Islamic Awareness seeks to address my claim that the hadith regarding Abu Sufyan
crediting Hubal with his victory over the Muslims demonstrates that the pre-Islamic pagans
considered that their gods were equal to, if not greater than, Allah.(1)
After citing specific narrations which refer to Abu Sufyan crediting Hubal for his
victory over the Muslims at the battle of Uhud, the Islamic Awareness team (IA) writes:
One can see clear facts emerging. Firstly, the Quraysh worshipped Hubal and
al-Uzza (among other deities not stated here); the Muslims, on the other hand,
worshipped Allah. Secondly, to the statement of Abu Sufyan ascribing superiority to Hubal,
Prophet Muhammad replied that Allah was more Majestic and more Glorious. (M S M Saifullah
& Abdullah David, Is Hubal The Same As Allah?;
source)
They also say that:
Thirdly, the dead of the pagan Quraysh in the Battle of Uhud who worshipped Hubal,
al-Uzza among other gods are in the hell [sic], whereas the dead who
worshipped Allah are in heaven [sic]. Fourthly, the worshippers of Allah are not
equal to the worshippers of Hubal. Since the Christian missionaries have a habit of using
a syllogism even though there are clear statements refuting their position, let us note
the following syllogism.
Hubal was worshipped by the Quraysh; Allah was worshipped by the Muslims.
The worshippers of Hubal are in hell; the worshippers of Allah are in heaven.
Therefore, Hubal was not Allah.
In their overzealousness to refute the "missionaries" the team of Saifullah
and David (SD) fail to see how their statements prove that the Quran is in error. Their
comments presuppose that the Quraysh worshiped Hubal and al-Uzza in contrast to
Muslims who worshiped Allah, which contradicts the claim of the Quran that the pagans also
worshiped Allah. The Quran even says that their reason for worshiping other gods was so
that they could get closer to Allah:
Say: Unto Whom (belongeth) the earth and whosoever is therein, if ye have knowledge?
They will say: Unto Allah. Say: Will ye not then remember? Say: Who is Lord of the seven
heavens, and Lord of the Tremendous Throne? They will say: Unto Allah (all that
belongeth). Say: Will ye not then keep duty (unto Him)? Say: In Whose hand is the dominion
over all things and He protecteth, while against Him there is no protection, if ye have
knowledge? They will say: Unto Allah (all that belongeth). Say: How then are ye bewitched? S. 23:84-89
Surely pure religion is for Allah only. And those who choose protecting friends beside
Him (say): We worship them only that they may bring us near unto Allah. Lo! Allah will
judge between them concerning that wherein they differ. Lo! Allah guideth not him
who is a liar, an ingrate. S. 39:3
And verily, if thou shouldst ask them: Who created the heavens and the earth? they will
say: Allah. Say: Bethink you then of those ye worship beside Allah, if Allah willed some
hurt for me, could they remove from me His hurt; or if He willed some mercy for me, could
they restrain His mercy? Say: Allah is my all. In Him do (all) the trusting put their
trust. S. 39:38
How, then, can the authors intimate that the Quraysh were not also worshiping Allah?
They continue:
Commenting on the above tradition, the Christian missionaries say:
Unlike the verse in the Quran, this one does mention Hubal by name and suggests that he
was distinct from Allah. Again, Muhammad transforming Allah from a pagan deity into the
sole universal God, a transformation which was different from any similarly named deity,
can account for why Sufyan viewed Hubal as a different god altogether.
Furthermore, this tradition actually poses problems for the Muslims since it implies
that the pagans such as Abu Sufyan did not view Allah as the supreme god, but one of many
rival gods. Sufyan attributes his victory over Muhammad and his god to Hubal and Uzza,
suggesting that at least in his mind these gods were equal, if not superior, to Allah.
Sufyan obviously felt that Allah could be challenged and defeated, which means that these
pagans didn't see Allah as the unrivaled and supreme Deity as both the Quran and Islamic
traditions claim.
