Archive for FREE FAITH, EXPRESSION AND THOUGHT BREAK THE CHAINS OF IGNORANCE AND FEAR
 


       FREE FAITH, EXPRESSION AND THOUGHT Forum Index -> Hadith and Sunnah
Pazuzu bin Hanbi

The Illiteracy of Muhammad

Read it and weep, boys…

Numerous sources attest to Muhammad’s early career as a merchant, a trader. He dealt, inter alia, with weights and gained a reputation as a scrupulously honest businessman who didn’t give short measures to people. Obviously this involved dealing in numbers, especially when it came to money. Now, Islamic sources have Muhammad’s date of birth down as around the year 570 CE (common era) and his death at 632 CE (though contemporary scholarship disputes the date of birth as influenced by legend). But what do I see here?
http://www.geocities.com/rmlyra/arabic.html wrote:
All Arabic numbers we use today are ideograms created by Abu Ja'far Muhammad ibn Musa al-Khwarizmi (c.778 - c.850)
and
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arabic_numerals#Origins wrote:
The numeral system came to be known to both the Persian mathematician Al-Khwarizmi, whose book On the Calculation with Hindu Numerals written about 825, and the Arab mathematician Al-Kindi, who wrote four volumes, "On the Use of the Indian Numerals" (Ketab fi Isti'mal al-'Adad al-Hindi) about 830, are principally responsible for the diffusion of the Indian system of numeration in the Middle-East.
and
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abjad_numerals wrote:
In the Arab World - until modern times - the Arabic numeral system was used only by mathematicians. Muslim scientists used the Babylonian numeral system, and merchants used the Abjad numerals.
and more on ‘Arabic letters in place of numbers prior to Abu Ja‘far Muhammad ibn Musa al–Khwarizmi’s representation of numbers through ideograms:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hist...ic_alphabet#Early_Islamic_changes wrote:
The alphabet then had 28 letters, and so could be used to write the numbers 1 to 10, then 20 to 100, then 200 to 900, then 1000 (see Abjad numerals). In this numerical order, the new letters were put at the end of the alphabet. This produced this order: alif (1), b (2), j (3), d (4), h (5), w (6), z (7), H (Cool, T (9), y (10), k (20), l (30), m (40), n (50), s (60), ayn (70), f (80), S (90), q (100), r (200), sh (300), t (400), sh (500), kh (600), dh (700), D (800), Z (900), gh (1000).

What does this all mean? It means that the ‘Arabic numerals we see today, the ideograms that represent numbers, did not come into existence until Abu Ja‘far Muhammad ibn Musa al–Khwarizmi introduced them almost two hundred years after the death of Muhammad! As the sources above clearly display, merchants used Abjad numerals, which consisted of using ‘Arabi letters in place of numbers — something which Muhammad would have had great skill in during the course of his career as a merchant. That doesn’t prove he could write (or perhaps even read), but could certainly identify the ‘Arabi alphabet enough to work out simple and complex sums. So you can’t call him completely ‘unlettered’!

Moreover, multiple different — but all Sahih — ahadith attest to Muhammad writing or about to write. A few select examples, all drawn from Sahih Bukhari:
http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/funda.../bukhari/052.sbt.html#004.052.189 wrote:
Volume 4, Book 52, Number 189:
Narrated Anas:

When the Prophet intended to write a letter to the ruler of the Byzantines, he was told that those people did not read any letter unless it was stamped with a seal. So, the Prophet got a silver ring-- as if I were just looking at its white glitter on his hand ---- and stamped on it the expression "Muhammad, Apostle of Allah".
http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/funda.../bukhari/072.sbt.html#007.072.763 wrote:
Volume 7, Book 72, Number 763:
Narrated Anas:

The Prophet got a ring made for himself and said, "I have got a ring made (for myself) and engraved a certain engraving on it so none of you should get such an engraving on his ring." I saw the glitter of the ring on his little finger.

These two ahadith show that Muhammad could write and that he did write. On this occasion he intended to write to the Byzantine (Christian) ruler. His followers told him that the ruler did not accept any letter not officially stamped with a seal. Accordingly Muhammad made a ring and engraved it (himself!) with the words ‘Muhammadur Rasulullah’.

Not convinced yet? Trip off this one:
http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/funda.../bukhari/052.sbt.html#004.052.191 wrote:
Volume 4, Book 52, Number 191:
Narrated Abdullah bin Abbas:

Allah's Apostle wrote to Caesar and invited him to Islam and sent him his letter with Dihya Al-Kalbi whom Allah's Apostle ordered to hand it over to the Governor of Busra who would forward it to Caesar. Caesar as a sign of gratitude to Allah, had walked from Hims to Ilya (i.e. Jerusalem) when Allah had granted Him victory over the Persian forces. So, when the letter of Allah's Apostle reached Caesar, he said after reading it, 'Seek for me any one of his people! (Arabs of Quraish tribe) if present here, in order to ask him about Allah's Apostle…
Here the hadith clearly states that Muhammad wrote a letter asking a major leader to convert to Islam!

