What does this mean! [Pre-islamic Arab Creed]

  • Thread starter Thread starter tru_nigga
  • Start date Start date
  • Replies Replies 32
  • Views Views 11K
T

tru_nigga

Active member
Messages
40
Reaction score
0
THIS WILL TAKE 3 POSTS

The question was asked what these verses mean:

39:3 Now surely sincere obedience is due to Allah (alone). And those who choose protectors besides Him (say): We serve them only that they may bring us nearer to Allah. Surely Allah will judge between them in that in which they differ. Surely Allah guides not him who is a liar, ungrateful.

10:18 They serve, besides Allah, things that hurt them not nor profit them, and they say: "These are our intercessors with Allah." Say: "Do ye indeed inform Allah of something He knows not, in the heavens or on earth?- Glory to Him! and far is He above the partners they ascribe (to Him)!"

31:25 If thou ask them, who it is that created the heavens and the earth. They will certainly say, "(Allah)". Say: "Praise be to Allah." But most of them understand not.

(23:84-87) Muhammad), say to them, "Tell me, if you know, to whom does the earth and its contents belong?" They will quickly reply, "It belongs to God." Say, "Will you not, then, take heed?" Ask tthem, "Who is the Lord of the seven heavens and the Great Throne?"
They will quickly say, "It is God." Say, "Will you not then have fear of Him?"

So the question is, if the pagan arabs believed that God is the controller of the universe, why did they worship other dieties then?

Lets look at the meaning of these verses:

The Henotheism of pre Islam Arabia

In contrast, paganism among the sedentary societies of Arabia had developed from its earlier and simpler manifestations into a complex form of neo-animism, providing a host of divine and semi-divine intermediaries who stood between the creator god and his creation. This creator god was called Allah, which is not a proper name but a contraction of the word al-ilah, meaning simply "the god."

Like his Greek counterpart, Zeus, Allah was originally an ancient rain/sky deity who had been elevated into the role of the supreme god of the pre-Islamic Arabs. Though a powerful deity to swear by, Allah's eminent status in the Arab pantheon rendered him, like most High Gods, beyond the supplications of ordinary people. Only in times of great peril would anyone bother consulting him. Otherwise, it was far more expedient to turn to the lesser, more accessible gods who acted as Allah's intercessors, the most powerful of whom were his three daughters, Allat ("the goddess"), al-Uzza ("the mighty"), and Manat (the goddess of fate, whose name is probably derived from the Hebrew word mana, meaning "portion" or "share").

These divine mediators were not only represented in the Kaaba, they had their own individual shrines throughout the Arabian Peninsula: Allat in the city of Ta'if; al-Uzza in Nakhlah; and Manat in Qudayd. It was to them that the Arabs prayed when they needed rain, when their children were ill, when they entered into battle or embarked on a journey deep into the treacherous desert abodes of the Jinn -- those intelligent, imperceptible, and salvable beings made of smokeless flame who are called "genies" in the West and who function as the nymphs and fairies of Arabian mythology.

There were no priests and no pagan scriptures in pre-Islamic Arabia, but that does not mean the gods remained silent. They regularly revealed themselves through the ecstatic utterances of a group of cultic officials known as the Kahins. The Kahins were poets who functioned primarily as soothsayers and who, for a fee, would fall into a trance in which they would reveal divine messages through rhyming couplets. Poets already had an important role in pre-Islamic society as bards, tribal historians, social commentators, dispensers of moral philosophy, and, on occasion, administrators of justice.

But the Kahins represented a more spiritual function of the poet. Emerging from every social and economic stratum, and including a number of women, the Kahins interpreted dreams, cleared up crimes, found lost animals, settled disputes, and expounded upon ethics. As with their Pythian counterparts at Delphi, however, the Kahins' oracles were vague and deliberately imprecise; it was the supplicant's responsibility to figure out what the gods actually meant.

Although considered the link between humanity and the divine, the Kahins did not communicate directly with the gods but rather accessed them through the Jinn and other spirits who were such an integral part of the Jahiliyyah religious experience. Even so, neither the Kahins, nor anyone else for that matter, had access to Allah. In fact, the god who had created the heavens and the earth, who had fashioned human beings in his own image, was the only god in the whole of the Hijaz not represented by an idol in the Kaaba. Although called "the King of the Gods" and "the Lord of the House," Allah was not the central deity in the Kaaba. That honor belonged to Hubal, the Syrian god who had been brought to Mecca centuries before the rise of Islam.

Despite Allah's minimal role in the religious cult of pre-Islamic Arabia, his eminent position in the Arab pantheon is a clear indication of just how far paganism in the Arabian Peninsula had evolved from its simple animistic roots. Perhaps the most striking example of this development can be seen in the processional chant that tradition claims the pilgrims sang as they approached the Kaaba:

Here I am, O Allah, here I am.
You have no partner,
Except such a partner as you have.
You possess him and all that is his.


This remarkable proclamation, with its obvious resemblance to the Muslim profession of faith -- "There is no god but God" -- may reveal the earliest traces in pre-Islamic Arabia of what the German philologist Max Muller termed henotheism: the belief in a single High God, without necessarily rejecting the existence of other, subordinate gods. The earliest evidence of henotheism in Arabia can be traced back to a tribe called the Amir, who lived near modern-day Yemen in the second century B.C.E., and who worshipped a High God they called dhu-Samawi, "The Lord of the Heavens." While the details of the Amirs' religion have been lost to history, most scholars are convinced that by the sixth century C.E., henotheism had become the standard belief of the vast majority of sedentary Arabs, who not only accepted Allah as their High God, but insisted that he was the same god as Yahweh, the god of the Jews. END QUOTE

So now we have a better understanding of what the pagan arabs believed.

Continued in the next post!
 
Re: What does this mean !!!

Lets look at it further!

Classical Greco-Roman (Any of various religions other than Christianity or Judaism or Islamism) PaganismWhile (A native or inhabitant of Greece) Greek and (An inhabitant of the ancient Roman Empire) Roman religion began as (Belief in multiple Gods) polytheism, during the (Click link for more info and facts about Classical) Classical period the religion was thoroughly henotheistic. Zeus (or ((Roman mythology) supreme god of Romans; counterpart of Greek Zeus) Jupiter) was viewed as the supreme, all-powerful and all-knowing, king and father of the Olympian gods. To illustrate, Maximus Tyrius ( (Click link for more info and facts about 2nd century) 2nd century C.E.), stated:

"In such a mighty contest, sedition and discord, you will see one according law and assertion in all the earth, that there is one God, the king and father of all things, and many gods, sons of God, ruling together with him."


The Philosophers (Ancient Athenian philosopher; pupil of Socrates; teacher of Aristotle (428-347 BC)) Plato and (Roman philosopher (born in Egypt) who was the leading representative of Neoplatonism (205-270)) Plotinus respectively taught that above the gods of traditional belief was "The One" also called God. The One is the impersonal unifying principle of divinity. END QUOTE

So yes there was "GOD", the supreme, but there were other gods who ran the affairs of the world.

Lets look at it in more depth, notice the interesting conclusion regarding christianity. This is what the koran meant when God says He will ask Jesus whether he told the poeple to worship him and mary:


While Hinduism is generally monistic or monotheistic admitting emanating deities, the early Rig Veda (undeveloped early Hinduism) was what Max Muller based his views of henotheism on. In the four Vedas, Muller believed that a striving towards One was being aimed at by the worship of different cosmic principles, such as Agni (fire), Vayu (wind), Indra (rain, thunder, the sky), etc. each of which was variously, by clearly different writers, hailed as supreme in different sections of the books. Indeed, however, what was confusing was an early idea of Rita, or supreme order, that bound all the gods. Other phrases such as Ekam Sat, Vipraha Bahudha Vadanti (Truth is One, though the sages know it as many) led to understandings that the Vedic people admitted to fundamental oneness. From this mix of monism, monotheism and naturalist polytheism Max Muller decided to name the early Vedic religion henotheistic.

