Interesting question. Can't say I know where to come down on the point of giving slightly different concepts of god their own particular term, but I do find it funny that in US right-y media like FOX, Muslims are always referred to as worshipping 'Allah,' which is then spoken as though it referred to some pagan/violent/un-Christian sort of idol. Of course said righties want to ignore the question of shared origins with Islam to the extent possible.

Funny thing is that in North India the Persian word "khuda" and even the Arabic "rabb" are used interchangeably with the Hindi word for god without much fuss about what they reference historically (at least at the level of common interaction).

There are two linguistic things that have always bothered me about Muslims speaking English. One is the "Allah as God" phenomenon, and I object to it for more or less the same reasons you do. The second is referring to `Isa rather than Jesus. I don't really see any point of this, but I do realize that there is a distinction in that Muslims call him `Isa whereas Christians call him Yasu`. Either way, the distinction doesn't really exist in English and I can't think of any reason why it should.

We could, of course, always use Allah when we are writing about various Arabic-speaking Christians, too, of course...

Regarding the names of various prophets and patriarchal celebrities, do not Arabic-speaking Muslims call John the Baptist Yahya, but Christians use some other form like Yohanna or something, in order, I suppose, to get their yahya's out. (Apologies for that to The Rolling Stones and all you readers).

Well, following up on the earlier point, I dug around for a bit looking for a computerized translator that would translate the word "Allah" in the Christmas message from the Latin Patriarch of Jerusalem into "Allah" and not "God." Funnily, I couldn't find any--which makes me wonder whether there's a convention among their programmers not not to translate "Allah" or something. Curious indeed.

A question for SP: are you talking about North Indian Muslims? That would be peculiar--I always did wonder whether there were significant groups of non-Arabic Muslims who normally used the term other than "Allah" to refer to God...

I am of a divided mind. On this. Being used to seeing it, but at the same time logically I should prefer consistency.

I would note that in my francophone experience, in ordinary terms bilinguals translate rather than import the Arabic, unless taking a fixed phrase. But much inconsistency.

And yes, SP is talking about northern Indian Muslims. Banglas etc.

Actually, was talking about north Indian Hindus, mostly,though "khuda" is more used by Muslims generally. Old Gandhian slogan that you still find painted up in small town train stations where they haven't got around to painting them over says "The ishwar of the Hindus, the Isa of the Christians and the Allah of the Muslims is the same" (something like that, it's in Hindi). But you won't find anyone using Allah who isn't Muslim, and the stock Muslim characters in films always have "Allah" lines.

To answer your question, KH, there are Indian Muslims who regularly refer to "khuda" - for some reason it tends to be associated with Pathans too.

"Using a different foreign word "Allah" instead of "God" suggests that Muslims do not worship, as they purport to do, the Prime Mover, the Lord of all the worlds."

From a non-Arabic/Muslim perspective perhaps. From a Muslim perspective the same logic could be used to say that using "God" instead of Allah suggests they do not worship "Prime Mover, the Lord of all the worlds."

And I have certainly seen arguments to that effect in suggestions that Arab Christians should not be allowed to use "Allah."

A related note, Arabic speaking Christians are hard put to say "I am not a Muslim" in Arabic.

I am not Muslim or a native speaker of Arabic, and I prefer to translate "Allah." But going back to the perspectives question, I wonder if there is a difference in willingness to translate "Allah" or not between those who are more open to accomodation and those who are less so, a divide that might also show up in English speaking Christian use of "God" or "Allah" as well as Muslim. I suspect that is the case, and random impressions for English speaking Muslims could support it, but I don't know if anyone has looked at it sytematically.

An interesting discussion by a scholar (once taught World Religions at Jeddah's Abdul-Aziz University before "coming to his senses" (pardons) and teaching back in the USA, Dr. Umar Faruq AbduLlah defends the use of "God" for english-speaking muslims on both philologic and theological grounds.

"One God, Many Names" can be read at: http://www.nawawi.org/downloads/article2.pdf
off the webpage summation:
"One God, Many Names
This paper addresses the primordial origin of the divine names of God in order to establish the equivalency of the Biblical ‘God’ to Islam’s ‘Allah’ and the need for American Muslims to embrace both. While Muslims affirm that they worship the ‘God of Abraham,’ recently America’s religious right has denied this common ground. This point is aided by English-speaking Muslims’ avoidance of the word ‘God,’ due to an erroneous assumption that ‘Allah’ alone carries legitimacy."

I remember that the notes accompanying the anthrax attacks on congress in 2001 said 'Allah is Great'. I also remember thinking at the time that the phrase was one that few Muslims would use.

That, and the fact that the attacker went after relative non-entities in the US legislature, suggested that it was an American non-Muslim trying to put the G-men off the scent rather than a bona fide al-Qaedaist.

Slightly tangentially: The Bible Society in Turkey decided to use a translation of the Gospel that used some Ataturk-defined old Turkic word for "God" instead of "allah". When my dad asked one of the Bible society guys if that was intended to imply that their God and Allah were not the same person, he said, well, more or less, yes.

Kao-
"I always did wonder whether there were significant groups of non-Arabic Muslims who normally used the term other than "Allah" to refer to God..."

I believe persian muslims use the term "khuda".

"Allah" is the combination of the Arabic words 'al' [the] and 'ilah' [god], as you might already know - so in effect, it means "The God". I don't see why Muslims have a problem in saying 'God' instead of 'Allah' and translating 'Allah' as 'God' - it means one and the same thing, after all! Maybe, because so many Muslims are used to saying 'Allah' in their prayers, while reading the authentic Arabic Qur'an etc., they find it a bother to keep interchanging between terms for the listener's benefit. But translation? Yeah, I agree, it should be translated as 'God' and vice-versa.

On the subject of Non-Arab Muslims using the word 'Allah', I think usage of the word 'Allah' is more common among Pathans, Balochis, South-Indians, Indonesians, Filipino etc., but north-Indians and Iranians like to stick to the word 'Khuda'.

So long as Muslims tend to use "Allah", it means there is less chance of a Danish cartoons-style furore over all us infidels taking the Lord's name in vain.

I frequently use "God" as a swear word, but if I substituted that with "Allah", the consequences would be cataclysmic. So I would rather that Muslims stuck to Allah, so I can keep swearing with God. If that makes any sense.

*awaits lightning bolt*

Sucretdubai,

Allah be bikini,

Allah be short...

Those are a soft variety, I will refrain from quoting the ugly ones. Depending on the dialect, swearing with God is probably even more common in Arabic than any other language I'm aware of (except perhaps for Spanish when used by Basques)...

On the subject of Non-Arab Muslims using the word 'Allah', I think usage of the word 'Allah' is more common among Pathans, Balochis, South-Indians, Indonesians, Filipino etc., but north-Indians and Iranians like to stick to the word 'Khuda'.

Malays use "Tuhan" in most translations of Arabic, be it Quran or elsewhere. In spoken usage, it is mixed. Ritual expressions in daily language like inshallah and mashallah are in Arabic, while a person speaking about God in conversation is more likely to use "Tuhan". I would hazard that this is true for Indonesians too, but I don't know for sure.

Stumbled across this today - the US righty interpretation of Allah vs Jesus:

http://www.cafepress.com/buy/jesus+allah/-/pv_design_details/pg_1/id_16666584/opt_/fpt_/c_360/

Matthew - you've inspired Brian Whitaker in his blog-column today:

http://commentisfree.guardian.co.uk/brian_whitaker/2007/01/allah_versus_god.html

For me this is really a non issue.

It made a big splat when Lounsbury traveled to someone else's blog to attack his usage of Arabic religious words. He seems to have been completely unaware of the fact that many born Muslims, Arab speaking and non Arabic speaking, routinely use these words in Arabic, even when speaking in English.

I say this as an American born Muslim convert who speaks Arabic and has lived in Muslim communities in North Africa, the Middle East, Europe and the USA. As many Muslims I have met, there are just as many different ways of doing things and different reasons for doing them.

Not only did he attack the usage in English, he attacked the way in which the Arabic was presented, again seemingly unaware that in academic and religious discussion dialect is not generally used, rather fus7a, or MSA(Modern Standard Arabic).

Like I said before, go to any Friday prayer and you'll be hard pressed to listen a Khateeb giving his khutba in the local street dialect, rather it will be in the formal, academic manner that he derided someone else for.

Academic and religious studies would be the same. There is a reason why Arabic is so strongly stressed in Arabic universities and religious institutions. The usage attacked was the very same usage that one would hear in any lecture given about Islam, or any other academic subject.

I speak Arabic and when I translate I usually translate "Allah" as God. I dont see the issue. Others choose not to, no issue there either. It is a personal choice, nothing more, nothing less.

Again, I think it is a big non issue. What I think is the bigger issue is the way in which some here, including Lounsbury himself, see fit to generalise and stereotype, even attack Muslims for not doing what they think is proper.

How intolerant and bordering on outright ignorance. The Muslim world is huge, it is very diverse, so to make sweeping stereotyped judgements makes one into a fool.

I also find it a bit much for non Muslims to want to think that they should be able to have some sort of a say on how Muslims speak or what language they choose to use.

I wouldnt think of telling a Christian or a Jew what name they should call their God, or even attacking their usage of lanuage when talking about their faith.

If I wanted a lesson in Orientalism I could just as well go read a Bernard Lewish book.

...a Khateeb giving his khutba...

...an imam (or preacher, you pick) giving his sermon...

As an aside, I'll let The Lounsbury speak for himself if he feels like it, but you're really assuming too much about him, and wrongly.

See, for the word 'imam' or 'khateeb' I think there could be a legitimate case for not translating it as preacher or pastor, because it could be a bit misleading to pitch that particular religious office as similar to the Christian equivalent. Al-lah as "the God" is fairly straightforward, par contre.

As an aside, I'll let The Lounsbury speak for himself if he feels like it, but you're really assuming too much about him, and wrongly.

Indeed, the assumptions are revealing.

Indeed, SP, I don't think there is really an English language translation that really matches Khutba or Khateeb, as it would seem to me that their functions don't really match anything a Westerner, not familiar with Islam, would understand. As far as I am concerned, if you would have to provide a lengthy explaination to a non Arabic speaking, non Muslim to explain the differences between a preacher/Khateeb and a sermon and Khutba, one would be right to use the Arabic term.

As to Lounsbury, the way he speaks one would think that he is a well known scholar who feels the right to speak condescendingly to lowly students.

His manner gives rise to such assumptions. If he wants to change that perhaps it would be best to change his manner. If not, he must get used to such assumptions.

He says he speaks Arabic, maybe he ought to pull out the dictionary and look up "Adab"and learn something.

Going to other blogs, lecturing them on their religion in a rude fashion is not good manners. One hopes he doesn't act as arrogantly in person as he does on-line.

Whitaker's Christian jihadists is a nice touch. And Muslim Crusaders too, I suppose.

Indeed, SP, I don't think there is really an English language translation that really matches Khutba or Khateeb, as it would seem to me that their functions don't really match anything a Westerner, not familiar with Islam, would understand. As far as I am concerned, if you would have to provide a lengthy explaination to a non Arabic speaking, non Muslim to explain the differences between a preacher/Khateeb and a sermon and Khutba, one would be right to use the Arabic term.

I, for one, am a Western Muslim, familiar with Islam. I also happen to be pretty fluent in Arabic since it's one of my native tongues. I would be more than happy to understand the difference between a sermon and a khutba, or between a preacher and a khateeb, because so far I don't see any.

I wouldnt think of telling a Christian or a Jew what name they should call their God, or even attacking their usage of lanuage when talking about their faith.

So long as I can blashpheme my arse off in English without anyone burning flags and wailing that I'm insulting their god and issuing death threats, I'm quite happy.

Well, it appears the hurt feelings and irrationalism are the order of the day.

It made a big splat when Lounsbury traveled to someone else's blog to attack his usage of Arabic religious words.

It's called commenting, an ordinary activity in the blogosphere.

Although it appears in certain spheres, one prefers only affirmatory hand jobs as comments, else it is attacking.

He seems to have been completely unaware of the fact that many born Muslims, Arab speaking and non Arabic speaking, routinely use these words in Arabic, even when speaking in English.

Only in your and Sven's bizarre distorted straw man understanding of my comments.

I merely find the usage idiotic, empty, and wrong-headed.

I say this as an American born Muslim convert who speaks Arabic and has lived in Muslim communities in North Africa, the Middle East, Europe and the USA. As many Muslims I have met, there are just as many different ways of doing things and different reasons for doing them.

Well, I spoke as me, and feel no need to trot out my deen or other items. Anyone who reads Lounsbury closely will note however that many of the reactions were badly misplaced as to who I am.

Not only did he attack the usage in English, he attacked the way in which the Arabic was presented, again seemingly unaware that in academic and religious discussion dialect is not generally used, rather fus7a, or MSA(Modern Standard Arabic).

Seemingly unaware?

I rather showed a fuckload more understanding than you have.

My comments had nothing, in the beginning to do with dialect (although your note on Lounsbury showed that your command of Standard Arabic is rather Egyptian in its transcription).

They did have to do with the style of rendition of Standard Arabic.

You can of course continue with your hand waving excuses and distortions, I am sure they will help your deen immensely.

Like I said before, go to any Friday prayer and you'll be hard pressed to listen a Khateeb giving his khutba in the local street dialect, rather it will be in the formal, academic manner that he derided someone else for.

You mean the sermon by the Imam or preacher?

Actually, you'll easily find that most khutba mix formal with "informal" usage, with of course quotations from the Quran the fqih in Classical of various quality, and commentary/explanation in a ... well more popular register.

But that's utterly irrelevant to my critique although it does perhaps reflect on your ignorance

Academic and religious studies would be the same. There is a reason why Arabic is so strongly stressed in Arabic universities and religious institutions. The usage attacked was the very same usage that one would hear in any lecture given about Islam, or any other academic subject.

Moving on:
Again, I think it is a big non issue. What I think is the bigger issue is the way in which some here, including Lounsbury himself, see fit to generalise and stereotype, even attack Muslims for not doing what they think is proper.

Attack Muslims? My you are are pretentious idiot of a whanking idiot.

I criticizing an individual and a sub-set of certain persons of the Islamic faith, not Muslims.

This kind of moronic defensiveness, and the pretension that a specific critique is an attack on Muslims is what discredits.

As for generalising, well, rather obviously one has to sometimes generalise in order to exit from the merely personal.

It's typically called "analysis" or even "commetnary" as opposed to merely personal journals.

How intolerant and bordering on outright ignorance. The Muslim world is huge, it is very diverse, so to make sweeping stereotyped judgements makes one into a fool.

Tired yet of your strawmen and emotive reacting?

I also find it a bit much for non Muslims to want to think that they should be able to have some sort of a say on how Muslims speak or what language they choose to use.

I find it a bit much you think you know my religion, which I keep a private affair.

If I wanted a lesson in Orientalism I could just as well go read a Bernard Lewish book.

Whatever, munafiq.

You want to play identity politics, and mystify what is in fact ordinary. Makes nice for communitarian circling the wagons, but I have no respect for it - whatever your precious foolishness with respect to Khateeb, etc.

As for your idiotic questioning my language, eh mate, what can I say? Adab, well, I prefer Seraha to get to haqq.

You evidently prefer empty moujamelat for empty self-affirmation.

Lounsbury,

In your usual rude and insulting manner, thanks for making my point for me. No need for rebuttal, your own words and tone are witness against you.

I will just mention that my Arabic is hardly Egyptian in nature, most people would say that my accent is decidedly Hijazi. But I did not fail to notice that you seemed to have taken many hours to "notice" my comments in Arabic and then took many hours to respond to them in "Arabic". Or at least one other poster said it was supposed to be Arabic, but he wasnt sure that it was.

Did it take that long for you to find someone to read the Arabic to you and then write out a response for you? You should have picked someone besides a Maghrebi to do so, we know what their Arabic is like. French yes......Berber yes, Arabic no. But nice try anyway.

Shaheen, being raised in a Christian environment it is very clear there is a big distinction between what is traditionally called a "preacher" and a Khateeb. A Khateeb is simply someone who gives a speech. In my years I have seen businessmen, sportsman, respected people in the community, all manner of lay people in the community act as Khateeb.

One does not have to be a specifically religious person, nor a leader of a religious community or organisation which is usually what is meant by a "preacher."

As to the Khutba itself, often the person who gives the Khutba does not even lead the prayer afterwards. I have seen this happen on a fairly regular basis. One person gives the speech, another leaders the prayers.

How often have you seen a Christian minister or Catholic priest give the sermon and then not lead the prayers? Having partaken in Protestant and Catholic services, I have never seen such a thing, but like I said, is common with Muslims.

A Khateeb does have to have any role than just speaking in front of the people at prayers, his role may be nothing more than that.

There is no similar role that I am aware of in mainstream Western Catholic or Protestant tradition.

How often have you seen a Christian minister or Catholic priest give the sermon and then not lead the prayers? Having partaken in Protestant and Catholic services, I have never seen such a thing, but like I said, is common with Muslims.

Actually, there ARE Christian groups (albeit very non-mainstream) where this type of practice takes place routinely, so, by your own logic, this sort of blanket generalization may be unwarranted.

You're claiming, in effect, Islam is so alien a religion to the West that its terms simply are untranslatable. Think again: there had been translations where religious terms crossed even greater cultural barriers (the Catholic missions to Japan and China, specifically.) The same sort of fight you're waging took place, and many strange terms (to a Chinese or a Japanese) were invented: ge-la-ti-ah (I think) for grace; deusu for God, kirishitan for Christian, since these concepts were thought to be totally alien to the "Oriental mindset." Fast forward 4 or 5 centuries, however, not only have most of these terms faded from common usage (there are some exceptions), they actually look decidedly far more alien to the local Christians, as expressions of Christian religion, than the terms derived from Eastern concepts previously deemed so incapable of capturing concepts of Western Christianity.

The problem with the early Christian missionaries in East Asia (indeed, with ANY missionaries anywhere) is that they were contemptuous of the local cultures and traditions and were uninterested in learning about it, let alone find common grounds. They chose instead to impose their terms (literally) on the locals without bothering to explain what they are. This arrogance is one of the reasons why Christianity met with severe persecutions in East Asia.

Now, the Muslims in the West who insist on using the religious jargon unintelligible to the outsiders (even I know for fact that the usage of the jargon is hardly universal among Western Muslims) seem to be playing the same role as the Christian missionaries in, say, 18th century China. To say that there is no useful term for such-and-such concepts in Islam in Western languages underscores only the widespread belief that Islam indeed is a strange and weird religion that somehow doesn't belong in the West by virtue of its "unnatural fit." Indeed, maybe some of its adherents, perhaps in ghettoized neighborhoods in France or England, believe it themselves. Not only is this extremely unhealthy, both for the Muslims and outsiders alike, I find the notion utterly absurd (oh, come on--both Islam and Christianity are monotheistic religions based on Abrahamic traditions....how different are they, really?). The question that Lounsbury posed is a legitimate one, if expressed without much tact (but he's always been guilty of that): is this practice of linguistic exoticism, so to speak, wise? Does this encourage a sort of Orientalism that undermines both Western Muslims and Muslim societies around the world? I think, personally, that Lounsbury's point is essentially right. I also think you are making his point by blowing your top over his criticism of linguistic exoticism indulged in by some Muslims.

Certainly, translations can be hard--but it's the nature of the beast. Ever tried translating "the American League" for the Korean fiction readers of early 1960s? (not something I had to do myself, just one of the more egregious incomprehensible translations that I've seen--but one that makes decent, if not really good, sense given the cultural environment of the audience in question.) (Interestingly, one of the better translation jobs thave I've seen was of Mao's Little Red Book.)

But I did not fail to notice that you seemed to have taken many hours to "notice" my comments in Arabic and then took many hours to respond to them in "Arabic"...Did it take that long for you to find someone to read the Arabic to you and then write out a response for you?

Right, it's not like Aqoul contributors have other preoccupations like jobs, relationships, bloody real life, etc. In truth, we all just sit around hitting refresh and waiting for the next goddamn comment to show up so we can fisk every line.

As for insinuating that L's knowledge of Arabic is merely pretension, well, there is little point in flinging dull barbs his way. It's not even entertaining.

Incidentally, I think Whitaker actually misunderstood Matt. Whitaker says Allah should be translated as God, because it is the same deity theologically, whereas Matt says it should be translated as God because that's what it bloody well means.

Golly. Look at all these comments.

You wood think that something contraversial was being diskussed here.

Only peverted people wood think that Islam werships gOD. It werships Allah.

Thank gOD that gOD and Allah are not the same. That wood be sacrelige for may believers in gOD and sacrelige for believers in Allah.

Is White the same as Black? Well, yes, if you turn out the light.

Bou Snan

You are all pissy because I ain't love and flowers?

In any case: I will just mention that my Arabic is hardly Egyptian in nature,

Well, super. Your writing with the kesrisation felt Egyptian to me. Whatever.

most people would say that my accent is decidedly Hijazi.

And I am sure you import your Thobe Wear from the Hijaz as well.

But I did not fail to notice that you seemed to have taken many hours to "notice" my comments in Arabic and then took many hours to respond to them in "Arabic".

This is one of the stupidest things you have written yet.

I live at least four or five time zones away from you mate. As far as the server logs suggest. Never mind this job thing, this ain't a goddamned chat, now is it?

Or at least one other poster said it was supposed to be Arabic, but he wasnt sure that it was.

Hey, if you fluency is not such that can read it, should I send you a gloss with the Arabic characters? For your edification.

Did it take that long for you to find someone to read the Arabic to you and then write out a response for you? You should have picked someone besides a Maghrebi to do so, we know what their Arabic is like. French yes......Berber yes, Arabic no. But nice try anyway.

Ah, nothing like cheap, second hand Hijazi or better araboubi snobbery.

However, you're rather seriously deluded if you genuinely think I would get someone else to write that, but if it soothes your ego.

Now, that last comment, seems to be some bizarro-world phobic but for the life of me I can't figure it out.

Re comments of Kao
You're claiming, in effect, Islam is so alien a religion to the West that its terms simply are untranslatable.

It's specialitus. Special club, special identity, requires special language. In language. Mystefication.

But in any event, the comment is a good summary of my critique and while, yes, I am rude, I am rude to everyone. I shall be damned if I make an exception to preserve feelings of some cliquish folks out exceptionalism.

Finally, re Whitaker, well it is a different approach, perhaps more theological, to the same observation. Our mate Hogan took a more linguistic approach.

I find your distinctions on the translations of preacher and sermon to be artificial to say the least. Splitting hair.

You should have picked someone besides a Maghrebi to do so, we know what their Arabic is like. French yes......Berber yes, Arabic no.

"We know"? "their Arabic"? You obviously don't know anything about Maghrebis dear. Berber? Kind of like saying Levantines speak Kurdish. Wait, French, but not Arabic? Right, Egyptians speak English, not Arabic.

