Due to the investigation of WeIIhausen, Wustenfeld, Cheikho, Lammens, Huart and others, we know more of the conditions of life at Mecca. The art of reading and writing was fairly common at Mecca at the time of Muhammad's birth. According to later Moslem tradition the science of writing was not known in Mecca until introduced by Harb, the father of Abu Sufian, the great opponent of Muhammad, about a.d, 560! But this is evidently an error, for close relationships existed long before this between Mecca and Yemen through caravan trade, and in Yemen writing was well known for centuries. In another tradition Abd ul Muttalib is said to have written to Medina for help in his younger days, i.e. about A.D.520. Both Jews and Christians also dwelt in the vicinity of Mecca for two hundred years before the Hegira, and used some form of writing.

Muir says; "It is evident that writing of some sort was known and practised at Mecca long before A.D. 560. At all events, the frequent notices of written papers leave no room to doubt that Arabic writing was well known, and not uncommonly practised there in Muhammad’s early days. I cannot think with Weil, that any great want of writing materials could have been felt, even by the poorer Moslems, in the early days of Islam. Reeds and palm-leaves would never be wanting."

He quotes an account from Katib al Waqidi, showing that Mecca was far in advance of Medina in the art of writing, so that after the battle of Badr many of the Meccan prisoners were compelled to teach the art of writing to the children of Medina. Each captive was assigned ten boys, and their tuition, when completed, was to be accepted as a full ransom (Cf. Muir vol 1 p. 8 and vol.3. P. 123).

Hartmann also, in a long note (vol. 2. p. 425 of Der Islamische Orient), shows that writing was very common in Yemen and North Arabia, and that there was close relationships between Mecca and both these provinces as well as with Persia. He says: "There is no doubt that writing on parchment was an ordinary custom for poets, merchants, etc."

There are many traditions which show that writing was not uncommon in Mecca about Muhammad's time, and the traditions which ascribe a prejudice on his part against writing appear to have no good foundation. We find mention of Abu ‘l-Abbas, the uncle of Muhammad, having left behind him a camel-load of manuscripts. 'Ali copied out certain precepts of the Prophet, and in order to have them constantly at hand, tied the roll round the handle of his sword. (Muir’s The Mohammedan Controversy, p. 114). Jaber and Yaser, two sword-makers in Mecca, are mentioned by the commentators as being in the habit of reading the Taurat and the Injil when Muhammad passed them, and he listened to their reading. On the first page of Al-Bukhari's collection of traditions we read that Waraqa bin Naufal, Khadijah's cousin, read the Gospel and copied it in the Hebrew character. Others say Arabic and Hebrew (Cf. Al Asqalani’s Fath-ul-Bari Commentary, vol 1. P 19).

The cursive Arabic script was in use as early as the time of Mutalammis and Tarafa, the second half of the sixth century A.H (Encyclopaedia of Islam, vol 1. P383). The rise of Islam no doubt helped to spread knowledge of writing, but did not originate it. Louis Cheikho, in his Arabic Studies on Christian Literature in Arabia before Islam, devotes a chapter to prove that the art of writing itself was introduced by Christians both in South and North Arabia long before the Hegira. The two kinds of characters used, namely, the Nabati and the Naskhi, which exist today in rock inscriptions, as well as in documents, owe their origin to Christians.

We also read in the Aghani (3:14) that Waraqa bin Naufal wrote portions of the Gospel record in Hebrew letters. Cheikho goes on to show that a great number of Qur'an words, especially the names and attributes of God, the terms used in regard to the rewards and punishment of the future life, and the religious vocabulary in general (which are usually attributed to Muhammad's genius) all occur in pre-Islamic Christian poetry (Cf Le Christianisme et la Litterarature chreitienne en Arabie avant l’Islam, vol 2. pp 158-195.).

