Islam, Jack Chick and the Battle for Souls – Response to the Chick Tract “Allah Had No Son”
“Among His Signs are the Night and the Day, and the Sun and the Moon. Do not prostrate to the sun and the moon, but prostrate to Allah, Who created them, if it is Him ye wish to serve.”
– The Holy Quran, Surah Fussilat, 41:37
The works of the late Christian cartoonist Jack T. Chick (d. 2016) are well-known throughout the world. These comics, known as “Chick Tracts”, have been read by millions and are frequently handed out by missionaries seeking to win converts to Christianity. But as much as they are popular among Christians, they have also generated great controversy among both Christians and non-Christians. Chick did not mince words. He was a devout Evangelical Christian and regarded any other religion or ideology to be the work of the devil. Whether it was Catholicism, Islam, communism or masonry, Chick was adamant that they were all started by Satan in order to deceive people and lead them to an eternity in hell. In our new series, “Islam, Jack Chick and the Battle for Souls”, we will examine and respond specifically to Chick’s comics about Islam. This will be an ongoing series and will include responses to several of Chick’s claims about Islam, such as the “moon-god” myth (of which he was a strong proponent). As a result of these examinations, we will see that Chick’s claims were grounded more in his own ignorance and biases rather than in actual facts about Islam. To inaugurate this new series, we will first examine the popular tract titled “Allah Had No Son”, which also appeals to the “moon-god” myth. First, we will summarize the plot and then examine the claims that Chick’s fictional Christian character makes against Islam.
“Allah Had No Son” – The Plot
In this tract, the setting is a mosque where Muslims are prostrating during prayer. Two Christians, a father and his son, are walking by, when the son asks the father what the people are doing. To this question, the father answers quite confidently:
“[t]hey’re praying to their moon god, son.”
Hearing this offensive statement (and apparently not concerned with breaking the prayer), one of the Muslim worshipers confronts the father and threatens the “infidel” with death for insulting Islam. The Muslim then proceeds to berate the man and reveals that his religion is poised to take control of America (apparently he was aware of the Islamic master plan), going so far as to claim that he expects a “Muslim flag” (whatever that is):
“…to fly over the White House in the near future.”
To prove it, the Muslim claims that the same thing has already happened in Britain, and that:
“…the Islamic religion is bringing Britain to her knees.”
The man then proceeds to list reasons why Christianity is false:
- The Bible is corrupted because the Holy Quran condemns it.
- Muhammad (peace be upon him) was the greatest of prophets.
- Jesus (peace be upon him) was never crucified and that someone else died on the cross.
- Jesus (peace be upon him) was not God’s son because the Quran says so.
At this point, the Christian father fires back. First, he emphatically states that (emphasis in the original) “Allah in NOT God”, which causes the angry Muslim to “gasp” in shock. The Christian then claims that:
“…history proves that before Islam…the Sabeans in Arabia worshiped the moon god, who married the sun goddess, who gave birth to three goddesses…Al-lat, Al-Uzza and Manat…”
Next, the Christian claims that Allah, the alleged “moon god”, was one of the 360 idols that were stored in the Kaaba and that Muhammad (peace be upon him) knew “all about this”. Furthermore, the Christian points out that “the crescent moon is everywhere in Islam” and that the holy month of Ramadan “begins and ends with the crescent moon” and asks why this is so (obviously implying that it “proves” that Muslims worship a “moon god”).
To explain why Muhammad (peace be upon him) did all this, the Christian claims that he “…wanted to create his own religion” (though he gives no motive for this), and since he needed the support of his tribe, he chose Allah (the alleged moon-god) as “the one god” and declared himself to be the prophet of this god.
Following this, things get even more interesting. The Christian claims that excavations in the 1950s at Hazor in Palestine found “two idols of the moon god”, and then proceeds to pull out a photo of one such idol (apparently, he carried it around just in case he ran into a Muslim). The picture shows a statue with what appears to be an upside down crescent moon on its chest. The statue also appears to be looking towards the heavens with its hands raised.
Finally, the Christian warns the Muslim that he and his brethren “have been betrayed” but that they have hope in the “real God in heaven who died for all Muslims…” He is referring, of course, to the Christian Trinitarian god, which is “God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Ghost”, who together “are the one true God”.
