Is "Allah" a Name or It is Merely Arabic for "The God"?

jankren

Im having a debate with a group of Sunnists who are bent on thinking that Allah is the name of God. So can someone with Arabic knowledge enlightens me regarding this matter? Or if there is some articles about this?

nadeem

Peace Jankren,

My knowledge of arabic is poor, so I'm probably not the guy you're looking for, but still even with a little knowledge I think that this question can be answered. I think the answer lies in the preposition li-, which means to or for. In "Koranic and Classical Arabic" by Wheeler Thackston, pg. 11-12, the grammatical rules of li- are detailed. They say that when a word begins with Alif, the alif is retained orthographically but not pronounced. Thus, Imrat, which means women and is written like

Becomes with li- attached

(Li-mrat)

However, if a word begins with the definite article, which is Al- "the" (Alif and Laam), then the Alif is removed completely and the laam from the preposition li- is added to the remaining laam from the definite article. Al-bint, which means "the girl"

Becomes with li- attached

(Li-lbint)

You can see that the letter is missing in Li-lbint. So if a word intrinsically has Alif at the beginning, then that alif is retained in writing but not pronounced. But when a word does not begin with alif, such as bint, but has the definite article (which does have alif at the beginning), then that alif is removed completely.

Now look at what happens when we attach li- to allah.

Allah

Becomes

The alif is gone! Doesn't that suggest that there is a definite article in the front of "Allah"? That it is indeed "Al-Ilah", which means "The God", and that it is word not a name?

I even have theory as to why the i in ilah is gone when it becomes Al-lah. Again, look the word imrat - woman. When the Al- is added, it is not pronounced al-imraat, but Al-mraat! You see, here to the i is gone not only in pronunciation but in writing too! The same must be the case with ilah.

But as I said, I only know a little arabic, and a little arabic can be dangerous...

I hope someone more knowledgeable can correct or confirm this post.

Nadeem

unknownuser

Salam,

For all practical purposes of understanding the simple definition of Alif-Lam-Ha I believe that "God" sums it up.
But we must keep in mind that Arabic root words are verbs not nouns. So therefore, I conclude that ?God? is a verb an action word.
And the most primitive definition may be ?The strong one guiding the whole/person/faithful or something similiar.? This primitive understanding is based on examining the ancient pictographs of the semitic language.

Here are the references for my understanding of this definition (my comments are in blue)

The word ?El? with the definition of God is used in every semitic language in some form except Ethiopic. ?It is the most frequently occurring name for the deity in proper name throughout the ancient Semitic world .?(Marvin H. Pope, El in the Ugaritic Texts, pg. 1)

Since God is the strongest, the most powerful and the most mighty we can understand the divine meaning of this word.

?It is difficult to detect any discreprancy in use between the forms el, eloah and elohim in Scripture.? (Marvin H. Pope, El in the Ugaritic Texts, pg. 10)

The words El and Eloheem are often followed by descriptive functions of the power of God most relevant to the passage where the word appears.
is many times translated as oath, curse, lament, wail. This is not difficult to understand as there have been many scholars who point out that this word can mean the solemn promise between humans or the solemn promise between human and God. In which case, one would call upon God in for help or as witness in the various states of mind that the words suggest. But all are forms of calling upon God.

From "The Ancient Hebrew Lexicon of the Bible" (AHLB) by Jeff Benner
(please note that the Ancient Hebrew Font was omitted because I was unable to make the font work with this platform. However, the rest of the quote is intact and unchanged)
"1012) AL) ac Yoke co Ox ab Strength The pictograph is a picture of an ox head and also represents its strength. The is a picture of a shepherd staff and also represents the authority of the shepherd. Combined these two pictographs mean "the strong authority" and can be anyone or thing of strong authority. The yoke is understood as a "staff on the shoulders" (see Isaiah 94) in order to harness their power for pulling loads such as a wagon or plow. Hence, the two pictographs can also represent "the ox in the yoke". Often two oxen were yoked together. An older, more experienced ox would be teamed up (yoked) with a younger, less experienced ox. The older ox in the yoke is the "strong authority" who, through the yoke, teaches the younger ox. (eng all; elk; elephant)
A) AL) ac ? Co Ox ab Oath The power of the oxs muscles to perform work.
Nm) AL) - Power One who holds authority over others such as judges, chiefs and gods. In the sense of being yoked to one another. |kjv God, god, power, mighty, goodly, great, idols, strong, unto, with, against, at, into, in, before, to, of, upon, by, toward, hath, for, on, beside, from, where, after, within| {str 410}
Nf1) A-LH) - I. Oath A binding agreement including the curse for violating the oath. II. Oak The strongest of the woods. |kjv oak, elm, teil tree, curse, oath, execration, swearing| {str 423, 424, 427}
H) ALH) ac Swear co Yoke ab ? The yoking together of two parties. A treaty or covenant binds two parties together through an oath (yoke). The oath included blessings for abiding by the covenant and curses for breaking the covenant (see Deuteronomy 2. The God of the Hebrews was seen as the older ox that is yoked to his people in a covenant relationship.
V) A-LH) - I. Sw (vf Paal, Hiphil) |kjv swear, curse, adjure, lament| {str 421, 422}
Nm) A-LH) - Power The power or might of one who rules or teaches. One who yokes with another. Often applied to rulers or a god. |kjv god| {str 426}
cm) A-LWH) - Power The power or might of one who rules or teaches. One who yokes with another. Often applied to rulers or a god. |kjv God, god, heathen deity| {str 430, 433}"

