Talk:Names of God in Islam

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Islam (Rated C-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Islam, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Islam-related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

The sound files[edit]

This guy is an indian or something close, and isn't pronouncing a lot of things correctly. Sometimes even changing the letters. Instead of الودود he says الغدود Instead of الحسيب he says الحصيب Instead of الحفيظ he says الحفيز Instead of ذو he says زو This just sounds weird at the end

In most of those, he adds a vowel somewhere.

Even when he's roughly right, he gets something wrong in all of them.

Just remove all of them, and get an arabic man to do them.


I find it bizarre that the pronunciation preference of a few million Egyptian/Yemenis is preferred to that of the rest of the Islamic world. The Arabic letter Jim is overwhelmingly pronounced with the sound of J as in Jinn. Even in Eqypt the correct pronunciation is used. Change! — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 02:29, 3 April 2012 (UTC)


Could I use the table in this article for a report, giving Wikipedia all due credit? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kikseo (talkcontribs) 03:28, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Yes, and you can read Wikipedia:Citing Wikipedia to see how to cite the content. Regards, -- Jeff3000 (talk) 04:03, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

99 names in the Qur'an?[edit]

Not all the 99 names of God are mentioned in the Qur'an; thus, the article should be named: the 99 names of God in Islam.

Better: the 99 Beautiful Names of God in Islam, because that is the way they are referred to: (أسماء الله الحسني) —Preceding unsigned comment added by EgyMinerva (talkcontribs) 23:08, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree with changing the title from "... in the Qur'an" to "... in Islam" because all modern scholars specify that the 99 must be in the Qur'an OR the hadiths. That is you have to include the hadiths because the quote "there are ninety-nine names of God" is itself a hadith! Nowhere in the Qur'an does it say there are 99 names. Hence if you restrict yourself to only the Qur'an you must exclude the "99" quote, so the limit to 99 would become irrelevant! Eekamou (talk) 14:37, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

the name Allah is missing from the list —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ibwaheemi (talkcontribs) 21:42, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

The title is still Names of God in the Qur'an in stead of The 99 Most Beautiful Names of God in Islam. Would that be the correct title for this page? Can we move this now? Wiki-uk (talk) 16:40, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
I endorse this only on the condition that there is a cited reputable source that demonstrates this is the term used most commonly (as well as an etymological section on where this term came from) otherwise it smacks of POV and peacock terms. Also, how does this work with our naming conventions? Peter Deer (talk) 06:14, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
On page 40 Islamic desk reference by E. J. van Donzel (a condensation of the subject-matter of "The Encyclopaedia of Islam) it is stated "al-Asma' al-Husna ("The most Beautiful Names"): the words indicate the 99 Names of God, which the pious Muslim repeats and on which he meditates, usually with the help of the 99 beads of the rosary (A. subha)...". Does that help? Wiki-uk (talk) 13:58, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
After giving this issue some more thought, I have made an entry on Wikipedia:Requested moves to move this page to Names of God in Islam. Wiki-uk (talk) 13:17, 2 June 2010 (UTC)


Be warned, “He who has no knowledge of how to use a sword will injure himself.” There must be respect, care, and good intentions or an injury could occur ... This true story … Osman Baba repeated Ya-Qahhar (oh Destroyer) many times until he became obsessed by this Attribute. If he threw a piece of cotton at someone and it hit him, he would die. The people complained to Waliyuddin Kuddisa Sirruh who told them to take a piece of cotton and throw it back at the back of Osman. When it hit him he turned around and said, “Oh Waliyuddin, you have killed me”, and he died. The power was given to him by Allah because he repeated the Name. There are some who want something eagerly or impatiently and attempt to receive it by repetition of the Names without first knowing whether this would be good for them. They keep repeating without knowing. They keep saying I Want It. They do not say, “Allah, if it is good for me, let me have it.”

