The Origin of the Name Allah1

1. Introduction

According to Muslim tradition, the most beautiful names of Allāh [asma’ Allah al-husna] are ninety-nine in number, all of which are found, in one form or another, in the Holy Qur’an (7:180; 17:110; 20:8; 59:24). As the essence of Allah, Islam, and the Qur’an, the divine names have played an important role in the interpretation of Islamic scripture.2 Invoked in prayer and in common speech, the divine names are also employed during dhikr or remembrance of Allah. These ninety-nine names, one hundred minus one, form the core of the Allah Lexicon, and the source from which the original body of expressions were drawn.3

In the following pages we will examine the most beautiful names and how they form the philosophical foundation of the Allah Lexicon. We will see that among the Sufis, be they Sunni or Shi‘i, the ninety-nine names take on heightened significance as steps along the path of spiritual perfection.4 Beyond its evident social functions, the Allah Lexicon belongs to the spiritual sphere, reaching its peak in the universal archetype of the Perfect Person who, by reaching the state of sublime submission, has become the microcosmic manifestation of all the divine names. Let us now examine the ninety-nine most beautiful names, commencing with the name Allah itself, whose philological origin has been one of the most difficult to discern, and which continues to puzzle Arabic linguists.

2. The Origin of the Name Allah

While the Arabic language has one of the richest vocabularies in the world, Allah5, its most important content word, the one with the highest functional yield, has been a source of controversy since the dawn of Arabic linguistics.6 In fact, some speculate that the mysterious origin of the name Allah may be a reflection of the mystery of the Divine Essence.

According to Razi (d. 1210), al-Khalil, Sibawayh (d. 8th c.), and most of the formulators of the Muslim fundamentals [al-usuliyun], held that the word Allah was murtajal, namely, that it had no derivation.7 The position of this group of scholars is summarized by Muhammad ‘Ali in the following terms:

The word Allah being a proper name is jamid, that is to say, it is not derived from any other word. Nor has it any connection with the word ilah [god or object of worship], which is either derived from the root aliha, meaning tahayyara or “he became astonished,” or it is a changed form of walah from the root waliha, which means “he became infatuated.” It is sometimes said that Allah is a contracted form of al-ilah, but that is a mistake, for if al in Allah were an additional prefix, the form ya Allah, which is correct, would not have been permitted since ya al-ilah or ya al-Rahman are not permissible. Morever, this supposition would mean that there were different gods [alihah, pl. of ilah], one of which became gradually known as al-ilah and was then contracted into Allah. This is against the facts, since Allah ‘has always been the name of the Eternal Being’ (Hughes). Nor has the word Allah ever been applied to any but the Divine Being, according to all authorities on Arabic lexicology. The Arabs had numerous ilahs or gods but none of them was ever called Allah, while a Supreme Being called Allah was recognized above them all as the Creator of the universe (29:61), and no other deity, however great, was so regarded. (‘Ali 156-57)

These arguments are echoed in Lane’s Arabic-English Lexicon, where he states that “Allah…is the proper name applied to the Being who exists necessarily, by Himself, comprising all the attributes of perfection, a proper name denoting the True God...the al being inseparable from it, not derived.”

According to another group of linguists, the word Allah was borrowed from the Hebrew Eloh or the Aramaic Alaha. Whether or not it was borrowed, the word Allah does indeed appear to be closely related to similar words found in Hebrew, Aramaic, and ancient Arabic or Sabaean (Lane 82: Oxford Hebrew and English Lexicon, 61). In Genesis 1:1, the name for God is Elohim, a plural form of [eloh]. This is undoubtedly the original pronunciation, but the Bible as it is pointed today, and in latter Hebrew, the word is elo’ah, with the accent on the “o.” If one looks up the root alef-lam-heh (a-l-h) in Milon Ben-Y’hudaah’s Ivri-Angli [BenYehuda's Hebrew-English Dictionary] one finds that the root itself is derived from an older word, el, meaning God, deity, power, strength.

Whether alef-lam-heh is derived from aleph-lam it presently impossible to acertain as little is known about the bilateral roots that may have been around in the earliest stages of Proto-Semitic. Without diacritical marks, the Hebrew eloh can easily be pronounced as alah. The pronunciation of eloh may be a later form of the original alah. The Canaanitic Shift, a linguistic phenomenon, supports this. In Hebrew, the following phonetic changes may have taken place: a>e; a>o, u>o, s>sh, b>v, hence you have eloh instead of alah and musha instead of musa, shalom instead of salam, and navi instead of nabi. Not surprisingly, the name for God is alah in Aramaic, alaha in Syriac, which is a dialect of Aramaic, both of which are related to the Proto-Semitic word for god which is il (Oshana). As Giron explains, there are “obvious linguistic and etymological connections between the respective words for God in these closely related Semitic languages [e.g. Allah, Alah, and Eloh being related to Ilah, Eel, and El, respectively].” He concludes that “the ancient Semitic names for God [Allah and Elohim] are actually the same.”

According to the majority of linguists, however, the name Allah is derived [mushtaqq, manqul] from al-ilah, “the God,” “the One God” or, better yet, “the Divine.”8 This of course is the same as the Hebrew el, the Ugaritic il, and the Akkadian ilu, all of which express the sense of “power.” If Allah is derived from al-ilah, then it is not of Hebrew or Aramaic origin. Whether Arabic is the mother of all Semitic languages, as some scholars claim, is highly controversial and is presently impossible to prove or disprove empirically.9 Whether Semitic languages can even be subjected to the hierarchies found in the Indo-European family is questionable. As the Dutch scholar Kees Versteegh cautions, “there is little basis for a genealogical classification of the kind current in Indo-European linguistics, and it may be preferable to stay within the bounds of a descriptive and typological analysis of the relationships between Arabic and its Semitic neighbors” (21). The claim that Arabic is the youngest of the Semitic languages is clearly erroneous as it is based on the recency of the Namara stone which preserves the earliest example of written Arabic. As Yasir Suleiman explains, “Tying the age of a language to the date of its first written records is based on an untenable premise that ties language to writing” (2006).

If it was confirmed that ancient Arabic was the common ancestor of the Central Semitic languages, namely, the old Arabian languages, and the northern Semitic languages like Ugaritic, Canaanite, Phoenician, Aramaic, and Hebrew, then Allah may indeed related to the Hebrew Eloh and the Aramaic Alaha, not in that it was borrowed from those languages, but in that it was borrowed by them. If Eloh and Alaha were not borrowed from Allah, they are surely related, sharing a common origin, which the Arabic language may have retained as it contains some of the most ancient and archaic features of the Semitic languages. In fact, comparative Semitic grammars, like those of John Huehnegard and Patrick Bennet, suggest that the linguistic, grammatical, and syntactic paradigms are virtually always in favor of reconstructing Proto-Semitic using the Arabic paradigms. According to Michael Carasik, this is largely because Arabic has preserved many more consonants than the other Semitic languages, except for Ugaritic, which was not known until seventy-five years ago. As he explains, “Even if Arabic were the closest of the Semitic languages we know today to Proto-Semitic, this would still not make it the language from which the other Semitic languages derived.”

