Bismika Alllahuma

它总是跳跃的传教士传统从一个恶毒要求到另一个在设法查明“阿拉的”本质。 我们早先显示了某些更加共同的理论他们繁殖，范围从阿拉(T)是“月亮神” Ar拉赫曼 是 一个期限 为“石榴”。 最近传教士指控也用力了投掷反对先知Muhammad的祝福的致敬 sallallah `alayhi wa sallam. 现在传教士的一个新的假定被做了 他们的文章即“阿拉”与异教的Makkans的神Hubal是同义的!

或许它是一个好想法介绍读者给首先解释怎么偶像崇拜在前伊斯兰教的阿拉伯人被实践了：

每个部落有它崇拜的一尊不同的神像。 通常，崇拜对象属于三种风格： 金属和木雕像、石雕像和石头破相的大量一个被奉献的部落或另，因为它的起源认为是天堂般的，而实际上它是火山或大气岩石仅片断。¹

因此它被承认每个阿拉伯部落有它自己“首要神像”对哪些他们将崇拜。 关于Hubal的位置，它注意那：

Hubal是阿拉伯万神殿的最了不起的成员和居住在Makkah，在钾里面’ bah。 香客走向它的寺庙自所有角落。²

关于Hubal的本质，它传统上被查明了神像是Moabite在起源。 马丁石楠状态如下：

如此`Abd AlMuttalib继续开掘，不用被做的任何实际移动停止他; 当他突然触击了井的石覆盖物并且说出了感恩啼声对上帝，并且某些人民已经留下圣所。 被重新召集和增加的人群; 并且，当他开始开掘Jurhum埋没了那里的珍宝，大家在它要求了权益分享。 `Abd AlMuttalib同意应该为每个对象熔铸全部，至于是否在圣所应该保留或亲自去他或在部落之中划分它。 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]