Author [EN] [PL] [ES] [PT] [IT] [DE] [FR] [NL] [TR] [SR] [AR] [RU] Topic: "The Name" or "The Reference of God"? (A Quite Long Critic)

Offline Ocyid

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 17
  • 8:22
    • View Profile
Salamun Alaikum

In the Name of The Most Gracious, The Most Merciful One and Only

My name is Ocyid, I am an independent researcher of Quran. I am a new member here, so nice to meet you ;D

In article about "ALLAH’ IS NOT AN EXCLUSIVE NAME FOR GOD" ( Mr. Joseph discusses about the name of Allah or the “name” of God in Arabic. This discussion is quite interesting. I am actually writing about similar thing as a sub-topic in a relevant matter but with different method within a quite long writing. Since, I believe nobody will ever read mine, I hope my writing here could give a broader insight regarding this matter.

Understanding The Problem
In his article, Mr. Joseph begins it with "It is becoming increasingly understood by many Muslims that the name ‘Allah’ is the only correct designation for God". This is interesting. The point that makes it interesting actually is not in whether God is naming himself as "Allah" or others. The point that makes it interesting is actually in how we perceive "name" itself.

It is undeniable that name is part of our identity. Yet, we may often forget that name itself actually is not something we are born with. It is how our parents referred to us so that they and other people are able to identify us. No babies ever born with a natural name, people who give birth to the baby or who "found" them are the ones who use “specific reference” so they can identify the baby. Therefore, when a baby is born, an identification bracelet is usually put on him/her to distinguish the baby with other baby, because “the name” itself is not naturally a part of the baby. This shows that "name" is actually not a natural part of us like our body parts. In an extreme example, this is why when there is an accident where the bodies of the people involved are damaged, the forensic team would identify the victims through their "unique physical appearance" like birthmark or from victims’ belongings -but not name itself, unless the name is attached to the victim (note: this is just an example, please enlighten me if you understand more about forensic). Only through physical examination, "the name" could be determined. It is indeed intriguing to think that when we were born, parents give us names to “identify” us. Yet, when we are dead, people may analyze our bodies to "identify" our names.

This shows that "name" itself does not naturally come with the "object". Humans give names to almost everything they could find. As long as we can "imagine" it or "define" it, we or "humans" can give name to it. In fact, this might (note: might) be what language essentially is all about: to represent an object/objects in "real life" (concrete or abstract) with spoken or written linguistic elements . Most people know the smallest “meaningful” unit of these linguistic elements as “word”. Language students know that the smallest unit that can still represent real-life object is called “morpheme”. Yet, to simplify it, I would use the term “word” here.

We use word to represent real-life object, since there is a limitation in "bringing" the object itself in a real-life communication. If we do not have a word for "blue whale" for instance, then when we are talking about a "blue whale" we will have difficulties in pointing this object we are talking about. Or, when we want to talk about abstract concept like "dream". If we do not have word to represent this abstract object, we will have some difficulties when we want to refer to it. The following conversation could be a simple example:

A: "Last night I experience a series of thoughts, images, and sensations occurring in our mind when we are sleeping"
B: "You mean a dream?"

Again, this is what language is all about: to represent an object/objects in "real life" (concrete or abstract) with spoken or written linguistic elements . We commonly know this act simply by "naming". Language students know this act as "referring" or "denoting". Borrowing John I Saeed (in Semantics, page. 23), "referring" or "denoting" is an action of picking out or identifying with words. For those who are interested to this kind of problem more, you may want to read Semantics by John I Saeed. I use the 1998 edition. However, as far as I know, this discussion about "reference" in page 23 apparently only focus on "noun", but not other parts of speech. Whereas, other parts of speech than noun may actually come from the act of "naming" too.

