muhammad: the illiterate prophet

[Rodrigo_Bivar]

r.gonzales:

RB:

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.

Hey, I didn’t bring up that ‘hadith’ nor did I claim it was a sahih from Bukhari. You did.

r.gonzales:

secondly, you don’t know whether it’s saheeh or not.

Neither do you – so why did you claim it.

r.gonzales:

so your claim needs evidence to show it’s weakness, just as i need to bring evidence for it’s authenticity.

I don’t recall bringing up that ‘hadith’. I think you did. So it is up to you to prove it is sahih. I don’t recall any ‘stories’ related only in tafsirs to be sahih hadiths. But you know better apparently.

r.gonzales:

at the moment, it’s authenticity is unknown, and i am in the process of checking its sources to verify its authenticity.

Please do. In the meantime why did you claim it was a sahih hadith from Bukhari’s Kitab as-sawm?

Go ahead, please, with checking the source. I had already thought of a response to your ‘story’. In the interest of speeding up the discussion I will give you a hint: argumentum ad verecundiam is no match of actual reporting of Muhammad’s actions.

r.gonzales:

RB:

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 .

What did I misread? You want me to bring up the evidence that you claimed that ‘story’ is from Bukhari Kitab as-sawm? I said it was anachronistic because I replied to this post out of order – we already agreed that your story was only from the tafsir.

r.gonzales:

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

Oh please do.

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

You’re hanging yourself on the ‘poorly documented textual history’ misreading. Your article debunks you. The first evidence of written Arabic was dated 328CE – that’s 3 centuries before Islam. If so, then how can the Arab nation be illiterate when they’d been writing for three hundred years?

r.gonzales:

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.

Poorly documented textual history = textual history is poorly documented. There are few surviving documents. Not that Arabs were illiterate.

r.gonzales:

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.”

Not according to your own reference, bud. First inscription of Arabic WRITING 3328CE = three hundred years before Islam. How can what you wrote above be true?

r.gonzales:

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.

Reported in sahih bukhari? Please tell us the numerical reference.

Readers: Note how I give proper references because I have nothing to hide. Also note r.gonzales merely claims that ‘story’ he says is not a hadith but is sahih and found in Bukhari’s Kitab as-sawm WITHOUT providing any reference.

 

[Rodrigo_Bivar]

r.gonzales:

RB:

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):

You wanna bet?

This is what you wrote: 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

So – according to you, the reason for the poorly documented textual history is because Arabs were illiterate.

The readers can see who between us is making things up, and it isn’t me, bud.

r.gonzales:

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.

Irrelevant. Almost wholly oral is not illiterate. For you to prove Ummi = illiterate you have to prove total illiteracy.

Let’s assume we accept your argument: I can also say that Muhammad is ‘almost’ wholly illiterate – it still proves my case. Not the same thing as Muhammad being illiterate – which carries the connotation of total illiteracy. I never claimed that Muhammad was proficient in writing, just that he was literate and that is what the sahi hadiths back me up on, and disprove you.

r.gonzales:

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

Quote:
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.

Irrelevant. We’re talking about Muhammad’s literacy, not figh.

r.gonzales:

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!

Irrelevant – the sahih hadiths mentioned the Quran written on bark, leather, bits and pieces etc. As long as I can prove at least some Arabs can write then I have proven that Ummi does not mean illiterate. In contrast, you have to prove ALL Arabs of the time could not read or write.

r.gonzales:

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.

Irrelevant. We know the Arabs wrote on bits of bark, bone, leather etc. Nobody is claiming Muhammad wrote on paper as such. I think we mean parchment or linen which was used extensively during that time.

r.gonzales:

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.

Thanks for proving my point.

Ummiyyoon who DO NOT KNOW THE BOOK. Where does it say Ummiyyoon necessarily means illiterate? It could mean ‘unscriptured’ or ‘unlettered’ which is proven because:

1. Arabs could write before Muhammad so they couldn’t be illiterate.
2. Sahih hadiths specifically stating Muhammad wrote, or asked for writing implements.

 

[Rodrigo_Bivar]

r.gonzales:

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

I’ve covered this before. Ummiyoon who do not know the book – does not mean illiteracy – but is strongly supports ‘unscriptured’ or ‘unlettered.

Not reading the book of the Jews just means the Arabs couldn’t read Hebrew – how simple is that? I can’t read the Torah – does that mean I’m Ummi?

I’ve already covered ‘not proficient in writing’. Proficiency has the connotation of expertise or skill. Not proficient means ability, just not skilled. Why do you have to go over old ground. If you disagree then let’s discuss that point. Don’t go and repeat yourself: it’s so tiresome.

[quore=RB]
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.
Don’t put words in my mouth: I never said ‘just because the christians and jews could read that the arabs must have been a literate nation as well’ or made any implication of such.

I will say again: the word ‘Ummi’ is the corollary of the People of the Book. It means ‘unscriptured’ or ‘unlettered’. It means that the Ummiyyoon cannot read the scriptures of the Jews and Christians, not that they are illiterate.

 

[Rodrigo_Bivar]

r.gonzales:

RB:

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…amic_literature .

