If you're new here, you may want to get regular updates via Ja esat jauna šeit, jūs varat saņemt regulārus atjauninājumus, izmantojot RSS feed RSS feed . . Thank you for visiting! Paldies par apmeklējot!

It has always been the missionary tradition to jump from one nefarious claim to another in trying to ascertain the nature of “Allah”. Tas vienmēr ir bijis misionārs tradīcija, lai pārlēktu no vienas negodīgs prasība uz citu, mēģinot noskaidrot raksturu "Allah". We have previously shown some of the more common theories that they propagate, ranging from Allah(T) being the “moon god” to Ar-Rahman being Mums ir iepriekš pierādīts, daži no biežāk teorijas, ka tās izplatīt, sākot no Allah (T) ir "mēness dievs", lai Ar-Rahman ir a term termins for “pomegranate”. par "granātābols". A recent missionary allegation has also been hurled against a beatific salutation of the Prophet Nesen misionārs apgalvojums ir arī meta pret svētlaimīgs sveiciens no pareģis Muhammad Muhammad sallallah `alayhi wa sallam . sallallah `alayhi wa sallam. Now a new postulation of the missionary has been made in Tagad jauna postulation no misionārs ir panākts their article savu rakstu , namely that “Allah” is synonymous with the god Hubal of the pagan Makkans! , Proti, ka "Allah" ir sinonīms dievs Hubal par pagānu Makkans!

It would perhaps be a good idea to introduce the reader to first explain how idolatry in pre-Islamic Arab was practiced: Tas varbūt ir laba ideja, lai ieviestu lasītājam vispirms paskaidrot, kā elku pielūgšana iepriekš Islāma arābu tika praktizēta:

Every tribe had a different idol which it worshiped. Generally, objects of worship belonged to three genres: metal and wooden statues, stone statues, and shapeless masses of stone which one tribe or another consecrated because its origin was thought to be heavenly , whereas in reality it was only a piece of volcanic or meteoric rock. Katru cilts bija atšķirīgs elks, ko tā pielūdza. Parasti objektu kulta piederēja trīs žanri: metāla un koka statujas, akmens statujas, un bezveidīgs masu akmens kurām viena cilts vai cita iesvētīja tāpēc, ka tās izcelsme ir uzskatīts par debesu, kamēr Patiesībā tas bija tikai gabals vulkānisko vai meteorisks rock. ^{1 1}

Hence it is acknowledged that each Arab tribe had its own “chief idol” to which they would worship. Tādējādi ir atzīts, ka katrs arābu cilts bija sava "galvenais elks", uz ko tie varētu dievkalpojumu. With regard to the position of Hubal, it is noted that: Attiecībā uz pozīciju Hubal, ir norādīts, ka:

Hubal was the greatest member of the Arab pantheon and resided in Makkah, inside the Ka'bah. Hubal bija lielākais loceklis arābu Pantheon un dzīvoja Makkah, iekšpusē Ka'bah. Pilgrims came to its shrine from all corners. Svētceļnieku ieradās tā svētnīca no visiem stūriem. ^{2 2}

Regarding the nature of Hubal, it has been ascertained traditionally that the idol is Moabite in origin. Attiecībā uz būtību Hubal, ir noskaidrots, tradicionāli, ka elks ir Moabite izcelsmes. Martin Lings states as follows: Martin Lings ir formulēts šādi:

So 'Abd al-Muttalib continued to dig without any actual move being made to stop him; and some of the people were already leaving the sanctuary when suddenly he struck the well's stone covering and uttered a cry of thanksgiving to God. Tātad "Abd al-Muttalib turpināja rakt bez jebkādas faktisko pāriet tiek veikti, lai apturētu viņu, un daži no cilvēkiem jau bija atstājot patvērumu, kad pēkšņi viņš skāra arī ir akmens pārklājumu un laistas apgrozībā raudāt par pateicību Dievam. The crowd reassembled and increased; and when he began to dig out the treasure which Jurhum had buried there, everyone claimed the right to share in it. Pūlis jāapvieno un palielināta, un, kad viņš sāka rakt, kas dārgumu, ko Jurhum bija aprakts tur, visi apgalvoja, tiesības uz daļu tajā. 'Abd al-Muttalib agreed that lots should be cast for each object, as to whether it should be kept in the sanctuary or go to him personally or be divided amongst the tribe. "Abd al-Muttalib vienojās, ka partijas būtu nodotas par katru objektu, par to, vai tas jāglabā patvērumu vai doties uz viņu personīgi vai sadala starp cilts. 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 … Tas bija kļuvis atzīts veids, kā izlemt jautājumu šaubas, un tas tika darīts ar divining bultiņām iekšpusē Ka'bah, priekšā Moabite elks Hubal ... ^{3 3}

Hence it has always been known that the idol Hubal is a Moabite import (ie Baal), hence demolishing another of the missionary's accusations. Līdz ar to vienmēr ir bijis zināms, ka elks Hubal ir Moabite importa (ti, Baal), tātad nojaukt citu misionāru's apsūdzības. Hitti seems to concur with the Moabite origins of Hubal by stating that: Hitti šķiet piekrist Moabite izcelsmi Hubal, norādot, ka:

