Talk:Allah/Archive 2

This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

I have some things to say

Firstly, I find it hard to believe that Allah is the same God as my God, i.e, the Judeio-Christian God. Secondly, Why can't Muslims put up with Religous humor like Christians, Jews, and other straight thinking folks?-user:crazyfurf

With all due respect, Muslims are no less humour-tolerant than many groups throughout the history of other religions. One of the funniest people I have ever met was a Muslim. The trick is that fanatical muslims have no sense of humour, much the same way fanatical christians, jews, sikhs, or anyone else have poor senses of humour. It is in fanaticism that we close our minds, and therefore lose the joy that comes with an open mind.

On the topic of Allah - you're going to have to deal with it. (Well, you don't HAVE to, I suppose... :) I know you may find it hard to believe, but you need to move past the lens of your experience with muslims or with others' ideas about islam. The fact that you call non-muslims "straight thinking folks" should clue you in to the fact that you are taking a prejudiced view. Have you studied the Qur'an? I don't mean leafed through a copy at the book store, but actually studied it, with people who have also studied it with an open mind? In the Qur'an, you find Jesus praised and loved, prophets sent by God to the hebrews (Noah, Isaiah, Elijah, Abraham, Moses, etc.) respected and honoured. At the end of days, according to Islam, Jesus even returns just like in Christianity.

I'm not saying there aren't differences - big ones. It's just that there's a difference between God's identity and His names. Allah isn't God... Allah is a name of god. God has many names. In fact the word God didn't even start out as a name, it was a word - a noun. In english usage, we started to use it as a proper noun, as a name. That's an english thing, 1500 years after Jesus (around when English started to be modern English). Arabs say "the God" in arabic. That word, in Arabic, is Allah. Christians from Arab lands use the same word to describe God the Father. Jews sometimes have trouble thinking that Christians talk about the same God, because Christian concepts of God's nature and attributes are so different (in some formulations of Christianity) than the God of the hebrew Tanakh. Nevertheless scholars and anyone who reads the texts realizes that even if their conceptions of God differ, they are trying, in their human and frail way, to describe the same unique being that created the universe. The same is true with Muslims. Cheers. --Christian Edward Gruber 20:02, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

crazyfurf, so you think Muslims don't fall under the straight thinking folks category? Anyway I don't see how this will help contribute to the article! so remove this section? -- Saleh 11:25, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

maybe you should not ask any quetions or edite any pages of wikipedia, because after reading this i can see that your bias and possibly a racist.

Allah not a contraction of al-ilah!

Insert non-formatted text here Wiki has alread stated, which is a proven fact, that Arabic speaking Jews or Christians used the name Allah before Islam. The following is a refutation of the al-ilah contraction theory and the allegation that Allah was a moon god (If this be then all Arabic speaking Jews and Christians will go to hell) Since Robert Morey Book Islamic Invasion is the leading propaganda on this topic we will use him as a bases of refutation.

We have had the pleasure in reading his book called "Islamic Invasion". However his arguement was unheard of before his book was published. His sources that he quotes, that he misquoted and twisted out of their context, support no such allegation of his.

What Morey did was took various sources of information to asert a theory in the following.

1) The name (Allah) is linguistically, not etymologically, said to be in theory a contraction of the two Arabic words "al ilah" that means "the god or The G-d".

2) In Arabian pagan worship there was a supreme Idol called by the names Sin, Nanna, and Hubul which was known as a moon deity.

3) This moon god was given the designated title "al ilah"

4) the moon god was worshipped in Makkah at the Ka'abah known as Hubul

5) the symbol of Islam is the Crescent

6) the symbol of the moon god was the crescent

These are Morey's foundation to his arguement that he tied togther in his so called detective work.

Unfortunately Morey was not the scholar that people thought he was. His research was not researched at which his prejudice thinking lead him to propagate something that was not. Also to remind everyone that the PHD label which was nicely advertised on his book was not a PHD in world theology or Middles Eastern research.

We would, with gratitude, show the flaws in Morey's reseach.

1) The name (Allah) is linguistically, not etymologically, said to be in theory a contraction of the two Arabic words "al ilah" that means "the god or The G-d"....

3) This moon god was given the designated title "al ilah"

Morey quoted atleast 5 references to prove the name Allah is a contraction of the two Arabic words "al ilah". His reference, except for one, where all christian sources. Not one of his sources or reference was of an Arabic scholar or Arabic lexicon.

His one source that was not christian derived, and is the oldest and most strongest source was the Brittanica. His quote of the Britanica omitted terms from its context to make it a reality.

Britannica wrote: (Arabic: “God”), the one and only God in the religion of Islam. Etymologically, the name Allah is probably a contraction of the Arabic al-Ilah, “the God.” The name's origin can be traced back to the earliest Semitic writings in which the word for god was Il or El, the latter being an Old Testament synonym for Yahweh. Allah is the standard Arabic word for “God” and is used by Arab Christians as well as by Muslims.

The words in bold Morey ommited and in his dictation ignoring the rest of the authority base, misleading his readers to think the Britannica , his strongest source, supported his allegation of a contraction. However the Britannica strickley states a "probability" not a fact or reality.

Morey did not have the ardacity to quote an Arabic scholar or an Arabic Lexicon even those authored by Christians them selves.

On the contrary, Arabic scholars and Lexicon works do not support a contraction. Also the negation for such a contraction is as follows.

“Alllaah” Not a contraction

The English customary spelling “Allah” syllable as “al - lah” in English dictionaries and encyclopedias has often been misrepresented as to its etymology or nature of the word without any Arabic authoritive sources such as Arabic Dictionaries, Lexicons, or Arabic Scholars them selves. Due to its English customary spelling it is often viewed by western writers that the English transliterated letters “a,l,l,a,h” are a contraction of two Arabic words based on a linguistical prestige (in English not Arabic). Thus being ignorant of the fact, and the language it self, that the second “L” in Arabic script called “laam” is a double consonant letter. The first two letters “al” is perceived as the definite article (the), and the three following letters “laah” ( sometimes rendered in English as “lah” ) is the contracted Arabic word “ilaah (deity)” where the weak radical “a”, in Arabic called “alif” - pronounced as an “i” in “ilaah”, is dropped for a contraction.

Example:

1) al ilah (the deity)

2) al lah

3) al-lah

4) Allah

Based on this western hypothesis, and its manipulative fraudulent philosophy which is misleading, the word is assumed to mean ‘the god’ or ‘the deity’ denoting the supreme deity out of others as the main one. The double consonant “L”(laam) in the original Arabic has been edited in English exegesis of the word as a single consonant giving it a linguistical prestige in English as an “al ilah” contraction. This reason because, the double consonant “L”, which would be properly spelled with three L’s(Alllah) serves no purpose in English as it does in Arabic. If the customary English spelling of the name it self is transliterated back into Arabic it would spell “ alif, laam, laam, fatah, ha” reading “allah(a)” (Note: This word in Arabic has NO article) which would be a different word in Arabic meaning “Deification” whereas the name in its original Arabic is spelled as “alif, laam, laam, laam, alif maqsoorah, ha’a” reading “alllaah”. On the other hand, a contraction of the words “al-ilah” is not possible in the Arabic language because the grammar behind it does no permit it as will be shown in the reality of the words in their original language which have been manipulated in English. In The Arabic language when the second radical letter of a word is doubled, by stressing it, it either enhances the word or changes its meaning all together. When the Arabic word “ilaah”(deity) is pronounced as “illaah” by stressing its second radical consonant “L” to double “ll” it changes the meaning from “deity” to “except him” where the “h” consonant is converted into a masculine suffix pronoun. With the contraction theory of “al ilah” applied in Arabic, rather than in English, the second radical letter “L” in the Arabic word “ilaah” is doubled when the “i”(alif kasrah) is dropped to take the word “al” in order to contract “al” and “lah” in the Arabic language.

EXAMPLE:

1) al ilaah

2) al-llaah

3) alllaah

Such an etymological contraction is not possible in the Arabic language in which the word would be meaningless therefore prohibited .

Alllaah Not A Title

The name however is never used or demonstrated in the Quran or Arabic literature as a title. As an attribute of and reference to Alllah surah(chapter) 114 ayah(verse) 3 in the Quran says: “ilahinnas” ~ God of mankind, which negates the existence of another deity for mankind to be worshiped.

In the Quranic Arabic text the word “ilaah”(deity) does not take a nunnation for an indefinite article to indicate “a deity of mankind”, nor the definite article(the) that would denote Alllaah as being the deity out of other deities.

If the name Alllaah in the Arabic language was understood as “the deity” the attribute “ilahinnas”~ God of mankind would of said “ilahin annas” taking the nunnation(in) to mean “A deity of mankind” or “al ilahinnas” with the definite article(the) to mean “The god of mankind” which would of corroborated with the name Alllah if it was understood or meant “ the deity” or “the god”.

However such a gross statement or its like demonstration is no where to be found in the Quran text or Arabic literature in reference to Alllaah In support, the renown testimony and article of faith in islam which is repetitively mentioned in the Quran as:

Laa ilaaha illaa alllah “There is no God except Alllah”

Maa min ilaahin illaa alllah “there is not a single deity(or other God) except Alllah”

If the name meant “the god” it would not have been used in such a statement, because “laa ilaaha illaa al ilaah ~ there is no God except the god”, and “ maa min ilahin illaa al ilaah ~ there is not a single deity(or God) except the god” is improper Arabic, absurd, and a contradiction to it self, whereas the name Alllaah would not have been possible to be used in such a statement in the Arabic language.

Alllaah No Definite Article

The name “Alllaah” in the Quranic Arabic text (and Arabic literature) is written in various grammatical forms which has been overlooked much less ignored by critics of the Islamic due to there lack of knowledge of the Arabic language.

These grammatical forms are: “lillaah”, “Alllaahumma”, “yaa Alllaah”, and “aalllaah”, which determine the nature of the word in Arabic. A noun prefixed with a definite article in Arabic cannot take an additional affix of a “yaa” vocative particle, a “m”(meem) magnifying particle, or a hamza’a interrogative particle, whereas the name Alllaah in many parts the Quran and in Arabic literature is found prefixed with a “yaa” vocative particle ~ “yaa Alllaah”, suffixed with a magnifying particle ~ “Alllaahumma”, and prefixed with an interrogative “hamza” particle ~ “aalllaah”. For example with the prefixed interrogative “hamza” in particle in 10:59 of the Quran

...Qul aalllaahu adhina lakum.

“Say(Muhammad)! Alllaah permitted you ?”

If “al” in the name Alllah was a definite article (the) the prefixing of the “hamza” particle instead of using the interrogative particle “hal” would not be possible or permitted, because the hamza interrogative particle prefixed to the name would have changed “al” to mean, people, folk, or family, as the Arabic word “aal” denotes rather than introducing the name into an interrogative. Thus it would have been meaningless and not used in such grammar.

The preceding ا = a consonant letter called “alif” is the uniform of the word in Arabic which is silent when the name is read suffixly to another word such as: عبدالله = abdu alllaah ~ servant of Alllaah, is read as “Abdullaah”, or the ا = a is absent all together in the possessive form of the word as لله = lillaah where the لِ = li denotes the possessive meaning: to, belonging to, or for, which is not a prefix to the word in Arabic.

In لله = lillaah , the possessive form of the word الله = Alllaah there is no written nor non written assimilated definite article, in which such a clusterized transitional reading of the word would be impossible in the Arabic language if there was a definite article.

The لّه = llaah is the suffix form transition of the word الله = Alllaah by the لِ = li conversion of its first “L” consonant for the possessive, in which a noun with a definite article cannot be suffixed to لِ = li. Only لِ = li can be prefixed to the article( al = the ) it self which is prefixed to a noun or an adjective word such as : al-quddus ~ The Holy One, with لِ = li prefixed to it as : lil-quddus ~ to the Holy One.

Hence, if “al” in Alllah was a definite article “li” could only be prefixed to it as “li-alllah” not as “lillaah” which would lose the article. The possessive form of the name as “lillaah” confirms that there is no “ilaah ~ deity” word contracted in the name, because the doubling of the second radical “L” consonant, as we said before ,of the contracted word “ilaah” with the dropped “i” for “laah” (as alleged) with the possessive “li” for “li-(i)llaah” would change the meaning of “ilaah ~ deity” to except he or it . Thus is meaningless and would be prohibited in Arabic because it would be absurd and making no sense whereas the possessive form “lillaah” of the name Alllaah would not be possible if such an etymological contraction of “al ilaah” existed.

Even so, an assimilated non written definite article is only possible with “li” when it is prefixed to a noun or adjective word with a “FIRST” radical “L” consonant in this case which is doubled by the prefixing of “li” to assimilate a definite article such as “lateef ~ most gentle” with “li” prefixed to it as “lillateef ~ to the Most Gentle(one)” which is the possessive form of “al-llateef ~ The Most Gentle(one).

To the contrary the un-doubled form of the part “llaah” without “li” is “laah(u)” which means “not him” that is not a noun or adjective but a phrase where as “li” cannot be a prefixed to it wherefore to assimilate a definite article. Therefore, the only possible way the word Alllaah in the Arabic language could take the possessive word “li”, if it had a definite article, or even if it was a contraction of “al ilaah”, would be “li-alllaah”. However ! There is no such thing and is remote there from.

The part “llaah” is only the suffix form transition of the word Alllaah by the “li” conversion of its first “L” consonant to make it a possessive noun. The double “Ls” of “llaah” in the Arabic language are inseparable in which “llaah” is the foundation of the name arabicized as Alllaah that engulfs much linguistical unlimited divine meaning.

These various forms characterize the word of being an ARABICIZED name , whereas with the form " Alllaahumma " being suffixed with the "meem" magnifying particle indicating the vocative and singular royal plural which cannot be used with no other word in the arabic language, clearly tells us that this Name is older than the Arabic language it self being derived from a former and more ancient language which constituted such a grammatical character which does not exist in the Arabic Language as we know it today with any other word.

Another example is how the Name never takes Noonation or Tanween. These are grammatical endings such as "un" "an" "in" which are not used with Arabicized words that are not originally arabic derived.

Such is the folly blunder of the “al ilaah ~ the god” contraction probability of the name Alllaah by western writers who have exploited it as a reality and were morless ignorant of the Arabic language and its nature of grammar to ascribe such a thing but followed their own invented imagination affected by prejudice which was mere and fictitious conjecture.

Also. In Arabic there are many words that begin with “al” such as “alyasa” where “al” is not a definite article. “alyasa” is the arabicized form of the Hebrew name “Elisha”

"Lord of the heavens and the earth and what is between them both, so serve Him (alone) and be patient in His worship. Do you know any worthy of His (Alllaah’s) name ? [Qur'an 19:65]"

2) In Arabian pagan worship there was a supreme Idol called by the names Sin, Nanna, and Hubul which was known as a moon deity.

One of Morey's grave error here as he did not study the theology of the moon god which was called by various names Sin, Nanna, or Hubul in different parts of Arabia is the geneology of the pagan dieties.

In Makkah the moon god was called Hubul. Hubul was the son of Al-Uzza - whom was one of the daughters of Alllaah. Thus in pagan ideology Hubul would be the grandson of Alllaah [ma'aadhallah] and not Alllah him self.

More to add to this Hubul was not the supreme Idol at Makkah among the Idols. It was Al-Uzza, Manat, and Allat whom where designated al-aalihat ~ the plural femine of al-ilah.

Muhammad (s.a.w.) preached against the worship of the moon or the sun god in Makkah.