A handful? You claimed the Arabs were an illiterate nation. I prove at least some of them could write. Why don’t you search Bukhari and find out just how many Arabs of Muhammad’s time could write? You can search Bukhari, can you? I would hope you can.

Even if ONE Arab could write it would debunk your case and prove mine. But I have so many examples of these ‘illiterate’ Arabs who could write.

r.gonzales:

RB:

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.

Haha. You try telling the readers here that when Ali wrote and Abu Bakr wrote they were merely scratching their asses. I believe you, Gonzales. Millions won’t but somehow I do. Or not.

r.gonzales:

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.

Please make some sense. Your explicit Quran merely states ‘Ummi’. We are trying to decide what Ummi actually means.

r.gonzales:

RB:

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”.

I’ve already explain this: Muhammad must have been in a pique of fit because we know that Arabs of that time could both read and write.

Why go over old old old ground? If you have nothing new to say, just shut up.

 

[Rodrigo_Bivar]

r.gonzales:

RB:

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 ( ) that when it says “he wrote” it is to be taken in the literal sense .

Please make sense. Repeating your lies don’t make them right.

I already told you that Muhammad asked to be shown the paper, and then he erased his name. There is nothing to suggest what you claim, that is that Muhammad had to ask to be shown his name so he can erase it.

As for “an-nabiyy al-ummiyy” that’s what we’re discussing about. You presuppose that phrase to mean he is illiterate. I say you are wrong and I have the evidence to prove you’re wrong. These include:

1. Sahih hadiths saying Muhammad wrote.
2. Sahih hadiths saying Muhammad took the document and wrote. {why would he take the document if he couldn’t write}.
3. Sahih hadiths saying Muhammad asked for writing implements. {why would he ask for writing implements if he couldn’t write.}

Sure, we know Muhammad had scribes but does that mean he couldn’t write? No. Not given points 1 to 3 above.

r.gonzales:

RB:

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.

Your stubbornness only discredits you. When one says a blind write wrote the context is clear that he couldn’t have written because he was blind.

On the other hand, when one says, Muhammad wrote, there is no excuse for why he couldn’t write… i.e. there is no fitting context. Was Muhammad blind? If he was not then I can’t accept that analogy.

Thus, your ibn baaz example is merely the logical fallacy of the red herring. Look that up.

r.gonzales:

RB:

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… you made the claim. You prove it.

I will merely rely on Dr Muhsin Khan.

4:53:408:
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.

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

 

[Rodrigo_Bivar]

r.gonzales:

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.

Then why did you claim that according to Ibn Hajar Muhammad writing meant he didn’t write but he delegated to his scribes instead?

r.gonzales:

RB:

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:
RB:

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.
RB:

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:
RB:

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.

Then why did you claim I aid Muhammad was brilliant in mathematics?
Why did you ask this?
Originally Posted by r.gonzales
who stated that prophet muhammad was brilliant in mathematics, you or me?

Nowhere in my quotes you provided has me claiming Muhammad was brilliant in mathematics. Go on – look again. Try to find a post where I claimed Muhammad was brilliant in mathematics. You did ask who states that, didn’t you? I, on the other hand, clearly stated that ‘I DIDN’T KNOW MUHAMMAD WAS BRILLIANT IN MATHEMATICS’.

Looks like you’ve nothing substantive to add to the debate, Gonzales.

r.gonzales:

RB:

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.

Hey, but educated does. How can one be educated and be illiterate at the same time?

Aren’t we talking only about literacy?

r.gonzales:

RB:

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.

Who said anything about ‘generally’? You now changed the rules.

Even if one Arab could write that would mean Muhammad was wrong when he claimed Arabs could not read or right. That is the crux of my position. I have evidence that writing was quite well-practised in pre-Islamic Arabia – including the 7 poets who wrote the GOLDEN POEMS that they stuck on to the Ka’aba.

Your own reference says Arabic writing occurred 3 centuries before Islam. Thanks for proving my case. I will save your posts to kick the *** of the next Islamist who wants to debate me on this issue.

r.gonzales:

RB:

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.

So, you’re going for synonyms of synonyms. Haven’t you got better things to do? Let’s stick to the topic instead of you chasing red herrings all over the place.

We’re talking Muhammad was or was not literate. Capiche, hombre?

 

[Rodrigo_Bivar]

r.gonzales:

as for your summary…

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rodrigo Bivar

1. Ummi means illiterate.

Cid’s response: It could also mean unlettered… 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.
How many times do I have to say this:
Definitions of ummi:

1. Illiterate.
2. Unscriptured or unlettered.

We have a disputed point here. You can’t just claim ummi = illiterate without disproving point 2.

As for Muhmamad and his ‘we are an illiterate nation. we do not write, nor calculate” – I have already debunked that. Ali could write. Abu Bakr could write. Zaid ibn Thabit could write. The seven Golden poets could write. I can find at least another dozen Arabs of that time who could write. So he was wrong. Get that into your head. Repeating your claim doesn’t make it right. You have to prove me wrong, meaning you have to prove Ali, Abu Bakr, Zaid ibn Thabit, and the 7 golden poets couldn’t write.