He proceeds to tell the story of Jesus, who “created the universe”, and that on the Day of Judgment, he will judge all people, including Muhammad (peace be upon him). The Christian tells him that “because of sin, the gates of heaven are closed” but that God had given people a way into heaven nevertheless. He did this by sending “…God the Son, Jesus Christ, from heaven to die for our sins.” Jesus was conceived by the Virgin Mary through the action of the Holy Ghost, and was born “sinless”. He was later crucified “to wash away your sins…to give you eternal life in heaven.” The Christian also claims that on the day of the crucifixion, Jesus “fulfilled over 30 prophecies…” He died on the cross, was buried but then “rose from the dead three days later” and will come “soon in power and great glory”.
After hearing this incredible story, the Muslim asks:
“[i]f all this is true, how can I be saved from hell?”
To this, the Christian answers:
“[r]ecognize that Satan has deceived you. Admit that you are a sinner in need of a Savior, repent, and ask Jesus to come into your heart.”
The Muslim obliges and does as he is told (apparently he was quite gullible and was willing to listen to a random stranger). After doing so, he happily declares:
“I am changed! I am free! At last I am loved by God!”
In tears, he then decides that he:
“…must tell my people about the moon god and about the glorious Christ who saves sinners, and is coming soon.”
His fellow Christian warns him that doing so “may cost you your life”, but the new Christian heroically shrugs it off by stating:
“[i]t will be worth it, because I’ll be with my loving Father in heaven for all eternity.”
Examination of “Allah Had No Son”
Having summarized the plot of this incredible (and of course fictional) story, let us now proceed to examine it. First, although this does not serve to refute any of the extraordinary claims made in the tract, it is difficult to avoid pointing out the various plot holes in the story. Jack Chick may have been a gifted artist, but he surely was not a good story-teller! For example, why would a devout Muslim so easily break his prayer, even if it was because of some offense from a non-Muslim? And why was the Christian father carrying a picture of an alleged “moon-god” idol in his pocket? Did he leave home every day, remembering to bring his wallet, money, keys…and last but not least…a picture of an ancient artifact to use in his missionary activities? It sounds rather silly. Not only that, but the whole story revolves around a rather gullible Muslim, who blindly believes everything the Christian has told him. One would think that most people would not be so gullible, but perhaps Chick wished they were! The Muslim character is also angry and prone to violence. These are typical stereotypes that Chick used in his caricatures of Muslims in other tracts as well. Thus, “Chick Tracts” like these are more akin to propaganda tracts designed to instill fear of the “other”, rather than an honest and fair representation of an entire religion. But of course, regardless of whether Chick was a biased bigot or not, these critiques are all irrelevant to the bold claims he makes in the tract. Let us discuss these now.
To begin, the Muslim character threatened the Christian by saying that the Quran commands him to kill anyone who speaks against his religion. To prove his point, Chick referred the reader to Surah 5:33. Let us see what this verse actually says:
“Indeed, the penalty for those who wage war against Allah and His Messenger and strive upon earth [to cause] corruption is none but that they be killed or crucified or that their hands and feet be cut off from opposite sides or that they be exiled from the land. That is for them a disgrace in this world; and for them in the Hereafter is a great punishment…”
There is nothing in this verse that allows a Muslim to kill anyone who speaks against Islam. Rather, it is talking about fighting “those who wage war” against Islam. Already, Chick has been caught misquoting the Quran!
In fact, the Quran actually advises Muslims who hear offensive or “vain discourse” to simply “turn away” from the person saying such things. As Surah Al-Anaam, 6:68, states:
“[w]hen thou seest men engaged in vain discourse about Our signs, turn away from them unless they turn to a different theme. If Satan ever makes thee forget, then after recollection, sit not thou in the company of those who do wrong.”
Next, Chick’s Muslim villain claimed that Islam was taking over America, repeating what it had done in Britain. This is a common accusation against Muslims, and very similar to those made against Jews and even Catholics in the early 20th century. But it seems absurd to suggest that a small minority would be capable of taking over a country using subterfuge and it is certainly not a coincidence that such claims are almost always made against minority groups.
