s an entire page on wikipedia, or better yet you could go to a library or even bookstore and read up on it from a legitimate source.

  • GaribaldiOfLoonwatch

    You’re still ranting Methadras, please address the facts and citations in the article point by point, otherwise you are just being lazy.

  • GaribaldiOfLoonwatch

    You’re not David Gaubatz by any chance are you? He also claimed to have knowledge of the Arab mind and so forth. You must know where the hidden WMD’s are as well?

    I’ll give you a B for a long winded rant that did nothing to address any of the points in the article. Also, do your homework, read the Taqiyya article, it has copious links and citations.

  • Methadras

    I’m a fanatic of what? I’m not even a Christian, however, Taqiyya, if you actually understood it has several meanings based on the context of who is saying it and under what circumstance, but you just go on ahead and stick to your steaming pile of meanderings at what or what is not fact. Do you even speak arabic? Do you even understand the arab culture? Much less the arabic and arab culture of the time of the beginning of Islam and prior to that? If I told you I did, would you believe me? There are things worth understanding and there are things worth defending. When people can brush away the rhetoric and get to the heart of the simple truth (because nearly all truths tend to be very simple) you have a much better understanding of what is before you. But hey, if this topic alone generates this much disinformation with people couching, cloaking, and trying to conceal what is. But you go on ahead posting cartoons from kooks with limited understanding of what they are saying passing off the truth as something else to fit their agenda. I’m telling you how it is, you and others are clearly resistant if not willfully so to those truths. Believe what you want, the problem will usually be it won’t be what really is and that is a sadness that diminishes everyone slowly and slightly.

  • GaribaldiOfLoonwatch

    Another example of a fanatic unable to deal with the facts in the article without resorting to conspiracies about taqiyya (search taqiyya and loonwatch and learn something). Saying something is a “historical fact” without disproving or countering the arguments and facts presented in the article renders what you say essentially void. Try again.

  • Abdul-Rahman

    @Brett Gasper

    Your a liar. Just to respond to some of your typical Islamophobe, likely “Evangelical Christian” missionary nonsense.

    “Ilmaqah” was a SUN god you tool, not a moon god at all to start with and you’d know this if you bothered to do any reading on the topic.

    http://www.islamic-awareness.org/Quran/Sources/Allah/moongod.html

    Quote- Along with the main god ‘Attar, each of the major kingdoms venerated its own national god. In Saba this was the god named Almaqah (or Ilmuqah), whose principal temple was near Marib, the capital of Saba, a federal shrine of the Sabaean tribes. According to the widely contested old theory of the Danish scholar D. Nielsen, who reduced the whole South Arabian pantheon to a primitive triad: father Moon, mother Sun (sun is feminine in Arabic) and son Venus, Almaqah was until recently considered a moon god, but Garbini and Pirenne have shown that the bull’s head and the vine motif associated with him are solar and dionysiac attributes. He was therefore a sun god, the male counterpart of the sun goddess Šams, who was also venerated in Saba, but as a tutelary goddess of the royal dynasty.[39]

    end quote.

    The Prophet Muhammad SAW did not do any of the things you claim you fool. It is your bible that is full of genocide, slavery, racism, and nonsense. Suck on this you tool http://www.evilbible.com/.

    The Muslims only fight in self-defense, there was no “stealing” I assuming your referring to the usual Evangelical missionary lies and fibs about “looting” the Muslims took their OWN possessions back in a military expedition against the Pagan Quraysh oppressors who had forced the Muslims out of their homes in Mekkah and then went about STEALING the Muslims possession and going to try to sell what they had stolen so the Muslim army correctly attacked their caravan and took back THEIR OWN POSSESSIONS you hatemongering liar. And as for “adultery” Islam punishes adultery with the death penalty, you guys are always harping on that fact but now you try to falsely accuse the blessed Prophet PBUH of this crime!

    As for “deceiving” Islam doesn’t allow this but your bible sure does! http://www.call-to-monotheism.com/the_biblical_god_as_a_deceiver

    “Jeremiah 4:10

    Then I said, “Ah, Sovereign LORD, how completely you have deceived (nasha) this people and Jerusalem by saying, ‘You will have peace,’ when the sword is at our throats.”

    2 Thessalonians 2:11- For this reason God sends them a powerful delusion so that they will believe the lie (NIV)

    Also all your “moon god” nonsense claims are refuted by one simple verse of the Holy Qur’an.

    Holy Qur’an Surah 41:37- And from among His Signs are the night and the day, and the sun and the moon. Prostrate not to the sun nor to the moon, but prostrate to Allah Who created them, if you (really) worship Him. (Mushin Khan)

    Allah SWT created the night and the day (the night for sleeping and the daytime for working) and he also created the sun and the moon, we are to worship only Allah SWT not any of this creations.

