Talk:Allah

Allah not a contraction of al-ilah and was not a moon god

Wiki has alread stated, which is a proven fact, that Arabic speaking Jews or Christians used the name Allah before Islam. The following is a refutation of the al-ilah contraction theory and the allegation that Allah was a moon god (If this be then all Arabic speaking Jews and Christians will go to hell) Since Robert Morey Book Islamic Invasion is the leading propaganda on this topic we will use him as a bases of refutation.

We have had the pleasure in reading his book called "Islamic Invasion". However his arguement was unheard of before his book was published. His sources that he quotes, that he misquoted and twisted out of their context, support no such allegation of his.

What Morey did was took various sources of information to asert a theory in the following.

1) The name (Allah) is linguistically, not etymologically, said to be in theory a contraction of the two Arabic words "al ilah" that means "the god or The G-d".

2) In Arabian pagan worship there was a supreme Idol called by the names Sin, Nanna, and Hubul which was known as a moon deity.

3) This moon god was given the designated title "al ilah"

4) the moon god was worshipped in Makkah at the Ka'abah known as Hubul

5) the symbol of Islam is the Crescent

6) the symbol of the moon god was the crescent

These are Morey's foundation to his arguement that he tied togther in his so called detective work.

Unfortunately Morey was not the scholar that people thought he was. His research was not researched at which his prejudice thinking lead him to propagate something that was not. Also to remind everyone that the PHD label which was nicely advertised on his book was not a PHD in world theology or Middles Eastern research.

We would, with gratitude, show the flaws in Morey's reseach.

1) The name (Allah) is linguistically, not etymologically, said to be in theory a contraction of the two Arabic words "al ilah" that means "the god or The G-d"....

3) This moon god was given the designated title "al ilah"

Morey quoted atleast 5 references to prove the name Allah is a contraction of the two Arabic words "al ilah". His reference, except for one, where all christian sources. Not one of his sources or reference was of an Arabic scholar or Arabic lexicon.

His one source that was not christian derived, and is the oldest and most strongest source was the Brittanica. His quote of the Britanica omitted terms from its context to make it a reality.

Britannica wrote: (Arabic: “God”), the one and only God in the religion of Islam. Etymologically, the name Allah is probably a contraction of the Arabic al-Ilah, “the God.” The name's origin can be traced back to the earliest Semitic writings in which the word for god was Il or El, the latter being an Old Testament synonym for Yahweh. Allah is the standard Arabic word for “God” and is used by Arab Christians as well as by Muslims.

The words in bold Morey ommited and in his dictation ignoring the rest of the authority base, misleading his readers to think the Britannica , his strongest source, supported his allegation of a contraction. However the Britannica strickley states a "probability" not a fact or reality.

Morey did not have the ardacity to quote an Arabic scholar or an Arabic Lexicon even those authored by Christians them selves.

On the contrary, Arabic scholars and Lexicon works do not support a contraction. Also the negation for such a contraction is as follows.

“Alllaah” Not a contraction

The English customary spelling “Allah” syllable as “al - lah” in English dictionaries and encyclopedias has often been misrepresented as to its etymology or nature of the word without any Arabic authoritive sources such as Arabic Dictionaries, Lexicons, or Arabic Scholars them selves. Due to its English customary spelling it is often viewed by western writers that the English transliterated letters “a,l,l,a,h” are a contraction of two Arabic words based on a linguistical prestige (in English not Arabic). Thus being ignorant of the fact, and the language it self, that the second “L” in Arabic script called “laam” is a double consonant letter. The first two letters “al” is perceived as the definite article (the), and the three following letters “laah” ( sometimes rendered in English as “lah” ) is the contracted Arabic word “ilaah (deity)” where the weak radical “a”, in Arabic called “alif” - pronounced as an “i” in “ilaah”, is dropped for a contraction.

Example:

1) al ilah (the deity)

2) al lah

3) al-lah

4) Allah

Based on this western hypothesis, and its manipulative fraudulent philosophy which is misleading, the word is assumed to mean ‘the god’ or ‘the deity’ denoting the supreme deity out of others as the main one. The double consonant “L”(laam) in the original Arabic has been edited in English exegesis of the word as a single consonant giving it a linguistical prestige in English as an “al ilah” contraction. This reason because, the double consonant “L”, which would be properly spelled with three L’s(Alllah) serves no purpose in English as it does in Arabic. If the customary English spelling of the name it self is transliterated back into Arabic it would spell “ alif, laam, laam, fatah, ha” reading “allah(a)” (Note: This word in Arabic has NO article) which would be a different word in Arabic meaning “Deification” whereas the name in its original Arabic is spelled as “alif, laam, laam, laam, alif maqsoorah, ha’a” reading “alllaah”. On the other hand, a contraction of the words “al-ilah” is not possible in the Arabic language because the grammar behind it does no permit it as will be shown in the reality of the words in their original language which have been manipulated in English. In The Arabic language when the second radical letter of a word is doubled, by stressing it, it either enhances the word or changes its meaning all together. When the Arabic word “ilaah”(deity) is pronounced as “illaah” by stressing its second radical consonant “L” to double “ll” it changes the meaning from “deity” to “except him” where the “h” consonant is converted into a masculine suffix pronoun. With the contraction theory of “al ilah” applied in Arabic, rather than in English, the second radical letter “L” in the Arabic word “ilaah” is doubled when the “i”(alif kasrah) is dropped to take the word “al” in order to contract “al” and “lah” in the Arabic language.

EXAMPLE:

1) al ilaah

2) al-llaah

3) alllaah

Such an etymological contraction is not possible in the Arabic language in which the word would be meaningless therefore prohibited .

Alllaah Not A Title

The name however is never used or demonstrated in the Quran or Arabic literature as a title. As an attribute of and reference to Alllah surah(chapter) 114 ayah(verse) 3 in the Quran says: “ilahinnas” ~ God of mankind, which negates the existence of another deity for mankind to be worshiped.

In the Quranic Arabic text the word “ilaah”(deity) does not take a nunnation for an indefinite article to indicate “a deity of mankind”, nor the definite article(the) that would denote Alllaah as being the deity out of other deities.

If the name Alllaah in the Arabic language was understood as “the deity” the attribute “ilahinnas”~ God of mankind would of said “ilahin annas” taking the nunnation(in) to mean “A deity of mankind” or “al ilahinnas” with the definite article(the) to mean “The god of mankind” which would of corroborated with the name Alllah if it was understood or meant “ the deity” or “the god”.

However such a gross statement or its like demonstration is no where to be found in the Quran text or Arabic literature in reference to Alllaah In support, the renown testimony and article of faith in islam which is repetitively mentioned in the Quran as:

Laa ilaaha illaa alllah “There is no God except Alllah”

Maa min ilaahin illaa alllah “there is not a single deity(or other God) except Alllah”

If the name meant “the god” it would not have been used in such a statement, because “laa ilaaha illaa al ilaah ~ there is no God except the god”, and “ maa min ilahin illaa al ilaah ~ there is not a single deity(or God) except the god” is improper Arabic, absurd, and a contradiction to it self, whereas the name Alllaah would not have been possible to be used in such a statement in the Arabic language.

Alllaah No Definite Article

The name “Alllaah” in the Quranic Arabic text (and Arabic literature) is written in various grammatical forms which has been overlooked much less ignored by critics of the Islamic due to there lack of knowledge of the Arabic language.

These grammatical forms are: “lillaah”, “Alllaahumma”, “yaa Alllaah”, and “aalllaah”, which determine the nature of the word in Arabic. A noun prefixed with a definite article in Arabic cannot take an additional affix of a “yaa” vocative particle, a “m”(meem) magnifying particle, or a hamza’a interrogative particle, whereas the name Alllaah in many parts the Quran and in Arabic literature is found prefixed with a “yaa” vocative particle ~ “yaa Alllaah”, suffixed with a magnifying particle ~ “Alllaahumma”, and prefixed with an interrogative “hamza” particle ~ “aalllaah”. For example with the prefixed interrogative “hamza” in particle in 10:59 of the Quran

...Qul aalllaahu adhina lakum.

“Say(Muhammad)! Alllaah permitted you ?”

If “al” in the name Alllah was a definite article (the) the prefixing of the “hamza” particle instead of using the interrogative particle “hal” would not be possible or permitted, because the hamza interrogative particle prefixed to the name would have changed “al” to mean, people, folk, or family, as the Arabic word “aal” denotes rather than introducing the name into an interrogative. Thus it would have been meaningless and not used in such grammar.

