|
Author
|
Topic: Does Allah = Moon God?
|
Buzsaw
Inactive Member
|
Re: Is there anything left that is on topic?
Arach writes: 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. OK bud, I wasn't going to post a lot of the evidence for space, but since you evidently haven't read the link as I had suggested to all, I see the need to post the major stuff in it as follows. Now please read this carefully and then tell me which of it you think is silly and superficial and document precisely why it's silly and superficial.
historical and archeological evidence writes: What about Arabia? As pointed out by Prof. Coon, "Muslims are notoriously loath to preserve traditions of earlier paganism and like to garble what pre-Islamic history they permit to survive in anachronistic terms." During the nineteenth century, Amaud, Halevy and Glaser went to Southern Arabia and dug up thousands of Sabean, Minaean, and Qatabanian inscriptions which were subsequently translated. In the 1940's, the archeologists G. Caton Thompson and Carleton S. Coon made some amazing discoveries in Arabia. During the 1950's, Wendell Phillips, W.F. Albright, Richard Bower and others excavated sites at Qataban, Timna, and Marib (the ancient capital of Sheba). 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 Allah" have also been discovered. The three daughters, al-Lat, al-Uzza and Manat are sometimes depicted together with Allah the Moon-god represented by a crescent moon above them. The archeological evidence demonstrates that the dominant religion of Arabia was the cult of the Moon-god.In Old Testament times, Nabonidus (555-539 BC), 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." Many scholars have also noticed that the Moon-god's name "Sin" is a part of such Arabic words as "Sinai," the "wilderness of Sin," etc. When the popularity of the Moon-god waned elsewhere, the Arabs remained true to their conviction that the Moon-god was the greatest of all gods. While they worshipped 360 gods at the Kabah in Mecca, the Moon-god was the chief deity. Mecca was in fact built as a shrine for the Moon-god.This is what made it the most sacred site of Arabian paganism. In 1944, G. Caton Thompson revealed in her book, The Tombs and Moon Temple of Hureidha, that she had uncovered a temple of the Moon-god in southern Arabia. The symbols of the crescent moon and no less than twenty-one inscriptions with the name Sin were found in this temple. An idol which may be the Moon-god himself was also discovered. This was later confirmed by other well-known archeologists. The evidence reveals that the temple of the Moon-god was active even in the Christian era. 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. 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. The pagan Arabs even used Allah in the names they gave to their children. For example, both Muhammad's father and uncle had Allah as part of their names.The fact that they were given such names by their pagan parents proves that Allah was the title for the Moon-god even in Muhammad's day. Prof. Coon goes on to say, "Similarly, under Mohammed's tutelage, the relatively anonymous Ilah, became Al-Ilah, The God, or Allah, the Supreme Being." This fact answers the questions, "Why is Allah never defined in the Qur'an? Why did Muhammad assume that the pagan Arabs already knew who Allah was?" Muhammad was raised in the religion of the Moon-god Allah. But he went one step further than his fellow pagan Arabs. While they believed that Allah, i.e. the Moon-god, was the greatest of all gods and the supreme deity in a pantheon of deities, Muhammad decided that Allah was not only the greatest god but the only god.In effect he said, "Look, you already believe that the Moon-god Allah is the greatest of all gods. All I want you to do is to accept that the idea that he is the only god. I am not taking away the Allah you already worship. I am only taking away his wife and his daughters and all the other gods." This is seen from the fact that the first point of the Muslim creed is not, "Allah is great" but "Allah is the greatest," i.e., he is the greatest among the gods. Why would Muhammad say that Allah is the "greatest" except in a polytheistic context? The Arabic word is used to contrast the greater from the lesser. That this is true is seen from the fact that the pagan Arabs never accused Muhammad of preaching a different Allah than the one they already worshipped. This "Allah" was the Moon-god according to the archeological evidence. Muhammad thus attempted to have it both ways. To the pagans, he said that he still believed in the Moon-god Allah. To the Jews and the Christians, he said that Allah was their God too. But both the Jews and the Christians knew better and that is why they rejected his god Allah as a false god. Al-Kindi, one of the early Christian apologists against Islam, pointed out that Islam and its god Allah did not come from the Bible but from the paganism of the Sabeans. They did not worship the God of the Bible but the Moon-god and his daughters al-Uzza, al-Lat and Manat. Dr. Newman concludes his study of the early Christian-Muslim debates by stating, "Islam proved itself to be...a separate and antagonistic religion which had sprung up from idolatry." Islamic scholar Caesar Farah concluded "There is no reason, therefore, to accept the idea that Allah passed to the Muslims from the Christians and Jews." The Arabs worshipped the Moon-god as a supreme deity. But this was not biblical monotheism. While the Moon-god was greater than all other gods and goddesses, this was still a polytheistic pantheon of deities. Now that we have the actual idols of the Moon-god, it is no longer possible to avoid the fact that Allah was a pagan god in pre-Islamic times. Is it any wonder then that the symbol of Islam is the crescent moon? That a crescent moon sits on top of their mosques 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? CONCLUSIONThe pagan Arabs worshipped the Moon-god Allah by praying toward Mecca several times a day; making a pilgrimage to Mecca; running around the temple of the Moon-god called the Kabah; kissing the black stone; killing an animal in sacrifice to the Moon-god; throwing stones at the devil; fasting for the month which begins and ends with the crescent moon; giving alms to the poor, etc.The Muslim's claim that Allah is the God of the Bible and that Islam arose from the religion of the prophets and apostles is refuted by solid, overwhelming archeological evidence. Islam is nothing more than a revival of the ancient Moon-god cult. It has taken the symbols, the rites, the ceremonies, and even the name of its god from the ancient pagan religion of the Moon-god. As such, it is sheer idolatry and must be rejected by all those who follow the Torah and Gospel. Then when you finish refuting all this evidence, you can read the links our new poster furnished on page one. His name ends in 43. I forgot the rest of it. Sorry bout that, Mr/Ms 43, but I don't want to loose this going back to find it. This from the link provided in my OP. This evidence plus the other pertinent info that I posted in my OP. You've got your work cut out to refute this, my friend.
