Husband's Responsibilities Towards his Wife

 Reading Time: 8–10 minutes

“And live with them in kindness.” 

— Qur’an 4:19

People's Rights Begin at Home. I want to place an important point before myself—and before all of us. It is something that is as important as worship, and perhaps, in practical terms, even more difficult than worship.

We often speak about Huquq Allah—the rights of Allah. We worship Allah through prayer, fasting, dhikr, and other acts of devotion. And when we fall short, we turn to Allah in repentance and ask for forgiveness.

But there is another category that we sometimes overlook: Huquq al-‘Ibad—the rights of people. I have my wife, my children, my parents, my brothers and sisters, my relatives, my neighbours, and the wider human community around me. How I deal with these people is also a matter of accountability before Allah.

If I wrong another human being, I cannot simply assume that my prayers and fasting will erase the wrong I have done to that person. The Qur’anic principle of justice requires us to take the rights of others seriously. And this is where I want to focus particularly on the relationship between husband and wife.

The Husband-Wife Relationship: I am a man. I am a husband. Like other men, I have grown up within a social environment that carries certain ideas about masculinity. Among these ideas is the strange notion that a man should not show too much affection towards his wife.

If a man becomes openly loving and considerate towards his wife, someone may jokingly—or sometimes seriously—say: “You were a good man before, but now you have become zan-mureed!” In other words, you have started following your wife.

But why should love, tenderness and respect towards one's wife be considered a weakness? What exactly is a taboo? It is a social or cultural custom that discourages or prohibits a particular behaviour. And sometimes these taboos are so deeply embedded in us that we follow them without ever asking whether they have any moral or religious basis.

I have been thinking about these things myself. A very close friend of mine, Imran, with whom I once went for Hajj, shared something with me that made me think deeply. He is around my age, and I noticed a significant change in the way he related to his wife. I asked him about it. He shared some very powerful reflections with me. I told him:

“Imran, I am going to make a clip about this because you have opened my eyes as well. Since I make these clips, I want to take this message to other people.”

So I want to acknowledge something very clearly: the thoughts I am sharing here originated from those reflections of my friend Imran. I am deeply indebted to him for them.

The Problem of Male Chauvinism: There is a form of male chauvinism within many of us. Chauvinism means an excessive prejudice in favour of one's own group or one's own interests. When this takes the form of male chauvinism, a man can begin to believe that because he is a man, he is naturally entitled to greater authority, greater freedom and greater control.

And because a man may possess greater physical strength, he may even begin to think that this gives him the right to dominate his wife. That is where the real danger begins. The problem is not masculinity itself. The problem is when masculinity becomes detached from responsibility, compassion, and accountability.

A man may remember that he is physically stronger, but forget that he has been entrusted with responsibilities.

Worship Is Not Enough: This is why I believe that our religious life cannot be limited to prayer, fasting and dhikr. We need all of these things. But alongside them, we need to learn how to treat our wives with compassion, gentleness, affection, and respect. In fact, this is itself part of our religious responsibility.

We often speak about the elevated position of one's mother. The famous hadith in which the Prophet Muhammad (peace and blessings be upon him) was asked who deserved the greatest right over a person mentions the mother three times before the father. This beautifully illustrates the honour given to the mother.

But there is another relationship that deserves our attention. The first human relationship in this world was not that of mother and child. It was the relationship between Adam and Hawwa—husband and wife.

Allah created Adam and then created his spouse. Thus, the marital relationship is foundational to human society. If this relationship is healthy, it can become a source of stability for the entire family. If it is damaged, its effects can spread throughout the family.

There is an old philosophical maxim: “Know thyself.” I would add: true happiness requires us to honestly examine ourselves. After many years of marriage, I have realised that one of the most difficult things is to identify one's own shortcomings. It is easy to identify what my wife did wrong. It is much harder to ask: What did I do wrong?  What could I have done differently? Was my tone unnecessarily harsh? Did I hurt her dignity? Did I listen to her? Did I fulfil her rights? Did I allow my ego to become more important than my relationship? These are uncomfortable questions. But conscious living requires us to ask them.

Religion Is Not Merely a Private Affair: We sometimes hear that religion is a private affair. I do not think it is that simple. The Qur’an says in Surah al-‘Asr:  وَتَوَاصَوْا بِالْحَقِّ وَتَوَاصَوْا بِالصَّبْرِ

“And they urge one another to the truth, and they urge one another to patience.”
Qur’an 103:3

We are therefore encouraged to remind one another about truth and patience. That is what my friend Imran did for me. And now I am sharing those reflections with you.

Even Love for Our Children Can Become Unequal: Before coming directly to husbands and wives, there is another uncomfortable reality in our society. Consider the way daughters are sometimes treated in matters of inheritance. A daughter's rightful share may be denied while sons receive what should belong to her.

Why does this happen? One reason can be that our emotional attachment to sons is not always the same as our attachment to daughters. But if a father genuinely develops the same compassion and love for his daughter as he has for his son, could he so easily deprive her of her rightful inheritance? Love changes the way we see people.

And perhaps this is also the key to improving our marriages.

