Another view holds that the word’s original form is al-ilāh, with the definite article al- built into it from the outset, and that the hamza was suppressed for ease of speech—just as the hamza was dropped from an-nās (“people”), whose root is al-anās, and from khayr (“good”) and sharr (“evil”), whose original forms are akhyar and asharr.

The name Allah is thus derived from ulūhiyya, which means worship combined with love and exaltation. The Arabs say: aliha ilayhi—he yearned for Him, loved Him, returned to Him, and magnified Him. Hence it springs from ulūhiyya, signifying love and veneration, and ilāh consequently conveys the sense of maʾlūh, that is, “the One who is worshipped.”

Does the morphological pattern fiʿāl ever carry the meaning of mafʿūl (the object of an action)? Yes: firāsh means “something spread out,” bināʾ means “something built,” and ghirās means “something planted.”

As for al-Rahmān, it is both an epithet that follows the divine name and itself one of Allah’s names, pointing to the attribute of mercy. Everyone who has tried to define mercy ends up describing it through its effects. When I say, “I have mercy on the child,” what precisely does that entail? Is it tenderness, or the gentleness I show him? The answer is: neither; tenderness is merely an effect of mercy, and gentleness another of its effects. Mercy is simply mercy—you cannot clarify it better than by the word itself. Thus mercy, while clear in meaning, remains unknowable in its modality with respect to Allah, even though its effects are recognizable. Hence al-Rahmān is a divine name that denotes the attribute of mercy.

Al-Rahīm is likewise a name encompassing mercy. The question arises: is al-Rahīm identical in meaning to al-Rahmān, or is there a difference between the two?