Page 11. ‘Ninety-Nine Names of Allah’ by Shems Friedlander and al-Hajj Shaikh Muzaffereddin ISBN 0-06-090621-9 Eekamou (talk) 13:25, 4 September 2009 (UTC)


Hey, these names are frequently sung right? Can someone tell me more about this? Mallerd (talk) 19:03, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Not quite sung, they are recited - and placed in tune fashion either- to make listening to the names more interesting and to make learning the list easier or- because the Koran has rhyme and rhythm (and so they try to give rhyme & rhythm to the list when reciting it).[[User:Cs1kh]] (talk) 10:44, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
Austerlitz -- (talk) 12:11, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

The first is a recitation, the second a song, rather.

Austerlitz -- (talk) 12:37, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Not quite names![edit]

Just a note, Though they are called names and are translated as names, they are actually attributes of Allah (i.e. God is called Allah and has 99 attributes that explain who/what he is like - that is why the name 'Allah' doesnt appear in the list of 99).

If someone translates the 99 names, from Arabic to English, you will notice they are all attributes that a person can call 'Allah' by (e.g. one name when translated is "the merciful", when referring to God you can say 'Allah created Adam' or you can say 'the Merciful created Adam').

I think it should be stated that the 99 'names' are actually a list of attributes that god can be called/referred to by and that explain to Muslims what they should think of god as and the only actual name is 'Allah'. [[User:Cs1kh]] (talk) 10:31, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Other Names of Allah[edit]

Some mystics say there are a vast number of Names of God, e.g., the 12th Century Sufi Ibn Arabi: ‘But regarding Reality [al-Haqq] as the Essence of All, all attributes whatever, transcendent and immanent, may be predicated of it. Ibn Arabi says: “He, may He be exalted is named by all the names of the objects of the phenomenal world;” “Glory be to Him who is ‘meant’ by all the attributes of the Godhead and created objects,“ “Our names are His Names,“ “He is called Abu Said al Kharraz“ etc. etc.’ Page 23. Extracts from The Mystical Philosophy of Muhyud Din Ibnul Arabi by Abul E. Affifi. ISBN 0-404-56205-1/ISBN 969-432-158-1/ISBN 9780404562052. Sadly panentheism seems to be disapproved of by orthodox Islam Eekamou (talk) 23:58, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

There is no need to battle with each other for the names of Allah, because He Has many Names. When any person recites Al-Qura'n he will find many Acts Allah did, like Allah Gives life, Allah Takes life, Allah Defends believers, He Send messengers and many other Actions, with little focus anyone can derive a name for Allah describing His action. To give an example if we start from the first Surah Al-Fatiha{الحمد للة رب العالمين الرحمن الرحيم-مالك يوم الدين-اياك نعبد واياك نستعين-اهدنا الصراط المستقيم} Template:All praise goes to Allah the Lord of the worlds, the Beneficent, the Merciful, Owner of the Day of judgement, Thee (alone) we worship; Thee (alone) we ask for help, Show us the straight path by focusing on the Arabic text and translation we can derive names for Allah which are not mentioned in the popular list of 99: The first name we can derive is Al-Mehmood:المحمود: One Who Were Praised by all the second name is al-Rab: الرب: The Lord the third name is Rabul Alameen: رب العلمين: Lord of all universes the forth name is Al-Malik: المالك: The Owner the fifth name is Malik-e- yaumid: مالك يوم الدين: The owner of the judgement day and so on. Recite the Holy Qura'n and with the kowledge of the Arabic language you can derive names for Allah Almighty. Unsigned


The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: page moved per request. GTBacchus(talk) 21:45, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Names of God in the Qur'anNames of God in Islam

  • Wiki-uk (talk) 13:14, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Support: seems to be a more appropriate title for the article, as established in the discussion above. Completefailure (talk) 15:21, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

False Translation?[edit]

Taqiyya is in everywhere now, right? المتكبر is so not "The Highest, The Greatest" المتكبر means Arrogant. المهيمن means Dominant not the protector.-- (talk) 14:25, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Request for removal of a Section.[edit]

Please remove the sections starting "According to Bahá'í scholar ..." The information under these sections are irrelevant and incorrect I believe. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sazakir (talkcontribs) 11:44, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

