Did Muhammad Know How to Read and Write? The answer is Yes
A Critical Analysis of Sahih al-Bukhari 5669 and the Islamic Doctrine of Muhammad's Illiteracy
By Dr. Maxwell Shimba
Shimba Theological Institute
One of the central claims of traditional Islam is that Muhammad was al-ummī ("unlettered" or "illiterate"). Muslim apologists frequently argue that Muhammad's alleged inability to read or write proves that the Qur'an could not have originated from him, thereby establishing its divine origin.
However, one of the most authentic Islamic traditions appears to raise serious questions about this narrative.
In Sahih al-Bukhari 5669, during Muhammad's final illness, he declares:
"Come, let me write for you a statement after which you will never go astray."
This statement deserves careful examination because it appears inconsistent with the repeated Islamic assertion that Muhammad could neither read nor write.
The Plain Reading of the Hadith
The hadith presents Muhammad requesting writing materials so that he could write a document.
The wording does not state:
"Bring someone to write."
"Let one of my scribes write."
"I will dictate."
Instead, the natural reading is:
"Let me write for you..."
In ordinary language, when someone says, "Let me write this," listeners naturally understand that the speaker intends to perform the writing.
Literacy Normally Includes Reading
Writing and reading are closely related skills.
recognizes letters,
understands words,
forms sentences,
communicates through written language.
Therefore, the statement naturally raises an important question:
If Muhammad intended to write a document, on what basis can it still be maintained that he was completely unable to read or write?
Muslim scholars generally answer that Muhammad intended only to dictate the document while another person physically wrote it.
However, this explanation is not stated in the hadith itself.
Rather, it represents an interpretation intended to preserve the traditional doctrine of Muhammad's illiteracy.
The text itself simply records:
"Let me write for you..."
The burden therefore rests upon those making the alternative interpretation to demonstrate from the text that dictation—not personal writing—is intended.
The doctrine of Muhammad's illiteracy is frequently presented as one of the strongest evidences for the divine origin of the Qur'an.
If historical evidence suggests Muhammad may have possessed literacy, then one apologetic argument for the Qur'an's miraculous origin becomes significantly weaker.
Even if one concludes that the hadith is ambiguous, ambiguity itself challenges the certainty with which the doctrine is often presented.
The "Pen and Paper" Incident
The historical episode becomes even more significant because Umar ibn al-Khattab interrupted the request by saying:
"The Book of Allah is sufficient for us."
As a result, Muhammad never produced the written statement.
Ibn Abbas later lamented:
"The greatest disaster was what prevented the Messenger of Allah from writing that document because of their disagreement."
This raises an important historical question.
If the document was intended to prevent future error, why was it never written?
Several questions naturally arise from this account.
If Muhammad truly could not write:
Why did he say, "Let me write"?
Why did no companion correct him by saying he could not write?
Why does the hadith never state that another person would write on his behalf?
If Muhammad intended only to dictate:
Why is the wording not explicit?
Why has this clarification become necessary only in later theological interpretation?
The Doctrine of Al-Ummi
The Qur'an describes Muhammad as al-ummī in several passages.
Scholars have proposed multiple meanings:
illiterate,
unscriptured,
Gentile,
one outside the Jewish scriptural tradition.
Because the Arabic term has more than one possible meaning, some contemporary scholars argue that translating it exclusively as "illiterate" may oversimplify the evidence.
Consequently, the doctrine that Muhammad absolutely could neither read nor write is not as straightforward as it is often presented.
Sahih al-Bukhari 5669 presents an important historical question regarding Muhammad's literacy.
While Muslim scholars generally interpret the passage as referring to dictation, the wording itself has led critics to argue that it naturally suggests Muhammad intended to write personally.
This tension invites further historical and textual investigation.
Whether one accepts the traditional explanation or not, the hadith demonstrates that the question of Muhammad's literacy is more complex than simplistic apologetic claims often acknowledge.
Debate Questions
If Muhammad could not write, why did he say, "Let me write for you"?
Why does the hadith never say that Muhammad intended merely to dictate?
Why did none of the companions respond by saying, "Messenger of Allah, you cannot write"?
If the Qur'an was sufficient, why did Muhammad still intend to produce another written statement?
Why did Ibn Abbas describe the incident as "the greatest disaster" if nothing essential was lost?
Is the traditional interpretation based on the wording of the hadith itself, or on later theological assumptions?
Does the Arabic text explicitly state that Muhammad was only dictating?
If al-ummī can have meanings other than "illiterate," should Muslims avoid claiming that Muhammad's inability to read and write is established beyond dispute?
Does this hadith demonstrate that the historical evidence regarding Muhammad's literacy is open to scholarly discussion?
Should historical conclusions be based on the plain wording of primary sources or on later doctrinal interpretations?
