# Urdu: plural for Allah



## littlepond

This is prompted by a recent thread that discussed "xudaaoN": which is a normal construction like the corresponding "devtaaoN". However, I was wondering if "allahoN" is possible: and if yes, has it been used by anyone in print or online? If it is not possible, then is it for reasons of language or theology?

Please transliterate your answers in roman script.

Thanks in advance!


----------



## Qureshpor

Allah is formed from "ilaah" (god) and "al" the definite article in Arabic, resulting in "al-lah", the "i" being assimilated (The god/God". This Allah writtn in Arabic as اللہ has no plural. You could say, due to theology, because if one wanted to add the Arabic dual or the plural number markers, in theory one could  I suppose. At least this is my understanding.  

So, ilaah/god (devtaa); aalihah/gods (devtaa-plural)

ilaahah/goddess (devii), ilahaat/goddesses (deviyaaN)

Hopefully, others may expand on this.


----------



## souminwé

I suppose if you wanted to talk about the different "allahs" of the Abrahamic religions you could use a plural of "Allah". Even the use of "Gods" (with the capital "G") in English would imply different "gods" that are venerated as the "one and only" of different monotheistic religions - although it doesn't seem to me that the Urdu "Allah" would be used for any minor monotheistic religion outside of the Abrahamic religions (for example, if someone wrote a novel in Urdu in which there was a fictional monotheistic religion, do you think it would be strange to call its god "Allah"?).

Perhaps in Arabic you could use _allaah + iin/uun_ (this is just a guess), but I feel that in Urdu an arabicised plural wouldn't really make sense in this context and a regular masculine plural would suffice.

EDIT:
so yes_ allaahoN_ is possible

EDIT2:

not sure how one should write it in the Arabic script


----------



## littlepond

souminwé said:


> Even the use of "Gods" (with the capital "G") in English would imply different "gods" that are venerated as the "one and only" of different monotheistic religions



I don't agree with this part of your post, souminwe jii, as I don't see the rigid link between English and Christianity that, for example, seems to exist between Arabic (and Arabic-influenced languages) and Islam, or between Hebrew and Judaism.
Otherwise, thanks a lot to both of you, Quresh jii and souminwe jii.


----------



## souminwé

I don't either, I just mean to say "Gods" with a capital implies "many gods that their respective, disparate groups hold to be God". Of course, this distinction is limited to written language.


----------



## cherine

I can't speak for Urdu, but when we want to talk about gods in Arabic we use the plural of إله ilaah, not Allah الله , so gods are aaliha آلهة .
Technically, you can form a plural of الله , but this doesn't happen, for theological reasons. And it would also sound very strange, especially that, as I said, we can and do form the plural from ilaah.


----------



## littlepond

^ Thank you, but my post was from Urdu's viewpoint, and I don't think that the way plurals are formed in Arabic have any bearing on the Indic language that Urdu is, except for a certain minority who like to import Arabic wholesale into Urdu.


----------



## Qureshpor

littlepond said:


> ^ Thank you, but my post was from Urdu's viewpoint, and I don't think that the way plurals are formed in Arabic have any bearing on the Indic language that Urdu is, except for a certain minority who like to import Arabic wholesale into Urdu.


I have already expressed my views on the formation of plural for Allah in # post 2 which is in total agreement with what Cherine has  said in post 6. 

I am afraid the only truth in your statement is that Urdu is an Indic language. There are at least a dozen if not more ways of forming plurals in Urdu based on their Arabic patterns. But you don't really know Urdu, so you would n't know this. If you would like examples, it might be better to open a new thread on this topic. The existence of these plural patterns has nothing to do with "a certain minority".  You will probably use certain words which you regard as Hindi, which are in fact Arabic plurals. Let me just give you two examples. jangalaat, axbaar.


----------



## marrish

littlepond said:


> ^ Thank you, but my post was from Urdu's viewpoint, and I don't think that the way plurals are formed in Arabic have any bearing on the Indic language that Urdu is, except for a certain minority who like to import Arabic wholesale into Urdu.


From Urdu viewpoint QP's and Cherine's contributions are perfectly suited, let it be stated clearly lest someone who ventures later into this thread be misled. Arabic-based plurals are indispensable part and parcel of Urdu and they are used commonly by all Urdu speakers whether colloquially or in writing so your view about it has to do with all but the linguistic reality.

To answer your query from the opening post: perhaps you are having the plural oblique in mind. No, _allaahoN_ is not used. 

