Mere Islam

Tuesday, June 27, 2006

Accidental Paganism Based on a Name?

Well M. S. M. Saifullah and company at Islamic-Awareness.org have updated a couple [(1)(2)] of their excellent articles which refute hate-mongers, such as Robert Morey, and their half-baked and dishonest assertions that Allah is a pre-Islamic "moon god"—so please take the time to have a look at them as well as their other articles [(1)(2)(3)] on this topic.

The only potential insight that I want to offer in the whole "moon god" debate is that the underlying premise behind all of these polemics seems to be that Islam is accidentally a pagan religion due to its use of the word "Allah" for the Supreme Deity instead of an allegedly more suitable word—which these linguistically challenged Protestants rather conveniently assume to be the English word "God". Indeed, dishonest pseudo-scholars such as Robert Morey (and please take the time to read this Christian exposé of him, as well as the first article mentioned above in order to see plenty of hard evidence that he resorts to "forgery, deception, suppression of evidence and deliberate misquotation" in a desperate attempt to prove his pre-conceived notions) essentially assert that in spite of the fact that Muslims intend to worship the God of Abraham, Moses and Jesus, that they are, alas, still actually worshipping a pagan god. Needless to say, both at first blush and after detailed consideration, this type of thinking seems not only patently unfair, but to be a product of monstrous double-standards. Indeed, not only does the fact that the Qur'an repeatedly and consistently [(1)(2)(3)(4)(5)(6)] affirms that the God of Prophet Muhammad—salla Allahu 'alayhi wa salam—and the earlier Hebrew prophets is one and the same push such an accusation into the realm of the unreasonable and unfounded, but it's also painfully ironic that the immense hypocrisy that's latent in this hateful diatribe eventually comes back to bedevil the religion of the slanderer himself!

No doubt, what's really worth noting about this nonsensical contention, other than the fact that for years to come it will probably continue to serve as a monumental example of the type of gross intellectual dishonesty and diabolical pseudo-scholarship that some strands of conservative Protestantism have a knack for producing, is the fact that the sloppy reasoning which it employs, if applied to the words used for "God" in the Bible, completely undermines the Christian faith that these textual charlatans are trying to defend!!! This is because both the Hebrew words for God (i.e. 'El, 'Eloah and 'Eloyhim) and the Greek word for God (i.e. Theos) were originally used for pagan gods! This is even true for the English word God and its various derivatives, which originally referred to "Germanic pagan deities" worshipped in pre-Christian northern Europe.

To top all of this off, modern speakers of Romance languages, such as Spanish, French and Portuguese, might be shocked to find out that their words for God (respectively Dios, Dieu and Deus) are all derived from Deus, which is a Latinized form of the name of the Greek god Zeus!!! Put that in your etymological pipe and smoke it, Robert Morey!

Consequently, based on Robert Morey's own logic (and I use the word loosely), for well over a thousand years the overwhelming majority of Christians in the world were therefore accidentally worshiping the god Zeus as they celebrated the Christian mass in Latin. And when Robert Morey finally came along, in all of his intellectual humility, and pointed out how others had gotten things all wrong…well he was using a word for God that was originally pagan in origin too! I mean really, isn't the sloppy thinking and unintended consequences of some hypocrites just simply amazing?!?

These devastating points don't even address the significant fact that Jesus himself, in spite of what some people seemingly believe, used the word Alaha (sometimes spelled Elah) when he spoke in his native Aramaic. Does that mean that he too was accidentally worshipping one of the Canaanite deities because Alaha is derived from a word that was originally used by pagans? And keep in mind that even in Jesus' time, many Aramaic speakers were pagans, not Jews. So instead of wallowing in such drivel, an intellectually honest person would—after actually considering the linguistic evidence—conclude that the various Semitic languages (Arabic, Hebrew and Aramaic) all use words for "god" and "God" that are very similar in origin, spelling and their root meanings. All of this evidence, coupled with the fact that all believers should find comfort in the certitude that all of these words have as a common ancestor the word for "God" that was originally revealed to Adam and the other early prophets, should be enough to squash the mistaken belief that there's some problem with any of these words when it comes to using them to refer to The One True God. For an excellent and detailed discussion of the various names of God, I highly recommend reading Dr. Umar Faruq Abd-Allah's One God, Many Names—and taking its recommendations to heart.

