Understanding through Discussion

Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 95 (8831 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 04-23-2018 1:11 PM
213 online now:
DrJones*, jar, JonF, NoNukes, PaulK, Percy (Admin), ringo, Son Goku, Tanypteryx (9 members, 204 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: DeepaManjusha
Post Volume:
Total: 830,449 Year: 5,272/29,783 Month: 1,204/1,467 Week: 90/311 Day: 22/68 Hour: 1/5

Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Author Topic:   Origins of the Judeo-Christian god and religion
Posts: 27634
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001
Member Rating: 1.1

Message 271 of 282 (310178)
05-08-2006 1:00 AM
Reply to: Message 268 by RickJB
05-07-2006 1:04 PM

Re: POCM [Pagan Origins of the Christ Myth] site

This message has been edited by Faith, 05-08-2006 01:02 AM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 268 by RickJB, posted 05-07-2006 1:04 PM RickJB has not yet responded

Inactive Administrator

Message 272 of 282 (310234)
05-08-2006 8:38 AM

EOT in 27 Posts
Only 27 posts left until End of Thread.

It is a good time to start winding down and presenting summaries or conclusions.

A reminder that the OP started with an academic tone.
Please continue on topic and in that spirit.

Thanks for debating, carry on. Magic Wand

Inactive Member

Message 273 of 282 (325161)
06-23-2006 3:41 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by SuperNintendo Chalmers
05-01-2006 5:29 PM

My 2¢
WOW! It sure seems like things have been going far off into no where. I couldn't read everything, but I will post about what I know.

From my perspective, there is no difference between God/Yehweh(sp?)/Lord and Satan.

Now I know that a good while back a fellow by the name of Amenhotep IV changed his name to Akhenaton and moved the capitol city of Egypt to a new city (Akhetaton) to get rid of the polytheistic worship and focus worship on one god (the sun god). This "god" was actually the very sun itself.

He was of course assasinated, as presumably was his heir (Tutankhaton = Tutankamen).

I believe there is a verse in the Bible with similarities to a worship he put on a temple to the sun (called the Aten (sun disk)).

As for Satan. I read this:

The Sons of Snakes

"'...they took with them a caricature of Set: 'Satan' (from the hieroglyphic Set-hen, one of the god's formal titles).'
- Murray Hope, "The Temple of Set FAQ"


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by SuperNintendo Chalmers, posted 05-01-2006 5:29 PM SuperNintendo Chalmers has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 274 by ramoss, posted 06-23-2006 8:42 AM Jon has not yet responded

Posts: 3073
Joined: 08-11-2004
Member Rating: 3.0

Message 274 of 282 (325222)
06-23-2006 8:42 AM
Reply to: Message 273 by Jon
06-23-2006 3:41 AM

Re: My 2¢
I think that the concept of 'Satan' entered the Jewish religion via babylonian/persia actually.

There also is a big difference in the concept of satan in the Jewish faith vs the Christian faith. In the Jewish faith, angels have no free with (Therefore no revolt, no fallen angels, etc etc.). Shaitan (or the accusor), is a servant of god that is supposed to provide for bad choices, so a person has the opportunity to choose 'good', and learn to live a sanctificed life vs a mundane life. He is more like the 'imp of perverse' than anything else.

That is a big contrast to the Chrisitan concept.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 273 by Jon, posted 06-23-2006 3:41 AM Jon has not yet responded

Fist of Fury
Inactive Member

Message 275 of 282 (326249)
06-26-2006 12:13 AM
Reply to: Message 267 by Faith
05-07-2006 12:16 PM

Re: POCM [Pagan Origins of the Christ Myth] site
Allah is not the moon god Muhammad worshiped. refer to the following data/references:


The following is a refutation of the al-ilah contraction theory and the allegation that Allah was a moon god (If this be then all Arabic speaking Jews and Christians will go to hell) Since Robert Morey Book Islamic Invasion is the leading propaganda on this topic we will use him as a bases of refutation.

We have had the pleasure in reading his book called "Islamic Invasion". However his arguement was unheard of before his book was published. His sources that he quotes, that he misquoted and twisted out of their context, support no such allegation of his.

What Morey did was took various sources of information to asert a theory in the following.

1) The name (Allah) is linguistically, not etymologically, said to be in theory a contraction of the two Arabic words "al ilah" that means "the god or The G-d".
2) In Arabian pagan worship there was a supreme Idol called by the names Sin, Nanna, and Hubul which was known as a moon deity.
3) This moon god was given the designated title "al ilah"
4) the moon god was worshipped in Makkah at the Ka'abah known as Hubul
5) the symbol of Islam is the Crescent
6) the symbol of the moon god was the crescent
These are Morey's foundation to his arguement that he tied togther in his so called detective work.
Unfortunately Morey was not the scholar that people thought he was. His research was not researched at which his prejudice thinking lead him to propagate something that was not. Also to remind everyone that the PHD label which was nicely advertised on his book was not a PHD in world theology or Middles Eastern research.