Please disprove me if you can. Don’t just repeat your statements that I have already disproven.

r.gonzales:

RB:

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.

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)”.

1. you sure? The Quran just says Muhammad was UMMI. You just claim Ummi = illiterate – that is not in the Quran. Aren’t we disputing what Ummi means?

2)Which I have shown cannot be true because Arabs can read and write.

3)Bull. The hadiths said he was shown the paper. The hadiths of the same event also said he ‘TOOK THE DOCUMENT AND WROTE’.

1. I’ve already debunked laa yusinu yaktub. Why repeat it? If you can’t refute what I said, just say so. Repetition is merely tiresome. It doesn’t prove your case.

Let me repeat it one last time: not proficient does not mean no ability. Proficiency carries the connotation of skill or expertise. Therefore not proficient means he was unskilled but he could. Otherwise, the hadiths could have said, ‘the dumb ox didn’t know how to write.’

r.gonzales:

RB:

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.

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.]/quote]
You’ve committed the logical fallacy of the false analogy. Unless you can prove Muhammad was blind you have no case.

 

[Rodrigo_Bivar]

r.gonzales:

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.

Thanks for admitting ‘it does not necessarily mean that they did not know how to write’.
You’ve lost.

r.gonzales:

RB:

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.

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.

No. I knew before you did that this ‘story’ is in the tafsir, not Bukhari like you claimed.

Why did you say it was in Kitab as-sawm? Do you think lying will help your case? Do you hope to hoodwink the Catholics here?

Even if you can, by some devious means, prove that ‘story’ is sahih, you’re still wrong: your single ibn abass story is still an argumentum ad verecundiam where my multiple hadiths claim that Muhammad asked for writing material. When hadiths conflict, and it is the choice between Muhammad or Ibn Abbass, I’d say I’d prefer to believe Muhammad.

But go ahead and try to prove that ‘story’ which you now claim is not a hadith to be a sahih hadiths, even after you claimed it was a sahih Bukhari hadith from Kitab as-sawm. Seems to me, your credibility is taking a battering here.

r.gonzales:

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. blah blah blah.

Bull. Then why did you ask me to look in Bukhari kitab as-sawm?

You’ve lied many times already and I’ve caught you out. So why continue to lie?

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

You mean to tell us that sahih Bukhari kitab as-sawm contains other things beside sahih hadiths?

Looks like you lie too much to make a worthy adversary, Gonzales. I’m afraid to say this, but you’ve proven yourself a liar too many time. Once I can forgive as an abstraction of the mind. Twice I can forgive as forgetfulness. Three times I can forgive as you’re desperate. But you keep on lying about this hadith.

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.”

If you make a mistake just withdraw and shut up. If you keep on making that same claim again and again, what am I suppose to do but to say you’re a liar?

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 blah blah blah.

Hmmm. I’m not the one who mistakes a story related in a tafsir to be a sahih hadith included in Sahih Bukhari Kitab as-sawm. Seems to me, between the two of us, you have a little bit more to learn about what sahih hadiths mean.

Of course I know that some of the other hadiths can be sahih. However, since they are not in Bukhari or Muslim, even if they are sahih, I would argue they are of ‘lesser quality’. Besides, relying on Ibn Abbass’s opinion is merely the logical fallacy of argumentum ad verecundiam when we have Muhammad’s statements that he asked for writing implements and clear references in sahih hadiths that he wrote.

 

[Rodrigo_Bivar]

Status report for readers:

1. r.gonzales – that sahih hadith that I claimed was from sahih Bukhari Kitaab as-sawm is not even a hadith. You are making a fool of yourself by claiming that it is a hadith.

Cid’s response: hey, if you refer to sahih Bukhari then I can call it a ‘hadith.’

1. r.gonzales – I don’t have the evidence that the ibn abbass ‘non-hadith’ is sahih but I’m sure it is and I will look it up. You are ignorant: not all sahih hadiths are in Bukhari and Muslim.

Cid’s response: I do know that not all sahih hadiths are in Bukhari and Muslim. However, unless you can prove a hadith (ooops – a non-hadith) is sahih why do you claim that it is? Even when you’ve been told that is not a hadith but from the tafsir. Even when you’ve already agreed it is from tafsirs.

1. r.gonzales – I have nothing more to say so I will just repeat ad nauseum that ummi means illiterate, even though you’ve shown that it is possible that ummi means unscriptured or unlettered, and you’ve proven that to be the case. I have tafirs to prove this.

Cid’s response: the normal way to resolve an ambiguity (as in the case of ummi = illiterate OR unscriptured) is to look at other evidence to determine which is correct. I have done that by showing some Arabs could write and that Muhammad could write. You have merely restated your opinion again and again: repetition does not strengthen but weaken your case particularly as it’s already been debunked.

I don’t care what your tafsirs say if what they say is counter to the evidence. You Muslims just love the logical fallacy of argumentum ad verecundiam but we kafirs are not.

1. r.gonzales – I ignore my own reference that says Arabs were writing as far back as the 3rd century AD but concentrate on the phrase ‘poorly documented textual history’ which I explain as Arabs were illiterate.