I'd like to mention that one could well argue that "Allah" is the most theologically superior of the just-mentioned Semitic words for "God", since as a contraction of the definite article "Al-" (i.e. "the") and the word "Ilah" (i.e. "god/God") it literally means "The God"—thus leaving almost no room for any of the ambiguity in regards to Divinity that crept into both the Bible and Christian Trinitarian theology. Indeed, on this level, the word "Allah" stands in stark contrast to the Hebrew words 'El, 'Eloah and 'Eloyhim, which are used in the Old Testament to refer to pagan deities as well as the One True God of the Children of Israel. However, in order to avoid slipping into anything that might appear to be rather pointless "My Word for God is Better Than Yours" antics, for balance I'll just mention that the Greek word for God, in a grammatical sense, is quite similar to the Arabic word, since it too is constructed from the definite article (i.e. "Ho") and the word for god (i.e. "Theos"), thus it (i.e. "Ho Theos") also rather unambiguously means "The God".

All of this should be abundantly clear to a native speaker of any of the languages just mentioned, since the word for God in any person's native language is most often very near and dear to their heart—and thus simply means GOD in spite of what others may feel about it. In spite of what the specific word might actually be, as long as a person is a true monotheist, the word they use for God is good enough—and this is certainly the case if they're intending to worship the God of Abraham, Moses, Jesus and Muhammad—peace be upon them all. Indeed, Almighty God, as Muslims understand Him, doesn't throw people into Hell for linguistic misunderstandings—especially when the only real misunderstanding is in the minds of some bigoted hate-mongers.

A wise shaykh once told me, in regards to some of these debates and antics, what essentially means: "Allah is God and God is Allah, so let's just leave it at that"—and a word to the wise is sufficient.

"Adore not the sun and the moon,
but adore God who created them..."

Qur'an 41:37

Deen On...

Labels: , , ,

11 Comments:

At 6/27/2006 09:42:00 PM, Blogger sheilaX said...

Shalom,

You said:
"the Hebrew words 'El, 'Eloah and 'Eloyhim, which are used in the Old Testament to refer to pagan deities as well as the One True God of the Children of Israel."


Actually, El was the Cannanite name for the cretaor god, whose son, Baal, had various consorts.

The Hebrews had an on and off relationship with Cannanite deities (whose rites included mass orgies), until finally, they adopted the name El for Yahweh.

 
At 6/27/2006 09:58:00 PM, Blogger Qadeeb al-Ban said...

Here's an interesting exposé of the pseudo-scholar and charlatan Robert Morey that I came across on a Pakistani Christian website:

Facts about Robert A. Morey

As the excerpts below show, it seems that they don't have a very high opinion of the man:

"Robert A. Morey, treacherous thief, malicious person, third rate scholar, self appointed bishop, who is misleading the Christians and Pakistani Christians living in North America and with his spite, malice he has corrupted the Christianity."

"There is no doubt in my mind that Robert Morey is an Insane Monster misleading the Christians of North America. He claims to be a scholar and authority on Islam yet al he does or has done so far is nothing different that an 'illiterate Mullah' of a remote village of Pakistan. He is a “fame hungry” person and will do any thing that could bring his name to lime light."

"Having no moral courage, Robert Morey immediately declared me a Muslim and he used filthy language. He wrote, you are probably a Muslim who want to kill those who awarded the degree of Doctor of Divinity to find a place in Islamic whorehouse paradise. He totally ignored my first name “Timotheus” and tried to hide behind my last name 'Nasir'. I was surprised that how could a Christian scholar ignored 'Timotheus' which is a Greek name translated in English, 'Timothy'."

"Therefore any degree awarded to any one that is not awarded in the month of March from Gujranwala Pakistan is forged, fake, illegal and fraud and Robert Morey stands guilty of all the charges that are mentioned above."

