Robert Morey... originator of the moon-god theory.

1. Robert Morey - the man behind the moon-god theory
An oft repeated canard among Christian fundamentalists is that Islam is basically the worship of an obscure Arabian moon god. Another variant of the claim is that Islam worships a god named "Hubal". Christian fundamentalists will make these claims at any given opportunity. However, what they don't realize is that they are parroting the fabrication of a charlatan called Robert Morey, who also happens to be preacher and a writer. Though most people may not have heard of Robert Morey himself, his ideas have been extremely influential in Christian circles.

Although theories about the God of the muslims and Hubal / moon god were originally speculated by a German archaeologist named Hugo Winckler in the early 20th century, it was only in an academic context and the theory has been dismissed by recent scholars.

However, the moon-god ideas became popularized in Christian circles through the works of Robert Morey, who seems to be obsessed with spreading lies and fabrication about Islam through his books. He first wrote about it in his 1994 book Moon-god Allah in the Archeology of the Middle East .

Islam’s origins have been traced back by scholars to the ancient fertility religion of the worship of the moon god which was always the dominant religion of Arabia. The moon god was worshipped by praying toward Mecca several times a day, making an annual pilgrimage to the Kabah which was a temple of the moon god, running around the Kabah seven times, caressing an idol of a black stone set in the wall of the Kabah, running between two hills, making animal sacrifices, gathering on Fridays for prayers, giving alms to the poor, etc.. These were pagan rites practised by the Arabs long before Muhammad was born.

Either this guy has a time-machine or he is just good at fabricating "facts" about ancient pagan Arab practices.


2. Robert Moreys fake academic qualifications
Morey is more than just an inventor of stories and fabricator.
He also happens to be a proven fraudster, making bogus claims of academic qualifications, that too specializing in Islam.

He claims that he holds an honorary doctor of divinity (D.D.) in Islamic Studies from the Faith Theological Seminary, located in Pakistan. The Seminary in question denies this and even ordered him to remove the "qualification" from bio and even threatened legal action. They also called his claim to the degree as being "illegal and fake".

He also claims that he holds a PhD in Islamic Studies from the Louisiana Baptist University (LBU)... an unaccredited institution that is not recognized by the U.S. Department of Education or by the Council on Higher Education Accreditation. Even further, he claims the PhD he holds was for "Islamic studies"... a course that is non-existent in the LBU's curriculum.

Another point to note is that LBU, where he got his "PhD" is listed in Steve Levicoff’s book Name It and Frame It?: New Opportunities in Adult Education and How to Avoid Being Ripped Off by “Christian” Degree Mills - a book about institutions offering bogus degrees for money.

This fraudulent charlatan, with his fake degrees happens to be the primary source of the moon-god theory. Christians rely on this guys fabrications when they say they have evidence that Allah is a moon-god.


3. Robert Moreys character - "Bomb Mecca and Medina"
It keeps getting worse.
Robert Morey has called for the bombing of the Kaaba, Islams holiest site. He claims he had advised the State Department to bomb Mecca and Medina in order to win the war on terror. He believes the State Department are full of "wusses" because they did not take his "advice" to bomb these muslim cities... with a combined population of over 3 million. I wonder how many other Christians agree with him.

Then there are also allegations of financial fraud, misusing church funds and abuse of authority by his own church, for which he was booted out. I won't get into those details here (as they don't concern the main topic), but I think the character of Robert Morey has been established. I'll leave you with relevant links at the bottom of this post.

4. Now, that the truth is out...
Fraudulent, sleazy pastors are pretty common in Christianity (or any other religion, for that matter).
The problem begins when such frauds begin to influence minds... and unfortunately Robert Morey has, without a doubt, been extremely influential on the minds of Christians who have taken his fabrications as "fact" and waved them around in discussions and debates. Ideas based on Moreys fabrications now regularly appear on Christian websites and publications such as Chick Tracts.

Christians who value intellectual dishonesty have to realize that the idea of the God of Islam being a moon-god / Hubal is the fabrication of a fraudulent, morally questionable "pastor" holding fake degrees.

Logic dictates that Allah cannot be a moon-god because He forbids the worship of the moon... and that Allah cannot be the same as Hubal, because Mohammad was fighting the worshippers of Hubal and made a distinction between Allah and Hubal. Mohammad himself had the Hubal idol destroyed after his conquest of Mecca in 630 AD.

