Part of the problem is that most of these “names” are titles or descriptions.
I don’t want to get too much into semantics with you, but in as much as it is the word for ‘the God’ (not as a proper name) of the Arab Christians and Jews too, then it most certainly does mean “the God”. An important concept in linguistics is that of community agreement. In the most basic way, there needs to be an agreement in the community about what a “tree” or a “book” or anything is (in Linguistics terms, the “signified” or “referent”) before you can start referring to the objects in the world that correspond to that name. In dealing with concepts, like religious ones, things get messier because we cannot point to “God” who is some specific place in the world like a book shelf or a market and say “Allah”, “Amlak”/“Egziabher”, “Dios”, or whatever the word for “God” is in our language. So the Arabs, having this word “Allah” meaning “the God” before Islam, have defined the term differently depending on which religious community they are in. The Jews and Christians had it before Islam decided it was a proper name.
Well then why must all the world’s Muslims pray in Arabic? Why do they all have to say “La illaaha ilallaah” instead of the equivalent in their own language? Why must they confirm the Arab-centric way of thinking even if they do not come from that society and that language is foreign to them? Because Allah said so in the Qur’an, right? Then how can you agree with the verse in the Bible?
It is interesting to read this from a Muslim. So the Qur’an is not eternal anymore? There was a time when there was no Qur’an? This is a good admission. Now we are making progress towards agreeing about history (something that has frustrated me about Muslims here in the past, honestly).
Source, please?
Again, what is your source of this, outside of “Arab History”? I’m looking for published linguistic journal articles. Semitic studies are of much interest to me.
I understand the point you’re making and in one sense agree, but by this logic saying that He must be called “Allah” (presumably because “that’s what His name is”) is also incorrect.
And from the point of view of this trained linguist, I want some evidence for what you say. I am not debating that this is how languages develop (from a known or assumed common parent/proto-language, through long periods of geographic and cultural isolation and intermixing), only wanting to know the story on Hebrew and Arabic FROM A LINGUISTIC source (you seem to repeat Biblical geneology, not linguistic theory). I already know the story on some other related languages, like Amharic, which preserve the supposed proto-Semitic roots in other ways. This history is without reliance on whose progeny settled where, too.
If you look carefully into your post you will see that youa re actually conrtradicting yourself
More accurately, “Allah” is a contraction for “al-ilah,” “the god.” The Hebrew equivalent would be “ha-eloah,” “the god.” “Elohim” (without the definite article “ha-”) is the plural of “eloah.” Etymologically speaking, “Allah” and “Elohim” aren’t the same, but they’re close.
i think He is saying He does not have a proper name, not that He has one but doesn’t want to reveal it, and which Muslims claim is Allah. I AM WHO I AM encompasses everything for God is not limited by a proper name.
I don’t want to get too much into semantics with you, but in as much as it is the word for ‘the God’ (not as a proper name) of the Arab Christians and Jews too, then it most certainly does mean “the God”. An important concept in linguistics is that of community agreement. In the most basic way, there needs to be an agreement in the community about what a “tree” or a “book” or anything is (in Linguistics terms, the “signified” or “referent”) before you can start referring to the objects in the world that correspond to that name. In dealing with concepts, like religious ones, things get messier because we cannot point to “God” who is some specific place in the world like a book shelf or a market and say “Allah”, “Amlak”/“Egziabher”, “Dios”, or whatever the word for “God” is in our language. So the Arabs, having this word “Allah” meaning “the God” before Islam, have defined the term differently depending on which religious community they are in. The Jews and Christians had it before Islam decided it was a proper name.
And if, as you say, it is understood to mean the God of all the past prophets, then how does that preclude it meaning “the God” (in addition to the Islam-specific meaning)? I thought that in Islamic thought, what makes Islam a continuation, perfection, and completion of the past monotheistic religions is that all the prophets of the past supposedly taught worship of the One God of Islam? So in light of this, wouldn’t “The God” be referring to the One God of all three great Abrahamic faiths just as well “Allah” as proper name would be? Or is it that Muslims once again want their own theory to be given primacy over the well-established traditions they claim to be the inheritors of?
First : i am an arab .
The word for
The God = AL ELAH
To this day, at the time of Muhammed and even before you can refer dieties as AL ELAH. If you are talking about a specific diety.
''AL ELAH ‘’ are 2 words . ALLAH is one word.
If arab Christians and jews want to refer to ‘‘THE GOD’’ They can say Al ELAH and not ALLAH.
If they want to refer to the God of Abraham they use ALLAH.
That is fine with me. Allah is the name arabs use to refer to teh god of Abraham and the God of Abraham thought it was ok to be identified as such , so he used it in teh Quran. thus became his name.
the word was assumed to be a proper name since it was used as such by the God of abraham. just like Hashem was assumed a proper name or any other name God assumed to himself.
Unique names emerge . Allah is the very common and unique name for teh god of Abraham in Arabic. It isn’t the only and nor it is obligatory. God in Islam is not the God of The arabs . he is teh God of Mankind and mankind have known him thriough various names.
you are repeating what i said
scriptures do not give God a proper name, God identified Himself as I Am who I Am, something not found in Islam, as Ralph was saying. Christians till now identify Him as I Am Who I Am as this is an eternal “description” (in whatver language Ani Ho, Ana Houwa) , something not found in Islam. Maybe there’s a missing link in our arguments that one or the other isn’t catching.