Talk:Allah/Archive 6

Allah is the name of the one God. Elah, means god.

This discussion largely went nowhere and serves no useful purpose
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Alla is the name of the one God. Learn arabic from the arabs. Elah, means god. Other wise, how would you translate, La Elaha Illa Allah? (لا اله الا الله ). There is no god but god? The above means there is no god but Allah. The above is a fundamental statement in Islam. Jesus said on the cross, according to christian sources, Elahi, which in arabic itself means my god. The article says, that the corresponding aramaic form is Elah, which is the word Elah in arabic, exactly. Not Allah. And says, the emphatic state is Elaha. Notice the "La Elaha Illa Allah" above? Please learn Arabic from the arabs. And do not pick one or two who say what you want to hear them say and then say look the arabs say so. Randomly pick an arab and ask him or her, what does "La Elaha Illa Allah" means? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.248.193.14 (talk) 02:14, 13 July 2017 (UTC) Allāh is an Arabic word meaning the Abrahamic God. Its equivalent in English is God with a capital G. ʾilāh is a generic word for god (with a minuscule g). Therefore, lā ʾilāha ʾillā 'llāh means "There is no god but God". According to Mark and Matthew, Jesus said "E′li, E′li, la′ma sabachtha′ni?" on the cross. It is Aramaic and means "My God, My God, why have you forsaken me?". Of course, this is disputable, because according to the other gospels, Jesus might have said something else. --Qwerty12302 (talk | contributions) 17:58, 22 July 2017 (UTC) Tell me how do you pronounce god, and how do you pronounce God? This is incredible. And yes, If you say Jesus said 'E'li', ask an arab, after hearing the pronunciation, not the how you want to write the words, what does the word in sound means. It means in arabic it self, my god. This is like me debating with you what car means. I say it means cheese, and you say it means a fast vehicle with three or four wheels, and years later my translation is still the one on wikipedia! This is arabic not english where countless words are a mash of other words. Concatenation I believe you call them. Arabic is not english. There are million of arabs, go ask them what La Elaha Illa Allah means. Capital G, small g he says. This is arabic, not english. Incidentally, even la'ma, pronounced le'ma in arabic, also has the same meaning. Even 'sabachtha`ni'... But I do not want to go there with you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.248.193.14 (talk) 01:45, 24 July 2017 (UTC) I pronounce god and God same way, /gɒd/. E'li is not Arabic, but Aramaic, and means 'my god' with a small g. E'l means god. Therefore, equivalent of e'li in Arabic would be ʾilāhī (إِلٰهِي). After all, what does it matter what Jesus might have said on the cross in a language unrelated to Islam? And if I were to ask an Arabic speaker what they think e'li means, they probably wouldn't understand the word. Only because Arabic is not English doesn't mean that contracted words couldn't occur in Arabic. Allāh is a contraction of al-ʾilāh. As the article says, "[M]ost [grammarians] considered it to be derived from a contraction of the Arabic definite article al- "the" and ilāh "deity, god" to al-lāh meaning "the deity", or "the God". The majority of modern scholars subscribe to the latter theory, and view the loanword hypothesis with skepticism." Your cheese-car-metaphor is ridiculously absurd and I can't see how it has anything to do with this. --Qwerty12302 (talk | contributions) 07:53, 25 July 2017 (UTC) References The individual above is not interested in truth. Here is a video on youtube, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oWK4N5LIUWk for those who are interested. At 02:30 the actor starts speaking on the cross. Pick an Arab at random, and ask him what does the actor seem to be saying. Arabic is not English, but the arrogant can only see what they want to see. My language is like this, so your language must be like this. You clearly do not know Arabic. Aramaic and Arabic share some commons. For the convenience of the reader, I remind you why this is important. It is important because of such bits from the article, [Cognates of the name "Allāh" exist in other Semitic languages, including Hebrew and Aramaic.[19] The corresponding Aramaic form is Elah (אלה), ] AND [The Aramaic word for "God" in the language of Assyrian Christians is ʼĔlāhā, or Alaha. Arabic-speakers of all Abrahamic faiths, including Christians and Jews, use the word "Allah" to mean "God".] Please re read my original comment if you are still not clear. In any case, (male singular)Your god is elahoka in Arabic. My god is elahi in Arabic. (female singular)Your god is elahoki in Arabic. (double)Your god is elahokoma in Arabic. As for Allah, you can not say for example, "(double)your Allah". There are no other forms for the word. It is only Allah. God is great. Which god, pray tell, god or God? The one god, or the one God? The one god, is Al elah al wahid. The god, or the God? The god in Arabic is Al elah. "My god, my god, why did you ..." in Arabic it is "Elahi, Elahi, lema ...". For the objective, I strongly advice following my suggestion with the youtube video above. Also ask the Arab to say the following to you, then ask him, or her what it means, إِلآهي إِلآهي لِما صَبَغْتَني And if the Arab is muslim, ask him or her to read "صِبْغَةَ اللَّهِ ۖ وَمَنْ أَحْسَنُ مِنَ اللَّهِ صِبْغَةً ۖ وَنَحْنُ لَهُ عَابِدُونَ". I shall not engage the above any further. I gave you an objective test. Decide for yourselves. Do not let others, like the above, think for you. There are millions of Arabs. Pick one at random, and follow the test. Yes, it is like the cheese and car example. 99.248.193.14 (talk) No it isn't. The above rant completely fails to comprehend that this is the English Wikipedia, and we use English terms here. The usage in the article is correct. Anyone's failure to understand the basics of English and what is a proper name versus a common noun, has no bearing on improving this article. ~Anachronist (talk) 03:36, 27 July 2017 (UTC) (FOR REFERENCE). At the time of writing of the above comment, the article started with [Allah is the Arabic word for God in Abrahamic religions.] As the time of writing of this comment, the article continues to start with that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.248.193.14 (talk) 13:55, 29 July 2017 (UTC) If "allāh" is a proper noun, why doesn't it have tanwīn? You say "allāhu, allāha, allāhi". In constrast, Muḥammadun, Muḥammadan and Muḥammadin. Qwerty12302 (talk | contributions) 14:21, 29 July 2017 (UTC) For the benefit of truth, and future users contributing to this matter, and has also been to my benefit, please read the following carefully. Do not confuse three things: Meaning of the word Allah. How particular words changed over time to become the word Allah. What is called "ishtiqaq' in Arabic, especially to the context of this word. Pertaining to 1, Allah does not mean "The god". If you translate "The god" back to Arabic, it becomes 'Al Elah'. Another way to put it, in Arabic itself you can not switch the words "Allah' with 'Al Elah' and claim the same meaning. Pertaining to 2. The word Allah is not simply derived from a contraction (I think it is called) of others words as the article claims. At least not in the way presented in the article. Where in English, I can say he is a homeowner, I can also say he is a home owner. I can not do the same with the word Allah as I mentioned earlier. In other words, the word Allah was never another word or words and then it became Allah. Arabic is not English. Pertaining to 3. I think this is the heart of the confusion, as the topic of 'ishtiqaq' is confused with '2' above. The word 'Allah' is said to be an ishtiqaq of other words like 'Elah', but this is not talking about 2 above. When the word is said to be 'ishtiqaq' it is still maintained to be 'qadeem'. 2 above would deny the word being qadeem. In others words, quoting Arab scholars to claim 2 is misquoting. For the benefit of users, like Qwerty12302, and those of similar confusion, in Arabic you can say O'Allah, like you can say O'Mohammed, but you can not say O' The god, neither can you say O' The Mohammed. Further more you can say something like, two male mohammeds, which in Arabic is 'Mohammadeyns', and you can say one female mohammed, which in Arabic is 'Mohammadah', but you can not do such a thing with with the word 'Allah'. Putting it another way, the word mohammed can be translated to English, and the translation would not be mohammed, strictly speaking. The word Allah, on the other hand, can not. The word mohammed is from the root 'hamada', and is in the weight of the form 'mofaa'al' but the word Allah can not be said to be from some root in the weight of some form. Where 3 is best left for scholars with deeper knowledge, what I said still stands, and should not be confused with other matters. Allah does not mean god, and can not be translated to "The God". And referring to other languages in a fashion where the reference is a proof against, not for, what the article is claiming is wrong. I still encourage the users to try the two objective tests, which I gave earlier above: Ask an arab what La Elaha Illa Allah means. Ask an arab to hear only, not watch, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oWK4N5LIUWk at 02:30 and ask him, or her, without even mentioning the language of the speaker, what the voice means. Next ask him or her to read to you إِلآهي إِلآهي لِما صَبَغْتَني, listening carefully and then ask him or her what it means. Next, if the arab is muslim, ask him or her to read "صِبْغَةَ اللَّهِ ۖ وَمَنْ أَحْسَنُ مِنَ اللَّهِ صِبْغَةً ۖ وَنَحْنُ لَهُ عَابِدُونَ". Update(03/08/2017) Another objective test Another objective test is to ask an English speaker to read E'li to you, and then compare to the word spoken in the you tube video, and the pronunciation of the Arab. Up to this day, english speakers can assign completely strange transliteration of foreign words that when pronounced they sound completely different. For reference about Ishtiqaq, please refer to scholars such as Ibn Al Qay'yum. Misquoting scholars, and then claiming their major view for a different view is wrong. This particular ishtiqaq involves far more than the word Elah, and is a matter of observation about the construction of the language. Arabic is not English. Regardless of what ishtiqaq means, this is not to be confused with the matter of what Allah means. If A, a word from one language, translates to A`, a word of another language, but A` does not translate back to A, how can then the translation be claimed correct? I made a misspelling, and I know the seekers of truth do not mind whether I point it out (both are questions), who does not make spelling mistakes, but for the simple minded and arrogant I state it. It is لمَ not لِما. لِما starts with harf jer followed by ما. Grammar is against you. Logic is against you. The so called consensus is against you, and even if it is with you, it is unrelated to the meaning of the word. And objectivity is against you. What is left for you? That I speak in English terminology? Was I speaking chinese? If this is not an example of people wanting to wallow in their