“They Are Garments for You”: The Qur’an gives us a remarkably beautiful description of marriage. Allah says in Surah al-Baqarah: “They are clothing for you and you are clothing for them.” Qur’an 2:187

What a profound metaphor. Clothing is close to the body. It protects. It provides comfort. It conceals one's vulnerabilities. It gives dignity. And it is something we live with every day. The Qur’an therefore describes husband and wife as garments for one another. The relationship is intimate, protective and deeply personal.

It also provides a legitimate framework for human sexual needs and protects society from sexual disorder and promiscuity. The husband-wife relationship is therefore not some secondary aspect of life. It is one of the closest human relationships we have.

Accountability Begins at Home: Now let me bring this back to myself. I know that I shall be held accountable for my deeds. The Qur’an reminds us in Surah al-Zalzalah: “So whoever does an atom’s weight of good will see it, and whoever does an atom’s weight of evil will see it.” Qur’an 99:7–8

If this is true, then I cannot separate my religious life from the way I behave at home. I can pray. I can fast. I can recite the Qur’an. I can speak about religion. But how do I treat my wife? How do I treat my children? How do I treat my parents? How do I treat the people closest to me? For a married man, the circle of responsibility begins very close to home. And that is why I do not want to fail there.

Imagine standing before Allah and being confronted with the complaint:“This person made my life miserable. He did not take care of me. He did not give me my rights. He was cheerful with his friends, but harsh with me at home. He could smile and speak gently to everyone outside, but he did not extend the same kindness to me.”

What would I say? What would I do? That thought alone should produce a sudden realisation within me.

Rise Above the Ego: The answer begins with one simple but difficult commitment: I have to rise above my ego. I have to put my ego behind me. I do not have to win every argument. I do not have to prove that I am the man. I do not have to raise my voice simply because I can. I have to ask myself what is more important: my ego or my marriage? My pride or my wife's dignity? My need to win an argument or my responsibility before Allah?

For me, the answer has to be clear.

Respect Her in Public and in Private: A particularly important area is public behaviour. A man should not humiliate or reprimand his wife in front of other people. It is not acceptable to behave lovingly towards her in public merely to maintain appearances while treating her harshly at home. That is not genuine goodness. It is not enough to look like a loving husband.

I have to work on becoming one.

I also need to recognise that women can be deeply sensitive to words, attitudes and public humiliation. Men can be sensitive too, of course. But whatever the differences between men and women, deliberately hurting one's spouse's dignity is never a virtue. I have to work on myself. I have to overcome these inherited taboos. I have to overcome the tribal mindset that equates authority with harshness.

Gentleness as a Lifestyle: And here is perhaps the most important point. Treating one's wife well cannot be something we do once in a while. It has to become a lifestyle. Not once. Not twice. Every day. Speak gently. Show affection. Listen. Give respect. And when emotions rise, learn to exercise restraint.

Perhaps my wife may sometimes say something harsh.I can answer. I have a voice. Perhaps, as a man, my voice may naturally be louder. But I can choose not to use that strength against her. I can remain silent for the sake of Allah. This is not weakness.

This is self-control. And genuine gentleness can be reciprocated. When a husband consistently treats his wife with tenderness, affection and respect, that kindness can transform the atmosphere of the home.

Paradise Begins Here (It is my choice)!: We often imagine Paradise as something that begins after death. But perhaps the values of Paradise can begin much earlier. A home filled with mercy. A husband and wife who speak gently to one another. Children who see affection rather than hostility. Parents who are respected. A family in which people feel safe, valued and loved. These are not merely worldly comforts. They are manifestations of values that Islam itself teaches us to cultivate. And this is why I want to say something to myself before I say it to anyone else. Perhaps we need to go to our wives and say: “I am sorry.” And then say: “Henceforth, I will be a good husband.”

We must learn to say this. Indeed, I must learn to say this.

Because perhaps the journey towards becoming a better believer does not begin somewhere far away. Perhaps it begins at home. With the person sitting beside us. With the person whose rights we encounter every single day.

And perhaps the first step towards fulfilling Huquq al-‘Ibad is simply learning to treat the person closest to us with the dignity, tenderness, and love that we ourselves would wish to receive.

I am telling you that a woman will reciprocate this in a very good way. She will reciprocate that gentleness, that tenderness and affection, and love of the husband, in a very beautiful and excellent manner. And the life of Paradise will not begin only in the Hereafter; it will begin in this world.

I am reminded, in passing, of an extremely beautiful saying of the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him). He said that whoever treats his wife and children with tenderness, gentleness, and love will be with me in Paradise in this manner.

So, while we are talking in this vein, let us also apologise to our wives and tell them: henceforth, I will be a good husband.

We must learn to say this.

I must learn to say this.

Aamir I. Yazdani
MPhil Islamic Thought & Civilization (PAKISTAN)
MSc Irrigation Engineering (UK)

 

Shaytan Saw Paradise. He Saw Hell. Yet He Rebelled - Direct English Rendering of Ghamidi Sahib's YouTube Clip

 Source Note: This is a direct English rendering of a YouTube clip by Mr. Javed Ahmad Ghamidi, Al Mawrid. The content has been translated faithfully into English with grammatical refinement, without interpretive additions.

Question: When a person is born, whatever religion he is born into, 99 percent of the time he follows that religion. So how would it be just that those who are born Muslim have such a high probability of remaining Muslim and then entering Paradise? If Allah calls Himself the Judge, this does not seem like a very judicial decision. At least Danish does not think so. 

