Rashad
Khalifa and Muhammad's literacy: Plagarism and bad history
Was the
Prophet Muhammad literate? The consensus of Islamic theology answers
in the negative. In the late 20th century,
Dr. Rashad Khalifa tried to challenge the per-dominate view and argue
that Muhammad was literate and furthermore, wrote down the Qur'an
with his own pen. Dr. Rashad Khalifa's claim of the Prophet
Muhammad's literacy serves a a clear agenda for the alleged “19” mathematical miracle of the Qur'an. Our purpose is not to decide
whether or not the Prophet had knowledge to read and write. The task
set forth is to critique Dr. Rashad Khalifa's claims to see if they
hold up under scrutiny. We will examine the papers where the literacy
claims by looking at Dr. Khalifa's sources and reflecting on his
arguments to prove Muhammad had the ability to write. We will see
that Dr. Khalifa's writings are poorly written and would not be taken
seriously by academic standards of scholarship. Dr. Kalifa uses
hearsay to make historical points. When academic material is
consulted it is taken out of context to a degree that can only be
justified by intentional manipulation. Dr. Khalifa fails to seriously
examine general history as well as the islamic sources specifically
by ignoring the information and he does not even bother to tackle
items contradictory to his claims.
The problem
with the discussion about the Prophet's ability to read or write is
that it is vague. The question posed “was the prophet literate?”
can have several unwarranted assumptions. Traditional Islamic
theologians have not paid too much attention to the question of the
prophet's literacy because there were more practical questions
perhaps that deal with the historical record. But the question of
“did the Prophet ever learn to write?” is very important to
giving the initial question it's just view. Many laymen believers may
assume the prophet was illiterate all his life. Muhammad was believed
to have received the first revelation at 40 years old when he
apparently did not have the ability to write. But the assumption that
the prophet died in the same state of illiteracy may not be warranted
and would not contradict the historical record or traditional
theology. Indeed, there have been people who believe that the prophet
did indeed have the ability to read and write at later stages of his
life. Dr. Khalifa argues however that Prophet Muhammad was literate
from the beginning of his prophetic career.
The Merchant
argument
Only one
argument is presented to discuss the historical claim of the
Prophet's literacy. Dr. Khalifa presents the argument that because
the prophet was a successful merchant therefor illiteracy was an
impossibility. In the Appendix 28 to the Qur'an Khalifa writes,” a
merchant dealing with numbers every day, the Prophet had to know the
alphabet, from one to one-thousand.” Dr. Khalifa does not present
any other historical arguments (aside from the Qur'an.) Questioning
the ability of merchant to be successful in his trade is valid. To
answer the question if it is possible for a merchant (successful or
not) to conduct trade without knowledge of letters and numbers
requires us to frame the question better. The Prophet Muhammad died
1400 years ago after all. Can we expect merchants then and now to
have the same knowledge to conduct trade?
Dr. Khalifa's
argument about the literacy needs of a merchant is a good one but
what is the source for his argument? Dr. Khalifa perhaps posed the
argument himself but we know historically he did indeed have a
source! To take a brief detour, the attentive reader may have noticed
a mistake in the Appendix as a result of poor editing,” a
merchant dealing with numbers every day, the Prophet had to know the
alphabet, from one to one-thousand.” A person has to know the
alphabet “from to one-thousand”? Did Dr. Khalifa mean to say “A
-Z”? Why did Dr. Khalifa first start talking about numbers then
bring in the alphabet, only to talk about numbers again?
A careful search
shows that Dr. Khalifa was trying to quote directly and paraphrase
one of his congregants in his own newsletters. In the April 1986
edition of the Submitter perspective there is an article entitled
“Muhammad wrote God's revelation with his own hands.” Dr. Khalifa
cites two people to help back up his claim. (We will refrain from
providing the names of these two persons out of respect and for the
fact they are non-scholars and I assume have nothing to do with Dr.
