Jump to content

Talk:Allah/Archive 7

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1←Archive 5Archive 6Archive 7

Semi-protected edit request on 1 January 2022

105.155.151.95 (talk) 19:52, 1 January 2022 (UTC)

According to Arab historians, Ismail and his descendants resided in Mecca, and they were monotheists, believing in the One God, the Lord of Abraham, Allah. Then, after the succession of centuries, the Quraish gradually brought idols from different tribes around Mecca in order for people to make pilgrimages to it, and they placed them around the Kaaba, whose pillars Abraham and Ismail raised, The Qurayshites believed that the supplication of these idols would bring them closer to Allah, and they maintained their faith in Him, and this is what the Qur’an also talks about.


The word allah or its synonyms were used throughout the Middle East at the time to describe God in different languages ​​and religions

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Cannolis (talk) 20:11, 1 January 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 8 January 2022

Hello, I was reading the article about Allah and seen this " Along with Allah, however, they also worshipped a host of lesser gods and “daughters of Allah.”[9 " that is not true about the word Allah. You do not have the same wording in the Arabic translation of the same article. Please it is very important to change so it does not mess lead people that want to learn. This is my email address if I can help in anyway jazzazi0007@yahoo.com. Thank you for what you do. 2600:1700:5261:1080:3D67:66CA:C72C:173A (talk) 04:14, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Our article cites sources which support the current wording. The Arabic wiki is a separate project from the English one here - how they choose to write things is not necessarily how we will do here Cannolis (talk) 04:40, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

Attributes

God states in the Qur’ān that He has certain attributes such as hearing, sight, hands, face, mercy, anger, coming, encompassing, being above the Throne, etc. Yet, He has disassociated Himself from the limitations of human attributes or human imagination. Correct Islāmic belief requires faith in the existence of these attributes as God has described them without applying to them any allegorical meanings or attempting to explain how a certain quality could be (while this is known only to God) and without comparing them to creation or denying that He would have such a quality. His attributes are befitting to Him alone, and “There is nothing like unto Him.” (42:11)[1] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Andaathe (talk • contribs) 23:15, 21 April 2022 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ (page 33, Quran: 2/19) The Qur’ān. With Sūrah. Introductions and Appendices. Saheeh International Translation. ISBN 978-0-9548665-4-9 www.quranproject.org

Wrong article allah is not Sikh or Christian

Allah is not Christian or Sikh he is Islamic and not in any other religion — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.222.180.90 (talk) 15:43, 12 May 2022 (UTC)

"Allah" (which this article is about) is a word; specifically, the Arabic word for the same concept as the English word "God", with a capital G: the single God of a monotheistic religion. You are probably looking for the article God in Islam, which discusses the specific concept of God in Islam. — The Anome (talk) 15:50, 12 May 2022 (UTC)

Jawad Ali

According to Amira El Zein's "Evolution on the concept of jinn", Jawad Ali states: "The scholars mention that Allaha is the name of a large serpent, and that al-Lat (the well-known idol) was originally named laha, as if they wanted to call it serpent. The name of God Almighty is derived from this word. In the pre-lslamic legends, it is mentioned that the Arabs of the Jahilivah worshipped the serpent (1970. vol. 6:727). I would have added this to the etymology section as an alternative to the roots in "elohim". However, since this article is GA, and this adds just one or two sentences into an already established and assessed structure, I would like to know, how others think about this addition.--VenusFeuerFalle (talk) 13:02, 23 May 2022 (UTC)