This, however, is clearly only one possible interpretation of Vedic culture. Extremely advanced, indeed unprecedented and thitherto unduplicated ideas of pure monism are to be found even in the early Rig Veda Samhita, notwithstanding clearly monist and monotheist movements of Hinduism that developed with the advent of the Upanishads. One such example of early Vedic monism is the Nasadiya hymn of the Rig Veda: "That One breathed by itself without breath, other than it there has been nothing." To collectively term the Vedas henotheistic, and thus further leaning towards polytheism, rather than monotheism, is to ignore the clearly monist bent of the Vedas that were thoroughly developed as early as 1000 BCE in the first Aranyakas and Upanishads. However, to deny that a form of polytheism is also present may equally be to ignore aspects of the early Vedic texts. Whether the concept of "henotheism" adequately addresses these complexities or simply fudges them a matter of debate.

As for classical Hinduism, it evolved within the Vedic line but truly came into being with the ascendancy of aspects of God like Shiva and Vishnu in the Puranic and post-Puranic developments. Many sects of monotheistic bhakti (loving devotion) worshippers came into vogue who, while admitting other deities, saw them as clearly emanating from one principal source. Extreme monists within the Advaita Vedanta movement, Yoga philosophy and certain non-dual Tantra schools of Hinduism give the lie to a broad categorization of Hinduism as henotheistic, what with the conception of Brahman, a formless non-being-being that is posited to be pure consciousness, beyond attributes, the Divine Ground from which all else that is limited and temporal sprang. The fundamental Hindu trinity, Brahma, Vishnu and Shiva are seen as many as being creation, preservation and destruction subsumed in one cycle of being that is ultimately transcended with the attainment of moksha. Indeed, the only period of Hinduism that ever approached henotheism was in the early Vedic period (before 1000 BCE within the four preliminary Vedas) and even that is disputed by scholars, most notably the great Hindu mystic Aurobindo Ghosh.


Christianity
Although Christians adamantly label themselves as monotheists, some argue that Christianity is properly a form of henotheism. Most forms of Christianity include the belief in a Christian Godhead consisting of God the Father, Jesus, and the Holy Spirit, with God the Father being dominant "actor" and "creator". However, Trinitarian Christians strongly reject the view that the three persons of the Godhead are three distinct gods. Rather, they describe the three persons as having a single "substance", thus counting as one god. The Council of Nicea (325 C.E.) affirmed that God was "One Substance (Greek Ousia) and three Persona (Greek Hypostasis)". The Christian Trinity, like the Classical Pagan Hypostasis and Hindu Trimurti, has an impersonal divine substance as its unifying principle.

In addition, most Christians reject the view that God the Father is supreme over Jesus Christ and the Holy Spirit.

In addition, many Christians believe in what some consider to be a "pantheon" of angels, demons, and/or Saints that are inferior to the Trinity. Christians do not label these beings as "gods", although they are attributed with supernatural powers, and are sometimes the object of prayer. When Christianity was adopted by Greco-Roman pagans or African slaves, the new converts attributed to these saints features of their previous polytheistic figures. In some cases, these beliefs have developed out of the Catholic church and form syncretisms like Santeria. These beliefs are similar to Hinduism which distinguishes between God in the form of Vishnu or Shiva, and devas which are subordinate to God and who supervise forces of nature such as Agni (i.e., fire) or Vayu (i.e., wind.) In fact, Madwacharya, a follower of Vishnu who espoused Dvaita philosophy said that he was an incarnation of Vayu and told his followers to pray to Vishnu who alone can grant moksha.

Some non-trinitarian denominations of Christianity are more clearly henotheistic. Christian Gnosticism is generally henotheistic. In addition, some sects of Mormonism view the members of the Christian Godhead as three distinct beings, where God the Father is supreme. Some Latter Day Saints also believe in the existence of numerous other gods and goddesses who have no direct interest in this Earth or humanity. See Godhead (Mormonism). Though not explicitly discussed in canonical scripture, some Latter Day Saints also acknowledge a Heavenly Mother in addition to God the Father. END QUOTE

So now finally we have a solid understanding of what these verses are saying. The arab pagans were mushriks, they had a henotheistic understanding of religion. Although these verses tell us that they acknowledged Allah's supremacy, but they also acknowledged other gods as well. So God was not the ONLY controller of the world, He was to be seeked at times of great peril. Meanwhile these other gods can be prayed to for sustenance. But what did the pagans believed these gods controlled, for this we need to go to another post(sorry for the length).
 
Re: What does this mean !!!

My final post!

We want to know what the pagan arabs believed these gods can do? Well there were many gods but we will look at the main ones, the divine daughters.

Ancient Middle Eastern mythology often pictured the Mother goddess with a son, such as Isis-Horus in Egypt and Astarte-Tammuz in the Fertile Crescent. This mother-son worship was established throughout the world. In China there was the Mother Shingmoo, Hertha in ancient Germany, Nutria in ancient Italy (Etrusca), Indrani in India, Aphrodite in Greece, Venus in Rome, Cybele in Asia Minor and Carthage, Diana in Ephesus, Isis in Egypt etc..

In Hijaz, on the other hand, there was no harvest and thus no worship of fertility gods as such. Its patriarchal society soon changed the ancient mother-son worship to father-daughter worship. Allah was the father, and his daughters were Al-Lat, Manat and al-Uzza.

Al-Lat (Allat)

Al-Lat, the female version of the Aramaic Allah, was the ‘Lady of the Temple’ at the Semitic Pantheon of Palmyra, frequently mentioned in sources from ancient periods. Her cult was shared by the tribes of Bene Maazin and Bene Nurbel in that city. The former tribe probably provided the guardians or priests for her sanctuary, which was probably established after the Nabatean occupation of Syria, including Damascus, in 85 BCE. (Javier Teixidor, The Pantheon at Palmyra, 55-58.)

Al-Lat was the mother goddess (al-Ilahah), representing the sun. She was the mother figure among the gods and goddesses, the Great Earth Mother of ancient mythology, and the Astarte of the Arabs. Javier Teixidor states:

It is not surprising to find at Palmyra different names for the same deity. Allat ... Astarte ... all conceal one sole goddess, the female deity of heaven in whose cult Arab Palmyrenes as well as members of the western tribes were united. (Ibid, 61.)
She was brought to the Hijaz from Palmyra, probably through Teima.

Alfred Guillaume states:
Al-Lat... is mentioned by Herodotus; in old Arabian inscriptions; and in the pre-Islamic poets; and was the great mother goddess who, under various names, was worshipped all over the ancient world. Ta’if, a town near Mecca, was the centre of her worship [in Arabia proper]. (Guillaume, The Life of Muhammad, 24, 38.)

In Ta’if there was a temple dedicated to al-Lat, (Guillaume, Islam, 7.) the city’s deity, according to Ibn Ishaq, and she was represented by a square-stone. (Hitti, History of the Arabs, 98 ). The Mother goddess was often repres-ent-ed by a stone, mountain, cave, pillar or rock. Stones are among the oldest symb-ols of Mother worship, as Erich Neumann discussed in detail. (Erich Neumann, The Great Mother (Princeton, 1953/1991), 260.)

The Meccans had been on friendly terms with the Ta’ifians, especially since most of their food was bought or grown in Ta’if, and that city was also the main commercial centre in the Hijaz, since it lay on the Yemen-Mesopotamia overland trading route.

According to Ibn al-Khalbi:
Al-Lat stood in al-Ta’if and was more recent than Manat. She was a cubic rock beside which a certain Jew used to prepare his barley porridge. Her custody was in the hands of Banu Attab ibn Malik of the Thaqif, who had built an edifice over her.... The Quraysh, as well as all the Arabs, were wont to venerate al-Lat. They used to name their children after her, calling them Zayd al-Lat and Taym al-Lat. (Quoted in Peters, Muhammad, 110).

