返回总目录
Reply To Dr. Robert Morey's Moon-God Myth & Other Deceptive Attacks On Islam
Reply To Dr. Robert Morey's Moon-God Myth &
Other Deceptive Attacks On Islam
Shabbir Ally
© Islamic Awareness, All Rights Reserved.
First Composed: 13th April 2000
Last Modified: 13th April 2000
And from among His Signs are the night and the
day, and the sun and the moon. Prostrate not to the sun nor to the moon, but
prostrate to Allah Who created them, if you (really) worship Him.
(41:37)
CONTENTS
Morey's Deceptive Methods
A Christian acquaintance proudly handed me a copy of a book entitled The
Moon-god Allah in the Archeology of the Middle East by Dr. Robert Morey.
I found the author using a number of deceptive tactics to prove his foregone
conclusion that Allah is not the God of the Bible but rather the Moon-god of
pre-Islamic Arabia whose worship is now perpetuated within Islam. I will classify
his deceptive methods under five broad headings for simplicity of discussion.
- Misquoting authorities.
- Concealing evidence.
- Filling pages with irrelevant information thus giving a false impression
of establishing something.
- Using logical fallacies to establish conclusions, and
- Drawing conclusions for which no evidence was even suggested, much less
established.
Back to contents
How Morey Quotes Professor Coon
Let us now discuss these deceptive methods in some detail. I quote below from
Morey's book to see how he argues that Allah was the Moon-god.
After we read this I will point out with the help of Allah several of Morey's
deceptive methods working together:
According to numerous inscriptions, while the name of
the Moon-god was Sin, his title was al-ilah, i.e. "the deity," meaning
that he was the chief or high god among the gods. As Coon pointed out, "The
god II or Ilah was originally a phase of the Moon God."
The Moon-god was called al-ilah, i.e. the god, which
was shortened to Allah in pre-Islamic times. The pagan Arabs even used Allah
in the names they gave to their children. For example, both Muhammad's
father and uncle had Allah as part of their names. The fact that they were
given such names by their pagan parents proves that Allah was the title for
the Moon-god even in Muhammad's day. Professor Coon goes on to say,
"Similarly, under Mohammed's tutelage, the relatively anonymous Iiah,
became Al-IIah, The God, or Allah, the Supreme Being." (Morey, pp. 10-11)
There are several problems in this short passage from Morey's book. The first
problem is that Morey has so misquoted Professor Coon that he makes the quotations
say the opposite of what Coon actually said. Notice that he quoted Coon twice.
According to Morey's footnote, both quotes come from Carleton S. Coon, Southern
Arabia, (Washington, D.C. Smithsonian, 1944) p. 399. Very impressive!
But I was able to locate these quotes in Professor Coon's book and I found that
Morey clipped them out of a larger paragraph. He deceptively left out a crucial
part, and separated the other two parts as though they were two unrelated quotes.
Here is what Coon actually said:
The god Il or Ilah was originally a phase of the Moon
God, but early in Arabian history the name became a general term for god,
and it was this name that the Hebrews used prominently in their personal names,
such as Emanu-el, Israel, etc., rather than the Bapal of the northern semites
proper, which was the Sun. Similarly, under Mohammed's tutelage, the relatively
anonymous Ilah became Al-Ilah, The God, or Allah, the Supreme Being. [Carleton
S. Coon, Southern Arabia, (Washington, D.C. Smithsonian, 1944) p. 399].
This quote from Professor Coon does not say what Dr. Morey wants to use it
for, so he applied the following methods to bend it out of shape:
He quoted the first sentence to show that the name Il or Ilah was the Moon-god
of Arabia up to the time of Islam's revelation. Read Coon's statement:
The god Il or Ilah was originally a phase of the Moon God, but early in Arabian
history the name became a general term for god.
Now read Morey's quotation of that statement:
The god Il or Ilah was originally a phase of the Moon
god.
Morey uses this quote to support his case that up to the time of Muhammad
the name Allah was the title for the Moon-god. To accomplish his sin, Morey
chopped the sentence in half to exclude the word "but" and everything
that follows that conjunction. He did not even bother to place three dots to
indicate that he has left out some words.
A second problem with Dr. Morey's approach here is that he left out of Professor
Coon's statement what would disprove Morey's most important argument against
the God of Islam. Morey is proud of repeating that Allah is not the God of the
Bible but the Moon-god of pre-Islamic Arabia. It would have been inconvenient
for him to repeat what Coon had said as follows:
...and it was this name that the Hebrews used prominently
in their personal names, such as Emanu-el, Isra-el, etc...
Morey would not let his readers understand that according to Professor Coon
the same name which in South Arabia was used for the Moon-god was also used
in Hebrew names like Emanu-el which Morey considers a name for Jesus.
A third problem is that Morey so separated two clipped pieces from Coon's writing
and so interwove them with his own words that Professor Coon's meaning is lost
and Morey's own meaning dominates the text. This way it appears that Coon is
supporting Morey whereas he is not. Whereas, for example, Professor Coon's last
statement is supportive of the fact that Allah is not a Moon-god but rather
"the Supreme Being," Morey's placement of it within his own text will
convince a less than careful reader that Coon agrees with Morey's Moon-god-in-Islam
theory.
A fourth problem is that Morey does not expect his readers to spot logical
fallacies in his writings. When he claimed that the title of the Moon-god was
"al-ilah" he quoted Coon in his support as saying that "Il or
Ilah" was originally a phase of the Moon God. Morey did not expect his
readers to notice that "al-ilah" is not the same as "Il or Ilah."
But even readers who are unfamiliar with the Arabic language can notice two
things:
- the words are spelt very differently, and
- Morey's second quote from Coon exposes the error. There, Coon says that
"Ilah became Al-Ilah" in Muhammad's teachings. Obviously,
then, al-ilah was not the Moon-god according to Coon but only according to
Morey. Coon would be shocked to see his writing misquoted in Morey's fashion.
A fifth problem is that Dr. Morey must have sent his manuscript hurriedly off
to press and did not have time to notice that he contradicted himself in the
above passage.
After pointing out that the Prophet's father and uncle both had names which
included the name Allah, he quoted with approval Professor Coon as saying
that "Ilah became...Allah" under Muhammad's tutelage.
