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...

More on the Young Marriage of 'Aishah

A comment, posted in response to Bani Qurayza, Marriage at Puberty and the Tacit Approval of Jesus, has prompted me to post some various articles and other material related to the marriage of 'Aishah—radi Allahu 'anha. I've had some of this evidence since shortly after writing my article The Young Marriage of 'Aishah several years ago, but just never got around to posting it.

Essentially, these materials address two different sub-issues related to this debate: 1) The reservations of apologetic modernist Muslims who, in their zeal to remove anything from Islam that those who adhere to modern Western values might find offensive, continue to quibble over whether 'Aishah—radi Allahu 'anha—was only nine years old when the Prophet—salla Allahu 'alayhi wa salam—consummated his marriage with her; and 2) The attempts by anti-Islamic polemicists to demonstrate that 'Aishah—radi Allahu 'anha—had not reached puberty (i.e. was prepubescent) at the time of her marriage to the Prophet—salla Allahu 'alayhi wa salam.

In regards to the first sub-issue, I've posted two articles by Shaykh Gibril F. Haddad, which are entitled 'A'isha's Age at the Time of Her Marriage and More on 'A'isha's Age at the Time of Her Marriage. However, it's really the latter article that directly addresses the various points which are brought forward by apologetic Muslims, which in this case is one who goes by the nom de plume "The Learner". In regard to his strained, feeble and sometimes dishonest use of evidence, which he employs in a futile attempt to shore up his case, "The Learner" is rather typical of most apologists on this subject, so Shaykh Gibril's complete deconstruction of him pretty much undermines all of the arguments that I've heard surrounding this particular issue.

I feel that I should mention that I lost all intellectual respect for "The Learner" when he contacted me soon after I first wrote The Young Marriage of 'Aishah—radi Allahu 'anha. The essential reason behind this, and my subsequent decision not to waste my time trying to reason with someone who was so obviously sunk in gross intellectual dishonesty (if not complete self-delusion), was one of his statements in his article entitled More on Ayesha's Age. In this article, "The Learner" made the following statement in response to my article:

"But even then, the narratives describing Ayesha's (ra) age at the time of her marriage do not fall under the scope of Sunnah. Obviously, the narrative of Ayesha's (ra) age at the time of her marriage is not a part of "the sayings of the Prophet, (peace be upon him)", it cannot be termed as the Prophet's "practices" and neither can it be included in the "actions which gained his approval". The narrative of Ayesha's age is just a narrative of a historical event. Just because it has been reported by Bukhari and Muslim, does not change its status from being a narrative of a historical event to a Sunnah. Because of this fact, this narrative should be seen in the light of all other narratives of historical events which have been reported by Bukhari, Muslim and other historians of Islam."

Well beside the rather ironic fact that "The Learner", in spite of his above appeals to the authority of "Bukhari, Muslim and other historians of Islam", repeatedly demonstrates throughout his writing that he essentially has very little respect for their skills as masters of the sciences of hadith (thus they're downgraded to simply being "...historians of Islam"), his reasoning here is absolutely ridiculous. This is because he misses the rather glaring point that the hadiths in questions clearly mention the actions of the Prophet—salla Allahu 'alayhi wa salam!!! Indeed, the various narrations in both the collections of al-Bukhari and Muslim essentially state that "he betrothed (zawaj) her when she was six years old and he consummated (nikah) his marriage when she was nine years old"...thus there's no doubt that these were "practices" of the Prophet—salla Allahu 'alayhi wa salam—thus part of his Sunnah. Only a person willing to engage in outright dishonesty could deny this...although this is what "The Learner" is seemingly willing to do in this case.

To add insult to injury, his quibble that 'Aishah's age at the time of her marriage is just "a narrative of a historical event" is simply inconsequential to the point he's so desperately trying to make. This is because any hadith that conveys anything that the Prophet—salla Allahu 'alayhi wa salam—said, did or tacitly approved is essentially, at a certain level, "a narrative of a historical event"!!! Thus "The Learner" just further demonstrates that he's really missing the point when he states that, "Just because it has been reported by Bukhari and Muslim, does not change its status from being a narrative of a historical event to a Sunnah", because what makes something a Sunnah is the fact that it's authentically reported that he—salla Allahu 'alayhi wa salam-did such an action. There's no need for some desperately imagined need to "change its status", since if it's reported on both al-Bukhari and Muslim that the Prophet—salla Allahu 'alayhi wa salam—did such-and-such an action, then this action is both part of his Sunnah as well as being a "narrative of an historical event"—although this latter portion simply restates the obvious and doesn't add any value.

