Was the prophet Muhammad able to read and write?

[Shia Islam]

Not according to the Quran. According to the Quran the prophet Muhammed was following through with the only religion. He did not bring a new religion.



I understand that you believe he was illiterate. But whats the empirical evidence that he was illiterate? Thats the question. Read the O.P, understand it, and be relevant.



And rather than making general assumptions and ad hominem or genetic fallacies, analyse what people say and provide evidence to your point.

Peace.

Dear brother,

With this clear bias and anti-Islam mentality you will not be able to objectively reach any credible result.

Then you are the one who has to prove that Muhammad was able to read and write, as this is against the norm at the place and time where he was born.

Furthermore, although clearly Muslims have objectively addressed this topic, I don’t see it important, since as I clearly mentioned proving that Muhammad can read and write will lead you to nowhere.

People accepted Islam not because Muhammad was illiterate, but because what Islam is.

Peace

 

[firedragon]

Dear brother,

With this clear bias and anti-Islam mentality you will not be able to objectively reach any credible result.

Thanks for more adhominem. Good quality.

Then you are the one who has to prove that Muhammad was able to read and write, as this is against the norm at the place and time where he was born.

I am not saying he could write or not. So read the opening post again, understand it.

Furthermore, although clearly Muslims have objectively addressed this topic, I don’t see it important, since as I clearly mentioned proving that Muhammad can read and write will lead you to nowhere.

Its not important for theology. And if you find it not so important, you could always not participate in the discussion. Its your prerogative. And again, i am not trying to prove he can read and write. I was not there. So i dont know. And the Quran doesnt say it. Please read the OP and understand it.

People accepted Islam not because Muhammad was illiterate, but because what Islam is.

Of course. Not relevant. But you see, you haven't understood the OP. There are many Muslims who claim that the prophet was illiterate so thats the sign of a miraculous nature of the scripture. Its already said in the OP. No one said that "people became Muslims because he was illiterate" so that was a strawman fallacy.

Peace.

 

[Shia Islam]

Thanks for more adhominem. Good quality.



I am not saying he could write or not. So read the opening post again, understand it.



Its not important for theology. And if you find it not so important, you could always not participate in the discussion. Its your prerogative. And again, i am not trying to prove he can read and write. I was not there. So i dont know. And the Quran doesnt say it. Please read the OP and understand it.



Of course. Not relevant. But you see, you haven't understood the OP. There are many Muslims who claim that the prophet was illiterate so thats the sign of a miraculous nature of the scripture. Its already said in the OP. No one said that "people became Muslims because he was illiterate" so that was a strawman fallacy.

Peace.

Hi,
Just out of curiosity, How do understand this Quranic verse:

وَمَا كُنْتَ تَتْلُو مِنْ قَبْلِهِ مِنْ كِتَابٍ وَلَا تَخُطُّهُ بِيَمِينِكَ ۖ إِذًا لَارْتَابَ الْمُبْطِلُونَ

And thou wast not (able) to recite a Book before this (Book came), nor art thou (able) to transcribe it with thy right hand: In that case, indeed, would the talkers of vanities have doubted.

29aya48

 

[firedragon]

Hi,
Just out of curiosity, How do understand this Quranic verse:

This verse was already quoted and responded to. Thus, here goes.

It says thathluu kithaaban, you can easily see that its about a Kithab or a scripture. That does not say "you were illiterate" and neither does it mean "you couldnt write or read anything". It specifically says Kithab. A book. A scripture.

If the Quran wished to say he couldnt write or read anything it would have said "Ayyu Shayin". So it means scripture.

It is because he did not read any scripture before the Quran that he is a "Gentile" or an "Ummi Nabi". An ummi in this sense (Alif-Hamza, Meem, Ya) traditionally means one who has not or does not follow the mosaic traditions or scripture.

Thus, no brother, you should also think that this verse does not say "you cannot write", it says you "Did not" and it directly says Kithab or scripture. Read also the surrounding verses.