Paraphrased From "A Hebrew and English Lexicon of the Old Testament with Chaldee" by Wilhelm Gesenius
a root not in use Arab. to worship God, to adore; med. Kesra to be astonished, affrighted.

pp. To be round, rotund; hence to be thick, fat, gross; cogn. With r. comp. Espec. abdomen, belly.
Arab. to have thick buttocks, of a man. To have a fat tail of a sheep. Hence '
II. Denom. From no. 1 where see note; pp. To call on God, invoke God hence (the following definitions are derived)
to swear Arab. for conj. IV, V pp. To call on God as witness, to affirm by God
to curse
to lament, to wail, pp. To call on God for mercy, like Engl. (Phrase) "God have mercy!"
Note It may perhaps be worth inquiry, whether this root be not strictly onomatopoetic, like and then the signification which we have here put last (no.3) would be the primary one.
HIPH. To cause to swear, to bind by an oath
f. (Kamets impure, from no. II for which again is for Arab.
an oath
an oath of covenant, a sworn covenant
an imprecation, curse, execration
f. An oak
f. i.q. no. 2 (root ) a strong hardy tree, spec. A terebinth, Pistacia Terebinthus Linn. A tree common in Patestine, long lived and therefore often employed for landmarks and in designating places. According to Pliny(16. 12) it is an evergreen; but this is contrary to the fact. The ancient versions render it sometimes a terebinth, and sometimes an oak. Hence the word would seem to have been taken in a broader signification, for any large and durable tree.
st. Emphat. m. Chald. i.q. Heb. a god, stat. Emphat. Spec. Of Jehovah.
pron. Plur. Comm. These employed in common usage as the plural of this. The simple form is q.v. Which is more seldom; the ending has a demonstrative power, comp. Arab.
m. A god, God c. Pref. Et. Suff. Arab. c. Art. the true God, syr. In unison with Aramaean usage, the form of the singular is employed only in the poetic style and later Hebrew; while the pluralis majestaticus v. Excellentiae is the common and very frequent form.
Sing. 1. a god, i.e. Any god
more comm. God, the true God
A. In a plural sense 1. gods, dieties, in general, true or false
Note. Many interpreters, both ancient and modern, assign also to the signif. Angels. For an examination and refutation of this opinion see Thesaur. Ling. Heb. P. 95
B. In the sense of the Sing. Spoken of one God
any god, deity
an idol-god, god of the heathen
the God of any one, is the god whom one worships, his domestic and totelary god.
More rarely followed by a genit. Expressing that over which the deity presides, or which has created; in the same manner as Mars is called "the god of war"
is put for a godlike shape, apparition, spirit
the one true God
st. emphat. m. Chald. i.q. Heb. a god

Excerpts From The Theological Word Book of the Old Testament
'lh is the assumed root of 'el, 'eloah, and 'elohim, which mean "god" or "God." The Ugaritic term for "god" or the "chief god" is 'il, plural 'ilm, occasionally plural 'ilhm (cf. UT 19 no. 163). The Phoenician term is 'l "El"; the plural is 'lm which seems to be construed sometimes as a singular (cf. Z. Harris, Grammar of the Phoenician Language, Jewish Publication Society, 1936, p. 77). The Aramaic is 'elah, plural 'elahin. The Akkadian form is ilu.
...'eloah is also a basic Hebrew term for the God of Israel, but is used less frequently (see 'eloah and 'el, a separate though perhaps related generic term for God).

The name "El" is a very ancient Semitic term It is also the most widely distributed name among Semitic-speaking peoples for the deity, occurring in some form in every Semitic language except Ethiopic. Pope, in his study of "El" in the Ugaritic, notes that it is the most frequently occurring name for the deity in proper name throughout the ancient Semitic world (Marvin Pope, El in the Ugaritic Texts, p.1).
From Vines's
'elah (H426), "god." This Aramaic word is the equivalent of the Hebrew 'eloah. It is a general term for "God" in the Aramaic passages of the Old Testament, and it is a cognate form of the word 'allah, the designation of deity used by the Arabs. The word was used widely in the Book of Ezra, occurring no fewer than 43 times between Ezr_424 and Ezr_726. On each occasion, the reference is to the "God" of the Jewish people, whether the speaker or writer was himself Jewish or not. Thus the governor of the province "Beyond the River" (i.e., west of the river Euphrates) spoke to king Darius of the "house of the great God" Ezr_58. So also Cyrus instructed Sheshbazzar, the governor, that the "house of God be builded" in Jerusalem (Ezr_515).

'eloah (H433), "god." This Hebrew name for "God" corresponds to the Aramaic 'elah and the Ugaritic il (or, if denoting a goddess, ilt). The origin of the term is unknown, and it is used rarely in Scripture as a designation of deity. Indeed, its distribution throughout the various books of the Bible is curiously uneven. 'Eloah occurs 40 times in the Book of Job between Job_34 and Job_402, while in the remainder of the Old Testament it is used no more than 15 times.
Certain scholars regard the word as being a singular version of the common plural form 'elohim, a plural of majesty. 'Eloah is commonly thought to be vocative in nature, meaning "O God." But it is not clear why a special form for the vocative in an address to God should be needed, since the plural 'elohim is frequently translated as a vocative when the worshiper is speaking directly to God, as in Psa_791. There is an obvious general linguistic relationship between 'eloah and 'elohim, but determining its precise nature is difficult.
The word 'eloah is predominant in poetry rather than prose literature, and this is especially true of the Book of Job. Some scholars have suggested that the author of Job deliberately chose a description for godhead that avoided the historical associations found in a phrase such as "the God of Bethel" (Gen_3113) or "God of Israel" (Exo_2410). But even the Book of Job is by no means historically neutral, since places and peoples are mentioned in introducing the narrative (cf. Job_11, Job_115, Job_117). Perhaps the author considered 'eloah a suitable term for poetry and used it accordingly with consistency. This is also apparently the case in Psa_1831, where 'eloah is found instead of 'el, as in the parallel passage of 2Sa_2232. 'Eloah also appears as a term for God in Psa_5022; Psa_13919; and Pro_305. Although 'eloah as a divine name is rarely used outside Job, its literary history extends from at least the second millennium B.C. (as in Deu_3215) to the fifth century B.C. (as in Neh_917).

