Does Allah = Moon God?

and the evidence is that the sumerian moon god, sin, was called "the god." wow, thanks, buz. that's certainly case closed. considering that christian arabs today call their god "allah" and jesus christ himself called his god "allaha." surely, they're ALL the moon god sin then?are you basing it on the crescent moon? the symbol of ottoman empire (NOT islam)? perhaps, maybe, jesus is really posieden, because he's portrayed as a fish? or maybe he's really the lamb-god? or the large-wooden-plus-sign god?your evidence is silly, and superficial, and totally lacking cultural context. it also utterly ignores the qu'ranic commandments to not worship the moon but the one who created the moon. that's off topic. you can't say that i can't talk about it, but then talk about it yourself. that's a double standard. yes, i did. about 80 posts back. linguistically, "allah," "elohym," and the ugaritic "il" all have the same origin. yah or yaw was the son of il, one of the iluhym. el- and variants was a very, very common god in the middle east.and it's "yahweh" not "jehovah." it doesn't make you sound educated about someone else's god if you can't even get the name of your's right.This message has been edited by arachnophilia, 05-01-2006 11:26 PM

---

I'm sorry, I missed your evidence for this. Could you please point me to it? Linguistically, but that does not prove CONCEPTUAL influence. Your "proof" is only circumstantial at best. People growing up in a certain culture will naturally use the language and cultural forms of the culture, and if they go on to found a whole new conception of God and a whole new religion -- and especially if that God Himself speaks to them and teaches them -- they will certainly continue to use such forms, but they will no longer mean the same thing, and without direct evidence that there is any CONCEPTUAL influence, that ends your idea of influence on the conception of God. If you want to claim influence you are going to have to provide something more than linguistic and cultural context.Whether it was the moon god or another greater god in the pantheon called "Allah" based on "El," what makes that god an influence on Islam is known historical facts about Mohammed's use of it, not mere linguistic and cultural similarities. To prove such an influence on the Biblical conception of God you need a historical connection or something as good for evidence. All you've got is ... nothing. Please point me back to your "proof" that "yah or yaw" has anything to do with Yahweh. No, you are being a snob to insist on this. "Yahweh" is fine and many Christians prefer it, but there is nothing wrong with "Jehovah." We speak English, not Hebrew, and "Jehovah" is the traditional English rendition. Perfectly acceptable. "Yahweh" is only an English transliteration anyway. Very priggish to insist on it.{ABE: Because of the excerpt I quoted from Ron Rhodes' book on witnessing to Muslims, I don't know if it was a moon god, but it does appear that there was a main god called "Allah" in the pre-Islamic pantheon, all represented particularly at Mecca, which more or less represented the Creator God, and which became in Mohammed's mind the one and only God which was to be worshiped, and thus the God of Islam, now described as the all knowing omnipotent Creator God.This involved a known direct transformation of an existing religious system and its main god into the new concepts of Islam. An existing Allah was turned into the Allah of Islam.The Biblical God did not derive from anything existing at all, and your supposed connections between cultural forms and the Biblical God are entirely your own invention. There is no evidence of any such connection.No existing God was turned into Jehovah. Jehovah makes all the moves in the Bible. He is not the creation of men. He chooses men, and He guides them to His own chosen ends.By contrast, in Islam Mohammed does everything, transforms the existing polytheism himself, and carries Allah along with him.}This message has been edited by Faith, 05-02-2006 01:49 AM

look up "god" in an aramaic dictionary.is whether or not jesus spoke aramaic under debate? it's littered throughout the gospels. and people calling sin "allah" is just as circumstantial. "allah" just means "the god." that's all it means. and it's different for islam why, exactly?i'm completely at a loss for why you can not seem to put yourself in someone else's shoes, when yours are the same brand, make, size, and color.they believe their god revealed something to muhammed, and he completely reinvented their religious traditions, making something completely new. point this ignorant non-fundamentalist to the post where you spell out the historical evidence, and explain what makes it different from the account in the bible of abraham. yes, because to do that we'd need......historical confirmation of the bible.if you hold the bible to be history -- why is the bible's own account not good enough for you? only if you point me to your proof that allah = sin, the moon god. actually, i'm gonna take this bit off to the other thread, because i think this part is incredibly ironic. i'll also allow jahu-eh. my problem's not with the j, or the anglicization, but with the blatant misunderstanding (and willful ignorance) of the tradition and reason surrounding the vowels. personally, i prefer "the lord" to reflect that tradition.

---

Very interesting indeed...

