The Prophet


By Advis3r
December 14, 2011
Share

Jihadwatch Website

We have noted here many times how non-Muslim mainstream media news stories refer to the prophet of Islam as "the prophet Muhammad," as if it were universally accepted that he was in fact a prophet. A Jihad Watch reader recently wrote to the UK's "conservative" Telegraph to ask them why they continued this usage to an audience made up largely of non-Muslims, and this is what he received in response:

13 December 2011
Dear Mr xxxxxx,

My apologies for the delay in responding to you.

Please see below a link to our Style Guide and our explanation on the use of Mohammed.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/topics/about-us/style-book/1435319/Telegraph-...

Mohammed is the Prophet, and use in all other contexts unless a variant is established in a personal name.

I hope this how be of some use to you.

Yours sincerely,

Andy King
Editorial Information Executive

Apparently the Telegraph has indeed decided that we're all Muslims now. "Andy" King better adopt an Arabic name forthwith.

COMMENTS

Mary in Brighton

Thu, 12/15/2011 - 09:34

Rate this:

0 points

I can't believe The Telegraph responded at all to such a ludicrous communication or that there is someone in the world with nothing better to do with their time but tell us about it.


happygoldfish

Fri, 12/16/2011 - 11:11

Rate this:

0 points

Advis3r: We have noted here many times how non-Muslim mainstream media news stories refer to the prophet of Islam as "the prophet Muhammad," as if it were universally accepted that he was in fact a prophet.

hmm … and do you object to the use of the word "saint" when referring to certain christians?

what's the difference??

(perhaps Advis3r is also shocked by use of the word "rabbi" when referring to, eg, the late hugo gryn?)


suzanna

Fri, 12/16/2011 - 11:26

Rate this:

0 points

Advis£r is one of those Judeofascists who hates all Muslims and mention of the word Muslim.


happygoldfish

Fri, 12/16/2011 - 13:11

Rate this:

0 points

suzanna: Advis£r is …

suzanna, (i'm not repeating it in full) that is CLEARLY libellous


Chris Tucker (not verified)

Fri, 12/16/2011 - 17:55

Rate this:

0 points

It is true is a good defence.


happygoldfish

Mon, 12/19/2011 - 13:04

Rate this:

0 points

(why have you started another blog, instead of continuing this one? …)

Advis3r: About Goldfish's comment about Hugo Gryn, as an orthodox Jew of course I do not recognise him as a "Rabbi" I do not recognise Julia Neuberger as a Rabbi either but why should that have anything to do with the subject in hand. Although I did not recognise Hugo Gryn as a Rabbi because he denied the truth of the Torah as handed down to Moses at Sinai I had deep respect him for the man he was and for what he did for the Jewish people.

yes, but would you object to the telegraph calling him "rabbi"?

and, i repeat (since you haven't answered even in the other blog) …

do you object to the use of the word "saint" when referring to certain christians?

what's the difference??


Advis3r

Mon, 12/19/2011 - 13:51

Rate this:

0 points

I don't object to anyone calling him a rabbi did I say I did? I personally would not call him a "Rabbi" because I believe that epithet has certain connotations which do not apply to Hugo Gryn z"l and what has calling a someone a saint got to do with it - the subject matter is calling Mohammed "the Prophet" as if he is universally accepted as such - not "the Rabbi" or "the Saint".


Jon.

Mon, 12/19/2011 - 14:58

Rate this:

1 point

My two pence on a totally worthless debate (i'm a sucker for arguing the toss about nothing...particularly when its so ridiculous.)

Would you object to me saying (for example)

Barry the Butcher
The young roustabout Wooster
John the Baptist
Advi3r the Islamophobe

Obviously none of these suggest that the subject in question is the ONLY person fulfilling that role. Neither for that matter do they suggest and kind of value attached to the role. I think if the telegraph wrote 'the false prophet mohammed' or 'the one true prophet mohammed, peace be upon him." then you might have grounds for complaint. As it stands you just look silly; like you're trying to manufacture a sense of outrage where there is none.


happygoldfish

Mon, 12/19/2011 - 15:13

Rate this:

0 points

Advis3r: the subject matter is calling Mohammed "the Prophet" as if he is universally accepted as such - not "the Rabbi" or "the Saint".

ooh, so it's only the "the" that you object to?

you think that "prophet mohammed" would be fine, just as "saint john" or "saint joan" or "rabbi hugo gryn" is fine?