When Abu Sufyan wanted to leave he went to the top of the mountain and shouted loudly saying, 'You have done a fine work; victory in war goes by turns. Today in exchange for the day (of Badr). Show your superiority, Hubal,' i.e. vindicate your religion. The apostle told ‘Umar to get up and answer him and say, God (Allah) is most high and most glorious. We are not equal. Our dead are in paradise; your dead are in hell

Despite these facts, Christians would have to be utterly obstinate to still insist that the God of the muslims is the moon-god or Hubal. The facts about the man behind the ridiculous moon-god theory have been presented, and its now up to the reader to re-assess the matter... and more importantly, deny ignorance.


Further reading :
Robert Morey, The Fake Doctor Behind the “Allah is the Moon-God” Theory

Robert Morey Thrown Out Of His Denomination

So we just believe the words of the imaginary Mohammed?At least this guy you call a charlatan existed.

The ironic thing about claims such as these is, all three of the Abrahamic religions have roots of the pagan-oriented religions that came before their establishment. I have often heard evangelicals repeating like trained robots their certain argumentative points that they may have picked up from the 700 club about Islam, especially the moon God theory.

Islam is a very misunderstood religion which is a crime considering it has so much in common with Christianity and Judaism, but it is human nature to fear what you do not seek to understand. Fear often breeds hate. All are derivative of ignorance.

It's not important the differences of your beliefs, which historical figures did what, when, where, and so on. The importance of these religious teachings is to establish a standard of morality. Of course these teachings where more relevant to the times in which they were created, and many circumstances have changed. But the general message remains the same. The formula to being a moral person and living your life in the right kind of way.

In my personal studies of the various religions of the world, there is a central message. Mankind has a tendency to act as their religious beliefs are their favorite football team, and they will be damned if anyone is insolent enough not to agree with them. Humans are arrogant by nature, and this blinds us from seeing the threads that tie us all together.

Originally posted by glen200376
So we just believe the words of the imaginary Mohammed?At least this guy you call a charlatan existed.

I don't think it is a matter of believing in Mohammed, or Islam in general, or wether he even existed. It is a matter of understanding what they believe to be true. If you wish to engage in a dialog with people of a different culture, or interact with them in any way, it is usually an advantage to know something about them, and a disadvantage to have false/incorrect information, which will usually just lead to misunderstandings.

Since you make it so clear that you think Mohammed is an fictional character. I can't help but wonder if you yourself are religious?
I am not an expert on Mohammad. But there is, to my understanding, just as much evidence to support his existents, achievements and miracles, as there is for most other prominent religious characters - and I would find it EXTREMELY hypocritical for a religious person to take such a position in regards to a different religion.

reply to post by glen200376

So we just believe the words of the imaginary Mohammed?At least this guy you call a charlatan existed.

Not going to waste time trying to convince you that Mohammad existed.
Thanks for your contribution to the thread anyway.

reply to post by sk0rpi0n

Christians who value intellectual dishonesty have to realize that the idea of the God of Islam being a moon-god / Hubal is the fabrication of a fraudulent, morally questionable "pastor" holding fake degrees.

Whoops.
I meant to say "Christians who value intellectual honesty".
I really need to start proof-reading my posts.

J.W.T.O.R

Good luck with your thread, I guess.

Don't expect that tomorrow it won't be totally and completely forgotten as ANOTHER ignorant will parrot something they read off the internet somewhere about how Allah is the "Moon Rock Hubal Baal Sin God of Babylon".

A thread I authored some 4 years ago now: The "Moon God" conspiracy. I think you participated in that as well? Good luck carrying on the points .
It was somewhat in response to a thread in the "Research Forum" (hilariously enough) that claimed this same claim. The author of that thread participated in it too, and then at one point had to simply give up, because there was no real counter to the evidence I had provided, but after the thread faded to the 2nd page, continued along that line anyhow, as did numerous other people since.

At the end of the day, I realise the depressing truth: To some people, the facts are irrelevant.

reply to post by babloyi


Well, thats true I guess.

I still wanted to make this thread to get this Robert Morey thing on record.

At least now I can save myself the trouble of explaining things all over again and I can just link back to this thread and yours.

