Muhammad's name

Edip_Yuksel

I am frequently criticized by Sunnies and Siite people for calling Muhammad, Muhammad. They consider it as a disrespect.

Verse 2136 is a refutation against the innovation of adding words of praise after Muhammad's name. The verse tells us to mention the names of prophets without praising them. Those who worship Muhammad might seek excuse in the fact that Muhammad's name is not mentioned here. However, the verse preemptively refutes such an excuse by instructing us not to discriminate among God's prophets. Those who praise Muhammad's name with fabricated lengthy phrases are not followers of Muhammad, since Muhammad was a monotheist and he invited people to praise God and submit to God alone, not himself. See 248; 3356

sultana

You are correct. Never care to get authentication of others when you are sure of something.

unknownuser

Peace be upon you,

I thought his name was "Ahmed"?

thegod

idolfree1 wrote...
I thought his name was "Ahmed"?

yeah! i started a thread regarding his name both 'ahmad' and muhammad' seem to have been used! i wondered perhaps it is used as something of a marker, rather than a name, i mean something like he will be praised or something, beause both have something to do with 'hamd' or praise i reckon! maybe his name was neither ahmad or muhammad! -S

unknownuser

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".

When you awaken your will (Isa, son of mary), then after that comes "exaltation".

thegod

idolfree1 wrote...
When you awaken your will (Isa, son of mary), then after that comes "exaltation".

yeah! and when we become abraham (sacrificing our dearest in way of god) we beget isaac (glad tidings from the god)! also we have to become arjuna (unwavering, single-pointed concentration) to get to see 'real' krishna (the actual and absolute countenance of god rather than the perceived!)! lolz, just kidding...dont mind! i personally dont think jesus is an allegory if thats what u said there!

peace be upon you -)

unknownuser

Peace be upon you,

i personally dont think jesus is an allegory if thats what u said there!

Thats fine. However, the story of Jesus is the same story that has been given since the beginning of recorded spirituality, and it has always been an allegory.

You dont believe that there was a real man who brought life to the dead and made the blind to see literally? Do you?

thegod

idolfree1 wrote...
Thats fine.

cool! -)

idolfree1 wrote...
However, the story of Jesus is the same story that has been given since the beginning of recorded spirituality, and it has always been an allegory.

is that the truth according to u (ur reasoning and rationale) or are u stating the truth? -)

idolfree1 wrote...
You dont believe that there was a real man who brought life to the dead and made the blind to see literally? Do you?

yeah! -S

peace be upon you -)

unknownuser

Peace be upon you,

Quote
idolfree1 wrote...
However, the story of Jesus is the same story that has been given since the beginning of recorded spirituality, and it has always been an allegory.

is that the truth according to u (ur reasoning and rationale) or are u stating the truth?

I'll put it to you like this, the same basic story that has been given since the beginning can only be VERIFIED (the essence of TRUTH) by taking it as an allegory and LIVING it to see if its true. Otherwise we are left with blind faith which can never be proven, and therefore can never be "truth".

But there is no compulsion on you, just sharing what I had to share.

Lets get back to "ahmed".

thegod

idolfree1 wrote...
I'll put it to you like this, the same basic story that has been given since the beginning can only be VERIFIED (the essence of TRUTH) by taking it as an allegory and LIVING it to see if its true. Otherwise we are left with blind faith which can never be proven, and therefore can never be "truth".

for 1, u said the story of jesus was the same that has been given since the beginning of recorded spirituality! however ,any mention of 'jesus son of mary' is absent in the old testament or even other scriptures which outdate the new testament and quran! so it would indeed merit thought as to why this allegory was absent in the earlier scriptures! however, and for the rest of this, like u said it would be hijacking this thread, so let us happily disagree! -)

idolfree1 wrote...
But there is no compulsion on you, just sharing what I had to share.

cool! -)

idolfree1 wrote...
Lets get back to "ahmed".

u mean the allegorical 1? lolz! i dont take him as an allegory either, but let us leave it for the time being as this thread deals an issue other than allegory! however i do wonder whether 'ahmad' or 'muhammad' was his name or they were just kind of 'labels'! in anycase, this thread does not deal with that either! -)

peace be upon you -)

unknownuser

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

unknownuser

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.

thegod

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 elaborate

huh? -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 -)

unknownuser

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

thegod

hi! cool! -)

unknownuser

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??

thegod

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

unknownuser

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?

thegod

no bloody problem at all! -S it definitely is a possibility that he was known to the people as both "ahmad" and "muhammad"!

unknownuser

Who do you think is burried in that tomb at the mosque in Medina??

Are the Saudis hiding something from the masses?? twisted