Advis3r

Mon, 12/19/2011 - 15:15

Rate this:

0 points

Jon the Bigot you obviously have not read what the post ws about so your contribution is as worthless as most of the other rubbish you post.
Your calling me an islamaphobe (please define what it means anyway) is based on what precisely? I do not call Julia Neuberger a Rabbi does that make me an anti-Semite what fatuous comments you do post.
I was I was merely repeating the take Jihadwatch had on the situation which if you had taken the trouble to read the post was the reaction to a Telegraph reader's enquiry to that newspaper - manufactured rage seems to be your forte!


Advis3r

Mon, 12/19/2011 - 15:19

Rate this:

0 points

Precisely happygoldfish because it means that some people but not all see him as a saint, a prophet, a rabbi etc., but not everybody.


Jon.

Mon, 12/19/2011 - 15:26

Rate this:

0 points

How did I miss the point? I was asking if you were objecting to the use of the word "the" which, it transpires you were...


Advis3r

Mon, 12/19/2011 - 15:45

Rate this:

0 points

It is not just the word "the" it is the use of "the prophet Muhammad" to describe the founder of Islam as if it were universally accepted that he was in fact a prophet like for example would be the use of "the saviour ...", "the saint ..." etc to depict someone who was not universally accepted as such - but unlike with Mohammed those terms are not used.


Jon.

Mon, 12/19/2011 - 15:47

Rate this:

0 points

"you think that "prophet mohammed" would be fine, just as "saint john" or "saint joan" or "rabbi hugo gryn" is fine? "

"Precisely happygoldfish because it means that some people but not all see him as a saint, a prophet, a rabbi etc., but not everybody."


Advis3r

Mon, 12/19/2011 - 16:30

Rate this:

0 points

????????????


Jon.

Mon, 12/19/2011 - 16:44

Rate this:

0 points

Would you object in the same way if someone wrote Lord Jesus? Also, what is your motivation in posting the article? You agree with it?


Advis3r

Mon, 12/19/2011 - 16:50

Rate this:

0 points

What is it that you find objectionable about the article, precisely?


Jon.

Mon, 12/19/2011 - 16:51

Rate this:

0 points

How about I answer your question with another question?


Jon.

Mon, 12/19/2011 - 16:56

Rate this:

0 points

To answer yours though....I just wonder why someone would bother asking the question? I mean, are they suggesting that it represents the creeping islamicisation of the daily telegraph? COming from a website called jihad watch hardly suggests that its a balanced and reputable source does it?

It just seems a fatuous thing to waste your time on. And an even more fatuous thing to propagate.


Jon.

Tue, 12/20/2011 - 15:34

Rate this:

0 points

Nothing to add?


Advis3r

Tue, 12/20/2011 - 15:52

Rate this:

0 points

And you accuse me of having OCD?


Jon.

Tue, 12/20/2011 - 16:32

Rate this:

0 points

nope. Not that I remember.


Advis3r

Tue, 12/20/2011 - 16:42

Rate this:

0 points

Yo know this thread reminds me of a joke:

It's Chanukah and so Moishe goes into Blooms (z"l) in Golders Green Road and orders potato latkes. When they arrive at his table, they look and smell terrible (they must have used sour onions) and so changes his order to chicken soup with kreplach.
Later, when he had finished, he gets up to leave.
"Wait a second," said the manager, "You haven't paid for your soup."
"What are you talking about?" Moishe replies. "The soup was only an exchange. I gave you the potato latkes for them."
"Yes, but you didn't pay for them either."
"Why should I pay for the potato latkes? I didn't eat them."


Jon.

Tue, 12/20/2011 - 17:55

Rate this:

0 points

I must admit that makes more sense than most of the other things you've written...


happygoldfish

Fri, 12/23/2011 - 16:20

Rate this:

0 points

Jon.: How about I answer your question with another question?