Summarized From Lane?s Lexicon
1.to serve, worship, adore
2. the object of service or adoration ie a god diety
3. to become confounded or perplexed and unable to see the right course
4. to seek protetction, ask for aide example by Lane He betook himself to him by reason of
fright or fear, seehing protection; or sought, or
asked, aid, or succour, of him he had recourse,
or betook himself, to him for refIuqe, protection,
or preservation.
the Being who exists neccessarily, by himself,
compromising all the attributes of perfection

From Hans Wehr?s Arabic ? English Dictionary
god, diety, godhead
II. to deofy s.o. make a god of s.o.
divine, of God; theological
Allah, God (as the one and only)
O God!

Salam,
Arnab

jankren

So "Allah" is not really the same as "Al-Ilah"?

unknownuser

So "Allah" is not really the same as "Al-Ilah"?

Salem,
Yes, that is my current understanding. I do not believe that it is Al-Ilah but rather Allah.
The Lam being doubled in Arabic but not different from the alif-lam-ha of Aramaic and Hebrew.
For if it were Al-ilah, it is my opinion that it would be written alif-lam-alif-lam-ha.
Salam,
Arnab

jankren

Then all this time I have been believing a lie because people told me that "Allah" means "The God".

unknownuser

Then all this time I have been believing a lie because people told me that "Allah" means "The God".

Salam Jankren,
Well I guess it depends on how you look at it. We, as Muslims, agree that there is only one God so what does it matter if you put "the" in front of "God."
I understand that your concern is over your linguistic understanding of the word Allah. But your concept of the word has not changed.
Masha Allah this is all part of the learning process.
Salam,
Arnab

nadeem

Peace Arnab,

You wroteFor if it were Al-ilah, it is my opinion that it would be written alif-lam-alif-lam-ha.

I think this is faulty logic. For if you apply it to the word imrat, which I mentioned in my post, you might as well say that imrat with al- should be written alif-lam-alif-miim-raa-alif-taa marbutah - Which is not the case.

Have you any comments on what I wrote? You seem to be a knowledgeable person...

Nadeem

Samia

Salaam all

I do not think, in my opinion, that the answer resides with Arabic linguistics, because Arabic does not have a linguistic rule for this, or that there is a similar rule applied or could be applied to other words. It is a one off rule only in my belief. I find the logic of Nadeem in his first message quite interesting. If the first alif laam of (Allah) was part of a name, it will not go away when we prefix (li). For example the name "Albania" would be "li-albania", or the word "alam pain" would be "li-alam".
Also, the difference between "al-ilaah" and "Allah" is that the first, though definite, gives the understatnding of one of a speces of (ilah). That's why Arabic does not use this term for God, but a unique way of writing it Allah and Lillah.

arnoldyasin

What for me is so interesting is that even if the term Allah is not Al-Ilah, the outcome is still that the Qur'an explains what Allah is. As in the dictionaries, the term Ilah only has a short definition that does not explain Allah, only how ancient Arabs viewed their Ilah's. From the first sentence on in the Qur'an, we can see that Allah tries to explain Himself, what He is and what he does. What is so interesting about this, is that the 2 first defintions are Rahman and Raheem coming from Rahma, which forms the word Rihum, the female womb.

From my exposition on Al-Fatiha

Bismi Allahi alrrahmani alrraheemi

By the Definition (Attributes) of Allah, the Universal Force who has complete
Authority, to whom we seek protection, providence and guidance, the Source of all
that is which sustains the whole Universe so intelligent Life could emerge and could
become conscious so it would realize it exists and all that it needs for living and
development without ever asking for this gift. Who embraces the entire Universe in
His fold, nourishing and taking care of all things for what they are meant to be, just
as a mother's womb nourishes the embryo without any returns. The Constant
Provider of those who strive and struggle for the providence of nourishment,
protection and development. The Constant Provider for all stages of Universal
Evolution for those who are most fit for further development.

Tafseer

The ?Bi? (=with) connected to Allah does not only create a simple term as ?In/with the name of
Allah?, in Arabic it creates a plea and confirmation for who to focus on for the providing of
protection and guidance. Ism means name or definition and refers not only to the title ?Allah?, but
to the whole definition of what Allah is. Thus in this verse it refers to all Attributes that are found
in the Quran. The combination of ?Bi-Ism-Allah? thus creates the above given rendition where
we are pointed to the Attributes of Allah, to understand them so we can know how to develop,
protect and nourish ourselves according to His System in the Universe.

Allah comes from Al-Ilah, and literally means 'The God'.
Allah - (Alif-Lam-Ha). Il'ah, by definition, is one -
to whom someone looks for protection in bewilderment,
from whose grandeur one gets dazed,
whose overall sovereignty or lordship is accepted,
whose laws and directions are obeyed and followed, and
who is at the highest pedestal and remains unseen (Taj).

