Answering Christianity Research Center

Jazakallah for the reply brother Osama. I also just found another answer that says that if someone is bad you cannot talk bad about him unless he causes a lot of oppression to people and you want to say the bad things about him in order to WARN them from him. Is that interpretation right?

Even if he learned how to read and write, he would still need scribes.  That is assuming that the Prophet learned how to read and write quickly.  I am not sure where you're going with this type of questioning.  The Glorious Quran's Text is Miraculous:

www.answering-christianity.com/ac20.htm#links


It is totally irrelevant to the Miracle of the Glorious Quran's Text, Numerical and Scientific Miracles whether the Prophet was illiterate or not.  I personally don't really care.  Can any of your infidels refute the Glorious Quran's Numerical and Scientific Miracles?



No one could:

You could not have planned and wrote the Miraculous Text of the Quran.  The 1000s of numerical and scientific Miracles, and the miracle of the Text Itself and how Words are spelled in certain ways to correlate with certain timings or Numerical Miracle, 100% testify that the Book was indeed from Allah Almighty and none else.  Even your best scribes of today would not have been able to preserve the Glorious Quran like this.  The Quran has 1000s of these Miracles.

So instead of derailing your brain and salvation to Hell with rotten infidels' nonsense, try to see the Glorious Quran in Its own Miracle.  Who really cares who was literate and illiterate back then.



Bible and corrupt books background:

The infidels you speak with come from bible and similar corrupt books background:  www.answering-christianity.com/ac6.htm#links



Such people can never understand the Glorious Quran, the ONE AND ONLY Divine Book on earth.

Just wanted to let you know that I dont speak with anyone at all through social media, let alone infidels (The only place in the internet I communicate is this website). I come up with these questions from my brain and sometimes Islamic articles and their different opinions and from them ask questions to you and from them I ask you questions. I asked this question because there was a difference of opinion among Islamic websites of what Ummi really means. But thanks to you, I now know that Ummi can have various meanings, so jazakallah for answering this question.

Salam,
I have been thinking this for a quite long time. I have heard that Ummi does not mean "illiterate" but "one who has no knowledge of the Book (Gentile)." On top of that, I have come across Verses like 3:20 and 62:2. Quran 3:20 says:

"So if they argue with you ˹O Prophet˺, say, 'I have submitted myself to Allah, and so have my followers.' And ask those who were given the Scripture and the illiterate ˹people˺ 'Have you submitted yourselves ˹to Allah˺?' If they submit, they will be ˹rightly˺ guided. But if they turn away, then your duty is only to deliver ˹the message˺. And Allah is All-Seeing of ˹His˺ servants."

This verse mentioned the People of the Book and "the illiterate" people. Does this mean that all the pagans of Arabia were illiterate? And if all of them were not, this Verse makes it sound like the Prophet will only guide the People of the Book and the illiterates (only) from among the pagans of Arabia (the literate of the pagans of Arabia will be left out from guidance).
Also, Gentiles are the opposite of the People of the Book so the Quran most likely wants Ummi to mean Gentile. Furthermore, Quran 62:2 says:

"He is the One Who raised for the illiterate ˹people˺ a messenger from among themselves—reciting to them His revelations, purifying them, and teaching them the Book and wisdom, for indeed they had previously been clearly astray—"

Again, Prophet Muhammad was raised with people that are literally illiterate? This Verse again makes it sound like all pagans of Arabia were illiterate. The "illiterate" part is rather metaphorical I think. It does not really mean the pagans of Arabia were illiterate. This means that they were illiterate in the sense that they had no Divine Revelation, which basically would mean a Gentile.

Also, this raises another question. Does that mean the Prophet was also not illiterate? This means that the Prophet was just a Gentile before Revelation? Also the first Verse of Surah Alaq tells everyone to read. If the Prophet was preaching Surah Alaq and being illiterate at the same time, would not that be hypocritical? Probably the Prophet was illiterate then became literate because of the Revelation or the Prophet was always literate?

Assalamu Alaykum,
In Quran 2:98, it says:

من كان عدوا لله وملائكته ورسله وجبريل وميكال فان الله عدو للكافرين
 
The word for Michael is ميكال here. However Michael is sometimes spelled ميكائيل instead of ميكال. Like for example, in one dua it says:

اللهم رب جبرائيل، وميكائيل، وإسرافيل، فاطر السماوات والأرض، عالم الغيب والشهادة، أنت تحكم بين عبادك فيما كانوا فيه يختلفون، اهدني لما اختلف فيه من الحق بإذنك، إنك تهدي من تشاء إلى صراط مستقيم

In this dua, Michael is spelled ميكائيل instead of ميكال.  Also, every article I saw writes ميكائيل. The only place that Michael is spelled ميكال is in the Quran. Now why is that?

The Muslim is supposed to pronounce Allah Almighty's Holy Name on everything he/she eats, and before anything they do.  So that suffices pronouncing Allah Almighty's Name. 

Again, Christians existed during the days these Noble Verses came down.  They never pronounced Allah Almighty's Holy Name on their food. The fact that the Glorious Quran gave us permissions to eat from their food (except what Islam prohibits, like pork) shows that the issue of prohibition and permission was addressed.

Certainly Islam considers many of them as polytheist trinitarian pagans.  But their food is Halal for us, and Muslim men are also allowed to marry from their women.  This is not the case with none-people-of-the-Book pagan food and women.

Sorry to keep distracting and bothering, but tafsir ibn Kathir said that the Christians (in the Prophet's time) used to pronounce Allah's name on their meat. Here is his tafsir,

"(The food of the People of the Scripture is lawful to you..) meaning, their slaughtered animals, as Ibn `Abbas, Abu Umamah, Mujahid, Sa`id bin Jubayr, `Ikrimah, `Ata', Al-Hasan, Makhul, Ibrahim An-Nakha`i, As-Suddi and Muqatil bin Hayyan stated. This ruling, that the slaughtered animals of the People of the Book are permissible for Muslims, is agreed on by the scholars, because the People of the Book believe that slaughtering for other than Allah is prohibited. They mention Allah's Name upon slaughtering their animals, even though they have deviant beliefs about Allah that do not befit His majesty." 

So now I have two questions,

1. (Let me quote my last post)

Yes that has answered my questions. But one last question, this verse (5:5) says that we can eat the people of the book's food and they can eat ours. But Jews don't believe in eating Halal, they only eat Kosher (if they actually care about their religion). So why does this Verse make a generalization that they can eat our food when they can't (this doesn't apply to Christians, only Jews)?

2. The Christians did used to pronounce Allah's name on their food before, but not anymore according to Tafsir ibn Kathir. So why did you say that Christians never pronounced Allah's name on their meat in the Prophet's times?

Ok jazakallah for that. But I realized one thing. Lets say you eat from a Christian restaurant. Don't they cook chicken and pork in the same grill? Wouldn't the chicken be contaminated with the pork?

Sorry I forgot to take off the red font