"He has been proven guilty of forgery, keeping and using illegal and fake degree and fraudulently using it with his name."

"In Robert Morey we found a man who is a thief, a liar, a cheat and a fraud."

Based on the outright dishonesty of his writings, I can't say that I'm a bit surprised...

 
At 6/27/2006 10:08:00 PM, Blogger Qadeeb al-Ban said...

Sheila,

Wa 'alaykumu ash-Shalom,

Thanks for the comments, although the Wikipedia article on 'El, which I linked to above, presented these same points.

There's evidence that the name Yahweh was used by the pagan Canaanites as well, although this topic is much more hotly debated--since this is potentially more damaging to the exclusivist claims of Judaism (and thus Christianity). It seems that some scholars claim that the Canaanites learned about Yahweh from the Hebrews, not vice versa...but Allahu 'alim.

Wasalam,

Qadeeb

 
At 6/27/2006 11:06:00 PM, Blogger sheilaX said...

Shalom,

Missed that link. :)

On a sidenote, Christian polemics against other religions often reflect its own anxieties. By contextualizing Christianity's shortcomings on other faiths, apologists hope perhaps to convince their own congregations that their religion is free from such errors.

Oftentimes, these efforts are laughable, as you have aptly demonstrated above.

 
At 6/29/2006 03:42:00 PM, Blogger man said...

There's evidence that the name Yahweh was used by the pagan Canaanites as well,

assalamualaikum


from alt.bible.errancy

Not only does the OT mention the existence of other gods, it mentions multiple incarnations/avatars of YHWH (which are not preserved in
most English translations of the Hebrew text). We can find:


YHWH "YHWH Sebaoth" (Literally, "YHWH of the hosts," i.e., the armies).

YHWH Sebaoth Israel ("YHWH of the hosts of Israel").

Elohim

Adonai

Al Shaddai


These are different aspects of YWHW, (or indeed completely separate deities in the case of Al Shaddai) that end up treated as epithets of the god -- they are all erroneously translated "God" or "Lord" or a combination of the two in English.


Another basic clue is that the word usually translated as "God" in Hebrew, "Elohim," is grammatically plural, but is used in its frozen, archaized form in the singular context. There's no getting around this one.


While the conquest account of the books of Joshua and Judges is
fanciful and largely fiction, the settling of the Judean hills by the Israelites is unlikely to have involved no military action. YHWH
should probably be understood as a minor war god of the Canaanite
pantheon that was raised to the rank of supreme deity in the eye of the Israelites during this troubled period of military action, when they were in the process of breaking away from their parent cultural group -- the Canaanites. Consult Judges 5, Exodus 15:1-18, I Sam
17:45.


Since YHWH is a god of the Canaanite pantheon and the Israelites belong to that cultural group, it should not surprise us to hear complaints in the OT about some Israelites choosing to worshipping other Canaanite gods, namely Baal, the Asheroth, etc. instead of YHWH -- these deities were superior in rank and therefore in importance to other Semites. Consult Judges 2-3, 6:25, etc.


War gods are prominent in ancient cultures when wars are being fought. When this 'war' (fancifully preserved in the conquest account of Joshua-Judges) was over and the Israelites established, the Canaanite war god YHWH had to evolve to remain legitimate/relevant as supreme
deity. (This may partly account for why we have a 'YWHW of many
unrelated facets.') Some simply went back to the worship of Baal,
Chemosh, etc. instead of sticking with YHWH.


I can't imagine how much the text must have been cleaned up by later redactors to eliminate the patently embarrassing proofs of
this, instead of leaving the more subtle proofs behind...


Of note is the mention of different cults (reflecting different manifestations?) of YHWH. Compare I Sam 1:3 ("YHWH Sebaoth in Shiloh") and II Sam 15:7 ("YHWH in Hebron"). This is consistent with other Semitic pantheons, where different cities worship the same god in different manners, and perceive that god's role in the pantheon in sharp contrast. Consult Judges 6:19-21 and 18:18-27 for texts of great interest to early religion and cult practice. The book of Judges is very important to understanding the early history of the Israelites.


