Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 32

Thread: Is Islam a monotheistic religion?

  1. #1
    Banned
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Posts
    60

    Default Is Islam a monotheistic religion?

    The pagan Arabs worshipped the Moon-god Allah by praying
    toward Mecca several times a day; making a pilgrimage to
    Mecca; running around the temple of the Moon-god called
    the Kabah; kissing the black stone; killing an animal in
    sacrifice to the Moon-god; throwing stones at the devil;
    fasting for the month which begins and ends with the
    crescent moon; giving alms to the poor, etc. The modern muslims: The
    worship Allah by praying
    toward Mecca several times a day; making a pilgrimage to
    Mecca; running around
    the Kabah; kissing the black stone; throwing stones at the devil;
    fasting for the month which begins and ends with the
    crescent moon; giving alms to the poor, etc.The only thing they do not do-they do not sacrifice an animal(at least as far as i know).
    But in this case 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.Do we have the right to consider Islam as a monotheistic religion-or it is sheer idolatry?

  2. #2
    Diamond Thunderbolt Vajradhara's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Location
    In the jungles of Maryland being trained as a ninja by Christopher Walken
    Posts
    2,520

    Default Re: Is Islam a monotheistic religion?

    namaste, erizito.

    thank you for the post.

    let me simply say that yes, Islam is a monotheistic religion.

    Meditation brings wisdom, lack of meditation leaves ignorance. Know well what leads you forward and what holds you back.

    ~Buddha Shakyamuni



  3. #3
    Administrator
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Posts
    4,835

    Default Re: Is Islam a monotheistic religion?

    Erizito,

    This has to be one of the most ignorant posts I have ever read from a person claiming "honesty." What a sad state your knowledge is in. I'll echo Vajradhara's words. I hope that no one else even bothers to reply to such a post and hope that it is ignored as it ignores a basic element...truth.

  4. #4
    Banned
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Posts
    60

    Default Re: Is Islam a monotheistic religion?

    Quote Originally Posted by Vajradhara
    namaste, erizito.

    thank you for the post.

    let me simply say that yes, Islam is a monotheistic religion.
    Vajradhara,yours is what i call a brilliantly argumentated answer.Short and clear.Thank you.
    But i hope i shall not offend you,if i tell that i doubt it?And not only me-but looks that the Prophet Muhammad,too.Do you know the story about the"satanical verses",concerning the Sura 53?And do you remember the Suras81.15( So verily I call to witness the planets - that recede), and 84.16-18(So I do call to witness the ruddy glow of Sunset;

    17. The Night and its Homing;

    18. And the Moon in her fullness)

    ,where Muhammad swears by stars,planets,etc?A bit strange for the Prophet of One God.

  5. #5
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Location
    spain
    Posts
    589

    Default Re: Is Islam a monotheistic religion?

    Vajradhara,yours is what i call a brilliantly argumentated answer.Short and clear.Thank you.
    But i hope i shall not offend you,if i tell that i doubt it?And not only me-but looks that the Prophet Muhammad,too.Do you know the story about the"satanical verses",concerning the Sura 53?And do you remember the Suras81.15( So verily I call to witness the planets - that recede), and 84.16-18(So I do call to witness the ruddy glow of Sunset;

    17. The Night and its Homing;

    18. And the Moon in her fullness)

    ,where Muhammad swears by stars,planets,etc?A bit strange for the Prophet of One God.

    if you are a christian then why do you impose your pagan standards on islaam? the above quoted [*******] has been thrashed ages ago and you can have a nice read here

    http://www.islamic-awareness.org/Qur.../Miroaths.html


    think about it your palestinian diety had to die on a finite cross and take on a finite human form.does that not make you feel pagan?

    how about all the 3 triplets of chrisitnaity asking each other questions? this finds roots not in jewdaism but pagan religions that were popular at the time of your so called saviour jezeus


    here is a good old post that i use when hammering uninformed people like you in person


    > Once again, we see that you exhibit a complete and utter lack of
    > knowledge about the subject on which you speak.


    With all do respect, I think that between you and MENJ, it is MENJ
    who showed a much more sober approach to this issue, and exhibited a
    greater amount of erudition on the issue of etymology and/or
    establishing connections among deities. This is, by the way, coming
    from a non-Muslim, just in case you think I am siding with MENJ out
    of some sort of sense of mutual dogma-based brotherhood.

    MENJ:



    > > But then Mr. Dunkin goes off by the tangent by expounding
    > >that "RIMMON" is somehow related to the moon-god nonsense he
    > > parrots
    > >from Morey. First off, Mr. Dunkin, no one by any stretch of
    > >imagination will claim that "ALLAH" has a common root word
    > >with "RIMMON".


    Patriot Tim:


    > To begin, we note that Menj's analysis is complete bunk. There is
    > no NEED for there to be a common root word between Rimmon and
    > Allah,


    Wait a minute... your original claim was that Allaah is a pagan deity
    in light of the fact that he is referred to as "ar-Rahman," and you
    coupled this with your odd belief that Rahman is somehow synonymous
    with Rimmon.


    > Hence, in places such as Mecca where the moon deity, whether known
    > as
    > Sin or Hubal, was big, the tribes each thought of this deity as "al-
    > ilah", the highest in their particular pantheon.


    This is poor argumentation. We know that archeology had pointed out
    that there have been both idolatrous Jews and non-Jews alike who
    called upon YHWH, and even to this day pagans (now "New Age" Pagans,
    Wiccans, etc) call upon the names Elohim and YHWH in the invocations
    and chants. The fact that "pagans" call on a specific deity, and have
    something specific in mind, does not tell us anything specific about
    the deity or its place in orthodox forms of religion.


    > In other places
    > where the storm and providential god Rimmon was worshipped, he was
    > also "al-ilah", and was incorporated to keep those tribes happy.


    When did you demonstrate this?


    > We see, of course, Rahman, who comes from Rimmon,


    Woah - slow down there. When was it agreed or established that Rahman
    came from Rimmon? This is the claim you originally asserted, and MENJ
    demolished it via his etymological evidence. Are you asserting things
    and then presupposing them to be fact? You have to first prove that
    Rahman comes from Rimmon, not just assume such and think it is
    corroborated because it is consistent with your reinterpretation of
    history. Rahman and Rimmon come from two completely different roots.
    Also note that Rimmon means "pomegranate."


