KR

The Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم was Ummi, from birth to death. Full stop. No ifs and no buts. Translate the term however you want or fabricate a word for it, but it means he could not read or write. And this was the core miracle of the Prophet vis-à-vis the Quran: it could have only come from Allah. Even for all his own eloquence, the Prophet could not produce something like the Quran on his own initiative. The Quran describes the Prophet as Ummi, and it is a permanent title of his; it was not removed from him at the end of his life. Anybody who has a hard time saying or believing this or saying this should fear for their very Iman. Ibn Kathir said: فإنه قد علم بالتواتر وبالضرورة أن محمدا رسول الله ﷺ لم يكن يعاني شيئا من الكتابة لا في أول عمره ولا في آخره It is knowns through mass transmission and necessity that Muhammad - the Messenger of Allah ﷺ - had nothing to do with writing, whether at the beginning or the end of his life. PS for our Brillo oneiromaniacs, the following is from Al-Ghunyah by Qadi Iyad, p. 64-65: A Maliki Andalusian scholar by the name of Abu Muhammad al-Hawwari was also of al-Baji's view that the Prophet could write, or that he miraculously wrote during the Treaty of Hudaybiyah. He was a student of al-Baji. Qadi Iyad’s teacher Ibn Sayqal al-Shatibi (d. after 500 AH) use to tell al-Hawwari off for holding this view (i.e., that the Prophet could read or write). One day, al-Huwari came to Ibn Sayqal reporting a dream someone had seen: He entered al-Masjid al-Nabawi and saw the blessed grave of the Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم shaking, tearing apart, and uncontrollably shifting around. Al-Hawwari said to Ibn Sayqal that the person who witnessed this dream was greatly disturbed by this, and that he was inquiring about the interpretation of this dream. Ibn Sayqal replied: أخشى على صاحب هذا المنام أن يصف رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم بغير صفته أو ينحله ما ليس له بأهل أو لعله يفتري عليه ‘My fear for this dreamer is that he described the Messenger of Allah with something that is not his description, or that he attributed some unworthy trait to him, or that he is making up a lie on him. Al-Hawwari asked Ibn Sayqal what is the basis of this interpretation. Ibn Sayqal replied that this echoes the verses of Surat Maryam: تَكَادُ ٱلسَّمَـٰوَٰتُ يَتَفَطَّرْنَ مِنْهُ وَتَنشَقُّ ٱلْأَرْضُ وَتَخِرُّ ٱلْجِبَالُ هَدًّا أَن دَعَوْا۟ لِلرَّحْمَـٰنِ وَلَدًۭا وَمَا يَنۢبَغِى لِلرَّحْمَـٰنِ أَن يَتَّخِذَ وَلَدًا ‘The heavens almost rupture therefrom and the earth splits open and the mountains collapse in devastation, that they attribute to the Most Merciful a son. And it is not appropriate for the Most Merciful that He should take a son.’ Al-Hawwari thanked Ibn Sayqal and kissed his head eyes. He laughed and cried simultaneously, saying, ‘It was I who saw this dream. Hear me out for the rest of the dream, as it testifies that your interpretation is correct. When I saw this horrific scene, I started saying to myself, “By Allah, this is only because I am of the view that the Messenger of Allah صلى الله عليه وسلم wrote.” I started crying, repeatedly saying, “I repent, O Messenger of Allah.” I then saw the grave – it returned to a state of peaceful rest. I then woke up. I now testify that the Messenger of Allah صلى الله عليه وسلم never wrote a single letter – I will meet Allah with this belief.’ Ibn Sayqal said, ‘Praise be to Allah who showed you the clear proof. Offer an abundant amount of gratitude to Him.’ Lesson from this story: Do not make the mistake of al-Harawi, al-Baji, and al-Hawwari. Edit: Al-Hawwari is seemingly a nisbah to the Berber tribe of Hawwarah: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hawwara

Ma’mun said to Abu ‘l-Ala al-Minqari, ‘It has reached me that you are unlettered, that you cannot properly render any poetry, and that you perpetrate errors in your speech.’ He replied, ‘O Commander of the Faithful, as for speech errors, sometimes my tongues beat me to what I want to say. As for being unlettered and broken poetry, the Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم was unlettered and could not sing poetry.’ Ma’mun retorted, ‘I asked you about three faults in you, but you added a fourth: ignorance! You ignorant guy, did you not know that, for the Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم, this is a virtue, whereas for the likes of you, it is a defect!?’

