Talk:Muhammad (name)

See also

See also discussion on Talk:Muhammad (disambiguation). --Yury Petrachenko 05:12, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

UK

While I commend Brianann MacAmhlaidh for the weight he places on reliable sources, I feel he is missing the point somewhat. The various variations of Mohammed come about because there is no agreed transliteration of Arabic (or Urdu, Farsi etc) into English. There can be little doubt that, in the vast majority of cases, the intention of the parents was to name their son after the founder of Islam. Therefore, but for the vagaries of transposing alphabets (and in particular the lack of vowels in semitic languages), they would all have chosen the same name. In this sense, grouping all the variants of Mohammed provides a more meaningful statistic than listing them separately. (Perhaps a helpful analogy, would be in relation to place-names - I believe that few would argue that, say, references to Beijing and Peking (or Mecca and Makkah) should be treated as separate places.) On the subject of variants of Oliver, I'm hard-pressed to come up with anything other than 'Ollie', which, according to the ONS website, fails to make the 2009 top 100; so it's not clear that allowing in variants of Oliver - as I agree would be proper if variants of Mohammed are allowed - would give 'Oliver' much of a boost. In passing, I feel the point reagarding William and Liam is not directly relevant, as, although the two are ultimately linked, William has Norman roots while Liam is Irish (from Ulliam) and, I would argue, the two are considered far from equivalent by most people - Liam V for the next King of England anyone? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.44.90.97 (talk) 16:30, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

^@ 2401:BA80:AC17:680A:2403:CF89:185C:8E6D (talk) 21:57, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

UK

• prisonplanet.com/articles/december2007/201207Mohammed.htm Mohammed now second most popular boys' name in Britain] --Striver - talk 10:34, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

This is not a reliable source for an encyclopaedia. The story on that website is one published by the Daily Mail, a tabloid newspaper. See my post a couple sections below for how the Daily Mail fudged their numbers to make an 'ethnic' name more popular than the most popular 'British' name. All they did was combine 12 variations of Muhammad together, and that combined number came out to a little bit larger than the top ranked Oliver. The Daily Mail didn't bother calculating the variations of Oliver together, or any other name -- if that had, they wouldn't have had a story to run with.--Brianann MacAmhlaidh (talk) 17:03, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

First person named Muhammad

Was the profit Muhammad the first person to have that name? Does anyone know the first person to have that name?

I, too, would like to know the answer to this question. I would guess that the prophet was not the first person called Muhammad. But then I would like to know how common the name was when the prophet was given his name.

"Muhammed" may have been a title used to refer to Jesus (of the gospels).
See Muhammed, Muadh: the Title St.Trond (talk) 12:46, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

A coin with Christ, cross on both sides, and the text: MHMT (muhammad) dated 16 AH is depicted here. St.Trond (talk) 19:39, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

One scholar is not enough. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.165.95.66 (talk) 18:31, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Transliterations

The paragraph on transliterations of Muhammad is a little messy. It was originally in the Etymology section, so I put it in a new section. However, I feel that this is not enough, and a lot of languages still are not represented. Does anyone want to make this into a table or list? Oral Thrush (talk) 01:36, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Problems with the list

First, I'm not sure that the "List of prominent people named Muhammad" is really necessary. Seeing as how it's the most common first name in the world, this list would have to be enormous in order to have any hope of being complete. A search of "Muhammad" on wikipedia yields a whopping 17,429 articles. Granted, some of them probably just mention someone named Muhammed, but I've skimmed through the search results and it appears that most of the articles are about individuals named Muhammad, or one of the alternative spellings. By virtue of having a wikipedia article, all of these people are "prominent" and should therefore be on this list, which would obviously be far too long for a single article.

Second, the list is a mess. There's a section for first names, and a section for surnames. Fine. There are numerous names in the first name section that belong in the surname section, and some that occur in both. The surname section has nothing filled in under "lifespan" and very little under "description." Also, there doesn't appear to be a single reference anywhere in any section of the list. Just because they link to wikipedia articles doesn't mean that they don't need references.

