The Islamic Discussion Thread ٤: It's Always Sunni In Arabia

[Sahansahiye Iran]

Prophet Muhammad in the last moment of his life asked his companion to give him a paper and pen in order to write down something in order that you won’t stray. But one of his companion rejected his request. (Sahih Muslim, Muslim ibn al-Hajjaj, vol. 3, Book Al-Vasiyyah, chapter 5, p. 1259, Dar ‘Ihya al-Trath Arabi)

The Prophet himself read a letter from ‘Aynayh (Tafsir al-Qurtubi, Al-Qurtubi, vol. 13, p. 352; Al-Bahr ul-Mohit, Abu Hayyan Aundoloosi, Vol. 7, P.151 and some others)

In the Hudaybiyyah peace treaty, the Prophet himself wrote the treaty. (Alusi, Mahmud al-Alusi, Vol.21, p.5)

As I stated in my last post, I am not denying that he may have been able to read some letters and words, but for most of his life as evident by hadith themselves, he was illiterate. Had he not been illiterate, he would've written the hadith himself. This is why often, you see hadith narrated by companions (although from Muhammad) and not written by Muhammad himself.

You don't read a letter and write an entire peace treat by knowing "some letters and words" lol.

[Jolthig]

As I stated in my last post, I am not denying that he may have been able to read some letters and words, but for most of his life as evident by hadith themselves, he was illiterate. Had he not been illiterate, he would've written the hadith himself. This is why often, you see hadith narrated by companions (although from Muhammad) and not written by Muhammad himself.

You don't read a letter and write an entire peace treat by knowing "some letters and words" lol.

Well, firstly, is that report authentic? Some early commentators of the Quran did include reports that are unauthentic. And I still stand by my last comment.

[The Grims]

As I stated in my last post, I am not denying that he may have been able to read some letters and words, but for most of his life as evident by hadith themselves, he was illiterate. Had he not been illiterate, he would've written the hadith himself. This is why often, you see hadith narrated by companions (although from Muhammad) and not written by Muhammad himself.

You don't read a letter and write an entire peace treat by knowing "some letters and words" lol.

From which we can conclude he did neither of those things ?

[Greate Boston]

You don't read a letter and write an entire peace treat by knowing "some letters and words" lol.

From which we can conclude he did neither of those things ?

However, he historically did read a letter and write a peace treaty. At least, according to a number of largely accepted Hadiith.
Seriously, the myth that Muhammad was ever illiterate is just that. A Myth. He was a member of the largest, most influential and most wealthy clan in All of Arabia, and constantly secured business deals for his boss, one of the most influential and powerful merchants of Arabia in his time. You don't do that without knowing how to read or write.

[Jolthig]

From which we can conclude he did neither of those things ?

However, he historically did read a letter and write a peace treaty. At least, according to a number of largely accepted Hadiith.
Seriously, the myth that Muhammad was ever illiterate is just that. A Myth. He was a member of the largest, most influential and most wealthy clan in All of Arabia, and constantly secured business deals for his boss, one of the most influential and powerful merchants of Arabia in his time. You don't do that without knowing how to read or write.

I really find that narration hard to believe. Unless if he had a scribe do it for him, there is no way he could've written that treaty himself. I believe Mirza Bashirideen Mahmood Ahmad in his commentary of the Quran dismissed that Hadith as false (though I'll have to double check).

Secondly, it doesn't add up to most of the Hadith that's out there. Most Hadith are narrated verbally from Muhammad himself. He could've just wrote the Hadith himself alongside some scribes, but he didn't m instead, the companions knew that muhammad taught orally because that was his only method. Especially when they went to meet with him at the Prophet's Mosque in Medina. He would give them oral lessons and nothing in written form from himself.

Some would write down what he said, but otherwise, he never wrote anything by himself as far as I know of.

Therefore, we can conclude from both the Quran and most Hadith, Muhammad was illiterate. The most authentic Hadith don't even say Muhammad wrote any teaching by himself. Rather, he orally taught it.

