Community hub
0 subscribers8 pages, 0 posts
Recent from talks
All channels
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Contribute something
Welcome to the community hub built to collect knowledge and have discussions related to Mohammedan.
Nothing was collected or created yet.
Mohammedan
View on Wikipediafrom Wikipedia
| ||
|---|---|---|
|
Career Views and Perspectives
|
||
Mohammedan (also spelled Muhammadan, Mahommedan, Mahomedan or Mahometan) is a term used to denote a follower of Muhammad, the Islamic prophet.[1] It is used as both a noun and an adjective, meaning belonging or relating to, either Muhammad or the religion, doctrines, institutions and practices that he established.[2][3] The word was formerly common in usage, but the terms Muslim and Islamic are more common today. Though sometimes used stylistically by some Muslims, a vast majority consider the term archaic or a misnomer, as it suggests that Muslims worship Muhammad himself and not the Islamic God.
Etymology
[edit]
The Oxford English Dictionary cites 1663 as the first recorded usage of the English term; the older spelling Mahometan dates back to at least 1529. The English word is derived from Neo-Latin Mahometanus, from Medieval Latin Mahometus, Muhammad. It meant simply a follower of Mohammad.[5]
In Western Europe, down to the 13th century or so, some Christians had the belief that Muhammad had either been a heretical Christian or that he was a god worshipped by Muslims.[6] Some works of Medieval European literature referred to Muslims as "pagans" or by sobriquets such as the "paynim foe" (enemy). Depictions, such as those in the Song of Roland, show Muslims praying to a variety of "idols", including Apollyon, Lucifer, Termagant,[7] and Mahound. During the Trials of the Knights Templar (1300–1310s), reference was often made to their worship of the demon Baphomet; this is similar to "Mahomet", the Latin transliteration of Muhammad's name, and Latin was, for another 500 years, the language of scholarship and erudition for most of Europe.[6]
These and other variations on the theme were all set in the "temper of the times" of the Muslim–Christian conflict, as Medieval Europe was becoming aware of its great enemy in the wake of the rapid success of the Muslims through a series of conquests shortly after the fall of the Western Roman Empire, as well as the lack of real information in the West of the mysterious East.[8]
Obsolescence
[edit]The term has been largely superseded by Muslim (formerly transliterated as Moslem) or Islamic. Mohammedan was commonly used in European literature until at least the mid-1960s.[9] Muslim is more commonly used today, and the term Mohammedan is widely considered archaic or in some cases even offensive.[10]
The term remains in limited use. The Government Muhammadan Anglo Oriental College in Lahore, Pakistan, retains its original name, while the similarly named "Muhammadan Anglo-Oriental College" in Aligarh, India, was renamed and succeeded by the Aligarh Muslim University in 1920, and "Mohammedan Literary Society" in Calcutta, India, was renamed and succeeded by the Muslim Institute of Calcutta in 1930. There are also a number of sporting clubs in Bangladesh and India which include the word, such as Mohammedan Sporting Club (Dhaka), Mohammedan Sporting Club (Chittagong), Mohammedan Sporting Club (Jhenaidah) and Mohammedan S.C. (Kolkata).
Muslim objections
[edit]Some modern Muslims have objected to the term,[11] saying it was not used by Muhammad himself or his early followers, and that the religion teaches the worship of God alone (see shirk and tawhid) and not Muhammad or any other of God's prophets. Thus modern Muslims believe "Mohammedan" is a misnomer, "which seem[s] to them to carry the implication of worship of Mohammed, as Christian and Christianity imply the worship of Christ."[12] Also, the term al-Muḥammadīya (the Arabic equivalent of Mohammedan) has been used in Islam to denote several sects considered heretical.[13][14]
See also
[edit]
Look up Mohammedan in Wiktionary, the free dictionary.
References
[edit]- ^ John Bowker. "Muhammadans". The Concise Oxford Dictionary of World Religions. 1997. p. 389.
- ^ -Ologies & -Isms. Copyright 2008 The Gale Group, Inc.
- ^ Webster's Revised Unabridged Dictionary, edited by Noah Porter, published by G & C. Merriam Co., 1913
- ^ "Error's chains: how forged and broken. A complete, graphic, and comparative history of the many strange beliefs, superstitious practices, domestic peculiarities, sacred writings, systems of philosophy, legends and traditions, customs and habits of mankind throughout the world, ancient and modern". archive.org. 1883.