own ignorance, what is? 99.248.193.14 (talk) 18:43, 30 July 2017 (UTC) If I remember correctly, all this discussion was about whether God or Allāh should be used in English. As per MOS:ALLAH, the word God is to be used in the English Wikipedia. You have stated that "Jesus said on the cross, according to christian sources, Elahi, which in arabic itself means my god." I still cannot understand how this belongs to this discussion, especially when a) the gospels do not mutually agree about what Jesus might have said on the cross, b) According to Mark and Matthew, Jesus said "E'li, E'li", not "Elahi, Elahi", and c) the gospels are largely fictional. You have requested to "randomly pick an arab", which absolutely can't be done in Wikipedia, as per WP:V. In your second message, you asked me to pronounce E'li to an Arab. If I then actually picked up an Arab at random and pronounced [ʔeːli] to him, I am pretty sure he/she wouldn't understand. You linked a YouTube video about Jesus' sayings of the cross. Again, I can't understand what it has to do with this atter whatsoever. Also the fact that the Aramaic sentence is comprehensible to an Arabic speaker does not advocate your matter in any way. No, I'm not going to ask a random Arab what lā ʾilāha ʾillā 'llāh means, play him that video of a fictional event, ask a random Arab to read "ʾilāhī, ʾilāhī, lima ṣabaḡtanī" (btw, you got a misspelling there, should be لِمَ (lima), not لِمَا (limā). And earlier you claimed that I don't know Arabic), or ask someone to read "ṣibḡata 'llāhi wa-min ʾaḥsanu mina 'llāhi ṣibḡatan wa-naḥnu lahu, ʿābidūna". Once again: This is English Wikipedia, and we use English terminology here. There is wide consensus that Allāh is a contraction of al-ʾilāh. You have not managed to express any sensible arguments for preferring Allāh over God in English usage. Or, let me word it otherwise: feel free to edit the article as you want, as long as you are able to find reliable, accepted sources to cite. --Qwerty12302 (talk | contributions) 10:28, 31 July 2017 (UTC) (@99.248.193.14: Please post your replies under the newest reply with proper indentation) I am not going to make any of your objective tests, since they have nothing to do with the matter at hand. Your claim about incorrect translitteations is wrong, since all transliterations from Arabic or Aramaic strictly adhere to commonly accepted standards and ae very close to IPA; for instance, Aramaic ˀēli (that's how it shoud be) is pronounced [ʔeːli] and ʾilāh (that you incorrectly transliterate as Elah ignoring the glottal stop and the long vowel, and using a vowel that does not exist in standard Arabic) is pronounced [ʔilaːh]. In an earlier message from you, you said that 'Allah does not mean "The god"'. I never claimed that it does. The god is al-ʾilāh. Just below that, you claimed that Allāh is not a contraction of al-ʾilāh. If not, can you a) tell me its etymology, and b) tell me its triconsonantal root? You have also said that Allah does not mean god, and can not be translated to "The God"'. You are right, because it doesn't mean god, and can only be translated "God". Now, I present you a list of questions that I would like you to answer: How do Jesus' sayings on the cross have anything to do with whether Allāh or God should be used in English? Why do you accuse English-speakers of transliterations that do not represent correct pronunciations when you yourself use nonstandard transliterations? Why doesn't Allāh have tanwīn; why does it inflect as a definite noun if it is a masculine proper name? Allāhu, Allāha, Allāhi vs Muḥammadun, Muḥammadan, Muḥammadin. What is the triconsonantal root of Allāh, if it does not come from al-ʾilāh whose root is hamza-lām-hāʾ? What is the etymology of Allāh, if it is not a contraction of al-ʾilāh? Can you show me a commonly accepted secular source stating that Allāh is not a contraction of al-ʾilāh? I'm afraid I might soon have to take this to WP:DR. --Qwerty12302 (talk | contributions) 08:35, 4 August 2017 (UTC) We discuss some alternative etymological theories advanced by classical Arab philologists, but all modern RSs I've seen favor the etymology of contraction. I don't see any convincing argument here for not following MOS:ALLAH. Eperoton (talk) 13:28, 5 August 2017 (UTC) 3O Hi guys. First off, I'm not an Arabic speaker, so if that's a problem just say and I'll bow out. I'll have a read of the section above, and the related parts of the article. Bromley86 (talk) 12:27, 5 August 2017 (UTC) I do not understand your reason for the question, and neither do I doubt your intentions. I am assuming you are moderating, and not a contributer. Whatever the case, the matter, like any other, should always be left to those knowledgeable in it. Let the mathematician teach about algebra, the physicist about physics. Further more, if you are moderating, and the aim is to decide whether to keep or remove this section in the talk, removing will serve no more that those trying to silence truth through bureaucracy and similar. The section should be kept to eventually draw the attention of more people to the truth and the correction of the article. In the end, wikipedia is a game of numbers, not about truth. Otherwise, my very first post of asking a random Arab what La Elaha Illa Allah means would have been sufficient. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.248.193.14 (talk) 13:32, 5 August 2017 (UTC) Hi IP. Sorry, I should have been clearer. A WP:3O (a way of resolving disputes) was opened,[2] which invited an involved editor to come over here and have a look. So here I am. As far as I know, there will be no attempt to excise your post(s) to the talkpage, although it may well be archived (as has happened to similar discussions previously). Do you have an WP:RS to support your position? Bromley86 (talk) 13:58, 5 August 2017 (UTC) Had a look, although as there are now 4 editors involved (3v1), the 3O is redundant. Still, as I'm here, assuming that this is an accurate transcription of the partial display of the Ilāh entry in the Brill Encyclopaedia of Islam, then the article as currently written (Lead, Etymology) seems to be accurate. It's also in the The Quran - An Encyclopedia ("The root of the name is al-ilah, meaning ‘the God' ", and the Encyclopaedia of the Qurʾān ("The name is commonly explained linguistically as a contraction of the Arabic noun with its definite article, al- ilāh shortened into Allāh by frequency of usage in invocation"). That seems to address IP's point (2) ("The word Allah is not simply derived from a contraction (I think it is called) of others words as the article claims") conclusively: we have solid RS that say it may well be. Point 3 seems a bit of a red herring to me, as we're not quoting Arab scholars to say (2). Likewise point 1 didn't seem to advance a decent argument against the (it seems) likely contraction theory, as the article does not make the case that Allah-"the god": there's no need to translate out of Arabic into English and back again to disprove a statement that wasn't made. Bromley86 (talk) 13:58, 5 August 2017 (UTC) The very first sentence in the article suggests that the word Allah means God, and the article's tone appears to use the idea of ishtiqaq to prove that Allah means God. That it is no more than Al and Ilah concatenated. One: you can objectively check if Allah means God by asking an arab what La Ilaha Illa Allah means. Why is this important? If I want to know what a chinese word means I ask the chinese, not the English! Secondly, the chinese might give a translation that only when you put it in a sentence that forces the chinese to reconsider how to translate the word, do you get a better translation. It does not mean the chinese is changing the meaning of the word. Two: you can objectively check for yourself that Al and Elah (in arabic letters) do not give Allah. Just write them down if you know arabic. Further more, why do you think I give the example of O'. I can say in arabic O'Allah, but in arabic you can not say O' "The something". The 'Al' is part of the word. Three: If it is not ishtiqaq that is the source of this so called consensus about the root of the word, what is? If ishtiqaq, the only thing talking about this from arabic sources is not the source for the article's talk, then the source of the claim is not even arabic. If it is not arabic what possible weight can it have? Let arabs teach you arabic. Ishtiqaq is not a red hearing, that is the only possible source of confusion. I could have simply assumed such an extreme arrogance that you rather other sources tell you what an arabic word is than let the arabs tell you, but I did not. I am assuming good faith, which in this case implies confusion. If you look into ishtiqaq, there are so many sayings about the word Allah, and Al Elah is not just simply one of them, it is also incomplete. This particular saying, as a matter of fact, goes into further details. Not only that, but the paradigm between contractions and ishtiqaq are completely different. Hence, the very way to prove either is different. Those further details, would have shown this difference in thinking. Arabs for example, on the same thinking that they might talk about ishtiqaq, might talk about how a certain root and its opposite (antonym roughly) share the same exact letters but in reverse. Such a thing can make no sense to an english speaker, and the speaker would not understand why is this even significant. In any case, I am not here to teach you arabic. The problem is you do not know arabic. If you learn it, not learn what they call colloquial arabic, and then re read the article, you will immediately see how it is written with an english language paradigm. Note the following: In english, the words Mohammad, Mahmad, Mohammada, Mohammadee, Mohmad, Mohmadon, Mohmadin, Mohammadon, Mohammdin, etc, all appear to be different words. Yet, in arabic, they all spell the same exact way. Arab speakers think in terms of consonants, but in every other language I came across people think in terms of vowels and consonants. When it comes to vowels arab speakers think of general inflexion, I think you can call it. How exactly the inflexion sounds is not as important. To an arab any differences is more along the lines of accent. The general inflexion then determines meaning and merit in the grammar. Whether you are going 'up' to the next letter, or 'in', or 'down'. The examples I gave you about Mohammad and the rest are not made up. Each one of those words means something, and there is a good chance you will not even find some of them in the dictionary, but an arab can still figure out the meaning. Arabic is not like english where every word is registered with a meaning. Instead in arabic, you have roots, and then forms, and a root plus a form gives you a word. The word remains an abstraction but you then use it to a specific. As a matter of fact, when you look up the meaning of a word in arabic, you return it to its root then search the dictionary, and then try to figure a meaning from the form, and chances are the dictionary will already list under the root the common meanings for the commonly used forms. Now, why is this significant? If when talking about arabic I say to you there exists an Arabic word for the word X in english, I am immediately implying the existence of over a