    > Further, we can see traces of the Syro-Phoenician and Ammonite god
    > Moloch (also called Melech, Melqart) in the name al-Malik.


    I've seen this a number of times. I guess then you also worship
    Moloch, since you follow the Moloch of the Jews... oh wait, that's
    the Melekh (MLK) of the Jews... Melekh/Malik (MLK) in *MANY* Semitic
    languages being the word for ruler/king. Maybe the book of Kings in
    the Bible, Melekhim, should be rendered as "molochim," the followers
    of Moloch? The fact that some Semitic pagans called their
    deity "moloch" (MLK) should be of no surprise, since speakers of
    Semitic languages to this day call their God some form of MLK, as He
    is, in their mind, the one true sovereign, the ruler of the universe.

    MENJ:



    > >The root of ALLAH is ALEPH-LAMD-HA, the same root as for ELOHIM,
    > >which is ALEPH-LAMED-HEH. I have never failed to consistently
    > >point this out, as can be seen on my webpage:

    > > http://www.bismikaallahuma.org/Polemics/moongod.htm


    > This particular point is moot, for two reasons:


    > 1) Simply pointing to the A-L-H root is inconclusive,



    It is far from "inconclusive". You seem to not be familiar with just
    how important Arabic is for the study of Hebrew. Ever taken a look
    at, for example, Gesenius' Lexicon? The pages are littered with
    Arabic, and this is the case with many high-quality Hebrew lexicons.
    The reason is because Arabic and Hebrew are so close that we can
    often find the proper understanding of an archaic Hebrew word by
    ponder the cognate's usage in Arabic.


    > >The word ELOHIM do exist in the Hebrew translation of the Qur'an,
    > >as can be seen here:

    > >http://www.bismikaallahuma.org/God/h-basmalah.htm


    > A fact which ultimately means very little. The earliest evidence
    > which we have for the existence of the Qu'ran in Hebrew is a
    > manuscript which was prepared in Cochin, India, in the middle of
    > the 18th century. This manuscript, which was produced from a Dutch
    > translation of a French translation of an Arabic text, is most
    > firmly dated at 1757, and was most likely prepared by Leopold
    > Immanuel Jacob van Dort, a Jewish convert to Christianity who lived
    > in India at that time.



    What are you talking about? With regard to Hebrew translations of the
    Qur'an, there have been a number of recent ones done by Israelis, and
    all of them render Allaah as Elohim. If you think this is incorrect,
    give us the proper Hebrew word for Allaah. Also, note that long
    before the eighteenth century there were many Jewish commentaries on
    the Qur'an that even transliterated the Arabic into Hebrew script
    along side the Hebrew translation. A number of such commentaries
    (used mostly for polemical usages) were found at the infamous Cairo
    Geniza.


    > Hence, if "elohim" appears in a Hebrew copy of the Qu'ran, it is
    > very much after the fact, and represents little more than a
    > Jewish thought convention.


    It tells us what scholars fluent in Hebrew in Arabic feel is the
    proper transmission. This is not just a Jewish thought convention.


    > Thus, if "elohim" appears in the Hebrew Qu'ran, it should either be
    > denoting a plurality of deities, or else a uniplural deity,


    A "uniplural" deity does not seem to have a place in Judaism. You're
    imposing a Christian interpretation on a wholly Jewish Hebrew text.
    The reality is that no scholar is sure about the origins of "Elohim,"
    but we do know that it stems from the ALH root, and for the Jews it
    is the word for the single all powerful God (ALH), the MLK of the
    universe, or as he is called in the Talmudic/Mishnaic sources "ha-
    Rachaman" (the merciful).


    > So what you are saying above is that you know that scholars have
    > made the same connexion (how else did this quote find its way into
    > one of the most prestigious journals of archaeology in America?),
    > but you want to try to say that the quote isn't legitimate because
    > of who has reported it, in this case Robert Morey.


    The problem is that it is another bold assertion by Dr. Morey that
    lacks etymological evidence. As is the case with his "moon god"
    stuff, he just asserts and connects, but he never offers real
    evidence save for an appeal to his own interpretation of historicy.


    > As was seen earlier above, Rimmon's name meant "pomegranate" (not
    > thunder, as you erroneous assume below),


    WOW! Rimmon in Hebrew means pomegranate, but the Jews
    spelling "Rimmon" in just such a way may have been a mere play on
    words (the tendency to insult other cultures via word games is common
    in the Bible). That being said, Rimmon, from Ramman, is an Akkadian
    form of "one who roars," or "the thunderer" (or so it seems when
    Akkadian roots are taken into account). This fact moves it far from
    any sense of this word being equivalent with Rahman. The etymological
    evidence is in MENJ's favor.


    > It's actually interesting that this comes up. There is a pretty
    > strong argument made by some MUSLIMS that Rahman doesn't
    > mean "beneficient", but rather "the Almighty",


    ar-Rahman in Arabic means "the merciful," and the Hebrew equivalent
    is "ha-Rachaman," which means the same thing, and stems from the same
    root.


    > And again, we see that the connotative argument IS there. In fact,
    > this statement above is predicated on your misunderstanding in
    > assuming that "Rimmon" means "thunder", which isn't the case at
    > all. It means "pomegranate" (see Strong's Hebrew 7416)


    Pomegranate is still from a separate root that Rahman/Rachaman. What
    you fail to understand is that you're going by a Hebrew rendering of
    the word. Whether you use this Hebrew rendering, or taken into
    account the Akkadian cognate, the etymological evidence is still in
    MENJ's favor, and that was the point in all this.

    Reply

    Details: Show quoted text | View source | Unwrap Lines | Forward
    Last edited by Ratatosk; 11th December 2004 at 14:08. Reason: Unsuitable language.

  6. #6
    Diamond Thunderbolt Vajradhara's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Location
    In the jungles of Maryland being trained as a ninja by Christopher Walken
    Posts
    2,520

    Default Re: Is Islam a monotheistic religion?

    Namaste erizito,

    thank you for the post.