The Nabateans also venerated Allat as the ‘mother of the gods’, the same as the Urania of Hellenism.

According to Tor Andrae:
Thus we have a right to assume that in Arabic circles Allat correspond-ed with the great Semitic goddess of motherhood, fertility and heaven, and especially with the form which she assumed in Western Semitic reg-ions. In Taif, where her most important sancturay was located, she was called simply Al Rabba, ‘sovereign’, a title which belonged also to Ishtar (Belit) and Astarte (Baalat). (Tor Andrae, Mohammad. The Man and His Faith (London, 1936), 17.)

When Muhammed conquered Mecca and some of its neighbouring tribes, he turned to Ta’if and its temple of al-Lat. A Muslim poet said about the attack on Ta’if:

Don’t help al-Lat for Allah is about to destroy her.
How can one who cannot help herself be helped?
She was burned in black smoke and caught fire.
None fighting before her stones, is an outcast.
When the apostle descends on your land
None of her people will be left when he leaves.
(Guillaume, The Life of Muhammad, 588.)

Allat was the equivalent of Ishtar-Astarte in the mother-father Semitic cult worship. In contrast to the Fertile Crescent region, the Arabs worshipped her as the sun, not the moon which is masculine in Arabia. However, the Semitic cults connected the goddess worship with love, and thus, its absence with the opposite. As Erich Neumann states:

Withdrawal of love can appear as a withdrawal of all the functions constituting the positive side of the elementary character. Thus hunger and thirst may take place of food, cold of warmth, defenselessness of protection, nakedness of shelter and clothing, and distress of contentment.... Consequently, the symbols of exile and desert also belong to the present context. (Neumann, The Great Mother, 67-68.)
Thus, the Arabs were left with the loneliness of the desert and in order to make the best of the situation, the moon-goddess of the fertile lands was transformed into the sun-goddess of the desert. Al-Lat was the Great Mother who fed her children as necessary. But when it came to fortune the Arabs turned to Manat.

Manat

Manat is believed to be the Arabs’ original goddess, appearing some time before al-Uzza and al-Lat. Her name appears in the house of Baal in 32 CE, but she originated much earlier among the Arabs. Manat seems to have arrived in Arabia from Palmyra, where she was worshipped along with Baal. She was venerated beside several other deities in a temple called ‘the house of the gods,’ (Teixidor, The Pantheon of Palmyra 3, 12-18 — The Pagan god, 116.) the Palmyran equivalent of the Kaaba. Manat was the controller of the Arabs’ fortunes and the mystery of life and death. She was the chief deity of al-Aus and al-Khazraj and other pagan inhabitants of Yathrib (Medina). It seems that she was represented by a wooden image, which was covered in blood during her worship. (Guillaume, The Life of Muhammad, 38-39, 207.) Manat’s sanctuary was in a place near Yathrib where the Aus and Khazraj visited on their way back from their pilgrimages to Mecca. Ibn al-Khalbi states:

The Aus and Khazraj, as well as those Arabs among the people of Yathrib and other places who followed their way of life, were accustomed to go on Hajj and observe the ‘standing’ at all the appointed places, but not shave their heads [as was customary during the pilgrimage]. At the end of Hajj, however, when they were about to return home, they would set out to the place where Manat stood, shave their heads and stay there for a while. (Quoted in Peters, Muhammad, 110.)

This goddess of fate and time in ancient paganism was revered and worshipped with the same zeal as the Mother figure itself. In Greece Moirai, the goddess of fate, was the daughter of the Night, as well as Moros and Erinyes (compare to al-Lat and al-Uzza). Attributed to the goddess of fate was the sharing of booty, land and labour between clans. She was concerned with birth, marriage and death and, in the relation with men, warfare and raids.

Manat was much revered by the Arabs but her worship was dwindling at the time of Muhammed, probably due to Jewish influence in Medina. This shows how easily the al-Aus and al-Khazraj tribes were willing to abandon their religion in favour of Islam.

Al-Uzza

Some sources say that al-Uzza was brought to Mecca by the Quraysh and enjoined to the already established Kaaba worship, but she probably was a local deity in Mecca since the time of ‘Amr ibn Lubayy. In Muhammed’s time, al-Uzza was the most important of the Meccan local deities, perhaps save for ‘the Lord’ Hubal. Her main sanctuary was in a valley called Hurad, just outside Mecca. ‘It was complete with a haram and a sacrificial altar.’ (Ibid, 110.)

Alfred Guillaume states that evidence ‘for her worship from the fourth century AD is copious. Tradition states that in his youth Muhammad sacrificed a white sheep to her.’ The Arabs offered human sacrifices to al-Uzza and the blood of the victims was smeared or poured on them while the tribes-men danced round the stone... The devotees licked the blood, or dipped their hands in it, and thus a reciprocal bond held them to one another and the deity to whom the stone belonged.

Nilus, a Christian writer, gives a fairly full account of such a sacrifice to Uzza. Though there is no trace of human sacrifices in the Quran, it is clear from the authority just quoted and from early Arab sources that human beings were sacrificed to these gods in Duma and Hira. (Guillaume, Islam, 8-9.)

Ibn Ishaq states that al-Uzza had a slaughter place (ghabghab), where the blood was poured out.

An Arab poet said:
Asma’ was given as a dowry the head of a little red cow
Which a man of the Banu Ghanm had sacrificed
He saw blemish in her eye when he led her away
To al-Uzza’s slaughter-place and divided her into goodly portions. END QUOTE

Now we can understand these verses better, i hope. Thank You
 
Re: What does this mean !!!

Hi tru_nigga

Nice copy and paste from Christian sources without citing where you copied it from and who is the author? Though I do have some idea about the origins of this CAP.

Unfortunately we cannot accept this gobbledygook from non-Islamic sources that you have posted, especially from Guillaume. You want to engage in a dialogue use the Islamic sources. Couple of the reasons why we reject the non-Islamic sources are as follows:

Guillaume's Distortion of the Sirah by Ibn Ishaq

Refuting & Exposing the Ignorance of D. S. Margoliouth!

Regards
Preacher
 
Re: What does this mean !!!

The first post was by Reza Aslan, an iranian! :omg:

Reza Aslan earned a Bachelor of Arts in Religion from Santa Clara University, a Master of Theological Studies from Harvard University, a Master of Fine Arts in Fiction from the University of Iowa, and is currently a Doctoral Candidate in History of Religions at the University of California, Santa Barbara. Until recently, he was both Visiting Assistant Professor of Islamic and Middle East Studies at the University of Iowa and the Truman Capote Fellow in Fiction at the Iowa Writers’ Workshop. He has served as a legislative assistant for the Friends’ Committee on National Legislation in Washington D.C., and was elected president of Harvard’s Chapter of the World Conference on Religion and Peace, a United Nations Organization committed to solving religious conflicts throughout the world. His work has appeared in popular magazines and academic journals. Born in Iran, he now lives in Santa Barbara and New Orleans. No god but God is his first book.


http://www.rezaaslan.com/
 
Last edited:
Re: What does this mean !!!

tru_nigga said:
The first post was by Reza Aslan, an iranian! :omg:

Reza Aslan earned a Bachelor of Arts in Religion from Santa Clara University, a Master of Theological Studies from Harvard University, a Master of Fine Arts in Fiction from the University of Iowa, and is currently a Doctoral Candidate in History of Religions at the University of California, Santa Barbara. Until recently, he was both Visiting Assistant Professor of Islamic and Middle East Studies at the University of Iowa and the Truman Capote Fellow in Fiction at the Iowa Writers’ Workshop. He has served as a legislative assistant for the Friends’ Committee on National Legislation in Washington D.C., and was elected president of Harvard’s Chapter of the World Conference on Religion and Peace, a United Nations Organization committed to solving religious conflicts throughout the world. His work has appeared in popular magazines and academic journals. Born in Iran, he now lives in Santa Barbara and New Orleans. No god but God is his first book.


http://www.rezaaslan.com/
Click to expand...

