If you're new here, you may want to get regular updates via如果你是新這裡，你可能想通過定期更新 RSS feed RSS提要 . 。 Thank you for visiting!感謝您訪問！

“He it is who cleaves out the morning, and makes night a repose, and the sun and the moon two reckonings (of Time). “他是誰劈開了早晨，使得晚上休息時，耳朵，太陽和月亮的兩個 reckonings（的時間）。 That is the decree of the Mighty, the Wise.” [Qur'an 6:97]這是法令的權威，是智者。“[古蘭經 6:97]

For years the Christian missionaries have been多年來，基督教傳教士已經 entertaining娛樂 the idea that “Allah” of the Qur'an was in fact a pagan Arab “moon god” of pre-Islamic times.的想法，“真主”的古蘭經實際上是阿拉伯異教“月亮神”的前伊斯蘭時期。 This theory was first popularised by a fanatical, mid-Western closet-fascist polemicist by the name of Dr. Robert Morey, of which his deceptive methods have already been exposed in the past.這個理論最初是由一個狂熱的普及，中西方的壁櫥反法西斯辯論家的名字羅伯特博士莫雷，其中他的欺騙方法，已經暴露了過去。 The following page is found in “Appendix C: The Moon God And Archaelogy” from Morey's The Islamic Invasion and lies at the heart of the missionary propaganda today:下面的頁面中找到“附錄C：月亮神與考古”從莫雷的伊斯蘭入侵和謊言在心臟的傳教宣傳今天：

^{1 一}

Naturally the missionaries get very excited at the idea of anything that has the “potential” of demeaning 當然會非常興奮，傳教士在任何有思想的“潛在”的貶低 Islam 伊斯蘭教 and lifted (or should we say, plagiarised) this claim of Morey.並取消（或說，剽竊）這一索賠的莫雷。 This “theory” later became widespread and gained notoriety among gullible Christians, so much so that Jack T. Chick, another Christian polemicist, drew a fictionalised racist cartoon story這種“理論”，並得到廣泛後來成為惡名基督教徒之間的輕信，以至於傑克噸雞，另一個基督徒辯論家，卡通畫了一個虛構的故事種族主義 entitled標題 “Allah Has No Son”. “真主沒有兒子。” More examples of this opportunistic propaganda being repeated at various missionary websites all over the WWW [更多的例子被反复宣傳這個機會在各教會各地的WWW網站 [ 1一 ][ ] [ 2 2 ][ ] [ 3 3 ] could also be found. ]也可以找到。

We have previously我們曾經 discussed討論 the word “Allah” from an etymological perspective, as well as having shown how the word “Allah” is consistently單詞“安拉”從詞源學的角度，以及如何顯示這個詞有“安拉”是一貫 translated翻譯 as “Elohim” in a Hebrew translation of the Qur'an.為“瑩”在希伯來文翻譯的古蘭經。 It is obvious that these “pseudo-scholars” have no idea about what they are dealing with, much less understand the subject matter.很顯然，這些“偽學者”不知道他們是什麼處理，更談不上了解此事。 It is therefore our intention here to expose the ignorance these missionaries have about one of the best-known objects from Israel/Palestine and is now currently on exhibition in the Israel Museum,因此，我們打算在這裡揭露的無知這些傳教士對其中一個最有名的對象從以色列/巴勒斯坦，現在目前在以色列國家博物館展出， Jerusalem耶路撒冷 . 。 The findings in this paper has also been incorporated in本文的研究結果也被納入 Islamic Awareness 伊斯蘭意識 ' latest publication,的最新出版物， Reply to Robert Morey's Moon-God Allah Myth: A Look At The Archaeological Evidence 回复羅伯特莫雷的滿神阿拉神話：看考古證據 , of which this author is one of the co-writers. ，而本作者是一個共同的作家。

The Shrine At Hazor (Area C) 該神社在夏瑣（C區）

It is known among Near Eastern archeological circles that the statue which the missionaries claim to be the “moon-god Allah” (as parroted from Robert Morey) comes from the ruins of Hazor (Area C), a very prominent bronze-age city in Galilee (in present-day Israel/Occupied Palestinian Territories) and belongs to a shrine, 4.75 x 3.4 m in size, furnished with an offering table, a lion orthostat, the statue in question, and ten stelae, all made from regional black basalt.據了解，近東考古界之間的雕像傳教士自稱是“月亮神阿拉”（如跟著從羅伯特莫雷）來自廢墟的夏瑣（C區），一個非常突出的青銅時代的城市加利利（在今天的以色列/被佔領的巴勒斯坦領土），屬於一個神社，4.75 x 3.4米的大小，配有一供桌，獅子 orthostat，雕像的問題，10碑，所有區域的黑色玄武岩製成。