    Quote Originally Posted by erizito
    Vajradhara,yours is what i call a brilliantly argumentated answer.Short and clear.Thank you.
    i'm rarely short and clear and to the point

    But i hope i shall not offend you,if i tell that i doubt it?
    of course not. why would i be offended if you doubt it? obviously, we have different understandings of things, this being one of them, no worries on my behalf.

    And not only me-but looks that the Prophet Muhammad,too.
    hmm... this doesn't make alot of sense to me. are you saying that the Prophet (pbuh) didn't believe what he was saying? i find that hard to believe... if you can believe me.

    Do you know the story about the"satanical verses",concerning the Sura 53?
    i'm not sure of your religious affiliation... you may be of any number.. however, the word Satan is usually a dead give away that the person is Christian.

    you must realize that a) i don't believe that there is such a thing as Satan, b) Lucifer is not Satan.. Satan was invented by Dante in his play "Inferno" the being in the Bible is Lucifer. according to Jewish thought, Lucifer is not what you think it is... Lucifer plays the role of the prosecutor.. like a district attorney... in any event... Lucifer prosectues you and God is the Judge. your adovcate is Jesus.

    so.. having said that.. nope, i'm not aware of any "satanical" verses. more the point, Satan isn't found in Al Qur'an.. ipso facto, no satanic verses.

    And do you remember the Suras81.15( So verily I call to witness the planets - that recede), and 84.16-18(So I do call to witness the ruddy glow of Sunset;

    17. The Night and its Homing;

    18. And the Moon in her fullness)

    ,where Muhammad swears by stars,planets,etc?A bit strange for the Prophet of One God.
    well... though i can sort of see your point here... i think that you are misconstruing the nature of what is happening, however. this is one of the funny things about langauge... a word in my native language may mean something quite different in your langage, even though it's the same word!

    to be short and concise again... see, i told you i don't do it often

    you've misconstrued the intentions behind the actions. the Prophet (pbuh) is not 'swearing' in the English sense of the word. rather, in my view, he is attesting to the Glory and Mystery of Allah.

    i fully submit that i may be incorrect in my conclusions. however, as you are well aware, in the apolegetics field, you'll need to bring in some intersubjective evidence to support your point or you're likely to find that it's dismissed out of hand as polemical rhetoric.

    Meditation brings wisdom, lack of meditation leaves ignorance. Know well what leads you forward and what holds you back.

    ~Buddha Shakyamuni



  7. #7
    (THOAT-wob-lur MAN-grove)
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Location
    Hell on the Border
    Posts
    5,002

    Default Re: Is Islam a monotheistic religion?

    An article from my site which shatters the moon god nonsense, slightly updated:


    PROOF THAT ALLAH IS NOT A MOON GOD

    Lately, a lot of Christians on the internet, such as Jack Chick at chick.com, have been spreading around the lie that Allah is only a pagan moon god. But that is obviously no more than a lie, and one parroted all too willingly by Christians who don't bother to find out the facts. What the Koran, the ultimate and final basis of all Islamic doctrine, say about this? The Koran says that God made the moon for the sake of helping us tell time:

    10:5 It is [God] who made the sun a radiance, and the moon a light, and determined it by stations, that you might know the number of the years and the reckoning.

    As such, it is subjected to us:

    16:12 [God] subjected to you the night and day, and the sun and moon.

    Allah is in full control of the moon as well as the sun:

    13:2 [God] subjected the sun and the moon, each one running to a term stated. He directs the affair; He distinguishes the signs; haply you will have faith in the encounter with your Lord.

    29:61 If thou askest them, "Who created the heavens and the earth and subjected the sun and the moon?" they will say, "God." How then are they perverted?

    As a result of this, the moon worships Allah:

    22:18 Hast thou not seen how to God bow all who are in the heavens and all who are in the earth, the sun and the moon, the stars and the mountains, the trees and the beasts, and many of mankind?

    The blessed Abraham actually tried worshipping the moon, as well as the sun and the stars, but when he found how temporal they were, and how totally under the control of some higher power, he decided to worship the thing that made them all, and the earth as well, and that’s when that thing, our Lord, revealed Himself. This is all recorded in Koran 6:75-79, which reads as follows:

    We were showing Abraham the kingdom of the heavens and the earth, that he might be of those having sure faith. When night outspread over him he saw a star and said, "This is my Lord." But when it set he said, "I love not the setters." When he saw the moon rising, he said, "This is my Lord." But when it set he said, "If my Lord does not guide me I shall surely be of the people gone astray." When he saw the sun rising, he said, "This is my Lord; this is greater!" But when it set he said, "O my people, surely I am quit of that you associate [with God]. I have turned my face to Him who originated the heavens and the earth, [and I know am] a man of pure faith; I am not of the idolaters."

    Finally, nothing else is really needed to destroy the "moon god" argument but this verse:

    41:37 Bow not yourselves to the sun and moon, but bow yourselves to God who created them, if Him you serve.

    So why is the symbol of Islam the crescent moon with the pentangle? It started during the crusades, but no one knows for sure why the Moors used that symbol. It was probably because, as I've pointed out, the Koran says that the moon is to be used by us for reckoning time. Maybe time was important to the moors, I don't know. Funny how the star next to the moon is never brought up by the people who make the "moon god" allegation. There's a pentangle (five-pointed star) in the design as well as a moon, and yet Christians never accuse us of basing our beliefs on Wicca. Just face it: the whole moon god idea is a big lie, and a really stupid one at that.

    Despite all of Christians' attempts to prove the contrary, Allah is unmistakably and undeniably the same god as Jahweh. It does not change a thing that Jahweh is claimed by Christians to be a Trinity despite the Bible saying nothing about that, and even emphasizing repeatedly the oneness of Jahweh (never mentioning a threeness in the oneness--except in 1 John 5:7, which is universally considered a medieval interpolation--say, doesn't the need for such an interpolation to have been put in mean anything to you?), while the Koran rightfully denies the Trinity. It's the same God in both texts who sent the same score of prophets mentioned in both books, and the Koran even says:

    5:17 Certainly they disbelieve who say; Surely, Allah--He is the Messiah, son of Marium. Say: Who then could control anything as against Allah when He wished to destroy the Messiah son of Marium and his mother and all those who are on the earth?

