Should we trust science?

[RealityCheck01]

Yes, but it is only through his followers that we know anything about him.

Which of his followers (not later commentators) explicitly states that Muhammad was illiterate?

 

[Tom 1]

Which of his followers (not later commentators) explicitly states that Muhammad was illiterate?

Not sure -it may be in the hadiths somewhere? Is that all you wanted to know, if there is any proof of Muhammed’s illiteracy or not? If so, then the answer is no, there isn’t any ‘proof’, assuming you mean some sort of unquestionable, absolute proof of some sort.

 

[RealityCheck01]

Right, I see what you are getting at I think. If you mean is there some kind of conclusive proof that Muhammed was illiterate or not then no, there isn’t.

That is not quite my question. What I asked for was evidence, not proof. What you have given is an argument by popularity.

 

[Tom 1]

The problem with this and similar following and precding posts is that you are asking us to take your word for it. Sure, we could "look it up", and yes, you've recommended a book, or two. However, the conventional approach on forums, used by serious and sincere participants, is to give something more substantive, not vague recollections of something once read.

Your approach leads me to suspect that your version of events is itself suspect and that you are not especially well informed on the topic. Consequently there is very little reason to pay heed to what you are saying, or to engage you in further discussion. I can't believe that is your intention, so I'm just giving you a heads up that such is the effect.

Cheers.

What version of events? What specifically are you talking about? I have to say I find your post a little strange - those are some things about Muhammed that are pretty commonly known, if someone wants to know more there are a great many books written about it. As far as I’m concerned, these forums are for a discussion, not for providing the kind of evidence that would require a post the length of a book. My point is that to have an understanding of the questions being asked a person needs to have a more general understanding of the various relevant historical issues - it’s not a straightforward issue that can be neatly cleared up in a few posts. My understanding of it is general and not that deep, I’m not claiming anything else, whatever gave you that idea isn’t in any of my posts. There’s nothing particularly controversial in any of it - the differences in Muslim and non-muslim interpretations is mainly in the conclusions drawn, rather than in the information, as handed down through Islamic tradition, itself.

 

[RealityCheck01]

Not sure -it may be in the hadiths somewhere

Then it is odd that no one seems to give a reference to a hadith with an explicit statement from a follower in the sources that I have looked at.

 

[Tom 1]

Then it is odd that no one seems to give a reference to a hadith with an explicit statement from a follower in the sources that I have looked at.

Maybe? If you really want to know why Muslims believe that Muhammed was illiterate then you’ll need to delve into Muslim apologetics.

 

[Tom 1]

That is not quite my question. What I asked for was evidence, not proof. What you have given is an argument by popularity.

Well, actually yes, although you have edited your original post a number of times you did originally ask ‘what’s the proof?’. The only evidence, as far as I am aware,is that Muslims traditionally believe that Muhammed was illiterate, and it is not unlikely that he was, probably you are aware that literacy was not as common in Muhammed’s day as in the modern era.

 

[Tom 1]

The problem with this and similar following and precding posts is that you are asking us to take your word for it.

No, I’m not. You can think whatever you like, or you can look it up and come back with something that might make for an interesting discussion.

 

[RealityCheck01]

Well, actually yes, although you have edited your original post a number of times you did originally ask ‘what’s the proof?’..

That is wrong since this is my original unedited post, Can you give some published evidence for this lack of knowledge, Tom Farebrother?
No "Last edited" note until I just edited it now.

This is you quoting that post where I ask for evidence, not proof.

That mistake may have came from my link to What is the proof that Prophet Muhammad was illiterate? with some good arguments that he was literate.

 

[Tom 1]

That is wrong since this is my original unedited post, Can you give some published evidence for this lack of knowledge, Tom Farebrother?
No "Last edited" note until I just edited it now.

This is you quoting that post where I ask for evidence, not proof.

That mistake may have came from my link to What is the proof that Prophet Muhammad was illiterate? with some good arguments that he was literate.

Yes, that’s probably true, apologies.

Which do you think are the strong arguments there, in the link?