This leads to another question of mine. There is naturally doubt in a person’s heart. I also sometimes have doubts: when I wake up for Fajr in the morning and I am sleepy, am I really doing the right thing, or perhaps we are mistaken? So I want an answer to both questions.

The second question arising from this is: Shaytan had seen Hell and Paradise—he had seen everything. If someone were to show me Paradise and Hell, and Allah Himself were to tell me directly, I would never commit a sin. So how could Shaytan, after seeing all of this, go completely mad and rebel so enormously? How is that possible?

Response: Regarding the first question, I would say that this is a myth—the Qur’an has rejected it. The Qur’an says that the group affiliations you have in this world—some calling themselves Muslims, some Jews, some Christians—will not be the basis upon which judgment is made in the Hereafter.

A criterion of merit has been established for the Day of Judgment. Whoever fulfills that criterion will enter Paradise. Allah has stated this while mentioning all these groups, beginning with the Muslims:

إِنَّ الَّذِينَ آمَنُوا وَالَّذِينَ هَادُوا وَالنَّصَارَىٰ وَالصَّابِئِينَ

In other words, no one will enter Paradise simply on the basis of belonging to one of these groups. When the Jews made precisely this claim—that they were Allah’s chosen people—Allah said, in effect, “Show Me when I ever made such a promise.”

If you ever read Surah al-Baqarah with a simple translation, you will see that the entire subject of the Surah is that salvation is not based on belonging to a particular group. There is a criterion, and whoever fulfills it will enter Paradise.

There, these divisions and group affiliations will all disappear. People will be raised according to their true reality. Whoever possesses genuine faith will be recognized there as a true Muslim. The meaning of being a Muslim will then become clear.

Here, we are simply born into a particular family. We take the name and identity of whatever religion we were born into, and then continue living largely unconsciously. The Qur’an has never said that this is the basis of salvation. It has made the matter absolutely clear and has stated the criterion in three points. This is the standard against which every individual will be judged.

Yes, someone may have lived in a remote place. Yes, perhaps the message of a prophet reached him—or perhaps it did not. These circumstances will also be taken into consideration. But the fundamental criterion is clear.

The Jews made exactly the same claim that we sometimes make today, and Allah rejected it with such force that someone who genuinely reads the Qur’an should not even have this question arise in his mind. These are merely the ideas of our ordinary, ignorant people.

Regarding the second question

As for the second question, let me say this: I know what a human being is. Iblis was from the jinn, and I do not know the nature of rebellion among the jinn.

My experience regarding human beings is that even if you remove the veil and show them reality directly, they can still rebel. They stand against God. They stand against His prophets. A prophet may lift the veil to a very great extent before them, yet they are still prepared to fight against him.

Consider Abu Jahl at the Battle of Badr. Have you ever seen the prayer he made there?* He too raised his hands in prayer and called upon Allah. This gives you an idea of how far a human being—who has been given intention and free choice—can go.

Iblis was from the jinn. The jinn, too, have been given intention and free choice like us. They have been placed under trial like us. They too will one day be brought before God for judgment. They too have Paradise and Hell. That is why rebellion also arose among them.

This rebellion became particularly evident when the human being was created, and that is why this story became so prominent.

Now look at Surah al-Jinn. The jinn themselves say that among them there are many rebellious people. This does not refer to Iblis. They also say that among them are righteous people and those who remain on the right path.

They too are a community like ours—a very large community. Allah has created them within this material universe, and they too live within it. The Qur’an has described many things about them. Their situation of being tested is also essentially similar to ours.

Therefore, we should not conclude that only Iblis rebelled after seeing realities. We human beings also repeatedly rebel even after seeing realities.

Look at the story of Pharaoh in the Qur’an. Look at what happened when Moses stood before him and the veil was lifted to such an extent. The Qur’an says that nine signs were given to him—nine extraordinary signs became manifest.**

After reading the details of those signs, a person is astonished: how could anyone still deny after seeing all this? And when did Pharaoh finally believe? When he was drowning and destruction had overtaken him.

So when a human being stands at the station of intention and free choice, there are essentially two kinds of tests in which we are placed.

One is the test of group affiliation and partisanship. You see people bound by sects, by races and nations; people become prepared to kill and be killed for these identities.

Similarly, there is another deeply rooted human tendency stated by Adler***: the instinct for superiority. Allah has described this as one of the strongest human dispositions. It manifests itself among nations; races fight one another over it, and human beings develop feelings of superiority and arrogance.

What is all this? Do they not understand the principles upon which this world has been created? Therefore, there is nothing surprising about Iblis having done this. His story is mentioned so prominently because at the very beginning of our own human story, he rebelled. Among the jinn, however, such rebellion had existed even before this. There were already rebellious beings among them.

Because he rebelled in relation to us, his story has been narrated in the Qur’an and by the prophets in connection with our own story.

And as for the claim that he had already seen Paradise and Hell, that is not correct. He had not seen Paradise and Hell. Their existence in the sense of his having seen them has not been established. When they come, we too will see them.

