Talk:Al-Lat/Archive 1

untitled comments
Please discuss before moving whole pages.

In this case, since the male form of the Arabic word for God gets its own page - Allah - it seems appropriate that the female form appear as Allat, not as Al-Lat. Manah doesn't appear as al-Manah, nor Uzza as al-Uzza, nor do other words, so if the word is parsed as a single form, then it should remain in that form.

By that logic, the name of the goddes should simply be written as Lat. I dont see any relevance here for using "Al" here either. Either that or all pagan arab dieties should be referred with the article "AL".

Hi, I would like to see the academic sources which explain the relation of the root origin of Al-Lat as al-ilahat. The "t" sound at the end of Lat as far as I know coomes from the arabic alphabet "teth" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Teth. Where as the "t" sound in ilahat is a lingual-dental voiceless sound similar to "lah" in Allah. Further if Allah is shortened form of Al-Ilaha meaning "the God" then short form of Al-Ilahat shouldve been Allahat not Allat. Besides there is no historical or etymological roots connecting both, neither does Lat predate or was ever considered equivalent of Allah. I am changing the article back to the uncontroversial, until you submit proof. Thanks. Omerlives
 * First, the form in the Qur'an is demonstrably spelled 'LLT - and her name is widely understood to be "The Goddess". I'll cite the nearest dico: Ambros Arne A 2004: A Concise Dictionary of Koranic Arabic, Reichert Verlag Wiesbaden", p. 306:
 * al-lātu <'llt> (EI), lit. "the goddess" (< al-ilāha(t)), an Arabian goddess venerated at the time of the Prophet (53/19).
 * Please, leave it as it is. It's a very transparent form and this interpretation is backed by traditional and modern scholars. This is not an attempt to "read into" the text or disturb religious sensibilities, just basic, well-supported fact. If there is a controversy, it is because you refuse to understand that this is no denigration of God, just an explanation of a pagan divinity. Should we then deny also that the name of the pagan god Baˤl does not mean "Lord, Master" just because it is still used as a term for God in living monotheistic traditions (ie. Syriac, Aramaic, Hebrew, Arabic)? em zilch 23:32, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Thankyou for your reply. My religious sensibilities were not hut neither do I profess to pursue a particular mode of thinking inorder to cater to any agenda. My objection to the earlier article was clear and sound. If a one liner mentioned that allah is contraction of al-ilahat, then why were the next para and a half dedicated to explain how the word's origin lies in the meaning "moisture" and the tradition startes with the practice of a jewish man?
 * If Allat did indeed originate from the word alilahat, that certainly does not slight or engender any costernation to the word Allah and the faith of the islamic peoples. Thats not the issue here. Thanks. omerlives
 * The next paragraph & one-half (which I had removed for this very reason) are unsubstantiated myth with no citation whatsoever. They are also an obvious and late folk etymology. And why would a Jewish water seller be deified as a female goddess of the first order? It makes no sense!
 * The presence of Ilāhat "Goddess" in South Arabian and Sabæan religion - as well as the presence of other divinities mentioned in the Qur'an! - argues quite strongly that the obvious conclusion is that this divinity was named simply "Goddess" and had a cult at the pagan Ka'ba. em zilch 21:44, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
 * As has already been decided by consensus, her name is Allat, not al-Lat, which is fair given that we don't spell Allah as al-Lah. em zilch (talk) 00:25, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
 * al-Lat and Allah are two separate words. Conventional transcription methodology is to separate the definite article except where there are widely accepted contractions (as with Allah). Could you explain how اللَّاتَ is a contraction of الإلاﻫﺔ ?  ITAQALLAH   17:34, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

The Verses
See! I hate people who take the religious texts of religions and make it out of context! This is what verse 53:20 is: The pagan gods of Arabia [53.19-24] [53.19] (Among the idols) have you considered allat and al'uzza,

[53.20] and, another, the third manat?

[53.21] What, have you males, and He females!

[53.22] That is indeed an unjust division.

