Refuting Adnan Rashid: Was Muhammad the Illiterate Prophet Predicted in Isaiah 29: 11-13?

While investigating certain modern Muslims claims about science in the Qur’an, I came across a lecture of Adnan Rashid, in which he asserts a particular prediction of Muhammad in the book of Isaiah, chapter 29: 11-13.

http://www.hittininstitute.com/video.aspx?ID=31

I felt it would be appropriate to share my thoughts on his interpretation of the passage.
I must say I was slightly puzzled by Adnan’s constant flaws in Biblical interpretation, his historical inaccuracies and his hermeneuctical methods.

As to the presumed prediction of Muhammad, he completely, either fails to grasp the context of the passage or deliberately distorts its meaning.

Hence I encourage everyone, first, to read the passage, then read the full chapter, and finally ask yourself whether, the passage in the context or even separately predicts the coming of distant future, Arabic, illiterate prophet?

Let's elaborate on the chapter and assess this claim of Adnan and numerous other Muslim exponents.

Firstly, the passage concerns the City of David several centuries prior to the birth of Jesus and more than a thousand years prior to Islam (see verses 1: 1-4).

Secondly, the passage describes God blinding the people of Israel, in this case those living and abiding in the City of David (it’s people, the prophets and the seers) for imminent judgement.

Hence neither time nor circumstances fit the description or interpretation of Adnan!

Verses 10-11a reads:

‘The Lord has brought over you a deep sleep, he has sealed your eyes (the prophets) and covered your heads (seers). For you this whole vision is nothing but words sealed in a scroll ’.

Here God clarifies in his revelation to Isaiah the prophet, that his words to this particular community at this particular time cannot be perceived by the particular community.

Consequently then, if the passage concerned the revelation of the Qur’an, the Qur’an would then be unreadable and impossible to perceive particularly by its earliest recipients such as Muhammad and his close followers, and therefore modern attempts by Muslim apologists to utilize this passage to confirm the prediction of the Qur’an will simply backlash.

The revelation to Isaiah continues (verses 11b-12):

‘...And if you give the scroll to someone who can read, and say to him, “Read this, please,” he will answer, “I can’t; it is sealed”. Or if you give the scroll to someone who cannot read, and say “Read this, please,” he will answer, “I don’t know how to read.”

Hence someone, not God, nor Gabriel, but either the prophet of this revelation who is Isaiah, or the ruling body of the city, is informed that the people living in the City of David sometimes between 800-700 BC will be blinded from perceiving the future calamity.

They will be so blinded, that if Isaiah or the ruling body hands a scroll of warning to a reader within the community, he would be unable to read the message therein due to its divine sealing, and if Isaiah would hand the scroll to an illiterate, the person would simply admit his inability to read.

Notice the wording, ‘if’, if Isaiah gives the scroll to a reader or an illiterate.

The passage is not claiming that God will convey his scroll or reveal his word to an illiterate who miraculously will be able to recite. Quite the opposite, that (not God but) Isaiah or another agent is the provider of the word, yet there is no definite command or statement that the scroll was necessarily ever given, but rather ‘if’ you give.

Moreover, the recipients of the scroll (if they were ever handed a scroll) are not one, but two. Therefore, if Muhammad is the illiterate whose divine destruction is imminent, then who is the literate?

Furthermore, both the literate and the illiterate are blinded and singled out with the rest of the community for destruction, not in 570 AD or a little later but in 700 BC, not in Arabia but in the City of David in Israel. If the passage predicted Muhammad's arrival and the rise of the Muslim community, Islam would be wiped by God himself within Muhammad’s era. That is if Adnan and other Muslims are accurate about their hermenuetical skills of the text.

So is this illiterate individual a prophet?

Far from it, every indication to such an interpretation is completely wanted.

This illiterate is not an Arab, he does not abide in Arabia, neither was not alive in Muhammad's era; in fact he is not even a prophet but someone close to the wrath of God.

The only mention of a prophet is possibly to Isaiah himself who probably never handed a scroll to this poor individual, but if he did, this individual would gain absolutely nothing from this encounter with the Word of God.

