Talk:Allah/Archive 4

Good job

Good job Christian's for showing how immature you are with the constant vandalism of pages associated with Islam, keep up the good work boys and girls C6541 (talk) 09:55, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Rest assured, the people who vandalize this article are the same who vandalize everything else on this website, and are not automatically Christians for doing this. Unfortunately, immaturity knows no religion. -Ed!^(talk)_{(Hall of Fame)} 23:33, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Suggestion for censors of this article

I strongly recommend that certain Islamic users vandalize this article. This provides an ideal method to protect the article and prevent the insertion of what they regard as objectionable.--71.108.12.39 (talk) 02:15, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

I think we've patiently answered your comments above quite sufficiently. You haven't been able to find anything substantial in the reliable sources. Extreme minority views need not be covered, and I note from above you have been trying to press for this tendentious inclusion from a number of different angles. Please obtain consensus on any edits before re-inserting them. Thank you. ITAQALLAH 02:46, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

You hadn't participated in the discussion when a Reuters source was presented. Furthermore, we know Allah is the Islamic god; Reuters doesn't have to say Allah. "Extreme minority views" is untrue when this is all over the media.--71.108.12.39 (talk) 03:22, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

I am confident that some Islamic users will support you despite the vagueness and nonsensical nature of your objections.--71.108.12.39 (talk) 03:26, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

I think you meant Muslim, not "Islamic". ناهد^𒀭(^dAnāhita) ^𒅴 07:50, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

It is possible to be a non-Muslim supporter of Islam; then one becomes "Islamic."--71.108.12.39 (talk) 09:17, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

As the article makes clear, "Allah" is the Arabic word for God. It's a term used by Arab Christians, Muslims, and many people of other religions. The article says nothing about Allah, rather the Muslim conception of God. God in Islam would be the correct article, not this one. This article isn't the place for extreme minority views, which themselves are irrelevant to the article topic. ITAQALLAH 20:59, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Actually, the issue is complicated by the fact that Allah is the Arabic word for "God" and not limited to Muslims. I suppose we could straw-poll a move to either the Name of God in Arabic and slightly restructure the article to reflect this change or - which I find not particularly attractive - to God in Islam with notes on the top of the page indicating the word "Allah" is used by non-Muslims, etc. I mean, in standard Persian people use Arabic (or Hebrew or Avestan) phrases sometimes, but when people talk about God, they use Khodå "Lord" < Pahl. x^wada:y. I am informed this is also common in other Persian languages and the Indic languages as well for Muslims.

I dunno, it's a confusing decision about how to make an appropriate topic. :-( The use "Name of God in Arabic" would reduce article harassment, I think, and be a better use of the encyclopedia. ناهد^𒀭(^dAnāhita) ^𒅴 21:21, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

As far as I know, this move was already performed by Aminz i.e. this article is about the word Allah (and, as such, those who use it; which includes Muslims and non-Muslims); and God in Islam is specifically about the Muslim conception of God. ITAQALLAH 21:51, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Vandalism is against the policies of Wikipedia, and use to cause a fast block of the vandal in question. So recommending vandalism is bad behavior, to say the least. Beside that, I believe "certain Islamic users" wo'nt follow your advice, so you either have to do it by yourself, or abstain, in a fit of unexpected common sense. Said: Rursus (☻) 15:29, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

One-sided demands

I have produced many sources which state Allah's nature and origin. The ones opposing my edits continue to blank out info. I consider them lazy and demand Web links from the other side.

Please elaborate why you so vehemently want to suppress information with lame excuses. Why don't you make a genuine contribution to improve this article?--71.108.12.39 (talk) 09:23, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Number 71.108.12.39 is probably right – in general rewrites or adding [citation needed] ({{fact}}), or [clarify] ({{huh}}) should be preferred before reverts and blank-outs. Otherwise the improvement process may stall, and a bad state of the article may remain infinitely. Said: Rursus (☻) 15:33, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

The Mother of the Book.

• [1], 39.

Seems interesting to me. As far as I know more, I'll come back to her.

Austerlitz -- 88.75.71.90 (talk) 22:23, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Elohim/Enlil

Couldn't find any treatment of the relation of "Allah" to "Elohim" and "Enlil". Since the article Allah, by a slight deviation from the general purpose of articles on wikipedia, treats the word "allah" (< al-ilah), not the concept "Allah" (= God), and this is the system in dictionaries - see Wiktionary - not encyclopedias, I find it odd that the relation to "El"/"Elohim" (= God) is not treated, and since Lah/Eloh might have some relation to the akkadian "Ellil" < "Enlil", as the general name on a heavenly god, anyone, true or false. Said: Rursus (☻) 15:44, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

First, no. Sumerian EN-LÍL is not the same as Akkadian il "god". It is this latter word that is directly cognate with the attested Hebrew El and the extended forms with -ah- in Hebrew ha-Eloh-im, Syriac Elåh-å, Arabic al-ilaah. Second, there is already an etymology section that discusses this, although the Hebrew word Elohim does not specifically appear.

Allah is just the word that speakers of Arabic use as English speakers use 'God', it does not refer to one unique concept. Otehrwise, see the articles on "God in Islam", "God in Christianity" etc.

Pictures

The text seems pretty good to me, but I wonder whether the pictures chosen for the article are good examples, or representative examples of calligraphy of the word Allah. The first one is great, but the photo of the Hagia Sophia medaillon has a very poor quality, and the photo of the wall of the Eski Cami and the "simple Arabic calligraphy" are not particularly pleasant to the eyes. As Arabic and Islamic arts have produced a lot of amazingly beautiful calligraphies of "Allah", it would nice, perhaps, if someone could upload pictures reflecting more the diversity, richness and delicate-ness of this art... Many very different ways to beautify it have developped, Kufic and square Kufic, Naskhi, Thuluth, Nasta'liq, Ta'liq, Sini, as well as more fanciful modern works. But I guess it's not easy to get good pictures with no copy rights... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.247.85.103 (talk) 00:11, 11 October 2008 (UTC) the first picture-allah written in calligraphy-cannot be Osman simply because the date on the picture is 1421-it is something modern. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.111.209.212 (talk) 12:25, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

The use of the word " ALLAH" In Arabic

In Arabic language, the word "ALLAH", as mentioned in the article, refers to God and is the proper name of God almighty. It is mentioned in the article that it is derived from the article "al" (the) and "illah" (god) giving the meaning of "the God". Such derivation is doubtful and probably non-existant. This is supported by the absence of feminine forms and pleural forms. The word "allat" is not the feminine form but was a name of a statue worshiped by pre-Islam Arabs. Muslims will Refer to God as "ALLAH". He is the one and the only God, and to them any mentioning of God, divinity, lord or any other word suggesting or meaning God is by default referring to "ALLAH". 89.189.70.77 (talk) 20:16, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Actually, the claim that Allah is NOT derived from al at-ta'riif + 'ilaah is the one lacking in support. It has two fatal flaws:

1 - If the word Allah is Arabic, it must have a jidhr. If it does not, it is not Arabic. So if Allah is not from hamza-laam-haa, what is its jidhr according to you?

2 - If the word Allah is not from al + ilaah how do you explain that it takes Sarf but not tanwiin, that is, why does it take the case endings of a ma'rifa (definite noun) if it is an Arabic masculine proper name? Since the word predates the advent of MuHammad (صلى الله عليه وسلم) you cannot give a theological argument for the discrepancy here.

Look: muHammad-un, muHammad-an, muHammad-in --- these are the case endings of a normal Arabic masculine proper noun. Why, then, do we say Allah-u, Allah-a, Allah-i? If the name was neither masculine nor definite it would be mamnuu' min aS-Sarf and we would say Allah-u Allah-a Allah-a.

Therefore, in short, the fact that Allah can be in the genitive case ruins your argument. David80 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 02:13, 6 May 2009 (UTC).

Arab Christian terminology

I like the fact that the article explains that the name Allah is used in Christianity and Judaism, but I feel that there should be a whole different article relating to this particular controversy (cf Allah in Christianity). Allah al-ab, Allah al-ibn and Allah al-ruh al koudous are terms that are too often misunderstood. [2]. Also, there is the case of the Malaysia Herald, which was temporarily suspended over this. ADM (talk) (talk) 18:24, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

The article says "Arab Christians today, having no other word for 'God' than Allah..." . Could this be rephrased? I mean, it sounds as if Arab Christians somehow reluctantly had to use 'Allah', whereas it is just the normal word they've been using since long before Islam! On the page on 'Dieu', saying something like "French Christians today, having no other word for 'God' than Dieu..." would sound quite weird, wouldn't it? The word Allah is of course specially dear to Muslims but there's no copyright on it.

