Kama Biblia na Quran zingeletwa Mahakamani zithibitishe yaliyomo ndani yake, Quran ingeangukia pua

Kama Biblia na Quran zingeletwa Mahakamani zithibitishe yaliyomo ndani yake, Quran ingeangukia pua

Mtume Muhammad alikuwa ni mtu mwerevu sana.

Mwenye kumbukumbu nzuri na uwezo wa kusimulia hadithi alizozijua kutokana na kusafiri safiri kwake miji tofauti kibiashara.

Akiwa safarini Alisikia hadithi nyingi za dini zilizokuwepo kipindi hiko kutoka kwa Mayahudi (walioishi Arabuni wakati huo) na za Kikristo (kutoka kwa safari zake za kwenda Syria ki biashara) na akaunganisha hadithi alizozisikia kutoka kwenye dini tofauti hadi kwenye dini mpya aliyoianzisha ya kiislamu yenye hoja ya Mungu mmoja na yeye mwenyewe kama Mtume.

(Ni kama story za utani za kumsema nyerere enzi zile akiona kitu kwenye tv anakuja kusema ameoteshwa kwamba Marekani kimetokea hiki.. sababu watu wengine hawana tv wanaamini kaoteshwa kweli)

Alifanikiwa kuitumia dini hii mpya kufikia malengo mawili, moja la muda mfupi na moja la muda mrefu.

Malengo yake ya muda mfupi yalikuwa ni ya kumfanya yeye kuwa Chief Man in Arabia jambo ambalo alifanikiwa kulipata hadi wakati wa kifo chake na, baada ya kifo chake, warithi wake walifanikiwa kufikia lengo lake la muda mrefu la kuwafanya waarabu waitawale dunia kwa kutumia advantage waliyonayo ya uislam na lugha ya kiarabu isambae dunia nzima na waarabu wawe watu muhimu kwenye jukwaa la kimataifa

Ukisoma vizuri quran story zilizopo kwenye quran zinazungumzia mazingira ambayo Mohammad aliyajua tu (kwa kufika ama kusikia story zake). Mazingira ya mbali hayapo kwenye quran Maana alikuwa hajawai kufika na hakuwai sikia story zake. Maana ni mbali na uarabuni

Mfano matunda yaliyotajwa , wanyama waliotajwa kwenye quran, ndege waliotajwa kwenye quran, vyakula na mengineyo ni vya mazingira middle east tu ambayo Mohammad aliyaona ama aliyasikia kwa watu jirani zake

The Qur’an really speaks only of the animals found in the Arabian lands (midle east) , and only the plants and fruits that grow in that geography.”

Also Foods known in the ( midle east) Arabian lands such as figs, grapes, pomegranates, dates, olives, honey, onions, garlic, gherkin, etc. have also been used in various Qur’anic verses and examples for various topics…

Jiulize Why do animal, and fruit names not belonging to the arab land doesn’t indicated in the Qur’an?

Utapata jibu Prophet wrote these names which he saw in places he went and he heard story from other merchants .

Inshort prophet Mohammad had a dream

Nothing was going to stop him from making that dream come true…

He came up with Islam to gain political power and to unite his people under the rule of one goverment

Ukijiuliza swali hili

Why does the Quran not mention prophets in America, Australia, Asia, Northern Europe, China, Japan, or South Africa?

Jibu litakalokujia kichwani haraka haraka ni hili

Because the writers of the Qur'an would not have been aware if these lands. Islamic religion is invented in one small area of the world (arabs land) which is why quran, hadith, & sunnah text only mentions things happen in that area only
Sina hakika na uliyoandika lakini hoja yangu ni kwamba umeonesha una akili,kwa sababu umejibu hoja ya mleta mada kwa facts zako, kila mchangiaji akijibu kama wewe na kuweka emotions pembeni basi mtapata mnachojadili hapa

Hongera
 
What's in a Name?


The name Jesus is actually a 16th century creation.



"Jesus" has its origins in יהושוע (Yehoshua or Joshua) in which the first part "yeho" refers to God. The name means "YHWH helps". But it was a name to be used with care and to prevent accidental voicing of the name of God, Yehoshua got truncated to ישוע (Y'shua), or, in the Galilee, to Yeshu.


Transliterated into Greek, Yeshu became Ἰησοῦς (Iesous), and from that, the Latin Iesus. A late development was the letter J which was then substituted for the initial capital I rendering Iesus into Jesus.
Sawa sasa jibu
Kwa Nini pedophilia Muhammad aliiba kazi za wayahudi akafanya zake , kwa Nini asiandike kazi za waarabu?
 
What's in a Name?


The name Jesus is actually a 16th century creation.



"Jesus" has its origins in יהושוע (Yehoshua or Joshua) in which the first part "yeho" refers to God. The name means "YHWH helps". But it was a name to be used with care and to prevent accidental voicing of the name of God, Yehoshua got truncated to ישוע (Y'shua), or, in the Galilee, to Yeshu.


Transliterated into Greek, Yeshu became Ἰησοῦς (Iesous), and from that, the Latin Iesus. A late development was the letter J which was then substituted for the initial capital I rendering Iesus into Jesus.
The Identity of the pre-Islamic Allah [Part 1]

Muslim polemicists seemingly never tire of misrepresenting the arguments of their opponents, specifically Christian apologists. And instead of addressing the best that the other side has to offer, these dawagandists normally go after the worst arguments that are (unfortunately) raised by those who really have no in-depth knowledge of either Christianity or Islam.
Take the issue of Allah being the moon god, for example. These apologists will post articles or videos attacking those who claim that Muslims are worshiping a moon deity. Yet these same individuals rarely touch on the real issue raised by those who are somewhat knowledgeable about Christianity and Islam.
After all, the point isn’t whether Muslims are worshiping a moon god. The real objection centers on the identity of the pre-Islamic Allah worshiped by the pagan Arabs at Mecca.
One such Muslim taqiyyist who has chosen to address the worst that the other side has to offer, as opposed to addressing the real issue, is Sami Zaatari. Here is what he writes concerning the charge leveled against Muslims regarding their worship of Allah:
One claim that has often been thrown against the religion of Islam is that the Muslim God, Allah, is a moon God! This claim has been widely circulated amongst many missionaries with an agenda to try and ‘disprove’ Islam.
So, do we the Muslims worship a moon God? Well, if the answer is a yes, then we would at least expect to find a verse within the Quran saying Allah is indeed a moon God, and that the Muslims should worship the moon. So does such a passage exist in the Quran? The answer is an emphatic no, there is not a single verse in the Quran (let alone the hadiths) that refers to Allah as a moon God, nor is there any verse about worshiping the moon, on the contrary there is a verse within the Quran that explicitly says the OPPOSITE:
041.037 Among His Signs are the Night and the Day, and the Sun and the Moon. Do not prostrate to the sun and the moon, but prostrate to Allah, Who created them, if it is Him ye wish to serve.
So the Quran explicitly forbids the Muslims from worshiping the moon, as well as the sun, and it goes on to clearly state that Allah, created the moon! So how can anyone claim that Muslims worship a moon God when we have such a clear and explicit verse in the Quran saying the exact opposite? This is what we call dishonesty, dishonesty in it’s highest form, and it’s very sad that some people are deceived by such arguments passed on by certain missionaries.
So in conclusion, the case is clear, Allah created the moon, and has commanded the Muslims to NOT worship the moon, the case is closed: Allah is NOT a moon God. (Do Muslims Worship A Moon God?)
Instead of responding to Zaatari’s tirade against Muslims worshiping a moon deity, what we will seek to do in this article is to present the one objection that Zaatari and his ilk rarely (if at all) address, namely, the identity of the pre-Islamic Allah at Mecca. We will present evidence to prove that the Allah which the Meccans worshiped was associated with the moon, e.g. the pagans viewed the moon as representing their supreme god whom they called Allah. In that way, Muslim polemicists such as Zaatari will be forced to respond to the real issues, and not waste their time on the claims of those less informed in this area.

The Prevalence of Moon Worship in Arabia
What Zaatari, and others like him, conveniently overlook and forget to mention is that the pagans of Mecca ran around the kabah seven times, much like the Muslims do till this day. Evidence exists to show that the number of circumambulation corresponded to the number of the heavenly bodies which the pagans thought existed and which they associated with certain gods. Significantly, the celestial object that the pagans associated with the chief deity was not the sun, but the moon!
The Arabic words may provide the key in understanding why the moon was taken to be the head god, or the celestial body associated with the high god. The Arabic word for moon (qamar) is masculine in gender, whereas the word for sun (shams) is feminine. Since the pagan Arabs were, for the most part, a patriarchal culture it only makes sense that they would have taken the moon as the symbol of the supreme god, in light of it being a masculine noun.
As the late Muslim translator Abdullah Yusuf Ali explained in regards to the paganism of Arabia:
5. To revert to the worship of the heavenly bodies… A few individual stars did attract the worshippers’ attention, e.g. Sirius the Dog-star, the brightest fixed star in the heavens, with a bluish tinge in its light… It is probably Sirius that is referred to as the fixed star in the Parable of Abraham (vi. 76). With regard to the fixed stars in their myriads, the astronomers turned their fancy to devising Groups or Constellations. But the moving 'stars', or planets, each with a motion and therefore will or influence of its own. As they knew and understood them, they were seven in number, viz.: (1) and (2) the moon and the sun, the two objects which most closely and indubitably influence the tides, the temperatures, and the life in our planet; (3) and (4) the two inner planets, Mercury and Venus, which are morning and evening stars, and never travel far from the sun; and (5), (6) and (7) Mars, Jupiter, and Saturn, the outer planets whose elongations from the sun on the ecliptic can be as wide as possible. The number seven itself is a mystic number, as explained in n. 5526 to lxv. 12.
6. It will be noticed that the sun and the moon and the five planets got identified each with a living deity, god or goddess, with characteristics and qualities of its own…
7. Moon worship was equally popular in various forms. I have already referred to the classical legends of Apollo and Diana, twin brother and sister, representing the sun and the moon. The Egyptian Khonsu, traversing the sky in a boat, referred to the moon, and the moon legends also got mixed up with those about the god of magic, Thoth and the Ibis. In the Vedic religion of India the moon-god was Soma, the lord of the planets, and the name was also applied to the juice which was the drink of the gods. It may be noted that the moon was a male divinity in ancient India; it was also a male divinity in ancient Semitic religion, and the Arabic word for the moon (qamar) is of the masculine gender. On the other hand, the Arabic word for the sun (shams) is of the feminine gender. The pagan Arabs evidently looked upon the sun as a goddess and the moon as a god.
8. Of the five planets, perhaps Venus as the evening star and the morning star alternately impressed itself most on the imagination of astro-mythology. This planet was in different places considered both male and female… Mercury is a less conspicuous planet, and was looked upon as a child in the family, the father and mother being the moon and the sun, or the sun and the moon (according to the sex attributed to these divinities), or else either the sun or the moon was the father and Venus the mother (the sexes being inter-changeable in the myths)…
10. These cross-currents and mixtures of nature-worship, astral-worship, hero-worship, worship of abstract qualities, etc., resulted in a medley of debasing superstitions which are summed up in five names, Wadd, Suwa‘, Yaguth, Ya‘uq, and Nasr, as noted in paragraph 3 above… If Wadd and Suwa‘ represented Man and Woman, they might well represent the astral-worship of the moon and the sun… On the other hand, it is possible that the worship of Jupiter and Venus itself got mixed up with the worship of the sun-moon pair… Further, it may be that Nasr (the vulture, falcon, hawk, or eagle, the Egyptian Horus) also represents a solar myth, mixed up with the cult of the planets…
11. It may be noted that the five deities mentioned here to represent very ancient religious cults are well-chosen. They are not the names of the deities best known in Mecca, but rather those which survived as fragments of very ancient cults among the outlying tribes of Arabia, which were influenced by the cults of Mesopotamia (Noah’s country). The Pagan deities best known in the Kaba and round about Mecca were Lat, ‘Uzza, and Manat. (Manat was also known round Yathrib, which afterwards became Medina.) See liii. 19-20. They were all female goddesses. Lat almost certainly represents another wave of sun-worship; the sun being feminine in Arabic and in Semitic languages generally. "Lat" may be the original of the Greek "Leto", the mother of Apollos the sun-god (Encyclopedia of Islam, I, p. 380). If so, the name was brought in prehistoric times from South Arabia by the great Incense Route (n. 3816 to xxxiv. 18) to the Mediterranean. ‘Uzza probably represents the planet Venus. The origin of Manat is not quite clear, but it would not be surprising if it also turned to be astral. The 360 idols established by the Pagans probably represented the 360 days of an inaccurate solar year. This was the actual “modern” Pagan worship as known to the Quraysh contemporary with our Prophet… (Yusuf Ali, The Holy Qur’an: Text and Translation, Appendix XIII. Ancient Forms of Pagan Worship, pp. 1620-1622; bold emphasis ours)
If Ali is correct that the sun represented Allat, then wouldn’t this make it rather obvious that the moon must have symbolized Allah?
Now where did Ali derive the understanding that the number seven is a mystical number? Was it from the Holy Bible and the fact that God is said to have rested on the seventh day, thereby hallowing it (cf. Genesis 2:2-3)? Let us read fn. 5526 to find his answer:
"Seven Firmaments." The literal meaning refers to the seven orbits or firmaments that we see clearly marked in the motions of the heavenly bodies in the space around us... In poetical imagery there are the seven Planetary spheres, which form the lower heaven or heavens, with higher spheres culminating in the Empyrean or God's throne of Majesty... The mystical meaning refers to the various grades in the spiritual or heavenly kingdom, the number seven being itself a mystical symbol, comprising many and yet form an indivisible integer, the highest indivisible integer of one digit. (Ibid., p. 1567; bold emphasis ours)
Thus, the pagans at Mecca during Muhammad’s time worshiped the sun and the moon, along with the planets and stars. This explains why the Meccans ran around the kabah and between the hills of Safa and Marwa seven times, as well as throwing seven stones at Mina; they did this in veneration of these seven heavenly objects!
As one author stated:
According to al-Shahrastani, (d. 1153), an opinion prevalent among the Arabians was that the circumambulation of the Kaaba originally symbolized the motion of the planets (Rodwell, 1915, p. 455)… The number seven, one quarter of the number of days in a lunar month, is a lunar number. Herodotus mentions the use of the seven stones by the Arabs when taking solemn oaths. The historian Masudi (d. 956) records an old belief that the Kaaba was dedicated to seven heavenly bodies. In pre-Islamic times the Kaaba was to be circumambulated seven times, keeping the Kaaba on the left, the sinistral feminine side. The pilgrim had to run between the hills of Safa and Marwa seven times. Seven stones were thrown by each pilgrim at Mina, and so on. Some of these practices, as we have seen, have lasted to the present day. (Benjamin Walker, Foundations of Islam: The Making of a World Faith [Peter Owen Publishers, London & Chester Springs, 1998], pp. 46-47; bold emphasis ours)
The evidence further shows that moon worship was rather prevalent throughout Arabia. As Y. Ali had to acknowledge in explaining the Quran’s swearing by the moon:
“… The moon, next after the sun, is the most striking luminary to our sight. Its reflected light has for us even a greater mystery than the direct light of the sun, which looks to us like pure fire. The moon was worshipped as a deity in times of darkness.” (Ali, p. 1644, fn. 5798; bold emphasis ours)
In fact, scholars and historians alike admit that Arabs particularly loved and worshiped the moon, especially in South Arabia. One such noted historian of Arabic civilization is Philip K. Hitti, who wrote that,
“The religion of South Arabia was in its essence a planetary astral system in which the cult of the moon-god prevailed. The moon, known in Hadramawt as Sin, to the Minaeans as Wadd (love or lover, father), to the Sabaens as Almaqah (the health-giving god?) and to the Qatabanians as ‘Amm (paternal uncle), stood at the head of the pantheon. He was conceived as a masculine deity and took precedence over the sun, Shams, who was his consort. ‘Athar (Venus, corresponding to the Babylonian goddess Ishtar, Phoenician ‘Ashtart), their son, was the third member of the triad. From this celestial pair sprang the many other heavenly bodies considered divine. The North Arabian al-Lat, who figured in the Koran, may have been another name for the sun-goddess.” (Hitti, History of the Arabs from the Earliest Times to the Present, new preface by Walid Khalidi [Palgrave Macmillan, 2002; paperback, revised tenth edition], pp. 60-61; bold emphasis ours)
And:
“The Bedouin’s beliefs centered upon the moon in whose light he grazed his flocks. Moon-worship implies a pastoral society, whereas sun-worship represents a later agricultural stage. In our own day the Moslem Ruwalah Bedouins imagine that their life is regulated by the moon, which condenses the water vapours, distills the beneficent dew on the pasture and makes possible the growth of plants. On the other hand the sun, as they believe, would like to destroy the Bedouins as well as all animal and plant life.” (Ibid, pp. 97-98; bold emphasis ours)
Wendell K. Phillips concurs with Hitti:
“The moon was the chief deity of all the early South Arabian kingdoms - particularly fitting in that region where the soft light of the moon brought the rest and cool winds of the night as a relief from the blinding sun and scorching heat of day. In contrast to most of the old religions with which we are familiar, the Moon God is male, while the Sun God is his consort, a female. The third god of importance is their child, the male morning star, which we know as the planet Venus.” (Phillips, Qataban And Sheba: Exploring Ancient Kingdoms On The Biblical Spice Routes Of Arabia [Victor Gollancz Ltd.: London 1955], p. 69; bold emphasis ours)
And:
“The spice route riches brought them a standard of luxurious living inconceivable to the poverty-stricken South Arabian Bedouins of today. Like nearly all the Semitic peoples, they worshipped the moon, the sun, and the morning star. The CHIEF GOD, the moon, was a male deity symbolized by the bull, and we found many carved bull's heads, with drains for the blood of sacrificed animals.” (Ibid, p. 204; bold and capital emphasis ours)
In light of the foregoing, the questions that Muslim propagandists such as Zaatari need to answer are the following.
Since the pagan Arabs viewed the moon as the chief deity and/or the heavenly object associated with the supreme god, what word would they have used to denote this belief of theirs?
Specifically, doesn’t common sense tell us that these Arabs would have called the moon Allah seeing that this was the word which they used in reference to the god they thought was supreme over the rest?
In other words, since the moon was considered a deity, and/or the celestial body of a god, wouldn’t the pagans have called it ilah in Arabic? After all, this happens to be the generic word for god in the Arabic language, and it only makes sense that the pagans would have used this Arabic term in reference to the moon.
And wouldn’t we expect to find them referring to the moon as Allah as well, seeing that the pagans viewed it as the chief deity?
This, perhaps, explains why even scholarly sources admit that the moon was called ilah and Allah before Muhammad’s time.
For instance, here is what one professor wrote concerning the phrase ilah, from which Allah originates:
The god Il or Ilah was originally a phase of the Moon God, but early in Arabian history the name became a general term for god, and it was this name that the Hebrews used prominently in their personal names, such as Emanu-el, Israel, etc., rather than the Ba'al of the northern Semites proper, which was the Sun. Similarly, under Mohammed's tutelage, the relatively anonymous Ilah BECAME Al-Ilah, The God, or Allah, the Supreme Being. (C. S. Coon, "Southern Arabia, A Problem For The Future", Papers Of The Peabody Museum Of American Archaeology And Ethnology, 1943, Volume 20, p. 195; capital and underline emphasis ours)
Another source says:
Allah. Islamic name for God. Is derived from Semitic El, and originally applied to the moon; he seems to have been preceded by Ilmaqah, the moon god. ("Allah" in E. Sykes, Everyman's Dictionary Of Non-Classical Mythology [J. M. Dent & Sons Ltd., London, E. P. Dutton & Co. Inc., New York, 1961] p. 7; underline emphasis ours)
This makes perfect sense. After all, how could the pagans not have addressed the moon as Allah when they took it to be the representation of their supreme deity?

