Allah = Hubal = Baal?

in Jakko's post he/she says something like (I didn't want to quote the whole giant post): 'show me where in the bible it says that Jesus sinned'

he/she then goes on to berate someone for not having an open mind - huh?

you think that the Christian/Constantine/Council of Nicea/Ignacious/KJV bible is going to list the sins of Jesus? if you do, then it's not religion with which you are having a hard time - it's politics.

Al Davison,

When someone makes claims of Jesus not being sinless I just wonder where they got that from, what they are basing that on.
Not having an open mind has nothing to do with wanting to know what someone is basing such bold claims on.
You make no sense.

Originally posted by paperclip

Originally posted by jake1997
actually...its because it looks like a duck, sounds like a duck, and acts like a duck...

Bible's Yahweh: creates first humans, they are called Adam and Eve.
Qur'an's Allah: creates first humans called Adam and Eve.

Bible's Yahweh gets angry at Sodom and Gomorah, kills them all.
Quran's Allah gets angry at Sodom and Gomorah, kills them all.

Bible's Yahweh decides to save Noah and his family from the flood, tells him to build a boat and save a bunch of plants and animals too.
Quran's Allah decides to save Noah and his family from the flood, tells him to build a boat and save a bunch of plants and animals too.

etc, etc, etc.

Same stories, same names.

If it looks like a duck and quacks like a duck....

Ohhhh

I thought the bible was about Jesus....that he was perfect...sinless...the only Son of the Living God.

What does the quran say about that?

Originally posted by Jakko
Al Davison,

When someone makes claims of Jesus not being sinless I just wonder where they got that from, what they are basing that on.
Not having an open mind has nothing to do with wanting to know what someone is basing such bold claims on.
You make no sense.

I'm sorry that didn't make sense. Let me try again.
My point was that your challenge to produce sources specifically referred to (and by extension, limited the source to) the bible. The inference is pretty clear: you would accept no other source as a reference. Did I misunderstand you? If so, I apologize.

My secondary point was to suggest that the bible (particularly in the current versions) has been so greatly influenced by political forces over the last 1,600+ years that it is unlikely to contain a reference such as you challenged the participant to produce. While I consider it likely that it probably never contained such a reference to begin with, even if it had, it would have most likely been edited to remove any such reference.

There are many other sources than simply the bible and I find it disingeniuous to make any such challenge of reference to artificially limit it to a single source.

Is that more clear?

------------ sidebar / sidetrack --------------
if you study all the history of religion you can possibly find, you see a general pattern: religion influences politics; politics influences religion
for me, it helps to envision this as more of a spiral than a line; I used to think it was cyclical but I don't any more because there is always the influence of what happened previously on the current. State mandated religions (like you find as far back as ancient Egypt) grew to the point where the religion overwhelmed the state and then the state reformed (and re-formed) the religion (i.e. Constantine) to strengthen the influence of the state which then sponsored (if not mandated) the "new" religion which grew, again, stronger than the state and thus shaped the state and so on, and so on...right up to today in virtually every part of the world. Fascinating stuff, really! You just can't ever truly separate the two though I do applaud the "experimental government" of the USA in trying to keep a balance. It isn't working and probably won't ever really work but, it's an interesting experiment.

[edit on 21-5-2005 by Al Davison]

Since (according to Jakko), the Allah=Hubal=Baal bit of this thread has been refuted, I don't think anyone will mind it being hijacked for this purpose:
Jakko, just some questions:

If someone had crucified a newborn baby, would that have gotten rid of the "Original Sin"?
If someone got a....lets say 8 year old, who agreed to be crucified, would that have gotten rid of the "Original Sin"?

Whether or not Jesus was Son of God, he was also Son of Man. He inherited (according to the Bible now) the attributes of BOTH man and God. He was born of Mary. Mary would have been sinful because of the original sin (and perhaps some other sin?). So Jesus would have inherited this sin. No?

You asked where it said Jesus sinned. Now, you yourself said "People in all places, in all situations and with all backgrounds seem to make harsh mistakes in their lives, regardless of wether they regret them or not (they usually do)". I'll leave this definition, because a mistake is not really equal to a sin. If I give you wrong directions unknowingly, that is a mistake, but not a sin. OK, so....lets take an example from the Bible- Jesus whipping the money people out of the Church. Was that a sin? One of those people would go home that day without money, and his family would go hungry for a day. Does that make it a sin? If I eat salty food infront of a person who can't eat salt, is that sinful? If I say something derogatory about the new Star Wars movie, and a Star wars fanatic is hurt by that, is that sinful?
How far exactly does a sin go? If my greatgrandfather played around with a whore, and I came as a result of that, does it reflect anything on me? Does it make me sinful? Ok, if my great-great-great-ancestor ate a fruit from a tree, and got sent out of heaven. Does that make me sinful?