One of the easiest example is the verb "google". The verb "google" might have not existed before the existence of "Google" itself. After that, people start using the verb "google" to refer to "an act of searching for information about (someone or something) on the Internet using the search engine Google". Therefore, basically, we “name” that act as “google”. This shows verbs too come from the act of “naming”. Maybe only some “special” words like linking verbs in English that does not represent this act, since linking verbs are only use to connect between subject and predicate or between noun and its adjective. However, quite different with noun in which it involves "concrete objects", many other parts of speech involve "abstract objects" or a “concept” in the process. Thus, it may be more difficult to prove that other parts of speech actually come from the act of naming too (or more precisely “referring”), although it is still possible. The verb "google" above is one of the examples.

I know it would be better if there are more examples. Therefore, if you have one you may want to add it in the comment below, so we can learn it together. Moreover, the examples are not limited to English only. It would even far better if the examples come from your native language, for your own better understanding.

Regardless the difference between "concrete” and “abstract”, any words may actually come from the simple act of "naming" itself or the act of representing an object/objects in "real life" (concrete or abstract) with spoken or written linguistic elements. As a proof in this modern day, we could easily look up for definition of a word. Those definitions are actually the real life object, either concrete or abstract. In elementary level, definitions are usually replaced with pictures to make it easy for the elementary level readers in understanding what the linguistic elements represent. Of course, not all real-life objects could be drawn. There is a limitation for that too. Thus, we use definitions instead to push the limitation itself.

The act of “naming” might seem like a simple action. Yet, if we try to understand the nature of language or look deeper to the underlying principle of how language works itself, we will find that the simple
act of naming is actually the most basic nature of language itself. Interestingly, this act is actually mentioned in Al Baqarah (2) verse 30-33.

In Al Baqarah (2) verse 30-33, this act of "naming" is actually narrated in the Quran. We still repeat this process in our daily life, but maybe we are too busy to notice. Above, I give you some examples. In reality, there are a lot of other examples about how "naming" seems to be our natural intuition. One of the most famous example is the naming of a continent during the 16th century. The continent itself may have been around for ages. Native may have had their own names for this continent. Yet, when foreign people came, they gave a new name for this continent. Nowadays, the continent is known with that particular name given by the "new" people. This is just one of the examples. There are many other examples in our daily life. We name our newborn child. Some give name to their inventions or discoveries. Several even give a specific name for their personal belonging (i.e. a car named Knight Rider, a motorcycle named Dorothy, a dog named Ruben, a cat named Elsa, and such). I believe you know people like this or even you are one of them. Don't worry, nothing wrong with that. Naming is our natural intuition like it has been narrated in chapter 2 (Al Baqarah) verse 30-33 of the Quran.

From this simple naming, apparently humans are able to create much more complex use of their own linguistic ability. The most important one must be “the rules of language use”. You may know this as “grammar”. Thus, from that very simple act, language might have been further developed into the language as we know now. This is why, although the narration in Al Baqarah (2) 30-33 seems like a simple narration, it actually implies a very important matter regarding language itself. It implies the nature of language and also the possibility of the beginning of language itself. This surely can be developed further.

From the teaching of God about names of “things” as it has been mentioned in Al Baqarah (2) 31, humans apparently have been able to develop it into much more sophisticated and complex forms of language. Thus, from simple naming, humans might have “created” their own language. And then from one language, humans have further developed it into various languages. Therefore, it actually could be said that it is humans that have created languages by developing them from the act of naming things taught by God. This linguistic capability or to know the name of things or simply “naming” things is actually one of our basic competency that not even the angels possess. You may want to read Al Baqarah (2) verse 30-33 yourself. This is also the reasons why there are so many languages in the world, because humans are essentially bestowed with the ability to develop their own linguistic capability like inventing new words or modifying an old language into a new one. Since the humans who create the language are dynamic, in which they can come and go, languages follow their users or the humans. This is the dynamic of language, in which language can extinct and can also be made. If you think about it carefully, the dynamic in language is actually the thing implied in Ibrahim (14) verse 4.

