Is "Allah" a Name or It is Merely Arabic for "The God"?
-
Peace Ayman,
In the real reality ), not all words in the Arabic language fit neatly within the root meaning or are even of Arabic origin for that matter. The word "rahman" is Sabaic and it is only found in southern Arabian inscriptions such as the following
http//www.mnh.si.edu/EPIGRAPHY/e_pre-islamic/fig04_sabaean.htm
Please note the use of the term "rahman" in association with "power" in the first line of the inscription. So your assessment that it has nothing to do with power is simply uninformed.
This is very interesting. So... According to this Sabaic inscription, "rahman" is a description of power and strength, or help, and "alrahman" would mean "the almighty". That fits into the Quran by implication. However, according to these inscriptions, it seems almost as if the word "rahman" is used in place of the word "GOD" (or "allah" itself. This is also characteristic of the Quranic passage that describes them as nearly interchangeable (i.e. "Call upon "allah", or call upon "alrahman"...". So, you're saying that "the almighty" is interchangeable with "the god"? Plus, what about the other descriptions? Is "rahim" also Sabaic? Thanks for the enlightenment on "rahman". This is something that I didn't notice before...
Peace,
Ahmad
-
Peace Ahmad,
This is very interesting. So... According to this Sabaic inscription, "rahman" is a description of power and strength, or help, and "alrahman" would mean "the almighty". That fits into the Quran by implication.
Yes.
However, according to these inscriptions, it seems almost as if the word "rahman" is used in place of the word "GOD" (or "allah" itself. This is also characteristic of the Quranic passage that describes them as nearly interchangeable (i.e. "Call upon "allah", or call upon "alrahman"..."). So, you're saying that "the almighty" is interchangeable with "the god"?
The term "rahman" is a Southern Arabian term. I think that 17110 perhaps alludes to reassuring some people (likely North Arabians) who may not have been very familiar with the term "rahman" and were resistant to using it to call upon the god. I don't think it is 100% interchangeable with "allah"/the god because this would make it redundant in "bism allah alrahman alrahim". However, I think they can be interchanged to some degree and even in English churches priests regularly use the term "the almighty" to refer to "god".
I think that the expression "bism allah alrahman alrahim" as "in the name of the god, the almighty, the merciful" fits very well with the general theme of contrasts in the great reading. The contrast between the god's power and mercy fits very well with the emphasis in the great reading on the contrast between his punishment and reward.
Plus, what about the other descriptions? Is "rahim" also Sabaic?
No, "rahim" is not Sabaic. It is Northern Arabian and it means "merciful".
Thanks for the enlightenment on "rahman". This is something that I didn't notice before...
All thanks is due to the god. This was actually the idea of sister W.H. long time ago
http//www.free-minds.org/articles/gods_system/rahman.htm
When the god willed that I stumble upon the Abraha inscription, he reminded me of her article and guided me to put 1 and 1 together.
Peace,
Ayman
-
Peace,
I checked with Katholieke Universiteit Leuven at the Faculty of Arts Library; Oriental and Slavonic Studies. The last copy they received from this series was number 57 Nouvelle perspective sur le syst?me verbal de l'h?breu ancien les formes *qatala, *yaqtul et *yaqtulu (200.
The librarian didn't know if they had already ordered "Moyen arabe...". But she was going to e-mail me as soon as possible; I'm still waiting.I received this today
"Dear,
I have informed to the date on which this book would arrive in our library, but apparently this book is not available yet. The publisher therefore could not give us a delivery date. With kind regards,
Karlien Verhaeghe". -
Also, there is nothing preventing anyone from taking a common noun and turning it into a proper name. For example, one can turn the common noun "muslim" into a proper name by naming his son Muslim (like the Hadith collector). Yet the common noun "muslim" continues to exist. So the main point is whether the common noun fits in the context or not. In all the great reading the common noun al-ilah/allah fits in all the contexts. For example, "wa huwa allah fi al-samawat wa al-ard..." is reduced to nonsense if one takes "allah" as a proper name. It would be the same nonsense as saying "he is John of the house" to mean "he is the man of the house".
Apart from the instance you quoted above, are there other instances in the great reading (al-Qur?an) where ALLAH, as a proper noun, does not fit into the context?
