It was said: As for narration, there is no narration regarding it with us, but what is obligatory—according to the analogy of what came in the report from the Messenger of God, peace and blessings of God be upon him, which:

145 - Ismāʿīl ibn al-Faḍl narrated to us, he said: Ibrāhīm ibn al-ʿAlāʾ narrated to us, he said: Ismāʿīl ibn ʿAyyāsh narrated to us, from Ismāʿīl ibn Yaḥyā, from Ibn Abī Mulayka, from someone who narrated to him from Ibn Masʿūd—and Misʿar ibn Kidām, from ʿAṭiyya al-ʿAwfī, from Abū Saʿīd—who said: The Messenger of God, peace and blessings of God be upon him, said: "Indeed, Jesus's mother handed him over to the schoolmaster to teach him, so the teacher said to him: Write 'Allāh'. So Jesus said to him: 'Do you know what Allāh is? Allāh is the God of gods (1)'."

—is that it should be said (2), Allāh, majestic is His majesty, alaha (deified) the servant, and the servant alahahu (worshipped Him). And that the statement of the speaker "Allāh"—in the speech of the Arabs—is originally "al-Ilāh".

If he says: And how can that be permissible, given the difference in their words?

It is said: Just as it was permissible that His saying: {But as for me, He is Allāh, my Lord} [Sūrat al-Kahf: 38] was originally: lākin anā, huwa Allāhu rabbī, as the poet said:

And you cast your eyes at me, meaning: you are a sinner, ... and you hate me, but you I do not hate (3)

He means: lākin anā iyyāki lā aqlī, so he omitted the hamza from anā, and the nūn of anā met the nūn of lākin, which was quiescent, so it was assimilated into the nūn of anā, becoming a doubled nūn. Likewise, "Allāh" is originally "al-Ilāh"; the hamza, which is the fāʾ of the noun, was dropped, so the lām which is the ʿayn of the noun met the extra lām that entered with the extra alif, which was quiescent, and it was assimilated into