From this explanation, it can be actually deduced at least two things: First, it is actually humans that "create" their own language. Second, language is dynamic; in an understanding that it can be created and it can vanish. Thus, it also means language can be varied from one society to another, whether in time or space. This is the true nature of language itself.

Since it is actually the humans who (either the term is) “invent” or “develop” language, name itself is basically a product of humans too. It is basically us (humans) who give "names" to anything by using our "linguistic ability" that has been endowed to us by God since the first human. We are naming things - either abstract or concrete. So, when we think about "Allah" as the "name" of God, we unconsciously think about us (humans) give name to God.

Can we give name to God? Surely not.

Therefore, this so-called “name” is actually only a linguistic element (written or spoken word) used to represent the real ”subject” (please understand, I refuse to use ‘object’ to refer to God) in Quran to make us, the readers of Quran, easier in understanding "Who" we are talking about.

As it has been mentioned in Mr. Joseph article, the term Allah is used because initially Quran was sent down for Arabic speaking people. Thus, the language used is Arabic. You will find the “general nature” in the revelation of Holy Words (not only Quran) in Ibrahim (14) 4, while other verses that support this are: Fussilat (41) verse 44, Ash-Shura (42) verse 7, Maryam (19) verse 97, and Ad Dukhan (44) 58. Hence, the rest of the verses in which “Arabic language” is mentioned initially is addressed to the prophet or the Arabic people at that time, although it does not necessarily mean it is for those particular people only. In Quran these verses that mentioned “Arabic language” (with the exception verses that has been discussed above) are: Yusuf (Ch.12) verse 2, Ar Rad (13) 37, An Nahl (16) 103, Ta-Ha (20) 113, Ash-Shu’araa/Asy-Syua’ara (26) 195, Al Ahqaf (35) 12, Az Zumar (39) 28, Ha-Mim/Fussilat (41) 44, and Az-Zukhruf (43) 3.

From these verses, it is actually quite clear that Quran is in Arabic because the prophet is Arabic. Therefore, I quote Mr. Joseph from his article: "The reason why the Quran makes use of the word 'Allah' to refer to 'God' is because the Quran is primarily addressing an Arab audience and therefore has been conveyed in Arabic speech".

Everyone who studies Quran will understand this by reading those verses. However, apparently this is not the main problem.

As I have stated in the beginning of this writing, the biggest problem apparently is how we see name itself. Most people might still see “name” as something that we are born with; an identity that is not separated from us – mostly when it comes from a sacred text like Quran. Therefore, when Mr. Joseph stated “it is becoming increasingly understood by many Muslims that the name ‘Allah’ is the only correct designation for God”, it actually represents what Mr.Joseph observes on the surface – but maybe not the core. I am not saying he is wrong. Yet, if we go deeper into the problem, we might find what is causing that condition. Remember, by understanding the problem even more, we might be able to find a better solution.

The problem is actually quite simple; they might actually misunderstand the use of language itself. Thus, they perceive the conceptual linguistic element that represents The Almighty (The All-Seeing All-Hearing Creator) in Arabic language as the “name” of God. In a simple language, they see “Allah” as the name of God, rather than an Arabic term in representing the general concept of God in spoken or written language.
Apparently, this has always been the problem. Therefore, there are many Gods and people see these Gods as different “Entities”. Yet, if we try to understand the underlying concept within it, these words used to refer to “God” might actually refer to the same God. This is too already mentioned by Mr. Joseph in his article, but with different approach. I do not know how many people are aware of this, but this could be a major progress in finding the “truth” within the Quran itself with a very basis question as starter: can this be proven?


If we deduce from the explanation from Ibrahim (14) 4, it will actually lead us to one simple question:

How long actually God has lived?