Among His Signs are the Night and the Day, and the Sun and the Moon. Adore not the sun and the moon, but adore Allah, Who created them, if it is Him ye wish to serve. 41:37

Allah could not be seen

No vision can grasp Him(Allah). But His grasp is over all vision: He is above all comprehension, yet is acquainted with all things. (Koran 6:103) He(Allah) is the First and the Last, the Evident and the Hidden: and He has full knowledge of all things. 57:3

Hubal the moon-god and Allah were not the same God

Sahih Al-Bukhari Volumn 005, Book 059, Hadith Number 375.

Narated By Al-Bara : We faced the pagans on that day (of the battle of Uhud) and the Prophet placed a batch of archers (at a special place) and appointed 'Abdullah (bin Jubair) as their commander and said, "Do not leave this place; and if you should see us conquering the enemy, do not leave this place, and if you should see them conquering us, do not (come to) help us," So, when we faced the enemy, they took to their heel till I saw their women running towards the mountain, lifting up their clothes from their legs, revealing their leg-bangles. The Muslims started saying, "The booty, the booty!" 'Abdullah bin Jubair said, "The Prophet had taken a firm promise from me not to leave this place." But his companions refused (to stay). So when they refused (to stay there), (Allah) confused them so that they could not know where to go, and they suffered seventy casualties. Abu Sufyan ascended a high place and said, "Is Muhammad present amongst the people?" The Prophet said, "Do not answer him." Abu Sufyan said, "Is the son of Abu Quhafa present among the people?" The Prophet said, "Do not answer him." Abd Sufyan said, "Is the son of Al-Khattab amongst the people?" He then added, "All these people have been killed, for, were they alive, they would have replied." On that, 'Umar could not help saying, "You are a liar, O enemy of Allah! Allah has kept what will make you unhappy." Abu Safyan said, "Superior may be Hubal!" On that the Prophet said (to his companions), "Reply to him." They asked, "What may we say?" He said, "Say: Allah is More Elevated and More Majestic!" Abu Sufyan said, "We have (the idol) Al-'Uzza, whereas you have no 'Uzza!" The Prophet said (to his companions), "Reply to him." They said, "What may we say?" The Prophet said, "Say: Allah is our Helper and you have no helper." Abu Sufyan said, "(This) day compensates for our loss at Badr and (in) the battle (the victory) is always undecided and shared in turns by the belligerents. You will see some of your dead men mutilated, but neither did I urge this action, nor am I sorry for it." Narrated Jabir: Some people took wine in the morning of the day of Uhud and were then killed as martyrs.

The following is Quranic support to the above hadeeth that Hubul and Alllaah where not the same deity.

The Pagans could not see Allah

[17:90] They(the pagans) say: "We shall not believe in thee(Muhammad), until thou cause a spring to gush forth for us from the earth,

[17:91] "Or (until) thou have a garden of date trees and vines, and cause rivers to gush forth in their midst, carrying abundant water,

[17:92] "Or thou cause the sky to fall in pieces, as thou sayest (will happen), against us, or thou bring Allah and the angels before (us) face to face;

[2:210] Will they(the pagans) wait until Allah comes to them in canopies of clouds, with angels (in His train) and the question is (thus) settled? But to Allah do all questions go back (for decision).

Allah not recognized as one of the Idols by the pagans

[29:17] "For you (pagans) do worship idols besides Allah, and ye invent falsehood. The things that ye worship besides Allah have no power to give you sustenance: then seek ye sustenance from Allah, serve Him, and be grateful to Him: to Him will be your return.

Muhammad declared to the pagans they do not worship what him and his followers worshiped (Allah)

Say(Muhammad to the pagans): O ye that reject Faith! I(Muhammad) worship not that which ye worship, Nor will ye worship that which I worship, And I will not worship that which ye have been wont to worship, Nor will ye worship that which I worship, To you be your Way, and to me mine. (Koran 109:1-6)

And for the very last thing that Morey closed up with in his book.

5) the symbol of Islam is the Crescent

6) the symbol of the moon god was the crescent

Again Morey never did his history seach he just jumped to conclusions. The Crescent symbol in Islam was adopted from the rule of the Ottoman empire which was originally a Turkish symbol http://www.fotw.net/flags/islam.html . The original symbol of Islam is what you see in my avatar in the above left corner of our post as a flag. (Oxy2Hydro 22:57, 23 May 2005 (UTC))

I agree! More supporting evidence: http://www.islam-info.ch/en/Who_is_Allah.htm 88.139.75.251 21:24, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

The silly Allah as a contraction needs to be removed. Allah is from the same root is E-Loah in the Hebrew Bible. Its one word, not two put together. Saying different is as stupid as saying the O is latin for G_d and that Theo is really two words The O. Why can't people who don't like a religion go edit articles about their own religion instead of inserting nonsense into articles about other people's faiths. That way we could all read about each other the way we see ourselves instead of some monstrocity immagined by people who don't like us. OTOH, seeing this nonsense makes me feel better, since the Jewish articles are all patrolled by wacky ZIonists to make sure nobody puts in anything that might imply a different opinion. It's "nice" to see other people have to struggle with the same sort of idiocy. Shia1 00:26, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

I don't mean to be facetious or demeaning in any way, just curious. Given your suggestion that people of one faith are the best ones to edit articles about their own faith -- which I agree with, btw -- just how 'objective' are articles about Christianity and Judaism (and their respective concepts of 'God') in Arabic Wikipedia?

Wikipedia is a great resource for knowledge, tolerance and understanding. How is the Arabic version when it comes to dealing with intolerance and ignorance? Dialwon 21:49, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

al-lah

allah is not a "contraction of al-ilah", since the i in ilah is just an alif al-wasl. allah is an univerbation of al-lah "the deity", while "ilah" means a deity. dab (ᛏ) 16:18, 23 May 2005 (UTC)

Sigh! It's very well established that Allah is a contraction of Al-ilah. Read Ibn Baz or Doughty on the subject or talk to any oriental scholar. c.f. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Allah#Abdalillah. Let's not mix etymology with religious dogma.

transliteration

what are the underdots under the ls supposed to mean, and why were they added? afaik, there is no l-underdot in standard arabic transliteration. dab (ᛏ) 16:18, 23 May 2005 (UTC)

They represent the velarisation of the l which is standard Arabic pronunciation of Allah. Interestingly, the velarised l occurs basically only for this word in Arabic. Someone should add a pronunciation section here and something on the emphatic l to Arabic phonology. I'll have a look for some standard sources. Prime Entelechy 07:03, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Arm leg leg arm hand=

WTF? Those are English words, and Allah is an Arabic word. How can one be derived from the other? Ketsuban has spoken. The debate is over. 21:08, 23 May 2005 (UTC)

Exactly ! The word in Arabic is spelled alif, laam, laam, laam, alif, ha = alllah. The concept of "arm led led arm hand" is from a black cult called the 5 percenters who are a sect of the Nation of Islam that are American black nationalists. (Oxy2Hydro 22:44, 23 May 2005 (UTC))

you are not making sense. Everybody agrees the arm/leg thing is a backronym and has nothing to do with Islam. Also, Allah is not spelled "alif, laam, laam, laam, alif, ha", it is spelled "alif, laam, laam (shadda), alif, ha", indicating that laam is a harf qamariyya, just like with any other word beginning with laam, when combined with the article. dab (ᛏ) 08:05, 24 May 2005 (UTC)

If this "arm leg leg arm head" belief is current among a reasonably large organized group of people, it should be noted here, regardless of its origin. Anthony Appleyard 17:14, 24 May 2005 (UTC)

I was agreeing with Ketsuban as to his reaction towards such a saying. Also Dab when transliterating "Allah" back into Arabic you get alif, laam (shaddah)fataha ha . This is a whole different word in Arabic. The Shaddah represents double consonants whereas you said alif, laam, laam shaddah, alif hah in which "laam shaddah" = "laam laam" making a total of three laams (Ls). This was my point. Also there is no article in the name, as you used for your justification above, as we have supplied Arabic Authority below and have explained above the science in the Arabic langauge how it does not have an article. (Oxy2Hydro 18:07, 24 May 2005 (UTC))

It doesn't matter who the 5 percenters are. They happen to believe that Allah stands for Clarence 13x. The NOI used to believe in Arm Leg Leg Arm Head (In dont know if they still do). Within their belief system it is the meaning of Allah. You can use your knowledge of Arabic grammer and Islam to argue otherwise, and you are correct within your belief system. The 5 percenters would argue that this is part of a conspiracy to suppress the black man, and that ALLAH stands for Arm leg... as revealed to Wallace Fard. I'm not saying that they are correct, but this is not an article on Islam, it is an article on Allah. If you mention Maltese Catholic and Indonesian Christian beliefs regarding the word Allah, I don't see why you can not include The 5 percenters and NOI in the introduction. They would say it is not a backronym and that this is the true meaning of the word. They would also say that they are the 'true' Islam, so you can not make statements like it has 'nothing to do with Islam'--Notquiteauden 23:27, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

alif, laam, laam, laam, alif, ha = plough, goad, goad, goad, plough, window. Hmm, maybe not.

However, the idea that God's name might spell out the blueprint of Man has a reflection in the Kabbalah: placing the four letters of the Tetragrammaton vertically in descending order gives the visual of a head, arms, trunk and legs.

Nuttyskin 07:09, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

proper noun

H2O does have a point, in that Allah may be considered a "personal name" in the same right as "God" may be considered a personal name. The distinction we are making here is the one between YHWH and El, a very peculiar development foreign to Islam. Therefore, the "personal name" issue should maybe not be mentioned so apodictically in the intro. Allah is Arabic for God. There was a lot of dispute about this on the God article also, and it was settled with

"The use of capitalisation, as for a proper noun, has persisted to disambiguate the concept of a singular God from pagan deities for which lowercase god has continued to be applied, mirroring the use of Latin deus."

Arabic doesn't have the possibility of capitalisation, but the "inseparability" of the article is comparable. Allah of course is from al-lah, etymologically, but it became a proper noun in as much as the article became inseparable from the root. dab (ᛏ) 08:15, 24 May 2005 (UTC)

Allah and El

I agree that Allah is from Proto-Semitic 'il. ~~But is that not via NW Semitic El? Or why is the connection to NW Semitic el wrong?~~ sorry, I forgot that Arabic is considered South-Central. El according to Gesenius may be from

'wl "to be strong"
'wl "to be foremost"
'lh "to swear, make a covenant"

The question is of course, what about the h - was it lost in El, or was it added to Allah? Why is it not in Allat? If the word is really from 'lh, Allah would in fact not be from 'il, but directly from Proto-Semitic 'ilah (maybe "god of the oath", i.e. it would never have lost its h. This is not suggested by Gesenius, however. dab (ᛏ) 07:45, 26 May 2005 (UTC)

Actually, the word relates to Eloah (אלוה) which is used repetidly in the bible. And the plural of this word is Elohim which in the bible means "Gods" and in some other instances it means the magnification of one God.

My Arabic to English dictionary under root [#-l-h] lists these verbs: derived root 2 [#allaha] = "he deified", and derived root 5 [ta#allaha] = "he became a god". It is likely that the verb [#alaha] was formed from the noun [#ilāhu].

There were many dialects of Arabic and related languages. Sometimes in non-standard Arabic, [h] between vowels may have sometimes dropped. In Hebrew, the [h] in 3rd person pronoun suffixes is routinely lost.

As I wrote above, religion is likely to encourage a tendency to make random small changes to a word or name to make it sound special and more important. That would explain the [h] disappearing in [allātu], and also in [#ilāhu] becoming [#ilu]. I suspect that Commmon Semitic did not have a definite article, and that each branch of the Semitic languages developed a definite article separately. (Arabic has [al-], but in early Islamic times one Arabic dialect used [an-] instead. Aramaic uses [-ā#] on the end of the word. Hebrew uses [ha-] plus doubling the next consonant; that may have originally been [han-]. Babylonian and similar do not seem to have had a definite article.) Thus, in early Semitic times, someone wanting to express the idea of "The God", shortened [#ilāhu] to [#ilu]. Anthony Appleyard 10:10, 26 May 2005 (UTC)

The h is difficult to explain; the fluctuation is found within Hebrew ('el / 'elohim), but also by comparison across Semitic: Akkadian ilum, Ugaritic 'il versus Aramaic 'alaah-aa, Arabic 'ilaah. Phoenician 'ln (alon/ilon) is probably through suffixation. I'd want to find a reference on this one... - Mustafaa 18:03, 26 May 2005 (UTC)

The traditional Arabic grammarians' positions

I went and tried to look up Allah in the Lisan al-Arab, and found:

ت. وقال الخليل: الله لا تطرح الأَلف من الاسم إنما هو الله عز ذكره على التمام؛ قال: وليس هو من الأَسماء التي يجوز منها اشْتقاق فِعْلٍ كما يجوز في الرحمن والرحيم

Al-Khalil said: Do not drop the 'alif from the noun, for it is Allah who has recalled it in full; and he said: And it is not among the nouns for which one may find a verbal etymology, as one can for ar-Rahman and ar-Rahim.

However, the entry goes on to quote another authority:

قال أَبو الهيثم: فالله أَصله إلاهٌ، قال الله عز وجل: ما اتَّخذ اللهُ من وَلَدٍ وما كان معه من إلَهٍ إذا لَذَهَبَ كُلُّ إلَهٍ بما خَلَقَ

Abul-Haitham said: The origin of "Allah" is ilaah, Allah (azz wa jall) said: (23:91) Allah hath not chosen any son, nor is there any god (ilaah) along with Him; else would each god have assuredly championed that which he created...

ال: وأَصل إلَهٍ وِلاهٌ، فقلبت الواو همزة كما قالوا للوِشاح إشاحٌ وللوِجاحِ وهو السِّتْر إِجاحٌ، ومعنى ولاهٍ أَن الخَلْقَ يَوْلَهُون إليه في حوائجهم

And he said: The origin of ilaah is wilaah, for the waaw became a hamza, just as they say ishaaH for wishaaH, and ijaaH for wijaaH, and the meaning of wilaah is that the people are enthralled (wlh) by him in their needs...

(http://www.alwaraq.com/index4.htm?c=http://www.alwaraq.com/LisanSearch.htm&m=http://www.alwaraq.com/search.htm). Just thought I'd throw this in. - Mustafaa 17:54, 26 May 2005 (UTC)

Refutation to Anthony and Dab

To Anthony:
I am sorry but you are wrong it is not pronounced as “a,alllaah” with a pause in 10:59, it is pronounced as “aalllaah”. If you pay attention to the tashdeed “~” that is above the “alif” to prolong it with the hamza.

Qul 'Ara'aytum Mā 'Anzala Allāhu Lakum Min Rizqin Faja`altum Minhu Ĥarāmāan Wa Ĥalālāan Qul 'Ālllahu 'Adhina Lakum 'Am `Alá Allāhi Taftarūna

http://4bm.com/quraanLanguages/English/Color/Fram2.htm
(Oxy2Hydro 23:08, 26 May 2005 (UTC))

That link http://4bm.com/..... confirms what I saw in my bilingual Quran: that there is not a [#a] particle immediately before an [allāhu] in verse 10:59. There is the sequence [#anzala (a)llāhu], and the (a) is silent because the previous word ends in a vowel. Anthony Appleyard 05:37, 27 May 2005 (UTC)

I have deep respect for you Bro, but I dont know if I should cry or sigh. Anthony finish read the verse in Arabic thank you, we high lighted above where you over looked. (Oxy2Hydro 14:42, 27 May 2005 (UTC))

Audio recitation of 10:59 http://www.islamicity.com/MOSQUE/ARABICSCRIPT/AYAT/10/ra101_10-59.ram

Also the hamza in some Arabic scripts is not written where as “~” is the tashdeed that is used to prolong the alif to introduce the interrogative.
(Oxy2Hydro 23:08, 26 May 2005 (UTC))

OK. I know about alif-madda, which is pronounced [#aa]. But the interrogative particle is [#a] with a short vowel.