Last question: I believe the concept of humans being inherently corrupt is ridiculuous as well. You don't seem to think so. Just because someone may do something wrong once they are fully aware that they are doing it, that doesn't mean they were corrupt from the start, does it? Is a newborn baby inherently corrupt? Ok, someone just turned to an adult (at the age of 12 according to the Bible), are they inherently corrupt?

[edit on 22-5-2005 by babloyi]

Wow - talk about a biased topic!

Those BAD Muslims - who used to be pagans and whose religion MAY contain elements of a prior pantheon.

But what about the BAD christians, whose religion is filled with just as many (and probably more) pagan references - not to mention VIOLATING the first commandment (Christ was deified in ROMAN fashion, remember?)

and what about those BAD Jews, who at one time had SEVERAL gods (Baal, Jehovah, and Elohim are just a few who were worshiped, both separately and as as different aspects of the same god), and whose religion stems from a plethora of earlier pantheons.....

Don't point out the mote in your brother's eyes without regard to the beam in your own.

But what about the BAD christians, whose religion is filled with just as many (and probably more) pagan references - not to mention VIOLATING the first commandment (Christ was deified in ROMAN fashion, remember?)

There you go confusing roman catholic doctrine with biblical doctrine.

Confused?

No, I don't think I differentiated between the two.

But you are right - there is a difference between the two doctrines.

Now were were you during the great schism? You could've cleared up the whole mess.

LOL

Well, it seems that the reason there was a schism is because someone tried to clear up the mess.

On a serious note
Thank you for recognizing there is a difference. Since I've been here, I have noticed that people do not only "NOT see it", but even if shown, they 'refuse' to acknowledge it in order that they may continue to attribute the history of one, to the other.

Originally posted by babloyi

If someone had crucified a newborn baby, would that have gotten rid of the "Original Sin"?

No I do not think so.
It wouldn't have been the choice of the baby, neither would the baby have had the chance to prove wether that baby is sinfull or not.
A human that faced many temptations but still didn't sin that willingly choses to go on the cross is really a different situation.

Whether or not Jesus was Son of God, he was also Son of Man. He inherited (according to the Bible now) the attributes of BOTH man and God. He was born of Mary. Mary would have been sinful because of the original sin (and perhaps some other sin?). So Jesus would have inherited this sin. No?

You don't inherit sin, sin is a choice, a willing decision to go wrong.
I know there are bad sins and "less bad" sins, but being born to a sinfull woman does not automaticly make you bad as well.

You asked where it said Jesus sinned. Now, you yourself said "People in all places, in all situations and with all backgrounds seem to make harsh mistakes in their lives, regardless of wether they regret them or not (they usually do)". I'll leave this definition, because a mistake is not really equal to a sin. If I give you wrong directions unknowingly, that is a mistake, but not a sin.

The defenition of sin is a hard one, and I understand that mistakes do not equal sin.

OK, so....lets take an example from the Bible- Jesus whipping the money people out of the Church. Was that a sin? One of those people would go home that day without money, and his family would go hungry for a day. Does that make it a sin?

Why would it? If those money vendors were willingly engaging in shady money business in Gods house, making them leave is not a sin at all, not even if their families are hungry as a result.

If I eat salty food infront of a person who can't eat salt, is that sinful? If I say something derogatory about the new Star Wars movie, and a Star wars fanatic is hurt by that, is that sinful?

The rules of christianity come down to these 3 rules.
Do not damage yourself.
Do not damage someone else.
Do not damage God.

How far exactly does a sin go? If my greatgrandfather played around with a whore, and I came as a result of that, does it reflect anything on me? Does it make me sinful?

No, that was your grandfathers responsability and has nothing to do with you.

Ok, if my great-great-great-ancestor ate a fruit from a tree, and got sent out of heaven. Does that make me sinful?

Not in a direct way, but in an indirect way, do you know for sure you wouldn't have made that choice if you would have been in that situation?
The eating fruit from a tree example is often taken literally, but what if it is ment in general, speaking about the general nature of human beings?
The choice you would have to ask is "am I not just like that?".
Can I condemn those sins while I know I could have sinned such sins just as much?