قد علم بالتواتر وبالضرورة أن محمدا رسول الله لم يكن يعاني شيئا من الكتابة لا في أول عمره ولا في آخره ‘It is known through mass transmission and by necessity that Muhammad, the Messenger of Allah, did not engage at all with writing, whether in the beginning or the end of his life.’ It is the same rule that applies to the lack of poetry ability in the Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم. This was a perpetual characteristic of the Prophet, as per the verse of Surat Ya-Sin: وَمَا عَلَّمْنَاهُ الشِّعْرَ وَمَا يَنبَغِي لَهُ ‘And We did not give him knowledge of poetry, nor is it befitting for him.’ It is illogical that something does not befit the Prophet for only the early stages of his prophetic career, but it is then somehow ‘granted; to him towards the end of his life. This would render a good few verses of the Quran – which speak to the lack of poetry, reading, and writing skill in the Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم – redundant. PS for our Brillo oneiromaniacs, the following is from Al-Ghunyah by Qadi Iyad, p. 64-65: A Maliki Andalusian scholar by the name of Abu Muhammad al-Huwari was also of al-Baji's view. He was a student of al-Baji. Qadi Iyad’s teacher Ibn Sayqal al-Shatibi (d. after 500 AH) use to tell al-Huwari off for holding this view (i.e., that the Prophet could read or write). One day, al-Huwari came to Ibn Sayqal reporting a dream someone had seen: He entered al-Masjid al-Nabawi and saw the blessed grave of the Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم shaking, tearing apart, and uncontrollably shifting around. Al-Huwari said to Ibn Sayqal that the person who witnessed this dream was greatly disturbed by this, and that he was inquiring about the interpretation of this dream. Ibn Sayqal replied: أخشى على صاحب هذا المنام أن يصف رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم بغير صفته أو ينحله ما ليس له بأهل أو لعله يفتري عليه ‘My fear for this dreamer is that he described the Messenger of Allah with something that is not his description, or that he attributed some unworthy trait to him, or that he is making up a lie on him. Al-Huwari asked Ibn Sayqal what is the basis of this interpretation. Ibn Sayqal replied that this echoes the verses of Surat Maryam: تَكَادُ ٱلسَّمَـٰوَٰتُ يَتَفَطَّرْنَ مِنْهُ وَتَنشَقُّ ٱلْأَرْضُ وَتَخِرُّ ٱلْجِبَالُ هَدًّا أَن دَعَوْا۟ لِلرَّحْمَـٰنِ وَلَدًۭا وَمَا يَنۢبَغِى لِلرَّحْمَـٰنِ أَن يَتَّخِذَ وَلَدًا ‘The heavens almost rupture therefrom and the earth splits open and the mountains collapse in devastation, that they attribute to the Most Merciful a son. And it is not appropriate for the Most Merciful that He should take a son.’ Al-Huwari thanked Ibn Sayqal and kissed his head eyes. He laughed and cried simultaneously, saying, ‘It was I who saw this dream. Hear me out for the rest of the dream, as it testifies that your interpretation is correct. When I saw this horrific scene, I started saying to myself, “By Allah, this is only because I am of the view that the Messenger of Allah صلى الله عليه وسلم wrote.” I started crying, repeatedly saying, “I repent, O Messenger of Allah.” I then saw the grave – it returned to a state of peaceful rest. I then woke up. I now testify that the Messenger of Allah صلى الله عليه وسلم never wrote a single letter – I will meet Allah with this belief.’ Al-Huwari said, ‘Praise be to Allah who showed you the clear proof. Offer an abundant amount of gratitude to Him.’ Lesson from this story: Do not make the mistake al-Harawi, al-Baji, and al-Huwari. PPS: قال المأمون لأبي العلاء المنقرى: بلغني أنك أمّيّ، وأنك لا تقيم الشعر، وأنك تلحن في كلامك. فقال: يا أمير المؤمنين، أما اللحن فربما سبقني لساني بالشيء منه. وأما الأمّيّة وكسر الشعر فقد كان النبي صلّى الله عليه وسلم أمّيّا، وكان لا ينشد الشعر. فقال المأمون: سألتك عن ثلاثة عيوب فيك فزدتني رابعا، وهو الجهل، أما علمت يا جاهل أن ذلك في النبي صلّى الله عليه وسلم فضيلة وفيك وفي أمثالك نقيصة!؟ العقد الفريد لابن عبد ربه الأندلسي Al-Iqd al-Farid by Ibn Abd Rabbih al-Andalusi (d. 328 AH):

