Muhammad was literate: examining the evidence

Muhammad was literate and wrote the revelations with his own hand. The familiar claim that he could neither read nor write rests on readings of the Quran and historical reports that deserve closer examination. The Quran describes him as the gentile prophet; lacking an earlier scripture is not the same as lacking literacy. We will examine the evidence for his literacy and the passages used to deny it.

Muhammad wrote God’s revelations with his own hand. Appendix 28 of the Final Testament explains that positive account, and the passages below show why the familiar argument for permanent illiteracy does not overturn it. We will examine the original Arabic, read the relevant verses in context, and look directly at the reports used to defend the traditional claim.

The treaty Muhammad made at Hudaybiyyah supplies a particularly revealing example. One report describes Ali refusing an instruction, Muhammad taking the document, and Muhammad writing. Other versions describe an erasure or add a qualification about his writing ability. Those differences need explaining, but they should not obscure the plain force of the first account: the sources themselves contain a concrete sequence that supports personal writing.

The gentile prophet: let the Quran explain its vocabulary

The key expression in [7:157] and [7:158] is النَّبِيّ الْأُمِّيّ, al-nabiyy al-ummiyy, “the gentile prophet.” The disputed word is ummi; ummiyyun and ummiyyin are plural forms used in different grammatical positions. Here, “gentile” identifies Muhammad’s background outside the communities of an earlier scripture. It does not mean stupid, uneducated in every subject, or unable to put words on paper.

[7:158] Say, “O people, I am God’s messenger to all of you. To Him belongs the sovereignty of the heavens and the earth. There is no god except He. He controls life and death.” Therefore, you shall believe in God and His messenger, the gentile prophet, who believes in God and His words. Follow him, that you may be guided.

The Quran makes the relevant distinction especially clear in [3:20]. Its Arabic places الَّذِينَ أُوتُوا الْكِتَابَ, “those who received the scripture,” alongside وَالْأُمِّيِّينَ, “and the gentiles.” These are the two audiences Muhammad is to address. The division concerns their relationship to scripture, rather than the results of an individual reading test.

[3:20] If they argue with you, then say, “I have simply submitted myself to God; I and those who follow me.” You shall proclaim to those who received the scripture, as well as those who did not, “Would you submit?” If they submit, then they have been guided, but if they turn away, your sole mission is to deliver this message. God is Seer of all people.

Chapter 62 uses the same plural to describe the people from whom the messenger was raised. God sends a messenger from among the gentiles to teach them scripture and wisdom. Their lack of an earlier revealed book explains the significance of that mission: they now receive the guidance they lacked. A community described this way can contain merchants, scribes, skilled workers and people with little formal education; the collective description does not assign an identical skill set to every person.

[62:2] He is the One who sent to the gentiles a messenger from among them, to recite to them His revelations, purify them, and teach them the scripture and wisdom. Before this, they had gone far astray.

The contrast also appears in [3:75], where certain scripture followers excuse dishonesty toward the gentiles. In Arabic, the contrast is between أَهْلِ الْكِتَابِ, people of the scripture, and الْأُمِّيِّينَ, the gentiles. Their claimed exemption concerns dealings with outsiders to their religious community. The verse itself distinguishes honest scripture followers from dishonest ones, and condemns the latter’s attempt to attach God’s authority to their wrongdoing.

[3:75] Some followers of the scripture can be trusted with a whole lot, and they will give it back to you. Others among them cannot be trusted with a single dinar; they will not repay you unless you keep after them. That is because they say, “We do not have to be honest when dealing with the gentiles!”* Thus, they attribute lies to God, knowingly.

This scriptural distinction is visible even in classical commentary. Explaining [3:20], al-Tabari identifies the group as الذين لا كتاب لهم من مشركي العرب—the pagan Arabs who had no scripture. He also preserves an explanation in terms of people who do not write; we should not pretend that he rejected the traditional association with illiteracy. What his commentary confirms is that the passage’s community and scripture setting was recognised long before this discussion.

Al-Tabari, commentary on [3:20]. The commentary mentions both people without scripture and people who do not write.

What about the gentiles in [2:78]?

The difficult passage deserves the same attention as the straightforward ones. [2:78] discusses people within a wider setting concerned with scripture, and it calls some of them ummiyyun. If we reduce “gentile” to ancestry alone, the wording becomes puzzling. The verse directs us to a more useful question: what do these people actually know of the scripture?

