Hacker News Reader

Comment by anovikov | Hacker News Reader

Well, why don't they think that Vikings simply seen these as a decoration, not understanding what they mean? That happens in much much more recent times. Late Russian ex-foreign minister, and ex-prime minister Primakov, who is Arab states specialist and reads Arabic scripts very well, once saw a garment with 'No god except Allah...' on Patriarch of Russia Alexy II, shocking him because similar ritual garments were used by the Orthodox church for centuries - with inscriptions on the cloth seen simply as decorations - cloth was by tradition bought in Syria. Story was from ca. 1995.

View on HN

Allah literally means God in Arabic. It is comprised of definite prefix 'Al' and the word for god 'Elah'. In English, to show the difference between generic god and specific God, the first letter is capitalized. Arabic does not have the same capitalization rule , so instead they call the specific deity 'Allah', literally meaning 'the god', or 'God'.

This is important because not all Mulsims are Arab and not all Arabs are Muslim. Allah is first and foremost an Arabic word. As a result, practitioners of Islam in other languages use other words to refer to God.

In Iran, for example, Persian word 'Khoda' is used by Muslims, Christians, Jews, and Zoroastrians to refer to God in their religion. 'Allah' is never used except in phrases and words borrowed from Arabic and using it on its own in the middle of a Persian sentence would sound very odd.

I have also heard that Arabic-speaking Christians and Jews use the Allah to refer to God in their religions, but I have not fact-checked it.

The parent likely means "La ilaha illallah". So the point it not about "Allah" (indeed many cultures use that word for God -- it is derived from the semetic El). The point is instead about an inscription of the Shahada on the cloth of the Patriach of Russia. This would be akin to the US President wearing a garment with something along the lines of "God save the Queen" in Latin (assuming the President didn't understand Latin).

On the other hand (debates about the unity of the trinity aside), Christians believe in a single God as well (and that God is understood by Muslims to be Allah). So while the shahada is strongly associated with Islam, I doubt it would particularly conflict with Orthodox Christian teachings (IANA religious scholar). So perhaps the better analogy would be the US president wearing "A Mari Usque Ad Mare", the Canadian motto, which means "From Sea to Sea".

>I have also heard that Arabic-speaking Christians and Jews use the Allah to refer to God in their religions, but I have not fact-checked it.

I can confirm this. We say "Allah." The advent of Islam into the global public awareness has created a lot of confusion about Middle Eastern cultures, e.g. I frequently hear "Allah is the name of the Muslims' God." But it is in fact a more generic word, exactly analogous to "God" with a capital G.

> I can confirm this. We say "Allah."

Is there any difference at all? I was under the impression that all abrahamic religions referenced the same "God". So when a Muslim, Jew, and Christian say "God" are they not all referring to the same deity?

There is no grammatical difference. @smnrchrds above is spot on in his explanation of the etymology. "Elah" is "god" with a lowercase g (as in, a god). "Al" means "the" in Arabic. "Allah" = "Al Elah" = "the god" = "God."

Now, whether the Abrahamic religions consider their God to be one and the same is a philosophical question. It depends on what "the same" means. Each of them claims to refer to the same entity, at least from a historical (or archaeological) point of view; but some followers of the different Abrahamic religions might object to each other's representations of God and deem them "not the same." A theological case can be made that they are ultimately distinct (I find it to be weak, but it's been argued). But, nominally, they are the same entity despite differences in characterization (and I believe this is the prevalent view).

Islam is, AIUI quite explicit in saying that they worship the same deity as Christians, agree that Mary was a virgin, and that the birth of Christ was a miracle. They just consider Christ to be (one of?) God’s favourite prophet, rather than God incarnate.

There is even an empty tomb next to Mohamed's tomb for when the Christians kill Jesus when He returns and proclaims Mohamed the greatest Prophet. The religions have interesting intersections but I have never had a good conversation with a person about it because they always assume I am trying to convert them.

Well both Christians and Muslims have "names for God" that extend beyond just the simple word "God".

Christians have described God in myriad ways[1] since the Old Testament times.

Muslims also have the "99 Names of Allah"[2].

I don't think Muslims have another name for Allah like the Christians/Jews do (i.e. "Yahweh" or "Jehovah", depending upon your pronunciation).

[1]: https://www.gotquestions.org/names-of-God.html

[2]: http://www.islamicity.org/5855/99-names-of-allah/

muslims have something else of equal importance, mohammed is a demi-god by mere association, in christian terms he'd be one aspect of the trinity.

That would depend on the perspective of the follower. In general, each successive religion sees itself as a continuation of the former, but the former does not see its successor as legitimate.

Meaning, if you asked a Christian whether he and a Jewish follow believe in the same god, he would say yes. The Jew would probably say No (I once heard a Jewish man refer to the New Testament as "that appendix").

By the same token, a Muslim would insist that he follows the same god of Abraham, Moses, Jesus, etc. A Christian, however, would say that he does not.

