Proper Name "Muslim"
-
Salaam all,
I used to think that the word "muslim" is just a common noun to mean "one who submits/surrenders". However, perhaps I was wrong and this word is a proper name "Muslim" after all. The reason being 2278.
2278
Wajaahidoo fee Allaahi haqqa jihaadihi huwa ijtabakum wama jaAAala AAalaykum fee alddeeni min harajin millata abeekum ibraaheema huwa sammaakumu almuslimeena min qablu wafee haathaa liyakoona alrrasoolu shaheedan AAalaykum watakoonoo shuhadaa AAalaa alnnaasi faaqeemoo alSSalaata wa-aatoo alzzakaata waiAAtaSimoo biAllaahi huwa mawlaakum faniAAma almawlaa waniAAma alnnaSeeru
I compare it with 5323 which talks about the proper names Allat, Al-'Uzza, and Manaat (5319-20).
5323
In hiya illaa asmaaon sammaytumoohaa antum wa-aabaaokum ma anzala Allaahu biha min sulTaanin in yattabiAAoona illa alThThanna wamaa tahwaa al-anfusu walaqad jaa-ahum min rabbihimu alhudaa
Thus, it seems to me that almuslimeena in 2278 is a proper name just as the names in 5319-20 are proper names. Does it mean that "Al-Muslimiin"/"The Muslims" is a proper name and the capitalized "Muslim" should be used? Or, if it is going to be translated, then "One Who Submits/Surrenders" (note the capitalized words).
I know that capitalized "Muslim" is probably very linked or close to how the sectarians understand it. But for now, perhaps the discussion should limit to how proper names are mentioned/constructed/defined in the quran. Are all words mentioned right after ism or asma should be regarded as proper names? Here is the list 11, 231, 231, 233, 233, 2114, 345, 54, 6118, 6119, 6121, 6138, 771, 7180, 7180, 1141, 1240, 17110, 197, 208, 2228, 2234, 2236, 2240, 2436, 2730, 4911, 5323, 5578, 5674, 5696, 5924, 616, 6952, 738, 7625, 871, 8715, 961.
Thoughts from anyone would be much appreciated.
=adley=
-
Muslim = isim fail of aslama, the things who surrender.
Do they seek for other than the deen of Allah? While all creatures in the heavens and on earth have, willing or unwilling, bowed to His Will (accepted Islam), and to Him shall they all be brought back.
Moon, earth, sun, planets, birds, air, water, cocroach, worms all are muslims, because everything they atc are according to Allah's deen. Man can not called as muslim whenever he was not surrender to Allah's deen. Deen is a law.
The Arabs say, "We believe." Say, "Ye, have no Faith, but ye (only) say, 'We have submitted our wills to Allah, 'for not yet has Faith entered your hearts. But if ye obey Allah and His Messenger, He will not belittle aught of your deeds for Allah is Oft-Forgiving, Most Merciful."
Muslim should not necessarily have a faith since he surrender to Allah's deen. This term of muslim is "wa ana minal muslimin" as you use to say in your shalat, yet Ibrahim taught us to declare "wa ana awwalul muslimin". What a difference !!!
-
Salaamun alaikum,
Adley, I believe the words 'conceptualised' , 'essentialised' or even 'ideologised'. Imho, you need to take into account the context. 53/23 speaks of concepts of authorities/aaliha (sing. ilah) which we have created - perhaps by naming - but naming is incidental to the act.
I believe your prior conclusion was right.
-
Hello Adely
Yes you brought a very strong point mate, Muslim is a noun of the religion of Islam follower, like anything that has a name so we refer to it using that name
People try somehow to know what the names means however regardless of that we still call it as such name not as such meaning
Salam
-
The verb samma is from the same root as ism (plural asma), which means ?name?.
Here are the occurrences of this verb I have found in the Quran , in addition to and .
I have named (sammaytu) her Mary
A fountain there, called ( tusamma) Salsabil.
Those who believe not in the Hereafter, name (yusammoona) the angels with female names.
If not Him, ye worship nothing but names which ye have named (sammaytu),- ye and your fathers,- for which Allah hath sent down no authority the command is for none but Allah He hath commanded that ye worship none but Him that is the right religion, but most men understand not...
