Part 2 – There is no proper noun Muhammad in the Quran by Aaron Moses
For most Muslims the previous discussion in Part 1 about there being absolutely no evidence for a historical Muhammad would have been shocking. Of course, such discussions are totally not allowed in the madrassas and in the mosques. Shutting down inquiry and questions are the simplest and most effective methods to keep religion going. But in the age of the Internet, the mullahs and the Muslims at large cannot escape such scrutiny anymore. Raising your voices, showing anger and denial will not make these questions go away. But after 1,400 years of religion, don’t the Muslims have any solid evidence on their side? The simplest solution is to bring solid evidence to disprove these arguments.This is where the Muslims run into a solid wall, put up by the mullahs. There is no historical evidence to support the existence of a prophet Muhammad. Which leads to another fact - the Muslims have been misled by their mullahs.
Today we will discuss the fact that the proper noun ‘al-muhammad’ is not found written in the Quran. This means the Quran does not recognise ‘al-muhammad’ as the name of the prophet. This point is easy to prove from the Quran.
In Part 1 we have already read about modern scholars dismissing the existence of a historical Muhammad. For example:
i. References to Muhammad in the Koran: Lost Years since 1949? By Edouard M. Gallez. Updated English version of the contribution to the Symposium “Die historischenGeburtswehen des Islams und der Ursprung des Korans” held by Inarah, Institute for Research on the Early Islamic History and the Koran, Mainz (Germany) May 2019.
In 1999, Antoine Moussali, a keen specialist of the Koran and the Arabic language’, gradually came to understand how and why ALL the references to Muhammad (4 + ahmad) in the Koran are de facto, part interpolations into the Koranic text. The subject was very sensitive; it still is.
Today, all serious scholars know that these origins (of Islam) are neither to be found in Mecca nor in Hijaz, and that the figure of the “Prophet of Islam” is but a sheer fabrication. For the first time in 2005, the five mentions of the name of the Prophet of Islam in the Koran were stated as interpolations within a 1,100-page synthesis spanning two volumes: Le messie et son prophete.
The so called five mentions of the ‘name of the prophet’ in the Quran are interpolations.
ii. Professor Suliman Bashear (1947-1991) the Palestinian scholar and Arab historian argued that Islam developed as a religion gradually within the historical context of Judaism and Christianity rather than being the revelation of a prophet. In other words, Bashear was questioning the intervention of a “prophet” of Islam.
iii. Well known Islamophobe Robert Spencer says: “in the Quran the name Muhammad actually appears… only four times, and in three of those instances it could be used as a title—the ‘praised one’ or ‘chosen one’—rather than as a proper name”, and no information is disclosed in the Quran about his life”.
There is no proper noun ‘al-Muhammad’ in the Quran. In Arabic all proper nouns are prefixed with ‘al’. In Arabic a proper noun is called an ismema’rifah. What is found written in the Quran are the words “muhammadoon”, “muhammadin” and “ahmadoo”. These are all adjectives and not proper nouns (ismema’rifah).
The Arabic ‘muhammadoon’ and ‘muhammadin’ come from the root hmd (hammad) which means “praised” or “praiseworthy”. Muhammadin in the Quran is preceded by the Hebrew term ‘mahamaddim’ which appears in the Hebrew Song of Songs 5:16.Mahamaddim is rooted in the Hebrew mahmad (mhmd), meaning someone who is “desirable”.
iv. Dr Kashif Khan, a Quran researcher and Arabic language scholar, has written detailed research “MUHAMMAD IN THE QURAN IS NOT THE NAME BUT AN ADJECTIVE”, based on Arabic language grammar (https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/muhammad-quran-name-adjective-true-meaning-khan).
The four verses in the Quran where the mullahs misinterpret and mistranslate the adjectives “muhammadoon” and “muhammadin” to create the proper noun ‘al-muhammad’ are 3:144, 33:40, 48:29 and 47:2. Ahmadoo appears once in 61:6. The mullahs are being dishonest.
“Muhammadoon” and “muhammaddin” are adjectives meaning a ‘praiseworthy person’. Similarly, ‘ahmadoo’ is an adjective meaning someone ‘who shall be praised’. We will look at all these five verses in the Quran to see how the adjectives like ‘praiseworthy’ fit perfectly into the context and meaning of those five verses.
