Whether those add-ons to the name are honorifics or are other types of signifiers, they represent the most common way that anyone discusses them.  Therefore, one's discussion using those terms do not necessarily in my view endow an undue religious aspect.  Some people, like Bach, can be identified in the majority of conversations as a specific person with a single name -- even though there were other Bachs at the time, even other famous Bachs (a couple of his children), and there are more recent celebrities like Catherine Bach.  Richard the Lion Hearted has no chance of being speficially identified as just "Richard".  Sometimes common vernacular dictates that one needs to add a signifier to clarify.  If someone didn't know which Mohammed you were talking about (since it is one of the 3 most popular names in the world currently), you would rather say "the historical Mohammed, the one from the 7th Century who founded Islam" than "Mohammed the Prophet"? 

by Milltycoon on 02/09/2010 01:01:16 PM EST

[ Parent ]
It's already on page three, but...

"If someone didn't know which Mohammed you were talking about..."

Exactly!

At the start of a conversation, if one is confused, the specification of "the one who started Islam" would do the trick; if one is comfortable calling him "the Prophet," fine.

But when you add it each and every time you say or write his name, it is no longer a historical discussion. It is dogma.

You would be fun to have a long night's discussion with. You get nuance, an all too infrequent ability...

by MedfordTim on 02/09/2010 02:37:37 PM EST

[ Parent ]
...read responses to my posts, and so that is a good way to reach me.

by Milltycoon on 02/10/2010 01:13:44 AM EST

[ Parent ]
When somebody refers to Hitler by calling him "Führer", does that person have to be a Nazi? "Führer" is an honourary title, just as the prophet.

"The first thing Fascists usually try to do is silencing the opposition."

by opposition on 02/11/2010 06:26:33 AM EST

[ Parent ]