How often have you seen a Christian minister or Catholic priest give the sermon and then not lead the prayers? Having partaken in Protestant and Catholic services, I have never seen such a thing, but like I said, is common with Muslims.

Actually, there ARE Christian groups (albeit very non-mainstream) where this type of practice takes place routinely, so, by your own logic, this sort of blanket generalization may be unwarranted.

It happens reasonably often even in pretty mainstream moderate Protestant churches, and as far as I can tell is more common in the more conservative Baptist-stype churches. I've never attended Catholic or Orthodox services regularly, so I don't know about those. The Protestant norm is that the minister gives the sermon and also leads the worship, but having someone from the congregation, or some visitor (eg. a visiting missionary) give the sermon - even if they're laypeople - is pretty common.

Re: Christian jihadists: I've taken to privately calling them the "ikhwan al-messihiyiin".

Very minor point on the term "preacher" - probably the one term on which I'd support using "imam" instead, because "preacher" has connotations of not just giving the sermon/tending the flock in the Protestant tradition, but also a sort of evangelising da'wa duty.

Sermon and khutba - close enough to be interchangeable.

Any religion that wants to proselytize or emphasize its distinctiveness in a given setting will use the "our concepts are untranslateable" argument, I suppose, because they couldn't sell the product unless it was New and Improved.

saw this via the carnival of brass feed on my sidebar

uh, couldn't agree more. seriously. it'll be easier for muslims to remove the allah the moon god idiocy if they actually call their deity by the same name.

i think the louns/akram debate had more to do with the more specialized words. (where i think the audience can be taken into consideration).

To clarify or expand a bit, my major point is linguistic as Klaus notes; translators should translate Allah as God.

I also agree and bounced around a bit on the fact that doing so is or ought to be philosophically and theologically correct in Muslim, Christian, and non-beleiver contexts.

But to relate a story badly. One time I referred to a baseball team or some such by a rare but somewhat known colorful nickname. My little nephew said "Who is that?" Somehow I tried to explain how that was an appropriate thing to call the team (let's say the NY Yankees, don't recall) when you are trying to convey such and such (memory not working sorry).

And my brother said to his son, "But you call them the 'New York Yankees' when you want people to know what in the world you are talking about."

The same logic applies to the Allah to God thing in English.

Ali

Yes, indeed, my rather unenlightening convo with Sven and Bou did/does have to do with specialised words, however in many ways with respect to Allah, and other such Arablishisms imported into Muslim discourse in English strike me as all in the same vein.

Some specialised words are indeed required. Imam is natural enough. Fard has a special meaning that Duty can capture I suppose, but depending on the context it may be better to use the specific Fiqh terminology -in my opinion if for an English speaking audience regardless of supposed religion, with an English gloss to avoid mystification.

The fetishisation as well of certain kinds of translits or transcrips as discussed, in combination with a fetish like use of certain Arabic terms in areas where the English is fine strikes me as the same conceptual vein as using Allah in place of God.

It unnecessarily renders Islam a strange, foreign religion and gives cause to those who in the West seek to exagerate the differences and alienate its adherents from the mainstream, to the eventual detriment of those same Muslims.

The reaction accusing me of racism, Orientalism, etc. was at once irrational and tended to underline the identity politics involved (never mind the judgement as to my personal positioning, which I should not complain about given I like to be private in such areas).

Well, a minor rejoinder to SP's comments:

Not so sure if it's always true that proselytization encourages exoticism. Exoticism attracts some, but repels many more. Good missionaries (obviously, not the modern day fundies from North America peddling their version of Christianity abroad) know that alienation doesn't aid their cause in the long run, and they often try to indigenize their faith (Jesuit China missions are a good one--people like Mateo Ricci spent more than a decade learning about Chinese culture--not just of the commoners, but of the upper classes--and spent enormous time making Christianity compatible with Chinese moral/cultural/intellectual mores--including creating appropriate neologism in Chinese to describe Christian concepts and explaining Christianity using Eastern concepts (while other groups tried Ge-la-ti-ah and the like, for example--needless to say that, in the eyes of the Vatican, which side looked better, with unfortunate consequences for many.). This might be something to consider, for the Muslim folks proselytizing in the West as well.

KH - good points, and it's true what you say about good proselytizers pitching their message as compatible with existing beliefs (e.g. the various "saints" who made it into the Christian fold in South America) though my impression was that missionaries from the monotheistic faiths did ultimately aim to get their deity up the ladder from "one of many" that the target community could incorporate into its pantheon to "the only." Of course, the more pragmatic ones will turn a blind eye. I wonder if it holds so much between monotheistic faiths, because then the narcissism of minor differences really comes into play, particularly the trinity vs One God squabbling between Christians and Muslims in a place like Egypt.

Dear MH,

It seems that L's special friend really has problems with Arabic, which puts their ... errr ... interaction in a different light.

--MSK

I would never claim to be a master of Arabic, though in this case the culprit is haste as opposed to poor grammar. As I explained, I absentmindedly pasted from the wrong source.

It's a bit like clicking on the wrong button. Such things happen. The person may well be a dolt but that's not the best evidence for it.

An ironic slip, as I was just about to post a rave about a special tajweed (recitation) Quran that I've been using for practicing my own recitation.

In any case, I also prefer "God" to "Allah" in public discussions in English. It's what I generally do in my blog.

Lounsbury wrote: "The reaction accusing me of racism, Orientalism, etc. was at once irrational and tended to underline the identity politics involved (never mind the judgement as to my personal positioning, which I should not complain about given I like to be private in such areas)."

A clarification: I reacted thus to the seemingly paternalistic and enthocentric implications of the curiously vehement and outraged tone of the feedback, as opposed to the opinions themselves. And then all the implicit assumptions underlying these declarations about everyone posturing, ghettoizing themselves, etc.

