Is "Smite Their Neck" acceptable in Islam for those who are perceived as enemy?

  • Thread starter Thread starter DeExupery
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
40.png
r.gonzales:
con’t…
the word taqiyyah comes from the same root word as the word taqwaa (which means piety, fear of Allah): taqaa or waqaa - both mean to fear, to be cautious and wary of, to protect and to guard. taqiyyah is a means of protecting one’s self and one’s religion due to some fear or danger that is present. its allowance stems from the verse in which Allah says, “the believers should not take the unbelievers as allies and whoever does that, then he has nothing to do with Allah, unless they fear from them something to be feared. and Allah warns you from Himself, and to Allah is the outcome.” (3:28). and as i posted above, ibn katheer commented on this verse saying, “‘unless they fear from them something to be feared,’ meaning: unless someone feared from their evil in some of the countries or moments. so he has [the right] to take shelter from them with his outward (appearance), not with his inward (condition) and his intention.” many other Quranic commentators such as 'abdur-rahmaan bin naasir as-sa’dee have said similarly.

so the question is raised, what fear or danger for one’s life or religion would exist in a setting like this??? a setting where a muslim would participate in an internet discussion forum for the purpose of calling people to islam, or for the purpose of clearing up misconceptions or defending it from attacks??? what justification exists here that would render this concession applicable???
Your life may not be in danger. None of us is as far as this forum is concerned. As I said I hope we discuss honestly. At time I sense that you didn’t though I could be wrong or I misunderstood due to difference in culture and discussion style.

Should you use taqqiyah here I can only say that it’s for winning an argument or to make Islam looks good when faced with compromising Quranic verses or hadith. If that’s the case, again I hope not, you are wrongly using the taqqiyah by Islam standard.
 
40.png
flameburns623:
Could I point out some things which perhaps will further this discussion?
  1. Many of the Muslims who post here are NOT posting in their primary language: many learned English in school or after emigrating to English-speaking countries. This affects to a great degree their ability to manage the nuances of the language and to articulate arguments in a manner which seems coherent to native speakers of English, at least in my opinion and experience.
  2. For the same reason, there is a bit of a cultural gulf between how many of the Muslims conduct a religous discussion and how Americans and British do so. In Arabic countries, there is a cultural proclivity to be rather aggressive in one’s discourse, whereas Americans and British tend to want to retain an air of genteel restraint. I think this colors a lot of the discussions I see about Islam.
  3. It appears to me that many of the Muslim apologists are also not highly-educated in the fields of the liberal-arts or humanities, though they may have significant training in ‘hard’ science or technical fields. (I am NOT saying the Muslim posters are not intelligent or well-educated, but the liberal-arts and humanities put a different sort of ‘stamp’ or ‘impress’ upon a person than do the applied sciences or technical fields). Many are well-read in Islam and have seen a lot of the sorts of arguments which keep coming up in this forum. They are not, however, scholars in comparative religion nor especially familiar with religious beliefs other than their own. This is important because it affects how well they can manage discussions about religion–it seems to me that some of them bring a lot of fervor to discussions but not a lot of substance. Others are quite learned and thoroughly familiar with American culture, and I have had some good discussions with those folks.
  4. By the same token, many of the Christian posters don’t seem to have read very widely in Islam, either. I, personally, don’t recollect that I have ever read a ‘hadith’, though I’ve made several attempts to muddle my way through the Qu’ran. Most of the folks raising issues against Islam are relying upon second-hand, mostly Internet, sources–which may in turn ALSO be relying upon second-hand sources. One needs to assume that such information may get corrupted in transmission or that it might have been wrong to begin with. Muslims who spot such errors would do us all a favor if they will cite exactly how and where the information has gotten off-track–not simply dismiss a source because it was posted on an anti-Islamic website, but actually give us evidence that such-and-so quote is bogus, or that thus-and-thus citation has characterised something improperly in these ways. Offering evidence or citations–even if the citations are NOT accessible via internet–would be helpful. I do stress to our Muslim friends that my decision to cite a source such as “Answering Islam” does not automatically render the source wrong nor show ill will on my part: the point seems valid to me, and it is up to you to do the work to show me how the source has gone astray, or else concede the point and let me move on to the next issue.
  5. If somone is going to quote Arabic–please have mercy upon those of us who can’t actually READ the Arabic language. Give us an English source. If a non-Muslim is going to quote a translation of something, do what one can to ensure that the translation is accurate. Be sure of the quotes one posts. Bear in mind that after 9/11, almost everyone in the world with an e-mail address got a bogus letter which said those attacks were predicted in the Qu’ran, in Sura 9, verse 11. (I stress this was NOT a bona fide quote). If I were going to cite an Arabic authority to make a particularly-damning point against Islam–I think I would want to ‘google’ that source first, lest I discover that I were perpetuating a hoax.
Thanks for the thoughtful write up. They should be useful tips for many of us here.

