This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Islam Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Islam, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Islam-related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.IslamWikipedia:WikiProject IslamTemplate:WikiProject IslamIslam-related articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Mythology Low‑importance This article is supported by WikiProject Mythology. This project provides a central approach to Mythology-related subjects on Wikipedia. Please participate by editing the article, and help us assess and improve articles to good and 1.0 standards, or visit the WikiProject page for more details.MythologyWikipedia:WikiProject MythologyTemplate:WikiProject MythologyMythology articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Skepticism Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Skepticism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of science, pseudoscience, pseudohistory and skepticism related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SkepticismWikipedia:WikiProject SkepticismTemplate:WikiProject SkepticismSkepticism articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Linguistics Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Linguistics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of linguistics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.LinguisticsWikipedia:WikiProject LinguisticsTemplate:WikiProject LinguisticsLinguistics articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. History Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject History, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the subject of History on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.HistoryWikipedia:WikiProject HistoryTemplate:WikiProject Historyhistory articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Arab world Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Arab world, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the Arab world on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Arab worldWikipedia:WikiProject Arab worldTemplate:WikiProject Arab worldArab world articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Religion: Interfaith Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Religion, a project to improve Wikipedia's articles on Religion-related subjects. Please participate by editing the article, and help us assess and improve articles to good and 1.0 standards, or visit the wikiproject page for more details.ReligionWikipedia:WikiProject ReligionTemplate:WikiProject ReligionReligion articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is within the scope of Interfaith work group, a work group which is currently considered to be inactive. Christianity: Theology Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Christianity, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Christianity on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ChristianityWikipedia:WikiProject ChristianityTemplate:WikiProject ChristianityChristianity articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by theology work group (assessed as Low-importance). United States Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

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)[reply]

The scholars have been directly quoted in the article.Nightryder84 (talk) 02:35, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Are you talking about the quotes from these sources:

^ http://www.bible.ca/islam/islam-moon-god-allah.htm

^ http://www.biblebelievers.org.au/moongod.htm

^ http://www.letusreason.org/islam6.htm

or quotes from Robert Morey?( who openly discredits any faith other than evangelical Christianity)

If not, please, specifically quote the scholars, who support such a theory. Because, so far the article more or less appears to be Robert Morey's thesis which does not bring notability for the subject.--Kazemita1 (talk) 14:54, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

Thank you for your response Nightryder. By quotes from Robert Morey, I mean any sentence that addresses his claims as you put in the following sentence:

"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)[reply]

References from Helmer Ringgren, Åke V. Ström and J. Wellhausen also appear in that same section, following Morey.--Nightryder84 (talk) 21:18, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. Yes, they do and those two are indeed scholarly sources. However, they do not say what Morey is saying(look for the word "however" in your edit right before mentioning the two scholarly opinions). Morey and other "missionary" sources you have in the article are essentially trying to equate the word Muslim with the word pagan(ref. to "the moon-god cult" article among the current sources). The scholarly sources however, are not saying that. They are just talking about the common usage of the word Allah in the pagan society before Islam and common linguistic roots with other pagan god names. Which is not a mystery, as the word "God" was also used in the pagan England before Christianity came to that land.

What I see here is an original research that tries to fill the gap between the scholarly quotes and Morey's claims.

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)[reply]

• Please look at the references more closely. Wellhausen in fact was the first to claim Hubal=Allah. He was followed by the other scholars mentioned. If you wish, I can add their quotes too. Morey only publicized the theory. It wasnt his theory to begin with.
• Hubal was a Moon God. It is an established fact. If you noticed, it's article is categorized under "lunar deities".
• I disagree with a merge, because this article is not about Allah. It is about a theory that some scholars hold about a continuity of deities during the advent of Islam. Mind you, it is all only a theory. The article doesnt claim any truths. Besides, I plan to expand the article gradually and thoroughly.
• I agree. The self-published sources need to be removed, and they will be gradually replaced by better sources. There are plenty of sources available even if we take out Morey. As time goes by, I will improve the sources.
• Again, I ask that you help expand the "muslim view" section. I'm sure there are quite a number of counter arguments from the Islamic side.Nightryder84 (talk) 09:46, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

