Appendix 5:
Is Allah the moon god as claimed
by Robert Morey?

Robert Morey refers to Allah as a "seventh century moon god" in his book, The Islamic Invasion. After doing an acceptable job of showing that the name of Allah was pre-Islamic, Morey takes a very short paragraph, on page 51, to develop the notion that Allah was the moon god. He admits that the rest of the Middle East worshipped a goddess as moon deity, but he asserts that Allah was the exception, and that the Arabs thought of him as a deity of the moon.

Morey makes absolutely no distinction between the southern Arabs of Saba or Qatab and the northern Arabs of Mecca, Jawf, Sin, and Petra. He ignores the massive epigraphic evidence that the god Wadd ruled as moon god in south Arabia, and Allah retained his high god, or solar deity role, in north Arabia.

Worship of the moon appears to have been native with the Semites. Wadd in Arabia, Sin and Nannar in Babylonia, Sahar in Mesopotamia (appearing on Aramaic steles at Merab near Aleppo; cf. C. Clermont-Ganneau, in Bibliotheque de l'ecole des hautes Etudes, fasc. 113, pp. 193-195, 211-215, Paris, 1897)

The origins of the pantheon of northern and southern Arabia are from opposite directions, and the effect is drastic. This is thoroughly developed in Chapter Fourteen. Allah is one of the few deities to come through both areas from Babylon, and he was never the moon deity in either one.

Morey, on his Web site, says:

3. Many scholars trace this “Allah” back to Il and Ilah and from there to the Moon-God.

Morey makes it sound like the moon deity was primal, and later the Il and Ilah names evolved. ALL the evidences show the contrary. In fact, the exact opposite is the case. The primal deity was the counterfeit of Elohim who was the only name for god before the Tower of Babel. After Elohim altered the languages of the people at the Tower of Babel, Elohim stayed only in the Semitic consciousness of Asshur. All other language groups and peoples began to evolve the deities from Babel onward. The primal deity at Babel was the solar deity, Enlil, and he was male in anthropomorphic context. No exceptions exist in Mesopotamian history.

To say the heritage of Allah goes back to Il and Ilah, and thence to the moon deity is a total falsehood, but it sure helps in the development of the argument in Islamic Invasion. The heritage of Allah goes straight back to Enlil, the solar deity right after the Tower of Babel. Enlil was solar, and his consort, Ninlil, was the moon deity. Thereafter, many permutations of the things evolved, but the "lil" in Enlil is the virtual origin of the Ilah in Al-Ilah, which is contracted to Al'lah. More on this in Chapter Fourteen.

Morey's brevity in treating the moon god notion, as to Allah, contrasts violently with the historic evidence. I found only one historian who shared Morey's claim, D. Nielson. Neilson very stupidly mixed up Wadd, Allah, and Sin of Mt. Sinai (as did Burney in his attempt to make Elohim a moon god with Sin). Mt. Sinai was renamed by the local tribes and northern Arabs, who called it Sin'ai (seen'eye). This is a feminine form and shows that the goddess was the moon deity to the northern Arabs. Allah was nowhere in sight in Sinai.

Morey likes Neilson according to those who answer him. Well, here is a quote from Neilson making Yahweh the moon god. Morey needs to find better company, but if he does, he will loose one of only two or three epigraphologists who support his presuppositions. So, watch Morey's buddy make the God of the Bible into trash:

The highest god in old pre-Islamic Arabia was the moon god. He is called “bull”, or “father”, or amm= “uncle”, or kahil=”the old one”, hukm=”the wise one” or wadd=”the loving one”. Many amulets carry the inscription: abm wdm “Father is love". A tribe calls itself “the sons of Wadd”. He is also simply “the god”(=Allah).There is a whole cycle of lunar traces left in the yearly feast, Hagg of Arafa, acc. to Ditlef Nielsen (Handbuch der Altarabischen Altertumskunde, 1.Bd:Die Altarabische Kultur,1927,pp.213-24). But also Yhvh of the Old Testament has a cycle of feasts connected with the moon. At full-moon 13 young bulls are sacrificed at the beginning of the autumn-feast, the second day 12, the third day 11, etc. On the 7th day 7 (Num 29). As the moon becomes smaller, so does the number of bulls sacrificed (Nielsen, ibd. p.244)

Neilson's discussion of the 13 bulls was taken from the paganized Jews whom Ezekiel watched blaspheme God in Ezekiel 8. Morey thus uses the machinations of Neilson, a blasphemer and an historical idiot who hates Elohim, to attack Islam. This is a case of going to the sewer to find a diamond when there is a jewelry store full of dimonds. Thousands of epigraphs make Allah the solar deity.

It will be good to note here that the moon god notion was pure syncretism of an ancient variety. It was the combining, by southern Arabs, of their moon god / male concepts with the supremacy of Allah in Mecca. It made it possible for the southern Arabs to have "fellowship" with the northern Arabs at the Kaaba who accepted any male god as a solar deity. This is much like the prayer meeting Pope Paul II had at Assisi, where he pretended that the American Indian Thunder God, Jehovah, and Buddha were all the same god so that the mob of heretics could pray together and get the warm fuzzies. This syncretism in Mecca was unique to Mecca and NOT in the epigraphic history running back up the trade routes to Babylon and Sumer.