- ^ A concise etymological dictionary of the English language, By Walter William Skeat
- ^ a b Kenneth Meyer Setton (1 July 1992). "Western Hostility to Islam and Prophecies of Turkish Doom". DIANE Publishing. ISBN 0-87169-201-5. pg 4–15 – "Some Europeans believed that Moslems worshipped Mohammed as a god,[...]" (4)
- ^ Brewer's Dictionary of Phrase and Fable, "Termagant
- ^ Watt, Montgomery,Muhammad: Prophet and Statesman. Oxford University Press, 1961. from pg. 229
- ^ See for instance the second edition of A Dictionary of Modern English Usage by HW Fowler, revised by Ernest Gowers (Oxford, 1965)
- ^ The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition (2000) annotates the term as "offensive". The OED has "its use is now widely seen as depreciatory or offensive", referring to English Today no. 39 (1992): "The term Mohammedan [...] is considered offensive or pejorative to most Muslims since it makes human beings central in their religion, a position which only Allah may occupy". Other dictionaries, such as Merriam-Webster, do not label the term as offensive.
- ^ see e.g. Mohammedanism a Misnomer[dead link], by R. Bosworth Smith, Paul Tice; Definition of Mohammedanism, Archived 7 June 2011 at the Wayback Machine Farlex Encyclopedia; What does Islam mean?, Islamic Bulletin
- ^ Gibb, Sir Hamilton (1969). Mohammedanism: an historical survey. Oxford University Press. p. 1.
Modern Muslims dislike the terms Mohammedan and Mohammedanism, which seem to them to carry the implication of worship of Mohammed, as Christian and Christianity imply the worship of Christ.
- ^ JOHN BOWKER. "Muhammadans." The Concise Oxford Dictionary of World Religions. 1997. Retrieved 8 June 2012
- ^ Strothmann, Rudolf (1934). "al-Muḥammadīya". In Houtsma, M. Th.; Wensinck, A. J.; Levi-Provençal, E. (eds.). Encyclopaedia of Islam. Vol. 3 (1st ed.). Leiden: Brill. doi:10.1163/2214-871X_ei1_SIM_4812. ISSN 2214-871X.
Mohammedan
View on Grokipediafrom Grokipedia
Definition and Scope
Core Meaning and Denotation
The term "Mohammedan" denotes, as a noun, an adherent of the religion founded by Muhammad ibn Abdullah (c. 570–632 CE), the Arab prophet regarded in Islamic doctrine as the final messenger of God.[7][3] This usage parallels the structure of terms like "Christian," indicating a follower of the eponymous figure, though in Islamic theology, Muhammad is not worshiped as divine but revered as a human exemplar and conveyor of revelation.[1] As an adjective, "Mohammedan" describes that which pertains to Muhammad, his life, his prophetic mission, or the faith and practices derived from his teachings as recorded in the Quran and Hadith.[7][2] In its strict denotation, the term emphasizes the central role of Muhammad in originating and exemplifying the religion, without implying deification; it was coined in European languages to categorize the monotheistic creed that mandates submission to the one God (Allah) through Muhammad's example, encompassing rituals such as the five daily prayers, fasting during Ramadan, and pilgrimage to Mecca.[1][3] The word's formation from "Muhammad" plus the suffix "-an" reflects a Western linguistic adaptation for denoting religious affiliation, distinct from the Arabic self-designation "Muslim," which literally means "one who submits" to divine will rather than direct allegiance to the prophet.[1] This denotation has remained consistent in historical English lexicography since its earliest recorded use in 1663, predating widespread modern sensitivities about its implications.[2] While empirically denoting the same population as "Muslim"—approximately 1.9 billion people worldwide as of 2023, per demographic surveys—it carries no inherent doctrinal endorsement or critique, serving as a neutral descriptor of affiliation in pre-20th-century scholarship.[3]Adjectival and Nominal Applications
The term "Mohammedan" serves adjectivally to modify nouns denoting aspects of the religion, practices, or cultural elements associated with Muhammad's teachings and followers. Common constructions include "Mohammedan law," which historically referred to Islamic jurisprudence in colonial legal systems, as in the Sudan Mohammedan Law Courts Ordinance of 1902 that empowered courts to adjudicate disputes among Muslim litigants under Sharia principles. Other examples encompass "Mohammedan architecture," describing structural styles adhering to Islamic prohibitions on figural representation, and "Mohammedan calendar," denoting the lunar Hijri system reckoning from Muhammad's migration to Medina in 622 CE.[7] [3] This eponymous usage parallels adjectival forms like "Christian" or "Buddhist," deriving centrality from the founding prophet rather than the deity.