The irony is that I share some of these concerns. For example, one of my pet peeves is the tendency of many Muslims to insist on intoning Islamic vocab and even normal English words with what are to an English speaker's ear quite ugly and alien nasalized Gulf accents. Or, yes, the overuse of Arabic terminology when speaking to non-Arab audiences. (Which as much as I like him, is one of my complaints about Hamza Yusuf, btw--I think he inadvertantly reinforces unheathly attitudes at times with his almost compulsive bilingualism. The subtext ends up being that you can't do real thinking unless you're doing it in Arabic, which is absurd.)

Well, mate, as I said, we have different views, but I don't particularly want to keep whacking away at each other.

Curiously outraged tone was merely my ordinary expression of annoyance. My particular idiom as it were. I dislike those usages which are particuarly prevalent in certain Anglophone Muslim quarters, and reading your post "inspired" as I am deeply annoyed by such usages. A button pushed, and I am of a naturally prickly nature.

Now, as to the implicit assumptions, well, I rather disagree regarding paternalism and the like, but then my penchant for privacy renders my point of view obscure so fair enough reaction.

Now that we've poked each other in the eyes, shall we declare peace?

While I agree that in normal circumstances the "God" is adequate, there are some potential disadvantages, depending on what your religious sensibilities are.

All words have baggage, stylistic conventions and connotations based on culture, history and usage. For example, KAFIR literally means "ingrate" (as in one who rejects God), but in everyday use it obviously means something far specific and geo-political, "infidel".

While there's nothing inherently objectionable about the word "God", I do think that due to the gradual secularization of language that has accompanied America/UK/Australia's modern religious evolution, it is in some ways *harder* to express traditional Islamic piety using English words only.

For example, for many Americans an exclamation of "Praise God!" rightly or wrongly conjures up images of conservativism if not "Bible thumping", whereas the Islamic expression "Alhamdulillah!" operates differently--even in English, I would contend--because it continues to be widely used among Muslims.

Simililarly, while I make a concession on my blog to keep it reasonably accessible, as a Muslim I don't like to refer to refer God or His Prophets by their first names, if you will. Just I don't presume to address my professors by their first names, I prefer like to be a little more formal and deferential (e.g., I'm quite fond of the Urdu expression "Allah mian", or saying "Rasul Allah" for Muhammad or "Hazrat Isa" for Jesus).

In our spiritually impoverished culture today, it isn't easy to do the same thing in English without sounding like a preacher's son or just hopelessly archaic.

Ironically, the very same contemporary cultural and linguistic sensibilities that make excessive resort to Arabic offputting and distracting sometimes necessitate resorting to foreign terms at times. For example, today there is simply no equivalent in English for "subhanallah" (said upon hearing sad news). "What a pity" or "I'm so sorry" don't even come close to expressing the mix of sympathy, spirituality, and resignation to God's will. Perhaps there is some equivalent deep back in the recesses of cultural lexicon (e.g., "There but for the grace of God go I"), but it's probably not something one comfortably sprinkles in normal conversations.

Finally, there's the fact that the use of many of the equivalent religious expressions in English tend to be perceived as intrusions of religion into "normal" life. Take how rare the expression, "God willing" is, or how differently "Bless you" sounds from "God bless you". That doesn't make them inapparopriate but changes the dynamic and can shift attention. (Granted, the choice to use Arabic expressions in ENglish also has obvious connotations, especially in mixed groups, but nonetheless I think they are sometimes the only way I know to express certain feelings.)

None of this, I think, contradicts your contention that there's nothing wrong with saying "God" in English.

Or in other languages, for that matter. For example, I find it quite irritating how a lot of South Asian Muslims have taken in recent years to saying "Allah hafiz" instead of the customary "Khuda hafiz". THe implication is that its somehow impious to say "Khuda". Tell that to Rumi!

However, while I'm the first to admit that it isn't the best choice for every situation, I don't agree for a minute that "Allah" is ever *wrong*. There are a pro's and con's to any choice,a nd from a Muslim perspective it is the name that He chose for Himself in His final revelation. That gives it a special status, inherently above all others.

Thanks.

Fair enough, Lounsbury. I actually wasn't trying to start up again and regretted not making that more explicit. Was just trying to note my different take on the situation and the arguments made.

Also, my aim is to discuss the ideas of debates as opposed to the people involved in said debates. Language is always open to multiple interpretations.

So, yes, we can move on.

Allah meets God and they shake hands. They are one.

My work is done here.

Astaghfirllah's for the anthropomorphism.

It is interesting to me that this is any kind of controversy. Ilah is the arabic word for "god" or "diety". It's semitic root is "eloyhim", ancient Hebrew for "god" or "diety". Zeus is not the Greek word for "god", it is the proper name of one. Thus it is with Yahweh, or Allah. Anyone who has ever read the Quran can plainly see that these two entities are opposites in personality and demeanor.
Most importantly, the Quran itself can answer this question. Surah 5, verse 4: "Pronounce the name of Allah; and fear Allah; for Allah is swift in reckoning." Surah 8, verse 45: "O believers! When you meet an army, be firm, and think of Allah's name much; that you may prosper." Surah 20, verse 8: "Allah! there is no Ilah(God) save Him. His are the most beautiful names. To Him belong the most beautiful attributes."
Unless, of course, you wish to use the islamic god's other name: Ar-Rahman. Surah 55, verse 1: "Ar-Rahman bestowed the Qur'an. He created man. He has taught man eloquent speech(and intelligence). The sun and the moon are made punctual, following courses, thet revolve to a computation." Surah 13, verse 30: "They do not believe in Ar-Rahman. Tell them, 'He is my Lord. There is no other Ilah(God) but He. In Him I have placed my trust.'"
So, it should be clear to anyone that Allah(or Ar-Rahman) are proper names.

You mean like theGod is a proper name and not same as God?

What a maroon!