The Hubal Connection
There is additional evidence connecting the pre-Islamic Allah with the moon. According to the scholarly sources, the chief god worshiped at Mecca was Hubal, whom many authorities claim was the moon god.
Hubal Chief god of the Ka 'ba; a martial and oracular deity; a moon god. (Gods, Goddesses and Mythology, ed. C. Scott Littleton [Marshal Cavendish Corporation 2005], Volume 11, p. 137)
Hubal – an idol, the God of the Moon. Centuries before Islam, ‘Amr ibn Luhayy, a chief of the tribe of Jurhum who dwelt in Mecca before the coming of the Quraysh tribe, brought the idol to the city from Syria. It was set up in the Ka‘bah and became the principal idol of the pagan Meccans. The ritual casting of lots and divining arrows was performed in front of it.
Hubal was pulled down and used as a doorstep when the Prophet conquered Mecca and purified the Ka‘bah. See IDOLS: JAHILIYYAH (Cyril Glasse, The New Encyclopedia of Islam, Third Edition [Stacey International, 2008], p. 209; underline emphasis ours)
Of the 360 idols set up in the Ka‘bah, the most important was Hubal, the god of the moon. Upon the conquest of Mecca the Prophet cut open some of the these idols with a sword and black smoke is said to have issued forth from them, a sign of the psychic influences which had made these idols their dwelling place The Prophet turned the idol of Hubal into a doorstep. (Ibid., p. 235; underline emphasis ours)
al-‘Uzza. One of the more important idols of the pagan Arabs, closely associated with al-Lat and al-Manat. All three were considered to be females. It is known that human sacrifice had been made to them on occasion. The other principal idol of the Meccans was Hubal, god of the Moon. See IDOLS (Ibid., p. 543; underline emphasis ours)
Hubal A pre-Islamic deity represented by an idol in Kaaba that was destroyed by Muhammad when he conquered Mecca in 630. Patron of the Quraysh, leading tribe of Mecca. (The Oxford Dictionary of Islam [Oxford University Press, 2003], p. 117; underlined emphasis ours)
“The sira literature presents Mecca's cult as a pagan one to the god Hubal, and depicts the Arabian religious environment in which Muhammad grew up as overwhelmingly pagan – the final vestiges of the ancient near eastern religious tradition...” (The Cambridge Companion to the Qur’an, ed. Jane Dammen McAuliffe [Cambridge University Press, 2006], p. 24; bold emphasis ours)
“Among the many deities that the Arabs worshiped in and around the Ka‘bah were the god Hubal and the three goddesses Al-Lat, al- 'Uzza, and Manat. Hubal was originally a moon god, and perhaps also a rain god, as hubal means ‘vapor.’ …” (Mahmoud M. Ayoub, Islam: Faith and History [Oneworld Publications Ltd., 2005)], p. 15; bold emphasis outs)
"Khuza 'ah thus shared the guilt of Jurhum. They were also to blame in other respects: a chieftain of theirs, on his way back from a journey to Syria, had asked the Moabites to give him one of their idols. They gave him Hubal, which he brought back to the Sanctuary, setting it up within the Ka'bah itself; and it became THE CHIEF IDOL OF MECCA." (Martin Lings, Muhammad: His Life Based on the Earliest Sources [Inner Traditions International, LTD. One Park Street, Rochestor Vermont 05767, 1983], p. 5; bold and capital emphasis ours)
“The Quraysh were wont to venerate her above all other idols. For this reason Zayd ibn-'Amr ibn-Nufayl, who, during the Jahilyah days, had turned to the worship of God and renounced that of al-'Uzza and of the other idols, said:
‘I have renounced both Allat and al-'Uzza,
For thus would the brave and the robust do.
No more do I worship al-'Uzza and her two daughters,
Or visit the two idols of the banu-Ghanm;
Nor do I journey to Hubal and adore it,
ALTHOUGH IT WAS OUR LORD WHEN I WAS YOUNG.’…
“The Quraysh had also several idols in and around the Ka'bah. The greatest of these was Hubal. It was, as I was told, of red agate, in the form of a man with the right hand broken off. It came into the possession of the Quraysh in this condition, and they, therefore, made for it a hand of gold. The first to set it up [for worship] was Khuzaymah ibn-Mudrikah ibn-al-Ya's' ibn-Mudar. Consequently it used to be called Khuzaymah's Hubal.
“It stood inside the Ka'bah. In front of it were seven divination arrows (sing. qidh, pl. qidah or aqduh). On one of these arrows was written ‘pure’ (sarih), and on another ‘consociated alien’ (mulsag). Whenever the lineage of a new-born was doubted, they would offer a sacrifice to it [Hubal] and then shuffle the arrows and throw them. If the arrows showed the word ‘pure,’ the child would be declared legitimate and the tribe would accept him. If, however, the arrows showed the words ‘consociated alien,’ the child would be declared illegitimate and the tribe would reject him. The third arrow was for divination concerning the dead, while the fourth was for divination concerning marriage. The purpose of the three remaining arrows has not been explained. Whenever they disagreed concerning something, or purposed to embark upon a journey, or undertake some project, they would proceed to it [Hubal] and shuffle the divination arrows before it. Whatever result they obtained they would follow and do accordingly.
“It was before [Hubal] that 'Abd-al-Muttalib shuffled the divination arrows [in order to find out which of his ten children he should sacrifice in fulfilment of a vow he had sworn], and the arrows pointed to his son 'Abdullah, the father of the Prophet. Hubal was also the same idol which abu-Sufyan ibn-Harb addressed when he emerged victorious after the battle of Uhud, saying:
‘Hubal, be thou exalted’ (i.e. may thy religion triumph);
“To which the Prophet replied:
‘Allah is more exalted and more majestic.’”
(Hisham Ibn al-Kalbi, The Book of Idols (Kitab Al-Asnam), Translated with Introduction and Notes by Nabih Amin Faris, pp. 19, 23-24)
Not only was Hubal considered the chief Meccan deity he was also identified as the lord and god of the kabah. Even the black stone of the kabah, which Muslims venerate till this day, was associated with Hubal:
“… The great god of Mecca was Hubal, an idol of carnelian.” (Maxime Rodinson, Muhammad [New Press, NY, May 2000 ISBN: 1565847520], p. 16; bold emphasis ours)
“… The Ka'ba which may have initially been a shrine of Hubal alone, housed several idols…” (Ibid., p. 40; bold emphasis ours)
“… The presiding deity was Hubal, a large carnelian kept inside the temple; 360 other idols were arranged outside…” (Malise Ruthven, Islam in the World [Oxford University Press, Second edition 2000], p. 15; bold emphasis ours)
“… Although originally under the aegis of the pagan god Hubal, the Makkan haram which centered around the well of Zamzam, may have become associated with the ancestral figures of Ibrahim and Isma'il as the Arab traders, shedding their parochial backgrounds sought to locate themselves within the broader reference-frame of Judeo-Christianity.” (Ibid., p. 17)
“… the god of Makka, Hubal, represented by a statue of red carnelian, is thought to have been originally a totem of the Khuza'a, rulers of Makka before their displacement by the Quraysh…” (Ibid. p. 28; bold emphasis ours)
“… At the time of Muhammad, the Ka'abah was OFFICIALLY DEDICATED to the god Hubal, a deity who had been imported into Arabia from the Nabateans in what is now Jordan. But the pre-eminence of the shrine as well as the common belief in Mecca seems to suggest that it may have been dedicated originally to al-Llah, the High God of the Arabs…” (Karen Armstrong, Muhammad: A Biography of the Prophet [Harper San Francisco; ISBN: 0062508865; Reprint edition, October 1993], pp. 61-62; bold and capital emphasis ours)
“… Legend had it that Qusayy had travelled in Syria and brought the three goddesses al-Lat, al-Uzza and Manat to the Hijaz and enthroned the Nabatean god Hubal in the Ka'abah…” (Ibid., p. 66; bold emphasis ours)
“… At the center of the town was the shrine called the Ka‘ba – a large, cubical building with a sacred black stone affixed in one corner – that was the sanctuary to the pagan god Hubal…” (Fred McGraw Donner, Muhammad And The Believers: At The Origins Of Islam [Belknap Press of Harvard University Press, 2010], 1. The Near East on the Eve of Islam, p. 35; bold emphasis ours)
“… In the Ka‘ba was the statue of the god Hubal who might be called the god of Mecca and of the Ka 'ba. Caetani gives great prominence to the connection between the Ka‘ba and Hubal. Besides him, however, al-Lat, al-‘Uzza, and al-Manat were worshipped and are mentioned in the Kur’an; Hubal is never mentioned there. What position Allah held beside these is not exactly known. The Islamic tradition has certainly elevated him at the expense of other deities.” (M. Th. Houtsma, E. J. Brill’s First Encyclopedia of Islam 1913-1936, Volume IV, p. 591; bold emphasis ours)
“… The question might even be asked whether and how far the Ka‘ba was regarded as an astral symbol. For the affirmative there is the fact that the Ka‘ba is the object of the tawaf and that tawaf and Kab‘a are represented by Muslim tradition itself as connected with the host of spirits round the throne of God. The throne of God is, as is well known, a cosmic magnitude, and the Ka‘ba and the Black Stone are described as the throne of God's khalifa on earth, Adam. The dance of the heavenly spirits can easily be interpreted as a dance of the planets. Moreover, golden suns and moons are repeatedly mentioned among the votive gifts (al-Azraki, p. 155 sqq.). According to al-Mas 'udi (Murudj, iv. 47), certain people regarded the Ka‘ba as a temple devoted to the sun, the moon and the five planets. The 360 idols placed round the Ka‘ba also point in this direction. It can therefore hardly be denied that traces exist of astral symbolism. At the same time one can safely say that there can be no question of any general conception on these lines. The cult at the Ka‘ba was in the heathen period syncretic as is usual in heathenism. How far also North Semitic cults were represented in Mecca cannot be exactly ascertained. It is not excluded that Allah was of Aramaic origin. The dove of aloe wood which Muhammad found existing in the Ka‘ba may have been devoted to the Semitic Venus.” (Ibid.; bold emphasis ours)
“… Before Muhammad appeared, the Kaaba was surrounded by 360 idols, and every Arab house had its god. Arabs also believed in jinn (subtle beings), and some vague divinity with many offspring. Among the major deities of the pre-Islamic era were al-Lat (‘the Goddess’), worshiped in the shape of a square stone; al-Uzza (‘the Mighty’), a goddess identified with the morning star and worshiped as a thigh-bone shaped slab of granite between al-Taif and Mecca; Manat, the goddess of destiny, worshiped as a black stone on the road between Mecca and Medina; and the moon god, Hubal, whose worship was connected with the Black Stone of the Kaaba.” (Peter Occhiogrosso, The Joy Of Sects: A Spirited Guide To The World's Religious Traditions [An Image Book published by DoubleDay, 1996], p. 399; underline emphasis ours)
Many scholars are also of the opinion that Hubal was simply the Arabic equivalent of the false god Baal:
“The Kaaba itself, which was the sanctuary of the Pagan Arabs, and remained such after they had embraced Islam, is a building about thirty-four feet high and about twenty-seven broad, so called from being almost a perfect square, as the name implies. In this building we find no less than 360 idols; a chief of them, Hubal, was at once the presiding god in the temple and the principal deity of the Koreishites, who were its guardians. The pre-eminence of this idol was evinced by the fact, that before it, the casting of lots with arrows took place. Prior, however, to its obtaining this honour, it passed through a term of probation, for we learn upon good authority, that for a considerable period it stood outside the walls of the Kaaba, patiently waiting for its admission. It was probably introduced when the sanctuary of the Koreish tribe was converted into the Pantheon of the whole of Arabia. The name of Hubal remains a mystery. The opinion that it is synonymous with the Babylonian and Syrian Baal or Bel is supported by the testimony of Arab authorities, according to whom Hubal was originally imported from Syria. These writers do not indeed maintain that Hubal was identical with Baal, but they admit Hubal to be an astronomical deity.
“Again, when it is stated by Abulfeda that the image of Abraham occupied the chief in the Kaaba, and that he was represented by Hubal, we may take it for granted that Hubal had a double character, like Baal, who was both the founder of the Babylonian empire and the solar deity…” (John Muehleisen Arnold, Islam: Its History, Character, and Relation to Christianity, Chapter I. The Land Of Its Birth, The Pre-Islamite Kaaba, pp. 26-27; bold emphasis ours)
And:
“As well as worshipping idols and spirits, found in animals, plants, rocks and water, the ancient Arabs believed in several major gods and goddesses whom they considered to hold supreme power over all things. The most famous of these were Al-lat, Al-‘Uzza, Manat and Hubal. The first three were thought to be the daughters of Allah (God) and their intercessions on behalf of their worshippers were therefore of great significance…
“Al-lat, also known as Alilat, was worshiped in the shape of a square white stone. She was know to other Semitic people in Syria and Mesopotamia, and was the Mother Goddess of Palmyra (in northern Syria), whose symbol was the lion. The Nabataeans of south Jordan and south Palestine worshiped her as the sun goddess, the giver of life. In Mecca, Al-lat had a haram (sanctuary) and a hima where the Arabs flocked to perform the rites of worship and sacrifice which would bring her favour upon them.
“Al-‘Uzza was worshiped in the form of three palm trees, a stone and an idol. She was the supreme deity of the tribe of Quraysh, the rulers of Mecca immediately before Islam. She had a temple and a hima there and was offered gifts in gold and silver and adorned with jewellery. Her name means ‘the most cherished’ but she was a cruel goddess who could be appeased only by the shedding of blood, both human and animal. Like Al-lat, al-‘Uzza was associated with the goddess of love, al-Zuhara, but was more closely linked with Al-lat. The two were often worshipped together and sometimes formed a trinity with Manat or the god Hubal. Replicas of them were carried by the clans of Quraysh when they went to war to inspire the fighters with courage and devotion…
“Hubal was associated with the Semitic god Ba‘l and with Adonis or Tammuz, the gods of spring, fertility, agriculture and plenty… Hubal’s idol used to stand by the holy well inside the Sacred House…” (Fabled Cities, Princes & Jinn From Arab Myths and Legends, text by Khairet al-Saleh, illustrations by Rashad N. Salim [Schocken Books, New York 1985], p. 28; bold emphasis ours)
Finally:
“In addition to the sun, moon and the star Al-Zuhara, the Arabs worshipped the planets Saturn, Mercury, and Jupiter, the stars Sirius and Canopies and the constellations of Orion, Ursa Major and Minor, and the seven Pleiades.
“Some stars and planets were given human characters. According to legend, Al-Dabaran, one of the stars in the Hyades group, fell deeply in love with Al-Thurayya, the fairest of the Pleiades stars. With the approval of the Moon, he asked for her hand in marriage. Al-Thurayya objected, saying coquettishly, ‘What would I do with a fellow like that, with no money?’” (Ibid., pp. 29-30; bold emphasis ours)
Since Hubal was identified with the moon, this means that al-Dabaran had received Hubal’s approval to go ahead with the marriage proposal. This indicates the kind of status accorded to Hubal by the pagan Arabs.
Now these facts present a major problem for taqiyyists such as Zaatari, as we shall see in the next part of our rebuttal.
(Endnote: Muslims may object to the identification of Hubal with Baal on the grounds that in some of the above quotations Baal is said to have been the sun god. This objection misses the point since it is to be expected that the word Baal would be used in reference to the particular celestial body which symbolized the prominent male deity in any given patriarchal culture. It, therefore, shouldn’t surprise us that Baal would be identified with the sun in those cultures which viewed this celestial body as a male figure. However, we would not expect the Arabs to associate Baal with the sun, which to them was a female deity. The Arabs would have associated the moon with Baal/Hubal, which they took to be the male god.)

We resume our discussion concerning the identity of the pre-Islamic Allah worshiped by the pagans at Mecca.
The Problems Posed by the Islamic sources
As we saw in the previous section, evidence exists to show that the chief god of the Meccans, especially of Muhammad’s Quraysh tribe, was actually Hubal. The data we presented also indicates that the pagans took Hubal as the lord of the kabah, since they viewed this to be his very own sanctuary.
Now this creates problems for the Muslim assertion that Allah was the presiding deity of Mecca and that the kabah was actually his shrine.
The practice of the polytheists who were of a patriarchal bent was to build a sanctuary around a single male deity, specifically the one they viewed as the chief or greatest of all the gods. There is absolutely no example of a pre-Islamic shrine, whether a stone or building, built for two male deities at the same time. Rather, all the evidence shows that the houses that the polytheists built accommodated only one male deity along with his female consort.
This means that if, as Muslims believe, Allah and Hubal were two separate deities then they could not both be the chief god of Mecca and the lord of the kabah at the same time. After all, if the pagans did believe that Allah was the supreme god of their pantheon, as well as the god of the kabah, then they would not have forced him to share his shrine with another male deity.
Therefore, it seems reasonably certain that the pagans identified Hubal as Allah, which explains why the Islamic literature associates the Meccan shrine with both.
The following citations from Philip K. Hitti puts this all together quite nicely:
Hubal (from Aram. For vapour, spirit), evidently the chief deity of al-ka'bah, was represented in human form. Beside him stood ritual arrows used for divination by the soothsayers (kahin, from Aramaic) who drew lots by means of them. The tradition in ibn-Hisham, which makes 'Amr ibn-Luhayy the importer of this idol from Moab or Mesopotamia, may have a kernel of truth in so far as it retains a memory of the Aramaic origin of the deity. (History of the Arabs from the Earliest Times to the Present, revised tenth edition, new preface by Walid Khalidi [Palgrave Macmillan, 2002; ISBN: 0-333-63142-0 paperback], p. 100; bold emphasis ours)
And:
Allah (allah, al-ilah, the god) was the principal, though not the only, deity of Makkah. The name is an ancient one. It occurs in two South Arabic inscriptions, one a Minean found at al-'Ula and the other Sabean, but abounds in the form HLH in the Lihyanite inscriptions of the fifth century B.C. Lihyan, which evidently got the god from Syria, was the first center of the worship of this deity in Arabia. The name occurs as Hallah in the Safa inscriptions five centuries before Islam and also in a pre-Islamic Christian Arabic inscription found in umm-al-Jimal, Syria, and ascribed to the sixth century. The name of Muhammad's father was 'Abd-Allah ('Abdullah, the slave or worshiper of Allah). The esteem in which Allah was held by the pre-Islamic Makkans as the creator and supreme provider and the one to be invoked in time of special peril may be inferred from such koranic passages as 31:24, 31; 6:137, 109; 10:23. Evidently he was the tribal deity of the Quraysh. (Ibid., pp. 100-101; bold emphasis ours)
If Hitti is correct regarding Allah being the Quraysh’s tribal deity (and Muslims would agree that he was) then this provides additional proof that Allah was a name for Hubal. Note the following syllogism:

Hubal was the chief deity of the Quraysh.

Allah was the chief deity of the Quraysh.

Therefore, Hubal was Allah in pre-Islamic times.

This explains why many scholars believe that the Meccans used the titles Hubal and Allah interchangeably in respect to the same deity:
“Verse 3 looks rather simple: So let them worship the lord of this House. The lord is evidently Allah, whereas the House is evidently the Kaba. But the fact that Allah should be referred to as the lord of the Kaba and not merely as Allah must have a special significance, which has to be clarified. It seems that the Quran deliberately mentions the House in order to allude to the origin of the position of Quraysh as ahl al-haram. For, it was the Kaba from which Quraysh derived their prestige among the Arabs. That the Ka'ba was the origin of the sacred position of Quraysh was, of course, well known to them. Moreover, it seems that already in pre-Islamic times, Quraysh attributed their sacred position to the benevolence of the deity of the Kaba, to whom they used to refer as Hubal and whose statue was situated inside the Kaba. The pre-Islamic talbiya of those who worshipped Hubal, i.e., Quraysh, read:
labbayka llahumma labbayka, innana laqah
harramtana 'ala asinnati l-rimah
yahsuduna l-nasu 'ala l-najah
Labbayka, Oh, Lord, labbayka, we are immune,
You have protected us from the edges of the lances,
People envy us for our success.
“From the Quranic point of view, the deity of the Ka'ba is, of course, Allah who was worshipped by the pre-Islamic Arabs as the High God, and the Ka'ba itself was known as baytu llahi, so that the titles Hubal and Allah may be regarded as interchangeable. Whatever the case may be, Quraysh are summoned in our sura to draw the inevitable conclusion from their own awareness of the fact that their protection and immunity had come from the deity of the Ka'ba. The conclusion is that they must turn this deity into their sole object of veneration. This means that they must give up shirk, i.e., abandon the worship of the lesser idols which were attached to the High God. The statues of these idols were placed next to the Ka'ba (but never inside), so that Quraysh are actually required to devote themselves exclusively to the worship of the rabb of the Ka'ba itself, the one and only origin of their immunity, welfare and prosperity. As Muqatil puts it: akhlisal-'ibadata lahu… –dedicate your worship exclusively to him. (Uri Rubin, The Ilaf of Quraysh: A Study of sura CVI, Source: Arabica, T. 31, Fasc. 2 (Jul., 1984), pp. 165-188; bold emphasis ours)
And:
“We have evidence that black stones were worshiped in various parts of the Arab world; for example, Clement of Alexandria, writing ca. 190, mentioned that ‘the Arabs worship stone,’ alluding to the black stone of Dusares at Petra. Maximus Tyrius writing in the second century says, ‘The Arabians pay homage to I know not what god, which they represent by a quadrangular stone’: he alludes to the Kaaba that contains the Black Stone. Its great antiquity is also attested by the fact that ancient Persians claim that Mahabad and his successors left the Black Stone in the Kaaba, along with relics and images, and the stone was an emblem of Saturn…
“The Black Stone itself is evidently a meteorite and undoubtedly owes its reputation to the fact it fell from the ‘heavens.’ It is doubly ironic that Muslims venerate this piece of rock as that given to Ishmael by the angel Gabriel to build the Kaaba, as it is, to quote Margoliouth, ‘of doubtful genuineness, since the Black Stone was removed by the ... Qarmatians in the fourth [Muslim] century, and restored by them after many years; it may be doubted whether the stone which they returned was the same stone which they removed.’
“Hubal was worshipped at Mecca, and his idol in red cornelian was erected inside the Kaaba, above the dry well into which one threw votive offerings. It is very probable that Hubal had a human form. Hubal's position next to the Black Stone suggests there is some connection between the two. Wellhausen thinks that Hubal originally was the Black Stone that, as we have already remarked, is more ancient than the idol. Wellhausen also points out that God is called Lord of the Kaaba, and Lord of the territory of Mecca in the Koran. The Prophet rallied against the homage rendered at the Kaaba to the goddesses al-Lat, Manat, and al-Uzza, whom the pagan Arabs called the daughters of God, but Muhammad stopped short of attacking the cult of Hubal. From this Wellhausen concludes that Hubal is no other than Allah, the ‘god’ of the Meccans. When the Meccans defeated the Prophet near Medina, their leader is said to have shouted, ‘Hurrah for Hubal.’
“Circumambulation of a sanctuary was a very common rite practiced in many localities. The pilgrim during his circuit frequently kissed or caressed the idol. Sir William Muir thinks that the seven circuits of the Kaaba "were probably emblematical of the revolutions of the planetary bodies.’ While Zwemer goes so far as to suggest that the seven circuits of the Kaaba, three times rapidly and four times slowly were ‘in imitation of the inner and outer planets.’
“It is unquestionable that the Arabs ‘at a comparatively late period worshiped the sun and other heavenly bodies.’ The constellation of the Pleiades, which was supposed to bestow rain, appears as a deity. There was the cult of the planet Venus which was revered as a great goddess under the name of al-Uzza.
“We know from the frequency of theophorus names that the sun (Shams) was worshiped. Shams was the titular goddess of several tribes honored with a sanctuary and an idol. Snouck Hurgronje sees a solar rite in the ceremony of ‘wukut’…
“The goddess al-Lat is also sometimes identified with the solar divinity. The god Dharrih was probably the rising sun. The Muslim rites of running between Arafat and Muzdalifah, and Muzdalifah and Mina had to be accomplished after sunset and before sunrise. This was the deliberate change introduced by Muhammad to suppress this association with the pagan solar rite, whose significance we shall examine later. The worship of the moon is also attested to by proper names of people such as Hilal, a crescent, Qamar, a moon, and so on.
“Houtsma has suggested that the stoning that took place in Mina was originally directed at the sun demon. This view is lent plausibility by the fact that the pagan pilgrimage originally coincided with the autumnal equinox. The sun demon is expelled, and his harsh rule comes to an end with the summer, which is followed by the worship, at Muzdalifah, of the thunder god who brings fertility…
“Islam owes the term ‘Allah’ to the heathen Arabs. We have evidence that it entered into numerous personal names in Northern Arabia and among the Nabatians. It occurs among the Arabs of later times, in theophorus names and on its own. Wellhausen also cites pre-Islamic literature where Allah is mentioned as a great deity. We also have the testimony of the Koran itself where He is recognized as a giver of rain, a creator, and so on; the Meccans only crime was to worship other gods beside Him. EVENTUALLY Allah was only applied to the Supreme Deity. ‘In any case it is an extremely important fact that Muhammad did not find it necessary to introduce an altogether novel deity, but contented himself with ridding the HEATHEN Allah of his companions subjecting him to a kind of dogmatic purification… Had he not been accustomed from his youth to the idea of Allah as the Supreme God, in particular of Mecca, it may well be doubted whether he would ever have come forward as the preacher of Monotheism.’” (Ibn Warraq, Why I Am Not A Muslim [Prometheus Books, Amherst NY, 1995], pp. 39-40, 42; bold and capital emphasis ours)
This further implies that the Islamic sources couldn’t simply get rid of the notion of the kabah belonging to Hubal, or erase the fact that he was the chief deity of the Meccans, since this part of their history was still embedded within the recollections of the Arabs. What they tried to do was disassociate the Muslim deity from Hubal.
However, in separating Hubal from Allah, Muhammad and his followers created major problems for their position, namely, the Meccan shrine accommodating two separate gods.
Renowned Islamicist Patricia Crone notices these problems in her book:
“Third, what deity did Quraysh represent? The Meccan shrine accommodated Hubal, and there are supposed to have been several minor divinities in its vicinity, their number becoming prodigious in some sources. But as has just been seen, Quraysh do not appear to have been guardians of Hubal, and it evidently was not idols such as Isaf and Na’ila that provided their raison d’etre. Who, then?…” (Patricia Crone, Meccan Trade and the Rise of Islam [Gorgias Press LLC, 2004], p. 189; bold emphasis ours)
And:
“The tradition clearly envisages them as guardians on behalf of Allah, the God of Abraham, and the future God of Islam…” (Ibid., p. 190)
Crone then raises some interesting questions:
"... But if Quraysh saw themselves as guardians on behalf of Abraham's God, all the while acknowledging the existence of other deities, their reaction to Muhammad becomes exceedingly hard to understand. When Muhammad attacked polytheism, Quraysh reacted with a vigorous defence of Allat, Manat, al-‘Uzza, and to some extent even Hubal, invoking them in battle against Muhammad and demanding belief in them from the converts whom they tried to make recant. In other words, they reacted by mobilizing all the deities in whom they had no vested interest against the very God they were supposed to represent. If they owed their superior position in Arabia to their association with Abraham's God, why was it the pagan deities they chose to defend? And if Abraham's God was the God of their fathers, why was it the pagan gods they chose to describe as ancestral? The tradition clearly has a problem on its hands in that it wishes to describe Quraysh as monotheists and polytheists alike: on the one hand they were repositories of the aboriginal monotheism that Muhammad was to revive; and on the other hand they were polytheist zealots against whom Muhammad had to fight. They cannot have been both in historical fact. If we accept that they resisted Muhammad more or less as described, the claim that they represented the God of Abraham MUST BE DISMISSED.” (Ibid., pp. 191-192; bold and capital emphasis ours)
Crone also brings up a few interesting points which militate against Allah and Hubal both sharing the same house if in fact they were separate deities, which is the Muslim contention.
“This does not, of course, rule out the possibility that they represented an indigenous deity known as Allah, and it is as guardians of such a deity that they are generally envisaged in the secondary literature. But this hypothesis is also problematic.
“Admittedly, up to a point it makes good sense. Allah is associated with a black stone, and some traditions hold that originally this stone was sacrificial. This suggests that it was the stone rather than the building around it which was bayt allah, the house of god, and this gives us a perfect parallel with the Old Testament bethel. The cult of the Arab god Dusares (Dhu Shara) also seems to have centered on a black sacrificial stone. According to Epiphanius, he was worshipped together with his mother, the virginal Kaabou, or in other words ka‘ib or ka‘ab, a girl with swelling breasts. A similar arrangement is met in Nabataean inscription from Petra that speaks of sacrificial stones (nysb’ = ansab) belonging to the ‘lord of this house’ (mr’ byt) and al-‘Uzza, another ka‘ib lady. If we assume that bayt and ka‘ba alike originally referred to the Meccan stone rather than the building around it, then the lord of the house WAS A PAGAN ALLAH worshipped in conjunction with a female consort such as al-‘Uzza and/or other ‘daughters of God.’ This would give us a genuinely pagan deity for Quraysh and at the same time explain their devotion to goddesses.
“But if Quraysh represented Allah, what was Hubal doing in their shrine? Indeed, what was the building doing? No sacrifices can be made over a stone immured in a wall, and a building accommodating Hubal makes no sense around a stone representing Allah. Naturally Quraysh were polytheists, but the deities of polytheist Arabia preferred to be housed separately. No pre-Islamic sanctuary, be it stone or building, is known to have accommodated more than one male god, as opposed to one male god and female consort. The Allah who is attested in an inscription of the late second century A.D., certainly was not forced to share his house with other deities. And the shrines of Islamic Arabia are similarly formed around the tomb of a single saint. If Allah was a pagan god like any other, Quraysh would not have allowed Hubal to share the sanctuary with him–not because they were proto-monotheists, but precisely because they were pagans.
“One would thus have to fall back on the view that Allah was not a god like any other. On the one hand, Allah might simply be another name for Hubal, as Wellhausen suggested: just as the Israelites knew Yahwe as Elohim, so the Arabs knew Hubal as Allah, meaning simply as ‘God.’ It would follow that the guardians of Hubal and Allah were identical; and since Quraysh were not guardians of Hubal, they would not be guardians of Allah, either. But as Wellhausen himself noted, Allah had long ceased to be a label that could be applied to any deity. Allah was the personal name of a specific deity, on a par with Allat, not merely a noun meaning ‘god’; and in the second century this deity had guardians of his own. When ‘Abd al-Muttalib is described as having prayed to Allah while consulting Hubal's arrows, it is simply that the sources baulk at depicting the Prophet's grandfather as a genuine pagan, not that Allah and Hubal were alternative names for the same god. If Hubal and Allah had been one and the same deity, Hubal ought to have survived as an epithet of Allah, which he did not. And moreover, there would not have been traditions in which people are asked to renounce the one for the other.” (Ibid., pp. 191-194; bold emphasis ours)
And:
“On the other hand, Allah might have been a high God over and above all other deities. This is, in fact, how Wellhausen saw him, and he has been similarly represented by Watt. It is not how he appears in the inscriptional material, in which he is very much the god of a particular people; and the fact that he was known as Allah, ‘the god,’ is no indication of supremacy: Allat, ‘the goddess,’ was not a deity over and above al-‘Uzza or Manat. But he could, of course, have developed into such a god, as the Qur’anic evidence adduced by Wellhausen and Watt suggests. If we accept this view, however, we are up against the problem that he is unlikely to have had guardians of his own in this capacity. Viewed as a high god, Allah was too universal, too neutral, and too impartial to be the object of a particular cult, as Wellhausen noted; no sanctuary was devoted to him except insofar as he had come to be identified with ordinary deities. A high god in Arabia was apparently one who neither needed nor benefitted from cultic links with a specific group of devotees. (Wellhausen may of course be wrong: maybe a high god in Arabia did benefit from such links. But if so, we are back at the problem of why Allah was made to share these links with Hubal).
“If Quraysh were guardians on behalf of an Allah above all other deities, they must thus have started as guardians of someone else. But as has been seen, they do not appear to have been guardians of Hubal, and Hubal was not identified with Allah, nor did his cult assist that of Allah in any way. And if we postulate that they started as guardians of an ordinary Allah who subsequently developed into a supreme deity, we reinstate the problem of Hubal's presence in his shrine. The fact is that the Hubal-Allah sanctuary of Mecca is an oddity; can such a shrine have existed in historical fact? There would seem to be at least two sanctuaries behind the one depicted in the tradition, and Quraysh do not come across as guardians of either.” (Ibid., pp. 194-195; bold emphasis ours)