The content is verifiable and germane, so it has a place in this article. Regards, -- Jeff3000 (talk) 12:40, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

It doesn't get added here just because you find a reference. If that is the case, this article would be impossible. Bahaism and Islam are two different religions. Put that section where it belongs. Under Bahai. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 02:03, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Possibly rename the article?[edit]

I get the impression that "name" appears to translate to only "proper name" and not "title" or "nominative attribute" in some other languages, including the native tongues of many of this article's readers. "Name" appears to be too distinctive in other languages, while "attribute" appears too impersonal to my native-English mind. There's been some hairsplitting over the issue, and I'm wondering if the situation can be fixed by changing the article name to "Epithets of God in Islam." We would need to find sources to justify this change, and so far, I've found this one, this one, this one, and this one.

"Epithet" should cover the ground for both "name" and "attribute." Are there any other suggestions? Ian.thomson (talk) 16:31, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Congratulations on your search for sources, but I'd still be inclined to leave the title as it is. Arabic: أسماء الله الحسنى‎‎, as given in the article, actually translates as the beautiful names of God. I'm not sure of the relevance of your opening sentence; we're writing in English, and the English word "name" is well-established here and adequately covers the meaning. If you try googling, "99 names" gets millions of hits, "99 attributes" some thousands, and "99 epithets" hardly any. SamuelTheGhost (talk) 17:07, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Dead links[edit]

All the Qur'an links I tried are dead. Yopienso (talk) 21:48, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

List of names in the Qur'an[edit]

As someone mentioned on this talk page, no scholars claim that all 99 names are in the Qur'an; most are in the Qur'an and some are in the hadith. The list contains some terms which are not actually names. I would suggest that unless a "name" can be attested to by a reputable secondary source, it be removed from the list. MezzoMezzo (talk) 06:40, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

