muhammad: the illiterate prophet

[Rodrigo_Bivar]

r.gonzales,
Looks like you’ve exhausted your store of responses and have merely resorted to meaningless repetition.

You keep claiming that in the Quran ummi means illiterate. I say it could mean either illiterate or unscriptured. However, to determine which is the correct interpretation we have to look elsewhere – namely the hadiths.

You’ve lost because of the following reasons:

1. you couldn’t tell us how to differentiate literal from figurative in the exceedingly simple phrase, ‘Muhammad wrote’, despite being asked to do so on numerous occasions. Opinion is worthless if it is not backed by sufficient weight of evidence.
2. you couldn’t answer why Muhammad would ask for writing implements when he couldn’t himself write.
3. you couldn’t even answer why your own reference, Ibn Hajar, who claimed ‘wrote’ = ‘got someone else to write’, said that Muhammad learned to read and write after Islam had spread (i.e. later in life).

All you do is to refer to yet another Islamic scholar who claims, without evidence, that ummi = illiterate.

Thus, we could all see you have thoroughly exhausted your resources on this issue. If you want round 2, please let me know. But before we embark on round 2, please address the points above.

Ciubate,
El Cid - Mata Moro

 

[r.gonzales]

Rodrigo Bivar:

blah blah blah blah blah…

i’ve answered all these things, you just chose to reject the explanations given, along with the evidence that goes against everything you’ve said - especially the narrations concerning the treaty of hudaibiyah which clearly state that prophet muhammad was shown his name so that he could erase it - which is a clear indication that he couldn’t read, let alone write.

as for this:
Rodrigo Bivar:

1. you couldn’t even answer why your own reference, Ibn Hajar, who claimed ‘wrote’ = ‘got someone else to write’, said that Muhammad learned to read and write after Islam had spread (i.e. later in life).

that LOL contains no references whatsoever for the quotes it brings. so it’s claim that ibn hajar said such a thing is rejected until a proper reference for that statement can be given.

 

[Rodrigo_Bivar]

r.gonzales:

i’ve answered all these things, you just chose to reject the explanations given, along with the evidence that goes against everything you’ve said - especially the narrations concerning the treaty of hudaibiyah which clearly state that prophet muhammad was shown his name so that he could erase it - which is a clear indication that he couldn’t read, let alone write.

You answered with nonsense so I rejected them. If you have any rebuttal to my rejection – please bring them. Don’t just repeat your nonsense which I have already rejected (with evidence I might add).

Your hudaybiyyah was rejected because you only home in on one hadith. There are several hadiths narrating the same event. Those other hadiths debunk your one hadith. To win you have to find an explanation to fit ALL the hadiths of the same event.

How many times do I have to tell you this? You can’t just ignore the hadiths that don’t agree with you.

My explanation fits ALL the hadiths. Yours doesn’t.

r.gonzales:

Rodrigo:

1. you couldn’t even answer why your own reference, Ibn Hajar, who claimed ‘wrote’ = ‘got someone else to write’, said that Muhammad learned to read and write after Islam had spread (i.e. later in life).

that LOL contains no references whatsoever for the quotes it brings. so it’s claim that ibn hajar said such a thing is rejected until a proper reference for that statement can be given.

That is not acceptable. If you disagree – you have to disprove. Just mouthing off at my reference is merely the logical fallacy of ad hominem. Therefore, rejected.

PS: you still haven’t told us how to differentiate the literal from the figurative in the phrase ‘Muhammad wrote’.

 

[r.gonzales]

Rodrigo Bivar:

You can’t just ignore the hadiths that don’t agree with you.

try following your own advice here. this is basically what you’re doing when you ignore the fact that one of those narrations clearly indicates that prophet muhammad asked to be shown his name and was shown it so that he could erase it. your lack of knowledge concerning the language and your reliance on inaccurate translations of the narration don’t change this fact.

rather, the additional information found in the other narrations of this event clearly show that “he wrote” is to be taken in a figurative manner. 1) he asked to be shown his name and was shown it. 2) the narrators of the hadeeth say that he did not write “kaana laa yaktub” and “laa yuhsinu yaktub”. you either ignore these facts, or try to put your spin on their clear meanings.
Rodrigo Bivar:

That is not acceptable. If you disagree – you have to disprove. Just mouthing off at my reference is merely the logical fallacy of ad hominem. Therefore, rejected.

no, your source is rejected for the simple fact that it contains no references. prove that ibn hajar said that. i have his explanation of saheeh al-bukhaaree and in his explanation of this hadeeth concerning the treaty of hudaibiyah where he mentions this claim being made by someone else, no where does he claim what is mentioned in that “reference” of yours, the LOL site.

