Was the prophet Muhammad able to read and write?

[firedragon]

Argument 1. A lot of people would have been illiterate at the time - Many people at that time would have been illiterate, but does that mean everyone was? So is it fair to make the argument that Muhammed or any single person was illiterate unless otherwise there was significant and clear evidence to the idea?

Argument 2. Ahadith say that he was illiterate - Yep. But aren't ahadith written a few centuries later? Thus, is that empirical evidence? Also, what about the ahadith that conflicts this notion like the one where the prophet apparently sees the gates of heaven and hell and sees certain things written on it and he narrates it. IF he couldn't read, how could he read what was written?

Argument 3. He is Ummi Nabi as said in the Quran - Quran does not use the word Ummi as illiterate, it uses it as gentile. So many places. So isnt it strange that translators found ummi to mean gentile all over the Quran but only when it comes to the prophet it became illiterate?

Argument 4. He was illiterate, thats why the Quran is a miracle - Well, have you used your God given aqal to think if maybe people wanted to make a miracle out of something that may not have existed and made up a story along the way?

Argument 5. Scholars agree that he was illiterate - So what now? Scholars agree and you have lost your brain? You are speaking about Ijma. What is this Ijma based on? It is based on tradition that they pick and choose because there were Maliki scholars in Al Andalus who argued that the prophet Muhammed was literate. e.g. Scholar and Poet "Abu al Walid al Baji in his book Tahkik al madhhab".

Argument 6. He dictated and got others to write - Well there is a difference in opinion among your own Islamic scholars on this. The hadith about him asking for a pen and paper at the death bed was ask someone else to write is too much of an effort to try and prove that he was illiterate. Its too much inference. He just asked for pen and paper. How in the world can you imagine that it was to get someone else to write? Well, one could argue that if he wanted a writer, he would have asked for a writer, not pen and paper.

Even in traditional schools of thought, blind taqleed is haram. I am using terms Muslims are used to in order to relate. Taqleed means to adhere to another persons school of thought. Aqal is the God given intellect a human being has to reason and think for himself. Different schools of thought have varying views on this in historical Islam.

So what do you think? Was this man an illiterate? Or is there no evidence to really prove that he was illiterate? What is this obsession about him being illiterate? Is it that people are so insecure that they want him to be an illiterate so badly they are willing to die for that cause of apologetics? Is it to make him a miracle when its unnecessary?

What say you brothers and sisters??

 

[wizanda]

No person could correlate poetry like it without being a scholar, to have that level of rhyming vocabulary.

Muhammad had to have studied the Bible as he cites its ideas in multiple places, and the Talmud, Gnostic, Zoroastrian, ideas, even possibly Hindu ideas, etc.

It is dumb to say he couldn't understand, when he references there are messages sent to every nation, and he confirms them.

It is like people have just accepted made up Hadiths claiming he was illiterate, and not realizing the unlettered are those who don't study the things of God, and the lettered are those who seek wisdom.

In my opinion.

 

[BSM1]

On a trip to Istanbul many years ago, our hosts took us to a Mosque where we were instructed to be extremely respectful and quiet (and, no, it wasn't the Blue Mosque). The only thing inside this mosque was a pair of Mohammed's shoes and one of his Qurans. From this we can surmise that not only could Mohammed read, he could walk as well.

 

[Shad]

Argument 1. A lot of people would have been illiterate at the time - Many people at that time would have been illiterate, but does that mean everyone was? So is it fair to make the argument that Muhammed or any single person was illiterate unless otherwise there was significant and clear evidence to the idea?

Argument 2. Ahadith say that he was illiterate - Yep. But aren't ahadith written a few centuries later? Thus, is that empirical evidence? Also, what about the ahadith that conflicts this notion like the one where the prophet apparently sees the gates of heaven and hell and sees certain things written on it and he narrates it. IF he couldn't read, how could he read what was written?

Argument 3. He is Ummi Nabi as said in the Quran - Quran does not use the word Ummi as illiterate, it uses it as gentile. So many places. So isnt it strange that translators found ummi to mean gentile all over the Quran but only when it comes to the prophet it became illiterate?