Now that I've addressed "The Learner's" dishonest little game of horse hockey— a monumental contribution to poor polemics if there ever was one—I'll move on to addressing the issue which a comment from a previous post recently mentioned—and that's the arguments put forward by "anti-Muslim atheists" who challenge the "assumption" that 'Aishah—radi Allahu 'anha—had not reached puberty at the time of her marriage. Before demonstrating that in order to adhere to such a position, one would have to have to be laboring under some assumptions as well, I'd like to point out that the mere fact that these hate-mongers have attempted to shift the focus of this debate clearly seems to indicate that they have acquiesced to the fact that marriage at puberty, based on historical evidence which documented the norms of various human societies, has widely and often been considered morally acceptable. Indeed, since it has already been clearly and effectively demonstrated [(1)(2)]—at least to any honest and fair-minded person—that there was nothing wrong with marrying a woman at puberty in the society in which 'Aishah—radi Allahu 'anha—lived, it seems that the Islamophobes have abandoned their initial arguments and tried to move the debate on this issue into a second phase...and this is what I'll now address.

There's considerable evidence—both textual, logical and circumstantial—which, when considered as an integral whole, demonstrates that 'Aishah—radi Allahu 'anha—had reached puberty at the time of her marriage. This evidence includes:

• The fact that Muslim scholars overwhelmingly agree that the minimum age of marriage is puberty. This can be clearly seen in the Qur'anic exegesis of the phrase "they reach the (age of) marriage" found in Surat al-Nisa' 4:6. In regards to this, four of the well-known classical commentators have the following to say [Click here to view an image of the following statements in the original Arabic]:

Tafsir al-Tabari: Clearly states that "And when He said 'they reach the (age of) marriage' then He means they reached puberty (al-hulum)"—and he lists numerous references.

Tafsir al-Qurtubi: In regards to the statement "until they reach the (age of) marriage", Imam al-Qurtubi says, "meaning puberty (al-hulum). And said the Most High, 'When children reach puberty' (al-Nur 59),meaning puberty (al-balugh) and state of marriage (wa hal al-nikah)."

Tafsir Ibn Kathir: In explaining, "until they reach the (age of) marriage", he states that "Mujahid said meaning puberty (al-hulum)".

Tafsir al-Jalalayn: Contains the explanation that: "'And Challenge' test 'the orphans' before they reach puberty in their religion and their conduct 'until they reach the (age of) marriage', meaning they reach puberty or the age of fifteen years old according to the Shafi'is".

• The above ruling regarding the age of marriage is mutually supported by an authentic (hassan) narration in Sunan al-Tirmidhi's Kitab al-Nikah,where 'Aishah herself says: "When the girl reaches nine years of age she is a woman". Reason dictates that this is because she was referring to her own experience in which she reached puberty at the age of nine. If this wasn't the case, all of the just mentioned tafsirs would seemingly need to state that "until they reach the (age of) marriage" means "nine" and not "puberty".
  


• In steadfast consistence with the above points, Surat al-Nur 24:59, clearly shows that children are considered adults when they reach puberty, since it says "And when the children among you come to puberty (al-hulum), then let them (also) ask for permission, as do those senior to them (in age)". Indeed, this is a clear Qur'anic reference that the age of discretion (i.e. adulthood) was identified with the onset of puberty.
  


• The fact that the various hadiths clearly state that 'Aishah—radi Allahu 'anha—was "betrothed (zawaj)" when she was "six years old" and "consummated (nikah)" her marriage when she was "nine years old", clearly begs the question: "What, pray tell, were her parents waiting for?" Well the obvious answer to why they waited some three years between the betrothal and the consummation of the marriage is that they were waiting for their daughter to reach adulthood—which is, as already demonstrated above, clearly defined as puberty.


• The above question is answered directly and unambiguously on page 128 of The History of al-Tabari — Volume IX, where it states that "As for 'A'ishah, when he married her she was very young and not yet ready for consummation"—which clearly proves that they were waiting for her to reach puberty (i.e. to be biologically "ready"). Likewise, the statement that 'A'ishah—radi Allahu 'anha—was "not yet ready for consummation" would undoubtedly be nonsensical in a social context where marriage to prepubescent children was allowed. Thus it both severely undermines the merely circumstantial evidence which has been brought forward in an ineffectual attempt to prove the contrary, and serves as strong proof that the marriage in question certainly did not involve a prepubescent girl.
  

