Jump to content

Talk:Shahada/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

untitled comments

(elpincha 05:41, 12 Dec 2004 (UTC) Removed previous questions: one was re-written below, the other became irrelevant following an edit)

Isn't it lame and value-less to re-translate the Greek translation back into English? Just asking. elpincha 07:18, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Not in my opinion; the interesting part is the translation of "Allah" as "the one god". - Mustafaa 18:53, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Mustafaa and others - a few things: The date on the translation, why can't it be more precise? Also: by that time, Greeks were already Christians, so monotheism would not be that revolutionary to them (unless already caught up in those nice pre-filioque controversies). So, is it that interesting? Last: shouldn't the Arabic text of the shahada be "Ashahadu an (etc.)" instead of the shorter version in the article? elpincha 05:41, 12 Dec 2004 (UTC)
In some parts of the Islamic world, it's rather controversial, and has been for some time, whether the Arabic word "Allah" should be translated into local languages (as is typically done in Persian and Urdu) or left untranslated, as I think is typically done in Turkish (because the translation, unlike the Arabic, might be pluralizable, gender-changeable, etc.) In the context of this debate, it's quite interesting to see what they thought back in the first century AH. However, upon consideration, that point may be more interesting for the Allah article than for this one, so feel free to delete it if you want. The date is because it mentions al-Walid, ie al-Walid I; I don't know how they know it's not al-Walid II, but I haven't seen the original book describing it, just the link. As for the "Ashhadu an" business, it could contain it, certainly, but I don't think it has to. - Mustafaa 16:24, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Good, but isn't some context required? For starters, you're venturing out of Islam. Also note that, when used as battle cry or dying words, the Islamic equivalent to Shema would be the takbeer. elpincha 18:49, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)

  • I think I've improved the context.--Pharos 03:46, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Comment added by new editor

The information provided here is worth revered as reliable information. but here is something to be considered. I, as an Afghan Muslim have a commenets in this regard. The wording of Shahad is consist of one more word such as "wa". the actual Dari wording is as follow so the English shall be corrected besed on that. لا اله الاالله محمد رسول الله (moved by Zora)

he is saying we should drop the wa in our version. Is this right? Or is this some kind of Muslim "filioque"? dab (ᛏ) 17:35, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
He is right . There is no وَ ( wa ) , similarly there is no and in the middle of God & Muhammad . In romanisation , correct pronounciation of llāha is llāhu , & rasūlu llāhi is pronounced as rasūlu llāh ( Vovel isnt pronounced at the end of sentence).
Any source for the sufi claim , never heard of it . Farhansher 20:11, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
I think you messed up the i`rab now. I thought illa takes the accusative, hence llaha? Also, the final i is correct as Romanization (genitive), even if you drop it in pronunciation (it should be written, just like the kasra is written; romanization is not IPA). dab (ᛏ) 21:36, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Allah/God again

Jackorlando, "Allah is the god of Muhammed, Jesus, Moses, Abraham, Noah and Adam" -- this is precisely what "God" is used to refer to in English. Arabic: "Allah", English: "God" (if you like, Singular God, ho theos monos). ok? See Allah for a discussion of this. I wish you would read up the information we have already, before reiterating very old discussions. See also Talk:Allah, God#Quranic_definitions_of_God. dab (ᛏ) 17:28, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

I would be really happy and relieved if somebody with good English and Arabic reviews this whole page. Because I've found several mistakes in Shahadah section. There is mistake even on main page for Islam. I am not good at Arabic writing, So, I'd give just one example: 

"lā ilāha illā-llāhu muhammadun-r-rasūlu-llāh" must be translated in English as

"There is no God but Allah and Muhammed is the Messenger of Allah"

And " 'Ash-hadu 'an laa'i-laa-ha 'il-lal-laa-hu wa 'ash-ha-du 'anna mu-ham-ma-dan 'ab-du-hoo wa ra-soo-luh"

Should be translated as "I I testify that there is no God but Allah,And I(also)testify that Muhammad (Sallallaho-Alaihe-Wa-Sallam) is Allah's worshipper and messenger"

The shahadah is (transliteration) 'Ashadu-an laa ilaha illallaah. Wa ashadu anna Muhammad ar-Rasulullah'. There are many translations of this and the most common and most contraversial debate is over the translation of the word 'ilaha'. This is most often translated as 'god' or 'deity'. But a more accurate translation of the word is 'deity worthy of worship'. This would translate the shahadah to- 'I bear witness, there is no deity worthy of worship except Allah. And I bear witness, that Muhammad is the the messenger of Allah'. This makes sense of the Shahadah (and negates claims of groups who join partners in worship of Allah/God) and fits into Islam's charachteristic of 'negation and affirmation (/exception)', which is found on many occasions throughout the Qur'aan. http://www.islamtomorrow.com/9points.htm, provides a good explanation of the whole shahadah. Muhammaduddeen 22:54, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure what disagreement is being discussed above, but it seems to me the English translation should be, "no God but God," etc., no? (As noted above, "God" being the English translation of the Abaric word "Allah," used by Arabic speaking Christians and Jews as well as Muslims.) Paxfeline 12:44, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

overly literally, "no god but the god", but with the English convention of "the single god" -> "God" we get "no god but God" which conveys the meaning perfectly well. dab (ᛏ) 07:57, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
Re English translation of "La ilah ila Allah". My understanding is this: "There is no God (indetermined, without article) but (the) God (determined, with article). Therefore it is customarily translated as "There is no God but Allah".
And because Allah is special Allah is the only word in Arabic written with two L instead of L with Shadda --Soylentyellow 00:05, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

I think it's sensible to not translate the word 'Allah', as it uniquely identifies the Islamic god. This is clear and understandable to everyone. Similar with "Allah-u-Akhbar", which means "Allah is the greatest" (or "Allah is greater"). An additional problem with translating into 'God' is its implicit connection to the Judeo-Christian tradition. Allah has always been the top god of the Ka'aba, there is no need to conceal this.

Messenger vs. Prophet

In Arabic, prophet is "nabii" ("nabiyyun," "an-nabiyyu"). "Rasuul" ("rasuulun," "ar-rasuulu") means "messenger." From the same root comes "risaalah" or "message." Hence the "shahaadah" says that Muhammad is "the Messenger of God."

Nitpick (no one will really care anyway): there would be no definite article ("al") in front of "rasuul" despite the term being definite; this is because "rasuul" is the first term of an "iZaafah" construction, and the first term, which is by default and by definition definite, does not take the article. So, "rasuulu-llaah" would mean "the messenger of God" whereas "rasuulun lillaah" would mean "a messenger of God". Kitabparast 03:43, 12 January 2006 (UTC)


Flags?

Doesn't the Flag of Iraq also carry the Shahada? Sherurcij (talk) (Terrorist Wikiproject) 20:22, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

The flag of Iraq says Allahu Akbar, God is Great, not the Shahadah Fkh82 01:47, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
Aha, thanks :) Sherurcij (talk) (Terrorist Wikiproject) 18:21, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

what is "kalima" ?

searching for the meaning of "kalima" I was redirected to this aritcle, but I can't find any reference to it. --Chatool 09:22, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

I work for a sign company, and I wondered if the Kalima wording is in a downloadable format for large scale printing, i.e. adobe illustrator or eps ?