hundred more words. When it comes to meaning, I am immediately implying the theoretical existence of infinite meanings, but that is not our discussion. And I have yet to mention pronouns and determiners, I believe they call them. Incidentally, I remember a discussion between an arab muslim, and an english non muslim about the Quran, and the english eventually accused the arab muslim of making up meanings. That happened because english does not work like that but he is thinking in its terms. But again, why this is significant? Because in arabic there exists a word for God. When transliterating an arabic word to english it will naturally not be perfect. This is fine, but the issue when you are not consistent. In one place you say Elahi, which is simply Elah plus the 'my'. In another, where the person is exactly saying Elahi, you write E'li. The idea of my objective tests was as follows, Test 1: The arab explains La Elaha Illa Allah, and then would say there is no God but Allah. The Arab is very likely to self correct if he is likely to say God instead of Allah in english (which I sometimes do myself) because the sentence would lose the meaning. Next, any sensible tester would then say, the arab is telling me what this means, finish. I want to arrogantly continue to say our english sources say otherwise?! Incidentally, the more correct transliteration is La Elaha Illellah, but you see the confusion this would have caused the non arab. The word allah is not in the sentence at all if you look at it in english. Test 2: The arab thinks the individual in the video is speaking arabic, and translates it as "My God, My God, why did you..". The tester might then think that maybe it just sounds similar to something to the arab, but when the tester asks the arab to read إِلآهي إِلآهي لِما صَبَغْتَني he would notice that the arab just said exactly what the speaker in the video said. The tester would then ask for the meaning, and when he gets a meaning, the tester now confirms that what the arab just read is not a transliteration. The tester would then compare E'li and what it sounds like to 'Elahi' and what it sounds like. Elahi and E'li are exactly the same words! It just a confusion and a play on the english mind. Chances are the arab would have explained that the word is Elah, and the 'i' simply means 'my'. Why are you comparing Elah with Allah, when there is the exact same word in Arabic, and I already said what that implies when it comes to arabic. Allah has no root in arabic. No arab will claim that. You can not say allah is from this root, and has this form. There is no possible form as a matter of fact for Allah. No arab will claim that! As for ishtiqaq, this is talking about something else. By saying the arabic word Allah exists, I am only implying the existence of a single word, unlike Elah, or mohammad for example. That is why I gave all these example before before your involvement. The article is explaining the word incorrectly, while it is so easy to check the meaning, but instead it is proceeding to use all sort of talk about contractions and other languages to support the incorrect meaning. You want to stick to the claim about contractions and forget all related matters in this section particularity about ishtiqaq, no problem. But whatever you choose, it matters not to what the word means. Now, Insistence on what you want the word to mean, rather than what an Arab is telling you is.. Need I say more? You might say I am simply moderating. I am not insisting on any thing. Tell me, what is more reasonable than asking that a mathematician speaks about mathematics, and a physicist speaks about physics. Is integrity no longer reasonable? Clearly, neither is honesty, keeping promises. You did say you would bow out. Simply keep my original writings, and remove all this rubbish arguments until enough people are drawn and eventually some one can write something in a way that wikipedia accepts. If my aim was to simply change the article myself, I would have attempted to do so myself, but clearly not even voicing the truth is allowed. You have what appears to be a fifteen years old Finnish arguing with what is very likely an arab about Arabic! Archiving you say, another way of saying censoring. The bludgeon of democracies, we do not 'delete information', we simply put it out of view. Even if you were to leave this section in the talk unarchived at this point, people would be lost with all the text that now exists in it. Please simply, keep the original comments, or if you like I can rewrite them as a new section. Really, it is very simple, ask an Arab what Allah means, but put it in a sentence such as he does not approximate when translating.99.248.193.14 (talk) 16:00, 5 August 2017 (UTC) Wikipedia does not accept original research. Cite a professionally published mainstream academic source that makes your point plainly instead of going on and on about your own arguments. Ian.thomson (talk) 16:09, 5 August 2017 (UTC) علم على الذَّات العليَّة الواجبة الوجود ، الجامعة لصفات الألوهيّة ، ولذا لا يجوز أن يتسمَّى به أحد ، وسائر الأسماء قد يتسمَّى بها غيرُه ، وهو أوّل أسمائه سبحانه وأعظمها Source http://www.almaany.com/ar/dict/ar-ar/الله/. The source goes on to mention some matter about ishtiqaq. However, for a clearer and more direct references of the original speakers about the matter see http://www.alukah.net/literature_language/0/80377/. Remember the main issue is about the meaning of the word, not ishtiqaq or the claimed contractions and what not. In any case, if one is still interested about ishtiqaq, إن اختلاف القائلين بالاشتقاق وعدمه، إنما هو اختلاف شكلي، أما اعتقادهم في أسماء وصفات الله كلها فهو أنها قديمة، والقديم لا مادة له"[5]، ويؤكد ابن القيم أنه لا أهمية لهذا الاختلاف، وأنه لا يصل إلى المعنى، فيقول في كتاب "أسماء الله الحسنى": "إن جميع أهل الأرض علمائهم وجهلائهم، ومن يعرف الاشتقاق ومن لا يعرفه، وعربهم وعجمهم، يعلمون أن "الله" اسم لرب العالمين، خالق السموات والأرض، الذي يحيي ويميت، وهو رب كل شيء ومليكه، فهم لا يختلفون في أن هذا الاسم يُراد به هذا المُسمَّى، وهو أظهر عندهم وأعرف وأشهر من كل اسم وضع لكل مسمى، وإن كان الناس متنازعين في اشتقاقه، فليس ذلك بنزاع في فهم معناه"، وقال ابن قيم الجوزية - أيضًا -: "ولهذا كان القول الصحيح أن الله أصله الإله، كما هو قول سيبويه وجمهور أصحابه، إلا مَن شذ منهم، وأن اسم الله تعالى هو الجامع لجميع معاني الأسماء الحسنى، والصفات العلى، فقد تضمنت هذه الأسماء الثلاثة جميع معاني أسمائه الحسنى، فكان المستعيذ بها جديرًا بأن يعاذ ويحفظ، ويمنع من الوسواس الخناس، ولا يسلط عليه From the above second source. If it is still not clear, Elah is not some old lost arabic word, but existed for a very long time and still does. It is still used, and can not be interchanged with Allah in a sentence. I tell you randomly ask an Arab, and you say original research! And no, it is not on and on. It all started with few lines, but when people start arguing, and against objectivity no other, you have to accept that there will be an answer. Now you tell me what is the problem? I wrote something that can hopefully draw in attention to some one to fix this. What is the problem? I made no changes myself. If you think all known knowledge exists on the internet, you are ignorant. If you think all known knowledge exists in english, you are arrogant.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.248.193.14 (talk • contribs) If you think that a random dictionary site with no indication of qualified editorial control qualifies as a professionally-published academic source, you must not understand what "professionally-published academic source" means. If you think that native speakers never make mistakes about their own language, you know nothing about linguistics. If you think strawman arguments that lead into personal attacks are appropriate, you are not welcome here. Ian.thomson (talk) 17:15, 5 August 2017 (UTC) I gave the people objectivity and reason, but wikipedia did not want it. I then turned to wikipedia and gave it objectivity and reason, and it did not want it. I attempted to give it knowledge, to explain things myself, to teach, and it did not want it. I gave it sources, and sources that I know are not complete, but I am giving in, playing the wikipedia game myself, but still wikipedia did not want it. In the end it says to me, you Arabs are wrong. We English, and our professionals know your language better. Now leave. Which one of my two ifs does this fall under? Or is it perhaps the wallowing bit? I leave you to your regurgitations, but how unfortunate the flies it gathered and the corruption it spreads.99.248.193.14 (talk) 18:59, 5 August 2017 (UTC) I am tired. This shall be my last entry on the matter. If wikipedia is willing to let me rewrite the talk section in its originally intended concise form such as it draws attention to people to finally come and fix the article, I am willing to do that. 99.248.193.14 (talk) 18:59, 5 August 2017 (UTC) See WP:REFACTOR for the acceptable range of changes that can be made to talk pages retrospectively. It is generally not acceptable to make substantive changes to talk page comments made by others, nor to your own comments after someone has replied to them. Eperoton (talk) 19:05, 5 August 2017 (UTC) Thank you. I meant by rewrite the section, as in create a new section with the same title. You can archive this one if you like, and I can proceed with that but please tell me explicitly should you be willing.99.248.193.14 (talk) 02:30, 6 August 2017 (UTC) Sorry, I don't understand what you mean by "please tell me explicitly should you be willing". Eperoton (talk) 14:36, 6 August 2017 (UTC) "please tell me explicitly should you be willing" = "please tell me if it's okay with you, and I'll deploy a new, concise section". @IP, go for it - there's no harm in having a well-structured section. Even if it too will eventually be archived, it's something that people can see when they search the archives. I would strongly encourage you to include sources to support your position though, otherwise you'll just be wasting your time. Please give it a slightly (or entirely) different section title though. I'd also encourage you to create an account, but there's no requirement for that (it just makes addressing you, or referring to you, easier). Bromley86 (talk) 03:54, 7 August 2017 (UTC) Noted. I shall be proceeding with that. I do hope once that is done, or before, this section be archived because it will only confuse people with its length, I think. 99.248.193.14 (talk) 12:53, 7 August 2017 (UTC) It's 100% WRONG, Allah is the Name of One and only God who created all of us, Allahu Akbar =( sounds like) Allahoo Akbr, means Allah is the Greatest. Eilah is the meaning of god in Arabic language not Allah, Allah means the One and The Only God the Universe have. Allah don't means to God because it's The Name of One and only God "Allah". In current days the media or the so called Educated peoples who didn't know anything about what there are writing or talking says that Allah means god which is not true, so please I requested please make the correction about what for peoplea are searching. By giving the wrong meaning of the Name of the One and The Only God "Allah" wrong meaning you are distributing Wrong / Falls details to the world. "Allah" is the name of The One and The Only God. ALFAIZ ANSARI 007 (talk) 00:23, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