{{editsemiprotected}}

I would like to suggest, instead of :

« Arab Christians today, having no other word for 'God' than Allah, » « As the word Allah is very ancient in Arabic, and as the spread of (Judaism and) Christianism to Arab tribes were very early, it's natural for Arab Christians today not to have other word for 'God' than Allah, and they ».MohamedSaheed (talk) 16:40, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

OK, what was the word Arabs used to refer to Allah prior to Mohammad's Islam. What was it Aramaic/Syriac, which was superseded by Arabic, and what is the word Copts use(d?). This would clarify the matter.

Comparative religion

{{editsemiprotected}} In the "Comparative religion" section, one can read

_________________________________________________________________________________________ >According to the Encyclopædia Britannica:

God, says the Qur'an, “loves those who do good,” and two passages in the Qur'an express a mutual love between God and man, but the Judeo-Christian precept to “love God with all thy heart” is nowhere formulated in Islam. The emphasis is rather on God's inscrutable sovereignty, to which one must abandon oneself. In essence, the “surrender to Allah” (Islam) is the religion itself.[1] _________________________________________________________________________________________

I would be thankful to the established registered user who will add this text just after: _________________________________________________________________________________________ This passage from a contributor of the Encyclopædia Britannica, however, seems to ignore the Sufi doctrine according to which « all is undertaken by the single motivation of love of God ».

Also, if the exact wording "with all thy heart" is not found, one can find in the Qur'an these 3 passages about the love to God:

(2:165) « ...They love them as they should love Allah. But those of Faith are overflowing in their love for Allah... » (translation by A.Yusufali) « ...loving them with a love like (that which is the due) of Allah (only) - those who believe are stauncher in their love for Allah... » (translation by M. Pickthall)

(2:177) « ...to spend of your substance, out of love for Him, for your kin, for orphans, for the needy, for the wayfarer, for those who ask, and for the ransom of slaves; to be steadfast in prayer... » (translation by A.Yusufali) « ...and giveth wealth, for love of Him, to kinsfolk and to orphans and the needy and the wayfarer and to those who ask, and to set slaves free... » (translation by M. Pickthall)

(76:8) « And they feed, for the love of Allah, the indigent, the orphan, and the captive,- » (translation by A.Yusufali) « And feed with food the needy wretch, the orphan and the prisoner, for love of Him, » (translation by M. Pickthall) _________________________________________________________________________________________Regards MohamedSaheed (talk) 09:49, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Resolved

I didn't add the above, but I did remove the offending quote, as it seemed somewhat inaccurate in light of what you've said above, and it didn't really seem to fit with the rest of that section, either. Cheers,--Aervanath (talk) 08:49, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Thank you very much. Cheers. MohamedSaheed (talk) 11:21, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

About the "Abjad numeral" Paragraph

Hello, Please remove the "Abjad numerals" paragraph because it is meaningless and a weak excuse to associate the word "Allah" with the number 66 which we all know what means in the western culture.

I am pretty sure the person who added that paragraph did it as an act of vandalism.

Thank you. Kblive (talk) 22:47, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

The number 66 doesn't have any particularly interesting occult or sinister connections. You're probably thinking of the Number of the Beast, which is usually stated as being 666. In the United States, the number 66 is most commonly associated with the US Route 66 highway. That highway has very strong cultural and historical significance. Frotz (talk) 08:55, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

OK I can understand that, but that paragraph still has no useful meaning, I can't seem to find one, there is no point of keeping it in this article. Kblive (talk) 18:10, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

I agree. The paragraph is just pointless 'Abd el 'Azeez (talk) 10:45, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

My suggestion is to move the paragraph to the Numerology article, or someplace similar.
— Ω (talk) 16:37, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

The reference is already in the abjad numerals article. I went ahead and deleted the offending section from this article. As a minor anecdote, there used to be a U.S. Route 666 until 2003, when it was renamed US Route 491. That highway acquired nicknames like "Devil's Highway" because of that and a higher-than-normal fatality rate. That led to stories that the highway was cursed. Frotz (talk) 02:37, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Regarding 66: only a superstitious person will associate particular numbers with "devil" etc. That should not be a concern in this debate.

I support removing the section because it is non-notable and random.VR _talk 17:21, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Thank you Kblive (talk) 22:06, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

I agree the "66" reference is a bit tenuous. Also agree that the paragraph itself is irrelevant to the article. Have (again) removed it from the page. Euryalus (talk) 02:23, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

RE: "One God" qualification *is* in the Syriac

The article states: "The Syriac, Latin and Greek invocations do not have the words "One God" at the end."

This is inaccurate. Consult the Syriac prayer texts (e.g., the Shhimo Ferial prayers for the week) and you'll find: "Bshem Abo w-Abro w-Ruho qadish had Aloho shareero" this is translated: "In the name of the Father and Son and Holy Spirit, One (had) True (shareero) God (Aloho)".

The article should be revised in light of this, as it mistakenly claims the monotheistic qualification in the Christian Arabic invocation was influenced by Islam --- it wasn't. The Syriac Christian invocation has this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.16.231.150 (talk) 16:23, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Allah is not used by arab christians/jews

Allah is not used by arab christians/jews until the persecution from Islam started.Elohi was what God Trinity was called.We know that Christians and Jews live in fear and as Dhimmis in Arab World paying religion tax(Jizyah).

Allah is the Pagan moon God whose worshippers called it so.islam also worships the same moon god allah. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.93.32.185 (talk) 21:24, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Allah was the name the Muslims have been using every since Islam began. The Moon Cult theory has been disapproved many times. It was likely made up by a person with a racist case of Islamophobia and not found from delicate research. 86.164.95.30 (talk) 20:23, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Islam is not a race, it is a religion. 76.10.173.92 (talk) 20:18, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps it would be helpful to explain what the crescent symbol means in the context of Islam. My sources on ancient symbols and glyphs point to the crescent as having to do with the moon, silver, and deities associated with the two. It is an ancient symbol thousands of years older than Islam. Given that, I think I can state with certainty the following:

• The average person in Muhammad's time living in Arabia would have been familiar with the symbols associated with the commonly-known deities of Arabia.
• At least one of these deities was strongly associated with the moon and was symbolized with a crescent.

It is therefore very curious that a deity not particularly linked with the moon would be associated with a lunar symbol. In the Old Testament, God was often symbolized in fire as in the Burning Bush or a pillar of flames. Later on Jesus became metaphorically associated with the sun. So, why a crescent unless there was something specifically lunar about Allah? Frotz (talk) 06:28, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

The crescent was not a symbol of Islam, but of the Ottomans, a relatively recent Turkish dynasty that conquered Constantinople about 1490 AD. It became widely adopted because of the influence of the Ottomans. Early Muslims flew solid colours: the Ummayyads and their descendants solid white, the Abbasids solid black, and the Prophet's army flew green. In fact, rebellion against the Abbasids was called "putting on the white" or "flying the white", because it was the colour of the Banu Umayya. Therefore your argument is specious. Ogress _smash! 07:51, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

It's not terribly relevant who caused the symbol to be so associated. My question remains -- why was a lunar symbol adopted to represent Islam unless there was something specifically lunar about Islam or Allah? I don't think scholars and clerics would have allowed what amounted to a personal or family crest to become a symbol for an entire religion, especially when one considers the age-old disagreements between the Sunni and Shia. If such an objection was raised, there wouldn't have been any sort of agreement and the symbol would have remained secular. The fact that the symbol indeed became a symbol of Islam tells me that there was some sort of consensus. This is akin to adopting Charlemagne's monogram as the symbol of Christianity. Frotz (talk) 09:14, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