There is no indication from the Koran or the Hadith that Muhammed saw Allah in the role of the moon. Muhammed's Allah, in fact, told the moon to come to Muhammed, break in half, and rull through his sleeves. The boss god, the high god of Semitic peoples, has always been male and solar, EXCEPT FOR Elohim of Asshur and Abraham and the Hebrews.

Mt. Sinai was a major pre-Islamic center of moon worship. Recent discoveries, and the Apostle Paul in Galatians 4:25, indicate that Sinai was in Arabia, not the present Sinai peninsula. The god of Sinai was Sin, for whom the mountain was named. It already had been renamed, or feminized, before Moses climbed it and met Elohim there, which shows how old the moon goddess concept was to the Arab tribes in that region. It is a curious thing that the goddess Mary is now worshipped there in St. Catherine's monastery, the site of the discovery of the heretical Siniaticus text of the Greek New Testament.

As a side note here, Robert Morey is of the Reformed church background. It is a curious thing then why he chooses to use Bible versions other than the Bibles of the Reformers-- The King James Bible and Luther's Bible. I also note that he has a Crusader's Club. Why choose this imagery when the Roman Catholic Whore used the virtual same title for her mongrel mass of filthy soldiers who attacked the Islamic peoples of the Middle East long ago? Why? The word "crusader" is not a biblical word.

There will always be a group in history who confuse the greater picture. Today, some have tried to make Elohim female, and we laugh at them. So, some small local tribe in south Arabia may have confused Wadd with Allah and assumed Allah was also female, or the moon deity. Neilson and Morey might have picked up on some lunatic-fringe, of the Arab nomads, who had a very localized hybrid view of Allah, resulting in Morey's minority report in his book.

This happens in all religious evolution, but the clear overriding dominance of the Meccan thought of Muhammed's day was that Allah was the high god, nothing else. His original Sumerian and Babylonian solar celestial, or solar, role had even fallen on hard times by 600 AD in the Kaaba, while Allat, the moon goddess, was much more dominant up the road at Taif. Wadd, the southern indigenous Sabaean moon god, had NO association with Allah or Allat since Mecca got its pantheon primarily from Babylon via Syria, rather than from south Arabia. This fact is plastered all over rocks around towns and oases all over the Middle East in the form of imprecations carved by travelers asking for help from the gods and goddesses. Allah was NEVER confused as a moon god along the trade routes from Mecca back north and into Babylon and Assyria.

I must also note here that Neilson may very well have simply read the inscriptions wrong, and he may have been fabricating the thing to line up with his notions about Sin and Elohim in Sinai. This is discussed below. If Neilson thought he was alone in his discoveries, he may have thought he would not get caught. This has happened many times in the discoveries of the world. It is entirely possible that Morey has simply believed a lie. This is my personal opinion. What a pitiful thing to serve up the world a big helping of drivel from a mn who hated and blasphemed Elohim. I can see quoting such a man if he falls in line with the majority report, but when Neilson is nearly the only one, against hundreds of Allah-equals-solar-deity historian's reports, then the blunder is unforgivable.

Page 345

Why Morey did this is beyond me, for the star and crescent of Islam are clearly based upon the moon goddess, Allat, and the astral goddess, Al-Uzza. This is potent stuff indeed if one avoids blundering into tagging Allah with a fictitious lunar association. Why? Simply this, Allat and Al-Uzza figure in Sura 53 in what is called "the Satanic verses," which Muhammed initially gave, but later deleted. The moon and Venus connection to Allat and Al-Uzza are one of the most embarrassing matters for the Mullahs of Islam. Perhaps Morey was frightened of the ramifications of a more direct historic approach, but making Allah a moon god is indeed a peculiar way to treat the issue.

In the linage of IL, alias, Enlil, ILAH, Be`IL, Bel, Ba`al, and so on, the god always has a goddess consort, who is usually a grammatical gender alternative. Such is the case with Allat, the goddess of Arabia. She was the consort of Allah, so the ancient rule of deities follows very well. Allah was the solar deity, and Allat was the moon goddess. To confound this pattern in Mecca is to miss the point. Morey has let Allah off the hook by making him a local Arab invention. In fact, Morey has furnished a case for letting Allah be Muhammed's God of the Bible since, by his scenario, Allah could be alleged to have evolved locally from Jerusalem, and Cabalists (as per Neilson), rather than directly from pagan Babylon, along with his wife, Allat.

Here is a discussion of Wadd as the only mythological entity who was a candidate to be a moon god.