It is hard to see how this tradition poses "problems" for Muslims. In fact,
this tradition clearly refutes the missionaries' claim that Allah and Hubal were
identical. Furthermore, Abu Sufyan, the chieftain of the Quraysh, became a Muslim in 8 AH
just a few days before the liberation of Makkah, after a personal council with the
Prophet.[15] He swallowed his pride and admitted that:
By God, I thought that had there been any God with God, he would have continued to help
me.[16]
In other words, Hubal and al-Uzza which Abu Sufyan had proclaimed as gods neither
assisted nor helped him to defeat the Muslims. He then accepted Allah as the one, supreme
God beside whom there exists no other god. Furthermore, he was also personally involved in
the smashing of the idol of Allat, one of the so called daughters of Allah.[17]
It must also be added that if the idol of Hubal which occupied the Kabah in Makkah
represented the image of Allah, then why did Muhammad order it to be destroyed? He could
easily have left the statue as it was and justified it as the image of Allah, thus making
it far easier for those transitioning from polytheism to monotheism. History records this
never happened, rather Muhammad ordered all the idols destroyed. It is not difficult to
see why this is the case if one pays attention to the Islamic sources, especially those
which inform us directly about the life and times of Muhammad. Consider the following. The
most supreme delight in the afterlife is the ability to see Allah. Anticipating this
humbling and blissful moment is a source of immense joy and happiness for all the
believers.[18] We find narrated in the Sahih of al-Bukhari the following
report:
On the authority of Abu Huraira: The people said, "O Allah's Apostle! Shall we see
our Lord on the Day of Resurrection?" The Prophet said, "Do you have any
difficulty in seeing the moon on a full moon night?" They said, "No, O Allah's
Apostle." He said, "Do you have any difficulty in seeing the sun when there are
no clouds?" They said, "No, O Allah's Apostle." He said, "So you will
see Him, like that. Allah will gather all the people on the Day of Resurrection, and say,
'Whoever worshipped something (in the world) should follow (that thing),' so, whoever
worshipped the sun will follow the sun, and whoever worshiped the moon will follow the
moon, and whoever used to worship certain (other false) deities, he will follow those
deities...
The importance of Prophet Muhammad's exposition cannot be underestimated. He is
describing the single most pleasurable moment of the people of Paradise. Equally though we
are reminded of the fate of those who worshipped other than God alone. It is amply clear
the idol Hubal and those who worshipped him along with other false deities and their
followers, are clearly distinguished from Allah and the worshippers of Allah on
this juncture Islamic tradition is very clear.[19]
The authors assertions raise several more problems for them to contend with.
First, the writers have confused a question of fact with a question of relevance since Abu
Sufyans conversion is irrelevant to the issue of his initially believing that Hubal
and Uzza could rival Allah in battle.
The second problem with the authors statements is that there is nothing stated
by Abu Sufyan which denies that the pagans initially believed that their gods were equal
to and rivaled Allah. If anything, his purported statements actually substantiate
the view that they didnt consider Allah to be the unrivaled sovereign of all. Abu
Sufyans conclusion that Allah alone is god in light of the failure of his gods to
help him assumes that he initially believed that these idols were at the very least
Allahs equals and could in fact help the pagans defeat Allah and the Muslims in
battle.
Note how this works out:
Abu Sufyan believed that his gods could help him defeat the Muslims and their god Allah.
When the Muslims prevailed against Abu Sufyan he then concluded that his gods do not
exist.
This means that as long as Abu Sufyan believed that his gods existed he did not hold to
the view that Allah was greater than the rest of the Meccan deities. Abu Sufyan actually
thought that these other deities could defeat Allah and his followers.
Thirdly, SD have highlighted another contradiction within the Islamic corpus.
Recall that they cited a report that said Abu Sufyan came to the conclusion that the gods
worshiped by the Meccans, which included the goddess al-Uzza, do not exist. This narrative
contradicts other traditions which claim that Muhammad believed that these gods do exist
and actually sent one of his followers to kill one of them!