[Greate Boston]

However, he historically did read a letter and write a peace treaty. At least, according to a number of largely accepted Hadiith.
Seriously, the myth that Muhammad was ever illiterate is just that. A Myth. He was a member of the largest, most influential and most wealthy clan in All of Arabia, and constantly secured business deals for his boss, one of the most influential and powerful merchants of Arabia in his time. You don't do that without knowing how to read or write.

I really find that narration hard to believe. Unless if he had a scribe do it for him, there is no way he could've written that treaty himself. I believe Mirza Bashirideen Mahmood Ahmad in his commentary of the Quran dismissed that Hadith as false (though I'll have to double check).

Secondly, it doesn't add up to most of the Hadith that's out there. Most Hadith are narrated verbally from Muhammad himself. He could've just wrote the Hadith himself alongside some scribes, but he didn't m instead, the companions knew that muhammad taught orally because that was his only method. Especially when they went to meet with him at the Prophet's Mosque in Medina. He would give them oral lessons and nothing in written form from himself.

Some would write down what he said, but otherwise, he never wrote anything by himself as far as I know of.

Therefore, we can conclude from both the Quran and most Hadith, Muhammad was illiterate. The most authentic Hadith don't even say Muhammad wrote any teaching by himself. Rather, he orally taught it.

You bring some very good point. I'm not sure whether or not there's an Ijma on if those ahaadith are legit (but, I assume they are because they're in Sahih books, You know. Easier that way )

However, the entire point of Ahaadith is that they're narrated. Hadith is after all, in layman's terms, "stuff I heard the prophet say that one time" (or, more accurately, "something I remember happening with the Prophet that one time", as the correct term for hadiith is Rewayat (روایه)). Whether or not Muhammad was literate is irrelevant to whether or not his Ahaadith would be written by himself, because the prophet himself didn't regulate ahaadith.
Ahaadith are basically what happened when the Prophet and his first generation Sahaba died, and there was nobody to tell them what to do in a situation that Quran hadn't already given a ruling for. "Hmm, I wonder what we should do in this situation. Wait a minute, didn't Muhammad do [X] that one time in a similar situation?".

Furthermore, about your point in teaching, that's more of a cultural tradition of that time, than a proof of Muhammad's literacy, or the lackthereof. Most teachers, especially at that time in that place, taught orally, rather than with written help, at least iirc.

[Jolthig]

I really find that narration hard to believe. Unless if he had a scribe do it for him, there is no way he could've written that treaty himself. I believe Mirza Bashirideen Mahmood Ahmad in his commentary of the Quran dismissed that Hadith as false (though I'll have to double check).

Secondly, it doesn't add up to most of the Hadith that's out there. Most Hadith are narrated verbally from Muhammad himself. He could've just wrote the Hadith himself alongside some scribes, but he didn't m instead, the companions knew that muhammad taught orally because that was his only method. Especially when they went to meet with him at the Prophet's Mosque in Medina. He would give them oral lessons and nothing in written form from himself.

Some would write down what he said, but otherwise, he never wrote anything by himself as far as I know of.

Therefore, we can conclude from both the Quran and most Hadith, Muhammad was illiterate. The most authentic Hadith don't even say Muhammad wrote any teaching by himself. Rather, he orally taught it.

You bring some very good point. I'm not sure whether or not there's an Ijma on if those ahaadith are legit (but, I assume they are because they're in Sahih books, You know. Easier that way )

I'll have to check the Sunans for details. As they have diversities of the same Sahih.

However, the entire point of Ahaadith is that they're narrated. Hadith is after all, in layman's terms, "stuff I heard the prophet say that one time" (or, more accurately, "something I remember happening with the Prophet that one time", as the correct term for hadiith is Rewayat (روایه)). Whether or not Muhammad was literate is irrelevant to whether or not his Ahaadith would be written by himself, because the prophet himself didn't regulate ahaadith.

