# إِلَٰه



## Jamal31

Hello,

According to this site, the word إِلَٰه is combination of اه + إِل . Is this accurate? And what do the words اه and إِل mean separately? It seems that the site is suggesting that the word إِل means 'lord', and that the اه indicates 'my'?


According to this site:
"_The word Allah, according to several Arabic lexicons, means "the Being Who comprises all the attributes of perfection", i.e. the Being Who is perfect in every way (in His knowledge, power etc.), and possesses the best and the noblest qualities imaginable in the highest degree. This meaning is supported by the Holy Quran when it says: "His are the best (or most beautiful) names." (17:110; 20:8; and 7:180) Contrary to popular belief, the word Allah is NOT a contraction of al-ilah (al meaning 'the', and ilah meaning 'god'). _
_
 Had it been so, then the expression ya Allah ('O Allah!') would have been ungrammatical, because according to the Arabic language when you address someone by the vocative form ya followed by a title, the al ('the') must be dropped from the title. For example, you cannot say ya ar-rabb but must say ya rabb (for 'O Lord'). So if the word Allah was al-ilah ('the God'), we would not be able to say: ya Allah, which we do. 

 Lane's Arabic-English Lexicon (which is based on classical Arabic dictionaries), says under the word Allah, while citing many linguistical authorities: 
_
_ "Allah ... is a proper name applied to the Being Who exists necessarily, by Himself, comprising all the attributes of perfection, a proper name denoting the true god ... the al being inseparable from it, not derived..."_"


----------



## fdb

ʼilāh- is common Semitic, as in Syriac ʼalāhā and Hebrew ʼeloh-im. -āh- is part of the stem.


----------



## Jamal31

So are you saying it is not a contraction of اه + إِل ?


----------



## fdb

It is not a contraction. -āh- on its own has no meaning.


----------



## Jamal31

That's interesting. What is your take on this:

"_The word Allah, according to several Arabic lexicons, means "the Being Who comprises all the attributes of perfection", i.e. the Being Who is perfect in every way (in His knowledge, power etc.), and possesses the best and the noblest qualities imaginable in the highest degree. This meaning is supported by the Holy Quran when it says: "His are the best (or most beautiful) names." (17:110; 20:8; and 7:180) Contrary to popular belief, the word Allah is NOT a contraction of al-ilah (al meaning 'the', and ilah meaning 'god'). _
_
 Had it been so, then the expression ya Allah ('O Allah!') would have been ungrammatical, because according to the Arabic language when you address someone by the vocative form ya followed by a title, the al ('the') must be dropped from the title. For example, you cannot say ya ar-rabb but must say ya rabb (for 'O Lord'). So if the word Allah was al-ilah ('the God'), we would not be able to say: ya Allah, which we do. 

 Lane's Arabic-English Lexicon (which is based on classical Arabic dictionaries), says under the word Allah, while citing many linguistical authorities: 
_
_ "Allah ... is a proper name applied to the Being Who exists necessarily, by Himself, comprising all the attributes of perfection, a proper name denoting the true god ... the al being inseparable from it, not derived..."_"

Or do you agree with the initial site in that ألـ + إِلَٰه = الله ?


----------



## fdb

That allāhu derives from al + ʼilāhu is the majority view both among the classical Arabic authors and among experts on Semitic linguistics. This does not mean that it is necessarily correct, but it is the considered majority view. There is a difference between the etymology of a word and how it is perceived by speakers of the language. The fact that you can say يا الله does show that the Arabs did not perceive الله as containing the article, but this is not necessarily evidence for or against the mentioned etymology.


----------



## Jamal31

I agree, fdb.

@Matat and @Mazhara, do you mind if I ask what your takes on it is?


----------



## Mazhara

Root: ء ل ه

a) Total occurrences: 147

b) No of constructions: 33 All nouns

It occurs in 124 Ayahs of 45 chapters.

Ibn Faris [died 1005] stated:

(مقاييس اللغة)

الهمزة واللام والهاء أصل واحد، وهو التعبُّد. فالإله الله تعالى، وسمّيَ بذلك لأنّه معبود

That it signifies an icon: somebody or something widely and uncritically admired, adored and worshipped.

The irreducible features of this root indicate it a two-way relational domain. For its actual realization, the other verbal Root is: ع ب د: subjects ruled by a ruler, sovereign; allegiants.


Therefore, its semantic field can be captioned:

Interpersonal relationship of the Supreme Sovereign and Subjects.

This domain will include all self-imposed responsibilities, obligations and promises of the Supreme Sovereign and the obligations, responsibilities, duties, conduct, reward and punishment of the subjects.

Root: ء ل ه


----------



## Matat

I don't have anything more than what was already discussed.


----------



## Jamal31

Thanks guys for your responses.


----------



## Ihsiin

fdb said:


> The fact that you can say يا الله does show that the Arabs did not perceive الله as containing the article, but this is not necessarily evidence for or against the mentioned etymology.



