muhammad: the illiterate prophet

[Cyber_Knight]

Guys, why dont we let Rodrigo vs Gonzales to debate about Muhammad the Illiterate Prophet? They both seem know what they are talking about. They both are very informative.

 

[r.gonzales]

Rodrigo Bivar:

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.

see my post above, #91.

con’t…

 

[r.gonzales]

Rodrigo Bivar:

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

there you go picking and choosing definitions again. in sirat al-nabi and the orientalists, m. m. ali writes:

watt thinks that the word ummiyy is derived from the hebrew phrase ummot ha olam (the peole of the world of gentiles). such might have been the case; but there is the more authoritative view that it is derived from the arabic umm (mother) and therefore, ummiyy means one who has no acquired knowledge except whatever he received at his mother’s cradle. in any case, it is fairly certain that the jews used to refer to non-jews as ummiyy or unscriptured people. they did so derisively to imply that since the other people did not possess any revealed book the were devoid of knowledge and learning or, in other words, they were ignorant and illiterate. thus even from the jew’s practice the word bore the meaning of illiterate and ignorant. it may be recalled in this connection that the ancient greeks also used to refer to all non-greek (non-hellenic) people as ‘barbarians’. this word lso conveyed not simply the meaning of non-greek but essentially that of a person beyond the pale of civilization and culture. and it is this latter meaning that ultimately prevailed o the exclusion of the original meaning. similarly, the arabs used to refer to the non-arab as a’jam, that is one who is unable to express himself fluently, the original meaning of arab being one who could express himself fluently. subsequently the original meaning of a’jam receded into the background and it came to imply simply a non-arab or foreigner.

now, with respect to the context i mentioned in my post and your statement regarding ummee being contrast to “people of the book” meaning that it refers to people without scripture, he states:

as shown above, the term ummiyy has definitely been used in the sense of “unlettered” in 2:78. there are five other places where the term occurs in the Qur’an. in three of these places, namely, 3:20, 3:75 and 62:2, the term occurs in the plural and accusative form and in each of these places it may be taken either in the sense of illiterate and uninformed people or in that of people without scripture. at the other two places, namely 7:157 and 7:158, it is used in the singular form and as a personal epithet of the prophet. at ach of these places it signifies an unlettered person and can in no way be taken to mean a person without scripture or a non-jewish indvidual. this would be evident if we simply look at the relevantparts of the two ayahs. they run as follows:

he quotes the verses, which i quoted in the very first post of this thread, then continues:

two points need to be specially noted about these two ayahs. in the first place, while the burden of the first ayah is that the prophet was sent as a messenger of Allah to jews as well as christians “who find him mentioned in the tawrah and the injil”, the second ayah states that he was sent to “all the people” of the world. this being the main burden of the two ayahs it would be quite inappropriate to emphasize here his non-jewish origin or arab ethnic affiliation. in fact it would be simply self-defeating to say that a non-jewish or unscriptured prophet was sent to the jews and the christians who had their scriptures. rather, keeping in the view of the fact that it ws the unbelievers’ frequent allegation that what muhammad was giving out was his own fabrication, and also the fact that the appeal was addressed to a wider audience, it is only natural thatthe case was putin the way best calculated to rebut that allegation. secondly, both the ayahs say, implicitly as well as explicitly, that the prophet had been endowed with a revealed book which he himself believes and asked his audience to believe in it. thus at both the places the expression can only mean an unlettered or untutored prophet, not at all an un-jewish or unscriptured prophet. for one thing, it would be antithetical to describe him as an “unscriptured” prophet when he had already received a scripture (kitab) and which h had been asking all the people - makkans, arabs, jews, christians and “all the people” of the world - to believe.

con’t…

 

[r.gonzales]

Rodrigo Bivar:

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).

correction: the statement by abdullah bin 'abbaas was quoted in the books of tafseer and not in saheeh al-bukhaaree. however, the reference i did make the mistake on was intended for a statement that prophet muhammad made himself, which is recorded in saheeh al-bukhaaree’s book of fasting, in which he states, “we are an illiterate nation. we do not write, nor calculate.” this is hadeeth #1913 and is narrated by 'abdullah bin 'umar.

as for your statement regarding the authenticity of the statement from 'abdullah bin 'abbaas, i.e., whether it is “saheeh” or not, you should know that there are many saheeh hadeeths not recorded in either saheeh al-bukhaaree or saheeh muslim. so the fact that his statement is found in the books of tafseer and not saheeh al-bukhaaree doesn’t mean much.
Rodrigo Bivar:

Where’s the evidence that the word ‘wrote’ should be figurative? None that I can see.

classic case of looking at one group of evidences without looking at the rest.
Rodrigo Bivar:

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.

seems you missed the whole point of my mentioning ibn baaz . no, prophet muhammad wasn’t blind. but he was illiterate, meaning like ibn baaz, he did not have the ability to read or write, although for different reasons. as for your claimed context of the verse, in one of the hadeeths you referred to as “supporting evidence” it states that prophet muhammad erased something with his own hand, yet it doesn’t mention that he wrote with his own hand. so how is it clear that he wrote it himself? and as was mentioned, he was shown what to erase, thus knew what to strike out.
Rodrigo Bivar:

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!