I am virtually astonished that Muslims resort to such speculative and distortive approaches of interpretation to boost their desperate ideas.

Adnan Rashid, committed in fact a number of errors, e.g. stating that the Isaiah scroll was written five centuries prior to Muhammad, while in fact, the two Isaiah scrolls were written approximately 150 and 100 BC. Furthermore, his claim that the Isaiah scroll is the oldest manuscript of Jewish scripture. There are in fact a number of written Scriptures in our possession that precede the scroll of Isaiah.

James White Responds to Adnan Rashid's Comments about the New Testament

In my debate with Adnan Rashid on the Satanic Verses, Adnan made some comments about the New Testament. For the most part, I didn't respond, since his comments had nothing to do with whether Muhammad delivered the Satanic Verses (i.e. the topic of our debate). In the following video, James White respondes to Adnan's claims about the New Testament.

Adnan Rashid vs. James White: "Does Belief in the Trinity Necessitate Shirk?"

According to the Qur'an, Christians commit shirk because we believe in the Trinity. Yet it is clear that Muhammad (and, apparently, Allah) had no clue what Christians actually believe. According to the Qur'an, Christians believe in a Trinity made up of God, Jesus, and Mary, and they're three separate gods (5:116-117)! (Note: If the Qur'an were the Word of God, we would expect it to accurately represent what we believe.)

No Christians believe that Mary is part of the Trinity. Moreover, belief in the Trinity is thoroughly monotheistic. Hence, the question arises: When our belief is represented accurately, does it necessiate shirk? Of course not. Put simply, if God is a Trinity (which He is), then believing in the Trinity is not shirk, for no partners are being associated with the one True God.

Adnan Rashid vs. David Wood: "Peace and Violence In Christianity and Islam"

It was a pleasure working with Adnan Rashid (and the other Muslim apologists in the UK). He was very kind and pleasant, as were nearly all the Muslims I met in London. I look forward to many more debates on the other side of the Atlantic.

While watching this debate, we would do well to ask ourselves, “How many ways does Adnan condemn his own religion (in his desperate effort to condemn mine)?” Let me count the ways.

(1) Adnan condemns the Old Testament, which (a) he used as evidence for Islam in his opening statement, and (b) his own prophet declared to be the Word of God (in both the Qur’an and the Hadith). Thus, since Muhammad approved of such a book, he must not be a prophet.

(2) Adnan declares that the true God would never kill a child; yet, according to the Qur’an, God destroyed Sodom with fire and flooded the world in the time of Noah (and some children were presumably present). Since the true God would never do this, the God of the Qur'an cannot be the true God.

(3) Adnan declares that the true God would never order a human being to kill a child, despite the fact that one of Allah’s “servants” does just that in Surah 18. Once again, the God of the Qur'an cannot be the true God.

(4) Adnan condemns me for saying that I would kill if, contrary to what God has actually commanded me, He had instead commanded me to kill. In doing so, Adnan condemns the prophet Abraham, who was willing to kill his own son at God’s command. If we agree with Adnan, we would have to say that any book that praises Abraham's (wicked) behavior cannot come from God. Thus, the Qur'an cannot be the Word of God.

We can add other inconsistencies to this list. For instance, Adnan accuses me of only pointing to the negative aspects of Islam, and he then proceeds to degrade Christianity in every possible way. Adnan says that Christianity is violent because Catholics and Protestants once fought (despite the fact that they did so in violation of Christ's teachings), yet it never occurs to Adnan to apply his reasoning to Sunnis and Shias. Adnan points to a handful of Christian thinkers down through the ages who have advocated some form of violence, and he holds that this shows that Christianity is violent (despite the fact that these thinkers are ignoring Christ's teachings). Yet I could easily give him a massive list of Muslim scholars who advocate violence (and who do so in complete harmony with the Qur'an). Adnan points to violent acts committed in the name of Christianity as if this proves that Christianity is violent (despite the fact that such acts are committed in strict violation of Christ's teachings), yet he would never allow me to point to acts of terrorism committed in the name of Islam as proof that Islam is violent (and I wouldn't do this anyway).