Hi there

Here is the link of my post throguh which I have challenged you for a debate. Why are you running from debate ;D ? By the way, your source, your link or else have nothing to do with Islam, neither Islam is based on them.

Regards
Preacher
 
Last edited:
Re: What does this mean !!!

:sl:
I would love to discuss the shirk of the Makkan idolaters, but I'm noot going to read trough 3 huge posts. The forum rules state:
16. Please refrain from typing extremely huge letters in order to get your message through.

Therefore, tru nigga, if you intend to discuss these matters, I would ask you to summarize what you posted in your own words.

:w:
 
Re: What does this mean !!!

Well, all i wanted to do was give insight to these verses:

39:3 Now surely sincere obedience is due to Allah (alone). And those who choose protectors besides Him (say): We serve them only that they may bring us nearer to Allah. Surely Allah will judge between them in that in which they differ. Surely Allah guides not him who is a liar, ungrateful.

10:18 They serve, besides Allah, things that hurt them not nor profit them, and they say: "These are our intercessors with Allah." Say: "Do ye indeed inform Allah of something He knows not, in the heavens or on earth?- Glory to Him! and far is He above the partners they ascribe (to Him)!"

31:25 If thou ask them, who it is that created the heavens and the earth. They will certainly say, "(Allah)". Say: "Praise be to Allah." But most of them understand not.

(23:84-87) Muhammad), say to them, "Tell me, if you know, to whom does the earth and its contents belong?" They will quickly reply, "It belongs to God." Say, "Will you not, then, take heed?" Ask tthem, "Who is the Lord of the seven heavens and the Great Throne?"
They will quickly say, "It is God." Say, "Will you not then have fear of Him?"

I have had various explanations. Its seemed at first contradictory, why would people who believe in God's sustenance worship other dieties. However preacher came up with i can't accept the message because i can't except the messenger. What does the messenger has to do, if its true than OK if not then you don't accept them. He then wants me to debate with him. Well i am never going to be as qualified as most of these guys i posted are regarding ancient religions. Some of these guys have Phds. So i really don't know what are we to discuss. Its very alarming when we can't accept facts unless its coming from a muslim. Second he called me a kafir and then he wants to debate. People like this you don't debate with. The prophet said who ever calls another a kafir one of them is a kafir.

I have noticed the pattern. I have been in debates with the likes before. It leads to no where. I just don't call people kafirs, the one thing i don't do, even if they call me one. If he has material about what the pagans believed, if he has information in conflict with what was presented then let him present it. But to reject because he does not approve of the person doing the study strikes me as closed minded. These people are not all muslims, of course their sirah of the prophet is not going to be the same as our understanding. But this has nothing to do with arab paganism.

As far as what you said about the post being long, i had to because in the past when i quoted myself people will say where is your proof. So what am i going to do? Pre islam has not been studied much by the scholars of islam, they were more concerned of post islam. So what value is my opinion going to be. There is a lot of information regarding the ancient arab beliefs are in the net. Most of it is run by propagandist, so i had to be extremely selective. But i can assure you most of the info i posted is pretty much accurate. Its fascinating how the theology of the pagan arabs was structured.
 
Re: What does this mean !!!

Now as far as summarising what was posted, well it basically was that the arab believed in a supreme God called Allah, He had 3 daughters called allat, al uzza and al manat. Some of them were more revered than the others. Some were the goddess of the sun, others were the goddess of fate and fortune or venus and so on. They were also less powerfull subordinate gods and godess. I focused on the 3 daughters and what the pagan arabs believed these goddessess can do for them. The supreme God was to be consulted only in times of great peril, at extreme situations. So it seems that the arab pagans believed worship was to be categorised according to situations while hindus according to caste. There was also an interesting discussion regarding christianity and whether it is a henotheistic religion, as it also says God has a son and the holy spirit is divine and some christians do pray to jesus while acknowledging God. So this was the discussion. I wish i can get more information regarding this. The proplem is most ancient arab paganism discussion in the net are not managed by muslims and there is all this Allah is the moon god propaganda. It took time to actually find some professionals archeologist and historians studies. By the way did you know that jesus refered to God as Allah! Yet you find these christians saying Allah is a moon god. Even they don't know what the arab pagans believed. I found information that i know was accurate. So:

Monotheism: God alone controls the world
Polytheism: gods run the world
Henotheism: God and the gods run the world.
 
Re: What does this mean !!!

tru_nigga said:
Well, all i wanted to do was give insight to these verses...Its seemed at first contradictory, why would people who believe in God's sustenance worship other dieties.
Click to expand...
People are still doing it today. The reasons for shirk are many. Here are the ones listed by Shaykh Abu Ammaar Yasir Qadhi:
Exaggeration
Callers to Evil
Following One's Ancestors and Culture
Shaytan's beautification of Shirk and Innovation
Incorrect Comparisons
Lying about Allah
Arrogance and Following One's Desires
Ignorance of Allah, His names and Attributes​

If you need an explanation on any of them, let me know.

However preacher came up with i can't accept the message because i can't except the messenger. What does the messenger has to do, if its true than OK if not then you don't accept them. He then wants me to debate with him.
Click to expand...
I am not interested in a chronological list of incidents between you and Preacher.
So i really don't know what are we to discuss.
Click to expand...
We are going to discuss what you intended to say with your long incoherent articles.
Its very alarming when we can't accept facts unless its coming from a muslim.
Click to expand...
Why should we expect Non-Muslims to teach us about our own religion? Can someone teach you about something they don't believe in themselves? Won't it be inherently biased?
Second he called me a kafir and then he wants to debate. People like this you don't debate with. The prophet said who ever calls another a kafir one of them is a kafir.
Click to expand...
You are correct. Calling someone a kaafir is a hateful abomination which will not be tolerated on this forum.

THIS IS A FINAL WARNING TO THOSE WHO ARE MAKING TAKFEER ON THE FORUM

As far as what you said about the post being long, i had to because in the past when i quoted myself people will say where is your proof. So what am i going to do?
Click to expand...
You can provide a link. We are going to discuss the validitity of your claims one-by one, so I want you to summarize what you've written.
Pre islam has not been studied much by the scholars of islam, they were more concerned of post islam.
Click to expand...
Not true. The Biographies of the Prophet saws all start with an in-depth description of Pre-Islamic Arabia. Don't say what you don't know about.
But i can assure you most of the info i posted is pretty much accurate. Its fascinating how the theology of the pagan arabs was structured.
Click to expand...
You assurance is not proof of the accuracy of the material. We will, insha'Allah examine the claims and determine how accurate they are.

The truth of the matter is, your claim that they believed their gods had control over the universe is false, as the Qur'an states they said:
"These are only our intercessory with Allah." Qur'an 10:18

The work Kash Ash-Shubuhat answers all your claims in detail:
http://salafipublications.com/sps/sp.cfm?subsecID=TAW01&articleID=TAW010005&pfriend=

Excerpt:
As to the detailed answer, it will have to follow each particular objection the enemies of Allah marshall for misguiding men away from Allah. These objections and their answers follow.

1. They say, "We do not associate anyone with Allah. We witness that He alone is Creator and Provider, that He is the Source of our good and evil, that He has no partners; that Muhammad -- Salla salllahu 'alayhi wa sallam -- can by himself give us neither good nor evil, not to mention 'Abdul Qadir or others. But I am a sinner; and the righteous have a sake with Allah. I only ask of Him through them." Answer as before; Those whom the Prophet had fought had equally acknowledged all these facts. They realized that their idols were by themselves devoid of power, but that they used their favor and intercession. Recite to him the verses Allah has revealed in this connection and explain them to him.