BUZSAW B 4 U 2 Z Y BUZ SAW
|
PaulK
Member Posts: 17827 Joined: 01-10-2003 Member Rating: 2.3
|
|
Message 212 of 300 (308681)
05-03-2006 2:21 AM
|
Reply to: Message 211 by Buzsaw
05-03-2006 1:39 AM
|
|
Re: Is there anything left that is on topic?
You'll notice that the only part with real detail or offering significant evidence is the disucssion of pre-Islamic beliefs - but that's the least important part. It means nothing unless significant connections can be drawn. The examination of Islam itself is extremely superficial, saying very little about Muslim's ideas about Allah. But that is the most important part of the argument. Claiming that Sinai is named after the god, Sin, for instance, is not even relevant. The Quranic ban on worshipping the moon is - yet it is not even discussed. Since there are far deeper conections with the Jewish and Christian God it is very silly to use this argument to try to deny that the God of Islam is that of Judaism and Christianity. To identify the God of Islam with the pre-Islamic moon God you have to set the evidential bar very low. But having done so by the same standard you would have to accept that the Islamic God was also the Jewish and Christian God. The exact opposite of what you want. .1
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 211 by Buzsaw, posted 05-03-2006 1:39 AM | | Buzsaw has replied |
|
arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 1370 days) Posts: 9069 From: god's waiting room Joined: 05-21-2004
|
|
|
Message 213 of 300 (308683)
05-03-2006 2:55 AM
|
Reply to: Message 211 by Buzsaw
05-03-2006 1:39 AM
|
|
Re: Is there anything left that is on topic?
quote:
What about Arabia? As pointed out by Prof. Coon, "Muslims are notoriously loath to preserve traditions of earlier paganism and like to garble what pre-Islamic history they permit to survive in anachronistic terms." During the nineteenth century, Amaud, Halevy and Glaser went to Southern Arabia and dug up thousands of Sabean, Minaean, and Qatabanian inscriptions which were subsequently translated. In the 1940's, the archeologists G. Caton Thompson and Carleton S. Coon made some amazing discoveries in Arabia. During the 1950's, Wendell Phillips, W.F. Albright, Richard Bower and others excavated sites at Qataban, Timna, and Marib (the ancient capital of Sheba). 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 Allah" have also been discovered. The three daughters, al-Lat, al-Uzza and Manat are sometimes depicted together with Allah the Moon-god represented by a crescent moon above them. The archeological evidence demonstrates that the dominant religion of Arabia was the cult of the Moon-god.In Old Testament times, Nabonidus (555-539 BC), 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."
this is intensely similar to ugarit's relationship with israel, only the margin is bigger.
quote:
Many scholars have also noticed that the Moon-god's name "Sin" is a part of such Arabic words as "Sinai," the "wilderness of Sin," etc.
those are hebrew names that appear in the bible, and have different origins. the names of those places in arabic are something else entirely. (check one for "silly and superficial," according to faith's standard)
quote:
The symbols of the crescent moon and no less than twenty-one inscriptions with the name Sin were found in this temple.
the symbols of the crescent moon come to islam by way of the ottoman empire. it was the sumbol of the empire, not the faith. (check two for "silly and superficial")
quote:
The evidence reveals that the temple of the Moon-god was active even in the Christian era
why no mention in the bible? out of curiosity, only.
quote:
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.
