Genesis Of A Holy Book

APPENDIX 3:

“Mu-H-M-D” As An Honorific

The appellation, “Muhammad” was likely derived from–and initially used by proto-Islamic sources as–an honorific (that is: a general descriptor, or even a formal title) rather than the given name of one particular person.

“Mu-H-M-D” means “one who is praised”; as H-M-D is the Semitic root for “praise”.  (This root–in one form or another–occurs in the Koran over a hundred times.)  Hence the familiar designation can be taken as a general descriptor rather than as a proper name–an interpretation supported by the fact that the messenger (“rasul”) of the book’s protagonist (the Abrahamic deity) is actually mentioned so many times, YET is only referred to as “Mu-H-M-D” [a general descriptor meaning “one who is praised”] on FOUR occasions: 3:144, 33:40, 47:2, and 48:29.  Every other time this individual (the putative “nabi”) is referenced, the authors of the Koran use alternative monikers. {1}  Behold a dozen:

• “bashir” [announcer; qua maker of an announcement] as in 2:119  (Medinan) {2}
• “noor” [light] as in 5:15  (Medinan)
• “nadhir” [bearer of a warning; from the term for warning, “tadhir”] as in 11:2  (Meccan)
• “mu-bashir” [announcer; qua one who bears good news] as in 11:2  (Meccan) {2}
• “da’i” [one who implores] as in 12:108  (Meccan)
• “khatam an-nabiyyin” [seal of the prophets] as in 33:40  (Medinan)
• “shahid” [witness] as in 33:45  (Medinan) {2}
• “siraj munir” [lamp] as in 33:46  (Medinan)
• “[a]H-M-D” [praiseworthy] as in 61:6  (Medinan)
• “mu-zamil” [one who is wrapped (in clothing); from the root “Z-M-L”] as in the title of Surah 73, and its opening ayah  (Meccan)
• “mu-dathir” [one who is covered (in clothing); from the root “D-Th-R”] as in the title of Surah 74, and its opening ayah  (Meccan)
• “mu-dakir” [one who reminds; from the root for reminder, “D-K-R”] as in 88:21  (Meccan) {3}

Of the twelve different chapters in which the messenger of the book’s protagonist is referenced (in one way or another), half are Meccan, half are Medinan.  Interestingly, in Surah 33 alone, he is referred to in four different ways.  In a single verse (11:2), he is referred to both as the bearer of a warning and as the bearer of good news.  (The warning regards the possibility of being consigned to perdition.  The good news regards the prospect of being admitted into paradise.)

Note that by simply appending the prefix “Mu-” (M with a dumma) to certain words, a novel moniker can be derived.  Generally, “Mu-” serves to render X into “one who is / does / provides X”. {4}  Take, for instance, “B-R-K” (the Semitic root, meaning “knee”).  Thus “barak” means “to kneel” (with the connotation: to prostrate oneself; to receive a blessing).  Hence “mu-barak” simply means “one who kneels” (with the connotation: one who is penitent).  Meanwhile, “baraka[h]” means “blessing”; so “mu-barak” (sans the fathah appended at the end) can be interpreted as one who is blessed. {5}

The most obvious example of this lexical feature is, of course, “Muslim” (one who submits), which is derived from appending “Mu-” to “aslim” [alt. “aslama”; “salim”; “islam”; from the Semitic root, “S-L-M”], which simply means “to submit” (i.e. to subordinate oneself). (Note: This is distinct from “shalom” / “s[h]alem” / “salam”, which means “peace”.) {6} Tellingly, the use of the (plural) moniker, “mu-minun” / “mu-mineen” in the Koran denotes (Abrahamic) “believers” rather than members of an entirely newfangled religion. {19}

Is it feasible that an honorific was retroactively treated as a given name? Yes. For there were other cases where a general descriptor was eventually rendered an appellation for specific people. For instance, “Mu-S-L-M” was eventually rendered a proper name (as with the author of the second-most-vaunted Hadith collection).

In the Koran, the Last Prophet was referred to as “mu-bashir”, “mu-zamil”, “mu-dathir”, and “mu-tadhkir”.  We might ask if there are any other appellations for the Last Prophet in which “Mu-” modifies a verb.  Lo and behold: “istafa” (to choose; to be chosen) yields “mustafa” (chosen one), which–yes–eventually became another common way to refer to MoM.

Another point: In the Koran, we find that there is usage of “reminder” qua memo (“D-K-R”) throughout the book (e.g. 51:55; in reference to the Koran itself).  Meanwhile, we find “reminder” qua one who delivers the memo (“Mu-D-K-R”) elsewhere in the book (e.g. 88:21; in reference to a messenger).  This should be an “A-ha!” moment.

“Mu-”, can be added to many other words to yield derivatives. {7}  70 more examples should suffice to illustrate this:

1. “talib” (to seek) –> “mutalib” (one who seeks [knowledge], as in a student; one who is sought after) {8}
2. “shahada[a]” (to witness) –> “mushahada[h]” (one who witnesses)
3. “sabbaha” / “sabbihu” [alt. “sabhana”] (to glorify) –> “musabbiha” (one who glorifies)
4. “tawi” (obedience) –> “mutawi” (one who obeys) {9}
5. “lika” (to destroy) –> “muhlika” (one who destroys)
6. “qatala” (to kill) –> “muqtal[a]” (one who kills)
7. “i’ihya” (revival) : muhy[i]  (one who revives)
8. “tarjim” (translation) –> mutarjim  (one who translates)
9. “baligh” (eloquence) –> mubaligh (one who is eloquent)
10. “nafiq” (hypocrisy) –> munafiq (hypocrite)
11. “darrasa” / “daris” (to teach) –> “mudaris” (teacher) [venue of teaching: “madrasa”]
12. “hisba” (enforcement of Islamic policies) –> “muhtasib” (one who enforces Islamic policies)
13. “sharaf” (honor) –> “musharaf” (one who is honored; “mu-izz” is one who honors)
14. “sharif” (nobility) –> “musharif” (one who is noble)
15. “H-S-N” (beautification / goodness) –> “mu-h[a]s[a]n” (one who beautifies / makes good)
16. “min” (to believe) [alt. “iman” (faith)] –> “mumin” (one who believes / has faith) {10}
17. “ammar” (piety) –> “muammar” (one who is pious)
18. “sin” (good) –> “muhsin” (one who is / does good)
19. “sa’b” (disagreeable / difficult) –> “musa’b” (one who is disagreeable; alt. used for one who can overcome difficulty)
20. “aqib” (to follow) –> “mu[a]qib” (one who follows; one who is followed)
21. “itazala” (to separate) –> “mutazila” (one who separates; one who is separated from)
22. “qawam” (to resist) –> “muqawam[ah]” (one who resists)
23. “hafiz” (to keep / guard) –> “muhafiz” (one who keeps / guards)
24. “rizq” (to provide) –> “murtazak” (one who provides)
25. “lazim” (to need–or be obligated–to) –> “mulazim” (one who needs–or is obligated–to)
26. “qadam” / “qattam” (to be determined to do something / make something happen / bring about a certain state of affairs) –> “muqadam” / “muqattam” (one who is so determined; “mu-qtadir” is one who determines, based on “Q-D-R”)
27. “kalam” (verbiage qua rhetoric; alt. to apologize; apology) –> “mutakalim” (an apologist)
28. “nabbi” (a prophet) –> “mutanabbi” (one who may be a prophet)
29. “sid” (corruption / disruption) –> “mufsid” (one who engages in corruption / disruption)
30. “harb” (war) –> “muharib[ah]” (one who wages war; i.e. against god) {11}
31. “shirk” (idolatry) –> “mushrik” [alt. “musrif”] (one who engages in idolatry)
32. “irtidad” / “irtadda” [alt. “riddah”] (apostasy) –> “murtad” (apostate)
33. “nafiq” (hypocrisy) –> “munafiq” (hypocrite)
34. “asab” (solidarity) –> “muta’asib” (one who is in solidarity; as in “asabiyyah”)
35. “dawa” (to promulgate the Faith) –> “mutawa” / “muta’dawa” (one who engages in “dawa”, esp. in the form of enforcing sharia; alt. “da’i”; i.e. religious police)
36. “isnad” (chain of narration) –> “musnad” (one coming from a chain of narration)
37. “[ta]watur” (succession) –> “mutawatir” (one coming from a succession)
38. “thawat” (esteem) –> “muthawat[ir]” (one who is esteemed) {13}
39. “noor” (light) –> “munir” (one who is illuminated)
40. “zafar” (victory) –> “muzafar” (one who is victorious)
41. “kabbir” (greatness / majesty) –> “mutakabbir” (one who is great / majestic)
42. “zahir” (support / protection) –> “muzahir” (one who supports / defends)
43. “hijra” (migration) –> “muhajir” (one who migrates; specifically, one who partook in the ORIGINAL migration from Mecca to Medina with MoM)
44. “wahid” (peerless-ness) –> “muwahid” (one who is peerless)
45. “qadir” (destiny) –> “muqadir” (one who is destined)
46. “been” (clarity) –> “mubeen” (one who is clear)
47. “tahid” (to unite or be united; as in “tawhid”) –> “mutahid[ah]” (one who is united with)
48. “taqlid” (to be subservient) –> “muqalid” (one who is subservient)
49. “sabbaha” (to proclaim perfection) –> “musabbiha” (one who proclaims perfection)
50. “ta-R-T-L” (to recite properly) –> “muratil” (one who recites properly)
51. “tajwid” (to recite melodiously) –> “mujawid” (one who recites melodiously)
52. “tajdid” (renewal / revival) –> “mujaddid” (one who renews / revives)
53. “hadith” (traditional teachings) –> “muhadith” (one who abides by–or is well-versed in–the traditional teachings)
54. “hijab” (head-scarf) –> “muhajab[ah]” (one who wears a head-scarf; alt. “hijabi”)
55. “fatwa” (edict) –> “mufti” (one who gives edicts)
56. “salat” (prayer) –> “musala” (one who prays)
57. “adhan” (prayer call) –> “muadhin” (one who issues the prayer call; alt. “muezzin”)
58. “rashid” [alt. “irshad”] (maturity / being rightly-guided) –> “murshid” (one who is mature / rightly-guided; i.e. a mentor) {14}
59. “rid” (will-power, commitment) –> “murid” (one who is committed) {15}
60. “nadhir” (warning) –> “mundhir” (one who warns)
61. “hasiba” (to reckon) –> “muhasaba” (one who reckons)
62. “tafsir” (exegesis) –> “mufasir” (one who engages in exegesis)
63. “arsala” (to send) –> “mursala” (one who is sent) {16}
64. “taffif” (trivial) –> “mutaffif” (one who trivializes)
65. “mihna” (test) –> “mumtahana” (one who is tested)
66. “tashadud” (extreme / vehement) –> “mutashadid” (one who is extreme / vehement)
67. “tajsim” (positing a corporeal deity) –> “mujassim[a]” (one who thinks that god has a body)
68. “qatul” (to fight) –> “muqatil” (one who fights)
69. “ijtihad” (reasoning) –> “mujtahid” (one who engages in reasoning) {17}
70. “jihad” (struggle) –> “mujahid” (one who engages in a struggle) {18}

In the Koran, this nomenclature is even used to describe the Abrahamic deity:

• “mu-ta-kaab” / “mu-ta-kabbir” (one who is great: “akbar”)
• “mu-sawwir” (one who designs)
• “mu-jib” (one who responds / answers)
• “mu-haymin” (one who has authority)
• “mu-ntaqim” (one who avenges)
• “mu-id” (one who restores)
• “mu-mit” (one who brings death)
• “mu-bdi” (one who initiates / originates)
• “mu-qtadir” (one who is powerful)
• “mu-qaddim” (one who produces)
• “mu-ta-ali” (one who is exalted)
• “mu-qsit” (one who is equitable)

Interestingly, the Koran’s protagonist is ALSO described as “H-M-D” (“praiseworthy” without the “mu-”).  That appellation occurs on four occasions (14:8, 31:12/26, and 41:42). Clearly, this was an honorific (i.e. a general descriptor, used for exaltation).