[2:78] Among them are gentiles who do not know the scripture, except through hearsay, then assume that they know it.

The explanatory Arabic is لَا يَعْلَمُونَ الْكِتَابَ, la yaʿlamuna al-kitab: “they do not know the scripture.” Yaʿlamun is a verb of knowing; it is not the verb “write.” These people depend on hearsay and suppose that they know what they have never properly understood. Belonging to a community associated with scripture does not guarantee informed knowledge of that scripture.

Someone unable to read could certainly fall into that condition. So could someone who can read business records or ordinary correspondence but knows religion only through what others repeat. The verse identifies scriptural ignorance; it does not require those two people to have the same practical ability. That is why [2:78] cannot turn every occurrence of ummi into a declaration that its subject is physically incapable of writing.

The next verse condemns people who produce a distorted scripture with their hands, but that does not prove that the uninformed people in [2:78] are those very writers. One group can manufacture religious material while another accepts it through hearsay. Our argument does not need to collapse them together. Read alongside [3:20], [3:75] and [62:2], the passage keeps the focus on a person’s relationship to revealed knowledge, rather than supplying a permanent label for Muhammad’s writing ability.

[29:48]: what did he not write with his right hand?

The verse most often presented as decisive proof of illiteracy is [29:48]. Read it carefully: it speaks about what Muhammad had not read or written before the Quran, and explains why that matters to the allegation that he borrowed his revelation. The reference to his hand is real and important. The mistake comes when a statement about earlier activity becomes a claim that he could never write anything.

[29:48] You did not read the previous scriptures, nor did you write them with your hand. In that case, the rejectors would have had reason to harbor doubts.

وَمَا كُنتَ تَتْلُوا مِن قَبْلِهِۦ مِن كِتَٰبٍ وَلَا تَخُطُّهُۥ بِيَمِينِكَ إِذًا لَّٱرْتَابَ ٱلْمُبْطِلُونَ

Original expression	Plain meaning	What it contributes
وَمَا كُنتَ تَتْلُوا wa ma kunta tatlu	You were not reading or reciting	The statement denies an activity in Muhammad’s earlier life. It does not use an explicit verb meaning “be unable.”
مِن قَبْلِهِ min qablihi	Before it	The preceding time is measured against the Quran. The temporal boundary must remain in the argument.
مِن كِتَابٍ min kitabin	Any book or scripture	The indefinite noun under negation makes the denial comprehensive within its scope. It is still about reading a book before this revelation.
وَلَا تَخُطُّهُ wa la takhuttuhu	Nor did you inscribe it	The verb concerns writing or tracing letters. Its final -hu means “it,” referring to the book or scripture just mentioned.
بِيَمِينِكَ bi-yaminika	With your right hand	Bi- means “with,” yamin is the right hand, and -ka means “your.” The phrase makes the denied inscription personal.
إِذًا لَّارْتَابَ الْمُبْطِلُونَ idhan la-rtaba al-mubtilun	Then the rejectors would have doubted	The final clause explains the relevance of that earlier history to accusations about the revelation.

The word “previous” in the English translation expresses the relationship established by “before it”; there is no separate Arabic adjective attached to “scriptures” that literally says “previous.” This is how the sentence works as a whole: before this revelation, Muhammad was not reading a scripture or personally inscribing it. The temporal phrase, the book as the object, and the stated reason belong together. Removing any of them changes the claim we are evaluating.

“With your right hand” therefore strengthens the denial of personal copying of earlier scripture. It does not remove the words “before it,” erase the object “it,” or transform “you did not” into “you could never.” Nor is the point that he might have used his left hand; that would evade the meaning of the passage. The verse excludes an earlier history of reading and copying scripture; that history is different from a lifelong inability to write.

A simple comparison makes the distinction clear. “Before this project, you had never copied a legal manuscript by hand” describes a person’s history with that material; it is not a declaration that the person cannot write a shopping list. The same sentence also would not prove that the person had already learned to write. [29:48] gives us the relevant history, while the claim of lifelong incapacity adds a conclusion that the wording itself does not state.

The surrounding subject is revealed knowledge. [42:52] tells Muhammad that he had no prior understanding of scripture or faith, before God made this revelation a source of guidance. That is entirely consistent with the gentile prophet receiving knowledge he had not acquired from an earlier scripture. Not previously knowing a scripture does not establish an inability to read or write.