Moslem tradition is in this respect unreliable. We are told, for example, that at Mecca at the time of the Prophet only seventeen men were able to write. Their names are preserved for us by al-Baladhuri (see last chapter Arabic edition of the text, Cairo 1901). This statement seems very improbable, not to say impossible. The Fath-ul-Bari mentions the names of the amanuenses of the Prophet (Vol. 9 p.19), and says they numbered no fewer than forty-two (Casanova, Mohammad et la Fin du Monde, pp. 96, 97) and gives their names from five different authorities. While this may be an exaggeration, it certainly seems to prove that the art of reading and writing was not uncommon. Letters were written by the order of Muhammad to foreign rulers, and we even hear of a correspondence kept up in Hebrew with the Jews (See Abu Daoud under the heading Reports from the Ahl-al-kitab).

The Meccans, in fact, like the Egyptians in their fondness for writing, used all possible materials. Our information is fairly extensive and is derived from an account of the missionary epistles sent out by the Prophet and of the collection of the Qur'an. The chief materials were leather, palm-leaf, and the broad shoulder-blades of the camel, potsherds, flat white stones, wooden tablets, parchment and papyrus (Encyclopaedia of Islam, Article entitled “Arabic”).

In view of the facts given above and the statement that Muhammad himself had so many secretaries, there were doubtless more than seventeen persons in the religious capital, with its large pilgrim traffic, who were literate. Muhammad himself was a most intelligent man, and had acted for a long time as a mercantile agent for Khadijah. When we remember what this involves in wholesale caravan traffic with distant Syria, it is not unnatural to suppose that he may have had opportunity to learn to read and write.

On what, then, is the general Islamic denial of their Prophet's ability to read or write based? On one word, ummi, used six times in the Qur'an, and on one obscure passage where the Angel Gabriel bids him "read'' (iqra') and he replies, " I am not a 'reader.' "Let us examine the words used, and see whether their significance by derivation or usage will bear the weight of the interpretation that has become current, or contradicts it.

The word ummi occurs six times in the Qur'an. We copy the passages in order and follow Palmer's translation (and mistranslation):

The chapter of the Heifer (2:74):

"and some of them are illiterate folk that know not the book but only idle tales."

The chapter of Imran's family (3:19);

"and say to those who have been given the book and unto the Gentiles, are ye too resigned?"

The chapter of Al 'Araf (7: 155-158):

"who follow the apostle the illiterate Prophet; whom they find written down for them in the law and the gospel. . . . Believe thou then in God and His Apostle the illiterate Prophet who believes in God and in His words."

The chapter of the Congregation (62:2):

"He it is who sent unto the Gentiles a prophet amongst themselves to recite to them His signs and to purify them and to teach them the book and wisdom, although they were before in obvious error."

All of these are Medina verses except 7: 155-158.

The words in italics in these passages are all the translations of one root-word in Arabic, ummi. Palmer hesitates to render them all with the word "gentile," although his comment on chapter 3, verse 19, shows his opinion; "Muhammad seems to have borrowed the expression from the Jews; ummiyyun having the same significance as the Hebrew goyim" (Palmer, vol.1. p. 48).

Lane {Arabic Lexicon, vol.1 p. 92), who has collected the views of the Arabic lexicographers, begins by saying:

"ummi properly means gentile — in a secondary sense a heathen; one not having a revealed scripture; or belonging to the nation of the Arabs, who did not write nor read, and therefore metaphorically applied to anyone not knowing the art of writing nor that of reading. Muhammad was termed ummi, meaning a gentile, as distinguished from an Israelite; according to most of his followers, meaning illiterate. Some assert that Muhammad became acquainted with writing after he had been unacquainted therewith, referring to the Qur'an (29:47), where it is said, 'Thou didst not read before it from a book, nor didst thou write it with thy right hand.' "

Regarding the meaning of the word ummi, Al-Tabari says (vol. 3. p. 142), commenting on the word in Surah Alu 'Imran: "the ummiyyun are those among the Arabs who have no revelation." We read in the Arabic dictionary Taj al Aroos that Muhammad was not altogether illiterate, but that "he could not distinguish between good and bad writing." We are also told that some traditions state that he learned to read and write after he became a Prophet.

