Allah is geen Maangodin.

quote:

Op zondag 29 januari 2006 22:41 schreef egoipse het volgende:

[..]

lees even dat stukje duits van mij. het verschil tussen allah en allat zijn twee puntjes.

Maar essentieel bij een vertaling en een persoons gerichte stuk text. Ik kende de 2 verschillen en had je ook geweten als je mijn eerdere posts had gelezen

quote:

Op zondag 29 januari 2006 22:46 schreef STORMSEEKER het volgende:

knip

In de bijbelgenootschap staat dus echt HEER ipv Jaweh of JHWH

_{kunnen we reacties kort houden? zo blijft overzichtelijk en teveel tijd}

[ Bericht 11% gewijzigd door #ANONIEM op 29-01-2006 22:57:15 ]

quote:

Over al-ilah:
”De God” is nog steeds geen echte naam. Het is net zoiets als “De president” . Het maakt het nog geen naam.
De president kan bijvoorbeeld Jan heten. Noemt zijn vrouw hem “De President” ? Of zal ze hem aanspreken met zijn persoonlijke naam?
“President” zegt iets over zijn functie, datgene wat hij vertegenwoordigd en het zegt iets over zijn verantwoordelijkheden en mogelijkheden. Jan is zijn persoonlijke naam die mensen die hem graag van dichtbij kennen gebruiken om hem aan te duiden.

In het geval van Jehovah is het een bijzonder geval, omdat God nooit een naam heeft gekregen van iemand anders. Hij heeft zijn eigen naam gekozen. En Hij heeft dus iets gekozen waarmee duidelijk wordt gemaakt dat Hij Zijn voornemens zal vervullen.

De God is een titel verwijzend naar de oppergod. Een verbastering van Al-Illah (de God ) is Allah. En dat is dus de naam van God in de koran en ook in de aramese bijbel. De mogelijkheden van een almachtige zijn oneindig dus kan je eeuwig noemen tot waar hij allemaal in staat is.

quote:

Op zondag 29 januari 2006 23:03 schreef egoipse het volgende:

[..]

je stelling dat het taalkundig niet te onderbouwen is, is niet zo zeker als jij haar brengt dus. dat is wat ik even wilde aangeven. elke verklaring vereist in feite deels een taalkundige onderbouwing, en dat is wat je ook ziet bij élke verklaring.

ik denk dat ik toch wel beter weet als jij, waar ik het zelf over heb als ik arabisch talig ben.

quote:

Op zondag 29 januari 2006 23:05 schreef egoipse het volgende:

[..]

maar wat wil je hier nu mee zeggen? beschouw je 'allah' als titel, of echt als 'naam' (vergelijkbaar met jan in het voorbeeld). voor het eerste valt m.i. veel te zeggen, voor het tweede niet.

Allah is een naam Al-Ilah een titel

quote:

Op zondag 29 januari 2006 23:05 schreef STORMSEEKER het volgende:

[..]

Ik weet wat het bijbelgenootschap zegt en ik weet echt heel erg zeker waar ik het over heb!!

HEER IS GEEN GOEDE VERTALING!

Het is zelfs helemaal geen vertaling maar een vervanging.

Voor een Jehovah getuige zal het weliswaar niet goed zijn, nee. Verbaast me ook niet... Getuigen hebben een eigen vertaling naar eigen interpretatie.

quote:

Op de plaatsen waar JHWH hoort te staan is door bijgelovige onverlaten Gods naam vervangen door Here e.d. (uit angst de Naam te ontheiligen oid)
God heeft Zijn eigen naam in de Schrift laten optekenen. Ze werd gebruikt door alle lieden die Gods zelf als 'rechtvaardig' beschouwd.
Zou die angst dan gerechtvaardigd zijn? NEE DUS.

Maar het is een feit dat veel vertalingen (Ja veel, niet alle dus, wel die van dat bijbelgenootschap)
de Naam gewoon vervangen laten staan door HEER e.d.

In de oude teksten (Zoals de Dode Zee rollen en nog vele meer) staat gewoon JHWH.
Dat telt uiteindelijk, niet wat een of ander halfgaar bijbelgenootschap ervan bakt.

Ik had nog ergens een krantenartikel waarin de schrijver zich afvroeg waarom men bij het vervaardigen van de recent uitgekomen bijbelvertaling in het Nederlands, toch ervoor had gekozen om Gods naam niet te herstellen, terwijl dat juist het ultieme moment daarvoor was.
Kijken of ik het nog kan vinden.

JHWH zal dan ook nooit door de Joden worden uitgesproken maar staat bekent als Tetragrammaton (4 letter woord). Kan idd wel JHWH staan in oude schriften enzo maar dan is het nog steeds geen naam

quote:

Op zondag 29 januari 2006 23:07 schreef STORMSEEKER het volgende:
Artikel in NRC Handelsblad Zaterdag 23 oktober & Zondag 24 Oktober


Seksisme, onbeschoftheid en ongerijmdheden in de nieuwe bijbelvertaling: Hoe God van zijn naam werd beroofd


Door Jan Fokkelman

Oud-docent Hebreeuws en Aramees aan . de Universiteit Leiden (1963-2001). Hij publiceerde in 1981-93 een vierluik over Hebreeuws proza, en in 1998-2004 een vierluik over Hebreeuwse poezie. Voor lezers zonder bijbelse grondtalen schreef hij 'Vertelkunst in de bijbel' en 'Dichtkunst in de bijbel'.

De naam die in de nieuwe bijbelvertaling voor God wordt gebruikt, druist in tegen de oorspronkelijke taal zelf en negeert een cruciale tekst uit de Hebreeuwse bijbel.

De Nieuwe Bijbelvertaling die over een paar dagen verschijnt, is een mijlpaal die aandacht verdient.

Een nieuwe versie was wel nodig, want de meest verspreide vertaling in omloop, die van het Nederlands Bijbelgenootschap uit 1951, bezigt Nederlands dat vrijwel geheel uit de periode van voor de oorlog stamt en als verouderd moet worden aangemerkt, zeker voor de jongere generatie, en zeker voor de mensen die (anders dan u en ik) echt 21ste-eeuwers zullen zijn. Ik wil de Willibrordvertaling niet onvermeld laten, maar die circuleert alleen bij het rooms katholieke volksdeel..

Je kunt verwachten dat een nieuwe bijbelvertaling stof. doet opwaaien bij zijn verschijnen.
De taal is vloeiend hedendaags Nederlands en zeer geschikt om voor te lezen. Maar vele van de beoogde gebruikers hebben zo hun stokpaardjes en voorkeuren, of zijn vergroeid geraakt met bepaalde formuleringen. Miljoenen mensen zijn vertrouwd met woorden als: "Geef ons heden ons dagelijks brood, en vergeef ons onze "schulden gelijk wij vergeven onze schuldenaren."

Wie een nieuwe vertaling maakt, kan dat niet klakkeloos overschrijven. In het Onze Vader van de Nieuwe Bijbelvertaling (NBV) is het zo geworden: "Geef ons vandaag het brood dat wij nodig hebben. Vergeef ons onze schulden, zoals ook wij hebben vergeven wie ons iets schuldig was". Je mag vrezen dat deze weergave allerlei geween en geknars der tanden zal oproepen, louter omdat hij het waagt anders te zijn.

Het zal even wennen zijn. Mijn voorlopige indruk, gebaseerd op de mogelijkheid enige maanden te grasduinen in de vertaling dankzij een cd-rom die een van de begeleiders rnij ter beschikking heeft gesteld, is dat de nieuwe bijbelvertaling drie stappen vooruit betekent en twee achteruit. Ik zal mij nu beperken tot een van die twee stappen achteruit: de weergave van de godsnaam.

Dit is natuurlijk een essentieel element in de vertaling, een kwestie die een van de gevoeligste plekjes van kerkvolk en theologen raakt. Maar in de Nieuwe Bijbelvertaling zijn op dit punt verkeerde keuzes gemaakt. De leidende principes in dit grote project, dat tien jaar heeft geduurd en waaraan ruim twintig kerkgenootschappen hebben meegewerkt, zijn vaak samengevat met de sleutelwoorden 'brontekst getrouw' en 'doeltaal gericht'. Maar de manier waarop de godsnaam is vertaald, is direct in strijd met dat eerste beginsel.

De NBV vermijdt het schrijven van de eigennaam van God door HEER te note¬ren en handhaaft domweg deze vier hoofdletters die ook in de derde editie van de Willibrordvertaling, uit 1995, en in de vertaling uit 1951 staan. Dat getuigt van gebrek aan moed en nuchterheid, en is ook nog warhoofdig en onzuiver. Men heeft de weg van de minste weerstand genomen:
wat goed was voor opa, is ook goed voor mij.

De echte naam van God luidt 'Jahwè' (omwille van de kIank schrijf ik dit een keer met een accent grave). Dat deze ei¬gennaam recht van bestaan heeft wordt al gauw duidelijk, als ik hem in drie con¬texten van primair belang plaats: de taal zelf, de namenvoorraad van de He¬breeuwse bijbel (het zogeheten onomas¬ticon), en een cruciale tekst eruit.

De naam jahwe is een kerngezonde taalvorm die zich strikt houdt aan de re¬gels van klank- en vormleer en "Hij doet zijn" betekent. Het is een imperfectum (derde persoon mannelijk enkelvoud) van een groep zwakke werkwoorden die in sommige posities hun lange slotklin¬ker laten vallen. AIs we dat op jahwe toe¬passen, krijgen we Jahw. Zodra je deze vorm probeert uit te spreken, kom je vrijwel automatisch uit op de vorm jihoe (internationale spelling: yahu). Raak! Dit is de vorm die honderden ma¬len in de eigennamen van mensen staat als tweede helft. Je krijgt dan Eli-jahoe, Adoni-jahoe, Jesja-jahoe. Meestal worden deze vormen nog iets ingekort, wat de bekende spellingen Elia, Adonia, Je¬saja oplevert.
Daarmee belanden we in context nummer 2: het onomasticon. De bijbel is een boek van tienduizend namen, een ware schatkamer. De wereld van de Oud¬heid was uiterst religieus, en de meer¬derheid van de eigennamen weerspie¬gelt dat. Zij zijn de geloofsuitspraak van ouders die zojuist een kindje hebben ge¬kregen. Zij zeggen dan bijvoorbeeld "Jahwe heeft ons dit kind” gegeven" (Netanyahu), of "God is Ions] genadig geweest" (Chanan-El).
Deze namen zijn een volledig en werkwoordelijk zinne¬tje, en je kunt de volgorde van onder¬werp plus gezegde ook omdraaien. Dan wordt jahoe soms jeho-, maar veel vaker jo-, nog korter dus; we herkennen Jona¬than, Elchanan. Namen als Joab en Joel zijn een compleet naamwoordelijk zin¬netje, ze zeggen respectievelijk ,Jahwe is [mijn hemelse] vader" en "Jahwe is [de ware] God". God (korte vorm: El) is als onderwerp in zulke naamgeving zo van¬zelfsprekend dat hij vaak wordt weg¬gelaten. De namen Isaak en Jakob zijn ook werkwoordsvormen in het imper¬ fectum, en hebben El als virtueel subject: "hij lacht ons kindje toe" en "hij bescherme" .
Het grote aantal namen heeft de verta¬lers een extra klus bezorgd: hoe moet je namen transcriberen? Semitische talen als Hebreeuws en Arabisch hebben een reeks medeklinkers die wij niet kennen. De zoon van Abraham is jits-chaaq, maar deze zorgvuldige transcriptie is natuur¬lijk erg onpraktisch, en dus heet hij in de vertaling uit 1951 Isaac en tegenwoordig Isaak. Begrijpelijk. Bij de nieuwe bijbel¬vertaling hebben de vertalers een lange namenlijst als leidraad gebruikt. Men heeft geen moment overwogen te gaan prutsen en friemelen aan persoonsna¬men, en zo heeft iedere drager van een ei¬gennaam in het boek van de tienduizend
namen een keurige behandeling gekregen. Maar vreemd genoeg is daar een uit¬zondering op gemaakt: de eigennaam van die persoon die door de gelovigen als hun Heer wordt beschouwd. Die moest worden opgespoord, weggevaagd en aus¬radiert. Ik kan daar geen touw aan vast¬knopen.
Bij het derde argument voor 'jahwe' als de godsnaam moet ik eerst even stilstaan bij het feit dat de makers van de nieuwe bijbelvertaling gelovigen zijn, in grote meerderheid aanhangers van het christelijk geloof.