As it turns out, even in Britain, statistics suggest that instead of a Muslim take-over, there is in actual fact a secular take-over. As more and more people leave Christianity in favor of atheism or agnosticism, the influence of Christianity is getting weaker and weaker. Islam has nothing to do with it. Similarly, the claim of a Muslim take-over in America is simply xenophobic hate-mongering, and the target is a small minority which makes up only about 1% of the population. As it is in Britain, the population of “religious nones” (i.e. atheists, agnostics or those who do not follow any religion) is growing in America. Recent estimates suggest that “nones” account for 23% of the population. Once again, Islam has nothing to do with it.
Now let us move on to the theological claims made in the tract. The most important and egregious accusation that Chick’s Christian character made is that Allah (Glorified and Exalted be He) was actually a pre-Islamic “moon god”. This theory has gained popularity in the last few decades among many Christians. In the tract, the Christian father claimed that “history proves that…the Sabeans in Arabia worshiped the moon god” who also had three daughters (Al-Lat, Al-Uzza and Manat). But modern scholarship has actually rejected this theory. In contrast to Chick’s claim, what the “history” really proves is that the Sabeans actually worshiped a “sun god”, who was called “Ilmaqah” or “Almaqah”. And as it turns out, his “consort” was also a sun deity which was known as “Shams” (which happens to be the Arabic word for the “sun”). Thus, there is no foundation for the claim that the Sabeans worshiped a “moon god” called “Allah”. Rather, to the pre-Islamic Arab pagans, Allah (Glorified and Exalted be He) was the supreme God. He was never associated with the moon or any other celestial body.
Next, Chick’s Christian character claimed that Allah was simply one of the 360 idols in the Kaaba and that the Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) knew this. But this is simply not true. As Islamic scholar Shabbir Ally states:
“Allah to the Arabs was the Lord of the Ka’bah. He was the unseen God whom they would call upon when in distress. Yes, they worshipped the true God but their worship was not purely for Him. They also worshipped other gods thinking that they would act as intermediaries between them and the true God Allah.”
So, Allah (Glorified and Exalted be He) was not worshiped as an idol and there has never been such a thing as an “idol” of Allah. This polemic is literally an invention of Christian apologists.
It seems the main reason why Christians like Chick wanted to associate Allah (Glorified and Exalted be He) with the “moon god” was to link it with the prevalence of the crescent symbol in Islamic culture. In the tract, the Christian used the crescent moon as “proof” that Allah (Glorified and Exalted be He) was a “moon god”. But this is a very silly argument. There is actually no evidence that Muslims used the crescent moon as the “symbol” of Islam in the time of the Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him). Rather, it only became more commonly used after it was adopted by the Ottoman Empire shortly after the conquest of Constantinople in 1453.
As a matter of fact, evidence from the authentic ahadith shows that Muslims in the time of Muhammad (peace be upon him) did not use any symbol, let alone a crescent moon. For example, the “flag” used by the Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) in battles was simply a plain black flag with no symbol at all:
“Narrated Ibn ‘Abbas: ‘The flag of the Messenger of Allah (ﷺ) was black, and his standard was white.’”
In addition, an examination of the earliest Islamic coins shows no evidence of the widespread usage of the crescent moon as an Islamic “symbol”. It was common for coins to have common symbols or phrases, which reflected the society they were produced in. For example, after the Muslims conquered Iran, they minted coins which generally only used Islamic phrases coupled with Zoroastrian symbols. One such coin, minted in the year 667 CE (47 AH), used the phrase “bism Allah al-malik” (“In the Name of God, the King”) on one side, and a fire-altar on the other side. Another even earlier coin uses the shorter phrase “bism Allah” (“In the Name of God”) on one side and a fire-altar on the other side. One would think that using an Islamic “symbol” like the crescent moon would have been appropriate here, in order to contrast it with the Zoroastrian fire-altar. But this is not the case.
However, this is not to say that the crescent symbol was never used. Indeed it was. Examples can be seen in some Arab-Armenian and Arab-Sassanian coins which use a crescent and star symbol, but this was probably due to the cultural influences of the people the Arabs had conquered. Referring to the crescent and star symbol, Stephen Cory explains that:
“[t]hey appeared together on early Islamic coinage, perhaps reflecting ancient Iranian, Roman, and Byzantine influences. They also occurred separately in a variety of secular and religious contexts on buildings and artifacts in Muslim lands during the medieval period. They did not have great iconographic importance until more recent centuries.”