Morey did not notice that in order for his readers to accept everything he said
in that paragraph, they must conclude that Muhammad was present when
his father was born so he could instruct his grandfather what name to give to
Muhammad's new-born father!
My point here is not whether Coon was right or not, or whether he was ever
an authority on Islam. My point is that Morey quoted him as an authority and
did not notice the resulting contradiction in his own writing.
A sixth problem is that Morey draws conclusion which do not follow from his
evidence thus committing the logical fallacy known as non sequitur. We notice
the fallacy in the following passage:
For example, both Muhammad's father and uncle had Allah as part
of their names. The fact that they were given such names by their pagan parents
proves that Allah was the title for the Moon-god even in Muhammad's
day.
In the above passage Morey gives an evidence and draws a conclusion. Let us
identify the evidence and the conclusion to help us spot the fallacy.
Evidence: Muhammad's father and uncle were given names by their pagan
parents and those names included the name Allah [as in ‘Abd-Allah meaning
Servant of Allah].
Conclusion: This proves that Allah was the name of the Moon-god at the
time.
The conclusion simply does not follow from the evidence. The most one can conclude
from the stated evidence is that pagans were prepared to name their children
servants of Allah. The evidence does not show whether Allah was
the Moon-god or the God of Abraham. Who he was has to be established from other
evidence which Morey has done his best to conceal.
Morey's concealed evidence reveals again and again that the Arabs at the time
of Muhammad worshipped many idols but they also believed in Allah
the high God whom they would call upon for help. This Supreme God for them was
never the moon.
A seventh problem with this passage from Morey is that his whole discussion
is irrelevant to the question. To establish that Allah was believed to be this
or that before Islam proves nothing for our present discussion. Morey needs
to show that in the Qur'an Allah is represented as the Moon-god. But this is
what is rather impossible for Morey. The Qur'an again and again speaks of the
moon as a creation of Allah. And Allah in the Qur'an tells his creatures that
they should not bow down to the sun or the moon but that they should bow down
to Allah who created them (Qur'an 41:37).
back to contents
How Dr. Morey Quotes From Caesar Farah
Let's look at another passage from page 13 of Morey's book where he quotes,
this time from Caesar Farah:
Islamic scholar Caesar Farah concluded "There is
no reason, therefore, to accept the idea that Allah passed on to the Muslims
from the Christians and Jews." (Farah, p. 28).
Please compare this quote with the entire paragraph where Morey said he quoted
it from. Here it is reproduced from Caesar Farah's book:
Allah, the paramount deity of pagan Arabia, was the target
of worship in varying degrees of intensity from the southernmost tip of Arabia
to the Mediterranean. To the Babylonians he was "Il" (god); to the
Canaanites, and later the Israelites, he was "El'; the South Arabians
worshipped him as "Ilah," and the Bedouins as "al-Ilah"
(the deity). With Muhammad he becomes Allah, God of the Worlds, of all believers,
the one and only who admits no associates or consorts in the worship of Him.
Judaic and Christian concepts of God abetted the transformation of Allah from
a pagan deity to the God of all monotheists. There is no reason, therefore,
to accept the idea that "Allah" passed to the Muslims from Christians
and Jews. (Farah p. 28).
The first problem with Morey's quote is that he so separated the last sentence
from the rest of the paragraph, that he made it say something different from
what it used to say in the context of that paragraph. Such out-of-context quotations
is a common ploy of Morey.
A second problem is that Morey referred to Caesar Farah as an "Islamic
Scholar". Morey tries to bolster the authority of his quoted authorities
by giving them adjectives as above. If by "Islamic" readers think
that Caesar Farah is a Muslim, Morey has no motive to correct such a misunderstanding.
And if challenged, he could say he meant "Scholar of Islam". Then
he should say what he means.
A third problem is that Morey left out the important discussion from Farah's
book. That passage was saying that the God who was called Ilah in South Arabia
was called El by the Israelites. This fact would have ruined Morey's entire
Moon-god-in-Islam theory, so Morey conveniently concealed it.
Why should Morey let his readers know that according to two of the Gospels
Jesus was on the cross calling out to El who, if Morey is right, is the Moon-god
of Islam?
back to contents
Morey Contradicts Himself
Let us consider a passage from pages 11-12 of Morey's book:
Muhammad was raised in the religion of the Moon-god Allah.
But he went one step further than his fellow pagan Arabs. While they believed
that Allah, i.e. the Moon-god, was the greatest of all the gods and the supreme
deity in a pantheon of deities, Muhammad decided that Allah was not only the
greatest god but the only god.
In effect he said, "Look, you already believe that the Moon-god Allah
is the greatest of all gods. All I want you to do is to accept that the idea
that he is the only god (sic). I am not taking away the Allah you already
worship. I am only taking away his wife and his daughters and all the gods"
This is seen from the fact that the first point of the Muslim creed is not,
"Allah is great" but, "Allah is the greatest,"
i.e., he is the greatest among the gods. Why would Muhammad say that
Allah in the "greatest" except in a polytheistic context? The
Arabic word is used to contrast the greater from the lesser (Morey pp. 11-12).
The first problem with this passage is that Morey contradicts himself. In the
first two paragraphs he claimed that he pagan Arabs believed Allah to
be the greatest of all the gods, and all Muhammad (pbuh) preached to
them was that they should take Allah not merely as the greatest god but
as the only god. Then Morey forgot what he just finished writing and wrote in
the very next paragraph that Muhammad was preaching that Allah
is the greatest. And, according to Morey, greatest means he is not the only
god.
A second problem is that Morey seems to have not the slightest idea of what
Islam is. According to him the first point of the Muslim creed is not, "Allah
is great" but Allah is the greatest (Morey p. 12). Where did he learn
that this is the first point of the Muslim creed? If Morey is to be believed,
millions of Muslims have been teaching their children the wrong shahadah (testimony
of faith).
But, much to Morey's shame, the first point of the Muslim creed is not that
"Allah is the greatest," but that "there is no god except
Allah."
A third problem is that Morey thinks "Allah is the greatest" means
that "he is the greatest among the gods" and that this could only
be said in a polytheistic context. He does not realise that the phrase he is
referring to is, in Arabic, Allahu Akbar which means "Allah is greater."