I've tried to simplify this so that it makes some kind of sense. I've cut out a lot of irrelevant stuff, which just confuses matters - including the Satanic Verses material. Altogether there was a confusion between the issues of the origin and meaning of the word "Allah", with the scholarly debate about beliefs in pre-Islamic Arabia, which, of course included an idea that Allah had children, or existed along with other gods - as the Quran itself attests. The specific role of Hubal in all this also got buried in the chaos. I hope it is clearer now. The sourcing is still a bit problematic. Paul B (talk) 21:14, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I removed the lead image of worshippers of Sin in 2100BC. It's difficult to see how worship of Sin in Mesopotamia nearly 3000 years earlier is related to the religious beliefs in Mecca in the time of Mohammad. Also, I can find no serious evidence outside evangelistic literature that Hubal was a "moon god". Nothing in the Islamic tradition identifies him as such and scholarship on the topic does not describe him in those terms either. John F. Healey's The religion of the Nabataeans: a conspectus has a detailed discussion of evidence for Hubal, but says nothing about any connection to the moon. Mircea Eliade says he is a "a god of rain and a warrior god". He is certainly described as a moon god in some general encyclopedias, but not in more specialist texts. I think we need to look in more detail at where this idea that Hubal was a "moon god" actually comes from. I suspect it's old speculation that's just regurgitated as fact in generalist literature. Paul B (talk) 14:23, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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 What should I do? 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. If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use) If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used. 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)[reply]

Historylover, you are just adding great chunks of text taken from a website. Some it repeats word for word what is already in the article. Most of it is almost completely irrelevant, since it is about a projected etymology of "Hubal" as a contraction of "Ha-Baʿal". Frankly, this has almost no relevance to the topic. It wouldn't matter very much if it was or was not derived from Ha-Baʿal, so there is no reason to bang on and on about it in the article. Frankly, you don't seem to understand the text you are inserting, and so cannot distinguish relevant from irrelevant material. This just makes the article itself virtually unreadable and unintelligable. Paul B (talk) 09:20, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The response to Noja's claims should be given, this is clearly shown with the quote, "Using archaeology, it was shown that such a transformation is unlikely. 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. This would give in Akkadian Bel and in Punic Bol. Both these forms were present at Palmyra . But the problem is that Palmyrene does not use the Ancient North Arabian definite article h- or hn-. Moreover, the word bʿl, with the ʿayn, exists in Arabic as a common noun, and as the name of a pre-Islamic idol mentioned in the Qur'an 37:125. The ʿayn is a proper consonant and it remained pronounced into Islamic times. 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."

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)[reply]

Why should it be given? Tell me how the alleged derivation of the name "Hubal" from Ha Ba'al materially affects the question of whether or not Allah is a "moon god". In the context of the website from which you have copied this material this is part of a quite complex argument. To be honest, I have no confidence that you have any clear idea of how it is connected to the pertinant issues. All that is being claimed is that the word Hubal translates as "the Baal", which means "the Lord". Allah translates as "the God"; "the Lord" and "the god" can be interpreted as "the same thing". Well, obviously that would apply to any god who can be called "the god" or "the lord". Every god you can think of can be "the same thing" There are lots of gods whose names are "related" to El/Allah in this way. This whole argument is just a massive and totally confused red herring. Paul B (talk) 11:33, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