Pre-islamic Arabic Gospel

"In pre-Islamic Gospels, the name used for God was "Allah", as evidenced by some discovered Arabic versions of the New Testament written by Arab Christians during the pre-Islamic era in Northern and Southern Arabia."

To my knowledge there is no pre-Islamic Arabic gospel What is this alleged Pre-islamic arabic gospel ? Why the reference pointed do not provide any evidence of the existence of this gospel ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A01:E35:3989:C080:2D6A:81CC:8191:7BA9 (talk) 13:39, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

There probably were pre-Islamic Arab gospels, but there doesn't seem to be evidence of them. Post-Islamic Arab gospels, at least some, do use the name Allah. Bible translations into Arabic Doug Weller talk 11:45, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

The article you quote does not say one word about those "pre-Islamic Arabic gospels". I begin to believe that wikipedia is a brothel where propagandists impose their fraudulent theories. This article on Allah is simply a scam where half of what is said is completely wrong. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A01:E35:3989:C080:8C7E:7A98:B7BE:E926 (talk) 22:45, 24 June 2018 (UTC)

Why are you telling me what I told you? "there doesn't seem to be any evidence". Doug Weller talk 16:41, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

"Allah is the Arabic word for God in Abrahamic religions"

Actually it's not. It's the word for God in Arabic. Although the Maltese word for God is Allah, and they're Catholics. PiCo (talk) 22:23, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

The current wording is correct. The God of Christianity, Islam and Judaism is referred to as Allāh in Arabic. The generic word for 'god, deity' is ʾilāh, from which Allāh derives.--Qwerty12302 (talk | contributions) 07:29, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

This misses the point. The article does not say Allah is the name of God in Arabic. Rather is makes the universal claim that Allah is the name of God in the Abrahimic religions (regardless of language) and that simply is not true. The claim reflects a Muslim bias rather than a concern for accuracy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.205.144.25 (talk) 23:48, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

"Allah –– is the Arabic word for God in Abrahamic religions". The opening sentence pretty clearly states that Allāh is the name of the Abrahamic God in Arabic. --Qwerty12302 (talk | contributions) 19:58, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

IP user isn't interested in citing sources or assuming good faith from anyone, is ignoring the sources in the article and explanations given, doesn't get how their own arguments apply to their own claims. There's nothing to accomplish here. Ian.thomson (talk) 18:35, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

How could Allah be the word "god" in Arabic and at the same time could be the proper name of the Abrahamic god? It's a total nonsense! Either Allah is a common name or it is a proper name but it can not be both at once. Moreover the whole article on Allah plays on this ambiguity and deliberately maintains the confusion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A01:E35:3989:C080:2D6A:81CC:8191:7BA9 (talk) 14:12, 17 June 2018 (UTC) Pretty much the same way as god can mean any deity, but God is the Christian deity. IdreamofJeanie (talk) 22:17, 18 June 2018 (UTC) I (and our article on the subject) have to disagree with the specificity of "Christian." Ian.thomson (talk) 22:20, 18 June 2018 (UTC) I was merely pointing out to the previous poster that in English, the word god can be both a general noun and a proper noun, so that his claim that Allah can't be both was cleasrly unfounded. IdreamofJeanie (talk) 22:36, 18 June 2018 (UTC) You only emphasize your lies and deception, both supported by your own false grammatical theories. Like humans the gods have a proper name to differentiate them. As the word "human" the word "god" is a title and can not be a proper name. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A01:E35:3989:C080:4115:E507:74CB:4FEE (talk) 14:51, 26 June 2018 (UTC) You only emphasize your racist sectarianism (Arabic speaking Christians referred to God as "Allah" well before Muhammad was born), supported only by your own willful ignorance of what everyone (including you) actually said. Ian.thomson (talk) 15:00, 26 June 2018 (UTC) There is no pre-Islamic Arabic Bible, your link does not say a word about what you claim, I am an Arab Christian and your accusations of racism are only meant to support your lies. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A01:E35:3989:C080:4115:E507:74CB:4FEE (talk) 18:29, 26 June 2018 (UTC) The God of Christianity, Islam and Judaism is referred to as Allāh in Arabic. The generic word for 'god, deity' is ʾilāh, from which Allāh derives. Jews, Christians, and Muslims worship the same deity. Ian.thomson (talk) 22:20, 18 June 2018 (UTC) Are you sure? I thought Muslims believe that the Christian god isn't exactly a monotheistic god. Three-in-one, you know. Doug Weller talk 11:46, 19 June 2018 (UTC) Depends on which ones you talk with and how they interpret the Quran's references to Nasrani as people of the book. Some of them, like many Jews, agree that even if the Christians have weird ideas about the Abrahamic deity, that's the one they're trying to worship. Ian.thomson (talk) 15:03, 26 June 2018 (UTC) Sorry but the proper noun of the Christian God is YHWH. God is a title and not a proper noun. I'm tired of this confusion knowingly maintained by propagandists who do not know what they're talking about. A proper noun does not translate but transliterates, therefore any change from YHWH to Allah is a scam of the same order as to claim that Zeus would be the proper noun of the God of Christians.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A01:E35:3989:C080:4115:E507:74CB:4FEE (talk • contribs) You pointed out the exact reason why it's a non-issue ("God is a title,") and then said that was proof that this was an issue. When it comes to confused propaganda (and sectarianism), you're need to pull the plank out of your eye before pointing out the mote in the eyes of others. Should Christians never address God as "Elohim"...? I'm asking that rhetorically, by the way. Ian.thomson (talk) 14:54, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

Allah is the proper noun of islamic god

Since unscrupulous users censor and erase my comments, I decided to open this new section.

Allah is the proper name of the One True God.