Or how about this rather convoluted one (but from which I have highlighted the salient points)?
http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/funda.../bukhari/053.sbt.html#004.053.408 wrote:
Volume 4, Book 53, Number 408:
Narrated Al-Bara:

When the Prophet intended to perform the 'Umra he sent a person to the people of Mecca asking their permission to enter Mecca. They stipulated that he would not stay for more than three days and would not enter it except with sheathed arms and would not preach (Islam) to any of them. So Ali bin Abi-Talib started writing the treaty between them. He wrote, "This is what Muhammad, Apostle of Allah has agreed to." The (Meccans) said, "If we knew that you (Muhammad) are the Apostle of Allah, then we would not have prevented you and would have followed you. But write, 'This is what Muhammad bin 'Abdullah has agreed to..' " On that Allah's Apostle said, "By Allah, I am Muhammad bin 'Abdullah, and, by Allah, I am Apostle of 'Allah." Allah's Apostle used not to write; so he asked 'Ali to erase the expression of Apostle of Allah. On that 'Ali said, "By Allah I will never erase it." Allah's Apostle said (to 'Ali), "Let me see the paper." When 'Ali showed him the paper, the Prophet erased the expression with his own hand. When Allah's Apostle had entered Mecca and three days had elapsed, the Meccans came to 'Ali and said, "Let your friend (i.e. the Prophet) quit Mecca." Ali informed Allah's Apostle about it and Allah's Apostle said, "Yes," and then he departed.

Muhammad ‘used not to write’. Note the wording. This does not mean he cannot write, but simply that he didn’t generally write at that time. ‘Ali wrote out the Treaty with the Makkans for Muhammad. At their behest, Muhammad decided to change his appellation in the treaty from ‘Apostle of God’ to his actual family name (bin ‘Abdullah). ‘Ali refused to erase that section, so Muhammad asked to see the paper. Note that the hadith does not mention anywhere that Muhammad asked ‘Ali where he had written the words Apostle of Allah, he simply erased the phrase with his own hand! How did he recognise it if he couldn’t read it?

And now the killer. Please forgive me for my extravagant use of multiple quoted ahadith on a single event in Muhammad’s life, but I believe this bears repeating simply to show multiple attestation (2 narrators stating the same tale at different times, but both making the same point — that Muhammad could certainly write):
http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/funda.../bukhari/070.sbt.html#007.070.573 wrote:
Volume 7, Book 70, Number 573:
Narrated Ibn 'Abbas:

When Allah's Apostle was on his death-bed and in the house there were some people among whom was 'Umar bin Al-Khattab, the Prophet said, "Come, let me write for you a statement after which you will not go astray." 'Umar said, "The Prophet is seriously ill and you have the Qur'an; so the Book of Allah is enough for us." The people present in the house differed and quarrelled. Some said "Go near so that the Prophet may write for you a statement after which you will not go astray," while the others said as Umar said. When they caused a hue and cry before the Prophet, Allah's Apostle said, "Go away!" Narrated 'Ubaidullah: Ibn 'Abbas used to say, "It was very unfortunate that Allah's Apostle was prevented from writing that statement for them because of their disagreement and noise."
and
http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/funda.../bukhari/059.sbt.html#005.059.717 wrote:
Volume 5, Book 59, Number 717:
Narrated Ubaidullah bin 'Abdullah:

Ibn Abbas said, "When Allah's Apostle was on his deathbed and there were some men in the house, he said, 'Come near, I will write for you something after which you will not go astray.' Some of them ( i.e. his companions) said, 'Allah's Apostle is seriously ill and you have the (Holy) Quran. Allah's Book is sufficient for us.' So the people in the house differed and started disputing. Some of them said, 'Give him writing material so that he may write for you something after which you will not go astray.' while the others said the other way round. So when their talk and differences increased, Allah's Apostle said, "Get up." Ibn Abbas used to say, "No doubt, it was very unfortunate (a great disaster) that Allah's Apostle was prevented from writing for them that writing because of their differences and noise."
and
http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/funda.../bukhari/092.sbt.html#009.092.468 wrote:
Volume 9, Book 92, Number 468:
Narrated Ibn 'Abbas:

When the time of the death of the Prophet approached while there were some men in the house, and among them was 'Umar bin Al-Khatttab, the Prophet said, "Come near let me write for you a writing after which you will never go astray." 'Umar said, "The Prophet is seriously ill, and you have the Quran, so Allah's Book is sufficient for us." The people in the house differed and disputed. Some of them said, "Come near so that Allah's Apostle may write for you a writing after which you will not go astray," while some of them said what 'Umar said. When they made much noise and differed greatly before the Prophet, he said to them, "Go away and leave me." Ibn 'Abbas used to say, "It was a great disaster that their difference and noise prevented Allah's Apostle from writing that writing for them.

The story here looks clear–cut to me: before his demise, Muhammad had some guests at his house. He says in no uncertain terms to them that if they approach him he will write words of wisdom for them. Such words that they will never go astray! This causes them to start arguing. Note that not a single one of them says: “Hey, you can’t actually write!” No, the subject of the clamour involves their firm belief that they have the Qur’an, and therefore do not need any other words to live by, especially when writing would cause undue stress on one as ill as Muhammad! He, however, finally grows weary of their din and sends them away.

I believe the evidence incontrovertible: Muhammad could read & write, and did so on numerous occasions. The stories in the Qur’an about his illiteracy came due to his (or the final redactors’) rightly or wrongly held belief that if people knew he could read and write, it would automatically follow that he had composed the Qur’anic revelations himself. From this follows the fact that they didn’t come to him as divine truths from God. Whether or not people would say this, I submit, remains irrelevant: his perception that they would drove him to claim illiteracy, OR drove his later followers to claim him an illiterate (I believe this 2nd possibility more viable since the ahadith above feature him declaring in public that he had written things, such as the engraving on his ring).

