Folha went back to using Mahomet to refer to the founder of Islam. For five years, it used the term Muhammad, with the understanding that Mahomet is an offensive term to Muslims “for signifying that he is not the son of God” (page 80 in Folha’s stylebook). That’s nonsense.
Under pressure from readers who disagree with the use of Mahomet, the newspaper consulted five experts in the Arabic language and Islam and arrived at the conclusion that the entry “Mahomet/Muhammad” is mistaken. The term Muhammad is correct. Many Muslims prefer it because that is the original name in Arabic. But it is not true that Mahomet means “one who is not the son of God” in Arabic.
For all of these years we – reporters and editors, this ombudsman and the previous one, and readers – were influenced by the mistake
Folha has not managed to explain how the disastrous term ended up in the stylebook. When questioned, they sent me the following answer: “When the current stylebook was published, Folha got the mistaken information in the entry from religious experts.”
The stylebook deals with the topic in two other entries. In the annex on “religions” on page 184, the term “Islam” refers to the prophet Muhammad (570-632) this way: “The term Mahomet should not be used because it is a poorly done transliteration of the name in Arabic.” A poorly done transliteration does not mean that the term transliterated is offensive.
In another annex about transliterations (page 329), here is the following orientation about criteria for writing Arabic words in Portuguese: “Do not eliminate double consonants, which could explain important assimilation and dissimilation for those who know Arabic: Assafir, Annahar, Muhammad … Arabs who live in Brazil or in other western countries have a Latinized way to write their names. That should be maintained even if meets the observations above.” That is the case of Mahomet, now that it was absolved of a crime it did not commit.
Readers
The revision was made at the insistence of various readers dissatisfied with the explanation that I used when I wrote about the Danish drawings that generated violent protests in various Muslim countries (“The clamor for tolerance,” a column published Feb. 12). On that occasion, I wrote a small piece that explained, based on the stylebook, why the newspaper used Muhammad and not Mahomet. The explanation did not convince many readers. The main question was based on tradition. Why should we adopt a new term if we have an accepted one, Mahomet? “Should we use Moshe instead of Moses?” argued Francisco Moreno of So Paulo. “Should the prophet Isaiah be called Yashayahu? And should Jesus of the Christians now be called Yeshu (his name in Hebrew)?”
Alusio J.D. Barros of Pelotas, Rio Grande do Sul state, was more direct: “Why the devil did Folha decide to call Mahomet and not Muhammad?” Antnio Marcos de Guide believes that it was ignorance by the newspaper. “This demonstration of a lack of basic knowledge of world history … was unsightly.” And Jos Arlindo Salgado de Souza believes that the newspaper has given in to English hegemony: “I don’t know what his happening in newsrooms at newspapers, including Folha. It seems that journalists and copy desks (a word which has been bastardized into Portuguese) don’t know their own language anymore.
The most insistent of all was lawyer Alfredo Spnola of So Paulo. I responded the same way to all who questioned the use of Muhammad, citing the stylebook.
Spnola did not agree and keep questioning. A new response of mine defended the use of Muhammad as it was in the stylebook responded: “If it is that way, I would like to kindly ask him to show just one assurance for the term Muhammad. I could, this way, go to utilize it.”
Correction
Franco Querini was the one who pointed out the mistakes: “Page 80 in the stylebook must be corrected because Muhammad, founder of Islam, is not the son of God as Mahomet does not signify the contrary.”
I asked the newsroom for verification. The department of training and quality consulted five sources, which showed the reader to be right.
The correction was used by the newspaper in an internal communique by the managing editor dated March 10: “Folha returned to using Mahomet to designate the founder of Islam. The entry in the stylebook is mistaken to assert that Mahomet is offensive for followers of Islam to signify “one who is not the son of God.” The translation closest to Mahomet or Muhammad is “one who merits praise.”
The newspaper should have taken the initiative to publish a correction on its pages. The use of Muhammad was much in evidence with the controversy over the drawings. By not doing it, it gets stuck – the mistake is recognized, but not publicly – and leaves readers confused and lacking in confidence.
The military’s agreement
In a week that was relatively calm from complaints, the topic that provoked the most questions was the second headline on the front page of Folha on Wednesday: “Military recovers arms after making agreement with trafficking faction.” According to the newspaper, “Members of the military were secretly negotiating with the Red Command criminal faction” for the recovery of weapons stolen on March 3 at a military base in Rio. The newspaper also reported that the arms had already been recovered by the military Sunday night, which means that the military lied when it said it found them Tuesday night.
Readers who wrote considered the information, published only by Folha, “implausible,” “a false rumor,” “a whopping exaggeration” and “a lie.” The newspaper credited the information to “stories told to Folha by people involved” in the recovery of the weapons.
The Rio daily “O Globo” attributed the return of the weapons to the asphyxia experienced by the traffickers as the military surrounded the slums, but it made it understood that there could have been an agreement. “Military sources said that the arms were returned in exchange for the military’s departure from the occupied slums, which occurred on Sunday.”
While not revealing their sources – it is the newspaper’s right to protect them – Folha carried a lot of details about the agreement and proved that it knew since Tuesday that the military occupied the Rocinha slum to find the arms. Rio Mayor Cesar Maia also revealed that he knew about the recovery since Sunday.
The military denied the agreement, which is being studied by military investigators. This is the type of information that is difficult to prove. The military acted in a way that was intentionally confusing in all of Rio, within the tradition of little information and little transparency.
Based on news that I read that day and in subsequent editions, it seems to me that Folha is well informed. It has the obligation now to continue to follow the investigations closely and look together with its most reliable sources. In the event it is proved wrong, it should recognize the error without subterfuge. That is what is expected.
Translated by John Wright