    I used M.H. Shakir's translation there, because Arberry always renders the Arabic "Allah" as God. Not that there's anything wrong with this, but I wanted to show that the allegation here is that Christians claim that the blessed Messiah is Allah, not that he is "their god," but that he is Allah. [Note: Translatins of the Bible in Arabic use the word "Allah" in place of "Jehovah", and as such Arab Christians and Jews refer to God as Allah.]

  8. #8
    Muslim brother
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Location
    Canada
    Posts
    28

    Default Re: Is Islam a monotheistic religion?

    Satanic verses??? The brother is right about this being trash.

    Alleged Satanic Verse

    18/04/2004


    The orientalists allege that the Prophet, peace and blessings be upon him, was worried about the enmity of the non-believers in Makkah. In such a state of mind one day went to Ka`bah where he recited to the gathering of believers and non-believers Surah An-Najm 53 which is said to have been revealed at that time.


    The allegation is that in the course of its recitation and when he uttered the verse 19-20 “Do you see al Lat and al `Uzza and the other third Manat?” Satan threw in the couplet “Those are the swans exalted; verily their intercession is to be expected”.


    The Prophet, peace and blessings be upon him, then completed the Surah and at the end of it went into prostration in accordance with the last verse. All those present there, the believers and non-believers also did so except an old Qurai****e leader (Umayyah Ibn Khalaf or Al-Walid Ibn Al-Mughirah or Abu Umayyah) who raised a handful of dust and touched it with his forehead saying that would suffice for him. The Qurai****e leaders are said to have given out as reason for their prostration themselves, by saying that now that the Prophet had recognized the position of their goddesses as intercessors with Allah, there was in fact no point of quarrel with him.


    Afterwards, in the evening (some versions do not specify any time) Jibril came to the Prophet, peace and blessings be upon him, and asked him to recite the Surah, which he did, still reciting the “satanic verses”. Jibril protested, saying that those were not what had been revealed. At this, the Prophet, peace and blessings be upon him, became very sad and apprehensive of Allah’s wrath. Thereupon two separate passages, 17:73-75 and 22-52 were revealed in reassuring the Prophet, peace and blessings be upon him, and the “satanic verses” were repealed. The Qurai****e leaders became angry and renewed their enmity and opposition with increased vehemence. Meanwhile the news of non-believers’ prostration reached Abyssinia in the form of rumor of their compromise with the Prophet, peace and blessings be upon him, and the Muslims returned to Makkah.


    Reply


    The story is so manifestly absurd and untrue that it ought to have been rejected outright as such and not recorded by the chroniclers and traditionalists. But since some of them have recorded it has often been cited as ground for its genuineness, rather than the obviously discrediting features of the story itself.


    Imam Fakhr Ad-Din Ar-Razi correctly points out that those who have critically looked at the story have all rejected it as spurious on the grounds of its conflict with the clear testimony of the Qur’an, the rules governing the genuineness of traditions and the dictates of reason.


    The Qur’anic evidence against the genuineness of the story is of three kinds.


    There are a number of statements in the Qur’an that show that neither Satan nor anyone else could interfere in the process of coming of the revelation. Nor did the Prophet, peace and blessings be upon him, ever entertain any intention of making compromise with the unbelieving leaders, nor did he ever interpolate in the text of the revelation.


    The passages cited as having been revealed as a sequel to the incident and for reassuring the Prophet, peace and blessings be upon him, prove to the contrary, showing that he had not made even the slightest move towards making a compromise with the unbelieving leaders.


    The internal evidence of Surah An-Najm (53), in connection with the revelation of which the story has been foisted, goes against its spirit and purpose.


    THE PASSAGES FROM THE QUR’AN THAT DIRECTLY BELIE THE STORY ARE AS FOLLOWS:


    “If he (Messenger) were to invent any saying in Our Name, We should certainly have seized him by the right hand and We should then have surely cut off the artery of his heart"
    [Qur’an 60:44-46]


    “Say; It is not for me, of my own accord, to change it (the revelation). I follow naught but what is revealed unto me"
    [Qur'an 10:15 ]


    “No falsehood can approach it from the front, nor from the rear (i.e. neither directly nor indirectly). It is sent-down from Allah the All-Wise, the All-Praiseworthy.”
    [Qur'an 41:42]


    “We indeed have sent down the recital (the Qur’an) and indeed are its Protectors (from any interference).”
    [Qur'an 15:9]


    “In what way (We have revealed it), that We may make your heart firm thereby; and We have dictated it in stages.”
    [Qur'an 25:32]


    It is seen from the above that the Qur’an repeatedly assures that Allah has protected it against any possibility of being tampered with directly or indirectly, that it is not for the Prophet to change it or add to it anything. If he had done so, Allah’s severe punishment would inevitably and irresistibly have befallen him. These clear and positive statements directly contradict the story, which says that the Prophet, peace and blessings be upon him, of his own accord or being deceived by Satan introduced something into the text of revelation. Not only that. The alleged interpolation violated the fundamental teaching of the Qur’an – monotheism (Tauhid) and thus constituted the offence of shirk which Allah warns elsewhere in the Qur’an that He shall under no circumstances forgive.


    The story is thus quite contrary to the specific statements of the Qur’an and also to the tenor and purport of its entire text. As such the story is totally unworthy of any credence. This is not simply from a Muslim’s point of view, but also from true historian’s point of view.


    The two passages of the Qur’an that are said to have been revealed as a sequel to the story are as follows:


    “Indeed they were about to divert you from what We revealed to you, in order that you forge against Us something else, and in that case they would certainly have taken you as a friend. And had We not made you firm, you would almost have inclined towards them a little; and in that case we would have made you taste the double (punishment) in death; and then you would not have found for you as against Us any helper.”
    [Qur'an 17:73-75]


    These verses were revealed 11 or 12 years after the call to Prophethood.


    “Never did We send a Messenger nor a Prophet before you, but that when he formed an intention Satan threw something in his intention; but Allah cancels what Satan throws in and then makes His sign prevail. Allah is All-knowing, All-Wise.
    [Qur'an 22:52]


    This verse was revealed during the 1st year of Hijrah.


    A little careful look at them would at once show that their texts, far from supporting the story, do in fact contradict it.


