How was the holy book compiled?
-
Peace to all,
I have to agree with Mazhar on this one. People often attribute the idea of "magic" to anything they don't understand. However, it wouldn't make any sense for people to attribute a physical act such as writing or reading to someone... For example, the people accused Jesus ("Esa" of practicing magic because he healed the sick; they couldn't do or understand it, so they rejected it. Now, if they said, 'He healed them by placing his hands upon them,' this concept wouldn't make sense if Jesus didn't have any hands, and it would be completely illogical for them to fabricate a detail like this... In the same way, it would be absolutely illogical and ridiculous for them to accuse a known illiterate man of physically writing a book, a task he is incapable of doing; it wouldn't make any sense.
Peace,
Ahmad
-
Peace to all,
I have to agree with Mazhar on this one. People often attribute the idea of "magic" to anything they don't understand. However, it wouldn't make any sense for people to attribute a physical act such as writing or reading to someone... For example, the people accused Jesus ("Esa" of practicing magic because he healed the sick; they couldn't do or understand it, so they rejected it. Now, if they said, 'He healed them by placing his hands upon them,' this concept wouldn't make sense if Jesus didn't have any hands, and it would be completely illogical for them to fabricate a detail like this... In the same way, it would be absolutely illogical and ridiculous for them to accuse a known illiterate man of physically writing a book, a task he is incapable of doing; it wouldn't make any sense.
Peace,
Ahmad
Peace Brother
IKTATABA does not carry same meaning as KATABA... else KATABA itself will have been used, I have you agree with me on this one....
They (the unbelievers) accused the messener for IKTATABA... IKTATABA carry the meaning of copy/transcribe something... What you you think about an illeterate person copying something?? I can confirm you that this is VERY POSSIBLE... I am a scholl teacher myself... And their are kids who do not know how to write themselves, but when they are seated next to an intelligent kid, they CAN COPY the work by looking at the other kid's work... And after that, they cannot read back what they have written in their copybook.. They just copied it... So what do you think about a person who DO NOT KNOW how to write, copy something?
May Allah increase us in knowledge...
Also, we should pay attention to my signature and do not waste much time on such details..
Peace
-
Peace WayFinder,
They (the unbelievers) accused the messener for IKTATABA... IKTATABA carry the meaning of copy/transcribe something... What you you think about an illeterate person copying something?? I can confirm you that this is VERY POSSIBLE... I am a scholl teacher myself... And their are kids who do not know how to write themselves, but when they are seated next to an intelligent kid, they CAN COPY the work by looking at the other kid's work... And after that, they cannot read back what they have written in their copybook.. They just copied it... So what do you think about a person who DO NOT KNOW how to write, copy something?
Okay... I agree with this as being a possibility. There are many people who can't read or write, but they copy things, even in written form... This, however, is not applicable to Muhammed. Saying so implies that Muhammed blindly wrote the reading, even though he didn't know what it said. In essence, he was spreading a message to the people that he didn't himself understand... It also implies that the scripture was already written (Muhammed had to copy it from a written form), and this conflicts with other Quranic passages (see 67). In a way, it attributes to the belief that someone else was given the scripture, and this person taught it to Muhammed, who simply copied it down, even though he couldn't personally read it, which conflicts with the Quranic ideology that God teaches by means of the pen (961-4), an instrument used for writing (681)... So, again, I believe it is certainly possible for an illiterate person to 'copy' something down, even in written form; but I don't think this was the case with Muhammed. Rather, he was very knowledgeable of the scripture, and he physically wrote the message with his own hand...
Peace,
Ahmad
-
Even if one goes against what is clear in alQuran, and agrees that they meant "liar", one would still be hogged by the reasoning of Mazhar because lying is also a physical act,
It is perhaps a basic lesson that both are different and distinct things. In Arabic it is . Lying means orally stating something untrue, it does not constitue . One who lies, communicates an untrue statment, news is called .
"We certainly know that indeed it grieves you what they people say in public,
since it is certain that they do not publicly deny you, rather those evil-doers {distorters of fact} deliberately and knowingly deny communications of Allah for self motives/pride. -
Peace WayFinder,
Okay... I agree with this as being a possibility. There are many people who can't read or write, but they copy things, even in written form... This, however, is not applicable to Muhammed. Saying so implies that Muhammed blindly wrote the reading, even though he didn't know what it said. In essence, he was spreading a message to the people that he didn't himself understand... It also implies that the scripture was already written (Muhammed had to copy it from a written form), and this conflicts with other Quranic passages (see 67). In a way, it attributes to the belief that someone else was given the scripture, and this person taught it to Muhammed, who simply copied it down, even though he couldn't personally read it, which conflicts with the Quranic ideology that God teaches by means of the pen (961-4), an instrument used for writing (681)... So, again, I believe it is certainly possible for an illiterate person to 'copy' something down, even in written form; but I don't think this was the case with Muhammed. Rather, he was very knowledgeable of the scripture, and he physically wrote the message with his own hand...
