Talk:Allah/Archive 3

to put an end

ok lets recap the word ALLAH is the arabic word for God " the God" ..."ILLAH" on the other hand is "a god" notice the defirence there. arab christians and jews use the word Allah, check the catholic arab bible. Islam is the third of Abrahamic relegions, and believes that the massaiah "jesus" is the prophet of God rather than bieng the sun or in the case of other christians, part of the lord. Islam believes in all the prophets Abraham, Moses, Noah, David, Aaron, and to muslims Jesus and Mohammad are prophets. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Topsecrete (talk • contribs) 15:43, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

the word "allah" is not ameaning it is discripe . "illah" on the other hand is the same as "allah" but "illah" has the divinity shape.

"The Muslim and Christian Arabs of today have no other word for 'God' than 'Allah'."

Isn't this sentence false? Doesn't 'ilāh' mean "god" in Arabic? It was even used in the Arabic translation of the Bible. Aminullah 17:25, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Aminullah, it is probably refering to "God" and not "god".Please check it yourself here [1]

(You need google account for that).

The Cambridge history of Islam says:"It is appropriate to use the word 'God' rather than the transliteration 'Allah'.For one thing it cannot be denied that Islam is an offshoot of the Judaeo-Christian tradition, and for another the Christian Arabs of today have no other word for 'God' than Allah"--Aminz 20:48, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

"Allah" is NOT the judeo-christian God.God is the God of Abraham and of Jesus, his name is not "Allah."

Yes, Allah is the Judeo-Christian god. Abraham's two sons, Isaac and Ishmael, both went on to father peoples. They both had twelve sons. Isaac's became the people of Israel, and Ishmael's eventually became the original followers of Islam (before it was spread throughout the world by conquering nations). In addition, Islam views both Jesus, Adam, Moses, Dawood(David), Noah, Haroon and Abraham as being prophets to the word of Allah (which is why they are always referenced with 'Peace be upon him'), with Mohammed being the final prophet.

This is not correct. Christians believe Jesus is one with God, thus the word CHRISTIANITY. If God is one and exists in three aspects as Jesus, The father and the holy ghost, this is GOD to a Christian. Muslims do not believe that. Thus their God is different. Muslims may claim different but the God they believe in is NOT the same God as defined by Christians. It is more plausable to say Allah is the same as the God of the Jews. But Allah is NOT the God of Christians 4.142.78.191 03:51, 1 September 2007 (UTC)Eric

Some references which may help: 1)Although "Allah" has become known as the proper name for the Muslim god, Allah is not a name, but a descriptor that means literally, "the god". All pagan cultures have these generic terms that refer to their "top god" as "the god". In comparison to the perfect monotheism of Judaism and Christianity, "Allah" was originally no more a proper name for the Muslim God, than the word Hebrew "elohim" (god) or Greek "theos" (god) are proper names of the one true God of the Bible. "Jehovah" is the only revealed proper name for the "Elohim" of the Old Testament ( Ex 3:13; 6:3) and "Jesus" is the only revealed proper name of "Theos" in the New Testament. (Acts 4:12) Islam has no proper name for their god, but merely transformed, by universal use and confusion, the generic Allah into a proper name. So although today, Muslims use "Allah" as a proper name, it was never used this way originally. Allah, therefore is equivalent to "elohim" and "ho theos" but not "Jehovah" or "Jesus". Allah is not the name of the nameless Muslim God. However Muslims will claim that Allah is the name of God that corresponds to Jehovah. Both the Father and the Son are called "ho theos" (The God). Jesus is called "The God" many times in the New Testament: John 20:28; Heb 1:8. An important conclusion from this, is that the mere fact that "Allah" is equivalent to "elohim" and "ho theos" does not mean they are directly corresponded. It certainly doesn’t prove Allah is the same as the God of the Old or New Testament. It does not prove that Muslim’s worship the same God as Christians. If this correspondence proved the Muslim god was the same as the Christian God, then because pagan religions also have generics that correspond to "the god" (Allah), this correspondence would also prove that Allah is the same god as the Buddhist god, for Buddhists also refer to their god as "the god". 2)The cult of a deity termed simply "the god" (al-ilah) was known throughout southern Syria and northern Arabia in the days before Islam—Muhammad’s father was named ‘Abd Allah ("Servant of Allah")--and was obviously of central importance in Mecca, where the building called the Ka’bah was indisputably his house. Indeed, the Muslims shahadah attests to precisely that point: the Quraysh, the paramount tribe of Mecca, were being called on by Muhammad to repudiate the very existence of all the other gods save this one. It seems equally certain that Allah was not merely a god in Mecca but was widely regarded as the "high god," the chief and head of the Meccan pantheon, whether this was the result, as has been argued, of a natural progression toward henotheism or of the growing influence of Jews and Christians in the Arabian Peninsula...Thus Allah was neither an unknown nor an unimportant deity to the Quraysh when Muhammad began preaching his worship at Mecca." (

1. The Oxford Encyclopedia of the Modern Islamic World, ed. John L. Esposito, 1995, p 76-77)

3) Historians like Vaqqidi have said Allah was actually the chief of the 360 gods [one for each day of the year] being worshipped in Arabia at the time Muhammad rose to prominence. Ibn Al-Kalbi gave 27 names of pre-Islamic deities...Interestingly, not many Muslims want to accept that Allah was already being worshipped at the Ka'ba in Mecca by Arab pagans before Muhammad came. Some Muslims become angry when they are confronted with this fact. But history is not on their side. Pre-Islamic literature has proved this." (Who Is This Allah?, G. J. O. Moshay, 1994, p 138) 4)Check out www.investigateislam.com/moonGod.htm . It has a very interesting breakdown of the Hebrew name of God. SeekerOfTruth02 18:36, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

If Allah is the Arabic word for God, then why must it be assumed that it means a Pagan god because a Pagan used the Arabic word for God to refer to his/her god. If you were a Pagan, spoke Arabic, and believed in a certain god, you would refer to the god by saying God in Arabic, which is: Allah. You should not assert that Muslims become angry because you have found articles that entertain a predisposition you may have, and if they do get angry, it is more than likely at such rhetorical predetermined assertions which ignore logic. Even if the word Allah did mean a specific pagan god, rather than just God, it is still being used in Arabic to refer to the one God, of Abraham, Jesus, and Mohammad. This is basic logic and association.

I feel as if some people desperately look for anything to validate some preconceived nonsense that they WANT to believe no matter what. This very optimistic of them, but laughable.131.96.91.23 16:55, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

The logic behind this discussion is whether or not the god Muslims call Allah is the same god as the one from the Judeo-Christian religion. One poster said "articles that entertain a predisposition you may have... it is more than likely at such rhetorical predetermined assertions which ignore logic. ". The articles found and referenced were based on factual sources arrived at logically and the references are cited so you can look up the original if you want to make the effort. Also claiming to use basic logic and association to refer to Allah being used in Arabic to refer to the one God of Abraham, Jesus and Mohammad. All this logically means is that inside the Muslim religion they (the Muslims) believe that Allah is the one God of Abraham, etc. There is no leap of logic that proves that the idea of the Muslim God is the same as the idea of the Judeo-Christian God. There are too many differences between them to say that they are the same God. In the Judeo-Christian religion Jesus is the Son of God, in the Muslim religion he is only a prophet, not even as important as Mohammad. The God of Islam is has supposedly never even spoken to men directly. Men are not even created in God's image, because God is unlike anything in material existence, as well as completely different from all creation.The God of Judaism interacts directly with the people- the God of Islam only sends angels. The God of Judaism created men in his image- the God of Islam only created men as servant to be his viceregents on earth (you can ask any Muslim, and they will tell you- men have nothing in common with their God). The God of Islam is different from the God of Christianity for the same reasons, and more. God is the one God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob as He tells it Himself. Also some people do not try to fit things into preconcieved notions but actually arrive at their own conclusions after thought and reflection irregardless of what others try to ridicule others into believing. SeekerOfTruth02 17:51, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Allah" الله" is NOT the same word ilah" إله "or Al ilah"الإله"

Allah " الله" is word that is not rooted or extracted from any other word.It is an Absolute nameindivisible basic word that can NOT be differentiated to further simpler Rooted word, not derived from the word (ilah " إله" , god) or (Al ilah "الإله", The God) or derived from any other word or words.

Allah " الله" has the letter[ ا] Aleph NOT [ء ...Hamza ], which can be written[ إ ], or [أ ].

It means that ,Allah " الله" is NOT derived from the word ilah " إله", because there is no letter [ء ] which is called [Hamaza]..in the word Allah "الله ", that exist in form of [ إ ] in the word "ilah إله" .

Not even extartcted from the word "Aaleha… ءاله/آله "(which is the simple past ROOT word of ilah… إله) since there is NO [ء ...Hamza ]in the word Allah " الله".

Notice The letter آ in the word Aaleha… آله/ ءاله is combination of آ = أ+ا Aleph [ا ] Plus [ء ...Hamza ]

Any word or name rooted or derived out from a simple past tense “root -source word”,, must have in “it” .. “at least all the three :root alphabet letters,and in the same consecutive sequences ” of the “Root- source word “ that rooted from.

Also in the beginning of each chapter of Quran(except Surah 9)..you say … e.g {[001:001] In the name of Allah الله , Most Gracious, Most Merciful}

you don’t say in the name of ilah( إله ..which means “a god” )… or “Al ilah” (الإله …which means “The god”)..But in the name of ..[Allah الله ] See how these two words …Allah الله, and ilah(إله) differ from each others.

Also ,and when you add the word “the”.. in Arabic “Al”.. to give a definition of something ,the word ilah (إله) ” become Al ilah (الإله …means “THE God”)…NOT [Allah الله].

Plus the Quran distinguish clearly between the word Allah الله..which is the personal name of the LORD ..and the word .. ilah( إله ..which means “a god”..e.g

Quran[20:014] "Verily, I am Allah الله: There is no god (ilah… إله) but I: So serve thou Me (only), and establish regular prayer for celebrating My praise.

Quran[3:002] (He is) Allah الله)! There is no god (ilah… إله) but He, the Ever living, the Eternal!...etc.

And many …many …verses in Quran showing.. the big differences between word Allah " الله"! ..and ..."ilah… إله..which means a god"

WOW....I BET A HUNDRED OF STUPID BLEW THMESELVES UP FOR THIS ARGUMENTS.....

Conclusion:- Allah اللهis not the same word as the [ilah… إله…which means "a god"] or [Al ilah الإله.. which means ..The God].. It has no roots ....In short Allah الله is a personal name of the Lord in Quran not a generic one. And most important the Divine name Allah " الله " is "Absolute" indivisible basic word that can NOT be differentiated to further simpler Rooted word.

AND PLEASE DO NOT DELETE MY DISCUSSION COZ THERE IS NO POINT TO DO SO ..Other wise Give me your Opinion and reason for deleting it.. and I am more than happy to listen and discuss that with you..I hope is NOT JUST BASED ON PURE PREJUDICE behind DELETING THE DISCUSSION  :-)

Happy haytham 22:14, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Salaam Akhii. I am not prejudiced in any way. I don't necessarily believe that the name of Allah is from al-'ilah, but your arguments are slightly flawed.