The most correct translation

The shahadah is (transliteration) 'Ashadu-an laa ilaha illallaah. Wa ashadu anna Muhammad ar-Rasulullah'. There are many translations (interpreations) of this and the most common and most contraversial debate is over the translation of the word 'ilaha'. This is most often translated as 'god' or 'deity'. But a more accurate translation of the word is 'deity worthy of worship'. This would translate the shahadah to- 'I bear witness, there is no deity worthy of worship except Allah. And I bear witness, that Muhammad is the the messenger of Allah'. This makes sense of the Shahadah (and negates claims of groups who join partners in worship of Allah/God) and fits into Islam's charachteristic of 'negation and affirmation (/exception)', which is found on many occasions throughout the Qur'aan. http://www.islamtomorrow.com/9points.htm, provides a good explanation of the whole shahadah. Muhammaduddeen 22:54, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

let's use "god" and "God" (note the piped wikilinks). dab (ᛏ) 07:56, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Shahada on country flags and (not) lowering these flags in times of mourning

Isn't it correct that the flags with the Shahada on them (most notably the Saudi flag) are never lowered/flown at half mast in times of mourning? --Soylentyellow 00:10, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Removal of Insya Allah Reference

The bottom of the article mentioned Indonesian prayers involving the recitation of the words "Allah il Allah" and "Insya Allah." While "Insya Allah" is often uttered, its meaning is not, as the article states, a modified form of the first part of the Shahadah. The meaning of Insya Allah is "if it is God's will." I removed the reference to Insya Allah completely as I believe it is irrelevant to this article. --Liesel Hess 11:03, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

disputed translation

I removed the translation of the shahada which said 'There is no God worthy of worship...', as the words 'worthy of worship' are not in the Arabic. This was reverted by itaqallah, who was kind enough to leave messages on my talk page. This is the message I left on his:

Greetings. Thanks for explaining for revert of my removal of what I consider to be a false translation of the shahadah. However the 'reference' is a polemical and not a scholarly site. If there is a well-established dictionary which has 'ilah' translated as 'God worthy of worship', we can let that 'translation' stand. Indeed, in your comment on my userpage you admit that it is not a translation, which makes me wonder why you reverted. I agree that it would be relevant to put this interprepation somewhere in the article, as such, rather than as a translation.
Additionally, this 'translation' (unintentionally) opens up the implication of polytheism, which I'm sure all Muslims would want to avoid.
Peace, Drmaik 06:06, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Itaqallah feels the site not to be polemical. Well, we can argue about that word. However, the article is taken from a magazine called 'Basheer', which can be translated as 'evangelist' (if you don't object to the Christian connotation of that word for some). I propose that this interpretation be mentioned as such, but not as a translation. Drmaik 06:59, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

A Muslim's last words

I seem to recall a Shia Muslim having told me that the Shahada should be the last words spoken by a Muslim before dying. I read about Saddam Housein having recited this before being executed and wonder if it is a common practice among Muslims. If so, this information should be included in this article. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 66.27.119.90 (talk) 11:21, 21 March 2007 (UTC).

Towards an Encyclopedia

With all due respect for the subtlety and depth of the Arabic language, perhaps any reasonable Romanization would be an improvement over nothing? This is rhetorical. The answer is yes. If no one else does so, I (neither Arab nor Muslim) will do it myself. --Mashford 20:20, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Flags again

It seems kind of unfortunate that the first two illustrations of the shahada are the flags of the Taliban and Hamas. Could other visualizations of the shahada be used instead? Or is there a special reason to use the Taliban version? Katsam 08:40, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

"death for Allah"?

Can anyone explain why the organization Palestinian Media Watch refers to Shahada as being "death for Allah" (ie: martyrdom)? See this link. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.2.143.31 (talk) 05:54, 28 September 2007 (UTC)


Quran Alone views

I keep trying to present the alternate viewpoint of the shahada under differences, but someone keeps removing my additions. The fact that Rashad Khalifa popularized the Shahada as only "Laa Elaaha Ella Allah" is extremely relevant to the topic. Please stop removing it because of your biased opinions. -Saud —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.121.235.180 (talk) 12:02, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Who keeps removing the section from Differences about the Quran Alone/Submitters Shahada ? Your bias is getting the best of you, please let the wikipedia community be aware of all viewpoints. You are violating the rules here at wikipedia and not allowing all opposing viewpoints to be presented. -Saud —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.121.235.180 (talk) 04:44, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

It is unsourced original research. We only include notable viewpoints and do not give any weight to fringe theories. → AA (talk) — 09:32, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

It isn't unsourced. The source is given in the QURAN. The book that is widely accepted by ALL Muslims. In arabic and english it gives the SHAHADA: Quran, Chapter 3, Verse 18. This information is given from the direct source for all Muslims. How can this be considered unsourced? Chapter 3, Verse 18 states the Shahada of Allah, the angels, and those who possess knowledge is to testify/bear witness that: "Laa Elaaha Ella Allah" or "There is no god except Allah". This isn't a theory or anything original, it's been in the Quran for 1,400 years. Please check the source given: Quran, Chapter 3, Verse 18. To remove it just exposes bias. -Saud

please do review the core content policies of this website, namely WP:NPOV, WP:OR and WP:V. your edits do not comply with these policies, and have been undone. it's unlikely that a viewpoint held by a small minority and sourced to a primary source (i.e. the minority website) will be included here, as per our policy on undue weight. ITAQALLAH 17:52, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Removal of Photo

Salam,

Is the photo of the hand necessary to explain shahada? Besides the obvious offence of showing the hand it also is not correct on technical grounds as not all muslin hold out their finger while reciting the shahada in salat.

I suggest it be removed.

--Autoshade (talk) 05:53, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Greek translation is incorrect

The claim that "Allah" is being translated as ὁ θεὸς μόνος "the single god" is incorrect. ὁ θεὸς μόνος means "God alone" or "God only." The full translation is: Οὐκ ἔστιν θεὸς (There is no God) εἰ μὴ ὁ θεὸς μόνος (except for God alone). I have edited the page to reflect the correct translation. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Credo icxc (talk • contribs) 19:13, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

The Shahadah is NOT the Kalimah!

This page constantly refers to the Kalimah incorrectly as the Shahadah. It states incorrectly for example that the Shahahdah appears on the flag of Saudi Arabia.. Even a cursory look at the text of the shahadah on the page will show that it is incorrect. There is a page for the kalimah which needs to be expanded, a lot of the material will need to be moved over to it from the shahadah article.Musa abu A'isha (talk) 12:52, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Illah

I've noticed that in the archives people seem to be arguing quite a bit about how to translate 'illah'. Can I point out that its cognate with El, which is the Biblical word usually translated simply as God (with a capital G)? Anthony on Stilts (talk) 17:50, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

I'd also like to mention that the History section seems very short, and not really about history. Surely something so important to so much of Islam must have some sort of complex history, not necessarily the Shahada itself, but certainly its usage; flags of modern nations are, well, very modern. Anthony on Stilts (talk) 17:54, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

'Shahada' is more of 'Testifying by Ghaib' than 'Witnessing'