I find that the generic/proper name distinction eventually breaks down once you look at etymology. By that standard, quite few names are truly unique. Zeus, for example, comes from DEUS, God. Jupiter originally was DEUS PATER (God the Father). Hercules/Heracles which means "the Kleos [glory] of Hera" (it is Hera's famous curse on Hercules that necessitates his eponymous labors). And so it goes.

As for the status of the name Allah, my understanding this is not a settled issue, as people tend to assume. Some accept classical sources claim that it is not a contraction but a proper name that never was applied to idols in pre-Islamic times. From that standpoint, it's more a play on words, I think.

For the reason already mentioned, it's not something I get terribly worked up over.

Incidentally, it's fascinating how some polemical literature against Islam--especially coming from the Christian Right--absurdly argues that the Islamic God's alleged lack of a proper name proves Islam is just another fradulent primitive religion with roots in paganism (a la the Moon God nonsense).

They evidently don't realize that Jesus Christ is not strictly speaking a proper name. The former is derived via Greek from the Aramaic Yeshouah, which means "salvation" and which in other contexts is translated as Joshua! The latter means of course "annointed one".
http://www.hadavar.net/nameofjesus.html

Then there's Yahweh, which seems to mean "I am who I am". Perhaps that more oblique summary of God's essence lends itself more to mysticism, but is it ontologically different from "the God", assuming that is the correct meaning of the name Allah? Seems an arbitrary and self-serving line to draw.

Sorry, not "deus"(Latin) but "deos" (Greek). Or whatever the original Indo-European word was. You get the point.

As referenced earlier, the Quran itself does not use "Allah" as a generic word meaning "theGod"(maroon), so why do you insist on using it as such? BTW Allah is a pre-islamic moon god. His daughters names were Al-Lat(the feminine usage of allah), Al-Manat, and Al-Uzza. Ar-Rahman was the proper name of a Yemeni moon god.

Fascinating stuff. Thanks. Hopefully, there'll be more exchanges like this and not silly name-calling nonsense.

Hmm, the insistence of the troll(s) is starting to annoy me...so let's see:

Sven went through a very good overview of the etymology of the Latin word Deus and Greek Theos--as derived from the proto-Indo-European terms that may or may not have referred to a specific deity--and which apparently gave rise to the names like Zeus or Jupitor. So, are Christians a bunch of idolators who worship some big guy who liked to have sex with humans and threw thunderbolts at people/things he didn't like? By the loony analogy of the maroons, apparently, they do.

In old Hebrew, God was referred to as "El" and "Ba'al." While they can be relatively generic words (the latter, for example, meaning "lord") they were also names of specific gods from various ancient Semitic peoples--Babylonians, Phoenicians, Carthaginians, etc. So, do Jews worship some weird desert god? (I sometimes wonder whether this is where the desert moon goddess rubbish came from--if so, then the entire Judeo-Christian-Muslim faith would be worshipping the same deity, since the etymology is about 5000 years old.)

Lee,

here are those verses cited by you, but in actual translation:

Surah 5, verse 4: "Pronounce the appellation for God; and fear God; for God is swift in reckoning."

Surah 8, verse 45: "O believers! When you meet an army, be firm, and think of God's appellation much; that you may prosper."

Surah 20, verse 8&9: "God! there is no Ilah (god) save Him. His are the most beautiful descriptions. To Him belong the most beautiful attributes."

Surah 55, verse 1: "The Merciful One bestowed the Qur'an. He created man. He has taught man eloquent speech(and intelligence). The sun and the moon are made punctual, following courses, they revolve to a computation."

Surah 13, verse 30: "They do not believe in The Merciful One. Tell them, 'He is my Lord. There is no other Ilah (god) but He. In Him I have placed my trust.'"

Texts make sense only when you take into account their context. Learn Arabic before you peddle your silly nonsense.

--MSK

The reason Jews and Christians refer to Yahweh as "El', or "God" is because they have misinterpreted the Third Commandment (Exodus 20, verse 7: "You shall not take the name of the Lord, your God in vain") to mean that even mentioning his name(Yahweh) is sacreligious, or blasphemous. So, they simply refer to Him as "Lord" or "God" as if the word that describes what He is is His proper name. So, when the Quran states over and over that "Allah" is the name of the islamic "ilah", or "god", and the Quran is "the unalterable word of Allah", it seems to me that you are contradicting the "word of Allah" himself, not me. BTW: "troll" and "maroon" sounds like silly name-calling to me, yet you started this; I'm merely playing in the patch YOU chose!

That may be the pikthal translation, but Noble by Mushin Kahn translates it the way I typed it. Noble by mushin Kahn, published by the Fahd Foundation, by the way. Are you saying they don't know arabic?

they have misinterpreted the Third Commandment

Oh, YOU know the TRUTH about the Third Commandment, just as YOU know the TRUTH about the moon goddess of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, while EVERYONE ELSe have been misinterpreting. Right....

The actual Third Commandment should be thus: "You shall not "nasa"(advance or accept) the "shem"(character or mark) of Yahweh(I Am-the Creator's name) your "elohiym"(diety) in "shav"(an evil,destructive, deceptive, or false manner), for Yahweh shall not hold him "naqah"(clean, innocent, or blameless) who "nasa"(advances or accepts) His "shem"(character or mark) "shav"(evilly,destructively,deceptively, or falsely). Now, let's look at Allah's character or mark: Allah leads men astray; he seals hearts, blinds eyes, and plots against human kind. He is depicted interrogating and torturing the inhabitants of hell, a place created for his entertainment. Humans are turned on a spit and given fresh skin each time one burns off so that the torment might be eternal. Allah pours boiling water down our throats, makes us eat pitch and thorns. And this punishment isn't for the few, but for the many. Only one in a thousand avoids being tortured. Yet even they go to a place of decadence-a four-star brothel with the best of foods, free-flowing wine, and virginal attendants. Allah loves warriors; he craves death and destruction. He brags about his participation in terror, mass murder, the enslavement of women and children, and thievery. Allah claims booty as lawful and good. Sounds to me that Islam advances the character of God evilly, destructively, deceptively, and falsely. In other words, the Third Commandment instructs us to confront Islam, Catholocism, all "organized religions", etc. BTW I'm not the ONLY one.