1st, you say there is no hamza as the first radical, but this is irrelevant, because the hamza would be lost in the contraction al-'ilah ---> al'lah. You can't contract the l's without losing the hamza! It wouldn't be at the beginning.

Also, people often pronounce a hamza at the beginning of the vowel, whether or not it's written.

I personally think the al-'ilah argument is flawed because it doesn't explain the velarized/(pharyngealized?) pronunciations of /a/ and /l/ both. On the other hand, it may be explained if the word was Aramaic, like the word 'isa (as) used. If it is simply an Arabic name, your theory does not explain why the /l/ and /a/ are pronounced as if there was a saad, daad, Taa or Dhaa present.

Last of all, I think it is strange to think that if Allah's name means The God, that this is somehow theologically bad...how? And why make a theological argument on a linguistic page?

David80 02:27, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

David80 .."Hamaza إ" is in Al-ilah"الإله", Allah " الله" Is NOT derived from a contraction of Al-ilah"الإله"

Let's NOT DOCK and Dive and be straight please

Hamaza إ EXIST as you and anyone can see and read it in the word (Al ilah"الإله "الإله", The God) after the combination of the word ilah " إ له God " with " Al" "ال " means "The" in Arabic". If You DO NOT see or Read Hamaza إ in the word Al-ilah الإله " !, then I advise you to go and see Opticians as soon as possible.

For anyone who has even a basic understanding of the Arabic language and its grammar would know that The word (Al ilah "الإله", The God) HAS "Hamaza إ" in it where as the Divine name Allah " الله has NO "Hamaza إ" in it, hence the clear obvious differences in Spelling,and Pronunciation between the two words. This also give strong confirmation that the Divine name Allah " الله is an Absolute name, NOT derived from the word "Aaleha-آله/ ءاله" which is the root word of(ilah " إله" , god) and (Al ilah "الإله", The God) since the [ء ...Hamza ] not in it. And most important the Divine name Allah " الله " is "Absolute" indivisible basic word that can NOT be differentiated to further simpler Rooted word.

If you can show me how the word " Al-ilah "الإله" has ever been used in " Quran or any other Arabic source" WITHOUT "Hamza إ”, and/or the Divine name Allah " الله has ever been used in " Quran or any other Arabic source" WITH "Hamza إ”, I will solemnly concede and consider my view in this subject to be defeated...The Question is can you do the same????

Cheers and regards :+D Happy haytham (talk) 12:39, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

nobody ever said Allah was "the same word" as ilah. This is about etymology. You might just as well say that chrism is "the same word" as creme. They are etymologically identical, but semantically one refers the holy oil with which you anoint kings or priests, and the other to something you put in your coffee. Enough said. dab (𒁳) 07:47, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

right on dab...do you perhaps have an explanation for the emphatic pronunciation? I'm looking everywhere David80 01:34, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

David's right in refuting the popular claim that 'Allah' is the special name for God. There are, of course, good philosophical arguments for 'God' and/or 'Allah' being proper names, but to claim that the word has no roots in language is plain wrong. The linguistic arguments for it are flimsy. I think the velarised l might be a bit of a red herring here: it ocurrs nowhere else in Arabic. I am puzzled by the reference to Aramaic, and عيسى: I'd like to know what the idea is here. It's interesting to note that modern Syriac pronunciation of ܐܠܗܐ uses a distinctive lengthening (and pushing back) of vowels, which darkens the l, when used to refer to the one Christian God, whereas it receives a lighter, more usual pronunciation when referring to a pagan god. — Gareth Hughes 15:28, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Dear Garzo

You said {David's right in refuting the popular claim that 'Allah' is the special name for God. There are, of course, good philosophical arguments for 'God' and/or 'Allah' being proper names, but to claim that the word has no roots in language is plain wrong.}

Are you inventing a NEW Arabic Grammar ":+D " Dear Garzo?

Allah " الله " is an "Absolute" name Because it is indivisible and can NOT be differentiated to further simpler " three letter Rooted word". If that is NOT the Case,and you want to refute it. Then Please Provide for us either from The Quran or any Arabic external sources the "Arabic three letter root source word " NOT "Aramaic" NOT "Syriac" , NOT "Hebrew" but the "Arabic three letter root source word " of the Divine Name Allah " الله? ...in order to prove your point?

Provide for us the testable technical evidence that Support your point from one side and refute and destroy our claims on the other sides based on either Quranic Source or any External Arabic Source. in Another word Prove that I am WRONG

Cheers and Regards :+D

Happy haytham (talk) 11:00, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Gareth, I think focusing on one etymology is theologically insignificant, and was catering to my brother's religious sensibilities in mentioning 'Isa. On the other hand, I think the very fact that this one pronunciation of ل alone is emphatic is significant, if in fact it can't be proven that it is related to recitation, nor explained that randomly emphasizing was a linguistic tool available to the one setting the standard.

Concerning Aramaic: my admittedly shallow research allows me to conjecture that the low back vowel common to some (many?) Aramaic dialects may have affected the word for "God" which Muhammad or even earlier Meccans came across and adopted for theological reasons or what have you. In other words ['ɑlɑhɑ] (not sure about the use of emphatic in whatever dialect this would have been) was borrowed directly into Arabic, retaining the vowels which were available as allophones of /a/, and naturally losing the final open syllable (later grammaticalized with short case endings), and doubling the /l/ either by false analogy with the definite article or for ease of pronunciation, or even metanalysis of the velarization. In this model, the /l/ is velarized by virtue of the vowel contact only, thus explaining the absence of a pronunciation with Arabic's usual fronted /a/-/æ/ style vowels. Also, this might explain why the velarization/backing is lost when preceded by a kasra eliding the initial /ɑ/. In other words, instead of saying "they just say /l/ this way in this one case without an emphatic consonant" one might say "the Aramaic vowels velarize the /l/" which is just more satisfying to me, if overly simple.

Likewise, perhaps the backing in Neo-Syriac is a result of bilingualism and multiculturalism in the Levant after the Arab occupation, and thus a borrowing of an Aramaic feature into a different Aramaic dialect! Or perhaps the Syriac backing was precisely what was transmitted to Arabic... Now, of course, I'm getting a bit far afield. In any case, I'd appreciate any more light you could shed on my ideas with your expertise. Cheers. David80 02:40, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

If a dark l ocurred elsewhere in Arabic, it would be significant, but seeing as it is limited to this one world, it is surely lexical — a mystical pronunciation of the word for God. The same is true of Aramaic: it offers no tradition of of velarised/pharyngealized l (except for the exceptional influence of Caucasian languages in a few, late dialects). As this feature is only present in the word for God, one must assume that it is there due to religion rather than phonology. — Gareth Hughes 00:51, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Gareth Hughes, I see no reason why one must assume that at all; it is only one of a number of vaguely plausible ad-hoc explanations for what is otherwise a mystery, for there are no analogous examples by which a rule might be discerned (of course this applies to David80's hypothesis as well.) Were it indeed a "mystical pronunciation," - that is, a register-conditioned allophone - one should expect that the word could be realized in a more conventional manner in casual contexts, and certainly that speakers would accept an unpharyngealized version as a valid alternate pronunciation (if possibly a breach of etiquette.) Do you know this to be the case?Proabivouac 01:18, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

I understand your point, but that fact that this phonetic feature ocurrs in only one word makes it extremely likely that its origin is not phonetic. If the word were a borrowing, we might expect such a feature, but 'الله' is a Semitic word. Such a sound does not exist in Arabic or the Northwest Semitic languages. However, the phoneme <ś> and its emphatic counterpart in proto-Semitic could have been a similar sound. I believe that these sounds still exist in Modern South Arabian. Still, I think that a unique pronunciation of the word for 'God' suggests some kind of sacred pronunciation. — Gareth Hughes 20:22, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

I see we're tiring of this discussion. Upon rereading the last posts, I realized the main point of dispute is actually Gareth's claim that there are no "dark" l's elsewhere in Arabic. I have already stated that this is not the case in actualization, where a backed a-vowel from a neighboring pharyngeal will always create a dark allophone. Newman It would be nearly impossible to pronounce it otherwise.

Let me restate, I am not in any way opposed to the al-ilah explanation per se, I have just never heard a good explanation for the syncope of the kasra, and feel that borrowing Aramaic alaha, with aramaic backed vowels, plus metanalysis with analogy to the definite article al- can subsist as an option for the time being.

Also, the phoneme <ś> is considered by many to be a lateral fricative [ɬ]...a sound with which someone named Gareth Hughes is doubtlessly familiar! Anyway, I don't resort to this sound, only the allophone of [l] that is, in fact, present in Arabic otherwise.

Until there is an explanation for the vowel syncope in al-ilah and a rationale for mystical pronunciations of this type in general, why can't this second explanation remain on the table?

Proabivouac....in fact, Allah is pronounced with a regular /l/ and /a/ vowels when preceded by an eliding kasra, which might help the register explanation.

Dear Garzo and David

I am NOT concerned about the "Irrelevant" points been raised by you which are totally detached and Not related to the main Topic, be it the pronunciation of the word Allah " الله" in "Aramaic" and "Syriac" or be it the word عيسى in Aramaic languages, since "Aramaic" and "Syriac" are two different languages with different grammar and different pronunciations from Arabic,and by discussing about them is another Topic that is OUT of the scope of this topic.So Please stay on the Topic

Again let me remind you gentlemen .The Topic is about the word Allah " الله … is it The personal name of LORD or is it a Generic word

In nutshell The Points I made in order to Show you with Prove that the word Allah " الله is indeed the personal divine Name of the LORD NOT a Generic word are:-

1. That Allah " الله'" is an "Absolute" name Because it is indivisible and can NOT be differentiated into further simpler " three letter Rooted word".

2. It is different from the word (ilah " إله" , god) or (Al ilah "الإله", The God) in spelling and pronunciations and most important the word ilah " إله" , god) or (Al ilah "الإله are rooted from the word "Aaleha-آله/ ءاله" where as Allah " الله is Not since it has NO [ء ...Hamza ] in it.

These two points coupled by the galore repetitive Quranic verses that each testify and prove that indeed Allah " الله'" is the Absolute Personal name of the LORD Strengthen and support the Point

We also provided our technical testable evidence From Quran. And provided Arabic brief technical linguistic explanation Both From Quran and Arabic Grammar that testify the point . If you don’t agree or not yet convinced , and you want to refute my points Then Please prove your points by Providing for us either from The Quran or any Arabic external sources

1. HOW The word " Al-ilah "الإله" has ever been used in " " WITHOUT "Hamza إ”, and/or the Divine name Allah " الله has ever been used " WITH "Hamza إ”,

2. Provide or bring for us The "Arabic three letter root source word " NOT "Aramaic" NOT "Syriac" , NOT "Hebrew" BUT the "Arabic three letter root source word " for the Divine Name Allah " الله?

Please Provide for us the testable technical evidences that "Support" your points from one side and refute and destroy our points on the other sides based on either "Quranic" Source or "any External Arabic Source". In Another word Prove that I am WRONG and on the Same time you are RIGHT and I will solemnly concede and consider my view in this subject to be defeated...

The Question is can you do the same????

