(29:51) Does it not suffice for them (as a Sign) that We revealed to you the Book that is recited to them? *91 Surely there is mercy and good counsel in it for those who believe. *92

---

---

*91) That is, "A Book like the Qur'an has been sent down to you in spite of your being unlettered. Is it not by itself a great miracle which should convince the people of your Prophethood? Do they yet need another miracle after this? The other miracles were the miracles for those who witnessed them. But this miracle is ever present in front of them. It is being recited before them almost daily; they can witness it as and when they like. Even after such an assertion and argument by the Qur'an the audacity of those who try to prove that the Holy Prophet was literate is astonishing. The fact, however, is that the Qur'an here has presented in clear terms the Holy Prophet's being illiterate as a strong proof of his Prophet hood. The traditions which lend support to the claim that the Holy Prophet could read and write, or had learnt reading and writing later in life, stand rejected at first glance, for no tradition opposed to the Qur'an can be acceptable. Then these traditions in themselves are too weak to become the basis for an argument. One of these is a tradition from Bukhari that when the peace treaty of Hudaibiya was being written down, the representative of the disbelievers of Makkah objected to the word Rasul Allah being added to the name of the Holy Prophet. At this the Holy Prophet ordered the writer (Hadrat `Ali) to cross out the word Rasul-Allah and write Muhammad bin 'Abdullah instead. Hadrat `Ali refused to cross out Rasul-Allah. Then the Holy Prophet took it in his own hand, struck out the word himself and wrote Muhammad bin `Abdullah. But this tradition from Bara' bin `Azib appears at four places in Bukhari and at two places in Muslim and everywhere in different words: (1)At one place in Bukhari (Kitab-us-S, ulh) the words of this tradition are to the effect: "The Holy Prophet told Hadrat `Ali to strike out the words. He submitted that he could not do that. At last, the Holy Prophet crossed them out with his own hand." (2) In the same book the second tradition is to the effect: "Then he (the Holy Prophet) said to `Ali: Cross out Rasul-Allah. He said: By God, I shall never cross out your name. At last, the Holy Prophet took the document and wrote: This is the treaty concluded by Muhammad bin `Abdullah." (3) The third tradition, again from Bara' bin `Azib is found in Kitab-ul-Jizia in Bukhari to the effect: "The Holy Prophet himself could not write. He said to `Ali: Cross out Rasul-Allah. He submitted: By God, I shall never cross out these words. At this, the Holy Prophet said: Show me the place where these words arc written. He showed him the place, and the Holy Prophet crossed out the words with his own hand." (4) The fourth tradition is in Bukhari's Kitab-ul-Maghazi to the effect: "So the Holy Prophet took the document although he did not know writing, and he wrote: This is the treaty concluded by Muhammad bin `Abdullah." (5) Again from Bara' bin `Azib there is a tradition in Muslim (Kitab-ul-Jihad) saying that on Hadrat `Alt's refusal the Holy Prophet himself wiped off the words Rasul-Allah. " (6) The second tradition from him in the same book says, "The Holy Prophet said to `Ali: Show me where the word Rasul Allah is written. Hadrat `Ali showed him the place, and he wiped it off and wrote Ibn `Abdullah. The disparity in the traditions clearly indicates that the intermediary reporters have not reported the words of Hadrat Bara' bin `Azib (may Allah be pleased with him) accurately. Therefore, none of these reports can be held as r perfectly reliable so that it could be said with certainty that the Holy Prophet had written the words "Muhammad bin `Abdullah' with his own hand. Probably when Hadrat 'Ali, refused to wipe off the word Rasul-Allah, the Holy Prophet might have himself wiped it off after finding, out the place where it was written, and then might have got the word Ibn `Abdullah substituted by him or by some other writer. Other traditions show that there were two writers who were writing down the peace treaty; Hadrat `Ali and Muhammad bin Maslamah (Fath al-Sari, Vol. V, p. 217). Therefore, it is not impossible that what one writer did not do was got done by the other writer. However, if the Holy Prophet actually wrote his name with his own hand, there are plenty instances of this in the world. The illiterate people learn to write their own name although they cannot read or write anything else. The other tradition on whose basis it has been claimed that the Holy Prophet was literate, has been reported by Ibn Abi Shaibah and `Umar bin Shabbah from Mujahid. It says: "The Holy Prophet had learnt reading and writing before his death." But in the first place, it is a weak tradition on account of its links as said by Hafiz Ibn Kathir: "It is weak: it has no basis." Secondly, it is weak otherwise also, for if the Holy Prophet had really learnt reading and writing later in life, it would have become a well known fact. Many of the Companions would have reported it, and it would also have been known from which person (or persons) he had learnt this. But no one except one man, 'Aun bin 'Abdullah, from whom Mujahid heard this, has reported it. And this 'Aun was not even a Companion,, but a follower of the Companions, who dces not at aII tell from which Companion (or Companions) he got this information. Evidently, on the basis of such weak traditions nothing which contradicts well known facts can become acceptable.
*92) That is, "The revelation of this Book is, without any doubt, a great bounty of AIIah, and it contains great admonitions for the people. But only those people can benefit by it, who believe in it."