[8] Nominally, "Mohammedan" functions as a substantive to identify a person submitting to Muhammad's prophetic authority, equivalent to a Muslim in historical European texts. For instance, Edward Thomas's 1849 analysis of "The Pehlví Coins of the early Mohammedan Arabs" employs it to designate post-Islamic conquest rulers in Persia who adapted Sassanid coinage with Arabic inscriptions. Similarly, 19th-century British administrative records used "Mohammedan" for census categories of Islamic adherents in India, distinguishing them from Hindus by allegiance to Muhammad's sunnah.[1] Dictionaries from the era, such as those reflecting English scholarship, define the noun as "a follower of Muhammad," underscoring its direct denotation without implying deification, contrary to later objections from Islamic apologists who interpret it as idolatrous.[3] [7] This nominal application persisted in diplomatic and exploratory accounts, like those chronicling "Mohammedan" tribes in North Africa during the 18th-century Barbary Wars.[8]Etymology and Linguistic Origins
Derivation from Muhammad
The name Muhammad (Arabic: مُحَمَّد, Muḥammad), borne by the founder of Islam (c. 570–632 CE), originates from the Semitic triliteral root ḥ-m-d (ح-م-د), denoting praise or commendation, yielding the meaning "praiseworthy" or "worthy of praise" as a passive participle form.[9] In early European languages, this Arabic proper name was transliterated variably as Mahomet, Mohamet, or Mohammed, reflecting phonetic adaptations from Medieval Latin Mahometus, itself derived directly from the Arabic via encounters during the Crusades and subsequent scholarly transmissions.[1][4] The adjective and noun Mohammedan (or Mahometan) emerged in English by the early 16th century, with Mahometan attested around 1529 and Mohammedan by 1681, formed by appending the suffix -an to the stem Mohammed-, a common English derivational process to indicate pertinence, affiliation, or adherence (analogous to Christian from Christ).[1][10] This construction linguistically posits followers as those "of" or "pertaining to" Muhammad, mirroring adjectival formations in Romance languages from Neo-Latin Mahometanus.[6] As a noun, it denoted an individual adherent, extending to collective reference for the religious community, though rooted in a European interpretive framework rather than Arabic self-designations like muslim ("one who submits").[1][11] This derivation underscores a categorical analogy in Western nomenclature, treating the prophetic figure as the eponymous center of the faith, akin to how Lutheran derives from Martin Luther (1483–1546).[11] However, the suffix -an here functions not as a direct calque of Arabic morphology—where affiliation might use muḥammadī in Persianate contexts—but as an anglicized adaptation emphasizing relational derivation from the personal name alone, without incorporating Islamic theological nuances of submission to God (Allāh).[12] Early usages appear in post-medieval texts, such as chronicles of Ottoman interactions, where the term encapsulated both doctrinal and ethnographic descriptions tied to the prophet's historical role in unifying Arabian tribes under monotheism by 632 CE.[4]Historical Variants and Adaptations
The term "Mahometan" represents the earliest attested variant in English, appearing in 1529 in the writings of Thomas More, derived as a borrowing from post-classical Latin Mahometanus.[13] This form stemmed from the medieval European adaptation "Mahomet," a rendering of the Arabic prophet's name Muhammad via Old French Mahomet, often carrying connotations of a false idol in Christian polemics.[14] By the mid-17th century, "Mohammedan" supplanted it as a preferred spelling, with the Oxford English Dictionary recording its initial use in 1663 in correspondence by John Beale, reflecting a closer approximation to the Arabic Muḥammad.[2] Subsequent English variants proliferated due to inconsistencies in transliterating Arabic script into Latin alphabet, including Mahomedan, Mahommedan, Muhammadan, and Mohummadan, each attempting to capture phonetic nuances amid limited standardization in early modern printing and scholarship.[15] These adaptations mirrored broader European efforts to phonetically align the term with evolving linguistic knowledge, as access to Arabic texts increased through trade and Orientalist studies; for instance, Merriam-Webster notes "Muhammadan" as a less common but persistent alternative denoting relation to Muhammad or Islam.[7] In continental European languages, parallel adaptations emerged: French employed "mahometan," formed by appending the suffix "-an" to "Mahomet," aligning with Romance phonetic conventions, while Italian used "maomettano" in historical contexts to denote followers of the prophet.[16] These variants generally retained the adjectival structure implying adherence to Muhammad's teachings, though they varied in prevalence based on national scholarly traditions and exposure to Islamic sources.[1]Historical Usage
Introduction in European Scholarship and Literature