The first Salafis (namely, the anti-Ali’d forces who pioneered “takfir”) referred to themselves as “Mu-hakima”, which means those who honor “hukm” [god’s judgement].

One does not need to be a philologist to see the same thing is happening by adding “Mu-” to “H-M-D” (thus rendering “praise” into “one who is praised”). {20}  The catch, though, is that NONE of these were proper names in the 6th century.

At no point do the authors of the “Recitations” see fit to explicitly state what the last prophet’s given name was–as in: “His name was X” or “People called him X”.  This is a peculiar omission if we presume it is important to stipulate the (specific) identity of the Seal of the Prophets.  3:144 states that “the praised one” is only a messenger.  33:40 states that “the praised one” is not the father of any of “your men”, but is god’s messenger and the seal of the prophets.  47:2 refers to those who believe in what has been revealed to “the praised one”.  And 48:29 states that “the praised one” is god’s messenger (before specifying that those who are with him are to be severe against non-believers).

Moreover, at no point does the book’s protagonist (the Abrahamic deity) address his messenger as “Mohammed” (even when speaking to him personally).  Why not?  This is peculiar if that were, indeed, the messenger’s given name.  However, it is NOT peculiar if the moniker simply meant “he who is praised”, as god himself would not refer to him in such a manner when addressing him.  (God doesn’t praise his own messenger.) Indeed, when addressing him, the protagonist of the Koran calls him “you who wraps himself” (73:1) and “you who covers himself” (74:1).  These are oblique references that would make no sense if the addressee were actually named “Mohammed”.  Needless to say, designating someone simply as the one who is CLOTHED (i.e. not naked) is peculiarly vague. {22}  

If “Mu-H-M-D” were, indeed, merely (just another) general descriptor for the man serving as the narrative’s focal point, we would expect to find two things in the Koran:

I Other places where he is referred to as simply “H-M-D” (sans the prefix, “Mu-”).

II Other monikers used for him whereby in one place there is only the root, and elsewhere where there is the root plus the prefix “Mu-”.

As it just so happens, BOTH things occur in Islam’s holy book.  The former occurs in 61:6.  The latter occurs first in 2:119, then in 11:2 (with “bashir” and “Mu-bashir”). {2}  This would indicate not only that “Mu-H-M-D” MIGHT have been a general descriptor (as with those listed above); it indicates that it MOST LIKELY WAS a general descriptor (just like all the others).  To wit: The nomenclature did the same thing with “H-M-D” as it did with “bashir”. In a sense, the patriarch of the movement in question may just as well have been referred to as “Mubashir”.

In various other places, the Last Prophet is referred to as “Mu-Qaffi” [one who is the terminus], as in “Seal of the Prophets”.  Even in the “sahih” Hadith record (that of Muslim), it is written that the Last Prophet HIMSELF declared that “Mu-H-M-D” was merely one of several monikers by which he was to be known.  “I have many names.  I am Muhammed.  I am Ahmed.  I am al-Mahi [the eraser].  I am al-Hashir [the gatherer].  I am al-Aqib [that after which there will be none].”

In the “sirat” (biographical material), the prophet’s father is sometimes referred to as “Abu al-Qasim” (father of the distributor).  It is also telling that the earliest accounts of the leader of the Arabians (those referenced by Ibn Ishaq) refer to him primarily as a “ghazi” (“raider”) per his vocation: undertaking “ghazawat” [alt. “maghazi”] (“raids”).

When the Ishmaelites / Saracens invaded Jerusalem c. 634, chronicles refer to them not as “Muslims”, but as–well–Ishmaelites / Saracens.  They are described in great detail, yet at no point is it mentioned that there is any new religion, new holy scripture…or even a new prophet, designated by name. (This is attested in the “Didaskalia Iakoubou”; “Teaching Of Jacob”.)  Here, reference to a “Mu-H-M-D” clearly did not pertain to a specific person who’d died c. 632.  The fact that the appellation WAS used in this context demonstrates that it was used as an honorific.

Another clue: There have been two 7th-century coins that have been found whereon there was a Syriac inscription referring to a “Mu-H-M-D”. BOTH include a cross; which means that neither had anything to do with a creed that explicitly REJECTED the lore affiliated with such iconography (as Islam eventually would).  Clearly, the moniker was being used as an honorific, not as a given name.

Note that other iconography (the crescent moon, used by Arab pagans) and other Semitic phraseology (“bi-ism-ullah”; meaning “by the name of god”) pre-dated the emergence of Islam as a distinct new religion…later incorporated into the new creed. So it is reasonable to assume that such onomastic cooptation occurred with figureheads as well.

As with the four passages in the Koran that use the moniker, “praised one” (3:144, 33.40, 47:2, and 48.29), the inscription on the Dome of the Rock–commissioned by Umayyad Caliph Abd al-Malik–simply states that the “praised one” (Mu-H-M-D) is the “messenger of god” (“rasul allah”; that is: one who was sent messages by god).  It was Abd al-Malik who first minted coins that referred to “praised one”.  That all occurred in the last decade of the 7th century.