Argument 4. He was illiterate, thats why the Quran is a miracle - Well, have you used your God given aqal to think if maybe people wanted to make a miracle out of something that may not have existed and made up a story along the way?

Argument 5. Scholars agree that he was illiterate - So what now? Scholars agree and you have lost your brain? You are speaking about Ijma. What is this Ijma based on? It is based on tradition that they pick and choose because there were Maliki scholars in Al Andalus who argued that the prophet Muhammed was literate. e.g. Scholar and Poet "Abu al Walid al Baji in his book Tahkik al madhhab".

Argument 6. He dictated and got others to write - Well there is a difference in opinion among your own Islamic scholars on this. The hadith about him asking for a pen and paper at the death bed was ask someone else to write is too much of an effort to try and prove that he was illiterate. Its too much inference. He just asked for pen and paper. How in the world can you imagine that it was to get someone else to write? Well, one could argue that if he wanted a writer, he would have asked for a writer, not pen and paper.

Even in traditional schools of thought, blind taqleed is haram. I am using terms Muslims are used to in order to relate. Taqleed means to adhere to another persons school of thought. Aqal is the God given intellect a human being has to reason and think for himself. Different schools of thought have varying views on this in historical Islam.

So what do you think? Was this man an illiterate? Or is there no evidence to really prove that he was illiterate? What is this obsession about him being illiterate? Is it that people are so insecure that they want him to be an illiterate so badly they are willing to die for that cause of apologetics? Is it to make him a miracle when its unnecessary?

What say you brothers and sisters??

Just to keep it simple. It is all hearsay. We do not know. The issue is people treat these sources with a level of authority often only because they were told to.

Writing is not required to create a story or poetry.

People can use oral traditions to educate and communicate without the need for the student to be literate.

*These are not addressing any specific point in any order. I just found myself repeating a few for each question.

 

[j1i]

Argument 1. A lot of people would have been illiterate at the time - Many people at that time would have been illiterate, but does that mean everyone was? So is it fair to make the argument that Muhammed or any single person was illiterate unless otherwise there was significant and clear evidence to the idea?

Argument 2. Ahadith say that he was illiterate - Yep. But aren't ahadith written a few centuries later? Thus, is that empirical evidence? Also, what about the ahadith that conflicts this notion like the one where the prophet apparently sees the gates of heaven and hell and sees certain things written on it and he narrates it. IF he couldn't read, how could he read what was written?

Argument 3. He is Ummi Nabi as said in the Quran - Quran does not use the word Ummi as illiterate, it uses it as gentile. So many places. So isnt it strange that translators found ummi to mean gentile all over the Quran but only when it comes to the prophet it became illiterate?

Argument 4. He was illiterate, thats why the Quran is a miracle - Well, have you used your God given aqal to think if maybe people wanted to make a miracle out of something that may not have existed and made up a story along the way?

Argument 5. Scholars agree that he was illiterate - So what now? Scholars agree and you have lost your brain? You are speaking about Ijma. What is this Ijma based on? It is based on tradition that they pick and choose because there were Maliki scholars in Al Andalus who argued that the prophet Muhammed was literate. e.g. Scholar and Poet "Abu al Walid al Baji in his book Tahkik al madhhab".

Argument 6. He dictated and got others to write - Well there is a difference in opinion among your own Islamic scholars on this. The hadith about him asking for a pen and paper at the death bed was ask someone else to write is too much of an effort to try and prove that he was illiterate. Its too much inference. He just asked for pen and paper. How in the world can you imagine that it was to get someone else to write? Well, one could argue that if he wanted a writer, he would have asked for a writer, not pen and paper.

Even in traditional schools of thought, blind taqleed is haram. I am using terms Muslims are used to in order to relate. Taqleed means to adhere to another persons school of thought. Aqal is the God given intellect a human being has to reason and think for himself. Different schools of thought have varying views on this in historical Islam.

So what do you think? Was this man an illiterate? Or is there no evidence to really prove that he was illiterate? What is this obsession about him being illiterate? Is it that people are so insecure that they want him to be an illiterate so badly they are willing to die for that cause of apologetics? Is it to make him a miracle when its unnecessary?