Al-Suhayli (d. 581 AH) highlighted a critical point in his al-Rawd al-Unuf, a commentary on Ibn Hisham's Sirah: miracles cannot undermine one another: وَالْمُعْجِزَاتُ يَسْتَحِيلُ أَنْ يَدْفَعَ بَعْضُهَا بَعْضًا In other words, the notion that he ‘miraculously wrote’ at Hudaybiyah undermines the miracle of his ummiyyah. The two are at odds with one another. Were we to argue this from a mainstream Hanafi Usul perspective, there is no chance a solitary narration with conflicting wordings can override, qualify, restrict, or undermine the Quranic miracle of ummiyyah. In addition to al-Suhayli, Ibn Juzayy al-Maliki, who was martyred in the Battle of Tarifa (or Battle of Río Salado, October 1340 / Jumada al-Ula 741 AH), said that al-Baji’s view is weak. Abu Hayyan al-Andalusi (d. 745 AH) records that al-Baji was cursed from the pulpits during his lifetime. And al-Qastallani (d. 851 AH), the commentator on Sahih al-Bukhari, said al-Baji’s view that the Prophet could write miraculously in this episode was a cause for him being accused of outright heresy (zandaqah). Al-Baji's view is truly one of the worst opinions ever held by any scholar in the history of Islam, غفر الله له. It was conceived by his teacher, al-Harawi. Al-Baji was blindly into by some later scholars, mainly due to his stature. His position that his writing was a 'miracle' inspite of being Ummi is an obvious cope mechanism. And it does nothing to alleviate the accusation that the Prophet could have learned the Quran by reading from human sources. Rather, it reinforces and perpetuates it. The view of the Prophet reading and writing is also attributed to Mujahid and Sha'bi from the Tabi'un, but the chains to them are extremely weak, as highlighted by Bayhaqi in al-Sunan al-Kubra. Orientalists, both old and new, have dedicated their entire careers to cast a speck of plausibility to the false notion that the Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم could read or write. They cite dubious evidence, like the Hudaybiyah Treaty; or the notion that the Prophet visited Syria as a young man and met Bahira the Monk where he could have learned reading and writing; or that he learned it from the Christians scholars or pagans of Makkah, or the Jews of Madinah, or a Roman ironmonger based in Makkah. To see Muslim scholars spend every ounce of sweat, ink, blood, and tears in refuting these accusations, only to see such baseless opinions revived from within Islamic circles, is highly unfortunate. There is absolutely nothing to be gained from the view that the Prophet was no longer an Ummi, or was less of an Ummi, by the end of his lifetime. Just because that view exists and emanates from prominent scholars like al-Baji does not make it legitimate, nor does it increase the honour of the Prophet; rather, it attacks the very foundation of the Muslim faith, the Quran, and the Prophet’s credibility. Were the notion that a classical scholar held a view makes it automatically legitimate been the case, then the view that Jesus will not return should also be considered a legitimate one because 'it exists' as a view, as per what is recorded in Tafsir al-Tabari (not Tabari’s view) and other old sources. On occasions, it is worth engaging critically with opinions from scholars that pop up across Muslim history, which should have been address long ago. For this opinion to pop up only in 5th century Andalusia is highly odd.

But even if the Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم did write - as per the narration of Sahih ‘l-Bukhari in the hadith of the Treaty of Hudaybiyah - then one should also note Bukhari’s wording: وَلَيْسَ يُحْسِنُ يَكْتُبُ – ‘he was not good at writing’. It is thus clear that he struggled to write down some words, which obviously flies against the notion of it being a miracle. These words would typically be those he had already seen previously seen written in front of him, such as the letters to dignitaries, kings, and rulers that were he would send across Arabia that were written down in his name. Not only that, the Prophet’s seal also had his name on it: he could have simply copied the imagery that was in front of him from his signet ring. Obviously, the Prophet could still hold a quill, put it to parchment, move his hand with the quill on it, mimicking imagery in front of his eyes. So he did not even know how to write his own name properly, in spite of the fact that it was on his signet ring all the time. It would be akin for some non-Chinese person copying their name in Mandarin after seeing it written down in that language by someone else. But note how ridiculous any objection to the ummiyyah of the Prophet that leverages this story is. Not only it is made clear that the Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم struggled to write, but he did also not even know where his own name was written (as per the upcoming narrations), which means he did not know which word to remove when Suhayl objected to the term رسول الله on the Treaty. In a nutshell, far from being a miracle, this episode of ‘writing’ (if it can even be called as such) would be similar to the Prophet uttering recite non-poetry rhymes, like أنا النبي لا كذب أنا ابن عبد المطلب (Sahih ‘l-Bukhari) – that does not undermine Quranic theology that he could not have been a poet (وما هو بقول شاعر - Surat 'l-Haqqah). There is no chance that Allah would have allowed any such doubt to seep into the ummiyyah of the Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم, such that not even Suhayl ibn Amr (later a Sahabi) or anyone from the Kuffar of Makkah would object to this episode being proof that the Prophet was a writer all along. Therefore, none of this adversely affects the miracle of ummiyyah. And his jotting of a few letters and words when signing the Treaty of Hudaybiyah is not a miracle in any sense. But still, the more correct response – as per the majority of the versions of the narrations on this event – is that this sentence was not written by the Prophet himself, but rather he commanded Ali to write the whole sentence, or that the Prophet only wrote his own name and nothing more: - قال: اكتب: محمدُ بن عبد اللَّه سهيلَ بن عمرو (Musannaf Ibn Abi Shaybah) - اكْتُبْ يَا عَلِيُّ: مُحَمَّدُ بْنُ عَبْدِ اللَّهِ (Musannaf Abd ‘l-Razzaq) - فقال النبي صلى الله عليه وسلم اكتب هذا ما قاضى عليه محمد رسول الله (Abu Dawud) - اكْتُبْ مُحَمَّدُ بْنُ عَبْدِ اللهِ (Ahmad) - قَالَ لِعَلِيٍّ: اكْتُبِ الشَّرْطَ بَيْنَنَا: بِسْمِ اللهِ الرَّحْمَنِ الرَّحِيمِ، هَذَا مَا قَاضَى عَلَيْهِ مُحَمَّدٌ رَسُولُ اللهِ. فَقَالَ لَهُ الْمُشْرِكُونَ: لَوْ نَعْلَمُ أَنَّكَ رَسُولُ اللهِ تَابَعْنَاكَ، وَلَكِنِ اكْتُبْ: مُحَمَّدُ بْنُ عَبْدِ اللهِ. فَأَمَرَ عَلِيًّا أَنْ يَمْحَاهَا، فَقَالَ عَلِيٌّ: لَا وَاللهِ، لَا أَمْحَاهَا. فَقَالَ رَسُولُ اللهِ ﷺ: أَرِنِي مَكَانَهَا. فَأَرَاهُ مَكَانَهَا فَمَحَاهَا، وَكَتَبَ: ابْنُ عَبْدِ اللهِ (Muslim) - قَالَ: وَكَانَ لَا يَكْتُبُ، قَالَ: فَقَالَ لِعَلِيٍّ: امْحَُ رَسُولَ اللهِ فَقَالَ عَلِيٌّ: وَاللهِ لَا أَمْحَاهُ أَبَدًا قَالَ: فَأَرِنِيهِ قَالَ: فَأَرَاهُ إِيَّاهُ فَمَحَاهُ النَّبِيُّ ﷺ بِيَدِهِ (Bukhari, another version) The non-Sahihayn versions here make it clear that Ali ibn Abi Talib was scribe for the Muslim side. The narrations of Bukhari and Muslim here also make it clear that the Prophet did not even know where the word رسول الله was written, but rather he had to ask Ali where it was so he could rub it out with his own hands, after Ali refused to remove it. And in the version of Sahih Muslim, the Prophet only wrote بن عبد الله, not even the whole محمد بن عبد الله.