What historical figure may have inspired the legendary figure referred to in this manner?  The most likely candidate is the (Nestorian) Lakhmid king, Iyas ibn Kab[i]s[h]ah of Hira (alt. “Tayaye”), who was ousted by the Sassanids c. 622.  He promptly joined the Saracens, then inaugurated a regime in Petra.  He THEN came to be referred to as…you guessed it: the “praised one”.  That occurred the EXACT SAME YEAR that the Ishmaelites (retroactively) designated as the time that a distinct identity was established.  This is too much of a coincidence to blithely dismiss.

Another exigency may serve as an indication that “Mohammed” was not a GIVEN name (vis a vis the Last Prophet): An absence of anyone else in the Hijaz during the late 6th century who was given that particular name.  If it was a given name in c. 570 (when MoM was seen as just a regular infant), then surely he would have been given a name that other regular infants were being given.  As it turns out, there is no record of anyone by that given name in pre-Islamic Arabian sources.  Indeed, there is no record of anyone with this name until the Hadith were composed (in which case, some were retroactively assigned the name).  In other words, “Muhammad” was not a name that a Qurayshi infant would have been given by pagan parents in 570.  

Bear in mind that, until his first revelation in 610, the man on whom the Prophet Mohammed is based was, we are told, none-the-wiser about the Abrahamic deity–let alone privy to any special relation he may have had with that deity.  A name meaning “one who is praised” IN CA would not have made much sense in a 6th-century Bedouin culture–that is: amongst people who spoke Hijazi Syriac and worshiped pagan gods.  And it certainly would not have been the given name for a baby boy that was seen as just another baby boy.

Pre-Islamic Qurayshi names may have included “Syed” / “Sa[y]id”, “Imr[a]”, “Umaiya”, “Qusay[y]” / “Qays”, “Nufayl”, and “Zuhayr”; but the given name “Mohammed” did not exist at the time. {23}

Meanwhile, several given names SINCE the advent of Islam exhibit the same structure–as with “Mu-ta” / “Mu-than[n]a” [one who is obeyed], “Mu-faddal” [one who is chosen], and “Mu-tahhar” [one who is purified]…as well as uses of some of the aforementioned terms (such as “Munir”, “Mubarak”, and “Mustafa”).

Though “[a-]H-M-D” is the Hebraic root for “lovely” (and is used as such in the Hebrew Bible), its use for a given male name (as with roots like “H-K-M” or “H-S-N” or “A-B-D”) seemed to be uniquely Arabic. {24}  Yet Arabic did not yet exist as a lingua franca in the 6th century.  Moreover, many of the Arabicized Hebrew names (names from the Old Testament for which Syriac–and, subsequently, Arabic–versions eventually emerged) did not yet exist.  In Arab communities that practiced Abrahamic lore, people retained either the Hebraic versions of their Old Testament names or the SYRIAC versions thereof.

OTHER cases in which figures in Islamic lore were retroactively named would be incriminating on this score. Lo and behold: The parents of MoM were ALSO re-named.  His father was christened “Abd-ullah” [slave of god] and his mother “Amina” [faithful woman].  Such monikers were obviously contrived POST HOC; as the Bedouin couple were supposed to have been pagan.  This revamped onomastic recalls the naming of the Jewish carpenter from Galilee (the “Nazarene”) who became a renowned preacher: “Yeshuah” simply meant “redeemer” in Aramaic.  Surely, Miriam–a humble Jewish peasant–would not have given her son this name at birth.

Prior to caliph Abd al-Malik ibn Marwan (at the end of the 7th century), uniquely Arabic names–as well as Arabicized Hebrew names–did not exist.  In other words: All of these monikers are most likely post-hoc inventions.  To Recapitulate: The language of western Arabia at the time was the Hijazi dialect of Syriac (which eventually came to use the Kufic script). Nabataean was the alphabet that–via Kufic–influenced CA script.  This explains why the earliest Korans were written in Syriac, using Kufic script.

Even more tellingly, the earliest known reference to a “Mu-H-M-D” [praised one] leading the Ishmaelites occurs in a Syriac chronicle c. 640’s (the aforementioned “Teaching Of Jacob”).  Other than demonstrating the Syriac origins of Mohammedan lore, there’s an insoluble problem: The passage mentions “a battle between the Romans and the Arabs of ‘Mu-H-M-D’ in Palestine twelve miles east of Gaza” that occurred in the year 634. (!)  THAT means that the vaunted moniker was used FOR LEADERS OTHER THAN the prophet-in-question (who, by that point, had been dead for a couple years).

Another indication that “Mu-H-M-D” was initially used as an honorific (“praised one”) rather than as a proper name is its first appearance: In the inscription on the Dome of the Rock in Jerusalem from the last decade of the 7th century.  The appellation is used ONLY ONCE, at the beginning of the inscription–an inscription, it turns out, that thereafter pertains to Jesus of Nazareth.  (Bear in mind that JoN is himself considered a “nabi” (prophet) in Islam.)  The statement is devoted to denouncing the Trinitarian view of the Abrahamic deity, which means countermanding Pauline Christology (to wit: the divination of JoN).

Hence, in the inscription, the term  is used as a general descriptor.  That it is used just once, in passing (in the opening line) is telling.  Rather than promoting a distinct new religion, or even mentioning a distinct new holy book, the rest of the inscription focuses on a rebuke of Trinitarianism.  Recall that this singular statement was the most auspicious encapsulation of the Ishmaelites’ creed at the time.

The inscription on the Dome of the Rock in Jerusalem, specifies that “Mu-H-M-D” is a servant and messenger of god.  It then goes on to specify that JoN (son of Mary) was the Messiah, as well as a servant and messenger of god; and that Mary (mother of JoN) was a messenger of god.  The moniker, “Mu-H-M-D” is only used once, while the other names are invoked numerous times.  The primary purpose of the inscription is to rebuke Trinitarianism.