We would, with gratitude, show the flaws in Morey's reseach.

1) The name (Allah) is linguistically, not etymologically, said to be in theory a contraction of the two Arabic words "al ilah" that means "the god or The G-d"....
3) This moon god was given the designated title "al ilah"
Morey quoted atleast 5 references to prove the name Allah is a contraction of the two Arabic words "al ilah". His reference, except for one, where all christian sources. Not one of his sources or reference was of an Arabic scholar or Arabic lexicon.

His one source that was not christian derived, and is the oldest and most strongest source was the Brittanica. His quote of the Britanica omitted terms from its context to make it a reality.

Britannica wrote: (Arabic: “God”), the one and only God in the religion of Islam. Etymologically, the name Allah is probably a contraction of the Arabic al-Ilah, “the God.” The name's origin can be traced back to the earliest Semitic writings in which the word for god was Il or El, the latter being an Old Testament synonym for Yahweh. Allah is the standard Arabic word for “God” and is used by Arab Christians as well as by Muslims.

The words in bold Morey ommited and in his dictation ignoring the rest of the authority base, misleading his readers to think the Britannica , his strongest source, supported his allegation of a contraction. However the Britannica strickley states a "probability" not a fact or reality.

Morey did not have the ardacity to quote an Arabic scholar or an Arabic Lexicon even those authored by Christians them selves.

On the contrary, Arabic scholars and Lexicon works do not support a contraction. Also the negation for such a contraction is as follows.

“Alllaah” Not a contraction

The English customary spelling “Allah” syllable as “al - lah” in English dictionaries and encyclopedias has often been misrepresented as to its etymology or nature of the word without any Arabic authoritive sources such as Arabic Dictionaries, Lexicons, or Arabic Scholars them selves. Due to its English customary spelling it is often viewed by western writers that the English transliterated letters “a,l,l,a,h” are a contraction of two Arabic words based on a linguistical prestige (in English not Arabic). Thus being ignorant of the fact, and the language it self, that the second “L” in Arabic script called “laam” is a double consonant letter. The first two letters “al” is perceived as the definite article (the), and the three following letters “laah” ( sometimes rendered in English as “lah” ) is the contracted Arabic word “ilaah (deity)” where the weak radical “a”, in Arabic called “alif” - pronounced as an “i” in “ilaah”, is dropped for a contraction.


1) al ilah (the deity)
2) al lah
3) al-lah
4) Allah
Based on this western hypothesis, and its manipulative fraudulent philosophy which is misleading, the word is assumed to mean ‘the god’ or ‘the deity’ denoting the supreme deity out of others as the main one. The double consonant “L”(laam) in the original Arabic has been edited in English exegesis of the word as a single consonant giving it a linguistical prestige in English as an “al ilah” contraction. This reason because, the double consonant “L”, which would be properly spelled with three L’s(Alllah) serves no purpose in English as it does in Arabic. If the customary English spelling of the name it self is transliterated back into Arabic it would spell “ alif, laam, laam, fatah, ha” reading “allah(a)” (Note: This word in Arabic has NO article) which would be a different word in Arabic meaning “Deification” whereas the name in its original Arabic is spelled as “alif, laam, laam, laam, alif maqsoorah, ha’a” reading “alllaah”. On the other hand, a contraction of the words “al-ilah” is not possible in the Arabic language because the grammar behind it does no permit it as will be shown in the reality of the words in their original language which have been manipulated in English. In The Arabic language when the second radical letter of a word is doubled, by stressing it, it either enhances the word or changes its meaning all together. When the Arabic word “ilaah”(deity) is pronounced as “illaah” by stressing its second radical consonant “L” to double “ll” it changes the meaning from “deity” to “except him” where the “h” consonant is converted into a masculine suffix pronoun. With the contraction theory of “al ilah” applied in Arabic, rather than in English, the second radical letter “L” in the Arabic word “ilaah” is doubled when the “i”(alif kasrah) is dropped to take the word “al” in order to contract “al” and “lah” in the Arabic language.


1) al ilaah
2) al-llaah
3) alllaah
Such an etymological contraction is not possible in the Arabic language in which the word would be meaningless therefore prohibited .