 

[Rodrigo_Bivar]

r.gonzales:

try following your own advice here. this is basically what you’re doing when you ignore the fact that one of those narrations clearly indicates that prophet muhammad asked to be shown his name and was shown it so that he could erase it. your lack of knowledge concerning the language and your reliance on inaccurate translations of the narration don’t change this fact.

rather, the additional information found in the other narrations of this event clearly show that “he wrote” is to be taken in a figurative manner. 1) he asked to be shown his name and was shown it. 2) the narrators of the hadeeth say that he did not write “kaana laa yaktub” and “laa yuhsinu yaktub”. you either ignore these facts, or try to put your spin on their clear meanings.

No. You’ve just assume ‘it’ is the ‘his name’. It could just as easily mean the paper. Now, putting together with the other hadiths it is clear that this must be so.

Your figurative excuse is rejected. Otherwise, all the other hadiths which said ‘he wrote’ are wrong. My explanation is better because then all the hadiths are reconciled. None is wrong.

r.gonzales:

no, your source is rejected for the simple fact that it contains no references. prove that ibn hajar said that. i have his explanation of saheeh al-bukhaaree and in his explanation of this hadeeth concerning the treaty of hudaibiyah where he mentions this claim being made by someone else, no where does he claim what is mentioned in that “reference” of yours, the LOL site.

This is merely another form of the logical fallacy of the argumentum ad ignorantiam. Ibn Hajar wrote other books. Also, who said it was in his fateh al-bari? I didn’t. You’ll have to find out from the author that I referenced which one it is. Here is the email if you want to know more. response@light-of-life.com

My proof is my reference. Too bad for you that it doesn’t agree with you.

Now, once again, Mr honest:

Is killing apostates right? Yes or No.

 

[r.gonzales]

Rodrigo Bivar:

You’ve just assume ‘it’ is the ‘his name’. It could just as easily mean the paper.

no, i haven’t just assumed it. that’s what’s clearly indicated by the context and the rules of arabic grammar.
Rodrigo Bivar:

Your figurative excuse is rejected.

only because it’s a perfectly acceptable and very realistic explanation, which just so happens to go against your vain whims and desires.
Rodrigo Bivar:

This is merely another form of the logical fallacy of the argumentum ad ignorantiam. Ibn Hajar wrote other books.

let’s see… many of ibn hajar’s books that are available aside from his explanation of saheeh al-bukhaaree are largely either 1) books of the biographies of the narrators of hadeeth or 2) books on the sciences of hadeeth and its terminologies and their explanations. not many other books that speech like that which you quoted is going to come from…

one thing’s painfully clear though, and that’s the fact that you parrot pretty much anything that agrees with your twisted concepts of islam, without verifying if anything’s actually been said by those you claim to have said it…

 

[Rodrigo_Bivar]

r.gonzales:

no, i haven’t just assumed it. that’s what’s clearly indicated by the context and the rules of arabic grammar.
only because it’s a perfectly acceptable and very realistic explanation, which just so happens to go against your vain whims and desires.

Oh really?

The context is pretty clear to me:

1. According to some hadiths - Muhammad wrote.
2. According to one hadith – Muhammad said ‘show it’. You’re assuming Muhammad was standing over Ali’s shoulder and didn’t know what the word is. But you have no evidence for it. It could just as easily be Muhammad sitting apart and told Ali to ‘show it’. He didn’t say, ‘show me what to erase’. He said ‘show it.’

Thus it is merely your (mis)interpretation that makes you think ‘it’ in this circumstance means Muhammad didn’t know what it is. My explanation is not only plausible but highly likely given the other hadiths.

In contrast, to make your hadith work, you have to come up with some ‘figurative’ explanation for the others.

Now, what about this hadith of the same event?
Volume 5, Book 59, Number 553: and he wrote or got it the following written!

Why would the narrator need two phrases if ‘he wrote’ means ‘he got the following written’? Rather redundant I’d say.

Like I said, you have to reconcile all the hadiths.