[53.23] They are but names, named by you and your fathers. Allah has not sent down any authority for them. They follow conjecture and their soul's desire, even though the guidance of their Lord has come to them.

[53.24] Is the human to have whatever he fancies? The NPOV is completely out of control! She was a Pre-Islamic Goddes. So that tells you that the referance to the Quran isn't right, nor needed! You could find out about Allat and Uzza and Manat from old meccan scripture that date before 500 AD, This should be deleted! -- Obaidz96 (talk • contribs • count ) 01:11, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Old Semitic goddess
Can You please, what does mean "suspect" with respect to the sources, especially with Gaston Maspero?

What is wrong in the following text?

Allat (Arabic: اللَّات) was a Sumerian and Semiticn goddess, the queen of the dark kingdom. She was also worshipped by pre-Islamic Arabs.

Allat in Chaldean mythology Chaldean legend tells us that Allat had solely rulled in the hell. Once, other gods invited her to the party that they had organised in the heaven. Due to her photophobia she refused, and sent a messenger, Namtar, her servant. His behaviour had infuriated Anu and Ea, and their anger was turned against his mistress. They sent Nergal to punish her. He pulled the queen by her hair from the throne, in order to decapitate her, but her prayers for mercy stopped him, and Nergal had made Allat her wife.

Other legends make her a sister of Astarte.

Voldemar69 (talk) 07:06, 16 March 2009 (UTC)


 * What's wrong? Well for instance, 2 of the 3 sources are from the 19th century! You may not be aware that knowledge of ancient religions has advanced since then. And the third source doesn't contain the story, only some dubious identifications with little-known Mesopotamian deities ("'Ellat' in Sumer", wth? you can't even write such a name in Sumerian cuneiform). The Sumerian/Mesopotamian goddess these sources are talking about is today known as Ereshkigal, not as Allat.--91.148.159.4 (talk) 14:47, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

Unattested wikipedia christian apologists's fabricated and fraudulous form
"Allat" isn't mentioned anywhere. It's not at all the feminine of الله: the feminine of allah is اللت The corect form, so is Al-Lât, as mentionned in Encyclopedia Brittanica and every university approuved Quran translation. I thought that wikipedia was an encyclopedy. It's a hideout of christian apologist terrorists. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yosef.sonnenfeld (talk • contribs) 07:26, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

Move to Al-Lāt
Per the first line of this article (al-Lāt), and just like Al-‘Uzzá, the name of this article should be Al-Lāt, and not Al-lāt. Seraj (talk) 14:49, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

Requested move 20 April 2016

 * The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section. 

The result of the move request was: Moved to Al-Lat  &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 06:30, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

Al-lāt → Allat – Standard English-language references use Allat, which is also used within the article text. It would also be consistent with Wikipedia's treatment of Allah, which is not hyphenated, and Elat, the north Semitic equivalent of the name. Most English speakers cannot type macrons in the search window. Thus, Allat is the simplest, most neutral form, and the easiest to type in the search window. The move could not be performed due to a pre-existing redirect. P Aculeius (talk) 20:42, 20 April 2016 (UTC)


 * Oppose. Some sources do use "Allat", but we see the hyphenated version in two really standard references: Brill's Encyclopaedia of Islam and The Oxford Dictionary of Islam. The analogy with "Allah" is not valid because the two words are spelled and pronounced differently. Since "Allat" and "Al-Lat" redirect here, there should be no difficulties with search. Eperoton (talk) 01:51, 21 April 2016 (UTC)


 * This Google Google Ngram shows that "Allat" is far and away the most common spelling in literature past and present. I searched for Allat, Allatu, Alilat, Al–Lat, Al–lat, Al–Lāt, and Al–lāt from 1800 to the present.  Until the 1870's, the only forms regularly encountered were Allat and Alilat.  Al-Lat first appears in third place during the 1870's, but from 1889 onward Allatu became as common in literature, and remained more common than Al-Lat until the 1960's.  For the next twenty years, the two occurred at roughly even rates.  Currently, Al-Lat occurs more often than Allatu and Alilat, which are about even in usage; but Allat continues to occur roughly two and a half times as much as Al-Lat.  The hyphenated form Al-lat barely registers, and the two forms with a macron do not register at all.