[42:52] Thus, we inspired to you a revelation proclaiming our commandments. You had no idea about the scripture, or faith. Yet, we made this a beacon to guide whomever we choose from among our servants. Surely, you guide in a straight path.

[25:5]: what the accusation reveals about his writing

The accusation in [25:5] describes Muhammad writing down material and receiving dictation. That wording matters to the literacy question. It appears within a false allegation of fabrication, so the accusation and its answer must be read together rather than treating the accusation as an endorsed account.

[25:4] Those who disbelieved said, “This is a fabrication that he produced, with the help of some other people.” They have uttered a blasphemy and a falsehood.

[25:5] They also said, “Tales from the past that he wrote down; they were dictated to him day and night.”*

[25:6] Say, “This was revealed by the One who knows the Secret* in the heavens and the earth. He is Forgiving, Most Merciful.”

The pivotal Arabic in [25:5] is اكْتَتَبَهَا فَهِيَ تُمْلَىٰ عَلَيْهِ, iktatabaha fa-hiya tumla ʿalayhi. Iktatabaha is an active past-tense verb from the writing root ك ت ب, with -ha referring to the alleged tales: he wrote them down or obtained them in writing. Tumla is passive: they are dictated, and ʿalayhi means to him. The language concerns the production and reception of written material, with Muhammad at the centre of the accusation.

The footnote to [25:5] draws attention to what the accusers apparently took for granted: Muhammad could write. Their description challenges the assumption that his contemporaries universally regarded writing as something he could not do. This is a contextual inference about their understanding of his ability.

That inference does not make every detail of the accusation true. [25:4] expressly rejects the fabrication allegation, and [25:6] supplies the answer. For the literacy question, the relevant evidence is how the opponents describe Muhammad’s activity, read within that full exchange.

There is an alternative reading of the writing verb: obtaining a written text through someone else. Al-Baghawi explicitly explains the expression as a request to have material written for Muhammad, and supports that explanation by saying that Muhammad did not write. He then understands the alleged dictation as something to be memorised. That interpretation is grammatically possible, but its appeal to an already assumed inability cannot independently prove the very inability under discussion.

Al-Baghawi, commentary on [25:5].

The verb’s active form does not by itself identify whose fingers held the pen: people can act through an assistant. Equally, there is no passive phrase here stating that a scribe wrote it for him. The argument must be made from the wording and setting, not from a preselected biography. The passage gives a real reason to question that biography without needing the exaggerated claim that grammar makes every alternative impossible.

“Read,” the pen, and what the first-revelation report adds

The first revelation begins with a command to read and moves immediately to God teaching through the pen. Its emphasis is on receiving knowledge, including knowledge one did not previously possess. This is a fitting beginning for a messenger who would deliver and record a scripture. Nothing in the passage makes continued inability to write a condition of his mission.

[96:1] Read, in the name of your Lord, who created.*

[96:2] He created man from an embryo.

[96:3] Read, and your Lord, Most Exalted.

[96:4] Teaches by means of the pen.

[96:5] He teaches man what he never knew.

The command اقْرَأْ, iqraʾ, means read or recite; context tells us whether a particular act involves a visible page. The expression بِالْقَلَمِ, bi-l-qalam, means by means of the pen. We do not need to pretend that the command alone supplies a scene of Muhammad looking at printed words. Read with the pen and the repeated teaching language, it places acquired knowledge and writing at the heart of the revelation’s opening.

[68:1] NuN,* the pen, and what they (the people) write.

The familiar response “I do not know how to read” comes from Bukhari’s first-revelation report, not from these Quranic verses. Its Arabic is مَا أَنَا بِقَارِئٍ, ma ana bi-qariʾ, a negated expression describing the speaker as not a reader or reciter. The report presents the command and response repeatedly, with distress and an encounter with the angel. This is a genuine source of the traditional understanding, and the wording should be visible when it is discussed.

Bukhari 3, narrated by Aisha.

Our first responsibility is to keep the report distinct from God’s words. A Quran-alone reader does not have to promote that narration into revelation in order to acknowledge what it says. Nor does the argument require insisting that its reply can only mean “What shall I read?” Even on the traditional understanding of an inability at the first encounter, a further argument would be needed to establish that Muhammad never learned to read or write afterward.

The Quran emphasises learning: God teaches human beings what they did not know, and the pen is one of the means named. These verses do not identify the writer of every individual document. They also give no basis for treating an initial lack of knowledge as permanent. Even if someone accepts the first-revelation report as describing an inability to read at that encounter, a further argument is needed to establish that Muhammad never learned afterward.

