Does Allah = Moon God?

To this day, a crescent moon can be found at the front of every mosque,acknowledging that Allah was, and is the moon god...."From the OP

Nobody said Islam still worships the moon god. The OP is about how the name came from the moon god. That's the whole topic. Now they worship some concept of one Creator God using the old pagan name.

I saw your post but all you say is that in your reading you found the moon god called Sin. But others have found the moon god called Allah. I didn't see that you authenticated the name Sin or tried to find out if there are other names or why that one and not Allah.

According to numerous inscriptions, while the name of the Moon-god was Sin, his title was al-ilah, i.e. "the deity," meaning that he was the chief or high god among the gods. As Coon pointed out, "The god Il or Ilah was originally a phase of the Moon God." The Moon-god was called al-ilah, i.e. the god, which was shortened to Allah in pre-Islamic times.

"Allah" as a wordMany linguists believe that the term Allh is derived from a contraction of the Arabic words al (the) and ilh (deity, masculine form) - al-ilh meaning "the god." In addition, one of the main pagan goddesses of pre-Islamic Arabia, Allt (al + ilh + at, or 'the goddess'), is cited as being etymologically (though not synchronically) the feminine linguistic counterpart to the grammatically masculine Allh. If so, the word Allh is an abbreviated title, meaning 'the deity', rather than a name. For this reason, both Muslim and non-Muslim scholars often translate Allh directly into English as 'God'; this also explains why Arabic-speaking Jews and Christians freely refer to God as Allh.However, some Muslim scholars feel that "Allh" should not be translated, because they perceived the Arabic word to express the uniqueness of "Allh" more accurately than the word "god", which can take a plural "gods", whereas the word "Allh" has no plural form. This is a significant issue in translation of the Qur'an.But there is a connection between the respective words for God in closely related Semitic languages:The word for God in Genesis 1:1 is elohim, which is essentially a plural form of a more basic root-Hebrew word for God, —(eloah). The Arabic translation of the Jewish Bible uses the name "Allah" to refer to God in Genesis 1:1. In addition to the etymological connection based on sound,it was discovered that connections existed between the two Names based on roots, spelling, meaning, and geography.The root itself finds its origin with an older root, el, which means God, deity, power, strength. The Aramaic word for God, according to the Lexicon is Image:Alah estra.gif (alah). This word, in the standard script (Image:Alah aram.gif), or the Estrangela script (Image:Alah estra.gif), is spelled alap-lamad-heh (ALH), which are the exact corresponding letters to the Hebrew eloh. The Aramaic is closely related to the more ancient root word for God, eel. The Arabic word for God, Allah, is spelled in a very similar way, and is remotely related to the more generic word for deity, ilah. The ancient Semitic names for God (Allah and Elohim) are actually the same.Allah - Wikipedia

that at the very least this removes Allah far from any similarity with Jehovah.

Did different Arab tribes give the Moon-god different names/titles? YesWhat were some of the names/titles? Sin, Hubul, Ilumquh, Al-ilah.Was the title “al-ilah” (the god) used as the Moon-god? YesWas the word “Allah” derived from “al-ilah?” YesWas the pagan “Allah” a high god in a pantheon of deities? Yes.Was he worshipped at the Kabah? Yes.Was Allah only one of many Meccan gods? YesDid they place a statue of Hubul on top of the Kabah? Yes.At that time was Hubul considered the Moon-god? Yes.Was the Kabah thus the “house of the Moon-god”? Yes.Did the name “Allah” eventually replace that of Hubul as the name of the Moon god? Yes.Did they call the Kabah the “house of Allah”? Yes.Were al-Lat, al-Uzza and Manat called “the daughters of Allah”? Yes.Yusuf Ali explains in fn. 5096, pg. 1445, that Lat, Uzza and Manat were known as “the daughters of God [Allah]”Did the Qur’an at one point tell Muslims to worship al-Lat, al-Uzza and Manat? Yes.In Surah 53:19-20.Have those verses been “abrogated” out of the present Qur’an? Yes.What were they called? “The Satanic Verses.”...(B) Arabs used to give their children names such as”Abdullah (slave of Allah). Clean proof was the fact that, Muhammad’s father’s name was “Abdullah”. Logical analogy here is”had there been no “Allah” in pre-Islamic Arab, there could be no Abdullah or slave of Allah in Arabia....The central shrine at Mekka was the Pagan’s Kaaba (called House of Allah), a cube like stone structure which still stands though many times rebuilt. Imbedded in one corner is the black stone, probably a meteorite, the kissing of which is now an essential part of the Muslim’s pilgrimage.It is the historical fact that the Ka’aba, the sacred shrine which contains the Black Stone, in Mecca was used for pagan idol worship before Islam and even called the House of Allah at that time. The name of the God whom the Arabs worshipped was the god of pantheon”Ali-ilah the god, the supreme, the predeterminer of everybody’s life or destiny”the chief God “Allah”

The connection I might make is that since the name was originally the moon god's and the crescent moon is still the symbol of Islam, that at the very least this removes Allah far from any similarity with Jehovah. But it's not necessary to argue this, because the fact of a different name at all, plus Islam's repudiation of the name Jehovah or Yahweh, plus the teachings of Islam which contradict the Bible's, already remove Allah far from any such association.

In contrast list specific differences. The revealed text of one claims that God chose the Jews, whilst the other claim God chose the Arabs, and so on.If you choose make personal statements just make it clear they are your feelings as in: I totally believe in one and the other I totally disbelieve and despise.

God's having a Son is the whole of Christianity. You don't eliminate that "minor little feature" without eliminating the God Christians worship.Isaac's being Abraham's heir versus Ishmael's being his heir is the entire claim of the Jews to be the Chosen People. You don't eliminate that "minor little feature" without completely eliminating God's plan of salvation through the Jews and falsifying the nature of God Himself.

The contradictory written accounts of God amount to worshiping a different God. If one has a Son who is equally God with Himself but the other has no son, if one chose Isaac to father his chosen people and the other chose Ishmael, these are two entirely different Gods."What really happened" or what God is cannot be known apart from the written revelations of his character. If they contradict each other, they cannot all be true. We worship God as having the charater that is taught in these revelations, so if we are worshiping the false description we are worshiping a false God.

The points I've focused on are God's appointing Isaac as Abraham's heir, which the Bible says and Judaism claims, versus Ishmael, which Islam claims, and Jesus being God incarnate versus being merely a prophet. These are crucial, central elements of the three religions, absolutely irreconcilably mutually contradictory. The Jews are the Chosen People because of Isaac. If the heir were Ishmael they would not be the Chosen People. Judaism doesn't exist without Isaac. Jehovah is not Jehovah unless Isaac is the heir. Likewise Christianity is not Christianity unless Jesus is God. In other words these particular pieces of dogma are intrinsic to the concept of God of each religion, crucial signposts in the map to God, leading to essentially three entirely different Gods.

The different holy books present God as being or saying different things. God can't be or say all of those things without contradicting Himself. At least two of the holy books must be MISrepresenting HIM -- not just "the religion" but GOD HIMSELF. It certainly concerns His identity whether or not He chose the Jews or the Muslims, and all the more so whether or not He has a Son, who is equally God with Himself. It would be entirely different Gods who have different views on this point.Is it a "trivial" thing whether God chose Isaac or Ishmael with whom to establish an EVERLASTING COVENANT??

Faith writes:The existence of earlier religions with similar names proves no intrinsic connection to the Biblical God.

Also this post of yours is just another string of assertions and accusations and insults. With a link in case anybody wants to wade through tons of stuff to see if there's anything to it. That's not the proper use of a link.