Nobody is interested in the discussion? MezzoMezzo (talk) 12:25, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
What names was not found in secondary sources? --Alex-engraver (talk) 15:16, 7 May 2013 (UTC)
I didn't run a check yet (wow I am responding to this rather late), but I know for a fact that no scholar of Islam says all 99 are in the Qur'an. So what I propose now is the removal of anything on the list which cannot grammatically be considered a name in the Arabic language, and that such names should not be claimed again without valid secondary sources. Most scholars say the 99 are found in a combination of the Qur'an and Hadith, which makes sense considering that the belief in 99 names comes from Hadith anyway (Qur'an Alone Muslims don't believe in the whole 99 thing as far as I know). I'm sure on Google Books we can find sources for the rest of the names found in Hadith. MezzoMezzo (talk) 12:07, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
Ok, um....WOW. Whoever added this list doesn't speak Arabic or doesn't know the grammar.
Alright first of all, a lot of the words on that list were not contained in the verses listed. I even checked the ones I memorized just to be sure. I think the claimed (false) name "Al-Mani" was an example of that but there were others.
Second of all, possession in Arabic doesn't mean a name. "jami' al-nas" is in the Qur'an for example but that doesn't mean God IS al-Jami' according to Islam; His being called that is only in relation to al-nas just like if I call myself mudir al-makhzan, I am the manager of the warehouse but my name is not Manager. That's mudaf and mudaf ilahi which is like pre-school grammar.
Third of all, a verb doesn't necessitate a noun. For example, the Qur'an says that God yuhyi (brings life) and yumit (brings death). Grammatically if I say that, it doesn't mean I said God IS muhyi (the noun for life bringer) and mumit (death bringer). Perhaps that is true according to Muslim belief but grammatically, saying that my friend Steve yugharghar ma`an (gargles water) doesn't mean his name is Gargler.
Fourth of all, things like "malik al mulk" (owner of the owned) is not only another issue of possession but also technically a repeat of "malik" which is already (correctly) on the list. Same for dhu jalal wa al-ikram, God possesses those things (dhu is a generic word for possessor) but dhu isn't a name.
Overall this list was good but because the author seemed to believe that there absolutely must be exactly 99 names in the Qur'an, there was a lot of grasping for straws that resulting in the inclusion of terms literally not a single Muslim on the face of the Earth in the 1,400 years of Islam has ever considered a name of God. Once again, secondary sources are needed to add the rest. I need to finish reformatting the table now. MezzoMezzo (talk) 12:29, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
MezzoMezzo, I think you've gone way overboard here in reducing the list of 99 names (or attributes, or whatever you want to call them ---- they're called أسماء in Arabic, which usually translates as "name") to 74. Maybe you're not through yet, and you'll add back the ones you've removed, but as it stands, your list does not agree with any known published lists (lists made by Muslims for Muslims). It seems to me your criteria involve some obscure grammatical technicalities which, in the final analysis, are relevant only to your own idiosyncratic viewpoint. I will not be surprised if someone decides to revert your changes. Please reconsider the major damage you've done to the article. Compare your current list with, for example, the Arabic Wikipedia list, or compare with any other lists you can find on the internet or in any library. I don't think you're going to find anything like the truncated version you've ended up with. Maybe you should start your own page: "The 74 Names of God according to MezzoMezzo". Thank you for your attention.--أخوها (talk) 16:00, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
I am very sorry User:أخوها but I don't think you could be more wrong; in fact, I don't know of a single traditional list by Muslims for Muslims that claims all 99 names of God are in the Qur'an and every single thing I've said above can be attested to in the Arabic language.
If you're interested in a short book on the topic which can be downloaded in PDF form on the net, then "القواعد المثلى في صفات الله وأسمائه الحسنى" by Muhammad ibn al Uthaymeen is an easy ready (and it does remark that the entire 99 are not in the Qur'an).
Additionally, we can look into scholarly sources in the English language as well. Martin Parsons states on page 206 of Unveiling God (William Carey Library, 2005, 9780878084548): "Interestingly however, although most of the 99 names occur in the Qur'an..." the end of the sentence (Qur'an-Bible comparison).
Juan Eduardo Campo explains in the Encyclopedia of Islam (Infobase Publishing, 2009, 9781438126968) on page 515: "The 99 names come from three sources: directly from the Qur'an, names derived indirectly from the Qur'an (like al Basit according to Campo, which I didn't delete) and traditional names of God that are not found in the Qur'an in any form."
Susanne Enderwitz mentions in her article "The 99: Islamic Superheroes - A New Species" in Transcultural Turbulences: Towards a Multi-Sited Reading of Image Flows (Springer, 2011, 9783642183935) from pages 84 to 85 that the total number of names in both the Qur'an and Hadith actually ends up exceeding 99, something also mentioned by the Arabic author above due to the fact that in addition to the 70 or so names in the Qur'an, there are quite a few mentioned only in the hadith.
I could go on but I feel I have spent enough time at this point. Nobody is going to revert first of all because I think you and I might be the only ones interested in this page unfortunately, and second of all because what I have said is clearly correct to anyone who speaks Arabic fluently - I don't know why you insist that because Arabic Wikipedia has copy pasted exactly 99 names from the Qur'an from this Arabic site. In fact, I might add the sources above shortly just to drive the point home that copy pasting isn't a basis for making such bold claims. MezzoMezzo (talk) 03:57, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
I think you misunderstood my point. I wasn't claiming that all the names appear in the Qur'an. I know they don't. And I am aware that the number of "names" sometimes even exceeds 99. My point was that, from the point of view of traditionally accepted usage, approximately 99 "names" have been ascribed to God. Perhaps you should include in your editing of this article an explanation of your rationale for the list's reduction to 74, and to alter all references to the number "99" in the text of the article. Thank you for your attention.--أخوها (talk) 16:19, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
P.S. The name of the article is, after all, "Names of God in Islam" and not "Names of God in Islam which appear in the Qur'an". It may be of interest to you to take a look at صحيح البخاري : كتاب التوحيد where he mentions: إن لله مائة اسم إلا واحدا
--أخوها (talk) 18:19, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
P.P.S. In terms of appreciating the number 99 as traditional usage, you might also look at this. Thank you again for your attention. مع خالص الشكر والتقدير
--أخوها (talk) 18:48, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
P.P.P.S. I don't know what evidence you have for the Arabic Wikipedia having copied and pasted from this Arabic site but, curiously enough, the Arabic Wikipedia seems to enumerate only 95 of the names.--أخوها (talk) 20:31, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
You're right, I thought you were making a different point.
Anyway, while I don't think the names I removed count as names traditionally, the sources do mention different lists according to different scholars so I can understand readding them. Per the compromise you suggested on my talk page, I'll revert myself on that shortly (give me an hour or so) and then we can work on another list for names only in the hadith. In the future, we could possibly try to break off a third list of names which appear in both, though that's further down the road I guess. MezzoMezzo (talk) 02:44, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