Cheers and Regards :+D

Happy haytham (talk) 12:34, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Indonesian

"Indonesia recognises six religions (Islam (majority), Protestantism, Roman Catholicism, Hinduism, Buddhism, and Confucianism), all of which use these two words to refer to God."

Is it possible? Buddhists and Confucians are non-theists, and Hindus use proper names of their gods, which are derived from Sanskrit. It only makes sense for me to use "Allah" for the God of Christianity, Judaism and Islam. Even in Arabic, polytheist deities are refered as 'ilāh'. Aminullah 14:22, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

I was born and raised in Indonesia. Indonesian does not have proper plural form (normally it is done by repeating the word twice, but does not applies to all words). I have several friends who were Buddhist, and Hindus, and they DO use the world Allah, which is alternative form of Tuhan, which means God or Gods. I am a Roman Catholic and of Chinese descend, and we do use word "Allah", and so did my ancestors, who are/were Cunfucianism and Buddhist. I agree that Buddhist and Hindus does not use "Allah" as often as Muslims, Protestants, and Roman Catholics. Hope this clarify it. --w_tanoto 15:05, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Abdalillah

Would those who claim that Allah is not derived from Al-Illah please explain the common Arab name Abdalillah (Abd - Al - Illah, Slave of the God) and explain how it differs from Abdullah (Abd - Allah, Slave of The God)? Please also in discussing the origins of a word that is not exclusive to Islam, refrain from using purely Islamic arguments or quoting the Qu'ranic instructions in support of an etymological argument. Anjouli 13:27, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

also see

Murad Faraj

Multaqay al-lughatayn al-`Ivriyah wa-`al-`Arabiyah [The unity of the two Semitic languages Hebrew and Arabic, an etymological ::comparative dictionary].

Cairo: Al-Matba`ah al-Rahmaniyah, 1930-1937. 3 v.

Abd Allah Bustani

al-Bustan, oahoa mujamoun lugaouioun [The garden: an etymological dictionary].

Beirut: El matbaa el amrikia, 1927-1930. 2 v., 2784 p.

Jubran Mas`ud

al-Ra'id,

mu`jam lughawi `asri rutibat mufradatuh wafqan li-hurufiha al-ulá

Beirut: Dar al-`Ilm lil-Mallayin, 1965. 1637 p.

Avraham Shtal; Avraham Robinzon

Milon du-leshoni etimologi le-`Arvit meduberet ule-`Ivrit [Bilingual etymological dictionary of spoken Israeli Arabic and Hebrew].

Tel-Aviv: Devir, 1995. 2 v., 711 p.

Not to mention the two authoratitive references given in the article. You are right Anjouli. But it's a religious argument they are making. Some Muslims (and I'm a Muslim) think any etymology of the word is blasphemy. But that's not Islam. 86.60.112.161 19:49, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Anjouli as well, but I think the very fact that both Abdullah and Abdalilah exist side-by-side may show that they have different origins. Also, as I state several times in my posts, there is no explanation for the "emphatic" pronunciation of the A's and the L. This is why I think it may be an Arabized form of the Aramaic word. David80 02:26, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

How does that suggest different origins? Many personal names of similar etymology, indeed the vast majority of them, have variations. Please also consider that the current emphatic pronunciation pf Allah may be an artifact of ritual Qu'ranic recitation, i.e. it may not be the preislamic pronunciation of the same word. Mrhawley 08:17, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

I guess what I meant is that vowel syncope in a word, even a particular word, would have to be universal, at least within a dialect, and that another pronunciation would be supplanted by the phonology itself quite unconsciously, and thus fall out of use. But you're right, of course, it could be that Allah was a "special" pronunciation rather than a phonological one, and thus the form with and without the syncope would continue in use; this is why I said "may show" and not "indicates". I am intrigued by the idea that the emphaticization is a remnant of Tajwid...do you have more info on this? I like the idea, I just feel there must be some linguistic precedent for emphasizing sounds in the absence of emphatic consonants, in order to elevate style or significance. Perhaps this was peculiar to a certain dialect whose influences survives only in this word? Then again, it is the name of the supreme being, and thus may be subject to unique rules. Anyway, cheers and thanks for the feedback. Best, David80 11:36, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Allah

All i know is that i am a roman catholic and that allah is the islamic name for their god

looks like you didn't read the article. arab roman catholics call god allah. its just arabic word 86.60.112.161 19:51, 26 June 2007 (UTC)for god.

'Ala'?

Quick question- is Allah ever translated as 'Ala'? I saw that somewhere and was wondering whether it was just a mistake or a plausible writing of the word. Thanks in advance. DTPQueen

The quick answer is "no" - check out the etymology also in the article. → AA ^{(talk • contribs)} — 22:17, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

pronunciation

Could someone please put in an IPA pronunciation of "Allah" as pronounced in Arabic (classical or otherwise)? -- 129.78.220.7 05:39, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

It's not quite as easy as it seems, as Allāh has a peculiar pronunciation. I've put up [ʔalˈlˤaːh] in the article, trying to represent the syllable break between the ls, stress on the second syllable and velarisation of the ls. I'd appreciate any thoughts on this too. — Gareth Hughes 11:20, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

that can't be right. What makes you think the l is "velarised"? Phonemically, it's simple /alːaːh/. Phonetically, if you insist, perhaps [ʔɛlːæːh], but the initial glottal stop plus vowel is sub-phonematic. Phonematically, I suppose it's simple /llāh/. dab (𒁳) 09:22, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Gareth, I was thrown off by your use of "velarized". I think we should use "pharyngealized" to be more accurate. Your transliteration is most accurate, except I think the syllable break is unnecessary, since a long /l/ suffices to convey it. Also, in classical speech at least the second /a/ should be low-back. So how about [ʔalˤːɑːh]? Best, David80 20:09, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

I think this is a good representation, so I was bold and put it in ... The /l/ should be the velarized alveolar lateral approximant, right? In Arabic, it occurs in this single word only, if it follows /u/ or /a/, but not if it follows /i/. Momotaro (talk) 17:28, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Usage

To enter Islam you need to quote "There is no God but Allah and Mohammed is His messenger" Ash hadu an la ilaha illa Allah, wa ashhadu anna Muhammadan Rasuwl Allah.

Generally, The Moslems begin their acts in the name of Allah bismi Allah, they express their satisfaction by saying Praise to God al hamdou li-Allah or their misfortune we belong to God, and to Him we shall return Inna li-Allahi wa inna ilayhi raji oun. If they commit a sin they ask for Allah's forgiveness astaghfir Allah. When they express their intentions, forecasts or their expectations: If God wants Insha Allah.

God is most great Allahou Akbar is pronounced before certain religious practices as the big appeal adan, prayer …

Abbas9 21:06, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Moon God

We should also mention that in the pre-Islamic society Allah was the Moon God. http://www.biblebelievers.org.au/moongod.htm 132.72.149.74 08:43, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

in Jack Chick's world, maybe. As it is, we do state that Allah was worshipped by pre-Islamic Meccans. dab (𒁳) 09:17, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Since Allah basically means The God (capital letters god), you're basically saying Moon Worshipers called God, 'God'. Well, duh! Presumably worshippers of the Flying Spaghetti Monster in Arabic speaking cultures (if any) could call him Allah. It's just a word guys. Some uneducated Muslims have tried to say it's their own - but that's like Ford claiming the word 'car' and denying its etymology on th grounds that it is 'inviolable'.87.101.244.6 05:20, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Moon God no Evidence for that

There are evidences to that and I will supply also other link about that subject.I think it should be mention at least as theory.Oren.tal 21:45, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

The assertion has no Solid testable Irrefutable proof that can be shown and taken as " evidence" The biblebeliver .org say that the moon god “IL” comes from word ilah which means Allah

First of All it is important to know that the word ilah… إله…is a a generic word meaning "a god" any god sun god moon god, YHWH god,etc ,and the word " Al ilah الإله." is a generic word which means "The God" and that is because when you add the word “the”.. in Arabic “Al”.. to give a definition of something ,the word ilah (إله) ” become Al ilah (الإله …means “THE God”)…NOT [Allah الله].

Allah اللهis not the same word as the [ilah… إله…which means "a god"] or [Al ilah الإله.. which means ..The God] since the word "Allah الله" hasn't got the same root Alphabets

By the way I want to remind you that this YHWH יהוה‎ whom named himself to be Lord jealous Ex 34:14 and gave Mosses a peek at his "back parts"Exod 33:23 was being beaten by man named Jacob after night long wrestle…שָׂריתָ עִם אֱלהים Struggle with god Gen 32:28.is Not the SAME GOD of the Quran..Is NOT Allah

secondly it is SHOCKING that you resorted to the "biblebelievers.org.au/moongod.htm" as something to justify the falsehood of some Jews & Christian allegation that Allah is the moon god.

If this source is reliable it should focus on try to clarify the problem and or contradictions of the biblical god's personal name

• Is god of the bible "personal name" really YHWH יהוה‎ ?.... Knowing the fact that when Moses asked god about his personal name, god answered him ..[ I am (who) what I am אהיה אשׁר אהיה]…. Ahieh asher Ahieh ...NOT YHWH .יהוה…read ..Exodus 3:14

• And why Jesus Never say the word YHWH in his LIFE….(there is NO word YHWH in Gospels or books of Apostles)…if [YHWH …יהוה‎] NOT I am (who) what I am אהיה אשׁר אהיה …. should be Remember by Israelites Generation by Generation [ דּר לדר‎ ]..and forever [ לְעלָם‎ ]?

• The Contradiction in Exodus 6:3 when god did say And I appeared unto Abraham, unto Isaac, and unto Jacob, by the name of God Almighty בְּאֵל שַׁדָי‎, but by my name [YHWH יהוה‎] was I not known to them.While reading in {Genesis 22:14, Genesis 26,and Genesis 28}.. that Abraham, Isaac and Jacob all Knew the name …YHWH יהוה‎ respectively

• And what about Jesus whom said "I am the Morning star" REV 22:16, Knowing the Fact the Morning Star HILLAL in Hebrew is Lucifer Isaiah 14:12?Is god of the New testament the devil(Satan) of the Old testament?

we need answers from biblebelievers.org. before going to write things about Other people Faith

Unlike you I am using The Literal Bible Scripture texts itself NOT other EXTERNAL sources to prove and Validate the POINT

In this respect I will ignore all forms of speculation and "hearsay" concerning either Books( including Quran), and instead focus on textually-hard and testable evidences, and linking the evidence together ...that is far more better..than going to Google looking for websites to see people's OWN point of view or a hear saying Fallacy regarding any subjects.

Otherwise would it be valid to use the Hindu scriptures and understandings in order to clarify YHWH as Satan or god?