Allah is the proper or personal name (ism dhat) of the divine being.

genitive proper noun → Allah

according to Islam, Allah is God’s proper name

The name of Allah is a proper name. It cannot be used for any other person even in a metaphorical way. This name is peculiar to Allah and only refers to Him. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ‎2a01:e35:3989:c080:4115:e507:74cb:4fee (talk)

That only proves that Muslims believe that Allah refers to the deity they worship, it doesn't do anything about any of the sources present in this article that attest that Christians used the term before Muhammad was even born. Now go read WP:AGF and WP:NOTSOAPBOX until your eyes bleed. Ian.thomson (talk) 22:12, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

Your assertion "that Christians used the term before Muhammad was even born." is a lie since there is no pre-islamic Arabic bible to prove it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A01:E35:3989:C080:4115:E507:74CB:4FEE (talk) 22:21, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

Read the article please. Allah#Usage --NeilN ^{talk to me} 22:26, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

The Name ‘Allah’ was not used by pre-Islamic Arab Christians, the alleged two cases are false. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A01:E35:3989:C080:4115:E507:74CB:4FEE (talk) 22:35, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

Now get that treatise published in a respected peer-reviewed academic journal instead of being hosted on an obscure church website. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 22:45, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

You can also get me a link where you can clearly see these so-called pre-Islamic Christian texts about Allah. Do you have a single one ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2a01:e35:3989:c080:4115:e507:74cb:4fee (talk • contribs)

There are citations in the article already. Just because you can't be bothered to verify them isn't our problem. Ian.thomson (talk) 23:01, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

By the way the simple fact that pre-islamic polytheists used the name Allah to design their chief god proves that Allah is a proper noun. How polytheists would differentiate their gods without any unique identifier (the proper noun) ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A01:E35:3989:C080:4115:E507:74CB:4FEE (talk) 22:42, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

Early Semitic paganism believed in a chief creator deity named *Ilu-, which the Hebrews were sure was Yahweh (otherwise they wouldn't derivative forms of *Ilu- as titles for Yahweh). Elohim and Allah both derive from *Ilu-. Ian.thomson (talk) 22:51, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict)That would only make sense if one can only be Christian if they have a Bible in their own language (no matter how much faith they have). That was not the case for the overwhelming majority of Christians between 500 and 1500. It also ignores other archaeological evidence, and requires a ridiculous standard as we barely have any pre-Islamic Bibles. The only complete works known are the Greek Codex Vaticanus and Codex Sinaiticus (which wasn't known until the 19th century) and arguably the Hebrew Dead Sea Scrolls (as they predate Christianity). Outside of that, we only have a few dozen scattered fragments -- and by and large from areas where Christianity wasn't as overshadowed by Islam as it was in Arabia. The idea that the Bible must be translated into the local language only appears during the Protestant Reformation at any rate. Ian.thomson (talk) 22:51, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

Let us escape from the flooding made for conceal the facts.

^{Pirate and possibly malware link removed} The only two known cases of Christian pre-Islamic Arabic inscription do not quote the name of Allah but the name "barrazahu" (B-R-Z-H)]— Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A01:E35:3989:C080:4115:E507:74CB:4FEE (talk • contribs)

1) My security software doesn't trust that site. You should get your computer scanned.

2) That link appears to be piracy, which violates WP:COPYVIOEL.

Ian.thomson (talk) 23:58, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

I am a software engineer, change your security software which you do not give the name.

It's a secure document site, its content contradicts you, that's why you censor it — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A01:E35:3989:C080:4115:E507:74CB:4FEE (talk • contribs)

I really don't care what you claim to be.

There's this thing called copyright, which your link violated. Ian.thomson (talk) 00:53, 27 June 2018 (UTC)

I looked it over. If the anon had been bothered to read the paper, it would have been obvious that the interpretation described therein doesn't mention any deity at all. The word barrazahu is described as a demonstrative pronoun (in English, "this"), also found in the Quran, referring to the inscription itself, as the related word Barraza means "put forth, produce" as in writing something.

Therefore, that paper is irrelevant to the discussion here. ~Anachronist (talk) 00:19, 27 June 2018 (UTC)

Blah blah blah, why do not you let readers check?

Therefore you've just done as usual: censor everything that contradicts you despite reliable sources— Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A01:E35:3989:C080:4115:E507:74CB:4FEE (talk • contribs)

If you're going to keep making accusations and not going to bother trying to assume good faith, then your continued presence is a waste of everyone's time and bandwidth. You've demonstrated no interest in fixing your ignorance of how things work. Range blocked. Ian.thomson (talk) 00:53, 27 June 2018 (UTC)

Anonymous: I am a reader, and I have checked your source. Nobody is censoring anything. Your source doesn't corroborate what you claim, therefore it is irrelevant. It's that simple. ~Anachronist (talk) 06:42, 27 June 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 27 June 2018

ADD: The general term for a god in arabic is “ilaah”. This Arabic word is a common noun, and can either refer to any supposed god, or may also refer to the unique One. This is universally accepted among all Arabic-speaking peoples. The Name universally accepted among Muslims that refers to the deity of Islam is “Allah”. Allah "is a proper name". Also, Abdul Mannan Omar, the editor of the Encyclopedia of Islam, and translator of the Qur'an into English, says directly that Allah "is not a common noun" and, similarly declares it to be a "proper name" (The Dictionary of the Holy Qur'an p.28, 29). Over the centuries the continual and prevalent use of that name however, has made its use synonymous with the noun ‘god’.

ADD: There is on-going debate on the derivation of the word 'allah' from 2 other words 'the' and 'god' forming the Arabic 'al' and 'ilaah' and which some muslims further abridge into the word 'allah'. The calligraphic writings of both 'allah' and 'al-ilaah' do not show a clear connection between them, making the linguistic contraction of 'al-ilaah' into 'allah' difficult. Priplanning (talk) 09:20, 27 June 2018 (UTC)

 Not done You need to cite more professionally-published mainstream academic sources to support your claims There are a number of works by the name "Dictionary of the Holy Qur'an," you would need to specify which author and publisher you meant. Ian.thomson (talk) 16:45, 27 June 2018 (UTC)

I have to say I rather like the text proposed, although it needs some tightening up and actual citations that we can verify. Also the proposer should say exactly where this text is supposed to go. ~Anachronist (talk) 18:48, 27 June 2018 (UTC)

It depends on who is Abdul Mannan Omar. They don't appear to have worked on Encyclopaedia of Islam. --Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 19:17, 27 June 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 6 July 2018

no need for all caps 89.197.161.18 (talk) 10:31, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Cannolis (talk) 10:59, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

Reference request

I translated parts of this article to Farsi and noticed that section In other scripts and languages doesn't have any references. Can someone give some ideas about where I can find references for this section? Taha (talk) 06:33, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

@طاها: I tagged the section as unreferenced. I suspect that someone looked at the article on Allah on non-English Wikipedias and copied the name they use for Allah, trusting that the editors of those other versions knew what they were doing. Just look at the "Languages" column in the left sidebar of this article in your browser: there are many more languages having a Wikipedia article on Allah than listed in this article. ~Anachronist (talk) 06:43, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

Begining

What is the fact of real begining in this world.. Please i need some knowledge or info or data.. thankyou for your Help. I Hope i Can Pay You For Your Help.. ThankYou Once Again.. 🙇‍♂🙇‍♂🙇‍♂🙇‍♂🙇‍♂🙇‍♂🙇‍♂🙇‍♂🙇‍♂🙇‍♂🙇‍♂🙇‍♂ Muhammadcj (talk) 14:51, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

@Muhammadcj: Thank you for your interest but this page is for improving Wikipedia's article on Allah. This is not a place to ask questions except to improve the article. Ian.thomson (talk) 15:59, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 7 January 2019

Redirect آللاه to Allah 208.54.87.227 (talk) 16:55, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

 Not done: According to the page's protection level you should be able to edit the page yourself. If you seem to be unable to, please reopen the request with further details. آللاه does not appear to have protection on it. – Jonesey95 (talk) 17:05, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

Claims about YHWH

I removed "By this time [1934] Christians were also becoming accustomed to retaining the Hebrew term "YHWH" untranslated (it was previously translated as 'the Lord')." The articles Sacred Name Bibles, Sacred Name Movement and Angelo Traina document that the date for this is decades later. — Preceding unsigned comment added by [[User:{{{1}}}|{{{1}}}]] ([[User talk:{{{1}}}#top|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/{{{1}}}|contribs]])

How old is this comment? --Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 17:51, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

Ok ok Muhammadcj (talk) 14:50, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

"See also" has links to "Ahura Mazda" and "Brahman". So, added there links to "Allal". Either both Pages can redirect to this Article for ease of understanding, or much better to stay out of controversy and neither Article redirects to each other. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Verycuriousboy (talk • contribs) 10:36, 8 July 2019 (UTC)

Pronounciation of the word Allah

It's [ʔæɫˈɫɑːh] in Modern Standard Arabic, the [h] is not optional, and you can't start a syllable with just a vowel in Arabic, it has a glottal stop, also the first vowel is [æ] in Standard Arabic and only pronounced [ʔɑɫˈɫɑːh] under influence of dialects that have emphasis harmony.

