بَابُ الْأَسَامِيNames

¹ His statement: “He said, ‘Yes’”: This indicates that the prohibition was limited to his lifetime, and it is permissible to combine them afterward to avoid confusion. As stated in Al-Mirqat. ² His statement: “There is no harm in someone named, etc.”: This is our view, and Malik, most early scholars, and jurists of the cities agreed. It is permissible today to use the kunyah Abu al-Qasim for anyone, whether named Muhammad or not, as the reason was the risk of confusing his address with another’s. This is supported by his prohibition in the Hadith of Anas, where, upon hearing a man called ‘O Abu al-Qasim,’ he turned and the man said, ‘I meant this one.’ Thus, the ruling ceases when the reason, confusion during his lifetime, ceases. Ash-Shafi‘i said it is not permissible to use the kunyah Abu al-Qasim at all, whether named Muhammad, Ahmad, or otherwise. As cited from Al-Mirqat.

¹ His statement: “What makes my name permissible and my kunyah forbidden, etc.”: The response means that naming with my name and using my kunyah are not forbidden. This suggests that if this incident is authentic, it occurred after the prohibition on using his kunyah or combining the name and kunyah. The reconciliation between this and the prohibition is that the prohibition on combining them was not for unlawfulness but was disliked due to confusion. It is possible this incident was late in his life, and he permitted it, as when the child grows, the Prophet (ﷺ) would pass away, removing the confusion. As stated in Bazl al-Majhud.

¹ His statement: “The most beloved names to Allah are Abdullah and Abdur-Rahman”: That is, after the names of the Prophets, indicating that these two names are not more beloved than Muhammad. They are either equal to it or Muhammad is more beloved, either absolutely or in some respect. As stated in Al-Mirqat. In Ad-Durr al-Mukhtar: “The most beloved names to Allah are Abdullah and Abdur-Rahman. Naming with Ali, Rashid, and other shared names is permissible, but the meaning for us differs from that for Allah. However, in our time, other names are preferable, as the common people diminish them when calling.” As stated in As-Sirajiyyah. In Radd al-Muhtar, citing Abu al-Layth: “I dislike non-Arabs naming with Abdur-Rahman or Abdur-Rahim, as they do not understand their meaning and use diminutives.” As in At-Tatarkhaniyyah. This is common today, where those named Abdur-Rahim, Abdul-Karim, or Abdul-Aziz are called Rahim, Karim, or Aziz with an emphasized diminutive. For Abdul-Qadir, they say Quwaydir. This, if intentional, is disbelief. In Al-Munyah: “Using a diminutive ending for names like Abdul-Aziz added to one of Allah’s Beautiful Names, if said deliberately, is disbelief. If unaware or unintentional, disbelief is not ruled, and one who hears it must teach them.” Some say Rahmun for Abdur-Rahman, and some, like the Turkmen, say Hamu or Hasu for Muhammad or Hasan. Should it be said that they should avoid these latter names for this reason?

¹ His statement: “The most beloved names to Allah are Abdullah and Abdur-Rahman”: Likewise, names denoting servitude to Allah, such as Abdur-Rahim, Abdul-Karim, and the like. As cited from Al-Mirqat and Bazl al-Majhud.

¹ His statement: “Aziz”: Because it is one of Allah’s names, it should be Abdul-Aziz, as a servant is described with humility and submission, while might belongs to Allah. Similarly, one should not be named Hamid, as it is one of Allah’s names and attributes in an intensive form; rather, Abdul-Hamid and the like. As stated in Al-Mirqat.

² His statement: “and Shihab”: It appears that if added to something like religion, it is not disliked. As stated in Al-Mirqat.

¹ His statement: “named her Jamilah”: Perhaps he did not name her Muti‘ah, despite it being the opposite of Asiyah, to avoid self-praise. An-Nawawi said: “This indicates the desirability of changing an unpleasant name, just as it is recommended to change disliked names to good ones.” As cited from Al-Mirqat.

¹ His statement: “Do not name your boy Yasar, etc.”: In Radd al-Muhtar: “Do not name a boy Yasar, Rabah, Najah, Aflah, or Barakah, as it is not desirable for someone to say, ‘Is there Barakah?’ and be told, ‘No,’ and similarly for other names.”

² His statement: “The Prophet intended to prohibit, etc.”: In An-Nawawi’s commentary on Muslim: “Our companions said it is disliked to name with the names mentioned in the Hadith and those of similar meaning, and this is a dislike of propriety, not prohibition.” Ali al-Qari said: “The meaning is that the Prophet (ﷺ) intended to prohibit it with a prohibition of unlawfulness, but then remained silent out of mercy for the Ummah due to widespread usage and hardship, especially since most people do not distinguish between good and bad names. The negated prohibition refers to unlawfulness, and the affirmed one to propriety.”

¹ His statement: “Let none of you say, ‘My slave’ or ‘My slave-girl,’ etc.”: This indicates the dislike of these names if said in a way that belittles or degrades the slave. Otherwise, it is mentioned in the Qur’an, as Allah says, “And the righteous among your slaves and slave-girls” (An-Nur: 32), and “A slave owned, unable to do anything” (An-Nahl: 75). The meaning relates to avoiding arrogance and adopting humility and submission. It is not fitting to say, ‘So-and-so is my slave,’ but rather, ‘My young man.’ The prohibition is for using it to show superiority, not for description or identification. As cited from Al-Mirqat and An-Nawawi’s commentary on Muslim.

