muhammad: the illiterate prophet

[Rodrigo_Bivar]

r.gonzales:

since our new friend rodrigo seems to think that he has new arguments for this topic, i thought i’d bring back this thread, since it already has much of what needs to be said.

No. I just won’t let you get away with making nonsensical nonsense to hoodwink people who aren’t familiar with Islam.

r.gonzales:

i’ll address this first point, because it’s going to take some time to dig up the original arabic for the various hadeeths quoted by rodrigo (the references aren’t the common ones found in the standard prints for saheeh al-bukhaaree).

Jeez - thanks. That way, I’ll have a reference for future debates with Muslims who think their knowledge of Arabic can overcome common sense and logic.

r.gonzales:

first, let’s take a look at the verse in question. Allah says, “he is the one sent among the unlettered people, a messenger from them reciting His verses to them, purifying them (i.e., the unlettered people) and teaching them the Book (i.e., the Quran) and the wisdom (i.e., the sunnah) and surely, previously, they used to be in manifest misguidance.”

let us now look at what the Quranic commentators said about this verse, particularly the word ummiyyeen - unlettered people.
at-tabaree says, “they are the arabs, and we have clarified in what has passed the meaning for why illiterate is said about the illiterate one.” and previous to this, at-tabaree said regarding 2:78, “it is meant by unlettered people (ummiyyeen), those who do not write, nor read.”

al-baghawee says, “meaning, the arabs who were an illiterate nation, they did not write, nor read.”

tafseer al-jalaalain has, “the arabs. and the unlettered one is whoever do not write, nor read a book.”

al-qurtubee says, “the unlettered ones are the arabs, all of them; whoever of them wrote and whoever didn’t write because they were not the people of the Book. and it is said: the unlettered ones are those who do not write, and the quraish were like that.”

Tafsirs are merely opinions from Islamic scholars - they can be wrong - particularly if what they say goes against common sense and historical evidence.

How can the Arabs be illiterate? I can find dozens of sahih Bukhari hadiths about the companions of Muhammad WRITING.

Abu Bakr wrote. Muawiya wrote. Ali bin Abu Talib wrote. Many many people wrote. You just have to do a check of Bukhari hadiths to find out writing was not uncommon among Arabs of that time. There was pre-Islamic Arab poetry. Now, you’re trying to tell me the poets were illiterate?

Was Asma bint Marwan illiterate? Was Thabit ibn Qurrah illiterate?

I know Muhammad in a fit of pique called his people illiterate - you can’t take that literally because we know many people wrote.

Here, Allah divided the world into the ‘People of the Book’ and the ummiyeen. This proves Ummi here means people who are unlettered, not illiterate (although some translators claim this). Here are the reasons:

1. We know 7th century Arabs could read and write, despite Muhammad’s fit of pique.
2. Allah made it clear ummiyyeen is opposite to the ‘people of the book’ in 3:20.

Pickthall And if they argue with thee, (O Muhammad), say: I have surrendered my purpose to Allah and (so have) those who follow me. And say unto those who have received the Scripture and those who read not: Have ye (too) surrendered? If they surrender, then truly they are rightly guided, and if they turn away, then it is thy duty only to convey the message (unto them). Allah is Seer of (His) bondmen.

Transliterated Arabic Fa-in hajjooka faqul aslamtu wajhiya lillahi wamani ittabaAAani waqul lillatheena ootoo alkitaba waal-ommiyyeena aaslamtum fa-in aslamoo faqadi ihtadaw wa-in tawallaw fa-innama AAalayka albalaghu waAllahu baseerun bialAAibadi

 

[Rodrigo_Bivar]

r.gonzales:

here’s my reply to rodrigo’s post about prophet muhammad’s alleged literacy in the other thread. much of the hadeeths you posted have been dealt with here: forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=754686&postcount=7
Thanks.

r.gonzales:

hate it as much as you want buddy rodrigo, shoddy translations are always going to be an issue. the text of this hadeeth reads, “we do not have anything except Allah’s book and this saheefah from the prophet, may Allah send greeting and peace upon him…” the word saheefah means page, paper, leaf. there is no indication that the prophet wrote on it himself. the hadeeth simply says that it was “from” him. this hadeeth doesn’t support your futile claims.

This is why I prefer to look at how Muhammad actually wrote, not merely read.

r.gonzales:

dealt with in the post i linked to at the beginning of this post.

see my post here: forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=1106403&postcount=120

particularly the part about the word “qiraa’ah”.
I already know qira’a can mean read or recite. That is why I concentrate on Muhammad actually writing.

Here is a hadith you might consider:
Sahih al-Bukari Volume 3, Book 49, Number 863:
…So, Allah’s Apostle took the document and wrote/], 'This is what Muhammad bin ‘Abdullah has agreed upon: No arms will be brought into Mecca except in their cases, and nobody from the people of Mecca will be allowed to go with him (i.e. the Prophet ) even if he wished to follow him and he (the Prophet ) will not prevent any of his companions from staying in Mecca if the latter wants to stay.’ …

See also Sahih al-Bukari Volume 4, Book 53, Number 408, Volume 5, Book 59, Number 553

There are also Bukhari hadiths about Muhammad wanting to write on his deathbed. I suggest you check them out.

r.gonzales:

yet another example of incorrect translation. the text of the hadeeth actually says, “the prophet, may Allah send greeting and peace upon him, used to say in the ruqyah (incantation): dust of our land and saliva of some of us our ill is cured by our Lord’s permission.” the word used in the arabic is yaqool - he says, not yaqra’ - he reads.

