Muhammad's illiteracy : common sense & history

  • Thread starter Thread starter inJESUS
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)

Salaam/peace
… why would Abu Talib deprive Muhammad he cared for so much from literacy when Ali his son is known to be of high “balagha” ?
when Muhammed (p) was young , no one became a Prophet in his family. When Ali (ra) was young , his cousin became a Prophet ; so naturally he got a chance to learn about the revelation from the last Prophet . Also , some learned Jewish & Christians embraced Islam . Ali (ra) got a chance to meet them --situation was not that favourable for Muhammed (p) when he was an orphan.
 
Muslim woman, having prophets in ones’ family is not a criteria for literacy. Muhammad was surrounded by literate people older than him, younger than him, from his tribe, from other tribes, from other religions.

Sam, Muslims who have a priori belief that he was illiterate will explain it as " recite" and not as “read” but it is interesting that the next revelation after the “read” is about “the pen”.

And if one is to analyse what people of muhammad’s time accused it of, we’ll see they accused him of forgeries and being taught and dictated…claims that would make absolutely no sense if he were illiterate, and when he wanted to disprove them, he didn’t say “am illiterate” but rather the ones you accuse me of are not Arabs, as if bilinguals did not exist at his time and geograhy.

The Seera itself shows Muhammad bosting of his mastering the Arabic language and boasting of his eloquence, attributing it to having been raised a Quraishite, a highly educated tribe as per Islamic literature.
 
Muslims who have a priori belief that he was illiterate will explain it as " recite" and not as “read” but it is interesting that the next revelation after the “read” is about “the pen”.
Recite = إتلو او ألقى
Read = إقرأ

And the Arabic word in Quran is إقرأ.
 
Recite = إتلو او ألقى
Read = إقرأ

And the Arabic word in Quran is إقرأ.
and after “read” we read:
Read, and your Lord is the Most Generous. He Who taught the use of the Pen"

but of course you will have semantic discources (as if Allah couldn’t say “recite”) and arguments from silence based on the a priori belief that he was illiterate. But this thread is to prove from history and common sense, without the semantic word play, that Muhammad was not only literate, but highly literate and boasted of it.

muslims are quick to say Arabia was the land of illiterates, Muhammad was illiterate, nobody taught him, he did not discuss religion with anyone, as if he dropped from heaven, when in fact he belonged to a noble tribe of Quraish, a highly educated tribe, was raised by the head of the Hashimites and was a business man in charge of khadija’s business which was so huge it equalled half of Quraich, and travelled and met/discussed with different people for 40 years and was surrounded by highly literate people, be it older than him or younger, from his clan or outside, from his religion or different and knew Waraqa ben Nawfal all his life, Waraqa who married him to Khadija and taught him the scriptures. He raised Ali, highly literate. Jaafar al-Tayyar, Ali’s brother, was literate- Umar, Ali, Uthman, Abu Bakr, Waraqa, Zaid were all literate. Muhammad even boasted of being the most eloquent among others for being born to noble Quraich. Even Muhammad’s contemporaries who didn’t believe him knew he was literate and accused him of being dictated to whom he answered that the ones they are refering to are not Arabs, and not that he cannot be dictated for being illiterate.

this is history and common sense, devoid of any semantic word play .
 
Muhammad’s illiteracy : common sense & history??

Let us indeed examine history i.e. the time in 7th century Arabia when a man named Muhammad (pbuh) lived among literally thousands of his companions who incidentally are referred to as the “ten thousands of saints” in the Bible.

And let us apply some common sense here:

If the Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) was indeed literate, then would not the thousands of his companions disbelieved him when he says that he can neither read nor write?

The FACT of the matter is that neither his companions nor indeed his many enemies who tried their darndest to discredit him and destroy the Message that he brought, seriously challenged or even doubted that the Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) was illiterate.

Since virtually all of his many companions and also his many enemies knew him since he was little, why didn’t they themselves disbelieved and challenged the fact that he could neither read nor write at the time when the Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) was busy spreading his Message?

Did someone mention ‘common sense’ and ‘history’?
 
when a man named Muhammad (pbuh) lived among literally thousands of his companions who incidentally are referred to as the “ten thousands of saints” in the Bible.
:console:
You like those ten thousands saints fellow hamba don’t you.🙂
 
And there are among them ommiyyoona, who know not the Book, but (see therein their own) desires, and they do nothing but conjecture.[2:78]

And say to the People of the Book and to those who are alommiyyeena: “Do ye (also) submit yourselves?”