Khalifa's assumptions.) If one reads the first quote we see a brief
discussion about “alphabet letters” in which it is argued that
the Prophet had to have had knowledge of the alphabet as a
“successful merchant.” The reasoning is that there were no
numbers developed 1400 years ago and that a system was used in which
letters functioned as numbers. The quotation ends ,” Therefore,
Muhammad had to know the whole,alphabet, from one to One-Thousand.”
These are the exact words Dr. Khalifa copied in the Appendix 28! The
other individual Dr. Khalifa quotes argues “you can't count money
if you don't know how to count.”
Dr. Khalifa took
the words of another person without credit and wrote it in his
Appendix. He could have changed the words in such a way to be his
own. This would have at least been in accord with acceptable
standards against plagiarism. But Dr. Khalifa only changed parts of
the words and left a full quote without providing credit. To make
matters worse, he quoted the individual out of context so the reader
would conclude Dr. Khalifa believed the alphabet was a numerical
system! By looking at the actual source we can at least understand
what the individual was trying to argue; namely that a system of
gematria existed which was necessary for trade. The editor of the
Appendix should have caught this error.
Dr. Khalifa
quoted two individuals in his newsletter to back up his case for the
literacy of the Prophet. The two persons quoted provided brief
arguments about knowledge needed for ancient marketplaces and
counting money in general. We will examine these arguments later. The
problem is that the two individuals quoted were not historians in any
way shape or form. They were simply innocent bystanders, presumably
members of Masjid Tuscon, who were unaware of how ridiculous their
words would look in the future. Dr. Khalifa was trying to make a case
by quoting someone's statement. This method the doctor employed is
essentially what is called “Hearsay” and it does not hold up in
court or any scholarly discussion of repute.
A historian
will make a case by presenting first hand sources (such as artifacts)
or secondary sources (books, journals by other historians.) By
quoting non-historians to conduct historical research Dr. Khalifa is
in the first place guilty of using sources outside of the field of
historical research. Granted that the person may be knowledgeable in
the subject, they are still not historians and would not be taken
seriously by real scholars. But Dr. Khalifa is not simply quoting
non-specialists (several non-historians write books and make
arguments), he is reporting someone's words, But we have know idea
that the speaker said them. Are the words verbal or written? If
written, were were they written? If verbal, when were the words said
and how were they documented. Questions such as these raise concerns
for serious researchers because they are “heresay.” Courts
generally reject hearsay as evidence for these vary same reasons.
Ironically,
Dr. Khalifa and his students argue against the validity of hadith by
labeling them as “hearsay”! Remember that for Dr. Khalifa, any
and all hadith are by definition heresay. Dr. Khalifa as well as his
disciples from various Qur'an-only trends were not willing to
compromise and allow any hadith into theological relavence, even if
it was in conformity to the Qur'an. But why does Dr. Khalifa want to
breach a principle of his own beliefs by accepting heresay to make an
argument here? Dr. Khalifa's uncredited citation of a non-specialist
becomes the worst type of heresay in his Appendix to the Quran. We
must ask why the editors would allow their “messenger” words to
further embarrass themselves by not editing this properly.
This analysis
may seem harsh or unwarranted. Dr. Khalifa was not trying to write
for an academic publication. The “messenger” of God was trying
convince the masses about the validity of the Qur'an. Furthermore, a
newsletter is not obligated to have any scholarly credentials because
it is not an academic journal. I would agree with the last point but
remember that Dr. Khalifa is trying to “convince” people of his
claims. Did Dr. Khalifa really believe he would convince anyone by
failing to use credited sources or using really bad arguments for
that matter? For the record, I do not believe Dr. Khalifa or anyone
else needs to be a historian to write history if they make a good
historical case. Dr. Khalifa may not be a historian but he has a
doctorate so he is expected to understand the level of scrutiny
needed in research.
The Historical
background
We can look at
Dr. Khalifa's one historical and uncredited claim by asking relevant
questions about history. The claim as we discussed is that Muhammad
was a successful merchant and he had to have had knowledge letters in
order to carry out mathematical functions needed to conduct trade in
the market place. Was there knowledge of reading and writing in
ancient Arabia? Was writing skills necessary to conduct trade? Also,
were literally skills really necessary to conduct for math needed in
the market place? We do not have time or the space to conduct a full
historical analysis needed to answer such questions. However, we will
go through some secondary sources to see what light it could shed on
our inquiry into Dr. Khalifa's claims.