Again, you are showing that you really have no idea what is even being argued. Firstly, Noja's theories have not been "discredited". A website provides some arguments against them, arguments that you swallow as authoritative. On what grounds? (here is an attempted refutation of their refutation [1]). All you do is parrot the words of the website again. Again this has NOTHING WHATEVER TO DO WITH THE SUBJECT. I repeat, can you tell me what difference it makes to whether or not Allah is a moon god if "Hubal" does or does not derive from "ha baal"? How is this even relevant? The fact that other gods have Baal in their name is also irrelevant. Baal just means 'lord' (see Beelshamen). It might be relevant to the article on Hubal, in which a section on the etymology of the name could be added, but not to this one. In fact it is so utterly irrelevant I cannot even see why Noja is here in the first place. I guess it's because of the provocative title of his article, rather than its actual argument. The argument that Hubal comes from Baal, whether true or false, is entirely consistent with mainstream Islam, so I cannot see the point in arguing strenuously against it. Regarding Noja, his article was published in an academic journal, whereas the scholars you mention apparently had "stimulating discussions" with one of the writers of the webpage. I've had "stimulating discussions" with experts on many topics. That would not make my webpage a reliable source unless I were myself a published expert. Paul B (talk) 16:28, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

An interesting story, but it has nothing whatever to do with the topic of this article. It would be relevant to the Allah article. Paul B (talk) 16:47, 19 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

How come it as irrelevant? The article says the name 'Allah' is just Arabic word for 'God'. If it was the case, then Muslims would have not opposed anyone else using the term to describe their own gods. The verdict of Malaysian court proves that 'Allah' is not just a translation of 'God'. It is exclusive to Islam like Jehova to Judaism and Christianity. Therefore this information should be mentioned in the article to ensure NPOV. Also there is another saying of Muslims "La ilaha il-allah" which means "There is no god other than Allah". If Allah means simply 'god', how would you interpret this sentence? "There is no god other than god?" - Casperville (talk) 12:59, 21 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In any case, a Malaysian court verdict is good for a ban on people using the word, but not as a source for the meaning of the word. We've had people try to use US court verdicts the same way - courts aren't reliable sources for anything other than the law. Not for history, etymology, etc. And "There is no god but God" is fine, see [2] and [3] for instance. Dougweller (talk) 16:26, 21 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about the claim that Allah is a "moon god", a topic to which the Indonesian debate is totally unconnected. The verdict of Malaysian court "proves" nothing except the law in Malaysia, a country which does not have legislative rights to determine Semitic etymology. Your last sentence makes no sense to me. The literal translation of Allah is "The God". The word/prefix "Al" means "the". See Al-. The sentence literally translates as "there is no god but The God". See Allah#Etymology. Paul B (talk) 16:27, 21 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

See WP:FRINGE. It not the "Islamist" POV that Allah is not a "moon god". It is the POV of all legitimate scholars of the topic, whatever their religion. We do not give equal validity to mainstream and to fringe views. Paul B (talk) 09:40, 22 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Since Allah just means "the god", it is perfectly possible that there was some pre-Islamic Moon god addressed by this name. The fringe idea is that this has any kind of implication for Islam. It does not, and no scholar, no matter how critical of Islam, would suggest such a thing. If this is notable, it is entirely notable on its own merit as a fringy idea that became popular in poorly-researched US Christian pamphlets in the 1990s. --dab (𒁳) 13:13, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

Well it's an idea that propagates because it suits the psychological needs of a section of US society, not because of its intrinsic merits. Anyway, what would be the qualification? Paul B (talk) 15:56, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120324053202/http://www12.georgetown.edu/sfs/docs/Jack_J_Shaheen_Arab_and_Muslim_Stereotyping_in_American_Popular_Culture_1997.pdf to http://www12.georgetown.edu/sfs/docs/Jack_J_Shaheen_Arab_and_Muslim_Stereotyping_in_American_Popular_Culture_1997.pdf

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: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:45, 2 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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:

• muslim-responses.com
• etori.tripod.com
• callingchristians.com
• neareastupdate.blogspot.my
• Possibly bismikaallahuma.org (this one is being discussed at WP:RSN now)

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, —PaleoNeonate - 10:31, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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.