The preceding ا = a consonant letter called “alif” is the uniform of the word in Arabic which is silent when the name is read suffixly to another word such as: عبدالله = abdu alllaah ~ servant of Alllaah, is read as “Abdullaah”, or the ا = a is absent all together in the possessive form of the word as لله = lillaah where the لِ = li denotes the possessive meaning: to, belonging to, or for, which is not a prefix to the word in Arabic.

In لله = lillaah , the possessive form of the word الله = Alllaah there is no written nor non written assimilated definite article, in which such a clusterized transitional reading of the word would be impossible in the Arabic language if there was a definite article.

The لّه = llaah is the suffix form transition of the word الله = Alllaah by the لِ = li conversion of its first “L” consonant for the possessive, in which a noun with a definite article cannot be suffixed to لِ = li. Only لِ = li can be prefixed to the article( al = the ) it self which is prefixed to a noun or an adjective word such as : al-quddus ~ The Holy One, with لِ = li prefixed to it as : lil-quddus ~ to the Holy One.

Hence, if “al” in Alllah was a definite article “li” could only be prefixed to it as “li-alllah” not as “lillaah” which would lose the article. The possessive form of the name as “lillaah” confirms that there is no “ilaah ~ deity” word contracted in the name, because the doubling of the second radical “L” consonant, as we said before ,of the contracted word “ilaah” with the dropped “i” for “laah” (as alleged) with the possessive “li” for “li-(i)llaah” would change the meaning of “ilaah ~ deity” to except he or it . Thus is meaningless and would be prohibited in Arabic because it would be absurd and making no sense whereas the possessive form “lillaah” of the name Alllaah would not be possible if such an etymological contraction of “al ilaah” existed.

Even so, an assimilated non written definite article is only possible with “li” when it is prefixed to a noun or adjective word with a “FIRST” radical “L” consonant in this case which is doubled by the prefixing of “li” to assimilate a definite article such as “lateef ~ most gentle” with “li” prefixed to it as “lillateef ~ to the Most Gentle(one)” which is the possessive form of “al-llateef ~ The Most Gentle(one).

To the contrary the un-doubled form of the part “llaah” without “li” is “laah(u)” which means “not him” that is not a noun or adjective but a phrase where as “li” cannot be a prefixed to it wherefore to assimilate a definite article. Therefore, the only possible way the word Alllaah in the Arabic language could take the possessive word “li”, if it had a definite article, or even if it was a contraction of “al ilaah”, would be “li-alllaah”. However ! There is no such thing and is remote there from.

The part “llaah” is only the suffix form transition of the word Alllaah by the “li” conversion of its first “L” consonant to make it a possessive noun. The double “Ls” of “llaah” in the Arabic language are inseparable in which “llaah” is the foundation of the name arabicized as Alllaah that engulfs much linguistical unlimited divine meaning.

These various forms characterize the word of being an ARABICIZED name , whereas with the form " Alllaahumma " being suffixed with the "meem" magnifying particle indicating the vocative and singular royal plural which cannot be used with no other word in the arabic language, clearly tells us that this Name is older than the Arabic language it self being derived from a former and more ancient language which constituted such a grammatical character which does not exist in the Arabic Language as we know it today with any other word.

Another example is how the Name never takes Noonation or Tanween. These are grammatical endings such as "un" "an" "in" which are not used with Arabicized words that are not originally arabic derived.

Such is the folly blunder of the “al ilaah ~ the god” contraction probability of the name Alllaah by western writers who have exploited it as a reality and were morless ignorant of the Arabic language and its nature of grammar to ascribe such a thing but followed their own invented imagination affected by prejudice which was mere and fictitious conjecture.

Also. In Arabic there are many words that begin with “al” such as “alyasa” where “al” is not a definite article. “alyasa” is the arabicized form of the Hebrew name “Elisha”

"Lord of the heavens and the earth and what is between them both, so serve Him (alone) and be patient in His worship. Do you know any worthy of His (Alllaah’s) name ? [Qur'an 19:65]"

2) In Arabian pagan worship there was a supreme Idol called by the names Sin, Nanna, and Hubul which was known as a moon deity.

One of Morey's grave error here as he did not study the theology of the moon god which was called by various names Sin, Nanna, or Hubul in different parts of Arabia is the geneology of the pagan dieties.

In Makkah the moon god was called Hubul. Hubul was the son of Al-Uzza - whom was one of the daughters of Alllaah. Thus in pagan ideology Hubul would be the grandson of Alllaah [ma'aadhallah] and not Alllah him self.

More to add to this Hubul was not the supreme Idol at Makkah among the Idols. It was Al-Uzza, Manat, and Allat whom where designated al-aalihat ~ the plural femine of al-ilah.

Muhammad (s.a.w.) preached against the worship of the moon or the sun god in Makkah.

Among His Signs are the Night and the Day, and the Sun and the Moon. Adore not the sun and the moon, but adore Allah, Who created them, if it is Him ye wish to serve. 41:37

Allah could not be seen

No vision can grasp Him(Allah). But His grasp is over all vision: He is above all comprehension, yet is acquainted with all things. (Koran 6:103) He(Allah) is the First and the Last, the Evident and the Hidden: and He has full knowledge of all things. 57:3

Hubal the moon-god and Allah were not the same God

Sahih Al-Bukhari Volumn 005, Book 059, Hadith Number 375.

---

Narated By Al-Bara : We faced the pagans on that day (of the battle of Uhud) and the Prophet placed a batch of archers (at a special place) and appointed 'Abdullah (bin Jubair) as their commander and said, "Do not leave this place; and if you should see us conquering the enemy, do not leave this place, and if you should see them conquering us, do not (come to) help us," So, when we faced the enemy, they took to their heel till I saw their women running towards the mountain, lifting up their clothes from their legs, revealing their leg-bangles. The Muslims started saying, "The booty, the booty!" 'Abdullah bin Jubair said, "The Prophet had taken a firm promise from me not to leave this place." But his companions refused (to stay). So when they refused (to stay there), (Allah) confused them so that they could not know where to go, and they suffered seventy casualties. Abu Sufyan ascended a high place and said, "Is Muhammad present amongst the people?" The Prophet said, "Do not answer him." Abu Sufyan said, "Is the son of Abu Quhafa present among the people?" The Prophet said, "Do not answer him." Abd Sufyan said, "Is the son of Al-Khattab amongst the people?" He then added, "All these people have been killed, for, were they alive, they would have replied." On that, 'Umar could not help saying, "You are a liar, O enemy of Allah! Allah has kept what will make you unhappy." Abu Safyan said, "Superior may be Hubal!" On that the Prophet said (to his companions), "Reply to him." They asked, "What may we say?" He said, "Say: Allah is More Elevated and More Majestic!" Abu Sufyan said, "We have (the idol) Al-'Uzza, whereas you have no 'Uzza!" The Prophet said (to his companions), "Reply to him." They said, "What may we say?" The Prophet said, "Say: Allah is our Helper and you have no helper." Abu Sufyan said, "(This) day compensates for our loss at Badr and (in) the battle (the victory) is always undecided and shared in turns by the belligerents. You will see some of your dead men mutilated, but neither did I urge this action, nor am I sorry for it." Narrated Jabir: Some people took wine in the morning of the day of Uhud and were then killed as martyrs.

The following is Quranic support to the above hadeeth that Hubul and Alllaah where not the same deity.

The Pagans could not see Allah

[17:90] They(the pagans) say: "We shall not believe in thee(Muhammad), until thou cause a spring to gush forth for us from the earth,

[17:91] "Or (until) thou have a garden of date trees and vines, and cause rivers to gush forth in their midst, carrying abundant water,

[17:92] "Or thou cause the sky to fall in pieces, as thou sayest (will happen), against us, or thou bring Allah and the angels before (us) face to face;

[2:210] Will they(the pagans) wait until Allah comes to them in canopies of clouds, with angels (in His train) and the question is (thus) settled? But to Allah do all questions go back (for decision).

Allah not recognized as one of the Idols by the pagans

[29:17] "For you (pagans) do worship idols besides Allah, and ye invent falsehood. The things that ye worship besides Allah have no power to give you sustenance: then seek ye sustenance from Allah, serve Him, and be grateful to Him: to Him will be your return.

Muhammad declared to the pagans they do not worship what him and his followers worshiped (Allah)

Say(Muhammad to the pagans): O ye that reject Faith! I(Muhammad) worship not that which ye worship, Nor will ye worship that which I worship, And I will not worship that which ye have been wont to worship, Nor will ye worship that which I worship, To you be your Way, and to me mine. (Koran 109:1-6)

And for the very last thing that Morey closed up with in his book.