Third, and probably most important, I'm concerned about neutral point of view. The list is primarily composed of politicians, artists, and athletes. Where are the controversial figures? Where are the terrorists? I see Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, although there is nothing in his "description" box; and I see one Taliban leader. That's it for controversial figures. Where is Mohamed Atta, who murdered several thousand innocent people? I'd say that he's "prominent." There are A LOT of terrorists named Muhammad (see http://www.angelfire.com/ultra/terroristscorecard/index.html). The neutral point of view on this page is extremely lacking. Klopek007 (talk) 09:17, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Update: Added "multiple issues" tag to the names section, added details for Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, added Mohamed Atta. Klopek007 (talk) 13:46, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Muhammad bin Qasim

Why is this great name not in the list? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Safdarmarwat (talk • contribs) 22:11, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Why don't you add it? Klopek007 (talk) 09:23, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

'Most popular name in the Britain', and tabloid journalism

Here's a really good example of why a tabloid is not a reliable source for Wikipedia. At the moment one sentence in the article states:

In 2009 Mohammed was the sixteenth most popular baby name in England and Wales, though it was the most popular in the West Midlands.

The reference for this is a BBC Online News article dated 2010-10-27, which cites then recently released ONS data on the popular baby names in England and Wales in the year 2009. Note that the BBC piece states Mohammed is ranked 16th, and Oliver is ranked 1st. It also gives a link to the ONS website which lists the top names and numbers and confirms the BBC piece. The next sentence in the Wikipedia article states:

As of 2010 Mohammed is now the most popular boys baby name in the United Kingdom.

The reference for this is the Daily Mail, dated 2010-10-28. The article is based on the same ONS data for 2009, but it states that "Mohammed has become the most popular name for newborn boys in Britain". How can that be if the ONS data shows otherwise? Here's how: the DM just added up "12 variations" of the Mohammed together and made a bigger number (7,549) than Oliver (7,364). Too bad they never added the variations of Oliver together, or any other name. So the DM gave Mohammed a 12:1 advantage over Oliver. Mohammed, all by itself, is actually only 3,300. If you want to play the game of adding all variations of the name together, like the DM did, you don't need to go any father than William (ranked 8th) and Liam (ranked 24th): add only those two variations together makes 8,031 -- that's about 700 more than the 12 variations of Mohammed calculated by the DM. Also, the released ONS data only covered England and Wales; it didn't cover all of the United Kingdom. Classic tabloid journalism: fudging stories to get ratings. Editors should keep their eyes peeled for this kind of tabloid sensationalism. We need to read more carefully what our sources tell us. The BBC piece and the Daily Mail piece were about the same ONS data for 2009; but at the moment our article presents it like they are two different studies, one in 2009, the other 2010. The ONS is not gonna release data on a year that hasn't even finished yet -- think people!--Brianann MacAmhlaidh (talk) 16:45, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

I removed the second statement (the one referenced from the Daily Mail). But I noticed we've got another similar statement in the article:

The BBC reported that Muhammad was the second popular given names for baby boys in Britain in 2007, combining 14 spelling variations.

The ref is a BBC News article, but I think it's doing the same thing as the Daily Mail above. I think it's only combining the variations of Muhammad, but not combining the variations of any other name. I think it's just another case of sloppy journalism. I can't prove it here without seeing where their data comes from, and making a few quick observations, like I did with William and Liam above. The BBC piece was published on 2007-11-29, so I suppose it likely was based off ONS stats for the year 2006 (which likely only covered England and Wales, as they did for the year 2009). I have a feeling if we added the Williams and Liams in 2006 they'd still be higher than than all the Muhammads, why wouldn't they be?--Brianann MacAmhlaidh (talk) 17:43, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

References

Pronunciations

Not Turkish?

The name in Turkish is Mehmet. How come is this pronunciation added as allegedly Turkish Turkish: [muˈhammed]?

Not Arabic?

What about Arabic: [mʊˈħæmmed]. That is not a Literary Arabic pronunciation (مُحَمَّد; Muḥammad). It needs citation! If it's dialectal, it needs to be specified. --Mahmudmasri (talk) 19:42, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

The strict translit of Muḥammad is just that. Other common translits often end in "ed", and the pronunciation is reflected.

Mehmet is the "Turkish form" - as it says on the Wiki article; or a short version developed over time, but Muhammed and Muhammet both remain common names in Turkey. John Cengiz talk 22:13, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Then, [mʊˈħæmmed] should be tagged as a Turkish pronunciation “not” Arabic, and be edited to reflect the Turkish phonology, which lacks [ʊ]. --Mahmudmasri (talk) 22:20, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Modern Standard Arabic is not anyone's native language, there is not enough hours in the day to make an IPA key for every variety. The IPA for Arabic page states, that the one IPA page covers all Arabic varieties. John Cengiz talk 21:15, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Arabic pronunciations

Many Arabic speakers don't pronounce the name as [mʊˈħæmmæd], which is obvious, the name in Arabic is written as M-H-M-D (for those that don't know).