God bless.
 
40.png
MrS:
40.png
Booklover:
Isn’t it amazing how the Quran protects Mohammed, even mentioning the punishments meted out to those poor souls who dared to disagree with the “prophet” or blasphemed him in any way! What a perfect way to silence your opponents! But then again, since the Quran came through Mohammed, it’s not surprising, is it?
The fox will guard the henhouse and also write the rules for security… sounds like a plan to me.
http://smileys.smileycentral.com/cat/16/16_8_100.gif this is really the fox… we don’t recognize him in his disguise.
f.y.i. (booklover and mrS), in islam, it is not only a crime and sin punishable by death to insult and revile Allah and His messenger muhammad, it is also a crime and sin punishable by death to insult any prophet from the rest of the known prophets of Allah, just as ibn taimiyyah mentions in as-saarim al-maslool. he states
the ruling regarding insulting the rest of the prophets is like the ruling regarding insulting our prophet [muhammad]. so whoever insulted a prophet by name from the known prophets mentioned in the Quran or one described with prophethood - like is mentioned in a hadeeth that a prophet did such and such or said such and such, so he is insulted by that speaker or doer with knowledge that he is a prophet, even if he did not know him or he insults the character of the prophets unrestrictedly - then the ruling regarding this one is as preceded (i.e., he has committed disbelief) because faith in them is obligatory in general. obligatory is faith specifically in whoever Allah narrated to us about in His book and insulting them is disbelief and apostasy if he was a muslim and a cause for fighting if he was a dhimmee.
 
Reuben J:
At time I sense that you didn’t though I could be wrong or I misunderstood due to difference in culture and discussion style.
you sense that i didn’t what? i’m not entirely clear on what you mean here.
Reuben J:
Should you use taqqiyah here I can only say that it’s for winning an argument or to make Islam looks good when faced with compromising Quranic verses or hadith. If that’s the case, again I hope not, you are wrongly using the taqqiyah by Islam standard.
winning an argument or making islam look good when faced with “compromising Quranic verses or hadith” is not exactly “fearing something to be feared.” there is no harm or danger present in these forums or these discussions, so what is there to fear??? this is what i’m asking.

firstly, i believe islam to be the truth that Allah has revealed to mankind to follow and believe in. it is perfect and beautiful - there is no need for me to try “to make it look good” by lying or being deceitful.

as for me using taqiyyah, accusing me of such is slander and i challenge anyone here to bring an instance where i’ve used it.
 
40.png
DeExupery:
Oh Joel,

Is that so? So do you think that there are a lot of things in Quran taken from Talmud?

Fox
🙂 if you read the verse it says “…we ordained for the Children of Israel…”
Code:
   so Why would you be surprised if was mentioned before in the Talmud.    
      If the verse didn't mention the Children of Israel  then I would call it copying and plagiarizing.   To answer your question,  nothing is taken from the previous scriptures.  and what Allah (swt) Has mentioned in previous scriptures,  would give credit to them.  Like for example:
“And indeed We have written in Zabûr (Psalms) after (We have already written in) Al-Lauh Al-Mahfûz (the Book, that is in the heaven with Allâh), that My righteous slaves shall inherit the land (ie the land of Paradise)” (Qur’an 21:105)

This sentence “…that My righteous slaves shall inherit the land.” is mentioned in the Psalms. The Qur’an is not plagiarizing because it gave credit to the Psalms.

This again proves that Muhammad pbuh did not write the Qur’an and that the Qur’an was not copied from the previous scriptures. If he copied it from the previous scriptures, then why does He give credit to them?.

Unlike the NT which has many things copied from the OT without giving credit to it. Also “saint” Paul copied many things from the Greek philosophers without giving credit to them.
 
Edris said:
🙂 Unlike the NT which has many things copied from the OT without giving credit to it. Also “saint” Paul copied many things from the Greek philosophers without giving credit to them.