Another set of minor deities in the OT are the Cherubim, (which were not at all chubby, baby-faced Valentine's Day angels) but rather
monstrous guardian beasts. They possessed the body of a bull, wings like an eagle, and the heads of men. It is odd that they are
preserved in their specifically guardian capacity in the OT -- what does god need protection from? Consult Psalms 99:1, and have a look at their roles in the OT:


http://www.biblegateway.com/cgi-bin/bible?SearchType=AND&language=eng...
IV


In the late Neo-Assyrian period they manifest as bull colossi flanking the entrance to palace gates, and are called 'Lammasu' in Akkadian. They manifested as "sphinxes" in Egypt and many of the cultures in ancient Palestine (particularly prominent in the area of modern Syria and the Northern Kingdom of Israel). It is uncertain whether they originated in Egypt or Assyro-Babylonia, but I believe the archaeological evidence we currently have from Egypt is earlier.


These creatures crept into the OT as "Cherubum," winged guardians of
YWHW.

 
At 6/30/2006 08:22:00 AM, Blogger Mere Muslim said...

As-salamu 'alaykum,

Thanks for the information. Here's an interesting quote along the same lines from from pages 10-11 in Bible Prophecy: Failure or Fulfillment?, by Tim Callahan:

"One might wonder why such a purification would be necessary, since the children of Israel are represented in the book of Joshua a having practically exterminated the Canaanites before the origin of the monarchy. In fact, the purification was essential to establish the monotheistic worship of the god variously referred to as Yahweh and Elohim, because the deity in question was originally one of the gods of the Canaanite pantheon. The Canaanite gods were themselves variants of Sumerian and Babylonian deities. Elohim is the plural of El, a word that can merely mean "god; or can mean the name of a specific deity. El was a sky god, creator and the graybearded patriarch of the Canaanite gods. Likewise, Yahweh was also originally a Canaanite deity. Variants of his name are found on inscriptions going back as far as the 15th century B.C.E. In later inscriptions, Yahweh's name in the form of Yaw is found in association with two Canaanite goddesses, Anath and Astarte (see Langdon 1931, p. 44). Astarte is the western Semitic variant of the Babylonian goddess Ishtar. A coin from 4th century B.C.E. Gaza actually depicts Yahweh, with the inscription YHW (Yahu or Yaw, three of the letters of the tetragrammaton YHWH for Yahweh), as a bearded man holding a hawk and sitting on a winged wheel, much the way Sumerian deities were portrayed. Even though this depiction of God probably did not fit the view held by the post-exilic Jews of that time, we must remember that Gaza was a Philistine city and that the Philistines had, even during the period of the Judges, accepted the Canaanite pantheon. Since they were not exposed to the pressures of the Exile, which forced the Jews to transform their view of God, the Philistines depicted Yahweh as he was originally viewed by the Canaanites and Sumerians. The Swnerian gods were essentially exalted humans, much like the Olympians of ancient Greece. Further, the Sumerians had a rather technological view of how the gods could do miraculous things. How did the gods fly? They could not do this by themselves. Instead, they had winged chariots. The graphic short-hand for a winged chariot was a winged wheel on which the god sat."

Interesting...

 
At 8/06/2006 12:51:00 PM, Blogger Yusuf Smith said...

As-Salaamu 'alaikum,

A bit late, I know, but here goes:

The word "deus" and its Romance derivatives are probably not derived from Zeus. It is actually cognate with the word for god or deity in a number of Indo-European languages, including those of India where the words for god and goddess are deva and devi respectively (following the Hindi gender pattern: long a for masculine, long i for feminine). Both ancient Romans and Greeks had many idols and I'm sure they'd have had a word for deity that was not derived from that of one particular supposed deity.

 
At 10/20/2006 01:26:00 PM, Blogger Irisblue said...

Deus : From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
------------------------
Deus (pronounced dā'əs) is the Latin word for "god" or "deity". It is derived from Dyēus, the reconstructed chief god of the Proto-Indo-European pantheon, also a cognate of the Greek Ζευς (Zeus), but by the era of Classical Latin it was a general noun referring to any number of divine figures. The word continues to refer directly to God in the Portuguese language.
--------------------------
Dyeus: From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

*Dyēus is the reconstructed chief god of the Proto-Indo-European pantheon. He was the god of the daylit sky, and his position may have mirrored the position of patriarch or king in society.