    The first passage shows that it was the unbelievers who attempted to induce the Prophet to making a compromise with them, not that he ever wanted it. The passage further states that Allah made the Prophet’s heart firm against such attempts of the unbelievers. The emphasis here is on the intensity of the unbelievers’ attempts, and Allah’s special favor upon the Prophet making him immune against such efforts and because of such special favor, the Prophet, peace and blessings be upon him, did not incline towards the unbelievers even a little. Finally the above verse warns that, had the Prophet, peace and blessings be upon him, been guilty of slight inclination towards the unbelievers’ proposals, he would have been doubly punished by Allah.


    It is strange that the orientalists mention the above verses revealed about 8 or 9 years after the alleged incident as assurance from Allah, because during this period so many major events had taken place, including the Hijrah.


    The Internal Evidence of Surah An-Najm (53)


    The Surah starts emphasizing that,


    “He (the Prophet) does not speak out of his desire. It is naught but Wahy (revelation) communicated to him.” In verses 3-4. The Surah declares that the Prophet, peace and blessings be upon him, has not gone astray, nor erred, nor does he speak out of his own desire, but what he gives out is only revelation communicated to him. It is impossible to think that the Prophet, peace and blessings be upon him, would immediately add the alleged two verse within this Surah itself, thus contradicting the very essence of the Surah. Though there are over 15 versions of the allegation, all the versions agree that the Prophet, peace and blessings be upon him, recited the whole of Surah An-Najm on this occasion and prostrated himself at the end of it.


    The alleged verses as follows:


    “Those are swans exalted. Whose intercession is to be expected.”


    These alleged two verses do not fit in any place in the Surah. If we simply insert them after verse 19 and 20 they will read as follows:


    “Have you then considered Al-Lat and Al-Uzza (two idols of the pagan Arabs)
    [v.19]

    And Manat (another idol of the pagan Arabs), the third?
    [v.20]

    Those are swans exalted. Whose intercession is to be expected.
    [???]

    Is it for you the males and for Him the females?
    [v. 21]

    That indeed is a division most unfair
    [v.22]

    They are but names, which you have named, - you and your fathers- for which Allah has sent down no authority. They follow but a guess and that which they themselves desire, whereas there has surely come to the Guidance from their Lord.
    [v.23]

    Or shall man have what he wishes?
    [v.24]

    But to Allah belongs the last (hereafter) and the first (the world)”
    [v.25]


    A simple glance shows that the alleged satanic verses shown in bold above do not fit in any place in the Surah An-Najm. The whole text from verses 19 to the end of the Surah has a unity and continuity on both theme and sequence. There is no giving-in on the question of intercession by anyone; no relaxation of the principle of individual and personal responsibility, no softening down of denunciation of the conduct of the unbelieving leaders and no room given to accommodating their attitudes.


    The following additional information should be noted on this insinuation.


    The story has come down in about a dozen varying versions and does not have a strong chain of narrators (Isnad). It is technically regarded as Mursal – i.e. its Isnad does not go up beyond the second generation (Tabi`un) after the Prophet, peace and blessings be upon him. One of the versions traces back to `Abd Allah Ibn `Abbas as eye-witness, who was born some five years after the alleged event was said to have taken place. Apart from this, all the persons in the Isnad have names who are considered weak, unreliable or unknown.


    The report itself suffer from grave differences and disagreements in all the four essential respects, namely:


    * The occasion of the incident;


    * Nature of the Prophet’s alleged act;


    * The wording of the alleged “satanic verses”- as many as 15 different texts;


    * The effect or sequel of the alleged incident.


    There are reports that say, more significantly, that while the unbelievers heard the alleged “satanic verses”, the believers did not at all hear them. All the versions unanimously show that no objection or uneasiness was expressed by any of the believers at the Prophet, peace and blessings be upon him, alleged utterance of the verses, nor to his alleged dropping of them subsequently. If such an unusual incident as the giving out of some compromising verses and their subsequent withdrawal had at all taken place, it would have been narrated by some of the many Companions of the Prophet, peace and blessings be upon him.


    `Abdallah Ibn Mas`ud says that Surah An-Najm was the first Surah, which the Prophet, peace and blessings be upon him, recited in front of a gathering of believers and non-believers at the Ka`bah compound. When he finished it and went into prostration, all those who were present, believers and non-believers also prostrated themselves. It is an acknowledged fact that the Prophet, peace and blessings be upon him, and the Muslims could not publicly and in a body perform prayer or recite the Qur’an at the Ka`bah before the conversion of `Umar, may Allah be pleased with him, and the revelation of Sura An-Najm took place after his conversion. Conversion of `Umar, may Allah be pleased with him, was a great gain to Islam.


    The Qur’an has the stunning effect on every non-believing Qurai****e who heard it and their leaders such as `Utbah Ibn Rabi`ah themselves had confessed to this. As such, the non-believers without realizing what they were doing would have gone to prostration as commanded in the last verse of the Surah, together with the Muslims. Since the Qurai****e leaders prostrated themselves or made a show of prostration, they must have been pressed by their followers to explain their act. When they realized what they have done, they would have tried to find a justification for their unintentional act of abiding by the Qur’anic command.


    The other fact that needs emphasizing in this connection is that the text of the so-called “satanic verses” was no new composition made on the occasion. It was an old couplet that the Qurai****e pagans used to recite in praise of their goddess while circumambulating the Ka`bah. It is also to be remembered that the unbelievers used to create noise and disturbances whenever the Prophet, peace and blessings be upon him, or Muslims recited the Qur’an publicly. Therefore, it is very likely that when the Prophet, peace and blessings be upon him, recited the Surah and mentioned al-Lat and al-`Uzza in the course of his recitation and in a denunciatory strain, some of the Qurai****e unbelievers instantly interrupted and protested by shouting out the couplets. Significantly enough, some versions of the story clearly state that the “satanic verses” were uttered not by the Prophet, peace and blessings be upon him, but by Satan or some unbelievers, and they specifically state that the Muslims did not hear it.

    Excerpted with slight modifications from:WWW.prophetmuhammed.org

    Please consider what you are saying next time before spewing out misconceptions.
    Peace

  9. #9
    (THOAT-wob-lur MAN-grove)
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Location
    Hell on the Border
    Posts
    5,002

    Default Re: Is Islam a monotheistic religion?