Edris,

May I suggest that if credit was not given by Paul or any of the other writers of the New Testament then it was not an attempt to plagiarize, but as the information being quote was of such common knowledge that the source was so well know by all that it did not need to be cited? I know we often apply our standards (moral and otherwise) on those who lived years and centuries ago and am fairly certain quotes, footnotes, etc. were not commonly used. Not arguing, just a thought.

Peace

George
 
40.png
Faith101:
What do you believe will happen to those who attacked Jesus Christ peace be upon him?

What do you believe will happen to those who tried to kill Jesus Christ?

Thats right…on to them is a painful punishment.
Sounds to me like you relish the idea of their punishment! For your information, as Jesus was dying on the cross He asked His Father in heaven to forgive his executioners “as they know not what they do.”.
If you actually read the Quran you will find that Allah corrects Mohamed peace be upon him in several incidents. And this whole “Mohamed wrote it” which you are trying to imply is silly. Really, if you had knowledge about the Quran and about his life, you would know how silly it is.
If you subscribe to the notion that Mohammed was a kind, lovable man, you should read: The Secret of Muhammad’s Success"

faithfreedom.org/Articles/sina40612.htm
Makes a very good read! It explains a lot of things I’d wondered about.
I try not to respond to you Booklover, because you usually have nothing good to say…and it usually lacks knowledge. You should be thankful for the sake of Christianity, that all Christians are not like you. B/c no one would believe you come from a religion that teaches you to love and not attack people.

May God guide you before its too late.
Faith, do not make a victim of yourself! You said that I “attacked people”. I made a statement about Mohammed and the Quran! You are twisting things around. The problem is that you do not see anything wrong with the teachings of Islam, to you it’s perfect. Islam is a religion fully rooted in the 7th century and has never progressed from there. To you stoning is the perfect punishment for people who commit adultery! In Catholism, we have the sacrament of confession, not execution!

Our Lord Jesus Christ and his Blessed Mother are blasphemed every day and we do not threaten the perpetrators of these atrocities with death! There is a play called “Jesus Has Two Mommies” in which our Blessed Mother is portrayed as a lesbian and another one called “Corpus Christi” in which Jesus is portrayed as a homosexual who has sex with his apostles. What the faithful do is protest peacefully outside the theaters showing these disgusting productions or send protest postcards, emails or make phone calls! We do not ask for blood! Do you get the picture? It doesn’t take much in Islam for someone to be condemned to death!

After playing St. Peter in a movie recently and finding it a very moving experience, actor Omar Shariff received a death threat and has been accused of being a “crusader”! Do you not see anything wrong with that? I call it plain madness! Excuse me for saying this, but I do not see any difference between the fanatical followers of Hitler and the fanatical followers of Islam!
 
Dear Edris,
if you read the verse it says “…we ordained for the Children of Israel…”
With my foolish knowledge: WE means the single Allah. And He ordained the Children of Israel about the murder…
So it means that the verses are for Children of Israel. OR am I wrong here?
And if it has been in Talmud, it’s not an impossibility that Mohammed PBUH had already read it, or know it, for he lived in a place where there were a lot of Jews (the previous Arabia).

Fox
 
40.png
DeExupery:
it’s not an impossibility that Mohammed PBUH had already read it, or know it, for he lived in a place where there were a lot of Jews (the previous Arabia).
yes it was impossible. he was illiterate.
 
40.png
r.gonzales:
yes it was impossible. he was illiterate.
If allah knew he was illiterate why the so called angel asked him to read when he first met this angel? :confused:
 
rely to joel’s “evidences” con’t…
40.png
JoelRichardson:
I also demonsrtate that Muhammad allowed deciet for the sake of gaining wealth:

"After the conquest of the city of Khaybar by the Muslims, the Prophet was approached by Hajaj Ibn `Aalat and told: “O Prophet of Allah: I have in Mecca some excess wealth and some relatives, and I would like to have them back; am I excused if I bad-mouth you to escape persecution?” The Prophet excused him and said: “Say whatever you have to say.”
al-imam ahmad reports this hadeeth in his musnad from anas who said: when Allah’s messenger, may Allah send greetings and peace be upon him, conquered khaibar, al-hajjaaj bin 'ilaat said, “o allah’s messenger, surely i have in makkah wealth and surely i have in it family. i want to go to them. so am i free to harm you or say something?” so Allah’s messenger, may Allah send greetings and peace upon him, gave him permission that he say whatever he willed. (until the end of the hadeeth, which is rather lengthy).