    Also from the Holy Qur’an Surah 2:189- They ask you (O Muhammad SAW) about the new moons. Say: These are signs to mark fixed periods of time for mankind and for the pilgrimage. It is not Al-Birr (piety, righteousness, etc.) that you enter the houses from the back but Al-Birr (is the quality of the one) who fears Allah. So enter houses through their proper doors, and fear Allah that you may be successful. (Mushin Khan translation)

    And as for the Sabians http://www.islam-qa.com/en/ref/49048

    What he mentioned about the Sabians being divided into monotheists and polytheists was confirmed by Shaykh al-Islam in more than one place. See al-Radd ‘ala al-Mantiqiyyeen, 287-454; 290-458; Minhaaj al-Sunnah, 1/5. See also the discussion by Shaykh Ibn ‘Aashoor on this issue, in his commentary on the verse from al-Baqarah.

    end quote.

    And on the Sabians http://www.islamic-awareness.org/Quran/Contrad/External/yahya.html

    Pederson, however, took an exception to Chwolson’s two-fold identification. He says that Sabi’un should be identified with the hanifs as

    They too are people who believe in God, neither Jews nor Christians; the nearest model for the believers, as Abraham himself was hanif.[17]

    This identification by Pederson came about by equating hanif and gnostic. The result of this is that he harmonizes between the common designation of Mandaeans and Harranians as Sabi’un.

    [17] J. Pedersen, “The Sabians”, in T. W. Arnold & R. A Nicholson (editors), A Volume Of Oriental Studies Presented To Edward G. Browne On His 60th Birthday, 1922, op. cit., p. 387.

  • Brett Gasper

    This was new to me. I had never heard this before – but it makes so much sense now:

    Mohammed ibn Abdullah (Praiseworthy, son of, slave of, Allah)

    Mohammed’s father died by the time Mohammed was born (569 CE)and his name was slave of Allah.

    The Babylonian king Nabonidus (appears to have been Assyrian) lived at the oasis of Tayma for ten years and erected six temples in six settlements to the moon god, sin. His Assyrian ethnicity is confirmed by the Aramaic nature of his stele found at Tayma.

    The god “il ilah” later Assyrian “eloi” clearly indicated ilah was a generic word for god – but the proper name of the Assyrian moon god was sin. The Sabians of Yemen held a different belief from those of Mecca or Sham though Saba writing has been found far north and east of Mecca.

    Il muqah (Epigraphic South Arabian ‮‬; Ge’ez አለመቀሀ,ʾLMQH, Arabic المقة ) was the moon god of the ancient Yemeni kingdom of Saba’ and the kingdoms of Dʿmt and Aksum in Eritrea and Northern Ethiopia (branched out of Saba). The ruling dynasty of Saba’ regarded themselves as his children. Almaqah is represented on monuments by a cluster of lightning bolts surrounding a curved, sickle-like weapon. Bulls were sacred to him.

    In Exodus 16:1, “The whole Israelite community set out from Elim and came to the Desert of Sin, which is between Elim and Sinai, on the fifteenth day of the second month after they had come out of Egypt.”

    It is no secret that the Major diety of the Sabians was the Moon God and Mecca held one of many Kabaa to pagan gods. Artifacts of Saudi Arabia display a predominate role of the crescent which represents the moon before and after Jahilliyah (before Islam)

    The moon month of Ramadan begins and ends with the end of the new moon. Shaving the head
    Circumamblation seven times during Hajj
    Prostrate Prayer five times a day
    Kissing or rubbing the black stone representing Manat of the new moon.

    It was early in Mohammed’s prophetic career when Mohammed tried to tie Allah with YHWH (The God of Abraham, Moses and Jesus) in order to convert Christians and Jews to worship Allah.

    However, Mohammed broke nearly every law of YHWH including the worship of Allah, Killing, Deceiving, Stealing, Adultery, Coveting, etc…

    After 622 CE, Mohammed stopped facing Jarusalem to pray and started facing Mecca.

    Waraqah bin Nawfal, said that Mohammed could be a prophet – but never converted to Islam. One has to remember that this was in the year 610 CE – when Mohammed was still peaceful.

    In 619, the year of sorrow, Khadijah bint Khuwaylid and Abu Talib died. Mohammed’s wealth and protection dried up by 622 CE and he reverted to killing and stealing.

    Abu Talib never converted to Islam either.

  • Pingback: The Bible’s Yahweh, a War-God?: Called “Lord of Armies” Over 280 Times in the Bible and “Lord of Peace” Just Once (I) | Spencer Watch()

  • Pingback: The Bible’s Yahweh, a War-God?: Called “Lord of Armies” Over 280 Times in the Bible and “Lord of Peace” Just Once (I-II) « Middle East atemporal()

  • Garo

    Danios: Meticulous hard work,but fascinating,indeed. Thanks.