5) the symbol of Islam is the Crescent

6) the symbol of the moon god was the crescent

Again Morey never did his history seach he just jumped to conclusions. The Crescent symbol in Islam was adopted from the rule of the Ottoman empire which was originally a Turkish symbol http://www.fotw.net/flags/islam.html . The original symbol of Islam is what you see in my avatar in the above left corner of our post as a flag. (Oxy2Hydro 22:57, 23 May 2005 (UTC))

al-lah

allah is not a "contraction of al-ilah", since the i in ilah is just an alif al-wasl. allah is an univerbation of al-lah "the deity", while "ilah" means a deity. dab (ᛏ) 16:18, 23 May 2005 (UTC)

transliteration

what are the underdots under the ls supposed to mean, and why were they added? afaik, there is no l-underdot in standard arabic transliteration. dab (ᛏ) 16:18, 23 May 2005 (UTC)

Arm leg leg arm hand=

WTF? Those are English words, and Allah is an Arabic word. How can one be derived from the other? Ketsuban has spoken. The debate is over. 21:08, 23 May 2005 (UTC)

---

Exactly ! The word in Arabic is spelled alif, laam, laam, laam, alif, ha = alllah. The concept of "arm led led arm hand" is from a black cult called the 5 percenters who are a sect of the Nation of Islam that are American black nationalists. (Oxy2Hydro 22:44, 23 May 2005 (UTC))

---

you are not making sense. Everybody agrees the arm/leg thing is a backronym and has nothing to do with Islam. Also, Allah is not spelled "alif, laam, laam, laam, alif, ha", it is spelled "alif, laam, laam (shadda), alif, ha", indicating that laam is a harf qamariyya, just like with any other word beginning with laam, when combined with the article. dab (ᛏ) 08:05, 24 May 2005 (UTC)

---

If this "arm leg leg arm head" belief is current among a reasonably large organized group of people, it should be noted here, regardless of its origin. Anthony Appleyard 17:14, 24 May 2005 (UTC)

---

I was agreeing with Ketsuban as to his reaction towards such a saying. Also Dab when transliterating "Allah" back into Arabic you get alif, laam (shaddah)fataha ha . This is a whole different word in Arabic. The Shaddah represents double consonants whereas you said alif, laam, laam shaddah, alif hah in which "laam shaddah" = "laam laam" making a total of three laams (Ls). This was my point. Also there is no article in the name, as you used for your justification above, as we have supplied Arabic Authority below and have explained above the science in the Arabic langauge how it does not have an article. (Oxy2Hydro 18:07, 24 May 2005 (UTC))

It doesn't matter who the 5 percenters are. They happen to believe that Allah stands for Clarence 13x. The NOI used to believe in Arm Leg Leg Arm Head (In dont know if they still do). Within their belief system it is the meaning of Allah. You can use your knowledge of Arabic grammer and Islam to argue otherwise, and you are correct within your belief system. The 5 percenters would argue that this is part of a conspiracy to suppress the black man, and that ALLAH stands for Arm leg... as revealed to Wallace Fard. I'm not saying that they are correct, but this is not an article on Islam, it is an article on Allah. If you mention Maltese Catholic and Indonesian Christian beliefs regarding the word Allah, I don't see why you can not include The 5 percenters and NOI in the introduction. They would say it is not a backronym and that this is the true meaning of the word. They would also say that they are the 'true' Islam, so you can not make statements like it has 'nothing to do with Islam'--Notquiteauden 23:27, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

proper noun

H2O does have a point, in that Allah may be considered a "personal name" in the same right as "God" may be considered a personal name. The distinction we are making here is the one between YHWH and El, a very peculiar development foreign to Islam. Therefore, the "personal name" issue should maybe not be mentioned so apodictically in the intro. Allah is Arabic for God. There was a lot of dispute about this on the God article also, and it was settled with

"The use of capitalisation, as for a proper noun, has persisted to disambiguate the concept of a singular God from pagan deities for which lowercase god has continued to be applied, mirroring the use of Latin deus."

Arabic doesn't have the possibility of capitalisation, but the "inseparability" of the article is comparable. Allah of course is from al-lah, etymologically, but it became a proper noun in as much as the article became inseparable from the root. dab (ᛏ) 08:15, 24 May 2005 (UTC)

Arabic Authority

The Following are Classical Arabic Scholars. One is a Christian and the other is Muslims whom comment on the name Allah quoting other supreme Arabic authority :

• " الله{alllaah}, [written with the disjunctive alif الله, meaning God, i.e. the only true god,] accord. to the most correct opinions respecting it, which are twenty in number, (K,) or more than thirty, (MF,) is a proper name, (Msb, K,) applied to the Being who exists necessarily, by Himself, comprising all the attributes of perfection; (TA;) a proper name denoting the true god, comprising all the excellent divine names; a unity comprising all the essence of existing things; (Ibn-El’Arabee, TA;) the ال being inseparable from it: (Msb: ) not derived.....
• "Edward William Lane, Arabic Lexicon

• "Allah - It is the proper noun applied to the Supreme Being, who is the sole possesor of all perfect attributes, who is free from all defects and who exist necessarily by Himself. It is not a common noun. All Divine attributes mentioned in the Quran are qualities of the proper name Allah. No other language has a distinctive name for the Divine Being. The names found in other languages are either attributive or descriptive and can be used in the plural form, but the word Allah is never used for any other thing, being or deity. It is never used as a qualifying word. Sibwaih and Khalil say, Since "Al" in the begining of the word Allah is inseperable from it so it is a simple substantive, not derived from any word. The word Allah is not a contraction of al-ilah, as some people tend to believe, but quite a different word.
• "The Dictionary of the Holy Qur’an, 1st edition, Abdul Mannan Omar

Both Authorities whom quote other authorites say the word is 1) Not derived, 2) not a contraction, 3) is a personal name of God ie in the Arabic language.

A break down of the explanation according to the science of Arabic grammar shown above makes it clear how this word has no association with the Arabic words "al-ilah".

We did see the corrections made to the Araticle based on authoritive proof that was presented, we thank you for following up with this.

However, if you are going to present the contraction theory, its refutation should also be mentioned by the Arabic authority above that clearly states it is not a contraction as we have clearly shown above that it is not and it is impossible etymologically and linguistical due to the science of Arabic Language to contract. The Theory violates all grounds of the Language as to what is called Arabic.

The linguistical techniques are merely English conceptions and not Arabic.

Another problem still occures on the article :

• "In addition, one of the main pagan goddesses of pre-Islamic Arabia, Allāt (al + ʾilāh + at, or 'the female deity'), is cited as being etymologically (though not synchronically) the feminine linguistic counterpart to the grammatically masculine Allah

Of course we thank the efforts that was made to correct this as much as possible but there is conflict here. The phrase in the bold is ridiculous cause in the Arabic language if it is not synchronical then it cannot be etymolocal mereless to have a linguistical contraction.

The name Allat is an Arabiced word which is not originally Arabic. It is not the feminine of Allah. "al-ilahat"(the feminine of "al-ilah") and Allat have no etymological relation with each other. We have no idea where the idea of "Allat" being etymological with "al-ilahat" but not synchronical, came from. Can you please give us the reference to where this is cited as etymological. This is a first one, not even linguists have associated word "Allat" with the arabic words "al-ilahat".

I think this isue came up from what we presented on Pharos discussion page :

• "Another problem in your Article is that its states that "Allat" is the femine of "Allah". This is a blunt contradiction in the article. You cannot support that the word is a contraction of "al-ilah" then on the other hand support that the word "Allat" is the feminine of the word "Allah". Because, in your supported contraction theory "Allat" would also have to be a contraction whereas the feminine of "al-ilah" is "al-ilahat" and if you apply the same contraction theory to "al-ilahat" you will get "Allahat",not "Allat", to be the feminine if the word "Allah" is suppose to be a contraction of "al-ilah"

When this was realized rather than showing an presenting the flaw in the Article of "Allat" being the feminine of "Allah" an atempt to compromise the facts with illogical info rendered in another error to say :

• "Allāt (al + ʾilāh + at, or 'the female deity'), is cited as being etymologically (though not synchronically).......

Please reflect on what is being said here. This statement is being said with no understanding of Arabic. I leave this be for you all to correct and please do and present all the facts available, do not paint a one sides story. Let Wiki exstablish it self of being straight forth with the facts.

Can you please look at this an see what is wrong here:

• "Allah (Arabic allāhu الله) is the Arabic word for "God" (corresponding to Hebrew Elohim, both being ultimately derived from northwest Semitic El).

vs.

• "In addition, one of the main pagan goddesses of pre-Islamic Arabia, Allāt (al + ʾilāh + at, or 'the female deity'), is cited as being etymologically (though not synchronically) the feminine linguistic counterpart to the grammatically masculine Allah.

If the name Allah is ultimately derived from "El" (which we disagree) how can Allat be its feminine counter part ?