BTW - I had another look at your thread and some of the comments are just.... well, it appears truth and facts have no effect on some people. They will believe whatever Robert Morey tells them.

reply to post by babloyi


Also, ever noticed that its always the Christians who keep acknowledging the existence of the "moon god" and "hubal"? I guess that makes them polytheists in the truest sense.

First off, thank you for providing sources for your claims about Morey. It's always disappointing when people on ATS make claims without sources. I'd tend to agree with you that the guy is a hack.

Unfortunately, this statement by you is, imho, inaccurate:
"Logic dictates that Allah cannot be a moon-god because He forbids the worship of the moon... and that Allah cannot be the same as Hubal, because Mohammad was fighting the worshippers of Hubal and made a distinction between Allah and Hubal. Mohammad himself had the Hubal idol destroyed after his conquest of Mecca in 630 AD."

If one believes in the existence of Allah, then your statement might be true. For anyone that doesn't believe in his literal existence, it doesn't matter in the least what a fictional entity says about another fictional entity.

I'm not trying to be insulting but IF Mohammed was making things up or if he was delusional, he might very well take the trappings of moon god, give them a new facade and spin it as a later version of the God of the Old Testament.

For the Muslim, that's clearly not the case. For the Christian that believes that the moon god that may have been central to worship at the time was a demon, this would not be the case (as that demon would want to continue his worship). But for the atheist, agnostic or anyone believing that neither existed, there is no contradiction.

Eric

The genetic fallacy is an unusual choice of argument for somebody promoting the biography and literary recitations of a warlord as a guide to righteousness. Regardless of whether Hubal is fairly described as a moon god, the connection between Allah and Hubal is not of recent origin.

The matter is ultimately Koranic, 53: 19-23

Have you then considered the Lat and the Uzza, and Manat, the third, the last?

What! for you the males and for Him the females! This indeed is an unjust division!

They are naught but names which you have named, you and your fathers; Allah has not sent for them any authority. They follow naught but conjecture and the low desires which (their) souls incline to; and certainly the guidance has come to them from their Lord.

(I use the translation distributed by the University of Michigan,
quod.lib.umich.edu...)

The hadith-based histories from the Ninth Century written by faithful Muslims conjectured that these verses may have originally read differently (the "Satanic Verses," searchable). No matter; on their face, these verses respond to the hypothesis that Allah traffics with Lat, Uzza and Manat, three popular intercessionary goddesses of the indigenous Arab religion, which was later forcibly put down.

So, somebody in Mohammed's time thought that Allah had a relationship with the Arabian Triple Goddess. Hubal would be the obvious candidate for a god who did hang with the Divine Feminine, a god who was associated with them in oh so many ways: father, husband, uncle, co-regent ... Hubal (apparently) wasn't a "moon god," but as gods do, he had his "astral aspects." For a desert dweller, the Moon can be a better friend than the Sun. And, of course, like gods and cops, the Moon is often not around when you need it most.

The Koran is a work of literature whose main character is Allah. Allah has literary antecendents, mostly Arab, but exotic sources, too, especially Jewish and heterodox Christian. The Koran acknowledges all of these as antecedents, discussing them, distinguishing itself from them, and so forth, so what's the problem if we do, too?

reply to post by EricD

If one believes in the existence of Allah, then your statement might be true. For anyone that doesn't believe in his literal existence, it doesn't matter in the least what a fictional entity says about another fictional entity.

I'm just assessing the matter using the source texts of Islam.
The most objective way of arriving at an answer is to inspect the source texts of Islam. There is nothing about Allah being a moon-god or Hubal.
On the contrary we have it on record that Allah prohibited worship of the moon and the sun (or any other object) and that Mohammad drew a clear distinction between Allah and Hubal.

So its utterly ridiculous when Christians ignore those records and insist the muslims worship the moon.
Ever noticed how Christians respond to claims about Jesus actually being Krishna by quoting from the bible and saying "see, the bible tells us he was not". So using the same line of reasoning they should go by what the Koran says regarding Allah.

I'm not trying to be insulting but IF Mohammed was making things up or if he was delusional, he might very well take the trappings of moon god, give them a new facade and spin it as a later version of the God of the Old Testament.

This is actually another variation of Robert Moreys fabrications that Christian fundamentalists often spout.
Their problem is they can't seem to accept that another people have the God of Abraham, so they will do anything to deny it.