in the last reference given (which is hadeeth #4251 in the standard numbering of bukhaaree), the translation given is as i mentioned above, wrong. the arabic reads فأخذ رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم الكتاب وليس يحسن يكتب which correctly translates to: “so Allah’s messenger, may Allah send greeting and peace upon him, took the writing and he was not proficient in writing.”

as for the second reference (which is hadeeth #3184 in the standard numbering), the original arabic reads كان لا يكتب . the verb kaana here is what is translated in your quote as “used to” it is the past tense form of “to be” and can equally be understood as “he was not writing” or “he could not write”. this also the narration where prophet muhammad is shown what to erase. the arabic reads قال فأرنيه، قال فأراه إياه فمحاه النبي بيده which literally translates to “he (prophet muhammad) said: show it to me! he (the narrator of the hadeeth) said: so he was shown it and the prophet erased it with his hand.” the “it” in the wording referring to prophet muhammad’s name on the paper, not the paper itself as is clear from the context of the hadeeth as we can see: “he said to alee, ‘erase.’ alee said, ‘by Allah i will not erase it.’ he (prophet muhammad) said, ‘show it to me!’ he (the narrator) said: so he was shown it and the prophet erased it with his hand.”

 

[Rodrigo_Bivar]

r.gonzales:

correction: the statement by abdullah bin 'abbaas was quoted in the books of tafseer and not in saheeh al-bukhaaree. however, the reference i did make the mistake on was intended for a statement that prophet muhammad made himself, which is recorded in saheeh al-bukhaaree’s book of fasting, in which he states, “we are an illiterate nation. we do not write, nor calculate.” this is hadeeth #1913 and is narrated by 'abdullah bin 'umar.

Thanks – I knew that quote was from a tafsir.

I also think Muhammad was being a tad unfair. It is evident he was frustrated. After all, that would mean that no Arab could write or calculate during his lifetime: that is hard to believe from the evidence of the sira and ahadith. Why don’t you search Bukhari? I can see at least a dozen Arabs who could write, e.g. Ali, Abu Bakr, and of course, Muhammad’s scribes.

r.gonzales:

as for your statement regarding the authenticity of the statement from 'abdullah bin 'abbaas, i.e., whether it is “saheeh” or not, you should know that there are many saheeh hadeeths not recorded in either saheeh al-bukhaaree or saheeh muslim. so the fact that his statement is found in the books of tafseer and not saheeh al-bukhaaree doesn’t mean much.

Of course I know that there were many sahih hadiths that Bukhari didn’t record. However, since he didn’t record these hadiths then we shall never know if they are sahih or not. To claim that any hadith can be sahih purely because it is possible that Bukhari left them out is speculative. If we accept that then any hadith can be sahih.

r.gonzales:

classic case of looking at one group of evidences without looking at the rest.

No. Classic case of you making unsubstantiated claims. If you have any evidence that the hadith is sahih you would have brought it already.

r.gonzales:

seems you missed the whole point of my mentioning ibn baaz . no, prophet muhammad wasn’t blind. but he was illiterate, meaning like ibn baaz, he did not have the ability to read or write, although for different reasons. as for your claimed context of the verse, in one of the hadeeths you referred to as “supporting evidence” it states that prophet muhammad erased something with his own hand, yet it doesn’t mention that he wrote with his own hand. so how is it clear that he wrote it himself? and as was mentioned, he was shown what to erase, thus knew what to strike out.

You didn’t understand my claim about the false analogy. Saying ibn baaz ‘wrote’ even when he was blind is contextually clear that he didn’t write himself. However, you can’t say the same for Muhammad because there is no context that would sustain a similar reasoning.

Re erasing and writing – why don’t you read the hadiths again. It is clear that he could write. Here are some direct evidence that he could write.
4:53:393 - Bring me a bone of scapula, so that I may write something for you after which you will never go astray.{why did he have to get a bone of scapula to write something if he only dictated?}
3:49:383 - Allah’s Apostle took the document and wrote. {If he dictated why did he take the document?}
5:59:553 - he wrote or got it the following written! {clearly he could write otherwise the first clause is redundant}
1:3:114 – bring me paper and I will write… {why did he need paper if he only dictated?}
5:59:716 – fetch me something so I may write … {same as 1:3:114}

You home in on one hadith where he only erased but didn’t write. However, you neglected the other hadiths where it is clear he wrote or could write.

r.gonzales:

in the last reference given (which is hadeeth #4251 in the standard numbering of bukhaaree), the translation given is as i mentioned above, wrong. the arabic reads فأخذ رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم الكتاب وليس يحسن يكتب which correctly translates to: “so Allah’s messenger, may Allah send greeting and peace upon him, took the writing and he was not proficient in writing.”

Not proficient does not mean he couldn’t. It is likely that this is so since he used scribes. However, the point is you have extended the meaning to mean illiteracy.

 

[Rodrigo_Bivar]

Extending the point I made above. Not proficient in writing suggests he could write - only not well. Otherwise, one could just say ‘he couldn’t write’.

