Optical Delusions

Earlier I said that Morey spent five illustrations to prove that in the ancient world the Moon-god was worshipped everywhere outside Arabia. Although these illustrations are irrelevant to our study of the history of the Moon-god in Arabia, I am interested here in how Morey's illustrations are not always what they are chiselled out to be!

I refer to page 3 of Morey's book. This page contains two illustrations. I was able to locate an illustration similar to the first one, and an exact copy of the second in a book The Ancient Near East: A New Anthology of Texts and Pictures, edited by James B. Pritchard, 1975, Princeton University Press.

Morey had implied that these are illustrations of the Moon-god. However, Pritchard and his group of scholars know differently. What resembles the first illustration is catalogued #140 in Vol. 1 by Pritchard. But here it is not a Moon-god but a Storm-god.

The second illustration is catalogued #136 in Pritchard's Vol.1. But this too is not a Moon-god of any kind. It is "Baal of Lightning."

That's two out of five. Again and again what I am able to check turn out false. Is it me or is it Morey?

Or is it Pritchard? I don't think so. An exact copy of the second illustration is found also in The Bible As History in Pictures p.206, and there it is identified as Baal of lightning.

In the book Tells, Tombs and Treasure, an exact copy appears on page 118. There it is called Baal of Storm.

The book Archaeology of The Bible shows an exact copy on page 80, and calls it the Storm God Baal. Morey is alone against all the scholars, and against all the evidence.


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

What Was the Name of That Moon-god?

Morey was successful in proving that moon worship was prevalent in South Arabia before Islam. But what was the name of that Moon-god?

Morey would have us believe that the name was Allâh. That is the point of his whole booklet. The title of his book bears this out and he keeps repeating this throughout the book. But he did not produce a single piece of evidence to connect Allâh with the Moon-god.

Quite the contrary. His own evidence proves that the name of the Moon-god was not Allâh. On page 9 Morey reports on the findings of Coon and Thompson in Southern Arabia where they discovered a temple of the Moon-god. What did they find? Morey tells us:

The symbols of the crescent moon and no less than twenty-one inscriptions with the name Sin were found in this temple (see Diagram #5); (Morey, p.9).

So what was the name of that Moon-god? Allâh? No! It was Sin according to Morey's own words. But that does not stop him for claiming two paragraphs later that the Moon-god was Allâh.

But he invented a clever device to save face. Now he claims that

....while the name of the Moon-god was Sin, his title was al-ilah, i.e. "the deity," ... (Morey, p.19).

Rather neat. Now al-ilah which he says later becomes Allâh (p.11) is no longer a name, but a title. Morey has a way with words.

Does Morey then retract what he wrote in his book The Islamic Invasion? In that book published just two years earlier he was calling Allâh a name again and again. On page 48 he quoted from Hastings Encyclopedia of Religion and Ethics that "Allâh" is a proper name.

Then on the same page he quoted fro the Encyclopedia of Religion that

"Allâh" is a pre-Islamic name (Morey, Invasion, p.48).

Then in his own words Morey said:

Allâh was a pagan name (Morey, Invasion, p.48).

We can go on and on, but the point is proven. In the book The Islamic Invasion Morey quoted many authorities who rightly said that Allâh was the name of the high God of the pagan Arabs. Morey insisted contrary to the authorities he deceptively quoted, that Allâh was the name of the Moon-god. Either way, in that book of his, Allâh was a name.

Now, in his book of two years later he makes an about-face. There is nothing wrong with learning more. If Morey discovered some new information he can acknowledge his previous error and we can go on without much comment.

But the problem is not that Morey was wrong about Allâh being a name. He was wrong about Allâh being the Moon-god. But he was right is saying that Allâh is a name. Now Morey's problem is that the same archaeological findings he relies on to establish moon-worship in Southern Arabia also reveal that the name of the Moon-god was not Allâh but Sin. Now he is trapped. To escape this trap he claims that Allâh is a title. He has no evidence for his claim.

In this previous book, however, he was clear that Allâh was a name, not a title. He wrote:

The name Allâh was used as the personal name of the moon god, in addition to other titles that could be given to him (The Islamic Invasion, p.50).

I think it was Mark Twain who said,

Always speak the truth, then you have nothing to remember.

So, what was the name of that Moon-god? According to Coon,

The state god of the Minaeans was Wadd, that of the Katabanians 'Amm, that of the Hadramis Sin, and of the Sabaeans Il Mukah. All were the moon. (Coon, p.399).