The term "Mohammedan," denoting adherents of Islam, entered European scholarship through medieval Latin equivalents like "Mahometanus," derived from "Mahometus" (a rendering of Muhammad), used in theological and polemical texts contrasting Christianity with Islam. This formulation appeared in works addressing Islamic expansion during the Crusades and Reconquista, where scholars and chroniclers categorized Muslims as followers centered on Muhammad, often analogizing the faith to a cult of personality akin to Christianity's focus on Christ. Such usage reflected limited direct access to Islamic sources, relying instead on translations and secondhand accounts that emphasized Muhammad's prophetic role.[6][17] In English literature, the variant "Mahometan" marked the term's introduction, with the earliest attested use in 1529 by Sir Thomas More in his polemical writings defending Catholic doctrine against Protestantism and perceived threats from Islam, amid Ottoman incursions into Europe. More's application aligned with Renaissance humanist efforts to engage critically with non-Christian religions, incorporating classical and biblical frameworks to analyze Islamic tenets. This period saw growing scholarly interest in Arabic texts via intermediaries like Spanish translators, though interpretations remained filtered through Christian apologetics.[13] By the early 17th century, the term permeated travel literature and theological treatises, as in George Sandys's 1621 Relation of a Journey, which explicitly references "Mahomet and the Mahometan Religion" in describing encounters in the Levant. Such works bridged scholarship and popular literature, standardizing "Mahometan" (and emerging "Mohammedan") for audiences grappling with Islam's geopolitical presence, including corsair raids and alliances. The terminology's adoption underscored a Eurocentric lens, prioritizing etymological parallels over indigenous self-designations like "Muslim," which were known but less emphasized in early discourse.[18][19]Widespread Adoption in the 18th and 19th Centuries
In the 18th century, variants of "Mohammedan" gained prominence in European intellectual discourse as scholars engaged with Islamic history and comparative religion amid expanding translations of Arabic texts and accounts of Ottoman and Mughal empires. Montesquieu's The Spirit of the Laws (1748) contrasted the "Mohammedan religion" with Christianity, attributing to it a propensity for fostering despotic rule through doctrines of fatalism and submission, influencing governance in Asia and North Africa.[20] Voltaire employed "Mohammedans" in his Philosophical Dictionary (1764) to denote followers of Muhammad, often in critiques of fanaticism and superstition, drawing on reports from European travelers and diplomats.[21] Edward Gibbon's The History of the Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire (volumes published 1776–1789) routinely used "Mahometan" to describe the faith's role in the 7th- and 8th-century conquests, portraying it as a militaristic creed that supplanted Byzantine and Persian dominions through rapid expansion from Arabia.[22] This terminological shift paralleled broader Enlightenment efforts to classify world religions systematically, supplanting earlier medieval labels like "Saracen" or "Infidel," as evidenced by its appearance in treatises on Oriental studies and missionary reports estimating global adherents—such as Gibbon's references to over 100 million "Mahometans" by the 8th century.[23] By mid-century, the adjective "Mohammedan" extended to describe architectural styles, legal systems, and customs, as in analyses of Mughal administration, reflecting empirical observations from East India Company records rather than theological polemic alone. The 19th century marked peak institutional adoption, particularly in British imperial contexts where the term facilitated administrative categorization of subjects under crown rule. In India, "Anglo-Muhammadan law" emerged from Warren Hastings' 1772 judicial plan, which commissioned translations of Islamic fiqh texts like the Hedaya to apply sharia in personal matters for an estimated 60 million Muslim inhabitants, blending it with English procedures and persisting through codifications until 1937.[24][25] British decennial censuses, commencing in 1871–1872 under Henry Waterfield, enumerated Muslims as "Mohammedans," recording 46.8 million in 1872 (about 20% of British India's population) and rising to 68.6 million by 1901, standardizing the label in demographic policy and resource allocation.[26] Diplomatically, the term appeared in treaties and gazetteers; for instance, the 1839 Treaty of London referenced "Mohammedan" populations in Ottoman territories, while orientalist works like William Muir's The Life of Mahomet (1858–1861) analyzed the faith's origins using archival sources from Baghdad and Delhi.[27] This widespread usage—spanning scholarship, law, and bureaucracy—totaled thousands of references in printed materials, as digitized 19th-century corpora confirm, underscoring its neutrality as a descriptor akin to "Christian" before sensitivities prompted later substitutions.[28]Employment in Colonial Administration and Diplomacy