  • Garo

    The Arabs of ancient Arabia cared less for their Paganic gods,in comparison to their firm adherence to the unwritten,but well understood code of ethics summarized in one Arabic word called “Murowah”. The Arabic “Murowah” ruled across all Arabia,inspite of the fact that most Pagans in the city of Mecca passionately worshipped their three gods,(Al-La’at,Al-Uza and Manat),residing,then,as idols in Ka’Bah,until The Prophet Muhammad returned triumphantly to Mecca and destroyed all the idols that were kept for worship in Ka’abah.

    A self-respecting and an honorable Arab had to practice and abide by what his “Murowah” demanded of him. This was due to the difficulties encountered by the Pagans of Arabia for just enduring and surviving the harshness of their almost an endless desert and sand dunes. Different tribes worshipped different gods.

    One tale says that one tribe used to make their own god from dates,and when the members of the tribe became hungry,they ate their own god. From such a wild and amusing tale,one can extrapolate accordingly,for the rest of the tribes of Arabia,before the appearance of Islam in the 7th century A.D.

    Therefore,if one or two tribes or more worshipped the moon and called it,”Elahu Al-Qamar”,meaning,”Moon-God”,I could see no connection between the universility of the message of Islam and the narrow belief of a tribe or a group of tribes,whose members lived in entropic social disorder called “Al-Jahiliah”,meaning “The Age of Ignorance.” or “The Time of Ignorance.” The connection,as the Islamophobes claim is there,is not really there. It simply does not exist.

    Islam was the true Enlightenment that altered the entire lives of the ancient waring tribes of Arabia,for the better. Anyone tries to distort this fundamental fact is living in wishful thinking and delusional world.

    Allah means God and God only,and has nothing to do with “Elahu Al-Qamar” that might had been worshipped by some ignorant Arab tribes before Islam appeared in the stage of Arabia.

    Haters of Islam: You should try harder. No kidding!

  • Mosizzle

    And somehow I can publish comments on this thread but not others. Hmmm…

  • Mosizzle

    ^Me too! Weird…

  • Garo

    I wish to make a comment but I am not certain it will be published since I have technical difficulty in publishing on other threads and just has not worked.

  • Skhan

    Al(the)+ilah(a thing worthy of worship)= Allah(God/ the only thing worthy of worship)

  • HGG

    “Those Chick tracts are certainly entertaining.”

    I personally enjoy those where he portrays gays as having little demons hanging from their shoulders. And where he says Harry Potter is leading millions of kids directly to Hell.

  • Awesome

    @Skhan

    ^WTF! i’m tired of the “Khadija was catholic” conspiracy theory! The Only Monotheists in Mecca were Hanif. Warraqa ibn Nufail was a christian but not a catholic, and he prophesized Muhammad’s (pbuh) prophethood.

    It’s also worth noting that Khadija’s cousin; Waraqa ibn Nawfal, was specifically a Nestorian Christian, which the Roman Catholic church regarded as heretical. This means that if anything, Waraqa would have been opposed to that Church, not acting as an agent of it. He also died, shortly after Prophet Muhammad first received revelation, so it would be impossible for him to have contributed to the Qur’an, nor the formation of Islam.

    Furthermore, Khadijah bint Khwalid herself was not a “Roman Catholic nun”, nor any kind of nun whatsoever. Rather, she was a successful merchant businesswoman and a widow.

    Historically, it was the Christian traditions that developed outside of Western Europe that permeated the Middle East and much of the world at that time. Therefore, it’s highly unlikely that there would be any Roman Catholics (much less any Roman Catholic establishments) in the Middle East at that time.

    All of this further discredits that Roman Catholic conspiracy theory of “Alberto Rivera”.

  • I think that the main difference between this brand of ‘Christianity’ and Islam is that while these people *insist* that you are going to hell, the best a Muslim can say (and be truthful at the same time) is ‘I don’t know, it is in God’s hands’.

    That I believe is a vital difference, when you think that you are assured entry into paradise for doing x, y and z then you do whatever the heck you want with your life. I find that the people who superscribe to this little tracts very similar to cultists.

    Also, regarding the white/black versions of the tracts, anyone notice that the black guy in it is in jail and the white one is about a nice happy family?

  • Jack

    @Farlowe; destroying them is putting it too mildly. Torturing them forever, is more apt. Of course, Islam shares the same ideas about hell as Christianity in this regard, with images of people roasting on a spit for all eternity.

  • Jack

    Notice, by the way, the Chick-tract has two versions. One with a white Christian and his son, and one with a black Christian and his son. This is because the people at Chick thought that blacks wouldn’t identify with white characters and vice versa.

  • RAMBO

    “i’ve read somewhere that the word LAH itself is a negation”

    was the guy who you read in anyway related to robert moreys mother?

Powered by Loon Watchers