Our Beacon Forum

The Linguistic Riddle Is Solved
By:Dr. Badar Kanwar
Date: Tuesday, 19 January 2010, 5:10 pm
In Response To: Re: Gary Miller / Dr Jamal Badawi (*Dr Shabbir)

Dear all, just want to share this with you all. I know lot of you are not familiar with ABC's of Arabic. However, whether we like it or not reality is; our most revered book remains concealed in this language. I have kept my discourse very simple and easy even for novice to follow.

Some friends and others have been asking me to provide them with a certificate of my linguistic abilities. However, I am sure even if I were to do that. Next they would tell, to have one of their liking. Hence, I have decided to provide this as my humble certificate. Have those who are contended with their authorities with certificates, prove it wrong step by step with help of their authorities.

Badar

We are lead through, with a careful linguistic analysis, to a conclusion that the word from Al-Qu'ran اللَّهِ is not the proper noun (name) of our Rabb. It actually stands for allathi الذي = who, La لا = not and finally illah اله. This would mean “One who is not illah”.

If one were to incorporate the real meanings of the word “illah” into the translation; this word which actually is a phrase would mean “One who is not a deity for adoration or worship (God)”.

This sounds so radically different. Who am I to say this? What are my credentials?

Why should we trust this non-sense?

These are all defensive of held belief, so valid and legitimate questions.

Let us instead of worrying about the credentials of the informer of this information; Just explore the language of the Qur'an that is presented from the Qur'an itself.

First of all let us analyse what traditionalists interpret this word to be?

And why they are wrong?

The word is thought to be a combination of a definite article Al ال = in English “The” and illah اله, meaning “God” but in reality “a deity for adoration and worship”.

Although, in actuality this "Al" is a contraction of the word الذي and legitimately could be written as "Al" ال. Can we trust this assertion despite clear references from the Lexicon of Lane and Grammar of William Wright.

Let us turn to Qur'an itself for more evidence. In Arabic script as well in the Qur'an, where a preposition “Lee” is added in to a word containing a definite article “Al” ال. Alif is dropped and so Lam of the definite article “Al” joins with “Lam” of preposition. Let us illustrate this point with some word examples from Qur'an itself.

1. 2:1 لِّلْمُتَّقِيْنَ Alif of “Al” gone, lam is present and preposition “Lee” added.

2. 4:7 and 4:32, لِّلرِّجَالِ is the word same concept.

However, for the word اللَّهِ when the same preposition is added. We find that the “Lam” of the supposed definite article “Al” also disappears. However, following the examples above it should have been written as لِلْاله (in reality one can not type this so called word using an Arabic type writer).

Example, 1:2 لِلَّهِ and 115 more places 2:22, 2:98 and on and on, in total 116 occurrences.

Whereas, Allathi being a different word its whole contraction disappears. This also proves that this word by no means is a proper name as there is no definite article "Al". As if there would have been an "Al", it should look like this الاله and not اللَّهِ

Let us continue to analyses this word further. In the middle there is "Alif" like mark (highlighted in red) with a Shadda mark and another Alif above. اللَّهِ (In newer, print version the "alif" above Shadda is taken a fatha shape instead of 'alif" like in this example as well. The gradual changes happening without anybody paying attention to these).

Shadda has several uses in script. We will only discuss the relevant ones here. One use is to indicate the doubling of a consonant. It is also used to indicate such a doubling only to facilitate pronunciation in the “Sun letters of the Arabic alphabets”. This would be a apparently plausible defensive case for the traditionalist.

Let us analysis why it is wrong. If it were to be correctly understood, then there would be no reason to keep this shadda in place once the “Al”, if it were really “Al” of definite article. As in the phrase is gone اللَّهِ, as in the example above of لِلَّهِ. However, we find in the Qur'an that this is not the case. Hence, this shadda is not due to “Al” of a definate article coming before the اله word to make it a proper noun, but contraction of Allathi. Although, even if it were to be the case, as illah has already “Alif” at the start which is not considered a “Sun letter”. Hence no shadda would be have been added as cited above.

This clearly shows that the persistence of this shadda is due, not to the shadda of “Al”; but in truth, indicates a real doubling of the consonants.

This means inescapably, that one were to follow the order of pronunciation of, this word. It actually is a sequence of words, a phrase, not just a word . Allathi (written as a contration in script as "Al"), La and illah. This would further imply that the middle shadda is suggesting “two lams” and two alifs”.