    Quote Originally Posted by erizito
    The pagan Arabs worshipped the Moon-god Allah by praying
    toward Mecca several times a day; making a pilgrimage to Mecca; running around the temple of the Moon-god called the Kabah; kissing the black stone; killing an animal in sacrifice to the Moon-god; throwing stones at the devil; fasting for the month which begins and ends with the
    crescent moon; giving alms to the poor, etc.
    I double dog dare you to show a shred of evidence for these assertions.(Actually, I don't care about the assertion regarding giving money to the poor; that has always been taught by most religions and cults, but I do challenge you to provide any evidence whatsoever for the other claims.) I double dog dare you.

    And be sure to read the article I posted above which indisputably disproves the modern evangelistic lie that Allah is a moon god.

    The only thing they do not do-they do not sacrifice an animal(at least as far as i know).
    That depends on what you consider a sacrifice. On the pilgrimage a steer is killed (not by the people on the pilgrimage, but someone whose job it is to do so) and we eat the cooked meat of it, and this is called a sacrifice. I consider that an inaccurate label because historically, the purpose of sacrifices is for the animal in question to be a sacrifice in the common, everyday sense of the word--i.e. to let an animal that could have been used for food, clothing or whatever go to waste as a sign of devotion to your deity. When you kill and eat an animal, therefore, that isn't a sacrifice in the ordinary historical context of the word.

    But in this case 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.
    I have yet to see any Christian ever produce a molecule of evidence that there even was such a moon-god cult, or at least that they called their god "Allah". And even if they did, the article I posted above offers irrefutable proof that in Islam "Allah" would still refer to a different entity.

    Do we have the right to consider Islam as a monotheistic religion-or it is sheer idolatry?
    Why do you even bother posting on this board? You never do anything but post nasty finger-pointing and easily disproven accusations, spitting on our religion. You have made hardly a single post since you've gotten here that isn't insulting and offensive (not to mention easily refuted by even the most amateurish of Muslims).

    It is a well known fact, well known even to non-Muslims across the world, that there is no religion on earth which is as strongly monotheistic, or at least as gravely insistent on the absolute purity of monotheism, as Islam. In fact, monotheism is almost entirely what the religion is about.

  10. #10
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Location
    spain
    Posts
    589

    Default Re: Is Islam a monotheistic religion?

    Jewish Torah scholars do not consider Allah to be a pagan god


    While it is recognized that Moslems worship the same God that we do (though calling him Allah, He is the same God of Israel), even those who follow the tenets of their religion cannot be considered righteous in the eyes of God, because they do not accept that the Written Torah in the hands of the Jews today is the original Torah handed down by God and they do not accept the Seven Laws of Noah as binding on them.

    While the Christians do generally accept the Hebrew Bible as truly from God, many of them (those who accept the so-called divinity of Jesus) are idolaters according to the Torah, punishable by death, and certainly will not enjoy the World to Come. But it is not just being a member of a denomination in which the majority are believers in the Trinity that is idolatry, but personal idolatrous practice, whatever the individual's affiliation.

    http://www.mechon-mamre.org/jewfaq/gentiles.htm
    Last edited by ali; 10th December 2004 at 19:00.

  11. #11
    Ansar Al-Haq
    Guest

    Default Re: Is Islam a monotheistic religion?

    Assalamu Alaykum,
    Erizito has made it very clear that he has no intention to learn. He has repeated ridiculous misconceptions in the form of statements rather than questions. He has no respect for others and is preaching a racist ideology of hate. His comments clearly illustrate this.

    In a past discussion, after referring to many terorist attacks, he made the following statement:
    Quote Originally Posted by Erizito
    Maybe you do not understand it-but their blood is on YOUR hands,too,Ansar Al.Haq.
    On my hands. Why? Because I am a muslim and I believe my religion preaches peace. This is the justification Erizito had for this racist remark.

    Turning back to the Moon-god myth, I can give many links on it:

    http://www.themodernreligion.com/com...st_moongod.htm
    http://www.islamic-awareness.org/Qur...h/moongod.html

    These sites will answer this ridiculous misconception in very great detail.

    A short quote from another site:
    I would like to draw your attention to the fact that there is an ongoing media war on Islam, carried out by some groups among the People of the Book. The principle of One God and one humanity taught by Islam undermines the inherent bigotry and racism of the Zionists; while for some Christians, Islam’s uncompromising stance against the polytheistic Trinitarian concept of God in Christianity is a reason to fight Islam.

    They know that the Muslim belief in One God is unassailable. Yet, they try to undermine the Muslims’ faith by bringing forth charges like the one you indicated. Namely, that Allah is not the One God of the universe, but one of the many gods of the pagans of Arabia.

    It is true that the Makkan pagans knew of Allah. But they believed Him to be the Creator of the universe, not as the moon god. They prayed to all the lesser gods as mediators to Allah, just as the Christians consider the saints to be the mediators to God, thereby diluting their worship to God.

    There was no idol called “Allah”, though all the lesser gods of the Makkan pagans were represented by idols. As the Qur’an says, they claimed what means:

    *{We only serve them [the idols] in order that they may bring us nearer to Allah.}* (Az-Zumar 39:3)
    So the pagan Arabs believed in Allah as the Supreme Ruler of the universe, while praying to their lesser deities. Whereas Islam teaches that no one deserves our worship and prayers except Allah, Who is the Sovereign Creator and Cherisher of the universe.

    The following verses of the Qur’an - among others - will make clear that Allah can never be a provincial god. They read what means:

    *{ To Him is due the primal origin of the heavens and the earth: When He decreeth a matter, He saith to it: “Be,” and it is.}* (Al-Baqarah 2:177)

    *{For Allah is He Who gives [all] sustenance, Lord of Power, Steadfast [for ever].}* (Adh-Dhariyat 51:58)

    *{And verily unto Us belong the end and the beginning.}* (Al-Layl 92:13)

    *{To Allah do all matters return.}* (Aal `Imran 3:109)
    A man called Dr. Robert Morey has brought out a book titled, The Moon-God Allah in the Archeology of the Middle East. Evidently, this malicious work is the source of the allegation you heard from your Christian friend. To know about the deceptive strategies employed by Dr. Morey, you may read: Reply To Dr. Robert Morey's Moon-God Myth & Other Deceptive Attacks On Islam - by Shabbir Ally.