The treaty: he took the document and wrote

The treaty reports bring the discussion to a specific action. Muhammad’s opponents objected to his prophetic title appearing in their agreement, since accepting that description would concede the very claim they disputed. Ali, acting as scribe, refused to remove it when Muhammad instructed him. Bukhari 2699 then describes what Muhammad did with the document.

The pivotal Arabic gives the sequence فَأَخَذَ رَسُولُ اللَّهِ … الْكِتَابَ، فَكَتَبَ: God’s messenger took the document, then wrote. The source’s English gives the crucial words as “took the document and wrote.” The two verbs are akhadha, he took, and kataba, he wrote; the connecting fa- moves the account from one action to the next. Muhammad is the named subject who takes the document and remains the subject of the writing verb.

Bukhari 2699, narrated by al-Bara.

Why does taking the document matter? A ruler can be said to write a letter when a secretary prepares it, so a writing verb in isolation may describe writing commissioned through another person. Here, however, the account identifies Ali refusing to amend the document, then describes Muhammad physically taking it and writing the replacement terms. No new scribe is introduced between those actions. Personal inscription is therefore a natural reading of the sequence, supported by more than the bare presence of the word “write.”

This is the clear challenge to the simplistic claim of incapacity. A report that moves from a refused instruction to the principal taking the document and writing cannot honestly be presented as though it merely says that Ali did all the writing. To make it mean that Muhammad had somebody else perform the act requires an indirect reading of the final verb. That interpretation can be discussed, but it is an explanation imposed on the sequence, not an additional scribe explicitly named in it.

The versions describing an erasure

Bukhari 3184 gives a different emphasis. Ali writes the agreement, Muhammad asks for the disputed expression to be removed, and he ultimately erases it with his own hand. This version also contains وَكَانَ لَا يَكْتُبُ, wa kana la yaktub, translated “used not to write.” The qualification is part of the report and must remain visible alongside the personal erasure.

Bukhari 3184, narrated by al-Bara. The nonwriting qualification and personal erasure appear together.

Muslim 1783a likewise identifies Ali as the writer and attributes the removal of the disputed words to Muhammad’s own hand. Erasing words is a personal intervention in a document, but it is not the same act as composing them. A person could remove text after it had been identified without independently reading the whole agreement. These erasure reports therefore provide context for the dispute; the more specific evidence for personal writing remains the account that actually attributes writing after Muhammad takes the document.

Muslim 1783a, narrated by al-Bara.

The version that puts the difficulty in one sentence

Bukhari 4251 preserves both sides of the difficulty together: وَلَيْسَ يُحْسِنُ يَكْتُبُ، فَكَتَبَ. A close explanatory rendering is “although he was not proficient in writing, he wrote.” The qualification can express lack of writing know-how, not merely untidy handwriting; we should not weaken it into a comment about penmanship. But the sentence still follows that qualification with fa-kataba: then he wrote.

Bukhari 4251, narrated by al-Bara. The translation includes both the ability qualification and alternative explanations of the writing.

The English alternative about having the text written interprets the single Arabic verb fa-kataba; the Arabic does not contain a separate “or he had it written” clause. There are two principal ways to resolve this tension. One accepts a personal writing act despite the qualification, whether as an exceptional act or as an indication that the usual description of his abilities needs reconsidering. The other treats the writing as something he caused to be done through someone else. The second remains possible as an interpretation of writing attributed to the person who commissioned it, but the first retains the direct force of the action described.

The treaty’s contribution is positive and specific: the taking-and-writing account supports Muhammad personally writing the replacement wording and challenges an absolute inability claim. It does not tell us that he wrote every line of the treaty, measure his general proficiency, or supply the original parchment. These versions return to the same narrator, al-Bara, through Abu Ishaq; they are related accounts rather than four independent witnesses. Their differences explain why the episode became a subject of debate, while leaving its explicit writing language before us.

Classical scholars recognised the personal-writing reading

Al-Qurtubi’s commentary on [29:48] records al-Simnani, Abu Dharr and al-Baji accepting personal writing at the treaty. They understood it as an exceptional miracle without prior training. This allowed them to retain Muhammad’s unlettered status. They nevertheless accepted that he physically wrote.

Al-Qurtubi, commentary on [29:48]. He records the personal-writing interpretation but ultimately favours commissioned writing.