[(ʔæ)ɫˈɫɑːh] is also good since [ʔæ] is usually dropped when it is preceded by a vowel. Rywko (talk) 18:45, 8 July 2019 (UTC)

This is not a Forum!

Though you wouldn't think so looking above 81.141.154.79 (talk) 11:14, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

I removed the comment above.--SharabSalam (talk) 11:56, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

Math

There should be a section in this article discussing the mathematics behind the word "Allah", also the paranormal and supernatural facts about the phenomenon known as "Allah". Re3st567 (talk)\\16:18, 7 September 2019 (UTC)\~~

Bring sources for that. I don't know what you mean by mathematics behind the word "Allah" are you saying like the ا=1 , ل=30 , ل=30 , ه=5

Is that the math you are referring to?--SharabSalam (talk) 12:00, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

"Allah" and "Al Elah" can not be used interchangeably (and other notes)

Note the following:

- The article should make it clear that Allah (الله) and Al Elah (الإله)(the god) can not be used interchangeably. When you want to say "the god", you have to say El Elah. Furthermore, the sentence from the article,

"This reading would be al-Ilāh = 'the god' (an older form, without contraction), by older spelling practice without alif for ā."

seems to suggest that "Al Elah" is somehow some old form, which is another reason why this point must be emphasized some where.

- The article should note explicitly that unlike the English words "God" and "god", the Arabic words "Allah" and "Elah" do sound different, spelled different, are different words. The English words "The God" and "the god" sound the same, but the Arabic words "Allah" and "Al Elah" do sound different, spelled different, are different words.

- The article should also note as an example, if I am not wrong about the English, that unlike English where I can say "my God" like I can say "my John", one can not do that in Arabic for the word Allah. This is unlike the word Elah, where "my God" is Elahi. In other words, the translation between "God" and "Allah" is not exact.

- The sentence in the article,

"The word is thought to be derived by contraction from al-ilāh, which means "the god", and is related to El and Elah, the Hebrew and Aramaic words for God"

is questionable because "El" is just the definite article in Arabic. Also if you go to the "el" article, it mentions "El" along with "Elah" in Arabic almost as if some one is trying to force some misconception. Actually, if you go to the "Elahi" article, which means "my god" in Arabic, the Arabic spelling is shown, yet no explicit mention of Arabic at all and it is simply attributed to Aramaic. Arabic is a language based on consonants, and if you were to say "Elah" or "ilah" the word is still the same, and the matter is simply a matter of accent. The video

"https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oWK4N5LIUWk" at "02:30", the speaking in Aramaic is also very Arabic, and in Arabic the spelling is

إِلآهي إِلآهي لِما صَبَغْتَني

and this is not a transliteration, and each word is Arabic.

72.140.188.207 (talk) 14:50, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

The Arabic Elah (as in "al-Elah") and the Hebrew El go back to the proto-Semitic root *Ilu.

The rest of your arguments seem to forget that pronunciation shifts over time.

Aramaic and Arabic are related but not identical languages. Aramaic is not a dialect of Arabic, which is how you're treating it.

About the only people I've ever seen trying to push the idea that Allah and Elohim aren't related are a fringe minority of Christians whose Eurocentrism and Islamophobia blind them to the fact that "Allah" is how Arabic-speaking Jews and Christians refer to God. Ian.thomson (talk) 15:28, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

Is any thing I said, not what you think I said, factually incorrect? Non of what you said is relevant to what I said. I made no arguments, simply noted facts and made requests. While for some of what you said, at least your description of what I said, are not factual, and what are factual are simply misleading, which still makes them a lie. As for Aramaic, I state explicitly, I did not think nor treat it as some sort of dialect of Arabic. As for the video part not only it demonstrates the absurdity of trying to separate Elahi and Ilahi, but also gives context as to why some one might be trying to do so, but I rather go not there, and no, it is not Islamophobia. I shall be not responding to you, nor any one else, after this unless it is about factual errors in what I said in my original comment, or a request for clarification about said comment.

72.140.188.207 (talk) 16:55, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

Alright then, let's break this down.

The article should make it clear that Allah (الله) and Al Elah (الإله)(the god) can not be used interchangeably. When you want to say "the god", you have to say El Elah

The article makes no claim of the interchangeability of these two words; it merely acknowledges that the word الله allāh is derived from الإله al-'ilāh.

Furthermore, the sentence from the article,

"This reading would be al-Ilāh = 'the god' (an older form, without contraction), by older spelling practice without alif for ā."

seems to suggest that "Al Elah" is somehow some old form, which is another reason why this point must be emphasized some where.

You are quoting the typography section which lists alternative spellings, in this case, pre-Islamic ones. Furthermore, since allāh is derived from al-'ilāh, the latter must have existed before the former, therefore it is an "older" form.

The article should note explicitly that unlike the English words "God" and "god", the Arabic words "Allah" and "Elah" do sound different, spelled different, are different words. The English words "The God" and "the god" sound the same, but the Arabic words "Allah" and "Al Elah" do sound different, spelled different, are different words.

I think that the distinction between allāh and ilāh is sufficiently covered in the article and needs no special emphasis.

The article should also note as an example, if I am not wrong about the English, that unlike English where I can say "my God" like I can say "my John", one can not do that in Arabic for the word Allah. This is unlike the word Elah, where "my God" is Elahi. In other words, the translation between "God" and "Allah" is not exact.

You are now comparing English to Arabic; they are two different languages from different language families, and it is obvious that their grammars function differently. Arabic forms possessive forms with enclitic pronouns, English with possessive pronouns. You are right in that 'allāh' doesn't take enclitics (theoretically it could, but not in practice), but them using this as grounds for that it should not be translated as God in English is just wrong. This is like saying that I can't translate the Hungarian word alma in English as apple because I cannot inflect apple in the accusative.

The sentence in the article,

"The word is thought to be derived by contraction from al-ilāh, which means "the god", and is related to El and Elah, the Hebrew and Aramaic words for God"

is questionable because "El" is just the definite article in Arabic. Also if you go to the "el" article, it mentions "El" along with "Elah" in Arabic almost as if some one is trying to force some misconception. Actually, if you go to the "Elahi" article, which means "my god" in Arabic, the Arabic spelling is shown, yet no explicit mention of Arabic at all and it is simply attributed to Aramaic.

al, or el, is, indeed, the definite article in Arabic, but is in no way related to the words el and elah meaning God. They, along with Arabic ilāh, derive from Proto-Semitic *ʾil-, whereas the Arabic definite article is totally unrelated.

Arabic is a language based on consonants

This is unrelated and debatable, since the triconsonantal root system can be explained as being a complex system of ablauts and schwa syncopes, but let's not get into that

and if you were to say "Elah" or "ilah" the word is still the same, and the matter is simply a matter of accent

No one is claiming anything else; although, for the sake of this discussion, I wish we could adhere to transliterations based on al-fusḥa.

The video –– at "02:30", the speaking in Aramaic is also very Arabic

The video bears no factual factuale value for the purposes of this discussion. It is a mere coincidence, and not an improbable one since Arabic and Aramaic are both Semitic languages, that the Aramaic sentence closely resembles Arabic; noting this advances your arguments in no way.

I shall be not responding to you, nor any one else, after this unless it is about factual errors in what I said in my original comment, or a request for clarification about said comment.

This aggressiveness is totally unnecessary, especially if you really want to change the article. --Qwerty12302 (talk | contributions) 09:19, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

You seem to be questioning the truth of what I said, so I am responding.

There is a flow to the article, a flow that is untruthful that my requests would undo, an understanding seem proven by your agitated contribution above. Mixing truth with falsehood is still lying. Furthermore, I found the article misquoted many times in comments around the internet. Things need to be clearer. You seem Finnish; do you speak Arabic?

هَلْ أوتيتَ حَظَّاً مِنْ عِلْمِ اللُّغة <> أَمْ هُوَ جوجُلُ وُ الكِبرُ و الهَوى

Or is it something more important than truth perhaps, and google is your limit?

بَلْ هذِهِ الإِله’ المَعْبود <> وَ جوجُلُ عَلَيْكَ شُهود

و اللهُ المُحيطُ البَصير <> بِكافِرِ الحَقِّ الرَّذيل

Yes, the above is Arabic, and no, google can not translate it, and no, the gender is correct, ask the translator to try again.

I will only correct one thing of what you said. Yes, " 'allāh' doesn't take enclitics ", if I am understanding you correctly, but not even theoretically. This is because of its 'el', of its ishtiqaq, which is not the same as english contraction, and so do not proceed to mention "triconsonantal" roots because you clearly do not understand the subject.

فعل المفاعل فُعلته يفاعل فاعلا يستفعله كُلُّ فعيل

Again, google will not be able to help you with this, and no, I am not giving you more vowels, and yes, the last word is correct.

If you wish me to engage you further, you have to do so in Arabic, and I would still expect a satisfactory translation of the above. But if you can not, this ends here, because you wrote what you wrote when it should be clear that you are not in a position to teach anything about the subject. And if you still continue to tittup after that there is no more I can do, and I hope a moderator will do something about this article.