If the crescent symbol had religious importance because of its association to the cult of the “moon god”, surely its usage would have been more prominent. And even though it does appear in early Islamic artifacts, there is no evidence that it was used in the time of the Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) anyway. The fact is that the crescent moon only became widely used in the Islamic world after the Ottoman conquest of Constantinople in 1453, more than 800 years after the Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) died. As Shabbir Ally states:
“…for the first several centuries of Islam the crescent was not a symbol of Islam.”
The next claim made by Chick’s character enters into the realm of the absurd and is nothing more than an unsubstantiated conspiracy theory. The claim is that Muhammad (peace be upon him) wanted to start his own religion. However, in order to do so, he needed the support of his tribe, the Quraysh. Thus, he chose the “moon god” because that was the god worshiped by his tribe. But this theory has some obvious flaws. First of all, it is a well-known fact that instead of gaining the support of his tribe, Muhammad (peace be upon him) was severely persecuted by his tribe. The Quraysh were his foremost opponents for almost 20 years.
Second, Muhammad (peace be upon him) was already a respected member of the Quraysh tribe before he proclaimed the message of Islam, though he belonged to the Hashim clan, one of the smaller and less powerful clans of the tribe. They actually turned against him when he proclaimed that he was God’s messenger and that Islam was the true religion. Moreover, the opposition to Islam was driven by economic concerns as well, which calls into question Chick’s claim that Muhammad (peace be upon him) chose the “moon god” mainly to win his tribe’s support. As a matter of fact, most of his earliest followers were the poorest members of society, and not the wealthy elite. As the orientalist scholar Bernard Lewis explained:
“…much of his following was drawn from the poorer classes, and…the Meccan hierarchy had economic and social motives [to oppose him].”
Third, the Quran explicitly prohibits worshiping the moon or any other celestial body, which would not make sense if Allah (Glorified and Exalted be He) was the “moon god”. Surah Fussilat, 41:37 states:
“[a]mong His Signs are the Night and the Day, and the Sun and the Moon. Do not prostrate to the sun and the moon, but prostrate to Allah, Who created them, if it is Him ye wish to serve.”
If Allah (Glorified and Exalted be He) was the alleged “moon god”, as Chick claimed, then the above verse was essentially saying “do not prostrate to the moon, but prostrate to the moon god”!
Another example of Islam’s clear prohibition of worshiping any celestial body is in the story of Prophet Ibrahim (peace be upon him). Surah Al-An’aam, 6:77, explains how Ibrahim (peace be upon him) rejected the moon as his “lord”:
“When he saw the moon rising in splendour, he said: “This is my Lord.” But when the moon set, He said: “unless my Lord guide me, I shall surely be among those who go astray.””
Not only that, but once he rejected all of the celestial bodies, including the sun and other stars, he turned to the One who created them all:
“For me, I have set my face, firmly and truly, towards Him Who created the heavens and the earth, and never shall I give partners to Allah.”
Next, Chick’s Christian character appealed to archaeology to prove his “moon god” conspiracy theory. Pulling out a picture of an alleged idol of the “moon god” discovered at Hazor in the 1950s, the Christian claimed it depicted “Allah sitting on a throne” with a crescent symbol on his chest. While it is clear that the whole site most probably was part of a moon-god cult, there is absolutely no evidence that this “moon god” was “Allah”. More importantly, the alleged idol has never been identified by any scholar of repute as an idol of the “moon god”. In fact, there was a difference of opinion as to whether the statue even represented a deity or if it was actually a person (either a king or a priest). Indeed, there are good reasons to go with the latter view. As “Islamic-Awareness” observes:
“[i]t seems illogical that a god should hold offering vessels in his hand; the god is usually the one who receives offerings. Therefore, the statue should, in all probability, depict a priest or a worshipper of a god, who himself is in a way considered present, either invisibly or in the upright stela of the sanctuary. Furthermore, the statue of a man holding an offering was seated at the left hand side of the shrine [Figure 1(a)]. This can hardly be a proper position for a revered god, whose position is arranged in the centre of the sanctuary.”
Moreover, recent scholarly publications seem to indicate that most scholars are now firmly of the view that the statue represents a man, and not a deity. In a 2012 publication, Professor Tallay Ornan of “The Institute of Archaeology” at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem describes the statue as a:
“…basalt statue of a seated man…”
Even those scholars who hold the view that the statue may be a deity only do so with caution. In other words, there is no definitive evidence that the statue represents a god, let alone a moon god. Thus, contrary to the conspiracy theory, the statue from Hazor does NOT represent Allah (Glorified and Exalted be He). In fact, it probably does not represent any deity whatsoever.