A Proposed Solution
There is a solution to all of this, one which Muslims may not like. The way to solve this dilemma is to admit the fact that the Arabs initially viewed the word Allah as a generic term which could be used for any deity who was believed to be the greatest.
Scholars pretty much agree that Allah was a name used by different Arab pagans for one of their local deities, specifically the chief or high god. They further recognize that Muhammad took the pagan Allah worshiped by his particular tribe and transformed him into the one true God worshiped by all monotheists, so that he ended up divorcing his god from any similarly named pagan deity. Muhammad (more precisely, the unclean spirit which inspired him) did this so as to get the Jews and Christians to join his religion as well:
“… The name used for God was 'Allah', which was already in use for one of the local gods (it is now also used by Arabic-speaking Jews and Christians as the name of God)…” (Albert Hourani, A History of Arab Peoples [Warner Books Edition, paperback 1992], p. 16; bold emphasis ours)
“Historical evidence indicates that Allah was the name of an ancient Arabian high god in a pantheon of other gods and goddesses like those found in other ancient Middle Eastern cultures…” (Juan E. Campo, Encyclopedia of Islam [Facts On File Inc., 2009], p. 34; bold emphasis ours)
“ALLAH is a proper name among Muslims, corresponding in usage to Jehovah (Jahweh) among the Hebrews. Thus, it is not be regarded as a common name meaning “God” (or a “god”), and the Muslim must use another word or form if he wishes to indicate any other than his own peculiar deity. The source of this goes back to pre-Muslim times….
“The origin of this goes back to pre-Muslim times as Prof. Noldeke has shown… Muhammad found the Meccans believing in a supreme god whom they called Allah, thus already contracted. With Allah, however, they associated minor deities, some evidently tribal, others called daughters of Allah. MUHAMMAD'S REFORM WAS TO ASSERT THE SOLITARY EXISTENCE OF ALLAH. The first article of the Muslim creed, therefore–La ilaha illa-llahu,–means, only as addresses by him to the Meccans, ‘There exist no god except the one whom you already call ALLAH.

“Naturally, this precise historical origin is not clear to the Muslim exegetes and theologians. But that Allah is a proper name, applicable only to their peculiar God, they are certain, and they mostly recognize that its force as a proper name has arisen through contraction in form and limitation in usage.” (Encyclopedia of Religion and Ethics, edited by James Hastings, M.A., D.D., with the assistance of John A. Selbie, M.A., D.D., and other scholars [Charles Scribner's Sons, New York; T. & T. Clark, Edinburgh, 1908], Volume I. A-Art, p. 326; bold and capital emphasis ours)
“8 HUBAL.–Hubal was worshiped at Mecca; his idol stood in the Ka'ba, and he appears to have been, in reality, the god of the sanctuary. It is therefore particularly unfortunate that we have so little information respecting him. Wellhausen has plausibly suggested that Hubal is no other than Allah, 'the god' of the Meccans…
“In the Nabataean inscriptions we repeatedly find the name of a deity accompanied by the title Alaha, ‘the god.’ Hence Wellhausen argues that the Arabs of a later age may also have applied the epithet Allah, 'the god,' to a number of different deities, and that in this manner Allah, from being a mere appendage to the name of a great god, may gradually have become the proper name of the Supreme God. In any case it is an extremely important fact that Muhammad did not find it necessary to introduce an altogether novel deity, but contented himself with ridding the heathen Allah of all his ‘companions,’ subjecting him to a kind of dogmatic purification and defining him in a somewhat clearer manner. Had he not been accustomed from his youth to the idea of Allah as the Supreme God, in particular of Mecca, it may well be doubted whether he would ever have come forward as the preacher of Monotheism.” (Ibid., pp. 663-664; bold emphasis ours)
“Allah was known to the pre-Islamic Arabs; he was one of the Meccan deities, possibly the supreme deity and certainly a creator-god (cf. Kur’an, xiii, 16; xxix, 61, 63; xxix, 38; xliii, 87). He was already known, by antonomasia, as the God, al-Ilah (the most likely etymology; another suggestion is the Aramaic Alaha).–For Allah before Islam as shown by archaeological sources and the Kur’an, see ILAH.
“But the vague notion of supreme (not sole) divinity, which Allah seems to have connoted in Meccan religion, WAS TO BECOME both universal and transcendental; it was TO BE TURNED, by the Kur’anic preaching, INTO the affirmation of the Living God, the Exalted One.” (Brill’s Encyclopedia of Islam, Volume I, p. 406; bold and capital emphasis ours)
“The god Il or Ilah was originally a phase of the Moon God, but early in Arabian history the name became a general term for god, and it was this name that the Hebrews used prominently in their personal names, such as Emanu-el, Israel, etc., rather than the Ba'al of the northern Semites proper, which was the Sun. Similarly, under Mohammed's tutelage, the relatively anonymous Ilah BECAME Al-Ilah, The God, or Allah, the Supreme Being.” (C. S. Coon, "Southern Arabia, A Problem For The Future", Papers Of The Peabody Museum Of American Archaeology And Ethnology, 1943, Volume 20, p. 195; bold and capital emphasis ours)
“The customs of heathenism have left an indelible mark on Islam, notably in the rites of the pilgrimage (on which more will be said later), so that for this reason alone something ought to be said about the chief characteristics of Arabian paganism…
“The oldest name for God used in the Semitic word consists of but two letters, the consonant ‘l’ preceded by a smooth breathing, which was pronounced as ‘Il’ in ancient Babylonia, ‘El’ in ancient Israel. The relation of this name, which in Babylonia and Assyria became a generic term simply meaning ‘god’, to the Arabian Ilah familiar to us in the form Allah, which is compounded of al, the definite article, and Ilah by eliding the vowel ‘I’, is not clear. Some scholars trace the name of the South Arabian Ilah, a title of the Moon god, but this is a matter of antiquarian interest. In Arabia Allah was known from Jewish and Christian sources as the one god, and there can be no doubt whatever that he was known to pagan Arabs of Mecca as the supreme being. Were this not so, the Qur'an would have been unintelligible to the Meccans; moreover it is clear from Nabataean and other inscriptions that Allah means ‘the god’.” (Alfred Guillaume, Islam [Penguin Books, London, 1956], pp. 6-7; bold emphasis ours)
Allah. Islamic name for God. Is derived from Semitic El, and originally applied to the moon; he seems to have been preceded by Ilmaqah, the moon god. ("Allah" in E. Sykes, Everyman's Dictionary Of Non-Classical Mythology [J. M. Dent & Sons Ltd., London, E. P. Dutton & Co. Inc., New York, 1961] p. 7; underline emphasis ours)
“Allah–The Arabic word for God. Probably derived from il ilah, ‘the god.’ Arabic Christians addressed God as Allah long before Muhammad was born. Allah was used by pre-Islamic pagans to designate A NOTABLE DEITY in their religious system. Muhammad repudiated these pagan and polytheistic meanings when he declared, ‘There is no god but Allah.’” (Timothy George, Is the Father of Jesus the God of Muhammad? [Zondervan, Grand Rapids, MI 2006], p. 147; bold and capital emphasis ours)
I. Before Islam. That the Arabs, before the time of Muhammad, accepted and worshipped, after a fashion, a supreme god called Allah–“the ilah” or the god, if the form is of genuine Arabic source; if of Aramaic, from alaha, “the god”–seems absolutely certain. Whether he was an abstraction or a development from some individual god, such as Hubal, need not here be considered… But they also recognized and tended to worship more fervently and directly other strictly subordinate gods… It is certain that they regarded particular deities (mentioned in sura liii. 19-20 are al-‘Uzza, Manat or Manah, al-Lat [?]; some have interpreted vii. 180 as a reference to a perversion of Allah to Allat) as daughters of Allah (vi. 100; xvi. 57; xxxvii. 149; liii. 21); they also asserted that he had sons (vi. 100)… “There was no god save Allah”. This meant, for Muhammad and the Meccans, that of all the gods whom they worshipped, Allah was the only real deity. It took no account of the nature of God in the abstract, only of the personal position of Allah. “Allah,” therefore, was and is the proper name of God among Muslims. It corresponds to Yahwe among the Hebrews, not Elohim. No plural can be formed from it. To express “gods,” the Muslim must fall back on the plural of ilah, the common noun from which Allah is probably derived… But, though the name was the same for the Meccans and for Muhammad, their conceptions of the nature of the bearer of the name must have differed widely…” (Shorter Encyclopaedia of Islam, eds. H. A. R. Gibb & J. H. Kramers [Cornell University Press, Ithaca, NY (N.D.)], pp. 33-34; bold emphasis ours)
“Allah is the contraction of two Arabic words, il and ilah–‘the god.’ Allah was commonly used in pre-Islamic Arabia, sometimes associated with an individual's personal name. For example, Muhammad was the son of Abdullah, which means ‘the servant of Allah.’ The Kabah in Mecca was the shrine of Allah–acknowledged as A ‘HIGH GOD’ above many lesser gods; by the time of Muhammad, however, the worship of Allah had become thoroughly paganized. As we have seen, THIS PRE-ISLAMIC PAGAN ALLAH was believed to have engendered three ‘daughters’ who were worshiped as goddesses, along with the stone-god, the moon-god, the pigeon-god, and numerous other deities. Muhammad broke decisively with this polytheistic confusion. He called on people to believe in Allah, not as the greatest deity in the Meccan pantheon, but as the one and only God there is. Islam began, then, as a vigorous return to an uncompromising monotheism. (Ibid., pp. 70-71; bold and capital emphasis ours)
“Both the concept of a Supreme God and the Arabian term [Allah] have been shown to be familiar to the Arabs in Mohammed’s time. What Mohammed did was to give a NEW and fuller content to the concept, TO PURIFY IT FROM ELEMENTS OF POLYTHEISM WHICH CLUSTERED AROUND IT.” (H.A.R. Gibb, Mohammedanism: An Historical Survey [Oxford University Press, London 1961], p. 54; bold and capital emphasis ours)
“Allah, the paramount deity of PAGAN Arabia, was the target of worship in varying degrees of intensity from the southernmost tip of Arabia to the Mediterranean. To the Babylonians he was ‘Il’ (god); to the Canaanites, and later the Israelites, he was ‘El’; the South Arabians worshiped him as ‘Ilah,’ and the Bedouins as ‘al-Ilah’ (the deity). With Muhammad he BECOMES Allah, God of the Worlds, of all believers, the one and only who admits of no associates or consorts in the worship of Him. Judaic and Christian concepts of God abetted the transformation of Allah FROM A PAGAN DEITY to the God of all monotheists. There is no reason, therefore, to accept the idea that ‘Allah’ passed to the Muslims from Christians and Jews.” (Caesar E. Farah, Ph.D., Islam [Barron's Educational Series, 2000, sixth edition paperback] p. 28; bold and capital emphasis ours)
The following liberal Muslim author also admits that Allah was initially the name used by the pagans for their sky god, and in time was elevated to the rank of the supreme god. He even goes so far as to acknowledge that Hubal was the central deity of the Meccans, despite the fact of erroneously assuming that Hubal and Allah were/are different gods!
“IN THE ARID, desolate basin of Mecca, surrounded on all sides by the bare mountains of the Arabian desert, stands a small, nondescript sanctuary that the ancient Arabs refer to as the Ka‘ba: the Cube. The Ka‘ba is a squat, roofless edifice made of unmortared stones and sunk into a valley of sand. Its four walls–so low it is said that a young goat can leap over them–are swathed in strips of heavy cloth. At its base, two small doors are chiseled into the gray stone, allowing entry into the inner sanctum. It is here, inside the cramped interior of the sanctuary, that the gods of pre-Islamic Arabia reside: Hubal, the Syrian god of the moon; al-Uzza, the powerful goddess the Egyptians knew as Isis and the Greeks called Aphrodite; al-Kutba, the Nabataean god of writing and divination; Jesus, the incarnate god of the Christians, and his holy mother, Mary.” (Reza Aslan, No god but God: The Origins, Evolution and Future of Islam [Random House, Inc., Later prt. Edition, 2005], 1. The Sanctuary in the Desert: Pre-Islamic Arabia, p. 3; bold emphasis ours)
And:
“In contrast, paganism among the sedentary societies of Arabia had developed from its earlier and simpler manifestations into a complex form of neo-animism, providing a host of divine and semi-divine intermediaries, who stood between the creator god and his creation. This creator god was called Allah, which is not a proper name but a contraction of the word al-ilah, meaning simply ‘the god.’ Like his Greek counterpart, Zeus, Allah was ORIGINALLY an ancient rain/sky deity who was ELEVATED into the role of the supreme god of the pre-Islamic Arabs. Though a powerful deity to swear by, Allah's eminent status in the Arab pantheon rendered him, like most High Gods, beyond the supplication of ordinary people. Only in times of great peril would anyone bother consulting him. Otherwise, it was far more expedient to turn to the lesser, more accessible gods who acted as Allah's intercessors, the most powerful of whom were his three daughters, Allat (‘the goddess’), al-Uzza (‘the mighty’), and Manat (the goddess of fate, whose name is probably derived from the Hebrew word mana, meaning ‘portion’ or ‘share’). These divine mediators were not only represented in the Ka‘ba, they had their own individual shrines throughout the Arabian Peninsula: Allat in the city of Ta’if; al-Uzza in Nakhlah; and Manat in Qudayd. It was to them that the Arabs prayed when they needed rain, when their children were ill, when they entered into battle or embarked on a journey deep into the treacherous desert abodes of the Jinn–those intelligent, imperceptible, and salvable beings made of smokeless flame who are called ‘genies’ in the West and who function as the nymphs and fairies of Arabian mythology… Although called ‘King of the Gods’ and ‘the Lord of the House,’ Allah was not the central deity in the Ka‘ba. That honor belonged to Hubal, the Syrian god who had been brought to Mecca centuries before the rise of Islam.
“Despite Allah’s minimal role in the religious cult of pre-Islamic Arabia, his eminent position in the Arab pantheon is a clear indication of just how far paganism in the Arabian Peninsula had evolved from its simple animistic roots. Perhaps the most striking example of this development can be seen in the processional chant that tradition claims the pilgrims sang as they approached the Ka‘ba:
Here I am, O Allah, here I am.
You have no partner,
Except such a partner as you have.
You possess him and all that is his.
“This remarkable proclamation, with its obvious resemblance to the Muslim profession of faith – ‘There is no god but God’ – may reveal the earliest traces in pre-Islamic Arabia of what the German philologist Max Muller termed henotheism: the belief in a single High God, without necessarily rejecting the existence of other, subordinate gods. The earliest evidence of henotheism in Arabia can be traced back to a tribe called the Ami, who lived near modern-day Yemen in the second century B.C.E., and who worshiped a High God they called dhu-Samawi, ‘The Lord of the Heavens.’ While the details of the Amirs’ religion have been lost to history, most scholars are convinced that by the sixth century C.E., henotheism had become the standard belief of the vast majority of sedentary Arabs, who not only accepted Allah as their High God, but insisted that he was the same god as Yahweh, the god of the Jews.” (Ibid., pp. 6-8; bold and capital emphasis ours)
Thus, the term Allah initially started out as a generic noun applicable to the high god worshiped by the pagans. Muhammad comes along and turns Allah into the proper name of his peculiar deity, much like Yahweh happens to be the proper name of the true God revealed in the Holy Bible.
This now brings me to my final section. Please turn to Part 3 for the finale.
 
Allah of Islam, Is He Yahweh God of the Bible?

Jalal Abualrub has decided to write an entire book responding to Craig Winn’s The Prophet of Doom (online edition), titled The Prophet of Mercy. The first two chapters of Abualrub’s book can be downloaded from his website (1, 2).
As time permits, and solely by the grace of the Lord Jesus, we will tackle those parts of the response that are relevant to biblical issues and doctrines. We will, if necessary, address Abualrub’s distortions of key essential Christian doctrines, as well as his distortions of Islamic theology and Muslim sources.
In this, our first response, we seek to address Abualrub’s defense of Allah being the God of the Holy Bible, as opposed to being the moongod or some other pagan deity (*).
Some introductory remarks are necessary before we proceed to address Abualrub’s claims. My own personal view regarding the use of the word Allah is that if treated as a generic noun, a common noun denoting any deity, then it is acceptable as a reference for the true God of the Holy Bible. However, Islamic theology does not treat Allah as a generic noun, but views it as their god’s own personal name. In Muslim thinking, Allah functions as the proper name of the deity, much like the name Peter or John. This is where the problem lies since, according to the Holy Bible, the one noun which functions as the true God’s proper name is Yahweh, not Allah. The fact that Muslims view the name Allah as a proper noun, as opposed to a common noun descriptive applicable to any deity, and that the Quran nowhere uses the name Yahweh in connection to god, is sufficient evidence to show that we are not dealing with the same God revealed in the Holy Bible. This will become more evident as we examine the etymology of the word Allah, and the manner in which the word was used prior to the advent of Islam.
With this stated we can now focus on what Abualrub writes:

Allah is the Moon God?
Evangelicals are so desperate to convince the general public of Islamic evilness that one website of theirs ( ALLAH, the Moon God ) actually suggested that Allah is the Moon-God, and thus, Muslims worship the moon. They must mean the same moon about which the Quran declares this, { And from among His Signs are the night and the day, and the sun and the moon. Prostrate yourselves not to the sun, nor to the moon, but prostrate yourselves to Allâh Who created them, if you (really) worship Him }; [41:37]. These people are utterly blatant and will stop at nothing, including lying in a shameful way, to defame Islam. This Quranic Verse refutes their article in its entirety, and we will soon refute the minor parts of it, Allah willing.

RESPONSE:
Note first: Abualrub likes to attack ALL Evangelicals for what SOME Evangelicals do or think. Most Evangelicals who write about Islam do NOT claim that Allah is the moon god (the many authors in this very site, THE major Evangelical website on Islam, do not propagate this theory), and basically no Evangelical claims that Muslims are worshipping the moon. Christians or Evangelicals as a whole are not evil and guilty simply because a few among them supposedly do something that Abualrub does not like.
If one actually reads the article referred to in the above quotation, it will be rather obvious that Abualrub is grossly distorting what the author says. Here are some relevant quotes, adding some emphasis for the sake of clarity:

The Muslims claim that Allah in PRE-ISLAMIC times was the biblical God of the Patriarchs, prophets, and apostles. The issue is thus one of continuity. Was "Allah" the biblical God or a pagan god in Arabia during PRE-ISLAMIC times? The Muslim's claim of continuity is essential to their attempt to convert Jews and Christians for if "Allah" is part of the flow of divine revelation in Scripture, then it is the next step in biblical religion. Thus we should all become Muslims. But, on the other hand, if Allah was A PRE-ISLAMIC PAGAN DEITY, then its core claim is refuted. Religious claims often fall before the results of hard sciences such as archeology. We can endlessly speculate about the past or go and dig it up and see what the evidence reveals. This is the only way to find out the truth concerning THE ORIGINS OF ALLAH. As we shall see, the hard evidence demonstrates that the god Allah was a pagan deity. In fact, he was the Moon-god who was married to the sun goddess and the stars were his daughters.
… 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.
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.
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.

