muhammad: the illiterate prophet

[Proud_Kafir]

Ok. Now, Please answer for these Questions.

1. Are muslims unanimously agree that Mohammed was illiterate ? Because, AFAIK, Only conservative sunnis believe Mohammed was illiterate to give more divine nature to Quran. Some muslims believe Mohammed knew how to read and write.
2. How many hadiths says Mohammed was illiterate ? Because, if Mohammed was indeed illiterate and if he produced Quran, People must have astonished and that must be recorded in Hadith. But, Most of the Hadiths say Mohammed knew how to read and write.

Moreover some people criticized Mohammed for his claim of revelation.

Those who disbelieve say: “This (the Qur’ân) is nothing but a lie that he (Muhammad SAW) has invented, and others have helped him at it, so that they have produced an unjust wrong (thing) and a lie.” And they say: “Tales of the ancients, which he has written down, and they are dictated to him morning and afternoon.” S. 25:4-6 Hillali-Khan

Some Others believed that Muhammad was possessed by a jinn, and it was through possession that he was able to produce the Quran:

“Do they not reflect? Their companion is not seized with madness (min-jinnah): he is but a perspicuous warner.” S. 7:184
“Thou art not, by the Grace of thy Lord, mad or possessed (bi-majnun).” S. 68:2
“And (O people!) your companion is not one possessed (bi-majnun);” S. 81:22

**Others claimed that the Quran was nothing more than poetry which Muhammad compiled: **

“It is not the word of a poet … nor is it the word of a soothsayer.” S. 69:41, 42.
Nay, say they, (these are but) muddled dreams; nay, he hath but invented it; nay, he is but a poet. Let him bring us a portent even as those of old (who were God’s messengers) were sent (with portents). S. 21:5 Pickthall
And said: Shall we forsake our gods for a mad poet? S. 37:36 Pickthall
Do they say `He is a poet; we are waiting for some calamity which time will bring upon him?’ S. 52:30 Sher Ali

From these verses, Some people accuse Quran was nothing but Mohammed’s own invention, they even accuse him as a mad poet. They challenged him to bring a miracle sign like previous messenger did.

1. As i have understood, The main word muslims substantiates for their belief in Mohammed as illiterate is the word “ummi”. Especially by the following 2 verses.

"Those who follow the messenger, the unlettered Prophet, whom they find mentioned in their own (scriptures),- in the law and the Gospel;- " S. 7:157 Y. Ali

“It is He Who has sent amongst the **Unlettered a messenger ** from among themselves, to rehearse to them His Signs, to sanctify them, and to instruct them in Scripture and Wisdom,- although they had been, before, in manifest error;-” S. 62:2 Y. Ali

But, this word has been used in difference meanings in different place. Most of the places it refers to the people who who are not Jewish or Christian. People who does’t have the knowledge of earlier scriptures. Some muslims consider this arabic word actually means “gentile”, describes people who are not Jewish or Christian.

“Among them are **umiyyuuna ** who know the Scripture not except from hearsay. They but guess.” S. 2:78 M.M. Pickthall

"Among the People of the Scripture there is he who, if thou trust him with a weight of treasure, will return it to thee. And among them there is he who, if thou trust him with a piece of gold, will not return it to thee unless thou keep standing over him. That is because they say: We have no duty to the **ummiyyiina(Gentiles). ** They speak a lie concerning Allah knowingly. S. 3:75 M.M. Pickthall

"And say to those who received the scripture, as well as those **ummyyeen (who did not receive any scripture)… ** (3:20)

In light of these passages, ummi cannot possibly mean illiterate since this would imply that the entire Arab nation was uneducated and could not read or write. And, Quran was revealed at a time when Arab poetry and eloquence was at its peak. This indicates that the Arabs had a high level of literacy in order to produce eloquent, poetic writings. This implies that the term “ummi” refers to communities who had not been given revelation in the form of scripture like the Jews and Christians, and therefore were ignorant of prophetic writings.