² His statement: “And let not the slave say, ‘My lord,’ etc.”: This prohibits the slave from calling his master ‘My lord,’ as lordship in its true sense belongs to Allah alone, for the lord is the owner or caretaker, and this reality exists only in Allah. If it is said: But the Prophet (ﷺ) said regarding the signs of the Hour, “The slave-girl will give birth to her mistress or master,” and Allah says, “Mention me to your lord” (Yusuf: 42), the response is twofold: First, the second Hadith and Qur’anic verse indicate permissibility, and the prohibition in the first is for etiquette and a dislike of propriety, not unlawfulness. Second, the prohibition is against frequent use or making it a common habit, not its rare usage. As cited from An-Nawawi’s commentary on Muslim and Al-Mirqat.

¹ His statement: “Let none of you say, ‘My soul has become vile’”: Ibn Battal said: “The prohibition is not obligatory but a matter of etiquette.” It is also said in the Hadith about the one for whom Satan ties three knots on his head, “He wakes up with a vile soul, lazy.” An-Nawawi said: “The term ‘vile’ was disliked due to its harshness, teaching them etiquette in speech, to use the best expressions and avoid the repugnant ones.” As stated in Umdat al-Qari.

¹ His statement: “Do not say to the hypocrite, ‘Master,’ etc.”: At-Tayyibi said: “This includes calling non-Muslims, like philosophers or doctors, ‘Our patron,’ and the prohibition and warning are stronger, as ‘patron’ appears in the Qur’an, unlike ‘master.’” Ali al-Qari (may Allah have mercy on him) said: “If it is meant to honor them, it is undoubtedly impermissible. If it refers to one of the meanings of ‘patron,’ it may be permissible, especially in need or necessity, ideally with dissimulation.” Allah says, permitting the term ‘patron’ for others: “If you do not know their fathers, they are your brothers in religion” (Al-Ahzab: 5), meaning Muslims, “and your patrons” (Al-Ahzab: 5), meaning others. The conclusion is that ‘patron’ and ‘master’ absolutely belong to Allah, and their permissibility or prohibition for others is known only from the Lawgiver. No prohibition exists for ‘patron’ for others, so it is permissible by default, as is customary among Muslims. What Muslims see as good is good in the sight of Allah.

¹ His statement: “but say, ‘What Allah wills, then so-and-so wills’”: That is, what Allah wills, then afterward so-and-so wills, as ‘then’ indicates sequence. We assume ‘was’ before ‘then so-and-so wills’ to avoid implying shared ruling, even sequentially. Reflect, as this is a subtle and precise point. Thus, ‘then so-and-so wills’ is either an independent sentence or connected to the previous one, as indicated. ‘Then’ is for sequential reporting. This is my understanding of this issue. At-Tayyibi said: “Why did he permit saying, ‘What Allah wills, then so-and-so wills,’ but not ‘What Allah wills’ with His name?” The response has two aspects: First, he said it to dispel the suspicion of reverence or showing off in saying, ‘What Allah wills and Muhammad wills.’ Second, as the leader of the monotheists, his will is subsumed and nullified in Allah’s will. I say: The question’s premise is invalid, as it falls under the general ‘so-and-so,’ so it is permissible to say, ‘What Allah wills, then Muhammad wills,’ but not ‘What Allah wills and Muhammad wills.’ The first response is a grave error, as saying, ‘What Allah wills and Muhammad wills,’ would be clear polytheism, not mere suspicion. The second response is correct in essence but does not justify using ‘and,’ as others’ wills are also subsumed in Allah’s will. The earlier statement, ‘but say, “What Allah wills, then so-and-so wills,”’ merely permits, while saying, ‘What Allah wills, then Muhammad wills,’ would imply an obligatory or recommended command, which is not the case. The will attributed to so-and-so is a partial will, not to be taken as the universal will, as we indicated. Allah knows best the intent. As stated in Al-Mirqat.

¹ His statement: “How wretched is the mount of a man”: That is, ‘Za‘amu’ (they claim). There are two interpretations: First, it likens what a speaker uses to introduce his speech and achieve his aim to a mount used to reach a need. The intent is that reporting news based on doubt or conjecture without certainty is repugnant; rather, one’s report should have a firm basis and be reliable. Second, a man should not attribute claims or lies to people, saying, ‘So-and-so claimed,’ unless certain of their falsehood, aiming to protect people from it and warn them, as is permissible for narrators and the like in critique and validation. The relevance of this Hadith to the chapter is not entirely clear, as ‘Za‘amu’ became a name for this type of report. As stated in Al-Luma‘at. In Al-Mirqat: “The Hadith indicates that this term and attribution should be replaced, either by verifying the statement and attributing it to its speaker or remaining silent, as it is said, ‘Whoever believes in Allah and the Last Day, let him speak good or remain silent.’” The relevance to the chapter may be the general changing of a blameworthy matter, whether a name or otherwise, as in the previous Hadith.

¹ His statement: “gave me a kunyah”: That is, he made me known as Abu Hamzah. As stated in Al-Mirqat.

¹ Regarding His statement: And among the people are those who purchase idle talk, etc., it pertains to the issue of the prohibition of singing. Know that the matter of singing is among the most disputed issues, with conflicting Qur’anic verses and Hadiths indicating both its permissibility and prohibition. The opinions of scholars and the righteous have varied greatly. We will first present the conflicting arguments, then clarify the true position. We say: Among the verses indicating its prohibition is the aforementioned verse, which was revealed concerning An-Nadr ibn Al-Harith, who purchased Persian books and narrated their stories to the Quraysh, saying, “If Muhammad tells you stories of ‘Ad and Thamud, I will tell you stories of Rustam, Isfandiyar, and the Persian kings.” It is also said that he purchased singing slave girls and encouraged their interaction with those inclined toward Islam, saying, “This is better than what Muhammad calls you to,” as mentioned in Al-Kashaf and Al-Baydawi.