Een gelovige is ervan overtuigd dat woorden als 'God' of de naam van God verwijzen naar een entiteit, ja een per¬soon, in de buitentalige, buitentekstuele werkelijkheid. Het doet er niet toe of zo'n overtuiging nu amusant, doodziek of waar is: de nieuwe bijbelvertaling ver¬dient het op haar eigen merites te wor¬den beoordeeld en van de beleidmakers erachter mag rekenschap worden ge¬vraagd volgens hun principes en preten¬ties.
Met deze benadering kijk ik nu in hoofdstuk 3 van het boek Exodus, het verhaal waarin God aan Mozes de op¬dracht geeft de Israelieten uit de Egypti¬sche slavernij te leiden. De verzen 13-15 luiden in de nieuwe vertaling:

Maar Mozes zei:."Stel dat ik naar de Israelieten ga en tegen hen zeg dat de God van hun
voorouders mij gestuurd heeft, en ze vragen: 'Wat is de naam van die God?' Wat moet ik
dan zeggen?"Toen antwoordde God hem:"Ik ben die er zijn zal. Zeg daarom tegen de
Israelieten: 'IK ZAL ER ZIJN heeft mij naar u toe ge¬stuurd'." Ook zei hij tegen Mozes: "Zeg
tegen hen: 'De HEER heeft mij gestuurd, 1 de God van uw voorouders, de God van- !
Abraham,. de God van Isaak en de God i van Jakob. En hij heeft gezegd: Zo wil ik voor
altijd heten, met die naam wil ik worden aangeroepen door alle komende generaties.' "

God, voor de vertaler dus heel veel meer dan een taalteken, een woord, doet hier minstens drie belangrijke dingen met zijn eigennaam.
Eén: hij openbaart hem - maar de nieu¬we bijbelv ertaling is machtiger dan God.
Dit is een regelrechte aanslag op de identiteit van God en vernietigt hem.
Twee: God geeft er meteen uitleg bij - die is door de nieuwe bijbelvertaling duidelijker gemaakt dan de grondtekst toestaat. Drie: God geeft ook een toepassing in de actualiteit, door opnieuw 'zijn' te gebruiken en enige ma¬len te zeggen:"Ik zal met jullie zijn"; hij zegt effectieve steun toe aan een volk in grote nood - zie verderop Ex. 4:12 en 15.
De uitspraak "Ik zal er zijn" is ondub¬belzinnig Nederlands, uit het leven ge¬grepen. Wie een belletje van de sportclub krijgt: "Zeg, kun jij aanstaande zater¬dagmiddag om half vier bij de efjes flui¬ten?" antwoordt met: "Ik zal er zijn." In de nieuwe bijbelvertaling is die zin in de mond van God niet goed; het woordje “er” suggereert een duidelijkheid die er in het origineel niet is. Zo dringen de vertalers ons hun duiding van de passa¬ge op, en dat is hun taak niet.
De vorm van herhaling die in vers 14 wordt gebruikt, valt goed te vergelijken met Que sera sera (de titel van een liedje). De herhaling heeft hier een speciaal ef¬fect: het is de paradox van een precieze vorm die juist onbepaaldheid over¬brengt en onzekerheid schept.
In Exo¬dus 3:14-15 moet de spreker aan Mozes iets geven waarmee de man kan aanko¬men bij de zijnen, maar tegelijk wil hij raadselachtig blijven en geen naam prijsgeven die inzicht in zijn identiteit verschaft. Om met Richteren 13:18 te spreken, Zijn naam is te wonderlijk. Dat wil ongeveer zeggen: het wezen van God gaat het verstand verre te boven en zijn identiteit mag geen prooi van manipule¬rende stervelingen worden. In Genesis 32:29 (de scene van Jakobs worsteling met een geheimzinnige nachtgedaante) wilde hij zijn naam ook al niet kwijt en pareerde hij de nieuwsgierigheid van Ja¬kob met een retorische vraag, bijna pla¬gend. Ik zou de befaamde herhaling in Ex.3:14, ehje asjer ehje, daarom met opzet vager hebben gehouden dan de nieuwe bijbelvertaling, met de simpele (geens¬zins nieuwe) weergave "Ik ben die ik ben". Dat is bovendien korter en krach¬tiger.

Ook voor deze passage bestaat overigens een vrije vertaling die knap gevon¬den is.
Vers 14 als geheel luidt in het grondige commentaar op Exodus van Cees Houtman:

"Toen antwoordde God Mozes: 'Wat doet het er toe wie Ik ben', en Hij liet er op volgen:
'Aldus moet jij de Israelieten antwoorden: Ik ben heeft mij tot jullie gezonden'."

God openbaart zijn naam, maar die sneuvelt in de censuur van de nieuwe bijbelvertaling.
De beleidsmakers had¬den kennelijk het derde van de Tien Ge¬boden niet paraat, te vinden in Exodus 20 en Deuteronomium 5. Het derde ge¬bod luidt: "Gij zult de naam van Jahwe uw God niet ijdellijk gebruiken, want Jahwe zal niet onschuldig houden wie zijn naam ijdellijk gebruikt."
Het is nu volkomen duidelijk: de pundits van de NBV - niet de vertalers zelf, zij waren slechts uitvoerders - zijn diep ongehoorzaam aan God, hun eigen Heer die meer dan een taalteken is. Oei. En ze waren nog zo gewaarschuwdl In de jaren '90 zei een van de begeleiders van het project, de romanist Dr. L. Wierenga uit Groningen al glashelder: een eigen¬naam vertaal je niet! Ik voeg er aan toe: vervangen is helemaal te dol.
Er is iets eigenaardigs aan de hand met eigennamen. Ze zijn tegelijk vol en leeg van betekenis. Op de werkvloer staan we er niet bij stil als onze collega's Van der Pelt, Lagendijk, Vreeman of Leurink he¬ten, en toch is hun naam onmisbaar. Juist als lege chiffre zijn ze nuttig en on¬vervreemdbaar .
In de bijbelse steer is een eigennaam het belangrijkste teken en symbool van de identiteit van de drager. De naam Jahwe komt ongeveer 6.800 maal voor in de bijbel, als hoogstpersoonlijk signaal van de God van Israel. In de allereerste vertaling, in de tweede eeuw voor Chris¬tus door de joodse gemeenschap in de Nijldelta gemaakt in, de lingua franca van de hellenistische wereld, het Grieks, verving men Jahwe door kurios, het woord voor heer. Duizend jaar later brachten de rabbijnen klinker- en ac¬centtekens aan in,de Hebreeuwse bijbel en lazen Adonai, 'mijn Heer'.
Het gebruik van deze twee woordvor¬men verwijst dus niet zozeer naar de oudtestamentische brontekst, die ge¬middeld 2500 jaar oud is, maar vooral naar de receptiegeschiedenis ervan. Het zijn voorbeelden van tekstgebruik die dateren van na de voltooiing van de ca¬non (de Hebreeuwse heilige schrift), die de facto in het begin van de tweede eeuw voor Christus haar beslag kreeg.
Nu de NBV de vervanging voortzet, handelt zij in strijd met haar eigen lei¬draad om 'brontekstgetrouw' te zijn.
Het verdonkeremanen van de eigennaam is een regelrechte aanslag op de identiteit van God. De weergave met HEER is sexistisch, autoritair, ideologisch belast, eigenmachtig en ongerijmd; als vervanging van de eigennaam. is hij ook nog onbeschoft.
Voor de meerderheid van de lezers in de 21ste eeuw zal het ongenietbare woord steeds meer een struikelblok worden.

Tot slot een klein vraagje: hebben de beminde gelovigen eraan gedacht de de eigenaar van zijn naam om toestemming te vragen voor het schrappen?

* DE BIJBEL AAN FLARDEN: pagina41

En dan hebben we natuurlijk altijd nog de statenvertaling

quote:

Op zondag 29 januari 2006 23:15 schreef egoipse het volgende:

[..]

dat wil ik wel aannemen. maar als je kijkt wat er met vertalen allemaal gebeurd is vroeger. als treffend voorbeeld: mozes is in de christelijke traditie heel lang met hoorntjes afgebeeld. vertaalfout. niemand die denkt: goh wat raar.

wat er echter gesteld wordt is dat de naam is opgegaan in de naam allah. niet dat er een directe afleiding is. klinkt je dat echt compleet onwaarschijnlijk in de oren? islam verspreidde zich, kwam in contact met mensen die allat kenden, maar goed, wat zullen dat zijn geweest? nog geen top-of-the-bill wetenschappers. hoeveel moeite is het dan om twee namen te identificeren?

Je hoeft niets aan te nemen ik weet hoe het zit
Tsjaah, daar kan ik niet over mee praten in de ISlam mag je namelijk geen heilige afbeelden.

Ik zal je uitleggen (naar mijn visie) waarom er sprake is van een extreem over hoofd gezien misverstand. Archeologische vondsten bewijzen dat Alilat werd aanbeden als oppergod in de Arabische schiereiland. In Arabische taal schrijf je Allah ( de god) en alilat (de maangodin) exact met zelfde letters alleen heeft laatste 2 puntjes bij maangodin.. daar zijn we het over eens toch?

Arabieren zijn pas na 8e eeuw begonnen met puntjes te gebruiken.

quote:

Op zondag 29 januari 2006 23:19 schreef het_fokschaap het volgende:

[..]

goed argument

Breng je ooit eens iets in een discussie tussen mij en storm behalve een droge opmerking ?

quote:

Op zondag 29 januari 2006 23:21 schreef het_fokschaap het volgende:

[..]

nee, ik probeer alleen aan te geven wie er overtuigender is

gooi jezelf ook in strijd, dan mag je praten

quote:

Op zondag 29 januari 2006 23:25 schreef het_fokschaap het volgende:

[..]

of Allah een afgeleide van de maangod is weet ik niet. ik kan hoogstens lezen wat anderen daar over vinden. En jij ook, alleen denk jij een autoriteit gevonden te hebben in de vorm van de koran

het betoog van Stormseeker inzake titel en naam vind ik overtuigend

Als Allah wordt gezien als een maangodin, wordt er niet alleen gepraat over de Islamitische God maar ook voor de Arabisch Joden/christenen dus niet alleen de Koran.

