Talk:Khuda

Comments

When the Sciense was making its edge in Muslim era... And one of Muslim Scientist made a satellite that represented future... this is the time in which few years Muslim had developed such machine that was able to see future and other things... it completely worked as Muslims religion thus no one can guess it... thus they have such powers that could blind human beings mind wise that they could not lead you there...it is situated somewhere near to Middle East and Asia... in Subcontinent it is referred as Khuda, Nabi, Muala, God, Asman, and few Others, whereas Non-believers call it intelligence agencies... and other could have developed such things but under surveillance of Khuda, God, or might not be... this is what I feels like. But I dont know much about anything because I am from India. We are still trying to build toilets here. . This was the text recently added to this article by JCIV:

Khuda or Khoda (Persian: خدا ) is the Persian word for "God" cognate to the English and other Indo-European words for "God". It is also sometimes used in Urdu and Hindi, though the Arabic "Allah" is becoming more commonin Urdu.

Another word for God in Persian, from ancient Zoroastrians, is Ya hew (spelt Ya Hou) which sounds like the original Hebrew word for god Yahweh.Jehovah & Aleph: hebrew word symbolic to Jews for The Eternal One & Almighty is a testimony to the Interpreted word for Brahma (ancient Vedic Indian scriptures sygnify him as Creator of world as his role among the Supreme trinity of Vishnu & Shiva) and centuries later in Arabic language as Allah by the arabian Muslims ,nomadic desert inhabitant clans after Jews,christians .

(plus one para that was functionally, if not literally, correct)

The Khuddaka Nikaya ("Minor Collection") is the last of the five nikayas, or collections, in the Sutta Pitaka, which is one of the "three baskets" that compose the Pali Tipitaka, the word of the Buddha. This nikaya consists of nineteen books on various topics attributed to the Buddha and his chief disciples. The Khuddaka Nikaya represent a stage in the development of the Pali Canon in which new material was not added any more to the rest of the Sutta Pitaka, but was added to a Khuddaka Pitaka instead. This Khuddaka Pitaka was the repository for materials that were left out of the four Nikayas (the Digha Nikaya, Majjhima Nikaya, Samyutta Nikaya and Anguttara Nikaya) and thus includes both early and later texts. This first volume of three volumes comprising the Khuddaka Nikaya contains the seven most ancient books which are closest to the four other Nikayas in language, style and and composition., the time of Buddha's passing is either 486 BCE according to Theravāda record or 383 BCE according to Mahayana record.

these fact  assertions completely & truly influenced this Persian (Farsi) referenced...Old Persian also used  Baga & Daiva i.e borrowed interpretation from Indo aryan Vedic words ~ Deva(c. 525 – 300 BCE) Khuda comes from Middle Persian and was a name for Ahura Mazda, the name of God used in the Zoroastrian faith. ُIranians have adopted the word khoda to mean the universal God, and the term is used by those of all religions when speaking in Persian (Farsi):Jews,Christians,Bahais,Muslims, etc the Persian God was Ahura Mazda, the God of Good thoughts , Good words and Good deeds, the God of light.  The God to be recognized as the one and only…The Word Khoda means actually “One self” and when used as the word God, it should be translated as “within thy self”. As per Iranian modern Calligrapher researchers on quora . { This word is clearly partly adopted from Khuddaka Nikaya and the Zoroastrian name of faith used & denoted for God is too based on  the Rig Veda 1700–1100 BCE The oldest of the Hindu Vedas (scriptures) Deites Surya ,Agni ,Rudra,Indra .

The Vedic Age began in India after the collapse of the Indus Valley Civilisation.1500 BCE . the sanatan Dharma eternal Law of Universe exists in four Epochs/Aeons . the civilization amidst 5000 -10000 BCE are all of Indo Aryans far ahead in culture, knowledge & wisdom than their contemporary or prior uncivilized & remotely influenced Civilizations. ~ Alok Surya Shyamkarn Reincarnation 24.5.1975 prior pen name "Shailendra"

1. Khuda or Khoda is the Persian word for "God"
   • "God, master, owner" (Steingass!)
   • xudāī "God, master", "Herr", "self-mighty" (SDL!)
   • NPers. xudā 'Lord' (SDL!)
   • "Gott, Herr" (Horn!)
   • "Herrscher, Fürst", xvatay
   • "xoda (lord)"
   • "xud 'self' and xuda 'lord'
   • x^vatay, 'lord', or ohrmuzd
   • "Besitzer, Herr(scher)" o.ä. bedeutete und erst in islamischer Zeit parallel zu "rabb" (=Allâh) gebraucht wurde.
2. [Khuda is a cognate of] other Indo-European words for "God"
   • Khuda is not a cognate of any Indo-European word for "god" because that meaning is a secondary one that exactly mirrors the European secondary meaning of "lord".
   • Khuda has an xv- stem, from Iranian hv- stem, from Indo-Iranian sv-, which is not the same as Indo-Iranian hu, leave alone Indo-European *deiwo- or Germanic guda.
3. "God" cognate to the English and other Indo-European words for "God".
   • Genuine etymology of the English language word (Oxford English Dictionary, 2006 draft 3):