]We see the same pattern with the feminine noun al-ilaht/ h-ilt/ hn-ilt also contracted to allat/ h-lt/ hn-lt all of which mean ?the goddess?. In fact, the contracted form Allat is used in the great reading Chapter 53.
Are you of the opinion that ALLAAT in Q53 is a common noun like Allah likewise AL-UZZAH and MANAAT? Can you please translate the nouns for me?
-
Peace Omeiza,
Apart from the instance you quoted above, are there other instances in the great reading (al-Qur?an) where ALLAH, as a proper noun, does not fit into the context?
In all the contexts the common noun "allah"/"al-ilah" fits. The proper name doesn't fit linguistically in several contexts and I showed one above. The proper name can be made to fit linguistically in some other contexts but still not logically. Also, if fits as a common noun in all the contexts but not always as a proper name then one must assume that it is used consistently as a common noun and not as a common noun one time and a proper name another.
Are you of the opinion that ALLAAT in Q53 is a common noun like Allah likewise AL-UZZAH and MANAAT? Can you please translate the nouns for me?
Those are used as proper names. So they are meaningless and don't reflect truth. So when the god is talking about Allat in Chapter 53, he doesn't mean that she is a real true goddess. It is just a label that doesn't reflect truth, i.e., a proper name.
Peace,
Ayman
-
Peace Omeiza,
In all the contexts the common noun "allah"/"al-ilah" fits. The proper name doesn't fit linguistically in several contexts and I showed one above. The proper name can be made to fit linguistically in some other contexts but still not logically. Also, if fits as a common noun in all the contexts but not always as a proper name then one must assume that it is used consistently as a common noun and not as a common noun one time and a proper name another.
Those are used as proper names. So they are meaningless and don't reflect truth. So when the god is talking about Allat in Chapter 53, he doesn't mean that she is a real true goddess. It is just a label that doesn't reflect truth, i.e., a proper name.
Peace,
Ayman
Assalaam Alaikum
'Allat' is not a 'proper name'. Nor does Sura 53.19 indicate that it is 'Allat'.
There is a Hamzat-ul-wasl; over the Alif thus the Alif is silent and not pronounced. Its not ?allat? but ?laata?
'Al Uzza' is not a proper name defined in the ayah either.
There is a Hamzat-ul-wasl; over the Alif thus the Alif is silent and not pronounced and a Sukoon preceding the which is silent also.
Thus its not 'Al Uzza' its 'Uzza'
Laat to shun, to conceal, to prevent;Dictionary of the Holy Quran page 520 (lata)
Uzza means to false arrogance, idolize one?s self, Glory, Pride, Vanity, Exalt, To occupy a respectable position; Dictionary of the Holy Quran page 371 (azza)
Unfortunately the Free Minds Modern Standard Arabic 'translation' doesn't have the grammatical symbols and references to properly define a word.
Free Minds Arabic
Quranan Arrabiyyan
-
Peace MTR,
'Allat' is not a 'proper name'. Nor does Sura 53.19 indicate that it is 'Allat'.
There is a Hamzat-ul-wasl; over the Alif thus the Alif is silent and not pronounced. Its not ?allat? but ?laata?'Al Uzza' is not a proper name defined in the ayah either.
There is a Hamzat-ul-wasl; over the Alif thus the Alif is silent and not pronounced and a Sukoon preceding the which is silent also.
Thus its not 'Al Uzza' its 'Uzza'Just read "alkubra" immediately before it in 5318 or "althalithat alukhrat" immediately after it in 5320. They have the same exact definite article with the same exact vocalization mark over its Alif
http//quran.al-islam.com/Display/Display.asp?nType=1&nSeg=0&l=arb&nSora=53&nAya=13&0
According to you, there are no definite articles in the entire great reading and all of them are not pronounced since ALL of them have the same vocalization mark as Allat and Aluzza.
Also, your very strange argument is besides the point to begin with since the presence or absence of a definite article has no bearing on whether something is a proper name or not. Proper names can be ANYTHING. The only factor is if the common meaning fits in the context or not. In this case, clearly "Have you seen the goddess, the glory and destiny the third one?" is meaningless nonsense. In fact, we are explicitly told in 5323 that those are "names GIVEN by you and your forefathers". GIVEN NAMES are the same exact thing as PROPER NAMES.