Finally please Do NOT Delete my discussion while keeping yours

It is you whom you Initiated it

81.157.126.251 11:52, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

The consensus at Talk:Islam#moon God after discussing the sources making this claim is that they probably aren't reliable, and it isn't likely that such a claim belongs in the article. I think the same is true for this article. Best, Smmurphy^(Talk) 14:30, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

User:81.157.126.251, would you kindly quit flooding the page with this quackery?Proabivouac 22:53, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

The claim belong to this article.It is article about Allah before and in Islam.Not only Allah in Islam.If the pre-Islamic Arabs had considered him as moon God then people should know about this. That why it is should be mention. Here is a few web-sites about the topic: http://www.faithfreedom.org/Articles/skm30804.htm

http://users.hubwest.com/prophet/islam/moongod.htm

http://www.netbiblestudy.net/bulletin/new_page_126.htm

Everyone if you find inforamtion about the moon God please post it here.That how we can add it to the article.If you have good source then just add it to the article and mention the source.Oren.tal 12:37, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Hi

You said and I qoute {We should also mention that in the pre-Islamic society Allah was the Moon God. http://www.biblebelievers.org.au/moongod.htm 132.72.149.74 08:43, 16 June 2007 (UTC)}

OKAY cool

These websites are Anti Islamic and do not bring substantial solid proof that can be shown and verified let alone contradict the QURAN TEXTS ,Context and the Arabic grammar and its vocabularies itself.

86.149.105.97 20:58, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

• The article about Hubal is happy enough to mention an hypothesised connection between Allah and a moon god. That it concludes that there is no definitive proof is quite right according to available evidence, but it does suggest the mentioning of this issue is relevant and encyclopedic. We need a subsection on this, including all necessary caveats: that this issue is often expounded by islamophobes, that the evidence is contradictory... but also that Islam's symbol is the crescent moon...

Furthermore, too many people in this discussion seem to be using solely the internet to find sources - yet the dodgy sites that cover this topic mention scholarly articles. We need to go directly to these articles to find quotes... But to restate my point, some discussion of this topic is valid and required (for instance, someone reading [biblebelievers.org] might then want to check this site to see how much of what they have read is objective and reasonable.)Malick78 08:08, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

sure, we will keep all academic references to speculation on the topic. What we'll not even glance at are dodgy articles on websites like "biblebelievers.org.au". Hubal cites no sources. The text states that "the hypothesis that Hubal was originally the proper name of Allah suffers from serious difficulties" without even establishing that there is such a hypothesis (outside the small world of ""biblebelievers.org" and friends). dab (𒁳) 08:25, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Also, any Christian missionaries wishing to propound this theory further must realize that the extremely outdated information from the 20s about Allah being the moon god also necessarily concludes that the God of the Bible is also the moon god: a fact cleverly obfuscated by the likes of Morey (whose deliberately untruthful cues almost all these christian {and not a singular scholarly} websites have taken). There is a fascinating and extremely astute article here. Lastly, Hubal is not now, nor was he ever considered the moon!

The conclusion you get from this is irrelevant and even though I think Christianity is bullshit I don't see how it lead them to that conclusion.Anyway it should be mention at least that according to some research it was the name of the moon God in the pre-Islamic Arabic society.87.69.77.82 19:25, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

---

Following the "moon god" line of logic - English speaking Christians, Jews, Muslims, and others who worship "God" are not worshipping the deity of Abrahamic religions, but the Germanic pagan deity that the word ["God"] is derived from. 69.152.153.170

No body said that the Muslims worship the moon God but only that in pre-Islamic Arabic society Allah was the name of the moon God according to some research.I think it should be mention.At least it should be mention that according to some researches it was the name of the moon God.Just like it mention in the article about God.In the Etymology and usage part.87.69.77.82 19:25, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Origin of "Allah" as a name of or ref to God.== ==ALLAH IS NOT THE JUDEO-CHRISTIAN GOD!!

Please discuss. Ephix 20:51, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Hi, Ephix. Your original addition is this:

but ['Allah'] originated from the Jewish Bible where it appears in the Book of Daniel at least 7 times <ref>Daniel 2:18 & 19, 2:23, 2:28, 2:37</ref>

Now, this looks quite clever, but let's look at the five given references. They are all from the Biblical Aramaic of the Book of Daniel. The word in question in all five verses is אלה, and it is pointed in Masoretic Text to read as ’ĕlāh. As this is from a text that is probably from the 2nd century BCE, and Qur'an is from 7th century CE, one might say that the latter is derived from the former. However, there is no proof for this. The fact that words from the root אלה/اله exist in all varieties of Central Semitic languages, and to some degree throughout the Semitic languages, points to a common Proto-Semitic root, and not to a single line of development. The argument proposed by Ephix is not properly referenced (quoting Bible verses is not actually referencing the given interpretation). If there are suitible references, let's rehearse them here. Until evidence is produced, the text in question should not be re-inserted into the article. — Gareth Hughes 21:20, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

The word in Aramaic for God in the bible is אלוה with pronounce Eloha and it has no connection what so ever to the word Allah in Arabic.The word Allah in Arabic used to be the name of one of the Arabic Gods.The name Allah has not come from Hebrew of from Aramaic.132.72.41.221 15:20, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

the sentense "The corresponding Aramaic form is Alāhā" is wrong and should be changed into "The corresponding Aramaic form is Eloha"

Again, this is not entirely right. You could try reading our article on Aramaic. Because Aramaic has such a long and expansive history it is very difficult to talk about the language without reference to a particular time or place. The Biblical Aramaic for 'God' is אלה (’ĕlāh). The word אלוה (’ĕlôăh) is Biblical Hebrew. The word ܐܠܗܐ (’Allāhâ) is Syriac. I shall try to make this clear in the article. — Gareth Hughes 15:40, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Gareth Hughes, I am Jewish and I read the original Aramic part of the bible.second the Talmud has also written in Aramic and I can ensure you that if you check the original version you will NOT find the word ĕlāh but only Eloha.The word in Hebrew are Elohim or El but Eloha is not mention in the Hebrew part.You may find in Aramic the word אלהא (Elloha).But I don't know about any place in the bible that speak about Allāhâ.Allāhâ is maybe Syriac but I am really doubt if it is appear in the bible.If it is show me where

Anonymous poster, I have the text in front of me. You will find אלוה as the Hebrew in the following places: Deuteronomy 32.15, Isaiah 44.8, Habakuk 3.3, Psalm 18.32, Proverbs 30.5, Job 12.6 and II Chronicles 32.15. The place where you will not find this word, but the Aramaic אלה, is in the Aramaic portions of the Bible, like Daniel 2.19, 2.37, 3.15, 3.17, 3.28, 3.32, 5.1, 6.8, 6.13, 6.27, Ezra 5.12, 6.9-10, 6.12, 6.14, 7.15, 7.23 and 7.25. I hope that's clear enough. I pointed to Syriac to show you which variety of Aramaic it is, that's all. Of course, there's a very important Syriac translation of the Bible, called the Peshitta, but it's not the original text. — Gareth Hughes 16:59, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

אלוה is Eloha with I indeed agree with you about it apreance in the Bible and I have not said it is not appear in Bible.I only said that the word Allāhâ don't appear in the bible and you have not supply in place where that word mention.What I have only said that the word Allāhâ is not in Aramic or in Hebrew.I see we agree about that.all my discssion was about the word Allāhâ.So I suggest to fix the article and to remove the word Allāhâ.Because that word don't have any Aramic orign maybe Syriac orign but not Aramic.132.72.41.221 17:22, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

No, actually you said "if you check the original version you will NOT find the word ĕlāh but only Eloha.The word in Hebrew are Elohim or El but Eloha is not mention in the Hebrew part", which I have just disproved to you — אלה is used throughout Aramaic portions. In Aramaic, the word אלה does appear about half the time as אלהא, that's because it's in the determined state in those instances. So, now, being convinced of that one, you take issue with the Syriac. This article is not about names of God in the Bible, and so to reference that another variety of Aramaic uses a slightly different spelling is fine. In fact, the Syriac spelling is really quite important, and certainly more important than the Biblical Aramaic spelling, when considering the Arabic spelling. Even still, I maintain that the Arabic is neither derived from the Aramaic or the Hebrew. — Gareth Hughes 17:31, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

I've also noticed that you said "but Eloha is not mention in the Hebrew part" in your first part, and then, when I showed you the verses, said "Eloha with I indeed agree with you about it apreance in the Bible". I'm sure what I mean, you seem to contradict yourself. Also, when you say "all my discssion was about the word Allāhâ", it is quite clear that this was only the last part of your previous post. — Gareth Hughes 17:39, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Gareth Hughes I don't care about the other words you want to mention Eloha fine.But what I say and I say that again is that Allāhâ isn't word in Aramaic and don't appear in the bible.So we should removed the word from the article or at least mention it as Syrian word and not Aramaic word

Anonymous, when presented with the fact that you are wrong, you change your argument. Why should Syriac be removed from this article about Allah because Syriac is not the original language of the Bible? The argument is specious, as a linguistic comparison amongst Semitic languages does not require them to occur in any particular literature. In fact, Syriac is a more relevant variety of Aramaic than Biblical Aramaic in the case of the etymology of 'Allah'. This just looks like you have dug yourself into a hole and have no real argument left. — Gareth Hughes 19:13, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

looked I from the start spoke about the word Allāhâ.About all the other words I just agree with you.I have not changed the argument.I still with the same argument no one including you supply any evidence for that word in Aramaic.You claim it is in the Syriac I would like to know what are the evidence for that.

according to what I know it is not Syriac.what are the evidences we have about the word Allāhâ is an Syriac word?

The bible have not been written in Syriac so that why I think we should removed it.It has not connection what so ever to the bible and it is only mislead people.

Here is an article that translate the Aramaic part of the Bible to English and indeed it write Elohi and not Allaha http://www.wycliffe.net/home/Articles/tabid/454/Default.aspx?id=as-0705031

So yes I do think the word should be removed the word Allāhâ as we have no evidence to the use of the word Allāhâ.About the other words I agree with you that they should be stay.

Well, you actually got your first argument wrong — the argument about אלוה and אלה — and have yet acknowledged that. Read the article and you will see that a connexion to the Bible is not required: it is not what the article is talking about. So, to insist on it seems somewhat odd to me: connexion with the Bible is absolutely irrelevant here. I find it difficult to understand some of your English, but you seem to ask whether ܐܠܗܐ (Allāhâ) is truly a Syriac word. Well, it is, and I can name a Syriac dictionary that will prove that to you. Now, tell me why a connexion with the Bible is needed in a section about the etymology of 'Allah'. — Gareth Hughes 19:59, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

(after edit conflict) That article is talking about words believed to be Aramaic (neither Biblical nor Syriac) appearing in the Greek text of the New Testament. What do you want to argue from it? Believe me when I tell you I know what I'm talking about here — Aramaic is what I do for a living. — Gareth Hughes 20:02, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

haven't gotten wrong.I have just said that I don't really care because those words are related to the bible.

O.K. then supply the dictionary please. we should know the evidence for that.We shouldn't mention things without evidences.Until now I have supply none.I speak about the word Allāhâ

I wasn't aware that you could not be found wrong if you didn't really care about the answer. However, you started by making factually incorrect statements about Biblical Hebrew and Aramaic. You can find the word 'Alāhâ' in any Syriac dictionary — here's mine: Payne Smith, J. (1998) [1903]. A Compendious Syriac Dictionary Founded upon the Thesaurus Syriacus of R. Payne Smith, D.D. Winona Lake, Indiana, USA: Eisenbrauns. ISBN 1-57506-032-9.. Now, why is the fact that Syriac is not the original language of the Bible a reason why it shouldn't be mentioned as part of an argument on the etymology of 'Allah'? — Gareth Hughes 20:22, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

O.K. I agree as long as it written in a way it is not misleading people.