is the first of the fives tenets of the First Part (called 'Al-Islam') of the Religion of Islam as per the Hadith related by Omar & headed as 'This is Jibreel (Angel Gabriel) who has come to teach you your religion' (as per Ahl AsSunnah), the rest being (2)Salat (the Ritual 5 Obligatory Prayers of a day), (3)Saum (Obligatory Fasting of Month of Ramadhan), (4)Zakat (Obligatory Charity) & (5) Hajj (Obligatory Pilgrimage to Makkah once in a lifetime). As per Webster's New Collegiate Dictionary, 'to testify' means '1a: to make a statement on personal knowledge or belief' while 'to witness' means '1: to testify to: ATTEST' while 'to attest' means '1a: to affirm to be true or genuine, specif: to authenicate by signing as a witness'. Witness has a connotation of 'reporting of what one has seen' unless it is used to mean '2: one that gives evidence specif: one who testifies in a cause or before a judicial tribunal'. Testifying is more accurate than witnessing as no human being since Adam in his mortal life has seen God (it is not that God is not seeable but that mortal state cannot withstand the majesty of God without evaporating out of existence). The Qoraan says (Q::6:103)(لا تدركه الأبصر) translated (The gazes do not reach Him)(Q:6:103) (because of distance from His Throne to Earth or if near to Him as His Messenger upon Ascension because He has two veils around Him as in Hadith: One of 'Fire' [( this fire is a different fire: a flame with light but without heat & does not burn {another type of fire not of this world: a fire out of this world & not of the Hell-fire which is pitch black} & which Moses (Q:20:10-47) saw coming out of a tree{-trunk} (Q:28:30); when on his journey back to Egypt with his family from Madain he noticed at a distance a fire & went there to get a flame or guidance to his way in journey, thinking mistakenly that it would be a camp gathering around a fire or something like that but when he reached there he got a strange surprise: could not see anyone but could see a flame coming out of the tree{-trunk} lighting everything around it but strangely not burning the tree & then in his very first 'invisible' (ie. hearing but not seeing) encounter with God, he heard in an audible sound words coming from the flame "O Moses! Verily indeed I am your Rearer"(Q:20:11-12) & "Verily indeed I am Alllah, there is no God except Me"(Q:20:14) & related in another Sura: "Verily I am Alllah, the Rearer of the Worlds"(Q:28:30). Moses could hear first-hand with his own ears God's voice from His Throne through that flame in the tree & could talk back to Him through the flame (analogous to modern telephone before the tv telephone) but could not see God physically. This encounter made Moses wanting & very eager to see God physically with his very own eyes & this is what he asked God to which God replied: "You {with your body in this mortal state} will not be able {to withstand} {to} see{ing} me {without burning to a cinder {as mortal matter cannot withstand God's Majesty}} so He gave a real example to Moses saying: "Look at that mountain if it can withstand my showing Myself to it then you will be able to see me {& when God showed Himself to the mountain - it is said in an Hadith that God showed less than a finger-tip of Himself to the mountain & the mountain evaporated with a loud report & the rushing air because of the vacuum created caused} the Moses {to fall} fell down unconsciously & when he came back to senses said verily I know now {the reality that God cannot be seen in this mortal life} & I repent to God {for my unreasonable request}(Q:_:_) & when Bani Israel made the same request to God conditioning their believing in Him to upon seeing Him (Q:2:55-56), as lesson for their unreasonable demand, He sent upon them a lightening which struck them & killed them & then He resurrected them there {as a sign to them of Him being God as God can bring back to life only originally else upon God's permission only as Prophet Ibrahim (Q:2:260) (birds back to life as he wanted to see with his own eyes how God brings dead back to life), or Prophet Jesus (Q:3:49) (he was given permission to turn clay birds to real birds & bring dead back to life & cure leper, as his sign of prophethood) or Dajjaal the Anti-Christ who will appear as the biggest test (will be given permission by God to bring dead back to life) as mentioned in Hadith.] & another of 'Light" to protect the mortal universe from evaporating into non-existence, so the Prophet talked to God behind the two veils like Moses, could hear God but could not see Him, (when he was given the 5 daily prayers or Salat of Islam) & this is confirmed in Aisha's authentic Hadith "whoever says that Mohammad saw God has lied". It is not that God is not seeable. God is seeable in the immortal world, the Hereinafter, the next world to come as confirmed in Ayat: (وجوه يؤمئذ ناضرة الى ربها ناظرة)(Q:75:22-23) translated as: (Faces on that day aglow, at its Rearer agaze)(Q:75:22-23) & in Hadith to his companions the Prophet said : You will see your Rearer in the next life, as you see the sun or the moon in this life. 'Ghaib' (غيب) is (مصدر) (or verbal noun) of triliteral-root verb (غاب) (or 'he was absent'), there is no equivalent word in English, here it means 'UnWitnessed' (ie. by one's senses though present & existing)(as in 'عالم الغيب' 'Aalim AlGhaib' (the Knower of the Unwitnessed - A God's name) ( (opposite of 'witnessed')(شهادة)(as in 'عالم الشهادة' 'Aalim AsShahada' (the Knower of the Witnessed - A God's name), as stated in the Qoraan: (الذين يؤمنون بالغيب)(Q:2:3) & translated as (Those who believe by the Not Witnessed)(Q:2:3) If Ghaib is referred to as 'unseen' or 'unobserved' then other senses except seeing are discounted. So 'unwitnessed'(by all senses) gives a more fuller meaning than 'unseen' or 'unobserved'(by one sense of sight only). However Ghaib can be also referred to as 'mystery' in its dictionary meaning as '1a: a religious truth that man can know by revelation alone & cannot fully understand'.

Other than the 6 mentioned in the Qoraan:(1)Soul(Q:17:85), (2&3)Life & Death(Q:67:2)&(Q:23:80), (3)the Barzakh (the Interim) (Life of)(Q_:_:_)(From behind them is Barzakh until the day they are resurrected), (5)Jinn(Q:7:28) & (6)Magic(Q:_:_)(What we have sent down at Babul {Babylon} upon two angels), there are 6 mysteries in Islam called 'Six Tenets of Belief' (in the Ghaib or the Mystery), forming the Second Part (called 'Al-Eimaan' or the 'Belief') of the Religion of Islam as per the Hadith related by Omar & headed as 'This is Jibreel (Angel Gabrael) who has come to teach you your religion', one has to profess his belief in them before he can become Muslim & which one is automatically considered to profess when one pronounces the Shahada at the time of one's conversion to Islam (or reversion back as everyone is born on the nature of Islam & the parents diverge them to another religion as per Hadith except Muslims never need to pronounce Shahada in their life as they remain on Islam since the beginning except as a part of the Tashahod in the last Rakaah of the Salat as an obligatory condition of it or as per Sunnah in the middle Tashahod at the end of the second Rakaa of 3 or 4 Rakaa Salat or as per Sunnah in God's remembrance or Dhikr as per Hadith "I & the Prophets before me the best what we have said is La ilah ilalllah" or as part of voluntary Wird (ritual remembrance or Dhikr) as per Sunnah after obligatory Salat or part of day or at observance of a calamity as per Hadith of the Prophet "Whoever says La ilah ilalllah he entered (will enter) Paradise"(Prophet has used past tense to confirm certainty) & in another Hadith: "Whoever said last of him La ilah ilalllah he entered (will enter) Paradise")("Mohammad-ur-Rasoolilllah"{Mohammad is the Messenger of God} ie. the second Shahada or the second part of Shahada is the sub-set of the first Shahada or the first part of Shahada (because Shahada consists of two Shahadas or two parts of it) : Belief in (1)God,& (2)His Angels, & (3)His Messengers, & (4)The Other Day (The HEREAFTER which includes the resurrection, the judgment & the reward into Paradise or Hell-fire), & (5)the 'Qadar' (or the Predestination by Him) of Good ,& (6)the 'Qadar' (or the Predestination by Him) of Evil. All these remain mysteries except to the extent they are clarified in the revelation. God is a mystery except to the extent His attributes are clarified in the revelation. Angels are mystery except to the extent their attributes are clarified in the revelation. Even the closest person to the Prophet, his wife Khadija could not see the Angel Gabriel. As related in an Hadith, at the very beginning of the start of the revelation, the Prophet for the second time could see the angel in his room which he saw the first time few days earlier at the Hira Cave at the Mount Noor when the angel appeared suddenly from nowhere asked him to read when the Prophet informed the angel that he did not know how to read embraced him, pressed him & released him - this whole process was repeated three times each time the Prophet giving the same reply - the third time being the hardest as the Prophet could not breathe & feared for himself, then the angel read to him the opening verses of Surat (No.96) Al-Aalaq & disappeared to nowhere with no trace as he had appeared suddenly from nowhere with no trace, this very first unexpected unprepared-for surprise direct encounter ever in his senses shook the Prophet to his very bones & he was the most shaken up ever he would be in his life; to verify that it was a good being, intelligently the Prophet's wife removed her garment from her shoulder then asked the prophet whether he could see him any more he said: "no", then she returned her garment over her shoulder back & asked the Prophet again & he said: "yes I can see him now" but she could not (could be compared to holographic image (2nd shape) which could be seen by some but not by others). This established to her that it was a good being which was confirmed by her uncle Noufal, scholar of previous revealed scriptures in Makkah, to be angel Gabriel, as per the Prophet's description to them of what he saw. The third time Angel Gabriel appeared to him shortly there of when he was walking in the street of Makkah at noon time in his original shape with 600 wings (1st shape)(to acquaint the Prophet with the reality of the matter so that the Prophet will take up the charge of messengerhood with the knowledge of reality of the matter & he will not be in the dark) when the Prophet lifted his head up, the angel appeared sitting on a chair filling all the horizon from East to West & North to South & which frightened the Prophet second time. The fourth time Angel Gabriel appeared (apparently in 2nd shape), to stop the Prophet from dropping himself from a hill to end his life - a human common knee-jerk reaction to end a dilemma by removing its root cause - because the prophet was in a very confused psychological state at that time because of the strange unexplained events which had suddenly started happenning to him & apparently he was not sure what was happening to him, confirming for the first time saying: "O Mohammad! You are Alllah's Messenger", to console him & give clarity & purpose of the strange unexplained events happening to him: ie. I am God's angel contacting you to deliver God's message to the people. Nor any one of the companions saw any angels except fleeting glimpses as in some Hadith when the angel appeared in the form of Prophet's most handsome companion (دحية الكلبي)Dahiya AlKilbi (3rd shape) (apparently so as not to frighten others), so the angel was mistaken by others for the prophet's companion, & apparently this is the shape he appeared during each Ramadhan in Madinah to verify the revealed Qoraan with the Prophet. Only once ever, as mentioned in the Hadith hereinabove, did Gabriel come in broad daylight in front of the companions but this was in the shape of a stranger man (shape no.4) and that while during his presence there they were not aware that he was an angel in the form of a man, though as related in the Hadith they were surprised at the contradictions: that as a traveler there were no signs of travel appearing on him ie. disheveled clothes & dusty hair, as he had fresh white clothes & well-groomed hair & he was not from Madinah as none of them knew him being a small city all the dwellers knew each other, & he appeared suddenly from nowhere & disappeared suddenly to nowhere, & they had noticed that his questioning of the prophet was strange that he would pose a question then await for the Prophet's reply & then confirm it as he knew the answer to it, normally the people would only put question to the Prophet to which they did not know the answer, why he put question to the Prophet to which he knew the answer. They only knew the truth after he was gone when the prophet told them that it was Angel Gabriel who had come to teach them their religion. These fleeting encounters are now in the mist of time & are a mystery now. The fleeting revelation of the God's books is a mystery. The first revelation in the cave in the darkness of night is a mystery now. The rest of the revelation no one saw being given to the Prophet, it is a mystery. All the revelation came during only when the Prophet was awake, so there was no revelation while he was asleep. What the companions saw as related occasionally in Hadith that at the time of the revelation when something was to be revealed the Prophet would go into a trance, his body would become very heavy, his complexion would redden, his forehead will perspire profusely even in cold weather, & a buzzing sound like buzzing of bees will be heard around the Prophet's head by the people around him, apparently Angel Gabriel in transparent form (shape no.5) when not visible to anyone around him would connect with the Prophet to reveal him the verses ordered by God to be revealed from the Guarded Tablet. The Prophet has commented that this was the hardest of the form of revelation to him & that at the beginning of this type of revelation, he would hear a bell ringing, so he would know that a revelation to him was imminent. In another type, when the angel will appear to him as visible being as in cave Hira, would read to him & he would hurry to recite after the angel by moving his mouth hurriedly as narrated by Abbas & from which God stopped him as related in the Qoraan. The Messengerhood is mystery. The fleeting 23 years of the message & the life of the Prophet is mystery now. What we have in front of us is a book of revelation, the only book of a revelation or any religion with a litmus test: (1)More Guided(Q:_:), (2)Unexcellable (Q:13:12-14)&(Q:17:28)with its accompanying Bayan (Q:_:_), (3)the Superb Best Code of Manners(Q:68:4)(Q:33:21)(The Prophet said:"I was sent {by God} to perfect the noble manners (مكارم الإخلاق)(Makarim Al-Ikhlaaq)" as related in an Hadith) or the Clarification (by the recorded Hadith of the Prophet) towards best deeds (Q:67:2)as a promise from God (Q:_:__) to (1)Final Complete Justice that an iota of wrong of this world will not be left unrighted in the next (Q:99:7-8),(Q:4:31&40)(Q:3:195) & (2)Paradise for the Obeyers of God (as in Hadith)&(Q:23:1-11).

The Third Part (called 'Al-Ehsaan' or the 'Beneficence' (in the Worship) has one tenet only:

(أن تعبد الله كأنك تراه فإن لم تراه فإنه يراك) translated as 'to worship God as you are seeing Him, even though you do not see Him, verily He is seeing you'. Ilaila (talk) 19:40, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

'Shahada' is 'testifying'

& 'not declaration' as alleged in the text in Wikipedia's article "...Shahada is the Muslim declaration...". The word 'declaration' is '(إعلان) or transliterated 'Aelaan' ' in Arabic. Ilaila (talk) 07:59, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Cite it. Source it. Add it. Be bold! Peter Deer (talk) 19:53, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Farah

Has anyone noticed that a reference is given a book by Farah (1994), but not other bibliographic information is given? Where did this citation come from? - Jefflithe —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jefflithe (talk • contribs) 01:38, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Shahada vs. Kalima

Is there a difference between Shahada and Kalima(h)? The way the articles are written now, they both seem to refer to the same thing: the phrase "There is no god but Allah, and Muhammad is the Messenger of Allah". If there is a distinction, it's not made clear. Could someone clarify it so that it's understandable to non-Muslims? (Or if they are the same, merge the articles.) -- 128.104.49.67 (talk) 16:06, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

The phrase "There is no god but Allah and Muhammad is the Messenger of Allah" is the Kalima. The Shahada is "I testify that there is no god but Allah, and I testify that Muhammad is the Messenger of Allah". The flags referenced in this article all include the Kalima, not the Shahada – apparently confusing the two is a common error for non-Muslim vexillogists. --GCarty (talk) 18:41, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Requesting sources on "Islamic Flag"

I have removed the description of what is supposedly an "Islamic Flag". The changes were reverted and is still in violation of WP:NOCITE. The unsourced material is:

"An Islamic Flag, known as the 'Flag of Islam' ('Alam al-Islam) or 'Flag of Shahada' ('Alam al-Shahada)"

And:

"White flags with black lettering symbolically represent 'Dar al-Salam/Islam' and Black flags with white lettering symbolically represent 'Dar al-Harb/Kufr"

Please read the pages linked below before adding unsourced material:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:NOCITE#Unsourced_material http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Verifiability#Burden_of_evidence --Kray0n (talk) 17:16, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Shahada in the Qoraan

is present in two separate 'Ayaats'(or signs)(of God{that He exists}) or verses & is mentioned once only, & is gotten by conjoining them together:

(Q:48:29)(محمد رسول الله)(Q:_:_)(فأعلم أنه لا اله الا الله)

translated as:

(So know verily there is no God except Alllah)(Q:_:_)(Mohammad is Alllah's Messenger) (Q:48:29) Ilaila (talk) 13:49, 18 November 2009 (UTC) this is the main religon belief —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.111.110.36 (talk) 02:17, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Nabi vs Rasul

Ive changed the word Nabi to Rasul to better describe the prohet, my reason being that while every prohet is a Nabi not every prohet is a Rasul, so this better describes Mohammed (PBUH)86.149.27.190 (talk) 02:43, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Why was the word Rasul remove from the prohets name,it does not change the article it just gives a more accurate discription, you allow the word nabi to be used which is accurate to describe a prohet but not a messenger. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.138.107.71 (talk) 00:28, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

WP:PBUH - Islamic honorifics should generally be omitted from articles, except where they are part of quotations. Green Giant (talk) 02:13, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Jesus is...

Since Januari 22 the paragraph History sais: "The earliest form of the Shahada was "Lā 'ilāha 'illā Allāh, `Īsā rasūl Allāh" meaning "There is no god except Allah, Jesus is the messenger of Allah".". It would be nice if some source be mentioned for this rather bold statement. KoenB (talk) 06:41, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

That's a really interesting point; do you have links to any academic/scholarly books proving that this was an early form of the Shahada? MatthewVanitas (talk) 06:59, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

Moving editorial comment from article here

Please use for shia full name..Shia asna Ashari... and second thing is its incomplete kalema from shia asna ashri...because "La ilaaha illalha, Mohham-madur rasullallaah, Alian wali ullah, Waa sio rasullullah" now thats completed by Qur'aan

not my post, just transfering it here. MatthewVanitas (talk) 12:59, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Analysis of the calligraphy

The part where the flag of Saudi-Arabia and the other flag are analyzed have to be re-written. Each flag needs his how paragraph because now it's hard to read.--Tomvasseur (talk) 10:55, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

The "See also"

Most links in the "See also" section lead to the article itself (redirection). I don't know Wikipedia's policy on this, but is it really supposed to be so? Could they be expressed in some other manner? --88.112.41.113 (talk) 14:27, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

parts of speech

So is it an infinitive verb, a noun, or what? —Tamfang (talk) 04:19, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

Unnecessary Repetition

Shihadah is defined in the last paragraph of the Overview. Almost exactly the same text is repeated in the following section, which is called Recitation. The only difference is that now Shihadah is now spelled Shahadah. Is this repetition necessary and could the article opt for one transcription of Arabic words? Everybody got to be somewhere! (talk) 21:07, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Or its disliked

Is the current text trying to say that a certain phrase is disliked? Can the meaning of the three last words, be written so that it is easier to understand what is meant?

"In Shia Islam, the creed is expanded with the addition of a phrase concerning Ali at the end, although it is not obligatory or its disliked:" --Seher zjaipur (talk) 10:56, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

Move "Westgate shopping mall shooting" into "See Also" section

The reference to the Westgate shopping mall shooting seems jarring as a distinct section of this article. I think it is better moved into the See Also section as a example of where the Shahada was used to distinguish Muslim from non-Muslim. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.76.166.50 (talk) 17:57, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

Unreferenced content

Cut from the article:

According to most traditional schools (madh'hab), three honest recitations of the shahadah in Arabic is all that is required for a person to convert to Islam. In usage, the two occurrences of ašhadu ʾanna or similar (اشهد أن "I testify that" or "I bear witness that") are very often omitted. The recitation of the shahadah needs to be made in the presence of an Imaam and other people as witnesses.

this was referenced to http://www.bbc.co.uk/religion/religions/islam/practices/shahadah.shtml ; now apart from the question when did BBC become a reliable source on Islamic theology, this is not what the source claims, e.g. it does not go as far as claiming that this is "according to most madhabs", but in naive journalistic manner simply claims stuff without qualifiers or sources

Muslims believe that recitation of the shahadah is without value unless it is earnest. Islamic scholars have therefore developed, based on the data of the Quran and hadith, essential criteria for an expression of the shahadah to be in earnest. These criteria are generally divided into seven to nine groups; the varying numbers and orderings are not due to disagreements about what the criteria actually are, but rather different ways of dividing them.

One such list of seven critical conditions of the shahadah, without which it is considered to be meaningless, are as follows:

  • Al-ʿIlm (العلم): Knowledge of the meaning of the Shahadah, its negation and affirmation.
  • Al-Yaqīn (اليقين): Certainty; perfect knowledge of it that counteracts suspicion and doubt.
  • Al-Ikhlāṣ (الإخلاص): Sincerity, to negate shirk.
  • Aṣ-Ṣidq (الصدق): Truthfulness, that permits neither falsehood nor hypocrisy.
  • Al-Maḥabbah (المحبة): Love of the Shahadah and its meaning, and being happy with it.
  • Al-Inqiyād (الانقياد): Submission to its rightful requirements, which are the duties that must be performed with sincerity to God (alone).
  • Al-Qubūl (القبول): Acceptance that contradicts rejection.

The second part of the Shahada carries several conditions as well:

  • To believe in Muhammad and in whatever he said and conveyed in his message as the seal of the prophets.
  • To obey him in whatever he commanded.
  • To stay away from or avoid whatever he commanded Muslims not to do.
  • To follow or emulate him in ʿibādah (عبادة "worship"), ʾaḫlāq (أخلاق "manners") and way of life.
  • To understand, practice and promote his sunnah ("habits") as well as possible, without creating chaos, enmity or harm.


All of this is referenced to a random Muslim website, http://www.islamtomorrow.com/9points.htm ; now it is well possible that this website gives an unreferenced and possibly garbled account of what might be properly referenced, but I would kindly request that the people who insert this stuff do the proper research and hunt down the quotable sources this may ultimately derive from
the problem with this is of course apostasy, i.e. if it was indeed Islamic teaching that only if all these points are satisfied can a person be considered a Muslim, there would be a considerable burden on proving that anyone who had formerly adhered to Islam and quit had ever satisfied these conditions for qualifying as a real Muslim. It is evident that this isn't how it works in practice (in reality you are kept from quitting out of fear of lynch mobs), and I would ask to be shown a fatwa for apostasy which does indeed go to the trouble that the person considered an apostate had indeed qualified as a Muslim based on these nine points to begin with.

btw this has been tagged for references since 2007(!) You would expect that an article like "shahada" would get editors willing to improve encyclopedicity of Islamic topics more often than once every seven years.

--dab (𒁳) 10:56, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

Requested expansion of History section

The History section of the article currently discusses only the earliest recorded translations of the shahada. It is entirely silent on the (arguably more important) issue of the earliest recorded usages in the original language. References should be made to the shahada's mention in the Quran, hadith, etc. —Psychonaut (talk) 08:10, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

the point is that it is not in the Quran, and the Greek version is apparently the earliest known. I am sure it is also in some hadith, but so far nobody has offered a citation. --dab (𒁳) 11:53, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

Spelling

The article uses the spellings shahada and shahadah without distinction. My understanding is that in Roman script the more usual spelling is shahada (like the name of the article). This is also borne out by the Oxford English Dictionary. Will I step on anybody's toes if I unify the spelling and add a comment about the alternative spelling? Groogle (talk) 01:13, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

Run-on sentence

The lead paragraph gives, as the simplest form of the Shahada:

There is no god but God, Muhammad is the messenger of God.

This is a run-on sentence. Each of the two parts, before and after the comma, is a sentence. The comma should be replaced by a period (treating each part as a sentence) or by a semicolon. TypoBoy (talk) 19:50, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

You may be right, but you'll have to take it up with the cited sources which is how it appears there. DeCausa (talk) 20:00, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
It seems unlikely that I'll persuade the authors of those sources to fix their texts, if they are indeed broken. But I bet they aren't; I'll go check them. If some Wikipedian has misquoted them (which, as I say, seems likely), I'll correct the page to match the source.
Thanks! TypoBoy (talk) 00:43, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
Sure enough, the first reference, the Historical Atlas of Islam, says:
The most important [of Islamic fundamentals] is the prefession of faith, a creedal formula that states: "There is no God but God. Muhammad is the Messenger of God".[1] TypoBoy (talk) 19:32, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ Malise Ruthven (January 2004). Historical Atlas of Islam. Harvard University Press. p. 14. ISBN 978-0-674-01385-8.