Arranged by:
Aamir I. Yazdani
MPhil Islamic Thought & Civilization (PAKISTAN)
MSc Irrigation Engineering (UK)

*[Note: The report commonly cited is that at Badr, Abu Jahl invoked Allah for a judgment between the two sides. The wording reported is:

اللَّهُمَّ أَقْطَعُنَا لِلرَّحِمِ، وَآتَانَا بِمَا لَا نَعْرِفُ، فَأَحِنْهُ الْغَدَاةَ، اللَّهُمَّ أَيُّنَا كَانَ أَحَبَّ إِلَيْكَ، وَأَرْضَى عِنْدَكَ، فَانْصُرْهُ الْيَوْمَ

“O Allah, whoever among us has severed the ties of kinship and brought us something we do not recognize, destroy him this morning. O Allah, whichever of us is more beloved and more pleasing to You, grant him victory today.”

This is particularly striking because Abu Jahl was effectively asking Allah Himself to determine which side was in the right, believing that Allah would grant victory to whoever was more beloved and pleasing to Him. The report connects this with Qur’an 8:19:

إِن تَسْتَفْتِحُوا فَقَدْ جَاءَكُمُ الْفَتْحُ...

“If you sought a judgment, then the judgment has come to you…” (Qur’an 8:19).]

**[The statement of nine clear signs is in the Qur’an:

وَلَقَدْ آتَيْنَا مُوسَىٰ تِسْعَ آيَاتٍ بَيِّنَاتٍ

“And We certainly gave Moses nine clear signs.”
— Qur’an 17:101

The Bible, particularly Exodus 7–12, describes a series of signs/plagues before Pharaoh, but the traditional biblical account counts ten plagues, not nine.

Plague: Bible reference

1.       Water turned to blood: Exodus 7:14–25

2.       Frogs: Exodus 8:1–15

3.       Gnats / Lice: Exodus 8:16–19

4.       Flies: Exodus 8:20–32

5.       Death of livestock: Exodus 9:1–7

6.       Boils: Exodus 9:8–12

7.       Hail: Exodus 9:13–35

8.       Locusts: Exodus 10:1–20

9.       Darkness: Exodus 10:21–29

10.  Death of the firstborn: Exodus 11:1–10; 12:29–32]

 ***[Alfred Adler, the Austrian psychologist and founder of Individual Psychology, regarded the striving for superiority as a fundamental human tendency. He argued that people naturally seek to overcome feelings of limitation, develop their abilities, and achieve significance. This striving can become unhealthy when it turns into a desire to dominate or feel superior to others; ideally, it should lead to self-improvement, competence, and contribution to society.]

Only One Imam for Every Muslim

Epigraph

"He has named you Muslims before and in this [Revelation]."
— Qur'an 22:78

Who Is the Imam Every Muslim Must Follow?

Muslims have rightly honoured many of the greatest scholars in Islamic history by referring to them as Imam: Imam Abu Hanifah, Imam Malik, Imam al-Shafi'i, Imam Ahmad ibn Hanbal, Imam al-Bukhari, and many others. May Allah have mercy upon them all. They were remarkable scholars whose contributions to Islam continue to benefit generations of believers.

Their scholarship deserves our respect. Their dedication deserves our gratitude. Their legacy deserves to be studied.

Yet an important question remains:

Who is the one Imam whom every Muslim has been commanded by Allah to follow?

The Qur'an gives only one answer: Prophet Muhammad ﷺ.

He alone is the Messenger whom Allah instructed humanity to obey. He conveyed the Qur'an exactly as it was revealed and demonstrated its practical application through his Sunnah. Every Muslim, regardless of culture, nationality, or school of thought, is required to follow him.

The great Imams themselves never claimed such universal authority. They sought to understand the Qur'an and the Sunnah to the best of their ability and encouraged others to follow the evidence wherever it led. They were guides to the religion—not the religion itself.

Today, however, many Muslims primarily identify themselves through schools of jurisprudence.

Some say, "I am Hanafi."

Others say, "I am Maliki."

Others identify themselves as Shafi'i or Hanbali.

There is nothing wrong with benefiting from the scholarship of any of these schools. Their legal reasoning has enriched Islamic civilization for centuries. What deserves reflection, however, is whether our loyalty ultimately belongs to a school, or to the Qur'an and the Sunnah brought by the Messenger of Allah ﷺ.

Whenever we encounter a religious belief or practice, we should ask a simple question:

What does the Qur'an teach?

If our parents, community, culture, or even our favourite scholars happened to err in a matter, we should not hesitate to realign ourselves with Allah's guidance. Respect for our predecessors does not require unquestioning acceptance of every opinion attributed to them.

The Qur'an repeatedly invites believers to reflect, examine evidence, and follow guidance rather than inherited assumptions.

It is for this reason that I choose not to define myself primarily by sectarian or juristic labels such as Sunni or Shia.

The Qur'an tells us that Allah Himself has already given us our identity:

"He has named you Muslims before and in this [Revelation]."
(Qur'an 22:78)

That name is sufficient for me.

I honour every sincere scholar who served Islam. I learn from all who faithfully explain the Qur'an and the Sunnah. But the only Imam whom Allah has commanded every Muslim to follow is Prophet Muhammad ﷺ.

May Allah grant us the humility to seek the truth wherever it is found, the wisdom to distinguish between divine guidance and inherited custom.

I choose to be a Muslim.