Later gods who are etymologically connected with Dyeus include:

Dyēus group:

Greek Zeus
Roman Iuppiter
Irish The Dagda
Gallo-Roman Dis Pater
Vedic Dyau Pitār
possibly Dionysos, and Phrygian Sabazios (from Saba Zeus?)
Rooted in the related but distinct Indo-European word *deiwos is the Latin word for god, deus. The Latin word is also continued in English divine, deity, and the original Germanic word remains visible in Tuesday (originally "Day of Tiwaz").

Deiwos group:

Germanic Tiwaz (later known as Tyr),
Latin Deus
Baltic Dievas,
Slavic Div,
Dyeus was addressed as Dyeu Ph2ter, literally "Sky Father" or "shining father", as reflected in Latin Jupiter, Dispater and deus pater, Greek Zeu pater, Sanskrit Dyàuṣpítaḥ. In his aspect as a Father god, his consort was Pltvi Mh2ter, "Earth mother".

As the pantheons of the individual mythologies related to the Proto-Indo-European religion evolved, attributes of Dyeus were sometimes redistributed to other, newer gods. In Greek and Roman mythology, Dyeus remained the chief god, while in Vedic mythology, the etymological continuant of Dyeus became a very abstract god, and his original attributes, and his dominance over other gods, were transferred to gods whose names cannot be reconstructed for Proto-Indo-European times, such as Indra.

A little late but I found it very interesting!

 
At 10/30/2006 12:52:00 PM, Blogger Universalis said...

Zeus It's more likely that Zeus (whose genitive is "dios") comes from a word for "god" rather than the other way round.

Ho Theos It's a nice idea but in fact Greek uses the definite article for all proper names: Socrates is "ho Socrates". So you can't really put much weight on the definite article literally meaning "the" in this context.

 
At 10/30/2006 12:55:00 PM, Blogger Universalis said...

Zeus It's more likely that Zeus (whose genitive is "dios") comes from a word for "god" rather than the other way round.

Ho Theos It's a nice idea but in fact Greek uses the definite article for all proper names: Socrates is "ho Socrates". So you can't really put much weight on the definite article literally meaning "the" in this context.

 
At 10/31/2006 05:00:00 AM, Blogger Qadeeb al-Ban said...

Regarding "It's more likely that Zeus (whose genitive is 'dios') comes from a word for 'god' rather than the other way round"...well "more likely" is certainly debatable, especially because it's not unlikely that pagans who were becoming Christians would carry the name of their supreme god with them. Regardless of how it happened, and I doubt that it'll ever be proven definitively, my point that Christians used the same word for God that pagans used still stands...all of the comments, which can be seen as an attempt at smoke screening, only tell me that some readers find this disconcerting.

As far as: "It's a nice idea but in fact Greek uses the definite article for all proper names: Socrates is 'ho Socrates'. So you can't really put much weight on the definite article literally meaning 'the' in this context"...well that's looking at it one way and not the other. One could just as easily say, since "Greek uses the definite article for all proper names", that when Socrates is used in Greek, it's literally written "the Socrates". Likewise, when the definite article is omitted, it can be rather significant.

So my original statement that "the Greek word for God, in a grammatical sense, is quite similar to the Arabic word, since it too is constructed from the definite article (i.e. 'Ho') and the word for god (i.e. 'Theos'), thus it (i.e. 'Ho Theos') also rather unambiguously means 'The God'" is still quite valid. Please notice that I said "quite similar" not "exactly alike", and keep in mind that in Greek the distinction between "Theos" and "Ho Theos" is indeed quite significant. Anyone who doubts this should read the debates, which go back at least to the time of Arius, on how the final phrase of John 1:1 should be understood.

 

Post a Comment

<< Home

 

W A R N I N G:  Eschatology Can Break Out At Any Moment

 


Shukr Islamic Clothing