Let us remind you of the Makkan pagan beliefs. Allat was believed to be the daughter of Allah not his wife which would have corrisponded to the Allat being the feminine form of Allah. However this is far from the reality of the belief.

"llah" <--- that is the root foundation of the name "Allah". Saying that Allah is derivied from "El" is a bit shady also cause the alif in "Allah" is a week radical and uniform of the word. "llah" also has a linguistical relation to the Hebrew "Yahh" in which "ll" = "y" are interchangable depending on the dialect of the language. "llah" and "Yah" in both Arabic and Hebrew have the same functions that are used grammatically the same: Both are used as a suffix for example " adbullah, eliyah, saifullah, yerimiyah.

Also we would agree that "Allah" is linguistically related to "eloahh" or "elohh" in hebrew whereas "Allahumma" and "Elohim" correspond with each other in which "Elohim (alhm)" can be pronounced as "Allahumma" in Hebrew.(Oxy2Hydro 17:07, 24 May 2005 (UTC))

---

Hereinafter, [#] is the glottal stop, [2] is the type of [h] found in e.g. [2ams] = "five" and [Mu2ammad]; [3] = the ayin sound. [2] and [3] are epiglottal fricatives.

In Arabic, as far as I have seen, [-ll-] is always written as one lam letter with shadda, as for example in [#in lā] = "if not" becoming [#illā] = "except", and [mu3allim(un)] = "a teacher". Except when the first [l] is the definite article, as in (for example) [al layta(tu)] = "the night", and in that case two lam letters are written and the second of these lams has shadda; and the same happens in [Allāh]. Anthony Appleyard 17:44, 24 May 2005 (UTC)

---

WE have already shown you above with Arabic Authority that word is not a contraction and have shown why it is not a contraction. You need to come up with something else better than mere theories and show fact from Arabic scholars. I speak the language and obviously you dont. Arabic has rules just like english whereas you cannot apply English diction to another language that is alien to your own. What seems to you is based on your lack of knowledge of Arabic period period, based on your prestige of English.

(Oxy2Hydro wrote)

---

I would suggest that if anyone wants to make a response, click on "edit" of that Subject/Headline then go to the end of the page and type " ---- " then " enter " and make your response.

For a new Subject/Headline just click on "+" next to the "edit this page" tab

---

dear H2O —

• you have a point
• please sign with ~~~~, it makes all this much easier to read.
• try to be polite. Anthony made a completely valid point, based on Arabic grammar (not on English). Your reply could have been, "yes, but Allah is a special case in Arabic grammar", or "no, here's a counterexample". instead you decided to dodge the point with arrogance
• try to be brief. Your point is that according to islamic scholars, Allah is not derived from anything, and a proper name.

fair enough. When we say, Allah is ultimately derived from El, this is not a matter of Arabic. The idea is that the word's etymology goes back to Proto-Semitic El, even though it is not analysable in Arabic. No contradiction there. Your scholars also say "No other language has a distinctive name for the Divine Being." which is of course completely wrong. "God" is just as "distinctive" as "Allah", only in the case of God, the distinctiveness is expressed with no article (as opposed to the definite article in Arabic). Your point that the al- is inseparable from Allah is also taken, and should maybe be inserted in the intro. It is still etymologically the article, and the statement is a theological one, not a grammatical one. Allah is considered a different word from ilah, and therefore the article may not be removed, because you would get ilah, which has a very different meaning. We can discuss this in "Allah as a word"; This is exactly analogous to a Christian claiming that "God" has a completely different meaning from "a god", i.e. that no indefinite article may be added to "God" without radically changing its meaning. The correct term is that "Allah" is an univerbation.

• you say "if it is not synchronical then it cannot be etymolocal mereless to have a linguistical contraction." — I do not understand this, but in case you mean "if it is not synchronical, then it cannot be etymological", that's nonsense. "synchronical" is the opposite of "etymological". Its meaning is exactly that in former times, the word was a feminine to allah, but now the native speakers (like you, I presume) are not aware of it anymore. I suggest you read the etymology article.

dab (ᛏ) 05:58, 25 May 2005 (UTC)

---

The apparent religious rule to treat the name "Allah" as an indivisible and unanalysable root word, occurs elsewhere also. The Hindu god name Vishnu clearly is a Sanskrit word coming from the same root as Sanskrit vishva = "all" and means "The Universal One" or "The Omnipresent One" or similar; but some Vaishnavite Hindu groups have a rule forbidding "analyzing the Name".

Some of the alterations to words and names discussed here (such as dropping [#i] in [al-#ilāhu], and also dropping [h] with vowel contraction in [al-#ilāhatu]), may be not ordinary linguistic effects but due to a tendency to make random small changes to a word or name to make it sound special. Other examples are:-

• In Gaelic, the name Mary is Muire when it means the Virgin Mary, but Máire (from which came the name Moira) as an ordinary woman's name.
• In Welsh, the name David is Dewi when it means St. David but Dafydd as an ordinary man's name.
• Extending the god name Yahu to Yahwé: see Yahweh#A possible origin.

Anthony Appleyard 06:27, 25 May 2005 (UTC)

I grant your point, but Vishnu is not a good example :) its etymology is unknown, but it is unrelated to vishva. dab (ᛏ) 08:12, 25 May 2005 (UTC)

---

The word "Allat" is found in its unmodified form as "al-ilat" in the writings of the greek historian Herodotus. We find here its oldest form as "ilat" with the article "al". The old form of the name Allah is "llah". There is no connection between these two words

There is no Arabic dictionary produced by Christian, Muslim, and Atheists that list the word "Allat" as the feminine of "Allah". You will find the word completely under a different root altogether. Most entries will be listed under "lut" or "lata" .

To say the "h" was dropped like the "i" in "ilahat" after a period of time to get "Allat" is mere speculation and there is nothing supporting this not even Scholars. This is purely a western phylosphy.

"Allahumma", there is no other word in the Arabic language that can take the vocative particle "meem" which is also considered a plural ending in other semetic languages. You cannot say al-ilahumma, ilahumma, ilatumma, latumma, or Allatumma. It is absurd that makes no sence. However you can say "lahumma" which is expressing "Allahumma". If "Allat" was the feminine of "Allah" and was from "ilah" then these words would have had no problem in taking "meem" (Oxy2Hydro 07:42, 25 May 2005 (UTC))

---

I grant you the Allat and Allahumma points: You have the right to ask for sources, and unless we are able to attribute the opinion that Allat is from Allahat, or Allahumma from Elohim, they should be removed. dab (ᛏ) 08:06, 25 May 2005 (UTC)

---

The reason for the shortage of forms of the name Allat, is likeliest that Allat has not been worshipped by organized bodies of worshippers for 1400 years and the early Muslims would have systematically destroyed any Arabian religious literature that was about the old gods, and there has been little reason to mention her name in celebratory forms :: as they did all too well with Zoroastrian religious literature in Persia, except for what refugees managed to carry away into India (see Parsee). If Muhammad had got killed at Uhud or Badr and Islam had thus faded away early, Arab religious ceremonies might even now well routinely contain such forms as [Allātumma] alongside [Allāhumma]. If the [#i] can drop in [al#ilāhu], for whatever reason, it could drop as easily in the very similar form [al#ilāhatu]. The general Arab population in religious services in temples etc, were not linguists.

As I wrote above, religion is likely to encourage a tendency to make random small changes to a word or name to make it sound special and more important. Examples are:-

• In [al#ilāhatu] becoming [allātu], the [h] dropping with vowel contraction.
• Pronouncing the [l]'s in [allāh] as in English "loop" (back or dark L) and not as in English "leap" (front L). That "back L" occurs in Arabic only in the word [allāh], but it is common in some other languages such as English and Russian.

With the [-umma] suffix, compare the "energetic" suffix [-unna] found on Classical Arabic verb perfectives: e.g. [kataba] = "he wrote", [katabunna] = "he indeed wrote" or similar. Anthony Appleyard 17:46, 25 May 2005 (UTC)

---

No linguist seriously disputes that the word "Allah" is ultimately (although not synchronically) derived. Among Islamic scholars, al-Ghazali at least agrees: in Ihya ulum id-din, he lists no less than four possible etymologies for it (two are from roots 'lh and wlh, I can't remember the other two.) Which etymology to derive it from is a reasonable question; claiming that it has no etymology is simply absurd. Likewise, the etymology of al-Lat is obvious even on the face of it. However, I am sceptical about the "Allahumma < Elohim" claim, which seems to fly in the face of any normal sound shifts. And "(corresponding to Hebrew Elohim" is not particularly accurate, while "both being ultimately derived from northwest Semitic El)" is wrong; both in fact derive from proto-Semitic *il-. - Mustafaa 19:25, 25 May 2005 (UTC)

---

(Anthony wrote)

• • " With the [-umma] suffix, compare the "energetic" suffix [-unna] found on Classical Arabic verb perfectives: e.g. [kataba] = "he wrote", [katabunna] = "he indeed wrote" or similar.