And so it went: A “Mu-H-M-D” was not mentioned until the early 690’s (six decades after the prophet’s death); during the reign of Umayyad Caliph Abdul Malik ibn Marwan.  That is: All that time, during the conquests, the Arabians (variously known as “Ishmaelites”, “Hagarenes”, or “Saracens”) never saw fit to mention anyone with this moniker as a given name, NOR any holy book, NOR a novel religion.

So WHAT WAS the (actual) name of the man conventionally referred to as “Mohammed”, the Prophet of Islam?  Insofar as a “praised one” existed in the germinating Mohammedan movement (as a moniker for its patriarch), that quasi-historic figure’s GIVEN name is forever lost to history.  But that needn’t be a problem.  It makes no difference what his birth-name really was…any more than it matters what the birth-name of, say, Christopher Columbus might have been.  (Hint: It certainly wasn’t “Christopher Columbus”.)  It’s all rather beside the point. {29}

To reiterate: there is a historical figure that likely inspired the legendary figure referred to as “Mu-H-M-D” [“praised one”]: the (Nestorian) Lakhmid king, Iyas ibn Kab[i]s[h]ah of Hira (alt. “Tayaye”).  He was ousted by the Sassanids c. 622; and promptly joined the Saracens.  He then inaugurated a regime in–you guessed it–Petra; and–sure enough–came to be referred to as “praised one”.  Lo and behold: This occurred the SAME YEAR that the Ishmaelites (retroactively) established a distinct identity.

This makes sense, as the “Didaskalia Iakobou” [“Teaching / Doctrine of Jacob”] (composed in the late 630’s) refers to a sword-wielding Saracen prophet (described as “H-M-D”) who propounded the Abrahamic creed…and spoke SYRIAC.

The Syriac work, “Homily For The Child Saints Of Babylon” c. 640 refers to “the Saracens who are oppressors” (and who engage in a month of fasting).  Around the same time, the Syriac chronicler now known as “Thomas the Presbyter” composed his Chronicle; and never referred to a specific prophet (by name), a new holy book, OR an entirely novel religion.  Meanwhile, the biography of Gabriel of Beth Qustan (who was the Syriac Bishop of Tur Abdin) refers to this new group as the “sons of Hagar”; and mentions a s[h]ultan[a], “Umar bar Khattab” who ruled from G-z-r[t]a (present-day Cizre / al-Jazira).  In other words, the Rashidun caliphs were ruling from the Northern Levant; NOT from Arabia.

We might note that the first reference to “Mu-H-M-D” was by an Armenian writer, Sebeos, who referred to the Arab conquerers NOT as “Muslims”, but as the “sons of Ishmael”.  Their leader, he noted, was designated “Mahmed”, which is evidently the moniker by which the leader of the Ishmaelites was referred.  It was said figure who “became prominent”, we are told, as he is the one who persuaded the Arabs to recognize the god of Abraham.  Sebeos notes that this man was versed in Mosaic lore; and consequently unified the Ishmaelites in Faith.

Does referring to this leader by the honorific, “praised one” entail that we know his given (birth) name?  Of course not.  Shall we suppose that Yeshua ben Yosef of Nazareth was really named “Rex / Regis Iudaeorum” (the Latin honorific meaning “King of the Jews”)? Confusing a descriptor as a proper noun is an elementary–though common–mistake when it comes to hagiographies of hallowed figures.

We might inquire: What, exactly, did this “praised one” declaim?  Again, Sebeos provides a clue. In his letter, Sebeos notifies us that followers were instructed to not eat carrion, not drink wine, not speak falsehoods, and not commit adultery.  Who were these followers? No mention of a novel religion or novel holy book is mentioned. Sebeos simply says that this new leader pronounced the Ishmaelites / Saracens to be the new sons of Abraham, and so were thenceforth entitled to the promises of the Abrahamic deity (presumably, as inheritors of the Mosaic covenant). {25}

It was not until the early 8th century that we find an explicit statement of Islam and of Mohammed.  It appears in an inscription on the Umayyad mosque in Damascus: “Our Lord is god; Our religion is Islam; and our prophet is Mu-H-M-D.”  (Still no mention of a new holy book…or of a messenger by name.)  And it was not until the late 8th / early 9th century that we suddenly encounter an efflorescence of apocrypha about a specific person named “Mohammed”. (!)

This is–to put it mildly–quite striking. {26}

According to standard Islamic dogma, how does MoM (supposedly) fit into the Abrahamic scheme?  He is, after all, the “Seal” of the prophets: The culmination of thousands of years of messengers sent by the Abrahamic deity to Earth in order to inform the world of their precarious existential predicament, and of the hair-raising cosmogony that accounts for it.

There is one last matter to address: that of pre-Islamic prophecy. According to the prevailing Mohammedan historiography, Jesus of Nazareth was the SECOND TO LAST prophet–who, so the story goes, openly recognized that the LAST prophet’s arrival was immanent.  (Indeed, he did intimate some kind of return; though it is conventionally understood that he was referring to HIMSELF.)  According to the conventional Islamic narrative, it was MoM who was that last prophet.  That is to say: MoM was the one who temporally followed Jesus in order to rectify the errancy (corrupted scripture, and thus deviant creed) that had come to beset mankind in the intervening six centuries; thereby fulfilling Abrahamic prophecy.  Ergo the Koran is seen as the FINAL revelation: the last update mankind will ever need (e.g. 85:21-22 and 43:2-4). {27}

This contention of prophetic fulfillment derives–in part–from the Gospel of John’s mention of the coming of a “paraclete” (found in 14:16/25-26, 15:26, and 16:7-12) at some undisclosed point in the future.  The word is from the Koine Greek term, “parakletos”, which is variously translated as “counselor” / “helper” / “advocate”; and even as “comforter” (based on the use of the verbal form in Matthew 2:18 and 5:4, which pertain to being comforted).

