Applecry wrote:If the Pagan Arabic idol knock-off “god” that you want to worship was “Arabicized”, as you so dearly want it to be (because you already know the implications of the root), then where does Lane (or anyone else for that matter) mention it as being arabicized…?!.......If your “god” was arabicized, then, first of all, Lane would have specifically mentioned this in his definition – of which he does NOT!
Wrong ! Lane mentions many words that are Arabicised without saying they are Arabicized. The word "Arroom" is an Arabicised form of "Rome" ie "The Romans"
روم The lobe, or lobule, of the ear; (M, K ; ) as also روْم . (K. ) = الرّوم A certain nation, (M, K, ) well known ; (M ; ) [said by the Arabs to be] descendants of Er-Room, the son of Esau ( عيصو [so called by the Arabs]), (T*, S, K, ) the son of Isaac the Prophet ; (TA ; ) [i.e. the Greeks ; generally meaning, of the Lower Empire ; but somtimes, only those os Asia ; and sometimes those of the Lower Empire together with all the nations of Europe beside ; .........
Gog and Magog are Arabicised as Yajooj and Majooj.
مأجوج , (S, Msb, K, ) imperfectly decl., (S, ) [Gog and Magoog ; ] two tribes of God's creatures ; (TA; ) or two great nations ; (Msb ; ) or two tribes of teh children of Japheth the sons of Noah : or as some say the former , of the Turks;...
All the Arabicised words that are paragraphed in entry are not numbered, in which most the words that have absolute certainty to be of Arabic origin are paragraphed in entry are numbered.
Applecry wrote:References:
An Arabic-English Lexicon, E.W. Lane, volume six, p. 298
The Dictionary of the Holy Qur’an, 1st edition, Abdul Mannan Omar, p. 421
Applecry wrote:References:
An Arabic-English Lexicon, E.W. Lane, volume seven, p. 2623
The Dictionary of the Holy Qur’an, 1st edition, Abdul Mannan Omar, p. 500
Theological Wordbook of the Old Testament (TWOT), R. Laird Harris, Gleason L. Archer, Jr., Bruce K. Waltke, pp. 425 - 426
Thank you for quoting
Omar in support of your arguement of Arabicised words. You should have stuck to
Lane, now you opened this up on your self to show how hyprcritcal you are. Now this allows us to quote what he says about the name
Alllaah that you have used as reference but hid in your wantoness.
Allah
It is the proper noun applied to the Supreme Being, who is the sole possesor of all perfect attributes, who is free from all defects and who exist necessarily by Himself. It is not a common noun. All Divine attributes mentioned in the Quran are qualities of the proper name Allah. No other language has a distinctive name for the Divine Being. The names found in other languages are either attributive or descriptive and can be used in the plural form, but the word Allah is never used for any other thing, being or deity. It is never used as a qualifying word. Sibwaih and Khalil say, Since "Al" in the begining of the word Allah is inseperable from it so it is a simple substantive, not derived from any word. The word Allah is not a contraction of al-ilah, as some people tend to believe, but quite a different word.
The Dictionary of the Holy Qur’an, 1st edition, Abdul Mannan Omar, page 28
Omar quotes
Sibwaih and
Khalil (whom are not Ahmadiyyah muslims) whom is obviously quoting
Edward W. Lane also.
Lane makes mention of authority in his work that the name is
NOT DERIVED whom listed it as "
the most correct opinions respecting it" whom only lists some of the authority and not all of them that numbered over 30 in which
Omar also mentions some of them.
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.....
Edward William Lane, Arabic Lexicon
Lane in his Preface xxvi says :
I have inserted nothing in my lexicon without indicating at least one authority for it, except interwoven additions of my own which I have ivariably distinguished by enclosing them between square brackets. [ ]
It is evident that you use
Omar or
Lane when it suits you to do so, ignoring the authority of the other if it is
against you, however it is evident from you if Omar said oposite you would have quoted him. You used
Omar as a source of authority which you should not have done, this allowed us to use it
AGAINST you when you know very will the source you used as authority
contradicts your wanton efforts to prevert such a word with your evil ambition.
The enemies of Islam, a popular anti Islam website, have summed up
Lane about the derivation of the word says :
The spelling (rasm) "'lyh" was even involved in finding the ultimate orthography for God's name "Allaah" in Arabic. It is hard to believe that "Allaah" goes back to Arabic "al-'ilaah", as
Edward William Lane summarizes the traditional theoretical efforts of the Arab grammarians in his Arabic-English Lexicon...........
http://answering-islam.org.uk/Quran/Sources/alaha2.html
They summoned Lane's work to
refute the name is derived from the word
ilah and its theory contraction or even its supposed root which is even doubted it self of being derived from aliha or alaha Arabic root in Lanes work.
The Arabic root does not support tripple
L or a
Y radical which are part of the name
Alllaah
We will leave this like it is, respond as you wish, we know you will inorder to defend your pride. Verily it must be a black thing
See you on another thread (((( waves ))))