There is an Islamic myth about the garden of Eden and the serpent. It seems that Paradise, or Eden, was guarded by a peacock who was very wise and kept Satan out. Satan, in this myth called Iblis, wanted to get into paradise to get revenge on Adam, because it was Adam's being placed first which resulted in Satan being expelled in the first place. The peacock was too wise. So Satan (Iblis) had the serpent carry him back into paradise hidden in his mouth. But, with the exception of Wadd, a pre-Islamic moon god of the Minaean tribe and state of Southern Arabia, in Islam there was little room for myth. Some of the old Arabian legends were retained, but the basic philosophy was anthropomorphic monotheism. (THE SERPENT AS DIVINITY by Robert T. Mason, Ph.D., D.D.)
Italics mine for emphasis.

All anthropomorphic deities I ever heard of are male oriented. This is what makes the feminists so angry today. Monotheism is never associated with the goddess, and this explains why Muhammed chose Allah from among the 360+ gods he found in the Kaaba. He and his neighbors in Mecca would have known if Allah were a moon / goddess entity, and his detractors in Mecca would have loved to cram that fact back down his throat. Arabia was, and has always been, a male dominated world. The monotheism of Islam was carefully founded by Muhammed so that the deity was all male, all solar, all manly. This is also well proven in Islamic history from day one to the present.

If we leave Allah who he was from the past, he is then easy to trace back to the Tower of Babel. It is peculiar that Morey didn't find any of the inscriptions of the Arabs in which they refer to Allah and Allat in the same passage. If he had studied these more carefully, he would have found that these references lead systematically back from Mecca to North Arabia, Jawf, Petra, Phoenicia, Palmyra, Assyria, and finally to Babylon, IN ARABIC language forms, and as early as about 1500 BC. In his book he offers no bibliographical footnote to support his assertion, so I shall offer a few of my own. See below.

Finally, Robert Morey made no presentation of (Al Injil) the Gospel of Jesus Christ in his book. Nor is the Gospel of Jesus Christ given on his Web Site. WHY? Is this because he is Reformed and takes the view that God can save them if he wants to? Why would Morey trash Islam and Allah and then leave the Muslim to thrash around and find the truth for himself? I have seen this kind of thing before, and it often results in the seeker going to a cultist to learn the Gospel. Worse, the former Muslim could simply learn to hate all religion.

In Acts 8 Philip found an official of the royal courts of Candice of Ethiopia reading from Isaiah as he rode along in his chariot. Imagine Philip making sure the reader knew who Jehovah was and then hopping out of the chariot and heading for home. "God will save him if he has elected him to salvation-- that is not my job." This is precisely what Morey has done to the Muslim who reads his book.

I feel it is fair here to note that the Covenant Theology of the Reformed movement says the Jew has lost all promises and God gave the covenant to the Church. It would be very easy to also include all Semitic peoples and say they all have no promises. This then opens the way to make Arabs the enemy by attacking Islam, an Arab religion. This is urgent for all Reformed and Reconstructionist teachers, for they must clear the Middle East of Semites so that the Kingdom can be brought in by latter day Anglo Saxon Conquistadors without having a Jew sitting on the throne in Jerusalem or an Arab son of Abraham getting in the way. I smell this pattern in the content of his book, Morey's reactionary Web site, and the lack of the Gospel in Islamic Invasion.

To Robert Morey I must say, "Jesus was a Jew, you know." Jesus was a son of Abraham, as was Ishmael. Deal with it Robert, or you may well find yourself in the Empty Quarter of Arabia guarding a Bedouin well for the 1000 years of the Messianic Kingdom. And, if you will not give them the Gospel in your book, why should Bible believers trust you.

Genesis 12:1 (KJV) Now the LORD had said unto Abram, Get thee out of thy country, and from thy kindred, and from thy father's house, unto a land that I will shew thee:
2 And I will make of thee a great nation, and I will bless thee, and make thy name great; and thou shalt be a blessing:
3 And I will bless them that bless thee, and curse him that curseth thee: and in thee shall all families of the earth be blessed.

Verse three tells Robert Morey and me, Steve Van Nattan, what our central objective is-- extend the blessing of the seed of Abraham, Jesus Christ, to ALL the families of the world. To omit the Gospel of Jesus Christ when addressing the Muslim is blasphemy. It is a slap in the face of God, Jesus Christ, Abraham, the priceless soul of the Muslim reader. Paul, in his zeal, rises above the Reformed Calvinist cold hearted Morey:

1 Corinthians 9:16 (KJV) For though I preach the gospel, I have nothing to glory of: for necessity is laid upon me; yea, woe is unto me, if I preach not the gospel!

The problem with Islamic Invasion is that if Morey corrects his errors, he will have to republish, and who would buy the book-- who would believe him? I suppose he could offer a two-fer, and the public could take their pick.

___________________________

On Morey's Web site he makes the statement,

"Islam is the fastest growing religion in the world - with more than 1,209 mosques in the United States, more than 60 percent of them founded in the last 20 years."

This sounds like a large number, right? Well, not all statistics were created equal. There are 5 million Arabs in the USA, and the vast majority of them are Muslims. If there are 4 million Muslim Arabs in the USA, which is a modest estimate, then there is one mosque for every 3333 US Arab Muslims. There are vastly more Baptist churches, in parts of the USA, for the population base involved. So, beware of these wide eyed statistics.

Two friends of mine did a research on mosques in the Detroit area, and they found that old formerly opened mosques were closing almost as rapidly as new ones were opening. This is the cause of much deception, and it seems Robert Morey may have just passed on someone's erroneous statistics in this matter. I suppose this is not terribly serious, but it shows how careful we must all be as we hype the issues of the day at the expense of good research.

Read what an Iranian Islamic Sheik says about millions of Muslims leaving Islam every year.
Islam Is In A Shambles-- Many Muslims Convert to Jesus Christ

___________________________

MY FOOTNOTE SYSTEM FOR THIS BOOK:

The footnote system is designed to take up minimum space in the book, yet you can use it to order any item you need as proof. Each Part of the book starts over in numbering to avoid large numbers. The number in the footnote will look something like this with other notes added in some footnotes:

218 / 361, 368 / 1588

218-   The first number:   Author's number in my bibliography.                                          361, 368-   Second number:   Pages in the author's book providing cited information. 1588-   Third number:   Page in my bibliography index.   This helps me to find proofs you request.

The first number in the example, 218 above, is the number of the Author. Turn to the back of this book to the Bibliography, and you will find the author by matching the number which appears in front of his name. The second number, 361, 368 above, is the page in the author's book. This will help you to find the book in a large city library or at a university. Or, to get the bibliography pages footnoted directly from me, give me the complete number set (including the third number, 1588 in the example) by E-mail, and I shall send you the bibliographical material of the footnoted item. I will have to limit this to the time I have available.

FOOTNOTES TO THE ABOVE ARTICLE:

130 / 63 / 291- Regarding South Arabia; 108 / 94 / 923- Regarding Wadd as moon and serpent god; 52 /

121 / 909- Moon goddess origin in Sumer;

195 / 209 / 726- Wadd and South Arabian moon god is very recent compared to Allah's high god origin in Babylon;

89 / 87 / 393; 53 / 26 / 75- Mecca worshipped the sun and Allah;

46 / 529 / 967- The sun is masculine in Babylon;

174 / 334-335 / 895- Swan maidens as in Allat, Manat, and Al-Uzza of Sura 53;

177 / 532-533 / 217; 3 / 26-27 / 311; 59 / 186-187 / 747; 172 / 81 / 247- Shows how Arabs confused genders of ancient deities locally;

89 / 5-19 / 350-355- Shows the distinction between north and south Arabia. In the north Allat is Babylonian, or earth and moon goddess. Allah is simply the high god who impregnates earth. This reference, typical of my bibliography, is by Stephen Herbert

Page 346

Langdon, Jesus College, Oxford, Fellow of the British Academy, with Mary Shillito, Professor of Assyriology:

203 / 120-125 / 608-610- Origin of Allah / Allat as sun and moon deity; 63 / 732-751 / 783-785- Show south Arabia's distinctions from north Arabia;

92 / 14 / 1231- Wadd in south Jordan Arab inscriptions, shows that the office of moon god was already taken;

142 / 78-79 / 1007- This is one of the best discussions of the moon goddess principle as a historic fact from Babylon to Greece;

21 / 190-193 / 2-3- Crichton claims that Mecca revered Al-Uzza, while Allah was totally neglected;

82 / 146-147 / 890- Meccans far more awed by the black stone outside of the Kaaba than with Allah inside. The stone was claimed to be a star from heaven- Al-Uzza.

This ought to give the curious reader a good start on the subject. I shall be happy to provide the bibliography above, and more, upon request, and at cost.

 Page 347  

August 2002

WHAT FOLLOWS IS ISLAMIC RESEARCH INTO ROBERT MOREY'S CLAIMS

I told you long ago that this was coming. Robert Morey still clings to his illusions and notions in spite of mounting evidence that he selected only those sources which would line up with his presuppositions:

Thus...

False Evidence

On page 7, Morey writes:

In the 1940’s, the archeologists G.Caton Thompson and Carleton S.Coon made some amazing discoveries in Arabia (Morey p.7).

On page 9 we discover he meant "southern Arabia" but we have already dealt with this discrepancy.

What is important here is that these "amazing discoveries" are revealed by G.Caton Thompson in her 1944 book "The Tombs and Moon Temple of Hureidha." What did she reveal? Here is one thing, according to Mr.Morey: An idol which may be the Moon-god himself was also discovered (see Diagram #6); (Morey, pp.9-10 emphasis added).

Here he says only that the idol "may be the Moon-god himself." But he proudly labelled Diagram #6: An idol of the Moon-god (Morey, p.10).

Although Morey knows, according to his own words, that it is not certain that this idol was the Moon-god, yet he is prepared to label it as though it was for sure. There is no excuse for such carelessness.

But I suspect a further discrepancy. I did not have occasion to read G.Caton Thompson’s 1944 book, but her companion archeologist Carleton S.Coon wrote in 1945 his treatise Southern Arabia, A Problem for the Future. Morey is aware of this writing, for he quoted from it several times.

The discrepancy is that what Morey leads us to expect in Thompson’s book is denied in Coon’s treatise! Morey showed us a picture of a woman-like idol and claims that this may be the Moon-god himself which was discovered by Coon and Thompson and revealed in Thompson’s book.

Coon’s treatise says no such thing was discovered! About the three astral deities of South Arabia, the Sun, the Moon, and the Star Venus, Coon writes:

There were no carved images of these three-the Semitic tabu against graven images, while by no means generally applicable, was in force in regard to the divinities themselves. What images we do find are of people (Coon, p.399).

According to Coon, then, they found no graven images of gods but only of people. Then Morey shows us the graven image of a woman and tells us this "may be the Moon-god himself" (Morey, p.10).

So either Coon or Morey is wrong here. And I don’t think it is Coon. He was there when he and Thompson made those amazing discoveries, so he ought to know what he discovered.

I do not know where this leaves Thompson because, as I have said, I did not read her book. But it is rather odd that she would write something in her book and then her partner writing a year later would contradict her like that.

Or, perhaps Morey does not mean to imply that either Coon or Thompson claimed any such thing. Perhaps it is only his words that mislead, not his intention. After saying that this idol may have been the Moon-god himself, Morey claimed:

This was later confirmed by other wellknown archaelogists (Morey, p.10).

If "confirmed" here does not mean what it says, Morey should have used some other word we can hold him to.

What is important, though, and for this I give him credit, is his reference in a footnote to three of these "well-known archaelogists." My concern for the moment is not whether or not they are "well-known" but my concern is to know what exactly they said about this idol. A direct quote please? I have developed a liking for checking such quotes.

I find it rather interesting that when Morey refers to the idol later he says: "Now we have the actual idols of the Moon-god..."(Morey, p.14 emphasis added). What may have been is now actual, and it has multipled: now "idols"! Is Morey never satisfied adding to his cup of sins?

http://www.themodernreligion.com/comparative/christ/christ_moongod4.htm

From the same source:

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 Allaah. 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 Allaah with the Moon-god.

Quite the contrary. His own evidence proves that the name of the Moon-god was not Allaah. 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? Allaah? 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 Allaah.

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 Allaah (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 Allaah a name again and again. On page 48 he quoted from Hastings Encyclopedia of Religion and Ethics that "Allaah" is a proper name.

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

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

Then in his own words Morey said:

Allaah 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 Allaah was the name of the high God of the pagan Arabs. Morey insisted contrary to the authorities he deceptively quoted, that Allaah was the name of the Moon-god. Either way, in that book of his, Allaah 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 Allaah being a name. He was wrong about Allaah being the Moon-god. But he was right is saying that Allaah 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 Allaah but Sin. Now he is trapped. To escape this trap he claims that Allaah is a title. He has no evidence for his claim.

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

The name Allaah 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. Allaah was never the Moon-god, despite Morey’s desperate pleading.

http://www.themodernreligion.com/comparative/christ/christ_moongod4.htm

This is a serious accusation against Morey. For those who imagine I am baiting Morey, I researched my book and wrote it BEFORE I read Morey's book. Once I saw the defect in his research, I posted this page long ago.

I did my research with an open mind to the epigraphic and historic evidences, and my research was based on original published works backed up by on-site discoveries done in the Middle East. I was prepared, from the beginning, circa 1990, to have to allow that Allah was indeed the name of Jehovah if the evidences proved that was so. I had thought that Allah might be the name for Jehovah the same way that "God" is the name for the God of the Bible and is also used by Mormons and other heretics.

Morey started with presuppositions, and he refused from the beginning, and until now, to correct his errors. After all, he would have to rewrite the book he published, and Chick Publications would have egg on their face. I told Jack Chick this was coming, and he abandoned my solar deity findings and went with the doctor, the man of fame. So be it. No Muslim scholar will ever take Morey seriously. To date, no Muslim scholar has challenged me on the validity of my research. Some have told me they do not like my conclusions, but that is to be expected.

I also find it very peculiar that King James Only people will go with Robert Morey in spite of the fact that he uses corrupted Bible versions. Chick Publications sells books defending the KJV, and then they sell Islamic Invasion by Morey who uses corrupted bibles. This duplicity is very common these days as alleged Christians will borrow defective sources to make their point.

A STUDY OF JACK CHICKS TRACTS ON ISLAM

While I was doing my research on Islam and the origins of the name of Allah, some Middle Eastern Christians were in touch with Jack Chick of Chick Publications. The issue under discussion was the name of Allah in a new tract. Jack had already published the tract using Allah for the name of the god of Islam AND the God of the Bible. The Middle Eastern Christians were also aware of my ongoing research into the origins of Islam, and they asked Jack to look reconsider his new tract. They asked him to contact me also. He did so, and I sent him about 100 select pages from a good number of sources on the epigraphic evidences that Allah was NOT the name of the God of the Bible. Jack immediately threw 10,000 tracts in the dumpster.

I was very blessed with Jack's zeal. He republished the tract and used Al Rub for the name of the God of the Bible. Later, Jack told me he wanted to do a tract on Allah and Islam again. He asked me to provide him with help with a story line, and he expressed interest in my findings that Allah had a wife figure named Allat. He learned this from the research I sent him based on secular ancient historic findings. He pressed me to finish the research and tell him I was 100% sure of the thing. I was determined to have all bridges in place, but Jack could not wait for real research.

Jack went to Robert Morey, a Reconstructionist of the Reformed heritage, and Morey sold Jack on the notion that Allah was a moon god. I showed Jack, as in the discussion above, that 99.5% of the epigraphic evidence shows that Allah was a sun god. Real research also shows that Allat, the female consort of Allah, was the moon deity, from Palmyra to Oman, and from Nineveh to Zanzibar.

Jack cast aside my findings and jumped to Morey, and my findings were mocked. The thing that enrages me is not being ignored. Anyone who was diligent would have come to the same findings I did. The insult was that we were so close to telling the story correctly and a loser with with a short stack of research material wooed Jack into publishing material which every thinking Muslim can refute.

Tracts:

ALLAH HAD NO SON
This tract makes the claim that Allah is the moon god. It also claims the crescent is the symbol of Allah and the moon. The Crescent is the ancient symbol of the moon goddess, as all epigraphic evidence and Sumerian and Babylonian inscriptions prove. In Arabia in 625 AD, that would be Allat. The star is the symbol of Ishtar, another Babylonian goddess. The sun is the first in the solar divinity, and it is the sign of the god, the MALE god, the consort of the moon goddess. This is the case EVERYWHERE in ancient evidences. This blunder by Jack Chick made rubbish of the tract to win souls of Muslims. Those who ARE won to Christ with that tract, will one day learn from some Mullah that they believe a lie about Islam. I think many tracts these days are published mainly to charm the ones passing them out. This also shows how very serious it is to let legend and fabrications creep into our witnessing.

_____________________________

THE LITTLE BRIDE
This is the worst thing I have ever seen on Islam, that is, done by alleged born again believer trying to win souls for The Lord Jesus Christ. The story line takes the moon god thing a step further. This tract claims there was a sun goddess. That is damnable bunk. The whole Middle East never had a solar goddess. The son was ALWAYS the male deity. Furthermore; if this is the work of Morey, I want to know the name of the solar goddess. Allat is NOT the one. She was the fertility goddess of Taif about 40 miles from Mecca, she was NOT in the Kaaba, and she was the moon goddess.

Here are the Satanic Verses, which Muhammed added for a short time, to the Koran, and then removed. He claimed that Satan deceived him into believing these verses were from Allah:

Have ye thought upon al-Lat and al-Uzza And Manat, the third, the other? (53:19,20) (The present verses)

These are the exalted cranes (intermediaries or birds) Whose intercession is to be hoped for.
(This was added in the original Koran by Muhammed, then removed later after Muhammed established his power in Mecca. The three ladies were thought to be intercessors of some sort.)

Are yours the males and His the females? That indeed were an unfair division! (53:21,22) (The present verses)

Robert Morey and Jack Chick need to deal with the following:

The text Muhammed added does not say the Allat, al-Uzza, nor Manat were daughters or Allah, nor does it define their divine role at all. Jack Chick or Morey simply fabricated the daughters claim. Does Moray allow Allat to be the consort of Allah? No, he makes her a daughter of Allah, according to the tract. So, Morey needs to explain how the daughter had the female linguistic equivalent of Allah. In ALL other evidences back to 3500 BC, that is ONLY used where the female is the consort of the sun god, she is the moon deity.

The Satanic Verses are indeed very powerful in dealing with Islamic leaders. But, many of them know very well that Allat is female for Allah, and that Allat was a goddess in Taif, and they will laugh at you if you try to make Allat a daughter of Allah. IT IS NOT IN ANY ANCIENT HISTORIC DATA, NOR IS IT IN ANY ISLAMIC RECORD.

The Little Bride tract is a big flop historically. It is pure Mother Goose.

_____________________________

THE PILGRIMAGE
This tract has none of the moon god notions in it,
and would be useful if you never let your Muslim friend
see any other Chick tracts on Islam.

_____________________________

Jack posts the following material which is riddled with error about Islam:

Where Did Allah Come From?-- The moon god rubbish is promoted here.

How The Qur'an Came To Be-- Truth and presumption are mixed.

Scientific Errors In The Qur'an-- Some useful material here if Moray can back it up.
This man has botched the moon god thing by using a tiny minority of evidence that is not
respected by epigraphologists. So, can we trust his other claims about Islam?

Is The Qur'an the Word of God?-- Reasonably useful and accurate

Common Logical Fallacies Made By Muslims-- This one borders on the scholarly. Useful

_____________________________

Because of this mess Chick Publications has made of their Islam series, and because of the fraud of the Alberto Rivera series with the stupid legend that the Catholic Church invented Islam, Blessed Quietness Journal is forced to make a total disclaimer of all Chick Publications material. Other tracts, far too many, have real defects. In some, the cops are made to look like fools. Cats and dogs are running around to make the story line look like a goon show. One is titled, "Why Is Mary Crying?" Mary is NOT crying. She is with Jesus, and she has no reason to cry. To make a myth of Mary crying, because Catholics pray to her, is to answer a myth with a myth. Stick with tracts that are produced by Fundamental Bible believers who are local church based. Chick Publications has a very poor relationship with local church authority.

Better yet, publish your own tracts. Computer publishing programs and printers are so good now that you have no need to buy tracts. You can say what you believe God wants you to say on any topic and to anyone you meet. Comics are assumed to get people's attention. They do, but if that is the best way to get the Gospel across, why are there no comics in the Bible? Why were the first pictures, which added to the Bible, a lot of Catholic rot from the minds of Dark Ages sex perverts?

The Word of God is almost totally missing in all Chick tracts. I note that the "plan of salvation," John 3:16, and a bunch of references without the Bible text, are added to Chick tracts in tiny font, on the last page. This implies that the Gospel is an after thought at the end of the tract. Sort of the fast legal jabber at the end of a radio commercial trying to get you to buy a new Buick.

Find tracts which are vastly Bible verses and minimal story. You will have the promise of the following:

Isaiah 55:11 So shall my word be that goeth forth out of my mouth: it shall not return unto me void, but it shall accomplish that which I please, and it shall prosper in the thing whereto I sent it.

That verse is NOT saying God will use your good intentions, good art work, and good plan. Those things are all about YOU and the artist. Who knows if God can use any of them? The promise in that verse is limited to what you find in the King James Bible, and nothing else. Get that into your tracts, and God will be able to get a verdict out of the sinner every time.

By the way, Dr. Robert Morey is NOT King James Only as to the English Bible. Jack Chick needs to explain why he defends the KJV in some publications while he also uses a man who mutilates it.

Here are examples of Robert Morey, the Bible mutilator:

As a physician, Dr. Luke was a trained scientific mind. This is why he did NOT base the resurrection of Jesus on an existential leap of faith. Instead, he talks in terms of overwhelming evidence that demonstrates that Jesus had been physically raised from the dead. He calls these evidences "infallible proofs."

The word "infallible" is not the best translation of the Greek word tekmpios. This is why most modern versions do not render the word that way.

New American Standard: "convincing proofs"

Amplified Bible: "convincing demonstrations"

The whole point of Dr. Luke is that to his scientific mind, the evidence that Christ arose is very convincing to anyone open minded enough to look at it honestly. Let us review some of these convincing evidences. MORE

In his attack on Gail Riplinger, who did have some problems, Morey showed his willingness to attack the King James Bible:

The Researcher (a now defunct newsletter promoting the work of Bob Morey) printed a critique of New Age Bible Versions. Hunt, the Christian and Missionary Alliance churches and others have leaned heavily on this rubber crutch. After publishing his error and sophistry laden 'critique', Morey lost the financial backers for his newsletter and lost 13 of the 14 stations on which his program was aired. Morey's mordacious tone must shock the air waves like Webster's "voracious" moray eel. Floods of callers to the widely syndicated radio program, Crosstalk, protested his fierce, unchristian tone and slanderous remarks about the KJV and New Age Bible Versions, forcing the stations to cancel the scheduled replaying of his interview. A similar incident on WIXL in Texas prompted the station to permanently cancel the sponsoring program.

Morey has not devoted years of his career to a full collation of new versions, but has written books discussing unrelated topics like Freemasonry and the Muslim religion. As a result, his review interlaces pseudo-scholarship with lies - a pattern often used by the cults to "deceive the hearts of the simple." Morey's beliefs, and those of the book's other critic, Jim White, are that of the reformed school. It denies truths held by most Christians, such as 1.) one must, by an act of free will, believe on the Lord Jesus Christ to be saved and 2.) bible prophecy points to a time of tribulation, a coming antichrist, followed by the second coming of Christ and the millennial kingdom. Books like New Age Bible Versions, which affirm such beliefs, are bound to receive a biased review.

A footnote Morey used: "Erasmus was into the occult."(4) (Colin Wilson, The Occult, (New York: Random House, 1971), p. 242)

Another footnote by Morey: "Erasmus started liberalism. Erasmus' religion was New Age." (The Encyclopedia of Philosophy, New York: Macmillian, 1972) 111:42) "his philosophy of Christ...was nondoctrinal religion, a religion without theology...This outlook had a great impact on the most liberal reformers and the nondoctrinal mystics." And, "In place of the philosophical and theological systems of the time, Erasmus set forth his 'philosophy of Christ,' to be arrived by pious study rather than disputations. This 'philosophy' was supposed to represent the simple message of Christianity in its spirit rather than its letter; it was a message to be lived, not to be formulated in abstract systems. It was a nondoctrinal religion, a religion without theology, which could be approached through the early Church Fathers and the morality of the New Testament but not through the morass of distinctions, terminology, and theory built up in the Middle Ages. This outlook had a great impact on the most liberal reformers and nondoctrinal mystics." (p. 43)

Morey claims, "King James was a homosexual, the KJV is thus a "queer" Bible." And, "King James was a crypto-Roman Catholic."

Morey's lack of knowledge as he slams around in the dark, "[There are] only 1,700 Old Testament MS...Nearly all are quite late and date from the Middle Ages (1000) A.D." FACT-- There are at least 4200 such manuscripts.

Morey's Bible has errors, "Only 13 errors happened." in the Old Testament. Morey got that from Dr. Burrows, who has since recanted.

Morey claims a very small number of omissions are found in modern non-KJV bibles, "Only about 50 readings are problematic and all of them fit on one page." In fact, there are 64,098 omissions of words in the NIV, which is 170 pages in a 1700 page Bible.

Morey trusts intellectualism and scholarship for the final verdict on Bible meanings, "When in doubt about a text, we have a wealth of resources to consult."

Morey trashed Revelation 22, "Since none of his [Erasmus] manuscripts had the last of Rev. 22, he translated it from the Latin into Greek" Herman Hoskier, one of the few men who ever did a full collation of the manuscripts for Revelation, disputes Morey's claim, affirming that Erasmus used Greek MS 141 (2049). (See Hoskier, Herman, Concerning the Text of the Apocalypse, London: Quaritch, Vol. 1, pp. 474-77; Vol. 2, pp. 454, 635.)

MORE from my source.

Morey, as to doctrine, says, "He (God) hated the reprobate and planned their sin and damnation" (296) Studies in the Atonement This is hyper-Calvinism, and it is precisely what Muhammed taught.

If you think this Reformed snob can be trusted to get the god and goddess story right from 3500 BC, I have this great deal for you on a bridge in Brooklyn. Jack Chick should also take a long look at this hyper-Calvinist, as should all you who claim to be Fundamental bible believers.

Finally, Robert Morey's book, Islamic Invasion, is NOT written with a view to win souls from Islam to Jesus Christ. It is an Arab bashing defensive exercise in meanness:

"The contents of Morey's book are familiar from many previous Christian polemics against Islam-a dubious look at the Prophet Muhammad's life, at Islamic theology, and at Muslim history-but the intent is different. In bygone eras, such a study would have had a missionary purpose (as with Samuel Zwemmer); now, as the title and subtitle both imply, it is defensive. Christians no longer expect to take their faith to the Muslims but fear conversions of their own to Islam. The back cover asks, "As mosques appear across the country, people are asking - 'What do I need to know about Islam?' Morey, executive director of the Research and Education Foundation, "an organization which investigates topics that affect Western culture and values," offers an alarming answer. He sees Islam primarily as "a form of cultural imperialism" that seeks to impose the ways of seventh-century Arabia on twentieth-century America. To back this up, he tells of visiting an African-American household and finding that its members "wore Arab clothing, listened to Arab music, and ate Arab food! . . . They had abandoned American culture and adopted Arabian culture instead. This is what Islam meant to them. " Daniel Pipes

MORE

This method of polemic is fine if you are trying to terrorize the saints and turn them in hate against the lost sinner. But, true believers, and I trust Jack Chick, have another agenda. Morey has NO zeal for lost souls. Morey's God wants them damned, and so does Robert Morey.

Finally, Robert Morey's web site has a lot about salvation doctrine for Christians to understand, and he tells the reader how to deal with cults. But, he nowhere on that site gives the Gospel of The Lord Jesus Christ to the web surfer and reader, at least not in a friendly loving manner of a man who is broken hearted for lost souls. CHECK IT OUT

Jack Chick has used a man who is like mackerel in the moonlight. He shines and he stinks.

LINKS:

ANOTHER ARTICLE BY STEVE VAN NATTAN ON ROBERT MOREY

JACK CHICK AND CHICK PUBLICATIONS HAVE SOME PROBLEMS WITH TRUTH--
Perhaps this explains their myths about Islam being started by the Catholic Church,
and the Allah-is-a-moon-god notions.

DO YOU RECALL REBECCA BROWN AND ELAINE COLLINS (ALLEGED CONVERTED WICCAN)?
Jack Chick printed their book full of mythical notions and foolishness.
SEE WHERE THEY ENDED UP Collins is co-author of the book posted, Brown writes a promo below.

Here is how Morey's foolishness has helped Christians,
converted from Islam, make fools of themselves.

I feel I am vindicated by time and the evidences,
though I am forced to thank Muslims who forced this thing out into the open.

Another Islamic response to Morey's errors

POW! Here is the killer of them all, for this writer has found the connection between El and the moon god, according to Coon, one of Morey's sources. Coon was an ungodly researcher in the Middle East who WANTED El, or Elohim, to be a pagan deity. He therefore called El the moon god. I told you from day one when I put this book on the Web, circa 1995, that a smart Mullah would one day stuff Morey's idiocy right back down his throat with this "Allah is a moon god" rubbish. He set up the Mullahs with a case they could not lose, and while they are heretics by biblical definitions, they are not idiots. There is also a very nasty surprise waiting in the Sinai desert for Morey, once a Mullah finds the research in a university library, and all because Morey would not make Allah the solar deity, which he was.

Back to Table of Contents