The "meem" in "Allahumma" is both grammatical and etymological. It is from a former language to Arabic that was adopted. It serves two purposes in Arabic: 1) a suffix vocative particle of "Yaa", 2)an expression of the plural of majesty.

"Nun" is an affirmative particle of "inna" (indeed) which is etymological derived.

"meem" is adopted and "nun" is derived, there is no comparison between these two particles which have opposite natures.

(Anthony wrote)

• • "In [al#ilāhatu] becoming [allātu], the [h] dropping with vowel contraction. Pronouncing the [l]'s in [allāh] as in English "loop" (back or dark L) and not as in English "leap" (front L). That "back L" occurs in Arabic only in the word [allāh], but it is common in some other languages such as English and Russian.

The "h" consonant in "ilahat" cannot be dropped cause it is not a weak radical.

As for the contraction theory, in the arabic language when you double the second radical you either change the meaning of the word all together or enhances it. When you pronounce "ilah" ~ God/god by double the second radical as "illah" you have changed the word to mean "except him" which change the "h" radical into a suffix pronoun. When you contract "al ilah" together you are doubling the second radical in "ilah" inorder to take the article.

• al ilah
• al-(i)llah
• al-llah
• alllah

The word would be meaningless "the except him". The contraction theory violates the science of Arabic.

Also, the word Allat is reported in the writings of the greek historian Herodotus as "Al-ilat" before it was contracted as "Allat". If "ilat", which is an Arabicized form of Leto, Latona, Lat, Militta, is pronounced "illat" it does not change the word except that is becomes emphasised. Therefor combining "al" and "ilat" by droping the weak radical "i"(alif) as "Allat" is not prohibited.

Another thing, you can say "aallah" meaning "Allah ?" which is proceeded by the hamza interogative particle, but you cannot say "aallat" which changes the word to express something else as "is she, has she, did she ?" Thus is because the hamza interogative particle CANNOT be used with the article "al" in which the correct interogative "hal" is to be used as "hal Allat or hallat" ~ "Allat ?"

However, in the Quran we find the hamza interogative particle is use with the name Allah in Surah 10:59 in which the "al" is not recognized as an article.

...Qul aalllaahu adhina lakum.

“Say(Muhammad)! Alllaah permitted you ?”

Again, we request that the Article on Allah of Wiki be revised. (Oxy2Hydro 04:08, 26 May 2005 (UTC))

---

As I wrote above, religion is likely to encourage a tendency to make random small changes to a word or name to make it sound special and more important.

If "ilat", which is an Arabicized form of Leto, Latona,
Or, [#ila_hat] or similar found its way from the Middle East to Greece. The Greek god Poseidon (Homeric Poseidāōn) seems to be "potis-dā-" as a literal translation into Greek of a Semitic god Baal Arş = "The Lord of the Land" found at Ugarit and elsewhere.

Another thing, you can say "aallah" meaning "Allah ?" which is proceeded by the hamza interogative particle,
H2O means that [#a] = "is this following sentence true?", "est-ce que?" followed by [allāhu] contracts to [#allāhu] because in Classical Arabic the initial [a] of [allāhu] (and of the definite article [al-]) ) drop if the previous word ends in a vowel, unless there is a pause in speaking between.

However, in the Quran we find the hamza interogative particle is use with the name Allah in Surah 10:59 in which the "al" is not recognized as an article: "...Qul aalllaahu adhina lakum.".

I have a Qur'an (Arabic and Yusuf Ali's English translation). In it, surah 10 (Yūnus) verse 59 reads: "qul #a ra#ayatum mma#ā#anzala llāhu lakum mmin rrizqiN fa..." = "Say: Do you (plural) see what things Allah has sent down to you (plural) for sustenance, but ..."., and the two words [#a] and [allāh] are not consecutive. A good Classical Arabic speaker would be advised not to put the definite article [al-] next after the particle [#a], as in effect in speaking the [-al] would swallow the [#a].

As for the contraction theory, in the Arabic language when you double the second radical you either change the meaning of the word all together or enhances it. When you pronounce "ilah" ~ God/god by double the second radical as "illah" you have changed the word to mean "except him" which change the "h" radical into a suffix pronoun. When you contract "al ilah" together you are doubling the second radical in "ilah" in order to take the article.

Two distinct processes are being confused here:-

• (1) From the root [#-l-h] making a word with the second radical latter doubled, as with [k-t-b] = "write" in the place name [Wadi Mukattab] = "the wadi which has been written on".
• (2) In [al + #il--], dropping the [#i] to make the result sound special and significant, thus bringing together two L's which originally were separate and had different purposes.

Anthony Appleyard 06:52, 26 May 2005 (UTC)

---

agree with Anthony. Nobody suggests the radical l was doubled at all, that's completely beside the point. It's just basic Arabic orthography to put a (strictly speaking superfluous) shadda on words beginning with an l, as in al-laylatu "the night", stricly speaking spelled al-llaylatu. No "doubling" here. Arabic doesn't allow three consecutive consonants, Oxy, so your spelling of alllah all the time is just misleading or wrong. dab (ᛏ) 07:45, 26 May 2005 (UTC)

Allah and El

I agree that Allah is from Proto-Semitic 'il. But is that not via NW Semitic El? Or why is the connection to NW Semitic el wrong? sorry, I forgot that Arabic is considered South-Central. El according to Gesenius may be from

• 'wl "to be strong"
• 'wl "to be foremost"
• 'lh "to swear, make a covenant"

The question is of course, what about the h - was it lost in El, or was it added to Allah? Why is it not in Allat? If the word is really from 'lh, Allah would in fact not be from 'il, but directly from Proto-Semitic 'ilah (maybe "god of the oath", i.e. it would never have lost its h. This is not suggested by Gesenius, however. dab (ᛏ) 07:45, 26 May 2005 (UTC)

---

My Arabic to English dictionary under root [#-l-h] lists these verbs: derived root 2 [#allaha] = "he deified", and derived root 5 [ta#allaha] = "he became a god". It is likely that the verb [#alaha] was formed from the noun [#ilāhu].

There were many dialects of Arabic and related languages. Sometimes in non-standard Arabic, [h] between vowels may have sometimes dropped. In Hebrew, the [h] in 3rd person pronoun suffixes is routinely lost.

As I wrote above, religion is likely to encourage a tendency to make random small changes to a word or name to make it sound special and more important. That would explain the [h] disappearing in [allātu], and also in [#ilāhu] becoming [#ilu]. I suspect that Commmon Semitic did not have a definite article, and that each branch of the Semitic languages developed a definite article separately. (Arabic has [al-], but in early Islamic times one Arabic dialect used [an-] instead. Aramaic uses [-ā#] on the end of the word. Hebrew uses [ha-] plus doubling the next consonant; that may have originally been [han-]. Babylonian and similar do not seem to have had a definite article.) Thus, in early Semitic times, someone wanting to express the idea of "The God", shortened [#ilāhu] to [#ilu]. Anthony Appleyard 10:10, 26 May 2005 (UTC)

---

The h is difficult to explain; the fluctuation is found within Hebrew ('el / 'elohim), but also by comparison across Semitic: Akkadian ilum, Ugaritic 'il versus Aramaic 'alaah-aa, Arabic 'ilaah. Phoenician 'ln (alon/ilon) is probably through suffixation. I'd want to find a reference on this one... - Mustafaa 18:03, 26 May 2005 (UTC)

The traditional Arabic grammarians' positions

I went and tried to look up Allah in the Lisan al-Arab, and found:

ت. وقال الخليل: الله لا تطرح الأَلف من الاسم إنما هو الله عز ذكره على التمام؛ قال: وليس هو من الأَسماء التي يجوز منها اشْتقاق فِعْلٍ كما يجوز في الرحمن والرحيم

Al-Khalil said: Do not drop the 'alif from the noun, for it is Allah who has recalled it in full; and he said: And it is not among the nouns for which one may find a verbal etymology, as one can for ar-Rahman and ar-Rahim.

However, the entry goes on to quote another authority:

قال أَبو الهيثم: فالله أَصله إلاهٌ، قال الله عز وجل: ما اتَّخذ اللهُ من وَلَدٍ وما كان معه من إلَهٍ إذا لَذَهَبَ كُلُّ إلَهٍ بما خَلَقَ

Abul-Haitham said: The origin of "Allah" is ilaah, Allah (azz wa jall) said: (23:91) Allah hath not chosen any son, nor is there any god (ilaah) along with Him; else would each god have assuredly championed that which he created...

