Muhammad's illiteracy : common sense & history

[inJESUS]

If Mohammed was literate, then the Qu’ran can be written off as the ramblings of an insane poet. If he was not (according to tradition), then perhaps something more was at work.

he was illiterate according to Muslims, not according to tradition. The tradition mentions a man born and raised in the noble and highly literate tribe of Quraish, and who himself boasted of being the most eloquent.

Having said that, Mohammedanism is not even a “new” religion so to speak. If you study it objectively, with an unbiased mind, it is clear that the “religion” called Islam is merely a mix of apocryphal Jewish/Catholic teachings, the heresy of Nesteronism, Zoroastrianism, and pagan Arab beliefs.

 

[hamba2han]

A reminder to everyone that it is really not difficult at all to destroy Islam because all that one needs to do is to find a discrepancy or contradiction within the Qur’an since this would certainly prove (or at the very least plant seeds of very serious doubt) that it simply cannot be the verbatim ‘Speech of God’ as Muslims are claiming.

Now consider that at the time of the Prophet Muhammad (pbuh), he had very many enemies who were prepared to do just about anything to stop the spread of Islam.

If these people, many of whom knew the Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) ever since he was little, came to know of an obviously false statement in the Qur’an, then would they not go to town with this “news” and thereby easily destroy his claim of being the Messenger of God?

Now consider the following verse of the Qur’an which was revealed while he was still living in Makkah before the migration to Madinah:

Say: “O men! I am sent unto you all, as the Messenger of Allah, to Whom belongeth the dominion of the heavens and the earth: there is no god but He: it is He That giveth both life and death. So believe in Allah and His Messenger, the Unlettered Prophet, who believeth in Allah and His words: follow him that (so) ye may be guided.” … (Sura Al-Araf, 7.158)

If indeed the Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) was able to read and write, then would not his many enemies who knew him personally have very easily disproved the truth of the Qur’an and henceforth destroyed the basis of Islam?

Does not ‘common sense’ play a hugely significant role here in proving that the Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) was indeed unlettered even when considering just this one particular verse?

 

[TomaszA]

Peace hamba2han,

A reminder to everyone that it is really not difficult at all to destroy Islam because all that one needs to do is to find a discrepancy or contradiction within the Qur’an since this would certainly prove (or at the very least plant seeds of very serious doubt) that it simply cannot be the verbatim ‘Speech of God’ as Muslims are claiming.

It’s really not that easy. When you’re talking to someone who was raised to believe that Muhammad is the Seal of Prophethood, that the Quran is totally preserved and infallible, and Christianity a polytheistic religion with a corrupt text… it’s actually very difficult to sway a person against what he or she was always taught!

If these people, many of whom knew the Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) ever since he was little, came to know of an obviously false statement in the Qur’an, then would they not go to town with this “news” and thereby easily destroy his claim of being the Messenger of God?

Some of these whistle blowers are recorded in the Qur’an:

“We know indeed that they say, “It is a man that teaches him.” The tongue of him they wickedly point to is notably foreign, while this is Arabic, pure and clear.”
Surah 16 aya 103

If indeed the Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) was able to read and write, then would not his many enemies who knew him personally have very easily disproved the truth of the Qur’an and henceforth destroyed the basis of Islam?

I’m not familiar with Arabic, however I am aware that scholars have questioned the translation of the Arabic word for “illiterate.” Many have said the word (perhaps its Ummi, if i recall correctly) can also mean one who does not proclaim, or does not recite.

Ultimately we don’t know whether Muhammad was illiterate or not, this may be an argument that was used after his death to make the Qur’an more convincing.

 

[hamba2han]

There is another verse in the Qur’an which also affirms that the Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) could neither read nor write.