Tis maar dat ik nu geen heel verhaal wil maken

[ Bericht 1% gewijzigd door #ANONIEM op 29-01-2006 23:28:46 ]

quote:

Op zondag 29 januari 2006 23:31 schreef STORMSEEKER het volgende:

knip

Een ding dat vele niet-Hebreeuws sprekende Joden en Christenen verkeerd begrijpen is de naam van GOD Almachtige in de Bijbel. "Yahweh" in Hebreeuws middelen "De HEER" of de "De GOD". Het is geen naam. Richt je eens naar de volgende van Christen en Joodse hulpbronnen:

"Judaïsme onderricht dat terwijl de naam van God in geschreven formulier bestaat, is het te heilig uitgesproken te worden. Het resultaat is dat, over de laatste 2000 jaren, de correcte uitspraak verloren is geraakt". (De Zoektocht van mensheid naar GOD, p. 225).

Hier zien we duidelijk dat de uitspraak voor de oorspronkelijke naam voor GOD de Almachtige verloren was en de Joden hebben geen idee wat de juiste uitspraak van hun Bijbel en hulpbronnen is.

"....De vier Hebreeuws medeklinkers YHWH (Yahweh) dat in hun Verlatijnst formulier is gekomen over de eeuwen in het engels bekent is als JEHOVA". (De Zoektocht van mensheid naar GOD, p.225).

Dus het woord YHWH of "Yahweh" of "Jehova" niet de OORSPRONKELIJKE naam is, maar de benaming (titel) voor de Almachtige GOD. Dit is perfect beboet, omdat Joden, Christenen en moslims naar GOD Almachtige als "De HEER" of "De GOD" oproepen, die Yahweh of "Jehova" in Hebreeuws en "Al-Rab" in Arabisch betekenen. "Al-Rab" in Arabisch en "Yahweh" in Hebreeuws en de andere vertalingen in alle andere talen is inderdaad de GOD de titel van Almachtige. Maar zij zijn niet Zijn oorspronkelijke Naam!

Verbazend als het zou kunnen klinken, is het een toegelaten feit dat voor de zestiende eeuw, de woord "Jehova", ongehoord was. Telkens als de oorsprong van dit woord verscheen in zijn waar Hebreeuws formule in Joodse Bijbels (lezing van recht te verlaten als in Arabisch) Nog, Huh, Wav, Huh; of Y. H. W. H. deze vier letters werden door een vervangmiddel woord "Adonai" voorafgegaan, om de lezer te waarschuwen dat het volgende woord niet gearticuleerd mag worden. De Joden namen nauwgezete zorg in herhalen van deze recitatie in hun "het Boek van God" zes duizenden, acht honderd en drieëntwintig tijden -Vervangende woorden als "Adonai" of "Elohim".

Zij geloofden oprecht dat deze ontzagwekkende naam van God nooit uitgesproken mag worden. Dit verbod was geen gewone zaak: het riep voor een straf van dood op hen die durfde hem uit te spreken en dit taboe is succesrijker geweest dan alle donts van de Tien Geboden alle te samen.

Onlangs vond Vader Pecerillo, een bekende franciskaan Archeoloog, meer dan twintig kerken in Madaba aan het zuiden van Jordanië. Van de 4e Eeuw vonden ze huizen in Syrië, Libanon, Irak en Palestijn met deze inscriptie in Arabisch:" Bismi Allah Al-Rahman Al-Raheem" die toont dat zelfs mensen voor Islam deze Heilige naam, Allah, voor GOD DE Almachtige gebruikte, die bewijst dat de naam van GOD Almachtige in de Edelle Quran, "Allah", is de correcte.

Yahweh betekent niet alleen "De HEER" of de "De GOD", maar het betekent ook "Het Eeuwige" (volgens het Nieuwe Woordenboek van de Bijbel).

quote:

Op zondag 29 januari 2006 23:32 schreef het_fokschaap het volgende:

[..]

welnee, dat hoeft voor de christenen en de joden geen probleem te zijn, want die nemen de koran niet serieus de islam is pas later ontstaan, al wil men graag laten zien dat de islam altijd al bestond en er dus een relatie is. de relatie is er wel, maar dat is slechts op basis van enkele overeenkomende verhalen.

ik heb het over "allah"

quote:

Op zondag 29 januari 2006 23:35 schreef Pracissor het volgende:

[..]


Corruptie, mis-intepretatie lijkt mij een groter probleem met de vele soorten taf-seers die met elkaar botsen en zelfs over de kleinste zaken vaak niet in overeenstemming zijn.

hehe

quote:

Op maandag 30 januari 2006 00:08 schreef het_fokschaap het volgende:

[..]

ja

Wanneer Allah in arabische wereld ( niet alleen moslims) zou uitgemaakt worden voor Maangodin, het ook een strike is tegen Christenen/joden

quote:

Op maandag 30 januari 2006 00:10 schreef Pracissor het volgende:

[..]



Je begreep wat ik bedoel.

Uiteraard, maar er is geen tegenspraak in Tafseer hoor

quote:

Op maandag 30 januari 2006 00:12 schreef Pracissor het volgende:

[..]

Andere discussie.

open jij um?

quote:

Op maandag 30 januari 2006 00:15 schreef het_fokschaap het volgende:

[..]

nee, ze noemen hem dezelfde, maar het gaat niet over dezelfde. ze noemen hem hetzelfde omdat het het arabische woord voor God is. Yahwe is een god. Thor is een god. Dus Yahwe is een Allah, Thor is een Allah...etc...zie Storm's betoog. Allah is een titel, net als God dat is. Dat jullie Allah Allah (God God) hebben is prima natuurlijk

Heb jij uberhaubt mijn posts wel gelezen Allah is geen titel, Al-illah is een titel. Zit redelijk tot heel wat verschil tussen. Overigens zijn er heel wat meer overeenkomsten dan een gemeenschappelijk taalkundig gelijkenis. Denk aan de profeten/boeken en veel voorkomende eigenschappen die overeenkomen

quote:

Op maandag 30 januari 2006 00:17 schreef Pracissor het volgende:

[..]

Pfff, jij hebt meer tijd denk ik. Ik zal je te lang reacties verschuldigd zijn, ik lurk af en toe mee met de interessante discussies die jij voert. Ik heb overigens respect voor het doorzettingsvermogen waarmee je dat doet, ook al ben ik van mening dat je totaal verkeerd zit.

Thnx

Als men niet dacht dat ik totaal verkeerd zat, zou er toch ook geen spraken zijn van een discussie?

quote:

Op maandag 30 januari 2006 00:23 schreef Aslama het volgende:

[..]

Je hebt geluk dat ik van Allah mensen moet vergeven

bron?

quote:

Op maandag 30 januari 2006 00:33 schreef Pracissor het volgende:

[..]

Hij's in de war met het Christendom.

Dilemma

zal ik hier nou serieus op in gaan of als grap bestempelen

quote:

Op maandag 30 januari 2006 00:42 schreef Pracissor het volgende:

[..]

Was een grapje.

hehe i know

quote:

Op maandag 30 januari 2006 00:43 schreef Aslama het volgende:

[..]

Soera 3 vers 134:
Zij, die in voorspoed en in tegenspoed wel doen en zij, die toorn onderdrukken en mensen vergeven; Allah heeft hen die goed doen, lief.

Cant argue with that

quote:

Op maandag 30 januari 2006 00:43 schreef Aslama het volgende:

[..]

Soera 3 vers 134:
Zij, die in voorspoed en in tegenspoed wel doen en zij, die toorn onderdrukken en mensen vergeven; Allah heeft hen die goed doen, lief.

agie mag ik jouw msn adres verzoeken?

quote:

Op maandag 30 januari 2006 00:52 schreef Aslama het volgende:

[..]

Waar moet ik naar toe sturen?

hier voor de komende seconden en dan gelijk weg halen?

quote:

Op maandag 30 januari 2006 00:55 schreef Aslama het volgende:

[..]

Ik bedenk straks wel een manier

hehe ik ben niet meer zo lang online

quote:

Op maandag 30 januari 2006 11:03 schreef het_fokschaap het volgende:

[..]

Allah is een verbastering van de titel. Hoeft nog steeds geen naam te zijn, slechts een verbastering. Net zoiets als Kapitein en Kap'tein wat door veel mensen gebruikt wordt

Allah is dus wel een naam geworden.

quote:

Op maandag 30 januari 2006 10:48 schreef Aslama het volgende:

[..]

Op mijn profiel heb ik wel een e-mailadres staan. Ik zie je daarzo

geen msn account?

Al·lah (de ~ (m.))
1 naam van het Opperwezen in de islamitische wereld

alhoewel ik vind dat "islamitische" ook wel vervangen kan worden door "arabische"

quote:

Op maandag 30 januari 2006 11:53 schreef het_fokschaap het volgende:

[..]

titel verworden tot naam in de islamitische wereld

Arabische naam voor de God vaN Abrahams kleinkinderen

quote:

Op maandag 30 januari 2006 15:31 schreef Pagan_poetry het volgende:
De heidense Arabieren aanbaden de maangod Allah door verscheidene malen per dag in de richting van Mekka te bidden, door het maken van pelgrimstochten naar Mekka, te lopen rond de tempel - de Kaäba - van de maangod, het kussen van de zwarte steen, het offeren van een dier aan de maangod, stenen te werpen naar de duivel, een maand te vasten van wassende maan tot wassende maan, enz. De bewering van de moslims dat Allah de God van de Bijbel is en dat de Islam opstond uit de religie van de profeten en apostelen, wordt weerlegd door solide, overstelpende archeologische bewijzen. De Islam is niets meer dan een opleving van de oude maangodcultus. Het heeft zijn symbolen, riten, ceremonieën, en zelfs de naam van zijn god uit de oude heidense religie van de maangod.

http://users.skynet.be/fa390968/_allah-maangod.doc

Topic doorlezen en je kunt mee praten

quote:

Op maandag 30 januari 2006 15:39 schreef Pagan_poetry het volgende:
Het christendom heeft ook dingen gejat van het heidendom, zo zijn de meeste heilige dagen Germaanse dagen en is er bewijs gevonden dat jesus gebaseerd is op een paganistische god die werd vereerd waar nu het vaticaan staat
http://www.grahamhancock.com/forum/freke_Gandy_jesusMysteries.php

het boek
The Jesus Mysteries: Was the 'Original' Jesus a Pagan God?
http://www.amazon.co.uk/e(...)/026-9437118-8845204

dus bij de islam is het ook zo gebeurt

In Europa heb je nu een heropleving van het oude Heidendom, ik ben benieuwd of er nog mensen zijn op de wereld die allah als de maangod aanbidden, misschien ergens weg gestopt in het midden oosten ? ik zag 2 jaar geleden een moslim meisje op tv die zei dat mohammed een bedrieger was en dat ze niet in hem geloofde en alleen maar in allah.

Hehe nu ga je ook nog storm over je heen krijgern

De Islam, Christendom en Jodendom stammen terug naar Abraham. En niet naar een of ander heidencultuur. Als je je meer had verdiept in de Maangodin zou je er achter gekomen zijn dat Alilat haar ware titel is en niet Allah, wel schrijf je het met zelfde letters op 2 puntjes na bij Godin dan.

quote:

Op maandag 30 januari 2006 15:39 schreef Pagan_poetry het volgende:
en het symbool van de islam is niet voor niks een maan!