The honest conclusion after considering all of the above mutually supporting evidence as a whole, including a statement from 'Aishah herself, is that the marriage took place when 'Aishah—radi Allahu 'anha—had become a "woman"—meaning that she had reached puberty.

Now in regards to the various hadiths ([1][2][3][4]) that anti-Islamic apologists have employed in an attempt to prove that 'Aishah—radi Allahu 'anha—was still a young girl who was playing with dolls at the time of her marriage. Well unfortunately for them, they've jumped to some hasty conclusions since none of these hadiths ([1][2][3][4]) explicitly indicate whether the marriage had been consummated at this time. Rather, one could just as easily conclude—especially in light of the evidence I've presented above—that the incidents in which 'Aishah—radi Allahu 'anha—was playing with dolls along with her young friends occurred at a time when she was still living with her parents (i.e. after the betrothal and prior to the consummation). Actually, based on the fact that the Prophet—salla Allahu 'alayhi wa salam—was known to regularly visit 'Aishah's father Abu Bakr—radi Allahu 'anhu, these events could have taken place anytime during 'Aishah's childhood—radi Allahu 'anha.

As for the hadith which states that 'Aishah—radi Allahu 'anha—still had dolls even at the time of either the battle of Khaybar (Muharram-Safar 7 A.H.) or the siege of Tabuk (Rajab 9 A.H.), at which time she would have been between 13 and 15 years old, well it doesn't disprove my point either. This is because one purpose behind 'Aishah's statement was seemingly to bring attention to the surprise of the Prophet—salla Allahu 'alayhi wa salam—in discovering that she still had her dolls at such a late age. Indeed, since the other hadiths [(1)(2)(3)] make it abundantly clear that the Prophet—salla Allahu 'alayhi wa salam—already knew that 'Aishah played with dolls when she was younger, his exclamatory statement "What is this?" simply shows that he was surprised that she still had them in her store room—and there's nothing to suggest that she was actively playing with them. Indeed, at least one of the narrations clearly states: "...saw some dolls with which 'Aishah used to play".

Consequently, to take this as evidence that 'Aishah—radi Allahu 'anha—had not reached puberty at this time (i.e. the relatively late age of 13-15) simply to avoid the dilemma of her having in her possession (allegedly) forbidden dolls—even though there's no explicit evidence that such toys were inherently unlawful to keep in a community that was teeming with young children—seems rather extreme. Rather, a more balanced approach would be to consider all of the evidence, including the substantial point that the Prophet's statement "What is this?" seems to clearly indicates that he was surprised that 'Aishah—radi Allahu 'anha—was still saving her dolls after so many years. Ultimately, Hafiz Ibn Hajr al-Asqalani concludes that: "To say with certainty 'that she was not yet at the age of puberty' is questionable"—and even this view is seemingly based on considering this hadith in isolation without taking textual evidence from other sources in account...but Allahu 'alim. Thus in the final analysis, the so-called "evidence" and "proof" that this hadith provides to those trying to spin a case of prepubescent marriage is "questionable" and anything but decisive.

In conclusion, I think all of this demonstrates that the mainstream Islamic position on the marriage of 'Aishah—radi Allahu 'anha—still stands. Indeed, the articles and other evidence presented above has exposed the strained, dishonest and weak arguments of Westoxicated apologetic Muslims who—with their "Undermine Islam In Order To Save It" approach—seem dead set on proving that 'Aishah—radi Allahu 'anha—was older than nine at the time of her marriage, regardless of how many upright scholars and reputable hadith narrators they have to slander. At the other extreme, we've shown that that anti-Islamic polemicists—the ones who seek to degrade the religion of Islam by claiming that 'Aishah—radi Allahu 'anha—was prepubescent at the time of her marriage—have, with their pre-conceived notions conveniently in place, selectively built their case on circumstantial evidence that neither stands up to scrutiny nor takes all of the evidence into consideration...wa Allahu 'alim.

