This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This article was nominated for deletion on 31 January 2012 (UTC). The result of the discussion was keep. |
Pagans using the word, Allah, before emergence of Islam in Arabian peninsula is a known fact. However, are there any scholars that propose this word is derived from moon-God? Because, if there are none, and the theory of "Moon-God Allah" is only proposed by some unknown writers then there is notability issue.-- Kazemita1 ( talk) 02:14, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
Please specify exactly which quote you have in mind, because there isnt even a single quote from Morey in the entire article.
I also invite you to add to the article by expanding the refuting arguments offered by Islamic scholars. I have already made a section for it. This theory was around before Morey and the evangelists picked up on it. Nightryder84 ( talk) 19:13, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
"Robert Morey claims that God in Islam is in origin the moon god Hubal.[38] " Please, let me know who -other than the Christian writers- talks about this theory? -- Kazemita1 ( talk) 02:27, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
In my opinion it would be most useful to merge the scholarly quotes of this article with either Allah or Hubal articles. To give you an idea, right now the article Hubal does not even say the word represents the moon-god!
Regardless of whether people agree with my suggestion (merging) or not, the non-scholarly sources need to be removed from the article.-- Kazemita1 ( talk) 06:52, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
Please allow 1-2 months for gradual construction of the article, and improvement of the text and sources.
I plan to thoroughly expand the Islamic view section of the article to make the article balanced and as pleasing as possible to both sides.
But I need time for this (I have teaching and research obligations to attend to. 10 min/day is all I can afford for the time being). Please dont make huge edits, or mess with major chunks of the article so that I can revise them and implement the changes gradually. Thanks.-- Nightryder84 ( talk) 08:52, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
You still owe us notability proof.
Here is the final word that this article lacks notability(more or less fringe theory):
((A fringe theory can be considered notable enough for a dedicated article if it has been referenced extensively, and in a serious manner, in at least one major publication, or by a notable group or individual that is independent of the theory.)) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Fringe_theories#Reliable_sources — Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.228.223.214 ( talk) 09:11, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
The central problem is that this article is hopelessly confused. It just jumbles up in a chaotic manner all sorts of stuff from Christian fundamentalists, Muslim tradition and modern secular scholarship, along with antiquated speculation from Carleton S. Coon (!) among others. The result is an unreadable mess. On balance I think this is a notable subject, though I've completed the deletion nomination so that it can go through the proper procedure. I think it needs to be broken up into clear sections rather than have arguments and refuations and refutations-of-refutations combined together. We need a section on Fundamentalist Christian use of this 'moon god' argument. Another section on Muslim views and a third on secular scholarship. We could also have a separate bit on the history of moon imagery in Islam, with some comments on that. Paul B ( talk) 17:15, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
An image used in this article,
File:Blackstone.JPG, has been nominated for deletion at
Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests March 2012
Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so.