Heb jij uberhaupt de vers in de OP gelezen?

quote:

Op maandag 30 januari 2006 15:40 schreef Pagan_poetry het volgende:

[..]

is dat je enigste argument om niet te reageren op bewijs

Wil je bewijs? Zoek eens verschil tussen Alilat en Allah op. En ontstaan van Monotheistische stroming via Abraham.

quote:

Op maandag 30 januari 2006 15:40 schreef Pagan_poetry het volgende:

[..]

is dat je enigste argument om niet te reageren op bewijs

taalkundig:

De naam verschijnt voor het eerst in geschreven vorm in graffiti uit de zesde eeuw voor de jaartelling rond de stad Dedan (nu el Ula) in de Noord-Arabische woestijn, naast een godheid die Salm genoemd wordt. De opschriften gebruiken een alfabet dat afgeleid is van het Sinaïnitische (oer-)alfabet. Volgens Herodotus was er een godheid Orotalt en een godin Alilat. In de laatste naam is de vrouwelijke vorm van het woord Allah te herkennen, omdat -t een vrouwelijke uitgang is in semitische talen.

Volgens de meeste moslims is Allah de persoonlijke naam van God. 'el' of 'il' is een gangbare uitdrukking in semitische talen voor het opperwezen oftewel 'de God'.

quote:

Op maandag 30 januari 2006 15:49 schreef Pagan_poetry het volgende:

[..]


[..]


[..]


[..]


[..]


[..]


[..]


[..]

http://users.skynet.be/fa390968/_allah-maangod.doc

Je schiet eigen woorden tekort? Zo kan ik het natuurlijk ook!

Muslims worship a god by the name of Allah. They also give him ninety nine other names. The question that naturally arises is who or what is this Allah? Where did the Muslims derive their ideas of Allah’s nature and attributes?

In his works, Dr. Robert Morey - a Christian missionary, maintains having conducted a comprehensive research and made exhaustive study on the subject "Allah of Islam". The author alleges that the Muslims give ninety nine "other names" to Allah. It is indeed strange that a learned scholar who has written books and articles on the subject of "Allah" does not even know that these "ninety nine" are not the "other names" of Allah, but they are His attributes! In the event that the author is quite aware of the true facts and yet has made this remark then one can only guess that the author's intentions, from the outset, are not to deal with the facts but to present distorted views for Allah.

Historical Source of Islam

Historians, linguists, and archeologists have dug into this question for over a century. Various archeological digs in Arabia and throughout the Middle East have uncovered the answer: Islam is a modern version of the ancient fertility religion of the moon god. Once this is grasped, the rise and history of Islam becomes clear.

The Arab conquests were made possible because the central powers in the Middle East had exhausted themselves in wars against each other. They were not able to fight off wave after wave of Arab armies which subdued entire nations with merciless slaughter, rape and plunder.

Conquering Armies

The Arabs destroyed some of the wonders of the ancient world such as the world famous library in Alexandria, Egypt. They destroyed many ancient churches and synagogues. Anthropologists have recorded how the Arabs destroyed the cultural heritage of any nation which fell under their sword.

One may wonder why the author has not stayed on the course? Why has he abruptly started painting pictures of "The Arab Conquests & The Conquering Armies" with a black paint brush? It seems that Dr. Morey is totally ignorant of, beside other true historical facts, of the atrocities committed during the Seven Christian Crusaders inaugurated by Pope Urban II and his successors. I wish Dr. Morey would rather stay on the subject and present specific details concerning the "Muslims beliefs for Allah" and comparing them with the so called beliefs of the "ancient fertile religion of the moon-god".

Who were these Arabs? They obviously were not Christians because they destroyed churches and murdered priests wherever they went. Obviously, they were not Jews because they persecuted Jews without pity. This is seen today in their hatred of Israel and the many wars and acts of terrorism waged against Jews throughout the world.

If the Arab hordes which swept over the ancient world were not Christians or Jews, then what were they? They were pagans who worshipped a pagan god called Allah and followed pagan rites
which were practised in Arabia long before the religion of Islam evolved.

Dr. Robert Morey, who has written texts on the subject of how to debate with the opponents, wants his readers to embrace his innovated theory that if the "Arab Army" was not composed of Jews or Christians then it had to be of "the Pagans, worshipping a pagan god". The fact is; the Islamic Civilization was flourishing and the so called European Civilization and the Renaissance had not yet emerged, when the Islamic Army was conquering the parts of Europe and North Africa, .

Islam Denies the Trinity

These facts of history reveal that Islam does not worship the same God worshipped by Christians. Why? Christians worship one God in three persons: the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit. But Islam denies the Holy Trinity and worships a different deity called Allah who is not a Father and who has no son.

Since the religion found in the Bible teaches the Trinity, then it does not take a Ph.D. to see that Islam did not come from the Bible. Thus it is not the religion of the biblical prophets, apostles or Jesus.

The untainted "Unity of God", as professed by Islam and Judaism, has
hundred percent "explicit" endorsement in the Old Testament (Ex. 20:3; Is. 45:21) and also in the New Testament (Jn. 17:3). What is not endorsed by the Holy Bible is the "Doctrine of Trinity". Today, it is no secret that it was the Pagan Emperor Constantine who called the Council of Nicaea in his Imperial Roman Palace and approved the observance of Easter Sunday and the Doctrine of "co-equality", "co-eternity" and "consubstantiality" (homoousious) of Jesus with his Father. Constantine was declared "baptized" on his death bed when water was poured on his forehead in 337 A.D. Imagine a Christian theologian, accusing Islam of denying Trinity, does not even know the roots of Trinity! Why should the religion established by the Almighty Allah Himself should endorse a theory that was promulgated by a Pagan Emperor? The proper question is; should the Christians be following a Pagan Emperor or the righteous Christ Jesus who even refused to be called "good", let alone "god-head" (Mk. 10:18)?

Pagan Origins

Islam's origins have been traced back by scholars to the ancient fertility religion of the worship of the moon god which was always the dominant religion of Arabia. The moon god was worshipped by praying toward Mecca several times a day, making an annual pilgrimage to the Kabah which was a temple of the moon god, running around the Kabah seven times, caressing an idol of a black stone set in the wall of the Kabah, running between two hills, making animal sacrifices, gathering on Fridays for prayers, giving alms to the poor, etc.. These were pagan rites practised by the Arabs long before Muhammad was born.

The author seems to be very good at making High Hamburgers without any Beef! Dr. Morey: Where is the "BEEF"? It is easy to make wild accusations without providing credible evidences and documents.

The Crescent Moon

What religion today practices the pagan rites of the moon god? Islam! This explains why the crescent moon is the symbol of Islam. It is placed on top of mosques and minarets and displayed on hats, flags, rugs, amulets and even jewellery. Every time you see the Muslim symbol of a crescent moon, you are seeing the ancient symbol of the moon god.

The Crescent Moon heralds the beginning of the new month and the new year. During the period of Islamic Empire, the crescent moon was adopted as a state emblem. It had nothing to do with religious beliefs. Today, Eagle is the popular state emblem in U.S.A. Does that emblem represent the religious beliefs of the citizens of U.S.A.?

The next time when Dr. Morey happens to see an Easter Egg he should think of Eostre, an ancient Anglo-Saxon goddess and the pagan rituals. Below is an excerpt from Compton's Interactive Encyclopedia Deluxe Copyright © 1994, 1995, 1996, 1997 The Learning Company, Inc.:

"Many Easter customs come from the Old World. The white lily, the symbol of the resurrection, is the special Easter flower. Rabbits and colored eggs have come from pagan antiquity as symbols of new life. Easter Monday egg rolling, a custom of European origin, has become a tradition on the lawn of the White House in Washington, D.C. ... The name Easter comes from Eostre, an ancient Anglo-Saxon goddess, originally of the dawn. In pagan times an annual spring festival was held in her honour. Some Easter customs have come from this and other pre-Christian spring festivals."

Denial Not a Refuge

Does the average Muslim know that he is worshipping a moon god? No. Does he know why the crescent moon symbol sits on top of his mosque? No. Is he shocked and perhaps angered at these facts of history? Yes. But can mere denial or angry threats refute the fact that Islam is nothing more than a modern version of the ancient religion of the moon god Allah? No. The average Muslim has been kept in the dark by the Mullahs and Imams who would lose their power if the truth ever got
out.

An "average Muslim", after reading the above would most probably quote you the following two verses from the Holy Qur'an. These two verses are enough to knock out the brain of your FALSEHOOD.

"Among His Signs are the Night and the Day and the Sun and Moon. Prostrate (adore) not to the Sun and the Moon but prostrate to Allah, Who created them, if it is Him ye wish to serve." Holy Qur'an 41:37

"Nay We hurl the Truth against falsehood and it knocks out its brain and behold falsehood doth perish! Ah! woe be to you for the (false) things ye ascribe (to Us).
Holy Qur'an 21:18

Islam is the fastest growing religion of our era. Today, more Christians are turning to Islam then before. Who should know it better than Dr. Morey who has written a book on The Islamic Invasion. He writes; "This revealing book presents the truth about this rapidly spreading religion...". Are you telling your readers that the new converts to Islam, especially the Christians, are so much impressed and attracted by the "modern version of the ancient pagan religion" that they are trading their Christianity and Trinity for a "moon-god"? The Truth is; Prophet Muhammad (the Spirit of Truth), has "guided" the Islamic Ummah (Islamic Brotherhood) "into all the Truth", as it was prophesied nearly 600 years before his birth, by Jesus Christ. (Please read John 16:13 and keep reading further, you will be amazed).

Worship the True God

Dear Muslim friend, instead of worshipping a false moon god called Allah, you should worship the God of the Patriarchs, prophets, and apostles. This one true God is the Father, the Son and the
Holy Spirit. Read the New Testament for it is the true Word of God.

Dear Truth Seekers: Please pickup a copy of the Holy Bible in Arabic and ask any of your Arabic speaking friend to read loudly the first page from the Old Testament. Keep counting how many times he reads the word "Allah"? I guarantee, it is at least half a dozen times. If "Allah" of the Holy Qur'an is the "moon-god", what is "Allah" of the Holy Bible? I hope Dr. Morey has an answer!!!

A Christian reader responded to me, after reading the article on "moon-god" that the "Muslim Rulers" were so ruthless that they would not allow the circulation of any Bible in Arabic that would dare substitute the word "Allah" with any other word. I asked him; what about the copies that are being presently published and circulated from North America and Europe? Needless to mention, he did not respond.

The Home Of The Research And Education Foundation should rather first undertake the job collecting copies of the "tainted" Arabic Bible from their fellow Christians and replacing them with copies that have no trace of "moon-god", before asking Muslims to clean their houses.

Finally, Jesus Christ and many of his disciples spoke Aramaic. In the Aramaic language the word for the Almighty God is ‘Allaha’ and the name of Jesus is 'Iessa'. There are records of Jesus praying in Aramaic to his God 'Allaha". Was Christ also misguided by the Pagan Arabs?

The word "ALLAH" is made-up of the following two syllables.
"AL" and "ILAH". AL means THE; ILAH means GOD.
The two together simply means "THE GOD" (without partner[s]).
When the above two syllables, which are the two units of pronunciations forming
the word Allah, are combined and joined together the letter "I" is unpronounced.
The Arabic word for "Moon" is "QAMAR", as used in the heading (title)
for Chapter 54 of the Qur'an. It is not to be found in this word "Allah" under study.

Recently, some Christian scholars have made great efforts to publish the sketches of the Statues of the Moon God from the period of the "Pagan Arabs" who had lived before the birth of Prophet Muhammad (pbuh). None is denying that. The
Pagan Arabs had a "moon-god". But, they also had hundreds of other gods so why the "moon god". Their widely circulated and propagated argument is that the followers of Prophet Muhammad have Crescent Moon on their Mosques.