For example: I can say you are not proficient in the English language - that means you can understand English but your command is poor. If I say you cannot speak English or don’t understand English the meaning is clear. Thus, lack of proficiency suggests poor ability, not no ability.

r.gonzales:

as for the second reference (which is hadeeth #3184 in the standard numbering), the original arabic reads كان لا يكتب . the verb kaana here is what is translated in your quote as “used to” it is the past tense form of “to be” and can equally be understood as “he was not writing” or “he could not write”. this also the narration where prophet muhammad is shown what to erase. the arabic reads قال فأرنيه، قال فأراه إياه فمحاه النبي بيده which literally translates to “he (prophet muhammad) said: show it to me! he (the narrator of the hadeeth) said: so he was shown it and the prophet erased it with his hand.” the “it” in the wording referring to prophet muhammad’s name on the paper, not the paper itself as is clear from the context of the hadeeth as we can see: “he said to alee, ‘erase.’ alee said, ‘by Allah i will not erase it.’ he (prophet muhammad) said, ‘show it to me!’ he (the narrator) said: so he was shown it and the prophet erased it with his hand.”

Many thanks. Much appreciated for the Arabic translation.

Firstly, it is silly to even claim erasure of the paper but his name. How do you erase a paper. It is clear he erased his name that was written on the paper.

Secondly, if it is possible that ‘used to’ means ‘he was not writing’ or ‘he could not write’ then logically that point is ambiguous. Neither of us can use that to make our claim if it is ambiguous. To determine which is correct, we have to look for evidence elsewhere. You say ‘he could not write’. I say ‘he could but did not write’. So the only fair thing to do is to examine other evidence to decide which of us is correct. I think I am correct because of the hadiths I listed above.

It is incorrect for you to just claim that since there are two possible readings to a disputed point you are automatically correct. Where’s your supporting evidence?

Ciubate,
Cid.

 

[r.gonzales]

seems to me like you need to go back and read some of the posts you missed. starting from post #91…

 

[Rodrigo_Bivar]

Seems to me I should relook at all the posts you made when I was away. Goody, there’s more of your posts to debunk.

r.gonzales:

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.

You’re really keen on argumenta ad hominem, aren’t you? Since we’ve covered this already, let me say that this Abdullah bin abbaas hadith is not sahih and will never be sahih unless you bring evidence that it is sahih. Enough said. Let’s move on.

r.gonzales:

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.”

That we’ve agreed is not in Bukhari. Since this is an anachronistic post, I’ll let this go.

The point you fail to understand here is that ‘an extremely poorly DOCUMENTED textual history’ does not mean the Arabs were illiterate. It just means that the documentation of the history is extremely poor. It doesn’t say Arabs were illiterate. You’re just making things up.

r.gonzales:

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)

So what? This goes to support the case that ummiyoon is the corollary of people who study scripture. The fact that the Arabs could not read Hebrew and needed the Jews to explain to them the Torah in Arabic means nothing.

r.gonzales:

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

But there are so many ‘exceptions’, aren’t there? I have proven at least some Arabs could read and write – that goes to prove Ummiyoon cannot mean illiterate.

r.gonzales:

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).

And I thank you for your Arabic translations and we will discuss the context. None of your attempts to use Arabic to argue your points have worked, have they? In fact, every single attempt has merely proven my case and disproven yours.

r.gonzales:

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.

No. I make a case and provide the evidence. I say Ummi means unscriptured or unlettered and I proved it by showing that Arabs could read and write.

I claim Muhammad could write and I proved it with sahih hadiths.

You on the other hand merely provide opinions and non-sahih hadiths which you claim is from Bukhari but cannot provide a proper reference.

We’re disputing what Ummi means – whether it means illiterate or unlettered. Then you claim Muhammad said ummi means illiterate? Huh? You mean Muhammad said ummi means ummi? Please make sense.

 

[Rodrigo_Bivar]

r.gonzales:

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.

Just because you say so doesn’t make it so, bud.

I asked you to tell us how to tell ‘Muhammad wrote’ means the literal or the figurative but you failed to do so. That means you’ve lost this point.

Relying on Ibn Hajar’s unsubstantiated opinion is merely the logical fallacy of argumentum ad verecundiam.

r.gonzales:

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…686&postcount=7
Quote:
ibn hajar blah blah blah

Rejected because it is merely the logical fallacy of ad verecundiam. Opinion is not evidence of anything.

r.gonzales:

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.

The context is clear that they couldn’t have written if they were blind. This doesn’t apply to Muhammad when we have sahih hadiths that explicitly state he wrote and he asked for writing implements.

r.gonzales:

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.

No. That is merely a misreading on your part. Muhammad asked to see the paper. Not what to erase. It is clear he was asking for the paper so he could erase his name.

Please bring the Arabic translation so we can discuss. Nevertheless, there are other hadiths of the same event and they make it clear he wrote.

r.gonzales:

lastly, as for this:
Quote:
Originally Posted by 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:
Quote:
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.

You like bringing dictionaries for simple everyday words, don’t you? Please use some common sense instead of arguing English word with an Englishman.

Main Entry: pro•fi•cient
Pronunciation: -sh&nt
Function: adjective
Etymology: Latin proficient-, proficiens, present participle of proficere to go forward, accomplish, from pro- forward + facere to make – more at PRO-, DO
: well advanced in an art, occupation, or branch of knowledge

• proficient noun
• pro•fi•cient•ly adverb
  synonyms PROFICIENT, ADEPT, SKILLED, SKILLFUL, EXPERT mean having great knowledge and experience in a trade or profession. PROFICIENT implies a thorough competence derived from training and practice . ADEPT implies special aptitude as well as proficiency . SKILLED stresses mastery of technique . SKILLFUL implies individual dexterity in execution or performance . EXPERT implies extraordinary proficiency and often connotes knowledge as well as technical skill .