To take part in any discussion, or to review a more detailed deletion rationale please visit the relevant image page (File:Blackstone.JPG) This is Bot placed notification, another user has nominated/tagged the image -- CommonsNotificationBot ( talk) 00:55, 27 March 2012 (UTC) |
Some portion of this should be given, or at least mention that Noja's assertions and theories are challenged and responded to in this manner. Historylover4 ( talk) 09:46, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
The portion of this article http://www.islamic-awareness.org/Quran/Sources/Allah/hubal.html dealing with Noja's claims details how Noja claimed that a supposed "Ha-Baʿal" somehow allegedly (with no evidence as the article I quote form demonstrates) alleged "transformed" into Hubal and that this was somehow allegedly associated with the word Allah. This wikipedia page simply stated Noja's claims, Noja is one person and his theory has been discredited, yet this page is promoting it with giving the response to it. The scholarly article I quoted from (linked above) again shows by archaeology that this is simply not possible; and as they stated "For the name bʿl (i.e., Baʿal) to become bl (i.e., Baal) with the loss of ʿayn, it would have to have been transmitted through a language such as Akkadian or Punic in which the ʿayn had disappeared." The article then noted that in Palmyrene (a Semitic dialect from Palmyra in central Syria http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palmyrene_dialect) the Ancient North Arabian definite article h- or hn- is not used (i.e. this Ancient North Arabian definite article has been shown by scholarship in linguists, archeology to have not been used in the Palmyrene dialect or script). There article then noted that the linguistic bʿl with the Semitic Ayin (used in Arabic today as well) again exists in the Arabic language itself as a common noun and is specifically mentioned in Qur'an Surah 37:125 condemning the idol called Ba'l and saying to only worship Allah. And then lastly the article http://www.islamic-awareness.org/Quran/Sources/Allah/hubal.html notes that Hubal and Ba'al are also not connected because "The Nabataean inscriptions also show a clear distinction between Hubal and Baʿalshamin (derived from the Ugaritic deity Baʿlu) always existed, and that they were considered two distinct deities. Thus it would be very difficult to argue that Arabic had received the word or name by either the Palmyrene route, let alone why it had been given an Ancient North Arabian definite article." So some mention of the fact that Noja's theory is largely baseless and has holes shot all through it should at least be mentioned and have the article I posted linked to it. I'm not a master in linguistics but do you have a serious disagreement with the points made by the source? That article provided which the notes itself: "Acknowledgements One of the authors (MSMS) would like to thank both Dr. M. C. A. Macdonald and Dr. R. Hoyland for stimulating discussions on ancient North Arabian and ancient South Arabian epigraphies."
http://www.orinst.ox.ac.uk/staff/iw/rhoyland.html http://krc.orient.ox.ac.uk/krc/index.php/staff/27-mr-michael-macdonald
So shouldn't these scholars that were used for the article I give, be weighed against the baseless theories of Noja and at least mentioned in this article instead of just saying "Noja said this"!
Historylover4 ( talk) 16:05, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
"put forth by some Evangelical Christian groups" doesn't appear to accurately reflect the content of the article. Dougweller ( talk) 21:48, 28 December 2012 (UTC)
This seems to be a WP:NOR attempt to use the imagery although it doesn't appear that any of the sources discuss the subject. Dougweller ( talk) 21:51, 28 December 2012 (UTC)
I am unable to add this content to the article since an automated edit filter prevents the edit.
On the other hand A Malaysian court has ruled that non-Muslims can not use the word "Allah" to refer to God. "Outside the court" as Asia News reported it, "a hundred Muslim activists waved placards and chanted slogans in which they maintained that the word Allah be "exclusively" used by Muslims. [1]
-- Casperville ( talk) 08:14, 19 October 2013 (UTC)
This is in fact a disputed issue. That is, there are clearly two different opinions regarding whether Allah is a moon-god or not. But this article uses a tone that makes a reader believe that the Islamist point-of-view is valid and prevailing. Please rewrite the article by giving equal importance and validity for both arguments. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.90.101.183 ( talk) 09:02, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
The introduction lists this as a meme? Are we sure this qualifies for meme status? Sabre ball t c 15:46, 23 December 2013 (UTC)
It may have meme status, or "notable fringe" status, but it shouldn't be presented as a serious topic of "God in Islam" or similar. This is entirely an item of poorly-researched Christian fundamentalist pamphlets in the US. "Allah as Moon-god" probably isn't the best page name under WP:NAME. If this page is to be salvaged, we will need to cite secondary literature about the meme/idea. -- dab (𒁳) 13:10, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
On another page, @ Doug Weller: and I had a discussion over what to label Farzana Hassan. Because her viewpoint as past president of a Muslim society might be said to be poorly disposed to her subject ( Christian proponents) I suggested "Muslim apologist". Mr Weller thought otherwise, and reverted a lengthy pull-quote that I had deleted. I'm easy, although I think the lengthy pull-quote might better be summarised as a paraphrase. Spem Reduxit ( talk) 02:12, 15 June 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Allah as Moon-god. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 18 January 2022).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 05:45, 2 July 2017 (UTC)
I noticed that some sources appear to be blogs or personal self-published sites. These should usually be replaced by reliable scholarly sources like peer reviewed publications and books ( WP:RS). Some examples of non-reliable sources cited:
Also, examples of Muslim indignation are not necessary, what is necessary is to instead find a source which mentions that there is indignation for verifiability ( WP:V), otherwise the statement is original synthesis ( WP:SYNTH). Thanks, — Paleo Neonate - 10:31, 10 July 2017 (UTC)
This article is formatted as some sort of strange rebuttal to a series of existing articles including Allah, Islamic calendar, Star and crescent, Hubal, God in Islam, etc. If the information there stands up the scrutiny of the Wiki elite I don't see why the relevant passages can't be merged into their respective articles.