See also the Druze and Bahai'i faiths, which draw upon an extend the Abrahamic faiths.

>a Muslim would insist that he follows the same god of Abraham, Moses, Jesus, etc. A Christian, however, would say that he does not.

I'm Christian, and I believe that the abrahamic religions worship the same entity. "The lamp is different; the light is the same." Now what? :-)

The question is a variant of Theseus's Paradox. If you change some parts of God's character and actions, is it still the same god, or another? It really depends what kind of sameness you're asking about: grammatical, historical, nominal (claimed)... The question is otherwise ambiguous.

You are right nominally; the person you're replying to is right in terms of doctrine. Otherwise, you would say you were Muslim (or some pan-abrahamic variant) and not Christian.

THE SECOND VATICAN COUNCIL teaches that Muslims "adore the one God, living and subsisting in himself; merciful and all-powerful, the Creator of heaven and earth, who has spoken to humans. They take pains to submit wholeheartedly to even God's inscrutable decrees".

Pope John Paul II has said the fact that Christians and Muslims worship "the One and same God" is a factor that draws the two communities together and lays the basis for love and cooperation between the two communities of believers.

Really? Catholics, Anglicans, most "mainline" Protestant churches are doctrinally copacetic with the notion that jews, muslims and christians alike all worship the god of abraham. This was not always so, of course, but it turns out that ecumenicalism is a pretty smart idea.

To your point about Theseus -- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apophatic_theology is germane here. In this way of thinking, definitionally we can only agree on what God isn't, not what it is.

>Really? Catholics, Anglicans, most "mainline" Protestant churches are doctrinally copacetic with the notion that jews, muslims and christians alike all worship the god of abraham. This was not always so, of course, but it turns out that ecumenicalism is a pretty smart idea.

Sure, but the criterion for sameness is what matters. I see this as cultural and historical sameness, not doctrinal; the doctrines of the Abrahamic religions certainly do not agree on the fundamentals.

I also don't view it as apophatic, as I acknowledge both positive and negative claims are possible. I just think it comes down to the criteria of "sameness" and so it's ultimately an ambiguous question, and one must specify what is effectively being asked. Depending on the actual question, both your answer and others can work.

OK. So from that angle, though, it's turtles all the way down. Since I am not You, and thus we are not the same, our internal conceptions of _anything_, God included, are going to have some fuzz.

If you're too strict about sameness criteria, it's difficult to agree on what, like, pants are, and we wind up at the relatively trivial solipsism arguments that get boring pretty quick.

If you go back far enough, of course, the doctrines of the abrahamic religions _do_ agree on the fundamentals. "God made stuff, God is on our side, act accordingly." The procession of covenantal relationships throughout history (with noah, abraham, issac, ishmael, jacob, john, jesus, mohammed, etc. etc. ) continually reinterpret what that means for people, but the basics are something everyone can break bread over.

> If you're too strict about sameness criteria, it's difficult to agree on what, like, pants are, and we wind up at the relatively trivial solipsism arguments that get boring pretty quick.

> ... fundamentals ...

If I may butt in. That's one such essential message of these religions, that we are all the same and equal. Yet their essence is to define the respects in which to compare for equality and in those they do differ substantially. The primary difference is the question of authority, which has differing answers IMHO, and I believe that's the same question as the GP was asking.

And so you pretty quickly end up with fundamentalism, except that they all cannot agree on whose fundamentalism, whose authority, whose definition of failure to accept.

no, the question is as ambiguous as the source material, there is no specification. And the authors likely couldn't answer coherently either, so it's indeed an cboose your own adventure type of question.

I should have used the word "probably" in all accompanying instances of "would"--the extent to which the followers are inclusive of other members of the Abrahamic faiths obviously vary from community to individual follower. I merely wished to limit confusion.

Yes, many Christians will consider that Muslims worship the same God. On the other hand, I grew up in the American South, and I can assure you that the sentiment is not universally shared down here.

In my understanding, (most) (white) (christian) people in the american south only concluded that catholics were christian in the last ~50 years or so... ;-)

> the same entity

abraham?

i was trying to be non-anthropomorphic while referring to god. Whoops.

Yes and no. Their concepts of God have a shared historical origin (Judaism), but they are quite different. For example the Christian God (in mainstream denominations) is a Trinity composed of the father (basically Yahweh), the Son (Jesus) and the holy ghost. This is very different for the concept of God in Islams and Judaism.

> when they say deity, are they not all referring to deity?

fixed that for you

Yes? But the question makes little sense however whichway you turn it. undefined === undefined; on the other hand NaN !== NaN

and yet, I disagree, because the theism lies mainly in the believes and these are essentially about inequallity in either case.

Exactly, the real question is why the muslim God is referred to as "Allah" even in English. It's not like the Christian God is called "Theos" or something in other languages. At least as far as I know.

In Japanese for example they use the same word, Kami, as the use for the more spirit like gods of Shinto.