This article is not alone in stating that al-ilah, specifically Ilah, from whence we get Allah, was a title for the moongod Sin:

"The relation of this name, which in Babylonia and Assyrian became a generic term simply meaning 'god', to the Arabian Ilah familiar to us in the form Allah, which is compounded of al, the definite article, and Ilah by eliding the vowel 'i', is not clear. Some scholars trace the name to the South Arabian Ilah, a title of the Moon god, but this is a matter of antiquarian interest." (Alfred Guillaume, Islam [Penguin Books Inc., Baltimore, 1956], p. 7; underline emphasis ours)

The paper also mentions that the ninth century Christian apologist, Abd al-Masih al-Kindy, asserted that Muslims got their conception of Allah from the Sabeans:

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…

Here are some quotes from the late, great Sir William Muir’s commentary on the Apology of Al-Kindy:

The first Section is devoted to a defence of the doctrine of the Trinity, in which the argument is, to our apprehension, often weak and far-fetched. His friend had invited him to embrace the Catholic, or Hanyfite, faith of Abraham, their common father. Our Apologist answers that the Hanyfite faith was in reality the idolatrous religion of the Sabeans, which the patriarch professed before his conversion to the worship of the One true God. "Which of these two religions of Abraham," he asks, "am I to adopt? If it be the Unity, I reply that the revelation thereof made to Abraham was inherited by Isaac, not by Ishmael, and descended in the line not of the Arabs, but of the Israelites; and it is for them, and not for you, to invite me to the same." … (Muir, The Apology of Al Kindy Written at the Court of Al Mamun (Circa A.H. 215; A.D. 830): In Defence of Christianity Against Islam, pp. 41-42; online edition; bold emphasis ours)

What makes this truly interesting is that the following source states that the Sabeans worshiped the moon and even called it Allah!

… Particular to Arabia, Coon elucidates on this phenomenon of astral preference,

"Among the northern Semites the sun was the most important, as the promoter of fertility in vegetation; in southern Arabia, where the sun is too hot for comfort, and scorches and withers, the night is the time for coolness, and, in the moonlight, the time for travel and work. Nomads travel much at night, and the moon with its phases gives them their yardstick for measuring time. Thus, whereas the sun was the important god to the northern Semites, the moon was supreme among the southern groups, including not only the southern Arabian peoples, but also the pre-Islamic Arabs proper, who lived farther north in the peninsula."38

There is much evidence to connect Allah with the worship of the moon god in Arabia. The moon god, whether by the name of Sin or by some other, was worshipped in temples all across the peninsula. The Sabaeans even had a moon god whose specific appellation was "Allah"39… (Source)

Ironically, the Muslims were identified as Sabeans by those around them, presumably due to the similarities in their beliefs:

… Then the Prophet proceeded on and the people complained to him of thirst. Thereupon he got down and called a person (the narrator 'Auf added that Abu Raja' had named him but he had forgotten) and 'Ali, and ordered them to go and bring water. So they went in search of water and met a woman who was sitting on her camel between two bags of water. They asked, "Where can we find water?" She replied, "I was there (at the place of water) this hour yesterday and my people are behind me." They requested her to accompany them. She asked, "Where?" They said, "To Allah's Apostle." She said, "Do you mean the man WHO IS CALLED THE SABI, (with a new religion)?" They replied, "Yes, the same person. So come along." They brought her to the Prophet and narrated the whole story. He said, "Help her to dismount." The Prophet asked for a pot, then he opened the mouths of the bags and poured some water into the pot. Then he closed the big openings of the bags and opened the small ones and the people were called upon to drink and water their animals. So they all watered their animals and they (too) all quenched their thirst and also gave water to others and last of all the Prophet gave a pot full of water to the person who was Junub and told him to pour it over his body. The woman was standing and watching all that which they were doing with her water. By Allah, when her water bags were returned the looked like as if they were more full (of water) than they had been before (Miracle of Allah's Apostle) Then the Prophet ordered us to collect something for her; so dates, flour and Sawiq were collected which amounted to a good meal that was put in a piece of cloth. She was helped to ride on her camel and that cloth full of food-stuff was also placed in front of her and then the Prophet said to her, "We have not taken your water but Allah has given water to us." She returned home late. Her relatives asked her: "O so and so what has delayed you?" She said, "A strange thing! Two men met me and took me to the man WHO IS CALLED THE SABI' and he did such and such a thing. By Allah, he is either the greatest magician between this and this (gesturing with her index and middle fingers raising them towards the sky indicating the heaven and the earth) or he is Allah's true Apostle." ...
Abu 'Abdullah said: The word Saba'a means "The one who has deserted his old religion and embraced a new religion." Abul 'Ailya said, "The Sabis are a sect of people of the Scripture who recite the Book of Psalms." (Sahih Al-Bukhari, Volume 1, Book 7, Number 340)
... Abu Dhar went to the Mosque, where some people from Quraish were present, and said, 'O folk of Quraish ! I testify that None has the right to be worshipped except Allah, and I (also) testify that Muhammad is Allah's Slave and His Apostle.' (Hearing that) the Quraishi men said, 'Get at this SABI (i.e. Muslim)!' They got up and beat me nearly to death. Al 'Abbas saw me and threw himself over me to protect me. He then faced them and said, 'Woe to you! You want to kill a man from the tribe of Ghifar, although your trade and your communications are through the territory of Ghifar?' They therefore left me. The next morning I returned (to the Mosque) and said the same as I have said on the previous day. They again said, 'Get at this SABI!' I was treated in the same way as on the previous day, and again Al-Abbas found me and threw himself over me to protect me and told them the same as he had said the day before.' So, that was the conversion of Abu Dhar (may Allah be Merciful to him) to Islam." (Sahih Al-Bukhari, Volume 4, Book 56, Number 725)
... So when he came to Mecca, someone said to him, "You have become A SABIAN?" Thumama replied, "No! By Allah, I have embraced Islam with Muhammad, Apostle of Allah. No, by Allah! Not a single grain of wheat will come to you from Jamaica unless the Prophet gives his permission." (Sahih Al-Bukhari, Volume 5, Book 59, Number 658)
... Unais went until he came to Mecca and he came to me late. I said: What did you do? He said: I met a person in Mecca who is on your religion and he claims that verily it is Allah Who has sent him. I said: What do the people say about him? He said: They say that he is a poet or a Kahin or a magician. Unais who was himself one of the poets said. I have heard the words of a Kahin but his words in no way resemble his (words). And I also compared his words to the verses of poets but such words cannot be uttered by any poet. By Allah, he is truthful and they are liars. Then I said: you stay here, until I go, so that I should see him. He said: I came to Mecca and I selected an insignificant person from amongst them and said to him: Where is he whom you call as-Sabi? He pointed out towards me saying: He is Sabi. Thereupon the people of the valley attacked me with sods and bows until I fell down unconscious. I stood up after having regained my consciousness and I found as if I was a red idol... These women met Allah's Messenger (may peace be upon him) and Abu Bakr who had also been coming down the hill. He asked them: What has happened to you? They said: There is Sabi, who has hidden himself between the Ka'ba and its curtain. He said: What did he say to you? They said: He uttered such words before us as we cannot express. Allah's Messenger (may peace be upon him) came and he kissed the Black Stone and circumambulated the House along with his Companion and then observed prayer, and when he had finished his prayer, Abu Dharr said: I was the first to greet him with the salutation of peace and uttered (these words) in this way; Allah's Messenger, may there be peace upon you, whereupon he said: It may be upon you too and the mercy of Allah. He then said: Who are you? I said: From the tribe of Ghifar. He leaned his hand and placed his finger on his forehead and I said to myself: Perhaps he has not liked it that I belong to the tribe of Ghifar... (Sahih Muslim, Book 031, Number 6046)

Hence, the issue of the paper is one of pre-Islamic worship, whether in pre-Islamic times Allah was a pagan deity, or was he considered the same true God of the Holy Bible. The article clearly recognizes that during Muhammad’s time, Allah went from being a name for the chief pagan deity of Mecca to the true, universal God worshiped even by Jews and Christians. The paper, therefore, is not claiming that Muslims are knowingly worshiping the moon god, but that the god which they believe is the true universal sovereign of all was originally nothing more than a pagan deity, the high god of a pantheon of lesser gods, which Muhammad then turned into the one god of all. In other words, despite the Muslims thinking that they are worshiping the one true God revealed in the Holy Bible, in reality they are unknowingly worshiping a pagan deity which Muhammad passed off as the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob.
For more on the issue of whether the name Allah initially referred to a moon deity or not, please read the articles posted in the following link: www.answering-islam.org/Index/M/moongod.html

Before KJV of the Bible Was Ever Written, There Were Arabic Bibles Calling the Lord by His Name, ‘Allah'
Craig Winn does not like to call Allah by His Name, ‘Allah'. However, the name ‘Allah' is found in all the Arabic Bibles that have been printed in the West –in tens of millions– by Evangelical Christians and freely distributed in poor Arab and Muslim countries to preach the Monotheistic Gospel to pagan Muslims! I know that ‘Allah' is the name used in these Arabic Bibles, because I received several of them when I was living in Kuwait . For evidence, the reader is encouraged to log onto this website: ( http://www.e-sword.net/bibles.html ) wherein the word ‘Allah' is used in the first verse contained in the version of the Bible entitled, The Arabic Smith & Van Dyke Bible . Further, ( Home - Arabic Bible Outreach Ministry) posts this article: “ The Mt. Sinai Arabic Codex 151 is indeed a most exciting discovery. It appears to be the oldest Arabic translation of the Bible in existence which was done in 867 AD…It was discovered at St. Catherine monastery in Mt. Sinai in the 1800's. ” The ‘oldest copy' of the Arabic Bible referred to here also uses the word ‘Allah' when describing the Creator .
I read various copies of the Arabic Gospel12 about a dozen times, in addition to the dozen times in which I read various English Bibles. I do not claim to have become a scholar on the Bibles, because to be as such, one certainly needs more than 10,000 hours.

RESPONSE:
We are glad that Abualrub has decided to appeal to the Arabic Bible in order to establish his position, since this will backfire against him, as we will see below. As we will be showing, although the term Allah was/is used by Jews and Christians, they obviously do not have the same Being in view that the Muslims do. In fact, neither Jews nor Christians view Allah as the personal name of their God.

Did Jesus Ever Call the Lord by, ‘God'?
Matthew 27:46 states, “ And about the ninth hour Jesus cried with a loud voice, saying, Eli, Eli, lama sabachthani? that is to say, My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me? ”
If Muslims are challenged to bring forth the original Arabic words of their Holy Book, the Quran, they will produce a copy of it that is perfectly identical to every other copy that Muslims have in any other part of the world. Can Christians or Jews accomplish the same fete regarding the Two Testaments?

RESPONSE:
I am assuming that Abualrub is citing the words of the Lord Jesus to prove that he cried out to Allah, or that Allah is a more accurate word to use than the English word God. To see why he is mistaken, we only need to cite the original language of the texts in question, taking a look a Psalm 22:1 first, since this is where Jesus quoted from:

"My God, my God, why have you forsaken me? Why are you so far from saving me, from the words of my groaning?" Psalm 22:1
Hebrew- Eli, Eli, lamah ‘azavtani?
Syriac- ‘Alahi ‘Alahi lemana’ sebaqtani?
Arabic- ‘Ilaahiy ‘Ilaahiy, limaadhaa taraktaniy?

In the Psalm citation, the word used for God is Eli, from the word el, with the letter i being the possessive suffix "my." The word el is often used as a part of people’s names, as in Isra-EL, Ishma-EL, Immanu-EL etc. The Quran takes over some of these names, but instead of retaining the word el, it uses its Arabic equivalent il:

O Children of Isra-EL (Isra’IL)! Remember My favour wherewith I favoured you, and fulfil your (part of the) covenant, I shall fulfil My (part of the) covenant, and fear Me. S. 2:40
Remember We made the House a place of assembly for men and a place of safety; and take ye the station of Abraham as a place of prayer; and We covenanted with Abraham and Isma'IL (Ishma-EL), that they should sanctify My House for those who compass it round, or use it as a retreat, or bow, or prostrate themselves (therein in prayer). S. 2:125 Y. Ali

The Syriac and Arabic translations of this Psalm use alah and ilah in place of el. Neither word corresponds exactly to Allah, even though they are related. We will explain this more thoroughly later on in the paper.
And now Jesus’ words, taken from the Markan parallel:

"And at the ninth hour Jesus cried with a loud voice, ‘Eloi, Eloi, lema sabachthani?’ which means, ‘My God, my God, why have you forsaken me (ho theos mou ho theos mou eis ti me egkatelipes)?’ Mark 15:34
Arabic- wa fi assaa3ati atthaalitati, sarakha yasou3 bisawtin 3adhiymin: ‘alowiy ‘alowiy, lamaa shabaqtaniy? ‘ay: ‘ilaahiy ‘ilaahiy, limaadhaa taraktaniy?

Again, the words used are Aramaic eloi, Greek theos, and Arabic ilah respectively. All these words are used generically to refer to any person or thing, and not just for the true God. Why this is important will become clearer a little later on.

I challenge the readers, Craig Winn and all of Christendom and Judaism to produce a single original manuscript of the Torah or the Gospel -with stress on the word, ‘ original '. If anyone is ever able to successfully respond to this challenge, that original copy will most certainly be in a language other than English and will not contain the word, ‘God' to describe the Creator.
Here is the very first verse in the ‘version' of the Bible called, Transliterated Pronounceable , Genesis 1:1 , " Bree'shiyt baaraa' 'Elohiym 'eet hashaamayim w'eethaa'aarets. " If transliterated into English, this verse reads like this (as in KJV), " In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth. "

RESPONSE:
Abualrub seems to be rather confused at this point, or at least inconsistent, since he demands of Christians what he himself cannot produce for his own book. If by original manuscript Abualrub means the original languages in which the books of the Holy Bible were written (i.e. Hebrew, Aramaic, Koine Greek), then yes we can produce those. If, by original manuscript, Abualrub means the very document written by the prophet or apostle, known as the autograph, then the answer is rather obvious. No Christian or Jew can produce the autograph, but neither can Abualrub produce the original Quranic manuscript written down by Muhammad or by one of his scribes. In fact, there wasn’t just one manuscript of the Quran, but several which were compiled after Muhammad’s death. It was Uthman who decided to standardize what he felt was the more authentic version from many competing codices which were written down by ear and eye witnesses of Muhammad, men who had committed the Quran to memory. Uthman decided to burn these other primary codices.
In fact, even to this day there isn’t one version of the Quran, but at least two that are still used from over a dozen versions. These versions are called qiraat, or readings, by Muslims, which they expediently deem to be equally authoritative:

When reading the Qur'an, we frequently refer to Warsh or Hafs and say, "This is Hafs" or "This is Warsh". What we mean by that is that this is the riwaya or Warsh or the riwaya of Hafs. It is the riwaya of a particular qira'a. The qira'at or the readings, or methods of recitation, are named after the leader of a school of Qur'an reciters. Each qira'a derives its authority from a prominent leader of recitation in the second or third century hijri who in turn trace their riwaya or transmission back through the Companions of the Prophet. For instance, in the back of a Warsh Qur'an, you are likely to find "the riwaya of Imam Warsh from Nafi' al-Madini from Abu Ja'far Yazid ibn al-Qa'qa' from 'Abdullah ibn 'Abbas from Ubayy ibn Ka'b from the Messenger of Allah, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, from Jibril, peace be upon him, from the Creator." Or in Hafs you will see "the riwaya of Hafs ibn Sulayman ibn al-Mughira al-Asadi al-Kufi of the qira'a of 'Asim ibn Abi'n-Nujud al-Kufi from Abu 'Abdu'r-Rahman 'Abdullah ibn Habib as-Sulami from 'Uthman ibn 'Affan and 'Ali ibn Abi Talib and Zayd ibn Thabit and Ubayy ibn Ka'b from the Prophet, may Allah bless him and grant him peace." These all go back to the Prophet.
There are slight differences in these readings, for example, where one stops, as in Surat al-Baqara (1): "Dhalika'l-Kitabu la rayb" or "Dhalika'l-Kitabu la rayba fih" as well as some voweling differences ("suddan" or "saddan"), and sometimes a difference in the letters due to different diacritical marks, as ya' or ta' (turja'una or yurja'una). Sometimes a word will have a shadda or not have a shadda…
Today, the two readings most used are the qira'a of 'Asim in the riwaya of Hafs, and the qira'a of Nafi' in the riwaya of Warsh. Also in use in Africa is the qira'a of Abu 'Amir in the riwaya of ad-Duri. (Source; bold emphasis ours)
(C)ertain variant readings existed and, indeed, persisted and increased as the Companions who had memorised the text died, and because the inchoate (basic) Arabic script, lacking vowel signs and even necessary diacriticals to distinguish between certain consonants, was inadequate. ... In the 4th Islamic century, it was decided to have recourse (to return) to "readings" (qira'at) handed down from seven authoritative "readers" (qurra'); in order, moreover, to ensure accuracy of transmission, two "transmitters" (rawi, pl. ruwah) were accorded to each. There resulted from this seven basic texts (al-qira'at as-sab', "the seven readings"), each having two transmitted versions (riwayatan) with only minor variations in phrasing, but all containing meticulous vowel-points and other necessary diacritical marks. ... The authoritative "readers" are:

Nafi` (from Medina; d. 169/785)
Ibn Kathir (from Mecca; d. 119/737)
Abu `Amr al-`Ala' (from Damascus; d. 153/770)
Ibn `Amir (from Basra; d. 118/736)
Hamzah (from Kufah; d. 156/772)
al-Qisa'i [sic] (from Kufah; d. 189/804)
Abu Bakr `Asim (from Kufah; d. 158/778)

(Cyril Glassé, The Concise Encyclopedia of Islam [Harper & Row: San Francisco, 1989], p. 324, bold added)

The following Salafi website acknowledges this mass confusion which surrounded the Quran's transmission:

Secondly, what is meant by styles (ahruf, sing. harf)?
The BEST of the scholarly OPINIONS concerning what is meant is that there are seven ways of reciting the Qur’aan, where the wording may differ but the meaning is the same; if there is a different meaning then it is by way of variations on a theme, not opposing and contradiction.
Thirdly ...
It is known that Hishaam was Asadi Qurashi (i.e., from the clan of Bani Asad in Quraysh) and ‘Umar was ‘Adawi Qurashi (i.e., from the clan of Bani ‘Adiyy in Quraysh). Both of them were from Quraysh and Quraysh had only one dialect. If the difference in ahruf (styles) had been a difference in dialects, why would two men of Quraysh have been different?
The scholars mentioned NEARLY FORTY DIFFERENT OPINIONS concerning this matter! Perhaps the most correct is that which we have mentioned above. And Allaah knows best.
Fourthly:
It seems that the seven styles were revealed with different wordings, as indicated by the hadeeth of ‘Umar, because ‘Umar’s objection was to the style, not the meaning. The differences between these styles are not the matter of contradiction and opposition, rather they are synonymous, as Ibn Mas’ood said: “It is like one of you saying halumma, aqbil or ta’aal (all different ways of saying ‘Come here’).”
Fifthly:
With regard to the seven recitations (al-qiraa’aat al-saba’), this number is not based on the Qur’aan and Sunnah, rather it is the ijtihaad of Ibn Mujaahid (may Allaah have mercy on him). People thought that al-ahruf al-saba’ (the seven styles) were al-qiraa’aat al-saba’ (the seven recitations) because they happened to be the same number. But this number may have come about coincidentally, or it may have been done deliberately by Ibn Mujaahid to match what was narrated about the number of styles (ahruf) being seven. Some people thought that the styles (ahruf) were the recitations, but this is a mistake. No such comment is known among the scholars. The seven recitations are one of the seven styles, and this is the style that ‘Uthmaan chose for all the Muslims.
Sixthly:
When ‘Uthmaan made copies of the Qur’aan, he did so according to one style (harf), but he omitted the dots and vowel points so that some other styles could also be accommodated. So the Mus-haf that was copied in his time could be read according to other styles, and whatever styles were accommodated by the Mus-haf of ‘Uthmaan remained in use, and the styles that could not be accommodated fell into disuse. The people had started to criticize one another for reciting differently, so ‘Uthmaan united them by giving them one style of the Qur’aan.
Seventhly:
Your saying that Mujaahid’s different recitations meant the seven styles (ahruf) is not correct, as was said by Shaykh al-Islam ibn Taymiyyah. (Majmoo’ah al-Fatawa, vol. 13, p. 210) ...
Islam Q&A (www.islam-qa.com)

Imagine, if you would, what Abualrub would have said if Christians claimed that the Bible had been transmitted in seven different versions, or readings, and that each reading has come through two transmissions, totaling fourteen versions! And this doesn’t even apply to the English translations of the Quran, but solely to the alleged Arabic original which Abualrub claims he is able to produce!
For more on this subject, please read the following articles:
The truth of the matter is that the Holy Bible has vastly superior textual, historical, archaeological, and documentary evidence than the Quran. The Holy Bible is better attested in terms of manuscript evidence and textual purity as the following links show:
Abualrub continues:

How can ‘God’, be Closer in Pronunciation to, ‘Elohiym’, ‘Il’, ‘Ilu’, ‘Ilah’, than ‘Allah’?
‘God’, Was Never Used in Any Ancient Hebrew, Aramaic, Greek or Latin Judaeo-Christian Scripture Manuscripts
This is an extraordinary, clear testimony regarding the etymology of the Word, ‘God’, that is found in, The Catholic Encyclopedia : ( CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA: Etymology of the Word God ) . Catholicism, much older and much larger than Protestantism, is also the largest Christian religion in the present time. The only comments made here was that I bold-faced and underlined certain sections of this article to emphasis their content.
" Etymology of the Word ‘God’: (Anglo-Saxon God; German Gott; akin to Persian khoda; Hindu khooda). God can variously be defined as : the proper name of the one Supreme and Infinite Personal Being, the Creator and Ruler of the universe, to whom man owes obedience and worship; the common or generic name of the several supposed beings to whom, in polytheistic religions, Divine attributes are ascribed and Divine worship rendered; the name sometimes applied to an idol as the image or dwelling-place of a god. The root-meaning of the name (from Gothic root gheu; Sanskrit hub or emu, "to invoke or to sacrifice to") is either "the one invoked" or "the one sacrificed to." From different Indo-Germanic roots (div, "to shine" or "give light"; "thes" in thessasthai "to implore") come the Indo-Iranian deva, Sanskrit dyaus (gen. divas), Latin deus, Greek theos, Irish and Gaelic dia, all of which are generic names; also Greek Zeus (gen. Dios, Latin Jupiter (jovpater), Old Teutonic Tiu or Tiw (surviving in Tuesday), Latin Janus, Diana, and other proper names of pagan deities. The common name most widely used in Semitic occurs as 'el in Hebrew, 'ilu in Babylonian, 'ilah in Arabic, etc.; and though scholars are not agreed on the point, the root-meaning most probably is "the strong or mighty one. "
The so-called ‘holy’ Islamic books that Winn claims to have relied on while writing his book are much older historically than any English Bible that contains the word ‘God’ and came into existence centuries before the King James Version of the Bible13.
The Arabs, children of Prophet Ishmael (Isma`el), and the Israelites, children of Prophet Jacob (Ya`qub), are cousins, being the children of Prophet Abraham (Ibrahim), as the Bible itself declares. Genesis 16:1-15 , states, " 1. Now Sarai Abram's wife bare him no children: and she had an handmaid, an Egyptian, whose name was Hagar…3. And Sarai Abram's wife took Hagar her maid the Egyptian…and gave her to her husband Abram to be his wife14…15. And Hagar bare Abram a son: and Abram called his son's name, which Hagar bare, Ishmael. " Further, ‘Elohiym’, is Hebrew for, ‘Allah’. Abraham was an Arab, from Iraq (Babylon) and the Hebrew people are his descendants, just as the Arabs. The Hebrew legacy started with Abraham ( Genesis 14: 13 , " Abram the Hebrew. " ) and the children of Israel. The Arabic Language is much older than the Hebrew, and the Creator has always been called, ‘Allah’, in Arabic.
Conclusion: the Name of the Creator is, ‘Allah’, not, ‘God’. Craig Winn slandered his Creator, the True Creator of everything and everyone, including Jesus and his mother.