Although personally I must admit it reeks of bias against Muslims and literally the first sentence describes the entire article as a " Fringe theory " proposed by evangelicals.
You'll have to put in a move request asking it to be moved to a different name, see WP:RM#CM to find out how to do it. It's too controversial to do without more input. Doug Weller talk 14:12, 8 November 2017 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: not moved. ( non-admin closure) Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga ( talk • mail) 02:44, 16 November 2017 (UTC)
Allah as moon god → Islam as a Moon Cult – I know how offensive it sounds, but the result of the above merger proposal concluded that neither deletion nor merger was possible as this is apparently a valid fringe theory. This rename will remove the ambiguity of the equivalent statement "God as Moon God" and eliminate the offensive use of a name some consider divine. While at the same time the suggestion made by Morey, Chick etc that the god of Islam is a pagan Arab moon god is preserved. No matter how erroneous and obnoxious 68.4.165.110 ( talk) 14:38, 8 November 2017 (UTC)
Instead, move to
Allah as a moon god or
Allah as a lunar god: We should not pursue
WP:CONCISE to the point of using
telegraphic writing. Regardless which one, make the other work as a redirect.
—
SMcCandlish
☏
¢ >ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ< 12:29, 9 November 2017 (UTC); 12:39, 9 November 2017 (UTC)
So many pages cover this same material: Allah, Islamic calendar, Star and crescent, Hubal, God in Islam, El, Elohim, Elahi, History of Islam, List of lunar deities. I'm still not sure why this article continues to exist other than to promote the idea that Muslims worship the moon. It obscures itself behind an etymological discussion of the history of the world "Allah" and Pre-Islamic Arabian history, but the writers of this article know that the content here would not pass the wikipedia test if they were to try merging it with allah, God in Islam, or Pre-Islamic Arabia. Or even why it can't be merged into the articles of its proponents Robert Morey (pastor), Jack Chick, etc.
Even Jesus cried out " "Eli, Eli, lema sabachthani?" on the cross according to Matthew & Mark. Elahi (אלהי) is Aramaic and means "My God." Elah means God (Name for God as 'Awesome One') in Aramaic.
Apparently no merger, rename, or anything else of the sort will improve this article. I give up, sometimes dealing with wikipedia is like banging your head against a brick wall. Good luck to all the editors who strive everyday to remove POV nonsense, personal bias, open hatred, and redundant articles from this site.
P.S. I am not even Muslim. — Preceding unsigned comment added by [[User:{{{1}}}|{{{1}}}]] ([[User talk:{{{1}}}#top|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/{{{1}}}|contribs]])
The article is in complete disarray, but the topic is certainly valid.
It is just necessary to separate the 1990s evangelical stuff from the actual scholarship.
Of course Islam incorporated pre-Islamic traditions, and the Kaaba is the prime example of that.
Apparently there are good grounds for stating that the Kaaba was previously dedicated to Hubal (?) and that Hubal had also been given the epithet of Allah ("the god"), which could be given to any "chief" deity.