Now, according to Quran, Allah or God Himself is The First and The Last just like it has been mentioned in Al Hadid (57) 3 or the Ever Living who does not die as it has been mentioned in Al Furqan (25) 58. If this is true (which I strongly believe it is), God must have been lived and will continue to live forever. Therefore, if Allah is indeed “the name of God”, we must have found the same name in previous scriptures or even (perhaps) ancient remains. Since Quran explains that there were preceding Holy Texts/Books before the Quran, the name of God must have been familiar too for the people before the revelation of Quran itself. Can they prove this?

Again, if Allah is indeed the “name” of God, then this name must have been mentioned in ancient texts or been familiar to ancient people before the Quran. If there is no mentioning about “Allah” in the ancient scriptures or by the ancient people, then “Allah” might have only lived or known quite recent; only as long as the Arabic language itself have been started to use. Is this the truth about God? Has He just known or existed quite recently or He actually has been known and existing for a very long time (because He basically is Eternal)?

If we think that Allah is the “name” of God, we might never find this “exclusive name of God” far before the revelation of Quran itself or before the Arabic language started to be used. Yet, if we follow the information in Ibrahim (14) 4 (as it has been clearly explained in that verse that every messengers was sent in the language of their own people), the thing we should find is actually not the “name” or more precisely “reference” used in Arabic, but the conceptual ideas within the “name” or the “reference” itself. Thus, the thing we should follow in order to find the “name” or “reference” of God before the Quran is actually the “characteristics” of the God Himself as they are being mentioned in many verses of the Quran itself. This is actually the “method” implied within the Quran itself. But before that, we just have to know the general concept of language in the first place; hence, I give you this lengthy explanation.
"I’ve had enough of someone else’s propaganda.…I’m for truth, no matter who tells it. I’m for justice, no matter who it is for or against. I’m a human being first and foremost, and as such I’m for whoever and whatever benefits humanity as a whole." - Malcolm X (Chapter Nineteen, 1965)

Offline Ocyid

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 17
  • 8:22
    • View Profile
Re: "The Name" or "The Reference of God"? (A Quite Long Critic)
« Reply #1 on: July 23, 2018, 07:11:45 AM »
Quranic Method
So far, I agree with Mr. Joseph and this lengthy explanation is nothing but a supplementary information from different approach. However, there is one significant difference that, regrettably, I may need to mention. On the 13th line of his article, Mr Joseph states “Whether we call Him Rab, Lord, God, Almighty, Krishna, Khuda, Yahweh, Elohim, Adi Purush (Timeless being); Para Brahman (The absolute Truth), El, Eli, Eloi, Jehovah, or whichever beautiful name we call Him”. I believe Mr. Joseph has conducted his own research about this, therefore he can made this statement and I am not going to criticize this without prior knowledge. Yet, I would like to humbly remind anyone who are interested in this particular area of Quranic study that maybe (just maybe) it would be better if we stick to the verses of Quran itself in finding His other references in older texts or books. It means it might be wiser for us to support these “names” or “references” with verses of Quran that mention them. We may want to remember Quran mentioning about people who literally invent “name” to their self-created Gods in at least these verses: Al A’raf (7) 71, Yusuf (12) 40, and An Najm (53) 23.

I want to make an example here, yet I am concerned this could be offensive or simply incorrect. Thus, I apologize and ask to be corrected if it is. The name of “Jesus” for instance, as far as I know it is actually one of the reference of Isa ibn Maryam (may peace be upon him). Therefore, it is considerably not a “name” or “reference” for God, but a name of a respectful prophet. Yet, there might be people who think that it is indeed one of the reference of God. Remember, we play in the field of mentality where we can’t see it clearly.

Of course, this is just an example. I am sure general audience understand that Jesus is a human, despite various concepts in seeing his divinity. I am afraid, there might be similar cases that makes the “names” or “references” of God are mixed with the names and reference for a human. I hope the readers of this article get the general idea of the example, rather than make the example itself as the case study. Please, enlighten me about other more appropriate examples.

