Muhammad's name
-
Peace be upon you,
Yes, neither "ahmad" nor "muhammad" in used as a name, but a description for us to emulate. They both are derivatives of the word "hamd" which I take as "exaltation".
Peace All
For those who say Ahmed is a description NOT a name have really got it wrong, the Quran clearly told us that the up coming messenger after Isa HIS NAME IS AHMED, the verse never said his description is Ahmed, LOL
YUSUFALI And remember, Jesus, the son of Mary, said "O Children of Israel! I am the messenger of Allah (sent) to you, confirming the Law (which came) before me, and giving Glad Tidings of a Messenger to come after me, whose name shall be Ahmad." But when he came to them with Clear Signs, they said, "this is evident sorcery!"
PICKTHAL And when Jesus son of Mary said O Children of Israel! Lo! I am the messenger of Allah unto you, confirming that which was (revealed) before me in the Torah, and bringing good tidings of a messenger who cometh after me, whose name is the Praised One. Yet when he hath come unto them with clear proofs, they say This is mere magic.
SHAKIR And when Isa son of Marium said O children of Israel! surely I am the messenger of Allah to you, verifying that which is before me of the Taurat and giving the good news of an Messenger who will come after me, his name being Ahmad, but when he came to them with clear arguments they said This is clear magic.
(6)
-> See, ? ?, i.e. ?His Name is Ahmed?, LOL again
I rest my case regarding the name Ahmed which PICKTHAL tranlsated as "The praised one" but the issue we have is it a name or a description and we can see that PICKTHAL translated still as name because the absolutely clear and abvoius for a child who just started talking arabic that "Ismaho" menas "His name"
Peace
-
Peace be upon you,
I'll be happy to share with you the story of Ausar and Auset and other virgin birth stories in anoher thread. The old testament is not the only spiritual teaching. Or maybe you discount the spiritual teachings of certain groups of people.
Lets get back to "ahmed".
u mean the allegorical 1? lolz! i dont take him as an allegory either
So "ahmed' was a real person and "muhammad" was a real person too? Please elaborate.
-
ahmedbahgat wrote...
I rest my case regarding the name Ahmed which PICKTHAL tranlsated as "The praised one" but the issue we have is it a name or a description and we can see that PICKTHAL translated still as name because the absolutely clear and abvoius for a child whi just starting talking arabic that "Ismaho" menas "His name"yeah, but if jesus said to them his name was to be 'ahmad', how would they have reacted to a 'muhammad' claiming to be that messenger? -)
idolfree1 wrote...
I'll be happy to share with you the story of Ausar and Auset and other virgin birth stories in anoher thread. The old testament is not the only spiritual teaching. Or maybe you discount the spiritual teachings of certain groups of people.lolz! chill! u had written in ur allegory "isa, son of mary"! it was 'jesus, son of mary' who i said is missing from scriptures post newtestament and quran! i am sure there are other such examples in other teachings, zoroaster arguably being 1 of the most prominent! -)
idolfree1 wrote...
So "ahmed' was a real person and "muhammad" was a real person too? Please elaboratehuh? -S i think i said they are perhaps 'labels' or adjectives, maybe his name was something else! or maybe 'ahmad' was his name an 'muhammad' was an adjective used by god! or maybe jesus spoke an allegory and used 'ahmad' instead of 'muhammad'! lolz! like i said i already posted a thread and i have been wrecking my head over it! cry in anycase, like i said this thread deals with something else! -)
peace be upon you -)
-
ahmedbahgat wrote...
I rest my case regarding the name Ahmed which PICKTHAL tranlsated as "The praised one" but the issue we have is it a name or a description and we can see that PICKTHAL translated still as name because the absolutely clear and abvoius for a child whi just starting talking arabic that "Ismaho" menas "His name"yeah, but if jesus said to them his name was to be 'ahmad', how would they have reacted to a 'muhammad' claiming to be that messenger? -)
Hello
Very easy
Mohammad was the only prophet came after Jesus as far as I know from the history, and the verse said a prophet after me
cheers
-
Does that mean his proper name is "Ahmad"?