Trinitarians: Searching for Evidence of Divine Plurality

Below is an extended extract from pages 21-23 of Al Tawhid: Its Implications for Thought and Life, by the late Dr. Isma'il Raji al Faruqi, on the topic of The Offense of Christianity. I'm including this piece not only because it's interesting and beneficial, but also because I plan to use it as a reference for some future postings, insha'llah. The main point that I'm interested in is the fact that Christian theologians, in trying to find textual support for the Trinity, scoured the pages of the Old Testament trying to prove that God is plural! Not only that, but according to the historical doctrines of orthodox Christianity, the Trinity is much more than "a way of talking about God" or a simple recognition of various alleged Divine "manifestations"—explanations which are commonly put forward in dialogues with Muslims—but we'll leave that discussion for another day, insha'llah. In the mean-time, please read and reflect on this thoughtful and assertive, albeit rather brief, explanation of how Christians eventually "raised paradox above self-evident truth":

The offense of Christianity against transcendence was even greater.
Islam charged Christianity with extending the nontranscendent concept
to God's "fatherhood of the Jewish kings" to Jesus and giving it, besides
its moral signification of compliance with God's commandments, the
de-transcendentalizing ontological connotation of unity of substance be-
tween God and Jesus. Indeed, Christian catholicity defined itself with
terms of this "substantial" identity of Jesus with God, as distinct from
plurality of their "personalities," characters and consciousness. Obviously,
the source of this new departure from transcendence of the divine being
within the Semitic stream was not the Jewish inheritance of Christianity.
This had given Christianity the concepts, not their connotation. Neither
was gnosticism the source of that departure, whose argument "If he suffer,
he was not God; if he was God, he did not suffer" was hurled against
their fellow Christians in defence of transcendence. The source must
be the non-Semitic influence of the "mystery religions." It was from this
source that Christianity derived its "suffering God" who saves by dying
and returning to life and whose mana (grace) is imparted to the com-
municant thought sacrament.
This anti-transcendence influence on Christianity at its formative stage
was partly responsible for its success among non-Semitic peoples un-
familiar with the notion of God as "totally-other." It is equally responsi-
ble for the misinterpretation of innocent Hebrew and Aramaic concepts
current among Jesus' contemporaries. Barnash or bar-Adam meant a well-
bred and hence virtuous person. But it acquired in St. Paul a mysterious
metaphysical dimension. Any righteous person could claim what Jesus
did, namely, "I and my father (God) are one," in the sense of total com-
pliance with God's will. Christians, however, took this to mean that Jesus
claimed divine status. Whereas Kurie, D. Kurios, Mar Mari and Maran
were among Semites attributable to anyone in authority, Christians took
this attribution to Jesus by his Semitic disciples as their evidence of assum-
ing him to be God. Finally, Christian theologians, taking all these
elements for granted, searched the Hebrew scripture for evidence of plural
divinity, With tvpical intellectual clumsiness, Augustine, Tertullian and
many others thought they found in the plural pronouns of Genesis, "Let
us create man according to our image" (Genesis: 1:28) the evidence for
three persons in the deity! This has remained a Christian "argument"
to the present day held by such a notable thinker as Karl Barth. Indeed,
Barth shamelessly claimed that maleness and femaleness were intrinsic
to the divine nature because Genesis had reported immediately after the
above-mentioned statement, "Male and female created He them" (Genesis
1:28). Since the former statement ends with the word "image," he thought,
the latter statement must be an apposition to the term and hence indicating
maleness and femaleness as constitutive of the divine image! Chris-
tians have committed themselves to divine non-transcendence so resolute-
ly that it had become with them an idée fixe, enabling Paul Tillich to
declare sub specie eternitatis that the transcendent God is unknown and
unknowable unless He is concretized in an object of nature and history.
Since this was the state of "God's transcendence" in Christianity, the
language expressing it was equally improper. Although Christians never
ceased to claim that God is transcendent, they spoke of Him as a real
man who walked on earth and did all things men do, including the suf-
fering of the agonies of death. Of course, according to them, Jesus was
both man and God. They never took a consistent position on Jesus'
humanity or divinity with accusation of apostasy and heresy. That is
why their language is always confusing, at best. When pinned down,
every Christian will have to admit that his God is both transcendent and
immanent. But his claim of transcendence is ipso facto devoid of grounds.
To maintain the contrary, one has to give up the laws of logic. But Chris-
tianity was prepared to go to this length too. It raised paradox above
self-evident truth and vested it with the status of an epistemological prin-
ciple. But under such principle, anything can be asserted and dis-
cussion becomes idle. The Christian may not claim that the trinity is a way
of talking about God; because if the trinity discloses the nature of God
better than unity, a greater plurality would do the job better. At any rate,
to reduce the "Holy Trinity" to a status of in percipi is heretical as it
denies una substantia as metaphysical doctrine.

We have a lot more to come on this and other comparative religion topics, insha'llah. So please remember to check back regularly and...Deen On.