I prefer the evidence that Muhammad WROTE.

r.gonzales:

dealt with in the post i linked to at the beginning of this post.
see explanation given under the comment to “sahih bukhari 1.65” in the post i linked to at the beginning.

This is merely the opinion of Ibn Hajar. Ibn Hajar was undoubtedly a great scholar but this is just opinion, not fact. He claimed Muhammad learned to read and write later in life, again without evidence.

If you claim this hadith is figurative, when it is so literal, then you can just about claim anything you like. How clear is this hadith? Muhammad wrote, yet you bring Ibn Hajar who is known to push his ubsubstantiated theory that Muhammad learned to read and write later in life.

I’d prefer to let the sahih hadiths speak for themselves.

r.gonzales:

illiteracy does not necessitate stupidity. and that’s refuted by the fact that there are many intelligent people in this world who never learned how to read or write, yet they are brilliant in mathematics, at simple logic and problem solving. your comment regarding children knowing how to read and write is not a proof for anything. as well,

My point is that if you call Muhammad illiterate you’re saying he was too stupid to learn how to read and write.Yet even your source Ibn Hajar admits Muhammad could read and write, but only in later life - a stance to comply with his erroneous belief that Muhammad was illiterate. So, if Muhammad did learn how to read and write later in life, why didn’t he learn earlier? Too stupid or too lazy. Take your pick.

Secondly, I didn’t know Muhammad was brilliant in mathematics - if the inheritance laws in the Quran are anything to go by, but that is another debate we can have later.

r.gonzales:

to call the arabs barbarians and cultured is contradicting yourself, as one of the definitions for the word barbarian is “uncultured”. as well, anyone who looks into the history of the arabs will find that they were a very cultured people and were far from a primitive civilization, especially when you compare them to much of western europe during that same time period.

Have you even thought closely at what you’re saying? Do you even realise the implications of your claims?

If Arabs are very cultured then surely they are literate. We know there were pre-Islamic poets and Arabs who could write. For example, Ali, Abu Bakr, Muawiya, Ka’b bin Ashraf, Abu Afak, Asma Bint Mawran, Hassan ibn Thabit, Zaid ibn Thabit. Many Arabs could read and write.

 

[chipusa]

Total nonsense! Jesus Christ is God in the flesh. I don’t care how wise muslim parents are, they will burn without the blood of Christ. The Qur’an is a rattling off of satanic information designed to throw the lost human race off course. Is this hateful? Naw, just truth, pure unadulterated truth.

 

[chipusa]

Muhammad was a dog, pig and denier of the Truth. He was a pedophile and lover of deception. He garnered an army around him to feed his immoral power and used deity to further his passions. Hence the beheadings of purely innocent people on VIDEO. If his writings seemed religious and superstitious at all it is because Satan was using him for these last days to confuse and murder. After all, isn’t that what “Muhammadens” are doing to this day? Christ deniers and executioners of those who refuse Islam. Let’s not beat around the bush, okay? Considering the hundreds of “hot wars” around the world as of this writing, 95% of them are Muslims Vs. Whoever. Let’s face facts here: Russian children shot in the back for “Allah”. How delicious. Cowardly snakes murdering civilians for “Allah”. I have a great idea, why don’t the “great muslim fighters” get together for a full on, blow out fight? Naw, that won’t happen, muslims are too weak to fight real men. They’d rather tie them up and behead them, or better yet, blow innocent women and children to bits. Has anyone seen the new conference of the President of Iran? regimechangeiran.blogspot.com/2005/10/why-havent-we-seen-this.html
This ought to give you an idea of “one world lovey-dovey, let’s all become one puddin’ bullsh*t.”

 

[r.gonzales]

Rodrigo Bivar:

Jeez - thanks. That way, I’ll have a reference for future debates with Muslims who think their knowledge of Arabic can overcome common sense and logic.

perhaps you’re blinded by your own ghuroor. the reason i check back to the original sources is to see if there are errors in translations, which is often the case with many of the evidences brought forth by people like you.
Rodrigo Bivar:

Tafsirs are merely opinions from Islamic scholars - they can be wrong - particularly if what they say goes against common sense and historical evidence.

tafseers are explanations of the verses of the Quran, sometimes based on opinion, sometimes based upon legislative texts. to say they’re “merely” opinions is nothing short of belittlement for something you obviously aren’t as knowledgeable about as you claim. as for the quotes provided, then they’re coming from 4 of the major works of tafseer accepted by the scholars of islam.
Rodrigo Bivar:

How can the Arabs be illiterate? I can find dozens of sahih Bukhari hadiths about the companions of Muhammad WRITING.