    As for the picture of the crescent moon, which some Muslims use as a symbol, this is due to the fact that the crescent marks the beginning of the Islamic months. Since the Muslim calendar is a lunar one - and not a solar one - some Muslims started using the crescent moon as a symbol on the flag, for instance. There is no doubt that the crescent moon has no significance other than this. It is not a “holy symbol”. This is because Islam does not believe in any “holy idols” or symbols to be worshipped!

    The Qur’an says what means:

    *{They ask you concerning the new moons. Say: They are but times appointed for [the benefit of] men, and [for] the pilgrimage … … …}* (Al-Baqarah 2:189)
    As a matter of fact, you cannot see any religion or ideology objecting to idolatry so vehemently as Islam: The Qur'an tells the story of how Ibrahim, peace be upon him, demolished the idols made by his own father. God says in the Qur’an that in Ibraheem you have a model to follow. And it is Ibrahim again who is presented as “the Friend of God” in the Qur'an as in the Bible. This is because Ibrahim was ready to sacrifice his only son to God.

    Our scholars say that it was after a long period of waiting that Ibrahim was gifted with a son in answer to his prayers. And this gift of a son was Isma`il or Ishmael, peace be upon him. Probably when Ibrahim was so much absorbed in loving his son, God commanded him to sacrifice his son to Him! Ibrahim, peace be upon him, was immediate in repenting and returning to God, so much so that God saved him from the task of sacrificing his son and gave him the title: “Friend of God!” Even through this example God in the Qur'an underscores the importance of devotion to Him and Him only.

    This is Islam: Submission to God the One and Only Creator and Sustainer of the universe. But, Dr. Morley and his tribe spend a lot of energy to prove that Islam is idolatry! Please remember that one of the first things Muhammad, peace be upon him, did when he returned to Makkah, was to demolish all the idols in and around the Ka`bah.

    May Allah guide us to the Truth and strengthen our faith in Him in these hard times!

    Thank you again for your question and please keep in touch.

    Salam.
    Peace

  12. #12

    Default Re: Is Islam a monotheistic religion?

    Assalammu'alaikum.
    bravo brothers.

    Where is erizito?

    My suggestion, just keep calm. and avoid garbage word. This guy had poisoned by Anti Islam sites. we try to heal him.

    I hope he'll stay brave facing Muslims in this forum. Means, not run away.

    Wassalammu'alaikum
    Defenders
    And say: "Truth has arrived, and Falsehood perished: for Falsehood is bound to perish." (HQ-17:81)
    WE STAND UNITED DEFENDING ISLAM
    http://www.islamdefenders.com
    http://www.islamdefenders.com/911/Index_911.htm No Muslims involved in September 11 Attacks.

  13. #13
    Banned
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Posts
    60

    Default Re: Yahia Sulaiman

    Hi,Yahia Sulaiman.