firstly, a little background info on al-hajjaaj bin 'ilaat: he had left makkah with the people thinking that he was only going away on journey, but instead he met up with prophet muhammad and the muslims at khaibar to embrace islam. thus, the makkans did not know of his conversion. after the conquest of khaibar, he desired to go back to makkah where he had left his wealth and family behind. take note that there is no mention in the hadeeth of this money and family being "excess". during this time in islamic history, aside from the hostility coming from the hypocrites hiding in al-madeenah as well as the jews settled around its outskirts, the muslims still had to face the continuing hostility from the polytheist makkans were. al-hajjaaj asked for permission to use taqiyyah out of fear of oppression and persecution - danger to his life, his family and his wealth - from the polytheist makkans. and just as Allah has said in the Quran, “unless you fear something to be feared” meaning some danger or harm that will come to you or your religion. al-hajjaaj bin 'ilaat feared being harmed if the makkans found out about his conversion to islam, thus his use of it here is justified and was in no way due to some desire for worldy gains.
40.png
JoelRichardson:
And deception is allowed to kill Muhammad’s enemies:

“Allah’s Apostle said, “Who is willing to kill Ka’b bin Al-Ashraf who has hurt Allah and His Apostle?” Thereupon Muhammad bin Maslama got up saying, “O Allah’s Apostle! Would you like that I kill him?” The Prophet said, “Yes.” Muhammad bin Maslama said, “Then allow me to say a (false) thing (i.e. to deceive Kab).” The Prophet said, “You may say it.””
some background info on the reason for the ordering of ka’b bin al-ashraf’s death… ibn taimiyyah states in as-saarim al-maslool, “ibn abee uwais narrated from ibraaheem bin ja’far bin muhammad bin maslamah from his father from jaabir bin 'abdillah that ka’b bin al-ashraf made a covenant with Allah’s messenger that he would not be out for him (i.e., aim at defaming and cursing him), nor fight against him and that took place in makkah. then he arrived at al-madeenah as an announcer for those hostile to the prophet.” covenants and treaties are sacred in islam and violating them is a real serious offence in islam - regardless of who does it - muslim or non-muslim. for example, there are many authentic hadeeths where prophet muhammad said that the one who kills someone with whom a covenant or treaty has been made will not smell the fragrance of paradise. one such hadeeth has been reported by al-bukhaaree in his saheeh, “whoever killed an allied soul (i.e., someone with whom a covenant or treaty has been made), he will not smell the fragrance of paradise. and indeed, its scent is found from a distance of forty years.” (saheeh al-bukhaaree, #3166) and this is in the case of a muslim.

con’t…
 
con’t…

so ka’b bin al-ashraf was killed for two reasons, and Allah knows best: his violation of the covenant and truce that he made with Allah’s messenger, and his abuse and revilement of Allah and His messenger.

as for the hadeeth itself, then what was quoted is from a longer hadeeth which tells the story of how his killing came to pass. it occurred during the third year after the migration to al-madeenah, after the victory of badr and the battle of banee qainuqaa’. the jews around al-madeenah were extremely antagonistic towards the muslims and and the polytheist makkans were desiring revenge for their loss at the battle of badr. ka’b bin al-ashraf was doing whatever he could to kindle more hatred and hostility from the makkans.

al-bukhaaree reports in hadeeth #4036: Allah’s messenger said, "who is for ka’b bin al-ashraf? for indeed he has harmed Allah and His messenger (via his instigating the makkans to take revenger for their loss at badr and for defaming and reviling the muslims at every chance). so muhammad bin maslamah stood up and said, “o Allah’s messenger, do you want me to kill him?” he said, “yes.” he said, “then allow me to say something.” he said, “say [it].” (until the end of the hadeeth). what is contained in the brackets in joel’s quote is what has been inserted by the translator and is not mentioned in the hadeeth itself. ibn hajar, who wrote an explanation of saheeh al-bukhaaree comments on ibn maslamah’s statement “allow me to say something” saying, “it is as if he was asking him for permission to come up with something to use as a strategy. thereupon the author subtitled it ‘lying during war’.” - which just happens to be one of the situation in which a muslim is permitted to lie - during a time of war.
40.png
JoelRichardson:
It was Imam Al-Ghazali who says it best. Ghazali, one of the most famous Muslim theologians of all time, nearly revered by many Muslims, explains that lying is permissible so long as any positive or beneficial goal may be achieved:

“Speaking is a means to achieve objectives. If a praiseworthy aim is attainable through both telling the truth and lying, it is unlawful to accomplish through lying because there is no need for it. When it is possible to achieve such an aim by lying but not by telling the truth, it is permissible to lie if attaining the goal is permissible.”