This phrase is a shorter form of Allahu Akbar min kullisay which means
"Allah is greater than everything." You do not need a polytheistic
context to say this. This can be said to anyone in any situation. It means that
Allah is greater than everything whether things we perceive or things we do
not.
A fourth problem has to do not with Morey's ignorance of the Arabic language,
but with his lack of care to use proper reasoning. According to him, if the
first point of the Muslim creed was "Allah is great" this would
not imply a polytheistic context. Does he think that polytheists are excluded
from saying about any one of their gods, "she is great"?
A fifth problem is that Morey keeps repeating the phrase Moon-god every time
he mentions Allah as if by sheer repetition he hopes to convince his readers
that Allah is the Moon-god. What he ought to do is present evidence instead.
back to contents
Irrelevant Archeological Evidence
First Dr. Morey makes a claim, then he discusses pages and pages of irrelevant
evidence. This gives the impression that he is proving his claim whereas in
fact he is not. My case in point is the following claim of Morey and the subsequent
evidence he offers to support that claim:
As we shall see, the hard evidence demonstrates that
the god Allah was a pagan deity. In fact, he was the Moon-god who was married
to the sun good dess and the stars were his daughters. (Morey pp. 1-2).
To prove this claim, he spent the next five pages, five illustrations, four
diagrams, and one map. But what, according to him does all of this prove? Only
that the Moon-god was worshipped in the ancient world outside of Arabia. This
information is most irrelevant. He should get to the point of proving that Moon-worship
existed in Arabia. Whether or not it existed elsewhere makes no difference to
the point he is trying to prove. His proving, for example, that the Canaanites
worshipped the Moon-god does not prove that the pagan Arabs did.
But Morey has his own reasons for this roundabout way of doing things. After
spending almost half the book arguing a point and supporting it with documented
evidence by way of maps, illustrations, diagrams, and quoted authorities, he
leaves his readers with the impression that he proves his points very well and
therefore he should be believed.
He needs this credibility because when he turns to what he needs to prove he
has no evidence, and he will offer none. He will make unsupported claims after
he has already bewildered his readers with impressive irrelevant material.
In a book of fifteen pages, it is only on page seven that Morey turns to a
discussion of what the situation was in Arabia. But even then, he discusses
Southern Arabia which was far away from the Mecca where Muhammad preached.
So, for another three pages he discusses evidence that the Moon-god was worshipped
in South Arabia. He does not make any effort to alert his readers that he was
unable to gather any evidence for the Moon-god in North Arabia. Rather, he concludes
on page 10:
Evidence gathered from both North and South Arabia demonstrate
that Moon-god worship was clearly active even in Muhammad's day and was still
the dominant cult. (Morey p. 10).
But where is the evidence concerning North Arabia? The only evidence he furnished
for Arabia had to do with South Arabia only. On page 7 he cited the findings
of Arnaud, Halevy and Glaser who
went to Southern Arabia and dug up thousands of Sabean,
Minaean and Qatabanian inscriptions. (Morey, p. 7).
On the same page he cited the findings of G. Caton Thompson and Carleton S.
Coon "in Arabia." He did not say at this point that he meant South
Arabia, but on page 9 and on map #3 he did make it clear that these findings
were in
Southern Arabia (Morey p. 9)
How can he then make such a barefaced claim when careful readers will discover
the opposite on the very pages he writes? Why does he imply that he will supply
evidence for moon-worship in both North and South Arabia when the only evidence
he has is for the South alone? Morey obviously considers Islam so evil that
he is willing to use evil in battling Islam. But if Islam is from the Devil
you do not need the Devil's ways to defeat it. Just simply explaining it should
be sufficient to expose it. Morey needs to remember good Christian principles
while he attacks Islam.
back to contents
How Morey Twists Things
To see how Morey is willing to bend quoted passages out of shape to make them
somehow fit his Moon-god-in Islam theory, consider the following passage from
p. 8 of his book:
The archeological evidence demonstrates that the dominant
religion of Arabia was the cult of the Moon-god. In Old Testament times, Nabonidus
(555-539 BC), the last King of Babylon, built Tayma, Arabia as a center of
Moon-god worship. Segall stated, South Arabia's stellar religion has always
been dominated by the Moon-god in various variations. (Morey, p. 8).
What Morey quotes constantly belies him but he does not seem to notice, or
he hopes his readers will not notice. Consider his quotation of Segall above.
According to Segall in the above quote:
South Arabia's stellar religion has always been dominated
by the Moon-god in various variations. (Segall, quoted by Morey, p. 8).
According to Morey, this agrees with his point that:
The archaeological evidence demonstrates that the dominant
religion of Arabia was the cult of the Moon-god. (Morey, p. 8 emphasis added).
A careful comparison of these two statements reveal, however, that they are
not saying the same things. The following are the important differences:
- Morey speaks "of" Arabia; Segall speaks "of" South Arabia.
- Segall does not speak of all of the South Arabia's religions. He says only
that of the stellar religions, religions that involved the worship of the
Sun, Moon, and Venus, the most dominant was the worship of the Moon; Morey
speaks of all religion. The deception here is that from Segall's words we
understand only that the Moon was worshipped more than the Sun, and Venus.
But from Morey's words we understand that the Moon was worshipped more than
any other god.
My point is not that Morey and Segall should say the same thing. My point is
that when we can see that they are saying two different things Morey should
not insult our intelligence by implying that they are saying the same thing.
back to contents
Morey's Intended Audience
Morey obviously thinks his readers will fall for anything. So he does not bother
to tidy up his deceptions. Page after page of Morey's book reveals how he manipulates
the evidence he is working with. For example, on pages 5 and 7 he discusses
the findings at Hazor in Palestine. On page 6 he shows four diagrams of the
artifacts discovery there. After identifying the findings as having came from
a major temple to the Moon-god in Palestine, Morey describe Diagram 4 in the
following words:
Several smaller statues were also found which were identified
by their inscriptions as the "daughters" of the Moon-god (See Diagram
#4); (Morey, p. 7).
Notice here that according to Morey the inscriptions identify the statues as
the daughters of the Moon-god. But did not he direct us to look at Diagram #4?
