Linguistic riddle solved, for those who want to learn
-
I am making few corrections in this write up based upon my discussion with an inquisitive soul. He kept asking me repeated questions. This led me to re-look my write up again. Now with increased understanding of the language. I have spotted few issues that I overlooked previously.
Main point of correction is word ?illah? or in Arabic script . This component of Allah can?t be as if it was the case this would add one more ?Alif? to spelling and hence making the linguistic analysis flawed. The word here is a verb from same three letter root. This means ?He worshiped or adored?.
Now let us substitute this word and its meanings in rest of the write up.
We are lead through, with a careful linguistic analysis, to a conclusion that the word from Al-Qu'ran is not the proper noun (name) of our Rabb. It actually stands for allathe = he who, La = not and finally, . This would mean ?He who doesn?t do Alah?.
If one were to incorporate the real meanings of the word ?alah? into the translation; this word which actually is a sentence would mean ?He who doesn?t at all worship or adore?.
This sounds so radically different. Who am I to say this? What are my credentials?
Why should we trust this non-sense?
These are all defensive of held belief, so valid and legitimate questions.
Let us instead of worrying about the credentials of the informer of this information; just explore the language of the Qur'an that is presented from the Qur'an itself.
First of all let us analyze what traditionalists interpret this word to be?
And why they are wrong?
Traditionally, the word is thought to be a combination of a definite article Al = in English ?The? and illah , meaning ?God? but in reality ?a deity for adoration and worship?.
Although, in actuality this "Al" here is a contraction of the word and legitimately could be written as "Al" . Can we trust this assertion despite clear references from the Lexicon of Lane 1 and Grammar of William Wright 2.
Let us turn to Qur'an itself for more evidence. In Arabic script as well in the Qur'an, where a preposition ?Lee? is added in to a word beginning with a definite article ?Al? . Alif is dropped and so Lam of the definite article ?Al? joins with ?Lam? of preposition. Let us illustrate this point with some word examples from Qur'an itself.
- 21 Alif of ?Al? gone, lam is present and preposition ?Lee? added.
2.. 47 and 432, is the word same concept.
However, for the word when the same preposition is added. We find that the ?Lam? of the supposed definite article ?Al? also disappears. However, following the examples above it should have been written as (in reality one cannot type this so called word using an Arabic type writer).
Example, 12 and 115 more places 222, 298 and on and on, in total 116 occurrences.
Whereas, allathi being a different word its whole contraction disappears. This also proves that this word by no means is a proper name as there is no definite article "Al". As if there would have been an "Al", it should look like this in script and not
Furthermore, although both Lane and Wright cite the contraction of as . Can we find an example in the current translation of Quran for such a contraction? Of course, we can, not one time, but multiple times.677
Yousuf Ali When he saw the moon rising in splendor, he said "This is my Lord." But when the moon set, He said "unless my Lord guides me, I shall surely be among those who go astray."
799
Yousuf Ali Did they then feel secure against the plan of Allah?- but no one can feel secure from the Plan of Allah, except those (doomed) to ruin!
Other examples are at 62 different places, 526, 25, 567. Any place word is used, it is at most places translated in meaning of "allathi".
Let us, continue to analyses this word further. In the middle there is "alif" like mark (highlighted in red) with a Shadda mark and another alif above . In newer, print version the "alif" above Shadda is taken a fatha shape instead of 'alif" like in this example as well. The ?alif? above Shadda, is called a ?dagger alif? and is written over many other words instead being included in these words in the text of Quran. Since here it is written over Shadda, implying there are two ?alifs?.
Shadda has several uses in script. We will only discuss the relevant ones here. One use is to indicate the doubling of a consonant. It is also used to indicate such a doubling only to facilitate pronunciation in the ?Sun letters of the Arabic alphabets?. This would be an apparently plausible defensive case for the traditionalist.