the exceptions don’t make the rule. as for arab poetry, most of it was composed orally and transmitted similarly. being that hip hop is very popular now, i’d expect that many of those who are familiar with it are also familiar with free-styling.
Rodrigo Bivar:

Here, Allah divided the world into the ‘People of the Book’ and the ummiyeen. This proves Ummi here means people who are unlettered, not illiterate (although some translators claim this). Here are the reasons:

1. We know 7th century Arabs could read and write, despite Muhammad’s fit of pique.
2. Allah made it clear ummiyyeen is opposite to the ‘people of the book’ in 3:20.

to say that Allah divided the world into those two categories is definitely stretching the context of that verse. the verse refers to those who the prophet muhammad was specifically addressing - the peoples of arabia, not the whole world. and btw, thanks for the transliteration… although it’s not really necessary for me. i can refer back to the original arabic.
Rodrigo Bivar:

This is why I prefer to look at how Muhammad actually wrote, not merely read.

which is why i’m sure you quoted these examples in the first place, right? :ehh:
Rodrigo Bivar:

I already know qira’a can mean read or recite. That is why I concentrate on Muhammad actually writing.

and quote hadeeths that mention that he “read/recited” too, right? :ehh:
Rodrigo Bivar:

Here is a hadith you might consider:
Sahih al-Bukari Volume 3, Book 49, Number 863:
…So, Allah’s Apostle took the document and wrote/], 'This is what Muhammad bin ‘Abdullah has agreed upon: No arms will be brought into Mecca except in their cases, and nobody from the people of Mecca will be allowed to go with him (i.e. the Prophet ) even if he wished to follow him and he (the Prophet ) will not prevent any of his companions from staying in Mecca if the latter wants to stay.’ …

See also Sahih al-Bukari Volume 4, Book 53, Number 408, Volume 5, Book 59, Number 553

There are also Bukhari hadiths about Muhammad wanting to write on his deathbed. I suggest you check them out.
yes, i’m familiar with those hadeeths. and their explanations have been given sufficiently by ibn hajar. btw, is there a reason why you didn’t quote the other versions of the first hadeeth that you gave the references to? could it be that one of them mentions that prophet muhammad was shown what to erase, while the other one mentions that he was not proficient in writing (wa laisa yuhsin yaktub)? all lending further support to what ibn hajar mentioned regarding prophet muhammad’s scribes.

 

[r.gonzales]

Rodrigo Bivar:

He claimed Muhammad learned to read and write later in life, again without evidence.

exposing your ignorance regarding the matter. ibn hajar made no such claim. what he did was discuss this issue mentioning the one who did make the claim, who was a scholar by the name of al-baajee. perhaps you missed where i referred to this discussion at the bottom of this post: forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=754686&postcount=7

and just in case you missed it and are too lazy to check back

nothing in the wording of the hadeeth clearly shows that prophet muhammad wrote anything himself. and ibn hajar has discussion regarding what’s mentioned in this hadeeth in his explanation of saheeh al-bukhaaree where he discusses the statements of some of the scholars of islam saying that prophet muhammad did not die until he wrote and read - meaning he learned these things after the revelation had been completed and before he died. the position of the majority of scholars of islam say that these reports are weak and that he did not learn how to read and write. ibn hajar ends his discussion by saying, “and regarding the claim that the writing of his noble name only according to this picture necessitates diminishment of the miracle and verification of his not being illiterate is a major examination. and Allah knows best.” (fath al-baaree, vol. 7, pg. 575-576 under hadeeth #4251. i’ll try to post more when i can find more discussion on this, God willing.

Rodrigo Bivar:

If you claim this hadith is figurative, when it is so literal, then you can just about claim anything you like. How clear is this hadith? Muhammad wrote, yet you bring Ibn Hajar who is known to push his ubsubstantiated theory that Muhammad learned to read and write later in life.

I’d prefer to let the sahih hadiths speak for themselves.

if your claim was true here, then surely, you’d examine the other versions of the same hadeeth (which you even gave the references for). and btw, since when did you become proficient in the arabic language such that you can tell the difference between figurative and literal references? i find it amusing that while you and others like yourself continue to toy with obscure references, you ignore the clearest and decisive statement made by anyone regarding this issue, the prophet’s own cousin 'abdullah bin 'abbaas who explicitly states, “'he is your prophet. he was illiterate, not writing, nor reading, nor calculating.”
Rodrigo Bivar:

My point is that if you call Muhammad illiterate you’re saying he was too stupid to learn how to read and write.

flawed reasoning and logic. saying someone is illiterate does not necessitate that he was too stupid to learn how to read or write, or that he was too lazy.
Rodrigo Bivar:

Secondly, I didn’t know Muhammad was brilliant in mathematics.

again, talk about strawmen. no one said anything about muhammad being brilliant in mathematics or not being brilliant. seems like you’re guilty of the very tactics you accuse others of… :ehh:

Have you even thought closely at what you’re saying? Do you even realise the implications of your claims?

sure i have. have you? after all, you’re the one who says unlettered doesn’t mean illiterate, despite what a number of arabic scholars mention in explanation of the word “ummiyyoon”, as well as the fact that you don’t seem to see a contradiction between calling a people barbaric and cultured at the same time…

 

[r.gonzales]

dear moderators,

i’m pretty sure chipusa’s posts here violate forum rules.