That is a false argument. According to the introduction of Muslim and the Quran itself, it is commanded that the companions take Hadith from Muhammad

Ahaadith are basically what happened when the Prophet and his first generation Sahaba died, and there was nobody to tell them what to do in a situation that Quran hadn't already given a ruling for. "Hmm, I wonder what we should do in this situation. Wait a minute, didn't Muhammad do [X] that one time in a similar situation?".

True, many Hadith are based on conjecture, but in our view, so as long as it's in accordance with the Quran and plus from trusted companions (with the exception of if it contradicts the quran), then they are to be accepted; for they're Sunnat.

Furthermore, about your point in teaching, that's more of a cultural tradition of that time, than a proof of Muhammad's literacy, or the lackthereof. Most teachers, especially at that time in that place, taught orally, rather than with written help, at least iirc.

That's my point. Many Arabs we're illiterate and writing was quite rare with the exception of a few poets and some scribes. Muhammad wasn't any different (with his parents dying on top of that, and his grandpa and uncle not giving him the time to learn to read and write for that matter).

[Greate Boston]

However, the entire point of Ahaadith is that they're narrated. Hadith is after all, in layman's terms, "stuff I heard the prophet say that one time" (or, more accurately, "something I remember happening with the Prophet that one time", as the correct term for hadiith is Rewayat (روایه)). Whether or not Muhammad was literate is irrelevant to whether or not his Ahaadith would be written by himself, because the prophet himself didn't regulate ahaadith.

That is a false argument. According to the introduction of Muslim and the Quran itself, it is commanded that the companions take Hadith from Muhammad .

The essential history of the 'Ilm-ul-Hadiith' disproves that. The earliest Ahadiith were written after Muhammad died, and given how Umar, Uthman, and the majority of the Ummayad caliphs did not allow any Hadiith to be written, the earliest Ahaadith were from early Abbasid era. Ahaadith weren't even added into the Sunnat (as one of the four sources of Shariat) until early Abbasid era. I'm not sure I agree with you here.

[Jolthig]

That is a false argument. According to the introduction of Muslim and the Quran itself, it is commanded that the companions take Hadith from Muhammad .

The essential history of the 'Ilm-ul-Hadiith' disproves that. The earliest Ahadiith were written after Muhammad died, and given how Umar, Uthman, and the majority of the Ummayad caliphs did not allow any Hadiith to be written, the earliest Ahaadith were from early Abbasid era. Ahaadith weren't even added into the Sunnat (as one of the four sources of Shariat) until early Abbasid era. I'm not sure I agree with you here.

I'm not sure if I worded it wrong or you misunderstood me, but yes, I know Hadith weren't compiled into volumes until a couple centuries later (though some historians say there are several books that were compiled before Malik, but are now lost). What I meant by Hadith in the context of my last post, are the teachings of Muhammad itself.

On top of this, when I referred to the Introduction of Sahih Muslim , I was referring to several ahadith narrated by companions to take only from trustworthy companions who were close with Muhammad. Sorry for not specifying.

[Olerand]

Sure. But in a discussion of history, the Quran is irrelevant.

I don't know if you read the Quran in its entirety or not, but it does have some historical references despite being a book of commandments. Sure, many Muslim governments do by their mouth, represent Islam to many people, but was it in accordance with what Muhammad did is the question? And yes, they do say it is in accordance with Muhammad, but was it really what he did or what they think or perceive as what he did is the question of our discussion.

I don't know why you're asking me these questions, I don't care about that debate. But once again, the Koran is not in itself a legitimate historical source. No holy book is. That's just... proper historical methodology.

[Kubumba Tribe]

I don't know if you read the Quran in its entirety or not, but it does have some historical references despite being a book of commandments. Sure, many Muslim governments do by their mouth, represent Islam to many people, but was it in accordance with what Muhammad did is the question? And yes, they do say it is in accordance with Muhammad, but was it really what he did or what they think or perceive as what he did is the question of our discussion.

I don't know why you're asking me these questions, I don't care about that debate. But once again, the Koran is not in itself a legitimate historical source. No holy book is. That's just... proper historical methodology.