The most important question is since when and by whom? More than six centuries after the passing away of the Prophet of Islam, the Crescent Moon became the symbol of the Ottoman Empire (founded in 1288). Look at the read flag of the modern day Turkey with the white Crescent, the historical seat of the Ottoman Empire. If Prophet Muhammad (pbuh), was truly preaching the worship of a "moon god" to his companions, he would have certainly placed the images of the "Crescent Moon" (or rather of the "Full Moon" to signify the greater glory), on the Mosques that he and his immediate followers had built in Madina and Mekkah.
The sketches of "moon gods" do not shake the beliefs of Muslims in their Allah.

Muslims and Jews go by the Lunar Calendar. Christians go by the Solar. Does that translate Jews too have a moon god like Muslims and Christians have a sun god?


The god II or Iiah was originally a phase of the Moon God.

The Moon-god was called al-ilah, i.e. the god, which was shortened to Allâh in pre-Islamic times. The pagan Arabs even used Allâh in the names they gave to their children. For example, both Muhammad's father and uncle had Allâh as part of their names. The fact that they were given such names by their pagan parents proves that Allâh was the title for the Moon-god even in Muhammad's day. Professor Coon goes on to say,

Similarly, under Mohammed's tutelage, the relatively anonymous Iiah, became Al-IIah, The God, or Allâh, the Supreme Being. (Morey, pp.10-11)

There are several problems in this short passage from Morey's book. The first problem is that Morey has so misquoted Professor Coon that he makes the quotations say the opposite of what Coon actually said. Notice that he quoted Coon twice. According to Morey's footnote, both quotes come from Carleton S. Coon, Southern Arabia, (Washington, D.C. Smithsonian, 1944) p. 399. Very impressive! But I was able to locate these quotes in Professor Coon's book and I found that Morey clipped them out of a larger paragraph. He deceptively left out a crucial part, and separated the other two parts as though they were two unrelated quotes. Here is what Coon actually said:

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., rather than the Bapal of the northern semites proper, which was the Sun. Similarly, under Mohammed's tutelage, the relatively anonymous Ilah became Al-Ilah, The God, or Allâh, the Supreme Being. (Carleton S.Coon, Southern Arabia, (Washington, D.C. Smithsonian, 1944) p.399).

This quote from Professor Coon does not say what Dr.Morey wants to use it for, so he applied the following methods to bend it out of shape:

He quoted the first sentence to show that the name Il or Ilah was the Moon-god of Arabia up to the time of Islam's revelation. Read Coon's statement:

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.

Now read Morey's quotation of that statement:

The god Il or Ilah was originally a phase of the Moon god.

Morey uses this quote to support his case that up to the time of Muhammad(P) the name Allâh was the title for the Moon-god. To accomplish his sin, Morey chopped the sentence in half to exclude the word "but" and everything that follows that conjunction. He did not even bother to place three dots to indicate that he has left out some words.

A second problem with Dr.Morey's approach here is that he left out of Professor Coon's statement what would disprove Morey's most important argument against the God of Islam. Morey is proud of repeating that Allâh is not the God of the Bible but the Moon-god of pre-Islamic Arabia. It would have been inconvenient for him to repeat what Coon had said as follows:

...and it was this name that the Hebrews used prominently in their personal names, such as Emanu-el, Isra-el, etc..."

Morey would not let his readers understand that according to Professor Coon the same name which in South Arabia was used for the Moon-god was also used in Hebrew names like Emanu-el which Morey considers a name for Jesus.

A third problem is that Morey so separated two clipped pieces from Coon's writing and so interwove them with his own words that Professor Coon's meaning is lost and Morey's own meaning dominates the text. This way it appears that Coon is supporting Morey whereas he is not. Whereas, for example, Professor Coon's last statement is supportive of the fact that Allâh is not a Moon-god but rather "the Supreme Being," Morey's placement of it within his own text will convince a less than careful reader that Coon agrees with Morey's Moon-god-in-Islam theory.

A fourth problem is that Morey does not expect his readers to spot logical fallacies in his writings. When he claimed that the title of the Moon-god was "al-ilah" he quoted Coon in his support as saying that "Il or Ilah" was originally a phase of the Moon God. Morey did not expect his readers to notice that "al-ilah" is not the same as "Il or Ilah." But even readers who are unfamiliar with the Arabic language can notice two things:

1. the words are spelt very differently, and

2. Morey's second quote from Coon exposes the error. There, Coon says that "Ilah became Al-Ilah" in Muhammad's teachings. Obviously, then, al-ilah was not the Moon-god according to Coon but only according to Morey. Coon would be shocked to see his writing misquoted in Morey's fashion.

A fifth problem is that Dr. Morey must have sent his manuscript hurriedly off to press and did not have time to notice that he contradicted himself in the above passage.

After pointing out that the Prophet's father and uncle both had names which included the name Allâh, he quoted with approval Professor Coon as saying that "Ilah became...Allâh" under Muhammad's tutelage. Morey did not notice that in order for his readers to accept everything he said in that paragraph, they must conclude that Muhammad was present when his father was born so he could instruct his grandfather what name to give to Muhammad's new-born father!

My point here is not whether Coon was right or not, or whether he was ever an authority on Islam. My point is that Morey quoted him as an authority and did not notice the resulting contradiction in his own writing.

A sixth problem is that Morey draws conclusion which do not follow from his evidence thus committing the logical fallacy known as non sequitur. We notice the fallacy in the following passage:

For example, both Muhammad's father and uncle had Allâh as part of their names. The fact that they were given such names by their pagan parents proves that Allâh was the title for the Moon-god even in Muhammad's day.

In the above passage Morey gives an evidence and draws a conclusion. Let us identify the evidence and the conclusion to help us spot the fallacy.

Evidence: Muhammad's father and uncle were given names by their pagan parents and those names included the name Allâh [as in Abd-Allâh meaning Servant of Allâh].

Conclusion: This proves that Allâh was the name of the Moon-god at the time.

The conclusion simply does not follow from the evidence. The most one can conclude from the stated evidence is that pagans were prepared to name their children servants of Allâh. The evidence does not show whether Allâh was the Moon-god or the God of Abraham. Who he was has to be established from other evidence which Morey has done his best to conceal.

Morey's concealed evidence reveals again and again that the Arabs at the time of Muhammad worshipped many idols but they also believed in Allâh the high God whom they would call upon for help. This Supreme God for them was never the moon.

A seventh problem with this passage from Morey is that his whole discussion is irrelevant to the question. To establish that Allâh was believed to be this or that before Islam proves nothing for our present discussion. Morey needs to show that in the Qur'ân Allâh is represented as the Moon-god. But this is what is rather impossible for Morey. The Qur'ân again and again speaks of the moon as a creation of Allâh. And Allâh in the Qur'ân tells his creatures that they should not bow down to the sun or the moon but that they should bow down to Allâh who created them (Qur'ân 41:37).

back to contents

How Dr.Morey Quotes From Caesar Farah

Let's look at another passage from page 13 of Morey's book where he quotes, this time from Caesar Farah:

Islamic scholar Caesar Farah concluded

There is no reason, therefore, to accept the idea that Allâh passed on to the Muslims from the Christians and Jews. (Farah p. 28).

Please compare this quote with the entire paragraph where Morey said he quoted it from. Here it is reproduced from Caesar Farah's book:

Allâh, the paramount deity of pagan Arabia, was the target of worship in varying degrees of intensity from the southernmost tip of Arabia to the Mediterranean. To the Babylonians he was "Il" (god); to the Canaanites, and later the Israelites, he was "El'; the South Arabians worshipped him as "Ilah," and the Bedouins as "al-Ilah" (the deity). With Muhammad he becomes Allâh, God of the Worlds, of all believers, the one and only who admits no associates or consorts in the worship of Him. Judaic and Christian concepts of God abetted the transformation of Allâh from a pagan deity to the God of all monotheists. There is no reason, therefore, to accept the idea that "Allah" passed to the Muslims from Christians and Jews. (Farah p. 28).

The first problem with Morey's quote is that he so separated the last sentence from the rest of the paragraph, that he made it say something different from what it used to say in the context of that paragraph. Such out-of-context quotations is a common ploy of Morey.

A second problem is that Morey referred to Caesar Farah as an "Islamic Scholar". Morey tries to bolster the authority of his quoted authorities by giving them adjectives as above. If by "Islamic" readers think that Caesar Farah is a Muslim, Morey has no motive to correct such a misunderstanding. And if challenged, he could say he meant "Scholar of Islam". Then he should say what he means.

A third problem is that Morey left out the important discussion from Farah's book. That passage was saying that the God who was called Ilah in South Arabia was called El by the Israelites. This fact would have ruined Morey's entire Moon-god-in-Islam theory, so Morey conveniently concealed it.

Why should Morey let his readers know that according to two of the Gospels Jesus was on the cross calling out to El who, if Morey is right, is the Moon-god of Islam?

back to contents

Morey Contradicts Himself:

Let us consider a passage from pages 11-12 of Morey's book:

Muhammad was raised in the religion of the Moon-god Allâh. But he went one step further than his fellow pagan Arabs. While they believed that Allâh, i.e. the Moon-god, was the greatest of all the gods and the supreme deity in a pantheon of deities, Muhammad decided that Allâh was not only the greatest god but the only god.

In effect he said, "Look, you already believe that the Moon-god Allâh is the greatest of all gods. All I want you to do is to accept that the idea that he is the only god (sic). I am not taking away the Allâh you already worship. I am only taking away his wife and his daughters and all the gods"

This is seen from the fact that the first point of the Muslim creed is not, "Allâh is great" but, "Allâh is the greatest," i.e., he is the greatest among the gods. Why would Muhammad say that Allâh in the "greatest" except in a polytheistic context? The Arabic word is used to contrast the greater from the lesser (Morey pp. 11-12).

The first problem with this passage is that Morey contradicts himself. In the first two paragraphs he claimed that he pagan Arabs believed Allâh to be the greatest of all the gods, and all Muhammad (pbuh) preached to them was that they should take Allâh not merely as the greatest god but as the only god. Then Morey forgot what he just finished writing and wrote in the very next paragraph that Muhammad was preaching that Allâh is the greatest. And, according to Morey, greatest means he is not the only god.

A second problem is that Morey seems to have not the slightest idea of what Islam is. According to him the first point of the Muslim creed is not, "Allâh is great" but Allâh is the greatest (Morey p. 12). Where did he learn that this is the first point of the Muslim creed? If Morey is to be believed, millions of Muslims have been teaching their children the wrong shahadah (testimony of faith).

But, much to Morey's shame, the first point of the Muslim creed is not that "Allâh is the greatest," but that "there is no god except Allâh."

A third problem is that Morey thinks "Allâh is the greatest" means that "he is the greatest among the gods" and that this could only be said in a polytheistic context. He does not realise that the phrase he is referring to is, in Arabic, Allahu Akbar which means "Allâh is greater." This phrase is a shorter from of Allahu Akbar min kullisay' which means "Allâh is greater than everything." You do not need a polytheistic context to say this. This can be said to anyone in any situation. It means that Allâh is greater than everything whether things we perceive or things we do not.

A fourth problem has to do not with Morey's ignorance of the Arabic language, but with his lack of care to use proper reasoning. According to him, if the first point of the Muslim creed was "Allâh is great" this would not imply a polytheistic context. Does he think that polytheists are excluded from saying about any one of their gods, "she is great"?

