Author Topic: Is "Allah" a Name or It is Merely Arabic for "The God"?  (Read 21105 times)

ayman

  • Wise One / Burnout
  • *****
  • Posts: 2953
  • Gender: Male
Re: Is "Allah" a Name or It is Merely Arabic for "The God"?
« Reply #20 on: April 21, 2008, 06:47:43 PM »
Peace Arnab,

First of all, let me reiterate that I believe that Allah is a verb but it is also accepted as a proper noun.

How is "allah" a verb? Do you even know what it would mean as a verb before making such statements? It would mean "made (something) into a god". The god is not made into a god. There is only one god and he is not made. He is just there as the god. If you disagree then tell us what "allah" would mean as a verb.

It is a verb because the root in the Semitic language is a verb and there is an ancient meaning there.

Since the root of ALL Semitic words is a verb then according to your statement all Semitic words are verbs. Of course this is false and the root being a verb has nothing to do with whether a word is a verb or not.

It is also a proper noun because it is what we call the Creator.

This is false. Linguistically, ?the creator? is a description not a proper name.

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

But your above justifications, whether they be ?allah is a verb because the root is a verb? or ?the creator? is not a description, are even more false than your original argument.

Saying that something is ?false? is not an insult to the person who says it. So don?t take this personally. I was actually hoping that you would be able to come up with better arguments because that is how we can both and everyone following this discussion improve our understanding.

Again, you need to research what you are typing to verify what you are saying is true.

Saying ?you need to research what you are typing? is not proof that what I said is false. You can either prove it to be false or accept it.

Also, please present evidence that anything that I wrote in my previous post is a false or inaccurate statement about English grammar (or anything else for that matter).

I did address each of your examples and showed how even your own examples actually demonstrate that ?allah? cannot be a meaningless label like Oreos and is in fact a common noun.

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

You were trying to imply that ?allah? is a proper name because it is capitalized in English. I simply pointed out the obvious fact that your argument is irrelevant.

This is not correct in English grammar.

What I said is correct, not just in English or Arabic, but in ALL languages, context is what determines if a word is a proper name or a common noun.

You are implying that the written capitalization have something to do with English grammar.  This is of course completely false. If you don?t believe me, just go to your word processor and type any proper name such as ?English? as ?english?. Your spelling and grammar checker will alert you that you made a spelling error not a grammar error.

If what you are saying was correct then when you speak to someone how do you know if a word that they are saying is a proper name or not when you can?t hear them in CAPITAL?  Of course you use the context of the conversation. This is indisputable. So it is not surprising that your attempt to justify your original false statement is leading you to make even more false statements. I hope that you will break from this cycle that you put yourself in and acknowledge the simple and obvious reality.

That is your opinion.

It is not my opinion. Since all nouns are originally common nouns, a noun is by default a common noun unless the context determines otherwise. Since you haven?t given a single instance in the great reading where the term ?the god/al-ilah? wouldn?t fit in the context for ?allah? then we have to go with the default.

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

Those are not translations. In the case of Egypt, it is simply a different name for the country and it is not a translation of ?misr?. It is like Congo and Zaire are two different names for the same country. Had it been a translation then the word ?misr? in Arabic would have been rendered as its meaning of ?country? when translated into English. On the other hand, Egypt is an English mispronunciation of the Greek Aegyptus, which in itself is a mispronunciation of Hwtqaptah, meaning: house of the Qa of Ptah with the consonantal skeleton pronounced ?h-t-q-p-t? and then later shortened to ?q-b-t? and pronounced g-p-t. This is why the people of Egypt were called ?Qbt? (later this became the name of Egyptian Christians). It is interesting that in rural dialects in Southern Egypt the letter Qaf is still pronounced as G, for example in the Southern Egyptian Arabic language they say gal-ly for qal-ly (said to me).

The name Yaqb is not a translation of whatever Jacob means in Canaanite. It is the same exact name as Jacob but with slightly different cross language pronunciation variation in English. Same goes for other names such as Josef/Joseph ? Yosef, Abaraham ? Ibrahim, etc. Those are not translations. They are mispronunciations.

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

So tell us what does Oreo really specifically mean?

There is a Baseball team here in the US, which is named as the Oreos in Baltimore street slang. So when I am in Baltimore asking an Oreo to go on the field, am I asking for a cookie or a player from that team?