<<The fact that the symbol indeed became a symbol of Islam tells me that there was some sort of consensus>>: It doesn't matter what the so-called fact 'tells' and certainly not to 'whom', as you might very well be aware of, being an editor on WP for quite sometime now. You see, as has been re-iterated numerous times, the Crescent is not the symbol of Islam. The Crescent (& an additional Star against a green backdrop) is actually the national flag of the country of Pakistan -which, I might add, is not such a 'significant' place as far as Islamic history goes). Moreover, being as familiar with Islam, as you subtly are claiming to be with your biased and mis/under-informed arguments, I'm sure you too will agree (now, if you're not as familiar, then I'm sure you might agree after a decent amount of further research) that nowhere in the Qur'an or the Sahih Hadith (the sole two pillars from which the teachings of Islam are derived) is the Crescent mentioned as a 'symbol' of Islam. The significance of the Crescent being referred to often (not as a symbol, but as a point of reference) could be linked to (a) The Islamic Hijri (Lunar) calendar (which, I'm sure you know works on the basis of the phases of the moon :)) and (b) the fact that sighting of the Crescent at the end of the holy month of Ramadhaan calls for a celebration of sorts as it essentially announces the completion of the month (of fasting, I'm sure you know that too) and the declaration of Eid ul-Fitr on the next day. In case you've still not understood please be advised to look for strongly reliable and verifiable sources to justify your claims and deductions, since original research doesn't get much of a place on WP. 'Abd el 'Azeez (talk) 10:59, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm not doing any original research here. Looking at the article for crescent, I clearly see that the symbol is associated with the moon, silver, and deities associated with either or both of those. The article further states that the crescent has long also been included in personal and national crests even before the appearance of Islam. That is the stated origin of how the crescent got associated with Islam: it was used by the Sabaeans and the Sassanian Empire of Persia. This later spread to other regions of the Islamic world. Now, logically speaking, I find it highly unlikely that any person or nation's personal crest would be accepted as a symbol for an entire religion. As I stated before, that would be akin to adopting Charlemagne's monogram as the symbol of Christianity. My question remains: why was the crescent adopted as a symbol of Islam? Frotz (talk) 16:03, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

And, if you've read my response correctly, the question doesn't stand any ground. Simply because its just an allegation or a concoction at best and not a genuine query. And yes, it IS 'original research', if not exactly your own. Besides, have you really read through the complete article about the crescent here on WP? Everything including the references, external links et. al.? Another suggestion: since there isn't really any reliable source (as in WP:RS, WP:V) backing your claim, please go try looking for one (atleast on Google,) keeping an unbiased POV; maybe that'll help you. BTW, please do realize that in order for ANYthing to be connected to the religion of Islam, it HAS to come from either a) The Qur'an, or b) The Sahih Hadith of Prophet Muhammed Peace be upon him. Anything not covered/taught by either of these, is just an innovation in religion. Besides, you seem to make mention of Christianity quite often; now it wouldn't be very kind of someone to question the veracity of the Christian cross in context with Christianity would it, though many theories are floating around: Seen Cross in Christian Art [3] [4]? "The shape of the [two-beamed cross] had its origin in ancient Chaldea, and was used as the symbol of the god Tammuz (being in the shape of the mystic Tau, the intial of his name) in that country and in adjacent lands, including Egypt. By the middle of the 3rd cent. A.D. the churches had either departed from, or had travestied, certain doctrines of the Christian faith. In order to increase the prestige of the apostate ecclesiastical system pagans were received into the churches apart from regeneration by faith, and were permitted largely to retain their pagan signs and symbols. Hence the Tau or T, in its most frequent form, with the cross-piece lowered, was adopted to stand for the cross of Christ." ——An Expository Dictionary of New Testament Words (London, 1962), W. E. Vine, p. 256. 'Abd el 'Azeez (talk) 10:44, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

I read through the crescent article and found but one reference to a solid connection between Islam and the crescent. That connection is not explained or quoted. I'm glad you brought up the Christian cross. There is no offense in asking questions about its origin. I'm puzzled as to why you think it offensive to do so. Anyhow, the cross is similarly ancient and association with ancient gods comes as no surprise. The critical connection with Christianity and its meaning is that it represents a horrible way to die and a death that was a blood sacrifice to atone for the sins of humanity. Thus the cross is a powerful symbol of love and self-sacrifice. All this is noted in the Christian cross article. The crescent and symbols of Islam articles offer no explanation of the connection of the crescent with Islam other than a mention in the 53rd Surah, being part of crests used by the Ottomans, the Caliphate, and the Sassanid Empire in Persia. I'm trying to figure out the intimate meaning of the crescent relative to Islam in the same sense as the cross is to Christianity. So, once again, what is that meaning? Everything I've seen here so far points to something lunar. Frotz (talk) 05:44, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

well, the answer is that the crescent symbol is nothing as "intimately" connected to Islam as the cross is to Christianity. As you have already pointed out, it was just on the flag inherited from the Sassanids, and apparently sort of stood for "imperial power". It would probably make more sense to compare the crescent as a symbol on flag in the Islamic world (inherited from the Sassanids) to the eagle in flags in the Christian world (inherited from the Romans). --dab (𒁳) 20:52, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

The OP is a blatant troll who should of been ignored. But in regards to this "Moon god" rubbish (A lie often spread by Christians, hardly ever Jews) this has been dis-proven as illogical based on Islam’s core beliefs as written in the Qur’an, tell me were in the Qur’an does it state Allah is the moon god? Tell me? I have read the Qur'an in English and Arabic, and theres nothing, not even a hint of "Moon god"-Were does it tell us to worship the moon? The only thing moon related is the Lunar calendar it uses. Muslims such as I see this "Moon god" crap as just another trick to try and deceive us, we are WARNED of this very specifically in the Qur'an. --Azhar Badr (talk) 20:12, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

To be fair, the notion that Allah is linked with a pre-Islamic Arabian lunar deity is not simply a lie pulled out of nowhere, but an ongoing discussion backed up with a lot of evidence both for and against. Frotz (talk) 18:01, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Dude, Allah is clearly coming from Al-ilah which means basically "the God" (Al=the; ilah=a god). I don't see why we shouldn't use it, or why Theos would be better, other than the fact that Greek is sacred (for Estern Christians). Arabic-speaking, Persian-speaking and Turkish-speaking Christians have allways used "Allah" for God. There is no other word for God. And I'm pretty sure that a word intended to be used for the God, albeit wrongly-viewed, is far better than the word "God" originally intended for the multitude of pagan gods in the Germanic pantheon, so give me a break. Allah = Al-ilah, it's simple, oh so simple linguistics 101 on contraction. Syriac (Aramaic)-speaking Christians have always used Alloho or Allaha. "Elohim" (Hebrew for "God") was never used by Christians as Christians didn't use Hebrew (at the time of Jesus the Jews and the first Christians spoke Aramaic). At least Allah means "THE God" clearly referring to THE only one God, which the English word "God" does not make very clear, which is pretty good practice (comparing to the original "o Theos" found in the original New Testament, written in Ancient Greek. "O Theos" = "THE God", not just "God"). And anyway, even in Greek the word "Theos" is just used as a convention, as no word can really express God, howver in Greek the words that get closest to this are "o On" (The One Who Is -- a translation of the Hebrew YHVH). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.77.239.121 (talk) 23:21, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

One little rectification, in Turkish and Persian there is also the word Hüda / Khoda, but that means basically "Lord" not specifically God. And about the Crescent and Moon. Well, besides the fact that the Crescent has been an old Turkic symbol, the Crescent AND Moon has originally been the Helardic symbol of the CHRISTIAN city of Constantinople (Istanbul). When the city was a Pagan Greek city called Byzantion its citizens were worshipping a Godess of the Moon (either Artemis or Hekate). This is why they used the Crescent as their symbol. When the Roman Empire converted to Christianity and Pagan Byzantion became Christian Constantinople, a Star was added to the flag of the city. The Star has long been a HERALDIC symbol of the Virgin Mary, basically symbolising the birth of Jesus Christ. In very many early christian icons depicting the Virgin Mary one may notice a star painted on the top. This practice has been discontinued, just as the practice of representing Jesus as a Lamb has, or the practice of drawing a fish instead of a Cross to represent Christianity. But this doesn't mean that it was a wrong practice. A fish still means "Christian", even, if it is not used anymore, just as a Cross does or a Labarum (the letters chi-ro XP, from XPICTOC - Christ). In the same way, even if it is an old heraldic symbol, the star still represents somehow the Virgin Mary and the Nativity. As for the Muslims, do they look as if they are worshipping a Moon-Goddess to you? I mean really, do they? In their language, as in mine, Allah means God. When I was a kid I asked my Priest "How do you say 'Allah' in Greek?" (Turkish is my native language). He responded "In Greek 'Allah' is said 'o Theos' ". In school I asked my teacher "How does one say 'Allah' in English?' She responded: "In English, for 'Allah', one says 'God' ". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.77.239.121 (talk) 23:35, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Also, The Crescent and Star has nothing to do with Arabs, its not their symbol, whatever they're saying now. It has a lot to do with Greeks and Turks (from the times these people were Pagan polytheists) and it has a little to do with Persians (due to Greek and / or Turkish influence mainly, not as a Persian symbol, the Sassanian flag being Derafsh-e Kaviani -- this has an wikipedia article [5] -- and the Zoroastrian religious symbol is the Faravahar.) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.77.239.121 (talk) 23:41, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Allah = God?

My understanding is that Allah means light. This might be the reason for the early Moslem disapproving the formation of any physical image. It is a plain fact that light does not have any image.