I don't think it's misleading. — Gareth Hughes 09:27, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

if you don't mention it is Syric dialect of Aramic then it is misleading.Oren.tal 16:04, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

nonsense in Typography

This is nonsense: "Unicode imitates traditional Arabic typesetting". It shows that the author does not understand wahat Unicode is about. Please remove!

it shows that you did not pay attention. Unicode is, indeed, not usually about "imitating typesetting", but there are notable exceptions, decided upon by the Unicode consortium, and this is one of them. Unicode encodes characters, not glyphs. The non-trivial question is, what is a character. dab (𒁳) 08:21, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Allah illustration

[moved from my user talk]
Please could you add some further information to the talk page of the article to expand upon your edit comment? Thanks SP-KP 17:24, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

SP-KP, I am not aware that there are any illustrations of Allah. Therefore, your request to add a photograph of one can only go unfulfilled.Proabivouac 21:13, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply. However, that's not what your edit comment said. You confidently stated that there are NO illustrations of Allah. If that was the case, I'd agree with you, and I'd suggest that this is a notable enough piece of information to include in the article. Could you clarify whether you KNOW that there are no illustrations, or whether you are just personally unaware of any? Thanks. SP-KP 21:54, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

No, I do not have a source which states that there have definitely not ever been any depictions of Allah. I suppose someone must have drawn something and labelled it "Allah" at various points. However, I have personally never seen or heard of one. Anyhow, this article is about the word "Allah," several photographs of which are included in the article.Proabivouac 22:05, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. You make a good point in your last sentence - I hadn't spotted that this article is only about the word Allah. Can you tell me where I can find an article about the concept? SP-KP 18:50, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

the Arabic word for God

The Arabic word for Gos is Ilah and not Allah.Allah is the NAME of God according to Islam.Just like YHWH is the name of Jewish God in the Torah but the word YHWH don't mean God in Hebrew. For more explenation: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5jWcXYz1ZKE Please correct the Article.87.69.77.82 18:51, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Allah and Eloah

Allah is synonymous with Eloah (Strongs Concordance H433, Reference) in the Torah. Shouldn't this article reflect this? Nuwaubian Hotep 03:52, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

I added the external link to Strong's Concordance/Gesenius's Lexicon for Eloah in the article page External link section. Nuwaubian Hotep 04:22, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Ok, why was the Strong's Concordance reference h433 Eloah removed? Clearly, it defined both terms as being the same if you've read the commentary written in the 1800's. You could at least listed a reason as to why you removed it. I'm going to enact an RFC on this page. This edit war grows tiring. Nuwaubian Hotep (talk) 21:13, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

I have no idea what you are referring to. What was deleted? --Aminz (talk) 08:27, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

---

Actually, in technical terms Ilah is etymologically an exact proto-Semitic cognate correspondence (taking into account historical sound changes) to Hebrew Eloah. However, neither Arabic Ilah nor Hebrew Eloah is actually the most common way of referring to monotheistic God in either the Qur'an or the Hebrew Bible... AnonMoos (talk) 09:40, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Did you read the Gesenius's Lexicon commentary? Clearly your assertion is a modern day invention and is incorrect. Eloah and Allah are direct etymological roots to the Aramaic word "Alaha" the "true god" of the Semite. I'm restoring the link and will enact an RFC if it is removed again. Nuwaubian Hotep (talk) 00:47, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

I'll allow the edit to stand as this case is made in the etymology section. However, the Gesenius Lexicon commentary from Strong's Concordance H433 does a much better job at it. Nuwaubian Hotep (talk) 00:51, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

'Alllah?

I'm new to the language (just started learning it this year), but isn't الله spelled with a hamza on the Alif and a shaddah over the second Lam? Wouldn't that make it 'A-l-ll-h, transliterated to 'Alllah (with the apostrophe and 3rd "l")? 199.212.70.220 23:42, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

The first lam is actually silent. AnonMoos (talk) 09:44, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

well you see all those apostrophe's because thats how they teach the language but this is direct translantion —Preceding unsigned comment added by Topsecrete (talk • contribs) 00:41, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

No there is no hamza above the letter 'Alif' at the beginning of the word 'Alllah' in Arabic "الله".ILAKNA (talk) 13:25, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

the shaddah indicates that the al- was indeed understood as the article (at the time orthography became fixed). Allah is spelled the same as any other case of "definite article plus word beginning in l-" (because lam is considered a solar letter; that's just convention, it could just as well be considered non-solar, because l+l is neither a case of assimilation, nor of lack of assimilation). This is never transliterated with triple lll. Strictly algorithmical transliteration would result in al-lāh, but this is not how it is done. It is transliterated Allāh by convention. That we are looking at a special case becomes clear only in non-initial position, where the alif is dropped (llāh), unlike the regular article, which always sports an alif, regardless of whether it is pronounced. This cannot be predicted, it is simply an orthographical convention, period. dab (𒁳) 10:08, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

GA review

GA review (see here for criteria)

---

This is a nice piece of work, but it still has some shortcomings with respect to the good article criteria.

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS):

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

   Sources were mainly books so ere not checked, but follow the internet external links for the most part for the basis of the article

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

   This is the hardest part of the article. The article does not flow from section to section, nor does it include important concepts and terms of infobox and see also section.

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars etc.:

   Watch this point, the talk page is very full of opinion

6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

   Good luck improving the article

The first paragraph or Overview needs to establish the context in which the topic is being considered, by supplying the set of circumstances or facts that surround it. The lead section should briefly summarize the most important points covered in an article in such a way that it can stand on its own as a concise version of the article. The first sentence should give the shortest possible relevant characterization of the subject. Characterization what the term refers to as used in the given context the primary reasons the subject matter is interesting or notable in the category of Islam, and spirituality. Can the calligraphy of Allah be explained as to why each stroke is used? The grammar concept of plurals/singular form introduces a new concept which should be a part of a section, and summarized in the lead Context - State the obvious, describing the category or field in which the idea belongs such as Islam beliefs, monotheism and / or spirituality. There is a cool infobox beside this article that states that Allah if part of the larger concept beliefs and that Allah · Oneness of God · Muhammad · Prophets of Islam are all part of the belief system. Can these concepts be united together in the article as well as in the infobox. Explanation - deeper meaning and background by a summary of the most important points / sections of the article. The current lead does not say anything at all about the excellent sections to introduce any of them...Etymology, Usage, Polytheistic religion of the pre-Islamic Arabs,Islam, Other, Cross religion comparison (an academic view), Tawhid, 99 Names of God in the Qur'an, Names of God, Ilah, Qur'an, Termagant, Allah · Oneness of God · Muhammad · Prophets of Islam. The French translation of Allah mentions attributes of Allah. Maybe this article could be improved if translation from some of the many, many other wiki languages Allah articles were merged together.

For example....If I read only the lead, I would not know about these sections, nor would I be induced to read the rest of the article for that reason.

Scrap the See also section. (BTW why is only Tawhid mentioned and not the other 4 Islamic beliefs - Imamah, Nabuah, Qiyamah, Dua(Namaz)?) If these technical terms are important enough for the article Allah as see also, the prose of the Allah article should introduce these terms as wiki links within the article format prose outline itself. Compare and contrast - how it relates to other spiritual or religious concepts of God. or Names of God even though Allah is not a name, but rather a concept. Criticism - include criticism if there has been significant, notable criticism. End of lead paragraph. There are a bizillion articles in the what links here special page. Does this article fairly represent their linking to Allah here? Is the full concept of Allah from all / most of the what links here articles covered? SriMesh | talk 01:57, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Hi SriMesh,

Thanks very much for the review. I agree that lead should be improved as you mentioned. Thanks for that. But I don't feel "attributes of Allah" needs to be mentioned here because Allah is simply the Arabic term for "God". Arabs of all faiths (including Muslims) use it. The attributes of God, I think, should go to God in Islam article.Also, "Islam" template is not very relevant here.

"Tawhid" is the concept of "unity of God" but other Islamic beliefs (Imamah, Nabuah, Qiyamah, ...) are not directly related to God.

I'll add some information on "calligraphy of Allah". Thanks for mentioning that and other points. --Aminz 07:01, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Pagan links to Idolatry!

Why does the word 'pagan' link to 'Shirk (idolatry)'? This does not seem balanced! Tomboulier 19:16, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

It is fixed now. --Aminz 19:26, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

what do you mean "fixed"? The link was perfectly accurate. dab (𒁳) 14:52, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

The same question again: Why does the word 'pagan' link to 'Shirk (idolatry)'? corrected.--Redtigerxyz (talk) 11:00, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Because while shirk technically refers to polytheism it is generally applicable to worship of beings or things other than Allah. The term pagan as it is used in western religious context generally refers to those who worship beings outside of the Abrahamic monotheistic tradition, and shirk applies directly to that. It links to shirk because they are related concepts. Peter Deer (talk) 11:19, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Arabic shirk/mushrik is the translation of English pagan(ism) or heathen(ry). The article shirk (polytheism) is much more relevant in the given context than the generic and very broad pagan one. Shirk is derogatory from an Islamic pov just the same way that pagan is derogatory from a Christian pov: the deprecation stems from the ideology held by the speaker, not from the term as such. "Pagan" has become a self-designation (in neopaganism), and if there were neopagans in the Arabic world, no doubt they would self-designate as mushrik. It is just for political reasons that it would not be a good idea to self-designate in this way in the Arabic world today. That's because Muslim society lags some 300 years behind Western society. It wouldn't have been advisable to self-designate as pagan in Europe in 1700 either. I suppose modern phenomena like positive atheism and neopaganism will evolve in the Middle East over the next couple of decades. dab (𒁳) 10:12, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

"Shirk (Arabic: شرك‎) is the Islamic concept of the sin of polytheism specifically, but in a more general way refers to serving anything other than one God; i.e. wealth, lust, the ego, etc." as per the article. "Paganism (from Latin paganus, meaning "country dweller, rustic") is a term which, from a Western perspective, has modern connotations of spiritual or cult practices or beliefs of any folk religion, and of historical and contemporary polytheistic religions in particular." While reffering to the "pagan", the authors are talking about pre-Islamic culture so how can a Islamic concept relate pre-Islamic pagan?? If the authors disagree with you, a solution is just remove the link to pagan. The removal of link Pagan would not decrease the content value of Allah article. --Redtigerxyz (talk) 12:23, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

???!!!

I want to get this straight-- WHAT DOES ALLAH MEAN???!!! I know it means either god or God, but which one? Does it mean just any god? Or God the Lord, the Jewish-Christian God, the God that created the world in six days and rested on the seventh? I just want to know. RayquazaDialgaWeird2210 (talk) 00:44, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

i think the article makes this clear. Allah is the construct of al-ilah. ilah normally refers to a god/object of worship, but when preceded by the definite article (al-) it refers to "The God" (lit rendering). thus Allah is the Arabic word for God (with a capital g) and represents the equivalent of Eloah and Alaha in Hebrew and Aramaic respectively. please also remember that talk pages are used for discussion relating to article improvements. ITAQALLAH 18:25, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Confusion about article organization

Just curious why the first portion of the article, is almost word-for-word rephrased throughout the article in successive sections. Wouldn't it make more sense to be more concise in the first paragraph, as the article itself isn't very long? ArdenD (talk) 07:42, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

I think the following statement is not true.