Keeping in view the above Attributes, the name Allah as it appears in the Quran would mean a
Being Who is Supreme but remains hidden from human eyes; before Whose dignity and grandeur
the human perceptions become dazed; Whose Sovereignty extends over the entire universe;
Whose obedience is must. By accepting Him as IL'AH, one must accept only His Sovereignty and
obey His Laws.

Human mind just cannot perceive Him in any shape or physical form nor can explain Him. He is
beyond human perceptions (6104). Nothing is like Him (4211). However, we can explain His
Attributes as mentioned in the Quran. To believe in Allah would, therefore, mean to acknowledge
and accept His Sovereignty with all His Attributes, as mentioned in the Quran, in the most
balanced and proportionate manner (17110).

Every tribe, nation, religion and people have their own concept of their ?God?, thus the term
Allah, The God, meant and means something different for every different group on Earth. Thus
the Quran tries to teach Mankind the true definition of Allah, for example it addresses the
Christians that the Creator can never be three, or the Jews that Allah is not a tribal god who will
only give Paradise to one specific group based on their ethnicity. That Allah cannot have
offspring as He has no mate or equal, He is Ahad, unique in nature and being (Chapter 112). That
He judges people on their works, not on their sex, race or even the details of their beliefs (562).
And so on. Thus, the Quran has a unique stance compared to any scripture or belief as it presents
an All-Embracing Force that looks at all its creations with equal mercy and provides the needs for
all without distinction. No group, no race in the Universe even (Quran acknowledges Life on
other planets), can claim ownership or having a special position in the eyes of Allah. Thus gives
the reason why every chapter in the Quran begins with the term ?In the Definition of Allah?, as
Mankind still must learn and understand what this definition precisely is before it can develop
any further.

Ar-Rahman and Ar-Raheem come from the root Rahma. Ar-Rihum is Arabic for womb, and is
the explaining word for the root.

Rahman in Arabic refers to the Source of Providing the All, the starting point. It is the Source of
the whole Universe and its complete structure so Life could emerge, becomes conscious and
would realize it exists without ever asking for it, just as a person is born out of a womb. Thus the
attribute of Rahman resembles a womb but then on a Universal scale.

Raheem refers to the Provider for those who strive and struggle for this providence of
nourishment, protection and development. Thus it is the attribute that is responsible for rewarding
those that are the strongest in sustaining its species and environment, just as a womb will bring
only those fetuses to their stage of maturity which are the most strongest. Raheem thus envelopes
the concept of providing all stages of Evolution for those who are most fitted for further
development.

Mostly the terms are translated with Merciful, but this a very wrong word for it, as this refers to
the English Christian definition of Forgiveness. In Western and in (Middle-)Eastern religions, the
idea of a merciful deity is one that forgives your sins. These beliefs were mostly focused on the
punishment in the Next Life. This concept was created through the kings ruling the lands who
created the concept of salvation to keep the population subdued with rituals and hierarchy. Arabic
concept of 'mercy' was developed in the hard desert life by a free people who were not ruled by
monarchies. The concept of mercy was connected to one who nourishes you. Since ways of
nourishments were scarce, this became the prime gift to humans from a deity.

This is why ?nourishment given without asking any return' became the prime form of mercy.
With many nomads, it was a rule not to ask the name of a stranger who came for help and food,
as it was a duty in their eyes to always provide their guests with all they needed so they didn?t
want to know the stranger?s name as he could be a member of an enemy tribe. The womb that
feeds the fetus and nourishes it without asking anything, became the example of the word 'rahma'
and determined what all other words derived from it would mean. When we translate 'Rahman'
into 'Merciful', we are translating it into the Christian version of 'mercy' and thus completely miss
the Arabian idea of 'mercy'. We are not translating then, we are twisting the meaning. The 2
languages use completely different definitions.

http//deenrc.files.wordpress.com/2008/03/alfatiha.pdf

zenje

Peace Arnab,
We, as Muslims, agree that there is only one God so what does it matter if you put "the" in front of "God."
I agree with you on this one, as it is the belief that's important. However, I still like to emphasize "the", especially when writing. This is just my personal preference. When writing to a group of people with different beliefs, it's best to clarify, IMO.

peace

unknownuser

Salam Nadeem,
I didn't want you to think I was ignoring your questions and comments. Today has been a busy day and I have not had enough time to dedicate to answering. Insha Allah tomorrow I will have a response to your post.
Thank you
Salam
Arnab

unknownuser

Salam Nadeem,

Here are my comments on your posts. I have limited my examples from the Quran to just one or two verses or words to make my point. This is in order to shorten my usually long posts. If you need any further examples I will be happy to assist you in finding them. You can also go to openburhan.net and use the search root function (which you probably already know).

Peace Arnab,

You wroteFor if it were Al-ilah, it is my opinion that it would be written alif-lam-alif-lam-ha.

I think this is faulty logic. For if you apply it to the word imrat, which I mentioned in my post, you might as well say that imrat with al- should be written alif-lam-alif-miim-raa-alif-taa marbutah - Which is not the case.

I searched the Quran and I cannot find imrat written with alif-lam or even just the lam attached. In fact I can only find it spelled alif-meem-ra-ta (not ta-marbutah). So, I?m going to use a different (though similar) word as an example.

The root with the alif lam attached makes the word Alif-lam-alif-meem-ra in the Quran (ref Quran 2210, 312 There are other examples of the alif not disappearing when the definite article (alif-lam) is attached contrary to what you have read adding support to my theory on the word Allah in my previous post.