ال: وأَصل إلَهٍ وِلاهٌ، فقلبت الواو همزة كما قالوا للوِشاح إشاحٌ وللوِجاحِ وهو السِّتْر إِجاحٌ، ومعنى ولاهٍ أَن الخَلْقَ يَوْلَهُون إليه في حوائجهم

And he said: The origin of ilaah is wilaah, for the waaw became a hamza, just as they say ishaaH for wishaaH, and ijaaH for wijaaH, and the meaning of wilaah is that the people are enthralled (wlh) by him in their needs...

(http://www.alwaraq.com/index4.htm?c=http://www.alwaraq.com/LisanSearch.htm&m=http://www.alwaraq.com/search.htm). Just thought I'd throw this in. - Mustafaa 17:54, 26 May 2005 (UTC)

Refutation to Anthony and Dab

To Anthony:
I am sorry but you are wrong it is not pronounced as “a,alllaah” with a pause in 10:59, it is pronounced as “aalllaah”. If you pay attention to the tashdeed “~” that is above the “alif” to prolong it with the hamza.

Qul 'Ara'aytum Mā 'Anzala Allāhu Lakum Min Rizqin Faja`altum Minhu Ĥarāmāan Wa Ĥalālāan Qul 'Ālllahu 'Adhina Lakum 'Am `Alá Allāhi Taftarūna

http://4bm.com/quraanLanguages/English/Color/Fram2.htm
(Oxy2Hydro 23:08, 26 May 2005 (UTC))

---

That link http://4bm.com/..... confirms what I saw in my bilingual Quran: that there is not a [#a] particle immediately before an [allāhu] in verse 10:59. There is the sequence [#anzala (a)llāhu], and the (a) is silent because the previous word ends in a vowel. Anthony Appleyard 05:37, 27 May 2005 (UTC)

---

I have deep respect for you Bro, but I dont know if I should cry or sigh. Anthony finish read the verse in Arabic thank you, we high lighted above where you over looked. (Oxy2Hydro 14:42, 27 May 2005 (UTC))

---

Audio recitation of 10:59 http://www.islamicity.com/MOSQUE/ARABICSCRIPT/AYAT/10/ra101_10-59.ram

Also the hamza in some Arabic scripts is not written where as “~” is the tashdeed that is used to prolong the alif to introduce the interrogative.
(Oxy2Hydro 23:08, 26 May 2005 (UTC))

---

OK. I know about alif-madda, which is pronounced [#aa]. But the interrogative particle is [#a] with a short vowel.

In the Quran the hamza symbol is very scarce, compared with standard Arabic spelling. Anthony Appleyard 05:37, 27 May 2005 (UTC)

---

We are on the wrong page here with each other cause you didnt fully read the verse(Oxy2Hydro 14:42, 27 May 2005 (UTC))

---

Also Anthony surely you will not find the word "Allat" under the entry that the name "Allah" is under. You will find it under the root "lata" instead of "alaha". Please also read the introduction or preface to your dictionary about Arabicized words and their proper placement, the same is with the word "Allah" whereas a word that follows under a root does not mean it is derived from that root.
(Oxy2Hydro 23:08, 26 May 2005 (UTC))

---

If a dictionary puts [allāt] under root [l-t-w] or [l-t-y] or similar, that need not be the name's real etymology. In Arabic dictionaries, foreign words, and proper-names without a clear etymology, are often put under whatever root they look most like at first sight, such as X-ray under [k-s-r] = "break", and jeep under [j-y-b] = "heart, belly, curve". Anthony Appleyard 05:37, 27 May 2005 (UTC)

---

Thank you, this was my point, the same applies to the word Allah. THe above is what we wanted you to say which is what is said in the preface of you Dictionary (Oxy2Hydro 14:42, 27 May 2005 (UTC))

---

To Dab :
Also Dab the spelling "Alllah" is not misleading . This has been a thing criticized among Arabicists towards westerners whom barely understand the language to Transliterate “اللّـه“ as "Allah" then how would you transliterate then “الّـه“ in this case with shaddah to distinguish it from the actual name?

There are countless scholars and Arabic advocates that spell the name with three Ls which is the correct spelling:

• ‘addition’ to it, namely a shadda over the lam . This tells us that in fact there are two spelling mistakes in the word Allah, and that three lams are desired which requires a spelling of ‘Alllaah’, not ‘Allaah’ [or Alllah for those who don’t want to admit the missing alif].

http://64.233.161.104/search?q=cache:jepNf2FggQoJ:answering-islam.org.uk/PQ/ch13c-index.htm+Alllah,+spelling,+name&hl=en&start=2
(Oxy2Hydro 23:08, 26 May 2005 (UTC))

---

This feature occurs in other words also, for example [al rrajulu] (pronounced [ar rajulu]) = "the man", [al nnār] (pronounced [an nār]) = "the fire". Anthony Appleyard 06:05, 27 May 2005 (UTC)

---

You are using wrong examples here, those words you cited do not have tripple Ls spelled in script. They are sun letters yes, but they do not have a second laam. The example you are lookinf for is for example "Lateef" it begins with a sun letter. Adding "al" to it doubles the sun letter as "Alllateef". Teh point the source we pointed out made is that the spelling "Allah" does not pass or reflect the original in Arabic. (Oxy2Hydro 14:42, 27 May 2005 (UTC))

---

Just as in written English there is a difference in “God” vs. “god” but there is no distinction linguistically. In Arabic there is written distinction between اللّـه = allah and الّـه= allah both are pronounced “allah” with shaddah but they are spelled differently. اللّـه The name of God is properly spelled Alllah whereas الّـه = allah is derived directly from “alaha” expressing “divinity”. One is the name of God and the other is the linguistical attribute expressing “divinity’. Linguistically there is not difference between them which is the name of God with no article denoting and expressing “Divine One” “The Only Divine One” encompassing all attributes of perfection.

We still would like to see Arabic Authority in support of most of your claims.
(Oxy2Hydro 23:08, 26 May 2005 (UTC))

---

But the triple consonant is not pronounced triple in Arabic. Estonian (and perhaps also Saamic (= Lappish)) are the only languages whose pronunciation routinely contains triple consonants. Here we must choose whether to transcribe the spelling or to transcribe the pronunciation. (Anthony Wrote)

---

Anthony are you paying attention to what we write ? We said nothing about pronouncing tripple Ls. Please re-read our post, thank you. We making made a distinction between written Arabic and Arabic and spoken Arabic and implied nothing of the such to which you are debating. (Oxy2Hydro 14:42, 27 May 2005 (UTC))

---

The other "spelling mistake" mentioned above is likely the feature that [allāhu] is written as اللّه (and not as اللّاه with the [ā] vowel spelt as alif as usual). This is likely because the Arabic spelling of "Allah" was established very early, before Arabic spelling started routinely using alif to spell the [ā] vowel.

This [lll] versus [ll] sounds different because the [L] in [allāh] is often pronounced as the English [l] in "loop", and all other Arabic [l]'s are pronounced as the English [[i] in "leap".

Anthony Appleyard 05:55, 27 May 2005 (UTC)

---

The spelling mistakes was directed to English transliteration and English customary spelling, not to the Arabic script. (Oxy2Hydro 15:00, 27 May 2005 (UTC))

---

• • • OK. I know about alif-madda, which is pronounced [#aa]. But the interrogative particle is [#a] with a short vowel.

In the Quran the hamza symbol is very scarce, compared with standard Arabic spelling. Anthony Appleyard 05:37, 27 May 2005 (UTC)

Ah lets see, we gave you the link of the Audio, you will not find hamza that is written or not being pronounced seperate with a pause from "al" in Allah's name. WE chose Abdul Basit's recitation of tarteel which is nice and slow so you dont miss it as he prolongs it as " ...Qul aaaaaaaaaalllaahu adhina lakum...."

Hamza is to asure the reading is pronounced "aaaaaaalllaahu" if alif madda is absent when there is not tashdeed. Being that there was no tashdeed the hamza was written before the alif so that one would pronounce "aaal" introducing the interogative where the hamza is pronounced with the alif for an alif madda pronounciation. You will not find in no recitation of such a speration and any Arabicist would correct you if you recited the hamza seperate from the "al".

With or without Hamza, or hamza with no alif madda tashdeed it is pronounced as "aaal". The simular thing in the script of Allah's name which is pronounced "alllaah" with alif madda (aa)which is also traditionally called alif maqsoorah is not always written in script but pronounced

The fact is, you cannot pronounce "al" as "aal" to introduce the interogative if "al" is a diffinite artcle. In the case of the surah 10:59 we see it is not considered or treated as such. The following shows both the hamza and alif madda in script that is pronounced as "aalllaahu" introducing the interogative.