This is completely uncontroversial and in no way translates to "Islam is a moon cult", which is of course nonsense. It would be more correct to say that "Islam replaced, among other things, a moon cult, and there are explicit provisions intended to suppress this tradition, which nevertheless remains visible in vestigial form here and there". The 1990s thing is notable in its own right, as religious propaganda, but is completely separate from the factual debate. -- dab (𒁳) 13:10, 7 May 2018 (UTC)
The file Flag of the Islamic Republic of Turkestan.svg on Wikimedia Commons has been nominated for deletion. View and participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. Community Tech bot ( talk) 15:21, 28 May 2018 (UTC)
Hi everyone, I came across this page in search of facts. What are the theories? What are opinions?
But the very first sentence on the page is loaded with personal opinion and bias: "Fringe theory". I have tried to remove the word "fringe" and someone keeps reverting it.
I respect your opinion that the allah of islam is NOT based on a moon god. But to label others who have researched this topic, some from the 19th century, and have published scholarly books and articles, as "fringe" is biased and NOT neutral.
Allah as a lunar deity is a theory, that's all.
I don't know who owns this page (did you make a "contribution" for it?). To whoever it is: Why don't you offer facts, citations from both sides? Why don't you let people think for themselves and make up their minds?. Why don't you offer page content written in a neutral manner?
Otherwise, my opinion of Wikipedia just sank to a lower level than it was as before.
Now Wikipedia would silence those who attempt to make a tiny change to render a single phrase truly neutral. Scary.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Germaine58 ( talk • contribs)
There is a "Muslim response" section which cites an author claiming the god of Islam, Judaism, and Christianity is the same god.
I'm not sure why this statement is on this page, but it's patently false.
This is supposed to be a page about the Islamic god having origins in a lunar deity and how preposterous that notion is, right?
I added a section attempting to correct the Muslim statement about the Jewish God, but someone removed it? Because?— Preceding unsigned comment added by Germaine58 ( talk • contribs)
The two new single purpose accounts have been Checkuser blocked. However, I see that at the moment they've prevailed over the "fringe bit". @ Jim1138, Katolophyromai, DanielRigal, and Emir of Wikipedia: we need to discuss this as well as the sources, one being a Professor of History and Middle Eastern Studies at Biola University. Doug Weller talk 05:59, 12 August 2018 (UTC)
How is this a linguistic hoax? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.135.43.11 ( talk) 22:11, 4 September 2019 (UTC)
The "Evidence adduced" section looks like OR. Many sources there aren't talking about Allah as a moon god, but significance of moon in the Islamic calendar, usage of moon as a symbol in Muslim cultures etc. This article should probably only have three sections: the original theory/hoax of Allah as a moon god, Muslim responses to it, and scholarly views. VR talk 00:29, 20 August 2020 (UTC)
Don't know if this is original research or not, but it seems relevant to me that Iah (jꜥḥ) was an Egyptian word for moon, and worshipped as a God.
It seems significant enough to be mentioned, at least somewhere in the article, but I am hoping maybe someone knows some research on this. Mechachleopteryx ( talk) 21:39, 11 January 2023 (UTC)
I have begun the process of addressing the longstanding maintenance tags on this article. I have started by removing unsupported material and the more obvious unreliable sources. Unrelated and tangential material has also been removed. The etymology section remains poorly connected to the theme of the article. It might be better merged in the scholarly views section. Iskandar323 ( talk) 17:45, 12 January 2023 (UTC)
There is an essential need for clear-cut mention of his mistake in the lead. Since his opinion was a fringy idea. See WP:FRINGE. Stop deliberately trying to conceal it. StarkReport ( talk) 11:29, 14 February 2023 (UTC)
There is nothing of substance to engage with here. Just blank assertion. |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
When in the first sentence you exert a claim it no longer seems as a source of information but a opinionated piece. It's historical fact that, majority of Middle East before Islam worshiped the moon God "Lah", the letters AL in Arabic mean "the" the word is Allah literally means The Lah referring to the moon God. This is exactly why wiki has lost all its credibility, no control just opinionated articles masquerading as facts. Elove444 ( talk) 08:58, 6 November 2023 (UTC)
|
Is the insult thing encyclopedically relevant?