 * Surely people are most likely to search for a word or name in the form they encountered it. In this case, anyone studying pre-Islamic deities in English-language sources published over the last two centuries is more likely to know the form Allat than any other; at least as likely to know Allatu or Alilat as Al-Lat, and least likely to know Al-lat, Al-Lāt, or Al-lāt.  Why keep the page at one of its rarest variants?  As for the argument that a different treatment is warranted for Allah and Allat because they're spelled and pronounced differently, the same could be said of any two words that aren't perfect homophones.  But since they're both formed through the same etymological process, pronounced similarly, and at least grammatically speaking could be considered masculine and feminine forms of the same word, it makes little sense to subject them to radically different typography.  P Aculeius (talk) 15:24, 21 April 2016 (UTC)


 * Ah, but they're not pronounced similarly. In al-Lat the al is pronounced like a definite article; in Allah it has a velarization that doesn't appear anywhere else in classical Arabic. That's why Allah is always written together.
 * I'm not sure what Google Ngrams is counting, but I know what I see in RSs. Rounding up tertiary sources, it's fairly clear that the hyphenated spelling is standard in Islamic studies, medieval studies, and "religion":
 * Brill's Encyclopedia of the Qur'an: Al-Lāt
 * The Oxford Encyclopedia of the Islamic World: al-Lāt
 * The Oxford Dictionary of the Middle Ages: al-Lat
 * The Concise Oxford Dictionary of World Religions: al-Lāt
 * The Oxford Encyclopedia of Islam and Women: al-Lat
 * Routledge Encyclopedia of Islamic Civilization and Religion: al-Lat
 * Rowman Altamira, The New Encyclopedia of Islam: al-Lat/al-Lāt
 * Infobase Encyclopedia of Islam: mostly al-Lat


 * However, "Allat" is preferred in the context of archeology, classical studies and "mythology":
 * A Dictionary of World Mythology: Alilat (aka Allat)
 * The Oxford Classical Dictionary: Allat
 * The Grove Encyclopedia of Classical Art and Architecture: Allat
 * The Oxford Encyclopedia of Ancient Greece and Rome: Allat
 * Routledge Encyclopedia of Ancient Deities: Allat (al-Lat labeled as "Arabic")
 * Routledge Encyclopedia of Ancient Mediterranean Religions: Allat
 * Routledge Encyclopedia of Ancient Mediterranean Religions: Allat


 * To oversimply, the pre-Islamic deity known from Arabic literature is called al-Lat, while the post-classical deity known from near-Eastern archeology and other languages is called Allat. Popular usage may differ; for example, one finds the hyphenated version is recent reporting on Palmyra from BBC, NYT and Al-Jazeera. The article shows artifacts from outside of Hejaz, since that's all we have to show, but it's still mainly about the deity known from Arabic sources, so I stand by my opposition to the move.


 * More generally, I'm just noticing that the article has plenty of serious problems. I hate to think that I've spent a couple of hours on a trivial point of spelling, so I'll try to join you in improving the article in a bit. Eperoton (talk) 01:24, 22 April 2016 (UTC)


 * There are many other notable sources; for example Who's Who: Non-Classical Mythology (Oxford) and The New Larousse Encyclopedia of Mythology, which also prefer Allat and Alilat, and which I happen to have at handy reach. I almost didn't check the Dictionary of Greek and Roman Biography and Mythology, not because it's focused on the Classical World (because in fact it does include a lot of Levantine and Arabian material due to the interaction of the near east and Roman world), but because it's on a shelf that's hard for me to reach ATM.  But the on-line version does have an entry for "Alitta or Alilat", albeit a short one, identifying the Arabian goddess who was regarded as the equivalent of Aphrodite Urania.