(NOTE: For the sake of brevity, clarity and general message board etiquette, please do NOT quote my entire post if you wish to comment on it! Simply select the passage you wish to discuss, copy and paste it into your message box, highlight it and click the BBCode ‘Quote’ button above the box to put it into the quotation format.)
AhmedBahgat

Another free-minds crap that was initiated by the Dajjal Rashad Khalifa, well, not idiot to waste my valued time replying to such crap
AhmedBahgat

Let me expose another confused who promotes lies about this great religion to serve the cause of the confused free-minders (www.free-minds.org), their enemy the submitters (www.submition.org) and their other enemy the 19ers (www.19.org):

And you did not recite before it any book, nor did you transcribe one with your right hand, for then could those who say untrue things have doubted.

[The Quran ; 29:48]

وَمَا كُنتَ تَتْلُو مِن قَبْلِهِ مِن كِتَابٍ وَلَا تَخُطُّهُ بِيَمِينِكَ إِذًا لَّارْتَابَ الْمُبْطِلُونَ (4Cool

-> Clearly it says وَمَا كُنتَ تَتْلُو مِن قَبْلِهِ مِن كِتَابٍ, And you did not recite before it any book,, i.e. Mohammad never read a book before, then it  says وَلَا تَخُطُّهُ بِيَمِينِكَ, nor did you transcribe one with your right hand, some may still argue and say this  means that Mohammad may or may not be literate. I say,  what follows next indicates that he was illiterate : إِذًا لَّارْتَابَ الْمُبْطِلُونَ, for then could those who say untrue things have doubted., i.e. Mohammad was illiterate before the revelation of the Quran because if he was literate, the people at his time would have doubted him.
Pazuzu bin Hanbi

Erm… Rashad Khalifa DENIED the validity of Ahadith. I haven’t done so at all, and I constructed those arguments myself.

Having grown up a muslim I know precisely what the Qur’an says on this subject. I simply point out the contradictions from sources pretty much contemporaneous to the Qur’an that cast serious doubt on the claims of so–called ‘illiteracy’.
Tvebak

AhmedBahgat wrote:
Let me expose another confused who promotes lies about this great religion to serve the cause of the confused free-minders (www.free-minds.org), their enemy the submitters (www.submition.org) and their other enemy the 19ers (www.19.org):

And you did not recite before it any book, nor did you transcribe one with your right hand, for then could those who say untrue things have doubted.

[The Quran ; 29:48]

وَمَا كُنتَ تَتْلُو مِن قَبْلِهِ مِن كِتَابٍ وَلَا تَخُطُّهُ بِيَمِينِكَ إِذًا لَّارْتَابَ الْمُبْطِلُونَ (4Cool

-> Clearly it says وَمَا كُنتَ تَتْلُو مِن قَبْلِهِ مِن كِتَابٍ, And you did not recite before it any book,, i.e. Mohammad never read a book before, then it  says وَلَا تَخُطُّهُ بِيَمِينِكَ, nor did you transcribe one with your right hand, some may still argue and say this  means that Mohammad may or may not be literate. I say,  what follows next indicates that he was illiterate : إِذًا لَّارْتَابَ الْمُبْطِلُونَ, for then could those who say untrue things have doubted., i.e. Mohammad was illiterate before the revelation of the Quran because if he was literate, the people at his time would have doubted him.


Or it just simply says that Muhammad was unlearned in the previous scriptures; he has not read and recited the earlier scriptures and therefore has no knowledge of them.

Corresponding to 8.31

Quote:
When Our Signs are rehearsed to them, they say: "We have heard this (before): if we wished, we could say (words) like these: these are nothing but tales of the ancients."


And especially 25.05

Quote:
And they say: "Tales of the ancients, which he has caused to be written: and they are dictated before him morning and evening."


So what could be said in 29.48 is that, Muhammad is arguing that he did not know the previous scriptures. An argument of being unable to read or write does not mean that a person cannot know the stories, ie. that he can still posses the knowledge of the previous scriptures. The opponnents or unbelievers are charging Muhammad that he is just reciting old tales, ie. the previous scriptures, but in 29.48 he tries to tell that he does not know it, ie. that he does not get them "dictated before him morning and evening".

I'm not saying that thats it. I'm just trying to look at some perspectives.

Cheers.

PS. Ahmed in advance we are having a civil and relaxed debate.
Baal

We already been through this Ahmed. "Tatlu" means recite not read or write.

"You did not recite a book before and you did not write *it* with your right".

It does not say you did not write with your Right Hand.
It does not say you can not write.
It only states that you did not recite a book or write 'it' with your hand.

With very small modifications to the text, it could have meant that Muhammad never wrote before but that is not what the text is stating. Because people knew he can write. He was a merchant.

In fact, if you read this text a little more precisely then how you already read it, then this text will actually prove that muhammad knew how to write.
AhmedBahgat

Baal wrote:
We already been through this Ahmed. "Tatlu" means recite not read or write.

"You did not recite a book before and you did not write *it* with your right".

It does not say you did not write with your Right Hand.
It does not say you can not write.
It only states that you did not recite a book or write 'it' with your hand.

With very small modifications to the text, it could have meant that Muhammad never wrote before but that is not what the text is stating. Because people knew he can write. He was a merchant.

In fact, if you read this text a little more precisely then how you already read it, then this text will actually prove that muhammad knew how to write.


Mister Baal

in your barbie word mister baal

Tilawat Al Quran means, reading al quran

The verse also denies that Mohammed wrote any book before the Quran revelation

please dismiss yourself
Pazuzu bin Hanbi

Indeed it does. And yet all the evidence I have presented in my first post contradicts that assertion!
HomoErectus

I understand your reasoning, dear Pazuzu...