Peace,
Ahmad
Pay attention to the RED part.... It is basically true... This is what the UNBELIEVERS were claiming.... Though it was not Scripture from Allah that they were referring to because they NEVER accepted it to be from Allah... And this is why they called it ASAATWEER AL AWALEEN ...Because someone must dictate these tales to him right? According to 255 ... So this someone already knew these tales... And in another verse which I do not remember... Allah is telling the unbelievers that Muhammad did not get the Scripture from A PARTICULAR PERSON who was alive at their time... I am not very sure about this one so am gonna need to check... However, the right question to ask here is... How Muhammad know these tales of the past?? Verily that was revelation from His Lord but the unbelievers refused to believe in the messenger himself... So never accepted it to be revelation... So, the other option that Muhammad might have learn these tales is from someone else... And this is what they are claiming in 255....
So I think the question you brought forward should not be asked because these were the claims of the UNBELIEVERS... And based on such claims, we cannot say that someone else received revelation and brought it to Muhammad... The UNBELIEVERS did not even accept it as REVELATION and told that these were tales... Tales that mostly elders will know... Their claim was RIGHT what you just said... They wanted to make the people understand that Muhammad is not receiving any revelation on HIMSELF...
I personally will stick to my own understanding of the 255 as I posted some posts before because it just seems to make sense to me... However, if anyone can make a breakdown of the 255 as I did it but with different meaning, It will be nice.
HOWEVER... It will not make difference in our belief if we diverge on this issue... The most important of ALL is, the QURAN reached us as it was revealed...
619 (Asad) Say "What could most weightily bear witness to the truth?" Say "God is witness between me and you; and this Qur?an has been revealed unto me so that on the strength thereof I might warn you and all whom it may reach." Could you in truth bear witness that there are other deities side by side with God? Say "I bear no witness!" Say "He is the One God; and, behold, far be it from me to ascribe divinity, as, you do, to aught beside Him!
We should always remember to stick to the MOUHKAMAAT....
May Allah help us and increase us in knowledge
Wassalaam
-
Pay attention to the RED part.... It is basically true... This is what the UNBELIEVERS were claiming.... Though it was not Scripture from Allah that they were referring to because they NEVER accepted it to be from Allah... And this is why they called it ASAATWEER AL AWALEEN ...Because someone must dictate these tales to him right? According to 255 ... So this someone already knew these tales... And in another verse which I do not remember... Allah is telling the unbelievers that Muhammad did not get the Scripture from A PARTICULAR PERSON who was alive at their time... I am not very sure about this one so am gonna need to check... However, the right question to ask here is... How Muhammad know these tales of the past?? Verily that was revelation from His Lord but the unbelievers refused to believe in the messenger himself... So never accepted it to be revelation... So, the other option that Muhammad might have learn these tales is from someone else... And this is what they are claiming in 255....
So I think the question you brought forward should not be asked because these were the claims of the UNBELIEVERS... And based on such claims, we cannot say that someone else received revelation and brought it to Muhammad... The UNBELIEVERS did not even accept it as REVELATION and told that these were tales... Tales that mostly elders will know... Their claim was RIGHT what you just said... They wanted to make the people understand that Muhammad is not receiving any revelation on HIMSELF...
I personally will stick to my own understanding of the 255 as I posted some posts before because it just seems to make sense to me... However, if anyone can make a breakdown of the 255 as I did it but with different meaning, It will be nice.
HOWEVER... It will not make difference in our belief if we diverge on this issue... The most important of ALL is, the QURAN reached us as it was revealed...
619 (Asad) Say "What could most weightily bear witness to the truth?" Say "God is witness between me and you; and this Qur?an has been revealed unto me so that on the strength thereof I might warn you and all whom it may reach." Could you in truth bear witness that there are other deities side by side with God? Say "I bear no witness!" Say "He is the One God; and, behold, far be it from me to ascribe divinity, as, you do, to aught beside Him!
We should always remember to stick to the MOUHKAMAAT....
May Allah help us and increase us in knowledge
Wassalaam
Refer1^102-105
The point with regard to their utterences regarding Quran has been made clear that it were deliberate and knowing it to be otherwise. and .
Root
Antonym Root
The basic perception infolded is uttering a falsehood, saying to others something which is untrue; giving an untrue account, or relation of a thing. Though some regard that even giving an untrue statement unintentionally falls in its ambit but the fact is that only that thing falls within its purview which is given intentionally or knowing it to be otherwise. The fact that the act of declaring the Ayat of Allah as lie, tales of the past by such people was intentional despite knowing their veracity is made unambiguously evident by the use of the word in the Grand Quran.
Root
Basic perception infolded is to deny, or not to acknowledge a thing in absolute sense. It relates to denial of such a thing about which the person from within knows it to be otherwise/knows it to be true. {Ref 2714] Thus denial is not for reason of some confusion or suspicion about the stating thing, but it is deliberately and consciously denied publicly after refusing it, in consideration of it being damaging for their personal motives/ pride/arrogance.Refer 4330-31
-
Here are two persons, one who has writen down what is alleged as "tales of the past" and the others who dictate those "tales of the past".
If one reads it with its earlier context, everything seems distinctly evident.
This is one person about whom people alleged that this {Quran} is nothing except lies that he has compiled.
And this is the second allegation that in compiling that he has been assisted by others.
=
=
=
And finally it is clarified that their statement is absolutely false. What he has written is not tales of the past but
Salaam brother Mazaar,
I missed this old post from yours... Sorry for late reply on this...
My opinion differ from you on what you have outlined above... The 2 verses do relate to one another.... However, the symmetry as you put it ( = ) is not there according to me... Both verses are related but their arrangement is different... Let me explain.
Your are right, there are 2 party in the verse 254-5 ... On one side we have the messenger, and on the other we have the unbelievers... In both 254 and 255, it is the SAME group of unbelievers who is talking. Let me dig a little deeper in these verses.
244
WA = And
QAALA = Said
AL LAZEENA = Those
KAFAROO = Who disbelievedIN = Verily
HAAZA = This is
ILLAA = Except
IFK = Forgery/Fabrication
IFTARAA = He fabricated ( Subject is hidden, pointing back to messenger)
HOU = Referring back to IFK, which is fabricationWA = And
A'3AANA = Helped
HOU = Him, referring to the messenger
ALAY = On
HI = It, referring back to IFK, fabrication
QAWM = People
AAKHAREEN = OtherI will not analyse the end part, it is only this part which concern us... In this verse, it is clear who make the claim, who was accused, and who were the ones who helped with the fabrication.
Whereas on 255, of we go with the normal translation... there is no clue who dictated the old tales... If we keep thinking that TOUMLAA means to dictate someone to write only... So this difference alone is enough to make you know that 254 and 254 does not have same arrangement...
However, if you check the way I understood the 255, you will see that there is no much questions to be asked... IKTATABA might mean he copied it.. I already talk about an illiterate man capable of copying.... Infact this is the normal process of thinking... I am a teacher myself, if some of my really weak pupils will come up with a homework neatly done... My first reaction will usually be to tell him that he copied it from someone because it is not conceivable for me that he was able to come up with this homework done correctly like this.. it is beyond his ability...
As for the second part of 255... If we translate TOUMLA as to dictate... we will have to answer some more questions to validate it... The SUBJECT for TOUMLAA is feminine... So the one who dictated it on Muhammad should be a feminine?? I have already brought up these questions in my earlier posts...
However, TOUMLAA, as most arabic verbs, has quite large array of meanings... and not only means dictating something to write... It also means, helping, assisting, supporting, backing up etc... Or dictating like Hitler did
If we translate TOUMLAA as SUPPORTING... all the unanswered questions will be solved....
FA HIYA = So these, the old tales
TOUMLAA ALAY= are supporting
HI = him, the messenger
BOUKRATAN = early morning
WA ASWEELAA = till lateIf we translate it like this, the question of the subject of TOUMLA is answered, because as I told earlier, the subject is feminine... and ASAATWEER also is feminine... So ASAATWEER is the real subject here and it is gramatically correct... Also, now the 254 and 255 will be in perfect harmony...
So the meaning so this part of the verse is that, Muhammad is using these ancient tales ( which in turn are helping him) to spread his lies and convince people
As I said, if you have another opinion on this verse, please provide a detail breakdown of the verse and validate your opinion grammatically.