"According to Britannica Encyclopedia [1]:

God, says the Qur'an, “loves those who do good,” and two passages in the Qur'an express a mutual love between God and man, but the Judeo-Christian precept to “love God with all thy heart” is nowhere formulated in Islam. "

The Quran clearly says: "But those of Faith are overflowing in their love for Allah" [2:165] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.128.4.231 (talk) 13:49, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Intolerance undermines respect

Yet another "no, you can't use that word if we use that word": "Malaysian Catholic weekly told to drop use of 'Allah' in order to renew publishing permit" [2] Does the Usage section need a 'Controversies' subsection? And surely the Other section needs a nod to Malaysian 'sensitivity'? Shenme (talk) 03:33, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Now the BBC: Malaysian row over word for 'God' [3]

"The term 'Allah' was used to refer to God by Arabic-speaking Christians before Arabic-speaking Muslims existed," he said. Shenme (talk) 09:58, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

"The words in contention are ‘Allah’ (God), ‘Baitullah’ (House of God), ‘Solat’ (prayer) and ‘Kaabah’ (The Sacred House)."

"The issue of the forbidden words first arose when the Home Affairs Ministry issued in April 1986 a letter to Christian leaders announcing the proscription (ban) of 16 words, which the Ministry felt were ‘sensitive’ to Muslims."

Politicians back down: Malaysia reverses Allah paper ban [4]

Other background refs: quotes gov't letters [5] Shenme (talk) 01:09, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Non-trinity cristian groups

Could someone please add details about how Uniterians, Mormons and Yehova Witnesses views God and differences from Islam. I am registered user but I cannot add. Thnx Sezerpal (talk) 08:08, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

how does this relate to the topic of this article? dab (𒁳) 14:50, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Because in the paragraph it states "The Qur'an also rejects the Trinitarian conception of God as three persons in one substance.[9]" but as it doesn't state that all Christian denominations profess a trinitarian view of the relationship of God and Jesus listing the viewpoints of the ones that don't is unnecessary. Peter Deer (talk) 11:28, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

GA Review

GA review (see here for criteria)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS):

   There are a lot of problems with the prose in this article. In most places, it simply does not flow well. There are instances of asides in the middle of a sentence (example: “The usage of the term Allah by English speaking non-Muslims in reference to the God in Islam, Marshall G. S. Hodgson says, can imply…”); this also inhibits flow. This should be avoided in the text of the article itself. Furthermore, where the prose references someone who is citing someone else, the sentence construction gets bogged down and quickly becomes tedious or, worse yet, confusing. One does not need to state who is the source of a fact or citation is in the prose of the article provided that this is stated in the footnote. As such, I would remove all the prose noting that Watt references someone else and leave this for the footnotes. Second, where referencing a Sura, the editor should note that the article is directing the reader to the Qu’ran, not just providing Sura/verse as is presently done. Third, there are several subheadings that are needlessly short, including one that is only a sentence long. These should be expanded or eliminated altogether. Finally, the proper rendering is “Encyclopedia Britannica” not “Britannica Encyclopedia.”

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

   I’m sure there is a lot more that could be said about Allah in Islam in this article since Allah commonly connotated with Islam. If more could be added regarding the use of Allah as a name for God among Arabic-speaking Christians and Jews, that would be beneficial as well.

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars etc.:

6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

   jackturner3 (talk) 15:53, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Jackturner for reviewing this. I will try to fix the prose issues (I am not a native speaker so I have to get some help for it). But I think this article is broad in its coverage: As mentioned at the top of the article, "This article is about the Arabic word "Allah". See God in Islam for the Islamic conception of God." Indeed we have given some more space to Islam here but I don't think there is anything Islamic in the term Allah. It was used before Islam and is the only word for God that Arab Christians use. The association of the term with Islam is due to those who were engaged in Comparative religous studies which is at the bottom of it "artificial".

I would be thankful if you could clarify more about this sentence: "If more could be added regarding the use of Allah as a name for God among Arabic-speaking Christians and Jews, that would be beneficial as well." Should I add something from the articles God in Christianity and God in Judaism here, or should I add something about the dominant denomination among Arab Christians. Thanks --Be happy!! (talk) 21:38, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Also, I think the article has been stable for a long time. There have been edit-war recently as far as I am aware. Maybe I am missing something but could you please clarify on that too. Thanks --Be happy!! (talk) 21:42, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Good article reassessment

This article was nominated for good article reassessment to determine whether or not it met the good article criteria and so can be listed as a good article. No action taken. Please see the archived discussion for further information. Geometry guy 18:08, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Vandilization

I thnk that a Vandilization Counter should be added. Just a small Descreet One like this:

vn00	This Article has been vandalized 0 Times.

Every time a report of Vandilization is recorded, a person can simple change the number. All agreements and disagreements please post on my talk page: --Obaidz96 (talk) 23:06, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Allah being only used in singular

Regarding [6],

Here is what the source says (Gerhard Böwering in the Encyclopedia of the Qur'an):

The name is commonly explained linguistically as a contraction of the Arabic noun with its definite article, al-ilāh shortened into Allāh by frequency of usage in invocation. Actually, “ Allāh ” is not understood to be a proper name like any other, rather it is the name of the nameless God, next to whom there is no other. Allāh is mentioned only in the singular, no plural can be formed of the name. God, however, is not understood in Islam as an abstract absolute; rather God exists and is one: God is the only real supreme being whom all Muslims address and invoke by the name “ Allāh. ”

Also "al-Lāt" is the correct pronunciation. Cheers,

--Be happy!! (talk) 08:48, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

The key point to understand is that "'Allāh' is not understood to be a proper name like any other..." It is not incorrect to note its (and Allāt's) origin in Arabic (and Semitic) ilāh-, and the EQ does not say it is wrong. In fact, Muslim religious scholars generally are pretty clear on this, although in common practice - cf. the drama in Malay language usage right now - it may be understood as The Name of God. It's not God's name, like "Ahmad" or "Naahid", it's the word "God"!

Second, there is no need to discuss that you don't pluralise Allāh. It's redundant. It means "God". If you pluralise ilāh, you aren't talking about God but a god. In addition to being weird-sounding, it is also inaccurate, as you can pluralise ilāh just fine. When it's a definite noun, it's Allāh. Check your shahada for a convenient example: "There is no god but God." It's an extraneous and confusing sentence.

Also, "pronunciation" is not the word you are looking for... I think you mean orthography, the way to write it. I think an argument can be made either way, but if we write al-Lāt we must also write al-Lāh, since otherwise we'll be being inconsistent in transliteration, which is the second-worst problem of every article on Islam and/or Arabs ever written in the history of humanity. I therefore use Allāt, Allāh except in names, where I use, e.g., Taymu l-Lāt and Taymu l-Lāh. This tribe is historically known to have changed their name when they converted and continues to flourish today, so I chose this example deliberately.

A final note: those names Allāt, Allāh exist in the historical record from the Jāhiliyyah, where they are translated into other languages - notably Greek - as "the Great God" and "the Great Goddess", and the first is used by Christians and Jews in inscriptions from South Arabia to Nabataea both with and without the initial i-, sometimes in the same inscription. em zilch (talk) 16:42, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

I might be mistaken but another theory for "Allah" is that it is not a contraction of Al+ilah, meaning "the God" but rather has Aramaic roots coming from Alaha. In any case, if you think the sentence "Allāh is mentioned only in the singular, no plural can be formed of the name" is not added in its appropriate context, please add the sentence (possibly the whole quote) in its correct place in the article. We can also attribute it to Gerhard Böwering if that is disputed.

While I realize your knowledge and good intentions, as a wikipedia editor regarding Allāt Al-Lāt issue, you should find a reliable sources (WP:RS) using the former. Only then we can use it. Please note that I am not saying you are wrong in any way, I am saying we should follow the wikipedia policies. It seems a bit odd that we quote a source and change it ourselves because someone thinks it is incorrect (we need published reliable sources). This would cause verifiability issues; what we are changing (to correct form or incorrect form) is not verifiable anymore. Please note that the wikipedia is not about truth at all, it is about verifiability. By saying that "second-worst problem of every article on Islam and/or Arabs ever written in the history of humanity", I think you acknowledge that the common usage is al-lat. so, that should not be removed. if there are other transiliations, we can add that in parenthesis and in a footnote mention the problem (again if it can be sourced). Thank you. --Be happy!! (talk) 17:44, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Err... does Qur'aan 53:19 suffice? Her name is printed using a variant of the unicode ﷲ, the difference only being the final consonant, and not as alif laam laam-alif conjunct taa. It's the same word, even to the point of a highly idiosyncratic spelling. I wouldn't change something in an exact quote, but even our Wikipedia page is called "Allat" and not "Lat". I simply think we should be consistent with how we capitalise the masculine and feminine forms. If we go with al-Lat, we should go with al-Lah everywhere, too - which, I would observe, isn't going to happen. I can find other cites as well in English, I just haven't looked today.

The correct place for that sentence is nowhere in this article. It should just go away because it's not relevant. It's like writing on the page God that "God can not be made plural". It makes no sense; you can certainly write gods, but it wouldn't mean God-the-Monotheistic-Deity. I have no idea why it needs to be posted... what possible reason does Wikipedia need to report that the monotheistic God doesn't appear in the plural? It's nonsensical.

As for the Aramaic origin, the word Alah-a is Syriac Aramaic - late and heavily influenced by Arabic! The older forms are elah-a, the exact correspondence of the same Semitic root 'ilaah'. (The ending -a in Aramaic languages is the same as the Arabic prefix al- and Hebrew ha(C)-.) em zilch (talk) 22:45, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Emily, I guess you are not the only one who has noticed that al-lat is "second-worst problem of every article on Islam and/or Arabs ever written in the history of humanity". Is this mentioned in any published scholarly work? If so, then please let me know the quote and the page numbers, and we'll add that to the article with sufficient references. My problem is not with the truth of what you are saying; it is with its verifiability through published reliable sources. We simply should not argue with each other or convince each other of such things and then project our opinion or conclusions to the article.

Here is the passage in the source that mentions al-Lat (and also the Aramaic origin of the term):

Aramaic origin can be demonstrated for Raḥmānān, but can it also be claimed for Allāh? The majority of scholars answer this question with skepticism (J. Blau, Arabic lexicographical miscellanies, 175-7) and explain it purely on the basis of Arabic, i.e. Allāh as a contraction of Arabic al-ilāh (“the deity” in the masculine form), parallel to the female deity of al-Lāt as a contraction of al-ilāha (“the deity” in the feminine form, cf. J. Wellhausen, Reste, 32-3, 217 f.; F. Buhl, Leben, 75, 94; A. Ambros, Zur Entstehung). It is difficult, therefore, to explain Allāh as derived from the Aramaic Alāhā (pace A. Jeffery, For. vocab., 66-7), for which there is epigraphic evidence in Nabatean inscriptions, because such a suggestion accounts neither for the contraction nor for the doubling of the consonant in the Arabic “Allāh”. It must remain doubtful whether some secondary form of Syriac (or Hebrew) influence may have been combined with the primary Arabic usage of Allāh, a notion based on the claim that Muḥammad used this name for God in addressing both pagan Arabs and Jews or Christians in the Qurʾān , thus establishing common ground for the understanding of the name for God. Positing an Aramaic origin for Allāh remains highly speculatively, however, though it raises the intriguing possibility of the separate existence of two groups of pre-Islamic believers in a high god, each of them worshipping God with an Aramaic name, Raḥmānān in the Yemen and Alāhā in the Ḥijāz. Muḥammad, acquainted with both names, would then have fused the two in the introductory formula of the Qurʾān, giving Allāh pride of place and treating al-Raḥmān as if it were an adjective.