Laat to shun, to conceal, to prevent;Dictionary of the Holy Quran page 520 (lata)
This is a mistake in the dictionary because they try to falsely attribute every word to an Arab origin. The great reading is full of foreign words that were borrowed into Arabic. Allat is originally a Nabataean proper name. This is also confirmed by abundant archeological evidence. It should be classified under the root ALH.
Uzza means to false arrogance, idolize one?s self, Glory, Pride, Vanity, Exalt, To occupy a respectable position; Dictionary of the Holy Quran page 371 (azza)
Its common meaning is "glory", which doesn't fit in the context. The god is certainly not talking about any real glory.
Unfortunately the Free Minds Modern Standard Arabic 'translation' doesn't have the grammatical symbols and references to properly define a word.
Free Minds Arabic
Quranan ArrabiyyanThose so called "grammatical symbols" were not present in any of the early manuscripts of the great reading. In fact, they don't appear until the 10th-11th century CE. They are manmade and thus are mostly false and everyone can perfectly understand the great reading without any of them.
Peace,
Ayman
-
Assalaam Aalaikum @Ayman
I will address your statements relative to the Quran, your personal characterizations and historical references are irrelevant.
@Ayman your statement "According to you, there are no definite articles in the entire great reading and all of them are not pronounced since ALL of them have the same vocalization mark as Allat and Aluzza."
-
I never made this statement or implication "there are no definite articles in the entire great reading"
-
A Definite Article is constructed using Alif with Fatha, and Lam with with Sukoon, the Lam 'borrows' the sound from the preceding Alif, thus rendering 'Al' /
53.19 Hamzat-ul-wasl connecting hamza, its connected to the preceding word which is pronounced with the 'la' sound of the Hamzat-ul-wasl thus rendering 'ay-tu-mul laata'
- As it relates to ,again we have Hamzat-ul-wasl connecting hamza, its connected to the preceding word , rendering 'wal', next we have a Sukoon , which again is silent, thus rendering 'wal-Uzza'
Ayman, with all due respect, your are not being intellectually 'fair' when you make this statement
"Just read "alkubra" immediately before it in 5318 or "althalithat alukhrat" immediately after it in 5320. They have the same exact definite article with the same exact vocalization mark over its Alif"
53.18.... 'Al-Kubra'
53.20.... 'Al-Ukhra'
53.19....
As you can see Sura 53.19 does NOT have the Definite Article , 'Al' / attached to either word
@Ayman, would you please illustrate how you derive that the definite article is reflected in Sura 53.19 in regards to these words
I await your response.
-
-
Peace MTR,
Ayman, with all due respect, your are not being intellectually 'fair' when you make this statement
"Just read "alkubra" immediately before it in 5318 or "althalithat alukhrat" immediately after it in 5320. They have the same exact definite article with the same exact vocalization mark over its Alif"
53.18.... 'Al-Kubra'
53.20.... 'Al-Ukhra'
53.19....
As you can see Sura 53.19 does NOT have the Definite Article , 'Al' / attached to either word
@Ayman, would you please illustrate how you derive that the definite article is reflected in Sura 53.19 in regards to these wordsBefore continuing with such strange arguments, did you even look at the link I provided? Just look at the vocalization marks on all the definite articles on this page. They are the same exactly as on Allat and Al3uzza.
http//quran.al-islam.com/GenGifImages/Normal/442X500-0/53/13/1.png
How hard can this be?
Peace,
Ayman
-
Assalaam Aalaikum @Ayman
You did not address the reference to 53.18 thru 53.20 as suggessting ALL 3 references have definite article. Can you please illustrate and show distinctly that the Definite Article is used in Sura 53.19?