Allah knows best
Ma'salaam
-
Pay attention to the RED part.... It is basically true... This is what the UNBELIEVERS were claiming.... Though it was not Scripture from Allah that they were referring to because they NEVER accepted it to be from Allah... And this is why they called it ASAATWEER AL AWALEEN ...Because someone must dictate these tales to him right? According to 255 ... So this someone already knew these tales... And in another verse which I do not remember... Allah is telling the unbelievers that Muhammad did not get the Scripture from A PARTICULAR PERSON who was alive at their time... I am not very sure about this one so am gonna need to check...
Brother, right now, you're just fumbling for excuses. Your conclusion doesn't make any sense at all, and we know that the scripture was sent down 'TO MUHAMMED' (472). Based on your ideology, someone else was actually given a physical book (possibly an angel), and this person showed this book to the prophet, pretty much telling him, "Copy this down, even though you can't read or understand it..." Does this sound logical to you? The disbelievers wouldn't accuse him of copying the words of another book unless they actually witnessed the other book and the person who brought it to him, which they didn't.
However, the right question to ask here is... How Muhammad know these tales of the past?? Verily that was revelation from His Lord but the unbelievers refused to believe in the messenger himself... So never accepted it to be revelation... So, the other option that Muhammad might have learn these tales is from someone else... And this is what they are claiming in 255....
Yes, they are alleging that Muhammed learned the stories from someone else, not that he literally copied them. The stories presented in the reading are not identical to the ones in the previous scriptures. Therefore, they couldn't have been accusing him of copying it. They're accusing him of learning the stories and writing them down in his own book, in his own words...
So I think the question you brought forward should not be asked because these were the claims of the UNBELIEVERS... And based on such claims, we cannot say that someone else received revelation and brought it to Muhammad... The UNBELIEVERS did not even accept it as REVELATION and told that these were tales... Tales that mostly elders will know... Their claim was RIGHT what you just said... They wanted to make the people understand that Muhammad is not receiving any revelation on HIMSELF...
The disbelievers who rejected the message, calling it forged, were most likely Jews and Christians; so they were knowledgeable of what their scriptures said. That's why people accused him of reciting "tales of the ancients" - they're speaking about ancient Jewish legends... So, you're saying that the disbelievers were accusing Muhammed of talking to a Judeo-Christian-Sabian author, who wrote his own complete book, and he showed it to the prophet, having Muhammed copy it word for word? The complete Quran?! Do you know how long this would take, for a completely illiterate person to write down the reading in Arabic? And this is what they accused him of? Not likely, brother...
I personally will stick to my own understanding of the 255 as I posted some posts before because it just seems to make sense to me... However, if anyone can make a breakdown of the 255 as I did it but with different meaning, It will be nice.
HOWEVER... It will not make difference in our belief if we diverge on this issue... The most important of ALL is, the QURAN reached us as it was revealed...
619 (Asad) Say "What could most weightily bear witness to the truth?" Say "God is witness between me and you; and this Quran has been revealed unto me so that on the strength thereof I might warn you and all whom it may reach." Could you in truth bear witness that there are other deities side by side with God? Say "I bear no witness!" Say "He is the One God; and, behold, far be it from me to ascribe divinity, as, you do, to aught beside Him!
We should always remember to stick to the MOUHKAMAAT....
Agreed.
Peace,
Ahmad
-
Peace Bro Bilaal
Pay attention to this verse...
If the Prophet knew how to write, then for what reason did he never wrote something before with his right hand?
Also, in 255... It does not say HE WROTE IT DOWN... BUT, he COPIED/TRANSCRIBED it... Allah does not lack words... Why did he not use KATABAHAA? It would mean HE WROTE IT... But he used the word IKTATABA which definitely carries another meaning and not writing down like KATABA...
While KATABA has been used in the Quran and carries the meaning of TO WRITE
So why not use KATABA in 255 if it mean to write as we know it? Definitely, KATABA and IKTATABA does not have the same meaning. It does not matter on who the messenger copied these... They only accuse him of copying... They do not care on whom he copied... More importantly, they were trying to imply that the prophet was collecting bits and pieces from various sources, and not from a revealed book as you said above... They did not consider it as revelations.
Again, I urge you to bring a breakdown of the verse 255 and validate it with the arabic grammar... You will see that there are some blurry points.
Wasalaam
-
Another point in relation to this verse....
From what I read in earlier post in this thread... and from what I understood from the logic some are using regarding the MIN QABLIHI
Brothers are trying to say that the MESSENGER did not know how to write BEFORE the coming of the Quran... And that AFTER it, he was able to write...