has no bearing on muhammed's faith: it does not mean the two are related.
quote:
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.
meaningless. "al-ilah" or rather "allah" is the title of ANY cheif deity in arabic. arab christians call yahweh "allah" and i am sure you do not think that yahweh = allah. (check three)
quote:
As Coon pointed out, "The god Il or Ilah was originally a phase of the Moon God."
inaccurate. as i've pointed out numerous times in this thread, il was the ugaritic god that relates to el (linguistically) in hebrew. il/el means "god." period. it has nothing to do with the moon, rather ANY god was called el-____. i'm sure you've heard the terms el-elyon and el-shadday in hebrew, before. this is a naming convention that is standard to the middle east.
quote:
The Moon-god was called al-ilah, i.e. the god, which was shortened to Allah in pre-Islamic times.
this does not mean that any god called "allah" is the moon god. (check four)
quote:
The pagan Arabs even used Allah in the names they gave to their children. For example, both Muhammad's father and uncle had Allah as part of their names.
yeah?
Gen 5:15 And Mahalaleel lived sixty and five years, and begat Jared: Gen 14:1 And it came to pass in the days of Amraphel king of Shinar... a few "el" names pop up in the bible too, before moses. (heck, one of those is before abram). the word means "god" and it's often included in names. in arabic, and in hebrew. it means nothing. (check four)
quote:
The fact that they were given such names by their pagan parents proves that Allah was the title for the Moon-god even in Muhammad's day.
no, it proves the word was around, which we already knew. it says nothing about WHICH god they called "the god." (check five)
quote:
Prof. Coon goes on to say, "Similarly, under Mohammed's tutelage, the relatively anonymous Ilah, became Al-Ilah, The God, or Allah, the Supreme Being."
contradictory to the above point about when the term "allah" began to be used. and the point about the anonymous "ilah" should be a hint: it doesn't actually mean anything. {check six}
quote:
This fact answers the questions, "Why is Allah never defined in the Qur'an? Why did Muhammad assume that the pagan Arabs already knew who Allah was?"
i cannot make a statement at this time, because i have no read the qu'ran. but it seems a fairly reasonable assumption that EVEN IF the next bit is true, and the arabs already knew allah, there would need to be significant redifining involved. and a certainly, a book all about what god commands, and his revelations tells you something about god. so this point seems silly to me (if not superficial). (check six and a half)
quote:
But he went one step further than his fellow pagan Arabs. While they believed that Allah, i.e. the Moon-god, was the greatest of all gods and the supreme deity in a pantheon of deities, Muhammad decided that Allah was not only the greatest god but the only god.In effect he said, "Look, you already believe that the Moon-god Allah is the greatest of all gods. All I want you to do is to accept that the idea that he is the only god. I am not taking away the Allah you already worship. I am only taking away his wife and his daughters and all the other gods."
conjecture. let's see if it's backed up by evidence. (i'll give that another half point for the silly extended quotation placing words in someone else's mouth, so check seven)
quote:
This is seen from the fact that the first point of the Muslim creed is not, "Allah is great" but "Allah is the greatest," i.e., he is the greatest among the gods. Why would Muhammad say that Allah is the "greatest" except in a polytheistic context?
ah! we have a similar expression in the bible.
Gen 14:19 And he blessed him, and said, Blessed be Abram of the most high God, possessor of heaven and earth: most high over what? does god smoke the best reefer? (ok, i'll give myself a point for that one). clearly, the "greatest god" and "highest god" are very similar references. if it's polytheism in the qu'ran, it's polytheism in the bible. besides which, the muslim faith adamantly denies the existance of any other god at all -- something even faith has not done. (check eight)
quote:
That this is true is seen from the fact that the pagan Arabs never accused Muhammad of preaching a different Allah than the one they already worshipped.
unsupported assertion. it's also hard to prove a negative. sloppy, but not silly.
quote:
Muhammad thus attempted to have it both ways. To the pagans, he said that he still believed in the Moon-god Allah. To the Jews and the Christians, he said that Allah was their God too.
marketting! i love marketting. perhaps you're familiar with a celebration called "easter." it's the most joyous celebration of the resurrection of our lord and saviour jesus christ. what do bunnies and eggs have to do with it? if you guessed "marketting to the pagans" you guessed right! how about christmas, the most joyous celebration of the birth of our lord and saviour jesus christ. ... also happens to fall on a pagan holiday. that bit about decorating a tree, that should be a give away. clearly, our god is neither a tree, nor a rabbit. why do we use these symbols? why did they originally use these symbols? because, you see, the catholic church way back in the day wanted to spread christianity by replacement -- they wanted to overwrite the pagan holidays and traditions, with something remarkably similiar. only with a more "christ-y" tone. if you put a christmas tree, or give your kids easter eggs, then you can not in good conscience fault islam for using pagan imagery to appeal to pagans. (even faith agrees that should go appear to pagans, he'd get his foot in the door using terms and images they could understand) (check nine)
quote:
But both the Jews and the Christians knew better and that is why they rejected his god Allah as a false god.