 * I will have to defer to your expertise on pronunciation, but I doubt most English speakers would notice the difference. The main issue, however, as I think you've identified it, comes down to sources.  My interpretation of Wikipedia article and person naming conventions is that established English forms are preferred to technical ones in article titles, although both should be given in the lead, or in a separate section or footnotes depending on the number and complexity of explaining them.  And since "Allat" and "Alilat" have a long history in English-language works on the subject, and are still in current use to an extent similar to (and in a more generalized field, mythology, than Islamic studies) other forms, we should prefer one of them.  Perhaps the deciding issue is whether we treat this article as a mythological subject or an Islamic studies one.  But then I would still argue that mythology is the logical result between those two.


 * I think we can at least agree that the current title is the wrong one. Nearly all of the sources that hyphenate the name use Al-Lat rather than Al-lat.  Usage is divided over macrons, but again Wikipedia article naming guidelines suggest (although they do not require) that macronless forms are preferable for searchability reasons, even with the availability of redirects.  If we were dealing with a diacritical mark (i.e. a mark used in the normal writing of a language, rather than for transliteration or teaching purposes) which could easily be typed, I might be less concerned.  But most people can't type macrons; they're used as pronunciation guides, but not normally as accent marks, and unlike words that are, say, French or German, macrons aren't used in writing Arabic; they're only used by some sources for transliterating into the Latin alphabet.  So I think the choices ought to be narrowed down to Allat or Al-Lat at any rate.


 * Aside from the article's title, I agree that substantial revisions are appropriate. I would like to see more emphasis on the origin of Allat's mythology and her identification with other goddesses of the ancient near east; I think it's very important that she's the equivalent of Elat/Asherah in Canaanite and Hebrew mythology, and equally important that she seems to be identified with the Sumerian goddess Ereshkigal.  Just as Sumerian mythology involved the sisters Ereshkigal and Inanna, Hebrew mythology had Asherah and Ashtoreth, while Arabian mythology had Allat, Al-Uzza and Manat, one of whom at least would seem to be the Arabian version of Inanna/Ishtar.  The Greeks may have derived Athena and Aphrodite from the same two ancient goddesses, which might explain why they were so easily assimilated by Greek writers.  All of this would seem to be of vital importance to the article.  And more so, I admit, than the title.  P Aculeius (talk) 05:13, 22 April 2016 (UTC)


 * We agree on most points. Certainly, current capitalization doesn't make sense. I don't see why diacritics in titles would lead to practical difficulties given approaprite redirects, and WP:TSC doesn't advise against using them, but I don't really have a preference one way or the other. I don't know how to assign a priori weight to mythology and Islamic studies, and I hope it doesn't come to a showdown between the two fields. I do agree that we should look more closely into the nature of this article for guidance. So, I suggest that we work on using additional sources in revising it, and then consider their relative weight in relation to this particular subject. Frankly, I'm concerned that some of these one-volume mythology references may be too cavalier in turning etymological theories into statements of equivalence, which they're incentivized to do by their very format. The NPOV way to address this concern would be to consult sources discussing the evidence in more detail, which I've been planning to do. Eperoton (talk) 14:45, 24 April 2016 (UTC)


 * No need to worry about a show-down on my part. I know that Wikipedia works by consensus, and if we're the only ones who feel like discussing the issue, then there's not going to be consensus for my original proposal.  There might, however, be consensus for a lesser move, such as to Al-Lat.  My reading of TSC agrees that there's no official preference in general, but the fact that it notes that diacritical marks may make articles harder to navigate to, and require the use of redirects for user convenience, is an argument in favour of the non-accented version if both are in common use.  Again, my feelings would be different if we were discussing an easily-typed mark, like an acute accent or a circumflex, but macrons don't fall in that category.  I think the result is clearer under WP:MOSAR, under the heading "Article Titles and Redirects".  Number 1 does not apply here, if we are ignoring ngrams and going with a modern Arabic transcription, for which there are two forms occurring in similar proportions.  Number 2 expresses a preference for the "basic transcription" in article titles, if it is not clear that another transcription is the most common; Number 3 implies that the basic transcription is the default preference.  So if the form with a macron is not clearly the most common, then we should go with Al-Lat in preference to Al-Lāt.  P Aculeius (talk) 16:26, 24 April 2016 (UTC)
 * I think that makes perfect sense. Eperoton (talk) 17:43, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