A fifth problem is that Morey keeps repeating the phrase Moon-god every time he mentions Allâh as if by sheer repetition he hopes to convince his readers that Allâh is the Moon-god. What he ought to do is present evidence instead.

back to contents

Irrelevant Archeological Evidence

First Dr. Morey makes a claim, then he discusses pages and pages of irrelevant evidence. This gives the impression that he is proving his claim whereas in fact he is not. My case in point is the following claim of Morey and the subsequent evidence he offers to support that claim:

As we shall see, the hard evidence demonstrates that the god Allâh was a pagan deity. In fact, he was the Moon-god who was married to the sun good dess and the stars were his daughters. (Morey pp.1-2).

To prove this claim, he spent the next five pages, five illustrations, four diagrams, and one map. But what, according to him does all of this prove? Only that the Moon-god was worshipped in the ancient world outside of Arabia. This information is most irrelevant. He should get to the point of proving that Moon-worship existed in Arabia. Whether or not it existed elsewhere makes no difference to the point he is trying to prove. His proving, for example, that the Canaanites worshipped the Moon-god does not prove that the pagan Arabs did.

But Morey has his own reasons for this roundabout way of doing things. After spending almost half the book arguing a point and supporting it with documented evidence by way of maps, illustrations, diagrams, and quoted authorities, he leaves his readers with the impression that he proves his points very well and therefore he should be believed.

He needs this credibility because when he turns to what he needs to prove he has no evidence, and he will offer none. He will make unsupported claims after he has already bewildered his readers with impressive irrelevant material.

In a book of fifteen pages, it is only on page seven that Morey turns to a discussion of what the situation was in Arabia. But even then, he discusses Southern Arabia which was far away from the Mecca where Muhammad preached.

So, for another three pages he discusses evidence that the Moon-god was worshipped in South Arabia. He does not make any effort to alert his readers that he was unable to gather any evidence for the Moon-god in North Arabia. Rather, he concludes on page 10:

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. (Morey p.10).

But where is the evidence concerning North Arabia? The only evidence he furnished for Arabia had to do with South Arabia only. On page 7 he cited the findings of Arnaud, Halevy and Glaser who

went to Southern Arabia and dug up thousands of Sabean, Minaean and Qatabanian inscriptions. (Morey, p.7).

On the same page he cited the findings of G. Caton Thompson and Carleton S.Coon "in Arabia." He did not say at this point that he meant South Arabia, but on page 9 and on map #3 he did make it clear that these findings were in

Southern Arabia (Morey p.9)

How can he then make such a barefaced claim when careful readers will discover the opposite on the very pages he writes? Why does he imply that he will supply evidence for moon-worship in both North and South Arabia when the only evidence he has is for the South alone? Morey obviously considers Islam so evil that he is willing to use evil in battling Islam. But if Islam is from the Devil you do not need the Devil's ways to defeat it. Just simply explaining it should be sufficient to expose it. Morey needs to remember good Christian principles while he attacks Islam.

back to contents

How Morey Twists Things:

To see how Morey is willing to bend quoted passages out of shape to make them somehow fit his Moon-god-in Islam theory, consider the following passage from p.8 of his book:

The archeological evidence demonstrates that the dominant religion of Arabia was the cult of the Moon-god. In Old Testament times, Nabonidus (555-539BC), the last King of Babylon, built Tayma, Arabia as a center of Moon-god worship. Segall stated, South Arabia's stellar religion has always been dominated by the Moon-god in various variations. (Morey, p.8).

What Morey quotes constantly belies him but he does not seem to notice, or he hopes his readers will not notice. Consider his quotation of Segall above. According to Segall in the above quote:

South Arabia's stellar religion has always been dominated by the Moon-god in various variations. (Segall, quoted Morey, p.8).

According to Morey, this agrees with his point that:

The archaeological evidence demonstrates that the dominant religion of Arabia was the cult of the Moon-god. (Morey, p.8 emphasis added).

A careful comparison of these two statements reveal, however, that they are not saying the same things. The following are the important differences:

a) Morey speaks "of" Arabia; Segall speaks "of" South Arabia.

b) Segall does not speak of all of the South Arabia's religions. He says only that of the stellar religions, religions that involved the worship of the Sun, Moon, and Venus, the most dominant was the worship of the Moon; Morey speaks of all religion. The deception here is that from Segall's words we understand only that the moon was worshipped more than the Sun, and Venus. But from Morey's words we understand that the moon was worshipped more than any other god.

My point is not that Morey and Segall should say the same thing. My point is that when we can see that they are saying two different things Morey should not insult our intelligence by implying that they are saying the same thing.

back to contents

Morey's Intended Audience:

Morey obviously thinks his readers will fall for anything. So he does not bother to tidy up his deceptions. Page after page of Morey's book reveals how he manipulates the evidence he is working with. For example, on pages 5 and 7 he discusses the findings at Hazor in Palestine. On page 6 he shows four diagrams of the artifacts discovery there. After identifying the findings as having came from a major temple to the Moon-god in Palestine, Morey describe diagram 4 in the following words:

Several smaller statues were also found which were identified by their inscriptions as the "daughters" of the Moon-god (See Diagram #4); (Morey, p.7).

Notice here that according to Morey the inscriptions identify the statues as the daughters of the Moon-god. But did not he direct us to look at Diagram #4? Well, Diagram #4 reveals something interesting. Underneath Diagram #4 we find the following words:

Pieces of the idols of the daughters of the Moon-god.

The inscription identifies them as the daughters of god (Morey, p.6).

But we have already seen that according to Morey on his page 7, the inscriptions identified the statues as daughters of the Moon-god (Morey, p.7).

Which page of Morey's book are we to believe? Six or Seven? It appears that the inscriptions did not say Moon-god. But Morey is so fond of his Moon-god-in-Islam theory that he just simply inserted the word "Moon" before "god" on page 7.

We still do not know for sure what the inscription (page 6) or inscriptions (page 7) do say. But without doing any further checking we discover Morey's errors from the very pages he writes. What level of readership was he writing for?

back to contents

Fallacy of Equivocation:

Why did Morey go to such great depths to invent daughters for the Moon-god? Because the pagan Arabs just before Islam believed that their gods al-Lat, Uzzah and Manat were daughters of Allâh. If Morey can convince his readers that the Moon-god had daughters he might just be able to confuse them into thinking that the pagan Arabs believed in the Moon-god and his daughters.

And this is the point he tries to drive home. Notice his following claim which we find on pages 7-8 of his book:

Thousands of inscriptions from walls and rocks in Northern Arabia have also been collected. Reliefs and votive bowls used in worship of the "daughters of Allâh" have also been discovered. The three daughters, al-Lat, al-Uzza and Manat are sometimes depicted together with Allâh the Moon-god represented by a crescent moon above them. (Morey, pp.7-8).

He does not quote any authority for any of the above claims. The only thing he has in quotes is "daughters of Allâh." Well this is nothing new and I do not need to see an authority cited for it. What I want to see an authority for is Morey's allegation about Allâh the Moon-god (Morey, p.8). But these are Morey's words, and he can find no authority to connect the name Allâh with the Moon-god.

Surely Morey can do better than that. For this important claim he offers no quote of an authority, no diagram, no illustration, no map, and no specific detail. He does not say when, where or by whom the inscriptions were collected.

He does tell us in his footnotes where we can find more information about this. But after discovering Morey's misquotes one after another I lack the time and energy to check out these writings from which he did not have the time or energy to make a direct quotation.

I did notice, however, that one of the authorities mentioned has nothing to do with a discussion about Allâh being a Moon-god of any sort. It deals with the goddess Atirat and her relation to the Moon-god and the Sun-goddess. But this goddess Atriat is related not to the Moon-god Allâh, for there is no such being. From an ancient Qatabanian inscription discovered at Timna, we know that the goddess Atriat was related to the Moon-god Amm (see Pritchard, The Ancient Near East: A New Anthology of Texts and Pictures, vol.2, p.237). So I am not prepared to go on any more wildgoose chases than what Morey has already sent me on.

If there is something significant in those writings why does Morey not make a direct quotation? Then we can check again for the accuracy of his quotations.

I don't think his is an unreasonable demand. When Morey was proving less significant and what I call highly irrelevant points he was busy quoting authorities. When he told us about Moon-god worship everywhere else he furnished us with names of discovers, dates of discoveries, names of discovery cites, and lots of pictures to boot. Why is it that when it comes to Northern Arabia he offers not a shred of evidence?

Does Morey expect his readers to accept his most important point on faith alone? Usually we take at face value what a writer says, because we expect him to tell the truth. We have been seeing again and again that with Morey we cannot afford that risk.

Morey has committed here what in logic is known as the fallacy of eqivocation. He takes a term which meant one thing in a certain context and the same term which means another thing in a new context and pretends that since the term is the same the meaning is also the same. He argues that the Moon-god of the South Arabians had daughters, and the High God Allâh of the Meccan Arabs and daughters, therefore they are one and the same god having daughters.

To see how this fallacy works, consider this argument for illustration:

The Japanese believed their emperor to be the Son of God. Christians also believe in the Son of God.

That way of saying things imply that Christians believe in the Japanese emperor. That, of course is not true. Now consider Morey's argument:

The South Arabians believed that the Moon-god had daughters. The pagan Arabs of Mecca also believed that Allâh had daughters.

Morey implies that Allâh was therefore the Moon-god. But this is no more true than to say that Christians believe in the Japanese emperor.

Morey should know better than to commit such a fallacy. As a teacher of a course on logic, he should be trained in spotting such fallacies rather than committing them. But Morey's misuse of this knowledge reminds us that good knowledge can also be used for evil purposes.

back to contents

False Evidence

On page 7, Morey writes:

In the 1940s, the archeologists G.Caton Thompson and Carleton S Coon made some amazing discoveries in Arabia (Morey p.7).

On page 9 we discover he meant "southern Arabia" but we have already dealt with this discrepancy.

What is important here is that these "amazing discoveries" are revealed by G. Caton Thompson in her 1944 book The Tombs and Moon Temple of Hureidha. What did she reveal? Here is one thing, according to Mr.Morey:

An idol which may be the Moon-god himself was also discovered (see Diagram #6); (Morey, pp.9-10 emphasis added).

Here he says only that the idol "may be the Moon-god himself." But he proudly labelled Diagram #6:

An idol of the Moon-god (Morey, p.10).

Although Morey knows, according to his own words, that it is not certain that this idol was the Moon-god, yet he is prepared to label it as though it was for sure. There is no excuse for such carelessness.

But I suspect a further discrepancy. I did not have occasion to read G.Caton Thompson's 1944 book, but her companion archeologist Carleton S. Coon wrote in 1945 his treatise Southern Arabia, A Problem for the Future. Morey is aware of this writing, for he quoted from it several times.

The discrepancy is that what Morey leads us to expect in Thompson's book is denied in Coon's treatise! Morey showed us a picture of a woman-like idol and claims that this may be the Moon-god himself which was discovered by Coon and Thompson and revealed in Thompson's book.

Coon's treatise says no such thing was discovered! About the three astral deities of South Arabia, the Sun, the Moon, and the Star Venus, Coon writes:

There were no carved images of these three-the Semitic tabu against graven images, while by no means generally applicable, was in force in regard to the divinities themselves. What images we do find are of people. (Coon, p.399).

According to Coon, then, they found no graven images of gods but only of people. Then Morey shows us the graven image of a woman and tells us this may be the Moon-god himself (Morey, p.10).

