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

Allah is Huwah not Hiyah, while being the most sexless of the interpretations of God in the Abrahamic faiths, he is still pointed to with masculine pronouns and favours men.

reply to post by seen2much

Allah is Huwah not Hiyah, while being the most sexless of the interpretations of God in the Abrahamic faiths, he is still pointed to with masculine pronouns and favours men.

I'm talking about the characteristics of God. He is Creator of the genders and is different from his creations.
So Allah is not "male" in the same way as we use it in human/animal context....even though He is referred to as "He" in the Koran. Its just a language thing.

Scorpie

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.

Actually, I think you'll find that there is a diversity of views within Islam about what happened. In any case, you'll notice that in this thread, I simply noted that the current form of the verses adequately shows that the hypothesis that Allah was associated with Hubal originates in Koranic times (before the written Koran, the one which has been flawlessly transmitted ever since).

Even if the proposed association was fully refuted by the verses in question, the hypothesis had to have been already proposed in order to be refuted. It is unsurprising that some would disagree with the finality of the refutation, and so reopen inquiries from time to time. No modern person can be the "originator" of the idea; the idea has long since originated.


babloyi

Hi, again. And yes, you and I have discussed other aspects of this before. I am trying to stay reasonably close to the current topic, which I understand to be when and where the ideas which associate Allah and Hubal originate. You are right, of course, that I am not advocating that Allah ever actually was worshipped by Muslims or proto-Muslims as Hubal, or as a "moon god."

So, that said, yes, the verses clearly indicate that somebody early on had the ideas that Allah had three female kin or intimates, that at least one or two of the three were his daughters, and that the kin were those three well-established goddesses specifically.

Triple Goddess (capital-T capital-G) is a descriptive term for an instance in mythology where one goddess has three aspects or three goddesses are worshipped jointly, corresponding with three ages of mortal women: youth, motherhood and maturity. The proper noun is not especially related to theories which look for other "three's" in storytelling, although no doubt the motif played some role in inspiring such searches. In any case, the term is a succinct description of these goddesses and their relationship to one another, not a theory about them. I didn't make them a trio; that's how they're presented in the Koran, and how they were presented by somebody else as the hypothesis the Koranic verses are discussing.

You also need to think about the variety of things "moon god" means in comparative mythology. There are systems in which the moon is a supernatural being, or the "body" of one. There are other systems in which a particular god has responsibility for the natural moon's motions and phases. And as we get into the most developed polytheisms, we have Odin-Hermes, a knower of hidden things who might be called upon in times of war (not all of Zeus' "messages" were singing telegrams). In other words, Odin-Hermes, a god with a lunar aspect and heritage, is a god not so unlike what you report, with comfort, that some modern scholars think Hubal might've been.

reply to post by eight bits

Actually, I think you'll find that there is a diversity of views within Islam about what happened. In any case, you'll notice that in this thread, I simply noted that the current form of the verses adequately shows that the hypothesis that Allah was associated with Hubal originates in Koranic times

And what are the other views within Islam on this? I
Regardless, the matter has been resolved within the Koran itself, like in the verse I posted.

As for Allah being associated with Hubal, we know Mohammad made a distinction between Allah and Hubal in that battle and personally had Hubals image destroyed. So, Allah and Hubal cannot be the same.

reply to post by sk0rpi0n


Shia have a whole different take on what happened. Do some research.

Allah and Hubal could not possibly have been the same in the beginning, but, as with Yahweh and El/Eloh, they might have been fused together

reply to post by seen2much

Shia have a whole different take on what happened. Do some research.

Why dont you do some research yourself and learn that Allah Himself condemns the worship of Baal.

"Will ye call upon Ba'al and forsake the Best of Creators"
-Qur'an 37:125

Allah and Hubal could not possibly have been the same in the beginning, but, as with Yahweh and El/Eloh, they might have been fused together

If they were "fused together" then its the result of peoples mistakes. Its not the truth.
Its kind of like how Christians "fuse" Jesus and God through faulty interpretations of the Bible. Its not the truth.

reply to post by sk0rpi0n


Calm down. I was commenting on the "satanic verses."

Can anyone explain to me, why is it called Satan verses?

I don't really understand that part.

Thanks.

Can anyone explain to me, why is it called Satan verses?

Satanic verses. That's a searchable phrase (as well as the title of a modern novel).

The term appears to be modern Western in origin, and refers to the various roles Satan (Shaytan) is said to have played in the incident, which differs among the Islamic sources.

The "least involvement" scenario is that Satan persuaded Mohammed that it would be a good idea to compromise with pagan kinsmen, and so attribute to Allah conciliatory language praising these popular goddesses. "Full involvement" would be that these verses are Satan's words, just as other verses are Gabriel's words, and that Mohammed was deceived as to the source.

The full involvement scenario is the more troubling. It portrays Mohammed as unable to tell the difference between a genuine revelation and a fake one. It would also properly contradict the received Koran, which describes itself to be inimitable, and render pointlessly self-referential its assurance that whatever falsehood had ever crept into its text was removed.

Least involvement would simply confirm that Mohammed himself might slip in a verse or two of his own, to further his own interests. Many non-Muslims believe that anyway, especially about extra wives just for him, a divine specification of Mohammed's share of holy loot, and maybe other verses. The truth of this version wouldn't by itself contradict anything in the Koran as it now exists, and it would be tenable (although easily disputed) that this was the only falsehood ever, which was duly removed.