2. If he argues: "These verses came to condemn idol-worshippers. How can you equate the saints with the idols?" Answer him, as before, since he distinguishes between the two, knowing that the idol-worshippers acknowledged the creatorship of Allah: "The idol-worshippers too claimed to call on the saints, idols and the righteous of whom Allah said:

"'Those unto whom they pray [i.e., the saints] themselves seek avenue to their Lord's mercy, compete in coming closer to Allah and fear His punishment,' Qur'an 17:57

The unbelievers also pray to Jesus, and his mother Mary, but Allah said:

"Isa, son of Maryam, is only a Prophet, like so many others that came and passed before him. His mother was a saintly woman. Both of them ate food like all humans do, See how We make the revelations clear for them, and see how they turn away!" Qur'an 5:78

Recite to him the verses:

"The day when We shall assemble them all and ask the angels, 'Are these the persons who used to worship you?' On that day they will answer: 'Praised be Allah! He is our Lord, not they. But before then, most of them would even worship the jinn" Qur'an 34:41

"And when Allah asked 'Isa, son of Maryam, 'O 'Isa! Did you ask the people to take you and your mother as gods beside Allah,' he answered: 'Praised be Allah! How can I claim what is not mine to claim?" Qur'an 5:119

Answer him therefore that Allah had declared unbelievers those who prayed to the idols as well as to the righteous, that the Prophet -- Salla Allahu 'alayhi wa sallam -- has fought them.

3. He may object that in fighting them, the Prophet sought only the unbelievers among them. He may even say: "I witness that Allah is the source of our good and ill, the Ruler of the universe Whom alone I solicit; that the righteous predecessors are powerless; that I appeal to them merely to intercede with Allah on my behalf." The answer is that he and the unbelievers stand on a par. Recite to him the verses,

"As to those beings other than Allah whom we have taken as friends, we do not worship them except that they may draw us closer to Him;" Qur'an 39:3

"Those are only our intercessors with Allah." Qur'an 10:18

Know that these three false counter-arguments are the most conclusive. All of them have been anticipated by Allah in His Book. If you understand them well, the rest is easily refutable.

4. If the associationist objects: "I do not worship aught but Allah. My recourse to the righteous and my soliciting of them is not worship," then answerer, "You admit that Allah has commanded you to worship Him alone, that this is your duty to Him. What then is this exclusive worship of Allah which is your duty to Him?" For apparently this man knows neither the nature of worship nor its various forms. Explain it to him.

Tell him that Allah said:

"Pray to Allah humbly and in secret." Qur'an 7:54

If he concedes that that is an imposition of worship, for prayer is the heart of worship, then give him the rest of the argument. If it is granted that calling upon somebody in day or night, out of fear or in solicitation, is worship, and you have called upon a prophet or other to fulfill your need, wouldn't that be an instance of worship? Likewise, if you acted in accordance with a commandment of Allah,

"Pray unto Allah and sacrifice unto Him," Qur'an 108:2

wouldn't your action be worship? This cannot be denied, Reason then with him that if he were to sacrifice to a prophet, a jinn or any other creature, that would be a worship addressed to other than Allah, and hence, shirk. This conclusion is unavoidable. Tell him, in addition, that the unbelievers whom the revelation of the Qur'an addressed worshipped the angels, the righteous, al Lat and other beings. They worshipped their gods by praying, sacrificing and recoursing to them, while at the same time these gods acknowledged themselves as creatures of Allah standing under His dominion. The associationists recognized Allah as sole Ruler, but they recoursed to other beings for intercession on account of their favor with Allah. Another objection is that genuine tawhid denies the intercession of the Prophet -- Salla Allahu 'alayhi wa sallam. The answer to it is that, on the contrary, we do not deny it at all. The Prophet -- Salla Allahu'alayhi wa sallam -- is indeed the appointed intercessionary. But intercession is all to Allah, as He Himself has revealed:

"Say, 0 Muhammad, all intercession belongs to Allah." Qur'an 39:4

It can not be entered into by anyone without His permission, just as He said,

"No one may intercede with Him without His permission," Qur'an 2:255

Surely the Prophet would not intercede on behalf of anyone without permission. Allah Himself said:

"They will not intercede but for those with whom Allah is pleased." Qur'an 21:

We do know that He will not be pleased except with tawhid, since it was He Who revealed:

"Whoever seeks a religion other than Islam, it will not be accepted from him." Qur'an 3:85

If, therefore, intercession all belongs to Allah, that it cannot take place except by His leave, and that He will not permit it except on behalf of the adherents of tawhid, it follows that intercession belongs to Him and must be solicited directly from Him. Our prayer therefore should be: "0 Allah, do not deprive us of Muhammad's intercession. 0 Allah, permit him to intercede on our behalf," etc.

5. In case it is objected that the Prophet -- Salla Allahu 'alayhi wa sallam -- has been granted the power to intercede, and that it may therefore be asked of him to do what he had already been given the privilege to do, the answer is that, whereas Allah did grant him that privilege, He commanded you not to ask it of him. Allah said:

"Do not call unto anyone beside Him." Qur'an 72: 18

Intercession has equally been granted to other beings beside the Prophet -- Salla Allahu 'alayhi wa sallam -- namely, to the angels, the leaders and saints. Would you then say the same of them, that Allah has granted them the power to intercede and that you may ask them therefor? If you do, you have relapsed back to your original situation described by Allah in His Book. If you do not, then your claim that you may ask the Prophet for his intercession because he was given that privilege is false.

6. If it is objected that one does not at all associate anything with Allah, and that recourse to the righteous is not associationism, then give the following answer: "You realize that Allah has forbidden shirk more strongly than He forbade adultery, that He will not forgive this offence. He cannot plead ignorance of the nature of that which Allah has so emphatically forbidden. Allah could not forbid us that which He did not clarify."

7. There is another objection. That is the claim that shirk is itself idol- worship, whereas none of us nowadays worship idols. This is answered by pointing to the meaning of idol-worship. Everyone knows that the associationists of pre-Islam did not believe that the wooden and stone idols created, provided, ruled or responded to their worshipper. Such is belied by the Qur'an itself:

"Ask them, 0 Muhammad, who sends down for you your provision from the sky and who grows it out from the earth?" Qur'an 10:31

If, moreover, the objector holds that shirk is to visit the wooden or stone idol, shrine or other holy object, to sacrifice and call unto it in the hope that it will bring him closer to Allah and protect him from evil with its grace, then tell him that that is precisely what the associationists of today do. He would then admit that associationism is idol-worship. But so is recourse to the righteous, any calling upon them. This is proven by Allah's treating as unbelief any devotion addressed to the angels, to Jesus and the righteous ancestors.

The crux of the matter is, of course, his denial of associationism. You must ask him to define it. If he defines it as idol-worship, press him for further clarification. He must present an explanation of what he means by 'I worship naught but Allah,' and you should press him for it until he defines worship in Qur'anic terms. Again, he cannot plead ignorance, for he does make a claim. If he defines the relevant terms differently, then inform him of their definitions as they came in the clear verses revealed by Allah. Tell him that what the modern associationists do is identically the same as that done by their ancestors. What is objected to in our restriction of worship and devotion to Allah is the same as was opposed to the Prophet, namely,

"Did he make all gods into One? That is certainly something astounding!" Qur'an 38:5

In fact, what the modern associationists call the monotheistic creed is the same associationism which the Qur'an has come to refute, and which the Prophet has fought. The aberration of antiquity is even a lighter offence than that of modern times. First, the ancients did not call upon the angels, the saints and the idols except in prosperity. Whenever they were in distress, they sincerely worshipped Allah alone. Allah said of them,

"In adversity on the high seas, all those to whom you pray will fail you, not Allah. When He brings you safely to shore, you turn away. Man is ever thankless." Qur'an 17:67

"Say: Would you, if punishment from Allah were to befall you, or the last hour were to seize you, call to any being other than Allah for help? No! But unto Him alone will you call if you are truthful. He will expose what you have prayed to and you will forget the partners you ascribed to Him." Qur'an 6:4l

"And when adversity strikes man, he turns to his Lord in prayer and repentance." Qur'an 39:8

"Say, you may enjoy your unbelief for a short while. But you are doomed to the Fire." Ibid

"And if the waves of the sea cover them like awnings, then do they call on Allah, dedicating all their devotion to Him." Qur'an 3l:32

Whoever understands this problem clearly will realize the difference which separates the modern associationists from their older predecessors. The former, who were fought by the Prophet -- Salla Allahu 'alayhi wa sallam -- called unto Allah and other beings in prosperity only; but in time of distress they called upon Allah alone, declared He had no partners, and forsook their previous lords.

