Are names like Abdul-Masih (of Christ), Abdul-Nabiyy (Muhammad), Abdul-Hussain etc. Haram and do they denote and necassiate Kufr and Shirk of the one who carries them?
In short: Yes, they are forbidden names, but no, they do not denote Kufr and Shirk by *necassity*. Ahlus-Sunnah are just and to every issue there nuances/Tafāsīl (instead of blanket Takfīr and black and white understanding that the Khawārij and Rawāfid are known for).
Of course, there is no doubt that it is forbidden to use any name which implies enslavement to anything besides Allah such as ‘Abd al-‘Uzza (slave of al-‘Uzza a pagan goddess), ‘Abd al-Ka’bah (slave of the Ka’bah), ‘Abd al-Husayn (slave of Husayn), etc. the only major groups that have violated the Islamic etiquette of avoiding such names are Sūfi Qubūrīs (like the Barelwīs, many of whom carry names such as Ghulam and ‘Abd al-Nabiyy/al-Rasūl) and the Rāfidah Shia of course (even most Zaydīs and Ibadhīs haven’t fallen into this Bid’ah).
It was stated in Hāshiyat Ibn Ābidīn that one should not be called Abd Fulān (slave of so-and-so).
It says in Kashshaf al-Qinā: They (the scholars) agreed that every name which implies enslavement to anything other than Allāh is forbidden, such as Abd al-Uzza, Abd Amr, Abd Alī, Abd al-Ka’bah, and any other similar names, such as Abd al-Nabī (slave of the Prophet), Abd al-Husayn, Abd al-Masīh (slave of the Messiah).
(Hashiyat Ibn Abidin, 5/268; Mughni al-Muhtāj, 4/295; Tuhfat al-Muhtaj, 10/373; Kashshaf al-Qinā, 3/27; Tuhfat al-Mawdud, p. 90).
So technically it’s ‘just’ a Bid’ah, HOWEVER, the REALITY is that the Asl with those who carry such names is that they also hold major Kufri beliefs and are induldges in all sorts in Shirki rituals, especially the Rawāfid and other than them.
Ahlul-Bid’ah normally object by saying:
‘Abd can mean ‘Ābid (a person who worships) and Khādim (a servant). When the word is related to Allāh, it has the former meaning and when it is joined towards someone other than Allāh; it has the latter (Khādim/Ghulām).’
They basically want to argue that: ‘Abd al-Husayn, Abdul-Masīh, ‘Abdul-Mahdī etc. = Servant (Khādim) of Husayn, servant of al-Masīh, servant of al-Mahdī etc. or even actual slave of Husayn (as in being fully at his servant) but not as in worshipper of al-Husayn.
Yes, this is how for they go in order to justify their ugly Bid’ah. The response of Ahlus-Sunnah:
Unlike Shia and other Qubūris, the Prophet (s) was very sensitive when it came to issues that were remotely linked to polytheism (Shirk) and Kufr, so much so that he even stated that those who leave the Salāh have committed Kufr (regardless of what position one takes i.e. minor or major Life, point is it’s a harsh statement) and that those (like Rawāfid) who take oaths by other than Allah have committed polytheism (Shirk)!
He (عليه الصلاة والسلام) even disliked people calling their ACTUAL slaves as slaves:
‘One should not say, ‘my slave (‘Abdī),’ or ‘my girl-slave (Amatī),’ but should say, ‘my lad (Fatai), my lass (Fatati),’ and ‘my boy (Ghulāmi).’”
(Sahih al-Bukhari, Volume 3, Book 46, Number 728)
As a matter of fact, the Prophet (s) actively rejected this ugly Bid’ah:
‘A delegation came to the Prophet (s), and he heard them calling someone Abd al-Hajar (slave of the stone). He asked him, What is your name? and he said, Abd al-Hajar. He said, No, you are Abdullāh (the slave of Allāh).’
(Al-Mawsū”ah al-Fiqhiyyah, 11/335).
And in another authentic report we read:
‘Abdul-Rahmān ibn ‘Awf (r) said: My name was ‘Abd ‘Amr – or according to one report, ‘Abd al-Ka’bah – and when I became Muslim, the Messenger of Allāh (s) called me ‘Abdal-Rahman.