What say you brothers and sisters??

Integration is relative
Perfection of the summer in the absence of rain and heat up
The perfection of the Prophet to be unreader and non-writer
And there is evidence in the Quran that

quran
7:157 Those who follow the Messenger, the Unlettered Prophet, whom they find mentioned in the Torah and the Gospel in their possession. He directs them to righteousness, and deters them from evil, and allows for them all good things, and prohibits for them wickedness, and unloads the burdens and the shackles that are upon them. Those who believe in him, and respect him, and support him, and follow the light that came down with him—these are the successful.

29:47 Likewise, We revealed to you the Scripture. Those to whom We gave the Scripture believe in it, and some of these believe in it. None renounce Our communications except the disbelievers.
48 You did not read any scripture before this, nor did you write it down with your right hand; otherwise the falsifiers would have doubted.
49 In fact, it is clear signs in the hearts of those given knowledge. No one renounce Our signs except the unjust.

62:2 It is He who sent among the unlettered a messenger from themselves; reciting His revelations to them, and purifying them, and teaching them the Scripture and wisdom; although they were in obvious error before that.


THANKS DUDE

 

[firedragon]

No person could correlate poetry like it without being a scholar, to have that level of rhyming vocabulary.

Muhammad had to have studied the Bible as he cites its ideas in multiple places, and the Talmud, Gnostic, Zoroastrian, ideas, even possibly Hindu ideas, etc.

It is dumb to say he couldn't understand, when he references there are messages sent to every nation, and he confirms them.

It is like people have just accepted made up Hadiths claiming he was illiterate, and not realizing the unlettered are those who don't study the things of God, and the lettered are those who seek wisdom.

In my opinion.

Can you be specific?

You mean that Muhammed studied

1. The Bible - So how many books? 66 of the protestant bible from genesis to revelations? Did her also study other Bibles with books of Shepard of Hermas, Letters of Clement, Epistle of Barnabas?
2. Talmud - Which one? Or do you mean both?
3. Gnostic - All of the so called gnostic gospels or some in particular?
4. Zoroastrian - Which
5. Hindu - You mean all? Vedas, Smrithis, Upanishads, Mahabarath, everything?

To have studied all of this he must have been some kind of genius. NNevertheless, lets hear some specifics.

 

[firedragon]

Integration is relative
Perfection of the summer in the absence of rain and heat up
The perfection of the Prophet to be unreader and non-writer
And there is evidence in the Quran that

quran
7:157 Those who follow the Messenger, the Unlettered Prophet, whom they find mentioned in the Torah and the Gospel in their possession. He directs them to righteousness, and deters them from evil, and allows for them all good things, and prohibits for them wickedness, and unloads the burdens and the shackles that are upon them. Those who believe in him, and respect him, and support him, and follow the light that came down with him—these are the successful.

29:47 Likewise, We revealed to you the Scripture. Those to whom We gave the Scripture believe in it, and some of these believe in it. None renounce Our communications except the disbelievers.
48 You did not read any scripture before this, nor did you write it down with your right hand; otherwise the falsifiers would have doubted.
49 In fact, it is clear signs in the hearts of those given knowledge. No one renounce Our signs except the unjust.

62:2 It is He who sent among the unlettered a messenger from themselves; reciting His revelations to them, and purifying them, and teaching them the Scripture and wisdom; although they were in obvious error before that.


THANKS DUDE

I have already addressed this "Unlettered messenger" in point 3 brother.

But i think your verses make it quite clear that Ummi means gentile or not knowledgeable in scripture.

 

[j1i]

I have already addressed this "Unlettered messenger" in point 3 brother.

But i think your verses make it quite clear that Ummi means gentile or not knowledgeable in scripture.