    “I have yet to see any Christian ever produce a molecule of evidence that there even was such a moon-god cult, or at least that they called their god "Allah"”.
    -After reading this statement of yours what i now know for sure is that you have not a molecule of knowledge about the archaeology. Archeologists have uncovered temples to the Moon-god throughout the Middle East. From the mountains of Turkey to the banks of the Nile, the most wide-spread religion of the ancient world was the worship of the Moon-god. As demonstrated by Sjoberg and Hall, the ancient Sumerians worshipped a Moon-god who was called many different names. The most popular names were Nanna, Suen and Asimbabbar. His symbol was the crescent moon. Given the amount of artifacts concerning the worship of this Moon-god, it is clear that this was the dominant religion in Sumeria. The cult of the Moon-god was the most popular religion throughout ancient Mesopotamia. The Assyrians, Babylonians, and the Akkadians took the word Suen and transformed it into the word Sin as their favorite name for the Moon-god. As Prof. Potts pointed out, "Sin is a name essentially Sumerian in origin which had been borrowed by the Semites." In ancient Syria and Canna, the Moon-god Sin was usually represented by the moon in its crescent phase. At times the full moon was placed inside the crescent moon to emphasize all the phases of the moon. The sun-goddess was the wife of Sin and the stars were their daughters. For example, Istar was a daughter of Sin. In the Ugaritic texts, the Moon-god was sometimes called Kusuh. In Persia, as well as in Egypt, the Moon-god is depicted on wall murals and on the heads of statues. In Ur, the Stela of Ur-Nammu has the crescent symbol placed at the top of the register of gods because the Moon-god was the head of the gods. Even bread was baked in the form of a crescent as an act of devotion to the Moon-god. The Ur of the Chaldees was so devoted to the Moon-god that it was sometimes called Nannar in tablets from that time period.
    A temple of the Moon-god has been excavated in Ur by Sir Leonard Woolley. He dug up many examples of moon worship in Ur and these are displayed in the British Museum to this day.
    In the 1950's a major temple to the Moon-god was excavated at Hazer in Palestine. Two idols of the moon god were found. Each was a stature of a man sitting upon a throne with a crescent moon carved on his chest . The accompanying inscriptions make it clear that these were idols of the Moon-god. Several smaller statues were also found which were identified by their inscriptions as the "daughters" of the Moon-god.
    What about Arabia? During the nineteenth century, Amaud, Halevy and Glaser went to Southern Arabia and dug up thousands of Sabean, Minaean, and Qatabanian inscriptions which were subsequently translated. In the 1940's, the archeologists G. Caton Thompson and Carleton S. Coon made some amazing discoveries in Arabia. During the 1950's, Wendell Phillips, W.F. Albright, Richard Bower and others excavated sites at Qataban, Timna, and Marib (the ancient capital of Sheba). Thousands of inscriptions from walls and rocks in Northern Arabia have also been collected. Reliefs and votive bowls used in worship of the "daughters of Allah" have also been discovered. The three daughters, al-Lat, al-Uzza and Manat are sometimes depicted together with Allah the Moon-god represented by a crescent moon above them(they are mentioned in Quran,by teh way). The archeological evidence demonstrates that the dominant religion of Arabia was the cult of the Moon-god. Many scholars have also noticed that the Moon-god's name "Sin" is a part of such Arabic words as "Sinai," the "wilderness of Sin," etc. When the popularity of the Moon-god waned elsewhere, the Arabs remained true to their conviction that the Moon-god was the greatest of all gods. While they worshipped 360 gods at the Kabah in Mecca, the Moon-god was the chief deity. Mecca was in fact built as a shrine for the Moon-god. This is what made it the most sacred site of Arabian paganism.
    The evidence reveals that the temple of the Moon-god was active even in the Christian era. Evidence gathered from both North and South Arabia demonstrate that Moon-god worship was clearly active even in Muhammad's day and was still the dominant cult. According to numerous inscriptions, while the name of the Moon-god was Sin, his title was al-ilah, i.e. "the deity," meaning that he was the chief or high god among the gods. As Coon pointed out, "The god Il or Ilah was originally a phase of the Moon God." The Moon-god was called al-ilah, i.e. the god, which was shortened to Allah in pre-Islamic times. The pagan Arabs even used Allah in the names they gave to their children. For example, both Muhammad's father and uncle had Allah as part of their names.
    The fact that they were given such names by their pagan parents proves that Allah was the title for the Moon-god even in Muhammad's day. Prof. Coon goes on to say, "Similarly, under Mohammed's tutelage, the relatively anonymous Ilah, became Al-Ilah, The God, or Allah, the Supreme Being."
    This fact answers the questions, "Why is Allah never defined in the Qur'an? Why did Muhammad assume that the pagan Arabs already knew who Allah was?" Muhammad was raised in the religion of the Moon-god Allah. But he went one step further than his fellow pagan Arabs. While they believed that Allah, i.e. the Moon-god, was the greatest of all gods and the supreme deity in a pantheon of deities, Muhammad decided that Allah was not only the greatest god but the only god.
    In effect he said, "Look, you already believe that the Moon-god Allah is the greatest of all gods. All I want you to do is to accept that the idea that he is the only god. I am not taking away the Allah you already worship. I am only taking away his wife and his daughters and all the other gods." This is seen from the fact that the first point of the Muslim creed is not, "Allah is great" but "Allah is the greatest," i.e., he is the greatest among the gods. Why would Muhammad say that Allah is the "greatest" except in a polytheistic context? The Arabic word is used to contrast the greater from the lesser. That this is true is seen from the fact that the pagan Arabs never accused Muhammad of preaching a different Allah than the one they already worshipped. This "Allah" was the Moon-god according to the archeological evidence. Muhammad thus attempted to have it both ways. To the pagans, he said that he still believed in the Moon-god Allah. To the Jews and the Christians, he said that Allah was their God too. But both the Jews and the Christians knew better and that is why they rejected his god Allah as a false god.
    Al-Kindi, one of the early Christian apologists against Islam, pointed out that Islam and its god Allah did not come from the Bible but from the paganism of the Sabeans. They did not worship the God of the Bible but the Moon-god and his daughters al-Uzza, al-Lat and Manat. Dr. Newman concludes his study of the early Christian-Muslim debates by stating, "Islam proved itself to be...a separate and antagonistic religion which had sprung up from idolatry." Islamic scholar Caesar Farah concluded "There is no reason, therefore, to accept the idea that Allah passed to the Muslims from the Christians and Jews." The Arabs worshipped the Moon-god as a supreme deity. But this was not biblical monotheism.
    While the Moon-god was greater than all other gods and goddesses, this was still a polytheistic pantheon of deities. Now that we have the actual idols of the Moon-god, it is no longer possible to avoid the fact that Allah was a pagan god in pre-Islamic times. And it is not any wonder then that the symbol of Islam is the crescent moon,that a crescent moon sits on top of their mosques and minarets,that a crescent moon is found on the flags of Islamic nations,that the Muslims fast during the month which begins and ends with the appearance of the crescent moon in the sky. Islam is nothing more than a revival of the ancient Moon-god cult,and by no means can be classified as the continuation of the Jewish-Christian biblical tradition.

    The question answered, Yahia Sulaiman?I hope that will help.

  14. #14
    Banned
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Posts
    60

    Default Re: Is Islam a monotheistic religion?

    Quote Originally Posted by Ron
    Erizito,

    This has to be one of the most ignorant posts I have ever read from a person claiming "honesty." What a sad state your knowledge is in. I'll echo Vajradhara's words. I hope that no one else even bothers to reply to such a post and hope that it is ignored as it ignores a basic element...truth.
    As you see,you are wrong.There are others who bothered to answer.About the sad state of my knowledgelease,read my answer to Yahia Sulaiman-and aftewr that we shall talk about the state of my knowledge,compared with yours.

  15. #15
    Banned
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Posts
    60

    Default Re: Is Islam a monotheistic religion?

    Quote Originally Posted by Vajradhara
    Namaste erizito,

    you must realize that a) i don't believe that there is such a thing as Satan, b) Lucifer is not Satan.. Satan was invented by Dante in his play "Inferno" the being in the Bible is Lucifer. according to Jewish thought, Lucifer is not what you think it is... Lucifer plays the role of the prosecutor.. like a district attorney... in any event... Lucifer prosectues you and God is the Judge. your adovcate is Jesus.

    so.. having said that.. nope, i'm not aware of any "satanical" verses. more the point, Satan isn't found in Al Qur'an.. ipso facto, no satanic verses.


    well... though i can sort of see your point here... i think that you are misconstruing the nature of what is happening, however. this is one of the funny things about langauge... a word in my native language may mean something quite different in your langage, even though it's the same word!

    to be short and concise again... see, i told you i don't do it often

    you've misconstrued the intentions behind the actions. the Prophet (pbuh) is not 'swearing' in the English sense of the word. rather, in my view, he is attesting to the Glory and Mystery of Allah.

    i fully submit that i may be incorrect in my conclusions. however, as you are well aware, in the apolegetics field, you'll need to bring in some intersubjective evidence to support your point or you're likely to find that it's dismissed out of hand as polemical rhetoric.
    Al-Tabari,Waqidi were the Muslims who narrated the story about the "satanic verses".This term was first introduced by Muir at the end of the decade of 1850,and since then this expression is widely known.Pity you do not know it.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •