13 responses to “Christians and Allah”

1. 

   David Warden

   August 15, 2025

   Very interesting – thanks Riccardo. An ex-Muslim member of our humanist group recently told me that Muslims don’t think of the term “Allah” as a generic term for God. They understand it as God’s actual name. I was surprised by this because I had always understood that the Christian “God” and the Islamic “The God” are equivalent, except for the Arabic addition of the definite article. So is “Allah” a title, as in “The God”, or a proper name, as in “Yahweh” or “Zeus”?

   Linguistically, “Allah” comes from Arabic. It’s commonly understood as a contraction of al-Ilah—meaning The God. Arabic, like many Semitic languages, uses the prefix “al-” to denote “the”. So in its roots, “Allah” simply means the God, in the same way as a French speaker might say le Dieu.

   But piety doesn’t always follow grammar. For Muslims, the term “Allah” is not just a placeholder or descriptor. It’s the personal name of the one true God, the same God worshipped by Jews and Christians (though with important theological differences). This belief is woven into the fabric of Islamic practice, prayer and scripture. The Shahada, Islam’s central declaration of faith, uses “Allah” deliberately: There is no god but Allah, and Muhammad is His messenger. There is no substitution here. To replace “Allah” with a different word—say, God, Yahweh, or the Divine—would strip the sentence of its power and precision.

   So while “Allah” may have started as a definite noun (The God), in Islam it has taken on the weight and function of a personal name. It’s not just a word for God—it is God, named.

   Some people wonder if the “-lah” in Allah relates to other names of God, such as El or Elohim in Hebrew. The root idea is broadly similar: all these words derive from ancient Semitic roots meaning “god” or “deity.” In Hebrew, El and Eloah are among the oldest names for God. In Aramaic the word is Alaha. So there’s a family resemblance. The -lah in Allah isn’t a suffix or a fragment, though—it’s simply part of the whole word.

   This reminds us that Judaism, Christianity and Islam evolved from a common cultural and linguistic ecosystem in the ancient Near East.

   So a Muslim saying “Allah” is not just using a generic term—they are invoking a sacred presence, a uniquely named reality.

   Reply
2. 

   riccardomarcocampa

   August 15, 2025

   Thank you, David, for the wealth of information you provided. You are correct in emphasizing that the word Allah evolved from the more general concept of “the god” into the proper name of the one God in Arabic. Its ultimate linguistic ancestry can be traced back through Semitic languages to roots cognate with the Hebrew Elohim. Since Elohim is morphologically plural, it originally referred not to a single divine individual but to a category or class of powerful beings — members of a divine order rather than one exclusive deity. In the early stages of Israelite religion, this made perfect sense: the Hebrews, like their Canaanite neighbors, appear to have been polytheistic, participating in a worldview that envisioned a high god presiding over an assembly of other divine beings. Over time, this polytheism shifted into henotheism or monolatry, in which only one god, Yahweh, was worshiped without denying the existence of others. It was only in the later theological developments — particularly during the exilic and post-exilic periods — that Israelite religion became fully monotheistic, reinterpreting older plural terms and imagery to fit the belief in a single, unique God. Yet, as certain passages in the Hebrew Bible still show, echoes of that earlier plural divine world remain embedded in the text.

   Reply
3. 

   riccardomarcocampa

   August 15, 2025

   I would add that turning a general concept of deity into a proper name is quite common in monotheistic religions, as the word tends to take on a single, fixed purpose. This is especially true when the original meaning of the term has been largely forgotten. In this respect, the European case is particularly instructive. From an unexpected angle, Catholicism can be seen as more continuous with its Greek-Roman cultural and linguistic roots than with its Semitic, Abrahamic origins. Consider the very words used for God in European languages. Italian “Dio”, Spanish “Dios”, and French “Dieu” derive from Latin “Deus”, which ultimately traces back to the Proto-Indo-European root “dyeu”, meaning “sky” or “heaven.” This root gave rise to the ancient concept of the sky god — Father Sky — embodied in Sanskrit as “Dyáuṣ Pitṛ́ ” and in Roman religion as “Iuppiter” (Jupiter). Linguistically, this lineage is entirely separate from the Hebrew Elohim or Arabic Allah, derived from the Semitic root ʾlh.

   The influence of pre-Christian European languages is even more apparent in the English word “God” and the Polish “Bóg”. God comes from the Proto-Germanic *gudan, related to the older Germanic and Norse conception of a deity invoked or worshiped, derived from the Proto-Indo-European root *ǵhau- (“to call, to invoke, to sacrifice”). Its plural, gods, follows the standard Germanic pluralization. In contrast, Polish Bóg and its plural Bogowie derive from Proto-Slavic bogъ, meaning “deity,” which is linked to the idea of a god as a dispenser of fortune or blessings. This is reflected in related words like bogaty (“rich”) or bogactwo (“wealth”), emphasizing the connection between divinity and abundance. In both cases, the names for God in Christian contexts carry echoes of earlier, indigenous European religious concepts, linking Christianity linguistically to Germanic and Slavic pagan roots in the same way that Dio connects to Latin and Proto-Indo-European sky gods.

   Cultural continuity also appears in religious offices and ritual. The title of Pontifex, a Roman priestly office, eventually evolved into the papacy. While Catholic doctrine is monotheistic and Abrahamic at its core, the retention of such a title — and certain ceremonial elements inherited from Roman ritual — suggests that aspects of classical religious practice were adapted rather than eradicated. Liturgical form, hierarchical structure, and ceremonial language thus reveal an underlying continuity between the classical world and medieval Catholicism.

   Meanwhile, much of Catholic theology is expressed through Greek and Latin vocabulary — angelus (angel), baptismus (baptism), ecclesia (church) — showing how deeply the religion is embedded in the linguistic and intellectual environment of the Mediterranean rather than in Semitic linguistic traditions. Early Christian texts, written first in Greek and then in Latin, reinforced this framework, giving European culture a shaping role in defining the way the Abrahamic God would be conceptualized and named.

   The result is a striking dual heritage: Catholicism’s language, ritual, and cultural forms are largely Greco-Roman, Germanic, and Slavic, tracing back to concepts like Father Sky, Dyáuṣ Pitṛ́, Jupiter, *gudan, and Bóg, while its core theology and narrative remain Abrahamic. The echoes of ancient sky gods, Germanic and Slavic deities, and Roman priesthood in the words we still use, and in offices such as the Pontifex, remind us that religion is never created in a vacuum. Rather, it is a living synthesis of inherited ideas, adapted and reinterpreted across centuries. In Catholicism, the past of Europe’s classical and pagan world and the monotheistic vision of the Hebrew prophets converge in ways that are often invisible but fundamentally embedded in its very structure.

   Reply
4. 

   riccardomarcocampa

   August 15, 2025

   Concerning Islam and the name of God, a Muslim friend explained the following to me. Muslims believe that Allah is the one eternal, all-powerful being, whose essence and attributes—such as mercy, wisdom, and knowledge—transcend human language. While the word “Allah” is specific, the understanding of God is not limited to Arabic, and people in every culture can recognize and relate to the divine through their own languages. Islamic teachings emphasize that Allah sent messengers to every people, ensuring that guidance was accessible to all humanity. These messengers communicated in the languages of their communities, such as Hebrew, Aramaic, or Arabic, conveying the same essential message of monotheism and ethical guidance. Therefore, even if other peoples did not use the name “Allah,” they were still being called to worship the same ultimate reality, though their understanding might be incomplete or expressed differently. In this sense, Allah’s name is unique, yet the divine presence and truth are universal, transcending linguistic and cultural boundaries while remaining the same singular reality that all prophets conveyed. What I find particularly remarkable, and the point I was making in my post, is that Jesus used a word much closer to “Allah” than to any other terms used by contemporary Christians.

   Reply
   1. 

      David Warden

      August 20, 2025

      Many thanks Riccardo. What do you make of the claim that YHWH is related to the Hebrew verb “to be”? When people complain about the God of the Old Testament it seems to me that if the root meaning of God/YHWH is ultimately a personification of everything that is and everything that happens, whether by luck, chance or happenstance, then there is nothing to complain about, at least not in terms of blaming a deity who does bad stuff, or who could intervene to prevent bad stuff from happening.

      Reply
5. 

   riccardomarcocampa

   August 21, 2025

   Thank you, David. The claim that YHWH is related to the Hebrew verb “to be,” together with the view that the encounter between YHWH (God) and Moses should be understood primarily in symbolic terms, has been taken seriously within the Catholic tradition—especially by Christian Platonists such as Pseudo-Dionysius the Areopagite and Boethius. Yet this interpretation is not confined to Christian Platonism. According to Bishop Barron’s reading of St. Thomas Aquinas, God is the sheer act of existence itself—ipsum esse subsistens—the ground of all reality, not merely one being among others. God is at once transcendent beyond creation and immanent within it, the non-contingent foundation for why anything exists at all. He is not an object to be studied scientifically, but the source and sustainer of all existence: eternally real and a mystery beyond full human comprehension.

   I explored this hypothesis in my article “God and His Biblical Alter Ego” by comparing Plotinus’ Neoplatonic conception of God with the biblical YHWH. I wrote:

   **In the Enneads, Plotinus (2018, 569) states that ‟the One is, in truth, ineffable, for whatever you might say about it, you will be saying something.” Then, he specifies that ‟to say ‘transcends all things and transcends the majesty of Intellect’ is, among all other ways of speaking of it, the only true one, not because that is its name, but because it indicates that it is not ‘something’ among all things, it having itself no designation.” Afterwards, the Neoplatonist master adds that God can only be reached by following the via negationis: ‟In fact, if we do not have knowledge of it, does it follow as well that we do not have it at all? But we have it in such a way that we can speak about it, though we cannot speak it. For we say what it is not…” (Plotinus 2018, 570).
   Plotinus places the One at the top of the ontological hierarchy of the universe. Everything flows, emanates from it as the light from the Sun. The One, of itself, cannot say anything other than: ‟I I” or ‟am am.” These expressions are very close, though not exactly equivalent, to ‟I am that I am” or ‟I will be what I will be” – the famous phrase pronounced by Yahweh when interrogated by Moses about his name (Exodus 3:14). We can exclude the equivalence, and therefore the direct influence of Judaism on Plotinus, because the only possible version of the Bible accessible to the Egyptian master was the Septuagint, that is, the Greek version of the Holy Scriptures. In the Septuagint, the expression אֶהְיֶה אֲשֶׁר אֶהְיֶה (’ehye ’ăšer ’ehye) is translated as ἐγώ εἰμι ὁ ὤν (Ego eimi ho on), ‟I am The Being.” This is something the Ineffable One would not say.
   We do not know if Plotinus wanted to remark the difference between his supreme deity and the one of Hellenic Judaism, however, right after, the author of The Enneads explicitly specifies that the first hypostasis cannot say ‟I am this,” if ‟this” is something different. This is something that only the second hypostasis can say. Indeed, below the Ineffable One there is the hypostasis of universal Intelligence, which Plotinus calls ‟Logos” and that already belongs to the sphere of the multiple. Plotinus writes that Intelligence, having entered a dual dimension, of itself, in an instant of self-awareness, can say: ‟I am being” – which is exactly the phrase we find in the Septuagint. Similarly, for Christians, the Logos is the second person of the Trinity.**

   In Christianity, YHWH is the first person of the Trinity, and Jesus Christ—the Logos—the second. However, according to a certain (and obviously controversial) interpretation of Deuteronomy, YHWH was originally understood as the son of Elyon, the Most High, within a polytheistic framework. A full discussion of this hypothesis would take us too far afield here. Nevertheless, I can recommend a YouTube video that explores this possibility (as I also do in my Routledge chapter). While the author of the video acknowledges some mistakes in his presentation, the general reflection remains thought-provoking. Here is the link: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n9q_b9UvfBY

   In light of this, your observation makes a lot of sense: if the name of God points us not to a “being among beings” who intervenes capriciously in history, but to the very ground of being itself, then the usual complaints about the “God of the Old Testament” risk missing the point. To blame God as though He were just another actor within creation is to misunderstand the biblical and philosophical tradition that sees YHWH as existence itself, the source from which everything flows. This perspective doesn’t make suffering less real, but it shifts the conversation away from imagining God as a rival force in the world, and toward understanding Him as the mystery that makes the world possible at all.

   However, discussing the cruelty of God in the Old Testament still makes sense, because the allegorical interpretation of the Bible is not universally accepted. There are Jews, Christians, and Muslims who read it literally and, at times, use it to justify atrocities. For this reason, the way we interpret God’s name and nature has profound consequences—not only for theology, but also for how faith traditions shape human action in history.

   This is particularly significant for me as a sociologist, since I tend to evaluate ideas by looking at their social, historical, and pragmatic consequences. What people believe about God is never just a matter of abstract speculation; it also influences cultures, politics, and everyday life in very tangible ways.

   Reply
6. 

   Dr. Kishor Shankar Dere FCIArb

   August 25, 2025

   This is a fascinating debate on God and Allah. Although God is omnipotent, omnipresent and omniscient, so-called agents of God and ordinary people repeatedly demonstrate their spiritual poverty by indulging in petty fights rooted in their ignorance and intolerance. Polytheistic religion Hinduism states that just as all rivers and streams merge into a big ocean, followers of different religions also eventually meet the same God with multiple names, forms, shapes, sizes, manifestations and modes of worship. Therefore, it is in enlightened interest of all followers of all religions to have self-respect, mutual respect and respect for all the universe created by the Almighty. Diversity, pluralism, compassion and empathy are prerequisites of world peace and security. It makes little sense for zealots to convert people of other faiths to a particular religion, and attempt to establish hegemony over others on the basis of demographic changes. Religious wars have their roots in monotheism ending up in bigotry, hatred, bloodbath, an unquenchable thirst for creating empires and an insatiable appetite to control others. Polytheism seems to be a pragmatic, realistic and scientific approach to religions of the world.

   Reply
7. 

   riccardomarcocampa

   August 25, 2025

   Dear Kishor, thanks for sharing your thoughts on monotheism and polytheism. David Hume actually agreed with you about the more tolerant character of polytheism, since it naturally makes room for diversity in belief and practice. At the same time, he argued that monotheism tends to present itself as the more rational framework, aiming at a single, ultimate source of order. As you pointed out, though, the two don’t have to be seen as opposites. Ancient Greek philosophers, for instance, could speak of Theos (the One) as the ultimate principle, while also recognizing the theoi (the many gods) as different ways in which that One was expressed or made accessible. In that sense, monotheism and polytheism can overlap, depending on how we define and approach them. That’s why I think your observation is so important: much really depends on how we understand and frame these concepts, rather than treating them as fixed categories.

   Reply
8. 

   Dr. Kishor Shankar Dere FCIArb

   August 25, 2025

   Future of international peace and security heavily depends on the approach of monotheists towards OTHERS (rival monotheists and polytheists) as they aspire, perspire and conspire to prove their absolute infallibility, superiority, supremacy and the ONLY PATH TO SALVATION philosophy. In their worldview, they alone have the right to exist in the world. Others should either surrender to them or be ready to face extermination. This is an unfortunate reality the world has been witnessing for at least last two thousand years. Today’s wars are continuation of that mindset although they appear to be territorial, national, geo-strategic, economic, ideological conflicts. Root cause is, however, the desire to subjugate others and prove one’s own religious/cultural/civilisational/ideological way of life as the best, perfect and final truth.

   Reply
9. 