_________________________________________________________________________________

Aamir Yazdani
MPhil, Islamic Thought & Civilization (Pakistan)
MSc, Irrigation Engineering (UK)

Top of Form

Bottom of Form

 

Ṣalāt al-Maktūbah—the obligatory (Farḍ) prayers—and Ṣalāt al-Taṭawwuʿ—the voluntary (Nafl) prayers

During the time of the Holy Prophet ﷺ, prayers were essentially of two kinds: Ṣalāt al-Maktūbah—the obligatory (Farḍ) prayers—and Ṣalāt al-Taṭawwuʿ—the voluntary (Nafl) prayers. There was no separate category known as “Sunnah prayers.”

 The Prophet ﷺ regularly performed certain voluntary prayers alongside the obligatory prayers and encouraged his companions to do the same. Because of this consistent practice, Muslims later came to refer to these particular voluntary prayers as “Sunnah” prayers.

 In reality, however, they remain voluntary (Nafl) prayers. If a person offers them, they become a great means of drawing closer to Allah. If a person does not offer them, he has not neglected an obligation.

 This is why the Prophet ﷺ gave glad tidings that whoever regularly performs these voluntary (Nafl) prayers (12 rakʿahs of regular voluntary prayers) along with the obligatory prayers will be rewarded by Allah with a house in Paradise. The 12 rakʿahs are:

•  2 before Fajr
• 4 before Dhuhr
• 2 after Dhuhr
• 2 after Maghrib
• 2 after Isha

Total = 12 rakʿahs (Note there are no Nafals with Asar)

 The hadith states: “Whoever prays twelve rakʿahs during the day and night, a house will be built for him in Paradise.” This narration is found in Sahih Muslim.

 [Some narrations mention 2 before Dhuhr instead of 4 before Dhuhr, but the commonly cited total that reaches twelve is: 2 + 4 + 2 + 2 + 2 = 12 rakʿahs.]

________________________________________________________________________________

 Aamir I. Yazdani
MPhil Islamic Thought & Civilization (Pakistan)
MSc Irrigation Engineering (UK)

Al-Ummi

 _________________________________________________________________________________

Source Note: This is a direct English rendering of an article Al-Ummi, by Mr. Rizwanullah (Scholar, Al Mawrid, Lahore. The content has been translated faithfully into English with grammatical refinement, without interpretive additions.

_________________________________________________________________________________

It is commonly claimed—may Allah be pleased with him—that the Messenger of Allah (pbuh) was 

unlettered and did not know how to read or write at all. To support this, evidence is presented from the Qur’an and Hadith. For example, the following verse (29:48) is cited:

 وَمَا كُنتَ تَتْلُوا۟ مِن قَبْلِهِۦ مِن كِتَـٰبٍۢ وَلَا تَخُطُّهُۥ بِيَمِينِكَ ۖ إِذًۭا لَّٱرْتَابَ ٱلْمُبْطِلُونَ ٤٨

“Before this, you neither read any book nor wrote it with your hand. Had this been the case, these rejecters could have, however, been inflicted with doubt.”[1]

 However, upon careful reflection, it becomes clear that this verse has no direct connection with the matter under discussion. This is because, in this verse, the continuous past tense is used, which merely negates the habitual practice of the Prophet (pbuh)—namely, that he used to read books or write them down. From this alone, it is evident that no definitive argument can be made regarding whether a person is literate or illiterate. There are many individuals who, due to their intense engagements, never adopt such activities, yet despite this, we observe that they still possess some ability to read and write.

 Thus, the verse does not negate literacy; rather, it only states that the Prophet (pbuh)did not read any book nor write it. The remaining question, then, is: what exactly is meant here by “any book”? One possible answer is that, since the word kitāb (book) appears with a ‘tanwin’ (Nunation: the addition of an ‘n’ sound at the end of a noun) and is preceded by the particle min, it may imply generality—i.e., every kind of book. However, when examined in light of linguistic principles, the indefiniteness (tankeer) of kitāb and the generality (ta’amim) it suggests do not necessarily require that this meaning be taken in an absolute sense. We know that, in certain contexts, such general expressions can still be subject to specification (takhsees) based on contextual clues. To understand this in Urdu terms, it is similar to a situation where two teachers of the same subject, sitting in an educational institution, say to each other: “Today, no student came.” Despite the apparent generality of “no student,” we understand from the context that it may refer only to the students of that particular subject.

In the context of the mentioned verse, two groups are under discussion: one consists of those who already possess a divine Book, and the other of those who have believed in the Qur’an and are now دعوت (inviting others) toward it. From among the first group, those who have refused to accept this دعوت do not regard the Qur’an as the word of God; rather, they consider it to be a personal composition of the Prophet (pbuh). Behind this claim lies a particular doubt, the basis of which is addressed in this verse. That doubt is not that the Prophet (pbuh) knew how to read and write and therefore authored a book like the Qur’an, for there is not even the slightest correlation between a person being literate and producing something like the Qur’an. Rather, their actual suspicion is that the teachings presented in the Qur’an have been borrowed from earlier revealed scriptures and are now being presented under the name of the Qur’an. It is, in fact, this very doubt that the verse seeks to remove. Thus, within this context, despite the presence of indefiniteness (tanwīn) and the particle min, a form of specification (takhsees) is introduced into the word kitāb. Its meaning, therefore, can only be that the Prophet (pbuh) had never read ‘any book’—that is, any such revealed scripture—before this.