Since you are agnostic, I'll use fictional characters to give you an example.
Its like me showing somebody a picture of batman... black mask, cape and all..... and somebody telling me that its actually Clark Kent disguised as batman.

This is exactly the case here. Allah's attributes and actions in the Koran match that of the God of the bible. Yet we have these Christians who insist that its actually some moon-god disguised as the God of the bible.


It makes zero sense to think Mohammad would have risked his life, challenging the brutal idol worshiping tribes of Arabia just to present their so called moon-god back to them in a different package.

reply to post by eight bits

The matter is ultimately Koranic, 53: 19-23

Have you then considered the Lat and the Uzza, and Manat, the third, the last?

Islam holds that it was Satan's manipulation that led to Mohammad uttering those names... and that Gabriel later chastised Mohammad for letting Satan corrupt the revelation...after which Mohammad took his words back and the fighting with the Meccans continued.

Also, this revelation was given to Mohammad to neutralize that verse....


"Never sent We a messenger or a prophet before thee but when He recited (the message) Satan proposed (opposition) in respect of that which he recited thereof. But Allah abolisheth that which Satan proposeth. Then Allah establisheth His revelations. Allah is Knower, Wise."


So, Mohammad let his guard down and made a mistake...and God fixed the matter. The matter was settled right away so its no big deal for Muslims.

reply to post by EricD

Originally posted by EricD
Unfortunately, this statement by you is, imho, inaccurate:
"Logic dictates that Allah cannot be a moon-god because He forbids the worship of the moon... and that Allah cannot be the same as Hubal, because Mohammad was fighting the worshippers of Hubal and made a distinction between Allah and Hubal. Mohammad himself had the Hubal idol destroyed after his conquest of Mecca in 630 AD."

If one believes in the existence of Allah, then your statement might be true. For anyone that doesn't believe in his literal existence, it doesn't matter in the least what a fictional entity says about another fictional entity.

I'm not sure your train of thought works here. You don't have to believe in Zeus or in Heracles to accept that Zeus is the god of the sky/thunder in the greek mythos, and you can use speech/text attributed to Heracles if called upon to "prove" this within the (relatively) contemporary documentation of those aspects of the Greek mythos.
If someone claims that Allah is the the moon god, or that Allah is Hubal, they're nothing short of completely wrong, as and there is contemporary text within the corpus of Islamic scripture that shows Allah condemning moon worship and the followers of Allah denigrating Hubal and the followers of Hubal while saying Allah is greater. You don't have to have a vested interest in any one side, and a person's personal beliefs, whether muslim, christian or non-religious, really have no relevance in this issue.

Originally posted by EricD
I'm not trying to be insulting but IF Mohammed was making things up or if he was delusional, he might very well take the trappings of moon god, give them a new facade and spin it as a later version of the God of the Old Testament.

This may possibly be true, but if it were, then I really would like to see proper evidence of it, instead of accusatory claims. Nothing within the Islamic scriptures suggests any special powers or level of reverence attributed to the moon, and in fact, the scriptures go out of their way to condemn and put down moon-worship.

If the only evidence offered is "Moon worship was practised in the Arabian Peninsula" and "Muslims use the Lunar Calender", then I'm sorry, but every single currently worshipped deity could be claimed to be a moon god, including God in Christianity/Judaism. If one is going to add absurd things like "Then why is the crescent moon the symbol of Islam?" or "Why is it on all the flags?", then not only are those people wrong, but they are grossly ignorant of history (protip for those who don't know: the first muslims to use the cresent moon as their standard were the turks, some 6 centuries after the death of Muhammad, and they supposedly got it from the Byantian Christians).

reply to post by eight bits

Hey eight bits! Quite a deja vu seeing that post by you . I remember having this discussion with you ages ago. I hope you don't mind me bringing up some updates from back then. First off, I'd like to reclarify for this new audience that what you mean is that there was some familial connection between Allah and Hubal in the pre-islamic arabian pantheon, while they might not be the same? Scholars traditionally attribute Hubal to being the "grandson" or "grandnephew" of Allah in that scheme. Again, for clarity's sake, I hope you don't mind me stating (on what I believe is your behalf) that your point isn't directly related to the incident of the Satanic verses (the existence of which is a point of uncertainty among scholars of Islam), but rather the implication of the initial verses- that pre-islamic arab beliefs held that Allah had 3 daughters (which is generally accepted by scholars of Islam).

