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.
No comments:
Post a Comment