Hence, if translated word for word, this word or more accurately phrase would mean “One who is not a deity for adoration and worship”.

Messages In This Thread

Gary Miller (Canadian Mathematician)
Mustafa Ahmed -- Tuesday, 19 January 2010, 8:29 am
Re: Gary Miller (Canadian Mathematician)
*Dr Shabbir -- Tuesday, 19 January 2010, 3:22 pm
Re: Gary Miller (Canadian Mathematician)
Jawaid Ahmed -- Tuesday, 19 January 2010, 3:59 pm
Re: Gary Miller / Dr Jamal Badawi
*Dr Shabbir -- Tuesday, 19 January 2010, 4:50 pm
The Linguistic Riddle Is Solved
Dr. Badar Kanwar -- Tuesday, 19 January 2010, 5:10 pm
Re: The Linguistic Riddle Is Solved - ROFL
Arif Karim -- Wednesday, 20 January 2010, 1:02 am
Re: The Linguistic Riddle Is Solved - LOL
Hameeda Khan -- Wednesday, 20 January 2010, 1:15 am
The Linguistic Riddle Is Solved - Hmmm
Behroz Batliwalla -- Wednesday, 20 January 2010, 11:34 am
Re: The Linguistic Riddle Is Solved
Naushad P. -- Wednesday, 20 January 2010, 12:11 pm
Re: The Linguistic Riddle Is Solved
shahalam -- Wednesday, 20 January 2010, 1:59 pm
The Linguistic Riddle Is Solved - LOL
Laila Noor -- Wednesday, 20 January 2010, 2:44 pm
Re: The Linguistic Riddle Is Solved - LOL
shahalam -- Wednesday, 20 January 2010, 3:41 pm
فَذَلِكُمُ اللّهُ رَبُّكُم
Arif Shamim -- Wednesday, 20 January 2010, 5:06 pm
Re: فَذَلِكُمُ اللّهُ رَبُّك
Badar -- Wednesday, 20 January 2010, 5:32 pm
Re: فَذَلِكُمُ اللّهُ رَبُّك
Nafeesa -- Wednesday, 20 January 2010, 6:47 pm
Re: فَذَلِكُمُ اللّهُ رَبُّك
Arif Shamim -- Wednesday, 20 January 2010, 7:44 pm
Re: فَذَلِكُمُ اللّهُ رَبُّك
Badar -- Wednesday, 20 January 2010, 8:21 pm
Re: فَذَلِكُمُ اللّهُ رَبُّك
Arif Shamim -- Thursday, 21 January 2010, 6:21 am
Re: فَذَلِكُمُ اللّهُ رَبُّك
Badar -- Thursday, 21 January 2010, 5:41 pm
Re: فَذَلِكُمُ اللّهُ رَبُّك
Mj Karimullah -- Thursday, 21 January 2010, 3:50 pm
There is no Riddle in Qur'an
Arif Shamim -- Wednesday, 20 January 2010, 5:11 pm
Re: There is no Riddle in Qur'an
Badar -- Wednesday, 20 January 2010, 5:48 pm
Re: The Linguistic Riddle Is Solved
sumaira -- Wednesday, 20 January 2010, 9:06 pm
Re: The Linguistic Riddle Is Solved
Badar -- Wednesday, 20 January 2010, 10:55 pm
Re: The Linguistic Riddle Is Solved
Naushad P. -- Thursday, 21 January 2010, 7:18 am
Re: The Linguistic Riddle Is Solved
Arif Shamim -- Thursday, 21 January 2010, 11:08 am
Re: The Linguistic Riddle Is Solved
Naushad P. -- Thursday, 21 January 2010, 12:08 pm
Re: The Linguistic Riddle Is Solved
*Dr Shabbir -- Thursday, 21 January 2010, 5:25 pm
Re: Gary Miller (Canadian Mathematician)
mara -- Wednesday, 16 February 2011, 12:08 pm
Re: Gary Miller (Canadian Mathematician)
*Dr. Shabbir, Florida -- Wednesday, 16 February 2011, 3:10 pm
Re: Gary Miller (Canadian Mathematician)
mara -- Wednesday, 16 February 2011, 6:42 pm
Re: Gary Miller (Canadian Mathematician)
Moderators -- Thursday, 17 February 2011, 2:46 pm
Re: Gary Miller (Canadian Mathematician)
mara -- Thursday, 17 February 2011, 5:57 pm