And thou (O Muhammad) wast not a reader of any scripture before it, nor didst thou write it with thy right hand, for then might those have doubted, who follow falsehood. … (Sura Al-Ankaboot 29:48)

 

[inJESUS]

“We know indeed that they say, “It is a man that teaches him.” The tongue of him they wickedly point to is notably foreign, while this is Arabic, pure and clear.”
Surah 16 aya 103

Ultimately we don’t know whether Muhammad was illiterate or not, this may be an argument that was used after his death to make the Qur’an more convincing.

indeed, it is used as a “proof” for the Quranic divine origine. Yet notice the verse you quoted. People accused him of being taught, and in another they say he was being dictated, which would be stupid if they knew he was illiterate and notice his answer: he didn’t say am illiterate, he said the man in question is not an Arab while he is speaking Arabic! as if bilinguals did not exist at his time…now think for a moment, is that an answer God the All-knowing might give?? don’t we all know that Waraqa for example was bilingual? s strange answer indeed, disproving that he was illiterate and raising a huge question mark about the wisdom behind such an answer.

 

[inJESUS]

There is another verse in the Qur’an which also affirms that the Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) could neither read nor write.

And thou (O Muhammad) wast not a reader of any scripture before it, nor didst thou write it with thy right hand, for then might those have doubted, who follow falsehood. … (Sura Al-Ankaboot 29:48)

the words ‘before it’ clarify that Muhammad did not recite ( tatlu in Arabic - not read) the previous scriptures, nor did he write these previous scriptures with his hand…of course not since he was born neither a Jew nor a Christian.

 

[Sister_Amy]

I agree with Paul C, that there’s basically no point to this thread.

Even if you could (and you can’t) prove that Muhammad was literate, it wouldn’t shake my faith in the Qur’an an inch. Not one bit. Doesn’t that alone make it an irrelevant discussion?

It should.

But the fact that you’re merely throwing around assumptions and choosing your preference–that alone ought to shove this particular discussion into the bowels of the forum from which it ought not emerge.

Yawn.

But still I agree with Paul C–it’s pointless.

 

[inJESUS]

Yes Amy, i guess it’s one of the topics that you don’t like to address as well so you tell me it will not shake your faith . Shaking your faith is not the aim of this thread. If using Islamic history is supposed to be a threat, then there is a problem. If Muslims were to answer like you without engaging in discussions then it’s pointless to use either history or common sense with Muslims. So if you feel like dropping the thread, it’s your right, it will be another thread where Muslims are not willing to disscuss history or common sense.

So far, and you know me, i’ve been very fair. No wild assumptions based on faery tales but Islamic history about Muhammad’s tribe, his background, the people surrounding him AND his own boasting of eloquence, in addition to giving the context of the Quranic word “ummi” in all the verse i cited. I cited my sources so you will not be opposing me, as am just a nickname, but your own tradition, that’s if you knew about it. I don’t think it is useless to prove from Muhammad’s sunna that he was boasting of eloquence and Arabic mastery because he was from the highly literate tribe Quraish, when Muslim claims he was illiterate.I don’t think its useless to prove the close relationship withWaraqa, when Muslims claim he knew no one to discuss with.

It’s just history and common sense Amy…something i used so far, without you disproving what i cited. It is not about winning debates, but about trying to use history and common sense with Muslims, something you don’t like as far as i can see.

 

[hamba2han]

I suppose that it is possible that there might be some merit to the postulations of some modern-day “scholars” of Islamic history… but as for myself, I prefer to trust the judgment of the “ten thousands of saints” in faithfully obeying their leader and who had no problem at all with the usage of the term “unlettered prophet” in the Qur’an.

 

[inJESUS]

I have been on this forum for 3 years. I read the posts of numerous Muslims. 3 things in common in their replies:

A- Muhammad was illiterate
B-Muhammad had no knowledge of previous scriptures
C-Muhammad could not be taught since he was illiterate.

a-The last ones is easily refuted. Oral tradition was the norm. He did not have to be literate to learn.

b-Muhammad surely had knowledge of previous scriptures. I will not mention all the names of non-muslims he encountered. Waraqa suffices. Waraqa belonged to the same tribe of Quraish, was a relative to Muhammad ( grandfather Qusai in common) and knew him for years before his claim of encountering a spirit. He even married him to Khadija and declared them husband and wife according to Islamic seera. Waraqa used to translate scriptures and was bilingual.