 

[cute2904]

r.gonzales:

dear moderators,
i’m pretty sure chipusa’s posts here violate forum rules.

Dear Moderator,
I think Edris also violate the forums rule by giving my personal links that has nothing to do with this forum’s content. Please clarify.

 

[Rodrigo_Bivar]

r.gonzales:

perhaps you’re blinded by your own ghuroor. the reason i check back to the original sources is to see if there are errors in translations, which is often the case with many of the evidences brought forth by people like you.

Good for you and I hope you continue to check the Arabic. However, don’t leave your common sense in a drawer.

r.gonzales:

tafseers are explanations of the verses of the Quran, sometimes based on opinion, sometimes based upon legislative texts. to say they’re “merely” opinions is nothing short of belittlement for something you obviously aren’t as knowledgeable about as you claim. as for the quotes provided, then they’re coming from 4 of the major works of tafseer accepted by the scholars of islam.

Yet they are not sahih - if they conflict with the sahih hadiths, which do you prefer to believe, some Imam or the sahih hadiths? Use your brain and not just believe what some imam tells you.

r.gonzales:

the exceptions don’t make the rule. as for arab poetry, most of it was composed orally and transmitted similarly. being that hip hop is very popular now, i’d expect that many of those who are familiar with it are also familiar with free-styling.

Hmmm… I think they also wrote their poetry and stuck them up on the Ka’aba.

It seems strange that according to Bukhari’s hadiths, so many Muslims and non-Muslims can read and write, yet you choose to believe they are ‘illiterate’. The evidence is very much against you, bud. You claim you check the Arabic - why don’t you check Bukhari’s ahadiths and find out just how many of those people could read and write.
r.gonzalez:

to say that Allah divided the world into those two categories is definitely stretching the context of that verse. the verse refers to those who the prophet muhammad was specifically addressing - the peoples of arabia, not the whole world. and btw, thanks for the transliteration… although it’s not really necessary for me. i can refer back to the original arabic.

Your apologetic is nonsense, yet again. Do you mean that all Arabs were illiterate and all Christians and Jews could read?

I already showed you that according to the sahih hadiths and other sources, Arabs of that time could both read and write, or didn’t Allah know that?

r.gonzales:

which is why i’m sure you quoted these examples in the first place, right? :ehh:

I don’t care about your ‘I know Arabic’ excuse. So you know Arabic. Big deal. It doesn’t mean you’re using any common sense.

r.gonzales:

and quote hadeeths that mention that he “read/recited” too, right? :ehh:

Why not? It all goes to make a case, doesn’t it? Are they the only hadiths I quoted? No.

I must say that you, like other Muslims, are disingenuous. If there are two definitions which are equally applicable, you choose the one that suits your case - without the supporting evidence.

r.gonzales:

yes, i’m familiar with those hadeeths. and their explanations have been given sufficiently by ibn hajar. btw, is there a reason why you didn’t quote the other versions of the first hadeeth that you gave the references to? could it be that one of them mentions that prophet muhammad was shown what to erase, while the other one mentions that he was not proficient in writing (wa laisa yuhsin yaktub)? all lending further support to what ibn hajar mentioned regarding prophet muhammad’s scribes.

No. I already know about Ibn Hajar’s unsubstantiated theory.

Firstly, there is no mention of any scribe.
Secondly, the hadiths specifically mention Muhammad writing by himself.
Thirdly, he obviously knew which words to erase - so he couldn’t be illiterate, could he? I already told you I was interested in evidence that he WROTE, not that he knew which words to erase. Note the expression, ‘he erased the expression with his own hand.’ Geez, thanks for proving my case.
Fourthly, not proficient in writing does not mean illiterate. Children are not proficient in writing but they are hardly illiterate.

So, who’s stretching the point? Not me.

Huh… not proficient in writing = illiterate?

 

[Rodrigo_Bivar]

r.gonzales:

exposing your ignorance regarding the matter. ibn hajar made no such claim. what he did was discuss this issue mentioning the one who did make the claim, who was a scholar by the name of al-baajee. perhaps you missed where i referred to this discussion at the bottom of this post: forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost…686&postcount=7

You sure?

r.gonzales:

nothing in the wording of the hadeeth clearly shows that prophet muhammad wrote anything himself. and ibn hajar has discussion regarding what’s mentioned in this hadeeth in his explanation of saheeh al-bukhaaree where he discusses the statements of some of the scholars of islam saying that prophet muhammad did not die until he wrote and read - meaning he learned these things after the revelation had been completed and before he died. the position of the majority of scholars of islam say that these reports are weak and that he did not learn how to read and write. ibn hajar ends his discussion by saying, “and regarding the claim that the writing of his noble name only according to this picture necessitates diminishment of the miracle and verification of his not being illiterate is a major examination. and Allah knows best.” (fath al-baaree, vol. 7, pg. 575-576 under hadeeth #4251. i’ll try to post more when i can find more discussion on this, God willing.

