Greetings H2O,
Thanks for finally taking the time to crack open your Lexicon.
Let’s see what you discovered…
Apple wrote:
اللَّه = “allah”
Meaning God, i.e. the only true god.
I’d like to draw your attention to the blatant FACT that “the only true god” has been intentionally left in LOWER CASE by the worlds’ leading Arabist of all time, E. W. Lane!!!
And the blunt fact that “God” is capitalized followed by “i.e.” [ you do know what “i.e.” means right ?] giving its denotation in italics that is suppose to be in lower case.
i.e. means illustrated example.
To enlighten; to clarify; to demonstrate.
Lane is referencing a very specific example in his definition.
It is painfully clear that he is referencing a “god” (lower case) to represent the allah of the Koran.
To re-enforce the fact that the allah of the Koran is no more than a “god”, Lane repeats his very same remarks a few lines farther down in his definition for “allah”, by referencing a separate entry – this time from the legendary “Ta’j el-‘Aroos” (
TA)…
(
TA; ) a proper name denoting
the true god, comprising all the excellent divine names; a unity comprising all the essence of existing things;
I have to ask; just how could you miss this
SECOND reiteration in the definition of the pagan god that you worship?
After all, you took the time necessary to hand-type Lane’s definition (due to the fact that you cannot cut-n-paste lithography – much less reference the pages); and you still missed the message…!
Please pull your head out…
Apple wrote:
Who knew the Koran better than Lane?
Whom did Lane derive his work from ? You will find a long list in the preface of his work and in his entries.
Exactly my point…
Lane’s work is an integration of all previous legendary Lexicography up to the time that Lane personally verified and made his life-study for 34 years.
In short, Lane had the enviable position of pooling together all previous classic resources into one location. Lane had the knowledge of all his predecessors in one location.
Face it, Lane remained a loyal Christian to his death…
Care to venture a reply to this Muslim conundrum…..or would you still rather pretend that I never brought it up…?
You stubbornly refuse to even so much as answer me on this. What a surprise coming from a Mussulman.
Just like you stubbornly refuse to get out of the Denny’s restaurant biz and actually land a job that you went to college for…..lol…as if you actually could…
It is clear now why you are working where you are…
Apple wrote:
Now….why would Lane fail to capitalize “the only true god” if “allah” was the only true god?
Cause you don’t capitalize an “i.e.” denotation when it follows after a noun that is already capitalized. Its merely a proper English style of writing which you would have learnt if you paid attention in English class when they taught journalism.
Wrong.
There is no such rule in English grammar.
Just accept the fact that the god that you now worship is a knock-off of earlier pagan Arabs….
I have…
Apple wrote:
Furthermore, “allah” is derived from the root “ilaha”, which means he served, worshiped, or adored. He was, or became, confounded, or perplexed, and unable to see his right course.
Derived ? Also ilaha is not the verbal root, the root is “alaha”or “aliha” please look at entry of the root. And depending on how the verbal root is used in its aorist can mean either or . The aorist root can also mean “protect” or “aid” why didnt you not mention this also ?
Thanks for acknowledging that “allah” has its true origins in confusion, as you confirmed for yourself in Lane’s definition…
Now lets get back to your derived weak supported info. Lane says:
Quote:
الله{alllaah}, [written with the disjunctive alif الله, meaning God, i.e. the only true god,] accord. to the most correct opinions respecting it, which are twenty in number, (K,) or more than thirty, (MF,) is a proper name, (Msb, K,) applied to the Being who exists necessarily, by Himself, comprising all the attributes of perfection; (TA
a proper name denoting the true god, comprising all the excellent divine names; a unity comprising all the essence of existing things; (Ibn-El’Arabee, TA
the ال being inseparable from it: (Msb: ) not derived : (Lth, Msb, K: ) or it is originally إِلَه {ilaha}…….
The majority support it is not a derived word.
Wrong.
Don’t you know how to read the Lexicon?
All the best Classic Arabic lexicons are root ordered – including lanes…
Do you know why this is…?
The root is the
ORIGIN of the words that follow it.
Hence, “allah” is derived from the root “ilaha”, and
WE already know that the root means idol worship and a state of confusion!
And the possibility of it being originally “ilah” doesn’t hold to much water as Lane noted in his own words :
Quote:
….[إِلَه {ilah} is the same as the Hebrew {eloahh} and the Chaldee {elahh} ; and is of uncertain derivation: accor. to some,]….
You forgot to mention “According to some”….
Who exactly are these “some”?
It is clear that Lane knows the score…
Now as to the opinion by the minority that the name is derived from the verbal root أَلِهَ aliha or alaha as you commented saying in your exegesis based on the supposed derived root:
Apple wrote:
Now….this is interesting, the root of “allah” imputes confusion so that a person cannot see the right way….hmmmm…..now we're getting somewhere…the true god is not clearly the true god – he is merely a confused state of affairs…what a surprise..
Which in fact Lane contradicts you :
Quote:
…some say that it {the name Alllaah}is from أَلِهَ , either because minds are confounded, or perplexed, by the greatness, or majesty, of God, or because He is the object of recourse fro protection, or aid, in every case:…..
LOL…thanks for giving me Lane’s root definition that “allah” is derived from a state of confusion like I already mentioned numerous times before…!
Where you also failed to quote the other aorist meaning of the root word.
Apple wrote:
In addition, “ilaha” means an object of worship or adoration; i.e. a god, a deity; anything that is taken as an object of worship or adoration, according to him who takes it as such; which signifies idols.
Looks like you have a bad habbit of EDITING. This is what Lane says in the entry of that word:
Quote:
إِلَه or إِلاه{ilah}[ the former of which is the more common mode of writing the word,] is of the measure fi’aalun (S, Msb, K, ) In the sense of the measure maf’uulun, (S, Msb, ) like kitaabun in the sense of maktoobun, and bisaaTun in the sense of mabsuuTun, (Msb,) meaning ma,aluuhun [An object of worship or adoration; i.e. a god, a deity]; (S, Msb, K,) anything that is taken as an object of worship or adoration, accord. to him who takes it as such: (K: ) with the article ال , properly, i.q. الله ; [see this word below;] but applied by the believers in a plurality of gods to what is worshipped by them to the exclusion of الله{alllaah}: (Msb: ) plural الِهَة {aalihat}: (Msb, TA: ) which signifies idols: (JK, S, TA: ) in the K, this meaning is erroneously assigned to الِهَة {aalihat}…..
According to Lane and his reference to the plural of ilah, which is aalihat, signified idols and not as your distorted idea, and better yet it was noted as an erroneous applied signification. The word aalihat means “gods”.
Most excellent….
I appreciate your further acknowledgement for the root origins meaning idol(s) and idol worship.
Furthermore, the “error” as mentioned for the “Ka’moos”, only – pertains to the mis-assignment of the same significance to an alternate word.
The “Ta’j el-‘Aroos” (
TA) confirms that
الِهَة means idols.
Apple wrote:
It signifies the goddess; and particularly the SERPENT; because it was a special object of worship of some of the ancient Arabs; or the great SERPENT; and the NEW MOON.
Reference:
An Arabic-English Lexicon, E.W. Lane, volume one, pp. 82 - 83
To bad you couldnt post quote rather than dictate quote what Lane says in his work. Here let our readers see what Lane says in his actual words:
Quote:
الإلاهة {al-ilahat} [is the fem. Of الإلاه {al-ilah}, and] signifies [the goddess: and particularly] the serpant: [(a meaning erroneously assigned in the CK to al-aalihat; as also other meanings here following: ) because it was a special object of the worship of some ancient Arabs:] (K: ) or the great serpant: (Th: ) and the [new moon; or the moon when it is termed]….
The “error” spoken of refers to the Calcutta version of the “Ka’moos” (
CK) only.
Furthermore, this is referring to the mis-assignment of
الإلاهة in the Calcutta version to another word, in this version
ONLY.
The text is clear that the meanings of goddess, serpent; & new-moon are ALL applicable to the understanding to the origins of the god “allah” of Islam….
Face the facts….you worship a pagan Arab rendition “god” that has tried to wrap himself around with Biblical stories.
The god of the Koran is a Pagan Arab idol knock-off…
Pure and simple…
Erroneous it is. Hey Apple why wont you quote Omar’s Lexicon that you have there with you ? I am sure if he didn’t support our view you would have used him without hesitation
I referenced Lane due to the
FACT that you irrevocably accept the word of a Christian over that of a Muslim.
Furthermore, feel free to quote Omar yourself – unless you are afraid of exposing yourself (once again) to one of your many lies (that of the burning of his book, in this case)….
Take care…