Again, I believe Mr. Joseph has conducted his research. This is nothing but a reminder. Yet, if we look Al A’raf (7) 71, Yusuf (12) 40, and An Najm (53) 23, we actually have homework here. That homework would be; to “filter” or “select” or “eliminate” (whatever terms you think appropriate) His “proper” or “appropriate” references by using the Quran as a guidance among many “names” or “references” of God that we could find.

There is actually a premise and/or requirements in finding the “names” or “references” of God in time before the Quran. Or, in much easier understanding, there is a way in finding the ancient “names” or “references” of God. We just have to follow the underlying concept or meaning of these “names” or “references”, instead of the “surface” form (like the use of Arabic word “Allah”) to refer to The Almighty Lord Himself. I call this method simply by “The Quranic Version”, since we simply follow the verses of Quran to find other “names” or “references” of God in the timeline of the history.

Could this work?
"I’ve had enough of someone else’s propaganda.…I’m for truth, no matter who tells it. I’m for justice, no matter who it is for or against. I’m a human being first and foremost, and as such I’m for whoever and whatever benefits humanity as a whole." - Malcolm X (Chapter Nineteen, 1965)

Offline Ocyid

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 17
  • 8:22
    • View Profile
Re: "The Name" or "The Reference of God"? (A Quite Long Critic)
« Reply #2 on: July 23, 2018, 07:12:15 AM »
I will provide an example here. Yet, please remember that this is just a quick example I made to show you the general idea. Thus, further research would be needed. I indeed hope we could work this out together.

This example is taken from Akhenaten, a pharaoh in Egypt that “noted for abandoning traditional Egyptian polytheism and introducing worship centered on the “Aten” (taken from Wikipedia page about Akhenaten). The idea of “centered” God seems to be interesting to be noted, since the core value of Islam is the Oneness of God. Of course, “centered” and “one” are two different notions. Therefore, some people (it is not explained who) interpret it as “monolatristic, henotheistic, or even quasi-monotheistic”. You may want to check the Wikipedia page of Akhenaten yourself. The thing we should remembered is that differences in interpretations are something natural. Yet, these differences, as far as I understand, actually do not deny the “centered God” of the reference “Aten” itself.

Other factor that makes it more interesting is there is story about a prophet that was appointed to take care of “the treasury of the land” in Yusuf (12) 55. The story itself is narrated to happen in ancient “Egypt” in Yusuf (12) 21, which is translated from the word “mis’ra” (please correct me if I am wrong). The complete story is mentioned in Yusuf or chapter 12. These two “requirements” give two good reasons to start to look deeper into the "name" or the “reference” Aten itself.
Unfortunately, from its Wikipedia page, Aten means “disk” (you can visit the website yourself). Thus, the meaning here (at least, so far) could not be used to support Aten as the “name” or “reference” of God in Ancient Egypt based on Quranic approach, since there is no mentioning about “disk” among the “names” of God being mentioned in Quran (or is it?). However, there is a poem that is “attributed to 18 dynasty Pharaoh Akhenaten” for Aten. The title of the poem is “Great Hymn to the Aten”. You can find it here:

What makes it interesting is that there are resemblances between the supposedly “hymn-poems” and the Quran itself, at least in these verses:

This is from the middle of the text:

Line 1: How manifold it is, what thou hast made!
(To be honest, I do not find verses that are exactly like this in Quran, although these verses seem to be in accordance with the verses in Quran itself. Thus, I collect verses that close enough with these verses. For this particular line, the closest resemblance that I could find is Al Baqarah (2) 164. There are other verses too that actually imply or even confirm this line, but their similarities might not appear in words or surface level. Thus, these verses can only be placed as supporting evidences – not a main one. These verses are: Al An’am (6) 99, An Nahl (16) 11 and 13, Ta-Ha (20) 53, Asy Syuara (26) 7, Luqman (31) 10, and Fatir (35) 27-28.)