But tell me, do you apply same logic for the first part of this verse also? Did the messenger started to recite ancient scriptures AFTER the coming of the Quran because BEFORE it, he never recited any scripture.... Did he?
The fact stated in this verse does not mean that after the Quran he started to write or recite ancient scriptures. The fact in this verse is that He did not read/studied previous scriptures and neither was able to write/copy from them.
We are open for discussion.
Allah knows best.
Wassalaam
-
Peace WayFinder,
Pay attention to this verse...
If the Prophet knew how to write, then for what reason did he never wrote something before with his right hand?
This is a misinterpretation, and it's implying that the prophet never wrote down a previous scripture, not that he never wrote down anything...
Also, in 255... It does not say HE WROTE IT DOWN... BUT, he COPIED/TRANSCRIBED it... Allah does not lack words... Why did he not use KATABAHAA? It would mean HE WROTE IT... But he used the word IKTATABA which definitely carries another meaning and not writing down like KATABA...
Okay... Your argument would make perfect sense if "iktataaba" meant to copy; but it doesn't. It literally means 'he wrote it', and in a grammatical sense, it's nearly identical to "katabaa". There's no way for sure to identify this word as meaning "copy", since this is the only passage in the reading where it's mentioned... The root word, though, is based on the word "kataab", which refers to physically writing a book, not copying it. So, it's more reasonable to assume that Muhammed wrote it, not copied it down from someone else...
The concept of this "illiterate prophet" is based on the sectarian interpretation of the word "ummy", which they falsely translate as 'unable to read or write'. According to the reading, Muhammed was a gentile (belonging to a nation that didn't receive a scripture), and the belief that he was completely illiterate is not supported in the Quran at all. So, if there's no proof that he was illiterate, then what's wrong with the concept of him writing down the message with his own hand?
Peace,
Ahmad
-
Peace WayFinder,
This is a misinterpretation, and it's implying that the prophet never wrote down a previous scripture, not that he never wrote down anything...
Peace Ahmad,
I went through the beginning verses from Surah 29 upto around verse 60... I notice that there is clear misunderstanding (not interpretation) regarding the verse 2948.... From the context of the verse, it is clear that Muhammad did not write the Kitaab with his right hand... At least for me. I even find it quite simple, however, if you have another explanation regarding this, please post back. Check this illustration plz.
http//www.freeimagehosting.net/uploads/a29de1fee1.gif
Okay... Your argument would make perfect sense if "iktataaba" meant to copy; but it doesn't. It literally means 'he wrote it', and in a grammatical sense, it's nearly identical to "katabaa". There's no way for sure to identify this word as meaning "copy", since this is the only passage in the reading where it's mentioned... The root word, though, is based on the word "kataab", which refers to physically writing a book, not copying it. So, it's more reasonable to assume that Muhammed wrote it, not copied it down from someone else...
The concept of this "illiterate prophet" is based on the sectarian interpretation of the word "ummy", which they falsely translate as 'unable to read or write'. to the reading, Muhammed was a gentile (belonging to a nation that didn't receive a scripture), and the belief that he was completely illiterate is not supported in the Quran at all. So, if there's no proof that he was illiterate, then what's wrong with the concept of him writing down the message with his own hand?
Peace,
Ahmad
We have agreement on this then... KATABA and IKTATABA does not carry the same meaning... Although a verb can share the same root... The variant of verbs we get from a single root is a multitude and some differ quite much from the original root... So, to say that IKTATABA is same as KATABA is wrong... And to say that we cannot derive its meaning as well is wrong also... Because we learn the formation of such verbs in ILM AS SARF ... From a single root verb, FAA-AYN-LAM , we get 9 forms of verb derived from it and they all carry specific meanings derived from the root... One form will show the verb with more preciseness, another form shows the same verb with some force in it... These IX forms shows the different facets and meanings derived from the same root verb... So, we can find the meaning for the verb IKTATABA but will have to study SARF first...
I agree the Sectarian belief is that the prophet was illiterate... And their view regarding the word UMMY, however, UMMY is not the issue here, they misinterpreted/understood it, lets leave them... But if it is sectarian belief and it is approved by the Quran, then we have no reson to trash it... Lies like these have to build up on truth... They take the truth and cover it with lies...
However, the messenger did not write the Quran with his own hands according to my understanding and my explanation above. We tend to ask the reason for such ... The reason is plain simple... It is the PLAN of ALLAH.... He detains the whole knowledge and knows the reason for choosing a messenger who cannot write... However, one reason for this is mentioned in 2948 itself... To refrain the talkers of Vanities from doubting the revelations... And I do believe there are many more reasons behind it.