The mullahs could not rewrite the proper noun al-Muhammad into any of those four verses in the Quran. So, they did the next best thing - they changed the name of Sura al-Qital (Chapter 47) which does mention ‘muhammadoon’(47:2) to become ‘Sura Al-Muhammad’. Problem solved.In one stroke the mullahs had created the proper noun al-Muhammad in the Quran.
But the mullahs cannot extinguish their own records which still say that the original name of Sura 47 was Sura Al Qital (The Fighting). Here is one reference:
SURAH 47: MUHAMMAD or AL QITAL (The Fighting) http://www.al-kitab.org/al-kitab/quran/SURAH047.htm
Other mullahs say: “SūratMuḥammad is the 47th sura of the Qur'an with 38 verses. It also has the name of Al-Qital, which translates to fighting due to the context of the sura.”
The fifth verse which the mullahs misinterpret and mistranslate is Sura 61:6 where the adjective ‘ahmadoo’ is twisted to become the noun ‘Ahmed’.
Then they twist the meaning once more by saying that this imaginary noun ‘Ahmed’ also refers to ‘al-Muhammad’. So, they magically invented ‘Ahmed’ and ‘Muhammad’. They say that all the adjectives muhammadoon, muhammadeen and ahmadoo mean the same thing ie, the proper noun ‘al-Muhammad’. This is just more dishonesty. No Arab who names his son ‘Muhammad’ will call the boy ‘Ahmed’or vice versa. No mullah will recite the shahada as ‘wa ash-hadu anna AHMED rasoolullah’. It is always ‘wa ash-hadu anna MUHAMMADUN rasoolullah’.
There are five mentions of the adjectives “muhammadoon”, “muhammadeen” and “ahmadoo”. When I studied the Quran, I realised there was something not right with the traditional understanding of the following verse:
33:40 مَّاكَانَمُحَمَّدٌأَبَآأَحَدٍۢمِّنرِّجَالِكُمْوَلَـٰكِنرَّسُولَٱللَّهِوَخَاتَمَٱلنَّبِيِّـۧنَ ۗ وَكَانَٱللَّهُبِكُلِّشَىْءٍعَلِيمًۭا ٤٠
33:40 Muhammad is not the father of any of your sons, but (he is) the Messenger of Allah, and the Seal of the Prophets: and Allah has full knowledge of all things.
The tense in this translation is also wrong, the Arabic is clearly in the past tense whereas the translation is in the present tense. It should begin with ‘Muhammad WAS NOT the father”. But that sounds stranger. If the verse was first revealed to the prophet, then why would ‘Muhammad’ be addressed in the past tense? Hence the mullahs changed the interpretations/translations to the present tense ‘MuhammadIS NOT the father’.
But the bigger question that popped up was why would Allah NOT make the prophet the father of any sons and only allow him daughters? (The mullahs say the Prophet had four daughters Zaynab, Ruqayyah, Umm Kulthoom and Fatima). Why deny the prophet the joy of being the father of both sons and daughters?
It is also a biological impossibility to be able to father daughters and not to be able to father sons. A man can either father children or he may not be able to father any children at all (for example due to a low sperm count). But it is biologically impossible that a man can only father daughters,but he cannot father sons or vice versa. So, for the Quran to say that the prophet was not the father of sons is scientifically impossible. And despite what some critics say the Quran is scientifically robust.
Then the mullahs contradict themselves. They say in the Seerah literature that the prophet did have up to five sons – Ibrahim, Kassim, Tahir, Tayyab and Abdullah – who all died young. (There is serious dispute among the mullahs as to the exact number of the prophet’s sons, their names and when exactly they all died. Some mullahs say that Tayyab and Tahir were actually nicknames for Abdullah).
But the mullahs have contradicted and debunked themselves because the prophet did father sons- Ibrahim, Kassim, Tahir, Tayyab and Abdullah.
And surely Allah already knew He would be revealing the verse 33:40 at some point in the prophet’s life. So, had Allah condemned the prophet and his wives to witness the deaths of all their sons (regardlessif before or after 33:40 was revealed) just so that the integrity of the verse would remain intact? Other than portraying Allah as cruel, it is also nonsensical.