In British India, the term "Mohammedan" was routinely employed in colonial administrative frameworks to designate Muslims and their legal traditions, particularly following Warren Hastings' judicial plan of 1772, which mandated the application of "Mohammedan law" to personal matters such as inheritance, marriage, and property for the Muslim population.[29] This policy, formalized through translations like Francis Gladwin's Epitome of Mohammedan Law published in 1786, integrated select Islamic jurisprudential texts into a hybrid system known as Anglo-Mohammedan law, administered by British courts with input from indigenous scholars.[30] By the 19th century, this terminology permeated official enactments, census reports, and bureaucratic classifications; for instance, the 1881 Census of India explicitly categorized adherents as "Mohammedan," enumerating approximately 62 million under this label out of a total population exceeding 253 million.[31] Administrative usage extended beyond India to other British possessions with significant Muslim populations, such as the Straits Settlements, where the Mohammedan Marriage Ordinance of 1880 codified registration procedures under "Mohammedan law" to regulate personal status issues while aligning with colonial oversight.[32] In these contexts, the term facilitated pragmatic governance by distinguishing religious communities for policy implementation, including land revenue assessments and judicial appointments, without implying theological endorsement or critique—though later postcolonial analyses have highlighted how such categorization reinforced communal divisions for divide-and-rule strategies.[33] In diplomacy, British officials invoked "Mohammedan" to assert imperial legitimacy over Muslim subjects and allies, particularly after the 1857 Indian Mutiny, when Britain repositioned itself as the world's preeminent "Mohammedan power" to cultivate loyalty among Indian Muslims and counter Ottoman or Russian influence in the Islamic world.[34] This rhetoric appeared in correspondence and negotiations, such as efforts to align with the Ottoman Caliphate by portraying British rule as protective of "Mohammedan" interests, exemplified in 19th-century dispatches emphasizing Britain's stewardship of over 60 million Muslims by the 1870s.[28] Such diplomatic framing, while instrumental for stabilizing alliances in regions like the Persian Gulf and North Africa, often prioritized geopolitical utility over precise religious nomenclature, contributing to the term's persistence in treaty language until the early 20th century.[35]Decline and Replacement
Post-Colonial Shifts Toward 'Muslim'
In the aftermath of World War II and the ensuing decolonization of Muslim-majority territories, administrative, educational, and scholarly nomenclature in regions like South Asia, North Africa, and the Middle East transitioned from colonial-era terms such as "Mohammedan" to "Muslim," reflecting assertions of cultural and religious autonomy. This change accelerated in the 1940s and 1950s, coinciding with independence movements; for instance, the 1947 establishment of Pakistan as an "Islamic Republic" emphasized "Muslim" in constitutional and official rhetoric to underscore monotheistic submission to Allah rather than prophetic veneration implied by "Mohammedan."[36] Similar patterns emerged in Indonesia's 1945 declaration and Algeria's post-1962 independence, where state institutions prioritized Arabic-derived terminology to reject European impositions.[12] The theological rationale for this preference, articulated by Muslim intellectuals and leaders, centered on the term "Mohammedan" evoking a Christian-analogous prophet-worship, contrary to Islam's tawhid (divine unity), prompting its avoidance in self-referential discourse. Post-colonial governments, influenced by figures like Muhammad Iqbal in pre-partition India and later pan-Islamic advocates, integrated "Muslim" into legal frameworks and curricula; by 1956, Egypt's constitution under Nasser referred exclusively to "Muslims" in defining citizenship and religious identity.[11] This domestic reclamation extended to international arenas, as emerging bodies like the 1949 World Muslim Congress advocated for precise etymology to counter perceived orientalist distortions.[36] Western scholarship and media, initially slower to adapt, followed suit amid evolving academic paradigms that favored emic (insider) terminology over etic (outsider) labels, with H.A.R. Gibb noting in 1949 that "modern Muslims dislike the terms Mohammedan and Mohammedanism" for implying idolatry.[36] By the mid-1950s, peer-reviewed journals and encyclopedias in religious studies predominantly substituted "Muslim," a trend solidified by the 1960s as global migration and diplomatic engagements amplified Muslim voices; for example, the Encyclopaedia of Islam's second edition (1954 onward) systematically employed "Muslim" in entries on demographics and history.[11] This convergence marked a broader post-colonial linguistic decolonization, though residual usage lingered in conservative or archival contexts until the late 20th century.[12]Institutional and Media Influences on Obsolescence
