Allah in the Quran, Chapter 3
01 Jan 2015
WAS HUBAL PART OF THE BA'AL CONCEPT?
001 Ba'al or Baal (or or other spellings) originally was a title - meaning something like "Lord" or "Master" - and was used connected to several gods around the inner end of the Mediterranean - the Levant and Asia Minor - and was also the name of the top god to the Canaanites and Phoenicians. The name is known from at least 1400 BC in f.x. Egypt. Over time it became parts of some names or daily names - it f.x. is likely that the name HaBaal or HeBaal simply meant "the god", perhaps in the meaning "the main god". On the Arab peninsula this seems not to have been the case normally. But Hubal as mentioned was an imported statue from the north, and in the north Ba'al, etc. was well known. There are good indications for that Hubal derives from HaBaal or similar. Our conclusion here is that if it is not directly likely, then at least there is a good possibility that the name Hubal was connected to Ba'al. For science this is an unanswered question - neither proved nor disproved.
002 If this is correct, this fact would have been known at that time and earlier, even though such details are forgotten now - the Jews would have known very well if the neighboring god al-Lah really was the same god as Hubal in another neighboring country. Not to mention that the Jews in Medina would know it, if Hubal had any relationship to the Ba'al/HaBaal concept. And if this is the case, Muhammad can just forget to claim that Yahweh = Allah (=Hubal/al-Lah/Allah) - for the religious parts of the Jews Ba'al was closely related to the Devil all the time from the old prophets and up.
It also is pretty thought provoking that f.x. all the errors, contradictions, wrong facts, etc., only and alone, in the Quran, prove 100% that there is no god behind that book. And that f.x. the fact that Jesus accepted OT as correct, proves to both Christians and Muslims that the OT was not falsified at that time - and that the Qumran scrolls prove that even OT was not falsified any time later, too.
It further is an insult to that possible god to "explain" that his texts means something different from what they really says = you are more clever than him at explaining what the god "really" meant, than the god is himself, even when he tries to explain things "clearly and easy to understand", and says his words are to be understood literally and without hidden meanings. Also only "the sick of heart" look for hidden meanings behind his words, according to the Quran - the very claimed hidden meanings the wise Muslims claim are what Allah really meant, but was unable to express clearly himself, so that they have to help the bumbling god and tell what he "really" tried to say. This in spite of that the Quran clearly states that meanings hidden behind Allah's clear and easy to understand words, only are possible for Allah to understand, and like said above are "only for the sick of heart" to look for.
May be as bad: To claim that the Quran means something different from what the texts clearly say, is to falsify the quranic texts.
Finally: Always when you read the Quran, Hadiths, and other Islamic books, you should remember that Muhammad accepted the use of and himself used dishonesty in many forms in words and deeds. Even if the names are younger, it was he who institutionalized dishonesty like al-Taqiyya (the lawful lie), Kitman (the lawful half-truth), Hilah (the lawful pretending/circumventing), the use of deceit ("war is deceit" - and "everything" is war), betrayal (f.x. the peace delegation from Khaybar), and even the disuse of oaths (2/225, 5/89, 16/91, 66/2 - and the star case 3/54 (if Allah could cheat, cheating is ok)), which also includes the disuse of words and promises, as they are weaker than oaths = when oaths can be disused, so can words and promises. On top of this it is very clear from the Quran and all other central Islamic books, that Muhammad also liked respect and power and women. Combine these lusts with his acceptance of and personal use of dishonesty - even the gravest kinds: How reliable is that kind of men normally? - and how true and reliable are their never proved claims and tales?
2 comments. Sub-total = 32 + 2 = 34.
>>> Go to Next Chapter
>>> Go to Previous Chapter
This work was upload with assistance of M. A. Khan, editor of islam-watch.org and the author of "Islamic Jihad: A Legacy of Forced Conversion, Imperialism, and Slavery".