Therefore, the only explanation that doesn’t require any ‘imagination’ – merely reading the text as it appears is mine.

So much for your rules of Arabic grammar that you need to use such ‘imagination’. So, what are the rules for Arabic grammar that can turn ‘he wrote’ into ‘he got someone else to write’? Tell us so I know when I read, ‘r.gonzales wrote this’, I can tell that ‘r.gonzales got someone else to write this.’

r.gonzales:

let’s see… many of ibn hajar’s books that are available aside from his explanation of saheeh al-bukhaaree are largely either 1) books of the biographies of the narrators of hadeeth or 2) books on the sciences of hadeeth and its terminologies and their explanations. not many other books that speech like that which you quoted is going to come from…

one thing’s painfully clear though, and that’s the fact that you parrot pretty much anything that agrees with your twisted concepts of islam, without verifying if anything’s actually been said by those you claim to have said it…

Two things’ painfully clear though:

1. You don’t understand op cit.
2. You reject hadiths that don’t agree with you.

 

[Rodrigo_Bivar]

So, r.gonzales - is killing apostates right? Yes or No?

 

[r.gonzales]

Rodrigo Bivar:

Oh really?

yes really. prophet muhammad in that narration told alee to erase the words “Allah’s messenger”, alee replied, “i will never erase it” prophet muhammad then told him to “show it to me” and was shown it, then erased it with his hand. the context as well as the rules of arabic grammar indicate that the pronoun “it” refers to the title of Allah’s messenger, and the context of this hadeeth indicates the same thing. there is no mention of paper in the arabic of the hadeeth at all. and this is your main problem, you’re relying on erroneous translations of the hadeeth and are ignorant of the arabic language and its rules of grammar, thus cannot verify the correctness of what you’re reading.
Rodrigo Bivar:

Now, what about this hadith of the same event?
Volume 5, Book 59, Number 553: and he wrote or got it the following written!

Why would the narrator need two phrases if ‘he wrote’ means ‘he got the following written’? Rather redundant I’d say.

perhaps because that portion was from the translator, m. khan, and not the any of the narrators of the hadeeth. and what khan was doing here was giving the meanings of the verb kataba. and this is yet another instance of you relying on erroneous translations and being unable to verify it in the arabic. and btw, this is one of the versions where one of the narrators of the hadeeth says that prophet muhammad couldn’t write, “laisa yuhsinu yaktub.”
Rodrigo Bivar:

Like I said, you have to reconcile all the hadiths.

that’s exactly what ibn hajar and the vast majority of scholars have done in this instance. it’s you who are rejecting hadeeths and their clear implications.

 

[Rodrigo_Bivar]

r.gonzales:

Rodrigo:

Oh really?

yes really. prophet muhammad in that narration told alee to erase the words “Allah’s messenger”, alee replied, “i will never erase it” prophet muhammad then told him to “show it to me” and was shown it, then erased it with his hand. the context as well as the rules of arabic grammar indicate that the pronoun “it” refers to the title of Allah’s messenger, and the context of this hadeeth indicates the same thing. there is no mention of paper in the arabic of the hadeeth at all. and this is your main problem, you’re relying on erroneous translations of the hadeeth and are ignorant of the arabic language and its rules of grammar, thus cannot verify the correctness of what you’re reading.

You are being ludicrous. You’re essentially claiming ‘show it’ means someone is illiterate. It doesn’t mean that at all – it just means ‘show it to me’. Let me illustrate:

r.gonzales’s mummy: raheem dear, have you done your homework like you promised?

r.gonzales: yes, mummy, I have.

r.gonzales’s mummy: okay, show it to me.

Is r.gonzales’s mummy illiterate? Yes or No.

r.gonzales’s teacher: raheem, you naughty boy, have you done your homework?

r.gonzales: yes, teacher, I have.

r.gonzales’s teacher: okay, show it to me.

Is r.gonzales’s teacher illiterate? Yes or No.

Show it merely means ‘show it’. It is only your imagination that construes illiteracy.

r.gonzales:

Rodrigo:

Now, what about this hadith of the same event?
Volume 5, Book 59, Number 553: and he wrote or got it the following written!