In the Quran the hamza symbol is very scarce, compared with standard Arabic spelling. Anthony Appleyard 05:37, 27 May 2005 (UTC)

We are on the wrong page here with each other cause you didnt fully read the verse(Oxy2Hydro 14:42, 27 May 2005 (UTC))

Also Anthony surely you will not find the word "Allat" under the entry that the name "Allah" is under. You will find it under the root "lata" instead of "alaha". Please also read the introduction or preface to your dictionary about Arabicized words and their proper placement, the same is with the word "Allah" whereas a word that follows under a root does not mean it is derived from that root.
(Oxy2Hydro 23:08, 26 May 2005 (UTC))

If a dictionary puts [allāt] under root [l-t-w] or [l-t-y] or similar, that need not be the name's real etymology. In Arabic dictionaries, foreign words, and proper-names without a clear etymology, are often put under whatever root they look most like at first sight, such as X-ray under [k-s-r] = "break", and jeep under [j-y-b] = "heart, belly, curve". Anthony Appleyard 05:37, 27 May 2005 (UTC)

Thank you, this was my point, the same applies to the word Allah. THe above is what we wanted you to say which is what is said in the preface of you Dictionary (Oxy2Hydro 14:42, 27 May 2005 (UTC))

To Dab :
Also Dab the spelling "Alllah" is not misleading . This has been a thing criticized among Arabicists towards westerners whom barely understand the language to Transliterate “اللّـه“ as "Allah" then how would you transliterate then “الّـه“ in this case with shaddah to distinguish it from the actual name?

There are countless scholars and Arabic advocates that spell the name with three Ls which is the correct spelling:

‘addition’ to it, namely a shadda over the lam . This tells us that in fact there are two spelling mistakes in the word Allah, and that three lams are desired which requires a spelling of ‘Alllaah’, not ‘Allaah’ [or Alllah for those who don’t want to admit the missing alif].

http://64.233.161.104/search?q=cache:jepNf2FggQoJ:answering-islam.org.uk/PQ/ch13c-index.htm+Alllah,+spelling,+name&hl=en&start=2
(Oxy2Hydro 23:08, 26 May 2005 (UTC))

This feature occurs in other words also, for example [al rrajulu] (pronounced [ar rajulu]) = "the man", [al nnār] (pronounced [an nār]) = "the fire". Anthony Appleyard 06:05, 27 May 2005 (UTC)

You are using wrong examples here, those words you cited do not have tripple Ls spelled in script. They are sun letters yes, but they do not have a second laam. The example you are lookinf for is for example "Lateef" it begins with a sun letter. Adding "al" to it doubles the sun letter as "Alllateef". Teh point the source we pointed out made is that the spelling "Allah" does not pass or reflect the original in Arabic. (Oxy2Hydro 14:42, 27 May 2005 (UTC))

Just as in written English there is a difference in “God” vs. “god” but there is no distinction linguistically. In Arabic there is written distinction between اللّـه = allah and الّـه= allah both are pronounced “allah” with shaddah but they are spelled differently. اللّـه The name of God is properly spelled Alllah whereas الّـه = allah is derived directly from “alaha” expressing “divinity”. One is the name of God and the other is the linguistical attribute expressing “divinity’. Linguistically there is not difference between them which is the name of God with no article denoting and expressing “Divine One” “The Only Divine One” encompassing all attributes of perfection.

We still would like to see Arabic Authority in support of most of your claims.
(Oxy2Hydro 23:08, 26 May 2005 (UTC))

But the triple consonant is not pronounced triple in Arabic. Estonian (and perhaps also Saamic (= Lappish)) are the only languages whose pronunciation routinely contains triple consonants. Here we must choose whether to transcribe the spelling or to transcribe the pronunciation. (Anthony Wrote)

Anthony are you paying attention to what we write ? We said nothing about pronouncing tripple Ls. Please re-read our post, thank you. We making made a distinction between written Arabic and Arabic and spoken Arabic and implied nothing of the such to which you are debating. (Oxy2Hydro 14:42, 27 May 2005 (UTC))

The other "spelling mistake" mentioned above is likely the feature that [allāhu] is written as اللّه (and not as اللّاه with the [ā] vowel spelt as alif as usual). This is likely because the Arabic spelling of "Allah" was established very early, before Arabic spelling started routinely using alif to spell the [ā] vowel.

This [lll] versus [ll] sounds different because the [L] in [allāh] is often pronounced as the English [l] in "loop", and all other Arabic [l]'s are pronounced as the English [[i] in "leap".

Anthony Appleyard 05:55, 27 May 2005 (UTC)

The spelling mistakes was directed to English transliteration and English customary spelling, not to the Arabic script. (Oxy2Hydro 15:00, 27 May 2005 (UTC))

- - OK. I know about alif-madda, which is pronounced [#aa]. But the interrogative particle is [#a] with a short vowel.

In the Quran the hamza symbol is very scarce, compared with standard Arabic spelling. Anthony Appleyard 05:37, 27 May 2005 (UTC)

Ah lets see, we gave you the link of the Audio, you will not find hamza that is written or not being pronounced seperate with a pause from "al" in Allah's name. WE chose Abdul Basit's recitation of tarteel which is nice and slow so you dont miss it as he prolongs it as " ...Qul aaaaaaaaaalllaahu adhina lakum...."

Hamza is to asure the reading is pronounced "aaaaaaalllaahu" if alif madda is absent when there is not tashdeed. Being that there was no tashdeed the hamza was written before the alif so that one would pronounce "aaal" introducing the interogative where the hamza is pronounced with the alif for an alif madda pronounciation. You will not find in no recitation of such a speration and any Arabicist would correct you if you recited the hamza seperate from the "al".

With or without Hamza, or hamza with no alif madda tashdeed it is pronounced as "aaal". The simular thing in the script of Allah's name which is pronounced "alllaah" with alif madda (aa)which is also traditionally called alif maqsoorah is not always written in script but pronounced

The fact is, you cannot pronounce "al" as "aal" to introduce the interogative if "al" is a diffinite artcle. In the case of the surah 10:59 we see it is not considered or treated as such. The following shows both the hamza and alif madda in script that is pronounced as "aalllaahu" introducing the interogative.

Other than this Anthony pretty much we are comming around to the point that the word Allah is not associated with "al-ilah" as mentioned in the begining. We already quoted two elite Arabic Scholars whom quote other elite, that the word has no association with "al-ilah" nore the word "Allat".

If there is any word it is associated with etymologically it would be the word "lahut"(lahwt)pron. laahoot ~ divinity, in which this word is not derived from "alaha" but from a pre-semetic language. Please consult you dictionary on this word, as you would see it does not follow under the root "alaha"
(Oxy2Hydro 07:16, 27 May 2005 (UTC))

Uhh. Sorry. About three quarters of the way through verse 10:59 there is an [allāhu] with a madda, as H2O says. In my Quran there is not a hamza written also there. It seems to mean that [#a] + [allāhu] contract to [#āllāhu]. Perhaps the same happened in Arabic of Muhammad's time whenever [al-] = "the" came next after [#a]. Perhaps it was a one-off peculiarity in Muhammad's pronunciation when he revealed that part of that verse. But still, that seems to have no connection with whether or not the [-#i-] in [al#ilāhu] and [al#ilāhatu] could drop out in spoken (and then written) usage. Anthony Appleyard 13:51, 27 May 2005 (UTC)

“Perhaps” “Could” are speculations. You are now mixing apples with oranges here of our presentation. We introduced “aaalllaahu” in 10:59 to refute that “al” in the word is not an Article only. You cannot use, as we have been saying, hamza or alif madda with “al” if it is an Article which is the case with the word “Allah” in 10:59. If “al” was understood as an Article in “Allah” then in classical Arabic it would have been written or recited as “ hal + alllaahu properly read “halllaahu” whereas this reading is prohibited cause there is no article.

For example: The names Alyas and Alyasa’ both begin with “Al” which is not an Article in those names they are Arabicized forms of “Elijah and Elisha.

Both name can be used with the hamza as “aalyas” meaning “Alyas ?” and “aalyasa” meaning “Alyasa ?” . To the Contrary words used with “al” as a definite article such as Alllaateef meaning “The Subtle One” cannot be prefixed with hamza or its “al” cannot be pronounced as “aalllaateef” to introduce the interogative as the “al” will no longer be an article that will change the meaning of the word to express “subtle people” in which “aal” means people, folk.

If you have no article you have no contraction if you have no "ilah" you have to contraction thus we have disproved both based on facts not speculations or assumption or theory as you have presented. (Oxy2Hydro 17:08, 27 May 2005 (UTC))

This proves nothing about the etymology of the word. All it proves is that, at the Prophet's time, it was not interpreted as containing the definite article; that implies nothing either way about whether the word had originally contained a definite article. For example, we know that in modern English "adder" begins with a vowel, and we say "an adder"; yet a few centuries ago, the word was "nadder", and people said "a nadder". It's always important to distinguish between synchronic and diachronic explanations. - Mustafaa 17:33, 27 May 2005 (UTC)

Correct Mustafaa, we were not trying to prove an etymology, we were disproving the etymology associated to it by western propaganda. For us to prove an etymology would be like trying to prove the origin of time. Remember this though, the name is as old as the Kabbah it self which was always known as "Baitullah" ie the house of "llah" from since the time makkah was called Bakkah which goes back prior to the Arabic language it self. (Oxy2Hydro 19:59, 27 May 2005 (UTC))

As I pointed out in the Lisan al-Arab quote above, it's Arabs, not Westerners, who first came up with the idea that Allah derives from "ilaah". - Mustafaa 20:02, 27 May 2005 (UTC)

Correct, derived from "ilaah" nothing about a contraction of "al-ilah". I have no arguement with this as I am aware of the whole issue. Better yet the quote you posted contradicted each other also, but, in conclusion, they do no support a contraction or that the "al" in the word "Allah" is an Article. Better yet the majority support this view.(Oxy2Hydro 20:46, 27 May 2005 (UTC))

Again, as I pointed out before, we seem to be running into a desire by religious people to treat the name of their god as a sacred indivisible root-word. The same happened with some Vaishnavite Hindus, who had a rule that their god name Vishnu was not to be "analyzed", i.e. people were not to try to split it into component morphemes. Anthony Appleyard 21:31, 27 May 2005 (UTC)

guys, is this not going offtopic rapidly? Of course Allah has an etymology, this has nothing to do with propaganda. And we're just here to summarize the different opinions. So let's just paraphrase the grammarians Mustafaa cites above, and material we find in etymological dictionaries. I don't think there is any serious doubt that

Allah contains the article, etymologically
in Arabic, it is not considered analyzeable anymore (maybe even at the prophet's time, although I do think the brilliant prose bit that is the shahada is intended as a pun, or a figura etymologica)

so what is the problem? Some authorities say it should not be analysed? Let's state that. Other authorities do analyse it? Let's state that also. I don't think anyone is actively disputing a particular etymology, they are just saying "thou shalt not etymologize" dab (ᛏ) 06:19, 28 May 2005 (UTC)

Anon's deletion

An anon deleted a sentence that has been in the article for a long time, something about the word Allahummah being found in the Qur'an. Is this true? False? Why was this deleted? I restored the sentence, at least for the nonce, and I'm asking the other editors for an opinion. Zora 02:51, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Allahumma is found in the Qur'an, but it's essentially an irregular vocative form of Allah, and I am very sceptical about this unsourced claimed link to "Elohim". - Mustafaa 18:01, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Well then, let's remove it after all. Zora 18:13, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

From my understanding, Allahummah is a supplicative form. It is akin to saying, "Oh Allah <insert wish here>" --GNU4Eva 13:47, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

"Ilāh" is an Untranslatable Monotheistic Concept?

As of the most recent version of the article, it states, in discussing the etymology of "Allah", tht "some Muslim scholars feel that "llāh" should not be translated, because it expresses the uniqueness of God more accurately than "God", which can take a plural "Gods", whereas "llāh" has no plural. This is a significant issue in translation of the Qur'an. This also explains why Arabic-speaking Jews and Christians freely refer to God as Allāh." Overlooking the inevitable weasal words, "some Muslim scholars feel that ...," I'm bringing into question the factual accuracy of this statement. I am skeptical of the statement because (a) no source is provided, and (b) the word "ilāh" is from pre-Islamic times. As the article explains, linguists believe that "Allah" is a contraction of "al-ilāh" ("the god.") The pagan Arab religion, in addition to using the word "Allah" also used the word "Allat," itself a contraction of "al-ilāh-at" (literally "the godess"). The words "ilāh" (god), "ilāh-at" (godess), "Allat" (the name of a female diety in the pagan Arab pantheon), and "Allah" (the name of the masculin creator God in the pagan Arab pantheon), all existed as words in pre-Islamic times. In light of the fact that pagan (polythiest) Arabs in pre-Islamic times used the word Arabic word "ilāh" (god), it seems doubtful that the word "ilāh" can only be used in a monotheistic sense (as the editor claims in the disputed statement). The statement has no source, and appears to be inconsistent with known etymological facts, so I am going to edit it. The point of the statement is that some Muslims don't like to translate "Allah" into "God," especially in publish translations of the Qur'an. That should be mentioned, in the contest of the belief of linguists that the word "Allah" is in fact just a contraction of the words "al-ilah" (the god). --Zeno of Elea 3 July 2005 08:58 (UTC)

I think you misunderstood the statement. The point is that "llāh" became lexicalized as a new word meaning "single God", as a lexeme different from "ilāh", which of course still can take the plural. "llāh" is therefore a lexeme that only arose in Islamic times, and it cannot logically take a plural. Etymologically, it is an univerbation of ilah with the article, but that is etymology, not synchronic Arabic. You may as well say that "God" is a participle, which is etymologically true, but certainly not synchronically. Nowhere do we claim that "ilāh" has a monotheistic sense, much to the contrary, because "llāh" was coined, "ilāh" is now reserved for polytheistic idols. dab (ᛏ) 3 July 2005 09:36 (UTC)

Oh, I"m sorry, I misread "llāh" as "ilāh." Though I don't agree with your statement that "ilāh" is reserved for polytheistic gods only, since "Allāh" is called an "ilāh" in the shahada. --Zeno of Elea 3 July 2005 21:05 (UTC)

that's because the shahada is pre-Islamic Arabic, so to speak, and remained untouched for 1400 years. Your interpretation also hinges on the translation of ila, it is unclear if that implies that allah is considered a subset of ilah. You may also translate something like: "there are no ilah. ok, but there is Allah" which may mean that allah is a related concept, but not identical to ilah. Historically, of course, the shahada translates "there are no ilah, exept for The One Ilah (which we will refer to as Allah from now on)", i.e. it is really the axiom defining the terminology of all post-shahada-Arabic. Correct me, but that's how I came to think about the case. dab (ᛏ) 8 July 2005 09:21 (UTC)

If you want a source for this common view (which I disagree with), try a translation of Muhammad al-Ghazali's work. - Mustafaa 4 July 2005 16:38 (UTC)

As far as the issue of translating Allah into English goes, that's easy enough: "God" with a capital "G" specifies monotheistic diety. Using the word Allah in English has confused many people into thinking that Allah is a name of God, equivalent to Jehovah -- especially with Christian missionaries promoting the "moon god" nonsense.Kauffner 15:07, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Hubal

Any reason for linking to this article besides the debunked arguments that Hubal was Allah?Heraclius 22:12, 30 July 2005 (UTC)

Oh and by the way, regarding my edit comment of "that's false", I was referring to your accusations of vandalism. A removal of one link from the See Also section is not vandalism.Heraclius 22:17, 30 July 2005 (UTC)

I have just incorporated the Hubal reference in the appropriate section. Hopefully this will stop your edit warring.Heraclius 22:21, 30 July 2005 (UTC)

That's fair enough, Heraclius. For the record, I'm not saying that Hubal was Allah, I'm saying that Hubal was an important diety in pagan South Arabia, similar to how Allah was an important diety in pagan South Arabia. As long as Hubal is mentioned somewhere, it's fine with me. --Zeno of Elea 20:10, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

I also think the pre-Islamic situation may be discussed, and Allah put in context of his pagan origins. That's all fair enough, and I wish you could always be as reasonable, Zeno. but this is really of another kind, and marks you as a vandal, pure and simple. I mean, the Judeo-Christian God originated as a burning bush, but what do you think people would say if I went about plastering the YHWH article with pictures of bushes? That's really too low a register to waste much breath on, I can only hope your present agreement with Heraclius will help you regain your countenance. dab (ᛏ) 16:16, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

Dance Allah

I would appreciate it if the Catholic moderators would stop deleting the information on dance allah. Dance Allah is an integral part of the Islam religion.

