False Prophets

Avodas Kochavim 5:6                                                                            

“A prophet who prophesizes in the name of idols” is one who says that a certain idol or star told him that we are commanded to do or not to do a certain thing. This is so even if he states the law accurately, such as by declaring something impure to be impure and something pure to be pure.

If a false prophet was given warning beforehand, he is liable to death by strangulation. Deuteronomy 18:20 says, “The prophet who speaks in the name of other gods shall die.” The prohibition against this appears in Exodus 23:13, “Do not mention the name of other gods.”

Avodas Kochavim 5:7

We are not allowed to engage an idolatrous prophet in discussion or debate. We may not ask him to give us a sign or to perform a wonder; if he does so on his own, we may not pay any attention to it. Whoever considers such a person’s tricks, thinking they might be a sign that he is true, violates the prohibition of “Do not listen to the words of that prophet” (Deuteronomy 13:4).

A false prophet is executed by strangulation. He is executed even though he speaks in the name of God and doesn’t add to or subtract from the mitzvos, as per Deuteronomy 18:20, “The prophet who dares to speak in My name that which I did not command him shall die.”

Expel Ilhan Omar From Congress

It’s not easy to get kicked out of Congress.

As evidenced by the recent proceedings of Harlem Democrat Charlie Rangel, a “censure”—which entails no actual consequences, other than those enforced by the party caucuses, usually involving removal from leadership positions and committee chairmanships—is considered harsh punishment in the halls of the U.S. Capitol, while the allegedly less serious “reprimand” triggers even less (than zero) punishment.

Only 20 members of Congress have ever been expelled since Congress began, 15 from the Senate and five from the House. Most of those cases had to do with the Civil War.

In the instant matter, Ilhan Omar is an avowed Muslim who believes Muhammad, (who had sex with Aisha when she was merely nine years old and still playing with her dolls) was a prophet.

She is alleged to have married her brother and committed immigration and student loan fraud.

Muhammad got four historical facts wrong and therefore could not be a prophet:

1) He claims Miriam, the sister of Moshe was the mother of Yeshki (Jesus), Quran – Suras 19:27-28, 3:35-36, 66:12;

2) he claims Haman of Megillat Esther was in the “court” of Pharaoh; confusing the Building of the Tower of Babel with Haman and Pharaoh, Quran – Sura 40:36-37;

3) and he claims that Pharaoh used the Roman method of crucifixion as a form of the death penalty, Qur’an – Suras 7:124, 12:41, 20:71, 26:49; 38.12, 89:6-12;

4) and conflicting Islamic sources claim either Isaac or Ishmael was offered on the Altar by Avraham.

Al-Tabari, considered to be one of the premiere Islamic historians, lists the divergent views held amongst the Muslim umma (community) in regard to this very issue:

The earliest sages of our Prophet’s nation disagree about which of Abraham’s two sons it was that he was commanded to sacrifice. Some say it was Isaac, while others say it was Ishmael. Both views are supported by statements related on the authority of the Messenger of God. If both groups of statements were equally sound, then – since they both came from the Prophet – only the Quran could serve as proof that the account naming Isaac is clearly the more truthful of the two.” (2: p. 82).

 

Moreover, Muhammad claims Yeshki was a prophet but it can be demonstrated that Yeshki falsely prophesied the restoration of the Kingdom of David within the lifetime of his disciples – Matthew 16:28, “Truly I say to you, there are some of those who are standing here who shall not taste death until they see the Son of Man coming in His kingdom.” Luke 9:27 But I tell you of a truth, there be some standing here, which shall not taste of death, till they see the kingdom of God.

According to the Torah, every matter of false prophesy has to be established by two or three witnesses. Here, Matthew and Luke are witnesses AGAINST Jesus and establish his false prophesy twice!

Ilhan Omar supports the Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions movement against the State of Israel, an American ally.

In 2018, Omar came under criticism for statements she made about Israel before she was in the Minnesota legislature, which the Jewish Telegraphic Agency reported had “earned her notoriety in the pro-Israel community.” In a 2012 tweet, she wrote, “Israel has hypnotized the world, may Allah awaken the people and help them see the evil doings of Israel.” The comment, particularly the notion that Israelis had “hypnotized the world,” was criticized as drawing on anti-semitic tropes. New York Times columnist Bari Weiss wrote that Omar’s statement tied into a millennia-old “conspiracy theory of the Jew as the hypnotic conspirator”.