The meaning of proficiency means ‘well advanced knowledge or skill’. The connotation is ‘expertise’. Not proficient doesn’t mean total inability to do something. Look at your definition: Having OR showing knowledge AND skill AND aptitude. If a person doesn’t show all three characteristics it means he is not proficient, not just knowledge alone.

r.gonzales:

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.

You made the claim you prove it. I believe you said somewhere else that the onus of proof is with the person making the positive claim. Live up to your own standards you set for others.

 

[Rodrigo_Bivar]

r.gonzales:

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

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.

1. he was shown the paper, not the writing. 2) he wasn’t proficient doesn’t mean he doesn’t know how to write. 3) you omitted 3:49:863 that says clearly that he wrote, and 5:59:553 that says he could write if he wanted to.

I think your omission is either careless, lack of knowledge or a deliberate attempt to mislead. These hadiths all relate the same event – you have to come up with a scenario that fits all of them, and that is… he could write.

r.gonzales:

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

Which is not sahih.

r.gonzales:

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…

You still haven’t answered my question. We all know you can read Arabic. No need to boast so loud and so often. Let’s just stick to the topic. If you think your Arabic can disprove me then please try. I note your Arabic has let you down – each and every time you bring your Arabic translation it backs up my case and disproves yours.

r.gonzales:

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

How about a proper reference? I think we’ve agreed this is not from Bukhari but from a tafsir.

r.gonzales:

who stated that prophet muhammad was brilliant in mathematics, you or me?

Did I say that Muhammad was brilliant in mathematics? Please provide the evidence. Making things up is really lying, Gonzales.

r.gonzales:

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.

I said Muhammad must be stupid or lazy if he didn’t learn to read. What other explanations are there? That he was dyslexic? What’s his excuse?

 

[Rodrigo_Bivar]

TEXT DELETED

r.gonzales:

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
Quote:
cul•tured ( P ) Pronunciation Key (klchrd)
adj.

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

Thanks for proving my point. Look at 1. Educated.

r.gonzales:

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]

This is the wrong context and you know it. Cultured people are literate people. You can’t be considered cultured and be illiterate, in times when literacy is generally present.

r.gonzales:

for civilized, we find:
Quote:
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…

Hmmm… I don’t recall making a point against civilization and literacy. But come to think of it, it is difficult to imagine a ‘highly developed society and culture’ that is illiterate – when the Arabs were surrounded by other highly developed societies and cultures like the Persians and the Romans who were literate.

r.gonzales:

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

Please read my first posts. I remember saying Ummi could mean either illiterate or unlettered. The point is that I prove that Muhammad being Ummi is unlettered because he was literate.

You, on the other hand, just hung your hat on illiterate without being able to provide any supporting evidence. Oh, Ibn Hajar’s unsubstantiated opinion doesn’t count. Abdullah ibn Abbas not sahih hadith doesn’t count.

Looks like you’re done, bud.

Ciubate,
Cid

 

[Rodrigo_Bivar]

For the readers: a summary of r.gonzales’s case.

1. Ummi means illiterate.

Cid’s response: It could also mean unlettered. To show whether which is correct we have to examine the evidence from elsewhere. Gonzales merely insists ummi = illiterate. His opinion is unsubstantiated. In fact, he claimed Muhammad said ummi means illiteracy. That is… Muhammad said ummi means ummi. Point to Rodrigo.

1. Ummiyoon means Arabs were an illiterate nation.

Cid’s response: Ummiyoon is used in contrast to the People of the Book – the implication is clear that it means ‘unscriptured’, not illiterate – as we know Arabs of that time could write. Point to Rodrigo.

1. Even Muhammad said the Arabs were illiterate.

Cid’s response: Muhammad must have said this in a fit of frustration because there are numerous examples from the hadiths and sira that the Arabs of that time were capable of reading, riting and rithmetic. Point to Rodrigo.

1. Ibn Hajar said ‘Muhammad wrote’ is figurative for ‘Muhammad had some scribes write for him’.

Cid’s response: This is merely an unsubstantiated opinion and thus, a logical fallacy of argumentum ad verecundiam. Point to Rodrigo.

1. Write doesn’t mean write - 'abdul-'azeez bin baaz was blind but he wrote.

Cid’s response: The context with blind writers is clear that someone else wrote for them. Muhammad had no such context. In fact, it is clear from the sahih hadiths that Muhammad wrote and asked for writing implements. Why would he ask for writing implements if he couldn’t write? Point of Rodrigo.

1. “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.

Cid’s response: Not having skill in writing doesn’t mean not knowing how to write. We know from the hadiths that he could write.

1. Abdullah ibn Abbaas said that Muhammad couldn’t read, write or calculate.

Cid’s response: This is not a sahih hadith no matter what Gonzales claims. He claimed it many times, even to providing the reference to Kitab as-sawm (fasting) but not the proper numerical reference. Later he admitted it was from a tafsir and was not a sahih hadith after all. Then he claimed that just because it is not included among the sahih hadiths doesn’t mean it is not: a truly desperate nonsensical claim. Point to Rodrigo.