At this point, the rest of the tract diverges and discusses Christian theology, which is not the subject of this article.
In this article, we have summarized and examined the late Jack T. Chick’s comic tract called “Allah Had No Son”. In our examination, we exposed the plot holes and stereotypes before proceeding to refute the theological arguments against Islam. Foremost in our discussion was the myth of the “moon god”, and the claim that archaeologists had found evidence of an “idol” of Allah (Glorified and Exalted be He) at Hazor. These claims represent a rather embarrassing episode in the history of Christian apologetics against Islam. It is no wonder that sincere and more educated Christian scholars do not buy in to the brouhaha. For example, when discussing the “moon god” claim, the scholar Miroslav Volf states:
“I have simply dismissed this view. But then, I do not believe that this view requires a rebuttal. I know of no serious student of Islam who advocates it. And none of the arguments I have read in favor of it struck me as plausible, either historically or theologically.”
Echoing this sentiment, Christian apologist Dr. James White has stated that he has not found “any solid foundation” for this polemic and admits that when Christians use it in debates, they always lose!
This is the consensus among all scholars of repute. According to Cory, this popular Christian polemic against Islam:
“…is an unfounded assertion based on a mistaken interpretation of Muslim use of the lunar calendar instead of the solar calendar and of the crescent-star emblem. Muslims do not worship the moon or the crescent-star image in any way, as affirmed by the Quran itself.”
We also discussed the significance of the crescent moon symbol in Islam. As a result of this discussion, we concluded that the crescent symbol was actually never used in the time of the Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) and became widely used only after the Ottoman Empire adopted it as its symbol.
Based on our discussion, we can conclude that Chick’s ridiculous tract is full of nonsensical claims which are not supported by the evidence. In actual fact, Chick exposed his own ignorance and shoddy research (which was largely based on the shoddy research of other Christian apologists such as Robert Morey and GJO Moshay). As we continue this series, we will see more evidence of Chick’s ignorance. He was, in short, a fraud.
And Allah (Glorified and Exalted be He) knows best!
 Catholics actually bore the brunt of Chick’s polemical attacks, and were thus amongst his detractors. It must also be borne in mind that many Christians were critical of Chick’s methods of evangelization, and it would certainly be an unfair generalization to think that he was representative of most Christians.
 For the purposes of this article, and to keep it short, we will only discuss the claims made against Islam (e.g. the “moon god” myth) and will ignore references to Christian theology and beliefs, as that is the subject for separate articles. Previously published articles have already dealt with such issues as original sin, the alleged crucifixion and resurrection of Jesus (peace be upon him) and alleged “prophecies” about Jesus in the Tanakh. Interested readers can read these articles on the blog. See note #40 for links to these articles.
 In an earlier version of this tract, the prediction was that the “Muslim flag” would fly over the White House “by 2010”! Of course, when Barack Obama was the president, there was a persistent belief among some people that he was a closet Muslim. But it seems Chick realized that Obama was not a Muslim, and thus changed the tract to say “near future” (http://www.monsterwax.com/yougoofed.html).
 This is true, of course, but it is not only the Holy Quran which says so. Every serious scholar of Biblical studies acknowledges some level of corruption of the Bible.
 This is also true, although Muslims would point out that this doesn’t mean that some prophets are preferred over others. Instead, we believe in all the prophets. The Holy Quran states:
“Say ye: “We believe in Allah, and the revelation given to us, and to Abraham, Isma’il, Isaac, Jacob, and the Tribes, and that given to Moses and Jesus, and that given to (all) prophets from their Lord: We make no difference between one and another of them: And we bow to Allah (in Islam)”” (Surah Al-Baqarah, 2:136).
 This is an important observation, which will be revisited later in our discussion.
 The contradiction of such a statement did not dawn on the Christian!
 But he didn’t actually seem to consider IF the story was even true!
 See, for example, “Men of Peace?”: http://www.chick.com/reading/tracts/1031/1031_01.asp
 Of course, this does not mean that Muslims cannot try to respond to such “vain discourse”. As Surah An-Nahl, 16:125 states:
“Invite (all) to the Way of thy Lord with wisdom and beautiful preaching; and argue with them in ways that are best and most gracious: for thy Lord knoweth best, who have strayed from His Path, and who receive guidance.”