Gee, thanks. The last statement is a bit of goobledigook, don’t you think?

In regards to the hadiths, when they claim, Muhammad WROTE – you calim , nothing clearly shows Muhammad wrote anything himself. Huh?

Which part of ‘Muhammad wrote’ don’t you understand?

Let’s see…
Sahih al-Bukari Volume 3, Book 49, Number 863
“Allah’s Apostle took the document and wrote…”

Not clearly shows?

Ibn Hajar wasn’t there – he only claimed this was ‘figurative’ – where was his evidence? Figurative for ‘dictating to scribes’?

r.gonzales:

if your claim was true here, then surely, you’d examine the other versions of the same hadeeth (which you even gave the references for).

Sure – go ahead.

r.gonzales:

and btw, since when did you become proficient in the arabic language such that you can tell the difference between figurative and literal references?

Muhammad wrote = figurative?

Pull the other leg.

Since you know Arabic why don’t you translate/transliterate the hadith for us?

r.gonzales:

i find it amusing that while you and others like yourself continue to toy with obscure references,

I wouldn’t call Bukhari obscure.

r.gonzales:

you ignore the clearest and decisive statement made by anyone regarding this issue, the prophet’s own cousin 'abdullah bin 'abbaas who explicitly states, “'he is your prophet. he was illiterate, not writing, nor reading, nor calculating.”

Is that in Bukhari? Or some obscure reference?

r.gonzales:

flawed reasoning and logic. saying someone is illiterate does not necessitate that he was too stupid to learn how to read or write, or that he was too lazy.

So what’s his excuse?

r.gonzales:

again, talk about strawmen. no one said anything about muhammad being brilliant in mathematics or not being brilliant. seems like you’re guilty of the very tactics you accuse others of…

Who brought up mathematics? You or me? So who built the mathematics straw man? You or me?

r.gonzales:

sure i have. have you? after all, you’re the one who says unlettered doesn’t mean illiterate, despite what a number of arabic scholars mention in explanation of the word “ummiyyoon”, as well as the fact that you don’t seem to see a contradiction between calling a people barbaric and cultured at the same time…

You tripped up good, gonzy. First you claim the Arabs were ummi = illiterate. Then you claim they were cultured. You can’t have it both ways, bud.

I never claimed unlettered doesn’t mean illiterate. Prove your claim.

I only claimed Ummi can mean EITHER illiterate OR unlettered. But since we have evidence from the sahih hadiths that Muhammad did write, he couldn’t be illiterate, so he must have been unlettered.

 

[Rodrigo_Bivar]

To r. gonzales,

Al-Haafiz Ibn Hajar says, "The Prophet was illiterate, and that is why the Qur’an is so miraculous by nature.

Rodrigo Bivar says, 'Homer was illiterate (because he was blind), and that is why the Odyssey and the Iliad are so miraculous by nature.

 

[Ching_PBUH]

Rodrigo Bivar:

To r. gonzales,

Al-Haafiz Ibn Hajar says, "The Prophet was illiterate, and that is why the Qur’an is so miraculous by nature.

Rodrigo Bivar says, 'Homer was illiterate (because he was blind), and that is why the Odyssey and the Iliad are so miraculous by nature.

The Quran was compiled about 300 years after the death of Mohammad. There is no prove what was purportedly revealed was accurately compiled, more so when “unauthorised” copies of the Quran were burned.

And who says beauty in literature MUST BE of divine origin. And what good does it bring if 99% of the people does not know how to read AND understand it?

 

[r.gonzales]

Ching_PBUH:

The Quran was compiled about 300 years after the death of Mohammad.

talk about ignorance and misinformation . i’m sure uthmaan bin 'affaan lived that long after the prophet’s death to carry out his compilation, right? (which, btw, wasn’t even the first one done.)

 

[r.gonzales]

Rodrigo Bivar:

However, don’t leave your common sense in a drawer.

perhaps you should do the same.
Rodrigo Bivar:

Yet they are not sahih - if they conflict with the sahih hadiths, which do you prefer to believe, some Imam or the sahih hadiths? Use your brain and not just believe what some imam tells you.

classic case of ignorance regarding islamic branches of knowledge, particularly with respect to the branches of knowledge pertaining to hadeeth. firstly, all of those quotes from the various books of tafseer i quoted in the initial post to this thread are all derived from authentic (saheeh) hadeeths, one of them being the statement i referred to by 'abdullah bin 'abbaas, the prophet’s paternal cousin.
Rodrigo Bivar:

The evidence is very much against you, bud.

perhaps it may look this way to someone who likes to pick and choose from the texts, such as someone like yourself.
Rodrigo Bivar:

Do you mean that all Arabs were illiterate and all Christians and Jews could read?

no, no where did i say that all arabs were illiterate. the arab nation was an illiterate nation, this is testified to, not only in Quranic verses and authentic hadeeths, but also by history.from: indiana.edu/~arabic/arabic_history.htm