Dispute resolution

@Gogo Dodo and Sujitpatel744:; Please solve the problem in the talk page instead of edit war in the article!--Seyyed(t-c) 07:56, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

I've also restored the article to its pre-30 July version which has been stable for a very long term. The additions to the lead may have a place in the article if properly sourced but are inappropriate to the lead. DeCausa (talk) 09:53, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
@DeCausa: I do not insist to add all of these material to the leads. However, They help to improve the article. So, we can make a section for it: "Concept of Shahada". --Seyyed(t-c) 12:51, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
I think the concepts eg tawhid are mostly already in the article (terminology section). DeCausa (talk) 11:48, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

Encoding/font problems?

The page hosted at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shahada is not displaying Arabic fonts properly on Google Chrome 45.0.2454.85 m (64-bit). Encoding is properly being set by the page to UTF-8. Firefox, IE, and Edge do not seem to have this problem. A sample of other pages in the same Google Chrome instance do not have trouble with Arabic fonts; see http://imgur.com/a/JSNun for visual of the problem and examples from ar.wikipedia.org and wiktionary.org that do not feature the problem. Could be a font-family problem specific to Chrome? I don't know how to fix it or even where to start in Wikipedia, but I wanted to bring it to someone's attention. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:1C0:4001:A50F:F477:4F13:896E:1CFC (talk) 09:39, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

Edits by User:Ahmadsafi1212

This user has been repeatedly adding a series of "conditions" in the lead.[1]. But they are written in quasi-religious language that is inapropriate for an encyclopedia. Also the sourcing is doubtful. Please discuss here. DeCausa (talk) 12:12, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

There is no god but Allah

Instead of translating the Arabic text as "There is no god but God ..... " it should be "There is no god but Allah ..... " This is because according to Muslim belief the name of God is Allah. you cannot translate the name and translate it to be god with a capital "g" — Preceding unsigned comment added by Laphanga (talk • contribs) 11:41, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

I say the correct translation is: "There is no god, there is only Allah"
Because of the following:
My knowledge of islam says that Allah is not a entity according to western beliefs, Allah is not a deity, not "a" god, but Allah is the energy, the life force, the entity that is the creator. Saying There is no god but allah means that Allah is a god, "a" god, and all other gods are not so.... While saying "there is no god", " but only allah" means that there is no such thing as god or gods, but there is instead Allah, and Allah is a different type of thing than the notion of "god", Allah is different than the idea of "god" or "God" or whatever, the inventor of the shahada must know this, and know about the idea of deity and gods.. If "la ilahe illallah" Does in fact mean "La ilaha" NO GOD, "ILLALLAH"=ONLY ALLAH, then it is definitely the correct translation. The correct translation can not be "there is no god but god" as this would translate as "LA ILAHE ILLAILAH" or somthing similar. Arabic uses ILAH for deity, and the other is ALLAH. They are different.
LAILAHEILLALLAH has a second meaning as well:
SHIRK is a sin because having a second god is denying the fact of the NATURE of ALLAH.. NOT because it is inappropriate to compare Allah with an "other" god, but because the CONCEPT of ALLAH is completely different from other "gods", but because there is ***ONLY*** ALLAH, in other words, there is NOTHING *OUTSIDE* of ALLAH, there is ONLY allah, Allah is the only thing that exists.
You must separate western idea of god to understand the deeper concept of Allah. Allah is the creation force and is NOT a "god", and Allah is the only thing existing, (More similar to the concept of God said the word, word was with god and the word was god) This means that also you are a part of Allah, but having a second god is not possible and denies the unity of god. As in western tradition there can be smaller gods, Allah is the concept where there is ONLY ONE SINGLE god and it is all that exists.. NOT like there exists you and humans and the universe and god, but god is one, the same god is both the universe everything, you me and everything in it. Thank you for your time.
To summarize: I suggest changing the translation of the shahada to "There is no god, there is only Allah ..." This is a HUGE difference with the current description!
Allah knows better.. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.186.25.174 (talk) 19:44, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
Odarcan (talk) 00:45, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

I have heard a number of scholars translate the shahada as "I testify that there is nothing worthy of worship except Allah and I testify that Muhammad is His Messenger." When a person says "There is no god but God," it is unclear what "god" or "God" mean. The Arabic word for "god" in the shahada is "ilah." An "ilah" is some entity that some people hold out as worthy of worship. Also the Arabic begins with "ashadu," and that means, "I testify, I bear witness, I swear."

What the previous user, Odarcan, said is good but I have one problem with it. He said in Islam, Allah is all that exists. I believe this contradicts mainstream Islamic doctrine. Allah exists and His creation exists. Allah is not like His creation. You could say Allah is The Living (Al-Hayy) and no one else is Al-Hayy, that being one of the excellent ninety-nine names of Allah. But Al-Hayy means something like "truly alive, vibrant, vital." What this means is Allah has a very special kind of life as He is immortal and He is the source of life. And Allah knows best. Ibnsina786 (talk) 23:12, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

That's a misunderstanding of the English language. God with a capital 'G', in English grammar, is a proper noun i.e. a personal name and is not the same as god. In English, therefore, "God" is the personal name of the monotheistic deity, the "ONLY ONE SINGLE god" as the other person puts it. See also WP:ALLAH. DeCausa (talk) 07:42, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

the god, and also the perspective of just "la ilaha illa allah"

Shouldn't "allah" be translated "the god" instead of "god", or "God"?

Also shouldn't the perspective that just "lā ʾilāha ʾillā-llāh" is part of the shahada be included in this article? A lot of muslims are of the perspective that it is shirk(associating gods beside the god) to state "muḥammadur-rasūlu-llāh" beside "lā ʾilāha ʾillā-llāh" in a testament, or witness to our faith.

Jahelistbro (talk) 18:17, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 28 June 2016

The term "Wali" in Shia's Shahada means "guardian", "patron", "master", "proprietor", "owner" as mentioned in Wali and Walayah. Other resource: Ahlul Bayt DILP, IslamQuest so عليٌ وليُّ الله means "Ali is the guardian and in charge of the affairs and he is more entitled to be in authority on all matters of faith and law. Thus guardianship has been granted to him by God"[1] Bmheydari (talk) 09:23, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

I've removed the gloss "friend", so the reader can consult the Wali article for the full range of meanings. Eperoton (talk) 15:34, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ "Why does Shia say: The sentence "Ashhadu anna alian waliullah" must be repeated in Adhan?". islamquest. Retrieved 28 June 2016.

Phrase counts

@Velchenvoy: WP:PRIMARY says: "Do not analyze, evaluate, interpret, or synthesize material found in a primary source yourself". What your generalizations did was synthesize the material of the Quran, and in fact in its entirety (one can't verify whether something occurs twice in a text without examining all of it, by whatever means). You're going in the right direction in looking for non-primary RSs. It's arguable whether Yüksel's commentary can be classified as a RS, but I won't object to using it here. Now you need to find RSs to support the rest of your passage, or reduce it to the properly sourced statements. In fact, if you look below at the Origin section, we already have a statement on this topic. For the record, Yüksel's footnote states: "The expressions la ilaha illa Allah (there is no god, but the god) and la ilaha illa Hu (there is no god, but He) occur 30 times in the Quran and never in conjunction with another name." Eperoton (talk) 04:19, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