--Be happy!! (talk) 01:52, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

I didn't say "Allat" was the problem, I said consistency in transliteration. I'm talking about the entire issue of transliterating and translating Arabic into English. I personally don't think Aramaic is the origin of these words, though. Ar-Raḥmān, I believe, is more likely to be a dialectal form from South Arabian dialects echoed with ar-Raḥīm and the Aramaic origin of Alaha is also equally unlikely, given that there is a native Arabic word. But who knows? em zilch (talk) 02:52, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Here are a few answers to you em zilch:-

• It does become necessary to discuss plurals in order to affirm the 'monotheistic' sense in which the word is to be used.
• [quote]Check your shahada for a convenient example: "There is no god but God." It's an extraneous and confusing sentence.[quote-end]. The shahada (witness, in simple english) says There is no God, but Allah. In other words it tells you that produce as many Gods (note italics) as you may, we Muslims shall believe only in Allah. For an Islamic definition of Allah, (the 'touchstone of theology in Islam' according to some scholars), do see the 4-lined description outlined in Chapter 112 [7] of the Qur'an.
• [quote]which is the second-worst problem of every article on Islam and/or Arabs ever written in the history of humanity. I therefore use Allāt, Allāh except in names, where I use, e.g., Taymu l-Lāt and Taymu l-Lāh. This tribe is historically known to have changed their name when they converted and continues to flourish today, so I chose this example deliberately.[quote-end]]. 1) I hope there was a happy tone when you intended to write which is the second-worst problem of every article on Islam, because it doesn't quite read that happy in print. 2) Besides, is that how you use them or is that how they are supposed to be used based on the semantics of the Arabic language?. 3) Please do bear in mind WP:RS when making claims.
• [quote]A final note: those names Allāt, Allāh exist in the historical record from the Jāhiliyyah[quote-end]]. The word Jāhiliyyah means ignorance. See Jahiliyyah. (Pardon me, but are you versed with the Arabic language?) Please do specify if you mean something else with the same name, (although I doubt there might be any change in meaning, I'd like to know of it).
• Hmm... Since you have brought the Qur'an (around which the religion of Islam is based) into the discussion, please do allow me to quote a few more following verses from Chapter 53:-

- 53:19 - So have you considered al-Lat and al-Uzza?

- 53:20 - And Manat, the third - the other one?

- 53:21 - Is the male for you and for Him the female?

- 53:22 - That, then, is an unjust division.

- 53:23 - They are not but [mere] names you have named them - you and your forefathers - for which Allah has sent down no authority. They follow not except assumption and what (their) souls desire, and there has already come to them, from their Lord, guidance.

- 53:24 - Or is there for man whatever he wishes?.

Just elaborating the Islamic beliefs pertaining to these 3 names (the first of which you've mentioned)

• [quote]As for the Aramaic origin, the word Alah-a is Syriac Aramaic - late and heavily influenced by Arabic! The older forms are elah-a, the exact correspondence of the same Semitic root 'ilaah'. (The ending -a in Aramaic languages is the same as the Arabic prefix al- and Hebrew ha(C)-.) [quote-end]. Good example. Reminds me of Shama Israelu Adonai Ila-hayno Adonai Ikhad [Mark 12:29] and (a bit 'farther away' with Jesus saying in Matthew 27:46 - ηλι ηλι λαμα σαβαχθανι (/eli eli lama sabachthani/, later Aramaic "E-lee e-lee l-maa saa-baach-taa-nee?"). Simple point, the roots 'ila' or 'eli' form the word for God in these languages.
• Instead of deliberating over the problems in translation and then making presumptions when we might not know about their actualities, let us find stuff that fits into WP:RS and incorporate those into the article with reliable secondary sources to support claims if necesary. 'Abd el 'Azeez (talk) 08:51, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Since we've just spoken about the adjective ar-Rahmaan, please also do have a look at (the translation[8] of) Chapter 55 which is also titled ar-Rahmaan in the Qur'an. An Arabic recitation of which —it is said— has moved men and women to tears through the times; please do give it a hearing if you get the time InshaAllah:

• Direct MP3 Link --> [9]
• HTML Page with Link to the same MP3 (just in case you think I gave you something nasty above :-) (Look for Quran - Tawfiq As-Sayegh - Surah055 (www.aswatalislam.net).mp3) [10]

P.S. No this is not an attempt to convert anybody, and so please do not think of it to be so too ;-) 'Abd el 'Azeez (talk) 09:10, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Regarding consistency in transliteration, we use whatever the primary transcription is. al-Lat is the more prominent (and correct IMO) rendition of اللَّات, whereas Allah is the widely used rendition of الله. Refer to Wikipedia:AMOS#Primary_transcription. ITAQALLAH 14:56, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm starting over at the left because we're running out of room, and I'll try to answer rapid-fire to save room. Yes, but I was meaning specifically to the environs that are called "the Jaahiliyya" in common parlance, namely the culture of the pagan Arabian tribes. The shahada says, "There is no god but God", not "there are no Gods but Allah". Yes, I am familiar with Arabic (to answer your question, yaa 3Abdu l-3Aziiz) - and, to make a point, the Qur'aan doesn't write "اللَّات", it uses a variant of "الله" with a taa instead of the -h. No alif. 53:19, it's right there. It is the same in inscriptions, where the two words are written the same. The Aramaic is unlikely, because Arabic already had the Semitic word for god in its northern triliteral form, ilaah; Aramaic underwent sound changes that shifted the sounds to elåh (and Syriac, under areal pressure and vowel harmony, went to alåh-); Hebrew underwent more changes, eloh; Punic-Phoenician went further and there you find eluh. Also, I prefer female reciters (most of which appear to be Indonesian these days). em zilch (talk) 16:33, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Emilyzilch, please find a published academic source using "Allat" and then we can mention both "Al-Lat" and "Allat". Another academic source explaining this transiliation issue in details (i.e. that why one is wrong and the other right) would make things even better. Please note that this is not a matter of what is right and what is wrong. Wikipedia encyclopedia only gathers what is present in the academic literature, be them right or wrong. Even if you can convince your fellow editors here of a grave unacknowledged inconsistency in the transiliations, it would remain at a personal level. For addition to wikipedia articles, we do need published academic sources. --Be happy!! (talk) 08:46, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

I know of sources using both Allat and al-Lat (the Encyclopedia of Islam and the Muslim world, for instance), the pressing issue here is that the latter is most favoured in academic sources and may be regarded as the primary transription. ITAQALLAH 20:23, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Please then add both al-Lat and Allat, and reference it to the Encyclopedia of Islam and the Muslim world. No harm done by adding both. --Be happy!! (talk) 01:59, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Replying at the right amount of indentation (InshaAllah) to Emilyzilch's post above. MashaAllah it is good to hear of your liking (and preference for a Qari'a for) a recital of the Qur'an. Personally speaking, I've only heard of Hajjah Maria Ulfah from Indonesia, but never heard her; I've mostly lent my ears to a Qari, but then again, its only been a personal choice. I guess the discussion about al-Lat and Allat above has probably been sorted out, so I won't comment further on it now. 'Abd el 'Azeez (talk) 06:54, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Same God under different name?

The article gives the impression that Allah is the same as Yahweh, and it is just that people use different names for the same being. However, we do know that Yahweh accepts Jesus as the intermediary while Allah doesn't; Yahweh has a son who was himself ("true God from true God").

This current version of the article is erroneous.--71.108.4.115 (talk) 15:11, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Some people believe that Yahweh/God/Allah accepts intermediaries, others don't. That connotes a difference in concept, not difference in diety altogether. Arab Christians use the term Allah as well, and Jews also use the term YHWH. The former accept Jesus as an intermediary, the latter do not. ITAQALLAH 15:29, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Different characteristics make different beings. Your argument would be like trying to contend that Demiurge is Yahweh.--71.108.4.115 (talk) 15:31, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Not really, your argument is like saying that the YHWH of the Jews is not the same being that Christians attribute their beliefs to. All of the Abrahamic religions attribute themselves to the same God. ITAQALLAH 15:54, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Herein the crux of the issue: "God is not the God of the Christians, but a heathen deity." I must say that this explains your near-total reliance on extremist preachers and older "orientalist" sources. That view is a radical fringe view not held by the rest of the world... there is a reason they are called the "Abrahamic faiths": all three trace their beliefs to the monotheist prophet Abraham and his unwavering belief in the Lord. Islam even venerates Jesus as a prophet... em zilch (talk) 16:38, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

This is a bit confusing. We know that YHWH == Yahweh because of the evolution of the Hebrew language. As the offshoot of Judaism known as Christianity spread, that name acquired a new pronunciation: "Jehovah". So, YHWH == Yahweh == Jehovah. "God" is merely a title, and given what I've seen written here previously, so is "Allah". The big question is whether the entity that the Muslims call "Allah" is YHWH. This question has existed since the beginning of Islam and there is quite a bit of evidence for and against. Frotz (talk) 22:17, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

And we also know that El/Eloah = Alaha = Allah in the three semitic languages. "The big question is whether the entity that the Muslims call "Allah" is YHWH." - Does this apply to Arab Christians too? There is no question that the diety that Muslims attribute themselves to is the same diety of the Jews and Christians. "This question has existed since the beginning of Islam..." - It wasn't an issue amongst the Jews and Christians of Muhammad's time, so far as I can tell. ITAQALLAH 20:43, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

• There is a difference of opinion. We aren't here to establish truth. The article needs to say that some regard Allah as a moongod and reject equating him to Yahweh. Others don't. In fact, John Paul II once kissed the Quran with his eyes closed. His picture of it is here.--71.118.46.37 (talk) 01:17, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

The article says: "Conversely, the usage of the term Allah by English speaking non-Muslims in reference to the God in Islam, Marshall G. S. Hodgson says, can imply that Muslims are worshiping a mythical god named 'Allah' rather than God, the creator. This usage is therefore appropriate, Hodgson says, only for those who are prepared to accept its theological implications." --Be happy!! (talk) 08:51, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

The quote by Marshall G. S. Hodgson should be kept. In fact, we can add "Muslims are offended if you would insist that their God is a different god than the God of the world’s Christians."[11]--71.108.0.227 (talk) 11:48, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

The notion of one God is fundamental to Islam, so much so that any religion that follows scriptures - Ahlu l-Kitab "People of the Book" - are to be protected as coreligionists. This term has historically included in the most basic definition Jews, Christians and Zoroastrians and in India and other countries was extended pars pro toto to Buddhists, Jains, Sikhs and Hindus. (Really. Hard to believe in modern South Asia...) so I think we should just comment "... than the God of the followers of the People of the Book such as Christians and Jews". Given that the Ahlu l-Kitab is discussed in the text, as well as Arabic-speaking Jews and Christians now and over time using Allaah = "God", that would be better. Thoughts? em zilch (talk) 12:03, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Christians have been co-religionists? Not historically, at least. Muhammad gave Heraclius an opportunity to convert to Islam in a letter. A few year later the caliph Umar launched an offensive jihad and took territory from the Eastern Roman Empire in the 630s.

