Guenther (2006) -- Art. "Ummi" (Encyclopaedia of the Qur'an., vol. 5)

399 Ulema see  Umar see ;     Umm abība see     Umm Salama see     Umma see      ;  Ummī A qurānic epithet for the prophet Mu
ammad that acquired significantly different interpretations in the course of Islamic history. Traditionally, Muslims understand ummī as “illiterate” and as unequivocally identifying Mu
ammad as “the illiterate Prophet” (al-nabī l-ummī) — a view that has come to constitute an article of orthodox faith and spirituality in Islam (see ). Recent research, however, recovering some of the earliest exegetical glossing, has suggested that ummī in the Qurān signifies the ethnic origin (being an Arab, Arabian) and the originality of the Prophet of Islam (coming from among a people, the Arabs [q.v.], who had not yet received a revelation; see   ). Terms in the Qurān and their interpretations The term ummī occurs only in  : and ; its plural, ummiyyūn, is found in  :; :,  and :. In  : and , God proclaims: My mercy (q.v.),… I shall ordain it for those who are God-fearing,… those who believe in our signs (q.v.;  :), [those] who follow the messenger (q.v.), the ummī ī Prophet, whom they find mentioned in their [own scriptures, the] Torah (q.v.) and the Gospel (q.v.; see also    ), who bids them to what is just (see   ) and forbids them what is reprehensible (see   ,   ; ), and who makes lawful for them the good things and unlawful for them the corrupt things… ( :; see   ;   ). Say: “O humankind, I am the messenger of God to you all.…” Therefore, believe in God and in his messenger, the ummī Prophet who believes in God and his words. Follow him! Perhaps, you will [then] be guided ( :; see ; ). In commenting on these verses, the classical Muslim exegetes (see    :   ) offer several interpretations for ummī, including “unable to read (and write; see ;     ),” Arab⁄Arabian (derived from umma, “nation, the people of the Arabs”), Meccan (from umm al-qurā, “Mother of all Cities,” an epithet for Mecca [q.v.]), and, “pure, natural,” like a newborn from its “mother” (umm), thus incorporating the notions of being “unlettered,” “untaught,” “intellectually untouched” (see   ), and “spiritually virgin,” by virtue of which Mu
ammad became the receptacle for the divine revelation. (For references and discussion of these and the following derivations, see Günther, Illiteracy, esp. -; and id., Literacy, esp. .) Despite these various possible meanings, the classical commentaries stress that ummī in the two verses characterizing the prophet Mu
ammad means “unable to read (and write).” Presenting a threefold argument, they suggest () that ummī most likely relates to umma, “the people of the Arabs” who, () at ī 400 the time of Mu
ammad, were mostly an “illiterate nation” (umma ummiyya), “neither reading nor writing,” and, () since Mu
ammad belonged to this nation, he neither read nor wrote, or was unable to do so. Western scholars have contested, in particular, the idea that ummī means “illiterate.” While some scholars suggest the meaning of “ethnically Arab⁄Arabian,” others argue in favor of “untaught” or “ignorant” (of the scriptures, as opposed to being “learned,” “knowledgeable” about them) or “not having received a revelation” and, strictly speaking, “pagan” and “heathen,” or “gentile” (see Günther, Illiteracy, ; see   ;  ,   -). Analysis of the qurānic expressions ummiyyūn and umma (the latter being the noun from which ummī is most likely derived, as both classical exegetes and contemporary scholars agree) highlights above all two things. First, umma in the Qurān means “a people” or, more specifically, “the nation [of the Arabs]” (notwithstanding its other meanings, which are not relevant here; see Günther, Illiteracy, -). Second, the term ummiyyūn in the Qurān identifies “Arabs who have not [yet] been given a divinely inspired scripture” (cf.  :, ; :). On one occasion, however, a certain group among the Jews (see   ) is called ummiyyūn, “not knowing the scripture,” or “not being wellversed in the book [q.v.; because they are not reading in it]” ( :). When the terms ummī and pl. ummiyyūn are examined in conjunction with the previous two remarks, it becomes clear that in the Qurān they do not represent a single meaning. Rather, they suggest a spectrum of ideas, which includes (a) someone belonging to a people (umma) — the Arabs — who were a nation without a scripture as yet; (b) someone without a scripture and thus not read- ing it; and (c) someone not reading a scripture and, therefore, not being taught or educated [by something or somebody] (cf. Günther, Mu