Let us analysis why it is wrong? If it were to be correctly understood, then there would be no reason to keep this Shadda in place once the ?Al?, if it were really ?Al? of definite article. As in the phrase is gone , as in the example above of . However, we find in the Qur'an that this is not the case. Hence, this Shadda is not due to ?Al? of a definite article coming before the word to make it a proper noun, but contraction of allathi. Although, even if it were to be the case, as illah has already ?alif? at the start which is not considered a ?Sun letter?. Hence no Shadda would be have been added as cited above.
Let us, further show in Arabic script, how this concept could be explained? First, all three words are written separately, then allathi written as contracted and finally two sequential, Alifs 4+5 can be combined and written as one. However, these combined alifs are written above Shadda. This make two remaining ?Lams? 3+6 sequential and hence could be combined and are written as one below Shadda, to make apparently one looking word Allah.
= Let us do a consonant count, of words on left side of equation see if it matches with word on right side of equation.
Right side, Alif 1 + Lam 2 + Lam 3 + Alif 4 + Alif 5 + Lam 6 + Ha 7. There are total of 7 consonants on right side.
Left side, Alif 1 + Lam 2 + (in the middle due to Shadda there should be 4 consonants, two below two ?dager Alifs above it). If one were to pay attention to red consonants in right side of equation. Two lams 3 +6 are below Shadda and two Alifs 4+5 are written above Shadda), 7 Ha is written at the end combined with two ?Lam? combined together in the middle and below Shadda, to formThis clearly, further shows that the persistence of this Shadda is due, not to the Shadda of ?Al?; but in reality it indicates a real doubling of the consonants.
This means inescapably, that one was to follow the order of pronunciation of, this word. It actually is a sequence of words, a phrase, not just a word. Allathe (written as a contraction in script as "Al", La and alah. This would further imply that the middle Shadda is suggesting ?two lams? and two alifs?.
Hence, if translated word for word, this word or more accurately sentence would mean ?He who doesn?t at all worship or adore?.
- Lexicon of Arabic Language; Edward W Lane; 1968, Vol. 1, page 74.
- A Grammar of the Arabic Language; William Wright. Revised 3RD Edition, Dover Edition 2005 Vol. 1 page 269 D.
-
Dear all, with Quran's understanding lost overtime as well maligned to support a created religion. Troubled minds from linguistic based translation keep tying to fit concepts into existing flawed translation. Of course, it can't work. Then they point out verses after verses where the individual concepts don't seem to work. Someone wanted to know how changed linguistic understanding of Allah, would fit in verse 5922?
My objective is not to uphold my ego or pride, rather it is to get to the facts and truth based upon language of Quran.
Just sharing understanding verse 5922's translation.
5922
He who doesn?t worship is he who fears flight of his reason and intellect due to joy of worship. Besides, he is well versed about that which is hidden from senses, as well, the information that can be witnessed. It is the ultimate lasting reward.
-
Next verse
5923
He who doesn?t worship is he who fears flight of his reason and intellect due to joy of worship; besides, he is the sovereign far removed from all imperfections, secure and safe staying away from evils at all times, the one who renders mankind secure from his wrongdoings, the mighty restorer of imperfection to perfection, the majestic. Far removed is he who doesn?t worship from that they associate with him.
-
Next verse
5923
He who doesn?t worship is he who fears flight of his reason and intellect due to joy of worship; besides, he is the sovereign far removed from all imperfections, secure and safe staying away from evils at all times, the one who renders mankind secure from his wrongdoings, the mighty restorer of imperfection to perfection, the majestic. Far removed is he who doesn?t worship from that they associate with him.
I think 'He who doesn't worship' is more appropriately translated to 'he who doesn't require worship/adoration'.
So Allah is not a God. A God is created by humans. As per the Quran, anything or anyone can become a God - as long as a human worships and adores. Once worship and adoration is absent, a God cease to exist just like the roman gods or any ancient gods.