- A Definite Article is constructed using Alif with Fatha, and Lam with with Sukoon, the Lam 'borrows' the sound from the preceding Alif, thus rendering 'Al' /
53.19 Hamzat-ul-wasl connecting hamza, its connected to the preceding word which is pronounced with the 'la' sound of the Hamzat-ul-wasl thus rendering 'ay-tu-mul laata'
- As it relates to ,again we have Hamzat-ul-wasl connecting hamza, its connected to the preceding word , rendering 'wal', next we have a Sukoon , which again is silent, thus rendering 'wal-Uzza'
Ayman, with all due respect, AGAIN your are not being intellectually 'fair' when you make this statement
"Just read "alkubra" immediately before it in 5318 or "althalithat alukhrat" immediately after it in 5320. They have the same exact definite article with the same exact vocalization mark over its Alif"
53.18.... 'Al-Kubra'
53.20.... 'Al-Ukhra'
53.19....
As you can see Sura 53.19 does NOT have the Definite Article , 'Al' / attached to either word
@Ayman, You seem to be rejecting the truth. The illustration you presented is EXACTLY what I defined and illustrated.
Hamza-ta-wasl and Alif with Sukuun is NOT and does NOT represent a Definite Article in any book, reference or academic setting.
Please review my previous illustration.
-
Assalaam Alaikum
As it relates to the word or (particle) 'laata' / Its a adverb that means to shun, to conceal, to prevent. When used as a particle it means 'no longer, something has passed'. An indeclinable verb or a kind of feminine form of the adverb 'La'
Dictionary of the Holy Quran page 520 (lata)
Examples as a 'particle'...
And We should then have given them from our presence a great reward;
Waithan laata-aynahum min ladunna ajran AAatheeman
And if an entry had been effected to them from the sides of the (city), and they had been incited to sedition, they would certainly have brought it to pass, with none but a brief delay!
Walaw dukhilat AAalayhim min aqtariha thumma suiloo alfitnata laata-awha wama talabbathoo biha illa yaseeran
-
Peace MTR,
@Ayman, You seem to be rejecting the truth. The illustration you presented is EXACTLY what I defined and illustrated.
Here it is again with the various SAME EXACT definite article with the SAME EXACT vocalization marks highlighted in blue and red in just three lines around the two words
http//i36.tinypic.com/rivqlk.png
If you claim that the AL in Allat and Al3uzza is not a definite article based on vocalization marks then you have to delete all the definite articles from all the other ones that I highlighted as well.
What you are saying is not truth by any stretch of the imagination. I can't make it any easier for you. So there is really nothing more to say if you can't see with your own eyes.
Peace,
Ayman
-
Peace MTR,
Here it is again with the various SAME EXACT definite article with the SAME EXACT vocalization marks highlighted in blue and red in just three lines around the two words
http//i36.tinypic.com/rivqlk.png
Im sorry Ayman, those are NOT Definite Articles , 'Al' / attached to ANY of those words.
Those are Hamza-ta-wasl's and in a few instances Hamza-ta-wasl's and Sukoon (together) they are NOT 'Alif with Fatha with Lam and Sukoon' 'Al' /
@Ayman....Let Allah,swt show you what a definite article looks like....
Allah is he, except whom there is NO OTHER GOD, The King,
The Holy One,The Source Of Peace,The Guardian Of Belief,The preserver of safety,
The exalted in might,The irresistable,The supreme, Glory be to Allah! Above all partners
they attribute to Him.Ayman, See Alif / Fatha with Lam / Sukoon / ?
I dont see Hamza-ta-wasl with Lam / Sukoon /
By the way , Hamza-ta-wasl is SILENT!
How do you determine that you can 'vocalize' a non vocative grammatical symbol?
Secondly, When a letter with Sukuun FOLLOWS Hamza-ta-wasl it's SILENT too!
Again, How do you determine that you can give a NON VOCATIVE grammatical symbol a vocal pronunciation?
I await that response, please give the grammatical rule or reference to support your position.
-
Peace MTR,
Im sorry Ayman, those are NOT Definite Articles , 'Al' / attached to ANY of those words.
Those are Hamza-ta-wasl's and in a few instances Hamza-ta-wasl's and Sukoon (together) they are NOT 'Alif with Fatha with Lam and Sukoon' 'Al' /Did you recently learn Arabic? How long have you been conversing, reading and writing in Arabic?
The reason I am asking is that what you are claiming to be "Al / " is in fact AL'A and not AL. This is a basic mistake that even my first year beginning Arabic students didn't make when I used to teach Arabic in college a few years ago.
@Ayman....Let Allah,swt show you what a definite article looks like....