Then it's a good thing we aren't talking about history, right?

[Olerand]

I don't know why you're asking me these questions, I don't care about that debate. But once again, the Koran is not in itself a legitimate historical source. No holy book is. That's just... proper historical methodology.

Then it's a good thing we aren't talking about history, right?

Again, the poster that you were responding to appeared to be referring to history. Established history. Which the Koran cannot be a source for.

[Jolthig]

I don't know if you read the Quran in its entirety or not, but it does have some historical references despite being a book of commandments. Sure, many Muslim governments do by their mouth, represent Islam to many people, but was it in accordance with what Muhammad did is the question? And yes, they do say it is in accordance with Muhammad, but was it really what he did or what they think or perceive as what he did is the question of our discussion.

I don't know why you're asking me these questions, I don't care about that debate. But once again, the Koran is not in itself a legitimate historical source. No holy book is. That's just... proper historical methodology.

So the conclusion is Islam is a hostile religion because you said it's history?

[Olerand]

I don't know why you're asking me these questions, I don't care about that debate. But once again, the Koran is not in itself a legitimate historical source. No holy book is. That's just... proper historical methodology.

So the conclusion is Islam is a hostile religion because you said it's history?

Is this question to me? I don't recall saying anything about hostility; I'm merely rectifying the mistake of using the Koran as a historical source, which it is not.

[Jolthig]

So the conclusion is Islam is a hostile religion because you said it's history?

Is this question to me? I don't recall saying anything about hostility; I'm merely rectifying the mistake of using the Koran as a historical source, which it is not.

How is it not a historical source?

[Olerand]

Is this question to me? I don't recall saying anything about hostility; I'm merely rectifying the mistake of using the Koran as a historical source, which it is not.

How is it not a historical source?

In proper historical methodology, a holy book is not an acceptable source.

EDIT: As in, the Koran, the Bible, the Torah, and all others cannot be used as sources for a historical event, nor can they be used in an academic discussion.

[Greate Boston]

Is this question to me? I don't recall saying anything about hostility; I'm merely rectifying the mistake of using the Koran as a historical source, which it is not.

How is it not a historical source?

I would add that for academic purposes, The Quran is no more of a historical source for pre-Islamic world (especially Arabia itself) than, say, Shakespeare's Romeo and Juliet is a historical source for Verona in that time. It might be historically accurate, but as a work of fiction (or, in order not to sound so offensive, a work not of academic purposes, i.e. history book) it is simply not a source you can cite for a historical debate.

[Greate Boston]

How is it not a historical source?

In proper historical methodology, a holy book is not an acceptable source.

EDIT: As in, the Koran, the Bible, the Torah, and all others cannot be used as sources for a historical event, nor can they be used in an academic discussion.

Actually I'm curious about this too. At least, for your reasoning on this matter.

[Olerand]

In proper historical methodology, a holy book is not an acceptable source.

EDIT: As in, the Koran, the Bible, the Torah, and all others cannot be used as sources for a historical event, nor can they be used in an academic discussion.

Actually I'm curious about this too. At least, for your reasoning on this matter.

It's not my reasoning. It's established historical practice. Have you ever cited the Bible as a source in a historical paper? Has anyone? If so, then it's not a historical paper.

Scripture is only relevant as a historical instrument to measure peoples' attitudes in a certain era, the era during which they were written. They are not a historical source otherwise. Genesis didn't happen, even if the Torah, Bible, and Koran all recite it. Same for the flood of Noah, and all other non-historical stories these works of literature include.

[Darussalam]

I am curious about what resident Muslims in this thread think about what does Mā malakat aymānukum refer to, exactly, if utilizing slaves for sexual purpose has never been condoned in Islam. Historically, of course, most Muslim scholars of fiqh have thought otherwise. Waves of abolitionism in 19th-20th Century would have been bid'ah in their eyes, and indeed many contemporary scholars have expressed such opinions.