It could be...I think we should start a debate about the meaning of the word "ism".
Anyway, If we assume that "Ahmad" or "Muhammad" is indeed a quality of this person, rather than his proper name, then don't you think it's strange not to know the actual name of such a historic figure??
I agree with member "thegod" in that this "ahmed" or "muhammed" was not an allegory. He was a real person. If we refuse this , then how was the Reading revealed?? Did God throw printed mushafs from the sky for the people to read???
There WAS indeed a Arab man who preached the reading in the area around the Jordan Valley in Northern Arabia, in the 6th Century AD, and who later emigrated southwards to "Yathreb" where he was greeted as a hero.
Who is burried in that tomb at the mosque in Medina?? Or is this another joke on the part of the Saudi Governement?
My question is If we accept this messenger as a true historic figure and not an allegory, then isn't it strange that his real name is never mentioned??
-
pazuzu wrote...
Does that mean his proper name is "Ahmad"?jesus told his people the messenger's 'ism' will be "ahamd" (61 ; 6)! well, the only hitch is that the quran itself uses the name 'muhammad' as well (472)! ummm...i can think of these 3 possibilities
-
both "ahmad" and "muhammad" have something to do with 'praise', so perhaps both have been used as either a marker or an adjective or both!
-
his name was "muhammad" but while jesus gave them the tidings he used "ahmad" as an allegory to point towards "muhammad"!
-
his name was "ahmad" and perhaps god used "muhammad" (as an adjective) as commendation!
-
he was known as both "ahmad" and "muhammad"!
well, these are merely my opinions and neither truth nor my truth based on presence or absence of anything!
another verse says that this messenger has been mentioned in both the torah and the injeel (7 157)! ofcourse, this opens up the issue for a wider discussion! however, i think i wont be around much longer! cry
-
-
the Quran clearly called jesus by two names
-
Isa
-
Masih
so what is the bloody problem when the Quran called the last messenger by two names?
-
-
Who do you think is burried in that tomb at the mosque in Medina??
Are the Saudis hiding something from the masses?? twisted
-
Peace be upon you,
"muhammad" and "ahmed" are YOU! (if you achieve that level) as well as anyone else who achieves that level. Yes, there was a human being who wrote this book. We dont know his name. Its not a book about him. Its a book about becoming "muhammad".
There is no one in that grave, just flesh turning back to dirt.
-
pazuzu wrote...
My question is If we accept this messenger as a true historic figure and not an allegory, then isn't it strange that his real name is never mentioned??muhammad is most surely not an allegory! as for his name, its probably almost a sure thing it is "muhammad"! he has been adressed quite ferquently as muhammad and there is no reason to believe it was not muhammad!
as for "ahmad", i think jesus perhaps used it as an allegory to point towards "muhammad"! or maybe he was also known as ahmad, which in itself would not be a very uncommon thing!
pazuzu wrote...
Who do you think is burried in that tomb at the mosque in Medina??as for who is buried in the tomb, let the tomb be in peace, whoever be buried therein! when the graves are overturned, all secrets will be made manifest! but till then we have the quran to be sure that muhammad was indeed the messenger of allah and not an allegory! -)
-
Peace be upon you,
muhammad is most surely not an allegory! as for his name, its probably almost a sure thing it is "muhammad"! he has been adressed quite ferquently as muhammad and there is no reason to believe it was not muhammad!
There is plenty of reason. Why is it that in other instances, a word with MU added to it just means that the object takes on that quality, but when it comes to HAMD, when we add MU to it it becomes a persons name?
Which verse can you provide where a human being was addressed by the PROPER NAME Muhammad, rather than being a common description?
as for "ahmad", i think jesus perhaps used it as an allegory to point towards "muhammad"! or maybe he was also known as ahmad, which in itself would not be a very uncommon thing!
salaam, islam, muslim
hamd, ahmad, muhammad
Just different forms. Not a name.
-
idolfree1 wrote...
There is plenty of reason. Why is it that in other instances, a word with MU added to it just means that the object takes on that quality, but when it comes to HAMD, when we add MU to it it becomes a persons name?lets go by ur understanding! 'hmd' means praise? muhammad would mean 'who praises'? so u are saying 'who praises' cannot be used as a name? am i right so far?
idolfree1 wrote...
Which verse can you provide where a human being was addressed by the PROPER NAME Muhammad, rather than being a common description?lets see this verse...
3340 Mohammed was not the father of any man among you, but he is the messenger of God and the seal of the prophets. And God is fully aware of all things.
now let us replace "muhammad" with ur understanding
"quality" was not the father of any man among you, but he is the messenger of God and the seal of the prophets. And God is fully aware of all things.
idolfree1 wrote..
salaam, islam, muslimhamd, ahmad, muhammad
Just different forms. Not a name.
names are different forms of a word as well! -S
if u dont mind tell me how according u the quran was delivered to humankind! and support it with verses from the quran -)
peace be upon you -)
-
Improperly treating the proper names
A trend started by Mr. Ayman and perhaps others whom I do not know, is to eliminate all the proper names and all the rituals, that is physical existence and practices relevant to islam... It is curious to explore the psychological motives or false assumptions behind this trend.
I find it amusing to see some people joining to this "impropering-the-proper-names" movement with the pride of a great discoverer. In their "alice (miniscule) in the wonderland," the Quran becomes nameless, just a reading book; the city of Mecca transforms to a "destruction" and the city where Prophet Muhammad was born somehow evaporates into nothingness in a complete silence in Northern Arabia, and the proper name of the prophet Muhammad too somehow loses its property and become a generic name.
Thus, we end up with a nameless book, received and delivered by a nameless guy who was born and lived most of his life in a nameless city! This is the story of books, humans and cities in ayman's improper wonderland.
As my contribution to this trend, I decided to save Ayman from contradiction. I decided to improperly handle his proper name as he did the Quran, Mecca and Muhammad. Thus, I declare to the wonderlandians or the improperlandians, that from now on I have impropered the name Ayman to "ayman" which is a telling combination of a Turkish AY (moon) and English MAN, meaning moonman or more accurately "the man from moon." As long as he is calling the Quran with miniscule "the reading book," Mecca with "destruction," and Muhammad "a praised man", I will be calling Ayman as "the moonman!" That what fits best to an improper man who does not like proper names.
Jock aside... The name of the prophet that received and delivered the Quran was Muhammad. The Quran refers to him four times in this way. As for "ahmad," it cannot be a proper name for the following reasons
-
The word "ism" does not necessarily mean a proper name. In fact, it means "description" or "attribute." Since all the proper and generic names in Arabic were derivatives of certain roots with a meaning, all proper names were also adjectives or descriptive.
-
Historically, he was known as Muhammad, not Ahmad. Later, when Muhammedans started worshiping him, they decided to fabricate 101 names for him. Thus, they ascribed many divine attributes to Muhammad, besides "yasin" and "ahmad," which they could easily distort for their non-critical audience.
-
A prophecy in the Bible containing a proper name would have had a self-defeating consequence. Imagine the first generation of supporters of Jesus who learned about that prophecy... "A prophet named Ahmad will come after me." Wouldn't all of them give the Arabic name Muhammad to their children, and grand children? If I were one of those lucky men, I would try hard to name my children and grandchildren to increase my chance of becoming the ancestor of the promised prophet. Wouldn't we have noticed a great number of Christians carrying such a name?
Reflecting on these three points alone makes a case for Muhammad being a proper name made of a descriptive noun, and for ahmad being merely a descriptive adjective meaning "more praised."