See WP:NFRINGE. Wikipedia's policy is that popular fringe theories should be covered, but should be treated as fringe theories and should not be given undue acceptance. We have other articles that deal with noteworthy fringe theories, such as Christ Myth theory, Young Earth Creationism, Holocaust denial, Moon landing conspiracy theories, and so on. Some parts of this article do have major issues that need to be repaired, but I am strongly opposed to it being merged with another article. Also, take note that if one searches for "Allah as Moon-god" right now in Google this article is the first one that pops up, but the next six articles that appear are all ones supporting the argument written by evangelicals. If we delete this article, then those will be the first ones to appear, which means that anyone who is genuinely curious and searching for an answer will end up reading the articles arguing in favor of the theory and will find no articles that even mention the fact that the theory is fringe. --Katolophyromai (talk) 10:40, 8 November 2017

My concern is the fact that we have multiple articles on the same topic. Which is I'm sure the pet peeve of all editors. I strongly support dissolving this content into their respective main topics. To be quite honest this article is a mess, clearly some editors are scholars pondering the etymology and evolution of diety over time.... while others seem to believe Muslims literally worship the moon. (Whether they realize it or not). Which unfortunately is a complete and total falsehood not a theory. Even if encyclopedia brttanica said it all you would have to do is ask any of the billions of Muslims if they worship the moon and you will find out very quickly.

Wikipedia is written in a summary style; we frequently spin topics out to separate-but-related articles in order to keep the main articles focused and at a reasonable length. Given the amount of content in this article, I think it's clear that there is enough to say about the fringe theory of "Allah as Moon-god" to maintain a separate article.

I agree with you fully that this "theory" (or position, or whatever) is a total falsehood, a fringe theory perpetuated by evangelical Christians who have a clear anti-Muslim bias. With that in mind, it should be obvious that merging the content of this article to Allah would be completely inappropriate. If we merged this information to the "Allah" article, it would give the impression that Wikipedia treats the moon-god theory as a legitimate theological position. Of course, it is not a legitimate theological position, so we should not treat it as though it is. A merge would be far more inappropriate and insulting to Islam than maintaining a separate article that clearly spells out the biased nature of the moon-god claim.

As an aside, please sign your posts by adding ~~~~ to the end of them so we can keep track of who is posting what. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 12:13, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I see, then might I suggest in the spirit of clarity we rename this article "Muslims as Moon Worshippers" and see how long it lasts. Because as you suggest this is not about the history of the word Allah and it's use pre-islam because that artcle already exists elsewhere. In truth this article is about the merits of "The claim that Allah was worshipped as a moon god in Arabia". Worshiped by whom and when? In addition the consensus opinion of the vast majority of human beings on earth is that allah is an Arabic synonym for the English word God. So it reads "God was worshiped as a moon-god" an unclear statement at best. Once again if this is about whether some Arabians may have in some historical period used the word Allah to describe a moon diety then we should have no problem merging it somewhere. 68.4.165.110 (talk) 12:26, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That rename would be inappropriate, because it implies, wrongly, that Muslims worship the moon. You and I both agree that that is patent nonsense. Muslims do not worship the moon, nor have they ever. This article does not exist to imply that Muslims worship the moon, or that Allah was actually a moon god at some point in theological history. This article exists to explain that certain biased individuals have made this claim for their own biased reasons, and then explains that this claim has no historical or theological basis. It isn't perfect (few articles on Wikipedia are), but it in fact exists to clarify the situation. Your efforts to blank, delete, or merge the article actually run counter to that explanatory purpose. You would be better served by improving the article to include more citations from Islamic or other theological scholars refuting the theory, so that we can better inform the reader exactly what about the claim is untrue and why someone would want to lie about it anyway. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 12:51, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I agree my suggestion would be innapproriate, that's my whole point. As it stands according to the widely accepted dictionary definition of the modern usage of the word allah, the title of page still reads "God as Moon-God". Which is not only nonsensical but already inappropriate because it reveals both a cultural and linguistic bias that the English word for God refers to God but if you translate it into Arabic it no longer does. I'm sure an article on lunar diaries already exists, as well as articles on Arabian history and culture. Once again if we restate it as "The claim that (the word) Allah (at some time in preislamic arabian history was used to describe a moon god)" Then this article would either have been merged or deleted long ago. Clearly the "fringe theory" put forth by morey and chick and dicussed in this article is that "Christians and Jews worship true god while Muslims worship a moon (i.e false) God.". Which is more than fringe,it is entirely unprovable either way, as is everything which relates to God. 68.4.165.110 (talk) 13:16, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Typical usage of the word "Allah" in the English language refers to God in Islam. That may not be linguistically correct for Arabic, but English is like that - it swipes words from every language by the handful and refactors them to suit itself. If you have an issue with that, you'll unfortunately need to take it up with centuries of linguistic evolution. English Wikipedia uses English terms, and this article is correctly titled for the English-language audience, given that it discusses the claim that the god of Islam, popularly known in English as Allah, was once worshipped as a moon god. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 13:36, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