^{2 2}

The shrine is described as follows:靖國神社是描述如下：

At Hazor, a small shrine in Area C of the Lower City probably served families residing nearby.在夏瑣，一個小神社在C區的下城可能擔任家庭居住在附近。 It comprised a single broad room and was built on the inner slope of the Middle Bronze Age rampart.它包括一個單一的廣闊空間，是建立在斜坡內的中東青銅時代的堡壘。 A row of eleven stelae were erected in this room-the central one of which was carved in relief, depicting two hands in prayer posture below a moon-and-crescent symbol.一排11個石碑豎立在了這個房間的中央是一個刻在救濟，描繪兩隻手在祈禱姿勢低於 1月和-新月象徵。 The shrine included also a miniature relief of a crouching lion, a statue of a sitting male figure (possibly depicting a god or a priest) and an offering table made of one stone slab.靖國神社也包括一個微型的救濟蹲在獅子，一尊一坐男（可能印有上帝或神父）和表1提供了一個石板。 ^{3 3}

The central stelae shows a pair of hands raised (stipulated to be in adoration) below a crescent plus circle symbol, usually considered to depict the crescent moon plus the full moon.中央碑顯示了對舉手（規定為在朝拜）以下的新月形加圓圈符號，通常被認為描繪新月加上滿月。 The other stelae are plain.另一碑是平原。 Therefore the whole shrine has been interpreted as refering to the moon-cult.因此，整個神社被解釋為是指月亮的崇拜。

Description of The Hazor Statue 夏瑣雕像的說明

It is without a shadow of doubt that Robert Morey has attempted to present the Hazor statue as “the moon god”.這是沒有影子的懷疑，羅伯特莫雷試圖呈現夏瑣雕像為“月亮神”。 Note the following description of Diagram #1 by Morey:請注意以下說明圖＃1莫雷：

“The Moon god on all four sides…” “月亮神的四周...”

Now let us focus on discussing the object itself, which is currently being fawned upon by the rabid Christian missionaries and paraded by them as the “moon god idol, Allah.現在讓我們集中討論的對象本身，這是目前正在討好的狂熱後，基督教傳教士和他們遊行的“月亮神的偶像，阿拉。

^{4 4}

The statue, 40 cm in height, depicts a male person with an inverted crescent suspended from his necklace and holding a cup in his right hand, certainly as an offering.雕像，高40厘米，描繪了人與一男子倒月牙暫停他的項鍊，並手持一個杯子在他的右手，當然作為一種產品。

The statue was found decapitated, and the head was discovered lying on a floor at a lower level.這座雕像被發現斬首，頭被發現躺在地板在較低的水平。 It depicts a man, possibly a priest, seated on a cubelike stool.它描繪了一個人，可能是牧師，坐在凳子上一立方形。 He is beardless with a shaven head; his skirt ends below his knees in an accuentated hem; his feet are bare.他是一個光頭無芒，他的膝蓋以下的裙子結束在accuentated下擺，他的腳裸。 He holds a cup in his right hand, while his left, clenched into a fist, rests on his left knee.他擁有一個杯子在他的右手，而他的左，緊握成拳頭，就在於他的左膝。 An inverted crescent is suspended from his necklace.倒月牙是暫停他的項鍊。 ^{5 5}

Pictures and descriptions of the shrine and the statue may be found in virtually every comprehensive publication on the archaeology of Israel/Palestine.圖片和描述的神社和雕像可能會發現幾乎每一個出版關於全面考古以色列/巴勒斯坦。 ^{6 6}

Is this statue therefore the “Allah” of the Muslims?因此，這尊銅像是“安拉”的穆斯林？ The answer is an obvious no . The statue is not even an “idol” at all — it does not represent any deity, but a human worshipper or priest of a deity which may well have been a Canaanite moon god .答案顯然是否定的 。 雕像甚至不是一個“偶像”在所有-它並不代表任何神，而是人的崇拜者或牧師的神而很可能是一個月亮神的迦南人 。 ^{7 7} The statue is also described in a caption as a “Basalt statue of deity or king from the stelae temple” .這座雕像也是用了一個標題為“玄武岩神或國王的雕像從碑廟”。 ^{8 8}