I'd like to state (for you to disagree with, if you do so, I don't know , we talked on it the last time), that the "triple-god archetype" is something that has been mostly discredited insofar as a historical generality, and seems now only to be of interest for neo-pagan groups like wiccans. This archetype was initially propounded by Ditlef Nielsen, who then tried fitting deities from all over the world forcefully into this mould (sun-moon-star, as in the hellenistic mythos, or three phases of the moon etc.).

Unfortunately, not all pantheons fit this neatly. Hubal was initially retroactively assigned the role of a lunar deity by Hugo Winckler, who was trying to fit him into this triple-deity mould. This view doesn't synch up with contemporary sources, that assign him more of a "diviner" role (to decide things via divining arrows) and a deity to call on in times of war, and now even modern scholars state that Hubal was probably a rain god or a warrior god.

reply to post by ProphetABK


It is obvious that the Abrahamic faiths are pagan in origin, any objective researcher will admit that. By the way, Ur and Haran were centered around a moon-cult, as was Sinai. If Hubal was a moon god then Islam was against it as Abraham supposedly did the same in Haran. For Jesus freaks its the pot calling the kettle.


Allah (Al-Ilah)/Il//Eloh/El/Elohim usually had a consort (as did Yahweh). Allah/El/Eloh had a wife and kids. He was usually a grandfather figure. God was married but the Abrahamic religions forced a divorce (which is a great sin in religion).

reply to post by seen2much

It is obvious that the Abrahamic faiths are pagan in origin, any objective researcher will admit that. By the way, Ur and Haran were centered around a moon-cult, as was Sinai.

Allah (Al-Ilah)/Il//Eloh/El/Elohim usually had a consort (as did Yahweh). Allah/El/Eloh had a wife and kids. He was usually a grandfather figure..

El is supposed to have been the head of a supposed pantheon.
Yahweh's "wife" was supposed to be Asherah.... of course in non-Israelite sources. The non-Israelites in that region at one point probably started to add in partners and "consorts".

I believe all those other "gods" and "consorts" were partners attached to the true God by misguided people.

God does not like people attaching partners to Him.... which is exactly why the Koran repeatedly warns against doing so.

Interestingly, in the bible we see hints of the so called pantheon.


And the king shall do according to his will; and he shall exalt himself, and magnify himself above every god, and shall speak marvellous things against the God of gods, and shall prosper till the indignation be accomplished: for that that is determined shall be done.
-Daniel 11:36

God standeth in the congregation of the mighty; he judgeth among the gods.
-Psalms 82:1


Those verses seem out of place in a strictly monotheistic religion which teaches there is no other god but God.

"I am the LORD, and there is none else, there is no God beside me"
-Isaiah 45:5

There is no proof whatsoever that Yahweh/El was without a consort in the beginning. However, there is an amazing preponderence that he started out married. Polytheism is well attested before monotheism. Yahweh and Asherah, An and Ki, etc... This has been well-documented.

A god without a "girlfriend" would not have made sense in the bronze age. El and his wife created the gods just as men and women have kids, as above so below. It was natural to see the cosmic world mirror nature.

This idea of a wife being attached later is an apologist position that lacks any credible proof. In fact, the further we go back we see a goddess as dominant with her male consort absent.

A lone male deity is an innovation in the history of religion, not the other way around.

reply to post by sk0rpi0n


The pantheon is present in the very beginning. "Let us" make points to a pantheon head by Allah, Alah, Eloh with the B'nei Elohim.

One must kep in mind that the Tanakh was collected in portions already redacted and suffered further redactions before it became a fixed text.

The Canaanite soon to be Israelite communities had a pantheon in the beginning that was changed fully by the time of the first exile.

reply to post by seen2much

A god without a "girlfriend" would not have made sense in the bronze age

Yeah, it didn't make sense in the bronze age. Which is why they probably thought it was a good idea to attach partners to God. The gods of the pantheons were added in over time. The original religion would have been purely monotheistic.

A lone male deity is an innovation in the history of religion, not the other way around.

Who said God is male?
Christians may tell you that Jesus is God, and therefore male.
But God as understood in Islam is the creator of male and female and everything in between...and God is NOTHING like his creations.

The earlier peoples wrongly assumed that God had to be male....and assigned partners to Him.