PS A question for brother Ahmad Baghat who is so sure that Ahmad is a proper name If you want to say in Arabic, "A messenger will come after me whose name will be even more praised," how would you say it?
Peace,
Edip -
-
Salaam all,
I enjoy this discussion. I personally don't mind naming the person who is the last prophet as "Muhammad" or "Ahmad" if it simplifies the discussion. However, I also do not view that this "Ahmad"-"ahmad" or "Muhammad"-"muhammad" issue as a really big problem. Or should I?
Thus, I declare to the wonderlandians or the improperlandians, that from now on I have impropered the name Ayman to "ayman" which is a telling combination of a Turkish AY (moon) and English MAN, meaning moonman or more accurately "the man from moon." As long as he is calling the Quran with miniscule "the reading book," Mecca with "destruction," and Muhammad "a praised man", I will be calling Ayman as "the moonman!" That what fits best to an improper man who does not like proper names.
Bro Edip, should it be like this? I mean, come on. I really don't think it is necessary. Bro Ayman only proposes an idea as far as I can tell. I don't think you should make his "Ayman" into "ay" (Turkish) and "man" (English) just to create a concept which is generated by combining two languages. Ayman could be wrong, but he could be right, just like anyone else in this forum.
- The word "ism" does not necessarily mean a proper name. In fact, it means "description" or "attribute." Since all the proper and generic names in Arabic were derivatives of certain roots with a meaning, all proper names were also adjectives or descriptive.
Well, perhaps that happens in all cultures. In my hometown, descriptive/adjective proper names are a common thing. So perhaps the name "Muhammad" or "Ahmed" is not that weird either.
I remember reading from a history book about Islam that says something like... the name "Muhammad" is unique, because that name has never been used before. I wonder how accurate this history is.
And also, how important is this "Muhammad" figure in the quran? I can read a lot of ayats explaining Musa or Ibrahim or Isa. But I can only read not that many ayats that explicitly talking about Muhammad specifically. I don't know, maybe I'm missing things, but, for now, I find it a bit strange nonetheless.
However, I also agree with bro Idolfree that we too can strive to reach the level of "muhammad". I don't find that notion hard to swallow or accept. In fact, it perfectly makes sense to me, just like a lot of people trying so hard to become a buddha.
- A prophecy in the Bible containing a proper name would have had a self-defeating consequence. Imagine the first generation of supporters of Jesus who learned about that prophecy... "A prophet named Ahmad will come after me." Wouldn't all of them give the Arabic name Muhammad to their children, and grand children? If I were one of those lucky men, I would try hard to name my children and grandchildren to increase my chance of becoming the ancestor of the promised prophet. Wouldn't we have noticed a great number of Christians carrying such a name?
That is a funny way of saying it, but I agree with your example.
=adley=
-
Peace all,
This is what AhmedBahgat wrote
Peace be upon you,
Yes, neither "ahmad" nor "muhammad" in used as a name, but a description for us to emulate. They both are derivatives of the word "hamd" which I take as "exaltation".
Peace All
For those who say Ahmed is a description NOT a name have really got it wrong, the Quran clearly told us that the up coming messenger after Isa HIS NAME IS AHMED, the verse never said his description is Ahmed, LOL
YUSUFALI And remember, Jesus, the son of Mary, said "O Children of Israel! I am the messenger of Allah (sent) to you, confirming the Law (which came) before me, and giving Glad Tidings of a Messenger to come after me, whose name shall be Ahmad." But when he came to them with Clear Signs, they said, "this is evident sorcery!"
PICKTHAL And when Jesus son of Mary said O Children of Israel! Lo! I am the messenger of Allah unto you, confirming that which was (revealed) before me in the Torah, and bringing good tidings of a messenger who cometh after me, whose name is the Praised One. Yet when he hath come unto them with clear proofs, they say This is mere magic.