Allah is our creator thus our master or Rabb. Allah does not require us to worship or adoration for Him to exist. Allah does not have a name, as He was never created, the 99 names are names created by Allah as his attributes which were taught to Adam and humans. The names were taught for humans to carry out the task of being the world's appointed manager. Unfortunately for humans, we are hasty, short term is our goal and thus majority fails the test that Allah has set for us. We use the 99 names everyday, but never to the potential that it should be used for, thus we get hardship in this world.
Peace.
-
Since Allah is not the name of Rabb. Rather it means "He who doesn't worship". Therefore, so called names of Allah or attributes wouldn't have anyhing to do with Rabb. These are supposed to be attribute of one who is first willing to be the one who is not worshiper.
Are their any takers of real concepts of Quran and willing to adopt these attributes as non-worshipers or all are happy in their state of being worshipers of imaginary gods?
-
It is correct that Rabb is the "name" of God. Allah is the image of Being.
Linguistically the word Allah cannot be a name either because you can grammatically not put AL in front of a proper noun without separating the AL from the name. You will never find the name of a person in Quran with the AL prefix directly attributed to it.
Like I have written before, the word Allah is also a form of the root to AL, it is AL L and the third-person pronoun heh. It is a very special form of of Aleh which is AL and third-person singular that means 'is who' while allah means 'is who is'.
Be well
Amenuel -
I would like to address a few points.
-
It is extremely anomalous to orthographically adjoin to a verb. This type of adjoining doesn't occur once in the Quran, and I have never seen it written as such in Classical Arabic. Thus, the proposal of the contiguous merger of three words (a pronoun, a particle, and a verb) in contravenes orthographic principles.
-
In the reading of af via 'im, which I assume you are using, an initial Hamza is not elided like it is in other readings (as in Warsh or Qln), therefore, entertaining your theory as true, should correctly be pronounced, and written, as , you simply cannot elide the medial Hamza belonging to the verb. Thus, the proposal of a Hamza-initialled verb existing in contravenes enunciatory principles.
-
To suggest that cannot be a noun derived from and which both, over time, mutated to become for ease of pronunciation is in my estimation far-fetched. Thus, the proposal of and not being precursors to the word whilst proposing a three-worded phrasal precursor for an orthographic compound contravenes etymological principles.
-
It goes without saying that is fully inflected in Classical Arabic, whereas the perfect tense verb in Arabic is indeclinable and is fixed with a Fata in the singular masculine third person ( ), as such, entertaining your theory as true, we should not see in the Quran the word being inflected with anything other than a Fata. Thus, the proposal of a perfect tense verb terminating contravenes the most basic syntactical principles.
In my view, to propose a theory on a subject and endorse it with the greatest fervour, whilst demonstrating a blatant disregard for the most basic rules governing the subject, is a shocking testament to the reckless audacity of the .
Finally, it never fails to bewilder me as to why people find the need to reinvent the meanings of the plainest words. Is it an attempt at reinvention? Is it a forceful impression of one's desires upon the word of God? Or is it simply a headline-grabbing stunt? Whatever the reason, there really is no need for it.
-
-
Since Allah is not the name of Rabb. Rather it means "He who doesn't worship". Therefore, so called names of Allah or attributes wouldn't have anyhing to do with Rabb. These are supposed to be attribute of one who is first willing to be the one who is not worshiper.
Are their any takers of real concepts of Quran and willing to adopt these attributes as non-worshipers or all are happy in their state of being worshipers of imaginary gods?
red Allah means "He who goes to church and makes after that pancakes"
-
Bender,
Nevertheless it is treated as a name address by Quran as compared to a word such as Allah. Someone calling "Ye Rabb".
Rabb is also the function of Rabb and it is in the word and hence you can say words like Rabb-hem. But Rabb is treated as an address and thus it is a sort of name. Take Ye Rabb for example. Rabb is an identity.