On the ummiyyah of the Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم and feeble attempts to undermine it under the guise of honouring the Prophet Denying ummiyyah (not being able to read or write) from the Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم, in any manner, is akin to attacking the foundations of Iman. There is absolutely no room for it in Islam. Any opinion that undermines the ummiyyah of the Prophet is thus rejected, no matter who said it or how it is said. Abu ‘l-Walid al-Baji (d. 474 AH) of the Andalusian Malikis unfortunately had this view. He said this in a lesson he was delivering while he was commentating on Sahih 'l-Bukhari. There is an ambiguously worded narration therein from the story of the Hudaybiyah Treaty, in which the Prophet wrote as a signatory to the agreement. But another version of the narration clarifies that the Prophet only instructed the writing, not that he personally wrote. Any narration to the contrary that explicitly mentions he wrote with his own hand is unknown in terms of the authenticity of its chain. Ostensibly, al-Baji was influenced on this matter by his teacher, Abu Dharr al-Harawi al-Maliki (d. 434 AH), who also held this baseless view. Due to his fame, al-Baji was roundly lampooned by most scholars in Andalusia, Sicily, and beyond for holding this horrendous view, as stated by Ibn Kathir (d. 774 AH) and Ibn Hajar (d. 852 AH). A contemporary, Abu Bakr Ibn 'l-Sa'igh al-Maliki (d. unknown) pronounced Takfir on him on the spot, as is recorded by Qadi Iyad al-Maliki in Tartib 'l-Madarik: فأنكره عليه ابن الصائغ وكفّره بإجازته الكتابة على النبي الأمي After the initial furore, Al-Baji later ‘clarified’ that this was a 'miracle' on the part of Prophet, in spite of not being able to write. He said this in his book he wrote subsequent to the condemnations levelled at him, called تحقيق المذهب by al-Baji, where he tried to prove it was a miracle. Though the book helped rehabilitate al-Baji’s image and reputation to an extent, as well as warding off any chance of capital punishment (which pre-modern Malikis are known for extensively implementing - a mantle that was taken up by Najdi Hanbalis in the era of Muhammad ibn Abd ‘l-Wahhab (d. 1206 AH)… then by Hanafis in the form of Ahmad Raza Khan (d. 1340 AH), which was recently echoed in the uncomfortably similar episode of Pakistani Deobandi scholar Tariq Masood’s ill-fated comments in Canada and his subsequent statements that straddled between being apologies and apologia), al-Baji was obviously only operating on the basis of ta'wil of all the verses and hadiths that prove the Prophet was Ummi (i.e., that he could not read or write), and via weak hadiths supporting that he could write and read. Al-Baji’s book attracted numerous standalone refutations, many of which are extant and have been published. He is also refuted elsewhere as part of other works, in books of tafsir and hadith commentaries. Ibn al-Arabi al-Maliki (d. 543 AH) out of all people defended al-Baji’s view in his book Siraj ‘l-Muridin, which is both surprising and shocking as he contradicted himself in this same book where he said by saying the following vis-à-vis the Prophet being Ummi: وزاده فضيلة أن جعله أُمِّيًّا ‘Allah granted him an additional virtue (to prophethood and messengerhood): that he made him an Ummi.’ In addition to Ibn ‘l-Arabi, this basic point was also lost on Ibn ‘l-Jawzi (d. 510 AH) and Ibn ‘l-Tilmisani (d. 644 AH), who claimed the Prophet’s writing of his own name was a ‘miracle.’ For this erroneous opinion, all these scholars were operating off the apparent wording of some of the versions in Sahih ‘l-Bukhari, where the Prophet is said to have written during the Treaty signing process.