@VenusFeuerFalle: Can you please provide the page number in El-Zein's dissertation? As it stands, we have El-Zein citing Jawad Ali vaguely mentioning "the scholars". Secondary sources are great, but this "isnad" of citations should be more concrete at the final end (= which scholars does Jawad Ali refer to?). –Austronesier (talk) 16:30, 23 May 2022 (UTC)
Page number is 91-92. Yes, unfortunetaly, it lacks an explanation from which this statements derives from, except that it was cited from Jawad Ali 1970 in vol. 6:727. More details are probably provided in the original work, but I haven't found it on google yet.--VenusFeuerFalle (talk) 11:34, 24 May 2022 (UTC)
@VenusFeuerFalle: I have tried to find other sources which mention this etymology, and so far only have come across this book by Rafat Amari. Disregarding for the moment the question whether this "scholar with a mission" has produced reliable sources, he cites the Taj Al-Arus by Murtada al-Zabidi for this information.
So we have three mentions of this "etymology" (which apparently predates the introduction of historical linguistics and thus must be considered folk etymology), one from Jawad Ali's monograph, one from a dissertation about jinn citing Jawad Ali's work, and another one from a source that explicitly intends to "prove" that Islam is the "wrong" way to salvation. Frankly, I don't think we have passed the WP:DUEWEIGHT-bar yet. –Austronesier (talk) 09:07, 26 May 2022 (UTC)
Thanks for your efforts. I agree this doesn't suffice. In my opinnion, it is worth consideration given, that according to the Quran, pre-Islamic Arabs thought that jinn and Allah were relatives (rejected by the Quran), but Wikipedia is not the place for theory founding/original research. Again, thanks for your efforts regarding this matter, despite I was the one who brought it up in the first place. VenusFeuerFalle (talk) 13:51, 26 May 2022 (UTC)

Move to Allah (word)

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: no consensus. While good arguments have been made on both sides, I don't really see a consensus emerging after a week of discussion, and nobody seems to have addressed the fact that we don't in fact have two articles with the same title here. ~Anachronist (talk) 00:29, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

Requested move 7 June 2022

Allah → Allah (word) – Please place your rationale for the proposed move here. ~Anachronist (talk) 00:29, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

Allah → Allah (word) – I believe the title is confusing and many people may think that "Allah" refers to God in Islam. I think we should make the page Allah a disambiguation page between this article and that articleImmanuelle 💗 (please tag me) 18:39, 21 May 2022 (UTC) — Relisting. — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 06:00, 30 May 2022 (UTC)