this is kind of taking on a story-telling tone. did you notice that? they stop talking about archaeology, and language, and evidence, and about belief. and they do so with lots of unsupported assertions!
quote:
Al-Kindi, one of the early Christian apologists against Islam, pointed out that Islam and its god Allah did not come from the Bible but from the paganism of the Sabeans.
one particular interpretations. they fail to provide any quote of his, nor cite any logic or reason behind his (at this point) conjecture. (he may have a point to his argument, but they present it as conjecture)
quote:
They did not worship the God of the Bible but the Moon-god and his daughters al-Uzza, al-Lat and Manat.
when you can't think of anything else to say, just repeat yourself. sign of bad scholarship.
quote:
Dr. Newman concludes his study of the early Christian-Muslim debates by stating, "Islam proved itself to be...a separate and antagonistic religion which had sprung up from idolatry."
quote, but not of pertinent argument. just that someone made the argument. that's no evidence, that's appeal to authority (and/or numbers).
quote:
Islamic scholar Caesar Farah concluded "There is no reason, therefore, to accept the idea that Allah passed to the Muslims from the Christians and Jews."
which, at this point, is inaccurate. farah might have provided reasons in his argument, but the article fails to account for the presence of judeo-christian characters in the qu'ran. by that i mean, jesus, and abraham. besides which, it fails to account for the presence of arabs in the bible -- ishmael is a son of abraham.
quote:
The Arabs worshipped the Moon-god as a supreme deity. But this was not biblical monotheism. While the Moon-god was greater than all other gods and goddesses, this was still a polytheistic pantheon of deities.
in job, god holds council with the lesser divine-entities. he is the highest, and the others are usually interpretted as angels, but the structure is identical. (check ten)
quote:
Now that we have the actual idols of the Moon-god, it is no longer possible to avoid the fact that Allah was a pagan god in pre-Islamic times.
stating the obvious. of course allah was a pagan god. and a jewish god. and a christian god. and the god of anyone that spoke arabic or aramaic. the existance of a god called "god" does not mean it's the same god as another god called "god." it's a rather imprecise title. (check eleven)
quote:
Is it any wonder then that the symbol of Islam is the crescent moon?
it's not. (check twelve)
quote:
That a crescent moon sits on top of their mosques and minarets?
http://users.wsg.net/bedrosian/images/Dome_Rock.JPG (check thirteen)
quote:
That a crescent moon is found on the flags of Islamic nations?
certainly not all of them. the only islamic non-ottoman nation with a crescent that comes to mind is singapore.
quote:
That the Muslims fast during the month which begins and ends with the appearance of the crescent moon in the sky?
everybody uses a near-lunar calendar. everbody. our months just don't line up as nicely with the actual phases of the moon anymore. (check fourteen)
quote:
CONCLUSION
POOR FORM!
quote:
The pagan Arabs worshipped the Moon-god Allah by praying toward Mecca several times a day; making a pilgrimage to Mecca; running around the temple of the Moon-god called the Kabah; kissing the black stone; killing an animal in sacrifice to the Moon-god; throwing stones at the devil; fasting for the month which begins and ends with the crescent moon; giving alms to the poor, etc.
even more poor form! the introduction of new and unsupported information is not part of a conclusion. and since i can point similar conditions within monotheistic judaism, and that christianity openly adopts several pagan traditions, mentioned above... (check fifteen)
quote:
The Muslim's claim that Allah is the God of the Bible and that Islam arose from the religion of the prophets and apostles is refuted by solid, overwhelming archeological evidence.
if it is, than it is certainly not presented in this article! there's a lot of silly "clang" associations as faith called them. there's a lot of unsupported arguments. and there the odd appeal to authority or two. but no realy meaty evidence that actually links allah to sin -- comparisons of qualities and personalities would be a good place to start. correlation among the records of pre-islamic religion, and the qu'ran would be the next step. sin being called "the god" is nice and all, but it doesn't mean anything.
quote:
Islam is nothing more than a revival of the ancient Moon-god cult. It has taken the symbols, the rites, the ceremonies, and even the name of its god from the ancient pagan religion of the Moon-god.
symbols, rites, and ceremonies were addressed above. the name is not a name, and was addressed above. the article has not shown that either of these two things make their case. and so, (check sixteen)
quote:
As such, it is sheer idolatry and must be rejected by all those who follow the Torah and Gospel.
the obvious underlying motivation. (check seventeen). should i bother looking at the other article, or is it more the same conjecture, poor understanding of language, appeals to authority, and bad logic?