Criteria for inclusion as a "name"[edit]

Regarding finding hadith sources for the names not specifically mentioned in the Qur'an, I've had little luck. I know they've got to be there somewhere, but I've never really done any hadith searches before and haven't as yet happened on any good search sources for that sort of thing.
Looking over some of the "names" that are not specifically spelled out in the Qur'an but are nonetheless traditionally included in the أسماء الله الحسنى , it occurs to me that some of them may have been included based on the assumption that if the Qur'an reports that God does or has done something, then it is logical to assume that he is, in fact, the "Doer" of that action. Examples:
"وَاللَّهُ يَقْبِضُ وَيَبْسُطُ"

َوَلَمْ يَرَوْا كَيْفَ يُبْدِئُ اللَّهُ الْخَلْقَ

وَأَنَّ اللَّهَ يَبْعَثُ مَن فِي الْقُبُورِ

So far, I haven't run across any hadith that spells out this rationale for consideration as a "name", but what do you think? Could this be an assumption (if God does it, he is the "Doer") that led to the traditional inclusion of so many "names" which do not actually appear as spelled out?--أخوها (talk) 19:38, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

I'm 100% sure that was the basis as many of the names here and on Arabic Wikipedia are only the result of verbs; for example, Muhyi and Mumit don't appear in the Qur'an but it does mention that Allah yuhyi and yumit, so the operational basis is as you suggested above.
Beyond that, there are other different criteria not universally accepted. A common habit among Egyptians and Syrians is to name the person after not a name of God but ikhbar or a description; this is why you get so many Egyptian guys named Abdul-Maujood; God doesn't call Himself that, but obviously if I say God isn't maujood (existing) then I'm an atheist. Also Abdul Maqsoud, because God is what we intend when we worship. Some people flip out over those names and start screaming blasphemy, so it isn't universal.
Also, some names are disagreed over due to technical reasons. There is a hadith qudsi where the prophet Muhammad quotes God as saying, "don't curse dahr (the passing of time) because I am dahr." Some say that means Dahr is one of the names of God, others say no, it just mean that God causes the passing of time but he isn't the actual passing itself.
If we do the research directly into Qur'an and hadith I think it will take a buttload of time. What we could do, since there seems to be very little in English delving into this, is try the Arabic sources. That's normally a verifiability issue, but since there really isn't much in English, we should be able to cite Arabic sources via WP:NONENG. What do you think? MezzoMezzo (talk) 03:19, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
I agree, there seems to be not much available in English, and use of Arabic sources may be promising. However, I'm sorry to report that I haven't had much luck finding any information in Arabic sources either. However, I'm new to this field of investigation and maybe I just don't know where to look. The Arabic WP article has what I take to be a nice checklist of who does and does not mention specific "names" (just scroll down a bit on this page). I thought at first it might be tremendously helpful, but so far it's just led me to dead ends.
Since proper investigation seems to promise at this point something measurable in years (as you say, "a buttload of time"), may I suggest in the meantime that we just add mention in the body of the article the proposition that many of the "names" are, in fact, derived from verbs, and maybe add a skinny little column to the far right of the spreadsheet with a header like "verb derivation only", and then just check the "names" appropriate to that category?--أخوها (talk) 18:41, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
أخوها, that suggestion won't take as much time as the other one, but honestly I don't know how to do that. It would take some serious table skills, but I am sure there must be some sort of a noticeboard for that. I started a thread at the help desk - Wikipedia:Help_desk#Where_can_we_get_assistance_with_formatting_tables.3F - so hopefully someone can point us in the right direction (and possibly even help out). MezzoMezzo (talk) 03:40, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
Alright, some dude there recommended looking at Help:Table and Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Tables. I don't see a reason to rush into this, so I will look at those myself a little bit later. MezzoMezzo (talk) 06:40, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
Adding a column is not so hard:
Arabic Transliteration Translationa Qur'anic usage Verb derivation only
About this sound 1 الرحمن Ar-Raḥmān The Exceedingly Compassionate, The Exceedingly Beneficent, The Exceedingly Gracious (to all of humanity and all creatures) Beginning of every Surah (chapter) except one, and numerous other places. The first verse ('ayat) of Surah ar-Rahman (Surah 55) consists only of this Name.
About this sound 2 الرحيم Ar-Raḥīm The Exceedingly Merciful Beginning of every Surah (chapter) except one, and numerous other places (there are a total of 114 Surahs in the Quran.) Green tickY