In the commentary called Al-Khazin (vol. 2. p. 146) the following interpretation of the word ummi shows the growth of the legend. "The Prophet could neither read nor write nor cypher, and this the authorities are agreed is evidence of the greatest miracle in the case of the Qur'an. “

Fahr er-Razi, however (vol. 8. p. 149), in commenting on chapter 7, p. 2, says: "ummi means related to the people of the Arabs, because they are an ummi people, who have no book, and do not read a book or write." Ibn-Abbas says the meaning is, "those who have no book and no prophet sent unto them." He reiterates this explanation on Surah 3:19, but in obscure phrases (vol. 2. p. 426).

Al-Tabari is more definite in his comment (vol. 28. p. 61) on the same verse: "The people of Muhammad were called ummiyyun because no revelation had come to them." This shows very clearly that the word ummi does not mean illiterate, but gentile.

Baidhawi (vol. p. 150) interprets: "The ummi is he who neither reads nor writes." The commentary called Al-Khazin says (vol. 2. p. 147): "The ummi is he who is like the Arabs or the people of the Arabs because most of them neither write nor read." Then he goes on to quote a tradition according to which Muhammad said: "We are an umma (people) ummiyya: we neither write nor cypher."

Fahr er-Razi says: "Concerning the word in question the learned differ in regard to the meaning of it: some of them say that ummi is he who does not confess belief in a book nor in an apostle. Others say it is he who does not know how to read and write skilfully. This second significance is more credited because there were ummi among the Jews, and they believed in a book and an apostle; and also because Muhammad himself said we are a people ummi: we do not write and we do not cypher" (vol.1. p. 309).

Muhammad Ali is also perplexed in regard to this problem. In his translation of The Holy Qur'an, commenting on chapter 2, verse 76; he says that the word ummiyyun is specially applied to the Arabs who were generally unacquainted with reading and writing. He strongly objects to the definition of the word as given by Rodwell and Lane. In a long footnote (No. 950) he protests that the word ummi can never mean gentile, and says that Lane's conclusion in his dictionary "is entirely without foundation,"

In another passage, however, Suratu 'l-Jumu'ah, he himself translates the same word as Meccan, and his conclusion (p. 362) is that there is ground for believing that Muhammad could write after revelation came to him, although he still had his letters written by scribes. In the preface to the same work there is a long, though very lame, argument to prove that "the Holy Prophet left at his death a complete written Qur'an with the same arrangement of the verses and the chapters that we now have."

There are indications, we admit, in the Qur'an that some of its chapters existed in written form at a very early date. For example, Surah 56:77, "None shall touch it (the written copy) save the purified." Also the account of the conversation of 'Omar who discovered a written copy of an entire chapter — the twentieth — in the house of Fatima. Why could not Muhammad himself have written it?

Noldeke (Geschiichte des Qurans, p.10) admits that Muhammad had no access to the scriptures of the Old and New Testaments as we understand them, and says that the question of Muhammad's illiteracy is confused, because the references given by Moslems on this point are contradictory. The common tradition, he goes on to show, is due not to the fact that men were in search of the truth but rather to the fact that Muhammad's illiteracy was manufactured to establish dogmatic or political opinions. Generally speaking, the Sunnis deny his ability to read and write, while the Shia'hs affirm it.

Sprenger speaks of one Muhammad bin Muhammad bin Nu'man (died 413 a.h.), who wrote a book on the subject establishing the literacy of the Prophet.

The testimony of the Shia'hs is summed up in the celebrated collection called The Hyat-ul-Kuloob, translated by the Rev. James L. Merrick, under the title The Life and Religion of Mohammed.

"In regard to the Prophet's title of ummi, traditions are contradictory.
Some say he was so styled because he could not read or write. Others maintain that it referred to his ummet, or sect, conveying the idea that he was like the illiterate Arabs. Another party insist that the title is taken from umm (mother), denoting that the prophet was as simple as a newborn infant.
There are traditions which state that the title is derived from Umm-ul-kora, an epithet of Mecca, and consequently that ummi would signify Mekkaite. There is nothing contrary to the position that the Prophet was never taught to read and write before his assumption of the prophetic office, and to this agrees a verse of the Qur'an, in which the Most High declares to him, 'Thou couldst not read any book before this; neither couldst thou write it with thy right hand; then had the gainsayers justly doubted of the divine original thereof'’
(Surah 29:47).