RESPONSE:
Instead of wasting his time looking under the word God in the Encyclopedia, Abualrub should have looked for the word Allah, since this is what he would have found:

Allah
The name of God in Arabic. It is a compound word from the article, 'al, and ilah, divinity, and signifies "the god" par excellence. This form of the divine name is in itself a sure proof that ilah was at one time an appellative, common to ALL the local and tribal gods. GRADUALLY, with the addition of the article, it was restricted to one of them who took precedence of the others; finally, with the triumph of monotheism, He was recognized as the only true God. In one form or another this Hebrew root occurs in all Semitic languages as a designation of the Divinity; but whether it was originally a proper name, pointing to a primitive monotheism, with subsequent deviation into polytheism and further rehabilitation, or was from the beginning an appellative which became a proper name only when the Semites had reached monotheism is a much debated question. It is certain, however, that before the time of Mohammed, owing to their contact with Jews and Christians, the Arabs were generally monotheists. The notion of Allah in Arabic theology is substantially the same as that of God among the Jews, and also among the Christians, with the exception of the Trinity, which is positively excluded in the Koran, cxii: "Say God, is one God, the eternal God, he begetteth not, neither is he begotten and there is not any one like unto him." His attributes denied by the heterodox Motazilites, are ninety-nine in number. Each one of them is represented by a bead in the Moslem chaplet, while on the one hundredth and larger bead, the name of Allah itself is pronounced. It is preposterous to assert with Curtiss (Ursemitische Religion, 119) that the nomadic tribes of Arabia, consider seriously the Oum-el-Gheith, "mother of the rain", as the bride of Allah and even if the expression were used such symbolical language would not impair, in the least, the purity of monotheism held by those tribes. (Cf. Revue Biblique, Oct., 1906, 580 sqq.) Let it be noted that although Allah is an Arabic term, it is used by all Moslems, whatever be their language, as the name of God. (Source; underline and capital emphasis ours)

This Encyclopedia is not alone in suggesting that Allah is originally a contraction of two words, al (the definite article) and ilah (common noun for deity or god). There seems to be somewhat of a scholarly consensus that this is the probable origin of Allah. Yet, many Muslims believe that Allah isn’t derived, but happens to be the eternal name of their god:

CONCERNING the real significance of the Arabic word Allah there has been much speculation and endless discussion among Moslem exegetes and lexicographers. The author of the Muheet-el-Muheet dictionary, a Christian, says: "Allah is the name of necessary Being. There are twenty different views as to the derivation of this name of the Supreme; the most probable is that its root is iläh, the past participle form, on the measure fi'äl, from the verb ilaho = to worship, to which the article was prefixed to indicate the supreme object of worship." When we open the pages of Ferozabadi, Beidhawi or Zamakhshari and read some of these twenty other derivations we find ourselves at the outset before an unknown God. The intellectual difficulty was a real one to the Moslem exegete, as he must discover some root and some theory of derivation that is not in conflict with his accepted idea of God. Beidhawi, for example, suggests that Allah is derived "from an [invented] root ilaha to be in perplexity, because the mind is perplexed when it tries to form the idea of the Infinite!" Yet more fanciful are the other derivations given and the Arabic student can satisfy his curiosity in Beidhawi, Vol. I., pp. 5 and 6.
According to the opinion of some Moslem theologians, it is infidelity (kufr) to hold that the word has any derivation whatever! This is the opinion of the learned in Eastern Arabia. They say "God is not begotten," and so if is name cannot be derived. He is the first, and had an Arabic name before the creation of the words. Allah is an eternal combination of letters written on the throne in Arabic and each stroke and curve has mystical meaning. Mohammed, they teach, received the revelation of this name and was the first to preach the divine unity among the Arabs by declaring it. This kind of argument is of one piece with all that Moslems tell us of "the days of ignorance" before the prophet. But history establishes beyond the shadow of a doubt that even the pagan Arabs, before Mohammed's time, knew their chief god by the name of Allah and even, in a sense, proclaimed His unity. In pre-Islamic literature, Christian or pagan, ilah IS USED FOR ANY GOD and Al-ilah (contracted to Allah), i.e., the god, was the name of the Supreme. Among the pagan Arabs this term denoted the chief god of their pantheon, the Kaaba, with its three hundred and sixty idols. Herodotus informs us (Lib. III, cap. viii.) that in his day the Arabs had two principal deities, Orotal and Alilat. The former is doubtless a corruption of Allah Taal, God most high, a term very common in the Moslem vocabulary; the latter is Al Lat, mentioned as a pagan goddess in the Koran. Two of the pagan poets of Arabia, Nabiga and Labid,1 use the word Allah repeatedly in the sense of a supreme deity. Nabiga says (Diwan, poem I., verses 23, 24): "Allah has given them a kindness and grace which others have not. Their abode is the God (Al-ilah) himself and their religion is strong," etc.
Labid says: "Neither those who divine by striking stones or watching birds, know what Allah has just created."2
Ash-Shabristani says of the pagan Arabs that some of them "believed in a Creator and a creation, but denied Allah's prophets and worshipped false gods, concerning whom they believed that in the next world they would become mediators between themselves and Allah." And Ibn Hisham, the earliest biographer of Mohammed whose work is extant, admits that the tribes of Kinanah and Koreish used the following words when performing the pre-Islamic ceremony of ihlal. 1 "We are present in thy service, O God. Thou hast no partner except the partner of thy dread. Thou ownest him and whatsoever he owneth."
As final proof, we have the fact that centuries before Mohammed the Arabian Kaaba, or temple at Mecca, was called Beit-Allah, the house of God and not Beit-el-Alihet, the house of idols or gods. Now if even the pagan Arabs acknowledged Allah as Supreme, surely the Hanifs (that band of religious reformers at Mecca which rejected all polytheism and sought freedom from sin by resignation to God's will) were not far from the idea of the Unity of God. It was henotheism2 in the days of paganism and the Hanifs led the way for Mohammed to preach absolute monotheism. The Koran often calls Abraham a Hanif and stoutly affirms that he was not a Jew or a Christian (Surahs 2:129; 3:60, 89; 6:162; 16:121, etc.). Among the Hanifs of Mohammed's time were Waraka, the prophet's cousin, and Zaid bin 'Amr, surnamed the Inquirer. Both exerted decided influence on Islam and its teaching. (Zwemer, The Moslem Doctrine of God, pp. 23-27; underline and capital emphasis ours)

It is interesting that Herodotus identified Orotal with the pagan god, Bacchus:

[3.8] The Arabs keep such pledges more religiously than almost any other people. They plight faith with the forms following. When two men would swear a friendship, they stand on each side of a third: he with a sharp stone makes a cut on the inside of the hand of each near the middle finger, and, taking a piece from their dress, dips it in the blood of each, and moistens therewith seven stones lying in the midst, calling the while on Bacchus and Urania. After this, the man who makes the pledge commends the stranger (or the citizen, if citizen he be) to all his friends, and they deem themselves bound to stand to the engagement. They have but these two gods, to wit, Bacchus and Urania; and they say that in their mode of cutting the hair, they follow Bacchus. Now their practice is to cut it in a ring, away from the temples. Bacchus they call in their language Orotal, and Urania, Alilat. (Source; see also this article)

Thus, if Orotal is a corruption of Allah Taal, then this strongly supports the position that, in pre-Islamic Mecca, Allah wasn’t identified with Yahweh God of the Bible.

Allah is supposed to be derived from ilah a deity or god, with the addition of the definite article al- Al-ilah, "the God" - or according to some authorities, it is from lah, ie Allah, "the secret one." But Abu Hanifah says that just as the essence of God is unchangeable, so is His name, and that Allah has ever been the name of the Eternal Being (See Ghiyasu-'l-Lughah.)
Allah may be an Arabic rendered of the Hebrew
[https://www]
el, and the unused root
[https://www]
ul, "to be strong", or from
[https://www]
, the singular form of
[https://www]
. It is expressed in Persian and Hindustani by the word Khuda derived from the Persian khud, self; the self-existing one. (Hughes' Dictionary of Islam, p. 141; online edition; underline emphasis ours)
The name Allah does not help us much. It is made up of the definite article al and the root 'ilh "god," derived from the same root as the Hebrew 'eloah, sometimes employed in Hebrew poetry for "God"' the plural of which, 'elohim, is the most common general designation of deity in the Old Testament. Etymologists sometimes debate whether 'ilah may not be derived from the verb 'ilaha, which means "to fear," "be perplexed," "to adore." In all probability the root was at first the name of deity, signifying "the terrible one," and the verb was derived from the noun. All this, however, lay far back in Semitic heathenism. In the Old Testament Elohim means "God" (sometimes "gods") and in Moslem parlance Al-lah simply means: "the God", i.e., " the One True God." (Source; underline emphasis ours)

Title:
The Origin of the word 'Allah'
Question:
What is the derivation of the word "Allah"? Some scholars say it derives from al+ illah ("the God"), but many Muslim Ulema and translators of the Qur'an (such as Maulana Muhammad Ali) disagree with this, and say that "Allah" is whole in itself, as A PROPER NAME for the Supreme Creator. But is there any philological relationship between Allah and other Semitic terms for "God" such as Eloah (Hebrew) and Alaha (Aramaic/Syriac)?
Thank you.
Peace and blessings of Allah be with you.
Answer:
Although a lot has been said about the philology of the word 'Allah', however, in my opinion, the former of the two opinions noted by you seems to be closer to the correct one. A detailed discussion compiling the opinions of various scholars of the Arabic language regarding the origin of the word can be seen in "Lisaan al-Arab" under the word "Aaliha" (a-l-h). In my opinion, 'Allah' is an Arabic word meaning 'the God'. According to the general principle of making proper nouns from common nouns in the Arabic language, the word "ilah" (common noun) has been converted to "al-ilah", which became "Allah" due to the turgidity and the slight difficulty of pronouncing the word "al-ilah".
The Qur'an, because its prime and first addressees were the Arabs, used the word "Allah" for the Supreme Being, as that had traditionally been the word used for the Supreme Being in that language. The same had been the case in the older scriptures. Those scriptures, like the Qur'an, used the particular words for the Supreme Being, which were already in vogue in those languages, to refer to the Supreme Being.
However, there have been scholars of the Arabic language who ascribe to the opinion that "Allah" is THE ACTUAL NAME of the Supreme Being. It is indeed important to analyze the evidence that they have provided to support their opinion. Nevertheless, I feel that to give God a name is a requirement of us, humans. God, being the absolute being is in no need for a name. (Source; as accessed on 25 February 2005; underline and capital emphasis ours)
(al´e, ä´le), [Arab.,=the God]. Derived from an old Semitic root referring to the Divine and used in the Canaanite El, the Mesopotamian ilu, and the biblical Elohim, the word Allah is used by all Arabic-speaking Muslims, Christians, Jews, and others. Allah, as a deity, was probably known in pre-Islamic Arabia. Arabic chronicles suggest a pre-Islamic recognition of Allah as a supreme God, with the three goddesses al-Lat, al-Uzza, and Manat as his "daughters." The Prophet Muhammad, declaring Allah the God of Abraham, demanded a return to a strict monotheism. Islam supplements Allah as the name of God with the 99 most beautiful names (asma Allah al-husna), understood as nondescriptive mnemonic guides to the Divine attributes. (Source; bold emphasis ours)
It is a known fact that every language has one or more terms that are used in reference to God and sometimes to lesser deities. This is not the case with Allah. Allah is the personal name of the One true God. Nothing else can be called Allah. The term has no plural or gender. This shows its uniqueness when compared with the word god which can be made plural, gods, or feminine, goddess. It is interesting to notice that Allah is the personal name of God in Aramaic, the language of Jesus and a sister language of Arabic. (Source; underline emphasis ours)
There are several points to be made regarding this name. From al-Qurtubi's tafseer of the basmalah in the Qur'aan, we find the following related to the meaning of this name:
  • Nothing else has this name; it is not found in female or plural form.
  • Some scholars say this is His greatest and most complete name.
  • It has three possible meanings: the One who deserves to be worshipped, the One whose existence is a must (He has always been and always shall be), and the Unique One.
Many scholars have said this name is derived, but have differed on what it is derived from:

  • some have said "ilaah", with the "alif-lam" replacing the "hamza". Seebawiyyah said similarly "Al-naas" comes from "Anaas".
  • some have said "laah", with the "alif-lam" used for magnification.
  • "al-ilaah", with the hamza being removed and then the two "laam"s being mixed together.
  • "walah" = to lose one's wits, as in while contemplating Him, trying to understand Him, we become bewildered. And "ilaah" is then derived from "walaah".
  • some have said that it is the object of when the creation "yata'alahoona" to Allaah for their needs, that is, we turn to Him as our deity and ask of Him.
  • from being High, as the Arabs used to say about raising something: "laaha".
  • from the letter "haa" which is the pronoun for He who is absent, and added to it is "laam" to indicate ownership ("laam al-milk") since He owns everything, and finally added to that is "alif-laam" to magnify Him.

A group of scholars have said it is not derived, and that the "alif-laam" is an integral part of the name, and not the definite article. They say that the proof is that we call upon Him with "yaa Allaah", and we do not drop the "alif-laam" and say "yaa laah". Note that, for His other names like "ar-ra7maan", we say "yaa ra7maan".
And Allaah knows best. (Source)
It is interesting to note that the Aramaic word "El", which is the word for God in the language that Jesus spoke, is certainly more similar in sound to the word "Allah" than the English word "God". This also holds true for the various Hebrew words for God, which are "El" and "Elah", and the plural form "Elohim". The reason for these similarities is that Aramaic, Hebrew and Arabic are all Semitic languages with common origins. It should also be noted that in translating the Bible into English, the Hebrew word "El" is translated variously as "God", "god" and "angel"! This imprecise language allows different translators, based on their preconceived notions, to translate the word to fit their own views. The Arabic word "Allah" presents no such difficulty or ambiguity, since it is only used for Almighty God alone. Additionally, in English, the only difference between "god", meaning a false god, and "God", meaning the One True God, is the capital "G". In the Arabic alphabet, since it does not have capital letters, the word for God (i.e. Allah) is formed by adding the equivalent to the English word "the" (Al-) to the Arabic word for "god/God" (ilah). So the Arabic word "Allah" literally it means "The God" - the "Al-" in Arabic basically serving the same function as the capital "G" in English. Due to the above mentioned facts, a more accurate translation of the word "Allah" into English might be "The One -and-Only God" or "The One True God". (Squires, Who is Allah?: Source)

The foregoing information poses one of two problems for Abualrub’s theory.
First off, if Allah is in fact a contraction of two words, al and ilah, then Abualrub is wrong in saying that Allah is Arabic for elohim. Elohim is the plural form of eloah, and in neither case do we find the definite article forming part of the words themselves as we find with Allah. The definite article in Hebrew is ha, not al, and if one wanted to speak of THE God in Hebrew, he would have to attach the definite article to the words that are commonly used for God in the Hebrew Bible (i.e., el, eloah, elohim etc.). Notice the following examples:

"After that God said to Jacob: ‘Rise, go up to Beth´el and dwell there, and make an altar there to the God (ha el) who appeared to you when you were running away from E´sau your brother.’ … and let us rise and go up to Beth´el. And there I shall make an altar to the God (ha el) who answered me in the day of my distress in that he proved to be with me in the way that I have gone." Genesis 35:1, 3
"You—you have been shown, so as to know that Jehovah is the God (ha elohim); there is no other besides him… And you well know today, and you must call back to your heart that Jehovah is the God (ha elohim) in the heavens above and on the earth beneath. There is no other." Deuteronomy 4:35, 39
"Thus said God (ha el), Jehovah, preparing The heavens, and stretching them out, Spreading out the earth and its productions, Giving breath to the people on it, And spirit to those walking in it." Isaiah 42:5 YLT

Secondly, despite the fact that the word ilah comes from the same Semitic field of words from which we get eloah, el, il, etc., these words were never used exclusively for the true God, but could be used for any deity worshiped by any person or groups, as both the Bible and Quran show:

"Go and cry out to the gods (ha elohim) whom you have chosen; let them save you in the time of your distress." Judges 10:14
"God (elohim) has stood in the company of God (el), In the midst of the gods (elohim) he judges… I said, ‘You are gods (elohim), sons of the Most High, all of you;’" Psalm 82:1, 6
I have therefore delivered him into the hand of the god (el) of the heathen; he shall surely deal with him: I have driven him out for his wickedness. Ezekiel 31:11
And the king shall do as he wills. He shall exalt himself and magnify himself above EVERY god (el), and shall speak astonishing things against the God of gods (El elim). He shall prosper till the indignation is accomplished; for what is decreed shall be done. Daniel 11:36
"Know ye that Jehovah, he is God (elohim): It is he that hath made us, and we are his; We are his people, and the sheep of his pasture." Psalm 100:3 ASV
"Then E·li´jah approached all the people and said: ‘How long will YOU be limping upon two different opinions? If Jehovah is the [true] God (ha elohim), go following him; but if Ba´al is, go following him.’ And the people did not say a word in answer to him. And E·li´jah went on to say to the people: ‘I myself have been left as a prophet of Jehovah, I alone, while the prophets of Ba´al are four hundred and fifty men. Now let them give us two young bulls, and let them choose for themselves one young bull and cut it in pieces and put it upon the wood, but they should not put fire to it. And I myself shall dress the other young bull, and I must place it upon the wood, but I shall not put fire to it. And YOU must call upon the name of YOUR god (elohehkhem, plural of eloah), and I, for my part, shall call upon the name of Jehovah; and it must occur that the [true] God (ha elohim) that answers by fire is the [true] God (ha elohim).’ To this all the people answered and said: ‘The thing is good.’ E·li´jah now said to the prophets of Ba´al: ‘Choose for yourselves one young bull and dress it first, because YOU are the majority; and call upon the name of YOUR god (elohim), but YOU must not put fire to it.’ Accordingly they took the young bull that he gave them. Then they dressed it, and they kept calling upon the name of Ba´al from morning till noon, saying: "O Ba´al, answer us!" But there was no voice, and there was no one answering. And they kept limping around the altar that they had made. And it came about at noon that E·li´jah began to mock them and say: "Call at the top of YOUR voice, for he is a god (elohim); for he must be concerned with a matter, and he has excrement and has to go to the privy. Or maybe he is asleep and ought to wake up!’ And they began calling at the top of their voice and cutting themselves according to their custom with daggers and with lances, until they caused blood to flow out upon them. And it came about that, as soon as noon was past and they continued behaving as prophets until the going up of the grain offering, there was no voice, and there was no one answering, and there was no paying of attention… And it came about at the time that the grain offering goes up that E·li´jah the prophet began to approach and say: ‘O Jehovah, the God of Abraham, Isaac and Israel, today let it be known that you are God (elohim) in Israel and I am your servant and it is by your word that I have done all these things. Answer me, O Jehovah, answer me, that this people may know that you, Jehovah, are the [true] God (ha elohim) and you yourself have turned their heart back.’ At that the fire of Jehovah came falling and went eating up the burnt offering and the pieces of wood and the stones and the dust, and the water that was in the trench it licked up. When all the people saw it, they immediately fell upon their faces and said: ‘Jehovah is the [true] God (ha elohim)! Jehovah is the [true] God (ha elohim)!’" 1 Kings 18:21-29, 36-39
"The house that I am to build will be great, for our God is greater than all gods (ha elohim)." 2 Chronicles 2:5
"There is none like you among the gods (ha elohim), O Lord, nor are there any works like yours." Psalm 86:8

In the Aramaic portions of Ezra, Jeremiah, and Daniel, the word used for God or the gods is elah, which corresponds to the Hebrew eloah:

"Thus you shall say to them, ‘The gods (elahaiya) that did not make the heavens and the earth will perish from the earth and from under the heavens.’" Jeremiah 10:11
"Then Daniel went to his house and made the matter known to Hananiah, Mishael, and Azariah, his companions, and told them to seek mercy from the God (elah) of heaven concerning this mystery, so that Daniel and his companions might not be destroyed with the rest of the wise men of Babylon. Then the mystery was revealed to Daniel in a vision of the night. Then Daniel blessed the God (elah) of heaven. Daniel answered and said: ‘Blessed be the name of God (elaha) forever and ever, to whom belong wisdom and might.’" Daniel 2:18-20

Note how the biblical authors used elohim, eloah, el, elim (plural of el), Aramaic elah etc., for the true God, but also for any god, gods, goddesses, and/or even human beings that the peoples worshiped. These words are also used for God’s agents, whether angels or humans such as prophets, priests etc. The above passages, therefore, indicate that none of these words were considered to be exclusive names of the true God, but served as generic nouns or descriptions of anyone or anything which was taken as an object of worship or considered mighty and strong.