ammad, -). Although this spectrum of ideas does not include the meaning of “illiterate” as such, it apparently formed the basis upon which the idea of ummī meaning “illiterate” was developed. The dogma of the Prophet being ummī, “illiterate” The fact that questions surrounding the possibility of Mu
ammad’s literacy were already an issue of considerable significance at the time of the revelation seems to be evident, for example, in  :. This passage echoes attempts made by “unbelievers” (polytheists in Mecca) to discredit Mu
ammad by claiming that he was not communicating divine revelations, but “stories taken from writings of the ancients (asā īr al-awwalīn; see ), which he has written down (see    ;   ) and which were dictated to him (tumlā alayhi) at dawn (q.v.) and in the early evening” (q.v.; see also Günther, Illiteracy, -). In contrast,  :- states: “We have sent down to you [Mu
ammad] the book (al-kitāb).… Not before this did you read (tatlū) any book, or inscribe it with your right hand…” (for talā referring to “reading [the holy scriptures],” see Günther, Literacy, ). The concept of the Prophet’s illiteracy, however, “seems to have evolved in some circles of Muslim learning not before the first half of the second century of the hijra (see ; ),” i.e. the first half of the eight century c.e. (Goldfeld, Illiterate prophet, ). Furthermore, it seems that Mu
ammad’s illiteracy had already become dogma by the end of the third⁄ninth century when al-abarī (d. ⁄) summed up much of the 401 ī learning of previous generations of Muslims (see Goldfeld’s research into certain exegetical works, which al-abarī used as sources and quoted in his comments on ummī and ummiyyūn; see    ). The famous theologian alGhazālī (d. ⁄), for example, advocates this creed on numerous occasions in his The revival of the religious sciences (Iyā ulūm al-dīn), his greatest and most authoritative work. Here he states that: “He (the Prophet) was ummī; he did not read or write.… God [himself] taught him all the virtues of character, the praiseworthy ways of behaving and the information about the ancients and the following generations” (Iyā, ii,  [ch. ]). In the course of time, the notion of the illiterate Prophet of Islam came to be a central argument in defending Islam against opponents who attempted to discredit the prophet Mu
ammad and his message. Moreover, for the exegete al-Rāzī (d. ⁄), and other orthodox Muslim scholars in medieval and modern times, this concept also underscores the inimitability and uniqueness of the Qurān in terms of content, form and style (ijāz; see ), its miraculous nature (mujiza; see ) and the outstanding place Islam and its Prophet deserve within the canon of the monotheistic religions (see      ;      ). In other words, Mu
ammad’s illiteracy came to be seen as a particularly excellent sign and proof of the genuineness and nobility of his prophethood (see al-Rāzī’s lengthy statement in Günther, Illiteracy, -). The ūfī (see    ) Alī b. Mu
ammad al-Baghdādī, known as al-Khāzin (d. ⁄), for example, says: the greatest and most magnificent miracles. Had he mastered writing and then come forward with this magnificent Qurān, he could have been accused of having written and transmitted it from others (Lubāb, ii, ). The Prophet was ummī; he did not read, write, or count.… His being ummī is one of To expand on this tenet could result in trouble, as seen in the example of Abū l-Walīd al-Bājī al-Mālikī (d. ⁄), a distinguished theologian and man of letters in eleventh-century Spain. The controversy began in the city of Denia, during a teaching session on al-Bukhārī’s (d. ⁄) famous collection of “Sound prophetic traditions,” which includes an account of the events in ⁄ at aludaybiya, when a peace treaty was agreed on between Mu