Advis3r: Precisely happygoldfish because it means that some people but not all see him as a saint, a prophet, a rabbi etc., but not everybody.

hmm … does it? … imagine that the telegraph had a welsh edition (or imagine a welsh newspaper) …

in welsh communities, it is common to distinguish between people with common names by referring to eg "dai the milk" "dai the post" "dai the police", and so on

if there was a dai who was a prophet, wouldn't he be known as "dai the prophet"?

and what would be wrong with the telegraph calling him that?

closer to home (or heim), didn't sholem aleichem's characters have similar names … "tevye the milkman", "mottel the tailor", and so on?

if there'd been a prophet in anatevka called mohammed, wouldn't sholem aleichem have called him "mohammed the prophet"?

isn't the telegraph simply being jewish?


Real Real Zionist

Fri, 12/23/2011 - 17:08

Rate this:

0 points

I think you should be a little gentler with Jose


Advis3r

Mon, 12/26/2011 - 09:59

Rate this:

0 points

Goldfish I think you are not getting my point.

In a welsh village everyone knows and accepts that Dai the Milkman is the milkman if that is what he does for a living. In Sholom Aleichem's story everyone accepted that Tevye was the Milkman because that what was he did for a living it is an accepted fact.

However in the context of the impact of religion on world affairs and not what goes on in a fictitious Welsh village or Anatevka - Mohammed is not universally accepted as being a prophet let alone "The Prophet" and to call him such implies acceptance of something which is not undisputed and which to some is offensive.


happygoldfish

Wed, 12/28/2011 - 13:09

Rate this:

0 points

Advis3r: Goldfish I think you are not getting my point.
In a welsh village everyone knows and accepts that Dai the Milkman is the milkman if that is what he does for a living. In Sholom Aleichem's story everyone accepted that Tevye was the Milkman because that what was he did for a living it is an accepted fact.

and if dai was always prophecying who would win the next match or the next race, wouldn't he be called "dai the prophet" …

even if his prophecies were always wrong?

Advis3r: However in the context of the impact of religion on world affairs and not what goes on in a fictitious Welsh village or Anatevka - Mohammed is not universally accepted as being a prophet let alone "The Prophet" and to call him such implies acceptance of something which is not undisputed …

his accuracy may be in dispute, but surely his profession is not?

and, i repeat, do you object to the telegraph referring to people as "saint …" when obviously their sainthood is accepted only by christians?

Advis3r: … and which to some is offensive.

offensive? why is it any more offensive to call mohammed "the prophet" than to call jesus "christ" ("christ", of course, is simply the septuagint, greek, word for the unique hebrew "messiah")?

should the telegraph stop using the word "christ" (and all its derivatives)?


Advis3r

Wed, 12/28/2011 - 13:53

Rate this:

0 points

Goldfish I think we are arguing at cross purposes. Calling Mohammed "The Prophet" rather than "the prophet" seems to suggest that everyone accepts he is one. To use your analogy in Anatevka everyone recognised Tevya as "The Milkman" but outside Anantevka he would be "the milkman".
A religious Jew would never refer to the founder of Christianity as the Messiah but I think you will find from the Telegraph's style guide that in speaking of Jesusit is wrong to think that Christ should always be used. Whereas one must always refer to Mohammed as the Prophet which rather proves my point.


happygoldfish

Wed, 12/28/2011 - 14:34

Rate this:

0 points

Advis3r: … I think you will find from the Telegraph's style guide that in speaking of Jesusit is wrong to think that Christ should always be used. Whereas one must always refer to Mohammed as the Prophet which rather proves my point.

ah, good point! … yes, jesus's "full name" is not normally used …

but there's virtually nobody else called "jesus" (except i believe in some latin american countries),

while "mohammed" is one of the commonest names in the world!

so "jesus" (on it own) obviously refers to you-know-who, while "mohammed" (on it own) could refer to lots of people, and requires clarification


Advis3r

Wed, 12/28/2011 - 15:47

Rate this:

0 points

The only rejoinder I can make to that is would there be any confusion if the Telegraph said the Muslims revere Mohammed without the addition of "the Prophet"?

I will be sure to have all my ducks in a row before I post anything like this again. :)

POST A COMMENT

You must be logged in to post a comment.

LATEST COMMENTS