The first
question we can ask is whether there was the possibility the Prophet
had to learn reading and writing. To answer this question we could
ask when the Arabic alphabet was developed. What we do know is that
Arabic evolved from the Nabatean or Syriac script. Laïla Nehmé
traces the transition from earlier writings to arabic for a date
between the 3rd and
5th centuries.
(Rose, Christopher; al-Jallad, Ahmad (27 April 2016). "Episode
82: What Writing Can Tell Us About the Arabs before Islam".
University of Texas, Austin. Retrieved 2 June 2017.) The Kufic
script, the earliest form of Quranic calligraphy did not emerge until
the 7th century.
Prior to that, some form of writing existed. Wikipedia has an
archeolgocial list of locations throughout Arabia world with
inscriptions in a primitive Arabic or Nabatean script.
(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_Arabic_alphabet)
These inscriptions are all religious or funerary related.
Did the
Prophet Muhammad learn to read and write? Our very brief survey shows
that reading and writing certainly existed in Arabia. What percentage
of the population had this knowledge? Questions like this are needed
to help determine the specific likelihood of the Prophet knowing or
not knowing reading skills. We would not expect a computer programmer
who requires reading or even a janitor who may not need the knowledge
for the job, to be without literally skills in the 21st century.
However we cannot place our understanding of the world today onto the
pass.
The historical
record we have for the Prophet Muhammad, biographical sources,
however paint a picture of a Prophet who at least for most of his
life was without literary skills. The biographical knowledge we have
records scribes writing the words of the Qur'an down after being
dictated by the Prophet. The very fact that scribes existed proved
there was knowledge of reading and writing during the Prophet's
lifetime. Did the prophet Muhammad have the chance to learn to read
and write? I would argue he certainly did as the righteous companions
would have spared no effort to the teach the Beloved of God these
writing skills if he so requested. But did Muhammad actually learn
some words and letters. There is scant evidence that the prophet did
learn the art of the pen. But, for the most part the Islamic sources
do not provide credence to a prophet. What we have is a prophet
dependent on scribes to write the Qur'an and compose letters to
foreigner dignitaries. Of course the fact that the Prophet had
scribes compose documents for him does not mean the Prophet himself
was illiterate. The problem we have though is simply a lack of
positive evidence in favor of the Prophets literacy in the first and
main parts of his life. Dr. Khalifa however wants to argue for an
early knowledge of writing. The validity of the historical record
will be addressed later.
Dr. Khalifa
did not try to make a case by presenting the existence of reading and
writing in ancient Arabia. Instead he made a more specific case about
the employment of the Prophet and necessity of literary skills. The
Appendix 28 an incoherent explanation of the argument Dr. Khalifa is
trying to make. But returning to the discussion of his non-credited
source we can allow Dr. Khalifa to make a case. The non-historian
"sister" argued s knowledge of the alphabet was needed.
Why? Because "during his (Muhammad's) lifetime there were no
numbers as we know them today." The point of this hearsay is
that letters were used as numbers. This system of using letters as
numbers is known as the Abjad numerals in Arabic script. Most arabic
speakers with some knowledge of history would be familiar with this
system. The Hebrew language also contains a similar system in which
letters substitute for numbers.
The original
source, which Dr. Khalifa fails to credit ,argues that the abjad
system existed in the Prophet Muhammad's life time. But this is not
true. The abjad system of using Arabic as numbers did not come into
existence until the 8th century,
at least two hundred years after Muhammad's death. (Stephen
Chrisomalis (2010). Numerical Notation: A Comparative History.
Cambridge University Press. p. 162.) The original source did not
provide evidence or present arguments for her claims. All we have is
her word to rely on which contradicts the facts.