Most likely

Yes, because like all proper name, the name Oreo is a meaningless label and has no bearing on the truth of the taste or ingredients or nature of what is being named.

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

No this is not what I am trying to say (and I do forgive you).

All human languages are made up by humans. Languages don?t fall from the sky. In all languages proper names are just labels that don?t convey the truth of the universal (i.e., common) concept associated with them. This is why in all languages they are not translated.

Since Arabic operates under different grammatical rules than English does then the two cannot compare on this issue. So, no, that would not be correct in Arabic.

The rule in all languages (Arabic, English, etc.) is that proper names are not translated. This has nothing to do with grammar. So you are contradicting yourself by claiming that ?allah? is a proper name and then turning around and translating it.

Allah has been the same word through out the Semitic languages as I mentioned before.

No, all you said above is that ?allah is a verb because the root in the Semitic language is a verb? and obviously I already explained why this is false. As a friendly suggestion, you really ought to verify what you are writing more carefully since you are making mistakes even in quoting yourself in the same post.

Your new statement is equally false. In Semitic languages, the term for god is ?el? (Western Semitic) or ?lh? (South Semitic, to which Arabic belongs).

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

Whether Mrs. Hacket is a teacher or is nice or not has nothing to do with grammar. The name Hacket doesn?t convey universal truth like ?teacher? and ?nice?. Common concepts/nouns like ?teacher? and ?nice? are universal concepts.  This is true in all languages and has nothing to do with grammar.

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

You are not making much sense. Why is your question of ?who else would the word "god" be referring to?? rhetorical? and what does it have to do with English grammar?

Can you please show me a verse.

See for example 12:41.

I absolutely did not miss Nadeem?s main point and I absolutely was agreeing with Nadeem  at times in my post.
Please understand: You will find when I post a comment or reply that sometimes I will agree with what someone says (and explain why) and disagree with other things they said (and explain why).
But I will try to qualify statements with a phrase like ?I agree? or ?I disagree? in the future. I did not realize that this could be confusing. I simply thought it was obvious when I agreed with what someone said.
Perhaps this has lead to some misunderstandings. There are times that I am agreeing with you as well in this post and the last. So, please keep that in mind.

I didn?t say that you disagreed or agreed. All I said is that you missed the point. Someone can agree and miss the point. You miss the point when you don?t realize the implications of your agreement. If you agree with Nadeem that the Arabic ?li? proposition removes the ?Alif? from the Arabic definite article ?AL? and since ?li? removes the A from ?al-lah? and makes it ?lilah? then the ?al? in the word ?allah? is a definite article (English ?the?) and your entire objection to the term ?allah? being equivalent to ?the god? is immaterial.

I don?t want you or anyone to blindly agree with me. I also don?t want anyone to waste everyone?s time and disagree with me just for the sake of disagreement. One has to completely understand what he or she is agreeing or disagreeing with and understand the implications. Otherwise, they are missing the point.

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

I already addressed the issue of English capitalization as not having anything to do with English grammar above. In all languages there are common nouns and proper names and the fact that proper names are not translated applies to all languages and again has nothing to do with any particular grammar.

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

The entire message of the great reading is an intellectual exercise. We achieve better understanding and get closer to the truth with the gift of intellect that the god bestowed on us and everything we do is based on our intellect.

If even an intelligent and progressive person such as you thinks that the god chose an Arabic word for his proper name then one must excuse Christians who think that Allah is the name of the Arab god and not the universal concept of the god. When I translate it to them, they suddenly see that they are wrong. So we can empirically verify that truth is a powerful tool that can change people?s lives and our world to the better.

Peace,

Ayman

Arnab

  • Guest
Re: Is "Allah" a Name or It is Merely Arabic for "The God"?
« Reply #21 on: April 21, 2008, 07:20:10 PM »
Salam Ayman,

I have already said all that I can on this subject at this time and presented you with all the examples I can.

I don't wish to repeat myself within the same thread by going over your post point by point.

I stand by all of my statements.