I have found something similar in turn: ظل اللہ _zill-u'llaah_ (a king "by the grace of God") can be used in plural oblique as in this sentence:

وہاں سے خداؤں کی دوسری اقسام تو رخصت ہوگئیں مگر انبیاء، اولیاء، شہداء، صالحین، مجاذیب، اقطاب، ابدال، علماء، مشائخ اور ظل اللہوں کی خدائی پھر بھی کسی نہ کسی طرح عقائد میں اپنی جگہ نکالتی رہی۔​_*wahaaN se xudaa'oN kii duusrii aqsaam to ruxsat ho ga'iiN magar anbiyaa', auliyaa', shuhadaa', saaliHiin, majaaziib, aqtaab, abdaal, 3ulamaa', mashaa'ix aur zill-u'llaahoN kii xudaa'ii phir bhii kisii nah kisii tarH 3aqaa'id** meN apnii jagah nikaaltii rahii.
*
_Note: in blue pl. obl. with -oN, in green pl. obl. without -oN (Arabic-based), in violet pl. nom. (Arabic-based).


----------



## BP.

Hello,
The word for god* that you are looking for here is ilaah (the one in ilaah aabaad, the city's name), and not allaah. ilaah has a feminine - alaahah, and a plural - aalihah.

Allaah has no plural and cannot be made into a feminine. It is in this respect grammatically unique.

* As I have come to understand, god doesn't really translate to ilaah. This Arabic word may not have an Indo-European equal.


----------



## littlepond

Thank you very much once again for all the replies; even if I do not agree with some of their content, I have learned quite a bit, so it doesn't matter. For the rest, I agree quite a lot with post no. 3, coming as it does especially from a non-biased participant.

As for the two words mentioned by Quresh jii, if we were to take such an attitude, then I am afraid the whole Urdu register won't exist: it would be mostly all Persian or Arabic, wholesale imports! But Quresh jii may think so; I don't. Thanks anyway!


----------



## Qureshpor

littlepond said:


> Thank you very much once again for all the replies; even if I do not agree with some of their content, I have learned quite a bit, so it doesn't matter. For the rest, I agree quite a lot with post no. 3, coming as it does especially from a non-biased participant.
> 
> As for the two words mentioned by Quresh jii, if we were to take such an attitude, then I am afraid the whole Urdu register won't exist: it would be mostly all Persian or Arabic, wholesale imports! But Quresh jii may think so; I don't. Thanks anyway!


I am sorry to hear you feel like this.

souminwe is saying that in theory it is possible to make a plural of Allah and I have said the same in post 2. However, as I have indicated and others have also made it quite clear, you will not find the feminine form of Allah, nor its plural either in the spoken language or written. And I don't just mean Urdu but in other languages which employ Allah. 

You began by saying "..I don't think that the way plurals are formed in  Arabic have any bearing on the Indic language that Urdu is, except for a  certain minority who like to import Arabic wholesale into Urdu."

 Now if you can substantiate this, please do so. I have explained to you that there are more than a dozen Arabic plurals used in Urdu which any Urdu speaker who understands his language will be able to tell you. The two words I gave as examples to you are words you would not only have heard but also used.

jangal-aat = jungles (Arabic -aat plural)

axbaar = Newspaper. But this is a plural of the word xabar/news...other examples tafsiilaat/details, vaaridaat (events/occurrences but now usually used as a singular "an incident" as the title of a collection of Urdu stories by Prem Chand). A better example that I should I given to you is "auqaat", plural of "vaqt"

Let me give you some more examples. I shall keep the plural marker separate. Most plurals are what are known as "broken plurals". There is internal change to the word to form the plural, as is the case  in axbaar, auqaat, atraaf (plural of taraf). So, there are no suffixes.



1. vaalid-ain/parents, taraf-ain (The two sides/parties)

2. Haazir-iin (audience), naazir-iin (viewers)

3. tafsiil-aat/details, axbaar-aat/newspapers

4. vaqt >auqaat, xabar > axbaar, taraf > atraaf , Haal > aHvaal

5. 3ilm/knowledge > 3uluum (sciences)

6. shaa3ir/poet > shu3araa' 

7. nabii/prophet > anbiyaa' 

8. baHr/sea, ocean > biHaar

9.  Haakim/ruler > Hukkaam; kaafir/denier[of God] > kuffaar

10. davaa/medicine > adviyah

11. jaziirah/island > jazaa'ir; jariidah/magazine > jaraa'id; 3ajiib/strange, wonderful > 3ajaa'ib (NB: 3ajaa'ib-ghar museum)