Tradition is likewise contradictory as to whether he could read and write after his assumption to the prophetical office. But there can be no doubt of his ability to do this, inasmuch as he knew all things by divine inspiration, and as by the power of God he could perform acts which were impossible to all others. He had his own wise reasons for not reading and writing himself, and generally ordered his attendants to read letters which he received.

One of the traditions which the Shia'hs advance is the celebrated incident in connexion with the treaty made in the sixth year of the Hegira with the Quraish at a place near Mecca, named Hudaibiya. The account is preserved by Bukhari and Muslim (vol.2. p.170). Ibn Hisham has also recorded it at length in his Siratu 'r-Rasul (vol.2. p. 175, ed. Bulaq, 1295 a.h.). The former tells us that 'Ali was chosen as the prophet's amanuensis on this occasion, and that when Muhammad bade him write the words, "A treaty between Muhammad the Prophet of God and Suhail bin 'Amr," the latter objected to the term "Apostle of God," remarking that if the Quraish acknowledged that, there would be no necessity for opposing Muhammad at all. The latter then turned to 'Ali and told him to cut out the words "Apostle of God" and write in their stead the words suggested by Suhail, viz. "Son of Abdullah!" To this 'Ali objected, saying, "By God I will never cut it out." Then, the narrative proceeds: "The apostle of God took the writing and though he did not write well, wrote what he had ordered ('Ali), viz. 'Mohammed son of Abdullah.'" (Caetani (Annali dell’ Islam, vol.1. pp.716-717) gives the account and the references in full.)

This account is also found in the commentary by Al-Baghawi on chapter 48, verse 35, and at greater length in Tabari's Al-Mawahib al-Laduniya. The question, however, arises, as Noldeke indicates, whether even this is positive proof that Muhammad could write. The word kataba is sometimes used to signify "dictated"; the text also may have been corrupted.

Noldeke comes to the following conclusions (Geschichte des Qurans, pp. 12-14), (a) Muhammad desired to be known as one who did not understand reading and writing; he therefore employed a number of scribes and always had letters that came to him read out to him. (b) He did not have access to the Bible or other Christian books, least of all to a book entitled Asatir al-Awalin. (c) This does not exclude the fact that Muhammad used the oral traditions of Jews and Christians as well as the unwritten traditions current among his own people.

The frequency with which Muhammad feels it necessary to resent the charge of the Meccan idolaters that the Qur’an was a book composed by fraud is certainly indicative that they must have known something of his methods and of his sources. In chapter 25, verse 5, we read: "The unbelievers say. Verily this Qur’an is a mere fraud of his own devising, and others have helped him with it who had come hither by pillage and lie; and they say these are tales of the ancients that he hath put in writing, and they were dictated to him morning and evening" (Palmer's translation). Compare also Surah 16:105, where the same charge is made. In neither passage does Muhammad answer the charge by saying that he can neither read nor write.

Qastalani, according to Sprenger, gives the history of a dispute that took place in Spain in which the philosopher Avenpace held that Muhammad could both read and write; although he was condemned as a heretic for holding this opinion. In one of the disputes that arose on this question, a Qur’an passage (Surah 39:46) was used by the Moslems themselves to show that although Muhammad could not read before revelation came to him, he was able afterwards both to read and to write. Sprenger gives other proofs, which are not so conclusive, although they are cumulative. He quotes traditions according to which Muhammad gave instructions to one of his scribes in words that prove his knowledge, not only of penmanship, but of calligraphy. How else could he have said; "Put down the ink pot, cut the pen, divide the strokes of the sin and do not lengthen the mim so much." He quotes the story in regard to the treaty at Hudaibiya, although the different versions do not agree in detail.

Ibn Abi Shaiba said: "The Prophet knew how to read and write before he died. I have known people who have affirmed this." If this tradition is reliable, it is important, for Ibn Abi Shaiba died 105 A.H. The scene described by many authorities in the older biographies, which took place three days before Muhammad's death on June 4, 632, would leave no doubt in the matter if we could trust Moslem tradition.