In February 2019, Omar was criticized for tweets that appeared to imply that money spent by the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) was the primary motivation for American politicians’ support of Israel. These comments were criticized by Democratic leaders, including House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, Majority Leader Steny Hoyer, and Majority Whip Jim Clyburn, with the Democratic House leadership releasing a statement that called Omar’s tweets antisemitic and “deeply offensive.” The Jewish Democratic Council of America also denounced her statements.

Omar is scheduled to speak at a fundraiser for CAIR which is a front organization for Hamas and the Muslim Brotherhood.

Rep. Ilhan Omar (D-MN) will be the keynote speaker at a fundraiser for the Los Angeles branch of the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) on March 23.

“Ilhan Omar pushes for release of jailed Muslim Brotherhood leader,” by Jordan Schachtel, Conservative Review, April 3, 2019:

Rep. Ilhan Omar — whose short tenure in Congress thus far has been rife with controversy — made a shocking appeal Tuesday, openly pushing for the release of a senior member of the Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood (MB).

Omar took to Twitter Tuesday evening demanding that “Trump” call for the release of Hoda Abdelmonem, a senior member in the Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood’s women’s affiliate.

VICE PRESIDENT MIKE PENCE: Look Ilhan Omar has made statements, anti-Semitic comments, statements against our most cherished ally Israel, that ought to be rejected by every American. And frankly the fact that very recently, she’s been trying to blame the United States of America for the deprivation and the poverty brought on by the dictatorship in Venezuela. It just, it tells me -look the people of Minnesota will decide whether or not she remains in Congress. But Congresswoman Ilhan Omar has no place on the House Foreign Affairs Committee and the Democratic leadership ought to remove her.

In an article about U.S. Rep. Ilhan Omar (D-MN), the manager of the Turkish state-run news channel TRT World’s Research Centre, Dr. Tarek Cherkaoui, encouraged readers to donate to Omar’s campaign fund. The article, written for the English-language website of the Turkish pro-government daily Yeni Şafakand published April 1, 2019, was titled “Media Flak Directed At Ilhan Omar No Surprise At All.” At least seven other Turkish media outlets ran the same article, in both English and in Turkish. It should be noted that U.S. federal law prohibits foreign nationals from donating to political candidates. <https://gellerreport.com/2019/07/state-run-turkish…>

As Breitbart news has noted:

In 2007-8, CAIR was named an unindicted co-conspirator in the terror financing trial of the Holy Land Foundation for Relief and Development. That case, in turn, led the FBI to discontinue its work with the organization. In 2009, a federal judge ruled that the government “produced ample evidence to establish” the ties of CAIR with Hamas, the Palestinian terror organization. The United Arab Emirates labeled CAIR a terrorist organization in 2014 (a decision that the Obama administration opposed).

Hamas and the Muslim Brotherhood seek the destruction of not just the United States of America and Israel but of Western Society.

It’s time to remove Ilhan Omar from Congress.

Sign the Petition

the “NEW” Jordan – Sharia compliant?

Mudar Zahran: Will the “NEW” Jordan be Sharia compliant or will it be exclusively a Democratic state with a dissolution of the Monarchy? Inquiring minds want to know….
By Sharia compliant I mean to ask, will the New Jordan allow punishment for blaspheme against Muhammad, or will there be freedom of expression? Currently, Jordanian law permits punishment for the crime of blaspheme against the sensibilities of Jordanian Muslims even if “committed” in another country over the internet <https://berkleycenter.georgetown.edu/…/national-laws-on…>
It is an acknowledged fact that Muhammad had sex with Aisha when she was 9 years old. It can be demonstrated that Muhammad was a false prophet as Daniel prophesied: “he shall put down three rulers” (7.24) (this transpired in Yathrib
three large Jewish clans — the Banu-Nadir or “Sons of Nadir,” the Banu-Korayzeh and the Banu-Kainuka — dominated the city until Muhammad ordered their men to be slaughtered)
“he shall think to change the seasons and the law” (7.25)
“he shall not regard the desire of women” (11.37)
“he shall honor the god of war” (11.38); and,
“he shall speak words against the Most High” (Devarim 30.1-10 prophesies a restoration of the Children of Israel to HaShem and to the land of Israel; while Surah 1 condemns the Children of Israel as invoking the wrath of G-D…!)