1. Arabs have a poorly documented textual history.

Cid’s response: Read in English please. Poorly documented textual history means the textual history is poorly documented – i.e. there are few surviving documents. It doesn’t mean Arabs were illiterate. Point to Rodrigo.

1. I can read Arabic and you can’t.

Cid’s response: Boasting won’t win you arguments. It is the strength of your arguments that will do that – in your case, the lack of strength of your arguments that lost your case. Point to Rodrigo.

So, what has Gonzales actually shown? That he cannot even win any point.

Let’s see what is claimed about Muhammad:
A. He was not proficient in writing.
B. He erased his name in the treaty of Hudaybiyya.
C. He wrote a passage in the treaty.
D. He asked for writing implements.
E. He told his followers that he would write something for them on his deathbed.

The only explanation that fits all these facts is that he could write.

Gonzales, what is your explanation that fits all these facts? You claim ‘Muhammad wrote’ means ‘Muhammad asked someone else to write’ - so how do you explain D.

Also, you haven’t told us how to tell literal from figurative in the phrase, ‘Muhammad wrote’.

We haven’t even the Quranic evidence that Muhammad could write, or at least what the disbelievers knew about Muhammad’s writing ability.

 

[Rachel_Malloy]

Please remember your charity folks.

Content AND TONE go hand in hand on this forum.

Thank you,

Rachel

 

[DeExupery]

Hei…why there’s no continuation on this?

Fox

 

[r.gonzales]

Rodrigo Bivar:

Abdullah bin abbaas hadith is not sahih and will never be sahih unless you bring evidence that it is sahih. Enough said. Let’s move on.

first of all, f.y.i., the statement from ibn 'abbaas is not classified as a “hadeeth” - and that is because it is not a statement of prophet muhammad’s. secondly, you don’t know whether it’s saheeh or not. so your claim needs evidence to show it’s weakness, just as i need to bring evidence for it’s authenticity. at the moment, it’s authenticity is unknown, and i am in the process of checking its sources to verify its authenticity.
Rodrigo Bivar:

That we’ve agreed is not in Bukhari. Since this is an anachronistic post, I’ll let this go.

again, you display a tendancy to misread things. perhaps you should try reading more carefully and more attentively before posting :ehh: .

here’s what i said again, with emphasis added on the part you need to pay close attention to:

r.gonzales:

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.”

there are two narrations that have been mentioned here with similar wording. one statement by ibn 'abbaas reported in both tafseer al-baghawee and tafseer al-qurtubee and one made by prophet muhammad, which was reported in saheeh al-bukhaaree, whose authenticity is certain and reference given above in another post of mine.
Rodrigo Bivar:

The point you fail to understand here is that ‘an extremely poorly DOCUMENTED textual history’ does not mean the Arabs were illiterate. It just means that the documentation of the history is extremely poor. It doesn’t say Arabs were illiterate. You’re just making things up.

seems to me that you’re the one making things up here. no where did i say that poorly documented textual history means that the arabs were illiterate. i stated that this poor textual documentation is a result of the arabs largely being an illiterate nation, my exact words to this effect were, “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.” and to this effect, m. m. ali states in “sirat al-nabi and the orientalists” (pgs.269-270) (emphasis mine):

the term yu’allimu ( يُعَلِّمُ ) in contemporary arabic parlance meant not simply imparting information but communicating a text which was usually committed to memory, transmission of knowledge being at the time almost wholly oral.

also, some statements from: webfoot.com/advice/WrittenArabic.html

As the Qur’an is a complete guide to behavior, law and religion are not terribly distinct, so even the legal system was fundamentally oral until very recently.

In a completely oral society, there is no other way to preserve information. In a society that has writing but not the printing press, there is danger in depending upon written copies. There were no smoke detectors, sprinklers, or fire departments back then: your only copy could easily be lost!

I was hoping to find that paper arrived in the Arab world just before Mohommed, and so could explain in part how Islam spread so rapidly. No such luck: the Arab world got paper around 700-800 AD (significantly after Mohommed). The West didn’t get paper until about 1200 AD.

compare this to what one of the earliest commentators of the Quran, aboo ja’far muhammad bin jareer at-tabaree (who was born c. 839 and died 923) said regarding the word “ummee” as found in his explanation of verse 2:78, in which Allah says, “and amongst them are ummiyyoon who do not know the book, except false desires while they only indulge in conjecture,” posted below.

con’t…

 

[r.gonzales]

in his tafseer of 2:78, at-tabaree states:

He means by “ummiyyeen” those who do not write, nor read. and from it, the prophet, may Allah send greeting and peace upon him, said, “we are an illiterate nation. we do not write, nor calculate.” (saheehs al-bukhaaree & muslim). from it, it is said, “the ummiyy man is amidst illiteracy.” just as:

• al-muthannaa narrated to me, he said: suwaid bin nasr narrated to me, he said: ibn al-mubaarak informed us from sufyaan, from mansoor, from ibraaheem [concerning] “and amongst them are ummiyyoon who do not know the book,” he said: amongst them are those who are not proficient in writing.