If this is a question you have a genuine interest in I’d be wary of basing what you think about it on short bits of info here or on quora etc. Traditions of this sort are usually rooted in a broader view of the historical context and questions of probability or likelihood given the circumstances of the person’s life, environment etc. None of that is easily summed up in a few paragraphs. Muslim apologetics is a difficult subject, particularly as it is rooted in Eastern philosophy and ways of thinking that aren’t familiar to non Arabists, but there are plenty of books that can give you a broad understanding of why, as one example, Muhammed is believed to have been illiterate. If you want some short answer that will sum all of that up you might be disappointed.

There’s a summary of some points of Islamic thinking in this interview - When Islam Abandoned Reason: A Conversation with Robert R. Reilly
To understand why the ‘rejection of reason’ is seen as a positive rather than a negative within Islam you’ll need to read some of the Islamic theologians quoted.

 

[Ophiolite]

What version of events? What specifically are you talking about? I have to say I find your post a little strange - those are some things about Muhammed that are pretty commonly known, if someone wants to know more there are a great many books written about it. As far as I’m concerned, these forums are for a discussion, not for providing the kind of evidence that would require a post the length of a book. My point is that to have an understanding of the questions being asked a person needs to have a more general understanding of the various relevant historical issues - it’s not a straightforward issue that can be neatly cleared up in a few posts. My understanding of it is general and not that deep, I’m not claiming anything else, whatever gave you that idea isn’t in any of my posts. There’s nothing particularly controversial in any of it - the differences in Muslim and non-muslim interpretations is mainly in the conclusions drawn, rather than in the information, as handed down through Islamic tradition, itself.

Your view of how discussion on a science forum or sub-forum are properly conducted is at odds with convention and courtesy.

I might assert that it is common knowledge (which, indeed, it is) that birds are descended from dinosaurs and are themselves, from a cladistic viewpoint, dinosaurs. If someone challenges me on this point I do not repeat the assertion and tell the challenger to go find out for themselves. I provide a link or two to a peer reviewed article, or - at the very, very least - a link to the relvant wikipedia item. I may well provide a summary of the arguments/evidence, or relevant extracts from the papers.

RealityCheck has challenged your view of Muhammed's literacy. Simply repeating your assertion and telling him to go read some books is not a helpful, or acceptable response. As I noted before it creates the impression that you don't know what you are talking about. It is no skin of my nose if you wish to leave people with that impression.

Thank you for taking the time to reply. I regret we are likely to remain with opposing views on this.

 

[Tom 1]

Your view of how discussion on a science forum or sub-forum are properly conducted is at odds with convention and courtesy.

I might assert that it is common knowledge (which, indeed, it is) that birds are descended from dinosaurs and are themselves, from a cladistic viewpoint, dinosaurs. If someone challenges me on this point I do not repeat the assertion and tell the challenger to go find out for themselves. I provide a link or two to a peer reviewed article, or - at the very, very least - a link to the relvant wikipedia item. I may well provide a summary of the arguments/evidence, or relevant extracts from the papers.

RealityCheck has challenged your view of Muhammed's literacy. Simply repeating your assertion and telling him to go read some books is not a helpful, or acceptable response. As I noted before it creates the impression that you don't know what you are talking about. It is no skin of my nose if you wish to leave people with that impression.

Thank you for taking the time to reply. I regret we are likely to remain with opposing views on this.

I understand where you are coming from, but maybe read my posts again - it isn’t my view of Muhammed’s literacy, it is, as I said in my first post ‘according to Islamic tradition’, I don’t adopt this view as such but it seems reasonable. It fits in fairly well with the other information that can be gained from Islamic sources about his life, e.g that he was an orphan whose break in life came in his 20’s when he married a wealthy older woman (and so would have been unlikely to have led the kind of privileged childhood that might have led to formal education), and from general history of the period etc regarding access to education, and so on. There’s nothing esoteric about any of it. But, maybe he was literate? Who actually knows? Personally I take the mainstream Islamic view to be the best fit but maybe it isn’t. I just tend to think that challenges to that view, as to other generally established views of historical figures, should have some substance to them. There’s a fair amount of relevant info on this topic in the book I mentioned and the related writings referenced in it also, from Islamic sources. Personally, I don’t think there’s much point in reading an article about this kind of thing without first having some general background knowledge, otherwise how do you decide if the points made in the article stand up or not? I tend to think that’s true for most (if not all) historical issues, but that’s just my view, which is why I think a book or two is a better way to understand Islamic traditions re Muhammed than an online article.
Actually I forgot I made the OP in a science sub forum, the op was just something I thought was funny but obviously it has spiralled way off topic, I hadn’t really thought about what might be conventional. For me these discussions are ways to find things out, by putting out some ideas and seeing if anything interesting comes up. Apologies if this is the wrong forum for that kind of approach.