Before the appearance of Islam, Arabic was a minor member of the southern branch of the Semetic language family, used by a small number of largely nomadic tribes in the Arabian peninsula, with an extremely poorly documented textual history.

anyone who’s studied about the history of the arabic language will tell you that arabic is a spoken language and arabic writing didn’t develop to where it is now until around the rise of islam, which is why it has such a poorly documented textual history - the arabs were generally an illiterate peoples. prophet muhammad stated in an authentic hadeeth reported in saheeh al-bukhaaree, “we are an illiterate nation. we do not write, nor read, nor caluclate.”

as for the jews and christians of arabia, they used to read and write. most of the religious books they used to read from, as testified to in authentic hadeeths were in hebrew or other languages. aboo hurairah is reported to have said, “the people of the Book (i.e., the jews) used to recite the torah in hebrew and they used to explain it in arabic to the muslims.” (quoted by ahmad von defner (quranicstudies.com/article98.html)
Rodrigo Bivar:

I already showed you that according to the sahih hadiths and other sources, Arabs of that time could both read and write

as i said, the exception doesn’t make the rule.
Rodrigo Bivar:

I don’t care about your ‘I know Arabic’ excuse. So you know Arabic. Big deal. It doesn’t mean you’re using any common sense.

no, but it does mean that i’m able to do somethings you’re not… such as 1) verify the texts and references to see if there were any errors in translation. 2) see the context of what’s being said and understand what’s intended by the statements made (something that isn’t always conveyed to the reader when translated into another language - such as english).
Rodrigo Bivar:

If there are two definitions which are equally applicable, you choose the one that suits your case - without the supporting evidence.

pretty much what you’ve done numerous times throughout any of the discussions i’ve had with you. as for not having any supporting evidences, i think explicit statements from prophet muhammad and his companions saying that ummee means illiterate (i.e., do not read, nor write), as well as statements from muslim scholars of islam who are experts in the arabic language that support what i’m saying are more than sufficient as supporting evidences.

 

[r.gonzales]

Rodrigo Bivar:

No. I already know about Ibn Hajar’s unsubstantiated theory.

Firstly, there is no mention of any scribe.
Secondly, the hadiths specifically mention Muhammad writing by himself.
Thirdly, he obviously knew which words to erase - so he couldn’t be illiterate, could he? I already told you I was interested in evidence that he WROTE, not that he knew which words to erase. Note the expression, ‘he erased the expression with his own hand.’ Geez, thanks for proving my case.

shows how much you know about figurative and literal statements. firstly, there need not be mention of any scribes. it’s a known fact that prophet muhammad had scribes recording things he said and did, as well as the revelation as it came.

secondly, regarding the phrase “he wrote” and even to a further extent, “he read” as i said in this post forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=754686&postcount=7

ibn hajar, in explaining this, said, “the statement ‘he wrote or wanted to write’ is doubt from a narrator and the attribution of writing to the prophet (s) is figurative and means: the scribe wrote at his command.” (fath al-baaree, vol.1, pg.187) another more recent example of this phrase, “he wrote”, as being one of figurative meaning is with the former grand muftee of saudi arabia, 'abdul-'azeez bin 'abdillah bin baaz. the shaikh was blind, so obviously he didn’t literally write anything after losing his site he authored many books and booklets via dictation. the fact that he physically didn’t write the books he authored does not negate the phrase, “he wrote such and such book” from being used with relation to his works.

there are many scholars who were blind - and regarding each book they authored, it is said that they “wrote” the book, although they didn’t physically write it themselves, but rather dictated to a scribe who wrote it for them.

thirdly, with respect to prophet muhammad erasing his name with his own hand, obviously you didn’t pay attention to one of the narrations of that hadeeth that you gave the reference to where it says, “he was shown” what to erase.

lastly, as for this:
Rodrigo Bivar:

Fourthly, not proficient in writing does not mean illiterate. Children are not proficient in writing but they are hardly illiterate.

here’s some more dictionary definitions:

proficient

adj : having or showing knowledge and skill and aptitude

not being proficient in something is not having or showing knowledge and skill and aptitude of that thing.
Rodrigo Bivar:

You sure?

yes, quite. show me where ibn hajar states that prophet muhammad learned how to read and write near the end of his life, and i don’t mean mere presentation of the discussion regarding the issue or even stating that the issue of his not being illiterate needs major examination.
Rodrigo Bivar:

Sure – go ahead.

you really, really, really need to read more carefully. again, for clarity’s sake:

r.gonzales:

if your claim was true here, then surely, you’d examine the other versions of the same hadeeth (which you even gave the references for).

one of which says that he was shown the writing, and another that says he wasn’t proficient (i.e., did not have knowledge/skill of writing) in writing.
Rodrigo Bivar:

Muhammad wrote = figurative?

yes, see my example of ash-shaikh 'abdullah bin baaz above.
Rodrigo Bivar:

Since you know Arabic why don’t you translate/transliterate the hadith for us?