Please create new sections at the bottom of talk pages and add ~~~~ at the end of your posts so we can tell who and when posted it. Also cite notable sources. Catholic? O_O gren グレン 23:34, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

I'm not catholic... I'm Viennese! Dance Ballroom!- Tεx τ urε 23:39, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

Keep playing the religious discrimination card. That will get you a long way in life...

Use of "Allah" by Sfaradim

Al-Andalus has twice removed references to the Arabic-speaking Sfaradi communities of the Maghreb who, in daily speech, to this day, refer to the Almighty as "Allah". The assertion that they have retained "their traditional Judeao-Spanish [sic] rendering of His name" is true, but only in liturgical and literary environments, environments in which no other Arabic-speaking Jewish population has adopted the use of "Allah" either. If he removes the Sfaradim again, revert the removal, and cite it as vandalism. TShilo12 07:26, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

SHARIFA PIPSQUEEK

"It is most commonly used in Islam...", "usage is traditionally attributed to Muslims"

Surely we can find a better way of putting this? After all, it is universally used in Christianity as well. What exactly is this trying to get at? That Muslims use it more than Christians (because more Muslims speak Arabic than Christians)? That in English (and other languages) it is used (only) by Muslims? There must be a better way of saying whatever is intended to be said.

Equally, "Although the usage of the word Allāh is traditionally attributed to Muslims": this is a somewhat unclear sentence. I think it's an attempt to find a more glorious-sounding way of saying, "although most people think that Allah is something that Muslims say". Perhaps it should be read "Although outside the Arab world use of the word Allāh is widely associated with Islam" or something similar?

And does it really have to have a macron on the second "a"? How does this fit in with our conventions? Palmiro | Talk 03:52, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

"Although most often used by Muslims around the world, it is also used by other Arabic-speakers to refer to the eternal monotheist Deity." I made that change, but you are free to change it. Yes, it should have the macron on the second a; it clarifies the pronounciation. I'm sure you've heard the ever popular pronounciation that rhymes with "walla," "holla," and "calla" (sorry for the slang terms, but they're the only words that sound even close to what I'm thinking). joturner 04:03, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

Actually, that's a pretty popular pronunciation in Arabic as well, though granted you're unlikely to hear it from an imam! Palmiro | Talk 06:08, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

Purpose of this article

I couldn't really find the purpose of this article. Is it about the etymology of the word "Allah" (the arabic word)? About the usage of this arabic word? or about the islamic conception of "God"? If it was about the conception I would like to move it to Islamic conception of God, a clearer title that really reflects the content. CG 14:03, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

Is it possible that it's about all three? Many people, particularly non-Muslims, think Allah and God are two different things. Therefore, this is the most appropriate title because it allows us to talk about the etymology and usage of the word as well as the Islamic conception of God. Allah would be the most common search term for all three. joturner 14:06, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

Not necessarly. I agree about the reasoning but it is not that Many people, particularly non-Muslims, think Allah and God are two different things. As CG notes below, Allah is not an exclusive Islamic term. Cheers -- Szvest 09:39, 27 December 2005 (UTC) ^{Wiki me up}

Don't take me wrong, I've read the article. I just think that, since "Allah" is not an islamic term, or particular to Islam, why its islamic conception is in this article? CG 14:10, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

Do you mean making Allah as disambig page? I have no proposals for titles! Cheers -- Szvest 09:39, 27 December 2005 (UTC) ^{Wiki me up}

Well, this page could alternatively deal with the meaning, use and etymology of the word and we could have another page on the Islamic conception of God. I'd be inclined to favour that, as the current set-up could be seen as reflecting either or both of (a) ignorance of the usages of non-Muslim Arabs and (b) the anti-Islamic prejudice among some Christians that Muslims worship a different god from them. Palmiro | Talk 17:37, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Move of "Islamic conception of God" section

I suggested the move of the "Islamic conception of God" section to a new article (Islamic conception of God, Islam conception of God or Conception of God in Islam), because the article contradicts itself: how do you explain that "Allah" is not an islamic term, and you feature the islamic conception of God in the article. Since "Allah" is just an arabic translation, this article should be only about its use and etymology. Its conception should be at the God article. CG 17:32, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

I see we had one of those silent edit conflicts. I support this view. Though '"Allah" is just an arabic translation might be a slightly controversial way of putting it! Palmiro | Talk 17:40, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Allah is not a translation of anything; it is a genuine Arabic word, that came to mean "Singular God" with Islam; be aware of signifié vs. signifiant :) dab (ᛏ) 17:51, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

If it's not a translation, why does the introduction say The word Allāh is the Arabic term for "God"? CG 18:12, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

sounds good. Keep a summary section here, of course. dab (ᛏ) 17:51, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

I did it; if people disagree, they can still just redirect it back here. dab (ᛏ) 18:33, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for the move, but I would prefer to just delete this section and put on the top of the page:

This article is about the etymology and usage of the arabic word Allah. For the concept of God in Islam, see Islamic conception of God.

I don't really like this idea; the "conception of God" section is relevant to this article, it is just not identical to the scope of this article; standard WP procedure is to branch it out via {{main}} (while dab notices are for unrelated things with the same name). dab (ᛏ) 19:07, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

I fully agree with CG. When I see Lebanese Forces members saying "Allah ou ouwet" I am convinced that Allah is not even close to being exclusive to Islam. Yuber^(talk) 19:41, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

I really think that while the Islamic concept of God is clearly relevant in a restricted sense, it is a sufficiently different question to look rather out of place here. Palmiro | Talk 19:51, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

nobody says 'Allah' is exclusive to Islam. But think again: Many articles linking to Allah, including Allah, intend to link to the Islamic concept of God. Think about the "principle of least surprise". You may change all these links, but people will still continue linking to Allah in other than etymological contexts. It is safest to keep a summary of the Islamic concept of God here, but have a detailed article somewhere else. dab (ᛏ) 20:11, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

When I first read the original post under this section, I thought this was a bad idea. But seeing as how things turned out, I am okay with the comprimise of having sufficient information about the Islamic conception of God in the Allah article but still having a separate article that elaborates. However, I strongly oppose eliminating the Islamic conception of God off this page completely (as proposed by an unsigned editor earlier). If that were to happen, this article would just be about the etymology of an Arabic word. It is very likely that any person searching the English Wikipedia for Allah is going to be more interested in the Islamic concept of God rather than the Arabic etymology. The English Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a dictionary and especially not an Arabic dictionary. We don't have articles about words in other languages (such as Dios for God in Spanish) unless they bear some significance in the English-speaking world. All in all, I like the Allah article as it is.

P.S. I'm moving the Islamic conception of God article to Islamic concept of God. Although the word conception can mean the same thing as the word concept, the most common use of the word conception refers to fertilization of an egg. I don't think that was what we were going for. joturner 20:15, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Ok, you convinced me about keeping this section. But I would like to add a small "warning" at the top of this section which implies that this section is not about the concept but about the usage or something like that, to clarify that "Allah" is not an islamic term. CG 11:09, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

On the origins of the word "Ole" in Spanish

Without being disrespectful, I think the etymology of "ole" in Spanish derives from a similar root to "allez" as in "go!" in French. I just picked up a mistake on the section where the use of "All-h in phrases" which deemed the etymology to come from Arabic. Thanks.

In fact the RAE gives the etymology of olé as "Voz expr." which might be translated as "expressive word", meaning it's just a noise not derived from any other word. — Hippietrail 16:25, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Featured article

I think that this article has all the FA criteria, besided the intro that should be expanded. Would you consider nominating it to Featured article status? CG 10:47, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

There aren't really any sources. But yes, it could be on its way. joturner 05:26, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Calligraphy

That image of the word Allah does not appear to be calligraphy... it just looks like arabic to me. --Irishpunktom\^talk 09:36, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Mass reverts

Anonymous editor,

You’ve restored a section Etymology with two sub-sections, “Usage” and “As a word”. Half the “As a word” section is in fact about Etymology. “Usage” has nothing to do with Etymology, nor do issues of translation which appear under “As a word.”

Nor have you displayed any appreciation for basic guidelines of style. The first paragraph of the “As a Word” section is one of the single most convoluted and confusing things I’ve ever seen on wikipedia, and you’ve restored it.

Your introduction “Allah is the Arabic term for "God" in Islam.” is misleading, as it is also the term for “God” for Arabic-speaking followers of other Abrahamic religions, as you would know had you bothered to read the article. Indeed, it was the Arabic name for God in pre-Islamic times as well.

The “Islamic concept of God” section is a rambling, largely unsourced alternative article to Islamic concept of God, and indeed much of is duplicated. It is off-topic here just as it is on-topic there.

There are many more problems with your version of the article (and indeed many problems remaining with the improved version). Please join the talk page where we can work them out one by one.Timothy Usher 02:18, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

I shouldn't need to work them out one by one. The intro makes it clear that there are other usages for the word but the most common is in Islam and this is the whole reason why the sections were made like that in the first place. You aren't the first person to edit the article. Many editors have worked together to get it like it is today, you shouldn't be mass editing anything like this and then complain when the reason is giving for reverting it. Unfortunately you seem to be making up your own policies on how articles and named and written. --a.n.o.n.y.m ^t 02:23, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

There. I have separated the etymology and the usage as a compromise on it and put the usage before to show the different usages. --a.n.o.n.y.m ^t 02:25, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

My point is more general: I spent a lot of time looking at this article in detail, and you haven't. And yes, you should need to work them out one by one.

Had you known the meaning of "etymology", and also read the article, you'd have seen immediately why I made the changes I did. You appear to be reverting my edits simply because it is I who made them.

So far as I know, you are making up your own policies - I asked what rule I'd broken with the Jibril redirect, and all you said was that someone had been banned before. If there is a rule here, please apprise me of it such that I might follow it.Timothy Usher 05:13, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Blanking pages, arbitrary moves and redirecting is blockable. I've worked a lot longer on these pages and *read* them many times more than you have. Please don't think that people have never even looked at the article before you. It's been edited for years, I don't find your reason for just coming here, making your own ideas on how this encyclopedia is written and pretending like your edits help make the article better than it was before. --a.n.o.n.y.m ^t 01:41, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Yes, page-blank vandalism (that is, not as part of a legitimate redirect) and arbitrary redirecting is blockable. I ask you again, if there is a rule relating to the Jibril redirect, please inform me. Otherwise, cease your gratuitous threats.

“I've worked a lot longer on these pages and *read* them many times more than you have.”

Will you explain, then, why you saw it fit to include a section on Usage and comments on issues of translation under the “Etymology” section? Perhaps you had a very good reason I'd be very interested to hear it before I make further improvements to the article.Timothy Usher 03:25, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

What's you problem with it now that you want to make these "improvements"? The article was named like that for several months. The intro already linked usages to it and that would have solved any problems you had but you didn't see it. I liked that version much better but I accepted a compromise. --a.n.o.n.y.m ^t 03:26, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm happy to explain them as I go along so we might talk them over. At the moment, I'm more interested in your answer to my question. I think I know it, but I don't like to assume.Timothy Usher 03:28, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

As you've added to your comment above, thank you for accepting a compromise. I still think the article a mess. It's not about POV, the POV is fine, but there are many rambling passages and off-topic observations.

Anyhow, I'm still curious about your reasoning as per my question above.Timothy Usher 03:38, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

I gave my reasoning above. The older intro was better it already linked the usages and the etymology.I did change the names of sections by making Usage and Etymology separate, but you reverted again. What was your reasoning for it? Look at the history, I dealt with your problem over the sections and you still reverted. --a.n.o.n.y.m ^t 03:44, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

You've twice evaded my question.Timothy Usher 03:46, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Because your question is ignorant of the edits I made. Your question is "why you saw it fit to include a section on Usage and comments on issues of translation under the “Etymology” section?" and I said I didn't see it as the best way so I changed it to two sections: Usage and Etymology. Look through the edits, you still reverted for some reason. --a.n.o.n.y.m ^t 03:50, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

As should be clear from the discussion above, the question was not related to those edits, but rather to your statement "I've worked a lot longer on these pages and *read* them many times more than you have." As you'd read this article so many times, and worked on it a lot longer than I, it would seem you'd be the right person to ask.Timothy Usher 04:00, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

That's always been like it that and is the general way editors have put it in the article. Now that it was pointed out I saw it as not the best way of making sections so I changed it. But you reverted it again.--a.n.o.n.y.m ^t 04:06, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Thus demonstrating that you didn’t read the article as carefully as you’d claimed when you asserted the priority of your experience.

Another question: as you've worked on this article so long, why did only now post your first message to this talk page only yesterday? Are yours changes that need no discussion? Of course this question is only rhetorical, as there can be no adequate answer.

I’ve got some things to attend to, but will return soon enough with more improvements and associated discussion.Timothy Usher 04:13, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Certainly this discussion is not improving anything and neither are your edits. Ideas over changes come along to the article as it is edited, not when reading it. Please stop using this argument that "you didn't notice it" as your reason to revert my changes. I dealt with the problem and gave you an answer and you still didn't answer my question why you reverted me after I fixed it. I see you have a lot of learning to do along with accepting that your edits aren't really the best thing that happened to an article and that editors don't need to keep them. I have worked on it a lot longer and I do have much more experience. So far no other editor has acted as arbitrary as you and that means you spend most of your time arguing. So unless you tell me what your problem was with me dealing with your problem and having two sections on Usage and Etymology, I don't find why we should keep this new organization of the intro. --a.n.o.n.y.m ^t 04:18, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

I did not object to having two seperate sections on Usage and Etymology, but rather to the inclusion of the "Usage" subsection under the "Etymology" section, and to the inclusion of the discussion of Qur'anic translation and use of Allah in Arabic bibles under Etymology. That is not what "etymology" means, as I'm sure you've discovered.Timothy Usher 04:26, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Then why did you revert me? I did fix the problem, I didn't keep them as etymology. --a.n.o.n.y.m ^t 04:30, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Because you'd reverted many other changes without explanation.Timothy Usher 04:37, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

You said you were fine with them and then you reverted because of "other changes". Maybe you revert too much. There's another thing to learn. --a.n.o.n.y.m ^t 04:40, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

"Maybe you revert too much. There's another thing to learn." - indeed.Timothy Usher 04:45, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Yes indeed. --a.n.o.n.y.m ^t 04:47, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

lets protect this page Dragon Emperor 06:25, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

The significance of (SWT) that some use after Allah

I have done some research on Shariah law, and was suprised to some documents on constantly using Allah (SWT) to refer to Allah. I was wondering if any could tell me what the "SWT" is a reference to and ask if this should be added to the article. --chemica 06:05, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Read the article, the explanation is there - "Subhanahu wa Ta`ala", sometimes abbreviated SWT, (English: "Glorified and Exalted is He")

Nuttyskin 06:11, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Article structure.