Good call Arach. If Jesus spoke Aramaic then the word He used for God is very similar to the Arabic word for God. That's fine. But what is being argued at this point is whether an existing God of that name was the model for Allah and historically that appears to be the case, that Mohammed took the head god by that name and eliminated the three hundred or so others. I've been arguing with you that your claim that something similar happened with the God of the Bible is false. No existing god was the model for Jehovah.I am NOT arguing that Islam is a polytheism. Perhaps some argue that, but I'm not. Just from what I read in Ron Rhodes' book yesterday, quoted somewhere around here, I believe that Mohammed made the creator God Allah, which term means "the god," the exclusive God of Islam. Apparently there used to be some verses in the Koran that supported the continuing worship of some of the lesser gods but those were later removed.And another difference is that Islam says Mohammed did all the work on behalf of Allah, while the Bible says that Jehovah did all the work of revealing Himself as the one true God, so that there is no derivation from anything already existing other than the necessary use of the local language to describe the events. First, the above paragraph is my attempt to answer what YOU are saying about Jehovah. YOU seemed to be saying that there is a direct derivation of the Biblical God from actual existing gods and I'm saying no, you cannot draw that conclusion from mere language use, which is all you are doing. However, it IS different from Islam in that there WAS a direct derivation of the God of Islam from an existing god in the pantheon, NOT just a linguistic use. Could be because they aren't the same brand, make, size and color. You are making up the similarities. Mohammed did turn a polytheistic culture into a monotheistic one. That he did. He was the agent of this change. It is an important change. I am now convinced that "Allah" is the same as "El," the generic word for "god," and that Mohammed took the representative of the one true God in the pantheon and removed the pantheon, elevating the one true God to his proper place. That was an achievement. But it is not the same thing as what happened in the Biblical history, and the characteristics of Allah are not the same as the characteristics of Jehovah and in the end they are not the same God despite all the above. Considering that it's the only evidence there is, what you need is historical DISconfirmation to DISprove it. Otherwise it stands as history. I have no idea what you are talking about. I guess you haven't noticed that I have not been arguing that Allah is the moon god this whole time with you. My argument now is that Allah WAS based on a god on the Meccan pantheon but that it was the god that stood for the creator God, rather than the moon god. But I still have more to study about this. What you prefer isn't relevant. The scholars who arrived at "Jehovah" have authority and precedence.This message has been edited by Faith, 05-02-2006 09:18 AMThis message has been edited by Faith, 05-02-2006 09:25 AM

Its not historically the case. Historically, Mohammed took the god of Ibrahim and claimed to have been given the final, untainted, unabridged, complete and perfect update of the God that revealed himself to Abraham. The one true god was given the name 'the God'. This is like us capitalizing god to give us God. Its not like His name is 'God' since the word 'god' refers to the European (probably Germanic) term for a pagan deity.So Mohammed called the god, God. Only he didn't use the European word 'God', since he wasn't European. He (sensibly) used the Arabic word for god 'ilah' and did the same the same the Europeans did. He differentiated the pagan 'ilah' from the true god by calling him not ilah but the god, or al-ilah.This coincides with the pre-Islamic title for the god of the moon. Sin was the chief of gods, father of gods (I think this is only Arabic paganism, I think Sin was quite minor to the Sumerians). Since Sin was the chief god he was given the title al-ilah.Its a bit like saying that because Wotan was called 'Der Gott' and YHWH is also called 'Der Gott' then YHWH must be a pagan god and the other gods from the pantheon were removed to create monotheism. Incidentally I don't think Wotan was called Der Gott at any point, but if he was, would that mean that Christians worship Wotan, aka Odin?The question remains: do Arab Christians worship a god that used to be the head of the Arabic pantheon? Sounds like this Jehovah fella and Allah have a lot in common.

quote:

---

[3.84] Say: We believe in Allah and what has been revealed to us, and what was revealed to Ibrahim and Ismail and Ishaq and Yaqoub and the tribes, and what was given to Musa and Isa and to the prophets from their Lord; we do not make any distinction between any of them, and to Him do we submit.