     <quote>

     god (gρd). Also 3-4 godd. [Com. Teut.: OE. god (masc. in sing.; pl. godu, godo neut., godas masc.) corresponds to OFris., OS., Du. god masc., OHG. got, cot (MHG. got, mod.Ger. gott) masc., ON. goð, guð neut. and masc., pl. goð, guð neut. (later Icel. pl. guðir masc.; Sw., Da. gud), Goth. guÞ (masc. in sing.; pl. guÞa, guda neut.). The Goth. and ON. words always follow the neuter declension, though when used in the Christian sense they are syntactically masc. The OTeut. type is therefore *guđo^m neut., the adoption of the masculine concord being presumably due to the Christian use of the word. The neuter sb., in its original heathen use, would answer rather to L. numen than to L. deus. Another approximate equivalent of deus in OTeut. was *ansu-z (Goth. in latinized pl. form anses, ON. ρss, OE. Ós- in personal names, ésa genit. pl.); but this seems to have been applied only to the higher deities of the native pantheon, never to foreign gods; and it never came into Christian use.

     The ulterior etymology is disputed. Apart from the unlikely hypothesis of adoption from some foreign tongue, the OTeut. *gubo^m implies as its pre-Teut. type either *ghudho-m or *ghutó-m. The former does not appear to admit of explanation; but the latter would represent the neut. of the passive pple. of a root *gheu-. There are two Indo-Iranian roots of the required form (both *g_lheu, with palatal aspirate): one meaning ‘to invoke’ (Skr. hū), the other ‘to pour, to offer sacrifice’ (Skr. hu, Gr. χέειν, OE. yéotan YETE v.). Hence *g_lhutó-m has been variously interpreted as ‘what is invoked’ (cf. Skr. puru-hūta ‘much-invoked’, an epithet of Indra) and as ‘what is worshipped by sacrifice’ (cf. Skr. hutá, which occurs in the sense ‘sacrificed to’ as well as in that of ‘offered in sacrifice’). Either of these conjectures is fairly plausible, as they both yield a sense practically coincident with the most obvious definition deducible from the actual use of the word, ‘an object of worship’.

     Some scholars, accepting the derivation from the root *g_lheu- to pour, have supposed the etymological sense to be ‘molten image’ (= Gr. χυγόν), but the assumed development of meaning seems very unlikely.

     <end quote>

   • Genuine etymology of the NP word...
     1. "NPers. xudā 'Lord' and Av. x^vatāv, x^vatāy (= auto-kratōr) from *x^va-tav-ya- IE *swe-tow-yo 'selbstmächtig'"
     2. Horn, 471: xudāī, xuda ‘Gott; Herr’, xudavend, xudavendgar, xavend, xidēv
        aw. vergl. x^vaδata-; phlv. xutāī (d.i. xudāī) bzw. xuδāī; ai. vergl. svadhá- "Selbstbestimmung"
        Horn, 504: xud, x^veδ (AM) ‘selbst’.
        ap. vergl. uvā-; aw. x^vatō ‘selbst’; phlv. x^vat, x^vatih; ai. svátas.
4. Another word for God in Persian, from ancient Zoroastrians, is Ya hew (spelt Ya Hou) which sounds like the original Hebrew word for god Yahweh.
   • There is no such word "Ya hew", nor would a Latin script transliteration be spelled any differently from the way it is pronounced. Avestan does not even have a 'y' or 'w' sound. Even if those words existed, 'ya' would be pronounced iia, and 'hew' would be pronounced heuu.
   • The Old Iranian word for "god" are...
     • "Baga, an Old Iranian term for “god,” sometimes designating a specific god."
     • "*DAIVA, "Old Iranian noun (Av. daēuua-, OPers. daiva-) corresponding to the title devá- of the Indian gods and thus reflecting the Indo-European heritage (*deiṷó-)" ... "That they were national gods is confirmed by the fact that they were invoked by means of the Iranian versions of expressions common in Vedic rhetoric, for example, daēuua-/maṧiia-: devá-/mártya-, vīspa-­daēuua-: víśva- devá-, and daēuuo.zušta-: devájuṣṭa-."

If such extraordinary "etymology" for cognates of "God", "name of God", "Yahoo", "Yahweh" and whatnot is going to be dumped here, its going to need extraordinary sources. And then the article is going to need to fulfill WP:DICT. And EDUCATE YOURSELF for heaven's sake, and quit dumping crap on Wikipedia! -- Fullstop (talk) 05:42, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

I think, these Portals can help: Portal:Iran and Portal:Islam. -- JCIV (talk) 13:03, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

You do not have any interest in writing correct content do you? I have clearly demonstrated that what you have written is garbage, but instead of correcting it, or even responding to it, you went forum shopping.