But one is compelled to ask, was the decapitation of the head of the statue intentional or otherwise and if so, what was its significance?但一個不得不問，是斬首的頭部塑像的有意或無意，如果是這樣，它的意義是什麼？ This was addressed by Beth Alpert Nakhai as follows:這是解決的貝絲阿爾珀特納哈伊如下：

A decapitated basalt statue of a seated man, his head lying nearby, was also found in the niche.甲斬首玄武岩雕像一坐的人，他的頭躺在附近，還發現了一席之地。 This statue resembled the decapitated statue from the Orthostat Temple and again the intentional beheading is considered indicative of the individual's special status….這座雕像被斬首相似的雕像從 Orthostat廟，並再次被認為是故意斬首指示個人的特殊地位...。 ^{9 9}

It should be noted that there are indeed dissenting opinions among scholars as to the nature of the statue, of which the more popular opinions are (a) a god, (b) a king, or (c) a priest.應該指出的是，確實有不同意見的學者，以自然的雕像，其中比較流行的觀點是：（1）神，（二）國王，或（c）一名牧師。 ^{10 10} But to the scholars who reject opinion (a), it seems illogical that a god should hold offering vessels in his hand(s); the god is usually the one who receives offerings, therefore the statue should, in all probability depict a worshipper to a god, who himself is in a way considered present, either invisibly or in the upright stones (stelae) of the sanctuary.但對學者誰反對意見（1），似乎不合邏輯，一個神應該在他舉行的船隻提供手（縣）;神往往是一個誰獲得的產品，因此應雕像，在所有的概率描述為一個禮拜一神，誰是自己的方式考慮當前，無論是無形或直立的石頭（碑）的庇護所。 Further, how could a god's statue be arranged anywhere but in the centre of the sanctuary?此外，如何能神的塑像被安排在任何地方，但該中心的避難所？ The statue in question is seated at the left fringes of the shrine, which can hardly be the proper position for a revered god.雕像中的問題是坐在左邊邊緣的靖國神社，這很難是正確的立場是德高望重的神。 Regardless of the differing opinions, however, certainly no serious scholar — including those who considered the possibility that it could be a god — has ever identified the statue with Allah.不管不同意見，但是，當然也沒有嚴肅的學者 - 包括那些誰認為的可能性，它可能是一個神 - 有史以來發現的雕像同真主。

Conclusions 結論

It is clear that, contrary to what Robert Morey or the Christian missionaries would like to themselves admit, the figure presented as the “moon-god” is not even remotely connected to Islam, much less related to the pantheon of the pre-Islamic Arab deities in the city of很明顯，相反，羅伯特莫雷或基督教傳教士想自己也承認，這一數字提出的“月亮神”甚至沒有遠程連接到伊斯蘭教，更關係到神殿的前伊斯蘭阿拉伯在城市的神 Makkah麥加 and their claim is swiftly refuted by solid, overwhelming archaeological evidence.和他們的說法迅速駁斥了堅實的壓倒性的考古證據。 Moreover, this figure was found in the ancient ruins of Hazor (located in present-day Israel) and is not neccessarily believed to have even represented a deity.此外，這一數字是在古代遺址發現夏瑣（位於現在的以色列）和不一定相信甚至代表了神。

Thus, the contents of the Morey's inconsequential polemic of the so-called “cult” of the moon-god have got nothing to do with serious ancient Near Eastern scholarship and should therefore be utterly dismissed outright by any objective person.因此，莫雷的內容的無關緊要的爭論的所謂“邪教”的月亮之神已經沒有什麼可與古代近東獎學金嚴重，因此應該完全斷然否認任何客觀的人。 Its obvious intention is clearly to defame the believers of Islam, and nothing else.其明顯的用意顯然是為了詆毀伊斯蘭教的信徒，而不是其他。

We would also like to add that the findings in this paper has also been incorporated in我們還要補充一點，結果在這個文件也被納入 Islamic Awareness 伊斯蘭意識 ' latest publication,的最新出版物， Reply to Robert Morey's Moon-God Allah Myth: A Look At The Archaeological Evidence 回复羅伯特莫雷的滿神阿拉神話：看考古證據 , of which this author is one of the co-writers. ，而本作者是一個共同的作家。 The paper also looks at various aspects of the propagation of the moon-god myth not covered in the scope of this article, therefore we would implore the interested readers to have a look at the paper by Islamic Awareness in order to understand how the argument that “Allah is the moon-god” is, at best, fallacious.該文件還著眼於各個方面的繁殖月亮之神的神話並不包括在本文的範圍，所以我們懇請有興趣的讀者將有一個看文件伊斯蘭的認識，以了解如何說法“真主是月亮神”，充其量，謬誤。

