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??