a Can vary based on context.

Note that I also added || in the row where the cell is empty, and I changed the ending row to say colspan="6" instead of 5. The above is just an example. I don't know what is actually verb-derived and you may want a shorter heading with an explanation below the table. The use of {{Check mark}} can also be changed. PrimeHunter (talk) 12:05, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
Thank you, PrimeHunter for the example. Very helpful.
@MezzoMezzo: I hope you don't mind, but I've gone ahead and added that extra column. I will be happy to work the list from the bottom up, if you'd like to work from the top down so that we don't interfere with each other during the process. To add the "check mark" to the column, just go to the last set of "||" at the end of each entry and paste (style="text-align:center;" | {{Check mark|15}}) (without beginning and end parentheses).--أخوها (talk) 19:52, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

Changes to date: List of names of God as found in the Qur'an[edit]

Apart from renaming the additional column "Type of Reference", I've added codes: D = Direct; V = derived from Verb; A = derived from Adjective (may change later to I = from Indefinite noun). Other categories may be added as they come up. Still a work in progress. What's your opinion, MezzoMezzo? So far, so good?--أخوها (talk) 02:27, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

أخوها, it seems good so far. The table is a bit intimidating and I was actually about to log off, but what's been done so far is good. Give me about 24 hours and I will try to log on and see what I can do to help finish the process. MezzoMezzo (talk) 05:03, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

Just about done --- possible hadith source[edit]

All the names are pretty much accounted for in terms of the Qur'an, and I've come across what might be a good hadith reference for the names. It's a book called المقام الأسنى في تفسير الأسماء الحسنى and is written by الشيخ تقي الدين إبراهيم بن علي الكفعمي (ash-shaykh taqī ad-dīn ʾibrāhīm bin ʿalī al-kafʿami) who, according to the introduction, lived in the 9th century A.H. The reference is nicely arranged with a handy index on the left side of the page, and explanations are lucid and not at all difficult to read. The only thing is, I'm not sure if he is considered to be an authoritative source of hadith. I found an article in the Arabic Wikipedia, but I think it's about his father... Also, not nearly as authoritative looking (and with no apparent author), there's a general guide to the names called كتاب المقام الأسنى في تفسير أسماء الله الحسنى. In any case, I'll keep looking and also try to find out how authoritative al-kafʿami is.--أخوها (talk) 23:39, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