Denying ummiyyah (not being able to read or write) from the Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم, in any manner, is akin to attacking the foundations of Iman. Any opinion that undermines the ummiyyah of the Prophet is thus rejected, no matter who said it. Abu ‘l-Walid al-Baji (d. 474 AH) of the Malikis unfortunately adopted this view, based on a solitary and ambiguous narration from the story of the Hudaybiyah Treaty - a narration in which another version clarifies that the Prophet only instructed the writing, not that he personally wrote. Al-Baji was roundly lampooned by all other Andalusian scholars and beyond for holding this horrendous view, as stated by Ibn Kathir and Ibn Hajar. It is one of the worst opinions ever held by any scholar in the history of Islam, غفر الله له. The view is also attributed to Mujahid and Sha'bi from The Tabi'un, but the chains to them are extremely weak. It is the Orientalists, both old and new, who have dedicated their entire careers to cast a speck of plausibility to the false notion that he could read or write. They cite dubious evidence, like the Hudaybiyah Treaty, or the notion that the Prophet was twice in Syria as a very young man and had with the Bahira the Monk where he could have learned reading and writing, or that he learned it from the Christians scholars or pagans of Makkah, or from the Jews of Madinah, or a Christian ironmonger from Rome based in Makkah. The see Muslim scholars spend their utmost in refuting these accusations, only to see such baseless opinions revived from within Islamic circles, is highly unfortunate. There is absolutely nothing to be gained with this view. Just because the view exists doesn't make it legitimate, nor does it increase the honour of the Prophet by taking such a position; rather, it attacks the very foundation of the Muslim faith. Had that been the case, the view that Jesus will not return should also be considered a legitimate one because 'it exists' as a view in Tabari and other old sources. The Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم was ummi, from birth to death. Full stop. No ifs or buts. The Quran describes the Prophet such. Anybody who has a hard time saying or believing this or saying this should fear for their very Iman. Ibn Kathir said: قد علم بالتواتر وبالضرورة أن محمدا رسول الله لم يكن يعاني شيئا من الكتابة لا في أول عمره ولا في آخره "It is know through mass transmission and by necessity that Muhammad, the Messenger of Allah, did not engage at all with writing, whether in the beginning or the end of his life."

https://x.com/HuzFuz/status/1842143360250724434 Interesting

The manuscript is in the Library of the al-Haram al-Makki, and is (incorrectly) indexed under the Fiqh Shafi'i section. The author is an Ottoman Hanafi scholar.

محمود شكري بن إسماعيل بن عمر بن أحمد النقشبندي الحنفي. نزيل مكة المكرمة، والشهير بـ (حافظ كتبخانة). ولد في طيروز، وقدم والده الى اسطنبول وعمره خمس سنوات فحفظ القرآن الكريم بها، وأخذ عن علمائها، وبرع في المعقول والمنقول. قدم مكة المكرمة بعد وفاة والده في 1262هـ واستوطنها، وعيّن بها حافظاً للكتب الكائنة بالمسجد الحرام ـ مكتبة الحرم المكي الشريف ـ من قبل الدولة. درّس وأفاد بالمسجد الحرام، واستمرّ يدرّس ويفتي ويفيد حتى توفي رحمه الله بالطائف. له: رسالة في الرد على باصبرين؛ رسالة تتعلق برمي جمرة العقبة؛ رسالة في فصل النزاع بين القولين في الكلام على نيّة الطواف بين الركبتين؛ رسالة في مبحث القدرة والإرادة وآدابها؛ رسالة في حكم إلصاق الكعبين في ركوع الصلاة؛ رسالة تتعلق بالصف الأول؛ رسالة في تقليد مذهب الإمام الشافعي في الجمع بين الصلاتين بشروط https://www.alhejaz.org/aalam/119702.htm محمود شكري هاجر من تركيا لمكة وعمل كتبخاني بجوار الحرم بدأت حياة محمود شكري بن إسماعيل بن عمر بن أحمد، المولود في إحدى ضواحي تركيا في 1233هـ، حين رحل به والده إلى عاصمة الخلافة العثمانية الآستانة وهو في الخامسة من عمره، حيث كان ينوي السفر منها إلى مكة المكرمة والمجاورة بها، إلا أن واجه بعض العقبات فلم يرحل إليها، وبدأ محمود في حفظ القرآن الكريم ولما أتمه، بدأ في طلب العلم على يد المشايخ الموجودين هناك، بدأت حياة محمود شكري بن إسماعيل بن عمر بن أحمد، المولود في إحدى ضواحي تركيا في 1233هـ، حين رحل به والده إلى عاصمة الخلافة العثمانية الآستانة وهو في الخامسة من عمره، حيث كان ينوي السفر منها إلى مكة المكرمة والمجاورة بها، إلا أن واجه بعض العقبات فلم يرحل إليها، وبدأ محمود في حفظ القرآن الكريم ولما أتمه، بدأ في طلب العلم على يد المشايخ الموجودين هناك، وأظهر تقدما ونبوغا في علمي المعقول والمنقول، وصار من العلماء المشهورين في العاصمة العثمانية، وبعد وفاة والده فيها انتقل في 1262هـ إلى مكة المكرمة، حيث عين حافظا لدار الكتب الموجودة في الحرم المكي الشريف. ويبدو من سياق الأحداث التاريخية أن تعيينه حافظا لدار الكتب كان بأمر من السلطان العثماني عبدالمجيد، حيث تشير المصادر إلى تأسيسه لهذه المكتبة في نفس العام الذي وصل فيه لمكة، فلعله كان على علاقة به فرشحه لهذا المنصب الذي استحدث في ذلك العام 1262هـ أيضا، وخصص له مرتب شهري. ولم يكتف السيد محمود بعمله في دار الكتب أو الكتبخانة كما كانت تسمى، بل اتجه للتدريس في الحرم المكي الشريف إضافة لعمله في دار الكتب، فعقد حلقة للتدريس وانتفع به كثير من الطلاب في الفقه الحنفي، وكان ذا أخلاق فاضلة سليم الصدر محمود الذكر، طيب السيرة صالحا كثير العبادة، قام بكتابة كثير من الرسائل الفقهية بخطه الجميل، ومن ذلك: • مزيل الاضطراب والخصام في الصف الأول عند الكعبة في غير جهة الإمام. • فاصل النزاع بين القولين في جواز نية الطواف فيما بين الركنين اليمانيين. • رسالة تتعلق برمي جمرة العقبة، وهي المسماة: بقطع التوهم عن العوام والجهلة في صحة الرمي إلى الميمنة والميسرة لشاخص جمرة العقبة. • رسالة في مبحث القدرة والإرادة وآدابها، يرد فيها على الشيخ علي الرهبيني الشافعي. • رسالة في جواز الجمع بين الصلاتين في السفر تقليدا للإمام الشافعي رحمه الله. • رسالة في حكم إلصاق الكعبين في ركوع الصلاة. وقد ظل محمود شكري على ذلك مدرسا ومفتيا ومؤلفا، حتى وفاته في مدينة الطائف في الخميس نهاية محرم 1304هـ، وقد حملت ذريته في مكة المكرمة من بعده لقب كتبخانة نسبة إلى وظيفته، وظلت معروفة به حتى الآن. https://makkahnewspaper.com/article/34446/حسام-عبدالعزيز-مكاوي---باحث-في-التاريخ-المكي-الرواق-المكي

