Bismika Alllahuma

지금까지 항상 1개의 못된 요구에서 "알라"의 본질을 판명하는 것을 시도에서 또 다른 한개에 뛰어오를 것이다 선교사 전통 이었다. 우리는 이전에 어떤을의 일반적인 이론 보여주어, 전파한다에 "달 신"이어 알라 (T)에게서 배열한 Ar Rahman 이 기간 "석류를 위해". 최근 선교사 주장은 또한 예언자 Muhammad의 기쁜 인사에 대하여 내던져졌다 sallallah `alayhi wa sallam. 지금 선교사의 새로운 가정은 안으로 했다 그들의 기사, 즉 "알라"가 이교도 Makkans의 신 Hubal와 동의어 인!

전 이슬람교 아라비아인에 있는 우상 숭배가 어떻게 실행된지 아마 첫째로에 독자를 소개하는 좋은 아이디어 설명한다일 것입니다:

각 부족에는 숭배한 다른 우상이 있었다. 일반적으로, 숭배의 목표는 3개의 장르에 속했다: 그것의 근원이 하늘 이고기 생각되었기 때문에 돌의 금속 및 나무로 되는 동상, 돌 동상 및 볼품없는 질량 1마리의 부족 또는 봉헌되는 또 다른 한개, 실제로 화산 유성 바위의 단지 조각이었더라도 반면.¹

그러므로 숭배할지 어느 것을에 각 아라비아 사람 부족에는 그것의 자신이 "주요한 우상" 있었다는 것을 인정된다. Hubal의 위치에 관하여, 저것이라고 주의된다:

Hubal는 훌륭한 일원 아라비아 사람 판테온의 그리고 거주한 ka 안쪽에 Makkah에서,' bah이었다. 순례자는 모든 구석에서 그것의 신전에 왔다.²

Hubal의 본질에 대하여, 우상이 근원에 있는 Moabite이다 전통적으로 판명되었다. 마틴 대구 비슷한 물고기는 다음과 같이 진술한다:

이렇게 `Abd 알루미늄 Muttalib는 그를 멈춘 어떤 실제적인 움직임도 없이 파는 것을 계속했다; 그리고 어떤은의 사람들 이미 급격하게 그가 우물의 돌 덮음을 치고 신에게 감사의 외침을 발언할 때 게릴라피신처를 남겨두고 있었다. 재조립되고 증가시키는 군중; 그리고 그가 Jurhum가 거기 매장했었던 보물을 밖으로 팔 것을 시작할 때, 모두는 그것에서 공유하는 권리를 주장했다. 게릴라피신처에서 부족의 사이에 분할된 지켜지거나 그에게 개인으로 가야 한ㄴ다는 것을 여부 `Abd 알루미늄에 의하여 제비가 각 목표를 위해 던져져야 한ㄴ다는 것을 동의했다. 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]