Well, Diagram #4 reveals something interesting. Underneath Diagram #4 we find
the following words:
Pieces of the idols of the daughters of the Moon-god.
The inscription identifies them as the daughters of god
(Morey, p. 6).
But we have already seen that according to Morey on his page 7, the inscriptions
identified the statues as daughters of the Moon-god (Morey, p. 7).
Which page of Morey's book are we to believe? Six or Seven? It appears that
the inscriptions did not say Moon-god. But Morey is so fond of his Moon-god-in-Islam
theory that he just simply inserted the word "Moon" before "god"
on page 7.
We still do not know for sure what the inscription (page 6) or inscriptions
(page 7) do say. But without doing any further checking we discover Morey's
errors from the very pages he writes. What level of readership was he writing
for?
back to contents
Fallacy of Equivocation
Why did Morey go to such great depths to invent daughters for the Moon-god?
Because the pagan Arabs just before Islam believed that their gods al-Lat, Uzzah
and Manat were daughters of Allah. If Morey can convince his readers that
the Moon-god had daughters he might just be able to confuse them into thinking
that the pagan Arabs believed in the Moon-god and his daughters.
And this is the point he tries to drive home. Notice his following claim which
we find on pages 7-8 of his book:
Thousands of inscriptions from walls and rocks in Northern
Arabia have also been collected. Reliefs and votive bowls used in worship
of the "daughters of Allah" have also been discovered. The three
daughters, al-Lat, al-Uzza and Manat are sometimes depicted together with
Allah the Moon-god represented by a crescent moon above them. (Morey, pp.
7-8).
He does not quote any authority for any of the above claims. The only thing
he has in quotes is "daughters of Allah." Well this is nothing new
and I do not need to see an authority cited for it. What I want to see an authority
for is Morey's allegation about Allah the Moon-god (Morey, p. 8). But these
are Morey's words, and he can find no authority to connect the name Allah with
the Moon-god.
Surely Morey can do better than that. For this important claim he offers no
quote of an authority, no diagram, no illustration, no map, and no specific
detail. He does not say when, where or by whom the inscriptions were collected.
He does tell us in his footnotes where we can find more information about this.
But after discovering Morey's misquotes one after another I lack the time and
energy to check out these writings from which he did not have the time or energy
to make a direct quotation.
I did notice, however, that one of the authorities mentioned has nothing to
do with a discussion about Allah being a Moon-god of any sort. It deals with
the goddess Atirat and her relation to the Moon-god and the Sun-goddess. But
this goddess Atriat is related not to the Moon-god Allah, for there is no such
being. From an ancient Qatabanian inscription discovered at Timna, we know that
the goddess Atriat was related to the Moon-god Amm (see Pritchard, The
Ancient Near East: A New Anthology of Texts and Pictures, vol. 2, p.
237). So I am not prepared to go on any more wildgoose chases than what Morey
has already sent me on.
If there is something significant in those writings why does Morey not make
a direct quotation? Then we can check again for the accuracy of his quotations.
I don't think his is an unreasonable demand. When Morey was proving less significant
and what I call highly irrelevant points he was busy quoting authorities. When
he told us about Moon-god worship everywhere else he furnished us with names
of discovers, dates of discoveries, names of discovery cites, and lots of pictures
to boot. Why is it that when it comes to Northern Arabia he offers not a shred
of evidence?
Does Morey expect his readers to accept his most important point on faith alone?
Usually we take at face value what a writer says, because we expect him to tell
the truth. We have been seeing again and again that with Morey we cannot afford
that risk.
Morey has committed here what in logic is known as the fallacy of eqivocation.
He takes a term which meant one thing in a certain context and the same term
which means another thing in a new context and pretends that since the term
is the same the meaning is also the same. He argues that the Moon-god of the
South Arabians had daughters, and the High God Allah of the Meccan Arabs
and daughters, therefore they are one and the same god having daughters.
To see how this fallacy works, consider this argument for illustration:
The Japanese believed their emperor to be the Son of God. Christians also believe
in the Son of God.
That way of saying things imply that Christians believe in the Japanese emperor.
That, of course is not true. Now consider Morey's argument:
The South Arabians believed that the Moon-god had daughters. The pagan Arabs
of Mecca also believed that Allah had daughters.
Morey implies that Allah was therefore the Moon-god. But this is no more
true than to say that Christians believe in the Japanese emperor.
Morey should know better than to commit such a fallacy. As a teacher of a course
on logic, he should be trained in spotting such fallacies rather than committing
them. But Morey's misuse of this knowledge reminds us that good knowledge can
also be used for evil purposes.
back to contents
False Evidence
On page 7, Morey writes:
In the 1940s, the archeologists G.Caton Thompson and
Carleton S Coon made some amazing discoveries in Arabia (Morey, p. 7).
On page 9 we discover he meant "southern Arabia" but we have already
dealt with this discrepancy.
What is important here is that these "amazing discoveries" are revealed
by G. Caton Thompson in her 1944 book The Tombs and
Moon Temple of Hureidha. What did she reveal? Here is one thing, according
to Mr. Morey:
An idol which may be the Moon-god himself was also discovered
(see Diagram #6); (Morey, pp. 9-10 emphasis added).
Here he says only that the idol "may be the Moon-god himself." But
he proudly labelled Diagram #6:
An idol of the Moon-god (Morey, p. 10).
Although Morey knows, according to his own words, that it is not certain that
this idol was the Moon-god, yet he is prepared to label it as though it was
for sure. There is no excuse for such carelessness.
But I suspect a further discrepancy. I did not have occasion to read G. Caton
Thompson's 1944 book, but her companion archeologist Carleton S. Coon wrote
in 1945 his treatise "Southern Arabia, A Problem
for the Future". Morey is aware of this writing, for he quoted from
it several times.
The discrepancy is that what Morey leads us to expect in Thompson's book is
denied in Coon's treatise! Morey showed us a picture of a woman-like idol and
claims that this may be the Moon-god himself which was discovered by Coon and
Thompson and revealed in Thompson's book.
Coon's treatise says no such thing was discovered! About the three astral deities
of South Arabia, the Sun, the Moon, and the Star Venus, Coon writes:
There were no carved images of these three-the Semitic
tabu against graven images, while by no means generally applicable, was in
force in regard to the divinities themselves. What images we do find are of
people. (Coon, p. 399).
