Talk:Ahmad

Umera frooq

Untitled

This page needs to be watched closely. Many add their own names between the other names in the list, which is sometimes a bit hard to detect. -- Eagle^amn 07:31, 19 October 2005 (UTC) Ahmad or Ahmed is an Arabic origin name(commonly used in Turkey too) but in Turkey it became as Achmet or Ahmet. So all the Ottoman characters in Wikipedia are Ahmet.

Various Interpretations and Meanings of the Term / Name Ahmad

Due to the various interpretations of the Quran from Arabic to English via Greek terminology ( evidenced by the insertion of words within brackets and / or parenthesis ), various interpretations and thus various meanings can be derived. As with any religious text, there are the literal interpretations, esoteric, mystical, spiritual, etc. One question to ask in deriving the meaning of this particular text with the name Ahmad: why the mention of the idea of "magic" or a similar term when speaking of the coming Messenger Ahmad? Another question that can be asked is: why isn't Muhammad's actual name written in place of the name Ahmad? The Arabic for Muhammad is different from the Arabic for Ahmad.

Here are several translations of the passage in question in Surag As-Saf, verse 6:

Sahih International:

And [mention] when Jesus, the son of Mary, said, "O children of Israel, indeed I am the messenger of Allah to you confirming what came before me of the Torah and bringing good tidings of a messenger to come after me, whose name is Ahmad." But when he came to them with clear evidences, they said, "This is obvious magic."

Pickthall:

pickles

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. Yet when he hath come unto them with clear proofs, they say: This is mere magic.

Yusuf Ali:

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 Ahmad." But when he came to them with Clear Signs, they said, "this is evident sorcery!"

Shakir:

And when Isa son of Marium said: O children of Israel! surely I am the messenger of Allah to you, verifying that which is before me of the Taurat and giving the good news of an Messenger who will come after me, his name being Ahmad, but when he came to them with clear arguments they said: This is clear magic.

Muhammad Sarwar:

Jesus, son of Mary, said to the Israelites, "I am the Messenger of God sent to you. I confirm the Torah which is in existence and give you the glad news of the coming of a Messenger who will come after me named Ahmad." When this Messenger came to them with all the proofs (to support his truthfulness), they said, "He is simply a magician".

Mohsin Khan:

And (remember) when 'Iesa (Jesus), son of Maryam (Mary), said: "O Children of Israel! I am the Messenger of Allah unto you confirming the Taurat [(Torah) which came] before me, and giving glad tidings of a Messenger to come after me, whose name shall be Ahmed . But when he (Ahmed i.e. Muhammad SAW) came to them with clear proofs, they said: "This is plain magic."

Arberry:

And when Jesus son of Mary said, 'Children of Israel, I am indeed the Messenger of God to you, confirming the Torah that is before me, and giving good tidings of a Messenger who shall come after me, whose name shall be Ahmad.' Then, when he brought them the clear signs, they said, 'This is a manifest sorcery.'

One viable interpretation can point to what was considered "magic" or unbelievable on the day the Holy Spirit was poured onto the believers at the Day of Pentecost. This is the promise Yeshua / Isa / Jesus made to His followers in the Gospel regarding 'who' would come after Him. This sign can be seen as the Messenger mentioned in the Quran and thus the message of this particular passage when the name Ahmad ( highly praised ) is used and talk of 'magic' is mentioned.

Suddenly a sound like the blowing of a violent wind came from heaven and filled the whole house where they were sitting. They saw what seemed to be tongues of fire that separated and came to rest on each of them. All of them were filled with the Holy Spirit and began to speak in other tongues as the Spirit enabled them.... Both Jews and converts to Judaism we hear them declaring the wonders of God in our own tongues. Amazed and perplexed they asked "what does this mean?"

- Acts 2: 2-4, 11-12 --HafizHanif (talk) 20:32, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

Hello Monochrome Monitor, please provide further 'point of view' reference to expand the idea of "Ahmad." I think deleting what has been added in the effort to expand the subject ( Ahmad ) is defeating the purpose of Wikipedia and preventing further learning or discussion. I added the references to Jesus when speaking of someone who will come after him ( the premise of Ahmad in the Quranic passage ) because of the literal evidence in what you deleted. HafizHanif (talk) 22:06, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

"Cognate with Hebrew Amed, Son of nebaioth, son of Ishmael ?"

Normal people??