Allah is he, except whom there is NO OTHER GOD, The King,
The Holy One,The Source Of Peace,The Guardian Of Belief,The preserver of safety,
The exalted in might,The irresistable,The supreme, Glory be to Allah! Above all partners
they attribute to Him.Ayman, See Alif / Fatha with Lam / Sukoon / ?
I dont see Hamza-ta-wasl with Lam / Sukoon /They are the same exact vocalizations as on Allat and Al3uzza as you see here and compare to the earlier image that I showed
http//quran.al-islam.com/GenGifImages/Normal/442X500-0/59/23/1.png
By the way , Hamza-ta-wasl is SILENT!
How do you determine that you can 'vocalize' a non vocative grammatical symbol?
Secondly, When a letter with Sukuun FOLLOWS Hamza-ta-wasl it's SILENT too!
Again, How do you determine that you can give a NON VOCATIVE grammatical symbol a vocal pronunciation?
I await that response, please give the grammatical rule or reference to support your position.You are in no position to invent a new term called "grammatical symbol" (which is nice sounding but nonsense) while you haven't even mastered how to read basic Arabic letters to form a word.
Peace,
Ayman
-
Assalaam Alaikum @Ayman
Your obfuscating.....
Again your NOT addressing and supporting your position.
How do you determine that you can 'vocalize' a Sukuun?
Secondly, When a letter with Sukuun FOLLOWS Hamza-ta-wasl it's SILENT too!
Again, How do you determine that you can give a NON VOCATIVE (Silent) Hamza-ta-wasl vocal pronunciation?
Again, please give the grammatical rule or reference to support your position.
-
Let me assist you Ayman....
The ONLY instance where Sukoon is vocalized is when it follows ANOTHER letter with a vowel (fatha, kesra dammah).
Now explain how do you vocalize a sukoon that follows a the Hamza-ta-wasl, which is silent.
I await your answer.
-
Let me assist you further Ayman....please go here http//www.abouttajweed.com/hamzah-al-wasl/hamzah-al-wasl-lesson-1.html
Hamzatul-Wasl has five basic rules http//humera.de/arabiska/?url=en0109
Which rule applies to
53.19
If Hamzatul-Wasl is not preceded by a Harakah (in other words in the beginning of your reading), it is pronounced as ordinary Hamzah with Fathah (unless another Harakah is specified)
If there is a Harakah preceding Hamzatul-Wasl, then that preceding Harakah is pronounced while Hamzatul-Wasl is not pronounced.
If Hamzatul-Wasl is preceded by an Alif (with Sukoon) and Fathah preceding the Alif, only Fathah is pronounced.
If Hamzatul-Wasl is preceded by a Y?' (with Sukoon) and Kasrah preceding the Y?', only Kasrah is pronounced.
If Hamzatul-Wasl is preceded by a W?w (with Sukoon) and Dammah preceding the W?w, only Dammah is pronounced.
There is a system of small letters called Tashkeel (ar. "explanation through specification", that implements the use of short vowels and acoustic changes between the so-called "bigger letters" without the need for the bigger letters to change shape. (i.e. Dammah, Fatha, Kesra)
A single letter from the tashkeel system is called a Harakah (arabic for "movement", or "motion", the plural form is Harak?t. So the sound of a letter changes in correspondance to which Harak?h is found on it. Every letter has a Harakah, even if it isn't written. If a letter has Sukoon then it is usually not written at all.
-
Peace Ayman.
Can you please give me two more instances where ALLAH as a proper noun does not fit into the context of the great reading (al-Qur'an)?
Is it correct to consider the word ALLAH as an adjective instead of being a common noun? Please explain.
Also, your very strange argument is besides the point to begin with since the presence or absence of a definite article has no bearing on whether something is a proper name or not. Proper names can be ANYTHING. The only factor is if the common meaning fits in the context or not. In this case, clearly "Have you seen the goddess, the glory and destiny the third one?" is meaningless nonsense. In fact, we are explicitly told in 5323 that those are "names GIVEN by you and your forefathers". GIVEN NAMES are the same exact thing as PROPER NAMES.
If a CIVEN NAME is a proper name, what authority is needed for it as stated in the verse?