Line 2: They are hidden from the face (of man).
(This line apparently is still connected with the first line. Without further information, it is quite difficult to understand this line alone. Is it hidden because it is unknown and will remain unknown or is it hidden because we are simply not aware of? Yet, so far the closest one I could find in Quran is An Nahl (16) 8. Do you have any other opinions?)

Line 3: O sole god, like whom there is no other!
(This is actually the most decisive line that makes me quite sure, Aten is the reference of The True God in ancient time, since this line is similar with His Divine Characteristics as it has been mentioned in Al Ikhlas (112) 1 and 4)

Line 4: Thou didst create the world according to thy desire
(The closest verses with this line is, at least, in this verses: Al Maidah (5) 17-18, Al An’am (6) 73, Al Qasas (28) 68, Ar Rum (30) 54, Asy-Syaura (42) 49, and Al Qasas (28) 68. You may know even more.)

Line 5-6: Whilst thou wert alone: All men, cattle, and wild beasts, Whatever is on earth, going upon (its) feet,
(Chapter An Nur (24) verse 45 actually quite resembles with the line 4, 5, and 6)

Line: 7: And what is on high, flying with its wings
(The line 5,6, and 7 actually quite similar with what is mentioned in Al An’am (6) 38)

Line 9, 10, and 11: Thou settest every man in his place, Thou suppliest their necessities: Everyone has his food, and his time of life is reckoned.
(Verses in Quran that resemble these lines are, at least, Ar Rum (30) 40, Fatir (35) 11, Ghafir (40) 67, and Fussilat (41) 10. I am sure there are many other verses that will confirm these 9, 10, and 11 lines, altogether or separately. Therefore, further and deeper analysis will be required to collect all verses that have the same concept with these lines.)

Line 12 and 14: Their tongues are separate in speech, Their skins are distinguished
(These lines closely resemble Ar Rum (30) 22)

Line 15: As thou distinguishest the foreign peoples.
(The underlying conceptual ideas of line 12-13-14-15 seem to be closely related with Al Hujurat (49) 13. Nonetheless, I still could not say that these lines resemble Al Hujurat (49)13. Only verses that have “linguistic resemblances” that I actually can put here. Yet, if we look deeper than the linguistic boundaries themselves, there is an underlying similar concept between this so-called “hymn” with verses in Quran.)

Line 16: Thou makest a Nile in the underworld,
(There is actually some certain understandings that we need to achieve regarding this line. We know Nile is a river, thus it might represent “rivers” in general. Yet, what about “the underworld”? Does “underworld” here is equivalent with the hereafter? If –only if- it is, then there are many verses in Quran that mention about this too; it means it is similar in concept only expressed with different words. Some of them are Al Baqarah (2) 25, Ali Imran (3) 15, 136, 195, and 198, and many more)

In its Wikipedia page, there is actually other lines of this hymn from the last part of the text. Yet, this is just an example that I need to mention. Again, further and deeper studies about this hymn will be required to recognize whether this hymn has similar concept with Quran or it is not. Unfortunately, there is one important step that needs to be done before I can go on to analyze this hymn. That is to confirm the authenticity of this text and the precision of the translation itself. Once it is done, we can go to the next step. Regrettably, this is my limitation.

As I have mentioned in the very beginning of this long article, I am an independent researcher that do not have any resources or connection to academic study. The best I could find is free online site and Wikipedia. I know well how people underestimate Wikipedia. Therefore, at least until this very moment, this is the best I could do. If you are interesting more regarding this matter, you may want to confirm those two requirements as starter. And, if you are kind enough, maybe you will tell me about it. Hehe…

Despite those two basic requirements that need to be fulfilled, the general idea here is actually to follow the information provided in Quran with facts in general. The hymn above is just one of the examples. There are (I believe) even many more. As you can see above, it does not have to come from “religious” or “sacred” texts. Even something considerably as “common” (common here implies it is not considerably “sacred”) texts, in fact, shows that the basic concept of One Supreme God was already known in far ancient time before Quran or even Christianity itself.