SHAKIR And when Isa son of Marium said O children of Israel! surely I am the messenger of Allah to you, verifying that which is before me of the Taurat and giving the good news of an Messenger who will come after me, his name being Ahmad, but when he came to them with clear arguments they said This is clear magic.
(6)
-> See, ? ?, i.e. ?His Name is Ahmed?, LOL again
I rest my case regarding the name Ahmed which PICKTHAL tranlsated as "The praised one" but the issue we have is it a name or a description and we can see that PICKTHAL translated still as name because the absolutely clear and abvoius for a child who just started talking arabic that "Ismaho" menas "His name"
Peace
Here's the translations I gave to Ahmed
Now lets start with the following verses and then read ahead
8013-16
Khalifa
In honorable scriptures.
Exalted and pure.
(Written) by the hands of messengers.
Who are honorable and righteous.Yusuf Ali
(It is) in Books held (greatly) in honour,
Exalted (in dignity), kept pure and holy,
(Written) by the hands of scribes-
Honourable and Pious and Just.Pickthal
On honoured leaves
Exalted, purified,
(Set down) by scribes
Noble and righteous.Shakir
In honored books,
Exalted, purified,
In the hands of scribes
Noble, virtuous."Progressive Muslims"
In scripts which are honourable.
Raised and pure.
By the hands of revealed ones.
Honourable and righteous.And here's how he fondles with it
I guess you mean that everyone of the above translated the words differently?, well, thanks for that, that proves my point, because what you showed me above is the words of men not the words of Allah, sorry it does not look like the Arabic Quran to me
but you provided no proofs but a list or some English translations by a few men, bro your evidence can not be admissible, we are talking the real words which was in Arabic and we only have one copy of it and no man claimed to be written it, as you can see from you example above, you associated a man with every translation, why?, simply because they claimed to have done it, LOL bro, I hope you get my very valid and logical point
fine and I agree with that, but that has nothing to do with the Arabic Quran as the real words of Allah, humans can philosophise aas much as they want, but to be mystical and never link themselves to that great book, I guess they were stupid men not wise at all, there is no logical refute on why a book author hide him/herself
Now judge for yourselves, what went wrong and be honest???
-
edip yuksel wrote
3. A prophecy in the Bible containing a proper name would have had a self-defeating consequence. Imagine the first generation of supporters of Jesus who learned about that prophecy... "A prophet named Ahmad will come after me." Wouldn't all of them give the Arabic name Muhammad to their children, and grand children? If I were one of those lucky men, I would try hard to name my children and grandchildren to increase my chance of becoming the ancestor of the promised prophet. Wouldn't we have noticed a great number of Christians carrying such a name?i am not too sure about that...how many would have been his true followers? we can say assuredly that by the time muhammad came jesus had himself been turned into a god...so really does not translate into a great number of christians wanting to carry that name! infact the other way round..we can see from the verse that he was denied...so knowing about the prophecy there is a very good chance that they would have been on a search for an 'ahmad'....a bit like pharaoh perhaps...to try and finish him off as soon as they could...so maybe muslims back then would not have wanted the risk of calling their child 'ahmad' publicly!
edip yuksel wrote
Reflecting on these three points alone makes a case for Muhammad being a proper name made of a descriptive noun, and for ahmad being merely a descriptive adjective meaning "more praised."muhammad was clearly the name of the messenger...however what is the significance of jesus telling his followers that the name of the messenger who follows him will be "even more praised"?
that said i do tend to think of ahmad as an allegory...though i do not rule out its being either an adjective or simply another name by which muhammad might have been known! another verse which really makes me wonder is 7157...this messenger has been written about in torah and gospel....would that be the same as saying he has been named therein?
edip yuksel wrote
PS A question for brother Ahmad Baghat who is so sure that Ahmad is a proper name If you want to say in Arabic, "A messenger will come after me whose name will be even more praised," how would you say it?how would this be written in arabic a messenger will come after me whose name will be ahmad!