أخوها, I can't view the books as they're blocked here at work but I think the Arabic Wikipedia article is your man. Taqi ad Din is a nickname; the actualy author's name is Ibrahim bin Ali, the same as the guy on Arabic Wikipedia. I don't know him but if the book is from a recognized publisher then it should be fine. It would be a good place to start, at least. At home, I might be able to view it. Also at home, I have a study of the works of Ibn Arabi and I remember it includes a page where he lists the names according to him, so that could be used as an extra citation (two or three per name would be fine I think). I may or may not have the book by Muhammad ibn al Uthaymeen in hard copy, I can check on that as well - he specifies what, in his opinion, is from Qur'an and which are from hadith so that could help with the hadith list. Not sure what to do about a list including names which appear in both. MezzoMezzo (talk) 03:38, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
Two or three hadith citations per name sounds really ambitious and would certainly enlarge the scope of this article. I'm not sure it's useful to maintain separate lists of what's in the Qur'an and what's in Hadith. I have deleted the Quranic reference to al-Mani' (because the reference given was not relevant at all to the word, and I couldn't find anything in the Qur'an that was relevant), and substituted a reference to al-Kaf'ami's explanation. Perhaps at this point it might be more useful to just change the column heading of "Quranic Usage" to "Qur'an/Hadith"and just substitute or add hadith references as they come up. What do you think?--أخوها (talk) 21:03, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
If someone can help us with any possible reformatting in the table, then I'm all for it. I'm still wary of being the first editor to try that. See, we have a "Qur'anic usage" column; we could just change that to "usage" but then there might not be enough space for references if it's one of those names in both sources. Won't there at least need to be an extra column? MezzoMezzo (talk) 03:23, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
I don't think we really need an extra column for hadith references, and I think the idea of changing the existing "Qur'anic usage" column title to just "Usage" is a very workable and practical idea. Adding in the Hadith sources (as I've done with "Mani'") is just a matter of the author of the source with a footnote to the book and the page. I think there will be plenty of room for both Qur'an and Hadith sources in the same column and it would look less cluttered than an extra column. Let me know if you think this is okay with you. Thanks.--أخوها (talk) 18:36, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
Yeah, I get what you're saying now. Since the sources might all just appear as numbers in brackets, it should all fit. Sorry for the lack of activity, I haven't been able to edit as much as usual lately. Everything is "tomorrow, tomorrow" so hopefully that tomorrow when I can edit for hours on end will come soon. MezzoMezzo (talk) 04:13, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

Inclusion of "Allah"[edit]

I don't think that "Allah" should be included in the list. The word simply means "God" and it is not one of the names/appellations of God (Allah). There are several references at the bottom of the article which do not list "Allah"; adding the Koran as the reference is a textbook example of original research/synthesis, and Wikipedia - for obvious reasons - can't recursively use itself (including a different language edition of itself) as a reference. - Mike Rosoft (talk) 16:50, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

  • This link lists "Allah" as "the greatest name"; still, it's not one of the 99 names, but stands apart from them. (Perhaps this is what the "The Greatest Name" section means.) - Mike Rosoft (talk) 17:06, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

Table of names[edit]

It's not clear where the list of names comes from. The article should probably faithfully reproduce one such list from a scholarly source, and cite it (unless we want to do a comparison of several such lists, as Arabic Wikipedia seems to do - note: I know no Arabic). - Mike Rosoft (talk) 05:30, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

The Camel[edit]

There is a folk tradition that the hundredth and greatest name of God will be made known on the Last Day. There is a further folk tradition that the camel already knows what the greatest name is, and just won't tell it, and that is why the animal always looks so smug and superior. So, in Kim, Mahbub Ali says, "By the ninety-nine names of God, and by the hundredth that only the camel knoweth". J S Ayer (talk) 23:26, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

God's names Title change[edit]

Names belonging to God would be sufficient, names used to call on God also, but Names of God is used when you want to say 'names of gods' when there is plural, and in the case of our universe this God in question is only One. So God's names should be the title.