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 211 by Buzsaw, posted 05-03-2006 1:39 AM | | Buzsaw has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 227 by Buzsaw, posted 05-03-2006 11:21 PM | | arachnophilia has replied |
|
CanadianSteve
Member (Idle past 6499 days) Posts: 756 From: Calgary, Alberta, Canada Joined: 06-06-2005
|
Re: israel and palestine
I, too, have friends in Israel. They are leftists, even pacifists. For years they chose to believe things like: "Israel denies palestine exists, and certainly does a lot of things to muck them up, often in the name of "defense." (the wall comes to mind)." No longer. After arafat set off a terrorist war in response to an excellent offer of a state (proof that ISrael recognizes that yet another Arab state must be formed), they could no longer deny reality. They could no longer write something like "defense" in quotation marks. Reality struck, and struck hard: over 1,000 Israelis blown up by suicide bombers. Surely you know the wall was built because of this. Surely you know that thousands more would now be dead were it not for the wall. Surely you know that that means defense, period. Surely you know that the more Palestinians maintain hope of destroying Israel, the more they will try. Will the barrier become defacto borders? Yes, but only because Israel realizes that in the absense of any will towards peace on the other side, Israel must "unilaterally disengage." That means no longer waiting for the palestinians to come to the table in all earnestness. It means forcing a state on the plaestinians, no matter how much they do not want one...And make no mistake about it: they do not want a state alongside Israel. They will settle only for one in place of Israel. The barrier means Israel determining the borders of that state unilaterally. Ever read memri? It's an organization that tracks Arab and Palestinian media. Go to their website. It is impossible to read what appears on the front pages of major papers, in major TV programs and in radio, and rationally deny the reality. And, I suggest, in part this is about Islam the faith, which, in turn, is partly related to the fact that their concept of Allah is so different than ours of G-d. Can that gap be bridged? Yes, if democracy comes, for real, to the ME. It will cause a reinterpretation of the faith, even denial of major sections. Fine. Yet the catch 22 is that the faith makes democracy and Islam a tough match. Human nature, however, lends itself to democracy. And thus that will, somehow, ultimately be the outcome, however long it takes.
|
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1470 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: 10-06-2001
|
|
|
Message 215 of 300 (308753)
05-03-2006 11:47 AM
|
Reply to: Message 212 by PaulK
05-03-2006 2:21 AM
|
|
Re: Is there anything left that is on topic?
You'll notice that the only part with real detail or offering significant evidence is the disucssion of pre-Islamic beliefs - but that's the least important part. It means nothing unless significant connections can be drawn. Is it not a significant connection if Mohammed himself had been an Allah worshiper and his new religion elevated his God to equivalence with the Judeo-Christian God? This seems to be the idea. What sort of evidence would convince you that this was in fact the case? clearly it's biographical. Would you accept any biographies of Mohammed as relevant?
The examination of Islam itself is extremely superficial, saying very little about Muslim's ideas about Allah. But that is the most important part of the argument. Hardly. It ought to be clear that Islam now teaches that Allah is eternal and omnipotent and the like, modeled on the Judeo-Christian God, and is substantially changed from whatever pagan idol might have been Mohammed's original inspiration. Mohammed had some knowledge of Both Judaism and Christianity, and made use of it in his role as prophet of Islam, though without understanding much of it, and distorting parts of it to appeal to the ego of Arabs.
Claiming that Sinai is named after the god, Sin, for instance, is not even relevant. The Quranic ban on worshipping the moon is - yet it is not even discussed. There is nothing to discuss. Allah now has characteristics of the Judeo-Christian God which include commands against idolatry.
Since there are far deeper conections with the Jewish and Christian God it is very silly to use this argument to try to deny that the God of Islam is that of Judaism and Christianity. There are connections, in that Mohammed certainly incorporated what he knew of the Jewish and Christian God, but the connections can hardly be called "deep" since Mohammed had a very superficial grasp of the other religions.
To identify the God of Islam with the pre-Islamic moon God you have to set the evidential bar very low. To point out that an original Moon God was the inspiration for Allah is not the same thing as to identify Allah now with that pagan god. Clearly a great transformation was made as Islam developed. The point is to show something of the history of Islam and the differences between Islam and Judaism and Christianity, which are far greater than you want to recognize. This message has been edited by Faith, 05-03-2006 11:48 AM
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 212 by PaulK, posted 05-03-2006 2:21 AM | | PaulK has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 216 by PaulK, posted 05-03-2006 12:09 PM | | Faith has not replied |
|
PaulK
Member Posts: 17827 Joined: 01-10-2003 Member Rating: 2.3
|
|
|
Message 216 of 300 (308762)
05-03-2006 12:09 PM
|
Reply to: Message 215 by Faith
05-03-2006 11:47 AM
|
|
Re: Is there anything left that is on topic?