 

[RealityCheck01]

Yes, that’s probably true, apologies.

Which do you think are the strong arguments there, in the link?

There are some good arguments in that quora post as I wrote before, e.g. emphasis on literacy that Muhammed seems to have ignored. But as I also wrote, a counterargument is that he may have been incapable of reading or writing (see dyslexia).

What is the proof that Prophet Muhammad was illiterate?
The rather long response with the good arguments is by Dr. G. Adisoma.
He interprets the first Quranic revelation as a command to read and the second as emphasizing writing.

If indeed Muhammad was an illiterate man when the Quran was first revealed to him, how could he not make himself learn to read and write during the twenty some years of his mission? Perhaps a more poignant question should be, "How dare he not to obey his Lord’s clear commandment to read and write?" Being a messenger of God, of course he would not dare disobeying his Lord.

And ends:

There were other instances in the history of early Islam where Prophet Muhammad sent many letters to Kings and other heads of state, inviting them to embrace God's religion. The only plausible conclusion is that he realized the importance of written communication, as God has taught in the earliest revelation. Ibn Ishaq’s chronicle on this issue provides a historical evidence to support the fact that Muhammad was indeed a literate prophet.
Dr. G. Adisoma
Reference: Guillaume, A., The Life of Muhammad, a translation of Ibn Ishaq’s Sirat Rasul Allah, Oxford, 1967, p. 649.

Found what looks like the original source which is easier to read: Claim of Muhammad’s illiteracy

 

[Tom 1]

There are some good arguments in that quora post as I wrote before, e.g. emphasis on literacy that Muhammed seems to have ignored. But as I also wrote, a counterargument is that he may have been incapable of reading or writing (see dyslexia).

What is the proof that Prophet Muhammad was illiterate?
The rather long response with the good arguments is by Dr. G. Adisoma.
He interprets the first Quranic revelation as a command to read and the second as emphasizing writing.

And ends:


Found what looks like the original source which is easier to read: Claim of Muhammad’s illiteracy

Mmm not so sure, just reading the first part and this quote ‘Not only was Muhammad accused of writing down what he heard, one cannot dictate to an illiterate person‘ seems a little off, using the accusation made against Muhammed that he had spent time studying and putting together the Quran before receiving his revelations to prove itself seems odd, i.e the argument that ‘the accusation must be true therefore he must have been literate’ isn’t much of an argument. It might be the case that Muhammed did study the existing scriptures before starting to dictate his own, but if that were the case then much more similarity would be evident, whereas what you actually have in the Quran are bits that are vaguely similar to some parts of the Torah but presented in a disjointed fashion, with different details and so on, vaguely similar but far from the same in most cases. The length of time over which the Quran was delivered piecemeal and the tendency in mid to later Surahs to deliver responses to different situations as revelations from Allah make the idea that he was using knowledge of earlier scriptures difficult to argue.
Re. Arguments about references to letters and signing agreements and so on, Muslims point to instances where it is specifically stated in Islamic writings that he used a scribe or assistant of some kind to take down dictated letters, there are examples of this kind of response on this site - Is it True that Prophet Muhammad Was Illiterate? | About Islam
which I’ve found to be common responses to arguments of literacy based on mentions of some instance of written material.
Re the quotes from the Quran used to suggest he would have learned to read because he was ordered to read - well for that kind of question I think you really would have to delve a bit into Islamic apologetics. I’m not going to try and represent that kind of argument here as they tend to get long and difficult, and are based in ways of thinking I’m not familiar with so I can’t really sum up effectively what I’ve read about it here and there. If this is a questions your are particularly interested in then some understanding of Muslim apologetics would help you to get your head around the arguments, but I can’t really help you with that.
Maybe he was dyslexic, who knows? I don’t see how that could be based on anything but supposition.
The idea that he must have been literate because he was a merchant is a bit speculative. It assumes rather a lot - again this is a broad subject, taking in norms of the time. What reason is there to think that to be a successful merchant in the 5th C a person had to be literate? I would say that is an example of modern thinking applied to a historical question, which is never a very effective way of understanding the norms of a different era. The assertion that because he must have had some way of counting or evaluating quantity somehow proves literacy is just that, an assertion, not really an argument. Again, it’s putting the whole scenario in an imaginary modern context and thinking about it in those terms.
It doesn’t explain either the initial reluctance of his closest followers to draw up a written record of all of his saying - although bits of this were written down in some way recording it all was initially considered possibly sacreligious, the argument being ‘ because the prophet didn’t write it down, how can we presume to do so?’