Although God is a close approximation to the meaning of Allah, it is not exact. Translating from one language to another is quite difficult. I just wanted to point this out. An example is that the word God can have plurals, and in some cases, implies plurality (such as in conventional Christian usage, or even Gk. Mythology etc.). Islam is based on worship to a "God" that is one and only - just an example. There's more to it than that. A good edit would just be to insert that it is an approximate meaning, rather than an equivalent. Thanks.

Thislastserenade (talk) 11:26, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

that's not in the word, it's in the concept. "God" can refer to all sorts of conceptions of God, including those also referred to by "Allah". Nowin Arabic, "Allah" has virtually been hijacked by the Islamic conception of God, but as this article is aware, "Allah" is naturally also used for the Christian concept(s) of God. This article is not on the Islamic concept of God, which has its own article, clearly linked in the article hatnote. "Allah = God" is simply a translation like any other. --dab (𒁳) 20:46, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

“ For Muslims, God is unique and without equal. They attempt to think and talk about God without either making Him into a thing or a projection of the human self. The Koran avoids this by constantly shifting pronouns to discourage believers from inadvertently reifying God and creating any physical image of Him.

God is known in Arabic as Allah to distinguish Him from ilah, which could refer to any of the gods once worshiped in Arabia. Just as one might say in English that the French or Germans worship God, not Dieu or Gott, so one should properly say that Muslims worship God, not Allah, which is simply the word for God (with a capital G) in the Arabic language. Giving a different name to the one God worshipped by the followers of Muhammad erroneously implies that their God is different from the one God worshipped by Jews or Christians.

”

Source PBS: God (Allah)

--119.73.0.119 (talk) 03:06, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Al (the) and Ilah (deity), as opposed to Ala (light). It's like the difference between "Theology" and "The Ology" linguistically speaking. "The Light" (a Sura from the Qur'an) is Al-Ala, for example, and Allah is just "allah" with the "Al" already in there. Peter Deer (talk) 23:13, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Concern other the illustration

The picture on the top left hand corner is supposed to be from an artist in the 17th century, but is actually a computer generated image. What am I missing here? --Ireon (talk) 16:36, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Phrase after name of Allah S.W.T.

There are phrases which are used after name of Allah S.W.T. Such as S.W.T. which means Subhanahu Wa Ta'alaa. The link is http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subhanahu_wa_ta%27ala. Most kind if you could please include this in the main page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Um01 (talk • contribs) 12:00, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

The Word "Allah" banned in Christian Publications in Malaysia

In Malaysia here, the word "Allah" is not allowed to be used in Christian publications to refer to God. Bibles have been seized and Christians (mainly Catholic) Newspapers have had their permit revoked by the Home Ministry. Is this something that can be mention in the article? [6] [7] —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kristalyamaki (talk • contribs) 14:51, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Decision now reversed by court: "A court in Malaysia has ruled that Christians have a constitutional right to use the word Allah when referring to God. The High Court said a government ban on non-Muslims using the word was unconstitutional..." http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/asia-pacific/8435975.stm 91.111.21.4 (talk) 18:15, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Court Decision Stayed By Court: KUALA LUMPUR: The High Court granted the Home Ministry a stay of execution on the recent ruling allowing the Herald weekly magazine to use the word “Allah” in its Malay-language edition, pending the hearing of an appeal. http://thestar.com.my/news/story.asp?file=/2010/1/6/nation/20100106154303&sec=nation —Preceding unsigned comment added by 115.135.144.229 (talk) 09:22, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

In Punjabi (ਅਲਹੁ) Allah is used in the Sikh holy book Guru Granth Sahib as well —Preceding unsigned comment added by 219.93.30.34 (talk) 06:27, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Today's news quoted a Malay Muslim: ""Everybody in the world knows Allah is the Muslim God and belong to Muslims." THE MUSLIM GOD? Aren't we talking about "the God of Abhraham (Ibrahim)" ? thus the same God. Are not Christians "ahl e kitaab"? So, by using "Allah", aren't the Christians simply reminding their public (including Muslims) that it's the same God? Why is that so threatening? Jakob37 (talk) 10:54, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

This American site: [Foxnews] has an article about churches hit by firebombs over 'Allah' ban.Agre22 (talk) 16:19, 9 January 2010 (UTC)agre22

the etymology of word Allah

It should be noted that the word "Allah" is genderless in Arabic. This is the proof. The article is licensed from Wikipedia.org.The link is http://fact-archive.com/encyclopedia/Allah

"Although commonly referred to as a "He", Allah is considered genderless, but there is no neuter gender to express this in the Arabic language." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.97.250.65 (talk) 21:12, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Translations/Transcriptions of the word

I can't see that it adds anything to the article to have translations/transcriptions in Russia, Greek, Korean etc. Can someone just delete that section? No one will miss it. It really adds no useful information. 64.105.34.175 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 04:51, 16 January 2010 (UTC).

Russian translation/transcription should be in the Russian Wikipedia, Greek in Greek Wikipedia, Korean in Korean Wikipedia etc. This is an English Wikipedia, not a Universal Wikipedia. --Jhattara ^{(Talk · Contrib)} 07:28, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Malaysia v. The Herald

I'm curious as to how I could integrate this article into this page. It covers a contentious issue about the usage of "Allah" in a Malay section of a non-Islamic press, all while there is another generic Malay term referring to "God", tuhan (see also the Allah article in the same Wikipedia). It seems that in this country, "Allah" is perceived by quarters of the ruling government and Islamic groups as being intended for use exclusively to refer to the Muslims' God. Meanwhile, another party releases an official statement that "Allah" is accepted for use to refer to any God.[8] If this wikilink is not acceptable, I'm comfortable with only a mention of the existence of the two Malay words in the "Other usage" section. - 60.53.40.114 (talk) 19:43, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Bahasa Malaysia vs Bahasa Indonesia

Bahasa simply means language.

Modern Malay Language (Bahasa Malaysia) is different than Indonesia Language (Bahasa Indonesia). Simmilar, both has same root (Classic Malay language) but different. Usage of word Allah in Indonesian Bible rooted from classic Malay translation. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mudy s (talk • contribs) 14:50, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Exactly, Bahasa simply means language (I'm an Indonesian). We should just write: Malaysian & Indonesian languages. XoXo (talk) 11:34, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Churches hit by firebombs over 'Allah' ban

This American site: [Foxnews] has an article about churches hit by firebombs over 'Allah' ban in Malaysia.Agre22 (talk) 16:17, 9 January 2010 (UTC)agre22

Refer to Malaysia v. The Herald and Church bombings in Malaysia (2010) for discussions on the matter instead of this talk page. - 60.50.241.18 (talk) 09:24, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

God's real name? Jehovah. I have no idea why Muslims call him Allah when they have the old testament in the Koran as well when he states that, that is his name. These bombings shouldn't be happening.--82.11.177.252 (talk) 13:11, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

How could that be G-d's real name when there aren't any "J" sounds in the Hebrew language? 30daysinAK (talk) 20:45, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Just call him God. That'll save a whole lot of trouble and confusion. :) --Afatatlot (talk) 13:10, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

So God's name is Allah? 30daysinAK? You say on your profile you are Jewish, I thought you Jews say God's name is YHWH? Either way, Muslims say God has 99 names. With one being told to us when we meet him. There could easily be more. Either way. We all worship God. Even those who pretend not to believe do deep down believe and just hate themselves. Let us just hope God sorts this world out soon. --82.11.177.252 (talk) 21:06, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

God has many names. Jehovah, Allah, what matters is that we worship him. --Afatatlot (talk) 21:24, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Allah in the koran is a dip for popadoms —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.135.39.127 (talk) 16:10, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Hi there, I wanted to add about the word Allah but I am not being able to do so. can some tell me why I am not being able to add anything in this articleAzhar Mehmood (talk) 19:43, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Allah is not the god of Abraham

There is a forum with a lot of facts located here: http://judaicchristianforum.proboards.com/index.cgi?board=religions&action=display&thread=30 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.222.106.249 (talk) 05:26, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

If Allah isn't the demon worshiped by Abraham, then why would Islam honor the Jewish prophets? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.58.98.223 (talk) 15:36, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

judaicchristianforum.proboards.com is a forum, and Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. It's a good idea to keep the two concepts separate. --dab (𒁳) 10:16, 4 September 2010 (UTC) why is there no mention of Allah being a pagan moon god Married to a sun goddess and the stars being his daughters some one that can edit it or add a Allah moon god page on wikipedia that can that info is correct and should be on wikipedia Google it and you will see —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.54.163.174 (talk) 23:28, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Etymology of Allah

From the article: The term Allāh is derived from a contraction of the Arabic definite article al- "the" and ʼilāh "deity, god" to al-lāh meaning "the [sole] deity, God" (ho theos monos).^[4] Cognates of the name "Allāh" exist in other Semitic languages, including Hebrew and Aramaic.^[3] Biblical Hebrew mostly uses the plural form (but functional singular) Elohim. The corresponding Aramaic form is ʼĔlāhā אֱלָהָא in Biblical Aramaic and ʼAlâhâ ܐܰܠܳܗܳܐ in Syriac.^[11] The contraction of al- and ʼilāh in forming the term Allāh ("the god", masculine form) parallels the contraction of al- and ʼilāha in forming the term Allāt ("the goddess", feminine form).^[12]

I don't believe that Muslims accept this derivation of "Allah." Many (most?) believe that Allah is the unique, genderless name of God:

What is the derivation of "Allah"? Some scholars say it derives from al+ illah ("the God"), but many Muslim Ulema and translators of the Quran (such as Maulana Muhammad Ali) disagree with this, and say that "Allah" is whole in itself, as a proper name for the Supreme Creator. But is there any philological relationship between Allah and other Semitic terms for "God" such as Eloah (Hebrew) and Alaha (Aramaic/Syriac)?