Right now the article is a little strange, structurally. There is duplication/overlap between etymology and history. Also, the arabic phrases, while many are islamic in origin, contain non-exclusively-islamic phrases (O God! could be easily invoked by an Arab-speaking Christian, for example.)

I recommend re-working the structure as follows:

Overview

Etymology and History
Use of the name
1. Islamic Uses
2. Other Uses
3. Common Phrases
See Also
External Links

I think this structure is easier to read, keeps things in context, and would let additions/improvements to the article be more easily and consistently made. Any comments or objections?--Christian Edward Gruber 03:00, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Etymology

Etymology section has been removed, I'm not sure if it is an improvement or not, someone should look and see if it needs to be reverted --Serival 03:35, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Nevermind, bots are damned fast. --Serival 03:36, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Let's keep this article in good English and encyclopaedic please

This is the English Wikipedia, so we should expect contributions to be written in a good standard of English. Although some people with a smattering of Arabic will translate 'Allah' as 'The God', an Arabic translator will know that if you translate every occurence of the definate article (or something that looks lie it) with 'the', you end up with bad English. As we write 'the Glorious Qur'an' and not 'the Qur'an the Glorious', we should not translate 'Allah' as 'The God'. Also, if someone wants to write something about cogates in Arabic, Hebrew or Aramaic, please add it with the word in its proper script and a decent transliteration. I've recenty removed a sentence about 'Alaaha' as the Aramaic for 'God' — this is simply badly spelt nonsense — it is close to the real thing, but not scientific enough to make an encyclopaedia. Please keep a reign on the praises and theories that pepper this article. — Gareth Hughes 14:54, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

As for the use of "The God" in the article, I would say that is nothing to the contrary of good English. Indeed, except for typos, I would say most of the contributors write good Englisg.

My English is American English (I studied, graduated and have been teaching in American Universities for several years) I am native Arabic speaking and translator too. Part of my current contributions is based on my research and lecture series I have given to senior Jewish and Christian University Professors and policy makers in the USA.

If you are interested in working on joint article(s) about language, linguistics, religion, "religionization" "de-religionization" and spirituality, please let me know. (Warning: if you are graduate student, note that I CURRENTLY DO NOT SUPERVISE STUDENTS.) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Abdel Hameed Nawar (talk • contribs) 17:55, 18 August 2006.

No, your use of 'The God' in the phrase a feverish debate about referrence to "The God" is wrong. Also note that The Christianity’s central metaphor "The God is Love" is a phrase with two too many 'the's in it. You also added Allah' was also used by the Pre-Islamic Jews and Christians, the Aramaic equivalent being "Alaaha". Another manner of pronouncing the name was "Allahumma", phonetically close to the Hebrew "Elohim", which uses Semitic cognates as identical and uses an unscientific transliteration of words. You do the same again with this: Centuries before Muhammad, the word "Allah" was used by Jews (they also used the cognant Elōah) and pagan tribes in the Arabian peninsula to signify the chief deity. The whole section you added about US televagelists just doesn't make sense. You just keep on adding these little badly-written additions without edit summaries, and the net effect is to make the entire article a mess. Your reverts to your version without discussion simply suggest tha you believe that you know better than others. Your style of writing is not what one would expect from someone involved in higher education. — Gareth Hughes 16:59, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Abdel Hameed, please discuss your edits before making any major changes to the article. It will save contributors (including yourselves) time. Failing to do that, i'll be obliged to lock the article untill discussions and a consensus is reached. Cheers -- Szvest 17:07, 18 August 2006 (UTC) ^{Wiki me up}

Reply and discussion are definitely welcome.

If some English grammer is wrong, set it right. Deleting all contributions by a user the way occurred -- See History -- is an unexpected except by vandals; We are all on equal foot herein.

I admit serious review and consideration are needed for this article. All your comment for using "The" prior to God is now well-taken. Please review. From your diversity of interests, I am sure that you appreciate the multi-dimensional elements of any given topic, but apparently something(s) may not always go as you like it. A quick question: How would you categorize the Subjects of an article about Allah? Arabic Linguistics, Aramaic language,, Religion, Religious history, Political religion, Cross-cultural, Middle Eastern literature?

Because I belong to academia, in principle I will refer more to relevant research work in this context. These are authentic and highly regarded sources-- primary and secondary or a combination of the two. Here is a list of relevant references that might interest you.

"The concept of Allah as the highest god in pre-Islamic Arabia: A study of pre-Islamic Arabic religious poetry" by Sayuti, Najmah, M.A. Thesis, McGill University (Canada), 2000,
"A cross-cultural study of the speech act of apology in American English and Jordanian Arabic" by Bataineh, Rula Fahmi, Ph.D. Dissertation, Indiana University of Pennsylvania, 2004,
"Liu Zhi's journey through ritual law to Allah's Chinese name: Conceptual antecedents and theological obstacles to the Confucian-Islamic harmonization of the Tianfang Dianli" by Frankel, James D., Ph.D. Dissertation, Columbia University, 2005

Two of the most beautiful books I have recently read are:

Islam: Faith, Culture and History" by Paul Lunde... written immediately after September 11, 2001 ISBN: 0789487977 DK Publishing Inc. New York (It provides a comprehensive and rich view on Islam with Statistics, graphs, maps and pictures.)
The Loom of God: Mathematical Tapestries at the Edge of Time" by Clifford A. Pickover, ISBN: 0306454114, Plenum Press, New York 1997 (Some mathematical sophistication is needed to follow this book.) — Abdel Hameed Nawar

I've just done a superficial copyedit of the article. There are a comments that need properly referenced support (in the article), so I've tagged them. One section duplicates material, but to a poor standard (Allah#History), another is so badly written that it is virtually incomprehensible (Allah#Other usages — shouldn't that be 'uses'?). I've tagged these two for cleanup because they need to thoroughly pruned. I still consider Abdel Hameed's work to be of an overall poor standard. If it was a simple addition of new material, it could be copyedited. However, he has attempted to make tiny copyedits all over the article (without leaving any edit summary) without sufficient understanding of English grammar. The former, the substantive additions, is acceptable, the latter is just a nuisance. — Gareth Hughes 14:49, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Gareth: I do find the "The" prior to "God" in several work by American scholars and in the original article before I add anything-- and actually still existing (probably you are the one who made it and thus kept it!) Anyway, I accept your English. Also See Below. — Abdel Hameed Nawar

Let's Keep contributing..

This article is "in transition". So, you overemploy words like "badly" and "poor" in you commenting on additional material by contributors--you already employed that in having to do with my contributions. The article is edited to conform to superficial norms and obviously does not conform to standards of writing down about Divine terms.

Additionally, what appears on the surface is not truth. originally, the article is so much below standard, and you seem to more source its content from brainstorming wikipedia discussion on Talk and non-muslim impressions (see the Talk from beginning: the first line of the Talk), and thus as you mentioned "badly written." However, I value what you contributed, and you should appreciate considering the article from 360-degree view, not just your view.

You do not know the relevance of Jerry Falwell, Pat Robertson and the 700 club to an article about Allah!! (You are kidding me!) If so then definitely you do not live in America! At least I will curious to ask if you go to church on sunday in the past decade? Or if you read current issues in English in the last couple of years...etc.

If in the summary there is no statement such as: "No matter how the term "Allah" as was variablely used in the pre-Islamic era, in Islam and for every Muslims it is constant and unquestionable that Allah said in the Qur'an he is the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, whom they only unambiguiously worship." Then this tiny article on Wikipedia looks a "thin shadow" of what is propagated by the 700 club and the likes out there... and there are tons of these already online!

In terms of Etymology, it is truely superficial. Thus, I wish to add the Wikipedia notice in that part too. Allah as pronounced and the way the word is written in English in only one that does not occur in Qur'an and almost surely rare Arabic configuration "Tashkeel." Other configurations Allah-hwe, Allaaha, illaahi, Allahhi. As per the picture originally provided in the article, the term is pronounced Allah-hwe. From asking more than one Rabbi, I also knew that the same in Hebrew Je-hovah and J'hwe Ya-hweh A-donai are not also pronounced like that simply English written format.

On the entertainment level, I find it still less entertaining. The Arm Leg, Leg, Arm, Head thing is funny as well as the part in Etymology about the speculation that Allah is abbreviated Female Name, which I would give it my coined term "perpendicular" Hallucination and the latter is cited as Middle Eastern entertaining item in the overseas.

I wish to add

Allah in North American and Western European Media
Allah in North American and Western European Movies: e.g. The Garden of Allah
Other beliefs: Jews for Allah not mentioned
Reference section

References in addition to those I mentioned above, I wish to basically cite the following although none of those who ever contributed yet to the article refers to anything:

Morey, Robert (1994) "The Moon-God Allaah in The Archaeology of the Middle East," Newport, PA., Research & Education Foundation
Stortroen, Brett (1997) "The moon-god Allah and the Black Stone," Oral Roberts University, Tulsa, Oklahoma, M.A. Thesis. — Abdel Hameed Nawar

Just a remark: Wikipedia markup language

The article originally has references without adding them in the notes simply because some users may lack some knowledge about wikipedia markup language. For the sake of wide benefiting users if they find such error, to do the correction, please add in the appropriate location in the article, a syntax such as the follwoing

== Notes ==

Maimonides

One thing that is compelely missing in all the Etymology is Maimonides-- whom no one can deny. "`Abdullāh" was also the name of the father of Maimon, whose son Moses is the Jewish principal Rabbi commonly known in English as Maimonides. Maimonides himself wrote his works mostly in Arabic on which his name appear as "Mussa bin Maimun ibn Abdullah al-Kurtubi." موسى بن ميمون بن عبد الله القرطبي --Abdel Hameed Nawar 11:47, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

The 'Media debates' section

I feel that the Allah#Debates in popular media section is getting out of hand. It is mostly the work of Abdel Hameed Nawar, who has waffled through the above sections. I've added a clean-up tag to it, as its English is unclear and ungrammatical. I've now added a POV tag to it because it asserts all sorts of notions that are mostly off topic: if anything, Abdel Hameed is adding material to the wrong article. The sections assumes that, because a few US-ian televangelists spout nonsense about Islam, the entire world is following in their footsteps. This is profoundly untrue. The latest edits (all without edit summaries, please!) tell us that 'Anti-Allāh business activity by media is lucrative and profit-maximizing in the economic sense with billions of dollars in revenue per annum'. Regardless of that statement's poor grammar, it is a wild and unreferenced generalisation. These edits are now contravening Wikipedia's policy against original research. Unless the section improves quickly, I suggest that it be removed. — Gareth Hughes 16:14, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

<Sigh!> I must agree ... I spent a lot of time cleaning up the grammar and references of that section last night, and I am very disappointed with the POV and OR that has just been added. (If anything, it should have been added to the Talk section.) Unfortunately, I have neither the time nor energy to try to correct it, and I will support it's removal. --Dennette 16:32, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

I wish to start by thanking Dennette for fixing the grammer.Gareth Hughes, you seem not to accept my work.. no matter what. The Allah#Debates in popular media is probably the most well-referenced section of the entire article since it was created and the most relevant as it touches the pulse of reality that people watch, read and live on a daily basis in having to do with the term Allah. Arguing that "a few US-ian televangelists spout nonsense about Islam" is absolutely wrong.. with just to mention one televangelist university and televangelist broadcating network with multilanguage international relay stations, you have core thousands and millions (basic arithmatics-- no math or statistics needed !) You.. alone.. imposed several tags on my work. While these are not justified, I wonder why you are not interested in contributing rather than just keeping the article limited and mistaken. One obvious mistake I was hoping that you research and possibly correct it as you seem to be interested in the Etymology in the reference to the daughters of Allah in the pre-Islamic period. This is NOT REFERENCED and poses as if it is a discovery of someone as an archeologist but it is stated literally in the Qua'an. Would you look at that? I am not sure exactly I understand your interest as a Christian in an article about Allah? Would it be possible to contribute about some dimension of relevance in this context? God Bless You.--Abdel Hameed Nawar 19:32, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Also .Gareth Hughes, please tell me exactly where you found in my contribution what you claimed that I assume "the entire world is following in their footsteps." --Abdel Hameed Nawar 21:12, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

This contribution Allah#Debates in popular media is part of a work in progress titled "Allah is Love." It is a widely-updated version of my consise article "Not in the Name of Jesus."--Abdel Hameed Nawar 21:00, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

I am sorry, brother, but that is a direct violation of the No Original Research policy ... by your outright admission to this section being "part of a work in progress" (i.e., an unpublished work), you have given the administrators sufficient documentation for its Speedy Deletion, and may have also risked having your user account blocked. Wikipedia is not a publisher of original thought and Wikipedia is not a soapbox ... from now on, all of your contributions (both future and past) will probably be more closely scrutinized by the administrators. In good conscience, I can no longer support the preservation of this section, and I caution you not to do this again with other articles. --Dennette 22:49, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

You are absolutely mistaken by invoking a direct violation of the No Original Research policy Please review it. This contribution did not mention any unpulished work!

