Jeremy – I certainly agree with your last sentence. Any Muslim can say, “O Creator of the World…”, or address the “God of Moses and Abraham” – by means of these descriptions, it seems to me, they’d be referring to the one God.

It seems to me that a difficulty with the baptism view about proper names is that we want to say that names can be “re-baptized”. Go back to my parable. At the beginning, it is clear that the term “George W. Bush” refers to me, even though these people falsely assume that this person (me) is the current ruler of America. But, why couldn’t this change. A hundred years on, say, people there are still talking about “Bush” and confusedly thinking that he is me. But now they’ve conversed a little more with outsiders – say, tourists – and have been told a lot about (the real) Bush. Despite how their usage of “Bush” began, won’t it eventually refer to Dubya, and not to me? Does it go through a stage of referring to both of us? I don’t know.

Whatever we say about the reference of their singular terms, I doubt the religious relevance of the issue. Suppose, as is implausible, that Muslims couldn’t refer to God – they’re in a situation like the people on my island, soon after my initial visit. Now, suppose that the real Bush shows up, on a friendly state visit. He’s aware that these people have been honoring me – the person they falsely believe is the president. Won’t Bush, at some point after contacting them, sort of accept this honor (at least some of it), or rather, act as if it had been given to him? After all, if they knew *he* was the president, they, or some of them, would have (eventually) given it to him. Of course, when he first shows up, they may all scream “That’s not the President! It’s an impostor. We met the president, and he’s pasty white philosophy prof who lives in New York!” So even if (we assume what I think is false, that) Muslims can’t refer to God, it isn’t as if God ignores them, has nothing to do with them, or fails to love them, or doesn’t hear (and sometimes respond to) their prayers.

It’s an interesting case of competing potential referents. I suppose it would be like someone showing up disguised as me and taking my place for a year, with everyone thinking they’re speaking of me but really speaking of the imposter. At times, though, they’ll speak of me when they think they’re speaking of the person in front of them. So wouldn’t the scenario you propose both involve true statements about God, false statements about God, true statements about the imposter-demon, and false statements about the imposter-demon? It just makes the picture more complex. It doesn’t mean there is no way in which Muslims ever speak of God.