So, There is no convincing proof to say that Mohammed was illiterate. Moreover, Hadiths say Mohammed indeed knew how to read and write.

 

[Booklover]

r.gonzales:

consider this to be my last post in this particular thread about this subject, as it is off-topic from the subject of the thread.

attacked? encarta’s encyclopedia describes it as “harrassment”, while others describe it as “cruelty” towards them and also describes them as “rumors”. let’s say for argument’s sake that what’s said about the muslim “attacks” against christian pilgrims to be true, i’m sure that the number of crusades that “resulted” were appropriate reactions, right? how many were there again? 9 major ones? how about the stories of mutilating dead bodies of muslims in search of gold that was supposedly hidden inside their bellies… that was an appropriate reaction, right? oh, and how about the massacre of non-combatants…

and here i thought your religion taught you to turn the other cheek… .

talk about denial. how quickly people forget the spanish conquests of the americas and of the philippines, where they went in search of “slaves” and imposed christianity upon the peoples of the lands they came to conquer… :nope:

sometimes - just sometimes - it’s amusing how people like you love to mention the wrong doings of others (such as the muslims) and yet are so quick to deny the wrong doings of your own…

anyhow, let’s get back on topic… answers to my questions please.

PURE HOGWASH!

 

[Proud_Kafir]

r.gonzales:

a tree is known by its fruits indeed… using this in an absolute sense, your religion doesn’t look like its hands are too clean either - or have you forgotten your religion’s tainted history? if you really want to go this route, i’m sure that there’s an abundance that can be said about the forced conversions, murders, rapes and plunderings of numerous countries’ peoples (too many to count really)… all in the name of christ, no less… and the list goes on… committed by the catholics - but then again, this isn’t the topic of discussion in this particular thread…

r.gonzales:

sometimes - just sometimes - it’s amusing how people like you love to mention the wrong doings of others (such as the muslims) and yet are so quick to deny the wrong doings of your own…

The Question is, Are they doing today ? Are they massacring mindlessly with high-pitch yelling of Allah-Hu-Akbar ?
All religions have their own share of black side. But, All religions barring Islam has come off the age with internal reformation and reasoning. But, Islam was the only religion which was established on violence, grew with violence, living in violence, will live in violence.

r.gonzales:

attacked? encarta’s encyclopedia describes it as “harrassment”, while others describe it as “cruelty” towards them and also describes them as “rumors”. let’s say for argument’s sake that what’s said about the muslim “attacks” against christian pilgrims to be true, i’m sure that the number of crusades that “resulted” were appropriate reactions, right? how many were there again? 9 major ones? how about the stories of mutilating dead bodies of muslims in search of gold that was supposedly hidden inside their bellies… that was an appropriate reaction, right? oh, and how about the massacre of non-combatants…

Did the Byzantines Christians attack the Muslims? No - it was the Muslims who attacked the Byzantines.
Did the Sassanians Persians attack the Muslims? No - it was the Muslims who attacked the Sassanians.
Did the Jews of Medina attack the Muslims? No - it was the Muslims who attacked the Jews.

It was always Muslims who were the aggressors. Muslims conquered 2/3 of Christian Land in less than 50 years of Islamic Era. Later they went on to capture Spain, Central France with inspiration from Sura 9:29 to fight against Christians.

 

[Booklover]

Proud Kafir:

The Question is, Are they doing today ? Are they massacring mindlessly with high-pitch yelling of Allah-Hu-Akbar ?
All religions have their own share of black side. But, All religions barring Islam has come off the age with internal reformation and reasoning. But, Islam was the only religion which was established on violence, grew with violence, living in violence, will live in violence.

Did the Byzantines Christians attack the Muslims? No - it was the Muslims who attacked the Byzantines.
Did the Sassanians Persians attack the Muslims? No - it was the Muslims who attacked the Sassanians.
Did the Jews of Medina attack the Muslims? No - it was the Muslims who attacked the Jews.