According to Coon, then, they found no graven images of gods but only of people.
Then Morey shows us the graven image of a woman and tells us this may be the
Moon-god himself (Morey, p. 10).
So either Coon or Morey is wrong here. And I don't think it is Coon. He was
there when he and Thompson made those amazing discoveries, so he ought to know
what he discovered.
I do not know where this leaves Thompson because, as I have said, I did not
read her book. But it is rather odd that she would write something in her book
and then her partner writing a year later would contradict her like that.
Or, perhaps Morey does not mean to imply that either Coon or Thompson claimed
any such thing. Perhaps it is only his words that mislead, not his intention.
After saying that this idol may have been the Moon-god himself, Morey claimed:
This was later confirmed by other wellknown archaelogists
(Morey, p. 10).
If "confirmed" here does not mean what it says, Morey should have
used some other word we can hold him to.
What is important, though, and for this I give him credit, is his reference
in a footnote to three of these "well-known archaelogists." My concern
for the moment is not whether or not they are "well-known" but my
concern is to know what exactly they said about this idol. A direct quote please?
I have developed a liking for checking such quotes.
I find it rather interesting that when Morey refers to the idol later he says:
Now we have the actual idols of the Moon-god... (Morey,
p.14 emphasis added).
What may have been is now actual, and it has multipled: now "idols"!
Is Morey never satisfied adding to his cup of sins?
back to contents
Optical Delusions:
Earlier I said that Morey spent five illustrations to prove that in the ancient
world the Moon-god was worshipped everywhere outside Arabia. Although these
illustrations are irrelevant to our study of the history of the Moon-god in
Arabia, I am interested here in how Morey's illustrations are not always what
they are chiselled out to be!
I refer to page 3 of Morey's book. This page contains two illustrations. I
was able to locate an illustration similar to the first one, and an exact copy
of the second in a book The Ancient Near East: A New
Anthology of Texts and Pictures, edited by James B. Pritchard, 1975,
Princeton University Press.
Morey had implied that these are illustrations of the Moon-god. However, Pritchard
and his group of scholars know differently. What resembles the first illustration
is catalogued #140 in Vol. 1 by Pritchard. But here it is not a Moon-god but
a Storm-god.
The second illustration is catalogued #136 in Pritchard's Vol.1. But this too
is not a Moon-god of any kind. It is "Baal of Lightning."
That's two out of five. Again and again what I am able to check turn out false.
Is it me or is it Morey?
Or is it Pritchard? I don't think so. An exact copy of the second illustration
is found also in The Bible As History in Pictures,
p. 206, and there it is identified as Baal of lightning.
In the book Tells, Tombs and Treasure, an exact
copy appears on page 118. There it is called Baal of Storm.
The book Archaeology of The Bible shows an exact
copy on page 80, and calls it the Storm God Baal. Morey is alone against all
the scholars, and against all the evidence.
back to contents
What Was the Name of That Moon-god?
Morey was successful in proving that moon worship was prevalent in South Arabia
before Islam. But what was the name of that Moon-god?
Morey would have us believe that the name was Allah. That is the point
of his whole booklet. The title of his book bears this out and he keeps repeating
this throughout the book. But he did not produce a single piece of evidence
to connect Allah with the Moon-god.
Quite the contrary. His own evidence proves that the name of the Moon-god was
not Allah. On page 9 Morey reports on the findings of Coon and Thompson
in Southern Arabia where they discovered a temple of the Moon-god. What did
they find? Morey tells us:
The symbols of the crescent moon and no less than twenty-one
inscriptions with the name Sin were found in this temple (see Diagram #5);
(Morey, p. 9).
So what was the name of that Moon-god? Allah? No! It was Sin according
to Morey's own words. But that does not stop him for claiming two paragraphs
later that the Moon-god was Allah.
But he invented a clever device to save face. Now he claims that
....while the name of the Moon-god was Sin, his title
was al-ilah, i.e. "the deity," ... (Morey, p. 19).
Rather neat. Now al-ilah which he says later becomes Allah (p. 11) is no longer
a name, but a title. Morey has a way with words.
Does Morey then retract what he wrote in his book The
Islamic Invasion? In that book published just two years earlier he was
calling Allah a name again and again. On page 48 he quoted from Hastings' Encyclopedia
of Religion and Ethics that "Allah" is a proper name.
Then on the same page he quoted from the Encyclopedia
of Religion that
"Allah" is a pre-Islamic name (Morey, Invasion,
p. 48).
Then in his own words Morey said:
Allah was a pagan name (Morey, Invasion, p. 48).
We can go on and on, but the point is proven. In the book The
Islamic Invasion Morey quoted many authorities who rightly said that
Allah was the name of the high God of the pagan Arabs. Morey insisted contrary
to the authorities he deceptively quoted, that Allah was the name of the Moon-god.
Either way, in that book of his, Allah was a name.
Now, in his book of two years later he makes an about-face. There is nothing
wrong with learning more. If Morey discovered some new information he can acknowledge
his previous error and we can go on without much comment.
But the problem is not that Morey was wrong about Allah being a name.
He was wrong about Allah being the Moon-god. But he was right is saying
that Allah is a name. Now Morey's problem is that the same archaeological
findings he relies on to establish moon-worship in Southern Arabia also reveal
that the name of the Moon-god was not Allah but Sin. Now he is trapped.
To escape this trap he claims that Allah is a title. He has no evidence
for his claim.
In this previous book, however, he was clear that Allah was a name, not
a title. He wrote:
The name Allah was used as the personal name of the moon
god, in addition to other titles that could be given to him (The Islamic
Invasion, p. 50).
I think it was Mark Twain who said,
Always speak the truth, then you have nothing to remember.
So, what was the name of that Moon-god? According to Coon,
The state god of the Minaeans was Wadd, that of the Katabanians
'Amm, that of the Hadramis Sin, and of the Sabaeans Il Mukah. All were the
moon. (Coon, p. 399).
The names of the moon-god were Wadd, 'Amm, Sin, and Il Mukah. Allah was
never the Moon-god, despite Morey's desperate pleading.
back to contents
Concealed Evidence
Morey makes much of archaelogical findings in South Arabia at Qataban, Timna,
and Marib. So he speaks of
thousands of Sabean, Minean, and Qatabanian inscriptions
which were subsequently translated (Morey, p. 7).