However, now things have changed for the sake of pragmatism.--71.108.0.227 (talk) 12:20, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

That story is apochryphal, and from the get-go, Christians were accepted as People of the Book, closer even than Jews in that they accepted the prophet Jesus. Also, when is "now"? The presence of the People of the Book is pretty archaic. The Qur'aan includes the "Torah", the Psalms and the Gospels and the beginning of Surah 5 goes into detail about Christians and Jews: they follow the Book and are People of the Book, although they have gone astray from the 'perfect' message and will provide the most hostility to the theological truth of Islam. (I'm paraphrasing the surah, not citing personal beliefs.) Then check surah 29, verse 46:

• Dispute not with the People of the Book except in a way that is fairer, except for those who do wrong. Say: We have believed in what has been sent forth to us and what has been sent forth to you and our God and your God is One and we are ones who submit to Him. [Qur'an 29:46]

The Qur'aan not only defines some of the People of the Book by name, it also specifies that their God is God (and "we are ones who submit to Him"). em zilch (talk) 12:45, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Why can't you get over the fact that Allah is not a moon god, not any sort of branch of any other god, but the god as described in the Quran, like the god described in the bible. There is no difference between God and Allah, they are. in essence, the same god. The only difference is the scripture in which they are described. In the Quran, the prophets Ibrahim (Abraham), Musa (Moses), and Isa(Jesus) are all mentioned. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.47.64.19 (talk) 22:30, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

We can certainly accept that Allah is the god spoken of in the Quran, but to say that he is also known as Yahweh or Jehova is very much disputed. There is significant proof of this. Frotz (talk) 03:47, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Frotz, you are splitting hairs. The issue is not justifiable identity, it is theological argument. That is to say, you are confusing theology with linguistic identity. In your argument Allah is not YHWH - but that is because you identify Allah as "The Muslim God(tm)", and Muslims don't accept the Hebrew Bible or the Christian New Testament in toto as scripture (although they respect them as divinely inspired!). Unfortunately, this is misleading, as Islam is one of the Abrahamic faiths - Muslims explicitly accept Christianity and Judaism as "Faiths of the Book", worshipping God as their ancestors recall the teachings of the prophets sent to them, and Arabic is not just the language of Islam. Before and after Muhammad, Arabic was the language of disparate and religiously diverse peoples and Allah does not mean "The Muslim God". It means God, and Muslims use (and strongly reinforced) that identity of Allah with the notion of monotheism that already existed. Theological hairsplitting over the validity of the identification of the monotheistic God amongst the Abrahamic faiths is indicative of a radical, religiously-driven fringe group and simply inappropriate for inclusion in this article. It is an argument made by a handful of radicalists, and if we adjusted every single article in Wikipedia according to those standards, articles on the Earth would note that it is flat. em zilch (talk) 11:53, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

When polytheism was more common, terms equivalent to "the god" were frequently used to denote the default deity. For example, the patron god of a town. My statement that Allah might not be YHWH does not imply that Muslims accept Hebrew or Christian scripture. Instead it hinges on who inspired Muhammad to write. Two particular things exemplify this: the Satanic Verses episode and the numerous passages in Hebrew and Christian scripture that directly contradict Muhammad. Frotz (talk) 21:18, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Still arguing fringe opinion. Still splitting theological hairs. Still irrelevant. em zilch (talk) 00:58, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but I'm having a bit of trouble figuring out exactly what you're objecting to. Frotz (talk) 22:32, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Let's assume Allah=Yahweh

The names of at least 15 notable people who have asserted that Allah was a moon god or isn't Yahweh is found in the above sections of this talk page. Opposing viewpoints like this one that refute the notion are also available.

For the sake of argument, I will assume that Allah wasn't a moon god and is the same as Yahweh in all respects. Shouldn't there be mention of this in the article inasmuch as encyclopedists like Louis Herbert Gray have written about it? The article on the planet Earth mentions that some thought it was flat which turned out to be false myth.--71.108.0.227 (talk) 11:44, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

It is fair to discuss inclusion of fringe notions, but they should be clearly noted. If we want to say that extremist opinions argue that "Allah" is not the same God as that of the other Abrahamic religions/monotheists, we should finish that sentence with, "despite scholarly agreement among Christians, Jews and Muslims to the contrary" or the like. To discuss the "moon god" issue seems to get into theological issues that are not relevant to a general encyclopaedia and will also create massive fitna, if I may be excused from using Arabic. I aim to keep in line with nonviolence, and this will cause massive outrage far outweighing what would seem to be negligeable benefit to delve into said waters - and not just by Muslims, mind you.

The crucial issue is that while the Name of God in the Hebrew scriptures is listed as YHWH and the variant forms Yah, Yoh, Yuh, Yaw it is also listed most commonly as El and Elohim, a direct cognate of Allah (Isra'el, 3immanu'el, Joel "YHWH is El") and both El/Elohim and Allah are translated into NT Greek as ho Theos "God". em zilch (talk) 12:29, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

See WP:FRINGE, WP:UNDUE, and WP:REDFLAG - the basic message being that fringe opinions held by an extreme minority may not merit inclusion. The fact that almost no reliable academic sources to my knowledge make mention of this crankish theory at all (if only to simply discredit it further) suggests that it's not noteworthy here either. In essence, if the topic has not received coverage in reliable sources, then it just means that it's not noteworthy. ITAQALLAH 20:32, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Analysis needed

Please take a look at the following quotes and see how they can be summarized and add to this article and other ones. Thanks.

The Encyclopedia of ancient deities, by Charles Russell Coulter and Patricia Turner discusses the roots of the semitic gods.

On Elohim it writes:

Also known as: El, Eloaios, Eterah, Ilmaqah, Jerah, Sahar, Terah.
This moon god possibly originated in the Phoenician and Aramean diety, El. Elom is the name given to the moon by Southern Hebrews. Elohim may be the same as the Arabian diety Ilah or Il. Elohim may have been connected with Marduk. Perhaps the early Hebrews legends refer to Elohim, Shaddai and Elyon as a form of El.

On Allah it writes:

Sole divinity. The name may derive from Ailiah, a god of Arabia's pre-Islamic, polytheistic tradition. Similar to El, Il, Ilah, Jehova. Certain descriptions of Allah seem to draw upon pre-Islamic tradition as well, especially the characteristics of certain moon deities such as Ilmugah, Kahil, Shaker, Wadd, and Warah.

On Shahar and Shalim it writes:

Also known as:Ab, Amm, Kahil, Wadd, Warah.
"The Gracious God". Twins sons of El. Shahar ("dawn") is the god of dawn, and Shalim ("peace") the god of sunset. South Arabians had many names for the moon god: Warah (the Wanderer), Kahil (the Old One), Wadd (the Loving) and Ilmuqah, (father) or Amm (ancestor or uncle) Associated with the Canaanite Shemesh, a sun god, and Yareah, god of the moon.

On Alilah it writes:

Supreme deity. Ancient diety of the Northern Arabians. In some versions he is the mate of Allat. He is similar to El and Jehovah. Alilah later became Allah.

On El it writes:

Al, Elah, Il. Also known as: Agros, Allah, Elat (femine form of El), Elioun, Eloah, Elohim (plural of El), Elyon, Ilah, Llu.
Supreme Semitic god. Cheif god in the hierarchy of the Phoenician pantheon. Father of gods, mortals and time. Fertility god. Sun god. The word "El" means god in the sense of the supreme deity. Husband of Athirat, father of Shabar and Shalim. He dwells in the hollow of the Abyss at the Source of All Rivers. Another authority states that his wife is Asherah of the Sea, though others call her a close advisor. El's son is Baal, who is often shown with horns, brandishing a club, and holding a thunderbolt. Some writers say his sons' names are Mot and Latpon, and that Mot was his favorite. Sometimes shown as a bull or an old bearded man. He was possibly replaced by Baal. El is similar to Yahweh. Some think the Semitic El was originally a god of the oak tree.

--Be happy!! (talk) 03:01, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

'Certain descriptions of Allah seem to draw upon pre-Islamic tradition as well, especially the characteristics of certain moon deities such as Ilmugah, Kahil, Shaker, Wadd, and Warah.[12] The Encyclopedia of Ancient Deities, by Charles Russell Coulter and Patricia Turner

the deity Allah, the old Ilah, or title of the Moon-god Wadd, Shahar...[13] by Louis Herbert Gray, et. al. in The Mythology of all races ...: Complete Index to V. I-XII

The above two quotes indicate that Allah could have been the title of the moon god Wadd.

I wish to say that it is possible for a title to turn into a name. For example, consider the how the title known as earl has been turned into an actual first name for the male sex.--71.118.45.44 (talk) 05:23, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

71.118.45.44, there is no need to repeat the quotes above or start new sections. Thanks --Be happy!! (talk) 05:50, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

The "Yahweh" article in the "Encyclopedia of Ancient Deities" provides some more information about the reason for those think they being a moon god: moon was very important for the life nomads. We need to summarize all these and attribute them as the view of the authors. --Be happy!! (talk) 05:56, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Is "Louis Herbert Gray has asserted that Allah used to be a title for Wadd, a moon god worshipped in the ancient times" acceptable?--71.118.45.44 (talk) 06:18, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

We discussed him above. We should work with up to date published reliable sources. "Encyclopedia of Ancient Deities" is reliable enough. And all we need to do is to summarize what it says in a neutral manner and add the content to this article and other relevant articles. Cheers, --Be happy!! (talk) 06:22, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

False god accusation

More folks like Franklin Graham, etc.[14]

A Reuters news article states, "Some evangelical preachers accuse Muslims of worshiping a false god."[15] This can be included in the article.--71.118.40.44 (talk) 22:36, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Biography of a living person?

I want to know what other users think about the addition of Template:WPBiography to this discussion page. I appreciate any answers in advance.--71.108.12.39 (talk) 09:34, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

... uh, Oppose. God is not a living (or dead) person. And why would we characterise this page as a biography? I've been assuming good faith, but honestly I'm starting to wonder if you're just trolling here. ناهد^𒀭(^dAnāhita) ^𒅴 15:15, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

I thought you were an expert on Islam. Allah is a personal god [16]; You were arguing previously that Allah is Yahweh (Yahweh being one of the three persons of the Trinity).--71.108.0.175 (talk) 15:38, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

You are importing specific religious ideologies into this argument. Yahweh is a part of the Trinity in your specific belief. I also fail to see how this qualifies as personhood. ناهد^𒀭(^dAnāhita) ^𒅴 16:04, 17 August 2008 (UTC)