The writer and media figure Ibrahim Essa raises a long-controversial and emotionally charged question that has often been met with anger and sensitivity: did the Prophet Muhammad’s “illiteracy” necessarily mean that he did not know how to read and write? In this article, Essa examines the concept from linguistic, historical, and religious perspectives, and draws a distinction between the divinity of the Qur’an and the debate over the Prophet’s illiteracy.
This text is an edited version of an episode from Ibrahim Essa’s program on Alhurra’s digital platforms, revised for readability while preserving, as much as possible, the original wording as delivered on screen.
I do not understand the intense anger that overtakes many people whenever an opinion appears here or there suggesting that the noble Prophet Muhammad—peace and blessings be upon him and his family—was not illiterate.
This view, incidentally, is an old one, hundreds of years old. It is not a modern idea, nor a product of our time. Yet the moment someone voices it, torrents of anger are unleashed, along with fierce defenses that nearly sweep the speaker away. He is accused of manipulating religion, questioning Islamic history, attacking the Prophet, or even casting doubt on the Qur’an itself.
There is a strong insistence and determination among many to prove that the Prophet was illiterate—in the sense that he neither read nor wrote. This is very strange. Simply saying that the Prophet was not illiterate, or that he knew how to read and write, becomes for some a direct challenge to the Qur’an, even though this opinion is very old and can be found within the very heart of classical Islamic sources. Major scholars discussed the issue, and some of them, with remarkable simplicity and confidence, concluded that the Prophet did know how to read and write.
What Does “Illiterate” Mean?
Does “illiterate” mean only that a person cannot read or write? Yes, that is one possible and acceptable meaning. But there is another meaning: that he was not formally educated or did not receive structured schooling. A third meaning is attribution to “Umm al-Qura” (the Mother of Cities), that is, Mecca—so “ummi” would mean someone from Umm al-Qura, just as we say Damascene or Egyptian.
There is also an interpretation that defines “illiterate” as someone who is not from the People of the Book—that is, not from nations to whom earlier scriptures were revealed. In this sense, “the illiterates” refers to other nations that did not receive revealed books, making “illiteracy” a collective cultural and religious description rather than an individual educational one.
Here, then, we are faced with multiple meanings, and one may choose among them, as there is no single interpretation that is necessarily binding.
Someone may object and say: no, there is consensus that the Prophet was illiterate in the sense that he neither read nor wrote, and the noble verse says: “You did not recite before it any scripture, nor did you write it with your right hand; otherwise, the falsifiers would have had reason to doubt.” But does interpreting this verse necessarily mean that the Prophet did not know how to read or write? It could—but it is not definitive. It may simply mean that he was not engaged with books, nor known for reading, writing, or authorship, so that those who sought to discredit him would find no grounds for suspicion.
Then there is another question: why this fear? Why are we afraid of the idea that the Prophet might have known how to read and write? What is the problem? Does this cast doubt on the authenticity of the Qur’an?
It is said that the Prophet was a merchant, and merchants keep records and accounts and travel with caravans, making it plausible that he knew how to read and write. This is countered by saying that many merchants throughout history were illiterate yet successful, which is also true. Neither argument is conclusive.
It is also said that Quraysh entrusted their valuables to the Prophet for safekeeping, and such deposits would naturally be documented in writing. Others respond that the Prophet could simply have instructed someone else to write on his behalf. All of these are possibilities, none of them decisive. None conclusively proves that the Prophet was illiterate, nor does any definitively refute it.
Revelation and Historical Reality
In the prophetic biography, it is reported that the Prophet replied to Gabriel with the words “I am not a reader” when told, “Read.” Does this mean he did not know how to read? Not necessarily. It may have been an expression of astonishment: “What am I to read?”—that is, there was nothing before him to read. Once again, we are dealing with possibilities and interpretations, not certainties that prohibit debate.
In some reports—even within Shiite thought—it is said that the Prophet knew how to read and write, and it has even been claimed that he knew multiple languages.
On the other hand, historical reality suggests that those who could read and write among Muslims in Mecca were very few—said to be only seventeen people. Over thirteen years of preaching in Mecca, the number of those who believed and emigrated did not exceed 150. This context makes the possibility of the Prophet’s educational illiteracy entirely plausible.
The Divinity of the Qur’an Is Not Contingent on the Prophet’s Illiteracy
But the most important question remains: what if the Prophet did know how to read and write? What would that mean? Would it mean that the Qur’an is a human composition? This is where the real problem lies.
When you tie your belief in the divine nature of the Qur’an to the idea that the Prophet could neither read nor write, you are, in fact, building your faith on a fragile foundation. The Qur’an is far deeper and more profound than that.
As far as I am concerned, even if the Prophet could read and write—even if he were a poet, which he was not—even if he were the greatest poet of the Arabs, he still could not have produced this Qur’an. The Prophet did not lie, did not fabricate, and did not make false claims. And the Qur’an, from the very first reading, reveals itself to anyone with a living heart as a divine book.
The Qur’an is extraordinarily complex in structure, profoundly intricate, and utterly unique in its language, composition, and spirit. The challenge lies not in a single verse or surah, but in an entire book revealed over twenty-three years—coherent, present, impactful, and alive in the conscience of people.
As Taha Hussein said: Arabic language consists of prose, poetry, and the Qur’an. The Qur’an is a category unto itself—neither poetry nor prose, but revelation.
So do not fight a battle to prove the Prophet’s illiteracy merely to prove the divinity of the Qur’an. If history suggests that the Prophet was illiterate, then so be it. But if your motivation is fear for the sanctity of the Qur’an, be reassured: the Qur’an is divine whether the Prophet read and wrote—or did not.
The article is a translation of the original Arabic.
