The Calligraphic Representation of Muhammad's Name
February 28, 2013 2:17 PM Subscribe
Do you know the importance of the calligraphic representation of Muhammad's name in the Muslim world?
How common is it to know how to write it? Is it common to have learned it in school? How important is it to include the W-shaped character above it?
How common is it to know how to write it? Is it common to have learned it in school? How important is it to include the W-shaped character above it?
The linked image is not particularly stylistic. It's legible to me, and I can barely read florid Arabic calligraphy at all.
Even if you cannot read Arabic, you can see the name written this style in the title of Muhammad's Arabic Wikipedia article. That's just a font issue. If you copy and paste that text into a text window, it will render as regular naskh script.
And yes, without the shaddah (the "w") above the second mim ("m" sound letter), the name would be "mHmd" instead of "mHmmd". (vowel diacritics are usually not written in Arabic and do mot appear in the linked image)
posted by Tanizaki at 3:11 PM on February 28, 2013
Even if you cannot read Arabic, you can see the name written this style in the title of Muhammad's Arabic Wikipedia article. That's just a font issue. If you copy and paste that text into a text window, it will render as regular naskh script.
And yes, without the shaddah (the "w") above the second mim ("m" sound letter), the name would be "mHmd" instead of "mHmmd". (vowel diacritics are usually not written in Arabic and do mot appear in the linked image)
posted by Tanizaki at 3:11 PM on February 28, 2013
Response by poster: In this situation the character in question is, to the best of my knowledge, a truncated verision of the ṣalawāt.
posted by slowlikemolasses at 3:11 PM on February 28, 2013
posted by slowlikemolasses at 3:11 PM on February 28, 2013
Best answer: Tanizaki is correct, that is the symbol which represents a doubled consonant, not 'pbuh'.
You may wish to look up nastaliq script, the one commonly used in areas with Persian influence. It's a more calligraphic and less linear style than the naskh used in Arabic speaking countries. I am from Pakistan, and when I write Muhammad it looks like an untidy version of that. Like Tanizaki, I would say that's just a good handwriting.
That said, that's the most common form of the name used as ornament, eg as painted on a wall (rather than as part of a sentence), at least in South Asia. So others (bardophile?) might correct me and say it's a specific calligraphic form based on nastaliq or related script.
In any case, in most of Pakistan at least one learns to write Muhammad as one learns to write any other word, only in nastaliq. If one is from Pakistan, the fonts commonly used to render Urdu, Arabic etc (based on naskh) look ugly, if easier to read at small sizes.
posted by tavegyl at 12:09 PM on March 1, 2013
You may wish to look up nastaliq script, the one commonly used in areas with Persian influence. It's a more calligraphic and less linear style than the naskh used in Arabic speaking countries. I am from Pakistan, and when I write Muhammad it looks like an untidy version of that. Like Tanizaki, I would say that's just a good handwriting.
That said, that's the most common form of the name used as ornament, eg as painted on a wall (rather than as part of a sentence), at least in South Asia. So others (bardophile?) might correct me and say it's a specific calligraphic form based on nastaliq or related script.
In any case, in most of Pakistan at least one learns to write Muhammad as one learns to write any other word, only in nastaliq. If one is from Pakistan, the fonts commonly used to render Urdu, Arabic etc (based on naskh) look ugly, if easier to read at small sizes.
posted by tavegyl at 12:09 PM on March 1, 2013
Response by poster: If each character in this name takes a diacritic, why is the *shaddah* the only one used?
posted by slowlikemolasses at 1:10 PM on March 1, 2013
posted by slowlikemolasses at 1:10 PM on March 1, 2013
You are not understanding how written Arabic works. It is not that each character in his name "takes a diacritic". The issue is that in Arabic, short vowels are generally not written except in children's books or the Quran. You also might see them sometimes if the proper reading is not evident from context. For example, نحن ("we") is written "nHn" but is actually read "naHnu". There are no vowels there, and they aren't necessary. Muhammad's name only has short vowels.
