Talk:Ilah

2008

can any arabic speaking liberal minded, intelligent person having command and knowledge of this subject veryfy and correct this article. what i feel is this article has been wrongly interpreted and written without any precise knwoledge of this subject. any suggestions? -- 14:47, 12 January 2008 70.145.137.199

I have a reasonable command of general Semitic linguistics. What's the specific feature that you're dubious about? AnonMoos (talk) 19:09, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think we have fixed it[1]. the problem was with a rather confused addition concerning "arabic grammer"[2]. dab (𒁳) 10:57, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Arabic plural form

There is a problem with the plural form of Ilāh...which is not Ilāha. It's Ālihah (broken plural). A regular plural form would be Ilāhūn, Ilāhīn. Xevorim (talk) 15:20, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sources

[3]

The first problem I find with this article is the common notion that the name Allah is derived from the 'Arabic compound al-ilah. This is a mistake often propagated by western academics. Yet the compound al-ilah is still used in today's language and the alif of ilah does not drop, nor does the laam of "al" assimilate with the laam of ilah. Not in the spoken or written form. Morever, in Islamic theology the name Allah is believed to be the eternal name of God, not derived,nor having any derivatives. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Andaraawoos (talk • contribs) 11:22, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Allah originating as al-Ilah is the leading scholarly linguistic hypothesis for the derivation of "Allah". It's not any stranger than امرء becoming المرء when the definite article is added... AnonMoos (talk) 02:42, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]