Regardless of the outcome of the debate surrounding the origin of the divine name, one thing is for certain, Allah is not a modified version of the pagan goddess al-Lat. This latter claim, made by Muhammad’s heathen adversaries, and reiterated by fundamentalist Christians in contemporary times, attempts to link the word Lat to the word Allah, ‘Uzza to ‘Aziz, and Manat to al-Mannan: Lat, ‘Uzza and Manat were idols whereas al-‘Aziz [The Most Powerful] and al-Mannan [The Generous] were epithets of Allah10. The following verse was revealed in relation to this claim: “The most beautiful names belong to Allah: so call upon Him by them; but shun such men as desecrate His Names: for what they do, they will soon be requited” (7:180). As Razi (d. 1210) and Abu Hashim al-Jubba’i (d. 933) explained, the word Allah is compounded of the definite article al and ilah, which means “god” or “deity.11” This etymology is consistent with Imam Ja‘far al-Sadiq’s explanation found in al-Kafi: “the word Allah derives from ilah” (Kulayni 286).

The question arises as to whether it is appropriate to translate the Arabic term Allah as God. There are many Western Muslims who, due to the lack of a better translation, accept it and speak about God, when in reality they are thinking about Allah. Although the Arabic term Allah is often translated as “God,” it is merely a question of convention or concession, because it is improper and inadequate to translate the term in this sense because Allah is not an ilah [god]. For the Arabs from the Days of Ignorance [al-jahiliyyah], the alihah [plural of ilah] were the gods they adored: man-made idols and sacred objects which the expression la ilaha illa Allah [there is no God but Allah] denounced as unworthy of worship. It may be more accurate, instead, to translate the name Allah as “the Divine” because Allah is not only the most exalted name of the Reality or Supreme Truth, but also the principle of divine unity as we see in Surat al-Ikhlas: “Say: He is Allah, the One.” The principle of divine unity [al-tawhid] consists in worshipping no other deity but the Divine as expressed in the first formula of the shahadah, the profession of unity [kalimat al-tawhid]: la ilaha illa Allah [there is no god but the Divine]. Although the Indo-European God, Bog, Baga, Deus and Theos are the closest translations to the Arabic Allah, their polytheistic philosophical encumbrances make them inadequate.12

For example, in English, with a change in capitalization only, god to God, the believer can segue from polytheism to monotheism. This is not to say that Allah is not God and God is not Allah. Allah is God, the same Judeo-Christian-Islamic God, the God of Adam, Noah, Abraham, Moses, Jesus and Muhammad, and not another divinity. For many Muslims, however, the minor variant between god and God does not offer sufficient distinction for One and Only God who is All-Powerful, All-Seeing, All-Knowing and Omnipresent. Even the Hebrew Eloh cannot serve as a cognate for Allah as it can be made masculine, feminine, singular, and plural. The only equivalents for Allah come from Semitic languages and would include the Hebrew YHWH and the Aramaic Alah. As the One, the Unique, the Genderless and the Indivisible, Allah is not a “god.” He is Allah, al-Ilah, the Divine, par excellence, the essence of all the divine attributes.

3. The Ninety-Nine Most Beautiful Names

In a hadith [tradition] transmitted by Abu Hurayra (d. 677) in Sunni sources, and Imam ‘Ali (d. 661) in Shi‘ite sources, the Prophet Muhammad taught that “Allah has ninety-nine names.”13 The most beautiful names generally include:

1. Allah

2. al-Rahman: The All Beneficent

3. al Rahim: The Most Merciful

4. al-Malik: The King, The Sovereign

5. al-Quddus: The Most Holy

6. al-Salam: The Peace

7. al-Mu’min: The Guarantor

8. al-Muhaymin: The Guardian, The Preserver

9. al-‘Aziz: The Almighty, the Self-Sufficient

10. al-Jabbar: The Powerful, the Irresistible

11. al-Mutakabbir: The Tremendous

12. al-Khaliq: The Creator

13. al-Bari’: The Maker

14. al-Musawwir: The Fashioner of Forms

15. al-Ghaffar: The Ever Forgiving

16. al-Qahhar: The All-Compelling Subduer

17. al-Wahhab: The Bestower

18. al-Razzaq: The Ever Providing

19. al-Fattah: The Victory Giver

20. al-‘Alim: The All-Knowing, the Omniscient

21. al-Qabiḍ: The Restrainer, the Straightener

22. al-Basit: The Expander, the Munificent

23. al-Khafiḍ: the Abaser

24. al-Rafi‘: the Exalter

25. al-Mu‘izz: the Giver of Honor

26. al-Mudhill: the Giver of Dishonor

27. al-Sami‘: the All-Hearing

28. al-Basir: the All-Seeing

29. al-Ḥakam: the Judge, the Arbitrator

30. al-‘Adl: the Utterly Just

31. al-Latif: The Subtly Kind

32. al-Khabir: the All-Aware

33. al-Ḥalim: the Forbearing, the Indulgent

34. al-‘Azim: the Magnificent, the Infinite

35. al-Ghafur: the All-Forgiving

36. al-Shakur: The Grateful

37. al-‘Aliyy: the Sublimely Exalted

38. al-Kabir: the Great

39. al-Ḥafiz: the Preserver

40. al-Muqit: the Nourisher

41. al-Ḥasib: the Reckoner

42. al-Jalil: the Majestic

43. al-Karim: the Bountiful, the Generous

44. al-Raqib: the Watchful

45. al-Mujib: the Responsive, the Answerer

46. al-Wasi‘: the Vast, the All-Encompassing

47. al-Ḥakim: the Wise

48. al-Wadud: the Loving, the Kind One

49. al-Majid: the All-Glorious

50. al-Ba‘ith: the Raiser of the Dead

51. al-Shahid: the Witness

52. al-Ḥaqq: the Truth, the Real

53. al-Wakil: the Trustee, the Dependable

54. al-Qawiyy: the Strong

55. al-Matin: the Firm, the Steadfast

56. al-Waliyy: the Protecting Friend, Patron, and Helper

57. al-Ḥamid: the All-Praiseworthy

58. al-Muhsi: the Accounter, the Numberer of All

59. al-Mubdi’: the Producer, Originator, and Initiator of All

60. al-Mu‘id: The Reinstator Who Brings Back All

61. al-Muhyi: the Giver of Life

62. al-Mumit: the Bringer of Death, the Destroyer

63. al-Ḥayy: the Ever-Living

64. al-Qayyum: the Self-Subsisting Sustainer of All

65. al-Wajid: the Perceiver, the Finder, the Unfailing

66. al-Majid: the Illustrious, the Magnificent

67. al-Wahid: The One, the All-Inclusive, the Indivisible

68. al-Samad: the Self-Sufficient, the Impregnable, the Eternally Besought of All, the Everlasting

69. al-Qadir: the All-Able

70. al-Muqtadir: the All-Determiner, the Dominant

71. al-Muqaddim: the Expediter, He who brings forward

72. al-Mu’akhkhir: the Delayer, He who puts far away

73. al-Awwal: the First

74. al-Akhir: the Last

75. al-Ẓahir: the Manifest, the All-Victorious

76. al-Batin: the Hidden, the All-Emcompassing

77. al-Wali: the Patron

78. al-Muta‘ali: the Self-Exalted

79. al-Barr: the Most Kind and Righteous

80. al-Tawwab: the Ever Returning, Ever Relenting

81. al-Muntaqim: the Avenger

82. al-‘Afuww: the Pardoner, the Effacer of Sins

83. al-Ra‘uf: the Compassionate, the All-Pitying

84. Malik al-Mulk: the Owner of All-Sovereignty

85. Dhu al-Jalal wa al-Ikram: the Lord of Majesty and Generosity

86. al-Muqsit: the Equitable, the Requiter

87. al-Jami‘: the Gatherer, the Unifier

88. al-Ghaniyy: the All-Rich, the Independent

89. al-Mughni: the Enricher, the Emancipator

90. al-Mani‘: the Withholder, the Shielder, the Defender

91. al-Ḍarr: the Distressor, the Harmer [from hadith]

92. al-Nafi‘: the Propitious, the Benefactor

93. al-Nur: the Light

94. al-Hadi’: the Guide

95. al-Badi‘: the Incomparable, the Originator

96. al-Baqi: the Ever-Enduring and Immutable

97. al-Warith: the Heir, the Inheritor of All

98. al-Rashid: the Guide, the Infallible Teacher, and Knower

99. al-Sabur: the Patient, the Timeless

The name Allah is the first and foremost of the ninety-nine most beautiful names. According to Ibn al-‘Arabi (d. 1240), Allah is a proper noun, which can qualify [al-nu‘ut] but can never be qualified, as it refers to the One God (Beneito 29). Not only does the name Allah refer to the Divine, it is the universal synthesis of the divine names [majmu‘ al-sifat al-ilahiyyah] because it represents the Essence which embraces all attributes [al-dhat al-jami‘ah] (29-30). In his Tafsir al-Qur’an al-Karim, Ibn al-‘Arabi explains that Allah is the name of the Divine Essence [al-dhat al-ilahiyyah] (7). As it is the proper name of the Divinity, the symbol of the Divine Essence, and the embodiment of all the attributes, it comes as no surprise that Allah is the most commonly invoked of the ninety-nine names. When people invoke Allah, however, they are not necessarily invoking the Essence, but rather, a specific attribute. As Ibn al-‘Arabi explains, since the name Allah contains every divine name, it takes, on behalf of what it names, the place of every name of God (2002: 60):

So when someone says “Oh Allah,” [you should] look at the state which incited him to make this call and consider which divine name is specifically connected to that state. That specific name [al-ism al-khass] is what the caller is calling with his words, “Oh Allah.” For the name Allah, by its original coinage, names the Essence of God Itself, “in whose hand is the dominion of everything” (36:83). That is why the name which refers specifically to the Essence takes the place of every divine name. (60)

Likewise, if a believer who is in need of provision says “Oh Allah, provide for me!,” while Allah is also the Preventer [al-mani‘], he does not seek through his state anything but the Name ‘Provider’ [al-razzaq]. So, in meaning, he has only said “Oh Provider, provide for me” (247-48).

The ninety-nine names of Allah represent divine attributes and qualities. As numerous scholars have observed, the ninety-nine names can be viewed as the Essence of Allah, Islam, and the Qur’an. Sir Edwin Arnold observes that “almost every religious idea of the Koran comes up in the long catalogue of attributes” (v). Böwering notes that the ninety-nine names are a major stylistic element in the Qur’an, representing “a cherished summary of the holy book, and a simple epitome of the theological core of Islam since early times” (248). And, finally, Purificación de la Torre points out that “La trascendencia de los nombres de Dios en el Islam y su significación no encuentra paralelismo alguno en ninguna otra religión” (13) [The transcendental nature of the names of God in Islam, as well as their meaning, finds no parallel whatsoever in any other religion].14 Indeed, as Böwering has remarked, the most beautiful names of Allah “mark Islam against its sibling religions, Judaism and Christianity, which except for cabbalistic and mystical uses, did not develop a systematic theology on the basis of the divine names (Pseudo-Dionysius notwithstanding)” (248). Each divine name is a hermeneutical heaven, a drop containing an ocean. The ninety-nine most beautiful names represent core theological concepts which are conveyed through the colloquial by means of the Allah Lexicon.

Conscious of the power of language, the Prophet assured that whoever learns the divine names, understands them, and enumerates them [ihsa’] will enter paradise, finding eternal salvation (Bukhari, Muslim, Tirmidhi, Ibn Majah, and Ḥakim). Evidently, this does not imply that the divine attributes are numerical entities or that Allah possesses only ninety-nine names. To enumerate the names means to invoke them in dhikr Allah or remembrance of Allah which takes on many levels in the social and spiritual realms.

As Arabic has ninety-nine names for the One God, anyone of which is theoretically likely to be used in the oath construct, Arabic speakers frequently swear by them (Salih 18). As Mahmoud al-Khatib has shown, the direct or indirect invocation of Allah, by means of the Qur’an and Sunnah, serves three important functions:

First, they can be used as a supportive device [unquestionable evidence given by God and His Prophet] for supporting a particular view. In this way they form an integral part of argument. Second, the Qur’anic verses and the Traditions are, like much emotive language, strongly rhythmic, thereby they evoke feelings. Third, they help the user [the persuader] to gain a kind of trustworthiness and to be viewed by the audience as being reliable and dependable. (170)

This form of dhikr or remembrance of Allah serves a concrete social function in the language of persuasion. It also acts as a constant reminder of the omnipresence and omniscience of the Divine who supervises all social interaction.

In the spiritual sphere, dhikr or remembrance of Allah has a strong psychological effect. As William Chittick explains in his introduction to al-Sahifah al-sajjadiyyah,

From earliest times the sources confirm the power of dhikr to provide for human psychological and spiritual needs and to influence activity. It is not difficult to understand that reciting ya Rahman, ya Rahim [O All-Merciful, O All-Compassionate] will have different effects upon the believer than reciting, la hawla wa la quwwata illa billah al-‘aliyy al-‘azim [There is no power and no strength save in God, the All-High, the All-Mighty]. Spiritual teachers eventually developed a science of different adhkar [plural of dhikr] appropriate for all the states of the soul. (XXIII-XXIV)

The more pious Muslims are, the more they seek to savor the divine names in search of spiritual elevation, seeking redemption through remembrance. It is through the invocation of Allah [bi dhikr Allah] that they detach themselves from worldly ties and thought to unite with the Divine Presence (Ruspoli 91). This process is known as annihilation through the remembrance of Allah [fana’ ‘an dhikr] (Massignon 65). Muslim mystics mention the divine names perpetually, in public, in private, openly and inwardly, verbally and mentally, in search of spiritual elevation, reciting them ritually after the daily prayers, and as a constant mantra in the back of their minds. They are witnesses and those who witness the Oneness of God to God and to the people through mention of His names. They are the dhakirun, those who remember, and who are sought out by angels “who travel around the roads seeking out the people of dhikr” (Bukhari, Muslim, Ahmad). They are those who truly remember Allah. As Pablo Beneito explains,

el dhikr no consiste en una repetición mecánica. Se trata de una rememoración conciente en la cual, a cada nuevo aliento, el sentido, la experiencia, el “sabor” y el “saber” de cada nombre, son incesantemente renovados en la vivencia del contemplativo gracias a la ilimitada creatividad divina. (IX)

[dhikr does not consist in mechanical repetition. It is a conscious act of remembrance in which, with every new breath, the meaning, the experience, the “flavor” and the “knowledge” of each name are incessantly renewed in the personal experience the contemplator thanks to unlimited divine creativity]

The omnipresence of Allah in everyday Arabic speech represents the depth and breadth of the Allah Lexicon, an ocean of theocentric expressions. The oceanic peaks, waves, and froth, represent the spiritual surges of the Allah Lexicon, rising above the rest.

While Muslims are encouraged to memorize the ninety-nine names for their own benefit, learning the names by heart is not the objective: “The aim is to find the One who is named” (9). As David Burrel and Nazih Ḍaher explain, “reciting the divine names allows us to bring God into our ambit…However, since the names are more than attributes, because Allah uses them to reveal Himself, saves our recitation from reducing God to our experience” (VII). Naming God, according to Purificación de la Torre, is to know God, which is why, for the Sufis, the divine names are a path leading to the Divine (13-14). In other words, the multifarious manifestations of Allah in Arabic speech are an attempt to access the Divine through various verbal channels.