But, still it raises questions, regarding the credibility you put emphasis on.

I see your point, when you conclude that he was portrayed as being "illiterate", since then he could just have written a book, with no indications that its the "words of god" !

But then, why would I rather believe a book that has been written FOR somebody else, by various authors ?

Take it to present times - wouldn't I rather believe in the words of the author himself, his own wordings, his style, his ideas, his "message"...

or would I think that the words, style, and maybe "translated" ideas, by a GHOSTWRITER, would be more credible than the author himself ?

Out of pure curiosity, are there any "reports" of him really working as a merchant ?
Or is this rather an assumption, because he was with Khadija ?

Another possibility would be, he just acted as the "boss" in HER shop, you know like sitting in a corner, sipping tea, smalltalk with merchants coming in, ordering employees around, and in the end somebody else would be in charge of "invoice", or simply counting up numbers, etc...

Another possibility would be, he was just Khadija's PLAYBOY ?

I mean, also his [later] sexual activity points in this direction, rather than pointing to him being a "merchant" !
Pazuzu bin Hanbi

I see your point! But if you take your first line of reasoning, you cannot really draw many conculsions about his sexual activity since most of it comes from secondhand sources. In fact, the Qur’an tells us precious little about him and his life, going so far as to name him only 4 times in the whole thing!

Obviously you can draw some inferences from the Qur’an: his sudden ‘revelation’ that he could marry his adopted son’s wife, for example, points to a devious and voracious sexual appetite, but you can’t take much away from a reading of the Qur’an alone.
brainout

Hi, beloved Pazuzu and HomoErectus.  I'm on break, enjoying reading you guys.  Here's my 'addition':  keystone is that in 638AD, the Muslims overrun Jerusalem.  Now for them to be able to do that, they HAD to be literate.  So if they were, that's a standard, and Muhammed being the paragon among them (so yes a real live person with a real written book, even back then) -- he would be literate.  Most literate.

Moses was a genius in military affairs, leadership, writing, speaking (his protest of inability to the Lord in Exodus is an excuse which the Lord chastises).  Surely Muhammed would have to be a genius, too, by Islamic standards.

Seems to me the Qu'ran is saying that Muhammed didn't have SCRIPTURE, not saying he didn't have the ability to read and write.

Ability to read and write does not mean Divine Revelation.  Qu'ran claims to be from God.  That would be presumably higher than any ability to read and write;  by comparison, one would necessarily be illiterate.

Nice to see you guys!
Pazuzu bin Hanbi

I have also read, but will have to look into that further, that the word commonly translated as ‘unlettered’ in the Qur’an (in reference to Muhammad) can also mean a Gentile…
AhmedBahgat

Pazuzu bin Hanbi wrote:
I have also read, but will have to look into that further, that the word commonly translated as ‘unlettered’ in the Qur’an (in reference to Muhammad) can also mean a Gentile…


Don'y believe such ignorant christian, the word Ummi does not mean those ho received no scripture, this is because the jews were described as ummmayoon as well in the Quran, hahahahaha

he is too confused christian to be considered
Tvebak

Pazuzu bin Hanbi wrote:
I have also read, but will have to look into that further, that the word commonly translated as ‘unlettered’ in the Qur’an (in reference to Muhammad) can also mean a Gentile…


Hi Pazuzu

I guess you are refering to these verses; 2.78, 3.75, 7.157, 7.158 and 62.02, and I'm gonna take 3.20 last.

As I stated in my earlier comment it can be argued that the quran is refering to that the prophet knew nothing of the previous scriptures, instead of refering to that he was illiterate. I'm not aware of the usage of the word "unlettered" in late antiquity, but I'm pretty sure to have seen "unlettered" used to describe "one who does not know the scriptures" elsewhere. Wether it's a 'metaphor' constructed in later time I don't know and wether it was used at all in the time of interest I don't know.
Furthermore there's a reference to the "previous scriptures" in one of these verses. I haven't looked up what should be said and wether it refers to "unlettered" as in "illiterate" or "unlettered" as in "don't know the scriptures".

I've used Yusuf Ali's translation, and changed "illiterates" to "unlettered" in the first verse, but he uses "unlettered" in the others. I just gonna give it some thoughts. But anyway we now have the relevant verses to look at  Wink

Quote:
2.78
Quote:
And there are among them unlettered, who know not the Book, but (see therein their own) desires, and they do nothing but conjecture.


Quote:
Waminhum ommiyyoona la yaAAlamoona alkitaba illa amaniyya wa-in hum illa yathunnoona


If we consider this verse, the description of the "unlettered" might be the one given just after the word, ie. " who know not the book".


Quote:
3.75
Quote:
Among the People of the Book are some who, if entrusted with a hoard of gold, will (readily) pay it back; others, who, if entrusted with a single silver coin, will not repay it unless thou constantly stoodest demanding, because, they say, "there is no call on us (to keep faith) with these ignorant (Pagans)." but they tell a lie against God, and (well) they know it.


Quote:
Wamin ahli alkitabi man in ta/manhu biqintarin yu-addihi ilayka waminhum man in ta/manhu bideenarin la yu-addihi ilayka illa ma dumta AAalayhi qa-iman thalika bi-annahum qaloo laysa AAalayna fee al-ommiyyeena sabeelun wayaqooloona AAala Allahi alkathiba wahum yaAAlamoona


Here there's the "people of the book" mentioned, and they are put in a field of dichotomy with the (I will use the same words, even though Yusus have another translation) "unlettered". Again this could be argued to be refering to the ones "without knowledge of the book" instead of "illiterate".