 

[RealityCheck01]

Mmm not so sure, just reading the first part and this quote ‘Not only was Muhammad accused of writing down what he heard, one cannot dictate to an illiterate person‘ seems a little off, ...

Read what comes after what you quote and the source that is given beforehand.

Those who disbelieved said, "This is a fabrication that he produced, with the help of some other people." They have uttered a blasphemy and a falsehood.
They also said, "Tales from the past that he wrote down; they were dictated to him day and night."*

That is a statement that Muhammad wrote supported by the word "dictated" implying a literate person.

ETA: That website has another author with a slightly ranting Muhammad Wrote God's Revelations With His own Hand (lots of "ignorant scholars" insults) including the same point.

 

[RealityCheck01]

...The idea that he must have been literate because he was a merchant is a bit speculative.

What is stated in Claim of Muhammad’s illiteracy is

It was also a well known historical fact that Muhammad was a successful merchant before his call as a messenger prophet. As a matter of necessity, he obviously knew how to count. ... Therefore, since Muhammad knew how to count numbers as a merchant, he should also know how to read and write a transaction. This is a reasonable enough argument.

The claim is a merchant at the time should be able to read and write transactions. That might not a person being literate enough to write a major and large religious text. But it does suggest he is not illiterate.[/QUOTE]

 

[Tom 1]

Read what comes after what you quote and the source that is given beforehand.

That is a statement that Muhammad wrote supported by the word "dictated" implying a literate person.

ETA: That website has another author with a slightly ranting Muhammad Wrote God's Revelations With His own Hand (lots of "ignorant scholars" insults) including the same point.

Yes I read that, it’s just more of the same thing, asserting the authors view that the content of the accusations must be true, and therefore any implications of the accusations must be true also.

 

[Tom 1]

There’s not really enough there to go on, I don’t think so anyway. To assert that he should or must have read this or that you’d need to have some developed examples from how trading was carried out in that region at the time, rather than just assumptions, which is what the author seems to be going on.

 

[DogmaHunter]

You aren’t recognising the problem with that argument - Mohammed, the person who dictated the Quran

Correction: from the islamic perspective, it was not Mohammed that dictated it. It was dictated to Mohammed.

believed that the already existin scriptures, the existing scriptures that existed in his time and which copies still exist now, were the message of God. He was not referring to some abstract idea but the actual, written, existing scriptures. Although he didn’t have a developed idea of what they taught, he believed them to have come from God, and to have been recorded in a way that was unalterable and perfect.

You said it yourself.

So if later on they find out that those scriptures are saying other things on certain topics, which contradict the Quran... what do you think will be concluded by the muslims?

 

[DogmaHunter]

To make my last post clearer, Mohammed refers to the writings he claims were God’s message specifically- when talking about the Jews, he refers to the Torah, when talking about Christians he refers to the gospel or ‘the book’ as in ‘the people of the book’. He states that these writings are revelations of God, but that the Jews had become corrupted ‘in their understanding’. He is not talking about some other, previously existing message, but referring specifically to copies of the Torah and the NT (‘the book’) that existed in his time, and still exist today.

The guys is said to have been illiterate. Accepting that, it follows that he could not have read what those scriptures said. Therefor, he could not have known.

Indeed, he said that Allah gave previous messages which were recorded in the Torah and the Bible. He also said that the Quran was perfect.

So if the Torah/Bible don't agree with the Quran..................................

Fill in the blanks.