The link to the following highly colored Islamist site has been suppressed by a recent visitor: http://www.islamic-awareness.org/Polemics/sverses.html
:It's an Islamic site, or a site by a Muslim, not an Islamist site. Islamist is a word used by some people to describe political movements based on Islam, like Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt.
:Funny, this article has the phrase "moon god" seven times (repeated like a ritual) even though there is no proof that Hubal was a moon god. By the way, al-Lah would mean God with the capital "g," Since Hubal was one of the idol in Mecca, wouldn't he be called (illah, "god" with small "g", not al-Lah)?
Secret ringtone OneGuy/OneGuy 04:45, 21 Oct 2004 Is there really any need to recount the
Jaded Mercury Satanic Verses episode in full in each of these three goddess articles, when it has its own article? And can we pleeease have a source for the claim that Uzza was supposed to be a daughter of Hubal? -
Download ringtones 208.147.76.23/208.147.76.23 06:18, 6 Feb 2005 :For some reason Wetman wants to recount the entire
Audrey Lamore Satanic Verses episode here. I don't have any idea why. I agree that the whole section is irrelevant and is already covered in
Cingular ringtones the Satanic Verses article
Evilyn Machine OneGuy/OneGuy 06:38, 6 Feb 2005 A request for referencesIn response to a request from
Verizon ringtones User:Mustafaa posted at my Userpage: "You state that Uzza, al-Lat, and Manat were believed to be daughters of Hubal. The source for that claim, however, is unclear; the Kitab al-Asnam, which you link to, makes no such claim, and neither does Ibn Ishaq in the Satanic Verses episode. Would you care to provide a suitable source?" (Mustafaa 23:01, 11 Feb 2005)
I have reviewed the entry and find that passages based on well-known Islamic sources have been deleted from the entry since I last looked at it.
In response to Mustafaa's request, I have disambiguated references to people, added links, attributed statements in the new manner recommended for Wikipedia and added to References.
I have removed here the following text in the hopes that it can be brought up to standards if it is to be re-edited into the article:
:''Uzza according to a recent study (''source'') of the complicated evidence, is believed to have been introduced into Arabia from Mesopotamia, and to have been the moon goddess of North Arabia. If this is the correct interpretation of her character, she would be the female counterpart of the moon deity of South Arabia,
Felony Angel Almaqah, Wadd, 'Amm —or
Nextel ringtones Sin (mythology)/Sin as he was also called to the north, in
Allie pierce Sumer, if the difference were only the oppositeness of gender. By further speculation,
Cingular Ringtones Mount Sinai— solely based on an etymology as a feminine form of ''Sin''— would then have been one of the centers of the worship of this northern moon god or goddess (Finnegan 1952).''
I am not convinced that Finegan would recognize these statements; a quote might help.
I have removed for Discussion the following assertion: "Some Western scholars like John Burton also question its authenticity" is reference to the notorious delted suras. Is this in reference to Burton's ''The Collection Of The Qur'an,'' 1977? Does this accurately reflect what Burton has said of Uzza?
I expect that
wares today Mustafaa will have ''many'' references to add himself. And a number of supported statements to round out a neutral and balanced entry. Much more apropos ones, too, than my ignorant efforts. An entry for ''fund ira Kitab al-Asnam'' would be very welcome, since he seems thoroughly familiar with it. enterprise known User:Wetman/Wetman 01:20, 12 Feb 2005 : See J. Burton, "Those Are The High-Flying Cranes", Journal Of Semitic Studies, 1970, Volume 15, No. 2, p. 265. That's where that Islamic apologist site got the title of his page too
traveler who OneGuy/OneGuy 03:32, 12 Feb 2005 :Also, you never answered why you want to recount the Satanic Verses story on this page again, when that is already covered on Satanic Verses page? (see that question above). Only someone who doesn't understand this topic would so confidentially claim that only "liars" don't believe the story (that's what you told me on your page). That tells me that you don't have a clue about this topic.
marshall began OneGuy/OneGuy 10:08, 12 Feb 2005 Recent changesFrankly— and utterly impersonally— I would tend to distrust ''any'' editor who makes covert revisions to '''quoted text''' as Mustafaa has now "corrected" the quote of al-Tawil in the entry. What else might be subverted by someone operating at such a cultural level? Certainly, the following text has now been suppressed by Mustafaa: ''"Whether these daughters of Hubal actually preceded him, and were reimagined as daughters when Hubal came to prominence at Mecca with the tribe of the
favorite retreat Quraysh who were under Hubal's protection until Mohammed converted them, cannot be determined."'' The kind of thought that's quite commonplace in
boom then Greek mythology is a thought the reader is not to be permitted under Mustafaa's regime. Why are these the "daughters" of Hubal at Mecca, when Uzza appears '''without Hubal''' at Petra? Too subtle a question for Wikipedians? Or simply too subtle for one censor? But I ask you all: could such a logical possibility have been more modestly presented? Mustafaa tells us at the same time what pagan Arabians ''believed'': "the pagan Arabs believed her to be one of
pakistan fifth Allah's three daughters"— quite a daring assumption under the circumstances, wouldn't you all agree?. Note that the former text refers only to outward signs of cult, never to what anyone might have ''believed.'' Don't let the objections be falsely characterized as a "personal attack": these are objections to ''actions'' that would apply to anyone, without exception.
work propagating Wetman/Wetman 02:29, 12 Feb 2005 :I have now entered material directly quoting ''Kitab al-Asnam'' as translated in the website I had lost track of, and of which Mustafaa has generously reminded me. I have entered it as a Reference, so that it will not be lost again, with an Arabic alternative, the link to which perhaps Mustafaa would be willing to ensure works, for the sake of the Wikipedia reader, always at the forefront of our thoughts...
291st lap Wetman/Wetman 03:46, 12 Feb 2005 :: If you had taken the trouble to check, the English and Arabic links (the later actually working) had both already been added by me http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Uzza&diff=10179927&oldid=10179800 -
files movie Mustafaa/Mustafaa 18:22, 14 Feb 2005 ...easily overlooked apparently, but now actually incorporated into the article, with the Wikipedia reader in mind.
as worthy Wetman/Wetman 21:50, 14 Feb 2005 Wetman makes a serious accusation in accusing me of covert revisions to '''quoted text''' - and a false one. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Uzza&diff=10180077&oldid=10180060 was remove the irrelevant second half of the quote, which describes Hubal but not Uzza: "By the end of that war, the victorious Abu Sufyan cried: "O Hubal be exalted, O Hubal be exalted." The Prophet answered him: "God is the highest and the most exalted." (Tawil 1993)".
::Where the Tawil quote had "God", Mustafaa edited it to "Allah" (21:59, 11 Feb 2005) but has now taken the trouble to silently restore the original in the form that he quotes the deleted text just above. How unpleasantly eelish. More to the point, the juxtaposition of Hubal with Uzza among the pagan Quraysh, in their battle cries, is part of the lesson of the full and correct quote, which has been partly suppressed, precisely to obscure this undesirable historical connection, a connection that is not part of Mustafaa's personal indoctrination— which he inflicts upon Wikipedia.
and arabs Wetman/Wetman 21:50, 14 Feb 2005 :::That's http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Uzza&diff=10179560&oldid=10179517 on my display, but never mind. That was thoughtless of me - although "Allah" is indeed correct, as confirmed by http://answering-islam.org.uk/Books/Al-Kalbi/uzza.htm - but you will also note that I fixed the problem soon after by deleting the irrelevant portion of the quote. -
head hunted Mustafaa/Mustafaa 22:10, 14 Feb 2005 He follows this misrepresentation up with another one: "Mustafaa tells us at the same time what pagan Arabians ''believed''". Ny exact words were "'''According to
campaign store Ibn al Kalbi's' '''early 9th century ''
fair means Kitab al-Asnam'', the "Book of Idols", the pagan Arabs believed her to be one of
alien here Allah's three daughters", and Ibn al-Kalbi's exact words were "These were also called "the Daughters of Allah[17]." I do not characterize Wetman's objections as a mere "personal attack", but as either an exceedingly careless mistake or a dishonorable lie; the same, incidentally, applies to his inexplicable habit of confusing Hubal with Allah. -
comfortably fire Mustafaa/Mustafaa 18:12, 14 Feb 2005 ::A pagan Quraysh, referring to the chief deity, Hubal, would naturally call him ''al-Lah'' "god." My "habit" of confusing Allah with Hubal is not inexplicable but indeed reflects the historical practice, as the quote from the ''Kitab al-Asnam'' conclusively demonstrates: the pagan Arabs called the three goddesses the daughters— not of Hubal— but of Allah. Allah's association with the three goddesses in the first place identifies him as in some respects a successor to Hubal. Mustafaa will insist that there is no god but Allah. Wikipedia, however, does not promulgate dogma, except under pressure.''
fall reforming Wetman/Wetman 21:50, 14 Feb 2005 :::(bang of head against wall) "Allah's association with the three goddesses in the first place identifies him as in some respects a successor to Hubal" ''only if the three goddesses had ever been called the daughters of Hubal!'' Wetman is assuming precisely the point he should be trying to prove. -
of venice Mustafaa/Mustafaa 22:10, 14 Feb 2005 ''"Whether these daughters of Hubal actually preceded him, and were reimagined as daughters when Hubal came to prominence at Mecca with the tribe of the Quraysh who were under Hubal's protection until Mohammed converted them, cannot be determined."'' Despite my pointing it out to him previously, Wetman seems to remain unaware of the obvious problem with this text: it is based on the false premise that these were claimed to be daughters of Hubal, rather than (as Ibn al-Kalbi and Ibn Ishaq both claim) daughters of Allah. -
Mustafaa/Mustafaa 18:22, 14 Feb 2005 ::It is a perfectly sensible suggestion, tactfully undercut with "cannot be determined." Apparently not an idea that may even be considered among the indoctrinated. But why do ''we'' have to suffer too?
Wetman/Wetman 21:50, 14 Feb 2005 Wetman feels that the following speculation adds something to the article:
: ''If the war-cry of the pagan Quraysh was "O people of `Uzza, people of Hubal", the substitution of Allah in this pagan context raises questions among Western readers, as to whose daughter Uzza actually was. Whether these daughters of Hubal or Allah actually preceded him, and were reimagined as daughters, first when Hubal came to prominence at Mecca with the tribe of the Quraysh who were under Hubal's protection and then were transferred to Muhammed, cannot be determined: such speculations are firmly discouraged in Islamic circles.''
I, on the other hand, find it difficult to imagine that the undocumented speculations of inexpert "Western readers" are of any interest to an encyclopedia. If a Western ''scholar'' in this field has suggested the theory that they were daughters of Hubal, then he deserves due credit for the suggestion, and the least we can do is mention his name. If, on the other hand, this is merely Wetman's original speculation, then he should really publish it in a peer-reviewed journal first. -
Mustafaa/Mustafaa 18:34, 14 Feb 2005 ::Let the alert reader of Wikipedia note the passage and make up her own mind whether or not it adds something to the article. A rebuttle might have been added to the statement by an ''editor''. But perhaps whether its suppression adds something to the Islamic Denial that so vividly surrounds and distorts this subject, as the above dialogue so clearly demonstrates.
::I am now removing this article from my Watchlist. ''Caveat lector.''
Wetman/Wetman 21:50, 14 Feb 2005 Whatever. Despite my best efforts to ensure that the other side is represented, Wetman has ''still'' provided not so much as a single piece of evidence connecting Allah - or the three goddesses that the pagans called his daughters - to Hubal, a point directly contradicted by the Kitab al-Asnam (p. 24): I can only conclude that none exists. -
Mustafaa/Mustafaa 22:10, 14 Feb 2005 Incidentally, pre-Islamic references to Allah are ''not'' anachronistic in a pagan context; the name is attested in Nabataean and Safaitic inscriptions[http://nabataea.net/write3.html]. -
Mustafaa/Mustafaa 22:34, 14 Feb 2005