So either Coon or Morey is wrong here. And I don't think it is Coon. He was there when he and Thompson made those amazing discoveries, so he ought to know what he discovered.

I do not know where this leaves Thompson because, as I have said, I did not read her book. But it is rather odd that she would write something in her book and then her partner writing a year later would contradict her like that.

Or, perhaps Morey does not mean to imply that either Coon or Thompson claimed any such thing. Perhaps it is only his words that mislead, not his intention. After saying that this idol may have been the Moon-god himself, Morey claimed:

This was later confirmed by other wellknown archaelogists (Morey, p.10).

If "confirmed" here does not mean what it says, Morey should have used some other word we can hold him to.

What is important, though, and for this I give him credit, is his reference in a footnote to three of these "well-known archaelogists." My concern for the moment is not whether or not they are "well-known" but my concern is to know what exactly they said about this idol. A direct quote please? I have developed a liking for checking such quotes.

I find it rather interesting that when Morey refers to the idol later he says:

Now we have the actual idols of the Moon-god... (Morey, p.14 emphasis added).

What may have been is now actual, and it has multipled: now "idols"! Is Morey never satisfied adding to his cup of sins?

back to contents

Optical Delusions:

Earlier I said that Morey spent five illustrations to prove that in the ancient world the Moon-god was worshipped everywhere outside Arabia. Although these illustrations are irrelevant to our study of the history of the Moon-god in Arabia, I am interested here in how Morey's illustrations are not always what they are chiselled out to be!

I refer to page 3 of Morey's book. This page contains two illustrations. I was able to locate an illustration similar to the first one, and an exact copy of the second in a book The Ancient Near East: A New Anthology of Texts and Pictures, edited by James B. Pritchard, 1975, Princeton University Press.

Morey had implied that these are illustrations of the Moon-god. However, Pritchard and his group of scholars know differently. What resembles the first illustration is catalogued #140 in Vol. 1 by Pritchard. But here it is not a Moon-god but a Storm-god.

The second illustration is catalogued #136 in Pritchard's Vol.1. But this too is not a Moon-god of any kind. It is "Baal of Lightning."

That's two out of five. Again and again what I am able to check turn out false. Is it me or is it Morey?

Or is it Pritchard? I don't think so. An exact copy of the second illustration is found also in The Bible As History in Pictures p.206, and there it is identified as Baal of lightning.

In the book Tells, Tombs and Treasure, an exact copy appears on page 118. There it is called Baal of Storm.

The book Archaeology of The Bible shows an exact copy on page 80, and calls it the Storm God Baal. Morey is alone against all the scholars, and against all the evidence.

back to contents

What Was the Name of That Moon-god?:

Morey was successful in proving that moon worship was prevalent in South Arabia before Islam. But what was the name of that Moon-god?

Morey would have us believe that the name was Allâh. That is the point of his whole booklet. The title of his book bears this out and he keeps repeating this throughout the book. But he did not produce a single piece of evidence to connect Allâh with the Moon-god.

Quite the contrary. His own evidence proves that the name of the Moon-god was not Allâh. On page 9 Morey reports on the findings of Coon and Thompson in Southern Arabia where they discovered a temple of the Moon-god. What did they find? Morey tells us:

The symbols of the crescent moon and no less than twenty-one inscriptions with the name Sin were found in this temple (see Diagram #5); (Morey, p.9).

So what was the name of that Moon-god? Allâh? No! It was Sin according to Morey's own words. But that does not stop him for claiming two paragraphs later that the Moon-god was Allâh.

But he invented a clever device to save face. Now he claims that

....while the name of the Moon-god was Sin, his title was al-ilah, i.e. "the deity," ... (Morey, p.19).

Rather neat. Now al-ilah which he says later becomes Allâh (p.11) is no longer a name, but a title. Morey has a way with words.

Does Morey then retract what he wrote in his book The Islamic Invasion? In that book published just two years earlier he was calling Allâh a name again and again. On page 48 he quoted from Hastings Encyclopedia of Religion and Ethics that "Allâh" is a proper name.

Then on the same page he quoted fro the Encyclopedia of Religion that

"Allâh" is a pre-Islamic name (Morey, Invasion, p.48).

Then in his own words Morey said:

Allâh was a pagan name (Morey, Invasion, p.48).

We can go on and on, but the point is proven. In the book The Islamic Invasion Morey quoted many authorities who rightly said that Allâh was the name of the high God of the pagan Arabs. Morey insisted contrary to the authorities he deceptively quoted, that Allâh was the name of the Moon-god. Either way, in that book of his, Allâh was a name.

Now, in his book of two years later he makes an about-face. There is nothing wrong with learning more. If Morey discovered some new information he can acknowledge his previous error and we can go on without much comment.

But the problem is not that Morey was wrong about Allâh being a name. He was wrong about Allâh being the Moon-god. But he was right is saying that Allâh is a name. Now Morey's problem is that the same archaeological findings he relies on to establish moon-worship in Southern Arabia also reveal that the name of the Moon-god was not Allâh but Sin. Now he is trapped. To escape this trap he claims that Allâh is a title. He has no evidence for his claim.

In this previous book, however, he was clear that Allâh was a name, not a title. He wrote:

The name Allâh was used as the personal name of the moon god, in addition to other titles that could be given to him (The Islamic Invasion, p.50).

I think it was Mark Twain who said,

Always speak the truth, then you have nothing to remember.

So, what was the name of that Moon-god? According to Coon,

The state god of the Minaeans was Wadd, that of the Katabanians 'Amm, that of the Hadramis Sin, and of the Sabaeans Il Mukah. All were the moon. (Coon, p.399).

The names of the moon-god were Wadd, 'Amm, Sin, and Il Mukah. Allâh was never the Moon-god, despite Morey's desperate pleading.

back to contents

Concealed Evidence:

Morey makes much of archaelogical findings in South Arabia at Qataban, Timna, and Marib. So he speaks of

thousands of Sabean, Minean, and Qatabanian inscriptions which were subsequently translated (Morey, p.7).

Wow! Except that I noticed he did not bother to quote from these inscriptions or tell us they say. Instead, he immediately moved on to describe findings in other areas. Hmn. This is quited unlike Morey. I am sure that if he has some solid evidence he would jump on it. Why so quiet about the translated inscriptions?

One possible reason is that Morey heard about these but knows not what they say. Another possibility is that Morey found them inconvenient. I much prefer the first possibility, but in any case the findings are inconvenient for Morey. The inscriptions just do not gel with Morey's Moon-god-in-Islam theory.

The translated inscriptions are compiled in the book we already referred to: The Ancient Near East, vol.2, by James Pritchard. These inscriptions show that the Moon-god was not Allâh, but Anbay, 'Amm, 'lyn, and Waddum.

Sabaean inscriptions from Mareb show that they worshipped Attar and Waddum (see Pritchard, vol.2, p.230).

Minaean Inscriptions mention Wadd, Waddum and Attar. Although their lunar god was Waddum, they also sacrificed to Attar (Pritchard, vol.2, p.235).

Hadrami inscritions, as we have already learnt from Morey's book, reveal that the name of the Moon-god in that region was Sin. Pritchard's collection of inscriptions confirms this. Sin was the principal Hadrami lunar god (Pritchard, vol.2, p.238).

Here, however, we catch a glimpse of the identity of the god Attar we heard about from the Sabaean and Minaean inscriptions. One inscription here reads:

...to Sin, He of 'Ilum, and to Attar, his father. (Pritchard, vol.2, p.238).

Quite revealing! This shows that the Moon-god Sin had a father Attar who was also a god. So for these people the Moon-god was not the high god.

This again disproves Morey. Morey kept telling us that the Moon-god was the high god among the pagans. Now we know that he was not only different in name from the high God Allâh but that he also had a father. Allâh, of course, was never believed to have a father.

A Qatabanian inscription from Timna recognises the god 'Anbay (Pritchard, vol.2, p.238). And this 'Anbay is the moon divinity 'Anbay (Pritchard vol.2, p.236). Another god 'Amm is also mentioned (p.237).

One Qatabanian rock inscription is quite revealing. It shows the name of a previously unknown god written as 'lyn, consonants only. What vowels should complete that word? Pritchard and his contributors observe that 'lyn

may be graphically compared with the divine epitheton in the Old Testament, 'elyon ('lywn; e.g., Dt 32:8); (Pritchard, vol.2, p.239).

So the God of the Bible was worshipped here too. Would Morey make this clear?

back to contents

Back to the Real Issue:

I had to deal with Morey's contention in some depth to uncover his deceptions and mistakes because his speeches and writings have misled many people. But at the end of the day his theory is rather silly.

Even if he was able to show that the North Arabs in Mecca worshipped the Moon-god, and even if he was able to show that they used to call this Moon-god Allah, this still does not prove that Allâh in Islam is a Moon-god. To prove or disprove this he needs to show what the Qur'ân teaches about moon worship.

The Qur'ân, however, clearly refutes moon-worship. The Qur'ân says:

Adore not the sun and the moon, but adore Allâh who created them...(Qur'ân 41:37).

But Morey is not interested in letting his readers know what the Qur'ân says. In his book The Islamic Invasion Morey gave a description of the Sabaeans and their religion. He says:

The Sabeans had an astral religion in which they worshipped heavenly bodies. The moon was viewed as a male deity and the sun as a female deity. Together they produced other deities such as the stars. The Qur'ân refers to this Sura 41:37 and elsewhere (Morey, Islamic Invasion, p.42).

More mentioned Sura 41:37 from the Qur'ân but he did not reveal what the verse says. But I have quoted it above to reveal what Morey wishes to conceal. If he would let his readers know what that verse says his deception would crumble.

He did not even say that the Qur'ân in that verse prohibits the worship of the sun and moon. He merely says that the Qur'ân refers to this in Sura 41:37 and elsewhere. If his readers understand from this that the Qur'ân accepts the worship of the sun and the moon, Morey's aims would be accomplished.

Morey should realise that as a scholar he has an academic obligation to make honest use of his sources. He should also recall that as a Christian he ought to speak the truth always.

back to contents

Morey's Folly:

Morey thinks that if he can prove that the pagan Arabs at the time of the Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) worshipped the Moon-god and called him Allâh, then he will have proved that

Islam is nothing more than a revival of the ancient Moon-god cult (Morey, p.15).

Perhaps we can help rescue him from his folly by pointing to what he has already admitted. On pages 10-11 of his book he wrote that al-ilah means "the deity." Well, in that case, when a message about the true God comes to them what are they supposed to call the true God? The non-deity? Of course they will call Him by the names and titles they already know for deity. But they will be no longer calling out to their pagan gods although they are still using the same title or name meaning deity.

If Morey still cannot understand this we can draw his attention to the Old Testament which uses the ancient Babylonian and Canaanite name for god "El." We do not accuse the Old Testament in that case of idolatry. So why does Morey seek to insult the Qur'ân in this way?

Or, we can draw his attention to the New Testament. There God is referred to as ho theos. Does Morey realise that the worshippers of Jupiter referred also to Jupiter as ho theos? Would Morey then accuse the New Testament writers of reviving the worship of Jupiter?

Or, read Acts chapter 17. Athens was a major centre of idolatry, but the people there also worshipped what they called "an unknown god." When Paul had an opportunity to address them, he spoke thus:

Men of Athens! I see that in every way you are very religious. For as I walked around and looked carefully at your objects of worship, I even found an altar with this inscription: To An Unknown God. Now what you worship as something unknown I am going to proclaim to you (Acts 17:22-23).