My knowledge of arabic is poor, so I'm probably not the guy you're looking for, but still even with a little knowledge I think that this question can be answered. I think the answer lies in the preposition li-, which means to or for. In "Koranic and Classical Arabic" by Wheeler Thackston, pg. 11-12, the grammatical rules of li- are detailed. They say that when a word begins with Alif, the alif is retained orthographically but not pronounced. Thus, Imrat, which means women and is written like

Becomes with li- attached

(Li-mrat)

As I stated above I cannot find this word as you have written it in the Quran. For the sake of examining Quranic Arabic grammar it may be helpful to stay with words as we find them in the Quran and not how they are written in modern Arabic. But, I have found that grammatical statement to be true in most cases.

However, if a word begins with the definite article, which is Al- "the" (Alif and Laam), then the Alif is removed completely and the laam from the preposition li- is added to the remaining laam from the definite article. Al-bint, which means "the girl"

Becomes with li- attached

(Li-lbint)

You can see that the letter is missing in Li-lbint. So if a word intrinsically has Alif at the beginning, then that alif is retained in writing but not pronounced. But when a word does not begin with alif, such as bint, but has the definite article (which does have alif at the beginning), then that alif is removed completely.

I cannot find bint with the definite article and a lam attached in the Quran.

The grammatical example that you gave above can be seen in words in the quran such as al-nas (alif lam nun alif siin) the alif disappears when the lam (indicating to or toward etc) is attached. There are other examples that are in concordance with what you wrote above. I can not find an example that contradicts your findings at this time.

Now look at what happens when we attach li- to allah.

Allah

Becomes

The alif is gone! Doesn't that suggest that there is a definite article in the front of "Allah"? That it is indeed "Al-Ilah", which means "The God", and that it is word not a name?

It may suggest that. But I would say that I do not concur with this conclusion for the following reasons

Yes, the alif disappears when the lam is prefixed to words with the definite article alif-lam in most cases.
No, the Alif does not disappear in words beginning with alif when the definite article alif lam is attached in most cases.

If the definite article (alif lam) is in front of the word(alif lam ha) then we would have (alif-lam-alif-lam-ha) as we find in other words with that start with alif and have the definite article attached
root

with the alif lam attached (ref Quran 211)

root

with the alif lam attached (ref Quran 52)

root

with the alif lam attached (ref Quran 2210)

Based on the above examples of the alif not disappearing when the definite article alif-lam is attached I form the following opinion
If the Alif lam were the definite article in the word alif-lam-lam-ha then we would have the following al (the) lam ha. In other words lam ha would be the root.
As far as I know lam-ha has never been used as a name for God in the Semitic languages. Nor does it used as such in Arabic.

You are correct that when the lam is added to Allah we have lam-lam-ha. This is found many times in the Quran. In my opinion the reason is that the word is the name of God being used.
This word being used as a name of God is in concordance with verses of the Quran.
We know that is synonymous with (the shahada would be the most common example of this)

There is no except Here we find that is
There are verses in the Quran where God is called instead of (Quran ref1452 4385)
So in the cases where the alif disappears when the lam is added as a prefix one possibility is that the spelling alif-lam-ha is one of the names being used for God in the verse where lam lam ha is found.

I even have theory as to why the i in ilah is gone when it becomes Al-lah. Again, look the word imrat - woman. When the Al- is added, it is not pronounced al-imraat, but Al-mraat! You see, here to the i is gone not only in pronunciation but in writing too! The same must be the case with ilah.

As I stated above there are many examples where the alif does not disappear when the alif-lam is added to a word beginning with alif.
Furthermore, the pronounciation of the words beginning with alif with the alif lam added still retains the alif sound.

Please let me know if you have any more questions or if I need to clarify any of my comments.
Salam,
Arnab

Wakas

Some background info
http//www.bible.ca/islam/library/islam-quotes-izutsu.htm

ayman

Peace sister Samia, Jankern, all,

I do not think, in my opinion, that the answer resides with Arabic linguistics, because Arabic does not have a linguistic rule for this, or that there is a similar rule applied or could be applied to other words. It is a one off rule only in my belief. I find the logic of Nadeem in his first message quite interesting. If the first alif laam of (Allah) was part of a name, it will not go away when we prefix (li). For example the name "Albania" would be "li-albania", or the word "alam pain" would be "li-alam".
Also, the difference between "al-ilaah" and "Allah" is that the first, though definite, gives the understatnding of one of a speces of (ilah). That's why Arabic does not use this term for God, but a unique way of writing it Allah and Lillah.

But the understanding that there is only one of the class of (ilah) is exactly what is implied by the expression "la ilah illa allah" and it is also implied by passages such as 2122.

Then all this time I have been believing a lie because people told me that "Allah" means "The God".

Don't rush to a conclusion without looking at all the instances where the word "allah" occurs in the great reading. The word "allah" is clearly used in 63 when "al-ilah" (the god) is intended

...wa huwa allah fi al-samawati ...
...and he is the god in the heavens ...

Peace,

Ayman

unknownuser

...The word "allah" is clearly used in 63 when "al-ilah" (the god) is intended

...wa huwa allah fi al-samawati ...
...and he is the god in the heavens ...

Salam Ayman,

This verse can be read without adding "the" in front of it or supposing that the alif lam is the definite article.

Also, for this to be true it would have to be a consistent truth.

Allah is not some new god or some new name given to God by Muhammad or by the Arabic language.

Allah is the ONLY god and the God of all time that we read the prophets spoke of in The Torah, Psalms, Injeel, and Quran.

Salam
Arnab

ayman

Peace Arnab,

This verse can be read without adding "the" in front of it or supposing that the alif lam is the definite article.

Since in 63, the word "allah" is definitely a common noun then there are two ways in Arabic to understand it, either "al-ilah/the god" or "ilah/a god". The meaning wouldn't be the same. Only with the definite article we get the meaning of the only god.