12. faa'idah (gain) > favaa'id; qaa3idah/primer, rule, base > qavaa3id, jauhar/gem, jewel > javaahir as in Jawahar Lal Nehru (NB: the "mis-spelling")

13. sultaan > salaatiin; tasniif/composition > tasaaniif (NB: musannif/author)

There are more... but I hope you get the point. All these words are in daily use and have been around in Urdu for centuries. Speakers/writers may use the Indic plural madrase for schools or madaaris. It all depends on the speaker or writer's own taste. I hope this post has clarified the matter a little and you don't continue to feel that there is some sort of "bias". There is no room for bias. You are simply asking if Allah has a plural. The answer is "No" as the whole concept  of God in Islam is that there is nothing to compare with it. As a linguistic exercise "Yes". In reality, if you could read Urdu, you will not come across its plural form. Neither will you hear it in speech. The concept simply does not exist. I hope this helps.


----------



## Qureshpor

BP. said:


> Hello,
> The word for god* that you are looking for here is ilaah (the one in ilaah aabaad, the city's name), and not allaah. ilaah has a feminine - alaahah, and a plural - aalihah.
> 
> Allaah has no plural and cannot be made into a feminine. It is in this respect grammatically unique.
> 
> * As I have come to understand, god doesn't really translate to ilaah. This Arabic word may not have an Indo-European equal.


Salaam, BP SaaHib.

A small correction. 

Feminine of ilaah/god (plural aalihah/gods) is ilaahah/goddess (plural ilahaat/goddesses).


----------



## littlepond

Qureshpor said:


> Now if you can substantiate this, please do so. I have explained to you that there are more than a dozen Arabic plurals used in Urdu which any Urdu speaker who understands his language will be able to tell you. The two words I gave as examples to you are words you would not only have heard but also used.
> 
> jangal-aat = jungles (Arabic -aat plural)
> 
> axbaar = Newspaper.



But "jangloN" or just retaining "jangal" is actually a far more common plural construction for "jungles" than "janglaat": and I am talking of Urdu speakers. I don't know what is more common in Urdu literature, but that doesn't concern us here. Similarly, for most people, including many of my Urdu-speaking friends, "axbaar" is newspaper (and not multiple news) while "xabar" is information: and they don't link them together consciously. Yes, scholars may do that, but _the common man_ is not doing that. And hence, both "janglaat" and "axbaar" are nothing but imports, which have entered the common day-to-day language, but the process of pluralizing hasn't entered the day-to-day life, except for the scholar. It is just like instead of using "vaarid" and "vaaridat", many people, including Urdu speakers, use "vaardaat" and "vaardaateiN": and why not similarly for "allah" (as a linguistic exercise)?



Qureshpor said:


> You are simply asking if Allah has a plural. The answer is "No" as the whole concept  of God in Islam is that there is nothing to compare with it. As a linguistic exercise "Yes". In reality, if you could read Urdu, you will not come across its plural form. Neither will you hear it in speech. The concept simply does not exist. I hope this helps.



Thank you for the clarification; I did ask in my opening post if that is theologically possible. So it seems that theologically it is not possible. Whether "allahon" as a linguistic exercise _can _be its plural in Urdu (and not Arabic) is where we differ, and let's agree to accept our disagreements.


----------



## Qureshpor

^ jangal-aat is not literary but common as muck in Urdu speech and writing. "axbaar" is indeed a newspaper and "vaaridaat" an incident but you seem to have missed the point that these words in essence are plurals that have Arabic plural basis .

The -aat plural is very productive in Urdu. bahut-aat/abundance, khanDar-aat/ruins, baaGh-aat/gardens, axraaj-aat (expenditure), hidaayaat/instructions, ilekTraaniyaat /electronics and so on.

Whatever I have written about Urdu plurals will be confirmed by any educated Urdu speaker, on or off this forum.  As a purely language exercise, "allaahoN" would be formed exactly in the same manner as "baadshaahoN". If there is still something that you are not in agreement with, yes, we'll agree to disagree and leave it at that.


----------



## souminwé

Qureshpor said:


> You are simply asking if Allah has a plural. The answer is "No" as the whole concept of God in Islam is that there is nothing to compare with it. As a linguistic exercise "Yes". In reality, if you could read Urdu, you will not come across its plural form. Neither will you hear it in speech. The concept simply does not exist. I hope this helps.