(Narrated by al-Hākim, 3/306. Al-Dhahabi agreed with him)
Did you read? The Messenger of Allah didn’t call him ‘Abd Muhammad, ‘Abdul-Masīh (Messiah) or ‘Abd Ibrāhim, let alone ‘Abdul-Husayn or Abdul-Amīr (al-Mu`minīn ‘Alī)! He did not fight against Shirk for 23 years only to replace ‘Abdul-Masīh with ‘Abdul-Rasūl or ‘Abdul-Husayn! He named him ‘Abdul-Rahmān which is of course one of the most beloved names in the sight of Allāh and unsurprisingly very and almost nonexistent amongst the Rāfidah.
In Iran for example, only in Sunni regions names such as ‘Abdullāh, ‘Abdul-Rahmān, ‘Abdul-Razzāq, ‘Abdul-Wahhāb etc. are common, so common that even the average Shias who are not from Sunni-Shia mixed regions realise how Islamic Sunni regions are in Iran, be it in the southern provinces where Persian Sunnis are known for such names or even more so in Iranian Baluchistan where ever second person carries names such as ‘Abdul-Mālik, ‘Abdullah, ‘Abdul-Rahmān etc. the Tawhīd starts even by how Ahlus-Sunnah name their children.
In comparison look at the Ahlul-Bid’ah, the true extremists (Ghulāt) who have fallen in so many heresies of the Christians, they have copied their work almost one to one.
No, nobody denies that you can find names such as ‘Abdullāh amongst the Rāfidah, as far as I remember there was even a Marji’ called Abdul-Karīm. However, is this the norm? Of course not, as a matter of fact, I remember how my Lebanese and ‘Irāqi Shia friends told me how ‘Abdullah is really a common Sunni name and pretty much uncommon for a Shi’ī to be called ‘Abdullāh. I was disturbed hearing that (even as a newly practicing Shi’ī back then) but the reality proved it to be true. Names such as ‘Abdul-Zahra` (slave of Fatimah al-Zahra`) and ‘Abdul-Amīr (al-Mu`minīn ‘Alī) are way more ocmmon amongst Shias in Iraq than names such as ‘Abdullāh or Abdul-Rāhman. Similar case in Iran, with the difference that Ghulam/’Abdol-Rezā (Abdul-Ridā) are very popular due to ‘Ali ibn Musa al-Ridā being buried in Tūs, Khurāsān (modern day Mashad).
The Imāms of Āl Muhammad (s), the likes of al-Bāqir, al-Sādiq, al-Kāzim, al-Ridā etc. many had more than one wive and on top of that concubines (oppressed lives, huh…), ‘our master ‘Ali (r) alone had over 30 (daughters and sons from different wives and concubines combined) children, he named TWO of them ‘Omar, there is an Abū Bakr’ and ‘Uthmān among them (irrelevant after whom he named them, point is he LIKED those names, unlike some of his so called lovers…) yet not a single ‘Abd Muhammad/’Abdul-Rasūl/’Abdul-Nabī or ‘Abdul-Zahra` or ‘Abdul-‘Adhra (virgin Mary) nor ‘Abdul-Husayn or Ghulām this and that. Not a single grandson or great grandson of his named any of his children ‘Abd Muhammad/al-Husayn etc., this evil practices emerged very late as Rāfidism itself is a religion that continuously evolves to the worst.
Conclusion: The Sāhabah and Imāms of the Ahlul-Bayt loved names such as Abdullah, Abdul-Rahman (actual most beloved names in the sight of Allah!) etc. and never revived Jāhiliyyah in the name of loving Jesus (‘Abdul-Masīh) or the Ahlul-Bayt (‘Abdul-Husayn etc.), they knew such names are prohibited in Islam otherwise nothing could have prevented them from naming at least one of their children after such names, even the Messenger of Allāh (s) despite his immense love and aspiration for Prophet Ibrāhīm (a) did not name one of his sons ‘Abd (slave of) Ibrāhīm but rather Ibrāhim (Abraham), this is the monotheistic spirit of Islam that the Zanādiqah want to undermine in the name of saints and the Ahlul-Bayt. They have literally revived what the Prophet (s) came to fight against and abolish!
Ahlus-Sunnah haven’t fallen into this Bid’ah.
So whose following the Ahlul-Bayt in their preferred choices of names and avoidance of Harām names?
Answer: Undoubtly the people of Tawhīd, the Ahlus-Sunnah wal-Jamā’ah.