Here's another example of how the internet can foster the spread of misinformation. I happened upon a blog post that re-posted in full someone else's rant about why Christians should not use the word "Allah" as a name for God. To stop the spread of misinformation, I won't link to it. I fully agree with them that the current associations of the name as the proper name of the god of Islam make it unacceptable as a generic name for God. But why would English-speaking Christians need to use an Arabic word for God anyway? In today's world, it would simply cause confusion -- making it seem like the two biggest world religions really worship the same god (they don't).
However while the main point of the rant was correct, the post itself included a very glaring error of Hebrew etymology intended to discredit the word as a deity's name. They said that the Arabic word "Allah" was the same as (i.e., cognate to) the word for "oak trees" in the Hebrew Bible. This is completely incorrect. The terms are not related. The Arabic word is cognate to 'Eloah, a rare Hebrew synonym for El or Elohim, both used as generic words for "god." The same is true in English -- we can use "god" generally like "the Greek gods" or specifically as "God" to refer the Judeo-Christian God. One of the Hebrew words for "oak tree" is 'elah which looks similar to the Aramaic cognate of 'Eloah which is 'Elah. The spelling looks the same in my English transliteration, but there are differences in the original script. I suppose that similarity is possibly the source of the mix-up. (Side note on historical grammar: In Arabic and Aramaic, the last vowel in 'allah or 'elah is a historically long /a/. That's how we know for certain that 'elah "oak" in Hebrew is not related because historically long /a/ shifted to /o/ in the Canaanite dialects. This resulted in the /o/ vowel we have in 'eloah and 'elohim in Hebrew.)
At any rate whatever the origin of the word "Allah," it no longer carries a neutral connotation as a general word "god." As such, it would be inappropriate to use it for any deity except the god of the Quran. In the same way, it would be inappropriate to refer to any deity as YHWH except for the God of the Bible. One can read a good theological discussion of the differences between YHWH and Allah here. (that is, it's more articulate than the rant that I'm not linking to.)
During the lesson on Cosmic Torah, when I mentioned that the rabbis argued that the Bible begins with a "beth" because "'aleph" is the first letter of the word 'alah," "curse," somebody asked if that was the source of the Qu'ran's word for God. I didn't know the actual etymology, but I took a guess that those two words were unrelated.
ReplyDeleteDoesn't the translation of Allah mean something like "The god above God" or "Our god is greater"? So that it's not really even a name of God, but one who is trying to set themselves up as higher than God?
ReplyDeleteGranted I'm not remotely as educated on the subject as my big bro, but I figured you could tell me for sure.
You're thinking of the phrase "Allahu Akbar" (god is greater). The phrase is actually short for "Allahu Akbar min kullisay" which means god is greater than everything. The word "allah" by itself is just the standard generic Arabic word for god.
ReplyDeleteThis is what happens when you have partial information and attempt to speak as if you are an expert. You clearly do not understand Islam at all when you makes claims that the God written of in the Bible is different from Allah of the Qur'aan. If the English word God is new when compared to the Aramaic, Hebraic, and Arabic versions what sort of logic are you dealing with in trying to make it appear that the name or should I say the word God is the standard. How can you say that Allah is a generic form of God.
ReplyDeleteIn fact, before you try to explain anything at all you should first properly define all of the words you use. Allah does not mean the god above God. Allah is actually a genderless being, unlike any other, with no limits that created everything. Allah (Arabic: الله, Allāh, IPA: [ʔalˤːɑːh]-is the standard Arabic word for God.[1] While the term is best known in the West for its use by Muslims as a reference to God, it is used by Arabic-speakers of all Abrahamic faiths, including Christians and Jews, in reference to "God".
Etymology
Medallion showing 'Allah' in Hagia Sophia, Istanbul, Turkey.
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] The corresponding Aramaic form is אֱלָהָא ʼĔlāhā in Biblical Aramaic and ܐܰܠܳܗܳܐ ʼAlâhâ or ʼĀlōho in Syriac.[10]
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).
Ok . . . thanks for your comment and clarification, IGA, but you appear to have missed the point of my post.
ReplyDeleteI was writing to correct a false Hebrew etymology that was intentionally used (by someone else on another website) to justify slandering Islam. Nothing in your comment changes that. The Hebrew word for “oak” and the Arabic word for “god” are not related in any way.
This is what happens when you have partial information and attempt to speak as if you are an expert.
Am I to understand that you are an expert on the subject since you copied everything from “Allah (Arabic)” to the end of your comment from Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allah) into your comment? I thought it was ok to take something of an expert’s tone on this one since I study comparative Semitic languages and ancient religion. Your info from Wikipedia merely supports what I was already saying – “allah” is the Arabic form of the common Semitic word for “god.”
You clearly do not understand Islam at all when you makes claims that the God written of in the Bible is different from Allah of the Qur'aan.
The world religions all claim to bear witness to the true “Ultimate Reality” that we call “God” or the “Supreme Being.” I understand quite well that Islam claims to worship the same god as the god of the Jews and Christians. However, the differences in the depictions of the Supreme Being among the world religions leads naturally to the conclusion that they present different, mutually-exclusive versions of what the Supreme Being is like. I understand perfectly that Islam claims descent from Abraham and incorporates elements of Jewish and Christian tradition. While “allah” technically means “the god” and would be appropriate to use in a variety of ways in an Arabic-speaking context, “Allah” in an English-speaking context specifically means “the god of Islam”.
If the English word God is new when compared to the Aramaic, Hebraic, and Arabic versions what sort of logic are you dealing with in trying to make it appear that the name or should I say the word God is the standard. How can you say that Allah is a generic form of God.
I never said the English word God was “new” in any way. The point is that it is not a proper name. It is a common noun referring to a deity. In English, it doesn’t necessarily refer to a specific deity or a specific religious tradition. While “allah” technically is also simply the common word for “god” in Arabic and would be appropriate to use in a variety of ways in an Arabic-speaking context, “Allah” in an English-speaking context specifically means “the god of Islam”.
In fact, before you try to explain anything at all you should first properly define all of the words you use. Allah does not mean the god above God. Allah is actually a genderless being, unlike any other, with no limits that created everything.
I never said anything about the “god above God.” Another comment talks about the phrase “Allahu akbar” which you should have learned means “God is great” from Wikipedia.
Just to reiterate, my post was about language, not theology. I wasn’t saying “Allah” as a deity was generic. I was saying that “allah” as a word in Arabic was standard, common, ordinary, not a proper name technically. I understand that Islam treats the word as the proper name for God in Islam.
I never said that you said the word God was new. I stated that.
ReplyDeleteYour attempt to break down what I post is okay. However, when you try to separate theology from language you fall short in proving your point. The word(s), the language is what explains and defines the theology (the religions).
The name Allah is only a name given to the Supreme Being. It is not only viewed as being the proper name of God. In al-Islam Allah/God has many names or attributes. They are used to come as close as is humanly possible in our limited capacities to describing certain qualities of Allah.
By the way, Islam does not incorporate elements of Judaism. Islam only continues that Abrahamic creed.
The Qur'aan states that there are some good Christians and some good Jews. Islam doesn't lay claims that
I'm not sure what you're trying to say, IGA. You did say "If the English word God is new when compared to the Aramaic, Hebraic, and Arabic versions..."
ReplyDeleteAbout separating theology from language, it's the difference between the study of religion as an academic discipline - often called the "science of religion" or "history of religion" - and the practice of religion by communities of faith.
The relationship between Islam and Judaism is well documented and complex. See the work of Patricia Crone and Michael Cook for example.
Thanks for commenting. I've said all I have to say on the subject.