Not surprisingly, Chick was also known for his anti-Catholic tracts. He even made the preposterous claim that the Catholic Church started Islam in a vain attempt to control Jerusalem (http://www.chick.com/catalog/comics/0117.asp)!
 The reality is that it is atheism and secularism that are bringing Christianity to its knees in Britain. Recent studies have shown that by 2050, 39% of Britons will be atheists compared to 45% Christians, while Muslims will account for only 11% (http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-32722155).
However, other studies have suggested that atheists have already surpassed Christians. One recent survey found that 53% of Britons identified themselves as having “no religion” (http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-41150792).
According to “Islamic-Awareness”:
“The nature of the Sabaean chief deity Ilmaqah was studied in considerable detail by J. Pirenne and G. Garbini in the 1970s. They have shown that the motifs associated with Ilmaqah such as the bull’s head, the vine, and also the lion’s skin on a human statue are solar and dionysiac attributes. Therefore, Ilmaqah was a Sun-god, rather than a Moon-god.”
According to the scholar John-Francois Breton:
“Almaqah was the god of agriculture and irrigation, probably for the most part of the artificial irrigation which was the basis of successful farming in the oasis of Ma’rib. The god’s animal attributes were the bull and, in later times, the vine. Almaqah was a masculine sun god; the divinity Shams (Sun), who was invoked as protector of the Sabaean dynasty, was his feminine counterpart” (Ibid.)
 Similarly, there is no evidence that the Sabean deity Almaqah and his consort Shams had three daughters called Al-Lat, Al-Uzza and Manat. In response to this claim, which was made by the Christian polemicist Robert Morey, the authors of “Islamic-Awareness” state:
“The only authorities he quotes to support his statement that the “three daughters, al-Lat, al-Uzza and Manat are sometimes depicted together with Allah the Moon-god represented by a crescent moon above them”, are Isaac Rabinowitz, Edward Lipinski and H. J. W. Drijvers.
To begin with, none of these scholars even mention that Allah was a Moon-god in their works. Rabinowitz’s two papers in the Journal Of Near Eastern Studies deal with mention of Han-‘Ilat on vessels from Egypt. The pagan goddess Atirat, who was widely worshipped in the Middle East, was discussed by Lipinski. There is no mention of al-‘Uzza and Manat in his paper, let alone they being the daughters of “Moon-god” Allah. As for the work of Drijvers, he discusses extensively the iconography of Allat in Palmyra. If there was something significant in these writings, Morey would have made direct quotation. The fact is that none of these works mention Allah was a Moon-god. Once again, Morey shows himself adept at fabricating evidence” (Ibid.).
 2017. “Allah.” Columbia Electronic Encyclopedia, 6th Edition 1. Academic Search Premier, EBSCOhost (accessed November 2, 2017).
See also Karen Armstrong, Muhammad: A Biography of the Prophet (New York: Harper Collins Publishers, 1992), pp. 68-69.
Western scholars have also never seemed to mention that Allah (Glorified and Exalted be He) was one of the 360 idols of the Kaaba. This seems strange if it was so well-known, as Chick claimed. For example, in his biography of Muhammad (peace be upon him), W. Montgomery Watt described the conquest of Mecca and the “cleansing” of the Kaaba of idols by the Muslims. Curiously, he failed to mention that Allah (Glorified and Exalted be He) was one of the idols (W. Montgomery Watt, Muhammad: Prophet and Statesman (London: Oxford University Press, 1961), pp. 205-206)!
 We will discuss the so-called “idols of the moon god” later.
 One way that Christian apologists try to get around this problem is by claiming that Hubal, the main tribal deity of the Quraysh, was actually Allah (Glorified and Exalted be He). See note #29 for why this cannot be true.
 Farrin Chwalkowski, Symbols in Arts, Religion and Culture: The Soul of Nature (United Kingdom: Cambridge Scholars Publishing, 2016), p. 85.
“[w]hen the Turks took possession of Constantinople, they found many crescent flags and adopted the crescent as a symbol of the Ottoman Empire in about 1453 AD. Since that time, the star and crescent moon have become one of the most widely used symbols of Islam.”
Regarding its pre-Islamic usage, Chwalkowski states that it was the star symbol, more so than the crescent symbol, that was widely used for navigational purposes rather than religious ones (Ibid.).