In , the object of the verb samma is Mary, a proper name.
In , it is Salsabil, a proper name.
In , and , it is allat, Manat, and alUzzza, 3 proper names.
So, in , it is Muslim, a proper name too.Therefore, Allah has sent authority for the name "Muslim", but not for the name "quranist".
However, I do not think that all the usages of the word muslim in the Quran are referring to it as a proper name.
Peace
-
peace,
2278 can be seen as a proper name, but the vast majority of its usage is as a common word. Thus even if one takes it as a proper name that doesn't discount that it has an actual meaning. It is clear from my studies that its primary signification is as a description, not as a proper noun, but that doesn't mean it cant be used as such.
-
Peace be upon you,
The ORIGIN of "names" were to DESCRIBE things. So, "samma" means "describe/description".
Abraham described us as "Peaceful", not named us "Muslim". Does it say anywhere that Abraham had any authority to NAME us? Thereby making a sect? No, it was just a simple observation, that we were/are peaceful.
Mankinds problem is that it is stuck in the physical realm, so it always wants to physicalize things, make them literal, seperate, etc. This is the same fate of "descriptions" which have become proper names, but in some cultures are still used as descriptions.
-
Peace all,
Thank you Adley for starting this thread and making some excellent observations.
I used to think that the word "muslim" is just a common noun to mean "one who submits/surrenders". However, perhaps I was wrong and this word is a proper name "Muslim" after all. The reason being 2278.
So, in , it is Muslim, a proper name too.
2278 can be seen as a proper name...
Proper names are not translated. Hence, names such as Ibrahim/Abraham, Ismail/Ishmael Ishaac/Isaac and Maryam/Mary are similar in Hebrew, English and Arabic with some phonetic variations and cross-language mispronunciation. For example, Ibrahim is a proper name and hence in the great reading it is not translated into Arabic from what it meant in Kanaanite or whatever ancient language Abraham spoke.
Let's think about this for a minute. Were Abraham's followers named what would have been at their time a gibberish word from a future language that wasn't even invented yet? I don't think so.
Proposing that "al-muslimeen" in 2278 is a proper name is no different than proposing that 1400 years ago the followers of the prophet were actually called "The Submitters" long before Modern English was invented. Saying "The Submitters" to Arabs 1400 years ago or "Al Muslimeen" to Ibrahim's followers a few thousand years earlier would have sounded just as gibberish as saying "Qasdhwdkfvwdhcv" to people on this thread. It will still be gibberish to everyone here even if thousands of years from now some yet to be invented language will have "qasdhwdkfvwdhcv" as a meaningful word.
Abraham described us as "Peaceful", not named us "Muslim".
Brother, I think that the "huwa" (he) in the passage refers to The God not Abraham. It is The God who described us as such.
Peace,
Ayman
-
Salaam all,
Wow! Thanks so much for all the inputs. I will respond as soon as I finished doing this database extraction and conversion from Oracle to Access which is quite a chore (millions of records ;D) that takes a lot of my time D
In the mean time, please continue. I probably won't be able to open FM for another 6 hours or so D
=adley=
-
Salaam Lovelymoslems,
Thanks for the input bro.
First of all, based on 4914-15 I agree that having faith is quite different from having submit to the deen.
By 383, it is true that "muslim" in 2278 probably not a proper name and just a description (like how you relate all the creatures in the heavens and on earth are muslims).
In short, except from 2278, "muslim" is used as a description because I don't find it appealing that previous prophets such as Ibrahim or Noah spoke quranic Arabic.
=adley=
-
Salaam MQuran,
Adley, I believe the words 'conceptualised' , 'essentialised' or even 'ideologised'
I thought so too. But I just want to reaffirm what I understand so far about this word.
Imho, you need to take into account the context. 53/23 speaks of concepts of authorities/aaliha (sing. ilah) which we have created - perhaps by naming - but naming is incidental to the act.
I think I understand your point that the proper names mention in 5319-20 are defined based on the context that these were "things" that were created and thus given the names/lables so that future generations can easily refer them.