Allah on the other hand is not even a name, it should be changed into if it was "their God", but it does not but is in Quran written , because the singular third-person is and then is plural third-person. This is not the only way of disqualifying it either but you do not add an AL prefix to a proper noun of a person in Arabic. The root of Allah is Alif-Lam-(Lam), i.e. it has the full root plus third-person pronoun and Alif-Lam-Lam means 'is' (+attribute). You will never see anyone say "Ye Allah" in Quran, never.
The simple answer is because Allah means 'Who Is'. It is a matter of Being. Allahem would mean 'Who Are' (plural). Everything is about unity in that being.
Be well
Amenuel -
Man of faith,wise-one,burnt out
U said the words " Ye Allah"are not in quran,because every thing about Allah is plural ,not singular ,"Ye" refers to some thing plural not just one body,is my this catch correct,,>> or not..? just help me, I see almost in every Mosque Ye Allah written in very big letters ,thanks elektro -
If you have an address, singular or plural, you can use "Ye + address". For example, Quran used Ye Bani Israel and Bani is a plural of ibn.
Quran does never use Ye Allah and if a mosque uses Ye Allah on their wall it is incorrect use of Arabic grammar since the word Allah is no address due to what I wrote previously, i.e. an AL introduced word is not a proper noun, and if Allah was supposed to be understood as a word with those 4 letters (ه it must be written as Allah-hem in valid Arabic grammar. You can use other word forms as example such as (wajeh-he) when speaking about "his/her (or each) perception". Bearing no pronoun in base form it would be (wajeh).
The simple explanation is that in the case of Allah, the word Allah is plus as pronoun added to it which in the full root of (al) which means 'is' giving attribute to words, e.g. al-raheem "is complete", so al-ah would he 'such who is' and allah 'is such who is' due to the full root usage.
Allah is like I have written many times in the forum a third-person form of what Moses is said to have been told by Rabb in the Bible/Tanakh which was "I am who am I" and in Arabic.
Be well
Amenuel -
Bender,
Nevertheless it is treated as a name address by Quran as compared to a word such as Allah. Someone calling "Ye Rabb".
I think it must be treathed like
124 "... ..."
or
125 "... ..."The simple answer is because Allah means 'Who Is'. It is a matter of Being. Allahem would mean 'Who Are' (plural). Everything is about unity in that being.
Yes and this is just your opinion like bkanwar think it means "He who doesn't worship"
-
Bender,
It is opinion yes, but it is also based on linguistics and logical analysis and is the answer to what Allah means.
"He who doesn't worship" does not hold as an argument because there is no logical answer given to why.
Be well
Amenuel -
Dear all, based upon improved understanding of word Allah. I have started to revise the translation. Here just first two verses.
Surah 11
The joy, for one who does not worship is in the extreme, lasting concern for the sufferings or misfortunes of others.
Surah 12
The value and merit for one who does not worship is to be the foundation (Rabb) of all disciplines of knowledge.
-
I would like to address a few points.
-
It is extremely anomalous to orthographically adjoin to a verb. This type of adjoining doesn't occur once in the Quran, and I have never seen it written as such in Classical Arabic. Thus, the proposal of the contiguous merger of three words (a pronoun, a particle, and a verb) in contravenes orthographic principles.
-
In the reading of af via 'im, which I assume you are using, an initial Hamza is not elided like it is in other readings (as in Warsh or Qln), therefore, entertaining your theory as true, should correctly be pronounced, and written, as , you simply cannot elide the medial Hamza belonging to the verb. Thus, the proposal of a Hamza-initialled verb existing in contravenes enunciatory principles.
-
To suggest that cannot be a noun derived from and which both, over time, mutated to become for ease of pronunciation is in my estimation far-fetched. Thus, the proposal of and not being precursors to the word whilst proposing a three-worded phrasal precursor for an orthographic compound contravenes etymological principles.