Quote:
7.157-158
Quote:
"Those who follow the apostle, the unlettered Prophet, whom they find mentioned in their own (scriptures), - in the law and the Gospel; - for he commands them what is just and forbids them what is evil; he allows them as lawful what is good (and pure) and prohibits them from what is bad (and impure); He releases them from their heavy burdens and from the yokes that are upon them. So it is those who believe in him, honour him, help him, and follow the light which is sent down with him, - it is they who will prosper."
Say: "O men! I am sent unto you all, as the Apostle of God, 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 God and His Apostle, the Unlettered Prophet, who believeth in God and His words: follow him that (so) ye may be guided."


Quote:
Allatheena yattabiAAoona alrrasoola alnnabiyya al-ommiyya allathee yajidoonahu maktooban AAindahum fee alttawrati waal-injeeli ya/muruhum bialmaAAroofi wayanhahum AAani almunkari wayuhillu lahumu alttayyibati wayuharrimu AAalayhimu alkhaba-itha wayadaAAu AAanhum israhum waal-aghlala allatee kanat AAalayhim faallatheena amanoo bihi waAAazzaroohu wanasaroohu waittabaAAoo alnnoora allathee onzila maAAahu ola-ika humu almuflihoona
Qul ya ayyuha alnnasu innee rasoolu Allahi ilaykum jameeAAan allathee lahu mulku alssamawati waal-ardi la ilaha illa huwa yuhyee wayumeetu faaminoo biAllahi warasoolihi alnnabiyyi al-ommiyyi allathee yu/minu biAllahi wakalimatihi waittabiAAoohu laAAallakum tahtadoona


This is the verse as mentioned above which give reference to the previous scriptures. To make it short this verse again could be argued to mean "unlettered" in the sense of being "without knowledge of the book".


Quote:
62.02
Quote:
It is He Who has sent amongst the Unlettered an apostle from among themselves, to rehearse to them His Signs, to sanctify them, and to instruct them in Scripture and Wisdom, - although they had been, before, in manifest error; -


Quote:
Huwa allathee baAAatha fee al-ommiyyeena rasoolan minhum yatloo AAalayhim ayatihi wayuzakkeehim wayuAAallimuhumu alkitaba waalhikmata wa-in kanoo min qablu lafee dalalin mubeenin


here the "apostle" is sent amongst "the unlettered" people. And he is to teach them in "the book". This verse makes perfectly sense if we use "unlettered" as "without knowledge of the book", cause the "apostle" is to instruct "the unlettered" in "the book".


Quote:
3.20
Quote:
So if they dispute with thee, say: "I have submitted My whole self to God and so have those who follow me." And say to the People of the Book and to those who are unlearned: "Do ye (also) submit yourselves?" If they do, they are in right guidance, but if they turn back, Thy duty is to convey the Message; and in God's sight are (all) His servants.


Quote:
Fa-in hajjooka faqul aslamtu wajhiya lillahi wamani ittabaAAani waqul lillatheena ootoo alkitaba waal-ommiyyeena aaslamtum fa-in aslamoo faqadi ihtadaw wa-in tawallaw fa-innama AAalayka albalaghu waAllahu baseerun bialAAibadi


Now this verse, in my opinion, suggest very much that the "unlettered" is refering to people who is not necissarelly "illiterate", but to people who does not know the previous scriptures.


To sum it up the verses could be argued to refering "unlettered" to a man or men "without knowledge of the book", instead of illiterate. Considering this argument then there's nothing in the quran which say that the prophet was "illiterate".

This is just some thoughts to try to give it some perspective. Feel free to comment in a civilized manner.

Cheers
AhmedBahgat

Keep the confusion up pals, LOL

Unlearned in Arabic means Jahil

I hope you get it, Jahil boys
Tvebak

AhmedBahgat wrote:
Keep the confusion up pals, LOL

Unlearned in Arabic means Jahil

I hope you get it, Jahil boys


Have you even read what I wrote?

Cheers
AhmedBahgat

Tvebak wrote:
AhmedBahgat wrote:
Keep the confusion up pals, LOL

Unlearned in Arabic means Jahil

I hope you get it, Jahil boys


Have you even read what I wrote?

Cheers



I did, and it's confusing as always

can't you just do what I do?, just consider all of us dumb and put what you want to say as simple as possible

can you do that in points, 1, 2, 3, then your conclusion?

I really don't get what you want to say, however I do believe that it has to be something that serves your desires as you have always shown

now, let me put it straight to you in simple manner, you may only answer Yes/No from your prespective:

1) Did Mohammed know how to read?
2) Did Mohammed know how to wriite?
3) Does the word Ummi in Arabic mean illiterate?
4) Does the word Ummi in Arabic mean unlearned?
5) Does the word Ummi in Arabic mean those who received nop scriptures?
6) Does the world Jahil in Arabic mean Unlearned?


back to you pal
Tvebak

AhmedBahgat wrote:
Tvebak wrote:
AhmedBahgat wrote:
Keep the confusion up pals, LOL

Unlearned in Arabic means Jahil

I hope you get it, Jahil boys


Have you even read what I wrote?

Cheers



I did, and it's confusing as always

can't you just do what I do?, just consider all of us dumb and put what you want to say as simple as possible

can you do that in points, 1, 2, 3, then your conclusion?