Alllaah Not A Title

The name however is never used or demonstrated in the Quran or Arabic literature as a title. As an attribute of and reference to Alllah surah(chapter) 114 ayah(verse) 3 in the Quran says: “ilahinnas” ~ God of mankind, which negates the existence of another deity for mankind to be worshiped.

In the Quranic Arabic text the word “ilaah”(deity) does not take a nunnation for an indefinite article to indicate “a deity of mankind”, nor the definite article(the) that would denote Alllaah as being the deity out of other deities.

If the name Alllaah in the Arabic language was understood as “the deity” the attribute “ilahinnas”~ God of mankind would of said “ilahin annas” taking the nunnation(in) to mean “A deity of mankind” or “al ilahinnas” with the definite article(the) to mean “The god of mankind” which would of corroborated with the name Alllah if it was understood or meant “ the deity” or “the god”.

However such a gross statement or its like demonstration is no where to be found in the Quran text or Arabic literature in reference to Alllaah In support, the renown testimony and article of faith in islam which is repetitively mentioned in the Quran as:

Laa ilaaha illaa alllah “There is no God except Alllah”

Maa min ilaahin illaa alllah “there is not a single deity(or other God) except Alllah”

If the name meant “the god” it would not have been used in such a statement, because “laa ilaaha illaa al ilaah ~ there is no God except the god”, and “ maa min ilahin illaa al ilaah ~ there is not a single deity(or God) except the god” is improper Arabic, absurd, and a contradiction to it self, whereas the name Alllaah would not have been possible to be used in such a statement in the Arabic language.

Alllaah No Definite Article

The name “Alllaah” in the Quranic Arabic text (and Arabic literature) is written in various grammatical forms which has been overlooked much less ignored by critics of the Islamic due to there lack of knowledge of the Arabic language.

These grammatical forms are: “lillaah”, “Alllaahumma”, “yaa Alllaah”, and “aalllaah”, which determine the nature of the word in Arabic. A noun prefixed with a definite article in Arabic cannot take an additional affix of a “yaa” vocative particle, a “m”(meem) magnifying particle, or a hamza’a interrogative particle, whereas the name Alllaah in many parts the Quran and in Arabic literature is found prefixed with a “yaa” vocative particle ~ “yaa Alllaah”, suffixed with a magnifying particle ~ “Alllaahumma”, and prefixed with an interrogative “hamza” particle ~ “aalllaah”. For example with the prefixed interrogative “hamza” in particle in 10:59 of the Quran

...Qul aalllaahu adhina lakum.

“Say(Muhammad)! Alllaah permitted you ?”

If “al” in the name Alllah was a definite article (the) the prefixing of the “hamza” particle instead of using the interrogative particle “hal” would not be possible or permitted, because the hamza interrogative particle prefixed to the name would have changed “al” to mean, people, folk, or family, as the Arabic word “aal” denotes rather than introducing the name into an interrogative. Thus it would have been meaningless and not used in such grammar.

The preceding ا = a consonant letter called “alif” is the uniform of the word in Arabic which is silent when the name is read suffixly to another word such as: عبدالله = abdu alllaah ~ servant of Alllaah, is read as “Abdullaah”, or the ا = a is absent all together in the possessive form of the word as لله = lillaah where the لِ = li denotes the possessive meaning: to, belonging to, or for, which is not a prefix to the word in Arabic.

In لله = lillaah , the possessive form of the word الله = Alllaah there is no written nor non written assimilated definite article, in which such a clusterized transitional reading of the word would be impossible in the Arabic language if there was a definite article.

The لّه = llaah is the suffix form transition of the word الله = Alllaah by the لِ = li conversion of its first “L” consonant for the possessive, in which a noun with a definite article cannot be suffixed to لِ = li. Only لِ = li can be prefixed to the article( al = the ) it self which is prefixed to a noun or an adjective word such as : al-quddus ~ The Holy One, with لِ = li prefixed to it as : lil-quddus ~ to the Holy One.

Hence, if “al” in Alllah was a definite article “li” could only be prefixed to it as “li-alllah” not as “lillaah” which would lose the article. The possessive form of the name as “lillaah” confirms that there is no “ilaah ~ deity” word contracted in the name, because the doubling of the second radical “L” consonant, as we said before ,of the contracted word “ilaah” with the dropped “i” for “laah” (as alleged) with the possessive “li” for “li-(i)llaah” would change the meaning of “ilaah ~ deity” to except he or it . Thus is meaningless and would be prohibited in Arabic because it would be absurd and making no sense whereas the possessive form “lillaah” of the name Alllaah would not be possible if such an etymological contraction of “al ilaah” existed.