Lee,

you are not having a conversation/discussion with us here but are trying to spew your Islamophobia (and hatred of Catholicism & "all organized religions").

If you are ready to actually engage on an equal level, let us know. But until then ... you're wasting your & our time here.

And ... "I'm not the ONLY one" is hardly a proof of anything. Until a few hundred years ago the vast majority of humans thought the Earth is flat.

--MSK

I guess you're right. Since any view that contradicts yours isn't seen as an intellectual discussion of the historical facts, and the Quran really doesn't say what it says, but merely an expression of "Islamophobia" intended to end the discussion like other discussion-ending words like "racist" or "heretic"(which people who cannot argue with facts use as an expression of their intolerance), I'll leave this blog to the terror apologists and other "practioners of the religion of peace" to continue spouting "Al-Takeya", the legal lie.

Svend

Sorry Sahbi, I myself wasn't clear, I understood your message in exactely that framework -or more or less- please put down the curtness to being pressed for time. My new position has reduced my time even more than before. So no worries, we can put down our whacking away to talking past each other and take away the positives.

As to the substance of your comment supra to that, I don't disagree on some level. For example, bismillah, subhanallah - fixed terms that come naturally to me. Deen, well, rubs me the wrong way evidently as I see it as stepping into the unnecessary. A judgement call, to be sure, but I remain of the opinion that the Anglophone Muslim communities in UK, USA and Canada are tending to using Arabic in English more than necessary, to the effect of rendering Islam alien. I am concerned about that.

As for the new oddball... I am too busy for this sort of empty dialogue.

Here is my take :

In Islam, there are 99 names for God. Each is merely a sign, a reference. There is a (henceforth declining) belief, either religious or superstitious, that there exists a real name for God but no one knows it, and no one should dare to know it. Myth has it that whoever encounters it will die on the spot. That means that the remaining 99 names are merely respectful signs to refer to the Irrepresentable. So the name Allah or any of the other names do not have any divine characteristic per say since the divine is beyond the human and thus beyond human language too. They are human words to represent that which is outside of the linguistic domain (the universal). That said, the name Allah is human and there is no blasphemy in translating it to the English word God (another sign). This is also the take of Jews which in general even try to avoid the sign (G-d, YHWH).

http://www.sublimereason.com

We got it, the Muslim god, Allah, is a Goa'uld.

the Quran really doesn't say what it says

Just for the sake of accuracy - I don't go on pointless debates with nuts your kind, MSK's right, your pretense to want to discuss notwithstanding - but for those who are not familiar with Islam, the things you're mentionning do not come from the Quran. In fact, much of what you attribute to Islam isn't even part of any apocryphal tradition.

Whew. I read the whole post, but didn't get through all the comments, so pardon me if this is repetitive.

While I personally do agree with you, I recall what a Moroccan professor at a particular prestigious US university once said:

"I will use 'Allah' even in English because the English word God can mean 'the one God' or 'many gods' as in the Roman or Greek gods."

Seems logical enough, and I'm surprised you didn't touch on that. Of course, that's irrelevant to the Western media's usage, but it's similar as to why Arabic speakers would never say "arrub" to mean God (that's Algerian dialect, isn't it?) or Allah - because it can be God or it can be "the gods."

Anyhow, just my two cents.

arrub is sometimes used to refer to God, but it means father, or more precisely he who raises. As for Allah, just like God, it has its plural form (Aliha) and the Greek gods are called Alihat Al Younaan in Arabic, so I don't see the Professor's point.

http:www.sublimereason.com

As to the Moroccan professor, he was and no doubt remains and utter idiot.

"I will use 'Allah' even in English because the English word God can mean 'the one God' or 'many gods' as in the Roman or Greek gods."

The capitalisation of God has the same effect as the al prefix in Arabic, it makes it clear one refers to the single God of the Abrahamic tradition.

Don't repeat moronic tripe just because an evidently retarded professor in however prestigious a university made a moronic observation.

Do you read well? I said quite clearly I did not share said professor's opinion.

I read perfectly well, your writing however lacked clarity.

I think all this fuss amounts to making a mountain out of a molehill.

I would agree if a Muslim instead of saying: "We must all, with God's permission preach Muslim morality" said aomething like: "Bi idhnillaah we must all do the tableegh of the Akhlaaq Al Muslimah", it would be over the top.

But surely using ALLAH to denote God while speaking English should not be considered excessive.

English itself has accepted many terms of the languages of Christianity. Will we have to stop saying MESSIAH or EUCHARIST or HALLELUJAH just to please the 'purists'?

So, calm down. It's not such a big issue. And anyway, why the fuss when EVERY English-speaker knows exactly what ALLAH means.

I would agree if a Muslim instead of saying: "We must all, with God's permission preach Muslim morality" said aomething like: "Bi idhnillaah we must all do the tableegh of the Akhlaaq Al Muslimah", it would be over the top.

Certainly.

But surely using ALLAH to denote God while speaking English should not be considered excessive.

Depends who they are talking to, or their own preferences, but for translators the translation should be God.

English is imbued with Christianity. It is not with Islam, it sounds like gibberish 90% of the time, whereas Christian technical language sounds like gibberish 45% of the time.

So, calm down. It's not such a big issue.

It is, when it confuses people about the faith of a billion people they fear might carry bombs under their headgear, and who inhabit countries we occupy.

And anyway, why the fuss when EVERY English-speaker knows exactly what ALLAH means.

Most think it means that alien creature the alien Muslims worship, probably the Moon God of the desert.