God there is no god (la ilaha) but He, the Living, the Everlasting. Slumber seizes Him not, neither sleep; to Him belongs all that is in the heavens and the earth. Who is there that shall intercede with Him save by His leave? He knows what lies before them and what is after them, and they comprehend not anything of His knowledge save such as He wills. His Throne comprises the heavens and earth; the preserving of them oppresses Him not; He is the All-high, the All-glorious. S. 2:255
They have taken as lords beside Allah their rabbis and their monks and the Messiah son of Mary, when they were bidden to worship only One God (ilahan wahidan). There is no God (ilaha) save Him. Be He Glorified from all that they ascribe as partner (unto Him)! S. 9:31
Your God is One God (Ilahukum ilahun wahidan). But as for those who believe not in the Hereafter their hearts refuse to know, for they are proud. S. 16:22
Allah hath said: Choose not two gods (ilahayni). There is only One God (ilahun wahidun). So of Me, Me only, be in awe. S. 16:51
If there were therein gods (alihatun) beside Allah, then verily both (the heavens and the earth) had been disordered. Glorified be Allah, the Lord of the Throne, from all that they ascribe (unto Him). S. 21:22
Say: It is only inspired in me that your God is One God (ilahukum ilahun wahidun). Will ye then surrender (unto Him)? S. 21:108
And argue not with the People of the Scripture unless it be in (a way) that is better, save with such of them as do wrong; and say: We believe in that which hath been revealed unto us and revealed unto you; our God and your God is One (wa-ilahuna wa-ilahukum wahidun), and unto Him we surrender. S. 29:46
Most surely your God (ilahakum) is One: S. 37:4
And He it is Who in the heaven is God (ilahun), and in the earth God (ilahun). He is the Wise, the Knower. S. 43:84

In the above examples, the author uses the word ilah when speaking either of the false gods of the pagans, or when affirming that Allah is the one and only God or ilah. He doesn’t use the word Allah, implying that the author didn’t view Allah as a generic noun applicable for any deity. These passages seem to presuppose that Allah functions as the proper name of the deity preached by Muhammad.
We earlier had cited some Muslim sources which agreed that Allah was a proper name. Dr. Jamal Badawi is another Muslim who essentially argues that Allah is the proper name of the god of Muhammad. In his debate with Dr. Robert Morey, which took place on November 9, 1996 in Columbia at the University of South Carolina, titled, "Is the 'Allah' of the Qur'an the one true and universal God?," he approvingly cited some scholarly sources to prove that Allah was the God of the Bible, or at least an applicable term denoting the true God of all. One of his sources, The Shorter Encyclopedia of Islam (1965), says that Allah,

"... was and is the proper name of God among Muslims ..." (underline emphasis ours)

Some other references that he cited regarding Allah being a proper name include the following:

Presented in Islam as the proper name of God. (Encyclopedia of Religion, 1987, p. 27; underline emphasis ours)
The proper name of God among Muslims ... (Encyclopedia of Religion and Ethics, 1962, Volume 1, p. 326; underline emphasis ours)

What this basically comes down to is that if the word Allah is derived from ilah, then there is nothing special in the Muslim god being called Allah. Allah, much like the English word God, just so happens to be a generic noun that can be used for any deity, not just for the true God of the Holy Bible. Thus, just because Muslims call their god Allah doesn’t mean that they are worshiping the same true God as revealed in the Holy Bible. In other words, even though Arab speaking Jews and Arabic Christians use the word Allah when speaking of the God they believe in, this doesn’t mean that they have the same God in mind as the Muslims.
If, on the other hand, Muslims claim that Allah is not derived from ilah, but is the eternal, unchangeable name of their god, then this only proves that the god revealed in Islam cannot be the true God revealed in Holy Scripture. The everlasting name of the true God of the Holy Bible is not Allah, nor is it el, elohim, eloah, elah etc. The proper name of the God of Abraham is Yahweh (Jehovah):

"God also said to Moses, ‘Say this to the people of Israel, "Yahweh [YHWH], the God of your fathers, the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob, has sent me to you." This is my name FOREVER, and thus I am to be remembered throughout ALL GENERATIONS.’" Exodus 3:15
"God spoke to Moses and said to him, ‘I am Yahweh. I appeared to Abraham, to Isaac, and to Jacob, as God Almighty, but by MY NAME Yahweh I did not make myself known to them.’" Exodus 6:2-3
"Yahweh is a man of war; Yahweh is his name. Exodus 15:3
"that they may know that you alone, whose name is Yahweh, are the Most High over all the earth." Psalm 83:18
"I am Yahweh; that is my name; my glory I give to no other, nor my praise to carved idols." Isaiah 42:8
"And Yahweh will be king over all the earth; in that day Yahweh will be the only one, and His NAME the only one." Zechariah 14:9

As the following Bible dictionary puts it:

Strictly speaking, Yahweh, is the only ‘name’ of God. In Genesis wherever the word sem (‘name’) is associated with the divine being that name is Yahweh. When Abraham or Isaac built an altar ‘he called on the name of Yahweh’ (Gn. xii. 8, xxvi. 25).
... Yahweh, therefore, in contrast with Elohim, is a proper noun, the name of a Person, though that Person is divine. As such, it has its own ideological setting; it presents God as a Person, and so brings Him in to relationship with other, human, personalities. It brings God near to man, and He speaks to the Patriarchs as one friend to another. (The New Bible Dictionary, J.D. Douglas, organizing editor [William B. Erdmans Publsihing Company, Grand Rapids, MI; reprinted, April 1967], p. 478)

It is truly astonishing that the name Yahweh does not appear even once in the entire Quran, despite its repeated claim that it comes from the same true God of Abraham! The Quran in several places claims to be complete. If the Quran is a book complete in and of itself, why does it nowhere contain the name of God as revealed to His previous prophets?
The late James Hastings beautifully summed up the Muslim dilemma in his monumental Encyclopedia:

ALLAH is the proper name of God among Muslims, corresponding in usage to Jehovah (Jahweh) among the Hebrews. Thus it is NOT to be regarded as a common noun meaning 'God' (or 'god') and the Muslim MUST USE ANOTHER WORD OR FORM if he wishes to indicate any other than his own peculiar deity. Similarly, no plural can be formed from it, and though the liberal Muslim may admit that Christians or Jews call upon Allah, he could never speak of the Allah of the Christians or the Allah of the Jews. Among current Arabic Bible versions, 'God' ... [Elohim] is uniformly rendered Allah, but when 'the Lord God' ... [YHVH Elohim] occurs, it is rendered ar-rabbu-l-ilahu, 'the Lord, the Ilah,' where 'the Ilah' is an uncontracted form retaining its force of a common noun with the article, from which Allah has been shortened through usage. The Muslim, too, who usually derives and explains Ilah as meaning 'worshipped,' uses it and its plural Alihai in the broadest way, of any god, explaining that such is possible because worshippers believe that their god has a claim to worship, and 'names follow beliefs, not what the thing is in itself' (Lisan, xvii. 358). But more ordinarily, in referring to the gods of the heathen, a Muslim speaks simply of their images or idols, asnam, authan.
... Muhammad found the Meccans believing in a supreme God whom they called Allah, thus already contracted. With Allah, however, they associated other minor deities, some evidently tribal, others called daughters of Allah. Muhammad's reform was to assert the solitary existence of Allah...
Naturally, this precise historical origin is not clear to the Muslim exegetes and theologians. But that Allah is a proper name, applicable only to their peculiar God, they are certain, and they mostly recognize that its force as a proper name has arisen through contraction in form and limited in usage. (Hastings, Encyclopedia of Religion and Ethics, p. 326; underline emphasis and comments within brackets are ours)

Hastings knew that Allah functioned as the proper name of the god worshiped by Muslims, much like Jehovah, and wasn't simply a common generic noun denoting any deity.
Now Abualrub may argue that the exact pronunciation of Yahweh has been lost, thereby proving that this name is not the one eternal name which God wanted to be known by. This is irrelevant for at least two reasons. First, the Hebrew Scriptures still retain the consonants of the name Yahweh, i.e. Yodh He Waw He, and therefore haven’t been lost. Second, there is plenty of evidence showing that the proper way of pronouncing the four consonants (also known as the Tetragrammaton) is by adding a and e to them, whereby we get Yahweh:

Overwhelming scholarly opinion holds that [YHVH] was in Moses' time pronounced ... (Yahveh). There is also a shorter form of the Name, Yah ... which may represent the original from which Yahveh was expanded or may, contrariwise, be a contraction of the longer ascription..." (The Torah: A Modern Commentary, edited by W. Gunther Plaut [Union of American Hebrew Congregations, New York, 1981], p. 426; words in brackets ours)
The judicious reader will perceive that the Samaritan pronunciation Jabe probably approaches the real sound of the Divine name closest; the other early writers transmit only abbreviations or corruptions of the sacred name. Inserting the vowels of Jabe into the original Hebrew consonant text, we obtain the form Jahveh (Yahweh), which has been generally accepted by modern scholars as the true pronunciation of the Divine name. It is not merely closely connected with the pronunciation of the ancient synagogue by means of the Samaritan tradition, but it also allows the legitimate derivation of all the abbreviations of the sacred name in the Old Testament. (Source; bold emphasis ours)
Based on philology and representations in ancient languages such as Greek (see below), most scholars consider this [Yahweh] the original pronunciation of the Tetragrammaton. This form has been used in Christian translations such as the Jerusalem Bible. (Source)
😛
😛😛
 
Basi Gavana, msubiri tu @Dejal, mwache Yesu Kristo.


The Lost City


The Gospels tell us that Jesus's home town was the 'City of Nazareth' ('polis Natzoree'):



And in the sixth month the angel Gabriel was sent from God unto a CITY of Galilee, named Nazareth, To a virgin espoused to a man whose name was Joseph, of the house of David; and the virgin’s name was Mary.

(Luke1.26,27)

And all went to be taxed, every one into his own city. And Joseph also went up from Galilee, out of the CITY of Nazareth, into Judaea, unto the city of David, which is called Bethlehem; because he was of the house and lineage of David:
(Luke 2.3,4)

But when he heard that Archelaus did reign in Judaea in the room of his father Herod, he was afraid to go thither: notwithstanding, being warned of God in a dream, he turned aside into the parts of Galilee: And he came and dwelt in a CITY called Nazareth: that it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the prophets, He shall be called a Nazarene.
(Matthew 2.22,23)

And when they had performed all things according to the law of the Lord, they returned into Galilee, to their own CITY Nazareth. And the child grew, and waxed strong in spirit, filled with wisdom: and the grace of God was upon him.
(Luke 2.39,40)


The gospels do not tell us much about this 'city' – it has a synagogue, it can scare up a hostile crowd (prompting JC's famous "prophet rejected in his own land" quote), and it has a precipice – but the city status of Nazareth is clearly established, at least according to that source of nonsense called the Bible.


However when we look for historical confirmation of this hometown of a god – surprise, surprise! – no other source confirms that the place even existed in the 1st century AD.


• Nazareth is not mentioned even once in the entire Old Testament. The Book of Joshua (19.10,16) – in what it claims is the process of settlement by the tribe of Zebulon in the area – records twelve towns and six villages and yet omits any 'Nazareth' from its list.

• The Talmud, although it names 63 Galilean towns, knows nothing of Nazareth, nor does early rabbinic literature.

St Paul knows nothing of 'Nazareth'. Rabbi Solly's epistles (real and fake) mention Jesus 221 times, Nazareth not at all.

• No ancient historian or geographer mentions Nazareth. It is first noted at the beginning of the 4th century.
 
The Lost City


The Gospels tell us that Jesus's home town was the 'City of Nazareth' ('polis Natzoree'):





The gospels do not tell us much about this 'city' – it has a synagogue, it can scare up a hostile crowd (prompting JC's famous "prophet rejected in his own land" quote), and it has a precipice – but the city status of Nazareth is clearly established, at least according to that source of nonsense called the Bible.


However when we look for historical confirmation of this hometown of a god – surprise, surprise! – no other source confirms that the place even existed in the 1st century AD.
The Identity of the pre-Islamic Allah at Mecca [Part 2]

We resume our discussion concerning the identity of the pre-Islamic Allah worshiped by the pagans at Mecca.
The Problems Posed by the Islamic sources
As we saw in the previous section, evidence exists to show that the chief god of the Meccans, especially of Muhammad’s Quraysh tribe, was actually Hubal. The data we presented also indicates that the pagans took Hubal as the lord of the kabah, since they viewed this to be his very own sanctuary.
Now this creates problems for the Muslim assertion that Allah was the presiding deity of Mecca and that the kabah was actually his shrine.
The practice of the polytheists who were of a patriarchal bent was to build a sanctuary around a single male deity, specifically the one they viewed as the chief or greatest of all the gods. There is absolutely no example of a pre-Islamic shrine, whether a stone or building, built for two male deities at the same time. Rather, all the evidence shows that the houses that the polytheists built accommodated only one male deity along with his female consort.
This means that if, as Muslims believe, Allah and Hubal were two separate deities then they could not both be the chief god of Mecca and the lord of the kabah at the same time. After all, if the pagans did believe that Allah was the supreme god of their pantheon, as well as the god of the kabah, then they would not have forced him to share his shrine with another male deity.
Therefore, it seems reasonably certain that the pagans identified Hubal as Allah, which explains why the Islamic literature associates the Meccan shrine with both.
The following citations from Philip K. Hitti puts this all together quite nicely:
Hubal (from Aram. For vapour, spirit), evidently the chief deity of al-ka'bah, was represented in human form. Beside him stood ritual arrows used for divination by the soothsayers (kahin, from Aramaic) who drew lots by means of them. The tradition in ibn-Hisham, which makes 'Amr ibn-Luhayy the importer of this idol from Moab or Mesopotamia, may have a kernel of truth in so far as it retains a memory of the Aramaic origin of the deity. (History of the Arabs from the Earliest Times to the Present, revised tenth edition, new preface by Walid Khalidi [Palgrave Macmillan, 2002; ISBN: 0-333-63142-0 paperback], p. 100; bold emphasis ours)
And:
Allah (allah, al-ilah, the god) was the principal, though not the only, deity of Makkah. The name is an ancient one. It occurs in two South Arabic inscriptions, one a Minean found at al-'Ula and the other Sabean, but abounds in the form HLH in the Lihyanite inscriptions of the fifth century B.C. Lihyan, which evidently got the god from Syria, was the first center of the worship of this deity in Arabia. The name occurs as Hallah in the Safa inscriptions five centuries before Islam and also in a pre-Islamic Christian Arabic inscription found in umm-al-Jimal, Syria, and ascribed to the sixth century. The name of Muhammad's father was 'Abd-Allah ('Abdullah, the slave or worshiper of Allah). The esteem in which Allah was held by the pre-Islamic Makkans as the creator and supreme provider and the one to be invoked in time of special peril may be inferred from such koranic passages as 31:24, 31; 6:137, 109; 10:23. Evidently he was the tribal deity of the Quraysh. (Ibid., pp. 100-101; bold emphasis ours)
If Hitti is correct regarding Allah being the Quraysh’s tribal deity (and Muslims would agree that he was) then this provides additional proof that Allah was a name for Hubal. Note the following syllogism:

Hubal was the chief deity of the Quraysh.

Allah was the chief deity of the Quraysh.

Therefore, Hubal was Allah in pre-Islamic times.

This explains why many scholars believe that the Meccans used the titles Hubal and Allah interchangeably in respect to the same deity:
“Verse 3 looks rather simple: So let them worship the lord of this House. The lord is evidently Allah, whereas the House is evidently the Kaba. But the fact that Allah should be referred to as the lord of the Kaba and not merely as Allah must have a special significance, which has to be clarified. It seems that the Quran deliberately mentions the House in order to allude to the origin of the position of Quraysh as ahl al-haram. For, it was the Kaba from which Quraysh derived their prestige among the Arabs. That the Ka'ba was the origin of the sacred position of Quraysh was, of course, well known to them. Moreover, it seems that already in pre-Islamic times, Quraysh attributed their sacred position to the benevolence of the deity of the Kaba, to whom they used to refer as Hubal and whose statue was situated inside the Kaba. The pre-Islamic talbiya of those who worshipped Hubal, i.e., Quraysh, read:
labbayka llahumma labbayka, innana laqah
harramtana 'ala asinnati l-rimah
yahsuduna l-nasu 'ala l-najah
Labbayka, Oh, Lord, labbayka, we are immune,
You have protected us from the edges of the lances,
People envy us for our success.
“From the Quranic point of view, the deity of the Ka'ba is, of course, Allah who was worshipped by the pre-Islamic Arabs as the High God, and the Ka'ba itself was known as baytu llahi, so that the titles Hubal and Allah may be regarded as interchangeable. Whatever the case may be, Quraysh are summoned in our sura to draw the inevitable conclusion from their own awareness of the fact that their protection and immunity had come from the deity of the Ka'ba. The conclusion is that they must turn this deity into their sole object of veneration. This means that they must give up shirk, i.e., abandon the worship of the lesser idols which were attached to the High God. The statues of these idols were placed next to the Ka'ba (but never inside), so that Quraysh are actually required to devote themselves exclusively to the worship of the rabb of the Ka'ba itself, the one and only origin of their immunity, welfare and prosperity. As Muqatil puts it: akhlisal-'ibadata lahu… –dedicate your worship exclusively to him. (Uri Rubin, The Ilaf of Quraysh: A Study of sura CVI, Source: Arabica, T. 31, Fasc. 2 (Jul., 1984), pp. 165-188; bold emphasis ours)
And:
“We have evidence that black stones were worshiped in various parts of the Arab world; for example, Clement of Alexandria, writing ca. 190, mentioned that ‘the Arabs worship stone,’ alluding to the black stone of Dusares at Petra. Maximus Tyrius writing in the second century says, ‘The Arabians pay homage to I know not what god, which they represent by a quadrangular stone’: he alludes to the Kaaba that contains the Black Stone. Its great antiquity is also attested by the fact that ancient Persians claim that Mahabad and his successors left the Black Stone in the Kaaba, along with relics and images, and the stone was an emblem of Saturn…
“The Black Stone itself is evidently a meteorite and undoubtedly owes its reputation to the fact it fell from the ‘heavens.’ It is doubly ironic that Muslims venerate this piece of rock as that given to Ishmael by the angel Gabriel to build the Kaaba, as it is, to quote Margoliouth, ‘of doubtful genuineness, since the Black Stone was removed by the ... Qarmatians in the fourth [Muslim] century, and restored by them after many years; it may be doubted whether the stone which they returned was the same stone which they removed.’
“Hubal was worshipped at Mecca, and his idol in red cornelian was erected inside the Kaaba, above the dry well into which one threw votive offerings. It is very probable that Hubal had a human form. Hubal's position next to the Black Stone suggests there is some connection between the two. Wellhausen thinks that Hubal originally was the Black Stone that, as we have already remarked, is more ancient than the idol. Wellhausen also points out that God is called Lord of the Kaaba, and Lord of the territory of Mecca in the Koran. The Prophet rallied against the homage rendered at the Kaaba to the goddesses al-Lat, Manat, and al-Uzza, whom the pagan Arabs called the daughters of God, but Muhammad stopped short of attacking the cult of Hubal. From this Wellhausen concludes that Hubal is no other than Allah, the ‘god’ of the Meccans. When the Meccans defeated the Prophet near Medina, their leader is said to have shouted, ‘Hurrah for Hubal.’
“Circumambulation of a sanctuary was a very common rite practiced in many localities. The pilgrim during his circuit frequently kissed or caressed the idol. Sir William Muir thinks that the seven circuits of the Kaaba "were probably emblematical of the revolutions of the planetary bodies.’ While Zwemer goes so far as to suggest that the seven circuits of the Kaaba, three times rapidly and four times slowly were ‘in imitation of the inner and outer planets.’
“It is unquestionable that the Arabs ‘at a comparatively late period worshiped the sun and other heavenly bodies.’ The constellation of the Pleiades, which was supposed to bestow rain, appears as a deity. There was the cult of the planet Venus which was revered as a great goddess under the name of al-Uzza.
“We know from the frequency of theophorus names that the sun (Shams) was worshiped. Shams was the titular goddess of several tribes honored with a sanctuary and an idol. Snouck Hurgronje sees a solar rite in the ceremony of ‘wukut’…
“The goddess al-Lat is also sometimes identified with the solar divinity. The god Dharrih was probably the rising sun. The Muslim rites of running between Arafat and Muzdalifah, and Muzdalifah and Mina had to be accomplished after sunset and before sunrise. This was the deliberate change introduced by Muhammad to suppress this association with the pagan solar rite, whose significance we shall examine later. The worship of the moon is also attested to by proper names of people such as Hilal, a crescent, Qamar, a moon, and so on.
“Houtsma has suggested that the stoning that took place in Mina was originally directed at the sun demon. This view is lent plausibility by the fact that the pagan pilgrimage originally coincided with the autumnal equinox. The sun demon is expelled, and his harsh rule comes to an end with the summer, which is followed by the worship, at Muzdalifah, of the thunder god who brings fertility…
“Islam owes the term ‘Allah’ to the heathen Arabs. We have evidence that it entered into numerous personal names in Northern Arabia and among the Nabatians. It occurs among the Arabs of later times, in theophorus names and on its own. Wellhausen also cites pre-Islamic literature where Allah is mentioned as a great deity. We also have the testimony of the Koran itself where He is recognized as a giver of rain, a creator, and so on; the Meccans only crime was to worship other gods beside Him. EVENTUALLY Allah was only applied to the Supreme Deity. ‘In any case it is an extremely important fact that Muhammad did not find it necessary to introduce an altogether novel deity, but contented himself with ridding the HEATHEN Allah of his companions subjecting him to a kind of dogmatic purification… Had he not been accustomed from his youth to the idea of Allah as the Supreme God, in particular of Mecca, it may well be doubted whether he would ever have come forward as the preacher of Monotheism.’” (Ibn Warraq, Why I Am Not A Muslim [Prometheus Books, Amherst NY, 1995], pp. 39-40, 42; bold and capital emphasis ours)
This further implies that the Islamic sources couldn’t simply get rid of the notion of the kabah belonging to Hubal, or erase the fact that he was the chief deity of the Meccans, since this part of their history was still embedded within the recollections of the Arabs. What they tried to do was disassociate the Muslim deity from Hubal.
However, in separating Hubal from Allah, Muhammad and his followers created major problems for their position, namely, the Meccan shrine accommodating two separate gods.
Renowned Islamicist Patricia Crone notices these problems in her book:
“Third, what deity did Quraysh represent? The Meccan shrine accommodated Hubal, and there are supposed to have been several minor divinities in its vicinity, their number becoming prodigious in some sources. But as has just been seen, Quraysh do not appear to have been guardians of Hubal, and it evidently was not idols such as Isaf and Na’ila that provided their raison d’etre. Who, then?…” (Patricia Crone, Meccan Trade and the Rise of Islam [Gorgias Press LLC, 2004], p. 189; bold emphasis ours)
And:
“The tradition clearly envisages them as guardians on behalf of Allah, the God of Abraham, and the future God of Islam…” (Ibid., p. 190)
Crone then raises some interesting questions:
"... But if Quraysh saw themselves as guardians on behalf of Abraham's God, all the while acknowledging the existence of other deities, their reaction to Muhammad becomes exceedingly hard to understand. When Muhammad attacked polytheism, Quraysh reacted with a vigorous defence of Allat, Manat, al-‘Uzza, and to some extent even Hubal, invoking them in battle against Muhammad and demanding belief in them from the converts whom they tried to make recant. In other words, they reacted by mobilizing all the deities in whom they had no vested interest against the very God they were supposed to represent. If they owed their superior position in Arabia to their association with Abraham's God, why was it the pagan deities they chose to defend? And if Abraham's God was the God of their fathers, why was it the pagan gods they chose to describe as ancestral? The tradition clearly has a problem on its hands in that it wishes to describe Quraysh as monotheists and polytheists alike: on the one hand they were repositories of the aboriginal monotheism that Muhammad was to revive; and on the other hand they were polytheist zealots against whom Muhammad had to fight. They cannot have been both in historical fact. If we accept that they resisted Muhammad more or less as described, the claim that they represented the God of Abraham MUST BE DISMISSED.” (Ibid., pp. 191-192; bold and capital emphasis ours)
Crone also brings up a few interesting points which militate against Allah and Hubal both sharing the same house if in fact they were separate deities, which is the Muslim contention.
“This does not, of course, rule out the possibility that they represented an indigenous deity known as Allah, and it is as guardians of such a deity that they are generally envisaged in the secondary literature. But this hypothesis is also problematic.
“Admittedly, up to a point it makes good sense. Allah is associated with a black stone, and some traditions hold that originally this stone was sacrificial. This suggests that it was the stone rather than the building around it which was bayt allah, the house of god, and this gives us a perfect parallel with the Old Testament bethel. The cult of the Arab god Dusares (Dhu Shara) also seems to have centered on a black sacrificial stone. According to Epiphanius, he was worshipped together with his mother, the virginal Kaabou, or in other words ka‘ib or ka‘ab, a girl with swelling breasts. A similar arrangement is met in Nabataean inscription from Petra that speaks of sacrificial stones (nysb’ = ansab) belonging to the ‘lord of this house’ (mr’ byt) and al-‘Uzza, another ka‘ib lady. If we assume that bayt and ka‘ba alike originally referred to the Meccan stone rather than the building around it, then the lord of the house WAS A PAGAN ALLAH worshipped in conjunction with a female consort such as al-‘Uzza and/or other ‘daughters of God.’ This would give us a genuinely pagan deity for Quraysh and at the same time explain their devotion to goddesses.
“But if Quraysh represented Allah, what was Hubal doing in their shrine? Indeed, what was the building doing? No sacrifices can be made over a stone immured in a wall, and a building accommodating Hubal makes no sense around a stone representing Allah. Naturally Quraysh were polytheists, but the deities of polytheist Arabia preferred to be housed separately. No pre-Islamic sanctuary, be it stone or building, is known to have accommodated more than one male god, as opposed to one male god and female consort. The Allah who is attested in an inscription of the late second century A.D., certainly was not forced to share his house with other deities. And the shrines of Islamic Arabia are similarly formed around the tomb of a single saint. If Allah was a pagan god like any other, Quraysh would not have allowed Hubal to share the sanctuary with him–not because they were proto-monotheists, but precisely because they were pagans.
“One would thus have to fall back on the view that Allah was not a god like any other. On the one hand, Allah might simply be another name for Hubal, as Wellhausen suggested: just as the Israelites knew Yahwe as Elohim, so the Arabs knew Hubal as Allah, meaning simply as ‘God.’ It would follow that the guardians of Hubal and Allah were identical; and since Quraysh were not guardians of Hubal, they would not be guardians of Allah, either. But as Wellhausen himself noted, Allah had long ceased to be a label that could be applied to any deity. Allah was the personal name of a specific deity, on a par with Allat, not merely a noun meaning ‘god’; and in the second century this deity had guardians of his own. When ‘Abd al-Muttalib is described as having prayed to Allah while consulting Hubal's arrows, it is simply that the sources baulk at depicting the Prophet's grandfather as a genuine pagan, not that Allah and Hubal were alternative names for the same god. If Hubal and Allah had been one and the same deity, Hubal ought to have survived as an epithet of Allah, which he did not. And moreover, there would not have been traditions in which people are asked to renounce the one for the other.” (Ibid., pp. 191-194; bold emphasis ours)
And:
“On the other hand, Allah might have been a high God over and above all other deities. This is, in fact, how Wellhausen saw him, and he has been similarly represented by Watt. It is not how he appears in the inscriptional material, in which he is very much the god of a particular people; and the fact that he was known as Allah, ‘the god,’ is no indication of supremacy: Allat, ‘the goddess,’ was not a deity over and above al-‘Uzza or Manat. But he could, of course, have developed into such a god, as the Qur’anic evidence adduced by Wellhausen and Watt suggests. If we accept this view, however, we are up against the problem that he is unlikely to have had guardians of his own in this capacity. Viewed as a high god, Allah was too universal, too neutral, and too impartial to be the object of a particular cult, as Wellhausen noted; no sanctuary was devoted to him except insofar as he had come to be identified with ordinary deities. A high god in Arabia was apparently one who neither needed nor benefitted from cultic links with a specific group of devotees. (Wellhausen may of course be wrong: maybe a high god in Arabia did benefit from such links. But if so, we are back at the problem of why Allah was made to share these links with Hubal).
“If Quraysh were guardians on behalf of an Allah above all other deities, they must thus have started as guardians of someone else. But as has been seen, they do not appear to have been guardians of Hubal, and Hubal was not identified with Allah, nor did his cult assist that of Allah in any way. And if we postulate that they started as guardians of an ordinary Allah who subsequently developed into a supreme deity, we reinstate the problem of Hubal's presence in his shrine. The fact is that the Hubal-Allah sanctuary of Mecca is an oddity; can such a shrine have existed in historical fact? There would seem to be at least two sanctuaries behind the one depicted in the tradition, and Quraysh do not come across as guardians of either.” (Ibid., pp. 194-195; bold emphasis ours)