72.140.188.207 (talk) 01:47, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

See WP:No original research and WP:Verifiability. These are your claims. You've provided no sources on this. Ian.thomson (talk) 02:57, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

• I am a native Arab.The word Allah is different from Ilah and al-Ilah is different from Allah. Al-Ilah means "the Ilah" which means "the god". Allah means Allah. Ilah means god.--SharabSalam (talk) 12:06, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

Revert

Reverted spam of personal project; @Hrabei:, it looks interesting but please stop. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 23:21, 29 November 2019 (UTC)

Mandaens

User:ANMC001 I haven't checked the sources used as I have no reason to think it isn't source, but see also The Gnostic Bible: Revised and Expanded Editionedited by Willis Barnstone, Marvin Meyer[3] "Another criterion for dating is the presence of Arabic terms in Mandaean texts (for example, the name Allah for the highest god), thereby suggesting a post-Islamic context for particular textual recensions." --Doug Weller talk 15:38, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

Mandaeans have several formal names for God like Hayyi Rabbi (The Great Life or The Great Living God), Melka d'Nhura (King of Light), Mare d'Rabuta (Lord of Greatness). Allah isn't one of them. In prayer Mandaeans always begin with "Beshmayhun d'Hayyi Rabbi" meaning "In the name of the Great Living God". Mandaeans never say "In the name of Allah", whereas Arab Christian do. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ANMC001 (talk • contribs) 15:47, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

How can we make sure Mandaens never do this? Was Marvin Meyer mistaken? Is here good evidence the source is mistaken?--VenusFeuerFalle (talk) 01:15, 29 December 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 22 April 2020

The word Allah has been used by Arabic people of different religions since pre-Islamic times. Please remove the word pre-Islamic times. Because Islam is there with the first man Adam. He is the first prophet of islam. So Islam is there from the time immemorial.

The word Allah has been used by Arabic people of different religions even before the last and final prophet of Islam (Prophet Mohammed). Anzarsm (talk) 05:00, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

Anzarsm, this is a theological view amongst Muslims; it’s not a view shared by general scholarship, and is arguably contradicted by historical and scholarly evidence. While people are free to believe this, of course, it is a religious belief. Thus, we can’t implement this edit since Wikipedia is a secular source of knowledge, and meant to be religiously neutral. See WP:RNPOV for the relevant policy. Symmachus Auxiliarus (talk) 05:16, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

"Allah, S.W.T" listed at Redirects for discussion

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Allah, S.W.T. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 June 17#Allah, S.W.T until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Soumya-8974 ^talk _contribs ^subpages 06:17, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

Move

I would prefer this article be retitled as "Allah (word)" and the title "Allah" redirect to God in Islam. In common usage "Allah" refers more to the concept of God in Islam and less to the Arabic word.VR _talk 01:04, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

Requested move 11 September 2020

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: No consensus. There are two different strands of thought here; one is that people searching for "Allah" may be looking for an article about God in Islam; the other is that articles such as Elohim (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) and Jehovah (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) are also about the words and not God in Judaism. There's unlikely to be a consensus if the move request was relisted again. Sceptre (talk) 19:34, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

---

Allah → Allah (Arabic word) – "Allah" should redirect to God in Islam. Moving Allah to Allah (Arabic word) will then allow me to do that. When most people search for "Allah" they are searching for the Islamic deity, not the Arabic word. I believe this is uncontested because I proposed at Talk:Allah#Move and no one objected. VR _talk 00:22, 11 September 2020 (UTC)

This is a contested technical request (permalink). Anthony Appleyard (talk) 05:20, 11 September 2020 (UTC)

—Relisting. User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 00:55, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

• @Vice regent and Born2cycle: queried move request Anthony Appleyard (talk) 05:21, 11 September 2020 (UTC)
• I’m thinking this is likely quite controversial. —В²C ☎ 00:35, 11 September 2020 (UTC)
• Support as nom.VR _talk 21:09, 13 September 2020 (UTC)
• Support move to Allah (word) or Allah (name). I think most people searching for "Allah" are searching for the deity itself, not the name. JIP | Talk 10:19, 11 September 2020 (UTC)

Googling "Allah" for me brings up the article God in Islam higher than Allah. The Britannica article on "Allah" is about "God in Islam".VR _talk 10:28, 11 September 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose Allah اللهُ is also God in Arabic-speaking Christianity and Arabic Bible. And God is also "God" in most English versions of the Quran which begin with "In the name of God, the Most Gracious, the Most Merciful. So there is no real logic for the move. In ictu oculi (talk) 23:10, 11 September 2020 (UTC)

The move still allows readers to find this article. The logic behind the move is that the most obvious meaning of Allah is "God in Islam", not "God amongst Arabic speakers".VR _talk 01:40, 12 September 2020 (UTC)

Not obvious to writers of scholarly books, not obvious to Arab Christians either, I don't see that "Allah" means "God in Islam" at all. Third party books on comparative religion don't suddenly switch in to Arabic when talking about Islam, that's something that (a) some muslim writers themselves do for religious reasons and (b) stuff on plain Google (not GBooks) and tabloid newspapers do out of racism and islamophobia. But Wikipedia is NPOV. In ictu oculi (talk) 07:49, 12 September 2020 (UTC)

I did a google books search for Allah and the first book that comes up is Allah: God of the Qur'an (Yale University Press). And I'm not sure what this has to do with racism.VR _talk 11:34, 12 September 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose. I agree with In ictu oculi that "Allah" means God in the Arabic language, not necessarily God in Islam. Not all Arabic speakers are Muslim and not all Muslims speak Arabic. The hatnote at the top of this article is sufficient to redirect people who are looking for the article on God in Islam. Rreagan007 (talk) 19:12, 13 September 2020 (UTC)
• Support. This is the English-language Wikipedia. It is not a reference for other languages. WP:COMMONNAME is all that matters here. English speakers commonly understand the word "Allah" to mean "the Islamic god" or something similar. This article is already mostly about the word, not the god, so renaming it to "Allah (Arabic word)" and redirecting "Allah" to God in Islam seems most appropriate. ~Anachronist (talk) 20:55, 13 September 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose. The current setup makes the most sense. If you come here looking to learn about God in Islam, you will learn something very important very quickly. Srnec (talk) 00:11, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

The purpose of wikipedia is to let people navigate to what they want to know about in the quickest manner possible. Its not to redirect people in such a way so that "will learn something very important".VR _talk 00:58, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

No. The purpose of Wikipedia is not ease of navigation. Rather, ease of navigation serves the purpose of Wikipedia, which is education. You come here to learn. If you search for Allah to learn about God in Islam you will right away learn something important even before you click either of the prominently placed links to God in Islam. Srnec (talk) 02:23, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

Is there an argument here that is grounded in Wikipedia policies or guidelines? ~Anachronist (talk) 02:28, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

Srnec's argument is grounded in Wikipedia:Purpose = open, accurate education for free. Not just a big version of IMDB/Discogs/Videogamer with a load of opinion tacked on confirming ignorance. i.e. if readers who think that "Allah" is a different God arrive here by mistake and become aware that there are Arabs who are not all muslims, then good. In ictu oculi (talk) 19:49, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose as the current title is WP:CONCISE and accurate. Allah is simply the Arabic word for God. Khestwol (talk) 08:20, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

This is not an issue of conciseness or accuracy. This is the issue for where should "Allah" redirect to. Do most people consider associated Allah with Islam or with Arabic vocabulary? I think its the former.VR _talk 23:21, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

Vice regent - as a muslim you'll probably agree that British and South Asian muslims do not generally use "Allah" in English when referring to God. This usage is only associated with certain branches of Islam. Third party reliable scholarly sources likewise, which is why the article is God in Islam as both common name and book name. Also per WP:CONSISTENCY - note Yahweh, Elohim and Jehovah don't redirect to God in Judaism, they are word articles like Allah. In ictu oculi (talk) 11:53, 16 September 2020 (UTC)

• Support. Vice regent is absolutely spot-on: people who speak English and search for "Allah" are looking for how God is treated or thought of in Islam. English speakers, in fact, do not use the word "Allah" to mean anything else. "Allah raised Jesus from the dead" would probably be interpreted as blasphemy in an English-speaking church, even though that same phrase in Arabic is a cornerstone of Christian doctrine. The fact that "Allah" is just Arabic for "God" is trivia. It's the same reason that our page on gelato doesn't discuss the way that Italians use the word "gelato" to refer to any sort of ice cream. This is because in English, we use the word "gelato" specifically to refer to a variety of Italian-style ice cream, which is discussed in the article called gelato. Similarly, in English, we use "Allah" specifically to refer to the Islamic concept of God. That is why the Islamic concept of God should be discussed in the article Allah. Red Slash 23:44, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