It really doesn't matter which God Muhammad worshipped before. Conversions can and do happen. Unless the concept of God offered by Islam is very close to that of the original moon God by your own argument they are different. So far as I can tell the Islamic concept of God is much closer to the Jewish concept. SO the obvious evidence would be a direct comparison of the concept of God as propsoed by Modulus in this thread.
quote:
...it ought to be clear that Islam now teaches that Allah is eternal and omnipotent and the like, modeled on the Judeo-Christian God, and is substantially changed from whatever pagan idol might have been Mohammed's original inspiration.
Yet the question is unanswered here. Did Muhammad start with a pagan idol and then modify it, or not ? And even if this was the historical event surely by your won standards such modifications have chhanged the identity of the God involved to the pont where they cannot be considered the same.
quote:
There is nothing to discuss. Allah now has characteristics of the Judeo-Christian God which include commands against idolatry.
The explicit ban on moon--worship is strogn evidence against the idea that Allah is a pagan Moon-God. That is the thesis of the article and so this evidence must be dealt with.
quote:
There are connections, in that Mohammed certainly incorporated what he knew of the Jewish and Christian God, but the connections can hardly be called "deep" since Mohammed had a very superficial grasp of the other religions.
Regardless of your personal opinion, "deeper" is a comparitive term. You need to deal with the comparison if you want to refute the point.
quote:
To point out that an original Moon God was the inspiration for Allah is not the same thing as to identify Allah now with that pagan god.
Which is why attempting to defend that identification by attempting to assert that the pagan moon-god was the "original inspiration" for Islam's God is foolish. Buz's claim - from the OP - has been that very identification. Thus your entire post misses the mark.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 215 by Faith, posted 05-03-2006 11:47 AM | | Faith has not replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 217 by jar, posted 05-03-2006 12:37 PM | | PaulK has not replied |
|
jar
Member (Idle past 420 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: 04-20-2004
|
|
|
Message 217 of 300 (308771)
05-03-2006 12:37 PM
|
Reply to: Message 216 by PaulK
05-03-2006 12:09 PM
|
|
Re: Is there anything left that is on topic?
The explicit ban on moon--worship is strogn evidence against the idea that Allah is a pagan Moon-God. That is the thesis of the article and so this evidence must be dealt with. There is also the fact that the Qur'an states throught the book that Allah is the creator of the sun and the moon.
Your Guardian-Lord is Allah, Who created the heavens and the earth in six days, and is firmly established on the throne (of authority): He draweth the night as a veil o'er the day, each seeking the other in rapid succession: He created the sun, the moon, and the stars, (all) governed by laws under His command. Is it not His to create and to govern? Blessed be Allah, the Cherisher and Sustainer of the worlds! This was pointed out way back in Message 18 of this thread. If Allah is the creator of the universe and also the GOD that spoke to Moshe...
And remember We appointed forty nights for Moses, and in his absence ye took the calf (for worship), and ye did grievous wrong. then Allah is not based on some moon god but rather is the Biblical GOD of Abraham and Isaac.
Were ye witnesses when death appeared before Jacob? Behold, he said to his sons: "What will ye worship after me?" They said: "We shall worship Thy god and the god of thy fathers, of Abraham, Isma'il and Isaac,- the one (True) Allah: To Him we bow (in Islam)." Say ye: "We believe in Allah, and the revelation given to us, and to Abraham, Isma'il, Isaac, Jacob, and the Tribes, and that given to Moses and Jesus, and that given to (all) prophets from their Lord: We make no difference between one and another of them: And we bow to Allah (in Islam)."
Aslan is not a Tame Lion
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 216 by PaulK, posted 05-03-2006 12:09 PM | | PaulK has not replied |
|
Argusx43
Inactive Member
|
|
Message 218 of 300 (308788)
05-03-2006 1:41 PM
|
|
|
Why the moon and star?
Why actually the crescent moon and star. Is this someting that's written in the quoran? I don't know if this is already mentioned here.
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 220 by jar, posted 05-03-2006 2:05 PM | | Argusx43 has not replied | | | Message 221 by Quetzal, posted 05-03-2006 2:49 PM | | Argusx43 has not replied |
|
Modulous
Member Posts: 7801 From: Manchester, UK Joined: 05-01-2005
|
|
|
Message 219 of 300 (308791)
05-03-2006 1:49 PM
|
Reply to: Message 194 by Faith
05-02-2006 2:05 PM
|
|
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. Doesn't it strike you as odd that someone claims to know what was going on inside the mind of a man that lived over a millenium ago when there was no biography of that man until a century after his death?