Last question: I believe the concept of humans being inherently corrupt is ridiculuous as well. You don't seem to think so. Just because someone may do something wrong once they are fully aware that they are doing it, that doesn't mean they were corrupt from the start, does it?

Corrupt is a big word to use in this context, I understand that.
Of course there are a million levels of corrupt and if we call someone corrupt is usually means something pretty bad.
In general what I mean is that humans in general are not flawless. We can try to be, but I have yet to meet the first human being who does not want to admit he "sinned" in one way or another. (atheists may not call it a sin, but a mistake or a fault)

Is a newborn baby inherently corrupt? Ok, someone just turned to an adult (at the age of 12 according to the Bible), are they inherently corrupt?

[edit on 22-5-2005 by babloyi]

You can not apply such absolute reasoning to a non-absolute proces and concept. A newborn baby is still innocent, allthough it's allready clear that in a later stage that baby will still do things wrong.
Most children do things wrong before the age of 12, but because mistakes and learning from them are part of growing up, these mistakes are usually not seen as "sins", unless it is really bad.

Originally posted by jake1997
actually...its because it looks like a duck, sounds like a duck, and acts like a duck...

What, precisely, does allah do that looks, sounds, or acts like hubal, or even baal????

Jesus looks, sounds, and acts like the various Mystery Cult heros of the same time that jesus was around, but that hardly means that jesus was the fictional character that Adonis or Osiris or Dionysus was. Jesus is pacifistic like Buddha, but that hardly means that the jesus movement was a branch of hinduism.

And, again, to all, this is a thread about the allah hubal connection. I bring up this bit about jesus, becuase, so far, all that has been presented to equate allah with hubal is that the turk flag has a crescent moon, and that the meccan pagans used to worhsip hubal represented by the moon. If that tiny, rather meaningless, bit of evidence equates allah with hubal, then the other evidence equates jesus with these mystery cults, infact, there is far more evidence to do that than to equate allah with hubal. Now, one can say 'I have faith in jesus, therefore, he can't be like these mystery cults'. Fair enough, but lets at least then say that the allah hubal connection is irrational and that its only supported solely out of faith in jesus and faith against allah.

Nygdan,

To be fair

1.) They have the crescent moon. (if it was turkish then it wouldnt be in mecca)

2.) They have the same place of worship

3.) They have the same object at that place (the big black rock)

4.) They have the same religious holidays including ramadan

5.) They have the same rituals of worship at mecca and thru the rest of the year

6.) (If shia is considered islam proper then we can add a few that they have)

All of those things muslims do in by the word of muhammed, to honor allah by keeping the word of their holy book

#############


Now if you want to say the same about christianity, make sure you distinguish between the catholic and christian because catholics do not keep the word of the holy book and have added to it or taken away at their various councils. Im sure you know the history of the rcc as well as anyone needs to , to know what Im talking about.

Originally posted by jake1997
1.) They have the crescent moon. (if it was turkish then it wouldnt be in mecca)

The moon is not worshiped. It is STRICTLY FORBIDDEN to worship anything but God. There is no moon worship in any form in Islam. There is archeological evidence of past pagan worship, but that worship was substituted with new one when Mohammad came along.

2.) They have the same place of worship

That USED to be the place where pagan Gods were worshipped. Key word is "used" to be. It is NOT anymore. No pagan Gods are worshipped there. The same can be said about virtually any place on Earth. At some point in the past a pagan deity was worshipped there, and then later substituted with another deity.

3.) They have the same object at that place (the big black rock)

The rock is not worshipped, it is just a focus point, a symbolic thing.

4.) They have the same religious holidays including ramadan

Wrong. Holidays Muslims celebrate have everything to do with God and Mohammad, rituals are described in Qur'an, and have nothing to do with previous ones. Ramadan is a MONTH in a 12-month calendar. It equals the term "january, february, march" in christian calendar. It is a name of a month and it had no significance before Mohammad received the first revelation from God. It is at THAT VERY POINT IN TIME that the simple month of Ramadan became significant. I already pointed that out.

5.) They have the same rituals of worship at mecca and thru the rest of the year

Again, not true. The rituals of pagan gods worship consisted of bringing gifts to god statues, just like any other pagan worship. That doesn't exist anymore at Mecca. There are NO STATUES of gods there anymore. Mohammad destroyed them all and, as stated numerous times in this thread, told arabs to worship the God that is ALREADY worshipped by Jews and Christians.