A Proposed Solution
There is a solution to all of this, one which Muslims may not like. The way to solve this dilemma is to admit the fact that the Arabs initially viewed the word Allah as a generic term which could be used for any deity who was believed to be the greatest.
Scholars pretty much agree that Allah was a name used by different Arab pagans for one of their local deities, specifically the chief or high god. They further recognize that Muhammad took the pagan Allah worshiped by his particular tribe and transformed him into the one true God worshiped by all monotheists, so that he ended up divorcing his god from any similarly named pagan deity. Muhammad (more precisely, the unclean spirit which inspired him) did this so as to get the Jews and Christians to join his religion as well:
“… The name used for God was 'Allah', which was already in use for one of the local gods (it is now also used by Arabic-speaking Jews and Christians as the name of God)…” (Albert Hourani, A History of Arab Peoples [Warner Books Edition, paperback 1992], p. 16; bold emphasis ours)
“Historical evidence indicates that Allah was the name of an ancient Arabian high god in a pantheon of other gods and goddesses like those found in other ancient Middle Eastern cultures…” (Juan E. Campo, Encyclopedia of Islam [Facts On File Inc., 2009], p. 34; bold emphasis ours)
“ALLAH is a proper name among Muslims, corresponding in usage to Jehovah (Jahweh) among the Hebrews. Thus, it is not be regarded as a common name meaning “God” (or a “god”), and the Muslim must use another word or form if he wishes to indicate any other than his own peculiar deity. The source of this goes back to pre-Muslim times….
“The origin of this goes back to pre-Muslim times as Prof. Noldeke has shown… Muhammad found the Meccans believing in a supreme god whom they called Allah, thus already contracted. With Allah, however, they associated minor deities, some evidently tribal, others called daughters of Allah. MUHAMMAD'S REFORM WAS TO ASSERT THE SOLITARY EXISTENCE OF ALLAH. The first article of the Muslim creed, therefore–La ilaha illa-llahu,–means, only as addresses by him to the Meccans, ‘There exist no god except the one whom you already call ALLAH.

“Naturally, this precise historical origin is not clear to the Muslim exegetes and theologians. But that Allah is a proper name, applicable only to their peculiar God, they are certain, and they mostly recognize that its force as a proper name has arisen through contraction in form and limitation in usage.” (Encyclopedia of Religion and Ethics, edited by James Hastings, M.A., D.D., with the assistance of John A. Selbie, M.A., D.D., and other scholars [Charles Scribner's Sons, New York; T. & T. Clark, Edinburgh, 1908], Volume I. A-Art, p. 326; bold and capital emphasis ours)
“8 HUBAL.–Hubal was worshiped at Mecca; his idol stood in the Ka'ba, and he appears to have been, in reality, the god of the sanctuary. It is therefore particularly unfortunate that we have so little information respecting him. Wellhausen has plausibly suggested that Hubal is no other than Allah, 'the god' of the Meccans…
“In the Nabataean inscriptions we repeatedly find the name of a deity accompanied by the title Alaha, ‘the god.’ Hence Wellhausen argues that the Arabs of a later age may also have applied the epithet Allah, 'the god,' to a number of different deities, and that in this manner Allah, from being a mere appendage to the name of a great god, may gradually have become the proper name of the Supreme God. In any case it is an extremely important fact that Muhammad did not find it necessary to introduce an altogether novel deity, but contented himself with ridding the heathen Allah of all his ‘companions,’ subjecting him to a kind of dogmatic purification and defining him in a somewhat clearer manner. Had he not been accustomed from his youth to the idea of Allah as the Supreme God, in particular of Mecca, it may well be doubted whether he would ever have come forward as the preacher of Monotheism.” (Ibid., pp. 663-664; bold emphasis ours)
“Allah was known to the pre-Islamic Arabs; he was one of the Meccan deities, possibly the supreme deity and certainly a creator-god (cf. Kur’an, xiii, 16; xxix, 61, 63; xxix, 38; xliii, 87). He was already known, by antonomasia, as the God, al-Ilah (the most likely etymology; another suggestion is the Aramaic Alaha).–For Allah before Islam as shown by archaeological sources and the Kur’an, see ILAH.
“But the vague notion of supreme (not sole) divinity, which Allah seems to have connoted in Meccan religion, WAS TO BECOME both universal and transcendental; it was TO BE TURNED, by the Kur’anic preaching, INTO the affirmation of the Living God, the Exalted One.” (Brill’s Encyclopedia of Islam, Volume I, p. 406; bold and capital emphasis ours)
“The god Il or Ilah was originally a phase of the Moon God, but early in Arabian history the name became a general term for god, and it was this name that the Hebrews used prominently in their personal names, such as Emanu-el, Israel, etc., rather than the Ba'al of the northern Semites proper, which was the Sun. Similarly, under Mohammed's tutelage, the relatively anonymous Ilah BECAME Al-Ilah, The God, or Allah, the Supreme Being.” (C. S. Coon, "Southern Arabia, A Problem For The Future", Papers Of The Peabody Museum Of American Archaeology And Ethnology, 1943, Volume 20, p. 195; bold and capital emphasis ours)
“The customs of heathenism have left an indelible mark on Islam, notably in the rites of the pilgrimage (on which more will be said later), so that for this reason alone something ought to be said about the chief characteristics of Arabian paganism…
“The oldest name for God used in the Semitic word consists of but two letters, the consonant ‘l’ preceded by a smooth breathing, which was pronounced as ‘Il’ in ancient Babylonia, ‘El’ in ancient Israel. The relation of this name, which in Babylonia and Assyria became a generic term simply meaning ‘god’, to the Arabian Ilah familiar to us in the form Allah, which is compounded of al, the definite article, and Ilah by eliding the vowel ‘I’, is not clear. Some scholars trace the name of the South Arabian Ilah, a title of the Moon god, but this is a matter of antiquarian interest. In Arabia Allah was known from Jewish and Christian sources as the one god, and there can be no doubt whatever that he was known to pagan Arabs of Mecca as the supreme being. Were this not so, the Qur'an would have been unintelligible to the Meccans; moreover it is clear from Nabataean and other inscriptions that Allah means ‘the god’.” (Alfred Guillaume, Islam [Penguin Books, London, 1956], pp. 6-7; bold emphasis ours)
Allah. Islamic name for God. Is derived from Semitic El, and originally applied to the moon; he seems to have been preceded by Ilmaqah, the moon god. ("Allah" in E. Sykes, Everyman's Dictionary Of Non-Classical Mythology [J. M. Dent & Sons Ltd., London, E. P. Dutton & Co. Inc., New York, 1961] p. 7; underline emphasis ours)
“Allah–The Arabic word for God. Probably derived from il ilah, ‘the god.’ Arabic Christians addressed God as Allah long before Muhammad was born. Allah was used by pre-Islamic pagans to designate A NOTABLE DEITY in their religious system. Muhammad repudiated these pagan and polytheistic meanings when he declared, ‘There is no god but Allah.’” (Timothy George, Is the Father of Jesus the God of Muhammad? [Zondervan, Grand Rapids, MI 2006], p. 147; bold and capital emphasis ours)
I. Before Islam. That the Arabs, before the time of Muhammad, accepted and worshipped, after a fashion, a supreme god called Allah–“the ilah” or the god, if the form is of genuine Arabic source; if of Aramaic, from alaha, “the god”–seems absolutely certain. Whether he was an abstraction or a development from some individual god, such as Hubal, need not here be considered… But they also recognized and tended to worship more fervently and directly other strictly subordinate gods… It is certain that they regarded particular deities (mentioned in sura liii. 19-20 are al-‘Uzza, Manat or Manah, al-Lat [?]; some have interpreted vii. 180 as a reference to a perversion of Allah to Allat) as daughters of Allah (vi. 100; xvi. 57; xxxvii. 149; liii. 21); they also asserted that he had sons (vi. 100)… “There was no god save Allah”. This meant, for Muhammad and the Meccans, that of all the gods whom they worshipped, Allah was the only real deity. It took no account of the nature of God in the abstract, only of the personal position of Allah. “Allah,” therefore, was and is the proper name of God among Muslims. It corresponds to Yahwe among the Hebrews, not Elohim. No plural can be formed from it. To express “gods,” the Muslim must fall back on the plural of ilah, the common noun from which Allah is probably derived… But, though the name was the same for the Meccans and for Muhammad, their conceptions of the nature of the bearer of the name must have differed widely…” (Shorter Encyclopaedia of Islam, eds. H. A. R. Gibb & J. H. Kramers [Cornell University Press, Ithaca, NY (N.D.)], pp. 33-34; bold emphasis ours)
“Allah is the contraction of two Arabic words, il and ilah–‘the god.’ Allah was commonly used in pre-Islamic Arabia, sometimes associated with an individual's personal name. For example, Muhammad was the son of Abdullah, which means ‘the servant of Allah.’ The Kabah in Mecca was the shrine of Allah–acknowledged as A ‘HIGH GOD’ above many lesser gods; by the time of Muhammad, however, the worship of Allah had become thoroughly paganized. As we have seen, THIS PRE-ISLAMIC PAGAN ALLAH was believed to have engendered three ‘daughters’ who were worshiped as goddesses, along with the stone-god, the moon-god, the pigeon-god, and numerous other deities. Muhammad broke decisively with this polytheistic confusion. He called on people to believe in Allah, not as the greatest deity in the Meccan pantheon, but as the one and only God there is. Islam began, then, as a vigorous return to an uncompromising monotheism. (Ibid., pp. 70-71; bold and capital emphasis ours)
“Both the concept of a Supreme God and the Arabian term [Allah] have been shown to be familiar to the Arabs in Mohammed’s time. What Mohammed did was to give a NEW and fuller content to the concept, TO PURIFY IT FROM ELEMENTS OF POLYTHEISM WHICH CLUSTERED AROUND IT.” (H.A.R. Gibb, Mohammedanism: An Historical Survey [Oxford University Press, London 1961], p. 54; bold and capital emphasis ours)
“Allah, the paramount deity of PAGAN Arabia, was the target of worship in varying degrees of intensity from the southernmost tip of Arabia to the Mediterranean. To the Babylonians he was ‘Il’ (god); to the Canaanites, and later the Israelites, he was ‘El’; the South Arabians worshiped him as ‘Ilah,’ and the Bedouins as ‘al-Ilah’ (the deity). With Muhammad he BECOMES Allah, God of the Worlds, of all believers, the one and only who admits of no associates or consorts in the worship of Him. Judaic and Christian concepts of God abetted the transformation of Allah FROM A PAGAN DEITY to the God of all monotheists. There is no reason, therefore, to accept the idea that ‘Allah’ passed to the Muslims from Christians and Jews.” (Caesar E. Farah, Ph.D., Islam [Barron's Educational Series, 2000, sixth edition paperback] p. 28; bold and capital emphasis ours)
The following liberal Muslim author also admits that Allah was initially the name used by the pagans for their sky god, and in time was elevated to the rank of the supreme god. He even goes so far as to acknowledge that Hubal was the central deity of the Meccans, despite the fact of erroneously assuming that Hubal and Allah were/are different gods!
“IN THE ARID, desolate basin of Mecca, surrounded on all sides by the bare mountains of the Arabian desert, stands a small, nondescript sanctuary that the ancient Arabs refer to as the Ka‘ba: the Cube. The Ka‘ba is a squat, roofless edifice made of unmortared stones and sunk into a valley of sand. Its four walls–so low it is said that a young goat can leap over them–are swathed in strips of heavy cloth. At its base, two small doors are chiseled into the gray stone, allowing entry into the inner sanctum. It is here, inside the cramped interior of the sanctuary, that the gods of pre-Islamic Arabia reside: Hubal, the Syrian god of the moon; al-Uzza, the powerful goddess the Egyptians knew as Isis and the Greeks called Aphrodite; al-Kutba, the Nabataean god of writing and divination; Jesus, the incarnate god of the Christians, and his holy mother, Mary.” (Reza Aslan, No god but God: The Origins, Evolution and Future of Islam [Random House, Inc., Later prt. Edition, 2005], 1. The Sanctuary in the Desert: Pre-Islamic Arabia, p. 3; bold emphasis ours)
And:
“In contrast, paganism among the sedentary societies of Arabia had developed from its earlier and simpler manifestations into a complex form of neo-animism, providing a host of divine and semi-divine intermediaries, who stood between the creator god and his creation. This creator god was called Allah, which is not a proper name but a contraction of the word al-ilah, meaning simply ‘the god.’ Like his Greek counterpart, Zeus, Allah was ORIGINALLY an ancient rain/sky deity who was ELEVATED into the role of the supreme god of the pre-Islamic Arabs. Though a powerful deity to swear by, Allah's eminent status in the Arab pantheon rendered him, like most High Gods, beyond the supplication of ordinary people. Only in times of great peril would anyone bother consulting him. Otherwise, it was far more expedient to turn to the lesser, more accessible gods who acted as Allah's intercessors, the most powerful of whom were his three daughters, Allat (‘the goddess’), al-Uzza (‘the mighty’), and Manat (the goddess of fate, whose name is probably derived from the Hebrew word mana, meaning ‘portion’ or ‘share’). These divine mediators were not only represented in the Ka‘ba, they had their own individual shrines throughout the Arabian Peninsula: Allat in the city of Ta’if; al-Uzza in Nakhlah; and Manat in Qudayd. It was to them that the Arabs prayed when they needed rain, when their children were ill, when they entered into battle or embarked on a journey deep into the treacherous desert abodes of the Jinn–those intelligent, imperceptible, and salvable beings made of smokeless flame who are called ‘genies’ in the West and who function as the nymphs and fairies of Arabian mythology… Although called ‘King of the Gods’ and ‘the Lord of the House,’ Allah was not the central deity in the Ka‘ba. That honor belonged to Hubal, the Syrian god who had been brought to Mecca centuries before the rise of Islam.
“Despite Allah’s minimal role in the religious cult of pre-Islamic Arabia, his eminent position in the Arab pantheon is a clear indication of just how far paganism in the Arabian Peninsula had evolved from its simple animistic roots. Perhaps the most striking example of this development can be seen in the processional chant that tradition claims the pilgrims sang as they approached the Ka‘ba:
Here I am, O Allah, here I am.
You have no partner,
Except such a partner as you have.
You possess him and all that is his.
“This remarkable proclamation, with its obvious resemblance to the Muslim profession of faith – ‘There is no god but God’ – may reveal the earliest traces in pre-Islamic Arabia of what the German philologist Max Muller termed henotheism: the belief in a single High God, without necessarily rejecting the existence of other, subordinate gods. The earliest evidence of henotheism in Arabia can be traced back to a tribe called the Ami, who lived near modern-day Yemen in the second century B.C.E., and who worshiped a High God they called dhu-Samawi, ‘The Lord of the Heavens.’ While the details of the Amirs’ religion have been lost to history, most scholars are convinced that by the sixth century C.E., henotheism had become the standard belief of the vast majority of sedentary Arabs, who not only accepted Allah as their High God, but insisted that he was the same god as Yahweh, the god of the Jews.” (Ibid., pp. 6-8; bold and capital emphasis ours)
Thus, the term Allah initially started out as a generic noun applicable to the high god worshiped by the pagans. Muhammad comes along and turns Allah into the proper name of his peculiar deity, much like Yahweh happens to be the proper name of the true God revealed in the Holy Bible.
This now brings me to my final section. Please turn to Part 3 for the finale.
 
The Identity of the pre-Islamic Allah at Mecca [Part 3]

We now come to the final part of our analysis.
Is Muhammad’s Allah the God of the Holy Bible?
If the Arabic word Allah initially started out as a generic noun, instead of as a proper name, then this would allow for Jews and Christians to use the term in reference to Yahweh, the God of the Bible, while also allowing the Meccans to call Hubal by that name, without this implying that these groups were worshiping one and the same God.
Now as far as the Islamic Allah is concerned, Muhammad obviously tried to pass him off as the same God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. He was convinced that the Jews and Christians would recognize his particular deity as being the same as Yahweh.
Muhammad failed to realize, however, that his depiction of the deity was(is) at odds with the Biblical description of God’s essential nature.
For instance, the Quran denies that Allah is a father to anyone, whether in a spiritual or a procreative sense, and rejects the Christian claim that Jesus is his Son (cf. Q. 5:18; 6:101; 9:30; 19:88-93; 39:4).
On the other hand, the God of the Holy Bible is depicted not simply as a spiritual Father to his people, but also as the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ. In fact, the inspired Scriptures view God’s role as Father as an essential and defining aspect of his very Being:
"For this reason I bow my knees before the Father, from whom every family (all fatherhood) in heaven and on earth is named,” Ephesians 3:14-15
The Holy Scriptures are just as equally clear that Jesus’ relationship as the beloved Son is a necessary component of that divine paternity, so much so that to deny it is to deny that God is the Father and implies that God is a liar.
The Holy Bible goes so far as to claim that anyone who does deny that God is the Father and that Christ is the Son is basically an antichrist:
“Who is the liar but he who denies that Jesus is the Christ? This is the antichrist, he who denies the Father and the Son. No one who denies the Son has the Father. Whoever confesses the Son has the Father also.” 1 John 2:22-23
“If we receive the testimony of men, the testimony of God is greater, for this is the testimony of God that he has borne concerning his Son. Whoever believes in the Son of God has the testimony in himself. Whoever does not believe God has made him a liar, because he has not believed in the testimony that God has borne concerning his Son. And this is the testimony, that God gave us eternal life, and this life is in his Son. Whoever has the Son has life; whoever does not have the Son of God does not have life.” 1 John 5:9-12
It is therefore clear that Muhammad’s deity is not the majestic God revealed in the Holy Bible, and more specifically in the Person of the Lord Jesus Christ. The God whom the glorious Lord Jesus came to perfectly reveal loved mankind so much that he sent his unique, beloved Son to die for us, and then raised him back to immortal life as proof that he graciously forgives and eagerly desires to reconcile us to himself for his Son’s sake:
“For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life. For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but in order that the world might be saved through him. Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe is condemned already, because he has not believed in the name of the only Son of God.” John 3:16-18
“but God shows his love for us in that while we were still sinners, Christ died for us. Since, therefore, we have now been justified by his blood, much more shall we be saved by him from the wrath of God. For if while we were enemies we were reconciled to God by the death of his Son, much more, now that we are reconciled, shall we be saved by his life. More than that, we also rejoice in God through our Lord Jesus Christ, through whom we have now received reconciliation.” Romans 5:8-11
“For God has done what the law, weakened by the flesh, could not do. By sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh and for sin, he condemned sin in the flesh, in order that the righteous requirement of the law might be fulfilled in us, who walk not according to the flesh but according to the Spirit… What then shall we say to these things? If God is for us, who can be against us? He who did not spare his own Son but gave him up for us all, how will he not also with him graciously give us all things? Who shall bring any charge against God’s elect? It is God who justifies. Who is to condemn? Christ Jesus is the one who died—more than that, who was raised—who is at the right hand of God, who indeed is interceding for us. Who shall separate us from the love of Christ? Shall tribulation, or distress, or persecution, or famine, or nakedness, or danger, or sword? As it is written, ‘For your sake we are being killed all the day long; we are regarded as sheep to be slaughtered.’ No, in all these things we are more than conquerors through him who loved us. For I am sure that neither death nor life, nor angels nor rulers, nor things present nor things to come, nor powers, nor height nor depth, nor anything else in all creation, will be able to separate us from the love of God IN CHRIST JESUS OUR LORD.” Romans 8:3-4, 31-39
The following Christian writer explains it well:
“Most orthodox Muslims would have no problem with much of Paul’s sermon on Mars Hill: God is the Creator and sovereign Lord of history; God is both transcendent and immanent; there will be a final judgment. But the point about God raising Jesus from the dead introduces a deep divergence that cannot be explained away as a mere historical dispute about what happened on Good Friday and Easter Sunday. This difference has important implications for how we understand the reality of God himself. Christianity and Islam cannot simply embrace one another as ‘sister religions’ on the basis of a shared monotheism without regard to questions about Jesus and his cross and resurrection–issues in turn that presuppose further questions about Jesus and his relationship to God.
“We might frame the issue another way: Is monotheism enough? If we assume that the God of the Bible and Allah in Islam are not two separate gods but the same God differently understood (as many Muslims who have become Christians explain their own conversion to Christ), WE MUST STILL SAY NO TO THE QUESTION, ‘Is the Father of Jesus the God of Muhammad?’
“Kenneth Cragg helps sort out this difficulty. He notes that Muslims and Christians speak of the same subject when they speak of God, but they differ widely in the predicates they say about him. Of course, as we have seen, Christians and Muslims do share in common a number of predicates about God– the ninety-name beautiful names, for example. But Christians predicate something essential and irreducible about God that no Muslim can accept: We call him our heavenly Father. Bilquis Sheikh was a Pakistani woman of noble birth who had been a Muslim all her life. Through a series of dreams and strange encounters, she came to know and believe in Jesus Christ as her personal Savior and Lord. Quite appropriately, she titled the story of her conversion I Dared to Call Him Father…” (Timothy George, Is the Father of Jesus the God of Muhammad?, p. 75; bold and capital emphasis ours)

