Rashad's arguments for the prophet's literacy in the Qur'an
Tradition teaches that Muhammad, pbuh, was illiterate when he first received the Qur’an. The initial level of the prophet’s literacy knowledge remained the same until his earthly demise according to assumptions. There have been some challenges to the idea that the prophet of islam lacked literary knowledge in more recent times. Dr. Rashad Khalifa argued that the prophet Muhammad was able to read and write before he received the first Quranic verses. There are some however more moderate views that held the Prophet Muhammad was illiterate at the beginning of his prophetic career but soon gained a sufficient degree of literary knowledge at the end of his career. The purpose here is to examine the arguments in the light of Qur’an. A full discussion about the question pertaining to the Prophet’s literacy would require us to discuss historical questions which we have brought elsewhere as we want to limit the scope of our enquiry. Also, this not meant to be a refutation of Quranist views pertaining to the prophet’s literacy nor do we intend to provide conclusions on these questions. We should all be open to challenging our assumptions and if there is a good argument in favor of these claims then let us take it seriously.
Dr. Rashad Khalif is believed by some people to be the first challenger to the idea that the Prophet was illiterate. In actuality discussions about the prophet’s literacy have been going on for a long time. We know that as a matter of fact these discussions occurred before Dr. Khalifa was known by anyone. We have on record a book written by the Iranian Philosopher Morteza Mutahari entitled “The Unschooled Prophet” that was written some time before 1979. (https://www.al-islam.org/unschooled-prophet-murtadha-mutahhari) “The Unschooled” Prophet” is a response to another Islamic intellectual of apparent modernist views named Dr Sayyid `Abd al-Latif. Mutahari responds to a number of claims from ‘Abd al-Latif of which some resemble the arguments later used by Dr. Khalifa. I am not sure if Dr. Khalifa had access to Abd al-Latif’s writings but being that most of Dr. Khalifa’s followers had a Persian background it would not be out of the question. I am also aware of people having discussions about the meaning of “ummy” from the Arabic world among folks unacquainted with either of these gentlemen.
Dr. Khalifa presents his own arguments (of which only the Qur’anic ones will be examined here) for the Prophet’s literary knowledge in the Appendix 28 to his “Authorized” translation of the Qur’an. There are three grouping of verses which he uses in the appendix. The first set of verses have to do with the nature of the Qalam. (68:1, 96:1-4) The second set of verses concern the meaning of Ummy. (2:78, 3:20, 3:75, 62:2) The other verse has to do with an accusation made by the disbelievers. (25:5) As we go through these verses I want to remind the reader that I am not trying to offer a definite interpretation for the meaning. (Dr. Khalifa already practically claimed task for himself!) We simply want to provide a brief summary of the arguments and provide critical feedback where it is warranted.
The first set of verses comes from Surah 68 Qalam and Surah 96 Alaq. Surah 96 is believed to be the first set of verses revealed by God and Surah 96 is said to be the subsequent set. Dr. Khalifa writes, “The first revelation was "Read," and included the statement "God teaches by means of the pen" (96:1-4), and the second revelation was "The Pen" (68:1). The only function of the pen is to write.”(Appendix 28) The comment of Dr. Khalifa on the first set of verses is very brief and limited to an interpretation of the word “pen.” Dr. Khalifa understands the “pen” in the most literal manner but all we can surmise from his comment is that because the pen is mentioned by God it must have importance for mankind, including the Prophet Muhammad.
Dr. G. Adisoma, a follower of Rashad Khalifa, does follow up and make an argument based on the above verses. Dr. Adisoma argues that “Read” is a command to the Prophet and that God “stresses the importance of literacy in the very first revelation” Furthermore, because the title of surah 68 is the “Pen” this makes the importance of literary knowledge clear. If the Prophet is commanded to “read” and the Prophet did learn to read, argues Adisoma, then the prophet would be breaking a command of God. Dr. G. Adisoma takes his argument about the command to read however directly from Dr `Abd al-Latif without citation. (Is It Inferred From The Qur'an That The Prophet Used To Read And Write?, The Unschooled Prophet) Dr. Abd al-Latif also argued why would the Prophet order the companions to learn literary skills if he was not going to do so himself.