If you say kithab could also mean just any book, If you take generally in simple arabic terms kithab means book. But take this verse 29:48. Begin from a few verses earlier. When it says in Uthla maa uuhiya or recite from what has been revealed to you "min al Kithaabi" it means scripture. So we must read the context. At least thesurroundinng verses. So in this matter, it is not speaking of any book. Its speaking of scripture.

And it says "La thujaadhiloo ahlal kithaabi" so on that matter is the Quran speaking of a reader or writer of "any book"? No. You know very well what Ahlal Kithaabi means.

The whole thinng is speaking of scripture. Not just any book.

Amanna bialladhi unzila ilainaa wa unzila ilaikum, believe in what was sent down/revealed to us and what was revealed to you". So what was anzala? What was sent down? Which book was sent down?

Its scripture. So thats why the verse 29:48 is speaking about scripture.

 

[Shia Islam]

This verse was already quoted and responded to. Thus, here goes.

It says thathluu kithaaban, you can easily see that its about a Kithab or a scripture. That does not say "you were illiterate" and neither does it mean "you couldnt write or read anything". It specifically says Kithab. A book. A scripture.

If the Quran wished to say he couldnt write or read anything it would have said "Ayyu Shayin". So it means scripture.

It is because he did not read any scripture before the Quran that he is a "Gentile" or an "Ummi Nabi". An ummi in this sense (Alif-Hamza, Meem, Ya) traditionally means one who has not or does not follow the mosaic traditions or scripture.

Thus, no brother, you should also think that this verse does not say "you cannot write", it says you "Did not" and it directly says Kithab or scripture. Read also the surrounding verses.

If you say kithab could also mean just any book, If you take generally in simple arabic terms kithab means book. But take this verse 29:48. Begin from a few verses earlier. When it says in Uthla maa uuhiya or recite from what has been revealed to you "min al Kithaabi" it means scripture. So we must read the context. At least thesurroundinng verses. So in this matter, it is not speaking of any book. Its speaking of scripture.

And it says "La thujaadhiloo ahlal kithaabi" so on that matter is the Quran speaking of a reader or writer of "any book"? No. You know very well what Ahlal Kithaabi means.

The whole thinng is speaking of scripture. Not just any book.

Amanna bialladhi unzila ilainaa wa unzila ilaikum, believe in what was sent down/revealed to us and what was revealed to you". So what was anzala? What was sent down? Which book was sent down?

Its scripture. So thats why the verse 29:48 is speaking about scripture.

This sounds reasonable.
all the best

 

[Link]

This verse was already quoted and responded to. Thus, here goes.

It says thathluu kithaaban, you can easily see that its about a Kithab or a scripture. That does not say "you were illiterate" and neither does it mean "you couldnt write or read anything". It specifically says Kithab. A book. A scripture.

If the Quran wished to say he couldnt write or read anything it would have said "Ayyu Shayin". So it means scripture.

It is because he did not read any scripture before the Quran that he is a "Gentile" or an "Ummi Nabi". An ummi in this sense (Alif-Hamza, Meem, Ya) traditionally means one who has not or does not follow the mosaic traditions or scripture.

Thus, no brother, you should also think that this verse does not say "you cannot write", it says you "Did not" and it directly says Kithab or scripture. Read also the surrounding verses.

If you say kithab could also mean just any book, If you take generally in simple arabic terms kithab means book. But take this verse 29:48. Begin from a few verses earlier. When it says in Uthla maa uuhiya or recite from what has been revealed to you "min al Kithaabi" it means scripture. So we must read the context. At least thesurroundinng verses. So in this matter, it is not speaking of any book. Its speaking of scripture.

And it says "La thujaadhiloo ahlal kithaabi" so on that matter is the Quran speaking of a reader or writer of "any book"? No. You know very well what Ahlal Kithaabi means.

The whole thinng is speaking of scripture. Not just any book.

Amanna bialladhi unzila ilainaa wa unzila ilaikum, believe in what was sent down/revealed to us and what was revealed to you". So what was anzala? What was sent down? Which book was sent down?

Its scripture. So thats why the verse 29:48 is speaking about scripture.