@Epteron: Thanks very much for your guidance. I used the footnotes of 2:255 (p. 110) and 59:22 (p. 1356) from Nasr (2015), The Study Quran for citing the forms of the Shahadah. FN 2:255 states: 'There is no god bug He also appears in v. 163; 3:2 (where the Living, the Self-Subsisting also appears); 3:6; 4:87; 6:102; 7:158; and in many other places. Within the text of the Quran, the shahadah, or testimony of faith, takes the form "God, there is no god but He" much more often than "There is no god but God".' FN 59:22 (where "There is no god but He" occurs) states: "For an explanation of the Islamic testimony of faith (shahadah), with which this passage begins, see 2:255c". I used the "Wahiduddin's Web: Living from the Heart" and wikishia web links for independent phrase counts of the form "la ilaha illa'llah"; and Yuksel (2007), Quran: A Reformist Translation and Wikishia as reference for the combined phrase count. I removed the reference to other forms which address God through pronouns 'Me' and 'You' (since they were not explicitly listed in the two translations cited; although they are mentioned in wikishia and the "Wahiduddin's Web"). Also referenced a full list of all occurrences of the word 'ilah' (god) from the Quranic Arabic Corpus (it occurs 147 times, ~30 correspond with the shahadah). Yuksel 2007 is the reference for the forms never used in conjunction with another name. Hope that is better off.
@Velchenvoy: This is better, though there are still some issues with sourcing. Wahiduddin's Web and Wikishia don't meet the criteria for reliability as self-published sources whose authors are either uncredited or don't possess the credentials to qualify as "established experts". The Quranic Arabic Corpus has solid academic credentials behind it, but it's more of a tool for original research, which we shouldn't be indulging in. The link doesn't make the needed generalization. However, you seem to have resonable sourcing even besides those refs, so I'll just remove them. Eperoton (talk) 05:19, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected

I've semi-protected this page for a bit, to stop the constant to-ing and fro-ing between the use of the words "God" and "Allah" in the English translation of the Shahada, which currently appears to be the result of one person using multiple accounts to make one change, and the rest of the community reverting their changes to the consensus version. Although there is long-term consensus about this translation, if people want to make a case for that change while this semi-protection is in place, they can still propose that change here if they wish in the meantime. -- The Anome (talk) 09:55, 25 June 2016 (UTC)

I've also now added an edit notice to help make this clearer. -- The Anome (talk) 18:25, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

This is, of course, a theological question, and not to be resolved by majority votes, let alone by administrative action. Semiprotection is useful to keep people from engaging in useless revert-warring, but the question has to be resolved by a compromise, not just by opting for one out of two legitimate approaches. E.g. using brackets, as in "God [Allah]" or vice versa. Of course the entire point of the shahada is the statement that Allah=God and there is no other valid view than this. This doesn't make it a fact or a prescription to be followed by Wikipedia, it's simply a point of religious doctrine we are going to report while remaining acutely aware of WP:TIGERS. --dab (𒁳) 13:26, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

@Dbachmann: While both variants can be found in RSs, this particular issue falls under a WP MOS guideline, WP:ALLAH. MOS can be changed by obtaining WP:CONSENSUS (not majority vote) on the appropriate MOS talk page. Eperoton (talk) 14:06, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
"MOS" is not policy. Consensus works on a case by case basis, not via some overarching "manual". I get it that we need a MOS guideline to render "Allah" in a random passage of Arabic text. But this is the shahadah article, and its mention of Allah deals with the definition of this term directly, so it will be perfectly justified to, in this case, be more specific. I do not have any specific view on how it should be done, I am just saying it is worth looking into, and citing "MOS" at people is not helpful.
I do get the impression of rather selective bias here, Eperoton. I would be happy to work with you, but if you take it upon yourself to blank a reference like "A. Grohmann, Arabic Papyri In The Egyptian Library, Volume I, 1934, Egyptian Library Press: Cairo, No. 2, pp. 10-11." citing "WP:RS" and then give me "WP:MOS" on the talkpage, I have to say I don't take this as an encouraging sign of future fruitful collaboration (please realize that I've been on Wikipedia for 12 years, so I've taken up a habit of pattern-matching interactions like this). --dab (𒁳) 23:19, 23 July 2016 (UTC)
@Dbachmann: MOS is not a policy, but it is a guideline which reflects community consensus and should be followed unless there are good reasons not to. Respecting this principle lets us avoid having to argue over points previously established by community consensus anew every time another editor who doesn't like one of those points comes along. If someone has a substantive argument for making an "occasional exception" (as the guideline blurb puts it), we'll discuss the proposal. I haven't seen one yet.
As for your bold edit, I reverted it because it violated the cited policies. Did you follow that papyrus link? I did and came to the conculsion that its use in the added text violated one or both of them (depending on how the web page relates to the cited paper), like other parts of the added text, though this case is less clear-cut than the others. Moreover, your edit removed properly sourced material. Do you disagree? If you do, I'll be happy to discuss further. Eperoton (talk) 01:40, 24 July 2016 (UTC)


(Q:48:29)(محمد رسول الله)(Q:_:_)(فأعلم أنه لا اله الا الله)

translated as:

(So know verily there is no God except Allah)

If you are going to write capital "G" for god and asking people to assume it as Allah then the sole purpose of negating anyother gods of the shahadah is vain. Ilah means god Allah is the personal name of Ilah. So in every translation of shahadah The word "Allah" should exist. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 31.50.231.134 (talk) 03:22, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

meaning of shahada

it is said "there is no entity worthy of worship but allah", while some mystical itnerpretations of islam prefer to mean "there is no god, but allah (as absolute reality). can this rarer view be added (with sources from a ismaili webside (a lot of islam based articles use IslamQA as source, thus I guess, we can use websites as long they present themesleves and are mentioned that way here) and an interpretation of islamic mysticsm.--VenusFeuerFalle (talk) 14:30, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

Less prominent translations would be undue in the lead, but we can have a separate section devoted to alternative translations and/or interpretations of the shahada. Academic sources would be preferable. Websites may be used with caution, but it can be difficult to assess their prominence and place them in context. IslamQA is a prominent website which generally presents Salafi viewpoints and they should be identified as such when it's cited directly. If there's a prominent Ismaili website, which we can identify as such without OR, and we don't have a better source for this interpretation, we could use it too. Eperoton (talk) 04:52, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

Please do not change "God" to "Allah." !!!

The page WP:MOSISLAM specifically addresses this and there is a clear notice on the editing page of this article. This seems to be a big problem for this article especially. Just looking at the edit history, it seems the majority of edits have been changing one to the other (2 or 4 bytes an edit).

To those who believe that "Allah" is more appropriate: we understand how you feel. However, there has been a consensus to translate الله as "God," and any edits contradicting this will be reverted.

etothei (talk) 23:13, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

you cannot make rulings on content, especially on questions as complex as this one, in "MOS" (manuals of style). This is not merely a question of "style", as in, where to put a comma or when to use boldface. It is very much a question of content and must be addressed in context. You should not go around in such a patronizing way, using the royal "we" and suggesting that "the cabal" has decided content issues for editors somewhere in MOS namespace.

The question must be decided based on the best sources available for each topic. It will primarily depend on what country, what historical period, or what Islamic sect is under discussion at any given moment. I will have you know that Indonesia has recently officially disregarded your "manual of style" and has outlawed the use of "Allah" as equivalent of "God". Try to cover that incident while replacing each instance of "Allah" with "God". You are welcome. --dab (𒁳) 12:04, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

This entire topic of "do not change" should be eliminated. If semantics were the case, then the Shahada should read "there is no Allah but Allah" -- to say "there is no God but God" is to impose an Islamic, taqiyya-based ideology upon a free-thinking ideology. RC Silk (talk) 21:40, 5 September 2017 (UTC)RC_Silk

Please note that the literal translation from Arabic for illaha(illah) into the English language is god as both the words illaha(illah) and god are common nouns. "llah" or "allah" or all-lah being a proper noun does not have any translation into any other language. Therefore the literal translation for the Shahada from Arabic to English is

"There is no god but Allah. Muhammad is the messenger of Allah". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2405:204:D281:8715:9DFA:F825:F996:DFB0 (talk) 06:03, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

Any other translation is pure and simple Taqqiya. The order of the Malaysian supreme court against the use of Allah below the cross and idols of Jesus in Churches by the Christians there throws light on this subject. The court clearly ruled that Allah is a proper noun and not a common noun. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2405:204:D281:8715:9DFA:F825:F996:DFB0 (talk) 06:07, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

The Malaysian Supreme Court is not in charge of the whole world, nor of Wikipedia. MatthewVanitas (talk) 07:10, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

Malaysian Supreme Court ruling

In response to comments such as: The editor is spreading falsehood about Islam even after knowing about the order of the Malaysian Supreme Court who delved deeply into the meaning of the Shahada.