   Dr. Kishor Shankar Dere FCIArb

   August 28, 2025

   “You must be the Change you want to see in the world.” ~ Mahatma Gandhi

   Reply
10. 

    Dr. Kishor Shankar Dere FCIArb

    August 28, 2025

    “The best way to find yourself is to lose yourself in the service of others.” ~ Mahatma Gandhi

    Reply
11. 

    Dr. Kishor Shankar Dere FCIArb

    August 29, 2025

    As the ‘modern, civilised’ world continues to proudly fight wars in the name of nationalism, and names of religions are used/misused/abused by certain quarters to justify violence, it perplexes human mind. The vexed question is, how to overcome this challenge. Marx termed religion as opium of masses. That approach, however, did not work as was seen in the collapse of Communism, implosion of the Soviet Union and revival of religion in erstwhile Communist bloc. What is required now is broadening of intellectual horizons of people and developing respect, tolerance for other views and opinions. It may be worthwhile to read and think through this statement: “…in the mystic traditions of the different religions, we have a remarkable unity of spirit. Whatever religions they may profess, the mystics are spiritual kinsmen. While the different religions in their historical forms bind us to limited groups and militate against the development of loyalty to the world community, the mystics have always stood for the fellowship of humanity. They transcend the tyranny of names and the rivalry of creeds as well as the conflict of races and the strife of nations. As the religion of spirit, mysticism avoids the two extremes of dogmatic affirmation and dogmatic denial. All signs indicate that it is likely to be the religion of the future”. Source: Dr. Sarvepalli Radhakrishnan in his book Eastern Religions and Western Thought (Preface, pp. viii-ix) A Galaxy Book, OUP, 1939. Thus, the challenge is whether human beings can think of themselves as citizens of the world and children of God. Can we be mystics who will transcend narrow-mindedness, combat short-sightedness and thereby stand for humanity and nature?

    Reply
12. 

    Dr. Kishor Shankar Dere FCIArb

    September 2, 2025

    Relationship between Science and Religion or Spirituality is often a deeply contested issue. Popular (mis)perception and (mis)understanding propagated by most of the rationalists, secularists, atheists, agnostics and socialists-communists is that science and religion are diametrically opposed, hostile and at cross purposes. They generally argue that religion is based on a belief system or faith that is superstition, ignorance and emotions while science is rational, logical, empirical, objective, verifiable, quantifiable and universal. Such an approach, however, seems to overlook empirical evidence. In this context, it may be pertinent briefly look at religious views of some of the leading scientists themselves.
    For example, Sir Issac Newton was highly religious. Newton believed that behind the veil of the physical world lived a divine, infinite intelligence which continuously supported and maintained it. The God who designed the universe and the life it hosts was infinitely superior to the human ability to understand Him. Newton saw himself, “…like a boy playing on the seashore, and diverting myself in now and then finding a smoother pebble or a prettier shell than ordinary, whilst the great ocean of truth lay all undiscovered before me”. This was his extraordinary level intellectual humility often noticed among the greatest scientists. Newton was a true theist, just like other leading champions of the scientific revolution: Galileo, Kepler, and Bacon. He shared with these learned men a generally Christian faith, as well as a propensity to develop personal views on foundational doctrines of this faith which were often at variance with the orthodoxy of the Denomination to which they ostensibly belonged. In an explanatory note in his famous work Principia, Newton outlines his views of God’s role in creation, which remarkably differs from that of other contemporary philosopher-scientists, such as Descartes and Leibniz. These learned men limited the role of God to the establishment of a mechanical universe. Once created, the universe required no further intervention from God, and could be understood entirely in terms of mechanical principles derived from an observation of physical phenomena. In contrast, Newton’s God remains actively involved in the universe He created. Without continual divine involvement, the universe would eventually collapse; for instance, the orbits of planets have to be divinely maintained. This kind of interventionist God was criticised by Descartes, Leibniz, and others on the ground that it portrayed a poorly built universe that demanded a continuous tinkering on the part of God to function: and what kind of om­niscient and all powerful God would have to do that? However, for Newton the God of these thinkers came too close to rendering the very idea of a Creator ultimately unnecessary: and much of the subsequent developments vindicated his concerns.