Allah knows best.
Wassalaam
-
Peace to all,
I have to agree with Mazhar on this one. People often attribute the idea of "magic" to anything they don't understand. However, it wouldn't make any sense for people to attribute a physical act such as writing or reading to someone... For example, the people accused Jesus ("Esa" of practicing magic because he healed the sick; they couldn't do or understand it, so they rejected it. Now, if they said, 'He healed them by placing his hands upon them,' this concept wouldn't make sense if Jesus didn't have any hands, and it would be completely illogical for them to fabricate a detail like this... In the same way, it would be absolutely illogical and ridiculous for them to accuse a known illiterate man of physically writing a book, a task he is incapable of doing; it wouldn't make any sense.
Peace,
Ahmad
Peace,
It is very clear from alQuran that the prophet did not go around spreading the message with written suras, but vocally/orally. The accusations are based on conjecture and ill will, not on eye witnessing the act of writing. Of course, they could not understand how the written Quran had emerged.
-
Peace min ibadillah,
It is very clear from alQuran that the prophet did not go around spreading the message with written suras, but vocally/orally. The accusations are based on conjecture and ill will, not on eye witnessing the act of writing. Of course, they could not understand how the written Quran had emerged.
Okay... If you look into the contexts of the reading, most of the people rejecting Muhammad as a prophet were Jews and Christians (and Nazarenes), and they didn't believe that God would send down ANOTHER book. In other words, they were already familiar with the previous scriptures... Now, if these Jews and Christians were puzzled by the compilation of the Quran, then why didn't they devise the same idea they did for Moses, that God wrote the words down Himself? Based on their scripture, this wouldn't have been out of the ordinary, and Elohim was already known to write the scripture down on stone tablets. So, why did they accuse Muhammad of "writing" it, instead of considering the example of Moses who received a pre-written doctrine?
If they were attempting to accuse Muhammad of forgery, instead of claiming that he (being allegedly illiterate) wrote down the scripture, they would've said that his followers wrote it down for him. Or they would've said that a Jew or a Christian wrote it down for him, copying from their scripture. Or they would've accused him of making the entire thing up completely, alleging that it wasn't actually written down at all... But they didn't accuse him of any of these things. Instead, they claimed that he READ their scripture, and then he WROTE his own book modeled after their books. Why would they do this?
Peace,
Ahmad
-
Peace WayFinder,
The reason is plain simple... It is the PLAN of ALLAH.... He detains the whole knowledge and knows the reason for choosing a messenger who cannot write... However, one reason for this is mentioned in 2948 itself... To refrain the talkers of Vanities from doubting the revelations... And I do believe there are many more reasons behind it.
You posted a good table, but I still don't think this provides enough proof and assurance that Muhammad was actually illiterate... Either way, one of these days, we'll have to write a detailed article on this topic, so all the points can be explained and the readers can draw their own conclusions. I personally don't believe that God would choose a messenger who can't read or write for a simple fact - Muhammad, according to both the Quran and hadiths, encouraged his followers to become educated. He told them to study the "kitaab" (book, writing, scripture), something clearly in a WRITTEN FORM. So, how could Muhammad tell his people to become educated if he wasn't educated himself? This doesn't sound hypocritical to you? Why would he instruct his followers to do something that he is incapable of doing himself? I don't believe God selects hypocrites to carry His message... But again, God will inform us of all the things in which we dispute, Inshaa Allah, in the hereafter.
Peace,
Ahmad
-
It is perhaps a basic lesson that both are different and distinct things. In Arabic it is . Lying means orally stating something untrue, it does not constitue . One who lies, communicates an untrue statment, news is called .
"We certainly know that indeed it grieves you what they people say in public,
since it is certain that they do not publicly deny you, rather those evil-doers {distorters of fact} deliberately and knowingly deny communications of Allah for self motives/pride.Peace,
It looks like it keeps getting worse for the reasoning you put forth. One can write lies too. This exposes even more the falacy of the logic put forth, for the prophet to be accused of writing lies, he must have been known and acknowledged not just of writing but also lying and writing lies, etc. etc..
I don't think I will reply anymore to such regressive reasoning.