[Larin]

I am curious about what resident Muslims in this thread think about what does Mā malakat aymānukum refer to, exactly, if utilizing slaves for sexual purpose has never been condoned in Islam. Historically, of course, most Muslim scholars of fiqh have thought otherwise. Waves of abolitionism in 19th-20th Century would have been bid'ah in their eyes, and indeed many contemporary scholars have expressed such opinions.

I think it refers to "Those whom you own"

[Greate Boston]

I am curious about what resident Muslims in this thread think about what does Mā malakat aymānukum refer to, exactly, if utilizing slaves for sexual purpose has never been condoned in Islam. Historically, of course, most Muslim scholars of fiqh have thought otherwise. Waves of abolitionism in 19th-20th Century would have been bid'ah in their eyes, and indeed many contemporary scholars have expressed such opinions.

I think it refers to "Those whom you own"

It refers to those you can own by, you know, taking them as spoils in war. Ah, Islam. For a timeless religion fit for all ages, you never cease to disappoint.

[Greate Boston]

Actually I'm curious about this too. At least, for your reasoning on this matter.

It's not my reasoning. It's established historical practice. Have you ever cited the Bible as a source in a historical paper? Has anyone? If so, then it's not a historical paper.

Scripture is only relevant as a historical instrument to measure peoples' attitudes in a certain era, the era during which they were written. They are not a historical source otherwise. Genesis didn't happen, even if the Torah, Bible, and Koran all recite it. Same for the flood of Noah, and all other non-historical stories these works of literature include.

The problem is that this statement would mean that, if enough people used Bible as a historical source, then it would become a source (that's roughly how precedent, the argument you're making, works after all)

[Olerand]

It's not my reasoning. It's established historical practice. Have you ever cited the Bible as a source in a historical paper? Has anyone? If so, then it's not a historical paper.

Scripture is only relevant as a historical instrument to measure peoples' attitudes in a certain era, the era during which they were written. They are not a historical source otherwise. Genesis didn't happen, even if the Torah, Bible, and Koran all recite it. Same for the flood of Noah, and all other non-historical stories these works of literature include.

The problem is that this statement would mean that, if enough people used Bible as a historical source, then it would become a source (that's roughly how precedent, the argument you're making, works after all)

I'm not using precedent at all. I'm using the established good practice guides of the historical profession.

If ever historians change their minds on this, then the validity of these sources will change, but that has nothing to do with precedent. Many historians could wrongly use the Bible as a source, it will remain, as of today, not a valid source.

As an example, you may break the law, but that doesn't change the law. But the law might yet be changed, which would effectively change the law.

Good practice says these books are not sources. No matter who breaks this practice, it is still the established rule. When the rules change, then it won't be.

[Greate Boston]

The problem is that this statement would mean that, if enough people used Bible as a historical source, then it would become a source (that's roughly how precedent, the argument you're making, works after all)

I'm not using precedent at all. I'm using the established good practice guides of the historical profession.

If ever historians change their minds on this, then the validity of these sources will change, but that has nothing to do with precedent. Many historians could wrongly use the Bible as a source, it will remain, as of today, not a valid source.

As an example, you may break the law, but that doesn't change the law. But the law might yet be changed, which would effectively change the law.

Good practice says these books are not sources. No matter who breaks this practice, it is still the established rule. When the rules change, then it won't be.

We're on square one, then. What's the reason Quran/Bible/whatever isn't used as a historical source? If it's "people don't use it" (because, unless it's a written law, it's probably just precedent. Hell, it might still be precedent even if its written down somewhere) then, well, that's not a good argument, is it?

As for Legal codes (the example you made, which is in my personal opinion not a very good one, at least in this stance), those are always written down somewhere. Hell, even in a society with Common Law, it's there in the case reports (that make "the law", per se, saying stealing is wrong).

I'm not disagreeing with you that Religious books aren't and shouldn't be used as source in historical debates, of course, but that I don't know your reasoning for such argument. For me, it's the same reason that while I may take cues from, as I said above, Romeo and Juliet, I'm not going to take it as a historical source for how Medieval Italian society worked.