Other than this Anthony pretty much we are comming around to the point that the word Allah is not associated with "al-ilah" as mentioned in the begining. We already quoted two elite Arabic Scholars whom quote other elite, that the word has no association with "al-ilah" nore the word "Allat".

If there is any word it is associated with etymologically it would be the word "lahut"(lahwt)pron. laahoot ~ divinity, in which this word is not derived from "alaha" but from a pre-semetic language. Please consult you dictionary on this word, as you would see it does not follow under the root "alaha"
(Oxy2Hydro 07:16, 27 May 2005 (UTC))

---

Uhh. Sorry. About three quarters of the way through verse 10:59 there is an [allāhu] with a madda, as H2O says. In my Quran there is not a hamza written also there. It seems to mean that [#a] + [allāhu] contract to [#āllāhu]. Perhaps the same happened in Arabic of Muhammad's time whenever [al-] = "the" came next after [#a]. Perhaps it was a one-off peculiarity in Muhammad's pronunciation when he revealed that part of that verse. But still, that seems to have no connection with whether or not the [-#i-] in [al#ilāhu] and [al#ilāhatu] could drop out in spoken (and then written) usage. Anthony Appleyard 13:51, 27 May 2005 (UTC)

---

“Perhaps” “Could” are speculations. You are now mixing apples with oranges here of our presentation. We introduced “aaalllaahu” in 10:59 to refute that “al” in the word is not an Article only. You cannot use, as we have been saying, hamza or alif madda with “al” if it is an Article which is the case with the word “Allah” in 10:59. If “al” was understood as an Article in “Allah” then in classical Arabic it would have been written or recited as “ hal + alllaahu properly read “halllaahu” whereas this reading is prohibited cause there is no article.

For example: The names Alyas and Alyasa’ both begin with “Al” which is not an Article in those names they are Arabicized forms of “Elijah and Elisha.

Both name can be used with the hamza as “aalyas” meaning “Alyas ?” and “aalyasa” meaning “Alyasa ?” . To the Contrary words used with “al” as a definite article such as Alllaateef meaning “The Subtle One” cannot be prefixed with hamza or its “al” cannot be pronounced as “aalllaateef” to introduce the interogative as the “al” will no longer be an article that will change the meaning of the word to express “subtle people” in which “aal” means people, folk.

If you have no article you have no contraction if you have no "ilah" you have to contraction thus we have disproved both based on facts not speculations or assumption or theory as you have presented. (Oxy2Hydro 17:08, 27 May 2005 (UTC))

---

This proves nothing about the etymology of the word. All it proves is that, at the Prophet's time, it was not interpreted as containing the definite article; that implies nothing either way about whether the word had originally contained a definite article. For example, we know that in modern English "adder" begins with a vowel, and we say "an adder"; yet a few centuries ago, the word was "nadder", and people said "a nadder". It's always important to distinguish between synchronic and diachronic explanations. - Mustafaa 17:33, 27 May 2005 (UTC)

---

Correct Mustafaa, we were not trying to prove an etymology, we were disproving the etymology associated to it by western propaganda. For us to prove an etymology would be like trying to prove the origin of time. Remember this though, the name is as old as the Kabbah it self which was always known as "Baitullah" ie the house of "llah" from since the time makkah was called Bakkah which goes back prior to the Arabic language it self. (Oxy2Hydro 19:59, 27 May 2005 (UTC))

---

As I pointed out in the Lisan al-Arab quote above, it's Arabs, not Westerners, who first came up with the idea that Allah derives from "ilaah". - Mustafaa 20:02, 27 May 2005 (UTC)

---

Correct, derived from "ilaah" nothing about a contraction of "al-ilah". I have no arguement with this as I am aware of the whole issue. Better yet the quote you posted contradicted each other also, but, in conclusion, they do no support a contraction or that the "al" in the word "Allah" is an Article. Better yet the majority support this view.(Oxy2Hydro 20:46, 27 May 2005 (UTC))

---

Again, as I pointed out before, we seem to be running into a desire by religious people to treat the name of their god as a sacred indivisible root-word. The same happened with some Vaishnavite Hindus, who had a rule that their god name Vishnu was not to be "analyzed", i.e. people were not to try to split it into component morphemes. Anthony Appleyard 21:31, 27 May 2005 (UTC)

---

guys, is this not going offtopic rapidly? Of course Allah has an etymology, this has nothing to do with propaganda. And we're just here to summarize the different opinions. So let's just paraphrase the grammarians Mustafaa cites above, and material we find in etymological dictionaries. I don't think there is any serious doubt that

• Allah contains the article, etymologically
• in Arabic, it is not considered analyzeable anymore (maybe even at the prophet's time, although I do think the brilliant prose bit that is the shahada is intended as a pun, or a figura etymologica)

so what is the problem? Some authorities say it should not be analysed? Let's state that. Other authorities do analyse it? Let's state that also. I don't think anyone is actively disputing a particular etymology, they are just saying "thou shalt not etymologize" dab (ᛏ) 06:19, 28 May 2005 (UTC)

Anon's deletion

An anon deleted a sentence that has been in the article for a long time, something about the word Allahummah being found in the Qur'an. Is this true? False? Why was this deleted? I restored the sentence, at least for the nonce, and I'm asking the other editors for an opinion. Zora 02:51, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Allahumma is found in the Qur'an, but it's essentially an irregular vocative form of Allah, and I am very sceptical about this unsourced claimed link to "Elohim". - Mustafaa 18:01, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Well then, let's remove it after all. Zora 18:13, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

From my understanding, Allahummah is a supplicative form. It is akin to saying, "Oh Allah <insert wish here>" --GNU4Eva 13:47, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

"Ilāh" is an Untranslatable Monotheistic Concept?

As of the most recent version of the article, it states, in discussing the etymology of "Allah", tht "some Muslim scholars feel that "llāh" should not be translated, because it expresses the uniqueness of God more accurately than "God", which can take a plural "Gods", whereas "llāh" has no plural. This is a significant issue in translation of the Qur'an. This also explains why Arabic-speaking Jews and Christians freely refer to God as Allāh." Overlooking the inevitable weasal words, "some Muslim scholars feel that ...," I'm bringing into question the factual accuracy of this statement. I am skeptical of the statement because (a) no source is provided, and (b) the word "ilāh" is from pre-Islamic times. As the article explains, linguists believe that "Allah" is a contraction of "al-ilāh" ("the god.") The pagan Arab religion, in addition to using the word "Allah" also used the word "Allat," itself a contraction of "al-ilāh-at" (literally "the godess"). The words "ilāh" (god), "ilāh-at" (godess), "Allat" (the name of a female diety in the pagan Arab pantheon), and "Allah" (the name of the masculin creator God in the pagan Arab pantheon), all existed as words in pre-Islamic times. In light of the fact that pagan (polythiest) Arabs in pre-Islamic times used the word Arabic word "ilāh" (god), it seems doubtful that the word "ilāh" can only be used in a monotheistic sense (as the editor claims in the disputed statement). The statement has no source, and appears to be inconsistent with known etymological facts, so I am going to edit it. The point of the statement is that some Muslims don't like to translate "Allah" into "God," especially in publish translations of the Qur'an. That should be mentioned, in the contest of the belief of linguists that the word "Allah" is in fact just a contraction of the words "al-ilah" (the god). --Zeno of Elea 3 July 2005 08:58 (UTC)

I think you misunderstood the statement. The point is that "llāh" became lexicalized as a new word meaning "single God", as a lexeme different from "ilāh", which of course still can take the plural. "llāh" is therefore a lexeme that only arose in Islamic times, and it cannot logically take a plural. Etymologically, it is an univerbation of ilah with the article, but that is etymology, not synchronic Arabic. You may as well say that "God" is a participle, which is etymologically true, but certainly not synchronically. Nowhere do we claim that "ilāh" has a monotheistic sense, much to the contrary, because "llāh" was coined, "ilāh" is now reserved for polytheistic idols. dab (ᛏ) 3 July 2005 09:36 (UTC)

Oh, I"m sorry, I misread "llāh" as "ilāh." Though I don't agree with your statement that "ilāh" is reserved for polytheistic gods only, since "Allāh" is called an "ilāh" in the shahada. --Zeno of Elea 3 July 2005 21:05 (UTC)

that's because the shahada is pre-Islamic Arabic, so to speak, and remained untouched for 1400 years. Your interpretation also hinges on the translation of ila, it is unclear if that implies that allah is considered a subset of ilah. You may also translate something like: "there are no ilah. ok, but there is Allah" which may mean that allah is a related concept, but not identical to ilah. Historically, of course, the shahada translates "there are no ilah, exept for The One Ilah (which we will refer to as Allah from now on)", i.e. it is really the axiom defining the terminology of all post-shahada-Arabic. Correct me, but that's how I came to think about the case. dab (ᛏ) 8 July 2005 09:21 (UTC)