I'm not "invoking" anything, just warning you that you have given the Wikipedia:Administrators a smoking gun by having made that admission in this public forum ... as for "did not mention any unpulished work", you stated as much in the paragraph above ("This contribution Allah#Debates in popular media is part of a work in progress ..."), which one can only infer as meaning that it has not been completed, and hence, not yet published. But even if it has been published, there are still the problems of Wikipedia:Neutral point of view and Wikipedia:No original research. --Dennette 00:10, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

I think you understood work in a narrow sense. The whole Wikipedia is a "work in progress" I discuss my work and your work. As I mentioned I did not add Not originally write "Not in the Name of Jesus Media Debate" but I preferred to discuss it. when I started to write "Allah is Love" part of work (See the last paragraph of the section I contributed in the artile starting with "It is important to refer to the tolerant and "Allāh is love"-side. Indeed, to appreciate ............"), you intercepted me as well as Gareth. --Abdel Hameed Nawar 11:15, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia articles are to be based on established fact and generally agreed interpretation of those facts — it's an encyclopaedia. When any one user starts to introduce their own theories they are producing original research (whether it is published or not makes no difference). This section does seem to be hanging a lot of Western public opinion on these televangelists. It is demonstrably untrue that they are major influences on public opinion, their influence at the White House is another sad story. However, my main concern is that this newly created section is diverging from the purpose of this article — it's not about Allah, but about Western media opinions on Islam. It is biased because it doesn't cite the output of mainstream media, nor the musings of mainstream Christian leaders, but is based entirely on fringe Christian broadcasting. If you had the BBC and some archbishop, it would be credible, but this is not credible work. I admit that this article was in a poor state before you came along, but that was how it had become after lots of little bad edits from many people. I am focusing on this because it is one editor trying to make a point that I don't believe is really there. — Gareth Hughes 00:39, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

The whole Wikipedia is a "work in progress" My work in progress on this article is per Szvest' sugeestion on 18 August 2006 is discussed. I document all my work, compared to your work (You discussed that you fixed the Aramaic work Alaaha but you never mentioned any reference). I believe that the section fairly covers the use of Allah in Western media. Additionally, even if it covers what you called "fringe Christian broadcasting," I believe it should also be covered rather than excluded. (Can you contribute a section on Allah in Media of England, I presume you are well-aware of that.) In fact, the original article noted Arm, Leg, Leg, Arm, Head, which is too fringe! and has nothing to do with the Arabic use of the term Allah. I have never imagined "Allah is Love" "Allah Mahabba" which I added would be missing in an article like this. This is all around any one who ever go to an Arab country and can be seen obvious like a sun in the sky. The language of the article when I saw it written in a way that divides. I write what unites. Truely "God is love" Religions are right, but the religious extremism around the globe is worng in principle and practice. Therefore, as I mentioned, I thought of but did not add originally or write "Not in the Name of Jesus Media Debate" but when I started to write "Allah is Love" part of work in the artile (See the last paragraph of the section), you intercept me frequently based on grammer. To be fair, no one looking for something on Wikipedia would expect too much on the grammatical level.--Abdel Hameed Nawar 11:15, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a soapbox! Poor grammar diminishes credibility. As someone who obviously speaks English as a second language, you should both expect and appreciate corrections. (You could always compose your submissions in a word processor with a grammar checker and spell checker, then copy&paste the text.) --Dennette 11:37, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Sure Wikipedia is not a soapbox! But note that this applies to poor Arabic transcript herein. Grammar as I provided it is clear and correct but ~~cosmatic~~ cosmetic corrections are welcome. You sometimes add markup syntax additions too such as [[]] to hyperlink a word or phrase. Modern art and science are contributed by English as well as non-English speaking scholars. I appreciate all positive ~~contributors~~ contributions. Please continue to contribute. By the way, what is your main interest in this article? What dimesion (addition), you would add? --Abdel Hameed Nawar 12:24, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Hyperlinks provide information for people who might be unfamiliar with the concepts, e.g., some people may have never heard of a "smoking gun" before, and a hyperlink saves them the inconvenience of searching for a definition. And just how does the Wikipedia prohibition of soapboxing apply to poor Arabic transcripts, anyway?? As for my interests in this article, review my contributions on 2006-08-23 (click the history tab on the article page) and read my User page. (To save you some time following the off-site links, see also Abu Hurairah's Islam/Muslim Page.) --Dennette 13:32, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Note: Except for the browser, I use text-editor and LaTeX but I will take care of what you kindly advised about spell-checking. By the way --Dennette, in the article La ilaha illallah (لآ اِلَـهَ اِلاَّ لله — there is no god but Allah). In my English as a second language, I would like to translate it alternatively as "There is no deity save Allah." Would you consider my suggestion a good alternative?--Abdel Hameed Nawar 12:35, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

That's how I usually translate it for non-Muslims ... it avoids the whole "The is no God" tarpit. (Aready changed it, BTW.) And if you had hyperlinked La ilaha illallah, I would not have had to waste time doing a copy&paste to get to the article and put your question in context. I've been using LaTeX for over 15 years (just updated the draft of a 700 page ANSI specification called IGES), and it's of absolutely no use in working with Wikipedia ... it's time you migrated to the 21st century and started using a WYSIWYG word processor like Microsoft Word or its GNU/Linux equivalent. --Dennette 13:32, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, Man. You impress me by saying "I've been using LaTeX for over 15 years ..." Can you do me a foavor. I have been trying to embed a picture in a LaTex document in a specific location. I tried several times and it compiles differently. If you do help me in fixing this, I will never forget your favor as long as I can breathe. You can look at it when ever you have a spare time; my need for it is not time-constrained. BTW: I tried WYSIWYG but it is not good in mathematics. Is there any other thing you recommend other than MS Word? --Abdel Hameed Nawar 14:25, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a free host, blog, webspace provider or social networking site ... this discussion has gotten way off-topic, and should be continued off-line. Please send me an email (click "E-mail this user" in the toolbox on the left of my user page) and we'll talk about these non-Allah related subjects. --Dennette 23:00, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

You yourself first impressed me, and other readers, by saying you have a 15 years of LaTeX experience, and I did not complain that Wikipedia is not a free host, blog, webspace provider or social networking site because you stated part of your curriculum vitae (C.V.) !! But, I wish to thank you for the remark. --Abdel Hameed Nawar 14:54, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

I would like to add to the article the numerical value of the words and phrases including Allah. Would you like that? Importantly, would it interest you to elaborate and expand it? Thanks again----Abdel Hameed Nawar 14:25, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Introduction of numerology to this article violates Wikipedia:No original research, so I have deleted it. --Dennette 23:00, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

You refered to numerology. I never did that. I referred only to Abjad numerals and therefore it does not violates Wikipedia:No original research. Actually, I had a reference of a published book too! Please review it carefully below as well as in history. Anyway, I respect your comment on reversal it. and OK for removing it.

=== Numerical values of words and phrases including Allāh === The Arabic word الله Allāh consists of 4-Alphabetic letters ā/' ا, l ل, l ل and h ه. The numerical values of these letters are 1, 30, 30, 5 which sum to 66. The common phrase بسم الله الرحمن الرحيم bi-s-mi-llahi ir-rahmani ir-rahiimi "in the name of Allāh, the most merciful, the most compassionate" would have a nominal value of 786 (See [[Abjad numerals]] . See also<ref> Pickover, Clifford A. (1997) “The Loom of God: Mathematical Tapestries at the Edge of Time" ISBN: 0306454114, Plenum Press, New York, page 76 </ref> for more related interesting discussion.)

For what it is worth, I believe that the "media" section has less to do with Allah as an encyclopedia entry and more to do with perceptions of Islam, and should be moved to some such article as Anti-Muslim sentiment et cetera. TuckerResearch 19:51, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks TuckerResearch.

The Debate in popular Media about Allah is more integral and coherent with the article, and should not be mixed with the wider 9/11 backlash for Muslims and Arabs in the USA and Western Europe and the Commonwealth Realms. While I have contributed this part, it is important to realize that I just lay the facts. These facts are created by others, not me. Gareth is disputing the neutrality of this section, however. He has been tagging my work almost everywhere. In addition, Gareth reference to other broadcasting system such as BBC is thematically irrelevant as BBC is not religious broadcasting system. Reference to Crown Media, ION Media Networks, or Trinity Broadcasting -- as I am sure you will understand-- would be OK. Thank you Tucker. --Abdel Hameed Nawar 15:06, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Removing "Media Debate" section

I am deleting this whole section. Not only is the language so convuluted to as to make it unreadable, but it seems to be addressing anti-Muslim sentiments, as opposed to a discussion the actual term "Allah". It would seem to be more appropriate in an article about Islam. Even then, an article that claims people have been "mind hacked" by anti-Muslim business cartels probably does not belong. But it certainly does not belong in an article that is simply about an Arabic word.

I'm sure someone will undelete it, but before you do, please read it and consider if this is truly the caliber of stuff we want in a Wikipedia article. --ReverendDave 15:11, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

I restored it. Yes, I agree, it's not real good, but no one will edit it if it's not there. Let's give it chance. --Paxsimius 15:17, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Agree w/ Rev Dave. But let's wait for other commentaries and opinions. -- Szvest 15:24, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

OK, but it looks like this section has been discussed quite a bit. I can't believe anyone (expect the original author) would think it should remain, but then again, who knows? BTW, not for nothing, but I agree that Robertson and his fellow Islam bashers are a bunch of whackjobs; I just don't think this section belongs in this article. --ReverendDave 18:27 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Let's give it around 24h to see the other sides' arguments. I'll remove it if nothing is commented. -- Szvest 18:30, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Can We Peacefully Disagree?

Thanks Paxsimius and Szvest.

I wish such media debate never happened. But if this happened, it happened. I think you want to delete it – as you did. Others did it too.

ReverendDave, please note that it is important sometimes to differentiate between the "in general" and the "in particular." The Media Debate section is "in particular."

We may disagree and to me your opinion is appreciated. Let’s be constructive rather than destructive. Please do not delete the work of others.

Now, consider for example, when a powerful reverend Pat Robertson preach to millions of faithfuls via Christian broadcasting system with multi-language relay stations, news networks, newspapers, the many Web TV, websites etc etc. ``the entire world is being convulsed by a religious struggle. The fight is not about money or territory; it is not about poverty versus wealth; it is not about ancient customs versus modernity. No-the struggle is whether Hubal, the Moon God of Mecca, known as Allah, is supreme, or whether the Judeo-Christian Jehovah God of the Bible is Supreme." available at his official site [1]

Is this about Islam or about Allah?

When theses and dissertations, for which Seminary Schools granted theological degrees, proclaim that Allah is likely the ``high god" of Kaaba in Mecca and was represented by the ``Black Stone" or Allah is likely the ``moon-god/dess" idol worshipped by pagan Arabs in pre-Islam times, [BTW this is mentioned by some contributors of the article and still there in the etymology and history and also propagated by media.]].

Is this about Islam or about Allah?

I think the Section on Media Debate should be improved. The entire article on Allah -- as you can see-- need knowledgeable contributions and more structure for the sections and subsections. Let's layout and agree on a proposed structure of topics. In the Wikipedia, it is not difficult to compare:

the article on Jesus
the articles on Yahweh
the article on Allah

What is your conclusion, not to mention the prejudice?

I found, repeatedly. who are interested, but their only interest is in removing what they do not like, otherwise for example tagging my work, while leaving Etymology section and History section mixed and repeated. In fact, I was hoping someone can do it. Another section of the article that is left contaminated -- I hinted earlier about this-- is the Other Beliefs section where you find the funny part of the "Arm, leg, Leg, Arm, Head" This part should not state ("As the word Allah is universally understood to be an Arabic term, those familiar with the origins and history of Arabic and English would consider this a false etymology. This concept ................"). This statement insult the intelligence of the reader .. at least --I think-- it goes without saying.

I hope all keep positive. --Abdel Hameed Nawar 08:05, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

I read your comment w/ interest Abdel Hameed and see your point(s). However, the section doesn't deserve 1/3 of the size of the article. If it has to stay, it should be trimmed down. There are many weasel words being used, a bit of original research and sources/references are all selective examples. -- Szvest 11:18, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Yes, the bit about Robertson acting as if "Allah" was a different god than what Americans call "God" is relevant to this article. The bits about Islam really are not, exactly because Allah is (in theory) an Arabic thing, not a Muslim thing. For the same reason, comparing this article to ones about Jesus and Yahweh is not appropriate, as the latter articles ARE about specific, proper names. This article (in theory) is more like an article for Dieu, i.e. the French translation for God and Allah. I know in practice, a lot of English speaking Muslims use "Allah" as well, which is why this article is here in the first place, and is why it does contain references to Islam. But the more one talks about anti-Islam bias in this article, the more one feeds into the notion that "Allah" is more than just an Arabic translation for "God". Note, by the way, that the capital G is the equivalent of saying "The god", i.e. it is not as generic as it sounds (I think this is one of the reasons that English-speaking Muslims prefer "Allah", as "God" sounds like He is just one of many gods). But I digress.

I certainly do not see your problem with explaining that the whole arm, leg, leg, arm, head thing is false. Some people obviously believe it, so it makes sense to debunk it here.

One more thing, then I will leave this to the guardians of Wikipedia. What if you made your own webpage (you could host it on MySpace or whatever) with all of these thoughts you put forward, and there was a link to it placed in the "related sites" section? I totally dig your need to express yourself (I can't imagine what it is like being a Muslim in a post-9/11 world), but a lot of these expressions just do not belong here. Peace. --ReverendDave 15:40, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

I believe the section is ok now. I've trimmed it down as my comment above. -- Szvest 16:06, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks Szvest for the edits and discussion. On a cross-cultural platform such as Wikipedia one can always hope --in the long-run--to find more knowledeable people who contribute to this article than Vandals. Just in the last couple of days, as you can see from the IP addesses below, the latest Vandals came from three distinct countries(and continents): Italy, Australia and the US. Interestingly, the latter is from Jesuit High School in Dallas, Texas.

87.29.89.217 ITALY TELECOM ITALIA NET
124.176.222.53 AUSTRALIA VICTORIA MELBOURNE TELSTRAINTERNET44
216.138.113.179 UNITED STATES TEXAS DALLAS JESUIT HIGH SCHOOL

I will open a discussion on the merger of the Etymology and History section soon. Thank you very much. --Abdel Hameed Nawar 20:36, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Recent edits by User:195.93.21.2

As stated in the anon talk page, the edits he makes are pure original research. I must refrain from editing this article for 24 hours. However, if the anon got a point, he's invited to discuss it here or else that would be considered as vandalism. -- Szvest 15:25, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Move

{{rename|Allah (Arabic)}} (commenting out to remove old request from category) How about renaming this to Allah (Arabic) to make it clear that this is about an Arabic word and not primarily about the Islamic concept of God? --Striver 02:53, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

I think Allah does fairly well; it's a common word in English. -Patstuart^talk|edits 21:33, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

ath-Thaluth al-Muqaddas

For Arabs unfamiliar with ath-Thaluth al-Muqaddas I explain that ath-Thaluth al-Muqaddas is One Complex Allah, but *NOT* three simple ilahs. According to Christians, whole Allāh is ath-Thaluth al-Muqaddas, that is consisted from three permeating and concentrically placed lite-spherical persons such as Abu-Father, Bin-Son, and Ruh-Spirit, which are drawn in picture on right. These persons *CAN NOT* be ever separated, because Allah is unchangeable and because Allah is an sum of all three persons.--83.5.24.96 08:36, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Less than 25 percent Muslims are Arab. I thought that it might be an information for you. --- ابراهيم 10:07, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Thus I think that this ath-Thaluth al-Muqaddas definition that I posted here will be useful for other non-Arabic Muslims too. Additionally, I inform, that Maryam *NEVER WAS* and *NEVER WILL BE* a part of ath-Thaluth al-Muqaddas. She is only human being.--83.5.24.96 11:36, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

For your further information, we have a full article on Trinity, accessible to everyone interested, Arab or non-Arab. dab (ᛏ) 11:55, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

The Trinity article lacks ath-Thaluth al-Muqaddas spherical picture useful for purpose of documenting that Christian Allah is One Complex God in Three Persons *BUT NOT* three separate one-person gods. Additionally, images included in Trinity article are misleading for Muslims in this matter.--83.5.24.96 12:48, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

There is Islamic page with faithful understanding of ath-Thaluth al-Muqaddas: http://www.muhammadanism.org/Trinity/default.htm --83.5.24.96 11:36, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Pronunciation as "Alloh"?

In Indonesia, Muslims that I met often pronounced (and sometimes spelt) Allah as "Alloh," saying that that is the correct Arabic pronunciation. (Actually the pronunciation was a bit more complex, and different to either English or Indonesian, but "Alloh" is the closest I can come to writing it. Some words like Ramadhan were also often pronounced with the "o" sound replacing the "a".

Some of them seemed very keen to distinguish between Allah pronounced according to standard Indonesian pronunciation, which they considered Christian, and the true Arabic pronunciation.

Is this a correct way to pronounce these words? --Singkong2005 · talk 02:47, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

No it is not. Allah has nothing that could be said like "o" --- ALM 20:37, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Why isn't it correct? See Ignatius Abded Aloho II for example, who was a Syriac Orthodox Patriarch. His name (in Arabic) is written "عبد الله" (Abd Allah - servant of God). —MK (talk) 09:14, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

This makes perfect sense. The consonants of Arabic are divided into emphatic (velarised or pharyngealised); the vowel "a" can be realised as IPA ɒ (i.e. a cross between a and o) when occurring next to an emphatic consonant; the "l" in Allah is geminated and emphatic (something like the l in RP full), though Arabic doesn't have a special letter for the emphatic "l" as it does for other emphatic letters, presumably because this sound is rare. Prime Entelechy 02:26, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes, indeed. This sound occurs only in the Divine Name. The correct pronunciation is "Ałłāh", with dark l and stress on last syllable. /o/ doesn't exist in Arabic. Aminullah 09:19, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Cleanup LEAD

This article's lead paragraph needs to be shortened according to the ambiguous guidelines set out in WP:LEAD. Yes I know it says there that some topics needs longer leads then others, but this topic is interrelated with God, Jesus, HaShem amongst others. Please can the main editors of this article discuss. Thanks! User:FrummerThanThou 18:58, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Removal of this entry ?