Thank you.

Peace and blessings of Allah be with you.

Shahid M, USA

Reply

Although a lot has been said about the philology of the word ‘Allah’, however, in my opinion, the former of the two opinions noted by you seems to be closer to the correct one. A detailed discussion compiling the opinions of various scholars of the Arabic language regarding the origin of the word can be seen in “Lisaan al-Arab” under the word “Aliha” (a-l-h). In my opinion, ‘Allah’ is an Arabic word meaning ‘the God’. According to the general principle of making proper nouns from common nouns in the Arabic language, the word “ilah” (common noun) has been converted to “al-ilah”, which became “Allah” due to the turgidity and the slight difficulty of pronunciation of the word “al-ilah”.

The Quran, because its prime and first addressees were the Arabs, used the word “Allah” for the Supreme Being, as that had traditionally been the word used for the Supreme Being in that language. The same had been the case in the older scriptures. Those scriptures, like the Quran, used those words for the Supreme Being, which had already in vogue in those languages, to refer to the Supreme Being.

However, there have been scholars of the Arabic language who ascribe to the opinion that “Allah” is the actual name of the Supreme Being. It is indeed important to the evidence that they have provided into account. Nevertheless, I feel that to give God a name is a requirement of us, humans. God, being the absolute being is in no need for a name.

May the Almighty guide us all to the path of His liking.

Source (scroll to the bottom)

I don't know if there is any scholarly source to support this point of view that could be incorporated into the article. 66.234.218.146 (talk) 21:43, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Hello.. even catholic maronite christians (and church) are using the word "Allah" for god. Was this right? Thanks..132.187.253.24 (talk) 07:54, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

The word Allah and God are not equivalent. The Arabic word for God is ʼilāh. For example, ask any Arab to translate the phrase "God of the Aztecs" and he will not, regardless of his religion, use the word Allah, since the word "Allah" will not take what is known in Arabic as the "mudaf ee-lei-h".--99.246.101.166 (talk) 03:43, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from 74.5.0.179, 14 June 2010

The way the 'holy' Qu'ran (Islamic bible) works, is as follows... When there is a question asked in the book, instead of giving an answer, it gives 3 accusations. The question itself represents a full moon. Then, when the 3 accusations start, each one leads to 3 quarters, then to half, then a quarter moon. When one finishes reading that section, one is left without an answer to the question and left in the darkness. —Preceding unsigned comment added by JT81 (talk • contribs) 02:48, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Please remove refrences to Christians and Jews in arabic speaking nations referring to Jehovah God as allah, because Jews and Christians do not use the word allah to refer to their God ever, nor have they ever. Thankyou 74.5.0.179 (talk) 15:18, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. The statement in question (first one of Allah#Christianity) appears to be properly sourced. Do you have any reliable sources contradicting the claim? Favonian (talk) 17:08, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Christian's God of the Bible (Yahweh) is not allah.1 Remove!

1 http://www.allaboutreligion.org/Origin-Of-Islam.htm —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.176.157.237 (talk) 05:07, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

Recommend renaming to Allah (Arabic word)

Having an article in the name space Allah is misleading and can create POV confusions and disagreements.

This article is about the Arabic word. I recommend it be moved to Allah (Arabic word).

The page at Allah should be a disambiguation page, pointing to both:

• Allah (Islam) for the Muslim perspective (what 23% of the world's population mean when they say "Allah"), and
• Allah (Arabic word) for the linguistic perspective

--Sonjaaa (talk) 20:45, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

"Allah" does not mean "God"

The article says: "Allah (Arabic: الله‎ Allāh, IPA: [ʔalˤːɑːh] ( listen)) is the standard Arabic word for God."

This is simply incorrect. A simple example as I pointed out earlier is translation of the sentence "God of the Aztecs". Ask any Arab to translate it and he, regardless of his religion, will not, and linguistically can not use the word Allah. The word Allah is equivalent to the word "John"; it is the name of a specific. The word ʼilāh is equivalent (and usually means) to the word God; it is the name of a kind. In other words, someone using the word Allah to translate something like "That God fought with the Greek God" will sound gibberish to any Arab. Try it!

This is true even if the etymological claim in the article is taken to be true, since the word already has the "definite article". In other words, the part of the article that said, "The term Allāh is derived from a contraction of the Arabic definite article al- "the" and ʼilāh "deity, god" to al-lāh meaning "the [sole] deity, God" (ho theos monos)." is contradictory to the part I quoted earlier. For non-Muslim Arabs, it is precisely the existence of the definite article at the beginning of the word 'Allah' that intuitively as Arabs prevents them from using the word to translate something like "God of the Aztecs". Whatever word is used to translate God in this example, it cannot have the definite article. Also keep in mind that Allah is the only noun that has the definite article as part of it. In other words, there are no exceptions. (Remember that the definite article is an Aleph with a fatha, followed by a lam with a sukūn which is sometimes silent) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.246.101.166 (talk) 04:40, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

The first part uses the term God, not god (notice the difference in capitalization). God with a capital 'G' should be understood as a proper noun. The proper noun article claims that "The common noun god denotes any deity from any religion, whereas the proper noun God references a specific monotheistic God." This usage may be confusing or not very accurate, but still understandable if you know the difference between the two. So your example should be "god of the Aztecs", and a better example would be "There is no god but God". But In some respect your concern does have merit, considering that capitalization at the start of a sentence might leave some sentences ambiguous. Wiqixtalk 18:04, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

allah has not a kids he is alone he create every thing so never thing and the creastien say that thre is 3 .you know that jesus is dead so there is 2 nowthere are a confution "there is one god" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.96.112.203 (talk) 16:57, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

The word Allah is a noun of a specific. I can not say that "John is the Standard Arabic Word for...", that would be rubbish. However, I can say that "Musah is the Arabic pronunciation of the name Moses", or "Eesah is what Arabs call Jesus". --99.246.101.166 (talk) 17:16, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Nonsense, you should read the article, and God (word). All the smart observations you can make about Allah you can also make about capital-G God, which is why one translates the other. If you can make wise remarks about 'Allah being a proper name, you can make the same wise remarks about God, etc. If this were not the case, Arabic-speaking Christians would probably not use Allah as the word for God. This is a peculiarity of English, where god ("ilah") and God ("Allah") mean two very different things. --dab (𒁳) 19:13, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Where "Wiqixtalk" gave me an interesting response, yours is ... I am not sure what to call yours. Could we please have someone honest and knowledgeable fix the article. Thank you.--99.246.101.166 (talk) 01:53, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

no image of allah?

i suggest adding a image illustrating allah himself... other articles such as God, Jesus, Muhammad, etc.. usually got such images —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.109.221.99 (talk) 11:09, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

Do you have one to a WP:RS?(Lihaas (talk) 07:20, 19 January 2011 (UTC)).

Add name Hubal as precedent to allah

Historically, this was the initial name that was worshiped at the kaaba in Mecca. He was called Al-ilah during worship, and was a moon-god, son of the god baal, sister to Anat. This article is an insult to Christianity for claiming that what would have been known as a fire demon at the time is equivalent to Yahweh. (For fire demon reference, see sacrificial offerings to Muloch (or Baal), where babies were sacrificed by being thrown into the open-able mouth of a statue with a lit fire in its belly). When worshiping Hubal at the kaaba, they would call him allah, though insights into existing archeological evidence as to why exactly they used this name during prayer.