The second point is that whereas the ancients have called unto other beings beside Allah -- namely prophets, saints, angels, and other beings close to Him, trees and rocks which conform to His divine pattern and never disobey for, the associationists of our times do so to some of the most corrupt people. Their so-called "patrons" are precisely those about whom they report all kinds of sins, adultery, theft, neglect of salat and other crimes. To believe in that which is incapable of disobedience, like wood and stone, is better than to do so in beings whose corruption and immorality are for everyone to witness. We may hence conclude that those associationists whom the Prophet -- Salla Allahu 'alayhi wa sallam -- fought in his days were more rational and their crime lighter than that of the modern ones.

8. The moderns have another defence, no less fallacious than what we have already seen, but far more beguiling and misleading. They hald that the unbelieving contemporaries of the Prophet against whom the Qur'an launched its arguments did not witness that there is no God but Allah, unlike themselves who do. The ancients belied the Prophet and charged him with witchcraft, denied the resurrection of the body and the Qur'anic revelation. Hence, they were radically different fram the modern associationists who witness that there is no God but Allah and Muhammad is the Prophet of Allah; who accept the Qur'an as true, believe in the resurrection, hold the salat and observe the fast. How then, runs their argument, can the two be comparable to each other?

The answer is that the 'ulama' [Muslim men of knowledge] universally agree that to believe the Prophet of Allah -- Salla Allahu 'alayhi wa sallam -- in part of his revelation, and to belie him in the other part, is to commit unbelief, to stand outside the pale of Islam. Such is the case of the person who accepts tawhid but denies the obligation to hold salat, or accepts both these and denies the zakat, or the fasting, or the pilgrimage. It was for the benefit of those who accepted everything that was revealed to the Prophet before, but refused to be led by him to the pilgrimage that the verse was revealed:

"And to Allah is due from mankind the observance of pilgrimage to the House by everyone capable of it. Whoever disbelieves must know that Allah stands in no need of men." Qur'an 3:97

The 'ulama' are agreed that whoever accepts all this but denies the resurrection of the body has committed unbelief and rendered himself liable to capital punishment and his property to confiscation. Allah said:

"Those who disbelieve in Allah and His prophets, who discriminate between them, who believe in some and disbelieve in others, seeking a way in between, are the real unbelievers. To them We have prepared a humiliating punishment." Qur'an 4:149

Since Allah Himself has so clearly condemned the person who believes in part of the revelation and disbelieves in the other part, their defence falls to the ground. Such was the defence of those who wrote to us from al Ahsa'.

It is also possible to argue the case from another angle. We have seen that where there is belief in everything the Prophet had brought from Allah but disbelief in the salat, the consequence is kufr (unbelief), deserving of capital punishment. Likewise, when one accepts everything in the revelation as true except the resurrection of the body, or the fasting of Ramadan. The juristic schools do not disagree on this matter, and we have seen that the Qur'an itself gives the same judgment. It is known that tawhid is the most important task the Prophet -- Salla Allahu 'alayhi wa sallam -- brought to us, more important than salar, zakal, fasting or pilgrimage. Certainly, to compromise tawhid is to commit unbelief, even if such compromising is accompanied by the strictest observance of all other duties imposed by the Prophet. Otherwise, unbelief would have been predicated of him who rejects the lesser but not of him who rejects the greater part, which is absurd.

The companions of the Prophet -- Salla Allahu 'alayhi wa sallam -- fought Banu Hanifah despite the fact that that tribe adopted Islam immediately from the Prophet, witnessed that there is no God but Allah, that Muhammad is the Prophet of Allah, recited the adhan (call to salat) and held the salat. If it is objected that they also held Musayli- mah to be a prophet, we argue: If raising a man to the position of prophet is committing unbelief and deserving capital punishment, raising Shamsan, Yusuf, a companion of the Prophet, or a prophet, to the position of the Almighty of Heaven and Earth must be so a fortiori. Can they be so ignorant?

"So Allah seals the hearts of the ignorant." Qur'an 30:59

Those whom 'Ali ibn Abu Talib had destroyed by fire were all pretenders of Islam. They were 'Ali's own companions and have been taught by no less than the companions of the Prophet. But they exaggerated their faith in 'Ali just as others had done with Yusuf, Shamsan and others. How then did the Prophet's companions unanimously agree to destroy them? Did they do so in vain? Or is belief in Ta~ and his like a lesser crime than belief in 'Ali ibn Abu Talib?

The same is true of Banu 'Ubayd al Qaddah which ruled the Maghrib and Egypt during the 'Abbasi period. All of them witnessed that there is no C'od but Allah and that Muhammad is the Prophet of Allah. They called themselves Muslims, observed the congregational prayer and held the Friday salat. When they diverted from the shari'ah in matters much less important than these, the 'ulama' unanimously resolved to declare them heretics and to fight them. The 'ulama'called the provinces the heretics ruled "Land of War," fought them successfully, and rescued those provinces and peoples from their dominion,

9. If it is objected that these ancients were not guilty of unbelief on that account alone, but because they have combined associationism with belying the Prophet and the Qur'an, denying the resurrection of the body or another part of the faith, why then did the 'ulama'assign a chapter in the shari'ah for heresy, the act of unbelief by the Muslim? The 'ulna' took pains to mention in this part of the shari'ah many varieties of heresies, all of which deserved its subject capital punishment and confiscation of his property. They even ascribed it to much lesser acts of disbelief, such as a word spoken verbally but not meant, a word spoken in jest.

Those of whom Allah said:

"They swear by Allah that they did not say the word of unbelief; but they did say it after their entry into Islam," Qur'an 9: 75

were declared heretics by Allah despite the fact that they were contemporaries of the Prophet, praying with him, observing the zakat, the pilgrimage, tawhid, and fighting on his side. Likewise was the case of those of whom the Qur'an said:

"And if you ask them to justify their claim, 0 Muhammad, they will say; 'We did but talk in jest.' Then say, 'Was it at Allah, His signs and His Prophet that you scoffed? Make no excuse. You have disbelieved after your confession of faith." Qur'an 9:66-67

Allah has called them disbelievers after their confession of faith in front of the Prophet -- Salla Allahu 'alayhi wa sallam -- during the campaign of Tabuk, Their crime was a word of ridicule they claimed they said as a piece of jest. Consider if these were to object, like our contemporaries: Do you declare heretic Muslims who witness that there is no God but Allah, who hold the salat and fast? Consider also the answer Allah has given them!

Another evidence is what Allah reported to us of Banu Isra'il. Despite their piety and righteousness at that time, they asked Musa (Moses),

"Let us have a god, even as they have gods!" Qur'an 7:137

just as some companions of the Prophet asked him, "Let us too have a tree like Dhat Anwat." The Prophet -- Salla Allahu 'alayhi wa saliam -- swore that the two requests were of the same nature.