Wow! Except that I noticed he did not bother to quote from these inscriptions
or tell us they say. Instead, he immediately moved on to describe findings in
other areas. Hmn. This is quited unlike Morey. I am sure that if he has some
solid evidence he would jump on it. Why so quiet about the translated inscriptions?
One possible reason is that Morey heard about these but knows not what they
say. Another possibility is that Morey found them inconvenient. I much prefer
the first possibility, but in any case the findings are inconvenient for Morey.
The inscriptions just do not gel with Morey's Moon-god-in-Islam theory.
The translated inscriptions are compiled in the book we already referred toThe
Ancient Near East, vol. 2, by James Pritchard. These inscriptions show
that the Moon-god was not Allah, but Anbay, 'Amm, 'lyn, and Waddum.
Sabaean inscriptions from Mareb show that they worshipped
Attar and Waddum (see Pritchard, vol.2, p. 230).
Minaean Inscriptions mention Wadd, Waddum and Attar. Although their lunar god
was Waddum, they also sacrificed to Attar (Pritchard, vol. 2, p. 235).
Hadrami inscritions, as we have already learnt from Morey's book, reveal that
the name of the Moon-god in that region was Sin. Pritchard's collection of inscriptions
confirms this. Sin was the principal Hadrami lunar god (Pritchard, vol. 2, p.
238).
Here, however, we catch a glimpse of the identity of the god Attar we heard
about from the Sabaean and Minaean inscriptions. One inscription here reads:
...to Sin, He of 'Ilum, and to Attar, his father. (Pritchard,
vol. 2, p. 238).
Quite revealing! This shows that the Moon-god Sin had a father Attar who was
also a god. So for these people the Moon-god was not the high god.
This again disproves Morey. Morey kept telling us that the Moon-god was the
high god among the pagans. Now we know that he was not only different in name
from the high God Allah but that he also had a father. Allah, of
course, was never believed to have a father.
A Qatabanian inscription from Timna recognises the god 'Anbay (Pritchard, vol.
2, p. 238). And this 'Anbay is the moon divinity 'Anbay (Pritchard vol. 2, p.
236). Another god 'Amm is also mentioned (p. 237).
One Qatabanian rock inscription is quite revealing. It shows the name of a
previously unknown god written as 'lyn, consonants only. What vowels should
complete that word? Pritchard and his contributors observe that 'lyn
may be graphically compared with the divine epitheton
in the Old Testament, 'elyon ('lywn; e.g., Dt 32:8); (Pritchard, vol. 2, p.
239).
So the God of the Bible was worshipped here too. Would Morey make this clear?
back to contents
Back to the Real Issue
I had to deal with Morey's contention in some depth to uncover his deceptions
and mistakes because his speeches and writings have misled many people. But
at the end of the day his theory is rather silly.
Even if he was able to show that the North Arabs in Mecca worshipped the Moon-god,
and even if he was able to show that they used to call this Moon-god Allah,
this still does not prove that Allah in Islam is a Moon-god. To prove
or disprove this he needs to show what the Qur'an teaches about moon worship.
The Qur'an, however, clearly refutes moon-worship. The Qur'an says:
Adore not the sun and the moon, but adore Allah who created
them... (Qur'an 41:37).
But Morey is not interested in letting his readers know what the Qur'an says.
In his book The Islamic Invasion Morey gave a
description of the Sabaeans and their religion. He says:
The Sabeans had an astral religion in which they worshipped
heavenly bodies. The moon was viewed as a male deity and the sun as a female
deity. Together they produced other deities such as the stars. The Qur'an
refers to this Sura 41:37 and elsewhere (Morey, Islamic Invasion, p.
42).
More mentioned Sura 41:37 from the Qur'an but he did not reveal what
the verse says. But I have quoted it above to reveal what Morey wishes to conceal.
If he would let his readers know what that verse says his deception would crumble.
He did not even say that the Qur'an in that verse prohibits the worship
of the sun and moon. He merely says that the Qur'an refers to this in
Sura 41:37 and elsewhere. If his readers understand from this that the Qur'an
accepts the worship of the sun and the moon, Morey's aims would be accomplished.
Morey should realise that as a scholar he has an academic obligation to make
honest use of his sources. He should also recall that as a Christian he ought
to speak the truth always.
back to contents
Morey's Folly
Morey thinks that if he can prove that the pagan Arabs at the time of the Prophet
Muhammad (pbuh) worshipped the Moon-god and called him Allah, then
he will have proved that
Islam is nothing more than a revival of the ancient Moon-god
cult (Morey, p. 15).
Perhaps we can help rescue him from his folly by pointing to what he has already
admitted. On pages 10-11 of his book he wrote that al-ilah means "the deity."
Well, in that case, when a message about the true God comes to them what are
they supposed to call the true God? The non-deity? Of course they will call
Him by the names and titles they already know for deity. But they will be no
longer calling out to their pagan gods although they are still using the same
title or name meaning deity.
If Morey still cannot understand this we can draw his attention to the Old
Testament which uses the ancient Babylonian and Canaanite name for god "El."
We do not accuse the Old Testament in that case of idolatry. So why does Morey
seek to insult the Qur'an in this way?
Or, we can draw his attention to the New Testament. There God is referred to
as ho theos. Does Morey realise that the worshippers of Jupiter referred also
to Jupiter as ho theos? Would Morey then accuse the New Testament writers of
reviving the worship of Jupiter?
Or, read Acts chapter 17. Athens was a major centre of idolatry, but the people
there also worshipped what they called "an unknown god." When Paul
had an opportunity to address them, he spoke thus:
Men of Athens! I see that in every way you are very religious.
For as I walked around and looked carefully at your objects of worship, I
even found an altar with this inscription: To An Unknown God. Now what you
worship as something unknown I am going to proclaim to you (Acts 17:22-23).
Would Morey take issue with Paul for this? You see what Paul has done. He noticed
an altar dedicated to an unknown god and realised that in addition to all their
idols, they also worshipped the true God. Their problem, however, was that they
did not know enough about the true God, and Paul aimed to now fix that with
his preaching.