It should undoubtedly mentioned Allah's clearly pagan derived female counterpart (although the Quoran clearly denounces the trinity of god and even says allah curses those who believe in Jesus as the son of god - provide quoran quote, please) Al-uzza the goddess of east Mecca, whom Mohamed almost sacrificed his son to, was the goddess of fate, and human sacrifices to her were common. please educated sources, expand this seriously one sided and misinformed piece of “encyclopedic text”. And not allowing others to edit this page is seriously hurting its credibility and consequently, that of wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ubungu (talk • contribs) 21:09, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

What you mean is that this page should discuss the ideas of Robert Morey (pastor)? Well, if Hubal really had the epithet al-ilah, this should certainly be mentioned, if possible based on references that aren't cheap religious propaganda. --dab (𒁳) 19:21, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

it is very fitting to think the volcanic mountain spirit who became known as jhwh was known to the arabs as a fire demon.. that is the problem with bronze age myths: they are not conserved in their purest form and were passed through numerous different traditions which altered them all in significant ways.. there is no scientific consensus if those gods were the same at that time, and there will probably never be, but it is a common relevant viewpoint on this subject and therefore has to be included in an encyclopedia —Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.24.173.53 (talk) 09:11, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Definition Of Allah

It is a known fact that every language has one or more terms that are used in reference to God and sometimes to lesser deities. This is not the case with Allah. Allah is the personal name of the One true God. Nothing else can be called Allah. The term has no plural or gender. This shows its uniqueness when compared with the word god which can be made plural, gods, or feminine, goddess. It is interesting to notice that Allah is the personal name of God in Aramaic, the language of Jesus and a sister language of Arabic. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 119.153.95.63 (talk) 09:23, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

we cannot depict God

This is one point that all the monotheistic faiths agree on. Muslims even have a ban on depicting people and animals. The Jews astonished their day and were unique in not having an image of God in their Temple. Moses had specifically forbidden it, as the second of his ten commands. Christians took over this stance, and kept it also after they stopped keeping Jewish observances, but from early times saw no problem in depicting Jesus as man and the Spirit as a dove, since these had of their own taken on these forms. This was carefully reasoned out by the last ecumenical council, that which dealt with the heresy of iconoclasm. Statues, however, were never permitted, perhaps illogically; but to satisfy those who held to Moses' injunction against graven images.

This doesn't mean that no attempts have been made, of course. Thus in Western painting (and even sculpture) many attempts have been made, a reasonable one is seen on Wikipedias page, "God"; The Ethiopian Christians have an Icon of the Trinity; but this is strictly speaking uncanonical and other Orthodox Christians limit themselves to symbolic representations of the Father, and hold that when the Old Testament says that God appeared, it wasn't the Father - Jacob wrestled with an angel he reverently and inclusively called God, as the angel was acting for God; Moses saw God the Logos on Mount Sinai, who later took incarnation as Jesus. For instance, Rublev's Icon of the Trinity does not in fact depict the Trinity, but the three angels that visited Abraham, presenting them as symbols of the Trinity and the internal relations within the Trinity.

To the pagan, the god can be depicted, using his of her attributes to convey ideas of the nature and abilities of the god. To the monotheist, such things can only be symbols, and depicting them doesn't help us get closer to Him. His Presence can be known only in Spirit.

To the muslim, making images is a very grave offence, and for want of good reasons to do otherwise, I think we should refrain from doing so in an article using their name for God. Instead Wikipedia shows, as follows islamic custom, a calligraphy of God's name. No islamic depiction of Allah has ever been made, for that matter. No picture, if it were allowed, could do justice anyway. It has never been possible even to depict Jesus fully satisfactorily.

Isaacofegypt (talk) 16:11, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Peters Claims Qur'an Presents Allah As More Powerful Than Yahweh?

Well, frankly, who cares what Peters claims? We can read the Qur'an for ourselves to determine if this is so or not, and it is based on one scholar's subjective conjecture nonetheless. Personally, I find the opposite to be true: the Allah of the Qur'an, in my opinion, far from being unequivocally detached and haute, appears to be quite willing to please Mohammad at all costs, giving him license to marry his son's wife, and so forth, but that remains merely my opinion, and I would not place any such kind of irrelevant postulation in this article, regardless of the source.

Let's remove this absurd and totally useless statement. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.108.156.106 (talk) 06:56, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Allah and God

Be careful! There are many God's out there! Many Christians do not view Allah as their God! You may want to do some research on this. Alliereborn (talk) 05:28, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

This is an internal contradiction

Here we have the contradiction, that the Qur'an does indeed claim Allah to be the ALL, not sharing with a Son and a Spirit, but the picture actually given is as you say, while God as presented in the Bible can change His mind, but is not subject to anyone.

Isaacofegypt (talk) 15:36, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Put English usage first

The opening should focus on what "Allah" means in English rather than on Arabic usage. Merriam Webster defines Allah as "god -- used in Islam". Kauffner (talk) 01:49, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia is for all, not only the British

Marriam-Webster is a respected and authoritative resource. However, their online tool is not always satisfyingly thorough. In this specialist field, it is imprecise. (Mistakes in reference works are, of course, not unknown.) It does, however, avoid - or rather - create ambiguity by spelling GOD in all upper case letters, saying "GOD - used in Islam". Allah, in English usage refers to God as addressed by muslims. Among specialists, it's known to be used by Arabic speaking Christians too, but this isn't mainstream, which is why MW doesn't include this usage.

I am not aware of any other group using 'Allah' for God, and I have never encountered the word used as a general term for gods. Hindus wouldn't dream of it, and I doubt any other pagan culture would, as Islamic insistence on them being pagan and lost more or less precludes such sympathetic loan of the name. (This is my opinion, of course; but I have lived some periods in Africa and India among locals; and I have read much on religion.)

Allah, capitalised, does refer to the One God, the unique, the source, creator. On the other hand, allah, not capitalised, needs no entry in WikiPedia, as that would just be a general term, but, as observed, this usage doesn't exist, and it isn't an English word anyway - which is what Wikipedia uses by default. For an entry on gods, 'gods' will be the right title.

Wikipedia is a source for all, though using English as its main medium. Regarding a topic as huge as this, it need not, indeed ought not, limit itself to a British understanding of a word. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a dictionary.

Isaacofegypt (talk) 15:18, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Could you be clearer about what change you wish to see in the article? William M. Connolley (talk) 17:08, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from 27.251.83.11, 23 July 2011

allah is really great

115.119.146.174 (talk) 07:04, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Not done: please be more specific about what needs to be changed. Jnorton7558 (talk) 07:46, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Allah and Croatia

Croatian writer Giancarlo Kravar: The European Croatia is a country of Jesus Christ and Allah!93.137.47.97 (talk) 21:13, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Allah is not the Arabic word for God, The arabic word for god is al rab (ex. My god= rabi in arabic). Allah is the name of god. thx — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.33.90.14 (talk) 01:07, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Rab means 'Lord' 96.55.183.132 (talk) 09:10, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

YHWH and Elohim

I believe JHWH or Yahweh is generally translated as "God," while Elohim is generally translated as "the Lord." The article confuses the two. 173.21.65.42 (talk) 22:20, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

No, sorry, but the confusion is yours. Elohim is a plural word for God. (keep in mind that in many cultures, plurals are used as an honor.) "Adonai" is the Hebrew word for "Lord." In fact, in classical times, "Adonai" was used to replace "YHWH," but not Elohim, when Jews avoided writing the name of God. This is because "YHWH" represents the unpronounceable name of God, and could not be spoken. "Elohim" means merely, "gods" (or, "great god") and could be used without fear of invoking the name of God. 75.148.21.9 (talk) 17:16, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Etymology

I feel that this sentence, "There are both similarities and differences between the concept of God as portrayed in the Qur'an and the Hebrew Bible." should not be in the Etymology section, but in a different section (Usage in Arabic: Christianity) because it is not related to what that paragraph is speaking of--pagan and Christian uses of "Allah." Maybe, these similarities and differences between Yahweh and Allah should be enumerated in the footnote, or expanded upon in a different article, maybe even including a link in this article to that new article. What do you think? Joshuajohnson555 (talk) 01:55, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

In Christianity

I changed the suggestion that Aramaic was "the language of the New Testament" since this is at best controversial and more likely false based on consensus that Koine Greek was the language of the New Testament. The premise gave the impression that 1st century Christians and Jews worshiped the God of the Scriptures "Allah". The name of the God of the Scriptures has been YHWH ever since he declared it to his people, occuring over 6,000 times in scripture, and in paleo-Hebrew inscription found that dates as early as the 9th century BC. Nor was it a secret among Jews and Christians of the first century, since the Jews didn't begin to consider the name too sacred to say or write until after the temple had been torn down in 70 AD. — Preceding unsigned comment added by PeterWaldo (talk • contribs) 12:32, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

The dialogue of the New Testament was certainly mainly spoken in Aramaic; Peter, for instance, was actually named, "Cephas," not "Petrus," as is made clear by Paul's reference to him as such. All four gospels were written in Greek, although an earlier, Aramaic gospel of Matthew is attested to; this was probably written in Aramaic, and, on being translated into Greek, heavily redacted in favor of the wording of the Gospel of Mark. Nonetheless, "God" is rarely referred to in the New Testament, as Jesus usually calls him, "Abba." And when "God" is used, such as in "Son of God", it's quite likely that the Hebrew would have been used. On the other hand, the Aramaic Christians worshipped "God" as "Allah" (or, "Alaha"?) long before the Muslims came around. 75.148.21.9 (talk) 17:25, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

This propaganda piece gets lots worse than that though.