IP, you really need to take this somewhere else. I see it as exposing a slur on Muslims, not biased against them, but if you think it violates WP:NPOV take it ti WP:NPOVN. If you think it should be deleted, take it to WP:AfD but you'll fail as it passes WP:NOTABLITY. We have a lot of articles about things that are wrong, that are disgusting, that are evil, but that just reflects reality. It looks as though no one wants to merge this. Doug Weller talk 13:47, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Fine rename The article "Islam as Moon Cult" because "The God of Islam was once worshipped as a moon-god" makes no sense. Either this article is about the history of the word Allah and its usage by arabs OR it is about the theory that the God of Islam is a false (moon) God. It cannot be both. If it is the latter I'm sure you can see how no amount of research will ever prove or disprove the falseness or veracity of the god of this or that faith. Especially one that is still active to this day. Wikipedia is for facts not matters of opinion, feeling, or even faith no matter how strong or unwavering. Which is way I proposed this merger. I will look into mr.wellers suggestions but at the very least a we should consider a rename. Because right now the title is both offensive and embarrassing for Wikipedia. Thank you for your time. 68.4.165.110 (talk) 13:59, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

Since we've migrated to a move request rather than a merge, I've removed the merge tag from this page. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 14:19, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)

@Germaine58: No one "owns" this Wikipedia page. All articles are shared communally and any editor in good standing is allowed to edit (although edits may always be reverted by other editors). "Contributions" are just free will donations to the Wikimedia Foundation; no one here receives any kind of special privileges for donating. Here on Wikipedia, all information must be cited to reliable, scholarly sources and our coverage is based on what reputable scholars have written. The fact is that, at least as far as I and the others who have contributed to this page are aware, there is not a single contemporary, critical scholar who supports the idea that the God of Islam (whom westerners usually refer to as "Allah," even though that is actually just the Arabic word for "God" and is also used by Arabic-speaking Jews and Christians) originated as a lunar deity. If you can provide a citation to a scholarly source supporting this theory that meets our standards for a reliable source then, maybe, we can consider some kind of compromise here. If, on the other hand, you cannot provide any reliable, scholarly sources supporting the argument, then we will continue to treat it as a fringe theory. --Katolophyromai (talk) 21:32, 11 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Katolophyromai: Let's separate the ideas "Muslims worship a moongod" and "Allah (as either a name or a title) was historically associated with the moon by Meccan polytheists". The first need not be given credence. But the second is a valid hypothesis and should not be silenced by fanaticism or political correctness. No one is suppressing theories that the war god Yahweh used to be part of an older pantheon using clues within the Bible and outside. Likewise Meccan polytheists considered the same Allah as a major god who had two/three daughters. This is recorded in the Quran itself and not subject to dispute. There is very little doubt that Allah was part of the Meccan pantheon before Mohammed. It is entirely probable that the same god was associated with the moon, whose cycles are a major determinant of Arab culture. The fact that Christians use the term Allah is rather irrelevant. In Hindi translations of the Bible, 'Parameshvar' is the term used for God/Elohim, just like 'Allah' is in Arabic. Without explicit Christian context however, 'Parameshvar' refers to Shiva, a powerful god in the Hindu pantheon. --RexSceleratorum (talk) 08:51, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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)