Al-Qurtubi himself favours the interpretation that Muhammad directed someone else to write. His conclusion differs from the position he records, and we should preserve that distinction. The positive point remains: classical readers recognised personal writing as a serious reading of the report. An absolute claim that Muhammad never wrote therefore exceeds even what some traditional scholars maintained.

The deathbed request: another writing statement

Bukhari 114 presents another first-person writing statement, this time during Muhammad’s final illness. He requests writing material and says, “I will write for you a statement.” The pivotal Arabic is أَكْتُبُ لَكُمْ كِتَابًا, aktubu lakum kitaban: I will write a document for you. Umar says the Quran is sufficient, a dispute follows, and the proposed statement is not produced in the account.

Bukhari 114, transmitted from Ibn Abbas.

The request deserves a straightforward place in the discussion. Someone who accepts the report cannot say that the sources never put a writing intention in Muhammad’s own mouth. As with ordinary letter writing, the words could describe a statement recorded through a scribe, so the request is less specific than taking a document and then writing on it. It adds to the problem with an oversimplified account without pretending to show a completed act that the report does not describe.

We should also distinguish a source screenshot from Muhammad’s handwriting. The images in this article reproduce the reports and commentaries being discussed; they are not photographs of the original treaty. The evidence examined here does not establish an authenticated surviving treaty in Muhammad’s hand. Our argument rests on the Quranic wording and what the reports actually say, not on an alleged autograph without demonstrated provenance.

This also refines an argument in our earlier article, The Divine Quran vs Human Hadith, which appealed to the spelling of bismi and the presence or absence of the letter alif as evidence of Muhammad’s literacy. A preserved spelling does not, by itself, identify the hand that wrote it; a scribe can reproduce an instructed spelling. We should therefore use that observation within its proper limits. The conclusion that Muhammad recorded the revelation does not need every proposed supporting argument to bear more weight than it can carry.

Muhammad wrote the revelations he received

The positive account is stated plainly in Appendix 28, “Muhammad Wrote God’s Revelations With His Own Hand.” Muhammad received the revelation, wrote down and memorised the verses as they were released to him, and left the written revelation with instructions for its arrangement. This account identifies Muhammad as the person who wrote the verses down, directly contradicting the claim that he remained incapable of writing.

Rashad Khalifa made the teaching explicit in his recorded discussion at the 1988 international conference: “God wanted us to know that Muhammad wrote the Quran with his hand.” The statement appears in the conference recording at 11:50, within his rejection of the illiteracy argument. The point is personal inscription: Muhammad himself recorded what God revealed.

When discussing the revised introduction to the Final Testament, he stated, “At the moment of release, Muhammad scrupulously wrote it down with his own hand.” The introduction recording at 22:10 explains the move from an earlier passive description of the revelation being written down to this explicit identification of Muhammad. The clarification explicitly identifies Muhammad as the person who wrote the verses down with his own hand.

The argument is cumulative. The Quran describes a gentile messenger receiving scripture he had not previously studied; it introduces revelation through reading, teaching and the pen; and it records opponents accusing him of writing down supposedly borrowed material. The treaty reports add a concrete writing attribution that even some classical interpreters accepted personally. None of these points requires us to expand [29:48] into a permanent incapacity that its words do not state.

The evidence supports Muhammad’s literacy

The gentile description concerns Muhammad’s relationship to earlier scripture. [29:48] describes scripture he had not previously read or copied; it does not declare that he could never write. [25:5] supplies writing language within the opponents’ accusation, while the treaty report describes him taking a document and writing. The classical discussion confirms that personal writing was a recognised reading of that report.

Muhammad was literate. Appendix 28 states that he wrote the revelations with his own hand, and the evidence examined here supports rejecting the familiar claim of permanent illiteracy. The sources do not measure his proficiency or identify him as the writer of every document. They give us concrete reasons to reject the inherited assertion that he remained unable to read or write.

Quran quotations reproduce the Final Testament text; asterisks belong to its footnote references. Read the verses and their notes at UnitedSubmittersInternational.com. Arabic appears alongside the explanation where the argument concerns the original language.

The English al-Tabari and al-Baghawi excerpts come from Tafsir Al-Qur’an, translated by Ben Abrahamson and edited by Rebecca Abrahamson (Al Sadiqin Press, 2025), a machine-assisted edition released under the GNU Free Documentation License 1.3 or later. Al-Qurtubi’s excerpts use a browser translation of the linked Arabic text. The selected commentary excerpts have been checked against the Arabic.