Similarly, Stephen Cory states that:
“[t]he crescent and star symbol began to be used on military, imperial, and, later, national flags, first by the Ottomans in the 15th and 16th centuries…” (Stephen Cory, “Moon”, in Encyclopedia of Islam, ed. Juan E. Campo (New York: Facts on File, Inc., 2009), p. 479).
 Jami at-Tirmidhi, 23:12; Ibn Majah, 4:24:2818. Perhaps this is the “flag” that Chick expected to fly over the White House in the “near future”!
 Cory, op. cit., p. 479.
 As to what would have been the motive to do such an unexpected thing, none is provided by Chick’s character.
 We have to assume that Chick was referring to the pagan god Hubal, which was the tribal deity of the Quraysh. During the Battle of Uhud, the leader of the pagan army Abu Sufyan (who later became a Muslim) used the phrase “superior may be Hubal” as a way to taunt the Muslims (Sahih Bukhari, 5:59:375).
But the idea that Hubal is synonymous with Allah (Glorified and Exalted be He) is just another unsubstantiated claim. In fact, the Islamic sources clearly show that there was a clear distinction between the two. The same hadith mentioned above in Sahih Bukhari states that in response to Abu Sufyan’s appeal to Hubal, the Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) urged the Muslims to respond by invoking Allah (Glorified and Exalted be He):
“[…] Abu Sufyan said, “Superior may be Hubal!” On that the Prophet said (to his companions), “Reply to him.” They asked, “What may we say?” He said, “Say: Allah is More Elevated and More Majestic!” Abu Sufyan said, “We have (the idol) Al-`Uzza, whereas you have no `Uzza!” The Prophet (ﷺ) said (to his companions), “Reply to him.” They said, “What may we say?” The Prophet (ﷺ) said, “Say: Allah is our Helper and you have no helper.””
The fact that Allah (Glorified and Exalted be He) was never synonymous with Hubal is confirmed by Professor F.E. Peters of New York University:
“Was it Hubal rather than Allah who was ‘Lord of the Ka’ba? Probably not. The Quran, which makes no mention of Hubal, would certainly have raised the contention. Hubal was, by the Arabs’ own tradition, a newcomer to both Mecca and the Ka’ba…Hubal was introduced into the Ka’ba, but he never supplanted the god Allah, whose House it continued to be” (F.E. Peters, The Hajj: The Muslim Pilgrimage to Mecca and the Holy Places (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1994), p. 25).
In addition, Armstrong observes that while the Kaaba was “dedicated to al-Llah [Allah]”, who was the “High God” of the Arabs, the “presiding effigy” at the Kaaba was that of Hubal (Armstrong, op. cit., pp. 68-69). Thus, they were two distinct deities. Whereas Hubal was represented by an idol, Allah (Glorified and Exalted be He) was not and never has been.
For an excellent and detailed refutation of the “Hubal is Allah” myth, see here: http://www.islamic-awareness.org/Quran/Sources/Allah/hubal.html
 Fred Donner, “Muhammad and the Caliphate: Political History of the Islamic Empire Up to the Mongol Conquest,” in The Oxford History of Islam, ed. John L. Esposito (New York: Oxford University Press, Inc., 1999), p. 6.
 Bernard Lewis, The Arabs in History (New York: Oxford University Press, 1993), p. 36.
 Further proof that Allah (Glorified and Exalted be He) was never equated with the “moon god” by early Muslims can be seen in a well-known hadith from Sahih Bukhari:
“Narrated Abu Huraira: […] Allah will gather all the people and say, ‘Whoever used to worship anything should follow that thing. ‘So, he who used to worship the sun, will follow it, and he who used to worship the moon will follow it, and he who used to worship false deities will follow them; and then only this nation (i.e., Muslims) will remain, including their hypocrites […]” (8:76:577).
In this hadith, worshipers of the moon will be among the denizens of hell, because they worshiped a false god, just like sun-worshipers or those who worship some other false god or goddess. All will be sent to hell, until only the Muslims will remain. Thus, Allah (Glorified and Exalted be He) is the Creator of everything that exists, including the moon, and not the “moon god”.
 Surah Al-An’aam, 6:79.