    Another great scientist Charles Darwin, although deeply dissatisfied with Christianity, he was not done with God. At the time he was writing the Origin, he writes, he found other reasons for believing in the existence of God. In particular, he thought it was nearly impossible to regard the physical universe, life, and man’s consciousness as the result of pure chance. He was therefore compelled ‘to look to a first cause having an intelligent mind in some degree analogous to that of man’; because of that, he felt it proper to be regarded a theist. At the time of the writing of the Autobiography, the ageing Darwin had lost his trust in human ability to ever solve these problems. “Can man’s mind,” he wondered, “with its deep roots in the crude cognitive abilities of the lowest animals, be capable of answering ultimate questions, such as the one concerning God’s existence?” His final answer was negative: “The mystery of the beginning of all things is insoluble by us; and I for one must be content to remain an agnostic.” This was probably his final, lasting position.

    Albert Einstein said, “Science without religion is lame. Religion without science is blind”. He stresses, “My religion consists of a humble admiration of the illimitable superior spirit who reveals himself in the slight details we are able to perceive with our frail and feeble mind”. He added, “The intuitive mind is a sacred gift and the rational mind is a faithful servant. We have created a society that honours the servant and has forgotten the gift”. An innocent and curious mind is naturally amazed by the vastness of nature and natural law. He remarks, “The scientists’ religious feeling takes the form of a rapturous amazement at the harmony of natural law, which reveals an intelligence of such superiority that, compared with it, all the systematic thinking and acting of human beings is an utterly insignificant reflection”. Nothing can be clearer than these observations.

    Robert Oppenheimer, the architect of the nuclear bomb, referenced another verse from the ancient Sanskrit text Bhagavad Gita when recalling his state of mind as he witnessed the Trinity explosion in the New Mexico desert on 16 July, 1945: “If the radiance of a thousand suns were to burst at once into the sky, that would be like the splendour of the mighty one”. These verses refer to the sublime form, “Vishwarupa”, Lord Krishna takes in the Bhagavad Gita when he reveals his divine nature to the warrior prince, Arjuna.
    “Who are you?” asks Arjuna. “I am Time,” replies Krishna, “powerful destroyer of worlds, grown immense here to annihilate these men”. Arjuna is blinded by Krishna’s radiance even as he quakes with fear at God’s capacity to destroy evil with the fire emanating from his ferocious visage.

    Professor Christian Anfinsen (Nobel Prize for Chemistry, biochemistry of RNA, Johns Hopkins University): “I think that only an idiot can be an atheist! We must admit that there exists an incomprehensible power or force with limitless foresight and knowledge that started the whole universe going in the first place”.

    Professor Werner Archer (Nobel Prize for Physiology/Medicine, restriction enzymes and molecular genetics, University of Basel): “I do not think our civilisation has succeeded in discovering and explaining all the principles acting in the universe. I include the concept of God among these principles. I am happy to accept the concept without trying to define it precisely. I know that the concept of God helped me to master many questions in life; it guides me in critical situations and I see it confirmed in many deep insights into the beauty of the functioning of the living world”. There are many such views of scientists. This is only a tip of the iceberg. Due to paucity of space, it is not possible to cover religious and spiritual views of all the scientists in one blog post. Principles and propositions propounded by those great scientists are, however, important. Their honesty, modesty, humility, objectivity, rationality and curiosity are pervasive. Can the self-styled and self-proclaimed champions of rationality posing themselves as arch rivals of religion be fair enough to acknowledge these facts?
    Let us once again remember profound statements of Einstein: “Whoever undertakes to set himself up as a judge of Truth and Knowledge is shipwrecked by the laughter of the Gods. When the solution is simple, God is answering. God does not play dice with the universe. God is subtle but he is not malicious”.

    Reply