“Know this that lying is not sin by itself, but if it brings harm to you it could be ugly. However, you can lie if that will keep you from evil or if it will result in prosperity.”
as i mentioned, al-ghazaalee was a sufi for much of his life. both these quotes you’ve brought are referenced to sufi books, the first reliance of the traveller - translated by the well-known heretic and sufi, nooh haa meem keller. a refutation of this book and its translator has been prepared by dr. saleh as-saleh and should be available somewhere on the internet (i think hashi might know where to find it)… as for the second quote, then it’s taken from al-ghazaalee’s book ihyaa 'uloom ad-deen, which is known to have been written during his sufi days. the book contains many statements that constitute disbelief. ibn taimiyyah himself has many comments regarding this book and its contents.

as for these what is mentioned in these two quotes themselves, then as for the first, looking at it in the proper context of islamic beliefs, lying is forbidden and is considered to be one of the major sins - and the proofs for this have been outlined by al-imam adh-dhahabee in his book al-kabaa’ir (the major sins). there are numerous verses and hadeeths that show the virtues of being truthful and the evils of lying. among these is Allah’s statement, “woe to every wicked liar.” (45:7) as well as prophet muhammad’s statement, “surely, truthfulness leads to righteousness and surely, righteousness leads to paradise. and surely, the man certainly speaks the truth and pursues truthfulness until he is written with Allah as truthful. and surely, lying leads to immorality and surely, immorality leads to the fire. and surely, the man certainly lies and pursues lying until he is written with Allah as a liar.” (reported by al-bukhaaree and muslim).

as for the concessions legislated by the religion that allow lying in certain cases, these instances are very few and specific and have also been outlined in the legislative texts. if Allah wills, i’ll post some of the statements from islam’s scholars regarding this…

more to come… if Allah wills.
 
Dear Gonzales,
yes it was impossible. he was illiterate.
Well, I know that many moslems told that Mohammed PBUH was illiterate, but there are two objections on that in my foolish opinion:
  1. One is what cute has already said:
If allah knew he was illiterate why the so called angel asked him to read when he first met this angel?
Jibril said: Iqra, means Read. It should mean: (a) Jibril brought something to read by Mohammed (b) Mohammed could read.
Remember that Jibril said Iqra until 3 times.
  1. Logical opinion:
    Mohammed was the righthand of Khadijah (before marriage) in her trade. If I am not mistaken, he sometimes even lead the trade. If he couldn’t read and write do you think it’s not easy for anyone who deals with him to trick him?
And the second, my point is that:
it’s not an impossibility that Mohammed PBUH had already read it, or know it, for he lived in a place where there were a lot of Jews (the previous Arabia).
In olden times, there were many tales spread from mouth to mouth as well as in writing. Even if he couldn’t read, but there’s a possibility he listened it somewhere else from other people.
That’s only my foolish logic. Please enlighten me…

Fox
 
40.png
DeExupery:
Well, I know that many moslems told that Mohammed PBUH was illiterate, but…
this issue regarding prophet muhammad’s illiteracy has been dealt with already… forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=61916
40.png
DeExupery:
Jibril said: Iqra, means Read.
i know what it means, i can read and understand arabic. f.y.i. iqra’ can also mean “recite”.
40.png
DeExupery:
Remember that Jibril said Iqra until 3 times.
yes, and do you recall what prophet muhammad’s reply was each time? he said, “maa anaa bi qaaree - i am not one who can read.”
40.png
DeExupery:
Mohammed was the righthand of Khadijah (before marriage) in her trade. If I am not mistaken, he sometimes even lead the trade.
does not negate the fact that he was illiterate.
40.png
DeExupery:
If he couldn’t read and write do you think it’s not easy for anyone who deals with him to trick him?
being able to count and calculate does not necessarily mean you’ll be able to read and write. there are many illiterate americans who live daily life conducting themselves like normal people, taking part in business transactions and all sorts of other things.
40.png
DeExupery:
there’s a possibility he listened it somewhere else from other people.
conjecture and speculation with no real proof to back it up.