The Prophet Muhammad obtained the word of God from one of the angels named Gabriel
He used to say these words and others would hear and memorize them
God gave the Prophet Muhammad the ability to memorize as well as the people

Imagine a world with no entertainment tools or things to do other than talk
So normal preservation operations will be stronger
These words were passed on between people to work with

Historical evidence - in addition to rational and verbal proofs - indicates that he (peace and blessings of God be upon him and his family) was before God sent him into Islam, believing in God, unifying him that he never worshiped idol and never worshiped Idol

hmm i hope that i answer you (^_^)

 

[firedragon]

The Prophet Muhammad obtained the word of God from one of the angels named Gabriel
He used to say these words and others would hear and memorize them
God gave the Prophet Muhammad the ability to memorize as well as the people

Imagine a world with no entertainment tools or things to do other than talk
So normal preservation operations will be stronger
These words were passed on between people to work with

Historical evidence - in addition to rational and verbal proofs - indicates that he (peace and blessings of God be upon him and his family) was before God sent him into Islam, believing in God, unifying him that he never worshiped idol and never worshiped Idol

hmm i hope that i answer you (^_^)

Not at all brother.

 

[sun rise]

I certainly have no insight about his literacy. But I also see no contradiction in a literate person giving dictation to another for various reasons. It's possible that he was in a state that sufi's call "hal" or ecstasy and someone took down the words he spoke then.

The dispute could possibly have come about by some seeing him writing and others hearing him and seeing someone else take down the words he spoke.

Muslims consider the Quran to be a miracle. To me it does not matter whether he wrote it, dictated it or both. I don't see Muslims changing their minds based on this point.

 

[wizanda]

1. The Bible - So how many books?

We can show Muhammad had advanced knowledge of the Curse of Moses (Deuteronomy 28), and how it was placed on the people of the book; when they sold their covenant for a small price (Zechariah 11).

2. Talmud - Which one?

Quran 5:32 Because of that, We decreed upon the Children of Israel that whoever kills a soul unless for a soul or for corruption [done] in the land - it is as if he had slain mankind entirely. And whoever saves one - it is as if he had saved mankind entirely. And our messengers had certainly come to them with clear proofs. Then indeed many of them, [even] after that, throughout the land, were transgressors.

“Therefore the man was created singly, to teach that he who destroys one soul of a human being, the Scripture considers him as if he should destroy a whole world, and him who saves one soul of Israel, the Scripture considers him as if he should save a whole World.” (Babylonian Talmud).

3. Gnostic - All of the so called gnostic gospels or some in particular?

There are ideas found in the Gospel of Barnabas, the Fake Gospel of John has a Gnostic edge, and there are contentions against some of the earlier church ideas from Gnostic writings.

There are more specific answers yet would have to read the Quran again, to be more specific, unless it comes to me at some point.

4. Zoroastrian - Which

The Day of Reckoning, Day of the Lord, Resurrection of the Dead, Their faces will turn to fire in shock, etc, was all in Zoroastrian writings first.

5. Hindu - You mean all?

No, Muhammad was on the Trade Routes had a knowledge of many ideas, and correlated the bits he knew into something cohesive.

The idea the Quran says this realm is a place of delusions, and desires (3:185) isn't Middle Eastern, it is Dharmic; it is the definition of the Maya.

In my opinion.

 

[firedragon]

We can show Muhammad had advanced knowledge of the Curse of Moses (Deuteronomy 28), and how it was placed on the people of the book; when they sold their covenant for a small price (Zechariah 11).

So when you said Bible you meant Zachariah!

Quran 5:32 Because of that, We decreed upon the Children of Israel that whoever kills a soul unless for a soul or for corruption [done] in the land - it is as if he had slain mankind entirely. And whoever saves one - it is as if he had saved mankind entirely. And our messengers had certainly come to them with clear proofs. Then indeed many of them, [even] after that, throughout the land, were transgressors.

“Therefore the man was created singly, to teach that he who destroys one soul of a human being, the Scripture considers him as if he should destroy a whole world, and him who saves one soul of Israel, the Scripture considers him as if he should save a whole World.” (Babylonian Talmud).

Ah. So the Babylonian. Not Jerusalem?

 

[firedragon]

There are ideas found in the Gospel of Barnabas,

Its not relevant. I said Epistle, not gospel.