As James White often says, “I’m still waiting for the consistent Muslim” (i.e. the Muslim who applies the same criticisms to Islam that he applies to Christianity).

Inconsistencies aside, this debate teaches us four things. First, Islam’s sources command Muslims to fight anyone who (a) doesn’t accept Islam, or (b) refuses to pay the Jizya in complete humiliation. Second, Christianity’s source commands Christians, repeatedly, to live in peace with everyone. Third, no matter how many times I use the same material, Muslims still can’t offer a good response. Fourth, when Muslims get nervous, they cheer more (notice how many times the Muslims burst into applause for no reason whatsoever).

ADNAN'S OPENING STATEMENT


DAVID'S OPENING STATEMENT


1ST REBUTTALS


2ND REBUTTALS


Q&A/CONCLUSIONS


For more on this issue, see Sam Shamoun's debate with Nadir Ahmed ("Is Islam a Religion of Peace?", and my debates with Sami Zaatari ("Is Islam a Religion of Peace?" and "Is Christianity a Religion of Peace?")

Adnan Rashid vs. David Wood: "The Satanic Verses: Fabricated or Authentic?"

I was quite excited when Muslims agreed to debate this topic. I thought it would never happen. Needless to say, I think the evidence makes it abundantly clear that Muhammad delivered the Satanic Verses. The only way around this is for Muslims (1) to declare that their earliest scholars were a bunch of liars, and (2) to cling to an outdated method of historical investigation, which, though originally designed to arrive at truth, is now being used by Muslims to eliminate embarrassing facts about Muhammad.

ADNAN'S OPENING STATEMENT


DAVID'S OPENING STATEMENT


REBUTTALS


Q&A/CONCLUSIONS


For more on the Satanic Verses, see "Muhammad and the Satanic Verses." For more on the implications of the Satanic Verses, see "The Deuteronomy Deductions."

Debate Announcement: James White and David Wood Invade London

The Yanks Are Coming!

Tuesday, 11 November 2008--7:30 P.M.
TOPIC: “Does Belief in the Trinity Necessitate Shirk?”
PARTICIPANTS: Adnan Rashid vs. James White
LOCATION: Westbourne Park Church, Porchester Rd, London, W2 5DX

Thursday, 13 November 2008--8:00 P.M.
TOPIC: "Jesus: Divine Son of God or Prophet of Allah?"
PARTICIPANTS: James White vs. Sami Zaatari
LOCATION: Trinity Road Chapel, 205-207 Trinity Road, Upper Tooting, London SW17. (Contact admin@trinityroadchapel.org for more details.)

Saturday, 15 November 2008--10:30 A.M.
TOPIC: “The Satanic Verses: Fabricated or Historical?”
PARTICIPANTS: David Wood vs. Adnan Rashid
LOCATION: Westbourne Park Church, Porchester Rd, London, W2 5DX

Saturday, 15 November 2008--1:30 P.M.
TOPIC: “The Biblical Jesus: Why We Chose to Accept and Reject”
PARTICIPANTS: David Wood vs. Yahya Hayder Seymour
LOCATION: Westbourne Park Church, Porchester Rd, London, W2 5DX

Sunday, 16 November 2008--7:00 P.M.
TOPIC: “Peace and Violence in Christianity and Islam”
PARTICIPANTS: David Wood vs. Adnan Rashid
LOCATION: Westbourne Park Church, Porchester Rd, London, W2 5DX

Monday, 17 November 2008--7:30 P.M.
TOPIC: "Is Jesus Prophesied in the Old Testament?/Is Muhammad Prophesied in the Bible?"
PARTICIPANTS: James White vs. Shabir Ally
LOCATION: Twynholm Baptist Church, Fulham Cross, 324-326 Lillie Road, Fulham, London, SW6 7PP. (Contact leigh@twynholm.org for more details.)

Adnan Rashid vs. Jay Smith: Does the Bible Predict the Coming of Muhammad?

This is one of the infamous Hyde Park/Speakers' Corner Debates. What the debates lose in the way of formality they tend to make up for in excitement.

PART ONE:


PART TWO: