Talk:Al-Uzza

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

older discussions[edit]

Do you think works of Robert Morey will really do it for this article? Heck no, so let's avoid that. Refutation is here: http://www.islamic-awareness.org/Quran/Sources/Allah/moongod.html

As for the 'satanic verses', someone delete that part. refutation: http://www.answering-christianity.com/bassam_zawadi/satanic_verses.htm this satanic verses doesnt even make any sence!!!!

The link to the following highly colored Islamist site has been suppressed by a recent visitor: Those Are The High Flying Claims

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)? OneGuy 04:45, 21 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Is there really any need to recount the 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? - 208.147.76.23 06:18, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)

For some reason Wetman wants to recount the entire Satanic Verses episode here. I don't have any idea why. I agree that the whole section is irrelevant and is already covered in the Satanic Verses article OneGuy 06:38, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)

A request for references[edit]

In response to a request from 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, Almaqah, Wadd, 'Amm —or Sin as he was also called to the north, in Sumer, if the difference were only the oppositeness of gender. By further speculation, 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 User: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 Kitab al-Asnam would be very welcome, since he seems thoroughly familiar with it. --Wetman 01:20, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)

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 OneGuy 03:32, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)
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. OneGuy 10:08, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Recent changes[edit]

Frankly— 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 Quraysh who were under Hubal's protection until Mohammed converted them, cannot be determined." The kind of thought that's quite commonplace in 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 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. --Wetman 02:29, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)

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... --Wetman 03:46, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)
If you had taken the trouble to check, the English and Arabic links (the later actually working) had both already been added by me some time earlier. - Mustafaa 18:22, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)

...easily overlooked apparently, but now actually incorporated into the article, with the Wikipedia reader in mind. --Wetman 21:50, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Wetman makes a serious accusation in accusing me of covert revisions to quoted text - and a false one. What I did 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. --Wetman 21:50, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)
That's 1:59 on my display, but never mind. That was thoughtless of me - although "Allah" is indeed correct, as confirmed by the Kitab al-Asnam - but you will also note that I fixed the problem soon after by deleting the irrelevant portion of the quote. - Mustafaa 22:10, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)

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 Ibn al Kalbi's' early 9th century Kitab al-Asnam, the "Book of Idols", the pagan Arabs believed her to be one of 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. - Mustafaa 18:12, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)

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. --Wetman 21:50, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)
(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. - Mustafaa 22:10, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)

"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 18:22, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)

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 21:50, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)

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 18:34, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)

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 21:50, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)

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 22:10, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Incidentally, pre-Islamic references to Allah are not anachronistic in a pagan context; the name is attested in Nabataean and Safaitic inscriptions[1]. - Mustafaa 22:34, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)

3?[edit]

What does the prefixed 3 in "3ZY" and "3Uzza" indicate? —Charles P. (Mirv) 17:47, 16 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

it means the letter AYIN.
em zilch

NPOV[edit]

All Wikipedia Articles must have a NPOV. The pagan gods of Arabia [53.19-24]
[53.19] (Among the idols) have you considered allat and al'uzza,
[53.20] and, another, the third manat?
[53.21] What, have you males, and He females!
[53.22] That is indeed an unjust division.
[53.23] They are but names, named by you and your fathers. Allah has not sent down any authority for them. They follow conjecture and their soul's desire, even though the guidance of their Lord has come to them.
[53.24] Is the human to have whatever he fancies?
See! Those are the Real Verses! This ARticle should be deleted for not complying with NPOV! --Obaidz96 (talk • contribs • count) 01:15, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Blacklisted Links Found on the Main Page[edit]

Cyberbot II has detected that page contains external links that have either been globally or locally blacklisted. Links tend to be blacklisted because they have a history of being spammed, or are highly innappropriate for Wikipedia. This, however, doesn't necessarily mean it's spam, or not a good link. If the link is a good link, you may wish to request whitelisting by going to the request page for whitelisting. If you feel the link being caught by the blacklist is a false positive, or no longer needed on the blacklist, you may request the regex be removed or altered at the blacklist request page. If the link is blacklisted globally and you feel the above applies you may request to whitelist it using the before mentioned request page, or request it's removal, or alteration, at the request page on meta. When requesting whitelisting, be sure to supply the link to be whitelisted and wrap the link in nowiki tags. The whitelisting process can take its time so once a request has been filled out, you may set the invisible parameter on the tag to true. Please be aware that the bot will replace removed tags, and will remove misplaced tags regularly.

Below is a list of links that were found on the main page:

  • http://www.pantheon.org/articles/u/uzza.html
    Triggered by \bpantheon\.org\b on the local blacklist

If you would like me to provide more information on the talk page, contact User:Cyberpower678 and ask him to program me with more info.

From your friendly hard working bot.—cyberbot II NotifyOnline 15:53, 8 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Krone's proposal[edit]

Have added brief reference to Susan Krone's proposal of the fusion of the identities of Al-Lat and Al-'Uzza, and its citation elsewhere.Cpsoper (talk) 00:41, 14 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Acute versus macron[edit]

I've seen the name "al-‘Uzzá" written with an acute accent elsewhere too; I was wondering what the reason is for using an acute rather than a macron ("al-‘Uzzā"). This looks odd when we mention "al-Manāt" in the same sentence, but perhaps there's a reason I don't know about (i.e. maybe the acute indicates something other than/in addition to vowel length). Thanks in advance! Q·L·1968 ☿ 17:31, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Al-‘Uzzá. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:28, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

_________________________________________

Al Uzza as an angel:

According to Isaac of Antioch, the pagan Arabs worshiped the Venus Star under the title Al‘Uzza “The Strong (Female)” and Syrian women ascended the roof tops to pray to the star to make them beautiful.

Grintz suggested that the Aza’el/Azazel or

Uza of 1Enoch 8:1

is none other than the goddess Al‘Uzza.

Indeed, Enoch tells that Aza’el taught men to make among

other things bracelets, and ornaments, and the use of anti- mony, and the beautifying of eyelids, and all kinds of costly stones, and all coloring tinctures.

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Al-‘Uzzá. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:30, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A question about the subject[edit]

Are the pre Islamic Goddess and the Enochian Uzza, actually the same? (The Enochian Uzza exists in Islam in relation to Harut and Marut as well, but I doubt that they are all the same)--VenusFeuerFalle (talk) 23:09, 28 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Influence on oher religions section[edit]

This section, especially the one about "the angel", seems not to be about the Arabian goddess. The source referred to (Davidson) talks about the angel Uzza, which is related to a range of angels known from Enochian literature, such as Aza, Azazel, Shemyaza, and some of these angels are also related to Samael (because "rebellious angels are sometimes merged with other ones). But it is unlikely this is related to the Arabian goddess. There further seems to be no source supporting that the deity Uzza., is the same as the fallen angel, or that they influenced each other. If there is some evidence, that Jewish angels influenced the main deities of pre-Islamic Arabian pantheon it should be cited well. Otherwise, I would actually tend to remove theis sections, because the name seems to be the only thing they share. VenusFeuerFalle (talk) 14:05, 15 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Al-Uzza&oldid=1195142229"