But, is it okay to say that names that were the result of human-made concepts or ideologies can be perfectly defined as proper names, whereas the act of naming by The God, as in 2278, is not? I mean, there is an underlying concept, essence, and ideology (haven't really decide what they really are yet) contained in the word "al-muslimin", even though it came from The God; thus, making "al-muslimin" a good candidate for a proper name.
But let me read what others have to say first. Thanks for sharing bro.
=adley=
-
Salaam AhmedBahgat,
I know that by refering to the most popularly-used word, in this case "Muslim", is probably the most efficient way of identifying a certain group of people.
But, from your post, you said that the word is a noun (used or functions as a name), not a proper name. Or are you really saying that "al-muslimin" is a proper name? Thanks for sharing your knowledge.
=adley=
-
Salaam JM,
First, thanks for the references and the input.
However, I do not think that all the usages of the word muslim in the Quran are referring to it as a proper name.
Agree, that's why I'm interested in 2278 to be able to draw conclusion.
Let's me start from scratch.
If "al-muslimin" in 2278 is not a proper name, that means we can refer to it as "muslim", "one who submits", "yang berserah diri" (Indonesian version), etc... In short, to be able to treat a seemingly proper name as a common noun is that the word(s) must have a meaning. A lot of proper names does not have any meaning, like my father's (proper) name "Baty".For "salsabil" I found the root Siin-Ba-Lam which have the main meaning of "path/way". Now, "'ainan" in 7618 can be understood also as "eye/vision" as how the word used in 1926 (even though "spring/fountain" might be the correct meaning in 260,7160,766, and 8328; even though "vision/eye" probably make sense as well). Thus, I can understand that 7618 is talking about a vision of the true path or the straightest path.
For "allat" we have Lam-Ya-Ta for reference which basically means "To give a reply which was not called for, shift, shun a question, conceal, diminish, withold, prevent"
http//www.studyquran.co.uk/Al-Lat_1.jpg
http//www.studyquran.co.uk/Al-Lat_2.jpg
http//www.studyquran.co.uk/Al-Lat_3.jpgFor "al-'uzza" we have 'Ayn-Zay-Zay for reference which basically means "mighty/potent/powerful/strong, noble/honourable/glorious, resisted/withstood, invincible, overcome (e.g. in argument), proud and hard manner, stern"
For "al-manaat" I am not sure whether Mim-Nun-Ya is adequate. This root has a meaning of "sperm drop"(?) and "of someone/something". I'm not sure if this makes any sense.
So the trio can be described as the diminisher/concealer/preventor, the mighty/noble/proud, and the originator(?). In short, perhaps these forced meanings to the super trio can render the proper names as mere common nouns as the case for "al-muslimin" in 2278.
Of course, I believe there is a historical evidence for these trio, so even though their names might be common nouns at first, they were later conceptualized, as bro MQuran said, to become proper names.
As for "maryam" I don't have my Lane's Lexicon so I wouldn't know what it means.
Therefore, Allah has sent authority for the name "Muslim", but not for the name "quranist".
Yes, if the rule was that the word must be preceded or referred to by an explicit naming, then I agree.
=adley=
-
Salaam Wakas,
2278 can be seen as a proper name, but the vast majority of its usage is as a common word.
Besides 2278, the word "al-muslimin" is used in 6163; 1072,90; 2791; 3335; 3912; 4133; 4615; 5136; and 6835.
It is clear from my studies that its primary signification is as a description, not as a proper noun, but that doesn't mean it cant be used as such.
By looking at the ayats above, I find something interesting to me.
And We helped the Children of Israel cross the sea, and Pharaoh and his soldiers followed them out of hatred and animosity. But when he was certain to drown, he said "I believe that there is no god except the One in whom the Children of Israel believe, and I am of those who have surrendered (al-muslimin).
Well, that ayat probably a good indicator of why "al-muslimi" is not a proper name but a common noun. Except if the Pharaoh spoke Arabic when he was drowned. The same thing can be said I guess to the story of Noah in 1071-72 where "al-muslimin" cannot be a proper name unless Noah spoke Arabic.