 Conclusion (for the closing admin): there is a consensus for moving this article to Al-Lat. Eperoton (talk) 14:41, 27 April 2016 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

God-dess meaning controversy
From the [Akkadian Dictionary]:


 * iltu : [Religion] goddess
 * ilu : [Religion] god, deity

-tu being the feminine ending in Akkadian, and -t being the ending in Egyptian as well. Even the article Ilah states "there is no ʾilāh but al-Lāh". Add a t, have a Goddess. Highly disputed by whom?

Elat link question
The link to Elat goes to a redirect to the entry for Eliat, the modern city. That page seems to have no direct connection to the named deity (the name derives from the work for pistachio, not from El). Is this pointer in error? 2620:0:1000:1103:159A:507B:3BF5:74E0 (talk) 20:12, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

--31.150.176.35 (talk) 19:58, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Al-Lat. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120322002711/http://www.islamic-book.net/ar/Rihlat-Alnobowwah.htm to http://www.islamic-book.net/ar/Rihlat-Alnobowwah.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 06:40, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

Allah word and alilat
Allah (/ˈæl.lə, ˈɑːl.lə, əˈl.lɑː/; Arabic: الله‎‎, Allāh, IPA: [ʔaɫ.ɫaːh]) is the common Arabic word for God, often used to refer to God in Islam. The term is believed to be derived from the contraction of (al-ilāh), Al means "the" and ilah means "god." It is linguistically related to Aramaic words like Elah, Syriac ܐܲܠܵܗܵܐ (ʼAlāhā), and the Hebrew word El (Elohim) for God.

The word Allah has been used by Arabic people of different religions since pre-Islamic times. The pre-Islamic Arabs worshipped a supreme deity whom they called Allah, alongside other lesser deities.

Allah has been used as a term for God by Muslims (both Arab and non-Arab), Judaeo-Arabic-speaking Jews, and Arab Christians after the term "al-ilāh" and "Allah" were used interchangeably in Classical Arabic by the majority of Arabs who had become Muslims.

When Muhammad wanted to spread the concept of one God, He told the people that the idols they considered or called Allah were not the true Allah.

It's important to note that the idol was not named 'Allah,' but people considered or called it Allah."

When Muhammad conquered Mecca, he shattered all idols in the Kaaba, clarifying to the people that the idols they considered Allah were not the true deity.

And Those who associate partners with Allah are referred to as "Mushrikin.

And second that the term "Al-Lat" (Arabic: اللات, romanized: al-Lat, pronounced [alːaːt]) refers to a pre-Islamic Arabian goddess, also spelled as Allat, Allatu, and Alilat.

Alilat" breaks down into "Al," meaning "the," and "ilat," representing her name. Likewise, "Allatu" consists of "Al," indicating "the," and "latu," reflecting her name — Preceding unsigned comment added by David432ttpon (talk • contribs) 18:41, 31 December 2023 (UTC) David432ttpon (talk) 18:47, 31 December 2023 (UTC)


 * That is all original research unless you can provide verifiable reliable sources to use in the article. ThaddeusSholto (talk) 19:33, 31 December 2023 (UTC)


 * It's not clear from your edits or arguments what you're trying to say. The edits appear to be distinguishing the worshippers of Alilat as "Mushrikin", a term you're using to mean "polytheists" or "unfaithful", but before Islam most Arabians appear to have been polytheists, and there was no Islam for them to be unfaithful to.  It's not clear that the term "Mushrikin" is either correct to apply to all worshippers of Alilat, or that it's the prevailing form of the word; for that you need a reliable source: this is a core policy of Wikipedia.


