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

[zenje]

Peace Arnab,

We, as Muslims, agree that there is only one God so what does it matter if you put "the" in front of "God."

I agree with you on this one, as it is the belief that's important. However, I still like to emphasize "the", especially when writing. This is just my personal preference. When writing to a group of people with different beliefs, it's best to clarify, IMO.

[Arnab]

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

[Arnab]

Salam Nadeem,

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

Peace Arnab,

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

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

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

The root امر with the alif lam attached makes the word الامر Alif-lam-alif-meem-ra in the Quran (ref Quran 2:210, 3:128) There are other examples of the alif not disappearing when the definite article (alif-lam) is attached contrary to what you have read adding support to my theory on the word Allah in my previous post.

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

Becomes with li- attached:
لامراة

(Li-mrat)

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

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

Becomes with li- attached:
للبنت

(Li-lbint)

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

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

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

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

Allah:
الله[/size]

Becomes:
لله

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

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

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

If the definite article (alif lam) is in front of the wordاله(alif lam ha) then we would have الاله (alif-lam-alif-lam-ha) as we find in other words with that start with alif and have the definite article attached:
root:
ارض
with the alif lam attached (ref Quran 2:11):
الارض
root:
اثم
with the alif lam attached (ref Quran 5:2)
الاثم
root:
امر
with the alif lam attached (ref Quran 2:210)
الامر
Based on the above examples of the alif not disappearing when the definite article alif-lam is attached I form the following opinion:
If the Alif lam were the definite article in the word alif-lam-lam-haالله then we would have the following:  al (the) له lam ha. In other words له lam ha would be the root.
As far as I know lam-ha has never been used as a name for God in the Semitic languages. Nor does it used as such in Arabic.

You are correct that when the lam is added to Allah we have lam-lam-ha. This is found many times in the Quran. In my opinion the reason is that the word اله is the name of God being used.
This word اله being used as a name of God is in concordance with verses of the Quran.
We know that اللهis synonymous with اله (the shahada would be the most common example of this)
لا اله الا الله
There is no اله except الله Here we find that الله   is اله
There are verses in the Quran where God is called اله instead of الله (Quran ref:14:52 43:85)
So in the cases where the alif disappears when the lam is added as a prefix one possibility is that the spelling اله alif-lam-ha is one of the names being used for God in the verse where لله lam lam ha is found.

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

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

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

[Wakas]

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

[ayman]

Peace sister Samia, Jankern, all,

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

But the understanding that there is only one of the class of (ilah) is exactly what is implied by the expression "la ilah illa allah" and it is also implied by passages such as 21:22.

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

Don't rush to a conclusion without looking at all the instances where the word "allah" occurs in the great reading. The word "allah" is clearly used in 6:3 when "al-ilah" (the god) is intended:

6:3. ...wa huwa allah fi al-samawati ...
6:3. ...and he is the god in the heavens ...

Peace,

Ayman

[Arnab]

...The word "allah" is clearly used in 6:3 when "al-ilah" (the god) is intended:

6:3. ...wa huwa allah fi al-samawati ...
6:3. ...and he is the god in the heavens ...

Salam Ayman,

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

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

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

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

Salam
Arnab

[ayman]

Peace Arnab,

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

Since in 6:3, the word "allah" is definitely a common noun then there are two ways in Arabic to understand it, either "al-ilah/the god" or "ilah/a god". The meaning wouldn't be the same. Only with the definite article we get the meaning of the only god.

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

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

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

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

Exactly.

Peace,

Ayman

[Arnab]

Salam Ayman,

Since in 6:3, the word "allah" is definitely a common noun then there are two ways in Arabic to understand it, either "al-ilah/the god" or "ilah/a god".

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

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

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

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

cookies = common noun; Oreo = proper noun.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

While we're on the subject, lets look at another word used to refer to God. [size=20]رب[/size] ra-ba. I cannot find this word with the definite article in front it either. I am interested to find out if someone else can find a verse with alif-lam in front of ra-ba.

Salam,
Arnab

[ayman]

Peace Arnab,

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

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

A proper noun has two distinctive features: 1) it will name a specific [usually a one-of-a-kind] item, and 2) it will begin with a capital letter no matter where it occurs in a sentence.

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

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

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

3) In reality, what determines if something is a proper name or not is the context. If the meaning of a word fits in the context then it is a common noun. On the other hand, since proper names are just labels, their meaning often results in nonsense in the context. The meaning of "the god/allah/al-ilah" fits in all the occurrences of the word "allah" in the great reading.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

While we're on the subject, lets look at another word used to refer to God. [size=20]رب[/size] ra-ba. I cannot find this word with the definite article in front it either. I am interested to find out if someone else can find a verse with alif-lam in front of ra-ba.

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

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

Peace,

Ayman

[Arnab]

Salam Ayman,

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

You have it backwards, friend.

Quote from: Arnab on Yesterday at 09:21:14 PM
A proper noun has two distinctive features: 1) it will name a specific [usually a one-of-a-kind] item, and 2) it will begin with a capital letter no matter where it occurs in a sentence.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

This is not correct in English grammar.

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

That is your opinion.

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

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

Quote from: Arnab on Yesterday at 09:21:14 PM
A common noun names general items. The important thing to remember is that common nouns are general names. Thus, they are not capitalized unless they begin a sentence or are part of a title. Proper nouns, those that name specific things, do require capitalization.

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

No, not exactly.

Quote from: Arnab on Yesterday at 09:21:14 PM
Here are some examples of the differences between proper nouns and common nouns:
Tina offered Antonio one of her mother's homemade oatmeal cookies but only an Oreo would satisfy his sweet tooth.
cookies = common noun; Oreo = proper noun.

Oreo is a meaningless label.

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

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

Most likely

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

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

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

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

Quote from: Arnab on Yesterday at 09:21:14 PM
Charlie had wanted an easy teacher for his composition class, but he got Mrs. Hacket, whose short temper and unreasonable demands made the semester a torture.
teacher = common noun; Mrs. Hacket = proper noun.

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

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

Quote from: Arnab on Yesterday at 09:21:14 PM
The only way it would make a difference is if someone believes there is some other god the Quran is talking about as being the god of the Heavens and the Earth? Who else would the word "god" be referring to?

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

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

Quote from: Arnab on Yesterday at 09:21:14 PM
While we're on the subject, lets look at another word used to refer to God. [size=20]رب[/size] ra-ba. I cannot find this word with the definite article in front it either. I am interested to find out if someone else can find a verse with alif-lam in front of ra-ba.

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

Can you please show me a verse.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Salam,
Arnab