The shaddah is different. It is not a short vowel indicator. Rather, it indicates where a consonant is doubled. Just as "later" and "latter" are different words in English, there are words in Arabic whose meanings change based upon whether a given consonant is single or double. For example, مدرسة is "school" but مدرّسة is "female teacher". Same consonants, with the only difference being the doubling of the ر. Both of these words have the triconsonantal root of د ر س (D-R-S) relating to learning.
You might think that it is weird to read without vowels, but ths sntnc cn b rd vn thgh thr r n vwls.
posted by Tanizaki at 1:54 PM on March 1, 2013
The shaddah is different. It is not a short vowel indicator. Rather, it indicates where a consonant is doubled. Just as "later" and "latter" are different words in English, there are words in Arabic whose meanings change based upon whether a given consonant is single or double. For example, مدرسة is "school" but مدرّسة is "female teacher". Same consonants, with the only difference being the doubling of the ر. Both of these words have the triconsonantal root of د ر س (D-R-S) relating to learning.
You might think that it is weird to read without vowels, but ths sntnc cn b rd vn thgh thr r n vwls.
posted by Tanizaki at 1:54 PM on March 1, 2013
Response by poster: From what I can tell there are no diacriticals in Muhammad's name in the Arabic or the English Wikipedia page. The Wiktionary page for محمد does have the short vowel diacriticals as well as the shadda on the proper name, but only the shadda on the adjective.
From the few images of calligraphic representations of Muhammad's name I've seen there are either all the diacriticals present or only the shadda. Is his name, when written with only the shadda, meant to literally represent the adjective while implicitly representing his name? Or is it a simplification that is used exclusively for calligraphic representations of Muhammad's name?
posted by slowlikemolasses at 7:18 PM on March 1, 2013
From the few images of calligraphic representations of Muhammad's name I've seen there are either all the diacriticals present or only the shadda. Is his name, when written with only the shadda, meant to literally represent the adjective while implicitly representing his name? Or is it a simplification that is used exclusively for calligraphic representations of Muhammad's name?
posted by slowlikemolasses at 7:18 PM on March 1, 2013
Best answer: the character in question is, to the best of my knowledge, a truncated verision of the ṣalawāt.
The truncated form of the salawat is generally rendered as a (ص)swad in its initial form.
Do you know the importance of the calligraphic representation of Muhammad's name in the Muslim world?
Muhammad's name is probably the second-most commonly represented word in the calligraphy of the Muslim world. The most common would be Allah. If you're talking about the specific types of calligraphic representation, then I can't really help.
How common is it to know how to write it?
Being able to write in calligraphy is not all that common. Most people who are learning calligraphy would almost certainly have been set the exercise of writing Allah's name, Muhammad's name, and the Bismillah.
All literate Muslims would be able to write Muhammad's name. As Tanizaki and tavegyl have pointed out, the image you've linked is not particularly calligraphic, more like a computer representation of nice handwriting.
Is it common to have learned it in school?
Writing, yes. Calligraphy, no. Unless you're talking about madrassas, which may well include calligraphy as part of their course.
How important is it to include the W-shaped character above it?
Most of the time, people will write the shadda, even when writing Muhammad's name by hand. However, the word is so easily recognized that it's not actually necessary to do that if you are in the non-Arabic speaking Muslim world.
Is his name, when written with only the shadda, meant to literally represent the adjective while implicitly representing his name?
I'm not even sure what you mean by this. When written with only the shadda, it usually means that the writer is assuming that the reader will be able to pronounce Muhammad's name without needing the diacriticals.
Or is it a simplification that is used exclusively for calligraphic representations of Muhammad's name?
Nope. Calligraphy is more likely to use diacriticals than everyday writing, in my experience. The shadda has no particular significance, other than being an indication of an extra consonant, rather than a vowel sound.
posted by bardophile at 4:11 AM on March 7, 2013 [1 favorite]
The truncated form of the salawat is generally rendered as a (ص)swad in its initial form.