 * Your edit summaries seem to be arguing about the reality of the gods being worshipped, which is not something that Wikipedia can resolve: while we can report what people believe or once believed—if reliable sources say they believe or believed it—we cannot state that one god is real and another false, or that one religion is true and another false. Those are matters of faith, and cannot be proved or disproved by encyclopedic means.  While idols and gods are generally regarded as separate things, some religions may hold that the essence of a deity is in some way present in physical representations, such as paintings or idols.  Wikipedia can't tell readers whether their beliefs are true: only that something was or wasn't believed.


 * The argument above seems to be about the etymology of Alilat. It's true—and somewhat obvious—that her name appears to mean "the Goddess", although some scholars seem to have proposed alternative explanations.  This is already stated in the article.  For this reason, it's unclear exactly what you're trying to say about the article, or why you think what it says should be changed.  P Aculeius (talk) 21:07, 31 December 2023 (UTC)

you are wrong in starting, Let's focus on Allah, not Alilat; these are distinct topics. The term 'mushrik' is of Arabic origin and does not originate after Islam."

Our topic is 👇 Some people, particularly in pre- Islamic Arabian culture, held beliefs that Allah had daughters, known as "Al-Lat," "Al-Uzza," and "Manat.

It's important to note that the idol was not named 'Allah,' but people considered or called it Allah."

The term "Allah" has been used by Muslims (both Arab and non-Arab), Judaeo-Arabic-speaking Jews, and Arab Christians, reflecting its historical and linguistic connections. However, pre-Islam, pagans also used the word "Allah" for idols, leading to differing perspectives among Christians and Jews who considered it associated with polytheism.

A poem by the pre-Islamic monotheist Zayd ibn Amr mentions al-Lat, along with al-'Uzza and Hubal.

Am I to worship one lord or a thousand? If there are as many as you claim, I renounce al-Lat and al-Uzza, both of them, as any strong-minded person would. I will not worship al-Uzza and her two daughters... I will not worship Hubal, though he was our lord in the days when I had little sense.

What Allah say in Quran from the verse, 53:19-23.

Now, have you considered 'the idols of Lât and 'Uzza," "And the third one, Manât, as well?" "Do you prefer to have sons while 'you attribute' to Him daughters?" "Then this is truly' a biased distribution! These idols' are mere names that you and your forefathers have made up-a practice Allah has never authorized." "They follow nothing but 'inherited' assumptions and whatever 'their souls desire, although 'true' guidance has already come to them from their Lord.

When Muhammad wanted to spread the concept of one God, He told the people that the idols they considered or called Allah were not the true Allah. When Muhammad conquered Mecca, he shattered all idols in the Kaaba, clarifying to the people that the idols they considered Allah were not the true deity.

Now lets talk about alilat or al- lat also spelled as Allat, Allatu.

Al" means "the," and "ilat" or "lat" refers to her name in the case of Alilat. Similarly, "Al" means "the," and "latu" is her name in the case of Allatu. — Preceding unsigned comment added by David432ttpon (talk • contribs) 06:34, 1 January 2024 (UTC)


 * Sorry, but you're just repeating yourself, and it's not clear what you want to change or why. My only guess is that you're offended by the idea that people once believed something other than you do now, and that you want to show that they were some other kind of people, because people like yourself couldn't possibly have believed anything contrary to your current faith.  But that's just a guess, since you haven't yet been able to articulate what it is that you think is wrong with the article or why.  And if that's the reason, then it's not going to be changed, because the fact is that pre-Islamic Arabia believed things that are not compatible with Islam.  That's simply a fact, supported by all reliable sources.  And if you want to apply a specific term to everyone who believed otherwise, then you must be able to cite a reliable scholarly source that explains the use of the term.  You can't just argue about the identity of idols and the etymology of "Allah" and use that to justify the use of a term that's not defined by a scholarly source.  P Aculeius (talk) 14:20, 1 January 2024 (UTC)