Faced with these annals of Islamic history, the modern associationists argue that neither Banu Isra'il nor the Prophet's companions in question had actually achieved their requests, another god in one case, another Dhat Anwat in the second. Hence they did not actually commit unbelief. It is certainly true that neither of them got what they wanted; that had they obtained what they sought, their unbelief would have been confirmed in the deed. These anecdotes teach us that the Muslim, even if he were steeped in knowledge, might well fall into shirk inadvertantly. They have the merit of reminding us not to take tawhid simplistically. Self-conceit in such matters constitutes great ignorance and greater temptation. Should the Muslim pronounce words compromising to tawhid, he should be so told; and he should repent and withdraw his words, just as the Prophet's companions did.

Just so, however, he has deserved some chastening as the Prophet did to his companions.
Click to expand...

:w:
 
Re: What does this mean !!!

asallama alaikum brother preacher
by allah i don't think that you have the right to call anyone a kafiir if you're aren't sure what he/she practices and brother please stop suggesting for a debate when it's obviously clear that this brother doesn't want to debate. I'm truly sorry if this offends you but it's not this brothers fault
asallama alaikum wa rahmatullahi wa barakatu
 
Re: What does this mean !!!

Ansar Al Adl, i said to continue this debate i want facts. I have posted articles from archeologist and historians regarding what the pagan arabs aqidah was. If you wish to refute them, please give me your details as to who allat, al uzza, almanat were, what did the arab pagans believe they were, why they worshiped them, what were the other gods the arab pagans worshiped, and why. What were the rituals, the pilgrimages and the festivals they had. I don't want the same interpretation from the verses from the koran. I have said that the verses never said that the pagan believed that God Alone ran the affairs of this world. There are many articles in the net that explains the aqidah of the pagan arabs. Please quote your sorces, tell us who the uzza and others were.
 
Re: What does this mean !!!

tru_nigga said:
Ansar Al Adl, i said to continue this debate i want facts. I have posted articles from archeologist and historians regarding what the pagan arabs aqidah was.
Click to expand...
Assalamu Alaykum,
Unfortunately, you did not quote any authoritative historians or archaeologists. You simply quoted some orientalists. Are you really prepared to accept them as an authority on Islam? Are you aware of their views on the Prophet saws? Do you realize they considered him insane or suffering from seizures just like the pagan arabs thought? Do you realize that these are the same people who believe Allah, Glorified and Exalted is a Moon-god?

In truth, these people you have quoted have a very limited understanding of the subject. They have been refuted many times over by the true scholars of Islam. I will, insha'Allah, point out the aqidah of pre-islamic arabs from authentic sources.

The first point is that although the arabs had idols or other partners attributed to God, they believed that these "gods" were completely powerless in the face of the One Creator- Allah.

Proof is clear in the following narration:

Ibn Abbas reported that the mushrikeen would say (during Hajj): "I respond to your call, O Allah, I respond to your call. There is no partner that you have..." at this, the Prophet saws would interject and say, "Woe to you! Stop (here), stop (here)," but they would proceed, "...except a partner that belongs to you. You control him, and all that he controls." They would say this while performing tawaf around the Ka'bah. (Reported by Muslim [2/842])

Clearly, the musrikeen still believed that Allah had complete control over such deities, and they had no power in and of themselves. This refutes your claim that they believed these were powerful deities at a level comparable to Allah swt. This proves that they ascribed total rububiyyah (control/lordship) to Allah swt.

please give me your details as to who allat, al uzza, almanat were, what did the arab pagans believe they were,
Click to expand...

Sure. As for Al-Lat (or Allat), the following hadith makes it clear:
Ibn Abbas stated, "Al-Lat was a person who wuld kneed dough and produce a mixture of wheat-dough, dates and sugar for the pilgrims. (Reported by Bukhari [8/611])
Shaykh Yasir Qadhi says:
After he died, the people built a structure at thge place where he used to feed pilgrims (or, according to other reports, over his grave). Over time, this structure became an idol that was worshipped along with Allah.​
He also says:
Al-Lat was the primary idol that was worshipped by the Thaqif tribe. It occupied a very high status, even amongst the other Arab tribes. It had special keepers assgned to it, and a large and impressive structure.​
Hence, we see that Al-Lat was a piuous person who cared for the pilgrims so they exalted his status, slowly deviating until they directed acts of worship towards his monument, hoping that he would intercede for them before Allah swt. As Ibn Kathir mentions:
Al-Lat was a white stone with inscriptions on. There was a house built around Al-Lat in At-Ta'if with curtains, servants and a sacred courtyard around it. The people of At-Ta'if, the tribe of Thaqif and their allies, worshipped Al-Lat. They would boast to Arabs, except the Quraysh, that they had Al-Lat. Ibn Jarir said, "They derived Al-Lat's name from Allah's Name, and made it feminine. Allah is far removed from what they ascribe to Him. It was reported that Al-Lat is pronounced Al-Lat because, according to `Abdullah bin `Abbas, Mujahid, and Ar-Rabi` bin Anas, Al-Lat was a man who used to mix Sawiq (a kind of barley mash) with water for the pilgrims during the time of Jahiliyyah. When he died, they remained next to his grave and worshipped him.''​
It is clear then that this was no more than a pious man who was deified after his death, but the belief in Allah's supreme control remained. The tomb built over Al-Lat's grave resembles very closely the structures built over the graves of modern sufi saints. The fate of Al-Lat is given by Muhammad bin Ishaq who narrates:
Al-Lat belonged to the tribe of Thaqif in the area of At-Ta'if. Banu Mu`attib were the custodians of Al-Lat and its servants.'​

And Ibn Kathir writes:
The Prophet sent Al-Mughirah bin Shu`bah and Abu Sufyan Sakhr bin Harb to destroy Al-Lat. They carried out the Prophet's command and built a Masjid in its place in the city of At-Ta'if.​
Therefore, Muslims are supposed to destroy these structures of shirk, built by the mushrikeen over the graves.

Concerning Al-Uzza, Ibn Kathir writes:
Ibn Jarir said, "They also derived the name for their idol Al-`Uzza from Allah's Name Al-`Aziz. Al-`Uzza was a tree on which the idolators placed a monument and curtains, in the area of Nakhlah, between Makkah and At-Ta'if. The Quraysh revered Al-`Uzza.'....​

We also have the following narration:
Abu At-Tufayl said, "When the Messenger of Allah conquered Makkah, he sent Khalid bin Al-Walid to the area of Nakhlah where the idol of Al-`Uzza was erected on three trees of a forest. Khalid cut the three trees and approached the house built around it and destroyed it. When he went back to the Prophet and informed him of the story, the Prophet said to him,
"Go back and finish your mission, for you have not finished it." Khalid went back and when the custodians who were also its servants of Al-`Uzza saw him, they started invoking by calling Al-`Uzza! When Khalid approached it, he found a naked woman whose hair was untidy and who was throwing sand on her head. Khalid killed her with the sword and went back to the Messenger of Allah , who said to him,"That was Al-`Uzza!'' (An-Nasa'i).

And finally, Manat. Ibn Kathir records:
Manat was another idol in the area of Mushallal near Qudayd, between Makkah and Al-Madinah. The tribes of Khuza`ah, Aws and Khazraj used to revere Manat during the time of Jahiliyyah.​

And Muhammad Ibn Ishaq narrates:
Manat used to be the idol of the Aws and Khazraj tribes and those who followed their religion in Yathrib (Al-Madinah). Manat was near the coast, close to the area of Mushallal in Qudayd. The Prophet sent Abu Sufyan Sakhr bin Harb or `Ali bin Abi Talib to demolish it.​

As for what the arabs considered them to be, I re-iterate the hadith which mentions that the arabs said in their prayer to Allah:
You control him (any other god), and all that he controls."

why they worshiped them
Click to expand...
As mentioned in the Qur'an, they worshipped them because they believed:
"These are only our intercessory with Allah." Qur'an 10:18

what were the other gods the arab pagans worshiped, and why.
Click to expand...
There were several others, 360 in the Ka'ba, and every tribe had their own, and every family had their own. It became a source of power and pride and family heir-loom, as well as the basic fact that they believed their personal idols were their personal "agents" before Allah, who could intercede on their behalf and bring them closer to Allah.