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. Well that's not how it has come across. There hasn't been much in the way of historical evidence been presented beyond the fact that Allah was how the pagans referred to their chief deity. Over the past few posts a little more has come out, but all I have seen is the opinions and conjecture of a small minority of people.
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 don't get this idea.
So, there was this guy. He heard about Christianity and Judaism and this One God, known as Allah. He liked the idea, and decided to convert the polythiests in the area. To make his job a little easier he decided to add a few concepts from the culture of the area (including the prevailing religion).
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. OK, so your argument is based on the word of some guy, but we don't know what the evidence for it actually is. All we know as that anything that was written about Muhammed was written long after he died and even then was written by Muslims. I don't think any of those writers would say anything like that about Muhammed, so we can assume that wherever this evidence came from it's veracity or relevance is highly suspicious. We'll need something concrete before the argument can go any further, unfortunately. I'm even prepared to accept this if it can be shown to be consensus opinion of relevant scholars.
Yes it would be the same, and thank you for agreeing with me that that's a silly conjecture.
Its not necessarily silly conjecture, I am of the opinion that local culture and religions get co-opted into new things all the time. However, since you consider the prospect that YHWH came from a wind god or somesuch as absurd, we can consider the concept that Allah came from a moon god as equally absurd.
The sacred texts of the Bible were protected by the Jewish scribes with obsessive-compulsive dedication.
Says who? The self-same Jewish scribes? Do we trust someone just because they say we should? Its entirely non-relevant though. It is clear that Islam does not believe that this is the case, and that is all I was saying. Obviously you think Islam is wrong and that the Holy Bible is inerrant, otherwise you'd be a Muslim. I think they are all wrong, hence why I'm neither Jew nor Christian nor Muslim.
Why don't you put half that energy into supporting what I'm saying instead of challenging me? Why do you believe Islam I don't believe Islam for a second, I don't believe in any religion but my own any more than you do.
Why are you protecting this religion that kills people all over the world? I'm not protecting anything or anybody. Islam needs no protection. I am simply discussing history. I can discuss history from the point of view of Jews, Christians, Muslims or totally independent of any of them. People that claimed to be Jews, Christians and Muslims have been killing people for many many centuries and I have suitable contempt for them all equally as a result. I dislike when any religious person uses their religion to push an agenda, whether that agenda be altering the education system, the governmental system or to push an agenda to discredit or smear another religion.
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. I fight all forms of fundamentalism equally. I consider them all tyrannical ideologies and killers. I consider them all persecutors of their relative infidels. I welcome moderate believers of any religion. I find them fascinating people to talk to. Right now opposite me sits a devoted and traditional Muslim, but he is also not fundamentalist and I have many fascinating discussions with him about his beliefs and my own beliefs and the common ground we share.
. I have to assume you know not what you do. I hope now you know exactly what I do.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 194 by Faith, posted 05-02-2006 2:05 PM | | Faith has not replied |
|
jar
Member (Idle past 420 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: 04-20-2004
|
|
|
Message 220 of 300 (308793)
05-03-2006 2:05 PM
|
Reply to: Message 218 by Argusx43
05-03-2006 1:41 PM
|
|
Re: Why the moon and star?
The Crescent Moon and Stars was actually adopted as a general symbol by the Ottoman Empire sometime around the mid 1400s AD. During the time of Mohommad the only symbols used were solid colored flags, most often black, green or white with no symbol or decoration on them. Regardles, as shown originally in Message 18 and repeated throughout this thread, most recently in Message 217, the Qur'an says that Allah created the heavens and the earth, which of course includes the sun, moon and stars.
Aslan is not a Tame Lion
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 218 by Argusx43, posted 05-03-2006 1:41 PM | | Argusx43 has not replied |
|
Quetzal
Member (Idle past 5898 days) Posts: 3228 Joined: 01-09-2002
|
|
|
Message 221 of 300 (308803)
05-03-2006 2:49 PM
|
Reply to: Message 218 by Argusx43
05-03-2006 1:41 PM
|
|
Re: Why the moon and star?