Salam,
Arnab

Prince

  • Truth Seeker
  • ***
  • Posts: 829
  • Gender: Male
Re: Is "Allah" a Name or It is Merely Arabic for "The God"?
« Reply #22 on: April 22, 2008, 04:24:12 AM »
I agree personally with Ayman on this Arnab. Without even studying arabic grammer and from reading quran in my opinion its absurd that The God would limit himself to a name in arabic rather than a universal concept which is prevalent in all languages. That to me is a powerful and omnipresent God which is not limited to a language but is comprehended/present by all speakers of all languages.  :)

PEACE
A book is only as good as it?s reader. Once opened symbols present themselves for the reader to decipher. We learn and relearn new conceptual models to comprehend these symbols. A book is only a tool.

Jafar

  • Wise One / Burnout
  • *****
  • Posts: 3864
  • Gender: Male
Re: Is "Allah" a Name or It is Merely Arabic for "The God"?
« Reply #23 on: April 22, 2008, 06:37:43 AM »
Allah IS Merely Arabic for The God.

People from many cultures and parts of the world have different names for God.

Dzul-qarnayn a.k.a Cyrus and The (Ancient) Persians called Him Ahura Mazda (meanings: Great Wisdom)
Some of the Jews called Him YHVH (He Who Is)
Some of the Jews called Him Adonai (Our Lord)
Some of the Jews called Him Elohym (The Great El / The Great God)
The Christians called Him Avinu (Hebrew),  Abwon (Aramic) (meanings: Our Father / The Source and Keeper Of All Things)
The Native Americans called Him "Great Spirit".
The Star Wars characters called Him "The Force".
And many many many others....

The Quran said it best:
Say: ?Call upon Allah, or call upon Rahman: by whatever name ye call upon Him, (it is well): for to Him belong the Most beautiful names.
Neither speak thy Prayer aloud, nor speak it in a low tone, but seek a middle course between.?
(17:110)

Salam

Arnab

  • Guest
Re: Is "Allah" a Name or It is Merely Arabic for "The God"?
« Reply #24 on: April 22, 2008, 06:47:41 AM »
Salam 2-pac-Notts,

Of course the concept of God is universal!

But we were discussing Arabic grammar and English grammar, and then somehow this conversation was taken out of the scope of grammar and into concepts which is a different conversation all together.

And Ayman is sorely wrong on his idea of grammar in English. Please note that I am talking about GRAMMER. Not concepts or perceptions or ideas.
I am and was discussing the way in which we use guidelines to write words onto a page so that they can be understood by a reader.

Since anything that I say in reply to Ayman's last post would only be a repetition of what I already posted in this thread on this subject, I do not think it is necessary to repeat myself. And if I did so, this would cease to be a discussion and turn into an argument.

Quote
That to me is a powerful and omnipresent God which is not limited to a language but is comprehended/present by all speakers of all languages.  Smiley

That was one of my points exactly. the word "Allah" is the same as in the Torah, Psalms, Injeel and Quran.

Salam,
Arnab




ayman

  • Wise One / Burnout
  • *****
  • Posts: 2953
  • Gender: Male
Re: Is "Allah" a Name or It is Merely Arabic for "The God"?
« Reply #25 on: April 22, 2008, 06:57:39 AM »
Peace Jafar,

The Quran said it best:
Say: ?Call upon Allah, or call upon Rahman: by whatever name ye call upon Him, (it is well): for to Him belong the Most beautiful names.
Neither speak thy Prayer aloud, nor speak it in a low tone, but seek a middle course between.?
(17:110)

I would translate 17:110 as follows (without Caps):

17:110. Say:" Call upon the god or call upon the almighty, whatever you call, to him belong the best names." And neither shout with your learning connection nor whisper with it, but seek a middle course in between.

Peace,

Ayman

Prince

  • Truth Seeker
  • ***
  • Posts: 829
  • Gender: Male
Re: Is "Allah" a Name or It is Merely Arabic for "The God"?
« Reply #26 on: April 22, 2008, 08:25:47 AM »

That was one of my points exactly. the word "Allah" is the same as in the Torah, Psalms, Injeel and Quran.

Salam,
Arnab


Thanks for clarifying your position on this I understand where your coming from now. Also you mentioned the word "Allah" is the same as in all scriptures you've mentioned. This is something new to me so could you please quote a source for this.

PEACE
A book is only as good as it?s reader. Once opened symbols present themselves for the reader to decipher. We learn and relearn new conceptual models to comprehend these symbols. A book is only a tool.