One is welcome to read Murtaza Mutahari’s response to Dr. al-Latif’s claims in the book above. Three points stood out from the former’s response. In the first place Muthari acknowledged the value of the pen and writing. Mutahari tried to argue that Prophets as persons trained in metaphysics do not need pen and paper to write. People of other sciences and the scribes of the prophet however do need these tools. Mutahari also made an interesting argument in response to alleged hypocrisy of a prophet who makes a command that he would not follow. Mutahari compared the prophet to a physician. A medical doctor can proscribe medication to someone who needs it but that does not mean the doctor himself should take the medicine. Likewise, writing was prescribed to people for the sake of Quranic knowledge but the Prophet Muhammad, was imbued with the Quran already. Mutahari argued that the Prophet had the beset of characteristics and did not need to be tasked with reading, an argument the Khalifa followers would surely reject.
I am not sure how convincing Mutahari’s explanations are. Is the “Iqra” of Surah alaq an explicit command for the Prophet to read? It seems tradition and some modernists agree that it is but disagree on the extent of meaning. Tradition interprets “iqra” in the sense that the Prophet must “read” or “recite” the Quran as it is revealed by the angel Gabriel. There is even a debate on “read” or “recite” as the meaning of Iqra. There is also the question of whether the command is generally to the Muslims or specific to Muhammad. Dr. Khalifa , Adisoma and Adb Latif are convinced that the Prophet Muhammad was illiterate during his first revelation at Hira.
The narrative for first revelation to the Prophet Muhamad has not been challenged much and it has been more or less the standard. We will discuss this momentarily. One can attributed value (or lack there of) for the standard story as much as they want to. The standard narrative, regardless of it’s authenticity, is able to sustain itself because it incorporates the whole of Surah Alaq without much apparent contradiction. The command “iqra” has been understood to be faced by the Prophet with a question of “How can I read?” The narrative has been able to completely incorporate the story regardless of it’s authenticity. Modernists thinkers in the Muslim world have used the Qur’an to break the bonds of tradition by pointing to inherent conflicts with the narrative. Do the two surahs above contradict the narrative stories? If the stories conflict with the best source we have, the Qur’an, then we should present a credible challenge.
How did Dr. Khalifa challenge the standard narrative of the Qur’ans first revelation? Dr. Khalifa provided a new interpretation of Quranic ayats (to show the prophet was literate) and make a historical argument that merchants such as the prophet would need literary skills. (We challenged this point earlier.) But the other Quranic verses and the arguments are only mentioned as background information. The main “challenge” by Dr. Khalifa was to offer a competing narrative not any better which is found in the same appendix 28. Dr. Khalifa said that during the first revelation at Hira the prophet’s soul ascended to heaven and received the whole Qur’an. We wrote elsewhere how this story Khalifa writes is confused and baseless.
Dr. Khalifa failed to produce a coherent story able to overturn the standard one. Moreover, the interpretation of Surah Alaq and Qalam offered by the three amigos is only valid if it is proven that the Prophet Muhammad was definitely literate during those first revelatory dispensations. If it could be proved the Prophet Muhammad was not literate at that time then believers would be forced to throw away the three amigos conclusions. We will see that there is good reason that Rashad and the others were wrong about the prophet’s literary career, at least initially. One can read Dr. Abd Latif’s challenge even in it’s possible strawman form found in Mutahari’s book and still see a better presented argument.
There has been a much more credible challenge to the standard narrative in regards to Surah Alaq from the academic field. The late Uri Rubin wrote that understanding of “Iqra” as “read” or “recite” may not been the earliest understanding of this revelation. (Uri Rubin, Some Notes on the Interpretation of Surat al-Alaq, http://www.urirubin.com/downloads/articles/iqra.pdf) Abu Abayda, (639CE) a companion of the Prophet, understood the phrase “Iqra’ bi-smi rabbika’lladhi khalaqa” in Surah 69 to mean not recite but “chant the name of the Lord.” Rubin shows Abu Abayda’s understanding is consistent with five other verses from the Qur’an (56:74, 56:96, 69:52, 73:8, 76:52.) One can read a brief survery of Rubin’s argument on Dr. Khalil Andani’s website
(IQRA’ – ‘READ’ OR ‘REMEMBER’? RETHINKING THE FIRST REVELATION OF THE QUR’AN https://ismailignosis.com/2012/07/16/iqra-read-or-remember-rethinking-the-first-revelation-of-the-quran/) Rubin does offer a consistent challenge to the narrative. The idea of chanting is fascinating because it shows new light on notions long prevalent in the Islamic world of “dhikr” (remembrance of God.) If Abu Abayda’s meaning is correct it would not help Dr. Khalifa. The Rubin paradigm of understanding Surah Alaq would push the literacy question aside and one would have to find an answer elsewhere.