5. Izz والأظهر أن الأمي هو الذي لا يقرأ ولا يكتب، نسب إلى أصل ما عليه الأمَّة من أنها لا تكتب ابتداء، أو أنه على ما ولدته أمه، أو نسب إلى أمه، لأن المرأة لا تكتب غالباً

4. Ibrahim al-Nakha'i الْأُمِّي هُوَ الَّذِي لَا يكْتب وَلَا يقْرَأ

3. Zajjaj الأمي هو الذي لا يحسن القراءة والكتابة ولم يتعلم

2. Ma'mar ibn 'l-Muthanna «وَالْأُمِّيِّينَ» (٢٠) : الذين لم يأتهم الأنبياء بالكتب والنبىّ الأمىّ: الذي لا يكتب

1. Raghib al-Asfhani والأُمِّيُّ: هو الذي لا يكتب ولا يقرأ من كتاب، وعليه حمل: هُوَ الَّذِي بَعَثَ فِي الْأُمِّيِّينَ رَسُولًا مِنْهُمْ [الجمعة/ ٢] قال قطرب: الأُمِّيَّة: الغفلة والجهالة، فالأميّ منه، وذلك هو قلة المعرفة، ومنه قوله تعالى: وَمِنْهُمْ أُمِّيُّونَ لا يَعْلَمُونَ الْكِتابَ إِلَّا أَمانِيَّ [البقرة/ ٧٨] أي: إلا أن يتلى عليهم. قال الفرّاء: هم العرب الذين لم يكن لهم كتاب، والنَّبِيَّ الْأُمِّيَّ الَّذِي يَجِدُونَهُ مَكْتُوباً عِنْدَهُمْ فِي التَّوْراةِ وَالْإِنْجِيلِ [الأعراف/ ١٥٧] قيل: منسوب إلى الأمّة الذين لم يكتبوا، لكونه على عادتهم كقولك: عامّي، لكونه على عادة العامّة، وقيل: سمي بذلك لأنه لم يكن يكتب ولا يقرأ من كتاب، وذلك فضيلة له لاستغنائه بحفظه، واعتماده على ضمان الله منه بقوله: سَنُقْرِئُكَ فَلا تَنْسى [الأعلى/ ٦] . وقيل: سمّي بذلك لنسبته إلى أمّ القرى.