When you say 'names of flowers' you don't say 'names of flower' or 'names of Jeremy' because Jeremy is already a name, so is God, God is God's name is english, or rather a translation of His name, as God is not a concept, He is a being, so these are His names which He chose to describe Him to us with. Some of His names are also concepts like "Most Merciful" mercy is also a concept as it is God's name, and not a name of God, name belonging to God yes. 'of' none of you living humans really know what 'of' means, probably, there might be one.

so yes change this, this isn't shakespearean language, or Yoda's.— Preceding unsigned comment added by (talkcontribs)

In English, "Names of God," is the same as "God's names," except that the focus is on the names. If "names of God" is the singular, not the plural, and it's just as easy to pluralize "God's names" as "Gods' names." "God's names in Islam" also implies that the names exist independent of Islam.
Also, we have Names of God, Names of God in Judaism, Names of planets, Names of Germany, Names of China, Names of Japan, and many, many more. Site-wide consensus is that we go with "names of" if the article is about the names. The phrasing isn't that unnatural for widely read English speakers. Ian.thomson (talk) 17:34, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Names of God in Islam. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

You may set the |checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting |needhelp= to your help request.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 23:59, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

99 names[edit]

Allah has many names, some are in Qur'an; some are in hadith and some are hidden.(from Sahih hadith)There are more than 135 known names of Allah. So the 99 number should be removed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MuhammadmalikabdulAziz (talkcontribs) -- (moved from above by Iselilja (talk) 10:58, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

A Mormon glassmaker has a project...[edit]

A Mormon glassmaker has a project - he's doing an artwork for each of the 99 names: 99 Most Beautiful Names Project, 01-25. He's taking his time. So far - he's done 25.

The link could be added the external links.

AllThatJazz2012 (talk) 10:57, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

Al Wali appears twice[edit]

As Salam al laekum, I just saw that Al-Wali appears two times on this list (#77 Is the second time it's listed).

Any clarification on this would be greatly appreciated.

Thank you kindly in advance, -Salim — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:1C0:CC00:2341:71A1:8FF5:F30B:478E (talk) 09:10, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

The list needs to be checked throughout.

  • verify that it is indeed Tirmidhi's list and cite its precise origin from a scholarly edition of the text
  • compare and contrast to the variant lists given by other hadith colletors
  • the translations are ad-hoc and unsubstantiated. Identify the root for each and give its basic meaning rather than grasping at flowery paraphrase
  • the "type" is completely inscrutable. What does "D" for "Direct" even mean? Instead give the root structure and link grammatical information

Of course this will be a lot of work. Sadly, our articles on Islamic theology/literature are very poor throughout. It's almost as if Wikipedians interested in Islam would for all the world prefer to spend their time online with political bickering rather than with encyclopedic research. The article as I found it was heavily relying on "Islam For Dummies". For Dummies. Centuries of scholarship digitized at our fingertips and this is what we pick as our source. [Morgan 2010, who gives a superficial but correct summary, was quoted incorrectly, turning her (correct) statement that the list of names was from hadiths considered unreliable into the (incorrect) claim that the number 99 itself was considered unreliable. So even after we locate a half-decent tertiary source, we still manage to misrepresent what it is saying. I am ranting about this because literally every article on Islam on Wikipedia is like this. --dab (𒁳) 07:48, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

1000+ names of God[edit]

Hi, the 1000+ names of God are mentioned in another Wikipedia article Jawshan Kabir. You might want to add a source instead of deleting information, especially when it is supported by another Wikipedia article. I know, I know, other Wikipedia articles cannot be used as a source. But I am not claiming a source here but only adding info. - (talk) 06:59, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

  • Hi, it looks like the sources in Jawshan Kabir are primary sources. If you have a secondary reliable source, then it would be a good idea to add it to both articles. The reason I reverted is to make sure that misinformation was not added, especially to a potentially controversial article. --I am One of Many (talk) 07:11, 28 December 2016 (UTC)
I removed this uncited material again.
Jawshan Kabir is a long Islamic prayer that contains 1000 names and attributes of God.
This only counts as 1000 names if every attribute of God automatically counts as a distinct name.
Nice formula. viable_name := [superlative] + [any power or moral virtue that could possibly be construed as deistic perfection]
I also found the following, but I'm unable to read Arabic.
One could perhaps restore this claim written as follows: "On the premise that every superlative form of a moral virtue or metaphysical power set down in print counts as a name of God, the prayer Jawshan Kabeer alone would count as listing 1000 names of God." — MaxEnt 19:50, 2 January 2017 (UTC)