Red Slash sorry but when exactly would you use "Allah" in a sentence? You say that English speakers use Allah, but the only example I could find in Google News was the police officer in Phoenix https://metro.co.uk/2020/08/21/police-mock-black-muslim-man-knee-neck-arrest-before-died-custody-13156928 - is that really our target readership? Allah is only used in English to refer to God in Islam by (a) some muslim sects, (b) people like that police officer in Phoenix. A normal, reasonably educated English-speaking person would not use "Allah" to refer to the God of muslims. See books, see newspapers, see TV reports. WP:RS don't think like this or talk like this. And the fact is that this is English wikipedia so Category:Names_of_God are just that. See whole category. In ictu oculi (talk) 12:02, 16 September 2020 (UTC)

It happens all the time. https://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?year_start=1800&year_end=2019&content=Muslims+believe+that+Allah%2Cspicy+chicken+sandwich&corpus=26&smoothing=3&direct_url=t1%3B%2CMuslims%20believe%20that%20Allah%3B%2Cc0%3B.t1%3B%2Cspicy%20chicken%20sandwich%3B%2Cc0 Red Slash 07:26, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

Exactly which is why God is normal. Those (a) sources and (b) sources are not scholarly encyclopaedic norm, either (a) certain muslim sects, (b) non-scholarly writing. In ictu oculi (talk) 15:52, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose. As per MOS:ALLAH, the name “Allah” should not be used for referring to God in Islam on Wikipedia “unless used as part of an English-language quote”. --Grufo (talk) 13:50, 16 September 2020 (UTC)

True, but isn't that an argument for "support"? Johnbod (talk) 15:32, 16 September 2020 (UTC)

You mean that a rule that discourages from using “Allah” for God in Islam suggests that we have to link the Allah page (which currently refers to something else) to God in Islam? --Grufo (talk) 16:10, 16 September 2020 (UTC)

@Grufo: The proposal is to retitle this Allah article to Allah (Arabic word), and redirect the title Allah to point to God in Islam. If you agree with that, your vote is actually "support". ~Anachronist (talk) 16:56, 16 September 2020 (UTC)

I do not agree (so I oppose the move). Renaming the page Allah to Allah (Arabic word) and redirecting Allah to God in Islam corresponds to stating that the main meaning of “Allah” according to Wikipedia is not the Arabic word but is that of God in Islam, which is what MOS:ALLAH discourages from. The current version, with the sentence “For the Islamic view of God, see God in Islam”, is perfect for supporting what MOS:ALLAH more or less promotes (“If you are searching for God in Islam you are using the wrong word”). --Grufo (talk) 17:11, 16 September 2020 (UTC)

MOS:ALLAH recommends that instances of Allah --> [[God in Islam|God]].

This proposal recommends that Allah redirect to God in Islam. VR _talk 01:44, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

Right. That's why I don't understand this oppose vote. But OK. ~Anachronist (talk) 01:47, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

To me it seems that MOS:ALLAH recommends not to use Allah for God in Islam (simply because God is God and Allah is simply a foreign word), and all “instances of Allah” on Wikipedia should be replaced with “God”, not left as “Allah” with a redirect. If we followed verbatim MOS:ALLAH there would be exactly zero “instances of Allah” with the meaning of “God in Islam” on Wikipedia (besides direct quotations). Hence MOS:ALLAH discourages a redirect and encourages replacements instead – i.e., it encourages “[[Allah]] [[God in Islam|God]]”. On the other hand, if we redirect Allah to God in Islam, we are using Allah for God in Islam and we are telling editors “write ‘[[Allah]]’, there will be a redirect anyway”. --Grufo (talk) 02:18, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

we are telling editors “write ‘[[Allah]]’, there will be a redirect anyway” Not true at all. That's like saying the redirect Barac Obama encourages editors to misspell Obama's name.VR _talk 02:20, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

“like saying the redirect Barac Obama encourages editors to misspell Obama's name”: It definitely makes it harder to find a typo. But while Barac Obama is a typo for Barack Obama, Allah is not God in Islam according to MOS:ALLAH, which says that Allah must be left when it refers to a deity, but removed when it refers to God in Islam. Again, if we followed verbatim MOS:ALLAH, all occurrences of Allah on Wikipedia would refer only to pre-Islamic deities, and a redirect to God in Islam would make absolutely no sense. --Grufo (talk) 02:50, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

• Support. Oppose. Allah and "God in Islam" are of course the same thing. Here is Merriam-Webster: "Allah, used as the name of God in Islam."[4] Allah is more recognizable form, so "God in Islam" should redirect here. 3K008P9 (talk) 19:53, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

“"God in Islam" should redirect here”: The current Allah page is not about God in Islam. How should the-current-Allah-page-that-is-not-about-God-in-Islam be named according to you? This is the question. That the main title of God in Islam will ever be Allah is excluded by MOS:ALLAH, so it will never happen. --Grufo (talk) 21:54, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

I get it. I changed my vote to "support." In my defense, it is irregular have an article devoted to foreign language usage when "Allah" is a word found in English-language dictionaries. In Arabic, "Allah" just means "God." A lot of words work like this. In Japanese, ninja means "spy." This article makes it all unnecessarily complicated -- and a lot of it is just wrong. The claim that Allah refers to God in "Abrahamic religions" is sourced to Columbia Encyclopedia. But their article doesn't say anything like that. It says that Muhammad claimed his god was the same Abraham's. Abraham's god was El Shaddai, not Allah. As for the MOS, that should follow consensus, not dictate it. 3K008P9 (talk) 04:09, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

@3K008P9: Just to make the situation a bit clearer… Imagine that there was a MOS:NINJA rule that stated that Wikipedia should never use “ninja” for “martial arts guru”. And imagine that it added that all occurrences of “ninja” on Wikipedia should be replaced with “martial arts guru” unless “ninja” is used for “Japanese spy” – despite in English “ninja” is commonly used for “martial arts guru”. And imagine that you are not discussing about changing the MOS:NINJA rule… What would the page Ninja be about (or redirect to)? The martial arts guru or the Japanese spy? Well… We are there. --Grufo (talk) 04:55, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

The MOS is supposed to reflect usage in the publishing industry. I checked Chicago Manual of Style, New York Times Guide to Style and Usage, and AP Styleguide. I don't see any rule like this. NYT is only one with a specific Allah rule: "Allah is the Muslim name for God. Lowercase he, him, his, thee, thou, who and whom in references to the deity of any faith."

The Allah versus God debate is here. I have to say, it is not very impressive. No one is citing any sources or authorities, aside from a Muslim who supports the use of "Allah" by citing the Koran. The number one rationale given for this rule is avoiding revert wars. 3K008P9 (talk) 09:10, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

So again Yahweh, Elohim and Jehovah don't redirect to God in Judaism, they are word articles like Allah In ictu oculi (talk) 21:22, 20 September 2020 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Semi-protected edit request on 10 October 2020

English allah Igbo chi 71.169.166.35 (talk) 09:35, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

We rarely list all possible translations, just the ones that are very relevant to the topic (like here Arabic) – Thjarkur (talk) 09:45, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 22 June 2021

Beautiful names of Allah with Meaning Saad Khan19906 (talk) 16:12, 22 June 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 16:34, 22 June 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 31 July 2021

Change:

Allah (/ˈælə, ˈɑːlə, əˈlɑː/;

To:

In, Islamic religion, Allah (/ˈælə, ˈɑːlə, əˈlɑː/;

See:

Wikepedia talk:Manual of Style/Lead section UniversalHumanTransendence (talk) 00:39, 31 July 2021 (UTC)

 Not done because that would violate WP:LEAD. Islam doesn't have any exclusive use of the word Allah. As made abundantly clear in the article, Islamic religion is one section and does not constitute the majority of the article, which describes the topic in the context of an Arabic word rather than an Islamic concept. ~Anachronist (talk) 02:39, 31 July 2021 (UTC)

Make this article protected by "Pending changes protection"

this article talks about allah (god) which is very important not only to muslims but also to christians and other abrahamac religions, so it must have more than only semi-protection, because people could easily vandalise this page, HusseinRaed (talk) 21:48, 13 September 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 23 November 2021

I would like to add this line to the end of the Pre Islamic Arabians section.

Allah is also mentioned in the Atrahasis story.

Fiqi Buraale (talk) 03:27, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

Is that about the same Arabic word?VR _talk 14:47, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

Yes Fiqi Buraale (talk) 04:38, 25 November 2021 (UTC)

According to the cited text, Alla spoke to gods who were his brothers. Are you claiming that Allah also has brothers who are gods? AstroLynx (talk) 09:41, 25 November 2021 (UTC)

And what about the final -h? We also need a reliable source that actually equates Alla with Allah? –Austronesier (talk) 12:05, 25 November 2021 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 18:38, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

References

Semi-protected edit request on 1 December 2021

X description changed to state Allah as the enemy of God and worshipped like a god by muslims. He's is not God. Ellerosetruth (talk) 14:28, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: No. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 18:38, 1 December 2021 (UTC)