and what do you think i do when i quote Quranic verses, prophetic hadeeths and statements from scholars??? try clicking on the links to the references for quotes that originate from tafseers that i give in my posts…

 

[r.gonzales]

Rodrigo Bivar:

Is that in Bukhari? Or some obscure reference?

yes, the statement from 'abdullah bin 'abbaas is from saheeh al-bukhaaree. try looking in kitaab as-sawm.
Rodrigo Bivar:

Who brought up mathematics? You or me? So who built the mathematics straw man? You or me?

who stated that prophet muhammad was brilliant in mathematics, you or me? you’re the one who thinks that illiterate people are either stupid or lazy, when the fact is that stupidity and laziness are not necessary causes for illiteracy.
Rodrigo Bivar:

You tripped up good, gonzy. First you claim the Arabs were ummi = illiterate. Then you claim they were cultured. You can’t have it both ways, bud.

firstly, my name isn’t “gonzy”.

secondly, seems you’re a lot more ignorant about certain things that you’d like to admit or realise.

dictionary.reference.com/search?q=cultured

cul·tured ( P ) Pronunciation Key (klchrd)
adj.

1. Educated, polished, and refined; cultivated.
2. Produced under artificial and controlled conditions: cultured pearls.

there is also:

cultured

adj : marked by refinement in taste and manners; “cultivated speech”; “cultured Bostonians”; “cultured tastes”; “a genteel old lady”; “polite society” [syn: civilized, civilised, cultivated, genteel, polite]

for civilized, we find:

civ·i·lized ( P ) Pronunciation Key (sv-lzd)
adj.

1. Having a highly developed society and culture.
2. Showing evidence of moral and intellectual advancement; humane, ethical, and reasonable: terrorist acts that shocked the civilized world.
3. Marked by refinement in taste and manners; cultured; polished.

do you see literate anywhere? i don’t…
Rodrigo Bivar:

I never claimed unlettered doesn’t mean illiterate. Prove your claim.

nice try in deflecting the fact that you’re saying unlettered doesn’t mean illiterate in the case of the arabic “ummee (pl. ummiyyoon)”.

 

[r.gonzales]

in order to keep this discussion in the same thread, rather than having it split amongst other threads, i’ve posted this reply here, which is a reply to what rodrigo said in these two posts in the “smite their necks” thread: here and here.

since our friend rodrigo, the expert debator, thinks that his claims have not been sufficiently answered, let’s take a look at the evidences against him.

first: clear and explicit verses from the Quran that label prophet muhammad as the illiterate prophet (an-nabee al-ummee). this is not only proven by the context and usage of the word ummee in the verse, but also by the explanations by muslim scholars who are experts in the arabic language which affirm this fact and state that “ummee” means illiterate; one who does not read, nor write.

second: a clear and explicit statement from prophet muhammad’s first cousin, 'abdullah bin 'abbaas, saying, “'he is your prophet. he was illiterate, not writing, nor reading, nor calculating.” this statement is recorded by al-imam al-bukhaaree in his saheeh under the book of fasting. (note: calculating here refers to determining the beginning and end of the lunar months by way of astronomical calculations).

third: ibn hajar’s perfectly reasonable and satisfactory explanation regarding the phrase “he wrote” in some authentic hadeeths as being taken in the figurative sense, not the literal sense. his explanation is supported by the evidences mentioned just previously, along with the examples i gave earlier in the thread regarding one of the late contemporary scholars, 'abdul-'azeez bin baaz who was blind and is said to have “wrote” a number of works although he didn’t actually write them himself. when it is said that ibn baaz wrote such and such book, it is automatically understood as he dictated that book to a scribe who then wrote it down.

fourth: one of the many authentic hadeeths cited by rodrigo, one he referenced as “sahih al-bukari volume 3, book 49, number 863” is actually a proof against his claims, not for them. our friend rodrigo, in quoting this hadeeth, also gave references to its other narrations (vol.4, book 53, #408, vol.5, book 59, #553) but did not quote them. in one of these narrations, it is stated that prophet muhammad was shown what to erase, meaning that he could not erase his name without being shown it first. this was due to his not having the ability to read or write. the other narration explicitly says, “laa yuhsin yaktub” which was mistranslated and misinterpreted in the translation available online. “laa yuhsin yaktub” literally translates to “he was not proficient in writing” or in other words, he did not possess skill in the art of writing.

 

[Rodrigo_Bivar]

r.gonzales:

since our friend rodrigo, the expert debator, thinks that his claims have not been sufficiently answered, let’s take a look at the evidences against him.

Okay. Thanks. Much appreciated.

r.gonzales:

first: clear and explicit verses from the Quran that label prophet muhammad as the illiterate prophet (an-nabee al-ummee). this is not only proven by the context and usage of the word ummee in the verse, but also by the explanations by muslim scholars who are experts in the arabic language which affirm this fact and state that “ummee” means illiterate; one who does not read, nor write.