btw, reuben…
Reuben J:
Honestly I don’t think the majority of Muslims support this action. When he was about to enter the city, Muhammad called Ansar fighters to come to him. The Ansar were those from Medina who had converted to Islam, not those from Mecca. When they had surrounded him, Muhammad said, “Do you see the soldiers of Quraysh (from Mecca)?” He made a gesture with his hand and commanded, “Go and slaughter them.” The Arabic word for slaughter presents the picture of a farmer harvesting his crop with a scythe. In other words, Muhammad was telling them, “Cut their necks from their bodies as you would cut the fruit from the branch of a tree.” …

As the soldiers entered the city on horseback, some women ran out and hysterically began hitting the horses in the faces with their fists, begging the soldiers not to kill them and their children. They were weeping and trying to push the horses back. Imagine this scene! The people were terrified and desperate. …

Muhammad’s division carried a special flag. It was black with a single word written in Arabic: punishment.

Ibn Kathir, The Beginning and the End, vol. 2, pt.4, p.302.
i still haven’t been able to find this… care to tell us where you really got it from?
 
Dear Gonzales,
i know what it means, i can read and understand arabic. f.y.i. iqra’ can also mean “recite”.
If it means recite, I believe anyone who can speak a language can recite. Even if I can’t speak Arabic, if only to recite it the way someone speak, it is still possible. So the proper translation should be Iqra = read.
yes, and do you recall what prophet muhammad’s reply was each time? he said, “maa anaa bi qaaree - i am not one who can read.”
As the messenger directly from Allah, the all knowing, do you think Jibril doesn’t know how anything about Mohammed PBUH? About his illiteracy? And keep repeating Iqra??
does not negate the fact that he was illiterate.
If Mohammed PBUH was illiterate and Jibril forced him to read again and again, it means that Allah and Jibril didn’t know anything about Mohammed PBUH.
conjecture and speculation with no real proof to back it up.
Dear Gonzales, there’s something illogic about that above, don’t you think?

Fox

P.S. I have the link. But I don’t use it. I just want to use logic. If any story doesn’t come to your logic, will you accept it?
 
I try not to respond to you Booklover, because you usually have nothing good to say…and it usually lacks knowledge. You should be thankful for the sake of Christianity, that all Christians are not like you. B/c no one would believe you come from a religion that teaches you to love and not attack people.

May God guide you before its too late.
By the way, I forgot to mention this yesterday, you’ve mentioned before that you have the right to criticize or disagree with our beliefs, so we also have the right to criticize or disagree with yours.

For your information, the forum rules state:

It is never acceptable to question the sincerity of an individual’s beliefs

You have attacked me personally because of my opinions of Islam and I’ve never done that to you. All my criticisms have been expressed against Islam, Mohammed or the Quran.

Vickie
 
40.png
Faith101:
I try not to respond to you Booklover, because you usually have nothing good to say…
nothing good to say or is it that you who ignores what she was saying?
and it usually lacks knowledge.
And you think you full of knowledge when dealing about christianity issues? get a life:p
You should be thankful for the sake of Christianity, that all Christians are not like you. B/c no one would believe you come from a religion that teaches you to love and not attack people.
May God guide you before its too late.
We are not attacking people… we are attacking your doctrines. Your terrorist brothers who attacking people and killing people around the world.
 
On the issue of Muhammad’s illiteracy written by a former Iraqi Muslim convert:

light-of-life.com/eng/answer/a4990et2.htm#p120
  1. IGNORANCE AND ILLITERACY
    Table of Contents
In their attempt to prove the divine inspiration of the Qur’an, the Islamists depend on Muhammad’s illiteracy and ignorance of everything to do with reading and writing. But was Muhammad illiterate in the sense that he could not read or write? And what are the reasons that have led Muslims to believe in their leader’s illiteracy?

Historical accounts do not give a definite answer either way on this issue. The historians who wrote the biography of Muhammad emphasised his illiteracy, and the fact that he never went to a tutor or received any human teaching, yet there are still some records that confirm his knowledge of reading and writing as reported by these same historians.

This obvious contradiction in history as handed down through the ages has caused people nowadays to conclude that Muhammad was not illiterate all his life long, but that he received this knowledge of reading and writing from God through Gabriel.

Al-Haafiz Ibn Hajar says, “The Prophet was illiterate, and that is why the Qur’an is so miraculous by nature. When Islam had spread and he was sure that no one would be suspicious (of his being the compiler of the Qur’an), he learnt how to read and write”! Ibn Sheba says, “The Messenger of God, peace be upon him, died only after he had learned to read and write.” al-Tubrusi adds, “As for the time after he was chosen to be a prophet, there was no reason for anyone to harbour suspicion against him; therefore it is possible that he learnt to read and write.”