-
Peace WayFinder,
You posted a good table, but I still don't think this provides enough proof and assurance that Muhammad was actually illiterate... Either way, one of these days, we'll have to write a detailed article on this topic, so all the points can be explained and the readers can draw their own conclusions. I personally don't believe that God would choose a messenger who can't read or write for a simple fact - Muhammad, according to both the Quran and hadiths, encouraged his followers to become educated. He told them to study the "kitaab" (book, writing, scripture), something clearly in a WRITTEN FORM. So, how could Muhammad tell his people to become educated if he wasn't educated himself? This doesn't sound hypocritical to you? Why would he instruct his followers to do something that he is incapable of doing himself? I don't believe God selects hypocrites to carry His message... But again, God will inform us of all the things in which we dispute, Inshaa Allah, in the hereafter.
Peace,
Ahmad
Salaam Bilal,
Again I am asking you... If you have another opinion, prove it with the text of the Quran... And not with your interpretation or what you think about it... You know, after having debated with quite a number of people... I have heard with almost all of them that Quranist follow their own interpretation rather than the Quran and I have found this to contain a slight truth... We should not be following what we think right although the thinking goes against the text... I do not mean to be harsh here... Take it easy am a peaceful guy... LOL
I also do not follow your logic how the messenger would be a hypocrite if he encouraged something which he was not able to do himself...
A little example for you from real life and I am the witness for that... I have an uncle who is illiterate... Cannot read or write except the very very basics which will not do him any good... However, he encourages teaching and learning... He is a wealthy man, he donate lots of money in educational institutions and he encourage all his children to read and write and offer them the best of teachers... And guess what, he can only write his name after he practice copying it for a long time... he can only sign papers... But all legal forms are filled by his wife or his sons... Although he is illiterate, he did succeed a lot in his life and this is wonderful... So will he be a hypocrite then? The answer is definitely no... You should think out of the box and not stick to your own perception of the reality...
And also, all over the Quran it says that the messenger RECITES and not read... The Quran was revealed straight to the heart of Muhammad by Gibreel... He did not have to go through the process of memorization unlike his followers... After verses was revealed, he immediately knew them and recited them as many times as needed... It was there to stay and was protected and safeguarded by Allah. So he really did not had the need to read or write them for himself... But as regard to the people and his followers, they need to undergo the process of memorization.... And to achieve this, they needed to listen/write/read the Quran which is the normal process for memorization....
So what they were writing down was Al-Kitaab... A written form of the revelation and this is what the Messenger was asking them to study... 2-3 or many pages bound together is still called a Kitaab. We did not know at what extent revelation had reached when the word Al-Kitaab was being revealed... But since there are so many of them all over the Quran, It implies that it was revealed pretty early and revelation was not already complete... So Al-Kitaab applied for the first lines they wrote to the complete book they ended up with... So, there is no argument on this... There was a written form of the Quran before the messenger passed away... There are too many verses which support it...
Allah knows best.
Wassalaam
-
Peace everyone,
I think that there are some good attempts on this thread to understand if the prophet was literate or illiterate to perhaps try to answer the question about how the book was compiled. However, before asking questions about literacy, one needs to define what literacy means since it means different things for different people now and in the past.
Literacy has a functional, practical purpose. Today one cannot function effectively in society without literacy. This is why "illiterate" is seen by some here as an insult as they are looking at the issue through their modern biases. But this was not always the case and in most ancient societies people could function very well in society without ever acquiring literacy. The ability to write was seen as a trade, much like carpentry is a trade. So if one wanted something written, they would go to a scribe in the same way that if they wanted a piece of furniture they would go to a carpenter. This normal aspect of ancient societies is clearly described in a mundane, matter of fact manner in 2282-283. Based on society?s needs, regular literacy was therefore functionally restricted to certain professions such as professional scribes, the clergy and the political elite.
So what is literacy? Is it the ability to write in a certain language? When I taught Arabic 101, my students were able to very quickly within the first few weeks of the semester acquire the ability to write Arabic. I could dictate to them an Arabic word or series of words and they would diligently and correctly write them and read them back, even without knowing the meaning or being able to converse in Arabic. On the other hand, my 7 year old daughter can?t write a word in Arabic but she can easily converse in Arabic.
So what is literacy? Are my college students who can write and read but can?t converse in Arabic literate? Is my daughter who can converse but can?t write or read Arabic script illiterate in Arabic? Another twist is that like most American 7 year olds, she knows very well the English script by that age so she can aptly use the English script to write Arabic words. So who is more literate in Arabic, my college students or my 7 year old daughter?
I hope that everyone realizes by now that the questions about literacy are not clear cut even in familiar contexts so it is important that we don?t try to apply our own modern biases to answer questions about literacy in an ancient society.
It is getting late now, so I will have to stop here and continue later.