In this year, five nights before the end of Ramadan, Khalid al-Walid destroyed
al-Uzza in the lowland of Nakhlah. Al-Uzza was an idol of the Banu Shayban, a
subdivision of Sulaym, allies of the Banu Hashim. The Banu Asad b. Abd al-Uzza
used to say it was their idol. Khalid set out for it, and then he said, "I have
destroyed it." [The Messenger of God] said, "Did you see anything?"
"No," said Khalid. "Then," he said, "go back and destroy
it." So Khalid returned to the idol, destroyed its temple, and broke the idol. The
keeper began saying, "Rage, O Uzza, with one of thy fits of rage!"whereupon
a naked, wailing Ethiopian woman came out before him. Khalid killed her and took her
jewels that were on her. Then he went to the Messenger of God and gave him a report of
what happened. "That was al-Uzza," he said, "and al-Uzza
will never be worshiped [again]."
According to Ibn Humayd Salamah Ibn Ishaq, who said: The Messenger of God
sent Khalid b. al-Walid to [deal with] al-Uzza, who was at Nakhlah. She was a temple
venerated by the tribes of Quraysh, Kinanah, and all Mudar. Her keepers were of the Banu
Shayban, a division of the Banu Sulaym, allies of the Banu Hashim. When the master of the
temple heard that Khalid was coming to deal with al-Uzza, he hung his sword on her
and climbed the mountain near which al-Uzza was located. As he went up he said:
O Uzza, attack with an attack that hits no vital place;
against Khalid! Throw down thy veil, and gird up thy train!
O Uzza, if today thou wilt not slay Khalid,
bear a swift punishment, or become a Christian!
Having reached al-Uzza, Khalid destroyed her and returned to the Messenger of
God. (The History of al-Tabari: The Victory of Islam, translated by Michael
Fishbein [State University of New York Press (SUNY), Albany 1997], Volume 8, pp. 187-188;
bold emphasis ours)
In light of the foregoing, how could Abu Sufyan deny the existence of these gods when
even his own prophet believed that these beings do exist?
This leaves the IA team with one of two options. They either must accept that these
reports refute the claim of the Quran that the pagans believed Allah was the supreme
sovereign god over all, since they actually thought that there were other gods who could
rival him, which would introduce another problem that is discussed here:
http://answering-islam.org/Quran/Contra/allah_high_god.html
Or they must concede the possibility that these Islamic narratives are not recounting
actual history but are reading back into Muhammads time later theological and
polemical views.
Yet to opt for the second view means that these Islamic references cannot be submitted
as evidence against the position that Hubal, the chief god of Mecca and the Quraysh, was
actually the pre-Islamic Allah.
What makes this denial rather amusing is that it directly contradicts the position of
another Muslim dawagandist Mohd Elfie Nieshaem Juferi (a.k.a. M.E.N.J.), one whom they
feature as a co-author in their reply to Robert Moreys moon god theory
(*).
In his response to me, M.E.N.J candidly admits that Hubal is Baal:
Hence it has ALWAYS BEEN KNOWN that the idol Hubal is a Moabite import (i.e. Baal),
hence demolishing another of the missionary's accusations. Hitti seems to concur with the
Moabite origins of Hubal by stating that: (Hubal In The Worship of Pre-Islamic
Arab Consciousness;
source;
capital and underline emphasis ours)
It is rather amazing that this propagandist can so readily admit that Hubal is Baal and
of Moabite import, both of which are contested by his fellow propagandists. Perhaps he can
help enlighten his Islamic cohorts to see these facts which have always been known, since
they obviously didnt know them!
The following excerpt is from John Haydock’s Catholic Commentary on the Holy Bible on 1 John 5 5:7. It was compiled by the late Rev. Fr. George Leo Haydock. The commentary can be accessed online: Haydock Commentary Online. All emphasis will be mine.
Ver. 7. There are three
I will be examining particular texts that seem to point to the punishment of unbelievers being an ongoing, never-ending experience of torment. This is known as the doctrine of eternal/everlasting conscious torment (ECT).
Synoptic Gospels
The Lord Jesus often described the punishment of the wicked as a “place” of