Concluding Remarks
Here is a summary of the facts which we presented throughout this series.
The pagan Arabs at Mecca, and around Arabia, worshiped the planets, including the sun and the moon.
They viewed the moon as the greatest of the gods, since it symbolized for them the highest-ranking deity in their pantheon.
Hubal was considered the chief god at Mecca, being the patron deity of the Quraysh.
The Meccans took the kabah as the shrine of Hubal, and associated him with the black stone.
Hubal was also considered to be the moon god.
This means that the kabah was the house of the moon god.
However, the Meccans viewed (at least this is what the Islamic literature would have us believe) Allah as the greatest of all the gods.
They also believed that the kabah was the sanctuary of Allah, and even associated him with the black stone.
If this is correct then it is hard to escape the conclusion that the pre-Islamic Allah of Mecca was none other than the moon god Hubal, being the name by which Hubal was called!
Since Muhammad came from this polytheistic environment, it is not surprising that he retained much of the pagan customs and rituals associated with the worship of the moon god as part of his newfound religion. What Muhammad did was reinterpret these practices so as to disassociate them from the pagan Allah whom the Meccans would have worshiped as the moon god Hubal.
As the late Muslim commentary Abdullah Yusuf Ali explained:
"After the Pilgrimage, in Pagan times, the pilgrims used to gather in assemblies in which the praises of ancestors were sung. As the whole of the pilgrimage rites were spiritualised in Islam, so this aftermath of the pilgrimage was also spiritualised. It was recommended for pilgrims to stay on two or three days after the pilgrimage, but they must use them in prayer and praise to Allah." (Ali, The Holy Qur’an: Translation and Commentary, p. 80, fn. 223; bold emphasis ours)
This means that all of the major Islamic practices, i.e. praying several times a day toward Mecca (salat), gathering together on Friday for congregational prayers (jumuah), giving alms (zakat), the greater and lesser pilgrimages (hajj, umra), the fast of Ramadan (saum), running around the kabah seven times (tawaf), kissing the black stone, shaving the head, animal sacrifices, running up and down the two hills of Safa and Marwa, throwing stones at the devil etc., were initially rites performed in connection with the worship of the moon god.
In fact, what makes this rather disconcerting is that Muhammad performed, and also commanded his followers to participate, in these pagan ceremonies while the polytheists were in control of Mecca and still had their 360 idols located around the kabah! It wasn’t until a few years later when Muhammad conquered Mecca that these idols were duly smashed:
Narrated Abdullah: When the Prophet entered Mecca on the day of the Conquest, there were 360 idols around the Ka'ba. The Prophet started striking them with a stick he had in his hand and was saying, “Truth has come and Falsehood will neither start nor will it reappear.” (Sahih al-Bukhari, Volume 5, Book 59, Number 583; *)
Yusuf Ali, in his explanation of the following text,
And complete the Hajj or 'umra in the service of God. But if ye are prevented (From completing it), send an offering for sacrifice, such as ye may find, and do not shave your heads until the offering reaches the place of sacrifice. And if any of you is ill, or has an ailment in his scalp, (Necessitating shaving), (He should) in compensation either fast, or feed the poor, or offer sacrifice; and when ye are in peaceful conditions (again), if any one wishes to continue the 'umra on to the hajj, He must make an offering, such as he can afford, but if he cannot afford it, He should fast three days during the hajj and seven days on his return, Making ten days in all. This is for those whose household is not in (the precincts of) the Sacred Mosque. And fear God, and know that God is strict in punishment. S. 2:196 Y. Ali
Stated that,
“… When this was revealed, the city of Makkah was in the hands of the enemies of Islam, and the regulations about the fighting and the pilgrimage came together and were interconnected. But the revelation provides, as always, for the particular occasion, and also for normal conditions.
“Makkah soon passed out of the hands of the enemies of Islam. People sometimes came long distances to Makkah before the pilgrimage season began. Having performed the Umrah, they stayed on for the formal Hajj.
“In case the pilgrim had spent his money, he is shown what he can do, rich or poor, and yet hold his head high among his fellows, as having performed all rites as prescribed. (Ali, The Holy Qur’an, p. 78, fn, 214: bold emphasis ours)
Hence, Muhammad and his followers were worshiping at a pagan shrine littered with the idols of false gods/goddesses!
Muhammad also adapted and modified the use of the lunar calendar from the Meccans, who obviously employed it as a result of their love for the moon deity.
They ask thee about the new moons. Say, `They are means for measuring time, for the general convenience of people and for the Pilgrimage.' And it is not righteousness that you come into houses by the backs thereof, but truly righteous is he who fears God. And you should come into houses by the doors thereof; and fear ALLAH that you may prosper. S. 2:189 Hilali-Khan
He it is Who appointed the sun a splendour and the moon a light, and measured for her stages, that ye might know the number of the years, and the reckoning. Allah created not (all) that save in truth. He detaileth the revelations for people who have knowledge. S. 10:5 Pickthall
Some Muslims get rather ingenious and claim that the Jews also follow a lunar calendar, as if this is somehow relevant to the identity of the pre-Islamic Allah worshiped by the pagans at Mecca.
Adopting a lunar calendar is not the issue, since following it doesn’t necessarily mean that a person is worshiping the moon as the astral rock representing the chief god.
Rather, the real issue centers on the reason why the pre-Islamic pagans chose to go with this calendar as opposed to the solar one, and the answer is obvious. Muhammad’s pagan tribe adopted the lunar cycle because they were so steeped in moon worship.
To, then, raise the issue of the Jews going by the lunar calendar is nothing more than a red herring and a straw man argument.
(Sidenote: The Jews actually go by a luni-solar calendar, not a purely lunar one. The Jews use intercalary months – exactly the thing that Allah/Muhammad objects to in Q. 9:36-37: *, *).
We also know from the historical and archaeological records that the crescent moon was an ancient pagan symbol of the moon god. Stars were also symbols of pagan deities.
It is therefore somewhat disconcerting to find Muslims placing the symbol of the crescent moon and five stars on top of their mosques and flags.
Muslims are quick to retort that this was a practice introduced centuries later since neither Muhammad nor his followers ever used the crescent moon and five pointed star as a symbol for the Islamic faith. The problem with this response is that it fails to explain why later generation of Muslims decided to employ this as their symbol, as opposed to something else, when such an emblem is clearly pagan in origin. As one online Muslim source admits:
“The crescent moon and star is an internationally-recognized symbol of the faith of Islam. The symbol is featured on the flags of several Muslim countries, and is even part of the official emblem for the International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies. The Christians have the cross, the Jews have the star of David, and the Muslims have the crescent moon, right?…
“What is the history behind the crescent moon symbol? What does it symbolize or mean? How and when did it become associated with the faith of Islam? Is it a valid symbol for the faith?
“The crescent moon and star symbol actually pre-dates Islam by several thousand years. Information on the origins of the symbol are difficult to ascertain, but most sources agree that these ancient celestial symbols were in use by the peoples of Central Asia and Siberia in their worship of sun, moon, and sky gods. There are also reports that the crescent moon and star were used to represent the Carthaginian goddess Tanit or the Greek goddess Diana.
“The city of Byzantium (later known as Constantinople and Istanbul) adopted the crescent moon as its symbol. According to some reports, they chose it in honor of the goddess Diana. Others indicate that it dates back to a battle in which the Romans defeated the Goths on the first day of a lunar month. In any event, the crescent moon was featured on the city's flag even before the birth of Christ. (Huda, The Crescent Moon Is it a symbol of Islam?; bold emphasis ours)
So the question remains, why did Muslims adopt a pagan symbol to represent their faith? We’ll leave that for Muslim taqiyyists like Zaatari to figure out.
In conclusion, our study has shown that the pre-Islamic Allah worshiped by the Meccan polytheists was by all accounts a pagan deity associated with the moon. The data that we looked at further suggest (quite strongly we might add) that the Meccans would have identified Allah as Hubal, the moon god.
Hence, even though Muslims do not worship the moon god, their religion is nothing more than a hodge-podge of the pagan moon worship of Arabia mixed in with specific Judeo-Christian beliefs. Muhammad (and his spirit) hoped that this syncretism of diverse and opposing religious traditions, which were prevalent at his time, would entice both the pagans and the monotheists to join his religion.
Yet in creating such a religious system, Muhammad and his spirit guide only managed to pervert the Gospel of the Lord Jesus Christ, thereby misleading countless numbers from their only hope of salvation.
The fact is that, according to the Holy Bible, Allah is not only a false god but Muhammad was also one of the antichrists prophesied to come into the world.
With that said, we recommend that our readers also consult the addendum to this series since it answers some of the common Muslim objections against the notion of Allah being a name for the moon god in pre-Islamic Arabia.

Related Articles
 
Basi Gavana, msubiri tu @Dejal, mwache Yesu Kristo.


Getting a Name


The expression 'Jesus of Nazareth' is actually a bad translation of the original Greek 'Jesous o Nazoraios' (see below). More accurately, we should speak of 'Jesus the Nazarene' where Nazarene has a meaning quite unrelated to a place name. But just what is that meaning and how did it get applied to a small village? The highly ambiguous Hebrew root of the name is NZR.


The 2nd century gnostic Gospel of Philip offers this explanation:


'The apostles that came before us called him Jesus Nazarene the Christ ..."Nazara" is the "Truth". Therefore 'Nazarene' is "The One of the Truth" ...'

– Gospel of Philip, 47.


What we do know is that 'Nazarene' (or 'Nazorean') was originally the name of an early Jewish-Christian sect – a faction, or off-shoot, of the Essenes. They had no particular relation to a city of Nazareth. The root of their name may have been 'Truth' or it may have been the Hebrew noun 'netser' ('netzor'), meaning 'branch' or 'flower.' The plural of 'Netzor' becomes 'Netzoreem.' There is no mention of the Nazarenes in any of Paul's writings, although ironically, Paul is himself accused of being a Nazorean in Acts of the Apostles. The reference scarcely means that Paul was a resident of Nazareth (we all know the guy hails from Tarsus!).


'For finding this man a pest, and moving sedition among all the Jews throughout the world, and a leader of the sect of the Nazaraeans.' – Acts 24.5. (Darby Translation).


The Nazorim emerged towards the end of the 1st century, after a curse had been placed on heretics in Jewish daily prayer.


'Three times a day they say: May God curse the Nazarenes'.

– Epiphanius (Panarion 29.9.2).


The Nazarenes may have seen themselves as a 'branch from the stem of Jesse (the legendary King David's father)'. Certainly, they had their own early version of 'Matthew'. This lost text – the Gospel of the Nazarenes – can hardly be regarded as a 'Gospel of the inhabitants of Nazareth'!


It was the later Gospel of Matthew which started the deceit that the title 'Jesus the Nazorene' should in some manner relate to Nazareth, by quoting 'prophecy':


"And he came and dwelt in a city called Nazareth: that it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the prophets, He shall be called a Nazarene."

– Matthew 2.23.


With this, Matthew closes his fable of Jesus's early years. Yet Matthew is misquoting – he would surely know that nowhere in Jewish prophetic literature is there any reference to a Nazarene. What is 'foretold' (or at least mentioned several times) in Old Testament scripture is the appearance of a Nazarite. For example:


"For, lo, thou shalt conceive, and bear a son; and no razor shall come on his head: for the child shall be a Nazarite unto God from the womb: and he shall begin to deliver Israel out of the hand of the Philistines."

– Judges 13.5.


Matthew slyly substitutes one word for another. By replacing Nazarite ('he who vows to grow long hair and serve god') with a term which appears to imply 'resident of' he is able to fabricate a hometown link for his fictitious hero.


So how did the village get its name?


It seems that, along with the Nozerim, a related Jewish/Christian faction, the Evyonim – ‘the Poor’ (later to be called Ebionites) – emerged about the same time. According to Epiphanius (Bishop of Salamis , Cyprus, circa 370 AD) they arose from within the Nazarenes. They differed doctrinally from the original group in rejecting Paul and were 'Jews who pay honour to Christ as a just man...' They too, it seems, had their own prototype version of Matthew – ‘The Gospel to the Hebrews’. A name these sectaries chose for themselves was 'Keepers of the Covenant', in Hebrew Nozrei haBrit, whence Nosrim or Nazarene!


In other words, when it came to the crunch, the original Nazarenes split into two: those who tried to re-position themselves within the general tenets of Judaism ('Evyonim'-Nosrim); and those who rejected Judaism ('Christian'-Nosrim)


Now, we know that a group of 'priestly' families resettled an area in the Nazareth valley after their defeat in the Bar Kochbar War of 135 AD (see above). It seems highly probable that they were Evyonim-Nosrim and named their village 'Nazareth' or the village of 'The Poor' either because of self-pity or because doctrinally they made a virtue out of their poverty.


"Blessed are the Poor in spirit for theirs is the kingdom of Heaven."

– Matthew 5,3.


The writer of Matthew (re-writer of the proto-Matthew stories) heard of 'priestly' families moving to a place in Galilee which they had called 'Nazareth' – and decided to use the name of the new town for the hometown of his hero.
 
Dodgy Story, Dodgy Geography


The original gospel writers refrained from inventing a childhood, youth or early manhood for JC because it was not necessary to their central drama of a dying/reborn sun-god. But as we know, the story grew with the telling, particularly as the decades passed and the promised redeemer and judge failed to reappear. The re-writer of the Gospel of Mark, revising the text sometime between 140 and 150 AD, introduced the name of the city only once, in chapter one, with these words:


"And it came to pass in those days, that Jesus came from Nazareth of Galilee and was baptized by John at the Jordan."
– Mark I, 9.


Ironically, an indication that this sole reference to a town called Nazareth in Mark is a late, harmonization interpolation is to be found in the Gospel of Matthew. Copying the same baptism episode from an early edition of Mark, the author of Matthew makes no mention of Nazareth:


"Then Jesus came from Galilee to John at the Jordan to be baptized by him." – Matthew 3.13.


In the Greek New Testament no fewer than eleven variant spellings are used for Nazarene, Nazarean and Nazareth. In total the words occur thirty-one times. Though you would never guess from the English translations, on nineteen occasions Nazarene or Nazarean, not Nazareth, is intended. And in the Gospel of Mark, all four later occurences (1.24; 16.6; 10.47;14.67) the word used is Nazarene, not Nazareth.


Clearly, "Jesus the Nazarene" in the original tale became "Jesus, a resident of Nazareth" in the updated story of Matthew and Luke. Indeed, there are indications that an early layer in the development of Mark favoured Capernaum as the hometown of Jesus (home of the six most prominent disciples, venue for several key miracles, etc.).


We can trace the subsequent elevation of Nazareth in the Gospel of Luke. Luke is the writer who emphasizes JC's ties to 'Nazareth.' Luke is the writer who goes out of his way to demonstrate an anti-Capernaum stance. Scholars have concluded Luke was not a Jew himself because of his 'glaring errors in things Jewish'. He also makes mistakes in his geography. He knows little about the place and in his mini-drama describes an impossible incident:


" ... and brought him to the precipice of the mountain that their city was built upon." – Luke 4.29.


Nazareth, in fact, is located in a depression, set within gentle hills. The whole region is characterized by plains and mild rises with no sharp peaks or steep cliffs. The terrain is correctly understood as a high basin, for in one direction is the much lower Plain of Esdraelon. But there is no disguising Nazareth is built in a valley and not on a mountain. Even the mediaeval town sat below the summit – protected from the wind. Beginning only in 1957, the Jewish suburb called 'Nazerat Illit' ('Upper Nazareth') was built to the top of the hills to the east of the city.
 
Wizi wa Muhammad

1. Kaiba wahusika wa kwenye maandiko wa kiyahudi akawaweka kwenye Quran akadai ati ameshishiwa hivyo visa.
Wahusika kama Ibrahimu, Yakobo, Yusufu, Musa, Daudi, Suleiman n.k

2. Kaiba baadhi ya visa vya wahusika HAO na kuwaweka kwenye Quran yake.
Ila kafanya modification/Forgery ili ionekane kashushiwa.
Hauna hoja ya maana ila unaongea ongea tu kama kichaa fulani ili kuwafurahisha na kuwadanya wagalatia wenzako kuhusu Quran

Unaongea mambo ambayo hata ukitakiwa utoe ushahidi hauna

Quran inasema hizo habari mtume Muhammad amesumuliwa na Mungu muumba mbingu na aridhi

Quran 3:44.
Hizi ni khabari za ghaibu tunazo kufunulia; nawe hukuwa nao walipo kuwa wakitupa kalamu zao nani wao atamlea Maryamu, na hukuwa nao walipo kuwa wakishindana.

Haya tuonyeshe katika hizo Injili zenu zilizo andikwa na waganga wa kienyeji akina Luka hu muujiza alioufanya Yesu wa kuumba ndege kwa udongo upo katika Aya namba ngapi?

Quran 3:49.
Na ni Mtume kwa Wana wa Israili kuwaambia: Mimi nimekujieni na Ishara kutoka kwa Mola Mlezi wenu, ya kwamba nakuundieni kwa udongo kama sura ya ndege. Kisha nampuliza anakuwa ndege kwa idhini ya Mwenyezi Mungu.
 
4th Century Pilgrim Route – and NO NAZARETH!



4th-pilgrim.gif


Itinerarium Burdigalense – the Itinerary of the Anonymous Pilgrim of Bordeaux – is the earliest description left by a pious tourist. It is dated to 333 AD. The itinerary is a Roman-style list of towns and distances with the occasional comment.

As the pilgrim passes Jezreel (Stradela) he mentions King Ahab and Goliath. At Aser (Teyasir) he mentions Job. At Neopolis his reference is to Mount Gerizim, Abraham, Joseph, and Jacob's well at Sichar (where JC 'asked water of a Samaritan woman'). He passes the village of Bethel (Beitin) and mentions Jacob's wrestling match with God, and Jeroboam. He moves on to Jerusalem.

Our pilgrim – preoccupied with Old rather than New Testament stories – makes no single reference to 'Nazareth.'




A generation after the dowager empress had gone touring, another geriatric grandee, the Lady Egeria, spent years in the 'Land becoming more Holy by the day'.


Egeria – a Spaniard, like the then Emperor Theodosius and almost certainly part of the imperial entourage – reached the Nazareth area in 383. This time, canny monks showed her a 'big and very splendid cave' and gave the assurance that this was where Mary had lived. The Custodians of the Cave, not to be outbid by the Keepers of the Well, insisted that the cave, not the well, had been the site of the divine visitation. This so-called 'grotto' became another pilgrimage attraction, over which – by 570 – rose the basilica of another church. Today, above and about the Venerable Grotto, stands the biggest Christian theme park in the Middle East.








4th Century Roman Map – and NO NAZARETH!


peutinger2.jpg



The Levantine coast from the so-called Peutinger map or "table" (Tabula Peutingeriana), with west to the top. The complete map is twenty-two feet wide and is so-named for Conrad Peutinger, a 16th century German antiquarian and is currently held in Vienna. The map is actually a medieval copy (12th or 13th century) of a 4th century Roman original (it shows Constantinople, founded in the year 328). The whole world known to the Romans is represented, from Spain in the west to India in the east.


In the section shown here, below the city of Aelia Capitolina (centre left), the map shows one site which had by this stage entered the Christian dreamscape – the Mount of Olives (red). The cartographer of this unique record named more than 3000 places. And guess what? – he does not mention Nazareth!
 
Hauna hoja ya maana ila unaongea ongea tu kama kichaa fulani ili kuwafurahisha na kuwadanya wagalatia wenzako kuhusu Quran

Unaongea mambo ambayo hata ukitakiwa utoe ushahidi hauna

Quran inasema hizo habari mtume Muhammad amesumuliwa na Mungu muumba mbingu na aridhi

Quran 3:44.
Hizi ni khabari za ghaibu tunazo kufunulia; nawe hukuwa nao walipo kuwa wakitupa kalamu zao nani wao atamlea Maryamu, na hukuwa nao walipo kuwa wakishindana.

Haya tuonyeshe katika hizo Injili zenu zilizo andikwa na waganga wa kienyeji akina Luka hu muujiza alioufanya Yesu wa kuumba ndege kwa udongo upo katika Aya namba ngapi?

Quran 3:49.
Na ni Mtume kwa Wana wa Israili kuwaambia: Mimi nimekujieni na Ishara kutoka kwa Mola Mlezi wenu, ya kwamba nakuundieni kwa udongo kama sura ya ndege. Kisha nampuliza anakuwa ndege kwa idhini ya Mwenyezi Mungu.
Kwa Nini Allah hakutunga character wake wa kiaarabu akachukua wa kiyahudi?
 
Kwa Nini Allah hakutunga character wake wa kiaarabu akachukua wa kiyahudi?
Binadamu kama akina Paulo ndio wanatabia ya kutengeneza character na kuwapoteza binadamu wenzao wenye uwezo mdogo wa kufikiri kama wewe

Tito 2:13 (KJV)
tukilitazamia tumaini lenye baraka na mafunuo ya utukufu wa Kristo Yesu, Mungu mkuu na Mwokozi wetu;
 
Hakuna utata katika suala la uandishi wa vitabu vya Torati na mwandishi wake kuwa ni Musa. Hiyo iko hivyo
Usilamishe tu iwe hivyo ndio maana mwanzo kabisa nilikwambia kuwa hivi ni vitabu vya imani uliyoyaeleza kuhusu biblia ni vitu ambavyo wewe unaamini.
 
HII NDIO BIBLIA ,HAIHITAJI KUJITETEA ,

KITU KAMA HIKI HUWEZI KUKUTA KWENYE QURAN , ZAIDI INAKOPI KOPI BILA HATA MPANGILIO

2petro 2

6.Tena akaihukumu miji ya Sodoma na Gomora,akiipindua na kuifanyamajivu,AKAIFANYA IWE ISHARA KWA WATU WATAKAOKUWA HAWAMCHI MUNGU BAADA YA HAYA
download%20(3).jpg
 
NI RAHISI KUROPOKA

BIBLIA INAJITHIBITISHA IMETOKA KWA MUNGU, MFANO UNABII HUU KAMWE HUWEZI KUUKUTA KWENYE QURAN ,HATA WAKUFANANA TU

Jiwe la Moabu

katika mwaka wa 1868 kule Diboni, Yordani Kulipatikana jiwe lifaamikalo kama MOABITE STONE lililogunduliwa na mwana akiolojia na mmishionari wa ujerumani Klein,

Jiwe hili linathibitisha vita ya wa moabu dhidi ya Israeli kama ilivyoandikwa katika 2Fal 2 na 3.

Kati ya shuhuda za kiakiolojia za kabila hili la wa moabu ni Jiwe la Mesha, linaloeleza ushindi wao dhidi ya mwana wa mfalme Omri wa Israeli.

JIWE HILI LILIKUTWA LIMEANDIKWA MANENO HAYA

“Mimi ni Mesha […] mfalme wa moabub […] Omri alikuwa mfalme wa Israeli, na akawatesa moabu Moabu […]Nilichukua kutoka humo vyombo vya Yehova […] ilihali nyumba ya Daudi ilimiliki Horonaimu

Jiwe la moabu ni maelezo ya matukio yanayofanana na 2 Wafalme sura ya 3. Watu kadhaa wa bibilia na mahali hutajwa:

Jiwe la MOABU Lilikuwa na umri unaokaribia miaka 3,000. Ni kipande cha jiwe la basalti jeusi lililosuguliwa likiwa na upande wa juu ulioviringishwa vizuri, lilikuwa na kimo cha karibu meta 1.2 likipita kidogo tu upana wa meta 0.6, na likiwa na unene unaokaribia meta 0.6View attachment 2407969
download%20(5).jpg
 
Hauna hoja ya maana ila unaongea ongea tu kama kichaa fulani ili kuwafurahisha na kuwadanya wagalatia wenzako kuhusu Quran

Unaongea mambo ambayo hata ukitakiwa utoe ushahidi hauna

Quran inasema hizo habari mtume Muhammad amesumuliwa na Mungu muumba mbingu na aridhi

Quran 3:44.
Hizi ni khabari za ghaibu tunazo kufunulia; nawe hukuwa nao walipo kuwa wakitupa kalamu zao nani wao atamlea Maryamu, na hukuwa nao walipo kuwa wakishindana.

Haya tuonyeshe katika hizo Injili zenu zilizo andikwa na waganga wa kienyeji akina Luka hu muujiza alioufanya Yesu wa kuumba ndege kwa udongo upo katika Aya namba ngapi?

Quran 3:49.
Na ni Mtume kwa Wana wa Israili kuwaambia: Mimi nimekujieni na Ishara kutoka kwa Mola Mlezi wenu, ya kwamba nakuundieni kwa udongo kama sura ya ndege. Kisha nampuliza anakuwa ndege kwa idhini ya Mwenyezi Mungu.

Ndio maana mahakamani kuna swali lazima uulizwe elimu yako
Ili Baraza lione atakayetoa ushahidi anauelewa wa mambo Kwa kiwango gani.

Hivyo ulichowasilisha na mada inayoendelea hakina mahusiano na hii inatokana na Elimu yako kuwa ndogo, hivyo unahaki kuchangia Kwa namna hiyo.

Ngoja niendelee kujadiliana na waalimu wako.
Wewe kaa uwe mtazamaji au ukiona mtu wa kiwango chako kwenye hii mada unaweza kujadiliana naye
 
Back
Top Bottom