Then there are also the following in the Quran:
13:38 We have sent messengers before you AND WE GAVE THEM WIVES AND CHILDREN. No messenger can manifest a sign without Allah’s authorization, and in accordance with a specific, predetermined time.
41:46 "Say, 'I am only a human being like you. It is revealed to me that your God is one God.'"
13:38 and 41:46 are simple, logical and perfectly normal statements. All the prophets could and did have children – sons and daughters. They were ordinary human beings. Having said thus, the Quran cannot say that just one prophet would not have any sons.
So how could the Quran say the prophet was not the father of any sons? WELL, THE QURAN DOES NOT SAY ANY SUCH THING. The‘muhammaddon’ in 33:40 is an adjective which means ‘praiseworthy’. The correct meaning of the verse falls into place:
33:40 It was not praiseworthy (maa kaanamuhammadoon) to be the father of sons from among you, but it is so to be the Messenger of Allah, and to be the last of the prophets and Allah had full knowledge of all things.
This verse also addresses a culture which had a strong gender bias for sons over daughters. Not only Arab but many other cultures have a distinct preference for sons over daughters. 33:40 corrects this misconception. It is no big deal to have sons over daughters. The meaning of this verse then tallied fully with other verses in the Quran which chastises the wicked custom of burying female infants alive. Here are the verses:
81:8 – 9 “And when the female (infant) buried alive shall be asked for what sin she was killed?”
It is not praiseworthy (maa kaanamuhammadoon) to prefer sons over daughters. Hence the three other verses that mention “muhammadoon”and “muhammadeen” fell into place too.
3:144: وَمَامُحَمَّدٌإِلَّارَسُولٌۭقَدْخَلَتْمِنقَبْلِهِٱلرُّسُلُ ۚ أَفَإِي۟نمَّاتَأَوْقُتِلَٱنقَلَبْتُمْعَلَىٰٓأَعْقَـٰبِكُمْ ۚ وَمَنيَنقَلِبْعَلَىٰعَقِبَيْهِفَلَنيَضُرَّٱللَّهَشَيْـًۭٔا ۗ وَسَيَجْزِىٱللَّهُٱلشَّـٰكِرِينَ ١٤٤
Here is the traditional translation by A Yusuf Ali:
3:144 Muhammad is no more than a messenger: Many were the messengers that passed away before him. If he died or were slain, will ye then turn back on your heels? If any did turn back on his heels, not the least harm will he do to Allah; but Allah (on the other hand) will swiftly reward those who (serve Him) with gratitude.
Here is the more accurate translation:
3:144 There is no (greater) praiseworthiness than to be a messenger: Many were the messengers that passed away before him. If he died or were slain, will ye then turn back on your heels? If any did turn back on his heels, not the least harm will he do to Allah; and Allah will swiftly reward those who (serve Him) with gratitude.
And here is 48:29 مُّحَمَّدٌۭرَّسُولُٱللَّهِ ۚ وَٱلَّذِينَمَعَهُۥٓأَشِدَّآءُعَلَىٱلْكُفَّارِرُحَمَآءُبَيْنَهُمْ ۖ تَرَىٰهُمْرُكَّعًۭاسُجَّدًۭايَبْتَغُونَفَضْلًۭامِّنَٱللَّهِوَرِضْوَٰنًۭا ۖ سِيمَاهُمْفِىوُجُوهِهِممِّنْأَثَرِٱلسُّجُودِ ۚ ذَٰلِكَمَثَلُهُمْفِىٱلتَّوْرَىٰةِ ۚ وَمَثَلُهُمْفِىٱلْإِنجِيلِكَزَرْعٍأَخْرَجَشَطْـَٔهُۥفَـَٔازَرَهُۥفَٱسْتَغْلَظَفَٱسْتَوَىٰعَلَىٰسُوقِهِۦيُعْجِبُٱلزُّرَّاعَلِيَغِيظَبِهِمُٱلْكُفَّارَ ۗ وَعَدَٱللَّهُٱلَّذِينَءَامَنُوا۟وَعَمِلُوا۟ٱلصَّـٰلِحَـٰتِمِنْهُممَّغْفِرَةًۭوَأَجْرًاعَظِيمًۢا ٢٩
Again, here is Yusuf Ali’s translation: 48:29 Muhammad is the messenger of Allah; and those who are with him are strong against Unbelievers, (but) compassionate amongst each other. Thou wilt see them bow and prostrate themselves, seeking Grace from Allah and (His) Good Pleasure. On their faces are their marks, (being) the traces of their prostration. This is their similitude in the Taurat; and their similitude in the Gospel is: like a seed which sends forth its blade, then makes it strong; it then becomes thick, and it stands on its own stem, (filling) the sowers with wonder and delight. As a result, it fills the Unbelievers with rage at them. Allah has promised those among them who believe and do righteous deeds forgiveness, and a great Reward.