Besides the list of ninety-nine names, there are additional names attributed to Allah in the Qur’an, countless others which are known only to Him, and others which He has revealed to His angels, prophets and messengers. According to an Islamic tradition passed down through both academic and spiritual circles, Allah has four thousand names or attributes: one thousand of these names are known only to Allah; one thousand are known only by Allah and His angels [mala’ikah], and another one thousand are known by Allah, His angels, His prophets and the believers; of the last one thousand, three hundred are mentioned in the Torah, three hundred in the Psalms, three hundred in the Gospel [Injil], and one hundred in al-Qur’an al-Karim [the Noble Qur’an]. One, the name of His Essence, He has kept for Himself and hidden in the Qur’an (al-Halveti 3). In order to embrace all of the divine names at once, the Prophet used to pray “O Allah, I invoke you with all your beautiful names” (Ibn Majah, Imam Malik). By “all of the divine names,” we do not mean the ninety-nine names of Allah, but all the names of Allah, known and unknown, as the Prophet Muhammad was granted “the all-comprehensive Words” [jawami‘ al-kalam] (Bukhari, Muslim, Tirmidhi). According to Friedlander, the search for the hidden name motivates people to read the Qur’an in its entirety (9).

While this may indeed be the case, the search for the supreme name, the answers to all one’s prayers, must equally motivate Muslims to invoke the ninety-nine most beautiful names, as opposed to one in particular.15 The ninety-nine most beautiful names, al-asma’ al-husna, are divided into various categories, names of essence and names of quality, as well as relational and non-relational attributes (Ghazali, 1999: 15). Theologians, both Sunni and Shi‘ite, organized the ninety-nine names of Allah into positive and negative attributes, demonstrating a divine duality within the divine unity, the harmony between two opposites.16 According to Twelver Shi‘ite theologians, the sifat thubutiyyah or positive attributes are those which are befitting Allah. The attributes are not acquired, but inherent in the Divine. Although they are many in number, the following eight are usually mentioned. They are:

1. Qadim: It means that Allah is Eternal. He has neither beginning nor end. Nothing except Allah is eternal.

2. Qadir: It means that Allah is Omnipotent. He has power over everything and every affair.

3. ‘Alim: It means that Allah is Omniscient. He knows everything. Even our unspoken intentions and desires are not hidden from Him.

4. Ḥayy: It means that Allah was always alive, and will remain alive forever.

5. Murid: It means that Allah has His own will and discretion in all affairs. He does not do anything under compulsion.

6. Mudrik: It means that He is All-Perceiving, al-Sami‘ [All-Hearing], Basir [All-Seeing]. Allah sees and hears everything without any need of eyes or ears.

7. Mutakallim: It means that Allah is the master of the word. He can create speech in anything, as He did in a tree for Moses and in the “curtain of light” for the Prophet Muhammad.

8. Sadiq: It means Allah is true in His words and promises.

The sifat salbiyyah or negative attributes are those which cannot be found in Allah as they are below His dignity. While they are many, the eight most important ones are normally listed. They include:

1. Sharik: The world sharik means a colleague or partner. Allah has neither a colleague nor a partner in His Divinity.

2. Murakkab: This word means “compound” or “mixed.” Allah is neither made, nor composed of any material. He cannot be divided even in imagination.

3. Makan: It means “place” Allah is not in a place because He has no body, and He is everywhere because his power and knowledge is magnificently apparent everywhere.

4. Ḥulul: It means “entering.” Nothing enters into Allah nor does He enter into anything or anybody. Therefore, the belief of incarnation in any form is abhorrent to the conception of Divinity.

5. Mahal al-taghayyur: This means “subject to change.” Allah cannot change.

6. Mar’i: It means “visible.” Allah is not visible. He has not been seen, is not seen, and will never be seen.

7. Ihtiyaj: It means “dependence” or “need.” Allah is not deficient in any virtue, so He does not need anything. He is All-Perfect.

8. Sifat za’idah: This means “added qualifications.” The attributes of Allah are not separate from His Being. When we say that Allah is Omnipotent and Merciful, we do not mean that His Power and Mercy are something different from His Person. We see that a child is born without any power, and then he acquires strength day by day. It is so because power is not his person. God is not like this. He is Power Himself; Mercy Himself; Knowledge Himself; Justice Himself; Virtue Himself; Truth Himself and so on. (Rizvi)

This approach of focusing on what Allah was not, as opposed to what He is, may have appealed to jurists and theologians; however, it was criticized by the followers of the intellectual and spiritual tradition. As Ibn al-‘Arabi explains in al-Futuhat al-Makkiyyah: “The God of the rationalists is a God that nobody could ever love since he was too remote and incomprehensible” (2/326).

Unlike the theologians who preferred to view Allah in abstract terms, the Gnostics [‘arifun] attempted to make Allah accessible, dividing the most beautiful names into names of power and majesty, which invoke the immanent and transcendent aspect of the Divine, and names of beauty, which invoke the loving and merciful side of the Divine.

The names of majesty and power [asma’ al-jalal] include al-Malik [the Sovereign, the Owner]; al-Akbar [the Greatest]; al-Fattah[the Revealer or the Opener]; al-‘Azim [the Infinite]; al-Qahhar [the Compeller]; al-Kabir [the Glorious]; al-Muqit [the Omnipresent]; al-Qadir [the All-Powerful]; al-Muqtadir [the Potent]; al-Ghaniyy [the Opulent]; al-A‘la [the Supreme]; al-‘Aliyy [the Highest]; al-Qayyum [the Self-Sufficient]; al-Samad [the Absolute]; al-Muta‘ali [the Most Exalted]; al-Qawiyy [the Strongest]; al-Matin [the Unbreakable]; al-Akram [the Most Noble]; al-Muhaymin [the Guardian, the Protector]; al-Majid [the Most Glorious]; al-Ḥamid [The Praised]; al-Mumit [the Giver of Death]; al-Muhit [The All-Pervasive]; al-Kafi [The Sufficient]; al-Ghalib [the Victorious]; al-Baqi [the Living]; all of them referring to His complete authority over creation and underlining his power [al-jalal], which is why they are mainly masculine.

The names of beauty [asma’ al-jamal] include al-Rahman [the Most Compassionate]; al-Rahim [the Most Merciful]; al-Salam [the Peace]; al-Mu’min [the Guardian of Faith]; al-Khaliq [The Creator]; al-Ghaffar [the Forgiver]; al-Ghafur [the All-Forgiving]; al-Wahhab [the Giver of All]; al-Razzaq [the Provider]; al-Shakur [the Rewarder of Thankfulness]; al-Karim [the Most Generous]; al-Qarib [the Close]; al-Barr [the Benefactor]; al-Ra‘uf [the Clement]; al-Tawwab [the Most Forgiving]; al-Wadud [The Most Loving]; al-‘Afuww [the Forgiver]; al-Shakir [the Thankful]; al-Mawla [The Master or the Protector]; al-Kafil [The Most Responsible]; al-Ghafir [the Indulgent]; al-Hadi’ [the Guide]; al-Nasir [the Defender]; al-Rabb [the Lord]; al-Hafiyy [the Humiliator]; al-Mannan [the Benefactor; the Giver of all Good]; all referring to feminine attributes such as tenderness, protection, acceptance, forgiveness, receptivity, gentleness, and so forth.

The names of majesty and power are invoked by those who are meek and seek strength from God Almighty, the slaves [‘ibad] of Allah, those who worship Allah out of fear of the fire. As for the names of beauty, they are invoked by those who seek mercy and forgiveness, by the servants [‘ibad] of Allah, those who worship God Almighty out of a desire for the garden. The highest level of faith, however, is found among the Sufis, who worship Allah, not out of fear of hell or a desire for paradise, but out of pure unconditional love.

Besides questions of categorization, the ninety-nine names of Allah were treated differently by various philosophical schools. On the one hand, we find those who deny their appropriateness, feeling that the multiplicity of attributes undermined divine simplicity (Burrel and Ḍaher 185). This includes the Mu‘tazilite who hypostatize the attributes, and so reduplicate the consideration of God via His attributes (192). Ibn Ṭufayl, who was influenced by Mu‘tazilite thought, insisted that diversity was non-existent in Allah’s nature (Hawi 64). On the other hand, we find those who take descriptive Qur’anic texts at face value, embracing anthropomorphism (Burrel and Ḍaher 185). These include the Ash‘aris, the Wahhabis, and the Salafis. Since one may deny the reality of attributes in divinity without calling their appropriateness into question, a range of intermediate positions can be found among modern religious thinkers of Islam (185). While these debates may have had relevance in intellectual circles, they never appealed to the masses, who embraced the attributes of Allah as means to approach His Oneness. As F.E. Peters has noted,

Although Muslims no longer argue the question of the relationship between Allah’s essence and attributes…the devotion to the ‘beautiful names of God’ still has an important place in Islamic devotion, and the Muslims’ primary virtue is tawakkul [total trust and reliance on God]. (79)

In other words, the debate has subsided, but the devotion to the Divine, by means of the most beautiful names continues.

Another controversial issue among Muslim philosophers was whether the divine names actually represented Allah and, if so, whether they were eternal. This issue revolves around the dialectic about whether the Qur’an is created or uncreated and the origin of language (De la Torre 24). The Mu‘tazilis argued that if languages were created, then the Qur’an and the divine names were also created (24). In their view, language was based on human convention [‘ādah] and reasoning [‘aql]. Faced with this doctrine, the Ash‘aris argued in favor of the eternity of the Qur’an (24), holding that language was the product of divine instruction [tathqīf ] and revelation [wahī]. Eventually, the attitude of bi-la kayfa came to predominate among the Sunnis, with philosophers like Ibn Khaldun choosing to suspend reason, concluding that “The intellect should not be used to weigh such matters as…the real character of divine attributes” for “it cannot comprehend God and His attributes” (Wolfson 589). The Muslim mystics, however, had another approach, differentiating between the signifier and the signified, distinguishing between the divine names and the Divine Reality. As Beneito explains,

El nombre es lo Nombrado si por nombres se entienden los Nombres primordiales; mas no es lo Nombrado si por nombres se entienden los nombres de los Nombres-es decir, los nombres de aquellos Nombres primordiales-, que son los nombres generalmente conocidos, compuestos de letras y sonidos. (XV)

[The name is the Named if by names we mean the Primordial Names. However, the name is not the Named if by names we mean the names of the Names, namely, the names of those Primordial Names which are those which are generally known and which are comprised of letters and sounds.]

The divine names that we know, the ones we have in writing, are not really the names of the Names. Everything which exists in symbols or signs is merely references to the Real Names, and indication of the Primordial Divine Word (278). Or, in the words of Ibn al-‘Arabi (d. 1240), as found in volume two of al-Futuhat al-Makkiyyah, “The names are for definition [al-ta‘rif] and specification [al-tamyiz]. They are a gate to which only God has access for only God knows God” (69). Hence, the names which appear in the Qur’an apply to that which is “other than Allah.17” This is why the Sufis say that it is the tongue that mentions Allah, but it is only the heart that understands it (Friedlander 15). Since Allah represents the Divine Essence and the Divine Essence is utterly incomprehensible, “The God of Islam remains hidden beneath an accumulation of beautiful names” (Böwering 249). To be precise, it is the Essence of Allah which is occulted, but His Reality is manifested.18

Another contentious issue among Muslim philosophers is whether the ninety-nine names of Allah are equal or whether they form a hierarchy. According to the hanafi thought, all of the divine names are equal: whoever uses one of them is invoking Allah (De la Torre 22). According to ash‘ari thought, a certain hierarchy exists in which the name Allah is above them all (22). This is the same idea found among the Sufis. As Ghazali (d. 1111) explains in The Ninety-Nine Beautiful Names of God, “You should know that this name is the greatest of the ninety-nine names of God - great and glorious - because it refers to the Essence which unites all the attributes of divinity” (51). Or, as Ibn al-‘Arabi (d. 1240), states “The omnicomprehensive name Allah relates to the Essence. It embraces all of the divine names. It is a totalizing term, the ‘synonym’ of every divine name, in that they relate to the Essence and not in the sense that they are distinct names” (33). It is among this latter group, those who uphold the hierarchy of the divine names, that we find the belief in the supreme name [al-ism al-a‘zam] of Allah, occult and unrevealed.19

The idea of a mysterious supreme name [al-ism al-a‘zam], which assures the fulfillment of one’s prayers, is very widespread among both Sunnis and Shi‘ites. The Prophet Muhammad explained that the supreme name is the one “by which if He is called upon, He responds; and if He is asked, He grants” (Abu Dawud, Tirmidhi, and Ibn Majah). While the notion of the supreme name is based on some ahadith [traditions], it also derives from an interpretation of the Qur’anic verse fa sabbih bismi rabbika al-‘azimi, which can be translated in one of two ways:

“Then celebrate with praises the name of thy Lord, the Supreme!” (56:74; 56:96; 69:52)

or

“Then celebrate with praises the supreme name of your Lord” (56:74; 56:96; 69:52).

Yusuf ‘Ali translates the verse the first way and Muhammad Asad follows the sense of the second, translating it as

“Extol, then, the limitless glory of thy Sustainer’s mighty name!” (56:74; 56:96; 69:52).

While some scholars deny that the verse can be interpreted in this way, others hold that the adjective “supreme” [‘azim] qualifies the noun “Lord.”

Although the existence of a supreme name is not corroborated by the traditions compiled by Bukhari (d. 870) or Muslim (d. 875), it is found in the equally meticulous collections of hadith prepared by Abu Dawud (d. 817) and Tirmidhi (d. 892), where the Prophet speaks of the supreme name, without designating it explicitly. In the ahadith [traditions] in question, the Prophet Muhammad limits himself to leaving clues regarding the supreme name. He contents himself with saying that the supreme name is to be found in a series of words or expressions, leaving Muslims to attempt to decipher it on their own. For many Muslims, the secret of the sublime name is to be found in the ninety-nine names of Allah.

According to Ṭabari (d. 923), Imam Malik (d. 795), Ibn Ḥibban, al-Ash‘ari (d. 935?), and al-Baqillani (d. 1013), who are representatives of the intellectual tradition, and al-Junayd and Abu Yazid al-Bistami, who are representative of the spiritual tradition, the supreme name does not have a determined form per se.20 As far as al-Junayd was concerned, whenever a person invokes Allah with a heart detached from this world, he pronounces the supreme name. According to Imam al-Murtaḍa (d. 1437), however, all the names of Allah were equal in rank and dignity, and each one of them was the supreme name. To support his claim, al-Murtada used to recite the following verse from the Qur’an: “By whatever name ye call upon Him, to Him belong the most beautiful names (17:110). This was also the opinion of Ṭabarsi (d. 1153) who said that all of the names of Allah are supreme.