Even so, an assimilated non written definite article is only possible with “li” when it is prefixed to a noun or adjective word with a “FIRST” radical “L” consonant in this case which is doubled by the prefixing of “li” to assimilate a definite article such as “lateef ~ most gentle” with “li” prefixed to it as “lillateef ~ to the Most Gentle(one)” which is the possessive form of “al-llateef ~ The Most Gentle(one).

To the contrary the un-doubled form of the part “llaah” without “li” is “laah(u)” which means “not him” that is not a noun or adjective but a phrase where as “li” cannot be a prefixed to it wherefore to assimilate a definite article. Therefore, the only possible way the word Alllaah in the Arabic language could take the possessive word “li”, if it had a definite article, or even if it was a contraction of “al ilaah”, would be “li-alllaah”. However ! There is no such thing and is remote there from.

The part “llaah” is only the suffix form transition of the word Alllaah by the “li” conversion of its first “L” consonant to make it a possessive noun. The double “Ls” of “llaah” in the Arabic language are inseparable in which “llaah” is the foundation of the name arabicized as Alllaah that engulfs much linguistical unlimited divine meaning.

These various forms characterize the word of being an ARABICIZED name , whereas with the form " Alllaahumma " being suffixed with the "meem" magnifying particle indicating the vocative and singular royal plural which cannot be used with no other word in the arabic language, clearly tells us that this Name is older than the Arabic language it self being derived from a former and more ancient language which constituted such a grammatical character which does not exist in the Arabic Language as we know it today with any other word.

Another example is how the Name never takes Noonation or Tanween. These are grammatical endings such as "un" "an" "in" which are not used with Arabicized words that are not originally arabic derived.

Such is the folly blunder of the “al ilaah ~ the god” contraction probability of the name Alllaah by western writers who have exploited it as a reality and were morless ignorant of the Arabic language and its nature of grammar to ascribe such a thing but followed their own invented imagination affected by prejudice which was mere and fictitious conjecture.

Also. In Arabic there are many words that begin with “al” such as “alyasa” where “al” is not a definite article. “alyasa” is the arabicized form of the Hebrew name “Elisha”

"Lord of the heavens and the earth and what is between them both, so serve Him (alone) and be patient in His worship. Do you know any worthy of His (Alllaah’s) name ? [Qur'an 19:65]"

2) In Arabian pagan worship there was a supreme Idol called by the names Sin, Nanna, and Hubul which was known as a moon deity.

One of Morey's grave error here as he did not study the theology of the moon god which was called by various names Sin, Nanna, or Hubul in different parts of Arabia is the geneology of the pagan dieties.

In Makkah the moon god was called Hubul. Hubul was the son of Al-Uzza - whom was one of the daughters of Alllaah. Thus in pagan ideology Hubul would be the grandson of Alllaah [ma'aadhallah] and not Alllah him self.

More to add to this Hubul was not the supreme Idol at Makkah among the Idols. It was Al-Uzza, Manat, and Allat whom where designated al-aalihat ~ the plural femine of al-ilah.

Muhammad (s.a.w.) preached against the worship of the moon or the sun god in Makkah.

Among His Signs are the Night and the Day, and the Sun and the Moon. Adore not the sun and the moon, but adore Allah, Who created them, if it is Him ye wish to serve. 41:37

Allah could not be seen

No vision can grasp Him(Allah). But His grasp is over all vision: He is above all comprehension, yet is acquainted with all things. (Koran 6:103) He(Allah) is the First and the Last, the Evident and the Hidden: and He has full knowledge of all things. 57:3

Hubal the moon-god and Allah were not the same God

Sahih Al-Bukhari Volumn 005, Book 059, Hadith Number 375.