The meaning of the Arabic term “ummy” is often debated. The topic does not need a full exploration here but those who claim “ummy” means gentile and not unlettered usually make a good case. (Mutahari tries to tackle the issue in the fifth chapter of his book.) Even if the gentile interpretation is granted it would not end our discussion.
There is still the strong base to believe the Prophet Muhammad was illiterate at least initially in his career. This appears to be explicitly clear in Surah ‘Ankabut. How does Rashad Khalifa challenge it? Lets look at a traditional view; ,” And thou wast not (able) to recite a Book before this (Book came), nor art thou (able) to transcribe it with thy right hand: In that case, indeed, would the talkers of vanities have doubted (29:48 Yusuf Ali.)
In the above verse we see God telling the Prophet that he was not able to ‘read’ a book before the Quranic revelations came down. This is understood by most people to mean that the Prophet could not read any book prior to the Quranic reception. Dr. Khalifa’s translation of this verse is as follows: “You did not read the previous scriptures, nor did you write them with your hand. In that case, the rejectors would have had reason to harbor doubts.” (29:48 RK) Dr. Khalifa writes of 29:48 in his Appendix 28 that it “specifically to previous scriptures.”
How does Dr. Khalifa know that the verse 29:48 “specifically” refers to previous scriptures? Because he translated it as such!? Does 29:48 note the writings of the ahul kitab? The arabic of 29:48 says “qalbihi min kitabin.” The verse refers to “any book” and not a specific set of books. Dr. Khalifa offered an interpretation of the verse which was baseless regarding the arabic. Dr. Khalifa wrote the verse the way he wanted it to say and this is a deliberate distortion. If surah ankabut 29:48 is understood to mean that the Prophet Muhammad was illiterate prior to the reception of the verse then we have no choice but to surmise he was illiterate at the time Surah Qalam and Alaq were revealed. What ever historical account or interpretation of the said verses we can give must take that into account.
There is no reason to assume that just because the Prophet was at one time illiterate to conclude that he remained as such the rest of his life. The Prophet may have learned to read or write later in his life. There is one ex-follower who believes as such (Was Muhammad illiterate? https://www.quranaloneislam.org/was-muhammad-illiterate ) It is a conceptual feasibility but beyond our discussion here.
Dr. Khalifa also tries to make a case for Muhammad’s literary knowledge based on a verse in Surah Furqan. In the Appendix Dr. Khlalifa writes prior to quotation, “ The Quran tells us that Muhammad wrote down the Quran - Muhammad's contemporaries are quoted as saying..” Then the verse 25:5 is cited ,” They also said, "Tales from the past that he wrote down; they were dictated to him day and night."(RK translation) Dr. Khalifa writes commenting on the above verse, “You cannot "dictate" to an illiterate person. The Prophet's enemies who accuse him of illiteracy abuse Verse 29:48, which relates specifically to previous scriptures.”
The disbelievers according to Surah 25:5 believed that the Prophet was learning the Quranic material from the Jews, Christians or others. The disbelievers believed that Muhammad was simply writing down stuff that he heard. Dr. Khalifa somehow sees this as an argument against the Prophet’s literacy. Dr. Khalifa argued rightly so that it is impossible for anybody to write down things if they cannot write. Furthermore Dr. Khalifa alleged that the traditional interpretations “abuse” the verse.
Dr. Khalifa’s argument that Surah 25:5 somehow proves that the prophetic career of the prophet. The obvious problem with Khalifa’s understanding is that the allegations were made by the disbelievers. Why would we necessarily expect the disbelievers to know if the Prophet had literary knowledge or not. They may have known if the prophet could read or they did not. Whether or not the prophet could read or write is not even important to the discussion of the Qur’an here. The Qur’an is simply arguing that the Prophet took knowledge from other people (and not divine inspiration.) If the believers argued back to the disbelievers “oh ya, well our prophet cannot write!” it would make the former look foolish. The point is that the question of the prophet’s ability to write is not important to the allegation of the disbelievers at all. There is no reason to assume that disbelievers had knowledge of the Prophet’s ability to write or cared when they lived in a society where most people were illiterate. Furthermore, Dr. Khalifa does not bother to tell us how traditional interpretations “abuse” the verse. But we sure know how Dr. Khalifa deals with the Qur’an.
No comments:
Post a Comment