In those passages, the term is traditionally taken as a reference to the pending arrival of the “Holy Spirit”: the spiritual aspect of the triune Abrahamic deity (i.e. something that would permeate / pervade all mankind).  Said “paraclete”, it says, “will be with [mankind] forever”.  (Tradition holds that the so-called “pentecost” marks said arrival.)  This interpretation is corroborated by John 15:26 and 16:12-14, which both refer to the “Spirit of Truth” that is yet to come. {28}  It is also corroborated by Acts 1:5-8 and 2:4/38.

However, Islamic apologists claim that the term referred instead to the coming of the next PROPHET, whom they–conveniently–designate as their own.  Ergo MoM’s arrival would simply be the fulfillment of a New Testament prophecy regarding the “paraclete”.

The Islamic version of this auspicious referent hinges on the way in which the Koine Greek of the earliest Gospel manuscripts is translated.  Does the word “another” precede “paraclete” in John 14:16?  If so, why?  (This is open to interpretation.)  The case has even been made (by the more brazen Islamic apologists) that “parakletos” was a redaction of the original term, “periklytos”, which might be translated as the famous / illustrious / praiseworthy / glorious one…for which the Arabic root is “H-M-D”…which is the Semitic root for “Ahmad” (correlating with the Ancient Hebrew for “lovely”, cited in various passages in the Mikra)…which is close to “Mu-H-M-D”. {12}  Voila!

This is, to put it mildly, a huge stretch. It reeks more of hermeneutic chicanery than of perspicacious etymological assessment.

Note that the matter of this nebulous term is further complicated by other occurrences of the lexeme-in-question.  In John 2:1, Matthew 3:10-12, and Luke 3:9-17, “paraclete” is clearly referencing JoN himself. (!)  Then John 15:26 explicitly refers to the object-in-question as “the Spirit of Truth”.  Meanwhile, in Matthew 5:4, JoN personally uses the term “paraclethesontai”, which is taken to mean: being refreshed / encouraged / comforted (by the divine). {21}

In sum: Given names are rarely straight-forward–as illustrated by the myriad monikers the Chinese assign to auspicious figures in their history.  (There’s the birth name, the tribal or ancestral name, the regnal name, etc.)  The lesson here is simple: The given name of the person on whom the “Seal of the Prophets” is based in Mohammedan lore was almost certainly not “Mohammed”.

Footnotes To Appendix 3:

{1  Also note: In 33:40, the Last Prophet is referred to as the seal of the prophets (“Khatam an-Nabiyyin”) AND as god’s messenger (“Rasul-allah”).}

{2  Sometimes the “mu-” is gratuitous, as with “bashir” / “mu-bashir” (both mean announcer), “shahid” / “mu-shahid” (witness / one who is a witness), and rasul” / “mursal” (messenger / one who is a messenger).  Thus one does not ALWAYS need to append “mu-” to insinuate “one who is”.  This is why “Nassir” [victory] is more popular than “Mu-nassir”; and “Khalid” [eternal] is more popular than “Mu-khalid”; and “Noor” [light] is more popular than “Mu-nir” (one who is illuminated).  Also note that there are other ways to say “those who are X”, by appending the suffix, “X-iyya”.  For example, the Saudi television news stations are “Al-Ekhbariyya” (“those who are greatest”; from “akbar”) and “Al-Arabiyya” (“those who are Arab”).}

{3  An alternate form of this is “tadhkir”, which yields “mu-tadhkir” (one who reminds; one who is reminded).}

{4  In medieval times, other terms were coined in this manner.  For example, “aman” (temporary amnesty accorded to foreigners) yielded “musta’aman” (one who is protected via an “aman”).  The convention carries into modern Arabic.  For example, “mu-” can be added to “handasa” (engineering) to yield the word for engineer: “muhandis”.  An alternate prefix is “ma-”, meaning THAT which is.}

{5  “Mubarak” can also be used to simply mean “blessed”, as in the salutation, “Eid mubarak.”  Another connotation of the variant is “baraka[h]” is “god’s grace”.  Generally, it is taken to mean a divine force with which a person, place, or thing is imbued.  The Semitic root “B-R-K” antedates Arabic.  Ancient Hebrew uses the same root–yielding the name “Barak” / “Baruch” (ref. Judges 4:6) as well as the verb “to cast forth”, as when god casts forth lightning (ref. Exodus 19:16; Psalms 18:14 and 144:6; Samuel 22:15; and Ezekiel 1:13).  Hence in CA, “buraq” means lighting (as well as the name of the flying horse in the fabled “Night Journey”).  The Semitic root is also found in Sabaean, Palmyrene, and in Punic.}

{6  It is not always so straight-forward.  Take, for example, the root “K-B-R”.  This can be used in different ways.  In the form “khabir”, it pertains to having information; which yields “mukhbir” (one who has information; one who informs).  Hence “mukhabarat” is used to refer to intelligence agencies.  Sometimes, “khabir” is used to mean “expert”.  Meanwhile, “akbar”, which means “greater” (in stature), comes from the same root.  The protagonist of the Koran is thus referred to as “Mu-tak[a]bir” (one who is the greatest).  Hence the proclamation, “allah-u akbar” (god is greatest).  It is instructive that “profound knowledge” and “profound stature” come from the same root.  This makes sense, as omniscience and omnipotence are often correlated.  Such semiotic bi-valence seems to stem from the notion of a revered / wise elder, to whom wisdom is conventionally ascribed, and to whom status (power) is thereby attributed or accorded.}

{7  There are some words beginning with “mu” in which it seems to be integral, as with “muhkam[at]” (that which is clear / straight-forward), “mutashabih” (that which is metaphorical / figurative), “mustahabb” (that which is recommended), “muruwah” (that which is resilient), “mustaqim” (that which is straight), “mufrad” (that which is singular), “musanna” (that which is dual), and “murakkab” (that which is plural); whereby “mu-” indicates “THAT which is” rather than “ONE who is”.  There is also “mu-ta-wakil” (one who patiently relies on god) and “mu-qanna” (one who is veiled).  “Mullah” is an interesting case, as it seems to mean “one who is god”–a quirk of etymology.  And “muhawara” means deliberation in Urdu.}