Arnab

  • Guest
Re: Is "Allah" a Name or It is Merely Arabic for "The God"?
« Reply #27 on: April 22, 2008, 05:58:11 PM »
Salam 2-pac-Notts,

Here are some dictionary sources from my earlier post:
Quote
Salam,

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

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

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

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

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

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

From "The Ancient Hebrew Lexicon of the Bible" (AHLB) by Jeff Benner
(please note that the Ancient Hebrew Font was omitted because I was unable to make the font work with this platform. However, the rest of the quote is intact and unchanged):
"1012) אל AL) ac: Yoke co: Ox ab: Strength: The pictograph א is a picture of an ox head and also represents its strength. The ל is a picture of a shepherd staff and also represents the authority of the shepherd. Combined these two pictographs mean "the strong authority" and can be anyone or thing of strong authority. The yoke is understood as a "staff on the shoulders" (see Isaiah 9:4) in order to harness their power for pulling loads such as a wagon or plow. Hence, the two pictographs can also represent "the ox in the yoke". Often two oxen were yoked together. An older, more experienced ox would be teamed up (yoked) with a younger, less experienced ox. The older ox in the yoke is the "strong authority" who, through the yoke, teaches the younger ox. (eng: all; elk; elephant)
A) אל AL) ac: ? Co: Ox ab: Oath: The power of the oxs muscles to perform work.
Nm) אל AL) - Power: One who holds authority over others such as judges, chiefs and gods. In the sense of being yoked to one another. [freq. 245] |kjv: God, god, power, mighty, goodly, great, idols, strong, unto, with, against, at, into, in, before, to, of, upon, by, toward, hath, for, on, beside, from, where, after, within| {str: 410}
Nf1) אלה A-LH) - I. Oath: A binding agreement including the curse for violating the oath. II. Oak: The strongest of the woods. [freq. 50] |kjv: oak, elm, teil tree, curse, oath, execration, swearing| {str: 423, 424, 427}
H) אלה ALH) ac: Swear co: Yoke ab: ?: The yoking together of two parties. A treaty or covenant binds two parties together through an oath (yoke). The oath included blessings for abiding by the covenant and curses for breaking the covenant (see Deuteronomy 28). The God of the Hebrews was seen as the older ox that is yoked to his people in a covenant relationship.
V) אלה A-LH) - I. Sw (vf: Paal, Hiphil) |kjv: swear, curse, adjure, lament| {str: 421, 422}
Nm) אלה A-LH) - Power: The power or might of one who rules or teaches. One who yokes with another. Often applied to rulers or a god. [Aramaic only] [freq. 95] |kjv: god| {str: 426}
cm) אלוה A-LWH) - Power: The power or might of one who rules or teaches. One who yokes with another. Often applied to rulers or a god. [Hebrew and Aramaic] [df: ] [freq. 2663] |kjv: God, god, heathen deity| {str: 430, 433}"

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

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

The name "El" is a very ancient Semitic term It is also the most widely distributed name among Semitic-speaking peoples for the deity, occurring in some form in every Semitic language except Ethiopic. Pope, in his study of "El" in the Ugaritic, notes that it is the most frequently occurring name for the deity in proper name throughout the ancient Semitic world (Marvin Pope, El in the Ugaritic Texts, p.1).
From Vines's:
'elah (H426), "god." This Aramaic word is the equivalent of the Hebrew 'eloah. It is a general term for "God" in the Aramaic passages of the Old Testament, and it is a cognate form of the word 'allah, the designation of deity used by the Arabs. The word was used widely in the Book of Ezra, occurring no fewer than 43 times between Ezr_4:24 and Ezr_7:26. On each occasion, the reference is to the "God" of the Jewish people, whether the speaker or writer was himself Jewish or not. Thus the governor of the province "Beyond the River" (i.e., west of the river Euphrates) spoke to king Darius of the "house of the great God" Ezr_5:8. So also Cyrus instructed Sheshbazzar, the governor, that the "house of God be builded" in Jerusalem (Ezr_5:15).