Fixed Template:Requested move added by Immanuelle 💗 (please tag me) 01:08, 22 May 2022 (UTC) Rotideypoc41352 (talk · contribs) 01:40, 22 May 2022 (UTC)
That distinction is already made perfectly clear in the first sentence. This entire article is already, in essence, an extended disambiguation in prose form. Iskandar323 (talk) 18:51, 21 May 2022 (UTC)
I don't think it's too bad for someone with good English skills, but I believe this might be difficult for an ESL person to understand. I could imagine someone from say Bangladesh or Nigeria getting lost in this article when trying to find God in Islam. This is why I prefer structural things like disambiguation pages over prose explanations. Immanuelle 💗 (please tag me) 19:49, 21 May 2022 (UTC)
I suppose if Allah were to redirect to God in Islam, with a disambiguation linking back to this page retitled as Allah (word), that could also work. Iskandar323 (talk) 20:13, 21 May 2022 (UTC)
But having Allah just as a disambiguation, as if there were no primary topic, would be a slightly obscure move from the perspective of naturalness. Iskandar323 (talk) 20:14, 21 May 2022 (UTC)
A lot of articles are like that. Plus it seems like almost all of the links to Allah are not talking about the word Immanuelle 💗 (please tag me) 01:05, 22 May 2022 (UTC)
I would support the move IF the intent were to also move God in Islam to Allah, but moving a disambiguating article simply to create more disambiguation seems extremely pointless. Iskandar323 (talk) 14:50, 6 June 2022 (UTC)
  • Support per nom. Showiecz (talk) 18:24, 23 May 2022 (UTC)
  • Oppose. I see no problem with the status quo. This is a perfect example of a solution in search of a problem. -- Necrothesp (talk) 11:23, 25 May 2022 (UTC)
  • Support per nom. This is a source of endless confusion to readers, as the many ill-advised attempts to edit it to somehow "fix" the perceived problem indicate. — The Anome (talk) 11:27, 25 May 2022 (UTC)
  • Oppose. The whole point of this article is to address the confusion mentioned by the nom and others. We are doing our readers a service by not reinforcing common misconceptions. Srnec (talk) 14:24, 25 May 2022 (UTC)
    A meta comment on this. @Srnec and @Austronesier and @Iskandar323 mentioned the idea of this article dispelling a misconception. As much of a worthy cause that is, I don't think it's an encyclopedic thing to do. More of a role for a blog post or similar. An encyclopedia is supposed to provide clear concise knowledge the user is looking for. This is confusing and doesn't serve that purpose Immanuelle 💗 (please tag me) 17:08, 25 May 2022 (UTC)
    I also mentioned that the proposed page move would achieve nothing useful and, in fact, simply add steps for users on the way to reaching a useful page. Iskandar323 (talk) 17:21, 25 May 2022 (UTC)
    This is not about "dispelling a misconception". It is about not catering to misconceptions. Also, I second @Iskandar323's point. –Austronesier (talk) 09:15, 26 May 2022 (UTC)
  • Support
    • Britannica - "Allah, Arabic Allāh (“God”), the one and only God in Islam."
    • The Encyclopedia of World Religion (2007) by ROBERT S. ELLWOOD p. 25 "The Arabic word for GOD; specifi cally, the designation for God in ISLAM." The article further talks about God in Islam.
    • Encyclopedia of Psychology and Religion (2010) by David A. Leeming, Kathryn Madden, Stanton Marlan p. 378 - Allah redirects to God - "The foundation of Islamis a conviction that there is no God but Allah and Muhammad is his prophet"
    • Merriam-Webster's Encyclopedia of World Religions (1999) p. 34 - "the one and only God in ISLAM." About the Islamic God.--Redtigerxyz Talk 08:19, 29 May 2022 (UTC)
  • Oppose While I see the possible confusion that OP is referring to, the current article does a very good job of addressing it. Adding (word) to the title does not make this a better article. 162 etc. (talk) 06:28, 30 May 2022 (UTC)
  • Support. This is ultimately a question of WP:PTOPIC, and I haven't seen any strong argument advanced for why this subject (or God in Islam) should be considered primary for this ambiguous term. Ultimately, I think both have about equal claims per usage and long-term significance, and so this is a WP:NOPRIMARY situation. There is a reasonable argument to be made that, because the two topics are closely related and link to one another, we can relax our normal ptopic criteria a bit, but I still don't think a ptopic emerges in that case. Another good argument for the current ptopic arrangement being unsatisfactory is that a lot of the incoming links to this page are actually referring to God in Islam. (For that reason, I would say that if there is a primary topic here, it's God in Islam, not the article about the term itself.) Colin M (talk) 17:24, 30 May 2022 (UTC)
  • Oppose creating a disambiguation page. This article should be moved only if God in Islam were going to be moved to Allah. Doing that would require killing this proposal and starting a new one covering both moves.--Srleffler (talk) 17:42, 30 May 2022 (UTC)
  • Support As at the very least there is no primary topic, although God in Islam seems like it should be moved to Allah in its place. For the time being, the disambiguation page should be moved to the primary name. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 06:49, 31 May 2022 (UTC)
  • Support proposed move, and recommend redirecting the bare term Allah to God in Islam, per WP:ASTONISH. I suspect that most people who are searching for "Allah" intend to find God in Islam, rather than the history of the word. ModernDayTrilobite (talk • contribs) 20:09, 2 June 2022 (UTC)
  • Oppose. This seems to be working perfectly fine. It is disambiguated immediately in first phrase. Walrasiad (talk) 07:22, 4 June 2022 (UTC)
  • Support. The current title could only be justified if the word Allah were the primary topic. But if there is a primary topic at all it would be the God of Islam. Best to disambiguate. Andrewa (talk) 08:22, 6 June 2022 (UTC)
  • Comment. We have a guideline, MOS:ALLAH, which deprecates the use of Allah for God when writing about Islam. It recommends [[God in Islam|God]] for links. Srnec (talk) 14:25, 6 June 2022 (UTC)
    I'm not sure if that guideline applies to article titles though. Iskandar323 (talk) 14:47, 6 June 2022 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

National flags

Could you add the flag of The Islamic Republic of Afghanistan because that is also a flag that had Allah’s name and takbeer and shahaadah on it. It does not matter whether the government is recognised nor in power, it matters that it had Allah’s name on it. 92.40.173.221 (talk) 19:13, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

It is not important to the subject. ZetaFive (talk) 23:32, 25 August 2022 (UTC)

Allah has no pural, or feminine.

