Talk:Inshallah

This article was nominated for deletion on 15 February 2017. The result of the discussion was keep.

Comments

don't think it is true that "the Arabic term bears a stronger religious connotation" than "God willing". Devout Christians used to use it in a similar way to the Muslim way, but it has become uncommon in English as fewer people are devout. Among Muslims, it is perfectly routine to use it when referring to the future; the very routineness makes it less religious, just as "God bless you" used when someone sneezes is not religious in English. --Macrakis 22:05, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

though a little late, i completely agree. we use it for all kinds of unreligious stuff. if anything i think 'god willing' may have stronger religious overtones. it stands out more in american among english speakers than among secular arab speakers in arab-speaking regions. --User:Yung Wei^綪永徽 15:27, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A good distinction to make may be that "God willing" is used mainly by Christians, whereas while Insha'Allah has Muslim origins, it's evolved into a more cultural than religious thing to say, like "God bless you" is here. In other words, it's an Arab tradition with Muslim roots, and is therefore prevalent even where Islam may not be (eg Lebanon). Sammythemc 16:31, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am Lebanese (Orthodox-Catholic) and 18 years of age (and I live in Canada). I can say that Insha'Allah is not a 'muslim word' or used strictly by muslims, it simply "God willing", for example if I was to say "Tomorrow we will meet at school", one would say "God willing, tomorrow we will meet at school", because one cannot forsee the future in order to "predict" it when saying that one will meet the next day.

From an aggrieved Canadian trying to reserve a rental car in Casablanca: "What do you mean, Insha'Allah?! Will you have a car on Monday or not?" A profound lesson in comparative culture. --Mashford 02:03, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I would argue to remove the reference to Tom Clancy - what particular unbiased expertise can this author bring to bear on this subject? Might as well use Dan Browne to explain elements of Christianity. --Conchubhairb 3rd Oct 07

Hamdullah

If we have this term, we certainly ought to have an article on the similar Arabic term "Hamdullah." Better spelled as Al-hamdu lillah - Thanks be to God. And there is an article which could be used/expanded - Al-hamdu lillahi rabbil 'alamin Badagnani 06:45, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It would be great to get a response about this. Badagnani (talk) 19:37, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There is an article Alhamdulillah, but it doesn't seem to be in great shape right now (parts of it were better previously). AnonMoos (talk) 01:58, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, is "Al" always part of this phrase? Usually I've heard people say it without the "Al." Badagnani (talk) 01:58, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Response to Badagnani: I think the article "Al" is most often dropped (if it is dropped) by Arabic speakers, whereas when non-Arabic speakers say it, they say it complete, with the article "Al" attached. Hope that answers your question. My guess is that you've heard it without the "Al" by Arabs (or those who were around native speakers and have picked it up from them).--Mlenoirh (talk) 00:19, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Capitalization

I wonder if both words are capitalised or if it is in fact correct to write "insha'Allah"? 78.149.217.1 (talk) 15:37, 5 January 2009 (UTC)User:Astartic 16:37, 4 January 2009[reply]

It's hard for Allah to always be capitalized in Latin script, since in Arabic grammar its initial vowel is frequently overwritten with the i'rab of the preceding word. That's why so many names end in -ullah. AnonMoos (talk) 15:36, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Spanish

I'm a student of the Spanish language and I've never heard it used in the way indicated by this article. In my experience it's used exactly like Insha'Allah to express a hope or wish, "Ojala que no llueva" (God willing it won't rain, I hope that it won't rain).

You are correct. Please see: Ojala (que). --Mlenoirh (talk) 01:49, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Pronunciation

I really miss a pronounciation tag for this phrase. Could someone who knows how to pronounciate Insha'Allah add it? 62.210.228.209 (talk) 07:42, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ditto here. I'd really like to see the correct pronunciation transcribed. Agateller (talk) 00:03, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Cross Contamination/OR