What context? The contrast of the word Ummi was ‘People of the Book’. It is clear that the Arabs were not illiterate. The hadiths are full of people who could write. The pre-Islamic Arabs were very keen on poetry. Seven pre-Islamic poets had their verses permanently posted on the walls of Ka’ba. These verses were known as Muallakat or suspended. The Dictionary of Islam (Hughe’s Dictionary of Islam, p.460) writes that those verses were also known as Muzahhabat or the golden poems because they were written in gold. The authors of those poetical verses were: Zuhair, Trafah, Imrul Qays, Amru ibn Kulsum, al-Haris, Antarah and Labid.

Thus, I reject your claim that Ummi necessarily means illiterate. It can also mean unschooled or unscriptured or unlearned.

r.gonzales:

second: a clear and explicit statement from prophet muhammad’s first cousin, 'abdullah bin 'abbaas, saying, “'he is your prophet. he was illiterate, not writing, nor reading, nor calculating.” this statement is recorded by al-imam al-bukhaaree in his saheeh under the book of fasting. (note: calculating here refers to determining the beginning and end of the lunar months by way of astronomical calculations).

I’m not aware this is from Bukhari. I think it is from a tafsir – thus only not sahih. There are other sahih hadiths that clearly state that Muhammad WROTE, or that he asked for a pen and paper (or similar writing implements).

r.gonzales:

third: ibn hajar’s perfectly reasonable and satisfactory explanation regarding the phrase “he wrote” in some authentic hadeeths as being taken in the figurative sense, not the literal sense. his explanation is supported by the evidences mentioned just previously, along with the examples i gave earlier in the thread regarding one of the late contemporary scholars, 'abdul-'azeez bin baaz who was blind and is said to have “wrote” a number of works although he didn’t actually write them himself. when it is said that ibn baaz wrote such and such book, it is automatically understood as he dictated that book to a scribe who then wrote it down.

1)You have provided merely the logical fallacy of argumentum ad verecundiam. It is only your opinion that Ibn Hajar’s explanation is perfectly reasonable and satisfactory. Where’s the evidence that the word ‘wrote’ should be figurative? None that I can see.

I get your point about 'abdul-'azeez bin baaz. The same situation arose with Homer who was blind but wrote the Odyssey and Iliad. However, the hadith context is clear that when Muhammad wrote he really did – see how he asked for writing implements. 2) your analogy is false: Muhammad was not blind. 3) there are clear indications that he edited the Treaty of Hudaybiyya by his own hand.

You claimed elsewhere that the onus of proof is on the person making the positive claim. I made the positive claim that Muhammad wrote – and provided clear irrefutable evidence that he ‘wrote’, he edited the treaty with his own hands, and he asked for writing implements.

You claim writing doesn’t mean he wrote. Where’s your evidence. Relying on 'abdul-'azeez bin baaz is both a false analogy and the logical fallacy of Ignoratio Elenchi.

 

[Rodrigo_Bivar]

r.gonzales:

fourth: one of the many authentic hadeeths cited by rodrigo, one he referenced as “sahih al-bukari volume 3, book 49, number 863” is actually a proof against his claims, not for them. our friend rodrigo, in quoting this hadeeth, also gave references to its other narrations (vol.4, book 53, #408, vol.5, book 59, #553) but did not quote them. in one of these narrations, it is stated that prophet muhammad was shown what to erase, meaning that he could not erase his name without being shown it first. this was due to his not having the ability to read or write. the other narration explicitly says, “laa yuhsin yaktub” which was mistranslated and misinterpreted in the translation available online. “laa yuhsin yaktub” literally translates to “he was not proficient in writing” or in other words, he did not possess skill in the art of writing.

What nonsense. There are several hadiths narrating the same event. Only one made the claim that he used not to write. This phrase ‘used not to’ clearly suggests ability but preference not to. Otherwise, it would be better to use the phrase ‘Muhammad did not write’ or ‘Muhammad didn’t know how to write’. This hadith does not say Muhammad did not write. He used not to write – meaning he was used to having scribes. The rest of the hadith clearly shows that he can write if he wanted to. Many rulers also can write but didn’t do so when they had scribes with better handwriting. This is not unusual.

3:49:863 - Allah’s Apostle took the document and wrote

4:53:408 - Allah’s Apostle used not to write; so he asked 'Ali to erase the expression of Apostle of Allah. On that 'Ali said, “By Allah I will never erase it.” Allah’s Apostle said (to 'Ali), “Let me see the paper.” When 'Ali showed him the paper, the Prophet erased the expression with his own hand.

5:59:553 - Then Allah’s Apostle took the writing sheet…and he did not know a better writing…and he wrote or got it the following written!

I have nothing to hide so don’t suggest that I do. The fact is that this forum limits a poster to only 5000 chars – I gave the reference so people can look it up for themselves. Please don’t make any insinuations.

 

[Myangel]

hlgomez:

Quote:
Originally Posted by r.gonzales
*

thus, i - along with other muslims - will continue to refer to both jews and christians as such. sorry if this upsets you, but the word of Allah comes before yours .*

Briefly and very well said.

That’s what distinguish a true Christian from a true Muslim.

We are ridiculed but yet remain humble, mocked but bear it all with humulity, threatened but continue to love. Blessed be the Name of the Lord!

Pio