{8  The Pashto / Dari plural is “taliban”.  Note that MoM himself is said to have come from the Dar al-Abdul Mutalib [house of the slave of one who seeks]; which was the prominent family of the Hashem clan of the Quraysh.  Also note the name of MoM’s uncle (and foster parent), Abu Talib.}

{9  This is the basis for “mutawa” / “mutawiyin”: those who enforce obedience (i.e. religious police).}

{10  Note that the Koran is primarily addressed not to “mu-salim”, but to “mu-mineen”.  The Koran also uses the term mu-haym[in] (one who is faithful).  The first references to the leader of a Mohammedan movement occurred on coinage during the last decades of the 7th century (five or six decades after MoM’s death), and referred not to a “Mu-H-M-D”, but rather to an “amir” of the “mu-mineen”: leader of the believers.  This is very telling.  For it indicates that the original movement was conceived primarily as a generalized Abrahamic revival movement (emphasizing monotheism) rather than a distinct (new) religion in its own right.  (Note that the earliest references to the Arab conquerers was NOT “Muslims”, but Saracens, Ishmaelites, and Hagarenes.)  The first traces of an explicitly newfangled religion occur during the reign of Caliph Abd al-Malik [ibn Marwan] in the 690s; not coincidentally, the potentate who first commissioned a new liturgical language, thereby inaugurating the development of CA for that purpose.}

{11  This is revealing.  For it shows that the notion of (belief in) GOD is at the root of the conception of war.}

{12  The lexeme “H-M-D” occurs in the Hebrew Bible in various places.  In Ancient Hebrew, it means “lovely”.  In other words: It is adjectival, not nounal–let alone a proper name.  Islamic apologists often claim the Hebrew Bible foretold of their prophet by pointing to the occurrence of this lexeme, when it is clearly not referring to a historical figure.  In terms of MoM being the fulfillment of Judaic prophecy, Islamic apologists pull the same exegetical stunt that Christian apologists do when deigning to excavated prophecies of JoN.}

{13  This term is used to label the most vaunted Hadith, whereby it means: that which is most esteemed.  Thus: the most dependable (“sahih”) chain of narration (“isnad”).}

{14  Note that “rashid” (sans the prefix, “mu-”) can also be used to mean “guide”.}

{15  This is not to be confused with the Sufi term, “rid[h]a”, which means “contentment”.  Thus one who is content is a “mu-rid”.}

{16  The alternate form is “rasul”–typically translated as “messenger”.  Also note “risalata” (that which is sent; a.k.a. “message”) and “Al-Mursalat” (the name of the 77th Surah in the Koran, meaning “those who are sent”.}

{17  As I discuss elsewhere, what qualifies as “ijtihad” (a nebulous term) is rather open-ended.  For it connotes anything from independent thinking to just using “reason” (however “reason” might be defined).  Being Usili Shiites, the Grand Ayatollahs of Iran consider themselves “mujtahids” in a rather bizarre sense.  It is paradoxical, as they also champion “marja taqlid” (i.e. unquestioning obedience to authority, in keeping with 5:101-102).  So far as they are concerned, THAT is what is “reasonable”; hence their Orwellian invocation of “ijtihad”.}

{18  This is typically rendered in English, “jihadi”; as the suffix “-i” is often appended to X to mean “one who is from, characterized by, or associated with X” (as in, say, a “hajji” or a “takfiri”).  Thus Arabic uses the nomenclature “al-X-i” to mean someone “OF X”, where X can be a place or a tribe.  Note that the term for one who engages in jihad means WARRIOR, not someone engaging in an internal spiritual struggle.}

{19  Moreover, there is no indication that Arabian Bedouins at the time (spec. the Quraysh during the 6th century) subscribed to a theology in which they fashioned themselves the slaves of any god.  So “Abd-allah” would not yet have existed (as a moniker for someone in the Hijaz) either.  YET this is the name ascribed to MoM’s biological father–himself son of “Abd al-Muttalib” of the (Qurayshi) Hashim clan.  This seems to be a give-away that names were being fabricated post-hoc (père, fils, et al.)  Obviously, “slave of El[o]ah” would not have been a name that a Hijazi infant would have been given in the mid-500’s (by pagan parents; i.e. MoM’s grandparents).  The prevailing myth of the “mawlid” (birth) of the “nabi” (prophet)–replete with given names and lineages–with which most Muslims are now familiar was likely started by the Fatimids at some point in the 10th or 11th century.}

{20  Whether the verbal form of “H-M-D” means “to praise” or “to BE praised” depends on the context.  While it would seem, then, that “Mu-H-M-D” could also mean “one who praises”, that is not how it is traditionally used.  This makes sense, as “one who praises” would require an object to be specified, whereas “praised one” does not.  In other words, “Mu-H-M-D” as “one who praises” would not work as a given name because it would need to be followed by a noun (as with “H-M-D-u li-llah”: praise to god).  Ultimately, the only object worthy of praise is the Abrahamic deity.  In the case where it is read as “one who praises”, the name would therefore have to be “Mu-H-M-D-ullah” (in the vain of, say, “A-B-D-ullah”: slave of god).  In Islam, other than god, the only object arguably worthy of any reverence would be the “Rasul Allah” himself–which would entail using the lexeme in BOTH ways: “Mu-H-M-D-Mu-H-M-D” [one who praises the one who is praised].  In that case, the moniker would be used first as the subject and then as the object–a syntactical oddity.  Yet “man who praises himself” would not be a suitable appellation for the Seal of the Prophets.  The accepted nomenclature is “Ahmed” (“to praise”), leaving the original tri-root (“H-M-D”) for “praiseworthy”.}

