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 allathe الذي = who, La لا = not and finally, alahun ألْهٌ. This would mean “One who is not alahun”.
If one were to incorporate the real meanings of the word “alahun” into the translation; this word, which actually is a sentence would mean “One who doesn’t engage in worship”.
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 analyze 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 illaha إلاه, meaning “God” but in reality “a deity for adoration and worship”.
Although, in actuality this "Al" here 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 1 and Grammar of William Wright 2.
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 beginning with 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 cannot 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, allathe 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 in script ألإلاه and not اللَّهِ
Furthermore, although both Lane and Wright cite the contraction of الذي as ال. Can we find an example in the current translation of Quran for such a contraction? Of course, we can, not one time, but multiple times.
6:77 فَلَمَّا رَأَى الْقَمَرَ بَازِغًا قَالَ هَـذَا رَبِّي فَلَمَّا أَفَلَ قَالَ لَئِن لَّمْ يَهْدِنِي رَبِّي لَأَكُونَنَّ مِنَ
Yousuf Ali: When he saw the moon rising in splendour, he said: "This is my Lord." But when the moon set, He said: "unless my Lord guides me, I shall surely be among those who go astray."
7:99 أَفَأَمِنُواْ مَكْرَ اللّهِ فَلاَ يَأْمَنُ مَكْرَ اللّهِ إِلاَّ
Yousuf Ali: Did they then feel secure against the plan of Allah?- but no one can feel secure from the Plan of Allah, except those (doomed) to ruin!
Other examples are at 62 different places, 5:26, 25, 5:67. Any place word الْقَوْمُ is used, it is at most places translated in meaning of "allathe".
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. اللَّه (In newer, print version the "alif" above Shadda is taken a fathah shape instead of 'alif" like in this example as well. The “alif” above Shadda, is called a “dagger alif” and is written over many other words instead being included in these words in the text of Quran. Since here it is written over Shadda, implying there are two “alifs”.
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 definite article coming before the اله word to make it a proper noun, but contraction of allathe. 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.
Let us, further show in Arabic script, how this concept could be explained? First, all three words are written separately, then allathe written as contracted and finally first to “lams” and subsequent “alif” combined, due use of Shadda, to make Allah.
ألذَّي لا ألْهٌ
ال لا ألْهٌ = اللَّه
This clearly, further shows that the persistence of this Shadda is due, not to the Shadda of “Al”; but in reality it indicates a real doubling of the consonants.
This means inescapably, that one was to follow the order of pronunciation of, this word. It actually is a sequence of words, a phrase, not just a word. Allathe (written as a contraction in script as "Al"), La and alahun. 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 sentence would mean “One who doesn’t engage in worship”.
1. Lexicon of Arabic Language; Edward W Lane; 1968, Vol. 1, page 74.
2. A Grammar of the Arabic Language; William Wright. Revised 3RD Edition, Dover Edition 2005: Vol. 1 page 269 D.