If it was referring to "the book", there would be an "al", but it says "a book". God didn't call Christians and Jews of the people of a book, he called them people of the book. If was referring to that concept like everywhere else, for example, when it says "and revealed with them (the Prophets) the book", it would use "al".

That, and it doesn't make sense, that God would say to Mohammad you read and wrote all books, but didn't write or read scripture. It just doesn't make sense, as there is no way of people knowing that. It would be God's testimony and maybe a few witnesses. It wouldn't be well known knowledge of his people.

But if Mohammad never wrote or read before the revelation, it makes sense, that would common knowledge since Mohammad was a famous merchant and people would know if he can read or write, as that is important for them to know.

Mohammad (pbuh&hf) - the first words revealed to him were "read", and according to Shiite hadiths, at this point Imam Ali (as) who was permitted to read, taught Mohammad (pbuh&hf) to read and write.

 

[firedragon]

If it was referring to "the book", there would be an "al", but it says "a book". God didn't call Christians and Jews of the people of a book, he called them people of the book. If was referring to that concept like everywhere else, for example, when it says "and revealed with them (the Prophets) the book", it would use "al".

So you are saying that only if the Quran uses Al Kithab it means scripture, and if not it doesnt mean scripture but just any book?

Can you confirm this is your point?

 

[Link]

So you are saying that only if the Quran uses Al Kithab it means scripture, and if not it doesnt mean scripture but just any book?

Can you confirm this is your point?

There maybe an exception, but almost everywhere when referring to the scriptures, it says the book.

For example the letter from Sulaiman (as), it said "a writing.....", didn't say "the writing....".

Here, I think if God wanted us to think it's referring to scripture, he would've said "the book" as that would be clear, while saying otherwise, gives the impression it refers to any writing.

 

[firedragon]

Mohammad (pbuh&hf) - the first words revealed to him were "read", and according to Shiite hadiths, at this point Imam Ali (as) who was permitted to read, taught Mohammad (pbuh&hf) to read and write.

Lets say i hypothetically follow your trail of reasoning here. So Ali taught the prophet to read and write at the point Angel gabriel came to the prophet and said "Iqra". Thats the first surah revealed.

So what you are saying is that the prophet would have learned how to read and write by the time chapter 29 was revealed? Thats around 11 - 12 years after Ali started teaching him?

Is that enough time to learn not to be illiterate? SO what you are basically saying is that the prophet was into his 11th year or 12th year of being literate!!

 

[firedragon]

There maybe an exception, but almost everywhere when referring to the scriptures, it says the book.

For example the letter from Sulaiman (as), it said "a writing.....", didn't say "the writing....".

Here, I think if God wanted us to think it's referring to scripture, he would've said "the book" as that would be clear, while saying otherwise, gives the impression it refers to any writing.

Not really. Al Kithab, or Min Kithab, or just kithab, it could mean a writing, a record, a scripture. What makes the difference is the context of the sentence and what Allah is saying in that story or narration. What you just said with your Al Kithab and a book, the book is with a profound lack of arabic knowledge which took me by surprise. Thats fine. I can definitely tell you that you were absolutely wrong. Dont repeat this anywhere.

1. It doesnt say "a" book. It says "min". Do you understand what "min" means?
2. Could you tell me what "Kablihi" means? What does "Min Kablihi" mean?
3. I added this. How do you say "a book" in Arabic if al kithab is the book? Lets say "a book" and "the book"!

Lets take it from there.

 

[Link]

Lets say i hypothetically follow your trail of reasoning here. So Ali taught the prophet to read and write at the point Angel gabriel came to the prophet and said "Iqra". Thats the first surah revealed.

So what you are saying is that the prophet would have learned how to read and write by the time chapter 29 was revealed? Thats around 11 - 12 years after Ali started teaching him?

Is that enough time to learn not to be illiterate? SO what you are basically saying is that the prophet was into his 11th year or 12th year of being literate!!

I'm saying Mohammad could've learned or write. But just as Khidr does things and we don't understand, he was ordered by Elyas (as) to not read and recite. He maybe knew, or maybe didn't know why, and he probably craved knowledge of holy scriptures being loved by God, but because the Quran is beyond the capabilities of humans, him not even reading or writing before, adds to it's credibility.