 Such specification (takhsees) after generality (ta’ameem) can also be observed in other places in the Qur’an. For example, in another verse, the word ‘ilm (knowledge) appears with tanwīn (indefiniteness) and the particle min, yet it is clear that it does not refer to knowledge in an absolute sense, but rather to a specific نوع (type) of knowledge. In Surah al-An‘ām (6:148) it is said:

 قُلْ هَلْ عِندَكُم مِّنْ عِلْمٍۢ فَتُخْرِجُوهُ لَنَآ ۖ إِن

“Ask them: Do you have any knowledge which you can present before us?”

 If the meaning we have explained for “mā kunta taqrā’u min qablihi min kitāb” وَمَا كُنتَ تَتْلُوا۟ مِن قَبْلِهِۦ is accepted, then the correct placement and implication of “wa lā takhuttuhu biyamīnik” وَلَا تَخُطُّهُۥ بِيَمِينِكَ ۖ  also becomes clear. The purpose of mentioning it here is likewise fully clarified: namely, that there is no basis to claim that the Qur’an is derived from other books and, in that sense, a composition of the Messenger of Allah (pbuh). This is because he neither used to read such books nor write them down and preserve them, such that one could suspect—God forbid—that he compiled the Qur’an with their help.

 Another verse presented in support of the claim that the Messenger of Allah (pbuh) was unlettered is from Surah al-A‘rāf (7:158):

 فَـَٔامِنُوا۟ بِٱللَّهِ وَرَسُولِهِ ٱلنَّبِىِّ ٱلْأُمِّىِّ ٱلَّذِى يُؤْمِنُ بِٱللَّهِ وَكَلِمَـٰتِهِۦ وَٱتَّبِعُوهُ لَعَلَّكُمْ تَهْتَدُونَ ١٥٨

“So, profess faith in God and in His unlettered prophet, His messenger who himself believes in God and His words ^[534] and follows Him that you may be guided. [Some people from among the Israelites shall definitely believe in him.]”

 This is the second verse that is presented as evidence for the Prophet (pbuh) being unlettered; however, we explain in detail that it is not possible, in any way, to derive this meaning from it. However, we explain in detail that deriving this meaning (absolute illiteracy) from this verse is not possible.

 The word “ummī” is derived from “umm” (mother), with the added yā’ indicating relation. In the Arabic language, when used in its purely lexical sense, it refers to a person who cannot read and write. This purely lexical meaning does appear once in the Qur’an as well, but with a clarification—that by such “unlettered” people are actually meant those who have not studied the Book of God. In Surah al-Baqarah, it is stated (2:78):

 وَمِنْهُمْ أُمِّيُّونَ لَا يَعْلَمُونَ ٱلْكِتَـٰبَ إِلَّآ أَمَانِىَّ

“And [these people are ones that] there are also among them the illiterate commoners who consider the Book of God to be only a collection of [their] fancies.”

 Beyond its literal meaning, the Qur’an also uses this word as a designation for the مشرکین عرب (Arab polytheists). The reason for applying it to them is their lack of guidance-based knowledge and, in contrast to the People of the Book, their being without a revealed scripture.[2] If examined carefully, both these aspects can be seen in sequence in the following two verses. In Surah al-Jumu‘ah (2:62):

 هُوَ ٱلَّذِى بَعَثَ فِى ٱلْأُمِّيِّـۧنَ رَسُولًۭا مِّنْهُمْ يَتْلُوا۟ عَلَيْهِمْ ءَايَـٰتِهِۦ وَيُزَكِّيهِمْ وَيُعَلِّمُهُمُ ٱلْكِتَـٰبَ وَٱلْحِكْمَةَ وَإِن كَانُوا۟ مِن قَبْلُ لَفِى ضَلَـٰلٍۢ مُّبِينٍۢ ٢

“It is He who brought forth among the unlettered a Messenger from among them, who recites to them His revelations and purifies them and for this instructs them in the Law and in Wisdom. In reality, these people were in manifest error before this”

 And in Surah Āl ‘Imrān (3:20):

 وَقُل لِّلَّذِينَ أُوتُوا۟ ٱلْكِتَـٰبَ وَٱلْأُمِّيِّـۧنَ ءَأَسْلَمْتُمْ ۚ

“And ask the People of the Book and these unlettered ^[785] [among the Ishmaelites]: Do you also similarly submit to God?”

 Since the people of Banī Ismā‘īl (the descendants of Ishmael) are part of that same group of Arab polytheists, the application of this term (ummī) to them follows naturally. From here, it also becomes clear that the use of this word for the Prophet (pbuh)is, in reality, due to his being an individual from Banī Ismā‘īl. Accordingly, in the verse under discussion, the word ummī has been used for him with consideration of this very aspect.

 The context of the verse also supports this understanding, because here his دعوت (call/message) is being presented, in his own language, to the people—and especially to the Banī Isrā’īl (Children of Israel). Obviously, in such a context, there would be no wisdom in informing them whether he was literate or illiterate. Rather, the situation demands that their misunderstanding be corrected by clarifying that he has been sent not only for Banī Ismā‘īl but also for Banī Isrā’īl. Furthermore, in connection with his being ummī—that is, an Ismā‘īlite—they are being reminded of a covenant mentioned in their own scripture, in which the words “from among their brethren” are specifically used:

 “I will raise for them a prophet like you from among their brethren, and I will put My words in his mouth.”[3]

 In summary, this verse, too, has no connection with the question of whether the Prophet (pbuh)was literate or not; rather, it simply highlights his belonging to Banī Ismā‘īl. As for the matter of being distant from formal or scriptural learning, it should be remembered that this was not unique to the polytheists or to Banī Ismā‘īl. Rather, according to the general norms of that region and era, even the Jews living there were, more or less, in a similar situation.