I might need a legit confirmation of the requirements I have mentioned above to say this. Yet, if the hymn is authentic and the translation is acceptable, the hymn itself might actually confirm what is being told in Ibrahim (14) verse 4. Hence, it may strengthen the conclusion that “Allah” is actually just a “reference” of God in Arabic, not a “name” itself. Therefore, the things we should make as a guidance essentially is the “underlying concept” within the Quran –and only Quran- than the “surface forms”.

Up until this point, I need to emphasize that I fully agree with Mr. Joseph regarding this “exclusive name of God” matter. The lengthy explanation I gave is nothing but a supplementary information in order to get broader and deeper insight about the problem itself. Yet, I might need to remind a little bit about how we might want to stick with the information within the Quran itself. To tell you the truth, I feel bad about this because I don’t think I am worthy enough to remind anyone but myself about any problems. But, maybe this reminder can even take us much more advance in understanding the Quran. Like the “names” or more precisely “the reference” of God above.

The reference “Aten” might have never been considered before as one of the name or reference for “Allah” in the ancient time. However, if we dig deeper of His Oneness characteristic, the story about a prophet holding prestigious position in ancient Egypt, and the hymn for him that have some resemblances with the verses of Quran, there is quite fair chance that “Aten” is actually the reference of God used during ancient Egypt. Still, further study is needed to prove this.

On the contrary, there are also possibilities that there are “names” or “references” that might not represent “The God”, but actually represents other than God like the name of humans or even other Gods as it has been explained in at least these verses Al A’raf (7) 71, Yusuf (12) 40, and An Najm (53) 23. Therefore, we might want to be cautious about this other “references” of God. It might be wiser if we get used to “enclose” the verses of Quran in justifying these other “names” or “references” of God.

I am terribly sorry if I look like preaching or lecturing, as it is not my intention to begin with. It is just that maybe our precautions will be able to prevent unintentional misunderstanding in the future. That’s all.

I do believe that by saying “Whether we call Him Rab, Lord, God, Almighty, Krishna, Khuda, Yahweh, Elohim, Adi Purush (Timeless being); Para Brahman (The absolute Truth), El, Eli, Eloi, Jehovah, or whichever beautiful name we call Him”, Mr Joseph simply implies that the word “Allah” is actually only Arabic “word” or linguistic element that represent “God” in spoken or written language. Thus, it is equivalent with “God” in English, “Tuhan” in my native language, or any other equivalent words that equivalent with “God” in other languages. This is in accordance with his final words “'Allah' is only an Arabic name for God. It is the name that the Pagan Arabs were familiar with during the time of revelation to refer to their Supreme authority. It was the name of God that Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) was familiar with. Allah has been known by different names to great Prophets of the past in the languages of their own people. All beautiful names belong to God.” I am fully agree with this statement.

I repeat for once more that our only difference is when it starts to enter “specific names”, since there might be a "method" to find that specific "names" or "references" to follow before we can deduce whether the "specific names" are the right reference or they are not. Again, we might want to be cautious about this matter, since (I am afraid) making a hasty move will only lead us to misunderstand or falsely recognize the God itself – as Quran itself actually has given us many of His Names.

From this difference, I actually stand in the middle between him and those who believe in 99 Names of God. Remember, our guidance is Quran, therefore only Quran that we shall follow. I agree with Mr. Joseph when he states “This would be in effect a restriction on His majesty and God can never be contained, neither physically or linguistically”. The Supreme Lord of the universe is too great to be represented by linguistic elements created by humans. All descriptions about Him and His Glory in the language that we can understand are only intended to make us easier in recognizing and taking lessons from His Divine Messages. However, I do not agree that we can make our own references outside the Quran for Him, since Quran itself is a “complete” book… isn’t it?

I get the impression that Quran is a “complete” book. But, I seem like I cannot find the right source to justify it myself. I try to search this forum and I find the term “explained in detail” in Does “explained in detail” mean Quran is “complete”, which implies that it does not need anyone to add anything in it? Please, enlighten me about this problem.