In the mid-20th century, academic institutions increasingly adopted terminology aligned with emic perspectives in religious studies, favoring "Muslim" as the self-designated term over "Mohammedan," which had been standard in Orientalist scholarship. This shift reflected broader methodological changes emphasizing insider viewpoints to avoid imposing external categorizations, particularly as area studies programs expanded post-World War II amid decolonization and rising Western engagement with non-European societies. The Modern Humanities Research Association's style guide, for instance, explicitly prescribes "Muslim" and rejects variants like "Mohammedan" or "Muhammadan," influencing scholarly publishing across humanities disciplines.[37] Governmental bodies followed suit, institutionalizing the preference through official language policies to foster diplomatic and multicultural relations. The European Commission's English Style Guide, updated periodically since at least 2010, directs that "Islam is the faith, Muslim (not Muhammedan, Mohammedan) a member of that faith," applying this standard in EU communications and influencing bureaucratic discourse across member states.[38] Such guidelines emerged amid growing Muslim populations in Europe and efforts to accommodate minority sensitivities, often prioritizing harmony over historical linguistic precedents, despite critiques that this reflects asymmetrical deference in terminology debates. Media outlets paralleled these trends, phasing out "Mohammedan" in favor of "Muslim" by the late 20th century, driven by editorial standards sensitive to audience composition and accusations of cultural insensitivity. Corpus analyses of press representations indicate a diachronic transition where "Mohammedan" associations declined sharply post-1950s, supplanted by "Muslim" in neutral and positive contexts, aligning with multiculturalism's emphasis on self-identification.[39] This evolution, while reducing outdated phrasing, has been attributed in part to institutional biases in journalism and academia toward accommodating progressive norms, sometimes at the expense of etymological precision or resistance to external terminological impositions.[36]Controversies and Perspectives
Grounds for Muslim Objections
Muslims primarily object to the term "Mohammedan" on theological grounds, as it implies deification or worship of Muhammad, paralleling the Christian veneration of Christ, which violates the core Islamic principle of tawhid—the absolute oneness and uniqueness of God (Allah), with no partners or equals.[6][40] In Islamic doctrine, Muhammad is regarded strictly as a human prophet and messenger who conveyed revelation, not a divine entity; attributing worship to him would constitute shirk, the gravest sin of associating anything with God.[6] This perception arises despite the term's etymological roots in Latin Mahometanus, denoting a follower of Muhammad rather than a worshiper, as the connotation in English evokes religious devotion centered on the prophet rather than God.[11] The objection is reinforced by the Quranic self-identification of believers as "Muslims," a term explicitly used in verses such as 22:78, signifying those who submit to God's will alone, emphasizing monotheistic submission over allegiance to any human figure.[40] Islamic scholars, including apologists responding to Western terminology, argue that "Mohammedan" miscenters human agency in the faith, potentially leading non-Muslims to infer prophetolatry, which contradicts scriptural prohibitions against elevating Muhammad beyond his prophetic role (e.g., Quran 3:144, affirming his mortality).[41][6] While some Muslims historically tolerated the term as a neutral descriptor of following Muhammad's example (sunnah), widespread rejection solidified in the 20th century amid efforts to reclaim authentic nomenclature and counter orientalist framings that equated Islam with a "founder cult."[41] This stance prioritizes terminological precision to safeguard doctrinal purity, viewing "Muslim" as divinely ordained and less prone to misinterpretation.[40]Linguistic and Analogical Defenses of Neutrality