"According to Marshall Hodgson, it seems that in the pre-Islamic times, some Arab Christians made pilgrimage to the Kaaba, a pagan temple at that time, honoring Allah there as God the Creator.[35]"

Because some author made a claim we're supposed to believe that the followers of Jesus Christ, left the Holy Land of the prophets and patriarchs in Jerusalem, to travel across 1200 kilometers of harsh desert, to march around a Kaaba with a bunch of pagan moon, sun, star and jinn-devil worshipers engaged in veneration of 360 idols? A Kaaba that available evidence suggests did not exist until the early 5th century AD when immigrants from Yemen built it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by PeterWaldo (talk • contribs) 13:09, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

The author and especially the book being referenced here seem to be very widely supported by historians, so it doesn't appear to be a case of just "some author." The self-published article you link to about construction dates doesn't really seem like a convincing source for a counter-argument either. Since the deleted material is verifiable, significant and relevant to the article, I've restored it. The wording also clearly attributes the statement to Hodgson, rather than presenting it as plain fact, so I find it very hard to argue for its removal. -- Fyrefly (talk) 16:12, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

What "seems" and "appears" to me, is that just because an American author that "...reimagined the terminology and focus of Islamic history..." wrote a book, and folks sympathetic to Muhammad support it, doesn't make the preposterous notion from it included in this article true. Wikipedia is increasingly rife with articles that are supposed to be about history, that are instead littered with Islamic so-called "tradition" - that was all penned in the 7th to 10th centuries AD - that masquerades as thousands of years of pre-Muhammad history. Just because 1.5 billion people are willing to believe it does not make it magically become a historical record.

1. the preposterous notion of Christians leaving the Holy Land to instead worship 360 idols with a bunch of Arab pagans in the SW Arabian desert 1200 kilometers away is just the kind of Wikipedia content that will eventually relegate Wikipedia to irrelevance - or worse.

2. the source I used regarding the absence of record of the pagan's kaaba prior to the 5th century AD is from a first-language-arabic author's 20 year full time study of Arabian history and Islam, including original source material. The extensive bibliography in the article you rejected includes mostly Arabic Islamic authors.

If your interest is really in contributing to Wikipedia, then the burden is on you to present a source in addition to the single American author that you are championing, that made the ridiculous suggestion that Christians traveled 1200 kilometers into the SW Arabian desert, to worship with a bunch of naked pagan idolaters. Why not also be responsible enough to present some historical or archaeological evidence, that suggests an earlier dating for construction of the Kaaba, and opposes the information I included from Dr. Rafat Amari, before you erase it? I've searched the web and asked Muhammad's followers to present evidence of a pre-5th century Kaaba, or even a pre-4th century AD Mecca, for a year and a half now, with no result.PeterWaldo (talk) 21:50, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

Alas, what seems and appears to me is that your opinion holds less weight than recognized historians. Remember, our opinions do not matter on this. If he's deemed an expert in the field by his peers, and thus a reliable source, our own personal biases of him are not suitable reasons for original research. Best, ROBERTMFROMLI | ^TK/_CN 22:24, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

The title of the section is "Christianity". That's why I created the new category. Please explain what pagan Arabian worship of 360 idols, in the SW Arabian desert 1200 kilometers away from the Holy Land of Jesus Christ and the prophets and patriarchs, has to do with ChristianITY? That is, the state of being a Christian. Try this source. — Preceding unsigned comment added by PeterWaldo (talk • contribs) 22:44, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

As for why the statement fits just fine in the Christianity section, I would say that it's because it specifically talks about the acts of a group of Christians, which I believe is rather directly related to Christianity. But to get back to your previous statement, could you clarify exactly what it is you're claiming I erased? I believe I haven't erased or removed anything. -- Fyrefly (talk) 22:54, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Perhaps this? "some Arab Christians'" - as in those who follow Christianity? Nonetheless, you seem to have already indicated that you simply don't think idolatry applies to Christianity - which is sadly very false. Best, Rob ROBERTMFROMLI | ^TK/_CN 22:55, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

The idolatry that is being suggested through the vague reference is the preposterous notion of Christians traveling 1200 kilometers across harsh Arabian desert to engage in pagan Arabian veneration of 360 stone idols in moon, sun, star and jinn devil worship, even though no historical or archaeological record suggests that the kaaba existed before the 5th century AD, or Mecca before the 4th century AD.PeterWaldo (talk) 11:48, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

Quite frankly it doesn't matter whether any of us consider them to be Christians or not, regardless of idolatry. The author identified them as Christians, so it clearly fits in the Christianity section if it remains in the article. -- Fyrefly (talk) 23:07, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

That's right. It doesn't matter that something so unhistorical, preposterous and heinous, is casually included in Wikipedia under the category "ChristianITY", despite its being expressed as conjecture. "According to Marshall Hodgson, IT SEEMS that in the pre-Islamic times...".

Wikipedia is built on unique denigrating claims, of what "seems" to some individual, in regard to something so antichrist? It seems to who? "It seems" to American author Marshall Hodgson in 1959, or "it seems" to the person who authored the single source Wikipedia paragraph it is what he believed Hodgson meant? Decisive isn't it. Is that the way someone writes when they are truthfully stating matters of historical record? Or more like someone creating history a couple thousand years after the fact? But sadly evermore typical of Wikipedia. Which of the 3 volumes of Hodgson's book is the conjecture from? I even left it the second time, and created a category for that single source "it seems" opinion expressed, because pagan Arabian moon, sun, star and jinn-devil worship circumambulation of the Kaaba and veneration of 360 rock idols had nothing whatsoever to do with Christianity, even if the Kaaba had existed prior to the 5th century AD. There's no question that Christians traveled that far, as they did throughout the world, but it would have been to save those pagans from Arabian Star Family and jinn-devil worship, not to go on "pilgrimage" to the pagan's Kaaba in Mecca to join them in it. So much effort expended since, to lump pagan Arabian idol worship in with Christianity, "seems" to have developed into little more than a transparent effort to tar Christians with it.PeterWaldo (talk) 11:48, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

Problems with Citations

This article frequently cites encyclopedias as sources, without providing their source. Encyclopedias alone are not sources. Could someone take the effort to look up their sources and cite as read in an encyclopedia? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:SAYWHEREYOUGOTIT 94.214.196.189 (talk) 08:03, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Citing Merriam-Webster

The lead currently reads:

Allah (English: /ˈælə/ or /ˈɑːlə/; Arabic: الله Allāh, IPA: [ʔɑlˈlɑː] , [ʔalˤˈlˤɑː]) is a word for God used in the context of Islam and other monotheistic religions of Arabic-speaking communities.

I think citing Merriam-Webster is a bit odd here. It feels very ... grade school. Anyone else have thoughts? --MZMcBride (talk) 18:40, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Agreed. M-W is a lame citation. It would be more accurate to state that "Allah" is the Arabic word for God. It is only seen "in the context of Islam" by Americans who incorrectly associate all things Arabic with Islam. June 2012 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.58.213.194 (talk) 01:31, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 15 May 2012

Cadni (talk) 16:53, 15 May 2012 (UTC) allah swt is the most great the most high and nothing is compared to his power!

Not done: please be more specific about what needs to be changed. ~Adjwilley (talk) 17:28, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

Please odd this article at (in other languages)

in georgian : ალაჰი alahi — Preceding unsigned comment added by პატრიოტი (talk • contribs) 12:26, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

It looks like ka:ალაჰი is already added, though I can't tell if it's in alphabetical order or not. ~Adjwilley (talk) 21:18, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

hāʾ with hāʾ

Two of the examples of the Arabic script on the page, not the very first example, have a diacritic associated with the final hāʾ. In one case, this diacritic appears above the final hāʾ; in the other, below. In both cases, it resembles a small initial hāʾ. At least to me, it does.
What is that? Varlaam (talk) 00:03, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

What about other Arabic-speaking Christians?