The Hebrew
speakers did develop their own numerical system of using letters as
numbers. This system developed after contact with the Greeks sometime
in the 2nd century
B.C. This was more than half a millennium before the birth of the
Prophet. Hypothetically someone could argue that this knowledge was
transferred by the the Hebrews to the Arabs sometime before the
Prophet Muhammad's advent. This would be welcoming and worthwhile
research for the discussion. Perhaps one could make a specific case
that the Prophet Muhammad learned to speak and read Hebrew. Does the
possibility exist? Sure. But there is no evidence from any of the
sources to make such a claim. Furthermore, we have no obligation to
provide evidence for or to the contrary. If Dr. Khalifa did serious
research he could have took a shot at making a case for this. All we
have from the Egyptian doctor is one good sounding argument based on
a false premise.
Aside from the
existence of the abjad in 6th century
Arabia, serious historians can still ask the question if literary
knowledge is a requirement to be a successful merchant. A thorough
inquiry to this question is beyond the scope of this analysis but
would be welcoming for those who want to study the Prophet's life and
follow the evidence wherever it will lead. But to do justice to the
subject matter we can afford to reflect on a few sources and perhaps
others will be tempted to do the research themselves.
Is literary
knowledge needed to navigate the market place? There is an obvious
anachronistic assumption in the argument as presented by Dr. Khalifa
and his friends. The market place today is not the same as ones in
the past. In a modern economy where millions of specific commodities
are handled, armies of accountants are needed on the global economy.
A hypothetical Mowgi may win a billion dollars in the jungles of
India, move to Wallstreet, become CEO of Jungle Book Incorporated,
and loose it all because he did not understand supply and demand. But
the economies of the ancient world did not function like that of
today. In the first place there was no global economy in ancient
days. There were only local markets. There was also no complicated
system of accounting needed and what accounting was needed was mostly
done my merchants themselves.
Market places
existed at the beginning of civilization and ancient market places
are found throughout the world. Universal literacy is a contemporary
phenomena yet markets managed to exist for thousands of years. Thus
market places encompassed buyers and sellers of illiterate origins.
Dr. Khalifa does not bother to discuss any of this. But these facts
are pertinent to understanding the background to which the Prophet
lived.
Modern man may
have a hard time understanding how an illiterate merchant could
manage commodities, entrust them to others, without getting stolen.
The problem of stealing is enjoyed by literate persons as well
however. But historians are all aware of how ancient market places
functioned. The use of seals and sealing for identification of
commodities is universally recognized. Ancients put seals on their
merchandise so the seller could be identified and help prevent
stealing.(Cylinder Seals in Ancient Mesopotamia – Their History and
Significance, 2 December 2015 World History Encyclopedia) Seals in
fact functioned in market societies as substitutes for literacy. A
seal could be a picture of something, a simple writing or any
recognizable pattern that was easily identified. In a modern economy
we would use the term “trade mark” to identify items by their
manufacturer. The term “seal” is still in use as a way for the
manufacturer to prove the product meats the standards for which the
item completes with other products. Nintendo's “seal of approval”
is an example.
It is assumed
that the concept of intellectual property is a new. Economic
historians point out the need to look at trade marks and market
regulations from a less narrow perspective. Maniatis writes that the
gap between ancient markets and modern ones "is probably
narrower than we tend to believe." In both cases the trade mark
or seal has the role of conveying information about the product. (The
communicative aspects of trade marks : a legal, functional and
economic analysis; Maniatis, Spyros M; A Thesis Submitted for the
Degree of Doctor of Philosophy. University of London 1998 pg 16.) In
colonial America trade was conducted between Native American and
settlers. The natives as well as many of the settlers were
illiterate. Yet there is evidence that the blankets sewn by settlers
for trade had seals of the maker sewn into the products. These
producers were often illiterate themselves. (Sabatier,
Antoine, 1912. Sigillographie historique des administrations
fiscales, communautés ouvrières et institutions diverses ayant
employé des sceaux de plomb (XIV-XVIII siècles) : plombs historiés
de la Saône et de la Seine. H. Champion, Paris pg.21)
The bible
affords plenty of references to seals for trade purposes. The use of
seals was so wide spread that languages began to envelop the term
“seal” in metaphorical ways. The bible itself uses “seal”
metaphorically to encompass God's love and approval for example.