The introduction section lists a Christian Bible verse in relation to an Islam saying. God Willing (In relation to the Christian God) and Allah Willing (In relation to the Muslim God) are two wildly differing sayings. The same background meaning, but it's like praying to Kali or Hades, you're not going to call it the same thing. Specifics, I know, but important for a site that prides itself on being factually correct. Group them under divine supplication by all means, but quoting the Koran to back up a Christian saying or the Bible to back up an Islam saying is just not "right", so to speak. 124.168.120.141 (talk) 20:44, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Response: As a Christian, I can't agree with this objection. The author appears to believe the word Allah is specifically Islamic. In reality Allah is simply the Arabic word for God. Arabic Christians called God "Allah" before Muhammed was even born, and I believe (but could be wrong here) that in the pantheistic Arabic religion that predated Muhammed "Allah" was used to refer to the chief god. There is therefore nothing specifically Islamic about either the word Allah or Insha'Allah, and both can be and are used by Christians when speaking in the Arabic language. It is therefore entirely appropriate to refer to the Bible in relation to Insha'Allah. This has nothing to do with whether what Islam or Christianity teach about God or Allah (depending whether you speak English or Arabic) is correct, that is an important but entirely separate issue that has nothing to do with the definition of this word. The objector is confusing a dictionary definition with a theological debate. 202.124.102.46 (talk) 22:56, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Recent revision of article

This article has recently been substantively revised by an IP editor. There were comparatively few references in the first place, and neither of the two citations have so far as I can tell been changed, but it does seem to me that a lot of material has been removed and at least a few sections of the article rewritten, almost to the point of removal. Not knowing that much about the topic myself, I am not sure that the recent changes weren't in some way an improvement, but I do question the change in emphasis and the removal of material, even if a lot of it wasn't directly cited. With no additional citiations in the revision, it is, comparatively, still no better referenced than it was before. I would welcome any indications from better informed editors whether the changes were beneficial or otherwise. John Carter (talk) 17:47, 29 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm also bothered by a re-write involving a 25% reduction. I'm familiar with, but not an authority on the phrase. The structure of the article is much better now except that the lede has almost disappeared. I believe the following material has disappeared.

The triliteral of šāʾ is š-y-ʾ "to will", a doubly weak root in Arabic grammar.

I don't see any other specifics that might be really significant.
You might get some quality feedback from a note to AnonMoos or to Lesgles who have each contributed to this article in the past. SBaker43 (talk) 18:47, 29 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Allah Willing

The Ip user is correct, Allah is NOT specific to Muslims it is just Arabic for God as opposed to god. So it is God willing not Allah willing. Christians who believe in Jesus and spk Arabic say Allah just as Muslims who spk English say Gods, without diminishing their God concept. in Israel Arab Jews will say Allah also. ref. No where have I seen Allah Willing, I have seen "If Allah wills it" --Inayity (talk) 07:08, 8 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Second meaning.

In colloquial use some of Mogametaneren the word "Insha'Allah" in the sense - I admit (forgive) See this as a friendship gift. Is that also correct to the classical language Arab? And, which can be assumed to be a "Insha'Allah" ? Gestohllene counter Tende e.g. Which may be as "Insha'Allah" ?Bis23 02 2015 (talk) 13:01, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Colloquial Arabic meaning of "Not likely?"

My understanding is that Inshallah commonly means "not likely." Shouldn't this be brought up in the article? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.90.132.26 (talk) 21:04, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I wish to register my amusement that, years later, the prominent use of the phrase in precisely that context ensured that the above was finally recorded in the article. RexSueciae (talk) 02:28, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 25 September 2015

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. Ultimately unopposed and a good case has been made for dropping the apostrophe. Jenks24 (talk) 07:55, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Insha'Allah → In sha Allah – Standard transliteration (as in WP:MOSAR); per usage in the article itself. – Khestwol (talk) 07:55, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This is a contested technical request (permalink). Anthony Appleyard (talk) 06:00, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Khestwol: From what I know of Islam and Arabic, this move better be discussed. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 06:01, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Arabic titles tend to not include apostrophes (per the standard transliteration from WP:MOSAR) even if the more strict transliteration have apostrophes. For example, Quran (not Qur'an), Asr prayer (not 'Asr prayer), and Ma sha Allah (not Ma sha' Allah or Ma sha'Allah). In our case, the strict transliteration is in shāʼ Allāh while the standard transliteration after removing the diacritics and apostrophes is in sha Allah. The current title is wrong, as it is neither the strict nor the standard transliteration. The convention on Wikipedia in most cases is to use standard transliteration. Khestwol (talk) 07:59, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. While the phrase should indeed be separated into separate words, WP:MOSAR only discourages the apostrophe if used at the beginning of a word. In this case, the consonantal hamza (represented by a simple apostrophe ') is located at the end of sha' and should thus be included. The simple apostrophe itself (in contrast to other marks such as ` ´ ‘ ’) is not against current article title conventions (often seen in Irish names such as O'Connor and O'Donnell). The basic transcription would be "In sha' Allah". - HyperGaruda (talk) 09:49, 3 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support: I am some one that has experienced "In Sha Allah" for many years living in the Middle East. I favor the simple transliteration. The addition of the apostrophe in "In Sha' Allah" may be more accurate but it's doubtful unfamiliar users will know where to put it. I am really surprised at the article content which omits the common man's definition of "In Sha Allah": It's Mañana without the sense of urgency. --Mike Cline (talk) 00:06, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Mañana does not really sound like a "common man's" definition, being Spanish for tomorrow and all. I think that "fingers crossed" is closer to the conveyed message. Or a plain "hopefully", as already noted under the Iberian derivative ojala. - HyperGaruda (talk) 11:57, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You failed to detect the ^[sarcasm] here. Manana is sacastically used to mean: It might happen tomorrow. While adding "without the sense of urgency" puts "In Sha Allah" on the side that's essentially is saying "Don't count on it any time soon". --Mike Cline (talk) 20:57, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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.