---

Yes, Mohammed was certainly in the business of rewriting the Biblical religion, no argument there, but historically Mohammed did also build on a deity represented in the Arabic pantheon, apparently one named "allah" that stood for the greatest god, the creator God. I got this from a book about Islam written by Ron Rhodes, which I quoted yesterday in Message 171. I was surprised to find that the moon god was not mentioned in any of my books about Islam, but do indicate a source in the pantheon nevertheless. So much is true enough and obvious. If Sin was both a moon god and the chief god then this would be support enough for the claim that Mohammed turned the moon god into the God of Islam. The fact that there are different tribal names for the gods makes it hard to pin these things down however, and after reading Rhodes I don't think it's important whether it was a moon god or not -- and I never said that they STILL worship WHATEVER god was the original inspiration in any case. I guess I have to repeat that I at least, I don't know about Buz, have not ever claimed that Islam STILL worships the moon god or any god of the old polytheistic pantheon. The question does NOT remain, at least for me. I've accepted that "allah" is the generic word for "god" in Arabic, paralleling the word "el" for "god" in the Middle East in general. They say that in one place and deny it in others. They even ridicule the name Jehovah and historically made dhimmis of the Jews and Christians.This message has been edited by Faith, 05-02-2006 11:10 AM

From your reference link: This is in accord with what Ron Rhodes, whom I quoted yesterday in Message 171 says about the history of Islam. He does not name the God as the Moon God but does say that Mohammed turned the chief god of the Arabic pantheon, into the God of Islam. This God was named "allah" the generic for "the god."So it is apparently true that Mohammed transformed what was originally the moon god into Allah, the one God of Islam.This would certainly account for the moon symbol of Islam.It would also account for the "Satanic Verses" which were originally in the Koran but later removed, which allowed the worship of the Moon God's daughters.
Satanic Verses - WikipediaHowever, it is also true that Islam has transformed this God into a concept of the Most High God, to the point that it is mostly academic to point to its origin in the Moon God.While this is true history and should not be denied as so many here seem to do, the most important thing is that Allah NOW contradicts crucial characteristics of the Most High God of the Bible. They are not the same God for this reason, and only incidentally because of Allah's origins.This message has been edited by Faith, 05-02-2006 11:36 AMThis message has been edited by Faith, 05-02-2006 11:38 AMThis message has been edited by Faith, 05-02-2006 11:44 AM

Not according to the source that you link to. It describes the satanic Verses as having been: Note, they were allegedly interpolated into an early version of the Qur'an, not included in the original by Mohammad and were later expunged. That is no different than what happened in both Judaism and Christianity, some material was added and later removed. It has nothing to do with the case of whether or not Allah = YWH. Again, as pointed out numerous times in this thread, Allah is simply the generic word God. And yet again, you have not shown any evidence that supports your assertion. Both the Bible and teh Koran show Ishmael as the father of the Arabs. That an arab would consider Ismael the father of his nation is as reasonable as a Hebrew accepting Isaac as the father of Israel. They are not mutually exclusive and it says nothing about the nature of Allah/YWH. The Jews and teh Muslims do not consider Jesus the divine Son of YWH. But again, that says nothing about teh nature or identity of Allah/YWH.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

The idea is that it was Mohammed himself who "interpolated" the Satanic verses into the Koran -- very early on if not "originally" -- to placate the Meccans who were upset about his strict monotheism, and later they were removed as monotheism was more strongly asserted.This message has been edited by Faith, 05-02-2006 12:20 PM

Sorry Faith, but all you have shown is that both Gods were called God. The quote you provided in Message 171 looks to be mere conjecture. Given that no contemporary biographies of Muhammed exist, and the first that were written were written by Muslims (and hence biased), I don't see how your source can make the statement: With any form of confidence? I would like to see some actual evidence that this is how Muhammed started Islam. Why is that support? Do we assume that the Romans just turned their chief god into God? Why should the fact that there was a chief god support that a monotheistic religion has that chief god as its one god?At the very best you could say that Mohammed took the Judeo-Christian god and manipulated Him to be similar to Sin. That would require some good evidence, but I wouldn't be surprised. I never said you did. Its just a little peculiar that all the evidence we have is that chief gods in Arabic culture are called Allah, and suddenly that's enough to conclude that Muhammed rid the pantheon of all but one god and created a monotheistic religion as opposed to ridding the entire pantheon and taking two large and famous monotheistic religions and rewriting them for whatever reason. I didn't think you thought that. I was focussing on the words. Let's say God is a European word that was used to refer to the various pagan dieties. If someone suddenly had a revelation from YHWH and said "Guys, there is but one God. He is God.", would that mean anything given the word 'god' refers to a pagan diety? No. And likewise with the word Allah. Fantastic - given that Allah means God, how can you justify the connection between one Allah which is the head of a pantheon, and another Allah which denies the existence of other gods, demands that you do not worship the moon or the sun or anything else created and that you should just worship the creator?That's like me telling you that any references to 'el', for example a wind god, before Abraham demonstrates that YHWH = wind God. There is basically no other direct connection between Sin and Allah. They are as different as Ra and YHWH. That's kind of not the point I was making. You said Islam doesn't say what you said it says. It says that God did all the work of revealing himself - spreading his word through various prophets (for example Abraham). Islam says that God did that, but men ruined it (come one - man does have a history of that you have to admit). Islam says that God gave us one final prophet, and this time the word would be preserved and protected from corruption. Islam says that there is no derivation from anything already existing other than the necessary use of the local language to describe the events.