Cid’s response: I’ve already told you that ‘poorly documented textual history’ means the textual history was poorly documented (i.e. there are few surviving documents), not that Arabs were illiterate. Read your own reference as it totally shows your argument to be in error.

1. r.gonzales – haha. Paper was introduced to Arabia long before those stupid Europeans.

Cid’s response: writing in ancient times is not solely dependent on paper. There were other writing materials, including papyrus, bark, leather, linen, clay etc. In fact, we know that the Quran was written on such materials. We’re not debating whether Muhammad wrote on paper or not. We’re debating whether Muhammad could write or not.

1. r. Gonzales – I repeat once more: ibn baaz was blind but he wrote.

Cid’s response: repetition does not strengthen your false analogy. The context is different. If you can prove Muhammad was similarly blind I will concede defeat. Otherwise, you’ve still not shown us how ‘Muhammad wrote’ means ‘Muhammad got some scribes to write for him.’

PS to gonzales: did you write your own rubbish or do you get some scribes to do it for you?

1. r.gonzales – there is a hadith, which I don’t give the reference to, which IMPLY that Muhammad had to be shown which part of the paper to erase.

Cid’s response: this is in conflict with the sahih hadiths of the same event that state that he ‘took the document and wrote’. Why imply? Why not reconcile all the hadiths of the same event.

Cid notes that Muslims like r.gonzales will home in on an obscure point of one hadith even to the exclusion of all the other hadiths narrating the same event.

Hey, gonzy: you have to reconcile ALL the relevant hadiths. Otherwise, the ones that you ignore debunks you.

1. r.gonzales – you are an idiot because you claimed Muhammad was brilliant in mathematics.

Cid’s response – grow up kid. I never said this and I can prove it. In fact, I said, ‘I DIDN’T KNOW Muhammad was brilliant in mathematics.’

1. r.gonzales – as I have no further ammo I will again engage in repetition: not proficient in writing means Muhammad was illiterate.

Cid’s response – I have shown that ‘not proficient in writing’ means he was unskilled in writing, not that he had absolutely no ability to write. Proficiency carries the connotation of skill or expertise. No proficiency means lack of expertise or skill. Just like r.gonzales is not proficient in debating – but I’m not claiming he has no ability to debate. It’s just that he’s lousy at it.

Okay, this is an ad hominem, but the truth’s the truth.

Ciubate,
Cid

 

[r.gonzales]

rodrigo, you clearly need to read the replies thoroughly before replying. it’s clear that you don’t read things carefully, and thus miss certain important things, such as my stating from early on in the discussion that the arabs were generally an illiterate nation and that the exception of a handful of arabs who could read and write does not change that fact. it’s also clear that you reply as you read, which not only makes things damn repetative, but also - just like your not reading carefully - leads to a number of errors on your part.

firstly, i never said the statement from ibn 'abbaas was a hadeeth. i called it a narration or a statement from him. you believe different, i challenge you to bring one instance where i called it a hadeeth. related to that, i already said that i mistakenly gave are reference to it that belonged to the hadeeth where prophet muhammad said, “we are an illiterate nation. we do not write, nor calculate.” which i gave the reference for in one of my earlier posts - you want it, you go find it (here’s a hint, try looking at the beginning of what is currently post #101). this was a mistake stemming from what’s written in tafseer al-baghawee, which was quoted in the very first post of this thread, where al-baghawee mentions the statement of ibn 'abbaas, then immediately after, mentions the hadeeth from saheeh al-bukhaaree.

unrelated to the issue of illiteracy, but related to a comment you made above about me having some common sense before debating the meaning of english words with an “englishman”, seems you don’t know really know what the word “corollary” means, which is a natural consequence or effect of something else. how is being unscriptured a result of the people of the book? perhaps you mean antonym of…??? so much for proficiency in the english language on the part of the englishman, huh? .

secondly, regarding the hadeeth concerning the treaty of hudaibiyah, if you want to rely on muhsin khan’s english rendition of it, that’s your problem. his translation contains errors which i’ve already pointed out. no where in the arabic is any word found that can mean ‘paper’. here’s the relevant part of the hadeeth in transliteration of the original arabic, along with the word for word breakdown of its translation (transliterated arabic in red):

qaala he (the narrator) said: fa akhadha yakubu ash-sharta bainahum 'alee bin abee taalib so alee bin abee taalib took to writing the condition between them. fa kataba haadhaa maa qaadaa 'alaihi muhammad rasoolullah so he wrote: this is what muhammad, Allah’s messenger, has agreed to. fa qooloo: law 'alimnaa annaka rasoolullah, lam namna’ka wa laaaba’naaka. laakin uktub haadhaa maa qaadaa 'alaihi muhammad bin 'abdillah so they said: if we knew that you were Allah’s messenger, we would not have obstructed you and we certainly would have followed you. instead, write: this is what muhammad bin abdillah has agreed to. fa qaala: anaa wallahi muhammad bin 'abdillah, wa anaa wallahi rasoolullah. so he (prophet muhammad) said: i am, by Allah, muhammad bin abdillah, and i am, by Allah, Allah’s messenger. qaala: wa kaana laa yaktub he (the narrator) said: and he did not write. qaala: fa qaala li 'alee: amh rasoolallah. he (the narrator) said: so he (prophet muhammad) said: erase Allah’s messenger. fa qaala 'alee: wallahi, laa amhaa hu abadan so alee said: by Allah, i will not erase it, ever! qaala: fa arinee hu then show it to me. qaala: fa araa hu iyyaa hu fa mahaa hu an-nabee bi yadihi he (the narrator) said: so he showed him it and the prophet erased it with his hand.