Well, I guess I'll stop here and look what the others have said first. Thanks for sharing the result of your studies.
=adley=
-
Salaam Kyle,
Does it say anywhere that Abraham had any authority to NAME us? Thereby making a sect? No, it was just a simple observation, that we were/are peaceful.
Abraham did not, I agree, but The God surely has that authority. (I think 2278 was talking about The God as the one who did the naming).
Mankinds problem is that it is stuck in the physical realm, so it always wants to physicalize things, make them literal, seperate, etc. This is the same fate of "descriptions" which have become proper names, but in some cultures are still used as descriptions
Agree, and I did on my previous replies to the others mentioned that besides in 2278, the word "al-muslimin" is mostly used to describe (hence, a common noun) instead of naming things to give them proper names. Thanks, especially for this last paragraph; as I too like to read the quran metaphorically ;D.
=adley=
-
Salaam Ayman,
Thank you for your kind words and your input.
Let's think about this for a minute. Were Abraham's followers named what would have been at their time a gibberish word from a future language that wasn't even invented yet? I don't think so.
Yes, I know about this problem too as stated in my previous replies regarding Fir'aun and Noah. I am pretty sure that Ibrahim didn't speak Arabic. So I agree with your following paragraph.
Proposing that "al-muslimeen" in 2278 is a proper name is no different than proposing that 1400 years ago the followers of the prophet were actually called "The Submitters" long before Modern English was invented. Saying "The Submitters" to Arabs 1400 years ago or "Al Muslimeen" to Ibrahim's followers a few thousand years earlier would have sounded just as gibberish as saying "Qasdhwdkfvwdhcv" to people on this thread. It will still be gibberish to everyone here even if thousands of years from now some yet to be invented language will have "qasdhwdkfvwdhcv" as a meaningful word.
However, this leads me to a question
By what standard or rule we can objectively decide that a word, or a combination of words, is a proper name as it is used in the quran?From this discussion, I get the temporary conclusion that just because "ism", "asma", or "samma" is used before or after the word(s) in concern, does not make that word(s) a proper name.
=adley=
-
Salaam AhmedBahgat,
I know that by refering to the most popularly-used word, in this case "Muslim", is probably the most efficient way of identifying a certain group of people.
But, from your post, you said that the word is a noun (used or functions as a name), not a proper name. Or are you really saying that "al-muslimin" is a proper name? Thanks for sharing your knowledge.
=adley=
Peace bro
Al Muslimeen is of course a proper name however the Action "Aslam" was also used many ytimes in the Quran,
so we have an action which is "Aslam" and we have a noun for that person doing this action the noun is "Muslim" and any noun a name of a thing for example, plane is a noun and it refers to a plane i.e it is the name of a plane, now when the plane flies, that is totally different thing
Salam
-
Wakas2278 can be seen as a proper name, but the vast majority of its usage is as a common word. Thus even if one takes it as a proper name that doesn't discount that it has an actual meaning. It is clear from my studies that its primary signification is as a description, not as a proper noun, but that doesn't mean it cant be used as such.
Sure it can but will you be durable enough to take on the task of clearing up the perpetual confusion of people mistaking you for the traditionalists? I wouldn't, the last decade has been tiring.
-
I think I understand your point that the proper names mention in 5319-20 are defined based on the context that these were "things" that were created and thus given the names/lables so that future generations can easily refer them.
Yes, 'unrealities' made 'realities' (hence the phrase 'tahwaa an-nafs' by our delusions. I don't know the motivations for doing so except kufr though.
But, is it okay to say that names that were the result of human-made concepts or ideologies can be perfectly defined as proper names, whereas the act of naming by The God, as in 2278, is not? I mean, there is an underlying concept, essence, and ideology (haven't really decide what they really are yet) contained in the word "al-muslimin", even though it came from The God; thus, making "al-muslimin" a good candidate for a proper name.
They didn't name it, they 'essentialised' it. They took something imaginary and made it real. God has the authority, so his essentialisation of al-muslimeen is real and works in reality.
But let me read what others have to say first. Thanks for sharing bro.
No, no...thank you for raising this issue.