Rephrasing just the beginning of this verse, it sounds like this:
48:29 “It is praiseworthy indeed to be the messenger of Allah and those who are with him are strong against Unbelievers, (but) compassionate amongst each other.”
This tallies exactly with 3:144 too. Here is the last one which mentions ‘muhammadeen’:
47:2 وَٱلَّذِينَءَامَنُوا۟وَعَمِلُوا۟ٱلصَّـٰلِحَـٰتِوَءَامَنُوا۟بِمَانُزِّلَعَلَىٰمُحَمَّدٍۢوَهُوَٱلْحَقُّمِنرَّبِّهِمْ ۙ كَفَّرَعَنْهُمْسَيِّـَٔاتِهِمْوَأَصْلَحَبَالَهُمْ ٢
Yusuf Ali translates it as: 47:2 But those who believe and work deeds of righteousness and believe in the (Revelation) sent down to Muhammad - for it is the Truth from their Lord - He will remove from them their ills and improve their condition.
The more acccurate translation is: 47:2 “And those who believe and work righteousness and believe in the praiseworthy revelation, and it is indeed the truth from their Lord – He will remove from them their wrongs and grant them goodness.”
Finallyhere is the adjective “ahmadu” which is mentioned in 61:6 and which has been twisted to become the noun ‘ahmed’.
61:6 وَإِذْقَالَعِيسَىٱبْنُمَرْيَمَيَـٰبَنِىٓإِسْرَٰٓءِيلَإِنِّىرَسُولُٱللَّهِإِلَيْكُممُّصَدِّقًۭالِّمَابَيْنَيَدَىَّمِنَٱلتَّوْرَىٰةِوَمُبَشِّرًۢابِرَسُولٍۢيَأْتِىمِنۢبَعْدِىٱسْمُهُۥٓأَحْمَدُ ۖ فَلَمَّاجَآءَهُمبِٱلْبَيِّنَـٰتِقَالُوا۟هَـٰذَاسِحْرٌۭمُّبِينٌۭ ٦
Here is Abdullah Yusuf Ali’s translation: 61:6 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 Ahmed." But when he came to them with Clear Signs, they said, "this is evident sorcery!
Here are two other translations of this verse by Muhammad Marmaduke Pickthall and Rashad Khalifa.
Muhammad Marmaduke Pickthall: 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 (AHMADOO). Yet when he hath come unto them with clear proofs, they say: This is mere magic.
Rashad Khalifa: Recall that Jesus, son of Mary, said, "O Children of Israel, I am ALLAH's messenger to you, confirming the Torah and bringing good news of a messenger to come after me WHOSE NAME WILL BE EVEN MORE PRAISED (AHMADOO)." Then, when he showed them the clear proofs, they said, "This is profound magic."
Please note that both Muhammad Marmaduke Pickthall and Rashad Khalifa do not use any noun form “AHMED”. They stick to the adjective ‘AHMADOO’ and translate it as ‘praised one', and 'will be even more praised’.
So, the proper nouns ‘Muhammad’ and ‘Ahmad’ are not found in the Quran.
Is the identity of the messenger important? Let’s listen to the Quran (4:163-166)
4:163 We have inspired you, as we inspired Noah and the messengers after him. And we inspired Abraham, Ismail, Isaac, Jacob, the Patriarchs, Jesus, Job, Jonah, Aaron, and Solomon. And we gave David the Psalms.
4:164 Messengers we have told you about, AND MESSENGERS WE NEVER TOLD YOU ABOUT. And ALLAH spoke to Moses directly.