I really don't get what you want to say, however I do believe that it has to be something that serves your desires as you have always shown

now, let me put it straight to you in simple manner, you may only answer Yes/No from your prespective:

1) Did Mohammed know how to read?
2) Did Mohammed know how to wriite?
3) Does the word Ummi in Arabic mean illiterate?
4) Does the word Ummi in Arabic mean unlearned?
5) Does the word Ummi in Arabic mean those who received nop scriptures?
6) Does the world Jahil in Arabic mean Unlearned?


back to you pal


I'm sorry that it's confusing to you. My english is not topnotch either, so that does not help.

I'm not gonna answer your questions. I have stated several times that my knowledge of arabic is little as I have only just started to learn it, but I will try follow you up on your 1,2,3 steps.

1. The quran is argued to have many "metaphors". Regardless of lingiustic discussion of what "ummi" means it could be a metaphor for people "without knowledge of the book". I will use the translation "unlettered".

2. The verses telling about a "unlettered" messenger or "unlettered" peoples makes perfect sense if we consider "unlettered" to mean "without knowledge of the book", specially 3.20. 2.78 might even itself explain what is meant by "unlettered": "unlettered, who know not the Book".

3. If we consider unlettered to be "without knowledge of the book" 62.02 says that a messenger have come amongst the "unlettered"  to instruct in the book. According to this the "unlettered" is people who have no knowledge of the book, and is to be instructed in it. The verse makes more sense in this way, than if we consider ummi strictly to be unable to read or write.

Concl: the question is wether the quran is saying that the messenger is illiterate or not. In my opinion it's the case is not that clear. It can be argued that the word "ummi" could refer to people without knowledge of the book. Considering all the verses "unlettered" makes more sense, in my opinion, if it means "without knowledge of the book".

Cheers
Baal

AhmedBahgat wrote:
Baal wrote:
We already been through this Ahmed. "Tatlu" means recite not read or write.

"You did not recite a book before and you did not write *it* with your right".

It does not say you did not write with your Right Hand.
It does not say you can not write.
It only states that you did not recite a book or write 'it' with your hand.

With very small modifications to the text, it could have meant that Muhammad never wrote before but that is not what the text is stating. Because people knew he can write. He was a merchant.

In fact, if you read this text a little more precisely then how you already read it, then this text will actually prove that muhammad knew how to write.


Mister Baal

in your barbie word mister baal

Tilawat Al Quran means, reading al quran

The verse also denies that Mohammed wrote any book before the Quran revelation

please dismiss yourself

The closest translation to "Tatlu" means "Recite". It implies someone reading a text and doing something with it, praying with it or most likely saying it out loud.

Had the koran *not* used this verb, your argument would have been correct. But the koran used this verb, so your SOL.
AhmedBahgat

Baal wrote:
AhmedBahgat wrote:
Baal wrote:
We already been through this Ahmed. "Tatlu" means recite not read or write.

"You did not recite a book before and you did not write *it* with your right".

It does not say you did not write with your Right Hand.
It does not say you can not write.
It only states that you did not recite a book or write 'it' with your hand.

With very small modifications to the text, it could have meant that Muhammad never wrote before but that is not what the text is stating. Because people knew he can write. He was a merchant.

In fact, if you read this text a little more precisely then how you already read it, then this text will actually prove that muhammad knew how to write.


Mister Baal

in your barbie word mister baal

Tilawat Al Quran means, reading al quran

The verse also denies that Mohammed wrote any book before the Quran revelation

please dismiss yourself

The closest translation to "Tatlu" means "Recite". It implies someone reading a text and doing something with it, praying with it or most likely saying it out loud.

Had the koran *not* used this verb, your argument would have been correct. But the koran used this verb, so your SOL.



I BLOODY E

READING FROM THE BLOODY MIND

what a waste of time man
Baal

AhmedBahgat wrote:
Pazuzu bin Hanbi wrote:
I have also read, but will have to look into that further, that the word commonly translated as ‘unlettered’ in the Qur’an (in reference to Muhammad) can also mean a Gentile…


Don'y believe such ignorant christian, the word Ummi does not mean those ho received no scripture, this is because the jews were described as ummmayoon as well in the Quran, hahahahaha

he is too confused christian to be considered

Ummi means someone from the Umma. Plain and simple. Now you want to imply that an Ummi means illiterate like it is common to claim in the islamic world, then you imply that the Umma is made of illiterates (Ummis).


The Heads (Mala-a) of Mecca were all called Ummis. That does not mean they were all illiterate. Calling Muhammad Ummi did not mean he is an illiterate. So please try something else Ahmed.
Pazuzu bin Hanbi

According to my dictionary, the al–ommiyaa referenced above can mean a variety of things: “My mother; Belonging to mother; Unlettered; Arab; Who have no revealed Scripture of his own.”
AhmedBahgat

Baal wrote:
AhmedBahgat wrote:
Pazuzu bin Hanbi wrote:
I have also read, but will have to look into that further, that the word commonly translated as ‘unlettered’ in the Qur’an (in reference to Muhammad) can also mean a Gentile…


Don'y believe such ignorant christian, the word Ummi does not mean those ho received no scripture, this is because the jews were described as ummmayoon as well in the Quran, hahahahaha

he is too confused christian to be considered

Ummi means someone from the Umma. Plain and simple. Now you want to imply that an Ummi means illiterate like it is common to claim in the islamic world, then you imply that the Umma is made of illiterates (Ummis).