There are therefore records which indicate for certain that Muhammad was literate, and not illiterate, which led Muslim scholars to believe he learnt after he had been appointed a prophet. But these do not stand on solid ground, since that which they claim is corroborated neither by Qur’anic evidence nor by personal testimony. All they offer are personal efforts to justify the incidents reported by historians that deny the allegation that Muhammad was illiterate!

It was reported in a book written by Dr Muhammad ibn Abdalla Othman on the style of writing adopted by Othman, “The Prophet, peace be upon him, laid the foundation for the writing of the inspiration in the Qur’an. He said, among other things, to Muaawia, ‘Prepare the ink-pot, sharpen the pen, lay the ba stretched, tooth the seen well. Do not blotch the meem’s eye, shape the letters of Allah beautifully, stretch those of “the All-compassionate” (Ar-rahman), and write those of “the All-merciful” (Ar-raheem) as clearly as possible. Put your pen on your left ear; this will better remind you!”

The books written on the life of Muhammad relate that it was Muhammad who wrote the reconciliation of Hudaibia himself. It was said in his biography written by Ibn Hisham, “… and we have with us the Messenger of God, peace be upon him, who can write, together with Suhail.”

It was likewise said in al-Bukhari, “And the Messenger of God took the book to write, and wrote, ‘This is that which Muhammad agreed upon…’” It was said in al-Tabari as well, when he was in much pain during his final days, that he said, “Fetch me the inkwell and a book that I may write to you a writing therewith you will never go astray after me.”

Abu Bakr reported that the Messenger of God “just before he died asked for an inkwell and a pen, and wrote down the name of his successor.” Moreover, al-Hamathaani said in al-Ikleel that "the Arabs used to call all those who read or write ‘Sabians,’ and Quraish called the prophet, peace be upon him, ‘a Sabian’ when he used to call people in Mecca to Islam, and recite the Qur’an.

These reports may seem to be contradictory to a widespread historical account, which, according to historians, was the first encounter between Muhammad and Gabriel. It is when Gabriel ordered him, “Read (or recite).” Muhammad answered, “I am not one to read (or recite).”

It may be true that this report is contradictory to the previous ones, but al-Tabari narrates the incident in a way that is in keeping with what we held previously. He reported that Ibnul Zubair said, “The Messenger of God, peace be upon him, said, ‘And a prophet in silk came to me while I was asleep, who had a book. He said, “Recite.” I said, “What do I recite?” Then he enveloped me in such a manner that I thought he was Death, and sent saying, “Recite.” Then I said, “What shall I recite?” He answered, “Recite, in the Name of thy Lord who created…”’”
 
Part 2:

This leads us to ask: Were Gabriel and his Lord, according to the first report, ignorant of Muhammad’s illiteracy to ask him to read or recite, and wait for Muhammad to answer and deny being able to?! It was more reasonable on the part of Gabriel, who was supposed to be God’s messenger to Muhammad, to make it easy for him. He should have confirmed his call to prophethood by telling him that he was illiterate (if this was indeed the case) and that he knew his inability to read and write, and that he therefore would teach him how to do so. This would be logical and easily acceptable by any rational mind.

As for any other explanations given, they make light of reason and distort the truth passed down to us.

These quotations are adequate to refute the claim of Muhammad’s illiteracy. Why then do Muslims still cling to this erroneous notion?

By proving that Muhammad was illiterate Muslims hoped to prove the miraculous nature of the Qur’an and that it was divinely inspired, with this miracle coming to a city that had fallen into ignorance and stupidity, and to a time pervaded with paganism and godlessness. Through this miracle God is supposed also to have turned the world system upside down, giving an illiterate man the gift of eloquence, and replacing ignorance with knowledge and idolatry with belief!!

It is only right therefore to ask: Does it really aggrandise a religion for it to be built on the primitiveness of men? Is the benightedness of those who follow its teachings really something to be proud of? Would God not have been able to prove the eloquence of the Qur’an to civilised people equally well, making it be delivered by a learned man and not an illiterate one, without detracting from the power and essence of the miracle?

In fact, Islamists would not have thought this way but for some of the verses of the Qur’an whose outward meaning might denote Muhammad’s illiteracy, yet their inward meaning negates it! Here we look at some of these verses.