In a similar way the pagan Arabs worshipped 360 idols, but they also worshipped
the true God. Their problem was that they did not know enough about the true
God. So God commissioned his Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) to fix that with
his preaching.
The message of Paul to the Athenians and of Muhammad to the Arabians
was not that they should forget about the unseen god in whom they believed.
The message was that they should come to accurate knowledge about Him.
Alternatively, we may argue the point using Morey's patent argument, in which
we would present the following facts and then draw a conclusion. This would
establish the absurdity of Morey's Moon-god-in-Islam theory.
Fact #1:
Morey has already convinced us that Moon worship was prevalent in the Bible
region of Hazor in Palestine, and the archaeological findings confirm that fact.
Fact #2:
The name of the Moon-god corresponds with El according to Coon, whom Morey
cites as an authority.
Fact #3:
The Bible tells us that El created the heavens and the earth.
Conclusion from above facts:
Morey must conclude that the Bible recommends Moon-worship.
Of course Morey will resist this conclusion because the Bible reject Moon-worship.
But, then, I also resist Morey's conclusion that Islam recommends Moon-worship.
Why? Because the Qur'an condemns Moon-worship in the verse which Morey wished
to conceal.
That verse reads:
Adore not the sun and the moon, but adore Allah who created
them...(Qur'an 41:37).
back to contents
The Crescent Moon in Islam
Morey asks a few questions on page 14 of book to plant a thought in the minds
of his readers. He asks:
Is it any wonder then that the symbol of Islam is the
crescent moon? That a crescent moon sits on top of their mosque and minarets?
That a crescent moon is found on the flags of Islamic nations? That the Muslims
fast during the month which begins and ends with the appearance of the crescent
moon in the sky? (Morey, p.14).
Of course Morey does not state his conclusions about these facts. He wants
his readers to draw the conclusion that these facts prove that Muslims are worshipping
the Moon-god. But Morey does not state the conclusion because he knows it does
not follow from those facts.
The fact that the symbol of Islam is the crescent moon does not mean that Muslims
worship the moon. The farthest thing from the Muslim mind is to worship anything
or anyone other than God. That would be the sin of shirk, association of another
in worship - a sin that is unforgiveable except by repentance.
No, the symbol of a religion is not necessarily an object of worship. The symbol
of Daoism is the ying-yang symbol, but Daoists do not worship it. The symbol
of Buddhism is the eight-spoke wheel, but Buddhists do not worship it. Muslims
also do not worship the crescent moon, just as the early Christians also did
not worship their fish symbol. And many present-day Christians do not worship
the cross although they display it everywhere.
It is another question as to how the crescent became the symbol of Islam. The
Qur'an and the hadith do not give this significance to the crescent moon.
And for the first several centuries of Islam the crescent was not a symbol of
Islam. Morey may have a good point if he encourages Muslims to revert to the
practice of the ideal period of Islam, the first three generations of Muslims,
when there was no such symbol used for identifying the religion of God. But
to stretch this and conclude from it what does not follow is to go beyond the
bounds of truth.
Morey did not make that mistake, but his book led Jack T. Chick to make it.
Whether such an effect was intended by Morey is between him and God. Where that
leaves Jack Chick is also up to God. Jack Chick wrote a tiny booklet entitled
Allah Had No Son in which he depicts some Muslims in their mosque prostrating
on the floor in worship of "their moon god" (Jack T. Chick, Allah
Had No Son, US, Chick Publications, 1994; p. 1).
Morey does however make mention of the fact that Muslims use the appearance
of the crescent moon in the sky to mark the beginning and end of their month
of fasting. It is highly fallacious to connect this with moon worship. Many
people regulate much of their affairs based on a solar calendar. This does not
mean anything for sun-worship does it?
Jews and Muslims regulate their religious festivals and observance using the
lunar calendar. Would Morey then accuse the Jews of moon-worship?
Note: After I had already written what I wrote above by way of excusing Morey
for Chick's mistake, I came across a leaflet claiming that the crescent is the
god of Muslims. The leaflet does not name its author, but it is published by
the Research and Education Foundation of which Robert Morey is the director.
back to contents
Questions Answered
The Christian acquaintance who sent me a copy of Morey's booklet also sent
me five questions related to this subject. I will attempt to answer them below:
Question 1:
What is the significance of the crescent moon in Islam?
Answer:
The Qur'an answers this question before you asked it. Read this verse:
They ask you about the new moons. Say: These are signs
to mark fixed periods of time for mankind and for the pilgrimage (Qur'an 2:189).
Question 2:
Why does Islam follow a lunar calendar?
Answer:
In both the Bible and the Qur'an religious festivals are regulated by the lunar
calendar. Jews and Muslims have kept to these regulations which they believe
to be from God. Why does Christianity follow a solar calendar?
Question 3:
Why is the feast of Ramadan marked by the appearance of the crescent moon?
Answer:
I think you mean the fast of Ramadan. God commanded Muslims in the Qur'an
to fast from dawn to sunset during the month called Ramadan (see Qur'an
2:185, 187). The beginning and end of the month is determined by the crescent
(2:189) based on the instruction of God's Messenger, on whom be peace.
Why this method and not another is not for us to say but for God and His Messenger
to prescribe. However, I find it an efficient method. It is a universally applicable
method, and it allows for Ramadan to move through all the seasons. This allows
believers to have the pleasure of worshipping God by fasting in all the various
seasons: one year in the summer, some years later in the winter.
Question 4:
Why does the Qur'an place the Sabeans on the same level with Jews
and Christians when scholars have clearly proven that the Sabeans were involved
in the moon cult?
Answer:
I am not aware that the Qur'an has placed the Sabeans on the same level
with Jews and Christians. Perhaps you have in mind the following verse:
Those who believe and those who are Jews and Christians and Sabians, whoever
believes in Allah and the Last Day and do righteous good deeds shall have
their reward with their Lord. On them shall be no fear, nor shall they grieve.
(Qur'an 2:62; also 5:69).
This verse, however, does not place the Sabeans on the same level as the Jews
and Christians except in a particular context. The verse speaks of four distinct
communities, and offers all four the opportunity to fear not nor grieve if only
they would believe in Allah and the Last Day and do right. The four communities
are:
(a) the Believers (i.e., the Muslims)
(b) the Jews
(c) the Christians and
(d) the Sabeans.