Also, he changed the Qiblah contrary to King Solomon’s tefillah 1 Kings 8.41.

Muhammad got four historical facts wrong and therefore could not be a prophet:

1) He claims Miriam, the sister of Moshe was the mother of Yeshki (Jesus);

2) he claims Haman of Megillat Esther was in the “court” of Pharaoh;

3) and he claims that Pharaoh used the Roman method of crucifixion as a method for the death penalty;

4) and conflicting Islamic sources claim either Isaac or Ishmael was offered on the Altar by Avraham.

Moreover, Muhammad claims Yeshki was a prophet but it can be demonstrated that Yeshki falsely prophesied the restoration of the Kingdom of David within the lifetime of his disciples – Matthew 16:28, “Truly I say to you, there are some of those who are standing here who shall not taste death until they see the Son of Man coming in His kingdom.” Luke 9:27 But I tell you of a truth, there be some standing here, which shall not taste of death, till they see the kingdom of God.

According to the Torah, every matter of false prophesy has to be established by two or three witnesses. Here, Matthew and Luke are witnesses AGAINST Jesus and establish his false prophesy twice!

So, again, I ask, in the “New Jordan” will freedom of expression be allowed?

Yochanan Ezra ben Avraham

Project Amad

“There were, he said, 55,000 pages of evidence and a further 55,000 files on 183 CDs relating to a nuclear weapons programme called “Project Amad“.”

Israel says Iran hid nuclear arms programme

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has revealed what he says are “secret nuclear files” proving Iran once covertly pursued nuclear weapons.

He said thousands of pages of material obtained by Israel showed Iran had deceived the world by denying it had ever sought nuclear weapons.

Iran agreed in 2015 to curb its nuclear energy programme in return for the lifting of sanctions.

It maintained that it had only been pursuing nuclear energy.

US President Donald Trump, who has long threatened to scrap the nuclear deal, said the situation was not “acceptable” and he would make a decision on the deal on or before 12 May.

European powers have said they are committed to upholding the accord.

Tweeting earlier, Iranian Foreign Minister Javad Zarif appeared to accuse Mr Netanyahu of “fooling people”.

Political theatre

By Jonathan Marcus, diplomatic correspondent, BBC News

This was political theatre from the Israeli prime minister, but to what extent was it revelation?

Israel’s claim to have been able to steal or access files and documents from what it says was the secret Iranian nuclear archive located in a warehouse in south Tehran may be a tale of daring espionage in itself but, beyond that, what is really new?

Iran of course has insisted consistently that it never had a nuclear weapons programme but there were growing international concerns about its nuclear activities. That is precisely why the major powers entered into the 2015 agreement with Tehran in the first place, both to contain its nuclear programme and to introduce a greater level of outside scrutiny.

France, Germany and Britain who all back the maintenance of the agreement have had their say with Mr Trump – the US president must decide upon its fate in mid-May. Now Mr Netanyahu has had his turn to put the contrary view.

What ‘proof’ did Netanyahu produce?

Speaking in English from Israel’s defence ministry in Tel Aviv, Mr Netanyahu showed off what he said were “exact copies” of documents obtained by Israeli intelligence from a secret storage facility in Tehran.

There were, he said, 55,000 pages of evidence and a further 55,000 files on 183 CDs relating to a nuclear weapons programme called “Project Amad”.

The project, he said, had had the explicit goal of producing five warheads, each with the yield of 10 kilotonnes of TNT.

Delivering a PowerPoint presentation, he said the dossiers showed Iran had pursued the key elements of a nuclear weapons programme, such as designing nuclear weapons and preparing for nuclear tests.

Iran, he said, had considered five different sites for conducting nuclear weapons tests.

“Here’s what the files included: incriminating documents, incriminating charts, incriminating presentations, incriminating blueprints, incriminating photos, incriminating videos and more,” he said.

“These files conclusively prove that Iran was brazenly lying when it said it never had a nuclear weapons programme.”

The files had been shared with the US, Mr Netanyahu said, and would be submitted to the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA).

A 2007 US National Intelligence Estimate assessed “with high confidence” that Iran did have a nuclear weapons programme up until 2003 but that Iran had stopped it after its discovery.