Article says:

and often, albeit not exclusively, by Bahá'ís, Arabic-speaking Eastern Catholic Christians, Maltese Roman Catholics, Eastern Orthodox Christians

But there are other Arabic-speaking Christians than those mentioned. For example, Arabic-speaking Protestants. As worded, it suggests that only Catholic and Eastern Orthodox Arabic-speaking Christians call God "Allah", but that is to my knowledge false. I'm not aware of any Christian group which does not call God "Allah" in Arabic. And the same applies to Maltese (although it's not quite the same word, since the spelling in Maltese is different.) So maybe this should be reworded to:

and often, albeit not exclusively, by Bahá'ís, Arabic-speaking and Maltese-speaking Christians

What do people think? ZackMartin (talk) 08:58, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

It does read "not exclusively" which means "here are some examples of those who do, and this list is not intended to be exclusive".

If you start adding to it, it becomes pedantic and ridiculous.

If you make a blanket categorical statement, then you would need to prove that that was valid.

Let sleeping dogs lie.

It makes the point it needs to make, namely, "Allah" is not exclusively Moslem, and people should stop having a heart attack if someone mentions "Allah". Varlaam (talk) 06:59, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

I'm sure we can find many references to support the claim that all Arabic-speaking Christians call God "Allah". I'm not aware of any group of Arabic-speaking Christians who don't. So I think it makes more sense to simply say "Arabic-speaking Christians", rather than try to make a listing of different Arabic-speaking Christian groups (even if that listing is stated to be non-exclusive). Why the unnecessary specificity when a more general statement is perfectly defensible? ZackMartin (talk) 10:46, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

I would assume it's due to the lack of significant protestant populations in any arab speaking country, in contrast to the eastern churches which, for example, form a significant minority in Syria and nearly a majority in Lebanon. If you'll notice, Mormons and other abrahamic religions which have little presence in the area aren't mentioned either.Watermarkthirty (talk) 21:56, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 5 September 2012

Some scholars have suggested that Muhammad used the term Allah in addressing both pagan Arabs and Jews or Christians in order to establish a common ground for the understanding of the name for God, a claim Gerhard Böwering says is doubtful

is not true 2.176.243.171 (talk) 17:41, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

Not done: please be more specific about what needs to be changed. —KuyaBriBri^Talk 17:52, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

Comment: The Who tag has been there since 2008 and nobody has fixed it. It would be nice to attribute that view, since "Some scholars have suggested" is pretty vague. Also, if it's a doubtful claim, should it be included at all? ~Adjwilley (talk) 19:45, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

"and humble submission to His Will"

"According to Islamic belief, Allah is the proper name of God, and humble submission to His Will, Divine Ordinances and Commandments is the pivot of the Muslim faith." This sentence is weird. It does not sound good. Replace with "According to Islamic belief, Allah is the proper name of God. Humble submission to His Will, Divine Ordinances and Commandments are the pivot of the Muslim faith." Also, replace that word "pivot". I don't know what to do with it but it makes me want to remove that statement entirely. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SadanYagci (talk • contribs) 23:05, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

Mizrahi Jews

The article does seem to indicate that Jewish Arabic speakers refer to the Abrahamic god as אללה, just as French-speaking Jews use D.eu. Though it’s mentioned in the lede, however, the Mizrahi Jews section doesn’t really make that clear; it simply talks about cognates in other Semitic languages. Is that really relevant here? Perhaps a more thorough explanation was removed at some point. The Christian section does mention it, so it’s tough to add to the section immediately following without getting redundant. —Wiki Wikardo 08:31, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 1 November 2012

Since the late 1900's Allah has only been known as the one name. A cult or group of people have retraced Allah's roots and decided to look deeper into his name. The cult/group researched the Arabic language and made a personal request to speak to a man whom went by the name of Nedir Ecnaleahs. The cult/group had asked about Allah and were told that the new name of Allah is Ssod Ekaj.

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Allah&action=edit&preload=Template:Edit_semi-protected/preload&editintro=Template:Edit_semi-protected/editintro&preloadtitle=Edit+request+on+1+November+2012&section=new Calebjm123 (talk) 22:45, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

Not done: please be more specific about what needs to be changed. I'm not sure if this is a good-faith request or veiled vandalism. If an editor in good standing sees this request as vandalism feel free to remove it as well as my response from this talk page. —KuyaBriBri^Talk 02:36, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

Request for comment

		Proposal for removing prefixes "Islamic views on xyz"
		I have started a request move to remove the prefixes Attached with the Prophets in Islam to there Names as in Islam. Like Islamic views on Abraham → Ibrahim as it becomes difficult to search the topic. Please participate in the discussion at Talk:Page Thanks. --Ibrahim ebi (talk) 19:10, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

Allah is registered in the Netherlands as a global brand!

Croatian writer Giancarlo Kravar: In the Netherlands, the artist Teun Castelein(32) from Amsterdam for just 250 euros register the name of Allah as a global brand, reports Telegraf.nl. It is possible in the Netherlands due to unregulated registration rules brands. Rightly so, this "artistic" act caused the revolt of Islamic organizations in the world.78.3.219.240 (talk) 18:20, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

Please stop using WP for your test edits directed at promoting a certain writer. Use the sandbox if you want to make test edits. --E4024 (talk) 18:35, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

Run along sentence:

The above, by either angelic, demonic, or simple psychic reference, was mentioned to have a runalong sentence. I take exception, it is not a runalong sentence, it is a dragon sentence, that drag onnn and onnnn and onnnnn, being either, well, one of gary gygax´s references in the first edition monstrous any mal, in allegory representation.

Very correct, by the way, god, allah, even wikipedia´s debates, being considered dragons,

And dragging on, and on and on and on and on. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 186.94.187.76 (talk) 14:47, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

Previous Arabic Region deities & gods.

Whom exactly, where the gods & deities in the arabic regions before islam set in. Eqyptian comes to mind, so do those of the roman panteos due roman empire influence. Islam, in context, was an attempt to unify all of the middle east under one leadership, either counter to an existing system (revolt implications), or as another form of imposition to obtain an excuse to harash, eleminate, or conquer/enslave other regions (the same as in cristiantiy). (or to rally around, but this is seldom the case except if a slave theology [applicable for cristianity, but not applicable to islam, islam being a slave master theology, except if taken as a counter to cristianities crusades, at which time that also becomes a slave theology, a counter revolutionary theology).

Where there any other gods/deities, within the sahara regions, similar to roman & greek but not eqypcian based. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 186.94.187.76 (talk) 14:00, 22 February 2013 (UTC) To this contributer I refer SURAH 2:177 which among other things refers that slaves be set free! As far as I know, it is the only religion that comes out clearly against it. Muslims are enjoined to be servants of ALLAH only and not a clergy or human king. Besides, what does this have to do with the name of Allah, which is what the article is concerned with?MARK VENTURE (talk) 17:02, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

GOD IN ISLAM

In the article "Names of God in Judaism"

There is a text which reads "...the numerous names for God..." but in this article about Allah, there is a passage which refers to The Lord as "...the Islamic God..." which seems to leave the connotation that in Islam, it's "not really God".

Whereas in the same above-mentioned article of the various Jewish names, The Lord is referred to as "..God in Judaism".

It may seem harmless at face value but again, it connotes difference or otherliness. The reason why I bring it up is because in the Middle East, for slimey, political reasons some individuals use this as a deliberate tactic to infer one view or interpretation of The Lord is more "real" than the other; when in reality, there are numerous similarities. These villains use "difference" as an excuse to spill blood for desert soil!

Please correct this article,the proper phrase should be "...God in Islam..."MARK VENTURE (talk) 17:05, 14 April 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by MARK VENTURE (talk • contribs) 16:48, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

Is Allah from Al-Ilah or from Al-YHWH

I would like to point out that it seems far more grammatically possible to say that the word Allah came from a contraction of Al-YHWH rather than Al-Ilah

In fact Ilaha/Ilah is a plural so Al-Ilah does not fit. Ilaha is from the Hebrew Elohim (plural), whereas YHWH is singular form.

Lets not forget that the YHWH as it appears in the end of names like Jeremiah, Isaiah, etc. is "Yah". So Al-Yah or Al-Yahuh could have been contracted to Allah or Allahu. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 103.10.224.5 (talk) 20:39, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

Colourful breakdown not matching pictures

The colourful breakdown of the word Allah does not match the pictures. Especially the last number 7 looks completely different from the pictures (e.g. that of the Hagia Sophia). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 103.10.224.5 (talk) 20:44, 16 June 2013 (UTC)