People oftne mock another religion by calling it names, this one isn't special. VenusFeuerFalle ( talk) 15:12, 8 December 2023 (UTC)
This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This article was nominated for deletion on 31 January 2012 (UTC). The result of the discussion was keep. |
Pagans using the word, Allah, before emergence of Islam in Arabian peninsula is a known fact. However, are there any scholars that propose this word is derived from moon-God? Because, if there are none, and the theory of "Moon-God Allah" is only proposed by some unknown writers then there is notability issue.-- Kazemita1 ( talk) 02:14, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
Please specify exactly which quote you have in mind, because there isnt even a single quote from Morey in the entire article.
I also invite you to add to the article by expanding the refuting arguments offered by Islamic scholars. I have already made a section for it. This theory was around before Morey and the evangelists picked up on it. Nightryder84 ( talk) 19:13, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
"Robert Morey claims that God in Islam is in origin the moon god Hubal.[38] " Please, let me know who -other than the Christian writers- talks about this theory? -- Kazemita1 ( talk) 02:27, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
In my opinion it would be most useful to merge the scholarly quotes of this article with either Allah or Hubal articles. To give you an idea, right now the article Hubal does not even say the word represents the moon-god!
Regardless of whether people agree with my suggestion (merging) or not, the non-scholarly sources need to be removed from the article.-- Kazemita1 ( talk) 06:52, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
Please allow 1-2 months for gradual construction of the article, and improvement of the text and sources.
I plan to thoroughly expand the Islamic view section of the article to make the article balanced and as pleasing as possible to both sides.
But I need time for this (I have teaching and research obligations to attend to. 10 min/day is all I can afford for the time being). Please dont make huge edits, or mess with major chunks of the article so that I can revise them and implement the changes gradually. Thanks.-- Nightryder84 ( talk) 08:52, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
You still owe us notability proof.
Here is the final word that this article lacks notability(more or less fringe theory):
((A fringe theory can be considered notable enough for a dedicated article if it has been referenced extensively, and in a serious manner, in at least one major publication, or by a notable group or individual that is independent of the theory.)) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Fringe_theories#Reliable_sources — Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.228.223.214 ( talk) 09:11, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
The central problem is that this article is hopelessly confused. It just jumbles up in a chaotic manner all sorts of stuff from Christian fundamentalists, Muslim tradition and modern secular scholarship, along with antiquated speculation from Carleton S. Coon (!) among others. The result is an unreadable mess. On balance I think this is a notable subject, though I've completed the deletion nomination so that it can go through the proper procedure. I think it needs to be broken up into clear sections rather than have arguments and refuations and refutations-of-refutations combined together. We need a section on Fundamentalist Christian use of this 'moon god' argument. Another section on Muslim views and a third on secular scholarship. We could also have a separate bit on the history of moon imagery in Islam, with some comments on that. Paul B ( talk) 17:15, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
An image used in this article,
File:Blackstone.JPG, has been nominated for deletion at
Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests March 2012
Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so.