What does the section "Normal People" mean? Are the other people not normal? --76.28.6.218 (talk) 05:21, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Disambiguation

This human name article is a disambiguation article, please do not revert the edits without discussing why is it not disambiguation?? also please check other Common name articles eg : John ,George, Simon, Wilson,Elizabeth.hope it helps.. --Sartaj beary 00:04, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

from Wikipedia:Manual of Style (disambiguation pages)

Disambiguation pages ("dab pages") are, like redirects, non-article pages in the article namespace. Disambiguation pages are solely intended to allow users to choose among several Wikipedia articles, usually when a user searches for an ambiguous term.

I read that to say that since the article contains information beyond was is intended for "solely" "allow[ing] users to choose among several Wikipedia articles", its is more that a "non-article". Its is in fact, a article. As for the other dabs, maybe they should be remade to name articles instead, that is, if they provide anything more than "solely" "allow[ing] users to choose among several Wikipedia articles". Abdul is a article? I can only see a redirect... --Striver 00:19, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Btw, even if it where only a dab, its more than *just* a human name dab.--Striver 00:20, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

No answer? --Striver 09:50, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Agreed I changed Disambiguation page to human name disambiguation article after your frist revert.. to tell you..personally i dont consider dab page as article page.. but you got point... Ooopz.. failed to notice that redirect.. and hey dont u think Abdul redirect to wrong article.. --Sartaj beary 19:00, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

I disagree. Except for a small addition of information in the introduction, this is a dismabiguation page. It's an ambiguous term and allows the user to choose among several articles. Also, shouldn't the title be Ahmad instead of Ahmed? Cuñado - Talk 07:27, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Why do you think this article should be at Ahmad instead of Ahmed? User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 21:41, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Definition for a dab: Wikipedia:Manual of Style (disambiguation pages):

Disambiguation pages ("dab pages") are, like redirects, non-article pages in the article namespace. Disambiguation pages are solely intended to allow users to choose among several Wikipedia articles, usually when a user searches for an ambiguous term.

If it has a category and is not "solely intended to allow users...", then it is not a dab. --Striver 22:48, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

If you want to make an article about the name, then it shouldn't have a list of people named Ahmad. We should make a page about the name, with encyclopedic content (one paragraph so far), and another page for disambiguation. Would that be OK?

It should be Ahmad because that is how is it spelled and pronounced. Cuñado - Talk 04:12, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Ill rename it, thaks for the info. There are lots of article that also contain lists. --Striver 00:49, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Muhammad

It was the name his mother gave him. I have heard that he perferred to be called by it.

If you know of a reference then please provide it. Saying "I have heard" it somewhere, sometime, by somebody doesn't work. Cuñado - Talk 17:13, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

It is common knowledge that his name was Mohammad. He is refered to this by many historians and religious citacions that Muslims use for their arguements. If this is an issue, I want to challenge the use of the name "Jesus Christ" for Jesus. His name is what it is. You don't need to disprove what his name is or prove what his name is.

Inclusion

In theory, this page could list all persons named Ahmad who have an article on Wikipedia - or are likely to have an article, based on the primary notability criteria. Carom 14:47, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Does that mean that anyone (regardless of their importance) and as long as their name is Ahmad can launch an article under their name in order to qualify for addition on this Ahmad article? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 86.136.155.21 (talk • contribs).

No. The individual would have to qualify under the notability criteria listed at WP:N. If they do not qualify for an article, they shouldn't be on this list. Carom 16:46, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

The more important question here is whether all Wiki'd Ahmads deserve their name on the Ahmad page list of Ahmads. Frankly, there are Wiki search tools that are a better resource for such an exhaustive list, and only "the most important of Ahmads" belong on any list, wherever that list goes. I would presume that this is the policy regarding other such lists on the Wiki. Greg Ravn (talk) 22:19, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Ümit

Is the Turkish name Ümit related to Ahmad (like Turkish Mehmet and Arabic Muhammad)? —MK (talk) 03:46, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Ahmed is more common than Ahmad

A quick Googling of both names show that Ahmed has around 10 million more hits than Ahmad. To reflect this, I believe this page should be moved. --Enzuru 18:43, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

As alluded to by Cuñado, Ahmad is a more correct transliteration of this name's Arabic root. There are many spellings of it in the Latin alphabet but as it is still the same name, it is preferred to go with the linguistically sound choice rather than the statistically sound one. An alternative is splitting the article, but I don't find that option appealing. Greg Ravn (talk) 22:32, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Ahmad snd (talk) is raising the issue of the alternate spelling, adding the Kurdish spelling (variant spelling issue) which is already addressed in the lexicon section and this talk section. I've reverted their good faith (yet without reasoning ) edit, and they've ignored my request to discuss their contention here. I find their re-edit unnecessary and now obtrusive. -- HafizHanif (talk) 18:48, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

What about Hamed?