• yoonus narrated to me, he said: ibn wahb informed us, he said: ibn zaid said regarding the statement, “and amongst them are ummiyoon”, he said: ummiyyoon, they do not read the book from the jews.

and a statement has been narrated from ibn 'abbaas in opposition to this statement, and it is what:

• aboo kuraib narrated to me, he said: 'uthmaan bin sa’eed narrated to us from bishr bin 'amaarah, from abee rooq, from ad-dahhaak, from ibn 'abbaas [concerning] “and amongst them are ummiyoon”, he said: the ummiyoon are a people who did not attest to a messenger that Allah sent to them, nor to a book Allah revealed. so they wrote a book by their hands, then they said to an ignorant, lowly people: this is from Allah. and he said: He had informed that they wrote with their hands, then called them ummiyyeen due to their denial of Allah’s books and His messengers.

and this interpretation is an interpretation in opposition to what is known from the speech of the arabs that is extensive amongst them, and that is that the “ummiyy” according to the arabs is the one who cannot write. and i view that ummiyy is said for the ummiyy as an ascription for him - that he cannot write - to his mother because what is written used to be for the men more than the women. so whoever from the men cannot write, nor pen is ascribed to his mother for his not knowing the art of writing more than his father. as we mentioned about the prophet, may Allah send greeting and peace upon him, from his statement, “we are an ummiyyah nation, we do not write, nor calculate.” and just as He (Allah) said, “He is the one who sent amongst the ummiyyeen a messenger from them, reciting to them His verses and purifying them (the ummiyyoon) and teaching them the Book and the Wisdom.” (62:2). so if the meaning of “al-ummiyy” was what we described in the speech of the arabs, then what is foremost in the interpretation of this verse is what [ibraaheem] an-nakha’ee said, of that the meaning of His statement, “and amongst them are ummiyyeen” is “and amongst them are those who are not proficient in writing.”

these are the explanations and definitions given by the arabs themselves for the meaning of the word “ummiyy”. the arabs - as testified to by the arabs themselves - were generally an illiterate nation, which is one of the reasons why their textual history is so poorly documented and why much of the knowledge and history of their peoples was transmitted orally.
Rodrigo Bivar:

So what? This goes to support the case that ummiyoon is the corollary of people who study scripture. The fact that the Arabs could not read Hebrew and needed the Jews to explain to them the Torah in Arabic means nothing.

again, you miss the point for why i mentioned what was stated by ahmad von defner. for clarity’s sake, i mentioned that in relation to your implication that just because the christians and jews could read that the arabs must have been a literate nation as well.
Rodrigo Bivar:

But there are so many ‘exceptions’, aren’t there? I have proven at least some Arabs could read and write - that goes to prove Ummiyoon cannot mean illiterate.

so many? a hand full of people in the midst of an entire nation and civilization disproves the fact that the nation as a whole was generally comprised of people who did not read or write - i.e., a nation of illiterates - and disproves the definitions of a word given by scholars of the arabic language??? get real. here’s yet another link showing that arabic “literature” was scarce before the advent of islam: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arabic_literature#Pre-Islamic_literature .
Rodrigo Bivar:

No. I make a case and provide the evidence. I say Ummi means unscriptured or unlettered and I proved it by showing that Arabs could read and write.

no. you pick and choose from definitions to english words used to attempt to bring across the meanings for arabic words and try to impose your understanding of those arabic words over the understandings of experts in the language such as prophet muhammad’s companions, and the early Quranic commentators.

con’t…

 

[r.gonzales]

Rodrigo Bivar:

I claim Muhammad could write and I proved it with sahih hadiths.

you didn’t prove anything, what you did was take saheeh hadeeths, in exclusion of clear and explicit Quranic verses and other clear and explicit saheeh hadeeths, and at times other versions of those saheeh hadeeths you pick and choose from, and used them to impose your understanding in favour of the understanding of qualified authorities of a language you don’t even understand.
Rodrigo Bivar:

We’re disputing what Ummi means - whether it means illiterate or unlettered. Then you claim Muhammad said ummi means illiterate? Huh? You mean Muhammad said ummi means ummi? Please make sense.

please learn how to read properly. prophet muhammad’s statement is, “we are an ummiyyah nation. we do not write, nor calculate.” with his statement “we do not write, nor calculate” directly giving the definition of the word “ummiyyah” which is the feminine of “umiyy”.
Rodrigo Bivar:

I asked you to tell us how to tell ‘Muhammad wrote’ means the literal or the figurative but you failed to do so. That means you’ve lost this point.

well let’s see … the hadeeth concerning the penning of the treaty of hudaibiyah; one narration explicity says that prophet muhammad was shown his name so that he could erase it and makes the point to mention that he erased it by his own hand. then it says he wrote, without any mention of him writing with his own hand. the clarification is made in one case to indicate that he himself erased, but not in the other to indicate that he himself wrote? you have other narrations stating that he could not write ( كان لا يكتب ) and did not have the skill to write ( لا يحسن يكتب ). further, you have Quranic verses and explanations of them given by qualified scholars of the arabic language that prove that “an-nabiyy al-ummiyy” means “the illiterate prophet”. you also have many authentic (saheeh) hadeeths that mention the fact that prophet muhammad had scribes recording Quranic revelation as well as his actions and statements. and yet you still think ( :ehh: ) that when it says “he wrote” it is to be taken in the literal sense .
Rodrigo Bivar:

The context is clear that they couldn’t have written if they were blind. This doesn’t apply to Muhammad when we have sahih hadiths that explicitly state he wrote and he asked for writing implements.

the overall point is that blind people do not have the ability to read or write, and neither do illiterate people. the mention of ibn baaz highlights the fact that the phrase “he wrote” does not necessitate that the person wrote with his own hand, but can be taken figuratively to mean that he dictated to a scribe who wrote what he dictated.
Rodrigo Bivar:

No. That is merely a misreading on your part. Muhammad asked to see the paper. Not what to erase. It is clear he was asking for the paper so he could erase his name.