as i said in my previous post, the pronoun “hu” meaning “it” refers to the title “rasoolullah - Allah’s messenger” according to the rules of arabic grammar. there’s no “paper” anywhere mentioned here.

thirdly, regarding ibn hajar’s explanation. you really, really, really, really, need to learn how to read and understand what’s being said in relation to what. you claimed that ibn hajar claimed that prophet muhammad learned how to read and write later on in life. no where did ibn hajar make this claim. then you comment asking why i claimed that according to ibn hajar prophet muhammad writing is to be taken figuratively? either you don’t know what’s being said in relation to what, or you’re being deceptive and trying to deflect attention away from the fact that you made a baseless claim and can’t back it up.

as for the rest of your comments and points, i’ll leave it up to the sincere reader who’s willing to take the time to read thoroughly through the thread to see who knows what he’s talking about and who clearly doesn’t.

 

[Rodrigo_Bivar]

r.gonzales:

rodrigo, you clearly need to read the replies thoroughly before replying.

Ad hominem therefore rejected.

r.gonzales:

it’s clear that you don’t read things carefully, and thus miss certain important things, such as my stating from early on in the discussion that the arabs were generally an illiterate nation and that the exception of a handful of arabs who could read and write does not change that fact. it’s also clear that you reply as you read, which not only makes things damn repetative, but also - just like your not reading carefully - leads to a number of errors on your part.

First of all, you brought hadiths about how Muhammad called the Arabs ummi – they couldn’t read or write. Now, where’s that word, ‘generally’ in your hadith?

Did you not write this?

r.gonzales:

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.”

I don’t see the word ‘generally’ anywhere, bud. Re-reading your earlier posts it is clear you only used the word ‘generally’ when you realized I had debunked your argument by showing that at least some Arabs could write.

r.gonzales:

firstly, i never said the statement from ibn 'abbaas was a hadeeth. i called it a narration or a statement from him. you believe different, i challenge you to bring one instance where i called it a hadeeth. related to that, i already said that i mistakenly gave are reference to it that belonged to the hadeeth where prophet muhammad said, “we are an illiterate nation. we do not write, nor calculate.” which i gave the reference for in one of my earlier posts - you want it, you go find it (here’s a hint, try looking at the beginning of what is currently post #101). this was a mistake stemming from what’s written in tafseer al-baghawee, which was quoted in the very first post of this thread, where al-baghawee mentions the statement of ibn 'abbaas, then immediately after, mentions the hadeeth from saheeh al-bukhaaree.

Okay, if you made a mistake you made a mistake. Then why denigrate me for calling that ‘narration’ a hadith? After all, you claimed it was from Sahih Bukhari. You brought that narration up. I didn’t. If you can claim it was from Bukhari, why can’t I call it a hadith?

What you committed was the logical fallacy of the argumentum ad hominem circumstantial. Why did you even bring up me calling it a hadith? Only to cast aspersions at my scholarship and inflate your own ego.

Haha – look at this kafir fool who calls this ‘narration’ a hadith. What an idiot he is. How can we trust what he says if he doesn’t even know what a hadith is.

Don’t you have anything worthwhile to say other than engaging in such ‘below-the-belt’ tactics?

Let us forget it, shall we. I accept you made a mistake about the ibn abbass story being a Bukhari.

 

[Rodrigo_Bivar]

r.gonzales:

unrelated to the issue of illiteracy, but related to a comment you made above about me having some common sense before debating the meaning of english words with an “englishman”, seems you don’t know really know what the word “corollary” means, which is a natural consequence or effect of something else. how is being unscriptured a result of the people of the book? perhaps you mean antonym of…??? so much for proficiency in the english language on the part of the englishman, huh? .

See what I mean? You have nothing substantive to add than to engage in word games? It is the argument of what ummi means that is the natural consequence of the division of the world into People of the Book and ummiyyeen. This is what a corollary means in formal logic:
• corollary: a proposition that follows with little or no proof from one already proven. A proposition B is a corollary of a proposition or theorem A if B can be deduced quickly and easily from A.
Since proposition B can be deduced quickly and easily from proposition A:
Proposition A: The Quran divides people between the People of the Book and Ummiyyoon.
Proposition B: Ummiyyoon are therefore not People of the Book. Illiteracy doesn’t come into it.

“And say to those who have been given the Book and to the ummiyeen: ‘Have you surrendered?’” (Sura Al Imran 3:20).

Therefore, Proposition B is a corollary of Proposition A.

It is clear you have nothing more to say on this issue except commit the logical fallacy of ad hominem.