There are no rituals in islam that include moon pictures, moon statues, moon models or whatever in any way. There is nothing about Islam that indicates Hubal worship, but there is A LOT, a WHOLE LOT that indicates the worship of Yahweh, the God of Old Testament. All religious scholars agree on that one.

Originally posted by jake1997
1.) They have the crescent moon. (if it was turkish then it wouldnt be in mecca)

As pointed out, however, those meccan moons are archaeological artefacts from the pagan era.

2.) They have the same place of worship

I don't see how that is relevant. Christians revere jerusalem and the places in it, but are not jews. Catholics have their administrative offices in Rome, but don't worship Jupiter. Greek Orthodox similarly have their holy cities as cities that were once the center of pagan worship.

3.) They have the same object at that place (the big black rock)

However this rock is understood to have come from allah, specifically not hubal. And in precisely the same way, many christians have churches built on what used to be old paganistic sanctuaries, but don't worship those old pagan gods.

4.) They have the same religious holidays including ramadan

Have we established that here? I may've missed it, apologies if I have. However, christians celebrate easter, but don't worship Ishtar. They do Lent, but aren't hebrews. They have christmas, but aren't worshiping the spirit of the great gift giving deity.

5.) They have the same rituals of worship at mecca and thru the rest of the year

Such as what? Circumambulation? Agian, what does that matter? They've kept their old ways of doing things.

6.) (If shia is considered islam proper then we can add a few that they have)

Indeed, such as the mortification of the flesh and flagellation. Lots of christians do this too, but they still worship jesus as the son of god and personal saviour.

Now if you want to say the same about christianity, make sure you distinguish between the catholic and christian because catholics do not keep the word of the holy book

Catholics are not biblical literalists, true enough. However, catholics are clearly christians. The only god they worship is the holy trinity, Jesus as son of god and saviour.

and have added to it or taken away at their various councils.

Those councils however were not exclusively catholics, they were made up of the early christian community, the pre-catholic/pre-schismatic christians.

Im sure you know the history of the rcc as well as anyone needs to , to know what Im talking about.

Indeed, I know that the only reason there is anything like christianity is because of the Roman Catholic and Greek Orthodox churches, who spread the faith, preserved it against heresey and theologised on it. They are also the only reason that there is anything like a bible, for they are the ones who determined which of the 'books' were frauds and which were 'true', and they were the ones (they beeing the RCC and GOC) who copied the bible thru the millenia of the dark ages.

No catholicism, and practically everyone posting here is going to still be worshipping mithras, Jupiter Optimus Maximus, the Sun, and Odin.

Just as catholicism has introduced stuff you won't find in the bible, (indeed, why shouldn't it), muslims do stuff that isn't necessarily in the Koran. Nevertheless, the faithful beleive in the One True God, the Creator of the Universe, the God who spoke to Abraham. We know this, because this is precisley what they say.

I can understand if the arguement was that they used to worship hubal, and then hubal worhsip transmorgrified into Allah worship. In such a case, the usage of the moon as a turk flag, the kabba, mecca, circumambulation, etc, would be explained as being mysterious hold overs. However, the evidence contradicts this idea, the evidence clearly shows that when Mo was evangelizing, he was saying "Hubal is not a god, he is fake, as are the other pagan gods. Worship the Lord in Heaven, worship the Supreme Creator. Look here, The Lord spoke to abraham, and gave the hebrews monotheism. God has spoken to me, and demanded that we worship Him and Only Him, not hubal or others'. And then, when he brought this message, the Meccans and Medinans didn't say 'Allah? Thats dumb, lets just keep worshipping Hubal" or anything like that.

You, however,at times appear to be saying something different, that everything happened similar to what history says, except that the voice Mo heard was Baal, Hubal, or rather Satan or a Demon, pretending to be "the Sole God, the Creator of the Universe", and that Mo unknowningly spread this 'false worship'. But this is a purely faith derived matter, supported by your faith that Jesus is Saviour, and that anyone after jesus claiming to have talked to God is wrong, because god wants everyone to be Jesus worshipping christians.

Originally posted by Nygdan

Originally posted by jake1997
1.) They have the crescent moon. (if it was turkish then it wouldnt be in mecca)

As pointed out, however, those meccan moons are archaeological artefacts from the pagan era.

Lets stop on this first one and check the information.
Last time I left a link to alot of information. It seems you didnt bother to check it out, or else you forgot about it.

here are two of those




doormann.tripod.com...

Its too large to insert.