Should this entry redirected to God. I don't think so but there are reason maybe to do it. Anyone has a view on it ? Zeq 21:32, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

This article should stay as it is. There is serious question over whether or not Allah is indeed the Supreme Being or an imposter. Frotz661 05:56, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

The article should stay so that users like Frotz might be prompted to reconsider their views. The question is not whether the Islamic "god" is an imposter, but whether the Islamic conception of "god" is true or useful. If Jews, Christians, and Muslims all say that there's one, and only one, god, then they're all talking about the same entity. They just have different ideas about this entity. Zora 06:17, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm talking about the idea that a malevolent being may masquerade as the Supreme Being to stir up hatred, misery, and chaos. This idea is presented as a significant reason for "kill all unbelievers", no matter the creed of who utters it. With temptation, you know deep down that a bad action is bad, but you do it anyway. Now if God commands you to murder others, then it's God's will and therefore correct and honorable. I think Blaise Pascal had the same idea when he said "Men never do evil so completely and cheerfully as when they do it from religious conviction.". (Pensees, Number 894 (1670)) Frotz661 07:17, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

History and Islam

Allah is the name of the Muslim god. By this god, all Muslims devote their faith and love although 99% of them have no clue as to its origins. Allah, who is he? Following the road signs of Hajj from ancient Sumer to Mecca. It is an undeniable fact of history that before Muhammed was born, the moon god "al-Ilah" (Allah) had three daughters named al-Lat, al-Uzza and Manat. The first two were even named after their father. Each daughter had a separate shrine near Mecca, where Allah's shrine was located. The word has been around for thousands of years. Notice the "word" rather than "name". "Allah" originated first as a word which meant...."Al"="the" and "lah"=god. "al"-"lah" meant, "the god". Note as well the lower-case "g": because the fact is, the original word was meant for a god. So from an English equivalent "Allah" comes from "The + God". "The common theory is that it is formed from ilah, the common word for a god, and the article al-; thus al-ilah, the god," becomes Allah, "God." This theory, however, is untenable. In fact, the name is one of the words borrowed into the language in pre-Islamic times from Aramaic." (Islam: Muhammad and His Religion, Arthur Jeffery, 1958, p 85)

Nabonidus (555-539 BC), the last king of Babylon, built Tayma, Arabia as a center of Moon-god worship. Stele of Nabonidus, Star and Crescent of Harran coin, Sign of Sin (Beaulieu, Segal 1963). Symbols:Tell Halaf 5 th to 4 th millennium BC, near Harran, at the source of the Charbur, Euphrates.2 Kings 17:6 "they carried Israel away into Assyria and placed them in Halah and in Habor" (Zehren 154) Symbols Centre of Topkapi coat of Arms, Turkey. The origin of why the crescent moon is on top of every minaret at the Kabaa today and the central symbol of Islam atop of every mosque throughout the world: About four hundred years before the birth of Muhammad one Amr bin Lahyo ... a descendant of Qahtan and king of Hijaz, had put an idol called Hubal on the roof of the Kaba. This was one of the chief deities of the Quraish before Islam. (Muhammad The Holy Prophet, Hafiz Ghulam Sarwar (Pakistan), p 18-19, Muslim)

The Rise of Islam by Rabbi Ken Spiro " In the early stages of his spiritual awakening, Mohammed came to be greatly impressed by the Jews. Writes S.D. Goiten in Jews and Arabs (pp. 58-59):

"The intrinsic values of the belief in one God, the creator of the world, the God of justice and mercy, before whom everyone high and low bears personal responsibility, came to Muhammad -- as he never ceased to emphasize -- from Israel."

He clearly had some knowledge of the Torah as later he would quote Moses (though not always accurately) more than one hundred times in the Koran, the record of his teachings which became the holy book of his newfound religion. Of the 25 prophets listed in the Koran, 19 are from Jewish scripture, and many ritual laws of Islam parallel Judaism -- circumcision and prohibition against eating pork, for example.

Children of Ishmael: Through his studies, Mohammed concluded that the Arabs were the other children of Abraham - through the line of his son Ishmael by the Egyptian maidservant Hagar - and that they had forgotten the teachings of monotheism they had inherited ages ago. He saw his mission as bringing them back. Paul Johnson, in his History of the Jews (p. 167), explains: "What he [Mohammed] seems to have wished to do was to destroy the polytheistic paganism of the oasis culture by giving the Arabs Jewish ethical monotheism in a language they could understand and in terms adapted to their ways. He accepted the Jewish God and their prophets, the idea of fixed law embodied in scripture - the Koran being an Arabic substitute for the Bible - and the addition of an Oral Law applied in religious courts."

There is no argument that the Arab world into which Mohammed was born was badly in need of moral values and social reform. The Mecca of his day was a central place of pagan worship. The Arab tribesmen of the region worshipped a pantheon of gods there, including Al-Lat, the sun goddess, and Al-Uzza, a goddess associated with the planet Venus, both of whom were daughters of the chief deity, known as Al-Ilah, (Allah) or "the God."

In Mecca stands Kaaba, the shrine enclosing the famous black meteorite, a former site of pagan worship. The Kaaba, the shrine enclosing the famous black meteorite which was worshipped in Mecca before Mohammed's time, was also a site for an altar where blood sacrifices were offered to these and other gods. The morality of the neighboring tribesmen could, charitably, be described as chaotic. Huston Smith, in his classic The Religions of Man, (p. 219) goes so far as to call the Arab society before the advent of Mohammed "barbaric." Tribal loyalties were paramount; other than that, nothing served to mitigate the blood feuds, drunken brawls and orgies that the harsh life of the desert gave sway to. When he had made Medina his stronghold, Mohammed mobilized an army of 10,000 men and, in 630 CE, moved against Mecca, meaning to purify the Kaaba and turn it into a center of worship of one God, Allah. His success is legendary. Two years later, when he died all of Arabia was under Muslim control."

1400 years later the conquering is in full swing.

<<<On the topic of the Maimonides>>> Source: Joseph Telushkin. Jewish Literacy. NY: William Morrow and Co., 1991

Maimonides's full name was Moses ben Maimon; in Hebrew he is known by the acronym of Rabbi Moses ben Maimon, Rambam. He was born in Spain shortly before the fanatical Muslim Almohades came to power there. To avoid persecution by the Muslim sect — which was wont to offer Jews and Christians the choice of conversion to Islam or death — Maimonides fled with his family, first to Morocco, later to Israel, and finally to Egypt.

Philosophically, Maimonides was a religious rationalist. His damning attacks on people who held ideas he regarded as primitive — those, for example, who understood literally such biblical expressions as “the finger of God” so infuriated his opponents that they proscribed parts of his code and all of The Guide to the Perplexed. Other, more liberal, spirits forbade study of the Guide to anyone not of mature years.

To this day, Maimonides and the FrenchJewish sage Rashi are the most widely studied Jewish scholars. Contemporary yeshiva students generally focus on the Mishneh Torah, and his Book of Commandments (Sefer haMitzvot) a compilation of the Torah's 613 commandments. Maimonides also formulated a credo of Judaism expressed in thirteen articles of faith, a popular reworking of which (the Yigdal prayer) appears in most Jewish prayerbooks. Among other things, this credo affirms belief in the oneness of God, the divine origins of the Torah, and the afterlife. Its twelfth statement of faith — “I believe with a full heart in the coming of the Messiah, and even though he may tarry I will still wait for him” — was often among the last words said by Jews being marched into Nazi gas chambers.

Maimonides was one of the few Jewish thinkers whose teachings also influenced the nonJewish world; much of his philosophical writings in the Guide were about God and other theological issues of general, not exclusively Jewish, interest. Thomas Aquinas refers in his writings to “Rabbi Moses,” and shows considerable familiarity with the Guide. In 1985, on the 850th anniversary of Maimonides's birth, Pakistan and Cuba — which do not recognize Israel — were among the cosponsors of a UNESCO conference in Paris on Maimonides. Vitali Naumkin, a Soviet scholar, observed on this occasion: “;Maimonides is perhaps the only philosopher in the Middle Ages, perhaps even now, who symbolizes a confluence of four cultures: GrecoRoman, Arab, Jewish, and Western.” More remarkably, Abderrahmane Badawi, a Muslim professor from Kuwait University, declared: “I regard him first and foremost as an Arab thinker.” This sentiment was echoed by Saudi Arabian professor Huseyin Atay, who claimed that “if you didn't know he was Jewish, you might easily make the mistake of saying that a Muslim was writing.” That is, if you didn't read any of his Jewish writings. Maimonides scholar Shlomo Pines delivered perhaps the most accurate assessment at the conference: “Maimonides is the most influential Jewish thinker of the Middle Ages, and quite possibly of all time” (Time magazine, December 23, 1985). As a popular Jewish expression of the Middle Ages declares: “From Moses [of the Torah] to Moses [Maimonides] there was none like Moses.”

While Maimonides wrote in Arabic it would be respectful to honor the origins and culture which your main page "Allah" does not display.

Who writes this kind of none sense? I mean, who in the world has time on their hands for writing or even reading this BS —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 216.99.60.243 (talk) 02:52, 17 January 2007 (UTC).

Rephrasing on debate in popular media?

At the risk of "stoking the fire" I have a concern about the following statement and related statements.

Mainstream Muslims and mainstream Christians typically agree that they do not represent the same deity's attributes, while both parties assign the same basic definition to the word "God" and the word "Allah." It is often preferred in popular religious media to maintain the two separate words because it is mutually agreed by the two belief systems that their deities differ in many attributes. Sometimes each party believes the other one serves a false deity; therefore the literary distinction is maintained.

The most serious concern about this statement is that it could be considered blasphemy by some Muslims. The Quran states (mind you I am no Islamic scholar) that Christians and Jews are People of the Book which means that, by definition, they do worship the same deity. The fact that they hold different beliefs about Him is a completely separate matter. I realize that the author here probably "meant" it this way but regardless of what was "meant" that's not what it says. Certainly it is true that some Muslims interpret the Quran differently in this regard but the article is walking on dangerous ground by implying that this is mainstream Muslim thinking.

Apart from that historically speaking all these religions are based on a common tradition so even just from an objective perspective the article should not be "assuming" that the religions worship different deities. Although obviously some Christians believe this (as shown by the above discussion), this certainly is not the universal opinion of the Christian community either.

It is certainly reasonable to mention these differing opinions but treating this particular viewpoint as the "common thinking" is at best unwise (and POV). I am going to attempt to rephrase a little. Please comment if you disagree. --Mcorazao 16:58, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Someone fix the History section

The wars between posters here must have been very fierce indeed. The first sentence of the History section isn't even grammatical anymore. It's like reading Tertullian to try to find out what heretics believed: you know there's a context, you just aren't told what it is, so a lot of head scratching results.

Fix and freeze at least this one short section, History. If only the Muslim view can be given because a fatwa or cyber-attack might result otherwise, however gently any other view was phrased (which seems unlikely to me unless someone starts uploading cartoons) say that. Otherwise, give the two sides even if you're going to refute one. Right now it reads like a transitional version of the Soviet People's Encyclopedia or something. A mangled half of one view is the most one can be puzzled out.

Understanding of any kind isn't likely to result from this page as it is.

I have no opinion about the content - what little I can understand of it - I came here for information, and am confronted with an article one can't actually make sense of which reeks of censor-wars. Whose been at it and what used to be here I couldn't say. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.69.130.131 (talk) 21:09, 28 January 2007 (UTC).

Etymology last paragraph

I don't why someone who's reading about the word "Allah" has to know about the Hebrew word Eloah which was used as a synonym, along with a quote from Jesus and suddenly having the paragraph end with a greek trasnlation of the word ... Cloud02 12:51, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Never mind the question, i removed the paragraph because the exact same paragraph appears later in the article Cloud02 12:55, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Arm, Leg, Leg, Arm, Head

I have removed this material as plainly ridiculous, and too marginal to warrant inclusion on this article. I did enjoy reading it, but it's not right that Wikipedia should be making me laugh.[2]Proabivouac 09:29, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Yeah. That was pretty funny. I think it is an english tradition to take the first letters of a couple of words and make up a new word out of it. Am I right? --Aminz 09:34, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

These are called Acronyms. See also Hamas. However, I believe that very few everyday words arise from this process; most explanations along these lines are folk (and false) etymologies. English speakers are very conscious of the distinction between acronyms and real words, even when those acronyms are associated with wordlike pronunciation conventions.Proabivouac 09:45, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Hmmm. We don't have any acronym in Farsi. But I like it. --Aminz 09:54, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

I don't fully agree. It has been used in African American Islam and--well, this article doesn't even mandate that it is part of Islam. It seems notable overall, to me since I've read about it in quite a few articles. This isn't just a false etymology... it's a religious belief from a notable religion. It's also not so nice to laugh... :/ --gren グレン 12:26, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Third Theory of Etymology

I have added 10 sources to back the third theory. Why? I started with one which was removed, then two which were removed, then four, etc. Some of the prior sources I have used have been removed as "partisan"; however, I would argue that partisanism is innate in human writing and simply because one is partisan doesn't mean that he or she is not a reliable source. A simple way to verify these sources would be to use this link: [[3]] or similar searches in Amazon books, scholarly libraries or Google scholar. Mrbradford 07:15, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Mrbradford, as I stated on your talk page. Please bring one source which is written by an Islamic specialist and that would suffice. Please do not add sources which are not talking about the theory (for example that answers.com) Thanks --Aminz 07:17, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Your definition of "Islamic specialist" will likely vary from mine, or you (or someone else) may write someone off as "partisan"; hence, I have provided a plethora of sources. Feel free to verify all of the 10 sources I have presented (a simple way would be to use the link I provided above) if you'd like. Mrbradford 07:23, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

I have no problem with inclusion with attribution if we can ascertain that this is a serious academic view.Proabivouac 07:20, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Please show me how the first theory is a "serious academic view" or the second theory for that matter. Show me how they are not partisan also please. Mrbradford 07:23, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Mrbradford, I don't like it that you claim a source supports your theory but when I read it I see nothing about Moon God. --Aminz 07:26, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

I see your point. Some sources I reference point out that Allah is derived from Al-Ilah (a theory which is not in the rest of the article). Others expound on this. Hence, I have rewritten the third theory. Mrbradford 07:45, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

And the other theories are academic ones because Encyclopedia of Islam mentions them. Encyclopedia of Islam doesn't say a word about Moon God whatsoever. --Aminz 07:26, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

And how are Houtsma, et al. not partisan? Mrbradford 07:45, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

They are not partisan, but mere matters of etymology.Proabivouac 07:27, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

So why wouldn't "Al-Ilah is where Allah is derived from" be a "mere matter of etymology"? Mrbradford 07:45, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

It is of course exactly that, and is already stated in this article. If you wish to add refs for that, you are welcome to do so. What is at issue is only whether this Al-ilah was a moon god, and whether the crescent moon symbol has anything to do with this.