Narated By Al-Bara : We faced the pagans on that day (of the battle of Uhud) and the Prophet placed a batch of archers (at a special place) and appointed 'Abdullah (bin Jubair) as their commander and said, "Do not leave this place; and if you should see us conquering the enemy, do not leave this place, and if you should see them conquering us, do not (come to) help us," So, when we faced the enemy, they took to their heel till I saw their women running towards the mountain, lifting up their clothes from their legs, revealing their leg-bangles. The Muslims started saying, "The booty, the booty!" 'Abdullah bin Jubair said, "The Prophet had taken a firm promise from me not to leave this place." But his companions refused (to stay). So when they refused (to stay there), (Allah) confused them so that they could not know where to go, and they suffered seventy casualties. Abu Sufyan ascended a high place and said, "Is Muhammad present amongst the people?" The Prophet said, "Do not answer him." Abu Sufyan said, "Is the son of Abu Quhafa present among the people?" The Prophet said, "Do not answer him." Abd Sufyan said, "Is the son of Al-Khattab amongst the people?" He then added, "All these people have been killed, for, were they alive, they would have replied." On that, 'Umar could not help saying, "You are a liar, O enemy of Allah! Allah has kept what will make you unhappy." Abu Safyan said, "Superior may be Hubal!" On that the Prophet said (to his companions), "Reply to him." They asked, "What may we say?" He said, "Say: Allah is More Elevated and More Majestic!" Abu Sufyan said, "We have (the idol) Al-'Uzza, whereas you have no 'Uzza!" The Prophet said (to his companions), "Reply to him." They said, "What may we say?" The Prophet said, "Say: Allah is our Helper and you have no helper." Abu Sufyan said, "(This) day compensates for our loss at Badr and (in) the battle (the victory) is always undecided and shared in turns by the belligerents. You will see some of your dead men mutilated, but neither did I urge this action, nor am I sorry for it." Narrated Jabir: Some people took wine in the morning of the day of Uhud and were then killed as martyrs.

The following is Quranic support to the above hadeeth that Hubul and Alllaah where not the same deity.

The Pagans could not see Allah

[17:90] They(the pagans) say: "We shall not believe in thee(Muhammad), until thou cause a spring to gush forth for us from the earth,

[17:91] "Or (until) thou have a garden of date trees and vines, and cause rivers to gush forth in their midst, carrying abundant water,

[17:92] "Or thou cause the sky to fall in pieces, as thou sayest (will happen), against us, or thou bring Allah and the angels before (us) face to face;

[2:210] Will they(the pagans) wait until Allah comes to them in canopies of clouds, with angels (in His train) and the question is (thus) settled? But to Allah do all questions go back (for decision).

Allah not recognized as one of the Idols by the pagans

[29:17] "For you (pagans) do worship idols besides Allah, and ye invent falsehood. The things that ye worship besides Allah have no power to give you sustenance: then seek ye sustenance from Allah, serve Him, and be grateful to Him: to Him will be your return.

Muhammad declared to the pagans they do not worship what him and his followers worshiped (Allah)

Say(Muhammad to the pagans): O ye that reject Faith! I(Muhammad) worship not that which ye worship, Nor will ye worship that which I worship, And I will not worship that which ye have been wont to worship, Nor will ye worship that which I worship, To you be your Way, and to me mine. (Koran 109:1-6)

And for the very last thing that Morey closed up with in his book.

5) the symbol of Islam is the Crescent

6) the symbol of the moon god was the crescent

Again Morey never did his history seach he just jumped to conclusions. The Crescent symbol in Islam was adopted from the rule of the Ottoman empire which was originally a Turkish symbol http://www.fotw.net/flags/islam.html . The original symbol of Islam is what you see in my avatar in the above left corner of our post as a flag. (Oxy2Hydro 22:57, 23 May 2005 (UTC))

This message is a reply to:
 Message 267 by Faith, posted 05-07-2006 12:16 PM Faith has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 276 by Fist of Fury, posted 06-26-2006 12:15 AM Fist of Fury has not yet responded

Fist of Fury
Inactive Member

Message 276 of 282 (326250)
06-26-2006 12:15 AM
Reply to: Message 275 by Fist of Fury
06-26-2006 12:13 AM

Re: POCM [Pagan Origins of the Christ Myth] site


The word Allah, according to several Arabic lexicons, means "the Being Who comprises all the attributes of perfection", i.e. the Being Who is perfect in every way (in His knowledge, power etc.), and possesses the best and the noblest qualities imaginable in the highest degree. This meaning is supported by the Holy Quran when it says:

"His are the best (or most beautiful) names." (17:110; 20:8; and 7:180

Not a contraction of Al and ilah:

Contrary to popular belief, the word Allah is NOT a contraction of al-ilah (al meaning 'the', and ilah meaning 'god').

Had it been so, then the expression ya Allah ('O Allah!') would have been ungrammatical, because according to the Arabic language when you address someone by the vocative form ya followed by a title, the al ('the') must be dropped from the title. For example, you cannot say ya ar-rabb but must say ya rabb (for 'O Lord'). So if the word Allah was al-ilah ('the God'), we would not be able to say: ya Allah, which we do.

Lane's Arabic-English Lexicon (which is based on classical Arabic dictionaries), says under the word Allah, while citing many linguistical authorities:

"Allah ... is a proper name applied to the Being Who exists necessarily, by Himself, comprising all the attributes of perfection, a proper name denoting the true god ... the al being inseparable from it, not derived..." Allah is thus a proper name, not derived from anything, and the Al is inseparable from it. The word al-ilah (the god) is a different word.