 Thirdly, a hadith is also presented in this discussion: when, in the Cave of Ḥirā’, the angel Jibrīl (Gabriel) brought revelation, he said to the Prophet ﷺ: “Iqra’” (Read/Recite). In response, the Prophet (pbuh)said: “Mā ana bi-qāri’” (I cannot read). This statement is often translated as: “I cannot read,” and it is taken as a declaration of illiteracy.

 In Arabic, however, the word qirā’ah (reading) can carry different meanings. At times, it refers to reading by looking at a written text—as is also intended in certain Qur’anic usages, such as in Surah Banī Isrā’īl (17:71) , where people are described as reading their record of deeds:

 يَوْمَ نَدْعُوا۟ كُلَّ أُنَاسٍۭ بِإِمَـٰمِهِمْ ۖ فَمَنْ أُوتِىَ كِتَـٰبَهُۥ بِيَمِينِهِۦ فَأُو۟لَـٰٓئِكَ يَقْرَءُونَ كِتَـٰبَهُمْ

“[Even then, they show ingratitude.] They should remember the day when We shall call all the people, including their leaders. Then those who are given their account in their right hands, they will [happily] read it.”

 At times, this verb (qara’a) is also used for reciting purely from memory, without looking at any written text. For example, in the context of the tahajjud prayer, we observe that the same verb is used for reciting the Qur’an. As stated in Surah al-Muzzammil (73:20:

 فَٱقْرَءُوا۟ مَا تَيَسَّرَ مِنَ ٱلْقُرْءَانِ ۚ

“Thus, recite now from this Qur’ān in this prayer as much as you are able to.”

 In the Arabic language, when a verb is accompanied by a preposition (ṣilah), it affects and shapes its meaning. Likewise, when the verb qara’a is used with the preposition ‘alā, its meaning is no longer confined to simply “reading,” but extends to “reciting to others,” i.e., conveying something to an audience. For instance, in Surah ash-Shu‘arā’ (26:198-199):

 وَلَوْ نَزَّلْنَـٰهُ عَلَىٰ بَعْضِ ٱلْأَعْجَمِينَ ١٩٨ فَقَرَأَهُۥ عَلَيْهِم مَّا كَانُوا۟ بِهِۦ مُؤْمِنِينَ ١٩٩

“[They are still not believing] and had We revealed it to a non-Arab, then he would have read it out to them, even then they would not have accepted faith.”

 Now, if we reflect on the aforementioned narration (of the first revelation), we see that after the verb qara’a, there is no mention of any book, nor is there any contextual indicator suggesting such a meaning. Therefore, “reading from a written text” cannot be intended here. Similarly, given that this incident pertains to the very first revelation, there was no prior memorized material either; thus, reciting from memory cannot be meant in this case. Hence, from every angle, it becomes clear that “Iqra’” here actually means “to proclaim” or “to convey the message to others.” The entire narrative described in the report—such as the trembling that overcame the Prophet (pbuh) after bearing this responsibility, his expression of fear for his life, and the reassurance given by Khadījah (رضی اللہ عنہا) that he possessed noble character—all point toward the fact that “Iqra’” here signifies the act of delivering the message to the people.

 One should not raise the objection that, in this narration, the verb qara’a is not explicitly accompanied by the preposition ‘alā. This is because such a preposition can be omitted when contextual clues sufficiently indicate its presence, and this omission is linguistically valid. An example of this can also be seen in the following verse, where the preposition is omitted, yet it is clear to every student of the language that the verb carries the meaning of “reciting to others.” In Surah al-A‘rāf (7:204):

 وَإِذَا قُرِئَ ٱلْقُرْءَانُ فَٱسْتَمِعُوا۟ لَهُۥ وَأَنصِتُوا۟ لَعَلَّكُمْ تُرْحَمُونَ ٢٠٤

“[Therefore,] when this Qur’ān is recited to you, listen attentively to it and remain silent so that you may be shown mercy.”

 In summary, the narration under discussion describes the Prophet’s (pbuh)منصبِ دعوت     (mission of conveying the message), and even in it there is no evidence to support the claim of his illiteracy.

 Fourthly, another narration is also cited in this regard, in which the Prophet (pbuh) described his people as ummī. In that context, it is entirely clear that the word is used in its purely lexical sense. The hadith states:

 “We are an unlettered people; we neither write nor calculate.”[4]

 There is no doubt that here the term is used in its literal sense. However, it should be understood that, in language, a word is sometimes applied to a group without intending every single individual within it; rather, what is meant is a general characterization of the group as a whole. For example, in the following verse, it is said about the Arab polytheists that they were in clear misguidance. Every student can understand that this is a collective comment about the قوم (community), because we know that among them there were also monotheists and followers of the pure monotheistic religion (Din e Hanif) in considerable numbers. As stated in Surah al-Jumu‘ah (62:2):

 وَإِن كَانُوا۟ مِن قَبْلُ لَفِى ضَلَـٰلٍۢ مُّبِينٍۢ ٢

“In reality, these people were in manifest error before this”.

