Talk:محمد بن عبد الله

محمد بن عبد الله
This kind of entry is explicitly disallowed by WT:CFI, which says "No individual person should be listed as a sense in any entry whose page title includes both a given name or diminutive and a family name or patronymic. For instance, Walter Elias Disney, the film producer and voice of Mickey Mouse, is not allowed a definition line at Walt Disney." Move the content to and delete this. - -sche (discuss) 02:59, 1 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep. What about Jesus Christ? We also have Christ. --Anatoli (обсудить/вклад) 09:03, 1 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Jesus Christ does not include "both a given name or diminutive and a family name or patronymic". —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 09:14, 1 February 2014 (UTC)


 * is one of the fuller names, which identifies Muhammad as the prophet, rather than any person called Muhammad. --Anatoli (обсудить/вклад) 12:31, 1 February 2014 (UTC)
 * ...and it does so by spelling out his given name (Muhammad) and patronymic (son of Abdullah), which CFI explicitly forbids. If you think something is gained by having a dictionary entry for this (I don't see what), please start a BP discussion about changing CFI to allow it. - -sche (discuss) 22:10, 1 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete. please read the line that -sche quoted from the CFI. I don't see why this is up for debate. —Μετάknowledge discuss/deeds 04:38, 8 February 2014 (UTC)
 * I just expressed my opinion and put a vote. The reason I voted keep is because I think CFI is imperfect in case of Arab prophet names who are better known by names other than "first name + surname". BTW, I'm not voting "keep" for Владимир Ильич Ульянов or suggesting to create Владимир Ильич. --Anatoli (обсудить/вклад) 11:13, 8 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete. --WikiTiki89 20:50, 8 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep. I don’t think it’s a name in the modern Western sense, but more like "John who lives down the street". No one would have referred to him as Mr. بن عبد الله (or Mr. Ibn Abdullah). Among his family and his friends, he would have been known simply as محمد. It’s just that محمد is such a common name that a little extra description is sometimes needed. I see it as much more like the Christ in Jesus Christ than to Obama in Barack Obama. —Stephen (Talk) 04:44, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

No consensus to delete. bd2412 T 20:52, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

RFD discussion: September–October 2017
Renominating. There seemed to be some confusion last time about how CFI works. To quote it again: ""No individual person should be listed as a sense in any entry whose page title includes both a given name or diminutive and a family name or patronymic." —Μετάknowledge discuss/deeds 04:13, 16 September 2017 (UTC)


 * Seems the same as Jesus Christ. —Stephen (Talk) 05:00, 16 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Did you read the sentence quoted from CFI? —Μετάknowledge discuss/deeds 05:01, 16 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Jesus H Christ notwithstanding, Christ isn't Jesus' last name, it's a title designating him as the Anointed One, the Son of God. That's completely, profoundly different from "son of Abdullah"- so different as to be an affront to any Muslim to even suggest they might be the same. A closer parallel would be "Jesus, son of Joseph". Chuck Entz (talk) 05:36, 16 September 2017 (UTC)


 * (edit conflict) There seems to have been confusion about a lot of things. Delete for the same reason we don't have an entry for Joseph Smith. All I can figure from the previous discussion is that people were nervous about seeming to be disrespectful of Islam, but I suspect that Muslims would actually be more offended by equating their prophet with the Son of God. This isn't about Muhammad as a religious figure, but about him as human historical figure with a first and last name. As such, it's disrespectful of Islam to give this special treatment as if Muhammad were a supernatural being to be worshiped and not a man. Chuck Entz (talk) 05:23, 16 September 2017 (UTC)


 * Nothing to do with disrespect. I see no difference between محمد بن عبد الله and Jesus Christ. They each identify a specific person in history. Whether the specificity comes from "son of", a surname, a patronymic, a number (Henry VIII), a color (Erik the Red), a hobby (Vlad the Impaler), a title, or some other appelation, they all amount to the same thing. —Stephen (Talk) 05:48, 16 September 2017 (UTC)
 * , let me ask you again: Did you read the sentence quoted from CFI that I posted above? —Μετάknowledge discuss/deeds 23:47, 17 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes. What your point? —Stephen (Talk) 09:24, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
 * @MK: You are saying that "bnu ʿabdi llāhi" is a family name or patronymic, right? If it is a family name or patronymic, what are some other people carrying it, and what are some other family names similarly constructed? (I chose the romanization since the Arabic script is too challenging to me. The questions are probably rather silly to someone who knows Arabic.) --Dan Polansky (talk) 09:32, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
 * ʿabdu llāh(i) was the name (or rather nickname) of Muhammad's father. (i)bnu ʿabdi llāh(i) means the son of ʿabdu llāh(i). This is how all patronymics work in Arabic. A modern example is the King of Saudi Arabia, whose name in proper Standard Arabic is salmānu bnu ʿabdi l-ʿazīz(i), his father's name being ʿabdu l-ʿazīz(i). --WikiTiki89 15:05, 18 September 2017 (UTC)


 * Delete, as a clearly SOP patronymic. Lingo Bingo Dingo (talk) 11:56, 18 September 2017 (UTC)


 * RFD failed. —Μετάknowledge discuss/deeds 05:32, 18 October 2017 (UTC)