Allah in the Quran, Chapter 2

 

WAS HUBAL A THIRD NAME FOR AL-LAH (ALLAH)?

001 Hubal was a central god in the old pagan Arabia. But his history and his role through the times are not entirely clear. Some sources claim he was a version of al-Lah/Allah, something Islam vehemently denies. Other sources tell that What is clear, is that he like said was a central god in Mecca (his name also was found in what today is Syria and Iraq), and that he was a god for divination and a moon god. Some sources say that the Kabah temple - later mosque - originally was dedicated to Hubal. The second part of his name, -bal, may indicate that he was one of the gods called Ba'l, Bal, Ba'al, or Baal (originally = the title "Lord" or "High Lord" or something like that, later also used as a name or part of a name). But what is unclear, is if Hubal was a separate god, or another name for al-Lah/Allah in Mecca - f.x. that it in Mecca originally had been the name of the imported statue which represented the high god al-Lah/Allah, and then the name over time came to represent the god al-Lah/Allah himself as a third name. Or if the statue also represented an imported high god different from al-Lah/Allah.

002 The first place one finds him as a god, is among the Nabateans - a North Arab people in what is now north Arabia, Sinai, Syria, and Jordan, and as far east as Euphrates. Also Islam agrees to that Hubal was imported. It is not clear exactly where the Hubal god and statue in the Kabah in Mecca was imported from, but it is clear it was from the north. But was he imported as a statue named Hubal, meant to represent al-Lah/Allah = just another name for al-Lah/Allah, or was also the distant god imported?

003 case: Was Hubal another name for al-Lah (also named Allah)? Al-Lah was known also among the northern Arab tribes, and there are several points pointing to that Hubal really was another name for him. It f.x. is highly unlikely that the Meccans (tradition tells it was done by a man named Amr ibn Luhayy) would buy a heavy and very expensive statue (made from red carnelian, but with his right hand from gold) to represent the high god of Mecca, and transport it hundreds of miles through desert and wilderness to Mecca, and there placed him in a big temple which seems to already have been dedicated to al-Lah (Karen Armstrong: At the time of Muhammad it was dedicated to the name Hubal, which seems at least originally to have been the name of the statue), unless it was a statue in some way connected to their main god. This also because in the old Arabia there usually was only one male god in a temple. There might be one or several female ones in addition, but only one male one. Thus there cannot have been statues of both Hubal and al/Lah/Allah if they were different (male) gods. Another indication for that Hubal = al-Lah/Allah.

004 There also is another point we have not been aware of: Normally one reads that in the Kabah there were 360 idols. (We have wondered how there could be space for that many - the Kabah is large, but not that large.) But it turns out that this is not quite correct - the majority was placed outside the temple. (Malise Ruthven: Islam in the world, p. 15). Then it was quite possible to have only one male god inside, and of course the main god, and the other male ones outside. There is no doubt and it is not disputed that the statue of Hubal was inside the temple. There also is no doubt that he was the moon god.

005 It is known that al-Lah - earlier named al-Ilah/Il - was a moon god. Even today al-Lah/Allah (and Islam) has the (crescent) moon as his and the religion's symbol.

006 Further: It is told that 'Abd-al-Muttalib (the grandfather of Muhammad) once stood beside the statue of Hubal and prayed to al-Lah/Allah (both names were used at that time). Islam drops the rule that there should be only one male god in a temple/mosque, and tells that this must mean there also had to be an idol for al-Lah/Allah inside. He stood beside Hubal and prayed to another idol somewhere else in the big building, they claim.

007 But if we stick to the rule that there only was one male god in a temple/mosque, this story simply tells that he stood near the statue - perhaps facing it - and prayed to al-Lah/Allah via the statue named Hubal.

008 Further: We repeat that when Muhammad cleaned out the Kabah when he took over Mecca, it is described that the idols outside, the idols of al-Lat, al-Uzza, Manat (the 3 main female goddesses), and the statue of Hubal were destroyed. But if there is told about the destruction of an idol for the pagan al-Lah/Allah, we have overlooked it. And if no such statue was destroyed, there was no such one - Muhammad had all idols/statues destroyed. This in case means that there only was one male god represented inside: Hubal/al-Lah/Allah.

009 ##Our conclusion: There is no doubt and not disputed that al-Lah and Allah were two names for the same god. There is no doubt, and it is not disputed that Muhammad took over this god, declared he was the only real god, declared that he in reality was the same god as Yahweh, and accepted only the name Allah. When it comes to Hubal, we find that it is likely, but not proved - but far from disproved - that he was a third name for the god Hubal/al-Lah/Allah. (Islam strongly denies this, but have so weak facts that they have to use slander, etc. as strong arguments (repeated use of words like "missioners" is slander in this connection - and there are other negative words used.))

-----------------------------------------------------------------

010 It also is pretty thought provoking that f.x. all the errors, contradictions, wrong facts, etc., only and alone, in the Quran, prove 100% that there is no god behind that book. And that f.x. the fact that Jesus accepted OT as correct religion, proves to both Christians and Muslims that the OT was not falsified at that time - and that the Qumran scrolls prove that even OT was not falsified any time later, too, as their texts are identical to the same texts in OT.

011 It further is an insult to that possible god to "explain" that his texts means something different from what they really says = you are more clever than him at explaining what the god "really" meant, than the god is himself, even when he tries to explain things "clearly and easy to understand", and says his words are to be understood literally and without hidden meanings. Also only "the sick of heart" look for hidden meanings behind his words, according to the Quran - the very claimed hidden meanings the wise Muslims claim are what Allah really meant, but was unable to express clearly himself, so that they have to help the bumbling god and tell what he "really" tried to say. This in spite of that the Quran clearly states that meanings hidden behind Allah's clear and easy to understand words, only are possible for Allah to understand, and like said above are "only for the sick of heart" to look for.

012 May be as bad: To claim that the Quran means something different from what the texts clearly say, is to falsify the quranic texts.

Finally: Always when you read the Quran, Hadiths, and other Islamic books, you should remember that Muhammad accepted the use of and himself used dishonesty in many forms in words and deeds. Even if the names are younger, it was he who institutionalized dishonesty like al-Taqiyya (the lawful lie), Kitman (the lawful half-truth), Hilah (the lawful pretending/circumventing), the use of deceit ("war is deceit" - and "everything" is war), betrayal (f.x. the peace delegation from Khaybar), and even the disuse of oaths (2/225, 5/89, 16/91, 66/2 - and the star case 3/54 (if Allah could cheat, cheating is ok)), which also includes the disuse of words and promises, as they are weaker than oaths = when oaths can be disused, so can words and promises. On top of this it is very clear from the Quran and all other central Islamic books, that Muhammad also liked respect and power and women. Combine these lusts with his acceptance of and personal use of dishonesty - even the gravest kinds: How reliable is that kind of men normally? - and how true and reliable are their never proved claims and tales?

12 comments. Sub-total = 20 + 12 = 32.


>>> Go to Next Chapter

>>> Go to Previous Chapter

This work was upload with assistance of M. A. Khan, editor of islam-watch.org and the author of "Islamic Jihad: A Legacy of Forced Conversion, Imperialism, and Slavery".