Incidentally, at what point do we begin to see يا الله? I don't believe that it appears in Qur'an, where اللهم is used as the vocative, and of course in modern vernacular Arabic it's perfect fine for يا to precede the definite article, so I'm wondering whether the phrase يا الله might not have began after this development. Certainly the spelling of الله would be very strange were it not for the presence of the definite article.


----------



## Jamal31

That's an interesting point. Isn't the Quran strictly the word of Allah, though? So I don't think that referring to Himself in the vocative really makes sense, and the only appearances of the vocative اللهم are quoting others as saying so and appear only five times. يا so-and-so doesn't seem to appear anywhere in the Quran from my search, only يَٰأَيُّهَا. I have found Classical Fusha Hadiths as saying يا الله though. For example:

"بَابُ مَنْ قَال *يَا اللَّهُ يَا اللَّهُ* عَشْرَ مَرَّاتٍ"

"إذا قال العبد: ( *يا الله*، يا ربي ) حتى ينقطع النفس، قال له الرب: سل ما حاجتك"

"حَدَّثَهُ قَالَ دَخَلَ رَسُولُ اللَّهِ صلى الله عليه وسلم الْمَسْجِدَ فَإِذَا هُوَ بِرَجُلٍ قَدْ قَضَى صَلاَتَهُ وَهُوَ يَتَشَهَّدُ وَهُوَ يَقُولُ اللَّهُمَّ إِنِّي أَسْأَلُكَ *يَا اللَّهُ* الأَحَدُ الصَّمَدُ الَّذِي لَمْ يَلِدْ وَلَمْ يُولَدْ وَلَمْ يَكُنْ لَهُ كُفُوًا أَحَدٌ أَنْ تَغْفِرَ لِي ذُنُوبِي إِنَّكَ أَنْتَ الْغَفُورُ الرَّحِيمُ"

I was also thinking, what about الحمد لله, wouldn't it be الحمد لالله if there wasn't the definite article prefixing it and it was part of the word?

The theory I'm leaning towards is that Allah is a contraction of الـ and إِلَٰه that essentially developed into a proper noun.


----------



## Ihsiin

No. The context of the vocative in the Qur'an is not particularly germane in regards to how it is formed. In fact the Qur'an often _does_ use يا, with our without the following أيها, depending of course on the presence of a definite article on the following word. However we find neither يا الله nor يا أيها الله in the Qur'an, but only اللهم. As far as hadith goes, I believe even the most ardent religionists treated them being true in meaning though not neccisarily by the letter. I'm not sure that they constitute good linguistic evidence. Finally, لله is precisely what we expect with the definite article. The formulation لالله would be more likely (though not necessarily the result) if الله were perceived as not contains the article.


----------



## Jamal31

Ihsiin said:


> In fact the Qur'an often _does_ use يا, with our without the following أيها, depending of course on the presence of a definite article on the following word.


Could you post references of Verse numbers where this occurs?


----------



## Ihsiin

Sure, off the top of my head you can look at 2:40, 20:11, 21:69 for a few examples of يا, and I'm sure there are many, many more if you want to make a thorough search.


----------



## Jamal31

Ihsiin said:


> Sure, off the top of my head you can look at 2:40, 20:11, 21:69 for a few examples of يا, and I'm sure there are many, many more if you want to make a thorough search.


Thanks, it wasn't showing up in my search because it was written as يَٰـ instead of يَا.

I recently read this:

_"الْـ + إِلَٰه = الْإِلَٰه_
_الْإِلَٰه – إِ = الْلَٰه_
_الْلَٰه -> اللَّٰه"_

It further adds other words related to the root ء-ل-ه :

- آلِهَة, ‎(ʾālihah), ءَالِهَة (ʾālihah) (“gods, deities”)
- إلَٰهَة (إلَاهَة) ‎(ʾilāhah), ("goddess"), ‎plural إِلَٰهَات (إِلَاهَات) (ʾilāhāt), ("goddesses")
- إِلَٰهِيّ (إِلَاهِيّ) ‎(ʾilāhiyy, “divine”)
- إِلَٰهيَّات (إِلَاهيَّات) ‎(ʾilāhiyyāt, “theology”)
- إِلُوهِيَّة ‎(ʾilūhiyyah, “theism”)
- اللَّات ‎(al-Lāt, “Allat”)

Regarding the Hadiths, I don't think it's legitimate to claim that they are good linguistic evidence, considering the Quran we most commonly use today itself is a Hadith written by Warsh (Uthman bin Sa'eed) (728-812) from Naafe' Al-Madani (bin Abur Rahman bin Abu Na'eem Al-Laythi Al-Kunani) (689 - 785). There is no fair judgement in assuming the Muhadithoun simply didn't do an accurate job, especially dozens upon dozens of them.


----------



## Mazhara

The difference is that of Proper Noun and common noun. Allah is the Proper Noun, while *إِلَٰه* is common noun that can be rendered definite by definite article and by possessive phrase.


----------