Yep.
If Islam is a lie/wrong it is evidence that the Meccans were persecuting Mohammed and he wanted to get them off his back, but then he realised that he was undermining the point of the Abrahamic god that he was trying to convert the Arabs to. I doubt in this case that it was 'a slip of the tongue', since it wouldn't have gone public if it was.If Islam is right it is evidence that Mohammed was the same as the other prophets - human and subject to temptation. Allah shows his mercy and simply corrects the work of Satan, foiling that sly old fox yet again (I'll get you next time Allah!)

That is one of the assertions some folk make. But except for one historian I have not been able to find any other source for the assertion. And even that historian does not say that Mohammad was the one that inserted it.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

Well he provides a bibliography, but since I haven't read the books in his bibliography I can't provide you the evidence from them. Do you want the three references he gives for the paragraphs I quoted? The most recent was written in 1985. Along with the Rhodes quote that did not name the Moon God but only a generic chief god "Allah" it becomes evidence that it was the Moon God and not just the generic god since they agree on the basic scenario. Nobody has argued that the mere fact that there was a chief god supports this idea. That's the kind of silly argument Arach has been making about the Biblical record, but in the case of Mohammed it has simply been presented as a historical fact known about the life of Mohammed, not argued from the mere existence of such a god, and this has the earmarks of having derived from an actual historical record of some sort. I would assume it could be tracked down though the original is not available to me. But since I don't have the original I guess I can't convince you. I don't get this idea. But again, nobody has made such a silly argument -- only Arach did about Yahweh, nobody has done so about Islam. The argument is that it is known from Mohammed's own life that this is what he did. It would be nice to have the original documents of course, but in any case that is how it has been argued, as a matter of historical fact and not some vague conjecture from the mere fact of the existence of pagan gods named Allah. I also haven't opposed that idea. He also did this besides promoting the god Allah. But this is not what anybody is claiming about Islam's God so your comparison is irrelevant. Again, the claim is HISTORICAL, that Mohammmed is known to have made this transformation of the chief god of the pantheon into the one God of Islam. Again, it would be nice to have the original evidence and I hope it turns up, but this is the argument, not the mere extrapolation from existing pagan gods named Allah. By the historical information I've been reporting which claims that Mohammed himself regarded the head of the pantheon as the true God who should be worshiped alone. Yes it would be the same, and thank you for agreeing with me that that's a silly conjecture. Except for the historical references given (Rhodes and Buz's Pakistan site so far) that say that Mohammed did in fact MAKE this connection himself. What is needed to check this is more evidence from Mohammed's life. The sacred texts of the Bible were protected by the Jewish scribes with obsessive-compulsive dedication. Why don't you put half that energy into supporting what I'm saying instead of challenging me? Why do you believe Islam? Why are you protecting this religion that kills people all over the world? This is the craziest thing, that you are all engaged in fighting the few who know what it really is, knocking yourselves out to prove it's not the tyrannical ideology and killer it is, joining forces with the persecutors of "infidels" everywhere. This is sad. I have to assume you know not what you do.But that's off topic, isn't it, just another little digression by Faith.

Arach, will have a lot more detail on this but reading this book amazed me as to the state of the extant texts of the Bible.Title : The secular Bible : why nonbelievers must take religion seriously
Author : Berlinerblau, Jacques.
Publisher, Date : New York : Cambridge University Press, 2005.
ISBN : 0521853141 (hardback) - Description : xiii, 217 p. ; 24 cm.Berlinerblau works in the original languages. He uses the word accreted for the state of the texts we have received. Marginal notes got moved into the texts rendering them confusing at the least. Things are missing or moved around. Translators smooth over the actual state of the text by making inspired guesses at what was meant.I've returned the book to the library but had a bit back in another thread posted an excerpt or two from it illustrating how some passages are so corrupted that it's impossible to do anything more than guess at what was initially intended.I strongly reccomend this book. Whether you ultimately agree with Berlinerblau or not the guy has done an amazing job of popular scholarship which is to say the book is readable and yet immpeccably sourced.ABE (misclicked and posted too soon): The scribes may have in general obsessively attempted to duplicate the texts but they were human beings and the process went on for hundreds of years. The Bible is an amazing compilation of materials but they have been changed, lost, re arranged, been added to and all sorts of things in the hundreds of years of copying.lfenThis message has been edited by lfen, 05-02-2006 11:57 AM