On Monday the Israeli prime minister argued the existence of the alleged files proved Iran had been “secretly storing Project Amad material to use at a time of its choice to develop nuclear weapons”.

How was the 2015 deal meant to work?

The agreement signed between Iran and six world powers lifted crippling economic sanctions in return for curbs on Tehran’s nuclear programme.

There had been fears that Iran would use the programme to create a nuclear weapon.

Under the deal, officially known as the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), Iran is committed to slashing the number of its centrifuges, which are machines used to enrich uranium.

It is also meant to cut its stockpile of enriched uranium drastically and not enrich remaining uranium to the level needed to produce nuclear weapons.

The number of centrifuges installed at Iran’s Natanz and Fordo sites was cut drastically soon after the deal while tonnes of low-enriched uranium were shipped to Russia.

Furthermore, monitors from the IAEA have been able to carry out snap inspections at Iranian nuclear sites.

How dangerous is the enmity between Israel and Iran?

Tension between the long-standing enemies has grown steadily since Iran built up its military presence in Syria, Israel’s north-eastern neighbour.

Iran has also been accused of supplying weaponry to Lebanese Shia Muslim militant group Hezbollah, an enemy of Israel, and also smuggling arms to Palestinian militants.

Mr Netanyahu has long vowed to stop Iran from strengthening its military presence in Syria.

On Sunday night, a wave of unclaimed air strikes on targets in Syria reportedly killed a number of Iranians.

Sites allegedly linked to a covert Syrian chemical weapons programme were bombed by Western nations earlier this month.

Israel has also carried out, or is believed to have carried out, dozens of air strikes on facilities in Syria used by Iranian forces.

Deuteronomy 18, The Quran and Satanic Verses

THE DEUTERONOMY DEDUCTIONS:
Two Short, Sound, Simple Proofs that Muhammad Was a False Prophet

By David Wood

“But the prophet who speaks a word presumptuously in My name which I have
not commanded him to speak . . . that prophet shall die.”
~GOD (Deuteronomy18:20)[1]

“I have fabricated things against God and have imputed to Him words which He has not spoken.”
~MUHAMMAD (Al-Tabari 6:111)[2]

Muhammad claimed that Jewish and Christian scriptures had predicted his coming (see, e.g., Qur’an 7:157). This has led Muslim apologists to comb the Old and New Testaments in search of passages that refer to their prophet. While all biblical evidence offered by Muslims in support of their prophet appears horribly strained to non-Muslims (provided the latter read the passages in context) and has been thoroughly refuted time and again, it is still common to hear Muslims claim that the Bible speaks about Muhammad.

The most popular “prophecy” about Muhammad is found in Deuteronomy 18. It is quite ironic, then, to learn that, according to Deuteronomy 18, Muhammad can’t possibly be a prophet. As we will see, this puts Muslims in an awkward position, and helps show the lengths to which they will go in their efforts to defend their prophet.

The purpose of this essay is to prove, based on Muslim claims (including their appeal to Deuteronomy 18), that Muhammad was a false prophet. I will begin by presenting two arguments against the prophethood of Muhammad, and I will follow this by carefully defending the arguments. Once I have shown that the arguments are sound, I will briefly discuss the options available to Muslims who want to reject the obvious conclusion.

I. THE DEUTERONOMY DEDUCTIONS

There are two elements to look for when examining deductive arguments: valid logic and true premises. To say that a deductive argument is valid is to say that, due to the logical form, true premises will always lead to a true conclusion. The most basic argument form is the syllogism, and the most basic valid form of the syllogism is Modus Ponens.[3] The logical form of the following arguments is Modus Ponens; thus, they are logically valid:

Argument A—false gods and false prophets

A1. If a person speaks in the names of false gods, that person is a false prophet.
A2. Muhammad spoke in the names of false gods.
——————————————————
A3. Therefore, Muhammad was a false prophet.

Argument B—false revelations and false prophets

B1. If a person delivers a revelation that doesn’t come from God, that person is a false prophet.
B2. Muhammad delivered a revelation that didn’t come from God.
——————————————————
B3. Therefore, Muhammad was a false prophet.

Since the logic of both arguments is valid, true premises will always lead to a true conclusion. Hence, if the premises of these arguments are true, Muhammad was a false prophet. Let us turn, then, to a careful discussion of our premises.