According to a hadith [a prophetic tradition or saying], the supreme name [al-ism al-a‘zam], must essentially be sought in Surat al-Ikhlas (112). The tradition relates that a man prayed to Allah saying: “O Allah, I pray to you testifying that you are Allah, and there is no Truth but You, the One, the Unique, and the Impregnable. You have not begotten nor were you begotten, and there is none equal unto You.” Upon hearing him, the Prophet Muhammad proclaimed: “By Him in whose hands is my soul, he has addressed Allah with the supreme name” (Abu Dawud, Tirmidhi, and Ibn Majah). In another hadith, the Prophet Muhammad was asked about the supreme name and said that it was to be found in the Qur’an in Surat al-Baqarah:

“And your God is One God; there is no god save Him, the Most Compassionate, the Most Merciful” (2:163) and in Surat Aal ‘Imran [The Family of ‘Imran] “Alif. Lam. Mim. Allah! There is no god save Him, the Alive, the Eternal” (3:1-2) (Ahmad, Abu Dawud, Tirmidhi, Ibn Majah). According to some theosophical speculation, the supreme name of Allah might be: Hu or Huwa [He], perhaps even Ya Huwa [O He], supposing a link with the Hebrew Yahweh;21 al-Ḥayy al-Qayyum [the Living, the Everlasting]; Dhu al-Jalal wa al-Ikram [the Lord of Majesty and Bounty]; or that it can found in the “isolated letters” at the beginning of several Qur’anic chapters.

Conclusions

Regardless of the existence or identity of the supreme name, Muslim thinkers are in agreement that Allah can only be known by means of His divine names, each one representing a symbol or sign of the Almighty. As the Qur’an repeatedly teaches, all the things in the cosmos are ayat Allah, the signs of Allah, which means that everything bears witness to the presence and reality of the Divine. In fact, the holy book of Islam employs the term “sign” in singular and plural form 288 times in several closely related senses (Murata 24). As Sachiko Murata says, “All the qualities found in inanimate objects, plants, animals, and humans, have their roots in the divine names” (237). In Islam, all things [ashya’] or entities [a‘yan] are manifestations [tajalliyat] of the divine names [asma’ Allah], attributes and qualities [sifat], since they all derive their existence and reason for being from the One and Unique Existent. As Murata explains, “God is invisible by definition. Yet, traces and intimations of His awesome reality can be gleaned from all things, if only we meditate upon them” (24). Or, as we read in the Qur’an,

“There is not a thing but celebrates His praise; and yet ye understand not how they declare His glory!” (17:44).

Through the use of the ninety-nine names of Allah, Muslims acknowledge the signs of Allah which surround them, and declare His Glory in perpetual praise. The most beautiful names are not only a profession of faith, they are a procession, stepping stones along the path of spiritual perfection, leading to the state of sublime submission, union with Allah, as embodied by the Complete Human Being [al-insan al-kamil], the universal synthesis of the divine names.

• 1. This chapter, which was authored exclusively by John Andrew Morrow, was originally published as the first section of “The Most Beautiful Names: The Philosophical Foundation of the Allah Lexicon,” which forms chapter 5 of Arabic, Islam, and the Allah Lexicon: How Language Shapes our Conception of God (Lewiston: Edwin Mellen, 2006). For references, kindly consult the bibliography for the subsequent chapter.
• 2. In fact, so much has been written about the the asma’ al-husna that they represent a literary genre The early philological treatises dealing with the divine names include those of the two al-Zajjaj (d. 923; d. 949), the lost treatises of al-Mubarrad (d. 898), as well as the works of Abu ‘Ali al-Jubba’i (d. 915), and Abu Zayd al-Balkhi (d. 934). After these seminal works follow the great treatises influenced by Ash‘ari thought, such as the Tafsir asma’ Allah al-husna of Abu Mansur al-Baghdadi (d. 1037), the Kitab al-asma’ wa al-sifat of Abu Bakr al-Bayhaqi (d. 1066), and the al-Tahbir fi al-tadhkir of al-Qushayri (d. 1072). Two of the most important treatises include al-Maqsad al-asna’ of Abu Hamid al-Ghazali (d. 1111), the Lawami al-bayyinat of Fakhr al-Din al-Razi (d. 1210), and the equally important Sharh asma’Allah al-husna of Ibn Barrajan (d. 1141) without forgetting Ibn al-‘Arabi’s (d. 1240) Kitab kashf al-ma‘na 'ann sirr asma' Allah al-husna. There is also a large body of representative works which deal, in part, with the divine names, including: Abu Hatim’s (d. 934?) Zina, Ash‘ari’s (d. 931?) Maqalat, Halimi’s (d. 1012) Minhaj, Ibn Furak’s (d. 1015) Mujarrad, ‘Abd al-Jabbar’s (d. 1025) Mughni, Abu Ya‘la’s (d. 1066) Mu‘tamad, Juwayni’s (d. 1085) Irshad, Iji’s (1355?) Mawaqif, among many more. Most of these works were written by philologists and specialists in kalam [scholastic philosophy]. However, a large body of commentaries on the divine names was written by Muslim mystics. Considering their importance in Islamic thought, it is remarkable that Western scholars have paid such little attention to the divine names (Murata 7).
• 3. Ninety-nine is also a topological number to indicate incompleteness, i.e. Allah has one majestic hidden name.
• 4. For more on the image of the road, in its multiple manifestations as path, route, way, highway, pass, and bridge, in Islam, see John Andrew Morrow’s “The Image of the Road in Arabic-Islamic Literature, Language and Culture.”
• 5. The etymological information on the word Allah and ilah is a composite of material drawn from Razi (d. 1210), Jubba’i (d. 915), Zamakhshari (d. 1144), Gibb, al-Nassir, Mosel, Owens, and Carter.
• 6. The search for the origin of the word Allah has focused on two main issues: on the one hand, determining the origin of the word--namely, figuring out whether it was formed through certain internal mechanism--and, on the other, establishing those morphological mechanisms to explain how the word developed, from which elements it is composed, and what relationship they have between themselves. Arabic linguists were concerned with the lexical morphology of the new word. They were interested in determining whether it had a specific sense or meaning [dalalah] and whether it belonged to the category of proper nouns [asma’ al-a‘lam]. If it was indeed a proper noun, they wanted to establish whether it was coined [mawdu’] to designate the Transcendental Being or whether it was derived [mushtaqq] etymologically [ishtiqaq]. In the event that it developed etymologically, they wanted to determine whether it derived from a natural root or whether its root was substituted by means of ankylosis.
• 7. For more on this subject, see: al-Farra’s (d. 822-3) Ma‘ani al-Qur’an, Sibawayh’s Kitab, and Zamakshari’s (d. 1144) al-Mufassalu fi ‘ilm al-lughah. As a secondary source, Baalbaki’s “The Book in the Grammatical Tradition,” in Atiyeh’s The Book in the Islamic World, can also be useful.
• 8. While there was no consensus on the matter, the majority of scholars upheld the theory of derivation [ishtiqaq], despite the fact that they could not agree upon its etymology. According to Razi (d. 1210) and Baydawi (d. 1296), eight derivations for ilah [god] were suggested. Abu Hashim gave ilah the sense of “one who is worshipped,” supposing a derivation from aliha which means “to adore” or “to worship” under a form equivalent to ‘abada-ya‘bud. This etymology would be consistent with paradigm fi‘al [-i-a-] where ilah acquires the passive sense of maf‘ul with ilah being synonymous with maluh, ma‘bud, or “adored.” The similarity between ta’allaha and ta‘abbada or “devote oneself to worship” has been stressed by those who support this etymology. Those who supported the stance taken by al-Jubba’i (d. 933) argued that the pagan Arabs from al-jahiliyyah [The Days of Ignorance] called their idols alihah because they considered them worthy of worship. In his Mishkat al-anwar, al-Ghazali (d. 1111) suggest that lh (god) comes from the root w-l-y or “to turn” since all faces are “directed” in worship towards the Deity (112). Other etymologies included al-lah, the infinitive of l-y-h, “to be high,” or “to be veiled.”