'eloah (H433), "god." This Hebrew name for "God" corresponds to the Aramaic 'elah and the Ugaritic il (or, if denoting a goddess, ilt). The origin of the term is unknown, and it is used rarely in Scripture as a designation of deity. Indeed, its distribution throughout the various books of the Bible is curiously uneven. 'Eloah occurs 40 times in the Book of Job between Job_3:4 and Job_40:2, while in the remainder of the Old Testament it is used no more than 15 times.
Certain scholars regard the word as being a singular version of the common plural form 'elohim, a plural of majesty. 'Eloah is commonly thought to be vocative in nature, meaning "O God." But it is not clear why a special form for the vocative in an address to God should be needed, since the plural 'elohim is frequently translated as a vocative when the worshiper is speaking directly to God, as in Psa_79:1. There is an obvious general linguistic relationship between 'eloah and 'elohim, but determining its precise nature is difficult.
The word 'eloah is predominant in poetry rather than prose literature, and this is especially true of the Book of Job. Some scholars have suggested that the author of Job deliberately chose a description for godhead that avoided the historical associations found in a phrase such as "the God of Bethel" (Gen_31:13) or "God of Israel" (Exo_24:10). But even the Book of Job is by no means historically neutral, since places and peoples are mentioned in introducing the narrative (cf. Job_1:1, Job_1:15, Job_1:17). Perhaps the author considered 'eloah a suitable term for poetry and used it accordingly with consistency. This is also apparently the case in Psa_18:31, where 'eloah is found instead of 'el, as in the parallel passage of 2Sa_22:32. 'Eloah also appears as a term for God in Psa_50:22; Psa_139:19; and Pro_30:5. Although 'eloah as a divine name is rarely used outside Job, its literary history extends from at least the second millennium B.C. (as in Deu_32:15) to the fifth century B.C. (as in Neh_9:17).

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

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

Salam,
Arnab

Here are some verses from the Quran that I believe supports my position.
5:68
وَقَفَّيْنَا عَلَىٰ آثَارِهِمْ بِعِيسَى ابْنِ مَرْيَمَ مُصَدِّقًا لِمَا بَيْنَ يَدَيْهِ مِنَ التَّوْرَاةِ وَآتَيْنَاهُ الْإِنْجِيلَ فِيهِ هُدًى وَنُورٌ وَمُصَدِّقًا لِمَا بَيْنَ يَدَيْهِ مِنَ التَّوْرَاةِ وَهُدًى وَمَوْعِظَةً لِلْمُتَّقِينَ
(Free-Minds Translation) Say: "O people of the Scripture, you are not upon anything until you uphold the Torah and the Injeel and what was sent down to you from your Lord." And for many of them, what was sent down to you from your Lord will only increase them in transgression and rejection. So do not feel sorry for the rejecting people.
5:44
إِنَّا أَنْزَلْنَا التَّوْرَاةَ فِيهَا هُدًى وَنُورٌ يَحْكُمُ بِهَا النَّبِيُّونَ الَّذِينَ أَسْلَمُوا لِلَّذِينَ هَادُوا وَالرَّبَّانِيُّونَ وَالْأَحْبَارُ بِمَا اسْتُحْفِظُوا مِنْ كِتَابِ اللَّهِ وَكَانُوا عَلَيْهِ شُهَدَاءَ فَلَا تَخْشَوُا النَّاسَ وَاخْشَوْنِ وَلَا تَشْتَرُوا بِآيَاتِي ثَمَنًا قَلِيلًا وَمَنْ لَمْ يَحْكُمْ بِمَا أَنْزَلَ اللَّهُ فَأُولَٰئِكَ هُمُ الْكَافِرُونَ
(Free-Minds Translation)  We have sent down the Torah, in it is guidance and a light; the prophets who have surrendered judged with it for those who are Jews, as well as the Rabbis, and the Priests, for what they were entrusted of God's Scripture, and they were witness over. So do not fear the people but fear Me; and do not purchase with My revelations a cheap price. And whoever does not judge with what God has sent down, then these are the rejecters.
3:2-3:3
اللَّهُ لَا إِلَٰهَ إِلَّا هُوَ الْحَيُّ الْقَيُّومُ
 نَزَّلَ عَلَيْكَ الْكِتَابَ بِالْحَقِّ مُصَدِّقًا لِمَا بَيْنَ يَدَيْهِ وَأَنْزَلَ التَّوْرَاةَ وَالْإِنْجِيلَ
(Free-Minds Translation)
God, there is no god but He, the Living, the Sustainer.
He sent down to you the Scripture with truth, authenticating what is present with it; and He sent down the Torah and the Injeel.
Salam,
Arnab

ayman

  • Wise One / Burnout
  • *****
  • Posts: 2953
  • Gender: Male
Re: Is "Allah" a Name or It is Merely Arabic for "The God"?
« Reply #28 on: April 23, 2008, 11:08:44 AM »
Peace 2Pac ? Notts,

Thanks for clarifying your position on this I understand where your coming from now. Also you mentioned the word "Allah" is the same as in all scriptures you've mentioned. This is something new to me so could you please quote a source for this.

