Bismika Alllahuma

Ha sido siempre la tradición del misionario a saltar a partir de una demanda infame a otra en intentar comprobar la naturaleza de “Allah”. Hemos demostrado previamente algunas de las teorías mas comunes que propagan, extendiéndose de Allah (T) que es el “dios de la luna” a Ar-Rahman siendo un término para la “granada”. Una alegación reciente del misionario también se ha lanzado contra un saludo beatific del profeta Muhammad sallam del wa del alayhi del `del sallallah. Ahora una nueva postulación del misionario se ha hecho adentro su artículo¡, a saber que “Allah” es sinónimo con el dios Hubal del Makkans pagan!

Quizás sería una buena idea introducir al lector a primero explica cómo el idolatry en árabe pre-Islámico fue practicado:

Cada tribu tenía un diverso ídolo que adoraba. Generalmente, los objetos de la adoración pertenecieron a tres géneros: metal y estatuas de madera, estatuas de piedra, y masas shapeless de la piedra que una tribu u otra consecrated porque su origen fue pensado para ser divino, mientras que en realidad era solamente un pedazo de la roca volcánica o meteórica.¹

Por lo tanto se reconoce que cada tribu árabe tenía sus el propios “principal ídolo” a cuál él se adoraría. Con respecto a la posición de Hubal, se observa eso:

Hubal era el miembro más grande del pantheon árabe y residido en Makkah, dentro bah de ka'. Los peregrinos vinieron a su capilla de todas las esquinas.²

Con respecto a la naturaleza de Hubal, se ha comprobado tradicionalmente que el ídolo es Moabite en origen. Estados de los Lings de Martin como sigue:

El al-Muttalib de Abd del `continuó tan cavando sin ningún movimiento real que era hecho para pararlo; y alguna de la gente dejaba ya el santuario cuando él pulsó repentinamente la cubierta de piedra del pozo y pronunció un grito de thanksgiving al dios. La muchedumbre volvió a montar y aumentó; y cuando él comenzó a cavar hacia fuera el tesoro que Jurhum había enterrado allí, cada uno demandó la derecha de compartir en él. El al-Muttalib de Abd del `convino que las porciones se deben echar para cada objeto, si debe ser mantenido el santuario o ir a él personalmente o ser dividido entre la tribu. This had become the recognised way of deciding an issue of doubt, and it was done by means of divining arrows inside the Ka’bah, in front of the Moabite idol Hubal…³

Hence it has always been known that the idol Hubal is a Moabite import (i.e. Baal), hence demolishing another of the missionary’s accusations. Hitti seems to concur with the Moabite origins of Hubal by stating that:

Hubal (from Aram. for vapour, spirit), evidently the chief deity of al-Ka’bah, was represented in human form. Beside him stood ritual arrows used for divination by the soothsayer (kahin, from Aramaic) who drew lots by means of them. The tradition in ibn-Hisham, which makes ‘Amr ibn-Luhayy the importer of this idol from Moab or Mesopotamia, may have a kernel of truth in so far as it retains a memory of the Aramaic origin of the deity. At the conquest of Makkah by Muhammad Hubal shared the lot of the other idols and was destroyed.⁴

How was this postulated to be the one and the same with Allah is no doubt a mystery that only the missionaries are capable of understanding. Further, it is also admitted by Hitti that Hubal shared the fate of the other idols which were destroyed at the conquest of Makkah.

Hence it is clear that there is nothing in the missionary diatribe that “seriously damages the Muslim claim regarding Allah in pre-Islamic times being the same God of Abraham” nor does the missionary reliance on Psalms and circular reasoning is “evidence linking Allah with Hubal”. As we have already noted before, Hubal was the principal idol of the Quraysh, as was Al-Lat the principle idol of the Ta’ifans. Despite their declination into idolatry, it is amazing, as one scholar remarks⁵, that the Quraysh have never lost sight of Allah as the Supreme Lord of the Universe. What is obviously clear from the evidence we have presented is that it is the worship of Hubal that was later imported into the present beliefs of the Makkans who had earlier already acknowledged the existence of Allah as the Only God. Indeed, Islam has identified itself with the other Semitic religions (Judaism and Christianity) and called upon them in these words:

“Say [O Prophet]: ‘O People of the Book! Let us come together on a fair and noble principle common to both of us, never to worship or serve aught but God, never to associate any other being with Him, and never to take one another as Lords besides God.” (Qur’an, 3:64)

This is indeed the religio naturalis of which Islam asserts as first principle that all mankind are endowned with this innate religiousity.

As for the rest of the inconsequential polemic of the missionary which deals with the ephitet Ar-Rahman and digressed from the nature of Hubal in pre-Islamic Arab consciousness, an exposition of this term may be seen here.

It is interesting to note that despite the propagation of this ridiculous theory that Allah = Hubal, the missionary still feel it fit to put up the following “disclaimer” in his Addendum section:

Hence, even if the Quranic mention of Baal turns out to be a reference to Hubal, this would only show that Muhammad disassociated Allah from Hubal by turning the former into the true universal God.

It is an obvious escape tactic for someone who was never sure about the “position” of Hubal in the worship of pre-Islamic consciousness and wanted to leave the back door open if anything “disastrous” happens to the theory he propagates. Well, the disaster has certainly arrived!

And only Allah(T) knows best, for only He alone is worthy of worship.

1. M.H. Haykal, The Life of Muhammad (transl. Isma’il R. al Faruqi), p. 20 [back]
2. Haykal, ibid. [back]
3. Martin Lings, Muhammad: His Life Based on the Earliest Sources, p. 11 [back]
4. Philip K. Hitti, History of the Arabs, p. 100 [back]
5. Refer to M. Mohar Ali, Sirat al-Nabi and the Orientalists, Vol. 1A, p. 74 for the full discussion. [back]