cenks comment on the prophet Muhammad | 116 comments (116 topical, 0 hidden)
Small point... (none / 0)

The larger discussion going on here is one I won't comment on for now.  But as per referring to this person as "the prophet Mohammed":  That is how he is known as both a historical figure and as a religious figure.  Anyone referring to him as "some dude named Mohammed" hasn't only taken the religious connotation out of this signifier, but also removed the common vernacular for referring to him.  There were probably several 7th century people named Mohammed, but only one was _this_ Mohammed. 

I refer to Alexander the Great by that name, not by "some dude named Alexander", because the latter means nothing to people, and that confusion will surely get in the way of the point I am trying to make about Alexander the Great.  This doesn't mean I am elevating him beyond the status that history has placed for him, nor that I am necessarily glamorizing him as a myth rather than as a person, nor even that I am implying that "I think he was _great_".

by Milltycoon on 02/05/2010 04:54:07 AM EST

[ Parent ]
May not be your intention, but... (none / 0)
I'm going to be a little snarky here, sorry. I can't help it and I have a doctor's note to prove it. It's a little more of that "nitpicky" stuff I do.

You used Alexander as an example, so I thought about it and realized the only time I add "the Great" is when the person I'm talking to doesn't get a reference. I also realized that if I had to add "the Great," I was more than likely going to give a short history spiel because people who don't know who I'n referring to when I say "Alexander" or "Victoria" or "Washington" are, like as not, uninterested in history and don't really care if "the Great," "Queen," or "President" is added. I am already boring them to tears just by bringing it up.

Thus, when I say "Mohammed," and don't follow it with "Ali," I feel confident that the reader knows exactly which historical figure I refer to.

Adding "the Prophet" immediately changes the focus from a historical one to a religious one because the word "prophet" has a very distinct meaning.

What if the phrase was "Alexander the Great Wizard?" Would you feel as comfortable using the entire phrase? "The Great" is an honorific, as "the Lion Hearted" would be for Richard. "The Prophet" goes beyond that. It's exactly the same as adding "Christ" to "Jesus." A historical discussion about Jesus is immediately changed to the mythical when that word gets used, but there wouldn't be any confusion as to who the central character is. 

See what I'm getting at?

by MedfordTim on 02/05/2010 07:57:01 AM EST

[ Parent ]
I do, I just don't agree. (none / 0)
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 ]
I know, you might not read this (none / 0)
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 ]
I do typically... (none / 0)
...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 ]
What if...? (none / 0)
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 ]
If we're going to be nitpicky... (none / 0)
then I am going to have to correct you. You state that if you use the word Muhammad Ali, everyone will know what historical figure you're talking about.  So which historical figure is it? There was a boxer named Muhammad Ali - are you bringing him up?  There was also a famous king named Muhammad Ali, another historical figure but he came centuries after the Prophet Muhammad.

However, the Muhammad I think you were referring to (you know, the prophet one), doesn't have an Ali in his name at all. He had a compatriot named Ali who was probably his best friend and one of his top supporters during his lifetime.  

So, I think you just made the opposite point, which is - at this point, I have NO IDEA which Muhammad you're talking about. Probably the boxer... I bet you know more about him than the entirety if Islam.

by ilovecenk99 on 02/12/2010 09:03:26 AM EST

[ Parent ]

cenks comment on the prophet Muhammad | 116 comments (116 topical, 0 hidden)