# لا إله إلا الله



## kifaru

I was in a lecture after salat Jummah. The lecturer said that the profession of faith's "LA ILAHA ILLALLAH" was "There is no deity worthy of worship but Allah." According to him
a native arabic speaker gets this from this statement as opposed to a non native speaker. I was wondering if this is true as I have not seen it translated as that before.


----------



## Nikola

أشهد أن لا إله إلاَّ الله و أشهد أن محمد رسول الله​
_ʾ_ashhadu ʾan la ilaha illa-llah, wa ʾash-hadu ʾanna muḥammadan rasulu-llah.
I testiify there is no god but Allah and Muhammad is the messenger of Allah.
Interpretation Allah  (monotheism) is only worthy of worship.​


----------



## Saleh Al-Qammaari

kifaru said:


> I was in a lecture after salat Jummah. The lecturer said that the profession of faith's "LA ILAHA ILLALLAH" was "There is no deity worthy of worship but Allah."* According to him
> a native arabic speaker gets this from this statement as opposed to a non native speaker*. I was wondering if this is true as I have not seen it translated as that before.



Hi Kifrau!

Would you kindly clarify what do you mean by the red-colored words? I can not completely grasp them.

Regarding the translation, it is right and I used to translate it also as "There is none truly worthy of worship but Allah"
This translation or mine are more accurate than "there is no god but Allah" because the former are based on the Arabic meaning of the Shahaadah. On the other hand, the latter is more sticking to literal meaning without conveying the accurate meaning. 


Best Wishes!


----------



## kifaru

What I meant was that if a person were to literally translate the words "la illaha illallah", as a non native would, they would understabd the statement to be "there is no god but allah". The point of the question is more at how do the words in the kalimah express "there is no god worthy of worship except allah". Are there intensifiers or extra meanings in the words that a non native speaker can use to extrapolate this meaning or was the speaker explaining something that would be found in hadith or tafseer? I'm searching for how this deeper meaning is arrived at.


----------



## Nikola

The message is clear there is only one God Allah therefore no other gods should be worshiped. Even though the word worship is not used.


----------



## Josh_

Not to split hairs here, but the phrase "there is no god worthy of worship except Allah" leads me to believe that there are other gods, but that allah is the only one worthy of worship.  That is in stark contrast to the Arabic "لا إله إلاَّ الله" which I believe is meant to be  a fairly emphatic statement emphasizing that no other gods exist at all.  So, if the idea of worship is implicit in the phrase then I would recommend Crystal Clear's rendition of "There is none truly worthy of worship but Allah."


----------



## cherine

Josh_ said:


> Not to split hairs here, but the phrase "there is no god worthy of worship except Allah" leads me to believe that there are other gods, but that allah is the only one worthy of worship.


I think you found the answer unentionally, Josh 

It's precisely this the message of Islam -and all monotheist religions, as far as I know- and that is: to not believe in nor worship any other deity but the one an only God.

By the way, Kifaru, this is a very interesting question, and it's a stricking coincidence for me, because I was just thinking, a few hours ago, about what would be the best translation of لا إله إلا الله 
Between us, I'm still not sure what the best translation would be, but I hope we can all find it together


----------



## MarcB

Looking at all of the posters comments, I think everyone is saying the same thing. The literal translation works in English. There is no god but Allah, is an emphatic profession of only one God. Therefore there should be no confusion as to the existence of other gods or the worship of other gods. The statement in English is equally as clear as in Arabic. If worship or other phrases are added it could be (although I personally do not think so) interpreted as Josh said. I believe there should not be a modification in the translation because in this case it should be true to the original which is perfectly clear in English.


----------



## WadiH

In my religious classes as a child, the explanation given was thus:

لا معبودَ بحق ٍ إلا ّ الله


----------



## Mahaodeh

I'm no religious scholar, nor am I professional translator, but I don't think that the phrase "There is no deity worthy of worship but Allah" captures the meaning and that "there is no god but Allah" or even "there is no god but God" is much more accurate translation.

I don't think that "there is o deity worthy of worship but Allah" even captures "لا معبودَ بحق ٍ إلا ّ الله" as the English one implies that there is other gods but they are not worthy of worship while the Arabic one implies that the other [so-called according to the phrase] deities, while worshipped by some, are not truly gods.


----------



## Ander

Mahaodeh said:


> "there is no god but Allah" or even "there is no god but God" is much more accurate translation.



I agree with "there is no god but Allah", but I prefer "there is no god but God" for two reasons.

The first one is that there is a repeat of the word ilâh in the word llâh.
So in English God repeats god.

The second reason is that the use of Arabic Allah in an English sentence may imply that there is a difference in meaning between Allah and God.


----------



## suma

Ander said:


> I agree with "there is no god but Allah", but I prefer "there is no god but God" for two reasons.
> 
> The first one is that there is a repeat of the word ilâh in the word llâh.
> So in English God repeats god.
> 
> The second reason is that the use of Arabic Allah in an English sentence may imply that there is a difference in meaning between Allah and God.


 
Yes Ander admittedly that is a problem with that translation (in red).
On the other hand repeating "...god... God" sounds terrribly unatural to me, and almost nonsensicle. In the written form you might pay special attention to the lower and upper case letters which may help, but of course that's lost in spoken form. Besides the Arabic uses _ilaah_ and _Allah_, hence not the same word.


----------



## suma

Also to further answer Kifaru's question, the expanded meaning is taken moreso from Islamic doctrine and theology. Linguistically there is some emphasis given in the statement; but the meaning is that others may devote themselves to a thing to such an extent that it becomes the object of their sole devotion, i.e. a god, albeit one not worthy or worship. Get it?


----------



## Ander

suma said:


> On the other hand repeating "...god... God" sounds terrribly unatural to me, and almost nonsensicle.



You have to follow the language you translate not your own wishes.
If you think there is something nonsensical it could also come from the original.

The Arabic phrase uses alliteration. Repeating god twice is not as good as the number of times l's and a's are repeated in the Arabic phrase but it is better than no alliteration at all.



> In the written form you might pay special attention to the lower and upper case letters which may help, but of course that's lost in spoken form.


You're right, but it can be assumed that the users of the phrase know the difference between the first and the second "God" when they recite it.



> Besides the Arabic uses _ilaah_ and _Allah_, hence not the same word.


Allaah has a long "a" as ilaah.

To me they are linguistically the same word. Allaah is the contraction of al-ilaah.


----------



## suma

Ander said:


> You have to follow the language you translate not your own wishes.
> If you think there is something nonsensical it could also come from the original.
> 
> Allaah has a long "a" as ilaah.
> 
> To me they are linguistically the same word. Allaah is the contraction of al-ilaah.


 
I strongly disagree with that, if you follow the source language too strictly you often end up with something awkward and unEnglish sounding, or worse misleading. I think that's a well accepted fact among translators.

Again I disagree, even if we accept the contraction theory, then it's still a new and separate word.


----------



## iangreen

while Allah may have originally been from a contraction of al-ilah, it has a distinctly different meaning and usage than "ilah", i.e., allah (God) is not the same as al-ilah (the god)

Allah is a proper noun


----------



## clevermizo

suma said:


> On the other hand repeating "...god... God" sounds terrribly unatural to me, and almost nonsensicle.



Saying "There is no god but God" in English sounds perfectly acceptable to me. It is culturally apparent (to me, at least) what is meant, even though there are no lower-case and upper-case letters in spoken language. I also prefer it to "There is no god but Allah" because this strengthens the misconception (as has been mentioned) that Allah is somehow different from God.


----------



## iangreen

strictly speaking, God is a proper noun referring to a specific god. typically, it is assumed that it is the god of Abraham being referred to as "God".

"there is no god but God" is indeed a good translation, if one does not have any personal hangups with the word "god" (which should be dealt with on one's own)


----------



## Josh_

cherine said:
			
		

> I think you found the answer unentionally, Josh
> 
> It's precisely this the message of Islam -and all monotheist religions, as far as I know- and that is: to not believe in nor worship any other deity by the one an only God.
> 
> By the way, Kifaru, this is a very interesting question, and it's a stricking coincidence for me, because I was just thinking, a few hours ago, about what would be the best translation of لا إله إلا الله
> Between us, I'm still not sure what the best translation would be, but I hope we can all find it together


Yes, the idea behind monotheism is that there is only one god, no others exist; God is alone.  But, the English phrase _"there is no god worthy of worship except Allah"_ implies the existence of other gods -- God (capital G) is one among many gods, yet only God, out of all of the gods, is worthy of our worship.   That is why I do not think it is a good rendition of the Muslim credo.  I think part of the problem in translation is the word إلا and how exceptive sentences work in Arabic and English, which I will touch upon below. 



			
				Ander said:
			
		

> The Arabic phrase uses alliteration. Repeating god twice is not as good as the number of times l's and a's are repeated in the Arabic phrase but it is better than no alliteration at all.


Yes, the phrase is alliterative, but I am not entirely sure it was meant to be that way.  It might just be coincidental. The لا at the beginning is called لا النافية للجنس . In English it often called the laa of absolute negation and it is a very strong negating particle that negates the existence of something categorically.  And the exceptive particle إلا , while not the only one, seems to me to be the most common.  

On that note, I wanted to discuss the exceptive structure in Arabic and why a literal translation might be seen as not as fluid in English or might be problematic when translated literally in English.  The structure in which a negative main clause is followed by an exceptive particle (لا/لم/لن/ليس كذا إلا كذا )) is common in Arabic.  It is found in English, but not as frequently and only under certain circumstances.  English usually prefers a different structure.  For example, let's take the following sentence:

لا يوجد إلا المدرس في الصف
This could be literally translated as _"There are (none) but the teacher in the classroom."_

This is somewhat awkward in English which prefers a structure like, _"Only the teacher is in the classroom."_

So I can understand how the literal translation of "لا إله إلاَّ الله, "_There is no god but God_," can be seen as awkward.  English would probably prefer a sentence like, _"Only God exists"_ or _"There is only one god"_ or "_There is only God_."  I do agree with the others, however, that "_There is no god but God_" is acceptable English, but I do not believe that exact phrase would have occurred naturally in English.



			
				iangreen said:
			
		

> Strictly speaking, God is a proper noun referring to a specific god.


Yes, proper nouns are most often definite without needing the definite article.


> Typically, it is assumed that it is the god of Abraham being referred to as "God".


In Western society/Judeao-Christian-Islamic, anyway.


----------



## iangreen

Josh_ said:


> Yes, the idea behind monotheism is that there is only one god, no others exist; God is alone.  But, the English phrase _"there is no god worthy of worship except Allah"_ implies the existence of other gods -- God (capital G) is one among many gods, yet only God, out of all of the gods, is worthy of our worship.   That is why I do not think it is a good rendition of the Muslim credo.  I think part of the problem in translation is the word إلا and how exceptive sentences work in Arabic and English, which I will touch upon below.



there are other gods, they are simply powerless idols created by man's own conception. we can worship whatever we want, the sun, the moon, etc.



> Yes, the phrase is alliterative, but I am not entirely sure it was meant to be that way.  It might just be coincidental. The لا at the beginning is called لا النافية للجنس . In English it often called the laa of absolute negation and it is a very strong negating particle that negates the existence of something categorically.  And the exceptive particle إلا , while not the only one, seems to me to be the most common.
> 
> On that note, I wanted to discuss the exceptive structure in Arabic and why a literal translation might be seen as not as fluid in English or might be problematic when translated literally in English.  The structure in which a negative main clause is followed by an exceptive particle (لا/لم/لن/ليس كذا إلا كذا )) is common in Arabic.  It is found in English, but not as frequently and only under certain circumstances.  English usually prefers a different structure.  For example, let's take the following sentence:
> 
> لا يوجد إلا المدرس في الصف
> This could be literally translated as _"There are (none) but the teacher in the classroom."_
> 
> This is somewhat awkward in English which prefers a structure like, _"Only the teacher is in the classroom."_
> 
> So I can understand how the literal translation of "لا إله إلاَّ الله, "_There is no god but God_," can be seen as awkward.  English would probably prefer a sentence like, _"Only God exists"_ or _"There is only one god"_ or "_There is only God_."  I do agree with the others, however, that "_There is no god but God_" is acceptable English, but I do not believe that exact phrase would have occurred naturally in English.


well most definitely it does not sound natural in English. the problem is the arabic cannot be translated properly into english 

the whole concept of 'God' is rather weird in English - in semitic tongues, they did not have capital letters. 

interesting grammar notes above - thanks



> Yes, proper nouns are most often definite without needing the definite article.
> In Western society/Judeao-Christian-Islamic, anyway.



"most often"?

isn't an "indefinite proper noun" an oxymoron?


----------



## suma

Josh_ said:


> ..For example, let's take the following sentence:
> 
> لا يوجد إلا المدرس في الصف
> This could be literally translated as _"There are (none) but the teacher in the classroom."_


Why not say "There is no one but the teacher in the classroom."


Josh_ said:


> ..."_There is no god but God_" is acceptable English, but I do not believe that exact phrase would have occurred naturally in English.


 agreed.
However I still say that something like "There is not god but the True God, is better than repeating god...God. Simply because in the first clause you negate the existance of god, and in the 2nd clause you affirm it; using the exact same word. Whereas the Arabic uses ilaah and Allah respectively, so it doesn't sound like a contradictory repetition.


----------



## iangreen

suma said:


> Simply because in the first clause you negate the existance of god, and in the 2nd clause you affirm it; using the exact same word. Whereas the Arabic uses ilaah and Allah respectively, so it doesn't sound like a contradictory repetition.



Not true.

"there is no god (idol) but God (a name for a particular idol)".

we do not say idols do not exist, we do not even say God exists, we say that Allah (we say God in english) is the only idol (of any relevance or value)

like if there were imaginary suns... and people for some reason started talking about the night sun and the invisible sun, but we could say, there is no sun but The Sun.


----------



## suma

Firstly god, God, Allah is not an idol.

Let's imagine using a proper name for God in English, something like "_There is no god but Jehovah."_
Now, that makes more sense, meaning Jehovah is the only true god. But to repeat the word god there sounds perplexing for the reasons I said earlier.


----------



## iangreen

in the sense that it is something worshipped, it is an idol. the term idol simply has connotations to pagan idols, which are not valid in every sense.

hence the terminology 'false idol' in the hebrew culture (e.g. the golden calf)

 an idol is something one worships.Allah is an ilah (idol/god).


----------



## cherine

The first definition of idol is: _a material effigy that is worshipped as a god; _or (a representation or symbol of an object of worship; _broadly_ *:* a false god)
Why not use the word deity (_any supernatural being worshipped as controlling some part of the world or some aspect of life or who is the personification of a force _) or (the rank or essential nature of a god *:* divinity b_capitalized_ *:* god 1, supreme being) ? I think it would avoid the confusion that may be caused by the word "idol".


----------



## iangreen

deity is also fine and I am inclined to agree that it is a bit more fitting.


----------



## Ander

Josh_ said:


> The لا at the beginning is called لا النافية للجنس . In English it often called the laa of absolute negation and it is a very strong negating particle that negates the existence of something categorically.



I have never seen a "no" in French , English, German, Spanish or Italian which is not a "no".

You may want to stress the negation by adding "no, not at all" or "non, pas du tout", but still the no is no.

Is the maa in Arabic a less negative no than laa ?



> English usually prefers a different structure.  For example, let's take the following sentence:
> 
> لا يوجد إلا المدرس في الصف
> This could be literally translated as _"There are (none) but the teacher in the classroom."_
> 
> This is somewhat awkward in English which prefers a structure like, _"Only the teacher is in the classroom."_
> 
> So I can understand how the literal translation of "لا إله إلاَّ الله, "_There is no god but God_," can be seen as awkward.  English would probably prefer a sentence like, _"Only God exists"_ or _"There is only one god"_ or "_There is only God_."  I do agree with the others, however, that "_There is no god but God_" is acceptable English, but I do not believe that exact phrase would have occurred naturally in English.


Good point. But is the phrase "laa ilaaha illaa llaah" actually natural in Arabic too ? I am not meaning the use of illaa but the opposition between ilaah/god and Allaah/God.

If even in Arabic the formula sounds unusual then the "unusualness" has to be conveyed in translation.


----------



## Mahaodeh

No, it is not unusual at all; you can even say something like لا سيارة إلاالسيارة; the fist is indefinite; it means that there is no car at all. With illa you would have to use a definite word (_the_ car). I don't know whether it sounds unusual in English but it translates literally to "there is no car but _the_ car". So, what I originally meant was that I believe the phrase "there is no god but _The God_" captures the concept better. Whether it's OK or not in English is another matter. I hope I made myself clear but my point is that the second God refers to a particular entity, not a whole category of entities.


----------



## Ander

Mahaodeh said:


> No, it is not unusual at all; you can even say something like لا سيارة إلاالسيارة; the fist is indefinite; it means that there is no car at all


OK, thank you for the info.


> With illa you would have to use a definite word (_the_ car). I don't know whether it sounds unusual in English but it translates literally to "there is no car but _the_ car". So, what I originally meant was that I believe the phrase "there is no god but _The God_" captures the concept better. Whether it's OK or not in English is another matter. I hope I made myself clear but my point is that the second God refers to a particular entity, not a whole category of entities.


God with capital (=upper case) "G" precisely translates "the God" and so does Allah if it is the short form of "al-ilaah".


iangreen said:


> while Allah may have originally been from a contraction of al-ilah, it has a distinctly different meaning and usage than "ilah", i.e., allah (God) is not the same as al-ilah (the god)



I agree. It is the reason why I said the two words are close linguistically. I guess I should have chosen the word etymologically instead.


> Allah is a proper noun


Do you mean it is the very name of God in Islam ? I don't know if the comparison is relevant but according to Jehovah's Witnesses God has the proper name of Jehovah. So they will avoid to use the word God.


----------