Just like you like to boast you can read Arabic – here you’re boasting you know English better than I do. Well, if you want to make a fool of yourself, go ahead.

r.gonzales:

secondly, regarding the hadeeth concerning the treaty of hudaibiyah, if you want to rely on muhsin khan’s english rendition of it, that’s your problem. his translation contains errors which i’ve already pointed out. no where in the arabic is any word found that can mean ‘paper’. here’s the relevant part of the hadeeth in transliteration of the original arabic, along with the word for word breakdown of its translation (transliterated arabic in red):
Quote:
qaala he (the narrator) said: fa akhadha yakubu ash-sharta bainahum 'alee bin abee taalib so alee bin abee taalib took to writing the condition between them. fa kataba haadhaa maa qaadaa 'alaihi muhammad rasoolullah so he wrote: this is what muhammad, Allah’s messenger, has agreed to. fa qooloo: law 'alimnaa annaka rasoolullah, lam namna’ka wa laaaba’naaka. laakin uktub haadhaa maa qaadaa 'alaihi muhammad bin 'abdillah so they said: if we knew that you were Allah’s messenger, we would not have obstructed you and we certainly would have followed you. instead, write: this is what muhammad bin abdillah has agreed to. fa qaala: anaa wallahi muhammad bin 'abdillah, wa anaa wallahi rasoolullah. so he (prophet muhammad) said: i am, by Allah, muhammad bin abdillah, and i am, by Allah, Allah’s messenger. qaala: wa kaana laa yaktub he (the narrator) said: and he did not write. qaala: fa qaala li 'alee: amh rasoolallah. he (the narrator) said: so he (prophet muhammad) said: erase Allah’s messenger. fa qaala 'alee: wallahi, laa amhaa hu abadan so alee said: by Allah, i will not erase it, ever! qaala: fa arinee hu then show it to me. qaala: fa araa hu iyyaa hu fa mahaa hu an-nabee bi yadihi he (the narrator) said: so he showed him it and the prophet erased it with his hand.

as i said in my previous post, the pronoun “hu” meaning “it” refers to the title “rasoolullah - Allah’s messenger” according to the rules of arabic grammar. there’s no “paper” anywhere mentioned here.

Like I said: you really have to reconcile all the hadiths narrating the same event. Why don’t you go and find all the hadiths of this event and show that when Muhammad wrote he didn’t write? If you were honest you would do that. Otherwise, the other hadiths would debunk you. It would be most appreciated if you would confirm this hadith for us – 3:49:863: Allah’s Apostle took the document and wrote.

And thanks for the translation. I will keep it for future reference.

 

[Rodrigo_Bivar]

r.gozales:

thirdly, regarding ibn hajar’s explanation. you really, really, really, really, need to learn how to read and understand what’s being said in relation to what.

You really, really, really, really, need to learn how to discuss issues instead of trying to prove I can’t read. Which in every case you’ve mentioned I’ve shown you to be in error.

Why do you like to engage in this dubious tactic of ‘insulting’ your opponent? Does it make you feel good to get kicked yet again?

r.gonzales:

you claimed that ibn hajar claimed that prophet muhammad learned how to read and write later on in life. no where did ibn hajar make this claim. then you comment asking why i claimed that according to ibn hajar prophet muhammad writing is to be taken figuratively? either you don’t know what’s being said in relation to what, or you’re being deceptive and trying to deflect attention away from the fact that you made a baseless claim and can’t back it up.

Poppy cock.

This is my evidence for my statement about what Ibn Hajar claimed. I’m only paraphrasing him and didn’t quote him directly but the implication is clear.

Al-Haafiz Ibn Hajar says, “The Prophet was illiterate, and that is why the Qur’an is so miraculous by nature. When Islam had spread and he was sure that no one would be suspicious (of his being the compiler of the Qur’an), he learnt how to read and write”!
light-of-life.com/eng/answer/a4990et2.htm#p120

So Ibn Hajar said Muhammad learnt to read and write?

When was this? When Islam had spread.

When was Islam spread? Early in Muhammad’s life or later?

Sheesh – come on, r.gonzales. I know your ego is taking a battering here but your arguments are patently ridiculous. Do I nitpick your paraphrases? Or wasn’t it clear I was paraphrasing rather than quoting Ibn Hajar?

r.gonzales:

as for the rest of your comments and points, i’ll leave it up to the sincere reader who’s willing to take the time to read thoroughly through the thread to see who knows what he’s talking about and who clearly doesn’t.

Thanks to r.gonzales for his helpful Arabic translations. It is apparent that r.gonzales has exhausted his arguments. I, too, rest my case.

 

[r.gonzales]

firstly, regarding the statement from ibn 'abbaas, i have no issues with admitting a mistake, which is why i mentioned it when i realised it. that is also why i’m trying to find its source. i’ve been able to trace its source to the tafseer of ath-tha’labee, which gives no chain for the statement. there is a statement from one of the early scholars of tafseer who lived among the second or third generation, qataadah who said, “he is your prophet. he was illiterate, he did not write.” this is reported by at-tabaree in his tafseer, as well as other scholars of hadeeth such as ibn abee haatim. this does come with a chain, and i’m trying to verify its authentcity to qataadah.

in anycase… regarding all your jazz regarding paraphrasing, who had issue with you paraphrasing? you made a claim, made no reference to where you got it from. now you come up with this?