C- to his illiteracy, it is not supported even refuted by the Quran and refuted by the Sunna. The word ummi in the Quran refers to gentiles in opposition to those who “knew the scriptures”. All the Quranic verses using this word use it in this context and many will be ridiculous if the word illiterate were used instead. For example the verse saying Muhammad was sent to the ummiyiin will be ridiculous to mean illiterate, otherwise Muhammad was not sent to everybody, only to the illiterate. Surely Muslims don’t accept it. The Quran as well mentions people accusing him of being taught and dictated, ridiculous claims if people knew he was illiterate, and his answer had nothing to do with illiteracy…nowhere did he say i wasn’t taught or dictated because i am illiterate, on the contrary, he answered : my book is in Arabic while the man in question was no Arab. As if bilinguals do not exist, but that’s beside the point. He could simply claim illiteracy if he wanted to refute them but nowhere did he say it when they accused him of forgeries, being taught, and being dictated.

Regarding the Sunna, Muhammad boasted of being the most eloquent and of mastering the Arabic language better than anyone, and he attributed it to being raised in the noble and highly literate tribe of Quraish and i quoted 2 Islamic sources. Add to it that his uncle who raised him was the head of the Hashimites, the custodian of Mecca, a businessman and the father of the literate Ali. Add to it that Muhammad had in hand the commerce of Khadija which equalled half of Quraish. Add to it that he raised the highly literate Ali. Add to it being surrounded by literate people like Abu Bakr, Fatima ( his uncle’s wife) , Ali, Jaafar Al-Tayyar, Uthman, Zaid, Umar , Waraqa Ben Nawfal ecc so literate people surrounding him, older than him and younger than him when Muhammad boasted of being the most eloquent and learmed in Arabic language.

If someone can refute the Islamic sources i cited or the very simple common sense i used, let him present his argument for discussion. After all, the thread is about history and common sense, not myth.

 

[inJESUS]

I suppose that it is possible that there might be some merit to the postulations of some modern-day “scholars” of Islamic history… but as for myself, I prefer to trust the judgment of the “ten thousands of saints” in faithfully obeying their leader and who had no problem at all with the usage of the term “unlettered prophet” in the Qur’an.

find me one Islamic reference talking about ten thousandssss of saints, and then believe in whatever you want. I remind you that mathematically there is a huge difference between ten thousand (or 12 thousand as Tabari said) and ten thousandsss.

 

[hamba2han]

find me one Islamic reference talking about ten thousandssss of saints, and then believe in whatever you want. I remind you that mathematically there is a huge difference between ten thousand (or 12 thousand as Tabari said) and ten thousandsss.

Something tells me that you have a lot more faith in what Tabari said than what the Bible says regarding what Moses (pbuh) predicted about the corruption of the Bible.

Why is that?

 

[TomaszA]

Hamba2han,

You are still pushing the idea that Deuteronomy 33:1 is a prophecy fulfilled by Islam. The problems with this are numerous:

1. Your suggestion that Paran is Mekka is unfounded. The Israelites were familiar with Paran, and the Bible indicates it’s location, it is certainly not as far south as Mekka.
2. Deuteronomy 33:1 is clearly a retelling of events that already happened in Moses’ life, one’s which the Israelites would have been familiar with.
3. Your interpretation of the passages requires a foretelling of Jesus’ coming, which you say is connected to Seir. You have yet to explain how Jesus is associated with this area for it to serve as a foretelling.
4. Newer and more accurate translations say, “He shone forth from Mount Paran and advanced from Meribath-kadesh” (NAB)

Maribath-Kadesh is not necessarily referring to saints:
“Kodesh does not mean saints, but holiness, or the city of Cades; and the preceding word, which Protestants translate, with ten thousands, more probably refers to another title of the city, as it is specified Meriba-Cadesh, chap. xxxii. 51., and Ezechiel xlviii. 28.”
haydock1859.tripod.com/id526.html

You’d have to explain why you base your interpretation on a weaker translation.

There are probably more questions that can be raised but let us stop with these four for now.