Is it the same of Ahmed? --necronudist (talk) 12:51, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

It's another spelling of the same name, basically. Due to the number of names like this (Abraham, Ibrahim, Abram, etc. as one example), Wikipedia has to draw a line somewhere as to scope. I move coverage of the name Hamed should be on a different page because the consonant/vowel structure is different - technically, Ahmad is four consonants (ʔḥmd). Greg Ravn (talk) 22:25, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

IPA

Could we get the IPA for this name? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.212.7.182 (talk) 14:28, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Consensus on article scope

We need to make a decision about what exactly is going to go into this article. I concur that there should not be a list of Ahmads on a page about the name itself. This is to say, that if we do want this list, the article should be split into either Ahmad and List of people named Ahmad OR Ahmad (name) and Ahmad (disambiguation). In either case, the list that is currently in this page is poorly organised and spotty and my next move will be either rewriting it or removing it from this article.

I think if a list were at Ahmad (dab) it would comprise much less information than, for example, what is currently available. I would rather see a list like what the current one attempts to be and in its own page at List of.... I don't know whether this would be considered redundant as the page is already listed as a set index article. Whether to add (name) or something similar to the specifically anthroponymous article, and moreover whether a dab is in order regardless, are further questions. Greg Ravn (talk) 23:21, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

What needs to be addressed is the lack of citations and proper dialogue on the article page regarding the name Ahmad and what it really means. I'd like to add "citation needed" to the etymology part and to get a response if it is challenged instead of simply being deleted in the case someone doesn't like it or doesn't agree. We are searching for truth not fictions nor forwarding opinions over facts.--HafizHanif (talk) 21:08, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

As suggested, I've now made the list of names at Ahmad (given name).--Shakehandsman (talk) 05:02, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

POV

Hello Monochrome Monitor, please provide further 'point of view' reference to expand the idea of "Ahmad." I think deleting what has been added in the effort to expand the subject ( Ahmad ) is defeating the purpose of Wikipedia and preventing further learning or discussion. I added the references to Jesus when speaking of someone who will come after him ( the premise of Ahmad in the Quranic passage ) because of the literal evidence in what you deleted.HafizHanif (talk) 21:46, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

Why list of people named Ahmad?

Why does a list of people named Ahmad (or one of the variants) exist for this article? Do we see a similar list of people listed for other names, either common or uncommon? I propose deleting the list unless others have issue and/or can grant a decent reason in keeping it, and by its existence, will continue to encourage others to add to it. --HafizHanif (talk) 17:04, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

Asking for consensus to delete the list of names per above reasons and rationale. A month has passed and no one has opined regarding this suggestion. -- HafizHanif (talk) 03:01, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

I'm not a great fan of such lists, but there certainly are expected as part of such articles – that's mainly for disambiguation purposes (see MOS:APO). – Uanfala (talk) 23:23, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

Concerned about User:HafizHanif's edits

HafizHanif has a history (seen here: [1] of making what seems to be pro-Christian edits, where he censors and removes sourced content such as the fact that Ibn Arabi was a Sunni Muslim and misrepresents Ibn Arabi's ideals of the concept of The Perfect Man so that he exaggerates the role of Jesus (AS) in his doctrine, when in reality, Ibn Arabi made it clear that all Perfect Men (Jesus (AS) being one of many; others include Adam (AS), Noah (AS), Moses (AS), himself (Ibn Arabi), etc.) are subservient to the highest ranked Perfect Man which is Muhammad (SAW) and they all inherit their level of perfection through him as stated in the following reference..

Over here [2], HafizHanif, refers to the book Sufis and Saints' Bodies: Mysticism, Corporeality, and Sacred Power in Islam which was published by the University of North Carolina Press, as a "self-published" source.

In the same edit he refers to the book Striving for Divine Union: Spiritual Exercises for Suhraward Sufis which was published by Routledge, as a "self-published" source.