Please bring the Arabic translation so we can discuss. Nevertheless, there are other hadiths of the same event and they make it clear he wrote.

no, it’s not a misreading on my part. it’s a correction of the error in translation found in the english rendition of the hadeeth you quoted. again, this is where the ability to read and understand arabic comes in. there is no mention of “paper” in the original arabic, nor does the grammar and context of what was actually mentioned in the hadeeth indicate anything other than he was shown what to erase. and i have given the original arabic above in another post and it describes this sequence of events.

• alee bin abee taalib who was acting as scribe for prophet muhammad in drafting the treaty of hudaibiyah, writes “muhammad, Allah’s messenger”.
• suhail, the makkan representative protests saying, "if we knew that you were Allah’s messenger we would not have obstructed you and we certainly would have followed you. but write, 'this is what muhammad bin ‘abdillah agreed to.’
• prophet muhammad replies, “i am, by Allah, muammad bin 'abdillah and i am, by Allah, Allah’s messenger.” he then tells alee bin abee taalib, “erase - أمح.” i.e., erase what is causing the objection from suhail, which was the title “Allah’s messenger” after his name, and replace it with “bin 'abdillah - the son of abdillah”.
• alee refuses and exclaims, “by Allah i will never erase it.” i.e., the title “Allah’s messenger” from prophet muhammad’s name.
• prophet muhammad commands, “show me it.” and then erases “it with his hand”. in all instances, the pronoun “hu” meaning “it” in accordance with the rules of arabic grammar refers back to what was supposed to be erased, which was the title “Allah’s messenger”.

con’t…

 

[r.gonzales]

Rodrigo Bivar:

You like bringing dictionaries for simple everyday words, don’t you? Please use some common sense instead of arguing English word with an Englishman.

the very same can be said about you. and f.y.i., english is my first language and i understand it quite well, than you very much. as for common sense, you’re the one trying to argue the meanings of arabic words with someone who can understand both english and arabic while not even knowing the language of the words in question yourself.
Rodrigo Bivar:

You made the claim you prove it. I believe you said somewhere else that the onus of proof is with the person making the positive claim. Live up to your own standards you set for others.

yet another display of the fact that you don’t read very carefully, or seem to be able to follow a discussion and what is being said in relation to what. you’re the one who claimed that ibn hajar made the claim that prophet muhammad learned how to read and write later in life - or did you forget the fact that you said this:
Rodrigo Bivar:

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

… 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

no where in ibn hajar’s discussion on the issue does he make this claim. he discusses the fact that others have made this claim but doesn’t state his own opinion on the issue, nor does he delve too deeply into it, but merely states that doing so is a major undertaking.
Rodrigo Bivar:

Did I say that Muhammad was brilliant in mathematics? Please provide the evidence. Making things up is really lying, Gonzales.

let’s take a look at what was said, shall we?

first, you made the insinuation that being illiterate necessitates stupidity:
Rodrigo Bivar:

To claim the Quran is divine because Muhammad was illiterate is to claim Muhammad was stupid. Even children know how to read and write. The Quraysh may have been 7th century barbarians but that does not mean they were uncultured. Poetry was much admired and highly popular at that stage.

i replied by pointing out the fact that there are many illiterate people who are can be brilliant in the areas of mathematics, simple logic and problem solving.

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.

to which you made the comment:
Rodrigo Bivar:

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.

no where did i state that prophet muhammad was brilliant in mathematics, i simply stated that “there are many intelligent people in this world who never learned how to read or write,” and that their illiteracy does not necessitate that their illiteracy was a result of being either lazy or stupid, as you so wrongly suggest.
Rodrigo Bivar:

Thanks for proving my point. Look at 1. Educated.

look at the rest of the definition: “polished, and refined; cultivated.” all of which don’t necessitate being literate or formally educated.
Rodrigo Bivar:

This is the wrong context and you know it. Cultured people are literate people. You can’t be considered cultured and be illiterate, in times when literacy is generally present.

prove that literacy was generally present in arabia during those times. all the historical evidence as well as the statements of muslim arab scholars as far back as the 1st-2nd century of islam testify to the fact that the arabs were generally an illiterate nation. and it makes no sense whatsoever to describe the arabs as such during the prophet’s life time - let alone after the rise of islam - to call the arabs unscriptured, as prophet muhammad came with their own scripture, the Quran.
Rodrigo Bivar:

Hmmm… I don’t recall making a point against civilization and literacy.

again, you should really take your time to read the replies and what’s written. under the definition for cultured is a list of synonyms, one of which is the word civilized.

con’t…

 

[r.gonzales]

as for your summary…

1. Ummi means illiterate.

Cid’s response: It could also mean unlettered. To show whether which is correct we have to examine the evidence from elsewhere. Gonzales merely insists ummi = illiterate. His opinion is unsubstantiated. In fact, he claimed Muhammad said ummi means illiteracy. That is… Muhammad said ummi means ummi. Point to Rodrigo.