-
It goes without saying that is fully inflected in Classical Arabic, whereas the perfect tense verb in Arabic is indeclinable and is fixed with a Fata in the singular masculine third person ( ), as such, entertaining your theory as true, we should not see in the Quran the word being inflected with anything other than a Fata. Thus, the proposal of a perfect tense verb terminating contravenes the most basic syntactical principles.
In my view, to propose a theory on a subject and endorse it with the greatest fervour, whilst demonstrating a blatant disregard for the most basic rules governing the subject, is a shocking testament to the reckless audacity of the .
Finally, it never fails to bewilder me as to why people find the need to reinvent the meanings of the plainest words. Is it an attempt at reinvention? Is it a forceful impression of one's desires upon the word of God? Or is it simply a headline-grabbing stunt? Whatever the reason, there really is no need for it.
Sorry, I somehow missed "uq" your comments. First of let me thank you for reasoned linguistic comment. Allah analyze as " " is a nominal sentence and not a just one word. It is orthographically written as
is the subject of the sentence.
a negative verbal sentence in itself as predicate or object of the nominal sentence.
Hope now it will help you to understand.
Regards,
-
-
Salam bkanwar2,
I understood your proposition the first time round.
My response was that your proposition is invalid based on the 4 points I gave.
I am glad that you did or at least so you say. Hence, there would be point to further this discussion.
Critique
"1. It is extremely anomalous to orthographically adjoin to a verb. This type of adjoining doesn't occur once in the Quran, and I have never seen it written as such in Classical Arabic. Thus, the proposal of the contiguous merger of three words (a pronoun, a particle, and a verb) in contravenes orthographic principles."
Response
Your point number # 1 is irrelevant to the discussion. I have never implied that is adjoining to the verb in the analysis. Furthermore, there is at least one example from Quran that it can be the case. Unfortunately, Hamza is elided in script making proving it difficult. However, here it can not be "Lam" of imperative as it does take sukoon.
2431
Critique
"2. In the reading of af via 'im, which I assume you are using, an initial Hamza is not elided like it is in other readings (as in Warsh or Qln), therefore, entertaining your theory as true, should correctly be pronounced, and written, as , you simply cannot elide the medial Hamza belonging to the verb. Thus, the proposal of a Hamza-initialled verb existing in contravenes enunciatory principles."
Response
Neither the medial Hamza is elided in pronunciation nor in writing. Both Hamzas of preceding "La" and "alah" are written as one above the shadda as dagger alif and now resultant two successive "Lams" because of moving Hamza over shadda are combined as one and written below the shadda.
It is indeed an anomalous writing. If not show me a single example from the whole of the Arabic language?
Critique
"3. To suggest that cannot be a noun derived from and which both, over time, mutated to become for ease of pronunciation is in my estimation far-fetched. Thus, the proposal of and not being precursors to the word whilst proposing a three-worded phrasal precursor for an orthographic compound contravenes etymological principles."
Response
If what you assert is indeed the case (I mistaken thought so as well that it was illah). Where is the second Hamza of illah in writing? It should be written after the middle alphabet below shadda? Whereas, here we find only "Ha"
Critique
- It goes without saying that is fully inflected in Classical Arabic, whereas the perfect tense verb in Arabic is indeclinable and is fixed with a Fata in the singular masculine third person ( ), as such, entertaining your theory as true, we should not see in the Quran the word being inflected with anything other than a Fata. Thus, the proposal of a perfect tense verb terminating contravenes the most basic syntactical principles.
Response
Okay when inflection helps the traditionalist case it is all kosher, otherwise it was added later and should be gotten rid of.
Regards
-
Salam bkanwar2,
I understood your proposition the first time round.
My response was that your proposition is invalid based on the 4 points I gave.
Let us talk about more basics, which can be very easy to verify. How many total alphabets are in and why?
Regards
-
Peace bkanwar,
I am not sure why you used the examples you did to support your assertion that "al" is a contraction of "alladhee".
It is not the "al" in "al qawm" that renders the understanding of "those who", but rather the definite article "al" in conjunction with the word "qawm".
Imraan