In any case, those portals cannot help you. WP:V, WP:OR, WP:NOT cannot be waived by "vote", and dumping cruft on Wikipedia still violates those policies no matter how much forum shopping you do. -- Fullstop (talk) 05:25, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, but I write for the de:wp (that's why I am no newbie!) and I hadn't write this Article. Look here. If you think, that Khuda is a "fake" Article, say it him and not me! (How sayd democracy? I know, that the wp is no one!) -- JCIV (talk) 12:45, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

1. Just because you can get away with writing nonsense at de:wiki does not mean that you can get away with writing nonsense here.
2. Whether you created this article or not is irrelevant. You did write it, and it was a redirect before you added what you yourself called "new version".
3. If you don't know anything about what you are adding, then you should not be adding it! Lots of people write lots of things, and most of it is garbage. The stuff you added is such garbage. But you added it, so it is your garbage, no one else's. So stand up for it, and don't blame anyone else for what you add. -- Fullstop (talk) 16:24, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Before you say, I write nonsense at de:wp, please check my contributions! I tried to make a better version of it by adding from an older version of Khoda. Do you know Assume good faith? In de:wp we help new writers and show them the rules, and you? The only thing you do with me are reproaches and assumes! What have I done to you? The only thing I want is write articles and not discus, discus, discus, discus, discus... The WP is not a forum! If you dislikes the article, make a speedy-delete-application and let me be! -- JCIV (talk) 19:03, 21 November 2008 (UTC) P.S.: If you know persian people, ask them about Khoda or Khuda. I did id and they know this name of god! -- JCIV (talk) 19:37, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I know about assuming good faith. And I also know that a person who keeps writing rubbish even though the errors have been pointed out is not working towards the betterment of the encyclopedia. Yes, I do reproach, because as "not a newbie" editor, you should know better than to introduce garbage repeatedly, and you should know not to insist on rubbish even though a pointer to valid material was provided, and you should know that copying stuff from another wikipedia is not wise, and you should know that Wikipedia is not a dictionary. All these things you should know. Do you honor them? No. Do you follow Wikipedia policy? No.

Yes, I know quite well what Khoda/Khuda means. As I have also made clear several times (including the lengthy comment at the top of this page), I also know exactly what it means, and also exactly where the word comes from, and also how it is used. And if you had bothered to PAY ATTENTION we would not be having this discussion since you would have written properly. I had already given you a link to correct meaning and etymology, and you still wrote rubbish. After that, I provided a lengthy comment at the top of this section, and you still insist on rubbish. This is is what you "have done". Even at de:wp people's patience run out when an editor repeatedly writes rubbish and can't even be bothered to respond to guidance.

Yes, WP is not a forum. WP is also not a place for guesswork and speculations ala "name of God", "does not mean Lord", "in the Koran", "den einen Gott", "cognate of God", "Ya hou" Yahweh, "-a" ending, "zum Selbst kommen", "interessante Sache", etc, etc, etc. Madness!

If you want to write articles, then EDUCATE YOURSELF first. Use *reliable sources*, not your friends, and not articles on other Wikipedias. If you want to write an article on Khuda, then *READ ABOUT IT* first. Where does the word come from, how was it originally used, how did the meaning change, how it is used in non-Islamic society, how it is used outside Iran, etc. All these things have been studied, and all these things have been written about. When you have an idea of all these things then you can write an article on Khuda. Wikipedia is not a dictionary. And Khuda is not even a loan word, leave alone an English (or German or Italian) word. If you want to write dictionary articles, go to Wiktionary. Where there is already an article (a fact that I have already pointed out before too!) which you can translate into German, and which you can then redirect the article at de:wp to. -- Fullstop (talk) 22:36, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

I see, you know many about Khuda, but you discus here and don't improve the article. You know, it's a wiki! If you know more than me about Khoda (and you do, I know) than imrove this article, please. (Yes, I had translate this article into german and write it in de:wp, that's true.) If you want, I can register this article to Cleanup. -- JCIV (talk) 23:13, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

I already redirected it once. That is the policy-conform approach. Since you insist on having an article you will need to write it yourself. It will still need to conform to WP:DICT. Nobody at Cleanup can help you with factual errors, nor can they help you expand it so that it passes WP:DICT. Cleanup will probably just redirect it. That is the correct thing to do. -- Fullstop (talk) 00:01, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Do you have any trouble with articles about names of God? You dislikes to expand and notes in Portals and Cleanup. But this article is obviously relevant like the articles in the Category. -- JCIV (talk) 13:46, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Khuda is not a "name of God". It is a foreign language word that means "god", just like "Gott" is the German word that has the meaning "God". There is no en:wiki article for German "Gott", nor is there a de:wiki article for English "God", nor does either word have an article on any other wiki. The interwikis for the fa.wiki article is "en:God" and "de:Gott". Wikipedia is not a dictionary, leave alone a foreign language dictionary. -- Fullstop (talk) 14:23, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

This word has nothing to do with the arabic word "allah" and that image needs to be removed from the post immediately! 63.117.8.3 (talk) 19:29, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

References

Right Latinization

Quda, seems to be the right latinization. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:FE0:C700:2:781F:1A82:338:D2B7 (talk) 07:16, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

Tons of spelling inconsistencies

The entire article is full of spelling inconsistencies of "Khuda" and "Khoda". The article itself is called Khuda, and every use of the word in it must be changed to that spelling as per this. ― Greater Intosh 18:44, 29 July 2023 (UTC)