  Having generally agreed that Allah was derived from ilah, Arabic linguists tackled two questions: firstly, how does Allah derive from ilah? In other words, how did the ancient word ilah evolve into a new word like Allah? Secondly, what is the root of ilah and what did it mean? The most widely held hypothesis is that Allah is a name of majesty which expresses veneration [ta‘zim, tafkhim]. According to this hypothesis, the word Allah was used to distinguish between the True Divinity and other deities. Rather than saying ilah or “god,” the prefix al- or “the” was added to make it definite, to specify “the God” or al-ilah. Arabic linguists theorized that, due to its constant use in the colloquial language, the interconsonantal /i/ of al-ilah was dropped, creating the proper noun al-lah or Allah, a process known in Arabic linguistics as takhfif [lightening], the equivalent of the law of least effort. The ambiguous ilah was thus supplanted by the new form Allah, which was infused with vitality and precision.

  The change from al-ilah to Allah was explained phonetically in two different ways. According to the first explanation, the hamzah, the vowel /i/, disappeared as an independent sound to become the vowel of the previous lam /l/ alilah. As a result, the first lam /l/ lost its vowel, becoming “mute.” In other words, the initial lam /l/, having lost its phonetic function, was assimilated into the second lam /l/ to form Allah. The second explanation, which is the most simple, does not accept the intermediate stage of vocalization of the first lam /l/. It holds that the hamza was dropped and the lam /l/ from the unvocalized article al- came into contract with the lam /l/ from the word ilah. As a result of this transformation, the old medial hamza was subjected to the process of assimilation by which the first hamzah lost its sound, and the second lam /l/ was pronounced more intensely in the absence of any other vowel. This would explain why the second lam /l/ bears a tashdid, an auxiliary grapheme for duplication. Each of these two hypotheses was further elaborated upon by subsequent grammarians who added arguments for or against them.

• 9.
  Author’s Note: It is often said that Arabic developed from Nabatean on the basis of inscriptions dating to the fourth century A.D. because, like Arabic, the Nabatean script is consonantic and is written from right to left. On the basis of Nabatean inscriptions, the language appears to have originated around the first and fourth centuries A.D. The majority of the inscriptions come from Petra in Jordan, Mada’in Salih in Saudi Arabia and from sourthern Syria, although some of them come from Rome where the Nabateans have established a commercial colony. Many of the inscriptions are from mortuaries. One funeral text dates from 328 A.D. and was found in Namara, Harran, and mentions “Imurulqais, son of Amru, the king of the Arabs.” Although the text employs Nabatean characters, the language is Arabic. Nabatean, as we know, is the formal form of Aramaic. Its variants employed various types of script: Hebrew, Palmyrene, Hatran, Mandean, and Syriac. It is known that by the end of the eighth century B.C., the government officials of Judah spoke Aramaic (2 Kings 18:26 and Isaiah 36:11).

  An analysis of the word “Hebrew”, for example, may lead to another conclusion regarding the age of the Arabic language. According to some Biblical scholars, the word Hebrew [‘ibri], used by Abraham [Ibrahim] and his descendants, is derived from Heber [‘eber], son of Shelah and grandson of Shem, ancestor of Abraham [Ibrahim], which means “one who immigrates” [habiru]. According to Max L. Margolis and Alexander Marx’s Historia del pueblo judío, the Hebrew term [‘ibri, Ibrim] may be a metathesis of ‘arabi [Arab] (vol. 24, serie 1945, I, 3-13) and is related with the Akkadian term habiru / ‘apiru which can be compared with the Ugaritic ‘prm and the Egyptian ‘pr. Both ‘ibri and ‘eber, as well as ‘arabi, designate the inhabitants of the desert, Semitic-speaking nomadic Bedouins, who were constantly traveling from place to place, a point also made by Osvald Loretz in “Habiru / Hebräer: Eine sozio/linguistische Studie über die Herkunft des gentilicius ‘ibri vom apellativum habiru.” If this is correct, Arabic is much older than philologists and linguists have speculated since their attempts to date the language is based on stone inscriptions dating back to the first century A.D.

  By the Natufian period of the Mesolithic, approximately 10,000 years ago, nomadic people were already established in Palestine. These nomads clearly represented the prototype of the Oriental race which would give its traits to the present-day Semites. During the same pre-historic period, an indigenous Semitic population was also found in Mesopotamia. Furthermore, since antiquity, semi-nomadic Semites lived along the Syrian-Arabian desert which they took over as full nomads upon the domestication of the camel which took place around 1200 B.C.

  The term Hebrew, which refers to the language in which the Old Testament was written, may be more sociological than ethnic or geographical. Ancient Hebrew was one of the Canaanite languages spoken in Palestine. It belongs to a group of flexive languages which span from Mesopotamia to the Mediterranean, from the foothills of Armenia to the southern coast of Arabia. Hebrew belongs to the Semitic family of languages, a term coined by A.L. Schölzer in 1781. In present times, the classification of Semitic languages is object of debate. Despite their own individual characteristics, Semitic languages are closely related, so much so that, even though written records do not contain vowels, it is relatively easy to point out common linguistic traits.

  According to both Hebraists and Arabists, the Arabic language has preserved many of the original phonetic elements of ancient Semitic and expresses the essence of the language spoken by the early inhabitants of the desert. It is for this reason that Arabic grammarians have referred to Arabic as the “mother of all languages.” It should be pointed out, however, that when Muslim Arabists use the hyperbole “mother of all languages”, they are speaking specifically about the Semitic languages and not in a lexicogenetic sense. They are not claiming that Arabic is the mother of all languages nor that Arabic is the mother of all Semitic languages. On the contrary, it is well known since the time of Sibawayh that Arabic was formed on the basis of pre-existing dialects. The expression “mother of all languages” should be understood in the sense that without Arabic, which has preserved some of the most ancient features of ancient Semitic, it would be difficult to understand other Semitic languages with any depth, a fact readily acknowledged by Hebraists and Arabists.

  Attempts to establish links between the different Semitic languages, without considering Arabic, have faced insurmountable obstacles. No Proto-Semitic can be constructed without due consideration of the Arabic language. The difficulty of reconstructing ancient Semitic is accentuated by the fact that the Semites, like other ethnic and linguistic groups, never had a common colloquial. On the contrary, as the earliest Arabic grammarians observed, the Semites spoke various dialects belonging to a common family. Although there was never a universal, national or standard Arabic in pre-Islamic times, Arabic remains an essential element when it comes to understanding and reconstructing ancient Semitic. As is well known, Arabic has been particularly important in the understanding of Hebrew grammar (see A.H. Mutlaq’s al-Harakat al-lughawiyyah fi al-Andalus.)

  The pre-Islamic literary corpus, which dates between the sixth and eigth centuries A.D., and which was compiled by Arab philologists during the eight and ninth centuries, demonstrates that classical Arabic was not a uniform language. Arabic linguists, like Sibawayh (d. 8th c.), spoke of the existence of diverse dialects which where later divided by experts in Semitic philology into the Western zone of the Hijaz and the Eastern zone of Tamin and other Bedouin tribes, an indication that the language is much older than assumed.