In the same edit he changes the page referenced for Muhammad in History, Thought, and Culture: An Encyclopedia of the Prophet of God from 507 to 312, when 507 is the correct reference for this topic.

The user changed the article to refer to William Montgomery Watt as an "Islamic scholar," instead of the more appropriate title of "Orientalist" (which is also stated with references in his own article).

The edits of this user concerns me as he censors reputable academic sources under the assertion of "reverting religious bias," when in reality the bias seems to be expressed by him. Nuralakbar (talk) 04:28, 13 July 2018 (UTC)

My initial response summarized but not placed in proper place... where I do so now:

Nuralakbar, I made a mistake in conflating the Ibn Arabi edits with the edits made in this article. I am sorry for this confusion. I hope we can clarify and discuss and eventually resolve what the sources say regarding both Ahmad and Ibn Arabi, and leave our opinions behind.

It is this article you used a self-published work (Expertini Limited) and a religiously biased work (Islamqa.net) as citations, but these do not qualify.

It is this article you aimed to legitimize claims by using copious amounts of citations (some unqualified as I described, some good and viable). It was the use of many that are unnecessary, and the reason I deleted some of them. It wasn't an attempt to censure as you accused.

You did a better edit when writing "Traditional Islamic sources view the name Ahmad as another given name of Muhammad at birth by his mother", instead of the previous "Ahmad is another given name of Muhammad at birth by his mother", which is unfounded. I think it should read "some traditional Islamic sources..." due to the fact that Ahmad as a name attributed to Muhammad at his birth is unfounded. The objective scholarship shows this idea as a development of legend over the subsequent generations after Muhammad died and majority of the Hadiths were shared from one generation to another (prior to them being written down). According to etymology and current historical evident from Islamic sources, the personal name Ahmad did not exist until a century after Muhammad died. Ahmad, as a verb or attribute, did exist during and before Muhammad, but not as a personal name. I hope you understand this and why I am explaining this. There is a major difference. This is what the academic findings reflect. -- HafizHanif (talk) 21:09, 13 July 2018 (UTC)

It's been 15+ months since your contentious opinions were added here, and surprisingly no one has supported your contentions. Notice you never responded to my good faith effort to engage you in productive dialogue and work to bring this article under wiki standards. -- HafizHanif (talk) 06:03, 25 October 2019 (UTC)

References

Removal of Encyclopedia of Islam content

This content was removed with the ES of Controversial claim from a controversial source, inadequate referencing of an entire encyclopaedia, no further explanations provided about the source or the evidence of the claim. That content has been there since at least 2018. Why are those sources "inadequate"?

According to the New Encyclopedia of Islam, and the older Encyclopaedia of Islam, the word Ahmad has no etymological attachment to the word Muhammad, but instead has been defined and understood according to its form and likeness to the word Muhammad.

@Mbaban: Please respond. Thank you Adakiko (talk) 23:26, 25 December 2022 (UTC)

• If it is in the wrong place per my talk page, then move it to the correct place. Adakiko (talk) 23:29, 25 December 2022 (UTC)

  Dear user,

  Please be observant, my main reason is “ inadequate referencing” rather than “inadequate source”.

  Reasons why this part of this article should be removed asap for scholarship integrity:

  1. Misrepresentation of the cited source, in source number 13 which is the newer edition of the encyclopaedia, the following is published: “ As a proper name it is, however, distinct from the other, etymologically connected forms, including the name Muḥammad.” the cited source itself is confirming etymological connection while the written paragraph claims “no etymological attachment” which is very different from what the source published.
  2. if there was an actual debate about the etymology from other sources, it should be under the etymology section
  3. source number 12 is supposed to be the older version of the encyclopaedia in source 13, however, no direct information is referenced aside from a page number.

  This was highlighted as a red flag to me as an Arabic language scholar and my academic knowledge that they share the same root of HMD (praise), not that it is relevant, nor am I including it as a part of my argument. Mbaban (talk) 23:49, 25 December 2022 (UTC)

@Mbaban: I tend to agree. I couldn't make sense of the references. I restored it to your last edit. Cheers Adakiko (talk) 01:03, 26 December 2022 (UTC)

References

Ahmad is the most special name

The best name ever heard 102.89.33.76 (talk) 09:58, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

Ahmad

A h m a d 62.201.255.156 (talk) 14:46, 22 December 2023 (UTC)