 Similarly, in the cited narration, the general condition of the Arab people is being described.[5] In fact, there is clear evidence that people among them did possess the ability to read and write.[6] Moreover, the Qur’an itself was written down during that period, and instructions were given to record financial transactions. As mentioned in Surah al-Qalam (68:1):

 نٓ وَ الۡقَلَمِ وَ مَا یَسۡطُرُوۡنَ ۙ﴿۱﴾

“This is Sūrah Nūn. The pen bears witness and whatever [the scribes] are writing [from it] 

 And in Surah al-Baqarah (2:282):

 یٰۤاَیُّہَا الَّذِیۡنَ اٰمَنُوۡۤا اِذَا تَدَایَنۡتُمۡ بِدَیۡنٍ اِلٰۤی اَجَلٍ مُّسَمًّی فَاکۡتُبُوۡہُ ؕ

“Believers! [Matters of lending and borrowing will, however, continue; so,] when you acquire a loan for a fixed period, record it in writing.”

 The point being made is that, like the other arguments, this narration also does not prove that the Prophet (pbuh) was illiterate. This is because it is a general comment about his قوم (people), and it cannot, under any circumstances, be used as evidence to establish illiteracy for a specific individual.

 Having clarified the correct status of these negative arguments, we now turn to some affirmative considerations:

 First, we know that in Arabia, there were no formal institutional systems of education. However, some individuals did acquire learning on a personal basis. Yet, concerning the Prophet (pbuh), there is not even the slightest historical evidence to suggest that he ever sat before a teacher (zānū-yi talammudh) and formally learned to read and write.[7] At the same time, it is also a reality that some people, even without the help of a teacher, come to acquire basic reading and writing skills. This is often due to natural inclination or practical necessity. If we consider the temperament and disposition of the Prophet (pbuh), along with his daily activities—especially his engagement in trade and the journeys undertaken for livelihood—then reason suggests that he would necessarily have possessed at least some degree of ability in reading and writing.

 Second, the verse “wa mā kunta tatlū min qablihi min kitāb wa lā takhuttuhu biyamīnik” has already been discussed in detail above. If its meaning is that the Prophet (pbuh)did not read any religious book nor write it with his own hand, then it still, in a sense, contains an implicit indication that the capacity to read and write existed. This is similar to how, in Urdu, we might say about a student: “This boy has never been seen reading a book of Islāmiyyāt.” Since the negation here applies to a specific type of book, the more plausible implication is that he can read, but does not read that particular kind of book.

 Third, the previous arguments regarding the Prophet (pbuh)were based on inference and probability. Now, we state explicitly that he did, in fact, know how to read and write. On the occasion of the Treaty of Hudaybiyyah, when a written agreement was drafted between the Quraysh and the Muslims, the wording included: “This is the agreement concluded by Muhammad, the Messenger of Allah.” The Quraysh objected, saying that if they had accepted him as the Messenger of Allah, there would have been no dispute; rather, he should be written simply as Muhammad ibn ‘Abdullāh. The Prophet (pbuh) responded: “I am Muhammad ibn ‘Abdullāh, and I am also the Messenger of Allah.” He then instructed Ali ibn Abi Talib to erase the words “Messenger of Allah” from the document. ‘Ali said: “By God, I will never erase it.” Thereupon, the Messenger of Allah (pbuh) took the document into his own hands. The narrator reports that “he did not write well” (wa laysa yuḥsin al-kitābah), which in itself indicates the presence of at least a basic level of writing ability. Furthermore, the narration clearly states that the Prophet (pbuh) then wrote: “This is the agreement concluded by Muhammad ibn ‘Abdullāh with the Quraysh.”[8]

 After establishing from this report that the Prophet (pbuh) possessed the ability to read and write, one final important point should be understood. The miraculous nature of presenting a discourse like the Qur’an does not lie in the claim that he could not read or write and yet produced such a text. Rather, the true miracle is that he did not study under any teacher, nor did he ever engage in the study of previous religious scriptures, and yet he presented such profound, weighty, and elevated discourse. This, evidently, is clear proof that it is not a product of his own composition, but necessarily the word of God.

________________________________________________________________________________

Arranged by:
Aamir I. Yazdani
MPhil Islamic Thought & Civilization (PAKISTAN)
MSc Irrigation Engineering (UK)

---

[1] English Translation of the Qur’an Verses from Al-Bayan

[2] This acknowledgment of the term indicates that it is not used exclusively for the Arab polytheists, but has also been applied to the Magians of Persia, as mentioned by Al-Tabari.

[3] Book of Deuteronomy (18:18)

[4] Sahih al-Bukhari, Hadith no. 1814

[5] This is comparable to how, in Urdu, one might describe an African country as “illiterate” and a European country as “educated,” even though we know that many individuals in both societies are literate

[6] For instance, the agreements of Shi‘b Abī Ṭālib and Ṣulḥ al-Ḥudaybiyah were formally written down. Likewise, among the prisoners of Badr, education itself was accepted as a form of ransom.

[7] For this reason, some scholars have translated al-ummī as “unschooled” rather than strictly “illiterate,” such as Ahmed Raza Khan Barelvi in Kanz al-Īmān.

[8] Sahih al-Bukhari, Hadith no. 4251