This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.

Considering the consensus between Takahashi (2011) and Toral-Niehoff (2010) that the most accurate translation to ʿibād would be "servant" or "devotee", I think we should evaluate the validity of Trimingham's translation. Although being trained as a social scientist, Trimingham was also a trained Protestant missionary; i.e. he might have been inclined to juxtapose his personal experience of religious beliefs to the institutionalization of belief, than to the replication of the views of ʿIbādi - views that were partly influenced by Western modernism and elitism at the time (Papas, 2020:3).

Papas, Alexandre (2020). "Introduction: What Is a Ṣūfī Institution?". In A. Papas (ed.) Sufi Institutions (Handbook of Oriental Studies, Section 1: The Near and Middle East/Handbook of Sufi Studies, 1). Leiden: Brill. pp. 1–24

Takahashi, Hidemi (2011). "Ḥirta (al-Ḥīra)". In S. P. Brock; A. M. Butts; G. A. Kiraz; L. Van Rompay (eds.). Gorgias Encyclopedic Dictionary of the Syriac Heritage: Electronic Edition. Gorgias Press.

Toral-Niehoff, Isabel (2010). "The ʿIbād of al-Ḥīra: An Arab Christian Community in Late Antique Iraq". In Angelika Neuwirth; Michael Marx; Nicolai Sinai (eds.). The Qurʾān in Context: Entangled Histories and Textual Palimpsests. Leiden: Brill. pp. 323–347 (1–25 in the PDF). Tsrsilv (talk) 16:58, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

According to the New Encyclopaedia of Islam, ʿibād is Qurʾānic for "slaves". I'm not convinced Trimingham was doing anything more than translating the Arabic. And given the Pauline precedent for "slave" (doulos), why would it be invalid in a Christian context? Srnec (talk) 04:41, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I will address your reply through two key points:

(i) As Trimingham stated, ʿibād is likely a contraction of the denominations ʿibād al-Rabb, ʿibād al-Masīḥ, ʿibād Allāḥ, and its meaning would probably be fully manifested having this in mind. As I see it, a direct translation of the Qurʾānicʿibād—which would probably be avoided in meaning by the autochthonous Christian population of al-Ḥīra—would represent a misinterpretation.

(ii) The Pauline precedent for “slave” is not applicable in this context due to the point I raised in my original post: Trimingham’s inclination to juxtapose his personal experience of religious beliefs to the institutionalization of religion, rather than to the replication of the views of ʿIbādi. Within Syriac Christianity, the term ʿibād would probably have been understood based on these specific religious precepts, distinct from the Protestant perspective from which the Pauline precedent originates. Tsrsilv (talk) 16:42, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

(i) I'm not saying that Trimingham was translating the Qurʾān, but that Qurʾānic usage is a good guide to translating (early) Arabic. Why do you think that the term ʿibād would mean different things in the Qurʾān and among Christians contemporary with it?

(ii) The Pauline precedent certainly does not originate from the Protestant perspective! The ʿIbādi, too, had the Epistle to the Romans. The point of my comment was to deny the relevance of Trimingham's Protestantism. You don't need Western elitism to arrive at "slaves of the Lord". You have Qurʾānic usage to justify the translation and Pauline precedent for the concept. Maybe it does not reflect the ʿIbādi perspective, but how do we know? Srnec (talk) 21:05, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

(i) I wasn’t suggesting that Trimingham was translating the Qurʾān either. However, as you noted, he could have chosen the Qurʾānic term ʿibād rather than the commonly used plural form ʿabīd, which appears across different registers of Arabic, including early Arabic. This raises an important question: why would the Christian population of al-Ḥīra prefer the Qurʾānic plural form for self-identification rather than ʿabīd if their intent was to express the meaning of "slaves of God"? Given that ʿabīd was already part of the early Arabic lexicon and the people of al-Ḥīra were Arabic speakers, wouldn’t e.g. ʿabīd al-Masīḥ have been a more natural choice?

(ii) That’s a fair point—the Pauline precedent isn’t exclusive to Protestant missionaries, though it was frequently employed in modern Protestant missions (e.g., William Carey). I’d also like to clarify that my mention of Trimingham’s potential inclination to juxtapose his personal religious experiences in translation was a suggestion, not an assertion. There’s no need for defensiveness on that point.

Returning to the question at hand, this brings me back to (i): if the intended meaning was "slaves of God," why not use ʿabīd (as in عبيد الرب, for instance)? Another relevant source worth considering is Nöldeke’s Geschichte (24, n. 4), where he writes: “ʿIbād bedeutet »Knechte” ist aber nicht etwa ein Schimpfname der Hîrenser. Wahrscheinlich ist »Gottes” zu ergänzen. ʿIbād heissen nämlich die christlichen, und zwar nestorianischen (Mas. I, 200; 11,814.328) Einwohner der Stadt, die sich wohl den (sic) Heiden gegenüber als (Gottes)-Knechte bezeichnet haben.” Tsrsilv (talk) 00:49, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]