Qureshpor brings up a good point about writing the plural of _allaah_: how would one write it, since the Arabic script uses a glyph. I suppose this stresses the "unbreakable oneness" of Allah; breaking the glyph into regular Arabic orthography seems to have some intuitive basis, seeing as we've obviously broken from Islamic norms. (I feel like we've sort of calqued this into the roman script unwittingly, as I think everyone posting on this thread has made a difference between _allaah_ and Allah).

As for your statement that "...you will not come across its plural form. Neither will you hear it in speech. The concept simply does not exist."
I think that is incorrect. Consider the sentence: "there are as many Allahs as there are Muslims". In Urdu it could be something like "_jitne muslim, utne allaah_". This sounds quite acceptable to my ears. I disagree that "the concept does not exist" - you can't speak for everyone. We are discussing the concept right now, it surely exists for us! Someone somewhere at least once must have said it outloud, there are just too many Urdu speakers.

I think putting_ allaah_ into the category of "proper noun" might give some clarity. As a proper noun, it does NOT have a true plural - its morphological plural can be used, but we're using it as an abstraction there, and it as such it has a very restricted usage. As an example, let's pretend that the feminist writer Julia Kristeva is the only person on earth with that name. There are still situations where we can use the plural "Julia Kristevas" and I'm sure you can think of them quite easily.

idk, I just feel that terms like "theologically possible", "possible as a linguistic exercise" are a bit limiting of reality, so I hope I've been of some help by further posting on this thread (it seems to have taken an unfortunate downturn : c )


----------



## marrish

souminwé said:


> Qureshpor brings up a good point about writing the plural of _allaah_: how would one write it, since the Arabic script uses a glyph. I suppose this stresses the "unbreakable oneness" of Allah; breaking the glyph into regular Arabic orthography seems to have some intuitive basis, seeing as we've obviously broken from Islamic norms.


There is nothing in the script that should be an obstacle to write it, see my post no. 6, it is given there although as a last part of a compound.


----------



## cherine

Thank you for your post, Souminwé. I don't think the thread has taken an unfortunate downturn. As long as we all respect each other, and our differences, all should be fine. 



souminwé said:


> Qureshpor brings up a good point about writing the plural of _allaah_: how would one write it, since the Arabic script uses a glyph. I suppose this stresses the "unbreakable oneness" of Allah; breaking the glyph into regular Arabic orthography seems to have some intuitive basis, seeing as we've obviously broken from Islamic norms. (I feel like we've sort of calqued this into the roman script unwittingly, as I think everyone posting on this thread has made a difference between _allaah_ and Allah).


The capital vs. small is, as far as I see it, a matter of respecting or not the standard writing rules. As a proper name, it must be written with a capital. But let's stick with the Arabic/Urdu script: الله , the glyph can be simply broken: اللهون .


> Consider the sentence: "there are as many Allahs as there are Muslims". In Urdu it could be something like "_jitne muslim, utne allaah_". This sounds quite acceptable to my ears. I disagree that "the concept does not exist" - you can't speak for everyone. We are discussing the concept right now, it surely exists for us! Someone somewhere at least once must have said it outloud, there are just too many Urdu speakers.


You are right. And I think I'm not the only one who said that the plural can be formed. It's just that we never heard it before. If you have, then it only confirms the fact that it is possible.


> I think putting_ allaah_ into the category of "proper noun" might give some clarity. As a proper noun, it does NOT have a true plural - its morphological plural can be used, but we're using it as an abstraction there, and it as such it has a very restricted usage.


That's exactly what made me say that it is possible to form this plural. While writing my post, I remembered the plural form muHammaduun محمدون (Muhammads) referring to several men all with the name Muhammad. While this is not a word you'd hear every day, it does exist. And this made me realize that the plural of Allah can also be formed. Though, again, I still believe it is more natural to use the plural form آلهة aaliha to translate "gods".


----------



## marrish

Cherine, does al- make this name/noun unique on its own?


----------



## cherine

If you speak about Arabic, then the answer is yes al- means "The". But more important, we don't really regard الله as a word preceded by al-, but a whole word, with a rather unique structure. You see, even the pronunciation is a bit unique because the laam is مفخَّمة (don't know if we can translate it "emphatic") which is not the common pronunciation of this letter/sound.

Edit: Just wanted to add that the alef at the beginning of the name الله is also emphatic, and this too is not common.