Why would the narrator need two phrases if ‘he wrote’ means ‘he got the following written’? Rather redundant I’d say.

perhaps because that portion was from the translator, m. khan, and not the any of the narrators of the hadeeth. and what khan was doing here was giving the meanings of the verb kataba. and this is yet another instance of you relying on erroneous translations and being unable to verify it in the arabic. and btw, this is one of the versions where one of the narrators of the hadeeth says that prophet muhammad couldn’t write, “laisa yuhsinu yaktub.”

Perhaps or perhaps not. I have asked you to look it up several times but you haven’t – so the readers here will never know. So please ‘SHOW IT’ to us.

Hey, don’t lie to the readers, will ya? You did claim ‘Laisa yuhsinu yaktub’ means he wasn’t PROFICENT in writing, not that he couldn’t write. We’ve been through this already and I’ve shown your argument to be false: proficiency has the connotation of expertise – lack of proficiency means lack of expertise, not no ability.

r.gonzales:

Rodrigo:

Like I said, you have to reconcile all the hadiths.

that’s exactly what ibn hajar and the vast majority of scholars have done in this instance. it’s you who are rejecting hadeeths and their clear implications.

How have they done so? All you have done is to ignore the hadiths that don’t match your point of view. How about you try reconciling all the relevant hudaibiyyah hadiths for us? I have certainly quoted them all, I think. Hmmm. Maybe not the Sahih Muslim one.

Since I brought all the relevant hadiths to the table, I can’t be rejecting them, can I?

Where’s your reconciliation of all these hadiths? Let’s see if you can ‘SHOW IT’ to us.

PS: is killing apostates right? Yes or No.

 

[r.gonzales]

Rodrigo Bivar:

You are being ludicrous.

not at all, and your “illustration” doesn’t apply here. we’re dealing with arabic texts here, not english. so your illustrations of usage of certain words in the english language don’t apply here. prophet muhammad didn’t ask to see the “kitaab” (which is the word used in one of the narrations), he asked to be shown the title “Allah’s messenger” as is crystal clear from the context of the arabic text. and as he was standing right there while the treaty was being drafted, if he was able to read and recognise the words on the paper, he wouldn’t have asked to be shown the title he has asked alee to erase. if he had asked for the paper, as you suggest, the arabic would have read “fa ireenee al-kitaab” and not “fa ireenee hu”. as mentioned, there was no mention of the “kitaab” or the paper in this hadeeth up to this point, so the pronoun “it - hu” in accordance with the rules of arabic grammar refers to the closest object that occurs before it, which is the title “Allah’s messenger”. earlier, you made the assinine comment about me using common sense instead of arguing the meanings of english words (a language i know fairly well) with an englishman, and yet here we see you trying to argue the nuances of arabic grammar with someone who understands the language while you do not… brilliant display of common sense señor bivar :clapping: .
Rodrigo Bivar:

Perhaps or perhaps not. I have asked you to look it up several times but you haven’t – so the readers here will never know. So please ‘SHOW IT’ to us.

heh :nope: … yet another instance of you misreading/misinterpreting something i’ve said. my usage of the word “perhaps” in this instance is not due to doubt on my part. i have looked it up, as well as every other reference of this hadeeth available in saheeh al-bukhaaree. and as i mentioned, “and what khan (i.e., the translator of the version of saheeh al-bukhaaree you continually refer to) was doing here was giving the meanings of the verb kataba.”
Rodrigo Bivar:

Hey, don’t lie to the readers, will ya? You did claim ‘Laisa yuhsinu yaktub’ means he wasn’t PROFICENT in writing, not that he couldn’t write. We’ve been through this already and I’ve shown your argument to be false: proficiency has the connotation of expertise – lack of proficiency means lack of expertise, not no ability.

:yawn: the game of semantics . you, who lack any “proficiency” in the arabic language, want to keep using your english definitions to give the meanings for words of a language you don’t understand. as quoted earlier, the scholars of the arabic language define that statement, “laisa yuhsinu yaktub” as meaning, “laa yaktub (he does not write)”. and in case you’ve forgotten, proficient when used as an adjective can mean “having or showing knowledge and skill and aptitude”, and thus not being proficient in something can mean not “having or showing knowledge and skill and aptitude”.
Rodrigo Bivar:

All you have done is to ignore the hadiths that don’t match your point of view.

this statement perfectly applies to your treatment of this issue.

 

[Rachel_Malloy]

This thread has reached it’s end.

Thank you for all who have participated.

Peace.

Rachel