[link to the LOL site.]

ha! this is the source of your claim that ibn hajar said that prophet muhammad (s) learned how to read and write?! you’ve got to do better than that - like providing a real reference to where he stated it, or at the very least, the book’s title where the statement was made. no reference at all leads to rejection of the statement until you can bring a reference of some sort that will allow others to verify it.

and btw, all your cries of ad hominem this and ad hominem that don’t change the fact that you do need to read more thoroughly.

as for the comment regarding me altering my argument when i realised you’d debunked mine, then to quote what you said, “poppy cock”. firstly, all those statements are to be understood and taken to mean generally, given the fact that prophet muhammad did have scribes and my acknowledgement of that. along with my earlier statement that “no where did i say all the arabs were illiterate.”

lastly, regarding your claim that the ummiyyoon refers to those who are not the people of the Book, verse 2:78 from the Quran is more than sufficient to refute your claim. the numerous explanation from the early scholars of islam clarifying what the word ummiyy means to the arabs themselves is just icing on the cake.

have a nice life bivar.

 

[Rodrigo_Bivar]

r.gonzales, I thought we’ve concluded our discussion but seems to me you have some more logical fallacies and boasting to show us.

r.gonzales:

firstly, regarding the statement from ibn 'abbaas, i have no issues with admitting a mistake, which is why i mentioned it when i realised it. that is also why i’m trying to find its source. i’ve been able to trace its source to the tafseer of ath-tha’labee, which gives no chain for the statement. there is a statement from one of the early scholars of tafseer who lived among the second or third generation, qataadah who said, “he is your prophet. he was illiterate, he did not write.” this is reported by at-tabaree in his tafseer, as well as other scholars of hadeeth such as ibn abee haatim. this does come with a chain, and i’m trying to verify its authentcity to qataadah.

Tafsirs are not sahih and never will be sahih. You can spend your life on the tafsirs all you want – I couldn’t care less.

r.gonzales:

in anycase… regarding all your jazz regarding paraphrasing, who had issue with you paraphrasing? you made a claim, made no reference to where you got it from. now you come up with this?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rodrigo Bivar
[link to the LOL site.

ha! this is the source of your claim that ibn hajar said that prophet muhammad (s) learned how to read and write?! you’ve got to do better than that - like providing a real reference to where he stated it, or at the very least, the book’s title where the statement was made. no reference at all leads to rejection of the statement until you can bring a reference of some sort that will allow others to verify it.

See what I mean about you committing ad hominems?

When I quote I provide a reference. When I paraphrase, why should I provide a reference? Do you reference everything you write? No. Why your Muslim double-standards?

I think I have provided that quote and reference before.

r.gonzales:

and btw, all your cries of ad hominem this and ad hominem that don’t change the fact that you do need to read more thoroughly.

You really need to stop your ad hominems.

r.gonzales:

as for the comment regarding me altering my argument when i realised you’d debunked mine, then to quote what you said, “poppy cock”. firstly, all those statements are to be understood and taken to mean generally, given the fact that prophet muhammad did have scribes and my acknowledgement of that. along with my earlier statement that “no where did i say all the arabs were illiterate.”

Understood to mean generally? Pull the other leg, r.gonzales. Did you bring this hadith as evidence?

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.

Where’s the word ‘generally’ in this hadith?

r.gonzales:

lastly, regarding your claim that the ummiyyoon refers to those who are not the people of the Book, verse 2:78 from the Quran is more than sufficient to refute your claim. the numerous explanation from the early scholars of islam clarifying what the word ummiyy means to the arabs themselves is just icing on the cake.

Ad verecundiam. Check them out. The opinions of these scholars mean nothing compared to the sahih hadiths of Muhammad writing and asking for writing implements.

What do scholars say? You can bring some scholars who say Ummi = illiterate. I can bring scholars who say Ummi = unscriptured. So what? We already knew that the question under issue is the meaning of Ummi. Does it mean illiterate or unscriptured? Opinions are not evidence.

Here are some scholars who disagree with your scholars. (I note you have referenced them also). I’m not relying on them. All I’m trying to show is that scholarly opinions are a dime a dozen. I am swayed by facts, not mere unsubstantiated opinions.

Al-Tabari says (vol. iii. p. 142), commenting on the word in Surah Alu ‘Imran: “the ummiyyun are those among the Arabs who have no revelation.”

Al-Tabari is more definite in his comment (vol. xxviii. p. 61) on the same verse: “The people of Mohammed were called ummiyyun because no revelation had come to them.”

Ibn Abbas says the meaning is, “those who have no book and no prophet sent unto them.” He reiterates this explanation on Surah 3:19, but in obscure phrases (vol. ii. p. 426).

r.gonzales:

have a nice life bivar.

Ciubate,
Mata Moro
[/quote]

 

[Boa_Constrictor]

*So the conclusion is that Mohammed PBUH can write (thus can read) Hurray!!