Please stop with this nonsense. It is utterly uncontroversial that all three Abrahamic religions share a common creation myth and worship the same god, which they all believe to be the only god. Each religion accepts that the others worship the same god but believe that the others have incorrect and/or incomplete ideas about that god. Those who insist on the contrary are either very ignorant of religious matters or they are deliberately seeking to spread confusion, division and bad feeling for sectarian ends. Please do not get tricked into playing that game because it is one that nobody ever wins. --DanielRigal (talk) 22:20, 11 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Judaism and Christianity do share a common creation myth (recorded in the Book of Genesis). Islam however has a separate creation myth and cosmology, no doubt inspired by the former, as recorded in the Quran and the hadiths. I wouldn't call any differences that entail from this as "utterly uncontroversial". --RexSceleratorum (talk) 09:03, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

Emir of Wikipedia did some cleanup after the two SPAs and I wasn't sure whether to put "fringe theory" back or not as Emir of Wikipedia marked the sources as questionable. Neither source uses the actual word "fringe" although they make it clear that this is very much non-mainstream, so I think "fringe" is a reasonable characterisation of what they say. One of the sources is a Blogger blog, which very often indicates non-RS, but as it is the blog of a history professor with a clear byline I think it is OK. Loonwatch is almost certainly not RS. My suspicion is that this theory is so deeply fringe that most respectable thinkers simply don't feel the need to write about it much. Christian thinkers possibly also find it embarrassing. My feeling is to put it back but also to try to find a better source to replace Loonwatch. --DanielRigal (talk) 10:12, 12 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@DanielRigal: I suspect most experts have never even heard of this theory, since, as far as I am aware, most professors of Near Eastern studies are not exactly avid devourers of Chick Tracts. This theory has about as much academic respectability as those utterly inane Easter=Ishtar memes that pop up every spring. --Katolophyromai (talk) 13:08, 12 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

How is this a linguistic hoax? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.135.43.11 (talk) 22:11, 4 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

Muslim usage of a lunar calendar is based on Jewish usage of the same to orient their various rituals.2601:140:8900:61D0:2D3B:32F9:E385:993D (talk) 02:56, 8 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

@StarkReport Are you really not familiar with WP:AGF? In any case the article was just heavily edited. The idea that I would support fringe is a pathetic joke. Doug Weller talk 13:20, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I guess I should ping User:Iskandar323 Doug Weller talk 13:22, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If you closely look at any other Wikipedia article about fringe or conspiracy theories, we usually write words like "wrongly" or "erroneously" right before the content about their proponent claims. We remain neutral if the both opposing views are a part of mainstream and not unsubstantiated fringy claims. Now you said you do not in any way support fringe ideas, why are you so unaccommodating, on me putting a single word. StarkReport (talk) 02:53, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

What if the sentence was "Hugo Winckler mistook the pre-Islamic Arabian god Hubal, whom he referred to as a lunar god, for the name Allah." Would that work? StarkReport (talk) 03:02, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Winckler wasn't obviously intending to push a fringe theory when he made the proposition; he was an academic that put forward an idea based on limited information/flawed assumptions. 19th-century Near Eastern studies was often conducted in this manner. In any case, the lead already makes clear that the idea is rejected by modern scholarship, so what's the issue? Iskandar323 (talk) 06:35, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Readers are lazy. Maybe we shouldn't wait until the third paragraph to inform the reader about the fact that the idea hasn't gained much traction among scholars. Can we add something at the beginning of the second paragraph like "While generally dismissed by subsequent scholarship, the idea was widely propagated in the United States..."? –Austronesier (talk) 20:37, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, that would be fine too. Patricia Crone dismissed it in 1987, so chronologically the idea was junked as a theory well before its evangelical propagation in 1994 (not that one would be expecting facts). Iskandar323 (talk) 03:53, 16 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

What is this 'relevance'? It was said by an academic in an academic source, so it's perfectly due, no? Iskandar323 (talk) 16:45, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Another term for it is WP:ONUS. So let's engage with VFF's constructive question. –Austronesier (talk) 17:02, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]