 

[Terry Sampson]

Trivial matter, IMO: I think I remember reading somewhere that he received the Qur'an in portions over several years, AND recited them to his follower who memorized them. Then, later after Muhammad was dead, copies of variant renderings of the Qur'an were collected by a Caliph, and a standardized version of it was produced. So, it occurs to me to wonder, if Muhammad was literate, why would there be variant versions of any portion of the Qur'an? Why wouldn't there have been one version of it from his lifetime? Was the Qur'an that he wrote lost and were all of his contemporaneous followers illiterate?

Far more interesting to me is whether or not the prevailing theory of Muhammad's revelation(s) is: (a) stenographic theory or (b) participatory theory? Those are two theories of revelation that I recently saw discussed in Benjamin D. Sommer's book: "Revelation and Authority". Sommers is a Conservative Jew and Professor of Bible and Ancient Semitic Languages at Jewish Theological University in New York, New York. In Sommer's words:

• Throughout this book I use the terms “participatory theory of revelation” and “participatory theology” to speak of approaches to revelation that view the Pentateuch (and Jewish tradition generally) as the result of a dialogue between God and Israel. According to the participatory theology, the Pentateuch not only conveys God’s will but also reflects Israel’s interpretation of and response to that will. This view of revelation puts a premium on human agency and gives witness to the grandeur of a God who accomplishes a providential task through the free will of human subjects under God’s authority. We may contrast participatory theologies with a better-known view of revelation, which I term “the stenographic theory of revelation.” According to the latter theory, God dictated all the words of the Pentateuch to Moses, and Moses recorded God’s words without altering them. In the stenographic theory, all the words of the Pentateuch are God’s. In the participatory theory, the wording in the Pentateuch is a joint effort involving heavenly and earthly contributions; or the wording may be an entirely human response to God’s real but nonverbal revelation. Especially in the second chapter of this book, I argue that the Pentateuch itself gives voice to both stenographic and participatory theologies of revelation.

 

[firedragon]

Trivial matter, IMO: I think I remember reading somewhere that he received the Qur'an in portions over several years, AND recited them to his follower who memorized them. Then, later after Muhammad was dead, copies of variant renderings of the Qur'an were collected by a Caliph, and a standardized version of it was produced. So, it occurs to me to wonder, if Muhammad was literate, why would there be variant versions of any portion of the Qur'an? Why wouldn't there have been one version of it from his lifetime? Was the Qur'an that he wrote lost and were all of his contemporaneous followers illiterate?

Far more interesting to me is whether or not the prevailing theory of Muhammad's revelation(s) is: (a) stenographic theory or (b) participatory theory? Those are two theories of revelation that I recently saw discussed in Benjamin D. Sommer's book: "Revelation and Authority". Sommers is a Conservative Jew and Professor of Bible and Ancient Semitic Languages at Jewish Theological University in New York, New York. In Sommer's words:

• Throughout this book I use the terms “participatory theory of revelation” and “participatory theology” to speak of approaches to revelation that view the Pentateuch (and Jewish tradition generally) as the result of a dialogue between God and Israel. According to the participatory theology, the Pentateuch not only conveys God’s will but also reflects Israel’s interpretation of and response to that will. This view of revelation puts a premium on human agency and gives witness to the grandeur of a God who accomplishes a providential task through the free will of human subjects under God’s authority. We may contrast participatory theologies with a better-known view of revelation, which I term “the stenographic theory of revelation.” According to the latter theory, God dictated all the words of the Pentateuch to Moses, and Moses recorded God’s words without altering them. In the stenographic theory, all the words of the Pentateuch are God’s. In the participatory theory, the wording in the Pentateuch is a joint effort involving heavenly and earthly contributions; or the wording may be an entirely human response to God’s real but nonverbal revelation. Especially in the second chapter of this book, I argue that the Pentateuch itself gives voice to both stenographic and participatory theologies of revelation.

So are you contending that Muhammed was illiterate based on the uthman mushaf tradition? So what you're saying is that since there were variant readings of the Quran which uthman consolidated into one reading, his literacy in question! Is that what you are saying. It's a valid point, I'm just clarifying your thought.

 

[Terry Sampson]

So are you contending that Muhammed was illiterate based on the uthman mushaf tradition?

"Contending" seems too strong a position for me to hold. I remember only bits and pieces of "historical facts", if they were actually facts, and as may seem obvious, I don't have accurate memory of names and dates of principle parties and their actions. Consider my first paragraph to be my "wondering out loud", so to speak.