There is a fair amount of conjecture on the actual origin of the symbols. What is clear is that the Islamic armies didn't adopt the crescent until after the fall of Constantinople to the Turkish general Osman in 1453. Apparently Byzantium had the symbol since before the Christian era, so it waaaay pre-dates Islam and Mohammed. Most authors agree that Othman adopted the crescent banner as a symbol of good luck. Up until that point, Islamic armies used a solid color (red, white or black) banner to id themselves. The Prophet is said to have used a black banner during his conquest of the Arabian Penninsula. Where the star came from is unclear, and all the explanations I've read for it are unsatisfying. In any event, the Turks were the ones that first incorporated it. Try this one on for size: the good Christian King Richard I of England used as his symbol (drum roll please), a star and crescent banner. Oops - damn them polytheistic moon-worshipping Chrstian Brits...  ABE: Not all Islamic states and groups use the star and crescent. The Shia used a scimitar - the sword of Ali - as their symbol. This message has been edited by Quetzal, 05-03-2006 03:02 PM
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 218 by Argusx43, posted 05-03-2006 1:41 PM | | Argusx43 has not replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 224 by jar, posted 05-03-2006 4:51 PM | | Quetzal has replied |
|
SuperNintendo Chalmers
Member (Idle past 5860 days) Posts: 772 From: Bartlett, IL, USA Joined: 12-27-2005
|
|
|
Message 222 of 300 (308830)
05-03-2006 4:35 PM
|
|
|
Very important Point
I know for a fact that Allah is not the moon god. . . . . Because, I AM THE MOON GOD.... and don't you forget it
|
Modulous
Member Posts: 7801 From: Manchester, UK Joined: 05-01-2005
|
|
|
Message 223 of 300 (308835)
05-03-2006 4:50 PM
|
Reply to: Message 211 by Buzsaw
05-03-2006 1:39 AM
|
|
Doubting the credibility of your source.
I have actually discredited the source you site already ( Message 86). The scholarship of it has been called into question, since if they get such straightforward things wrong, how can it be trusted to get anything else right? I'll reproduce the post here (with a couple of edits), for your benefit:
"Why is Allah never defined in the Qur'an? The Qu'ran says
quote:
[35.1] All praise is due to Allah, the Originator of the heavens and the earth, the Maker of the angels, messengers flying on wings, two, and three, and four; He increases in creation what He pleases; surely Allah has power over all things.
Allah is defined, he is the God of Ibrahim, the same God as the God of the Jews and Christians. It says it right in the text, so Morey is wrong. He is either lying about having read and understand the Qu'ran, or he is lying about what it says.
morey writes: This is seen from the fact that the first point of the Muslim creed is not, "Allah is great" but "Allah is the greatest," i.e., he is the greatest among the gods. Why would Muhammad say that Allah is the "greatest" except in a polytheistic context? The Arabic word is used to contrast the greater from the lesser. Even a casual observer knows this is wrong, so its clear Morey must be misrepresenting Islam here.
quote:
We believe in Allah's Godship; that is, He is the True God and every other deity is false.
...
We believe that He is "Allah there is no God but He...
And of course, who could be ignorant of "There is no god but Allah," (Tawheed)? What Morey is referring to here is the phrase Allahu-Akbar. This is a shortened version of the phrase: Allahu Akbar min kulli shay which means God is greater than everything.. In its shortened version it becomes the superlative, greatest. That doesn't imply other gods, it implies he is more than just 'great' he is the greatest great. It can also be translated as supreme.
With such misunderstandings of even the most elemental facets of Islam, can we expect your source to be accurate in the more advanced topics it proposes to address?
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 211 by Buzsaw, posted 05-03-2006 1:39 AM | | Buzsaw has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 230 by Buzsaw, posted 05-03-2006 11:42 PM | | Modulous has replied |
|
jar
Member (Idle past 420 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: 04-20-2004
|
|
|
Message 224 of 300 (308837)
05-03-2006 4:51 PM
|
Reply to: Message 221 by Quetzal
05-03-2006 2:49 PM
|
|
Re: Why the moon and star?
ABE: Not all Islamic states and groups use the star and crescent. The Shia used a scimitar - the sword of Ali - as their symbol. Interesting that you would bring up the sword of Allah. If you noted, in honor of our recent spate of Islam bashing threads I resurected one of my old Avatars.
Try this one on for size: the good Christian King Richard I of England used as his symbol (drum roll please), a star and crescent banner. Oops - damn them polytheistic moon-worshipping Chrstian Brits... The significance of the avatar and your quote above is that the avatar is the insignia (drum roll please) of the polytheistic Sword of Islam and Star worshipping US Army Persian Gulf Command during WWII. This message has been edited by jar, 05-03-2006 04:33 PM
Aslan is not a Tame Lion
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 221 by Quetzal, posted 05-03-2006 2:49 PM | | Quetzal has replied |
|
Quetzal
Member (Idle past 5898 days) Posts: 3228 Joined: 01-09-2002
|
|
|
Message 225 of 300 (308844)
05-03-2006 5:29 PM
|
Reply to: Message 224 by jar
05-03-2006 4:51 PM
|
|
Re: Why the moon and star?
Hee hee. Thanks Jar. I've been dying to ask you what the patch was - I figured it was either US or Brit. I just wouldn't give you the satisfaction.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 224 by jar, posted 05-03-2006 4:51 PM | | jar has not replied |
|
™ Version 4.2