Islamic sources also provide credence to this. It is a shame that Dr.
Rashad Khalifa did not try to understand Muhammad's title in 33:40
“Seal of the Prophets” along these lines. Dr. Khalifa and his
followers spent so much time trying to cut 33:40 in a strange
distinction between prophet and messenger but this is beyond our
scope. Our point is only highlight the universally recognized
phenomena of seals in cultures where illiteracy was rampant.
Evidence of
cylinder seals and other types are ample in southwest Asia as well as
Egypt. Beuthe discusses "seal based administrations" in
places such as Egypt in the third and fourth century BC. This refers
to sealing practices found in areas of settlement where trade took
place. Beuthe explains that these types of administrations developed
where “illiterate or partially literate individuals could
participate” in the early markets. (Thesis submitted for the degree
of Doctor of Philosophy, Tatjana Persephone Beuthe pg. 216)
Hieroglyphs
could be easily memorized by illiterate and semi-illiterate people.
(Beuthe p .96)
Similarly, the Chinese developed logographic symbols which enables
"illiterate Chinese people.." who spoke different dialects
of Han to understand "each other as they speak." (Ancient
Tax Tokens, Trade Licenses and Metrological Records?: Making Sense of
Indus Inscribed Objects Through Script- Internal, Contextual,
Linguistic, and Ethno historical Lenses. Author: Bahata Ansumali
Mukhopadhyay,Social Science Research Network pg. 7)
In a modern
economy information flow is dependent on the literacy of a
population. The knowledge of supply and demand changes all the time
and certainly our friend Mowgi would be taken advantage of just as
much as any merchant time travel would be. But even in a modern
economy as Garraty points out, “uncertainty and unequal access to
information are still rampant.” A person as great in literature
such as Shakespear may open shop but somewhere a Friedman can
convince him to invest his savings in crypto currency. (Investigating
Market Exchange in Ancient Societies: A Theoretical Review
Christopher P. Garraty: Archaeological Approaches to Market Exchange
in Ancient Societies pg 8.(pp.3-32) How would an illiterate person
know that a price changed unless a person of told him? This was not
necessarily a problem for ancient times. The economic anthropologist
Karl Polayni were not created by our modern system of “supply and
demand.” It was in fact the governors that set the price of items
in the market place. (ibid pg8.) A King would have a vested interest
in ensuring both illiterates and literates alike had access to fair
markets or else the economy would break down. The caravans made that
made their way to up north from Arabia were mostly aware of the costs
and potential profits prior to their mission. They were not entering
a market domain ran by the laws of Milton Friedman but ancient kings
who would enforce prices regardless of the supply or demand. The
ancients believed in many mythologies but the myth of the “free
market” was not one of them.
The question
of the prophet’s literacy is beyond the scope of this paper.
However, for the sake for argument we will assume that the prophet
was literate. The problem still remains that there is no historical
evidence Muhammad wrote a compilation of the Qur’an. Instead, there
are countless references to the Prophet dictating revelation to
scribes who were given the task to put pen to paper. Dr. Khalifa’s
claim that Uthman had a manuscript belonging to Muhammad is outright
deceit. As we documented earlier, it was Hafsa’s manuscript that
was used for Uthman’s committee, the same manuscript written by
Zayd bin Thabit after the death of Muhammad.
Dr. Khalifa
claims that the “original” Qur’an was destroyed by Marwan bin
Hakam to cover up a discrepancy. Rashad wants us to believe that the
“original” Quran “that was so scrupulously written by the
Prophet's own hand” did not contain the two “false” verses, was
destroyed to cover up this “fact.” But Rashad’s source for this
assertion states that the Qur’an in question belonged to Hafsa and
was composed by Zayd ibn Thabit. The other source that Dr. Rashad
brings down as part of this “conspiracy” testifies to the fact
that Zayd ibn Thabit was the person that wrote down the “two false
verses.” So if Marwan ibn Hakim destroyed a Qur’an, it was the
same Qur’an that already contained that contained the two false
verses, since the manuscript of Zayd ibn Thabit, was the only one in
Hafsa’s possession.