The suffix "-an" in "Mohammedan" functions linguistically as a relational adjective, indicating pertinence or adherence to the eponymous figure Muhammad, akin to "-ian" in "Christian" (from Christ, denoting followers of his teachings) or "-ist" in "Buddhist" (from Buddha, signifying adherents to his doctrine).[1] [42] This morphological pattern, rooted in Latin and Greek derivations via New Latin Mahometanus, conveys affiliation without prescriptive theological connotation, much as "Lutheran" denotes alignment with Martin Luther's reforms absent implication of divinity.[43] Early attestations, such as in 1732 European travelogues, employed the term descriptively for the faith's prophetic centrality, paralleling how "Mosaic" references Judaism's lawgiver without alleging worship.[43] Analogically, the neutrality of "Mohammedan" mirrors that of "Christianity," where the nomenclature highlights the founder's revelatory role—Jesus as messiah and exemplar—yet accommodates doctrines emphasizing monotheism over personal deification, as in unitarian variants.[4] Similarly, "Buddhism" evokes Siddhartha Gautama's enlightenment without endorsing theistic veneration, despite devotional practices in some sects; this avoids conflating nominal derivation with doctrinal error.[44] Critics of replacement argue that substituting "Muslim" (from Arabic muslim, "one who submits") shifts focus from Muhammad's sunnah and hadith, which comprise over 80% of practical Islamic jurisprudence per traditional counts (e.g., six canonical hadith collections), to a generic submission motif less distinctive in comparative theology.[4] Such analogies underscore terminological equity, resisting retroactive self-censorship that privileges endonyms over exonymic precision in historical linguistics. Proponents of retention, including 19th-century Orientalists, contended that "Mohammedanism" preserved analytical clarity for the prophet's legislative and military precedents, which differentiate it from purely theistic faiths, without endorsing Muslim objections to implied idolatry—objections absent for parallel terms like "Confucian," where the sage's ethical corpus dominates sans divine claims.[5] This view posits that linguistic evolution should favor etymological fidelity over sensitivity, as evidenced by sustained use in Catholic encyclopedias until the mid-20th century, reflecting doctrinal independence from contemporary nomenclature pressures.[4]Broader Implications for Terminology in Religious Discourse
The decline of "Mohammedan" in favor of "Muslim" highlights a recurring tension in religious discourse between etymological precision and adherence-preferred nomenclature, where terms reflecting a faith's foundational prophet—analogous to "Mosaic" for Judaism or "Christian" for Christocentric belief—yield to those emphasizing theological self-concepts like submission to God. This shift, evident in Western scholarship from the mid-20th century onward, risks diluting comparative analysis by obscuring Muhammad's indelible causal role in defining Islamic doctrine, as the Quran's revelation and the Sunnah's legal corpus derive exclusively from his mediation, shaping over 1,400 years of jurisprudence in schools like Hanafi and Maliki, which integrate hadith authentication tied to his biography.[36][45] Critics of the term's obsolescence contend that objections stem not from inherent inaccuracy but from a strategic aversion to descriptors implying prophetic elevation, even as Islamic texts mandate emulating Muhammad's conduct in daily affairs, from prayer rituals to governance models evidenced in historical caliphates applying his precedents. This preference for "Muslim," meaning "one who submits," prioritizes monotheistic purity over descriptive fidelity, potentially fostering an ahistorical lens in discourse that underplays how Muhammad's sunnah functions as a co-equal authority to scripture, influencing rulings on issues like apostasy penalties derived from his reported actions in Medina circa 622–632 CE. Such terminology evolution, accelerated by post-colonial sensitivities, exemplifies how source-driven narratives in academia—often influenced by institutional pressures for inclusivity—may compromise causal realism in favor of nominal harmony.[46] In broader religious studies, this precedent raises concerns for terminological integrity, as yielding to offense-based rejections could extend to other faiths, muting discussions of doctrinal founders' impacts; for instance, paralleling resistance to "Papist" for Catholicism despite its papal mediation, or "Confucian" variants emphasizing sage veneration. Empirical patterns in peer-reviewed Orientalist works up to the 1930s retained "Mohammedan" for its utility in delineating prophet-centric systems, but post-1945 shifts correlate with multicultural paradigms that, while promoting dialogue, inadvertently enable selective framing, where biased sources amplify perceived slights to enforce conformity over empirical scrutiny of beliefs. Sustaining neutral, historically grounded terms thus supports undiluted analysis, countering tendencies where media and academic consensus—documented in critiques of mid-20th-century terminological reforms—privileges subjective validation.[47][36]References
- https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Mahometanus