_________________________________________________________________________________
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.”
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. 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.”
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.”
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.
In fact, there is clear evidence that people among them did possess the ability
to read and write.
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. 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.”
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)
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.
Sahih al-Bukhari, Hadith no.
4251
No comments:
Post a Comment