To take part in any discussion, or to review a more detailed deletion rationale please visit the relevant image page (File:Blackstone.JPG) This is Bot placed notification, another user has nominated/tagged the image -- CommonsNotificationBot ( talk) 00:55, 27 March 2012 (UTC) |
Some portion of this should be given, or at least mention that Noja's assertions and theories are challenged and responded to in this manner. Historylover4 ( talk) 09:46, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
The portion of this article http://www.islamic-awareness.org/Quran/Sources/Allah/hubal.html dealing with Noja's claims details how Noja claimed that a supposed "Ha-Baʿal" somehow allegedly (with no evidence as the article I quote form demonstrates) alleged "transformed" into Hubal and that this was somehow allegedly associated with the word Allah. This wikipedia page simply stated Noja's claims, Noja is one person and his theory has been discredited, yet this page is promoting it with giving the response to it. The scholarly article I quoted from (linked above) again shows by archaeology that this is simply not possible; and as they stated "For the name bʿl (i.e., Baʿal) to become bl (i.e., Baal) with the loss of ʿayn, it would have to have been transmitted through a language such as Akkadian or Punic in which the ʿayn had disappeared." The article then noted that in Palmyrene (a Semitic dialect from Palmyra in central Syria http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palmyrene_dialect) the Ancient North Arabian definite article h- or hn- is not used (i.e. this Ancient North Arabian definite article has been shown by scholarship in linguists, archeology to have not been used in the Palmyrene dialect or script). There article then noted that the linguistic bʿl with the Semitic Ayin (used in Arabic today as well) again exists in the Arabic language itself as a common noun and is specifically mentioned in Qur'an Surah 37:125 condemning the idol called Ba'l and saying to only worship Allah. And then lastly the article http://www.islamic-awareness.org/Quran/Sources/Allah/hubal.html notes that Hubal and Ba'al are also not connected because "The Nabataean inscriptions also show a clear distinction between Hubal and Baʿalshamin (derived from the Ugaritic deity Baʿlu) always existed, and that they were considered two distinct deities. Thus it would be very difficult to argue that Arabic had received the word or name by either the Palmyrene route, let alone why it had been given an Ancient North Arabian definite article." So some mention of the fact that Noja's theory is largely baseless and has holes shot all through it should at least be mentioned and have the article I posted linked to it. I'm not a master in linguistics but do you have a serious disagreement with the points made by the source? That article provided which the notes itself: "Acknowledgements One of the authors (MSMS) would like to thank both Dr. M. C. A. Macdonald and Dr. R. Hoyland for stimulating discussions on ancient North Arabian and ancient South Arabian epigraphies."
http://www.orinst.ox.ac.uk/staff/iw/rhoyland.html http://krc.orient.ox.ac.uk/krc/index.php/staff/27-mr-michael-macdonald
So shouldn't these scholars that were used for the article I give, be weighed against the baseless theories of Noja and at least mentioned in this article instead of just saying "Noja said this"!
Historylover4 ( talk) 16:05, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
"put forth by some Evangelical Christian groups" doesn't appear to accurately reflect the content of the article. Dougweller ( talk) 21:48, 28 December 2012 (UTC)
This seems to be a WP:NOR attempt to use the imagery although it doesn't appear that any of the sources discuss the subject. Dougweller ( talk) 21:51, 28 December 2012 (UTC)
I am unable to add this content to the article since an automated edit filter prevents the edit.
On the other hand A Malaysian court has ruled that non-Muslims can not use the word "Allah" to refer to God. "Outside the court" as Asia News reported it, "a hundred Muslim activists waved placards and chanted slogans in which they maintained that the word Allah be "exclusively" used by Muslims. [1]
-- Casperville ( talk) 08:14, 19 October 2013 (UTC)
This is in fact a disputed issue. That is, there are clearly two different opinions regarding whether Allah is a moon-god or not. But this article uses a tone that makes a reader believe that the Islamist point-of-view is valid and prevailing. Please rewrite the article by giving equal importance and validity for both arguments. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.90.101.183 ( talk) 09:02, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
The introduction lists this as a meme? Are we sure this qualifies for meme status? Sabre ball t c 15:46, 23 December 2013 (UTC)
It may have meme status, or "notable fringe" status, but it shouldn't be presented as a serious topic of "God in Islam" or similar. This is entirely an item of poorly-researched Christian fundamentalist pamphlets in the US. "Allah as Moon-god" probably isn't the best page name under WP:NAME. If this page is to be salvaged, we will need to cite secondary literature about the meme/idea. -- dab (𒁳) 13:10, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
On another page, @ Doug Weller: and I had a discussion over what to label Farzana Hassan. Because her viewpoint as past president of a Muslim society might be said to be poorly disposed to her subject ( Christian proponents) I suggested "Muslim apologist". Mr Weller thought otherwise, and reverted a lengthy pull-quote that I had deleted. I'm easy, although I think the lengthy pull-quote might better be summarised as a paraphrase. Spem Reduxit ( talk) 02:12, 15 June 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Allah as Moon-god. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 18 January 2022).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 05:45, 2 July 2017 (UTC)
I noticed that some sources appear to be blogs or personal self-published sites. These should usually be replaced by reliable scholarly sources like peer reviewed publications and books ( WP:RS). Some examples of non-reliable sources cited:
Also, examples of Muslim indignation are not necessary, what is necessary is to instead find a source which mentions that there is indignation for verifiability ( WP:V), otherwise the statement is original synthesis ( WP:SYNTH). Thanks, — Paleo Neonate - 10:31, 10 July 2017 (UTC)
This article is formatted as some sort of strange rebuttal to a series of existing articles including Allah, Islamic calendar, Star and crescent, Hubal, God in Islam, etc. If the information there stands up the scrutiny of the Wiki elite I don't see why the relevant passages can't be merged into their respective articles.