It was always Muslims who were the aggressors. Muslims conquered 2/3 of Christian Land in less than 50 years of Islamic Era. Later they went on to capture Spain, Central France with inspiration from Sura 9:29 to fight against Christians.

Thanks, Proud Kaffir!:clapping:

 

[Booklover]

r.gonzales:

consider this to be my last post in this particular thread about this subject, as it is off-topic from the subject of the thread.

attacked? encarta’s encyclopedia describes it as “harrassment”, while others describe it as “cruelty” towards them and also describes them as “rumors”. let’s say for argument’s sake that what’s said about the muslim “attacks” against christian pilgrims to be true, i’m sure that the number of crusades that “resulted” were appropriate reactions, right? how many were there again? 9 major ones? how about the stories of mutilating dead bodies of muslims in search of gold that was supposedly hidden inside their bellies… that was an appropriate reaction, right? oh, and how about the massacre of non-combatants…

and here i thought your religion taught you to turn the other cheek… .

talk about denial. how quickly people forget the spanish conquests of the americas and of the philippines, where they went in search of “slaves” and imposed christianity upon the peoples of the lands they came to conquer… :nope:

sometimes - just sometimes - it’s amusing how people like you love to mention the wrong doings of others (such as the muslims) and yet are so quick to deny the wrong doings of your own…

anyhow, let’s get back on topic… answers to my questions please.

From what Islamic website did you get all this garbage?

 

[hlgomez]

talk about denial. how quickly people forget the spanish conquests of the americas and of the philippines, where they went in search of “slaves” and imposed christianity upon the peoples of the lands they came to conquer… :nope:

r.gonzales,

Are you a filipino?

I am a filipino and never in my life did I hear that my grandfather and greatgrandfathers said that the spanish clerics enforced the Christian faith on them. Never did I read it in my entire elementary, high school and college history education. Where are those “slaves” that you re saying? Are they in Spain? You’re acting out of ignorance and bigotry.

To teach you some history of Spanish expeditions in the Philippine Islands. Their aim was to make discoveries of the uncharted Pacific Islands to look for spices and golds not found in abundance in other parts of the world. Since they were under the command of the King and Queen of Spain, the Christian propagation was only secondary in nature, and never was there a forced conversion of native peoples in the Philippine Islands. If there was a forced conversion of native people, the natives themselves will fight because natives are true warriors who cannot be intimidated, and it would be engraved on the hearts and minds of the succeeding generations and the entire Islands would never have been 90 percent Catholics if their was a feeling of hatred of Christianity there.

In the contrary, the Islamic militants in Southern Mindanao are the ones instigating violence and fighting with the goverment with the use of arms because they want the Philippines Islands to be under Islamic rule. They don’t want to do it in peace, they want it with the use of force. Luckily, we are not under a majority of muslims, so those wierdo fanatic muslim people are holed up and restricted their movements. But from time to time they are BOMBING trains, buses, plazas, shopping malls, ships, etc. to continue their “fight” for a Muslim Philippines, particulary Mindanao.

Pio

 

[hlgomez]

sometimes - just sometimes - it’s amusing how people like you love to mention the wrong doings of others (such as the muslims) and yet are so quick to deny the wrong doings of your own…

One thing I “admire” of muslims is that they are quick to defend their wrongdoing. Christians admit and ask for forgiveness of the sons and daughters who acted on their own in doing crimes against the people. I NEVER heard of a muslim, a high-ranking if they have one, who ever say “I ask forgiveness for the crimes of the sons and daughters of Islam religion who committed horrible crimes in the past…” NEVER…

Pio

 

[Booklover]

hlgomez:

r.gonzales,

Are you a filipino?

I am a filipino and never in my life did I hear that my grandfather and greatgrandfathers said that the spanish clerics enforced the Christian faith on them. Never did I read it in my entire elementary, high school and college history education. Where are those “slaves” that you re saying? Are they in Spain? You’re acting out of ignorance and bigotry.