When you say God (capital G) in English, what is meant is "the god" not "a god".

Also, for this to be true it would have to be a consistent truth.
Allah is not some new god or some new name given to God by Muhammad or by the Arabic language.

I agree. It is not. Hence, it is a common universal concept, i.e. a common noun. Common nouns can be definite or indefinite. There is no third type. Based on the consistent truth in the great reading, the word "allah" is a definite common noun.

Allah is the ONLY god and the God of all time that we read the prophets spoke of in The Torah, Psalms, Injeel, and Quran.

Exactly.

Peace,

Ayman

unknownuser

Salam Ayman,

Since in 63, the word "allah" is definitely a common noun then there are two ways in Arabic to understand it, either "al-ilah/the god" or "ilah/a god".

If we were using English then the word Allah would be a Proper noun (also called a proper name) which is a noun representing unique entities. It is the title by which any person or thing is known or designated; a distinctive specific appellation, whether of an individual or a class (such as London, Pittsburg or John). Most (not all) proper nouns do not need the definite article in front of them, especially if it is a unique entity. We do not go to "the" London. We go to London. We do not speak to our friend "the" John. We speak to our friend John. When we do use "the" in front of a proper noun.
A proper noun has two distinctive features 1) it will name a specific item, and 2) it will begin with a capital letter no matter where it occurs in a sentence.

A common noun names general items.The important thing to remember is that common nouns are general names. Thus, they are not capitalized unless they begin a sentence or are part of a title. Proper nouns, those that name specific things, do require capitalization.

Here are some examples of the differences between proper nouns and common nouns

Tina offered Antonio one of her mother's homemade oatmeal cookies but only an Oreo would satisfy his sweet tooth.

cookies = common noun; Oreo = proper noun.

Charlie had wanted an easy teacher for his composition class, but he got Mrs. Hacket, whose short temper and unreasonable demands made the semester a torture.

teacher = common noun; Mrs. Hacket = proper noun.

Gloria wanted to try a new restaurant, so Richard took her to Tito's Taco Palace, a place a friend recommended.

restaurant = common noun; Tito's Taco Palace = proper noun.

When you say God (capital G) in English, what is meant is "the god" not "a god".

Yes, proper nouns are capitalized. And, we capitalize the word God when referring to God. But we do not say "the" God in English. But a lot of (not all) proper nouns do not need the definite article in front of them, especially if it is a unique entity. We do not go to "the" London. We go to London. We do not speak to our friend "the" John. We speak to our friend John.

The meaning wouldn't be the same. Only with the definite article we get the meaning of the only god.

I disagree, the meaning would be the same regardless of whether or not you put the definite article in front of the word God.

The only way it would make a difference is if someone believes there is some other god the Quran is talking about as being the god of the Heavens and the Earth? Who else would the word "god" be referring to?

While we're on the subject, lets look at another word used to refer to God. ra-ba. I cannot find this word with the definite article in front it either. I am interested to find out if someone else can find a verse with alif-lam in front of ra-ba.

Salam,
Arnab

ayman

Peace Arnab,

If we were using English then the word Allah would be a Proper noun (also called a proper name) which is a noun representing unique entities. It is the title by which any person or thing is known or designated; a distinctive specific appellation, whether of an individual or a class (such as London, Pittsburg or John). Most (not all) proper nouns do not need the definite article in front of them, especially if it is a unique entity. We do not go to "the" London. We go to London. We do not speak to our friend "the" John. We speak to our friend John. When we do use "the" in front of a proper noun.

Those proper names London, John, etc. do not speak the truth about the entity being named. They are just meaningless labels. So if you say "he is John in the heavens and the earth" this is meaningless nonsense. On the other hand, if John was the only man alive then you can say "he is the man in the heavens and the earth".

A proper noun has two distinctive features 1) it will name a specific item, and 2) it will begin with a capital letter no matter where it occurs in a sentence.

The above features are actually false and thus it is not surprising that you mistakenly think that "allah" is a proper name.

A proper name doesn't name a specific or usually one of a kind item. How many people do you know named Mohamed? How many towns are called London? I am sure several. In fact, usually a proper name is not a one of a kind item nor even of a related kind. I have seen a clothing store named London so it is not even a city. The name John is used in street lingo as a name for a prostitute client. Since it is a meangless label, a proper name can pretty much be used to label anything. On the other hand, a common noun is a universal concept.
Your second observation may be true in English but it is false in many other languages such as Arabic where there are no caps.
In reality, what determines if something is a proper name or not is the context. If the meaning of a word fits in the context then it is a common noun. On the other hand, since proper names are just labels, their meaning often results in nonsense in the context. The meaning of "the god/allah/al-ilah" fits in all the occurrences of the word "allah" in the great reading.
As a result of (3) above proper names are not translated between languages. This is a huge point that you miss. Hence, traditionalists who like you argue that ?allah? is a proper name don?t translate the word ?allah? and render it as Allah in English. At least they are consistent. If you take ?allah? to be a proper name then, like London or John or Oreos, you can?t translate it. So by translating it as God or whatever, you are contradicting your assessment that it is a proper name.

A common noun names general items. The important thing to remember is that common nouns are general names. Thus, they are not capitalized unless they begin a sentence or are part of a title. Proper nouns, those that name specific things, do require capitalization.

Exactly, the important thing to remember is that common nouns are universal concepts.

Here are some examples of the differences between proper nouns and common nouns
Tina offered Antonio one of her mother's homemade oatmeal cookies but only an Oreo would satisfy his sweet tooth.
cookies = common noun; Oreo = proper noun.