This may be my error in assumption. I assumed we are debating the capital "I" in the third theory versus the lower case "i" in the first; the former referring to a specific god; the latter to a generalized diety Mrbradford 08:04, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Arabic has no capital letters.Proabivouac 08:11, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Please observe that this has no bearing on the validity of Muhammad's revelations. The question is only whether he was claiming, "these are the words of the moon god," or "these are the words of God." It's pretty clear to anyone who has read the Qur'an that the latter is the case.Proabivouac 07:58, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Aah, but this is the very essence of this debate - that Muhammad chose 1 of the existing gods (idols), the head god who was the moon god Al-Ilah and claimed that all the other gods were false and only Al-Ilah was the one true god to be equated with the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Mrbradford (talk • contribs) 08:07, 10 February 2007 (UTC).

As Al-ilah translates literally as "the god," we need a serious academic source which supports the notion that this meant anything in particular.Proabivouac 08:15, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Mrbradford, we have references for other theories. Please specify your most reliable source for the new claims you are adding, so that I go to library and check it. Thanks --Aminz 07:48, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Once again, I offer this link: [[4]] in which you will find many of the sources for this theory. No library trip is necessary (at least at this point). If I had to choose 1 source, I would choose Moon-o-theism; however, I suspect you may dismiss this source as others have my previous primary sources. Mrbradford 08:04, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Not every book in that list is reliable. We should use the ones that are written by Islamic scholars not just any writer. And I couldn't find Moon-o-theism source. Please state the name of the book. Thanks --Aminz 08:00, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, it was 1 Google results page prior, try: [[5]] Mrbradford 08:04, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

It is written by Yoel Natan and self-published by himself. Please let me know Yoel Natan's academic credentials? --Aminz 08:06, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

"AcaDhimmis?" This book looks to be crankery, not science.Proabivouac 08:19, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

The original source I had on my first edit was James Murk's Islam Rising Book 1. Regarding credentials, see [[6]] but to summarize: MA, History of the Middle Ages, Renaissance, and Reformation, University of Chicago. Second MA in Cultural Anthropology, University of Minnesota. Third M.Th., Bob Jones University. Ph.D., Louisiana Baptist University. Also was a Ph.D. candidate at the University of Chicago. Taught linguistics for the Wycliffe Bible Translators’ Summer Institute of Linguistics, on faculty at Wheaton College where he taught for 8 years and was chairman of the Anthropology Department. Murk studied Islam at the University of Minnesota Graduate School of Anthropology and developed a course called The Islamic Culture Sphere. Mrbradford 08:35, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

The book is not published through academic presses. The real of name of the book is "Islam Rising: The Never Ending Jihad Against Christianity."[7] This is clearly an extreme source. --Aminz 09:19, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

This guy, James Murk, claims that Shias believe 25% of the Qur'an was left aside when the Qur'an was gathered. LOL!!! --Aminz 09:58, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Suffice it to say, this is not scholarly press. gren グレン 11:16, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

This subject never ceases to amaze me. Simply put, that is not an important academic view. I cannot say that no academic has believed it or mentioned it as a possibility, but it's clear that it is only important to a segment of Christians who read people like Murk and Jack Chick. This is also a good example of the problem of this medium. We need to know the literature to be able to make judgments about what is important. I think even the second point about Aramaic is fairly less important than the first. I would need to look back at some of the books to check. I am not sure if it should be written as 'another theory' or a less important theory. gren グレン 10:26, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Well Encyclopedia of Islam says those two theories. It was either made up by adding "al"+"elah", or the word was transfered into Arabic from Aramic. The first one is more accepted. --Aminz 11:25, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Can you give page / edition citations if you added the Encyclopedia of Islam reference? I just think it's important to get a sense of which etymology is viewed as the most likely because this is on a continuum. The moon god explanation seems to be a notable explanation within a certain context and, that context is important to give to all theories. Someday I will look more into this. gren グレン 11:36, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

EoI in "Allah" article writes: Allāh was known to the pre-Islamic Arabs; he was one of the Meccan deities, possibly the supreme deity and certainly a creator-god (cf. Ḳurʾān, xiii, 16; xxix, 61, 63; xxxi, 25; xxxix, 38; x1iii, 87). He was already known, by antonomasia, as the God, al-Ilāh (the most likely etymology; another suggestion is the Aramaic Alāhā).—For Allāh before Islam, as shown by archaeological sources and the Ḳurʾān, see ILĀH.

But the vague notion of supreme (not sole) divinity, which Allāh seems to have connoted in Meccan religion, was to become both universal and transcendental; it was to be turned, by the Ḳurʾānic preaching, into the affirmation of the Living God, the Exalted One.

The author is (L. Gardet) --Aminz 12:00, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks... but, what I really need is the citation, not the quote :) so... L. Gardet. "Allah." Encyclopedia of Islam. 2nd ed. Leiden: Brill. 1956 that's not correct... but, that's what I want... because, it belongs on the article page instead of Encyclopedia of Islam, Allah. gren グレン 12:30, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

My Revert

Mrbradford do not just throw a bunch of links there. I reverted you not primarily because I think you're wrong but because I think what you did borders on vandalism but is at least complete disregard for our citing sources rules. It's probably not vandalism but you cite Standard Or Head-dress?: An Historical Essay on a Relic of Ancient Mexico, The Classic Arabian Horse, The Real 9/11. What made you think that these were even remotely reliable? We can have the discussion about Moon-O-Theism and books that are on the subject of Islam, Allah, and the like, but to cite sources about completely unrelated events shows bad judgment to say the least.

That being the most egregious example, we still have other problems such as the Encyclopedia of Islam reference not being nearly complete (page number, edition), the Columbia Encyclopedia 'says' without even giving bibliographic information for it. Britannica online is linked but no date of access is given since... information there does change. Etc. etc. Mrbradford's citing practices were by far the worst but in general this article could use some help in that department. gren グレン 10:05, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

You're correct, Gren, as is so often the case. However, he appears to be fairly new to Wikipedia (unaware of 3RR for example.) Mrbradford, please take note of the high standards we aim to uphold on Wikipedia and adjust your edits accordingly.Proabivouac 10:13, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Regarding numerous sources, I am unfamiliar with citing rules. Prior to adding many sources my edits were being removed without any discussion. Now at least there seems to be some talk. Some emphasize nonpartisan sources which IMHO do not exist; while others emphasize scholarly sources and then further add "published by academic press." So out go another xx sources. It seems new "rules" are made each time I attempt to satisfy the rigorous demands of the people who obviously have this page on their watch list for this third view that they disagree with. These standards (as pointed out by Gren for example) are NOT upheld for the rest of this article; so I suggest those statements be stricken from this article as this third view has been in the interest of fairness.

Although I am beginning to feel as if this is an act of futility; I will now propose sources here. Consider this: Islam: Historical, Social and Political Perspectives by Jacques Waardenburg, De Gruyter, 2002, p.29 ISBN 3110171783[[8]] Mrbradford 13:47, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

This looks to me a perfectly fine source, and a fascinating chapter. I'd like to see some brief treatment of this in Islam, actually. We ever hear that the polytheists were generically bad, rarely anything specific. I knew about Allah's daughters (which aren't mentioned there either), but much of this is quite new to me. Thank you for bringing this to our attention. Re the issue at hand, what does it actually say? I've picked out two passages which I think are most relevant to this discussion:

"Chelhod even speaks of the birth of a "national" religion and sees a broadening and growth in the role of Allah that would be reflected in his taking over the prerogatives of Qamar, the moon god and old lord of heaven." (p.29)

"Allah was venerated before all else as the sky god and the bestower of rain, but even then he was also seen as the creator of the world...Allah (al-ilahu, the godhead) corresponds to El throughout the Semitic world." (p.25)

The reference is to Chelhod, Joseph, Les structures du sacré chez les Arabes, 1986, Maisonneuve & Larose, for anyone inclined to follow up.Proabivouac 17:56, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

[Pre-empted by Proabivouac :O!]

It's not that numerous sources are bad, per se, but lumping them on to make a point is. You quoted a book about horses and one about Mexico to prove a point about Allah. You are right that all sources have biases--but there are accepted academic standards. It is common practice--although not ideal--that material will be poorly sourced until there is debate over it. It's easiest to read the first book and quote what it says regardless of whether it is a scholarly work so that is what often happens. In this case you will find that most noted scholars of Islam do not mention the 'moon God' theory. Muslim and academic sources do talk about "Allāh was known to the pre-Islamic Arabs; he was one of the Meccan deities, possibly the supreme deity and certainly a creator-god" but, the moon God argument and how it is presented in Moo-o-Theism are just not arguments made by academics. I don't know how I can convince you of that--but this view is purported by the major institutions of Islamicist knowledge. The creator God etymology is a very similar idea--in fact, I find the main difference to be that it is reported in a neutral tone instead of claiming that 'since Allah was taken from the name of the moon god it cannot be God'.

As for the source you gave it doesn't seem too bad. It was published by Walter de Gruyter which is apparently known for producing scholarly literautre. I would have to look into it more. But, the source does not even support this edit of yours. It is merely saying that Allah took power from Qamar, the moon god and lord of the heavens. In fact, it's part of an argument that Central Arabia wasn't as Pagan as Muslims would have us believe--something that G. R. Hawting recently wrote about. But here's another scnenario. Let's say you do find a source that mentions the exact theory you purpose. We can't mention it as being equally accepted as the theory number 1 (theory number 2 I don't know as much about and I would be happy to see more citations about it). I am not fully sure what you're trying to achieve. gren グレン 18:07, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Redirect to God

Since Allah is a direct 'translation' of 'God', shouldn't this article be merged and redirect to the God article? Why do we have two God articles? We could have a section in the God article about God in Islam... Sfacets 09:01, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

We also have a section about the controversy surronding the term. I also could see your idea starting a huge edit war/angry debate invovling a ton of Christians freaking out claiming that Allah is a different god from the god of the Bible. For the sake of peace and quiet the articles should stay seperate.

It's not about peace and quiet - if insuring that factually-accurate definitions are maintained costs a few religious hotheads their cool, then it is a small price to pay. Sfacets 05:32, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Oppose Historically (the aspect which Wikipedia is supposed to present), Allah is very much different than the Christian God. Both are viewed differently by those who follow them and those who do not, and both taught their "prophets" different sets of rules. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Hojimachong (talk • contribs) 05:35, 28 February 2007 (UTC).

The word 'Allah' is a translation of the word 'God'. 'God' does not refer to the Christian God, it refers to an unspecified higher power. The same goes for the word 'Allah' - in some parts of India, for example, Hindu Gods can be referred to as 'Allah' - the word is not religion-specific, but rather language specific. Sfacets 23:11, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Which is appropriate, because the article deals with the etymology, typography, and history of the word "Allah". Historically, it has been used differently. --Hojimachong^talk 01:33, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

This page is in a sorry state. Wikipedia is supposed to present facts as best as possible. The fact of the matter is that Allah is without question the word "God", beliefs that it is somehow a proper name notwithstanding. I don't understand why people are so upset about this notion when it is inherent in the shahada itself, but if there is controversy, it should be noted AS CONTROVERSY. Just because evolution is disliked by certain people doesn't mean we rewrite the evolution page to suit the needs of anti-evolutionists; notes to the contrary are listed as such. This whole war of words is really aggravating and is half the reason I never end up editing wikipedia because plain, basic facts are consistently renovated by religiously motivated persons. AND YES, I AM A MUSLIM. --em zilch 17:33, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Lexicographic Sources

I am returning to this topic after some years have passed. I original had posted Arabic Lexicon sources that was removed which was needed in this discussion in which many people have been requesting for.

So that I am not suspected of altering a quoted source I have quoted the sources below and links to scanned images to the actual page source. This info would have stoped many unsupported assumption being made in this discussion if someone had not removed the original posted and reference source to Arabic Lexicographic authority. {} are mine in the quote :

Source #1 "Edward William Lane's Lexicon"

" الله {Alllah}, [written with the disjunctive alif الله, meaning God, i.e. the only true god,] accord. to the most correct of the opinions respecting it, which are twenty in number, (K,) or more than thirty, (MF) is a proper name, (Msb,K,) applied to the Being who exists necessarily, by Himself, comprising all the attributes of perfection; (TA;) a proper name denoting the true god, comprising all the excellent divine names; a unity comprising all the essences of existing things; (Ibn-El-Arabee, TA;) the ال {AL} being inseparable from it; (Msb:) not derived:....... {Image of complete entry http://img426.imageshack.us/img426/4340/ewlanelexiconnn0.jpg Entry starts from right to left}

Source #2 Abdul Mannan Omar's Lexical Dictionary of the Quran

Allah.....It is the proper noun applied to the Supreme Being, Who is the sole possessor of all perfect attributes, Who is free from all defects and Who exists necessarily by Himself. It is not a common noun. All Divine atributes mentioned in the Holy Quran are qualities of the proper name Allah. No other language has a distinctive name for the Divine being. the nsames found in other languages are either attributive or descriptive and can be used in the plural form, but the word Allah is never used for any other thing, being or deity. It is never used as a qualifying word. Sibwaih and Khalil say, Since Al in the beginign of the word is inseparable from it si it is a simple sub-stantive, not derived from any other word. the word Allah is not a contraction of al-ilah, as some people tend to believe, but quite a different word................{Image of complete entry Page 28 http://img111.imageshack.us/img111/6815/abdulmannanomardictofthxh4.jpg Page 29 http://img111.imageshack.us/img111/5408/abdulmannanomardictofthkb6.jpg

The above are Arabic Lexographic Authority of the Arabic word. Oxy2Hydro 20:09, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

in short, "Allah" is a god for Islamic conception, Allah is the only god. you can read this in Quran. allah and god are different:

allah: god of universe for Islamic conception
god: is a proper name

As same as the difference between human and john(as example) --Ayham86 01:19, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Merge

I oppose merge. No need for that. --Aminz 07:11, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Why keep two pages about the same subject? Someone might think Allah and God are two separate entities (duotheism) Aminullah 16:15, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

This article is about the Word itself. Not what it means in Islam, thus Oppose. Cloud02 10:00, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes, this article is not specifically about Allah in Islam. Allah is simply the Arabic word for God used by Arab Christians as well. Muslims don't own it. --Aminz 10:05, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

To say allah is God is POV. Many people hold the view that allah is in fact Satan masquerading as God. Prester John 20:01, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes....ALLAH is the same word GOD in arabic.....It should be merged. User:Ashiq

Saying that "Allah" is "God" is just as POV as saying that "Eloi" is God. "Eloi Eloi, lama sabachthani"--Kirby♥time 02:52, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Aminz, my opinion is that God in Islam should be redirected to Allah. There's nothing much in God in Islam anyway. --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 03:37, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

It was correctly pointed out that Arab Christians also refer to God as Allah, as Allah is simply the Arabic word for God. I do, however, think that God in Islam should be merged with Tawhid. MezzoMezzo 15:30, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

New deletion

This removal was really uncalled for. Why all this apprehension?--71.108.12.39 (talk) 02:04, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

I do not think the word "apprehension" means what you think it means. ناهد^𒀭(^dAnāhita) ^𒅴 07:50, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

It means that your fear knowledge.--71.108.12.39 (talk) 09:18, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm not apprehensive about your edits. Consensus long holds that the material you've posted is fringe theory and unencyclopedic. There is a whole article called Criticism of Islam that mentions such theories, but they don't belong here. Read the archives for an in-depth discussion of the situation. ناهد^𒀭(^dAnāhita) ^𒅴 15:27, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

I wouldn't call the current version of the article achieved through the obstinacy of a few Islamic editors the result of a "consensus."--71.108.0.175 (talk) 15:49, 17 August 2008 (UTC)