Peace,
Ayman
-
Peace everyone,
I think that there are some good attempts on this thread to understand if the prophet was literate or illiterate to perhaps try to answer the question about how the book was compiled. However, before asking questions about literacy, one needs to define what literacy means since it means different things for different people now and in the past.
Literacy has a functional, practical purpose. Today one cannot function effectively in society without literacy. This is why "illiterate" is seen by some here as an insult as they are looking at the issue through their modern biases. But this was not always the case and in most ancient societies people could function very well in society without ever acquiring literacy. The ability to write was seen as a trade, much like carpentry is a trade. So if one wanted something written, they would go to a scribe in the same way that if they wanted a piece of furniture they would go to a carpenter. This normal aspect of ancient societies is clearly described in a mundane, matter of fact manner in 2282-283. Based on society?s needs, regular literacy was therefore functionally restricted to certain professions such as professional scribes, the clergy and the political elite.
So what is literacy? Is it the ability to write in a certain language? When I taught Arabic 101, my students were able to very quickly within the first few weeks of the semester acquire the ability to write Arabic. I could dictate to them an Arabic word or series of words and they would diligently and correctly write them and read them back, even without knowing the meaning or being able to converse in Arabic. On the other hand, my 7 year old daughter can?t write a word in Arabic but she can easily converse in Arabic.
So what is literacy? Are my college students who can write and read but can?t converse in Arabic literate? Is my daughter who can converse but can?t write or read Arabic script illiterate in Arabic? Another twist is that like most American 7 year olds, she knows very well the English script by that age so she can aptly use the English script to write Arabic words. So who is more literate in Arabic, my college students or my 7 year old daughter?
I hope that everyone realizes by now that the questions about literacy are not clear cut even in familiar contexts so it is important that we don?t try to apply our own modern biases to answer questions about literacy in an ancient society.
It is getting late now, so I will have to stop here and continue later.
Peace,
Ayman
Peace Ayman
You made a good point and sincerely, i was thinking to write down a similar post... What you said is plain right...
And this is why I have tried not to used the term illiterate for the messenger.. But I wrote... HE WAS NOT ABLE TO WRITE... he did not have the writing skills... Today the word literacy has another meaning and an example for this is, computer literacy... What does this mean? Computer illiterate... etc...
But as for the messenger, I do not say he was illiterate... As this word is not well perceived... But rather he did not know how to write and did not possess the writing skills as scribes did...
Anyways, good point.
Wassalaam
-
Salaam brother Mazaar,
I missed this old post from yours... Sorry for late reply on this...
My opinion differ from you on what you have outlined above... The 2 verses do relate to one another.... However, the symmetry as you put it ( = ) is not there according to me... Both verses are related but their arrangement is different... Let me explain.
Your are right, there are 2 party in the verse 254-5 ... On one side we have the messenger, and on the other we have the unbelievers... In both 254 and 255, it is the SAME group of unbelievers who is talking. Let me dig a little deeper in these verses.
254
WA = And
QAALA = Said
AL LAZEENA = Those
KAFAROO = Who disbelievedIN = Verily
HAAZA = This is
ILLAA = Except
IFK = Forgery/Fabrication
IFTARAA = He fabricated ( Subject is hidden, pointing back to messenger)
HOU = Referring back to IFK, which is fabricationWA = And
A'3AANA = Helped
HOU = Him, referring to the messenger
ALAY = On
HI = It, referring back to IFK, fabrication
QAWM = People
AAKHAREEN = OtherI will not analyse the end part, it is only this part which concern us... In this verse, it is clear who make the claim, who was accused, and who were the ones who helped with the fabrication.{Way Finder}
Assalmo Alaikum, thanks, next time Pl also tell me how you enlarge Arabic text.
WA = And
QAALA = Said
AL LAZEENA = Those,
KAFAROO = Men who have refused to accept, men who have already rejected in the past.IN = that
HAAZA =Demonstrative pronoun, singular, masculine; This Quran/ is
ILLAA IFKun= nothing, except a lie
IFTARAA = He has compiled/re-arranged.
HOU = that, whom
?And those men who had already refused/rejected to accept said that this is nothing but a lie whom/which he has compiled?WA = And
A'3AANA = assisted on request/desire HOU = Him, referring to the messenger
ALAY = upon, towards
HI = that compiling Quran alleged as
other people
?And those men who had already refused/rejected to accept said that this is nothing but a lie that he has compiled and other people have assisted him in the compilation on request?.On their statement, verdict given is
By saying this they have indeed started indulging in distortions and blatant falsification.