Friday, June 13, 2025

Prophet Muhammad’s Literacy According to Hadith: A Theological and Scholarly Reappraisal

By Dr. Maxwell Shimba, Shimba Theological Institute

Abstract

The conventional Islamic narrative claims that Prophet Muhammad was “ummi,” usually translated as “illiterate.” This dogma undergirds much of the apologetic argument for the Qur’an’s miraculous nature, positing that an illiterate man could not have produced such a text unaided. However, a closer examination of canonical hadith literature challenges this assertion. Multiple authentic narrations—ranging from the famous deathbed incident to reported actions involving reading and writing—suggest that Muhammad possessed at least a basic proficiency in literacy. This article presents the evidence, explores the theological implications, and questions the motives for modern Muslim apologetic evasions of these sources.

I. Introduction: The Myth of Muhammad’s Illiteracy

Muslim tradition asserts the Prophet Muhammad could neither read nor write, citing the Qur’anic epithet “al-ummi” (الأمي). However, a thorough and honest reading of the hadith corpus exposes a more nuanced reality. Several narrations, considered authentic by major Islamic authorities, demonstrate both his ability to write and to command the written word. This article will analyze these hadiths and pose a theological challenge to the continued perpetuation of the illiteracy claim.

II. Primary Hadith Evidence of Muhammad’s Literacy

A. The Deathbed Incident (Sahih al-Bukhari 114, 4431)

One of the most explicit and frequently cited proofs of Muhammad’s literacy occurs during his final illness. Sahih al-Bukhari records:

Narrated Ibn ‘Abbas:
"When the Prophet was on his deathbed and in the house there were men among whom was 'Umar ibn al-Khattab, the Prophet said, 'Come, let me write (أكتب / aktub) for you a statement after which you will not go astray.'"
(Sahih al-Bukhari, 114; also see 4431)

The verb “aktub” here unambiguously means “to write.” The Prophet’s request for pen and paper implies he could physically write, not merely dictate. If he were genuinely illiterate, such a request would be absurd.

B. The Slave Girl and Writing in Sahih Muslim (537)

The narration of Mu’awiyah bin Al-Hakam involves a slave girl questioned by Muhammad:

The Prophet asked her, “Where is Allah?” and “Who am I?” Some versions note that the Prophet “wrote” (kataba) instructions or words—again, directly associating Muhammad with the act of writing.
(See Sahih Muslim 537; variant readings and commentaries)

C. Muhammad’s Treaties and Letters

Multiple hadith and early Islamic sources report that Muhammad sent written letters to the kings and rulers of his era, with his own seal. For example, Sahih al-Bukhari (Hadith 2938, 4424) reports:

“The Prophet wrote (kataba) a letter to Caesar...”

The consistent use of the verb "kataba"—meaning “wrote” rather than “dictated”—is linguistically significant. Even if scribes were involved, the Prophet’s engagement with writing and written correspondence demonstrates at minimum a familiarity with written language.

D. The Treaty of Hudaybiyyah

Sahih al-Bukhari 2731, 3183, 4195, and Muslim 1784 recount Muhammad's role in the writing of the Treaty of Hudaybiyyah. In some reports, the Prophet corrects scribes and is involved in editing the text, indicating at least some functional literacy.

"Take it out, erase it, and write: ‘This is what Muhammad, the Messenger of Allah, has agreed with...’"
(Sahih al-Bukhari, 2731)

III. Theological Debate: Why Elude the Evidence?

If the Prophet could read and write, why has the doctrine of his illiteracy become so essential in Islam? Several theological motivations can be identified:

To Bolster the Qur’an’s Miraculous Status:
The doctrine claims the Qur’an’s literary excellence is impossible from an unlettered man, thereby proving divine origin.
To Fulfill Misinterpreted Prophecies:
Some claim “al-ummi” refers to a prophet foretold in the Torah as “the unlettered prophet.”
To Shield from Christian and Jewish Critique:
By portraying Muhammad as illiterate, apologists avoid accusations of scriptural borrowing from the Bible and Jewish texts.

Yet the hadith evidence itself is undeniable and canonical. If Muslims trust the hadith for doctrine and law, why evade or reinterpret those that contradict a convenient narrative? Is faith so fragile that it must reject its own traditions to maintain apologetic coherence?

IV. Additional Hadith and Historical Evidence

Beyond the above, further sources underscore Muhammad’s engagement with reading and writing:

Signing and Stamping Documents:
Muhammad’s personal seal was affixed to letters; reports indicate he supervised or sometimes wrote himself (see Ibn Sa’d, “Tabaqat,” and other sira literature).
Reading Jewish Scriptures:
Several traditions mention Muhammad reading or examining written documents from Jews and Christians, sometimes calling for them to bring their scriptures (see Sunan Abu Dawud 4449).

V. Conclusion: The Call for Intellectual Honesty

The evidence from sahih hadith and early Islamic tradition compels us to admit the strong likelihood that Muhammad possessed at least basic literacy. The continued denial of this fact—despite authentic narrations—is a distortion of Islamic history for apologetic purposes. If faith is based on truth, then the tradition must confront its own sources with honesty.

Questions for Muslim Apologists:

Why are these explicit hadiths elided or explained away in modern discourse?
If the Prophet could write, what is lost for Islamic faith? Or is the fear that such admission would undermine cherished dogma?
Should not the true mark of faith be the courage to follow the evidence, even when it challenges tradition?

References

Sahih al-Bukhari 114, 4431, 2731, 3183, 4195
Sahih Muslim 537
Sahih al-Bukhari 2938, 4424
Sunan Abu Dawud 4449
Ibn Sa’d, “Tabaqat al-Kubra”
Other canonical hadith and early Islamic historiography

By Dr. Maxwell Shimba, Shimba Theological Institute
For theological inquiry and critical engagement with Islamic tradition.