And only Allah knows best!而且，只有真主知道最好的！

Acknowledgement 鳴謝

The author would like to thank Dr. Stefan J. Wimmer from the University of Munich and the Friends of Abraham Society for the help offered in obtaining information and the relevant material on the statue of Hazor.筆者要感謝 j的威默斯特凡博士從德國慕尼黑大學的亞伯拉罕之友協會提供的幫助在獲取信息和有關材料夏瑣的雕像。 Dr. Wimmer is not associated with威默博士並不贊同 bismikaallahuma.org bismikaallahuma.org . 。

1. Robert Morey, The Islamic Invasion: Confronting The World's Fastest-Growing Religion (Harvest House Publishers, 1992), p.羅伯特莫雷， 伊斯蘭入侵：面對世界上發展最快的宗教 （收穫樓出版社，1992），第 214 [ 214 [ back背面 ] ]
2. Yigael Yadin, Hazor (Hoffman und Campe, Hamburg, 1976), pp. 44-45 [以色列學者也丁， 夏瑣 （霍夫曼北達科坎珀，漢堡，1976年），頁。44-45 [ back背面 ] ]
3. Amihai Mazar, Archaeology of the Land of the Bible (Doubleday, 1990), pp. 253-54 [ Amihai馬扎爾， 考古土地的聖經 （雙日，1990年），頁。253-54 [ back背面 ] ]
4. Yigael Yadin, op.以色列學者也丁， 同前。 cit. [ 同前。[ back背面 ] ]
5. Treasures of The Holy Land: Ancient Art From The Israel Museum (Metropolitan Museum of Art, NY:1986), p. 寶物的聖地：以色列從古代藝術博物館 （大都會藝術博物館，紐約：1986年），第 107 [ 107 [ back背面 ] ]
6. See for example Amnon Ben-Tor (ed.), The Archaelogy of Ancient Israel (New Haven, London, 1992) and Ephraim Stern (ed.), The New Encyclopedia of Archeological Excavations in the Holy Land , Vol 2 (The Israel Exploration Society, Carta, Jerusalem), cf.例如見暗嫩本托爾（編），考古古以色列 （紐黑文，倫敦，1992年）和以法蓮斯特恩（編）， 新的百科全書出土的聖地 ，第2卷第（以色列的探索社會，大憲章，耶路撒冷），比照。 the rest of the cited scholarly works in this article (with the exception of Morey's polemical work).其餘的學術著作中引用此文章（有例外莫雷備受爭議的工作）。 [ [ back背面 ] ]
7. For the worship of the moon in the Canaanite realm the most recent comprehensive treatment is Gabriele Theuer, Der Mondgott in den Religionen Syrien-Palaestinas , OBO 173, Fribourg (Switzerland), 2000 (in German).對於崇拜月亮在迦南領域最新的綜合治療是加布里埃萊托伊爾， 德Mondgott在Den Religionen Syrien - Palaestinas，奧博173，弗里堡（瑞士），2000（德國）。 [ [ back背面 ] ]
8. Michael Avi-Yonah (ed., English), Encyclopedia of Archeological Excavations in the Holy Land , Vol.邁克爾阿維- Yonah處理器（編輯，英文）， 百科全書考古發掘的聖地 ，卷。 II (The Israel Exploration Society and Massada Press, Jerusalem, 1976), p.二（以色列探索社會與馬薩達出版社，耶路撒冷，1976年），第 476 [ 476 [ back背面 ] ]
9. Beth Alpert Nakhai, Archaelogy and the Religions of Canaan and Israel , (American Schools of Oriental Research, 2001), p.貝絲阿爾珀特納哈伊， 考古和宗教的迦南和以色列 （美國東方研究學院，2001年），第 130 [ 130 [ back背面 ] ]
10. Yigael Yadin in Hazor (Hoffman und Campe, Hamburg, 1976) proposed all three opinions, of which he argues in favour of the first opinion, ie that the statue is a deity.以色列學者也丁在夏瑣 （霍夫曼北達科坎珀，漢堡，1976）提出三個意見，其中他認為贊成的第一項意見，即該雕像是一個神。 However, he certainly neither makes mention of nor does he connected the statue to Allah.但是，他既不肯定也不讓他提及有關的雕像，以真主。 [ [ back背面 ] ]