To teach you some history of Spanish expeditions in the Philippine Islands. Their aim was to make discoveries of the uncharted Pacific Islands to look for spices and golds not found in abundance in other parts of the world. Since they were under the command of the King and Queen of Spain, the Christian propagation was only secondary in nature, and never was there a forced conversion of native peoples in the Philippine Islands. If there was a forced conversion of native people, the natives themselves will fight because natives are true warriors who cannot be intimidated, and it would be engraved on the hearts and minds of the succeeding generations and the entire Islands would never have been 90 percent Catholics if their was a feeling of hatred of Christianity there.

In the contrary, the Islamic militants in Southern Mindanao are the ones instigating violence and fighting with the goverment with the use of arms because they want the Philippines Islands to be under Islamic rule. They don’t want to do it in peace, they want it with the use of force. Luckily, we are not under a majority of muslims, so those wierdo fanatic muslim people are holed up and restricted their movements. But from time to time they are BOMBING trains, buses, plazas, shopping malls, ships, etc. to continue their “fight” for a Muslim Philippines, particulary Mindanao.

Pio

Thanks for your wonderful post!:clapping:

 

[r.gonzales]

**
PURE HOGWASH!**

seems like you like this word a lot. is this the only reply you can muster when presented with things of this nature? tell me again… what was it that your late pope apologized to the muslims for?

Booklover:

From what Islamic website did you get all this garbage?

you should really learn how to read posts more carefully. last time i checked, msn’s online encarta encyclopedia wasn’t an islamic site. neither was wikipedia.

why do you automatically assume i got this information from islamic/muslim websites? (btw, fyi, some of the muslim websites i did come across that do discuss these issues often quote from non-muslim sources to help support what they mention, which shows that this isn’t just islamic propaganda against christianity)…
Proud Kafir:

I can not read/write/understand Arabic. Most of the muslims can not understand Arabic. That doesn’t make them less muslim than Arabic Speaking Muslims. Quran is supposed to be final book for all mankind. Right ? So, It is rational to expect Quran to be easily translated and easily understood in all other languages. If someone raises objections in this, then Something fishy is there, Something is there to hide.

firstly, for someone who doesn’t understand arabic, nor can read it, who are you to say that when someone who does read and understand arabic says that there’s a mistake in the translation, that that’s a lame excuse??? you have no right to assess such things because you don’t have the capability to comprehend what’s really being said in the original language the statement or text was found in.

secondly, as for arabic itself, it’s not that difficult a language to learn to understand. heck, i taught myself how to read and understand the language. the one who knows is always going to be better off than the one who doesn’t - and it’s no different with arabic, and that’s a fact. you want to learn islamic knowledge, learning how to understand arabic is a must (and there are scholars of the religion who explicitly say that learning arabic is obligatory for whoever wants to learn this religion), because that’s where all the knowledge is contained. the Quran was revealed in arabic, thus to fully understand it, you must learn to understand the language. in addition to that, there aren’t many islamic teachings available in english or in other languages - let alone information that is translated and interpreted accurately - which puts those who don’t understand the language at a disadvantage from those who do. take yourself as an example… you have to rely on shotty translations and misinterpretations found in many of the stuff available online. the usc msa stuff for example. much of the stuff they have on their site is in need of major editing and revision - as they contain numerous mistakes and mistranslations (heck, the translation by m. muhsin khan for saheeh al-bukhaaree that they use has already been edited and revised - published by darussalam). the first hadeeth you tried to use as proof is a perfect example of that. m. muhsin khan is a medical dr., not an islamic scholar by any means. his translations of saheeh al-bukhaaree and the Quran, although some of the better ones available, contain a number of mistakes, mistranslations and misinterpretations. and that kafir, is a fact, not some lame duck excuse.

thirdly, regardless of what is being translated from whatever language to whatever language, there is always something that is lost in translation. this is a fact. and because of this fact, there are always things that aren’t going to be fully understood with mere translations into other languages. denying this is simply retarded.
Proud Kafir:

I read the English translation of “Ibn Ishaq’s Sirat Rusul Allah” by A.Guillaume.

i wouldn’t exactly call guillaume’s work a translation of ibn ishaaq’s work, especially since it’s a “reconstruction” of the work by ibn ishaaq. guillaume based his translation off of the abridgement done by ibn hishaam and then took passages from other works and added them to his. he also added things that weren’t part of ibn ishaaq’s work or some of the other works he took from to produce his translation.

in anycase, if you want to read a complete biography of prophet muhammad in english, i’ve provided a link to one that’s available to be read online. although it has some errors, it’s the most authentic bio available in the english language and would be free of the misinterpretions of Quranic verses and the orientalist points of view guillaume included in his work.

 

[r.gonzales]

Proud Kafir:

I usually Quote hadiths from Sahih Bukhari and Muslim. Both are considered and recongnised as most authentic in Islamic World.

yes, i’m fully aware of how these two hadeeth compilations are considered and recognised - i’m muslim, remember? as for what you quote, you only quote the shotty translations available online without checking their explanations - yes, in case you didn’t know, there are explanations for hadeeths, just as there are for the Quran.
Proud Kafir:

Out of 600,000 Hadiths originally collected, 592,603 of them were false, and had to be scrapped. What we have today is Authentic Hadith. That’s what Muslims believe. Islam’s 5 pillors are derived from Hadith. In fact, You can not understand Quran without Hadith.

wow, what misinformation! with the exeption of the last 2 sentences - which are somewhat correct, what you present here - especially in how you’re trying to portray things, is not correct.

there were a lot more than 600,000 hadeeths collected by various scholars of hadeeth and preservers. al-imam al-bukhaaree is quoted himself as saying that he wrote narrations from over 1000 scholars of hadeeth, with no less than 10,000 narrations from each of them. that in and of itself is sufficient in showing that what you mention here is not correct. fyi, there are other authentic hadeeths that found in other books but not reported in either of the two saheehs… and there are also a number of weak and fabricated hadeeths found in a number of other various books. even a handfull of the reports found in saheeh al-bukhaaree and saheeh muslim are debated over with respect to authenticity. but unless you really had some islamic knowledge, you wouldn’t know that know now, would you?

as for the number 600,000, this is the number of narrations that al-bukhaaree referenced for his saheeh. the narrations that did not make the cut were not included due to the fact that they did not meet the strict conditions he had set for compiling the book (which was intended to only include the most authentic reports according to his grading and analysis). they were not left out because they were necessarily weak or “false” as you claim. this is claim made by those ignorant of the science of hadeeth and of the works of the scholars who preserved them - such as al-bukhaaree himself.
Proud Kafir:

I do my own research. I do search in the web, read both islamic and anti-islamic stuffs. And verify it with Authentic Source.
Above all, i compare my research with the activities of Today’s muslims. I validate by the fruits of muslims. It exactly matches. It proves onething Islam is morally flawed religion.

authentic source, huh? i’d like to know what your authentic sources are out of curiousity.

as for “validating by the fruits of muslims”, yeah, what a great way to judge a religion. look at its adherents and whatever wrongs and shortcomings they have - especially when they fall way short of what the religion calls for. if we were to use this with your religion, then we could very well say the same thing… based on the “fruits” of many of today’s christians, christianity is a morally flawed religion (among other things).
Proud Kafir:

Yes, I do. I refer probably the most referenced source of the transliterations of the Quran and hadith which are maintained on the web by the Muslim Students Association at the University of Southern Calfornia. You can find an introduction to the MSA-USC at…

thanks for the url. i’m familiar with the site… and if this is how you verify what you learn about islam, then all i have to really say is that’s pretty sad.

more to come…

 

[r.gonzales]

just a reminder, in case you forgot or didn’t notice:

r.gonzales:

consider this to be my last post in this particular thread about this subject, as it is off-topic from the subject of the thread.

but, just to answer your question (and a quick comment to one thing you mentioned):

hlgomez:

Are you a filipino?

yes.

hlgomez:

I am a filipino and never in my life did I hear that my grandfather and greatgrandfathers said that the spanish clerics enforced the Christian faith on them. Never did I read it in my entire elementary, high school and college history education. Where are those “slaves” that you re saying? Are they in Spain? You’re acting out of ignorance and bigotry.

not a surprise… you aren’t the only one either.
some links you may be interested in checking out…

www-rohan.sdsu.edu/~aps1/graphics/300_Mahdiyah.htm
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conquistador (pay particular attention to “spanish conquests in asia-pacific” as well as “debate on the human rights of natives”).
bangsamoro.info/
geocities.com/WestHollywood/Park/6443/Philippines/legacy.html
bangsamoro.com/

hlgomez:

One thing I “admire” of muslims is that they are quick to defend their wrongdoing.

who’s defending any wrong doing? you’re the one who decided to bring up these wrong doings. i simply said that if you want to go that route, a lot can be said about your religion’s adherents as well. the fact that many scholars have issued statements and clarifications stating that this behaviour is not from islam is a clear indication that they do not condone these things and disown this type of behaviour. there have also been numerous refutations and clarifications written against many of the main figureheads that promote this extremism - figures such as sayyid qutb, usaamah bin laadin and others.

as for the rest of kafir’s posts, i’ll get to those shortly, if Allah willed.

 

[Booklover]

r.gonzales:

seems like you like this word a lot. is this the only reply you can muster when presented with things of this nature? tell me again… what was it that your late pope apologized to the muslims for?

Personally, I think the Pope made a mistake in apologizing to Muslims at all! After all, it was Muslim expansion and aggression that caused the Crusades!

Don’t tell me that your “peaceful” religion didn’t start with the sword?? It’s been the most violent religion on the face of the earth and is the biggest threat to peace in the world today!

You’ve insulted us as much as you can and I for one I’m fed up with your smug and “superior” replies!

How dare you say such things about our Church! You’re a guest here!

As a Japanese convert said once after reading about the life of Saint Teresa of Avila: A Church that inspires such people has to be the truth!

Here is what Islam and its hate filled rhetoric has inspired:

TERRORISTS AND SUICIDE BOMBERS!

How dare you compare the two?:banghead:

i

 

[r.gonzales]

Proud Kafir:

Ok. Now, Please answer for these Questions.

1. Are muslims unanimously agree that Mohammed was illiterate ? Because, AFAIK, Only conservative sunnis believe Mohammed was illiterate to give more divine nature to Quran. Some muslims believe Mohammed knew how to read and write.

when looking at muslims as a whole (i.e., all the various different sects included) the issues where there is unanimous agreement are very few. if you read my post replying to the hadeeths you originally posted, you’d see that ibn hajar, who wrote a monumental work explaining saheeh al-bukhaaree, has some discussion on this.

as for our claim that some muslims believe that prophet muhammad knew how to read and write, i’d like to see your references for that and what they actually say.
Proud Kafir:

1. How many hadiths says Mohammed was illiterate ? Because, if Mohammed was indeed illiterate and if he produced Quran, People must have astonished and that must be recorded in Hadith. But, Most of the Hadiths say Mohammed knew how to read and write.

even if there weren’t any that stated that he was illiterate, the Quran is sufficient in showing that he was. aside from that, people really need to start reading posts in their entirety. it’ll prevent missing things that have already been mentioned - see the explanations for the verses i posted to begin this thread. there are statements mentioned explicitly stating that he could not read, nor write. one such statement came from prophet muhammad’s cousin, 'abdullah bin 'abbaas, where he alludes to another statement made by prophet muhammad himself where he said, “we are an illiterate nation, we neither write, nor calculate.”

no hadeeths say that prophet muhammad knew how to read or write, what you have are hadeeths that can be taken to mean that he wrote, and i’ve already posted replies to those interpretations in this very thread.
Proud Kafir:

From these verses, Some people accuse Quran was nothing but Mohammed’s own invention, they even accuse him as a mad poet. They challenged him to bring a miracle sign like previous messenger did.

convenient how you leave out the other verse that clearly state that had the Quran been from anyone other than Allah, it would surely contain many contradictions, as well as the verses challenging those who disbelieve to produce something like it, which to this day, no one has.

an article that you should read regarding the mircale that is the Quran was just posted here. it would be worthwhile to read.