----------



## marrish

Thank you very much, this was the answer to the question I had in mind. In Urdu there is the same perception. It's not a noun but a name. I think that even if a linguistic exercise allows us to make a plural it would not have any sense. I can imagine a discussion between, say, a Christian and a Muslim in Arabic (or Urdu): We call our God Allah and you call it Allah. Both "Allahs" are the same, but here the plural is understood to be the "name" or "word" Allah, not two persons "Allah". That's why I didn't oppose the notion of possibility that we can make a plural but said instead that I never heard or read about it. I did a long research about it for Urdu but I could not find any instance. I hope littlepond's query is answered thus and for the reasons, I think it is not only theological, but also linguistic.  BTW, I know what you mean to say about the pronunciation.

If I may, feminization of this word/name has been touched upon. There are words like al-lat which would be feminine.


----------



## Kahaani

From what I understand and have read about, the bible/torah speaks of the 'false-Gods' who were worshipped before Abraham. I wonder if these 'false-Gods' are also mentioned in the quran and if so how it's written in Arabic. That would be the only literary source we'd need concerning the theological possibility I think.


----------



## littlepond

marrish said:


> It's not a noun but a name.



So what? See the Julia Kristeva point by souminwe jii. In addition, what may be a (unique) name (proper noun) for one might only be a (common) noun for another: the world is limitless. In fact, if I can imagine that a plural for "allaah" exists, then the plural is already possible: otherwise, how could me (or anyone else) imagine it? It does not remain "the one and only one".

The discussion has been very interesting thus far; I hope we get more opinions from other participants, too.


----------



## eskandar

Kahaani said:


> From what I understand and have read about, the bible/torah speaks of the 'false-Gods' who were worshipped before Abraham. I wonder if these 'false-Gods' are also mentioned in the quran and if so how it's written in Arabic. That would be the only literary source we'd need concerning the theological possibility I think.


Technically these are 'false gods' and not *'false Gods' as you have written, if you follow. They are indeed mentioned in the Qur'an and as Cherine SaaHibah already mentioned in post #6, 'gods' is written as آلهة in Arabic. See for example Qur'an 6:74, 7:127, 7:138, 11:53-4, 19:46, and on and on. But note that, as Cherine said, this is from the plural of إله _ilaah_ 'god' and not the plural of الله _allaah _'God'.


----------



## BP.

Qureshpor said:


> Salaam, BP SaaHib.
> 
> A small correction.
> 
> Feminine of ilaah/god (plural aalihah/gods) is ilaahah/goddess (plural ilahaat/goddesses).



Honest typo. Thanks for the soundness of the thread that you pointed it out.


----------



## Kahaani

eskandar said:


> Technically these are 'false gods' and not *'false Gods' as you have written, if you follow. They are indeed mentioned in the Qur'an and as Cherine SaaHibah already mentioned in post #6, 'gods' is written as آلهة in Arabic. See for example Qur'an 6:74, 7:127, 7:138, 11:53-4, 19:46, and on and on. But note that, as Cherine said, this is from the plural of إله _ilaah_ 'god' and not the plural of الله _allaah _'God'.



Basically allaah is ilaah with a definite article attached to it, isn't it? I.e. Al ilaah becomes allaah, right? If so this doesn't make it another word. Neither is the english equivalent God any different from god, it's the same word, writing it in capital or with a definite article doesn't change the meaning. Especially when monotheistic religions do not have a monopoly on capitalizing the first letter when talking about their god. It is simply to denote some sort of respect. So, if we have established that allaah is in fact the same word as illaah, indeed allaah can be written in plural. 

god - the god                        illaah - allaah
gods - the gods                     aaliha - al aaliha (?)


----------



## BP.

Kahaani said:


> Basically allaah is ilaah with a definite article attached to it, isn't it? ...


I've forgotten who it was, but an American linguist figured out that this one word, with no definite article. That's from the English-speaking world, Arabic masters would have had to say a lot over the past 1000+ years, but I' not conversant with it to point it out.


----------



## eskandar

Kahaani said:


> Basically allaah is ilaah with a definite article attached to it, isn't it? I.e. Al ilaah becomes allaah, right? If so this doesn't make it another word. Neither is the english equivalent God any different from god, it's the same word, writing it in capital or with a definite article doesn't change the meaning. Especially when monotheistic religions do not have a monopoly on capitalizing the first letter when talking about their god. It is simply to denote some sort of respect. So, if we have established that allaah is in fact the same word as illaah, indeed allaah can be written in plural.
> 
> god - the god                        illaah - allaah
> gods - the gods                     aaliha - al aaliha (?)


Read post #20 by cherine SaaHiba, which explains how allaah is not the same as al-ilaah.


----------