The Heads (Mala-a) of Mecca were all called Ummis. That does not mean they were all illiterate. Calling Muhammad Ummi did not mean he is an illiterate. So please try something else Ahmed.



Mister baal

can you please stopr promoting your ignorance, it does no good to you

based on your crap above, then the word Umm, (mother) means someone from the Ummah, hahahahahahah
BMZ

Baal wrote:
Ummi means someone from the Umma. Plain and simple. Now you want to imply that an Ummi means illiterate like it is common to claim in the islamic world, then you imply that the Umma is made of illiterates (Ummis).


The Heads (Mala-a) of Mecca were all called Ummis. That does not mean they were all illiterate. Calling Muhammad Ummi did not mean he is an illiterate. So please try something else Ahmed.


That was a piece of utter balderdash, Baal. laughable, I must say. You were just being absurd.
Show and prove that the Heads of Mecca, Malaa  were called Ummis?  Laughing

There is a difference between the word Ummi and Jahil and also in their application in a particular verse. "Yaahsabohumul jaahilo aghniaa-a minat-ta'af-fufay". Would you like to explain the difference?

Ummi just does not mean only illiterate or uneducated. Ummi and ummiyoon, in those particular verses, also mean one or those who had not received any Scriptures (Kitaab) from God before.

And what would you make of this: "Min-hum ummiyoona, laa ya'alamoonal kitaaba"? In what sense is ummi used here?

Please explain!

BMZ
BMZ

AhmedBahgat wrote:
Baal wrote:
AhmedBahgat wrote:
Pazuzu bin Hanbi wrote:
I have also read, but will have to look into that further, that the word commonly translated as ‘unlettered’ in the Qur’an (in reference to Muhammad) can also mean a Gentile…


Don'y believe such ignorant christian, the word Ummi does not mean those ho received no scripture, this is because the jews were described as ummmayoon as well in the Quran, hahahahaha

he is too confused christian to be considered

Ummi means someone from the Umma. Plain and simple. Now you want to imply that an Ummi means illiterate like it is common to claim in the islamic world, then you imply that the Umma is made of illiterates (Ummis).


The Heads (Mala-a) of Mecca were all called Ummis. That does not mean they were all illiterate. Calling Muhammad Ummi did not mean he is an illiterate. So please try something else Ahmed.



Mister baal

can you please stop promoting your ignorance, it does no good to you

based on your crap above, then the word Umm, (mother) means someone from the Ummah, hahahahahahah


You said it well, bro. Mr. Baal is indeed very funny. Does he really know Arabic or is he merely an Egyptian Apple_Pie? Does he do this to humour others and us? lol!

BMZ
BMZ

Pazuzu bin Hanbi wrote:
According to my dictionary, the al–ommiyaa referenced above can mean a variety of things: “My mother; Belonging to mother; Unlettered; Arab; Who have no revealed Scripture of his own.”


You have got it right and the second part of your quote is correct, Pazuzu.

For a person his mother Umm becomes Ummi for that person. Likewise Ain is eye and my daughter becomes Aini for me.

The Arabs had never received any Scripture from God before. Thus they were the Ummis, while Jews were not Ummis, since they had the Scriptures for a thousand over years. This Ummi has nothing to do with my mother, Ummi!

BMZ
Baal

BMZ wrote:
Baal wrote:
Ummi means someone from the Umma. Plain and simple. Now you want to imply that an Ummi means illiterate like it is common to claim in the islamic world, then you imply that the Umma is made of illiterates (Ummis).


The Heads (Mala-a) of Mecca were all called Ummis. That does not mean they were all illiterate. Calling Muhammad Ummi did not mean he is an illiterate. So please try something else Ahmed.


That was a piece of utter balderdash, Baal. laughable, I must say. You were just being absurd.
Show and prove that the Heads of Mecca, Malaa  were called Ummis?  Laughing

There is a difference between the word Ummi and Jahil and also in their application in a particular verse. "Yaahsabohumul jaahilo aghniaa-a minat-ta'af-fufay". Would you like to explain the difference?

Ummi just does not mean only illiterate or uneducated. Ummi and ummiyoon, in those particular verses, also mean one or those who had not received any Scriptures (Kitaab) from God before.

And what would you make of this: "Min-hum ummiyoona, laa ya'alamoonal kitaaba"? In what sense is ummi used here?

Please explain!

BMZ

What does your introduction of the word Jahil and the "Yaahsabohumul jaahilo ... " has anything to do with the word Ummi?

And "Min-hum ummiyoona, laa ya'alamoonal kitaaba"?, means that some of the heads and the elite of the "Mala-a" of Mecca do not know a book. It does not mean they are illiterate.
Baal

BMZ wrote:

You said it well, bro. Mr. Baal is indeed very funny. Does he really know Arabic or is he merely an Egyptian Apple_Pie? Does he do this to humour others and us? lol!

BMZ

Easy on the cheerleading. Your skirt is lifting too high when you jump. Just because Ahmed made a point, it does not mean he is correct, so at least wait before the conversation is over before you start shaking some guys cocks.
Baal

Pazuzu bin Hanbi wrote:
According to my dictionary, the al–ommiyaa referenced above can mean a variety of things: “My mother; Belonging to mother; Unlettered; Arab; Who have no revealed Scripture of his own.”