• 10. Furthermore, such Arabian gods were exported widely to Mesopotamia; cf. Drijvers, H. J. W. Cults and Beliefs at Edessa (Leiden, the Netherlands: E.J. Brill, 1980), 146-74.
• 11. For Abu ‘Ali al-Jubba’i (d. 915), see Jabbar’s al-mughni (250, II, 21 ss and 253, I, 4) and for his son, Abu Hashim al-Jubba’i (d. 933), in the same book (251, 1, 3 and 252, 1, 8). For more on the historical development of Arabic grammar, see Studies in the Grammar of Early Arabic Based on Papyri Datable to before A.H. 300/A.D. 912 by Hopkins
• 12. Nonetheless, all these pagan embodiments were leveled into one God, as such this “inadequacy” seems inevitable.
• 13. In Sunni sources, this tradition is found in Bukhari (d. 870), Muslim (d. 875), Tirmidhi (d. 892), Ibn Majah (d. 887), and Hakim (d. 1014). In Sufi sources, it is found in Ibn ‘Ata’Allah’s (d. 1309) al-Qasd al-mujarrad (2) and Ghazali’s (d. 1111) al-maqsid al-asma’ (26-27). It is also found in the following Shi‘ite sources: Mufid’s (d. 1022) Awa’ilu al-maqalat fi al-madhahib wa al-mujtarat, Tabriz, Fadlullah Zanjani, 1371: preface; Shaykh al-Sadduq’s (d. 991-92) al-tawhid (35; 58-59; 86), and in al-Tusi’s (d. 1067?) al-Tibyan fi tafsir al-Qur'an, among many others. Some of these traditions include a list of names which, according to hadith scholars, is considered a post-prophetic addition, although the ninety-nine names themselves are authentic as they are derived from the Qur’an. The initial form of the saying, without the divine names, is considered authentic. For an overview of hadith literature and science, see ‘Abd al-Ra‘uf’s “Hadith Literature: The Development of the Science of Hadith” in Beeston’s Arabic Literature to the End of the Ummayad Period (271-88).
• 14. It should be noted that Mazdaism has a tradition of one hundred names for God. So, the uniqueness of Islam is not that it has ninety-nine names for God, but that it has developed an entire theology around them.
• 15. Jewish people typically address God as Elohim or Adonai. Christians normally employ God, Jesus or Lord. Muslims, however, employ Allah and His Attributes, allowing for more precision in one’s prayers. For example, if one is seeking mercy, one may appeal to al-Rahim. If one is seeking justice, one may invoke al-Muntaqim, the Avenger. If one is in need of divine love, one may invoke the Loving.
• 16. For an excellent exposition of Divine Duality, the yin and yang in Islam, refer to Murata’s The Tao of Islam, particularly chapter two. Netton, however, does not seem to grasp this notion. In Allah Transcendent, he writes that:

  The attributes of the Farabian God in this book [The Virtuous City] are treated in two different ways: negatively and positively. In the first the author attempted to stress the utter transcendence of his God, referring to Him through a variety of negative propositions and statements… In the second mode al-Farabi emphasized among other things the different facets of perfection of the Deity, while underlining the fact that all His attributes were subsumed in, and not distinct from, His essence (104).
  While the author is correct up to this point, he erroneously concludes that, “Taken together, the negative and positive descriptions of the attributes of God in al-Farabi’s work constitute a radical departure in Islamic thought” (104) when this divine duality is fundamental in both Sufism and Shi‘ism. Among the Shi‘ah, for example, the positive and negative attributes of Allah are taught to children in the most elementary books on religion.

• 17. According to ‘ilm al-huruf or the “science of letters”, words are not identical with the idea of things (Dévényi 277).
• 18. In fact, Islam forbids focusing on the Essence. As the Prophet said: “Meditate upon all things, but do not meditate on the Essence of Allah” (Suyuti). This saying was echoed by Imam Muhammad al-Baqir (d. 731-32) who said: “Do not talk about the Allah Himself, since the discussion of Allah increased nothing except the discusser’s own intellectual perplexity” (Kulayni 235). In another tradition, the Imam said: “Talk about every thing but never talk about the Essence [dhat] of Allah” (236). Certainly the hiddenness of God is extremely Semitic, and is very much alive in Judaism and Eastern Christian circles as well.
• 19. The supreme name of Allah was known to Imam ‘Ali (d. 661) (Freidlander 8). This is confirmed in Sunni, Shi‘iteand Sufisources. To cite a single example, Imam Ja‘far al-Sadiq (d. 765-66) said: “I have [knowledge] of the [greatest] name [of Allah] which when the Messenger of Allah, may Allah bless him and his Family, used to put it between the Muslims and the polytheists no arrow of the polytheists could reach the Muslims” (Mufid 415-416). According to the Imam, this knowledge was passed down to him directly. As he explains,

  My traditions are my father’s traditions; my father’s traditions are my grandfather’s traditions; my grandfather’s traditions are the traditions of ‘Ali ibn Abu Talib, the Commander of the Faithful; the traditions of ‘Ali, the Commander of the Faithful, are the traditions of the Messenger of Allah, may Allah bless him and his Family; and the traditions of the Messenger of Allah, may Allah bless him and his Family, are the word of Allah, the Mighty and High. (Mufid 414)

• 20. For Imam Malik’s (d. 795) view see A.R.I. Doi’s “The Muwatta’ of Imam Malik on the Genesis of the Shari‘a Law: A Western Scholar’s Confusion” (27-41), and Muhammad Guraya’s “Historical Background of the Compilation of the Muwatta’ of Malik b. Anas” (379-92), as well as his Origins of Islamic Jurisprudence. For Ibn Hibban (d. 965), see his Sahih, his Ma‘rifat al-majruhin wa al-du‘afa‘ min al-muhaddithin, and his Kitab al-thiqat. For al-Ash‘ari (d. 931?), see his Maqalat; for al-Junayd (d. 910?), see al-Qushayri’s (d. 1072) Risalat al-Qushayriyyah, al-Sha‘rani’s (d. 1565-66) al-Tabaqat al-kubra, as well as Ibn al-Jawzi’s (d. 1201) chapter on al-Junayd in his Sifat al-safwah. For al-Junayd and al-Bistami (d. 874), see al-Hujviri’s (d. 1072) al-Kashf al-mahjub. For al-Bistami, see Badawi’s Shatahat al-Sufiyyah (1:70), as well as al-Sarraj’s (d. 988) Kitab al-Luma‘ (461). For more on Khalil (d. 786), see: Wild’s Das Kitab al-'Ain und die arabische Lexicographie. For a bibliography of early Arabic grammarians, sees al-Zubaydi’s (d. 989) Tabaqat al-nahawiyyin wa al-lughawiyyin as well as The Fihrist of ibn al-Nadim, edited and translated by Bayard Dodge.
• 21. There are Shi‘ite traditions which suggest that the supreme name of Allah is actually Hebrew, thus reaffirming the supposed link between Ya Huwa and Yahweh, which may be nothing more than folk etymology. According to Hebrew linguists, the Tetragrammaton is generally assumed to be derived from the verb HWY “to be” or “to become” a causative form with the third person prefix; hence, the initial Y, like the Hebrew Yihyeh and the Arabic Yahya, namely, “He who lives.” The name Yahweh would literally mean “He causes to become.” Another tradition, however, regards the name as coming from three different verb forms sharing the same root YWH: HYH haya [He was], HWH, howê [He is], and YHYH yihiyê [He will be]. The name Yahweh would simultaneously mean “He was / He is / He will be” underlying the timeless nature of the Eternal One. It could be loosely translated as “He, the Eternal” which would be the equivalent of the Arabic al-Hayy al-Qayyum.