Combating Islam

Did Muhammad Really Read and Write?

How Hadith and History Undermine the Illiteracy Myth and Break the Qur’an's Miracle Claim

Abstract

Islamic tradition insists Muhammad was “ummi”—widely interpreted as illiterate—to reinforce the claim that the Qur’an’s literary excellence is miraculous. How could an unlettered man produce such a book? However, a careful and unfiltered review of sahih hadith, Qur’anic usage, and early Islamic historiography tells a very different story. From signing treaties and issuing letters to correcting written documents and requesting writing materials on his deathbed, Muhammad consistently appears as functionally literate. This article exposes the doctrinal contradictions, challenges the traditional reading of “ummi”, and examines the theological consequences of denying clear evidence from within Islam’s most trusted sources.

1. Introduction: A Foundational Claim Under Fire

One of the most widely repeated assertions in Islamic apologetics is that Muhammad could neither read nor write. The Qur’an’s literary brilliance, Muslims argue, must therefore be divine—since its human transmitter lacked the skills to produce it.

Central to this argument is the Qur’anic label “al-ummi” (Qur’an 7:157–158), traditionally translated as “the unlettered prophet.” But this narrative, though widely preached, is not consistently borne out by Islam’s own sacred texts.

The question is not simply historical. It is theological. If Muhammad was literate, then the Qur’an’s supposed miracle of origin collapses into explainable human effort—not divine dictation. This article presents the cumulative evidence that Muhammad could, in fact, read and write—drawing from sahih hadith, early biographies, and even Islamic exegesis.

**2. What Does “Ummi” Actually Mean?**

The Arabic term “ummi” is often taken to mean “illiterate,” but this interpretation is not universally accepted. Several key observations challenge this simplistic definition:

Qur’an 2:78 uses the same root to refer to “those who do not know the Book”—not those who cannot read, but those who lack scriptural knowledge.
Scholars like W. Montgomery Watt and Alfred Guillaume argue “ummi” in Muhammad’s context more plausibly meant "unscriptured" or "gentile", referring to someone outside the Judeo-Christian textual tradition rather than someone functionally illiterate.
Even Islamic scholar al-Tabari, in his Tafsir on Qur’an 29:48, acknowledges alternative meanings and notes that some believed Muhammad learned to read and write later in life.

In short, “ummi” does not prove illiteracy. It’s a theological assumption resting on a linguistic oversimplification.

3. Hadith Evidence That Muhammad Was Literate

The strongest challenge to the illiteracy claim comes from the very sources Muslims trust most: the sahih hadith.

3.1 The Treaty of Hudaybiyyah

Multiple narrations from Sahih al-Bukhari (2731, 3186, 4199, 4832) describe Muhammad directly engaging with the written treaty between the Muslims and Quraysh:

“The Prophet took the document though he did not know how to write, and he wrote: ‘This is what Muhammad, the Messenger of Allah, has agreed to…’” — Bukhari 2731

Other narrations claim Ali wrote it. But the recurring formula “he took it and wrote” suggests direct authorship or at least hands-on correction, contradicting the claim that Muhammad could neither read nor write.

3.2 The Prophet’s Official Seal and Letters

Muhammad used a silver ring engraved with “Muhammad Rasul Allah” (Bukhari 4425, Muslim 2092) to stamp letters sent to emperors and kings. These letters—written, reviewed, and sealed—formed official diplomatic communication.

It is implausible that the man sending political and theological correspondence to world rulers had no understanding of their content.

3.3 The Deathbed Writing Request

In one of the most striking hadiths (Bukhari 114, 4431), during his final illness Muhammad says:

“Bring me writing materials so I may write a statement after which you will not go astray.”

This isn’t metaphor. He requests pen and paper—not a scribe. And it implies he would personally compose or dictate a document of great theological importance.

3.4 The Slave Girl Incident

In Sahih Muslim 537, Muhammad tests a slave girl’s understanding by asking questions and giving instructions in writing. The hadith implies literacy on his part, both in communication and in oversight.

4. Early Historians Also Suggest Literacy

Early Islamic historians like Ibn Ishaq (as recorded by Alfred Guillaume in Sirat Rasul Allah) depict Muhammad reading letters, dictating responses, and correcting texts.

As a caravan merchant and political leader, Muhammad would have had both need and opportunity to acquire at least functional literacy—especially in the latter parts of his life.

5. Theological and Doctrinal Implications

5.1 The “Miracle” Argument Unravels

The claim that the Qur’an is miraculous because it was delivered by an illiterate man loses its force if Muhammad could read and write. If literate, he could have engaged in editing, memorization, or even composition. The uniqueness of the Qur’an would then be literary—not supernatural.

5.2 Preservation and Integrity

Ironically, Muhammad’s literacy could strengthen the case for accurate Qur’anic transmission—he could review written verses, oversee scribes, and verify copies.

5.3 “Ummi” as “Gentile” Resolves the Tension

If “ummi” means “gentile” or “non-scriptured,” the Qur’an’s language and hadith reports harmonize. Muhammad is then an unscriptured prophet, not an illiterate one. This saves the Qur’an from contradiction—but at the cost of a core apologetic crutch.

6. Muslim Responses and Their Limits

Modern Muslim apologists attempt several strategies:

Metaphorical Interpretation: “Writing” means “dictating.” But the hadith are explicit and describe physical interaction with text.
Partial Literacy Theory: Some propose Muhammad became literate later in life—ironically confirming he wasn’t always illiterate, which nullifies the miracle argument.
Narrative Dismissal: Weakening or ignoring inconvenient hadith contradicts Islamic standards of isnad-based authenticity and reveals a theological double standard.

The sheer volume and diversity of sources suggesting literacy demands intellectual honesty and theological courage to reevaluate the traditional claim.

7. Conclusion: The Illiteracy Myth Falls

The idea that Muhammad was illiterate is not supported by the very sources Muslims consider sacred. Hadith, early biographies, and Qur’anic semantics all point toward a prophet who was functionally literate—especially in his later life.

This has seismic implications for Islamic theology:

The Qur’an’s miraculous nature must be defended on other grounds
The Prophet’s engagement with writing cannot be ignored
The apologetic narrative of “an illiterate man with a perfect book” doesn’t survive scrutiny

Truth—historical, theological, and intellectual—requires us to abandon pious fictions in favor of what the sources truly say.

References

Sahih al-Bukhari: 114, 2731, 3186, 4199, 4425, 4431, 4832
Sahih Muslim: 537, 1784, 2092
Ibn Ishaq, Sirat Rasul Allah, trans. A. Guillaume
Al-Tabari, Tafsir al-Tabari (on Qur’an 29:48)
Watt, W. Montgomery, Muhammad at Mecca, 1953
Guillaume, Alfred, Islam, 1954