4:165 Messengers to deliver good news, as well as warnings. Thus, the people will have no excuse when they face ALLAH, after all these messengers have come to them. ALLAH is Almighty, Most Wise.
4:166 But ALLAH bears witness concerning what He has revealed to you; He has revealed it with His knowledge. And the malaikah bear witness as well, but ALLAH suffices as witness.
The Quran lists many Messengers who were despatched to mankind. Noah, Abraham, Ismail, Jacob, Jesus were just some of them. But in 4:164 above, the Quran says that there were also other “MESSENGERS WE NEVER TOLD YOU ABOUT”.
So, the exact history and names of all the messengers are not important. What is important is the content of the message which the messengers brought. This is made clear in 4:165 and 4:166. The message is more important than the messenger.The message was successfully delivered.
The point is there was no messenger by the name of ‘Muhammad’. Not surprisingly the mullahs themselves say that the prophet’s birthname was Qutham. Here are some references.
- “Qutham(قُثَم), is indeed one of the names attributed to the Prophet in some early sources, before he became widely known as Muhammad.Qutham is mentioned in some biographical works, such as "As-Sīrah an-Nabawiyyah" by Ibn Hisham and "Al-Isabah" by Ibn Hajar al-Asqalani. Ibn Hajar mentions:"The Prophet's name was Qutham, and he was also known as Muhammad, Ahmad, Al-Amin (the Trustworthy), Al-Mahi, and others."
- In his ʾAnsāb al-ʾAšrāf, ʾAḥmad b. Yaḥyá al-Balāḏurī recorded the following report about the birth of the Prophet of Islam, Muḥammad b. ʿAbdAllāh b. ʿAbd al-Muṭṭalib.Then, when the Messenger of God was born, ʿAbd al-Muṭṭalib(his grandfather) named him “Quṯam”, whereupon his mother ʾÂminah informed him that she had been shown in a dream [that she was] to name him “Muḥammad”—thus, he named him “Muḥammad” [instead].”
- Sprenger (1869) - In the first volume of his 1869 monograph Das Leben und die Lehre des Moḥammad, in a section dedicated to the Prophet’s name (“Hieſs der Prophet Moḥammad?”), Aloys Sprenger (d. 1893) claimed that “concerns arise regarding [the notion] that he was originally called Muḥammad.” After quoting al-Ḥalabī’s version of the aforementioned report, Sprenger continued:I would only doubt, if [indeed] the Prophet was originally called Quṯam, whether his grandfather exchanged this name for “Muḥammad” as a result of a dream-vision. Rather, the following traditions seem to show that the Prophet himself, only after or shortly before the Hijrah, adopted the name Muḥammad.Sprenger proceeded to cite various reports from Ibn Saʿd, al-Buḵārī, Muslim, and other sources. From all of this, Sprenger inferred that “Muḥammad” was just another religiously significant title that the Prophet adopted during the course of his mission, rather than his original name.
The mullahs changed the name of Sura Al Qital to Sura Al Muhammad, and they created Muhammad out of muhammadoon / muhammadeen. Muhammad is an interpolation. There was no Muhammad.
To conclude there is absolutely no evidence for a historical Muhammad. And there is no evidence for a Muhammad in the Quran. The Muslims have been truly misled by the mullahs. The mullahs have led the Muslims nowhere but towards falsehood and its accompanying despair and destruction.During the periods when Europe was in the medieval Dark Ages, when the rest of the world was largely illiterate and ignorant the mullahs’ stories of flying horses andritual worship facing stone structures wasperhaps relatively simpler and more unifying. In an ignorant world, it was a competitive advantage of sorts. In the valley of the blind, the one-eyed man was king. But not in the modern world. For the past 500 years literacy has become the basic ingredient of human advancement. Literacy has become the raw material and seed capital for all human endeavour. Inquiry, questioning and proving the argument make up what is known as modernisation. And by this 21st century, the inquiry, questioning and argument happens at the speed of light. Soif the Muslims still believe in magical flying horses or the mullahs have no proof for the existence of a Muhammad, the ridicule against them will approach the speed of light. And the Muslims will also approach light speed in accumulating their failures. The truth will always have a place at any point in the human timeline. But that which is false leads only to destruction. Which is indeed the fate of the Muslims.
Aaron Musa is a researcher of social affairs and religion.
Comments