II. PREMISES A1 AND B1 DEFENDED

A1 and B1 seem intuitively obvious. That is, it seems clear that if a person speaks in the names of false gods or delivers revelations that don’t come from God, the person cannot be a true prophet. Nevertheless, by appealing to the Bible to bolster their belief in Muhammad, Muslims have inadvertently granted that A1 and B1 are true.

Deuteronomy 18 serves as the foundation of Islam’s “Argument from Biblical Prophecy,” used by generations of Muslims to prove that Muhammad was a true prophet. Indeed, the popular Brief Illustrated Guide to Understanding Islam uses Deuteronomy 18 as its primary evidence that the Bible speaks of Muhammad. Author I. A. Ibrahim says,

The Biblical prophecies on the advent of the Prophet Muhammad are evidence of the truth of Islam for people who believe in the Bible.

In Deuteronomy 18, Moses stated that God told him: “I will raise up for them a prophet like you from among their brothers; I will put my words in his mouth, and he will tell them everything I command him. If anyone does not listen to my words that the prophet speaks in my name, I myself will call him to account.” (Deuteronomy 18: 18-19)[4]

The book goes on to argue that Muhammad fulfilled this prophecy in numerous ways. While such claims have been refuted ad nauseum,[5] I will simply note that Muslims have here granted that Deuteronomy 18:18-19 is inspired by God (since they regard it as a miraculous prophecy). Surely, then, we can’t ignore the next verse, where God says:

“But the prophet who speaks a word presumptuously in My name which I have not commanded him to speak, or which he speaks in the name of other gods, that prophet shall die.” (Deuteronomy 18:20)

Here we have two criteria for spotting a false prophet: (1) delivering a revelation which God has not “commanded him to speak,” and (2) speaking “in the name of other gods.” Since Muslims who appeal to so-called biblical prophecies of Muhammad have given this passage their stamp of approval, they cannot deny the truth of A1 and B1. To sum up, Muslims have appealed to a passage in Deuteronomy 18, and that passage entails premises A1 and B1. Thus, according to Muslim claims, the first premise of each of the Deuteronomy Deductions is true.

III. PREMISES A2 AND B2 DEFENDED

We have seen that, according to a passage regarded by many Muslims as divine revelation, a person who either delivers a message that does not come from God or speaks in the names of false gods must be a false prophet. But this means that Muhammad was a false prophet, since he did both when he delivered the infamous “Satanic Verses.”

We learn about the Satanic Verses, not from Christian or Jewish sources, but from early Muslim writings. Accounts of the Satanic Verses are given in a number of early sources, including: (1) Ibn Ishaq, (2) Wakidi, (3) Ibn Sa’d, (4) al-Tabari, (5) Ibn Abi Hatim, (6) Ibn al-Mundhir, (7) Ibn Mardauyah, (8) Musa ibn ‘Uqba, and (9) Abu Ma’shar.[6] According to the great Muslim scholar Ibn Hajar, three chains of transmission (isnad) in these accounts “satisfy the conditions requisite for an authentic report.”[7] Moreover, Sahih al-Bukhari, Islam’s most trusted source on the life of Muhammad, gives indirect confirmation of the event (Number 4862, quoted below). Beyond this, certain verses of the Qur’an (17:73-5 and 22:52-3) were revealed in response to Muhammad’s embarrassing lapse into polytheism.

We therefore have compelling historical evidence that the story is authentic. (For a thorough discussion of the evidence for the Satanic Verses, see “Muhammad and the Satanic Verses.”) In fact, the historical method virtually guarantees the legitimacy of the story. Historians examining the lives of leaders and religious figures employ what is known as the “Principle of Embarrassment,” a principle which also carries much weight in legal investigations. Law professor Annette Gordon-Reed sums up the principle thus: “Declarations against interest are regarded as having a high degree of credibility because of the presumption that people do not make up lies in order to hurt themselves; they lie to help themselves.”[8] Applying the Principle of Embarrassment to accounts of the Satanic Verses, we see immediately that Muslims would not have invented this story, since it calls Muhammad’s reliability into question. We also see that the story couldn’t have been invented by non-Muslims; for if non-Muslims had invented the story, Muslims would have exposed the story’s origin, instead of defending it in their earliest historical works.