Proper name

The article itself is badly written but worse the people who made a move from above could not grasp the basics of the Arabic grammar. The second word is the verb shāʾa "(he) wished", while the word ʾAllāh(u) (the isolated form) does lose its initial vowel as well as the glottal stop. The verb cannot lose its final vowel and the noun cannot not have A- (it is a part of the former definite article, so it's regularity elided). It's ungrammatical. So the proper (simplified) name is "In sha'a llah", or much better if we stick to a more scientific ʾIn shāʾa llāhu and create any possible redirects.--Lüboslóv Yęzýkin (talk) 13:41, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I've checked some English dictionaries, in English there is the established English form: inshallah, so say Oxford, Collins, Merriam-Webster, American Heritage. So it looks like there is no much to discuss here. --Lüboslóv Yęzýkin (talk) 13:50, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Google Ngram and the British National Corpus also agree.--Lüboslóv Yęzýkin (talk) 13:55, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 21 October 2015

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 per consensus, pending G6 (non-admin closure) Tiggerjay (talk) 23:08, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

In sha Allah → Inshallah – Per above. Lüboslóv Yęzýkin (talk) 14:00, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support. Clear common usage in English-language sources. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:42, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Proven "common transcription" preferred over "basic transcription". - HyperGaruda (talk) 12:20, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Word commonly found in English-language dictionaries. No need for the italics either. —Ruud 16:42, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support. I'm very familiar with the word/phrase inshallah, but I've never seen it transliterated as "in sha Allah" except on this article. "In sha Allah" doesn't fit the standard pronunciation as well, either. —GrammarFascist _contribs ^talk 22:01, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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.

Other languages

Please ScrapIronIV, could you explain the deletion of the sections on Portuguese and Spanish and In Christianity? They made the article much more rounded.

You refer to WP:NOR and WP:SYNTH, but I fail to see any "improper editorial synthesis" at play here. The additions were a mere accumulation of equivalences in other languages, all rather factual and all referenced. No "original research", nor any intention to "reach or imply a conclusion".

I can see you had already once deleted the section on Spain. Perhaps you are unaware of the intimate linguistic relation between the history of Arabic and Spanish and Portuguese? There is indeed a particular interest of such an Arabic expression existing in two Romance languages, especially as it is the only case within Indo-European languages, probably excepting the Indo-Iranian branch (it would be worth adding the Persian version of inshaLlah to the article too). You see, ojalá has to do to with all the historic and religious factors which relate to Al-Andalus.

The Greek and Latin equivalents are of interest because they illustrate the usage of such an expression right at the heart of the Christian scriptures. I added no idle or fanciful material, nor any original ideas. All I meant to do was to "collect and organise material from existing sources within the provisions of the relevant content policies." If you think I did something else, I would much appreciate some orientation.

I suspect you were a bit uninformed about the particular subject of the article. I for one would hesitate before modifying an article on aircraft, which seems to be your expertise, so I would suggest you too pause for a moment before deleting valuable content outside your ken—I say this quite respectfully. Sure enough, "to be bold" is recommended, but so is also "to do something which improves the contents of the wiki."

Kindly explain what's wrong with the additions, or just undo your deletions if you please. If I don't hear from you within a few days, I shall undo your deletions for the article's sake.

Thanks, Desde la Torre (talk) 00:38, 9 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Inshallah. 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/20120310201443/http://www.ahya.org/amm/modules.php?name=Sections&op=viewarticle&artid=149 to http://www.ahya.org/amm/modules.php?name=Sections&op=viewarticle&artid=149

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:19, 14 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]