While they are all offered the same opportunity for improvement, nothing, is
said in this verse about the validity of the existing faiths of these four communities.
Otherwise the Jews and Christians who are criticized in the Qur'an for
their deviations will not be placed on the same level with the believers. The
matter becomes clear when you realise that believers here does not mean saved
persons but those who ostensibly belong to the community of Muslims. They, as
well as the other three groups, must do the following to be saved: believe in
Allah, believe in the Last Day, and do right. Doing right, according to
the Qur'an, includes following every teaching of Muhammad.
Questions 5:
Did the Meccans worship the true God since they recognized Allah?
Was Allah one of the gods of the Ka'bah? And if so, where did the Meccans
derive the recognition and the name of Allah from?
Answer:
First, Allah was not one of the 360 idols which were in the Ka'bah, although
Morey has claimed this without evidence. When the Prophet Muhammad (pbuh)
entered Meccah victorious he went into the Ka'bah and broke the idols therein.
Allah to the Arabs was the Lord of the Ka'bah. He was the unseen God whom they
would call upon when in distress. Yes, they worshipped the true God but their
worship was not purely for Him. They also worshipped other gods thinking that
they would act as intermediaries between them and the true God Allah.
The Arabs know of Allah because Abraham visited Meccah and together with his
son Ishmael laid the foundation of the Ka'bah. The descendants of Ishmael retained
some of the worship rites and beliefs from Abraham. This included their knowledge
of the true God Allah.
Elsewhere I have shown conclusively that the true god El of the Bible is the
same as Allah of the Qur'an. Please refer to Yahweh,
Jehovah, or Allah - What is God's Real Name? by Shabir Ally.
back to contents
Works Cited
Asimov, Isaac. Asimovs Guide to the Bible (US,
Avon, 1968).
Boyd, Robert T. Tells, Tombs and Treasure (US,
Bonanza Books, 1969).
Chick, Jack T. Allah had No Son (US, Chick Publications,
1994).
Keller, Werner. The Bible As History (US, Hodder
and Stoughton, 1980).
Keller, Werner. The Bible As History in Pictures
(US, William Morrow and Company, 1964).
Magnusson, Magnus. Archaeology Of The Bible
(US, Simon and Schuster, 1977).
Morey, Robert. The Islamic Invasion (US, Harvest
House, 1992).
Morey, Robert. The Moon-God Allah in The Archaeology
of the Middle East (Newport, PA., Research & Education Foundation,
1994).
Schonfield, Hugh J. The Passover Plot (US, Bantam,
1965).
St.Clair-Tisdall, W. The Sources of Islam (Scotland,
T & T.Clark, no date).
The New American Bible (US, Catholic Book Publishing
Co., 1986).
back to contents
Appendix
Robert Morey's Deceptive Methods
His use of false quotations and other dishonest tactics to prove that Allah
is a Moon-god. Adapted from the book Common Questions
People Ask About Islam by Shabir Ally.
Questions 7
Dr. Robert Morey proves in his book that Allah is the name of the moon god
worshipped in Arabia before Islam. Is he right?
Answer
The book you refer to is entitled The Islamic Invasion:
Confronting the World's Fastest Growing Religion. The author, Dr. Robert
Morey, sees Islam as an invasion into North America and a threat to his religious
heritage. Unfortunately, Dr. Morey has resorted to dishonest tactics in combatting
Islam. To prove his contention that Allah is not the God of Christians and Jews,
he quoted from several books in such a dishonest fashion that the quotations
say the opposite of what we find in those books.
Dr. Morey quoted from the Encyclopedia Britannica to support his case. But
in fact the Encyclopedia says:
Allah is the standard Arabic word for "God"
and is used by Arab Christians as well as by Muslims (Britannica, 1990
Edition, vol. 1, p.276).
Dr. Morey also quoted from H. A. R. Gibb to support his case. But Gibb actually
says the opposite. In his book Mohammedanism,
Gibb says on page 26 that both Muhammad and his opponents believed in
the existence of a supreme God Allah. Gibb further explained this on pages 37-38.
Dr. Morey should have checked his references more carefully before his book
went into print.
Dr. Morey said that Alfred Guillaume agrees with him, and he refers to page
7 of Alfred Guillaume's book entitled Islam. But here is what Alfred Guillaume
actually says on page 7 of his book:
In Arabia Allah was known from Christian and Jewish sources
as the one God, and there can be no doubt whatever that he was known to the
pagan Arabs of Mecca as the supreme being.
How could Dr. Morey misquote like this?
Dr. Morey quoted from page 28 of a book by another non-Muslim writer Caesar
Farah. But when we refer to that book we find that Dr. Morey gave only a partial
quotation which leaves out the main discussion. The book actually says that
the God who was called Il by the Babylonians and El by the Israelites was called
ilah, al-ilah, and eventually Allah in Arabia. Farah, says further on page 31
that before Islam the pagans had already believed that Allah is the supreme
deity. Of course they had 360 idols, but, contrary to Dr. Morey's assertion,
Allah was never one of the 360 idols. As Caesar Farah points out on page 56,
the Prophet Muhammad, on whom be peace, personally destroyed those idols.
Dr. Morey also quoted from William Montgomery Watt. But Watt says on page 26
of his book that the Arabic word Allah is similar to the Greek term ho
theos which we know is the way God is referred to in the New Testament.
Dr. Morey quoted from Kenneth Cragg's book entitled The
Call of the Minaret. However, on page 36 of Kenneth Cragg's book we find
the following:
Since both Christian and Muslim faiths believe in One
supreme sovereign Creator-God, they are obviously referring when they speak
of Him, under whatever terms, to the same Being.
Further on the same page, Cragg explains that the One whom the Muslims call
Allah is the same One whom the Christians call 'the God and Father of
our Lord Jesus Christ.' although the two faiths understand Him differently.
Dr. Morey should know that as a scholar he has the academic obligation to quote
honestly. He should also know that as a follower of Jesus, on whom be peace,
he has an obligation to speak the truth.
back to contents
Back To Refutation Of Sources
Of The Qur'an