Hubal (from Aram. for vapour, spirit), evidently the chief deity of al-Ka'bah, was represented in human form. Hubal (no Arams. Tvaika, gars), acīmredzot galvenā dievība al-Ka'bah tika pārstāvēta cilvēka formā. 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. Viņam blakus bija rituāls bultas izmanto zīlēšana ar pareģis (kahin, no aramiešu), kas vērsa daudz ar tiem. Tradīcija ibn-Hisham, kas padara 'Amr ibn-Luhayy importētājs šā elks no Moāba vai Mezopotāmijā, var ir kodols patiesības, ciktāl tas saglabā atmiņas par aramiešu izcelsmes dievība. Pēc uzvara Makkah ar Muhammad Hubal dalītu daudz citu elku un tika iznīcināta. ^{4 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. Kā bija šī postulāts ir viens un tas ar Allah pašu šaubu noslēpums, ka tikai misionāri spēj saprast. Further, it is also admitted by Hitti that Hubal shared the fate of the other idols which were destroyed at the conquest of Makkah. Bez tam, ir arī atzinusi Hitti ka Hubal kopīgu likteni citu elku, kas tika iznīcināti pēc uzvara 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”. Tādējādi ir skaidrs, ka nekas misionārs asa kritika, ka "nopietni grauj musulmaņu prasību attiecībā uz Allah iepriekš islāma reizes ir pats Dievs Ābrahāma", nedz misionārs par Psalmi atkarību un riņķveida loģikas pamatojums ir "pierādījums, kas savieno Allah ar 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. Kā jau atzīmēts iepriekš, Hubal bija galvenais elks ir Quraysh, kā tas bija Al-Lat princips elks Ta'ifans. Despite their declination into idolatry, it is amazing, as one scholar remarks Neskatoties uz to deklinācija uz elku pielūgšana, tas ir pārsteidzošs, kā viens zinātnieks piezīmes ^{5 5} , that the Quraysh have never lost sight of Allah as the Supreme Lord of the Universe. , Ka Quraysh nekad nav zaudējis redzesloka Allah kā Visaugstā Kunga Visuma. 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. Kas ir acīmredzami izriet no pierādījumiem, mums ir iesniegti, ir, ka tas ir dievkalpojumu no Hubal kas vēlāk tika importētas šo pārliecību par Makkans kurš agrāk jau ir atzinusi, ka pastāv Allah kā vienīgo Dievu. Indeed, Islam has identified itself with the other Semitic religions (Judaism and Patiešām, islams ir noteikusi sev ar citām semītu reliģijas (jūdaisms un Christianity Kristietība ) and called upon them in these words: ), Un aicināja viņus šos vārdus:

“Say [O Prophet]: 'O People of the Book! "Say [O Pravietis]:" O cilvēki grāmatu! 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) Ļaujiet mums sanāk kopā uz godīgu un cēlu principu, kas kopīgi gan no mums, nekad dievkalpojumu vai kalpot nekas, bet Dievs nekad iesaistīt citu ir ar viņu, un nekad, lai viens otru kā Lordu bez Dieva. "(Korāns , 3:64)

This is indeed the religio naturalis of which Islam asserts as first principle that all mankind are endowned with this innate religiousity. Tas ir patiešām religio Naturalis, kas islāma norāda kā pirmais princips, ka visai cilvēcei ir endowned ar šo dabisks 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. Attiecībā uz pārējo mazsvarīgi polemisku par misionāru, kas nodarbojas ar ephitet Ar-Rahman un digressed no rakstura Hubal pirmskolas Islāma arābu apziņa, ekspozīcija šo termiņu var redzēt šeit.

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: Ir interesanti atzīmēt, ka, neskatoties uz pavairošanas šī absurda teoriju, ka Allah = Hubal, misionārs tai tomēr šķiet piemērots, lai safasēti turpmāk "atruna" viņa papildinājums sadaļā:

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. Tādējādi, pat ja Quranic minot Baal izrādās atsauci uz Hubal, tas tikai parāda, ka Muhammad nošķirtas Allah no Hubal, pagriežot bijušais vērā patieso vispārējo Dievu.

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. Tas ir acīmredzams glābšanās taktika kādam, kurš nekad nav bijis pārliecināts par "stāvoklis" ir Hubal ar dievkalpojumu pirms islāma apziņu un gribēja atstāt aizmugurē durvis atvērtas, ja kaut kas "katastrofāli" notiek teoriju viņš izplatās. Well, the disaster has certainly arrived! Nu, katastrofa ir noteikti klāt!

And only Allah (T) knows best, for only He alone is worthy of worship. Un tikai Allah (T) zina vislabāk, tikai Viņš vienīgais ir vērts dievkalpojumu.

1. MH Haykal, The Life of Muhammad (transl. Isma'il R. al Faruqi), p. MH Haykal, dzīvē Muhammad (transl. Isma'il R. al Faruqi), lpp 20 [ [20 back atpakaļ ] ]
2. Haykal, ibid. [ Haykal, ibid. [ back atpakaļ ] ]
3. Martin Lings, Muhammad: His Life Based on the Earliest Sources , p. Martin Lings, Muhameds: viņa dzīve Pamatojoties uz Agrākā Avoti, lpp 11 [ 11 [ back atpakaļ ] ]
4. Philip K. Hitti, Philip K. Hitti, History Vēsture of the Arabs , p. no arābiem, lpp 100 [ 100 [ back atpakaļ ] ]
5. Refer to M. Mohar Ali, Sirat al-Nabi and the Orientalists , Vol. Atsaucas uz M. Mohar Ali, Sirat al-Nabi un Orientalists, Vol. 1A, p. 1A, lpp 74 for the full discussion. 74 par pilnu diskusiju. [ [ back atpakaļ ] ]