What were the rituals, the pilgrimages and the festivals they had. I
Click to expand...

Shaykh Safiur Rahman Al-Mubarapuri mentions the following:
Traditions and ceremonies of the worship of their idols had been mostly created by ‘Amr bin Luhai, and were deemed as good innovations rather than deviations from Abraham’s religion. Some features of their worship of idols were:

Self-devotion to the idols, seeking refuge with them, acclamation of their names, calling for their help in hardship, and supplication to them for fulfillment of wishes, hopefully that the idols (i.e., heathen gods) would mediate with All‚h for the fulfillment of people’s wishes.
Performing pilgrimage to the idols, circumrotation round them, self-abasement and even prostrating themselves before them.
Seeking favour of idols through various kinds of sacrifices and immolations, which is mentioned in the Qur’‚nic verses:

"And that which is sacrificed (slaughtered) on An-Nusub (stone-altars)" [Al-Qur'an 5:3]

All‚h also says:

"Eat not (O believers) of that (meat) on which All‚h’s Name has not been pronounced (at the time of the slaughtering of the animal)." [Al-Qur'an 6:121]
Consecration of certain portions of food, drink, cattle, and crops to idols. Surprisingly enough, portions were also consecrated to All‚h Himself, but people often found reasons to transfer parts of All‚h’s portion to idols, but never did the opposite. To this effect, the Qur’‚nic verses go:
"And they assign to All‚h a share of the tilth and cattle which He has created, and they say: ‘This is for All‚h according to their pretending, and this is for our (All‚h’s so-called) partners.’ But the share of their (All‚h’s so-called) ‘partners’, reaches not All‚h, while the share of All‚h reaches their (All‚h’s so-called) ‘partners’. Evil is the way they judge." [Al-Qur'an 6:136]

Currying favours with these idols through votive offerings of crops and cattle, to which effect, the Qur’‚n goes:
"And according to their pretending, they say that such and such cattle and crops are forbidden, and none should eat of them except those whom we allow. And (they say) there are cattle forbidden to be used for burden or any other work, and cattle on which (at slaughtering) the Name of All‚h is not pronounced; lying against Him (All‚h)." [Al-Qur'an 6:138]

Dedication of certain animals (such as Bahira, Sa’iba, Wasila and Hami) to idols, which meant sparing such animals from useful work for the sake of these heathen gods. Bahira, as reported by the well-known historian, Ibn Ishaq, was daughter of Sa’iba which was a female camel that gave birth to ten successive female animals, but no male ones, was set free and forbidden to yoke, burden or being sheared off its wool, or milked (but for guests to drink from); and so was done to all her female offspring which were given the name ‘Bahira’, after having their ears slit. The Wasila was a female sheep which had ten successive female daughters in five pregnancies. Any new births from this Wasila were assigned only for male people. The Hami was a male camel which produced ten progressive females, and was thus similarly forbidden. In mention of this, the Qur’‚nic verses go:
"All‚h has not instituted things like Bahira ( a she-camel whose milk was spared for the idols and nobody was allowed to milk it) or a Sa’iba (a she camel let loose for free pasture for their false gods, e.g. idols, etc., and nothing was allowed to be carried on it), or a Wasila (a she-camel set free for idols because it has given birth to a she-camel at its first delivery and then again gives birth to a she-camel at its second delivery) or a H‚m (a stallion-camel freed from work for their idols, after it had finished a number of copulations assigned for it, all these animals were liberated in honour of idols as practised by pagan Arabs in the pre-Islamic period). But those who disbelieve, invent lies against All‚h, and most of them have no understanding." [Al-Qur'an 5:103]

All‚h also says:

"And they say: What is in the bellies of such and such cattle (milk or foetus) is for our males alone, and forbidden to our females (girls and women), but if it is born dead, then all have shares therein." [Al-Qur'an 6:139]

It has been authentically reported that such superstitions were first invented by ‘Amr bin Luhai. [Bukhari 1/499]

The Arabs believed that such idols, or heathen gods, would bring them nearer to All‚h, lead them to Him, and mediate with Him for their sake, to which effect, the Qur’‚n goes:

"We worship them only that they may bring us near to All‚h." [Al-Qur'an 39:3]

and

"And they worship besides All‚h things that hurt them not, nor profit them, and they say: These are our intercessors with All‚h." [Al-Qur'an 10:18]

Another divinatory tradition among the Arabs was casting of Azlam (i.e. featherless arrows which were of three kinds: one showing ‘yes’, another ‘no’ and a third was blank) which they used to do in case of serious matters like travel, marriage and the like. If the lot showed ‘yes’, they would do, if ‘no’, they would delay for the next year. Other kinds of Azlam were cast for water, blood-money or showed ‘from you’, ‘not from you’, or ‘Mulsaq’ (consociated). In cases of doubt in filiation they would resort to the idol of Hubal, with a hundred-camel gift, for the arrow caster. Only the arrows would then decide the sort of relationship. If the arrow showed (from you), then it was decided that the child belonged to the tribe; if it showed (from others), he would then be regarded as an ally, but if (consociated) appeared, the person would retain his position but with no lineage or alliance contract. [Muhadrat Tareekh Al-Umam Al-Islamiyah 1/56; Ibn Hisham 1/152,153]

This was very much like gambling and arrow-shafting whereby they used to divide the meat of the camels they slaughtered according to this tradition.​

Hopefully that should be enough information to satisfy your curiosity.

It is now established that
1. the pre-islamic arabs believed in Allah's lordship
2. they believed these other deities had no power in and of themselves
3. Their beliefs closely resemble those of the modern mushrikeen.

:w:
 
Is anyone offended by tru_nigga screen name? - I AM
 
I am sorry to add fire to the flame, but your name is pretty offensive :/
 
Re: What does this mean !!!

---

Jazakullahu khair akhi

There is no room for disagreement now because it has been shown repeatedly from the quran and sunnah what is true. If they arent facts to believing Muslims than I dont know why you should even care to argue about islaam in the first place.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Re: What does this mean !!!

:sl:
jazakAllah khair br. panIslamist for your comments. Please try to avoid quoting large sections of previous posts as it wastes space. (see forum rule #20)

:w:
 
Akhee i said find me proofs . Do not quote me religious literature i am not familiar with, i am not a religious scholars, i don't know the weak hadith from the sahih one. A lot of what you said contradict each other, for one the koran says the three gods were daughters and you are saying they were men.

Anyways i got this from the minister of culture of the united arab emirates with a hisroric prrof found in an ancient coin:


One of the 'daughters of Allah' mentioned in Sura 53: 19-23 of the Holy Koran, Manat was a goddess of fate whose name appears, alongside that of Kahl, in an Aramaic inscription on a bronze tablet from Mileiha where she and Kahl are asked to curse anyone disturbing the grave of an individual named Wahbalât. The Semitic goddess Manat is attested as early as the third millennium BC in Mesopotamia and her worship spread as far afield as Hungary where she was worshipped by Palmyrene troops from Syria stationed there around 160 AD According to Ibn Al Kalbi's Book of Idols (Kitab al-Asnam), Manat was one of the three 'daughters of Allah', alongside Al Lat and Al 'Uzza. She was particularly venerated by the Al Khazraj and Al Aws tribes who lived between Mecca and Medina, but her worship is also attested in South Arabia and, by the Mileiha inscription, in the Emirates as well.

http://www.uaeinteract.com/history/e_walk/con_3/con3_22.asp :shade:
 
Last edited:

Similar Threads

Back
Top