Not a pagan god / Al-Lat:

An objection answered.

The following objection has been raised regarding the name Allah:

Al -'The', lah - 'God'. It means the God. It was one of the gods worshipped by the Arabs. His female equivalent was Allat, al- 'the', Lat 'goddess'. Muhammed's followers did not like the concept of worshipping a female deity.


[We know the Arabs before Islam traced their roots to Abraham, whom they regarded as a Monotheistic teacher. However, in due time, they began to believe they needed intermediaries (idols) to have close contact to God, as they believe they weren't as holy enough to reach God directly, as in the case of the Prophet Abraham.

And the pagans even advanced this forth as an argument, mentioned even in the Qur'an]

"Allah" was NOT "one of the gods" of the pre-Islamic Arabs, but was recognised by them as the supreme, abstract God. There was no idol which they called "Allah". The Quran quotes the idol-worshippers as presenting the argument that:

"We worship them (i.e. the idols) only so that they may bring us nearer to Allah." (39:3)

Obviously then, "Allah" was not just one of the gods.

It is also entirely wrong to say that Al-Lat was a feminine form of Allah. Besides Allah, the different tribes of the Arabs believed in their tribal gods. "Al-Lat" was the tribal god of the Thaqeef tribe who lived in the city of Taif (where there was a shrine with an idol of Lat). The Quraish worshipped Uzza as their tribal god, and similarly with other tribes.

So it is simply incorrect to say that the Arabs regarded Lat as being a female equivalent of "Allah". "Allah" was, as said above, regarded by them as their supreme God. Lat, Manat etc. were believed in as tribal gods.

Moreover, Lat, Manat and Uzza were believed by them to be daughters of Allah, as the Quran says:

"Have you then considered Lat and Uzza, and the third, Manat? Are the males for you and for Him the females" (53:19-21).

The Quran is here pointing out the contradiction in their beliefs, that they ascribed daughters to Allah, but preferred to have sons themselves! So Lat being believed as a daughter of Allah, could not possibly be regarded by them as the female equivalent of Allah.

In Lane's Arabic-English Lexicon the words ilah (god) and Allah occur under the root A-L-H, but the word Al-lat is given under an entirely different root L-T. Therefore, "Al-lat" is not the feminine form of the word Allah (for in that case it would occur under the same root as for "Allah"), but is derived from a completely different root with a totally different meaning.

The root from which al-lat comes means (among other things) "to moisten". Lane quotes several reports on how the idol came to be so called. It is named after a man called Al-Lat. Sometime before Islam, there was a man who used to give pilgrims a barley meal (known as saweek), moistened with either water or clarified butter. He thus became known as Al-lat. After he died, the rock where he was buried came to be worshipped and was known by his name. And thus there came to be the idol named Al-lat.

Does NOT have three daughters:

Does Allah have three daughters? Did Muhammad (pbuh) really compromise with idolatry?

This is another bogus allegation, as we know it was the pagan Arabs whom ascribed daughters to God (in much the same way Christians ascribe a Son to God), and this was highly condemned.

As the Qur'an says: "Have you then considered Lat and Uzza, and the third, Manat? Are the males for you and for Him the females. This indeed is an unjust division!" (53:19-22).

"They are naught but names which you have named, you and your fathers -- Allah has sent no authority for them. They follow but conjecture and what (their) souls desire. And certainly the guidance has come to them for their Lord." (Qur'an 53:23)

Maulana Muhammad Ali says:

Verses 19-21 are made the basis of the false story of what is called the “Lapse of Muhammad” or “Compromise with idolatry” by western writers. Certain reports narrated by Waqidi and Tabri are the sole authority for this charge against that incessant preacher against idolatry, every incident of whose life condemns it as a bare falsehood. Muir asserts that “Pious Muhammadans of after days, scandalized at the lapse of their Prophet into so flagrant a concession, would reject the whole story” as if the earlier Muslims were not as pious as the latter. The fact is that the story was quite unknown to the earlier Muslims. There is not a single trustworthy hadith that lends support to this story. Muhammad ibn Ishaq who died as early as 151 AH, does not mention this incident, while Muirs earliest authority, Waqidi, was born more than forty years later. It is stated in the Bahrain that when questioned about it, Ibn Ishaq called it a fabrication of the zindeeqs. And the famous Bukhari, them most trustworthy authority on the sayings of the Holy Prophet, was Waqidi’s contemporary, and his collection of sayings contains no mention of the story. As regards Waqidi, all competent authorities entertain a very low opinion of his trustworthiness. The Mizan speaks of Waqidi as unreliable and even as a fabricator of reports. As regards Tabri, Muir himself represents him as guilty of “indiscriminate reception”. As against these two unreliable authorities, “those who reject this story are highly learned men” (Ruh al-Ma’ani). This six collection of reports known as the Sihah Sittah (or the six reliable works), do not mention it at all, and contain instead a report which essentially contradicts the story of the so-called compromise. Internal evidence, too, is wholly against this story. We are told that instead of v. 21 the Prophet read the words: Tilk al gharnaiq al ula wa inna shafa’ata-hunna la-turtaja, ie. “These are exalted females whose intercession is to be sought” But the insertion of these few words in a chapter which is wholly directed against idolatry is quite out of place: v,. 23 condemns idols, v, 26 denies their intercession, v. 28 condemns them giving of names of female deities to angels, and so on. It is further asserted that 22:52 was revealed in connection with this change, but it should be noted that a period of at least eight years must have elapsed between the revelation of this verse and that of 22:52. Moreover, if the Prophet has made any such compromise, it could not have been a sudden event, and traces of it would have been met with in other chapters revealed about the same time. But a perusal of these shows clearly that the Qur’an’s condemnation of idolatry was never marked by the slightest change.

“So bow down in prostration before Allah and serve (Him)” (Quran 53:62).

Here is a command to prostrate oneself, which is literally obeyed by all Muslims when reciting the Qur’an or hearing it recited: This chapter when first revealed, was read in a large assembly, containing Muslims as well as disbelievers. When the Holy Prophet prostrated himself in obedience to the command, not only did the Muslims prostrate themselves but even the idolaters were so overawed that they prostrated themselves, with the exception of Umayyah ibn Khalf, who raised some gravel to his forehead. This man was afterwards killed, dying a disbeliever, says the report, evidently implying that all others were gradually converted to Islam (B. 17:1). It should be further borne in mind that the idolaters did not deny the existence of God the Supreme, Whom they believed to be above their idols, who were recognized only as minor deities, and therefore there is nothing strange in their joining the Muslims in their prostration.

It is this simple incident which is connected with the story of the so-called “lapse” and is adduced as proof of its truth. But it will be seen that the prostration was made in obedience to the direct Divine command of prostration and had to the grandeur and majesty of Allah and to the destruction of the wicked, are so impressive that the idolaters could resist prostrating themselves. It is possible that the story of the prostration reached Abyssinian exiles, some of whom might have returned under the impression that the disbelievers no longer opposed the movement.

Moon God?:

Why are Muslims accused of worshipping a “moon god”? How do you know you aren’t?

Now, any Muslim knows, that the gravest sins in Islam is to associate any partners to God; to worship anything other than the Most High - God.

The Qur'an states:

“Say: We believe in Allah and that which is revealed to us, and that which was revealed to Abraham and Ishmael and Isaac and Jacob and the tribes, and that which was given to Moses and Jesus and to the prophets from their Lord; we make no distinction between any of them, and to Him we submit. (Qur’an 3:84)

Thus, Muslims believe in the One God of all the Prophets - of Abraham, Moses, Jesus, Muhammad, etc - peace be upon them all.

The Qur'an also states: And from among His Signs are the night and the day, and the sun and the moon. Prostrate not to the sun nor to the moon, but prostrate to Allah Who created them, if you (really) worship Him. (Qur'an 41:37)

What is the significance of the crescent moon?

They ask thee of the new moons. Say: These are signs to mark fixed periods of time for mankind and for the pilgrimage (Qur’an 2:189).

He is the Cleaver of the daybreak; and He has made the night for rest, and the sun and the moon for reckoning. That is the measuring of the Mighty, the Knowing (Qur’an 6:96).

He it is Who made the sun a shining brightness, and the moon a light, and ordained for it stages that you might know the computation of years and the reckoning. Allah created not this but with truth. He makes the signs manifest for a people who know (Qur’an 10:5).

Shabir Ally says: 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’an 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.

In both the Bible and the Qur’an 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?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 275 by Fist of Fury, posted 06-26-2006 12:13 AM Fist of Fury has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 277 by AdminJar, posted 06-26-2006 9:51 AM Fist of Fury has responded

Inactive Member

Message 277 of 282 (326379)
06-26-2006 9:51 AM
Reply to: Message 276 by Fist of Fury
06-26-2006 12:15 AM

If all you are going to do is cut&paste stuff from other websites, your posting privileges will be suspended.

Here at EvC we do not debate websites, but discuss things with our other members. So far all that you have done is cut&paste material already available over the web.