The Quran is clear. The Ummiyoun are people not given any book and not illiterate people.

It is He Who has sent amongst alommiyyeena an apostle from among themselves.

Muhammad’s followers surely were not illiterate otherwise this verse must exclude his literate sahaba and followets.

In other words, all Quranic reference to Muhammad mean that Muhammad was not among those who were given the scripture for he wasn’t born neither a Jew nor a Christian.
 
Actually Muhammed used to send some letters to his neighbours asking them to accept Islam (before invading them), its unclear if he wrote them himself, but he used to stamp them with his ring.

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

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

 
Muhammad’s illiteracy : common sense & history??

Let us indeed examine history i.e. the time in 7th century Arabia when a man named Muhammad (pbuh) lived among literally thousands of his companions who incidentally are referred to as the “ten thousands of saints” in the Bible.

And let us apply some common sense here:

If the Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) was indeed literate, then would not the thousands of his companions disbelieved him when he says that he can neither read nor write?

The FACT of the matter is that neither his companions nor indeed his many enemies who tried their darndest to discredit him and destroy the Message that he brought, seriously challenged or even doubted that the Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) was illiterate.

Since virtually all of his many companions and also his many enemies knew him since he was little, why didn’t they themselves disbelieved and challenged the fact that he could neither read nor write at the time when the Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) was busy spreading his Message?

Did someone mention ‘common sense’ and ‘history’?
Didnt someone already thwart this theory… oh thats right, they did! :rolleyes:
 
Actually Muhammed used to send some letters to his neighbours asking them to accept Islam (before invading them), its unclear if he wrote them himself, but he used to stamp them with his ring.
i know of an incident when pagans asked him not to write “apostle of Allah” in the treaty, so he erased it with his own hands. One Muslim once told me he only knew how to read and write his name go figure.
 
… Since virtually all of his many companions and also his many enemies knew him since he was little, why didn’t they themselves disbelieved and challenged the fact that he could neither read nor write at the time when the Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) was busy spreading his Message?..
I need to make a correction here.

It is not all but many of his companions knew the Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) since he was little as well as many of his enemies including his uncle Abu Lahab who tried his very best to destroy the Message that Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) brought.
 
If the Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) was indeed literate, then would not the thousands of his companions disbelieved him when he says that he can neither read nor write?
Muhammad recited the Quran for thirteen years to the Mekkans, few of them accepted Muhammad.

The followers started pouring in when Islam became a formidable power in the Hijaaz.
The FACT of the matter is that neither his companions nor indeed his many enemies who tried their darndest to discredit him and destroy the Message that he brought, seriously challenged or even doubted that the Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) was illiterate.
How do you know this?
Since virtually all of his many companions and also his many enemies knew him since he was little, why didn’t they themselves disbelieved and challenged the fact that he could neither read nor write at the time when the Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) was busy spreading his Message?
I’m not so sure that they didn’t level this attack on him.

But if they didn’t, the reason may be attacking his literacy is a moot point. Being a poet in the hijaaz didn’t depend on being literate, as has been said many times over the Arabs there had a strong oral based culture where memory was just as useful as paper.

God bless,
Tomasz
 
Well this thread is to cast some light on things not discussed by Muslims. How many times do you read Muslims saying Muhammad learnt from no one because he was illiterate? there are major flaws in this scenario. First, illiteracy does not mean idiocy. In an era of oral tradition being the norm in a society full of poets and literate people, and Muhammad knowing the Arabic language and having ears and a tongue, i don’t see how illiteracy can hinder being taught . Second, they tell you he met no one to teach him. The hadith is full of encounters with religious figures of his time and place, among them Waraqa the bishop of mecca who married him to Khadija and who knew him his entire life since he was a family member and of the same tribe, in addition to Khadija herself, who followed the same sect of Waraqa. Does any Muslim know according to what religion Muhammad married Khadija? a la Islam? of course not,there was nothing called Allah and his messenger Muhammad; a la paganism? of course not but a la Waraqa’s religion since he was the one who announced them husband and wife according to the authentic Seera and both Waraqa and Khadija convinced Muhammad that he is a messenger of Allah. In other words, Muhammad had a lifetime of learning so being literate or not is not an issue.