Shahrastani gives the words of the Prophet used on this occasion as follows: "Bring the inkstand and a sheet that I may write something, in order that you will not be misled after me." This tradition comes to us from the lips of an eye-witness and is preserved by different Companions and their followers. There is no version of the tradition in which Muhammad does not express the wish that he himself should use the pen. (See Ibn Sa'ad, p. 149, and vol. 2. p. 398, Sprenger's Mohammed, who gives a list, of no fewer than nine Isnads for the tradition).

Sprenger's believes that Muhammad had access to portions of the genuine, and some of the apocryphal, Scriptures. Al-Tabari tells us that when Muhammad first gave his revelations even his wife Khadijah had read the Scriptures and was acquainted with the history of the Old Testament prophets. “It is preposterous" (Sprenger adds) "to suppose that though the Arabs in the north and west of the Peninsula were Christians, and had a great number of monasteries, no translation of the Bible, or at least of a popular work containing the Scriptural History, was then extant in Arabic. When the Muslims conquered Hira, they found in the citadel young priests, who were Arabs, engaged in multiplying copies of the Bible.

According to Fath-ul-Bari (vol.1. p.19) Waraqa bin Naufal not only read and wrote Arabic, but Hebrew as well. Moreover, Cheikho (p. 153) gives an account of how Zuhra bin Kilab, Muhammad's great-great-grandfather, wrote out the alphabet and taught it to others. Cheikho quotes from Baladhuri, who tells how the Arab merchants even in that day taught each other writing (al-khatt). One of Muhammad’s scribes, Zaid bin Thabit, learned the Hebrew characters in two weeks and carried on Muhammad's correspondence in it with the Jews (Baladhuri, p. 480)

There are two other important references to Muhammad's writing. In regard to the treaty between Muhammad and the Qureish at Hudaibiya, known as the oath of Ridhwan, Muir (vol. 4. p. 33) gives a long account; although he does not mention the fact that when 'Ali refused to write the words, "Muhammad the son of Abdullah," Muhammad himself wrote these words. The following, however, is the tradition according to Waqidi (Muir's footnote): Muhammad wrote at the foot of the treaty, "The same shall be incumbent upon you toward us, as is incumbent upon us toward you."

The tradition in regard to Muhammad's calling for writing materials on his death-bed is given by Muir as follows:

"About this time, recognizing 'Omar, and some other chief men in the room, he called out, 'Bring hither to me ink and paper, that I may record for you a writing which shall prevent your going astray for ever.' 'Omar said, 'He wandereth in his mind, is not the Qur’an sufficient for us?’ But the women wished that the writing materials should be brought, and a discussion ensued. Thereupon one said, 'What is his condition at this present moment? Come let us see if he speaketh deliriously or not.' So they sent and asked him what his wishes were regarding the writing he had spoken of; but he no longer desired to indite it. 'Leave me thus alone,' he said, 'for my present state is better than that ye call me to.'

"When the women were about to bring the writing material, ‘Omar chided them: 'Quiet,' he said, ‘Ye behave as women always do; when your master falleth sick ye burst into tears, and the moment he recovereth a little ye begin embracing him.' Muhammad, jealous even on his death-bed of the good name of his wives, was aroused by these words, and said, 'Verily they are better than ye are.' If this tradition be true, it shows that Muhammad was only partially delirious at the moment." (Muir’s The Life of Mahomet, vol. 4. Pp 271-272)

There is no reason, therefore, why Moslems should emphasize the illiteracy of the Prophet except to bolster up their theory of the Qur’an as a miracle.

Fahr-al-Razi, for example, says (vol. 4. p.298): "If Muhammad had been able to read and write well, there would have been a suspicion that he had examined earlier books and copied his revelations from them."

The legend that Muhammad was illiterate grew with the centuries. Al-Ghazali, for example (Ihya, vol. 2. p. 250), says: "The prophet was ummi; he did not read, cypher, nor write, and was brought up in an ignorant country in the wild desert, in poverty while herding sheep; he was an orphan without father or mother; but God Himself taught him all the virtues of character and all the knowledge of the ancient and the modern world."