Although personally I must admit it reeks of bias against Muslims and literally the first sentence describes the entire article as a " Fringe theory " proposed by evangelicals.
You'll have to put in a move request asking it to be moved to a different name, see WP:RM#CM to find out how to do it. It's too controversial to do without more input. Doug Weller talk 14:12, 8 November 2017 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: not moved. ( non-admin closure) Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga ( talk • mail) 02:44, 16 November 2017 (UTC)
Allah as moon god → Islam as a Moon Cult – I know how offensive it sounds, but the result of the above merger proposal concluded that neither deletion nor merger was possible as this is apparently a valid fringe theory. This rename will remove the ambiguity of the equivalent statement "God as Moon God" and eliminate the offensive use of a name some consider divine. While at the same time the suggestion made by Morey, Chick etc that the god of Islam is a pagan Arab moon god is preserved. No matter how erroneous and obnoxious 68.4.165.110 ( talk) 14:38, 8 November 2017 (UTC)
Instead, move to
Allah as a moon god or
Allah as a lunar god: We should not pursue
WP:CONCISE to the point of using
telegraphic writing. Regardless which one, make the other work as a redirect.
—
SMcCandlish
☏
¢ >ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ< 12:29, 9 November 2017 (UTC); 12:39, 9 November 2017 (UTC)
So many pages cover this same material: Allah, Islamic calendar, Star and crescent, Hubal, God in Islam, El, Elohim, Elahi, History of Islam, List of lunar deities. I'm still not sure why this article continues to exist other than to promote the idea that Muslims worship the moon. It obscures itself behind an etymological discussion of the history of the world "Allah" and Pre-Islamic Arabian history, but the writers of this article know that the content here would not pass the wikipedia test if they were to try merging it with allah, God in Islam, or Pre-Islamic Arabia. Or even why it can't be merged into the articles of its proponents Robert Morey (pastor), Jack Chick, etc.
Even Jesus cried out " "Eli, Eli, lema sabachthani?" on the cross according to Matthew & Mark. Elahi (אלהי) is Aramaic and means "My God." Elah means God (Name for God as 'Awesome One') in Aramaic.
Apparently no merger, rename, or anything else of the sort will improve this article. I give up, sometimes dealing with wikipedia is like banging your head against a brick wall. Good luck to all the editors who strive everyday to remove POV nonsense, personal bias, open hatred, and redundant articles from this site.
P.S. I am not even Muslim. — Preceding unsigned comment added by [[User:{{{1}}}|{{{1}}}]] ([[User talk:{{{1}}}#top|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/{{{1}}}|contribs]])
The article is in complete disarray, but the topic is certainly valid.
It is just necessary to separate the 1990s evangelical stuff from the actual scholarship.
Of course Islam incorporated pre-Islamic traditions, and the Kaaba is the prime example of that.
Apparently there are good grounds for stating that the Kaaba was previously dedicated to Hubal (?) and that Hubal had also been given the epithet of Allah ("the god"), which could be given to any "chief" deity.