The People of Moses and the Illiterate Prophet
The Qur’an says in Sura al-A`raf 7:156-158, as a part of the discourse of Moses and his people, “‘And prescribe for us in this world good, and in the world to come; we have repented unto Thee.’ Said He, ‘My chastisement — I smite with it whom I will; and my mercy embraces all things, and I shall prescribe it for those who are godfearing and pay the alms, and those who indeed believe in Our signs, those who follow the Messenger, the Prophet of the common folk (the Arabic can also mean “the illiterate Prophet”), whom they find written down with them in the Torah and the Gospel, bidding them to honour, and forbidding them dishonour, making lawful for them the good things and making unlawful for them the corrupt things, and relieving them of their loads, and the fetters that were upon them. Those who believe in him and succour him and help him, and follow the light that has been sent down with him- they are the prosperous. Say: “O mankind, I am the Messenger of God to you all, of Him to whom belongs the kingdom of heaven and of the earth. There is no God but He. He gives life, and makes to die. Believe then in God, and in His Messenger, the Prophet of the common folk, who believes in God and His words, and follow him; haply so you will be guided.”

In no other place does the Qur’an mention “the Prophet of the common people,” which was mistakenly understood as meaning “the illiterate Prophet”. Yet the Qur’an prides itself on its form of narrative that is characterised by repetition of various phrases and ideas in order to impress the story permanently in the minds of the hearers, as Muslims say.
 
“The Prophet of the common folk” in Sura al-A`raf 7 is written in contrast to Moses and his people. Moses and his people at their appointed time were seized by trepidation and began to pray, saying, “And prescribe for us in this world good, and in the world to come; we have repented unto Thee.” According to the Arab linguists of the time, the Jews derived their name from the word huda (meaning “guidance”), which was also the epithet of the Torah. It was a brilliant play on words in verse 156 to say “we repented unto Thee” since the verb used here (haad, yahuud) bears a striking resemblance with the Arabic word for the Jews (yahuud). Moses, and his people, then praying to God to count their Judaism as righteousness on their part, for which God answered at first, “I shall prescribe it for those who are godfearing and pay the alms, and those who indeed believe in Our signs, those who follow the Messenger, the Prophet of the common folk whom they find written down with them in the Torah and the Gospel!” So Moses and his people had to wait for about a thousand years in order for them to be granted this through belief in Muhammad! Is it really reasonable for God to answer the prayer of Moses and his people saying that guidance is not to be found in the Mosaic Law but in the following of Muhammad “the Prophet of the common folk,” which means the prophet of the Gentiles to the Jews, who had not yet come?!

How could God answer Moses’ prayer saying that Muhammad is written about in the Torah and the Gospel?! Where was the Gospel at the time of Moses, so that God might speak of it to Moses and his people?

The Meaning of “Illiterate” in the Qur’an
The word ummi occurring in the text in question did not mean, according to the Qur’an itself, having no knowledge of reading or writing, but it means those who did not have a book revealed by God. The Jews, who came from Abraham’s son Isaac, were the People of the Book, while the Arabs, who are considered as coming from Abraham’s son Ishmael, were common folk (ummiyoon) or Gentiles (umam). The Qur’an showed this distinction clearly and openly in many a place, when it called both the people of the Book and the common folk to follow Islam.

“And say to those who have been given the Book and to the common folk (ummiyeen): ‘Have you surrendered?’” (Sura Al Imran 3:20). This verse points to how the common folk desired to know the Book, as in Sura al-Baqara 2:78, “And some there are of them that are common folk not knowing the Book, but only fancies.” The Qur’an also boasts that God sent a messenger not of the people of the Book: “It is He who raised up from among the common people a Messenger from among them” (Sura al-Jum`a 62:2).

As to the people of the Book themselves, they called those who did not belong to them Gentiles. "They say, ‘There is no way over us as to the common people’ (Sura Al Imran 3:75). In the light of this Qur’anic verse we are to understand that the Qur’an describes Muhammad as ummi. The common folk of the Qur’an are the Arabs who descended from Ishmael, and the people of the Book are the Jews who descended from Isaac. Consequently, the word ummi does not mean illiterate, but someone who belonged to the Arabs, the descendants of Ishmael, who did not have a revealed Book. Al-Shahristaani writes:

The people of the Book upheld the religion of the Tribes (of Israel) and conducted themselves as the Children of Israel. The common people upheld the tribal religion and conducted themselves as the children of Ishmael.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top