Do not continue to behave this way.

Comments on moderation procedures (or wish to respond to admin messages)? - Go to:
  • General discussion of moderation procedures
  • Thread Reopen Requests
  • Considerations of topic promotions from the "Proposed New Topics" forum
  • Proposed New (Great Debate) Topics

    New Members: to get an understanding of what makes great posts, check out:

  • "Post of the Month" Forum
  • "Columnist's Corner" Forum

    See also Forum Guidelines, Style Guides for EvC, and Assistance w/ Forum Formatting

  • This message is a reply to:
     Message 276 by Fist of Fury, posted 06-26-2006 12:15 AM Fist of Fury has responded

    Replies to this message:
     Message 278 by Fist of Fury, posted 06-30-2006 1:34 AM AdminJar has responded

    Fist of Fury
    Inactive Member

    Message 278 of 282 (327661)
    06-30-2006 1:34 AM
    Reply to: Message 277 by AdminJar
    06-26-2006 9:51 AM

    Re: Warning
    I acknowledge and accept your warning.

    If I were to present my personal opinion on a particular issue and then refer our audience to specific website links to verify/investigate the references/ evidence, is that permissible??


    Edited by Fist of Fury, : No reason given.

    This message is a reply to:
     Message 277 by AdminJar, posted 06-26-2006 9:51 AM AdminJar has responded

    Replies to this message:
     Message 279 by AdminJar, posted 06-30-2006 9:06 AM Fist of Fury has not yet responded

    Inactive Member

    Message 279 of 282 (327708)
    06-30-2006 9:06 AM
    Reply to: Message 278 by Fist of Fury
    06-30-2006 1:34 AM

    Re: Warning
    That would be fine.

    Comments on moderation procedures (or wish to respond to admin messages)? - Go to:
  • General discussion of moderation procedures
  • Thread Reopen Requests
  • Considerations of topic promotions from the "Proposed New Topics" forum
  • Proposed New (Great Debate) Topics

    New Members: to get an understanding of what makes great posts, check out:

  • "Post of the Month" Forum
  • "Columnist's Corner" Forum

    See also Forum Guidelines, Style Guides for EvC, and Assistance w/ Forum Formatting

  • This message is a reply to:
     Message 278 by Fist of Fury, posted 06-30-2006 1:34 AM Fist of Fury has not yet responded

    Junior Member (Idle past 3895 days)
    Posts: 5
    Joined: 05-26-2007

    Message 280 of 282 (402379)
    05-26-2007 5:46 AM
    Reply to: Message 1 by SuperNintendo Chalmers
    05-01-2006 5:29 PM

    No specific times can be named as the time Judaism started because it is the original religion.
    This message is a reply to:
     Message 1 by SuperNintendo Chalmers, posted 05-01-2006 5:29 PM SuperNintendo Chalmers has not yet responded

    Replies to this message:
     Message 281 by purpledawn, posted 05-26-2007 7:22 AM SpecKeta has not yet responded
     Message 282 by jar, posted 05-26-2007 9:28 AM SpecKeta has not yet responded

    Member (Idle past 1201 days)
    Posts: 4453
    From: Indiana
    Joined: 04-25-2004

    Message 281 of 282 (402384)
    05-26-2007 7:22 AM
    Reply to: Message 280 by SpecKeta
    05-26-2007 5:46 AM

    Abraham, The Father of Judaism
    Actually, Abraham is consider the father of Judaism. Adam and Noah aren't considered to be Jewish.

    The first Jew, the founder of Judaism, the physical and spiritual ancestor of the Jewish people.

    If you really want to get technical, Jew and Judaism come from the name Judah.

    So a time of origin can be placed on the Jewish religion. Abraham started the wheels in motion.

    "Peshat is what I say and derash is what you say." --Nehama Leibowitz
    This message is a reply to:
     Message 280 by SpecKeta, posted 05-26-2007 5:46 AM SpecKeta has not yet responded

    Posts: 30149
    From: Texas!!
    Joined: 04-20-2004
    Member Rating: 1.8

    Message 282 of 282 (402395)
    05-26-2007 9:28 AM
    Reply to: Message 280 by SpecKeta
    05-26-2007 5:46 AM

    Original religion?
    No specific times can be named as the time Judaism started because it is the original religion.

    And your evidence for that is?

    Aslan is not a Tame Lion
    This message is a reply to:
     Message 280 by SpecKeta, posted 05-26-2007 5:46 AM SpecKeta has not yet responded

    Newer Topic | Older Topic
    Jump to:

    Copyright 2001-2015 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

    ™ Version 4.0 Beta
    Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2018