Some historical scholars of language who should be declared gustakh:

We now go to scenes where some random dude just found out about a bunch of Ahnaf molvis promoting Ijma’ on Taqlid Shakhsi by day and screaming about this from the pulpits and classrooms, but secretly practicing on Taqlid Mutlaq by night via combining prayers when going to watch a Liverpool-United match. Random dude wants answers on the double standards, the molvis gatekeeping dispensations, and their general hypocrisy on the subject: https://youtube.com/shorts/tAwNbmDYztQ

Q. Why did tajribah-based (i.e. empirical, ‘proven by experimentation/experience) amulets in the Sub-Continent and Africa proliferate so much? And what is the status of these claims of tajribah? A. Beyond anything stated by revelation, those amulets (تمائم) that still respect the wording of Quran and Sunnah are a matter of dispute among the Companions. The difference of opinion is legitimate. Therefore, a person who employs such amulets is in the clear. There are different types of these amulets. Some are oral incantations, some are worn, some are hung, some are blown on or blown in, and some of these are consumed. The reason why they proliferated was because they were seen as a suitable substitute to unlawful forms of amulets, like those with clear shirk or borderline shirk in them, those with illegible writing, those based on numerology, those with unknown contents (like those that are sealed off or sewn up and cannot be inspected), and those that entail a disrespect of the Quran and Sunnah either through being written backwards, broken up, or in impure substances. Note that the effectiveness of such amulets is not in question, but rather their lawfulness. This also explains why some parts of the Muslim World don’t have a culture of amulets: there simply was not a mass culture of polytheistic and unlawful amulets in those regions. Certainly, such lawful amulets are nothing to do with the primary, secondary, or even tertiary aspects of the religion. The proliferation of ‘lawful’ amulets (beyond those approved in the Quran and Sunnah) is by using appropriate verses, Names of Allah, and sensible Duas. They fall under the generic provision of the verse in Surat ‘l-Isra’ (وننزل من القرآن ما هو شفاء…). Nothing specific in this category should be afforded the status of Sunnah, like reading يا نور or يا قوي after Salah seven times, etc. Believing this to be a specifically Sunnah-sanctioned would automatically render it into a light innovation (بدعة). Scholars have a duty to clarify this, instead of perpetuating these amulets that are mistaken as acts of Sunnah. But to claim that any particular lawful amulet in this class of non-wayh-based amulets is definitive (قطعي) is false. It can offer speculative (ظني) knowledge at best. Also, what might work for one person might not for another. There are dozens of variables at play here, some of which we know about (like sincerity when invoking an amulet; relevance of amulet (so incanting the verses of inheritance are less likely to ward off evil compared to Al-Fatihah or the opening verses of Surah Ya-Sin, for example), etc.); many of which we simply don’t. No person, let alone a scholar, has a divine right to universalise his personal experience with an amulet, let alone claim it is definitive in its outcome. Even the ones in the Quran and Sunnah might not result in a fruitful outcome, based on the variables highlighted above. There is no amulet more powerful than staying clean, taking precautions in places of filth, adhering to the Sunnah, and maintaining a daily Quranic litany. That is the prevention that is far more effective than any cure in the form of speculative lawful amulets, let alone unlawful ones. Conversely, there is nothing more damaging than picking up some random book on amaliyyat and self diagnosing and/or self administering amulets, or attending an amil who dispenses amulets (some even charge exorbitant fees, as if it is the preserve of the rich only). The proportion of charlatanry among amils is 100%. Not even 99%, or 99.9%. It is 100%. Anyone afflicted by some other-dimension entity and is not directed to the Quran and Sunnah, and is instead pushed to a cocktail of amulets (lawful or unlawful) is being cheated and gaslighted. They deserve our sympathy and should be rescued from said charlatans. وبالله التوفيق

Another damning indictment of the double standards in the Tariq Masood case: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ioBH1KmXbQI

Formal publication of the book