As the sources that Arnab provided indicate, the Semitic term ?el? means ?god? and it is the original root for Hebrew ?eloah? and the Arabic, Safaitic and Thamudic ?ilah? (Often contracted in those Southern Semitic languages without the Hamza as ?lah?). So it is not exactly the same, but as with all words, one can see how the etymology evolved. In fact, by taking the ?al? in ?allah? as part of the word and not the definite article, Arnab actually contradicts his own thesis and disconnects it from its Semitic root since in this case there would be no etymological explanation for the doubling of the ?L?.

In inscriptions, we see the term with the definite article written as ?al-illah?, ?h-ilha? (with the h- Safaitic definite article), ?hn-ilah? (with the hn- Thamudic definite article) and in the contracted form as ?allah?, ?hlh? and ?hnlh? all of which mean ?the god? or ?the deity (previously mentioned)?.

We see the same pattern with the feminine noun al-ilaht/ h-ilt/ hn-ilt also contracted to allat/ h-lt/ hn-lt all of which mean ?the goddess?. In fact, the contracted form Allat is used in the great reading Chapter 53.

Another fact that Aranab may not be aware of is that the term ?al-ilah? was used by Christians in Syria in the 6th century CE. We actually have physical evidence in the pre-Quranic Arabic Christian inscription of Zebed, which is dated to 512 CE. The Arabic text clearly invokes the help of الاله /al-ilah. So the pre-Quranic people of the book definitely saw ?al-ilah? as the equivalent of ?allah?.

So the linguistic and logical evidence that I already presented in my previous posts together with the archeological evidence as well as the info that Arnab provided all confirm the fact that ?allah? and ?al-ilah? are equivalent and they simply mean ?the god?.

Peace,

Ayman

Arnab

  • Guest
Re: Is "Allah" a Name or It is Merely Arabic for "The God"?
« Reply #29 on: April 23, 2008, 12:10:35 PM »
Peace 2Pac ? Notts,

As the sources that Arnab provided indicate, the Semitic term ?el? means ?god? and it is the original root for Hebrew ?eloah? and the Arabic, Safaitic and Thamudic ?ilah? (Often contracted in those Southern Semitic languages without the Hamza as ?lah?). So it is not exactly the same, but as with all words, one can see how the etymology evolved. In fact, by taking the ?al? in ?allah? as part of the word and not the definite article, Arnab actually contradicts his own thesis and disconnects it from its Semitic root since in this case there would be no etymological explanation for the doubling of the ?L?.

In inscriptions, we see the term with the definite article written as ?al-illah?, ?h-ilha? (with the h- Safaitic definite article), ?hn-ilah? (with the hn- Thamudic definite article) and in the contracted form as ?allah?, ?hlh? and ?hnlh? all of which mean ?the god? or ?the deity (previously mentioned)?.

We see the same pattern with the feminine noun al-ilaht/ h-ilt/ hn-ilt also contracted to allat/ h-lt/ hn-lt all of which mean ?the goddess?. In fact, the contracted form Allat is used in the great reading Chapter 53.

Another fact that Aranab may not be aware of is that the term ?al-ilah? was used by Christians in Syria in the 6th century CE. We actually have physical evidence in the pre-Quranic Arabic Christian inscription of Zebed, which is dated to 512 CE. The Arabic text clearly invokes the help of الاله /al-ilah. So the pre-Quranic people of the book definitely saw ?al-ilah? as the equivalent of ?allah?.

So the linguistic and logical evidence that I already presented in my previous posts together with the archeological evidence as well as the info that Arnab provided all confirm the fact that ?allah? and ?al-ilah? are equivalent and they simply mean ?the god?.

Peace,

Ayman

Salam Ayman,

You make excellent points! I am definitely going to give this a little more research.
Thank you.

Salam,
Arnab