Do you know the importance of the calligraphic representation of Muhammad's name in the Muslim world?
Muhammad's name is probably the second-most commonly represented word in the calligraphy of the Muslim world. The most common would be Allah. If you're talking about the specific types of calligraphic representation, then I can't really help.
How common is it to know how to write it?
Being able to write in calligraphy is not all that common. Most people who are learning calligraphy would almost certainly have been set the exercise of writing Allah's name, Muhammad's name, and the Bismillah.
All literate Muslims would be able to write Muhammad's name. As Tanizaki and tavegyl have pointed out, the image you've linked is not particularly calligraphic, more like a computer representation of nice handwriting.
Is it common to have learned it in school?
Writing, yes. Calligraphy, no. Unless you're talking about madrassas, which may well include calligraphy as part of their course.
How important is it to include the W-shaped character above it?
Most of the time, people will write the shadda, even when writing Muhammad's name by hand. However, the word is so easily recognized that it's not actually necessary to do that if you are in the non-Arabic speaking Muslim world.
Is his name, when written with only the shadda, meant to literally represent the adjective while implicitly representing his name?
I'm not even sure what you mean by this. When written with only the shadda, it usually means that the writer is assuming that the reader will be able to pronounce Muhammad's name without needing the diacriticals.
Or is it a simplification that is used exclusively for calligraphic representations of Muhammad's name?
Nope. Calligraphy is more likely to use diacriticals than everyday writing, in my experience. The shadda has no particular significance, other than being an indication of an extra consonant, rather than a vowel sound.
posted by bardophile at 4:11 AM on March 7, 2013 [1 favorite]
Response by poster: Most of the time, people will write the shadda, even when writing Muhammad's name by hand. However, the word is so easily recognized that it's not actually necessary to do that if you are in the non-Arabic speaking Muslim world.
An image search for "Muhammad calligraphy" will show you a lot more images with *shadda* than without it. How common is it to see the name written without the *shadda*?
posted by slowlikemolasses at 10:54 PM on March 8, 2013
An image search for "Muhammad calligraphy" will show you a lot more images with *shadda* than without it. How common is it to see the name written without the *shadda*?
posted by slowlikemolasses at 10:54 PM on March 8, 2013
Best answer: An image search for "Muhammad calligraphy" will show you a lot more images with *shadda* than without it. How common is it to see the name written without the *shadda*?
For me, it's common enough that I wouldn't notice the presence or absence of the shadda. I would register the word as Muhammad. I don't have a more statistically accurate way of answering your question, I'm afraid. I would tend to agree that when referring to the Prophet Muhammad, Muslims are more likely to include the shadda than exclude it. This is similar to the way in which Muslims are more likely to include diacritical marks when quoting from the Quran; there is a sense of obligation to be accurate and precise. I don't know of anyone attaching any particular spiritual significance to it beyond that, although I would imagine that those who are interested in numerology and such do.
posted by bardophile at 11:28 PM on March 11, 2013
For me, it's common enough that I wouldn't notice the presence or absence of the shadda. I would register the word as Muhammad. I don't have a more statistically accurate way of answering your question, I'm afraid. I would tend to agree that when referring to the Prophet Muhammad, Muslims are more likely to include the shadda than exclude it. This is similar to the way in which Muslims are more likely to include diacritical marks when quoting from the Quran; there is a sense of obligation to be accurate and precise. I don't know of anyone attaching any particular spiritual significance to it beyond that, although I would imagine that those who are interested in numerology and such do.
posted by bardophile at 11:28 PM on March 11, 2013
« Older Plastic surgeon vs Maxillofacial surgeon for... | What should a creative yet technical person study? Newer »
This thread is closed to new comments.
posted by Nomyte at 2:26 PM on February 28, 2013