The names of the moon-god were Wadd, 'Amm, Sin, and Il Mukah. Allâh was never the Moon-god, despite Morey's desperate pleading.


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

Concealed Evidence

Morey makes much of archaelogical findings in South Arabia at Qataban, Timna, and Marib. So he speaks of

thousands of Sabean, Minean, and Qatabanian inscriptions which were subsequently translated (Morey, p.7).

Wow! Except that I noticed he did not bother to quote from these inscriptions or tell us they say. Instead, he immediately moved on to describe findings in other areas. Hmn. This is quited unlike Morey. I am sure that if he has some solid evidence he would jump on it. Why so quiet about the translated inscriptions?

One possible reason is that Morey heard about these but knows not what they say. Another possibility is that Morey found them inconvenient. I much prefer the first possibility, but in any case the findings are inconvenient for Morey. The inscriptions just do not gel with Morey's Moon-god-in-Islam theory.

The translated inscriptions are compiled in the book we already referred to: The Ancient Near East, vol.2, by James Pritchard. These inscriptions show that the Moon-god was not Allâh, but Anbay, 'Amm, 'lyn, and Waddum.

Sabaean inscriptions from Mareb show that they worshipped Attar and Waddum (see Pritchard, vol.2, p.230).

Minaean Inscriptions mention Wadd, Waddum and Attar. Although their lunar god was Waddum, they also sacrificed to Attar (Pritchard, vol.2, p.235).

Hadrami inscritions, as we have already learnt from Morey's book, reveal that the name of the Moon-god in that region was Sin. Pritchard's collection of inscriptions confirms this. Sin was the principal Hadrami lunar god (Pritchard, vol.2, p.238).

Here, however, we catch a glimpse of the identity of the god Attar we heard about from the Sabaean and Minaean inscriptions. One inscription here reads:

...to Sin, He of 'Ilum, and to Attar, his father. (Pritchard, vol.2, p.238).

Quite revealing! This shows that the Moon-god Sin had a father Attar who was also a god. So for these people the Moon-god was not the high god.

This again disproves Morey. Morey kept telling us that the Moon-god was the high god among the pagans. Now we know that he was not only different in name from the high God Allâh but that he also had a father. Allâh, of course, was never believed to have a father.

A Qatabanian inscription from Timna recognises the god 'Anbay (Pritchard, vol.2, p.238). And this 'Anbay is the moon divinity 'Anbay (Pritchard vol.2, p.236). Another god 'Amm is also mentioned (p.237).

One Qatabanian rock inscription is quite revealing. It shows the name of a previously unknown god written as 'lyn, consonants only. What vowels should complete that word? Pritchard and his contributors observe that 'lyn

may be graphically compared with the divine epitheton in the Old Testament, 'elyon ('lywn; e.g., Dt 32:8); (Pritchard, vol.2, p.239).

So the God of the Bible was worshipped here too. Would Morey make this clear?


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

Back to the Real Issue

I had to deal with Morey's contention in some depth to uncover his deceptions and mistakes because his speeches and writings have misled many people. But at the end of the day his theory is rather silly.

Even if he was able to show that the North Arabs in Mecca worshipped the Moon-god, and even if he was able to show that they used to call this Moon-god Allah, this still does not prove that Allâh in Islam is a Moon-god. To prove or disprove this he needs to show what the Qur'ân teaches about moon worship.

The Qur'ân, however, clearly refutes moon-worship. The Qur'ân says:

Adore not the sun and the moon, but adore Allâh who created them...
(Qur'ân 41:37).

But Morey is not interested in letting his readers know what the Qur'ân says. In his book The Islamic Invasion Morey gave a description of the Sabaeans and their religion. He says:

The Sabeans had an astral religion in which they worshipped heavenly bodies. The moon was viewed as a male deity and the sun as a female deity. Together they produced other deities such as the stars. The Qur'ân refers to this Sura 41:37 and elsewhere (Morey, Islamic Invasion, p.42).

More mentioned Sura 41:37 from the Qur'ân but he did not reveal what the verse says. But I have quoted it above to reveal what Morey wishes to conceal. If he would let his readers know what that verse says his deception would crumble.

He did not even say that the Qur'ân in that verse prohibits the worship of the sun and moon. He merely says that the Qur'ân refers to this in Sura 41:37 and elsewhere. If his readers understand from this that the Qur'ân accepts the worship of the sun and the moon, Morey's aims would be accomplished.

Morey should realise that as a scholar he has an academic obligation to make honest use of his sources. He should also recall that as a Christian he ought to speak the truth always.

Read Part 5