Oreo is a meaningless label. So only in the mind of Antonio it has a meaning and it has nothing to do with what the word Oreo means. If the maker changes the name from Oreo to ABC then Antonio would still continue to like them. The label Oreo is irrelevant and it doesn?t communicate uniqueness or universal truth. I hope that you are not saying that the word ?allah? is equally irrelevant and we can substitute anything such as ABC for it and still get the same effect.

Charlie had wanted an easy teacher for his composition class, but he got Mrs. Hacket, whose short temper and unreasonable demands made the semester a torture.
teacher = common noun; Mrs. Hacket = proper noun.

Again, the name Hacket has nothing to do with communicating universal truth or uniqueness. I am sure that there are many nice teachers named Mrs. Hasket. It is meaningless as far as the context goes. This is why it would not be translated to whatever ?hacket? means in another language if you were to translate the sentence.

Gloria wanted to try a new restaurant, so Richard took her to Tito's Taco Palace, a place a friend recommended.
restaurant = common noun; Tito's Taco Palace = proper noun.

Again, the name Tito?s Taco Palace is just a label that may have nothing to do with truth. If Tito?s Taco Palace makes some good cookies, then it might sell them and name them ?Tito?s Taco Palace? and then Antonio may like them better than Oreos. Now Antonio may be on chubby side and he seems to love to eat but when he eats those cookies, I am sure that he wouldn?t be eating ?Tito?s Taco Palace?. Why? Because ?Tito?s Taco Palace? is just a label that doesn?t communicate truth. I don?t think that the word ?allah? is also a label that doesn?t communicate truth.

Yes, proper nouns are capitalized. And, we capitalize the word God when referring to God. But we do not say "the" God in English. But a lot of (not all) proper nouns do not need the definite article in front of them, especially if it is a unique entity. We do not go to "the" London. We go to London. We do not speak to our friend "the" John. We speak to our friend John.

As a proper name, the term God (capital G) is a label just like London, John, Tito?s Taco Palace and Oreos and hence it shouldn?t be translated. So as proper names God is not the same as Allah. It is not unique or universal. If you want to turn it into a universal concept then you have to remove the capitalization and say ?the god?. Now if you say there is no god except the god, you have also made it unique. On the other hand, there is nothing for an English speaker in the name Allah that makes ?there is no god except Allah? true or meaningful.

I disagree, the meaning would be the same regardless of whether or not you put the definite article in front of the word God.

The definite article makes something definite. This is by definition the purpose of the definite article so indeed the meaning of the sentence would be different. If the definite article is inconsequential as you claim, then why not remove all definite articles from the language.

The only way it would make a difference is if someone believes there is some other god the Quran is talking about as being the god of the Heavens and the Earth? Who else would the word "god" be referring to?

The great reading does talk about people believing in other gods. Otherwise, what is the point of witnessing that there is no god except the god?

While we're on the subject, lets look at another word used to refer to God. ra-ba. I cannot find this word with the definite article in front it either. I am interested to find out if someone else can find a verse with alif-lam in front of ra-ba.

The word ?rab? (lord) is indeed used to talk about other lords throughout the great reading. So it doesn?t refer exclusively to the god. Hence, you will not hear ?la-rab illa al-rab? because there are indeed other (although lesser) ?rab? and this statement would be false. The definite article is not concerned with the others being less of a ?rab? or more. It is only concerned with making something definite. This is why it is used with ?the god? to communicate the universal concept of the only definite god.

PS You also missed the main point that Nadeem was trying to make with the fact that the "li" proposition in Arabic modifies the definite common nouns by removing the A from "AL". Sister Samia summarized it very well. I suggest that you read her summary since all your examples actually support Nadeem's main point (for example, "al-amr" would be "lilamr" with the A gone from the definite AL with the "li" proposition added, etc.). On the other hand, the "li" proposition doesn't remove an Alif if it was not part of the definite article.

Peace,

Ayman

unknownuser

Salam Ayman,

Those proper names London, John, etc. do not speak the truth about the entity being named. They are just meaningless labels. So if you say "he is John in the heavens and the earth" this is meaningless nonsense. On the other hand, if John was the only man alive then you can say "he is the man in the heavens and the earth".

You have it backwards, friend.

Quote from Arnab on Yesterday at 092114 PM
A proper noun has two distinctive features 1) it will name a specific item, and 2) it will begin with a capital letter no matter where it occurs in a sentence.

The above features are actually false and thus it is not surprising that you mistakenly think that "allah" is a proper name.

First of all, let me reiterate that I believe that Allah is a verb but it is also accepted as a proper noun. It is a verb because the root in the Semitic language is a verb and there is an ancient meaning there. It is also a proper noun because it is what we call the Creator.

Therefore the above statement is not false. I advise you to actually verify a statement before saying as such.

Here are some links on basic English grammar on the differences between common nouns and proper nouns.

http//www.chompchomp.com/terms/commonnoun.htm
http//www.chompchomp.com/terms/propernoun.htm

I will just list those two. If these are not satisfactory, I suggest performing a search using your favorite search engine. This is basic grammar that I learned in elementary school.

A proper name doesn't name a specific or usually one of a kind item. How many people do you know named Mohamed? How many towns are called London? I am sure several. In fact, usually a proper name is not a one of a kind item nor even of a related kind. I have seen a clothing store named London so it is not even a city. The name John is used in street lingo as a name for a prostitute client. Since it is a meangless label, a proper name can pretty much be used to label anything. On the other hand, a common noun is a universal concept.