It's the same with how Pharaoh accused Moses of being a sorcerer, even though he raised him without magic and knew he didn't train in magic with sorcerers. It added credibility to the chiefs and the Pharaoh.

It's not that the Quran needs him to be illiterate to make the case Quran is from God. It just proof upon proof.

 

[firedragon]

That, and it doesn't make sense, that God would say to Mohammad you read and wrote all books, but didn't write or read scripture.

You know something brother. For the sake of argument, you have completely twisted a Quranic ayat.

You missed the "before" point in the verse. It says Min kablihi, Before or previous.

No one said that God is saying "you read and wrote all books but not scripture". No one said that. No one even alluded that this is saying that. And the verse says "before it or previous". So what its saying is that "you didnt read any previous scripture". Not "any scripture". Dont misrepresent the Quran brother.

Salaam.

 

[firedragon]

I'm saying Mohammad could've learned or write. But just as Khidr does things and we don't understand, he was ordered by Elyas (as) to not read and recite. He maybe knew, or maybe didn't know why, and he probably craved knowledge of holy scriptures being loved by God, but because the Quran is beyond the capabilities of humans, him not even reading or writing before, adds to it's credibility.

It's the same with how Pharaoh accused Moses of being a sorcerer, even though he raised him without magic and knew he didn't train in magic with sorcerers. It added credibility to the chiefs and the Pharaoh.

It's not that the Quran needs him to be illiterate to make the case Quran is from God. It just proof upon proof.

Its not a need to be literate, or not. Dont make arguments that no one made. Maybe the prophet was completely illiterate, maybe he learned, maybe he always was literate. If God wants he can do anything because he is Kulli shayin kadheer.

The point is, there is no evidence.

So dont make strawman arguments.

 

[Link]

Not really. Al Kithab, or Min Kithab, or just kithab, it could mean a writing, a record, a scripture. What makes the difference is the context of the sentence and what Allah is saying in that story or narration. What you just said with your Al Kithab and a book, the book is with a profound lack of arabic knowledge which took me by surprise. Thats fine. I can definitely tell you that you were absolutely wrong. Dont repeat this anywhere.

1. It doesnt say "a" book. It says "min". Do you understand what "min" means?
2. Could you tell me what "Kablihi" means? What does "Min Kablihi" mean?
3. I added this. How do you say "a book" in Arabic if al kithab is the book? Lets say "a book" and "the book"!

Lets take it from there.

Bro, the translation with it, should be "you didn't read any writing...".

I'm not saying linguistically it cannot refer to scripture, I'm just saying when talking about that book that God reveals, the Quran almost always used "al" and there would be no reason not to. For example, it says "and we revealed with them (the Prophets) the book..." even though grammar wise, there is more then one book. God through singular usage is saying even though they reveal in different languages and context, it's the same light and the same book!

 

[firedragon]

I'm saying Mohammad could've learned or write. But just as Khidr does things and we don't understand, he was ordered by Elyas (as) to not read and recite. He maybe knew, or maybe didn't know why, and he probably craved knowledge of holy scriptures being loved by God, but because the Quran is beyond the capabilities of humans, him not even reading or writing before, adds to it's credibility.

It's the same with how Pharaoh accused Moses of being a sorcerer, even though he raised him without magic and knew he didn't train in magic with sorcerers. It added credibility to the chiefs and the Pharaoh.

It's not that the Quran needs him to be illiterate to make the case Quran is from God. It just proof upon proof.

Can you annswer to this? Because this is based on your own statements.

Not really. Al Kithab, or Min Kithab, or just kithab, it could mean a writing, a record, a scripture. What makes the difference is the context of the sentence and what Allah is saying in that story or narration. What you just said with your Al Kithab and a book, the book is with a profound lack of arabic knowledge which took me by surprise. Thats fine. I can definitely tell you that you were absolutely wrong. Dont repeat this anywhere.