So what you're saying is that since there were variant readings of the Quran which uthman consolidated into one reading, his literacy in question!

So it would seem to me. I'm open to correction of or amendment to anything I wrote in my first paragraph.

 

[LuisDantas]

Technically we do not know. But I think that we can all agree that he had a lot of access to people who could read and write and were willing to do it on his behalf for virtually all of his time as a Prophet.

Far as I know, there is no true dispute that it was those people who physically wrote the original Qur'an texts. We can make arguments about the intellectual authorship and the exact origin of the words themselves, but clearly the text was written at some point, and I for one am not aware of any tradition that the writing itself was supernatural. The Qur'an itself does not seem to indicate that, either.

It has been noted that Muhammad was a merchant before becoming a Prophet, and that would strongly hint that he must have had some degree of ability to read and write, at least, numbers. It is a significant argument, but probably not unsurmountable.

So ultimately we do not know whether Muhammad became literate at some point. I will however note that it would be very reasonable indeed if he did, given the circunstances.

After all, how difficult could it be for someone in his position to find someone willing and able to teach him? You pretty much have to imply that there is a supernatural reason why he could not or would not want to learn to read and write. And that would be, at least, remarkable. Pretty much everyone around him was clearly very interested in the Qur'an. What are the odds that he himself would not be interested enough to have at least the willingness to develop the ability to read the words directly?

In the absence of any clear indication to the contrary, I would say that we can fairly assume that he did in fact learn to at least read some Arabic at some point.

 

[firedragon]

"Contending" seems too strong a position for me to hold. I remember only bits and pieces of "historical facts", if they were actually facts, and as may seem obvious, I don't have accurate memory of names and dates of principle parties and their actions. Consider my first paragraph to be my "wondering out loud", so to speak.

So it would seem to me. I'm open to correction of or amendment to anything I wrote in my first paragraph.

That's fair.

I know what you are referring to. It's the tradition of Islam where it says uthman collected variant readings of the Quran, destroyed all but one and made a standard text.

See, this is not enough of a reason to contend that Muhammed was illiterate. Maybe he was. But we dont know from historical evidence.

Even if he was only narrating the Quran to others and they were writing down, he could ha e still been literate.

And even if he was literate and he wrote the quran down scribal errors can creep in when others copy from him.. Sorry fo typos, I'm in the phone.

Theres a lot of things you probably did not accrue in this uthman Quran matter, but I am only commenting on your point.

 

[Terry Sampson]

See, this is not enough of a reason to contend that Muhammed was illiterate. Maybe he was. But we dont know from historical evidence.
Even if he was only narrating the Quran to others and they were writing down, he could ha e still been literate.

And that's why I said "contending" is too strong a word to describe my thoughts on the matter. More importantly, IMO, what is the prevailing theory regarding what was written down: stenographic or participatory? My impression is that most, if not all, Muslims here in RF subscribe to a stenographic view of the Qur'an, i.e. the words in it are the words that Allah wanted written, precisely those words, no more, no less. If my impression is correct, then the prevailing belief in Islam is what we, in the Christian world, would call "fundamentalist" and, Christian fundamentalists are a challenge to work with. They tend to be easily offended and are "replacement" oriented: i.e. Christianity is here to replace all other faith communities.

 

[firedragon]

And that's why I said "contending" is too strong a word to describe my thoughts on the matter. More importantly, IMO, what is the prevailing theory regarding what was written down: stenographic or participatory? My impression is that most, if not all, Muslims here in RF subscribe to a stenographic view of the Qur'an, i.e. the words in it are the words that Allah wanted written, precisely those words, no more, no less. If my impression is correct, then the prevailing belief in Islam is what we, in the Christian world, would call "fundamentalist" and, Christian fundamentalists are a challenge to work with. They tend to be easily offended and are "replacement" oriented: i.e. Christianity is here to replace all other faith communities.

Haha. Apologies for using the same word contending again. Old habits die hard.

You have touched on a very good topic. Please open a new thread on it. I would like to discuss it there.

Looking forward.