However, I do believe Quran is a “complete” book. Thus, we might want to follow it and might not want to add anything into it. This is why I believe, the verses in 017:110 and 007.180 actually refer to the Beautiful Names within the Quran itself - not out of it.

I agree with Mr. Joseph that God is far too great to be represented or “contained” physically or linguistically. However, if Quran is “complete”, there might be a reason why He only mentioned some of His unlimited and uncountable Beautiful Names and Glories. Therefore, maybe –just maybe- it would be better if we stick with or focus more to the information provided by the Quran than what is not mentioned by the Quran.

I do not want to argue about this. I believe Mr. Joseph has conducted his own research about those names he mentioned. This is nothing but a reminder, not only for Mr. Joseph but also myself and anyone who reads and studies the Quran. Remember that, in the end, God knows and we don’t (Ali Imran [3] 66). Therefore, it might be wiser if we follow whatever comes from the Quran itself.

The same reminder applies for those who said God has 99 Beautiful Names. Can you or they prove that God really has 99 Names as they are mentioned in Quran? Remember that the Names being mentioned in Quran is actually very fluid, which means in many verses these “names” often do not stand alone but in pair. We might want to pay attention to this too. Some of the examples are “Arrohmaanir-Rohim” (Most Gracious-Most Merciful) in Al Fatihah (1) 3, “Aziizul-Hakiim” (All Mighty, All Wise) in Al Baqarah (2) 129, “Samii’am-Bashiiroo” (All Hearing-All Seeing) in An Nisa (4) 58, and many more.

*Note: pardon me for the transliteration if you feel it is different than what you know. This is actually the transliteration in Indonesian version of the Quran. Pardon me too for the translation, I choose the easiest translation to understand from

I believe many who state that God only has 99 “Names” do not pay attention to these combinations. Whereas, these combinations could be very important to be noticed. There are very valuable lessons in these combinations. Not only that, at least two of these combination actually could be used to trace His Great Existence in the past – in a very ancient Holy Scriptures that might often have been forgotten by Islamic people ourselves. This is what I am actually researching. Moreover, if we pay attention closely, these “other Names” or more precisely “characteristics” are actually the Ones that truly “define” The God Himself.

Nonetheless, before that, we might want to understand how it actually works. Thus, another long writing may be needed like the lengthy explanation about “naming” above. Therefore, after this, there would be another long writing – and I am truly sorry for this. Yet, since I need to post this, you might have to wait till I finish it for the following writing. Hence, I need to close this one for a while.

To be completely honest with you, I actually have no self-esteem to write this kind of writing. But, I feel like to keep this kind of information for my own is a bit “wasteful”. Therefore, I encourage myself to write this.

I am not a very bright man, thus (quite similar with Mr. Joseph statement in one of his article) any mistakes I made in this writing is fully mine as nothing more but a lowly and limited human being. Yet, whatever good you found or can benefit you in this writing it must be from Quran, as it has been mentioned in 4:79. Sometimes, I even think it is so unfortunate indeed that a man like me that studies the Quran, if only great people like you would try to understand the Holy Quran… the world surely would be a better place…

Anyway, I do not believe anyone would read this, so I am just going to put it here. At least, I have fulfilled my duty to tell you what I know. I do not expect you to follow or believe this. Whatever you choose to believe, will always be your own responsibility (6:164). This is only my way to redeem my own mistakes.

Please wait for my future my writing, if you do so. If you don’t, then I hope my writing can benefit you somehow instead of wasting your time.

Have A Nice Day Everyone,
Salamun Alaikum

Your friend, Ocyid  :D
"I’ve had enough of someone else’s propaganda.…I’m for truth, no matter who tells it. I’m for justice, no matter who it is for or against. I’m a human being first and foremost, and as such I’m for whoever and whatever benefits humanity as a whole." - Malcolm X (Chapter Nineteen, 1965)