However, this thread aims at showing that the illiterate Muhammad who met no one and was taught by no one is a myth in light of history and common sense, because he was raised and surrounded by very literate people, he belonged to a highly literate tribe, he was raised and surrounded and educated by the head of the Hashimite, by the bishop of Mecca , his cousin were literate, highly literate and he himself boasted of being the most eloquent. In light of this, what does common sense say?
 
Common sense would tell us that it is just about impossible for someone to either copy or to get inspiration from an existing material and yet produce something which is immensely superior to the material which had inspired him… especially when it concerns a book which is as voluminous in it’s contents as the Qur’an.

The challenge to produce a Sura like it is by no means a subjective one and can in fact be tested objectively.

The following is an excerpt from an article:

The Arabic language and Arab speech are divided into two branches. One of them is rhymed poetry. It is a speech with metre and rhyme, which means every line of it ends upon a definite letter, which is called the ‘rhyme’. This rhymed poetry is again divided into metres or what is called as al-Bihar, literally meaning ‘The Seas’. This is so called because of the way the poetry moves according to the rhythmic patterns. There are sixteen al-Bihar viz; at-Tawil, al-Bassit, al-Wafir, al-Kamil, ar-Rajs, al-Khafif, al-Hazaj, al-Muttakarib, al-Munsarih, al-Muktatab, al-Muktadarak, al-Madid, al-Mujtath, al-Ramel, al-Khabab and as-Saria’. Each one rhymes differently.

The other branch of Arabic speech is prose, that is non-metrical speech. The prose may be a rhymed prose. Rhymed prose consists of cola ending on the same rhyme throughout, or of sentences rhymed in pairs. This is called “rhymed prose” or sajc. Prose may also be straight prose (mursal). In straight prose, the speech goes on and is not divided in cola, but is continued straight through without any divisions, either of rhyme or of anything else. Prose is employed in sermons and prayers and in speeches intended to encourage or frighten the masses.

So, the challenge is to produce in Arabic, three lines, that do not fall into one of these sixteen al-Bihar, that is not rhyming prose, nor like the speech of soothsayers, and not normal speech, that it should contain at least a comprehensible meaning and rhetoric, i.e. not gobbledygook.

It is interesting to note that all of the known pre-Islam and post-Islamic poetry falls in the above sixteen metres or al-Bihar. Indeed the pagans of Mecca repeatedly accuse Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) of being a forger, a soothsayer etc. The Arabs who were at the pinnacle of their poetry and prose during the time of revelation of the Qur’an could not even produce the smallest surah of its like. The Qur’an’s form did not fit into any of the above mentioned categories. It was this that made the Qur’an inimitable, and left the pagan Arabs at a loss as to how they might combat it.
 
However, this thread aims at showing that the illiterate Muhammad who met no one and was taught by no one is a myth in light of history and common sense, because he was raised and surrounded by very literate people, he belonged to a highly literate tribe, he was raised and surrounded and educated by the head of the Hashimite, by the bishop of Mecca , his cousin were literate, highly literate and he himself boasted of being the most eloquent. In light of this, what does common sense say?
:console:

:blessyou:
 
Hamba, have you got something related to this thread? the sublimity of Muhammad’s poetry isn’t discussed on this thread and you don’t even know Arabic. You are boasting of a literary style when you must ponder why is it that Allah’s words do not even have a coherent theme and are collected according to the length of the suras with all the abragated verses here and there.
 
Hamba, have you got something related to this thread?..
Actually, I thought that ‘common sense’ with regard to Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) producing the Qur’an was indeed the subject matter of this thread.
 
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.

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.

Thus, Mohammed can be seen as just another Mani- only Mohammed actually succeeded.
 
Actually, I thought that ‘common sense’ with regard to Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) producing the Qur’an was indeed the subject matter of this thread.
it is about the Islamic claim of illiteracy in light of history and common sense . Muhammad boasting of being the most eloquent because he was raised a Quraishite are not my words but Muhammad’s in the Seera. Any detail given in this thread is from Islamic sources. So the thread is about Muhammad himself and his background, not about whether the Quran is a masterpiece or not.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top