Based on these and other verses, Christian author Winifred Corduan rejects the ridiculous polemic that Allah (Glorified and Exalted be He) is the “moon god”. In an honest assessment, she states:
“[g]oing by what the Qu’ran itself teaches, to associate Allah with the moon would be shirk (idolatry), one of the most heinous of sins. Whether there is a moon god in the history of Arabian religion or not is irrelevant; it is not the God whom Muhammad preached and worshiped. If what the religion actually espouses should be a factor at all in declaring what the religion espouses, the lunar myth must be eclipsed” (Winifred Corduan, Neighboring Faiths: A Christian Introduction to World Religions (Illinois: IVP Academic, 2012), p. 114).
 For a close-up image of this statue, see here: https://i2.wp.com/bismikaallahuma.org/wp-content/uploads/hazorfigure.jpg
 According to “Islamic-Awareness”:
“…no scholar has ever identified this statue with a “Moon-god”, nor do they say that “accompanying inscriptions” suggest that the statue was that of a “Moon-god”” (Ibid.)
 Ornan, Tallay. 2012. “The Long Life of a Dead King: A Bronze Statue from Hazor in Its Ancient Near Eastern Context.” Bulletin Of The American Schools Of Oriental Research no. 366: 1-23. Academic Search Premier, EBSCOhost (accessed November 3, 2017).
It is also interesting to note Ornan’s discussion of the entire site. While she points to the “…clear evidence for lunar worship found in the temple…”, she also states:
“…it seems that the lunar symbolism conveyed on these finds actually supports the suggested mortuary function of Shrine C, as firm links between ancestor cult and lunar worship are attested in Ugarit and Mari, where the days of the new or full moon are considered as preferable for performing the sacrifices for the dead or the kispu ceremony…” (Ibid.)
Regardless, what is most important to note is that Ornan NEVER associates the Hazor site with Allah (Glorified and Exalted be He).
 See Patrick E. McGovern, Ancient Wine: The Search for the Origins of Viniculture (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2003), p. 231.
Regarding the statue, McGovern describes it as:
“…a small basalt statue of a male figure-perhaps a ruler or tutelary deity-sitting calmly on his throne, with his cup in hand”.
 Among the Christian doctrines Chick’s character brings up are:
A. Original sin (the Christian claimed that “[b]ecause of sin, the gates of heaven are closed”) – see here for a discussion of original sin and why it is a false concept: https://quranandbibleblog.wordpress.com/2017/07/27/born-a-sinner-a-critical-investigation-of-the-origin-of-original-sin/
Related to this is the fall of Adam and Eve. See here for a discussion of that story:
B. Alleged prophecies that were fulfilled by Jesus (peace be upon him) – see here for a refutation of some of the most common alleged prophecies: https://quranandbibleblog.wordpress.com/2014/02/02/the-gospel-of-matthew-and-tanakhic-prophecies-of-the-messiah/
C. Jesus’ crucifixion – see here for a discussion and comparison with the Islamic story: https://quranandbibleblog.wordpress.com/2014/01/19/the-crucifixion-of-jesus-in-the-bible-and-the-quran/
D. Jesus’ resurrection – see here for a discussion of the resurrection narratives and why they are historically untenable: https://quranandbibleblog.wordpress.com/2014/12/28/raymond-brown-and-the-resurrection-of-jesus/
E. Jesus’ imminent return – see here for a discussion of why the return of Jesus was supposed to occur in the lifetime of the disciples, and is thus a false prophecy: https://quranandbibleblog.wordpress.com/2015/01/15/prophecies-in-the-holy-scriptures-word-of-god-or-folly-of-man-part-ii/
 Volf, Miroslav. 2012. “Response to DeVan’s Review Essay of Allah: A Christian Response.” Christian Scholar’s Review 41, no. 2: 187-192. Academic Search Complete, EBSCOhost (accessed November 5, 2017).
See White’s response to a Christian’s question about the “moon god” claim at 1:00 minute. Curiously, the questioner asked if there was any truth to the claim that Allah (Glorified and Exalted be He) was the moon goddess! It seems he may have heard this newest claim from some Christian apologist and wondered if there was any truth to it. Thus, we can see that some Christians are literally making up new claims in their desperate attempts to hold on to the “moon god” polemic. First it was Almaqah, then Hubal, and now a moon goddess called Asherah! This is the best they can do, which is a good sign that they are running out of ways to attack Islam. Alhamdulillah!
 Cory, op. cit., p. 479.