1. Ummiyoon means Arabs were an illiterate nation.

Cid’s response: Ummiyoon is used in contrast to the People of the Book - the implication is clear that it means ‘unscriptured’, not illiterate - as we know Arabs of that time could write. Point to Rodrigo.

we have definitions from scholars of the arabic language testifying to the fact that ummiyy means illiterate, all of whom state that ummiyy means one who, “does not write, nor read.” they say this with regards to the arabs in general, that they were an illiterate nation - and this is testified to from various historical facts as well as prophet muhammad’s own statement, “we are an illiterate nation. we do not write, nor calculate”. and they say this with regards to prophet muhammad in explaining the Quranic verse labelling prophet muhammad as “the ummiyy prophet” (7:157 & 158). in addition to what i just quoted from at-tabaree, also read what i quoted from muhammad mohar ali (m. m. ali) above regarding the meaning of the word “ummiyy” or the original meaning of the word.

4. Ibn Hajar said ‘Muhammad wrote’ is figurative for ‘Muhammad had some scribes write for him’.

Cid’s response: This is merely an unsubstantiated opinion and thus, a logical fallacy of argumentum ad verecundiam. Point to Rodrigo.

unsubstantiated? let’s take a look… his explanation regarding is based on 1) the Quranic verses explicitly describing prophet muhammad as being illiterate, 2) the arabs’ understanding of the word “ummiyy”, which means, “one who cannot read, nor write” as has been mentioned numerous times, 3) the number of authentic hadeeths that show this (amongst them the hadeeth describing the incident surrounding the drafting of the treaty of hudaibiyah, one authentic narration of which that states “he was shown” what to erase i.e., shown his name on the paper, and another narration of which that states, “he did not write (kaana laa yaktub)” and yet another narration of which that states, “he did not have the skill of writing (laa yusinu yaktub)”.

5. Write doesn’t mean write - 'abdul-'azeez bin baaz was blind but he wrote.

Cid’s response: The context with blind writers is clear that someone else wrote for them. Muhammad had no such context. In fact, it is clear from the sahih hadiths that Muhammad wrote and asked for writing implements. Why would he ask for writing implements if he couldn’t write? Point of Rodrigo.

no, the point i was trying to make is that both are said to have “written” things, although they did not have the ability to do so; ibn baaz due to the fact that he was blind, and prophet muhammad due to the fact that he was illiterate. as for your question, he would call for “writing implements” to have the things he said written down and recorded.

6. “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.

Cid’s response: Not having skill in writing doesn’t mean not knowing how to write. We know from the hadiths that he could write.

right, it does not necessarily mean that they did not know how to write, however, when taken with the bulk of the evidence (Quranic verses, prophetic hadeeth, statements from the prophet’s companions and the scholars of islam and the understanding they had of the arabic language) it refers to them not having the skill of reading and writing, which is one of the meanings of not being proficient in something.

con’t…

 

[r.gonzales]

lastly…

7. Abdullah ibn Abbaas said that Muhammad couldn’t read, write or calculate.

Cid’s response: This is not a sahih hadith no matter what Gonzales claims. He claimed it many times, even to providing the reference to Kitab as-sawm (fasting) but not the proper numerical reference. Later he admitted it was from a tafsir and was not a sahih hadith after all. Then he claimed that just because it is not included among the sahih hadiths doesn’t mean it is not: a truly desperate nonsensical claim. Point to Rodrigo.

firstly, the authenticity of the statement from ibn 'abbaas as reported in the books of tafseer, namely tafseer al-qurtubee and tafseer al-baghawee, is not known to anyone participating this in this discussion as of yet. so your statement here is false. the fact of the matter is that you don’t know if it is authentic or not. your claim that i admitted that it was not a saheeh hadeeth after all is equally false. i said no such thing. what i said was that the statement was not found in saheeh al-bukhaaree, which is the title of a compilation of saheeh hadeeths - “saheeh” meaning “authentic” and is a particular grading given to narrations that have been verifed as being correct and truthfully attributed to whoever is said to have said the statement. need i remind you of your own statement that “making up things is really lying” . and as i’ve mentioned above, i’m currently in the process of referencing the narration and verifying its authenticity or lack thereof.

secondly, the referenced i mistakenly attributed to the statement from ibn 'abbaas was for an authentic hadeeth found in saheeh al-bukhaaree with similar wording, as has been shown above; “we are an illiterate nation. we do not write, nor calculate.”

lastly, regarding this so called “truly desperate nonsensical claim” of mine, you really betray your ignorance regarding this whole branch of islamic knowledge concerning hadeeths, their gradings and the books of compilation that they’re contained in. firstly, i never said that the narration wasn’t included among saheeh hadeeths, i said that the narration wasn’t found in “saheeh al-bukhaaree” which is just one compilation of saheeh hadeeths. there are other such compilations, such as saheeh muslim, saheeh ibn khuzaimah, saheeh ibn hibbaan, silsilah al-ahaadeeth as-saheehah, and more. there are yet more compilations of hadeeth that do not contain the word “saheeh” in their titles, but contain saheeh hadeeths within them; compilations such as the four sunans of at-tirmidhee, aboo daawud, an-nasaa’ee and ibn maajah, the musnads of ahmad, ishaaq bin raahawaih, ibn abee ya’laa and others.