The article mentions falsely, that Allat is thought to be the feminine forum of Allah. But there is no feminine form of Allah, no plural or miniature. The word God in English, accepts changing into the plural by adding the suffix - s, i.e. Gods. By adding the suffix - dess, it changes into feminine. Furthermore adding the suffix -ling, it changes into a miniature, i.e. Godling. This is not possible with the Arabic Allah. Whereas Allat is in fact a pre-islamic pagan deity worshiped by the Arabs in the pre-islamic era. Actually, Allat is referred to in the Qur'an as such,forming together with Al 'Uz'za and Manat, the pre-islamic Arab Pagan Trinity. 102.185.24.30 (talk) 05:16, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

I've removed that line from the lead, per MOS:LEAD, since nowhere was it attested in the body, with no explanation or even a cited page number to verify. Iskandar323 (talk) 06:32, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

Sentence prose improvement

Under Christianity, the first sentence reads a little clunky to me. I suggest: 

""Today's Christian Arabs use the term "Allah" to refer to "God," except for Jehovah's Witnesses, who add the biblical name "Jehovah" (يهوه) to the title "Allah."

Aalswais (talk) 03:53, 8 February 2023 (UTC)

I have simply removed the second part. The article is rated GA. Such statements have to be supported by a secondary source, not just based on an attestation from a primary source. –Austronesier (talk) 19:50, 8 February 2023 (UTC)

"Islam"

Under this heading are statements that need to be rewritten, for example: "God is not a part of the Christian Trinity. God has no parents and no children." This implies that God in general is not part of the Christian Trinity and cannot have be both a Son and Father at the same time--Christians would disagree with that. It should read "Allah is not a part of the Christian Trinity. Allah has no parents and no children." This would clarify that it is talking about the Muslim belief. It could also say, "The Quran states that God is not a part of the Christian Trinity, and God has no parents and no children." It is not a problem to quote the Quran or Islamic sources in order to talk about their beliefs, but when statements on Wikipedia are made that do not clarify a specific belief is being discussed, it appears as if the writer is biased toward that viewpoint. 2601:245:C100:5E5C:6C65:3748:BCF5:F4BD (talk) 15:40, 25 July 2023 (UTC)

The second formulation; "The Quran states that God is not a part of the Christian Trinity, and God has no parents and no children." would be better. Uness232 (talk) 17:08, 25 July 2023 (UTC)
The entire second part of the paragraph is badly written and not properly sourced, as so many articles about religious topics. We don't use primary sources including religious scriptures as references for statements in Wikivoice. –Austronesier (talk) 18:34, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

Body

The body of Allah has been described in the Qur'an, are there any statues of the creature.

~~\\\\\\\\09:33, 18 November 2023 (UTC)09:33, 18 November 2023 (UTC)09:33, 18 November 2023 (UTC)~\\\\\\\\\\09:33, 18 November 2023 (UTC)09:33, 18 November 2023 (UTC)43.242.178.4 (talk)\\\\ 43.242.178.4 (talk) 09:33, 18 November 2023 (UTC)

Usage in Sikhism

Sikh hymns frequently use the word "Alahu" (ਅਲਹੁ), which is derived from the Arabic الله Allāh(u), and is usually rendered in English as "Allah". Why isn't this usage mentioned in this article? ― Ö S M A N  (talk · contribs) 06:28, 16 March 2024 (UTC)

EmperorÖsmanIXXVMD, if something is not mentioned in the article, it's likely because nobody has found and added sources for it yet; do you have sources? If so, feel free to be bold and add it into the article. Left guide (talk) 23:35, 16 March 2024 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 18 April 2024

5.45.137.137 (talk) 14:36, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

There is no logic in putting a sentence

The word is thought to be derived by contraction from al-ilāh, which means "the god", and is linguistically related to the Aramaic words Elah and Syriac ܐܲܠܵܗܵܐ (ʼAlāhā) and the Hebrew word El (Elohim) for God.

At the beginning of the article, the beginning must be a definition, but the topic sentence must be in the origin section, and it already exists, so the sentence you mentioned must be removed.

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{Edit semi-protected}} template. This is not a minor change, and a consensus should be developed here first. PianoDan (talk) 18:05, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

What is so complicated about it that you say it is not simple? Logically, how can information, which is speculation regarding the word itself, be placed in the introduction and not in a paragraph about the origin of the word, when it is already there, that is, it is repeated in the paragraph that immediately follows it. Now tell me, whose consensus do you need? 5.45.137.137 (talk) 18:38, 18 April 2024 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Allah/Archive_7&oldid=1242958535"