This is completely uncontroversial and in no way translates to "Islam is a moon cult", which is of course nonsense. It would be more correct to say that "Islam replaced, among other things, a moon cult, and there are explicit provisions intended to suppress this tradition, which nevertheless remains visible in vestigial form here and there". The 1990s thing is notable in its own right, as religious propaganda, but is completely separate from the factual debate. -- dab (𒁳) 13:10, 7 May 2018 (UTC)
The file Flag of the Islamic Republic of Turkestan.svg on Wikimedia Commons has been nominated for deletion. View and participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. Community Tech bot ( talk) 15:21, 28 May 2018 (UTC)
Hi everyone, I came across this page in search of facts. What are the theories? What are opinions?
But the very first sentence on the page is loaded with personal opinion and bias: "Fringe theory". I have tried to remove the word "fringe" and someone keeps reverting it.
I respect your opinion that the allah of islam is NOT based on a moon god. But to label others who have researched this topic, some from the 19th century, and have published scholarly books and articles, as "fringe" is biased and NOT neutral.
Allah as a lunar deity is a theory, that's all.
I don't know who owns this page (did you make a "contribution" for it?). To whoever it is: Why don't you offer facts, citations from both sides? Why don't you let people think for themselves and make up their minds?. Why don't you offer page content written in a neutral manner?
Otherwise, my opinion of Wikipedia just sank to a lower level than it was as before.
Now Wikipedia would silence those who attempt to make a tiny change to render a single phrase truly neutral. Scary.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Germaine58 ( talk • contribs)
There is a "Muslim response" section which cites an author claiming the god of Islam, Judaism, and Christianity is the same god.
I'm not sure why this statement is on this page, but it's patently false.
This is supposed to be a page about the Islamic god having origins in a lunar deity and how preposterous that notion is, right?
I added a section attempting to correct the Muslim statement about the Jewish God, but someone removed it? Because?— Preceding unsigned comment added by Germaine58 ( talk • contribs)
The two new single purpose accounts have been Checkuser blocked. However, I see that at the moment they've prevailed over the "fringe bit". @ Jim1138, Katolophyromai, DanielRigal, and Emir of Wikipedia: we need to discuss this as well as the sources, one being a Professor of History and Middle Eastern Studies at Biola University. Doug Weller talk 05:59, 12 August 2018 (UTC)
How is this a linguistic hoax? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.135.43.11 ( talk) 22:11, 4 September 2019 (UTC)
The "Evidence adduced" section looks like OR. Many sources there aren't talking about Allah as a moon god, but significance of moon in the Islamic calendar, usage of moon as a symbol in Muslim cultures etc. This article should probably only have three sections: the original theory/hoax of Allah as a moon god, Muslim responses to it, and scholarly views. VR talk 00:29, 20 August 2020 (UTC)
Don't know if this is original research or not, but it seems relevant to me that Iah (jꜥḥ) was an Egyptian word for moon, and worshipped as a God.
It seems significant enough to be mentioned, at least somewhere in the article, but I am hoping maybe someone knows some research on this. Mechachleopteryx ( talk) 21:39, 11 January 2023 (UTC)
I have begun the process of addressing the longstanding maintenance tags on this article. I have started by removing unsupported material and the more obvious unreliable sources. Unrelated and tangential material has also been removed. The etymology section remains poorly connected to the theme of the article. It might be better merged in the scholarly views section. Iskandar323 ( talk) 17:45, 12 January 2023 (UTC)
There is an essential need for clear-cut mention of his mistake in the lead. Since his opinion was a fringy idea. See WP:FRINGE. Stop deliberately trying to conceal it. StarkReport ( talk) 11:29, 14 February 2023 (UTC)
There is nothing of substance to engage with here. Just blank assertion. |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
When in the first sentence you exert a claim it no longer seems as a source of information but a opinionated piece. It's historical fact that, majority of Middle East before Islam worshiped the moon God "Lah", the letters AL in Arabic mean "the" the word is Allah literally means The Lah referring to the moon God. This is exactly why wiki has lost all its credibility, no control just opinionated articles masquerading as facts. Elove444 ( talk) 08:58, 6 November 2023 (UTC)
|
Is the insult thing encyclopedically relevant?
People oftne mock another religion by calling it names, this one isn't special. VenusFeuerFalle ( talk) 15:12, 8 December 2023 (UTC)