God bless,
Tomasz

 

[dzheremi]

The relative merit of this discussion on Muhammad’s supposed literacy or supposed illiteracy is debatable, but the worthlessness of Hamba2han’s claim is not. Either bring some evidence for your idea (preferable from Christian tradition, as inJESUS has brought evidence for his idea from Muslim sources), or stop bringing it up. No Christian that I have ever heard of would support the Islamic misinterpretation of Deuteronomy, which is clearly self-serving.

Therein lies the difference in the two claims: inJESUS’ idea (which I have no opinion of one way or another) is not meant to bring Muslims to Christianity, but to suggest that Muhammad’s supposed illiteracy is not proof of the miraculous nature of the Qur’an (because he may not have in fact been illiterate), while Hamba2han and others’ insistance that Muhammad is found in the Bible is meant to show us that we are neglecting evidence of Muhammad’s prophethood that is supposedly even attested to in our own scriptures.

It makes no difference to our religion whether or not Muslims want to believe that Muhammad is prophesied in the Bible (though we do not agree with you on this point). It apparently makes a big difference to your religion whether or not Muhammad was illiterate, judging by the fact that this is often given by Muslims as one of the proofs of the “miracle” of the Qur’an. Not all Muslims care about this literacy issue in equal measure, of course, but the point is that we are dealing with two separate claims, and your claim, Hamba2han, is not only wrong until proven otherwise, but not related at all to the point of this thread.

 

[inJESUS]

Something tells me that you have a lot more faith in what Tabari said

Tabari said 12 thousand. Am sorry if your own sources do not match with the Bible or your theory. After all, throwing words is easy, but proof seems to be impossible because i asked you more than 5 times to provide on Islamic source.

than what the Bible says regarding what Moses (pbuh) predicted about the corruption of the Bible.

 

[Muslim_Woman]

(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)

…Say: "O men! I am sent unto you all, as the Messenger of Allah, to Whom belongeth the dominion of the heavens and the earth: there is no god but He: it is He That giveth both life and death. So believe in Allah and His Messenger, the Unlettered Prophet, who believeth in Allah and His words: follow him that (so) ye may be guided." … (Sura Al-Araf, 7.158)

If indeed the Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) was able to read and write, then would not his many enemies who knew him personally have very easily disproved the truth of the Qur’an and henceforth destroyed the basis of Islam?

good point

(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)

 

[inJESUS]

I see that it’s either derailing the thread or silence.

 

[Sister_Amy]

Yes Amy, i guess it’s one of the topics that you don’t like to address as well so you tell me it will not shake your faith . Shaking your faith is not the aim of this thread. If using Islamic history is supposed to be a threat, then there is a problem. If Muslims were to answer like you without engaging in discussions then it’s pointless to use either history or common sense with Muslims. So if you feel like dropping the thread, it’s your right, it will be another thread where Muslims are not willing to disscuss history or common sense.

So far, and you know me, i’ve been very fair. No wild assumptions based on faery tales but Islamic history about Muhammad’s tribe, his background, the people surrounding him AND his own boasting of eloquence, in addition to giving the context of the Quranic word “ummi” in all the verse i cited. I cited my sources so you will not be opposing me, as am just a nickname, but your own tradition, that’s if you knew about it. I don’t think it is useless to prove from Muhammad’s sunna that he was boasting of eloquence and Arabic mastery because he was from the highly literate tribe Quraish, when Muslim claims he was illiterate.I don’t think its useless to prove the close relationship withWaraqa, when Muslims claim he knew no one to discuss with.

It’s just history and common sense Amy…something i used so far, without you disproving what i cited. It is not about winning debates, but about trying to use history and common sense with Muslims, something you don’t like as far as i can see.

Sorry I don’t see any common sense in your theory. I see an assumption based on wishful thinking–not common sense.

So either I lack common sense (a charge I’m no stranger to) or your argument does.

 

[inJESUS]

Sorry I don’t see any common sense in your theory. I see an assumption based on wishful thinking–not common sense.

So either I lack common sense (a charge I’m no stranger to) or your argument does.

maybe my argument lacks common sense, but what about Islamic sources combined to history? aren’t they the basis for the common sense im using? were is assumption when i quote Islamic references?