ammad and the Meccan tribe of Quraysh (q.v.). As alBukhārī has it: “the messenger of God took the document and wrote this (his name),” fa-akhadha rasūl Allāh… al-kitāba fa-kataba hādha (no. ), although “he did not write well…,” wa-laysa yusinu yaktubu [sic] fa-kataba hādha (no. ; Dārimī, Sunan, no. ; wa-laysa yusinu an yaktuba fa-kataba…, Ibn anbal, Musnad, no. ,). Al-Bājī explained the significance of the event and stated furthermore that this tradition was authentic and a proof that the Prophet wrote on that day. Because of his explanation, al-Bājī was accused of heresy and atheism. At a specifically organized public disputation, however, he convinced the learned audience that his opinion did not contradict the Qurān — and its notion of the ummī⁄ illiterate Prophet — because  :-, as al-Bājī argued, indicates (only) that Mu
ammad did not write any scripture before he received the revelation (al-kitāb) and became a prophet. Al-Bājī later wrote an epistle on this subject to justify his doctrinal position (edited in Bājī, Taqīq, -), which in turn gave rise to trea- ī 402 tises, for and against his position, written by Muslim scholars in Spain, north Africa and Sicily (cf. Bājī, Taqīq, -, ; Abū ayyān, Bar, vii, ; Sprenger, Moammad, ii, ; and esp. Fierro, Polémicas, ). A similar argument is made by the influential Twelver-Shīī scholar (see ī   ) and legal authority (see    ), Allāma Majlisī (d. ⁄), after he surveyed for his Persian readership the various interpretations of ummī common among Muslim scholars. Basing himself also on  :-, he supports the idea that Mu
ammad was “never taught to read and write” before he became a prophet. He says, however: when he said: “itūnī [sic] bi-dawāt wa-
aīfa aktubu lakum kitāban lā ta illū badahu,” which seems to mean, “Bring me writing instruments and a piece of parchment (or papyrus). I will write (i.e. dictate?) a will for you, after which you will not go astray,” rather than, simply, “… I will draft for you a writing.…” (cf. Ibn Sad, abaqāt, ii, -; for the entire passage, see pp. -, the chapter entitled al-Kitāb alladhī arāda rasūl Allāh an yaktubahu li-ummatihi; see furthermore Ghédira, a
īfa; Sprenger, Mohammad, ii, -; for kataba [li] meaning in the Qurān also “to decree, to ordain [a will, or law],” see Günther, Literacy, -; similarly, Lane, vii, ; on the verbal use of the root k-t-b in the Qurān in general, see Madigan, Qurān’s self-image, -; on the importance that writing and political documents generally had for Mu
ammad in Medina [q.v.] after he had become a statesman, see Hamidullah, Six originaux, -, -; Margoliouth, Mohammed, ; see    ; for the frequent occurrence of the expressions al-nabī l-arabī, “the Arab⁄Arabian Prophet,” in biographical and historical Muslim sources, see for example Wāqidī, Futū, ii, , , ; Ibn Sad, abaqāt, i, , ; Dhahabī, Siyar, i, ; Ibn Khaldūn, Muqaddima, ; Ibn Kathīr, Bidāya, ii, , ; Maqqarī, Naf, vii, , ; Kātib Chelebi, Kashf al-unūn, ii,  and ). In conclusion, one notes two things: While the meaning of the terms ummī and ummiyyūn in the Qurān can be determined as indicated above, the question as to whether or not the prophet Mu
ammad knew how to read and write (at the end of his life) is another matter that cannot be decided conclusively on the basis of the textual evidence available today. whether [or not] he [actually] read and wrote after he became prophet,… there can be no doubt of his ability to do so, inasmuch as he knew all things by divine inspiration, and so by the power of God was able to perform things impossible for all others to do.… How could the Prophet be ignorant [of reading and writing] when he was sent [by God] to instruct others (cf. Majlisī, ayāt, ii, ). It appears that  :- was instrumental in harmonizing the doctrinal concept of Mu
ammad’s “illiteracy” with the data given, for example, in historical and biographical sources (see     ), according to which Mu
ammad seems to have had (some) knowledge of reading and writing at a later stage of his life. Nonetheless, the well-attested incident that reportedly took place on Thursday, June ,  c.e. — i.e. four days before Mu