They do. There was a bit of a flap a few years ago in Malaysia when they attempted to ban non-Muslims (in practice, Christians) from using the word "Allah".

http://edition.cnn.com/2014/06/24/world/asia/malaysia-allah-...

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/jun/23/malaysia-highe...

As a funny modern example, check out Kenyon Martin, former NBA all-star, having Chinese character tattoos. I never really thought about this until social media apparently all told him to back off when he said current Brooklyn Nets point guard Jeremy Lin shouldn't have dreadlocks in his hair because that was a black culture thing, and then Lin (politely) pointed out that Martin had Chinese character tattoos. I imagine very similar.

And then on the flip side, I read an article a while back about how t-shirt manufacturers in China choose English slogans for making t-shirts based on how nice they think the letters look, not based on what the words mean. They have no idea what the words mean and will actually even change some of the letters to make the pattern look nicer if they think it helps.

I would be really interested in that article about t-shirt slogans!

Don't know about the GP's article, but there are actually quite some YT videos around of someone interviewing people in Asia (I think the last one I saw was based in Japan), asking them if they know the meaning of the words on their shirts.

Some of these are hilarious..

While living away from my native California, I had a good laugh seeing someone with a "San Bernardino Beach" shirt.

I have multiple shirts that say Surf Ohio on them, I’d assume it was also a tongue in cheek thing like that.

Sad to say I can't find it. But it had interviews of top sellers of t-shirts. These people would literally type random English letters into online search engines (obviously not Google) and see what got auto-suggested. Then they'd choose the auto-suggestions that literally looked the prettiest or coolest to them. Maybe change a letter here or there to make it look even more cool. Then off to the t-shirt printers.

Well in my country (3rd world country), most t-shirts are imported from China. If they have slogans, it's with English text with broken grammar or usually with text that doesn't even make sense. No one bothers though since English isn't widely spoken in neither of the countries.

There is also the Western predilection for Chinese character tattoos which don't always mean what the customer thinks they mean and, of course, the Chinese predilection for English tattoos that...

http://hanzismatter.blogspot.com

- a blog "dedicated to the misuse of chinese characters in western culture". Highly recommended for disillusionment and entertainment value! :)

there are few blogs re: Japanese t-shirts 'in English'

'Crap your hands'... etc.

http://www.dorkly.com/post/70381/hilariously-translated-japa...

Is it actually shocking? Isn't it just a statement the Orthodox church would agree with ("there is no god except God") written in Arabic?

It's literally the first commandment.

not necessarily. monolateralism and monotheism aren’t exactly the same.

most versions of the commandments specify that the god of abraham is the only god that ought to be worshipped.

strict monotheism came later.

edit: that said, yes, it should be totally unsurprising.

But Allah is a cognate of El/Elohim. You could translate it as There is no god except El/Elohim. Just because it uses Arabic characters doesn't mean it can't be translated into English (or Russian) as something other than Allah.

But if it was literally that sentence, one has to note that it is the beginning of shahada, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shahada , one of the Islamic creeds. From this perspective the surprise element of the story (if true), is both stronger and clearer to explain.

It’s a specifically Muslim formulation of the idea, though.

There's some suggestion that the Spanish interjection olé is also descended from Allah (or rather some conjugation of it).

More or less, each name for God in the Jewish, Christian, and Islamic traditions is related to a similar name in one or both other traditions. "Allah" is a modern standard Arabic transliteration of a word which translates quite simply to God. The only reason to translate it as "Allah" is to signify that the context is Islamic.

Spanish speaking people have an even more obvious loan word from Arabic they use pretty commonly: ojalá. It means, "hopefully," or literally, "God willing."

The word "alphabeth" is also of greek origin.

But no one tries to pass the message of greek influence to the point of there being articles for that in hackernews.

I don't know what that means. Everyone knows that there is a massive Greek influence on Western culture. The only reason there might not be many HN articles on it is that it's so obvious.

>The word "alphabeth" is also of greek origin.

Yes and no. It came through Greek (though to us via Latin) but of course the names for Alpha and Beta (and most other letters) are based on the Phoenician Aleph and Bet.

Yep. It's like people nowadays getting tattoos with Han characters without knowing what they mean. Or the exact opposite happening in the CJK countries where Latin letters or gibberish English phrases are used decoratively in t-shirts. It is also well known that Nordic smiths would—with varying success—imitate decorative patterns and Latin phrases found in items forged by their Central European counterparts.

You all know that language is notorious for co-opting words and phrases from other languages, without necessarily bringing the original meaning or tradition. E.g. In Spanish the phrase ojalá is used to respond to a question with an optimistic 'I hope so!'. It is derived from the Arabic "ma sha allah" meaning if God wills it, and yet I doubt many a Spaniard cares that they are invoking the title of the Muslim God. Heck, a lot of the Spaniards that I know have the last name Matamoro which basically means that someone in their ancestry was given that name because they killed Moors, and while my acquaintances find the thought of killing revolting, they don't change their name.

Very interesting, do you have a reference?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com