 

[r.gonzales]

Proud Kafir:

1. … ummi cannot possibly mean illiterate since this would imply that the entire Arab nation was uneducated and could not read or write.

firstly, regarding what you say about arabs considering the word “ummee” to mean gentile, bring your evidence for this, because the word “ummee” doesn’t even carry any meaning that can be considered as such. in fact, it wouldn’t make much sense if to use the word “ummee” if it did mean “gentile” to refer to jews, because the word gentile refers to anyone who isn’t a jew.

as for the interpretation that it means “common-folk” then one thing i should mention regarding that, is that those who were generally considered to be “common-folk”, as recently as a century or two ago (perhaps even more recent), were illiterate and uneducated people, who did not have the wealth to afford education in such things.

now, let’s look at what the explanations of these verses are, then i’ll post the appropriate translation for them based on that.

first, 2:78.
tafseer al-muyassar says, “from the jews are a group who are ignorant of reading and writing, they do not know the torah and what it contains of descriptions of Allah’s prophet and His messenger (s) and what they have of that, except lies and corrupt assumptions.” (ref: here.)

tafseer as-sa’dee says, “‘from them’ meaning: the people of the Book (i.e., the jews and christians). ‘ummiyyeen’ meaning: commoners, they are not from the people of knowledge. ‘they do not know the Book, except [misplaced] trusts’ meaning: they do not have affluence of Allah’s book, except reciting only. and they do not have information of with the first ones who knew the truth of knowledge around them. and these, certainly with them is assumptions and [blind] imitation of the people of knowledge from them.” (ref: here.)

tafseer ibn katheer says, “He, exalted is He says, ‘and from them are ummiyyeen’ meaning: from the people of the book. it was said by mujaahid: the ummiyyeen is plural of ummee, and he is the man who is not good at writing.” (ref: here.)

next, 3:75.
tafseer ibn katheer says, “that is because they said: ‘possibility [of harm] is not upon us with respect to the ummiyyeen’ meaning: certainly their induction to denial of the truth is that they said: there is no harm in our religion in eating the wealth of the ummiyyeen, and they are the arabs, because Allah has made that lawful for us.’” (ref: here.)

tafseer al-baghawee says, “because they said: ‘possibility [of harm] is not upon us with respect to the ummiyyeen’ meaning: any transgression and harm in [eating] the wealth of the arabs.”(ref: here.)

i’ve already posted evidences from the various tafseers of the Quran to show that the arabs were considered unlettered people in my first posts, so refer to them.

lastly, 3:20.
tafseer as-sa’dee says, “… and due to this, He said, ‘and say those given the Book’ from the christians and the jews, ‘and the ummiyyeen’ the arab polytheists and other than them.” (ref: here.)

tafseer al-baghawee says, “and His statement, ‘and say to those who were given the Book and the ummiyyeen’ means the arabs.” (ref: here.)

so just like the verse above, the word ummiyyeen refers to the arabs, who as shown in the explanations of the Quran were an illiterate people, who could neither read, nor write in general.

btw, arabic is a spoken language. its written form didn’t develop to where it is today until a long time after the advent of islam, so the arabs’ description of being an illiterate nation does not negate their mastery of the language, nor does it negate the fact that there were those from amongst the arabs who did have the ability to read and write.

 

[hlgomez]

not a surprise… you aren’t the only one either.
some links you may be interested in checking out…


(pay particular attention to “spanish conquests in asia-pacific” as well as “debate on the human rights of natives”).

r.gonzales,

I am not surprised that the information you gave on this particular thread are hateful to Catholics, especially to the filipino catholics. Some of the links that you give above are purely Islamic propagandas, coupled with some so-called “Philippine historian sites”. Sorry, we don’t buy those garbage.