Read more of my thoughts at my talk page.

People didn't spell احمد, "Ahmed" so people will pronounce the name [ˈæːħmæd], which is not near their native pronunciation. John Cengiz talk 20:56, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Reading your repeated argument, I concluded that you know nothing about Arabic language or its phonology and I discussed the subject with you and others did the same. You keep on repeating the same arguments... It's Westerners who are accustomed to spell the name as Ahmed. Middle Easterners may spell the name in Latin alphabet as Ahmed or Ahmad. The first spelling is written as Westerners spell it. The name is correctly written in Literary Arabic with a hamzah on the first alif as أحمد and not as you wrote it. That initial alif with hamzah above isn't a long vowel, it's an initial glottal stop+a short open vowel. Writing the name with full vowels would be أَحْمَد, the diacritic on the mīm is called fatḥah, which is an open vowel.

The same thing applies to the name Mohamed which is spelled in many different ways in Latin alphabet, but has little to do with how it's actually pronounced. The full vocalization of the name in Literary Arabic is مُحَمَّد. The diacritic on the last mīm is šaddah+fatḥah, meaning that the /m/ is pronounced longer and before the final dāl there is an open vowel.

Both names have a consonant absent in most European languages, which is written with the letter ح, however it is approximated with the Latin letter h. --Mahmudmasri (talk) 19:33, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Prefix

The article doesn't seem to mention the practice in some cultures of the name being generally a prefix or part of a compound name where the person will generally never be referred to as Muhammad only but as Muhammad whatever (or possibly just whatever). It does mention how some people may not be referred to as Muhammad but by their second name but doesn't really explain it and this is also incomplete. The article Bangladeshi name, Malaysian names and possibly others do mention the practice. Nil Einne (talk) 13:18, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

I agree. I have added this information almost at the beginning. Basically, Muhammad is shortened to Md. or Mohd. but people are called with their second name when one is available. Everybody is welcomed to improve this piece of information.2001:4CA0:2216:0:CCD2:B6B4:9D27:140E (talk) 09:06, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

I proposed to simplify the hatnote at Muhammed,

I proposed to simplify the hatnote at Muhammed, please comment here Siuenti (talk) 00:51, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

Origin of Name and cognates

Possible Cognate in Hebrew ? Hebrew Bible Machmed - Son of Dumah, Son of Nebioth, Son of Ishmael, Son of Abraham ?

מַחְמָד machmâd, makh-mawd'; from H2530; delightful; hence, a delight, i.e. object of affection or desire:—beloved, desire, goodly, lovely, pleasant (thing).  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.56.5.76 (talk) 02:45, 31 August 2017 (UTC) 

External links modified (February 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Muhammad (name). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150704141938/http://www.presstv.com/detail/2013/10/30/332087/mohammed-worlds-most-popular-name/ to http://www.presstv.com/detail/2013/10/30/332087/mohammed-worlds-most-popular-name/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20101011224910/http://statbel.fgov.be/nl/binaries/BRO09725-N_tcm325-81232.pdf to http://statbel.fgov.be/nl/binaries/BRO09725-N_tcm325-81232.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:20, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

My name umar ke mahine ke

All anme umar 202.47.50.8 (talk) 08:01, 8 April 2023 (UTC)

Abdullahi umar danlami

Abdullahi umar danlami — Preceding unsigned comment added by 102.88.45.89 (talk) 23:27, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

Maxammed name origins

Correct me if im wrong but the name "Maxammed" only shows up once on this entire page and isn't talked about much anywhere else, can someone clue me in on the origins of this given name? I would love to read up on it more! ReddestVelvet (talk) 21:59, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

About the new image

I added an image and then I removed an image and put the removed image back. Fahad Ahmed Alanzi (talk) 18:40, 15 June 2024 (UTC)

Please bring back the list of transliterations

This list was extremely useful in our academic discussions and established a starting point for us to discuss better techniques towards designing inclusive practices to recognize the various spellings and their origins. This transliteration list was part of workshops in our university and it has been removed without merit. It was extremely important as an illustration that despite the many variations they all had the same origin, and started important discussions on technology not being as equipped to recognize variances such as this across cultures. It was a very well sourced and highly valuable reference table. It was removed prematurely and without regard to the academic discussions around the topic Augustonia (talk) 01:49, 16 September 2024 (UTC)