The evidence for the general reliability of the Muslim accounts concerning the Satanic Verses is therefore too overwhelming to ignore. With this in mind, let us consider a condensed account of what happened, based on the History of al-Tabari.

According to al-Tabari,

When the Messenger of God saw how his tribe turned their backs on him and was grieved to see them shunning the message he had brought to them from God, he longed in his soul that something would come to him from God which would reconcile him with his tribe. With his love for his tribe and his eagerness for their welfare it would have delighted him if some of the difficulties which they made for him could have been smoothed out, and he debated within himself and fervently desired such an outcome. Then God revealed:

By the Star when it sets, your comrade does not err, nor is he deceived; nor does he speak out of (his own) desire . . .

and when he came to the words:

Have you thought upon al-Lat and al-‘Uzza and Manat, the third, the other?

Satan cast on his tongue, because of his inner debates and what he desired to bring to his people, the words:

These are the high-flying cranes; verily their intercession is accepted with approval. (Al-Tabari, p. 108)

The polytheists were delighted that Muhammad had at last approved of their gods. To return the kindness, they “prostrated themselves because of the reference to their gods which they had heard, so that there was no one in the mosque, believer or unbeliever, who did not prostrate himself” (p. 109).

Muhammad’s friendly relations with the polytheists were short-lived, however, for he soon learned that his verses praising pagan idols came not from God, but from Satan. Saddened to recognize his treachery against Allah, Muhammad lamented: “I have fabricated things against God and have imputed to Him words which He has not spoken” (p. 111). Yet “Gabriel” comforted Muhammad, informing him that all prophets fall for Satan’s tricks from time to time. This staggering and unbelievable claim even found its way into the Qur’an:

“And We did not send before you any apostle or prophet, but when he desired, the Shaitan made a suggestion respecting his desire; but Allah annuls that which the Shaitan casts, then does Allah establish His communications, and Allah is Knowing, Wise.” (Surah 22:52)[9]

According to the next verse, Allah allows his prophets to receive revelations from Satan in order to test hard-hearted people.

Whatever we think of the preposterous Qur’anic explanation of the Satanic Verses (and its defense of Muhammad), it is clear that the Prophet of Islam, on at least one occasion, delivered a message that did not come from God. It is also clear that Muhammad, on at least one occasion, spoke in the names of false gods.[10] Thus, we can establish from Muslim sources that A2 and B2 are almost certainly true.

Notes:

1 Bible quotations are from the New American Standard Bible, Updated Edition.

2 The History of al-Tabari, Volume VI: Muhammad at Mecca, W. Montgomery Watt and M. V. McDonald, trs. (Albany: State University of New York Press, 1988).

3 Modus Ponens takes the form:

1. If P, then Q.
2. P.
———————
3. Therefore, Q.

Here we may substitute various elements for P and Q, giving us, for instance:

1. If Fido is a dog, then Fido is a mammal.
2. Fido is a dog.
———————
3. Therefore, Fido is a mammal.

4 Ibrahim, I. A. A Brief Illustrated Guide to Understanding Islam (Houston: Darussalam, 1997), p. 33.

5 See, for example, “Muhammad in the Bible?

6 For references, see “Muhammad and the Satanic Verses.”

7 Ibn Hajar, quoted in Allam Shibli Nu’mani, Sirat-un-Nabi, Volume 1, M. Tayyib Bakhsh Budayuni, tr. (New Delhi: Kitab Bhavan, 2004), p. 164.

8 Annette Gordon-Reed, Thomas Jefferson and Sally Hemings: An American Controversy (Charlottesville: University of Virginia Press, 1997).

9 Qur’an quotations are from the M. H. Shakir translation.

10 One might object that Muhammad did not actually speak in the names of the pagan gods. That is, he did not say, “I come to you in the name of Manat.” Instead, he spoke in the name of Allah, and merely approved of the intercession of the pagan gods. However, the point of the passage in Deuteronomy is clearly that anyone who promotes polytheism is a false prophet. And Muhammad certainly promoted polytheism on this occasion.

____________________________________________________________________________________________

I would only add that it is prohibited to speak the names of false deities:

Shmoth 23.13 “And in all things that I have said unto you take ye heed; and make no mention of the name of other gods, neither let it be heard out of thy mouth.”