ammad’s death — also provides no conclusive answer to the question as to whether or not the prophet Mu
ammad was able to read and write at the end of his life. The accounts given by Ibn Sad (d. ⁄) relate that the prophet Mu
ammad was lying on his sick-bed Sebastian Günther 403 Bibliography Primary: Abū ayyān, Bar, Riyadh ; al-Bājī al-Mālikī, Abū l-Walīd Sulaymān b. Khalaf, Taqīq al-madhhab. Yatlūhā ajwibat al-ulamā bayna muayyid wa-muāri awla dawā kitābat al-rusūl liismihi yawm ul al-udaybiya, ed. A.A. al- āhirī, Riyadh ⁄; Bukhārī, aī, ed. in Fat albārī bi-shar aī al-Bukhārī… li-Ibn ajar alAsqalānī,  vols., Beirut ; Dhahabī, Siyar, i, ; al-Ghazālī, Abū āmid Mu
ammad, Iyā ulūm al-dīn,  vols., Beirut n.d.; Ibn Kathīr, Bidāya, ii, , ; Ibn Khaldūn, Muqaddima, Beirut ; Ibn Sad, abaqāt; Kātib Chelebi, Kashf al-unūn,  vols., Beirut ⁄, ii, , ; al-Khāzin, Alā al-Dīn Alī b. Mu
ammad al-Baghdādī, Tafsīr al-Qurān al-jalīl al-musammā Lubāb al-tawīl fī maānī al-tanzīl, Cairo []; Majlisī, Mu
ammad Bāqir b. Mu
ammad Taqī, ayāt al-qulūb,  vols., Qom [-]; trans. J.L. Merrick, The life and religion of Mohammed, As contained in the Sheeãh traditions of the Hyât-ul-Kuloob, Boston  (chapter “Mohammed’s names, possessions, person and character,” -); al-Maqqarī, A
mad b. Mu
ammad, Naf al- īb, ed. I. Abbās,  vols. (+  vol. Index), Beirut , vii, , ; alWāqidī, Abū Abdallāh b. Umar, Futū al-Shām,  vols., Beirut n.d., ii, , , . Secondary: Arberry; A. al-Baghdadi, Muhammad, The ummi prophet, in Arab review ⁄ (), -, esp. ; N. Calder, The ummī in early Islamic juristic literature, in Der Islam  (), -; M. Fierro, Polémicas, in R.M. Pidal (ed.), Historia de España [viii, ], Madrid , -; D.V. Frolov, The spread of literacy in Mecca and Medina at the time of Mu
ammad, in The Humanities in Russia: Soros Laureates. The  allRussia competition of research projects in humanities, Moscow , -; A. Ghédira, ā
īfa, in   , viii, -; I. Goldfeld, The illiterate prophet (nabī ummī). An inquiry into the development of a dogma in Islamic tradition, in Der Islam  (), -; S. Günther, Illiteracy, in  , ii, -; id., Literacy, in  , iii, -; id., Mu
ammad, the illiterate prophet. An Islamic creed in the Qurān and qurānic exegesis, in Journal of qur’anic studies ⁄ (), -; M. Hamidullah, Six originaux des lettres du prophète de l’Islam. Étude paléographique et historique des lettres du prophète, Paris ; Lane; D.A. Madigan, The Qurān’s self-image. Writing and authority in Islam’s scripture, Princeton and Oxford ; D.S. Margoliouth, Mohammed, London [], esp. -; O. Pautz, Muhammeds Lehre von der Offenbarung, quellenmäßig untersucht, Leipzig  (includes a survey of nineteenth century scholarship on ummī, esp. -); H.G. Reissner, The ummī prophet and the Banu Israil of the Qurān, in   (), -; G. Schoeler, Charakter und Authentie der muslimischen  Überlieferung über das Leben Mohammed, Berlin and New York , - (with a comprehensive study of the various reports regarding the first revelation to the prophet Mu
ammad, the iqraaccount); L. Shāyib, Hal Kāna Muammad Umiyyan? Al-aqīqa al-dāia bayna aghlā almuslimīn wa-Mughāla āt al-Mustashriqīn, Beirut 1423/2003; A. Sprenger, The life of Mohammad from original sources, Allahabad  (esp. -); id., Mohammad, ii, -; S.M. Zwemer, The “illiterate” prophet. Could Mohammed read and write, in   (), -. Umra see  Unbelief⁄Unbelievers see   ;   ;  Uncertainty Questioning the truth or existence of something. In the Qurān, this is a quality often attributed to those peoples, past and present, who do not believe or trust the messengers (see ) or signs (q.v.) of God (see ;   ;   ;   ). And, like its first auditors, Islamic tradition (and certainly nonMuslims) has grappled with how to understand — and interpret — the word of God (q.v.). According to the tradition, Islam began with Mu
ammad’s uncertainty and panic ( fa-akhadhatnī rajfa; al-nashi an al-rub; Suyūī, Itqān, i, ; see ) after a very early revelation (most authorities claim that  :- was the first revelation; see Zarkashī, Burhān [Naw ], i, ; followed by Suyūī, Itqān, i, ; see   ) in, or shortly after leaving, the cave (q.v.) of al-irā (see     ;    ;   ; for the archetypical theme of the mythic hero and the cave, see Jung, Memories, -; Dreifuss