Again, you need to research what you are typing to verify what you are saying is true.
Also, please present evidence that anything that I wrote in my previous post is a false or inaccurate statement about English grammar (or anything else for that matter).

Your second observation may be true in English but it is false in many other languages such as Arabic where there are no caps.

Yes, there is a HUGE difference between Arabic and English, but since you brought up the subject and made the comparison I thought I would point out some facts about English grammar that you seemed to be confused about. But I think this has just confused matters.

In reality, what determines if something is a proper name or not is the context. If the meaning of a word fits in the context then it is a common noun. On the other hand, since proper names are just labels, their meaning often results in nonsense in the context.

This is not correct in English grammar.

The meaning of "the god/allah/al-ilah" fits in all the occurrences of the word "allah" in the great reading.

That is your opinion.

As a result of (3) above proper names are not translated between languages. This is a huge point that you miss. Hence, traditionalists who like you argue that ?allah? is a proper name don?t translate the word ?allah? and render it as Allah in English. At least they are consistent. If you take ?allah? to be a proper name then, like London or John or Oreos, you can?t translate it. So by translating it as God or whatever, you are contradicting your assessment that it is a proper name.

There are many instances where proper nouns are translated into English differently. One example that comes to mind is Misr=Egypt, Yaqb=Jacob etc.
Let me clarify that there is no contradiction.

Quote from Arnab on Yesterday at 092114 PM
A common noun names general items. The important thing to remember is that common nouns are general names. Thus, they are not capitalized unless they begin a sentence or are part of a title. Proper nouns, those that name specific things, do require capitalization.

Exactly, the important thing to remember is that common nouns are universal concepts.

No, not exactly.

Quote from Arnab on Yesterday at 092114 PM
Here are some examples of the differences between proper nouns and common nouns
Tina offered Antonio one of her mother's homemade oatmeal cookies but only an Oreo would satisfy his sweet tooth.
cookies = common noun; Oreo = proper noun.

Oreo is a meaningless label.

No, Oreo is a very specific cookie. You would not give someone who asked for an Oreo an oatmeal cookie.

So only in the mind of Antonio it has a meaning and it has nothing to do with what the word Oreo means. If the maker changes the name from Oreo to ABC then Antonio would still continue to like them.

Most likely

The label Oreo is irrelevant and it doesn?t communicate uniqueness or universal truth.

I think I know what you are trying to say (forgive me if I?m wrong). What I think you are trying to say is that while Arabic words have a literal and figurative meaning and an etymological history. While, on the contrary English words are sometimes ?made up? as in the case of the word ?Oreo.? Also, the word Oreo does not have any deeper meaning than being a cookie.

I hope that you are not saying that the word ?allah? is equally irrelevant and we can substitute anything such as ABC for it and still get the same effect.

Since Arabic operates under different grammatical rules than English does then the two cannot compare on this issue. So, no, that would not be correct in Arabic. Allah has been the same word through out the Semitic languages as I mentioned before.

Quote from Arnab on Yesterday at 092114 PM
Charlie had wanted an easy teacher for his composition class, but he got Mrs. Hacket, whose short temper and unreasonable demands made the semester a torture.
teacher = common noun; Mrs. Hacket = proper noun.

Again, the name Hacket has nothing to do with communicating universal truth or uniqueness. I am sure that there are many nice teachers named Mrs. Hasket. It is meaningless as far as the context goes. This is why it would not be translated to whatever ?hacket? means in another language if you were to translate the sentence.

I think the fact that you are operating under this ?universal truth? assumption that is giving you the problem. This is not an English grammar concept the nouns are either common or proper.

Quote from Arnab on Yesterday at 092114 PM
The only way it would make a difference is if someone believes there is some other god the Quran is talking about as being the god of the Heavens and the Earth? Who else would the word "god" be referring to?

The great reading does talk about people believing in other gods. Otherwise, what is the point of witnessing that there is no god except the god?

That was exactly my point in the rhetorical question posed above. I?m going to stop quoting and commenting on the English grammar subject. I feel its run its course.

Quote from Arnab on Yesterday at 092114 PM
While we're on the subject, lets look at another word used to refer to God. ra-ba. I cannot find this word with the definite article in front it either. I am interested to find out if someone else can find a verse with alif-lam in front of ra-ba.

The word ?rab? (lord) is indeed used to talk about other lords throughout the great reading.

Can you please show me a verse.

PS You also missed the main point that Nadeem was trying to make with the fact that the "li" proposition in Arabic modifies the definite common nouns by removing the A from "AL". Sister Samia summarized it very well. I suggest that you read her summary since all your examples actually support Nadeem's main point (for example, "al-amr" would be "lilamr" with the A gone from the definite AL with the "li" proposition added, etc.). On the other hand, the "li" proposition doesn't remove an Alif if it was not part of the definite article.

I absolutely did not miss Nadeem?s main point and I absolutely was agreeing with
Nadeem at times in my post.

Please understand You will find when I post a comment or reply that sometimes I will agree with what someone says (and explain why) and disagree with other things they said (and explain why).

But I will try to qualify statements with a phrase like ?I agree? or ?I disagree? in the future. I did not realize that this could be confusing. I simply thought it was obvious when I agreed with what someone said.

Perhaps this has lead to some misunderstandings. There are times that I am agreeing with you as well in this post and the last. So, please keep that in mind.

Also, as I wrote before, my original intention was to correct some of your misunderstandings of English grammar. It is probably not wise to compare the English and the Arabic. After all, they are completely different language types with different rules of grammar.

Ultimately this is only an intellectual exercise. I don?t believe that anyone will change their concept of God or how they live their lives based on whether the definite article is in front of God?s name.

Salam,
Arnab