{21  Of course, JoN would never have used EITHER of these Koine Greek terms, as he spoke Aramaic.  We must bear in mind that everything we get in ANY Gospel account was originally rendered in a language that JoN and his followers neither spoke nor understood: Koine Greek.  So all terms used in the earliest manuscripts are rough approximations of what would have originally been in Aramaic…thereby creating a potpourri of exegetical snafus.}

{22  One wonders: How was this even an issue?  Were there lots of nudists claiming to be prophets running around the Hijaz in the 7th century?  Was the most salient feature of the addressee that he happened to be wearing clothes?}

{23  This includes honorifics like “Malik”, “Sharif”, “Sa[y]id”, “Sadat”, “Amir” / “Emir”, etc.  Note: “M-L-K” and “A-M-R” come from neo-Aramaic (read: Syriac) roots.*211  Other than “Ahmad” and “Mohammed”, a few other names derived from the “H-M-D” root–notably: “Hamid”, “Mahmud”, and “Mehmet”.  Since the emergence of signature Arabic names was a gradual process, it is not always possible to demarcate morphemes that were explicitly CA from antecedent morphemes.  A good example is the name “Abu”.  “Ab” [alt. “Av”] was the Semitic root for “father” (typically rendered “Ab[b]a”).  Even the Akkadians and Assyrians used “Abu” for father.  So when “Abu[n]” started to be used in Arabia, at what point do we consider it a CA term?  We encounter the same situation with the honorific, “Malik” (king; from the Semitic root for “power”: “M-L-K”), among many other words…all of which seem to antedate CA yet were incorporated into the CA lexicon.  Bear in mind that it is common to conflate a general descriptor with a given name–as with “abd-allah” [slave of god], commonly rendered “Abdullah”.  In fact, many of proper names in the Middle East are derived from what used to be general descriptors (honorifics from non-Arab cultures, as with “Khan”, “Pasha”, “Shah”, “Reza”, “Aziz”, “Bey[g]”, etc.); and the vast majority of proper names in the Far East ARE general descriptors (notably in India, Nepal, China, Burma, Siam, Japan, etc.)  When it comes to gussied-up hagiography, there are other cases in which a general descriptor is eventually rendered a proper name.  Take, for instance, the celebrated Samaritan woman from chapter four in the Gospel according to “John”.  The Byzantines assigned her the name “Photine”, which is derived from the Koine Greek for “One who is Luminous”.  This is based on nothing but pure fancy.  Nevertheless, the moniker stuck.  Suffice to say, “Photine” would not have been a Samaritan name. (!)  This fact does not prevent the Eastern Orthodox Church from referring to her AS IF “Photine” had been her given name all along.}

{24 Use of “H-M-D” in the Mikra can be found in the Song of Songs (5:16), where it means “altogether lovely”.  This is a ROUGH cognate of the tri-root in CA, which means “praise[d]”.  The more brazen Islamic apologists contend that this was a premonition of the prophet of Islam.}

{25  Sebeos wrote that this new Ishmaelite leader told the Arabs: “God promised that country [presumably, Canaan] to Abraham and to his son after him, for eternity.  And what had been promised was fulfilled during that time when god loved Israel [the progeny of Isaac via Jacob; i.e. the Jews].  (Note how the Promised Land is referred to as “that country” and the Jews are referred to as “Israel”.)  NOW, however, YOU [the Ishmaelites] are the sons of Abraham, and god shall fulfill the promise made to Abraham and his son ON YOU.”  (Emphasis is mine.)}

{26  The “Sahih al-Sadiqa” by Abduallah ibn Amir al-Aas is known only via the 9th-century writer, Ahmed ibn Hanbal.}

{27  Never mind that the Koran is also supposed to have existed “as is” since the beginning of time.  (Recall that it is purported to be written on an eternal, celestial tablet.)  Of course, THAT would mean the Abrahamic deity was keeping it (the most important message to mankind ever) in his back pocket ALL THE WHILE: between Abraham and c. 610 A.D…which makes absolutely no sense whatsoever…unless, that is, we suppose that Abrahamic scripture had been corrupted SO MUCH that it had all actually been the Koranic at the time of the alleged revelation…and eventually became so unrecognizably distorted that it wound up being what we now call the Old and New Testaments…which required it to be delivered YET AGAIN in the 7th century…but this time to an illiterate Bedouin merchant.  Gosh-golly.}

{28  The “paraclete” shall come at the Pentecost (conventionally designated as a few weeks after the purported resurrection, directed toward the twelve apostles).  According to most interpretations, said arrival is ongoing…and will abide eternally in ALL of us.  The standard understanding is that it is unseen (i.e. numinous).  Trinitarian doctrine construes this as the Holy Spirit.  Considering the context, it is clear that it was not referring to a specific person (i.e. a prophet).}

{29 Historians can’t even agree about exactly who Cristoforo Colombo of Genoa (a.k.a. “Cristobal Colon”; Anglicized to “Christopher Columbus”) actually was.  His alias may have actually been the Galician Count, Pedro Alvarez de Soutomaior of Caminha (a.k.a. “Pedro Madruga”); thought to have passed away six years before the fabled voyage to the New World.  Different theories abound.  The most prudent course is to remain agnostic, pending further evidence.  But agnosticism is rarely enticing; and is not amenable to weaving a captivating yarn.  (One cannot craft a provocative narrative by suspending judgement.)  Never mind that–whoever he was–the famed explorer never actually stepped foot on the North American mainland.  (He landed on the Bahamas, the Antilles, Cuba, Jamaica, Guanaja; and the coasts of Venezuela, Panama, Costa Rica, Nicaragua, and perhaps as far north as Honduras in Central America.)  At the end of the day, we tell the story the way we like to tell it.  Once we’ve settled on the version that most tantalizes our fancy, we stick to our guns.  And that’s that.}