I am fully aware that people in the Umma are using the word Ummi to mean Illiterate. But this was a catch-22. They assumed Muhammad was an illiterate jahil, because of that misunderstood verse, and then assumed that ummi means jahil, also due to that misunderstood verse.
Baal

BMZ wrote:
AhmedBahgat wrote:
Baal wrote:
AhmedBahgat wrote:
Pazuzu bin Hanbi wrote:
I have also read, but will have to look into that further, that the word commonly translated as ‘unlettered’ in the Qur’an (in reference to Muhammad) can also mean a Gentile…


Don'y believe such ignorant christian, the word Ummi does not mean those ho received no scripture, this is because the jews were described as ummmayoon as well in the Quran, hahahahaha

he is too confused christian to be considered

Ummi means someone from the Umma. Plain and simple. Now you want to imply that an Ummi means illiterate like it is common to claim in the islamic world, then you imply that the Umma is made of illiterates (Ummis).


The Heads (Mala-a) of Mecca were all called Ummis. That does not mean they were all illiterate. Calling Muhammad Ummi did not mean he is an illiterate. So please try something else Ahmed.



Mister baal

can you please stop promoting your ignorance, it does no good to you

based on your crap above, then the word Umm, (mother) means someone from the Ummah, hahahahahahah


You said it well, bro. Mr. Baal is indeed very funny. Does he really know Arabic or is he merely an Egyptian Apple_Pie? Does he do this to humour others and us? lol!

BMZ

Pretty close Ahmed. The word "Umm" (mother) does not follow the normal set of weights that gets applied to root verbs.

The word however is derived from Umma and it came to mean the head of the Umma, or the mother. The word "Umm" has *no* bearing on the word "Ummi" meaning "illiterate", quite the contrary.


The word Ummi, means someone from the Umma. Someone once tried to argue that Ummi means someone just born from the Umm and as such possess very little knowledge. He was proven wrong, as someone just born from the Umm, should have been called "Umami" not "Ummi".
Baal

Pazuzu bin Hanbi wrote:
According to my dictionary, the al–ommiyaa referenced above can mean a variety of things: “My mother; Belonging to mother; Unlettered; Arab; Who have no revealed Scripture of his own.”

The verse actually closer to the last part of that explanation:

The verse was discussing some Ummis who had no revealed scripture of their own. It does not mean they were unlettered.
Tvebak

BMZ wrote:
Pazuzu bin Hanbi wrote:
According to my dictionary, the al–ommiyaa referenced above can mean a variety of things: “My mother; Belonging to mother; Unlettered; Arab; Who have no revealed Scripture of his own.”


You have got it right and the second part of your quote is correct, Pazuzu.

For a person his mother Umm becomes Ummi for that person. Likewise Ain is eye and my daughter becomes Aini for me.

The Arabs had never received any Scripture from God before. Thus they were the Ummis, while Jews were not Ummis, since they had the Scriptures for a thousand over years. This Ummi has nothing to do with my mother, Ummi!

BMZ


Hi BMZ

It seems you agree that the quran does not state that muhammad was illiterate. Have I got this right?

Cheers
BMZ

Pazuzu bin Hanbi wrote:
According to my dictionary, the al–ommiyaa referenced above can mean a variety of things: “My mother; Belonging to mother; Unlettered; Arab; Who have no revealed Scripture of his own.”


BMZ wrote:
You have got it right and the second part of your quote is correct, Pazuzu.

For a person his mother Umm becomes Ummi for that person. Likewise Ain is eye and my daughter becomes Aini for me.

The Arabs had never received any Scripture from God before. Thus they were the Ummis, while Jews were not Ummis, since they had the Scriptures for a thousand over years. This Ummi has nothing to do with my mother, Ummi!

BMZ


Tvebak wrote:
Hi BMZ

It seems you agree that the quran does not state that muhammad was illiterate. Have I got this right?

Cheers


Hi Tvebak,

No, I have not agreed. Yes, Qur'aan does state clearly that Muhammad could neither read nor write. Please refer to Ahmed's post on page 1 about 29:48 which is self-explanatory. It is just that Baal has a fear and cannot break the chains of his ignorance. lol!  Very Happy

Cheers & Good night
BMZ
Tvebak

BMZ wrote:
Pazuzu bin Hanbi wrote:
According to my dictionary, the al–ommiyaa referenced above can mean a variety of things: “My mother; Belonging to mother; Unlettered; Arab; Who have no revealed Scripture of his own.”


BMZ wrote:
You have got it right and the second part of your quote is correct, Pazuzu.

For a person his mother Umm becomes Ummi for that person. Likewise Ain is eye and my daughter becomes Aini for me.

The Arabs had never received any Scripture from God before. Thus they were the Ummis, while Jews were not Ummis, since they had the Scriptures for a thousand over years. This Ummi has nothing to do with my mother, Ummi!

BMZ


Tvebak wrote:
Hi BMZ

It seems you agree that the quran does not state that muhammad was illiterate. Have I got this right?

Cheers


Hi Tvebak,

No, I have not agreed. Yes, Qur'aan does state clearly that Muhammad could neither read nor write. Please refer to Ahmed's post on page 1 about 29:48 which is self-explanatory. It is just that Baal has a fear and cannot break the chains of his ignorance. lol!  Very Happy

Cheers & Good night
BMZ


Hi BMZ

I feel I already gave a reasonable answer to that verse, also on page 1.

Cheers.

       FREE FAITH, EXPRESSION AND THOUGHT Forum Index -> Hadith and Sunnah
Page 1 of 1
Create your own free forum | Buy a domain to use with your forum
Home|Home|Home|Home|HomeHome|Home|Home|Home|Home