Would Morey take issue with Paul for this? You see what Paul has done. He noticed an altar dedicated to an unknown god and realised that in addition to all their idols, they also worshipped the true God. Their problem, however, was that they did not know enough about the true God, and Paul aimed to now fix that with his preaching.

In a similar way the pagan Arabs worshipped 360 idols, but they also worshipped the true God. Their problem was that they did not know enough about the true God. So God commissioned his Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) to fix that with his preaching.

The message of Paul to the Athenians and of Muhammad to the Arabians was not that they should forget about the unseen god in whom they believed. The message was that they should come to accurate knowledge about Him.

Alternatively, we may argue the point using Morey's patent argument, in which we would present the following facts and then draw a conclusion. This would establish the absurdity of Morey's Moon-god-in-Islam theory.

Fact #1:

Morey has already convinced us that Moon worship was prevalent in the Bible region of Hazor in Palestine, and the archaeological findings confirm that fact.

Fact #2:

The name of the Moon-god corresponds with El according to Coon, whom Morey cites as an authority.

Fact #3:

The Bible tells us that El created the heavens and the earth.

Conclusion from above facts:

Morey must conclude that the Bible recommends Moon-worship.

Of course Morey will resist this conclusion because the Bible reject Moon-worship. But, then, I also resist Morey's conclusion that Islam recommends Moon-worship. Why? Because the Qurpan condemns Moon-worship in the verse which Morey wished to conceal.

That verse reads:

Adore not the sun and the moon, but adore Allâh who created them...(Qur'ân 41:37).

back to contents

The Crescent Moon in Islam:

Morey asks a few questions on page 14 of book to plant a thought in the minds of his readers. He asks:

Is it any wonder then that the symbol of Islam is the crescent moon? That a crescent moon sits on top of their mosque and minarets? That a crescent moon is found on the flags of Islamic nations? That the Muslims fast during the month which begins and ends with the appearance of the crescent moon in the sky? (Morey, p.14).

Of course Morey does not state his conclusions about these facts. He wants his readers to draw the conclusion that these facts prove that Muslims are worshipping the Moon-god. But Morey does not state the conclusion because he knows it does not follow from those facts.

The fact that the symbol of Islam is the crescent moon does not mean that Muslims worship the moon. The farthest thing from the Muslim mind is to worship anything or anyone other than God. That would be the sin of shirk, association of another in worship-a sin that is unforgiveable except by repentance.

No, the symbol of a religion is not necessarily an object of worship. The symbol of Daoism is the ying-yang symbol, but Daoists do not worship it. The symbol of Buddhism is the eight-spoke wheel, but Buddhists do not worship it. Muslims also do not worship the crescent moon, just as the early Christians also did not worship their fish symbol. And many present-day Christians do not worship the cross although they display it everywhere.

It is another question as to how the crescent became the symbol of Islam. The Qur'ân and the hadith do not give this significance to the crescent moon. And for the first several centuries of Islam the crescent was not a symbol of Islam. Morey may have a good point if he encourages Muslims to revert to the practice of the ideal period of Islam, the first three generations of Muslims, when there was no such symbol used for identifying the religion of God. But to stretch this and conclude from it what does not follow is to go beyond the bounds of truth.

Morey did not make that mistake, but his book led Jack T. Chick to make it. Whether such an effect was intended by Morey is between him and God. Where that leaves Jack Chick is also up to God. Jack Chick wrote a tiny booklet entitled Allâh Had No Son in which he depicts some Muslims in their mosque prostrating on the floor in worship of "their moon god" (Jack T. Chick, Allâh Had No Son; U.S.Chick Publications, 1994; p.1).

Morey does however make mention of the fact that Muslims use the appearance of the crescent moon in the sky to mark the beginning and end of their month of fasting. It is highly fallacious to connect this with moon worship. Many people regulate much of their affairs based on a solar calendar. This does not mean anything for sun-worship does it?

Jews and Muslims regulate their religious festivals and observance using the lunar calendar. Would Morey then accuse the Jews of moon-worship?

Note: After I had already written what I wrote above by way of excusing Morey for Chick's mistake, I came across a leaflet claiming that the crescent is the god of Muslims. The leaflet does not name its author, but it is published by the Research and Education Foundation of which Robert Morey is the director.

back to contents

Question Answered:

The Christian acquaintance who sent me a copy of Morey's booklet also sent me five questions related to this subject. I will attempt to answer them below:

Question 1:

What is the significance of the crescent moon in Islam?

Answer:

The Qur'ân answers this question before you asked it. Read this verse:

They ask you about the new moons. Say: These are signs to mark fixed periods of time for mankind and for the pilgrimage (Qur'ân 2:189).

Question 2:

Why does Islam follow a lunar calendar?

Answer:

In both the Bible and the Qur'ân religious festivals are regulated by the lunar calendar. Jews and Muslims have kept to these regulations which they believe to be from God. Why does Christianity follow a solar calendar?

Question 3:

Why is the feast of Ramadan marked by the appearance of the crescent moon?

Answer:

I think you mean the fast of Ramadan. God commanded Muslims in the Qur'ân to fast from dawn to sunset during the month called Ramadan (see Qur'ân 2:185, 187). The beginning and end of the month is determined by the crescent (2:189) based on the instruction of God's Messenger, on whom be peace.

Why this method and not another is not for us to say but for God and His Messenger to prescribe. However, I find it an efficient method. It is a universally applicable method, and it allows for Ramadan to move through all the seasons. This allows believers to have the pleasure of worshipping God by fasting in all the various seasons: one year in the summer, some years later in the winter.

Question 4:

Why does the Qur'ân place the Sabeans on the same level with Jews and Christians when scholars have clearly proven that the Sabeans were involved in the moon cult?

Answer:

I am not aware that the Qur'ân has placed the Sabeans on the same level with Jews and Christians. Perhaps you have in mind the following verse:

Those who believe and those who are Jews and Christians and Sabians, whoever believes in Allâh and the Last Day and do righteous good deeds shall have their reward with their Lord. On them shall be no fear, nor shall they grieve. (Qurpan 2:62; also 5:69).

This verse, however, does not place the Sabeans on the same level as the Jews and Christians except in a particular context. The verse speaks of four distinct communities, and offers all four the opportunity to fear not nor grieve if only they would believe in Allâh and the Last Day and do right. The four communities are:

(a) the Believers (i.e., the Muslims)

(b) the Jews

(c) the Christians and

(d) the Sabeans.

While they are all offered the same opportunity for improvement, nothing, is said in this verse about the validity of the existing faiths of these four communities. Otherwise the Jews and Christians who are criticized in the Qur'ân for their deviations will not be placed on the same level with the believers. The matter becomes clear when you realise that believers here does not mean saved persons but those who ostensibly belong to the community of Muslims. They, as well as the other three groups, must do the following to be saved: believe in Allâh, believe in the Last Day, and do right. Doing right, according to the Qur'ân, includes following every teaching of Muhammad.

Questions 5:

Did the Meccans worship the true God since they recognized Allâh? Was Allâh one of the gods of the Ka'bah? And if so, where did the Meccans derive the recognition and the name of Allâh from?

Answer:

First, Allâh was not one of the 360 idols which were in the Ka'abah, although Morey has claimed this without evidence. When the Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) entered Meccah victorious he went into the Ka'abah and broke the idols therein.

Allâh to the Arabs was the Lord of the Ka'abah. He was the unseen God whom they would call upon when in distress. Yes, they worshipped the true God but their worship was not purely for Him. They also worshipped other gods thinking that they would act as intermediaries between them and the true God Allâh.

The Arabs know of Allâh because

quote:

Op maandag 30 januari 2006 16:00 schreef Pagan_poetry het volgende:
moeilijk heh inkorten zoals ik deed en het in Nederlands plaatsen zodat het overzichterlijker is

sorry ik ben even weg, vanavond ga ik verder op je in

[ Bericht 1% gewijzigd door #ANONIEM op 30-01-2006 17:58:49 ]

quote:

Op maandag 30 januari 2006 15:58 schreef Pagan_poetry het volgende:
En wat is er zo erg aan als je erachter komt dat de religie waar je mee bent opgegroeid niet is zoals je dacht ?

ik ben christelijk opgegroeid, maar toen ik erachter kwam dat god niet bestaat en dat de helft van het christendom heidens is heb ik niet moeilijk gedaan, waarom zou ik immers de realiteit willen ontkennen, ik was juist blij gezien de waarheid het belangrijkste is wat er bestaat, en niet leugens en bedrog.

het maakt niet uit wat de waarheid en de realiteit is, zolang ik het maar weet wat het is zodat ik niet geloof in leugens

Hoezo is de islam niet zoals ik heb gedacht, de islam is precies zoals ik er in opgeleid ben.

Ik ben zelf niet Islamitisch opgevoed, feit is wel dat ik erachter kwam dat Allah wel bestaat. Dat jij niet in gelooft is een punt omdat jij Allah de rug toe hebt gekeerd. Blijkbaar ben je zo diep in je leugens en bedrog gezonken dat je er niet meer uit kunt.

Zolang jij er van uit gaat dat jij in de waarheid leeft, prima!

quote:

Op maandag 30 januari 2006 16:02 schreef Pagan_poetry het volgende:
waarom de christenen een zon kalender volgen ? nou wat ik heb gelezen is dat omdat jesus niet de zoon van god is maar de zoon van de zon, komt uit het oude heidendom, christendom dus de zon, islam de maan

zie je wel

Jij leeft ook met een kalender die astrologisch is berekend, aanbid jij daarom bepaalde hemel lichamen?

quote:

Op maandag 30 januari 2006 16:55 schreef Pagan_poetry het volgende:
In feite zei hij: “Kijk, jullie geloven reeds dat de maangod Allah de grootste van alle goden is. Alles wat ik jullie vraag is het idee te aanvaarden dat hij de énige god is. Ik neem de Allah die jullie reeds aanbidden niet weg. Ik neem enkel zijn vrouw weg, zijn dochters en alle andere goden”. Dit kan gezien worden in het feit dat het eerste gegeven in de moslimkreet niet is “Allah is groot” maar “Allah is de grootste”, d.w.z. dat hij de grootste is onder de goden. Waarom zou Mohammed zeggen dat Allah de “grootste” is, anders dan in een polytheïstische context? Dat Arabische woord wordt gebruikt om het grotere te doen contrasteren tegen het kleinere. Dat dit waar is wordt gezien in het feit dat de heidense Arabieren Mohammed er nooit van beschuldigden een andere Allah te prediken dan degene die ze alreeds aanbaden. Deze “Allah” was de maangod, overeenkomstig het archeologische bewijsmateriaal. Mohammed wilde het dus op twee manieren stellen: tegen de heidenen zei hij dat hij nog steeds geloofde in de maangod Allah. Tegen Joden en Christenen zei hij dat Allah ook hún God was. Maar zowel Joden als Christenen wisten wel beter en daarom wijzen zij zijn god Allah af als een valse god.

Haha Christenen wijzen Allah niet eens af als God, Westerse Christenen misschien verdiep je eens in de Christenen die in midden oosten leven. En de bron van waar de naam Allah van komt.

quote:

Op maandag 30 januari 2006 16:00 schreef Pagan_poetry het volgende:
moeilijk heh inkorten zoals ik deed en het in Nederlands plaatsen zodat het overzichterlijker is

kom met je eigen woorden dan doe ik het ook

quote:

Op maandag 30 januari 2006 18:26 schreef nickybol het volgende:

[..]

Hoe?

op spiritueel niveau.