  • While that fact is interesting, it is very well covered at the article Allah which delves into the whole legal issue in Malaysia.
  • per MOS:ALLAH, "Allah" should be replaced with its translation, "God", unless used as part of an English-language quote. Also, the first occurrence of "God" in the article should be something to the effect of the following: God. That is established Wikipedia format, and if you disagree you should demand an RFC for it, but I don't see it changing based on any of these arguments.
  • I don't see any reason that the Malaysian SC's ruling would matter in the slightest to MOS:ALLAH for various reasons including:
  • The Malaysian SC does not speak for all Muslims
  • The Malaysian SC is (presumably) a secular body and not a religious authority
  • Wikipedia is not based in Malaysia, the vast majority of our editors are not in Malaysia, so legal constraints in Malaysia have no impact on Wikipedia policy. If somehow individual Malaysian readers are not supposed to read such renderings, that's up to the individual reader to decide.

Just posting here to sum-up the argument so we don't need to repeat it all over Edit Summaries. MatthewVanitas (talk) 10:01, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

The Malaysian and the Indonesian Supreme Courts went deep into this particular topic being discussed about the translation for the word Allah and in their wisdom came to a similar conclusion that I have mentioned in the page. Please do not edit it without reading the judgement of the two courts. I am sure you would agree the courts would not come to such a conclusion without deeply pondering on and delving into the subject. Remember we are talking about the Supreme Courts of the respective countries and not some village courts. Malaysia and Indonesia together form majority of the muslim world. — Preceding unsigned comment added by P C Sunil (talk • contribs) 10:25, 22 February 2018 (UTC)
P C Sunil As noted before, I'm aware of the SC findings in Malaysia and Singapore; like a lot of people I saw them in the news. Plus I actually did read your footnotes, so please don't assume I didn't. Again, a Supreme Court is not a religious body, first off, and despite Indonesia and Malaysia having very large Muslim populations, that does not make them any more an authority on Islam than any other country. Do you think Egypt or Saudi Arabia would agree that Malaysia's SC is a higher supreme court then their own, or then the faculty of Al-Azhar or the scholars of Mecca or Medina?
Supreme Courts have are focused on jurisprudence, not theology. And further, there are substantial political incentives and priorities involved (many of which the news comment on).
If Indonesia or Malaysia want to set editorial and legal policy in their countries, that's totally up to them. But I see zero reason that's binding on the rest of the world, much less Wikipedia itself. MatthewVanitas (talk) 10:53, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

You have hit the nail on the head. No view is binding on the rest of the world but considerable resources were used by the Supreme Court to settle the issue once and for all. If you could direct to me to any article contradicting the ruling of the Supreme Court I would gladly consider your differing viewpoint. Scholars from Saudi Arabia too accept the judgment of the Malaysian Supreme Court. Allah is the supreme god of the Muslims just like Yahweh is for Jews and Christians and Shiva is for Hindus. — Preceding unsigned comment added by P C Sunil (talk • contribs) 11:03, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

I will rephrase: I literally do not understand why you think a Malaysian Supreme Court case settles anything "once and for all". 1400 years since Muhammad's time, and you're claiming that a secular body in one single Muslim country has settled the matter "once and for all"? I honestly do not understand how you can come to this conclusion.
It is not remotely incumbent on me to disprove the Malaysian SC. Not every Muslim in the world believes that "God" is an improper rendering, and plenty of scholars of Islam (both Muslim and non-Muslim) render the term "God" in their writings.
Oh, and by all means check out the article Yaweh; it is not about God in Judaism, it is about an Iron Age god. The article God in Judaism uses, well, the term "God" to refer to the supreme being with Judaism. Similarly, the article Allah is about the term itself, while the article about the being is God in Islam. MatthewVanitas (talk) 11:25, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

A better translation

..would be "There is no diety worthy of worship than God and mohammed is his messenger". The current translation is a bit recursive. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.216.173.15 (talk) 02:26, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Which words are translated as "worthy of worship"? —Tamfang (talk) 06:39, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

The Shahada (uppercase 'S') or the shahada (lowercase 's')

Since "the Shahada" is one particular creed, I think is a proper noun, so shouldn't it be "the Shahada" instead of "the shahada" in running text? —BarrelProof (talk) 22:51, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

Ilah and Allah

I found this article a little confusing at first. Would it be alright to change "There is no god but God." to "There is no god but God."? If not, could someone put some kind of explanation of this in the terminology section? 71.191.76.9 (talk) 03:35, 23 December 2018 (UTC)

I hadn't seen this comment before, but I did move the suggested wikilinks to the Arabic transliteration of the phrase. Placing them as you proposed here doesn't agree with our Manual of Style. In particular, per WP:ALLAH, "God" in this context should be linked to God in Islam, as it is already when it first appears in the article. This sort of translation by WP hyperlinks isn't normally done on WP, so the other link you suggest would run counter to WP:EGG. Eperoton (talk) 00:15, 5 January 2019 (UTC)
I attempted to put an adequate explanation in the terminology section as I suggested before, but the help of an editor more experienced with this page would be nice. 71.191.76.9 (talk) 01:05, 5 January 2019 (UTC)
I think that's fine. The ref is for citations of reliable sources. Since this content seems uncontroversial, we don't need to cite one to satisfy WP:V, unless requested to do so. Eperoton (talk) 23:20, 6 January 2019 (UTC)
Thank you for your helpful edits. 71.191.76.9 (talk) 00:22, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

word for word translation?

could you be so kind as to give a word for word translation of the shahada, especially the first part, for those who don't speak arabic (but yet want to understand it with as little interpretation by translation as possible). at best one would do it in the shape of a table with two rows. since I can not do this here, I'll make an attempt with slashes (rather guess-work since I do not know arabic):

lā /ilāha /ill/ā llāh /muḥammadun /rasūlu /llāh

(there is?) no / god [ilah] / but / THE (one, only and definite) God [Allah]/ (and?) mohammad (is?)/ (a/the?) messenger of / THE God [Allah]

I write "THE (one, only and definite)" because, most probably, as I read, the word Allah comes from the contraction of al and ilah = the god. so the text does not speak of "a (indefinite article) god" (one general type of god among a multitude, implying also a certain vagueness) nor of "this (demonstrative pronoun) god" (a particular god pointed out among several gods); instead it speaks of "the" god (definite article), meaning: there is no comparison with other gods, no talk of (vague) general qualities of a group of gods, no talk of a certain god besides others. so the text stresses that there is just one god - which necessarily is the "one and only" - and it is a well defined god, implying also "definitive"... so the "al" in "Al-lah" is like the THE when we say: "that is THE (essential and uniquely important, even all-important) truth of the matter" - not just: "that's the truth of the thing..." or even only: "that is a truth in the matter...". your comments please!

salaam for all humane humans! (and by "humane" I mean the most divine of all qualities: being "gracious" and "merciful" to the utmost...! [and if you want to know what I mean by "merciful", don't just read the basmala, see also Gladiator (2000 film) > https://m.youtube.com/watch?feature=youtu.be&v=x3-M_gRQuyo ]) HilmarHansWerner (talk) 09:26, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not based on original research. We go with what the reliable sources say. There are currently four of them at the end of the translation in the article. What sources are you basing your statements on? Wallyfromdilbert (talk) 15:03, 9 February 2019 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Shahada/Archive_1&oldid=1222709757"