I know at least how you try to identify yourself. Did you study arabic in Saudi? Did you also went to a Madrasta school? I hope you are not a member of those Islamic “freedom fighters” kuno. And please, I would admire if you tell your “brother muslims” Abu Sayyaf, MILF, etc. to stop taking up arms and hostaging innocent people, bombings here and there.

God will bless you more if you are truly a peaceful muslim.

God bless,

Pio

 

[Booklover]

r.gonzales:

convenient how you leave out the other verse that clearly state that had the Quran been from anyone other than Allah, it would surely contain many contradictions, as well as the verses challenging those who disbelieve to produce something like it, which to this day, no one has.

an article that you should read regarding the mircale that is the Quran was just posted here. it would be worthwhile to read.

So what, big deal! I read your precious article. This is the same stuff we’ve heard before!
None of that is proof that your Qur’an is the word of God! Just because your prophet may have been illiterate, he could have had someone else write his so-called “revelations” for him!

If that’s what you call proof, hey would you like to buy the Brooklyn Bridge? I’ve never heard anything so ridiculous in my life!

The only way your “prophet” could prove his claims was to discredit a whole religion by claiming that Jesus was not God, that he was not crucified and so on, alledging that Jews and Christians had corrupted scripture and even conspired to get rid of books that claimed Mohammed was to be the last prophet! I saw that last bit in another post. What monstrous lies he invented! It’s amazing to me that anyone could be taken in by all that!

 

[r.gonzales]

hlgomez:

I am not surprised that the information you gave on this particular thread are hateful to Catholics, especially to the filipino catholics. Some of the links that you give above are purely Islamic propagandas, coupled with some so-called “Philippine historian sites”. Sorry, we don’t buy those garbage.

would you rather read a book on the history of the philippines written by a filipino christian priest? i’ll gladly give you the reference when my brother finds the book.

and by the way, did you even bother to read some of the articles in those links? particularly the first link? just curious. a simply yes or no would do .

hlgomez:

I know at least how you try to identify yourself.

and how is that? please do tell.

hlgomez:

Did you study arabic in Saudi? Did you also went to a Madrasta school?

no. i’ve never been to saudi.

fyi, madrasah is arabic for “school”. and no, i didn’t go to an islamic “school school”. read my other posts to this forum, you’ll find that i used to be christian.

 

[hlgomez]

fyi, madrasah is arabic for “school”. and no, i didn’t go to an islamic “school school”.

Oh, thanks for the correction. that’s cool.

Pio

 

[hlgomez]

and how is that? please do tell.

You’re sincere in your faith.

Pio

 

[hlgomez]

would you rather read a book on the history of the philippines written by a filipino christian priest? i’ll gladly give you the reference when my brother finds the book.

r.gonzales,

When the Spaniards came to the Philippines, there were friars who accompanied with them to bless their journey. Those were natural circumstances because Spain was a Catholic nation, especially the King and Queen. So when they came to the Philippines, the Friars established churches, while the secular Spaniards established the government. Both were independent with each other. Most of the abuses against the natives came from the civil government, and the friars were also affected because they were Spanish people too. There was a problem of identity, so the people would think that religion was being used as a front to persuade the people to submit to the civil government. But that may not have been the case, but most likely was held as a suspicion.

If you further read the history, the native filipinos revolted against the civil government–not against the church. They claimed independence against the civil government established by Spain–not against the church. This you must distinguish properly.

Again, there may be abuses by some of the Friars at some point, but this should not be an excuse to blame the whole Catholic Church. It is sad though because it tainted the faith by those personal acts. Further, the Philippines was not discovered thru the actions of the Holy See but of the Spanish Government. Catholicism was spread in the Philippines because of Catholic expeditioners.

Pio