Boa*

 

[Boa_Constrictor]

*So, no other arguments? But in fact the moslems should be happy that their Prophet was not lazy nor stupid. He could write (and read).

Boa*

 

[r.gonzales]

Boa Constrictor:

So the conclusion is that Mohammed PBUH can write (thus can read) Hurray!!

perhaps to the orientalists who first formulated this claim and those who accept their assumptions, overlooking key evidences and indications, such as the hadeeth describing the drafting of the treaty of hudaibiyyah.

as for all the semantic play regarding the word “ummiyy”, what i’ve quoted from muhammad mohar ali is more than sufficient, post #98.
Boa Constrictor:

So, no other arguments?

perhaps you missed this:

r.gonzales:

i’ll leave it up to the sincere reader who’s willing to take the time to read thoroughly through the thread to see who knows what he’s talking about and who clearly doesn’t.

as well as my final comment to bivar:

r.gonzales:

have a nice life bivar.

 

[Lamp_Lighter]

Are you illiterate?

r.gonzales, I thought we’ve concluded our discussion but seems to me you have some more logical fallacies and boasting to show us.

Posted by r.gonzales
firstly, regarding the statement from ibn 'abbaas, i have no issues with admitting a mistake, which is why i mentioned it when i realised it. that is also why i’m trying to find its source. i’ve been able to trace its source to the tafseer of ath-tha’labee, which gives no chain for the statement. there is a statement from one of the early scholars of tafseer who lived among the second or third generation, qataadah who said, “he is your prophet. he was illiterate, he did not write.” this is reported by at-tabaree in his tafseer, as well as other scholars of hadeeth such as ibn abee haatim. this does come with a chain, and i’m trying to verify its authentcity to qataadah.

Tafsirs are not sahih and never will be sahih. You can spend your life on the tafsirs all you want – I couldn’t care less.

Originally Posted by r.gonzales
in anycase… regarding all your jazz regarding paraphrasing, who had issue with you paraphrasing? you made a claim, made no reference to where you got it from. now you come up with this?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rodrigo Bivar
[link to the LOL site.

**ha! this is the source of your claim that ibn hajar said that prophet muhammad (s) learned how to read and write?! you’ve got to do better than that - like providing a real reference to where he stated it, or at the very least, the book’s title where the statement was made. no reference at all leads to rejection of the statement until you can bring a reference of some sort that will allow others to verify it.

**See what I mean about you committing ad hominems?

When I quote I provide a reference. When I paraphrase, why should I provide a reference? Do you reference everything you write? No. Why your Muslim double-standards?

I think I have provided that quote and reference before.**

Originally Posted by r.gonzales
and btw, all your cries of ad hominem this and ad hominem that don’t change the fact that you do need to read more thoroughly.

You really need to stop your ad hominems.

Originally Posted by r.gonzales
as for the comment regarding me altering my argument when i realised you’d debunked mine, then to quote what you said, “poppy cock”. firstly, all those statements are to be understood and taken to mean generally, given the fact that prophet muhammad did have scribes and my acknowledgement of that. along with my earlier statement that “no where did i say all the arabs were illiterate.”

Understood to mean generally? Pull the other leg, r.gonzales. Did you bring this hadith as evidence?

Originally Posted by 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.

Where’s the word ‘generally’ in this hadith?

Originally Posted by r.gonzales
lastly, regarding your claim that the ummiyyoon refers to those who are not the people of the Book, verse 2:78 from the Quran is more than sufficient to refute your claim. the numerous explanation from the early scholars of islam clarifying what the word ummiyy means to the arabs themselves is just icing on the cake.

**Ad verecundiam. Check them out. The opinions of these scholars mean nothing compared to the sahih hadiths of Muhammad writing and asking for writing implements.

What do scholars say? You can bring some scholars who say Ummi = illiterate. I can bring scholars who say Ummi = unscriptured. So what? We already knew that the question under issue is the meaning of Ummi. Does it mean illiterate or unscriptured? Opinions are not evidence.

Here are some scholars who disagree with your scholars. (I note you have referenced them also). I’m not relying on them. All I’m trying to show is that scholarly opinions are a dime a dozen. I am swayed by facts, not mere unsubstantiated opinions.

Al-Tabari says (vol. iii. p. 142), commenting on the word in Surah Alu ‘Imran: “the ummiyyun are those among the Arabs who have no revelation.”

Al-Tabari is more definite in his comment (vol. xxviii. p. 61) on the same verse: “The people of Mohammed were called ummiyyun because no revelation had come to them.”

Ibn Abbas says the meaning is, “those who have no book and no prophet sent unto them.” He reiterates this explanation on Surah 3:19, but in obscure phrases (vol. ii. p. 426). **

Originally Posted by r.gonzales
have a nice life bivar.

Ciubate,
Mata Moro

So are you satisfied now?

Lamp Lighter

 

[r.gonzales]

Lamp Lighter:

So are you satisfied now?

Lamp Lighter on December 6:

This will be my last posting here, as DeExupery, or Boa Constrictor, or Lamp Lighter.

then a total of four or five posts made thereafter… seems like it wasn’t your last post afterall - and with your third username, no less .