If you want a source for this common view (which I disagree with), try a translation of Muhammad al-Ghazali's work. - Mustafaa 4 July 2005 16:38 (UTC) =

Hubal

Any reason for linking to this article besides the debunked arguments that Hubal was Allah?Heraclius 22:12, 30 July 2005 (UTC)

Oh and by the way, regarding my edit comment of "that's false", I was referring to your accusations of vandalism. A removal of one link from the See Also section is not vandalism.Heraclius 22:17, 30 July 2005 (UTC)

I have just incorporated the Hubal reference in the appropriate section. Hopefully this will stop your edit warring.Heraclius 22:21, 30 July 2005 (UTC)

That's fair enough, Heraclius. For the record, I'm not saying that Hubal was Allah, I'm saying that Hubal was an important diety in pagan South Arabia, similar to how Allah was an important diety in pagan South Arabia. As long as Hubal is mentioned somewhere, it's fine with me. --Zeno of Elea 20:10, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

I also think the pre-Islamic situation may be discussed, and Allah put in context of his pagan origins. That's all fair enough, and I wish you could always be as reasonable, Zeno. but this is really of another kind, and marks you as a vandal, pure and simple. I mean, the Judeo-Christian God originated as a burning bush, but what do you think people would say if I went about plastering the YHWH article with pictures of bushes? That's really too low a register to waste much breath on, I can only hope your present agreement with Heraclius will help you regain your countenance. dab (ᛏ) 16:16, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

Dance Allah

I would appreciate it if the Catholic moderators would stop deleting the information on dance allah. Dance Allah is an integral part of the Islam religion.

Please create new sections at the bottom of talk pages and add ~~~~ at the end of your posts so we can tell who and when posted it. Also cite notable sources. Catholic? O_O gren グレン 23:34, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

I'm not catholic... I'm Viennese! Dance Ballroom!- Tεxτurε 23:39, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

Use of "Allah" by Sfaradim

Al-Andalus has twice removed references to the Arabic-speaking Sfaradi communities of the Maghreb who, in daily speech, to this day, refer to the Almighty as "Allah". The assertion that they have retained "their traditional Judeao-Spanish [sic] rendering of His name" is true, but only in liturgical and literary environments, environments in which no other Arabic-speaking Jewish population has adopted the use of "Allah" either. If he removes the Sfaradim again, revert the removal, and cite it as vandalism. TShilo12 07:26, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

"It is most commonly used in Islam...", "usage is traditionally attributed to Muslims"

Surely we can find a better way of putting this? After all, it is universally used in Christianity as well. What exactly is this trying to get at? That Muslims use it more than Christians (because more Muslims speak Arabic than Christians)? That in English (and other languages) it is used (only) by Muslims? There must be a better way of saying whatever is intended to be said.

Equally, "Although the usage of the word Allāh is traditionally attributed to Muslims": this is a somewhat unclear sentence. I think it's an attempt to find a more glorious-sounding way of saying, "although most people think that Allah is something that Muslims say". Perhaps it should be read "Although outside the Arab world use of the word Allāh is widely associated with Islam" or something similar?

And does it really have to have a macron on the second "a"? How does this fit in with our conventions? Palmiro | Talk 03:52, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

"Although most often used by Muslims around the world, it is also used by other Arabic-speakers to refer to the eternal monotheist Deity." I made that change, but you are free to change it. Yes, it should have the macron on the second a; it clarifies the pronounciation. I'm sure you've heard the ever popular pronounciation that rhymes with "walla," "holla," and "calla" (sorry for the slang terms, but they're the only words that sound even close to what I'm thinking). joturner 04:03, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

Actually, that's a pretty popular pronunciation in Arabic as well, though granted you're unlikely to hear it from an imam! Palmiro | Talk 06:08, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

Purpose of this article

I couldn't really find the purpose of this article. Is it about the etymology of the word "Allah" (the arabic word)? About the usage of this arabic word? or about the islamic conception of "God"? If it was about the conception I would like to move it to Islamic conception of God, a clearer title that really reflects the content. CG 14:03, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

Is it possible that it's about all three? Many people, particularly non-Muslims, think Allah and God are two different things. Therefore, this is the most appropriate title because it allows us to talk about the etymology and usage of the word as well as the Islamic conception of God. Allah would be the most common search term for all three. joturner 14:06, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

Not necessarly. I agree about the reasoning but it is not that Many people, particularly non-Muslims, think Allah and God are two different things. As CG notes below, Allah is not an exclusive Islamic term. Cheers -- Szvest 09:39, 27 December 2005 (UTC) ^{Wiki me up&#153;}

Don't take me wrong, I've read the article. I just think that, since "Allah" is not an islamic term, or particular to Islam, why its islamic conception is in this article? CG 14:10, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

Do you mean making Allah as disambig page? I have no proposals for titles! Cheers -- Szvest 09:39, 27 December 2005 (UTC) ^{Wiki me up&#153;}

Well, this page could alternatively deal with the meaning, use and etymology of the word and we could have another page on the Islamic conception of God. I'd be inclined to favour that, as the current set-up could be seen as reflecting either or both of (a) ignorance of the usages of non-Muslim Arabs and (b) the anti-Islamic prejudice among some Christians that Muslims worship a different god from them. Palmiro | Talk 17:37, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Move of "Islamic conception of God" section

I suggested the move of the "Islamic conception of God" section to a new article (Islamic conception of God, Islam conception of God or Conception of God in Islam), because the article contradicts itself: how do you explain that "Allah" is not an islamic term, and you feature the islamic conception of God in the article. Since "Allah" is just an arabic translation, this article should be only about its use and etymology. Its conception should be at the God article. CG 17:32, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

I see we had one of those silent edit conflicts. I support this view. Though '"Allah" is just an arabic translation might be a slightly controversial way of putting it! Palmiro | Talk 17:40, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Allah is not a translation of anything; it is a genuine Arabic word, that came to mean "Singular God" with Islam; be aware of signifié vs. signifiant :) dab (ᛏ) 17:51, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

If it's not a translation, why does the introduction say The word Allāh is the Arabic term for "God"? CG 18:12, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

sounds good. Keep a summary section here, of course. dab (ᛏ) 17:51, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

I did it; if people disagree, they can still just redirect it back here. dab (ᛏ) 18:33, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for the move, but I would prefer to just delete this section and put on the top of the page:

This article is about the etymology and usage of the arabic word Allah. For the concept of God in Islam, see Islamic conception of God.

I don't really like this idea; the "conception of God" section is relevant to this article, it is just not identical to the scope of this article; standard WP procedure is to branch it out via {{main}} (while dab notices are for unrelated things with the same name). dab (ᛏ) 19:07, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

I fully agree with CG. When I see Lebanese Forces members saying "Allah ou ouwet" I am convinced that Allah is not even close to being exclusive to Islam. Yuber^(talk) 19:41, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

I really think that while the Islamic concept of God is clearly relevant in a restricted sense, it is a sufficiently different question to look rather out of place here. Palmiro | Talk 19:51, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

nobody says 'Allah' is exclusive to Islam. But think again: Many articles linking to Allah, including {{Islam}}, intend to link to the Islamic concept of God. Think about the "principle of least surprise". You may change all these links, but people will still continue linking to Allah in other than etymological contexts. It is safest to keep a summary of the Islamic concept of God here, but have a detailed article somewhere else. dab (ᛏ) 20:11, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

When I first read the original post under this section, I thought this was a bad idea. But seeing as how things turned out, I am okay with the comprimise of having sufficient information about the Islamic conception of God in the Allah article but still having a separate article that elaborates. However, I strongly oppose eliminating the Islamic conception of God off this page completely (as proposed by an unsigned editor earlier). If that were to happen, this article would just be about the etymology of an Arabic word. It is very likely that any person searching the English Wikipedia for Allah is going to be more interested in the Islamic concept of God rather than the Arabic etymology. The English Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a dictionary and especially not an Arabic dictionary. We don't have articles about words in other languages (such as Dios for God in Spanish) unless they bear some significance in the English-speaking world. All in all, I like the Allah article as it is.

P.S. I'm moving the Islamic conception of God article to Islamic concept of God. Although the word conception can mean the same thing as the word concept, the most common use of the word conception refers to fertilization of an egg. I don't think that was what we were going for. joturner 20:15, 27 December 2005 (UTC)