1. It doesnt say "a" book. It says "min". Do you understand what "min" means?
2. Could you tell me what "Kablihi" means? What does "Min Kablihi" mean?
3. I added this. How do you say "a book" in Arabic if al kithab is the book? Lets say "a book" and "the book"!

Lets take it from there.

 

[Link]

Its not a need to be literate, or not. Dont make arguments that no one made. Maybe the prophet was completely illiterate, maybe he learned, maybe he always was literate. If God wants he can do anything because he is Kulli shayin kadheer.

The point is, there is no evidence.

So dont make strawman arguments.

There is evidence, the verse is making the case, that this was to remove doubt that Mohammad fabricated the Quran. Of course Quran is a proof even if he did read and write before, but this is like additional proof and removes doubt for the people of that time.

People would not know Mohammad (pbuh&hf) didn't read scriptures but read other books. They would know however if he didn't read or write before than, because he was a famous merchant!

 

[firedragon]

Bro, the translation with it, should be "you didn't read any writing...".

I'm not saying linguistically it cannot refer to scripture, I'm just saying when talking about that book that God reveals, the Quran almost always used "al" and there would be no reason not to. For example, it says "and we revealed with them (the Prophets) the book..." even though grammar wise, there is more then one book. God through singular usage is saying even though they reveal in different languages and context, it's the same light and the same book!

No. Thats wrong.

What does Min Kablihi mean? It means previous or before it.

Dont twist the Quran. And dont make the most absurd comments about a language you dont understand apparently. Not knowing a language is fine, but making absurd comments like this is kind of embarrassing.

 

[Link]

FireDragon, Quran was revealed before humans formed Arabic grammar rules. It's not consistent with the grammar rules they formed AFTER the Quran. But most scholars except for those idiots looking to argue for nothing, will argue Quran, breaks the Arabic grammar rules only purposely to manifest something.

This is something you have to know when studying Quran. I wish those making the grammar rules after would've been more mindful of Quran and allowed the same type of usage that God uses, but when people form grammar rules, they usually do it for consistency.

The Quran if it adhered to the grammar rules after it was revealed would not nearly be as beautiful as it is, as the linguistic games it plays with singular and plural is of it's highest beauty. And other things it does as well that seem to break grammar rules but is so purposeful witty and beautiful.

I know Arabic and I read Quran often.

I'm not going to argue with this anymore, because your tone is way too assertive.

 

[Link]

FireDragon, Quran was revealed before humans formed Arabic grammar rules. It's not consistent with the grammar rules they formed AFTER the Quran. But most scholars except for those idiots looking to argue for nothing, will argue Quran, breaks the Arabic grammar rules only purposely to manifest something.

This is something you have to know when studying Quran. I wish those making the grammar rules after would've been more mindful of Quran and allowed the same type of usage that God uses, but when people form grammar rules, they usually do it for consistency.

The Quran if it adhered to the grammar rules after it was revealed would not nearly be as beautiful as it is, as the linguistic games it plays with singular and plural is of it's highest beauty. And other things it does as well that seem to break grammar rules but is so purposeful witty and beautiful.

I know Arabic and I read Quran often.

I'm not going to argue with this anymore, because your tone is way too assertive.

 

[firedragon]

FireDragon, Quran was revealed before humans formed Arabic grammar rules. It's not consistent with the grammar rules they formed AFTER the Quran. But most scholars except for those idiots looking to argue for nothing, will argue Quran, breaks the Arabic grammar rules only purposely to manifest something.

This is something you have to know when studying Quran. I wish those making the grammar rules after would've been more mindful of Quran and allowed the same type of usage that God uses, but when people form grammar rules, they usually do it for consistency.

The Quran if it adhered to the grammar rules after it was revealed would not nearly be as beautiful as it is, as the linguistic games it plays with singular and plural is of it's highest beauty. And other things it does as well that seem to break grammar rules but is so purposeful witty and beautiful.

I know Arabic and I read Quran often.

I'm not going to argue with this anymore, because your tone is way too assertive.

Thanks for concepts. But i asked specific questions that require specific responses for this specific verse you quoted.

Well, if you are offended at rejecting general comments and strawman arguments its alright. Peace.