The moongod image is at mecca today because muslims put it there.

Originally posted by Jakko
Allright somewhere, here we go...Allright somewhere, here we go...

I hope.

First of all calling the concept of humans being corrupt a ridiculous notion makes me wonder wether you have ever watched a news bulletin.

This relates to Biblical text how exactly, Jakko?

People in all places, in all situations and with all backgrounds seem to make harsh mistakes in their lives, regardless of wether they regret them or not (they usually do).

Very good then, so it has nothing to do with original sin, is where I see you going. This then leads me back to my initial questions in this thread and others posted elsewhere: Why is baptism practiced? Why are Christians constantly told they inherited sin from Adam when they are also told Jesus died to absolve same? Welcome to my world, Jakko, for you do do not know it, but in your haste to discount anything I write, you in fact are discounting one of the two basic requirements for belief in Christianity.

Now with the above quote you attempt to explain why Jesus being sinless makes no sense next to the claim of the flesh being corrupted. With this statement you automaticly assume that jesus was just that; a human.

And he was. The earliest fragments we have at our disposal, have him claiming to be the son of man and not the son of God which it was later changed to. I leave it to you to educate yourself in that regard. Aside from which, if he was the son of God, then your God’s omnipotence is severely stunted if he had to use a human woman born of “original sin” herself to birth your saviour. Remember, this was the God who fashioned man from the ground. If he truly wanted to prove himself, he certainly did not need to choose a 12-14 year old child to impregnate.

That your flawed logic makes you come to flawed conclusions is logical, but to a lot of people in this world, Jesus was sinless because of that one huge difference between Jesus and humans, Jesus was God in human-form.

Shame on you for your childlike reflex to my queries. To most people in this world, Jesus was at best either just another or nobody at all. Now if your contention is that he was sinless, you have provided nothing to counter his birth from flesh which by Christian doctrine dictates that all humans are born with original sin. Humans are made of flesh and blood, they live and die, and your Jesus was flesh: he bled: he lived: he died.

He is Jesus because he IS that exception.

He was a an insurgent; a terrorist; a seditionist; a man, like you, except he was deluded.

You can not say He was a sinner unless you can actually point out a point in the bible where he sinned.

Your honour, I offer as my testimony the fact that this man not only instructed his people to deny that he was Jesus, which if he was, he encouraged them to lie, but also that he on more than one occasion ran and hid in fear and could not directly answer the question put to him by Pilate. Your honour, either God is playing games with us mere mortals instructing us to be deceitful, or this man was a fake.

You have no idea what the word law means in this context.

Grasping at straws aren’t you? The law was Pontius Pilate, on behalf of Caesar. Need I say more?

This time you (willingly?) misunderstand the word family. Family means (in this case) christians.

Only to Christians does it mean such. Of course without this perverse belief you have nothing. The man was a Jew. Christians are not Jews, and they will never be Jews, no matter how hard you or any other tries to pervert that definition.

The problem here is that you do not WANT to see why Jesus may have actually been the Messiah after all.

Another infantile statement, Jakko. The only response to same is to say it is you who wishes not to see.

Your ignorant rethorical questions that you allready know the answer to are not the best way to discus and to learn from eachother, but whatever floats your boat I guess.

Was that a temper tantrum? Reflect on your own ignorance, and when you actually have a plausible and considered rebuttal to my statements other than your myopic and vacuous responses, let me know, I will engage you again. When I read such tripe, I well know you battle only to protect whatever self-respect you have left, and so it is here that I stop reading your inane post, lest I resort to treating you like the two-year old you portray yourself to be. My hope surely did not last past the last time I typed the word itself.




[edit on 5/23/05 by SomewhereinBetween]

Originally posted by jake1997

But what about the BAD christians, whose religion is filled with just as many (and probably more) pagan references - not to mention VIOLATING the first commandment (Christ was deified in ROMAN fashion, remember?)

There you go confusing roman catholic doctrine with biblical doctrine.

Thats right because everyone knows "christians" use a different bible then catholics do.

The fact still remains that your christian religion is based on catholic influence. Unless somehow the doctrine you follow was passed down to you in secret from precatholic days (basically right after christ died). If you read from the same book as the catholics then you follow the same religion with the same pagan influences.

Originally posted by jake1997
1.) They have the crescent moon. (if it was turkish then it wouldnt be in mecca)

I dont know if you realize this but the turks ran Mecca for over six hundred years I think thats more than enough time for the turks to leave a lasting impression on the region dont you?


[edit on 23-5-2005 by boogyman]

jake1997, are you deliberately ignoring what is posted in this thread?

Let me say it again in case you forgot.

The actual moongod of pagan arabs was Sin, his title, the title "deity", was al-ilah. There was a temple in South Arabia devoted to him. Different languages have different words for "god". "God" is an english word, "Gott" is a german word. The english word "god" is also used in connection with Zeus, the greek god, Ra the egyptian god. Does that make christians worshipers of Zeus or Ra? I don't think so.

Since all false gods were destroyed, al-illah, Allah, the word simply meaning "Deity, God", became a synonym for the one true God. There is no need to give him a name, since there is only one.

Anyways, Hubal was a completely different al-illah, deity. His worship got mixed with worship traditions of several other Gods predating him and worship traditions from other parts of Arabia. His statue was right on top of Kaba. It was a statue of man who was missing a hand. Connected with the worship of Hubal were seven arrows that were thrown around to tell the fortune or something like that. It was also customary to offer camels as a gift to god. There are no such ritual today in Islam.
The statue of Hubal was destroyed along with all others that were in Kaba.
Mohammad destroyed them. He told people "this is a false god, stop worshipping him".

So, what you are saying is that Mohammad decided to worship Hubal, but told people to worship a different entity, completely destroy everything about Hubal in Kaba and abolish the rituals connected with Hubal worship. What kind of sense does that make ?? What kind of God tells people NOT to worship him, but to worship somebody else??

In the Qur'an, holy book of Muslims and the authority on how Muslims worship, God tells the following:

"[41:37] Among His proofs are the night and the day, and the sun and the moon. Do not prostrate before the sun, nor the moon; you shall fall prostrate before the GOD who created them, if you truly worship Him alone."

So, the moon god says "do not worship the moon"?? And that makes sense to you??

It is clear with this verse that moon worship is NOT allowed, instead people are to worship the God who created sun and moon, Yahweh according to Bible, Allah (The God) according to Islam. There is no Hubal there. There is no mention of moon rituals or moon worshipping anywhere in the Qur'an.
If there is no such things in Qur'an how can you say muslims worship Hubal?
They clearly worship another Deity.
If anything, Islam is a total rip-off of jewish faith, ten commandments, kosher food, circumcision, strict monotheism, same prophets, same stories.

Again, nothing in Qur'an points to moon god, everything points to Yahweh worship.

paperclip,

Thank you.

You have just put the "!" on my first explanation of how it all started. Mo hijacked the moongod cult for his own cult that was based on the judeo-christian model he picked up in his dealings with the same.

boogyman
catechism

Jake, you are not listening again.

Mohammad did not hijack the moon god cult. He DESTROYED the polytheistic worship of Saudi Arabia. Moon god was just ONE OF MANY gods of Kaba. That worship was DESTROYED and substituted with the worship of Allah/Yahweh.
Islam is a continuation of already existant worship of true God, the same God worshipped by jews and christians.

When Islam started Mohammad told followers to TURN AWAY from Kaba and face Jerusalem when praying. The reason was that holy places of the God that substituted polytheistic worship already existed in Jerusalem, namely Yahweh. He told them to turn away from moon gods, war gods, fertility gods, gods of luck, gods of fortune, tribal protector gods, etc,etc.

Your statement that Allah is moon god has no factual basis, neither in historical documents, which clearly differentiate between Sin, Hubal, other gods and Allah "THE Deity" even before Mohammad appeared, nor in islamic holy books, which contain no mention whatsover of moon god or any kind of moon worshipping or moon rituals. In fact, they strictly forbid that.

I think that this whole "Allah is moon god" theory started with a guy named Moore or More or Morey, I am not sure anymore. He misquoted historical documents, other books on this subject, the Qur'an.
His theory has been widely discredited, but nothing ever dies on the internet.
The number of pages on this subject, all copy/paste of other already existing pages, grows exponentialy, but that doesn't make it true.

There are tens of thousands of pages with "evidence" that the Earth is flat. That doesn't make it so.

Now, based on the interpretations of your religious denomination, you do not believe that your God also spoke to Mohammad and sent him a holy book, so you consider Islam to be a pagan belief. That is simply a matter of PERSONAL BELIEF.
Muslims on the other hand believe that the same God who was already worshipped by jews and christians, sent a holy book to Mohammad so that they too can worship the true God. Again, a matter of belief.

So, you keep on believing what you will, and I'll stick to my belief.